aLeyy MDS My reba ay 
 
 Scukitapate aeguaubnmegmbesutsrant anes et SEN sees Naar tap stata 
 
 ΒΝ en 
 
 ΠΣ 
 
 ae Sevan 
 
LIBRARY OF PRINCETON 
 
 DEC 1 0 2007 
 
 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
le Ν ls “ 
 J 
 > 
 Γ νγ δι 
 a 
 é 
 eS 
 ab 
 s = 
 
ΠΥ ἢν. 
 eRe 
 
 ae δι 
 q " 
 
Recensto Spnoptica 
 ANNOTATIONIS SACRA. 
 
 IN TWO PARTS. 
 
 PAR? sit. 
 
 LIBRARY OF PRINCETON 
 DEC 10 2007 
 
 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
᾿ 4 ee 
 
 φ ΕΑ 
 . A , 4 ~ 
 * 8 
 r 5 
 
 ; - 
 ‘ 
 τ ἘΝ 7 - 
 ᾿ ΄ 4 ‘ 
 i 
 ᾿ 
 ; i 
 + A ΄ ς 
 - 
 ᾿ 
 
 € 
 » ' J ; 
 r Ἂν , 
 
 7 ? ff. 
 
 ἡ. ᾿- 
 
 - ε΄ 
 
 Ἂν" 
 
 J. Β. NICHOLS, 25, PARLIAMENT-STREET. 
 
 - « 
 « as 
 
| ἔφ ὲ Ξι 
 
 3λετεπσίο Spnoptica 
 ANNOTATIONIS SACRE; 
 
 BEING A 
 
 CRITICAL DIGEST 
 
 SYNOPTICAL ARRANGEMENT 
 
 OF THE MOST IMPORTANT 
 
 ANNOTATIONS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT, 
 EXEGETICAL, PHILOLOGICAL, AND DOCTRINAL: 
 
 CAREFULL% COLLECTED AND CONDENSED, FROM THE BEST COMMENTATORS, 
 BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN, 
 
 AND SO DIGESTED AS TO FORM ONE CONSISTENT BODY OF ANNOTATION, 
 In which 
 
 €ach Portion is spstematical(y attributed to its respective Author, 
 
 AND THE FOREIGN MATTER TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH 3 
 
 The whole accompanied with 
 
 A COPIOUS BODY OF ORIGINAL ANNOTATIONS. 
 
 χ᾽ 
 
 By Tue Rev. 5. T. BLOOMFIELD, M.A. 
 
 OF SIDNEY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, VICAR OF BISBROOKE IN RUTLAND, AND RESIDENT 
 CURATE OF TUGBY, LEICESTERSHIRE. 
 
 Οὐ σοφισταὶ ἥκομεν, οὐδὲ ἀπιστεῖν ἕτοιμοι, θεαταὶ de μόνον τῶν 
 γεγραμμένων, ἐξετάξομεν τὴν Τραφήν. 
 Philostr. Jun. Icon, 1. 24. 
 Ὅπου οὐκ ἔστι πίστις, ἅπαντα vocel, Kal οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ μάχαι τίκτονται 
 λόγων, τοῦ πιθανοτέρου τὸν ἕτερον ἀνατρέπειν δοκοῦντος: Ἣ πίστις 
 ἠφθαλμό 2 oy ” > ἊΝ \ ὑδὲ ΓΜ ΕΣ ἰλλὸὲ , 
 ὀφθαλμός ἐστιν 6 μὴ ἔχων ὀφθαλμοὺς οὐδὲν εὑρίσκει, ἀλλὰ μόνον 
 Φητεῖ. Theophylact, from Chrysostom. 
 
 VOES VL. 
 
 LONDON: 
 c. AND J. RIVINGTON, | 
 
 62, ST PAUL’S CHURCH-YARD; AND 3, WATERLOO-PLACE, PALL-MALL. 
 
 MDCCCXXVIII. 
 
HOA a IO LOY 
 
 ὐφορμσζαν “anion 
 ee aT ΑἹ ἢ οὐ ΥῪ 
 ke . ἢ : mgt in NAG “Suh γι ΝΥ Νὴ Tale i νν, τὰ ᾿ ‘S aa us 
 
 eT Pi ABS BO. iCute Lanai. 
 
 VRaneort! ΠΝ Gk uA wows! nike ΔΑ ΑΘ τι 
 
 '- 
 
 ARE ois" ae σὰς ¥ Sane ΚΝ ΡΥ τ ΡΝ > Ciao 
 
 ‘ Ἐν 
 
 Meee ΔΙ ΔΛ 1 ες eas Ἐπ ον αὐ ΟΝ SST Ss ‘ 
 
 ‘ 
 
 j ᾽. »- 
 is i ‘ hy roe 
 
 νὰ ἡ ΤΩΝ rp τ δον et 
 
 rf ἃ Pare aA | } : \ aoe wie ” 
 Ans Ho aod PARAMS ee RH Ox eR ἀΛΎΦΗΡΗα oust 
 
 apc eer ἡ ἊΝ oh ἐκ τε» ὦ a " Bei by to) $y otf ῥῶ ν 
 
 ἊΣ 
 
 fea a ea Gaye pen Ty Hh. 
 
 i 
 
 - ΠῚ 
 
 a abot alse ἦν, fe Abt ᾿ ᾿ 
 
 δ ν arts sini a ane e  d ἙΝ 
 baie Sie gr ys <a: eer ᾿ 
 Sra ΡΩΝ dina wa Fag sy: ἢ Yee 1st Bory rah: 
 
 Mer ie. i Nes att ὯΝ is 
 Pe i, 
 
 4 ἢ ΛΩΝ ae Aig } Ma 
 ἢ ΣΝ ἀφ 3) a, ΤᾺ : 
 Δ ἢ Ἶ δ! Ἔδοιν ’ dy ἃ, ΚΣ or 
 
 ied EE seth nied ΤΑΝ ὧν ΗΝ pik ie wg Pacts 
 
 pate astick bah a via Y thag Sis 
 
 Ἐν, 
 
 ee 
 ἤν 
 h vag i, ib 
 
 di, δὴ. ks ΤΣ 
 
ee ee 
 ; τ in ὁ δον 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 This Epistle, according to the custom of St. Paul, 
 begins with a salutation, ver. 12., then thanks to God 
 for the progress of the church in Christianity, ver. 
 3—8., and prayers to Him to preserve and confirm it in 
 the same, ver. 9. seqq. (Heinrichs.) ‘The com- 
 mencement of this Epistle is nearly the same as that 
 of the one to the Ephesians, where see the note. 
 
 Verse 1. 6 ἁδελφὸς, “ our brother,” i. e. brother 
 minister. See the note on Phil. 4, 21. 
 
 2. Κολοσσαῖς. Several antient MSS. read ΚΚολασ- 
 cais, which is probably the true reading, But such 
 points are of difficult decision. Thus, in Thucyd., 
 instead of the common reading Μιτυλήνη and Συρα- 
 κουσίοι and Μυτιλήνη, the best MSS., coins, and in- 
 scriptions, read Συρακοσίοι and Μυτιλήνη. 
 
 8. εὐχαριστοῦμιεν----προσευχόμιενοι. ‘The πάντοτε may 
 be joined either with εὐχαριστοῦμεν (as it is done by 
 the recent Commentators), or with προσευχόμενοι, as 
 
 { it is done by the antient and earlier moderns. The 
 
 ~ former construction is confirmed by 1 Cor. 1, 11. 
 
 1 Thess. 1, 2. 2 Thess. 1,3. Yet the latter, which 
 
 is supported by Rom. 1, 10., is the more natural. 
 
 Πάντοτε may, however, be said to belong to both 
 words. 
 
 4. ἀκούσαντες τὴν πίστιν vucv—ayious. Heinrichs 
 explains πίστις accessio ad Christum. And by ἀγάπη 
 he understands palmaria virtus, for omnis virtutis 
 Christiane ambitus. But this is too artificial. It is 
 better to interpret the words in their plain and na- 
 
 VOL. VIII. B 
 
 4 ΠΎΛΑΣ 
 ΧΑ ed 
 
4 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 
 
 tural acceptation ; the former as denoting the pro- 
 fession of the Christian religion: the latter, kindness 
 and charity towards the poor brethren, whether 
 townsmen or strangers. But the full sense of mor. 
 and ἀκούσαντες will depend upon the determination of 
 the question whether the Church at Colosse had 
 been founded by St. Paul or not: a point rather 
 doubtful; since the passages adduced admit of some 
 latitude of interpretation. Yet, upon the whole, the 
 evidence for the latter opinion seems the stronger. 
 The church was probably founded by Epaphras. So 
 the antients and many moderns. 
 
 ὃ. διὰ τὴν eprida τὴν ἀποκειμένην ὑμῖν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, 
 The Apostle now proceeds to accumulate period on 
 period; whence in this chapter we find the con- 
 struction not a little embarrassed, and, by frequent 
 additions, the context much protracted ; just as in 
 the Epistle to the Ephesians. (Heinr.) 
 
 The words seem connected with the εὐχαριστοῦμεν, 
 &c. at ver. 3.; though some refer them to those 
 immediately preceding, with this sense: ““ because 
 of the felicity which ye know is thereby laid up for 
 you in heaven.” Of both the constructions mention 
 is made by the antients. 
 
 By ἐλπ. is meant not so much the hope itself as 
 the thing hoped for; a frequent sense. See the 
 examples of Kypke and Loesn. or Schleus. Lex. in v. 
 Rosenm. observes that this ἐλπ.. is represented under 
 the image of a βραβεῖόν, or ἄθλος, which πρόκειται, 
 ἀπόκειται. See at Hebr. 6,8. And so Joseph. Ant. 
 8, 12, 3. and Philo 834. p. and often. But here the 
 term is aroxez, in which there cannot be an agonis- 
 tical allusion; but rather one to. money or rich 
 goods laid up in a royal treasury, and to be distri- 
 buted to the deserving. ‘Thus Heinr. cites Plut. 
 1, 521. τοῖς ἐν βεβαιωκόσιν ἀπόκειται γέρας ἐν ἅδου. 
 The chief intent of the metaphor is to represent the 
 felicity hoped for as sure and certain, like a sum 
 
 * So also good offices were metaphorically said to be laid up, 
 i. 6. the reward of them; as in Thucyd. 1, 129. κεῖται σοι εὐεργεσία. 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 3 
 
 deposited i in a royal treadury, or that of some temple 
 inviolable. So Theophyl. : μὴ οὖν ἀμφιβάλλετε περὶ 
 τὴς ἐλπίδος" ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ γὰρ ἀποκεῖται. 
 
 5. ἣν προηκούσατε. By the προ, Commentators, both 
 antient and modern, are agreed, is signified for- 
 merly, at the beginning, namely, of their conversion. 
 This implies that some considerable time had since 
 elapsed. The ἠκούσατε has reference to catachetical 
 and oralinstruction. ᾿Αληθείας, Rosenm. would take 
 as put for the cognate adjective. But I prefer, with 
 Heinr., to regard λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας as a periphrasis 
 for the Christian religion (as in 2 Cor. 6,7. and 
 Eph. 1, 13.) ; ἢ and τοῦ alegre for sider μῶν 
 
 6. τοῦ παρόντος εἰς ὑμάς--- ἀληθείᾳ. On the sense of 
 παρόντος the Commentators are not agreed, The 
 antients took it for és πάρεστι, κρατεῖ, ἐνεργεῖ. Thus 
 εἰς bas will be for ἐν ὑμῖν. And so several moderns. 
 But this seems very harsh. It appears preferable, 
 with Grot. and most recent Commentators, to take 
 παρόντος in that sense which, especially when followed 
 by εἰς, the word often has in the Classical writers. 
 Raphel adduces some examples from Polyb. (to 
 which several from Thucyd. might be added.) And 
 so 2 Cor. 2, 11. 11, 8. 13,2 & 10. Gal. 4,18 & 20. 
 Though sometimes it is uncertain whether the sense 
 to be, or to go, is preferable. Here come is, by a 
 common idiom, for brought, preached. 
 
 Καθὼς καὶ ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ, “as has been the 
 case with all the world.” MHeinr. considers this as 
 put for, “not the Jews only, but all nations.” This 
 method, however, though meant to avoid a difficulty 
 in τῷ κοσμιῷ, taken in the ordinary way, is too harsh. 
 Nor is it necessary. The best Commentators are 
 agreed that it may be regarded as a popular hyper- 
 bole (see Rom. 1, 8.) ; though it is probable that 
 there were few countries of the civilized world into 
 which the Gospel had not been, by this time, intro- 
 duced; and for savages it was not intended, since 
 civilization must necessar ily precede evangelization. 
 
 Καὶ ἐστι καρποφορούμιενον. All the Commentators 
 
 ΒΩ 
 
4 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. 1. 
 
 seem agreed that ἐστι καρποφορούμιενον is for καρποφορεῖ. 
 But why, then (it may be asked) did not the Apostle 
 so write? Because, I apprehend, he meant some- 
 thing more. For ts bearing somewhat differs from 
 bears. So ofa tree, when its fruit is in the bud, we 
 may say καρποφορών ἐστι, OF καρποφορούμενος, but after- 
 wards καρποφορεῖ : and I apprehend that the Apostle 
 meant thus to represent a state of the Gospel in some 
 of the many countries of the world into which it had 
 been introduced. By the fruit is meant, by ἃ com- 
 mon metaphor (as Matt. 13, 23. Mark 4, 20. Luke 
 8,15. and Rom. 7, 4.) the Saat of reforming and 
 blessing men here, and by the production of good 
 works, as the fruits of faith, making them meet to 
 be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light 
 hereafter. ‘This metaphorical sense of κάρπος is rare 
 in the Classical writers, and the philological Com- 
 mentators adduce no example. The following may 
 therefore be acceptable. Plut. Arat. 10. ἀπεργάϑετε 
 τὴν ἀρεπὴν, ὥσπερ καρπὸν αὐτοφυὴ καὶ ἀγεώργητον. 
 
 After καρποφορούμενον several MSS. have καὶ αὐξα- 
 νόμιενον, Which is supported by almost all the Versions, 
 and some Iathers and Greek Commentators, and has 
 been approved by most Critics, and admitted into 
 the text by Griesbach ; but, I think, on insufficient 
 grounds. The reason assigned for its omission, 
 namely, homoioteleuton, is not satisfactory : for how 
 could such an accidental error have extended itself 
 to so many MSS.? It is far more probable, as is 
 the opinion of Wolf, Wets., and Matthei (on the 
 authority of Chrys.), that it was introduced from 
 ver. 10. 
 
 Καθὼς καὶ ὑμῖν, “as it has also done among you.” 
 "AQ’ ἧς ἡμέρας---ἀληθείᾳ. The Commentators are not 
 agreed to what to refer the ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, whether to 
 ἐπέγνωσε, taking ἐν ἀληθείᾳ for ἀληθώς (as Joh. 4, 24.), 
 or to χάριν, by hendiadis, for χάριν ἀληθὴ. The 
 former method is far preferable. Other less pro- 
 bable constructions are detailed by Rosenm. and 
 Heinr. Theophyl. well explains thus: οὐκ ἐν ἀπάτῃ 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 9) 
 
 καὶ λόγοις εἰκαίοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, τουτέστι, σημείοις 
 καὶ ἔργοις παραδόξοις. 
 
 7: 8. καθὼς καὶ ἐμιάθετε. Heinr. rightly refers κα- 
 bars to ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, for ἀληθὼς. Συνδούλ., fellow mini- 
 ster. Ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, “for your advantage ;” a frequent 
 signification of ὑπὲρ. Compare 2 Cor. 4,5. ᾿Αγάπη 
 must be interpreted as at ver. 4., where see the 
 note. ᾿Εν πνεύματι is by some, as Menoch. Beza, 
 and Whitby, interpreted, ‘‘ wrought in you by 
 the spirit.” But this seems not to be the sense 
 here; especially as there is no article. I prefer the 
 interpretation of Grot. and most modern Commen- 
 tators (confirmed also by the antients), who take it 
 to signify “spiritual, sincere, and as becometh the 
 Gospel.” ‘The antients, and some moderns, regard 
 the love in question as that borne by the Colossians 
 towards Paul. But that, if (as it seems) they had 
 not yet seen him, is rather improbable. It is, be- 
 sides, far more natural to take it. of love towards each 
 other, as supra ver. 4. 
 
 9. The Apostle now (according to his usual cus- 
 tom), to the rendering of thanks adds prayers for 
 the furtherance of the Colossians in Christianity. 
 Before all things he prays that they may have a 
 progressively better and truer knowledge of this 
 saving doctrine, since on that may be laid the super- 
 structure of true Christian virtue. Now this admo- 
 nition was necessary, on account of the Judaizing 
 and fanatical teachers, who endeavoured to persuade 
 the Colossians that the doctrine of Christ was insuf- 
 ficient to bless men. (Heinr.) 
 
 9. ἵνα πληρωθῆτε τὴν. ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, 
 ‘*that ye may be filled with divine knowledge.” At 
 ἐπίγνωσιν must be understood κατὰ. Of αὐτοῦ the 
 antecedent is Θεοῦ at ver. 6. The θελ. is explained 
 by Rosenm. of the divine precepts; and thus ἐπιγν. 
 τοῦ θελήματος τοῦ Θεοῦ, will be, ““a knowledge of 
 what God would have us know, believe, and do.” 
 But I prefer, with Heinr., to understand it of the 
 divine plans for the salvation of men by Christ. So 
 Theophyl. well explains: θέλημα γὰρ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ 
 
6 COLOSSIANS, CHAP, I. 
 
 εὐδοκία, τὸ τὸν. Υἱὸν δοθῆναι ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, οὐχὶ τοὺς ἀγγέ- 
 λους. He also observes, that the wang. implies that 
 that knowledge was yet incomplete and imperfect. 
 On the sense of the rest of the verse see the notes 
 on Ephes. 1, 8. and Doddr. in loc. . 
 
 10. περιπατῆσαι ὑμᾶς ἀξίως τοῦ Kupiov εἰς πᾶσαν 
 ἀρεσκείαν. At περιπατ. must be understood εἰς τὸ. 
 The preposition here, as often, indicates the end and 
 tendency. Fora life and conduct worthy of Christ 
 and his ,religion was the fruit to be expected from a 
 right knowledge. At εἰς πᾶσαν ἀρεσκείαν subaud τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ, from the next clause. The term ἀρεσκεία sig- 
 nifies the study of pleasing others, and is therefore 
 capable both of a good, anda bad sense. In the 
 Classical writers it is almost always used in the datéer: 
 but examples of the former are found; as Polyb. 
 (cited by Raphel) ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως ἀρεσκεία" and, 
 what is more to the purpose, Philo 33 c. (cited by 
 Loesner) where it is said of Adam: εἰς ἀρεσκείαν τοῦ 
 πατρὸς καὶ βασίλεως. 
 
 The words following suggest how this ἀρεσκεία 
 may be accomplished, namely, 1st, by perseverance 
 in rendering the fruit of good works; @dly, by pa- 
 tience and constancy in temptation and adversity. 
 On καρποΦοροῦντες, see the note supra ver. 6. ‘There 
 is an enallage for καρποφοροῦντας ; though some refer 
 all the nominatives to πληρωθῆτε. ‘The ἐν παντὶ 
 ἀγαθῷ καρποφοροῦντες, evidently refers to good works; 
 the αὐξανόμενοι εἰς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ, to that cor- 
 rect knowledge of God’s will by which alone good 
 works can be produced. ‘The εἰς is rendered by Storr. 
 quod attinet ad. But this is too feeble a sense: and 
 I remember no example of εἰς after αὐξ. in this sense. 
 Heinr. renders it suitably to, which makes a good 
 sense, but not, I think, that which the Apostle in- 
 tended. Besides, it would require κατὰ, The in- 
 terpretation is, however, supported by Theophyl. : νῦν 
 αὖθις ἀπαιτεῖ αὐξάνειν ἐν τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ἔργοις, εἰς τὸ ἅμα 
 καὶ τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαθοῖς ἔργοις, εἰς τὸ ἅμα καὶ τὸν Θεὸν ἐπι- 
 γινώσκειν" ἑκάτερον γὰρ ἑκατέρου συστατικόν. After all, 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 7 
 
 I see no reason to desert the common interpretation, 
 by which αὐξ. εἰς is taken as synonymous with αὐξ. ἐν, 
 which is found in some MSS., or av§. by itself; which 
 is found in‘many others, and is received by Griesb. 
 (and so 2 Pet. 3, 18.); but (I think) on insufficient 
 grounds. It savours of a gloss, and the common 
 reading is sufficiently defended both by its greater 
 difficulty, and by a similar construction in the Twin 
 Epistle (Eph. 4, 15.) αὐξήσωμεν εἰς αὐτὸν (1. 6. 
 Christ), where see the note. When the nature of 
 the term αὐξάνειν is considered, such a construction 
 will not seem strange. The Apostle has placed the 
 two particulars together, the increase of knowledge 
 and that of virtue, well knowing that they always 
 tend to mutually produce each other. 
 
 11. ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμιει δυναμούμιενοι κατὰ τὸ κράτος τῆς 
 δόξης αὐτοῦ, for ἐνδυναμούμενοι. πάσῃ δυνάμει. ‘This 
 very energetic expression ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει duvapoupevor 
 k.T.k. 0. (where τὴς δόξης is for the cognate adjective) 
 must denote those powerful and extraordinary aids 
 of the holy spirit then vouchsafed to faithful Chris- 
 tians; though the ordinary influences of the same 
 blessed spirit are given to all of every succeeding 
 age to profit withal. j 
 
 The words εἰς πᾶσαν ὑπομονὴν καὶ μακροθυμίαν μετὰ 
 χαρᾶς, show the end and purpose of such extraordi- 
 nary aids, namely, that they might bear every sort 
 of temptation and persecution with patience, nay, 
 even alacrity. For such is the sense of this con- 
 densed, and therefore obscure, clause. Μακροθυμία 
 must here denote, not (as the antients say) a slowness 
 to anger, but, as appears from the following words 
 μετὰ χαρᾶς (which stand in the place of a cognate 
 adjective), patience of endurance. 
 
 12—14. These verses close (like an epilogus,) what 
 he had thus far said; q. ἃ. “ And if in this manner 
 - you perceive the power of the Christian doctrine, and 
 show it in good works, you will not doubt whether 
 that doctrine points the the and right way to sal- 
 vation, but, persuaded that to it you owe all your 
 
8 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I 
 
 happiness, you will assuredly render thanks to God, 
 for having admitted you, though Gentiles, into the 
 Christian society. (Heinr.) 
 
 12. edyoapiorouvres—ev τῷ φωτί, “ And that we may 
 return thanks to the Father, who, by this knowledge, 
 hath fitted you to be partakers of the inheritance of 
 the saints,” &c. Such is the general sense of the 
 passage, which, however, from brevity of expression, 
 and idiotical phraseology, i is somewhat obscure. 
 
 12. τῷ ἱκανώσαντι. At this word both the antient 
 and the modern Critics have stumbled. Hence the 
 reading καλέσαντι, which was as much a conjecture 
 as that of Bentley, καινώσαντι ; and both equally un- 
 necessary. The best Commentators, antient and mo- 
 dern, are agreed, that the term ix. is here to be taken 
 in a sense, somewhat rare indeed, but of which the 
 nature of the word is very susceptible, namely, meet, 
 
 fit. So Theophyl. explains: ἐπιτηδείους. Schleus. 
 defines the word thus: sufficientem reddo, idoneum, 
 aptum facio, facultatem alicujus rei efficiende lar- 
 gior. And he adduces as examples of this sense, 2 
 Cor. 8, 6. ὃς καὶ ἱκάνωσεν ἡμιᾶς διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης. 
 
 Eis τὴν μερίδα coming after ἱκανώσ., is a locutio 
 pregnans, signifying « fit for (a participation in) the 
 portion of the inheritance,” &c. | Heinr. observes, 
 that ἅγιος, answering to the Hebr. wp, was the 
 sublimior Christianorum appellatio, as it had been 
 that of the Jews. The figure (he adds) here adopted 
 (which is similar to one in Acts 20, 32. 26, 18. and 
 Eph. 1,18.) is that of a state whose citizens have 
 assigned to each of them a pépis, portion, or posses- 
 sion 1 (see Gen. 14, 24.); and all these are supposed 
 to be assigned by dot, κλήρῳ. So that μέρις κλήρου is 
 for ““ an allotted portion.” ‘The above interpretation 
 is confirmed by Theophyl., who explains thus: τῷ 
 μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων κατατάξαντι' καὶ οὐχ οὕτως ἁπλώς, 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ τών αὐτῶν ἀπολαύσαι παρεσχηκότι" ὃ διὰ τῆς 
 μερίδος δηλοῖ" ᾿Εστὶ μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ πόλει καταταγῆς 
 ναι, οὐ μὴν τὴν αὐτὴν μερίδι. ἔχειν' καὶ πάλιν, ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ 
 κλήρῳ εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχειν μερίδα" οἷον, ἐν τῷ 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 9 
 
 αὐτῷ κλήρῳ τῆς ἐκκλησίας πάντες ἐσμὲν, ἀλλὰ ἄλλος 
 ἄλλην ἔχειν μερίδα. ᾿Ενταῦθα δὲ καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ κλήρου 
 ἠξίωσε, καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς μερίδος. 
 
 The ἐν τῷ φωτὶ is by some taken for διὰ τοῦ φῶτος. 
 (See Rosenm.) But the common interpretation in 
 light, seems preferable. Φώς is, by a common image, 
 put for light, knowledge. Thus Christians are said 
 to be sons of light, πεφωτισμένοι. And the Deity is 
 metaphorically represented as dwelling in light. 
 Theophyl. explains φωτὶ by γνώσει: and he thinks it 
 refers to both the present and the future world: for 
 now God hath enlightened us by a revelation of 
 divine mysteries; and in the future word he will im- 
 part it far more clearly. By us is meant, us Chris- 
 tians, whether Jews or Gentiles. 
 
 13. ὃς ἐῤῥύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους, 
 “who hath liberated us from the power of darkness,” 
 i, e. the dominion of ignorance, sin, and Satan. In 
 this sense ἐξουσία is used in Rom. 13, 1. and else- 
 where. The image in σκότους was evidently sug- 
 gested by that in the preceding verse. It is fre- 
 quently used to designate the state of the Gentiles 
 before their conversion to Christianity ; as 1 Pet. 2, 
 9. Acts 26,18. The ἐξουσίας and ἐῤῥύσατο suggest 
 the harshness of the tyranny under which they had 
 groaned; and it is well observed by Wets. and 
 Heinr., that under the ἐξουσίας is couched a notion 
 of despotism, or tyranny. ‘The words φώς and σκότος 
 carry with them an adjunct notion of happiness and 
 misery, especially with reference to a future world. 
 
 13. μετέστησεν. Heinr. remarks on the aptness of 
 the term; since it is not only used of the transferring 
 of persons from one habitation to another, and of 
 transplanting any by colonization, but also of chang- 
 ing a form of government; as from oligarchy to de- 
 mocracy. So here those who had been under the 
 despotism of ignorance and Satan, are represented as 
 being transferred to the kingdom of knowledge, vir- 
 tue, and Christ, in which they have each their 
 allotted portion.” Τῆς ἀγάπης is plainly for ἀγαπη- 
 μένου. 
 
10 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. 1, 
 
 14. ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐ- 
 τοῦ, These words have been explained at Eph. 1, 7. 
 
 There are few passages on which the opinions of Commentators 
 are more divided. The antients almost universally and the early 
 moderns taking the terms of the passage in their literal sense, inter- 
 pret it of the natural creation of all things by Christ ; and hence de- 
 duce a strong argument for the divinity of Christ. On the other 
 hand the Jater Commentators, (including Grot. and Whitby, and 
 especially the recent ones,) objecting that the above interpretation 
 is not agreeable to the context, take the passage to refer to the 
 new and spiritual creation by Jesus Christ; which, they maintain, 
 is quite correspondent to the context and the phraseology of many 
 parallel passages, as Eph. 1, 10 and 21. 2, 10 and 15. 3, 9 and 10, 
 4, 22—24. Col. 3, 10 and 11. Rom. 3, 11 seqq. James 1, 18. 2 Cor. 
 5,17. They particularly dwell on the similarity of style and sub- 
 ject matter in this and the twin Epistle (to the Ephesians), from _ 
 which (3, 10.) it appears that by the revelation of the plan of re- 
 demption in the Gospel the angelic creation became enlightened as 
 well as subject to Christ. This interpretation has been supported by 
 all the acuteness and erudition which the recent Foreign School 
 could bestow upon it, especially by Ernesti, Justinus, Grulich, Noes- 
 selt, and Heinr., which Jast mentioned Commentator gives the fol- 
 lowing sketch of the subject matter from ver. 15 to 19. “1, Maxima 
 quin divind majestate exsplendescit J. C. in omni creatura morali 
 primus, ver. 15.; 2. Collegit is sibi societatem undique, que ex 
 ipsius mente Deum veneraretur, fundavitque regnum morale, v. 16.; 
 3. Huic ipse (nemo alius) preest, in omnibus facilé princeps, v. 
 17—19.; 4. Ex omnibus autem gentibus sine ullo discrimine col- 
 legit sibi cultores, v.20.; 5. Atqui eodem honore dignatus est et 
 vos, ctyjus pretium persentiscetis, dummodo firmos vos geritis et 
 constantes.”’ All this, to say the least, is extremely plausible, and 
 there is much to countenance the opinion. Insomuch that even 
 some very orthodox divines seem inclined to adopt it, observing that 
 other and unexceptionable proofs remain of the divinity of Christ, 
 and that (as Mr. Slade remarks) even from the figurative sense the 
 same inference may be fairly deduced; for he who could so newly. 
 create the heavens and the earth, as to bring them, by his power, ἡ 
 into an universal subjugation to himself, can hardly be imagined as 
 less than divine.’ This may be true; but I cannot without regret 
 contemplate the wanton profusion and recklessness with which 
 important evidences of the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel are 
 squandered, as if our stores were inexhaustible. Let it be remem- 
 bered, that when Commentators admit certain doctrines in a gene- 
 ral way, and yet can scarcely ever find them in any specific passage, 
 their belief in them is, to say the least, very equivocal. As an in- 
 stance in point, I need only refer to the case of the excellent Dr. 
 Macknight, who, though he always continued in the profession of 
 Calvinism, yet hardly any where espouses those peculiar interpreta- 
 tions on which Calvinism is founded. Who, then, can suppose him 
 to have been really a Calvinist? The application is obvious: and 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 11 
 
 the spirit with which important evidences are thus thoughtlessly 
 squandered away, is much to be deprecated. I cannot, therefore, 
 but add my humble mite of praise (little as it is needed) to the 
 efforts of one venerable Prelate, who in reference to a long contro- 
 verted passage, has had the courage to make such a stand against 
 the whole phalanx of Verbal Critics (who, in accordance with cer- 
 tain Critical Canons more applicable to Classical than Sacred Cri- 
 ticism, had cancelled the passage,) as has made even the most de- 
 cided and able supporters of the new opinion pause, and others sing 
 their παλινωδία. It is an important remark of Whitby, that this 
 exposition of the passage respecting a true and proper creation of 
 all things by Jesus Christ, is by the Father, from the beginning, laid 
 down as arule to which the Orthodox, keeping close, might show 
 that the Hereticks, who held that the world was created by angels, 
 deviated from the truth. On the present occasion, then, I see no suffi- 
 cient reason to abandon the common interpretation, which yields an 
 unobjectionable sense; and as to the context, it must be remem- 
 bered, that in so irregular a writer as St. Paul even that is a princi- 
 ple of no very certain application. As to the parallel passages which 
 are so confidently appealed to, they are, most of them, not really 
 such, or at least doubtful ; and in the interpretation of them the 
 present passage is appealed to, which is really reasoning in a circle. 
 Besides, the exposition in question, though it may be justified as far 
 as concerns κτέξειν from the usus loquendi, yet in other respects it 
 involves greater difficulties than the commanone. This, however, 
 will better appear from the following examination of the passage 
 in detail. 
 
 15. ὃς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ doparov. The best 
 Commentators, antient and modern, are agreed that 
 the sense is: “ who (i. 6. Christ) is (in his human 
 nature) the visible image of the invisible God.” 
 Here the antient Commentators deserve attentive 
 examination, especially Chrys., Theophyl., and Gicu- 
 men. My limits will only permit me to insert a short 
 extract or two. Theodoret: ᾿Εναργεῖς yap φέρει τοῦ 
 γεγεννηκότος τοὺς χαρακτῆρας. And again: ἔστι τοίνυν 
 εἰκὼν δηλοῦσα τὸ ὁμοούσιον" αἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄψυχοι εἰκόνες οὐκ 
 ἔχουσι τὴν οὐσίαν τούτων ὧσπερ εἰκόνες εἰσίν. ἡ δὲ ϑῶσα 
 εἰκὼν, καὶ τὸ ἀπαράλλακτον ἔχουσα, τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει φύσιν 
 τῷ ἀρχετύπῳ. Theophyl.: τὸ τῆς φύσεως ἔντιμον, καὶ 
 τὸ μεγαλείον τῆς ἀξίας τοῦ μονογενοῦς τίθησιν ἐνταύθα" 
 εἰκὼν, φησίν, ἐστι τοῦ Θεοῦ" οὐκοῦν ἀπαράλλακτος. And 
 again : εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἦν εἰκὼν, εἶχές τι λέγειν, 
 ὅτι y οἰκὼν οὐ φθάνει πρὸς τὸ πρωτότυπον. ᾿Ἐπεὶ 
 δὲ εἰκὼν ἐστιν ὡς Θεὸς καὶ Θεοῦ υἱὸς, ἀπαράλ- 
 
12 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. 1. 
 
 AaKTos Kal εἰκὼν ἐπὶ Θεοῦ καὶ ἀοράτου, ἀόρατος δηλαδή. 
 Whitby has here a very masterly annotation, 
 in which, after refuting the frigid and jejune 
 interpretation of the Socinians, who maintain 
 that Christ is called the image of the invisible God, 
 because he, by his Gospel, hath made known to us 
 the will of God, offers the following exposition : 
 «« Christ is the image of God, as making him who is 
 invisible in his essence, conspicuous to us by the 
 Divine works he wrought, they being such as plainly 
 shewed, that in him dwelt the fulness of the God-head 
 bodily ; for an invisible God can only be seen by his 
 effects of power, wisdom, and goodness, by which, 
 says the Apostle, from the Creation of the World the 
 invisible things of God, to wit, his power and- God- 
 head, have been made known by the things that are 
 made, Rom. 1,20. He, therefore, who in the Works 
 both of the Old and New Creation, has given us 
 such clear declarations of the Divine power, and 
 wisdom, and goodness, is upon this account as much 
 an image of God as anything can be; to this sense 
 the image of God here seems necessarily restrained 
 by the connective Particle ὅτι, he is the image of 
 God, for by him all things were created. Moreover, 
 that this place is parallel to that in the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews, the words sufficiently declare ; here 
 he is the image of God, there the brightness of his 
 glory, and the express image of his person ; here he 
 is the first-born, or Lord of every creature, there 
 the heir of all things; here it is said that all things 
 were created by him, there that he made the World ; 
 here that by him all things do consist, and there that 
 he supporteth all things by the word of his power ; 
 now, that there he is styled the image of God’s 
 glory, and the character of his person, by reason of 
 that Divine power, wisdom, and majesty, which 
 shined forth in his actions, Schlictingius is forced to 
 confess. It is not, therefore, to be doubted that he 
 is here styled the image of God in the same sense.” 
 The learned Commentator also thinks it highly 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 13 
 
 probable that he is called the image of the invisible 
 God, as appearing to the Patriarchs, and representing 
 to them that God, who lives in light inaccessible, to 
 which no mortal eye can approach. And in this 
 sense Christ said to Philip, “ He that hath seen me, 
 hath seen the Father.’ And St. Paul elsewhere 
 says of Christ, with respect to the Father, that he is 
 the radiance of His glory. The above opinion was 
 maintained by the Antinicene Fathers, and is some- 
 what countenanced by Chrys., Gicumen., and The- 
 ophyl. But it is involved in some difficulties, on 
 which see the note on Hebr. 9, 2. | 
 
 15. πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. On the interpretation 
 of this word (which the Apostle evidently employs in 
 an unusual sense) there are many difficulties 
 attendant: for the best interpretations have little of 
 actual authority in their favour. The most natural, 
 and probably best founded one, is that of the early 
 Fathers, and the Greek Commentators, who take it 
 to signify begotten before the existence of any created 
 being ; like mpwros in Joh. 1, 15 ἃ 30. So Theo- 
 doret: ἄλλως re οὐδὲ πρωτόκτιστον αὐτὸν εἶπεν ὁ θεῖος 
 ἀπόστολος, ἀλλὰ πρωτότοκον, τουτέστι ποώτον" οὕτω καὶ 
 πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν' πρῶτος γὰρ ἀνέστη. And so 
 Dr. Wells, who paraphrases: “ The same second 
 person in the Holy Trinity may also be styled the 
 first-born of every creature, namely, as in respect of 
 his divine nature, he was begotten of the Father 
 before all creatures, and. as to his human nature, he 
 was the first that was raised from the dead, never to 
 die again.”? Another, and also well founded inter- 
 pretation, is propounded by Whitby, who, after 
 having thoroughly refuted the shailow inference of 
 the Socinians, that from this passage it must appear 
 that Christ is in the number of creatures, maintains 
 that he is so styled as being the Lord of all things. 
 And he compares the phrase in a parallel passage, 
 κληρόνομος πάντων, and proves, from the antients, that 
 Heir and Lord were terms interchangeable. He 
 concludes a long and able defence of this interpreta- 
 
14 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 
 
 tion, by saying, that we may conceive the person of 
 whom David was a type, may be also here styled the 
 fast-born, as being Prince over, and high above all 
 creatures, they being all the work of his hands. In 
 the language of the Rabbins, too (as we learn from 
 Michaelis), God is called the first-born of the world. 
 This interpretation is also adopted by Schleus. and 
 Jaspis. And though it has been objected by Bp. 
 Middleton, that thus Christ would be said to be the 
 eldest born of his own creation, which (he observes) 
 would be absurd; yet I here desiderate the usual 
 judgment and good tasie of the learned Prelate ; for 
 it were injudicious, and even unwarrantable to thus 
 press on the consistency of a figure in so little regular 
 a writer as St. Paul. 
 
 The truth seems to lie between these two interpre- 
 tations.* Which to prefer I know not. Perhaps 
 they may be united. Bp. Middleton engrafts on the 
 former the following interpretation : ‘He was the first 
 offspring of that great and glorious scheme, formed 
 in the eternal counsel of God for the restoration of a 
 fallen world.’ ‘This may be true in doccrine, but it 
 cannot be proved to be the truth intended by the 
 Apostle. 
 
 16. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ 
 τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. It cannot be denied that κτίϑειν is 
 sometimes used of a moral or evangelical creation. 
 But for the reasons above assigned, and because (as 
 Whitby says) not one instance can be shown where 
 the creation of all things in heaven and in earth, visi- 
 ble and invisible, is ever used in a moral sense, or 
 concerning any other creation than the natural, this 
 cannot be here admitted. Mr. Slade (partly from 
 Abp. Magee and Dr. Nares) truly observes, that the 
 terms are so general and explicit, that they cannot 
 properly be limited in this manner. The Apostle 
 
 * Foras to others, they have not the semblance of it; ex. gr. 
 that of Isidore, Erasm., and Michaelis, who accentuate πρωτότοκος, 
 thus taking the word in an active sense; which is liable to. insuper- 
 able objections, both grammatical and doctrinal, 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. 1, 15 
 
 may be understood as illustrating and establishing 
 the sovereignty of Christ over the new creation, by 
 the circumstance of his being Creator and King of 
 all the beings and powers in heaven and in earth. 
 The interpretation in question is indeed so frigid, 
 forced, andunnatural, nay, even (as Whitby says) flat 
 and mean, that one would wonder how so many eble 
 Commentators could have been induced to adopt it, 
 except from mere fondness for hypothesis. Whitby 
 has (1 think) unanswerably shewn the felicity of it, 
 and his chief reasons are these: Ist., the Apostle 
 here speaks of the creation of such things as are not 
 capable of a moral creation: since αἰ must compre- 
 hend inanimate substances; and to the Angels, 
 whether the good or the bad, it can by no means 
 apply.* @dly., the words in this sense were far from 
 being true when the Apostle spoke them ; for only a 
 very small remnant of the Jews were then converted 
 to the Christian Faith, and of the Gentiles few, in 
 comparison of those multitudes which afterwards 
 embraced the Faith; and yet the Apostle plainly 
 speaks of a creation wholly past already. 3dly., The 
 Apostle afterwards enters upon the moral creation, 
 at ver. 18, 19 & 90. (as it should seem, engrafting it 
 upon the other Edit.). Now these things being thus 
 connected by the Particle καὶ, to what he had before 
 said of the creation of all things by Christ, demon- 
 stratively show that he was not then speaking of that 
 revelation, which he begins to speak. of in these fol- 
 lowing words. 
 
 16. τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, ““ created 
 by God through him, as instrumental cause.’ 
 Eis αὐτὸν, “ for his governance, and for the mani- 
 festation of his power and wisdom therein.” 
 
 17. καὶ αὐτὸς ἐστι πρὸ πάντων, Kal τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ 
 συνέστηκε. This is evidently ἃ further developement 
 
 * So Bp. Pearson on the Creed, who, in his luminous exposition 
 of this text, shows that the verb xri@e.v,as applied to the angels, 
 must be understood of their “original creation ; they could not be 
 said to be created anew. 
 
16 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 
 
 of the same thought as that of the preceding verse. 
 
 Here the suppoxters of the new interpretation are 
 
 put to great straits. First they interpret προ, not of 
 pre-existence but of supereminence, an interpretation, 
 
 they think, required by the following words. Doddr. 
 
 expresses Goth. But the former interpretation de- 
 
 serves the preference. And so Theophyl., who 
 
 remarks, that the Apostle does not say, was before 
 
 all, but is, as being especially appropriate to the 
 
 Deity. Nor can the words καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτώ 
 
 συνέστηκε, Without great harshness, be interpreted of 
 the moral preservation, governance of, &c.; q. d. ‘*not 
 
 only the Jews and Gentiles are become τὰ ἀμφότερα 
 
 ev (Eph. 2, 14, 16.), but all the various orders of 
 beings will together be subject to Christ, as one har- 
 
 monized whole:” a sense for which there is no good 
 
 authority: whereas of that of create there are 
 
 abundance of examples, both in the Scriptural and 
 
 Classical writers, which may be seen in the Com-_ 
 mentators, or Schleus. Lex. ‘The sense is: ““ were 
 
 created, and are preserved. So Theodoret: Οὐ yap 
 
 μόνον ἐστὶν ἁπάντων δημιουργὸς ἀλλὰ καὶ προμηθεῖται wy 
 
 ἐποίησε, καὶ κυβερνᾷ τὴν κτίσιν. 
 
 18. καὶ αὐτὸς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος. The 
 Apostle now engrafts on the natural creation of all 
 things by Christ another view, in which he alludes 
 to the moral or evangelical creation. So Theophyl. 
 observes, that having spoken of the dignity of the 
 Son, he now speaks of his condescending humanity. 
 And Theodoret remarks: ἀπὸ τῆς Θεολογίας εἰς τὴν 
 οἰκονομίαν μετέβη. : 
 
 The sense is: ““ And (moreover) he is the head of 
 the body of the Church (He), who is the beginning, 
 or author of the Church, the first-born, or Lord of 
 the dead.””, The comparison in κεφαλὴ, &c. is fre- 
 quent; as infra ver. 24, 2, 19., Eph. 4, 15 & 16., 
 1 Cor.11, 3. Christ is here said to be the πρωτότο- 
 kos ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, as at 1 Cor. 15, 20, he is called 
 ἀπαρχὴ Tov κεκοιμημένων. By the ἐκκλησία, is meant 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 17 
 
 (Theophyl. observes), the whole race of men. And 
 so Est. andMackn. 
 
 13. ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων. The 
 recent Commentators take the ἵνα in the eventual 
 sense ; which, however, seems not very necessary. 
 IIgwrevew, in the sense to be first, is frequent both in 
 the Sept. and the Classical writers; and is used of 
 Kings, Princes, and Governors. At πᾶσι, some 
 supply πράγμασι; others, ἀνθρώποις. The latter 
 method is preferable; but both may be included. 
 And so Theophyl. explains: ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς περὶ αὐτὸν 
 θεωρουμένοις. Kal γὰρ καὶ πρὸ πάντων γεγένηται ἐκ τοῦ 
 Πατρὸς, καὶ πρώτος πάντων ἐστὶν, ὡς κεφαλὴ τῆς EKKAY- 
 σίας, καὶ πρὸ πάντων ἀνέστη, χαριϑόμινος αὐτοῖς τὴν ἀφ- 
 θαρσίαν, ὡς ἀπαρχή. δ GAO) “SOR 
 
 19. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησε πᾶν τὸ TANLWP.A κατοικῆσαι. 
 
 There is some little ambiguity and obscurity about this 
 sentence, which may, perhaps, be imputed to the awful nature of 
 the subject treated on. The recent Commentators here propose 
 several novel modes of interpretation, which, however, effect so 
 considerable a change in what has been, from the earliest ages, the 
 received interpretation, that ἔ cannot venture to place much con- 
 fidence in it. The general rules of Grammarians and Critics ought 
 indeed to be applied with great caution in cases like the present, 
 where there is no reason to think that the Apostle had any thing of 
 that sort in view, and in which the subject matter rather than the 
 words themselves must be attended to. I see no reason to desert 
 the opinion of the antients, and most moderns, that at εὐδόκησε 
 must be suppled ὁ Θεὸς. The sense is: ‘‘ For in him (God) was 
 pleased that all the fullness (of perfection and government) should 
 dwell;”’ as Gal. 1, 15. See also Rom. 15,26. ‘Theophyl. explains: 
 TO πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος; τουτέστιν, εἴτι ἦν 6 Yids καὶ Λόγος, ἐκεῖ 
 ᾧκησεν, οὐκ ἐνέργεία τις, ἀλλ᾽ οὐσία. Οὐκ ἔχει δὲ ἄλλην εἰπεῖν 
 αἰτίαν, εἰ μὴ τὴν εὐδοκίαν καὶ τὴν θέλησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Rosenm. 
 (partly from Noesselt) gives the following explanation οὗ πλήρωμα : 
 ““ Plenitudo activé et passive accipitur, i. 6. de iis que implent, dant, 
 docent, aut que capiunt aliquid, possident, eoque ornati sunt vel im- 
 buti, sive de copid quacunque, Joh. 1, 16., Rom. 11, 25 & 12. 
 Hoc loco intelligitur de dotibus, quas Deus Christo concesserat, 1n- 
 primisque de cognitione Dei quam tradere hominibus, doctrinAque 
 coelesti, qua vim monstrare ad veram animi salutem deberet, f. 2, 9.” 
 The subject, however, is more solidly and fully treated on by Whitby, 
 thus: “ The great end of our Saviour’s sufferings was to rescue our 
 bodies, condemned for sin to death, from that mortality, and to 
 bestow on all whom God should give him, eter: life, by raising of 
 
 VOL. VIIE. Cc 
 
18 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 
 
 their bodies to a state of incorruption. So Hebr. 2, 14 & 15. 
 Therefore the Church which is his body, is represented as the 
 Church of the first-born enrolled in heaven, Hebr. 12, 23.,a Church 
 against which the Gates of Hades, or of Death, shall not prevail to 
 hinder their enjoyment of this resurrection to a life of happiness ; 
 they are the sons of God, and therefore children of the resurrection, 
 Luke 21, 36., therefore heirs of God, joint heirs with Christ, who 
 shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious 
 liberty of the sons of God, v. 21., shall have the adoption, to wit, 
 the redemption of the body, ver. 23 , and they are also represented 
 as persons fore-ordained to be conformed to the image of Christ, by 
 having their vile bodies changed into the likeness of Christ's glorious 
 
 body, ver. 29. Note, 2dly., That to this end was Christ raised, that 
 he the first-born from the dead, might raise up his whole body from 
 the dead, he being raised from the dead as the _first-fruits of them 
 that slept, 1 Cor. 15, 20., for to this end Christ both died and rose 
 again, that he might be the Lord both of the dead, and of the living, 
 Rom. 14, 9., and God hath therefore exalted him, that at the name 
 (i. e. the power) of Jesus, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, 
 in the earth, and under the earth, Philip. 2, 10., that is, the bodies of 
 the dead: for by this argument, and from these very words, the 
 Apostle proves the resurrection, and a future judgment, Rom, 14, 
 10,11, 12. He is, therefore, so the first-born of the dead, as to be 
 the Lord of them, according to our former interpretation of the 
 word first-born, as to have power to raise them up who sleep in him, 
 and bring them with him, 1 Thess. 4, 14., to give eternal life unto 
 them, and raise then up at the last day, Joh. 5, 28, 29., 17, 2. And 
 thus hath he the pre-eminence in all things, being Lord of all 
 creatures, dead and living, and giving both their first and their new 
 being to them, and rendering his members conformable to his glori- 
 ous image, that so they may be joint heirs with him in glory.” 
 
 20. καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι--- οὐρανοῖς. Here 
 must be repeated εὐδόκησε ὁ Θεὸς. ‘The words τὰ πάντα 
 —elre τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς have not ἃ 
 little exercised the Commentators. The best founded 
 opinion seems to be that of Hamm. and the most 
 eminent Interpreters since his times, that the neuter 
 
 gender is here put for the masculine, as often: and 
 that by te πάντα, as far as regards the τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 
 may be understood Jews and Gentiles. See the long 
 note of Hamm. They might have added, that yévy 
 is here understood. 
 
 ᾿Αποκαταλλάξαι is a very strong term, and imports 
 far more than καταλλ. Whether by αὐτὸν be meant 
 God, or Christ, Commentators are are not agreed. 
 
 The latter seems to be the best founded opinion ; 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 19 
 
 but both may be admitted. This “ complete recon- 
 ciliation,”’ it is said, was effected, and peace restored, 
 by the blood of his cross, i. e. by the blood of his 
 body shed on the cross. 
 
 On the meaning of τὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς there is some dif- 
 ference of opinion, on which I beg to refer the 
 reader to Wolf’s Cure. I must confess, that upon 
 the whole, I see no opinion so probable as that of 
 the antient Commentators and Dr. Whitby, which is 
 embraced by Dr. Doddr., the former of whom ren- 
 ders: “ and by him to make all things friendly in 
 him, making peace between them by the blood of 
 his cross.”’ And in his note he observes, that whilst 
 man continued in his obedience to God, angels and 
 men were in a perfect friendship, but when men be- 
 came disobedient to their Sovereign Lord, the 
 angels became averse to them, because their Lord 
 was dishonoured by them: but God being reconciled 
 unto us by the death of his Son, they also became 
 friends and ministering spirits to us,and we became 
 of the same Church and body with them, under the 
 same head Christ Jesus, Heb. 12, 22. And so all 
 things in heaven and earth were gathered into one 
 Christ. Eph. 1, 10. 
 
 21. καὶ ὑμᾶς πότε---τοῖς πονηροῖς. What he had said 
 of Jesus Christ the Apostle now applies to the state 
 of the Colossians, as formerly Gentiles, and now 
 Christians. (Heinr.) 
 
 ᾿Απηλλοτριωμένους, “ aliens from God, and conse- 
 quently alienated or separated from, deprived of, the 
 divine promises and benefits.” Compare Tit. 3, 3. 
 Eph. 2, 12.4, 18. where see the note. ‘The words 
 ἐχθροὺς τῇ διανοίᾳ are exegetical of the preceding. 
 See Rom. 5,10. The διανοίᾳ is justly regarded by 
 the antient Commentators as a strong term denoting 
 deliberate and purposed enmity. It must, at least, 
 indicate that it was deeply seated, namely, in the 
 thoughts as well as the affections, and developing 
 itself in evil works. ’Ev, in, by; like the Hebr. 3. 
 
 Q1. νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατήλλαξεν. The δὲ is by Beza ren- 
 
 C2 
 
20 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 
 
 dered sanéomnino. I prefer, however, our Common 
 Version yeé; for the participle seems to have what 
 may be called a hypoadversative force. 
 
 22, ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὑτοῦ. These words 
 are by some considered as pleonastic. Yet they 
 impart great energy to the sentence. Besides, 
 there seems to be an allusion to the other and glori- 
 fied nature now enjoyed by Christ in the union of the 
 Godhead. Others explain the cop. as denoting the 
 body of the Church into which they were now incor- 
 porated. But nothing can be more harsh or far- 
 fetched. 
 
 At παραστῆσαι must be understood εἰς τὸ, which 
 signifies the end and purpose. ‘Theophyl. compares 
 this with the ἱκανώσαντι ἡμᾶς a little before; q. d. 
 “δ hath not only liberated us from sin, but like- 
 wise bestowed holiness, not of a common sort, but 
 pure and irreprehensible.” Compare Eph. 5, 27. (and 
 the note) and 2, 13—18. and the notes. 
 
 28. εἴ ye ἐπιμένετε τῇ πίστει τεθεμελιωμένοι καὶ ἐδραῖοι. 
 The εἴ ye carries with it an éllipsis, as: ‘* And thus it 
 will be with you, if indeed, ἄς. Τεθεμελιωμένοι καὶ 
 ἑδραῖοι, “ grounded and founded, and therefore sta~ 
 ble.” See the note on the parallel passage of Eph. 
 3, 17., to which I would add, that there is a mas- 
 terly criticism on the passage by Phot. in his Epist. 
 p. 238. Montac. The whole Epistle will repay an 
 attentive perusal, and is highly characteristic of 
 the acuteness and consummate erudition of that ex- 
 traordinary man. : 
 
 23. καὶ μὴ μετακινούμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγε- 
 λίου. This is expressed with popular brevity. ‘The 
 sense is: ““ not shaken or removed from the hope of 
 the benefits revealed by the Gospel.” The μετὰ has 
 reference to the change to other opinions and the 
 taking up of other hopes. Thus in the Classical 
 writers it is applied to the changing of governments, 
 or altering of compacts. And Schleus. remarks that 
 in Theodotion’s translation of 1 Sam. 2, 30. μετακι- 
 νούμιενοι is used of those who suffer themselves to be 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. lI. Qi 
 
 drawn this way and that by persuasions, ac aura sunt 
 leviores. It is probable that the Apostle might have 
 that passage in view, and that the word might have 
 place in some copies of the Sept. then extant. 
 
 23. κηρυχθέντος ἐν racy τῇ κτίσει. By κτίσ. is, of 
 course, meant the moral creation, i. e. every nation 
 under heaven. This is regarded by most Commen- 
 tators as a popular hyperbole for most nations, or for 
 Jews and Gentiles. Which, however, is little neces- 
 sary. It is probable there was scarcely any one 
 civilized nation of the then known world to which 
 the Gospel had not been promulgated. See the note 
 supra ver. 15. 
 
 24—29. Here (Theophyl. remarks,) there may 
 appear an inconsequence, but there is, in fact, none. 
 For, after having said, “ I am a minister of the Gos- 
 pel, from which I conjure you not to swerve,” he 
 shows, that so true is this, that he even suffers for it, 
 nay even rejoices in his sufferings, especially as being 
 calculated for their benefits. Here St. Paul, as in 
 other Epistles sent from Rome, when in captivity, 
 introduces a mention of his bonds. This was, in the 
 present case, suggested by the word διάκονον, that re- 
 calling to his mind the cause for which he was suf- 
 fering this misery, of which he felt proud, and which 
 was the source of great joy; since his doctrines 
 were calculated to reform the morals of, and to con- 
 fer temporal and eternal happiness on all who em- 
 braced them. | 
 
 24. νῦν χαίρω ἐν τοῖς παθήμασί μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, ‘* Now 
 I rejoice at these my sufferings (which are thus) for 
 you, and your benefit.” Kal ἀνταναπληρώ---αὐτοῦ. 
 Heinr. would take the καὶ for kai γὰρ, But this is 
 too arbitrary. The Apostle seems to have intended 
 the χαίρω to be here understood for χαίρω ἀναπλη- 
 pov, “I rejoice, I say, at filling up,” &c. As to 
 ἀνταναπλ., it is regarded by almost all modern Com- 
 mentators as put for the simple ἀναπλ. But this is 
 a principle which I am always slow to admit, espe- 
 pecially in writers so little pleonastic as St. Paul. 
 
QQ COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 
 
 Such pleonasms (as I have before observed) are 
 usually to be ascribed to our ignorance. Perhaps 
 the ἀνα may signify vicissim, on my part. See Wolt’s 
 Cure. The verb ἀνταναπλ. is somewhat rare ; yet 
 it has been adduced from some of the later Greek 
 writers by Alberti and Wets. 
 
 The words following τὰ ὑστερήματα are very ener- 
 getic, and to be ascribed to the high wrought feel- 
 ings of the Apostle on a subject so interesting to 
 him. In considering them, the antients and the 
 early moderns have (I think) taken a far more cor- 
 rect view than the recent Commentators (whose 
 speculations will be found in Heinr.). See Chrys., 
 Theophyl., Qacumen., and Theodoret, from whom 
 Whitby remarks, that ‘Christ having told usthat what 
 is done to his members, is done to him, Matt. 25, 40 
 and 45, the afflictions of his members are styled the 
 persecutions and afflictions of Christ, Acts 9, 4 & 5.” 
 «© Now the Jews (continues he) speak much of the 
 afflictions of Christ and his disciples, comprehend- 
 ing both under the name of want san, the afflic- 
 tions of the Messiah.” ‘The Apostle (as Doddr. ob- 
 serves) could not mean that the sufferings of Christ 
 were imperfect as to that fulness of atonement which 
 was necessary to the justification of believers (or re- 
 quire, as the Romanists say, the addition of the suf- 
 ferings of the saints, Edit.) ; but he deeply retained 
 in his mind the impression of that first lesson which 
 he had from his Saviour’s mouth, viz. that he was 
 persecuted in his members (Acts 9, 4.); he therefore 
 considers it as the plan of Providence, that a certain 
 measure of sufferings should be endured by this 
 body, of which Christ was the Head; and he re- 
 joices to think that what he endured in Ais own per- 
 son was congruous to that wise and gracious scheme.” 
 See also Mackn. 
 
 25. κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν---μᾶς. The Apostle now 
 drops the image by which the Church is compared 
 to a body, and uses terms suited to a house, to which 
 indeed the Church is compared in 1 Tim. 3, 15. 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 25 
 
 Now over this house God presides as supreme οἰκόνο- 
 μος (οἰκονομία Θεοῦ), but also commits this οἰκονομία to 
 others, as here to Paul (τὴν δοθεῖσαν pos), and these 
 are called διακόνοι. (Heinr.) 
 
 The sense is, ‘‘according to the dispensation of 
 God given unto me.” Eis suas, “ for your benefit.” 
 This is put instead of a dativus commodi. Or (with 
 Heinr.) it may be construed with πληρώσαι, which 
 must have εἰς τὸ supplied. Many Commentators 
 take πληρῶσαι in the sense διδάσκειν. But it imports 
 something more, namely, fud/y teach and promul- 
 gate; as Rom. 15,19.* ‘The antients rightly consi- 
 dered this as having reference to that fuller instruc- 
 tion which the Gentiles needed. 
 
 27. οἷς ἠθέλησεν -- ἔθνεσιν, “to whom God was 
 pleased to make known what are the glorious riches 
 and preciousness of this mystery among the Hea- 
 thens.” ‘The ἠθελ. indicates (as Theophyl. observes) 
 the good pleasure of God in making it known to 
 whom he will. One cannot but notice, with Theo- 
 phyl., the exuberance (éy«os) of the phraseology with 
 which St. Paul expatiates on this interesting point. 
 Thus the terms πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης, which signify richly 
 gloricus, are highly impressive. 
 
 Some recent Commentators, as Heinr. and Ro- 
 senm., take the és for 6, and refer it to μυστήριον. It 
 is usually referred to πλοῦτον, which seems prefer- 
 able: but it may refer to both, by the πρὸς τὸ σημαιν., 
 though only accommodated in gender to one. So 
 Theophyl.: ἐρμηνεύων τί τὸ πλοῦτος, καὶ τί τὸ μυστή- 
 ριον, ὃ Χριστὸς, Φησὶν, ἥτοι ἡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ γνώσις, ὃς ἐστιν 
 ἐν ἡμίν. 
 
 The words following are added, Theophyl. ob- 
 serves, μετὰ ἐγκωμίων, and in order thereby to draw 
 them from angel-worship. Χριστὸς is by Theoph. well 
 explained the κ τοῦ Χριστοῦ γνώσις, the Christian doc- 
 
 * So Rosenm. explains it, ‘“ perfecté et cum prospero successu 
 docere, que plenior institutio in eo erat, quod Gentiles etiam ad so- 
 cietatem Christianam admittendos et perducendos esse doceret.”’ 
 
Q4, COLOSSIANS, CHAP, 1. 
 
 trine. The μυστήριον is explained by Theodoret, 
 * that the heathens sitting in darkness have received 
 the riches of divine knowledge, the φιλοτιμίαν τὴν τῆς 
 δόξης. The éamis τῆς δόξης is explained by the recent 
 Commentators the cause of the hope of. But I pre- 
 fer, with the antients, to take ἔλπ. τ. 3. for τὴν προσ- 
 δοκωμένην δόξαν. Of course, δόξ. denotes the felicity 
 laid up for Christians in heaven. 
 
 28. νουθετοῦντες πάντα, ἄνθρωπον, καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα 
 ἄνθρωπον, ** whom, (i. 6. his doctrine,) we preach and 
 promulgate, admonishing every man (of whatever 
 nation) of its claim to attention, and teaching every 
 man who attends to the admonition, the duties it en- 
 joins.” Such appears to be the true sense; for I 
 cannot think with some recent Commentators, that 
 the terms νουθετ. and διδάσκ. are synonymous. Even 
 Heinr. acknowledges that the former may relate to 
 the morals, and the latter to the understanding. So 
 Theophyl.: Νοήσεις δὲ νουθεσίαν μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς πράξεως" 
 διδασκαλίαν δὲ ἐπὶ δογματών. The πάντα is thought 
 to be emphatic, and ἄνθρωπον to be put for men, i. 6. 
 men of every nation. Others take ἄνθρ. to denote 
 man. But perhaps in the Hellenistic and popular 
 style πάντα ἄνθρωπον may be merely a stronger ex- 
 pression than τινα. 
 
 The words πάντα ἄνθρωπον after 613. are omitted in 
 several antient MSS., some Fathers, Versions, and 
 early Editions; perhaps rightly: but this is a ques- 
 tion of no easy determination. 
 
 28. ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ. in all wisdom. See the note su- 
 pra ver. 9 and infra 2, 3. ‘Theophyl. explains this not 
 only of that of the Scriptures, but of the art of rea- 
 soning and a knowledge of Greek literature. Παρα- 
 στήσωμεν, present; as courtiers do any one to a so- 
 vereign, or great man. See supra ver. 22. Τέλειον ἐν 
 Χριστῷ, 1. 6. (as the best Commentators explain) 
 « possessed of a perfect knowledge of Christ and the 
 Gospel, and exercised in the duties it enjoins.” “ It 
 must be observed (says Photius) that such was his 
 object ; if few comparatively would listen to his ex- 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. II. 25 
 
 hortations, and still fewer put them in practice to 
 the extent he wished, it was not his fault.” Some 
 recognize in rapacr. and τέλιον sacrificial metaphors. 
 But this is perhaps too fanciful. 
 
 29. εἰς ὃ καὶ κοπιώ, ἀγωνιϑόμιενος----ἐν δυνάμει. These 
 are very strong terms; and the passage may be thus 
 rendered: ‘ For which (purpose) also I strenuously 
 labour, according to His energy who operates in me 
 powerfully.” The é&ywug. (which is an agonistical 
 term) is intensive of the κοπιώ. See 1 Tim. 4, 10., 
 and on the whole verse compare Phil. 4, 13. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Ceasing to speak of himself, the Apostle now turns to the Colos- 
 sians, admonishing them to abide constantly by the pure and ge- 
 nuine Christian instructions which they had received from Epaphras, 
 and not suffer themselves to be led away by any of the preposterous 
 inventions of fraudulent teachers. An admonition, on account of 
 the many errors of doctrine with which they were carried to and 
 fro (see Prolegomena), especially necessary. Now this the Apostle 
 urges with the greater warmth, as he had not himself instructed 
 them (any more than the Laodiceans, Hieropolitans, &c.), and with 
 his admonitions he now and then mixes detestations of those adver- 
 saries who were striving to lead them away from the true path of 
 Christ. This disputation extends to the end of the chapter, and 
 proceeds in the following order: 1. It has given me much pain to 
 hear how you are carried away with false opinions, and certainly 
 there is nothing I more earnestly wish, than that you, and all whom 
 I have not been able to admonish and instruct in person, may be con- 
 firmed in the doctrine of Christ, so infinitely more sublime than all 
 human inventions, ver. 1—3. 2. Do not, then, commit yourselves 
 to those wily persons, but keep firm and eonstant to Christ, ver. 
 4—S. 3. For he is worthy of being embraced, and his transcend- 
 ent merits ever held in reverence and admiration, ver. 9—15. 
 Henceforth shun every thing that is abhorrent to the pure doctrine 
 of this Teacher, ver. 16—fin. (Hein.) 
 
 Verse 1. θέλω γὰρ---Λαοδικείᾳ. The yap has re- 
 ference to the ἀγωνιϑόμιενος in the preceding verse, 
 and (as Rosenm. observes) it suggests a reason why 
 the Colossians should remain constant in the per- 
 formance of their Christian duties. ἩἩλίκον ἀγῶνα 
 
 ἔχω. These words (which are explained by Theoph. 
 
26 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 ἀγωνιῶ περὶ ὑμῶν) express the strong solicitude of the 
 Apostle with respect to the Colossians and Laodi- 
 cans, especially on account of the dangers they 
 were in from the arts of wily seducers, and seem to 
 imply a desire of seeing them, to avert that danger. 
 
 On Laodicea, the capital of Phrygia Pacatiana, 
 see Strabo, Pliny, and the other authorities adduced 
 by Wets. 
 
 1. καὶ ὅσοι οὐχ ἑωρακάσι τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί. 
 These words are well paraphrased by Theodoret : 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων τών μηδέπω με τεθεαμένων. ‘The 
 expression éwp. τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκὶ is a mere 
 Hebraism, which ought not to be too much pressed 
 upon. The ὅσοι, &c. signifies, “ and as many other 
 churches in your province as have not yet seen me.” 
 It is well observed by Theoph., that the Apostle adds 
 Laodiczea and others, to spare their feelings in the 
 censures he has to introduce. 
 
 2. ἵνα παρακληθώσιν αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν. Some Com- 
 mentators interpret the παρακλ. of consolation ; 
 others, of admonition. Much may be said in support 
 of either interpretation. _ddmonition and confir- 
 mation would be necessary to produce that comfort 
 and tranquillity which had been interrupted by the 
 dissensions introduced by rival teachers; to which 
 purpose it was necessary συμβιβάξειν, “to bring them 
 together,” and thus close up the schism. On cup. 
 see the note on Eph. 4, 16.* For συμβιβασθέντων 
 some MSS. read συμβιβασθέντες. Both expressions 
 are anomalous, but the common one seems the more 
 genuine, as being the harsher. MHeinr. says it may 
 be resolved into ive συμβιβασθῶσιν. But αὐτῶν might 
 rather be repeated. ‘The irregularity arose from the 
 Apostle’s saying “ their hearés,” for they. 
 
 The ἐν ἀγάπη is said to be for dv ἀγάπης, as show- 
 ing the bond by which all, being reconciled and 
 
 * Of this sense of the word Wets. has numerous examples; as 
 Thucyd. 8, 29. ξυνεβίβασε δὲ τὸν Περδίκκαν τοῖς ἀθηναίοις. Herod. 
 1,74. οἱ δὲ συμβιβάσαντες αὐτοὺς ἔσαν οἴδε. Dio Exc. p. 617. 
 ἐπέμφη γὰρ ὡς συμβιβάσων αὐτοὺς τοῖς ὁμοχώροι----διαφερομένους. 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. oF 
 
 brought together, might resist the attacks of adver- 
 saries. 
 
 2. καὶ εἰς πάντα πλοῦτον τῆς πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσεως. 
 Heinr. remarks, that as ἐν has shown the instrument, 
 so εἰς denotes the scope and end to which they were 
 to be united, namely, that their minds might be im- 
 bued with knowledge far more elevated than the 
 false teachers devised. And in order to heighten 
 the δεινότης, he, instead of εἰς πάντα Or εἰς πλήρη συν- 
 σιν, says εἰς πληροφορίαν τῆς συνέσεως, and, what 
 is yet more, εἰς πάντα πλοῦτον τῆς πληροφορίας τῆς συνέ- 
 σεως. Then, by apposition, he at εἰς erry. τοῦ μυσ- 
 τηρίου adds the cause for which he could ascribe πλουτ. 
 and πληροῷ. to Christian knowledge, namely, inas- 
 much as it leads us to understand the μυστήριον, or 
 divine decree for blessing men by Christ, hitherto 
 hidden. See supra 1, 26. As an example of πλοῦτος 
 in the above sense I would cite Jambl. de V. Pyth. 
 § 67. πραπίδων πλοῦτον. 
 
 ᾿Επίγνωσις signifies here, as often, an exacter know- 
 ledge. 
 
 2. καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. From the diversity 
 of readings found in the MSS., the Critics are inclined 
 to regard the whole clause as spurious. A conclu- 
 sion as rash and groundless as such usually are. The 
 true reading it is neither very easy nor very mate- 
 rial to determine. On these words see Wolf’s Cure 
 and especially Whitby. 
 
 3. ἐν ᾧ εἰσι πάντες---ἀπόκρυφοι. It is strange that 
 many recent Commentators should refer the ἐν # to 
 μυστηρίου ; which method, indeed, yields a tolerable 
 sense, but (as Wolf observes) not so good a one as 
 arises by referring it to Χριστοῦ, with the antients and 
 most moderns, and recently Heinrichs. It respects 
 (as Whitby observes) the person of Christ as Media- 
 tor, the knowledge of whom, the Apostle says, hath an 
 excellency beyond all other knowledge, Philip. 3, 8. 
 for ἐν ὦ περετμήθητε, t in whom ye are circumcised, ver. 
 11. and ἐν ᾧ, in whom ye are risen again, ver. 12. 
 plainly relate to Christ’s person and his merits as Me- 
 
28 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 diator; and the whole of the following chapter treats 
 of him, and of the benefits we have received ἐν αὐτῷ 
 by him. ‘The Apostle also applies this to him by say- 
 ing (ver. 6.) as you received the Lord Jesus Christ, so 
 walk in him ; and by warning us against the deceit of 
 vain philosophy, because in Him dwelleth all the 
 Sulness of the Godhead.” Heinr. however takes Xg¢. | 
 to, signify the doctrine of Christ; which, (Whitby 
 observes, ) will make no great difference, since these 
 hidden treasures of Christ’s widom are revealed to 
 us by his Gospel only, and thence alone we obtain 
 all our knowledge of him as our Mediator, and of all 
 the offices he sustains as such. 
 
 8. οἱ θησαυροὶ τὴς σοφίας καὶ τῆς γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι. 
 A similitude taken from ἃ money-chest, from whence 
 the cash is taken when needed. See Macc. 1, 24. 
 Oyo. denotes (as Theophyl. remarks) the abundance 
 of the knowledge; and the πάντες its boundlessness. 
 The ἀπόκρ., too implies that he alone knoweth, and 
 therefore from Him we are to seek wisdom and know- 
 ledge. The ἐν ᾧ, too, denotes his self-derived wis- 
 dom and knowledge.* 
 
 4. τοῦτο δὲ λέγω---πιθανολογίᾳ. In the preceding 
 verse there seems to be an allusion to the false 
 teachers; as appears plainly from the present verse, 
 which is introduced by the formula τοῦτο λέγω, which 
 always imports an injunction to great attention. 
 Here, however, it has a somewhat different sense; 
 and λέγω seems to be a vox preegnans; 64. d. “ This 
 I say, meaning that,” &c. LTlapaaoyig. is a word 
 often used in the Classical writers; and joined with 
 ἐξαπατᾷν and other similar words ; it signifies to de- 
 ceive and circumvent, to come round (παρὰ) any one 
 by false pretences, and, in a general way, to deceive ; 
 
 * As the philological Commentators adduce nothing on these 
 words, the following passages may be acceptable. Eurip. Alcest. 
 6,14. Wakef. ἐν rots ἀγάθοισι δὲ παντ᾽ ἐνέστι σοφίας (Swpa). I 
 must also subjoin (what is singular) an imitation (for such I take 
 it to be) of this passage by the Apostate Julian, in his Hymn in So- 
 lem 2. ἀναλάβοντι σοφίας ἄνοιξαι θησαύρους. 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 29 
 
 as here, for πιθαναλογία is added, which signifies a 
 specious and taking sort of address, adapted to per- 
 suade and bring over those with whom it is employed. 
 Theophyl. explains: Ti yap εἰ πιθανῶς λέγει; οὐδὲν 
 οἷδε, παραλογισμός ἐστι TO πᾶν, Kal σοφίσματα. Ο this 
 term may be compared the similar one χρηστολογία 
 at Rom. 16,18. Loesner aptly cites Philo 4, 14. C. 
 οἵτινες ὐήθησαν σοφίαν πιθάνων εἶναι λόγων εὕρεσιν, ἀλλ᾽ 
 οὐ πραγμάτων ἀληθεστάτην πίστιν" and 888 Ε. τὴν τῶν 
 λύγων πιθανότητα. 
 
 Rosenm. thinks these deceivers were persons who 
 mingled together Judaism and Oriental philosophy. 
 
 5. εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ ἄπειμι, ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι σὺν 
 ὑμῖν εἰμι. Compare a similar sentiment at 1 Cor. 
 5, 3. where see the note. ᾿Αλλὰ, yet; as 2 Cor. 11, 
 6. 13, 9. 
 
 5. χαίρων καὶ βλέπων. An Hendiadis for, “ rejoicing 
 while 1 see.” So Joseph. Bell. 3, 9, 2. (cited by 
 Wets.) ὑμᾶς πρὸς τὸ παρὸν εὖ ἔχοντας χαίρω καὶ βλέπω. 
 and Galen: ἴδων καὶ χαίρων. Τὴν τάξιν ὑμῶν, © your 
 order. and regularity,” εὐταξίαν (as Theophyl. ex- 
 plains). A military metaphor generally implying 
 discipline, obedience, and constancy. So here, Heinr. 
 thinks, it may have reference to subordination and 
 obedience to the superior teachers, the order with 
 which every thing was done (as in 1 Cor. 14, 40.) ; 
 also the regular management of the funds for the 
 relief of the poor ; and especially constancy in ad- 
 hering to the faith of Christ.” ‘This last particular, 
 however, does not seem adverted to in these words; 
 but it is so especially in the words following, καὶ 
 τὸ στερέωμα τὴς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ὑμῶν. 
 
 6. ὡς οὖν παρελάβετε τὸν X. “I. τ. Κὶ., ἐν αὐτῷ περι- 
 πατεῖτε, ““Α5, therefore, ye have received the doc- 
 trine of Christ, walk, continue in it, and by it regu- 
 late your whole conduct.” ᾿Παραλαμβ. is used of 
 teaching of every kind, both oral, and by letter. 
 See 1 Cor. 11, 23. &c. Περιπατεῖν, as Heinr. re- 
 marks, here denotes not merely the habitual regula- 
 
30 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IT. 
 
 tion of the life, but continuance in doctrine; since 
 the whole chapter is not ethical, but doctrinal. 
 
 7. ἐῤῥιθωμιένοι καὶ ἐποικοδομιούμιενοι, ““ rooted and 
 well founded* in it;” as Jude 90. Both these ex- 
 pressions are explained by the βεβαιούμενοι. See the 
 note on the parallel passage of Eph. 8,17. Heinr. 
 observes, that καθὼς ἐδιδ. must be closely connected 
 with πίστει ; and περισσεύοντες ἐν αὐτῇ ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ, 
 imports a progressive increase in faith and in per- 
 formance of good works, as the fruits of it.” But 
 the former seems all that is here intended; and σὺν 
 εὐχαριστία signifies “with thankfulness to God for 
 your conversion.” See 1, 12. and Ps. 100, 4. 
 
 8. βλέπετε μὴ τις---ἀπάτης, ““ See, mind lest.” So 
 Matt. 24, 4. βλέπετε μὴ τις ὑμᾶς πλανώση. The verb 
 in this sense has usually after it a negative particle, 
 oran ἀπὸ. Ἔσται 6 συλαγωγῶν, is said to be for 
 συλαγωγῇ, perhaps by a sort of Hebraism. Yet there 
 seems more of energy and emphasis. Συλαγωγεῖν 
 signifies literally to carry off spoils or booty. Making a 
 spoil of you may therefore import either, “treating you 
 as things to be sacked, and spoiling your Christian 
 goods ;” or, ‘* carrying you away with them, as the 
 sacker carries off the inhabitants as a booty.” The 
 former seems preferable. Theophyl. thinks (as also 
 Douneus) that there is an allusion to a thief who 
 privily digs his way into a house, and steals the 
 property. 
 
 8. διὰ τὴς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης. This is con- 
 sidered by most Commentators as an hendiadis, for 
 ** sophistical and fallacious philosophy.”+ For the 
 
 * Like the immense stones without cement which formed the 
 foundations of the edifices of the antients. See the note on Eph. 
 3, 17., to which may be added a passage of Demophilus, cited by 
 Bulkley on Joh. 15, 5. Ριξωθέντες ἐκ Θεοῦ καὶ φυέντες, ἃς, Having 
 been rooted and sprung up from God, let us adhere to our root ; 
 for like streams of water divided from their fountain, so the plants 
 of the earth, cut off from their root, soon become withered, dry, 
 and rotten.” 
 
 1 The same interpretation is adopted by Schoettg., who has here 
 along and able annotation. Grot. observes, that the Apostle uses 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. $1 
 
 Apostle (they say) does not absolutely condemn 
 philosophy, but κατὰ τι, comparate, i.e. out of its 
 proper limits, and exercised upon matters which 
 exceed its comprehension. But I rather apprehend 
 that the Apostle means to censure the Grecian phi- 
 losophy in general, which was altogether hostile to 
 the Gospel, and could by no means be mixed with 
 it, but to the detriment of the latter; especially 
 since (as Heinr. observes) the term φιλοσοφία also 
 denoted what we call religion, and is applied as such 
 by Josephus and Philo to the Jewish religion. 
 
 As to the persons here meant, some (as Whitby 
 observes) fix on Simon Magus and the Gnostics. 
 Others, on the Jewish Doctors, who then mixed the 
 philosophy of the Heathens with their ceremonial 
 worship, and had learned to allegorize it. Others, 
 again, divide the matter between Jews and Gentiles. 
 “That the Jewish Doctors (continues he) are, in a 
 great measure, adverted to, appears from ver. 14—16. 
 This indeed seems the key of the following, which, 
 may be distributed into two heads: 1. Cautions 
 against the seductions of the Jews zealous for ob- 
 servation of their rites and ceremonies; 2. against 
 the seductions of the Heathens by their vain philo- 
 sophy dressed up by them anew, both as to its doc- 
 trines and morals, and set off with the most specious 
 pretences, styled here πιθανολογία, enticing speech.” 
 See also Mackn. and especially Wolf’s Cure. 
 
 On the στοιχεία τοῦ κόσμου, see the note on Gal. 
 4, 3. 
 
 9. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν TO πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος 
 σωματικῶς. 
 
 The connexion is thus traced by Whitby : “ (of which philosophy 
 ye can have no need) since,” &c. But this seems too arbitrary. It may 
 
 φιλοσοφ. because it was the received term; but by adding τῆς 
 κενῆς ἁπατῆς he expresses its real nature; since it deceived many 
 by professing to be what it was not, and promising what it did not 
 perform. So that though the knowledge of it was not of itself 
 bad, yet it was dangerous ; and certainly after the Jews had studiec 
 philosophy, their antient doctrines were much corrupted, 
 
32 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 be more closely traced thus: ‘ (And yet their philosophizing ought 
 to be κατὰ Χριστὸν; as being Christians,) for in him dwelleth,” ἃς, 
 
 On the sense of the words the antient and modern interpreters 
 exceedingly differ. The antients and earlier moderns recognise in 
 them a strong evidence of the Deity of Christ; and they assign the 
 following sense: ‘‘in whom the whole fulness of deity substantially 
 dwells.” Of σωματικῶς there have been,even among the orthodox, three 
 interpretations, which are thus stated by Wolf: 1. corporally, so that 
 the body of Christ as a subject of habitation be signified ; 2. truly, 
 as indicating the mode of habitation; 3. substantially. The first 
 is supported by Theodoret, Gicumen., and many moderns. The 
 second is modified by some, so as to mean solidly, really, in oppo- 
 sition to types and shadows. So Glass, Hamm.,* Hackspan, Vi- 
 tringa, and most Lutherans. The third interpretation is supported 
 by many antients, Thus Theophyl.: τουτέστιν, οὐκ ἐστιν évepyeia 
 τις, ἀλλὰ οὐσία Kal ws σωματωθεὶς Kai μία ἀπόστασις ὧν μετὰ TOU 
 προσλήμματος. Ἡ καὶ οὕτω, κατὰ τὸν ἄγιον Κυριλλον, ὡς ἂν ἐν 
 σώματι ἐνοικήσῃ ψυχή ἐνοικεῖ δὲ αὔτη σώματι οὐσιωδῶς καὶ ἀδιαι- 
 ρέτως, καὶ ἀφυτῶς, substantially, or personally. And so Bochart and 
 Suic., Thes, 2,1217. Wolf (rightly I think) is of opinion that all 
 three interpretations (so that the word Θεὸς be taken of the nature 
 of Christ) are so far from being adverse, that they are reconcilable, 
 and arise one out of another. ‘Thus (continues he) the divine 
 nature of Christ (or the Adyos) is said to dwell; which necessarily 
 supposes a sulject for indwelling, and such is the body, or human 
 nature of Christ. In that the λόγος dwelt, not by shadow, appear- 
 ance, or figure, but truly and in presence. And if so, then not 
 only ἐνεργητικῶς and effectively, but in substance and essence.”’ 
 
 The above seems, upon the whole, a correct representation of the 
 sense. It is observed by Whitby, that the Apostle does not directly 
 say, that Christ is God, but expresses his divine nature thus, partly 
 to represent to the Jews the divinity of Christ, with allusion to the 
 God of Israel dwelling in the Temple, partly to oppose him to the 
 πλήρωμα Of the Gnostics, and to the partial deities of the Heathens.” 
 
 We may (I think) conclude, with Whitby (adopting the words of 
 the Council of Antioch), that the body born of the Virgin, receiving 
 the whole fulness of the godhead bodily, was immutably united to 
 the divinity, and deified, which made the same person, Jesus Christ, 
 
 * His words are these: “ In Christ the deity dwells in fulness, 
 so as nothing could be added to it, and so in him bodily, that is, as 
 the sun dwells in the firmament, where the body of it is. The 
 whole divine nature is not only in part, but fully, without absence 
 of any part of it, in Christ; and that not by a species, or image only, 
 but really and substantially: and so consequently, (which is the 
 thing here designed to be proved by it) the will of God must be 
 supposed to be so revealed in Christ or by Christ, that there can be 
 no need of any addition from the Heathen philosophy, or from the 
 Jewish law.” 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 33 
 
 both God and ‘man.” Or (to use the words of Doddr.), as the 
 passage contains an evident allusion to the Shechinah in which God 
 dwelt, so it ultimately refers to the adorable mystery of the union of 
 the divine and human natures, in the person of the glorious Emma- 
 nuel, which makes him such an object of our hope and confidence, 
 as the most exalted creature with the most glorious endowments 
 could never of himself be.” Yet, strange to say, most interpreters 
 for the last century have taken up expositions which approximate 
 more or less to the Arian heresy, or even that of Socinus hiniself, 
 regarding the words as merely signifying that God hath lodged 
 in the hands of Christ a fullness of gifts to be conferred upon men ; 
 or, as only referring to his complete knowledge of the divine will. 
 But there is so little ground for either opinion, that I may be held 
 excused from detailing them, or the chiefarguments brought against 
 them. The former may be found in Heinr. and Rosenm., and the 
 latter in pe and Mackn., or in the abstracts of Mr. Slade. 
 
 10. καὶ ἐστε ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι, “ And (so) ye 
 are complete i in him, in all knowledge necessary to 
 salvation.” The interpretation, hoon of πεπλ. 
 will depend upon that adopted in the foregoing 
 verse. 
 
 10. ὃς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀοχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας. This 
 is to be understood as said emphatically, and with 
 reference to some others in whom the _ heretics 
 thought part of the power was vested. So Simon 
 Magus and Corinthus, a statement of whose notions 
 on this subject | may be seen in Whitby. 
 
 11. ἐν ᾧ καὶ περιετμήθητε περιτομῇ ἀχειροποιήτῳ. 
 The ἐν is for 3, by. We have here a popular mode of 
 expression for, ‘by him ye have obtained a circum- 
 cision not made with hands and corporeal, but spiri- 
 tual, and consisting in the putting off the sins of the 
 body and the flesh, even by the circumcision (enjoin- 
 ed) of Christ.” As the circumcision Heieanofanes is op- 
 posed to that ἐπ the flesh (see Eph. 2, 11. .)» urged by 
 the false teachers, so is the circumcision ἀχειροποίητος 
 that of the heart, and divinely effected, (which is 
 spoken of in Rom. 2, 29), and of which even the 
 Prophets of the Old Testament make mention. See 
 Deut. 30, 6. Jer. 9, 26. 
 
 11. ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τ. σ. τ. & τ. σ. Heinr. observes, 
 that as ἐνδύσαι signified close connection with, so did 
 ἀπεκδύσαι denote the complete laying aside ‘of any 
 
 VOL. VIII. D 
 
34 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 thing, as of a garment (See Eph. 4, 22.); a meta- 
 phor derived, as Schoettg. thinks, from the Hebr. 
 won. By σώμα τῆς σαρκὸς is meant, “the body, 
 which indulges in the corrupt desires so natural to 
 it.” The words τών ἀμαρτιών, if genuine, (though 
 they are omitted in many MSS., Versions, and Fa- 
 thers, are by Matthzi admitted to savour of a gloss, 
 and are cancelled by Greisb.), have the force of an 
 adjective. It is plain that to put off this body of sin 
 signifies, ‘no longer to employ it for sinful pur- 
 poses;” which putting off'is compared to circumci- 
 sion, since thereby sin is mortified, and cut out, and 
 the principle of sin being kept under, we attain unto 
 purity and holiness of life. 
 
 12. συνταῷέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῴ βαπτίσματι. The 
 Apostle illustrates the reformation and purity re- 
 quired of Christians by a fresh image; though em- 
 ployed on other occasions, as in Rom. 6, 3. seqq. 
 where see the notes. On the sense of cuveyeip. see 
 the note on Eph. 2, 5 & 6. 
 
 13. καὶ ὑμᾶς, νεκροὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς παραπτώμασι. The 
 same moral reformation is now represented by an- 
 other and more forcible figure, similar to the former, 
 but not to be confounded with it. (Heinr.) Here 
 are enumerated other benefits received by Christians 
 from Christ. ‘There is the same sentiment, and in 
 almost the same words, at Eph. 2, 1—5., where see 
 the note. Before ἀκροβυστίᾳ must be repeated ἐν. 
 The sense is: ‘because of that prepuce which is 
 evil concupiscence.” Now this they had cast away 
 on becoming Christians. (ver. 11.) Ἢ ἀκροβυστία 
 τῆς σαρκὸς, may also signify ‘‘the state of a Heathen;” 
 for he who has the prepuce, is a Heathen; α. d. 
 ἐς miserable were you because of the heathenism in 
 which you lived.” (Rosenm.) The former interpre- 
 tation seems preferable. See Slade. 
 
 Ἡμῖν, which is found in the best MSS., Versions, 
 and Fathers, and is received by the recent Editors, is 
 undoubtedly the true reading, not from the strength 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 35 
 
 of MS. authority, (which, in such minutia, is little or 
 none), but because the words following require it. 
 
 It has been observed, by Whitby, that baptism 
 being:a rite of initiation to Christians, as circumcision 
 was to the Jews, it may be inferred that ‘* baptism 
 is Christ’s ordinance for infants of believing parents, 
 as circumcision was of old to the infants of the Jews.” 
 See much more in that Commentator. 
 
 14, ἐξαλείψας---τῷ σταυρώ. 
 
 The general scope of the Apostle in these words is sufficiently 
 plain ; but to determine the exact construction is not so easy. This 
 passage may, I think, be reckoned among the δυσγνόητα of the 
 Apostle, mentioned by St. Peter, on which more light is to be 
 desired, though little to be expected. Upon the whole, we must be 
 content with discerning the general sense, and not stumble at some 
 confusion of metaphor. Some assistance towards its illustration, 
 Rosenm. says, has been rendered by Noesselt in two Prolusions on 
 this subject in his Exerc. Script. p. 212—253. Yet I cannot find 
 any thing οὗ much importance and truth, that had not been already 
 discerned by former Commentators. 
 
 ᾿Ἐξαλείψας. This simply signifies having annulled: but there is 
 (I think) an allusion, not, as most Commentators think, to the 
 “* crossing out an account in a tradesman’s book,” or the “ blotting 
 out or defacing a writing or bond (see Athen. ap. Wets.),” but to 
 “ the abrogating of any law by painting over the tablet on which 
 it was written.” So Lysias, cited by Rosenm.: τοὺς μὲν (νόμους) 
 évéypadge, τοὺς δὲ ἐξαλείφεν. I would observe that ἐξαλείφω in the 
 physical sense, paint over, occurs in Thucyd. 3, 22. Levit. 14, 42 
 & 48. 1 Par. 29,9. See also Pollux 7, 124., and Eustathius. 
 
 14. τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμών χειρόγραφον. The yeigoypud. pro- 
 perly denoted a bond, obligation, syngrapha: but 
 from a comparison of the parallel passage of Eph. 
 2, 15.it appears to mean a writing generally. Yet 
 there is an allusion to its primitive sense; since, as 
 Theophyl. observes, the law was an ἰδιόγραφον made 
 with Moses, to which the Israelites bound themselves 
 in the following words, Ex. 19, 8. πάντα ὅσα ὁ Θεὸς 
 εἶπε ποιησόμεθα. 
 
 At doypa0o1some would understand σὺν ς but others 
 (more properly I think) ἐν; as in the parallel pas- 
 sage of Ephesians. Τοῖς δόγμασι is put, populariter, 
 for ὃ ἦν δόγμ. The καθ᾽ ἡμών is passed over by some 
 Translators ; by others rendered with respect to, or 
 
 D2 
 
36 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 concerning. Our Common Version has “ against 
 us,’ which may be admitted, so that the sense be 
 that by which we familiarly say, “ I have an account 
 against you.” By the ddyp. are undoubtedly meant 
 the ordinances, statutes, and external rites of the 
 ceremonial law. Thus the Law of Moses is termed 
 γράμμω at 2 Cor. 3, 6. 
 
 The words ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν are explained by 
 Noesselt, Rosenm., and Schleus. (and, indeed, for- 
 merly by Vorst., Grot., and Pierce), as signifying, 
 which law was the cause of disagreement between 
 Jews and Gentiles.”* But I see not how ἡμῖν can 
 mean us Gentiles ; and the above interpretation of 
 ὑπεναντίον seems to be somewhat violent and preca- 
 rious. Neither, however, am 1 satisfied with the 
 common interpretation, “ burdensome to us,” which 
 sense cannot well be elicited from the term. 
 
 The phrase ἤρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου is sufficiently plain, 
 and appears to be a Latinism. 
 
 14. προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ. The force and 
 scope of the metaphor here is difficult to be deter- 
 mined. The best Commentators are agreed that 
 there is an allusion to the antient custom by which 
 decrees, or writings in general, were cancelled, by 
 having a nail drove through them. ‘They therefore 
 render: ‘ nailing it to his cross, and by this, man- 
 gling the χειρόγραφον, annulling it.” And this is very 
 agreeable to the general use of προσηλόω. For, be- 
 sides Lucian and Demosth. (cited by Wets.), it is 
 used of nailing a person to the cross in Joseph. 
 1247, 30. προσήλουν δὲ----τοὺς drovras. Some, indeed, 
 
 * See Noesselt ap. Rosenm. Whitby, too, explains it not very 
 differently, as being a middle wall of partition, hindering them from 
 coming to God, and putting an enmity between them and God's 
 people, ver. 14 & 15., which Christ hath taken away by abolishing 
 and dissolving the obligation of it, and admitting the Gentiles as 
 fellow-heirs of the same promises and blessings with the Jews with- 
 out it; or it is contrary to us, as being the ministration of death and 
 condemnation, 2 Cor. 3,7 & 9. 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 37 
 
 as Theophyl., take τῷ σταυρῷ for ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ, “ by 
 his cross,” which yields a far preferable sense, but I 
 see not how this can be permitted by the words, 
 for the Dative τῷ σταυρῷ must be governed of πρὸς. 
 
 15. ἀπεκδυσάμιενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας ἐδειγ- 
 μάτισεν. Here it is, 4thly, ascribed to Christ’s me- 
 rits, that by the total vanquishment of the enemies 
 of Christianity he hath made our Christian course 
 easy, and our passage safe. (Heinrichs.) 
 
 The terms are all military, and derived from a 
 triumph over a conquered enemy, namely, by strip- 
 ping them of arms, vestments, &c. Heinrichs cites 
 Plut. Lucull. 514. ἐκδύσαι rots βασιλεῖς. Rosenm. 
 thinks that the middle has here no force, zmproprie. 
 But it isso used in Plut. 2, 173. (cited by Wets.) 
 ἔταξεν μαστιγοῦσθαι ἀποδυσαμένων τὰ ἱμάτια. Some 
 (with far less probability) take it for an agonistical 
 metaphor. 
 
 But who are meant by the apy. and efouc.? Most 
 recent Commentators (after Kypke) think, the de- 
 fenders of the χειρόγραφον just before mentioned, (1. 6. 
 the Mosaic Law), which was the greatest hindrance 
 to the propagation of the Christian religion ; namely, 
 the Jewish rulers and magistrates. (See Whitby 
 and Rosenm.) But this seems too hypothetical and 
 formal. I see no reason to desert the opinion of 
 the antients and most moderns, that the powers here 
 mentioned are those of the Prince of this world and 
 his subordinate agents, the evil demons (so Theo- 
 phyl. τὰς διαβόλικας δυνάμεις λέγει), including Death 
 himself, as personified. See 1 Cor. 15, 25 & δδ. 
 Heb. 2, 14. Joh. 16, 33, &c. And so Heinrichs. 
 Yet the Jewish rulers may be included. 
 
 Heinrichs would here understand the destruction 
 of idolatry, and the plucking up of deep-rooted su- 
 perstitions. But all that had not been yet effected; 
 though those particulars may be included, since ido- 
 latry and superstition were chiefly upheld by the 
 ἀρχαὶ in question. 
 
 Aciyparigey signifies “ to make one a public ex- 
 
 a 
 
38 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 ample, or gazing stock,” to ignominiously expose to 
 triumph; as was done by conquered enemies. So 
 Theophyl.: ἀσχημονῆσαι ἐποίησεν. ᾿Εν παῤῥησίᾳ sig- 
 nifies openly, publicly. (So Theophyl. δημοσίᾳ, πάν- 
 τῶν ὁρώντων) ; as Joh. 7, 4. & 11, 54. (where see the 
 note); or confidenter, as Heinrichs explains. Θριαμ- 
 βεύω, with an accusative of person, signifies to triumph 
 over. Αἱ ἐν αὐτῷ some subaud χριστῷ; others, 
 σταυρῷ, which is greatly preferable. So Theophyl. : 
 ἐν TH σταυρῷ τοὺς δαιμόνας ἡττημένους δείξας. And 
 again: Ἔν τῷ σταυρῷ οὖν τὸ τρύπαιον στήσας ὃ Κύριος. 
 ὥσπερ ἐν δημοσίῳ θεατρῷ ᾿Ελλήνων, Ρωμαίων, ᾿Ιουδαίων, 
 τοὺς δαίμονας ἐθριάμβευσεν. 
 
 16. μὴ οὖν---σαββάτων. Theophyl. observes, that 
 hitherto the Apostle has spoken enigmatically on 
 this head; but now he is more explicit, after having 
 enumerated the above benefits. On the foregoing 
 enumeration of the merits of Christ in reforming 
 and saving the world, he engrafts a conclusion, ver. 
 16—fin., namely, that the praise of Christian virtue 
 is no longer to be sought by the observances of the. 
 Mosaic Law, but in true moral reformation. 
 
 16. μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς---σαββάτων, ““ Wherefore (such 
 being the case with the ceremonial law), let no one © 
 judge you (i.e. as you observe,-or not) or condemn 
 you in (respect of any rite connected with) meats,” 
 Χο. The μέρει, Heinrichs observes, either signifies 
 in any part of (so Theophyl.), or it is pleonastic, (and 
 so it is considered by Rosenm. and Schleus.) ; as ἐν 
 παιδίας μέρει in Diog. Laert., and many other exam- 
 ples cited by Wets. But it should rather seem that ἐν 
 μέρει is well rendered in the Εἰ. V. in respect of. And 
 so Beza, Luther, and Wolf. ‘Thus it is much the 
 same with ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτω 2 Cor. 3, 9. 9, 3., in the 
 business of. And see 1 Pet. 4,16. The same ex- 
 planation will hold good of almost all the examples 
 adduced by the Philologists. The Apostle might 
 have written ἐν μέρει βρώσεως ἣ πόσεως, &c., but he 
 has chosen to vary the phraseology. 
 
 The other terms can require no explanation, See, 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 39 
 
 however, Mackn. on the σαββάτ., who rightly indi- 
 cates the obligation to the observance of the Chris- 
 tian Sabbath.* 
 
 17. ἃ ἐστι σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, TO δὲ σῶμα τ. X., 
 “which things (as compared to the future benefits 
 to be obtained by Christ) are a mere shadow, but 
 the substance is solely Christ, and the advantages 
 to .be obtained by him.” So it is remarked by 
 Spencer ap. Whitby, that we are not to infer from 
 hence that these and all the ritual constitutions of 
 the Law of Moses, shadowed forth some Christian 
 mystery, but only that they were as mere shadows 
 compared to that solid and substantial truth which 
 Christ, by his Gospel, hath discovered to us.” And 
 such is the interpretation adopted by almost all ju- 
 dicious Commentators, antient and modern. So 
 Theophyl.: Τὰ μὲν παλαιὰ σκιά εἰσι, τὸ δὲ copa, 
 τουτέστιν, ἡ ἀληθεία, Χριστοῦ. “Ὥστε τί δεῖ σκιὰν κρα- 
 τεῖν, τοῦ σώματος παρόντος. 
 
 * On which subject I would respectfully refer my younger readers 
 to an instructive treatise recently published by the learned and or- 
 thodox Mr. Holden, entitled, <‘ The Christian Sabbath ;” a work 
 rendered almost necessary by the many frivolous pamphlets and 
 commentationes on this subject, especially a most pernicious one of 
 Gilbert Wakefield. To suchas these the words of Wolf are very ap- 
 plicable: ““ Optandum erat, ut nostratium nonnulli ad illorum ex- 
 emplum (adverting to certain writers who have written in vindica- 
 tion of the Sabbath) Sabbati Christiani moralitatem nunquam in 
 dubium vocassent, otiumque suum rebus et commentationibus pro- 
 ficuis potius et πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν aptis, quam talibus impendissent, que 
 ut rerum argumentis destituuntur, ita bonos offendunt, malos 
 autem cultus divini negligentiores reddunt.” Mr, Bulkley has here 
 much important matter from St. Barnabas, St, Ignatius, Justin 
 Martyr (in his Dialogue with Trypho), Irenzeus, Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, and Jerome, 
 which I would recommend to the attention of Mr. Holden for a fu- 
 ture Edition of his work. Of these my limits will only permit me 
 to insert the following from St. Barnabas: ‘‘ The eighth day is the 
 beginning of another world ; therefore we celebrate the eighth day 
 with joy, on which Jesus rose from the dead, and appeared and 
 ascended into the heavens ;” and Ignat. Epist. p. 34, 35. (speaking 
 of the antient Prophets): Eis καινότητα ἐλπίδος ἤλυθον, μήκετι σαβ:- 
 βατίξοντες, ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν Guy ξῶντες. 
 
40 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 Of this sense of σκιὰ and σώμα it were needless to 
 adduce any of the numerous Classical examples col- 
 lected by the Philologists. On the words τὸ δὲ σῶμα 
 Χριστοῦ there is some uncertainty. But the best 
 Commentators are agreed that the genitive is put for 
 the dative with ἐν; q.d. ‘the thing (i.e. the truth 
 itself), the future blessings themselves are situated 
 and reside in Christ, from whom alone they are. to 
 be sought.” 
 
 18. μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω. The term κατα- 
 βραβ. (which is reckoned by Jerome among the 
 Apostle’s Cilicisms (though examples are found in 
 Demosth., Polyb., and Plutarch), has been variously 
 interpreted. It signifies, properly, “ to deprive any 
 one of the βραβεῖον, or prize, which he deserves, by 
 some art or trick (for κατὰ has thus the sense of 
 mapa). Hence it comes to signify, “ exercise unjust 
 and fraudulent judgment upon.” Whence it has 
 here been explained to deceive, circumvent, like wapa- 
 λογίϑεσθαι at supra 4. By others, as Bengel, it is in- 
 terpreted, “‘ exercise despotic and abused authority 
 over.” For other interpretations I must refer the 
 reader to Pole, Wolf, and Heinrichs. Wolf and 
 Hammond explain condemn; Whitby, damnify. The 
 interpretation first mentioned (which is supported by 
 our Common Version) seems to be the most natural. 
 The sense is clear from ver. 16. paris ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ; 
 4. d. ** Let no man deceive or damnify you, drawing 
 you off from the true doctrine to a factitious one at 
 variance with the Gospel.” 
 
 The use of θέλων is very anomalous; and several 
 Commentators render it, “ by a voluntary humility.” 
 And so Beza, Dav., Dath, and J. Capell. See also 
 Wesseling on Herod. 9, 14. But this may be wan- 
 dering too far. Theophyl. renders: θέλουσιν ἡμᾶς 
 καταβραβεύειν διὰ ταπεινοφροσύνης δοκούσης. Others 
 explain, “ delighting in,” i.e. by delighting, or who 
 delights in. So Casaub., Hamm., Vatablus, and 
 Knatchbull. It is not easy to say which deserves 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 41 
 
 the preference. Wolf, who carefully examines both, 
 assigns it to the former, and perhaps rightly. Almost 
 all recent Commentators adopt the latter. 
 
 On the sense of ταπεινοφροσύνη Commentators are 
 little agreed. Those who take θέλων in the significa- 
 tion dwelling in, render it, “ tenuitas in victu, an 
 ascetic and Pharasaical kind of life.” But this sense 
 seems too arbitrary, and is little authorized. I see 
 no reason to desert that of modestia, which is ac- 
 cordant with the usage of the Scriptural writers ; 
 and, united with θέλων, the term denotes (as Doddr. 
 says) “‘ an affected and fantastic, if not counterfeit, 
 humility and lowliness of mind.” 
 
 18. καὶ θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων. Of these words 
 there are two interpretations; Ist, that of the an- 
 tients and most moderns, “ the worshipping of an- 
 gels (this being the genitive of object, on which see 
 Krebs in loc.) and interpreters of men’s prayers, and 
 their intercessors with God.” See Tob. 12, 15. 
 2dly, that of some eminent moderns, and especially 
 the recent Commentators, “ worship such as angels 
 render to God.” And so the genitive is used in 
 Sapient. 14, 27. But this interpretation is liable to 
 many objections, which are well stated by Heinrichs, 
 who satisfactorily defends the former, which is sup- 
 ported by the unanimous authority of the antients. 
 The words are levelled against persons who (whether 
 they derived their opinions from the Essenes, or from 
 some Heathen philosophers) maintained the existence 
 of angels or δαίμονες, as intercessors and mediators of 
 prayer (not of salvation), under an idea that imme- 
 diate access to the Deity, was unattainable and pre- 
 sumptuous. It is needless for me to enter into this 
 subject, since it has been so fully treated by Dr. 
 Whitby. Grot. well observes (after Theophyl.) that 
 there was an affectation of humility in this, as if they 
 dared not venture themselves to prefer their petitions. 
 It is well remarked by an anonymous writer ap. 
 Wets.: ““ Modestiam simulantes tumidi sunt.” 
 
 18. ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμιβατεύων, ‘intruding and prying 
 
42 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 into that which he hath not, and doth not under- 
 stand.” Such appears to be the sense of ἐμβ., though 
 Philologists are not quite agreed, Jerome and Erasm. 
 rendering it, ““ tncidens fastuosé,’ by a metaphor 
 taken from the tragic €uBades. But this interpreta- 
 tion (as Beza and Schleus. observe), is neither agree- 
 able to doctrine, nor founded on any authority. The 
 sense ““ prying’? is supported and illustrated by 
 many eminent Critics, as Bos, Raphel, Schleus., and 
 Heinr., who adduce examples from the Classical 
 writers and Lexicographers. As to that of our 
 Common Version, intruding into, it is also well sup- 
 ported by Classical authority (see Schleus. Lex.) : 
 but the sense prying is more apposite; though, in- 
 deed, both may be united. I would render: ‘“ step- 
 ping out of his bounds, and prying into what it is 
 impossible for him to fathom.” ‘Ewpakev, known, 
 understood. A signification common in verbs of 
 seeing, both Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. Rosenm. 
 compares 1 Tim. 1, 7.* 
 
 18. εἰκῆ φυσιουμένος, “ vainly puffed up and proud.” 
 This metaphor of inflation to designate pride is per- 
 petual. See the Philological Commentators. Εἰκῆ, 
 causelessly, irrationally, as accompanied with igno- 
 rance. So Matt. 9, 22. and 1 Tim. 6,4. τετύφωται 
 μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος. ‘This is the simplest method of 
 interpretation. Others are pursued by the Com- 
 mentators. See Pole, Wolf, and Heinrichs. It is 
 observed by Rosenm., that the words of Christ, 
 Luke 11, 5., contain so exact a description of such 
 kind of Jewish teachers, that it will serve as a com- 
 mentary to this passage. 
 
 * And he remarks: “ Nempe, qui addicti erant Judaicis insti- 
 tutis, ignorabant, concessa esse in legibus Mosaicis multa, que nec 
 vim tamen preceptorum haberent, omnia autem non nisi ad tem- 
 pus, nullis, nisi Israelitis injuncta, plurima preter hec hominum 
 arbitrio, non Dei mandato, sancita, pretereaque Christianis, a legis 
 Mosaicz vinculo per Christum liberatis, antiquata precepta, et vero 
 etiam iis, qui stirpe de IsrzliticA non essent, hec eadem, que 
 Judeis, religione servanda obtrudebant. Cf. 2 Cor. 3, 13.” 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 43 
 
 19. καὶ οὐ κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλὴν, ““ and not keeping 
 hold of, holding fast by the head (even Christ).’’ 
 ἹΚρατεῖν signifies to hold fast by, keep close to, fol- 
 low. For examples Heinrichs and Schleus. refer to 
 Luke 4, 42. Acts 3, 11. and Apoc.2, 13. Κεφαλὴν, 
 ** only master and moderator.” ’E& οὗ, for ἐξ ἧς, by 
 the πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον. On the sense of the rest of 
 the passage, which is almost verbatim the same as 
 Eph. 4, 16.. see the note there, as also the notes of 
 Whitby and Mackn. in loc. 
 
 20. εἰ οὖν ἀπεθάνετε σὺν τὼ X. ἀ. τ. σ.τ. κι But 
 if ye be dead with Christ to, and have renounced 
 those elements of the world.” MHeinr. paraphrases : 
 “« Quam parum queso vobis constatis, quam vobis 
 contradicitis, si nuntio elementar ireligioni ceremo- 
 niarumque nugis misso, in eis tamen observandis 
 eque religiosos vos prestatis.’” The τὰ στοιχεῖα 
 Noesselt and Heinrichs explain of signs, ceremonies, 
 affecting the senses only, an external and adumbrated 
 worship of God, such as is described supra ver. 16 
 and Gal. 4, 10. Somewhat preferable is the exposi- 
 tion of er, by Koppe on Gal. 3, 4. and Schleus. in v. : 
 religio, rudior illa et imperfecta, sensibus omnia sub- 
 jiciens poenisque terrens, qua ad perfectiorem chris- 
 tianam preparandi erant Judai ceque ac Gentiles. 
 See the notes on the above passages of Galat. The 
 Critics just mentioned do not, however, successfully 
 assign a reason for this use of κόσμου, as applied to 
 the Jewish superstition. ‘They think it was so used 
 in order to retaliate on the Jews their own contemp- 
 tuous appellation bestowed on the Heathens. But 
 it perhaps rather denotes what we call the mob, the 
 profanum vulgus. So that by στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου are 
 meant such rude, imperfect, gross, and sensual no- 
 tions of religion, as are suitable to the profanum 
 vulgus, the bulk of mankind. 
 
 20. ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ, viz. at baptism; as is 
 plain from supra ver. 13. and Rom. 6, 4., where see 
 the notes. Tw—doyparigerbe, “ why do ye hold 
 opinions as if living in the profession, not of the spi- 
 
44 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 ritual and enlightened doctrines of Christ, but in the 
 gross and grovelling ones of the vulgus, namely, in 
 Judaism.” Δογματίξεσθαι is a word often used by 
 the Philosophers ; as Diog. Laert., Arrian, and Sext. 
 Emp. (See Schleus. and Wets.) Many Commenta- 
 tors explain it here, “ to suffer doctrines to be im- 
 posed upon you.” So Grot. and Schleus. Others, 
 “0 hold dogmas or doctrines.” The former inter- 
 pretation seems preferable, on account of the ἐντάλ- 
 para just after. Andso Theophyl.: ws raidia ἀρτι- 
 μαθῆ Kabyobe, ᾧησι, δογματιϑόμενοι καὶ νομοθετούμενοι τί 
 δεῖ ποιεῖν. ‘The latter, however, may be zncluded.. 
 21. μὴ aby, μηδὲ γεύση, μηδὲ θίγῃς. Here we have 
 a parenthesis containing a specimen of the hind of 
 δόγματα just adverted to. ‘The words are strangely 
 rendered by Mackn., “Neither taste, touch, nor 
 handle.” Our common translation, if thus pointed, 
 will fully represent the sense: ‘‘ Touch not—taste 
 not—handle not ;” q.d. “ Touch not this—taste not 
 that,” &c. ‘These are (as Heinr. observes) speci- 
 mens of ἐντάλματα expressed imperatorid brevitate. 
 On the distinct sense of the ay, γεύσῃ, and θίγῃς 
 Commentators are by no means agreed. Some, as 
 Crell. and Heinr., regard them as synonymes accu- 
 mulated (by a sort of climax) to show the severity of 
 the interdict,* and all having reference to forbidden 
 meats. But this seems too formal; and θίγῃς will 
 scarcely bear the sense they assign, at least there is 
 no Scriptural authority for it. The same may be 
 said of ἅψη, which though it is often used in the 
 Classical writers, yet I think never in the New Tes- 
 tament. As to Slade’s criticism, that ‘* it never has 
 this except with the addition of a genitive,’ I must 
 confess that in the passages cited by the Commenta- 
 tors (and also a great number which I had myself 
 collected in the course of my reading) I do not find 
 one in which the genitive is omitted; yet I see not 
 
 * So Mackn. observes there is here a beautiful gradation ; eating 
 being more than tasting, and tasting more than handling.” 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 45 
 
 why it might not; as in Soph. Aj. 841. γεύεσθε py 
 Φείδεσθε πανδήμου στρατοῦ. In the present passage, 
 however, it could not have been expressed. 
 
 Others, as Grot. and Storr, take the ἅψη to mean, 
 “touch not a woman.” But though the Apostle 
 uses the word in that sense at 1 Cor.7, 1., yet it is 
 with γυναικὸς, the omission of which would here be 
 very harsh. Neither is it likely that the Apostle 
 would here introduce swch a subject, which indeed 
 would little correspond to the words following, ἅ 
 ἐστι---ἀποχρήσει. The μὴ ἅψης and μὴ θίγης seem to 
 be interdicts of the same species: but I am not pre- 
 pared to adopt Mr. Slade’s opinion, that “ the former 
 signifies handle not ; the latter, come not into contact 
 with.” For as to ἅπτεσθαι, usually signifying touch 
 with the hand,” that will equally hold good of θιγ.: 
 which does not reach far enough. It should rather 
 seem that ἅπτ. signifies to touch with the hand, lay 
 hands upon (as in Thucyd. 2, 49. τὸ μέν ἔξωθεν ἁπτο- 
 μένῳ σώμα οὐκ ἄγαν θερμὸν ἦν); whereas θίγειν signi- 
 fies something more, namely, contrecto ; whence it is 
 often used in sensu nequiori. Yet, for the reasons 
 above assigned, I would not seek such a signification 
 here, but refer it, together with ἅψη, to the having 
 contact, greater or less, with objects by which cere- 
 monial pollution might be incurred. It is evident 
 that the Apostle intends no great exactness. 
 
 22. ἃ ἐστὶ πάντα cis φθορὰν τῇ ἀποχρήσει. It is of 
 importance here to bear in mind what was just said, 
 namely, that the Apostle in the terms μὴ ἅψη in- 
 tended no great exactness. And therefore those 
 Commentators who here tell us that the ἃ ἐστι, &c. 
 has reference to all the above particulars, seem to 
 increase the difficulty very needlessly. On the sense 
 of the words Commentators are divided in opinion. 
 Much depends upon the sense in which ἀποχρήσει 
 is taken, which some, as Hamm., Doddr., Wells, and 
 Schmidt render abuse. Yet the sense they lay down 
 is quite at variance with the context, and, as Heinr. 
 
4.6 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 observes, very jejune. Almost all Commentators, 
 antient and modern, take ἀποχρ. (and, I think, 
 rightly,) in the sense, use, or usmg. And so our 
 common Version, and also Wolf, whose words are 
 these: “ De usu ciborum ipso loqui Apostolum non 
 dubito. Neque enim in eo erat, ut ab abusu tantum 
 cavere juberet suos, qui ritus ejusmodi omnes penitus 
 intercedisse ante tradiderat.” Of this sense the 
 Commentators adduce examples, to which I could 
 add scores which I have noted down. Yet ail those 
 who adopt this sense, are not agreed in interpreta- 
 tion. Schleus. renders: ‘‘ Quarum rerum usus per- 
 niciem et maximas poenas affert.” And so Heinr., 
 who thinks these are the words of a Jewish Doctor 
 ironically repeated by the Apostle. But such a sense 
 cannot fairly be elicited from the words ; and as to 
 Heinrich’s notion, it is too fancifvl. Upon the 
 whole, I see no interpretation so natural and proba- 
 ble as that of the antients, and, of the moderns, 
 Grot., Wolf, Rosenm., and others, namely, ‘‘ which 
 things are all so far from polluting the user, that 
 they rather themselves perish by using, and tend 
 only to corruption,” i. e. animal destruction; con- 
 formably to the words of our Lord, Matt. 15, 17 & 
 18. So Theophyl., who paraphrases: Φησὶν, ὅτι οὐ 
 μεγάλα τινὰ ταῦτα ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς φθορὰν καταλήγει τοῖς 
 χρωμένοις" φθειρόμενα γὰρ ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ, διὰ τοῦ ἀφεδρώ- 
 νος ὑποῤῥει' Οὔτε οὖν ὠφελοῦσιν αὐτὰ καθ᾽ αὐτὰ, οὔτε 
 βλάπτουσι. 
 
 The words κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα----ἀὀἀὄνθρώπων are to be 
 joined with doyparigerbe. ‘The sense of the two verses 
 20-—22. is thus expressed by Rosenm.: ‘ Quid sus- 
 cipitis aut fertis, si quid vobis ingerit, ista decreta 
 (qualia sunt: noli tangere; neve gustare, neve con- 
 trectare hujus rei aliquid, quod est vetitum lege 
 Mosaica veterumque preeceptis, cibos inprimis inter- 
 dictos, quod omne perit tamen 5. conficitur ipso 
 usu ;) que certé decreta proficiscuntur a preceptis 
 doctrinisque humanis.” 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 47 
 
 48, ἅτινα ἐστι---τῆς capkos, * which ἐντάλματα τῶν 
 ἀνθρώπων, &c. By these are meant chiefly those of 
 the Essenes. Aéyov many Commentators interpret a 
 pretext or pretence. See Doddr. and Kypke. But 
 I prefer the sense assigned by the antients and most 
 moderns, speciem, a show, not a reality. So Chrys. 
 and Theophyl. : λόγον---οὐ δύναμιν, οὐδὲ ἀλήθειαν. This 
 is hinted at in the μὲν without de.* Rosenm. (after 
 Noesselt) observes, that σοφία is here the same as 
 φιλοσοφία at ver. 18., or Ψευδωνόμος γνῶσις at 1 Tim. 
 6, 20. 
 
 23. ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ. There is here an ellipsis, to 
 be thus supplied: “ as shown, evinced only in ἐθελοθρ. 
 The word is rendered by all our English Translators, 
 will worship (i. e. voluntary worship), which may be 
 defended. (See Grot., and consult the long and 
 instructive, but somewhat rambling, annotation of 
 Hamm.) Yet I prefer the sense assigned to the 
 word, after much critical examination, by the Phi- 
 lologists of the last century (as embodied in Heinr. 
 and Schleus.), namely, “ an excessive, pretended, 
 and affected sanctity.” And this is also supported 
 by some antient Interpreters. ‘Thus Theophyl. ex- 
 plains it τὴν ὑποκρινομένην εὐλάβειαν ἐν τῇ θρησκίᾳ. See 
 also Chrysost. and Gicumen. And in this sense the 
 word is sometimes used by the early Ecclesiastical 
 writers. So ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκεία is cited by Heinr. 
 from Epiphan. de Heres., where it is used of the 
 Pharisees. Heinr. has ingeniously shown how ἐθελο. 
 comes to mean affected. 
 
 23. καὶ ταπεινοῷροσύνῃ. On the sense of this word 
 see the note supra ver. 18. From the context 
 it appears to signify that kind of affected humility 
 
 * On which it is remarked by Jerome ap. Wets.: ‘‘ Hoc loco 
 quidem conjunctio superflua est, quod in plerisque locis propter im- 
 peritiam artis grammatice Apostolum fecisse reperimus. Neque 
 enim sequitur sed vel alia conjunctio, que solet ei propositioni, ubi 
 quidem positum fuerat, respondere.” The criticism is, however, 
 like many other theological remarks of that Father, ill founded. 
 
48 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 under which ever lurks pride,* and which is of all 
 kinds of arrogance the worst. ᾿Αφειδείᾳ cwparos. 
 This is explained by the recent Commentators harsh 
 treatment of ; as if it were said by meiosis, as ἀφει- 
 δεῖν in Thucyd. 2, 43 and 51. It is explained by 
 CEcumen. καταφρόνησιν τοῦ σώματος. And so Theo- 
 phyl. It evidently denotes a neglect of the com- 
 forts, whether of food or clothing, rest, &c. which 
 the body requires. I cannot think, with some, that 
 this includes flagellation. 
 
 23. οὐκ ἐν τιμὴ τινι πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκὸς. Mackn. 
 here rashly supplies δὲ, and unwarrantably takes oc- 
 casion to suspend a clause from it, which disfigures 
 the sense of all the rest. The Apostle (I conceive) as 
 hehas shownin what Christian wisdom did πο consist 
 (namely, in unnecessary and affected austerities), so 
 now he shows in what it does consist, or is consistent 
 with, namely, τιμῇ πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκὸς. By 
 τιμῇ is meant ἃ cherishing of the body, (for σώματος 
 must be repeated), a sense found in 1 Cor. 12, 23. 
 1 Tim. 5, 17. and elsewhere. The words πρὸς πλησ- 
 μονὴν show the kind of care here meant, namely, the 
 satisfying of its wants, so as to keep up its strength 
 for the duties of life (see Elsner), and that the body 
 may thus serve the soul, which an excess either way 
 would prevent. See Chrys. and Theophyl., and also 
 Mackn., who concludes by observing, that ‘* the 
 wisdom which teaches the neglecting of the body, is 
 not wisdom, but folly.” ‘This isso plainly the Apostle’s 
 meaning, that it is strange any should have missed it; 
 and yet many Commentators have so done; for, not 
 to notice the subtilties of Grot. and Heinr., and the 
 harsh constructions of Camer. and Casaub., even the 
 sensible Doddr. renders: ‘to the dishonourable sa- 
 tisfying of the flesh ;” a version entirely founded in 
 error. 
 
 * To which purpose may be aptly cited M. Anton. 12, 27. ὑπὸ 
 arugia (read ἀτυφίας) rigos τυφόμενος πάντων χαλεπώτατος. Here. 
 too, the words of our Christian Poet will be applicable : 
 
 ‘* Pride may be pampered while the flesh grows lean ; 
 Humility may clothe an English dean,” 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP, III. 49 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Having thus far treated on what a true Christian 
 ought not to follow after, (see note on 2, 16.) the 
 Apostle now subjoins what he ought, and on what to 
 fix his affections. That admirable part of the Epistle 
 which now follows abounds in the most excellent 
 moral precepts, and impresses the mind with a deep 
 sense of the dignity and worth of a true Christian. 
 These extend to ver.17. (Heinr.) 
 
 VERSE 1 & Q. εἰ οὐν συνηγέρθητε τ. X. τ. &. 8. The 
 sense seems tobe: ‘‘ If then ye have really died with 
 Christ unto the observance of Jewish rites (see 2, 
 20), and have risen with him to better hopes, and by 
 his example profess to pursue better aims, no longer 
 then grovel in the mire of worldly and fleshly su- 
 perstition, but seek and follow after those purposes 
 which are heavenly, and aim at those blessings which 
 are seated where your Redeemer will dispense them, 
 who sitteth at the right hand of God for ever, and is 
 invested with authority to bless and reward all his 
 faithful servants.” Such seems to be the best ground- 
 ed sense that can be assigned, and it is supported 
 by the authority both of the antients and the most 
 judicious moderns. But the full meaning of the 
 Apostle requires to be developed at far greater 
 length. To which purpose the many excellent Ser- 
 mons of our best English Divines may advantage- 
 ously be consulted, one of which (Bp. Sherlock, 3, 
 11.) is pointed out by Mr. Slade. 
 
 The sentiment in τὰ ἄνω ϑητεῖτε is further de- 
 veloped in τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖτε---γῆς. The φρονεῖτε is well 
 rendered in our English Version, ‘ set your affec- 
 tions on;” from which Doddr. had causelessly de- 
 viated. On the τὰ ἄνω many Commentators have 
 indulged in ingenious, but little solid speculations. 
 Wets. understands it thus; “ Supera studere debe- 
 bant, sed non astra et motus lune, ut Judi et Py- 
 thagorei.” Calvin, with far more probability, takes 
 
 VOL, VIII. Ε 
 
50 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III. 
 
 it of the sublimer doctrines of Christianity, as op- 
 posed to the στοιχεία mentioned at 2, 20. Yet it is 
 objected by Doddr., that those are not in heaven. 
 This, however, seems not very conclusive. It is 
 plain that the words must be taken in their popular 
 acceptation, and in all that extent of signification 
 which a plain Christian would assign to them. And 
 it is well observed by Doddr., that the Apostle pro- 
 ceeds, on the principles he had laid down, to graft a 
 most important practical exhortation, different from 
 any he had advanced before (as he certainly does at 
 ver. 5.); yet nothing could more effectually tend to - 
 take them off from those bigoted attachments of 
 which he was solicitous to cure them.* 
 
 3, 4. These verses, Heinr. observes, are to be 
 conjoined, and mutually explained from each other. 
 
 ᾿Απεθάνετε γὰρ, “ you have, by baptism, professed 
 to bid adieu to your former life, τοῖς κάτω, τῷ Koop,” 
 &c. See the note on 2, 11 and 12. The words ἡ gw 
 - Θεώ admit of more than one sense. Some recent 
 Commentators, as Heinr., take ἡ ϑωὴ to mean ““ your 
 former life now laid aside by spiritual death, the su- 
 perstition and immorality connected with it, and the 
 worldly advantages to be expected from it.” But 
 this is harsh, and unsuitable to the context. The true 
 interpretation seems to be that of Theophyl. (from 
 Chrys.) : πάλιν, ἡ ϑωὴ ὑμῶν ἄνω" ὥστε kal τὰ ἄνω Ppo- 
 νεῖτε' Φιλονεικεῖ γὰρ δεῖξαι αὐτοὺς καθημένους, ἄνω, καὶ 
 ἄλλην ξώντας ϑωὴν, τὴν ἐν τῷ Θεῴ, τὴν μὴ φαινομένην" 
 Μὴ φαίνεται ὁ Χριστὸς" οὕτως οὐδὲ ἡ ϑωὴ ὑμῶν φαίνεται" 
 Τί οὖν ϑητεῖτε τὰ φαινόμενα ; Ταῦτα δὲ προκατασκευά- 
 Set, ἵνα εὐθὺς ἐμπέσῃ εἰς τὸν ἠθικὸν λόγον. And Theo- 
 
 * Of the Classical citations in  είβ, the most apposite are the 
 following. Heliodor. 7, 23. ὁρῶ yap πῶς κἀκείνην ἄνω καὶ μέγα 
 φρονοῦσαν. Plato de Rep. 7. οὔτε μαθεῖν ἂν πω φήμι αὐτὸν, ἐπιο- 
 τήμην γὰρ οὐδὲ ἔχειν τῶν τοιούτων, οὔτε ἄνω ἀλλὰ κάτω αὐτοῦ βλέ- 
 πειν τὴν ψυχὴν. Seneca Ep. 79. Sursum vocant illum initia sua: 
 erit autem illic, etiam antequam hc custodié exsolvatur, cim vitia 
 disjecerit, purusque ac levis in divinas cogitationes emicuerit. Per- 
 sius 2,61. O curve in terras anime, et ceelestium inanes, Lucian 
 Hermot. 5, ὑψηχὰ ἤδη φρονεῖς καὶ ἄνωθεν. 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. [II. δὶ 
 
 doret: ἐκείνου γὰρ ἀναστάντος πάντες ἡἠγέρθημιεν" ἀλλ᾽ 
 οὐδέπω ὁρῶμεν των πραγμάτων τὴν ἔκβασιν' κέκρυπται 
 δὲ ἐ ἐν αὐτῷ τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀναστάσεως τὸ μυστήριον" ὅταν 
 τοίνον ἐπιφανῇ τὸ δεύτερον, τηνικαῦτα τευξόμεθα τῆς ἀνασ- 
 τάσεως, καὶ ἀπολαυσόμεβα τῆς ἀθανάτου ϑωῆς. And so 
 it is explained by some eminent modern Commenta- 
 tors, as Rosenm. 
 
 Ἔν Θεῴ, “ in the mind of God.” Σὺν Χριστῷ, 
 after the manner and example of Christ.””_ “ The 
 life of a Christian (observes Doddr.) is here repre- 
 sented as an invaluable yewe/, and under a double 
 security, reserved in heaven, and laid up with Christ 
 in God; secure, therefore, as the abode of Christ 
 with the Father, or as the fidelity and immutability 
 of the Father himself could make it.” This, however, 
 seems rather ingenious than solid. 
 
 4. ὅταν 6 Χοιστὸς---δόξη, “Βα when Christ, who 
 is our life (i. 6. the author of it, Joh. 11, 25.), shall 
 appear, i.e. at his second advent, as Judge, then 
 shall ye appear with him in glory, i. e. happiness.” 
 Theophyl. (from Chrys.) makes the following in- 
 ference: Ὥστε ἐκείνην δητεῖτε τὴν ἡμέραν, μὴ ταύτην" 
 πρὸς ἐκείνην ῥωὴν σπεύδετε' τότε “γὰρ ἡ ἀληθινὴ ϑωὴ ὑ ὑμῶν 
 Φανερούται" ἡ γὰρ YW, θάνατος, ὅ ὅτι καὶ διὰ φθορᾶς συνίς- 
 Taras, τῆς ῥοῆς καὶ ἀποῤῥοῆς.. Μὴ τιμὰς ἐνταύθα ϑητεῖτε 
 καὶ δόξας ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἡ δόξα ὑμῶν. He then subjoins a 
 fine comparison derived from the pearl oyster. 
 
 5. νεκοώσατε οὖν τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆ», 
 “ mortify therefore, and render as dead (so far as sin 
 is concerned), your earthly members.” Τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς 
 γῆς. “* which are used for the purposes of this life.” 
 Theophyl. explains: τὰ σωματικὰ μέλη. Nexgody isa 
 strong expression, the force of which is too much 
 diluted by the exposition of some recent Interpreters, 
 debilitare. It signifies, ' “ deprive of all force, obtain 
 complete mastery over.” From what follows, how- 
 ever, it should seem that Theophyl. has rightly 
 remarked, that by the ra μέλη ἐπὶ τῆς vis: are meant 
 the τὰ διὰ τῶν μελών τοῦ σώματος ἐπιτελούμενα ἐπὶ τῆς 
 γῆς ἁμαρτήματα. And so Theodoret. ‘Thus the 
 
 E2 
 
52 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III. 
 
 μέλη are put improprie for the lusts worked in those 
 members. ‘The apparent inconsistency between the 
 νεκρώσατε and the expression elsewhere used by the 
 Apostle, συνετάφητε τῷ Χοιστῷ, Theophyl. thus re- 
 moves: ὅτι ἡ μὲν προτέρα νέκρωσις τοῦ βαπτίσματος ἦν 
 δώρον, ἀποκτιννύσα τῆν ἐν ἡμίν ᾿προγεγονυῖον ἁμαρτίαν" ἡ 
 δὲ νῦν ὑποτιθεμένη νέκρωσις" τῆς ἡμετέρας προαιρέσεως, 
 τὰς μετὰ τὺ βάπτισμα ἁμαρτίας ἀφανίξουσα, μᾶλλον de 
 μηδὲ ἀναξῆσαι ἐώσα ὅλως, διὰ τοῦ θανατοῦν τὸ φρόνημα 
 τῆς σαρκὸὺς. 
 
 The terms πορνείαν and ἀκαθαρσίαν, require no ex- 
 planation. The πάθος denotes venereal lust of the 
 most flagitious sort ; as we may infer from Rom. 1, 
 26., παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας, With which the 
 Apostie prefaces a description of vices the most 
 abominable. Hence the Latin Pathicus. Here, too, 
 Classical examples are referred to by Schleus. On 
 the terms in question, Theophyl. remarks: Παρῆκεν 
 ἰδικῶς εἰπεῖν ἃ οὐδὲ εἰπεῖν καλόν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀκαθαρσίας 
 καὶ τοῦ πάθους πάντα ἐνέφηνε τὰ τῶν αἰχρών μίξεων 
 εἴδη. 
 
 5. ἐπιθυμίαν κακὴν. This is illustrated from 1 
 Thess. 4, 5., μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας. ᾿Ἐπιθυμία is, like 
 almost all words of this kind, properly a vox mediz 
 significationis. So Midrasch Cohel: concupiscentia 
 bona subjugavit concupiscentiam malam. See also 
 Theophyl., who cites Dan. 9, 23. On the τὴν πλεονε- 
 ξίαν---εἰδωλολατρεία, see the note on Eph. 5, 5. 
 
 7. ἐν οἷς καὶ ὑμεῖς περιεπατήσατε πότε, ὅτε ἐφῆτε ἐν 
 αὐτοῖς, “in which (vices) ye also once (more or less) 
 walked, were habituated to, when ye lived among 
 them,” i. e. the children of disobedience, the Hea- 
 thens. Such is the explanation given by Rosenm., 
 Doddr., and Mackn. The ἐφῆτε ἐ» αὐτοῖς is, how- 
 ever, more usually, and perhaps more rightly, 
 referred to the & Certainly this is supported by the 
 Classical examples adduced by the Philologists. See 
 Wolf and Wets. ‘Thus τοί. explains: “ when ye 
 were moved by such affections and passions.” It is 
 therefore no tautology, as Mackn. objected. Here 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III. 53 
 
 may be compared a very similar passage in 1 Cor. 
 6, 11. | 
 
 8. νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα, * But now 
 that you are become Christians, put ye away them 
 411. The καὶ signifies vicissim. Under the τὰ 
 πάντα much meaning is comprehended ; i.e. all the 
 vices above mentioned, and also anger, &c. Here, 
 ὀργὴ and θυμὸς are joined, as at Rom. 2, 8., Eph. 4, 
 31., where see the notes. Κακίαν. See Eph. 4, 31., 
 and the note there. Βλασφημία and αἰσχρολογία are 
 placed together as being vices nearly allied; the 
 former, consisting in injurious and calumnious 
 speaking; the latter, in filthy, lewd, and immodest 
 discourse. ‘The works ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν, are 
 added, to strengthen the sense. It, however, seems 
 a blending of two phrases, “ Jay aside filthy conver- 
 sation, and let it not come out of your mouth.” The 
 latter, occurs in Ephes. 4, 29. where see the note. 
 
 9. μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους ---αὐτοῦ. See the note 
 on Ephes. 4, 2—24., to which I add the following 
 citation. Pindar. Pyth. 4., 177., ἐχθίστοισι μὴ ψεύδεσι 
 καταμιαίναις, 1. 6. καταμιαίνης τὴν γένναν. 
 
 9. ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸ παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον. I would 
 compare Pyrrh. ἃρ. Diog. Laert. 2, 66., ὡς χάλεπον 
 εἴη ἐκδύναι ἄνθρωπον (where I would read), τὸν 
 ἄνθρωπον. 
 
 10. καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον----κτίσαντος αὐτὸν, ““ and 
 have put on the new man, who is renewed and 
 reformed unto a knowledge like unto His knowledge 
 who created him,” i. 6. made him:a Christian such as 
 he is. Now, this κτίσις is effected not merely by 
 baptism, and a moral lite (as ‘lkeophy!. says), nor by 
 the doctrine of Christ only (as Rosenm.), but by 
 both these, nay, also by other methods, united with 
 the influence of the Holy Spirit, to dilate on which 
 would be here out of place. 
 
 Wets. cites Philo. 15, 45., ἡ δ᾽ εἰκὼν λέλεκται κατὰ 
 τὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμόνα νοῦν. 
 
 11. ὅπου οὐκ ἔνι Ελλην---ἐλεύθερος. The ὅπου sig- 
 nifies, ““1η which new creation or regeneration.” 
 
54 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III. 
 
 The οὐκ ἔνι has much sense; q. d. “ there is no 
 enquiry whether any one be Greek or Jew.” See a 
 very similar passage in Gal. 3, 28., and the note. 
 The distribution into Jews and Greeks, circum- 
 cision and uncircumcision, is frequent. On the 
 terms BapBapos, Σκύθης, Heinr. observes, that they 
 are not opposites, like the former; otherwise we 
 should have had Βαρβ. καὶ Ρωμάιος; but there 
 is akind of climax; q. d. barbarous nations, nay, 
 that which is most so, Scythia. The copious Classi- 
 cal illustrations of the Commentators show that 
 Scythian was a proverbial term for barbarian. It is 
 not, however, very necessary to adduce any of them: 
 but I shall lay before my readers a passage which 
 I found in Max. Tyr. Diss. 17, 4., οὐδὲ τὸν ἸΣκύθη οὐδὲ 
 τὸν Ἑλληνα οὐδὲ τὸν Περσὴν, ἢ τὸν ὙὝπερβόφειον. And, 
 a little further on, ταῦτα δὲ ὁ Ἕλλην λέγει, καὶ ὁ βάρ- 
 βαρος, ὃ ἠπειρώτης καὶ ὁ θαλάττιος καὶ ὃ σόφος καὶ ὃ 
 ἄσοφος. 
 
 11. ἀλλὰ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσι Χριστός. ‘These 
 words have the same sense as those at 1 Cor. 15, 28., 
 where see the note. 
 
 12. ἐνδύσασθε οὖν----οἰκτιομών, ‘ Having, then, these 
 glorious hopes on an equal footing with the elect 
 people of God, not only detest and avoid the vices 
 just mentioned, but cultivate those virtues which 
 especially become those to whom God hath shewn 
 such mercy and loving kindness, namely, com- 
 passion,” &c. Such I conceive to be the true con- 
 nection of the passage with the preceding. 
 
 The terms ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἅγιοι καὶ ἠγαπημένοι 
 (as at Hebr. 3, 1., and 1 Pet. 2, 9.), each suggest 
 motives for the exercise of the virtues in question, 
 and they are here accumulated with all the charac- 
 teristic warm-heartedness of the Apostle. Indeed, 
 virtues like these, were especially necessary in a 
 society formed of such discordant materials as that 
 of Colossze. Hence the earnestness of the Apostle’s 
 injunctions. 
 
 The metaphor in ἐνδύσασθε σπλάγχνα is not unire- 
 quent. See Rom. 13, 12., and Eph. 6, 11., and the 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 55 
 
 notes there. ‘The termimports, * habitual study of, 
 and diligence in, any thing.” See Kypke, who cites 
 Themist. Or. 24., ἐπειδήπερ ἀρετὴν ἀντὶ ἱματίων ἠμφί- 
 ecto. Athenzeus 565., βουλόμενοι ἐνδύεσθαι αὐτὴν 
 αὐταρκείαν. And so Berachoth, fol. 16, 2. (cited by 
 Wets.), Induas te misericordia tua, et cooperias te 
 potentia tua, et circumvolvas te bonitate tua, et cir- 
 cumcingas te miseratione. 
 
 The terms ἐκλεκτοὶ, on Ἢ ἅγιοι, and σπλάγχ- 
 
 va, have been before explaing@g; as also the others. 
 
 13. See the note on Eph. 4, 2 & 32. 
 
 14. See the note onthe parallel passage of Eph. 4, 
 3. ᾿Επὶ πᾶσι τούτοις, * above all these things.” So in 
 the passage of Eph. One may also compare Lucian 
 3, 142, 44. et. sq. 
 
 15. καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ βραβευέτω ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις 
 ὑμών, “And (then) the peace of God,” &c. Several 
 MSS., Versions, and Fathers, have τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
 which is approved by many Critics, and received by 
 Griesbach ; though on what grounds it is difficult to 
 say: for critical reasons are here very uncertain ; 
 and doctrinal ones are of little use; since either 
 reading yields a good sense. Yet Θεοῦ appears to be 
 preferable, and is defended by a similar passage of 
 Phil. 4, 7.; though the Critics pretend that this 
 reading was introduced from thence; which is more 
 than I can believe would take place in nearly all the 
 MSS. See the note on that passage. 
 
 In the interpretation of βραβευέτω it is not 
 necessary to dwell on the primary sense of the term; 
 for though it properly signifies to exercise the office 
 of judge and arbitrator, yet it came to mean simply 
 moderari ; as in Polyb. ap. Raphel: ἽΔπαν τὸ γινόμε- 
 νον ὑπὸ τῶν Γαλατῶν θυμώ μᾶλλον ἢ λογισμῷ βραβέυεται, 
 and in some passages cited by Elsner. The sense 
 then, is: ‘let it be the rule of your feelings and 
 actions.” ‘Thus it differs little from the φρουρήσει in 
 the parallel passage of Philippians. ‘The words are 
 thus explained by Theophyl.: Αὕτη οὖν βραβευέτω ἐν 
 ὑμῖν, μὴ ὁ θυμὸς, wy ἡ Diroverica, px) ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη εἰρήνη" 
 
56 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IIT. 
 
 ἐκείνη γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ ἀμύνασθαι γίνεται, ἐκ τοῦ ἀντιδρᾷν' 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἡ βεβαία, ἡ ἀδιάλυτος, ἡ διὰ μηδὲν κοσ- 
 μικὸν ἀγαθὸν γινομένη, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς ἡμᾶς 
 διὰ τι ἐγένετο. 
 
 15. εἰς ἣν καὶ ἐκλήθητε, “ unto which (peace) also 
 ye were called,” i. e. in becoming Christians, and 
 being initiated into his religion, who preached 
 peace on earth. Besides, as Theophyl. observes, 
 “when Christ called to peace, he made us one 
 body; he being the . Why, then, else are we 
 one body but that, being members of each other, we 
 should preserve this, and not be separated ?”’ 
 
 15. ev ἑνὶ σώματι is said by the Commentators to 
 be for εἰς ἕν σώμα. But we must also subaud εἶναι. 
 Now this, without the study of peace and concord, 
 would be impracticable. See 1 Cor. 10, 17. 
 
 15. καὶ εὐχάριστοι γίνεσθε. Some antients (as 
 Hilary), and many moderns (as Erasm., Vatab., and 
 Wolf, and indeed most recent Commentators) render 
 the edyap. amiable, or mild and gentle. Of this signifi- 
 cation they adduce Classical examples in abundance; 
 and reasons why that interpretation might be received 
 are not wanting. Others may be seen in Schl. Lex. 
 But, after all, I dare not venture to abandon the com- 
 mon one, supported as it is by so consummate a judge 
 of Greek phraseology as Chrysost., and since it is 
 adopted by the other Greek Commentators, and not 
 only by most modern Commentators, but some very 
 eminent Critics, as Grot., Casaub., and recently 
 Heinrichs. Nor does the term signify (as Wolf 
 would have us think) gratitude to men, but gratitude 
 and thankfulness to God, for having called us unto 
 such blessings, as members of his Church. This 
 sense is so natural, and so agreeable to what follows 
 (as εὐχαριστοῦντες), that we may overlook the superi- 
 ority, in point of Classical authority, which the other 
 interpretation can boast. 
 
 16. ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν, ἐν πάση 
 σοφίᾳ. It is observed, by Theophyl.: δείκνυσιν ἡμῖν 
 ὁδὸν Or ἧς εὐχάριστοι ἐσόμεθα. The connection seems 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III. 57 
 
 to be: “ And let this gratitude be evinced (among 
 other ways) by often exercising yourselves on the 
 glories of redemption.” In determining the exact 
 sense, much depends upon the force to be assigned 
 to ἐνοικ. Many Commentators, as Rosenm., ex- 
 p:ain: “ Let the doctrine of Christ be frequently 
 and copiously treated of in your society. For (he 
 adds) the doctrine of Christ dwells in such a society, 
 when it is so copiously treated of at all fit times and 
 places that no one want an opportunity of learning.” 
 This indeed is very agreeable to what follows; but is 
 scarcely to be elicited from évox. I therefore prefer 
 the interpretation of some antient and many 
 moderns, namely: ‘ Let the doctrine of Christ, and 
 the truths of the Gospel, be deeply seated in your 
 hearts, and never depart from it, but be exercised as 
 occasion may serve.” Schoettg. compares Tanchu- 
 ma, fol. 24, 3. Lex sedem figat in medio ipsorum. 
 And Mechilta, fol. 19, 1. Lex perfecta sit inter 
 Ipsos. 
 
 16. πλουσίως, penitus. “Ev πάσῃ σοφίᾳ is, by some 
 recent Commentators, construed with διδάσκοντες. 
 But the more natural, as well as usual construction, 
 is with the former words. See also Col. 1, 9. and 
 Eph. 1, 8. On the terms here used it is not neces- 
 sary to press, nor take σοφίᾳ for ἀρέτῃ as is done by 
 Theophyl. We must take ἐν for σὺν, and bear in 
 mind (with Grot. and Heinr.) that the Gospel is ac- 
 companied. with true wisdom (1 Cor. 1, 30. ἃ 2, 6. 
 Eph. 1, 8.), and whosoever is occupied with it is 
 exercised in wisdom. 
 
 Διδάσκοντες is said to be for διδάσκουσι. Others 
 subaud ἐστι, and take διδάσκοντες for the Imperative 
 διδάσκετε. ‘The former mode is preferable: and yet 
 it may be more simple to regard διδάσκ. as a nomina- 
 tivus pendens. ‘The Apostle seems to intend here to 
 represent the natural effect of this ἐνοικ. πλουσίως. 
 For as ‘‘ out of the abundance of the heart the mouth 
 speaketh,” so a mind thus filled, and fervently exer- 
 cised will, like a full fountain, overflow in praises 
 
38° COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III.’ 
 
 and thanks toGod. Such is, I think, the scope of the 
 words following, on whose sense I have especially 
 treated at the parallel passage of Eph. 5,19 & 20. 
 But I would here add one or two observations. Our 
 use of the Psalms of David, in preference to hymns 
 of human composition, does not rest on any positive 
 command of Scripture, but only on what may be in- 
 ferred from 1 Cor. 14, 27 ἃ 40. Yet, without sub- 
 ordination, how could it be decided what was ac- 
 cording to order, decency, and edification? Power 
 must be vested somewhere ; and where so well as in 
 one spiritual superior? In many respects the pri- 
 mitive mode of worship may be, but in not a few it 
 ought not to be, a model for ours;* and as the 
 Deity adapts both the ordinary and extraordinary 
 dispensations of his Providence to the actual circum- 
 stances of the moral world in different ages and 
 countries, so ought we to imitate that wisdom of the 
 Deity. ‘The extraordinary and miraculous gifts with 
 which even the Laity were then endowed, made it 
 not improper that every one should have liberty of 
 speaking for the edification of the rest, especially 
 when no Minister was present. But afterwards, as 
 
 * J may here appositely cite a passage from an Episcopal Visita- 
 tion Sermon of mine, published nearly eleven years ago, p. 27. “ In 
 pure morals, in an humble disposition of the heart, in gratitude to 
 God for having sent his Son into the world, in reverence and love 
 to a crucified Redeemer, the primitive Church is a model for all 
 succeeding ages, Yet it cannot, I think, be denied, that in the 
 weightier matters of the law, in the duties of rendering justice and 
 loving mercy, we have lights before us as clear as had the primitive 
 Christians ; and we have the additional benefit of numerous and 
 holy examples which Ecclesiastical history records, and which have 
 adorned the church of Christ through a long series of ages. Though 
 in the present altered form of society it would be not less burthen- 
 some than it seems unnecessary, to observe literally some Apostolic 
 injunctions ; yet if we cherish a spirit of docility, if we keep in view 
 the same grand end of teaching men to love God with all their 
 heart, mind, and strength, to love their neighbour as themselves, to 
 rest their hopes of salvation, not on their personal merits, but on 
 the efficacy of that redemption which Christ hath accomplished for 
 them, surely we direct Christianity to the noblest purposes, and 
 have no reason to be ashamed as Ministers of God.” 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III. d9 
 
 those extraordinary gifts were gradually withdrawn 
 from the Laity, such a liberty would have been 
 abused to licentiousness: therefore the authority of 
 the Clergy was (most beneficially for the whole com- 
 munity) increased, and on that authority, and the 
 decisions of the universal Church, it was determined 
 that none but the Psalms of David should be used 
 in public worship. It cannot, I think, be proved 
 from the New Testament that any uninspired hymns 
 were used in the public service of the primitive 
 Christians; which is the point on which the contro- 
 versy with the Dissenters hinges. 
 
 16. ἐν χάριτι ἄδοντες. This is susceptible of more 
 than one mode of interpretation. Some, as Hein- 
 richs, takes it to mean animo grato. But that sense 
 can hardly be admitted. Others, as Grot. and Ro- 
 senm. (with more probability), take it to be equiva- 
 lent to JN χαριεντώς, amabiliter, jucunde. But this 
 is somewhat frigid. Zanch and Gomar understand it 
 of “ the delight and profit of the hearers.” So Theo- 
 phyl.: μεθ᾽ ἡδονῆς πνευματικῆς, as opposed to the pro- 
 Jane songs of the Heathens. And this mode of in- 
 terpretation seems to deserve the preference. 
 
 Ἔν καρδίαις is usually explained ex animo, i.e. 
 not with the voice only, but with the heart. That, 
 however, would require the singular. It should seem 
 that this is closely connected with the preceding. 
 The sense appears to be: “ with spiritual and heart- 
 felt joy.” It may, however, with some antients, 
 and, of the moderns, Dr. Mackn., be understood of 
 the spiritual gifts. 
 
 17. καὶ πᾶν 6,71—Kupiov ᾿Ιησοῦ. On account of 
 the πάντα following, πᾶν is treated by the Commen- 
 tators as a nominative absolute. It may, however, 
 be an accusative dependent on κατὰ, quod attinet ad. 
 Grot. remarks that ποιεῖν, like the Heb. Mwy, though 
 sometimes applied to εἴπειν, is often, as here, taken in 
 a laxer sense, so as to comprehend saying as well as 
 doing: for he who saith, acts.”. The words πᾶν ὅ,τι 
 are paraphrased by Theophyl.: ἐὰν ἐσθίης, ἐὰν πίνης 
 
60 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III. 
 
 ἐὰν ἀποδημίῇῆς, πάντα ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ Θεου πρᾶττε, τουτέσ- 
 τιν, αὐτὸν καλών βοηθὸν, πρότερον αὐτῷ εὐχόμιενος, καὶ 
 οὕτως ἅπτου τῶν ἔργων. 
 
 17. ἐν ὀνόματι ἰζ. Ἶ., “agreeably to [151], and 
 suitably to his doctrine.” Compare 1 Cor. 10, 31. 
 
 17. εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ Θεῴ καὶ Πατρὶ dv αὐτοῦ. The 
 δι᾽ αὐτοῦ is variously explained. By Rosenm., “ prop- 
 ter Christum.” Heinr. thinks it is pleonastic. But 
 this cannot be admitted; and the interpretation 
 above mentioned is too limited. The expression 
 must include a reference to the mediatorial office of 
 Christ. So Theophyl.: ὥσπερ ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ὁ Tibs τῷ 
 Πατρὶ προσήγαγεν, οὕτω καὶ τὴν εὐχαριστίαν ἡμών αὐτὸς 
 προσάγει τῷ ΠΠατρὶ, πάντων τῶν ἀγαθών μεσίτης ἡμάν 
 ὧν. 
 
 18. Having concluded the general, the Apostle 
 now proceeds to particular precepts. 
 
 Ὥς ἀνῆκεν, “Sas it is right and just.” So Eph. 6, 
 1. τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστι δίκαιον. Rosenm.) And so Theophyl. 
 interprets. See Eph. 5, 22, 24. and the note. 
 
 19. Compare Eph. 5, 25—fin. ΠΙκραιν. in a pas- 
 sive or reciprocal sense signifies to carry oneself 
 bitterly, and is used with πρὸς τινα, or ἐπι τινὶ. (Heinr.) 
 And sometimes with a dative withouta preposition; as 
 in Philo 584. (cited by Wets.) ἑτέροις πικρ. and also 
 2,135. ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀπειθοῦσι πικραίνεται. See Kypke and 
 Loesner. [844 Joseph. 314, 15. ἐδεῖτο συγγνώναι περὶ 
 τῶν εἰς αὐτὸν ἡμαρτημένων, καὶ μὴ γενέσθαι πικρὸν αὐτώ. 
 Soph. Phil. 254. πικρὸς θεοῖς" where the Schol. ex- 
 plains ἔχθρος. Dionys. Hal. 1, 599, 25. πικρὸν ἄνδρα 
 καὶ μισόδημον. ‘The word signifies to indulge a spirit 
 (whether carried into effect or not) of irritability 
 and exacerbation not easily appeased. From the 
 παροργίϑετε Of Eph. 6, 4. ; some here confine it to 
 provocation ; which is, however, far too great a limi- 
 tation. The extent of sense above detailed is re- 
 quired by the opposite ἀγαπᾶτε. Much more has 
 been, and might be said; but as all is trite and un- 
 
 necessary, I forbear. 
 ~ 20. τὰ τέκνα, ὑπακούετε. Compare Eph. 6. 1—3. 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III. 61 
 
 and the notes. Rosenm. observes that this general 
 command is to be restricted by the ἐν κυρίῳ under- 
 stood, which is expressed at Eph. But this is too 
 precarious a principle. It is better to say that as ἐν 
 κυρίῳ occurs in the next clause, so it is zmplied here. 
 Evapecroy answers to the δίκαιον in Eph. 
 
 Q1. μὴ epebigere τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν. Compare Eph. 6, 
 4. Epebigere answers to the wapopyivere there. See 
 2 Cor. 9, 2. The verb is often found united with 
 others expressive of what usually follows irritation, 
 as λοιδορεῖν, τύπτειν, &c. See the philological Com- 
 mentators. “Iva μὴ abupwow, “lest they lose all 
 heart, and despair;” since excessive severity de- 
 stroys all alacrity of obedience, and induces a de- 
 sponding, stupid, and hardened spirit. So Wets.: 
 ‘‘ne, spe tam morosis placendi parentibus abjecta, 
 obedire negligant.” This sense of ἀθυμεῖν is of such 
 perpetual occurrence in the classical writers (see 
 Wets.) that one might wonder how any Commen- 
 tator could have thought of so forced and frigid a 
 sense as “ ne vobis et ipsi irascantur,”’ a signification 
 in which the word is used in some passages of the 
 Old Testament; than which nothing can be more 
 precarious evidence. 
 
 22. οἱ δοῦλοι---τὸν Θεόν. Compare, Eph. 6, 5—8. 
 It is observable that the Apostle enlarges more on 
 the duties of masters and servants, and for an ob- 
 vious reason, since there more is to be done from a 
 sense of religious duty and accountableness to God. 
 The Apostle seems to leave the duty of the ser- 
 vant unlimited at κατὰ ravra, not adding ἐν κυρίῳ, Or 
 the like ; but he 2m fact limits it by a direct injunction 
 to the master, at ver. 25. On the sentiment see 
 Mackn. 
 
 I am surprised that Griesb. should not have re- 
 ceived ὀφθαλμοδουλείᾳ, which is supported by many 
 excellent MSS. and the parallel passage of Ephes. 
 The v undoubtedly arose from the w following; as 
 in a thousand other cases. On the other hand, I 
 should hesitate, with Greisb., to receive Κύριον for 
 
62 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III. 
 
 Θεόν ; since there are not merely critical, and per- 
 haps fancied reasons (a concurrence of recensions) 
 to be pleaded in its favour ; whereas Κύριον somewhat 
 savours of emendation, and seems to have been in-~ 
 troduced to make the antithesis between the human 
 master and the divine Master the stronger. But 
 such niceties the Apostle little heeded. 
 
 23. καὶ πᾶν 0,74 ἐὰν ποιῆτε. “and whatsoever ye 
 do,” viz. in your service. “Ex ψυχῆς ex animo. ‘Qs 
 τῷ κυρίῳ, &c. ‘‘and regard your service as rendered 
 to the Lord, and not. unto men.” 
 
 24, εἰδότες---τῆς κληρονομίας. The Apostle now 
 states the strongest of all motives for their doing 
 this; anticipating the objection,—what shall we 
 gainfrom our masters by such fidelity and diligence? 
 little or nought. To which the answer is: “ That 
 may be; but from the Lord ye will receive τὴν 
 ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας," Where the Commentators 
 remark, the genitive is exegetical, i. e. “ which con- 
 sists in inheritance (in heaven). See ὦ, 17. and 
 Rom. 8, 17. 
 
 Q5. 6 δὲ ἀδικῶν κομιεῖται ὃ ἠδίκησε. In the interpre- 
 tation of this verse the Commentators are divided in 
 opinion as to what the ἀδικῶν is to be referred. Some 
 say, to the servant; others, to the master. Others 
 make it general. (See Doddr.) But the last method 
 can by no means be admitted. Of the two first the 
 former is supported by the context, and seems pre- 
 ferable. Yet in the προσωποληψία it is (1 think) 
 hinted that if the master do wrong, he shall receive 
 punishment for it. So Theophyl.: ἀλλ᾽ οὖν καὶ οἱ 
 δεσπόται ὑποδεχέσθωσαν τοῦτο Kal ὡς αὐτοῖς ἁρμιόβον. 
 See also Theodoret. In this we may observe great 
 delicacy; and the former is particularly mentioned, be- 
 cause, as Heinr. remarks, ‘‘ mean persons often think 
 they ought to be spared, because of their poverty 
 and ignorance; which is here expressly denied, 
 since God no more spares bad servants than bad 
 masters.” 
 
 The expression Kop. 6 70x, has been explained at 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III. IV. 63 
 
 Eph. 6, 8. and 2 Cor. 5,10. ‘The term κομ. is used 
 of evil as well as good. See Levit. 2,17. Mackn. 
 has of all our English Commentators best seen the 
 sense. On προσωποληψία see Ephes. 6, 9. Gal. 2, 6. 
 and James 2, 1. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Ver. 1. οἱ Κύριοι---παρέχεσθε. Compare Eph. 6, 
 9. The Apostle here expressly states (what at 3, 
 25. he only hinted at), the corresponding duty of 
 masters to servants. ‘The οἱ has here (as in some 
 other phrases) the force of the pronoun personal. 
 Παρέχεσθε, preestate, yield in return. So a Lexico- 
 grapher ap. Wets. ἰθυντήριον τὸ κανονίϑον καὶ ἰσότητα 
 παρέχον. The τὸ δίκαιον and τὴν ἰσότητα are said to 
 besynonymous. Yet ἃ distinction might be made ;* 
 though it is not necessary, since the two terms are 
 often so united, by a kind of popular idiom; as we 
 say, “what is jusé and right.” Of the passage cited by 
 Wets. the most apposite are the following: Thucyd. 
 2, 44. οὐ γὰρ οἷοντε ἴσον τὸ ἢ δίκαιον βουλεύεσθαι. Epis- 
 tola Philippi, πως ἐστι τοῦτ᾽ ἴσον ἢ δίκαιον ; Demosth. 
 ἴση καὶ δικαία εἰρήνη. 
 
 What is meant by the τὸ δικ. καὶ τὴν ioor. magéy. (with 
 which compare, “40. as you would be done by,” and 
 “ with the same mete that ye measure it shall be mea- 
 sured to you again,”) is very obvious; and the force of 
 this popular phrase was too well understood to make 
 it necessary for the Apostle to add any thing expla- 
 natory of its sense. Heinr. cannot conceive why 
 the Apostle should be so brief on the reciprocal duty 
 of masters. But it seems that the phrase suggests 
 all that was necessary (see the Commentators) ; and 
 it requires no Qidipus to see why the Apostle 
 
 * Thus Grot., after observing that there is a jus even between 
 
 those who are not equals, says, that the δικ, answers to the Hebr. 
 ΡΥ, the igor, to wo. 
 
64 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 should be brief and delicate on this head, considering 
 that slaves formed so very considerable a part of 
 the population, in some places far exceeding the free 
 persons, as in our West India islands. 
 
 2—6, The Apostle now subjoins some more ge- 
 neral precepts, on praying (which correspond to Eph. 
 6, 18. sq.), and a wise and prudent regulation of our 
 lives, answering to Eph. 5, 15. sq. (Heinr.) 
 
 Here, all Commentators remark, ch. 4. ought to 
 have commenced. 
 
 Προσκαρτερεῖν signifies to assiduously persevere in 
 any thing, and is used of prayer in Acts 1, 14 & 46. 
 6,4. Compare Rom. 12, 12. 18, 6. The phrase 
 yeny. ἐν αὐτῇ, Which denotes watchful diligence in 
 or about any thing, is added, to strengthen the sense. 
 So 1 Pet. 4, 7. νήψατε, εἰς τας προσευχὰς. 
 
 2. ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ. Here ἐν 15 for σὺν ; and εὐχαριστία 
 signifies thanksgiving. Yor as Davison and Grot. 
 remark, “ conjungi debet grata exacti temporis (et 
 acceptorum beneficiorum) memoria cum futuri 
 postulatione.” It is observed by Theophyl. that that 
 is true prayer which unites thanks for all the events 
 which have befallen us, whether prosperous or ad- 
 verse. ‘No one (says Rosenm.) can neglect the 
 duty of prayer, who often thinks of the benefits he 
 has received, and returns thanks to God for them.” 
 
 3. προσευχόμιενοι ἅμα καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν. With prayer the 
 Apostle conjoins a mention of himself, as at Eph. 6, 
 15., desires their prayers ; chiefly (as it should seem) 
 to hint to them the duty of prayer for each other, as 
 well as for themselves, and how much they ad/ stood 
 in need of it. On the efficacy of such prayer the 
 Apostle often treats as at Phil. 1, 19. and Hebr. 
 13, 19. This passage (Mackn. observes) affords 
 instruction both to ministers, and to their people: 
 to ministers, not to despise an assistance which 
 even an inspired Apostle thought useful to him. 
 And to the people, to be careful to assist their mi- 
 nisters with an help which in the end will greatly 
 redound to their own benefit.” 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV. 65 
 
 3. ἀνοίξη ἡμῖν θύραν τοῦ λόγου. On θύρα in this 
 Sepa sense see Acts 14, 27. 1 Cor. 16, 9. and 
 2 Cor. , 12., and the notes. The phrase must sig- 
 nify ri the Lord would give him an opportunity 
 (i.e. a further and more favourable opportunity) of 
 preaching the Gospel of Christ,* namely, by being 
 set at liberty. That such is the sense (though the 
 Commentators have not distinctly seen it) is clear 
 from what follows. 
 
 On μυστήριον, as applied to the Gospel, and espe- 
 cially that most profound part of it, the calling of 
 the Gentiles, I have before treated. See 1, 26. and 
 elsewhere. 
 
 4, ἵνα φανερώσω airs, ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι. Pav. has 
 the sense of declare, teach; as in Rom. 1,19. But 
 it is hére appropriate to the μυστήριον. The words 
 ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι are susceptible of more than one 
 meaning. Rosenm. renders it, ‘ suitably to my 
 office :” and Davison and Gomar, optimo modo, vere, 
 constanter, prudenter. But this cannot be the sense. 
 Preferable is the exposition of Grot.: ‘* non tantum 
 ut magnum mihi det Deus auditorium, sed et forti- 
 tudinem animi, et eloquendi copiam.” And he re- 
 fers to 1 Cor. 9, 16. It should, however, seem that 
 the Apostle is alluding to that liberty which would 
 give him an oppor tunity of preaching the Gospel in 
 such a way as he was bound to do, being Apostle of 
 the Gentiles, and chiefly by having the ,παῤῥησία. 
 Theophyl. well explains thus: ἵνα παῤῥησίαν μοι δῷ, 
 οὐχ ὅπως ἀπαλλαγώ τῶν δεσμών, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως λαλήσω τὸ 
 μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι" τουτέστι, μὴ 
 μετὰ ὑποστολῆς, ἀλλ᾽ εὐπαῤῥησιάστως. Πώς δὲ dede- 
 μένος ἑτέρους. παρακάλει καὶ ἄξιοι λαβεῖν ὃ ὃ εἶχεν; 
 
 5. ἐν σοφίᾳ περιπατεῖτε πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω. By the τοὺς 
 ἔξω are plainly meant “all who are not of the fold of 
 
 * Wets. here compares Pind. Olymp. 6. χρὴ τοίνυν πύλας ὕμνων 
 ἀναπίπταμεν αὐταῖς" and Clem. Strom. 6. οὐδὲ γάρ ῥᾷστον ἔπεων 
 πύλας ἐξευρεῖν. And 50 Οἷς. Ep. 13, 10. (cited by Heinr.) amicitia 
 fores aperiuntur. ς 
 
 VOL. VIII. Ε 
 
66 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 Christ,” whether Jews, or Heathens. See 1 Cor. 12, 
 13. The scope of the admonition, taken in connec- 
 tion with what precedes, seems to be to enjoin the 
 exercise of prudence in avoiding whatever may give 
 unnecessary offence. On the τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοραξ. I 
 have copiously treated at Eph. 5,16. But the in- 
 terpretation which I have there adopted will (I grant) 
 not be suitable to the present passage, which seems 
 rather to require that of Grot., Hamm., and Whitby 
 on that passage. See, however, Chrys. and Theo- 
 
 6. The Apostle seems here to mean to give them 
 an admonition as to the mode in which any conver- 
 sation with the Heathens should be maintained. 
 Their discourse, he says, is to be ἐν χάριτι, ἅλατι. 
 ἠρτυμιένος, on which words Commentators are by no 
 means agreed. Many uuderstand χάριτι of divine 
 grace. But that would here seem harsh. The an- 
 tients interpret ἐν χάριτι by ἐπίχαρις. And so the 
 most judicious moderns, courteous, agreeable, not 
 morose and melancholy. But on ἅλατι ἠρτυμένος they 
 are divided in opinion. Most antients take it of 
 spiritual wisdom. ‘Theophyl. paraphrases thus: 
 ἐχέτω μὲν χαριεντισμὸν ὃ λόγος ὑμῶν" πλὴν μὴ εἰς 
 ἀδιαφορίαν ἐκπιπτέτω καὶ ἔκλυσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστω καὶ 
 στύφων' τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ ἅλας δηλοῖ" μήτε πέρα τοῦ μέτρου 
 ἐπίχαρις ἔσο, μήτε αὖ αὐστηρός. But, however agree-. 
 able to the intention of the Apostle, I see not how 
 such a sense can be elicited from the words. It is 
 evident that the Apostle is here speaking of moral 
 qualities, prudence and discretion, not religious 
 ones. Considering, then, the context, I agree with 
 those eminent moderns, who interpret the ἅλιτι 
 ἠρτυμένος of that prudence and discretion which 
 regards place, time, and persons. Yet there may be, 
 too, an allusion to that kind of neatness of phraseo- 
 logy which the Apostle deemed it not unworthy of 
 Christians to aim at in their conversation with 
 Heathens, in order to procure greater respect to the 
 Gospel. ‘Thus the words following admit of an easy 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. Iv. 67 
 
 connexion, where at εἰδέναι must be supplied εἰς τὸ, 
 or ὥστε; ‘* Thus (i. 6. by the exercise of this pru- 
 dence and wisdom) will ye be able to know when 
 and how to give an answer to every Heathen en- 
 quirer, or objector, and that suitably to his station, or 
 knowledge ; and by the cultivation of this neatness 
 of phraseology your answers will be better pointed, 
 and produce greater effect.”” Such appears to be 
 the real and complete sense of the passage on which 
 the notions of the Commentators seem very confused. 
 
 7. Now comes the last section of the Epistle, 
 which corresponds to Eph. 6, 21. (though longer), 
 and in which (as he usually does at the conclusion 
 of his Epistles) the Apostle speaks of himself, or 
 gives a special injunction with respect to certain 
 persons, concluding with benedictory and valedic- 
 tory phrases. (Heinr.) Rosenm. observes, that we 
 may hence infer that Tychicus had been to take a 
 journey through Phrygia. On ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς and 
 σύνδουλος, see supra 1, 7. and Phil. 2, 25. 
 
 8. ἵνα γνῷ τὰ περὶ pov, ‘ That he may obtain a 
 knowledge of your affairs, and make report to me.” 
 This anxiety of the Apostle to have that knowledge 
 appears from supra 2, 1. On the sense of παρακαλ. 
 τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν see supra 2, 2. 
 
 9. σὺν ᾿Ονησίμῳ ---ὖς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν. The σὺν ’Ov. 
 connects with ἔπεμψα. Ὅς ἐ. ἐ. u., ‘ who is de- 
 scended from your nation, who is your countryman.” 
 See the Epistle to the Philipp., where Theodoret 
 says that Onesimus (which, however, was’ a very 
 common name) was a Phrygian. See also Mackn. 
 in loc. 
 
 9. πάντα ὑμῖν γνωριοῦσι τὰ ὧδε, 1. 6. “ they will tell 
 you the state of our affairs, both as respects myself 
 and others.” The τὰ ὧδε, however, may iaclude 
 every sort of intelligence which would be interesting 
 to them as Christians. On the similar words of ver. 
 7. Chrys. and Theophyl. remark on the wisdom of 
 the Apostle in not inserting every thing in his 
 Epistle that those whom he addressed would wish to 
 F2 
 
68 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 know, but leaving the minuter and secular matters 
 to the letter-bearers. That this was usual in antient 
 times I have before shewn. And, we may observe, 
 there was in the case of Paul a delicate propriety, 
 and a kindness and respect to the letter-bearers, by 
 leaving them something to say. So Theophyl. re- 
 marks that the Apostle adopted this course, first, 
 that his Epistles might not be too long; secondly, 
 that he who went with them might have something 
 to relate, and be on that account looked upon more 
 respectfully ; thirdly, that he might show his good 
 opinion of such persons, and the regard he had for 
 them, by this confidence placed in them; and be- 
 cause he might have some things to communicate, 
 not so proper for being committed to writing.” 
 
 10. ᾿Αρίσταρχος. See Acts 19, 29. 20, 4. 27, 2. 
 and Philem. 24. And not uncommon name in 
 Greece, and rendered celebrated by having been 
 borne by the great Grammarian. On this person 
 see the instructive note of Mackn. 
 
 10. ὁ συναιχμοαλωτός pov. ‘The Commentators here 
 raise a difficulty, because in this place Aristarchus 
 is called prisoner; but in Philem. 23, Epaphras. 
 Yet both might be in bonds; and surely St. Paul 
 was at liberty to mention in one Epistle the bonds 
 of the former, and in another the bonds of the latter. 
 ( Heinr.) 
 
 10. Μάρκος 6 ἀνεψιὸς Βαρνάβα. Ανεψιὸς, as we learn 
 from Phrynichus, was by the Attics applied to any 
 one’s ἐξάδελφος, 1. 6. either patruelis, or amitinus, or 
 consobrinus ; for by these three words the one in 
 question is rendered in the Glosses. Marcus, it may 
 be observed, had now become more courageous since 
 what is related in Acts 15, 39. and therefore was 
 now in great regard with Paul. (Comp. Tim. 4, 11.) 
 (Rosenm.) See Whitby. 
 
 10. περὶ οὗ ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς, “ as to whom (1. 6. Mar- 
 cus) ye have received my directions.” What these 
 were we know not. Pearce thinks that évroa. may 
 import urgent requests. See Acts 17,15. and 2 Tim. 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV. 69 
 
 4,11. Yet Iagree with Mackn., that these were 
 orders given with Apostolical authority; but whether 
 verbal (as he thinks), or in writing, 1 would not 
 venture to determine. Δέξασθε αὐτὸν͵ “ receive him 
 with the respect due to a faithful minister of Christ.” 
 So in 3 Joh. 8. it is said of itinerant ministers : Ἡμεῖς 
 οὖν ὀφείλομεν ἀπολαμβάνειν τοὺς τοιούτους, ἵνα συνεργοὶ 
 γινώμεθα τῇ ἀληθεία. 
 
 11. ᾿Ιησοῦς 6 λεγόμινος Ἰοῦστος, ‘* Jesus, who is 
 called Justus, also saluteth you.” A common name 
 among the Jews. Grot.and Rosenm. think that the 
 ὁ λεγόμενος ᾿Ιοῦστος signifies that he was so called by 
 the Romans. On which custom of adding to the 
 Jewish name a Roman one similar to it, see Grot. on 
 Acts 18,9. 
 
 11. οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομιῆς, ‘ all of whom are of the 
 circumcision,” i.e. Jewish Christians. The Apostle 
 then adds, οὗτοι μόνοι---παρεγορία, where the phraseo- 
 logy is brief and idiotical, and consequently some- 
 what obscure. οὗτοι is for οἱ kal. By μόνοι is meant, 
 as Chrys. and almost all Commentators think, “ of 
 the Jews alone ;” and perhapsrightly ; at least Luke 
 and Timothy were then at Rome. 
 
 11. συνεργοὶ ε. τ. 8. τ. Θ. can require no explana- 
 tion. Οἵτινες ἐγενήθησάν μοι παηρηγορία. This seems 
 to be a brief mode of expression for, ** and who have 
 indeed been such, and a great comfort to me.” Now 
 they might have been fellow-labourers without being 
 personally a comfort to the Apostle; which is here 
 implied. ‘The Jewish Christians in general were too 
 wedded to prejudice and bigotry to cordially pro- 
 mote the Apostle’s views, or be any comfort to him; 
 though they might be, in a certain sense, his fellow- 
 labourers. 
 
 12. ἀσπάξεται ὑμᾶς Exadpas 6 ἐξ ὑμῶν, “ Epaphras 
 your countryman (see the note supra ver. 9, and 
 therefore not the same, as some say, with the Epa- 
 phras mentioned at Philipp.) salutes you.” Πάντοτε 
 aywviSopevos ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ταῖς προευχαῖς, ““ continually 
 offering up fervent prayers in your behalf.” See the 
 
7O COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 note supra 2, 1. Ἵνα στῆτε τέλειοι καὶ πεπληρωμένοι, 
 &e. The στῆτε is thought by Heinr. to be equiva- 
 lent to ἦτε. But there rather seems to be a blend- 
 ing of two metaphors. ‘The force of στῆτε is the 
 same as at Eph. 6, 18. καὶ πάντα κατεργασάμενοι στῆ- 
 ναι" Στῆτε οὖν, &c. See also Philipp. 1, 27 and 28. 
 Gal. 5, 1. So Theophyl.: ἐπειδὴ δὴ ἔνι τέλειον μὲν 
 εἶναι, pr ἐστάναι δὲ, ὥσπερ ὅταν τις πάντα μὲν εἰδῇ, μοὴ 
 ἑσήκοι δὲ βεβαίως, διὰ τοῦτὸ φησιν, ἵνα στῆτε τέλειοι, ἕν 
 τε τῷ δόγματι δηλαδὴ, καὶ ἐν τῷ βίῳ: On τέλειοι see 1 
 Cor. 2, 6. and Eph. 4, 13. and the notes. Πεπληρω- 
 μένοι, * filled and thoroughly prepared with all spiri- 
 tual gifts and graces and divine aids.” See Schleus. 
 Lex. on πληρόω: Ἔν παντὶ θελήματι is for εἰς τὸ πᾶν 
 θέλημα. So Eph. 3, 19. ἵνα πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλή- 
 pop τοῦ Θεοῦ. The sense is: ‘ the will of God, and 
 that only.” For, as Theoph. observes, τοῦτο τὸ πε- 
 πληρῶσθαι καὶ τὸ τελειῶσθαι. 
 
 18. μαρτυρῶ γὰρ αὐτῷ ori ἔχει ϑῆλον. It is strange 
 that Heinr. and others should think πόνον instead of 
 ϑῆλον is the true reading; and that Griesb. should 
 have edited it. The various readings, πόθον, ἄγωνα, 
 κύπον, and πόνον are all but glosses on ϑῆλον : whereas 
 had πόνον been the original reading, it is difficult to 
 see how the rest could have arisen. Besides, the 
 common reading is confirmed by a kindred passage of 
 Rom. 10, 2. μαρτυρῶ yap αὐτοῖς ὅτι ϑῆλον Θεοῦ ἔχουσιν. 
 The phrase ἔχειν ϑῆλον ὑπὲρ τινὸς, signifies to be de- 
 sirous to promote any one’s interests, accompanied 
 with exertions to do it. See 2 Cor. 7, 7. 
 
 With respect to Laodicea and Hierapolis, they are 
 both in Phrygia. On the latter, which was in the 
 vicinity of Loadicea, Wets. has collected many pas- 
 sages from the Classical writers, especially the Geo- 
 graphers, to which I would add a very curious one 
 from an Orator of Procopius Gaz. ap. Villois Anecd. 
 H.41. πόλις ἐστὶν ἱερὰ, τὸν πρὸς ἥλιον ἀνισ χόντων, πο- 
 λυάνθρωπος, ἐκ τῆς εὐσεβείας φέρουσα γνώρισμια. καὶ ταὶς 
 θείαις τελεταῖς τών ἄλλων προβεβλημένη" ὅθεν εἰς ταύτην 
 φοιτῶσιν ᾿Ινδοὶ, καὶ Πέρσαι, καὶ Φοίνικες, καὶ Σκυθῶν 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV. 71 
 
 γένη, καὶ τὰ σεμνὰ τῆς Ελλάδος, Ἰωνία τε πᾶσα" καὶ 
 ὥσπερ τοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένους κοινήν τις ἂν εἴποι πατρίδα" 
 αὕτη τῶν ὑδάτων ἐνδείᾳ, μετὰ τῶν οἰκητόρων καὶ τοὺς παν- 
 ταχόθεν ὄντας ἐλύπει τοσαῦτα γὰρ παρεῖχεν, ὅσα. τῶν 
 ὄμβρων ἡ τύχη" καὶ ἀντ’ ἄλλου τινὸς, ὑδάτων θησαυροὺς 
 ἐπεποίηντο, 
 
 14. ἀσπάϑεται ὑμᾶς Λουκᾶς ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς. Τί 
 has been the almost unanimous opinion of Commen- 
 tators both antient and modern, that this is Luke the 
 Evangelist, who is from this passage alone, Rosenm. 
 says, supposed to have beena physician. But this I 
 should be inclined to doubt: and I can by no means 
 agree with those who, as Calvin, Heuman, and Ro- 
 senm., think that if St. Paul had here meant his well 
 known companion, he would have simply called him 
 Luke ; as at 4 Tim. 4, 12., from which they infer that 
 the ἰατρὸς indicates that this was another Luke ; as the 
 name was not uncommon. But how inclusive is such 
 an argument it is needless for me to point out. Thus 
 even Heinr. (sufficiently prone to innovation) admits 
 that Luke the Evangelist is meant. 
 
 Demas, Bengel observes, is the only one sine elo- 
 gio. There are several such at Rom. 16. 
 
 15. Νυμφάν, καὶ τὴν κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἐκκλησίαν. Grot. 
 thinks that Νυμῷ. is a contract name for Nymphodo- 
 rus. Compare 2 Tim. 4, 10. ‘This person had a 
 church or congregation in his house, of which men- 
 tion is made at Rom. 16, 5. 1 Cor. 16, 19. and 
 Philem. 2. where see the notes. From the xa} Grot. 
 would infer that Nymphas lived not at Laodicea, 
 but in the vicinity. This, however, seems precari- 
 ous. (Heinr.) 
 
 16. καὶ ὅταν---ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀναγνωθῆ. There has been 
 some difference of opinion respecting the force of the 
 τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείᾳ. On which it may be sufficient to 
 refer my readers to the notes of Whitby and Doddr., 
 (both being Commentators whom I presume few of 
 them are without): and I will offer only one or two 
 remarks. 
 
 There is no reason to conclude that the words 
 
te COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 refer to a lost Epistle to the Laodiceans; and I am 
 surprised Doddr. should maintain so precarious, not 
 to say dangerous, a position as that “all the Epistles 
 of the Apostles are not preserved, any more than all 
 the words and actions of our Lord.” ‘The two cases 
 are quite different; andthe position is not only un- 
 founded, but (as I said) dangerous. Here we need 
 only suppose, (with the most eminent Commentators, 
 down to Heinr.,) that the Epistle in question is that 
 to the Ephesians, and that that was what is called an 
 encyclical one. And although this does not admit of 
 proof, yet it is so highly probable that we may very 
 well acquiesce in it. 
 
 17. καὶ εἴπατε ᾿Αρχίππω, 1. 6. “ say to Archippus 
 in my name.” This person had discharged the office 
 of Evangelista sometimes at Ephesus, sometimes 
 elsewhere. See Philem. 2. He seems to have last 
 resided, and to have been then resident at Colosse, 
 and there to have discharged the office of President, 
 ruling Presbyter, now called κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, Bishop. 
 (Grot.) Some, as Heinr., think he was now dis- 
 charging that office in the place of Epaphras. From 
 the words of the address it has been by most Com- 
 mentators supposed that he had been inattentive to 
 the duties of his station, and that they are intended 
 to convey areproof. But this is so inconsistent with 
 the commendatory manner in which he is mentioned 
 by the Apostle to Philemon, that it cannot (I think) 
 be admitted. Nor is such a conclusion at all neces- 
 sary. We might as well suppose the admonition to 
 Timothy at 2 Tim. 1, 6. to ““ stir up the gift of God 
 in him,” implies reproof for negligence. Such lan- 
 guage as this is only to be understood as exciting to 
 renewed activity, for which, considering the then 
 state of the Colossian Church (beset with false 
 teachers) there would be especial need. 
 
 With respect to the phraseology, it is by many 
 thought to savour of Hebrew pleonasm. But simi- 
 lar modes of expression are sometimes found in the 
 Classical writers. ‘The words may be simply ren- 
 
COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV. 73 
 
 dered: “ Look to* thy office which thou receivedst 
 at the hands of the Lord, and for the promotion of 
 his glory.” Thus, we may observe, a Bishop or 
 Priest may (by the medium of those who conse- 
 crate him) be said to receive his office from the 
 Lord, the Head of the Church. So Theophyl. 
 
 Of πληροῦν and fungi, joined with words denoting 
 office, Wets. and Kypke adduce numerous examples, 
 none of which (as the phrase is so very frequent) need 
 I select. 
 
 18. ὁ ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου, Hence it is 
 plain, that all that precedes was written by the hand 
 of a scribe, and this clausula alone by the hand of the 
 Apostle. So1 Cor. 16,21. 2 Thess. 3, 17. (Rosenm.) 
 Yet he thus acknowledges the preceding to his own. 
 (Heinr.) 
 
 18. μνημονεύετε μου τῶν δεσμῶν. Some explain: 
 “ Be mindful to relieve me while under these bonds.” 
 But nothing can be less accordant to the spirit of the 
 Apostle than this. The expression is similar to that 
 in Hebr. 13, 3.; and the sense (as the best Com- 
 mentators antient and modern are agreed) is: “ Be 
 mindful of, feel love for, pray for me, and imitate 
 the courage with which 1 bear persecution for the 
 Gospel’s sake.” 
 
 * So Arrian Diss. Epict. L.3, ch. 23. (cited by Rosenm.) ἀλλ᾽ 
 ἐκεῖνο μᾶλλον βλέπετε. 
 
71 
 
 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. * 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Of the contents of this Epistle Schoettg. gives the 
 following plan. 1. Proeme, ch. 1. 2. A commen- 
 dation for the facility with which they were con- 
 verted, ch. 2. 8. A commendation for their stead: 
 fastness in their Christian profession, ch. 3. It is 
 true the Apostle here and elsewhere introduces such 
 commendatory matter, for the purpose of both of 
 making the greater impression on the minds of his 
 readers, and confirming them the more in their con- 
 stancy. 4. Practical matter, 4, 5, 12—22. 5. A 
 treating on the times of future things, 5, 1—11. 
 
 VERSE 1. Biaovaves καὶ Tipobecs, Silvanus. A not 
 unfrequent name among the Romans. This Silvanus 
 (i. e. the Silas of the Acts,) was Paul’s companion in 
 his journey through Asia Minor and Greece (see 
 Acts 15, 22. 16,19. 17, 1 and 10); and also took 
 Timothy with him when he went into Macedonia. 
 Both their names are, therefore, united by the Apos- 
 tle with his own,,as being well known to the Gentile 
 converts at Thessalonica. (Rosenm.) Grotius thinks 
 they had relations in Thessalonica. But that is mere 
 conjecture. 
 
 1. τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεσσαλονικέων, ἐν Θεῷ Πατρὶ, x. K. 
 J. X. Rosenm. here supposes an ellipsis of “ qui 
 perductus est ad finem:” and he takes in the sense 
 of per. But this is too arbitrary. The common and 
 
 * Or rather, as Markland has fully proved, Thessaloniczans. 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 75 
 
 best founded opinion is, that there is an ellipsis of 
 οὔσῃ. But to render it by és, is being too literal and 
 inartificial. Mackn. interprets it subject to; which 
 is too arbitrary. ‘The sense seems to be, “ who are 
 founded in and joined to Christ.” See 1 Joh. 5, 20. 
 Some antients and moderns, as Grot., think no men- 
 tion is made of Presbyters and Deacons, because the 
 congregation as yet consisted of but few. But that 
 (as Koppe observes) is refuted by the Introductions 
 of the other Epistles, where he addresses churches 
 fully constituted without any mention of such. 
 
 2,3. εὐχαριστοῦμεν ----ἡμιῶν. ‘The same is expressed 
 at Rome 1, 8.and 9. Eph. 1, 16. where see the notes. 
 It is observed by Koppe, that the plural throughout 
 the Epistle is to be referred to Paul only; though 
 Timothy and Silvanus are joined in the salutation. 
 Compare 3,1 and2. The πάντοτε and ἀδιαλείπτως 
 are to be taken populariter, like our perpetually, 
 i.e. at every return of prayer. ᾿Αδιολείπτως μνημιο- 
 νεύοντες ὑμών τοῦ ἔργου τῆς πίστεως “as often as we re- 
 member your work of faith.” The recent Commen- 
 tators take ἔργου τῆς πίστως for πίστεως. But it ra- 
 ther has reference to the zeal and diligence which 
 they had evinced in attaining unto this faith, and 
 their constancy in persevering in it. So Theophyl. 
 explains it ἐνστάσεως ὑμῶν τὸ στεῤῥῶς ἴστασαι. And 
 so Theodoret: τὸ ἐν κινδύνοις βέβαιον. See Joh. 6, 29. 
 and Phil. 1, 6. Benson thinks it denotes the practice 
 of all those good works required in consequence of 
 embracing the Christian faith. But this seems un- 
 founded. 
 
 3. καὶ τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης, καὶ τῆς ὑπομινῆς τῆς ἐλ- 
 πίδος. On the exact sense of these words Commen- 
 tators are not agreed. Koppe avoids the difficulty, 
 by regarding them as simply put for τῆς ἀγάπης and 
 τῆς ἐλπίδος. But against this slovenly method of 
 wrapping up matters I can never cease to protest. 
 It is only a decent way of shuffling off the difficulty. 
 Tod κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης is well explained by Schleus. 
 * ardentissimum mutuz benevolentiz studium.” Of 
 
76 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 
 
 this (as Theophyl. observes) they had given a proof 
 in the circumstances narrated at Acts 17. And itis 
 remarked by Grot., that love is much, but labour is 
 more. In the present clause the first substantive 
 stands for an adjective. ‘Thus ὑπομονὴ τῆς ἐλπίδος sig- 
 nifies, “ your long and patient enduring hope,” spez 
 certce et inconcusse, as Schleus. explains. We shall 
 see the significance and propriety of this expression, 
 when we consider the many temptations they under- 
 went to abandon the faith, both from Jews and 
 Gentiles. 
 
 3. τοῦ Kugiov, Vorst. observes, denotes partly the 
 efficient cause; partly the object of the preceding 
 virtues. 
 
 3. ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς ἡμῶν. This for- 
 mula must be referred to the πίστεως, ἀγάπης, and 
 ἐλπίδος, and (as some antients and most moderns 
 think) is meant (by a Hebraism taken from ™ mab) 
 to denote that they are sincere and zealous. Rosenm. 
 refers to Vorst. de Hebr. p. 399 and 463. Fisch. 
 
 4. εἰδότες, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, τὴν ἐκλογὴν 
 ὑμῶν. ΤῈ 15 strange that many modern Commenta- 
 tors (as Eras. and Zeger) should refer the εἰδότες to 
 the Thessalonians, as if they knew that they were 
 elected of God: which is supposing a harsh anaco- 
 luthon very needlessly : whereas if it be referred (as 
 the context requires) to Paul (since the participle is 
 used both before and after), all is natural and 
 straight forward. So all the antients, and most of 
 the moderns, even some Calvinists, as Doddr. See 
 the note on 3,5. ‘The election spoken of (says 
 Whitby) is the election to be a church.” (See his 
 note.) As to the notion of absolute election of indi- 
 viduals, it is refuted by 3, 5. 5, 14. 2 Thess. 3,11. 
 And so the antients took the words. See Chrysost., 
 Theophyl., and Gicumen. 
 
 On the construction Commentators are not quite 
 agreed. Some join ὑπὸ rod Θεοῦ with the preceding ; 
 others, with the following. The former seems. pre- 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. Vi 
 
 ferable, and is not only supported by the authority of 
 some antient Versions and Commentators, but is 
 adopted by the best moderns. Propriety of lan- 
 guage, too, seems to require this: for otherwise (as 
 Benson says) we should have had τῶν ὑπὸ Θεοῦ ἐκλο- 
 γὴν ὑμῶν. A yet stronger argument is deduced from 
 2 Thess. 2, 15. and Col. 3, 12. 
 
 5. ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ---- πληροφορίᾳ moray. ‘The 
 terms here employed are very strong, and ought not 
 to have been lowered and explained away, as they 
 are done by most recent Commentators, whose in- 
 terpretation indeed yields a tolerable sense,* but 
 with a far less natural construction, and with vio- 
 lence to the plain and obvious sense of the passage, 
 which had been distinctly seen by the antients, and 
 was admitted by the moderns up to the last half 
 century. 
 
 5. τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν, “our preaching of the Gos- 
 pel.” ᾿Εγενήθη, “ was not affected.” Eis ὑμᾶς, for 
 ὑμῖν: ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει, καὶ ἐν Π]Ίνευμ. ey. These 
 three particulars are opposed to the bare λόγῳ unac- 
 companied with any thing more. The δυνάμει has 
 reference (as the best Commentators are agreed) to 
 ministry worked by Paul; and the πν. ey. (I should 
 conceive) to the spiritual gifts which were imparted 
 by him to some members of the Thessalonian Church; 
 as at Corinth and Galatia. So Theoph., who ex- 
 plains: ‘‘ from this it is plain that ye are elect, from 
 God’s glorifying the preaching of the word among 
 you. lor we did not simply preach, but there were 
 also signs of God’s approving that faith.” See also 
 Benson. Some take δυνάμει in conjunction with zy. 
 ay. to denote the supernatural power of Paul’s 
 preaching, and its efficacy on the heart. But this 
 may be included in the preceding. - 
 
 5. ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ. On the sense of this 
 
 . * Thus Rosenm. renders: ‘ Nam doctrinam nostram persuasi- 
 mus vobis non tantum institutione, sed etiam demonstratione insig- 
 nis vis divine, et multis firmissimis argumentis.” 
 
78 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 
 
 clause Commentators are not agreed. Some, as 
 Grot., would unite it with the preceding ἐν πνεύματι 
 ἁγίῳ, supposing an hendiadis. But this seems paring 
 down the sense. Others refer it to Paul’s παρῥησία. 
 But this cannot be tolerated. It must be referred 
 to the Thessalonians ; and I think (with Theophyl., 
 Cicumen., Hesych., and, of the moderns, Zanch, 
 Benson, Rosenm., and Schleus.), that it is equivalent 
 to βεβαιώτης ; and that σὺν is understood ; q.d. ““ it 
 was accompanied with certain assurance of the truth 
 of the Gospel.” The force of the metaphor is de- 
 rived from a ship under full sail, and may therefore 
 well express full assurance and complete conviction. 
 So Heb. 6, 11. πληροῷ. τῆς ἐλπίδος: and 10, 22. 
 ὁ πληροῷ. τῆς πίστεως. 
 
 5. καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν ἐν ὑμῖν. ‘The scope 
 of this clause, which is indistinct, has not been well 
 perceived by the Commentators. The Apostle (I 
 conceive) meant to advert to another evidence of the 
 truth of the Gospel, namely, from the conduct of the 
 preacher of it. The καθὼς may be rendered espe- 
 cially as. Oios here, as almost always, is used ina 
 good sense. It is well explained by Theophyl.: πῶς 
 ἀνεστράφημεν. The Apostle alludes to purity, dis- 
 interestedness (even working with his hands, 2, 9.), 
 and other moral virtues by which his sincerity and 
 the truth of the Gospel was proved. What is here 
 only hinted at in οἷον éyev., is fully expressed infra 2, 
 10. ὑμεῖς μαρτύρες ὡς ὁσίως καὶ δικαίως καὶ ἀμεμπτῶς 
 ὑμῖν ἐγενήθημεν. In ἐν ὑμῖν δι’ ὑμᾶς Pisc. thinks there 
 isa polyptoton. But it is rather (I conceive) ἃ paro- 
 nomasia. The force of δ ὑμᾶς (which is not well 
 discerned by the Commentators) is, ‘‘ for your sakes, 
 for your good, not our own private interest.” 
 Mackn. well contrasts this disinterestedness with the 
 covetousness and profligacy of the philosophers of 
 that age. 
 
 6. καὶ ὑμεῖς μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε καὶ τοῦ Kupiov. 
 There is here plainly an ellipsis of some clause, 
 which must be supplied, to indicate the connection. 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP, I. 79 
 
 Benson offers the following: “ (And we can bear 
 witness to your amiable behaviour) for,” &c. Mack.: 
 « And, being exceedingly struck with our miracles 
 and virtues, ye became,” &c. I would propose 
 (partly from Menoch.) the following: ‘* (Nor was 
 our labour fruitless, or our example set you in vain) 
 for ye were imitators,” &c. The force of the μιμηταὶ 
 is, by most Commentators, confined to the bearing 
 afflictions, as Jesus Christ and Paul had done. But 
 I cannot help thinking, with Zanch, Grot., and 
 Doddr., that a general imitation of Christ and the 
 Apostle is meant, (as in 1 Cor. 4, 16. & 11, 1.), 
 though consisting chiefly in that stedfast faith and 
 endurance of persecution for the truth’s sake, which 
 is the stamp of all other Christian virtues; 4. d. “ ye 
 were imitators of me and the Lord in the general 
 holiness of your lives, and especially in that patient 
 endurance of persecution, to which, after having re- 
 ceived the word, ye were exposed.” See infra 2, 14. 
 
 The clause δεξάμενοι----ἁγίου, from the flexibility of 
 the phraseology, admits of two or three renderings, 
 though with no great diversity of sense. Much de- 
 pends upon the mode in which δεξάμενοι is to be 
 taken. IPfit be taken (with Pisc.) for ἅτε ἐδέξασθε, 
 ‘* inasmuch as ye received,” it will supply a proof of 
 their being true imitators of Christ. But if it be 
 taken (with most Commentators, antient and mo- 
 dern) for “ having received the Gospel,” the scope 
 will be somewhat different ; and the phrases ἐν θλίψει 
 πολλῇ and μετὰ χαρᾶς [Πνεύματος ay. must be intro- 
 duced with an although and a yet; which is harsh 
 (see Doddr. and Mackn.); q.d. having embraced 
 the Gospel, though it brought on you much afflic- 
 tion, yet mitigated by the joy of the Holy Ghost.” 
 The former method seems preferable, and the con- 
 struction may be thus traced: δεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον 
 μετὰ χαρᾶς πνεύματος ἁγίου ἐν θλίψει πολλῆ. I cannot, 
 however, agree with some recent Commentators 
 who render μετὰ χαρᾶς libentissime; as Acts 2, 41. 
 ἀσμένως ἀποδεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον. There is, doubtless 
 
80 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. 1. 
 
 (as the antient and the best modern Commentators 
 are agreed) an allusion to the joy of the Holy Spirit 
 which accompanied and rewarded their alacrity in 
 receiving the word, and their firmness in adhering 
 to it, and which was (as Benson and Mackn. observe) 
 an evidence of their election, and a pledge of their 
 title to a happy immortality. 
 
 7. ὥστε γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς τύπους, ““ Insomuch that ye 
 became exemplars and models to all the believers in 
 Macedonia and Achaia.” On tux. see 1 Cor. 10, 6 
 & 11. Phil. 3, 17. and the notes. Koppe observes 
 that Macedonia and Achaia were the two provinces 
 into which Greece was divided when brought under 
 the Roman yoke, one of which comprehended Ma- 
 cedonia proper, with Illyricum, Epirus, and Thes- 
 saly ; the other Greece proper, i.e. antient Greece. 
 
 8. ἀφ᾽ ὑμών yap ἐξήχηται---ἐξελήλυθεν, “ For not 
 only from you sounded forth the word of the Lord 
 unto Macedonia,” &c. ‘The οὐ μόνον (per hyperbaton) 
 must (as Grot., Rosenm., and Koppe are agreed) be 
 united with ἐξήχηται (see Rom. 4, 12. and Heb. 11, 
 3.), the comma being removed after Κυρίου. It is 
 remarked by Koppe, that the formulas ἀφ᾽ ὑμών 
 ἐξήχηται caroyosand πίστις ὑμῶν ἐξελήλυθεν are placed 
 in opposition. Compare Joel 8, 14. and Sir. 40, 18. 
 
 ᾿Ἐξήχηται, “ sounded like atrumpet.” So Pollux 1, 
 118. ἐξήχησε βροντὴ, and Hesych. ἐξήχηται" ἐκηρύχθη. 
 ᾿Αφ᾽ ὑμῶν does not denote (as Storr thought) the 
 efficient cause ; but it signifies commencing from you. 
 Nor has the sounding forth any relation (as Koppe 
 supposes) to the Apostle’s own progress through the 
 district, which would destroy the propriety and 
 beauty of the passage ; but the meaning is, that the 
 truths of the Gospel were disseminated from ‘Thes- 
 salonica, which, from its dignity as capital of one of 
 the two provinces of Macedonia, and its extensive 
 commerce, would have communication with far dis- 
 tant regions (for that is, by hyperbole, the sense of 
 ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, and not, as Koppe renders, “" wherever 
 I go”), and the same intercourse would spread the 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 81 
 
 news of the conversion of the Thessalonians far and 
 wide. 
 
 8. καὶ πίστις ὑμών ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐξελήλυθεν, ‘ se di- 
 vulgavit,” “ has been carried.’? Benson has an ex- 
 cellent note on this going out of the Gospel from any 
 place, as being the greatest honour it could have. 
 Compare Ps. 19,4. and Rom. 10, 18. He shows 
 how highly honoured in that respect was Antioch, 
 and especially Jerusalem; as had been prophesied. 
 See Is. 2, 3. and Macc. 4, 2. So St. Paul at 1 Cor. 
 14, 36. ‘ What, came the word of God out from 
 you?” i.e. are you the first Church in the world? 
 Theophyl. paraphrases thus: ἡ περὶ τῆς ὑμῶν φήμη 
 ἀρετῆς ἐποίησεν ἐξάκουστον γενέσθαι πᾶσι τὸ κήρυγμια, καὶ 
 πάντων ὑμᾶς παιδευτὰς δειχθῆναι. 
 
 9. αὐτοὶ γὰρ περὶ ἡμῶν ἀπαγγέλλουσιν ὁποίαν εἴσοδον 
 ἔχομεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. By αὐτοὶ Grot. and Rosenm. un- 
 derstand persons every where. But the nature of 
 amoyy. seems rather to show that αὐτοὶ must mean 
 the Fhessalonians who sounded out the word of 
 God every where. As to the construction, it is the 
 κατὰ τὸ σημιαινόμιενον. Περὶ ἡμῶν, ““ concerning us.” 
 Ὅποιαν, qualem, how successful; for that is implied 
 in ὅποιαν (as often insuch kind of words), and not, as 
 Rosenm. supposes, in εἴσοδον ; as is clear from 2, 1., 
 which is closely connected with this passage; the 
 words καὶ πώς ---ἐρχομένης being in some degree pa- 
 renthetical. 
 
 9. πῶς ἐπεστρέψατε πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, ‘ how promptly.” 
 (So Theophyl. εὐκόλως, μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς σφοδρότητος) 
 ye turned from the worship of idols to that of the 
 true God. ’Emsorp. has here (as Koppe and Rosenm. 
 observe) a reciprocal force, as at Luke 17, 4. Acts 
 3,19. And so our verb to ¢urn admits of both an 
 active and a reciprocal. To turn any one unto God, 
 or to turn oneself unto, denotes what is called conver- 
 sion, the abandonment of any religion, and the em-, 
 bracing of another, or the passing from Atheism to 
 religion. The words following are exegetical, and 
 show the intent of this.émiorp., namely (εἰς τὸ) δου- 
 λεύειν Θεῴ ϑῶντι, 1. 6. to worship and obey, &c. ; for 
 
 VOL, VIII. G 
 
82: 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. ' 
 
 such is the sense of δουλεύειν, derived from the Heb. 
 Tay, from whence the Latin obedio. ‘The expression 
 living and true God, as opposed to dumb idols and 
 fictitious Gods, is of very frequent occurrence both 
 in the Scriptures and also Josephus and Philo. 
 Theophyl. observes that this is meant to hint an ad- 
 monition to a conduct worthy of such a wonderful 
 conversion ; and (as Benson observes) “ the remind- 
 ing them of this would be a motive to them to go 
 on as they had begun.” | 
 
 10. καὶ ἀναμένειν----Ἰησοῦν. The ἀναμένειν depends 
 upon εἰς τὸς Koppe and Rosenm. notice the hyper- 
 baton for ᾿[ησοῦν, ὅν ἥγειρεν, and the use of ῥύομεν for 
 ῥυσόμενον. But the former criticism is precarious ; 
 and the latter unnecessary. It may mean “ who is 
 to free us.” Ὁργῆς imports punishment ; for wrath 
 can only be ascribed to God ἀνθρωποπαθώς. See 
 Benson. As to Koppe, he here, as often, abuses his 
 knowledge by seeking needless refinements, and 
 indulging in foolish and dangerous speculations. 
 
 No Commentator has sufficiently seen the force of 
 the εἰς τὸ ἀναμένειν, which seems meant to show the 
 other fundamental article of Christianity, namely, to 
 receive Jesus Christ as the Saviour. Now this is ex- 
 pressed by waiting for him, and expecting his advent 
 from heaven; which is beautifully put for the re- 
 ceiving himas the Saviour, obeying his precepts, and 
 living in the profession of his religion. ‘This, it may 
 be observed, is here especially appropriate, with re- 
 ference to the trials and calamities with which they 
 had had to struggle, and under which “ the patient 
 waiting for of their Saviour” and deliverer was their 
 only support. So Gal. 5,5. “we wait for the hope.” 
 Rom. 8, 19. ““ waiteth for the manifestation of the 
 sons of God.” Rom. 8, 25. ‘‘ we groan, waiting for 
 the adoption.” 1 Cor. 1, 7. ‘‘ waiting for the coming 
 of our Lord.’”’ 2 Thess. 3, 5. “ unto the patient 
 waiting for of Christ.” It is well observed by Theo- 
 phyl.: ἐπειδὴ τὰ μὲν δεινὰ ἐν χερσὶ, τὰ δὲ χρηστὰ ἐν 
 ἐλπίσι, μεγάλην αὐτοῖς προσμαρτυρεῖ πίστιν, εἴγε ἀναμιέ- 
 yours καὶ ἐλπίϑουσι βεβαίως τὰ μέλλοντα. 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 83 
 
 CHAP. II, 
 
 VER. 1. αὐτοὶ γὰρ oldare—yeyover. The connexion 
 is here not well traced by the Commentators; and 
 Koppe and Rosenm. recognize none, by taking the 
 γὰρ as aparticle of transition. But this is precarious 
 and unnecessary; and the connexion will be clear, 
 if (as I observed at 1, 9.) the words καὶ πῶς---ἐρχο- 
 μένης be regarded as in some measure parenthetical. 
 The yap refers to the ὅποιαν εἴσοδον ἔσχομεν. And the 
 sense may be thus expressed: “ (I need scarcely 
 have said it) for you yourselves know,” &c. 
 
 The Hellenism i in οἴδατε τὴν εἴσοδον ἡμῶν ὅτι γέγονεν 
 for οἴδατε ὅτι ἡ εἴσοδος, &c., is trite. On the sense of 
 the κενὴ, which, from its flexibility, admits of various 
 senses, Commentators are not agreed. Many an- 
 tients interpret it, ‘‘ free of danger and fear.” But 
 this sense is inapposite. Most moderns, as Grot. 
 and Hamm., explain it false, lying. But this inter- 
 pretation is harsh; as is also that of Rosenm. and 
 Koppe, who take it for μάταιον, and render: “ non 
 vero honoris vel opum acquirendarum studio ad vos 
 venimus; Veni ad vos eo consilio et studio ut vobis 
 prodessem, non ut otiosé inter vos viverem.” If the 
 connexion above traced be the true one, it must be 
 taken, with Menoch., Est., and Gomar, in the sense 
 sine fructu, inutile. And that that is the real con- 
 nection, and this the sense, I am the more inclined 
 to believe, since I find the very acute and able 
 Benson has anticipated all that I have said, and come 
 to the. same conclusion. He rightly ascribes the 
 variety of interpretations to the solicitude of Com- 
 mentators to preserve a connection with what follows, 
 and from their supposing that the Apostle is there 
 explaining what he means by his saying our coming 
 unto you was not in vain.” ‘The meiosis in οὐ κένη is 
 very obvious. Benson confirms the above interpre- 
 tation from 1, 5. 2,13 & 14. 3,5. 2 Thess. 3, 1 
 s. 12, 4. 55, 11. Jer. 2, 30. 8,8 & 9. 1 Cor. 15, 10, 
 14 & 58. 2 Cor. 6, 1. Gal. 2, 2. Phil. 2, 16. ‘ 
 
 G2 
 
84. 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 2. ἀλλὰ καὶ προπαθόντες---ἀγῶνι. Compare Acts 
 16, 22 seqq. Προπαῇ. simply signifies ‘‘ after having 
 suffered,” &c. ‘The verb is often used by Thucyd. 
 and the best writers. The ὑβρισθέντες refers to his 
 being scourged; which was an intolerable insult to 
 a Roman citizen. See Benson. ᾿Ἑπαῤῥησιάμεθα λα- 
 λῆσαι may be well rendered by our idiom, ‘‘ took 
 the liberty to speak; mustered up the courage to 
 speak.” ‘The term often carries with it a verb of 
 speaking, either expressed (as Eph. 6, 20. and Acts 
 13, 46.), or understood ; as in Acts 9,27. At ἐν 
 Θεῳ ἡμῶν some verb is omitted, and mustbe supplied. 
 We may compare ἐπαῤῥ. ἐπὶ τῴ Κυρίῳ at Acts 14, 3. 
 
 2. ἐν πολλῴώ ἀγώνι. The aya may either be ren- 
 dered, with the early moderns, solicitous and painful 
 care and study: as in Col. 2, 1., and the Sept. ;* or 
 (with the antients, and, of the moderns, Grot., and 
 almost all later Commentators) peril, danger; as in 
 Phil. 1, 30. and Arrian Exp. Alex. 3, 15, 1. drs & 
 ἀγῶνι ξυνέχεται τὸ κατὰ ohas, καὶ βοηθεῖν δεῖ. And 
 this latter sense seems more agreeable to the words 
 following ; though, indeed, both may be united. 
 
 8. ἡ γὰρ παράκλησις ἡμῶν---δόλω. Παράκλησις must 
 here (as Koppe observes) signify teaching, and com- 
 prehend the whole of the Apostle’s religious instruc- 
 tion; as Acts 13, 15. 15, 31. See also Loesner’s 
 examples. The construction, he thinks, is Hebraic. 
 But it seems rather popular. Οὐκ ἐκ πλάνης. The 
 πλανὴ may denote either imposture and seduction ; 
 as Eph. 4, 14. 2 Thess. 2, 11. 1 Joh. 4, 6. 2 Pet. 3, 
 
 * To which may be added Thucyd. 2, 45. ὁρῶ μέγαν τὸν ἀγῶνα 
 (where [ shall adduce many more examples), and also Thucyd. 7, 
 71. ὁ δὲ πεξὸς---πολὺν τὸν ἀγῶνα καὶ ξύστασιν τῆς γνώμης εἶχε, 
 where many eminent Critics read from Plutarch ξύντασιν (i.e. with 
 agonizing intentness of mind). AndI would add that so Valla seems 
 to have read. And this reading is supported by an imitation of 
 Dio Cass. 367. Yet, strange to say, in another still plainer imita- 
 tion at 575 ἃ 576., he reads ξύστατσιν, which is, moreover, defended 
 by many other passages which I shall adduce in my note on that 
 passage. I must therefore regard the common reading as the true 
 one. 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 85 
 
 17.; or error, self-deceit, enthusiasm; as Rom. 1, 
 27. James 2, 18., and sometimes in the Sept. The 
 former interpretation is here adopted by Benson, 
 whom see; the latter, by Koppe, Mackn., Schleus., 
 Rosenm., and most Commentators. Οὔτε ἐξ ἀκαθαρ- 
 σίας, nor from impure and corrupt motives, desire 
 of wealth, honours, &e., nor founded in a desire of 
 sensual gratification.” In this sense, as denoting 
 moral impurity, the word is used in Rom. 6, 19. 
 1 Thess. 4, 8., and in the Sept. See Schleus. Lex., 
 V. T., and Trommius. So also Arrian, cited by 
 Koppe: ψυχῆς ἀκαθαρσία, δόγματα πονηρά. Benson 
 takes it for physical impurity, i.e. lewdness. But in 
 this I cannot assent to the learned Commentator. 
 
 8. οὔτε ἐν δόλῳ. “ As their doctrine (says Benson) 
 did not proceed from imposture or impurity, so nei- 
 ther did they preach it in guile. ‘They used no craft 
 or artifice in the preaching of it; did not artfully 
 conceal some parts, and mix or adulterate others ; 
 did not assert the necessity of the Gentile Christians 
 observing the law of Moses in order to please the 
 Jews; did not model Christianity according to the 
 old heathen religion, or contrive methods to make 
 them easy in their vices, in order to draw in great _ 
 numbers of the Gentiles.” See 1 Pet. 2, 1. and 3, 
 10. Δόλος, which has so much perplexed the Ety- 
 mologists, seems to be derived from the Heb. nds, 
 to draw out, make fine ; and thus literally signifies 
 finesse. 
 
 4. ἀλλὰ καθὼς----λαλοῦμεν. This is exegetical of 
 the preceding ἐν δόλῳ. The sense is: ‘* We adulte- 
 rate nothing (so Rosenm.); we preach nothing but 
 what we have been divinely taught ; we use no base 
 arts, but only obey the Divine will.” Others think 
 that καθὼς and οὕτω do not refer to the mode in 
 which the Gospel was taught, but merely mean 
 sicut and sic. The construction is rather unusual, and 
 the Commentators say it is for ἐδοκιμάσε ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς, 
 ὥστε πιστευεῖν ἡμῖν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. ‘There is, I think, 
 
80. 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. If. 
 
 a blending of two clauses into one; q.d. “ as we are 
 approved by God, and put in trust with the Gospel.” 
 Or we may supply οὕτω, corresponding to the ellip- 
 tical οὕτω before πιστευθῆναι. In the active, indeed, 
 oxi. is far more usual, and in the sense approve, 
 choose, &c. it occurs in Rom. 14, 22. and 1 Cor. 
 16, 3. Yetit does occur in the passive in this sense at 
 2 Macc. 4, 3, and Xen. Mem. 3, 5. cited by Schleus. 
 The sense is clear from the preceding verse. 
 
 4. οὐκ ὡς ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκοντες, i. 6. (as Pisc., Me- 
 noch., Koppe, and Rosenm. explain) ‘‘ studying to 
 please men.” But it rather seems to be put for ws 
 avlowraperkos; aS in Eph. 6, 6. The former ex- 
 pression, however, is used, for better adaptation to 
 the antithesis ἀλλὰ τῷ Oew. I would compare 
 Soph. Phil. 1445. and Ignat. ad Rom. (Ὁ. 2. οὐ γὰρ 
 θέλω ὑμῖν (1 conjecture ὑμᾶς) ἀνθρωπαρεσκησαι, ἀλλὰ 
 Θεώ ἀρέσαι. Why this should be done is beautifully 
 suggested by Soph. Antig. 74. as follows: ἐπεὶ 
 πλείων χρόνος ὃν δεῖ μ᾽ ἀρέσκειν τοῖς κάτω, τῶν ἔνθαδε. 
 
 The ὁ δοκιμάϑων τὰς καρδίας is a perpetual epithet 
 of God, both in the Old and New Testament. Thus 
 Acts 1, 24. 15, 6. and Rom. 8, 27., where see the 
 notes. See an excellent Sermon on the above two 
 verses by Dr. Maltby, vol. 2. 
 
 5, 6. On the sentiment contained in these verses, 
 which are to be joined, compare 2 Cor. 2, 17. So 
 Koppe, who (after Vatab.) says that οὐκ---ἐγενήθημιεν 
 is for οὐκ ἐκολακεύσαμεν ; and he cites Classical ex- 
 amples of ἐν λόγῳ εἶναι and γενέσθαι for λέγειν, ἐν πράγ- 
 ματι εἶναι for πράττειν, ἐν παράβασει γινεσθαι for πα- 
 ραβαίνω, and such like. ‘This savours of Hebraism ; 
 λόγῳ κολακείας being for κολακείᾳ ; aS λόγος πορνείας at 
 Matt. 5,28. At least, ἐν is strongly expressive of 
 habit and plan of life. Thus ἐν δόλῳ at ver. 4. 
 Koppe well remarks that by this is denoted the 
 agendi ratio. See Grot. As to Hammond’s inter- 
 pretation, ‘ to be talked of for flattery,” it is entirely 
 refuted by Benson. 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 87 
 
 The ἐν προφάσει πλεονεξίας Loesner, Koppe, Ro- 
 senm., and Schleus., take for ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ, and ad- 
 duce examples of the pleonasm from Philo. But to 
 this summary way of wrapping up matters I can never 
 give praise. Philo is a pleonastic writer ; St. Paul is 
 not : and the nature of pleonasms (as they are called) 
 of this sort I have often before explained. They 
 will usually be found to be two phrases blended into 
 one. I therefore most approve of the version of 
 Benson, “ nor carried on any covetous design under 
 a fair pretence.” See also Mackn. IIaeove§. per- 
 haps does not so much signify avarice, or covetousness, 
 as a greediness for self-gratification, including even 
 that of glory and fame.* But, in order to make this 
 the plainer, the Apostle adds, οὔτε ϑητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώ- 
 πων δόξαν, ““ not seeking glory from men.” ‘The par- 
 ticiple is thought to be for the verb égytycapev. At 
 least this is convenient, in order to hang thereon the 
 particle δυνάμενοι; for the words οὔτε---ἄλλων are in 
 some measure parenthetical. 
 
 6. δυνάμενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι. On the meaning of ἐν 
 βάρει Commentators, both antient and modern, have 
 been divided in opinion. Thus Theophyl.: ἢ ἐν 
 Tiny, καὶ δόξη, καὶ ὄγκῳ, ἢ δυνάμενοι λαμβάνειν καὶ τρέ- 
 ῴεσθαι, καὶ βαρεῖς ὑμῖν εἶναι. Kal γὰρ τὸ ἀξίωμα ἡμῶν 
 τουτοὸ ἀπαιτεῖ, λαμβάνει Tap ὑμῶν. ‘Lhe former inter- 
 pretation, to be in great dignity and authority, is 
 adopted by many modern Commentators ; as Pisc., 
 Zanch, Hamm., Vitringa, Benson, and others; and 
 is also supported by the Syr. Version. ‘This also is 
 thought to best agree with what precedes. The 
 common punctuation, too, by which these words 
 are connected with the former, is favourable to it. 
 But in other editions these words commence the 7th 
 verse; and Koppe observes that that interpretation 
 
 * Thus Milton, in a fine passage of his exquisite Lycidas: 
 Fame is the spur that the clear spirit doth raise, 
 (That last infirmity of noble minds,) 
 To scorn delights, and live laborious days. 
 See also Paradise Regained, L. ILI. sit. init. and the notes of Dr. 
 Jortin. οὐ 
 
88 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 is scarcely permitted by propriety of language: at 
 least it cannot be proved from 2 Cor. 4, 17. Many 
 eminent Interpreters, both antient and modern, as 
 Beza, Grotius, Gomar, our English Translators, 
 Doddr., Koppe, and Rosenm. (rightly, I think), 
 prefer the latter ; and it is ably defended by Wolf. 
 Certainly it is more agreeable to the context. Com- 
 pare ver. 9 & 11. and 2 Cor. 11,9., where the Apostle 
 says he preserved himself ἀβαρῆ. See aiso 2 Thess. 
 8,7. 1 Tim. 5, 11. It is plain that ἐν βάρει εἶναι, is 
 for βαρὺς εἶναι, ἐπιβαρεῖν. 
 
 Thus it would appear that the words οὔτε ϑητοῦντες 
 ---ἄλλων are parenthetical; though it is not neces- 
 sary to suppose so. After all it is not impossible 
 that the Apostle has in view two significations of ἐν 
 βάρει εἶναι to be burdensome by accepting a stipend, 
 and to be, as we say, hard upon them, by assuming 
 the full authority of an Apostle. So Diczarchus, 
 cited by Wets.: διὰ τὸ βάρος ἢ τὴν ὑπερηφάνειαν τών 
 κατοικούντων" and Hor. Ep. 2, 1, 13.* 
 
 7. ἀλλ᾽ ἐγενήθημεν ἥπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν. The ἀλλὰ 
 is thought, by Rosenm., to be pleonastic: but, I 
 think, without reason. The sense is: “ Yet (this 
 we were not, but) were mild among you.” The 
 epithet is often, in the Classical writers, applied to 
 parents, and therefore to Kings, as being figuratively 
 fathers. (See Wetstein’s examples.) This sort of 
 spiritual paternity the Apostle alludes to in the 
 words ws ἂν τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα : and this is 
 sufficient to defend the common reading; though 
 several antient MSS., some Versions, Fathers, and 
 Commentators read νηπίοι, which is preferred by 
 Calvin, and not disapproved of by Whitby. But 
 that, as Benson observes, would require ὦ νηπίοι. 
 Besides (I would add) the Apostle no where employs 
 νηπίος in this sense. He would have thus written 
 τέκνα. But it is needless to dilate on such a point; 
 
 * To which I add Joseph. p. 35. οὐδὲ yap ἔσεσθαι βαρὺς. Ach. 
 Tat. 660. φορτικοὶ εἶναι" & 302, 13. βαρὺς αὐτῷ γένοιτο. Xenoph, 
 Hist. 3, 2, 1. ἐβουλεύετο---ὅπως ἂν μὴ ἐν τῇ φιλίᾳ χειμάξων, βαρὺς 
 «ἴη τοῖς Euppaxors. 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 89 
 
 since the ν has plainly adhered from the preceding 
 word, as in a thousand other cases. 
 
 The ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν is a Hebraism (derived from 
 t5951NA) for ἐν ὑμῖν, “ among you.” Τρόφος here 
 denotes one who suckles a child, whether a mother, 
 or, as we say, a wet-nurse. Thus it is sometimes in 
 the Sept. and the Classical writers used for a mother. 
 Θάλπω, whatever be its origin (for here all etymolo- 
 gists are in the dark; the word being, it seems, 
 derived from some other language), certainly signi- 
 fies, properly, to warm, cherish, as a hen who sits on 
 her chickens. See Deut. 22, 6. and Job 39, 10. 
 It is also used of the wite taken by David in his old 
 age. See 1 Kings 1,2&4. Schleus. also refers to 
 Soph. Antig. 427. Hence it comes to denote any 
 sort of care by which a mother provides for the nou- 
 rishment and comfort of her children. See Eph. 5, 
 19. and the note. 
 
 The ἑαυτῆς is, in our common versions, rightly 
 omitted; as is often the case with the personal pro- 
 nouns, and ἴδιος. So that Benson and Mackn. have 
 done wrong in expressing it, and making it em- 
 phatical. 
 
 8. οὕτως ἱμειρόμενοι ὑμῶν, “ thus being aftection- 
 ately desirous of promoting your interest.” It is 
 strange that so many Critics should have preferred 
 the reading ὁμειρόμενοι, from several MSS., some early 
 Editions, and ‘Theophyl.: and that it should have 
 been received into the text by both Griesbach and 
 Matthei. Itisa word of no authority whatever, and 
 formed contrary to all analogy. As to Theophylact’s 
 defence of it, it is too weak to bear examination. 
 The principle on which the Critics have preferred it, 
 namely, as being the more difficult, really will not 
 apply to words, like the present, formed contrary to 
 analogy, and destitute of authority ; and especially 
 if we can account for them from mere error ; which 
 is the case here ; for the o arose, doubtless, from the 
 c preceding ; and the oie. would easily pass into 
 oper. especially as ὀμειρ. or ὀμηρ. was familiar; ine. 
 
90 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 less so; and yet the latter word is used by the best 
 writers, not only Poets, but also prose writers, as 
 Herodot., Demosth., A@lian, Polyb., Plutarch, and 
 others, cited by the Philological Commentators. 
 
 8. εὐδοκοῦμεν μεταδοῦναι----Ψυχὰς, “ we were ready 
 and willing,” &c. Μεταδοῦναι, to impart, has pro- 
 perly the genitive and dative, but here, as elsewhere, 
 the accusative and dative. The accusative, however, 
 is used because no one can be supposed to give ano- 
 ther part of his life, The truth is, there is (as Grot. 
 observes) a syllepsis: for μεταδοῦναι is used of the 
 Gospel proprié ; of life improprié, or by metonymy. 
 On the sentiment, which is inexpressibly affection- 
 ate, see Benson. 
 
 9. μνημονεύετε yap—rto εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, Com- 
 pare 2 Thess. 8, 7—9. ‘The μνημονεύετε is well ren- 
 dered by Koppe memineritis. Benson renders it, 
 “ye must remember.” Τὸν κόπον pov καὶ Tov μόχθον. 
 These words are nearly synonymous; though the 
 latter is the stronger term; so that there is a kind 
 of climax. The νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας is treated by most 
 Commentators as put populariter, for assidué; and 
 Koppe refers to 3,10. But that passage is not to 
 the purpose ; nor does the idiom apply here. For 
 I apprehend the Apostle here adverts to his exces- 
 sive application to his handicraft labour, at some 
 times almost toiling night and day, in order to allow 
 himself opportunity, at other times, to pursue his 
 evangelical labours. Or perhaps he may allude to 
 his custom of making up for the loss of time by day 
 at his trade, by might labour: and of this I have 
 observed hints in the foregoing Epistles. 
 
 On ἐπιβαρῆσαι τινα compare ver. 7. and 2 Cor. 12, 
 16. Εἰς ὑμᾶς is for ὑμῖν. 
 
 10. ὑμεῖς μάρτυρες---ἐγενήθημεν. The words ὁσίως, 
 δικαίως, and ἀμέμπτως, are treated by Koppe and 
 Rosenm. as synonymes, but combined, to strengthen 
 the sense. ‘The os., however, regards duty towards 
 God; the d«. that towards men; ἀμεμπτ. both ; 
 (though Theophyl. explains, ἀπροσκοπῶς, ἀσκανδαι- 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 91 
 
 λίστεως.) Yet, I grant, non argutandum est in 
 verbis, : 
 
 11, 12. παρακαλοῦντες ὑμᾶς καὶ παραμυθούμενοι. The 
 participles wapox. and παραμ. stand for verbs; or 
 ἐσμεν is understood ; or ἐγενήθημεν may be supplied 
 (with Wolf) from the preceding verse. The terms 
 παρακ., Tapay., and μαρτυρούμ. are said by Koppe 
 and Rosenm. to be synonymous. But there seems 
 rather to be a climax: certainly μαρτ. in this sense 
 is stronger than either of the two former ones (so 
 Theophyl.: πληκτικωτέρως διδασκαλίας ἐστιν), and 
 signifies obtestart; as in Deut. 32, 16. So papru- 
 ρομαι, Eph. 4, 17. and Thucyd. 6, 80. and also Pro- 
 cop. 248, 40. μαρτύρεσαι γέτιγιν. And παραμ.. seems 
 to be a stronger term than zwapax. It is not well 
 rendered console. The best modern critics observe, 
 that the term may here have the same sense found 
 sometimes in Homer (as II. 6. 417 & 680. See Damm. 
 Lex.). Xenoph. Venat. 6, 25. (to which may be 
 added Appian 2, 892. μαρτύρομαι καὶ rapaKarod) by 
 which it signifies to counsel, urge, swadeo. 
 
 At εἰς τὸ περιπατ. &c. compare Col. 1, 16., where 
 see the note. The image at πατὴρ corresponds to 
 that at τροφὸς, ver. 7. Wets. compares Hom. Od. a. 
 308. In the ἕνα ἔκαστον ὑμῶν παρακαλούντες (with 
 which I would compare Thucyd. 7, 69. τῶν τριηραρ- 
 χῶν ἕνα ἕκαστον ἀνεκάλει) some recognise an allusion 
 to the teaching from house to house. See Acts 2, 
 20. It simply signifies (I think) that he taught 
 them individually as well as collectively. Βασιλείαν 
 καὶ δόξαν. A common hendiadis for βασιλείαν ἔνδοξον. 
 See Benson. 
 
 13. ὅτι παραλαβόντες---πιστεύουσιν. Παραλάμβανω 
 is ἃ term often used of receiving instruction, either 
 oral, or by letter. So Phil. 4, 9. & ἐμάθετε καὶ παρε- 
 λάβετε καὶ ἀκούσατε" where see the note. Inthe words 
 παραλάβοντες---Θεοῦ there is a trajectio. The παρα- 
 AaB. λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τοῦ Θεου, and λόγον ἀκοῆς are 
 said to be for λόγον or ἀκοὴν; as Hebr. 4, 2. I should 
 regard this as a Hebraism. (answering to \27) often 
 
92 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP, II. 
 
 joined to pleonasms. There may be (as Morus thinks) 
 an allusion to Is. 53, 1. τις ἐπίστευσε τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν. 
 
 "EdéEacbe, received, admitted, approved, embraced 
 it. So Theophyl.: προσέιχετε. Rosenm. cites He- 
 rodot. 2. ἐδέχοντο τοὺς λόγους. I add Thucyd. 1, 95. 
 ἐδέξαντο τοὺς λόγους, Kal πρόσειχον τὴν γνώμην. The 
 earlier Commentators seem nut to have perceived 
 this sense of ἐδεξ., but to have confounded the term 
 with παραλ. 
 
 13. ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται, “ which is operative.” The ὃς 
 is by some referred to Θεοῦ; by others to λόγου. The 
 latter method is adopted by the most eminent mo- 
 dern Commentators. And so some antients, as 
 CEcumen. αὔξει διὰ τοῦ ὑμετέρου βίου. And Theo- 
 phyl.: ἐκ τῶν ἐργῶών δείκνυται, “has an operative in- 
 fluence on your hearts and lives, producing the 
 fruits of good works.” Other antients, however, and 
 moderns refer it to Θεοῦ. So Theodoret: προφητικῆς 
 γὰρ καὶ αὐτοὶ χάριτος ἀπολαύσαντες, καὶ προεφήτευον, 
 καὶ γλωσσαῖς ἡλάλουν, καὶ θαύματα ἐπετέλουν παράδοξα. 
 And if that construction be true, it must have re- 
 ference to the χαρίσματα, also called ἐνεργήματα, 
 1 Cor. 12, 6. 10, 11. and Eph. 3, 20., such as were 
 vouchsafed not only to the Corinthians, but to the 
 Galatians and Ephesians, and also the Thessalonians. 
 (1 Thess. 5, 19 & 20. and 1 Thess. 1, 5.) See Whitby, 
 who, among other modern Commentators, adopts 
 this interpretation. The former seems to deserve 
 the preference: but perhaps the Apostle had in 
 mind both the above senses. 
 
 14. ὑμεῖς yeag—X. I. Mackn. supposes the Apostle 
 here introduces a reply to an objection against the 
 truth of Christianity, founded in the disbelief of 
 the Palestine Jews, and their bitter persecution of 
 Christ and his disciples; which, he means to say, is 
 reputed by their treatment of their own Prophets, 
 of whom there was scarcely one that they had not at 
 least persecuted. See Acts 7, 52. A very ingenious, 
 but perhaps not well founded, and too hypothetical, 
 a view; at least there can only be a faint allusion in 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP, II. 93 
 
 the words following, τῶν καὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἀποκτεινάντων 
 Ἰησοῦν καὶ τοὺς ἰδίους προφήτας. Here the Apostle 
 seems to intend an allusion to the proofs of divine 
 ἐνέργημα upon them, namely, in enabling them to bear 
 persecution and calamity. That such an ἐνέργημα 
 of the holy spirit was thought necessary to produce 
 that effect, we learn from various passages of the 
 New Testament. 
 
 The plain sense, therefore, is: ‘Such an ἐνέργημα 
 ye had; for ye showed exemplary fortitude and 
 patience,” &c. This, however, the Apostle expresses 
 in a more refined way, by saying: ‘‘ ye were imitators 
 of the Palestine church,” &c.; just as at 1, 6. “ye 
 were μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε καὶ τοῦ Kupiov, δεξάμενοι 
 τὸν λόγον ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ" where see the note. 
 
 On the expression ἐκκλησιών---Χριστῷ I. see 1, 1. 
 and the note. Such churches or congregations had 
 been founded in various parts of Judea by those 
 who had fled from the persecution after the murder 
 of Stephen. See Acts 8, 1—4. The Jews were 
 every where the bitterest persecutors of Christians ; 
 and thus the Palestine ones suffered most from that 
 baleful spirit. See Benson. 
 
 Συμφυλετών, literally, fellow clansmen, and in a 
 general way countrymen. 
 
 15. καὶ τοὺς ἰδίους προφήτας. On the ἰδίους there 
 has been some difference of opinion. Being omitted 
 in a few Versions and Latin Fathers, it is regarded 
 as spurious by many critics, and has been cancelled 
 by Griesb.; but (1 think) on insufficient grounds. 
 One can hardly suppose that a marginal gloss should 
 have crept into nearly all the MSS. It is far more 
 probable that it was cancelled in a few copies, from 
 a groundless fear lest it might countenance the 
 heresy of Marcion, that the Jewish Prophets were 
 not the Prophets of the true God ; and as an excuse 
 for the omission, they would be likely to plead a 
 corruption of the text ; and to cast that on Marcion 
 himself would clench the argument. It is certain that 
 the common reading, supported by nearly all the 
 
94 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 MSS., the most antient Versions, and the unanimous 
 consent of the Greek Fathers and Commentators, 
 must be retained. It is ably defended by Whitby 
 and Benson, and its emphasis must not, with Koppe, 
 be explained away by taking it for ἑαυτών. When 
 the Prophets of the Old Testament are so called, it 
 must be observed they are called according to the 
 opinion of the people in question: a figure often used 
 by the best writers. And it is frivolous to object 
 that these Jews did not themselves kill the Prophets 
 of old. For (as Benson observes) they were actu- 
 ated by the same spirit, and formed, as it were, the 
 same people, and are so considered by our Lord, 
 Matth. 23, 29—37. Nay, had the Prophets of old 
 lived in their days, and so freely rebuked their vices, 
 they would have slain them like their forefathers. 
 Hence they are often charged with the murder of 
 their own Prophets. See 1 Kings 19, 10 & 14. Neh. 
 9, 26. Jer. 2, 30. Luke 6, 23. 23, 33 & 84. 
 ᾿Εκδιωξάντων, i. 6. literally, ‘* chased away by 
 persecution, or, in a general sense, persecuted. Καὶ 
 Θεῴ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων. Some take ἀρεσκ. in the sense 
 seek to please; as 2, 4. and Gal. 1,10. It should 
 rather seem to be said, by meiosis, for “ are in dis- 
 favour with God.” So Koppe explains Θεοστυγεῖς, 
 And so Theophyl. See also Wakef. on Eurip. Alc. 
 65. On the words καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων, 
 which indicate that antipathy to all other nations 
 (called by Tacitus the adversus omnes alios hostile 
 odium), which raised ‘“ their hand against every man’s 
 hand, and every man’s hand against theirs,” the 
 Commentators adduce copious proofs and illustra- 
 tions. It may be sufficient to note Diod. Sic. p. 5, 25. 
 μόνους γὰρ ἁπάντων ἐθνῶν ἀκοινωνήτους εἶναι τὴς πρὸς ἄλλο 
 ἔθνος ἐπιμιξίας, καὶ πολεμίους ὑπολαμβάνειν πάντας. 
 The passage οἵ Juvenal Sat. 14, 103. will readily 
 occur to my readers: “ Non monstrare vias, eadem 
 nisi sacra colenti; Quesitum ad fontem solos dedu- 
 cere verpos.” On the spirit by which the Jews 
 were actuated towards the Christians see Benson. 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 95 
 
 16. κωλυόντων ἡμᾶς τοῖς ἔθνεσι λαλῆσαι ἵνα σωθώσιν. 
 The κωλ. is rightly rendered by Benson and Mackn. 
 hindering. So Theophyl.: ἐμποδιϑόντων. It, how- 
 ever, includes forbidding. At λαλῆσαι the Com- 
 mentators understood τὸν λόγον, the Gospel. But 
 the unbelieving Jews could not approve of the Gos- 
 pel being preached to the Jews. Therefore by 
 λαλῆσαι 1 would understand instruction in religion 
 generally, by withdrawing them from Heathenism. 
 
 16. ἵνα σωθῶσιν. ‘The Commentators rightly remark 
 that the ἵνα is eventual, like the Hebr. 2, or jyo?, 
 “in order to their being saved.” <‘* Thus (says 
 Theophyl.) they are the common enemies of the 
 human race, by hindering the common salvation.” 
 
 16. εἰς τὸ ἀναπληρῶσαι αὐτών τὰς ἁμαρτίας πάντοτε. 
 This is rendered by Benson and Mackn., “ whereby 
 they are filling,’ &c. A sense, however, scarcely 
 permitted by the force of the εἰς τὸ, which is well 
 explained by Phot. ap. Gicumen.: ἵνα πάντοτε ἀνα- 
 πληρωθῶσιν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὐτῶν" adding, ἐπειδὴ γὰρ 
 πάντοτε ταῦτα ἔπραττον" πάντοτε ἀνεπλήρουν τὰς ἀμαρ- 
 τίας αὐτών. And Theophyl.: ἵνα δεικνύωσιν ἑαυτοὺς 
 τὰ τελειότατα ἁμαρτάνοντας, καὶ φθάνοντας τὸ πλῆρες 
 μέτρον τῆς κακίας καὶ ἀκρότατον. So Doddr. “as if 
 they desired to fill up,” &c. And so Koppe, who 
 renders: “ita fit, ut peccatorum suorum vim semper 
 magis Magisque augeant, eorumque pcenas eo atro- 
 ciores sibi contrahant.” He adds that this is agree- 
 able to the Scriptural opinion concerning sins and 
 their punishment, namely, that God indeed per- 
 mits men to fill up a certain number of evil deeds, 
 and until then spares them and delays the punish- 
 ment; but if this number should be completed, then 
 the punishment is inevitable. See Gen. 15, 16. 
 ᾿Αναπληρώσαι τ. a. signifies to fill up the measure, &c. 
 as Matth. 23, 32. In this, Benson thinks, there is 
 an allusion to filling up a vessel to the brim. (See 
 his note.) Πάντοτε is not well rendered semper. It 
 signifies omni modo, Angl. every way. 
 
96 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 16. ἔφθασε δὲ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος. At ἡ ὀργὴ 
 must be supplied τοῦ Θεοῦ, which seems implied by 
 the article. It is observed, too, by Theoph., that the 
 article shows this ὀργὴν, to be ὀφειλομένην αὔτοις, καὶ 
 προωρισμιένην, καὶ προφητευομένην due to them, predes- 
 tined, and predicted by the Prophets.” Here ὀργὴ is to 
 be taken in the sense of punishment ; as supra 1, 10. 
 where see the note. ξφθασε is by some, (as Koppe) 
 taken in a future sense. But I prefer to regard 
 it (with Benson) as a Paulo-post future: and we 
 may suppose that, as being an aorist, it is taken in a 
 sense between the preterite and present; q. d. ‘‘is, 
 i a manner, coming upon them.” For it came upon 
 them in the destruction of the nation and the dis- 
 persion of the remnant a very short time (about 
 twenty years) afterwards. Of this idiom the Com- 
 mentators adduce as examples Eccles. 8, 4. Dem. 7, 
 22, Matt. 12, 28. and Rom. 9, 31. 
 
 Eis τέλος may mean either at the last, at length, 
 (as it is interpreted by some early moderns, as Ben- 
 son, Mackn., Rosenm., Koppe, and Wets., which last 
 mentioned Commentator compares Hom. Il. a. 451. 
 64 σε τέλος θανάτοιο κιχήμενον οὐδ᾽ ὑπάλυξας" and so 
 most recent ones); or, ‘‘for an end, and to the 
 uttermost.” So the antients, who explain ἄχρι 
 τέλους, and many eminent moderns, as our English 
 translators, Doddr., Schmidt, and Homberg; and 
 this is a far more significant and apposite sense. (See 
 Dodd. and Wets. ap. Slade.) ‘The Commentators 
 compare the Hebr. 1173 Jy, and refer to Dan. 9, 27. 
 Num. 17, 13. and Joseph. 8, 24. 10,20. They might 
 (I think) have also compared the expression make a 
 full end in Jer. 4, 27. 5, 10. and Ez. 11, 13. To 
 urge that the destruction was not utter, because a 
 few escaped, is frivolous. : 
 
 17. ἡμεῖς δὲ---καιρὸν ὥρας. The Apostle now re- 
 turns to the Thessalonians, from whom, by these 
 rather vehement strictures on the Jews, their present 
 iniquity and future ruin, he had made a digression : 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 07 
 
 and he freely expresses his desire of again seeing 
 them. (Heinr.) 
 
 17. ἀπορφανισθέντες ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν, “ separated and kept 
 apart from you.” ‘This word is somewhat rare ; but 
 it occurs in Adschyl. Choeph. 244., and also in the 
 passive, as here. Abresch on that passage adduces 
 two examples of the simple in a metaphorical sense, 
 one from Hyllus ap. Joph. in Trach. 958., and the 
 other from Pind. Pyth. 4, 504. The term is used 
 properly of the separation of children from parents; 
 but also of that of parents from children; as here. 
 (So Hesych.) For Christian teachers were regarded 
 as spiritual fathers. We have a continuation of the 
 metaphor at ver.7 ἃ 11. See Theodor. 
 
 Πρὸς καιρὸν ὥρας ῖ5. taken by the best Commenta- 
 tors (as Grot.) for πρὸς καιρὸν; as in 2 Cor. 7, 8. 
 Gal. 2, 5. Philem. 15.5; or πρὸς ὥραν, in Luke 8, 13. 
 and 1. Cor. 7, 5. So Gen. 18, 10. Mm Nya, where 
 the Sept. renders κατὰ καιρὸν εἰς ὥρας. And so the 
 the Latin hore momento. It should rather that 
 these double expressions both in Hebr. Greek, and 
 Latin, are properly intended to convey more mean- 
 ing than either of the phrases singly. So Theophyl.: 
 πρὸς καιρὸν βραχὺν καὶ ὀλίγον, καὶ ὅσον ὥρας μιᾶς λογί- 
 ὅεσθαι. And though it was several years before the 
 Apostle did revisit them, yet he seems here to have 
 intended a much more speedy return to them 
 (whether so soon as some suppose, may be thought 
 very doubtful); not to say, as (Doddr. observes) 
 that “ his mind was so full of the ideas of eternal life 
 as to annihilate every period of mortal life.” 
 
 The expression προσώπῳ, οὐ καρδίᾳ, is very elegant, 
 and indeed touching. And it is impossible to con- 
 ceive any stronger than the following, περισσοτέρως 
 ἐσπουδάσαμεν ἐν πολλῃ ἐπιθυμίᾳ ; for these are to be 
 conjcined ; ἐν ἐπιθῇ. being a phrase for an adverb. 
 ᾿Εσπουδάσαμεν, strove; as Eph. 4, 5. 2 Tim. 2, 15., 
 and elsewhere. Περισσοτέρως, exceedingly. A word 
 often used by the Apostle, as also other words be- | 
 ginning with περὶ and ὑπὲρ. (See Grot.) Τὸ πρόσωπον 
 
 VOL, VIII. H 
 
98 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 ὑμῶν ἰδεῖν. A Hebraism for, ‘‘ be present with you;” 
 as 1 Cor. 16, 7. The force of the phraseology is 
 well illustrated by Theophy]. and Benson. 
 
 18. Διὸ ἠθελήσαμεν ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. The διὸ is ren- 
 dered by Benson, “ therefore it is evident that.” It 
 rather seems to signify “impelled by this desire,” 
 and may be well rendered wherefore. "Hoerjoapey, 
 i.e. ‘*we were desirous; our mind was set upon 
 coming.” ᾿Εγὼ μὲν Παυλὸς, “ I Paul indeed, at least, 
 or in particular.” Koppe observes, that this inter- 
 pretation of the plural number, which St. Paul every 
 where uses in the present Epistle, though speaking 
 of himself, is to be noted and borne in mind. See 
 the note on 1, 2. On ἅπαξ καὶ δὶς, see the note on 
 Phil. 4, 16. I would compare Appian 2, 80, 30. 
 καὶ τοῦτο δὶς καὶ τρὶς ἑτέροις καὶ ἑτέροις πρέσβεσιν εἰπὼν. 
 Καὶ, 1, but ᾿Ενέκοψεν ἡμᾶς ὁ Σατανᾶς, “ thwarted our 
 purpose.” See the note on Gal. ὅ, 7. This is im- 
 puted to Satan, as having been done by wicked per- 
 sons, and it was to be presumed, at his suggestion, 
 and with his assistanee, or that of his subordinate 
 agents (see 1 Cor. 7, 5. Eph. 2, 2. and Ap. 20, 3, 7 
 ὃς 8.); just as whatever is good is attributed to the 
 influence of the holy spirit. So Koppe; though he 
 and most recent foreign Commentators push the 
 matter much farther, and run into foolish, not to say 
 irreverent, speculations on this subject. 
 
 19. τίς γὰρ ἡμῶν ἐλπὶς---χταρουσίῳ ; ‘The connection, 
 (which is not well traced by the Commentators) seems 
 to be this: ‘And it is no wonder that we should 
 thus feel desirous of seeing you; for, what is our 
 hope,” &c. After γὰρ, it would have been plainer 
 to have written, “ye are our hope.” But the inter- 
 rogation, with the answer to it, is used instead, by 
 an elegance not unworthy of Demosthenes himself. 
 ‘The construction, too, of the words is somewhat 
 embarrassed per trajectionem ; and it is thus adjusted 
 by Koppe and Rosenm.: τις γὰρ ἡμῖν ἐλπὶς, ἢ χαρὰ, 
 ἢ στέφανος καυχήσεως ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Kugiou ἑμῶν Ἰησοῦ 
 Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ, οὐχὶ καὶ ὑμεῖς ; ᾿Ελπὶς 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IT. 99 
 
 and χαρὰ are put, by metonomy, for “ cause of hope 
 and joy.” ‘This use of ἐλπὶς, and the Latin spes, is 
 common in the Classical writers, from whom Wets. 
 adduces several examples. Koppe regards the ἐλπὶς, 
 χαρὰ, and kavy. as nearly synonymous, and all used 
 to denote felicity. But the terms will bear discri- 
 mination; and there seems to be a climax. On the 
 ἐλπὶς ἐστε compare Col. 1, 27. and 1 Tim. 1,1. By 
 kavy. is meant joy of the highest sort, accompanied 
 with self-congratulation, &c. When united with 
 στέφανος (on which I would compare Soph. Aj. 465. 
 στέφανον εὐκλείας,) it forms a phrasis pregnans, in 
 which two phrases are united: “ye are our (cause 
 of) reward, and (cause of) exultation’.’ So Theo- 
 phyl. The καὶ in καὶ ὑμεῖς, imports (as Theophyl. 
 Grot., Pisc., Erasm., Est., Koppe, and Rosenm. ob- 
 serve) ye also, i.e. ‘ye also, as well as some other 
 congregations.” Others take it to signify even, 
 which sense Benson strenuously, but not (1 think) 
 successfully, supports. 
 
 The remaining words denote the advent of Christ 
 to judgment. 
 
 20. ὑμεῖς yap ἐστε ἡ δόξα ἡμών καὶ ἡ χαρά. Tap is 
 not merely a particle of transition, as Koppe sup- 
 poses. Crell. rightly remarks that it expresses the 
 force of the preceding interrogation, and so repeats 
 the same sentence, with asseveration; q. d. “ I may 
 well say so; for ye surely are,” &c. So Tindale: 
 ‘yea, ye are our glory and joy.” Benson renders it 
 certainly : and he compares a similar use of the 
 Hebr. 3. He observes too, that the present is put 
 for the future; and well paraphrases thus: “ ye are 
 the persons that will be,” &c. Compare Dan. 12, 3. 
 1 Cor. 1, 14. Phil. 2, 6. 4, 6. Thess. 3,13. Benson 
 and Mackn. infer from hence (somewhat precari- 
 ously) that the words imply a personal knowledge of 
 his converts at the last day, and therefore establish 
 the doctrine that we shall know our friends in an- 
 other state.. ἐγ ὃν 
 
 Η ὁ 
 
100 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 
 
 CHAP. 11. 
 
 1. Διὸ μηκέτι στέγοντες εὐδοκήσαμιεν----μιόνοι. The 
 sense of the verse is somewhat obscure, from brevity, 
 and the idiomatical use of στέγοντος and εὐδοκήσαμεν. 
 It is of importance to attend to the διὸ, which has 
 (I think) the same force as at 2,18. For (though 
 the Commentators do not notice it) the Apostle 
 means to give them another proof of his affection. 
 Sréyovres is regarded by most moderns as a reci- 
 procal in the hithpahel sense refrain. Others supply 
 from the context τὸν πόθον ὑμῶν; which method 
 yields the same sense, but is somewhat too arbitrary. 
 I prefer the former. The Etym. Mag. explains 
 στέγω by ὑπομένω. Something, however, seems 
 wanting to the sense ; and Grot. supplies after μόνοι, 
 “ triste hoc, sed tamen hoc libenter feceramus, et ego 
 et Silas vestri caussa.” But this seems too arbitrary 
 a subaudition, I prefer taking εὐδ., with Theophyl. 
 and Cécumen., in a double sense, as a vor pregnans, 
 “we thought good, and endured.” I would para- 
 phrase: ‘‘ Wherefore so dear were ye to me, that 
 when I could refrain no longer, and yet found it 
 impossible for me to visit you, I thought good, and 
 endured being left alone at Athens.” The subau- 
 dition “ and yet found it impossible,” &c. is indeed 
 harsh, but it is adopted by Theodoret. 
 
 By the μόνοι, it is plain, the Apostle means himself 
 only ; as appears from ver. 5. See 2,5 ἃ 18. On 
 St. Paul’s disagreeable situation on this occasion see 
 Benson. 
 
 2. καὶ ἐπέμψαμεν Τ.--- Χριστοῦ, “our brother mi- 
 nister, or colleague.” See Col. 1, 1. and the note. 
 This is not (as Hein.and Rosenm. regard it) a mere 
 term of affection. διάκονον τοῦ Θεοῦ. A general 
 term denoting all teachers of religion, nay, even 
 Apostles themselves. See 1 Cor. 3,5. By all these 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 101 
 
 terms the Apostle means to hint that he had sup- 
 plied his absence by an able substitute. 
 
 2. εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι---πίστεως ὑμῶν, “inorder to con- 
 firm you,” &c. It is matter of debate among Com- 
 mentators what sense ought to be assigned to παρα- 
 καλέσαι. Some, following the common signification 
 of the word, render it exhort. But this seems not a 
 little harsh. Others, console and comfort. But the 
 most natural sense, and that most agreeable to the 
 περὶ τὴς πίστεως, is the one assigned by some mo- 
 derns, namely, teach, instruct ; as in 2, 8. and Acts 
 15, 20. where παρακαλεῖν and στηρίϑειν are likewise 
 joined. It may, however, signify both teach and 
 admonish ; since the senses are cognate. The Thes- 
 salonians had, it seems, been wavering for want of 
 instruction and admonition. 
 
 8. τῷ μηδένα---ταύταις. This and the next verse 
 are explanatory of the στηρίξαι. At τῷ I would sub- 
 aud ἐπί. Many MSS. read τὸ; others, τοῦ. But 
 these are evidently ex emendatione, though more 
 elegant. The common reading, as being the more 
 difficult and agreeable to the Hellenistical use (for 
 so the Hebr. 5), ought to be retained. To is for 
 εἰς τὸ The word caivw from σάω, cognate with cew 
 and σείω (of which examples are somewhat rare in 
 the Classical writers, though some are adduced by 
 Wets.), signifies to move, stir, wag. And σαίνεσθαι 
 signifies, “to be swayed, and swerve from the faith, 
 to be troubled. So Hesych.: σαίνει, κινεῖται, σαλεύ- 
 erat, ταράτεττα. And Chrys. ; θορυβεῖσθαι. Both 
 these significations may here be conjoined ; for both 
 are equally supported by the Classical citations of 
 Wets. and others. 
 
 8. αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε ὅτι εἰς τοῦτο κείμεθα. ‘The best 
 Commentators are agreed that κείμεθα signifies we 
 are appointed, destined: and they compare Luke 
 2, 34. and Phil. 1, '7., which latter passage is most 
 to the purpose. But I cannot think (with Koppe 
 and Rosenm.) that this isa common phrase import- 
 ing, “ Such is our fortune and fate.” Nor would I 
 
102 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 
 
 press on the sense of destination. As κεῖμαι properly 
 signifies to be placed, there may possibly be a military 
 allusion; 4. d. ‘* we are appointed to bear, as a sol- 
 dier is appointed to maintain a certain post.” I 
 would here compare Job 5, 7. and 2 Tim. 3, 12. 
 The Commentators are not agreed whether the 
 words are to be referred to the Apostles, or extended 
 tothe Thessalonians, or to all Christians. (See Ben- 
 son.) It should seem that they are here meant only 
 for the Apostles and Thessalonians ; but they are 
 applicable to all Christians, according to the circum- 
 stances of the Gospel. 
 
 4. καὶ γὰρ ὅτε πρὸς ὑμᾶς---οἴδατε, “(Nor need I now 
 say it) for when we were with you.” Πρὸς, apud, 
 
 ἐδ, chez; as Matt. 26,55. Mark 9, 19. Joh. 1, 1. 
 Rom. 5, 1. and often. (See Schleus. Lex.)  Ipoe- 
 λέγομεν ὑμῖν ὅτι μέλλομεν θλίβεσθαι. By the we is 
 here again meant himself and the Thessalonians. 
 Καθὼς καὶ ἐγένετο, kal ofdare is a somewhat harsh 
 phrase for, ‘* which also, as ye know, came to pass.” 
 The Apostle evidently adverts to a prediction of 
 evils which assuredly came to pass. ‘The conclusion 
 is obvious, on which see Benson and Mackn. On 
 the circumstances alluded to see Acts 17, 5—10. 
 
 5. διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ, μηκέτι στέγων, &c. Here we 
 have a resumption of what was said at ver. 1. ἃ 2.; 
 ver. 3 & 4 being parenthetical. The Apostle, out 
 of his great anxiety for their spiritual good, sent to 
 know their state,* and to impart the necessary ad- 
 monitions, confirmation, and consolation. Μήπως 
 ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς ὃ πειράϑων. Here there is the usual 
 ellipsis of φοβούμινος ; “lest the tempter,” ἄς. Ὁ 
 
 * It is well observed by Benson that “the Apostle knew all things 
 respecting Christ’s doctrine, but was not inspired with a knowledge 
 of all other things.” { would add, not a perpetual knowledge, but 
 _only imparted suddenly, as occasion served, like the power of work- 
 ing miracles. So Theophyl. οὐ πάντα ἥδεσαν οἱ ἅγιοι οὐδὲ ἀπή- 
 Aavor τῆς θείας ἀεὶ βοηθείας. The mind of man (even of St. Paul) 
 could hardly have borne the possession of a complete knowledge of 
 all things, and an unlimited controul over the order of nature, Theo- 
 phyl. says this power was withheld ἵνα μήτ᾽ αὐτοὶ ἐπαίρωνται, &e. 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP, III. 108 
 
 πειράϑων. ‘This participle, or verbal (which answers 
 to the Heb. D227) is a common appellation of 
 Satan. See Schleus. or Wahl. The best modern 
 Commentators (after τοί.) take the ἐπείρασεν to 
 signify, tempt with effect, successfully tempt ; citing 
 Gal. 6, 1. James 1, 13, &c. See Schleus. And, 
 indeed, there are many verbs that thus denote cum 
 actione effectum quoque, as Grot. says. ‘The temp- 
 tation (Benson observes) was a love of ease, a fear of 
 persecution, or some other worldly views.” On the 
 extent of this diabolical influence much might be 
 said; sed ἐπέχω. See the note supra 2, 18. 
 
 5. καὶ εἰς κενὸν γένηται ὃ κόπος ἡμών. So the Heb. 
 a. It is only necessary to remark that. this, 
 compared with 1, 4., proves that they were not, as 
 individuals, absolutely and unconditionally elected 
 to eternal life. See the note of Whitby, and especi- 
 ally Benson. 
 
 6. ἄρτι δὲ ἐλθόντες Τιμοθέου πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀφ᾽ ὑμών. The 
 ἄρτι signifies now, or then, and is emphatic. ’Eaé., 
 ‘after Timothy had returned to us from you, and 
 had brought us the good tidings of your (stedfastness 
 in the) faith and of your love, and that ye have ever- 
 more a grateful and kind remembrance of us, and 
 are as desirous to see us as we to see you.” Evayye- 
 λίξω is here used in its primitive sense, bring good 
 news ; asin Luke 1,19. Sothe Heb. Wwa. (See 
 Gesen. Lex. Hebr.) 
 
 These virtues, faith and charity, Grot. calls the 
 egregiam et salutiferam ξυνωρίδα. 
 
 7. διὰ τοῦτο παρεκλήθημιν, ἀδελφοὶ, ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν, “ Upon 
 this, because of this,’ &c. Grot. and Rosenm. re- 
 mark on the ¢rajectio here; the true construction 
 being as follows: ᾿Επὶ racy τῇ θλίψει καὶ ἀνάγκη ἡμιῶν 
 παρεκλήθημεν ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν, διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν πίστεως. The ἐφ᾽ 
 ὑμῶν, Koppe and Rosenm. say, is redundant. But 
 that is not exactly the case. Considering, too, the 
 separation of παρεκλήθημεν and διὰ τῆς πίστεως, it is 
 very useful to the sense. Ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ θλίψει καὶ 
 ἀνάγκῃ ἡἱμιῶν, ““ amidst all our afflictions and necessi- 
 
104 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 
 
 ties.” On these terms the Interpreters do not 
 satisfactorily treat. The best commentary on them 
 is 2 Cor. 6, 4. ἐν θλίψεσιν, ἐν ἀναγκαῖς, where see the 
 note. Seealso 12,10. & 11,27. It signifies pinch- 
 ing want of the common conveniences of life. Theo- 
 phyl. here elegantly paraphrases : ἡ γὰρ ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν χάρα 
 ἀντίῤῥοπος 7 πάσαις ταῖς ἀνάγκαις ἐγένετο. 
 
 8. ὅτι νῦν ϑώμεν, ἐὰν ὑμεῖς στήκετε ἐ. K. ‘(We may 
 well say that we were and are comforted in our distress) 
 for now (that we have this good news) we do indeed 
 live,” 1. e. enjoy life. This sense of δὴν and vivere in 
 the Latin is common. ‘The words of Martial will 
 readily occur to my readers: “ Noa est vivere sed 
 valere vita.’ And so Menand. (cited by Wets.) 
 μικρὸν τι τοῦ βίου Kal στενὸν ϑώμεν χρόνον. See more in 
 Wets. Στήκετε ἐ. κι, ‘* stand fast, are stedfast in the 
 faith.” Compare Gal. 5, 1. and Phil. 4, 1., where 
 see the notes. 
 
 9. τίνα γὰρ εὐχαριστίαν δυνάμεθα τῷ Θεῷ ἀνταποδοῦναι 
 περὶ ὑμῶν, ἐπὶ --ἡμών. By τίνα εὐχαριστίαν is meant 
 τινα εὐχαριστίαν ἀξίαν, ““ what sufficient thanks, how 
 can we be thankful enough to God.” So Theo- 
 phyl. : Τοσαύτη ἡ OV ὑμᾶς χαρὰ, ὅτι οὐδὲ εὐχαριστῆσαι 
 
 τῷ Θεῷ κατ᾽ ἀξίαν δυνάμεθα ὁ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. See Ps. 116, 
 12. The words ἐπὶ πάσῃ, &c., are exegetical of the 
 περὶ ὑμών, and signify: “ on account of the joy we 
 felt for your sakes.” The πάσῃ here, and at ver. 7., 
 signifies what is great. In χαρᾷ ἣ χαίρομεν there is a 
 usual Hebraism and Hellenism ; though it here, as 
 often, has an intensive force. λσροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 The best modern Commentators unite this phrase 
 with χαρᾷ, and render it, sincere, pious. But this is 
 
 very frigid; and, considering that the word comes 
 last in the sentence, something more is requisite. 1 
 cannot but think that -Chrysost., Theophyl., and 
 CEcumen., are right in considering the phrase as 
 meant to refer to God as the Author of that joy; 
 and to hint that it is his gift, and not to be ascribed 
 to their own exertions alone. 
 
 10. νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ὑπὲρ ἐκπερισσοῦ δεόμενοι. I 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 105 
 
 would observe that the Apostle, in adverting to the 
 effects which the good news of their stedfastness had 
 upon him, first mentions his devout thankfulness to 
 God as the Author, and then his exceeding and per- 
 petual desire of seeing them, and repairing what was 
 wanting in their faith. On the νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας I 
 have treated supra 2, 9.and Eph. 3, 20. Δεόμενοι is 
 considered as a participle for a finite verb. Or it 
 may be a nominativus pendens. After it must be 
 understood roy Θεὸν ; as Rom. 1, 8. Eis τὸ ἰδεῖν is 
 put (somewhat harshly) for ὥστε ἰδεῖν. ‘The Apostle 
 does not merely dwell on his self-gratification, but 
 adverts to the use to which he would make this his 
 visit subservient, namely, καταρτίσαι τὰ ὑστερήματα 
 τῆς πίστεως ὑμών, where, Koppe and Rosenm. ob- 
 serve, KaTagT. is for προσαναπληροῦν at 2 Cor. 9, 12. 
 and Col. 1, 24. And, indeed, the passages may very 
 well be compared as similar: but it is more correct 
 to say, that the Apostle here blends (or confounds) 
 two separate phrases with different metaphors, i.e. 
 Ist, to repair the breaches in their faith ; a metaphor 
 taken from making garments or nets; @dly, to 
 supply what is wanting. Yet there is a close con- 
 nection between them. ‘Thus at Gal. 6, 1. καταρτί- 
 Sere τὸν τοιοῦτον. ‘Theodoret explains διορθοῦσθε---τὸ 
 ἐλλεῖπον ἀναπληροῦτε. Now this κατάρτισις would be 
 effected not so much by imparting (as some think) a 
 knowledge of truths of which they were ignorant, as 
 by removing doubts, and rectifying various misap- 
 prehensions of Christian truths, which are far more 
 common, even in the most enlightened congrega- 
 tions, than can easily be supposed. 
 
 11. αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Θεὸς ὑμᾶς, ** Now (Lat. autem) may 
 God himself, even our Father, and our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, direct our way unto you.”* An elegant way 
 
 * The Commentators have not sufficiently seen that in κατευθύναι 
 there is something more to be attended to than taking a straight 
 course. ‘here seems an allusion to making a straight road (for 
 with the antients all great roads were carried in a straight direc- 
 tion) ; which implied a removal of the obstacles by levelling the 
 
106 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 
 
 of saying: ‘* May God cause us to come unto you;” 
 this being a sort of prayer tothe Father and the Son. 
 Thus we have here an example of prayer addressed 
 to Christ; as at 2 Thess. 2,16 & 17. and 8, 5, &c. 
 On which subject Benson has a long annotation. 
 He contends that the prayers are addressed to Christ 
 as Mediator. But this I apprehend to be a mistaken 
 view, and a most unwarrantable refinement. I as- 
 sent to the opinion of those who maintain (as Whitby) 
 that prayer offered up by all Christians, in all places, 
 implies omniscience, omnipresence, and a searching 
 of all hearts in the Being so addressed ; and there- 
 fore as this implies Deity, the prayers must be offered 
 up to him in that capacity ; since then it were frivo- 
 lous to address him as Mediator. 
 
 12. ὑμᾶς δὲ ὁ Κύριος πλεονάσαι καὶ περισσεύσαι---εἰς 
 ὑμᾶς. We have here only to observe that πλεόνασαι 
 and περισσ. are used in an active sense ; words of 
 this kind, both in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, being 
 used indifferently, either as neuter, or active. So 
 also our verb increase. See 2 Cor.9, 8. By πάντας 
 the recent Commentators would understand all other 
 congregations of Christians whom the Thessalonians, 
 from their riches, should assist. But there is no 
 reason to think that the Thessalonian Christians were 
 rich ; and the sense is very forced and frigid. 1566 
 not why we should abandon the interpretation of the 
 antients and most moderns, who understand all men, 
 whether Christians or not. And this is placed 
 beyond a doubt by the use of the same phrase at 
 5,15. And so Gal. 6, 10. épyafwpeba τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς 
 πάντας, μάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως, 
 where see the note. With the κάθαπερ ἡμεῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς 
 (where must be understood ἀγάπῃ πλεονάξομεν καὶ 
 
 eminences, and raising the hollows (see Matt. 3,3. Mark 1,3. Luke 
 3, 4. Joh. 1, 23. and the notes), to the former of which the κατὰ 
 chiefly refers. Here there is an allusion to the removal of those ob- 
 stacles which had been raised by evil beings of every kind, both the 
 author of evil and his subordinate agents, whether Demoniacal or 
 human. 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. Il. Iv. 107 
 
 περισσεύομεν), Which refers to the εἰς ἀλλήλους, we 
 may compare the καθάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς supra 6, 13. 
 
 12. εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι---πατρὸς ἡμών. ‘The εἰς τὸ στ. 
 is taken by Koppe for στηρίξαι, but this is not neces- 
 sary. Itisrather for ὥστε στηρίξαι, by a Hebraism. In 
 the construction there is something awkward, by the 
 interposition of ἀμέμπτως, which does not well amal- 
 gamate with the preceding and following words. 
 Grot. would take it for ἵνα ἧτε ἄμεμπτοι. Compare 
 seqq. Eph. 5, 27. and 2 Cor. 11,2. And Koppe and 
 Rosenm. would unite ἀμέμπτως with ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ. (See their notes.) In all this, however, there 
 seems to be something too artificial. It seems better 
 to regard the whole sentence as consisting of two 
 separate ones blended into one; consequently some 
 little sacrifice of grammatical or logical regularity 
 must be expected. 
 
 On the sense of τῶν ἁγίων Commentators are not 
 agreed. Some antients (as appears from the gloss 
 in several MSS., ἀγγέλων) and some eminent mo- 
 derns, as Grot., Wolf, Koppe, and Rosenm., inter- 
 pret it, the angels, according to the usual description 
 of the day of judgment. See Matt. 16, 27. 25, 31. 
 Dan. 7, 10. Mark 8, 38. 2 Thess. 1, 7. By most 
 antients, including the Vulg., and, of the moderns, 
 our English ‘Translators, Beza, and Benson, it is 
 taken to denote all fuithful Christians ; as 2 Thess. 
 1,10. Philem. 5. Perhaps both may be meant. On 
 the sentiment see Benson and Mackn. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 VersE 1. τὸ λοιπὸν. A formula, Grot. observes, 
 properantis ad finem; as at 2 Cor. 13, 11. Gal. 6, 
 17. Eph. 6, 10. Phil. 4, 8. ᾿Ερωτώμεν, ‘‘ we entreat 
 you.” On this term I have before treated. It oc- 
 curs in Acts 3, 3. Joh. 14, 16., and often elsewhere, 
 (See Schleus. or Wahl.) The καθὼς requires an οὕτως 
 to be supplied at περισσ. Περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν 
 Θεῷ may be a sort of hendiadis, or be taken (with 
 
108 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IY. 
 
 Koppe) for περιπατεῖν ὥστε ἀρέσκειν ; as περιπατεῖν 
 ἀξίως Θεοῦ at 2, 12. Περισσεύειν is here put for 
 Sure περισσεύειν, by a common idiom in many verbs. 
 The term signifies to increase, make proficiency. 
 
 2. οἴδατε----Ἰησοῦ. The παραγγελία signifies an 
 authoritative injunction, from a king, or (as here) a 
 divinely commissioned legate. For διὰ τοῦ Kupiov 
 Ἰησοῦ signifies (as Koppe says) “ ex auctoritate 
 Jesu.” 
 
 8. τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστι θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμών. 
 The Apostle now produces one παραγγελία, and that 
 in the most solemn and impressive manner. “ This 
 is the will of God (which you are hereby called upon 
 to obey).” ᾿Αγιασμὸς denotes in general holiness, 
 purity, and innocence of life, like ἁγιωσύνη 3, 13. 
 Rom. 6, 19 & 22. But it was especially used of the 
 cultivation of purity in respect to sensual indul- 
 gences; and to this the Apostle here immediately 
 applies it. ᾿Απέχεσθαι depends upon ὥστε. 
 
 4,5,6,7,8. The Apostle especially details examples of this 
 branch of the ἁγιασμὸς, and first adduces πορνεία, which must here 
 (as in many other places) signify lewdness of every kind, both for- 
 nication, adultery, and all those impurities with which the Apostle 
 charges the Gentiles, Rom. 1. So Theophyl.: Πολλὰ γὰρ τὰ etdn 
 ταύτης Kat πολύπλοκα, ἃ οὐδὲ εἰπεῖν ἠνέσχετο, GAN ἁπλῶς, πάσης, 
 εἶπεν. The reading πάσης, found in some MSS. and the Syr., and 
 also Chrys. and the Greek Commentators, seems to have come from 
 the margin ; though it shows the extent of signification which the 
 antients affixed to the word. 
 
 4. εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμιών---τιμῇ. It is strange that 
 there should have been such difference of opinion on 
 the sense of σκεῦος ; some interpret it of the wife, as 
 Augustin, T. Aquinas, Est., Pisc., Heins., Wets., 
 Schoettg., Koppe, and others. It is strange that this 
 interpretation should have been maintained by any of 
 the more recent Commentators, since it had been 
 long ago completely refuted by Salmasius. (See 
 Wolf.) It is plain that the Apostle’s injunctions are 
 meant for ald Christians, whether married or unmar- 
 ried. So Theodoret: οὐ γὰρ τοῖς γεγαμηκόσι μόνοις 
 τὴν νομοθεσίαν προσφέρει. And the passage of | Pet. 
 3, 7. is not applicable; because there σκεῦος has the 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 109 
 
 epithet ἀσθενέστερον annexed : and, therefore, though 
 Schoettg. has proved that the Rabbins call the wife 
 nak yet that will not here apply ; since the Apostle 
 intends no such limitation. Still less defensible is the 
 interpretation of J. H. Maius, Schomer, Triller, 
 Wokens, and other Dutch * Theologians ap. Wolf, 
 who, with the characteristic grossness of their nation, 
 adopt such an one as decorum will not permit me to 
 state, and which is the less excusable, as they can- 
 not find a single example at all similar in the 
 writings of the Apostle. ‘The only interpretation 
 that will bear examination is that of Chrys., Tertul- 
 lian, and the Greek Commentators, and most mo- 
 dern ones, including Benson, Rosenm., and Schleus., 
 namely, “his own body,” by a use similar to that of 
 σκῆνος among the Greek Philosophers. And so vas 
 is used in Cicero, and in Lucret. 8, 441. See Cor. 4, 
 7. and the note. And it is observed by Benson, that 
 Barnabas (Ep. § 7, 11.) calls our Lord’s body the 
 vessel of his spirit; and ἃ 21. he calls the human 
 body the beautiful vessel of the body; and Hermes, 
 L. 1, 5, 1 and 2. calls the body the vessel, without the 
 addition of any other word to explain it. 
 
 Krac$o: signifies to use, preserve; as Luke 21, 
 19. κτήσασθε τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμών. See Loesner’s exam- 
 ples. As to Wetstein’s objections to this use of κτισ. 
 they seem very frivolous. In εἰδέναι κτᾶσθαι there is 
 an elegance unperceived by the Commentators, who 
 explain: “ mind that ye possess,” referring to 5, 
 
 * Tam concerned to have to add the name of one of the most 
 learned Theologians our own nation ever produced, that prodigy of 
 erudition Gataker, who has here defiled his page by such abomin- 
 able language, and gross illustrations as would suit better for a note 
 on Petron, Arbiter, or the Carmina Priapeia, than the word of 
 God. On this Pole with unusual smartness remarks : ‘‘ Si hic sit loci 
 sensus, vide et imitare insignem styli Scripture 8. puritatem.” But 
 this is decency, compared with the truly beastly citations from two 
 Rabbinical writers adduced by Wets. on the next verse. 
 
 + It is ingeniously remarked by Theophyl.: ὅταν μὲν οὖν σωφρο- 
 γνῶμεν; καὶ ἢ καθαρὸν, ἡμεῖς αὐτὸ κτώμεθα᾽ ὅταν δὲ ἀκάθαρτον h, ἡ 
 ἁμαρτία αὐτὸ κτᾶται ἃ γὰρ ἐκείνη ἐπιτάττει, ποιεῖ αὐτὸ ὡς δοῦλον. 
 
110 ] THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 12. and 1 Cor. 16,15. There is (I repeat) a deli- 
 cacy; for he who abuses his body to lewdness may, 
 by a meiosis, be said not to know how to use it. ’Evri- 
 μὴ» “in purity.” Said in opposition to ἀτιμία, a 
 term especially applied to lust, as being a dishonour- 
 ing of the body. So Rom. 1, 26. πάθη ἀτιμίας. 
 
 The words μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας are added per exe- 
 gesin. Both terms (especially the former) are (as 
 Koppe remarks) used of lasciviousness. See Gal. 5, 
 20. Grot.has here some learned and curious remarks 
 on the peculiar use of the words πάθος, ἐπιθυμία, &c. 
 by the Greek Philosophers (the substance of which 
 may be seen in Benson): but almost all these are 
 strangely out of place; for the sense of the words 
 being determined by the context, and the subject mat- 
 ter, they can have no other than that above detailed. 
 
 By the ἔθνη Commentators understand the Greeks 
 and Romans: and here Whitby and Benson enter 
 into particulars, which (as Deddr. says) are not to 
 be read without a mixture of commiseration and 
 horror. Yet the Apostle may be supposed also to 
 have reference to the Persians and other Oriental 
 nations, from whom, there is doubt, the abominations 
 adverted to were derived, mediately or immediately. 
 Greece, for instance, was first defiled by Persia and 
 Egypt, which latter nation (from the climate, dense 
 population, and absorption in manufacturing and 
 commercial pursuits) was in all ages a sink of im- 
 purity. 
 
 On the virtue of chastity see the sensible remarks 
 of Benson. 
 
 6. τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν τῷ πράγματι 
 τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ. On the sense of these words Com- 
 mentators are as little agreed as on the preceding ; 
 nay, they differ more widely. Almost all the Greek 
 Fathers and Commentators, and, of the Latin ones, 
 Jerome and Hilary, and many moderns, as Menoch, 
 Est., De Dieu, Hamm., Zeger, Raphel, Heins., 
 Wets., Whitby, Mackn., Wells, Rosenm., Slade, and 
 many others mentioned in Wolf, refer them to 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 111 
 
 adultery; which was formerly my own opinion. 
 And certainly this is much countenanced by the 
 context from ver. 4.; for to that ἀκαθ᾽., and ἁγιασμὸς 
 seem especially referable. But when we turn to the 
 phraseology, there appears little to countenance 
 the interpretation. The proof as regards ὑπερβαίνειν 
 and πλεονεκτεῖν is singularly weak,* and, at any rate, 
 would only denote what we call seduction. But then 
 the Aposle uses the masculine ἀδελφὸν. ‘Though 
 Mackn., forgetful at once of good sense and deco- 
 rum, renders: ‘‘that no man should go beyond the 
 bounds of chastity; or defraud his brother in this 
 matter, by defiling either him, or his relations, whe- 
 ther male or female.” The interpretation in ques- 
 tion moreover requires τῴ πράγματι to be taken in 
 sensu nequiori; a signification quite unauthorized 
 by the usage of Scripture (for the passage of 2 Cor. 
 7, 11. is, as Wolf and Koppe observe, not at all in 
 point), however it may be found in the Classical 
 writers (as /schin.,C. Timarch., and Iseeus, cited by 
 Wets.), like that offacinus in the Latin. That Bp. 
 Middleton should have adopted an interpretation so 
 unauthorized, and little agreeable to the whole man- 
 ner of the Apostle is amazing; and strange indeed it 
 is that Mr. Slade’s good sense should have been so 
 dormant as to suffer him to suppose that the Apostle 
 may allude to making a gain by libidinous practices ; 
 even more absurd this than his similar perversion of 
 Ephes. 4, 19. where see the note. Doddr., with an 
 ἀκρισία unusual to him (and which I can only account 
 for from extreme inadvertence) would unite both 
 senses. 
 
 I must therefore acquiesce in the interpretation of 
 most of the Latin and many eminent modern Com- 
 mentators, as Beza, Zanch, Gomar, Pisc., Vorst., 
 Grot., Michaelis, Schoettg., Wolf, Doddr., Koppe, 
 
 * And, as Koppe remarks, the uses of the phrases ὑπερβαίνειν 
 λεκτρὸν and ἐπιβαίνειν, ἄς. are not here applicable. He does not 
 say why. ‘The reasen is, that the former is purely poetical, and the 
 latter is too gross to be thought of. 
 
112 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 and Schleus., who here suppose a separate admonition 
 respecting ἃ vice which, in so commercial a city as 
 Thessalonica was no doubt very prevalent, namely, 
 extortion and an over-reaching, grasping, and greedy 
 disposition.* "Adeagiv does not mean brother Chris- 
 tian (on which seense some have founded an objec- 
 tion to this interpretation), but fellow-creature, τὸν 
 πλησίον, τὸν ἕτερον; as Matt. 5, 22. and numerous 
 other passages adduced by Schleus. Lex. v.§ 7. To 
 adduce (as the Commentators do) Classical examples 
 of the above sense of ὑπερβαίνειν and πλεονεκτεῖν Were 
 needless. One only shall suffice, since it is an imita- 
 tion (very antient indeed) of the present passage. 
 Test. 12 Patriarch. where it is said, “a good man τὸν 
 πλησίον οὐ πλεονεκτεῖ." 
 
 6. ἐν τῷ τράγμιατι is well rendered in our Version 
 in any matter; for Koppe observes, that μὴ ἐν τῷ 
 πράγματι is for ἐν μηδένι πράγματι. 
 
 6. ἐκδικος ὃ ΚΚυρίος περὶ πάντων τούτων. It is well 
 remarked by Koppe, that the expression πάντων τού- 
 των, intimates that the Apostle was speaking of more 
 than one vice, namely, πορνεία. By τούτων is meant, 
 the vices just mentioned. I would compare Joseph. 
 169. init. καὶ νόμος κολαστὴς γίνεται τῶν τοιούτων. Com- 
 pare kindred passages in Gal. 5, 21. and Rom. 6, 
 9---11. and the notes. Διαμαρτύρομαι is a stronger 
 term than peer. 
 
 7. ov γὰρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμιᾶς Θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν 
 ἁγιασμῷ. ‘These words present the only difficulty in 
 the way of the interpretation of τὸ μὲ ὑπεοβαίνειν---- 
 αὑτοῦ, which I have adopted, namely, that ἀκαθαρσίᾳ 
 and ἁγιασμώ seem to be solely meant of fornication, 
 adultery, &c. ‘There are two ways of removing this 
 difficulty. Many Commentators, as Grot. and Koppe, 
 take them to relate to vice in general; as supra Q, 3. 
 Rom. 6, 19. and sometimes in the Sept. (See Schl. 
 
 * It is worthy of observation, that the Apostle in no less than 
 three passages (Eph. 5, 5. the present, and Hebr. 13, 4.) associates 
 the vices of fornication and covetousness, as being (we may con- 
 ceive) the two especially prevalent. 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 119 
 
 Lex.) But I am inclined to think, with Wolf, that 
 the Apostle here meant to refer, not to what oc- 
 curred immediately before, but to the preceding in- 
 stances; of which irregularity examples are fre- 
 quent in the Apostle. I am the more inclined to 
 suppose this, as the words following τὸν δόντα τὸ 
 πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον are far more applicable to πορ- 
 νεία than to over-reaching. See (besides other exam- 
 ples) 1 Cor. 6, 18 and 19. In the ἐπὶ and ἐν we have 
 an instance of the variation which so characterizes 
 the Apostle’s style, and similar to what is often met 
 with in Thucydides. 
 
 8. τοιγαροῦν 6 ἀθετῶν, *‘ wherefore, then, he who sets 
 lightly by these admonitions.” On ἀθετ. see the note 
 on Gal. 2,31. By ἀνθρώπον the Apostle evidently 
 means himself: and he adds ἀλλὰ τὸν Θεὸν, since the 
 contempt shown to him would be to God in the per- 
 son of his representative. So the Apostle elsewhere 
 says, ‘* Now, then, we are ambassadors,” &c.* The 
 neglect, too, would be not only unto God, as giving 
 these solemn prohibitions, but, what is worse, unto 
 that God who had given them his Holy Spirit, by 
 which they might be expected to resist “fleshly lusts 
 which war against the soul.” It is (I think) evi- 
 dent, that by the gifts of the Spirit we are here to 
 understand, not the χαρίσματα, or supernatural gifts 
 vouchsafed to some, but the ordinary influences of 
 the Holy Spirit for sanctification, imparted to all : 
 and in this view I prefer the common reading ἡμᾶς, 
 which accords better with the humility of the Apos- 
 tle; though the ὑμᾶς will not materially alter the 
 sense. 
 
 9. περὶ δὲ τῆς φιλαδελφίας od χρείαν ἔχετε γράφειν 
 
 * The Apostle here seems to have had in view our Lord's words, 
 Luke 10, 16. ὁ ἀθετῶν, ἃς. ‘* He that despiseth you, despiseth me : 
 and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” In this 
 passage St. Paul asserts his own inspiration in the strongest terms, 
 and with the greatest solemnity ; having in view to instruct the 
 young and giddy, and all who despised his precepts concerning 
 chastity as too severe. (Mackn., partly from Benson.) 
 
 VOL. VIII. I εἰ; 
 Νὰ 
 
114 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 ὑμῖν. Now follows an exhortation to liberality to- 
 wards Christians ; and, as necessary to the perform- 
 ance of that duty, the virtue of peaceful industry is 
 enjoined, so that they may “have to give to him that 
 needeth.” 
 
 9. φιλαδελφία, * love to the brethren,” chiefly ws 
 λόγόν δύσεως καὶ λήψεως, to use the words of the 
 Apostle at Phil. 4, 15.; but also extending to kind- 
 ness and benevolence in general. See Hebr. 13, 1. 
 At γράφειν must be understood ἡμᾶς, ‘there is no 
 need for me to write to you.” It is observed by 
 Theophyl., that the Apostle establishes the import- 
 ance of the duty in question in a two-fold way; Ist, 
 by hinting that it is so necessary a thing as not to 
 need being taught: for all things of great import- 
 ance are plain and obvious; @dly, he rouses their 
 shame, that he may excite them not to be found 
 worse than he had thought them.” 
 
 9. αὐτοὶ yap ὑμεῖς θεοδίδακτοί ἐστε εἰς TO ἀγαπᾷν ἀλλή- 
 λους, i.e. (as Rosenm. and Schleus. explain) “ ye have 
 learnt it by your religion.” But something more is 
 meant. Thus Zanch and Benson think that it also 
 implies following the instruction so as really to do the 
 thing. (See Benson’s references.) But this is some- 
 what precarious; and the doing is mentioned just © 
 after. ‘The antients, and many eminent moderns (as 
 Erasm., Menoch., and Koppe) have rightly seen 
 that it signifies Θεοπνευστὸς, excited to give by the 
 Holy Spirit ; the disposition to give which they had 
 evinced being, according to the usual custom of the 
 Apostle, ascribed to that influence, which would be 
 the strongest motive. Agreeably to this the Pro- 
 phets (Is. 46, 3. Jer. 31, 34.) predicted: ‘ For all 
 shall be taught of God;”’ which includes the ordi- 
 nary as well as extraordinary operations of the . 
 Spirit. Here Wets. aptly cites St. Barnabas, Ep. 21. 
 apud Clem. Strom. 2. ὁ δὲ θεὸς, ὁ τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου κυ- 
 ριεύων, δώῃ καὶ ὑμῖν σοφίαν, καὶ σύνεσιν, ἐπιστήμην, γνῶ- 
 σιν τῶν δικαιωμάτων αὐτοῦ" Γίνεσθε οὖν θεοδίδακτοι. 
 
 10. καὶ γὰρ ποιεῖτε----Μακεδονίᾳ. “ And yedo show 
 
] THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 115 
 
 this love not only in your own city, but in-all Mace- 
 donia ;” meaning (as it is supposed) chiefly Berrhea. 
 The brethren of other countries are not mentioned, 
 because (as Benson says) “they were probably ac- 
 quainted with few but those of their own country ; 
 though their affection, no doubt, extended to all the 
 Christians whom they knew.” 
 
 10. παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀ., περισσεύειν μᾶλλον, VIZ. 
 ἐν τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ. Here, as often elsewhere, the Apos- 
 tle makes his commendation serve as a stimulus to 
 rouse them to still higher spiritual attainments. 
 
 11. φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάξειν. Some Interpreters, 
 as Koppe, would closely unite this with the preced- 
 ing. Others here commence a new section. But 
 this latter mode is at variance with the grammatical 
 construction, and the former is hardly to be justi- 
 fied. It is better to place a semicolon, as in our 
 Common Version, and to suppose that the Apostle, 
 according to his usual custom, engrafts on the ad- 
 monition to Christian beneficence another, but 
 closely connected with the former, that of guiet in- 
 dustry, without which they could not fulfil the other 
 duty. 
 
 The φιλοτιμεῖσθαι, to strive, aim at, imparts much 
 energy to the sense, and is used both in the Classical 
 writers and the New Testament, as Rom. 15, 20. 
 φιλοτιμούμενον εὐαγγελίϑεσθαι, and 1 Cor. 5, 9. φιλοτι- 
 μούμεθα εὐάρεστοι αὐτῷ εἶναι. The term ἡσυχάϑειν is 
 supposed by most Commentators to be here used in 
 reference to a busy, curious, meddling, pragmatical 
 spirit prevailing among some of the Thessalonians. 
 And to this it 7s sometimes opposed. See 2 Thess. 
 8,6, 11 and 12. Others think that it refers to politi- 
 cal subordination, in opposition to a seditious spirit. 
 Some antients, too, (and also Benson) have their spe- 
 culations on this subject, more ingenious than solid. 
 I cannot but take the word in its most extensive ap- 
 plication, as meant to discountenance that restless 
 spirit and unsettled temper, and consequent indispo- 
 sition to steady labour so characteristic of the Greeks, 
 
 12 
 
116 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 and which the high mental excitement of a new re- 
 ligion would rather tend to increase,* especially as 
 the large sums bestowed by the richer on the poorer 
 brethren could not but weaken the principle that 
 spurs man to industry. So Theodoret well observes : 
 χορηγεῖν συνέβαινε γὰρ, τοὺς μὲν φιλοτίμως τοῖς δεομένοις 
 τὴν χρείαν, τοὺς δὲ διὰ τὴν τούτων φιλοτιμίαν ἀμελεῖαν τὴς 
 ἐργασίας" εἰκότως τοίνυν καἀκείνους ETYVETE, καὶ τούτοις 
 τὰ πρόσφορα συνεβούλευσε. 
 
 The phrase πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια is partly exegetical of 
 jovyasev. Thus Hesych. joins: ‘Brom peopel ἴδια. 
 πράττειν ἡσυχάξειν. To which may be added Plato 
 680 a. batt So ἔχων καὶ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ πράττων. Thucyd. 
 L. 1, 32. where are joined ἰδιοπραγμονεῖν and iouya- 
 ϑειν. And eisewhere "Thucyd. has ἡσυχίαν ἀπραγμόνα. 
 But it is especially levelled against a pragmatical and 
 meddling spirit. ‘*So (observes Grot.) those who 
 act otherwise are called ἀλλοτριοεπισκόποι, 1 Pet. 4, 
 15., περιεργαϑόμενοι, 2 Thess. 8,11. By the Classical 
 writers such are called πολυπροίγμονες. See Hom. Od. 
 
 * Not to mention that the introduction of knowledge and intel- 
 lectual cultivation to an uninformed mind is apt to unsettle it, and 
 indispose it to secular occupation, especially manual labour. Would | 
 to God that those who hurry forward plans for the unlimited intel- 
 lectual instruction of the labouring classes would think of this! In 
 which view it may not be improper to introduce an observation 
 made by me eleven years ago in an Episcopal Visitation Sermon, 
 p- 35. ‘* Highly does it behove us (the Clergy) to watch the possible 
 dangers of such experiments as are now making on the lower classes 
 by general education, and to take especial care that their minds be 
 Jargely stored with the sound and useful Christian knowledge pro- 
 vided for them in the Tracts of our venerable Church Society. By 
 thus adapting the education of the poor to their actual condition, as 
 well as to the peculiar exigencies of our own times, we shall form a 
 rising generation conscientiously attached to our laws and our 
 Church ; rooted in Christian faith, and zealous of these good works 
 ~which are the surest proofs of its sincerity, and the fairest fruits of 
 its efficacy.” Some of the dangers to which I have there adverted 
 have become manifest, and others are disclosing themselves ; and 
 therefore it may not be unseasonable thus to repeat these representa- 
 tions ; especially as the above view is confirmed by the recent opi- 
 nion of an eminent Prelate: ‘“‘ Whether the experiment of universal 
 education shall be productive of good or evil depends upon the 
 Clergy.” Bp. Blomfield’s Charge at his Primary Visitation. 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 111 
 
 21, 350. Wets. gives many examples of the phrase 
 τὰ ἴδια πράττειν, which signifies to mind one’s own 
 business. See Phryn. and T. Mag. So Xen. de So- 
 crat. ws χαλεπὸν ὁ βίος ᾿Αθήνησιν εἴη ἀνδοὶ βουλομένῳ. τὰ 
 ἑαυτοῦ πράττειν, “to quietly mind his own business.” 
 And so Lysias often, Porph. V. P.54. and Liban. 451. 
 
 11. καὶ ἐργάϑεσθαι ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσὶν ὑμῶν. It 15 
 strange that Whitby should take this to be an in- 
 junction to work themselves, and not leave all to their 
 slaves. An interpretation which, if it were admitted, 
 would prove too much; for as to the limitation “ and 
 not leave all to their slaves,’’ it will not consist with 
 the sense in question, which could only be, do their 
 own work, without putting any on their slaves, i. 6. 
 αὐτουργεῖν ; soin Thucyd. 1, [41. οἱ αὐτουργοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώ- 
 πων (where I shali have much to annotate). But 
 this the Apostle could not mean; nor is it likely that 
 the Thessalonian Christians, who were mostly of the 
 poorer class, employed slaves. ‘The. term ἐργάϑεσθαι 
 ταῖς χερσίν, evidently denotes manual labour, whether 
 agricultural, commercial, or handicraft, including 
 what we call manufactures. The ἰδίαις hints at the 
 contrary conduct, namely, living on the bounty of 
 others. So that I cannot think, with Dr. Mackn., 
 that it ought to be cancelled, on the authority of 
 some MSS. and Fathers (for Versions are here no 
 evidence). We may compare Eph. 4, 28. ἐργαϑόμιενος 
 ταῖς χερσὶν, ἵνα ἔχη μεταδιδόναι τῷ χρείαν ἔχοντι, where 
 see the notes. Of course the admonition could only 
 have been intended for those whom it concerned, 
 namely, the labouring classes; though labour, in a 
 certain sense, is obligatory on all. So Benson, whose 
 sensible remarks on this whole passage deserve at- 
 tention. 
 
 12. ἵνα περιπατῆτε ---ἔχητε. Here the Apostle 
 suggests reasons for their so doing. ‘The first clause 
 is very similar to Col. 4, 5. ἐν σοφίᾳ περιπατεῖτε πρὸς 
 τοὺς ἔξω, i. 6. σοφῶς περιπατεῖτε, &c. ‘The οἱ ἔξω are 
 those out of the pale of the Church ; as 1 Cor. 5, 12 
 and 13, &c. Εὐσχημόνως. The phrase εὐσχημόνως 
 
118 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 περιπατεῖν also occurs at 1 Cor. 14, 40. Rom. 13, 18. 
 and signifies to act decorously and creditably. ‘his 
 is not, with most Commentators, to be referred solely 
 to what is implied in the words following καὶ μηδενὸς 
 χρείαν ἔχητε (though mendicity would be a great dis- 
 credit to the Christian profession), but to ald that 
 went before; for by cultivating quiet, orderly, and 
 industrious habits they could not but gain the good 
 opinion of all classes of the Heathens, as being esti- 
 mable in all relations of life, both political and civil. 
 
 The words καὶ μηδενὸς χρείαν ἔχητε serve to suggest 
 another reason for industry, namely, the not being 
 beholden to any man for a subsistence. At μηδενὸς 
 I would supply, not ἀνθρώπου, but πράγματος. And I 
 would not understand it (with Theophyl. and some 
 moderns) of begging from Heathens (which, we may 
 suppose, would be little likely), but begging at all: 
 for even living on the alms of Christian brethren 
 would be discreditable in respect to the Heathens ; 
 since reason itself would suggest to them how much 
 at variance this is with the principles of virtue and 
 natural religion.* 
 
 13—18. The Apostle had intimated that he wished to make the 
 Thessalonians another visit, in order to perfect that which was 
 
 lacking in their faith. Part of what he says here seems to he what 
 he further wanted to teach them.f But having heard of their beha- 
 
 * It is obvious how equally this will apply to the practice of a 
 Church which fosters and rears up swarms of lazy drones in her 
 begging Friars ; a practice here even disapproved of by Theophyl., 
 who occasionally countenances monkery. His words are these: 
 Ei yap οἱ πιστοί σκανδαλίξονται, ὅταν ἴδωσιν ἄνθρωπον ὑγιῆ ἐπαι- 
 τοῦντα, (διὸ καὶ Χριστεμπόρους τοὺς τοιούτους καλοῦσι) πολλῷ μᾶλ- 
 λον οἱ ἄπιστοι. It is only surprising how practices so incon- 
 sistent with the Apostle’s words should ever have been introduced. 
 The following sentiment of a most enlightened Jew is highly honour- 
 able to him, and would scarcely have been unworthy of the Apostle 
 himself: ‘‘ He that so gives himself to the study of the Law as to 
 neglect his own proper business, and live upon alms, extinguishes 
 the light of religion, and brings evil upon himself, and loss of life in 
 a future state.” Maimonides de Studio Legis, ch. 3. § 8. 
 
 + So Theophyl.: Ei yap καὶ ἦν αὐτοῖς περὶ τούτου διαλεχθεὶς, 
 ὅμως" νὺν μυστήριον τι μέλλει ἀνακαλύψαι, 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IY. 119 
 
 viour on the death of their Christian friends, he would not defer 
 giving them this admonition, and further instruction, till he ceuld 
 go to them in person; but thought fit to write what is contained in 
 this section 13—18. 
 
 Their heathen neighbours, upon the death of their friends, hired 
 men to play, in a mournful manner, upon a pipe or trumpet ; and 
 they hired women, also, to shed tears, how], beat their breasts, tear 
 their hair, and the like, to increase the lamentation. These at- 
 tended soon after the person expired. When the corpse was car- 
 ried out to burial, they tore off their hair, rent their garments, cut 
 their flesh, especially their hands and arms, and tore their cheeks. 
 At the grave they set down the corpse, and went round the bier, or 
 round the grave after the corpse was interred; and, for some time 
 after, they abstained from their usual food and lived upon lentils, 
 pulse, beans, and some of the meanest and coarsest diet. These 
 were originally the customs of the Heathens ; though they were not 
 the same in all countries. But, in process of time, many of them 
 were imitated by the Jews. (See Lev. 19, 27, 25. and 21, 5. Deut. 
 14, 1. Is. 15,2. Jer. 16, 6, 7, and 41, 4, 5. and 48, 36, 37. Ezek. 
 7, 18. Amos 3, 10. Baruch 6, 31, 32. Matth. 9, 23. Spencer 
 de Leg. lib. p. 11, 35, ὅς, Herodot. L. 2. c. 35. and L. 6. c. 58.) 
 And as those customs in lamenting for the dead were origi- 
 nally Heathen, they are here mentioned and condemned as such. 
 For all the Jews, except the Sadducees, had hope of the resur- 
 rection of good men to an happy immortality; but the Heathens 
 had no such hope. As the Christians at Thessalonica kept up those 
 heathenish rites and customs, and sorrowed excessively upon the 
 death of their Christian friends, the Apostle says three things to 
 dry up their tears. Ist. He briefly repeats what he had already 
 taught them concerning the resurrection of the pious dead to an 
 happy immortality; in consequence of the resurrection of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and according to his frequent and express promise. 
 Qdly. He makes this new discovery that the last generation should 
 not die at all, but be, on a sudden, changed into incorruptible. 
 3dly. He adds another new discovery, viz. that those who are alive 
 at Christ’s second coming shall not anticipate the dead: but that, 
 when the dead are raised, both shall be taken up together to meet 
 the Lord. 
 
 Koppe, too, illustrates the scepe and intent of this whole portion 
 of Scripture in a long and laboured annotation, to which I can only 
 refer. 
 
 The remarks of the learned Commentator are certainly very 
 ingenious, and, indeed, instructive, but in some respects too fanci- 
 ful. They bear some resemblance to that conjecture of Saurin 
 (Serm, 6. No. 1.), that the desire which prevailed in Christians to 
 see Christ when he should appear for judgment, made them lament 
 those of their brethren who died, as it were, cut off from that hope; 
 in reference to which he assures them that they shall be on a level 
 with their brethren thus found alive.” But, as Doddr. observes, it 
 may be questioned whether on this hypothesis the Apostle does not 
 
120 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 indirectly tell them that there was no particular room for such la- 
 mentations, as they themselves, and many succeeding generations,. 
 might die before the coming of our Lord. 
 
 13. οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾷς ἀγνοεῖν. A formula not unfre- 
 quent with the Apostle (as Rom. 1, 13. 11, 25. 1 
 Cor. 12, 1. 2 Cor. 1, 8., &c.), in which there is a 
 meiosis for, “ I would have you to well know and 
 attend to this admonition.” Περὶ τών κεκοιμημένων, 
 ‘ respecting the dead (among you). A common 
 euphemism, occurring in Matt. 9, 24. Luke 8, 52. 
 Joh. 11, 4. 11, 18 & 14. 1 Cor. 15,20. The reading 
 κοιμιωμένων, found in some MSS. and Fathers, and 
 approved by Rosenm., is aneedless emendation. Ke- 
 kopypevwy signifies those who have died, the dead, 
 of course including all those who shall die. From 
 ignorance of the nature of this term Benson trifles 
 egregiously. 
 
 13. ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε, “ that ye be not (excessively) 
 grieved.” So Theodoret: οὐ παντελώς κωλύει τὴν 
 λυπὴν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀμετρίαν ἐκβάλλει, καὶ τῇ τῆς ἀναστά- 
 σεως ἐλπίδι ψυχαγωγεῖ, οἱ γὰρ ταύτην οὐκ ἔχοντες ἔχουσι 
 τῆς ἀμέτρου λύπης ἀπολογίαν. It is well observed by 
 Benson, “ that Christianity aims not at the rooting 
 out the passions, appetites, and afflictions ; but to mo- 
 derate and duly regulate them.” By the οἱ λοιποὶ are 
 meant those out of the pale of Christianity, whether 
 Heathens or Jews. Oi μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα, i. 6. (as Grot., 
 Benson, and Koppe explain) “ who have not a sure 
 (i.e. a Christian) hope.” For the Heathens had none, 
 and the Jews a very faint one ; at least if we may judge 
 from the excessive grief which they indulged at fu- 
 nerals. Benson would confine ‘the οἱ λοιποὶ to the 
 Gentiles, and not include the Jews. But, as Grot. 
 and Koppe rightly observe, the term must here have 
 the same extent of signification as οἱ ἔξω just before. 
 And so it is used at Eph. 2, 3. & 4, 17. and infra 
 5,6. By the ἐλπίδα (I repeat) is meant a sure and 
 well grounded hope and expectation, and the whole 
 phrase must be taken in a popular sense. For (as Ben- 
 son observes) that even the Heathens hoped that the 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. Iv. 121 
 
 soul would survive the body, is abundantly evident 
 from their writings. (See more in the note of the 
 learned Doctor *) 
 
 14. εἰ γὰρ πιστεύομεν---ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ. There is no 
 treason to take γὰρ (with Koppe and Benson) asa 
 particle of transition: and εἰ for ws. We have here 
 an argumentum ex loco parium ductum, as Crell. 
 says, (whom see). The construction and course of 
 reasoning will be sufficiently plain, if in the second 
 member we supply, not πιστεύομεν, but πιστεύωμεν, 
 and render: ‘‘ If we believe that Jesus died and rose 
 again, so also (must we believe) that God will raise 
 up those who sleep in Jesus, together with him.” 
 The argument is popular, and like that at 1 Cor. c. 
 15., where see the notes. Διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Of this 
 the sense above expressed seems to be the most 
 natural ; and it is supported by the authority of 
 many antients, and most moderns. And so Koppe, 
 who compares the διὰ to the Heb. 2 (which the 
 
 * There would be no end (he says) of transcribing passages from 
 Plato, Xenophon, Cicero, &c., to show that they had that hope. 
 The Greek and Roman Philosophers, excepting the Epicureans and 
 Sceptics, and a few others, believed in a future state. ‘* Indeed 
 (continues Dr. Benson) the vulgar had gross conceptions of the 
 future state, owing, ina great measure, to the mythological and 
 symbolical representations of the poets and philosophers, and which 
 they explained only to their learned hearers. And the exoteric and 
 esoteric philosophy had a reference only to the difference of the vul- 
 gar and political from the philosophical notions of a future state, 
 and not at all to the reality and belief in it, which was always be- 
 lieved, in different ways of explication, by the learned and unlearned, 
 by the poets and philosephers, as well as by the common people. 
 (See Mr. Jackson, ibid.) However, as their notions of the future 
 state were generally dark and cloudy, low and grovelling ; as their 
 best philosophers sometimes expressed themselves with great difli- 
 dence and hesitation, and their poets gave themselves such un- 
 bounded licence; the people were very much confuunded, and, at 
 certain intervals, ready to fear that death might prove an utter ex- 
 tinction of the man. That was the spirit of bondage which created 
 the most uneasy and distressing fears: but Christianity has dissi- 
 pated those fears, and brings with it the spirit of adoption, whereby 
 we look upon our God as our Father, who will raise us from the 
 dead, and put us in possession of the most pure and virtuous enjoy- 
 
 ments, and that for ever.” 
 
122 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 Syriac has here), which often means ἐν. The διὰ 
 may, however, with some antients and moderns, be 
 taken in the sense of per; though (as Koppe ob- 
 serves) somewhat harshly. See the instructive note 
 of Benson. : 
 
 15. τοῦτο γὰρ----κοιμνηθέντας, “ For this, moreover, I 
 tell you, on the authority ofthe Lord, that such of 
 us as shall be left alive by the Lord, will not antici- 
 pate those who are then dead,” namely, in being 
 glorified. "Ev λόγῳ Kueiov. It is well observed by 
 Benson that St. Paul uses this phrase in allusion to 
 that with which the Prophets prefaced their mes- 
 sages (See 1 Kings 13, 17 & 18. 20, 35.), to indicate 
 that what he was about to say was not his own in- 
 vention, but a Divine revelation. In what way the 
 revelation was made, whether by the words of Christ 
 himself, or through the medium of the Holy Spirit, 
 we know not. Chrysost. and Theophyl. say: ῥητώς 
 ἤκουσε παρὰ τοῦ διδασκάλου, ὥσπερ κἀκεῖνοι. Μακάριον 
 ἐστι διδόναι μᾶλλον ἢ λαμβάνειν. In either case it 
 was the word of the Lord, and consequently (as 
 Doddr. remarks) ‘‘ there can be no room to suppose 
 St. Paul mistaken in any circumstance of the ensuing 
 account.” 
 
 15. ἡμεῖς οἱ Savres, οἱ περιλειπόμενοι. On the sense 
 of ἡμεῖς οἱ ϑώντες, &c. Commentators are not agreed. 
 Many moderns, taking the words in their full sense, 
 think they express the Apostle’s belief that he and 
 some of them should survive until the day of the 
 Lord. On the other hand, the antients and most 
 moderns think he uses the figure κοίνωσις to denote 
 the Christians who should be alive at the last day. 
 So Theophyl. : Ἡμεῖς δὲ οἱ Savres, λέγων, οὐ περὶ ἑαυ- 
 τοῦ φησιν (οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄχρι τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἔμελλε ϑν) 
 ἀλλὰ τοὺς πιστοὺς λέγει" διὸ προσέθηκεν, οἱ περιλειπό- 
 μένοι εἰς τὴν παρούσιαν τοῦ Κυρίου, ᾿Εν γὰρ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ 
 προσώπῳ πάντας τοὺς τότε εὐριθησομιένους ϑώντας δηλοῖ, 
 Μεθόδος δὲ 6 μακάριος, ϑώντας, τὰς ψυχὰς λέγει. See 
 also Chrys., Gicumen., and Theodoret. On this 
 side of the question there is a powerful annotation 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. lV. 123 
 
 by Dr. Benson, in which he has been more successful 
 in showing that there is no proof that St. Paul and 
 the other Apostles supposed the day of judgment 
 was at hand (on which see also Doddr.), than in 
 establishing the κοίνωσις in question. I can only 
 refer the reader to his valuable note; and it is im- 
 possible for me to enter at large into so extensive a 
 question, and one so little connected with a critical 
 digest of annotation. I will only say that the κοί- 
 νωσις cannot (I think) be admitted, for the reasons 
 given by Grot. But it seems prudent to steer a 
 middle course between the two extremes, and sup- 
 pose (as we well may) that though the ἡμεῖς does 
 not imply that the Apostle thought he should live 
 till the last day, yet that he thought it possible the 
 last day was so near at hand that some then living 
 might see it, and having no certain information, he 
 expresses himself indefinitely. And surely (to use 
 the words of Doddr.) an ignorance on this point was 
 by no means inconsistent with a knowledge of what- 
 ever was necessary to the preaching of the Gospel. 
 Compare Mark 13, 32. and 1 Cor. 15, 51. It must, 
 however, be observed, that all that is here said has 
 reference (as at 1 Cor. 15.) to the case of the righ- 
 teous. 
 
 15. of περιλειπόμενοι, “© we who are survivors.” 
 Eis παρουσίαν, ‘unto the coming.” Od μὴ φθάσωμεν 
 τοὺς κοιμηθέντας, ‘ shall by no means anticipate the 
 dead (in our assuming glorified bodies).” Οὐ μὴ, 
 by no means. See the note on 1 Cor. 15. Wets. 
 here remarks: “ Si anime piorum, quamprimum ex 
 corpore excedunt, in ccelum avolant, et cum Christo 
 vivunt, hance doctrinam videtur nunc debuisse Pau- 
 lum inculcare Thessalonicensibus; imo si hac doc- 
 trina ex institutione Apostolorum ab initio imbuti 
 fuissent, concipi nequit, quomodo fieri potuerit, ut 
 in eam sententiam propensiores essent, que statuit, 
 superstites citius quam mortuos ad Christum per- 
 venturos.” 
 
 16, ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ἐν κελεύσμιατι----οὐρανοῦ, Here 
 
124. 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 (as Koppe observes) we have a description of the 
 solemn advent of Christ, expressed by images and 
 types derived from the triumphal entrance of a hu- 
 man king taking possession of a kingdom with an 
 armed force. Ἔν κελεύσματι; ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου, 
 καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι Θεοῦ. Koppe and Rosenm. think 
 that this is for ἐν κελεύσματι διὰ φωγῆς ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ 
 σάλπιγγι. Which is preferable to the mode of inter- 
 pretation adopted by Grot., who takes ἐν κελεύσματι, 
 with the Vulg., in the sense in jussu, also counte- 
 nanced by the Syriac Translators. ‘They probably 
 read κελεύματι. One thing is plain, that the ἐν an- 
 swers to the Heb. 3, by, at; and ἐν κελεύσματι nearly 
 corresponds to the Classical phrase ἀπὸ κελεύσματος, 
 of which examples in abundance are adduced by 
 Wets. and others, from which it appears to have de- 
 noted that loud shout by which soldiers or sailors 
 excited themselves on rushing to battle; or by which 
 associated labourers encourage themselves to any 
 conjoint effort of strength ; or, in a general way, any 
 loud shout of a ‘single individual, as of a boatswain, 
 which was (I think) uttered with a speaking trumpet. 
 However, it seems prudent not to confound the three 
 particulars together; though to thoroughly compre- 
 hend the mode of their operation it were vain to 
 attempt, and on so awful a subject it behoves us 
 reverently to suppress prying curiosity. Who, for 
 instance, is meant by ἀρχαγγέλουϑ An archangel. 
 I dare not venture even to conjecture. Certainly 
 not (as Pierce and others suppose) Christ. Nor can 
 I consent, with most recent Commentators, to de- 
 cline the difficulty by sinking all into metaphor and 
 figure. Thus Benson: “ The coming of Christ, as 
 universal judge, will be very public and magnificent ; 
 and all mankind shall be suffered to appear before 
 him.” If I might venture to express a conjecture, 
 I should suggest that possibly by the κελεύσματι may 
 be meant some inexpressibly awful crash of thunder, 
 accompanied, perhaps, with a pealing roar from most 
 universal subterraneous convulsions, which, even in 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 125 
 
 the ordinary course of nature, as we learn from tra- 
 vellers (see Humboldt on the Andes), exceed the 
 noise produced by the discharge of a whole park of 
 artillery ! 
 
 16. καὶ of νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον. 
 By the dead in Christ are evidently meant those that 
 die in the faith and fear of Christ, i.e. faithful 
 Christians. For, as the best Commentators are 
 agreed, nothing is either here, or at 1 Cor. 15., said 
 of the wicked, dead or living (on which Mackn. has 
 many needless speculations) ; as the description of 
 their case could have been no consolation to Chris- 
 tians under the loss of friends. ‘These, then, it is 
 said, shall rise first. 
 
 17. ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἀρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς 
 ἀπάντησιν τοῦ Κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα, ‘* Then we who are left 
 alive shall be caught up together with him to the 
 clouds, in order to meet the Lord in the air.” The 
 ἅμα σὺν is a stronger expression than ἅμα, or σὺν 
 singly. ’Agz. is for avasr. On the mode in which 
 this is to be effected Commentators variously specu- 
 late. At ἐν νεφέλαις Koppe supplies ὀχήσαντες (on 
 which may be compared Ps. 68, 4. and Is. 19, 1.). 
 And so most Commentators, who render: ‘ in nu- 
 bibus.” But I prefer, with others, zn nubes, unto the 
 clouds, which the nature of the preceding verb 
 seems to require. Unless εἰς ἀέρα be construed (as 
 it is done by Rosenm. and others) with avapr. But 
 this is a violent and unnecessary hyperbaton. Lis 
 ἀπάντησιν τοῦ Kugiov. A phrase plainly Hebraic 
 (with which Koppe compares the Heb. "348 ns), 
 tor ἀπαντησάντες τῷ Κυρίῳ. The being cavght up and 
 introduced to the Lord in the air is (as Theophy]l. 
 observes) a token of honour, as opposed to the state 
 of the wicked, who shall await the Judge below. 
 
 17. καὶ οὕτω, “ And then.” A sense common 
 after καὶ, on which I have before treated. Πάντοτε, 
 everlastingly. The expression σὺν Κυρίῳ (which, as 
 Theophyl. says, implies τὸ κεφαλαῖον τῶν ἀγαθών καρ- 
 ποῦσθα!) denotes participation in kingdom, glory, and 
 
126 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. V. 
 
 felicity. See Joh. 14,2 & 3. 17, 29. 2 Tim. 2, 12. 
 Rom. 8, 17. It may, however, be collected from 
 these words (as Whitby thinks) that even the souls 
 of the faithful are not with the Lord, or in his ce- 
 lestial presence before the resurrection. 
 
 18. ὥστε παρακαλεῖτε ολλήλους ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τούτοις, 
 * So then (this being the case) console each other 
 (ye who are troubled) with these (comforting) say- 
 ings and assurances.” 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 VERSE 1. περὶ δὲ τών χρόνων---γράφεσθαι. As the 
 Apostle had, in the last section, treated of the second 
 coming of Christ, of the resurrection of the pious 
 dead, of the transformation of the living, and of 
 their being all made happy with Christ; it would be 
 likely enough that persons of too curious and inqui- 
 sitive a temper would be ready to inquire (as our 
 Lord’s disciples did, Matt. 24, 3.), “ Tell us, when 
 shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of 
 Christ’s coming, and of the end of the world?” He 
 therefore (ver. 1—11.) endeavours to divert their 
 minds from such an improper enquiry to something of 
 more moment; viz. that they should live such an holy 
 life as to be always prepared for that coming of 
 Christ, which, whenever it happens, will surprise the 
 wicked world, but be unspeakable joy to the righ- 
 teous. (Benson.) . 
 
 It is not, Koppe thinks, necessary to nicely discri- 
 minate between the senses of χρόνων and καίρων ; 
 since they are often confounded in the New Testa- 
 ment. (See Schleus. Lex. on these words.) Yet as 
 xaipos does sometimes, in the New Testament, de- 
 note the tempus opportunum, or the critical season 
 for doing any thing, so, I think, with most Commen- 
 tators, it may have that sense here. I would ren- 
 der: “ Of the time and exact season of Christ’s 
 coming.” See Pole’s Syn. Οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε γράφεσ- 
 θαι. On this syntax see the note supra 4,9. ‘The 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, -CHAP. V. 127 
 
 ᾽ 
 
 expression signifies, “ it is unnecessary ;” and per- 
 haps it may be put by meiosis (as the antients and 
 Zanch think) ἐξ were useless, nay improper, περιττὸν 
 καὶ ἀσύμῷορον. . 
 
 2. αὐτοὶ yap ἀκριβῶς οἴδατε, “ Ye yourselves know 
 all that is necessary, and what our Lord hath told 
 you.” Ὅτι ἡ ἡμέρα Kupiou—épyerosr. By the day of 
 the Lord is not meant (as Hamm. and Schoettg. sup- 
 pose) that of the destruction of Jerusalem, nor (as 
 Whitby) of the destruction of Jerusalem and also 
 the last advent, but solely the latter. In οἴδατε 
 there is an allusion to what is recorded in Matt. 24, 
 43.,and elsewhere. ἔρχεται, “ is to come.” 
 
 3. ὅταν yap λέγωσιν---ἐκφύγωσιν. The Apostle now 
 proceeds to illustrate the effect of the sudden advent 
 of the Lord: but in order to make his remarks the 
 more impressive,* he adverts solely to its effect on 
 the secure, careless, and unprepared, i. e. the wicked. 
 And so our Lord speaks of it, Matt. 24, 38., with 
 which compare Jer. 49, 24. See Benson. 
 
 At εἰρήνη and ἀσφάλεια must be understood ἐστι. 
 See Ez. 13, 10. The ὄλεθρος signifies not so much 
 destruction, as perdition, and that judicial; as ap- 
 pears from the nature of the thing, and from 2 Thess. 
 1, 9. ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον. 1 Tim. 5, 9. εἰς ὄλεθρον καί 
 ἀπώλειαν.  Hesych. ὄλεθρον, εἰς ἄδην. “ΓΠοοάογοί 
 well paraphrases : τῆς θεογνωσίας τὴν αἰκτῖνα δεξάμιενοι, 
 φεύγετε τὰ τοῦ σκότου ἐπιτηδεύματα, ἵνα μὴ ἐξαπιναίως 
 ὑμῖν ἐπενεχθῇ τῆς τιμωρίας ἡ ψῆφος. 
 
 Αἰφνίδιος, sudden, unexpected. A very frequent 
 sense ; so that the examples adduced by the Philo- 
 logists are superfluous. Compare Rom. 13, 12. 
 
 4, 5. ὑμεῖς---καταλάβῃη. The comparison of Christ’s 
 
 * And also, it should seem, to give a hint with respect to the fate 
 of the wicked at the great day, who were not adverted to in the pre- 
 ceding passage on the resurrection, &c. It is here remarked by 
 Koppe : “ Cum hoc extremo Christi adventu, necessario conjunctus 
 fore credebatur hostium ejus interitus; similitudine iterum a rege 
 humano sumptA, qui regno feliciter occupato imperii sui rebelles 
 ‘peenis ac suppliciis multare solet.” 
 
128 τ 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 
 
 sudden advent to the coming of a thief in the night, 
 seems to have suggested the occasion of expressing 
 by phrases taken from the shining brightness of light 
 and day, the mind of Christians fully prepared by 
 his Apostolical instruction for this awful event. 
 (Koppe.) 
 
 The Apostle having compared our Lord’s sudden 
 and unexpected coming to judgment to a thief’s 
 coming in the night, from thence takes occasion to 
 call such as were ignorant of the Divine will, children 
 of night and of darkness ; and, by way of opposition, 
 such as were illuminated with the knowledge of it, 
 children of light and of day: and this allusion he 
 carries on, ver. 4—10. (Benson.) 
 
 Ὑμεῖς is emphatical; and σκότου signifies wilful 
 ignorance of divine truths, with an adjunct notion 
 of the vice and hardness of heart accompanying it. 
 So Theophyl.: οὐ σκοτεινὸν καὶ ἀκάθαρτον ἔχετε βίον. 
 The Apostle’s meaning is not very obscure; though in 
 the use of the metaphor there is somewhat of confu- 
 sion. Rosenm. explains thus: “ΤῸ those who are 
 already in light, light is not troublesome and unex- 
 pected; so neither to you Christians will that day 
 be unwelcome or unexpected, in which every one’s 
 life shall be made manifest.” I would here compare 
 Cic. ad Attic. 10,8. Non fuisset et illa nox tam 
 acerba Atricano, sapientissimo viro, non tam dirus 
 ille dies Sullacas calidissimo viro C. Mario, si nihil 
 utrumque eorum fefellisset. 
 
 From the day of the Lord the Apostle then passes 
 to the general notion of day, 5—8. In the plural 
 υἱοὶ and φῶτος, the best Commentators recognise a 
 Hebraism, by which 8 (son) expresses any sort of 
 close connection and strong similarity; so that by 
 υἱοὶ Φωτὸς are meant those endued with the light of 
 the Gospel. So υἱοὶ ἀπειθείας at Eph. 2, 2., and 
 ἀπωλείας at 2 Thess. 2, 3. 
 
 6, 7. In these verses is continued the allusion to 
 night and day, of which the former is given to in- 
 dulgence, by the sensual to drunkenness, &c.; and 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. + 129 
 
 by all to security and sleep. So Benson: “ The 
 Apostle, having compared Christ’s coming to that 
 of a thief in the night, he then represented bad men 
 as children of darkness, liable to be surprised and 
 destroyed ; and good Christians, as children of light 
 and of day. That led him to take notice how men 
 commonly spend the night, in sleeping or drunken- 
 ness. From thence he took occasion to recommend 
 to Christians, who are children of day, to behave 
 accordingly, to watch and be sober.” 
 
 The best Commentators are agreed that καθευδ. 
 answers to the term stertere of the Latin; q.d. ‘ Let 
 us not doze and nod in thoughtlessness and vice, but 
 let us watch and be wakeful and sober.” Tpyyop. is 
 equivalent to ἀγρυπνεῖν in Luke 31, 36. where see 
 the note. The metaphorical sense here of νήφειν is 
 too well known to need illustration. One example 
 will suffice. Plut. 841. νήφειν λέγων καὶ ἀγρυπνεῖν, 
 ὅπως ἔξη τοῖς ἄλλοις μεθύειν καὶ καθεύδειν. Both words 
 are joined in 1 Pet.5,8. Koppe observes, that after 
 removing the metaphor, the sense of the two ex- 
 pressions will be as follows: “ sollers et strenuus 
 esse in bene honestéque agendo; et in devitandis 
 vitiis ac sceleribus quibusvis esse diligens.” And 
 he renders the words of ver. 7.: ‘* Negligens esse in 
 recté agendo, vitiisque indulgere, homines tantum 
 eos decet, qui dei voluntatem de eo, quod agendum 
 aut omittendum sit, non fuerunt edocti.” 
 
 With respect to the νυκτὸς μεθύουσιν, it may be 
 observed, with Raphel, that the being drunken in 
 the day time was thought the greatest disgrace. 
 And Wets. cites Polyb. Exc. Leg. 8. ἐκπαθῆ δὲ yeyo- 
 νότα καὶ πρὸς τὰς ἀκρατοποσίας, Wore Kal μεθ᾿ ἡμέραν 
 πλεονάκις μεθύοντα καταφανῆ γενέσθαι τοῖς φίλοις. Apu- 
 16]. scortis et diurnis potationibus exercitatus. To 
 which 1 add Athen. 433 B. οὐκ ἐστ᾽ ἀποτάκτου, Ἡ μέρᾳ 
 οἰνῶώσαι σῶμα ἀμέτροισι πότοις. Hor. Sat. 1. Ebrius 
 et, magnum quod dedecus, obambulet Ante nocten 
 facibus. Plato Com. ap. Athen. 279 a. πότους ἐωθί- 
 
 VOL. VIII. K | 
 
130 _ 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. VY. 
 
 yous Πίνει διὰ σε. Soalso 2 Pet. 2, 13. ἡδονὴν ἡγούμιε- 
 νοι THY ἐν ἡμιέρᾳ τρυφὴν. 
 
 8, ἡμεῖς δὲ---ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας. ‘The Apostle now 
 glides into another and favourite comparison (com- 
 pare Eph. 6, 14. and Is. 11, 5.59, 17.), taken from 
 armour, sheathed in which, and prepared for battle, 
 the soldier encounters all perils, till he gain the 
 victory. Then he shows how Christians ought to 
 prepare themselves for that day, namely, by faith, 
 love, and hope. (Koppe and Rosenm.) 
 
 Πίστις, firm persuasion of the Messiahship of Jesus, 
 and constancy in supporting it under calamity and 
 persecution. ᾿Αγάπη, “love and good will to all 
 men, both Christians and others. ᾿Ελπίδα σωτηρίας, 
 ‘a lively hope of tinally obtaining the eternal re- 
 wards promised to Christian obedience in the Mes- 
 siah’s kingdom.” See Benson. And compare Hebr. 
 6, 19. The article at éar. and σωτ. would have 
 been better; as in Jos. 1319, 8. ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν 
 ἐλπίδα τῆς σωτηρίας. 
 
 The ratio of the allusions in the breast-plate and 
 helmet, it is unnecessary to minutely discuss; since 
 all is plain and obvious, and it may suffice to refer to 
 the parallel passage of Eph. 6, 11.; and I will only 
 add that the words of the present coufirm my cri- 
 ticism on those of that passage, that the Apostle 
 only intended to represent the defensive supports of 
 the Gospel; and this will be the best answer to the 
 question often proposed and anxiously debated, why 
 the Apostle has here altered the particulars of the 
 comparison, and somewhat varied their application ? 
 
 9, 10. ‘These verses, Koppe observes, are both 
 especially to be referred to the ἐλπ. σωτηρίας at ver. 
 8.; and he gives the following as the general sense : 
 “spe futura felicitatis vere et jure suo possunt 
 Christiani animum inter calamitates erigere, quippe 
 voluntate et promissis divinis eadem nitatur.” With 
 the ἔθετο Koppe and Rosenm. compare a similar use 
 of the Hebr. SW and N53, appoint and destine, Gen. 
 17, 5. Jer. 1, 5.’Opyiv, punishment; as 1,10. The 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. lor 
 
 περιποίησιν is for εἰς τὸ περιποιεῖσθαι, and accommo- 
 dated to ὀργὴν. The phrase, however, is often used, 
 as 2 Thess. 2, 14. and Hebr. 10, 39. Benson ex- 
 plains: “ The design of God in sending his son into 
 this world, was not to condemn the world, but that 
 the world through him might be saved. He did not 
 reveal the Gospel unto mankind, that they might 
 sin with the greater aggravation, and so be the more 
 severely punished. But the motive was love, and 
 the design was mercy. And he hath appointed none 
 to wrath but such as wilfully and obstinately refuse 
 his gracious offers, and persist in vice and wicked- 
 ness.” See his numerous Scriptural proofs. ‘Theo- 
 phyl. draws the following conclusion: ᾿Οφείλομεν οὖν 
 ermigew ἐν κινδύνοις χρηστὰ καὶ μεγάλα. Hi yap ἐπι- 
 στεύσαμεν ὅτι τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἐλπίϑω- 
 μεν ὅτι καὶ πολλῴ μᾶλλον τῶν κινδύνων τούτων ἐξέλειται. 
 With respect to the words τοῦ ἀποθανόντος ---ϑήσωμεν, 
 I would observe that the antients rightly considered 
 yeny. and καθ. as put for ϑώμεν and ἀποθάνωμεν ; and 
 they notice the antanaclasis. ‘This, too, is supported 
 by the best modern Commentators, of whom Benson 
 has given the most satisfactory account of the sense. 
 It is, therefore, strange that Whitby should have 
 taken καθ. in the physical sense, and rendered γρηγορῶ- 
 μὲν, “be on our guard.” Benson explains the words 
 ἵνα----ϑήσωμιεν as if they denoted the plan of salvation 
 by Christ; which is not the case; and, what is 
 worse, in laying down that plan the Doctor has omit- 
 ted the fundamental doctrine of the atonement, and 
 lowers the whole almost down to the level of 
 Socinianism. The Apostle, however (as the best 
 Commentators are agreed), only meant to say that 
 whether we be alive, or dead, at that day, it matters 
 not; the living with Christ, or enjoying eternal 
 happiness with him (see supra 4, 17.), shall be equally 
 our portion. So that (as Theoph. infers) ‘‘ we may 
 fearlessly meet dangers, or even death; for even if 
 we die, we shall Jive, as he who so loved us as to die | 
 for us, liveth.” 
 K 2 
 
132 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 
 
 11. διὸ παρακαλείτε---ποιεῖτες Here we have a 
 repetition, per epanalepsin, of what was said at 4, 18. ; 
 the intermediate matter on the suddenness of Christ’s 
 coming, and the necessity of previous preparation, 
 being in some measure parenthetical and digressive. 
 In resuming, however, the thread of the discourse, 
 the Apostle uses a metaphorical expression of great 
 beauty, in which there is an architectural figure, 
 such as in 1 Cor. 8, 1. 10, 23. 14, 17. and Jude 20., 
 where see the notes. This edifying one another (as 
 Benson says) was, either by increasing one another’s 
 knowledge, strengthening their faith and hope, or 
 promoting | their holiness. 
 
 Εἰς τὸν ἕνα is for ἀλλήλους : an idiom rare in the 
 Classical writers ; : though Kypke cites Dionys. Hal. 
 p. 154, ὁπότε ὑπὲρ ἀμαρτύρου συναλλάγματος ἀμφίλογόν 
 τι γένοιτο ἑνὶ πρὸς ἔνα. 
 
 11. καθὼς καὶ ποιεῖτε, 4. d. “I need hardly have 
 given the exhortation, since ye already do this.” 
 We may observe that this praise, mixed with the 
 exhortation, is delicately thrown in, to make it the 
 more effectual. Of which I have noted an example 
 in Aristid. T. 1. 232, 11. σχεδὸν δὲ οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ ὃ 
 ποιεῖτε παρήνεσα. Grot. compares the adage: σπεὺυ- 
 δόντα καὶ αὐτὸν ὀτρύνω. 
 
 12—14. Having exhorted them to comfort and 
 edify one another, the Apostle adds other such ex- 
 hortations as he found, from Timothy, were necessary. 
 Lest they should imagine they had no occasion for 
 religious teachers,* he enjoins them to show all due 
 respect to their spiritual pastors and masters; and 
 to these he hints their reciprocal duties to their 
 people. (See Grot. and Benson.) 
 
 12. ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς, “ we entreat you.” See 4, 1. 
 Kidéevat. Grot. compares respicere, spectare, cise 
 
 * So Theophyl. : iva μὴ γομίσωσιν ὅτι εἰς τὸ διδασκάλου ἀξίωμα 
 αὐτοὺς ἀνήγαγε, καὶ κατεπαρθῶσιν ἐκείνων, φησίν" ὅτι εἰ καὶ ὑμῖν 
 ἐπέτρεψα τὴν ἀλλήλων οἰκοδομὴν, πλὴν παρακαλῶ ἵνα ἐκείνους διὰ 
 τιμὴ exnre’ πολλὰ γὰρ οἱ διδάσκαλοι ὑπομένειν ἀναγεάξονται δυσ- 
 ᾿ χερῆ, ἃ ἡ τιμὴ αὐτοῖς μετρίως γοῦν ἐπικουφιεῖ. 
 
1. THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 133 
 
 Baerroy, and spectabilis. The recent Commentators 
 explain it rationem habere. I conceive that the 
 principal sense is that expressed by Theophyl., διὰ 
 τιμῆς ἔχειν. So Hesiod, Op. 187. Some render it 
 show gratitude to. The term indeed seems to in- 
 clude a mixture of respect, obedience, and gratitude 
 shown especially in making due provision for their 
 wants. 
 
 As to the persons of whom this is to be understood, the Apostle 
 has been thought to advert to three distinct classes of spiritual pas- 
 tors, viz. (to use the words of Mackn.) 1. Τοὺς κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑμῖν, 
 Those who laboured among them, in the works of the ministry, by 
 preaching, catechising, and dispensing the sacraments. 2. Τοὺς 
 προισταμένους ὑμῶν, Those who presided over them ; that is, who in 
 their public meetings for worship showed in what order individuals 
 were to exercise their spiritual gifts ; and appointed the places and 
 times of these meetings. 3. Τοὺς νουθετοῦντας ὑμᾶς, Those who 
 observed the behaviour of individuals, and gave to such as were 
 faulty the admonitions and reproofs necessary to their amendment. 
 “For vovOeréw (says he) signifies to admonish with reproof. See 
 Tit. 3, 10. He thinks it probable that this office belonged to the 
 Bishops. As to κοπιῶντας, it is plain that, from the nature of the 
 subject τῷ λόγῳ must be supplied. It is expressed in 1 Tim. 5, 17. 
 The προϊστάμενοι are supposed by the best Commentators to be thie 
 same with προεστῶτες, ἐπισκόποι, πρεσβύτεροι, ποιμένες (Compare 
 1 Tim. 5, 17. and 8, 2. and Eph. 4, 11.), like the Jewish Archisy- 
 nagogi. Koppe, however, maintains that the terms γουθετ. and 
 προΐϊσταμενοι are not meant of various kinds of Presbyters (some 
 Bishops, and others teachers, See Acts 20, 17. compared with 28, 
 Phil. 1, 1. 1 Tim. 3, 2. seq.), but of the same persons comprehended, 
 in this verse, under the more general term κοπιῶντες. Kor. is 
 indeed a very general term to denote “labouring in the promul- 
 gation of the Gospel ;” as Rom. 16, 6 & 12. 1 Cor. 15, 10. 16, 16. 
 Gal. 4, 11. Phil. 2, 16. Col. 1, 29. and 1 Tim. 4,10. 5,17. But, 
 upon the whole, I see not how we can come to any determinate 
 opinion on the nature of the ecclesiastical government of the Thes- 
 salonian church, for want of more exact information than we 
 possess. Yet it seems probable that by κοπιῶντες are denoted 
 those who occupied the ordinary offices of teaching, and by the zpoic- 
 τάμενοι, the rulers of the church; and that νουθετοῦντας is a ge- 
 neral term applicable to both. I certainly see not how we can 
 here recognise any Bishops or Bishop properly so called. Nor does 
 there seem, as yet, to have been any Bishop appointed. ‘ It was 
 common (says Benson) with St. Paul to collect a church, and im- 
 part some spiritual gifts and miraculous powers unto them; and 
 then leave them for some time, without ordaining Bishops and 
 deacons among them. Acts 14, 1. 21, 23. 1 Tim. 5, 22. Tit. 1, 5. 
 and many other places. How long they continued in that first state 
 was according to circumstances. But, whenever things were found 
 
134 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. y. 
 
 to be in a proper situation, then the Apostle, or some of the Evan- 
 gelists, his assistants, went and ordained some of the elders, or first 
 converts, to be Bishops, and others to be Deacons.” And so Whitby 
 observes, that the Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, Evangelists, whoa 
 were all extraordinary offices, are reckoned among those whom God 
 had settled in the church, 1 Cor. 12, 24., and Christ ascending up 
 on high, had given for the edification of his body. Eph. 4, 11, 12. 
 “Some of these Prophets and Teachers (continues he} were in most 
 churches, as at Antioch (Acts 13, 1.) and officiated in them (ver.3.) 
 at Rom. (12, 6 ἃ 7.), at Corinth (1 Cor. 14.) andat Galatia. (See 
 note on 6, 1.) Some of them were itinerants, sent by the Apostles, 
 or Prophets, to teach other churches, and by the holy spirit sepa- 
 rated to that work (Acts 13, 2,3 ἃ 4.). Exhorting and confirming 
 the churches where they came, as being Prophets authorized so to 
 do (Acts 16, 12.), and travelling up and down for the converting 
 and establishing of the Gentiles (3 Joh.7 ἃ 8. See note on 1 Cor. 
 12, 28.). Of one of these two kinds of Prophets and Teachers, and 
 spiritual men, the Apostle may here be understood.” It is impos- 
 sible for me to enter into so extensive a question here; but it seems 
 highly probable that among these Episcopi one was appointed te 
 preside, with the sole power of ordination and supreme government, 
 so as to be what we calla Bishop. Which brings it to the same 
 thing (though by a different way) as what the Commentators above 
 mentioned contend for. See the note on Phil. 1, 1. 
 
 13. καὶ ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς ὑπὲρ ἐκπερισσοῦ ἐν ἀγάπη. 
 This does not simply signify ‘ love them ;” as many 
 explain. It answers to the Classical phrase περὶ 
 πλείονος yyeiobas, or ποιεῖσθαι, make much of, hold in 
 honour. Yet something more is meant: and I can- 
 not but consider the clause as consisting of two 
 blended into one, and I would render it, “ make 
 much of, respect and love them.” Which, of course, 
 includes providing for their honourable sustenance ; 
 and this seems to be suggested by the διὰ τὸ ἔργον. 
 Though even the honouring might include it. ‘Thus 
 (as Koppe remarks) at 1 Tim. 5, 17. we have τιμᾷν 
 τὸν προεστώτοι, which plainly signifies, “ provide him 
 with sustenance.” See also Matt. 15,4. The ἔργον 
 denotes the work and office, whether of instruction, 
 or of government, which they exercise. 
 
 13. εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. The reading αὐτοῖς, the 
 rulers, though very specious, can by no means be 
 admitted, and seems to have arisen from emendation. 
 The common reading yields the most extensive, and 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 135 
 
 therefore the best sense (for it includes the other) ; 
 yet, I think, the words are usually too much limited 
 in the explanation, as we had here only an admoni- 
 tion to the congregation at large. ““ For (says 
 Benson, from Est.) if the people quarrel among 
 themselves, their Pastors cannot have much esteem, 
 nor do much good.” Which is very true: but not, I 
 think, ¢he truth meant by the Apostle. ‘The admoni- 
 tion was (I conceive) intended both for the rulers and 
 the congregation, on whom it especially enjoined 
 the cultivation of peace and concord, namely, by 
 making mutual sacrifices for that purpose, or, as the 
 Apostle says at Eph. 4, 3. ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων ἐν 
 ἀγάπη: σπουδάϑοντες τηρεῖν τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ πνεύματος 
 ἐν τῷ συνδεσμῷ τῆς εἰρήνης. 
 
 14. παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ spas, ἀδελφοὶ, νουθετεῖτε τοὺς 
 ἀτάκτους. The Apostle (as usual) after the general 
 precepts, subjoins such as are most suitable to those 
 times and places. 
 
 On the persons here addressed the Commentators 
 are not agreed. ‘The antients and some moderns, 
 as Est., Zanch, and Benson, think the spiritual 
 rulers. Others, the people only. (See Doddr.) But 
 this, from the nature of the expressions, seems very 
 improbable. The former opinion is undoubtedly 
 the best founded ; but we may very well suppose 
 both to be meant; though chiefly the spiritual rulers. 
 The same word ἀδελφοὶ being used, as at ver. 12., 
 when addressing the people, will prove nothing ; 
 since the Apostle so perpetually varies his phraseo- 
 logy. Besides, the term νουθετεῖτε, (the same as that 
 used in the preceding verse of the rulers,) shows that 
 they are chiefly had in view. Moreover, the paxpo- 
 θυμεῖτε πρὸς πάντας seems especially appropriate to 
 ministers ; since, in order to preserve peace with 
 their congregations, such must often exercise this 
 μακροθυμία. And the spiritual consolation and sup- 
 port may, indeed, be administered to the faint-hearted 
 and weak by others as well as the ministers ; though 
 surely by them most efficaciously. And (as Benson 
 
130 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V.. 
 
 observes) the instructions or admonitions given by 
 parents to their children, or by private Christians to 
 one another, are not inconsistent with those given 
 by ministers to the body of the Christian people.” 
 
 Novéer. imports such reproof and admonition as is 
 calculated to recal any one toa right hand, and pro- 
 duce reformation; as Acts 20, 31. Rom. 15, 11. 
 1 Cor. 14, 14., where see the notes. This implies 
 that it shall not be intemperate or harsh, but in the 
 spirit of brotherly kindness. So 2 Thess. 3, 16. 
 νουθετεῖτε ws ἀδελφὸν. And so the Psalmist: “ Let 
 not their precious balms break my head.” On the 
 term νουθ. see the learned note of Krebs. 
 
 ᾿Ατακτοὺς, unruly, disorderly. A term properly 
 used of military and political subordination, but of 
 general application ; as will appear from Wetstein’s 
 numerous examples. It here has reference to spiri- 
 tualsubordination, and also (as Benson thinks) being 
 idle, neglecting their own proper business, being 
 burthensome to others, and meddling with affairs 
 which did not belong to them. See 1 Tim. 5, 13. 
 1 Thess. 4, 11 ἃ 12., and more especially 2 Thess. 
 3, 6-—12. 
 
 Ὀλιγοψύχους, the faint-hearted, pusillanimous, pu- 
 κρόψυχοι, aS opposed to peyaaup. The term often 
 occurs in the Sept. It here signifies those who are 
 labouring under, and ready to sink under calamity. 
 By the ἀσθ. are meant the weak in the faith, scru- 
 pulous in some respects, and wavering in others; as 
 Rom. 14, 1. τὸν ἀσθενοῦντα, τῇ πίστει προσλαμβάνεσθε. 
 See also 14, 15. 1 Cor. 8,7. The term ἀντέχεσθαι 
 signifies, properly, ‘‘ to hold up by sustaining with 
 the hand ;” but is often used metaphorically. By the 
 πάντας Benson understands all men, both Christians 
 and those not so; as 3, 12., and the next verse. 
 And this is confirmed by Theodoret and Gicumen. 
 Benson remarks on the necessity for this patience 
 and long-suffering in Pastors; since the prejudices 
 of some, the stupidity of others, and the infirmities 
 of all, call for tenderness and great patience.” 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 137 
 
 15—28. It is observed, by Benson, that “ the prac- 
 tical directions here given are some of them suited 
 only to a church which had the χαρίσματα, OF spiri- 
 tual gifts; the others suited to all Christians.” Com- 
 pare “Rom. 1, 17—19. 
 
 15. ὁρᾶτε μὴ τις κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ τινι ἀποδώ, “ See, 
 mind,” &c. It is plain that this address is not con- 
 fined to the rulers, but meant for the people at large, 
 i.e. both the classes above addressed, the pastor and 
 the people. On the subject of retaliation 1 would refer 
 to Max. Tyr. Diss. εἰ τὸν ἀδικήσαντα ἀνταδικητέον. I 
 would also compare Thucyd. 1, 498, 3. Bekk , where, 
 among other traits of the Athenians, is the following: 
 drryumaione bed TE τινα περὶ πλείονος ἦν ἢ αὐτὸν μὴ προ- 
 παθεῖν" aud Soph. Cid. c. 230. οὐδενὶ μοιριδίαι τίσις 
 ἔρχεται ὧν προπάθη τὸ τίνειν ἁπάτα δ᾽ ἀπάταις ἑτέραις 
 ἑτέρα παραβαλλόμενα πόνον οὐ χάριν ᾿ἀντιδίδωσιν ἔχειν. 
 
 Διώκετε τὸ ἀγαθὸν, “ pursue, aim at, study to 
 do.” This is a stronger term than ποιεῖν. With 
 respect to the ἀγαθὸν, it is not to be taken with any 
 philosophical refinements, or in the theological sense 
 holiness, but merely in a popular one, as signifying 
 kindness, &c., in opposition to evil of any kind. By 
 the πάντας must be understood men universally, 
 non-Christians as well as Christians, who are meant 
 by the ἀλλήλους. 
 
 16. πάντοτε yaipere. It is strange that many 
 learned Commentators (as Koppe and Rosenm.) 
 should recognize in these words no more than a sort 
 of good bye! ‘* may you ever be prosperous and 
 happy.” And that the judicious Doddr. should 
 think this may be the sense I am surprised. No- 
 thing more frigid, low, and creeping was ever de- 
 vised by those who labour under the cacoethes inno- 
 vandi. The words are, as the Prince of Interpreters 
 has shown, closely connected with the words pre- 
 ceding. linus; after tracing the connexion, he ob- 
 serves (pet) 15) Στὸν γὰρ τοιαύτην ἔχωμεν ψυχὴν, 
 ὥστε μηδένα ἀμύνεσθαι, anand πάντας εὐεργετεῖν, πόθεν, 
 εἰπέ μοι, τὸ τῆς λύπης κέντρον παρεισελθεῖν δυνήσεται ; 6 
 
138 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 
 
 γὰρ οὕτω χαίρων τῷ παθεῖν κακῶς, ὡς Kal εὐεργεσίαις 
 ἀμύνεσθαι τὸν πεποιηκότο. κακῶς, πόθεν δυνήσεται ἀνιαθήη- 
 ναι λοιπόν; καὶ πώς οἷόν τε τοῦτο, ῴησιν; av ἐθέλωμεν, 
 δυνατόν. And so all the best Commentators since his 
 time. It is plain that in those conflicts which the 
 competitions of the world perpetually bring upon 
 us, there is especially put to the proof our Christian 
 fortitude in bearing adversity, (Compare 12, 12. and 
 2 Cor. 6, 10.); since on the event of these competi- 
 tions worldly prosperity and adversity must necessa- 
 rily depend. On the rejoicing in adversity see Ben- 
 son, and compare his references ; though, I think, 
 the Doctor might have spared the information, which 
 few can be supposed to need, “ that we are noé to 
 rejoice or give thanks for our own sins, or the sins of 
 other men.” 
 
 17, 11. ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθες The modern 
 Commentators here recognize no connexion: though 
 it was, I think, correctly traced by Chrys., who ob- 
 serves that this shows the mode by which we may 
 attain unto the last mentioned grace. For, as Theo- 
 phyl. observes (from Chrys.), he who is accustomed 
 to hold converse with God, and render thanks to 
 Him for every thing, (as happening for his good,) 
 will, it is evident, feel perpetual joy. 
 
 The ἀδιαλείπτως is usually regarded as an hyper- 
 bole, and interpreted of praying at all the set times 
 of prayer. So Whitby. But this seems too formal. 
 The expression rather signifies, ‘“‘ without any inter- 
 mission of the habit of prayer, either at those set 
 times which a conformity with external decorum 
 may enjoin, or a regard fo our individual wants, or 
 the peculiarity of circumstances, whether of prospe- 
 rity or adversity, may, require. Compare Eph. 6, 
 18. and Col. 1, 3.* As to precepts concerning 
 
 * Benson, indeed, observes, ‘ that it is unquestionably right to 
 observe the Lord’s day every week, as the stated season for public 
 worship, and particularly for prayer; to be frequently sending up 
 pious breathings and holy ejaculations ; to continue instant in 
 prayer, though we should not receive an answer immediately; and 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. v. 139 
 
 prayer, it were needless to adduce them. See 
 Locke’s Common Place Book. - 
 
 The ἐν παντὶ εὐχαριστεῖτε seems to be explanatory 
 of the preceding. At ἐν παντὶ must be supplied 
 χρόνῳ, τόπῳ, πράγματι, &c., “in all places and cir- 
 cumstances.” So Whitby, “ for sparing and pre- 
 venting, for common and extraordinary, general and 
 special, past and present, temporal and spiritual mer- 
 cies ; not only for prosperous and grateful, but also 
 for afflicting providences, for chastisements and 
 ‘reasonable corrections.” ‘Thus (we may conclude) 
 all things will work for our good in the end, serving 
 to make us holy here and happy hereafter.” 
 
 18. τοῦτο γὰρ θέλημα Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἴ. εἰς ὑμάς. 
 Here we have (I think) a popular form of expres- 
 sion, importing, “ for this is the will of God (signified 
 by Jesus Christ) in regard to you; this is what God 
 is pleased to order by Jesus Christ to be performed 
 by you.” The τοῦτο regards both the χαίρετε and 
 the προσεύχεσθε, considered as forming one maxim. 
 See the note on ver. 16. 
 
 19—22. These verses are regarded by Koppe as 
 forming an independent portion, and having re- 
 spect to the προφητεία and the other spiritual yepic- 
 para not unfrequently granted to the Thessalonians 
 also; as appears from 1, 5. 4, 8. Χο. The antient 
 Commentators unite in taking τὸ πνεῦμα for τὸ χά- 
 ρισμα ; and some, as Gicumen., take the expression 
 τὸ πνεῦμα px σβέννυτε of suppressing the exercise of 
 those gifts by turning away from and disallowing 
 them. And so several moderns, as Whitby. But 
 this seems harsh, Others, as Chrys. and Theoph., and 
 most moderns (as Grot.) understand it of quenching 
 more especially to be careful always to preserve an habitual frame 
 of mind, suited to the performance of this duty of prayer. But 
 none of these are here enjoined.” Itis scarcely possible to lay down 
 a position more at variance with truth than this; as if family 
 prayer alone were here intended! The Doctor’s remarks, how- 
 ever, on the exercise of this highly important duty are deserving of 
 
 attentive perusal, See also the note of Dr. Gloucester Ridley ap. 
 D'Oyley. 
 
140 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 
 
 or not supporting them in themselves, namely, by neg- 
 lecting to use them, or by not using them aright. It 
 is observed by Grot., that these gifts being originally 
 imparted in the form of fre, are therefore aptly com- 
 pared to it, and are very properly said to be quenched; 
 as here ;* or to be stirred up; as 2 Thess. 1, 6. See 
 also 4, 12. There is here, as Benson rightly re- 
 marks, only an allusion to the first method of impart- 
 ing them ; since, in the case of the Thessalonians and 
 others, the gifts were not imparted by an immedi- 
 ate effusion from heaven. As to how they might be 
 quenched, he observes, that pride, idleness, neglect- 
 ing to make use of their spiritual gifts and miracu- 
 lous powers, or attempting to make a wrong use of 
 them, and all vice in general, tended thereto; but 
 particularly apostacy from the Christian religion. 
 The spiritual gifts (continues he), like the fire upon 
 the altar, could be kindled only from heaven; but 
 might be stirred up, fed with fuel, or quenched by 
 men. On the other hand, reading the Scriptures, 
 fervent, frequent prayer, an orderly and diligent 
 use of their gifts and powers, to the conversion, in- 
 struction, or edification of others, joined with an 
 holy life, was the way to stir or blow up the sacred 
 fire, to preserve, and (if God saw proper) to in- 
 crease in them the miraculous gifts.” To the objec- 
 tions of those who suppose that all those particulars 
 relate to the duties of Christians in general, main- 
 taining that otherwise these two verses would be a 
 neglect of method, and a starting from the subject, 
 he has well replied. ‘It is (says he) no more a 
 starting from the subject than 1 Cor. 13. The Apos- 
 tle wrote solely to the Thessalonians, and had their 
 circumstances in view. Other churches or persons 
 
 * Wets. has several examples of the phrase πνεῦμα σβεννύναι. 
 But few are apposite; most of them signifying merely the dropping 
 or lowering of a wind; others, the quenching of the spirit or life, 
 like a lamp for want of oil, or by the excess of it. The only apposite 
 one is Plut. Pyth. 402 B. τοῦ πνεύματος παντάπασιν ἀπεσβεσμένου 
 καὶ τῆς δυνάμεως ἐκλελοιπυῖας. 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 141 
 
 are to apply those particulars to themselves as far as 
 their circumstances are similar, and no further.” 
 All this is very true ; and yet the admonition may be 
 applied, mutatis mutandis, to those influences of the 
 spirit which were in after times given to every man 
 to profit withal. 
 
 Most recent Foreign Commentators, as Noesselt 
 and Rosenm., explain away the sense of πνεῦμα. 
 
 20. προφητείας py ἐξουθενεῖτε. This seems to me to 
 be meant as a direction not to quench the Spirit in 
 others: for προφητεία, being one of the principal of 
 the gifts, seems to be put for all of them generally. 
 As to the sense of the term here, on that I need not 
 enlarge, since it is the same as at 1 Cor. 12—14. 
 where I have fully discussed its meaning. Those 
 celebrated chapters on the supernatural gifts are well 
 said by Benson to be a full comment upon this brief 
 direction. See also Phil. 1, 1—16. Eph. 4, 1—11. 
 Rom. 12, 3—6. Koppe very well annotates thus: 
 “ Admonitio scripta lis, qui, ut ipsi singulari hujus- 
 modi spiritus divini afflatu destituebantur, omniaque 
 ex deliberandi et cogitandi subtilitale metiebantur, 
 ita alios divine religionis veritatem magis sentiendo 
 quam tranquillé ratiocinando intelligentes contem- 
 nere, irridere, Fanaticorum nomine contumeliosé 
 appellare non verebantur.” 
 
 Q1. πάντα δοκιμάϑετε τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε. Griesb. in- 
 troduces ἃ δὲ after the πάντα, on the authority of 
 several MSS. and some Fathers (for Versions are 
 here no evidence). But nothing can be more uncri- 
 tical; since for its insertion we can easily account* 
 (especially as most of the MSS. are such as have been 
 systematically altered), but not for its omission, espe- 
 cially in so very many MSS. As to the reading δοκι- 
 μάϑοντες, which is supported by several MSS., Edi- 
 tions, Fathers, and the Syriac Version, and is ap- 
 proved by Benson, it is plainly ex emendatione, and 
 
 * Namely, from a wish to shew its connection with the pre- 
 ceding. 
 
142 ] THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 
 
 was meant to show that the ravra—xareéyere are not 
 separate directions, but closely connected. In short 
 the common reading is sufficiently defended by the 
 asyndeton, which is evidently aimed at throughout 
 the whole passage. I would point: πάντα doxipagere, 
 τὸ καλὸν KATEYETE. 
 
 The antient and all the best modern Commenta- 
 tors are agreed that the πάντα must not be taken 
 generally (as it is done by some injudicious Com- 
 mentators, nay, even Vorst., who understood it of 
 opinions, as if δόγματα were to be supplied; which 
 would be a most arbitrary ellipsis), but be restricted 
 to the preceding, i. e. all that is said by those called 
 Prophets concerning the exercise of the spiritual 
 gifts. So Theophyl. explains: καὶ τὰ ψευδῆ, καὶ τὰ 
 ἀληθῆ μετὰ δοκιμασίας κρίνετε, καὶ τότε τὸ δόξαν ὑμῖν κα- 
 λὸν, τουτέστι, τὰς ἀληθεῖς προφητείας, κατέχετε, του- 
 τέστι, τιμᾶτε, διὰ φροντίδος ποιεῖσθε... And Theodoret: 
 ῥᾷδιον ὑμῖν διαγνῶναι, τινα μὲν τὰ τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος, 
 τινα δὲ τὰ τοῦ ἐναντίου" τὰ τῆς ἀπατῆς τοίνυν ἀποκρίναν- 
 τες, τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας κατέχετε. ‘This (as Grot. and the 
 best modern Commentators are agreed) relates to 
 the διακρίσεις τῶν πνεύματων mentioned at 1 Cor. 12, 
 10. and 14, 29. where see the note. And so 1 Joh. 
 4, 1. δοκιμάϑετε τὰ πνεύματα. For it appears (as 
 Koppe observes,) that some persons, pretending to 
 have the gifts of the Spirit, infected others with the 
 contagion of error, and perhaps vice. Hence they 
 were to be tried whether they spoke from the Holy 
 Spirit, or from the motions of fanaticism.* At the 
 
 * This subject, of the infection of error and fanaticism, is indeed 
 a curious and important one, and might furnish matter for a copi- 
 ous Essay. It may suflice for me to refer to Bp. Warburton on the 
 Holy Spirit, p. 148. 12mo. and to Gesner, Isagog, vol. I. p. 505, 
 where he says: “ Est vera contagio, que corripit interdum huma- 
 num genus.” And again: “Est contagio quedam etiam opinio- 
 num, ut qui avertere volunt alios ab sententia, ipsi incipiant illi se 
 dare.” Of the truth of these remarks the records of Ecclesiastical 
 History (see Mosheim and Jortin) supply abundant melancholy 
 proofs; and of the Jatter of them the Journals of Whitfield and 
 Wesley furnish many examples which strikingly illustrate the frailty 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 143 
 
 same time this maxim may, doubtless, and with ad- 
 vantage, admit of a general application. And it is 
 excellently remarked by Whitby, that the Apostle 
 does not here bid the Guides of the Church try all 
 things, and the people hold fast that which they de- 
 livered to them; but gives an injunction common to 
 all Christians having their senses exercised to dis- 
 cern between good and evil, to all who are obliged 
 to hold fast that which is good, and not to believe 
 false Prophets ; which is a strong argument for the 
 perspicuity and the sufficiency of Holy Scripture for 
 this work, and against the necessity of a living judge; 
 for he that must try all things, must also try the doc- 
 trine of this living judge ; and therefore, till he has 
 made this trial, must not admit his doctrine as an 
 article of the Christian Faith, for these words plainly 
 teach that, “ what we hold fast must be first tried.” 
 That the antient Fathers allowed this δοκιμασία to the 
 hearers of the Gospel preached, nay, even exhorted 
 them to the exercise of it, is proved by the nume- 
 rous citations from them here adduced by Whitby. 
 How different from the spirit and practice of that 
 Church which pretends so much veneration for the 
 Fathers! Yet let ws show that we can hold out redi- 
 gious as well as political toleration to those unlet- 
 tered and rash brethren who evince little of the 
 spirit, and indeed hold little of the danguage of tole- 
 ration towards ourselves ! 
 
 Wets. here compares Aristot. M. Moral. 1, 22. 
 
 of human nature, and the weakness of the human understanding. 
 Hence the danger of colloquial disputations with fanatics, by which 
 instances are frequent of well meaning persons being converted to those 
 very fanatical tenets they meant to confute. This brings to my mind 
 a most admirable epigram of the learned Dr. W. Alabaster, which 
 to many of my readers (to nearly all of whom it is perhaps un- 
 known) will, Iam sure, be not unacceptable. ‘* Bella inter gemi- 
 nos plusquam civilia fratres Traxerat ambiguus Religionis apex. 1116 
 Reformate Fidei pro partibus instat; Iste reformandum denegat 
 esse fidem. Propositis cause rationibus, alterutrinque Concurrere 
 pares, et cecidere pares. Quod fuit in votis, fratrem capit alter 
 uterque ; Quod fuit in fatis, perdit uterque fidem.” 
 
144 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 
 
 where speaking of reason, he says: ᾧ δοκιμάϑοντες τὸ 
 καλὸν αἱροῦνται. To which I add Marc. Anton. 8, 6. 
 ἀπλώς καὶ ἐλευθεριως ἐλοῦ τὸ κρεῖττον Kal τούτου ἀντέ- 
 χου. With respect to the metaphor in δοκιμ.», it is by 
 some thought to be derived from the trying of me- 
 tals. See the note on Rom. 2,18. But though this 
 may sometimes have place, yet it has not (1 think) 
 here. lLrather assent to the Fathers, that it is a me- 
 taphor derived from money-changers, to whom coin 
 is offered, and who, after trying (by ringing, weigh- 
 ing, the fire, or the touch-stone,) refuse and reject 
 the bad, and κατέχουσι; take, keep, retain the good. 
 22. ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ ἀπέχεσθε. ‘The inter- 
 pretation of this verse depends upon the sense to be 
 assigned to εἴδους, which the usus loquendi will per- 
 mit either to be interpreted appearancce, or kind, 
 sort. The former signification is adopted by nearly 
 all our English ‘Translators, and also Grot., Kst., 
 Ranch, Drusc., Pisc., Menoch., Calvin, Doddr., and 
 most moderns. And Drus. compares a saying of 
 the Rabbins: “ Remove te procul a turpitudine, et 
 ab omni eo quod speciem ejus habet.” The above 
 Commentators, too, refer to various passages forbid- 
 ding whatever may give scandal. ‘Though they 
 omit what is most apposite, Rom. 12, 17. mpovootpe- 
 νοι καλὰ ἐνώπιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων. But this is quite 
 unsupported by the context, and is (as the best 
 Critics are agreed) scarcely permitted by the pro- 
 priety of language. On the contrary, both these 
 circumstances are in favour of the latter interpreta- 
 tion, adopted by the antients (including the Syr., 
 Arab., and Aithiop. Translators), and many eminent 
 moderns, as Hamm., Le Clerc, J. Buxtorf, Wets.,* 
 
 * Who thus annotates: ‘* Species duo significat, et id quod vere 
 est atque subsistit, ut cum temperantiam virtutis speciem dicimus: et 
 id quam veram existentiam non habet, et, ut loguuntur philosophi, 
 τὸ μὴ ὃν, φαινόμενον δὲ, ut cm speciem dominationis Claudio Impe- 
 ratori tribuimus, vim imperii Claudii libertis. Paulus priore notione 
 hic accipit, non posteriore: nam τῷ καλῷ comm. 21, opponitur 
 quod vere malum est: et τῇ ὁλοκληρίᾳ comm. 23. opponitur vel unus 
 levisque defectus.” 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 145 
 
 Benson, Koppe, Schleus., and almost all recent Com- 
 mentators, namely, kind, sort. So Theophyl. (from 
 Chrys.) : μὴ τούτου, ἢ ἐκείνου, ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλώς παντὸς, καὶ 
 προφήτου ψευδοῦς, καὶ ἁμαρτήματος. How agreeable 
 this is to the context is shown by Wets., and how 
 strongly supported by the usus loquendi is apparent 
 from his numerous Classical citations, of which the 
 most apposite are the following. Joseph. Ant. 10, 
 3, 1. πᾶν εἶδος πονηρίας ἐπιδειξάμιενος ἐν τῷ τροπῷ, καὶ 
 μηδὲν ἀσεβὲς παραλιπὼν. Liban. Or. 688 Β. μὴ ἀρ- 
 κοῦντος οὐδενὸς διὰ παντὸς εἴδους χοηστῶν τε καὶ πονηρών 
 ἔργων, ἢ εὖ ποιεῖν, ἢ κακώς. 
 
 It must be observed that πονηροῦ is for τοῦ πονηροῦ, 
 and that for πονηρίας ; as Rom. 12, 9. ἀποστυγοῦντες 
 τὸ πονηρόν. 
 
 23. αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἁγιάσαι ὑμᾶς ὅλοτε- 
 λεῖς. 
 
 It is well observed by Theophy]. (from Chrys.) : Μετὰ τὴν παραί- 
 veow, καὶ εὐχὴν ἐπάγει, ἵνα καὶ ἀμφοτέρωθεν τὸ ἀσφαλὲς ἔχωσιν. 
 The expression ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρηνῆς is introduced with a reference to 
 that peace inculcated at ver. 13., and the violation of which was con- 
 templated in the directions respecting Spiritual gifts. ‘“‘ Thus (ob- 
 serves Benson) at 2 Cor. 13, 11. after recommending peace, he calls 
 God the God of peace ; and at Rom. 15, 4 and 5., having mentioned 
 patience and consolation, he styles him the God of peace and consola- 
 tion; and at Rom. 12, 13., having mentioned trust and hope in 
 God, he calls him the God of hope.” Yet [ cannot but include in 
 εἰρηνὴ a notion of the favour and grace vouchsafed to those who 
 cultivate that peace of God which passeth all understanding. 
 
 “Αγιάσαι. ‘This term, like the Hebr. wap, properly signifies to 
 separate, remove from common use, and is often in the Old Test. 
 used of the Levitical offerings; but in the New Testament it fre- 
 quently signifies (as here) to make any one holy, pure, and virtuous, 
 and keep them so. Thus it is used especially of God, or the Holy 
 Spirit ; as in 1 Cor. 6, 11. ἡγιασθῆτε, and Apoc. 22,11. But the 
 most apposite passage is Joh. 17, 17. (said of God) ἡγίασον αὐτοὺς 
 ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, where see the note. 
 
 With respect to the ddoreAcis, Koppe would join ἁγιάσαι ὁλυτελεῖς 
 (for ἁγίους ποίησαι ὑμᾶς καὶ ὁλοτελεῖς), and take odor. for ἀμώμους, 
 ἀμέμπτους, ἁγίους, ἃς. But this is doing violence to the construc- 
 tion, and deteriorating the sense. I see no reason to abandon the 
 opinion of all the antients, and nearly all the moderns, that odore- 
 λεῖς is put for ὁλοτελῶς, which occurs in Deut. 13, 17. (Aquila.) 
 The term signifies (as Theophyl. says) ‘“ both in body and in spirit.” 
 
 The ὁλόκληρον (of which term Wets. adduces examples in super- 
 fluous abundance) plainly, like the 6dor. just before, means little 
 
 VOL. VIII. L 
 
146 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 
 
 more than ὅλον. But though it agrees grammatically with πνεῦμα 
 and σῶμα, yet it must also refer to ἡ ψυχή. Many learned modern 
 Commentators (as Hamm.,Whitby, and Benson) here maintain, that 
 the Apostle by distinguishing the τὸ πνεῦμα, the ἡ ψυχὴ, and τὸ σῶμα," 
 meant to advert to the opinion of the Philosophers, who represented 
 man as consisting of three parts, spirit, soul, and body. ‘Thus Ben- 
 son observes: ‘* The spirit they used sometimes to call the mind, or 
 the intellectual or governing part ; and describe it as the seat of the 
 understanding, or reason; or the rational soul; ψυχὴ was the ser- 
 sitive soul, the seat of the lower faculties, or of the passions, appe- 
 tites, and affections. The body was with them the mansion, in 
 which both the rational and sensitive soul resided.” And Vitringa 
 has shown that the Rabbins, as well as the Heathen Philosophers, 
 held. that a man’s person was constituted of three distinct sub- 
 stances, the rational spirit ; the animal soul ; and the visible body. I 
 cannot enter further into the subject, but must refer my readers to 
 the very learned notes of Hamm., Whitby, Mackn., Schoettg., and 
 Koppe... It is thought by Benson, that the Thessalonians had been 
 used to that way of distinguishing a man into three parts, of body, 
 soul, and spirit. And the Apostle chose (as the Scriptures generally 
 do) to speak in the popular style, and did not go to set them right 
 in philosophy. His only aim was to teach them the true religion. 
 And here, in a phrase to which they had been accustomed, he 
 heartily prays that they might all be thorougly sanctified, of how 
 many constituent parts soever they consisted.” But there is some- 
 thing in this principle of accommodation that I can seldom 
 entirely approve. I cannot think that the Apostle would intro- 
 duce Rabbinical notions in this Epistle, addressed as it is to the 
 Greeks: still less that he would chuse to adopt any of the fancies of 
 the Philosophers. Not to say that this would be inconsistent with 
 the rest of Scripture, where man is represented as consisting of two 
 parts only, the soul and the body: and indeed none appear ever to 
 have thought otherwise but a few wild and visionary philosophers. 
 In short the Apostle is speaking ad populum; and therefore he 
 cannot be supposed to advert ts any such subtleties. Nor can I but 
 commend the good sense of Koppe and Rosenm., in seeing that we 
 are only to attend to the popular use by which πνεῦμα and ψυχὴ 
 denoted the mind, feelings, affections, ἄς. So Koppe: “ De hoc 
 dubitari non debet, omnem istam hominis partitionem in πνεῦμα, 
 ψυχὴν et σῶμα non esse ad subtilitatem metaphysicam revocandam, 
 quasi totidem humanz nature partes constituere Apostolus, h. 1. vo- 
 luisset, sed ex legibus orationis cujusque vehementioris, in qua sole- 
 mus, que sunt in re quodammodo diversa, invicem ea cumulare ut to- 
 tam rem exhauriamus interpretandam.” At the same time I see no- 
 thing to disapprove of in the opinion of Bp. Hall ap. D’Oyley and many 
 others who take the zy. to denote the understanding ; the Ψυχὴ, the 
 affections ; and σῶμα the body, Which is supported by Greg. Nyssen. 
 ap. Theophyl. πνεῦμα μὲν εἰπὼν ὁ ἀπόστολος, τὸ νοερὸν μέρος ἐδή- 
 Awoe’ ψυχὴν δὲ, τὸ αἰσθητικὸν, σῶμα δὲ, τὴν φυτικὴν ἐν ἡμῖν ξωήν. 
 “© Thus (to use the words of Benson) the Apostle prays that their 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 147 
 
 understandings might be illumitatéd with the knowledge of the 
 truth ; their sensitive part, or affections, be obedient to their en- 
 lightened understandings ; and that the members of their bodies, or 
 their external actions, also, night be conformed to the will of God, 
 or obedient to their illuminated minds. And certainly (as Benson 
 observes) if these things were so, verily there would be nothing 
 wanting to a perfect sanctification.” But this seems to be too hy- 
 pothetical ; and I am not certain whether, after all, that be not the 
 true interpretation which was maintained by Chrys. and almost all 
 the antients (see the note of Grot.), and, of the moderns, has been 
 adopted by Grot., Zanch, Wolf, Schmid, Sthoettg., Flacius, Bar- 
 thius, and others ap. Wolf, who by the πνεῦμα understand the 
 χαρίσματα, or gifts of the Holy Spirit. And considering that the 
 Apostle has just been treating of these gifts, their exercise, and re- 
 gulation, it seems not improbable that he here alludes to the same ; 
 speaking of the spiritual gift as if it were another mind, or soul, See 
 Grot. 
 
 24. πιστὸς ὁ καλῶν ὑμᾶς, ὃς καὶ ποιήσει. The ὁ κα- 
 λῶν, Koppe and Rosenm. say, is for ὁ καλέσας, by a 
 Hebraism. But καλών may be the participle imper- 
 fect. The phrase πιστὸς ὁ Θεὸς is frequent in the 
 Apostle. Πιστὸς signifies verax, true to his promises. 
 At καὶ ποιήσει there is a popular brachylogia for, 
 “ who will do as he hath promised, will not be want- 
 ing on his part.’ For (as Whitby observes) “if the 
 fidelity of God required that he should sanctify and 
 preserve us blameless to the end, without our care 
 and industry, should work in us absolutely and cer- 
 tainly that care, and the Apostle believed this, how 
 could he fear lest the Thessalonians should be so 
 overcome by Satan’s temptations, as that his labour 
 with them might have been in vain, 1 Thess. 3, 5. 
 this being in effect to fear that God might be un- 
 faithful to his promise.” 
 
 25—27. Beza, Benson, and Koppe think these 
 verses are especially intended for those to whom the 
 Epistle should first be delivered, namely, the προεσ- 
 τώτες, or Presbyters. But this rests on mere suppo- 
 sition, and moreover does injustice to the humility of 
 the Apostle, who here, as in many other places, de- 
 sires the prayers of those to whom he writes; (mean- 
 ing thus to lead them to pray for each other and for 
 
 L2 
 
148 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 
 
 themselves). For the ἡμῶν would seem (as Koppe 
 thinks) to be meant for himself only. 
 
 On the ἀσπάσασθε see the note on Rom. 16, 16. 
 The ἅγιον, Koppe thinks, is meant to indicate, that 
 Christians only were to be thus saluted. And this, 
 indeed, is evident from ἀδελφοὶ and ἀδελφοὺς. It 
 plainly means (as Zanch explains) that the salutation 
 shall be pure, sincere, &c., as opposed to libidinous, 
 insincere, and hypocritical salutations. 
 
 27. opkigw ὑμᾶς τὸν Κύριον. There is here an ellipsis 
 of νὴ, or the like. ’Opxigey properly signifies to pué 
 any one to his oath, YAW, to make him swear. See 
 Mark 5, 7. and Acts 19, 13. and the notes, and espe- 
 cially the note on Matt. 26,63. On the mode see 
 Whitby.* ᾿Αναγνωσθῆναι, to be read, or recited aloud. 
 This direction at least must be meant for the Presby- 
 ters. It is of importance to observe that this and the 
 Epistle to the Colossians being desired to be read in 
 the churches, seems to show that the Apostle in- 
 tended all for that purpose. See Benson. Koppe 
 thinks it plain, from this passage, that the Apostle 
 had then already written more Epistles meant for the 
 Presbyters only, or at least that he had come to know 
 that the Presbyters had kept to themselves letters 
 meant to be read before all, only reading what 
 seemed useful to the people. (So Theodoret: εἰκὸς 
 γὰρ ἦν τοὺς πρώτους τὴν ἐπιστολὴν δεξαμένους μὴ 
 
 * Benson has here the following instructive annotation: “‘ There 
 were two ways of taking an oath; both of which by the Jewish 
 canons were reckoned binding. 1. When a man swore by his own 
 mouth, or pronounced the oath himself. 2. When he was adjured 
 by the mouth of another, and that other pronounced the oath, and 
 thereby laid him under the obligation of it. (See Ainsworth on Lev. 
 5, 1. and Whitby in loc.) In all cases, an execration or curse is sup- 
 posed to attend an oath; to which the person who takes the oath 
 is exposed, if he swears falsely. See Josh. 6, 26. 1 Sam. 14, 24. 
 Kings 2,23. When a person was adjured, he was bound by an 
 oath, and it is lawful to answer to such an oath, as appears by our 
 Saviour’s answering the high priest, when he adjured him by the 
 living God, Matt. 26, 63. and that other solemn oaths are lawful, see 
 on James 5, 12.” 
 
1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 149 
 
 πάσι ταύτην προσενεγκεῖν. Edit.) For unless one or 
 the other had happened, why should the Apostle 
 have thought of thus adjuring them? ‘This, how- 
 ever, seems very hypothetical and precarious; and 
 if it be true (as many eminent Commentators say) 
 that this was the first Epistle which St. Paul wrote 
 as an Apostle, it must fall to the ground. 
 
SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 This Epistle may be regarded as a supplement to 
 the former. ‘The main point about which he wrote 
 this second Epistle was, to rectify a mistake into 
 which they had fallen, concerning the speedy 
 coming of Christ; a mistake which, if not rectified, 
 might have proved of dangerous consequence. But 
 he has also added other things of considerable im- 
 portance, comforting the Thessalonians under their 
 persecutions, and reprehending the idle and disor- 
 derly among them. (Benson.) 
 
 Verse 1, 2. See the note on 1 Thess. 1,1. The 
 words yapis—Xpicrod are thus paraphrased by Ben- 
 son: ‘* May favour be granted unto you, and all 
 happiness, from God our Father, the fountain of all 
 good; and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Media- 
 tor through whom God communicates his favours to 
 mankind !” 
 
 3. In ver. 3—12 the Apostle commends them for 
 steadfastness of their faith, and for their patience un- 
 der persecution: assuring them that when Christ 
 comes to judgment, they should be rewarded, and 
 their persecutors punished. (Benson.) 
 
 8. εὐχαριστεῖν ὀφείλομεν---ἄξιόν ἐστι. Compare Rom. 
 1, 8.1 Cor. 1, 4and 5. Phil. 1, 3and 4. Evyagio- 
 τεῖν is for χάριν ἔχειν, or εἰδέναι. ‘The term rarely oc- 
 curs in the Classical writers; though Koppe refers 
 for an example to Phalar. p. 96. Oxon. οὐκ εὐχαριστή- 
 σομεν τῷ Mew. Yet this would seem to be an imita- 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 151 
 
 tion of this Pseudo-Phalaris. It is often used by 
 Josephus, and sometimes by Philo. See Loesn. on 
 Rom. 1, 8. The plural we is (as Koppe observes) here, 
 and throughout this Epistle (as in the former) to be 
 interpreted of Paul only. And. ὀφείλομεν edy. (he re- 
 marks) is to be taken populariter for αἰτίαν ἔχω τοῦ 
 εὐχαριστεῖν. Wets. however, compares Xen. Cyr. 3. 
 οὐδεμίαν αὐτῷ χάριν ὀφείλομεν. On the πάντοτε, which 
 is to be taken as at 1 Thess. 5, 16., see the note on . 
 1 Thess. 5, 17. Αξιον is said by Koppe to be for 
 καθηκόν; as Matt. 3, 8. Acts 26, 20. and Demosth. 
 (cited by Grot.): ἄξιον ἐστιν σιωπᾶν. And so (I 
 would add) ‘Thucyd. not unfrequently. It is ex- 
 plained by Phot. ap. Gicumen.: δικαῖον ἐστι. 
 
 There is an antithesis between ὑπεραυξάνει 4 πίστις 
 ὑμῶν and mrcovdse: ἡἦ ἀγάπη, &c. Hence they are 
 considered by Koppe and Rosenm. as synonymous. 
 But surely ὑπεραυξάνειν, which occurs no where else 
 in the New Testament, is the stronger term. So 
 Theophyl. observes, that the Apostle uses it to show 
 τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τοῦ ὕψους. 1 would compare Herodian 
 8, 0, 18. ὑπερευφραίνετο. Hence we may infer, that 
 their faith had increased in a greater degree than 
 their ἀγάπη, which (it must be observed) is not to be 
 confined to charity, but (as compared with Gal. 5, 6. 
 1 Thess. 1, 3. 6, 12. 5, 8.) is (as Koppe observes) to 
 be extended to all those kind offices by which Chris- 
 tians might assist Christians, and remove, or at least 
 mitigate, the bitterness of those calamities with 
 which they were called upon to struggle. So πίστις 
 and ἀγάπη are introduced at Eph. 1, 15 & 16. 1 is 
 observed by Benson, that the great love and mu- 
 tual affection among the Christians at Thessalonica, 
 tended much to increase the stedfastness of their 
 faith, and their patience under persecution. 
 
 4. wore ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς---αἷς ἀνέχεσθε. The ἡμάς αὐ- 
 τοὺς is for ἐμαυτὸν. And καυχᾶσθαι ἐν τινὶ παρ᾽ ἑτερῷ 
 signifies so to rejoice and exult in the virtue of any 
 one as to propose him for an example to others. ’Ey 
 ὑμῖν, “of you.” "Ey ταῖς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, ““ among 
 
152 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 
 
 the members of the churches of Christ,” i. e. among 
 Christians. (Koppe.) But this seems refining away 
 the sense. It is surely more significant to say he 
 praised them among other churches, than among 
 other Christians. ‘Thus (as observes Benson) he 
 had, 1 Thess. 1, 9., told them how much other 
 churches spoke of their ready and cheerful reception 
 of the Christian faith at its first entrance among 
 .them: here he seems to allude to that, and informs 
 them that the matter was now carried farther; and 
 that he and his two assistants gloried in them, in 
 other churches, for their patience and stedfastness 
 in the faith, under all their persecutions.” And 
 this is supported by the authority of Chrys. and 
 Theophyl. 
 
 Here the Apostle follows his usual custom, of in- 
 troducing commendation, in order to excite to emu- 
 Jation and advancement in the Christian life, well 
 knowing the power of the stimulus laudari a viro 
 laudato. He acquaints them how much he gloried 
 in them among other and distant nations, which 
 could not fail to give them pleasure, and excite them 
 more and more to deserve such praise. 
 
 I cannot consider ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς as put for ἐμαυτόν. 
 It seems to mean, not only other Christians, but even 
 we Apostles ourselves, or even I myself. The ὑπο- 
 μονὴ and πίστις are, by the recent Commentators (as 
 Koppe and Rosenm.) treated as synonymous. Others 
 at least regard them as forming an hendiadis. But 
 it seems better to keep them (as do the antients and 
 the early moderns) distinct ; the latter denoting that_ 
 principle by which the former was produced. Ὑπο- 
 μονὴ signifies, ‘‘ your patient endurance of afflictions 
 and persecutions. See Theophyl. on the significancy 
 of theterm. A:wyyp. and 6a. are likewise regarded 
 as synonymes united for greater effect. But it 
 should seem that the former has reference to their 
 persecution from Heathen zealots; the latter, to the 
 ill usage of their friends, or the calamities which 
 persons of the working classes (called by Theophyl. 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 153 
 
 πένητες ἀνθρωώποι) would have to encounter from hav- 
 ing disobliged Heathen masters, which would be only 
 another modification of persecution. Theophyl. has 
 here the following apt reflection: αἰσχυνέσθωσαν 
 ὅσοι διὰ προστασίαν ἀνθρώπων εἰς δόγματα στρεβλὰ με- 
 τατίϑενται. : 
 
 5. ἔνϑειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως τοῦ Θεου. 
 
 The sense of this passage is strangely misconceived by some Com- 
 mentators, partly on account of the construction, which is not a 
 little obscure. It is admitted that εἰς must be supplied, which is, 
 indeed, found in Theophylact’s text and the Syriac Version. But 
 a relative and verb substantive must also be supplied : and then the 
 question is, to what antecedent is the relative to be referred ? Some, 
 (as the antients,) say to the more remote ὑπομονὴ ; others, as 
 many moderns, to the nearer ταῖς θλίψεσι ; which seems preferable. 
 Though perhaps, after all, the whole sentence preceding may be the 
 antecedent, and thus the relative be 6; q.d. ‘* which endurance of 
 yours, or your having to endure such persecutions and afflictions, 
 will serve for an évdecypa,” &c. But the scope of the passage is 
 (as I have before said) strangely misconceived by some, who under- 
 stand by the righteous judgment of God his judging righteously by 
 taking the Gentiles into his kingdom. This and other such fancies 
 (which may be seen in the Crit. Sacr., Pole, and Wolf) tend to ob- 
 scure rather than clear up the sense, the true ratio of which was 
 not amiss seen by the antients, and: yet more clearly by the mo- 
 derns. The true interpretation is (I think) that of Grot., Zanch, 
 Wolf, Whitby, Doddr., Benson, Rosenm., Koppe, Jaspis, and most 
 recent Commentators, namely, ‘‘ which endurance of persecution 
 and affliction is a proof and evidence of the righteous judgment God 
 will exercise at the last day. So Grot.: “ These things are suf- 
 fered, that God may, at some future time, have an opportunity of 
 showing his justice.” And Koppe: ““ That you are miserable, and 
 your persecuting adversaries happy, supplies a strong argument for 
 another life, and for you’a better one, but for them a worse.” ‘ Sup- 
 pose God (says Benson) to be just, 1 know no stronger proof of 
 a righteous judgment to come, than the persecutions of good men 
 and the present triumphs of the wicked ; no argument of a righteous 
 judgment to come more forcible and striking than this.” See his 
 note. It is justly and elegantly observed by Wets.: ‘* Tantum ab 
 est, ut homines pii, si vexationes patiantur, incipiant de justitia 
 Dei, que bonis mala immittit, dubitare; ut potius probationes 
 atque confirmationes reddantur atque tam certé spe futuram 
 gloriam precipiant, quam certd sciunt, se nunc malorum pa- 
 tientid defungi.” The Apostle (as Chrysost. and Theophyl. well 
 observe) supplies consolation not only by bidding them expect the 
 reward of their persecutions, but the punishment of their persecu- 
 tors. Onwhich sentiment it were out of place to seek refinements. 
 
 At εἰς τὸ καταξιωρῆναι---πάσχετε (which is a separate clause) 
 there is another subaudition to be made. ‘The mildest may be this: 
 
154 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. 1. 
 
 «© (Which afflictions are permitted to befall you) in order that ye 
 may be accounted worthy of, and so obtain, the kingdom of God.” 
 For such is (I think) the sense of caraé., which is a vox pregnans. 
 Koppe merely dwells on the latter part of the sense, and wholly 
 omits the former; which seems unjustifiable. At the same time I 
 see no reason to take occasion from a popular expression like this 
 to seek arguments, one way or the other, on the controverted doc- 
 trine of human merit. Benson’s note may be consulted: but on 
 this, as well as most other mysteries of the Gospel, his notions are 
 too confined and limited. 
 
 6. εἴπερ δίκαιον---θλίψιν. Here εἴπερ has the sense 
 of siquidem, nam. Q&cumen. says it is put for ἐπεί- 
 δηπερ; Chrys., for ἐπεὶ ; and he well explains the 
 ratio of this idiom, which also (he observes) carries 
 with it an answer in the affirmative; as we fami- 
 liarly say, “ If God hate the wicked, and care for the 
 righteous, this or that shall be; but he does so.” We 
 may, then, render: “‘ If (asis the case) itis just,” &c. 
 
 6. δίκαιον παρὰ Oew, “ just in the sight of God.” 
 ᾿Ανταποδοῦναι τοῖς θλίβουσὶν ὑμᾶς θλίψιν. This, like 
 many similar words in all languages, is capable both 
 of a good, and a bad: sense, on which I need not 
 dilate. Suffice it to say, that by thus introducing ἃ - 
 word capable of a good sense with a word implying 
 punishment (as in the Psalm, ‘* reward evil to his 
 adversaries’), there is something more of point 
 imparted to the other term. 
 
 Θλίψις does not properly signify punishment (as 
 here); but it is so used for the sake of antithesis. 
 See Rion! 12, 19., and the note. 
 
 7. καὶ ὑμὴν τοῖς GaiBonevais ἄνεσιν pel ἡμῶν. The 
 καὶ may be rendered, “ and (on the other hand).” 
 “Aveois properly signifies relaxation, release from 
 labour or trouble: as 2 Cor. 7, 5.; but, as Koppe 
 remarks, like the Heb. 32, it is, by an image fre- 
 quent among the Orientals (with whom rest repre- 
 sents happiness), used to denote the felicity promised 
 to God’s faithful servants. See Heb. 3, 11. and 4, 
 1—1ll.and the notes. Thisis, however, not confined 
 to the Orientals. So our Scottish Theocritus : 
 
 «© And when fatigued with work, or close employment, 
 “Α blink of rest ’s a sweet enjoyment !” 
 
 7. μεθ᾽ ἡμιῶν, “ together with, in common with us.” 
 
2a I. 155 
 
 oO 
 ~ TH SS > > 
 SSALQ? the certainty of the re- 
 
 This jig meant te 
 ware? See Βιλύψει τοῦ Κυρίου I.—adrod. A pas- 
 "ἐν τῇ ΕἿ majesty, of which the foreign Com- 
 weg Ssrs, as usual, seem to exert themselves to 
 ~wer the grandeur of the imagery by their minute 
 explanations ;* not failing to tell us that all is said 
 ἀνθρωποπαθῶς ; which is surely more than they can 
 know. In the mean time, it were better to abstain 
 from all irreverent discussion. 
 
 That the subject here is the final advent of Christ 
 to judgment, appears (as Koppe and Rosenm. ob- 
 serve) from a comparison with 1 Thess. 1, 10. 3, 13. 
 4, 15. seqq. 5,2 & 23.; and therefore to interpret 
 this, as some do, of Christ’s advent to destroy Jeru- 
 salem, seems merely a device resorted to, to avoid 
 the difficulties at c. 2. 
 
 8. ἐν πυρὶ φλογὸς, wd wr Ps. 104, 4. πυρ. Paroyov 
 Is. 4, 5. TAT? WN πυρὸς φλόγὰ or ἐν Gaoyl πυρὸς ; 
 and here, indeed, some MSS. have ἐν φλογὶ πυρὸς 
 (See Ps. 29, 7., &c.); but that is ex emendatione. 
 (Koppe.) ‘The ratio of the idiom is thus explained 
 by Grot.: “Idem est πῦρ φλογὸς ut hic, et. φλὸξ 
 πυρὸς Ps. 29, 7. Eza. 29,6. Joel 2, 5. Apoc. 9, 12. 
 quia quod Hebreeis vice Genitivi est, id modo sub- 
 jecti, modo adjuncti, habet significationem.”?. On the 
 thing signified by the πῦρ φλογὸς Commentators are 
 not agreed. The antients and the earlier moderns, 
 as Est., think that it means the fire of hell, i.e. the 
 fire of the conflagration which shall usher in the day 
 of judgment. ‘Theophyl. and others construe the 
 words with διδόντος ἐκδίκησιν ; q.d. ἐν τῇ γεέννῃ κολά- 
 Sovros τοὺς ἀπειθεῖς ; or with τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
 with the subaudition of γενησομένῃ. Compare Ps. 
 
 * Thus they say adzoxahiwWer is for παρουσίᾳ ; since the Heb. mba3 
 and ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι are sometimes used of simple appearance: 
 which needs no refutation. They also take ἀγγέλων δυνάμεως 
 αὐτοῦ for ἀγγέλων δυνάτων (See Benson), which is, however, well 
 rendered by Rosenm., ““ qui majestati ejus inserviunt :” and he 
 
 rightly observes that δύναμις here, like the Heb. ΠῚ] ἃ and ty, simply 
 signifies the Divine majesty. 
 
156 2 THESSALY. 
 
 96, 3. The latter constructi§#*?*™ 
 Most recent Commentators, from tre more natural. 
 take it to denote the glory i in which adownwa Ἢ 
 be clothed at the great day. Koppe u no ord shal Υ̓ 
 of awful lightning and thunder ; Sich jgzetands 1 
 sistent with the former. In either case ἐν muse 
 taken in the sense inter. Hamm. understands it Οἱ 
 the Angels; and Grot. sinks it into a sort of rheto- 
 rical ornament. Upon the whole, there is no great 
 objection to the interpretations of Benson and 
 Koppe; but I see no sufficient reason to abandon 
 the common one, which is confirmed by the unani- 
 mous authority of the antients. The ἐν will thus be 
 for σὺν. We may compare Virg. Ain. 2, 587. ani- 
 mumque explesse juvabit ultricis lamme, h.e. ultrici 
 flamma ; a metaphorical expression for ultio, punish- 
 ment. See Wakef. on Eurip. Ion. 1281. 
 
 On the mode in which this will take place I dare 
 not venture to offer an opinion. The reader may 
 consult Mackn. who, as often, professes much know- 
 ledge of this kind. 
 
 Διδόναι ἐκδίκησιν is a sort of Hebraism for ποιεῖσ- 
 θαι €xd., and is said ἀνθρωποταθώς. Τοῖς μὴ εἰδόσι 
 Θεὸν---αριστοῦ. By the former, Benson thinks, are 
 meant the unbelieving Gentiles ; and by the latter 
 the unbelieving Jews. “And so Koppe. (See Benson’s 
 note.) But this seems too hypothetical, and far 
 too limited. 1 see no reason to abandon the com- 
 mon opinion, that by τοῖς μὴ εἰδόσι ©. are meant 
 all non-Christians, of course implying such as have 
 had the means of knowing, and have neglected them, 
 and whose ignorance is voluntary (See Rom. 2, 16.) ; 
 by the latter, those who, after having embraced the 
 Gospel, do not fulfil its injunctions. That two sorts 
 of persons are meant, is plain from the repetition of 
 the article τοῖς. 
 
 9, οἵτινες δίκην τίσουσιν. Koppe explains : * noenas 
 injuriarum Christianis illatarum luent.”? And he 
 refers to numerous examples of τίνειν with δίκην, and 
 similar words. But this is an unwarrantable lower- 
 ing of the sense. The Apostle is speaking of the 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 17 
 
 general judgment, and the punishment of all the 
 wicked, and not merely those who have persecuted 
 Christians. On the sentiment the Rabbinical illus- 
 trations may be consulted. 
 
 9. ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον, “eternal perdition.” On these 
 words Chrys. has some masterly remarks in opposi- 
 tion to the Origenians, who maintained that the 
 punishment of the wicked would not be eternal. The 
 very nature of the expressive term ὅλεθρος, perdition, 
 suggests the idea of utter and irrecoverable ruin and 
 destruction. It is said by the Commentators to be 
 put for κόλασιν. But the truth is, that the two 
 phrases are (as often in St. Paul) blended into one; 
 q. d. ‘they shall suffer eternal punishment, even 
 utter perdition.” It may be well asked, with Chrys. 
 and Theophyl., how αἰώνιος ever can mean πρόσκαι- 
 gos? The common device to which the Unitarians 
 and others resort, namely, that of representing the 
 term as meaning no more than age-lasting, is only 
 fit for Sciolists, and those who wish to be deceived, 
 and merely merits silent contempt. The same may 
 be said of the notable device of Koppe, who takes 
 αἰώνιος for τοῦ aiwvos μέλλοντος, as Opposed τῇ ἐπιγείω, 
 τοῖς παθήμασι τοῦ νῦν καίρου, Rom. 8,18. Andina 
 similar manner he would take πῦρ αἰώνιον, Matt. 18, 
 8. and κρίσις ἄιων. Mark 3, 29. Nor can I omit to 
 reprobate that of Rosenm., who renders, ‘‘ only to 
 end with their lives,” referring to Joh. 8, 35. How 
 men of their learning and ability could bring them- 
 selves to propound such harsh and frigid interpre- 
 tations (manifestly devised for the nonce), I cannot 
 conceive; but sure I am that the mischief done, 
 and the responsibility incurred by this spirit of rash 
 innovation is inconceivable, and, if not checked, this 
 mania is calculated to shake the stability of the 
 Gospel itself. On the awful subject in question see 
 the copious Dissertation of Whitby. 
 
 Now this perdition, it is added, shall be ἀπὸ xpo- 
 σώπου τοῦ Kupiov; which words, from their brevity, 
 are somewhat obscure, and have been variously in- 
 
158 @ THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 
 
 terpreted. The antients and Zanch think they 
 denote the facility with which men will be judged, 
 and hint that the cause of condemnation will be in 
 themselves, as being self-condemned at the first 
 glance of the presence of the Lord, and (as Bishop 
 Hopkins says) ‘ blasted by the lightning of his eyes !” 
 But this interpretation, however ingenious, seems 
 very harsh. Scarcely more probable is that of Grot. 
 and others, who take ἀπὸ to signify the cause, for ὑπὸ 
 and παρά; q.d. “they shall suffer punishments to 
 be inflicted by the Lord and his divine power.” A 
 sense not a little frigid. And (as Koppe observes) 
 ams is never so taken; the passages adduced by 
 Grot. being of another kind. No interpretation 
 bears the stamp of truth but the commonly received 
 one, which is ably supported by Koppe. He re- 
 marks (after Grot.) that the words are taken from 
 Is. 2,10, 19. IDI VITA TT TWN 2b Gr. ἀπὸ προσ- 
 wrov τοῦ φύβου Kugiov καὶ a. τ. ὃ. τι ι. a. Τὸ πρόσωπον 
 τοῦ Kupiov is for ὁ Κύριος, by a poetical figure. Δόξα 
 and ἰσχῦς, which answers to the Hebr. 17 and PKA, 
 are synonymous, and express the majesty of the 
 Lord. So Theophyl.: οὐ γὰρ ἁπλώς, ἀλλὰ μετὰ 
 δόξης ἰσχύος παρέστι" οὔτε ἡ δόξα αὐτοῦ ἀνίσχυρος, οὔτε 
 ἡ ἰσχὺς ἄδοξος" τουτέστιν, ὡς βασιλεὺς δυνατὸς ὀφθήσε- 
 ται. The ἀπὸ signifies, ‘far removed from the Lord 
 and the glorious majesty of his kingdom.” See Gen. 
 4,14. And this interpretation is plainly supported 
 by the sense of the passage of Isaiah: That the 
 wicked and reprobate will pass their miserable ex- 
 istence in quite another place from the habitations 
 of the accepted, is the perpetual doctrine of Christ 
 and the Apostles. So Matt. 25,41. “ Depart from 
 me ye wicked into everlasting fire,” &c. 
 
 10. ὅταν ἔλθη ἐνδοξασθῆναι---ἐκείνη. It is observed 
 by Koppe that the members ἐνδοξασθῆναι ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις 
 αὐτοῦ and θαυμασθῆναι ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, are 
 altogether parallel, and to be interpreted one from 
 the other. At ἐνδοξ. is to be understood ὥστε. It 
 is, moreover, observed by Koppe, that ἐνδοξασθῆναι 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 159 
 
 ἐν τινι TAD} or INDMT with 3, is often used in the 
 sense, to give glory or praise for any one’s happiness 
 or misery, as being the cause of it. Compare Exod. 
 14, 4. Ez. 28, 22. Is. 49, 3. Θαυμαϑέσθαι ἐν τινι (as 
 Is. 61, 6. Sap. 8, 11.) will be the same. By the τοῖς 
 ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ and the τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, are denoted the 
 same persons, namely, all those who truly believe 
 and faithfully obey the Gospel. See 1 Thess. 3, 13. 
 The sense is: “ when, at that day, he shall come to 
 be glorified in the reward of his faithful disciples, 
 and to be admired in the exaltation of those who 
 have believed in him.* 
 
 On the sense of the next words ὅτι ἐπιστεύθη -τ 
 ἐκείνῃ, Commentators differ. ‘The most favourite in- 
 terpretation for the last century has been that of 
 Grot., who, following the Syr., takes ἐπιστεύθη ina 
 future sense ; it being (he says) an aorist signifying 
 a thing which at the time spoken of shall be past. 
 But that is a very precarious principle; and in pas- 
 sages of difficulty the Syriac translator has little 
 weight. Koppe, however (as does also Elsner), 
 adopts this interpretation, and assigns the following 
 as the sense: “certa enim evenient tempore isto, 
 quaecungue vobis de ea re alias jam confirmavimus :” 
 observing, that πιστεύεσθαι is for πιστοῦσθαι, or πιστὸν 
 εἶναι. But that is a signification which, though oc- 
 
 * It is well remarked by Benson, that whilst the saints are de- 
 spised, insulted, and persecuted, Christ is not glorified in them, nor 
 admired for his regard to them. But, when he shail punish their 
 persecutors, raise his saints from the dead, deliver them out 
 of all their troubles, and make them completely glorious and 
 happy; then shall he be glorious and admirable in the eyes of the 
 whole world. His veracity, power, wisdom, and abundant goodness 
 will then shine out conspicuously. The whole intelligent creation 
 will then esteem him glorious and admirable, for what he has done 
 in and for his faithful disciples. Col. 3, 3 ἃ 4. 1 Joh. 2, 1. &c. with 
 which compare Is. 14, 23. Wisd. 5, 1. ἃς, So Theophyl. observes, 
 that the Lord’s glory in this is theirs, and theirs is His, since he is 
 glorified in the glorifying of his saints. Moreover, when those are 
 brought forward who suffer torments inflicted for the purpose of 
 inducing them to apostatize from the faith, and did not apostatize, 
 then their glory and the Lord’s will be shown.” 
 
160 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 
 
 curring in the Classical writes, is rarely found in the 
 Scriptural ones. I see no reason to deviate from the 
 construction and sense of the passage laid down by 
 the antients, and adopted by most modern interpre- 
 ters, who take ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνη, as put, per trajec- 
 tionem, as Rom 2, 12 & 16., and to be united with 
 ὅταν ἔλθῃ ; and explained, ‘‘the day of judgment ;” 
 which sense is confirmed by 2, 2. Benson has 
 rightly seen that at the words ὅτι ἐπιστεύθη---ὐμᾶς 
 must be supplied, “and in you particularly.” ‘This 
 is required by the ὑμᾶς following. Theophyl. (from 
 Chrys.) paraphrases thus: Θαυμασθήσεται 5 Θεὸς ἐν 
 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνη, διότι TO κήρυγμια ἡμῶν καὶ ὃ λόγος ἐπισ- 
 τεύθη παρ᾽ ὑμών, τουτέστι, διότι ὑμεῖς ἐπιστεύσατε, καὶ 
 ἀξίους ἑαυτοὺς τῶν ἀγαθὼν ἐκείνων ἐποιήσατε, τῶν τότε 
 διδομένων τοῖς πιστοῖς. ‘The sense may be thus ex- 
 pressed: “because our testimony among you to the 
 truth of the Gospel of Christ had been believed; and 
 the practice suitable thereto observed.” 
 
 11. εἰς ὃ kal—év δυνάμει. The εἰς ὃ is not (as Koppe 
 tells us) a mere particle of transition, but it rather 
 signifies in order to which; 4. ἃ. “ And in order 
 that he may be thus glorified and held out to admir- 
 ation in you, we constantly offer up prayers for you.” 
 The περὶ is for ὑπὲρ, in behalf of; as Luke 4, 38. 
 Joh. 17, 9. Eph. 6, 18. Col. 1, 3. 
 
 Ἵνα ὑμᾶς ἀξιώση τῆς κλήσεως ὃ Θεὸς ἡμῶν. 
 The words are variously interpreted. The το- 
 cent Commentators, as Koppe and Rosenm., ren- 
 der simply : ‘that God would make you partakers 
 of, give you this blessing of eternal felicity promised 
 in the Gospel.* And certainly this must, upon the 
 whole, have been the Apostle’s meaning; yet it is 
 better to keep more close to the words and the literal 
 sense. Schleus. 1, 251. renders thus: “ut vos dig- 
 nos reddat Christiane religionis sectatores, vel dig- 
 nos qui potiamini futuraé Christianorum felicitate.” 
 
 ~ 
 
 4 ; 
 * And so Benson, who observes (from Vorst. and Zanch) that 
 κλήσεως is put, by metonomy, for the glory and felicity to which 
 they were called. 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 161 
 
 But I see not how this sense can be elicited from the 
 words. I prefer the common interpretation, “ treat 
 or account you as worthy.” The κλησ. does not so 
 much denote the felicity itself.as that which leads to 
 it: for 1 agree with Chrys. and the other antient 
 Commentators (and, of the moderns, Est.), that it 
 signifies what is by Theologians termed the calling 
 of perseverance, or effectual calling. So Theophyl.: 
 κλῆσιν οὖν ἐνταῦθα λέγει, THY διὰ τῶν πράξεων βεβαιου- 
 μένην, ἥτις καὶ κυρίως κλῆσίς ἐστιν, ὥσπερ καὶ πίστις 
 κυρίως ἡ ἔμπρακτος. 
 
 The words following καὶ πληρώσῃη---δυνάμιει, are 
 not a little obscure, and have been variously inter- 
 preted. They may be best understood by being 
 taken as explanatory of the preceding (so Theophyl.: 
 ταύτην, φησι, τὴν πλῆσιν λέγω); and hence we must 
 reject the interpretation of Noesselt and Rosenm., 
 ‘‘ perficiat virtute (sua) benevolentiam (vestram) 
 et liberalitatem a fide profectam.” The context 
 shows (as Benson observes) that the ἀγαθωσύνης does 
 not relate to their benevolence to other men, but 
 God’s goodness to them. See Matt. 11, 26. Luke 
 12, 32. Eph. 1,5 & 9. Is. 53,10. Besides, the con- 
 struction of the sentence will not permit that inter- 
 pretation. Koppe, who minutely discusses the 
 words, acknowledges that both grammatical pro- 
 priety, and the common usage of language require 
 that εὐδοκίαν ἀγαθωσύνης (as being a phrase synony- 
 mous with χαρίτος) should be referred to God; and 
 ἔργον πίστεως be taken of the efect of this ἀγαθωσύνη 
 Θεοῦ, and πληροῦν, be variously rendered, according 
 to the diversity of signification in ἀγαθωσύνη and 
 πίστις. He then lays down the construction and 
 sense thus: πληρώση (sc. ἐν ὑμῖν) mac. edd. ἀγαβ. sum- 
 md sud benignitate vos amplectatur (Schol. Grec. 
 πληρώσῃ πᾶσαν ἀγαθὴν βουχὴν εἰς ὑμᾶς 6 Θεὸς, contra 
 vero πληρώσῃ ἔργον πίστεως, fidem in vobis sud vi ex- 
 citatam servet,- alat, augeat. And so Zanch. The 
 whole’ is very well paraphrased by Benson thus: 
 
 VOL. VIII, M 
 
162 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. II. 
 
 ‘that he would, by his mighty power, carry on and 
 complete all the kind designs of his goodness; and 
 particularly that he would compiete your patience 
 under afflictions, as well as every other part of holi- 
 ness; that great work, which is the proper fruit of 
 your faith.” 
 
 12. ὅπως ἐνδοξασθῇ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Kupiod ἡμῶν Ἴ. X. 
 ἐν ὑμῖν. Koppe takes ἐνδοξ. ἐν τινι as at ver. 10.; 
 and he thinks that καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν αὐτῷ 15 synonymous 
 with ἐνδοξάσθη ἐν ὑμῖν just before, only inversely pro- 
 pounded ; 4. d. “Illa ipsa, quam tum nacturi estis, 
 telicitas, et Christo et vobis laudi erit atque honori.” 
 But this is very harsh and precarious. It has been 
 well observed by Crell., that the Apostle subjoins 
 the first cause of the thing wished, and which im- 
 pelled him to wish and pray. 
 
 It has been debated whether the Apostle is speak- 
 ing of the name of Christ being glorified in them, 
 and they in him in this world, or at the day of judg- 
 ment? or both? But all these opinions are liable 
 to objection. The best founded interpretation seems 
 to be that of Chrys., Theophyl. and other antients, 
 and which is embraced by Benson, namely, that 
 Christ might be glorified in them in ¢his life, and 
 they in him at the last day. This, too, is the view 
 taken by Crell. who has sifted the sense of the whole 
 verse with his usual minute diligence. 
 
 By the name of Christ (as Benson observes) is 
 here, as often, meant his religion and Gospel. See 
 more in Benson. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Verse 1. Having before mentioned the coming of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostle here gently slides 
 into the main design of this Epistle; which was to 
 rectify.a mistake that had been spread among the 
 Christians at Thessalonica, either by some weak, or 
 designing persons viz. “That the day of the Lord 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 163 
 
 was then just at hand.” And to procure regard to 
 that assertion, they had insinuated that St. Paul had 
 had it revealed to him; and that he had intimated as 
 much, either by word of mouth, or by epistle. He 
 now assures the Thessalonians, that he had had no 
 such revelation; and that he had neither said, nor 
 designed to insinuate, any such thing. On the 
 contrary, he had formerly told them, and now re- 
 peats it, that a grand apostacy was first to happen ; 
 and that the man of sin would first appear, and 
 delude many. And, having thus warned them, he 
 hoped that neither this mistake, nor any thing else, 
 would so stagger them as to cause them to throw off 
 Christianity, and endanger their final acceptance 
 with God. (Benson.) 
 
 1. ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς παρουσίας τ. Καὶ. 
 ἧ. I cannot think that ὑπὲρ is well rendered by 
 Beza, Pisc., and our English translators, as if it were 
 a formula of solemn adjuration. Greatly preferable 
 is the interpretation of Camer., Hamm., Grot., Vi- 
 tringa, Doddr., Benson, and almost all recent Com- 
 mentators, who take it for παρὰ, respecting, which 
 yields an unexceptionable sense. 
 
 1. καὶ ἡμιῶν ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν. The best com- 
 ment on this passage may be derived from 1 Thess. 4, 
 16 & 17. where see the note. With respect to τῆς 
 παρουσίας τοῦ Kupiov, it is by the best Commentators, 
 antient and modern, understood of the advent of 
 Christ to judgment. Some indeed take it of his ad- 
 vent to the destruction of Jerusalem; but this can- 
 not well be the sense here. See the instructive note 
 of Benson. 
 
 2. εἰς τὸ μὴ ταχέως σαλευθῆναι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ voos, 
 p. 6. The word σαλεύεσθαι signifies properly, to be 
 moved as a wave of the sea, or to be tossed by waves. 
 It is, however, applied to shaking of any kind, 
 both physical and metaphorical. So Arrian Epict. 
 3, 26. (cited by Wets.), μὴ ἀποσαλεύεσθαι διὰ τῶν 
 σοφισμάτων. Here ἀπὸ τοῦ vos being added, the 
 phrase corresponds to the Latin mencis statu detur- 
 
 M 2 
 
164 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. It. 
 
 bari: and Koppe thinks it quite synonymous with 
 the θροεῖσθαι following.- Now the μήτε θροεῖσθε may 
 very well be compared with Matt. 24, 6. ὁρᾶτε μὴ 
 θροεῖσθε, 1. 6. ταρασσασθε, or θορυβεῖσθε. (See Alberti’s 
 Gloss. Grec.) But there is no reason to confound 
 both together. ‘The words may be rendered thus: 
 «that ye be not soon shaken from the hitherto 
 settled persuasion of your minds, nor be thrown 
 into unreasonable pertutbation.” The ταχέως seems 
 to be levelled at some who had been soon thus 
 shaken. They possibly thought (Benson observes) 
 that Christ would come in a few months, weeks, or 
 days. And it was of very great moment to rectify 
 that mistake, lest they should apprehend Christ 
 would never come, or that his religion deserved no 
 regard, when they found that he did not come so 
 speedily as they expected.” 
 
 Q. μήτε διὰ πνεύματος, μήτε διὰ λόγου, μήτε OF ἐπιστο- 
 λῆς ὦ. ὃ. ἡ. The σνευμ. is explained by some, as 
 Vatab., Pisc., Vorst., Beza, and Koppe, as denoting 
 one who pretends to a spiritual gift, namely, of pro- 
 phecy. Most others, both antient and modern, take 
 it to mean a prophecy purporting to be dictated by 
 the spirit. ‘The λόγου is understood by Theophyl. 
 of viva voce instruction. But this seems too formal 
 and harsh. Iam inclined to think with Grot. and 
 Koppe, that there is an hypozeugma, and that the 
 λόγου and ἐπιστολῆς are connected, and the ws δι᾽ 
 ἡμιῶν is to be referred to both, as λόγον and γράμματα 
 in Polyb. 4, 24. The former, it should seem, refers 
 to something asserted to have been said by Paul ; 
 the second, to a letter purporting to have been 
 written by him. On this passage see the instructive 
 note of Dr. Benson. It is probable from hence that 
 there were then persons guilty of each of the three 
 above mentioned impostures; and the two last, it 
 has been supposed, had already been practised in the 
 case of the Apostle. We have not, indeed, infor- 
 mation sufficient to enable us to form any decided 
 opinion; but the carrying, or reporting, pretended 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 165 
 
 verbal orders, or messages, probably had happened ; 
 and as the forging of letters was not uncommon in 
 these corrupt times, the Apostle might have reason 
 to fear it, and therefore provided against it. Indeed 
 we may perceive in the case of all his other Epistles 
 a great caution in this respect; though he no where 
 hints at any probable imposture. I would, moreover, 
 observe, that it is not impossible impositions as to 
 the day of the Lord being near at hand might have 
 been practised by some, from the same mistaken 
 motives as have produced the pious frauds of the 
 
 Romish church. 
 
 8. μή τις ὑμᾶς eEararyoy—tporoy, sub. spare, “See 
 that no man deceive you by these or by any other 
 means whatsoever.”? “Ors ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία 
 πρώτον. The phraseology is extremely brief; and 
 something must be supplied. Rosenm. proposes the 
 following: Ὅτι οὐ μὴ παραγίνεται οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡμέρα, 
 ἐὰν μὴ πρότερον ἔλθη ἡ ἀποστασία. 
 
 There is unquestionably no passage in the New Testament that 
 has so much and so vainly exercised the learning and ingenuity of 
 Commentators as this most obseure prediction respecting the ὁ 
 ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας the man of sin, to detail and review all the 
 various opinions on which would be beyond the compass of an an- 
 notatien, and would require a pamphlet of no very slender dimen- 
 sions. ‘To me it appears to be a prophecy, and as much defying all 
 attempts at any satisfactory determination of its sense as any in the 
 Apocalypse. Such being the case, I shall content myself with de- 
 tailing and reviewing the principal opinions, referring my readers 
 to Whitby, Benson, Mede, Newton, and Koppe. And, considering 
 the uncertainty of the subject, and the variety of opinions, I cannot 
 attempt to form any regular exegesis. 
 
 The various hypotheses that have been hazarded may very well 
 be distributed into two classes; 1. That of those Commentators 
 who interpret the words of something which was speedily to happen, 
 and did happen, in the course of a comparatively short period ; as, 
 for instance, those who understand them of the destruction of Je- 
 rusalem, and take the apostacy to denote that which Ecclesiastical 
 history informs us did take place before that event, especially among 
 the Jewish Christians, through prejudices in favour of the perpetuity 
 of the Mosaic law, or an expectation of the temporal kingdom of 
 the Messiah, er the fear of persecution. And Vitringa shows that 
 a great apostacy prevailed in the Christian church between the days 
 of Nero and Trajan. Of this, too, Whitby understands it: or the 
 apostacy may (he thinks) mean the revolt from the Romans: which, 
 
166 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 however, can by no means be admitted; though it has been adopted 
 by Schoettg., who thinks that by the man of sin is meant the Pha- 
 risees and Rabbins, the instigators to that rebellion. But this latter 
 hypothesis is liable to numerous objections, and the former, though 
 the more probable, cannot be the true opinion, since the strong 
 expressions which follow are inapplicable, or rather inexplicable, 
 on that hypothesis. Nor even does Lightfoot’s hypothesis, which 
 unites both the above, seem to be at all more tenable, as one event 
 followed the other. Hammond, with his usual bias towards his 
 favourite hypothesis, explains the ἀποστασία of the defection of 
 the Gnostics, effected by the arts of the heresiarch Simon Magus, 
 whom he supposes to be the man of sin, understanding, too, the 
 day of the Lord, of the destruction of Jerusalem. But it appears 
 from Euseb., that Simon died some years before the destruction of 
 Jerusalem ; and there is no evidence to prove that the Gnostics 
 subsisted as ἃ sect, and still less that they preached at so early a 
 period. See Tittmann’s able Tract de vestigiis Gnosticorum, in 
 N. T. Grot. takes Caius Cesar to be meant by the man of sin; 
 and the apostacy he understands of his impiety and abominable 
 wickedness. (See the note of Grot.) But this is too improbable to 
 deserve any attention. Wets. understands the apostacy of the re- 
 bellion and slaughter of the three Princes who, before Vespasian, 
 had been proclaimed by the Roman Emperors: and he takes the 
 man of sin to have been Titus and the Flavian house! But this 
 hypothesis is as little entitled to notice as the last.* Far more 
 attention is due to the opinion of Koppe, who, after a long and able 
 review of the principal hypothesis in a copious Excursus, proposes 
 his own, which is thus detailed by Rosenm.: ‘‘ Koppe omnem, que 
 sequitur, impietatis descriptionem ex loco Dan. 11 5, 6. repetitam 
 esse statuit. Utram vero Apostolus ipse hunec omnem Prophete 
 locum ad prodigia regnum Messie praegressura loco nostro primus 
 accommodaverit, an vero ex eodem, jam antea aliud gentis Judaice 
 oraculum (non aliud quidem libris sacris comprehensum, sed inter 
 Judzos tamen notissimum), conflatum, hocque ipsum ab A postolo 
 demum ad suam rem accommodatum fuerit, certo sibi non liquere fa- 
 tetur, probabilis tamen posterius existimat, quum que in magna alias, 
 locorum Danielis et nostri similitudine, negari non potest in non- 
 nullis dissimilitudo, ex hac ratione facilius intelligi et explicari posse 
 videatur. (Ad locum Danielis respexisse Apostolum, a verosimili 
 haud abhorret ; reliqua vero conjecturis nituntur.) Ex hac igitur 
 hypothesi admonet Apostolus Christianos suos de eo, quod jam ali- 
 unde maxime ex ipsis V. T. oraculis edocti erant, non posse diem 
 
 * Noesselt and Rosenm. interpret the ἀποστασία of the sedition 
 of the Jews, and their insurrection against the Roman government. 
 An hypothesis nearly the same with that of Whitby, Hamm., and 
 Schoettg., and which is supported with the usual ability of those 
 eminent writers ; but it may suflice to refer the reader to Rosen- 
 muller’s note, 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. 11. 167 
 
 illum, quem tam anxié expectarent, adesse, nisi errores, vitia, 
 calamitates denique insignes in oraculis istis preedicta antea venis- 
 sent ; deinde vero, quam insignem quandam errorum et improbita- 
 tis contagionem, jam tum gliscere, partim inter Thessalonicenses, 
 partim in ceteris ecclesiis Paulus animadverteret, ipse adventum 
 Christi, etsi non illico futurum, tamen etiam non longé remotum et 
 optans et facilé sperans, hance ipsam improbitatem δα singularis 
 istius preedicte impietatis initia referre non dubitat, ejusdem tamen 
 incrementa ante Christi adventum multo adhuc majora magisque 
 tremenda fore pravidet et comminatur.” It is not improbable that 
 the Apostle had the passage of Daniel in mind (as was the opinion of 
 the early Commentators), but (as Rosenm. observes) the other 
 parts of the hypothesis rest Upon mere conjecture, 
 
 The above opinions are all evidently too limited. To me, it 
 appears, that the whole portion is a prophecy proceeding from direct 
 revelation from God, or Jesus Christ, and perhaps not fully under- 
 stood by the Apostle himself, nor meant to be understood by any, 
 till its accomplishment, which was to be by no means speedy, but 
 gradual. Hence the antient Commentators had less chance than 
 ourselves of discovering its real import. Much perplexed with 
 it they were, but shewed their usual sagacity and prudence, by 
 supposing the prophecy to be one of distant accomplishment (for 
 they understood, by the day of the Lord, the day of Judgment: and 
 the ἀποστασία, and man of sin, they considered as equivalent to 
 Antichrist in the Apocalypse, who, they supposed, would not arise 
 till after the destruction of the Roman Empire. And so Benson), 
 and therefore not to be fully comprehended before its completion. 
 Upon the whole, I find no interpretation which I can adopt, though 
 I acknowledge there is much to countenance that of many moderns, 
 as Mede, Benson, Doddr., Mackn., and most Protestant Commen- 
 tators, who take the whole to have reference to the odious usurpa- 
 tions of the Roman Pontiffs, and the abominable corruptions of the 
 Romish Church. Now, the idiom, by which a series of persons 
 filling an office are spoken of as one, is well known, and satisfactorily 
 established by the Commentators in loc., and Bp. Newton on the 
 Prophecies, Diss. 22. Thus the ἀποστασία will signify the defec- 
 tion and usurpation of the man of sin, who placed himself in the 
 temple of God for forty-two months, i. 6. 1,260 years. See Rev. 11, 
 2. ‘This great adversary of the Church is rightly regarded by the 
 antients asthe same with the Antichrist of Apoc. 13., who is there 
 predicted as arising from the Church. 
 
 My limits will not permit me to enlarge further on this interpre- 
 tation, but the reader is referred to the masterly Dissertations of 
 Mede and Benson, and also the Annotations of the latter. Few (I 
 think) can rise from a perusal of those excellent Tracts, without 
 feeling that the points of resemblance between the apostacy of the 
 man of sin, &c., and various well known traits of the Romish 
 Church, are such as not a little to countenance the interpretation 
 in question. 
 
 In briefly explaining the phraseology of the following verses it is 
 impossible for me to state the various expositions of words and 
 
168 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. 11. 
 
 phrases according to the various views taken of the general scope of 
 the whole passage. I must, therefore, content myself with chiefly 
 detailing such as are adapted to the last mentioned, as being the 
 most common and probably as true an interpretation as any other. 
 
 4. ὃ ἀντικείμιενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμιενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμε- 
 νον Θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα. In the 6 ἀντικ., a term often 
 used of one who is in opposition to, and at variance 
 with, God and his people (as Is. 46, 6., Phil. 1, 28., 
 1 Tim. 6, 14.); there seems to be an allusion to him 
 who is called Antichrist in the Apocalypse. And 
 such is the opinion of several eminent Commentators, 
 antient and modern. 
 
 4. ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον Θεὸν, i. 6. (as Benson ex- 
 plains) any one that is truly called God, to whom 
 the name of God can be justly applied. Σέβασμα 
 simply denotes an object of veneration, and is 
 properly applicable to a God (as Acts 17, 23., Wisd. 
 14, 20.,11, 17. See Schleus. Lex.), but was also used 
 of Emperors and Kings, considered by the Oriental 
 nations as God’s vicegerents on earth. Benson and 
 others think that by τὸν λεγόμενον Θεὸν is meant, 
 magistrates, called Gods, in Ps. 82, 6.3; and that 
 σέβασμια is meant especially of the Roman Emperor; 
 as appears from its affinity to Σεβαστὸς, Augustus, 
 the name given to the Cesars. 
 
 How closely this corresponds to the conduct of the 
 Roman Pontiffs, every attentive reader of History, 
 Ecclesiastical or Civil, must perceive. It is well 
 observed by Doddr., that if this be not applicable to 
 that, itis difficult to say who there ever has been, or 
 can be, to whom it should belong. 
 
 4. ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ---Θεός. His 
 sitting in the temple of God must, according to the 
 most natural interpretation of the words, import his 
 ruling and presiding there, and arrogating authority 
 in things spiritual as well as temporal.* How 
 
 * «Tt was (says Benson) the opinion of Jerome, Chrys., Gicumen., 
 Theophyl., and other of the antients, that by the temple of God, 
 the Apostle meant, not the temple of Jerusalem, but the Christian 
 Church.” Theodoret says, ‘‘ The Apostle has called the [Christian] 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 169 
 
 strikingly this trait corresponds to the Roman Pon- 
 tificate it is needless to remark. 
 
 5. οὐ μνημονεύετε ὅτι, ἔτι dy πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ταῦτα ἔλεγον 
 ὑμῖν. These words show that the Apostle had 
 before, viva voce, made the Thessalonians acquainted 
 with this prophecy : and hence we may account for 
 the brevity, and consequent obscurity, of this 
 passage, which was evidently intended by the Apos- 
 tle for the Thessalonians only. Benson remarks on 
 the propriety with which the Apostle here uses the 
 singular number ; since this was doubtless revealed 
 to him only, and not to Silvanus and ‘Timothy. 
 
 6. καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον---καιρῷ, “ Ye know what is 
 now the obstruction to his appearing openly, as he 
 will do at his own proper season. (Benson.) By the 
 τὸ κατέχον, and the ὁ κατέχον, at ver. '7., many under- 
 stand, the Roman Emperor; q. d. ‘‘he that holdeth 
 the reins of empire.” But Benson thinks this does 
 not well agree with the context, nor with the τὸ 
 κατέχον here. I agree with him that the best inter- 
 pretation is that of our common Version, ‘‘ what 
 withholdeth;” which Chrys., and the antients, as 
 well as most moderns, understand (not without 
 reason) of the Roman Empire. So that, in fact, 
 both interpretations come to the same thing. Chrys. 
 (and after him others) first perceived the true reason 
 for the obscurity of the wording, namely,,a wish not 
 to offend, or give umbrage to the higher powers, by 
 speaking openly and freely of the downfall of the 
 Roman Empire. 
 
 Churches the temple of God, in which the man of sin will, by vio- 
 lence, seize the supremacy ; endeavouring to show that he himself 
 is a God.” Το confirm this interpretation, it may be remarked, that 
 in other texts of the N. T., the Christian Church is called the 
 temple of God, or compared to a temple. 1 Cor.3, 9., 16, 17., and 
 6, 19., 2 Cor. 6, 16., Eph. 2, 20, 21 and 22., 1 Tim. 3, 15., Hebr. 
 3, 6., 1 Pet.2,5., Rev. 3, 12. Benson also well defends the reading 
 ὡς Θεὸν,, which words are omitted in several ;antient MSS., 
 Versions, and Fathers; while others read ὡς ὅτι ἐστι θεὸς, OF ὡς ἂν 
 ἦ θεὸς ; Observing, that the antients could not see the beauty and 
 propriety of it, as we, who have lived to see the accomplishment, 
 may easily do, 
 
170 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 The ἐν ἑαυτοῦ καιρῴ Mackn. explains, ‘‘ the season 
 fittest for his usurping and exercising that sinful de- 
 structive tyranny in the Church, on account of 
 which he is termed the man of sin, and the son of 
 perdition.”’ 
 
 7. τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τ. ἀ., “ For this 
 mystery of iniquity (or this secret principle of ini- 
 quity) doth already operate (secretly). Only there 
 is one that obstructs, and will do so till he be re- 
 moved.” Austin de Civ. D. L. 20, 19. has the fol- 
 lowing remarkable words: ‘‘ Some understand the 
 καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε and the τὸ μυστήριον ἤδη κατερ- 
 γεῖται, of wicked and hypocritical persons in the 
 Church, till they come to such a number as to make 
 a great people for Antichrist: and that this is the 
 mystery of iniquity, because it is as yet a secret.” 
 On the mystery of iniquity’s working, though more 
 secretly, in the days of the Apostles, compare Matt. 
 24, 4, 24, &c. Acts 15, 1 and 24. and 20, 29. Rom. 
 16327 :and 18.41, Cors4.5)\12.02 Gori 113) bay ee: 
 Gal. 2, 4 and 3, 1. Col. 2, 18. 1 Thess. 3, 11 and 12. 
 2 Thess. 3, 6, &c. 1 Tim. 1, 19 and 20. 2 Tim. 2, 16. 
 &e. and 3, 6, ὅς. and 4, 3 and 4. Tit. 1,19, &c. 
 Hebr. 3, 11, &c. and 10, 25 and 35. James 2, 1, &c. 
 14, &c. and 4, 1, &c. and 5, 9. 2 Pet. 2, 1, &c. 1 Joh. 
 2,18 and 19. and 4,1, 2 and 3. 2 Joh. ver. 7, &c. 
 3 Joh. ver. 9, 10 and 11. Jude, ver. 3, &c. Rev. c. 2 
 and 3. (Benson.) I would, however, (with Doddr.) 
 understand this of the antichristian spirit which be- 
 gan to work in the Christian Church then, in the 
 pride and ambition of some ministers, the factious 
 temper of some Christians, the corruption of many 
 Christian doctrines, the imposing unauthorized seve- 
 rities, the worship of angels, &c. of all which things 
 the Papacy availed itself for acquiring and exercising 
 its iniquitous dominion. Bishop Newton maintains 
 that the foundations of Popery were laid in the 
 Apostle’s days, but the superstructure was raised by 
 degrees. ᾽ 
 
 7. ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται. Here Chrys. (as cited by 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 171 
 
 Benson) annotates: “" When the Roman empire shall 
 be taken out of the way, then shall the man of sin 
 come.—When that shall be overthrown, he shall in- 
 vade the vacant [seat of ] empire, and attempt the 
 empire both of men and of God.” ‘ How surprising 
 (says Benson) are these words! How remarkably 
 plain and express! Can any thing be said more 
 clearly even now, after this signal event has taken 
 place ?” 
 
 8. Kal τότε ἀποκαλυφθήσεται 6 ἄνομος. ‘The Apos- 
 tle’s principal design, ver. 3—12. is not to give a de- 
 scription of things then existing ; but a prediction of 
 some remarkable future events. When the obstruct- 
 ing power is taken away, then it shall no longer be 
 a mystery of iniquity, or operate secretly; but then 
 shall that wicked one be openly and publicly re- 
 vealed. (Benson.) 
 
 The words ὃ ὁ Κύριος---αὐτοῦ, Benson thinks, ought 
 to be put into a parenthesis. Which certainly clears 
 the connection, and indeed they are in some measure 
 parenthetical. They may be rendered: ‘ When, 
 however, the Lord will destroy with the breath of 
 his mouth, bring to nought at his glorious appear- 
 ance.” Tw πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος. ‘These words ad- 
 mit of several senses, none of them inapplicable. 
 Some Commentators take them to mean the word, or 
 Gospel; and the ἐπιφανεία τῆς παρουσίας, the preach- 
 ing of it in full glory. Others, the gradual consump- 
 tion of this wicked one by the preaching of the 
 Gospel, and his final abolition at the last advent of 
 Christ. But such a sense cannot well be elicited 
 from the words. Benson (I think) rightly maintains 
 that both these clauses relate to one and the same 
 event; 1. the ease with which Christ will destroy the 
 man of sin (so Ps. 33, 6—9. Job. 4, 9. Is. 11, 4. 
 ‘* slaying the wicked with the breath of his lips): 9. 
 the ¢ime when he will effect it.’ Others explain : 
 * quasi solo afilatu;” since with such the Divine 
 power can consign men to death and destruction. 
 And Wets. compares Plaut. Mil. Gl. 1, 1, 16. 
 
1/2 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 Quojus tu legiones difflavasti spiritu quasi ventus 
 folia. See also Wetstein’s Rabbinical examples. ‘The 
 sense is the same; but though the latter is the more 
 poetical and elegant figure, yet it is perhaps the less _ 
 true one. 
 
 8. ἀναλώσει and καταργήσει are nearly synony- 
 mous. Τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ. Some 
 render this: ‘with or by the brightness,” &c. 
 Others (as Benson), “ at the brightness, &c. de- 
 stroy him.” But this is not permitted by the anti- 
 thesis, and far less elegant ; though the difference in 
 the sense is not so great. All seem agreed that the 
 ἐπιφανεία τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ is for παρουσία ἐπιφάνης, 
 glorious and splendid appearance. ‘The term ἐπιφα- 
 νεία is often employed by the Classical writers to de- 
 note any Divine Majesty; and is applied in the 
 New Testament to Christ’s advent in the flesh; also 
 to his second advent at the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 But is especially suitable (as here) to his final advent 
 tojudgment. See Benson. 
 
 9. οὗ ἐστιν ἡ παρουσία---τέρασι ψεύδους. The οὗ is to be 
 referred to the more remote antecedent ὁ ἄνομος, not 
 the nearer one αὐτοῦ ; the preceding sentence being 
 parenthetical. Kar’ ἐνεργείαν τοῦ Σατανᾶ, ‘ under 
 the working of Satan ;*jaccompanied with Satanic 
 and diabolical working.” "Ears, “is to be.” "Ev racy 
 δυνάμει, Kal σημιείοις, καὶ τέρασι ψεύδους. Some under- 
 stand this of divers kinds of miracles. But this is 
 liable to many objections, which are stated by 
 several Commentators, especially Benson, accord- 
 cording to the view in which it is considered.” He 
 apprehends that the same miracle may be called by 
 the one or the other cf these names, according to 
 the view in which it is considered. “ By δύναμις 
 (says he) I understand a miracle, as it is the effect 
 of an extraordinary or divine power: by σημεῖον may 
 be meant a miracle, as it is a proof (or sign) of a 
 prophetic or extraordinary mission: by τέρας, a mi- 
 racle, as it excites wonder, or admiration, in the 
 person upon whom it is worked, or in the specta- 
 
 tor.” This would, however, seem refining too much. 
 2 ro) 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 173 
 
 Neither, however, can I think that there are meant 
 three different sorts of miracles. To me it seems 
 that ἐν δυνάμει ἔσται has the general sense, ““ shall be 
 accompanied with miracles, or pretended miraculous 
 powers.” And then the words καὶ σημείοις καὶ τέρασι 
 ψεύδους are (I think) exegetical of the preceding (καὶ 
 signifying even), and represent the species of mira- 
 cles: and the ψεύδος, which has the force of an ad- 
 jective, denotes that both shall be fictitious. So 
 Rom. 15, 9. ἐν δυνάμει σημείων καὶ τεράτων. The two 
 words are usually employed together in the New 
 Testament, like the Hebr. MND and MMs; as Matt. 
 24, 24. Mark 13, 22. Joh. 4, 48. and elsewhere. 
 How applicable this also is to the fictitious miracles 
 of the Church of Rome (which are even at the pre- 
 sent period asserted by her advocates with a degree 
 of extravagance and efirontery never exceeded even 
 in the darkest ages) it is almost needless to remark. 
 10. καὶ ἐν racy ἀγάπη τῆς ἀδικίας ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμέ- 
 νοις, *fand by every unrighteous deceit and impos- 
 ture ;” the genitive of the substantive being for an 
 adjective ; avery common idiom. ’Ey, among. By 
 the ἀπολλυμ. Benson understands “such as are lost to 
 all sense of virtue and piety, or the desperately and 
 incorrigibly wicked. It is opposed (he observes) to 
 the saved or reformed, 1 Cor. 1, 18. 2 Cor. 2, 15. 
 and 4, 3. But this is going too far. It seems to 
 signifv, “by the wretched victims of their deceit.” 
 ᾿Ανθ᾽ ὧν τὴν ἀγάπην---αὐτοῦς. The ἀνθ᾽ ὧν (which, as 
 Grot. observes, is a formula denoting that something 
 is inflicted as a punishment, or conferred as a recom- 
 pense) carries with it an ellipsis, which may be thus 
 supplied: “ and a prey they will be to such delu- 
 sions, because,” &c. ‘Lhe phrase ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθείας 
 οὐκ ἐδέξατο is a very unusual (and perhaps Hebraic) 
 one, on whose sense the Commentators differ. Grot. 
 renders: ‘ they have not received the blessed truth 
 made known to us by the Gospel.” But this sense 
 cannot be elicited from the words, which are better 
 explained by most Interpreters, “ they did not care 
 
174 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 to receive the truth.” There seems to be a blending 
 of two phrases together: ‘they did not love the 
 truth, and they would not receive it.” ‘There is, too 
 (as Beza and Benson think), a meiosis. As to the 
 sense assigned by some, “they will profess the 
 truth, but not love it (as Tim. 3. 5.);” though well 
 suited to the persons in question, it seems very pre- 
 carious. 
 
 10. εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι, Benson renders: ‘‘ though it 
 would have been their everlasting salvation. 
 
 11. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο, “ and for this cause ;”’ i. 6. be- 
 cause they have not had any love of the truth. For, 
 as Benson observes, there is no effectual preservative 
 from fatal error but the sincere love of truth and 
 virtue. Πέμψει αὐτοῖς ἐνέργειαν πλάνης, 1. 6. “God 
 will permit error to work its dire effects among 
 them.’’ For, as all the best Commentators antient 
 and modern are agreed, we are here to resort to that 
 idiom by which God is figuratively said to do a thing 
 which he only permits to be done. So Theophyl.: 
 πέμψει ἀντὶ τοῦ παραχωρήσει αὐτὸν ἐλθεῖν. ‘ Thus 
 (adds he) as they first rejected the truth, so then 
 (Jod leaves them, and error prevails over them.” So 
 Benson: ‘ God leaves wicked men to their own 
 choice, and turns their sin into their punishment.” 
 
 11. εἰς τὸ πιστεῦσαι αὐτοὺς τῷ ψεύδει, ““ so that they 
 believe the lie (put upon them).” Eis denotes, not 
 the final cause, but the effect. By the edd. Mackn. 
 would understand fransubstantiation. But it should 
 seem to be meant, in a general way, of the whole 
 system of falsehood promulgated by the man of sin, 
 and his adherents; though it is true, transubstantia- 
 tion is the fundamental * lie” from which have pro- 
 ceeded most others of the Romish Church. 
 
 12. ἵνα κριθώσι ravres—adixia. ‘The best Commen- 
 tators are agreed, that ἵνα is here (as very often) 
 eventual ; ‘*So that they may all be condemned ;” 
 (κριν. for κατακρι) The damned of our Common Ver- 
 sion means no more; an use of the word which is 
 well illustrated from one of our old writers by the 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 175 
 
 learned Dr. Maltby, in the note to the second volume 
 of his eloquent and masterly Sermons. In the same 
 manner Theophyl. explains as follows: οὐκ εἶπεν ἵνα 
 κολασθώσι, ἀλλὰ κατακριθῶσι, ὧστε εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπο- 
 λογήτους. Yet this condemnation necessarily carries 
 with it the idea of punishment both in this world and 
 the next: for such mischievous delusions lead to 
 both. 
 
 On the opposition between ἀληθεία and ἀδικία see 
 the note on ver. 10. By having pleasure in wicked- 
 ness is meant, complacently dwelling upon such false 
 doctrines as foster error, and encourage vice. Dr. 
 Doddridge here supposes this to be levelled against 
 the gainful frauds of the Romish priests, who impose 
 on the people known delusions, merely out of regard 
 to secular interest. But I fear that to others also, the 
 words of St. Peter (respecting Balaam) may be too 
 applicable: ‘He loved the wages of unrighteous- 
 ness.” 
 
 13. ἡμεῖς δε---σωτηρίαν. The Apostle had said at 
 1, 3.“ We ought to give thanks unto God always for 
 you, brethren,” &c. Having, since that, assured 
 them of Christ’s coming to destroy the wicked, and 
 make happy the righteous; and that the day of the 
 Lord would not come till there had been a dreadful 
 apostacy in the Christian Church, and the man of sin 
 be revealed; he repeats his kind commendations of 
 the Thessalonians, and says again, ** We ought to 
 give thanks unto God always for you, brethren,” &e. 
 (Benson. ) 
 
 The sense is: “ We are bound to give perpetual 
 thanks to God for you (namely, that it is not the 
 case with you, but) that God hath, from the begin- 
 ing, chosen you to salvation,’ ἅς. I see not any 
 grounds for rendering ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, as do. some recent 
 Commentators, inter primos ; a sense unauthorized, 
 and not a little frigid. Other interpretations yet 
 less probable have been brought forward; but the 
 only one that has the stamp of truth is that of the 
 antients, and almost all the early moderns, who refer 
 
176 2 THESSALONANS, CHAP. 1]. 
 
 it to the eternal purposes of God, in the election and 
 calling of the Thessalonians to the Christian faith, 
 And to this the Apostle frequently alludes at the 
 commencement of his Epistles to Gentile Churches. 
 The passage is well paraphrased by Theophyl. (from 
 Chrysos. ) thus: διὰ τοῦτο εὐχαριστοῦμεν, ὅ ὅτι ἐξελέξατο 
 ὑμάς ὃ (Geis, kal προώρισεν εἰς σωτηρίαν, ἀξίους δηλαδὴ 
 προγνούς. See Benson. 
 
 The ἐν ἁγιασμώ--- ἀληθείας, I think, points out the 
 means by which this is to be effected ; ἐν signifying 
 5, by. The following may be supplied: ‘ (and 
 ΠΤ will be effected) by the sanctification of the 
 Holy Spirit, and by a faith in the truth (as especially 
 promotive of it.)” By the πίστει ἀληθείας, Benson 
 says, is meant such a belief of truth as shall produce 
 moral obedience ; referring to 1 Pet. 1, 22. Joh. 17, 
 17. Acts 15,9. But this seems tco precarious. AL 
 I would venture to infer is, (what the antient Com- 
 mentators tell us) that these words have reference 
 to the separate parts allotted to God and to man in 
 the business of human salvation. See the note on 
 Phil. 2,13. I cannot touch on the many varieties of 
 interpretation to be found among the Commentators 
 on the present passage, yet I must not omit to enter 
 my protest against that license by which Mackn. 
 and some recent Commentators take πνευμ. to mean 
 no more than the mind, or rational principle ; which 
 is inconsistent with the strong expression preceding, 
 ἁγιασμὸς Πνεύματος. 
 
 14. εἰς ὃ ἐκάλεσεν----Χριστοῦ. The εἰς ὃ (for which 
 some MSS. read εἰς ἣν, by emendation,) refers to 
 the whole foregoing clause, the being sanctified, 
 &c. “ Unto all this God hath called you by our 
 Gospel, as preached by me.” So Theophyl. : εἰς 
 ποῖον ; εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι διὰ τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ καὶ τῆς πίστεως. 
 The words following, εἰς περιποίησιν, &c. state the 
 purpose for which that. Gospel was preached, namely, 
 the obtaining of the glory (i. 6. participation in the 
 glory) of Jesus Christ, i. e. salvation, which is often 
 represented under the term glory, honour, &c. So 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 177 
 
 περιποίησις is used in 1 Thess. 5,9. and Hebr. 10, 39. 
 Some interpret regi. of life and salvation. But this 
 is very harsh. It is truly observed by Benson, that 
 the end of calling men into the Christian Church, 
 and purifying their souls thereby, is, that they may 
 obtain the glory which is promised by our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, will be conferred by him, and enjoyed 
 in his presence. See Joh. 14, 3. and 17, 22. Rom. 8, 
 17 and 18. 1 Thess. 5, 9. : 
 
 15. ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ, στήκετε. In the στήκατε there 
 is a military metaphor; as Gal. 5, 1. 1 Cor. 16, 18. 
 Phil. 4, 1. Στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις, 
 ‘stand firm, and hold fast,” &c. Παραδόσεις signi- 
 fies, not traditions in the usual sense, but doctrines, 
 precepts, and instructions,;* as 3, 6. Matt. 15, 2. 
 1 Cor. 11,2. Koaretv, like κατέχειν in 1 Cor. 11, 2. 
 kal καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε, 
 Mark 7, 8., signifies yielding steady obedience to. 
 The διὰ λόγου denotes viva voce instruction; the δι᾽ 
 ἐπιστολῆς, epistolary: for the singular will not prove 
 that the Apostle referred to his former Epistle (as 
 
 * Theophyl. here pleads for the authority of ¢radition in enjoin- 
 ing us to reverence certain articles of faith not contained in Serip- 
 ture, but handed cown by oral tradition. “ Now (observes Ben- 
 son) what does the Church of Rome know by oral tradition, which 
 we do not know as well without it?” Besides, the tradition fre- 
 quently mentioned and contended for by the Fathers, was not the 
 oral tradition which the Papists contend for, but the allegorical in- 
 terpretation of particular texts, started at first perhaps by some 
 persons of note, and handed down, by word or writing, to succeeding 
 ages. ‘They therefore supposed them to be grounded upon some 
 passage of Scripture, and not to’ be such traditions as have no foun- 
 dation there. If one could be equally certain of the truth and au- 
 thenticity of any other Apostolic traditions, as of those contained in 
 the writings of the Apostles, undoubtedly they would deserve great 
 regard. fut, after the Apostles had, by Divine illumination, 
 preached the Christian doctrine; under the guidance of the same 
 spirit of truth, they committed to writing the very same doctrine 
 (or tradition), and that very much with a view to prevent Christians 
 from being imposed upon by other and-false traditions.” See also 
 Mackn. and Whitby, and an able Tract of Dr. Miller, entitled an His- 
 torical view of the Plea of Tradition as maintained in the Church of. 
 Rome. 
 
 VOL. VIII. N 
 
178 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 
 
 Benson supposes) ; δι᾽ ἐπιστολῆς signifies literally im, 
 or by, any Epistle, i. e. the former, the present, or 
 any other that he should hereafter write them. 
 
 16,17. ὁ ἀγαπήσας---ἐν χάριτι. It is observed by 
 Theophyl., that after exhortation comes prayer ; 
 which is really helping them. Ae, autem. The ἡμῶν 
 is to be referred to all Christians; q.d. ‘ our com- 
 mon Lord.” The force of the sentence is: “" I pray 
 our Lord Jesus Christ and God our Father to,” &c. 
 From hence it is easy to prove the Deity of Christ. 
 See Lesl. ap. D’Oyley. Καὶ πάτηρ, “ even our Fa- 
 ther;” as Eph. 1,3. 4,6. 5, 20. and often. Koppe 
 and Rosenm. observe, that the words ὃ ἀγάπησας 
 pas καὶ δοὺς are to be conjoined, and rendered “ qui 
 pro suo in nos favore dat,” &c. But this is confound- 
 ing the Oriental and Occidental styles of writing ; 
 which, in the translation of any work of antiquity, 
 good taste would require us to avoid. Nor do I 
 agree with those Commentators, that παρακλ. and 
 éar. are synonymous with σωτηρίας and εὐδαιμονίας. 
 This sort of interpretation seems, indeed, to shorten 
 our labour; but by introducing confusion, it, in 
 reality, increases it. ‘The two notions are better 
 kept separate. If any deviation from the common 
 rendering of the words be thought necessary, I 
 should propose that καὶ be rendered even ; which is 
 supported by the antients. ‘Thus Theophyl.: Δοὺς 
 παράκλησιν αἰωνίαν. ἹἸΠοίαν δὲ ταύτην ; Τὴν ἐλπίδα, 
 Φησὶ, τῶν μελλόντων" αὕτη γὰρ ἐστιν ἡ ἀνέχουσα τὰς 
 καρδίας ἡμῶν καταπιπτούσας ἐν τοῖς πειρασμιῖς, ἡ τῶν 
 μελλόντων ἀγαθών ἐλπὶς. And so Benson: ““ Their 
 consolation arose from the hope of everlasting life 
 and happiness. Tit. 2,13. 1 Thess. 4, 13, &c. and 5, 
 11. 1 Pet. 1, 3 and 4. and was therefore called ever- 
 lasting.’ He also observes, that under the guise of 
 prayer the Apostle excites their minds by setting be- 
 fore them the pledges of God's care and providence. 
 By adding ἐν χάριτι, he represses all self-compla- 
 cence. 
 
 17. παρακαλέσαι---ἀγαθῴῷ may be rendered, ‘‘ com- 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 179 
 
 fort your hearts (as 2 Cor. 1, 4. 7, 6. Eph. 6, 22. 
 1 Thess. 4, 18. 5, 11.) under all your affliction.” 
 Καὶ στηρίξαι ὑμᾶς ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ Kalegyw ἀγαθώ. The 
 sense of these words is (I think) very imperfectly 
 seen and represented by most modern Commentators 
 (including Koppe), who take them for εἰς πάντα ad 
 γον καὶ ἔργον ἄγαθον, with this sense, ‘‘ ut que recta 
 sunt ea loguamini et agatis.” It should seem that in 
 this passage the scope of the Apostle is. to represent 
 the two chief ways by which the love of God, under 
 the influence of his Word and blessed Spirit, aids us 
 in this our earthly struggle: 1. by comforting our 
 hearts under afflictions and persecutions; 2. by sup- 
 porting us amidst all temptations, whether to aban- 
 don frue doctrine, or virtuous and holy practice. 
 
 On the παρακαλέσαι (which I have just explained) 
 there is no difference of opinion. That the ἀγάθω 
 refers to both λόγῳ and ἔργῳ, is clear; but it must be 
 modified in the application: and in the former case 
 (1 think) it must denote sound doctrine, i. e. (as 
 Koppe says) the ἀληθεία spoken of at ver. 10, as op- 
 posed to the πλάνῃ and ἀπάνη just after: which is 
 supported by the authority of Theophyl. (from 
 Chrys.), who paraphrases and explains thus: στηρί- 
 Ear ὑμᾶς ἔντε δόγμασιν ὀρθοῖς, καὶ πράξεσιν ἀγαθοῖς, 
 ὥστε μὴ παραφέρεσθαι, μηδὲ καταπίπτειν ἐπὶ τοῖς συμ.- 
 βαίνουσι" τοῦτο ἔστι παράκλησις" Ὁ γὰρ ἐστηριγμένος, 
 ὅσαπερ ἂν πάθη, φέρει γεναίως, καὶ οὐ παρατρέπεται" διὰ 
 μὲν τοῦ τὸ δόγμα. τηρεῖν ὀρθὸν πεπεισμιένος περὶ τῶν μιελ- 
 λόντων βεβαίως" διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἀγαθὸν βίον ἔχειν, χαίρων ὅτι 
 ody ὡς κακουργὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Θεοῦ λειτουογὸς πάσχει. 
 
 Most Commentators think the ἐν λόγῳ is for διὰ 
 λόγου, &ec. But this is not necessary. ‘The phrase 
 literally signifies, “ may he support and confirm you 
 in the profession of sound doctrine, and in the per- 
 formance of right practice.” 
 
 ν 9 
 
180 2 THESSALONTANS, CHAP. III. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 VERSE 1. rpocedyeobe—tpas. The Apostle, with 
 his accustomed humility, desires their prayers: but 
 as the περὶ ἡμῶν is suspended on an ἵνα following, I 
 think it should be rendered, “ pray respecting us 
 that,” &c. He does not ask their prayers generally, 
 or for any worldly blessing, but especially that the 
 Gospel may, through his means, have free course, 
 namely, by the removal of the obstacles under which 
 he then laboured. Or the ἡμῶν may also include 
 Silvanus and Timothy, especially as they had assist- 
 ed in planting the Gospel at Thessalonica; and 
 this is confirmed by the καθὼς πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 
 
 The λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου τρέχῃ is well compared by 
 Koppe with the Hebr. Mm 727 3, Ps. 147, 15. 
 his word runneth very swiftly. I would compare 
 Eurip. Ion 531. Matth. τρέχων ὁ μῦθος ἂν σοι τἀμὰ ση- 
 μήνειεν av. ‘The sense is, “be speedily transmitted 
 from region to region.” Kai δοξάϑηται, “and be 
 glorified, approve itself to me, and gain acceptance 
 and faithful fulfilment of its requisitions.” For that 
 also seems to.be meant; and thus in the insertion. 
 καθὼς καὶ πρὸς ὑμᾶς is couched a delicate praise. 
 Πρὸς, among. 
 
 2. καὶ ἵνα ῥυσθῶμιεν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀτόπων Kal πονηρῶν ἀν- 
 ᾿ βρώπων, “* And (in order thereto) that we may be 
 delivered from (the persecutions and opposition) of,” 
 &c. On the sense of ἀτοπ. Commentators are not 
 agreed. Most render it unreasonable; some, per- 
 verse ; Mackn. (following here, as often, a precari- 
 ous etymology) brutish, (men who have or ought to 
 have, no place in society.*) Most recent Commen- 
 tators avoid the difficulty by making it synonymous 
 
 * This cacoethes etymologisandi has here infected stronger 
 minds than Macknight. ‘Thus Erasm.: ‘qui nullo loco conveni- 
 ant, quales sunt heretici.”. Doddr.: ‘‘ whom no topics can work 
 on.” Est.: “ who wander from place to place, persecuting the 
 Gospel,” 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 181 
 
 with πονηρῶν. But a proper regard to the words 
 following, οὐ yap πάντων ἡ πίστις might have taught 
 them better. Crell. has here been most successful. 
 He understands it of those “ quorum mens prava 
 est, et judicium corruptum, ac perversum, distor- 
 tumque; qui absurdé de rebus sentiunt, nec se in 
 certum veritatis iter, ob contumaciam ac pervicaciam 
 animi, flecti patiuntur.’ The πονηρ. denotes vicious, 
 immoral men; though it may have an adjunct notion 
 of malignity ; and both dispositions unfit men for the 
 discerning of the truth. 
 
 2. οὐ γὰρ πάντων ἡ πίστις. The sense of these words 
 is strangely perverted by the recent Commentators, 
 who render it, “ for there are few good men whom 
 we can safely trust ;” taking οὐ πάντων for ὀλίγων. 
 And so Howe, Homberg, Schoettg., Koppe, Ro- 
 senm., and Valpy. But this signification of πίστις is 
 unprecedented both in the Scriptural and Classical 
 writers ; and therefore the interpretation must fall to 
 the ground, which indeed yields a very frigid sense. 
 Others, as Doddr. and Koppe, take πίστις to denote 
 integrity and candour. But this yields a miserably 
 feeble and far-fetched sense. (See also Mackn.) The 
 same may be said of Benson’s version, ‘‘ for all men 
 do not embrace the Christian faith, but many oppose 
 1; which both requires a meiosis, and must be 
 helped out by another sentence ; than which nothing 
 can be more harsh. I see no reason to abandon the 
 interpretation of Chrysost. and the other antients, 
 and also the early moderns, by which the words are 
 taken in their plain and natural sense, i. e. (as Theo- 
 . phyl. explains) ‘‘all men do not believe, but the 
 worthyonly.” And thus, after discussing at large the 
 various interpretations, Wolf expounds. ‘The Cal- 
 vinists, indeed, render: “ for faith is not in the 
 power of all men.” And, [ confess, this seems most 
 agreeable to the force of the idiom. I must, how- 
 ever, protest against having the text urged on the 
 controversy respecting free will, &c.; since it is plain 
 
182 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 
 
 that the non posse is here, as very often in Scripture, 
 applied populariter, to moral, not physical, impossi- 
 bility. So Crell.: ““ Fidei non sunt omnes capaces, 
 non per se et natura sua; cum omnes Deus ad ag- 
 nitionem veritatis pervenire, atque ita salvari cupiat, 
 omnesque, qui modo non sunt mente capti, natura 
 sua et credenda intelligere, et praestanda facere, si 
 modo velint, possint; sed ob susceptam et acquisi- 
 tam sponte animi improbitatem; qua in habitatum 
 versa, id quod natura sua erat possibile, redditur 
 quodammodo impossibile. Breviter, facultatem ab 
 illis removet proximain, ut vocant, non remotam ; 
 illa enim voluntatis, hac nature.” And so Dr. 
 Wells (whose interpretation is here, with great 
 judgment, adopted by D’Oyley and Mant): “ They 
 have it not, or cannot attain to it; forasmuch as by 
 their wickedness, ill practices, obstinate prejudices, 
 and the like, they deprive-themselves of the same ;” 
 that is, by being ἀτόποι and πονηροὶ, they unfit them- 
 selves for the reception of truth. . 
 
 8. πιστὸς δὲ ἐστιν 6 Κύριος ---πονηροῦ. Those Com- 
 mentators who in the preceding verse interpret πίσ- 
 τις fidelity, here suppose an antithesis. But it has 
 been shown that that interpretation is without foun- 
 dation ; and (as Benson observes) “‘ the Apostle often 
 uses a word in allusion to what he had just been say-- 
 ing, and that ina somewhat different sense.” Be- 
 sides, πιστὸς ὁ Kugios ἐστι is a frequent formula with 
 the Apostle; as 1 Cor. 1, 8 and 9. and 1 Thess. 5, 
 24. It here signifies: “ he will assuredly finish the 
 good work he hath begun.” The sense may be simply 
 expressed thus: ‘ And this the Lord will do; for 
 he is faithful to his promises; he will confirm, &c. 
 Στηρίξει, “ will establish you in true doctrine.” See 
 2,2and 8. 1 Thess. 8, 3 and 18. Kal φυλάξει ἀπὸ τοῦ 
 πονηροῦ. Here the Commentators are divided in 
 opinion ; some taking τοῦ πονηροῦ for a neuter, 1. 6. evil, 
 either of calamity, or apostacy: others, for ἃ mascu- 
 line, i. 6. the author of evil, Satan. And this is sup- 
 ported by the authority of the antients, and, being 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 183 
 
 far more agreeable to the context, is (no doubt) 
 the true interpretation. 
 
 4. πεποίθαμεν δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, “ Now we trust 
 in the Lord’s protection over you, that what things 
 we command you, ye both do and will do.” Such is 
 the literal sense. But there is something more to 
 be attended to than a cursory view would suggest. 
 The antients, as Chrys. and Theophyl., consider this 
 and the preceding as representing the co-operation 
 of divine and human power in working out salvation. 
 The στηρίξει, φυλάξει, and πεποίθαμεν ἐν Kupiw they 
 refer to the former ; the ποιεῖτε and ποιήσατε to the 
 latter. Thus Theophyl. observes: δεῖ μὲν yap τὸ 
 πᾶν ἐπὶ τὸν Θεὸν ῥίπτειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνεργοῦντας καὶ αὐτοὺς. 
 And nearly the same view seems to have been taken 
 by Benson. But (if I mistake not) it is precarious 
 and unfounded. Yet there is a certain harshness in 
 the words; since to say that he “ trusts in the protec- 
 tion of God that they do what he enjoins,” would 
 seem incongruous. ‘The confusion occasioned by 
 ποιεῖτε may be removed, by supposing that the sen- 
 tence consists of two members condensed into one, 
 and which must be separated to clear the sense. 
 There appears to be a dilogia in πεποίθαμεν, which is 
 applicable to both members, with a slight change of 
 sense. I would render: “ Now we trust (and hope) 
 that (upon the whole) ye are doing the things which 
 we command you; and we trust in the Lord’s as- 
 sistance that ye will continue to do them.” ‘Thus 
 all is clear. 
 
 5. 6 δὲ Kopios—Xpiorov. Koppe, after a minute 
 discussion of the context and scope of the Apostle, 
 lays down the following as the sense: ‘* Non dubito, 
 vos his preceptionibus meis esse obsecuturos, modo 
 intentis animis et Dei-ipsius exemplum in amandis 
 beandisque suis hominibus, et Christiexemplum in 
 tolerandis gravissimis calamitatibus constanter respi- 
 ciatis. He takes, together with Rosenm., ἀγάπη Θεοῦ to 
 denote the love shown by God towards men.” But, 
 I confess, I see not how this sense can be made out 
 
184 ᾿ 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IIf. 
 
 without great violence. There seems no reason to 
 abandon the common interpretation.* The sense 
 may be thus expressed : ‘ And now (in order there- 
 to) may the Lord (by his Holy Spirit) direct your 
 hearts unto the love of God.” The ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 must (I think) be taken in a popular sense (like 
 ἀγαπᾷν τὸν Θεὸν at Rom. 8, 28. τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν 
 Θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθὸν. 1 Cor. 2, 9. ἃ ἐτοίμασεν 
 6 Θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. 1 Cor. 8, 3. and else- 
 where), to denote “such a love of God as shall pro- 
 duce faith in all that he reveals, and obedience 
 to all that he commands,” especially in showing love 
 unto men for God’s sake, without which our love is 
 not genuine. See 1 Joh. 4, 12. 19,20 & 21. 5, 2. 
 But as obedience to the commands of God often 
 requires of us self-denial and privation, and fre- 
 quently involves evil, and since he that would come 
 after Christ must take up his cross daily and follow 
 him, so this was especially the case with Christians 
 in the Apostolic age; and therefore the Apostle 
 adds, εἰς τὴν ὑπομονὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, which does not 
 mean (as Rosenm. and Schleus. explain) the patience 
 itself of Christ in bearing calamities, but a patient 
 endurance, suffering for righteousness, after the 
 example of Christ ; or a patient waiting for Christ. 
 Both these interpretations are supported by the an- 
 tients. Thus Theophyl.: ἢ ἵνα ὑπομένωμιεν, we ἐκεῖνος 
 umenevey’ ἢ ἵνα pel’ ὑπομονῆς ἀναμένωμεν τὸν Χριστὸν, 
 καὶ μὴ ἀπελπίξωμιν, ἀλλὰ πιστεύωμεν βεβαίως, ὅτι ἃ 
 ἐπηγγείλατο πληρώσει. Either is agreeable to the 
 
 * I cannot but observe that this and many other false interpreta- 
 tions which I have lately animadverted upon, seem to have been 
 introduced from certain doctrinal prejudices, a vain fear of that 
 bug-bear, Calvinism. But it is one thing to form a body of Scrip- 
 tural annotation, and another to form a body of divinity. It seems 
 most unwarrantable tosuppress, or explain away, the sense of all 
 three passages, which tend to show man’s dependence upon God in 
 the work of salvation. For, after all, we may be well assured (in 
 the words of the Poet) that ' 
 
 ** Oars alone can ne’er prevail To reach the distant ccast ; 
 “ The breath of heaven must swell the sail, Orall the labour’s lost.” 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 185 
 
 usus loquendi; but the former seems the more suit- 
 able to the context. Yet Benson prefers the latter ; 
 though he also proposes to understand it of the pa- 
 ‘tient expectation of Christ’s second advent ; which, 
 perhaps, may be zncluded in the former. 
 
 6—16. One may observe the address with which 
 the Apostle first makes use of soothing language to 
 show his affection for them, and to soften the re- 
 proofs he was about to introduce, as proceeding 
 alone from love. Now these reproofs were meant to 
 correct a spirit which, while he was at Thessalonica, 
 the Apostle had remarked among some Christians, 
 namely, adisposition to be idle, and throw themselves 
 on the bounty of their richer and more industrious 
 brethren for maintenance. ‘These he had before 
 enjoined to ““ quietly work, and eat their own meat.” 
 As, however, his injunctions had been little attended 
 to, he repeats them with greater authority and ear- 
 nestness; strictly commanding the other Christians 
 to break off all familiar intercourse with such, in 
 order thereby to bring them to shame and re- 
 pentance. 
 
 Παραγγέλλομεν. A term used of all strict orders 
 from superiors, as from kings to their subjects, or 
 generals to their soldiers. ‘The sense, then, is: ‘* we 
 strictly command you.” ‘To make it the more im- 
 pressive, the Apostle, as on some other occasions, 
 adds ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ Kupiov. The construction is: 
 (ὥστε) ὑμᾶς στέλλεσθαι. And στελλ. is of the middle 
 voice for στέλλειν, or ὑποστέλλειν ἑαυτὸν, “ withdraw 
 yourselves from (all intercourse with).” Theophyl. 
 explains, χωρίϑεσθαι aro. Numerous Classical pas~ 
 sages are here adduced by the philological Commen- 
 tators, but none of them to the present purpose, and 
 more fit for a Greek Lexicon than a commentary on 
 the New Testament. : 
 
 Ilavres (which corresponds to the Heb. b>) signi- 
 fies each. With respect to the expression ἀτἄκτως 
 περιπατοῦντος, it might be interpreted of disobedience 
 to the orders of the Apostle ; but from what follows, 
 
186 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 
 
 especially ver. 12., it is plain that the Apostle has in 
 view a living without labour at their trades; and, 
 as vices run in clusters, so idleness draws with it 
 many other vices, which no pretences of attending 
 to spiritual concerns will effectually prevent. “And 
 this, the phrase ἀτάκτως περιπατεῖν, meaning an un- 
 settled, disorderly, and sometimes dissoll utd? life, will 
 very well characterize.* 
 
 7,8. The Apostle here very properly calls in his 
 own example in aid of his precepts. See 1 Thess. 1, 6. 
 ᾿Ατακτεῖν is for the ἀτακτῶώς περιπατεῖν at ver. 6., and 
 is fully explained at ver. 12. The sense is, “ did 
 not thus walk disorderly.” “Aprov φαγεῖν (Hebr. 
 ἘΞΙΤ 728) παρὰ τινὸς is a common phrase for, “ to 
 receive of any one what shall provide us with suste- 
 nance.” Awpeav, which usually signifies gratis, for 
 nought, here denotes, “ without working for it.” 
 Now the Apostle received, indeed, of his employers 
 money for his sustenance, but Ἢ rendered work in 
 return for it, as is suggested by what follows, which 
 is exegetical of the preceding, the participle ἐργα- 
 Pémevon being suspended on “ἐφάγομεν. The other 
 expressions have been all explained before. Com- 
 pare 1 Cor. 4, 12. Acts 20, 34. and 1 Thess. 1, 5. 
 and 2, 9. 
 
 9. οὐκ ὅτι οὐχ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν, i.e. τοῦ δωρεὰν ἄρτον 
 ᾧΦαγεῖν παρ᾽ ὑμῶν, on which see 1 Cor. 9, 6. and 1 
 Thess. 2,6. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἵνα ἑαυτοὺς τύπον δώμεν ὑ. ἐ. τ. μι. ἡ. 
 ΤΓύπος signifies exemplar. “5661 Cor. 10, 1. 1 Tim. 
 4, 12. and Phil. 3, 17. Benson has here; and at 1 
 Thess. 2, 9., assigned six reasons why St. Paul did 
 this. Of these the Apostle (he observes) urges dif- 
 ferent ones in different places, and under different 
 circumstances. 
 
 * On what caused this disorderly spirit, writers differ. Most 
 ascribe it to the expectation of Christ's speedy advent. But the 
 Apostle had not encouraged this, but the contrary. It may, I think 
 (as I have before observed), be ascribed to that strong mental ex- 
 citement which, in the working classes, tends to produce an indis- 
 position to bodily labour. 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 187 
 
 10. εἴ τις οὐ θέλει---ἐσθιέτω. An adagial sentence, 
 with which the philological Commentators (as Grot., 
 Wets., &c.) compare numerous ones from the Clas- 
 sical and Rabbinical writers. These, on so trite a 
 subject, I may be excused for omitting. It is well 
 remarked by Grot.: ““ Amant Apostoli, ut et Chris- 
 tus, sententiis bonis uti, que in ore erant populi aut 
 sapientum.” 
 
 11. ἀκούομεν yao. The yap is rendered, by Koppe, 
 et tamen. I am, indeed, no friend to that excessive 
 minuteness with which some dwell on particles of 
 this kind ; but it is preferable to the other extreme, 
 of arbitrarily fixing on senses, however unusual. 
 Here the connection is plainly this: ‘‘ (I am induced 
 to now issue these orders) for I hear,” &c. The 
 ἀτακτώς περιπ. has been explained above. In the 
 words μηδὲν ἐργαϑομένους, ἀλλὰ περιεργαϑομιένους there 
 is thought to be ἃ paronomasia. And as the Apostle 
 elsewhere not unfrequently uses that figure, he pro- 
 bably did sohere. The term zepiepy. is one of consi- 
 derable extent, and therefore uncertainty. It pro- 
 perly signifies to labour exceedingly; 2dly, devote 
 superfluous labour ; 3dly, to labour or give one’s at- 
 tention to things which have no relation to one’s own 
 proper business ; which is usually the case with busy, 
 meddling, pragmatical persons. And this is, by 
 most Commentators, supposed to be the sense here. 
 The recent ones understand it of wandering up and 
 down to collect scandal, and retailing it in places 
 where it may be acceptable; and thus gaining a mi- 
 serable living, like the parasites of antient times. 
 But this is too hypothetical and visionary. The 
 most extensive signification will here (as usual) be 
 the truest. 
 
 On this busy, meddling, detracting, and scandal- 
 bearing spirit, Benson has some admirable remarks. 
 See also the excellent passage of Lev. 44, 22., cited 
 by Wets. 
 
 12. τοῖς δὲ τοιούτοις---ἐσβθίωσιν. Tlagayy. διὰ του 
 Κυρίου ἡ.}1. X. is synonymous with the παραγγ. ἐν 
 
188 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 
 
 ὀνόματι τοῦ K. X. at ver. 6., where see the note. 
 Here the Apostle calls earnest exhortation and 
 entreaty in aid of solemn injunction.. 
 
 The μετὰ ἡσυχίας is opposed to that unsettled spirit 
 which indisposed them for work, and set them ona 
 disorderly life. The phrase τὸν ἑαυτῶν ἄρτον ἐσθιεῖν 
 seems to be adagial. Many similar expressions are 
 cited from the Classical writers by Grot. and Wets., 
 descriptive of the contrary. So the parasite is said 
 to eat cibum atienum, alienam quadram, ἀλλοτριοφά- 
 yew. I must not omit to observe that on this portion 
 of Scripture Dr. Maltby has an admirable Sermon, 
 vol. 2. 
 
 13. ὑμεῖς δὲ, ἀδελφοὶ, μὴ ἐκκακήσητε καλοποιοῦντες. 
 There is some difference of opinion on the sense of 
 these words, the difficulty hinges on the kaa. Many 
 modern Commentators take it in the general sense 
 recte agere. So Koppe, who renders: ‘* Vos vero 
 in omni virtutis studio constantes estote.” But this 
 is little agreeable to what went before, which re- 
 quires something more special; and I agree with the 
 antients and many eminent moderns, that it must 
 be understood of the practice of beneficence to- 
 wards poorer brethren. So καλὸν ποιεῖν at Gal. 6, 9. 
 (a very similar passage), and ἀγαθὸν ποιεῖν at Matt. 
 3, 6., and often. Besides, as καλὸν ποιεῖν is a very 
 rare phrase, scarcely occurring any where else, and 
 as the Apostle has used καλὸν ποιεῖν in the sense of 
 beneficence elsewhere, we can hardly suppose he 
 would intend any other here. Yet I cannot assent. 
 to the antients that the sense is: ‘‘ Let not their 
 sloth hinder your charity in giving them what is 
 necessary to preserve life.” The Apostle could 
 never, I think, mean thaé: for what is thus given, in 
 order to keep alive the idle and disorderly, might be 
 better employed in encouraging the industrious 
 poor. I agree with Benson that it is probable the 
 Apostle’s caution was intended chiefly to guard them 
 against being so affected with the unworthiness of 
 
2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 189 
 
 some, as to be weary of well-doing to any, even to 
 proper and deserving objects. And, thus under- 
 stood, this precept comes in very opportunely, and 
 with the greatest propriety. For, as the ingratitude 
 and unworthiness of some are very apt to render us 
 cold and indifferent in doing good to others, the 
 Apostle exhorted such as were able, to continue to 
 show acts of kindness and beneficence, and not to 
 be weary in well-doing to proper objects ; notwith- 
 standing some were idle and deserved not to be 
 supported by them.” I would here compare Synes: 
 177 a. (Ep. 30.) εὐ οἶδ᾽ ὅτι μιὴ ἀπαγορεύσεις εὖ ποιών. 
 
 14, 15. εἰ δὲ τις---σημειοῦσθε. To λόγω ἡμῶν, “our 
 word, ororder.” For λόγος, like the Heb. 37, is a 
 general term extending to order of every kind. Διὰ 
 τῆς ἐπιστολῆς. ‘These words are, by some eminent 
 Commentators, as Pisc., Grot., Le Clerc, Rosenm., 
 and Bengel, joined with τοῦτον σημειούσθε, in this 
 sense: “send me word by letter of that man.” But 
 this seems very harsh and frigid, and little agreeable 
 to what follows; and, moreover, it would require 
 ds ἐπιστολῆς. See Crell. and Benson. I see no 
 reason to abandon the interpretation of most mo- 
 derns (supported by the authority of the antients), 
 who construe the words with the preceding τῷ λόγῳ 
 ἡμῶν, and take τῆς for ταύτης. This sense of σημει- 
 οὐσθαι (set a mark upon) may not be frequent ; but 
 it is justified by authority (See Steph. Thes. Nov. 
 Edit.), and is supported by what follows ; whereas 
 the other sense proposed is supported neither by 
 authority nor by the context. Loesner aptly com- 
 pares Phil. Jud. 560 a. δυσὶν ἤδη μαρτυρίας σημειω- 
 σάμενος TO μηδὲν ἔχθος ὑποτύφεσθαι. 
 
 14. καὶ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθε αὐτῷ, “ have no familiar 
 intercourse with him ;” like στέλλεσθε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ just 
 before. Compare 1 Cor.5,9 & 11. The words ἵνα 
 ἐντραπῇ Suggest the reason for this, namely, that the 
 shame thereof might bring him to repentance. See 
 Tit. 2, 8. The words following καὶ μὴ---ἀδελφόν are 
 meant to further explain the purpose of the exclu- 
 
190 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 
 
 sion, and to show how far it should be extended. 
 It was to be considered as a νουθεσία, having in view 
 not so much the punishment as the reformation of 
 the offender. @dly, The conduct adopted with re- 
 gard to him was not to be so far removed from 
 friendliness as to border on hostility. The καὶ sig- 
 nifies and yet. The phrase ἐχθρὸν ἡγεῖσθαι is fre- 
 quent in the Classical writers. See Wetstein’s ex- 
 amples. 
 
 16. αὐτὸς δὲ---ὁμωῶν. See the note on Thess. 5, 3. 
 
 17, 18. 6 doracpis—ypadw. Thus far St. Paul 
 had used the pen of ascribe. But the conclusion 
 he writes with his own hand. Seec. 1. Cor. 16, 27. 
 Gal. 16,11. Philem. 19. This, as has been before 
 observed, was the Apostle’s usual custom, for the 
 purpose of assuring the persons to whom it was ad- 
 dressed, that the Epistle was not supposititious. Such, 
 Koppe observes, is the plain sense of the passage ; 
 while the other interpretations proposed do manifest 
 violence to the words. 
 
191 
 
 FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 VersE 1. Παῦλος, ἀπόστολος I. X. See Whitby 
 ap. Slade, and the notes of Benson. Kar’ ἐπιταγὴν 
 Θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, “by the command of God our 
 Saviour.” The name σωτὴρ is applicable to God as 
 well as to Jesus Christ; since He sent the Saviour 
 for us men and for our salvation. See Luke 1, 47. 
 1 Tim. 4, 10., and other passages adduced by Grot. 
 Why God is so called can need no explanation ; 
 since He not only delivers us from evil, even the 
 curse of the broken law, but confers blessings mani- 
 fold, spiritual, and temporal. ‘‘This (says Benson) 
 may teach us not to look upon God, the Father, as 
 all justice and terror; and our Lord Jesus Christ, as 
 all love and mercy. The original of our redemption, 
 through Jesus Christ, was the love and goodness of 
 the Father.” 
 
 1. τὴς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν, ‘the cause of our hope ;” by a 
 metonymy of perpetual occurrence in Scripture. 
 
 2, Τιμοθέω γνησίῳ τέκνω ἐν πίστει, “our genuine, 
 real, and spiritual son.” On Timothy see the Histo- 
 rical Introduction, especially Benson in loc., who 
 has shown that this may indicate that Timothy was 
 his convert ; since such are called his children. See 
 Gal. 4, 19. 1 Thess. 2,7 & 11. Tit. 1, 4. Philem. 10. 
 compared with 1 Cor. 4, 14&5. Or he may be so 
 called, as being of a disposition similar to the 
 Apostle’s. See Joh. 8,44. and Matt.13,10. And 
 
192 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 
 
 in Phil. 2, 2. he uses the same expression. Compare 
 Phil. 2, 22., where see the notes. ‘The former, how- 
 ever, is the more probable opinion; and the term 
 seems to be the more appropriate, since (as Rosenm. 
 remarks) there seems reason to think from 2 Tim. 
 8, 6., that he had been committed by his mother to 
 Paul from his earliest years, in order to be formed 
 after his model, by his precepts and example, so as 
 to come to the stature of the fullness, &c. On the 
 terms χάρις, ἔλεος, and εἰρήνη, which are generally 
 found united at the commencement of the Epistles, 
 I have before treated. 
 
 8. καθὼς παρεκάλεσα---ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, “as when 
 I departed into Macedonia, I desired thee to remain 
 at Ephesus (so now I exhort thee) to strictly charge 
 certain persons, that they teach no doctrine different 
 from ours.” Such, I conceive is the general sense ; 
 the words themselves are plain; but the construc- 
 tion is somewhat perplexed and elliptical. There is, 
 as the best Commentators are agreed, a trajectio. 
 The πορευόμενος εἰς M., must be closely united with 
 καθὼς magex., &c.; which is no other than the figure 
 anacoluthon, so common to the Apostle; the pro- 
 tasis at καθὼς, as or because, being without an apo- 
 dosis, which is left to be supplied. Gn the mode of 
 doing this the Commentators are not agreed. The 
 best interpreters supply οὕτω καὶ νῦν παρακαλῶ ; which 
 seems the most natural method: and so Benson. 
 Others think that the ἵνα ragayyeiays, is an impera- 
 tive, by the ellipsis of ¢ga.; which they defend by 
 some examples, but from writers infimcee Greecitatis. 
 (See Koppe.) Others seek the apodosis at ver. 18. ; 
 which (as Heinr. remarks) is too violent an hyper- 
 baton. In the Syriac Version the οὕτω is passed by. 
 But that is cutting the knot: and the antient trans- 
 Jators not unfrequently omit what is difficult. 
 
 The antients rightly remark on the difference be- 
 tween παρεκάλεσα and rapayyelays, which may very 
 well be ascribed to the difference of the persons 
 addressed ; since mildness and authority in Christian 
 
1 TIMOTHY; CHAP. I. 193 
 
 rulers are equally necessary, each in their season. 
 The τισι denotes certain persons who, though un- 
 named, were well known to Paul,* and of whose 
 irregularities probably Timothy himseif might have 
 sent some notification to the Apostle. 
 
 The ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν many Commentators explain, 
 “to teach doctrines different from those which I 
 taught them.” But I rather agree with others, that 
 it signifies, ‘‘ to teach no other doctrines than those 
 taught by myself and the other Apostles.” What 
 was the exact nature of these doctrines we are left 
 to conjecture: but from what we know was the 
 case in other places, we may very well suppose 
 (with the best Commentators antient and modern) 
 that they were the doctrines of the Judaizers; and 
 this further appears from what follows. ‘Thus at 6, 3. 
 it is explained by μὴ προσέρχεσθαι ὑγιαίνουσι λόγοις 
 I. X. Schleus. refers to Ignat. Ep. ad Polyc. § 3. 
 and Euseb. H. E. 3, 32. 
 
 4. μηδὲ προσέχειν μύθοις, καὶ γενεαλογίαις ἀπεράντοις. 
 These words are meant to be exegetical of the pre- 
 ceding. At προσέχειν must be understood νοῦν. It 
 signifies properly to give the mind to, to attend to; 
 and 2dly, to credit. These μύθ. relate to the inter- 
 pretations of the Rabbis. Theophyl. explains: τὰς 
 παοατηρήσεις καὶ τὰ παρακεχαράγμενα (Cicumen. 
 παραπεποιήμενα) δόγματα. And Theodoret: τὴν 
 Ἰουδαϊκὴν ἐρμιηνείαν, τὴν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν καλουμένην δευτέρωσιν 
 (Mischna.) For γενεαλογίαις, which follows, Bentley 
 conjectured xevoa. (and other conjecturers other- 
 wise.) But that is supported by no authority: 
 neither is it necessary. The καὶ seems to signify 
 nempe, and is meant (as Rosenm. says) to exemplify 
 the μυθ. The epithet ἀπέραντος denotes, * that 
 which has no end; as is the case in certain refined 
 
 * This suppression of their names Benson ascribes to the deli- 
 cacy of the Apostle, And he illustrates it from several other ex- 
 amples (See his note) ; though probably, as on many other occa- 
 sions, he carries his speculations too far. He refers to a fine pas- 
 sage of this kind in Ignat. Ep, ad Smyr. ὃ 5, 
 
 VOL, VIII. Oo 
 
194 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 
 
 discussions which arise out of such questions (so 
 Milton: ‘and found no end, in wandering mazes 
 lost”) ; also, “‘ where no end is kept in view or af- 
 tained,” consequently unprofitable, useless. Either, 
 or both, of these significations are here applicable : 
 and Heinr. thinks there is an hendiadis for γεν. μυθώ- 
 δεσι καὶ ἅπερ. ; as Polyb. 9, 2. ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι τὰ περὶ 
 τὰς γενεαλογίας καὶ μύθος. But the question is, what 
 is meant by the yevexa.; on which the modern 
 Commentators are not agreed. Some say the Cab- 
 balistical Fables. Others, as Hamm.,° Le Clerc, 
 Grot., and Benson, the Cons of the Gnostics and 
 Valentinians. Others, as Schoettg., the proud 
 glorying of the Jews in their genealogies, of which 
 we find vestiges in the New Testament and the 
 earlier Greek writers. See Schoettg., who gives a 
 sort of history of this genealogical study. ‘The two 
 former hypotheses are rightly said by Heinr. to re- 
 gard latter times. The third, he thinks, is incon- 
 sistent with the hatred and contempt borne by the 
 Gentiles to the Jews; and the fourth he considers as 
 little agreeable to the context, since that study 
 could have nothing to do with religion, nor be any 
 hindrance to it.” He adopts the exposition of Mi- 
 chaelis and others, who take it of the doctrines of 
 the Essenes, on the nature, names, and species of 
 angels. To me it seems that the interpretation of 
 Schoettg., which is supported by the authority of 
 the antients, is the most natural and probable.* As 
 to the objection of Heinr., it appears ill founded. I 
 am aware how hopeless it is to attempt to decide a 
 question of such great uncertainty : but I may be 
 permitted to suggest, that possibly the Apostle 
 might have more than one of the above kinds of 
 ἐς superstitious vanities” in view. 
 
 Rosenm. has the following general observations : 
 
 * Wets. understands it of Timothy’s own genealogy; and last 
 ofall, of the study of National Antiquities. Interpretations, as well as 
 some others, deserving of no serious attention. 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 1. 195 
 
 **Videmus inde, jam Apostoli zvo fuisse, qui pro 
 religione inutiles queestiones proponerent. Tales 
 omnibus temporibus fuerunt, et nunc etiam sunt 
 doctores; qui utinam perpenderent, quam graviter 
 peccent, quod summa religionis optime et utilissime 
 neglecta, auditoribus commenta humana, nihil ad 
 virtutem et salutem profutura, inculcare solent.” 
 
 4. αἵτινες ϑητήσεις παρέχουσι μᾶλλον ἢ οἰκοδομίαν 
 Θεοῦ τ. ε.π. ‘This shows the reason why they should 
 not be attended to; namely, since they afforded 
 matter for ϑητήσεις, curious questions, such as those 
 in which the Orientals have always delighted, mere 
 logomachies.. See 6,4. 2 Tim. 2, 14. and Tit. 3, 9. 
 For ἢ οἰκοδομίαν Θεοῦ, many MSS., the Syriac and 
 Coptic Versions, and some Fathers and Greek Com- 
 mentators, read οἰκονομίαν, which is preferred b 
 Matth., Griesb., Vater, and Valpy ; but (I think) on 
 insufficient grounds. ‘The words are so very similar 
 that the authority of MSS., and therefore of Ver- 
 sions, is of no weight. ‘The question must be de- 
 cided by the context : and certainly here oixod. yields 
 the preferable sense, namely, “ that which promotes 
 such edification as is acceptable toGod.” As to the 
 other, “that which we render to God as ministers,” 
 it is frigid and far-fetched. And it is in vain to 
 plead the critical canon, ‘‘ that the more difficult 
 reading is to be preferred,” since that is liable to 
 several exceptions ; as when two words are so mani- 
 festly similar, that it were almost an even chance 
 which a scribe would fix on. In ¢hat case, surely, 
 the more uncommon word is the likeliest to be the 
 true reading ; and such undoubtedly is οἰκοδομίαν, a 
 word rarely used in the best writers (hence the 
 οἰκοδομνὴν of the Cod. Cant. and other altered MSS.) ; 
 whereas οἰκοδομία is of perpetual occurrence, both in 
 the New Testament and the Classical writers. 
 
 It is plain that μᾶλλον ἢ is for καὶ od; as often in 
 Thucyd. and the best writers. | 
 
 5. τὸ δὲ τέλος---ἀνυποκρίτου. The connection is 
 ably traced by Crell. thus; ‘“‘Subjungit Apostolus 
 
 02 
 
196 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 
 
 scopum et obrussam omnium mandatorum, ad quam 
 exigende sint omnes doctrine, ex qua judicium fieri 
 posset de unaquaque doctrina, ut que cum illa dis- 
 crepet infecta et aliena censeatur; q.d. “ Ut autem 
 scias, o Timothee, veram a suppositia doctrinam 
 dignoscere, scito Charitatem esse veluti scopum et 
 cynosuram, quam omnia Dei mandata respiciant, ita 
 ut quicquid cum ea conveniat, pro genuino sit ag- 
 noscendum, quicquid autem discrepet, repudiandum 
 sit, Charitas erga proximum videlicit.”” ‘Theodoret 
 traces it thus: Δείξας τὴς ἐκείνων μυθολογίας τὸ ἀκερ- 
 δὲς, προὔθεικε τὴς οἰκείας διδασκαλίας τὸ χρήσιμον. 
 προσήκει γὰρ σε, ᾧησι, διδάσκειν αὐτοῦς εἰλικρινῶς ἀγα- 
 may τὸν εὐεργέτην Θεὸν, καὶ πίστιν ἔχειν ἀκραιφνῆ, τῇ 
 τοῦ συνειδότος μαρτυρίᾳ βεβαιουμένην. 
 
 “Γῆς παραγγελίας is taken by Benson for ταύτης 
 παραγγ.; with reference to the ἵνα παραγγείλῃς at 
 ver. 3.; but erroneously. It must be taken for τοῦ 
 παραγγέλματος: and that for τῶν παραγγελμάτων. 
 It is explained by Crellius: ‘* the system or body of 
 all the commandments to whose observance we are 
 bound. See Joh. 6,29. The ἀγάπη must be taken 
 in its full extent of signification, including love both 
 to God and man, and, as Crell. truly, but quaintly, 
 remarks, non tam in affectw quam in effectu. (See 
 Matt. 22, 37—40.) A virtue (as Heinr. says) the 
 head and fountain of all the other Christian virtues. 
 See Mark 12, 30. 1 Cor. 13. And see the note on 
 Gal. 5, 6. 
 
 In the ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας and συνειδήσεως ἀγαθης, it 
 is not necessary to seek refinements, for Crell. has 
 too minutely discussed their sense. They are 
 rather to be taken populariter, as designating a can- 
 did, sincere, and well meaning spirit. To the Clas- 
 sical examples adduced I add Theogn. Sentent. 89. 
 ἢ με φίλει καθαρὸν Gépevos νόον, ἢ pe ἀποειπὼν “Ex Goug’ 
 and Pind. Ol. 4, 27. πρὸς ἡσυχίαν Φιλύπολιν Καθαρᾷ 
 γνώμᾳ τετραμμένον. By the πιστ. ἀνυποκρίτου, is meant 
 an undissembled faith, so firm and real as shall pro- 
 duce the ἀγάπη just mentioned. 
 
 «ἰὸν δέν τ δα 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 197 
 
 6. ὧν τινες ἀστοχήσαντες, ἐξετράπησαν εἰς ματαιο- 
 λογίαν, “from which (virtues just mentioned) some 
 have swerved, turning their minds to vain specula- 
 tions and fruitless discussions.” The Apostle here 
 employs two metaphors, each well adapted to denote 
 deviation from a commandment; namely, 1. a miss- 
 ing of the mark (σκόπου being understood, which is 
 expressed in Plut. Symp. 6, 4.; and this metaphor is 
 used by Plut. 1, 1060. and 2, 414. cited by Wets. 
 ἀστοχ. τοῦ πρέποντος.); 2. a going out of the road 
 δου being understood, which is sometimes supplied, 
 and used metaphorically. See Wetstein’s numer- 
 ous examples; especially Joseph. Ant. 13, 18. ἐξ- 
 etpam. τῆς ὁδοῦ δικαίας). By ματαιολογία (which is 
 adduced by Wets. from Porphyr. de Abst. 4, 16., 
 and by Schleus. from Plato 6, 21.) is meant, the vain 
 speculations and endless and unprofitable discussions 
 mentioned at ver. 8 & 4. Compare 4, 7. 6, 20.2 Tim. 
 2,16. and Tit. 39. 
 
 7. θελόντες εἶναι νομοδιδάσκαλοι----διαβεβαιοῦνται. By 
 the νομοδιδ. are denoted, not (as some suppose) Jewish 
 teachers, but (as the antients and most moderns are 
 agreed) those Judaizing Christians, who, from φι- 
 λαρχία, wished to be teachers of others. And the 
 term νομοδιδάσκαλος, which properly signified a 
 Rabbi, or teacher of the Jewish law, had been, to- 
 gether with many other terms (See Vitringa de Syn. 
 Vet.), introduced into the Gospel; and it is supposed 
 by some (as Heinr.) to have been used for the names 
 by which Christian Rabbis were designated, as ἐπίσ- 
 Korot, πρεσβύτεροι, and προεστώτες. But, according 
 to the usual import of θέλειν εἶναι, in St. Paul, 1 
 should prefer to suppose, with Benson, Rosenm., 
 and others, that it here signifies, ““ desiring to be 
 (thought),” affecting to be. Perhaps, therefore, the 
 term might mean a Christian teacher, who united 
 instruction in the law to that of the Gospel. | 
 
 The participle μὴ voodyres (by an idiom found in 
 our own language) is put for the verb and the par- 
 ticle ὅμως, ** though they know not ;” “ not know- 
 
198 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 
 
 ing.” Itisasort of nominativus pendens.. Now of 
 these persons it is said, that “ they understood not 
 what, nor the thing concerning which, they so posi- 
 tively affirm,” for such appears to be the sense of the 
 words. That διαβεβαιοῦνται must be taken as a 
 deponent, is plain from the antithetical λέγουσι. And 
 soit is used in Tit. 3, 8. περὶ τούτων βούλομαι de d10- 
 βεβαιοῦσθαι" also Plut. 1, 184. (cited by Wets.) περὶ 
 τῶν A. πραγμάτων διαβεβαιούμενος. Sext. Emp.: περὶ 
 “οὐδενὸς τών λεχθησομένων διαβεβαιούμεθα" and Polyb. 
 (cited by Schleus.) : διαβεβ. περὶ τούτων. ‘The sense 
 above laid down is that approved by the most emi- 
 nent Commentators antient and modern. (See Theo- 
 phyl., Whitby, and Benson.) Schleus. 1, 592. ren- 
 ders thus: ‘‘nec tamen intelligentes, neque qua 
 loquuntur, neque quid affirment et defendant, aut 
 quibus argumentis se tueantur.” But this would 
 require περὶ to be taken in a very uncommon sense. . 
 8. οἴδαμεν δὲ---κγρῆται. It is well remarked by 
 Theodoret, that the Apostle says this in order that 
 he might not seem to depreciate the law; q.d. “1 
 find no fault with the daw, but with the evil teachers 
 of the law.” Δὲ, autem. Οἴδαμεν, ‘we well know 
 and admit.” In what sense the law is said to be 
 good, and what is meant by the using it lawfully, 
 Commentators are not agreed, nor do they see their 
 way very clearly. It is mostly agreed that by καλὸν 
 is meant, good and useful in its nature, intent, and 
 meaning. That such was the Mosaic law, ceremo- 
 nial and moral, none can doubt: but the Apostle 
 seems to have had chiefly in view the moral part of 
 it, which was so entirely καλὸν, that it was worthy 
 of being engrafted into the “ new and better law.” 
 With respect to the phrase νομιμῶς χρῆσθαι, it is 
 explained in two ways by the antients; 1. of teach- 
 ing and fulfilling it in works; 2. of making use of it 
 to lead us to Christ and the Gospel; which is the 
 scope of the law. But of neither of these interpre- 
 tations can I entirely approve; though both are, to 
 a certain degree, true. As to νομιμώς, it is used for 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 199 
 
 paronomasia, and simply signifies aright. The only 
 use of the law that the Apostle could think or pro- 
 nounce to be right, was the fulfilling its moral pre- 
 cepts, and strengthening their observance from the 
 powerful motives supplied by the Gospel, and thus 
 making it lead to Christ. 
 9, 10. «ides τοῦτο---ἀνυποτάκτοις. On the scope of 
 the Apostle, and the sense of this passage Commen- 
 tators, both antientsand modern, have been little 
 agreed. But I need not enter into the numerous 
 diversities, (for a detail of which the reader is re- 
 ferred to Walch Diss. on this passage, Goetting. 
 1776.); since I conceive the only interpretation 
 that bears the stamp of truth is that of Walch and 
 Rosenm., which had been partly discovered by the 
 antients and also by Crellius and others, by which 
 νόμον is understood, not of the moral law in general 
 (of offices and duties), but the minatory and penal 
 part of it, levelled against murders, thefts, adulteries, 
 ἄς. ** The Judaizing Christians (says Slade), in the 
 excess of their zeal for the law, had overlooked one 
 of its great objects—the punishment and prevention 
 of sin; and it is probable that the Apostle merely 
 designed to correct this error, reminding them that 
 the severe enactments of the moral law, for which 
 they were so strenuous, do not concern (οὐ κεῖται) or 
 apply to those who have a Christian love of righte- 
 ousness, are of force only against such as contemn 
 and violate the law.” So Doddr. concludes that 
 it chiefly relates to crimes and punishments. And 
 he adds, that the genius of Christianity is so sublime, 
 and the character of Christians in general (at that 
 time) was so good, that there was no need of insist-. 
 ing on legal sentences denounced against such enor- 
 mities, in order to keep them in the course of their 
 duty.” Whether this J/as¢ observation be well. 
 founded I have some doubt: indeed the whole pas- 
 sage is too obscure to permit us to be positive as to 
 its sense. 
 
 Ketras is frequently used in this sense by the. best 
 
200 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 
 
 Classical writers; of which the philological Com- 
 mentators adduce examples in superfluous abun- 
 dance. They also (especially Priceus and Wets.) 
 adduce many parallel sentiments; though none quite 
 to the purpose. 
 
 The general terms ἀνόμοις and ἀνυποτάκτοις (which 
 denote disobedient to orders), are followed by the 
 special ones ἀσέβεσι, &c. in which it is not necessary 
 to seek refinements. ‘The whsle may be regarded 
 as expressed (and to be taken) populariter. With 
 respect to the general term ἁμαρτωλοῖς, some, won- 
 dering that this general term should be inserted 
 among special ones, would take it to denote tdola- 
 ters. An interpretation which Heinr. rightly re- 
 jects, adding that the Apostle does not heed such 
 niceties, but occasionally intermixes special terms 
 with general ones. Here, however, this apology is 
 unnecessary. It should rather seem that the Apostle 
 employed ἁμαρτ. after ἀσεβ., since the words were 
 commonly, and almost proverbially, united, in the 
 sense exceedingly sinful. So Prov. 11, 31. 6 ἀσεβὴς 
 καὶ ἁμαρτωλός" where the Hebr. is YW and Non. 
 Joel 1, 15. ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς. See aiso 1 Pet. 
 4, 18. 
 
 The next terms ἀνοσίοις and βεβήλοις are nearly 
 synonymous. So Hesych. explains ἀνοσία by βέβηλα, 
 ἄδικα. ἄνομα. ᾿Ανόσιος denotes one who despises and 
 transgresses all laws, divine and human. βέβηλος 
 denotes properly an irreligious person, one who is 
 not a worshipper or participator in any religious 
 worship. So Hesych.: βέβηλος, ἀνίερος, ἀμίαντος. 
 Such persons were so. called, as being excluded from 
 the sacred fanes. ‘Thus the term may here have the - 
 sense heathenish, in our popular acceptation. 
 
 ᾿Ανδροφόνοις. E. V. man-slayers. Doddr., assas- 
 sins. But neither words convey the right idea. It 
 may be better rendered murderers (in general), in- 
 cluding both open and secret violence, and also that 
 less criminal, because not deliberate, mode of taking 
 another’s life, called manslaughter, or homicide. 
 
 *y 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 1. 201 
 
 Πόρνοις is commonly rendered whoremongers or 
 fornicators. But it may also denote adulterers. 
 Some recent Commentators explain it male prosti- 
 tutes; comparing I Cor. 5, 9—11. 6,9. Hebr. 12, 
 16.13, 4. Perhaps the Apostle might have all these 
 senses in view; though the list is not complete; 
 since the Apostle adds καὶ ef τι ἕτερον, &c. 
 
 By ἀνδραποδισταῖς the best Commentators are 
 agreed is meant, those who kidnapped and sold into 
 slavery free persons. Now this was regarded by 
 the law as felony of the deepest dye, and was always 
 punished with death. And as all the crimes here 
 mentioned are of the most heinous kind, and as 
 robbery does not elsewhere occur in the list, so ἀν- 
 dporod. seems as put for robbery of the worst sort. 
 Let, then, the slave-traders (Christians, alas!) of 
 our times tremble! for αὐ who, in any way, parti- 
 cipate in that abominable traffic are ἀνδαρποδισται ; 
 since they thereby uphold a system which perpe- 
 tually engenders man-stealing. The terms ψεύσται 
 and ἐπίορκοι require no explanation. ever. denotes 
 deceit, perfidy of the basest sort. Compare ἀσυνθετοὶ, 
 ἀσπόνδοι, at Rom. 1, 81. ’Emsogk. denotes perjury. 
 Against all the foregoing crimes there had been 
 severe penalties denounced in the Mosaic law; and 
 the Commentators especially give references to those 
 parts of the Pentateuch supposed to be here alluded 
 to. But that the Apostle had also in view the still 
 more terrible denunciations against these sins in the 
 Gospel, is plain from the words following, καὶ εἴ ri— 
 κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, &c. The metaphor in ὑγιαινούση 
 διδασκαλίᾳ was frequent in the best writers to denote 
 true, right, &c. So Plut. 2, 20. (cited by Wets.) 
 αὕται γὰρ εἰσιν ὑγιαίνουσαι περὶ θεῶν δόξαι καὶ ἀληθεῖς. 
 and Philo p. 32, 29. τοὺς ὑγιαίνοντας λόγους. Wets. | 
 has here also cited two similar lists of crimes; as 
 Pollux 6, 151. (in which are the ἀνδροποδίσται and the 
 πόρνοι, πατραλῳαι, and μητραλώαι.) and Philostr. 4, 7. 
 μοιχοὶ καὶ ἀνδραποδισταὶ, πόρνοι----καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔθνη. 
 The learned Commentator might have added Phi- 
 
 ad 
 
202 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP, I. 
 
 lostr. Epist. Apoll. 66. κλεπτὴς τε καὶ ληστὴς, καὶ 
 ἀνδαποδιστὴς, καὶ εἴτις ἄδικος ἢ ἱερόσυλος. 
 
 11. κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον της δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοῦ, ὃ 
 ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ. The κατὰ signifies in conformity to, 
 agreeably to, i.e. with reference to the sound doc- 
 trine. Τῆς δόξης. Genitive substantive for an 
 Adjective. With respect to the epithet μακάριος, 
 applied to the Deity here, and at 6, 15., it is 
 observed by Heinr. that no Hebrew word (not even 
 ‘J12) quite corresponds to it. And he thinks it is 
 derived from the Homeric μακαρίοι Θεοὶ αἰεὶ ἔοντες. 
 But it should seem very improbable that the Apostle 
 ever read Homer; nor is it necessary to have 
 recourse to such a supposition. We may easily 
 imagine, that the term, in this use, was not unfre- 
 quent in the mouths of the educated classes. Thus 
 Philo 147. (cited: by Loesn.), among other predicates 
 of God, names him μόνον μακάριον. 
 
 On the idiom in ὃ ἐπιστ. ἐγὼ, see the note on 
 Rom. 3, 12. 
 
 12. καὶ χάριν----εἰς διακονίαν. Te ἐνδυναμώσαντί pe 
 X.’L., “ to Christ Jesus that strengthened me (to the 
 effectual preaching of this Gospel).” ‘The sense of 
 these words is unwarrantably lowered by Rosenm. 
 and Koppe thus: “ instruxit me, ut scirem quid do- 
 cerem, et libenter et constanter docerem.” ‘They 
 will not allow that there can be any reference to 
 miraculous power. Though this is supported by the 
 antients, and many eminent moderns, as Benson and 
 Michaelis, the former of whom refers to Acts 1, 8., 
 where δύναμις is used, on the Holy Spirit being 
 promised to the Apostles of the circumcision. 
 ςς Thereby (says he) was signified all that illumina- 
 tion and miraculous power which enabled them to 
 understand the Gospel, and to spread it with suc- 
 cess. All this St. Paul received, not from man, 
 neither by men, but immediately from our Lord 
 Jesus. Christ. Acts 9, 17., Rom. 15, 19., 2 Cor. 3, 5: 
 and 6., Gal, 1, 1., 11 and 12.” Πιστόν. In the same 
 sense the word occurs in Hebr. 2, 17. Heinr. 
 
 "» 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 203 
 
 remarks that θέμιενος is for ws τιθέσθαι pe. Rosenm. 
 takes it for ὅτι ἔθετο we. Διακονίαν is put for τὴν διακο- 
 νίαν, scil. τῆς καινῆς διαθηκῆς, 2 Cor. 3,6. It is here 
 observed by Rosenm.: ““ Digressio hec av. 12. ad 
 17., non coheret cum officiis que Paulus Timotheo 
 in superioribus preescribit; sed quia prestantiee 
 religionis christianee mentionem fecerat, obiter com- 
 memorat vocationem suam, et felicem se preedicat, 
 quod dignus esset habitus, cui Christus tantum 
 munus doctoris evangelici concrederet, quod non 
 amplius esset Judzus, sed Christi Apostolus. 
 
 13. τὸν πρότερον---ὁβριστήν. Badodypov, an evil 
 speaker, detracter. A term used generally of 
 revilers of men, but κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, of those who insult 
 the Deity. See Acts 26, 11., and the note. I would 
 subaud τῆς καινῆς διαθηκῆς, scil. τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, from 
 the preceding verse. On διώκτην, see Gal. 1, 18. 
 Ὑβριστὴν (on which see Heinr.) is a stronger term, 
 and seems to denote the persecuting spirit carried 
 into effect in the personal violence used by Saul to 
 apprehend and bring Christians to punishment. See 
 Acts 8, 3 & 11., 9, 2. 
 
 13. ἀλλ᾽ ἐλεήθην, ὅτι ἀγνοῶν ἐποίησα ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ. 
 There is some harshness in the ἀπιστίᾳ added at the 
 end of the sentence, without which all would have 
 been clear. Some, as Rosenm., take it for ἐν χρόνῳ 
 τῆς ἀπιστίας. But this is too arbitrary. Heinr. 
 thinks the ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ is exegetical of the ἀγνοών ; and 
 he renders: “‘ per imprudentiam, quippe qui, ἄπισ- 
 tos wy, adeoque de veritate quondam edoctus, in 
 honorem Jove, vereeque, ut errabam, Mosaice rel. 
 tam infesto odio persequabar perfidos et quasi perfu- 
 gas Christianos.” Benson paraphrases: “as I then 
 acted out of ignorance ; and opposed Christianity, 
 because I did not believe, nor suspect, it to be true.* 
 
 * He remarks that “ sincerity is used in two senses; 1., For a 
 man’s carefully inquiring into the nature and extent of his duty, 
 and habitually acting accordingly. 2., For a man’s acting according 
 to his present sentiments ; though he has not formerly inquired 
 into the nature and extent of his duty, with the care which he 
 might, and ought to have used. St. Paul, before his conversion to 
 
 a 
 
204 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 
 
 It should seem that the obscurity arose from the 
 Apostle’s here blending (as not unfrequently) two 
 clauses into one; q.d. “ I obtained mercy because 
 my unbelief was sincere, though resting on false 
 grounds ; and, therefore, what I did was under igno- 
 rance of the true nature of my conduct.” 
 
 14. ὑπερεπλεόνασε----ηἡσοῦ. The sense of these 
 words is somewhat obscure, from brevity; but it 
 seems to be this: ‘* The mercy and favour of God 
 was so abundant to me, as not only to pardon my 
 unbelief and blasphemy, but to bring me to the 
 Christian faith; and that with the most affecting 
 condescension.’”? Such, I conceive, is the full and 
 real sense, which has been imperfectly conceived 
 and expressed by Commentators. 
 
 15. ‘This verse is, in some respects, parenthetical. 
 Πιστὸς ὃ λόγος, καὶ πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος. ‘These 
 words are rendered by Wets. thus: “ Certissima res 
 est, et digna quam omni studio, et cupidé omnes am- 
 plectantur probentque.” ‘The literal sense is as 
 follows: “assuredly true and worthy of entire 
 acceptance is the position, that, &c. So Thucyd. 3, 
 63, 1., ἀξιώτερος πάσης ϑημίας. Apollon. Epist. 12., 
 τούς ἀξίους ἀποδοχῆς. Diog. Laert. 5, 64., ἀνὴρ γέγονε 
 πολλῆς τῆς ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος. With the πιστὸς λόγος 
 Koppe compares the Hebr. 1270 nox. The same 
 expression occurs in 3, 1., 2 Tim. 2, 11., and Tit. 3, 
 8. There is here (as I have before indicated) a 
 slight hyperbaton. <Adyos, assumption, position, doc- 
 trine; as Matt. 9, 13., Mark 2, 17., and Luke 6, 32. 
 The above sense of ἀποδοχη is established and illus- 
 
 Christianity, was not sincere, in the former sense. For if he had 
 first carefully inquired into the nature and evidence of Christianity, 
 a man of his fairness of mind would not have persecuted the 
 Christians, but have readily become one himself. But, in the latter 
 sense of the word, he was sincere, i. e. he honestly acted according to 
 his present sentiments, And, being ignorant of the nature and evi- 
 dence of Christianity, and a real unbeliever, who took it for granted 
 that Christianity was false, he thought it his duty to oppose it, and 
 to persecute those who professed it.” 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 205 
 
 trated by the Philological Commentators with exam- 
 ples in superfluous abundance. 
 
 15. σῶσαι ἁμαρτωλοὺς. Benson explains “ to 
 reform sinners ;” and he adduces several examples. 
 But this seems to be a groundless refinement. Even 
 Koppe (though sufficiently prone to innovation) 
 acknowledges that it is one of those general phrases 
 denoting all the merits of Christ in effecting the sal- 
 vation of men. Now the end of Christ’s coming was 
 not only to put men into the way of salvation in this 
 world, but to contribute every necessary aid, con- 
 sistent with the free will of moral agents, towards 
 their obtaining the end, even salvation and eternal 
 happiness in another. ‘Apaprwaods, “(all) sinners as 
 well as myself ;” and indeed all men, since all are 
 sinners. It is observed, by Theophyl., that this is 
 levelled against the Judaizers, to show them that 
 without faith it is impossible to be saved. 
 
 Ὧν πρῶτός εἰμι ἐγώ. At this strong expression 
 some modern Commentators stumble; and many, 
 both antient and modern, enter into needless doc- 
 trinal subtilties. The attempt to remove the 
 seeming harshness by altering the sense (as does 
 Benson) into, ““ Iam the first who from a blasphemer 
 and persecutor have become a Christian,’ can be 
 approved by no one who has any accurate perception 
 of the force of Greek phraseology. And it is in vain 
 to say that the words of the next verse require it; 
 since there the sense is engrafted upon this; and the 
 Apostle delights in variety. The exposition of the 
 antients has been, with reason, retained by all the 
 most eminent modern Commentators: and it is not 
 necessary to rigorously press on the sense, which 
 may be interpreted conformably with a similar 
 expression of exemplary modesty at 1 Cor. 15, 9., 
 where see the note. I have sometimes thought rgw- 
 ros might mean one of the chief; and such, I find, 
 is the opinion of Mr. Valpy. The word has 
 frequently that sense. So especially Eph. 6, 2., ἐν- 
 
206 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 
 
 τολὴ πρώτη, “a primary commandment.” where see 
 note. 
 
 16. ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο---αἰώνιον. Koppe well points 
 out the resumptive force in ἀλλὰ ἠλ., which refers to 
 the dan ἠλεήθην at ver. 18. ; 4. d. ‘* For this reason, I 
 say, 1 was spared.” “Iva ἐν ἐμοὶ πρώτῳ ἐνδείξηται---- 
 μακροθυμίαν. The πρώτῳ has reference to the πρῶτος 
 of the former verse, but with a variation of sense ; 
 
 . d. “1 was the first of sinners, and therefore in me 
 Jirst (of all who had so sinned) did Christ shew 
 mercy.” Others take rgwrw for πρότερον ; and most 
 moderns think that it has the very same signification 
 as πρῶτος at ver. 15. But the sense above laid down 
 seems the more natural, and agreeable to the style of 
 the Apostle, who delights in variety. He might, 
 however, in a certain sense, be said to be such. See 
 Benson. 
 
 16. τὴν πᾶσαν μακροθυμίαν, abundant. A significa- 
 tion common both in the Scriptural and Classical 
 writers. Πρὸς ὑποτύπωσιν---- αἰώνιον, * That I should 
 be an example to all that should come after, that 
 they may believe in him, unto everlasting salvation.” 
 Ὑποτύπωσις properly signifies a slight delineation of 
 any thing in outline, literally a chalking out any thing 
 faintly (ὑπὸ) ; and as such sketches or models were 
 used by painters and architects, so the term came to 
 mean an exemplar in general. Hence it is explained 
 by the antients ὑπόδειγμα, σημεῖον. By others, raga- 
 Kajow. But this latter, though not inapplicable, 
 cannot be supposed to be the sense had in view by 
 the Apostle. ‘The πιστεύειν depends upon ὥστε; and 
 the εἰς signifies end, i. 6. “in order to the attainment 
 of.” See 1 Pet. 1, 9., More might be said; but it 
 is scarcely necessary. ‘The reader may consult 
 Benson, &c. 
 
 17. τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων ἀφθάρτῳ. ‘The 
 Apostle here breaks out into δὴ ejaculation of 
 ardent gratitude for the mercy of Gods; and con- 
 cludes the passage (as often) with a Doxology, 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 207 
 
 one of the grandest and most energetic to be found 
 in all his Epistles. 
 
 Βασιλεὺς is frequently applied to God as being 
 King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. Βασιλ. τῶν 
 αἰώνων is explained, by the best Commentators, the 
 King who hath ruled throughout all ages, and of 
 whose dominion there will be no end. Koppe com- 
 pares, from the Jewish writers 2 OMT Jn 
 cory. Other interpretations have been brought 
 forward by Grot. and Hamm., but too far-fetched. 
 
 ᾿Αφθάρτῳ, immortal. So in 6, 16. God is said to 
 be thus distinguished from earthly Kings and ficti- 
 tious Deities; ’Aoparw, unseen (except by his works). 
 So 6, 16. “ dwelling in a light unapproachable by 
 man.” See also Rom. 1,20. This has been more 
 than once imitated by Milton. The epithet σοφῷ, 
 conjoined also with μόνω, is applied to God by many 
 writers. Yet some Critics maintain that it is suppo- 
 sititious, and introduced from Rom. 16, 27. But the 
 MSS. in which this omission is found are only about 
 six in number, and those altered ones. And it may be 
 easily accounted for, from the wish of the librarii to 
 remove what seemed a defect in style ; though that 
 arose from misapprehension of the true construction 
 of the sense, which has (I think) been rightly laid 
 down by Bp. Middleton thus: ‘to the eternal King, 
 the immortal, invisible, and only wise God.” And 
 so some of the antients. On the other hand, it is 
 not so easy to account for its introduction, and that 
 into nearly all the MSS. Besides, if the construc- 
 tion be what Bp. Middleton has pointed out, the 
 σοφῷ is almost indispensable. 
 
 Of these different epithets see the copious Clas- 
 sical examples of Wets. 
 
 18. ταύτην τὴν παραγγέελίαν--- στρατείαν. Almost 
 all Commentators are agreed that the Apostle is here 
 resuming what he had been saying at ver. 3—7., 
 between which and the present verse there is an 
 interval somewhat protracted, but not so as to in- 
 duce me to suppose (as some do) that by τὴν ragay- 
 
208 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 
 
 γελίαν the Apostle means the injunction he just after 
 subjoins. On παραγγελία see Luke 12, 48. and the 
 note. Rosenm. remarks on the transposition of iva, 
 and lays down the following construction : ἵνα orga- 
 τεύη THY καλὴν στρατείαν κατὰ τὰς προαγούσας ἐπὶ σε 
 προφητείας ; the words ἐν αὐταῖς being redundant. 
 See ἃ similar transposition at 2 Cor. 2, 4. and Col. 
 4, 17. The sense is: “ This I especially enjoin 
 upon you, that conformably to the preceding predis- 
 position concerning you, ye would diligently discharge 
 your duty and office.” At the words κατὰ τὰς προα- 
 γούσας ἐπὶ σε ποοφητείας modern Commentators have 
 much stumbled. Hence the variety of interpreta- 
 tions, the most specious of which is that of those 
 (as Noesselt and Schleus.) who take προῷ. for rapay- 
 γελία, διδασκαλία, and παρόκλησις, 1.e. “ according 
 to my previous exhortations.” But no example of 
 such a sense of προφητεία has ever been produced ; 
 and thus, too, the ἐπὶ ce will have an uncommon 
 sense, and mpoay. be very harsh. The interpretation, 
 indeed, has no sembiance of truth. As little can I 
 approve of that of Heinr., who takes the προῷ. of the 
 good hope which all had conceived of ‘Timothy (see 
 Acts 16, 2.), “ augurantes eum optimum fore reli- 
 gionis doctorem et defensorem.” A sense unautho- 
 rized by the usus loquendi: and the phrase savours 
 rather of the Classical modes of thought than those 
 of the Apostle. As to other intérpretations, I must 
 omit them. There seems no reason to desert the 
 antient and generally received one, by which the 
 προαγούσας ἐπὶ σε προφητείας is taken to signify the 
 prophecies respecting Timothy, which preceded his 
 investiture with the office of Evangelist ; the zo. 
 being understood of declarations proceeding from 
 persons who possessed the Divine χάρισμα called the 
 προφητεία. See Acts 13, 2. 20,28. And so Chrys. 
 and Theophyl. No well founded objection has ever 
 been made to this interpretation, which surely in- 
 volves no more difficulty than the supposing the 
 existence of the προφητεία so often mentioned in St. 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 1. 209 
 
 Paul’s Epistles, and which, whoever would doubt, 
 may as well close the Bible, and shut his eyes at 
 once upon all truth. 
 
 The expression ἵνα στρατεύη τὴν καλὴν στρατείαν 
 as applied to the vigilant and zealous exercise of his 
 duties, is one of those military metaphors so fre- 
 quent in the Apostle’s writings. See Tim. 2, 3. and 
 Eph. 6, 10. Heinrichs compares a similar use of 
 the Heb. Na¥ at Is. 40, 20. and Job 7, 1.* The 
 Hellenism in orpar. στρ. is of perpetual occurrence. 
 See Wetstein’s examples. 
 
 19. ἔχων πίστιν καὶ ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν, ““ having and 
 holding,” &c.; for κατεχ., as often. Πίστιν καὶ 
 ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν Rosenm. takes for πίστιν ἐν καθαρᾷ 
 συνειδήσει, by a sort of hendiadis. But the terms 
 are better kept separate; as supra ver. 5. ἐκ συνειδή- 
 σεως ἀγαθῆς καὶ πίστεως & ‘These (as Hein. ob- 
 serves) are the principal virtues of the Christian 
 soldier. ‘Theophyl. well paraphrases thus: ἀλλὰ δεῖ 
 σε ἔχειν πίστιν, ὥστε τὸν λόγον ὀρθοτομεῖν, καὶ ἀγαθὴν 
 συνείδησιν, τουτέστι, πολιτείαν ἀκατάγνωστον κεκτῆσθαι. 
 Ἔκ γὰρ ταύτης ἡ ἀγαθὴ συνείδησις, ἵνα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων 
 δύνασαι προΐστασθαι. So Grot.: ““ Sicut ignis pabulo 
 indiget, ita fides bonis operibus ; alioqui facile ex- 
 stinguitur. Nam qui malé agere volunt, omnia 
 querunt ut 5101 persuadeant ea que de premiis ac 
 peenis zeternis dicuntur non esse vera, aut certé non 
 tali Lege Deum agere cum hominibus.” 
 
 19. ἥν τινες ἀπωσάμενοι, “which (good conscience) 
 some having rejected and neglected,” &c.+ Περὶ 
 
 * Nor was this confined to the Scriptural writers ; for, as Wets. 
 observes, omne studium cujuscunque privati aut publici muneris 
 egregié militia dictum; as Seneca Ep. 96. Vivere—militare est. 
 Max. Tyr. 19, 4. στρατηγὸν μὲν τὸν θεὸν, στρᾳτείαν δὲ τὴν Φωὴν, 
 ὁπλίτην δὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. Apulej. Met. 11. Da nomen huic sanctz 
 militie, cuyus olim sacramento etiam letaberis, teque jam nunc ob- 
 sequio religionis nustre dedica, et ministerii jugum subi volunta- 
 rium. 
 
 + Benson fancies here a reproof of the Judaizing Christians, who 
 neither retained the pure Christian faith, without adding Jewish 
 mixtures, nor a good conscience: for they suppressed what they 
 
 VOL. VIII, Ῥ 
 
210 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 1. 
 
 τὴν πίστιν ἐναυάγησαν. The terms ναυαγεῖν naufra- 
 gium facere alicujus are used by the best Classical 
 writers. See the philclogical Commentators. But. 
 the Latin phrase is confined to ruin of property, or 
 fortune. ‘The other is sometimes used (as here) of 
 a loss of truth, or rectitude by, (as it were,) splitting 
 on the rocks of error or vice. So (of Wets. exam- 
 ples) Cebes : ναυαγοῦςσιν ἐν τώ βίῳ καὶ πλανῶνται. 
 Galen : ἐν οἷς γὰρ ἐναυάγησαν οἱ πρόσθεν i ἰατροί. Philo 
 1, 6078. ναυαγήσαντες 4 περὶ γλώτταν ἄθυρον, 7 περὶ 
 γάστερο, ἄπληστον. 
 
 20. ὧν ἐστιν Ὑμέναιος καὶ ᾿Αλέξανδρος. From the 
 mode in which those persons are mentioned, it is 
 plain that there were more, and that these are speci- 
 fied as being the most culpable. ‘The names occur 
 at 2'Tim. a. 17. 2Tim. 4,14. Acts 19, 88. ; though 
 it has been thought doubtful whether they were the 
 same persons. Hymenzeus denied the resurrection 
 of the dead, understanding the resurrection as merely 
 a spir itual one, a new birth unto righteousness. 
 
 20. ous παρέδωκα TO Σατανᾷ. See the note on 1 
 Cor. 5, 5. Ἵνα παιδευθῶσι μὴ βλασφημεῖν. It is 
 strange that Heinr., who discusses this passage with 
 his iene learning ae acuteness, should regar d this 
 as put for "νον ἀφορμὴν διδόναι τῷ ἀντικειμένῳ τοῦ 
 βλασφημεῖν. Or they may, he thinks, be explained 
 ‘‘ ex affecto irati, qui sepissime minatur plura quam 
 efficere aut potest aut in animo habet.” And he 
 remarks on the immitia verba of St. Paul. But 
 surely nothing more irreverent to the Apostle can 
 be imagined ! As to the reasons assigned by Heinr. 
 for deviating from the common opinion, they are 
 too weak to deserve a moment’s attention. Good 
 sense and good taste (if nothing more) might have 
 taught him not to press or refine on the sense of such 
 words, which Pricaus long ago showed are to be 
 reckoned among proverbial expressions. And he 
 
 knew to be truth, and, to please the Jews, broached what was erro- 
 neous and destiuctive of the Gospel,” 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 11. QT 
 
 adduces many examples from various authors. In all 
 such passages, it may be observed, the true end of all 
 punishment is supposed to be aimed at, namely, the 
 prevention of crime. Hence we may see how false 
 is the interpretation of Beza, “ ne impuné ferant suas 
 blasphemias.” 
 
 The force of βλασῷ. may easily be conceived by 
 considering that those who propounded such here- 
 5165 as did Hymeneeus, could scarcely avoid speaking 
 evil of the truth; and, as Grot. observes, those who 
 abandon any doctrine, and promulgate an opposite 
 one, usually seek to justify their conduct by speaking 
 evil of the one they have forsaken. 
 
 Whether Hymenzus and Alexander were thus 
 reclaimed, we are not informed. Most probably 
 not. See Benson. How muchithis uncompromis- 
 ing severity to apostates strengthens our confidence 
 in the divine mission of the Apostles, is justly re- 
 marked by Reynolds ap. Doddr. 
 
 CHAP. 11. 
 
 It is truly observed by Benson, that c. 1. is a sort 
 of preface to the whole Epistle; and at c. 2. the 
 Apostle enters upon particulars, and proceeds to give 
 Timothy directions for the regulation of the Church, 
 and especially as regards its external state. Hence 
 he first touches upon the most important of the ex- 
 ternal observances, public prayer. 
 
 Verse 1. πρώτον πάντων is by some interpreted 
 imprimis. But the context requires primum om- 
 nium, with the Vulg. And so Luke 12, 1. 2 Pet. 
 1,20. Like principio, it often has no apodosis. 
 
 The terms προσευχαὶ, ἐντεύξεις, and εὐχαριστίαι 
 have properly this difference, that by the first is 
 meant deprecations of evil ; by the second, supplica- 
 tions for good ; by the third, intercession for others ; 
 by the fourth, grateful acknowledgments to the Di- 
 
 P 2 
 
212 -1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II 
 
 vine goodness :* but I agree with the best Commen- 
 fators; that we need not here resort to critical dis- 
 tinctions (which even the antients disapproved). 
 Thus Theophyl., from Chrys., says: τινες δὲ διαφορὰν 
 περιειργάσαντο), but understand the terms as de- 
 noting all kinds of prayers to be offered up for the 
 good of men, and which may be variously classed. 
 
 By πάντων are meant both Christians, and non- 
 Christians. Some add, both friends and enemies. 
 But that seems little consistent with public prayer. 
 This was, I think with Benson, levelled against the 
 bigotry of the Jews and Gentiles. How different 
 such a course was from the spirit and practice of 
 the Jews, and how necessary it was to show the 
 Gentiles the difference of Christians in this respect, 
 is very obvious. They might, by praying for, rather 
 than by evincing contempt and hatred for the Hea- 
 thens, and especially by prayers for the prosperity of 
 kings and governors, show that, as loyal, peaceable, 
 and well-affected subjects, they deserved to be pro- 
 tected rather than persecuted. 
 
 2. ὑπὲρ βασιλέων---ὄντων. This may be understood 
 not only of the Roman Emperors, to whom the for- 
 merly odious name βασιλεῖς began to be freely ap- 
 plied, but to all those who exercised any sovereign 
 authority under them, whether Tetrarchs, or others. 
 The τών ἐν ὑπερόχη ὄντων are supposed to be the same 
 with the of ἐν τέλει, &c. of the Classical writers, all 
 those bearing the high offices of state and adminis- 
 tration of provinces, whether pro-consuls, or mi- 
 nisters of state, &c. So Tertullian in his Apolog. : 
 ““ Oramus etiam pro Imperatoribus, per ministros 
 eorum, et Potestatibus.” The Jews, indeed, as 
 Ottius here shows from Joseph. B. J. 2, 17, 2. and 
 
 * Wets. thinks that the δέησις, προσευχὴ; and ἐντεύξις have this 
 difference, that the first denotes oratio extemporanea et brevis; the 
 second, meditatio majestatis divine ejusque adoratio ; the third, pera 
 πλείονος παῤῥησίας (as Origen de Orat. 44, defines), vel de certd 
 guadam re Deum adire. 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 213 
 
 Ant. 12, 11. “ did profess to pray twice a day for 
 the emperors: and the Rabbis directed the people 
 to pray pro paée regni. But the present practice of 
 the Jews was so little consistent with their profes- 
 sions, that it was the more necessary for the Chris- 
 tians to show how different they themselves were in 
 both respects. ‘This duty (so agreeable to the pre- 
 cepts of Christ, Matt. 22, 21., and to the spirit of the 
 Gospel) was (we find from the early Ecclesiastical 
 writers here cited by the Commentators) universally 
 performed by the primitive Christians. 
 
 The words ive διάγωμεν Heinr. says, are very plain. 
 Yet he seems to misunderstand their general scope: 
 for the sense (I apprehend) is nof, “let us do this that 
 we may live at peace, and not suffer persecution,” 
 but I think with Rosenm., that these prayers (which 
 included all the lesser observances of loyal subjects, ) 
 are directed to be offered up for the benefit of that 
 quietness and deliverance from the harassings of bar- 
 barians and Robbers, than which no greater blessing 
 can be received by subjects from rulers. Here 
 Wets., and especially Priczeus, adduce Classical ex- 
 amples in superfluous abundance; but very few in- 
 deed are useful or apposite.* 
 
 The σεμνότ. denotes a decorous and worthy de- 
 meanour: a signification found in the Classical 
 writers. So Herodian 2, 1, 10. (cited by Wets.) διὰ 
 σεμνότητα αἰδουμιένος, “ respected for his worth.” 
 Ablian. V. H. 2, 13. σεμνότης βίου. 
 
 * I could contribute no slight symbola; but shall content 
 myself with three or four passages which did not occur to those 
 Commentators, and are really apposite. Thucyd. 4, 62. τὴν δὲ ὑπὸ 
 πάντων ὁμολογουμένην ἄριστον εἶναι εἰρήνην πῶς ov χρὴ Kal ἐν 
 ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς ποίησασθαι ; ἢ δοκεῖτε; εἴ τῷ τι ἔστιν ἀγαθὸν ἢ εἴ τῷ τὰ 
 ἐναντία, οὐχ ἡσυχία μᾶλλον ἢ πόλεμος τὸ μὲν παύσαι ἂν ἑκατέρῳ, 
 τὸ δὲ συνδιασώσαι, καὶ τὰς τιμὰς καὶ λαμπρότητας ἀκινδυνοτέρας 
 ἔχειν τὴν εἰρήνην, ἄλλα τε ὄσα ἐν μήκει λόγων ἂν τις διέλθοι, 
 ὥσπερ περὶ τοῦ πολεμεῖν. Pind. Pyth. 7. init. (which Thucyd. seems 
 to have had in view), φίλοφρον ᾿Ασυχία, Aucas*Q μεγιστόπολι θύ- 
 γατερ. Cicero: Nihil tam populare quam concordiam quam otium 
 reperiemus. Theophy]. Sim. 77 D. οὐδὲν yap τῆς εἰρήνης καθέστηκε 
 τιμαλφέστερον τοῖς ye νοῦν ἔχουσι. 
 
214 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 1]. 
 
 8,4. τοῦτο yap καλὸν---Θεοῦ, “ For this (i. 6. pray- 
 ing for all men, especially rulers,) is good,” &c. The 
 καλὸν seems to regard men. (So Theophyl. τὸ guces 
 Kaavy),* and is rendered by Rosenm. pulcrum, ho- 
 nestum, guod decet. ᾿Αποδεκτὸν signifies properly 
 what is worthy of being accepted or approved: but 
 it here denotes what is approved. It is explained by 
 Hesych. ἐπαινετόν. We may compare Hebr. 13, 21. 
 ἐνωπίον αὐτοῦ ἐυάρεστον. By πάντας is meant all na- 
 tions and all individuals, q. d. ‘* God desires the sal- 
 vation of all, and therefore for all we are bound to 
 pray.” Thus the term σωτὴρ ἡμών, often elsewhere 
 applied to God (see the note on 1, 1.) has here a pe- 
 culiar propriety. On σωθῆναι see the note supra 1, 
 15. The καὶ before εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν is well rendered by 
 Benson and in order thereto. 1 cannot agree with 
 Doddr. that this clause proves the preceding one 
 must be taken with limitation. 
 
 4. εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας signifies, “to perfectly 
 know, and consequently embrace, the truth as it is 
 in Jesus, the true religion, as revealed by Jesus 
 Christ and his Legates.” ‘This sense of ἀληθεία and 
 Nias is common in Scripture. ‘That God wishes the 
 salvation of all men, we find from various parts of the 
 New Testament. See Joh. 3, 17. 2 Pet. 3, 9. &c. 
 And this is ¢mplied in innumerable passages. I can- 
 not however here enter into the subject, which, in- 
 deed, falls rather within the province of the Theolo- 
 gian than the Commentator. But I must confess 
 that the comprehension of the question seems to far 
 exceed all human power.f That God hath made 
 sufficient provision for the salvation of all men, and 
 that none will perish but by their own fault, we may 
 be content to believe and know; though the mode, 
 &c. must be left in the bosom of our Father and our 
 
 God. 
 
 * Ina similar way δίκαιον is used at Eph. 6, 1. where Theophyl. 
 explains, φύσει δίκαιον. 
 
 + Mackn. indeed avoids the difficulty; but it is by ascribing an 
 unwarrantable sense to the words. 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP, II. Q15 
 
 5, 6. Heinr. here remarks: ‘* Amplificatur hic 
 locus, cur pro omnibus sint noncupanda νοΐ." And 
 so Benson. This may be true; but it seems to me 
 that the Apostle also intended to further explain 
 what was only darkly hinted at in the καὶ eis ἐπίγνω- 
 ow: and thus the sense will be: “ not merely have 
 we all, of whatever nation, the same God as our 
 Creator, and the same Christ as our Redeemer, but 
 this: There is one God and Mediator common to 
 all; and this mediation and atonement of Jesus 
 Christ constitutes the only means by which we can 
 be brought to the truth, and thereby attain salva- 
 tion.” The words ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάν- 
 των, which are so closely connected with μεσίτης 
 (and to similar adjuncts at Hebr. 9, 15. 8, 6. 12, 24.) 
 plainly prove that the Socinian notion of Mediator (as 
 only denoting “one who makes known the mind of 
 two parties to each other, and makes an agreement 
 or covenant between them,”) is miserably imperfect : 
 for though that is one part of a Mediatorial office, 
 yet the true notion of Christ's mediation, as given 
 us in the New Testament, includes also reconcilia- 
 tion and atonement, and giving himself a ransom to 
 God for us; as the words following at the present 
 passage clearly prove. See the note of Whitby, who 
 shows by many extracts from Philo, that such too 
 was the Jewish notion of Mediator.* It is rightly 
 observed by Mackn., that the Apostle means to 
 hint, that Christ’s mediation is founded on the atone- 
 ment which he made for our sins, in his human na- 
 ture. For, as Doddr. observes, the words ἄνθρωπος 
 
 . * He thus concludes his able annotation : “ So that here it is 
 made the oflice of Mediator to procure peace to the creature from 
 God, to make atonement to God, and to be an advocate to obtain the 
 pardon of sins ; and if Christ our Mediator and Advocate with the 
 Father, was, by virtue of his office, to do this, surely it must be part 
 of his office to appease and reconcile God to us.” This view of the 
 subject is fully supported by the antient Fathers and Commentators, 
 See especially Chrysost., and, of the moderns, Bps. Pearson and 
 Bull, and that most excellent and seasonable Treatise of Abp, Magee 
 on the Atonement, See also the note on Rom. 5, 8. Ἢ 
 
216 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Il. 
 
 I. X. plainly show that it is in his human nature we 
 are to consider him as discharging it.” And this 
 perhaps is the best account to be given of the intro- 
 duction of ἄνθρωπος. Though it might also be meant 
 (as some say) to shew the humanity as well as Deity 
 of Christ.* 
 
 That learned Socinians should have caught up this 
 passage (like so many others) to establish a system 
 which requires all means, even the most desperate, 
 to give it any colour, is not surprising : and that the 
 unlearned and unstable among them should receive 
 the gloss they offer is natural ; and yet, that any per- 
 sons of learning, and, to use the words of the Apostle, 
 of διὰ τὴν ἔξιν τὰ αἰσθητήρια γεγυμνασμένα ἔχουσι πρὸς 
 διάκρισιν καλοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ should be induced to 
 take up with it is truly amazing. To omit many 
 other confirmations of the above view of the subject 
 from writers whom they are accustomed toreverence, 
 I would instance the following: Mecirys, ὃ εἰρηνόποιος 
 (ut Suidas explicat) qui amicitiam, pacem, et con- 
 cordiam restituit, et dissidentes reconciliat, gutes 
 FVernehmen wiederherstellt. Hoc mediatoris munere 
 functus est Christus, dum mortem toleravit ad ve- 
 niam peccatorum, v. 6. et declaravit, Deum velle 
 hominibus condonare propter mortem a se tolera- 
 tam ; per doctrinam suam effecit, ut homines favo- 
 rem Dei optarent, et quererent; quod beneficium 
 est generale, et totius humani generis donum. Rom. 
 5,10. 2 Cor. 5, 19. "AvOpwrev hic intellige σχήματι 
 εὑρηθέντα ws ἄνθρωπον, Phil. 2,8. (Rosenm.). 
 
 6. ὁ δοὺς ἐαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων. Compare 
 Matt.20, 28. This shows the mode in which the me- 
 diation was effected. ᾿Αντίλυτρον, which seems to be 
 a stronger term than λύτρον, though nearly of the 
 same sense (and indeed Schleus. thinks it synony- 
 
 ὶ 
 
 * So Bp. Middleton ap. Slade: ““" Unless he had been deemed 
 more than man, there would have been no occasion for such an ex- 
 pression. We never find the word man so applied to any other per- 
 son. There is no such phrase as ἄνθρωπος Μωσῆς, or ἄνθρωπος 
 "lwarrns.” 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 217 
 
 mous), occurs in a Greek Translator of Ps. 48, 8., 
 and also in Hesych.: ἀντίλυτρον: ἀντίδοτον. It 
 might possibly be in some copies of the Sept. in St. 
 Paul’s age. On the full force of the term in ques- 
 tion, and of the whole passage, see the masterly note 
 of Whitby. 
 
 The words following τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις are, 
 from their brevity, somewhat obscure, and have been 
 differently interpreted. Rosenm. renders: ‘ hac 
 est doctrina temporibus suis reservata.” By μαρτύ- 
 ριον he understands that brief sum of it now pro- 
 pounded by the Apostle. And, indeed, μαρτύριον 
 does signify doctrine; but that signification seems 
 here little apposite; and the whole interpretation 
 yields a very frigid sense. That of Heinr., though 
 ingenious, is too contort to deserve attention. For 
 my own part, I see no interpretation so little liable 
 to objection as the commonly received one, which is 
 well expressed by Benson (ap. Slade) thus: “ who 
 gave himself as a ransom for many, as the great wit- 
 ness (of the truth of God’s word,) appearing in the 
 proper season (1 Tim. 6, 15. Tit. 1, 3.) appointed by 
 God, and signified in the antient Prophets, for his 
 appearing in the flesh, and undergoing such a scene 
 of humiliation and sufferings. Gal. 4, 4. Eph. 1, 
 10. And this is supported by the authority of the 
 Greek Commentators. Thus Theoph. (from Chrys.) 
 takes μαρτύριον for διὰ τοῦ μαρτυρίου. Or (he adds) 
 ἐφερμηνεύων τουτο, φησὶ νῦν, ὅτι ἀντίλυτρον τὸ μαρτύριον 
 λέγῳ, τουτέστι, τὸ πάθος" ἦλθε γὰρ μαρτυρήσων τῇ ἀλη- 
 θείᾳ μέχρι θανάτου. He explains καιροῖς ἰδίοις by Kou- 
 pois τοῖς προσήκουσιν" Theodoret and Cicumen. by 
 ἐπιτηδείοις. See Benson. i 
 
 7. εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κήρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος, “ to the 
 preaching and declaring of which I am appointed.” 
 Compare 2 Tim. 1,11. The parenthetical declara- 
 tion ἀληθείαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῷ, οὐ ψεύδομαι may be 
 compared with Rom. 9, 1. where see the note. Ben- 
 son’s version, “as I am a Christian, I speak the 
 
218 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Ii. 
 
 truth, and lie not !” is undignified, and indeed not so 
 accurate as the common one. ‘The sense. seems to 
 be: ‘I speak the truth before Christ, ἐνώπιον X., as 
 in the presence of Christ.” On the κῆρυξ and ἀπόσ- 
 τολος, the long note of Benson may be consulted 
 (though here, as very often, he is too fanciful), and 
 also that of Doddr. ᾿Εν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. These 
 words are by some, as Camer., Beza, Grot., Priceeus, 
 and most recent Commentators, applied to the Apos- 
 tle, and taken for πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθὴς, “ teaching sound 
 doctrine, without any admixture of false or adulte- 
 rate ones.” By the antients and many moderns they 
 are referred to the Gentiles, i. e. ‘* instructing them 
 in faith and truth ;” which Benson thinks an hendi- 
 adis for the true faith. But see Theophyl. 
 
 8. βούλομαι οὖν προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐν παντὶ 
 τόπῳ. ‘The οὖν is resumptive; for the Apostle re- 
 turns to what he was speaking of at ver. 1., namely, 
 public prayer. Benson observes with how much 
 propriety the Apostle introduces this solemn asser- 
 tion of his Apostolic power, as ambassador from 
 God. Hence the βούλομαι of the Apostle here and 
 at 1 Tim. 5, 14. Tit. 3, 8. may very well be rendered 
 I desire, wish, direct. By τοὺς ἄνδρας the best Com- 
 mentators are agreed is meant, the men, as distin- 
 guished from the women. See the learned and able 
 note of Benson, who has (I think) proved the point. 
 Ἔν παντὶ τόπῳ is admitted by the best Commentators, 
 antient and modern, to be said emphatically ; q. d. 
 «not in Jerusalem only, but every where else,” 1. 6. 
 (as Grot. limits it) wherever the place is proper for 
 public prayer. There is reason to think that these 
 assemblies were at Ephesus, Corinth, and probably 
 elsewhere, held at private houses ; and consequently 
 the whole society was divided into many such con- 
 venticula. 
 
 8. ἐπαίροντας ὁσίους χεῖρας. The ἐπαίροντες ὁσίους 
 χεῖρας is only inserted (as the best Commentators 
 say) ex naturali orantium habitu. So Apulej. (cited 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. It. 219 
 
 by Pric.) Hic habitus orantium est, ut manibus in 
 ccelum extensis precemur.* By ὁσίους is meant pure 
 and undefiled; that which is properly applicable 
 only to the person, being applied to the hands ; as is 
 frequent in the Old Testament; as Ps. 26. “1 will 
 wash my hands in innocency, and so will come to 
 thy altar.” ‘* There is (as Benson says) both an allu- 
 sion to the raising of the hands in prayer, and the 
 washing them before prayer ; which was a symbolical 
 action, denoting the purity of intention which should 
 accompany prayer.” All this is so plain that it need 
 not be enlarged upon. 
 
 It is further directed to be χωρὶς ὀργῆς καὶ διαλο- 
 γισμοῦ. What is meant by the former is clear. Theo- 
 phyl. explains it: μνησικακίας καὶ ἐμπαθείας τὸν πρὸς 
 τὸν ἀδελφὸν. And so (εμππιρη. and Theodoret, 
 and all the earlier modern Commentators, especially 
 Grot., who aptly compares Maimonid. in Regulis 
 orandi: ‘ Si quis senserit animum 5101 commotum et 
 cor turgens, ne oret, sed quiescat dum mens sit se- 
 data.” See Matt. 5, 24. and 6, 15. and the notes. 
 Doddr. however understands it of imprecatory Jan- 
 guage against their enemies mixed up with their 
 prayers. And he cautions those who join in free 
 prayer not to mingle their own angry and irregular 
 passions with their addresses to God; than which 
 nothing, he justly adds, can be more displeasing to 
 God, reproachful to Christian assemblies, or offen- 
 sive to persons of a right temper and disposition. 
 This indeed would be transgressing the Apostle’s 
 direction in the very worst manner: yet I can 
 hardly think he had it in view. With respect to the 
 
 * Here Wets. cites Galen: ὁσίας χεῖρας eis ἠέρα ἀείρας. Arist. 
 Eccl. 264. ras χεῖρας αἴρειν. Hor, Carm. 3, 23, 1. Calo supinas si 
 tuleris manus. To which I add Eurip. Iph. T. 269. θεοσεβὴς δ᾽ 
 ἡμῶν τις dy, “Avéoxe χεῖρα, καὶ πρόσευξατ᾽ εἰσιδών. Aristid. 2, 
 398 D. οὐ τὰς χεῖρας ἄνω σὺν αἰδοῖ καὶ δέει συγγνώμην αἰτήσει τῶν 
 μέχρι τοῦδε ἡμαρτημένων τοὺς θεοὺς. Philo Jud. 648 c. καθαρὰς 
 καὶ παρθένους χείρας ἀνατείνας. Plut, Mar. 26. ἤυξατο κ, ἀνασχὼν 
 τὰς χεῖραξ. 
 
220 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 
 
 διαλογισμιοῦ, it is explained by some, as Est., Benson, 
 and Heinr., of disputatious contention, debate, and 
 altercation respecting the taking the lead in a con- 
 gregation (see Rom. 14.), or on the question respect- 
 ing the reception of the Gentiles. Butit can hardly 
 be supposed that they brought such disputes to 
 prayer: and therefore I prefer the interpretation of 
 the antients and most moderns, doubting. So Theo- 
 phyl.: ἀμφιβολίαν Φησί: τουτέστιν, ἵνα μὴ ἀμφι βόλως 
 καὶ μετὰ δισταγμιοῦ προσέρχῃ, ἀλλὰ πιστεύων καὶ μὴ 
 διακρινόμιενος, τουτέστιν, ἀμφιβάλλων ὅτι ἢ λήψῃ, 7 οὐ 
 λήψη, ἃ αἰτεῖς. And this, as it is supported by so 
 many passages of Scripture, especially Joh. 1, 6., 
 and (as Doddr. says) “ furnishes another important 
 thought on the subject,” seems to deserve the pre- 
 ference. 
 9, 10. ὡσαύτως καὶ τὰς γιναῖκας----ἀγαθῶν. 
 
 Here must be repeated βούλομαι, not (as Grot.) βούλομαι προ- 
 σεύχεσθαι ; which is plainly contrary to the Apostie’s intention, 
 (Rosenm.) And so most Interpreters, including the E. V., Doddr., 
 and Mackn. But in this there is something awkward ; though 
 Mackn. helps it out by supplying, ‘‘ before appearing in the assem- 
 blies for worship :” which is, however, arbitrary and frigid. I can- 
 not but think, with Grot. and other moderns, and all the antients, 
 that the whole of the preceding is meant to be repeated: but (I 
 would add) with an adaptation of προσεύχεσθαι to the sense re- 
 quired by the context, namely, silent prayer : and when the Apostle 
 adds ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ, 1 think he means: “ Let them attend 
 the public prayers in modest apparel. And then at the following 
 words μετὰ αἴδους, the βούλομαι must be repeated, with the following 
 sense: “1 wish them (I say) to adorn themselves (on such occa- 
 sions) not in,” &c. 
 
 It is strange that Salmas., Koppe, and others, should have taken 
 καταστολὴ in the sense cohibitio, which is very frigid and inapposite, 
 It is rightly interpreted by the antients, and almost all moderns, of 
 apparel. So Theophyl.: ἀπαιτεῖ τὸ κατασταλεῖσθαὶϊ κοσμίως καὶ μὴ 
 περιεργῶς᾽ ἀκοσμία γὰρ ἐκεῖνο. He well explains καταστολὴ thus : 
 Καταστολὴν δὲ λέγει τὸ πάντοθεν περιεσταλῆναι καὶ συγκεκα- 
 λύφσθαι, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἀνακεκαλύφθαι ἀναισχύντως. This the modern 
 Commentators have not attended to: though Hesych. explains it 
 περιβολὴν. The word occurs (among other passages cited by Wets.) 
 in Joseph. and Is. 61, 3. καταστολὴν δόξης, and also Plut. 1, 154. 
 καταστολὴν wea βαλίῆοῳ though it there means restraint. 
 
 The Apostle then adds, further to explain his meaning, pera 
 αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσυνῆς κοσμεῖν ἑαυτὰς. Of these words αἰδοῦς and 
 σωφροσυνῆς the former is said, by the Commentators, to relate to 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 22% 
 
 the countenance and conversation; the latter to the whole de- 
 meanour. Here Wets. adduces a vast number of Classical citations, 
 the most apposite of which are the following. Thucyd. J, 84, 
 aidovs σωφροσύνης πλεῖστον μετέχει. Arrian Epict. 4, 8. σώφρο- 
 σύνης, κοσμιότητος καὶ αἰδοῦς ἐραστὰς. J. Firmic. 8, 30. verecun- 
 dia, gravitate morum atque honestA conversatione ornatos, Xen, 
 Mem. 2. τὸ σῶμα τῇ καθαρότητι κεκοσμημένην, τὰ δὲ ὄμματα αἰδοῖ, 
 τὸ δὲ σχῆμα σωφροσύνῃ. But even these are not quite to the pur- 
 pose ; since the expressions are, perhaps, only to be regarded as ad- 
 verbial phrases for σωφρονῶς, &c. 
 
 The words following are further exegetical. The πλέγμ. is ex- 
 plained by Heinr.: “ annulus, quo implicantur, aut in cincinnos tor- 
 quentur crines, unde existebat ἐμπλοκὴ τριχῶν 1 Pet. 3,3. Heb, 
 mwpo ΠΩ», Jes. 3,24.” The χρυσῷ, he thinks, is to be united with 
 the πλέγμασιν by an hendiadis. Wetstein has here brought toge- 
 ther such an immense mass of passages illustrative of the words 
 πλέγμασιν and papyapiracs as might astonish the most dili- 
 gent collector ; yet they illustrate the subject less than could be 
 supposed, and most of them are superfluous, Of the use of gold in 
 the head-dress, and in other parts of female attire, we need not be 
 told: neither is this a place for minutiz of sucha kind. Omitting 
 these, therefore, I shall content myself with some original observa- 
 tions on the passage at large. The best Commentators in these 
 general and positive terms, seek a limitation. Of the various me- 
 thods pursued, the best is, to take οὐχ---ἀλλὰ in the sense non tam 
 —quam, examples of which are not unfrequent; as Luke 14, 12. 
 Joh, 6,27. Hos. 6, 6. and 1 Pet. 3, 3. ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν 
 (ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων, ἢ ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων) 
 κόσμος" ἀλλ᾽ ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας. So I would point: for the 
 
 use οὗ καὶ (not ἢ) before περιθέσεως χρυσίων shows that the 
 ΟΠ words are to be taken with the preceding ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν ; and 
 if so, they can mean nothing but golden combs, clasps, bands, 
 and other ornaments for the hair, as the learned have conjec- 
 tured, but not proved. So Thucyd. 1, 6., describes the antient 
 Athenians as χρυσῶν τεττίγων ἐνέρσει κρώβυλον ἀναδούμενοι τῶν 
 ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ τριχῶν. The πλέγματα of St. Paul corresponds 
 to the κρωβύλοι of Thucyd.; and they both mean cincinna. And, 
 as in the passage of St. Paul, the word χρυσῷ comes immediately 
 after πλέγμασιν, and as the association of ideas would so naturally 
 (as in the case of St. Peter) lead to the mention of those golden 
 ornaments which adorned the hair, I would rather interpret it of 
 these, than of armlets, or ear-rings. Not so with the papyapirats, 
 by which I should understand finger-rings, armlets, necklaces, ear- 
 
 * Which may he illustrated from Artemid, 4, 73., p, 394., στολὴν, 
 ἦ ὑπόδησιν, ἢ ἐμπλέγματα γυναικεῖα. So the Etym. Mag. 
 explains ἐμπλέκτρια by κομμήτρια, qui crines intorquet. And τὰ ἐμ- 
 πλέγματα are instruments for binding the hair, like the χρυσαὶ rer- 
 riyes of the antient Athenians. Hence may be understood an ob- 
 scure passage of Artemid. 5, 53., ἔδοξε τις γυνὴ τὴν ἐμπλέκουσαν 
 ἀυτῇ θεράπαιναν κ, τ΄ Δ.» i, 6. τὴν ἐμπλεκτρίαν, 
 
222 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 
 
 rings, and brooches, made of pearls, or other precious stones; for I 
 entirely agree with Schleus:, that μαργαρίτης sometimes “ latius 
 patere, et omnino lapides pretiosos significare.” I will only ob- 
 serve that as χρυσὸς and papyapira are here used for the orna- 
 ments made of those materials, so the Latins use aurum and 
 gemma; as Virg. Ain. 4, 138. Crines nodantur in aurum. And 
 Ovid Heroic. Epist. 21, 89. Ipsa dedit gemmas digitis, et omnibus 
 
 aurum. 
 The Apostles, therefore, both mean to admonish Christian women 
 
 to pay far less attention to external adorning than to internal, and to 
 make virtue their especial ornament. A very similar passage, which 
 will much illustrate these of the Apostles, occurs in Philostr. 
 Heroic. c. 13., éxoug re ἀνεπαχθῶς" ob yap ἤσκει τὴν κόμην, οὐδὲ 
 ὑπέκειτο αὐτῇ, ἀλλὰ μόνην τὴν ἀρετὴν ἐποιεῖτο κόσμημα, Where the 
 sentence ov γὰρ ἥσκει τὴν κόμην, is qualified and explained by the 
 following οὐδὲ ὑπέκειτο αὐτῇ. See also Melissa ad Clearetam, p.749., 
 cited by Wets. 
 
 Upon the whole, it seems clear that the direction in question is 
 intended chiefly to apply to their dress at the religious assemblies ; 
 though it may be extended, mutatis mutandis, to their apparel at 
 other times. 
 
 ° , ’ 
 
 10. ἐπαγγελομέναις θεοσέβειαν. The verb ἐπαγγέ- 
 λεσθαι, like the Latin profiteri, is used with various 
 substantives in the accusative signifying the names 
 of sciences and arts, and sometimes those of mental 
 habits, and virtues, as here. Of all these examples 
 may be seen in Wets. Θεοσεβεία, properly signifies a 
 worship of God, and was applied by the Israelites to 
 the religious observances of a faithful devotee; but 
 it was borrowed, like many other words, and trans- 
 ferred to the Christian religion, with a change of sig- 
 nification, so as to denote what we call godliness. 
 
 11, 12. γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχία pavbaverw ἐν πάση ὑποταγῇ. 
 The best Commentators are agreed that this relates 
 to the same subject, namely, public worship; q. d. 
 “‘ Not only let the men alone pray, and the women be 
 clothed with modesty of every kind, but let the 
 women refrain from teaching : let the woman learn,” 
 &c. This is mentioned, lest it might have been sup- 
 posed that they were allowed to instruct, if not to 
 pray. Theophyl. well explains thus : Οὐ μόνον μέχρι 
 σχημάτων καὶ καταστολῆς κοσμία ἔστω ἡ γυνὴ, ἀλλὰ καὶ 
 μέχρι φωνῆς" μὴ φθεγγέσθω γὰρ, φησι, μηδὲ περὶ πνευμα- 
 τικῶν, ἀλλὰ μανθανέτω μιόνον. Touro δὲ αὐτῇ ἔσται 
 μᾶλλον, ἐὰν ἡσυχάση. 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 11. 223 
 
 11. ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ, “in quiet silence.’ The words 
 following ἐν πάσῃ Urorayy are exegetical of the pre- 
 ceding, and signify ‘* with all obedience and submis- 
 sion.” Though the μανθανέτω might well indicate the 
 Apostle’s meaning, yet, to make it the more decided, 
 he adds γυναικὶ δὲ διδάσκειν οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν 
 ἀνδρὸς. The verb αὐθεντεῖν properly signifies ““ to slay 
 with one’s own hand ;” then, to do any thing (as we 
 familiarly say) of one’s own head (Meeris, αὐτοδικὸς), 
 or taking law into one’s own head. Hence it comes 
 to mean act the master, exercise authority over: 
 and thus it is here explained by the antients ἐξουσι- 
 agev. As verbs of ruling take the Genitive, so here 
 we have ἀνδρὸς, by which is meant, not husband, but, 
 ina general sense, man. Indeed ἀνδρὸς and γυναικὶ 
 may be said to stand for the male and female sex. 
 
 At εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ, Heinr. subauds κελεύω. But 
 βούλομαι, Which has been used more than once, and 
 has nearly the same sense, is preferable. Rosenm. 
 explains the ἡσυχίᾳ by otio, 1. 6. a not discharging 
 any public office. But it seems rather to signify 
 silence, with the adjunct notion of obedience and 
 acquiescence. 
 
 The Philological Commentators here overwhelm 
 us with passages expressive of the duty of the female 
 sex to observe silence and obedience to themale ! 
 But all this learning might have been spared; since 
 it is (I think) clear that the Apostle’s words only 
 apply to silence and obedience to the other sex in the 
 exercise of public worship: though I grant that 
 political and domestic subjection seems implied in the 
 argument for religious subordination. And, indeed, 
 considering the doctrine of the Old Testament and 
 the Jewish Law, St. Paul could consider the matter 
 in no other light. 
 
 18, 14. In adducing these reasons why the woman 
 should be in subjection to the man, we are to consi- 
 der St. Paul as a Jew urging such arguments as Jews 
 urged, and such as were understood and allowed by 
 Jews, and were regarded as popular arguments in 
 
Q24 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 
 
 general, especially to those who, like the Gentile 
 Christians, acknowledged the authority of the Old 
 Testament. Compare a very similar passage of 
 1 Cor. 11, 8 & 9., where see the note. That the 
 Jews were accustomed thus to argue is clear from 
 the numerous Rabbinical passages adduced by Wets. 
 and Loesner. They regarded even those elements 
 which were first created as of greater dignity. 
 
 The ἐπλάσθη is used for ἐκτίσθη ; with a reference 
 to Gen. 2, 7. καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ 
 τῆς γῆς. 
 
 14.. ᾿Αδὰμ. οὐκ ἠπατήθη. The antient Commentators, 
 and most judicious moderns, rightly repeat πρῶτος 
 from the former verse. But it is also implied that 
 Adam was not deceived by the serpent, but by the 
 woman. Such is (I conceive) the true view of the 
 sense, which is obscured rather than illustrated b 
 many modern Commentators. See Pole and Wolf. 
 
 Of the next words 7 δὲ γυνὴ arariicion ἐν maga- 
 βάσει γέγονε no satisfactory account is given by the 
 Commentators. But it should seem that we have 
 only again to take ἀπατηθεῖσα for πρώτη arar., and 
 take ἐν παραβάσει γέγονε as meant κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, 1. 6. 
 « But the woman being (first) deceived, was espe- 
 cially in fault (for the phrase ἐν παραβάσει γίνεσθαι is 
 similar to in culpd esse, and savours of Latinism).’’ 
 So Theophyl. observes: πρὸς τὴν σύγκρισιν οὖν τῆς 
 γυναικὸς αὐτὸν φησι μὴ ἀπατῆσθαι. For, (he adds) Eve 
 was brought over by desire; Adam, by the persua- 
 sions of his wife. And he sums up the general argu- 
 ment of the Apostle thus: ᾧησιν οὖν, ὅτι ἅπαξ ἐδίδαξεν 
 ἢ γυνὴ, καὶ πάντας κατέστρεψε" διὰ τοῦτο μὴ διδασκέτῳ 
 τὸ γένος" κούφον γὰρ ἐστι καὶ εὐπαράδεκτον, καὶ εὐπαρά- 
 ywyo. Theargument is built upon the original and 
 thence derived comparative imbecility and persua- 
 sibility of the female sex, and consequent unfitness 
 for public instruction. 
 
 15. σωθήσεται δὲ---σωφροσύνης. 
 
 There are few passages that have more exercised the Commenta- 
 tors than the present. All the various interpretations it were use- 
 
J TIMOTHY, CHAP. 11. pe £8 
 
 less for me to detail and review. I shall therefore notice the prin- 
 cipal ones. 
 
 The antient and many eminent modern Commentators, as Crell., 
 Le Clere, and especially the recent ones, interpret the rexvo- 
 yoréas of education. But this is quite unsupported by authority, or 
 even analogy ; and yields too limited a sense. Rosenm. (from the 
 Syr.and Crell.) takes the διὰ for σὺν; and τεκνογονέας for the off 
 spring, the children themselves : which, he thinks, is confirmed by 
 μείνωσιν. But that admits ofa more natural interpretation in ano- 
 ther way ; and this use of διὰ in so uncommon a sense with rexy. 
 is unprecedented, and too little analogical to permit any confidence 
 in this interpretation, which, indeed, yields a very frigid sense. I 
 should prefer that of Knatchbull, Hammond, Kidder, Doddr., 
 Wells, Harris, and Mackn., who understand τῆς recy. of the bringing 
 forth of the promised Messiah: which they think countenanced by 
 the article, and agreeable to the context. Yet it involves too much 
 harshness ; and those are precarious grounds on which to rest such 
 a sense; nor (as Benson observes) is there any where else in Scrip- 
 ture any allusion to such a promise. The least objectionable inter- 
 pretation seems to be that of many eminent moderns, as Whitby, 
 Locke, Benson, and others, who take the διὰ in the sense through, 
 and regard this as a general intimation that pious women might 
 cheerfully commit themselves to God in the hour of nature’s dis- 
 tress, if they trusted in God, maintaining charity withal, persevering 
 in chastity, and strictly adhering to the laws of temperance in every 
 other respect. But this lies open to the objection that the deliver- 
 ance is not confined to Christian, or even virtuous women: and 
 though the answer of Whitby seems plausible, it is not satisfactory. 
 I would observe that the nature of the context evidently requires 
 σωθήσεται to be taken, not in the sense of temporal deliverance, but 
 of salvation in the theological sense. Then it has not been suffi- 
 ciently attended to that at σωθ. we are to repeat γυνὴ, and take it 
 of the whole sex; by which we meet the objection that many die 
 virgins, and others do not bear children. Finally, the sense of the 
 passage, which is expressed populariter, and therefore must not be 
 too much pressed upon, seems to be as follows: ‘‘ The sex, how- 
 ever, which was the means of bringing such ruin on the human 
 race, will not suffer the punishment of this, but will only undergo 
 that temporal penalty which was denounced in the curse on the 
 first parent: it will, I say, be saved, as a sex, and all the individuals 
 of it, if they embrace and continue in the Christian faith, and espe- 
 cially practise those duties of loving obedience, holiness, and mo- 
 desty, which it enjoins.” This view of the passage is (I find) nearly 
 the same with that which appears to have been taken by Calvin ; 
 and it seems to be liable to no serious objection: for the enallage is 
 too common to create any difficulty. 
 
 VOL. VIII. Q 
 
226 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Hitherto the Apostle has been speaking of public 
 prayer in sacred assemblies. Now a new subject is 
 introduced, on the virtues required in him who 
 should preside as supreme teacher over these assem- 
 blies (ver. 1—7. Compare 1 Pet. 5, 1. seqq.) ; which 
 leads the Apostle to notice those desired in a consci- 
 entious administrator of the public property. (ver. 8 
 —13.) (Heinr.) 
 
 VersE 1. πιστὸς ὃ λόγος. On these words the 
 Commentators are at issue. ‘The antients and some 
 moderns (as Pisc., Mag., Wells, and Slade) refer 
 them to the preceding. Others, as the most eminent 
 moderns, to the following, and (I think) with most 
 reason: for though Mr. Slade urges that the same 
 phrase is referred to what goes before at c. 4, 9.; 
 yet it there rather refers to the whole of the context ; 
 and this formula is unquestionably referred to the 
 following, supra 1, 15. And as to his objection, 
 that the words scarcely suit the subject, and the 
 Chapter did not require to be thus solemnly intro- 
 duced ; I answer that it is not necessary to press on 
 the sense of πιστὸς, which is well rendered in our 
 Common Version, frue. And so 1, 15. 2 Tim. 2, 
 11. Tit. 1,9. πιστοῦ λόγουι Apoc. 21, 5. ὅτι οὗτοι οἱ 
 λόγοι πιστοὶ καὶ ἀληθινοί" & 22, 0. 
 
 Before εἴ τις must be supplied ὅτι, which is omit- 
 ted, to impart vigour to the sentence by the asyn- 
 deton. 
 
 1. ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται. Here there is an idiom 
 common in the Classical writers. ‘Thus Diodor. 
 Sic. L. 14. (cited by Munthe) ἡγεμονίας ὀρέγεσθαι. 
 ‘Exioxorys, office of a Bishop. Karod evyo. The 
 ‘addition of the word ἔργου shows that the Apostle 
 adverts to the duty itself, and not to the honour or 
 emolument ; and I cannot but think that he meant 
 thus to hint that the former, not the latter, was to be 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 227 
 
 coveted.* *Epyov is always used of a laborious and 
 weighty office. So Tsocrat. Dem. (cited by Wets.) 
 τοὺς δόξης ὁρεγομιένους ---ὅσοι μὲν οὖν πρὸς τοὺς ἑαυτῶν 
 Φίλους, τοὺς προτρεπτικοὺς λόγους συγγράφουσι, καλὺν 
 
 ἔργον ἐπιχειροῦσι. 
 
 Rosenm. briefly remarks on the term ἐπίσκοπος : ““ ἢ. 1. est doctor 
 et antistes.’ But the matter is not to be d'smissed in so hasty and 
 summary a manner See on Philip. 1, 1. Theodoret annotates 
 thus : ᾿Επίσκοπον δὲ ἐνταῦθα τὸν πρεσβύτερον λέγει, ὡς τὴν πρὸς 
 Φιλιππησίους ἐπιστολὴν ἑρμηνεύοντες ἀπεδείξαμεν" ῥάδιον δὲ τοῦτο 
 καὶ ἐντεῦθεν καταμαθεῖν" μετὰ γὰρ τοὺς ἐπισκοπι! τοὺς νόμους τοὺς τοῖς 
 διακόνοις προσήκοντας γράφει, τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους παραλιπὼν" ἄλλ᾽ 
 ὅπερ ἔφην, τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐκάλουν πότε πρεσβυτέρους καὶ ἐπισκόπους" 
 τοὺς δὲ νῦν καλουμένους ἐπισκόπους, ἀποστόλους ὠνόμαξον" τοῦ δὲ 
 χρόνου πορϊόντος, τὸ μὲν τῆς ἀποστ ολῆς ὄνομα τοῖς ἀληθῶς é ἀποστό- 
 λοις κατέλιπον" τὴν δὲ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς προσηγορίαν τοῖς πάλαι καλου- 
 μένοις ἀποστόλοις ἐπέθεσαν" οὕτω Φιλιππησίων ἀπόστολος ὁ Ἕπα- 
 φρύδιτος ἢ ἦν" ὑμῶν γὰρ, φησὶν, ἀπόστολον, καὶ συνεργὸν τῆς χρείας 
 μου" οὕτω Ἱζρητῶν ὁ Tiros, καὶ ᾿Ασιανῶν 6 Ψιμύθεος ὦ ἀπόστολοι" οὕτω 
 ἀπὸ τῶν “Ἱεροσολύμων τοῖς ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ ἔγραψαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ 
 οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως εἰ καὶ πρεσβυτέροις ταῦτα ὁ θεῖος ἐ ἐνομοτέ- 
 θησε Παῦλος, εὔδηλον ὡς τοὺς ἐπισκοποὺς πρώτους προσήκει τούτους 
 φυλάττειν τοὺς νόμους, ἅτε δὴ καὶ μείξονος μεταλαχόντας τιμῆς. 
 
 On the term in question see Schleus., who observes, from Suidas, 
 that among the Athenians the name ἐπισκόποι was given to οἱ 
 eis τὰς ὑπηκόους πόλεις ἐπισκέψασθαι τὰ παρ᾽ ἑκάστοις πεμπόμενοι. 
 He might have cited Appian, 1, 705, 39. Φιλοποίμενα---ἐπίσκοπον 
 ᾿Ἐφεσίων. 
 
 2. Now follow the qualifications which in the elec- 
 tion of Bishops were especially to be regarded. 
 
 2. ἀνεπίληπτος 1s properly an agonistical term, sig- 
 nifying one who gives his adversary no hold upon 
 him; but it is often (as here) applied metaphorically 
 to him who gives others no handle to justly accuse 
 him. Whether there be any mystical allusion (as 
 Grot. and others say) to the requisition under the 
 law, that the priests were to be without bodily infir- 
 mities (see Lev. 21,16.) seems doubtful. 
 © 2. μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα. 
 
 The meaning of these words has been very warmly debated. My 
 limits will not permit me to detail at large the various opinions : 
 
 * So Theodoret : οὐχ ἀπλῶς τῆς ἐπιθυμίας, ἀλλὰ τῆς φιλαρχίας 
 κατηγορεῖ" καὶ διδάσκει μὴ τιμῆς, ἀλλ᾽ eae ὀρέγεσθαι" μὴ τὴν 
 
 ἀξίαν ποθεῖν, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἀξίας τὸ ἔργον ἐπιξητεῖν. «" 
 
 q2 
 
228 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Ill. 
 
 and therefore I must refer the reader to Pole, Benson, and Mackn. 
 That the Apostle forbids polygamy, is plain: and the only question 
 is whether he means successive, or simultaneous polygamy. The 
 former position is maintained by almost all the Roman Catholic, 
 and many Protestant Commentators. They are, however, not agreed 
 on the exact kind. Some take it of the polygamy of having more 
 than two females, who, though not in the possession of conjugal 
 rights, have, at least by unjust divorce, a claim to them. So Hamm. 
 &e. Others, as almost all the Catholic Commentators, and also 
 Grot. and Wets., understand this as forbidding second marriages, 
 after the death of the other party. The maintainers of this opi- 
 nion are properly called Monogamists. The latter position, namely, 
 that it applies to simultaneous polygamy, is supported by the most 
 eminent Protestant Commentators, especially Benson: and such 
 are called Deulerogamists. The question (which is indeed a per- 
 plexing one) seems to be almost wholly at issue between the two 
 classes, the Monogamists and the Deuterogamists properly so called. 
 And I must confess that great erudition, and what appears great au- 
 thority, is ranged on the former side. On the latter, though far less 
 learning, yet, Ε apprehend, greater show of reason is found. Indeed 
 as to the former class, the authority is less powerful than it seems 
 to be; since such works as the Constit. Apostolici, Constit. Clem. 
 and others, are generally admitted not to be of the high antiquity 
 claimed for them by some; or, at all events, they are interpo- 
 lated. And though Tertullian, a very antient Father, was a Mono- 
 gamist, yet his opinions on many other points are so eccentric as to 
 greatly weaken his authority on any. And as to Clemens, Aler., and 
 others, they were of a much later period; and there is reason to 
 think that the dogmas in support of celibacy and monkery had very 
 early started up in the Church. Besides, to their’s we may oppose 
 the opinion of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Jerome, passages 
 from whom are cited by Benson. To which it may be added, that 
 the annotation of Theodoret (who almost always compiles from the 
 best authorities) is in favour of deuterogamy; i.e. he takes the 
 passage as forbidding polygamy. His observations are so admirable 
 that, though somewhat long, I cannot but detail them. Πάλαι 
 γὰρ εἰώθεισαν καὶ λληνες καὶ Ιουδαῖοι, καὶ δύο καὶ τρὶσὶ καὶ πλείοσι 
 γυναιξὶ νόμῳ γάμου κατὰ ταῦτον συνοικεῖν" τινες δὲ καὶ νῦν, καίτοι 
 τῶν βασιλικῶν νόμων δύο κατὰ ταῦτον ἄγεσθαι κωλνόντων γυναῖκας, 
 καὶ παλλακῖσι μίγνυνται, καὶ ἑταίραις ἔφασαν τοίνυν τὸν θεῖον 
 ἀπόστολον εἰρηκέναι; τὸν μιᾷ μόνῃ γυναικὶ συνοικοῦντα σωφρονῶς, 
 τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἄξιον εἶναι χειροτονίας" οὐ γὰρ τὸν δεύτερον, φασὶν, 
 ἐξέβαλε γάμον, ὅγε πολλάκις τοῦτο γενέσθαι κελεύσας" γυνὴ γὰρ, 
 φησὶ, δέδεται νόμῳ ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον Eh ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς" ἐὰν δὲ ἀποθάνῃ 
 ὁ ἀνὴρ, ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν ᾧ θέλει γαμηθῆναι, μόνον ἐν Κυρίφ' καὶ 
 πάλιν" λέγω δὲ ταῖς ἀγάμοις, καὶ ταῖς χήραις᾽ καὶ συνάψας ἑκάτερον 
 τάγμα, ἕνα τέθεικε νόμον" τῷ ὄντι γὰρ περκειμένης τῆς ἐγκρατείας 
 οὗ τῆς γνώμης ἣ διγαμία' εἰ μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸς τὴν προτέραν ἐκβαλὼν 
 ἑτέρᾳ συνεξύγῃ, μέμψεως ἄξιος καὶ κατηγορίας ὑπεύϑονος" εἰ δὲ τὸ 
 βίαιον τοῦ θανάτου διέξευξε τὴν προτέραν, ἡ δὲ φύσις ἐπικειμένη 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 229 
 
 δευτέρᾳ δευχθῆναι κατηνάγκασε γυναικὶ, οὐκ ἐκ γγώμης, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ 
 περιστάσεως ὁ δεύτερος γεγένηται γάμος. And ‘Theophyl. seems to 
 have been of the same opinion. Nay, even Chrys. himself, though 
 he says very little, appears to have been a Deuterogamist. The 
 purpose of the Apostle, he says, was τὴν ἀμετρίαν κωλύειν. But 
 how can it justly be thought an ἀμετρία to marry a second wife 
 after the death of the first, especially in an age so corrupt as the 
 apostolic? Besides, as Benson justly observes, the Apostle at Hebr. 
 13, 4., speaks of marriage as honourable for all ; and in this Epistle 
 he speaks with severity of those who forbid to marry. (See more in 
 Benson.) Moreover, as we have seen that the authorities of the 
 Monogamists are not very formidable, so, I think, it will appear 
 that their arguments are as little so. I may, however, be excused 
 detailing them; and the reader is referred to Whitby, Benson, 
 Doddrige, Macknight, Rosenmuller, and Heinr. Jaspis de- 
 cides the matter thus: ‘Qui secundas celebrabat nuptias, ni- 
 mie intemperantiz et incontinentie accusabatur, fides, priori 
 uxori data, neglecta videbatur, novercam in familiam inducere 
 eique liberos prioris conjugis tradere, periculosum ducebatur. 
 Huic opinioni caut® se accommodat Paulus, ut 5, 9, Efr. Tit. 
 1,6. Neque vero ideo scripsit commune praceptum seu legem 
 omni tempore observandam. Regula modo est prudentiz, ut 5 
 c. 1 Cor. 7. 15." I am inclined to acquiesce in the opinion that 
 the Apostle intended to repress all intemperance by forbidding 
 polygamy both simultaneous and successive (i.e. by causeless di- 
 vorce*). But, after all, the point in question is so little capable of 
 positive determination, that perhaps the most prudent verdict of a 
 critical jury would be in this, as in many other cases, ‘* Non liquet.” 
 At all events, we see how little the Romanists have to plead in de- 
 fence of the celibacy of the clergy. 
 
 2. νηφάλεον, cwhpova, κόσμιον, vigilant, sober, or- 
 derly. (See Theophyl.) These epithets seem to 
 form a character. ‘That such should be the quali- 
 fications of Christian Bishops, is no wonder ; since 
 we find from the Classical writers that many of them 
 were required even in the Heathen Priests. So 
 /&schyl. Theb. 606. Οὗτος δ᾽ ὁ μάντις σώφρων, di- 
 
 * It is strange that any, as Cameron, should have supposed the 
 Apostle meant only to enjoin conjugal fidelity to a wife. For surely 
 none could need to be told that an adulterer was no fit person to be 
 Bishop. 
 
 Tt This is suggested by the very term ἐπίσκοπος, which implies 
 vigilant superintendence. In this view I would cite an interesting 
 passage adduced from an antient Poet in the Schol. on Eurip, 
 Pheen. 1123. Kai οἱ ἐπίσκοπον. “Apyov tel κρατερόν τε μέγαν τε, 
 Τέτροσιν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ὁρώμενον ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα" ᾿Ακάματον δὲ οἱ ὦρσε 
 θεὰ μένος, οὐδὲ οἱ ὕπνος Πίπτεν ἐπὶ βλεφάροι», φυλακὴ δ᾽ ἔχεν ἔμπεδον 
 αὐτὸν. 
 
230 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 
 
 καιὸς, ἀγαθὸς, εὐσεβὴς avijo, μέγας προφήτης. ‘Thus 
 the terms here used are sometimes found in the 
 Classical writers; especially the two last. Wets. 
 adduces several examples, to which I add Herodian 
 1, 2, 3. & 1, 8, 5. Κόσμιος signifies decorous, orderly. 
 So Theophyl. explains it σεμνοπρεπῆ. In the same 
 sense σέμνος is used, Tit. 2, ὦ. and Phil. 4, 8. 
 
 Φιλόξενον, hospitable. A quality, it may be ob- 
 served, especially necessary for those times, in which, 
 as there were no inns, it was the more a duty to 
 relieve the wants of strangers, travellers, &c. See 
 Rom. 12, 13. In the parallel passage of Titus there 
 isadded Φηλάγαθον. 
 
 Διδακτικόν. It is strange that Schleus. should 
 render this docibilis, i. e. one who is docile, will not 
 obstinately have his own way. It rather denotes 
 one possessing the knowledge to teach and the fa- 
 culty of communicating it, so as to be an useful 
 instructor. So Tit. 1, 7. ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν 
 διδαχηὴν πιστοῦ λόγου, ἵνα δυνατὸς ἦ καὶ παρακαλεῖν ἐν 
 τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούση, καὶ τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας 
 ἐλέγχειν. 
 
 8. μὴ πάροινον. The antient, and some modern 
 Commentators, as Erasm. and Pric., and most recent 
 ones, explain this ὑβριστὴν. And the word sometimes 
 has that sense, since it not only denotes the use of 
 wine, παρὰ τὸ δέον, but the brutal spirit which it en- 
 genders. Yet one can scarcely see why the Apostle 
 should mention that; since it is not likely that any 
 one stained with such a vice would be elected. See 
 the note infr. ver. 8. He rather seems, by the μὴ 
 πάροινον---οἰσ χροκερὸη, to advert to certain habits 
 which, not being decidedly vicious, might, in the 
 opinion of some, not quite unfit a man for the office 
 in question, and which, considering the prevalence 
 of drunkenness, he would be likely to contract. The 
 term, therefore, seems to be synonymous with the 
 μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῴ προσέχοντας said of the Deacons at 
 ver. 8., and may be rendered: ‘not given to much 
 wine.” 
 
 ae τ 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 231 
 
 Πλήκτην. This is usually taken in the physical 
 sense, vo striker, non manu promptus, as says Gell. 
 20,1. But it is objected, that it is no great matter for 
 a Bishop to abstain from this. Both the antients 
 and the most eminent moderns take it in a metapho- 
 rical sense, to denote pugnacious, quarrelsome ; 
 which seems confirmed by the antithetical ἄμαχον." 
 The antients explain it, one who indulges in bitter 
 and severe invectives. Which may be included ; 
 since it is becoming in a Bishop to correct in the 
 spirit of meekness ; and, to use the words of Jaspis, 
 sit potius ἐπιεικὴς, ἐγχωρών, μέτριος, NON summi juris 
 semper tenax, sed pronus ad ferendam et condonan- 
 dam injuriam, 
 
 8. μὴ αἰσ χροκερδῆ. This is usually interpreted, ‘not 
 guilty of filthy lacre, not sordidly covetous.” But 
 this is liable to the same objection as certain inter- 
 pretations of rapoivos and πλήκτης just adverted to. 
 Nor are we confined to such a sense.. The term aic- 
 χροκερδὴς is of extensive signification, and denotes 
 not only a lover of filthy lucre, but “ one who would 
 gain money by any methods, if not dishonest, yet 
 discreditable.” So Theophyl.: ὁ μηδὲν κέρδος παραι- 
 Toupevos, Kav ὕθεν δήποτε ἡ. And the best modern 
 Commentators are agreed that this is the sense here. 
 So Crell., Mackn., and Jaspis, which last Commen- 
 tator observes: ““ Artem sellularium et opificium 
 simul quidem tractare poterat, id quod tum necesse 
 erat, sed sordidum interdicitur vitee genus ; vetatur 
 item usuraria pravitas ac ludendi libido, et omnis 
 turpis questus vel in honesto vite genere.” See the 
 numerous Classical citations of Wets., few, however, 
 
 * The Commentators cite Plut. 1, 298., τῇ δὲ χειρὶ πλήκτης ; and 
 403., ἀνὴρ πλήκτης. To which I would add Plut. Crass. 9., πλήκται 
 καὶ ποδωκεῖς ἄνδρες, i. 6. μαχίμοι. Thucyd. 3, 82, 8., τὸ δὲ ἐμπλήκ- 
 της ὀξὺ, Fab. 11, 19., κατὰ χεῖρα πλήκτης ἀνὴρ. Dicearch. p. 15., 
 θρασεῖς δὲ καὶ ὑβρισταὶ καὶ ὑπερήφανοι πλῆκται τε kK. τ Δ’ And 
 Pollux 6, 129., reckons, among the disturbers of a state, τοὺς πλῆκ- 
 TUS. 
 
232 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 
 
 of which are apposite.* It therefore signifies a dis- 
 creditable, dirty, base, way of getting money ; though 
 it may also include the other sense, namely avarice, 
 or over fondness for money, which is base in a Priest, 
 of whatever denomination: for (as Doddr. observes) 
 never does an eagerness or greediness in pursuit of 
 money appear more dishonorable and sordid than in 
 persons of that noble profession. 
 
 It is strange that so many Critics should have 
 thought the word aicyp. not genuine, and that it 
 should have been cancelled by Griesb. It is only 
 omitted in a comparatively few MSS. including 
 most of those that have been emended; and the 
 genuineness of the word is established by the an- 
 tithesis (See Wolf and Wets.); therefore as to 
 what is urged by those who cancel the word, that it 
 was introduced iz order to complete the antithesis, 
 this is (as Wolf observes) too subtle a mode of 
 reasoning. 
 
 ᾿Επιεικῆ. Compare Eph. 4, 5. "Apayov is opposed 
 to the πλήκτης, and signifies ἀφιλόνεικον, one who is 
 
 * The most so is Aristot. Nich. 4, 3., ὁ μέντοι κυβευτὴς, καὶ ὁ λω- 
 ποδύτης, καὶ ὁ λῃστὴς τῶν ἀνελευθέρων εἰσιν, αἰσχροκερδεῖς ; where, 
 by the λωπὸδ. ([ apprehend) is meant one of those desperados who, 
 both in antient and modern times, accompany an army, in order to 
 strip the dead: an occupation dangerous as well as disgraceful. By 
 the ὁ ληστὴς is meant, not a thief, or robber, but a sort of marau- 
 ders who folleowed an army for plunder, and also carried on a sort 
 of privateering, and lived by rapine. This sense of the word often 
 occurs in Thucyd., Xenophon., and other antient writers. To the 
 above passages I would add Aristot. Rhet. p. 107., where he 
 mentions τὸ κερδαίνειν ἀπὸ μικρῶν, ἢ ἀπὸ αἰσχρῶν κι τ λ. And 
 then he adds that this arises ἀπὸ αἰσχροκερδείας καὶ ἀνελευθερίας. 
 And in Eth., p. 139., he mentions τοὺς ἀνελευθεροὺς ἐργασίας ἐργα- 
 Θόμενοι, to which he attributes αἰσχροκερδεία : subjoining, πάντες 
 γὰρ ἕνεκα κέρδους καὶ τούτου μίκρου ὀνείδη ὑπομένουσι. See also 
 two fine sketches in Theophr. Ch. Eth., περὶ ἀναισχυντίας (on un- 
 blushing shabbiness and meanness), and περὶ αἰσχροκερδείας, the former 
 of which he defines a καταφρόνησις δόξης, αἰσχρῦυ ἕνεκα κέρδους 5 
 and the latter, a περιουσία κέρδους αἰσχροῦ, which (though the 
 Commentators do not notice it) signifies, a being overcome by base 
 gain, so as to do any thing for the sake of it, i. e. κέρδους ἤττων, or 
 ἡττώμενος, Which terms often occur in the best Classical writers ; as 
 I shall show on Thucyd. 2, 60, 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP, III. 233 
 
 not over tenacious of his right. I would compare 
 Herodot. 5, 53, 16., πολλοὶ τῶν δικαιών τὰ ἐπιεικέστερα 
 προτιθέασι. 
 
 The ἀφιλάργυρον answers to the μὴ | aio χροκερδη Ἔ. 
 
 4. τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμιενον, “one who 
 manages and regulates well his own family.” Of the 
 Classical passages cited by Wets., the most apposite is 
 Diog. Laert. 1, 70., μανθάνειν τῆς αὐτοῦ οἰκίας καλῶς 
 προστατεῖν. ‘Lo which I add Dionys. Hal. 1, 178., 
 ἐμέμφετο δὲ TOUS KAKWS προισταμένους τῶν ἰδιῶν. Tacit. 
 Germ. suam quisque sedem, suos Penates regit. See 
 also Eurip. ‘Troad. 662., et seqq., Herodian 2, 173., 
 and Philostr. Vit. Soph. 1, 2. 
 
 The words following are exegetical, and show that 
 this regulation is to be effected by a dignified firm- 
 ness in holding the reins of government: for I 
 cannot, with some recent Commentators, refer the 
 μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος. ἴο the children. 
 
 5. εἰ δὲ τις τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου --ἐπιμελήσεται ; : The senti- 
 ment is plain, and appears to have been founded on a 
 sort of proverb, which occurs in various authors, and of 
 which the Philological Commentators have adduced 
 many examples; namely, “ that he who cannot take 
 care of his private affairs, is not fit to be entrusted 
 with the administration of public business ;” every 
 family being regarded as a little republic. 
 
 It is observed by Theophyl., in answer to those 
 who thought the Apostle might have been expected 
 to require more from the Bishops than these humble 
 qualifications, nay, something of angelic purity (ἀγ- 
 
 * The effect produced by this admonition of the Apostle seems, 
 from the records of early Ecclesiastical History, not to have been so 
 great as might have been wished. My learned readers will remember 
 some passages of Euseb. and other writers. But few may be aware 
 of the following curious passage from an Epistle of Libanius to St. 
 Basil (Ep. 1592., Ed. Wolf.), πᾶς μὲν ἐπίσκοπος πρᾶγμα δυσγρίπισ- 
 τον, Angl. ““α sadly griping, tenacious sort of body.” In his answer, 
 however, Basil well retorts the charge on Sophists, who traffic in 
 words and speeches, as those who hawk about the μελέπηκτα (honey- 
 cakes and gingerbread) : whereas, asks he, τις τῶν ἐπισκόπων τοὺς 
 λόγους ἐφοροθέτησε ; τις τοὺς μαθητευομένους μισθοφόρους κατέστη- 
 σεν; This was indeed giving him a Rowland for his Oliver! 
 
234 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 
 
 γελικὸν βίον καὶ ἀπαθὴ), that these ἐπίσκοποι being then 
 appointed over every city or large town, and many 
 being wanted, it was prudent in the Apostle to re- 
 quire σύμμετρον ἀρετὴν ἥν πολλοῖς ἐνῆν εὑρεῖν. 
 
 6. μὴ νεόφυτον, “ποῦ anew convert, yet, as it were, 
 in his noviciate; by a metaphor like 1 Cor. 3, 6. ἐγὼ 
 ἐφύτευσα. Seealso Is. 5, 7. and Job. 14, 9. ‘Thus 
 the term is explained by the antients νεοβάπτιστος, 
 νεοκοπήχητος, προσήλυτος. Heinr. takes it to mean 
 adolescentem, a raw youth, little acquainted with 
 life. And he cites Tacit. Ann. 4, 17. ne quis mo- 
 biles adolescentium animos preematuris honoribus ad 
 superbiam extolleret. But this does not so well suit 
 the words following. Besides, ‘Timothy himself was 
 avery young man, else the Apostle would have had 
 no reason to say Μηδεὶς σοῦ τὴν νεότητα καταφρονείτω. 
 
 6. ἵνα μὴ τυφωθεὶς εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέση τοῦ διαβόλου. 
 The τυφωθεὶς signifies puffed up with pride. So Theo- 
 phyl.: Φυσιουμένος ; and Theodoret: τῆς aragovelas 
 τὸ πάθος δεξάμενος. This is supposed to proceed from 
 that comparative ignorance which may be expected 
 in a new convert; and the term is elsewhere used 
 
 Σ But perhaps the best answer is, that such objections confound 
 the Bishop and the individual, the former of which alone the Apostle 
 has here in view; so that it would have been irrelevant to say: a 
 Bishop shall be one who crucifies the flesh, that takes up his cross 
 daily, ἃς, These are the qualifications of the man, and not the 
 Bishop, and are supposed, but cannot he ascertained. Besides, I 
 cannot admit that the standard is fixed too low. For ifa Bishop be 
 νηφάλιος, σωφρὼν, κόσμιος, φιλόξενος, διδακτικὸς »ἐπιεικῆς, ἄμαχος. ἀφι- 
 λάργυρος, τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προιστάμενος, μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἐ ἔχων 
 ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν, 1 can hardly see what more could be desired! And 
 if it be said that the Apostle might have added, ““ He shall be ready 
 (as his Divine Master says) to lay down his life for the sheep,” I 
 answer, that could not well be considered as a qualification to be 
 contemplated by electors, since not the individual himself could tell 
 that, but the Searcher of all hearts. Besides, to have mentioned that 
 would have been discouraging any from undertaking the office, 
 And let it be remembered, that many Bishops did lay down their 
 lives for the sheep, and have continued so to do in after times ; and 
 even we Protestants can boast of some Bishops who are justly 
 reckoned as not the least illustrious in the noble army of martyrs 
 and confessors of the faith. 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 235 
 
 with words expressive of ignorance. So infra 6, 9. 
 τετύφωται μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος : and Polyb. 2, 81. ἀγνοεῖ 
 καὶ τετύφωται, cited by Schleus. in voc. to whose ex- 
 amples I add Aristid. 2, 67 c. τι δεῖ τετυφωμένως οὕτω 
 φιλονεικεῖν. Liban. 216 c. ἐμπληκτοὺς καὶ τετυφωμέ- 
 νους, and Marc. Anton. 12, 27. f. ὑπὸ ἀτυφίᾳ (I con- 
 jecture ἀτυφίας) τύφος τυφόμιενος πάντων χαλεπώτατος. 
 And not only does ignorance generate pride, but 
 novelty, especially in the young, engenders what 
 Thucyd. calls the τὸ ἐμπλήκτως ὀξὺ generally found in 
 new converts, but inconsistent with the ἐπιεικεία, σω- 
 Φροσύνη, and κοσμιότης before mentioned. ‘The 
 words ἵνα μὴ εἰς κρίμα éuméon τοῦ διαβόλου are ex- 
 plained by Luther and Erasm., and also by most re- 
 cent Commentators, of falling under the censure of 
 the calumniator. But this sense of διάβολος is so 
 little supported by the authority of the New Testa- 
 ment, and so little agreeable to the context, that I 
 cannot but reject it. “he common interpretation, 
 by which the διάβ. is taken of the Arch enemy, the 
 author of all evil, who, as we learn from Scripture, 
 thus, “ fell from his high estate” by pride, is so na- 
 tural that nothing more can be desired. Theophyl. 
 well explains thus: εἰς τὸ κατάκριμα, Kal εἰς τὴν κατα- 
 δίκην τοῦ διαβόλου πεσεῖται, ἥν τινα ἐκεῖνος ἀπὸ τῆς ἀπο- 
 νοίας ὑπέστη, “ fall under the same condemnation and 
 punishment which he did.” And so Gicumen. 
 
 7. δεῖ δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῶν 
 ἔξωθεν. Tangi hac admonitione ipse ‘limotheus, 
 utpote juvenis, videbatur: inde in ejus solatium 
 addit: def Kar. μαρτ. ἔχειν, quo Timotheus gaudebat, 
 Actor. 16, 2. (Hein.) The μαρτυρ. kaa. must (‘Theo- 
 phyl. says,) regard his life, and not his doctrine. For 
 the morals of any Christian teacher they will scarcely 
 ever censure causelessly. Thus they did not call 
 the Apostles fornicators, or lewed persons, but im- 
 postors. ‘“ If (adds he) any one should be of bad 
 repute, though causelessly, let him not be appointed 
 a Bishop.” The μαρτυρία may be rendered charac- 
 ter. By the τῶν ἔξωθεν are meant non-christians, 
 
236 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Ii. 
 
 whether Jews or Gentiles (as 1 Thess. 4, 2. and Col. 
 4, 5.), called at Eph. 2, 13. of μακρὰν, as Christians 
 οἱ ἔγγυς. 
 
 The sense of the words following ἵνα μὴ---- Διαβόλου 
 is somewhat obscure, and has been differently ex- 
 plained by both antients and moderns. ‘Theophyl., 
 Cicumen., and many others offer the most contort 
 expositions ; and that of Heinr., “ notat culpam ali- 
 orum et malitiosam insectationem,” is too far fetched 
 to deserve attention. Benson and Rosenm. explain 
 it of falling into the censure and snares laid by the 
 adversary or accuser. But this is frigid; and had 
 such been the sense intended, the article would 
 not have been used. Nor can I recognise, with 
 some, an hendiadis. ‘The best way of removing the 
 difficulty is by supposing, with ‘Theodoret, Grot., 
 and Doddr., that the words μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν 
 chiefly regard his character before his conversion. 
 So Theodoret: ὁ γὰρ παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις πλείστην ἔχων πρὸ 
 τῆς χειροντονίας διαβολὴν, ἐπονείδιστος τὸ κοινὸν, καὶ εἰς 
 τὴν προτέραν ὅτι τάχιστα παλινδρομήσει παρανομίαν, τοῦ 
 διαβόλου πάντα πρὸς τοῦτο μηχανωμένους Such (ob- 
 serves Grot.) as had been οἵ bad repute might be 
 received as Christians, but are here forbidden to be 
 made Presbyters, the reason for which is subjoined.” 
 
 The force of the εἰς ὀνειδ, is clear; but not so with 
 the καὶ (εἰς) παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλουι It cannot (I think) 
 mean, what many antient and modern Commentators 
 suppose, a temptation to anger and revenge of their 
 injustice; but rather (as Theophyl. and Doddr. in- 
 terpret,) a temptation (strangely besetting to human 
 nature) not be scandalized for nothing. See Doddr. 
 It is truly remarked by Theophyl., that if it is neces- 
 sary he should have a good testimony (or character) 
 with those without, still more ought he to have it 
 with those within. Thoughts (to use the words of 
 Doddr.) worthy the consideration of all candidates 
 for the ministry who have been profligate in their 
 lives, and of those who, after having been so, wish 
 to return to it. (See also Mackn.) Worthy, too (1 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 237 
 
 would add), is it the consideration of those who 
 venture to incur the awful responsibility of placing 
 them in situations where they can neither have a 
 καλὴν μαρτυρίαν from those within, nor those without, 
 and where a confidence once broken can scarcely be 
 renewed. 
 
 8. The qualifications mentioned in regard to Dea- 
 cons are nearly the same with those of Bishops, only 
 not so many. ‘They are (for instance) not called 
 upon to be νηφάλιοι or διδακτικοί, The φιλόξενον (I 
 conjecture) is not mentioned, because they seem to 
 have had no stipend ; and the ἐπιεικὴς and ἄμαχος are 
 not touched upon, because they had little or no au- 
 thority properly so called. The ὡσαύτως (as Chrys. 
 observes) regards what follows. 
 
 8. Μὴ διλόγους. This is explained by most Com- 
 mentators mendaces. And. they cite from Virg., 
 Tyriosque bilingues: and compare the διψύχος of 
 James 4, 8. But it is best explained by Theophyl. 
 (from Chrys.) μὴ ὑπούλους καὶ δολεροὺς, ἀλλὰ φρονοῦντας 
 κἀὶ ἄλλα λέγοντας, καὶ ἄλλα τούτοις, καὶ ἄλλα ἐκείνοις. 
 The terms δίλογος and διλογεῖν are indeed used by 
 good authors, but more frequently δίγλωσσος ; and it 
 is possible that St. Paul might have in mind this 
 passage of Sirach 28, 14. ψιθυρὸν καὶ diyawoooy.* Why 
 the Apostle should have required this the Commen- 
 tators do not offer any satisfactory reason. For as 
 to διλογία, in commercial transactions (which Heinr. 
 supposes) it can hardly be imagined. ‘The Apostle, 
 I should conjecture, has rather regard to that can- 
 did, frank, and ingenuous spirit which in persons 
 who (like the Deacons) went, as it ‘were, between 
 the Bishop and the people, would be highly neces- 
 sary, especially as difference of opinion respecting 
 Jewish rites and ceremonies existed among the 
 congregation. 
 
 8. μηὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας, “not given to much 
 
 * I would also compare Solon ap. Ὁ). Laert.1, 61. TAdaoa δὲ οἱ 
 
 ἡδόμεθα ἐκ μελαίνης φρεγὸς γεγωνῇ. See also Eurip. Troad 288, 
 atth, 
 
238 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 
 
 wine. Theophyl. observes, that the Apostle does 
 not say μὴ μεθύσους ; for that were altogether un- 
 worthy; but not great drinkers; for even if it pro- 
 duce not inebriation, much wine weakens the tone of 
 the mind.* Nay even the Heathen priests, on hav- 
 ing to enter a temple, did not drink wine. Lf oce- 
 yew, in the sense to be habituated to, prone to, is fre- 
 quent. See the Philological Commentators. 
 
 8. uy αἰσχροκερδεῖς. ‘he term must be taken with 
 the same latitude as at ver. 3. and yet freedom from 
 avarice is chiefly intended; since great was the 
 temptation that attended the office in question. And 
 I entirely agree with Heinr., that in a populous 
 trading place like Ephesus this admonition was the 
 more necessary. 
 
 9. ἔχοντας---συνειδήσει. Most modern Commenta- 
 tors take ἔχ. for karey., ‘ holding fast the true doc- 
 trine ;” in opposition to the Judaizers. But it may 
 be sufficient, with the antients, to interpret it, pro- 
 fessing, maintaining. Rosenm. renders: “ reti- 
 nentes Christianam doctrinam et puram conscien- 
 tiam.” I propose, with Pisc. and Erasmus, to take 
 ev for σὺν, with. So Theophyl.: μετὰ rod τὸ δόγμα 
 ὀρθὸν τηρεῖν, ἔχοντας καὶ βίον ἀνεπίληπτον. Grot. takes 
 it in the sense by (like the Hebr. 3); since those 
 who neglect faith lose a good conscience. See 1, 
 19. and also 1, 5. On μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως for ‘the 
 truths of the Gospel,” see Eph. 1, 9. and 6, 19. Col. 
 4, 3. and the notes. 
 
 10. καὶ οὗτοι δὲ δοκιμαϑέσθωσαν---ὔντες, “ And let 
 these, too, be examined and put to the proof; and 
 then let them, if found irreproachable, exercise the 
 office.” Δὲ, too, i. 6. as well as the Bishops: for the 
 best Commentators are agreed that it must be ex- 
 tended to them (see Grot. and Whitby); and indeed 
 in the case of election of Bishops examination pre- 
 
 * In which view I would compare Philostr. V. Ap. 1, 8, καὶ τὸν 
 οἶνον ἐναντιοῦσθαι τοῦ τῇ τοῦ νοῦ συστάσει, διαθολοῦντα τὸν ἐν τῇ 
 ψυχῇ αἰθέρα, and Ηογαΐ. : affigit humo divine particulam aure. 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III, 239 
 
 ceded election. On the nature of this δοκιμασία the 
 Commentators are not agreed. The antients and 
 some moderns understand by it, in both cases, trying 
 the candidates some time before as private Chris- 
 tians. ‘The most eminent moderns think it respects 
 the examination into their character and conduct 
 previous to the election; which seems the best 
 founded interpretation, and includes the other. 
 Both are equally supported by the usus loquendi. 
 This antient custom Grot. has learnedly illustrated 
 both from Ecclesiastical History, and from the cus- 
 tom of the Rabbins, nay, also of the Greeks. 
 
 The ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες answers to the καλὴν μαρτυρίαν 
 ἔχοντες at ver. 7. Who are to exercise the δοκιμασία 
 we are not told. The congregation perhaps partici- 
 pated in the proceedings: but the appointment, no 
 doubt, rested solely with the Bishop and Presbyters. 
 See Bingham’s Eccl. Antiq. 
 
 11. γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνὰς. On what we are to 
 understand by the γυναῖκες Commentators are not 
 agreed. Most modern ones think the wives of the 
 Deacons are meant. But to this it is, with reason, 
 objected, that if so, it is strange nothing should have 
 been said of the duties of Bishop's wives, which 
 were of yet greater consequence. I therefore agree 
 with the antients and, of the moderns, Menoch., 
 Grot., Benson, Hardy, Mackn., Valpy, &c., that we 
 are here to understand Deaconesses ; an order men- 
 tioned at Rom. 16,1. and (as Theoph. observes) very 
 useful and necessary to the Church. ‘ If (adds he) 
 these were not meant, why should any mention have 
 been introduced of women amongst what was said of 
 Deacons?” Besides, I would add, the very epithets 
 σεμνὰς, νηφαλίους, fy διαβόλους, and πιστοὺς (two of 
 which are applied to the Bishops (seem far more 
 suitable to the Deaconesses than Deacon's wives. 
 Assuredly the usus loquendi permits the word to be 
 taken as well of women (i.e. Deaconesses) as wives. 
 And the argument, that “ thus the Apostle would 
 
240 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 
 
 have expressed his meaning more clearly,” is in a 
 writer like St. Paul of little weight. Others object, 
 that these are mentioned at ch. 5. But they are 
 there only alluded to. And surely in a question like 
 this the united voice of early antiquity, founded on 
 tradition, or antient written information unknown to 
 us, carries with it authority which it were unwise to 
 reject. At the same time it is probable that the 
 Deaconesses were sometimes Deacon’s wives. 
 
 On ver. 12. see supra ver. 2 & 4. 
 
 18. οἱ yap καλῶς διακονήσαντες--- Ἰησοῦ, For those 
 who have well discharged the office of Deacons, 
 gain (thereby) an honorable step to further promo- 
 tion, namely, to the office of Presbyter, or Bishop. 
 Theophyl. explains βαθμὸν by προκοπὴν. And so 
 almost all Commentators, antient and modern. 
 This interpretation is supported by a passage of 
 Clem. Const., cited by Grot., and also Const. Apost. 
 8, 18, 22., cited by Benson, and Lightf. in loc. 
 Hence, Grot. observes, it appears that some duties 
 in the ministry of the word were committed to the 
 Deacons, and that they were not confined to the 
 office of serving tables. ‘Theodoret, however, and 
 Heinr., understand the βαθμ. of advancement and 
 furtherance in the attainment of salvation. But that 
 seems harsh. 
 
 The words καὶ roxrnv—yood are exegetical of the 
 preceding. But the whole is worded delicately, and 
 therefore obscurely. 
 
 14, 15. The sense is uncertain from brevity. 
 ἜἘλπίϑων must be resolved into καίπερ éarigw; and 
 at ἐὰν δὲ βραδύνω there is an ellipsis for γράφω δὲ ὅτι 
 ἐὰν βραδύνω ive εἰδῆς. And this is supported by the 
 authority of Theophyl., who renders: ‘* These things 
 I write, not as if I should never come again, but 
 that, in case I tarry long, thou,” &Xc. 
 
 ᾿Αναστρέφεσθαι, conduct oneself.” The expression 
 οἴκω Θεοῦ must be closely united with ἥτις ἐστιν ἐκ- 
 κλησία ; being exegetical of the former metaphor, 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Ill. 241 
 
 by which the Church is compared to the Temple of 
 Jerusalem. See Eph. 2, 21. seqq. and the note. 
 Ζώντος, living, true. 
 / », ee ss. , “ ᾽ ’ 
 15. στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας. 
 
 There has been no little disputation among the modern Interpre- 
 ters on the punctuation of this passage. Most of them connect the 
 words with the preceding ; as do also the antients. Nay, Ocumen. 
 makes the division of the chapters here. Many, however, and most re- 
 cent Commentators, connect them with the following. But the sense 
 yielded by the antient punctuation is better ; and it is surprising that 
 any who have any knowledge or experience in Greek literature, 
 could tolerate so harsh a construction as that which arises from the 
 latter method, by which, too, the sentiment seems overloaded ; 
 whereas, if it be united with the preceding, it arises naturally out of 
 the preceding metaphor, though it may be something of a catachresis 
 by so sudden a change of its application. In such a case it were, 
 (to say no more) a want of taste and judgment to seek refinements 
 when the sense is clear. See Bp. Van Mildert’s note ap. D’Oyley, 
 who also observes that this application of the words best accords 
 with the context, and is liable to no serious objections ; for in no 
 other way can the passage be so easily and consistently explained. 
 ] would add, that to any one who had experience in Greek con- 
 struction, it must appear that καὶ before ὁμολ. has the inchoative 
 force; for to take it asa mere copula would be harsh: and there is 
 something very harsh and frigid in supposing καὶ ὁμολογουμένως 
 μέγα introduced after στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας. It flags 
 and drops; whereas, in so spirited a writer as St. Paul, we may 
 usually in such cases perceive a climax. 1 must therefore acquiesce 
 in the common interpretation of these words. 
 
 As to referring the στύλος---ἀληθείας to Timothy; as did Chil 
 lingworth, J. H. Maius, and others ap. Wolf, and also Benson and 
 Slade, that can on no account be admitted. The construction 
 would be unprecedented ; there would be a very harsh hyperbaton ; 
 and a ov would have been required before εἰδῇς, and ὧν after 
 στύλος. And thougin (as Mr. Slade observes) James, Peter, and 
 John are, at Gal. 2, 19., called pillars; yet there nothing more is 
 added ; nor are they called ἐδραιώματα τῆς ἀληθείας ; which would 
 (1 think) be incongruous. Besides, admitting that both words are 
 applicable to such illustrious Apostles, 1 should be slow in believing 
 that St. Paul would apply such magnificent terms to Timothy, only 
 a young minister, much less an Apostle. And there is something 
 very harsh in the sense that thus arises, namely, ‘ ‘This [ have writ- 
 ten to thee, who art a pillar and foundation of the truth, in order 
 that thou mightest know how thou shouldst conduct thyself in the 
 Church of God.” Which involves a manifest incongruity. So that 
 the words of Benson, that St. Paul has often had very loose and 
 absurd interpreters; but he himself never wrote carelessly or ab- 
 surdly—will turn against himself. Finally, as in the other nouns of 
 the sentence (as οἴκῳ and ἐκκλησία) the article is left to be supplied, 
 
 VOL. VIII. : R 
 
242 — 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 111. 
 
 so must it here. But, if so, the terms cannot be applicable to. Ti- 
 mothy, nay, not eyen to Paul himself: and thus the words can only 
 be applied to the preceding. As to Benson’s subtleties, they will 
 pass for nothing. 
 
 16. καὶ ὁμολογουμένως---μυστήριον. It is well ob- 
 served by Heinr. ; ‘* Praefatiuncula indicetur gravi- 
 tas et auctoritas ejus effati, quod jam esset propo- 
 nendum, animique ea quam attentissimé excitentur, 
 ut Cap. 1, 15. 3,1. 2 Tim. 2,19. Heb. 8.1. * Se- 
 quitur effatum ipsum sublimiore et feré poetica 
 dictione, quali uti solet Apostolus in doxologiis, 
 prolatum.” 
 
 The connection, which has not been well diseerned by the Com- 
 mentators, seems to be this: ‘‘ And great is the dignity and im- 
 portance of the Church universal, as being the depository of the fun- 
 damental truths of the Gospel, of which we may undoubtedly say: — 
 «« Great is the mystery of godliness ; and it is this that,” ἃς. Such 
 (1 must maintain) is the most natural interpretation of this pas- 
 sage ; though I readily admit its great difficulty, and can easily ac- 
 count for the various opinions which have been entertained by Com- 
 mentators. As tothe question respecting the various readings ὅς 
 and ὅ, I cannot enter into the multiplicity of discussions connected 
 with it. Suffice it to say that, after a careful examination of the 
 evidence, it appears to me that those readings (which are, moreover, 
 found in very few MSS.}, seem to be alterations introduced in order 
 to remove the difficulty occasioned by the extreme abruptness at 
 μυστήριον, which, however, is quite consistent with the style of St. 
 Paul. ‘The ὅς is found especially in such MSS. as have been tam- 
 pered with; though so great seemed the difficulty of the common 
 reading, that it is probable many Scribes adopted the emendation, or 
 noted it in the margin. And this may account for the passage having 
 been so seldom employed by the antient Fathers, in their arguments 
 with the Pelagians and Arians ; namely, because they were unwilling 
 to appeal to a text where the opponent might seek covert under a 
 diversity of reading, or a difficulty of construction. As to the reading 
 ds ἐφανερώθη, we may safely maintain that it is not Greek, at least, 
 in the sense which the espousers of that reading lay down, namely : 
 «© He who was manifested,” &c.: though 1 am not prepared to say, 
 with Nolan, that we should then have had gavepwOeis. (See his re- 
 marks on this text, in his excellent treatise on the integrity of the 
 Greck Vulg.) The only construction permitted by the propriety of 
 language would be that of referring it to Θεοῦ Carros, as antece- 
 dent, thus regarding the words στύλος--- μυστήριον as closely con- 
 nected and parenthetical. But this would be very harsh: though 
 even then it would equally prove the doctrine of the incarnate Deity.* 
 
 * In which view I would adduce the remarkable words of 
 Schoettg.: ‘‘ Verba hee ab Apostolo ideo proferuntur, ut ipsum 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. IV. 243 
 
 It ought to be sufficient, then, to determine us to retain the common 
 reading, that the other is not Greek, in the sense contended for 
 (and, therefore, no MSS. or Versions could justify it); and that 
 the interpretation in question is supported by the most illustrious 
 of the Greek Fathers, all the Greek Commentators and Scholiasts, 
 and by alinost all the antients, by whom φανεροῦσθαι ἐν σαρκὶ is 
 considered as applied to Christ in allusion to the miraculous and 
 mysterious union of the Divine and human natures. And thus 
 applied, i. 6. to Christ (and not, as some maintain, to the Gospel), 
 each of the following clauses has a definite and appropriate meaning 
 and force. For (to use the words of Whitby, which are sufficiently 
 exact to render any minute Critical examination of the phraseology 
 unnecessary ) Ist., He was God in the flesh, Joh. 3, 5., Phil. 2, 6 & 7. 
 2dly., He was justified by the Spirit (ἐν πνεύματι, by the influence 
 or effusion of the Spirit), himself working miracles thereby, and his 
 Apostles after him. Matt. 12, 28., Rom. 1, 3., Acts 2,33. 3dly., 
 He was seen by Angels, Heb. 1, 6., Luke 2, 9 ἃ 13., Matt. 4, 11,, 
 Luke 22, 43., 24, 4. Acts 1,10, 4thly., Ihe whole history of the 
 Gospel shows that he was preached unto the Gentiles, and_ believed 
 on in the world. 5thly., He was received up into. Heaven. Matt. 
 16., 19., Luke 24, 51., Acts 1,2 ἃ 1]. 
 
 See also the admirable expositions of this passage by Bp. Pearson 
 and Hurd, ap. D’Oyley and Mant, which render any further observa- 
 tions of my own superfluous ; and I will only notice that the exposi- 
 tion thus laid down by the above illustrious /rio of Theologians is, in 
 every part, supported by the authority of the Greek Fathers and Com- 
 mentators. 
 
 The ἀγγέλοις, Benson and Mack. would understand of the 
 Apostles. But that yields a very harsh sense, and, moreover, 
 requires the article. Innovations in interpretation on slight grounds 
 ought ever to be discouraged. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Here there is the usual complaint, of the division 
 of the chapter having been introduced at an im- 
 proper place. But I can hardly think it well founded 
 in the present instance; and the division in question 
 is defended by the authority of Chrys., who com- 
 mences anew Homily here. That proposed by the 
 Commentators is, however, supported by the autho- 
 
 doceat, quemnam articulum precipue urgere debeat (vide v. 15.), 
 nimirum illum, qui de Christo agit, θεανθρώπῳ ; quem Judei non 
 voluerunt agnoscere.” 
 
 R2 
 
Q44: 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv. 
 
 rity of Gicumen., who commences the new Chapter 
 at καὶ ὀμολογουμένως, &c. 
 
 Verse 1. τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει. The connec- 
 
 tion seems to be this: “Such, then, are the im- 
 portant doctrines which compose the great mystery 
 of godliness, worthy of being ever remembered, and 
 strenuously maintained (and especially now), since 
 the Spirit speaketh expressly, &c. By the πνεῦμα 
 some understand the Spirit, as exerted in the 
 Prophets of the Old Testament: and Middleton and 
 Benson think there is a reference to Dan. 11, 36—39. 
 But that has been by most Commentators thought 
 doubtful: and they refer it tothe Apostle himself; 
 and Benson supposes an immediate revelation. 
 Certainly this is very suitable to the modesty of 
 the Apostle: but it seems safer to extend it to the 
 prophetic spirit, as imparted not only to Paul, but to 
 others of the Apostles. So important a piece of in- 
 formation might very well be communicated to 
 several. 
 1. ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς, 1. 6. not the last times, but 
 the latter times, namely, those subsequent, and that 
 were to come after (and perhaps long after) the 
 Apostolic age : for of that circumstance the Apostle 
 was probably not informed. This sense of ὕστερ. 
 kop. is frequent in the best writers, as Thucyd., 
 Herodot., Plato, and others. 
 
 Tives, some. How many, and in what proportion, 
 it is not said; but the expression must, consistently 
 with the usage of the best writers, signify a very 
 considerable part. On the sects against whom the 
 words are levelled, the Commentators are not agreed. 
 Ina work of this kind such discussions would be out 
 of place; and, therefore, I must refer the reader to 
 the best English Commentators, especially Mede, 
 Bp. Newton, Whitby, Mackn., Benson, and others. 
 
 l. προσέχοντες πνεύμασι πλάνοις, καὶ διδασκαλίαις 
 δαιμονίων. ‘Lhe best Commentators are agreed that 
 by πνεύμασι πλάνοις are to be understood false 
 teachers, impostors, who arrogated to themselves the 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv. 245 
 
 Spirit ; as 1 Cor., 12, 10. Πλάνοις is, by most Com- 
 mentators, regarded as a substantive put adjectively 
 (for as to the reading πλάνης, it savours of gloss, or 
 arose from the itacism); and they adduce examples 
 of the adjectival use from Menander and other 
 writers. I cannot but suspect that such was. its 
 original use, and that, like multitudes of other adjec- 
 tives, it became a substantive, by the omission of the 
 noun ἄνθρωπος. By διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων most 
 modern Commentators understand doctrines con- 
 cerning devils, or demons. It seems agreeable to 
 the natural import of the words to take it, with the 
 antients, and some moderns, of doctrines dictated by, 
 and disseminated under, diabolical influence. So 
 Theodoret : ᾿Εκείνων yap ἀληθῶς κυήματα ἐκεῖνα τὰ 
 ῥήματα. Or, with others, the genitive may be taken 
 for the cognate adjective, devilish, improus. See 1 
 Cor., 11, 15. 
 
 Q. ἐν ὑπόκρίσει ψευδολόγων. The terms, Heinr. ob- 
 serves, are clear; but the construction dubious. 
 Hence the variety of opinions. Some, as Beza, 
 fancy an antiptosis for Ψευδολόγοις. Rosenm. renders, 
 “< propter simulationem falsorum doctorum.” Others 
 refer the Genitives to δαιμονίων. Heinr. thinks that 
 προσέχοντες is to be repeated, or ὄντες to be supplied 
 before ἐν ὑπ. ; q. d. ὄντες ψευδολόγοι ἐν (συν) ὑποκρίσει 
 (i. 6. καὶ ὑποκριταὶ) κεκαυτηριασμιένοι «1. 6. ὑποκριταὶ (καὶ 
 ὅμως) Ψευδολόγοι. On the persons here meant see 
 Mackn. and Slade. 
 
 2. κεκαυτηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν. Here is 
 another of the numerous points on which Commen- 
 tators are at issue. Most explain it of those who 
 suffer under the pangs of a self-reproving conscience; 
 καυτήριον being the brand with which criminals were 
 marked, and who then might be supposed to have 
 cast off all shame. The expression has, therefore, 
 been supposed to denote self-convicted offenders : 
 and this is supported by the authority of Chrys., 
 Theophyl., and Qéicumen. Others, however, as 
 many eminent moderns, think that it is derived from 
 
246 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv. 
 
 the mode adopted by surgeons, of cauterizing, or 
 searing, by which the part is rendered insensible to 
 all feeling. So our English Translators, Beza, Pisc., 
 Menoch., Schegel, Doddr., Mackn., Reitz on Lucian, 
 1, 645., Schleus., Slade, and Valpy. And this is 
 supported by Theodoret: ὁ yap τοῦ καυτῆρος τόπος 
 ψεκρωθεὶς τὴν προτέραν αἴσθησιν ἀποβάλλει. So the 
 Scholiasts. And, upon the whole, this appears to be 
 the most agreeable to the context; though I am 
 aware that minute exceptions may be taken against 
 it. I would here compare Eph. 4, 19., olrives ἀπηλγη- 
 TOTES, ἑαυτοὺς παρέδωκαν τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ : and also Zonar. 
 Lex. 1566., τὸ πεπωρωμένον ἔχειν τὸν νοῦν. 
 
 8. κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων. It is 
 well observed by Theodoret: οὕτως αὐτῶν τὴν διαφθο- 
 ρὰν τῶν δογμάτων δηλώσας, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων νομίμων τὴν 
 βδελυρίαν προλέγει. The forbidding to marry is, by 
 some, thought to refer to the Essenes ; by others, to 
 the Roman Catholics. But it comes to the same 
 thing ; since many of the Romish superstitions were 
 derived from the Essenes, who borrowed them from 
 the East, where, as in a fruitful soil, Monkery and 
 unnatural celibacy, with its odious train of vices, 
 have ever thriven, as in a hot bed. See Mackn. 
 
 The peculiar idiom (called Synesis) at ἀπέχεσθαι 
 βρωμάτων contains an ellipsis deserving of especial 
 attention, which most Commentators supply by 
 κελευόντων, ΟΥ ποιούντων (with the Syr.); and they 
 compare 1 Cor., 14, 34., οὐ yap ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς 
 λαλεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑποτάσσεσθαι, where see the note. 
 Rosenm. compares Phoedr.: “non veto dimitti,” 
 vertm cruciari fame. And Heinrichs, Thucyd. 7, 
 36.,and Plin. H. N. 25, 5. Perhaps it might be 
 best to compare this with those passages where, in 
 the first clause, comes a verbum imperandi, with a 
 negative ; and in the second, the verb is to be 
 repeated, without the negative. Now here the κω- 
 λύω includes within itself both: yet, in the second 
 clause, a verbum imperandi is to be repeated, as in 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 247 
 
 the former case. So that there is also a kind of κατὰ 
 τὸ σημαινόμενον. 
 
 Βρωμ.. is rightly rendered meafs, in our common 
 acceptation; since it was animal food that was 
 especially forbidden. See the note on Acts 2, 44. “A 
 ὁ Θεὸς ἔκισεν εἰς, ὥς. This ought to be rendered : 
 “ though God hath created, caused them to exist.” 
 Eis μετάληψιν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας, ‘for a thankful par- 
 ticipation;” i.e. to be thankfully participated in, 
 and enjoyed. Τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν, 
 ‘“‘ by faithful and well instructed Christians.” It is 
 evident how this implies an obligation in those who 
 partake of the bounty of God to return thanks to the 
 giver; and, surely, such as habitually neglect this 
 thanksgiving cannot be reckoned among those who 
 know the truth, or obey it. Theodoret well para- 
 phrases: Μυσαρὸν γὰρ καὶ τὸν γάμων, καὶ τῶν βρωμάτων 
 τὰ πλεῖστα ἀποκαλοῦσιν, ἵνα τὸν τοιούτων δημιουργὸν 
 ἐνυβρίσωσι" ταῦτα μέντοι πεποίηκεν εἰς ἀπόλαυσον, ὥστε 
 πρόφασιν ἐντεῦθεν τοὺς μεταλαμβάνοντας εἰς εὐχαριστίαν 
 λαμβάνειν, καὶ χορηγὸν ἀνυμνεῖν. 
 
 4, ὅ. ὅτι πᾶν κτίσμα Θεοῦ καλὸν. These words are, 
 as it were, exegetical of the preceding ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν 
 ἀλήθειαν, ** who know (I say). [av κτίσμα, “every 
 thing created and supplied by God is good and fit 
 to be eaten.” Kat οὐδὲν ἀπόβλητον, ‘and no (created 
 thing) is to be rejected,” i.e. ἀποβαλῆς ἄξιον. Of 
 this use of ἀποβλ. Wets. adduces examples. Ro- 
 senm compares Gen. 1, 30. Rom. 14, 6. and 1 Cor. 
 10, 30. Mera εὐχαριστίας λαμβανόμιενον, “if it be 
 taken with thankfulness.” 
 
 5. ἁγιάϑεται yap διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξεως. These 
 words do not so much give a reason (as the Com- 
 mentators suppose) for the preceding, as they limit 
 the foregoing position, and show that every κτίσμα 
 Θεοῦ may become καλὸν (for that is the sense of 
 ἁγιάξεται), namely, if it be partaken and enjoyed, 
 διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ και ἐντεύξεως, “in conjunction with, 
 preceded by the use of,” &c. The διὰ λόγου is ex- 
 plained by Vorst., Dan., Grot., Hamm., Scult, and 
 
248 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 
 
 almost all recent Commentators explain, “ by the 
 Gospel, which declares no meat impure.” (See Acts 
 10, 15. and Rom. 14,14.) And this may be the 
 sense; but itis harsh thus to take διὰ here in a dif- 
 ferent signification; and I therefore prefer (with the 
 antients and some moderns, especially Heinr.) to 
 take it of “the word of man spoken in honour of 
 God ;” and thus there will be an: hendiadis. So 
 Cicumen. 231 Cc. Or εὐχῆς πρωθύστερον δὲ κεῖται" διὰ 
 γὰρ λόγου καὶ ἐντεύξεως τῆς πρὸς θεὸν γινομένης. Theo- 
 phyl.: σφράγισον (i conjecture σφάγισον) εὐχαρίο- 
 TIT, δόξασον τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ ἀποπίπτει τ j ἀκαθαρσία. ‘H 
 μὲν γὰς εὐχαριστία, πάντα καθαρίϑει" ὃ ἀχάριστος δὲ καὶ 
 αὐτός ἀκαθάρτος καὶ μιαρίς. And ‘Theodoret: τὸ φύσει 
 καλὸν μετ᾽ εὐχαριστίας λαμβανόμενον τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ μνήμη 
 καὶ ἅγιον ἀποφαίνεται. What, then, must we think 
 of those Christian heathens who neglect this ἱατρεία ὃ 
 
 6. ταῦτα ὑποτιθέμενος τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. By the ταῦτα 
 is meant not only what just preceded, but also what 
 was mentioned at c. 3. Perhaps, too, ταῦτα carries 
 with it, as in the Classical writers, the notion of 
 τοιαῦτα. The term vror:§., which properly signifies 
 submonere, is very appropriate to that mildness and 
 delicacy in inculcating Christian truth.so becoming 
 a minister of the Gospel. Thus Theophyl. observes, 
 that the Apostle does not say ἐπιτάττων. See 
 Schleus. Lex.”Eon, “ thou wilt be.” ᾿Εντρεφόμενος 
 τοῖς λόγοις τῆς πίστεως---διὸ, ‘There seems to be an 
 ellipsis, which may be thus supplied: ‘(and this 
 may be expected of you) who have been nourished 
 up in the words,’”’ ἄς. A Classical phrase with 
 which Wets. compares Vellej. Paterc. 2, 94. Innu- 
 tritus coelestium preceptorum disciplinis. And Se- 
 neca ad Polyb. 21. liberalibus disciplinis innutritus. 
 See also Loesn. Ἢ παρηκολούθηκοις, which thou hast 
 followed up, learned, and professed.” The word, 
 Rosenm. observes, is so used in Plato. And so 
 2 Tim. 3, 10. See the note on Luke 1, 3. rag’ ἄνω- 
 bev πάσιν ἀκριβῶς. 
 
 7. τοὺς δὲ βεβήλους καὶ γραώδεις μύθους παραιτοῦ, 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. ἵν. 24.9 
 
 “ Reject the superstitious fables, whether of Jews 
 or Gentiles.” This sense of παριτ. for αἀποστρέφεσαι 
 is found in the best writers. By the βεβήλους the 
 Apostle is thought to have reference to the fables 
 of the people; and by the γραώδεις, to those of the 
 Rabbins ; which, indeed, if we may judge by the 
 specimens found in them, deserve the name. Not 
 but that they would be applicable to the heathen 
 superstitions ; but they both seem to have reference 
 to Jewish superstitions ; and the βεβ. may advert to 
 some that were especially akin to the Pagan ones, 
 and introduced from them, probably those of the 
 Essenes ; though that is uncertain. See the Com- 
 mentators, who, however, rise no higher than con- 
 jecture. The name pv9. denotes the falsity and 
 vanity of these superstitions. 
 
 Ot the latter expression Wets. adduces an eX- 
 ample from Strabo, 1. p. 32. ‘A τὴν ποιητικὴν γραώδη 
 μυθολογίαν ἀποφαίνων. I add Jambl. de V. Pyth. 
 γραώδεσιν ὑποθήκαις. On the sentiment 1 would com- 
 pare Phil. Jud. 182 ο. τῇ δὲ Θεοῦ θεραπευτῇ πρεπωδὲς 
 ἀληθείας περιέχεσθαι τὴν ἀβέβαιον μυθοποίαν χαίρειν 
 εἴποντι. 
 
 7. γύμναξε δὲ σεαυτὸν πρὸς εὐσέβειαν. This is reck- 
 oned among the agonistical metaphors. Rosenm. 
 compares Arrian 3, 22, πρὸς ἀρετὰς γυμνάϑεσθαι. To 
 which I add Max. ‘Tyr. D. 31, 6.11, 110. τοιοῦτος 
 ἐξ ἀγαθῆς παλαίστρας ἀγωνιστὴς γίνεται, λόγων μεστὸ ς 
 ἀκολακεύτων καὶ ἡσχημένων ὑγυιώς, καὶ δυναμένων a ἄγειν 
 πειθοῖ καὶ βίᾳ ἐκ πληκτικῇ τὸ πγησιάϑον πᾶν. The sen- 
 tence is elliptical, and may be rendered: ‘‘ examine 
 thyself as to what Tegards virtue and piety.” 
 
 8. ἡ γὰρ σωματικὴ γυμνασία πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστιν ὠφέλιμος. 
 On the sense of the σωματικὴ γυμνασία, Commen- 
 tators are divided in opinion; some understanding 
 it literally of gymmastic exercises just mentioned.* 
 
 * So Wets., who paraphrases: ‘ Alii in pueritid fabulas aniles 
 libenter audiunt: tu, clm puer esses, verbis fidei innutritus €S5 
 quanto magis te nunc pueritid egressum illas fabulas aspernari 
 
250 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv. 
 
 Others think that the Apostle adverts to the ex- 
 ercising of the body by refraining from meat, wine, 
 marriage, &c. Rosenm. is of opinion that both may 
 be understood; namely, that exercising which 
 centers in the body, as opposed to the cultivation 
 of the mind and soul. At ὀλίγον must be understood 
 χρόνον : and this suits the frst mentioned interpre- 
 tation. If the second be adopted, the πρὸς oaiyay 
 may be taken as an adverbial phrase, and signify 
 little. 
 
 8. ἡ δὲ εὐσεβεία----μελλούσης. By ἡ εὐσεβεία is meant 
 true Christian piety, as opposed to the profane 
 superstitions just mentioned. Πρὸς πάντα may be 
 taken with the same latitude of signification as πρὸς 
 ὀλίγον, and mean, “ at all times, and in all places and 
 circumstances. ᾿Επαγγελίαν ἔχουσα ϑωῆς, &c. A 
 somewhat unusual and refined sort of expression, 
 signifying, ‘having in its power a promise (i. 6. of 
 happiness) respecting this life,” &c. For truly Chris- 
 tian piety, which affects not needless mortifications, 
 as it were, promises and confers those blessings, of 
 which it does not, like superstition, deprive its vo- 
 taries. What these are, is obvious; namely, calm- 
 ness and tranquillity of mind, even that peace of 
 God which passeth all understanding, an_ enjoy- 
 ment of all the innocent pleasures of life, and a hope 
 full of immortality. On the sentiment Rosenm. 
 compares Seneca Ep. 79.; and Wets., Aboth 4, 6. 
 Magna est lex, que dat vitam facientibus ipsam in 
 seculo preesenti, et in seculo futuro. 
 
 9. Πιστὸὺς---ἀξιος. On this formula see the note 
 on 1, 15. It is doubted whether it ought to be re- 
 ferred to the preceding, or to the following. The 
 
 decet? Adolescentes solent corpus exercere; at ego tibi adoles- 
 centi studium longé prestantius commendo: meditare doctrinam 
 Evangelii, coerce corpus tuum ejusque appetitus, preepara te futuris 
 casibus, mentem excole,” Rosenm. compares Pythag. ap, Stob. 
 Serm. 1. ἰσχύειν τῇ ψυχῇ μᾶλλον ἤ τῷ σώματι αἱροῦ. I add Diog. 
 Daert. 1, 56. ἀθληταὶ δὲ καὶ ἀσκούμενοι, πολυδάπανοι καὶ νικῶντες 
 ἐπιξημίοι. i 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv. 251 
 
 former opinion (which is supported by the antients 
 and most moderns) seems preferable. ‘* Without 
 (says Benson) these three grand principles, a God, a 
 providence, and a future state, religion could not 
 subsist. And the Apostle, in the next verse, plainly 
 intimates that these were his support under afflic- 
 tions, as well as animated him to zeal and diligence 
 in active service.” 
 
 10. εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ---Θεώ ϑώντι, “ΤῸ this end we 
 both labour and suffer persecution and insult.” The 
 var. lect. ἀγωνιδόμεθα is evidently ex emendatione. 
 Ἠλπίκαμεν, “ have hoped and do hope.” Or it is 
 used, like the aorist, of that which is customary, and 
 habitual. Rosenm. well paraphrases: ‘ Ideo labo- 
 ribus maceror, obloquiis et conviviis laceror, quia in 
 Deo confido, nimirum, vite hujus mez perpessitie 
 in illa altera rationem ab eo habitum iri.” Cicero 
 (he adds) thought for the mere acquiring of a death- 
 less name (than which he accounted nothing greater 
 or more desirable) labours were to be endured. 
 And he cites Cic. Cat. Maj. Quis tantos labores 
 diurnos nocturnosque domi militizque susciperet, si 
 iisdem finibus gloriam quibus vitam esset termina- 
 turos? which possibly Milton had in view in the 
 celebrated passage of Lycidas: 
 
 ““ Fame is the spur that the clear sp’rit doth raise 
 To scorn delights, and live laborious days.” 
 
 10. ὅς ἐστι σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων. This is well 
 explained by Theophyl., “ would have all men be 
 saved ;” and by Benson, “is disposed to be the 
 Saviour,’ &c. See the note supral,1. By πιστ. 
 is, of course, meant Christians. Wets. compares a 
 sentiment of Hierocl.: ἐστι μὲν δημιουργὸς πάντων, 
 τῶν δὲ ἀγαθών Kol πατὴρ---μισεῖ μιὲν οὐδένα ἀνθρώπων, 
 τὸν δὲ ἀγαθὸν διαφερόντας ἀσπάϑεται" and Plut. Alex. 
 Ρ- 683 a. καὶ λέγειν, wis πάντων μὲν ὄντα κοινὸν ἀνθρώ- 
 πων πατέρα. τὸν θεὸν, ἰδίους δὲ ποιούμενον ἑαυτῷ τοῦς 
 φατε SN 7 ~ , , e 7, 
 
 » μηθεὶς σου τῆς νεύτητος καταφρονείτω---ἀγνείᾳ. 
 
952 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 
 
 Considering the force of the second clause ἀλλὰ-- 
 ἐν λόγῳ, &c., it is plain that we must interpret this: 
 *“ Let no one have reason to despise,” &c. ᾿Αλλὰ 
 may be rendered “but (in order thereto).” ‘The 
 verb to despise, followed by different nouns, as de- 
 spise one’s youth (i. 6. despise one on account of 
 one’s youth), one’s number, one’s want of strength, 
 &c. is not unfrequent in the Classical writers, from 
 whom examples are cited by Wets. Ἔν λόγω, in 
 speech (so Theophyl.); or, as some explain, teaching. 
 Compare 5,17. Ἔν ἀναστροφῇ, conduct, behaviour. 
 « ‘Thus (paraphrases Heinr.) exemplifying your doc- 
 trines by your conduct.” 
 
 So far all is clear. But on the words following 
 there is a difference of opinion. ’Ev ἀγάπη must not 
 (with Heinr.) be united with the former, so as to 
 torm an hendiadis; but rather taken independently. 
 For the four following particulars seem intended as 
 exemplifications of the general term ἐν ἀναστροφῇ : 
 and I cannot but censure the slovenly mode in which 
 many eminent Commentators (see Benson and 
 Heinr.) huddle up the terms of this sentence. ᾿Εν 
 ἀγάπῃ is well explained by the antients, love to all 
 men, whether Christians or not. ‘The next particu- 
 lar, ἐν πνεύματι, is omitted in a few antient MSS. and 
 Versions, and is cancelled by Griesb.; but very 
 rashly and uncritically ; since no good reason can 
 be assigned for its insertion, but many for 
 its omission (especially in MSS. like those, 
 which have been tampered with), namely, from 
 the acknowledged difficulty; for such there is, 
 otherwise the Commentators would not have inter- 
 preted so variously; some understanding it of the 
 spiritual gifts ; others, of the temper and disposition. 
 Yet as the antients (I find) universally explained it 
 as having a reference to the Holy Spirit, so the cor- 
 rectors of the above MSS. saw not how it could have 
 place among the duties of common life: for so many 
 Commentators, antient and modern, seem to think. 
 It must, however, I think, mean, “in a spiritual 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 253 
 
 frame or temper.” So Theophyl.: ἐν τῇ πνευματικῇ 
 καταστάσει. 
 
 The πίστις cannot properly be regarded as having 
 place among the duties of common life, unless it be 
 interpreted (with Rosenm.) fidelity. But that sense 
 is too precarious to be depended on: and I must 
 equally censure the rashness of both correctors and 
 interpreters on this passage, which being expressed 
 popularly, must not be bound down to the rules of 
 regular composition. Considering the context, it 
 mist be interpreted of faith, not as regards the in- 
 ternal feelings, but the outward profession of an 
 undoubting confidence in God. 
 
 ᾿Αγνεία must refer to moral purity and chastity in 
 general. 
 
 13. ἕως ἔρχομαι, i. 6. “till I come mind these 
 maxims, and then I will instruct you farther.” (So 
 Theophyl.) This is a popular expression, and must 
 not be pressed on. 
 
 13. πρόσεχε τῇ ἀναγνώσει. 
 
 Almost all the Commentators interpret this of reading the Scrip- 
 tures, 1, e. as far as they were then promulgated, namely, the Old 
 Testament, (see 2 Tim. 3, 15 ἃ 16), called "tpn. And some 
 think these are meant to be contrasted with the ἘΠῚ or, at least, 
 unauthorized traditions of the Rabbis. But although the Apostle 
 may be presumed to have intended especially to recommend the 
 study of the Old Testament, yet I apprehend that he also has in 
 view such reading or study in general as would contribute to the 
 better wndersianding of the Scriptures, and the fitting Timothy for 
 the exercise of teaching and preaching among the enlightened 
 Gentiles. It is strange that so few Commentators should have 
 seen this, among whom is Theodoret* and the judicious Doddr., 
 and, in some measure, Benson. J am happy to fortify this inter- 
 pretation by the authority of the learned professor Rutherforth, in 
 a most admirable Concio ad Clerum, intituled, De artzbus et doctri- 
 nis guibus Theologie studiosos erudiri oportet, which I would respect- 
 fully recommend to the perusal of my clerical brethren. But as it 
 is very scarce, I shall introduce the following important extract. 
 ‘“* Paulus, cum Timotheo precipiat, ut magno studio in lectionem 
 
 * Whose words are these: Ἔντεῦθέν ἐστι μαθεῖν, ws καὶ ἡμᾶς 
 προσήκει συνεισφέρειν τὸν πόνον, καὶ οὕτω λαμβάνειν τὴν “Χάριν 
 τοῦ Πνεύματος" καὶ γὰρ τῷ τρισμκαρὶῳ Τιμοθέῳ πνευματικῶ ὄντι τῇ 
 ἀναγνώσει προσέχειν ἐκέλευσεν ὁ διδάσκαλος. 
 
254: 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 
 
 incumbat, et Petrus, cum multo intellectu difficilia in sacris libris 
 contineri dicat, que ab instabilibus indoctisque hominibus non 
 sine ipsorum exitio pervertuntur, auctoritate sud, fanaticos illos 
 refellunt qui neminem Christiani Theologi munus rilé exequi 
 posse aiunt, nisi vel nihil doctrine attigerit, vel si quam forte pue- 
 rili institutione adeptus fuerit, cum Omnem ex animo suo penitus 
 exterminaverit. Nobis autem, qui et ipsi gravissimum hoc munus 
 suscepimus, et in alios qui idem suscepturi eruditionis caus& huc 
 veniant, instituendos ac docendos curas nostras et cogitationes 
 conferre debemus, querendum est preterea quenam sint artium 
 doctrinarumque studia, que officiunt, ut, Spiritu Sancto nos adjus 
 vante, idonei simus Novi Feederis Ministri. Paulus precepit, ut in 
 quibus rerum sacrarum administratio committatur, tales sint, qui 
 purum sincerumque Dei verbum, prout idem didicerint, firmiter 
 retineant ; qui possint benevolos auditores hortari ac docere, ad- 
 versarios convincere, pervicaces, inaniter garrulos, fraudulentesque 
 homines admonere, aut, si quando opus fuerit, acriter reprehendere; 
 ut seipsos tales prebeant, quales Deus probabit, opifices qui nullam 
 habeant erubescendi causam, et qui verbum veritatis ita distribuant ; ut 
 denique sunt ad docendum apti, et ad illos, qui sese veritati op- 
 ponant, quive eam deserentes fabulos consectentur, eam comitate 
 et mansuetudine, quatenus res sinat, erudiendos, p.1—S. And 
 again, p. 11. Quamvis igitur ineptum esset, quando inter indoctos 
 concionamur, controversias Theologicas in orationibus nostris dis- 
 ceptare ; orationum tamen nostrarum, quibus vel doctos vel in- 
 doctes ad vere religionis scientiam erudimus, ex scriptis eorum 
 a quibus disceptate sunt, materiam omnem petere oportet.” 
 
 I would add, that on the utility, if not necessity, of profane lite- 
 rature to the formation of the Critical Interpreter of Scripture and 
 useful Preacher of the word, we have the united opinion of the Fa- 
 thers and the most eminent modern Theologians. Chrys. every 
 where conjoins it: and I need only advert to his celebrated Dict. 
 τῶν πάντων κακῶν αἴτιον μὴ ἀναγινώσκειν βίβλια, ψυχῆς φάρμακα. 
 And so Basil, Gr. Ναξ., Clem. Alex., Jerome, Isidor., Pelus., Phot., 
 and indeed all the most eminent of the Greek Fathers. My limits 
 will only permit me to insert the following passage of GEcumen. 
 (partly from Chrys.) T.1. p. 66 Β and c., where commenting on 
 the passage of the Acts, in which it is said that Moses was learned in 
 all the wisdom of the Egyptians, he remarks : Ἔκ τούτου δῆλον, ὡς 
 οὐκ ἀποβλητέα πάντη ἐστὶν ἣ τῶν ἔξωθεν τῆς γραφῆς παίδευσις" 
 τρόπῳ γὰρ ἐγκωμίου εἴρηται, ὡς ἐπαιδεύθη Μωῦσῆς πάσῃ σοφίᾳ ᾿Αι- 
 γυπτίων, καὶ περὶ τῶν τριῶν παίδων καὶ Δανιὴλ, ὡς ὑπερέβαλλον 
 πάντας ἐν τῇ Χαλδαίων φιλοσοφίᾳ, καὶ ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐπιστήμαις" δεῖ 
 δὲ ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον αὐταῖς προσέχειν, τῇ θεοπνεύστῳ γραφῇ ἐμμένοντας" 
 οὔτε yap Μωῦσῆς, οὔτε οἱ περὶ ᾿Ανανίαν καὶ Δανιὴλ ἔμαθον ἂν τὴν 
 ξένην παιδείαν, εἰ μὴ ἀνάγῃ καὶ βίᾳ δεσποτῶν" καί γὰρ ἐν οὐδενὶ 
 αὐτῇ κεχρῆται" εἰ μὴ που pain ἄν τις, ὅτι καλὸν αὐτὴν μαθεῖν πρὸς 
 τὸ ἀνατρέψαι τὰς ἐκείνων ἀπάτας. On this important subject I may 
 be excused for referring my readers to a Visitation Sermon (or 
 rather Essay, with copious notes,) published by me nearly eleven years 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 255 
 
 ago, in which is especially evinced the necessity of learning to a 
 Theologian, by an examination of the chief requisites for forming a 
 skilful Interpreter of the Sacred Writings. I would also refer my 
 reader to Dr. Maltby’s Serm. vol. 2, 557. and to J. H. Pareus In- 
 stit. Instr. Vet. Test. sub. init. p. 1. Sect. 1. De studiis, cum probabili 
 Veteris Testamenti interpretaiione indivulso nexu conjunctis; and 
 Sect. 3. De subsidiariis studiis, que ingenuum Veteris Testamenti in- 
 terpretem ornent et adjuvent. Nor must I omit to mention a very 
 acute defence of learning, &c. as necessary to a Theologian, to be 
 found in an Appendix to Sanctus Sancitus by Dr. Kendall, Lond, 
 1654. fol., intituled, ‘* An Appendix against Master Horne, goring all 
 University Learning.” 
 
 The Philological student will, however, bear in mind, that by read- 
 ing is here meant that vigorous exercise of the mind in thought 
 upon any subject, which can alone convert what is read to nou- 
 rishment. In which view I would introduce a most judicious obser- 
 vation from an author in whom we should little expect it, Artemid. 
 Onir. 1, 12. p. 1, p. 25. Ed. Reif. φημὶ δεῖν οἴκοθεν παρασκεύασθαι 
 καὶ οἰκείᾳ συνέσει χρῆσθαι, καὶ μὴ μόνον τοῖς βιβλίοις ἐπανέχειν-τ-ο 
 ἀτελὴς καὶ ἀπέραντος. Finally, in the words of the Poet, Πράμματα 
 μαθεῖν δεῖ, καὶ μαθόντα νοῦν ἔχειν. 
 
 18. τῇ παρακλήσει, τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ. Since the Apos- 
 tle puts τῇ ἀναγνώσει first, and then τῇ παρακλήσει 
 and τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, I think, with Heinr., that he in- 
 tended to represent the usefulness of the first, in 
 order to the more effectual production of the other 
 two. 
 
 14. μὴ ἀμέλει---πρεσβυτερίου. ‘The word χάρισμα 
 here denotes, according to its usual signification, the 
 New Testament, a supernatural gift of the Spirit ; 
 though many recent Commentators endeavour to 
 explain all away by lowering the sense to dotes 
 anim, &c. (See Noesselt Exerc. p. 80. or Rosenm., 
 who faithfully details this interpretation, which he 
 himself adopts.) ‘Though even Benson (prone as he 
 is to innovation) here strenuously maintains the 
 former signification of χάρισμα, which he says occurs 
 not only in the New Testament, but the Apostolical 
 Fathers. (See his note.) 
 
 By the pera ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρών τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου, 
 I agree with Benson, we are to understand the laying 
 on of hands in addition to those of the Apostle. For 
 at 2 Tim. 1, 6. the gift is said to have been imparted 
 bythe laying on of the hands of Paul. Yet I cannot 
 
256 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 
 
 agree with him that we may infer that the Elders did 
 not confer it. They, it should seem, contributed to 
 confer it; though in what proportion we are not 
 told; neither is it necessary for us to know. On the 
 rite of laying on of hands see the Commentators and 
 Vitringa de Synag. vet. p. 507. 
 
 15. ταῦτα μελέτα, ἐν τούτοις ἴσθι, ““ἤτοο meditare, et 
 in his totus esto.” (Rosenm.) Both these phrases, 
 as used of diligent attention, and devoted care, are 
 found in the best Classical writers; the latter in the 
 Latin as well as the Greek. (See Wetstein’s exam- 
 ples.) The ἵνα has perhaps the eventual sense. On 
 the exact force of the above phrases see Benson. 
 
 15. ἐν πᾶσιν, ““ inter omnes.” Theophl. and others 
 interpret ‘in all things.” 
 
 16. ἔπεχε ceavtd—oov. Heinr. takes this for an 
 hendiadis; 4. d. ‘take heed how thou teachest.” 
 But this is paring down the sense. ‘The antients and 
 most moderns riyhtly explain the σεαυτῴ, ‘* thy own 
 conduct and life; and 0:3., “‘ thy doctrine.” At ἔπεχε 
 (like πρόσεχε) there is an ellipsis of νοῦν ; and ἐπίμενε 
 αὐτοῖς is rendered by Rosenm., “ his esto intentus ;” 
 as ἐπίστηθι at 2 Tim. 4, 2., and the ἐπίκεισο of 
 Heysch. 
 
 Then it is added τοῦτο yap—oov. By σώσεις, as 
 regards the ἀκούοντας is meant, ‘be the means of 
 saving them; contribute to their salvation ;” which 
 is all that this popular form signifies. Tor we are 
 not to suppose that even thus they would add ulti- 
 mately be saved. 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Verse 1, 2. Πρεσβυτέρῳ μὴ ἐπιπλήξης, “ Do not 
 roughly rebuke an elderly man.” ᾿Ιὑπιπλήσσειν sig- 
 nifies properly to strike upon; and is used of sharp 
 reproof. The Commentators compare the Horatian 
 patruz verbera lingua. Παρακάλει ws πατέρα, “use 
 exhortation such as to a father.” Agreeable to the 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. 257 
 
 custom of antiquity, by which old men were treated 
 as fathers, of which Wets. adduces numerous exam- 
 ples; as Diog. Laert. Plat. 3, 95. εἰ πρὸς πρεσβυτέρους 
 ἁμαρτάνοντας διαλέγεται, ἁομόττοντας δεῖ λόγους as 
 πρεσβυτέροις διαλέγεσθαι, and Phocyl. 209. (an imita- 
 tion of this pseudo) : πρέσβυν ὁμήλικα πατρὸς ἴσαις τι- 
 μαῖςσι γέραιρε. But the Apostie skilfully engrafts on 
 this other corresponding directions. 
 
 2. ἐν πάση ἀγνείᾳ, 1. 6. not only with chastity, but, 
 as the racy implies, with every caution, so as not to 
 give the slightest handle for any suspicion. As 
 an example of νεώτερος and νεοτέρας I would refer to 
 Artemid. Onir. 1, 31. 
 
 3. χήρας τίμα τὰς ὄντως χήρας. The term rip. must 
 here be taken in a peculiar sense, i. e. not strictly, . 
 honour, but rather, “ give them what their rights may 
 claim.” Now in the present instance this must com- 
 prehend not only respect, but sustenance. See 
 Schleus. Lex. Τὰς ὄντως χήρας, “those that really 
 answer to that description ;”* which is further ex- 
 plained at ver. 5. It has not been a little debated 
 whether these are to be regarded as the same with 
 the deaconesses. ‘This would seem to be doubtful : 
 nor have we sufficient knowledge of the state of the 
 primitive Church to be able to determine the ques- 
 tion. See the Commentators, especially Benson and 
 Heinr. 
 
 4. εἰ δὲ τις χήρα---εὐσεβεῖν. The ἔκγονα may sig- 
 nify descendants, children, grand-children, or, as it 
 might happen, great-grand-children; (which in a 
 country where marriages are contracted so early, 
 would sometimes be the case even before the sixtieth 
 year). Μανθανέτωσαν, 501]. τὰ ταῦτα τὰ τέκνα, let 
 them learn ; not “ from their mother, or grand-mo- 
 ther” (as Heinr. explains), but “ from me who sig- 
 
 * On this sense of ὄντως, as applied to an epithet, Rosenm. cites 
 Hierocl. in Pyth. ὁ ὄντως πατήρ. 1 add Dionys. Hal. 1, 541, 33. ra 
 κοινὰ ὄντως κοινὰ, Athen. 571 Cc. τῶν ὄντως ἑταίρων, and 572, ὄντως 
 éraipas. τ΄ Ὶ 
 
 VOL. VIII. 5 
 
258 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. 
 
 nify to them the will of God.” Others, with less 
 probability, think there is here a transition from the 
 singular to the plural. It is more correct to say, 
 that the whole construction is popular. 
 
 Εὐσεβεῖν is said by Rosenm. to be synonymous 
 with ti. a little before. But there is this difference, 
 that as the duty towards parents is so closely con- 
 nected with that towards God, and so expressly 
 enjoined by Him, the same term εὐσεβεῖν was used 
 to denote both; as pius, pietas, &c. in the Latin. 
 Τὸν ἴδιον οἶκον is, by a delicacy of language, put for 
 their parents; though this is directly expressed in 
 the clause following, which is exegetical of the pre- 
 ceding. 
 
 With the duty derived from Divine sanction the 
 Apostle interweaves that which even human reason 
 and equity would teach; and this is indicated by the 
 καὶ ἀμοιβὰς ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς προγόνοις, Which can require 
 no explanation; nor can the phrase need those nu- 
 merous examples so laboriously piled up by the Phi- 
 lological Commentators. 
 
 The πρῶτον, at which Heinr. causelessly stumbles, 
 hints that they are first to support those of their own 
 family, and afterwards those of the Christian society 
 at large. 
 
 5. ἡ δὲ ὄντως χήρα---ἡμέρας. The δὲ is resump- 
 tive; and this sentence explains what the Apostle 
 meant by χήρα, namely, destitute, i. 6. of husband or 
 children, or of any other means of support.* The 
 words following are meant to hint at the other qua- 
 lifications required, in order to entitle such an one to 
 the τιμὴ in question, namely, sound Christian prin- 
 ‘ciples and belief, and a constant attendance on the 
 ‘external observances of piety. Of the sense here of 
 yam. as spoken of what is habitual, there 15. δὴ exam- 
 
 * The word is by the Commentators and Lexicographers derived 
 ‘from xfpos, and that from χηρόω. But that verb is rather a deri- 
 ‘vative of χῆρος, which seems to come from χέω, cognate with ydw, 
 to gape, stand apart from, want the assistance of. So the following 
 μεμονωμένη. 1 would compare Eurip, Alc. 1110. χερεύεις μόνος ; 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. 259 
 
 ple supra 4, 10. where see the note. After Θεὸν Theo- 
 phyl. and Heinr. supply μόνον. 
 
 6. 7 δὲ σπαταλῶσα, ϑώσα τέθνηκε, “But she that 
 liveth in luxury.” ‘That such is the sense is plain 
 from James 5, 5. ἐτρυφήσατε καὶ ἐσπαταλήσατε. This 
 verb comes from σπατάλη, which is derived from 
 σπάτος, the hide, or skin. Itis not, however, used 
 (as Schleus. says) de cutis pruritu; but there is ra- 
 ther a reference to currying, or taking care of the 
 skin or flesh; which is a metaphor denoting luxury. 
 So Hor. Ep. 1, 4, 15. Me pinguem et nitidum, bene 
 curatd -cute, vises. The Commentators compare 
 σπαθᾶν. See Heysch. Suic. Thes., and Loesner. 
 
 Themetaphor in the words ϑῶσα τέθνηκε is fre- 
 quent both in the Rabbinical and Classical writers 
 (especially the Philosophers), from whom Wets. ad- 
 duces examples; as Jalk. Rubeni, and Seneca Ep. 
 77. add Plutarch in frag. Stob. 35. p. 864. ὁ τῶν 
 ἀσώτων βίος ὥσπερ KAT ἡμέραν ἀποθνήσκων ἐκφέρεται, 
 and Joseph. 1820, 3. ἕως δὲ εἰσὶν ἐν σώματι θνήτω δεδε- 
 μένω καὶ τῶν τούτου κακῶν συνοαναπίπλανται, τὸ ἀληθέοσ- 
 τατον εἰπεῖν τεθήκασι. See the note on Eph. 2, 1. 
 The sense is: “She that is such may be regarded as 
 spiritually dead, no longer a member of Christ’s 
 Church, and therefore having no claims to alms be- 
 stowed on poor Christians.” 
 
 8. εἰ δὲ r1s—yeigwv. The Apostle here enforces 
 the direction he had given at ver. 4. on the mainte- 
 mance of poor widows ‘by their children or grand- 
 children ; namely, by urging that if they do not so, 
 they will show less natural feeling and sense of reli- 
 gious obligation than the very Heathens. Heinr. 
 ‘however, thinks that the words are said of the widows 
 themselves, and state the third requisite, namely, that 
 they have been good mothers of families. But this 
 is very harsh. . 
 
 At the οἰκείων many Interpreters stumble; some 
 rendering it, “ of the household of faith ;” and others, 
 as Doddr. (running into needless distinctions), 
 “those that reside in the same house:” and even 
 
 s2 
 
260 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. 
 
 Heinr. adopts this ill-founded criticism. The truth 
 is, that the words καὶ μάλιστα τῶν οἰκείων are exege- 
 tical of the τῶν ἰδίων, and denote all near relations ; 
 a sense frequent in the Classical writers; as ‘Thu- 
 eyo. ὁ, ΟἿ: 
 
 8. ἤρνηται is to be taken as an aorist, “" denteth the 
 faith,” i. 6. denies and rejects by his works that faith 
 which he professes with his lips; i. e. is guilty of 
 practical infidelity. Compare Tit. 1,16. So Pro- 
 cop. Goth. p. 336. (cited by Wets.) ὁ τῇ φύσει τὸ 
 πιστὸν ἔχων, οὐ ξυμμεταβάλλει τῇ τύχη τὴν γνώμην---ὖ 
 γὰρ τὸ τῆς διανοίας νοσῶν ἄστατον, καὶ τὴν εἰς τοὺς φιλ- 
 τάτους ἠρνήσατο πίστιν. Ladd Liban. Orat. 828. ὁ γὰρ 
 πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους πονηρὸς, οὐκ ἂν γένηται περὶ τὰ κοινὰ 
 βελτίων. Among the Greeks, he who refused or 
 neglected to do this was made ἀτίμος, and deprived 
 of every political franchise. By the faith is meant 
 the moral law adopted into the Gospel. So Is. 58, 
 ἡ. ἀπὸ τῶν οἰκείων τῶν σπέρματός Tov οὐχ ὑπερόψει. 
 
 8. καὶ ἐστιν ἀπίστου χείρων, 1. e. simply, ““ he is less 
 observant of the moral and relative duties than an 
 infidel ;” for such were little negligent of those 
 duties. So Tacit. (cited by Wets.) Liberos cuique 
 ac propinquos Natura carissimos esse voluit. See 
 Theophyl. 
 
 9. χήρα καταλεγέσθω. What is meant here by χήρα 
 the Commentators are not agreed. Some think it 
 denotes the Deaconesses mentioned supra, ch. 3. 
 (See Benson and Doddr.) Thus it would be a name 
 of honour. So Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. cited by Ro- 
 senm.: ἀσπάϑομαι τὰς παρθένους τὰς λεγομένας χήρας. 
 Others think that these χήραι were poor widows (pro- 
 perly so called) put on a list, for sustenance at the 
 expense of the Church. Rosenm. says, that besides 
 the general roll which comprehended all the Chris- 
 tians of any Church, there were particular ones con-- 
 fined to the clergy, and those poorer Christians who 
 were maintained at the public expense, including 
 virgins and widows ; and of such lists the Ecclesias- 
 tical Canons often make mention.” The Apostle’s 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. 201 
 
 meaning is obscure; yet the latter opinion seems 
 the more probable: and the age at which they might 
 be elected seems to strengthen it; for the sixtieth 
 year was that at which (as we learn from the Rab- 
 bins and Classical writers) old age was supposed to 
 commence. The verb ἐγκαταλέγω, which signifies 
 to enter upon a list, would equally suit both.* 
 
 It should seem that before the sixtieth year they 
 might receive casual relief, but were not put on the 
 list for regular maintenance. Upon the whole, how- 
 ever, it is impossible, without more knowledge of 
 the circumstances of the primitive Church, to come 
 to any determination of such a question. 
 
 On the sense of ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνὴ, the Commentators 
 are equally divided in opinion as upon the μιᾶς γυναι- 
 kos ἄνδρα, supra 3,2. Most explain it, ““ ἃ wife of 
 one husband, one who has had but one husband.” 
 Others, ‘‘ who has had only one husband at a time.” 
 Others again, ‘‘ a wife who has preserved her con- 
 jugal fidelity.” And so, besides some eminent mo- 
 derns, as Rosenm. and Doddr., Theodoret : δῆλον, ws 
 οὐ τὴν διγαμίαν ἐκβάλλει, ἀλλὰ TO σωφρόνως ἐν γάμῳ 
 βιοῦν νομοθετεῖ. But I must confess this seems not ἃ 
 little harsh; and the first mentioned is by far the 
 most natural interpretation.- 
 
 * Jaspis, who adopts the latter opinion, observes, that with this 
 entering upon a list was (as we learn from Jerome), in order to in some 
 measure compensate the Church for its bounty, conjoined an obliga- 
 tion to undertake certain public functions, perform business of a 
 lighter kind, suited to one in the decline of life. ‘ These widows 
 (adds he) assisted the Deaconesses properly so called, and were called 
 πρεσβυτίδες. (See Tit. 2,3. Theophyl. on this place calls them ras 
 γραίδας, and Theodoret ras yeynoaxvias.) Epiphanius expressly 
 distinguishes τὰς ypaorépas πρεσβυτίδας, from the common Dea- 
 conesses, and at the same time adds that they were χήραι. 
 
 + Because the Latins used the word wnivira to denote a woman 
 who from her virginity had been married only to one man ; and be- 
 cause that kind of monogamy was reckoned honourable in some of 
 the Heathen priests and priestesses, Mackn. thinks that the cor- 
 ruptors of Christianity enjoined these things to Christian Bishops, 
 and Deacons, and widows, that they might, in the eyes of the peo- 
 ple, be nothing inferior to the Heathen priests and priestesses, 
 
262 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Vv. 
 
 10. ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς μαρτυρουμένη. See the note on 
 8,7. The literal sense is: borne testimony to for 
 good works.” ’Evis for eri. ‘These good works are 
 then exemplified; so that εἰ may be rendered τ for 
 example. ‘The εἰ is, however, for ὅτι. (See Devar. 
 and Hoogev.) ᾿Επτεκνοτρόφησεν, brought up, edu- 
 cated. Now the context implies a careful, sober, 
 and religious education. So ‘Theophyl.: ὡς dé. See 
 also Theodoret. I cannot think with Heinr., that 
 the bearing of children is here especially insisted on, 
 however dishonourable sterility might be. And the 
 Jus trium liberorum can have no bearing on the 
 present case. It should rather seem that the Apos- 
 tle did not intend anv objection to be made to a 
 widow, that she had not borne children. Ei érexvo- 
 τροῷ. may mean, “ if she has carefully educated such 
 children as she has had,” whether any, or none. 
 And in the same manner the εἰ ἐξενοδόχησεν and εἰ 
 θλιβομένοις ἐπήρκεσεν, may only mean, “ if she has 
 shown all hospitality to strangers, and rendered all 
 assistance to the poor, which the circumstances of 
 her husband and family permitted.”* On éSeved. see 
 the note on 3, 2. The éSevedoy. being followed by 
 the εἰ ἁγίων πόδας ἔνειψεν (put exegetically) shows that 
 the strangers are supposed to be (as they would 
 usually be) Christians. | 
 
 The washing of the feet (on which see Joh. 13, 
 14. and the note there) is put, to denote, in a gene- 
 ral way, kind attention to the comfort of the guests ; 
 and in the East this is reckoned one of the greatest ; 
 and other domestic attentions, were rendered either 
 personally by, or under the superintendence of, 
 
 * Mackn. irrationally argues, from the expensiveness of such 
 hospitality and assistance, that these widows could not have done it 
 at their own charges, but were female Deacons employed in these 
 offices at the common expense; and that in chusing widows, Ti- 
 mothy was to prefer those who had been Deaconesses ; but this is 
 making confusion worse confounded. Lodging was not expensive ; 
 and the rest would depend upon their ability. They might, or 
 they might not, have been Deaconesses: but the Apostle has (I 
 think) reference to nothing of the sort. 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. 263 
 
 the wives, or other females of the family. See 
 Wetstein’s examples, to which I add Herodot. 6, 
 19, 9. 
 
 10. εἰ θλιβομένοις ἐπήρκεσεν, ‘if she hath relieved 
 the distressed.* Of this sense of ἐπαρκέω many ex- 
 amples are adduced by Wets. Θλιβομένοις, distressed. 
 See Bp. Pearson’s notes to Ignat. Epist. p. 17. 
 
 The Apostle then (Theodoret observes), συλλήβδην 
 ἅπαντα τῆς ἀρετῆς εἶπε τὰ εἴδ. sums up the whole, by 
 the words ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῴ ἐπηκολούθησε, where 
 ἐπηκ. 15. very significant, and denotes, “ followed up, 
 and lost no opportunity of performing.” So διώκειν, 
 1 Thess. 5, 15. and Heb. 12, 14. 
 
 Ll. Newrégas δὲ χήρας παραιτοῦ, ““Ὀπί the younger 
 ones reject (as applicants to be put upon this list).” 
 In the next words ὅταν yap καταστρηνιάσωσι τοῦ Xpic- 
 τοῦ, γαμεῖν θέλουσιν, the phraseology is very brief and 
 obscure. Heinr. regards the words as an inversion, 
 for ὅταν γὰρ γαμεῖν θέλουσιν, καταστρηνιάξϑουσιν κατὰ τοῦ 
 X.; which may be true; but something is required to 
 be supplied; thus: ‘‘ For being restrained from mar- 
 rying again, and sometimes having a wish so to do, 
 they are apt to kick at the restraints of the Christian 
 faith, and take a second spouse.” It should seem 
 that these χήραι engaged themselves to the perform- 
 ance of certain duties inconsistent with a married 
 state, and that a promise (or vow) of remaining single 
 was expected of them, on being entered on the list. 
 
 The term καταστρην. is variously explained. By 
 some (as Schleus., in his Lexicon), “ to live luxuri- 
 ously on the alms of the Church.” But this seems 
 neglecting the sense of κατὰ. I see no reason to 
 abandon the common interpretation, supported by 
 the antients and most moderns, and which is well 
 expressed by Heinr. thus: “ pra nimia luxuria et 
 
 * Theoph. explains, “‘ by money, patronage, and intercession.” 
 And Theodoret observes: Ov τὴν ποσότητα τῆς χορηγίας, ἀλλὰ τῆς 
 γνώμης Snret τὴν ποιότητα" τοιαῦτα ἦν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς εὐαγγελίοις 
 χήρας τὰ δύο λεπτά. 
 
204 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Vv. 
 
 opum affluentia insultare Christo et ejus religioni,” 
 i. 6. swell against, rebel, and kick against. Compare 
 1 Sam. 2, 29. and Deut. 32, 15. which St. Paul 
 seems to have had in view. ‘The word comes from 
 στρηνὴς, which signifies stiff, starch, rough, (whence 
 strenuus,) also swelling, rebellious. 
 
 12. ἔχουσαι κρίμοι ὅτι τὴν πρώτην πίστιν ἠθέτησαν. 
 On the sense of these words the Commentators are 
 at issue. Many recent ones think that ἠθέτησαν τὴν 
 πρώτην πίστιν denotes, “ cast off the Christian faith ;” 
 and they render κρίμα condemnation. This interpre- 
 tation, indeed, the expression might well bear; but 
 it is very harsh: for nothing has been said about 
 their having abandoned the religion, except that 
 some fancy that the marriage could only be with 
 a Heathen husband; which seems an unfounded 
 fancy. ‘The most rational interpretation seems to be 
 that of the antients, and some eminent moderns, who 
 explain, “‘ to the breaking of their promise, or vow 
 of remaining unmarried.” And thus ἔχουσαι κρίμα 
 will signify, ‘incurring condemnation.” ‘This sense 
 of πίστις is of perpetual occurrence: and thus πρώ- 
 τὴν admits of an apter sense than on the new inter- 
 pretation. See Chrys., Theophyl., Gicumen., Theo- 
 doret, Scult, Camer., and others. It is plain, how- 
 ever, that κρίμα must here be taken in the sense con- 
 demnation ; q.d. ‘‘ they will commit a great sin by 
 breaking so solemn a vow.” * 
 
 13. ἅμα δὲ Kal apyal μανθάνουσι περιερχόμεναι τὰς 
 οἰκίας. ‘The Apostle means to say, that with the 
 younger widows this maintenance at the public ex- 
 pence will engender the vices which idleness ever 
 produces in those who are able to work. By the use 
 of the present tense here and in the former verse, I 
 
 * It is manifest how widely the case of these widows differs from 
 that of the nuns of the Romanists. The former bound themselves 
 by such a vow for the purpose of greater usefulness ; whereas the 
 latter, by wholly secluding themselves from the world, deprive them- 
 selves of all opportunity of this kind. 
 
 ἧ 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. 205 
 
 cannot but think (with Theophyl.) that the Apostle 
 adverts to what had really happened, and was hap- 
 pening. 
 
 ᾿Αργαὶ μανθάνουσι, sub. οὔσαι, for εἶναι : a com- 
 mon Grecism. Other interpretations are proposed ; 
 but none that have any semblance of truth. See 
 Wolf and Heinr. Φλύαροι καὶ περίεργοι, triflers* and 
 busy-bodies, curious, prying into what does not con- 
 cern them ;- and consequently λαλοῦσαι τὰ px) δέοντα. 
 The οὐ μόνον hints that the vices following are en- 
 gendered by idleness. Theophyl. well annotates 
 thus: Περιοδεύουσαι γὰρ τὰς οἰκίας, οὐδὲν GAN ἢ τὰ 
 ταύτης πρὸς ἐκείνην φέρουσι, καὶ τὰ ἐκείνης εἰς ταύτην" 
 καὶ ἀναγκαίως εἰς περιεργίαν ἐκ τοῦ ἐρευνᾷν πάντα, καὶ 
 φλυαρίαν, ἐκ τοῦ λέγειν τὰ πάντων πρὸς πᾶντας, ἐκτρα- 
 χηλίβονται. 
 
 18. λαλοῦσαι τὰ μὴ δεόντα. <A sort of euphemism, 
 signifying, “ talking scandal : a vice with which 
 the fair sex have been in all ages charged. So Eurip. 
 Phoen. 205. φιλόψογον δὲ χρῆμα θηλειῶν ἔφυ Σμικρὰς δ᾽ 
 ἀφορμὰς ἣν λάβωσι τῶν λόγων, Π]λείους ἐπεισφέρουσιν" 
 ἠδονὴ δὲ τις γυναιξὶ, μηδὲν ὑγιὲς ἀλλήλας λέγειν. 
 
 14. βούλομαι οὖν νεωτέρας γαμεῖν. [{ 15 strange that 
 our Common Version and Benson should render 
 “younger women,’ when both the antients and al- 
 most all moderns are agreed that it can only mean 
 the younger widows, of whom the context speaks. 
 With respect to the βούλομαι, it must not be ren- 
 
 * The term comes from φλύος, a bubble, such as rises in soap and 
 water: a fit image of worthlessness; and to blow up such well de- 
 signates the strenua inertia of the trifler. By referring the metaphor 
 to water boiling over, and interpreting this term of the fermentation 
 with which trifling persons give vent to their feelings, Doddr. him- 
 self φλυαρεῖ. Nor was Wets. much better employed in heaping to- 
 gether examples of such common words as φλύαρος and its deriva- 
 tives, 
 
 + This busy, curious, prying spirit is admirably depicted in a 
 masterly sketch of Theophr. Char. Eth. Wetstein’s examples show 
 how much the word zeprepy. was associated with terms denoting 
 garrulity. Indeed, as the Poet says, ‘‘ For who talks much, must 
 talk in vain.” 
 
266 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. 
 
 dered, with Mackn. and others, I order, command. 
 It rather unites injunction and advice. Here it has 
 been justly argued that St. Paul permits second 
 marriages; nay, Doddr. observes that it would be a 
 very great objection against Christianity if second 
 marriages were condemned by it! Which is very 
 true; but it is one thing to permit, and another to 
 approve: and here the Apostle’s approbation cannot 
 be inferred: for I agree with those Commentators 
 (as Grot.) who think that the βούλομαι is to be taken 
 comparatée ; q.d. I wish them to marry again, if 
 they are so inclined and have opportunity, rather 
 than aim at what they cannot attain,” namely, a 
 dedicating of themselves, by celibacy, to the promo- 
 tion of the Gospel. 
 
 The words τεκνογονεῖν and οἰκοδεσποτεῖν signify, to 
 exercise and occupy themselves in the duties of a 
 wife. And the following μηδεμίαν---- χάριν show the 
 good which might be expected to result from such 
 constant occupation, namely, that they would avoid 
 the temptations of idleness, and give no handle of 
 calumny to the adversaries of the faith. Compare 
 Luke 21, 15. 1 Cor. 16,9. Phil. 1, 28. 2 Thess. 
 2,5. In τῷ ἀντικειμένῳ, as Heinr. observes, we have 
 the singular for the plural; as often. λοιδορίας 
 χάριν is for λοιδορίας ἕνεκα, and stands in the place of 
 εἰς λοιδορίαν, quod attinet ad, &c. 
 
 15. ἤδη γὰρ τινες ἐξετράπησαν ὀπίσω τοῦ Σατανᾶ. 
 This is thought to denote defection from the Chris- 
 tian faith; ἐκτρ. signifying, metaphorically, to for- 
 sake a direct road. Satan, they say, stands for ido- 
 latry and heathenism, supported by Satan : and ὀπίσω, 
 they observe, with verbs of going, signifies to follow. 
 Perhaps the phrase éer. ὁπ. Zar. may also denote a 
 practical abandonment of the Gospel by such con- 
 duct as is inconsistent both with the letter and the 
 spirit of it. 
 
 16. εἶ τις---ἐπαρκέση. “ But if any (whether 
 male or female).” The πιστὸς ἢ riot} may be com- 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Vv. 267 
 
 pared with the νεωτέρους and νεωτέρας, supra ver. 2. 
 "Exes χήρας, “ hath widows as near relations.” ’Emap- 
 κείτω αὐταῖς, “ let him or her relieve their wants.” 
 Costin 5} ᾽ 
 See supra, ver. 10. Ἵνα ταῖς ὄντως χήραις ἐπαρκέση, 
 “ relieve those who are really destitute.’ See supra, 
 ver. 3. It is rightly observed by the antients and 
 some eminent moderns, that the Apostle plainly in- 
 tends no more than bare sustenance. On this sub- 
 ject (important, as being the principle on which any 
 system for the support of the poor ought to be 
 founded), see an admirable Discourse of Dr. Maltby, 
 vol. 2. 
 
 17. οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς 
 ἀξιούθωσαν. 
 
 From the relief of the poor the Apostle proceeds to the support 
 of the Clergy; and here we are left as much in the dark as on 
 many other matters treated of in the former part of the Epistle. 
 That a stipend was appropriated to the support of the ministry, we 
 learn from 1 Cor.: but, whether fixed or varying, whence arising, 
 and to what amount, we knew not, nor, indeed, could expect to 
 learn from the Apostle, whose delicacy forbids his entering into 
 particulars; and ecclesiastical history supplies little information. 
 We may, however, suppose that the stipend varied according to 
 circumstances, i.e. the expense to be incurred by subsistence in 
 various places. That it was noé left to chance collection is very 
 probable; else how could any minister regulate his expenses ? 
 That in all cases it then never exceeded what was absolutely neces- 
 sary fora decent maintenance, we may very well suppose from the 
 poverty of the contributors. Much more might be said on this sub- 
 ject, but on a point to which we might apply the words of Eurip. 
 (ap. Plut. 2,768.) Μάντις δ᾽ ἄριστος; ὅστις εἰκάξει καλῶς, 1 forbear. 
 
 The προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι are generally admitted to be the 
 Presbyters who presided over the rest (who, Benson thinks, are the 
 first-fruits of Ephesus) and over the Church of any place.* ’Aécoto- © 
 θαι τινος, like the Latin dignari, is used of the obtaining any thing 
 any one is thought worthy of, and is almost always used in a good 
 sense. 
 
 * Now the worthily and judiciously presiding over it required no 
 ordinary talents and great exertion. In all assemblies (as observes 
 Benson) the regularity or irregularity of their proceedings depends 
 very much on the wisdom and conduct of such as preside. The 
 due discharge of the work of presiding (especially in that iafant 
 state of the Church, and whén they were surrounded with enemies) 
 required great prudence and application; and the flourishing or 
 decay of the Christian Church did very much depend upon their 
 management, 
 
268 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. 
 
 Of these it issaid, that they shall have double τιμὴ, by which we 
 are not merely to understand (with some) respect, but also, consi- 
 dering the context, provision. So Theophyl. (from Chrys.) : τὴν 
 τῶν ἀναγκαίων χορηγίαν. And on this most of the recent Com- 
 mentators are agreed. See Wolf’s Cure, and a Dissertation of 
 Floder on this subject, referred to by Sch]. Lex. There is no doubt 
 but both respect and proviszon are meant; and, considering the 
 smallness of the stipend that the infant Churches could afford, there 
 is little question but that it might very properly have been doubled. 
 As, however, the τιμῆς seems also to import respect, and as the 
 Apostle never elsewhere descends to particulars of this kind,* I 
 agree with many eminent moderns that the διπλῆς τιμῆς is put (de- 
 terminate for indeterminate) to denote a much greater stipend. So 
 Theodoret explains πλειόνος. And so Chrys. and Theophyl., πολλῆς 
 a liberal stipend. Of this signification of διπλ. Schleus. examples 
 from Ap. 18, 16. Soph. Cid. Tyr. 1328, διπλᾶ σε πενθεῖν, καὶ διπλᾶ 
 φέρειν κακὰ" and AXschyl. Ag. 546. And many may be found in 
 the Old Testament. So also Shakspeare: ‘* Double double, toil 
 and trouble.” Wets., indeed, adduces passages where mention is 
 made of soldiers who, for services, had double pay assigned them, 
 and who were called é:potpivacand duplarii. But there is (1 think) 
 at most only an allusion to that custom. 
 
 On the expediency of a liberal provision being made for a Priest, 
 there ought not to be any doubt. The chief reason is well expressed 
 by Theophyl. thus: καὶ yap δεῖ τοὺς διδασκάλους ἀφθονίᾳ περιῤ- 
 ῥεῖσθαι τῶν ἀναγκαίων, ἵνα μὴ περισπώμενοι περὶ ταῦτα, ἀμελῶσι 
 τῆς διδασκαλίας. See an excellent note of Whitby in loc. 
 
 The use of the term τιμὴ to denote this stipend, may very well be 
 reckoned among the delicacies of Greek phraseology and of the 
 Apostle. See Heinr., who refers to Acts 28, 10. and Sir. 38, 1., 
 and says the Rabbins so explain 123 in Num. 22,16. See Schleus. 
 Lex. V. T. 
 
 17. μάλιστα οἱ κοπιῶντες ἐν Aoyw καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ. 
 Rosenm. compares Acts 6, 4., and observes that 
 there were then many inspectors of a congregation, 
 of whom some had only the public care of the 
 Church; others taught the people. Benson ren- 
 ders: “if they also diligently teach the Christian 
 doctrine.” He (it seems), like Heinr. and Rosenm., 
 took the λόγῳ and διδασκαλίᾳ for an hendiadis ; which 
 may be correct; but the former seems to respect 
 public teaching ; and the latter, private instruction. 
 
 * And very rarely the Ecclesiasticalewriters. Yet in a passage of 
 Euseb. H. E. L. 5, 28. (cited by Wets.) there is mention made of a 
 Sectarian Bishop being engaged ὥστε λαμβάνειν μηνιαῖα dnvapia pr’. 
 
 said 
 
1 TIMOTHY; CHAP. V. 269 
 
 18. λέγει yap—adrod. In order to establish the 
 claim of ministers to subsistence, the Apostle ad- 
 duces two passages from Scripture, one from Deut. 
 25, 14., but here applied figuratively (see the note 
 on | Cor. 9, 9.); the other is said, by Rosenm., to 
 have been added by St. Paul de suo. Yet the καὶ 
 must mean, “and again in another part of Scripture.” 
 Now it does occur at Matt. 10, 10.; and that St. 
 Paul had, at the time he wrote this Epistle, seen the 
 Gospel of St. Matt., at least, in the first Hebrew 
 edition, none can well doubt: and on account of 
 this having been recorded as uttered by our Lord, 
 and being in substance to be found at Deut. 24, 14. 
 and Levit. 19, 13., the Apostle is justified in the use 
 of the expression. 
 
 It is plain, from what precedes, that πρεσίβ. must 
 here mean a Presbyter, not an elderly person, as 
 some explain. See Whitby. Παραδ. implies a ready 
 admission of any story. See Raphel in loc. ’Exris 
 εἰ μὴ, except. Seel Cor. 14, 5. 15, 2. and the notes. 
 Avo ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων. So Deut. 19,15. Matt. 18, 16. 
 Joh. 8, 17. 
 
 20. τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας ἐνώπιον πάντων ἔλεγχε. It is 
 not quite agreed whom the Apostle means by the 
 ἅμαρτ., Whether the Presbyters, or the people at 
 large. ‘The context seems to favour the former 
 opinion, which is adopted by Benson and others ; 
 but the air of the sentence and the change of num- 
 ber require the latter, which the antients and most 
 moderns, with reason, prefer. All persons, then, of 
 whatever class, sex, or age, &c., are intended. 
 
 Heinr. would transpose ver. 19 & 20. But in- 
 stances of slight irregularity like the present are not 
 unfrequent. 
 
 On the mode of this ecclesiastical correction 
 Chrys. and Theophyl. have some admirable remarks. 
 They explain the τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας : τοὺς ἐπιμένοντας 
 τῇ ἀμαρτίᾳ, καὶ ods εὕρης μετὰ ἐρεύνης. And they 
 remark on the equally pernicious effects of excessive 
 severity and of extreme lenity. 
 
270 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. 
 
 The words ἵνα καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ φόβον ἔχωσι hint at the 
 only legitimate end of punishment, namely, not the 
 gratification of the ill-humour of the punisher, but 
 the prevention of the crime. 
 
 21. diepactipopoi—mrpookmiow. A most solemn 
 injunction, on which Benson may be consulted ; 
 though he, as often, runs into needless refinements. 
 It seems to have regard to all that went before in 
 this Chapter. Heinr. compares Joseph. B. J. 2, 
 16, 4. Μαρτύρομαι δ᾽ ἐγὼ ὑμῶν τὰ ayia, Kal τοὺς ἱεροὺς 
 ἀγγέλους τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὴν πατρίδα τὴν κοινὴν. The 
 phrase χωρὶς προκρίμιοιτος signifies, without preference 
 or partiality, προσωποληψία, respect of persons. The 
 next words μηδὲν ποιών κατὰ πρόσκλισιν signify, 
 «doing nothing through partiality.” Of the term 
 mpoox., and especially in its juridical application, 
 Wets. adduces many examples. 
 
 22, χεῖρας ταχέως μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει. It is strange 
 that Heinr. should interpret this of laying on hands, 
 in order to heal the sick, or of laying on hands, in 
 order to absolve penitents, both equally inconsistent 
 with the words following. Most Commentators, 
 antient and modern, are agreed (See Whitby) that 
 it applies to the ordination of Priests and Deacons ; 
 which implies an Episcopal authority and juris- 
 diction. 
 
 Ταχέως is well explained by Theophyl. μὴ ἐκ πρώ- 
 τῆς δοκιμασίας, μηδὲ ἐκ τρίτης, ἀλλὰ πολλάκις ἐξετάσας 
 καὶ ἀκριβῶς. ‘The words following (as ‘Theodoret 
 observes) hint at the danger, q, ἃ. “ lest from being 
 the cause of what is done, thou be partaker of his 
 offences, and consequently of the punishment thence 
 resulting.” The σεαυτὸν ἀγνὸν τήρει is, by some, re- 
 ferred to the former; q.d. “ From such sins keep 
 thyself free.” But this seems harsh. It is better, 
 with the antients and several moderns, to regard it 
 as an independent and general admonition, making 
 σεαυτὸν emphatical, and understanding the ἀγν. of 
 moral purity, especially chastity. 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. Q71 
 
 23. μηκέτι ὑδροπότει---ἀσθενείας. ‘This sentence is 
 regarded by the best Commentators as parenthetical. 
 Yet the Apostle would scarcely make so abrupt an 
 insertion as many Commentators suppose. (See 
 Benson and Paley ap. Valpy.) It should rather 
 appear to be suspended on the σεαυτὸν ἅγνον τήρει 5 
 and the connection has (I think) been best seen by 
 Crell. and Heinr.; q.d. “ And in order thereto 
 practise not the ascetic austerities so magnified by 
 some; do not mortify the flesh, lest it be too weak 
 to assist the spirit. No drink no longer water.” 
 By édpor. is meant, drink not water only; Anglice, 
 “be no longer a water-drinker.” Of this sense of 
 the word Wets. adduces many examples. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οἴνῳ 
 χρώ, “but use a little wine (with 10). The Com- 
 mentators, especially Wets., here adduce numerous 
 Classical citations on the beneficial effect of wine 
 drunk in moderation; which may be believed with- 
 out those weighty vouchers. It is, however, rather 
 a medical than a theological question ; and as such 
 I leave it. ‘The Heathen Priests, we are told, either 
 drank none, or but little. 
 
 It is observed by Benson, that there was no occa- 
 sion for inspiration to give this counsel. But Mackn., 
 with far more judgment, remarks that it was pro- 
 perly inserted in an inspiree writing, because thereby 
 the superstition of those who totally abstain from 
 wine and all fermented liquors, on pretence of supe- 
 rior sanctity, is condemned. 
 
 24, 25. τίνων ἀνθρωπων---κρίσιν. There has been 
 some difference of opinion as to the scope of this and 
 the next verse. Some antients and moderns think 
 it is to be taken, in a general way, of the judgment 
 of God. Others refer it to the ecclesiastical censures 
 before mentioned. Others, again, as‘Chrys. and the 
 Greek Commentators (and indeed most eminent 
 moderns), take it to relate solely to the ordination 
 mentioned at ver. 22. ‘This interpretation (which 
 alone bears the stamp of truth) is well expressed by 
 
Q72 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. VI. 
 
 Whitby. Rosenm. observes that ἁμαρτίαι signifies 
 the report of the sins, as πίστις the report of faith, 
 1 Thess. 1,8. On the sense of προδηλ. see the note 
 on 9 (οι. ὅ, 11. 
 
 Theodoret well paraphrases thus: Οὐ πάντες προ- 
 davis ἁμαρτάνουσιν" εἰσὶ γὰρ οἱ καὶ κρύβδην παρανομοῦ- 
 σιν" AAA ὅμως τὸ δήμιερον λανθάνον TH χρόνῳ φωράται" 
 ἀνάμιενε τοίνυν τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς πείρας διδασκαλίαν. 
 
 The obscurity with which this admonition is 
 worded is similar to that often found in passages of 
 Thucyd. or Tacitus. Nor is it unusual in the Rab- 
 binical writers. Indeed it has ever been a charac- 
 teristic of the Oriental style to express common 
 thoughts in an uncommon way, rather than (like the 
 Western sages) “ to think with the wise, and speak 
 with the foolish.” 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 The directions in this and the following verse are 
 (as appears from ver. 3.) intended to correct certain 
 contrary positions of false teachers. ‘These are sup- 
 posed, by many eminent modern Commentators, to 
 have been Judaizers, who wanted to introduce into 
 the Christian Church the doctrine that, as no Jew 
 was to remain a slave for life, so ought no Christian; 
 thus releasing men from civil duties, under the pre- 
 tence of religious rights, to the great scandal of the 
 Gospel. (See Benson and Mackn.) This seems not 
 improbable; and yet the notion may be carried too 
 far. Into errors of this kind ignorant or unreflect- 
 ing persons might easily fall, without the corruption 
 of any judaizing doctrines, or the seductions of false 
 teachers. It was easy to see that the spirit of the 
 Gospel (whick. considers all men as equal) is adverse 
 to slavery ; and in proportion as its injunctions are 
 obeyed, tends to root out a practice in which folly 
 and injustice are alike conspicuous, It was natural 
 
I TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 273 
 
 for persons ignorant and poor to believe what they 
 wished, and to confound the spirit with the letter of 
 the Gospel, and regard it as freeing men from all 
 obligations inconsistent with justice and equity. 
 The misunderstanding, too, of metaphors (such as 
 “ the liberty with which Christ hath made us free,”’) 
 would encourage this error. Be that as it may, the ad- 
 monitions in question (especially as meant for a part 
 of the world where slaves were exceedingly nu- 
 merous) were highly seasonable. 
 
 VERSE 1. ὅσοι εἰσὶν ὑπὸ ϑυγὸν δοῦλοι, τοὺς ἰδίους δεσπό- 
 tas π. τ. ἀ. ἡ. The expression ὑπὸ ϑυγὸν occurs in 
 the Classical writers. Yet, perhaps, the Apostle 
 puts the case in its strongest form, to more com- 
 pletely show the obligation to duty. By the δεσποτ. 
 the Commentators say are meant Heathen masters. 
 But it is rather used of all, whether Heathen or 
 Christian. ᾿Ἰδίους has no emphasis; nor, indeed, 
 much force. It may be rendered respective. Πάσης 
 τιμῆς, “ reverence and obedience of every kind, both 
 in words, gestures, and deeds.” II. τ. ἀξίους ἡγείσθωσαν 
 is a refined expression for, “ let them show all respect, 
 &e. The ὄνομα rod Θεοῦ καὶ ἡ διδασκαλία is treated, 
 by Heinr., as an hendiadis for, ‘‘ the glory of God to 
 be promoted by the religion of Christ.” But the 
 terms may better be considered separately. Baac- 
 φημῆται, “censured and calumniated.” For the 
 reasons above mentioned the Gospel might be mis- 
 understood, and, therefore, abused by some, and 
 calumniated by others. Compare 1 Pet., 2, 18. 
 
 2. μὴ καταφρονείτωσαν, scil. αὐτῶν, “ let them not 
 despise their orders, and refuse obedience.” ᾿Αλλὰ 
 μᾶλλον δουλευέτωσαν, “but let them serve them the 
 more Zealously.” Ὅτι πιστοὶ---ἀντιλαμβανόμιενοι. The 
 sense of πιστοὶ and ἀγαπητοί is clear: both terms 
 denoting Christians ; the former, as regards God ; 
 the latter, both God and each other. But the sense 
 of οἱ τῆς εὐεργεσίας ἀντιλαμιβανόμιενοι is somewhat ob- 
 scure, and, from tle extent of sense in the words, 
 indeterminate. It may be understood either with 
 
 VOL, VIII. ες 
 
274. 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 
 
 reference to the masters, i. e. those who receive the 
 benefit (of their service), see Els., Benson, and 
 Wets.); or to the slaves, i. e. those who apply 
 themselves to benefit them. And so the antients, 
 and many recent Commentators. There is some 
 harshness connegted with both interpretations ; but 
 the former (which is well detailed by Valpy and 
 Slade) seems to be the more natural and agreeable to 
 the context. It is required, too, by the article; 
 and it is characteristic of the delicacy of-the Apostle 
 to term the service an eepy.; just as a little before 
 he calls the stipend paid to Ministers a τιμὴ." 
 
 8. εἴτις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ. On this term see the 
 note supra, 1, 3., καὶ μὴ προσέρχεται, “and comes not 
 to, hearkens not to, is not obedient to.” This signi- 
 fication is illustrated by Loesner, Kypke, and 
 Munthe: and thus it appears that there was no 
 occasion for Bentley to conjecture προσέχεται. ‘The 
 examples adduced by those Commentators remove 
 the great Critic’s objection, that such a sense is un- 
 authorized. ‘The only harshness is, that the term 
 would rather require a dative of the person than of 
 the thing. But the Apostle little heeds such 
 niceties ; and probably this is a Cilicism, or provin- 
 cial and idiotical expression. 
 
 γιαίνουσι λόγοις 15 used as vy. διδασκαλία, supra, 
 1, 10.; and of this expression Loesner adduces 
 several examples from Philo. ‘The καὶ is exegetical, 
 and signifies even. The τοῦ κυρίου I. X. is best ex- 
 
 plained by Doddr. thus : ‘“ What the Apostle wrote, 
 
 * The sentence is elegantly paraphrased by Wets. thus: ‘* Verdm 
 est, servos, qui Christo nomen dederunt, ad altiorem evehi dignita- 
 tem, et dominorum suorum fratres fieri: neque tamen ideo eos im- 
 perium detrectare, dominorumque jussa contemnere fas est; quin 
 potius propter hoc ipsum magis servire debent, nam tum demum 
 fidorum et dilectorum appellatione vere digni erunt, si curant, ut 
 non tantum formidine poenz imperat& faciant, sed ex amore erga 
 dominos liberaliter ipsis serviant, su voluntate negotia domini 
 gerant, deque illis bene mereri, atque adeo etiam beneficia in domi- 
 nos conferre studeant.” ᾿ 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. Q75 
 
 as by Divine direction, was, in effect, the words and 
 commandments of Christ.” 
 
 4. τετύφωται---λογομαχίας, ‘© He is puffed with 
 the inflation of ignorance; for nothing does he 
 know as he ought,” "ke. See the note supra, 3, 6.* 
 As to the reading of some MSS. τετύῴφλωται, it seems 
 to bea paradiorthosis : : though I have observed that 
 the words are often interchanged ; as in Phil. Jud., 
 p. 1, & 335 p., besides numerous other passages 
 illustrative of the two words, which I omit. ‘The 
 sense is, ‘‘ he is puffed up with spiritual pride, epee 
 knowing nothing accurately.” Compare Col. 2 
 The verb τυφόω, tron tidos, smoke, has three senses ; : 
 1., to smoke, as used of bees ; so Hesych. : ὐφι δι 
 πνίξαι, ἀπόλεσαι. 2., to blow up, and, metaphorically, 
 to inflate, make vain; as here, and in 2 'Tim., 3, 4. 
 3., to encircle with smoke, thereby dimming the eyes, 
 and, metaphorically, the understanding. So Alczus 
 frag. 8. Mus. Crit. 1, 426., πάμπαν δὲ τύφος ἐξέλετο 
 φρένας. 
 
 4ς νοσῶν περὶ δητήσεις καὶ λογομαχίας. The νοσῶν 
 is used in conformity with ὑγαίνουσι λόγοις just before, 
 and signifies, “ having a diseased and morbid fond- 
 ness for.” Bp. Wilkins would render: “sick of 
 the wrangling disease,” with which, Doddr. truly ob- 
 serves, the Christian Clergy, of all ages and nations, 
 have been too generally infected. 
 
 By ϑητήσεις, are meant subtle questions, mere 
 puzzles, such as the Orientals have ever delighted in. 
 Aoyou.ayias denotes, properly, contests about words, 
 Some take it here to denote disputations on the λόγοι, 
 
 * Kypke compares Plut.: δι᾿ ἀγνοίαν καὶ ἀπάτην τετυφωμένον" 
 2.70., μανικὸν καὶ ἀνόητον καὶ τετυφωμένον" 169., τετύφωται καὶ 
 δαιμονῶσιν' and 330., ἀσόφου καὶ τετυφωμένου. J add Dionys. Hal. 
 1, 381., τετύφωμαι: Polyb. 3, 8, 1., ἀγνοεῖ καὶ τετύφωται. Lucian Ὁ 
 755, 7. and 818, 91. Marc. Anton. 8, 25. Philostr. V. Ap. 7, 2 
 ἀγνοεῖ καὶ rervpwrat. See Irmisch on Hercdian 6, 5, 24. 
 
 t+ This sense of γοσεῖν is frequent in the Classical writers. See 
 Wets., to whose examples I add Paus. 7, 10., οἱ ἐπὶ προδοσίᾳ νοση- 
 σάντες" and Diog. ap. Athen. 104 c., Στοᾶς λογηρίων ἀναπεπλησ- 
 μένος νοσεῖς. 
 
 τῷ 
 
276 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 
 
 or laws of Moses; a sense of λόγος elsewhere occur- 
 ring. But the signification above mentioned must 
 not be excluded. The subjects of these disputations 
 (if we may judge by the Rabbinical writings) were, 
 no doubt, trifling enough, verbal discussions of the 
 minutest sort; and an agitation of questions, useless 
 and indeterminable. Would to Heaven that some 
 Foreign Theologians of the new school could see 
 how nearly they are copying these ἑτεροδιδασκάλοι ; 
 so that the words of the Apostle as exactly describe 
 them as any thing to be found in Theophrastus, 
 does his originals. ‘Truly is it remarked by The- 
 ophyl. : Ὅπου οὐκ ἔστι πίστις, ἅπαντα νοσεῖ, καὶ οὐδὲν 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἢ μάχαι τίκτονται λόγων, τοῦ πιθανοτέρου τὸν ἕτερον 
 ἀνατρέπειν δοκοῦντος. Ἢ πίστις ὀφθαλμός ἐστιν" ὃ μὲν 
 ἔχων ὀφθαλμοὺς, οὐδὲν εὑρίσκει, ἀλλὰ μόνον ϑητεῖ. 
 
 ᾿ @§ovos, ἔρις, and βλασφημίαι, require no expla- 
 nation. The ὑπόνοιαι πονηραὶ may either signify evil 
 surmisings and malignant jealousies, as the early 
 moderns explain; or (rather), as the antients and 
 the moderns, evil and false doctrines, δόγματα πονηρὰ. 
 And Grot. compares Sirach 3, 24. It is here truly 
 and beautifully observed by Theodoret: Oi γὰρ τῆς 
 ἀληθείας ἀφιστάμενοι, Kal λογισμιοῖς οἰκείοις ἐπόμιενοι, 
 διδάσκειν μὲν πειρώνται τὰ μὴ προσήχοντα, ἔρις δὲ καὶ 
 φθόνος ἐντεῦθεν ἀκολουθεῖ, ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἔριδος ἡ κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 βλασφημία τολμᾶται" τῆς δὲ πίστεως ἐληλαμένης, ὑπό- 
 νοιαι! πονηραὶ περιφύονται" ἐντεῦθεν δὲ λύμη τις γεννᾶται 
 διαφθείρουσα τοὺς πελάϑοντας. Rosenm. acknowledges 
 that the whole history of heresies proves the truth of 
 the Apostle’s sayings. And yet the Heresiarchs 
 themselves must have been well aware of the warn- 
 ing; and, therefore, were without excuse. Heinr. 
 thinks the words are applicable to those times, and 
 not the present, “when we have learned greater 
 liberality !” But human nature is the same in every 
 age, and I fear the fruits of heresy have been as 
 bitter in our own as in any former period. 
 
 5. ΠΠαραδιατριβαὶ διεφθαρμένων ἀνθρώπων τὸν νοῦν. 
 Παραδ. (which, as almost all Critics are agreed, should 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 277 
 
 be read for διαπαρατρ.) is explained, by Theophyl., 
 σχολαὶ μάταιοι. The διὰ, Heinr. thinks, imports 
 vehemence, and the παρὰ, inanity. ‘The term seems 
 to stand in the place of two words; διατρ., which is 
 trequent, and παρατριβὴ, which is somewhat rare: 
 though Wets. adduces examples; as Max. Tyr. D. 
 39, 3., πολλαὶ γὰρ al παρατριβαὶ Kat ἀπατηλαὶ, ὧν αἱ 
 μὲν πολλαὶ ἐπὶ κρημνοὺς καὶ βάραθρα. ἄγουσιν. The 
 compounds διαπαρα and rapadia are almost equally 
 rare. Here I would compare a similar sentiment of 
 Plut. 2, 999., λόγων ἐθήλουν σχολὴν καὶ διατρίβας 
 ἀπράκτους. 
 
 ὅ. ἀπεστερημένων τῆς ἀληθείας. ‘This must mean, 
 who have deprived themselves of the truth (as found 
 in the Gospel), are devoid of it. And Heinr. com- 
 pares ἀστόχειν τῆς ἀληθείας at 1, 6., and ναυαγεῖν περὶ 
 τὴν πίστιν, 1, 19.; observing, that the cause why they 
 are so is, that they sacrifice religion to lucre.* 
 
 5. νομιϑόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσεβείαν. The 
 best Commentators interpret this, “ thinking and 
 regarding religion, the Christian as well as any 
 other, a thing valuable only as it is subservient to 
 lucre and interest.” See Grot., Crell., Benson, 
 Doddr., &c. It is strange that so many should have 
 rendered it, “* supposing that gain is godliness.” For 
 though the construction equally permits this, and it 
 may be justified in a loose paraphrase, it is not so 
 apposite. Indeed, as Abp. Newcome observes, the 
 article shows that εὐσέβεια is the subject, not the 
 predicate. Of passages of this structure Wets. 
 adduces as examples Dionys. Hal. 3, 5., οἱ δὲ χρημα- 
 τισμὸν ἡγούμενοι τὸν πόλεμον. Seneca, Ep. 108., qui 
 philosophiam velut aliquod artificium venale didice- 
 runt. See also Liv. 4, 30. To which I add the fol- 
 lowing still more apposite ones. Zosin. 2, 88, 2., τὴν 
 
 * So Theophyl. remarks “that the λογομάχοι draw more disciples, 
 from whom they derive profit ; and hence cultivate the λογομαχία͵ 
 the more, that they may draw over the more.” This, I would ob- 
 serve, affords no bad clue to the origin and maintenance of 
 
 Sectarism. 
 
278 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 
 
 γὰρ ἀσωτίαν ἡγεῖτο φιλοτιμίαν" Joseph 1108, 19., ἀρε- 
 τὴν ἡγούμενος τὴν ἀπάτην" Apollon. Epist. Bony πλὴν εἰ 
 μὴ τῶν ἀνοήτων λόγῳ, παρ᾽ οἷς καὶ ὃ πλοῦτος ἀρετὴ. 
 
 ᾿Αφίστασο ἀπὸ τοιούτων. It is strange that so 
 many Critics should wish to cancej these words, 
 because they are omitted in some six MSS., the 
 Vulg. and Copt. No good reason can be assigned 
 for their insertion ; whereas their omission is easily 
 accounted for, namely, from accidental error, which 
 could not easily be afterwards discovered, as they 
 are not necessary to the context. Pricaeus compares 
 many similar passages of the Classical writers; and 
 Schleus. compares Sirach 7, 2., ἀπόστηθι ἀπὸ ἀδίκου. 
 The Greek Commentators well explain: “do not 
 dispute with them ; for, until their disease of avarice 
 be cured, no good can be hoped for.” 
 
 6. ἔστι δὲ πορισμὸς μέγα ἡ εὐσέβεια μετὰ αὐταρκείας. 
 The Apostle, skilfully (per antanaclasin et epanor- 
 thosin), gives such a turn to the phrase as may serve 
 to impress a lesson on ‘Timothy, never to be for- 
 gotten by any Minister of the Gospel. So Chrys. 
 and Theophyl. : ἐστι τῇ εὐσεβείᾳ πορισμὸς, οὐχ ὡς 
 ἐκεῖνοι οἴονται, ἀλλὰ μειϑόνως" οὐχ ὅταν χοηρματα ἔχῃ 
 ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν μὴ ἔχη. Heinr. here, as often, shoots 
 beyond the mark, and misses the truth, which lies 
 ante pedes, by seeking it in nubibus. The common 
 interpretation is undoubtedly the true one. [{ογισ- 
 pos, signifies, what produces great gain. I would 
 compare magi ie P. V. 3., μέγας πόρος. See the note 
 on Phil. 3,'7.* The sense is: ‘ Religion, if accom- 
 panied with that contented spirit which it imparts, 
 produces the greatest gain, even the greatest happi- 
 ness.” 
 
 7. οὐδὲν yap εἰσηνέγκαμιεν----δυνάμεθα. The yap has 
 reference to a clause omitted; 4. d. ‘* Why should 
 we be so anxious to secure what can stand us in so 
 
 * Among many other passages Wets. here compares Cic. Parad. 
 6., Scil. It. 1, 615., Philo. 2, 552, 5., τί ἂν εἴῃ κέρδος λυσιτελέστε- 
 ρον ὁσιότητος ; Diod. Sic, 594., Epicurus ap, Clem. Alex. 751., Hor. 
 Carm. 4, 9, 15. 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 279 
 
 little stead, and fail us sosoon. For there is no- 
 thing we can long enjoy.” A reason for abandoning 
 all excessive anxiety about gaining wealth obvious 
 to natural reason, and which had been often en- 
 larged on (though to little purpose) by the philo- 
 sophers.* 
 
 8, ἔχοντες δὲ διατροφὰς καὶ σκεπάσματα, τούτοις 
 ἀρκεσθησόμεθα, ““ Having then food and raiment, let 
 us be therewith content.” Here, Theophyl. re- 
 marks, the Apostle shews in what this αὐταρκεία 
 consists. 
 
 Διατροῷ. is a somewhat rare word, especially in 
 the plural. One should rather have expected the 
 singular (which is indeed found in some MSS., but 
 ex emendatione). Perhaps it was so put to answer 
 to σκεπάσματα, which is also rare in the plural, and 
 may be compared with our clothes. Commentatcrs 
 have not seen that the διὰ in-dierp. imports certainty, 
 i.e. a perpetual supply of necessary food. Kypke 
 observes, that oxer. includes the shelter of a house. 
 And this might be confirmed and illustrated from 
 Artemid. 4, 30., where Reif refers to G. Wakef. 
 5. C. 3, 147. But it is probable that this was a pro- 
 verbial phrase ; and as house-room is the least of 
 the wants of man in the East, so it is not mentioned. 
 On the sentimené see Grot. and Wolf. Wets. ad- 
 duces several Classical passages, to which I add 
 Eurip. Phoen. 564. Hec. 321. Incert. frag. 14. and 
 163. and Adschin. p. 85, 6. ἀρκεῖ μοι μικρὰ, καὶ μει- 
 ϑόνων αἰσχρῶς οὐκ ἐπιθυμώ. See also D. Cass. 18, 67. 
 Herodian 4,'7, 9. Diod. Sic. 3,28. Hebr. 18, 5. 
 
 * Wets. cites Hor. Carm. 2, 14, 21., Propert. 3, 3., Ovid. T. 5, 
 14, 12., Sil. It. 5, 26., &c. See also Grot. and Pric. Heinr. (from 
 Loesner) cites Philo, 852 c. Μηδὲν eis κόσμον, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ σαυτὸν 
 εἰσὴνεγκας᾽ γυμνὸς μὲν γὰρ ἦλθες, γυμνὸς πάλιν ἀπίης" where there 
 seems reference to Job 1, 21., Eccles.5, 15. See also Ps. 49, LI. 
 To the above I add Soph, Antig. 1037., and Eurip. Ion. 648. 
 
 + This is considered asa plural; though it is probably one of 
 those numerous nouns derived from the third person singular pre- 
 sent indicative : on which see Η, Tooke in his "Exec Πτερ. 
 
280 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 
 
 9. οἱ δὲ βουλόμενοι πλουτεῖν ἐπίπτουσιν εἰς πειρασμον 
 καὶ παγίδα. 
 
 Heinr. here remarks: ‘‘ Que jam de avaritid et amore scelerato 
 habendi sequuntur, neutiquam urgenda nimis aut premenda, sed 
 eogitandum, apud Judzos idolatriam et avaritiam fuisse in summo 
 crimine habita.”” And again: ‘ Populariter ergo, ut aiunt, hec 
 intelligenda.”’ But surely the learned Theologian never more ma- 
 nifestly perverted the truth than here. It is one of the most pro- 
 minent characteristics of the Gospel, that it so severely condemns a 
 vice which has produced more crime and more misery, (with less 
 temptation to plead), than any other! It is in vain, too, that Heinr. 
 attempts to dilute the strong sense of the Apostle, in this finely con- 
 ceived and well expressed passage which follows. And it is in vain 
 that he attempts to sink it into Jewish notions by the following Rab- 
 binical passage (cited by Schoettg. H. Hebr.) Cam Salomon edi- 
 ficdsset templum, stetit in precibus suis et dixit: Domine totius 
 mundi, si homo a te divitias petet in hac domo, tu vero scias quod 
 periturus sit in divitiis suis. Avarice and idolatry are indeed com- 
 pared, both in the Old and new Testament ; not that they are of 
 equal enermity, but in order to show the great guilt of the former. 
 Surely had not avarice been a great crime, our Lord would never 
 have used the strong language he so often did: nor would St. Paul 
 have expressed himself as he has done here, andelsewhere. So at 
 ver. 17. he anxiously resumes the subject, and earnestly enjoins Ti- 
 mothy. to ‘charge them that are rich μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν, &c. 
 
 This, however, is a subject too extensive to be thus treated in 
 transcursu ; and, to turn to the passage before us, οἱ βουλόμενοι π. 
 is rendered, “ qui ditescere cupiunt,” who would be rich. But the 
 sense may be better expressed thus, “‘ who study to be rich, and direct 
 their thoughts and cares to its attainment.” Thus it will include 
 those already rich ; since they usually aim at more. The eis πει- 
 ρασμὸν καὶ παγίδα are considered as an hendiadis for eis πειρασμοῦ 
 παγίδα. But the terms are better kept separate; and we must 
 subaud τοῦ διαβόλου (which is supplied in some very antient MSS.), 
 or τοῦ πονὴροῦ. On these words the philological Commentators 
 adduce nothing. The following citation may therefore be accept- 
 able. Thucyd. 3, 45. ἡ δ᾽ ἐξουσία ὕβρει τὴν πλεονεξίαν καὶ φρονή- 
 part αἱ δ᾽ ἄλλαι ξυντυχίαι ὀργῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὡς ἑκάστη τις 
 κατέχεται ὑπ᾽ ἀνηκεστὸν τινὸς κρείττονος, ἐξάγουσιν ἐς τοὺς κιν- 
 δύνους. 
 
 The words following are exegetical of the preceding, and exem- 
 plify the effects of the temptation. They fall, the Apostle says, eis 
 ἐπιθυμίας πολλὰς ἀνοήτους Kai βλαβερὰς. The ἀνοητ. is applicable. 
 to foolish kinds of expence which the rich and luxurious run into: 
 on which see Chrys. and Theophyl. It is, however, also applied to 
 the affections and passions, and especially in carnal gratification.* 
 
 _* T would compare Pausan. 8, 24, 4. The τὸ μῶρον and ἡ. 
 μωρία, are especially used by the Greck dramatists of ἀκολασία ; as 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 281 
 
 ll these particulars may be included ; and such things: are indeed 
 ἀνόητα, because (as Mack. says) they are unworthy the dignity of 
 human nature. That they are βλαβερὰ, hurtful even to the person 
 himself, is equally certain; always tending to disease, and ever 
 cheating the wretch with the shadow, but never giving him the 
 substance of happiness is certain, thus turning out to be, in the 
 words of Scripture ‘‘ vain things which cannot profit, because they 
 are vain.” 
 
 The metaphor in βυθίϑουσιν---ἀπώλειαν, is taken from plunging 
 any One into a deep abyss from which he can never rise, and is not 
 unfrequent in the Classical writers. See Wets., the most apposite 
 of whose citations is Longin. 8, 44. ἡ γὰρ φιλοχρηματία, πρὸς ἣν 
 ἅπαντες ἀπλήστως ἤδη νοσοῦμεν, καὶ ἣ φιληδονία dovtaywyover, 
 μᾶλλον δὲ ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, καταβυθίξουσι αὐτάνδρους ἤδη τοὺς βιούς. 
 So also Apulej. cited (after Pric.) by Rosenm. 
 
 10. piga γὰρ πάντων τών κακών ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία. 
 A sentiment very common in the Classical writers. 
 See Wets.* Theodoret observes: καὶ yap μιαιφονίαι, 
 καὶ γοητείαι, καὶ ἁρπαγαὶ καὶ πλεονεξίαι, καὶ ψεῦδος, καὶ 
 παράβασις ὅρκων, καὶ τἄλλα τῆς παρανομίας εἴδη, ἐκ τῆς 
 ῥίϑης ταύτης βλαστάνει. 
 
 10. καὶ ἑαυτοὺς περιέπειραν ὀδύναις πολλαῖς. A very 
 lively and forcible image, in the explanation of 
 which, however, many critics, as Leigh, Doddr., 
 Mackn., and others, who render it, “ stabbed them- 
 selves from head to foot,” are greatly mistaken. 
 The περὶ is here put for ἐπὶ, or ἐν, upon. Wets. ad- 
 duces many examples both of the physical sense, 
 by which the term signifies to stick any thing 
 through, or stick any thing upon, as a piece of meat 
 on a fork; and of the metaphorical, as περίπ. ὀδύνη, 
 which occurs in Hom. Il. ε. 399. ἅς. Among many 
 other passages which I could here cite, I will only 
 adduce a shrewd remark of AXsop F. os’ ἀδεκάστως 
 πράγμα προσιόντες λανθάνουσιν ἑαυτοὺς περιπείροντες 
 ἀτοπίστοις. 
 
 How this ὀδύνη arises, it is needless to explain. 
 
 Eurip. Hipp. 972. Troad 1059. Dictys. frag. 1. Suid. ἀνόητα, ἀφρο- 
 δίσια. And so Goldsmith: ‘ When lovely woman stoops to folly.” 
 
 * To whose examples I add Theogn. Sentent. 389. seqq. 904. 
 seqq- Phocyl. 13, 37. Aristoph. Ao. 158 a. δεῖ Spy ἄνευ βαλαντίου, 
 where see Timocreon. Eurip. Ineert. frag, 155. ὦ Ζεὺς---πέμψον 
 μὲν φῶς ψυχᾶς, ἀνέρων τοῖς βουλομένοις ἀθλόυς προμαθεῖν πόθεν 
 ἔβλαστον, τις ῥίξα κακῶν. 
 
282 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 
 
 11. σὺ δὲ-τ-πρᾳότητα. The term ἄνθρωπος Θεοῦ 
 properly denotes a servant of God; as Ps. 90, 11. ; 
 or a divine legate, who makes known the will of 
 God to men; a title frequently applied in the Old 
 Testament to Prophets, as Elijah. And this seems 
 to be the sense here; for elsewhere the Apostle 
 says, “ Sothen we are ambassadors for Christ’s sake.” 
 
 11. δίωκε δὲ δικαιωσύνην, “pursue studiously.” [ 
 would compare Eurip. Ion 440. δίωκε ἀρετὰς. With 
 the following list of the principal Christian duties ; 
 compare Gal. 5, 22. The δικαιοσύνη signifies righte- 
 ousness towards men; εὐσεβεία, piety towards God, 
 godliness. ἸΠίστιν is explained by many recent Com- 
 mentators fidelity. But the common interpretation, 
 a true faith, a firm unshaken faith, is equally well 
 founded. The other terms require no explanation. 
 
 12. ἀγωνίϑου τὸν καλὸν ἀγώνα τῆς πίστεως. Many 
 Commentators, especially the recent ones, under- 
 stand this of maintaining the good cause of religion. 
 (See Heinr. and Rosenm.) But that seems too 
 limited an interpretation, and arose from a miscon- 
 ception of the scope of the passage, which is well 
 pointed out by Crell. thus: ““ Occasione superioris 
 admonitionis in generalem παραίνεσιν effunditur, qua 
 illum quodam quasi vocis suze classico ad strenué 
 officii sui munera obeunda excitat, quasi dicat. Et 
 ut rem in pauca conferam, et in quo omnes conatus 
 ac industriam tuam consumi et occupari volo semel 
 aperiam.” ‘This must regard all his exertions as a 
 Christian and a minister, whether in the defence of 
 the faith, or in the propagation and illustration of 
 it, both by his words and action. 
 
 The ἀγὼν is called kaa. or κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, honourable, 
 as compared with the ignoble objects which called 
 forth the exertions of the ἀγωνισταί. ‘The agonistic 
 allusion is especially observable in ἐπιλαβοῦ, which 
 hints at the eagerness with which the competitors 
 strove to seize the prize. Of course it must signify 
 endeavour, strive, lay hold of. Many verbs are to 
 be so explained; on which see Glass Phil. Sacr. 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 283 
 
 Rosenm., by rendering it obtain, lets all the spirit of 
 the metaphor evaporate. 
 
 Εἰς ἣν ἐκληθης, 1. 6. not, ““ art called,” but “ weré 
 called,” namely, at his conversion and baptism. So 
 Cicumen. ‘The next words καὶ ὡμολόγησας .--- μαρ- 
 τύρων, some take as exegetical of the preceding. 
 Thus Heinr. takes καὶ for καὶ γὰρ. But it should 
 seem that these words refer to the profession and 
 vow which accompanied ordination to his ministerial 
 office. Now the ὁμολογία was κάλη, because it con- 
 tained a full profession of faith and hope, and a so- 
 lemn engagement to live wholly for the dissemination 
 of the Christian religion. To these engagements 
 Timothy’s fortitude and courage in defending, and 
 zealous diligence in propagating the faith, well cor- 
 responded, 
 
 The witnesses are said by Commentators to have 
 been the Presbyters. But as πολλῶν is added, it 
 should seem that the congregation at large, who 
 were probably admitted on such occasions, may be 
 understood ; and from the great expectations formed 
 of so very promising a youth (see 1 Tim. 1, 18. and 
 the note), there would be a considerable number. 
 
 18. παραγγέλλω---ὁμολογίαν. What the Apostle 
 had so far propounded by figure, he now expresses 
 in the natural way. For he does not, I think, com- 
 mence a new subject, but continues the same that 
 he had before been treating of. How tender was the 
 affection the Apostle bore to Timothy, is evident 
 from this solemn charge, which comes from the very 
 heart. The same warmth of feeling is observable in 
 c. 5, 21. and 2 Tim. 4,1. By such exhortation he 
 endeavours to instil into Timothy a constancy to be 
 shaken by no tribulations, not even death itself. 
 (Heinr.) 
 
 The ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, hints that God is a witness 
 of this solemn charge. By πάντα are meant all liv- 
 ing creatures: and it is hinted that God who giveth 
 life, and preserveth it, can replace the life sacrificed 
 for the Gospel’s sake by a far more glorious one. — 
 
284: 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 
 
 "Ei, sub, coram. The ὁμολογ. refers to the ad- 
 mission of our Lord, that he was King of the Jews 
 and the Son of God, Matt. 27, 11. Mark 15, 2. Joh. 
 18, 87. The τὴν, which is not attended to by the 
 Commentators, seems to indicate that it was well 
 known; and thus supplies another proof that St. 
 Paul was acquainted with the three first Gospels 
 when he wrote his later Epistles, and with that of 
 St. Matthew (at least in the Hebrew edition) when 
 he wrote his earlier ones. One may observe in 
 μαρτυρ. of. a blending of the two phrases ; for though 
 μαρτυρίαν μαρτυρεῖν may be used, and ὁμολογίαν ὅμο- 
 λογεῖν, yet never (I think) μαρτυρίαν. ὁμολογεῖν. So 
 Theophyl. : τοῦτο καὶ πολλὰ ἑτέρα ἐμαρτύρησε, καὶ 
 ὁμολόγησε. IT agree with Doddr. that this is called 
 καλὴν, aS being that on the truth of which all our 
 hopes of salvation are founded. And so we some- 
 times use the epithet g glorious. 
 
 14. τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολῆν ἄσπιλον, Χο. Most re- 
 cent Commentators, as Heinr. and Rosenm., take 
 the ἐντοχὴν to mean the Christian doctrine, the Chris- 
 tian religion. But the proofs they adduce are very 
 weak ; and it is not a little harsh to apply the epi- 
 thets ἄσπιλος and ἀνεπίληπτος to doctrine or religion, 
 which Rosenm. admits, are always elsewhere used of 
 the life and conduct. I see no reason to abandon the 
 common and natural interpretation of ἐντολὴ, namely, 
 commandment ; though the epithets here used are 
 as little applicable to commandment as to doctrine. 
 There is, however, no necessity for construing them 
 with the ἐντολὴν. ‘They may be taken apart, and re- 
 ferred to ce. The construction is: (wore σε εἶναι) 
 ἄσπιλον. And so Beza, Crell., Est., and Heinr. 
 This, too, is supported by the antients. So Theoph.: 
 τουτέστι, μήτε δογμάτων ἕ ἕνεκεν, μήτε βίου, κηλίδα τινὰ 
 ἑαυτῷ προστριβόμιενον. ‘The ἐντολὴ may be understood 
 of the whole body of injunctions above given ; but 
 especially that comprehensive one just before “* to 
 fight the good fight of faith ;” for with this the τὴν 
 ἐντολὴν is closely connected ; the words εἰς ἣν--τμαρτύ- 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 285 
 
 ρων being, in some measure, parenthetical. So that 
 τὴν ἐντολὴν should be rendered this commandment 
 or injunction, and a comma should be placed after 
 ἐντολὴν. 
 
 It is strange that from the words μέχρι τῆς ἐπιῷα- 
 νείας τ. kK. ἄχεα. some, as (τοῦ. and Rosenm., should 
 have inferred that the Apostle thought Timothy 
 might live till the day of judgment. Surely if the 
 Apostle meant any thing of that sort, the words 
 must imply certainty rather than doubt. Now St. 
 Paul could not know that but from revelation, and 
 that he could have received none, we know from the 
 event : indeed this is clear from the words following. 
 That the Apostle had no such opinion of the very 
 speedy advent of Christ, has been shown before. See 
 2 Thess. 2, 1 and 2. What, then, is the sense to be 
 assigned to the émi@avecn? Heinr. after a tedious 
 minute discussion of the passage, renders: ‘* usque 
 ad illud tempus, qua constantia tua et virtus praemiis 
 a J. C. afflicietur dignissimis.” But this is too harsh. 
 I confess I see no interpretation so probable as that 
 of the antients and early moderns, and recently Slade, 
 who take this to signify his death; since that event 
 is to every one as the coming of the Lord. This 
 idiom often occurs in the New Testament; and, as 
 Theophyl. observes, it is here used as being more 
 impressive than μέχρι τῆς τελευτῆς σου. The same in- 
 terpretation is adopted by Crell., who has, I think, 
 better illustrated the sense of the passage than any 
 other Commentator antient or modern. 
 
 15. Now are accumulated the most splendid pre- 
 dicates of the majesty and power of God; and these 
 pave the way for the doxology which closes the pas- 
 sage. (Heinr.) 
 
 15. καιροῖς ἰδίοις, “at his own time, that which 
 seems good to himself.””? Thus it is hinted that this 
 is unknown to men. Heinr. thinks the words are 
 intended to quiet the trepidation of some who 
 
 thought the advent. of the Messiah was at- hand. 
 Δείξει, procurabit. 
 
286 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 
 
 Of the terms of this glorious doxology, μακάριος 
 has been treated of at 1,11. Rosenm. compares a 
 passage of Philo, where God is said to be μακαριωτά- 
 Tos καὶ πάσης εὐδαιμονίας ἀνάπλεως. ‘The δυνάστης (as 
 used of the Deus Opt. Max.) is well rendered po- 
 tentate. ‘The term is so applied in 2 Macc. 3, 24. 
 πάσης ἐξουσίας δυνάστης, and 12, 15.6 μέγας τοῦ Koopov 
 δυνάστης, and 15, 23. δυν. τῶν οὐρανῶν: Μόνος is used 
 as in Rom. 16, 27. μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῴ, and Jud. 25. 
 1 Cor. 9, 6. 14, 36. and elsewhere. The word is, 
 indeed, applied to all the attributes of the Deity, to 
 show that he is so transcendently the possessor of 
 them, that he alone may be said to possess them. 
 
 15. ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων, καὶ ἸΚύριος τῶν κυ- 
 ριευόντων. ‘The Commentators adduce several similar 
 expressions from the Classical writers ; as Hor. 
 Carm. 8,1, 5. A&schyl. Pers. 24. βασιλῆς, βασιλέως 
 ὕποχοι μεγάλουι Hesych. ὕπατε κρειόνων, βασιλεὺς 
 βασιλευόντων. Philo 2, 187, 5. βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλέων 
 καὶ θεὸς θεῶν. Valerius Soranus Regum rex ipse De- 
 usque. Diodor. 1, 55. βασιλεὺς βασιλέων καὶ δεσπότης 
 δεσποτῶν Σεσόωσις. It seems to have been an epithet 
 first applied by the piety of the earlier ages to the Su- 
 preme Governor of the universe, but afterwards 
 usurped by the pride of earthly monarchs, or as- 
 cribed to them by base adulation. So that in the 
 times of the later Greek historians it was regularly 
 claimed by or attributed to the Roman emperors 
 and Persian monarchs. 
 
 16. ὁ μόνος ἔχον ἀθανασίαν, 1. 6. immortality self 
 derived ; by which it is implied that he alone can 
 confer it. So Joh. 5, 26. * hath life in himself.” 
 Pas οἰκών ἀπρόσιτον. It is observed by Heinr. that 
 almost all the antients assigned to their God an ha- 
 bitation in light so dazzling as to be unapproachable 
 tohuman eyes. Thus Hom. Od. &. 42. and η. 84, 
 cited by Wets., who adds from Plut. 1, 173, οἱ ποιη- 
 ταὶ τὸν μὲν τόπον, ἐν ᾧ τοὺς θεοὺς κατοικεῖν λέγουσι, ἀσῷφα- 
 λὲς ἕδος καὶ ἀσάλευτον καλοῦντες, οὐ πνεύμασιν, οὐ νέφε- 
 σιν χρώμενον, ἀλλ᾽ αἰθρίᾳ μαλακὴ καὶ φωτὶ καθαρῷ τὸν 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 287 
 
 ἅπαντα χρόνον ὁμαλῶς περιλαμπόμενον. See also 
 Ezech. 8, 2. and the Targum, cited by Wets. Yet 
 it may perhaps be better to understand it metaphori- 
 cally, as expressive of the invisible nature of God, 
 whose ways are past finding out; as Job. 11, 7. 
 “canst thou by seeking find out God.” It were 
 easy to say much more; and the Commentators, 
 especially Heinr., are not wanting in curious specu- 
 lations: but upon so awful a subject I forbear. 
 
 17. τοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι παράγγελλε μὴ ὕψη- 
 λοῴφρονεῖν. From his anxiety with respect to a class 
 of whose salvation our Lord has strongly expressed 
 the difficulties, the Apostle adds this earnest in- 
 junction. 
 
 By the πλουσ. ev τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι the Commentators 
 are agreed is meant, those who possess the riches of 
 this world, as opposed to the spiritual riches men- 
 tioned at Matt. 6, 20. 19, 21. Mark 10, 21. Luke 
 12, 21 and 23. 18, 22. 2 Cor. 8, 9. James 2, 5. Ap. 
 2,9. Wets. produces similar expressions from the 
 Rabbins. Μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν, not to be puffed up, 
 carry themselves haughtily, be, as we familiarly say, 
 purse-proud. See the note on Rom. 2, 20. Schleus. 
 refers to R. de Pradoin Pentecont. p. 20., a learned, 
 but very rare, book. How prone the rich have been 
 in every age to this vice, the records of history and 
 antiquity amply testify: but this may be so easily 
 imagined that the Commentators might have spared 
 the immense farrago with which they here over- 
 whelm us. It is such learned lumber as this that 
 makes our shelves groan under something of less 
 value than what Gibbon calls “ the weight of Bene- 
 dictine Fathers.” 
 
 It is plain that πλούτου ἀδηλότητι is for ἀδήλῳ 
 πλούτῳ. How applicable this is to riches (which, as 
 Horace says, ‘‘ Puncto mobilis hore Permutat Do- 
 minos, et cedit in altera jura), is obvious. See 11, 
 44. 1 Cor. 9, 26. 2 Macc. 7, 34. 1 would com- 
 pare Phocyl. frag. 13, 24. ὁ βίος τρόχος, ἄστατος ὄλβος, 
 and Eurip. Electr. 940—44. 
 
288 ‘1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 
 
 "AAN ἐν τῷ ϑώντι Θεῷ. An epithet often applied 
 to God, and here especially apposite: for, as Ro- 
 senm. observes, riches are things inanimate ; God a 
 Being having life, and the cause of life. Besides, as 
 Heinr. remarks, life suggests an idea of constancy 
 and immutability. Compare James 1,17. Ps. 102, 
 26, seq. 
 
 Fi τῷ παρέχοντι, ‘© who confers.” 
 
 17. πλουσίως, abundantly. Eis ἀπόλαυσιν. This term 
 imports not only folerare vitam, but an enjoyment of 
 existence, at least as far as innocence extends, and 
 beyond that he has provided that there should be no 
 real enjoyment. See Acts 14,7. The argument is, 
 that as God is so bountiful as to satisfy all our wants, 
 and to some (as the rich) supplies these blessings 
 πλουσίως, he expects that the rich should imitate his 
 beneficence by liberally imparting thereof to their 
 fellow-creatures. 
 
 18. ἀγαθοεργεῖν, it is evident from the context, must 
 signify to confer benefits. And in the use of the 
 πλουσίοις, πλουσίως, and πλουτεῖν, there is a happy 
 paronomasia. Tor πλουτεῖν ἐν ἔργοις κοιλοῖς signifies, 
 to liberally dispense their riches. The words follow- 
 ing εὐμεταδότους εἶναι, κοινωνικούς are exegetical of the 
 preceding. Εὐμεταδιδότος εἶναι sionifies literally to 
 be good at distributing. So Mare. Ant. 1,14. (cited 
 by “Rosenm.) τὸ εὐμεταδιδοτὸν καὶ εὐποιητικόν. Wets. 
 adduces an example of ἀγαθοεργία from Etym. Mag. 
 But he might have given a Classical authority; for I 
 find the word in Procop. de Ckdif. p. 36. On the senti- 
 ment I would compare Liban. Orat. 839 8. αὐτομάτοι 
 πρὸς εὐποίαν οἵἱ Θεοὶ, and Plato de Repub. 696 B. οἱ τῷ 
 ὄντι πλουσίοι, οὐ χρυσίου, ἀλλὰ δεῖ τὸν εὐδαίμονα πλουτεῖν, 
 ϑωῆς ἀγαθῆς. 
 
 The Commentators enlarge still further. But all” 
 seems too obvious to need much explanation: for as 
 to understanding κοιν. of affability, as do some an- 
 tients and moderns, that is destitute of all authority. 
 
 9. ἀποθησαυρίξοντας € ἑαυτοὺς θεμέλιον καλὸν ε. τ. [ee 
 There is here somewhat of harshness (at which the~ 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 289 
 
 Commentators stumble) arising from a blending of 
 two metaphors, and a catachresis, by which ἀποθησ. is 
 put for καταβαλλ. This, however, is not so unfre- 
 quent with the Apostle as to give any countenance 
 to the critical conjectures of Bos, Le Clerc, Petit, 
 Wakef., and others. Now in such a case the best 
 mode of clearing the sense is, to consider the meta- 
 phors separately. ᾿Αποθησ. is very applicable to the 
 preceding ; 4. d. ‘‘let them treasure up durable 
 riches.” ‘The θεμέλιον will mean, “ for these will 
 supply a good ground for expecting future happi- 
 ness.” Theophyl. (from Chrys.) well remarks: ὅπου 
 θεμέλιον, ἐκεῖ πάντα βέβαια Kal ἀκίνητα" ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ τῆς 
 ἀρετῆς, καὶ τὰ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰώνος ἐδραῖα, διὰ τοῦτο θε- 
 μελίου ἐμνήσθη. 
 
 The εἰς τὸ μέλλον, Heinr. observes, is opposed to 
 the ἐν tw νῦν αἰῶνι at ver. 17. And he compares 
 Matt. 6, 20. There is a similar sentiment in Tob. 
 4, 9 and 10.; from which some would here read 
 θέμα. But the Apostle may have had that passage 
 in mind without exactly following the very ex- 
 pressions. 
 
 The next words suggest the result or tendency of 
 this ἀγαθοεργία, ἵνα ἐπιλαβ. τ. α. §.; for such, I con- 
 ceive, is the sense of the ἵνα. Charity to the poor 
 can only tend, together with other good works, to 
 gain us acceptance and salvation, through grace; 
 and this force the ἵνα well expresses. I mention this, 
 since the passage is perverted by the Popish Com- 
 mentators to countenance their notion, that charity 
 to the poor can procure, nay, purchase salvation. The 
 reading τῆς ὄντως ϑωῆς, which some eminent Com- 
 mentators prefer, is evidently a paradiorthosis, or 
 arose from a scholium. _ Whether in ἐπιλάβωνται 
 there be (as Slade thinks) a third and agonistical 
 figure in addition to the two former, is doubtful. 
 
 20. The warm-hearted and affectionate disposition 
 of the Apostle again appears in his concluding the 
 Epistle with another (as it were), apostrophe, and 
 earnest charge (as at 17.) to avoid what he knew 
 
 VOL, VIII. U 
 
290 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 
 
 circumstances would often bring him in the way of 
 encountering (for there is here a repetition of the 
 charge at 4, 7). 
 
 20. τὴν παρακαταθήκην φύλαξον, “ preserve the de- 
 posit committed to thee (by me).” The best Com- 
 mentators are agreed that παρακαταθήκη signifies the 
 doctrine of the Gospel committed to him by Paul. 
 Which may be true, but seems not to be the whole 
 truth. It may also mean the χάρισμα committed to 
 him by the laying on of hands at ordination (as supra 
 4, 14.);* for of this the recipients are said in Scrip- 
 ture to be stewards. Compare 1 Cor. 4,1. There 
 may be an allusion (but there is no more) to the 
 sacredness with which deposits were preserved by 
 the antients. 
 
 20. ἐκτρεπόμενος τὰς βεβήλους κενοφωνίας, “ shun- 
 ning, avoiding profane vanities and triflings,” 1. 6. 
 (as the Commentators explain) the ματαιλογία, supra 
 1, 6. (and thus Suid. explains κενοφωνίας by ματαιο- 
 φωνίας) ; or rather, as Grot. says, the τοὺς βεβήλους 
 καὶ γραωδεῖς μύθους at 4, 7. ; for this is no other than 
 a repetition of the charge there (where see the note). 
 The ἀντιθέσεις τῆς Wevd. γνώσεως here, however, 
 throws further light on the sense. In ἀντιθ. are 
 hinted at the altercations and oppositions which this 
 false knowledge was sure to engender. So évavriwo. 
 is used by Philostr. V. Soph. 1, 25,9. Rosenm. ob- 
 serves that here the things are put for the persons ; 
 and such Timothy was to avoid. But both seem to 
 be meant; and there was probably some proneness 
 in Timothy to this kind of ψευδ, yyws., which ren- 
 dered it necessary for the Apostle to caution him to 
 avoid it, and the professors of it. Who these were 
 we are left .to conjecture: but Tittmann de Vestig. 
 
 * Which interpretation, I find, is supported by the authority of 
 Zonar. Lex. 1510., who explains it (as it should seem) from the an-~ 
 tient Fathers) τὴν χάριν τοῦ παναγίου πνεύματος ἣν διὰ τῆς χειροτο- 
 vias ἐδέξατο. He also notices another interpretation, namely, that 
 of Theophyl., the commands of Paul to Timothy. But that is far 
 less suitable to the sense of wapax. and to the context. 
 
1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 291 
 
 Gnost. Opuse. Theolog. p. 25. seems satisfactorily to 
 have shown that it could not be the Gnostics, whom 
 Hamm. and others here recognize. There is no 
 doubt but that the persons in question were Judaizers, 
 perhaps formerly of the Essenes, who, on having be- 
 come Christians, and perhaps Christian teachers, 
 still hankered after their old dogmas, See Benson’s 
 note on Col. 2, 8, 16. et seqq. 
 
 Q1. ἥν τινες ---ἡστόχησαν, “* which (false knowledge) 
 some who profess, err concerning the faith,” i.e. the 
 true Christian faith, as opposed to Jewish admixtures. 
 On jor. see the note on 1,6. The construction περὶ 
 after aor. is irregular: but the sense, rather than 
 the metaphor, is kept in view. Ἢ χάρις, grace, 1. 6. 
 the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 v2 
 
292 
 
 SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Verse 1. Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ θελή- 
 ματος Θεοῦ. A very usual mode with St. Paul of 
 commencing his Epistles. But in the words κατὶ 
 ἐπαγγελίαν ϑωῆς τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ, ᾿Τησοῦ this introductory 
 salutation differs from the rest, and on its sense 
 Commentators are not agreed. Some take it for σὺν 
 exayy. ϑωῆς, “ to whom is a promise of life.” But 
 that is too harsh. Benson renders the κατὰ in re- 
 spect to. I prefer in order to; for I think, with 
 Heinr., that it indicates the end and tendency of 
 his Apostleship. The ϑωῆς (which signifies eternal 
 life), Benson thinks is levelled at the Jews; and 
 the év ‘I. X., at the Judaizers. But such fancied 
 allusions are often vain and hypothetical; and in an 
 introductory salutation of this kind it were unrea- 
 sonable to suppose them. 
 
 On ver. 2. see the note on 1 Tim. 1, 2. 
 
 3. χάριν ἔχω τῷ Θεῴ---μέρας. The χάριν ἔχω sig- 
 ΡΝ 1 τάμα God a ΤΥ Mane Toni 
 Thess. 1, 2. and 2 Thess. 1, 3. “Q λατρεύω ἀπὸ προ- 
 γόνων ἐ. kK. o. The ἀπὸ προγόνων is, by Schleus., con- 
 sidered as synonymous with ἐκ παιδὸς. But the 
 common interpretation, from my forefathers, i.e. 
 after them and by their example, seems to deserve 
 the preference. Others may be seen in the Com- 
 mentators. ‘This is supposed to be levelled against 
 the Jews, who accused him of abandoning the God 
 
2. TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. ; 293 
 
 of his fore-fathers. He therefore hints that there. is 
 the same God worshipped under both covenants. 
 
 3. ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει. The scope of this phrase 
 is not very clear, and therefore has been variously 
 explained. If λατρεύω signifies (as I think it here 
 must), “whom I serve and have served,” the καθ. 
 συν. must have a reference to his state before he was 
 converted to the Christian faith; and probably this 
 may be an indirect denial of the charge made against 
 him by the Jews, that he had never acted from con- 
 scientious motives, either before or since his conver- 
 sion. He means to say that he had always acted 
 uprightly and conscientiously ; though, before his 
 conversion, erroneously. Such is the view of the 
 sense taken by the antients* and, of the moderns, 
 Whitby, Benson, and others. And it seems the 
 best founded. ‘They aptly compare Acts 22, 3. & 
 23,1. “1 have lived in all good conscience before 
 God until this day.” See more in Whitby. Benson 
 and Mackn. think he meant to reflect on the Ju- 
 ‘daizers, as having themselves put away conscience 
 as well as faith. But this is uncertain. 
 
 8. ὡς ἀδιάλειπτον ἔχω τὴν περὶ σου μνείαν ἐ. τ. ὃ., 
 “ How unceasingly I make mention of thee in my 
 prayers.” Heinr. puts ws ἀδιαλ.---πληρωθώ in a pa- 
 renthesis ; and he would take ws in the sense of 
 siquidem, and as synonymous with ὅτι. Rosenm. in- 
 terprets, “ that I have good reason for making men- 
 tion,’ &c. And he remarks that verbs of action 
 are often taken of what ought to be. Upon the 
 whole, the sense is tolerably clear, though the phrase-- 
 ology and construction may be perplexed : and there 
 is nothing in the common interpretation that need 
 offend, if the words be not unduly pressed upon. 
 
 3. νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, “αὖ all the regular returns of 
 prayer, or, as often as, whenever 1 offer up my 
 prayers.” 
 
 * Thus Theophyl.: My ὑποπτεύσῃς pe ἄλλα φρονεῖν καὶ ἄλλα 
 λέγειν" καθαρόν μοί ἐστι τὸ συνειδὸς, ὥσπερ ἀεὶ, καὶ viv" ov ψεύ- 
 δομαι τοίνυν λέγων ὅτι φιλῶ σε, καὶ ἀεὶ μεμνημαί cov. 
 
294, 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 
 
 4. μεμνημένος σου τῶν δακρύων, ““ being mindful 
 of thy tears,” namely (as most Commentators think) 
 at parting with Paul. See Acts 20, 37. It is rightly 
 observed by Theophyl., that these words are paren- 
 thetical ; and that Seas FETE and # ἵνα χαρᾶς 
 πληρωθῶ are connected. 
 
 5. ὑπόμνησιν λαμβάνων τῆς ἐν σοὶ ἀνυποκρίτου πίστεως, 
 for ὑπομνησκόμενο. An uncommon, and perhaps 
 provincial mode of expression. ᾿Ανυποκρ. mior., “ sin- 
 cere and unfeigned faith.” ᾿Ενώκησε ἐν, inheesit. 
 “ς So said (observes Est.), to signify the stability of 
 it.” But there may be an allusion to the spiritual 
 grace which accompanied and produced it. So Col. 
 3, 16. ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμήν. Or ἐνοικ. 
 may here be simply for ἐνειμι. The καὶ, as corre- 
 sponding to πρῶτον, may be rendered deinde autem. 
 Μάμμῃ, grandmother. A term censured by the 
 Greek Grammarians, but used by good authors. 
 See Wets. On the var. lect. edvixy I would refer to 
 the Commentators on Theocr. Id. 20, 1. 
 
 At ὅτι must be repeated, not SoG, but ἐνοικεῖ 
 and ἐνοικήσει, * doth and will dwell.” This accom- 
 “modation of a verb is frequent. 
 
 6. δύ ἣν--- χειρῶν μου, ““ For which reason (namely, 
 that it may continue to dwell), I remind and exhort 
 thee,” &c. ᾿Αναξωπυρεῖν signifies, properly, to stir 
 up, blow up, as it were, keep alive a dull fire; and 
 hence, metaphorically, to rouse sluggishness, and 
 eall into action any dormant faculty, whether of 
 body or mind. See Wetstein’s examples. 
 
 Now he was to stir up and call into action the 
 τὸ χάρισμια----χειρῶν. This χάρισμα is taken by many 
 Commentators (as Rosenm. and Heinr -)s to mean 
 no more than fortitude, courage, rappyoia; for Ti- 
 mothy, they observe, seems to “have been of a timid 
 disposition, and to have needed an impulse and ex- 
 citement from a more powerful mind. Which may 
 be true; but the interpretation seems a needless and 
 unwarrantable refinement. ‘The antient Commen- 
 tators, and the earlier moderns, have rightly seen 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 205 
 
 that it must mean the supernatural gifts of the Holy 
 Spirit, imparted by Paul at his ordination, in order 
 to fit him for his office ; though I must doubt whe- 
 ther it includes a power of working miracles, which 
 seems to have been confined to the Apostles. This 
 χάρισμα, then, he was to rouse to renewed vigour 
 and activity. For, as Theophyl. observes, ὥσπερ τὸ 
 πῦρ δεῖται ξύλων, οὕτω καὶ ἡ χάρις τοῦ Πνεύματος δεῖται 
 προθυμίας, καὶ προσοχῆς, καὶ νήψεως, ἵνα ἀεὶ ἀναξέη" ὡς 
 ἐὰν μὴ ταῦτα παρώσι, σβέννυται, ὡς καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ λέγει" 
 Τὸ πνεῦμα py σβέννυτε. So Theodoret: καθάπερ τὸ 
 ἔλαιον τῆς λαμπάδος τὴν φλόγα TPodporepay ἐργάϑεται, 
 οὕτως ἡ καλὴ τῆς ψυχῆς προθυμία τοῦ παναγίου Πνεύμιαι- 
 τος τὴν χάριν ἐφέλκεται. 
 
 This sense οἵ ἀναμιμνήσκειν, by which it signifies 
 to remind, admonish, is very rare. ‘The term seems 
 to have been here used from delicacy, since it is not 
 so strong a one as παρακαλέω. In such a case the 
 Classical writers unite παρακαλεῖν with it. An ex- 
 ample from Plut. 2, 33. is adduced by Schleus. 
 
 7. οὐ yap—cwdpovicpot. The Apostle here hints 
 at the faculty which especially required rousing, 
 namely, his courage. Here we have the use of ἡμῖν 
 for cos; which figure (κοίνωσις) is frequent in the 
 Apostle. The phraseology, however, is somewhat 
 obscure, and thus has been variously interpreted. 
 Some take the δυν. of the power of working miracles, 
 and σωφρονισμοῦ of the teaching of the Spirit. But 
 though this is maintained, with ability, by Whitby, 
 it is somewhat precarious. His note, however, de- 
 serves attentive perusal. Neither can I approve of 
 πνεῦμια δειλίας being taken simply for animus timidus ; 
 and πνεῦμα δυνάμεως, animus fortis. The whole dif- 
 ficulty (1 conceive) arises from the extreme brevity 
 of the phraseology. And the sense is best expressed 
 by Theophyl. thus: οὐ διὰ τοῦτο ἐλάθομεν τὸ πνεῦμα, 
 ἵνα ὑποστελλώμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα δυνατοὶ ὦμεν πρὸς τοὺς πει- 
 ρασμοῦς, καὶ παῤῥησιαξϑώμιεθα. He interprets the ἀγά- 
 ays of “love to God and man, as inwrought by 
 ‘Divine στᾶσα." The cadgovicpov he paraphrases): 
 
296. 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 
 
 ἵνα σώφρονες ὦμεν, καὶ ὑγιεῖς τὴν διάνοιαν, καὶ ἐν καταόσ- 
 τάσει. The whole passage is well paraphrased by 
 Theodoret thus: Tod παναγίου yap Πνεύματος τὴν 
 χάριν δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ Θεὺς, οὐχ ἵνα δειλιῶμεν τοὺς ὑπὲρ 
 τῆς εὐσεβίας κινδύνους, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα θείας δυνάμεως ἐμφορού- 
 μένοι, θερμῶς μὲν αὐτὸν ἀγαπήσωμεν, σωφρονίσωμεν δὲ 
 τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν κινουμένων παθημάτων τὴν ἀταξίαν. 
 
 How opposite this σωφρ. is to that fanatical spirit 
 by some regarded as the highest ministerial endow- 
 ment, it is easy to see. Benson observes that by 
 “having the spirit” they could not only work mi- 
 racles, but, if they rightly improved that extraordi- 
 nary illumination, it produced the moral virtues of 
 fortitude, benevolence, and discretion. 
 
 8. μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῆς---αὐτοῦ. ‘The Apostle now 
 expresses his meaning more clearly, and hints that 
 this δειλία had been evinced by not coming to Rome, 
 Jest he should be involved in the persecution of his 
 master. And then, in along drawn, but beautiful 
 passage, he sets before him the momentous nature of 
 that for which he is called upon to encounter perse- 
 cution, namely, the salvation to be attained by the 
 gracious calling of God, who hath abolished death, 
 
 ndebrought life and immortality to light by the 
 spel. ‘Thus, he shows, there is no reason to fear 
 or decline persecution. Such is, I conceive, the 
 general scope of the passage. 
 
 Μαρτύριον may denote either the doctrine itself, or 
 the profession of it, or both. δέσμιος αὐτοῦ, * a pri- 
 soner on his account, in his cause.” So Theophyl., 
 dv αὐτὸν. Compare Phil. 3, 1., where see the note. 
 And elsewhere the Apostle says, ‘‘ 1 am not ashamed 
 of the cross of Christ.” Theophyl. finely paraphrases : 
 ‘¢ If Christ was not ashamed of the cross, how can I 
 be ashamed of these bonds ?” 
 
 The words συγκακοπάθησον τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ x. ὃ. O. 
 are obscure from their brevity. There are two ways 
 in which they may be taken, both of which had 
 occurred to the antients. Thus .Theophyl. (after 
 Chrys.) paraphrases : μὴ ἁπλῶς δείξης, ὅτι οὐκ exaic- 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 297 
 
 χύνη, ἀλλὰ TH πείρᾳ Kal διὰ τῶν ἔργων, καὶ κοινωνὸς 
 γενοῦ καὶ τῷ Xpiorw καὶ ἐμοὶ τῶν αὐτῶν. He then ob- 
 serves, that as the Gospel cannot itself be said κακο- 
 παθεῖν, we may either take τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ for διὰ τὸ 
 εὐαγγέλιον, “for the Gospel’s sake : or by evayy. 
 understand all the preachers of it; 4. 4. συγκακοπά- 
 θησον τοῖς τοῦ εὐαγγελίους The former method is 
 adopted by most modern Commentators, as Wolf, 
 Rosenm., Heinr., Schleus., and Mackn.; but the 
 latter, which is adopted by Grot., Est., and others, 
 including Valpy, seems the more natural and easy. 
 This kind of prosopopwia is frequent in the Apostle. 
 The συγκακοπαθ. must not be confined to Paul, but 
 extended to all the preachers of the Gospel. 
 
 8. κατὰ δύναμιν Θεοῦ, “ according to, in dependance 
 on, by the use of.” So Theophyl.: τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ. A somewhat unusual sense of κατὰ, in the 
 use of which preposition the Apostle allows himself 
 much license. 
 
 9, 10. τοῦ σώσαντος ἡμᾶς, Kal καλέσαντος κλήσει 
 ἁγίᾳ. By σωσ., the best Commentators are agreed, 
 is meant put into the way of salvation. See the note 
 on Matt.1,21. Kaa. κλήσει ἁγίᾳ, see Gal. 1, 6. and 
 the note. The ay. may be compared with the 7 ἄνω 
 κλῆσις, Phil. 3, 14., and the κλῆσις ἐπουράνιος, Heb. 
 8, 1. Nor is there (as Heinr. fancies) any imitation 
 of Jewish phraseology. ‘The epithet respects the 
 purpose of that calling, namely, ‘‘ to make us holy 
 and therefore happy, and raise us to heaven.” I am 
 surprised that the Commentators (who treat this 
 point in a very perfunctory manner) should not have 
 thought of comparing 1 Pet. 1, 15., which is the 
 best commentary on the passage: ‘“ As he who hath 
 called you is holy, so be ye holy,” &c. 
 
 The next words show that this salvation is not of 
 works but of grace: a doctrine which the Apostle 
 often inculcates (as Eph. 2, 8. Tit. 3, 5., &c.), and 
 it is here very aptly introduced, since there was the 
 more reason for Timothy not to decline persecution 
 
298 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 
 
 or toil in the cause of Him by whom he had been 
 saved wholly by grace. ἹΠρόθεσιν is for προαίρεσιν. 
 See Eph. 3,11. Rom. 9,11. and the note. Heinr. 
 observes that διδόναι is for ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι. But there 
 is much meaning in this use: for what is promised 
 or intended by God may, in a manner, from its cer- 
 tainty, be regarded as already given. ΦΦανερωθεῖσαν 
 refers to χάριν. 
 
 10. καταργήσαντος μὲν τὸν θάνατον----εὐαγγελίου. Theo- 
 phyl. well paraphrases: Ev τῷ οἰκείω σώματι κατήρ- 
 γησεν ἐμπράκτως τὸν θάνατον, ἀφθαρτίσας αὐτὸ ἡμᾶς δὲ 
 ἐφώτιϑε διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐλπίϑειν τὴν ϑωὴν καὶ τὴν 
 ἀφθαρσίαν, οὐ γὰρ ἤδη ἡμεῖς ἠφθαρτίσθημεν ἐνεργείᾳ, 
 ἀλλὰ μέλλομεν, καὶ τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην τὸ εὐαγγέλιον 
 ἡμῖν ἐβεβαίωσεν. “ The Apostle (says Benson) 
 is not speaking of the immortality of the soul, 
 but of the resurrection of the dead, and the con- 
 sequent state of incorruption and immortality; a 
 state wherein this corruptible body shall become 
 incorruptible, and death so entirely abolished as 
 to have place no more.” ‘“ He hath (says Mackn.) 
 deprived death of its power to continue mankind 
 in the state of the dead. By submitting to death, 
 he hath procured for all men a resurrection from 
 the dead; and for the righteous, an eternal life 
 in the body after the resurrection. Hence the 
 Apostle telleth us, Heb. 2, 14., the Son of God 
 partook of flesh and blood, that through death, 
 καταργησῇ, he might destroy him who had the power 
 of death.” In Saiv καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν there is thought 
 to be an hendiadis. The sense of the words is 
 admirably illustrated by Whitby in loc. See also 
 Tillots. Serm. 3, 112., and Warburton’s Divine Le- 
 gation, vol. 1. et passim. 
 
 On φωτίσαντος I would compare Arrian Epict. 
 1,4. 5. f. τῷ δὲ τὴν ἀλήθειαν εὑρόντι καὶ φωτίσαντι. 
 
 11. εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην---ἐθνῶν. The εἰς is well rendered 
 whereunto (so the Classical ἐφ᾽ ὅπερ) ; for it regards 
 all the preceding. Compare a similar passage at 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 1. 299 
 
 1 Tim. 2, 7. St. Paul calls himself ἀποστολὸς ἐθνῶν, 
 since to their salvation his labours were chiefly 
 (though not entirely) devoted. 
 
 12. οἶδα γὰρ, &c. Heinr. observes, that the words 
 of this involved sentence may be thus digested: οἷδα 
 γὰρ καὶ πέπαισμαι, ὅτι (ἐκεῖνος Θεὸς), ᾧ πεπίστευκα τὴν 
 παραθήκην μου, δυνατός ἐστι, φυλάξαι ταύτην τὴν παρ. 
 μου εἰς εκ. τ. 4. The sense of the παραθήκην is ob- 
 scure, and variously interpreted, even by the an- 
 tients. Thus Theophyl. first explains it τὴν πίστιν 
 καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα : but then he adds, that it may signify 
 the persons whom He had brought to Christ, or the 
 ἀντιμισθίαν, which is said to be laid up with God for 
 the righteous. See Col. 1, 5. and 2Tim. 4.8. Of 
 these expositions the first alone deserves atten- 
 tion, and it has been adopted by many eminent 
 moderns. See Rosemn., Mackn., Pyle, Schleus., 
 and Jaspis. Yet it seems too harsh; and I cannot 
 but prefer the interpretation of those (as Whitby, 
 Benson, Fessel, Bos, Capel], Krebs, and Slade) who 
 understand it of the soul. So Benson: “1 suffer, 
 and am in near prospect of a violent death; but I 
 am not ashamed. For I know very well whom I 
 have trusted with my soul. And am firmly per- 
 suaded that he is able to keep that depositum of 
 mine, and to restore it safe unto me, in the judg- 
 ment of the great day.” It is truly remarked by 
 Slade, that the phrase τὴν παραθήκην pov, more usually 
 signifies, ‘“‘ what I have deposited with another,” 
 than, ‘‘ what another has deposited with me.” Ac- 
 cordingly, in ver. 14. and 1 Tim. 6, 20., it is τὴν 
 παρακαταθήκην Φύλαξον, and not τὴν παρακαταθήκην 
 σου. And further, since the Apostle there speaks of 
 Timothy keeping the deposit which was entrusted 
 to him, it is fair to presume, that since God is here 
 spoken of as keeping the deposit, it means the depo- 
 sit entrusted to Him. Thus 1 Pet. 4,19. ws πιστῷ 
 κτιστῇ παρατιβέσθωσαν ras ψυχὰς ἑαυτῶν. : 
 
 The expression “ that day,” is often used, as here, 
 kar’ ἐξοχὴν, to denote the day of judgment. And 
 
300 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 
 
 this idiom (as Heinr. observes) arose from its being 
 the subject of daily conversation among the Chris- 
 tians of that age. 
 
 13. troturwow— yoo. Now follow some exhor- 
 tations, first a more general one, founded on the 
 excellence of the religion itself, and then some more 
 special ones. On uzorur. see the note on 1 Tim. 
 1,16. The construction of the whole verse is thus 
 laid down by Rosenm.: ὑποτύπωσιν τῶν ὑγιαινόντων 
 λόγων, ὧν παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσας ἔχε ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπη. 
 And he renders: “Summam doctrinarum saluber- 
 rimarum, quas edoctus es a me, retine cum fide et 
 charitate, que huic doctrine Christi conformis est.’’ 
 On vy. Avy. see the note on 1 Tim. 1, 10. and 6, 3. 
 “ He was to hold fast (observes Benson) even the 
 form of sound words, which he had received from 
 the Apostle, not only in faith, or with fidelity; but 
 with dove and charity towards all honest minds; 
 though they might not have so much knowledge as 
 he had; or might differ from him in some par- 
 ticulars.” 
 
 14. τὴν καλὴν παρακαταθήκην---ἦμῖν. The same 
 sentiment, in other words. By the παρακατ. must 
 be understood the deposit of sound Gospel doctrine 
 committed to him by Paul. The sense of διὰ πνεύ- 
 patos ἁγίου, is strangely lowered by some moderns 
 from Benson downwards, who interpret it, “ἃ holy 
 disposition :”? which is harsh and unsuitable to the 
 context ; and though Benson refers to supra ver. 5. 
 and Col. 3, 16., yet neither passage has any such 
 sense. (See the notesthere.) I cannot but acquiesce 
 in the antient and common interpretation, ‘“ by the 
 aid of the Holy Spirit, and not by human strength 
 only.” 
 
 15. oidas τοῦτο---ἰΑσίᾳ. After these premises, the 
 Apostle proposes to him examples, partly for warn- 
 ing and partly for imitation. (Heinr.) The οἶδας 
 τοῦτο ὅτι, 15 rendered by Rosenm. pufo scire te. But 
 the τοῦτο, used in conjunction with the ὅτι is, by no 
 means without force, Angl. This you know, that, 
 
Q TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 301 
 
 ἄς. ᾿Απεστράφησαν does not so much mean have 
 abandoned the religion, as, are alienated from me, as 
 it should seem, from a cowardly fear of participating 
 in his persecution. By Asta is supposed to be meant 
 Ephesus, and the vicinity. But it must at least de- 
 note the whole of Jonia, of which Ephesus was the 
 capital. And so it is taken at Acts 16, 6., and many 
 other passages adduced by Schleus., who observes, 
 that Strabo, L. 14. applies this name to Ionia only. 
 
 The πάντες may be taken popularly for permulti, 
 in a manner all. “Ὧν is for ἐξ dv. Of Phygellus 
 and Hermogenes nothing certain is known. Ec- 
 clesiastical tradition, however, affords some infor- 
 mation. 
 
 16. δῴη ἔλεος ---οἴκω. A brief mode of expres- 
 sion for, ‘*this did not Onesiphorus, whose family 
 may the Lord, &c. Ἔλεος, ‘ beneficium:” for ac- 
 cording to the Scriptural usage God’s benefits are 
 called his mercies, to hint our unworthiness of them. 
 This Onesiphorus, Rosenm. thinks was a freedman, 
 and from what the Apostle says at 4, 19., was then 
 _ dead. Or, as Benson observes, the Apostle knew he 
 was not then at Ephesus. 
 
 ᾿Ανέψυξε. See the note on Col. 4, 11. The me- 
 taphor, Rosenm. thinks, is derived from those who 
 are overcome with thirst; but I should rather think 
 heat. It seems to properly signify, “ bring a per- 
 son to life again (ἀνα) who is fainting with heat by 
 fanning him. And so (I find) Heinr. 
 
 16. τὴν ἅλυσιν pov οὐκ ἐπησχύνθη, ““ He was not 
 ashamed of my chain.” A figurative expression for, 
 “6 was not ashamed of mea prisoner.” Rosenm. 
 cites Cicero in Lelio: ‘‘ quam graves, quam diffici- 
 les plerisque videntur calamitatum societates! ad 
 quas non est facilé inventus qui descendat.” The 
 same sentiment occurs.more than once in the 
 Psalms. 
 
 17, 18. γενόμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ, “ when he was in 
 Rome ;” whither business would often bring the 
 inhabitants of so commercial a city as Ephesus. 
 
302 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 
 
 Theophyl. renders: οὐ μόνον οὐκ ἔφυγέ μου τὴν συντυ- 
 χίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπεϑήτησέ με, καὶ εὗρεν ὅ μεγάλης ἀν- 
 δρείας καὶ πίστεως. ‘The words Δῴη---ἡμέρᾳ are pa- 
 renthetical. Εὑρεῖν signifies to obtain. "ἔλεος ac- 
 ceptance and salvation. Ev ἐκείνη ἡμέρᾳ, the day of 
 judgment; as supra, ver. 12. The repetition of 
 Κυρίου instead of αὐτοῦ, is regarded by Rosem. as a 
 Hebraism. And he compares Joh. 11, 22. and 
 Susan. 55. So Theophyl. and many moderns. 
 Some antients, however, and moderns, as Wetstein, 
 take the first Κυρίου to denote God the Father; and 
 the second, God the Son. And Wets. refers to 
 Gen. 15, 27s 5, 1. 9,06 ἃ 10. 19, 94. 85,1. Ex. 16; 
 7 & 29. 31, 8. 35, 31. 1 Kings 8, 1. 12, 21. 2 Chron. 
 11, 1. Num. 10, 29. Ifthe Apostle intended this, 
 the passage would strengthen the doctrine of the 
 Trinity. 
 
 At ὅσα must be understood kara. And διηκόνησε 
 must, from the context, refer not (as some say) to 
 the Christians at large, but to the Apostle himself. 
 Βέλτιον has not the comparative force, but signifies 
 very well. 
 
 On this passage the Romanists found their prac- 
 tice of praying for the dead. For they infer from 
 4, 19. that Onesiphorus was dead. But that is 
 very uncertain; and if it were the case, this can 
 hardly be called a prayer. It may rather be re- 
 garded as a pious wish. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 _ VER. 1. ov οὖν, τ. ry evduvapod ἐν τῇ χάριτι τῇ ἐν 
 Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. ‘The same exhortation is repeated. 
 It had already occurred, ch. 1, 6, 7, 8, 18 ἃ 14. 
 We may observe, however, that the Apostle has 
 always brought it forward in different words, and 
 under different images. (Heinr.) The οὖν is well 
 paraphrased by Theodoret ταῦτα εἰδὼς, “ knowing 
 this defection, and the dangers above adverted to.” 
 Ενδυν., strengthen thyself. Heinr. here, comparing 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 303 
 
 Eph. 6, 10., drily remarks that this is one of those 
 words by which constancy and firmness in retaining 
 anew religion is denoted; as στηρίϑεσθαι, Gal. 5., 
 — βεβαιοῦσθαι, Hebr. 13, 9., &c. The χάριτι both he 
 and Rosenm. take to mean the munus Apostolicum. 
 But nothing can be more harsh. Neither is the 
 interpretation of Benson much better, “ strengthen 
 yourself in true Christianity.”’ The ἐν is plainly 
 taken for the Hebr. 3, by the means of: and the an- 
 tient and common interpretation alone bears the 
 stamp of truth. So Theophyl. (from Chrys.): μὴ 
 μόνον ἀπὸ τοῦ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ ὑποδείγματος ἐνδυναμοῦ, ἀλλὰ 
 μάλιστα διὰ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Χριστοῦ’ ἐκεινὴν ἔχε 
 συναγωνιϑομιένην, δι’ ἧς, Χο. And Theodoret: στῆθι 
 ἀνδρείως" ὑπερείδει γὰρ σε τοῦ Κυρίου ἡ χάρις. So also 
 Doddr.: “in humble dependence upon divine 
 grace.” 
 
 2. καὶ ἃ ἤκουσας---ἀνθρώποις. The Commentators, 
 antient and modern, have been not a little perplexed 
 with the διὰ πολλών μαρτύρων. Some take it of the 
 law and the Prophets. Others, as Theodoret, ex- 
 plain: ἅπερ ἤκουσάς μου πολλοὺς διδάσκοντος. So 
 Theophyl. and QCicumen.: οὐ λάθρα, ἀλλὰ μετὰ 
 παῤῥησίας, πολλῶν παρόντων. Which is preferable 
 to some other interpretations (as the visionary one 
 of Mackn.), and may represent the true sense: but 
 I am inclined to adopt that of Vatab., Beza, Est., 
 Wolf, Rosenm., and Heinr., who think the Apostle 
 has reference to the solemn ordination of Timothy 
 to the episcopal office, alluded to at 1 Tim. 1, 18, 
 4, 14.6, 12. 2 Tim. 1, 6., and which was, no doubt, 
 accompanied with a public charge (for such seems to 
 be meant by the ἃ ἤκουσας παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ), the substance 
 of which he desires may be repeated to others. The 
 witnesses were the presbyters present, and perhaps 
 the congregation. See the notes on the above cited 
 passages. 
 
 The metaphor in raga, is similar to that in rapa- 
 θήκη, Or παρακαταθήκη, supra 1, 14. 1 Pet. 4, 19. and 
 elsewhere. The ricros and ἑτέρους, &c. advert to the 
 
304 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 
 
 two principal qualifications requisite, fidelity and 
 fitness for teaching. So Theophyl.: διδακτικοῖς. See 
 1 ΤΊ. 8,.2. and 2 Tim. 2) 24; 
 
 38. σὺ οὖν κακοπάθησον---Χοιστοῦ. Here we have 
 plainly a military metaphor. Kaats signifies δοκιμὸς. 
 Rosenm. refers to Poll. 1,11. The Commentators 
 aptly compare 1 Tim. 1, 1, 18. τὴν καλὴν στρατείαν 
 στρατεύειν, and 6, 12. τὸν καλὸν ἁγὼν aywvigew.* But 
 many are the duties of the soldier besides fighting 
 (and such κακοπαθεῖν is often employed by the Greek 
 Historians to denote); and when we take the admo- 
 nition συγκακοπάθησον τώ εὐαγγελίῳ, supra 1,8.(where 
 see the note,) in conjunction with this, we shall see 
 that the Apostle here adverts to the labours of pro- 
 pagating as well as defending the Gospel. Nor can 
 I recognise, with Heinr., an agonistical allusion. 
 
 4. οὐδεὶς στρατευόμιενος ἐμπλέκεται ταῖς τοῦ βίου mpay- 
 ματείαις. ‘The στρατ. is emphatical; “Νο one who 
 warreth,” &c. "Ἐμπλέκεται, middle voice, entangleth 
 himself with, engages in. ‘The rod βίου πραγ. may 
 very well be rendered, the business of life, traffic and 
 commutation of every kind. Tod βίου does not 
 merely mean (as Heinr. explains) ad vitam toleran- 
 dam, but, in a general way, to use the words of Cicero 
 de Offic. 2, 11., ad rem gerendam. 
 
 The fact is proved by Wetstein’s citations. ‘Thus 
 it is said in a Novella of the Civilians, “ indigna est 
 et pudenda armato viro negotiatio. And so Ambros 
 
 * JT add Valer. Max. L. 8, 5. Carneades laboriosus et diuturnus 
 sapientie miles. Juncus ap, Stob. Sermon. 594. 5, ὥσπερ καλὸς 
 ἀθλήτης, ἃς, Max. Tyr. Diss. 3. p. 32. νόει μοι στρατηγόν μὲν τὸν 
 Θεὸν, στρατείαν δὲ τὴν Cuny, ἀπλίτην δὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. And the 
 same metaphor is used by ‘Theophr. Cornic. ap. Athen. 562 Fr. The 
 sentiment may be illustrated from Philostr. V. Ap. 1, 35. (p. 43.) rov 
 ἄνδρα ἡγοῦμαι τὸν σόφον πλείω κινδυνεύειν, ἢ οἱ πλέοντές τε Kal 
 ξὺν ὅπλοις μαχόμενοι φθόνος γὰρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν στείχει; καὶ σιωπῶντα, 
 καὶ φθεγγόμενον; καὶ ξυντείνοντα, καὶ ἀνιέντα, κἂν παρέλθῃ ri’ κἂν 
 προσέλθῃ τῳ, κἂν προσείπῃ, κἂν μὴ προσείπῃ" δεῖ δέ πέφραχθαι τὸν 
 ἄνδρα, γινώσκειν τε ὡς ἀργίας μὲν ἡττηθεὶς ὁ σόφος, ἢ χολῆς, ἢ 
 ἔρωτος, ἢ φιλοποσίας, ἢ ἑτοιμότερόν τι τοῦ καιροῦ πράξᾳς, ἴσως ἂν 
 καὶ ξυγγνώμην φέροιτοι" χρήμασι δὲ ὑποθεὶς ἑαυτὸν, οὔτ᾽ ἂν ξυγγι- 
 γνῴσκοιτο; καὶ μισοῖτ᾽ ἂν, ὡς ὁμοῦ πάσας κακίας συνειληφώς. 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 305 
 
 de Offic. 1, 86. Is qui imperatori militat, a suscep- 
 tionibus litium, actu forensium negotiorum, vendi- 
 tione mercium prohibetur.* | 
 
 The argument (Rosenm. observes) drawn from a 
 secular warfare is, ἃ fortiori, applicable to the spiri- 
 tual. Besides, if (as we learn from Acts 6, 5.) “ it 
 was not reasonable ministers should leave the work 
 of God, and serve tables,” how much less so for them 
 to be engaged in far less justifiable pursuits! Deeply 
 is it to be lamented that there should be any indivi- 
 duals amongst our own body so far absorbed in se- 
 cular occupations, and engrossed in ignoble pursuits 
 (see Joseph. 127, 32—42. and 1286.) as to possess 
 little leisure, and less inclination, to prosecute those 
 professional studies which can alone enable them 
 “rightly to divide the word of truth,” or successfully 
 “to contend for the faith once delivered to the 
 saints.” 
 
 4. ἵνα τῷ στρατολογήσαντι ἀρέσῃ, “ that he may 
 approve himself unto,” &c. The στρατολογ. signi- 
 fies literally the person who enlisted him, i. e. the 
 Imperator, or Dux. The application is obvious. It 
 is not, however, necessary, with Heinr., to consider 
 Paul as the orpar., but Jesus Christ. For soldiers, 
 though enlisted by any officer, are only enlisted in 
 the name of the commander in chief, or monarch with 
 whom their engagement is really made. 
 
 5. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἀθλη---ἀθλήση. On the military allu 
 sion the Apostle engrafts an agonistical metaphor. 
 The sense is: ‘* Thus also, if any one contend, or be 
 an athlete, he does not gain the prize, unless he con- 
 tend in the regular way.” The νομίμως (I conceive) 
 refers not only to the laws regulating the mode in 
 which the candidates should contest, but also the 
 rules laid down, and enforced by the trainers, with- 
 out the observance of which there was no chance of 
 
 * Arrian. Epict. 3, 22. ὡς ἐν παρατάξει, μηποτ᾽ ἀπερίσπαστον 
 εἶναι δεῖ, ὅλον πρὸς τῇ διακονίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ---οὐ προσδεδεμένον καθή- 
 κουσιν ἰδιωτικοῖς, οὐδ᾽ ἐμπεπλεγμένον σχέσεσιν. 
 
 VOL. VIII. >. 4 
 
306 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 
 
 gaining the prize.* This is especially illustrated 
 from the Classical writers from Grot. and Wets. 
 Thus Galen: οἱ νομίμως ἀθλοῦντες. Arrian. Epict. 3, 
 16. εἰ νομίμως ἤθλησας. The words γόμιμος and νομί- 
 μως were also applied to soldiers. Not only did ἃ 
 candidate fail of gaining the prize, but he was dis- 
 graced, and sometimes punished. See Herod. 8, 59. 
 where consult Wass and Valckn. 
 
 6. τὸν κοπιῶντα ---- μεταλομβάνειν. The Apostle 
 again changes the metaphor, and that to the hus- 
 bandman. Similar ones are found in 1 Cor. 9, 10. 
 Hebr. 0, 7. and James ὅ, 7.1 The construction is 
 here somewhat harsh; insomuch that critical con- 
 jectures have been resorted to; yet unnecessarily, 
 though the obscurity has occasioned some diversity 
 of interpretation. Our Common Version renders : 
 “The husbandman that laboureth must be first 
 partaker of the fruits.” And this is supported by 
 the antients and some moderns. But the sense is 
 very harsh and inapposite. For (as Doddr. observes) 
 whether the husbandman wasto receive the fruits first, 
 was not the point in question. And (as Wolf remarks) 
 the Apostle does not so much call Timothy’s atten- 
 tion to the fruits to be expected or received from 
 his labours, as he exhorts him to order and diligence 
 in his office. I must therefore acquiesce in the opi- 
 nion of Grot., Erasm., Beza, Schmid, Gataker, Ca-~ 
 pell., Wolf, and most recent Commentators, that 
 there is here a transposition, and the πρῶτον must be 
 taken with the preceding κοπιώντα, not the following 
 μεταλαμβάνειν. It was (as Doddr. says) the Apostle’s 
 
 * So Theophyl.: οὐκ ἐὰν εἰς τὸν ἀγῶνα εἰσέλθῃ, ἀρκεῖ τοῦτο οὐδὲ 
 ἐὰν ἀλείψηται, οὐδὲ ἐὰν συμπλακῇ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν μὴ καὶ τοὺς περὶ βρω- 
 μάτων καὶ πωμάτων, καὶ σωφροσύνης" ἀθλητικοὺς νόμους φυλάξῃ, καὶ 
 τοὺς ἐν τῷ πρόπῳ τῆς πάλης. 
 
 + “ The inhabitants of Judza spent much of their time in the 
 cultivation of corn, olives, and vines, and lived much in the open 
 air; hence (it should seem) the frequent allusions of the sacred 
 writers to rural scenery and rural occupation,” (Dr. Maltby in his 
 Notes to his Second Volume of Sermons.) 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 307 
 
 purpose to remind ‘Timothy that the labour of the 
 husbandman must precede the harvest. 
 
 7. νοει---πᾶσιν. These examples the Apostle fol- 
 lows up with earnest admonition, and affectionate 
 wish and prayer. 
 
 The reading δώσει, put by Griesb. nearly on a 
 footing with the textual one, is a mere emendation 
 from some who stumbled at the γὰρ, which, however, 
 may be regarded as almost pleonastic. Wolf has 
 satisfactorily shown that that reading is indefensible. 
 
 7. ἐν πᾶσιν “in all things ;? both words and works. 
 SoCicumen. Σύνεσιν, spiritual understanding. 
 
 8. μνημιόνευε---εὐαγγέλιόν μου. ‘This seems to be a 
 continuation of the above admonition at we ἃ λέγω; 
 (the δώη---πᾶσιν being, in some measure, parenthe- 
 tical) ; by the use of other arguments, namely, de- 
 rived from the resurrection of Christ, &c. The 
 words are well paraphrased by Rosenm.: ‘ If tribu- 
 jations befall me or thee, remember that Jesus 
 Christ who suffered »n ignominious death, was raised 
 again by God to a glorious life. Such will be our 
 case if we remain stedfast and undaunted.” 
 
 8. κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλλιον μου, ““ according to the Gos- 
 pel taught you by me;” as contrasted with that of 
 the Judaizers. See Benson. Ἔν ᾧ κακοπαθώ, “in the 
 cause of which I labour, travail, and encounter 
 peril.” For κακ. must be taken in the same extent of 
 signification as supra ver. 3. Grot. thinks the word 
 also includes the idea of patient endurance. Μέχρι 
 δεσμῶν, “ Said exaggeranter (observes Rosenm.) ; 
 since this confinement was the φυλακὴ aderpos.” But 
 that (as I have shown on the Acts) is a point very 
 undetermined. ‘The word, however, was often ap- 
 plied to any imprisonment, whether in fetters or not. 
 Qs, “as if I were.” 
 
 The turn at ἀλλ᾽ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐ δέδεται is very 
 skilful, and would not have been unworthy of De- 
 mosthenes himself. Rosenm. paraphrases: “ it will 
 always be propagated, though I am in bonds.” And 
 
 x 2 
 
“pe 
 
 308 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 
 
 so Wolf. But the meaning must rather be: ‘ the 
 word of God, as regards me.” And so Theodoret. 
 The other sense, however, may be included. Schliting 
 and Benson have alone seen the scope of the words, 
 namely, ‘‘ that is my comfort and your's.” 
 
 10. διὰ τοῦτο πάντα ὑπομένω. ‘Lhe διὰ τοῦτο is by 
 some referred to τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ; by others, to οὐ δέδε- 
 ται; q. d. in order that this should not be bound I 
 bear all things.” Benson interprets: “as the Gos- 
 pel is at liberty.’ Others otherwise. , But perhaps 
 it merely answers to the Hebr. }y2?, which has 
 sometimes little perceptible meaning, as seems to be 
 the case with the διὰ τοῦτο ; for the sense is complete . 
 without it. There may, however, be included an 
 elliptical force, to be thus supplied: “ And why do 
 I bear all things? For this, namely, for the elect’s 
 sake, &c. Rosenm. supposes an asyndeton, and sup- 
 plies kai at 1 Cor. 11,10. I would point thus: Διὰ 
 τοῦτο πᾶντα ὑπομενῶ, διὰ, χα. Rosenm. paraphrases: 
 “omnia sustineo: quia nempe confido, Christum 
 mihi vincto etiam adfuturum, caussam meam tuitu- 
 rum, et me, ipsius gratia patientem, honoribus, pre- 
 miis atque splendore sic decoraturum esse, ut me 
 perpessionis pudere aut poenitere non possit.” But 
 this cannot (I think) be the sense intended. For (as 
 Theophyl. observes) the Apostle means to say that 
 he suffers this not so much for himself, as for the 
 salvation of others.. And so Gicumen. Ἔν X., by 
 Christ. Mera δόξης αἰωνίου, “together with eternal 
 glory.” Rosenm., strangely, interprets the words, as 
 if they related to the present advantages only of the 
 Gospel; which the μετὰ δόξης aiwy. forbids. So 
 Theophyl.: οὐ μόνον ἵνα σωθώσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μεῖφον, ἵνα 
 καὶ δοξασθώσι pel ἡμών αἰωνίως. 
 
 By the τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς the best antient and modern 
 Interpreters are agreed is meant, ald faithful Chris- 
 tians, not the Gentile Christians only, as Benson sup- 
 poses. ‘Though it should seem that the Apostle did 
 not mean to include the Judaizers, since they were 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 309 
 
 not faithful, and therefore not elect. The καὶ αὐτοὶ 
 (which is strangely misunderstood by some) simply 
 means, they as well as myself. 
 
 11. mioros—oveiconev. The article here stands 
 for the pronoun demonstrative, 4. d. this is a saying 
 of undoubted certainty (a formula occurring also at 
 1 Tim. 1 15. 3, 1. 4, 9.), this which follows : for it 
 does not relate (as Heinr. fancies) to what preceded. 
 ‘The assurance was meant to silence their doubts, and 
 strengthen their resolution to encounter persecution. 
 Συναπεθάνομιεν, ““ 416 martyrs as he died.” Συβήσο- 
 μεν, “enjoy life and happiness with him.” In the 
 clause εἰ ὑπομένομεν, καὶ συμβασιλεύσομεν there is a 
 fine climax. On the συμβ. see Rom. 5, 17. and the 
 note there. Heinr. compares Epict. Enchirid. c. 21. 
 οὐ μόνον συμπότης τῶν θεῶν Eon, ἀλλὰ Kal συναρχὼν. 
 On egy. see the note on 1 Tim. ὅ, 8.ι. The sense is 
 obvious. 
 
 13. εἰ ἁπιστοῦμεν----δύναται. The sense of these 
 words is somewhat obscure, partly from brevity, and 
 partly from the construction being adapted rather to 
 the antithesis, than to the sentiment. It hinges on 
 the words ἀπιστοῦμεν and ἀρνήσασθαι οὐ δύναται. The 
 antients interpret: ‘‘ Whether we believe or disbe- 
 lieve his resurrection and Messiahship, Christ will be 
 true, and the same will gain nothing by our belief, 
 nor lose any thing by our disbelief.” And so many 
 moderns. But this seems scarcely an apposite sense, 
 and does not arise naturally out of the words. As 
 the amor. has rior. corresponding to it, I agree with 
 the best modern Commentators, that it must denote 
 failing in our fidelity to Christ; which may be (as 
 Benson says) “by denying the Christian religion, or 
 rejecting it; by corrupting it, or mingling another 
 doctrine with it ; or by diving unworthy of it. IZfwe 
 should prove unfaithful, any of these ways, yet 
 Christ is faithful, and must disown us, as none of his 
 disciples.” The unfaithfulness here spoken of seems 
 to have been denying the Christian religion, in the 
 time of persecution, in order to avoid suffering. See 
 
510 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 11. 
 
 Doddr. The above interpretation is ably supported 
 by Rosenm. and Heinr., and is, undoubtedly, the 
 true one. “ By cannot deny himself (observes 
 Rosenm.) is meant, cannot act contrary to his nature, 
 which is altogether veracious, cannot deny that he is 
 Christ, and that what he has taught us is true.” 
 
 Consequently, he can appoint no other ἀντίδοσις, 
 retribution, whether for good or evil, than his decla- 
 rations authorize us to expect. 
 
 14. ταῦτα ὑπομιίμνησκε--- ἀκουόντων, “ of these things 
 remind the teachers committed to your superinten- 
 dence.” Benson thinks that by these are meant the 
 Judaizers. Be that as it may, it appears, by the 
 words following, that teachers are meant. And so 
 Est. and Rosenm. On diapaprupopevos ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυ- 
 elov see 1 Tim., 5, 21., and the note. And on λογο- 
 μαχεῖν see 1 Tim., 6,4. At ἐπὶ καταστροῷῃ the ἀλλὰ 
 is omitted, by asyndeton. ‘The sense of the rest is 
 obvious. 
 
 15. σποὐδασον----ἀληθείας. 
 
 After having shown what preachers of God's word ought not 
 to be, the Apostle shows what they ought to be. In the present 
 weighty admonition the nature of the metaphor used by the Apostle 
 has been a inatter of some doubt with the Commentators. Many 
 moderns recognize, in the ὀρθοτομοῦντα, an allusion to the Jewish 
 Priests cutting or dividing a sacrifice into its proper parts; or to 
 the scribes dividing the Law into sections (see Benson and Doddr.) ; 
 or to a carver distributing the meat to the guests; or, again, toa 
 steward dealing out the articles committed to his management. But 
 all these opinions seem destitute of any authority. ‘The most popu- 
 lar interpretation, for the last century, and one which carries the 
 greatest semblance of truth, is that of Greg. Nazienz., ably support- 
 ed by Elsner, Obss, 2,311., Wets., in loc., and many others. It is, 
 they say, a metaphor taken from those who proceed by a direct road, 
 leaving crooked and winding paths: for, in the Greek language, the 
 act of proceeding directly is called τέμνειν ὅδον, or κελεύθον εὐθει- 
 ay, and, in the Latin, viam secure. But there are two reasons which 
 
 _ prevent me from acceding to this interpretation. In the first place, 
 it drops the idea of ἐργατής. Butit is well known that ἔργα is, by 
 the writers of antiquity, peculiarly applied to the labours of 
 husbandry ; and it will readily occur to any one, that men engaged 
 in agriculture are, in our own tongue, called labourers; while the 
 term workmen is used, with greater variety and extent, of artizans. 
 My second reason is this: The explanation in question does not 
 sufficiently unfold that part of the compound word ὀρθοτομοῦντα; 
 
Q TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 311 
 
 which imports the act of cutting, or dividing ; and which leads me 
 to think that the Apostle had in view the act of ploughing, when the 
 JSurrows are made straight.* 
 
 Most of the above statement is derived from an Episcopal Visita- 
 tion Sermon, by me, published many years ago by Messrs. Rivington, 
 and to the copious notes on which 1 refer for further details, only 
 observing, that the interpretation is supported by the authority of 
 Chrysostom and Theodoret. 
 
 10. τὰς δὲ βεβήλους κενοφωνίας περιΐστατο. With 
 this we may compare the ἐκτρεπόμενος τὰς βεβήλους 
 κενοφωνίας of 1 Tim., 6, 20., the τοὺς δὲ βεβήλους καὶ 
 γραώδεις μύθους παραιτοῦ of 1 Tim., 4, 7. (where see 
 the note), and the μωρὰς ϑητήσεις παραιτοῦ, infra, ver. 
 23. See also 3,9. The verb περιϊστάσθαι, signifies 
 to keep oneself aloof from, avoid, literally, by running 
 round (περὶ) a pillar, or any other object. See the 
 Classical citations of Kypke and Wets. 
 
 At τροκοψ. (aterm used both in a bad, and good 
 sense), the construction requires us to understand 
 the βεβηλοὶ κενοφωνίαι, which is taken by the Com- 
 mentators as put, by the πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμιενον, for the 
 persons so acting. But it rather seems to mean the 
 use of such sophisms, &c., which, in Christians, and 
 especially Christian teachers, may very well be called 
 ἀσεβείαι ; since the holding and the promulgating of 
 such is inconsistent with our bounden duty to God, 
 and our Lord Jesus Christ, to honour him with our 
 body and with our spirit, which are God’s, to submit 
 our imaginations, as well as regulate our actions, by 
 the will of Him who worketh all in all. 
 
 The κενοῷων. Chrys, explains by καίνοτομ. In 
 which Iam not prepared to agree with him: and 
 yet I cannot but think that, in many respects, as re- 
 gards the Theology of a neighbouring country, the 
 two words are too often convertible terms: and I 
 would to God that those to whom this whole passage 
 may be so fairly applied, would seriously reflect on 
 the consequences of such unbounded speculation, 
 
 * To which purpose there is an interesting passage in Hesiod Op. 
 41—3. (on ploughing straight) Ὅς κ᾽ ἔργου μελετῶν ἰθεῖαν αὔλακ᾽ 
 ἐλαύνει Μήκετι παπταίνων μεθ᾽ ὁμήλικας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ ἔργῳ θυμὸν ἔχων, 
 See also Theocr, Id. 10., init. 
 
312 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 
 
 and “turn from these vanities to serve the living 
 God.” 
 
 17. Kal 6 λόγος αὐτῶν ὡς γάγγραινα. νομὴν ἔξει. The 
 γάγγρ., Rosenm. observes, is not the same as the 
 cancer, but something very like it. Castell., in his 
 Lex. Med., calls it an incipient mortification, by some 
 called St. Anthony’s fire. So Jaspis: “ Morbus est, 
 quo pars quedam corporis, vi inflammationis labo- 
 rans, ita corrupta est, ut, nisi mature et opportune 
 auxilium feratur, malum, latius in dies se diffundens, 
 vi veneni sui totum corpus carié arrodat ac perdat.” 
 
 The νομὴν ἔξει 15 ἃ peculiar phrase, with which the 
 Commentators compare γομὴν ποιεῖσθαι, and λαμβάνειν, 
 and that for νέμεσθαι and its compounds. So the 
 Vulg. serpit. But it should seem that ἕξει signifies 
 carries with it. Nop, like νέμεσθαι, is used of such 
 putrifying sores as communicate corruption to the 
 
 arts adjacent. One may compare a similar passage 
 of Acts 4, 17., where, speaking metaphorically of a 
 supposed false and pernicious opinion, it is said : ἵνα 
 μὴ ἐπὶ πλείον διανεμηθῆ, Rosenm. cites from Plut. 
 (respecting the feigned praises of adulators), yayyea- 
 ivas καὶ καρκινώματα. The moral application is 
 obvious. 
 
 18. περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν. So 1 Tim., 6, 
 Q1., περὶ τὴν πίστιν yor. (where see the note), and I 
 Tim., 4, 5., tas ἀληθείας ἀποστερεῖσθαι. On the 
 nature of the opinions so described no certainty can 
 be attained : and the opinions of Commentators are, 
 as vsual, various. Most think that these were 
 persons who held that the resurrection preached by 
 Jesus was purely a metaphorical and spiritual one, 
 and that that was past; that virtue was its own 
 reward in this life, and all that it could expect : for, 
 as Sadducees and Materialists, by denying the resur- 
 rection of the body, they denied all future existence. 
 (See the instructive note of Mackn.) On the other 
 hand, Benson, and most recent Commentators, 
 suppose their opinions to have been much the same 
 with those of Marcion and the Gnostics, as stated by 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 313 
 
 Epiphanius. Heeres. 42., ‘non carnis sed anime 
 resurrectionem esse credendam.” And Benson thinks. 
 that Marcion believed in the separate existence of 
 the soul. But such could not be the opinion of Hy- 
 meneus and Philetus ; for, according to the Apostle, 
 they held that there was only one resurrection, and 
 that past. They, therefore, evidently thought it the 
 same with baptismal regeneration. Marcion seems 
 to have maintained fwo resurrections, one present 
 and figurative ; the other future and real, namely, of 
 the soul; whereas, by the τὴν ἀναστ., it is implied 
 that Hymeneus and Philetus held but one. 
 
 At ἀνατρέπουσι, Priceeus observes, there is a meta- 
 phor taken from undermining any building, in con- 
 formity with which there is added ὁ στερεὸς θεμέλιος 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔστηκεν. 
 
 19. ὁ μέντοι orepeds θεμέλιος ἐστήκεν. 
 
 This is a passage of no ordinary difficulty, on which the opinions 
 of Commentators are very various. The most favourite one, for 
 the last half century is, that as σφραγὶς often denotes an inscription, 
 so it may here be used in allusion tothe custom of engraving on a 
 slab deposited at the foundation of a building, indicating the 
 purpose of its erection. Thus, by θεμελ., they understand the 
 religion which has God for its author, the chief purposes of which 
 are adverted to in the two sentences following. Thus Heinr. 
 renders: ‘‘Sed licet labantes nonnullorum animos seducant, ipsum 
 tamen religionis fundamentum revellere requibunt.” And he com- 
 pares Matt. 16, 18. He then adds: ‘ Et ἢ. 1. religionem sistit ut 
 edificium, seu templum, solidissimé fundatum, litterisque majusculis 
 sententid quadam breviori inscriptum.”’ Jaspis observes, that 
 σφραγὶς is, properly, the fundamental stone; and that such had in- 
 scriptions, appears from Apoc. 21,14. So Theophyl.: ἔχων ὧσα- 
 vel λίθος τε “γράμματά τινα καὶ γνωρίσματα ἐγκεκολαμμένα αὐτῷ δὲ 
 αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων, καὶ αὐτῷ ἐφαρμόξοντα, τὸ, "Ἔγνω κύριος, καὶ τὰ 
 ἑξῆς. Abp. Tillotson and Benson take θεμέλιος to Mean a covenant. 
 But that is devoid of authority, and little agreeable to the context. 
 Slade and Valpy adopt the interpretation of Wells: ‘‘ Nevertheless, 
 the foundation of God, i. e.the fundamental doctrine of the resur- 
 rection, whereon principally God has designed the truth of the Gos- 
 pel to be built, standeth sure and firm, having this seal, i. e. being 
 confirmed after the same way as God confirmed the authority of 
 Moses and Aaron against the gainsayings of Korah and his com- 
 panions, namely, when in reply to Korah, Moses answered, Numb. 
 16, 5., “* The Lord knoweth them that are his ;* and when he said 
 to the congregation of Israel, in reference to Korah, ἅς, Numb. 
 16, 26. ‘‘ Depart from the tents of these wicked men.” But this 
 
314 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 
 
 seems very harsh as respects the @yyw—Xprorov. ‘Theodoret para- 
 phrases thus: παρασαλεῦσαι ov δύναται τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας κρηπῖδα" 
 ὁ Θεὸς γὰρ τοῦτον τέθεικε τὸν θεμέλιον" σφραγὶς δὲ τοῦ θεμελίου, τῆς 
 ἀναστάσεως ἣ ἐλπίς. Perhaps the interpretation first mentioned 
 may be united with this; q. d. “ The main fabric itself, and 
 especially that fundamental doctrine of the resurrection, standeth 
 firm.” And then what is added may be understood of the religion, 
 not the doctrine. And, certainly, in respect to religion, the two 
 sentences which are supposed to be inscribed upon it, contain matter 
 for serious meditation, and constant recollection to all its professors. 
 Ist., ἔγνω κ. τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ, “ The Lord knoweth who are really 
 his.” See Joh. 13, 18., Neh. 1, 17., Num, 16,5. 2nd., ᾿Αποστήτω, 
 &c., ‘* Let every professor of the Christian religion depart from ini- 
 quity.”” See Whitby and Benson. This should, therefore, seem 
 directed against those false teachers who, though holding doctrines 
 subversive of the religion of God, yet professed to be his faithful 
 worshippers ; and though professing a religion which was intro- 
 duced to purify men from iniquity, yet were too little careful to ob- 
 serve it in their actions. 
 
 20. ἐν μεγάλῃ---εἰς ἀτιμίαν. This passage partakes 
 of the difficulty which envelops the preceding, chiefly 
 because the application of the similitude is wanting; 
 as Rom. 5, 12., and elsewhere. Hence Commenta- 
 tors differ in opinion. ‘The antients took the great 
 house to be the world, and the words meant to reply 
 to the enquiry. ‘* Why does God permit evil men 
 to be in the world.” But this is little agreeable to 
 the context. The best modern Commentators (and 
 even some antients) think that it must mean the 
 Church. Yet they are not agreed whether by the 
 vessels are meant Christians in general, or Ministers. 
 The former opinion is supported by most Commenta- 
 tors. (See Benson, Rosenm., and Heinr.) The 
 latter, by Mackn., Jaspis, and others; and, indeed, 
 it seems most agreeable to the context: but perhaps 
 it may be included in the former. 
 
 Q1. ἐὰν οὖν τις exxabeioy ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τούτων, &c., “ If 
 aman keep himself pure from the contamination of 
 bad men, or false teachers, he will be a vessel pure 
 and fit for the master’s use, prepared for every good 
 work,” i. e. he will be a faithful Christian and a good 
 teacher. The εἰς πάν, &c. is exegetical of εὔχρηστον 
 τῷ δεσπότῃ. It is unnecessary to add more. ‘The 
 most apposite Classical passage here adduced is 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 815 
 
 Aristot. Rhet. 2. p. 530. (cited by Heinr.) Τροπὴν 
 ἔχει ἀπὸ σκευῶν καὶ ἀγγείων, μετενεχθὲν ἐπὶ τὰ σεμινο- 
 τέρα, ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν τῶν ἄνδρων. 
 
 22. τὰς δὲ νεωτερικὰς ἐπιθυμίας φεῦγε. The νεωτ. 
 exif. are commonly explained of fornication, or at 
 least sensuality. And Wets. adduces many ex- 
 amples of cupiditates adolescentie : and he cites 
 Philo 2, 84. μειρακιώδεις ἐπιθυμίας. Yet considering 
 the extreme temperance, nay abstinence, practised 
 by Timothy, and the nature of the antithetical terms, 
 this would be quite foreign to the purpose. Others, 
 as Salmas. and Schliting., interpret it of a rage for 
 novelty, such as is often found in young men. But 
 this is destitute of authority, and is little agreeable 
 to the context. Others, as Loesn. and Schleus., in- 
 terpret it vehement, heady. But not to say that the 
 examples they adduce rather relate to veavixos, this is 
 too limited a sense. Upon the whole, I prefer, with 
 Wolf, Doddr., Rosenm., and Heinr., taking μειρακ. 
 in the common and most general signification, youth- 
 Jul,thereby understanding all those hot and heady pas- 
 sions which hurry young men into follies and vices. 
 Considering, too, the somewhat mature age (thirty- 
 eight) to which Timothy had now arrived, cum (to 
 use the words of Cicero) adoloscentice cupiditates de- 
 fervissent, and the nature of the opposite terms, the 
 expression must (I think) be taken ofa rash, violent, 
 heady, contentious spirit, pride, ambition, &c. And 
 let it be remarked, that this Epistle, as well as the 
 last, was intended for other ministers as well as 
 Timothy. 
 
 Δικαιοσύνην and πίστιν are best explained virtue 
 and fidelity. The ἀγάπην denotes that loving dispo- 
 sition which was to be cultivated towards both 
 Christians and Heathens. For it may also refer to 
 the latter. To these he adds εἰρήνη---καρδίας, which, 
 from ver. 23 & 25., seem mentioned in order to check 
 any spirit of harshness towards some who, though 
 differing in opinion with him and most Christians 
 upon certain questions of no fundamental import- 
 
316 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 
 
 ance, yet were sincerely pious Christians. Such is 
 admitted to be the sense of the τῶν ἐπικαλουμένων 
 τὸν Κύριον ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας, with which I would 
 compare Soph. Cid. Col. 4, 87. καλοῦμεν Eupevidas 
 ἐξ εὐμιενών στέρνων δέχεσθαι τὸν ἱκέτην, where the 
 Schol. explains : : μὴ ἐξ ἐπιπολῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνδιαθέτως. See 
 also 1 Sam. 1, 5. 
 
 23, τὰς de pwpas—payas. Compare 1 Tim. 1, 4. 
 & 0, 4. Μωρὰς καὶ ἀπαιδεύτους, contributing nothing 
 to true religion or real happiness. So Theophyl. : : 
 αἱ κατὰ δαλυταβύεν: καὶ οὐ κατὰ τινα χρείαν γινομιέναι 
 διαλέξεις. Compare Prov. 5, 23. Mayas, strifes. 
 See Tit. 3, 9. 
 
 24. δοῦλον δὲ ΙΚυρίου---ἀνεξίκακον. The antient and 
 best modern Commentators take the doa. Κυρίου to 
 mean a Christian minister; an appellation often 
 given by the Apostles to ‘themselves and other 
 teachers, and (as I have shown) used even among 
 the Heathens. ‘So Pausan. 10, 32, 8. med. 
 
 Ou δεῖ μάχεσθαι, “ must not be disputatious 
 and quarrelsome,” either in his public teaching, or 
 private discourse. Compare Tit. 3, 2. and Matt. 
 12, 19. Διδακτικὸν. See the note on 1 Tim. 8, 2. 
 It should seem to have both the active and passive 
 sense, apt to teach, docibilis, and ready to be taught, 
 as opposed to an overbearing , disputatious spirit : 
 and this is confirmed by the next verse. *AveSixakoy, - 
 ἘΣ patient of injuries. % So Hierocl., cited by Wets. : 
 πρὸς τὴν ἀρίστην φίλων τήρησιν, καὶ τὴν εὔλογον ἀπό- 
 θεσιν, καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐκ μεταμελείας αὐτῶν μετανάκλησιν 
 πλεῖστα συμβάλλεται τὸ ἡμέτερον ἀνεξίκακον, καὶ περὶ 
 
 μηδενὺς πρὸς τοὺς φίλους μικρολογούμενον, μηδὲ ἐξετασ- 
 τικὸν πρὸς ἀκρίβειαν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσον οἷοντε ὑπομονητικὸν. 
 See Sap. 2,18. In this context it must denote to- 
 lerant of the petulant expressions which may be ex- 
 pected from opposite disputants ; agreeably to our 
 Lord’s direction, Matt. 20, 26. So Aristides 3, 360. 
 says of Themistocles οὕτω Φαῦλος ἦν τοὺς τρόπους 
 (affable and easy) καὶ αὐτόχρημα θεώμενος. 
 
 25. ἐν πρᾳότητι παιδεύοντα τοὺς ἀντιδιατιθεμένους, 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 517 
 
 “in meekness setting right and instructing the op- 
 ponents.” Theodoret explains: φέρων αὐτών μακρο- 
 θύμως τὰς ἀντιθέσεις. But ἀντιδιατιθ. has no particular 
 reference to oppositions of argument. It signifies, in 
 a general way, to be contrary minded. ‘Thus some 
 MSS. read (6 glossa) ἀντικειμένους ; as 1 Tim. 5, 4. 
 Compare 1 Tim. 6, 11. It is tr uly remarked by 
 Theophyl. : Mera bohodcapros γὰρ καὶ μάχης οὐκ ay 
 Th τῶν χρησίμων δυνηθείη συνιδεῖν ἡ ψυχὴ, διότι τὸν “μελ- 
 λοντά τι τών χρησίμων μαθεῖν, χρὴ πρὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπαν- 
 τῶν ἡδέως ἔχειν πρὸς τὸν διδάσκοντα. Πώς δ᾽ ἂν ἡδέως 
 ἔχοι πρὸς τὸν θρασυνόμινον καὶ ὑβρίξοντα ; 
 
 At μήποτε δώ, &c. there is an ellipsis, like μήπως, 
 Rom. 11, 21. “ (trying) whether God may give,” 
 ὅτε. Els ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας, “ so that they may 
 acknowledge the truth they now reject.” The 
 Apostle, howev er, hints at the danger of their error 
 by making it need repentance, and that to be effected 
 principally by God. So Acts 11,18. τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὃ 
 
 εὸς τὴν μετανοίαν ἔδωκεν εἰς ϑωὴν. 
 
 ™“™ 
 
 26. καὶ ἀνανήψωσιν---θέλημα. 
 
 This is one of those passages in which it is easy to see the general 
 sense, but difficult to determine it in specie. Hence the variety of 
 opinions. As to the clause ἀνανήψωσιν---παγίδος, that involves no 
 serious difficulty. It is only necessary to consider it as a blending 
 together of two metaphors, and as representing two clauses (and so 
 the Syr.) ; Ist, awaken from the deep sleep, and become sober 
 from the inebriation of diabolical error; Qdly, to rise, disengage 
 oneself from a snare. Νήφειν and ἀνανήφειν signify, lst, to awake 
 from a deep sleep; 2dly, to become sober from inebriation; 3dly, 
 to come to a right mind.* But to proceed to the second clause, 
 ἐξωγρημένοι ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ eis τὸ ἐκείνου θέλημα, here the diversity of 
 opinions appears. The question (I conceive) is, to whom is the pro- 
 noun, and consequently the verb ἐξ. to be referred? To the more 
 remote antecedent 6 Θεὸς, of whom the é@wy. must be understood, 
 
 * Of these senses examples are adduced by the Commentators, to 
 which I add others of the third signification from Liban. Orat. 772 
 ἀνανήψας καὶ τὸν νοῦν eis ἑαυτὸν συλλεξάμενος, where there is a si- 
 milar confusion of two phrases. Oraculum Delph. ap. Suid. Acoye- 
 vis νήψας αἰσχρᾶς καταπαύσεται ὀργῆς. Orac. Syb. p. 33. Galei. 
 K’ ov θελετ᾽ ἔκνηψαι καὶ σώφρονα πρὸς νοῦν ἐλθεῖν. See also Jo- 
 seph. 1036, 4. and Cebes p. 16. The Commentators adduce no 
 example of a confusion of the two metaphors; which, however, is 
 not unfrequent in St. Paul. See Heb. 3, 13. 
 
318 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 11. III. 
 
 say most antients and many moderns, as H. Steph., Kypke, Mi- 
 chaelis, and Menoch. ‘This interpretation seems to have arisen 
 from their stumbling at the doctrine supposed to be involved in the 
 words. So Camerar.: “ Dictu sané est horribile.” But I appre- 
 hend that as the é&. must have reference to the same noun as παγέ- 
 Sos ; and as that is also connected with τοῦ Διαβόλου, so must this. 
 And in this the antients and most eminent moderns, as E. V., 
 Grot., Rosenm., Heinr., Wets., and Jaspis agree. As to the doc- 
 trine, there is nothing in it more horrible than what is elsewhere 
 found in the New Testament, of the influence of the Devil in en- 
 tangling men in error, keeping them so, and lulling them in the 
 deep sleep of ignorance and security, &c. As to the αὐτοῦ and 
 ἐκείνου, as used of the same, this is a common variation, on which 
 
 see Scultet ap. Crit. Sacr.* 
 CHAP. ill. 
 
 Verse 1. With this and the following verse com- 
 parel Tim. c. 4. “Ev ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις. So 1 Tim. 
 4,1. ἐν ὑστεροῖς καιροῖς, where see the note, to which 
 I add a passage from Aischyl. Ag. 1656. Blomf. ἐν 
 ὑστέραισιν ἡμέραις, where the learned Editor com- 
 pares Soph. Cid. Col. 641. ἐν ὑστέρῳ χρόνῳ. He 
 might have added that the phrase often occurs, and 
 in this sense, (namely, at some future time,) in Thu- 
 cyd. ᾿Ενστήσονται, will be at hand, arrive. So2 Thess. 
 2,2. ws ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα, τοῦ Kugiov. Sometimes 
 ἀνιστ. is used nearly in the same sense. Χαλεποὶ is 
 explained by Theophyl. πάνυ πονηροί. And he ob- 
 
 * T must not omit to mention a method of interpretation, origi- 
 nally proposed by Beza, Hamm, and Wells, and since adopted by 
 Slade and Valpy, by which the αὐτοῦ is referred to διαβόλου, and 
 the ἐκείνου to ὁ Θεὸς. ‘The passage is thus construed and inter- 
 preted: καὶ ἐθωγρημένοι ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἀνανήψωσιν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλον 
 παγίδος εἰς τὸ ἔκεινον θέλημα, ““ that they may recover themselves 
 to his will out of the snare of the Devil, who have been taken cap- 
 tive by him.” But the scholarship of these Commentators might 
 have shown them that so violent a construction is utterly inadmis- 
 sible ; and their good sense ought to have suggested to them how 
 little necessary it was to resort to any such device. 
 
 Wets. ingeniously paraphrases the whole thus: ‘‘ Capti a servo 
 sive ministro Evangelia, Luc. 5, 10. ut serventur et faciant volunta- 
 tem Dei. Heb. 13, 21. Ex laqueis diaboli, in quibus perituri erant, 
 extricantur a servo Domini, et transferuntur in alium statum, ut 
 voluntatem Dei deinceps faciant.” 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 319 
 
 serves that this is a popular idiom. The Commen- 
 tators compare the Latin gravissima et formidolosa 
 tempura. See Heinr. 
 
 Q—3, ἔσονται yap οἱ ἄνθοωποι, &c. 
 
 Here is a συναθροισμὸς similar to that of Auct. ad Herenn. L, 4. 
 Cupidus, intemperans, impius in parentes, infestus in cognatos, in 
 superiores contumax, in pares fastidiosus, in inferiores crudelis. 
 The Apostle gives the reason why he had called those times χαλεποί. 
 He predicts that Christian virtue will degenerate, and piety be rare ; 
 for of Christians only he now speaks; and ecclesiastical history 
 shows how speedily the prediction was accomplished. (Grot. and 
 Rosenm.) Vitringa, in a very learned Dissert. Obs. Sacr. L. 4., 
 proves that there was a great alteration in the face of the Christian 
 Church between the time of Nero and Trajan, within which period 
 he apprehends great numbers of professors to have departed from 
 the strictness of Christian morals, as well as the purity of the faith. 
 
 Φίλαυτοι. This is properly a vox media, but, like our selfish, was 
 generally used in malam partem, to signify rapacious, avaricious, 
 and unfeeling. See Aristot. de Rep. 2, 5.and Nicomach. 9, 8. cited 
 by Wets. To which I add Eurip. Med. 85. ὡς πᾶς τις αὐτὸν τῶν 
 πέλας μᾶλλον φιλεῖ. Joseph. 116, 43. διὰ τὸ φύσει πάντας εἶναι pe 
 λαυτοὺς, and 201, 31. ἐδήλου (scil. ὁ Θεὸς) τὴν ἀνθρωπίνων φύσιν 
 αὐτοφίλαυτον οὔσαν. 
 
 The φιλάργυροι and ἀλαξόνες require no explanation. (See 
 Schleus.) But as selfishness and avarice are closely united, so, I 
 think, the Apostle meant to join ἀλάξονες with them, in order to 
 form a group; for it seems to denote ostentation of wealth and 
 grandeur; and certain it is that the same grovelling spirit that excites 
 men to scrape together riches, heedless of the ruin of others, impels 
 them to gratify their vanity by insulting those who have not equal 
 wealth, So that ostentation, whatever shape it may assume, has 
 ever its root in selfishness and avarice. The next word, ὑπερηφάγνοι, 
 is nearly alied to ἀλαξ., and seems to furm part of the same group. 
 
 Βλάσφημοι, in Deum nempe,” says Rosenm. And so Theoph., 
 who thinks there is a climax, and also Grot. But it would (1 
 think) be nearer the truth to say in homines, See Scultet. and 1 
 Tim. 6, 4. 
 
 The next terms, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, ἀχάριστοι, ἀνόσιοι, ἄστοργοι, 
 and ἄσπονδοι, seem to form another group. For, as Theophyl. ob- 
 serves, he that is disobedient to parents, will be ungrateful to others. 
 And he that is such, is ἀνόσιος, because τὴν ὅσιαν καὶ τὸ ὀφειλόμενον 
 ἀθετεῖ. He will also be ἄστοργος, for whom willhe feel affection for 
 if he rejects his benefactor. He will also be ἄσπονδος, for whom 
 will he keep covenant with, if not his parent and benefactor ? 
 But the ἄστοργος seems rather to represent that want of natural 
 affection reciprocally between parents and children, and between 
 near relations, which we find by the Classical writers was so preva- 
 lent in that most corrupt age. Josephus often adverts to it; and 
 also Appian and the other Historians: not to mention the Satirists, 
 
320 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 
 
 as Juveval, and Homer, and ‘'hucyd. 3, 81, gives a specimen of the 
 surpassing brutality in the Peloponnesian war, καὶ yap πάτηρ παῖδα 
 απέκτεινε. I would compare Apoll. Tyzn. Ep. 56. where he says of 
 the Sardinians, ὑμῖν δὲ ἄσπονδα καὶ ἀκήρυκτα καὶ ἀμείλικτα ἔτι τε 
 ἀνίερα (1 would read dviapa) καὶ ἄθεα, τὰ πρὸς γονεῖς πρὸς τέκνα, 
 τὰ πρὸς φίλους συγγενεῖς φυλέτας. When they are said to be devoid 
 of this, it is not meant that they never had it, but that they had 
 divested themselves of it, or suppressed it, or act in opposition to it. 
 
 Διάβολοι, calumniators, For by calumniating the good, they try 
 to bring all down to their own level, as the best medicine for self- 
 reproach. 
 
 ᾿Ακρατεῖς and ἀνήμεροι seem associated. So Doddr.: “ intem- 
 perate in their pleasures, fierce in their resentments.” These terms, 
 however, seem meant to denote that state of brutishness in both 
 these respects, which is seen in the fierce tenants of the forest. ’Adgc- 
 λάγαθοι is well rendered by Doddr.: “ destitute of all love of good- 
 ness :”” though this lingers latest in the heart of all the good feelings 
 implanted there by the Creator. Tpoddrar. Here there may be a 
 climax ; since treachery has ever been considered as one of the most 
 odious of vices. As this term: comes after ἀφιλάγαθοι, it may mean 
 “« betraying the good,” namely, their fellow Christians, as did Judas. 
 So Theophyl. and Gicumen. supply φιλίας καὶ ἐταιρίας. 
 
 A. προπετεῖς, τετυφωμένοι, φιλήδονο! μαλλον ἢ Piro- 
 θεοι. ‘There is ἃ difficulty respecting these words 
 which the Commentators (prudently enough) for- 
 bear to touch on. It is this. In the preceding there 
 is a perceptible climax. But here are epithets 
 far weaker than the preceding. Now this, I think, 
 may be accounted for by supposing the Apostle in- 
 tended these words as a separate clause, and meant 
 by this epilogus to characterize what would be the 
 leading traits in professed Christians (for that 
 seems to be what is meant by φιλόθεοι), namely, a 
 restless, heady, headlong, rash, reckless, vain, con- 
 ceited spirit, and an ungovernable thirst for sensual 
 gratifications. Considering the dissoluteness of the 
 manners of that age, the last trait can require no 
 illustration : and as to the second, it is nearly allied 
 to the ἀλαϑόνες and ὑπερήφανοι. ‘The first is not so 
 easily accounted for. But those who have atten- 
 tively studied the historical records of those miser- 
 able times will admit that this was one of the most 
 distinguishing traits of the people. Many passages 
 proving and illustrating this I remember to have read 
 in Josephus, Appian, Dio Cass. and others. Such 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IIT. 821 
 
 itis that Thucyd., in an inimitably fine description 
 of the manners of the Greeks in the Peloponnesian 
 war, calls the τὸ ἐμπλήκτως ὀξὺ, which the Scholiast 
 explains by μανιωδώς. This and the τόλμα ἀλόγιστος, 
 the Historian says, were then alone accounted 
 bravery. Now as human nature (corrupt alas!) is 
 the same in every age, it is no wonder that there 
 should be many striking points of resemblance. 
 Thus Theodoret says, that the description exactly 
 corresponded to the manners of his own age ; for, 
 says he, τούτων κακῶν πλήρης ὁ ἡμέτερος βίος, καὶ τὸ τῆς 
 εὐσεβείας περικείμενοι πρόσχημα, τὸ τῆς πονηρίας διὰ τῶν 
 ἔργων κατασκευάξομεν. εἴδωλον' ἐρασιχρήματοι γὰρ ἀντὶ 
 φιλοθέων γεγόναμεν, καὶ τών παθών ἀσπαϑόμιεβα τὴν δου- 
 λείαν. ‘The term in question is well explained by 
 Jaspis thus: “ [Iporereis sunt homines, qui stimulis 
 affectuum exagitati cseco impetu precipites ad om- 
 nia feruntur, que ipsorum pravis blandiantur cupi- 
 ditatibus et studiis, leges divinas pariter atque hu- 
 manas susque deque habent et omnia hac de re sibi 
 licita putant. Ab hujus vitii trunco multi rami pro- 
 pullulant.” 
 
 With the elegant paronomasia at Φιληδ. and Φιλό- 
 Geos. Wets. compares Demoph. @iayjdovoy καὶ φιλόθεον 
 τὸν αὐτὸν advvarey ἐστι, and Philo 145, 11. φιλήδονον 
 καὶ φιλοπάθη μάλλον ἣν Φιλόθεον. 
 
 ὅ. ἔχοντες μόρῷωσιν εὐσεβείας, τὴν δὲ δύναμιν αὐτῆς 
 ἠρνημένοι" Μόρφωσις denotes the outward appear- 
 ance, dress, countenance, manners, voice, &c.; and 
 so itis heretaken by the Commentators. But such the 
 persons above described would hardly have. It ra- 
 ther stands here for μορφὴ, which term often denotes 
 a mere form, as opposed to reality, and denotes the 
 external forms of Christianity (such as profession of 
 its doctrines, and occasional attendance on divine 
 worship), as opposed to internal and genuine piety. 
 So Philo. 340, 14. (referred to by Loesn.) καὶ νῦν εἶσι 
 τινες τῶν ὩΣ ΠΟΥΟΥΒΑΝ τὴν εὐσεβείαν. Rosenm. 
 compares Tit. 1, 16. Θεὰν ὁμογοῦσιν εἰδέναι, τοῖς δὲ 
 ἔργοις ἀρνοῦνται. "And he observes, that the δύναμιν 
 
 VOL. VIII. Υ 
 
322 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 
 
 τῆς εὐσεβείας stands for real piety, as being the νεῦρα 
 εὐσεβείας" ᾿Ηρνημένοι, caring not for, neglecting. 
 
 The Apostle then adds, καὶ τούτους ἀποτρέπου, 
 where Heinr. renders the καὶ ergo. But it may have 
 the usual sense, as referring to the heretical teachers 
 and others, whom the Apostle had admonished 
 Timothy to avoid. The τούτους is for τοιούτους : a use 
 often to be found in Thucyd. and the best Classical 
 writers. 
 
 6. ἐκ τούτων---ὡμαρτίαις. The Apostle now enters 
 into a more particular discussion of the above ; for 
 ver. 6 and 7 seem parenthetical. Oi ἐνδύνοντες τ΄. ο. 
 This is supposed to be a metaphor taken from ser- 
 pents; as Hom. Il. y. ἔδυ. where the Schol. explains 
 ὑπεισῆλθε. So that the term may be best rendered 
 wind their way into, wriggle themselves into. Though 
 the E. V. creep, and the Version of Doddr. insinuate 
 are proper enough. No so that of Mackn., go, by 
 which the spirit of the metaphor evaporates. Thus 
 Theophyl. says it marks the τὸ ἀνασχυντὸν, τὸ ἀνελεύ- 
 
 E60, καὶ κολακικὸν, καὶ ἀπάτης γέμον. For an example 
 of évd. for εἰσδ. Rosenm. refers to a passage of Aris- 
 tophanes. I would add Athen. 254 D. κόλακές εἰσι---- 
 εἰς οὖν ἄκακον ἀνθρώπου τρόπον Hiodds ἔκαστος, ἐσθίει κα- 
  βίμενος. 
 
 6. αἰχμαλωτεύοντες:. Rosenm. refers to Rom. 16, 
 18. But (as Theophyl. observes) this denotes more 
 than ἐξαπατώντες ; the notion of aiypaarwr.(which is 
 similar to our vulgar phrase, lead by the nose), sup- 
 posing subjection for some end on the part of the 
 subjector. The diminutive γυναικάρια implies (as 
 often) contempt. Σεσωρ. Heinr. compares Is. 1, 4. ; 
 and Rosenm., Sallust: “ flagitiis coopertis.” “Ayeo- 
 θαι and other words of cognate sense are often used 
 of the being enslaved to vice. 
 
 As to the persons here meant, I assent to Doddr. that they were 
 not Jews, but false Christian teachers. Whether the Romish Monks 
 of the dark ages be meant (as some say), is uncertain, There are 
 strong points of resemblance. And yet, long before the middle ages, 
 
 we find this adverted to. So Irenzeus ap Wets.: μάλιστα περὶ yuvai- 
 kas ἀσχολεῖται, καὶ τοῦτον τὰς εὐπαρύφους- καὶ περιπορφύρους Kat πλου- 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 323 
 
 σιωτάτους. The same things, too, are proved of the Pharisees. Thus 
 Joseph. 753, 35. καὶ yap ἦν μόριον τι Ἰουδαιῶν (scil. Phariseei) ἐπ’ 
 ἀκρίβωσι μέγα φρονοῦν τοῦ πατρίου νόμου" οἷς, χαίρειν τὸ Θεῖον 
 πρόστοι οὐ μένων, ὑπῆκτο ἡ γυναικωνῖτις. See also 1003, 36. In- 
 deed this is true of every age. So Less in a Dissert. on this passage, 
 cited by Heinr.: ‘Veteratores istius modi plerumque varium et 
 mutabile semper fceminam adoriri: hujus conscientie pro lubitu 
 imperare: ejusque ope familias regere integrasque respublicas, 
 historia docet zqu® ac nostri temporis experientia.” And Jerome 
 (cited by Menoch, and Tiren.) says that all heresies have begun to 
 be propagated by means of women. Certainly the words have been 
 verified of religionists whose opinions differed in toto from those of | 
 the Romanists. 
 
 6. ἀγόμιενα ἐπιθυμίαις. The ἐπιθυμίαι are usually in- 
 terpreted vices and sins of every kind, especially 
 carnal lusts, in which Less and Heinr. think these 
 false teachers indulged them, in order to make them 
 subservient to their own purposes of every kind. 
 But perhaps this may be more than the Apostle 
 meant; since it is little agreeable to what follows. 
 It rather seems to mean strong passions and feel- 
 ings. Now it is well known how the exquisite sen- 
 sibility of the fairer (and I may add better) sex has 
 been, in every age, artfully worked upon by such 
 hypocrites. | \ 
 
 7. πάντοτε pavbavovra—duvapeva. If the sense 
 assigned to the foregoing be true, this admit of easy 
 explanation. For by such weak persons, and from 
 such ill informed and crafty teachers ruth could 
 never be attained ; much less that practical use of it 
 which is of most importance. Heinr. (probably 
 enough) thinks this applies chiefly to rich elderly 
 women, who, after having past a life of sin, wished 
 to attain something that should allay the ae of 
 conscience, and reconcile them to themselves. | 
 
 8. ὃν τρόπον---Μωῦύσεῖ. These were Egyptian ma- 
 gicians who, as we learn from the Rabbinical writ- 
 ings (from whence St. Paul derived the intelligence) 
 and some Gentile philosophers, Numinius, Arche- 
 laus, and Pliny, were priests at Memphis, and were 
 among those who opposed their magic tricks to the 
 
 is 
 
324, 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 
 
 miracles of Moses. ἴΑνθοωποι---πίστιν. Compare 
 1 Tim. 6, 5. 
 
 9. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ προκόψουσιν--- ἐγένετο. So supra, 2, 16. 
 ἐπὶ πλεῖον γὰρ προκόψουσιν ἀσεβείας. ‘The phrases are 
 the same, though not the persons. “Emil πλεῖον, 
 “very far.’ So Theodoret: μέχρι πόλλον. Ανοια, 
 “*7gnorance and imposture.” See 1 Tim. 1, 13. 
 
 10. od δὲ---ὐπομονῆ. ‘The connection is obscure, 
 and has been variously traced. ‘The most natural 
 mode may be (with Heinr.) to take the δὲ as an 
 adversative ; q.d. ““ Thou (on the contrary),” &c. 
 The Apostle, however, makes this eulogium intro- 
 ductory to an admonition to constancy and greater 
 zeal in defence of religion; q. d. “ Thou who hast 
 fully known—do thou continue,” &c. (ver. 14.) On 
 παρακ. see the note on 1 Tim. 4,6. The pov (as 
 Heinr. observes, is emphatic. ᾿Αγωγὴ, manner of 
 life, ἀνασροφὴ ; a signification common in the Classi- 
 cal writers. IIgobéce: scope and purpose. So the Vulg. 
 propositum; and Theophyl., παραστήματι τῆς ψυχῆς. 
 Wets. compares Plin. Pan. Traj. 91. ita congruens 
 tenor vitee, ita una eademque ratio propositi postu- 
 labat. Πίστει, sincerity and fidelity. ᾿Αγάπη, love 
 to Christians, nay, even Pagans. ‘The terms pak- 
 ροθυμίᾳ and ὑπομονῇ, are by Heinr. united; and ἀγάπῃ 
 being placed between, is interpreted of love to per- 
 secutors. But this is harsh. It should rather seem 
 that μακροῦ. refers to what he is to bear with from 
 his brethren (and so, I find, Theophyl.) ; ὑπομονὴ, to 
 the persecution to be endured from Jews and Pa- 
 gans: on which latter particular he enlarges in the 
 next verse. 
 
 11. τοῖς διωγμοῖς, τοῖς παθήμασιν. These words are 
 put in apposition, and require something to be sup- 
 plied; q. d. ‘* (which I was called upon to endure in) 
 the persecutions,” ἄς. See Acts 13,14, 45, & 50. 
 19, 1—6. Kal, and yet. 
 
 12. καὶ πάντες δὲ---διωχθήσονται. “ (Nay) and all,” 
 &e. Ei θέλοντες εὐσεβώς ϑην" is for οἱ εὐσεβοῦντες. And 
 edo. ϑὴν ev X. 1. signifies, ‘‘ live with piety suitable 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 325 
 
 to the Christian faith, holily, righteously, and godly.” 
 I would compare Nicephorus, 46 a. τοὺς κατὰ Θεὸν ϑῆν 
 αἱρουμένους. Mostrecent Commentators, as Less, Heinr. 
 &c., think the διωχθήσ. is solely to be interpreted 
 of those times of bitter persecution when the “ little 
 flock” was surrounded with countless multitudes of 
 Jews and Gentiles. But this is an unwarrantable 
 refinement ; since it is, more or less, true of every 
 age, especially when the good and evil principles 
 are brought into collision with each other; the cor- 
 ruption of our nature always supplying matter. Be- 
 sides, as Theophyl]. observes, by the διωγμ. may be 
 included θλίψεις and édvvais, which the righteous are 
 called upon to bear, πειρατήριον γὰρ ἐστιν ὃ βίος τοῦ 
 ἀνθρώπου, κατὰ τὸν Ἰὼβ, καὶ ὃ τὴν στένην ὁδεύων, ἐξ 
 ἀνάγκης θλίβεται. 
 
 18. πονηροὶ δὲ ἄνθρωποι---πλανώμινοι. Toys, like 
 πλάνος and ἀπατεὼν, signifies ἃ juggler, or, in ἃ ge- 
 neral way, an impostor or deceiver: a fit appellation 
 for the false teachers just mentioned. Προκόψουσιν 
 ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον, “they will go from bad to worse;” 
 since nemo repenteé fit turpissimus. Πλανώντες κ. π. 
 “deceiving their devotees, and being themselves 
 deceived by other teachers whom they follow.” So 
 most Commentators (as Rosenm.) explain. But 
 there is something unsatisfactory in the latter part 
 of this exposition. The scope of the Apostle (which 
 has been little attended to) is this. In the former 
 verse he speaks for the warning and, in some mea- 
 sure, the comfort of all true Christians of all ages. 
 In the present verse he further speaks for their com- 
 fort, by checking that spirit of murmuring, which 
 even the righteous (as David) are too apt to fall into, 
 on comparing their own afflictions with the seeming 
 happiness of the wicked. To which the answer is, 
 that this world is a scene of trial; and, moreover, 
 that the wicked do in reality deceive themselves, 
 when they deceive others, and will suffer what they 
 inflict. ‘This view of the sense is supported by the 
 
326 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 
 
 authority of Chrys., Theophyl., and Gucumen., and 
 has been adopted by Heinr. 
 
 There is a neat paronomasia in πλανώντες καὶ πλα- 
 νώμενοι, of which Wets. adduces several examples 
 in decipere and decipi. Rosenm. compares Julian : 
 ἡπατημιένος ἀπατᾷ. To which I add Liban. Ep. 1182. 
 ἡπατήμενος αὐτὸς ἐξάπατα, and Porph. in Vita Plohn. 
 c. 15. πόλλους ἐξηπάταν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἡπατήμιένοι. But 
 this paronomasia was aimed at in other verbs as well 
 as ἅπατ. 
 
 14. ob ὃὲ μένε ἐν οἷς ἔμαθες Kal ἐπιστώθης. The 
 Apostle follows up his censure of the false teachers 
 by a noble epilogus, ver. 14.—fin. Compare 1 Tim. 
 4, 16. Δὲ, on the contrary. Grot. observes, that 
 kal ἐπιστώθης is for érior., by syllepsis. It is well 
 rendered by Heinr.: “ que certissimé et in firmam 
 tuam persuasionem edoctus es.” ᾿ἔπιστ. is a stronger 
 term than ἔμαθες. So Hesych.: ἐπληρωφορήθη. And 
 Theophyl. explains it: μετὰ πληροφορίας ἔμαθες. And 
 he observes that there were two reasons given why 
 he should hold them firmly. 1. As having learned 
 them from Paul, nay (through his medium), from 
 Christ himself. 2. That they were not to him a 
 thing of yesterday, but learned by him from a child, 
 and rooted in him. Rosenm. thinks the Apostle 
 means to allude to the communicating the pure milk 
 of the word, without admixtures of Gentile philo- 
 sophy, or Jewish superstition: and Heinr., to his 
 disinterestedness. But it should rather seem that he 
 refers to himself as a divine legate, and endued with 
 all the qualifications fitted for imparting religious 
 knowledge. 
 
 15. καὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ βρέφους τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα οἶδας. 
 There is here (I think) no anacoluthon, as some sup- 
 pose. ‘The εἴδως must be repeated, but with a slight 
 accommodation of sense, namely, mindful. Ἱερὰ 
 γράμματα, ‘the Scriptures of the Old Testament.” 
 By this and similar names they are called by Joseph., 
 Philo, and others. See the note on Joh. 7, 15. and 
 Wets. in loc. ᾿Απὸ βρέφους, “ from a boy.” So ἐκ 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 327 
 
 παιδὸς and other phrases. ‘That this instruction 
 commenced at a very early period, nay, even at the 
 age of five, we learn from the authority of Joseph., 
 Philo, and the Rabbins. Σοφίσαι C3, instruct. So 
 Schol. on Aristoph. Nub. 330. (cited by Wets.) 
 , \ / / « \ A / 
 
 σοφιστάς τοὺς διδασκάλους νόει ὡς τοὺς ἄλλους σοφί- 
 Sovras. Kis σωτηρίαν, “i. 6. (says Theophyl.) not in 
 deceits, sophisms, and logomachias, which would be 
 > > / ” Ν ΄ \ 9 
 
 εἰς ἀπώλειαν. The words διὰ πίστεως τὴς ἐν Χ. I. 
 must be closely connected with σωτηρίαν. So Theo- 
 phyl. : ποίαν: ; οὐ τὴν OF ἔργων, οὐ τὴν διὰ λόγων, ἀλλὰ 
 τὴν Sa πίστεως I. Χ. ᾿Οδηγοῦσι γὰρ αἱ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ τὸν 
 ἄνθρωπον εἰς τὸ πιστεῦσαι Χριστώ, σωτηρίαν περιποιοῦντι. 
 Wets. paraphrases thus: “ Libros V. 'T. nosti, qui 
 te possunt ducere ad salutem, si jungas doctrinam 
 Christi, ad quam prophetiz in illis content te du- 
 cunt.” That is, “they instruct in the business of 
 salvation to be effected by faith in Christ,” i.e. by 
 the Christian religion. For, as Rosenm. observes, 
 the prophecies and the whole economy of the Old 
 Testament tend to Christ, whom they prove to have 
 been Jesus; the end of the law is Christ, the scope 
 and sum of Scripture : wherefore our Lord and the 
 Apostles often show the close connection of the new 
 religion with the Old Testament. See Joh. 5, 39. 
 Acts 17,2 & 3.18, 28. 28, 33. Their other uses 
 are touched on in the next verse. 
 
 16. πᾶσα γραφὴ----δικαιοσύνῃ. 
 
 On the construction, and, in some degree, the sense of these words, 
 there has been no little difference of opinion. That an ἐστι must 
 be supplied, is obvious; but on the place where it is to be intro- 
 duced interpreters are not agreed. The antients almost universally, 
 and the moderns up to the time οὗ Camerar. and Grot., and most 
 since, insert it between γραφὴ and θεόπνευστός. This, however, 
 did not satisfy even some antients, who (as I find from Theophyl.) 
 objected, “ What, is all Scripture, that of the Greek Classics too, 
 divinely inspired ? > No.” ‘To make the sense complete, they there- 
 fore put a comma after θεόπν. Thus the sense will be: * All 
 inspired Scripture is also profitable.” And this is adopted by Theo- 
 doret, who remarks: To διορισμῷ χρησάμενος ἀπέκρινε τὰ τῆς 
 ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας συγγράμματα. Theophyl., however, acutely re- 
 moves the objection thus: Ἔδει δὲ αὐτοὺς συνειδεῖν, ὃ ὅτι εἰπὼν ἀνω- 
 τέρω; τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα οἶδας, λέγει νῦν, ὅτι πᾶσα γράφη᾽ ποία; 
 
328 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 
 
 περὶ ἧς διελέγετο, περὶ ἧς εἶπεν, ὅτι ἱερά" πᾶσα οὖν ἡ τοιαύτη, θεόπ- 
 νευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος, πρὸς πάντα, &c. Yet all the most eminent 
 critics, from Camer. down to Heinr. and Jaspis, adopt the con- 
 struction of Theodoret, which is also supported by the authority of 
 the Syr. and Vulg. (and also by the Pseudo Phocylid.): τῆς δὲ 
 θεοπνεύστου σοφίας λόγος ἐστιν ἄριστος. But though the sense 
 may not be materially different, yet I see not how the καὶ will per- 
 mit this: for to take it with Camerar., as put αἰτητικῶς, is very 
 harsh, Asa proof of which the καὶ is omitted by Clem. Alex., 
 _ Theod. Mops., and other Fathers (see Griesb.), who adopt the in- 
 terpretation in question. And ‘to make surety more sure,” they 
 bring in οὖσα. But this putting in and putting out, without the 
 authority of a single MS. (for as to Versions, they are no evidence) 
 is most unwarrantable. It has beenshown by Wolf, Gusset, and 
 others ap. Wolf, that the cai admits of no tolerable exposition, ex- 
 cept upon the common interpretation, which was satisfactorily 
 established by Athanasius and Chrysostom ; and in this, as the con- 
 struction requires it, the context admits it, and the sense it yields is 
 more determinate (for the other is but a left-handed mode), I must 
 finally acquiesce, 
 
 On the exact sense in which the inspiration is to be understood 
 this is no fit place to treat. Suffice it to say, that without contend- 
 ing for the plenary inspiration of every portion of the Old Testament 
 (i.e. to the suggestion of the thoughts and words), yet we must 
 suppose that such a degree of divine aid was afiorded, as was neces- 
 sary to accomplish the purposes intended, and secure the writer 
 from any error of consequence: otherwise it could not be depended 
 on for the purposes here suggested. 
 
 The διδασκαλίαν and ἔλεγχον are considered by Heinr. as forming 
 an hendiadis. But they are better kept separately; the former 
 signifying, κ΄ teaching us the truth, true religion ;” the latter, ‘‘con- 
 viction of the opposite error.” So Theophyl.: διδάσκουσα εἴτι δεῖ 
 μαθεῖν, καὶ εἰ ἐλέγξαι δεῖ τὰ ψεύδη. The πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν signifies, 
 “¢for reformation of irregularities in practice.’ So Polyb. p. 50. 
 (cited by Wets.) πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν τοῦ ἀνθρώπων βίου. With re- 
 spect to the πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, it is considered by 
 Theophyl. and Heinr. as synonymous with ἐπανορθ. But this is 
 destroying the antithesis. For as πρὸς διδασκ. and πρὸς ἔλεγχον 
 are opposed, so, I conceive, are πρὸς ἐπανορῴ. and zpos raid. ; the 
 former teaching them how to ‘ cease to doevil,” the latter how to 
 “learn to do well; and having begun with the former, they may 
 proceed with the latter, ‘‘ going on from strength to strength,” &c. 
 
 17. ἵνα ἄρτιος---ἐξηρτισμένος, ‘* So that (by such 
 aids) the man of God, the teacher of the Gospel (as 
 1 Tim. 6, 11.), may be complete.” So Etymol. (cited 
 by Wets.): ἄρτως σημαίνει τὸν ὑγιῆ καὶ πεπληρωμένον. 
 The words following, πρὸς ---ἐξηρτ. are exegetical of 
 ἄρτιος. The sense is: ““ thoroughly furnished with 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. IV. 329 
 
 all that is necessary for his Evangelical office.” So 
 Katypriopevos, in Luke 6, 40. And in this sense the 
 word often occurs in Thucyd. As to the reading 
 
 ἐξηρτ., it isex emendatione. Itis plain that a know- . 
 
 ledge of the doctrines of the Christian revelation 
 is supposed, as well as that of the Old Testament ; 
 otherwise no Christian can be ἄρτιος : and indeed 
 this is hinted at supra ver. 15. By πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν 
 is meant every duty of a good minister. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Ver. 1. On this statement of the means necessary 
 for making the man of God or teacher complete for 
 his good work, the Apostle engrafts an earnest exhor- 
 tation to the perpetual and zealous use of them. It 
 is truly observed by Heinr.: “Si in quo alio loco, 
 ita profecto in hoc cernitur quam apertissimé, quam 
 intimo ex animi integerrimi et religionis vere stu- 
 diosissimi recessu hgec promanaverint.” 
 
 Διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνόπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, “I conjure and 
 charge thee.” See 1 Tim. ὅ, 21. Here, however, 
 the clause τοῦ μέλλοντος---αὐτοῦ is added, in order 
 not merely to express the majesty of Christ (as Ro- 
 senm. says), but also to suggest the strict and solemn 
 account which Timothy must have then to give of 
 his stewardship, and withal, by the τὴν βασιλείαν, 
 the glorious reward of fidelity. Tor I cannot agree 
 with Rosenm. and Heinr., who (after the Syr.) sup- 
 poses an hendiadis at κατὰ τὴν ἐπιφανείαν and καὶ τὴν 
 βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ. The latter clause must be kept 
 separate; and the sense is simply, ‘“‘ when he will 
 establish his kingdom,” 1. 6. (as Benson well ex- 
 plains) his kingdom of glory, when all things shall 
 be subjected to God, even the Father, and which 
 will commence from the day of judgment. His 
 kingdom does indeed at present exist: but that is 
 his mediatorial one, meant to bring all things in sub- 
 jection to his Father. 
 
330 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 
 
 Kara, at ; a somewhat rare sense, yet found in 
 the Classical writers. 
 
 2. κήρυξον τὸν λόγον, “ Preach therefore the Gospel 
 (constantly and firmly).” ‘This exhortation the timi- 
 dity of Timothy needed. The Apostle now shows 
 how it must be preached. ᾿Επίστηθι εὐκαίρως, ἀκαίρως, 
 “ Ply your work vigorously.” For ἐῷιστ. is properly 
 used of sedulous labour, by which we incumbimus. 
 See Raphel in loc. With respect to εὐκαίρως, ἀκαίρως 
 (which form a neat paranomasia and perhaps pro- 
 verbial expression, denoting παντὶ τρόπω, of which 
 the Commentators adduce some examples), it is 
 agreed by the best antient and modern Commenta- 
 tors, that they must be understood of Timothy, not 
 of the people. So Theophyl. (from Chrys.): μὴ 
 ἔστωσοι καιρὸς WPITLEVOS, ἀλλὰ καὶ εὐκαίρως, τουτέστιν, ἐν 
 εἰρήνη: ἐν ἀδείᾳ, καὶ ἐπ’ ἐκκλησίας ὦν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκαίρως, 
 τουτέστιν, ἐν κινδύνοις ὧν, καὶ ἔξω τῆς ἐκκλησίας, λάλει καὶ 
 κήρυττε. See also Benson and Heinr. ᾿Ακαίρως may 
 also signify, ‘‘ even when it is inconvenient to your- 
 561. For opportunity, or the contrary, as regards 
 his people, no prudent pastor will overlook. Yet he 
 will not fail to do his duty, even when it may be 
 thought by some done ἀκαίρως. So Seneca, Ep. 121. 
 Virtutes exhortabor, et vitia converberabo ; licet 
 aliquis nimium immoderatumque in hac parte me 
 judicet, non desistam. 
 
 2. ἔλεγξον, ἐπιτίμησον. Benson renders this: ‘‘ con- 
 fute the erroneous, reprove the wicked.” But the 
 ea. rather means, convict, convince them of sin, smite 
 their consciences. It is a stronger term than ἐπιτιμ., 
 and may denote open objurgation ; the other, private 
 reproof. ἸΙαρακάλεσον. As the ἐλ. and emir. regard 
 the erring, so this refers to those who have learnt to 
 do well, and are faithfully striving to perform their 
 duty. These, then, he is to exhort to continue in the 
 right path. ‘The next words show the mode in which 
 this is to be done, where I cannot, with Heinr., take 
 διδαχῇ to mean the studium alios docendi, but in the 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. lv. 331 
 
 usual sense of instruction. Rosenm. considers the 
 words μακροθυμίᾳ καὶ διδαχὴ as an hendiadis for ἐν 
 πάση διδάχη μακροθύμῳ. But this is unnecessary. 
 It should seem that καὶ διδαχῇ is put for δίδαξον. 
 And so (I think) the antients took it. The ἐν pakpo- 
 θυμίᾳ is, by the antients and most moderns, referred 
 to all the preceding. And Benson remarks that St. 
 Paul never mentions patience when he puts Titus on 
 reproving. Nor can 1 think that he does so with 
 respect to Timothy ; since there seems something in- 
 congruous. ‘The expression should seem to be 
 meant only for the duty immediately preceding, 
 namely, exhortation: and even Theophyl. acknow- 
 ledges that it is there by far the most requisite. 
 Now as καὶ διδαχῇ is put for καὶ δίδαξον, so the ἐν pak- 
 ροθυμίᾳ may refer to that also; and assuredly there 
 is need enough of patience in the exercise of both 
 these duties; and if the Apostle does not mention 
 μακροθυμία in a similar exhortation to Titus, it might 
 be from the difference in temper of the two, or dif- 
 ference in circumstances, or both. 
 
 Rosenm. compares Plut. de Liberor. educ. (speak- 
 ing of judicious parents): διδάσκοντας, ἀπειλοῦντας, 
 δεομένους, συμιβουλέυοντας. Seneca 1, 14. de Ira: 
 Corrigendus est qui peccat, et admonitione, et vi, et 
 molliter, et asperé. Gell. 5, 1. (of a philosopher): 
 Quum hortatur, monet, suadet, objurgat. 
 
 3. ἔσται γὰρ---ἀνέξονται. Whitby and Benson 
 connect thus: “ Be instant now, and speedily ; for 
 the time will come,” &c, So Theophyl.: ὥστε πρὶν 
 ἡ ἐτραχηλισθῆναι αὐτοὺς προκατέλαβε. 1 should prefer 
 the following mode: “ And need enough is there 
 of these other ministerial qualifications ; for,” &c. 
 
 8. ἔσται yap koipos. The context requires us to 
 take this of time which should, ere long, arrive 
 (another hint, Benson observes, of the introduction 
 of the grand apostacy). Wets. compares the tempus 
 veniet or erit of Virgil. 
 
 3. ὑγιαινούσης διδασκαλίας. See 1 Tim. 1, 10. and 
 2 Tim. 1, 18. Οὐκ ἀνέξονται, ““ will not endure.” 
 
332 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 
 
 Benson here remarks that that is sound doctrine 
 which promotes a holy life. I can more readily 
 accede to his following position, that it is the love of 
 vice which renders men averse to sound doctrine, 
 and puts them upon following such teachers as will 
 gratify their humours and inclinations; and please 
 their ears or fancies, without attacking and con- 
 demning their opinions or their vices. Mackn. illus- 
 trates the grand apostacy, especially as it relates to 
 Popery. The generality of people (he says) nau- 
 seated the wholesome doctrines of true piety and 
 sound morality, and only heeded the superstitions 
 which encouraged them in theirsins. Rosenm. com- 
 pares Isocrat. ad Demonic. : τοὺς πλείστους εὐρήσομεν, 
 ὥσπεο τῶν σιτίων, τοῖς ἡδίστοις μάλλον ἤ τοῖς ὑγιαινοτά- 
 τοις χαίροντας. 
 
 3. κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τὰς ἰδίας ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισωρεύ- 
 σουσι.- 
 
 Commentators are not agreed whether the clause κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυ- 
 μίας is to be taken with ἐπισωρ., or with διδασκάλους. The latter 
 opinion is supported by the antients, and, of the moderns, by Est., 
 Doddr., Benson, and most recent Commentators, as Rosenm. and 
 Heinr. The former method is adopted by almost all the early mo- 
 derns, and seems to yield a sense more natural and agreeable to the 
 context. ‘The other requires a harsh transposition, and also the 
 subaudition of some participle ; whereas, on the former mode of in- 
 terpretation, the same sense is attained, but in a less violent way. 
 With respect to ἐπιθυμ., it may be taken as supra, 3, 6., where see 
 the note. ‘Fhe sense is: “ consulting only their own passions, 
 whims, and fancies.” 
 
 The ἐπισωρεύουσι hints (Heinr. observes) that the number would 
 be considered more than the merit. It is (I think) more correct to 
 say that it implies eontempt, and supposes that there will be no want 
 of persons istius farine.* 
 
 The following, κνηθόμενοι τὴν ἀκοὴν, is exegetical of the ἐπιθυ- 
 pias. Itis an elegant phrase, of which Wets. adduces several ex- 
 amples, to which I add a passage more important than them all, 
 
 * Tt is strange that the Commentators, whoso minutely compare 
 these marks of the apostacy with the Popish corruptions, should have 
 failed to notice how strong a resemblance the heaps of teachers here 
 mentioned bear to the actual state of the Romish Hierarchy, which 
 in Spain, Portugal, &c. is far more numerous than the spiritual 
 wants of the people can possibly require, or, indeed, is consistent 
 with pure morals, 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 333 
 
 and which, as treating of Christian teachers, and coming from the 
 Emperor Julian after the apostacy had commenced, is very curious, 
 Epist. p. 333. Edit. Prine. δυνάμενοι ras ἀκοὰς ὑμῶν κνηστιῶσαι---- 
 ἱκάνως παρημυθήσασθαι. See also, on this subject, some beautiful 
 reflections of Philo Jud. 170 p. 207 ἃ 406 Βα The sense is plainly 
 this: ‘* seeking to have their ears tickled with something, especially 
 addressed to the passions, flattering their virtues, dealing gently 
 with their vices, and thus lulling them in a fond security.” 
 
 4. καὶ ἀπὸ---ἐκτραπήσονται. The ἀκοὴν is here 
 again put for the ears; as Luke 7,1. and Acts 17, 
 29. The sentiment here ‘is nearly the same with 
 that of the preceding τῆς ὑγιαινούσης διδασκαλίας οὐκ 
 ἀνέξονται. "Enh τοὺς μύθους ἐκτραπήσονται, ““ they 
 will turn to fables.” The term μυθὸς is happily in- 
 troduced ; since it hints both at the false nature of 
 the doctrines, and the mythic, story-telling, trifling 
 nature of the discourses; such being ever employed 
 ad captandum.* So Isocrat. (cited by Rosenm.): 
 δεῖ τοὺς βουλομένους ἢ ποιεῖν ἢ γράφειν τι κεχαρισμένον 
 τοῖς πολλοῖς, μὴ τοὺς ὠφελιμωτάτους τῶν λόγων ϑητεῖν 
 ἀλλὰ τοὺς μυθωδεσπάτους. And I would compare a 
 sentiment of the Prince of Historians, 1, 21. ais 
 λογογράφοι ξυνέθεσαν ἐπὶ τὸ προσαγωγότερον τῇ ἀκροάσει 
 ἢ ἀληθέστερον, ὄντα ἀνεξέλεγκτα καὶ τὰ πολλὰ ὑπὸ 
 χρόνου αὐτῶν ἀπίστως ἐπὶ τὸ μυθώδες ἐκνενικηκότα.Ὑ: 
 See also Pind. Olymp. 1. 44, 8. 
 
 It is remarkable the Commentators should not 
 have compared this point of similarity with the 
 method ever pursued by the mendicané Friars, at 
 least of the Romish Church ; though not confined to 
 them. Of this we have an illustrious example in 
 the celebrated Portuguese preacher, Vieyra. Nay, 
 from this mark of the apostacy even the Protestant 
 Church would not be found free. Intra Iliacos 
 muros peccatur et extra! 
 
 * Τὴ the same manner, the word was plainly taken by Theodoret, 
 who observes: τοιαῦτα δὲ τὰ μυθώδη παιδεύματα, τέρψιν οὐκ ὄνησιν 
 ἔχοντα. 
 
 Τ It is singular that the Editors should not have seen that this 
 stroke (the ἐπὶ τὸ μυθῶδες) is levelled against the good old story- 
 teller of Halicarnassus, who, however, after all, delights our youth, 
 and instructs our age, and is the last work of the kind we lay by. 
 
334 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv. 
 
 5. σὺ δὲ νῆφε---πληροφόρησον. The whole passage, 
 in which from ch. 2, 14. he had exhorted Timothy to 
 avoid the pernicious examples of his age, Apostle 
 concludes with proposing to him his own example. 
 (Heinr.) 
 
 On νῆφε see 1 Thess. 5, 6. and the note. And on 
 κακοπ. see 2, 3. and the note. Ἐῤαγγελιστοῦ. See 
 Acts 21, 8. and Eph. 4, 11. and the note. MHeinr. 
 says, that Euseb. H. Εἰ. 5, 9. calls such διακόνοι ᾽Αποσ- 
 τόλων, Missionaries. ‘Thus there is added τὴν διακο - 
 νίαν σου πληροφόρησον, Where dak. siguifies an Ecclesi- 
 astical ministry ; and πληροῷορ. is a stronger term 
 than πλήρωσον, and signifies fully accomplish. 
 
 6. ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπένδομιαι. The ἐγὼ is emphatical, 
 as was the σὺ in the last verse; q. d. ‘‘ Do you fully 
 perform your evangelical duties; nor expect any 
 further assistance and exhortations from me; for I 
 (on my part) am already poured upon.” Such is the 
 literal sense of σπένδομαι; a figurative expression 
 for ἐπιθανάτιος εἰμι; since the σπονδὴ was poured out 
 on the victim just before the fatal blow. I would 
 compare Eurip. Orest. 1237. Aakpiois κατασπένδω σ΄. 
 HA. ἐγὼ δ᾽ οἴκτοισί ye. This, then, designates his 
 belief that a violent death was close at hand, which 
 we know did really happen to him a very short time 
 afterwards; and therefore the above interpretation 
 must be thought very striking, and probably true. 
 There is, however, some difference of opinion on the 
 force of the metaphor. Some think it signifies: “ I 
 am being poured out unto God as a libation, to seal 
 my ministry with my blood.” So Chrys., Theophyl., 
 and Gicumen. Most recent Commentators think 
 that it only signifies, “ My strength is wholly dis- 
 solved and gone ;” as Ps. 22,15. “1 am poured out 
 like water.” And they refer to Phil. 2,17. But 
 the passage of Phil. is not quite apposite; and the 
 sense assigned is not so natural. 
 
 The words following are exegetical , “ The time 
 of my dissolution or departure is at hand.” 
 
 7. This image the Apostle follows up with ano- 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv. 835 
 
 ther, derived (as often) e re agonistica ; on which 
 see the note on 1 Tim. 6, 12. ᾿Αγωνίϑεσθαι is a depo- 
 nent; and in the preterite it signifies to accomplish 
 any combat. “Aywvigerba: τὸν καλὸν ἀγώνα, to fight 
 the glorious fight, seems to have been a proverbial 
 phrase for obtaining the vietory and gaining a prize. * 
 On τὸν δρόμιον τετέλεκα see Acts 90, 24. Τὴν πίστιν 
 τετήρκα. Most Commentators, antient and modern, 
 explain τὴν πίστιν, the Christian religion. Most re- 
 cent ones, fidelity ; which indeed seems a preferable 
 sense, and includes the other; 4. 4. “ Ihave kept my 
 pledged faith to further the Christian religion.” 
 This, too, is supported by the usage of the Classical 
 writers, ‘con whom Wets. atiduces: examples, which, 
 in a doubtful case, should decide the point. See 
 also 1 Tim. 5, 12. 
 
 8. λοιπὸν, iadicelnid μοι ὃ τῆς δικαιοσύνης στέφανος. 
 See 1 Thess. 2, 19. and Col. 1, ὅ. Crowns and all 
 sorts of prizes held forth to conquerors were said ἀπο- 
 κεῖσθαι, because they were set apart as their due, and 
 ready for them. So Demophilus Similit. p. 615. 
 (cited by Wets.) τοῖς μὸ σταδιοδρομοῦσιν ἐ ἐπὶ τῷ τέρ- 
 ματι τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς νίκης--- ἀπόκειται : and Hesych.: 
 ἀπόκειται, ἐτοίμασται. Ladd Suid. : στεφανικὸντέλεσμαι" 
 and Pind. Olymp. 10, 9. ἀφθονότατος δ᾽ aivos Ὀλυμ- 
 πιανίκαις Οὖὔὖτος ἄγκειται (for ἀνάκειται). With the 
 ὃ τῆς δικαιοσύνης στέφανος I would compare Plut. 
 Symp. L. 3, 2,1. στέφανος εὐσεβείας. See the note 
 on Gal. 1,15. ᾿Αποδώσει, “ will give a remunera- 
 tion.” So Matt. 6, 4, 16, 27. and infra 14. and else- 
 where. ‘Ey ἐκείνη ἡμέρᾳ, i. 6. the day of judgment. 
 See the note on 1, 12. Ὁ δίκαιος κριτής. Rosenm. 
 
 ¥ Among the passages cited by Wets. is Thueyd. 7, 59. ἐνόμισαν 
 καλὸν ἀγῶνα σφισιν εἰναι ἐπὶ τῇ γεγενημένῃ γίκῃ τῆς ναυμαχίας, 
 ἐλεῖν τε τὸ στρατόπεδον ἄπαν τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων. But this (as I shall 
 elsewhere show) is of a different nature. More apposite is Eurip. 
 Alc. 648. καέτοι καλὸν γ᾽ ἂν τόνδ᾽ ἀγῶν ἡγωνίσω, τοῦ σοῦ πρὸ ποιδὸς 
 κατθανῶν. Heinr, compares Herm. Trismeg. L. 4. ἡ ψυχὴ τὸν τῆς 
 εὐσεβείας ἀγῶνα ἡγωνισμένη. I add Philo 69 Ε. καλὸν δρόμον, 
 καὶ πάντων ἀριστὸν ἀγώνισμα τοῦτο νικῶν. 
 
336 2 TIMOTHY, CIIAP. IV. 
 
 regards the dix. as emphatical ; q. d. “ the just Judge, 
 who does nothing like frail mortals, through lucre, 
 or favour to the undeserving.” The expression τοῖς 
 ἠἡγαπηκόσι τὴν ἐπιφανείαν αὐτοῦ designates those who 
 have been faithful worshippers of God, who have 
 well discharged their duties towards him and towards 
 their fellow-creature, and have thence reason to feel 
 pleasure at the thought of their Lord’s advent. The 
 past tense is used (as Rosenm. remarks) with refer- 
 ence to the fame of the judgment; 4. d. ““ἴο those who 
 shali have loved and hailed his advent.” This is not 
 said in the spirit of boasting, but to excite Timothy 
 and others to aim at so glorious a prize, and accus- 
 tom themselves to look forward with joy to the com- 
 ing of the Lord. ‘There is something very touching 
 in the picture drawn of himself from ver. 6—fin. 
 It is, as far as I know, unparalleled, except in the 
 great Archetype of all perfection, whom he copied. 
 ‘There is, however, some faint resemblance of it in 
 Xenophon’s beautiful description of the manner in 
 which Socrates spent the few hours previous to lay- 
 ing down his life as a martyr in the cause of truth 
 and virtue. 
 
 10. δήμας γὰρ pe ἐγκατέλιπεν, ἀγαπήσας τὸν νῦν 
 αἰώνα, 4. d. “ For (I need some assistance), Demas 
 having forsaken me.” Ηρ, it seems, through cow- 
 ardice, deserted him, and, through wordly-minded- 
 ness, preferred temporal advantage to the assisting 
 the Apostle and furthering the Gospel. For such 
 seems to be meant by ἀγαπ. τὸν νῦν aimva. And 
 ayaray often signifies to love in preference, to prefer. 
 Rosenm. compares the ἐμπλέκεται ταῖς τοῖς τοῦ βίου 
 πραγματείαις in 2'Tim. 2, 2. ; and thinks that as this 
 Demas was going to Thessalonica, he had entered 
 into some commercial business. Which, and other 
 ‘speculations, I leave tn medio, referring the reader to 
 Benson, &c. 
 
 Crescens is thought to have been one of Czsar’s 
 household (see Phil. 4, 22.); perhaps the freedman 
 mentioned by Tacit. Hist. 1. What Titus’s business 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 337 
 
 was in Dalmatia we are not told. Probably that of 
 the Gospel; for scarcely any thing else would have 
 induced him to leave the Apostle at so critical a 
 time. 
 
 11. Λουκᾶς----διακονίαν. Luke, after another journey, 
 which he has described at the end of the Acts, re- 
 mained in Italy with Paul. See Col. 4, 14. Of Mark 
 it issaid ἐστι μοι εὔχρηστος εἰς διακονίαν, 1. e. “ he is 
 and will be useful to me in the ministry,” namely, 
 as the best Commentators are agreed, of the Gospel ; 
 and this, they conjecture, by his knowledge of the 
 Latin tongue. That, too, would make him useful in 
 many ways. This is (as Benson remarks) a proof 
 that Paul and Mark were reconciled after the slight 
 difference recorded at Acts 15, 38 and 39. Yet 
 some think the Mark here mentioned is not the 
 same. 
 
 12. τυχικὸν δὲ ἀπέστειλα eis”Egeoov. ‘This person, 
 a native of Proconsular Asia (Acts 20,4.) was a fre- 
 quent companion of Paul. See Tit. 3,13. Eph. 6, 
 21. Col. 4, 7. The Apostle had doubtless sent 
 Tychichus to Ephesus, in order to supply Timothy’s 
 place ; so that there might be nothing to prevent his 
 coming. 
 
 13. τὸν φαινόλην. There are few points in the 
 New Testament more unsettled than the true read- 
 ing and right interpretation of this word. It is 
 written φαιλώνης, φελώνη, φελόνη, φελώνης, and Paivo- 
 ays. Probably the first and last reading are the most 
 correct: for Φαινόλης is justly thought to be the 
 same with the Latin penula, and in the other there 
 is only a metathesis. ‘The etymology is too uncer- 
 tain to be any guide to the sense. ‘There are (and 
 were among the antients) two opinions: 1. that of 
 most Commentators, as Luther, Grot. Bartholin, 
 Ferrarius (who wrote on the dress of the antients), 
 and Stosch de Pallio, suppose it to have been a rough 
 great coat, or wrapper, which Schoettg. says, was 
 called by the Jews mrp. That of some antients, 
 the Syr., Masius in a Dissertation on this subject, 
 
 VOL. VIII. Ζ 
 
338 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 
 
 Moldehauer, and others, and-especially the learned 
 Schleus. (to whom I am indebted for much of the 
 foregoing detail), who suppose it to have been a 
 book-case, γλωσσόκομον, or capsula. And this is sup- 
 ported by Hesych., Abberti Gloss. Bibl. Cocol., and 
 Zonar. Lex. 1801. See also Suic. Thess. 2, 1422.; 
 Ducang. Gloss., and the Commentators or Pollux 
 729., and especially the Crit. Sacr., Pole’s Syn., and 
 Wolf’s Curae. Perhaps it was like what our old authors 
 call a cloak-bag, or portmanteau; and in this Paul 
 had probably left the books and parchments, since it 
 would be very fit for such a purpose. What was 
 the nature of the MSS. and what were the books, 
 which might be very small and unbound, we are left 
 in the dark; and on a point so uncertain I shall for- 
 bear to hazard any opinion. 
 
 14. ᾿Αλέξανδρος ---ἐνεδείξατο. ‘The person mentioned 
 at Acts 19, 33. and 1 Tim. 1, 20. the brasier. Though 
 some doubt whether he was the same. ’Evede(Earo is 
 for ἐποιήσατο; yet it is a more expressive term. So 
 Gen. 50, 15 and 17. ὅτι πονηρὰ σοι ἐνεδείξατο. Hymn. 
 3 Puer. κακὰ ἐνδεικνυμένη, and elsewhere. (See 
 Schleus. Lex. V.T.) Were it not for this, I should 
 have suspected it to be a Latinism; for exhibere is 
 sometimes used for patrare and _facere. 
 
 At the imprecation (as it is called) in ἀποδώη αὐτῷ 
 ὁ Κύριος κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, unbelievers find much to 
 censure: and the defence made by Commentators 
 has not been so satisfactory as might be wished, 
 especially that of Heinr. and others. Rosenm. and 
 Jaspis urge that the Apostle justly imprecated him, 
 as an enemy of God and the Gospel, and for his in- 
 corrigible malice: which, Jaspis observes, is one, 
 though not the only, cause of the imprecations in the 
 Psalms. And they might have added, that the man 
 was in all probability an apostate. At the same time 
 I cannot but agree with the antients, and several 
 eminent moderns, that there is here, properly speak- 
 ing, no imprecation, but rather a prediction, or a 
 wish for his condign punishment, 1. e. that the righ- 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 339 
 
 teous God and Judge will treat him as he deserves. 
 As to the reading ἀποδώσει, it is a paradiorthosis. 
 
 Of this man the Apostle bids Timothy beware, 
 (q. d. ‘* Hic niger est, hunc tu Romane caveto”), be- 
 cause, he adds, λίαν ἀνθβέστηκε τοῖς ἡμετέροις Aoyois, 
 which some interpret of opposing and replying to his 
 defence; most, however, of his opposing the doctrine 
 of Paul. It may mean even the Gospel itself. 
 
 16. ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ pov ἀπολογίᾳ----ἐγκατέλιπον. On 
 the exact nature of this ἀπολογία, and in what sense 
 it is to be understood, Commentators are not agreed. 
 (See Pole’s Syn., Wolf, Benson, and Heinr. Proleg.) 
 It is generally supposed to mean the time of his first 
 imprisonment, during which he had gone through 
 an examination, and been allowed a hearing; as 
 when it was said, “ Paul, thou art permitted to 
 speak for thyself.” And so Acts 22, 1. ἠκούσατε μου 
 ἀπολογίας. Compare 1 Pet. 3, 15.* During the 
 second ἀπολογία or confinement, they say, this Epis- 
 tle was written. And, as we learn from Ecclesiasti- 
 cal History, this second hearing or trial turned out 
 very different ; since the brutal Emperor, in a rage 
 (as Chrys. tells us) at his conversion of the royal cup- 
 bearer, had him beheaded. 
 
 Συμπαρεγένετο is thought to refer to the custom 
 of the friends or patrons of any person going with 
 him as advocates and pleaders. So Donatus ad 
 ᾿ς Terent. (cited by Rosenm.): “ Adesse dicuntur 
 amici aut advocati in foro periclitantibus.” 
 
 16. μὴ αὐτοῖς λογισθείη, “1 wish and pray God it 
 may not be imputed to them.” So Rom. 5, 8. ὦ οὐ 
 μὴ λογίσηται Κύριος ἁμαρτίαν. Job. 84, 17. τοῦτο μοι 
 ἄρα ἀνομία ἡ μεγίστη λογισθείη. Schol. on Eurip. Med. 
 156. ἐκείνῳ τόδε τὸ ἁμάρτημα μὴ λογίϑου. ‘Though, as 
 Theophyl. remarks, it was a great sin worthy to be 
 imputed. This benevolent prayer, so much in ac- 
 
 * Benson, however, sees no reason for supposing that this apo- 
 logy was made during the Apostle’s first confinement at Rome : but, 
 from verses 6, 7, 8,17, and 18. (he thinks) there are sufficient 
 grounds to suppose the contrary. 
 
 Ζ 2 
 
310, 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv. 
 
 cordance with our Lord’s words on a similar occa- 
 sion, seems in contrast with the words just uttered of. 
 Alexander. But it is rightly supposed by Benson 
 that, as the Apostle had the gift of discerning spirits, 
 he could know that in one case the conduct pro- 
 ceeded from unmingled malice, in the other purely 
 from human frailty: which will account for the dif- 
 ferent ways in which they are spoken of; though 
 this will not warrant any man, destitute of the same 
 gift and authority, to denounce or foretell the like 
 evil to any man whatever.” 
 
 By πάντας the Commentators understand very 
 many, so that very few remained with him. But this 
 is unauthorized and precarious. 
 
 17. ὁ δὲ Κύριος μοι παρέστη. The παρέστη must be 
 understood figuratively, i. 6. was by me and with 
 me, by secretly helping and supporting me. So 
 (Heinr. observes) Homer says of Minerva in respect 
 to Achilles παρέστη. Compare Ps. 109, 31. Acts 27, 
 23. The words kal ἐνεδυνάμωσέ show how that help 
 was especially communicated, namely by infusing 
 courage, and imparting (ἐν) ability. So Theophyl. : 
 ἐχαρίσατο παῤῥησίαν. ‘Thus Col. 1, 11. ἐν radon δυνά- 
 pees δυναμουμένοι, and elsewhere; and also Aristid. 
 cited by Wets.: ἀγώνισαι πάσῃ προθυμίᾳ, δυνάμιεος δὲ 
 μελήσει τώ θεώ. By κήρυγμα is here meant the word 
 preached, the Gospel; as 1 Cor. 15, 14. Ilanpodo- 
 ρηθη, “ might obtain full credence.” See Rom. 4, 
 21. Luke 1,11. Πάντα is to be taken, Heinr. and 
 Rosenm. say, populariter, for “many of different 
 nations,” i. 6. who had business at the court. But 
 they and other Commentators (as Doddr.) are wrong 
 in supposing that the words are to be referred to his 
 defence only. hey refer to the preaching of the 
 Gospel by him during his long confinement, by 
 which in a manner all the nations might be said to 
 hear it; since Rome was the resort of persons from 
 every nation of the civilized world, individuals from 
 each of which would hear the Gospel, and carry 
 tidings of it, or diffuse its doctrines, in their respec- 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 341 
 
 tive countries. So Theoph.: ἵνα κατάδηλος πᾶσι γέ- 
 νηται καὶ τοῦ κηρύγματος ἡ δόξα, καὶ τῆς περὶ ἐμιὲ προ- 
 νοίας ἡ κηδεμιονία. 
 
 17. καὶ ἐῤῥύσθην ἐκ στόματος λέοντος. Some would 
 take this literally, as referring to 1 Cor. 15, 52. But 
 the context shows that it is to be understood of the 
 emperor Nero. And so the antients and most mo- 
 derns. And yet it is not clear to me that there is 
 (as they say) an allusion to Nero’s cruelty. The lion, 
 being the king of beasts, was a fit, and indeed com- 
 mon image to designate any monarch invested with 
 despotic power; examples of which signification, 
 both Scriptural and Classical, are produced by the 
 Commentators; as Esth. 14, 13. &c. The phrase 
 ῥύεσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ λέοντος, to denote being delivered 
 from a very great danger, is easy to be accounted 
 for: but there is probably an allusion to a well 
 known fable of AXsop: for Paul's deliverance at 
 court, which might be called the lion’s den, would 
 justify the expression in almost its literal sense. 
 
 18. καὶ ῥύσεταί με ὁ Κύριος ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔργου πονηροῦ, 
 « And the Lord wild (I trust) deliver me from every 
 evil work,” i. 6. all dangers, temptations, and cala- 
 mities; for such appears to be the simplest interpre- 
 tation of ἔργου πονηροῦ, on which the recent Commen- 
 tators seek needless refinements. ‘The propriety of 
 language will not permit it to be interpreted, with 
 them, ‘‘ from every work of the Devil.” Compare 
 1 Kings 17, 57. 2 Cor. 1, 11. I would observe, 
 that though Wets. adduces a passage of Dionys. 
 Hal., where this very phrase occurs, yet it is ina 
 very different sense. ‘The use in question may be 
 regarded as a Hebraism. As to the term πονηρὸς, it 
 often signifies dangerous, or unfavourable in any 
 respect. See Schleus. Lex. 
 
 18. καὶ σώσει---ἐπουράνιον, ‘ and he will (I humbly 
 hope and devoutly pray) bring me safe unto his 
 heavenly kingdom.” The ellipsis in σώξειν εἰς τόπον 
 τινὰ, by which some verb of carrying is omitted, is 
 
342 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv. 
 
 found in the best writers, from whom many examples 
 are adduced by Wets. | 
 
 This pious profession of trust in the Lord was (as 
 well as the whole of the preceding detail of personal 
 traits) meant as a hint to Timothy and others to fol- 
 low his example ; suitable to which is the fine doxo- 
 logy that follows. 
 
 19. "Acracas Πρίσκαν καὶ ᾿Ακύλαν, ““ salute Prisca 
 and Aquila ;” whom Paul had left at Ephesus. (Acts 
 18, 19.) See however Doddr. ‘Theophyl. says 
 Prisca is put first, as being more zealous in the cause 
 of the Gospel. 
 
 19. καὶ τὸν ᾿Ονησιφόρου οἶκον. It is little surprising 
 that the Popish Commentators should chuse to infer 
 from this salutation to the family of Onesiphorus, 
 that he himself was dead (for on that slender foun- 
 dation they chiefly found the gainful doctrine of 
 prayers and masses for the dead), but that many 
 eminent Protestant Commentators, as Grot. and 
 Rosenm., should do the same, is amazing. For, as 
 Benson observes, he might be gone from Rome, and 
 yet not be at Ephesus, when the Apostle wrote this 
 Epistle: or Onesiphorus might possibly be the bearer 
 of this letter. But the best argument with the 
 Romanists, is to urge that all the antients are agreed 
 that he was not dead. ‘They, however, say that he 
 was yet at Rome: which, I confess, from supra 1, 
 16. (where see the note), appears not so probable. 
 Heinr. maintains that in both places it may signify, 
 by a familiar idiom, Onesiphorus and his family. 
 And he compares of ἀμφὶ τὸν Σωκράτη. But this 
 appears precarious. It is sufficient to say that there 
 is no proof that he was dead, and little probability ; 
 since οἶκον would not have been so used On the 
 other hand, nothing is more probable than that he 
 might be, to Paul’s certain knowledge, at some 
 other place, and not Ephesus. ‘Though, as to what 
 Benson urges, that the strongest argument for 
 proving Onesiphorus alive, is that St. Paul prays for 
 him, since he no where prays for the dead, or any of 
 
2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 343 
 
 the Apostles ; that, in discussing the doctrine with a 
 Romanist, can be no argument at all. It is taking 
 for granted what is to be proved. 
 
 20—22. "Epacros. See Rom. 16, 23., Acts 19, 23. 
 Τρόφιμον. See Acts 20, 4, 20, 4., 21, 29. The fol- 
 lowing Greek names are of frequent occurrence. Of 
 the persons we know nothing. Linus, the antients 
 tell us, was afterwards the first Bishop of Rome. By 
 οἱ ἀδελφοὶ πάντες we may suppose that the persecu- 
 tion had not entirely dispersed the Christians, but 
 that some vestiges of a congregation (for such the 
 οἱ ἀδελφοὶ imports) still remained. 
 
 On the salutation compare Gal. 6, 18., and the 
 note. 
 
344 
 
 EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 This Epistle bears a strong resemblance to 1 Tim. 
 (on which see Paley ap. Valpy.) Benson thinks 
 the great design of it was to animate Titus, a Gen- 
 tile convert and Evangelist, and Bishop of Crete, 
 to oppose the Judaizing Christians. ‘This is, how- 
 ever, too hypothetical a representation; and the 
 design of the Apostle would seem to be far more 
 general. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 VersE 1. κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ. The best 
 Commentators are agreed that κατὰ here, as at 1 
 Tim., 1, 1., denotes end and tendency: and ἐκλ. Θεοῦ 
 signifies, all faithful and sincere Christians. ‘The 
 sense, then, is: ‘ in order to the propagation of the 
 faith of sincere Christians, and in order to the 
 acknowledgment or better knowledge of the truth 
 which is conformable to true virtue.” (See 1 Tim., 
 2,4.) Or it may simply be interpreted, with The- 
 ophyl., religious truth. Now the truth is tacitly 
 opposed to the errors of Judaism, or lies of Heathen- 
 ism. 
 
 2, ἐπ᾽ éaridi—aiwviov. Heinr. and Rosenm. take 
 the ἐπὶ to have the sense of the κατὰ just before, i. 6. 
 “to the end.” So εἰς ἐλπίδα. See Gal. 5, 13., 1 
 Thess., 4,'7., 2 Tim., 2, 14. Most Commentators 
 take ἐπ᾿ ἐλπιδι for ἐν ἐλπίδι ; as Acts 2, 26,, for 1 
 Cor., 9, 10. ; and they connect the words with δοῦ- 
 
TITUS, CHAP. I. 345 
 
 λος --οΧριστοῦ. But the former sense is the more 
 natural and extensive, and worthy of the Apostle. 
 The wis αἰωνίου, Theophyl. thinks, is levelled 
 against the Jews, who only looked totemporal rewards. 
 
 2. ὁ ἀψευδὴς Θεὺς, PINS ON. “A title (says Heinr.), 
 ascribed by the Heathens to their Gods.’* ‘The 
 ἐπηγγείλατο appears, from the antithetical ἐφανέρωσε, 
 to carry a notion of obscurely promising. 80 
 Rosenm.: “In V. T. quidem vita eterna non est 
 promissa expressis verbis ; promissa sunt vero multa 
 et maxima bona per Messiam expectanda, quorum 
 maximum est certissima spes eterne felicitatis.” 
 
 Πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων. See on 2 'Tim., 1, 9. 
 
 3. ἐφανέρωσε, “hath plainly revealed it.” So 2 
 Tim., 1, 10., φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν. With καίροις ἰδίοις 
 compare 1 Tim., 2, 6. (and the note), and Acts 1, 7. 
 Ἔν κηρύγματι, “ by the preaching of the Gospel.” So 
 2'Tim., 4, 17., and elsewhere. Kar’ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ 
 σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ. Our Translators render, “by 
 the commandment of God.” (On which see the note 
 of Mackn.) This, however, is not very satisfactory ; 
 and, therefore, though this phrase has the above 
 sense at Rom. 16, 26., yet I prefer, with the best 
 modern Commentators, rendering it here, as also at 
 1 Tim., 1, 1., et alibi, “according to the will of 
 God,” or more literally, ordinance of God. 
 
 4. γνησίῳ τέκνω kK. Κι π. Compare 1 Tim., 1, 2. 
 ἹΚοινὴν, ““ common to Jews and Gentiles.” So Benson 
 and Heinr., the former of whom compares Jud. 3., 
 2 Pet., 1,1. Butit should rather seem to signify, 
 “common to us both.” So Hilary, Beza, and 
 Rosenm. Menoch. explains, “" common to all Chris- 
 tians.” But that is too vague. The two last inter- 
 pretations may be united. 
 
 Χ άρις---ἡμών. See note on 1 Tim., 1, 2. 
 
 * Of Wetstein’s examples the only apposite ones are the follow- 
 ing, Eurip. Or. 364., ἀψευδὴς θεὸς" lian V. H. 14, 48., τῷ Nypei— 
 ὕνπερ ἀληθῆ τε καὶ ἀψευδῆ ἀκονομεν, Aristot. Polit. 2., οὐκ ἐστι 
 πάντη ἄρα ἀψευδὲς τὸ δαιμόνιον τε καὶ θεῖον : παντάπασι μὲν, ἔφη. 
 
 I add Pind. Olymp. 6, 114. (of Saturn), ψευδέων ἄγνωστον. 
 
346 TITUS, CHAP. I. 
 
 5. τούτου χάριν κατέλιπόν σε ἐ. K. By the κατέλι- 
 πον and the ἐπιδιορθώσαι it is implied, that Paul had 
 been there himself, and laid the foundation for the 
 Ecclesiastical settlement of the Island. The Apostle 
 here reminds Titus of the purpose for which he had 
 left him (which, Grot. says, had been at the time 
 he left Timothy at Ephesus), namely, ἵνα τὰ λείποντα 
 ἐπιδιορθώση, 1. 6. literally, ‘that thou mightest further 
 set right, or in order, the things which remained to 
 be rectified, or which were imperfect and wanted 
 completing, in my plans.” So Theophyl.: ἵνα ἐπιδι- 
 ogwon τὰ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐλλειφθέντα. Such seems the 
 best founded interpretation, and it is supported by 
 the antients and the best moderns. Wets. aptly 
 cites Plut. 2, 535, 14., χρηστὰς ὑπογράφεις ἡμῖν ἐλπίδας 
 καὶ περὶ τῆς τῶν λειπόντων ἐπιδιορθώσεως" and Plut. 10, 
 844. E.,iva ἐπανορθώσηται τὰ ἐλλείποντα. which suffi: 
 ciently “wustifies the slight incongruity in the mixture 
 of the metaphors. The ἐπιδιορῆ. ordinare, (τοί. and 
 Rosenm., from an ill founded scruple, would render 
 ordinare; though indeed ordinare would, in this 
 context, imply setting right, &c. It is well remarked 
 by Theodoret: ἔδειξεν ὡς αὐτὸς ἔθηκε τὸν τῆς εὐσεβείας 
 θεμέλιον, κατέλιπον yap σε, φησὶν, ἵνα τὰ ἐλλείποντα δι- 
 ορθώση. The ἐπὶ denotes succession and continu- 
 ation. 
 
 5. καὶ καταστήσῃς. The καὶ may mean and 
 especially. The verb καθ. is, as Heinrichs observes, 
 used of the chusing and appointing any one to an 
 office ; and nothing can be more clear than that the 
 whole business was vested in Titus. Κατὰ πόλιν, 
 
 * Hence the observation of Theophyl. on the humility of the 
 Apostle in taking all the labour, and leaving Timothy all the credit 
 and honour, by appointing Presbyters, is ill founded. For as the 
 foundations of the Ecclesiastical establishment were probably laid 
 by Paul, it would have been premature to appoint Presbyters. 
 
 + By this passage our Presbyterian brethren are, not without 
 reason, put to great straits. The shifts to which they are driven 
 may be conceived, when the sensible and pious Doddr. resorts to 
 the disingenuous device of explaining it of the interposition of Titus 
 (i.e. with the congregations), which, he adds, would have great 
 weight with them. 
 
TITUS, CHAP. I. 34:7 
 
 “in every city where there is a congregation of 
 Christians.” It is, with reason, supposed that many 
 of these were but fowns ;* and the use of πόλις by the 
 best Classical writers justifies this. ‘Qs ἐγώ σοι διεταξ- 
 ayy, “4851 (on leaving you) directed you (in due 
 time) to do.’”’ Paul, it seems, had given the direc- 
 tion, but had not time to add the injunctions as to 
 the qualifications; and these therefore he now fur- 
 nishes him with: and we may presume that no long 
 time had elapsed since Paul had left the Island, 
 when he wrote this Epistle. 
 
 6. Compare 1 Tim. 3,2., and the notes. Τέκνα 
 ἔχων πιστὰ, “having his children well regulated, 
 trained in a sober and religious education.” Com- 
 pare 1 Tim., 3, 4 ἃ 5, 10., Μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας, 
 for μὴ κατηγορεῖσθαι ἀσωτίας, “not to be justly 
 accused of a disorderly life.’ Ἢ ἀνυπότακτα, ““ dis- 
 obedient and disorderly.” (See 1 Tim., 3, 4.) For 
 he who cannot keep his own family in order, how 
 can he be fit to be entrusted with the management 
 of the great family of a Church. 
 
 7, 8. δεῖ γὰρ---οἰκονόμον. The Apostle repeats that 
 the Presbyter shall be ἀνέγκλητος. So 1 Tim., 3, 2., 
 δεῖ ἀνεπίληπτον εἶναι. He here adds ws Θεοῦ οἰκονόμον ; 
 for, as Rosenm. observes, if fidelity is required in 
 the administration of perishable earthly things, 
 (1 Cor., 4, 2.), how much more is it required in the 
 steward of spiritual affairs! Oixovopov, i. e. the 
 manager of God’s house or family, such as is every 
 church. So in our fine Collect for Good Friday, 
 ‘** Behold thon thy family, for which our Lord Jesus 
 Christ,” &c. Though sometimes a whole body is 
 considered as one general family ; as 1 Tim., 3, 15.-++ 
 
 * These words πόλις, urbs, and town, which have given so much 
 trouble to the Etymologists, appear to have one common idea, that 
 of hedging, inclosing, walling, &c., in opposition to open villages. 
 For πόλις is cognate with πόλος, a circle ; and urbs is cognate with 
 orbis ; and town comes from the Angl. Sax. Tynan, to enclose en- 
 compass. 
 
 _ + Heinr. compares Soph. Antig. 671., ἐν τοῖς γὰρ οἰκείοισι ὅστις 
 ἐστ᾽ ἀνὴρ Χρῆστος, φανεῖται κἀν πόλει δίκαιος ὧν. 1 would add 
 
348 TITUS, CHAP. I. 
 
 The αὐθάδη here answers to the φιλαυτὸς at 1 Tim., 
 3,2. It isexplained αὐταρεστὸς, self-willed, proud, 
 &c. Seea spirited sketch of the αὐθάδης in Theophr. 
 Char. Eth. C. 15., Edit. Ast., and consult Stanley 
 and Blomf. on Aischyl. P. V. 64. The ὀργίλον has 
 no place in the former list; but it is nearly allied to 
 the αὐθάδη. It signifies passionate. As to the other 
 terms in this and the next verse, they have been 
 explained at 1 Tim., 3, 2 ἃ 3. On αἰσχροκερδή, 
 Wets. cites Polyb. 6, 44., καθόλου ὁ περὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν 
 τρόπος οὕτως ἐπιχωριάϑει παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς, ὥστε παρὰ μόνοις 
 τοῖς κρησὶ τών ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων μηδὲν αἰσχρὸν νομίϑεσ- 
 θαι κέρδος." ‘The ἐγκρατῆ denotes, him who holds in 
 restraint all his passions of every kind (See Theo- 
 phyl.); which, as Priceus observes, implies absti- 
 nence even from what is lawful. In which view he 
 cites from Cicero: “ Nulla re conciliare facilius 
 benevolentiam multitudinis possunt 11 qui, &c., pra- 
 sunt, quam abstinentia et continentia. 
 
 The φιλάγαθον signifies a lover of good men, or of 
 goodness, or both. The term is somewhat rare: but 
 it occurs in Sir. 7, 22., and Dionys. Areiop., cited 
 by Suic. Thes. in p.; and also Aristot. Rhet. c. 2, 
 4., Cod. Vet. (which is the true reading; for the 
 common one, τοὺς φιλεῖν ἀγάθους, is plainly from 
 emendation.) On the δίκαιον and ὅσιον [ add Diod. 
 Sic. 2, 610., Dionys. Hal. 2, 697., and Schol. on 
 Eurip. Hec. 788. 
 
 9. ἀντεχόμιενον----λόγου, ““ adhering to the faithful 
 doctrine according as he has been taught.” ᾽Αντέ- 
 χεσθαι signifies, properly, to hold fast by any thing, in 
 
 Cowper’s Task, L. 5., p. 131., ‘ For when was public virtue to be 
 found where private virtue was not? ” &c. 
 
 * But if by this Wets. would hint that the Apostle has any 
 reference to the base avarice of the Cretans, he is mistaken. For 
 the same remark would hold good of every one of the virtues here 
 enjoined ; the Cretans being stained with all the opposite vices ; of 
 which those who have read the antients, can require no proof. It 
 is strange that Theodoret should affirm (at least by implication) 
 that this is the only Island to which the Apostle carried the Gospel. 
 He forgets Melita. ; 
 
TITUS, CHAP. I. 349 
 
 opposition (ἀντι) to one who would wrest it away: a 
 signification often used in the metaphorical sense of 
 the Classical writers. (See the examples of Rosenm.) 
 Pricaeus, with the approbation of Rosenm., would 
 add pov from 2 Tim. But this is very uncritical. It 
 may very well be understood; though it also implies 
 the doctrine Paul had been taught by Christ. ‘Thus 
 the διδα χὴ πιστοῦ λόγου is a periphrasis for the Gospel, 
 the Christian religion. 
 
 At παρακαλεῖν ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ Pric. and Rosenm. 
 would supply μένειν. But this is too arbitrary. 
 Παρακαλεῖν here simply signifies to instruct and, as 
 we say, instruct in. Besides, this answers to the 
 διδακτικὸν at 1 Tim. At the same time, this στηρίϑειν 
 is implied in the communication of sound doctrine, 
 and the silencing of objectors. ‘The force of by. 4:3. 
 has been explained at 1 Tim., 1, 10., and elsewhere. 
 It is here truly remarked by Theophyl.: “Oye μήτε 
 τοῖς ἐχθροῖς μάχεσθαι, καὶ αἰχμαλωτίϑειν πᾶν νόημα εἰς 
 τὴν ὑπακοὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, μήτε τοὺς οἰκείους παρακαλεῖν 
 καὶ νουθετεῖν καὶ στηρίξειν δυνάμενος, ψευδεπίσκοπός ἐστι. 
 
 10. εἰσὶ γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἀνυπότακτοι, &c. ‘The καὶ is 
 in many MSS., with the approbation of eminent 
 Critics, omitted; but on very insufficient grounds ; 
 for we can account for its omission, but not for its 
 insertion. ‘The particle is often omitted, when it 
 seems useless, but ἐδ not. So here it may either be 
 rendered, with Rosenm., and those ; or rather, “ for 
 many, ¢oo, there are,” i. e. many there are as well 
 possessing the foregoing virtues, as the subsequent 
 vices. 
 
 On the terms which follow, it is not necessary to 
 refine, or to force them into an exact counterpart to 
 the preceding virtues: a formal regularity very 
 foreign to the Apostle’s style. Avuréraxro: signifies 
 disorderly, unruly, insubordinate, i. e. in respect to 
 the sound doctrine mentioned above, and the 
 teachers of it. This would be likely to be the case, 
 especially with the Judaizers, from their characteris- 
 tic stiff-neckedness, and little relish for spiritual doc-. 
 
350 TITUS, CHAP. I. 
 
 trines, in comparison with external and carnal ordi- 
 nances. Ματαιολόγοι vain talkers, triflers, &c., those 
 mentioned at 1 Tim., 1, 6., ἐξετράπησαν εἰς ματαιολο- 
 γίαν. On the φρεναπάται we may compare Eph. 5; 
 6, κενοῖς λόγοις ἀπατῶντες" Rom. 16, 18., τὰς τών 
 ἀκάκων καρδίας ἐξαπατῶντες" 2 Tim., 8, 18., πλανώντες 
 καὶ πλανόμενοι. So Theophyl.: καὶ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἄλλους 
 ἀπατῶν. By the οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς are meant Jewish 
 Christians. ‘That Crete, standing in the midway 
 between Palestine and the civilized world, and so 
 opportune for both, should swarm with Jews, were 
 of itself probable, and it is confirmed by Josephus 
 and Philo. See Wets. 
 
 11. ods δεῖ ἐπιστομιίϑειν, bridle in, restrain, silence, 
 namely, by the exercise of powerful reasoning, and 
 Episcopal discipline. ᾿Επιστομίϑειν signifies, properly, 
 to put a bridle, ἐπὶ τῴ στόματι; as 2 Kings, 19, 28., 
 Is. 37, 29. Hence it often signifies, metaphorically, 
 to check any one, reduce to silence, Φιμοῦν (2 Pet., 2, 
 15.) Wets. adduces many examples, to which I add 
 Joseph. 778., τὴν vewreporoiay ἐπιστ' Philostr. V. A. 
 3, 28., τὸν τύφον ἐπιστ' and Liban. Or. Parent. on 
 Julian ap. Fabr. B. Gr. 7, 18., ἐνέφραξε τῇ καρτερίᾳ 
 τοῖς πονηροτάτοις τὰ στόματα. 
 
 11. οἵτινες ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσι, “inasmuch as 
 they subvert (the faith of) whole families.” So 
 2Tim., 2,18., τὴν πίστιν ἀνατρέπουσιν. Of this sort 
 were those described at 2 Tim., 3, 6., οἱ ἐνδύνοντες εἰς 
 Tous οἰκίας, καὶ αἰχμιαλωτίϑοντες τὰ γυναικάρια" where 
 the αἰχμ. includes laying them under contribution, 
 and answers to the διδάσκοντες ἃ pa δεῖ, αἰσχροῦ κέρδους 
 of the present passage. Compare Matt. 23, 14. The 
 Commentators notice the litotes in ὦ μὴ dei as Is. 
 66, 4., ἃ μὴ ἐβουλόμην. So also Joh. 21, 18., καὶ οἴσει 
 ὅπου οὐ θέλεις. 
 
 * And so Joseph. Bell. 1, 17. (cited by Heinr.), οἵκους λαμπροτά- 
 τους ὅλους ἀνατρέπεσθαι" and the totos domus et familias evertere. of 
 the Latins ; as Juvenal and Cicero. To which I add Plato 960 r., 
 ὅλας οἰκίας χρημάτων χάριν ἐπιχειροῦσι κατ᾽ ἄκρας ἐξαιρεῖν" and 
 Athen, 274 £., ὁ γὰρ κόλαξ---καὶ τὰς 'πολεις ἀνατρέπει. 
 
TITUS, CHAP. I. 351 
 
 12. εἶπέ ris—doyai, “ one of their own poets,” &c. 
 
 For προφήτης, like vates, was a term often applied, out of com- 
 pliment, to denote a poet, to hint at the inspiration that was pre- 
 sumed to reside in him. This was indeed chiefly confined to the 
 earlier and greater ones, as Orpheus, Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Mu- 
 seus, &c.; but afterwards assumed by, or conceded to, poets in 
 general. It was, however, very applicable to Epimenides, from 
 whom this quotation is, [ think, ascertained to be taken, since he 
 was one of the earlier bards ; and he is said to have written epi 
 χρησμῶν. (See Fabr. Bibl. Gr.) Theophyl., too, here says, that he 
 was one of the wisest of the Greeks, and θειασμοῖς καὶ ἀποτροπιάσ- 
 μοις προσέχων, καὶ μαντικὴν δοκῶν κατορθοῦν (a pretty flower of 
 speech picked up, by the way, from Thucyd. 7, 50. speaking of 
 Nicias). 
 
 With respect to the qualities here ascribed to the Cretans, the 
 ψεῦσται, eternal liars, is completely justified : for such were they to 
 a proverb. So Diogen. in Pan.: Κρητίξειν, ἐπὶ τὸ ψεύδεσθαι. And 
 as such it is often found in the Classical writers. See Wetstein’s 
 examples, which fully prove the ill repute in which the Cretans 
 were held.* To these Ladd Suidas: τρία κάππα κάκιστα, Καππαδο- 
 kia, καὶ Κρήτη, καὶ Κιλικία. Leon Tarent. ap. Brunch Anal. 1, 242. 
 "Acet δήισται Kal ἀλιφθόροι, οὐδὲ δίκαιοι Κρῆτες" τις Κρητῶν οἷδε δι- 
 καιοσυγὴν 5 
 
 With respect to the κακὰ θηρία, it seems to mean malignant fero- 
 cious brutes; a sense in which θηρία is not unfrequently used, like 
 the correspondent terms in all languages; as the Hebrew pa 
 (whence the Germ. Bauen, and the English boor), our brute, &c. 
 
 The γαστέρες ἀργαί, is by Dr. Hunt and Benson explained swit- 
 
 * The origin of the bad character of the Cretans is by Bp. War- 
 burton, Div. Leg. 1, 159. ascribed to their having, by claiming the 
 honour of showing Jupiter's tomb, proclaimed what was carefully 
 concealed from the vulgar, that all the Gods were only mortals 
 raised to divine honours for benefits conferred on their country or 
 mankind. For this the learned prelate was indebted to Chrysostom 
 and Theophyl., who probably borrowed it from some of the Clas- 
 sical writers ; since Callim. Hymn on Jove 8. (cited by Wets.) says: 
 Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, καὶ yap τάφον, ὦ ἄνα, σεῖο Κρῆτες ἐτεκτήναντο. 
 And some recent critics (as Rosenm.) consider the line quoted by 
 the Apostle as Callimachus’s. But (as Whitby observes) he was 
 no Cretan, but a Cyrenean; and he has only the first words of the 
 verse, which, Jerome says, he borrowed from Epimenides. What 
 followed in Epimenides we know not, and have no concern to know. 
 But I should suspect that it was not what Chrys. has given; for if 
 so, Callimachus’s plagiarism would have been shameless. It is far 
 more probable that he confounded the words of Epimenides and 
 of Callimachus. At all events, the difficulty he raises is none at all; 
 for the words following ἡ μαρτυρία---ἀληθής can only refer to what 
 St. Paul has cited, not what might follow. 
 
352 TITUS, CHAP. I. 
 
 bellies, greedy devourers; ἀργὸς sometimes signifying swift. But 
 the antient and common interpretation, slow-bellies, seems the more 
 natural. According to this, two vices seem ascribed to them at once, 
 namely, gluttony and sloth; for yaor. may of itself denote gluttons 
 (seé Steph. Thes.), q. d. all belly. And so the Latin ventris. ‘The 
 term ἀργὸς was often used of the fruges consumere nati.” Indeed 
 these two vices go together. See Wetstein’s examples. Some take 
 the ἀργὸς to signify tardus, Ang]. fat-bellied and slow; as Juvenal 
 4,107. Montani quoque venter adest abdomine tardus. See Ir- 
 misch on Herodian, 1, 186. 
 
 13. δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν, i. 6. since they are thus. "Eaeyxe 
 a. ἀποτόμως, ‘*rebuke them sharply.” A metaphor 
 (as Est., Heinr., and Benson think) taken from sur- 
 geons, who cut away the unsound flesh even to the 
 quick, lest the mortification should extend. Com- 
 pare 2 Cor. 13, 10. Rom. 11, 22. Thus the follow- 
 ing ὑγιαίνωσιν has still greater propriety. 
 
 Ἔν τῇ πίστει, “in the doctrine and religion, the 
 διδασκαλίᾳ ὑγιαίνουσα, supra, ver. 9. So Theophyl. 
 observes, that by this it is meant, that they are to 
 retain it as it was delivered to them by the Apostle, 
 without any admixture of Judaism or Gentilism. 
 
 14. προσέχοντες---ἀλήθειαν. He now shows in what 
 respect he would especially have Titus watch over 
 the soundness of their faith; namely, that they may 
 not attach themselves to Jewish fables. See 1 Tim. 
 1, 4. and the notes. 
 
 By Jewish fables some think the Apostle means 
 the Gnosticks’ Cabbalistical interpretation of the 
 Old Testament. But this is refuted by Whitby. 
 The antients, and most moderns, rightly interpret it 
 of traditions concerning meats, either καθαροὶ, ἅγιοι, 
 ὅσιοι, OF ἀκαθαρτοὶ, κοινοὶ, βεβηλοὶ, μεμιασμένοι, Which 
 our Lord himself, Matt. 15, 9., calls the doctrines of 
 men: whence may be discerned the meaning of the 
 ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων here; and I cannot but think 
 that the Apostle had in view that passage of St. 
 Matt. Theophyl. calls them the δευτερώσεις and πα- 
 ρεξηγήσεις of the Old Testament. Rosenm. under- 
 stands the μῦθοι of fables properly so called; as of 
 the battle of Gog and Magog, Behemoth, Leviathan, 
 
TITUS, CHAP. I. 353 
 
 and these various tales respecting the Messiah, as an 
 earthly monarch; to which Jaspis adds spurious 
 books, as the life of Abraham, the book of Noah, 
 the testimony of the Patriarchs, and others. All 
 these may be included. 
 
 In the clause ἀποστρεφομένων, there is something 
 cutting; 4. d. *‘not only tales of mere men (and 
 therefore of no authority), but of men averse from 
 the truth.” 
 
 15. πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς. 
 
 Rosenm. paraphrases: ‘Si quis probus fuerit, omnibus cibis uti 
 potest, nec ob ciborum in lege Mosis vetitorum usum Deo displi- 
 cet; quia lex illa non amplius ad eum pertinet.” So Jaspis: 
 «*Sermo est non de morali, sed de rituali pueritate, sensu Judaico ; 
 πάντα ergo, Omnia, que pertinent ad ritus et ceremonias. Cogite- 
 tur de promiscuo ciborum usu, de certorum dierum discrimine 
 eorumque vel observatione vel neglectu et aliis ad externum cul- 
 tum pertinentibus rebus.”” Compare a similar sentiment in 1 ‘Tim. 
 4, 4 & 5., and see the notes there. The paronomasia between mo- 
 ral and ceremonial purity is very neat. Καθαρὸς and ἀκαθαρὸς in a 
 moral sense are frequent in the Classical writers. 
 
 In τοῖς δὲ μεμιασμένοις, ἃς. the Apostle dwells only on mental 
 and moral purity: but he further enlarges upon it, in order to point 
 a well merited invective against the false teachers in question, 
 Heinr. explains thus: “Τὸ those Jewish impostors (who, in oppo- 
 sition to the καθαροὶ and πιστοὶ, i.e. true Christians, are called 
 μεμιασμένοι and ἀπιστοὶ) nothing is pure, nothing benefits them to 
 the production of purity, whatever they may say of meats pure and 
 common; because their whole mind and conscience is contami- 
 nated.” And so Wells ap. D’Oyley., and also Benson. ᾿αλλὰ pee 
 μίανται---συνείδησις. Theophy]. shows that they can never attain 
 the purity they affect ; since the pure animals in one or other way 
 become impure: so that, he adds, ἡ ῥυπαρὰ διανοία κακῶς περὶ 
 rovrwy λογιξβομένη; ἑαυτῇ συμμιαίνει ταῦτα, μὴ ὄντα φύσει τοιαῦτα. 
 But this is (I think) not exactly the Apostle’s meaning, who is 
 speaking, I repeat, of moral rather than ceremonial purity. So 
 Jaspis : ‘* impii quavis re semet ipsos inquinare, et sic Deo se exosos 
 reddant. Itaque etiam vel anxié ratione habita vetitorum ciborum, 
 minimé tamen Deo placere possunt, et hac ciborum abstinenti4 im- 
 pietatem quasi compensare nequeunt.” SoMr. Valpy: ‘A Gentile 
 convert, who lives up to the'faith and precepts of Christianity, is 
 elean and pure in the sight of God, while they who presume so 
 much upon their distinctions, render themselves incapable by their 
 obstinate infidelity and immoralities, to perform any acceptable ser- 
 vice to God.” See also Doddridge’s paraphrase. 
 
 See a very similar sentiment in Sirach 39, 32. Wets., too, ad- 
 duces severa] others from the Classical writers; as Galen, ταῖς ἀκα» 
 
 VOL. VIII. QA 
 
B54 TITUS, CHAP. 1. II. 
 
 θάρτοις ψυχαῖς, εἰ τροφίμους᾽ προσφέρεις λόγους, ov μόνον οὐδὲν 
 ὠφελήσεις ἂν, ἀλλὰ καὶ βλάψεις οὐ σμικρὰ. Seneca, Ep. 98. Malus 
 animus omnia in malum vertit, etiam que specie optimi venerunt, 
 et de Benefic. 5, 12.. Quemadmodum stumachus morbo vitiatus, 
 et colligens bilem, quoscunque acceperit cibos mutat—ita animus 
 cecus, quicquid illi commiseris, id onus suum et perniciem facit. 
 
 , 16. Θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν----ἀδόκιμοι, ** They profess. to 
 know, love, and serve the true God, and to be faith- 
 ful Christians.” For such is ἊΝ da of the for- 
 mula Θεὸν εἰδέναι ; as 2 Tim. 2, 19. (where see the 
 note). And so it is amit, by Benson and 
 Heinr. *Epyois, evil actions, as opposed to fair pre- 
 fences. Agvovvras, as opposed to εἰδέναι, denotes, 
 ® do not care to know, but neglect and hate.” See 
 the note on 1 Tim. 5,8. The sense, then, may be 
 briefly expressed, with Rosenm., thus: “ destruunt 
 re quod ore profitentur.” 
 
 --16. βδελυκτοὶ ὄντες, ““ being really abominable, 
 oh of execration by God and man.” The καὶ 
 before ἀπειθεῖς is rendered by Heinr. quippe qui sint. 
 It may simply signify nempe, even. ᾿Απειθεῖς, disobedi- 
 ent. ‘The ἀδόκιμοι is by some rendered reprobate ; 
 by others (and indeed the best Commentators) inepéz, 
 inutiles ; γῇ adox., Hebr. 6, 8.: and Grot. thinks it 
 a metaphor taken from bad money, which will not 
 pass, and is therefore useless. Which of these inter- 
 pretations be the true [know not. They both merge 
 into each other; and it is truly observed by Grot.: 
 “Tales autem sunt profani omnes, etiamsi quid fa- 
 ciunt quod oportet, non faciunt ut oportet.” 
 
 CHAP. Il. 
 
 Ver. 1. σὺ δὲ---Οιδασκαλίᾳ. From the διδασκ. which 
 follows, it should seem that λαλεῖ signifies teach ; 
 a frequent sense of the word. It .may, however, 
 be used with a reference to private admonition and 
 instruction as well as public teaching and preaching. 
 On the vy. 3:3. see the note, supra, 1, 6. 
 
 % 
 
TITUS, CHAP, Il. 355: 
 
 2—6. πρεσβύτας νηφαλίους εἶναι, ὅτε. 
 
 CEcumen. here subauds δεῖ. But it should seem that the λαλεῖ 
 is to be repeated, with a slight accommodation of sense. ἸΤρεσβ. is 
 here taken by Hamm., Le Clerc, and Mackn. to denote, not aged 
 men, but Presbyters ; since the directions given are similar to those 
 at 1 Tim. 1,3. and πρεσ[βύτιδος at ver. 3. is applicable to those 
 women who bore offices in the Church; as appears from the epi- 
 thets ἱεροπρεπεῖς and καλοδιδασκάλους. But this is supported nei- 
 ther by the authority of the antients, nor the opinions of the mo- 
 derns. And the qualifications do not sufficiently correspond. 
 Neither is the word ever used in the New Testament in that sense. 
 Something more may be said of the interpretation as it regards the 
 women ; and here there is somewhat of antient authority. Perhaps 
 we may reconcile the two interpretations, by supposing that the 
 Apostle, though he used these general terms, yet had also in mind 
 those of both sexes who filled ecclesiastical offices, especially the 
 latter. Certainly some of the epithets countenance this. 
 
 NegaX. must here mean sober. The καταστήματι denotes not 
 only dress, but in a general way, deportment.* ‘Ieoomperets. This 
 is by most Commentators thought to regard the dress, which was to 
 be decent, i. e. such as became Christian women, or Deaconesses. 
 Heinr. takes it for εὐπρεπεῖς ; (only the ἱερο. he thinks, may be in- 
 tensive). But that epithet, as applied to dress and deportment, con- 
 veys an idea remote from the Apostle’s thoughts. Aedovdwpévas. 
 This and the προσέχοντας at 1 Tim. 3, 8. are nearly synonymous ; 
 though the present is a stronger term, illustrated by Joh. 8, 34. 
 and Rom. 6, 14. Καλοδιδασκάλους. it is obvious that this can only . 
 relate to private, not public instruction ; as indeed is evident from 
 the words following, which, as the antients observe, are to be closely 
 connected with this, serving to show what they were to teach their 
 children, Servants, and friends. 
 
 Σώφρ. is here used as a vox pregnans ; q.d. ‘ that they may regu- 
 late their morals, and act as monitresses, teaching them, &c. There 
 is by some thought to be an allusion to the σωφρονισταὶ, who at 
 Athens were chosen out of the tribes, to superintend the morals of 
 the ephebi, or youths. But even that word was sometimes used in 
 a figurative sense; as in Thucyd. 3, 15. σωφρονισταὶ ὄντος τῆς 
 γνώμη». 
 
 In suggesting to the elder women what they were to teach the 
 younger, the Apostle inculcates the domestic duties and virtues of 
 wives ; for further than this his injunctions do not reach. Religious 
 duties they would be taught by the Deaconesses, Presbyters, ἄς, 
 Of these domestic duties the first in order, as in importance, is that 
 
 * So; among the passages cited by Wets., Porphyr. de Abstin. 4, 
 6. τὸ δὲ σεμνὸν κἀκ τοῦ καταστήματος ἑωρᾶτο. ‘Simplic. on Epict. p- 
 278. Wore καὶ τὸ κατάστημα μὴ σεμνὸν μὲν οὕτω ὡς βαρὺ τοῖς πα-. 
 ροῦσι φαίνεσθαι. He also (as do Rosenm, and Heinr.) cites Plut. 
 1, S24. βλέμματι καὶ κινήματι καταστηματικὸς, But there perhaps. 
 
 the sense is only staid. 
 QaQ 
 
356 TITUS, CHAP. II. 
 
 of loving their husbands; for, as Theophyl. justly observes, τούτου 
 ὄντος, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ Eerat, εὐθυνία οἴκου, Kal χρημάτων περιοῦυ sia’ 
 ὥσπερ ἀπόντος, πάντα κἂν παρώσιν, ἀποῤῥνυήσονται. So Socrat. ap. 
 Stob. Serm. 443, 32. Εὐσεβεία γυναικεία 6 πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα ἔσως, 
 and Pericthyon ap. Stob. p. 488. ἐθελήσει τὸν ἄνδρα. The word 
 φίλανδρος in its use, comprehended dutiful respect, &c. (See Wet- 
 stein’s examples from Plato, Plutarch, and Polyznus)*, in which 
 sense it is said, ‘* her desire shall be to her husband.” 
 
 On σώφρ. see 1 Tim. 3, 2and 5. ‘Ayvas Heinr. explains a pecca- 
 tis immunes. But this is too vague. The term is of the same na- 
 ture with the preceding ; though a stronger one ; and denotes, as 
 Theophyl. observes, purity in ¢hought as well as action. See 1 Tim. 
 5, 22. 
 
 Οἰκούρους. This term is a very expressive one, and denotes 
 “‘ those who stay at home and mind their own business.” It answers 
 to the τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον at 1 Tim., 3,4. ‘Thus it 
 not only means keepers at home, but keepers or care-takers of the 
 home, or house.t 
 
 ᾿Αγαθὰς, This is by some united with the preceding. A method, 
 however, unsupported by any of the numerous passages above cited. 
 Wolf rightly observes that it has a special signification. But that is 
 not (1 think) what he (in common with Casaubon, Vitringa, and 
 many others), supposes, namely, benignas, good tempered, as opposed 
 to scolding wives. No; the Apostle did not condescend to any 
 one so special as that; but rather means what the Latins expressed 
 by the bona femina (as Ennius ap. Wets.: ‘‘ ‘Tarquinii corpus bona 
 
 * To which I add Apollon. Ep. 55. γυνὴ σέμνη καὶ φιλάνδρος. 
 and 58. ἔχεις γυναῖκα ἔμφρονα φιλάνδρον. This is, however, not 
 confined to the later writers. Soin a beautiful passage of Aschy]l. 
 Pers. 140. Περσίδες δ᾽ ἀκροπενθεῖς ἕκαστα πόθῳ φιλάνδρι, Tor 
 αἰχμάεντα θοῦρον εὐνατῆρ ἀποπεμψάμενα, Λείπεται μονθόυξ. 
 
 ft So Hesych, explains φροντίξουσα τὰ τοῦ οἴκον καὶ φυλάττουσα" 
 οὖρος γὰρ ὁ φυλὰξ λέγεται. And it is explained by Theophyl. and 
 CEcumen., οἰκονομικάς, Wets. here adduces numerous Classical 
 examples, the most apposite of which is, Philo 2, 431, 24., γυναῖκας 
 κουριδίας, coppdvas, οἰκούρους, καὶ φιλάνδρους. To which I add Ar- 
 temid. 1, 64., οἰκουρὸς καὶ πιστὴ γυνὴ, 232, 35 ἃ 66., 1,78., and 2, 
 33., γυναῖκας κοσμίας καὶ οἰκοδεσποῖνας, housewives, and 2, 33., γυ- 
 vaika πιστικὴν καὶ οὐκοῦρον, Kal πειθομένην τῷ ἀνδρὶ. Lycophr. 
 1095., στεγανόμους" and infra, οἰκουρίαν, αἀοηιί5 curam, housewifery. 
 Soph. Trach. 542., Eurip, H. F. 45., λείπει yap με τοῖσδ᾽ ἐν δώμασιν 
 Τροφὸν τέκνων οἰκουρόν᾽ and 1345., and Hippol. 787., oixovpnua, 
 housewifery. So Eurip. Meleag. frag. 12., and Aischyl. Agam. 1616. 
 (of Clytamn.), ce τοῦδ᾽ ἥκοντος ἐκ μάχης νέον, Oixoupds εὐνὴν ἀνδρὸς, 
 &e. Except in the above passage of Lycophron, this οὐκουρία is no 
 where more beautifully described than in Aschyl. Ag. 590—2. Tv- 
 ναῖκα πιστὴν δ᾽ ἐν δόμοις εὕροι μολὼν, Olay περ οὖν ἕλειπε, δωμά- 
 τῶν κύγα, ᾿Εσθλὴν ἐκείνῳ, πολεμίαν τοῖς δύσφροσιν. 
 
TITUS, CHAP. II. 357 
 
 feemina lavit et unxit"’), and our ancestors, by good-wife, huswife 
 manager, It is, therefi re, exegetical of the preceding. 
 
 Ὑποτασσομένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν. See Ερ!ι. 5, 22., and 1 Tim., 
 2,13. “Iva μὴ 6 λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ βλασφημῆται. Compare 1 Tim., 6, 
 1. Theodoret remarks: To yap προφάσει θεοσεβείας καταλιμπάνειν 
 τοὺς ἄνδρας, βλασφημίαν ἔφερε τῷ κηρύγματι. 
 
 Τοὺς νεωτέρους ὡσαύτως παρακάλει σωφρονεῖν. The νεωτ, is for 
 véous; as Joh. 21, 18. Σωφρονεῖν, “to cultivate sobriety and 
 modesty.” Virtues especially ornamental in youth, and estimable 
 in proportion to their difficulty. To these virtues the Apostle 
 desires Titus to exhort the young men ; though he does not tell him 
 to enjoin them on the young women; since it seemed scarcely 
 necessary ; such being, what may be called, the virtue of their sex, 
 in which all others centre, and without which all are valueless.* 
 
 7. περὶ πάντα σεαυτὸν παρεχόμενος τύπον καλῶν ἔργων. 
 These precepts the Apostle directs him to follow up 
 with his own example. 
 
 Πάντα, ‘these and all other virtues.” Τύπον, 
 exemplar. See Phil. 3, 17., 1 Thess. 1, '7., 1 Tim. 4, 
 12.,and the notes. The παρεχ. is very significant. 
 On this the Apostle then engrafts an admonition to 
 ministerial virtues, in which he should be an example 
 to the Presbyters. ᾿Αδιαφθορίαν depends upon παρε- 
 χόμιενος, the sense of which must be accommodated, 
 perdilogiam. It signifies uncorrupted purity, and 
 soundness of doctrine. Αδιαφθαρτὸς is often used by 
 the Classical writers; and numerous passages are 
 cited by Wolf and Wets., in which it signifies one 
 who is above all corruption in any self-interested 
 motives. So Heinr. says it is opposed to the kary- 
 λεύω τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, 2 Cor., 2, 17., and πορισμὸν 
 νομίϑειν τὴν εὐσεβείαν, 1 Tim., 6, 5. 
 
 Σεμνόνητα, gravity, dignity ; ἵνα μιηδὲν νεώτερον καὶ 
 διὰ τοὺς ἄφρονας ἔχη ἡ διδασκαλία, ἀλλὰ πάντα σέφασ- 
 μα καὶ ἄξια Θεοῦ, says Theophyl. The ὑγιῆ is thought 
 to be synonymous with the ἀδιαφθ. Only that rather 
 regards the person than the doctrine. The metaphor 
 
 * This reminds me of a similar delicacy in that inimitable funeral 
 oration of Pericles ap. Thucyd. 2, 45., εἰ δὲ με δεῖ καὶ γυναικείας re 
 ἀρετῆς, ὅσαι νῦν ἐν χρηείᾳ ἔσονται, μνησθῆναι, βραχείᾳ παραινέσει 
 ἅπαν σημαινῶ" τῆς τε γὰρ ὑπαρχούσης φύσεως μὴ χείροσι γενέσθαι 
 ὑμῖν μεγάλη ἡ δόξα, καὶ ἧς ἂν ἐπ᾽ ἐλάχιστον; ἀρετῆς περὶ ἢ ψύγου ἐν 
 τοῖς ἔρσεσι κλέος ἧ. 
 
358 TITUS, CHAP. Il. 
 
 has been before illustrated. ᾿Ακατάγνωστον. Theo- 
 phyl. explains this ὀρθόδοξον, μηδὲν ἐπιλήψιμον ἔχοντα. 
 But as the διδασκ. regarded the doctrine, so this, 
 perhaps, respects the manner and method, and signifies 
 grave, dignified, removed both from levity and affec- 
 tation, and disdaining the μυθολογία, or any other 
 methods pursued ad captandum. ‘Then the words 
 show the effecé which this is calculated to have on 
 the adversaries, whether Jews or Gentiles. So the 
 ἀντικείμιενος in a similar passage of 1 ‘Tim. 5, 14. 
 “At ἐξ ἐναντίας, must be understood μερίδος, or 
 γνώμης. It is somewhat rare; but examples are 
 adduced by Wets., from Thucyd., Xenophon, and 
 Sext. Emp. Evrgary. Some render this blush, be 
 ashamed. Others, feel respect. Both may be united, 
 the latter as the consequent of the former. “Iva 
 ἐντρεπῇ also occurs at 2 Thess., 3, 14. ᾿Εχεῖν λέγειν---- 
 φαῦλον, in which ἔχειν is for δύναμαι, is a kind of 
 phrase frequent, of which Wets. adduces many exam- 
 ples. By the ἔχειν λέγειν is meant, that when an ad- 
 versary endeavours to recollect or gather any ill 
 report of you, he cannot find any. Perhaps, too, 
 there may be an allusion to what would happen 
 when any of the οἱ ἐξ ἐναντίας came (as we know they 
 did) to the Christian assemblies, to spy out some 
 matter for calumny. So in 1 Cor. 14, 24. (which it 
 is strange the Commentators should not have thought 
 of) ἐαν δὲ εἰσέλθη ἀπιστὸς----κοίνεται. The two passages 
 are the best comment on each other. It is here 
 truly remarked by Theodoret : Ὅταν yap καὶ τὰ λε- 
 γόμιενα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ κοσμεῖται, καὶ τὰ γινόμενα συμφωνεῖ 
 τοῖς λεγομένοις, ἐμφράττεται καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν φιλολοιδόρων 
 το στόματοι. 
 
 9, 10. δούλους ---μιἢ ἀντιλέγοντας, sub. παρακαλεῖ. 
 With this statement of the duties of servants com- 
 pare other similar ones at 1 Tim., 6,1. sq. Eph. 6, 5., 
 and Col. 8, 22. Ἔν πᾶσι is to be taken populariter ; 
 as in Col. 3,22. The ἐν πᾶσι is by some construed 
 with the preceding; by others, with the following. 
 The latter is the more regular construction. 
 
TITUS, CHAP. 11. 359° 
 
 The Apostle then touches-on those faults to which 
 slaves were especially prone; Ist., impertinence, in 
 answering again to any reproof, either in denial or 
 justification, “grumbling ; muttering, &c. Grot. com- 
 pares the ἀνταποκρίνεσθαι of Rom. 9, 20., and says 
 that such are called, by Plautus, responsatores.* 
 
 10. μὴ ΤΑΝ Doddr. here alters our Ver-. 
 sion much for the worse. No term better represents 
 the sense of vord. than purloining, which, though it 
 designates theft of every kind, especially adverts to 
 that too common form of it by which servants 
 defraud their masters in buying or selling, or such 
 other frauds as are denoted it the Latin antevertere: 
 Ilaow. On this see 1 Tim., 2, 2., &c. ᾿Ενδεικνυμένους, 
 exhibentes. A Latinism. The reason suggested in ἵνα 
 τὴν διδασκαλίαν----ν πᾶσιν is similar to that supra, ver. 
 5. The ἵνα, however, may be taken in the eventual 
 sense. By « διδασκαλίαν, is meant the religion. Tou 
 σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ. This I cannot but understand of 
 Christ. See the note infra, ver. 13. Κοσμώσιν, 
 ‘may honour it, by showing its etficacy i in promoting 
 virtue, and, therefore, happiness.” Heinr. observes 
 that this term is used of those who, by their life, 
 morals, and actions, do honour to their teachers. So 
 Eunap., cited by Wets.: λογγίνου μὲν ἦν μαθήτης, καὶ 
 ἐκόσμει τὸν διδάσκαλον ἐντὸς ὀλίγου χρόνου. 
 
 * And such the same writer describes in his Menc. (cited hy 
 Pric.): Argutos ut par pari respondeant (give them a Rowland for 
 their Oliver) ; Ad mandata claudos, cecos, mutos, debiles. With 
 which may be compared a similar elegance of Cowper, Task 4., 
 “‘ The farmer’s hedge uptorn by strength Resistless in so bad a 
 cause, but lame To belter deeds—he bundles up the spoil, An ass’s 
 burden.” Pricseus aptly adduces the dict of the Satyrist, lingua 
 
 mali pars pessima servi, And he might still more aptly have cited 
 AEschyl. Theb. 244., παλινστομεῖς αὖ (so I would point) Angl, 
 ‘* What then, you mutter again, do ye?” ‘The preceding line is to 
 be supposed pronounced, as our English Dramatists say, aside. Of 
 this, however, the whole phalanx of learned Thebans (his Editors) 
 seem not to have been aware. Had Bp. Blomfield perceived the 
 aside, and remembered this passage of the Apostle, he would have 
 suppressed his conjecture (acute and ingenious as it is) πολυστομεῖς. 
 _ Upon the ἀντιλογία, considered generally, I would use the wards 
 of Eurip. Prot. frag. 2., δυοῖν λεγόντων, θάτέρου θυμουμένου ὃ μὴ 
 ἀντιτείνων τοῖς λόγοις τοῖν τελανδες 
 
360 TITUS, CHAP. 11. 
 
 11. ἐπεφάνη---ἀνθρώποις. 
 
 The connection may (I think) be thus traced: “ (And this ho- 
 nouring of your religion you all, as Christians, are bound to aim 
 at; since of all, of whatever rank, it is required) for the grace of 
 God,” &c. ‘Then he shows that in that religion is contained the 
 obligation. to avoid the vices, and cultivate the virtues above en- 
 joined; and, in general, to live righteously, soberly, &c. After 
 which he points out the very strongest motives to avoid the one and 
 cultivate the other, arising from the expectation of a day of retribu- 
 tion ; suggesting withal an encouragement to strive after virtue, in 
 the atonement and expiation by Jesus; and, finally, the strong mo- 
 tive to perform all we are really able, from a regard to the purpose 
 for which this atonement was made, namely, to purify unto himself 
 a peculiar people, zealous of good works : since, without such a glo- 
 rious hope of expiation, the despair might have been so great as to 
 unnerve all virtuous exertion. 
 
 Such is (I conceive) the general scope of this noble portion of 
 Scripture, than which none more plainly breathes inspiration. 
 
 The ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ σωτήριος is explained the Christian doc- 
 trine. Butit may better be interpreted the Gospel, which revealeth 
 the gracious method of salvation. The term was suggested by the 
 815. τοῦ σωτῆρος, δια. Just before. Ἔπεφάνη, “ have been revealed,” 
 This expression is properly used of the appearance above the horizon 
 of heavenly bodies. See Acts 27,20. Luke 2, 79. and 2 Pet. 1, 9. 
 But it was also used of the appearance of Deities upon the earth, 
 That, however, is here very precarious. Πᾶσιν, ““ all of every na- 
 tion, rank, age,” &c. 
 
 12. παιδεύουσα---ἐπιθυμίας. This construction of 
 moo. with ἵνα is never found in the Classical writers. 
 By παιδ., Rosenm. well observes, is meant not simply 
 teach, but bring men to any thing, add arguments to 
 instruction, and show the mode in which any thing 
 ought to be done.* ᾿Αρνησάμενοι, renouncing. So 
 Thucyd. 6, 56, 1. ᾿Αρμόδιον ἀπαρνηθεντα τὴν πείρασιν" 
 and Joseph. 671, 10. ἀνακρούσαμενον τὴν ἀμαρτίαν. 
 
 ᾿Ασέβειαν. This consisted not only in neglect of the 
 proper object of worship, by idolatry ; but also by 
 those vices which invariably attended in its train ; 
 151, denying the existence of a God, or, what is prac- 
 tical Atheism, denying his properties and attributes, 
 his providence and his governance of the world, and 
 a state of future retribution. 2dly, acknowledging 
 the existence and attributes of God, yet neglecting 
 
 * So Theodoret: ὑπέδειξε δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ τὴν εὐθεῖαν ὁδὸν, ἐν εὺσε- 
 βεία καὶ σωφροσύνῃ βιοῦν κελεύσας. 
 
TITUS, CHAP. II. 861 
 
 to worship him (at least aright, as in idolatry), or 
 setting him at nought by perjury, blasphemy, pro- 
 fane swearing, judging hardly, and speaking dis- 
 respectfully of his providence ; finally, being dis- 
 obedient to his will, whether manifested. in the 
 book of nature, or that of revelation. (See Benson 
 and Mackn.) 
 
 12. τὰς κοσμικὰς ἐπιθυμίας, i.e. lusts, such as the 
 world, the great bulk of mankind, gratifies. Pric. 
 compares 1 Joh. 2, 16., which passage is, indeed, the 
 best commentary on this phrase. Zw@pdvws. i.e. 
 soberly, chastely, and prudently, with respect to 
 ourselves ; which imports, as Theophyl. observes, a 
 government of all our passions, anger, and avarice, 
 as well as sensuality. Δικαίως. 1. 6. justly, with re- 
 gard to other men. EvoeBws, piously and religiously 
 towards God. So Grot., who observes that these 
 three contain a brief summary of Christian duty. 
 Thus Philo speaks of the three canons, τὸ Φιλοθέον, 
 Kal φιλάρετον καὶ φιλάνθρωπον. And Rosenm. cites 
 Dionys. Hal.: εὐσεβεστέρους, δικαιοτέρους, σωφρονεσ- 
 τέρους, and Porphyr.: σωφρὼν, ὅσιος, δίκαιος. It is 
 obvious that in these genera are contained many 
 other virtues 7m specie. See the excellent note of 
 Whitby and Jortin ap D’Oyley. 
 
 12. ἐν τῷ νῦν aiww. For this, Theophyl. observes, 
 ἔχει τὸν ἀγῶνα, ὃ δὲ μέλλων τὰς ἀντιδόσεις, this Was 
 destined for the probation of our faith; the other, 
 for the retribution of our actions. 
 
 13. προσδεχόμενοι--- Χριστοῦ. It is observed, by 
 Grot., that προσδεχ. here signifies metonymice, to 
 look forward to that whither our hope tends, namely, 
 the fruition of eternal life; as Job 2, 9. προσδεχόμε- 
 vos τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς σωτηρίας pov. Thus ἐλπ. is the 
 thing hoped for; as Gal. 5, 5. and Col. 1, 5., &c. 
 Μακαρίαν, i.e. which makes us happy. So our blessed 
 is often used. The καὶ is exegetical, and has the 
 sense of nempe, even. 
 
 13. καὶ ἐπιφανείαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ 
 σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
 
362 TITUS, CHAP. Ii. 
 
 There are few things more surprising in the history of sacred 
 interpretation than the studiousness with which some distinguished 
 scholars exert themselves to ascribe to these words such a meaning 
 ‘as no person ({ think) of plain sense would ever have thought of. 
 The most natural and obvious interpretation is surely that of the 
 antients (except the Arians, &c.) and all the earlier moderns (ex- 
 cept the heterodox, and also Erasm. and Grot., who appeal to Hilary 
 and Ambros.), namely, “ the glorious appearing of our great God 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ.’’ This sense is satisfactorily vindicated by 
 the labours of Beza, Whitby, Bull Def. Fid. Nic., and recently of 
 Matthei, and Bp. Middleton; though, strange to say, almost all 
 critics take the other side. Surely, if the doctrine of the article, 
 propounded by the learned Prelate above mentioned (and founded 
 on the discoveries of former scholars), have any truth (as it un- 
 doubtedly has some) no other version can be admitted. But, waving 
 that argument, this is a case in which, I conceive, great weight 
 ought to be ascribed to the opinion of the Greek Fathers, certainly 
 the best judges of the nice proprieties of their language. 1 cannot 
 enter into the point so fully as its importance demands, but I would 
 observe that the argument urged by Beza and Whitby, that ἐπιφα- 
 veia is no where used, in the New Testament, of God, but of Christ, 
 has never been answered, and is, I think, unanswerable. For it is 
 in vain to urge that not God, but the glory of God is spoken of; 
 since τῆς δόξης is there, by acommon Hebraism, put for the adjec- 
 tive ἐνδόξον, and belongs to ἐπιφανείαν. Andsothe E.V. This, 
 too, is fully supported by the authority of the Greek Fathers and 
 Commentators. Thus Theodoret: τῆς ἐνδόξον παρουσίας. And 
 Theophyl. observes that this is called his glorious advent (as Matt. 
 25, 31.), in opposition to his first advent in humility (in the flesh), 
 I would compare a very similar passage in the twin Epistle, 2 Tim. 
 4,9. πᾶσι τοῖς ἡγαπήκοσι τὴν ἐπιφανείαν αὐτοῦ, where see the note. 
 
 With these and other reasons for supposing it to be Christ, and 
 not God the Father who is here meant, we may safely call to our aid 
 the propriety of language as it regards the use of the article. And 
 it is in vain that Grot. and others object that the Apostle is inatten- 
 tive to the nice proprieties of the article. That may be; but we 
 must not suppose an impropriety unnecessarily, especially when the 
 context does not countenance it. Thus here, had the context been 
 neutral, I should have been loath to urge the principle above men- 
 tioned, and would have admitted the sense to be dubious. But not 
 so in the present case. Under these circumstances, I cannot but 
 wonder at the inconsistency of Doddr. and Mackn., who, though 
 acknowledging that the words may be rendered our great God and 
 Saviour, yet, because they think the point dubious, choose to render 
 it the great God and our Saviour. Which is deciding what they call 
 dubious (and deciding in a way little to be expected from orthodox 
 Divines) ; for by translating as in our Common Version, the point 
 is decided; neither is there any ambiguity left. I cannot but sus- 
 pect that all our Translators have been influenced more than they 
 were aware, by an argument, specious, indeed, and employed by the 
 maintainers of the new version, namely, that Jesus Christ is no 
 
TITUS, CHAP. II. 363 
 
 where styled the great God. To which I would answer, that the 
 μεγάλου belonging to both Θεοῦ and σωτῆρος alters the case, and 
 removes that objection. The sense is plainly this: “ the glorious 
 appearance of that GREAT BEING, who is our Gop νὴ Saviour.” 
 I cannot omit to observe that the ὅς just after countenances this 
 version ; since had two persons been before spoken of, it would have 
 been harsh to have suspended on that sentence.a clause in which one 
 only was meant. 
 
 14. ὃς ἔδωκεν---ἔργων. The sense of λυτρώσηται is 
 strangely contracted by the recent Interpreters, who 
 render it, liberate, withdraw. (See Rosenm.) Con- 
 sidering the idea of salvation implied in the σωτῆρος 
 just before, and that ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲο ἡμῶν imme- 
 diately precedes, it is plain that something more is 
 intended than withdrawing men from sin, by pure 
 doctrine and a holy example, sealed by death (which 
 was partly true of Socrates), even the atonement and 
 expiation offered up for all repented and forsaken 
 sin, which, by paying the λύτρον, not only delivers us 
 from the punishment of sin, but, from its power, 
 supplies us with the strongest motives to abstain 
 from all future iniquity. The λυτρωσ. is therefore a 
 vox pregnans. (See Schleus. Lex.) The words fol- 
 lowing are exegetical of the latter part of this di- 
 logia; and the best mode of considering the sentence 
 is to regard it as consisting of two clauses blended 
 into one, i.e. “ that he might purify us to his ser- 
 vice, and (thus) make us a people peculiarly his own, 
 and beloved (as being), zealous of good works.” 
 Such is, I conceive, the true interpretation and 
 sense, and it is supported by the most eminent Com- 
 mentators. 
 
 Περιούσιον, in this Hellenistical use (which is sup- 
 posed to be derived from the Sept.), signifies (as 
 Chrys. says) what is ἐξαιρετὸν, any thing especially 
 chosen out from other things, and therefore eximium 
 and pretiosum, &c. Such appears the most rational 
 account of the signification, on which the modern 
 Commentators bestow much labour, but with little 
 
 success. ‘There is, doubtless, an allusion to the 
 election of the Jews, who were the λαὸς περιουσίας ; 
 
364 TITUS, CHAP. II. 
 
 4. ἃ. ** now Christians are κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν the λαὸς πε- 
 ριουσίας, even the Gentiles who receive the faith.” 
 See Eph. 2, 10. & 3, 6—9. 1 Pet. 2, 9 & 10. 
 
 14. ϑηλώτην καλῶν ἔργων, ‘ zealously studious of 
 good works.” <A frequent sense of ϑηλ. both in the 
 Scriptural and Classical writers. The expression is, 
 perhaps, used in contradistinction to the Jews, who 
 were ϑηλωταὶ τοῦ νόμου. Acts 21, 20. 
 
 15. ταῦτα λάλει----περιφρονείτω. Aare, teach; as 
 ver. 1., where see the note. [ἔλεγχε Rosenm. ren- 
 ders injunge. But this is an error arising from a 
 want of attention to the brevity of the sentence, and ~ 
 a fault in punctuation of the recent editions, in which 
 the comma after παρακάλει is improperly removed. 
 The sense is; ** The above doctrines and duties do 
 thou teach, and exhort to the practice thereof; and 
 (any who gainsay or neglect them) rebuke with all 
 authority.” So Theophyl.: λαλεῖ πρῶτον καὶ παρα- 
 κάλει, εἶτα ἔλεγχε. The per ἐπιταγῆς Theophyl. 
 explains μετ᾽ ἀποτομίας, per αὐθεντίας, i.e. ‘in the 
 exercise of the authority vested in thee and God’s 
 ministers for that very purpose,” and of which Paul 
 had given him the example as well as the precept. 
 
 15. μηδεὶς cov mepidpoveirw. He does not say, as 
 to Timothy, despise thy youth ; for Titus wasa much 
 older man; but, as appears from the ézir., ‘ despise 
 thee for the want of due authority and firmness,” 
 i.e. give no one cause to despise. See the note on 
 1 Tim. 4,12. Rosenm. observes that περιῷρον. is a 
 rare word, and hence some MSS. (by gloss) read 
 καταῷρον. He, however, adduces one from Eunap. 
 (cited by Wets.): δι᾿ ἡλικίαν περιφρονηθεὶς. ‘To which 
 I add Thucyd. 1, 25. Lucian 3, 496 & 497. Aris- 
 toph. Nub. 226 & 741. It is well remarked by 
 Theophyl., that authority and rebuke must be well 
 timed, otherwise it will be despised. 
 
TITUS, CHAP. 11. 365 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 VeERsE 1. ὑπομίμνησκε---εἶναι. Compare 2 Tim. 
 2,14. ὕπομιμ., admonish, &c. Rosenm. renders, 
 remind them. ‘That they needed this admonition 
 appears from many passages of the Classical writers 
 cited by Wets. ‘The Jews, too, who were very nu- 
 merous, were always ripe for sedition. 
 
 With respect to the words πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον---εἶναι, 
 the Commentators, both antient and modern, are not 
 agreed whether to refer them to the preceding or to 
 the following. According to the former method, 
 they will define the obedience, and limit it to all 
 things lawful. And this is supported by most mo- 
 derns. See Chrys. and Pric. According to the 
 latter, they will suggest how obedience may arise, 
 namely, from discharging the other duties. (See 
 Calvin, Rosenm., and Kuin.) The former mode of 
 interpretation, however, is most agreeable to the 
 context and to the style of the Apostle. 
 
 As to the words following, μηδένα βλασφημεῖν---- 
 ἀνθρώπους, they need no explanation; and we have 
 only to avoid the undue limitation of them by some 
 Commentators (who confine the sense to mildness 
 towards those dissenting in opinion, or peaceful sub- 
 jection to government), and make the admonition 
 co-extensive with the sphere of human duty; which 
 was very suitable to those κακὰ θηρία. 
 
 8. ἦμεν γὰρ---ἀλλήλους, This suggests the reason 
 for the lenity and mildness in question towards the 
 brutal and bad; “ For we were what they are.’ 
 (Compare Gal. 4, 3. Eph. 2,3 & 11. 1 Cor. 6, 11.) 
 A popular argument, many examples of which are 
 adduced by Priceus; as from Pliny, to a harsh 
 father: ‘ Cogita illum puerum esse, et te fuisse.?? 
 Though much more dignified is that of Seneca, cited 
 by Grot.: “ Faciet nos moderatiores respectus nos- 
 tri, si consulerimus nos.” It is, however, more to 
 the purpose to compare 1 Cor. 10, 12., as does Theo- 
 
800 TITUS, CHAP. 111. 
 
 doret, who also aptly applies the saying of the peni- 
 tent thief to his fellow, “for we are in the same 
 condemnation.” 
 τς Grot. and Whitby observe that the ἡμεῖς is used 
 for κοίνωσιν. Yet see Doddr. | 
 
 On the words following it is not necessary to re- 
 fine, or to suppose any regular digest of Gentile vices. 
 ‘The ἀνόητοι and πλανώμενοι both relate to errors in 
 religion, by an ignorance of the true God, and the 
 worship of idols. ᾿Απειθεῖς, 1. 6. disobedient even to 
 those duties which the law of nature teaches, and 
 therefore inexcusable. See Rom. 1., which is also 
 the best commentary on the present passage. Adov- 
 λεύοντες ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ἡδοναῖς ποικίλαις. For the Cre- 
 tans were, as Plato says, infamous for impurity οὗ 
 every kind. On the metaphor in dova. see the co- 
 pious Classical illustrations of Wets. Kakxia is ex- 
 plained, by Heinr. and others, of vice in general. 
 But I prefer, with the antients and most moderns, to 
 understand it of malice, μνησικακία, to use the ex- 
 pression of Theophyl. Διάγω literally signifies to 
 pass one's life: as in a passage of Plut. cited by 
 Wets.: diay. ἐν οἴνῳ. The next words στυγητοί, μι- 
 σοῦντες ἀλλ᾽. have much force and beauty: but are 
 strangely misunderstood by Mackn., who renders, 
 “ hateful to the Gentiles.” But the Apostle is 
 speaking of Jews and Gentiles. Whitby renders, 
 _ ™ hateful to one another.” It may rather be inter- 
 
 preted, with Heinr., “ hateful to God and good 
 men.” So Philo, cited by Wets.: στυγητὸν καὶ θεο- 
 μίσητον πρᾶγμα. He also compares Plato, μισοῦντες, 
 μισοῦνται, Which is imitated by Max. Tyr. Diss. 36. 
 I add Soph. Aj. 1135. μισοῦντ᾽ ἐμίσει. Aristid. 1, 
 356. μισοῦντες καὶ μισουμιένοι διῆγον. Pausan, D. 6, 8. 
 Appian 11, 29, 66. οὔτε ἐστέργετο our ἔστεργε. With 
 the μισοῦντες ἀλλήλους Pric. aptly compares Tacit. 
 Ann. 14. Invisi mutuis odiis. 
 
 4, ὅτε de—@eod. With the sentiment, which is 
 very frequent, Heinr. compares Gal. 4, 3. seqq. 
 Eph. 2, 3. 11, 12. and 1.Cor. 6, 11., &e.. He ob» 
 
TITUS, CHAP. III. 867 
 
 serves that χρηστ. and φιλανθρωπία, though properly 
 differing as genus and species, are yet synonymous 
 with χάρις Θεοῦ at 2, 11. Thus they are conjoined 
 in Philo 1002. (cited by Loesner) χρηστότητα yap 
 καὶ φιλανθρωπίαν ἐλπίσαντες ἐνιδούσθαι τῇ Γαίου Wyn. 
 Rosenm. here supplies ὅς πάντας ἀνθρώπους σωθῆναι 
 θέλει. 
 
 5. οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων---ἁγίου. Now follows the apodosis : 
 “ we are admitted into the Christian religion.” ‘This 
 extends to ver. 8., and in it are enumerated the 
 especial benefits of which he is made partaker who 
 is admitted to the Christian religion, namely, bap- 
 tism, redemption, the aid of the Holy Spirit.” (Hein.) 
 
 At τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ must be understood ὄντων. 
 And ἐν. d«. is a phrase for the cognate adjective 
 δικαία. Κατὰ, according to, out of, &c., i.e. Mmerci- 
 fully, like the διὰ τῆς χαρίτος, Gal. 15., or the Θεοῦ τὸ 
 δώρον, Eph. 2,9. So Grot., who, in common with 
 the best Commentators, interprets ἔσωσεν “ put into 
 a state of salvation ;” implying admission to the 
 Christian religion and all its benefits, both of know- 
 ledge and happiness, both here and hereafter. See 
 Acts 2, 47. and 1 Tim. 2, 4. and the note on 
 Matt. 2, 21. 
 
 5. διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας. 
 
 It is well known what controversies have been raised upon the 
 sense of this expression, into which I shall not enter, since they are 
 now, in agreat measure, settled : all the most enlightened Interpre- 
 ters have been long agreed that the opinion invariably supported by 
 early Fathers is the true one, namely, that baplismal regeneration is 
 here meant; baptism (to use the words of our 27th Article) being a 
 sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as an instrument, they 
 that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; and the 
 promises of the forgiveness of sins, and of our aduption to be the 
 sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed. 
 
 I cannot enter at large into the subject; but I would observe, 
 that upon a point where those, both of antient and modern times, 
 who were the likeliest to come at the truth, have agreed upon any in- 
 terpretation, there is the greatest reason to believeit true. Such, I 
 think, is the case here: and 1 would refer to a remarkable passage 
 of Chrys. 1, 328., which fully shows the opinion of that eminent 
 Father. At the same time, I cannot think that the words καὶ ἀνα- 
 καιγώσεως Πνεύματος ἁγίου are to be explained (or rather explained 
 away), as they are done by some. (See Benson, who applies this 
 
 | 
 
368 TITUS, CHAP. III. 
 
 solely to Paul.) The true force of the ἀνακαιν. ry. ay. seems to be 
 best explained by Dr. Gloucester Ridley ap. D'Oyley ; and 1 will only 
 add, that the disputes upon baptismal and meral regeneration have 
 too often degenerated into logomachias ; whereas, if the disputants 
 would take care to define the terms they employ, and have the pa- 
 tience to understand each other, they would be found to differ far 
 less than they seem to do. This rare word (for so it is) wadvyy. has, 
 I have observed, sometimes in the antient writers, the signification 
 of moral reformation. So Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 3, 23. fin. διδοὺς μέγα 
 παράδειγμα μετανοίας ἀληθινῆς, καὶ μέγα γνώρισμα παλιγγενεσίας. 
 With respect to the baptism of John, on which so much has been 
 said, I have noted a remarkable passage in Joseph. Ant. 15, 6, 2., 
 from which it appears that that was not understood to convey re- 
 generation: οὕτω καὶ τὴν βάπτισιν ἀποδεκτὴν αὐτῷ φανεῖσθαι, μὴ 
 ἐπὶ τίνων ἁμαρτάδων παραιτήσει χρωμένων (scil. αὐτῶν), ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ 
 ἀγνεῖα τοῦ σώματος, ἅτε δὴ καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς δικαιοσύνῃ προκεκαθαρ- 
 μένη. ‘ ἘΠ ἐν - 
 
 6. οὗ ἐξέχεεν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς πλουσίως. According to 
 the interpretation above adopted this verse requires 
 little explanation. ᾿Εκχέω, and similar words in all 
 languages, are used in the sense abundantly impart 
 and confer. Διὰ 1. Χ, 1. 6. not merely by his reli- 
 gion (as Rosenm. explains), but by his intercession 
 and advocacy, as our great High Priest. 
 
 7. ἵνα δικαιωθέντες--- αἰωνίου. Notwithstanding what 
 Rosenm. says, δικαιωθ. must be understood of remis- 
 sion of sins, and not be taken in the vague and pre- 
 carious sense he assigns, namely, “ tales facti, quales 
 esse debemus.”? The ἵνα ds. depends upon ἔσωσε; 
 and the usual signification of the term (on which I 
 have often treated on Rom. and Gal.) here yields a 
 satisfactory sense. The phrase κατ᾽ ἐλπίδα ϑωῆς aiw- 
 νίου is, as Heinr. says, for ἐλπίδος ϑωῆς. Grot., 
 Knatchb., and Rosenm. would construe ϑωῆς αἰωνίου 
 with κληρονόμοοι, and take κατ᾽ éarida in the sense 
 prout speramus. But this is too harsh. 
 
 Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. shows that the Jews often 
 used the phrase ‘“‘ inheritance of life in a future 
 world.” 
 
 8. micros 6 λόγος. A frequent formula introduc- 
 tory of some important truth. Διαβεβ. has the de- 
 
 onent sense affirm; as in 1 ‘Tim. 1,7. where see the 
 Ε 
 . \ > 4 
 note. Heinr. would subaud τοὺς ἀκουόντας ce. The 
 
TITUS, CHAP. III. 369 
 
 construction is: ἵνα οἱ πεπιστευκότες τῷ Θεῷ φροντίϑωσι 
 προΐστασθαι καλῶν ἔργων, where οἱ πεπιστ. is ἃ peri- 
 phrasis for οἱ πιστοὶ, Christians. By καλῶν ἔργων 
 some, as Grot. and Le Clerc would understand, their 
 honest calling and trades. And this were indeed a 
 precept not unworthy of the Apostle, and of which 
 he furnished the example; yet, as being engrafted 
 on a passage in which the benefits of redemption are 
 enlarged on, it seems not sufficiently elevated. Pre- 
 ferable is the interpretation of the antient Commen- 
 tators and some moderns, works of benevolence. 
 But even that seems too limited a sense. The com- 
 mon interpretation, by which it is extended to good 
 works of every kind, is far more natural, and worthy 
 of the Apostle; and is supported by what follows; 
 for in the pursuit of curious speculations, and scho- 
 lastic subtilties, unconnected with the main articles 
 of our faith, and the common rules of human duty, 
 practice is too often neglected. 
 
 8. προΐστασθαι with a genitive, signifies to sedu- 
 lously exercise, of which sense many examples are 
 adduced by the Philologists. So that the two terms 
 taken together, ¢govr. and προίστ., convey a strong 
 sense. Of the τὰ καλὰ and ὠφέλιμα also many exam- 
 ples are adduced. I suspect, indeed, that this was a 
 not uncommon phrase. 
 
 9, μωρὰς---περιΐϊστασο. See note on 2 Tim. 2, 16 
 and 25., and see also 1 Tim.1, 4. The Apostle here 
 distinctly explains his meaning by μάχας νομικὰς, i. 6. 
 disputes on curious questions connected with the in- 
 terpretation of the Mosaic Law. ᾿Ανωφελεῖς, useless, 
 nay (per litoten) pernicious. 
 
 10. αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ pilav καὶ δευτέραν νουθε- 
 σίαν παραιτοῦ. By the association of ideas, the men- 
 tion of frivolous questions, and curious subtilties, led 
 to that of the heresies and schisms which they tend 
 to generate. On this word aizer., as well as σχίσμα, 
 there has been much, though perhaps needless, dis- 
 cussion. It may be sufficient to observe, that, 
 though a vox media, yet in the ecclesiastical sense, 
 
 VOL. VIII. 2B 
 
570 TITUS, CHAP. III. 
 
 aiper. signifies one who takes up any doctrine or doc- 
 trines in opposition to the fundamental truths of the 
 Christian religion; and that a schism is a separation 
 from the rest of Christians, on account of these 
 αἱρέσεις. It would be easy to say much more on the 
 subject; but this is not the place to treat on it. It 
 must be borne in mind, that the Apostle here 
 especially adverts to Judaizers. 
 
 10. μιαν καὶ δευτέραν, first or second; cardinal for 
 : : ῇ 
 ordinal, on which I have before treated. Tapairou, 
 ἐς decline all familiar intercourse with.” 
 11. εἰδως ὅτι---αὐτοκατάκριτος. 
 
 The sense of these words is not a little obscure, and consequently 
 variously explained. I can neither enter into those diversities, nor 
 into the tedious and interminable controversy on this and the fol- 
 lowing verse. The words (I think) are meant to suggest a reason 
 why all intercourse with such a person is to be avoided; and the 
 difficulty hinges upon αὐτοκατάκριτος, which some eminent Com- 
 mentators think may mean “ one who furnishes matter of self-con- 
 demnation against himself.” But this seems very harsh, and little 
 agreeable to what preceded. The antient interpretations, from 
 their simplicity, deserve more attention. Chrys., Theophyl., and 
 (Ecumen. explain it ἀναπυλόγητος, or condemned by himself, and 
 his own conscience. Theodcret, most acutely and, 1 think, truly, 
 remarks, that the import of the whole verse is ἀνονήτος γὰρ ἔστι ὁ 
 πόνος. If, therefore, these interpretations be conjoined, we may (I 
 think) approximate to the truth; 4. ἃ. ‘‘ Such an one avoid ; for 
 he is utterly perverted, and therefore no good can be expected: he 
 sins self-condemned, and is so inexcusable that you may justly break 
 off intercourse ; and by his being already self-condemned, you need 
 not keep up intercourse with the intent of convincing him of his 
 error; for of that his conscience must and does admonish him.” In 
 all this I see nothing to stumble at, if the saving be taken popula- 
 riter, and not too much pressed upon. See the able note of Whitby 
 and Dry. Forster’s Letter to Stebbing. To enter further into the 
 subject would be here out of place. Suffice it to say, that it has not 
 been enough borne in mind, that the heretics of those times, by 
 maintaining opinions at variance with those of the inspired Apos- 
 tle, who even worked miracles in confirmation of his Divine mission, 
 were indeed inexcusable, and must have been self-condemned. But 
 that will not prove that all heretics of every age are to be pro- 
 nounced self-condemned ; and therefore no Minister ought to pre- 
 sume to take the high ground which Titus was authorized to do; 
 but, under the altered circumstances of the case, to show indul- 
 gence to human infirmity, whenever the error cannot be traced to 
 
 a conceited or factious spirit, which appears to be the very essence of 
 the sin of heresy. 
 
TITUS, CHAP III. 371 
 
 12—15. This portion is wholly occupied with 
 practical matter, and is too familiar to need much 
 explanation. Of Artemas we know nothing. Some 
 think he was one of the Apostle’s scribes. On Ni- 
 copolis see the Geographical writers, or Schleus. 
 Lex. By τὸν νόμιμον is meant one who had been an 
 interpreter of the Jewish Law, or one who was a 
 Jurisconsult; for, as Rosenm. observes, even the 
 Greeks were admitted tothe Roman bar. Zrevdaiws 
 πρόπεμνψον. On the force of this word I have before 
 treated. Benson thinks that St. Paul knew Zenas 
 and Apollos were to pass through, or touch at Crete; 
 and therefore gave this direction. (See more in his 
 note.) On Apollos see the Acts 18, 24. and else- 
 where. Mavéavérwoay δὲ καὶ of ἡμέτεροι. The δὲ καὶ 
 stands for autem. 
 
 The Apostle then takes occasion again to enforce 
 the direction supra ver. 8, which is the best com- 
 mentary on the present. See the note there. The 
 καλών ἔργων must here, from the context, be limited 
 to works of benevolence, hospitality, &c. ‘The words 
 εἰς τὰς ἀναγκαίας are explained by the ὠφέλιμα τοῖς 
 ἀνθρώποις of the above mentioned verse. In the ἵνα 
 μὴ ὦσιν ἔκαρποι there is a very common metaphor. 
 See Matt. 13, 22. and Mark 4, 19. So it is elsewhere 
 said, ‘* Faith without works is dead (and fruitless).”’ 
 See also 2 Pet. 1, 8. 
 
 15. τοὺς dirouvras ἡμᾶς ἐν πίστει. Here ἐν has the 
 sense of the Hebr.., ‘* by and through, because of 
 the common faith.” 
 
372 
 18h 
 763 
 
 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 
 
 VERSE 1. δέσμιος Χριστοῦ ᾽Ἴ., a prisoner for the 
 sake of, in the cause of Jesus Christ and his doc- 
 trine. See 2 Tim. 1, 8. Συνεργῷ, i. 6. literally, 
 “helper in the business of religion,” whether as 
 being a Deacon (which some conjecture), or be- 
 cause, as we find from ver. 2., a congregation assem- 
 bled at his house, or on both these accounts. And 
 though the term συνεργὸς was often applied (as 
 Benson shows) to those who were not ministers, but 
 only in a general way furthered the cause of the 
 Gospel; yet he was probably a Deacon. 
 
 2, ᾿Απφίᾳ. A Roman name. ‘This person was (as 
 the antients inform us) wife of Philemon; and Ar- 
 chippus was his son. Benson, however, thinks he 
 was not ; though perhaps he might live in his house, 
 and officiate generally as a minister in the family, in 
 their daily Christian worship. Rosenm. thinks it 
 appears from Col. 4, 17. that he was a minister ; but 
 whether at Colosse or Laodicea (with whose teachers 
 he is numbered in the Const. Apost. L.'7, 46.) is 
 doubtful. He might be a minister of both, at differ- 
 ent times, and probably Laodicea lJast. All these 
 matters, however, are as uncertain as they are unim- 
 portant. 
 
 2. τῷ συστρατιώτῃ. ‘This seems to answer to the 
 cuvepyw; and his being named comrade seems to 
 show that he was a fellow-minister ; though the term 
 
PHILEMON. 378 
 
 would be applicable to a private Christian ; since all 
 are bound to fight the good fight of faith. Rosenm. 
 observes, that in Herodian, the Emperor Marcus 
 calls his son Commodus συστρατιωτὴς, colleague. 
 But as they were both soldiers, it might mean com- 
 rade; and by that name generals often familiarly ad- 
 dressed those under their command. 
 
 2. καὶ τῇ Kar’ οἶκον (scil. οὔση) σου ἐκκλησίᾳ, “ the 
 congregation which assembles at thy house,” i. 6. 
 Philemon’s. It has been doubted whether this means 
 all the Christians at Colosse, or his own family. It 
 should seem, neither. Benson has given good rea- 
 sons for supposing that we are not to understand it 
 of the whole Church at Colosse assembled at Phile- 
 mon’s house, but only of a part ; and I have on the 
 Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians shown that 
 at this early period, before the members of this 
 *“new sect every where spoken against,’ were 
 allowed to build churches, they assembled in conven- 
 ticula, ittle parties, at the houses of some of the 
 most Z s and influential persons, and those who 
 had convient room for that purpose. Though it 
 is probable, considering the mode of building in the 
 East, that they would often assemble in the open 
 court, around which the buildings of a house are 
 erected. Heinr. compares the case of Christians of 
 the present day assembling at the houses of foreign 
 ambassadors. 
 
 3. yapis—Xpicrod. This has been before ex- 
 plained. . 
 
 4—7. The Apostle here, with great earnestness, 
 comes nearer to the point, and thanking God that 
 Philemon had been kind already, and done as much 
 in other instances as he was going to ask him, urges 
 him by his past example, to act like himself: a most 
 insinuating and skilful introduction to his request. 
 (Benson.) 
 
 On εὐχαριστῶ ---μου compare 2 Tim. 1, 3. and the 
 note. ‘The trajectio is obvious. Heinr. observes, 
 that ἢ ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν K.I. is to be referred to τὴν πίσ- 
 
374 PHILEMON. 
 
 τιν, the nearer antecedent ; and (ἣν ἔχεις) εἰς πάντας 
 τοὺς ἁγίους, to ἁγάπην, the more remote, per Chias-. 
 mum et Synchysin. See Matt. 20, 21. and the Acts 
 20, 21. ** These things (says Benson) make the per- 
 fect Christian.” 
 
 6. ὅπως ἡ Koivwvia— [ησοῦν. Heinr. thinks that the 
 ὅπως is eventual, “ whence it follows.” But I prefer, 
 with Theophyl. and the earlier moderns, to subaud 
 mpocevyop.evos from the preceding προσευχῶν. The 
 use of ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεως is somewhat harsh. 
 Heinr. takes it for κοινωνικὸς at 1 Tim. 6, 18., as in- 
 volving a notion both of mildness, and liberality. 
 And so Beza, Hamm., Whitby, Wells, and also some 
 antients. But most antients and the most eminent 
 moderns are agreed that it stands for ἡ πίστις κοινω- 
 vies, and that for an adjective, 1. 6. (as Theophyl. 
 explains) ἣν κοινὴν ἔχεις ἡμῖν, “ which you have in 
 common with us.” At all events there seems no au- 
 thority for, or propriety in our Version communica- 
 
 tion; though it is adopted and defended ackn. 
 The above interpretation is supported ude 3. 
 γράφειν ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας, an rea an 
 
 κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν" “Kvepyys γένηται, ‘‘ should be effec- 
 tive.” (So Theophyl.: ἔμπρακτος, καὶ οἷον Sara), 1. 6. 
 effective, especially in the way suggested at Gal. 5, 
 6. OF ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη, where see the note. The 
 ἐν ἐπιγνώσει. Rosenm. takes for σὺν ἐπιγν. But I 
 prefer the more usual sense by. So Theophyl.: ἐν 
 τῷ ἐπιγινώσκειν σε πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν. Heinr. explains: 
 ἵνα ἐπιγνωσθῆῇ. Finally, εἰς Χριστὸν is put for ἐν 
 Χριστῷ, or for the honour, to the honour of Christ. 
 But upon the whole, from the laxity of the terms, it 
 is difficult to exactly determine the sense of the verse. 
 The whole is rendered by Wets. thus: ‘* Ut fides, 
 que tibi nobiscum communis est, juncta scientiz 
 omnis boni, quod alter alteri ex doctrina Christi 
 preestare tenetur, quodque Christus tanquam 5181 
 preestitum imputabit, efficax fieret.” 
 7. χάριν γὰρ---διὰ σοῦ. It is not agreed among the 
 Critics whether χάριν, or χαρὰν, be the true reading. 
 
PHILEMON. 3875 
 
 The former is found in many antient MSS., Ver- 
 sions, Fathers, and Commentators, and is supported 
 by Erasm., Grot., Bengel, Griesb. ‘The latter is de- 
 fended by Wets., Matt., and Alter. Benson says, ‘ it 
 is all one; since the Greek Commentators and 
 Scholiasts explain χάριν by χαρὰν." But that is the 
 strongest reason for supposing χαρὰν a mere gloss. 
 The sense is the same. Παράκλησιν, solace, consola- 
 tion. ‘Theophyl. explains, παρηγορίαν. By τῇ ἀγάπη 
 is meant that benevolent spirit which so frequently 
 exerted itself in works of beneficence ; which is the 
 sense of ὅτι τὰ σπλάγχνα---σου; these words being 
 exegetical of the preceding. ‘The τὰ σπλάγχνα τῶν 
 ἁγίων are variously explained; by some, as Est., Ca- 
 saub., and Menoch., of the persons themselves, with 
 a notion of misery cadling for pity. Theophyl. inter- 
 prets: ὁλοψύχως ἀποδέχονται τὴν φιλανθρωπίαν σου, ὡς 
 ἀφθόνως καὶ θεραπευτικώς εἰς αὐτοὺς γινομένην. Tar more 
 natural is the interpretation of the most eminent mo- 
 derns, namely, minds, hearts. And this is supported 
 by Theophy]l., who explains καρδίας. See Grot., 
 Beza, and Scultet. As this sense of σπλάγχνα is 
 somewhat rare, I shall subjoin two or three exam- 
 ples which have occurred to me. Dionys. Hal. 1, 
 518,16. ἐν τοῖς σπλάγχνοις ἐντετήκυιοι, animo insidens. 
 Lycophr. Cass. 465. δυσμενεστάτου ξένων Eruve δώρῳ 
 σπλάγχνον, animum, ‘ touched his heart.”’ Aéschyl. 
 Ag. 966. σπλάγχνα δ᾽ οὔτι ματαίϑει IIgis ἐνδίκοις φρεσὶν 
 τελεσφόροις Δίναις κυκλούμενον κέαρ. 
 
 8. He now comes to what he has to request of 
 Philemon in favour of Onesimus. ‘This extends to 
 ver. 21. <A part of the Epistle the most important 
 and interesting, in which is strongly pourtrayed the 
 mild and forgiving disposition of the Apostle. 
 (Heinr.) 
 
 8. διὸ, “ This being the case,” i.e. since you have 
 evinced so benevolent and liberal a spirit to Chris- 
 tians. So Theophyl. Παῤῥησία properly denotes, 1. 
 liberty of speaking any thing one pleases; 2. liberty 
 of action; as here. Schleus. adduces as examples 
 
376 PHILEMON. 
 
 Dio, p. 41. and Zosim. p. 255. This may be reckoned 
 among the euphemisms of the Apostle, and is nof, as 
 Heinr. says, jocosé dictum. To ἀνῆκον, “ what is fit, 
 proper, becoming in you as a Christian.” 
 
 9. διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην μᾶλλον παρακαλώ, “41 rather 
 (chuse to) exhort you, for love’s sake,” i. e. by argu- 
 ments drawn from love (both towards me, and all 
 Christians). . For it seems best to take the ἀγάπην 
 with this extent of signification. Τοιοῦτος ὧν ὡς Παῦ- 
 aos. ‘The force of this periphrasis is thus expressed 
 by Grot.: “Cum talis sim, qualem me esse nosti, 
 nempe Paulus senex,” &c. More elegantly and pro- 
 perly by Wets. thus: “ Cum talis sim, ut tibi impe- 
 rare possim: magis tamen hortor; tanquam senex, 
 inquam, imo etiam vinctus, hortor et obsecro te, 
 certus. preces meas apud te non fore irritas.”. And 
 he cites Andocid. in Alcibiad. ὅ δὲ πάντων δεινότατόν 
 ἐστι, τοιοῦτος Wy, ὡς εὔνους TH δήμῳ τοὺς λόγους ποιεῖται. 
 Heinr. observes, that there are three arguments on 
 which he grounds his request: 1. as being an Apos- 
 tle to whom Philemon was indebted; 2. as being an 
 old man (and to such we are loath to refuse a re- 
 quest); 3. as being a prisoner in the cause of the Gos- 
 pel, i.e. for the Gospel’s sake. See Benson’s copious 
 illustrations. He, in common with some others, 
 takes πρεσβύτης in the sense ambassador. But the 
 other interpretation, which is supported by the 
 united authority of both antients and moderns, is 
 greatly preferable. 
 
 10. παρακαλώ---δεσμοῖς pov.  Heinr. conjectures 
 παρακ. de. But this would be offensive so soon after 
 another δὲ : and the propriety of the sentence will 
 sufficiently appear by considering that the παρακαλῶ 
 is resumptive ; and ce is here expressed, because it 
 was omitted before; being left to be supplied from 
 σοι. Finally, the words rosmdros—Xgiorov are paren- 
 thentical, and ought to be so expressed in punc- 
 tuation. 
 
 The metaphor at ἐγέννησα is common both in the 
 Scriptural and Rabbinical writings, by which dis- 
 
PHILEMON. 377 
 
 ciples are said to be begotten again by their masters. 
 See 1 Cor. 4, 15. and 2 Tim. 1, 2. Ὃν after τέκνον, 
 is used by the πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον. 
 
 11. τὸν ποτέ---εὔχρηστον. A most skilful and re- 
 fined turn, not easy to be paralleled. See Benson, 
 who has ably pointed out the exquisite contrivance 
 and judgment shown in this introduction to the re- 
 quest to be made. Doddr., with his usual taste, 
 observes on the fine effect produced by reserving 
 the name ᾿Ονήσιμον to come last in the sentence. 
 The etymology of the name doubtless (as Doddr. 
 remarks) suggested to the Apostle the circumstances 
 of the ἄχρηστον and εὔχρηστον. 
 
 The critics are agreed that ἄχρηστον must be taken, 
 per litoten, in the sense injurious. For they infer 
 from ver. 18., that Onesimus had not only deserted his 
 master, but robbed him. Yet it is not necessary to 
 so interpret the ἄχρ. ; and the εἰ δὲ---ὀφειλεῖ at ver. 
 18. will not prove that he was guilty of theft pro- 
 perly so called: for ¢d. is never so used. 
 
 The σοι καὶ ἐμοὶ suggests, that as he had been use- 
 ful to Paul, and trust-worthy, so now he would be 
 so to Philemon. Ὃν ἀνέπεμψα, and (as such, being 
 so) Ihave sent him back.” For that is all that is 
 meant by the ἀνὰ, which I am surprised Heinr. 
 should take for εἰς τὸ ἄνω, to Asia. I remember 
 indeed that the word has often that sense in Thucyd., 
 Xenophon, &c.; but here it would be harsh. 
 
 12. σὺ δὲ αὐτὸν---προσλαβοῦ. By the τὰ σπλάγχνα, 
 Commentators are agreed, must be meant mine own 
 son, as it were myself. So Arrian, 1, 46. τὰ σπλάγχνα 
 τὸν maida σημαίνουσιν. Many more examples may be 
 seen in Wets., to which Iadd Soph. Antig. 1053. 
 ἐν οἷσι τῶν σών αὐτὸς ἐκ σπλάγχνων ἕνα Νέκυν νεκρών 
 ἀμοιβὸν ἀντιδοὺς ἔσει. Rosemn. compares Esth. 7, 8. 
 Προσλάβου, i.e. “take him (again) to thy family, 
 protection, and confidence; receive him back with 
 kindness ;” as Acts 28, 2. 
 
 13. ὃν ἐγὼ---εὐαγγελίου. Benson thinks this is a 
 tacit answer to the objection, If Onesimus be so 
 
378 PHILEMON. 
 
 dear and serviceable, why have you sent him back? 
 Or rather the connection may be thus traced: “ (He 
 will deserve your protection by his faithful service, 
 for such he is prepared now to render) insomuch 
 that I could have wished to have kept him to my- 
 self.” The ἐβουλ. is for ἐβουλ. adv; as often. See 
 the note on Matt. 26, 39. 
 
 13. ἵνα ὑπὲρ σοῦ διακονῇ μοι. Heinr. interprets this: 
 “that he might be a servant to me instead of being 
 one to you,” i.e. render me the service he owes you. 
 But ὑπὲρ σοῦ cannot have that sense, which, more- 
 over, were tooformal a one. Nor, probably, did the 
 Apostle require a servant to wait upon him. ‘The 
 antients, and the most eminent moderns, rightly (I 
 think) understand the dix. of those kind offices 
 which Onesimus himself was bound, by duty and 
 affection, to render to his spiritual father; nay, 
 which were due from add Christians, especially Gen- 
 tile ones, in whose cause he was suffering persecution, 
 for that is suggested by the ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς. 
 
 14. χωρὶς δὲ---ποιῆσαι, “ But without thy know- 
 ledge and consent I would do no such thing, not 
 even though the service would be in the Gospel’s 
 cause. ae wou Id compare Herodian, 5, 1, 15. ἐμοὶ δὲ 
 σκοπὸς, “μηδέντι πράττειν. ἄνευ τῆς ὑμετέρας γνώμης. 
 
 14. ἵνα μὴ ὡς κατὰ ἀνὰγκην---ἑκούσιον, ** That the be- 
 nefit (ifyou chuse to give him up to me, or, as Benson 
 explains, of pardoning and receiving him into favour) 
 may not be, as it were, compulsory, but voluntary. 
 To ἀγαθόν, the benefit. An example of this sense 
 (somewhat rare in the Classical writers) is adduced 
 by Wets. from Arist. Others may be seen in Georg. 
 Vindic. N. T. p. 23. The κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην is opposed 
 to the κατὰ ἑκούσιον of the former clause. Schleus. 
 adduces an example from Polyb. 2, 39. οὐχ ἑκουσίως, 
 ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην. It frequentiy occurs in Thucyd. 
 The antithetical κατὰ ἑκούσιον, which must,be taken 
 as an adverbial phrase, occurs (I think) no where in 
 the Classical writers; though it is found in the Sept. 
 at Num. 15, 3. to express the Hebr. 72753, and also 
 
PHILEMON. 879 
 
 at Levit. 7, 16. 23, 18 (cited by Schleus.).. The 
 Apostle would more correctly have written ἑκούσιον, 
 which is explained by Hesych. θελούσῃ διανοίᾳ, or 
 ἑκουσίως ; as in the above passage of Polyb. But, 
 with his usual fondness for antithesis, he employs 
 κατὰ, to correspond to the κατὰ in κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην. On 
 the sentiment see Benson. 
 
 15. τάχα γὰρ---ἀπέχης. The γὰρ refers to some 
 clause omitted (which Heinr. expresses thus: “ Nil 
 mali nobis accidit, unde non oriatur aliquod com- 
 modum.’’) ‘* Thus, for example, he was separated 
 from you for atime, that he might remain with you 
 for ever.’ Commentators, antient and modern, re- 
 mark.on the euphemism in ἐχωρίσθη. Heinr. thinks 
 that the διὸ τοῦτο and ἵνα may only mean (populariter) 
 “της forte illud efficietur.” But this criticism were 
 better adapted to a passage of some Classical writer 
 than of a Christian Apostle addressing a faithful fellow 
 Christian. The antients, and most moderns, have 
 rightly remarked, that the words suggest the pro- 
 bability (for such τάχα implies) that this separa- 
 tion, or flight of Onesimus, happened κατὰ θείαν 
 οἰκονομίαν, by Divine Providence ; and this is ably 
 illustrated by Benson. There was (he observed) no 
 human intention on the part of Onesimus or Paul, 
 or Philemon, to accomplish an event which had led 
 to much good; therefore Providence might pro- 
 bably be supposed to have brought it about for the 
 good of Onesimus, and eventually of Philemon. 
 Compare Gen. 45, 5. ἃ 50, 20. This could not 
 justify Onesimus’s running away (Rom. 8, 8.), but 
 hence is magnified the gracious mercy of God, who 
 had brought good out of evil.” 
 
 15. ἵνα αἰώνιον αὐτὸν ἀπέχης. This clause has been 
 ill understood, by the not attending to that dense 
 brevity of expression, by which it stands for two 
 sentenges, and should be expressed thus: ‘‘ That thou 
 mightest receive him back from me reformed, and 
 thus to remain with thee for ever, or perpetually ;” 
 which is an indirect way of engaging that he shall 
 not again run away. 
 
380 PHILEMON. 
 
 16. οὐκέτι ws δοῦλον, &c., ““ no longer as a slave 
 (only) but more, even a brother.” ‘There is great 
 address and delicacy in the added words ayarnriv— 
 Κυρίω. 
 
 17. εἰ οὖν ἐμὲ ἔχεις --ἐμέ. The best Commenta- 
 tors are agreed that κοινωνὸς here (like the Hebr. ἼΣΙΤ 
 in Prov. 28, 24. and Is. 1, 23.) signifies a friend ; 
 q. d. “1 Lam worthy of participating in your con- 
 fidence asa friend.” Προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν αἷς ἐμὲ “ show 
 this confidence to Onesimus, and receive me, with 
 kindness.” See note on ver. 12. 
 
 18. εἰ δὲ τι ἠδίκησέ σε ἢ ὀφείλει, τοῦτο ἐμοὶ ἐλλόγει. 
 The Apostle now assails him on the side of interest. 
 From the words εἰ δὲ τι ἠδίκησε---ὀφείλει, Grot. and 
 many moderns infer that he had been guilty of rob- 
 bery as well as desertion. But I agree with the 
 recent Commentators, that the terms will scarcely 
 authorise us to suppose this. “Hdi«. may not only 
 apply to the having wronged his master by depriv- 
 ing him of his services during his absence, or perhaps 
 by idleness before. What the Apostle means by the 
 ὀφείλει, is not easy to determine. It would seem a 
 strange term to use with reference to any money 
 Onesimus had robbed his master of. Though some 
 consider it as an euphemism. Most recent Com- 
 mentators, as Benson and Heinr., think that he had 
 somehow contracted debts, which his master had 
 been obliged to pay. It would, however, be desir- 
 able to hidve some evidence on his matter, which the 
 Civilians might furnish us with; though, as to Grot., 
 he here fails, as being on another scent. If it were 
 worth while to hazard a conjecture, I would suggest, 
 that possibly Onesimus, when he absconded, might 
 have procured himself provisions, &c. in his master’s 
 name. 
 
 18. τοῦτο ἐμοὶ ἐλλόγει, i. 6. literally ‘reckon that in 
 the account between us as an item for me to pay.” So 
 Theophyl.: ἐμοὶ εἰς χρέος τοῦτο λόγισαι, ἐμὲ ἔχε ὠφει- 
 λέτην. 
 
 19. ἐγὼ Παῦλος ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ, “ For greater 
 
PHILEMON. 381 
 
 certainty, take my engagement; I Paul (do hereby) 
 write with my own hand, I will repay it.” So οἰκειο- 
 χείρος ἀσφαλεῖαι, in Pachym. L. 6,26. and αἰχειόχειρος 
 in Ducange Gloss. Grace. Commentators are not 
 agreed whether this denotes that the Apostle wrote 
 the whole letter with his own hand, or only this por- 
 tion; as Jerome thinks. Some Commentators here 
 dwell on the generous magnanimity of the Apostle ; 
 while others recognise any thing but a serious en- 
 gagement. The latter opinion is countenanced by 
 the antients: but the truth probably lies in the me- 
 dium. ‘The words following seem too serious to’per- 
 mit us to entirely adopt the latter opinion. 
 
 19. ἵνα μιὴὴ λέγω. Benson paraphrases thus: “Though 
 Ido not say that, if we were to balance accounts, 
 you owe me this, and even your own self besides.” 
 Notwithstanding what Benson says, it should seem 
 that Philemon had been personally converted by 
 Paul. Rosenm. here compares Simplic. on Epict. 
 37. Τροφεῖς οὗτοι καὶ ἐπιμέληται οὐ τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν, 
 αὐτῶν εἰσι. The πρὸς in προσοῷ. has much force; 
 though in general προσοῷ. signifies to owe in arrear. 
 
 20. val—Kupiw, ** Do (82), brother, grant that I 
 may enjoy this from thee, as a Christian (as from 
 thy conversion). See the examples of oy. adduced 
 by Hypke and Wets. ᾿Ανάπαυσόν---Κυρίῳ. The 
 sense of this clause is obscure, and variously ex- 
 plained. It plainly means, ‘* grant my request,” 
 and may be best rendered, “ gratify my heart (see 
 the note supra, ver. 7) in this matter connected with 
 the religion of Christ.” 
 
 21]. πεποιθὼς τὴ ὑπακοὴ σου ἔγραψά σοι. Benson and 
 others take ὑπακοῇ in the sense compliance. But I 
 prefer the more usual signification obedience, viz. to 
 the precepts of the Gospel, which would secure his 
 compliance in the matter. Εἰδὼς ὅτι---ποιήσεις. The 
 Apostle’s meaning is not clear. Some think this 
 hints that he should manumit Onesimus. Others 
 recognize no such meaning. At all events the de- 
 
382 PHILEMON, 
 
 licacy of the Apostle has here, as often elsewhere, 
 effectually prevented our arriving at any certainty. 
 
 22-25. ξενίαν, a lodging. Heinr. observes that 
 this only imports lodging, and does not include 
 board: tor τράπεϑαν is not, with Ros. and others, to 
 be supplied. See, however, the note on Acts 28, 
 23. Διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν, can require no explanation 
 to the readers of St. Paul. Xagiod. is an elegant 
 mode of expression. With respect to the saluta- 
 tions, they require no explanation. ‘They are simi- 
 lar to those at the close of the Colossians: and Ro- 
 senm. refers to Storr’s illustrations on that Epistle. 
 On the μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, compare 2 Tim. 4, 22. 
 and the note. 
 
383 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Ver. 1. πολυμερῶς Kal πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὃ Θεὸς 
 λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐ. τ.π. For unaffected dignity 
 and simple grandeur this proeme can hardly be 
 equalled by any thing to be found in Scripture (cer- 
 tainly nothing in the Classics). 
 
 Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως. It is not agreed on 
 by the Commentators whether these terms are to be 
 distinguished, or regarded as synonymous. The 
 former opinion is chiefly adopted by the antients 
 and earlier moderns; the latter, by the more recent 
 Commentators. Considering that St. Paul (for I 
 take it for granted, and it has, I think, been satis- 
 factorily proved, that he wrote this Epistle) seldom 
 uses words in vain, or, like the Classical writers, 
 merely elegantiz gratia, the former opinion seems 
 the more probable; though, from our imperfect know- 
 ledge of the Greek language, we can scarcely expect 
 to fully comprehend such nice distinctions. Hence 
 those who maintain the distinction, differ in opinion. 
 (See Whitby and Ernesti.) The best founded one 
 seems to be, that πυλυμερώς has reference to the 
 many parts of the prophecies, or to the various times 
 at which God revealed his will, and also various 
 places; πολυτρόπως, to the different modes of reveal- 
 ing it, i.e. by voice, appearance, visions nocturnal 
 or diurnal, Urim and Thummim, &c. See, however, 
 Mackn. In illustration of these words there is an 
 
384 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. 
 
 able note of Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. ; a work which, 
 on this Epistle, ought to be perpetually consulted; 
 though from it my limits forbid me to introduce 
 so much matter as I could wish. 
 
 Λαλήσας. This word is in Scripture (especially 
 in St. John) used chiefly of address for the purpose 
 of religious instruction. See Schleus. Lex. Τοῖς 
 mat pac, MAN, “ our ancestors.” Article for pro- 
 noun. As to the ἡμῶν of some MSS., it is a gloss. 
 Ernesti remarks on the coincidence, in this respect, 
 of the Hebrew and Greek, as a vestige of the Ori- 
 ental origin of the Greek language. ’Ev,a, by. 80 
 Theophyl., διὰ. Προφήταις, ““ Divinely commissioned 
 and inspired legates.” Em’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμέρων, 1. 6. 
 (as Schoettg. explains) of the Jewish state, in which 
 it was predicted the Messiah should appear. ᾿Εν 
 vio, by his Son.”” This Rosenm. observes, is to 
 be closely united with the words following ὃν ἔθηκε, 
 &e. 
 
 2. ὃν ἔθηκε κληρονόμον πάντων. ‘Vheophyl. well ex- 
 plains: τοῦ κόσμου πάντος Kupioy, i. 6. all nations, not 
 Israel only. ‘‘He so calls him (adds Theophyl.) 
 by way of showing τοῦ τῆς υἱότητος γνήσιον, καὶ τὸ τῆς 
 κυριώτητος ἀναπόσπαστον. And so the best moderns, 
 who explain the xa. dominum (for, it may be ob- 
 served, heirship implies lordship and proprietorship. 
 See Gal. 4, 1.); comparing the Hebr. WY. See 
 Gesen. Hebr. Lex. Rosenm. says, Christ is so 
 called, because he preserves and governs the world, 
 But even Crell. goes much further, whom see ap. 
 Whitby. ; 
 
 ‘The philological Commentators remark on the use 
 here of τιθέναι for ποιεῖν. It is, however, a stronger 
 term, and is well rendered constitute, appoint. Δι 
 οὗ Grot. and some others would render ‘ propter 
 quem ;” fancying an allusion to the Jewish opinion, 
 that the world was made for the Messiah. But this 
 is entangling ourselves with Rabbinical fancies very 
 needlessly ; and since we are told at Joh. 1,5. that 
 all things were made up by the Logos, or Messiah, 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. I. 385 
 
 we can be at no loss to perceive the sense of the 
 Apostle, who also says the same thing at Col. 1, 
 . 15—17. See Whitby and Abp. Magee’s IIlustr. 
 No. 1., and also Ernesti. Τοὺς aim@vas,-the world, τὰ 
 πάντα, or the universe; the plural being used to ex- 
 press vastness and infinity. Rosenm. remarks that 
 aiwy. signifies, 1. a long time; 2. eternity; 3. in the 
 N. T. the world, (like the Hebr. My), from its 
 perpetual duration. See Dindorf in loc. and Carp- 
 Ζον, p. 12. 
 
 8. ὃς ὧν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, καὶ χαρακτὴρ τὴς 
 ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, **who being the effulgence of his 
 glory, and the express exemplar, and delineation of” 
 &ec. Ernesti observes, that ἀπαύγασμα properly de- 
 notes the light, or rays reflected from a lucid body ; 
 and that δόξης is (by a Hebraism) put to denote the 
 Divine majesty, the most excellent of his attributes. 
 And he compares Sapient. 7, 26. ἀπαύγασμα ἀειδίου, 
 εἰκὼν τὴς θεότητος αὐτοῦ" also Philo. p. 221. where, 
 speaking of a sanctuary, he says: ἀπαύγασμα τῶν 
 ἁγίων (of heaven) μίμημα τοῦ ἀρχετυποῦ. With re- 
 spect to the χαρακτήρ τὴς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοὺ, this is 
 nearly of the same sense with the preceding. Tor 
 χαρακτὴρ, which the Lexiographers and Glosso- 
 graphers explain by ὁμοίωσις, signifies properly a 
 mark engraven upon any thing, as on a seal, or die, 
 for coining; 2. the image (whether in wax, or melted 
 metal, &c.), so obtained, whichtherefore must repre- 
 sent the exact similitude of the archetype. So that 
 the sense is, ‘such an exact image of the Divine 
 majesty, that he who seeth him, seeth the Father.” 
 So Chrys. explains it: τὸ ὅμοιον εἶναι κατὰ πάντα, 
 κατ᾽ οὔσιαν. See also the elaborate explanation of 
 Theophyl. Here Casaub. aptly cites Col. 1, 15., 
 where Christ is called the εἴκων τοῦ ἀοράτου Θεοῦ. 
 
 3. φέρων τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὑτοῦ, 
 “ Having sustained and preserved the universe by 
 the powerful fiat of his word or will.’ So the best 
 Interpreters render. φέρων, like the Hebr. Nw), 
 here signifies to bear (up), ἀναφέρω. So Chrys. : 
 
 VOL. VIII. Zc 
 
386 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. ° 
 
 κυβερνών, TA διαπίπτοντα συγκρατῶν. And so Philo 
 1024. γένος φέρειν. Munthe observes that τὰ πάντα, 
 to denote the universe, is often used by the Greek 
 Philosophers. 'Ρήμα τῆς δυνάμεως is for ῥήμα δυνατὸν, 
 powerful fiat, ‘Eavrov, his own. Others read αὐτοῦ. 
 But the former, which is found in most MSS. and 
 Chrys., is well defended by Mich., Braun, and 
 Heinr. Ar ἑαυτοῦ. This is emphatical. “ By him- 
 self,” i.e. by the sacrifice of his own death, and not 
 by that of victims and sacrifices; as 9, 26. διὰ τῆς 
 θυσίας αὐτοῦ" & 12. διὰ τοῦ ἱδίου aiparos. The ποιησά- 
 μενος καθαρισμὸν signifies, ““ having made expiation,” 
 for καθάρισας. So ποιεῖν λύτρωσιν, Luke 1, 68. 
 
 8. ἐκάθισεν----ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, ““ seated himself, sat down, 
 at the right hand (of the majesty of the Father) in 
 the highest.’ Ka. is properly a reflected verb, sig- 
 nifying to place or seat oneself, to sit. So the Heb. 
 aw. The expression sitting at the right hand of, is 
 also found in the Classical writers, figuratively of 
 holding a rank next toa monarch. See Matt. 20, 
 21. But when used in the New Testament of Christ. 
 it always implies participation in the government, 
 and equality of rank; as in the case of the sons of 
 Roman Emperors associated in the imperial dignity, 
 who were called συνθρόνο. Hence βασιλεύειν, θρόνος, 
 &c. are ascribed to Christ. See Ps. 110, 1. 1 Cor. 
 15, 25. A proof of his Divinity. See Knapp Diss. 
 de Christo ad dextram Dei sedente. 
 
 Μεγαλωσύνης ΤΊ Δ signifies, with the δόξα pre- 
 ceding, majesty, abstract for concrete. ᾿Εν ὑψηλοῖς, 
 5011. μέρεσι, 1. e. in the highest heaven. So Ernesti. 
 
 4. τοσούτῳ κρείττων---ὔνομα. At πόσῳ and ὅσῳ 
 subaud ἐν ἀπ μέτρω. Here γενόμενος is for ὦν. Din- 
 dorf, however, renders it redditus, effectus. And 
 Abresch observes that it depends upon ἐκάθισεν. 
 Κρείττων, dignior, potior, prestantior. Often used 
 by the Classical writers of Gods. Διαφορώτερον, more 
 excellent; as 8, 6., and often in the Classical writers. 
 ὄνομα, i.e. not name, but dignity. For the Apostle 
 means not to prove the dignity ascribed to Christ 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. I. 387 
 
 from the name Son; but from his dignity he proves 
 Christ to be infinitely greater than the angels. ‘The 
 Jews, it may be observed, attributed one principal 
 force and authority to the law, that it was promul- 
 gated by the ministry of angels. (See Acts 7, 53. 
 and Gal. 3,19.) Hence the comparison of Christ 
 with angels. Thus the Apostle shows that Christ is 
 King, Lord,and Creator of all things, and the angels 
 are but ministers. See Tittm. Op. Theol. p. 231. 
 (Rosenm.) See the excellent note of Doddr. 
 
 Ernesti remarks on this rare use of παρὰ preceded 
 by a comparative. It answers to the Heb. } and 
 our than. ἹΚεκληρονόμηκεν. ‘The sense of inheritance 
 is here, as often in the New Testament and Sept. 
 (2 Kings 21, 15.), dropped. So the Heb. Sno. The 
 perfect, too, is for the present, possesseth, hath. 
 
 5. τίνι γὰρ---γεγέννηκά ce. ‘The interrogation im- 
 plies a strong negation, i.e.to xo one. ‘This expres- 
 sion (Ernesti observes), the Apostle rightly explains 
 of the eternal generation of the Son of God; and it 
 is wrongly taken by the Socinians of the generation of 
 the resurrection ; who appeal to Acts 13, 32., where, 
 however, ἀνάστησας ᾿Ιησοῦν signifies Jesu dato.” 
 Thus Ern. would render: ‘“ constituens Jesum serva- 
 torem;” and the whole passage thus: “Tu Jesu 
 Messiz es filius meus, ἢ. 6. non es solum homo, sed 
 idem es Deus, quem ab eterno generavi.” Σήμερον 
 denotes eternity. See the note on Acts 13, 22., and 
 consult ‘Tittm. Op. Theol. 231., who rightly observes, 
 that the whole of Ps. 2. is to be understood and ex- 
 plained of the Messiah, as the best Jewish Interpre- 
 ters have invariably done, as Abarbanel, &c. (See 
 Whitby) ; 1. 6. though it might be fulfilled, in a cer- 
 tain sense, in David, yet, in a mysterious and far 
 sublimer sense, it belonged to Christ. And this 
 seems the safe middle point, the μέτρον ἀριστὸν, be- 
 tween the two extremes, of supposing this, and such 
 like passages, to belong only to the Messiah, or only 
 to David. Mackn. well remarks on the propriety of 
 
 eo? 
 
 et 
 
 ee eee 
 
388 HEBREWS, CHAP. I, 
 
 pressing on the Jews arguments of which they ac- 
 knowledged the validity. 
 
 Πάλιν, elsewhere; as Matt. 4, 7. Rom. 15, 10. 
 The εἰς is taken, by Rosenm., to denote, not stmila- 
 rity, but reality. Grot. renders it in the place of. 
 And Abresch takes it for dativus commodi. It 
 seems, however, to be a Hebrew idiom formed on 
 the use of 5; though vestiges of it are found in the 
 Latin. With respect to the words themselves, the 
 best Commentators are agreed that they are taken 
 from 2 Sam. 7, 14. Sept.; the phrase standing for 
 αὐτοῦ. So Dindorf. See Pierce and Mackn. 
 
 6. ὅταν δὲ πάλιν---οἰκουμένην. 
 
 There is here, Rosenm. observes, either a transposition, or the 
 πάλιν may (with Heinr.) be taken to signify contra. Doddr., 
 Mackn., and Dindorf, render ‘‘ when he again,” ἃς, But the first 
 mode of interpretation seems the best founded. On the sense of 
 εἰσαγ. εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην modern Commentators differ in opinion. 
 See Abresch and Dindorf. Chrys. explains: ὅταν éyyelpion αὐτῷ 
 τὴν οἰκουμένην. But this is a very harsh and unauthorized hypal- 
 lage. The two most probable opinions are, Ist, that it denotes 
 announces his advent, sistit, producit, palam proponit. See 10, 5. 
 Qdly, ostendit, commendandi caussd. So Heinr. and Dindorf. But I 
 agree, with Ernesti, that the former (which is the common interpre- 
 tation) deserves the preference; and it has this advantage, that it 
 may, in some measure, include the other. Schleus, compares Polyb. : 
 εἰσαγάγοντας αὐτοὺς Αὐτονίου τοῦ δημάρχου. 
 
 The πρωτότοκος (as the article shows) is a common designation 
 for the Messiah. See Ps. 89, 20. compared with Rom. 8, 29. Oi- 
 κουμένην; by metonymy, stands for the inhabitants of the world. 
 
 6. Kal προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πᾶντες ἀγγελοι Θεοῦ. 
 Some think these words are from Deut. 38, 43., 
 where after εὐφράνθητε οὐρανοὶ dua αὐτῷ the Sept. 
 has the very same: and the beginning of the verse 
 is applied to the Messiah at Rom. 15,9 & 10. But 
 as the words in question are not found in the He- 
 brew, others (as Rosenm.) think them an insertion 
 from Ps. 97, 7., where we have προσκυνήσετε αὐτώ 
 πάντες ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ : and in that Psalm the kingdom 
 of Christ zs foretold. Indeed, Kimchi says that all 
 the Psalms from 93 to 101. contain the mystery of 
 the Messiah. Rosenm. observes that that Psalm 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. I. 889 
 
 may as properly be understood of God the Son as 
 God the Father; since what is ascribed to the latter 
 cannot but be applicable to the former; the Father 
 having given the Son dominion; especially as the 
 subject is the abolition of idolatry, and the introduc- 
 tion and universal propagation of true religion, of 
 which Christ is the author. See Phil. 2, 9—11. 
 With respect to the argument of inferiority, deduced 
 from worship, it is irrefragable. 
 
 7. καὶ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους λέγει, “ And, as re- 
 gards the angels, he saith (of them).” By He is 
 meant, literally, the Divine inditer, or inspirer of 
 Scripture. The Commentators subaud 7 γραφὴ (as 
 2 Cor. 6, 2. Gal. 3, 16. Eph. 4, 5., where see the 
 notes), which is supplied at 1 Tim. 5, 18. This comes 
 to the same thing; but the literal sense must be at- 
 tended to, as pointing at the inspiration of the Old 
 Testament. ‘This idiom occurs in the Rabbinical 
 writers. With respect to the words themselves, they 
 are from Ps. 104, 4. Πρὸς, in reference to, or con- 
 cerning; as 4, 13. Ὁ ποιών---᾿ῷλόγα. It has been 
 debated what is here the subject; τοὺς ἀγγέλους and 
 τοὺς λειτουργοὺς, OF πνεύματα and πυρὸς φλόγα! Most 
 recent Commentators adopt the latter opinion, taking 
 πνεύματα to mean winds; as Job 3, 10., and else- 
 where. And this, Whitby observes, agrees better 
 with the πυρὸς φλόγα following, and with Ps. 104, 4., 
 from whence the words are taken. The argument, 
 they say, is this: ““ There is nothing great in the 
 name of angels and ministers, since the Scripture 
 gives those names to the winds and the lightning 
 (infinitely inferior to Christ); for all creatures used 
 by God, extra ordinem, come under that name.” 
 (See Whitby and Pierce.) But this is manifestly 
 harsh and far-fetched. And I agree, with Ernesti, 
 that the former, which is the common interpretation, 
 is far more natural, and more suitable to the context 
 (see Mackn.); it is also supported by the Jewish 
 Interpreters. 
 
 8. πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱὸν, sub. λέγει ἡ γραφὴ. Ps. 45,7 & 8. 
 
390 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. 
 
 «¢ But concerning, or respecting the Son,” &c. “A 
 passage (observes Rosenni.) interpreted of the Mes- 
 siah by many Jewish Commentators, and the Chaldee 
 Paraphrast.” ‘The δὲ is here adversative, like ἄλλα, 
 on the contrary. Ὁ Θεὸς. Nominative for Vocative ; : 
 asin the Hebrew. In which idiom the article loses 
 its proper force, and stands for the. The Atticism 
 is a vestige of Oriental phraseology. Our O seems 
 derived from it. 
 
 8. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, ‘‘ for ages of ages,” 1. 6. 
 for ever. On this phrase see Schleus. Lex. Vet. & 
 Nov. Test. ‘The ἐστι some render willbe. But that 
 is not necessary. θΘρόνος is, as Theophyl. observes, 
 a βασιλείας σύμβολον ; for that implies government, 
 as does also ῥάβδος. ‘The εὐθύτητος is the genitive 
 for the cognate adjective; q.d. ‘ most right and 
 just is thy government.” Some would render (as 
 Grot., Rosenm., and Wakef.), “ God is thy throne,” 
 by metonymy; as God is said to be a roek, i. e. the 
 author of security. But this is very harsh and un- 
 natural; and, as Wets. observes, is a phrase unknown 
 in Scripture. ἶ 
 
 9. ἡγάπησας, &c. The best Commentators are 
 agreed that the Aorist is here (as often) used of what 
 15 S customary : though the present is more frequent. 
 Ernesti compares the similar use of the Heb. pre- 
 terite. ‘The sense, then, is: ‘‘ Thou art a lover of 
 righteousness, and a hater of iniquity.’ Rosenm. 
 renders δικαιοσύνην causam boni; and ἀνομίαν, causam 
 mali; comparing Ex. 2, 13. 13, VocNum: B85 9 ΙΘῈ: 
 And so Hardy, Slade, and Wells, ““ equity and jus- 
 tice.” (See Wells ap. Slade.) 
 
 9. διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισε σε 6 Θεὺς---σου. In the ἔλαιον 
 ἀγαλλιάσεως there is an evident allusion to the 
 anointing of Kings, Prophets, and Priests; and, by 
 a well known Oriental metaphor, it denotes dignity, 
 happiness, and glory. See Ernesti, Rosenm., and 
 the Antiquaries. The application is obvious. See 
 the Commentators. ho are meant by the μετόχους 
 is not certain. Rosenm. and Dindorf explain it, 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. I. 391 
 
 ‘‘ reves coevi et terrestres, Messi longé inferiores.”* 
 Others, as Doddr., the angels. Which seems not 
 improbable. Beza, Camerar., Pisc., Wolf, and Er- 
 nesti, understand the faithful, who are themselves 
 partakers in the Divine benefits. This I prefer; 
 ‘though it is liable to abuse. 
 
 - It is of most importance, however, to attend to 
 the ἔχρισε σε ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ Θεός cov, which I am surprised 
 our venerable Translators should have rendered, 
 “God, even thy God; hath anointed thee ;” since, 
 from the verse preceding, it is evident that the for- 
 mer ὁ Θεὸς is a vocative; as it was taken by Chrys. 
 and Theophyl., who explain: 6 Θεὸς, τουτέστιν, ὦ 
 Θεὲ, ἔχρισε σε ὁ Θεὸς. And so Pisc. and some other 
 early moderns, and, of the recent Commentators, 
 Wolf, Ernesti, and Slade, which last truly observes, 
 that the two passages thus construed convey a direct 
 assertion of the Divinity of the Son. | 
 
 10. καὶ----οἰ οὐρανοί, “* And (further) thou, Lord,” 
 &c. from Ps. 102, 26—28. Sept.; a comparison of 
 which with the Hebrew see in Tittm. Op. Theol. 
 243. Kar’ ἀρχὰς is for πάλαι, which would have 
 better represented the sense of the cp. Ἔθεμε- 
 λίωσας, created; by a metaphor derived from build- 
 ing, and here adopted agreeably to the popular 
 opinion of the earth being a plain surface, erected on 
 -‘massy foundations. Ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν Ernesti re- 
 gards the τῶν χειρῶν as pleonastic ; but it isa stronger 
 expression ; hand, in Hebrew, denoting power, in 
 which (from the nature of God) are also zmplied the 
 other attributes of wisdom and goodness. 
 
 11. αὐτοὶ ἀπολοῦνται---παλαιωθήσονται. For δαιμέ- 
 νεις some MSS. and Versions read διαμενεῖς. But that 
 seems to have arisen from emendation: the present, 
 the Critics observe, being put for the future. Yet 
 
 * But that proceeds upon a contracted view of the Psalm, which 
 even Pearce acknowledges was undoubtedly meant of the Messiah, 
 and not (as some regard it) a mere epithalamium on Solomon's mar- 
 riage with Pharaoh's daughter. 
 
 + Euseb. cites 6 Θεὲ, which is evidently a gloss. 
 
392 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. 
 
 the present, which is the tempus indefinitum, is here 
 highly suitable, as used of a Being whose duration is 
 unconnected with time. Besides, it is required by 
 the εἶ at ver. 12. ᾿Απολοῦνται is explained by the 
 antients μετασχηματισθήσονται ἐκ τῆς νῦν ὕψεως. (See 
 Theophy!.) And so Abresch, who refers to the verses 
 following, and to 2 Pet. 3, 10—13. The πάντες re- 
 fers both to the οὐρανοὺς and the τῆς γῆς. 
 
 12. καὶ---ἀκλλαγήσονται. ‘The καὶ is rendered by 
 Ernesti e¢ cum. I prefer for. Περιβόλαιον denotes that 
 ample cloak called the hyke, which the Orientals 
 throw over their dress. Under which similitude the 
 sky, or heaven is represented ; since that is the idea 
 in the Heb. Ὁ (whence our old word rack, used 
 by Shakspeare). “Ἑλίξεις, wilt fold up, and lay aside ; 
 for, as the Commentators remark, we fold up cast 
 clothes. As to the reading ἀλλάξεις, though found 
 in some MSS., and defended by the Hebr., it is 
 rightly rejected by the Critics. Καὶ ἀλλαγήσονται, 
 i. e. will be changed into the “ new heavens” spoken 
 of at 2 Pet. 3, 13. 
 
 12. σὺ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς εἶ, ““ But thou sufferest no such 
 change, but art always the same.” Rosenm. com- 
 pares Deut. 32, 39. “See now, that I, even I am he, 
 nim. And Philo 458. (cited by Carpzov), says that 
 the sun never changes, but remains αὐτὸς. I would 
 add, that the Greeks used this figuratively ; as ‘Thu- 
 cyd. 3, 38., ᾿Εγὼ ὁ αὐτὸς εἶμι, where I shall adduce 
 many examples. 
 
 The next clause seems exegetical, or may be a 
 parallelism. It is plain that years are said of God, 
 ἀνθρωποπαθώς ; though, as Rosenm. observes, to say 
 “they shall not fazl,” is equivalent to calling Him 
 immortal. 
 
 13. πρὸς τίνα---ποδῶν σους From Ps. 110., Sept. 
 The interrogation implies a strong negative; q. d. 
 ‘‘God never makes angels συμβασιλεύειν ; they are 
 rather his servants.” In the κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν pov there 
 is an allusion, such as I noted at ver. 2., to the cus- 
 tom of Kings associating their sons with them in the ἡ 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. 1. Il. 893 
 
 government, either temporarily, for a particular 
 purpose (as the subduing of enemies) ; or for a con- 
 tinuance. The nature of the Paci. is explained at 
 1 Cor., 15, 25. In the words ἕως é€&v—oov we are 
 not to seek refinements. ‘They are said κατ᾽ ἀνθρω- 
 ποπαθείαν, and have an allusion to the Oriental 
 custom. 
 
 14. οὐχὶ πάντες---σωτηρίαν. The argument is con- 
 tinued. ‘* Are not (these angels) all (but) ministering 
 spirits deputed by God to assist those who shall be 
 heirs of salvation, and not to be compared with 
 Christ, who requires not their services.” Λειτουργικᾶ, 
 i.e. τῴ Oew. The term λειτουργ. is used of any 
 service or office; but was especially applied to 
 Divine services, as of Priests, who were styled δοῦλοι 
 Θεοῦ; and, therefore, is very applicable to angels. 
 These are here described as πνεύματα εἰς διακονίαν 
 ἀποστελλόμενα, 1. 6. of no self-derived dignity, but 
 solely of deputed authority. And the Apostle adds 
 (as Theophyl. observes), in order to raise the minds 
 of his hearers, and show God’s care of us, that angels 
 so superior to us are deputed, διὰ τοὺς μέλλοντας κλη- 
 ρονομεῖν σωτηρίαν, Where Rosenm. observes, σωτηρίαν 
 must not be understood of eternal salvation, but only 
 of assistance in perils and necessities. But that is 
 too bold an interpretation, and unwarranted by the 
 context: for ifnothing more than this were meant, 
 there would be something frigid in Kaygov., &c. It 
 seems best to take σωτηρία in its most extensive 
 sense, of the welfare of men, both in this world, and 
 in the next. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Verse 1. Dindorf thinks that ver. 1—5. are paren- 
 thetical, and meant to admonish the Hebrews to cul- 
 tivate faith and steadfastness in the Christian doc- 
 trine. Abresch justly objects to the division of the 
 Chapter here, since that is closely connected with 
 the preceding; and the division ought (he thinks) 
 
394 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. 
 
 to have taken place at ver. 4. This (1 add) is sup- 
 ported by the authority of Chrys., who commences a 
 new Homily at ver. 5. 
 
 1. διὰ τοῦτο---παραῤῥυῶμιεν, “ wherefore (such being 
 the super-angelic and supreme dignity of Christ) we 
 ought the more studiously to attend to the doctrine 
 we have received from him in the Gospel, lest we let 
 it slip.” Περισσοτερῶς, the more earnestly and stu- 
 diously. The περισσοτερῶς shows the real, though la- 
 tent, meaning of the Apostle, which (as Theophyl. 
 remarks) is, to hint, from the infinite superiority of 
 Christ to the angels, who were the promulgators of 
 the Law, that they ought τοῖς ὑπὸ τοῦτο λαληθεῖσι προσ- 
 έχειν περισσοτέρως τοῦ νόμου. The terms περισσοτέρως 
 and προσέχειν, 5611. τὸν νοῦν, must both be taken 
 intensively, and emphatically, and import studious 
 attention, obedience to, and firm constancy in. At 
 ἀκουσθεῖσι must be supplied ῥήμασι. 
 
 On the sense of the μὴ πότε παραῤῥυῶμεν Commen- 
 tators are not agreed. It is copiously treated on by 
 Dindorf. Most antients, and some moderns, inter- 
 pret, “lest we should slip from them,” 1. 6. they 
 (and the salvation they announce), should slip from 
 us, and we perish. So Chrys.: ἐμπέσωμεν, ἀπολώμε- 
 θα. And soalso the Syr. and Arabic. And this in- 
 terpretation is learnedly defended and illustrated by 
 Abresch, who adduces examples from Eph. Syr.; and 
 Clem. Alex. Many specious objections to it, how- 
 ever, are urged by Dindorf, who would abandon the 
 sense fail and perish; and he explains, with the 
 English Commentators, “let slip from our minds.” 
 So the E. V. But the context seems to require the 
 interpretation above detailed, which is supported by 
 Hamm., Whitby, and Slade. On the exact ratio 
 metaphore there may be some uncertainty: but the 
 above, I conceive, is the sense intended. 
 
 2. ἐν γὰρ---βέβαιος. Another argument for obedi- 
 ence to the Gospel; since the contempt of it will 
 bring greater punishment than that of the Law of 
 Moses. (Dindorf.) 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. 11. 395 
 
 The sense of ὁ λόγος Dindorf has copiously treated 
 on. After all, I agree with Rosenm., that the con- 
 text sufficiently shows the λόγος to signify the Mosaic 
 Law. On the δι’ ἀγγέλων λαλ., see the notes on 
 Acts 7, 53., and Gal. 3, 19., and consult the admira- 
 ble notes of Whitby, here, and on 9, 5. Βέβαιος ἐγέ- 
 vero Rosenm. explains, ‘‘ valorem accepit, ita ut 
 nemo impuné eam transgredi posset.” So it is said 
 of the Gospel, Rom. 4, 16. IlagaPaois, like Ay, 
 signifies transgression of a law, or command. Ilapa- 
 κοὴ, disobedience. But the nature of the term mav 
 imply contempt and contumacy. See Deut. 32, 
 35. Μισθὸς and μισθοδοσία are, like many similar 
 words in all languages, terms of middle signification, 
 and may denote either reward, or punishment, the 
 latter, ironicé. ‘To the illustrations of the Commen- 
 tators I add Eurip. Or. 833., πατρώων παθέων ἀμιιβάν, 
 where the Scholiast explains ἐκδίκησιν. Adschyl. 
 Theb. 1023., τοὐπιτίμιον λαβεῖν, mercedem, τιμωρίαν. 
 Hor. Carm. 3, 24, 24. et peccare nefas, aut pretium 
 emori. 
 
 3. πώς ἡμιεῖς---σωτηρίας ; 
 
 How shall we escape this ἐκδικὸν μισθοδοσίαν, if we neglect (to 
 lay hold of) so great a means of salvation ;” for such may be the 
 sense of τηλικαύτης σωτηρίας ; though Grot. and Rosenm. think that 
 λόγου is to be supplied, i. 6. ‘a doctrine which brings all such sal- 
 vation.” There is, it may be observed, a tacit comparison between 
 the temporal σωτηρία of the Law, i. 6. (as Theophyl. says) deliver- 
 ance from their enemies, and the enjoying the good of the Law, and 
 the eternal salvation held out by the Gospel. (See Chrys.) Dindorf 
 takes owr. for the Christian religion. But that is not necessary. The 
 terms éxgevyw and ἀποφεύγω (he observes) are often used, with or 
 without an added noun of condemnation or punishment, to denote 
 acquittal; as Rom. 2, 3., ἐκῴ. τὸ κρίμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. ᾿Αμελήσαντες is 
 a mild term, under which a stronger sense is couched: and Glass, 
 Abresch, and Dindorf, remark on the κοένωσις, so usual with 
 St. Paul. 
 
 3. ἥτις ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα---ἐβεβαιώἼη, “ which having 
 been at the beginning promulgated by our Lord him- 
 self, was firmly testified, and communicated to us by 
 those who heard it.” The phrase ἀρχὴν λαβεῖν is 
 often used in the later writers, from whom Wets. 
 adduces examples. But propriety required τοῦ λα- 
 
396 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. 
 
 λεῖσθαι. The εἰς ἡμᾶς is for ἡμῖν ; as in 1 Pet. 1, 25. 
 A frequent idiom, derived from the Hebrew use of 
 . Theophyl. well annotates on the whole verse 
 thus: Τὸ ἀξιόπιστον ἐπάγων, φησὶν, ὅτι ἡ σωτηρία αὔτη 
 οὐ διὰ προφητών ἢ ἀγγέλων ἐλαλήθη, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ 
 δεσπότου πάντων, ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς πηγῆς ἔσχε τὴν ἀρχὴν' 
 εἶτα διεπορθμεύθη καὶ εἰς ἡμᾷς βεβαίως καὶ πιστώς δι᾽ 
 αὐτῶν τῶν αὐτοπτῶν τοῦ λόγου καὶ ὑπηρετῶν. ‘There 
 has, however, been some difference of opinion 
 on the force of the ἐβεβ. which some moderns, 
 as Carpzov and Rosenm., take not in the sense 
 confirm, but simply pervenire. But this is des- 
 titute of all authority, and is not to be sup- 
 ported by an etymological derivation of βεβαιόω 
 from βαίνω, as if it received the sense of confirm, 
 ‘‘ quia fama crescit eundo.” (See Rom.) It is more 
 correct to say that βεβαιόω comes from Pegaios, and 
 that from βαίνω, to go; 4. ἃ. something to go upon, 
 trust-worthy ; a metaphor taken from passage over 
 marshes, or ice. But this is no support to such a 
 frigid fancy. Abresch, Heinr., and Dindorf, rightly 
 consider ἐβεβ. as a vox pregnans for ἦλθεν εἰς ἡμάς 
 βεβαία. And so Ernesti and Morus. But I rather 
 prefer the explanation of Theophyl. above cited.* 
 Certainly there was no reason for any to infer 
 from the we, that St. Paul could not be the writer of 
 this Epistle; since he derived his knowledge of that 
 from our Lord himself. ‘The best Commentators are 
 agreed, that there is here a κοίνωσις, and that the 
 Apostle (as often) speaks communicative, and only 
 means the Hebrews, whom he is addressing. For 
 
 * Dindorf also refers to Glass Ph. Sacr. 1, 185., and further 
 remarks: “ Acutissimé et rectissim@ Michaelis in notis ad Vers. 
 germ. ἐβεβαιώθη diversum esse ab eo animadvertit, quod in versu 
 seg. de confirmatione Evangelii, per portenta et miracula dixit, quie 
 ἀσφαλείαν divinam efficiant, cum hic de humana sermo sit, que in 
 eo cernitur, quod testes ea que auribus percepissent, cum bona fide 
 aliis traderent.” The whole praise of acuteness and rectitude of in- 
 terpretation must, however, whatever it be, be given to Theophyl., 
 from whom it was borrowed, 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. II. 397 
 
 these had derived their knowledge from others who 
 had been eye and ear witnesses. ‘This mode of 
 speaking is indeed very frequent in the Classical 
 writers. 
 
 4. συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος---θέλησιν, ““ God (himself) 
 bearing a further testimony (to the truth of their 
 accounts) by signs and wonders, and various miracles 
 and distributions of the Holy Spirit (imparted), 
 according to his own will and pleasure.” Such is (I 
 conceive) the true sense ; though Carpzov and Din- 
 dorf will not allow the σὺν in cuver. to have any 
 force: and I am aware that it is, in the Classical 
 use, often very faint: yet I have seldom found that 
 the Apostle uses even a Preposition in composition 
 needlessly. I grant that the ἐπὶ cannot signify magis, 
 but answers to the ad in attestari. On the σημ.; rep., 
 and δυναμ.., I have before treated. Indeed all the 
 three terms occur at Acts 2, 22., δυνάμεσι καὶ τέρασι 
 καὶ σημείοις, where see the note. When thus associ- 
 ated, it is needless to refine on each term; as do 
 Whitby and Abresch. We may understand the 
 accumulation of all the terms denoting supernatural 
 works, as meant to express miracles of every kind 
 and degree. 
 
 By the μερισμοῖς πνεύματος ἁγίου, are plainly denoted 
 those supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit vouch- 
 safed to some of the primitive Christians, in con- 
 firmation of the truth of the Gospel, and which are 
 adverted to at Cor. 12,13 & 14., where I have treated 
 copiously on their nature, and shown their reality. 
 The very terms μερισμοῖς and κατὰ τὴ θέλησιν, 
 suggest (as the Commentators remark), that they 
 were not given to all. 
 
 I would observe, that the striking similarity on 
 this subject, between the phraseology here, and in 
 the Epistles admitted to be St. Paul’s, has not been 
 sufficiently attended to; especially at 1 Cor., 12, 11., 
 πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα, διαιροῦν 
 ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ καθῶς βούλεται. See also Eph. 4, 7., 
 1 Cor. 17, 17., and elsewhere. ‘The Apostle hints, 
 
398 HEBREWS, CHAP. 11. 
 
 that as the evidence for the Gospel is so much more 
 striking and indicative of Divine interposition than 
 the Law, so it would be more inexcusable to neglect 
 it. 
 
 5. οὐ γὰρ---λαλοῦμεν. The Apostle now returns 
 to the subject he had before been treating on; and 
 this verse connects with 1, 14. He adduces the 
 reasons why the Angels were not permitted to have 
 dominion over the human race; namely, since the 
 dignity of man is in itself not much inferior to the 
 condition of the Angels. (Rosenm.) 
 
 5. τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν, “ the times of the 
 New Testament.”? So termed in the style of the 
 Prophets, who call this dispensation such symboli- 
 cally. (Ernesti.) So Dindorf. Doddr. explains it of 
 the kingdom of the Messiah, which extends not only 
 to earth, but to heaven. See Whitby and Mackn. 
 Slade thinks it probable that the phrase refers to the 
 state of the Gospel here on earth; that being what 
 the Apostle is speaking of (περὶ ἧς λαλοῦμεν). And 
 he refers to Acts 7, 53., and Gal. 3, 19. 
 
 6. διεμαρτύρατο δὲ ποῦ τὶς, λέγων, Testatur potius 
 ille ipse divinus vates, qui preedixit ea, que legimus 
 Ps, 47. (Rosenm.) Carpzov and Rosenm. well re- 
 mark on this (what to us appears) vague mode of 
 citation. It is often, they say, used in Philo :* and 
 this use of τις does not imply ignorance of .the au- 
 thor (which indeed cannot be supposed in one so 
 conversant as was St. Paulin such matters). Itisin 
 fact usual with the Rabbins: and Theophyl. ob- 
 SErVeS : οὐ λέγει τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ἀπόντος ATE πρὸς τοὺς ἐπισ- 
 τήμονας τῶν διαλεγόμενος. (See also Chrys. and Cicu- 
 men.) Which is, I conceive, the best key to the 
 explanation of this kind of citation. 
 
 The διὰ in διεμαρτύρατο has a slightly intensive 
 force. ‘The parallelism is here to be attended to: 
 though the second member is slightly exegetical. 
 Tits ἀνθρώπου, i.e. COIN fA. 
 
 * J add Plutarch Anton. 66. ἀλλ᾽, ὥσπερ τις παίξων εἶπε. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. II. 399 
 
 Bishop Middleton has here ably refuted the opinion οὗ Pierce and 
 Mich., who interpret this Psalm, not (as is commonly done) of 
 Adam, but of the Messiah alone. yo ΠῺΣ may be taken of Pales- 
 tine only; and if our Lord does (Matt. 21, 15 and 16.) apply it to 
 his own times ; yet, though it may prove the secondary, it does not 
 disprove the primary sense; nor do the ra πάντα necessarily refer 
 to the angels ; they need only be understood of those parts of crea- 
 tion just enumerated. “‘ OF this, therefore (continues the learned 
 Prelate), and many other passages in the antient prophecies, we 
 may adopt the more usual interpretation, and understand them ina 
 two-fold sense. If we reject a secondary sense, the multitude of 
 applications, made by Christ and his Apostles, are fanciful and un- 
 authorized, and wholly inadequate to prove the points for which 
 they are cited; if we reject a primary sense, we must believe that 
 many of the passages alluded to (with regard to the people and 
 times for which they were originally designed) were merely allu- 
 sions.” Nothing can be more true than the remark ; and its im- 
 portance demands that it should be continually borne in mind by 
 the Biblical student. 
 
 7. ἡλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχὺ τι παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους. The 
 Commentators are not agreed whether at βραχὺ τι 
 there be an ellipsis of διάστημα, or χρόνου. Most 
 Critics prefer the datter. But the Classical proofs 
 adduced are but weak, and the ellipsis is not a little 
 harsh. A good sense, indeed, may be made either 
 way; but, according to the former, a more natural 
 one (I think) will arise. See the able note of 
 Dindorf. 
 
 The other terms require little explanation. Srede- 
 vow, as Rosenm. observes, signifies properly to give 
 any one the palm, declare him victor; and hence, in 
 a general way, ornare. So Philostr. V. Ap. 1, 11. 
 s. m. οἱ θεοὶ) ---στεφανώσαιντες, οὐ χρυσοῖς στεφανοῖς, ἀλλ᾽ 
 ἀγαθοῖς πᾶσιν. { 
 
 8. πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. The 
 Apostle proceeds to draw arguments from the above 
 cited passage. ‘The πάντα may very well extend to 
 the several classes of brute creatures mentioned at 
 ver. 7 and 8 of the Psalm, πρόβατα καὶ Boas, Χο. So 
 Middl. and Ros., the latter of whom compares Gen. 
 1, 26 and 27.; observing, that hence appears the 
 dignity of man over the other creatures. Yet I 
 agreed with Bp. Middleton, that as πάντα may in- 
 clude all things without exception, angels as well as 
 
400 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. 
 
 men; what proves the secondary sense, will not dis- 
 prove the primary. 
 
 8. ἐν γὰρ τῴῷ---ὐποτεταγμένα. By the he is, as 
 Rosenm. truly observes, meant the author of the 
 Psalm, and not God. And he adds, that poets are 
 often said to do what they represent others to have 
 done; asin Hor. Sat. 1. Poeta jugulat Memnonem. 
 I add Thucyd. 1, 10. πεποίηκε γὰρ χιλίων καὶ διακοσίων 
 νεῶν, where I shall adduce numerous other examples. 
 
 ᾿Ανυπότακτος signifies either ‘“‘ one who zs not to be 
 subjected ;” or, one who is not subjected ; as here. 
 Of both senses Abresch produces examples. 
 
 8. νῦν δὲ οὔπω ὁρῶμεν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ὑποτεταγμένα. 
 Rosenm. explains thus: ‘* Sensus est, illa verba 
 Psalmi in nullo hominum plenum effectum habuisse. 
 Nam utimur quidem rebus creatis, sed non omnia 
 nobis subjecta sunt. Utimur 6. c. pecoribus, vertm 
 seepe etiam a pecoribus violamur. Nunc autem os- 
 tendit Paulus v. g. seqq. id, quod de nullo homine 
 stricté dici possit, id de Christo solo dici strictissimo 
 sensu posse. Ergo locus Psalmi, qui litteraliter de 
 homine agit, nunc ad Jesum transfertur. Summa 
 reiest: Deus non angelum quendam, sed hominem 
 facere voluit Dominum. Sed non nisi unus homo 
 est, qui verissime et strictissimé dominus omnium 
 dici possit.” 
 
 9. τὸν de-—Oavarov. The construction and sense 
 are thus laid down by the best Critics: ᾿Ιησοῦν δὲ 
 βλέπομεν διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου δόξη καὶ τιμῇ ἐστε- 
 Φανομένον, τὸν βραχὺ τι map ἀγγέλους ἡλαττώμενον, 
 ὅπως χάριτι, &c. Him who was made a little lower 
 than the angels for a short time, i. 6. who took the 
 human nature, even Jesus, we behold, on account of 
 his having suffered death, crowned with glory and 
 honour.” Bp. Middleton observes, that the subject 
 is τὸν δὲ βραχύ τι----Ἰησοῦν, and the predicate is all 
 which follows. ‘The subjoined clause ὅπως, &c. (he 
 adds) may be understood to contain the reason why 
 Christ suffered death, as mentioned in διὰ τὸ πάθημα. 
 
 The words of the Psalm manifestly point at the 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. II. 401 
 
 Divine author of our religion, and describe his state in 
 the humiliation of his incarnation, and in the exalta- 
 tion of his glory after he had accomplished the work 
 of human redemption. Many novel opinions and 
 interpretations on this verse are detailed and reviewed 
 by Dindorf, which I leave in medio, 
 
 10. ἔπρεπε γὰρ αὐτῷ ---τελειῶσαι. Ratio redditur, 
 cur Jesus per supplicium mortis ad breve tempus 
 (paullulum) tenuior fuerit angelis, quia hoc maximé 
 consentaneum fuisset consilio Dei, quod per Chris- 
 tum assequi voluisset, ἢ. 6, homines beare. (Ro- 
 senm.) 
 
 Ἔπρεπε Ernesti renders debebat, oportebat; as 
 Hebr. 7, 16. I prefer (with Rosenm.) “ was worthy 
 of God; consistent with the Divine attributes ; 
 suitable to the wisdom of God and his counsels for 
 our salvation.” So Doddr. takes the expression to 
 signify, not only that the course he took was well 
 worthy of God, but that in order to act worthy of 
 himself, it was expedient that he should take this 
 method.” Chrys. on Acts 3, 21. renders the ex- 
 pression ἀναγκὴ ἔστιν. 
 
 10. δι’ ὅν τὰ πάντα καὶ OF οὗ τὰ πάντα. The best 
 Commentators antient and modern are agreed that 
 this signifies, “for whom and whose glory are all 
 things, and through whom all things exist.” So 
 Chrys. and Theophyl.: αὐτὸς αἴτιος πάντων, καὶ ὑπ᾽ 
 αὐτοῦ πάντα γίνεται. ‘This, Rosenm. observes, is ἃ 
 designation of the Supreme Being. Compare Rom. 
 11,36. The ἀγαγόντα must be reterred to the ἀρχη- 
 γὸν following. It signifies literally, ‘¢ who was bring- 
 ing,” or, was to bring. Dindorf, Grot., and Ernesti 
 render ‘intended to bring.” Rosenm. observes, 
 that it is synonymous with ἡγεμόνα, or aywyéa, used 
 by Philo of a general, and of Moses, leader of the 
 people. By δόξαν is meant the Christian glory, i. e. 
 salvation and happiness. This is just after inter- 
 changed with σωτηρίας. Πολλοὺς υἱόυς. Said of all true 
 Christians, as being (to use the words of the Apostle, 
 1 Pet. 1, 3.) “begotten again to a lively hope,” &c 
 
 VOL, VIII. 2D 
 
402 HEBREWS, CHAP. 11, 
 
 See also infra ver.11. ᾿Αρχηγὸς signifies not only 
 leader, but author. So Theophyl.: αἴτιον. And 
 Rosenm. illustrates this from Dionys.: νόμων apyny. 
 Dindorf thinks it is an hendiadis for agy. καὶ σωτὴρ, 
 Acts 5, 81. Carpzov cites from Philo: παλιγγε- 
 velas apynp. ἡμέρων. And he observes that ἀρχηγέτης 
 is the more usual term. Other examples of this sig- 
 nification may be seen in the note of Blomfield on 
 fEschyl. Ag. 250. where he rightly explains the term 
 «“ς quctorem, non ducem.” 
 
 The τελειωθῆναι is well explained by Rosenm.: 
 ἀχθῆναι εἰς δόξαν, ad felicitatis metam perductum, do- 
 minum summum constituisse. The term signifies pro- 
 perly “to be brought to the end or goal, and enjoy 
 the fruits of one’s labour ;” as 12, 28. Phil. 3,11. It 
 is an agonistical metaphor. See Faber Agon. L. 3, 
 10. p. 255. Abresch. compares Philo 640. ψυχὴ re- 
 λειωθεῖσα ἐν ἀρετῶν ἀθλοῖς, Kal ἐπὶ τὸν ὅρον αὐτὸν ἐφικο- 
 μένη τοῦ καλοῦ. And Dindorf observes, that it is 
 often so used in the Ecclesiastical writers. See Suic. 
 Thes. &c. Some, as Michaelis, Semler, &c. inter- 
 pret rea. consecrate, inaugurate. But though that 
 sense would not be inapposite, yet the common in- 
 terpretation is more natural. See the excellent note 
 of Whitby, who has shown that this is one among 
 the many other proofs of the doctrine of the atone- 
 ment. See also Wets. in loc. | 
 
 11. ὅ,τε γὰρ---πάντες, “ For he that expiates, and 
 they who are expatiated by him (the redeemer and 
 the redeemed) are all of one.” ‘Ayiagew here signi- 
 fies to consecrate oneself to death, and die for the 
 expiation of their sins, and thereby redeem them ; 
 as infra, 10, 10. Passages strongly discountenancing 
 the Socinian tenets. (Ernesti.) The ἐξ ἑνὸς is by 
 some (as Pierce, Wells, Mackn., and others,) ex- 
 plained of Abraham. And Rosenm. subauds γένους 
 or σπέρματος (the same nature) ; which he thinks is 
 confirmed by the following 5, 1. ‘It was fitting (says 
 he) that the Author of salvation should be not an 
 angel, but one endued with human nature.” Which 
 is very true, but scarcely what the Apostle here 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. 11. 403 
 
 means. I prefer, with the antients and some mo- 
 derns (as Limborch, Ernesti, Morus, Heinr., and 
 Dindorf), to refer it to the Father; ‘* we areall sons 
 of one God ; though in various ways.” Ὁ μὲν (says 
 Theophyl.) ὡς γνήσιος υἱὸς, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ 
 πατρὸς, ἡμιεῖς δὲ, ὡς κτίσματα. ? 
 
 On οὐκ ἐπαισ χύνεται Chrys. and other antients (and 
 also Ernesti) remark, that this shows the superiority 
 of Christ to the human nature. So Phot. ap. Cicu- 
 men. 330 c. Εἰπὼν οὐκ ἐπαισ χύνεται, ἔδειξε τὸ διάφορον" 
 οὐ γὰρ κατὰ φύσιν ἀδελφὸς, καὶ τοι ὧν ἀληθῶς ἄνθρωπος, 
 AAA κατὰ φιλανθροπίαν, ἐπειδὴ ἐστι καὶ ἀληθῶς Θεός. 
 See also Theodoret and Abresch. 
 
 12. ἀπαγγελώ---ὁμνήσω σε. It is now shown, from 
 some passages of the Old Testament, that the Mes- 
 siah is not ashamed to call men his brethren. (Ro- 
 senm.) This is from Ps. 22, 23. and agrees in sense, 
 though not in words, with the Sept. ; διηγ. being used 
 for ἀπαγγ. The ὄνομα Ernesti explains of God, and 
 his perfections, acts, and benefits towards men. Din- 
 dorf observes, that the force of the proof turn on τοῖς 
 ἀδελφοῖς pov. By the ἐκκλησ. is meant the nation 
 congregated in the Temple of Jerusalem. The ἐν. 
 μέσῳ, Ernesti rightly remarks, is simply for in, apud, 
 inter. And he renders: ‘‘in ccetu fidelium.” See his 
 note, and Abresch. 
 
 Both the Jewish and the best Christian Interpre- 
 ters are agreed that the Psalm is, upon the whole, 
 meant for the Messiah. And therefore, though 
 petty difficulties may be raised on certain passages, 
 yet they are not such as to shake that opinion; nei- 
 ther is it necessary to resort to the common Θεὸς 
 ἀπὸ μηχανῆς, that the Apostle argues ex concessis. 
 
 13. καὶ πάλιν" ᾿Εγὼ ἔσομαι πεποιθὼς ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ. The 
 passage is by some Commentators thought to be de- 
 rived from [s. 8,17. By others, from Ps. 18, 3.; 
 especially (they think) as, from the repetition of the 
 καὶ πάλιν, the two clauses cannot belong to the same 
 passage: and though Whitby objects, that the words 
 are not found in the Psalm, yet (they reply) they 
 
 Zp?2 
 
4.04 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. 
 
 are found in 2 Sam. 22, 3., of which it is nearly a 
 copy. But many eminent recent Commentators urge 
 a yet more fatal objection, that the Psalm contains 
 no allusion to the Messiah. It is well observed by 
 Dind. that the words differ so slightly from those of 
 the passage of Isaiah, that no one would ever have 
 doubted that they had been taken from thence, had 
 it not been for the καὶ πάλιν, which made some 
 fancy another passage was referred to, and they fixed 
 on the Psalm. But Heins., Carpzov, Vitringa, and 
 Rosenm. are agreed that the πάλιν may denote not 
 different passages, but a continuation of the same 
 passage. See their examples. 
 
 The force of the argument is obvious. By the 
 τὰ πάντα are meant (as before) sons of God and 
 Christ, and faithful disciples, whom God giveth to 
 Christ to be trained. (Joh. 17, 22.) 
 
 14. ἐπεὶ οὖν--- μετέσχε τῶν αὐτῶν, “ Since there- 
 fore the children (see ver. 13.) are partakers of flesh 
 and blood, he also was made partakers of the same.” 
 It is observed by Dindorf, that the παιδία supplied 
 the Apostle an occasion of unfolding what he had 
 just said. 
 
 Σὰρξ καὶ αἵμια is a common expression to denote 
 the human body (as 2 Cor. 4, 11.), or the human na- 
 ture; as here. Others combine a notion of afflic- 
 tion and frailty. But this seems precarious. See 
 Ernesti. Τὰ παιδία properly denotes little children ; 
 but it is often used (as here) as a term of affection. 
 Not dissimilar is the use of the Italian diminutives. 
 Kal, so also. Ulaparayciws signifies not only in a 
 similar manner, but in the very same manner. So 
 Chrys.: οὐ φαντασία, οὐδὲ εἰκὼν, ἀλλὰ θεία. Many ex- 
 amples are adduced by the Philologists, the most ap- 
 posite of which is Demosth. Olynth. 3. παραπλησίως 
 καὶ ὁμοίως. And they might have added the passage 
 from which that seems to have been imitated; 
 namely, Thucyd. t. 1. 236. ὅμοια καὶ παραπλήσια. 
 
 Merécye answers to κεκοινώνηκε. Both terms are 
 explained nanscisci, habere. Yet there is an obvious 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. II. 405 
 
 propriety and beauty in the terms, which signify 
 more than habere. See Beausob. ap. Slade. 
 
 14. ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου---διάβολον, “ that by his own 
 death he might put down and deprive of his power 
 him who had the power over death, namely, the 
 Devil.” 
 
 We have here a refined and znigmatical mode of expression, 
 which all who have read Thucyd., Tacitus, and Sallust, will remem- 
 ber is perpetually found in those writers, and occasionally in the 
 best Classical authors. Τοῦ θανάτου, “ his own death.” Karapy. 
 must here mean “ deprive of his power.” But the exact force of 
 the sentence (which is expressed in a refined and somewhat obscure 
 manner) has not been distinctly seen by the Commentators. [ is 
 plain that the expression κράτος ἔχειν τοῦ θανάτου cannot be used 
 of the Devil, except improprié, and in a certain respect. On the force 
 of the allusion Commentators differ. Some eminent moderns think 
 the Apostle has reference to the common opinion among the Jews, 
 that a certain evil angel presided over death, whom, from a misin- 
 terpretation of Prov. 16.14. they called the angel of death, and to 
 whom they assigned the name d4smodeus, or Samael. (See more in 
 Grot., Rosenm., and Dindorf.) But it seems little probable that the 
 Apostle would seriously allude to such a base and grovelling piece 
 of superstition. [1 must assent to the antients, and most moderns, 
 that there is an allusion to the history of the fall in Genesis, respect- 
 ing which our Lord, Joh. 8, 44., says ‘‘ the Devil was a murderer 
 from the beginning.” And, as being the author of sin, and so of 
 death also, (the latter being introduced by the former,) he may be 
 said figuratively to have had the power of death, and that not only 
 temporal, but egternal. (See Milton's Parad. Lost,1].1. init.) But 
 by his own death our Lord (vanquishing, as Theophyl. says, the 
 Devil by his own weapons), by offering himself up for the expi- 
 ration of our sins, did thereby destroy the cause of eternal death 
 even sin. 
 
 15. καὶ ἀπαλλάξη----ὸδουλείας. This adverts to ano- 
 ther benefit of his death, namely, that faithful Chris- 
 tians were not only delivered from eternal death, but 
 from an excessive fear of death temporal, which, 
 without that hope, would have been intolerable. I 
 would compare | Arrian Epict. L. 3, 26. fin. κεφάλαιον 
 τοῦτο πάντων τῶν κακῶν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, καὶ ἀγενείας καὶ 
 δείλιας" οὐ Θάνατος ἐστι, μᾶλλον δὲ ὁ τοῦ θανάτου φόβος. 
 
 Rosenm. observes that at ἀπαλλάξῃ (a term used 
 properly of liberation from servitude) we may sup- 
 ply Φόβου from φόβῳ just after. Διὰ παντὸς τοῦ Say 
 
 is for διὰ πάσης ϑωῆς; ; of which idiom the philological 
 
4.06 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. 
 
 Commentators furnish examples from Philo and other 
 writers. Indeed, it is found in many good authors. 
 Yet, from the examples adduced by Dindorf, as 
 Ignat. ad Trall. c. 9. τὸ ἀληθινὸν ϑῆν" and Eph. c. 17. 
 μὴ αἴχμαλωτίσῃ ὑμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ προκειμένου Syy, it appears 
 (as he says) to belong to later Graecisms. 
 
 "Evoyos (which comes from ἐνέχεσθαι, to be held 
 bound) is here used in its primitive sense, obnoxious, 
 subject to. So Theophyl.: κατέχεσθαι. By dova. is 
 meant the slavish fear just spoken of. 
 
 16. οὐ γάρ δήπου---ἐπιλαμβάνεται. On the sense of 
 these words some difference of opinion has always 
 subsisted. The Greek Commentators and the Latin 
 Fathers (including the Vulg.), and most moderns, 
 render ἐπιίλαμβ. assumpsit, assumed our nature. But 
 the earlier Greek Fathers (as Ernesti says) explain 
 it βοηθήσει, protect, assist, redeem. And this inter- 
 pretation is adopted by Grot., Hamm., Whitby, Wells, 
 Pierce, Pyle, Ernesti, Mackn., Rosenm., and the 
 most eminent recent Commentators. See Ernesti 
 Inst. Int. N. T. p. 201., and his valuable note on this 
 passage. ‘The present is used for the aorist. Er- 
 nesti shows that in the Classical writers ἐπιλαμβά- 
 νεσθαι signifies to lay hands on any thing, to help, as- 
 sist, save, &c. Either interpretation (he observes) is 
 agreeable to the analogy of faith. Which, then, 
 must be preferred? That which is agreeable to the 
 usus loquendi and grammatical propriety, and suit- 
 able to the context.” On all these accounts (he 
 shows) the latter interpretation deserves the pre- 
 ference. And he refers to ver. 14 & 18., where for 
 ἐπιλαμβ. is substituted βοηθῆσαι. ‘The same interpre- 
 tation, too, is adopted by Rosenm., who, on the 
 σπέρματος ᾿Αβραὰμ,, posterity of Abraham, remarks : 
 “ Paulus, Hebreis scribens, satis habet de illis loqui; 
 de gentibus alibi loquendi locus. Saltim posteri 
 Abrahami ἢ. 1. non sunt spectandi ut natio aliqua, 
 sed opponuntur angelis.”’ 
 
 17. ὅθεν ὥφειλε----τοῦ λαοῦ, ‘* Whence (because he 
 was their helper and redeemer) it behoved him to 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Il. 407 
 
 be, in all things, make like unto his brethren.” The 
 ὁμοιωθῆναι signifies to be the very same. See the note 
 supra, ver. 14. Abresch explains it ἰσοθῆναι. I would 
 compare Artemid. On. 1,13. αὐτῷ ὅμοιον κατὰ πάντα. 
 By the πάντα is meant in all those points connected 
 with the infirmities and miseries of our nature, 
 though being χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας, 4,15. So Hardy: “non 
 solum quoad naturam, et conditionem ; sed etiam 
 passiones, res adversas, et ipsam mortem; i.e. in 
 omnibus nature patibilis proprietatibus.” “Iva ἐλεή- 
 μων γένηται, * That he might be a merciful and 
 faithful High Priest ; merciful, as having himself ex- 
 perienced the feeling of human frailty and misery, 
 and who therefore could not but be touched with 
 mercy and sympathy.” The πιστὸς some render 
 benign, which seems to suit the preceding; but the 
 common interpretation, faithful or trust-worthy, who 
 rightly discharges his office, and to whom we may 
 safely trust ourselves and our cause, is (I think) 
 rightly preferred by almost all Commentators, an- 
 tient and modern. Dindorf says it may either mean 
 fidelis, qui fidem prestat, or fidus, qui meretur fidem ; 
 as Mace. 14, 41. προφηταὶ mor. And so Carpzov. 
 Dindorf, and Rosenm., however, prefer the exposi- 
 tion I have above laid down. 
 
 The ellipsis in τὰ πρὸς Θεὸν is trite. The words 
 following are exegetical. Eis τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι, &c., 
 ‘to expiate the sins of the people,” i.e. the whole 
 human race considered as one people. Grot. and 
 Dindorf think there is an enallage derived from He- 
 braism, since it is more usual to say ἱλάσκεσθαι Θεὸν 
 περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. So the Hebrews use 175, ἐξιλάσ - 
 κεσθαι ; as in Ecclesiasticus. We may here compare 
 Ps. 103, 3. and Dan. 9, 24. ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας. 
 
 18. ἐν ᾧ γὰρ πέπονθεν----ῇΚὡοηθῆσαι. Dindorf observes 
 that the ἐν ὦ answers to the Heb. Wa, Angl. znas- 
 much as, quippe, propterea quod. It may be resolved 
 into ἐν τούτῳ ὃ, or διὰ τούτου, &c. Πειρασθεὶς, tried, 
 or put to the proof, i. 6. by adversities and calamities. 
 Δύναται. Ernesti observes that this imports not 
 
408 HEBREWS, CHAP. 11. III. 
 
 merely power, or possibility, but also will, or willing- 
 ness. So Theophyl.: προθυμὸς ἐστιν εἰς τὸ δοῦναι 
 χεῖρα συμπαθείας. 
 
 ᾿ This and the preceding chapter Ernesti calls the Scandalum So- 
 cimianorum ; and the learned Commentator lays down a summary 
 of the Theological doctrines which may be proved from thence. The 
 divinity and the humanity of Christ ; the conjunction of both na- 
 tures in one person; communication of the Divine idiomata; the 
 two-fold state of Christ and his triple office. ‘The whole treatise 
 will well repay an attentive perusal; but my limits will only permit 
 me to introduce the following on the Divinity of Christ. “ This is 
 defended and confirmed, 1. From the Divine names, c. 1, 8. 9, 10., 
 where he is styled Θεὸς. Now it is plain that the true God is 
 meant ; since the throne of Christ is said to be eternal, and his 
 kingdom eternal. But eternity can only apply to God. By the 
 ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως are meant the idiomata Divina; therefore the 
 subject is the true God. He is said, at ver. 10., to be Κύριος, which 
 is a word often used by the Sept. to express the Heb. mim. Thus 
 in the Psalm, at the beginning, there is mm’, the name of the true 
 God. But it must also appear from the thing itself. For he who 
 created heaven and earth must necessarily be truly God, and not in 
 name only. 11. Another proof of the Divinity of Christ is, that to 
 nim is here ascribed a common essence with the Father, ver.3 & 5. 
 (For the particulars 1 must refer the reader to the work itself. 
 Edit.)* HII. This Divinity is proved from the eternity of Christ, 
 which cannot but imply Deity. Vhat such eternity is ascribed to 
 Christ is plain, Ist, from his creation of the world (2, 10.), which 
 implies existence before the world; for before that, time was not, 
 nor can any thing be thought of but eternity, and an eternal 
 God. 2dly, from his own immutability (ver. 12). [For the proofs 
 I must refer to the work itself. Edit.] IV. His Divinity is apparent 
 from the creation itself. Ν᾽. From creation, too, followed by the 
 preservation of all things, which is ascribed to Christ, ver. 3. φέρων, 
 &c. Now the word of God is the fiat of God. And this notion of 
 the creation can only apply to God. For it is a continuation of 
 that act of the Divine will by which He was pleased that the world 
 should exist. VI. The argument is deduced from his dominion over 
 all things, ver. 2. ὅν ἔθηκε κληρόνομον. [See Ernesti. Ed.] VII. 
 From the adoration which is due to him from angels and men, ver. 6. 
 For this universal adoration is an ἀπαυγάσμα τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
 which can only be suitable to the one true God.” 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Verse 1. ὅθεν--- Ἰησοῦν. ‘This is a repetition, with 
 alteration, of what occurs at c. 2, 1—4. The Apostle 
 now shows that Christ is greater than Moses, and 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IIL. 409 
 
 therefore more implicitly to be obeyed. (Ernesti 
 and Rosenm. ) 
 
 Ὅθεν, “ this being the case ;” ‘“ these things being 
 so,” proinde. See Abresch. “Adeagoi ἄγιοι. The 
 sense of this is copiously treated on by Abresch, 
 Pierce, Carpzov, and Dindorf. ‘The simplest me- 
 thod is to consider it, with Ernesti, as equivalent to 
 Christian friends or brethren. . 
 
 1. κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι. 
 
 Rosenm. thinks that this calling, or offer, is made by instruction 
 in the Christian religion, and therefore he is partaker of the hea- 
 venly calling who has learnt the Christian religion. It is explained by 
 others, ‘‘an invitation from heaven to the Christian religion, and the 
 felicity conjoined with it.” Thus ézovp.will be for οὐρανόθεν, like the ἡ 
 ἄνω κλήσεως at Phil.3,14. The former is the more regular interpreta- 
 tion: but this participation of the benefits of the Gospel is not obtained 
 solely, or chiefly, by learning the Christian religion, but, in a general 
 way, by the profession of faithin Christ at baptism, thereby accepting 
 the offers made us in the Gospel, and subsequently fulfilling the so- 
 lemn engagements then made. Thus only shall we become par- 
 takers of the benefits of the Gospel here, or can expect to participate 
 in them hereafter. 
 
 Κατανοήσατε, ‘ survey, consider the nature and dignity of.” 
 Ernesti refers to Rom. 4, 19. Τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς 
 ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν. Ernesti observes that ἀπόστολος properly signifies 
 one sent, a legate, or interpres voluntatis. So the Latin legatus, 
 Orator, and the Greek ῥήτωρ. It must here mean, as being taken 
 with duoroy , the negociator of the covenant: for such is the sense 
 of duodoy., a term occurring not unfrequently in the Classical wri- 
 ters. Of the examples here adduced by the Philologists the most 
 important are Diod. Sic. p. 257. μεσίτης dpodoyias’ and Philo 598., 
 where the Pontifex V. T. is called μέγας ἀρχιερεὺς τῆς ὁμολογίας, 
 which proves, not that Philo had read this Epistle (as some sup- 
 pose), but that the expression was in use among the Theologians of 
 his age. It is also explained by Chrys. τῆς πίστεως ; which comes 
 to the same thing. Thus is hinted the superiority of Christ to 
 Moses and Aaron in quality of Divine legation and priesthood. On 
 the sense of apy. here, Ernesti well remarks: ‘ Dicitur ita, quia 
 Pontifex Judeorum per victimas in solemni die expiationis sanxit 
 foedus, quod Deus cum hominibus et fecit et facturus erat per Jesum 
 Christum. Is igitur typicé sic dicitur, Christus autem proprie, qui 
 foedus salutare, quod Deus nobiscum fecit, sanguine et morte sanxit, 
 confirmavit, ratum fecit. Itaque hic est argumentum pro satisfac- 
 tione Christi.” And Rosenm. annotates thus: ‘“ Sic ἢ. 1. ἀρχιερεὺς 
 in universum est salutis minister et princeps ; comparatur enim cum 
 Mose, qui partes ministri divini et servatoris populi sustinuit hacte- 
 nus quatenus eum primo a servitute in libertatem vindicavit, rem- 
 publicam ejus et cultum legibus constituit, ac denique eum tanquam 
 
410 HEBREWS, CHAP. III. 
 
 rex in deserto aluit, et ad felicitatem promissam duxit.” His matter 
 is chiefly founded on Tittm. Diss. on the sense of ἀρχιερεὺς in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, found in his Op. Theol. 211 seqq. See the 
 able illustration of Schleus. in his Lex. in y., or as extracted by Mr. 
 
 Slade. 
 3, 3, 9 Led . . 
 2. πιστὸν ὄντα---οἴκω αὐτοῦ. A comparison is now 
 
 directly made with Moses, who, at Num. 12, 7., is 
 said to have been πιστὸς ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ Θεοῦ. To 
 ποιήσαντι, “to Him who constituted him High Priest 
 and redeemer of the human race. So Chrys.,sup- 
 plies ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα. See Morus and Din- 
 dorf. Abresch and Morus, however, think there is 
 only a reference to the Apostolate, not the High 
 Priesthood: though one seems intimately connected 
 with the other. The sense of ποιεῖν here (like that 
 of the Heb. my) is frequent. See Carpzov. and 
 Dindort. By the οἴκῳ, Ernesti observes, is meant 
 family, κάῳ (as Chrys. explains), the Jewish nation 
 considered as God's family. So Acts 2, 36. οἴκος 
 Ἰσραὴλ. Now of this Moses was only the Cico- 
 nomus, or minister; but Christ, the heir and Lord. 
 Rosenm. observes that the fidelity of Moses consisted 
 in his leading and governing the people, and accom- 
 plishing the Divine commands: Chrisé’s fidelity was 
 shown by his discharge of the two-fold office com- 
 mitted to him of teaching, (Joh. 12, 42.) and of dying 
 [or rather, atoning for the sins of the world by his 
 death. Ed. | 
 
 8. πλείονος γὰρ---ὁ κατασκευάσας αὐτὸν. The ya 
 introduces the reason why we are to attend to Jesus, 
 namely, because he is greater than Moses. The 
 παρὰ signifies compared with [and no other is the 
 force of our than and the Hebr. fo. Edit.] Πλείο- 
 vos ἢ οἱ πολλῆς παρὸ might have sufficed: but these 
 double comparisons are Hebraic [and intensive]. 
 (Rosenm.) Ἠξίωται. The term ἀξιοῦσθαι τινος is 
 perpetually used by the best Classical writers; and, 
 like the Latin mereri, often signifies more than ob- 
 tain, receive. (See the numerous Classical examples 
 of the philological Commentators.) And so Ernesti 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP, III. 411 
 
 and others. But here the context requires that it 
 should be taken in its primitive sense, and full ex- 
 tent of signification. 
 
 With respect to the whole passage itself, there are few which, with 
 the appearance of familiarity of expression, have more exercised the 
 Commentators than this, It is impossible for me to notice, much 
 less review, all the various opinions, for which I refer the reader to 
 Pole, Wolf, and especially Dindorf ap. Ernesti. I must content my- 
 self with stating one or two which have the greatest semblance of 
 truth. The best Interpreters seem agreed that the common ren- 
 dering, ““ He who hath built the house hath more honour than the 
 house,’’ cannot represent the sense ; since, however agreeable to the 
 
 gure, it is quite inconsistent with the context, It is, too, almost 
 universally admitted, that by οἴκος we are again to understand 
 family. But on the exact sense then to be ascribed to the passage, 
 Commentators are not agreed. The best founded opinion seems to 
 be that of Ernesti, Dindorf, and most Commentators, for the last 
 half century, that κατασκευάξειν here signifies condere, constituere. 
 Dindorf, who has copiously discussed the sense, lays down the fol- 
 lowing very probable interpretation: “‘ Qui familiam instituit, do- 
 mum fundat, majorem dignitatem habet, quam ipse ccetus,” i.e. 
 familia et ii qui ad eam pertinent. He adds that by the founder of 
 the family we are not to understand God; nor, by the house, the Jewish 
 Church; but to suppose the meaning to be : Quo major sit conditor 
 familize quam ipsa illa familia; eo majorem esse Christum Mose, 5. 
 quo magis prestet auctor familiz eumque anteeat, eo magis etiam 
 Christum Mose excellentiorem esse. We are (he also observes) to 
 attend to the relation in which Moses stood to the family of God, 
 who was no other than CEconomus, and first minister ; and to re- 
 member that the son of a master of a family may equally be ac- 
 counted the master as the pater-familias himself.” The interpreta- 
 tion of Rosenm. differs but slightly from the above. He observes 
 that κατασκυάξειν often signifies preparare, instituere, adornare ; 
 as Matt. 6, 10. And he who supplies a family with necessaries is 
 called the paterfamilias. ‘* Paterfamilias autem (adds he) vocatur 
 Christus, quia ductor est novi populi, qui ab eo nomen gerit, familie 
 christiang, moderante tamen Deo, qui summus est paterfamilias, 
 a 
 
 4. πᾶς γὰρ οἶκος κατασκευάϑεται ὑπὸ Tivos. The sense 
 to be assigned to this verse will depend upon the 
 interpretation adopted in the preceding one. Ac- 
 cording to that which I have adopted, it will be as 
 follows: “‘ Every family has its head, or master, who 
 provides for its welfare. But God is the supreme 
 Paterfamilias, to whom his people, whether under 
 the Old or the New Covenant, owe their origin, and 
 who sent both Christ and Moses.” Ta πάντα, for 
 
412 HEBREWS, CHAP. III. 
 
 ταῦτα πάντα; as Rom. 11, 29. It must, however, 
 be confessed that the interpretation seems somewhat 
 harsh and strained. But so great is the awkward- 
 ness connected with this verse, that we have only 
 a choice of difficulties; and after all that has been 
 written upon it (and that has been very consider- 
 able, as may be seen in the statements introduced 
 by Dindorf), it will probably ever remain, though 
 unimportant, one of the δυσνόητα which St. Peter 
 speaks of in our Apostle. 
 
 5. καὶ Μωῦσης---βεράπων. Θεράπων is here not the 
 same as δοῦλος ; for that is opposed to ἐλευθερὸς, but 
 θεραπ., to the children, as here tothe Son. See Am- 
 mon. in voc. It may therefore be rendered mini- 
 ster, famulus. Eis μαρτυρίαν τῶν λαληθησομένων, ‘ that 
 he might relate to the people what was to be pro- 
 mulgated in the name of God.” Μαρτυρεῖν signifies 
 not only ¢estari, but mandata referre; as μαρτύριον 
 signifies doctrine. See 1 Cor. 1,6. and 2,1. Moses 
 did not even remove the camp without the order of 
 God. (Rosenm.) Moses had acted the part.of a 
 faithful servant (see Numb. 12, 7.) in promulgating 
 the dispensation which was to be introductory to 
 that more perfect one in after times, brought for- 
 ward by Christ and the Apostles. 
 
 6. Χριστὸς δὲ, ὡς υἱὸς ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ. On the 
 meaning of αὐτοῦ the Commentators are little agreed. 
 Many English ones refer it to God, supposing that 
 by it was meant, that Moses and Christ were each 
 faithful in God’s house: which is very true; but 
 scarcely suitable to the context. I prefer, with some 
 antients, and the most eminent moderns, to refer the 
 pronouns respectively to Moses and to Christ. ‘Thus 
 there would seem to be a double antithesis. (And 
 so Rosenm.) Moses was faithful, as a servant in 
 his house, but Christ as a son over his house, i. e. 
 his own house, or family. It is plain that the 
 two families represent the Mosaic, and the Chris- 
 tian dispensation. So Theophyl.: Οἶκος ἦν τοῦ Μωύ- 
 σέως ὁ λαὸς, οὗ μέρος καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν. Oikoy ἔχει καὶ ὁ 
 Χριστὸς, yas. Lam aware, however, that much may 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. III. 413 
 
 be said for the reading αὐτῴ, which is espoused by 
 Schliting, Pierce, Abresch, and Dindorf, whom see. 
 The sense, however, is much the same. 
 
 6. οὗ oikos ἐσμιεν ἡμεῖς, ‘© whose family we Christians 
 are.’ Rosenm. renders erimus. But this is an ill 
 founded refinement. ’Edvrep—karacyopev. The 
 trajectio is manifest. Καύχημα is here (as often) 
 used in a good sense, to denote joy. Abresch, 
 Dind., and Rosenm. take καύχημα τὴς ἐλπίδος to 
 mean “spes lata,” the hope of eternal life on the 
 conditions under which it has been promised by 
 Christ. It is well remarked by Theophyl : ”Evravéa 
 γὰρ προτρέπει αὐτοὺς καρτερεῖν ἐν τοῖς θλίψεσι, καὶ μὴ 
 ἐκλύεσθαι" οὕτω γὰρ ἐσόμεθα οἶκος Θεοῦ, ὥσπερ ἦν Μωσῆς. 
 ᾿Εγκομιάϑει δὲ αὐτοὺς, δεικνὺς ὅτι ἤρξαντο μὲν, δεῖ δὲ καὶ 
 τέλος προσθεῖναι. 
 
 7. <* Jam in explicanda 18 spe ita pergit, ut co- 
 hortationem adjungat usque ad finem Capitis tv. 
 cujus fundamentum ponit locum aliquem e Psalmo 
 xCv. quare omnem adhortationem verbis inde de- 
 promptis proponit.” (Dindorf.) 
 
 7. διὸ, καθὼς λέγει τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Some Com- 
 mentators, as Ernesti, conjoin this with what follows 
 after the long Scripture citation, namely, βλέπετε, 
 ver. 12. Rosenm., however, thinks it may be un- 
 derstood elliptically ; q. d. “Suppose that to you 
 also has been said what the inspired Prophet utters, 
 Ps. 95, 7—11.” Or sothat the διὸ at ver. 7. may 
 connect with ver. 8. μὴ σκληρύνθητε, “ proinde ne 
 sitis contumaces.” Be that as it may, the Apostle 
 proceeds to exhort them to constancy in maintain- 
 ing their faith to the last, and shows that a far 
 greater obedience is to be rendered by Christians to 
 the new religion than to the old one promulgated by 
 Moses. ‘This exhortation from ver. 7. toc. 4, 11., 
 is founded on Ps. 95., which, in conformity to the 
 Sept., the Apostle ascribes to David; though the 
 opinions of recent Commentators are very various. 
 See Dindorf, for into these doubtful discussions I 
 shall not enter; only remarking that it may very 
 
414 HEBREWS, CHAP. III. 
 
 well bear that double sense. I must, however, notice 
 the remark of Ernesti, that the expression λέγει τὸ 
 πνεῦμα supplies an unanswerable argument for the 
 inspiration of the Psalms. See also Whitby and 
 Mackn. By the voice, in the mystical and most im- 
 portant sense, is plainly meant God’s calling in the 
 Gospel and the revelation of his will in the New 
 Testament, and the salvation promised by Christ. 
 See supra, ver1. The emphasis and meaning of oyp.. 
 is too obvious to need dilating on. 
 
 8. μὴ σκληρύνητε---ἐρήμωῳ. The student who is 
 able should here, as in all such passages, compare 
 the Hebr. text and the Sept., with the aid of such 
 Commentators as he may chance to possess (especi- 
 ally the Crit. Sacr. and Pole’s Synopsis, the latter a 
 work indispensable to those who have not the ads 
 vantage of a large library), by which minute dis- 
 crepancies will not need to be reported in a work of 
 this nature. 
 
 Rosenm. observes on the expression Twn ND, μὴ 
 σκληρύνθητε kas καρδίας, that the same verb occurs in 
 Ex. 7, 3. 18, 15. and Deut. 2, 30., and is ascribed 
 like 335, &c., both to God and men; though ina 
 different sense. Ἔν ro παραπικρασμῷ, the place called 
 Marrabeth, Exod. 17,7. The word παραπικρασμὸς 
 (says Rosenm.) signifies literally a violent bitterness, 
 (the παρὰ being intensive), and, figuratively, rebellion. 
 Πειρασμοῦ, for Massah, a name of a certain place in 
 the desert, also given, from some story connected 
 with it. In which cases it is not unusual for the 
 Sept. to render the appellatives rather by the proper 
 signification of the words. Andso does Philo; thus 
 ex. gr. he terms Jacob, ἀσκητὴν, &c. And so also the 
 Talmudists. The day of Massah is the ¢zme when 
 the people were encamped about Massah.” 
 
 9. οὗ ἐπείρασάν---τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη. Our transla- 
 tors render the ov when. But the best critics, as 
 Gort., Hamm., Whitby, Ernesti, Dindorf, and Ro- 
 senm. interpret it where, i. e. the places before men- 
 tioned, Marabahand Massah. And this is confirmed 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. III. 415 
 
 by GEcumen. And so some MSS. (by Gloss.) On 
 the terms ἐπείρασαν and ἐδοκίμασαν some Commen- 
 tators refine; and there would seem to be a climax : 
 but (as Dindorf observes) they are found in an in- 
 verse order at Ps. 26, 2.; and therefore they appear 
 to be synonymous, though united, to strengthen the 
 sense. Hither (Carpzov and Dind. remark) may 
 signify to doubt of the assistance of God, (i.e. whether 
 he can or will render it,) and to presumptuously dic- 
 tate to him when to render it; or (as others explain) 
 “‘demanding proofs of God’s government, provi- 
 dence, and power; seeing how far he would bear 
 with them, whether he would punish them, or not.” 
 It would be easy (but precarious) to enlarge the 
 definition. See the note on 1 Cor. 10, 9. 
 
 The καὶ is rendered by Grotius, Dind., and Ro- 
 senmuller, although (like the Heb. 5); as in 
 Joh. 18, 25., and sometimes in the classical writers, 
 literally “‘ and (yet).” Ta& ἔργα pov, “ the (won- 
 derful) works I wrought for their protection, 
 preservation, and sustenance in Egypt and the 
 desert, convincing proofs of my power and faith- 
 fulness.” The τεσσαρ. ἔτη is, in the Sept., united 
 with the following verse ; διὸ being omitted. And 
 sosome MSS. And this is required by chronology. 
 Abresch is of opinion that the words were, in the 
 Hebrew, left intentionally in medio, so as to be re- 
 ferred either to the preceding, or the following. 
 At all events, Matth. thinks the Apostle did in sense 
 connect the τέσσ. ἔτη with the following clause, as 
 is plain from ver. 17. 
 
 10. διὸ προσώχθιδα---ὁδοὺς μου. ‘The Commentators 
 are not quite agreed on the sense of προσώχθισα, 
 which some, as Castallio and Rosenm., render per- 
 teesus, weary of. By most it is interpreted indig- 
 natus. Its sense and metaphorical use (as Schleus. 
 remarks) is the same as that of προσκόπτω and προσ- 
 κρούω, impingere, to stumble at, be offended and 
 indignate at, to loathe, feel aversion at, &c. Schleus. 
 thinks it an Hellenistical use for ὀχθίϑω or ὀχθέω 
 (Hom. Il. a. 570.). It often occurs in the Sept. 
 
416 HEBREWS, CHAP. III. 
 
 See Trom. Lex. Rosenm. cites Sirach 1, 25. ἐν δυσὶν 
 ἔθνεσιν προσώχθισεν ἡ ψυχή μου. 
 
 10. ἀεὶ πλανῶνται τῇ καρδίᾳ. On the sense of these 
 words Commentators differ ; some thinking the καρδία 
 to mean the understanding ; others the affections ; 
 the former taking it of speculative and mental error. 
 So Camer., Abresch, and Rosenm.; q. d. “ they 
 always entertain false opinions of me and of my 
 power and veracity.” Others, as Owen, Dind., and 
 Schleus., take it of practical error, namely, vice ; 
 and by xagd. they understand the affections. Per- 
 haps both may be included. ‘The ὅδους some explain 
 methods of action. See Is. 55,8. Others, as Est., 
 Tirin., and Rosenm., take it to be synonymous with 
 the ἔργα of the preceding verse. But the former 
 interpretation seems preferable ; for, as Owen says, 
 His ways comprehend his works. Dind. interprets, 
 rationes agendi, ipsa illa de quibus dictum erat ἔργα 
 ut providentiz Divine documenta. See Deut. 82, 
 4. & 32. and the authors referred to by Dind. 
 
 10. οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, ‘ have not cared to know.” So 
 Grot. and Owen. It was not a simple ignorance, 
 but dislike of what they knew. 
 
 11. ὡς ὥμοσα---κατάπαυσίν pov. ‘The ὡς is ren- 
 dered by Grot., Dind., and Rosenm. itaque, like the 
 Hebr. Ws. By others, so that. Ὀργῇ. This, like 
 all other human passions, is ascribed to God ἀνθρω- 
 ποπάθως. Ei. This, the Commentators are agreed, 
 is, like the Hebr. CN, used in such kinds of oaths 
 for οὐκ. But the ratio of the idiom is best under- 
 stood by considering it as an elliptical phrase used 
 per aposiopesin. The words to be supplied are 
 obvious. See Whitby. ‘The idiom is not unex- 
 ampled in the popular use of our own language. 1 
 can scarcely, however, admit that it is properly called 
 an oath. 
 
 By the κατάπαυσιν μου, is plainly meant the place 
 of rest, Canaan, and the rest itself there to be en- 
 joyed. The pov refers to God as the promiser and 
 conferrer of that blessing. | 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. III. 417 
 
 The application of this to Christians is obvious. 
 See the Commentators. 
 
 12. βλέπετε---ϑῶντος. The genitive ἀπιστίας is 
 for the adjective, i. 6. “an evil and unbelieving 
 heart.”—‘‘ For (observes Rosenm.) he evinces an evil 
 heart who has no faith in the promises, or the threat- 
 enings of God.” See Rom. 10, 10. ’Ev τῷ ἀποσ- 
 τῆναι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ϑώντος, “by departing from the living 
 God.” Rosenm. takes it for εἰς τὸ, &c. By God 
 is meant His religion, the Christian faith, since he 
 who apostatizes from Christ, apostatizes from God. 
 Θεοῦ ϑῶντος. A not uncommon epithet of the 
 Deity, denoting the true God, as opposed to dumb 
 idols, and false Gods. But Grot. thinks it is here 
 used efficaciter, with reference to God’s ever living 
 to inflict punishment on unbelievers. 
 
 13. ἀλλὰ παρακαλεῖτε---ἁμαρτίας. Here ἑαυτούς is 
 for ἀλλήλους : an idiom frequent both in the Scrip- 
 tural and Classical writers, of which Dind. adduces 
 examples. Carpz. shows that under rapek. is com- 
 prehended teaching, admonition, entreaty, consola- 
 tion, reprehension, &c., each to be used as the case 
 may suit. “Aypis οὗ ro σήμερον καλεῖται. The ἄχρις 
 οὗ is for ἐφ᾽ ὅσον; and καλεῖται is for λέγεται. ‘Lhe 
 force of the whole phrase is explained by the an- 
 tients, and almost all moderns, “as long as life con- 
 tinues; as long as it can be said, to-day do so and 
 so.” Dind. takes the λέγεται for κηρύσσεται; 4. ἡ, 
 ‘as long as that to-day of the Psalm is read in your 
 synagogues, and you are able to use its exhortation 
 for your amendment, and final acceptance.” 
 
 13. ἵνα μὴ σκληρυνθῇ τις ἐξ ὑμῶν ἀπάτῃ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. 
 Here there seems to be an ellipsis, which may be 
 thus supplied. ‘(Use these and all such means) 
 that none may, by neglect of them, be hardened and 
 grow callous to all reasoning.” Σκληρύνεσθαι pro- 
 perly signifies to be so hard as not to yield to the 
 pressure of the finger, and is here used (as most 
 Commentators think) of the obstinacy of unbelief, 
 So Theophyl.: ὥσπερ τὰ πεπωρώμενα σώματα καὶ 
 
 VOL. VIII. ΦῈ 
 
418 HEBREWS, CHAP. III. 
 
 σκληρὰ οὐκ εἴκει τοῖς τών ἱατρῶν yepoly’ οὕτω καὶ αἱ TKAY- 
 ρυνθεῖσαι ψυχαὶ οὐκ εἴκουσι τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ. ‘The 
 ἁμαρτίας is by Carpz. and Rosenm. taken for ἁμαρ- 
 twasis, But this is too harsh. The most eminent 
 moderns (rightly I think) take it of the error of un- 
 belief, and temptation to apostasy (and so Theophyl. 
 To μὴ ἐλπίϑειν ὅτι ἐσται ἀνταπόδοσις), which ecclesi- 
 astical history informs us had prevailed over many. 
 And Deind. says the term is often so used in this 
 Epistle. The word may, however, be taken in its 
 usual sense, and be not inapplicable; for sin blinds 
 the understanding, and, by giving undue weight to 
 carnal reasonings, plunges men into unbelief, and 
 makes them sink into the torpor of unresisting vice. 
 Thus some antients explain it ἀναλγησία. 
 
 14. μέτοχοι---κατάσχωμεν. ‘These words are pa- 
 renthetical. The best Commentators regard the 
 yey: μετ. τ. X., as a periphrasis for to be true Chris- 
 tians ; Χο. being put for the religion of Christ. The 
 sense is: ‘*weare partakers of the benefits of Christ’s 
 religion (here and hereafter) only on condition that 
 we hold,” ἄς. ᾿Αρχὴν τὴς ὑποστάσεως. A Hebrew 
 hypallage for ὕποστ. τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ‘ our original con- 
 fidence.” See Apoc. 2, 5. Ὑπόστασις (from ὑφισ- 
 τασθαι. to bear up, persist, and also to be firmly per- 
 suaded) signifies here and in 2 Cor. 9, 4. a farm con- 
 fidence. And so 11, 1. and often in the New Testa- 
 ment. (See Schleus. Lex.) Here, then, it denotes 
 constancy in the profession of the Gospel, or (as 
 Gret. explains) fidem cum sanctd professione con- 
 qunctam. : 
 
 15. ἐν τῴ λέγεσθαι---παραπικρασμῷ. The Com- 
 mentators are not agreed on the connection and 
 force of ἐν tw λέγεσθαι. Most moderns take it to 
 mean, “ while (I say) it is said, or sounded in your 
 ears, hear,” &c. And they regard it as a resump- 
 tion.of what was said at ver. 13. the intermediate 
 verse being parenthentical. And this mode of in- 
 terpretation is supported by the authority of Chrys. 
 and adopted by Grot. and Camer.~ It, however, 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. III. 419 
 
 seems more simple, with others, as Abresch, Ernesti, 
 and Dindorf, to regard the ἐν τῷ λέγ. as put for κατὰ 
 τὸ λεγόμενον, “ forasmuch as it is said ;” as 8, 13. ἐν 
 to λέγειν. And this is partly supported by Theo- 
 phyl., whose words are these: Karackevages πώς εἶπε 
 τὸ, μέχρι τέλους" Kal Grow, ὅτι τοῦτο δηλούται ἐν τῷ 
 λέγεσθαι, σήμερον" τὸ γάρ σήμερον, ἀεὶ ἐστιν. 
 
 16. τινὲς γὰρ---Μωύσέως. On the sense of these 
 words various have been the opinions of critics. 
 Chrys. and the antients (including the Syr.) and 
 many moderns (as Rosenm.), would take them inter- 
 rogatively, regarding the γὰρ not as causal, but 
 interrogative. They trace the connection thus: 
 “When it is said, to-day, &c. (I ask), who were 
 those who, hearing the word of God, rebelled?” (See 
 Poie.) “ΤΠ Apostle (says Rosenm.) lays before 
 the Hebrews the example of the Israelites of old, 
 in order to show them that it 1s not enough to hear 
 and bear in mind the Divine commands, that we are 
 also to obey them, and repose faith in the Divine 
 promises.” Some exceptions (which my limits will 
 not permit me to state) have indeed been taken to 
 this mode of interpretation, but perhaps not of suf- 
 ficient weight to overturn it. See the copious dis- 
 cussions of Dind. After all, however, there may be 
 much doubt as to the true interpretation. 
 
 17. τίσι δὲ---ἐρήμῳ, On προσωχ. see the note supra, 
 ver. 10. ᾿Αμαρτήσασιν must here be understood like 
 the ἁμαρτίας at ver. 13., and denote unbelief and 
 apostacy. ““ For (as Ernesti observes) unbelief is the 
 fountain of all sins, as faith is that of all virtues.’ 
 Thus in the present passage vice and sin may be 
 included. lirrew (Dindorf observes), like the 
 Hebr. 753, is often used of a violent death, and espe- 
 cially of Divine wrath. Thus at 1 Cor. 10, 10. it is 
 interchanged with κατεστρώθησαν. See Joel ver. 5. 
 Kaa is by many antients and moderns thought to 
 be put, by synecdoche, for the whole of the bodies. 
 But to this principle it is unnecessary to resort; 
 
 since (as Dind. observes) the κῶλα properly denoted 
 ἜΝ 
 
4.20 HEBREWS, CHAP. III. IV. 
 
 the limbs (arms and legs) as distinguished from the 
 trunk. And this mode of interpretation (which is 
 supported by the Syr.) yields quite as proper, and 
 indeed a preferable sense ; for there is (as Dindorf 
 observes) an elegant ὑποτύπωσις. It is singular the 
 Commentators should not have compared Ps. 141, 8. 
 ‘© our bones lie scattered, as when one breaketh and 
 heweth wood upon the earth.” And this is illus- 
 trated by the accounts travellers give us of the state 
 of the Asiatic and African deserts, especially Den- 
 ham and Clapperton in their recent travels into 
 Zahara. Now the κώλα is a very suitable term; 
 since (as we learn from the Medical writers) it de- 
 notes the larger bones, as the leg and arm bones, 
 and the spinal bone (see Foes. (ἔς. Hipp.); now 
 these (which are all that are left), in the dry climate 
 of the East, continue for a long time uncorrupted. 
 
 18, 19. τίσι---ἀπιστίαν. Compare supra, ver. 11. 
 The ὦμοσε may denote solemn asseveration rather 
 than swearing properly so called. See the note supra, 
 ver. 11. The true force of ἀπειθ. is clear from what 
 has been said of ἀπιστία. Kai, ‘and (so).” See 
 Abr.and Heinr. Not therefore, as Mich. and others 
 render. The ἠδυνήθσαν is ill interpreted by Abresch 
 and others would not. And on βλέπομεν too many 
 refinements have been sought. It is sufficient to 
 take this and the ἤδυν. populariter (so Grot., Carpz., 
 and Ernesti), 1. 6. ‘* we see by the story and the 
 event ; 64. 4. ‘‘ we are authorized to infer from the 
 story and the event, that the reason why they could 
 not enter, was their unbelief.” 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Ver. 1. The Apostle now treats the history adle- 
 gorically ; applying what he has said to Christians ; 
 4. d«‘* For we have a Divine promise like that the 
 the Israelites received, though far greater and more 
 precious.” (Dindorf and Rosenm.) SoTheophyl. : 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. 421 
 
 Ἐνταῦθα x ἀπόδοσις τοῦ, "Ev τῷ λέγεσθαι, Σήμερον ἐὰν 
 τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε, καὶ τὰ ἐξῆς. Φοβηθώμεν, &c. 
 Τὺ δὲ, οὖν, ἐτέθη διὰ τὸ διὰ μικροῦ ἀποδεδόσθαι τὸν λόγον, 
 ἐπαναλήψεως γενομένης. 
 
 The καταλειπομένης ἐπαγγελίας are regarded by 
 Rosenm. as genitives of consequence. It is of more 
 importance to consider the sense, which is explained 
 by some (as Strigil, Flac., Hyperius, Est., Limb., 
 and Carpz.) spretd promissione: by others (as Wolf, 
 Pisc., Bengel, Mich., Abresch, &c.) redicta et adhuc 
 residua ; which is more agreeable to the context, and 
 is confirmed by Wetstein’s examples. Ὑστερεῖν pro- 
 perly signifies to come too late, and consequently to 
 miss of any thing, and dose it. The δοκῇ has little 
 meaning, but great elegance. On this kind of ple- 
 onasm see Dind. ‘Theoph. says the Apostle uses it 
 ἱλαρώτερον καὶ ἀνεπαχθέστερον τὸν λόγον ποιῶν. 
 
 1. φοβήθωμεν denotes not so much fear as the conse- 
 quent on it, anxiety, solicitude, and great circum- 
 spection. So Theodoret explains it: σπουδάσωμεν. 
 It is singular that the Commentators, who treat with 
 needless minuteness on the sense, should not have 
 cited a kindred passage at Phil. 2, 13. ‘* work out 
 your own salvation with fear and trembling.” 
 
 The nature of this promise and the rest prepared 
 is explained in the following verses. 
 
 2. Kal yap εὐηγγελισμένοι, καθάπερ κακεῖνοι, 1. 6. 
 literally, ‘* for we are evangelized (or, “ have an εὖ- 
 αγγέλιον or offer made to us) as well as they; as to 
 them was held out Palestine, the promised land; so 
 to us is held out the spiritual Palestine, another 
 country, even a heavenly. ‘This use of the passive 
 is Hellenistical.* And that of εὐαγγελίϑειν, though 
 
 * On which Grot. annotates thus; ‘ Constructio Graca, qualis 
 Mat. 11, 5. Lue, 7, 22. que Passivurn persone facit etiam ex Activo 
 Dativum regente; idque hic eo facilius procedit, quod Activum 
 εὐαγγελίξω non tantum cum Dativo, ut Luc. 1, 19. and 2, 10. sed 
 et cum accusativo, construitur, ut Lue. 3, 18.” See also Abresch, 
 who cites some examples from the Fathers, especially of evayy. 
 with an accusative. 
 
4.22 HEBREWS, CHAP. IY. 
 
 not at variance with the sense of the term, which 
 may signify a promise of good as wellas an announce- 
 ment of good, is peculiar to the Apostle.* On the 
 nature of the promises made to the Israelites the 
 earlier and the later modern Commentators are at 
 issue. See Pole’s Syn. and Dind.; for into so exten- 
 sive a subject I cannot enter. 
 
 The λόγος ἀκοῆς is a Hebraism for λόγος ἀκουόμιενος : 
 for (as Rosenm. observes) 127 may mean promise, 
 i.e. of the promised land; an εὐαγγέλιον to wander- 
 ers on the trackless sandy desert. 
 
 Ὡς, μὴ συγκεκραμένος TH πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασιν. There 
 is some variation in the reading of this passage, and 
 difference of opinion thereupon. (See Dindorf.) 
 Both seem to have arisen from the difficulty found 
 in tracing the metaphor. The best Critics seem 
 agreed that the common reading is to be retained; 
 and that it contains an allusion to the digestion of 
 food, its concoction, and conversion to chyle and 
 nourishment. 
 
 Τοῖς ἀκούσασιν is for ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων. 
 
 8. εἰσερχόμεθα γὰρ εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν οἱ πιστεύ- 
 σαντες. 
 
 The present is said to be here put for the future, or pro omni tem- 
 pore. The sense may be expressed thus : ‘* we who believe are to enter 
 into (the enjoyment of) that rest.” The οἱ πιστευσ. is emphati- 
 cal; q.d. we alone. Τὴν κατάπαυσιν, “ the rest (promised by 
 God),” i. 6. the felicity ; for rest is a very fit image of happiness ; 
 and especially considering its) primary application to the possession 
 of the promised land; since to fatigued way-farers “ a blink of rest 
 would be a sweet enjoyment,” to use the words of the Scottish ‘Theo- 
 critus. 
 
 But there are many difficulties, and consequently a variety of 
 jarring opinions concerning the sense of the whole passage from 
 ver. 3—10., which the limited nature of my work will not allow 
 me to detail. I must refer the reader to Pole, Wolf, and Dindorf. 
 
 * Abresch, Carpzov, and Dind., however, think evayy. has here 
 simply the sense of κηρύσσειν, “ we were preached to.” But Ernesti, 
 Morus, Rosenm., and Jaspis rightly insist on the notion of promise, 
 which is maintained by all the earlier moderns, and is supported by 
 the antients.. So Theophyl.: Ὅρα δὲ πῶς ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν μὲν εὐαγγελισ- 
 μὸν τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐκάλεσεν, ὡς ἀληθινῶν ἀγαθῶν ὑπόσχεσιν. See also 
 
 Chrys. and Theodoret. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. 4.23 
 
 The structure and air of the passage is in the highest degree in- 
 volved, and perfectly in the Jewish style. The difficulty turns very 
 much on the interpretation of the κατάπαυσιν Θεοῦ, which the best 
 modern Commentators interpret, “a happiness similar to that 
 which God enjoys.” See Grot., Whitby, and Dindorf. They ad- 
 duce many similar expressions from Philo, After κατάπαυσιν μου 
 Rosenm. and Dindorf supply δι’ ἀπιστίαν, which completes the 
 sense, but may be dispensed with; nor does it form any regular 
 ellipsis. The words καίτοι -- γενηθέντων they connect with the 
 former part of the verse; and rendering καίτοι et quidem, thus 
 translate the clause; ‘* Requiem intelligo ab omnibus operibus a 
 mundo condito (inter homines) peractis,” i. e. that complete feli- 
 city which men shall enjoy after the accomplishment of the business 
 of this life. This (I confess) appears a somewhat harsh interpre- 
 tation: but the whole is so perplexed that we have only a choice of 
 difficulties ; and perhaps the method in question involves the fewest. 
 Dind. and Rosenm. cite a passage from Primasius on this Epistle, 
 p. 507., which is as follows: “ Intelligitur regnum ceeleste 8, felici- 
 tatem eternam, ad quam quos pervenire contigerit planissimé re- 
 quieturi sint a laboribus et zrumnis hujus seculi, non tantuma 
 molestiis longi itineris, ut olim Israelite; unde illa felicitas, que 
 credentibus promissa sit, non est similis ei, qua Israelite fruiti 
 essent, sed ei qua Deus ipse fruatur, maxima et perfectissima.” 
 Towards the illustration of the sense of the whole passage the fol- 
 lowing observation of Theophy]l. seems to me very important : 
 Βούλεται δεῖξαι τρεῖς καταπαύσεις KexAnpevas ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ Kat 
 πρώτην μὲν τὴν ἑβδόμην ἡμέραν, ἐν ἡ τὴν κτίσιν πεπλήρωκεν ὁ Θεός" 
 
 εὐτέραν δὲ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τὴν γῆν" τρίτην δὲ γε τὴν βασιλείαν 
 τῶν οὐρανῶν᾽ κατασκευάξει δὲ τὴν ταύτης ἀπόδειξιν ἀπὸ τῆς προφη- 
 τικῆς μαρτυρίας" εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἀληθῶς, φησιν, ἐστὶν ἑτέρα κατάπαυσις, 
 τί δήποτε τοῖς τὴν δευτέραν δεξαμένοις και παρεγγυᾷ μὴ σκληρύναι 
 τὰς καρδίας; καὶ ἀπειλεῖ τιμωρίαν, καὶ τῶν τῆς δευτέρας καταπαύσεως 
 καταπεφρονηκότων ποιεῖται τὴν μνήμην ; κατὰ τάξιν δὲ ταύτας 
 τίθησι, καὶ πρώτην μὲν τὴν τῆς ἑβδόμης ἡμέρας. Nor can I omit 
 the following of Theophyl.: Δοκεῖ ἀνακόλουθος εἶναι ὁ λόγος, οὐκ 
 ἔστι δέ; ἀλλὰ τοῦτό φησιν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔχει τις εἰπεῖν, ὅτι Δαβὶδ wept 
 τῆς καταπαύσεως λέγει τῆς τοῦ σαββάτου" πῶς γὰρ, ἥτις πάλαι γεγέ- 
 νητο, καὶ ὅτε κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ὁ κόσμος τὴν σύστασιν ἔλαβεν ; ἀλλὰ δῆλον 
 ὅτι περὶ ἀλλῆς τινὸς λέγει ὁ Δαβὶδ καταπαύσεως, τῆς εἰς τοὺς οὐρα- 
 vous εἰσελεύσεως" ἥτις καὶ εἰς τὸν μέλλοντα ἐγκέκλιται; ὡς ὀφειλόν- 
 των δηλαδή τινων μετὰ ταῦτα εἰσελθεῖν᾽ Καὶ ὥσπερ τὸ σάββατον 
 κατάπαυσις λέγεται παρὰ τῇ γραφῇ, καὶ οὐδὲν ἐκώλυσε κατάπαυσιν 
 μετὰ ταῦτα λεχθῆναι καὶ τὴν εἰς τὴν γὴν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας εἴσοδον" 
 οὕτως οὐδὲ νῦν κωλύει μετὰ ταύτην πάλιν κατάπαυσιν κληθῆναι τὴν 
 μέλλουσαν, τὴν τῶν οὐρανῶν φημι βασιλείαν, εἰς ἣν οἱ ἀπιστήσαντες 
 οὐκ εἰσελεύσονται. The reader may also, with advantage, consult a 
 useful sketch of the argumentation from ver. 3. to 10., as laid down 
 by Mr. Slade, who (I think) very well represents the Apostle’s mean- 
 ing: but how to adjust the expressions to that and such other sche- 
 mata, “hic labor, hoc opusest.” In truth, the difficulties cannot be 
 
424 HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 satisfactorily solved, without entering into such a length as to require 
 a pamphlet rather than a note. 
 
 4. εἴρηκε---οὑτοῦ, i.e. ““ there is mention made in 
 Scripture of a rest of God.’ That a rest is also 
 promised to men, he will at ver. 5. deduce from the 
 other above mentioned place. (Rosenm.) [Που, i. 6. 
 Gen. 2,2. This vague mode of citation was com- 
 mon in that age, and sufficed for those who were so 
 thoroughly conversant in Scripture. The best Com- 
 mentators, as Carpz. and Rosenm., think that the 
 Apostle means to represent this rest of God as an 
 image of the height of future felicity ; and they ad- 
 duce several passages of Philo which strongly coun- 
 tenance this interpretation, 
 
 coe οὐκ τούτω---κατάπαυσίν μου, “ From this un- 
 derstand that to men also is promised this rest, 
 namely, the rest of God.” For in that Psalm men- 
 tion is made of men who shall enter that rest, or not 
 enter it. ‘The nervus probationis is in ἐλεύσονται ; 
 for this belongs to men. (Rosenm.) 
 
 6. ἐπεὶ οὖν---αὐτὴν, “Since therefore -it follows 
 from thence, that certain are to enter this place of 
 rest,” i.e. that all have access to it; for those only 
 are excluded who believe not. ᾿Απολείπεται, at 1S 
 
 collected, it follows.” ‘The οἱ πρότερον εὐαγγελισθέν- 
 τες are those who had gone out from Egypt, and to 
 whom this rest was promised, but under condition of 
 faith and obedience. See supra, ver. 2 and 3. (Ro- 
 senm.) The difficulty here is much increased by the 
 omission, in several instances, of the conclusion, 
 which follows from the premises, and which is not 
 educed till ver. 9. 
 
 7. THAW τινὰ ὁρίξει ἡμέραν, &e. * And again he 
 defines and appoints a certain time, a to-day,” i. e. 
 he defines and mentions another time by the same 
 name fo- -day, at which they were to enter into this 
 rest; saying, “by David, after such a time as we have 
 before mentioned, namely, forty years.” Καθὼς εἴρη- 
 Tou, ** aS Was las mentioned,” namely, c. 5, 7 and 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. 45 
 
 8. Now David lived long after the promise had 
 been made to the Jews in the desert; and yet he 
 makes mention of a certain rest yet to be expected. 
 Therefore it cannot be objected, that after that rest 
 promised to the Israelites no other is to be expected. 
 It is rather to be collected, that besides that rest to 
 which Joshua had brought the people, another is 
 held out, of which all in the age of David might be 
 partakers who should obey the Divine command- 
 ments. (Rosenm.) 
 
 8. εἰ γὰρ---μέρας, * For if Joshua had brought 
 them to that rest (i. e. true and stable one), God 
 would not have spoken, by David, of another time 
 hereafter, from which we are to beware lest we be 
 excluded.” Karéraveev. For the pluperfect sub- 
 junctive, and to be taken in a hiphil sense, i. e. 
 ‘“caused to rest.’? Now the rest to which Joshua 
 brought them was not the true, stable, and perfect 
 one. See Hebr. 13, 14. (Rosenm.) The other time 
 is the age of the Gospel and the Giver of it, Christ. 
 See Matt. 11, 28 and 29. 
 
 On the three preceding verses Theophyl. annotates thus: To 
 ef ~ , ͵ ef Ν᾽ ~ \ ε - - 9 > , 
 ὅλον τοῦτο σπεύδει δείξαι, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς μὲν ὁ τοῦ Ναυῆ, οὐκ ἠδυνήθη 
 εἰσαγαγεῖν εἰς ταύτην τὴν κατάπαυσιν; περὶ ἧς καὶ τῷ Δαβὶδ ὁ λόγος, 
 ΜῈ Ὁ Ὁ ἘΣ > \ δ ἃ Ἐν \ Cae Cay d ε \ \ 
 καὶ ἡμῖν viv. ᾿Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐκεῖνος μὲν οὐκ εἰσήγαγεν, ὁ δὲ Δαβὶὲδ 
 - ie ‘ ~ 
 λέγει πάλιν μὲν τοσαῦτα ἔτη, Μὴ σκληρύνητε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, ws 
 οἱ πατέρες οἱ δὶα τὴν ἀπιστίαν μὴ εἰσελθόντες, καὶ δίδωσιν ἡμῖν νοεῖν 
 ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου, ὅτι ἐὰν πιστεύωμεν, εἰσελευσόμεθα, δῆλον ὅτι ἡ κατά- 
 παύυσις αὕτη μέλλουσά ἐστι, καὶ περιμένει ἡμᾶς" περὶ γὰρ τῆς Παλαισ- 
 , Ἃ) a ‘ ~ 
 τίνης οὐκ ἐπηγγέλλετο δήπου 6 Δαβίδ' ταύτην yap κατεῖχον τότε, 
 > > ? δὲ ~ ε ὃ , el ‘ 5) ee λῇ kt = vA is 
 ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τῆς ἑβδόμης αὕτη yap ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου ἦν. ρα οὖν 
 , ~ ~ s Ν 
 τρίτη τὶς ἐστιν, ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν; εἰς ἣν ὁ ἁληθινὸς εἰσάγει 
 ‘Inaots, καὶ ἡ eis αὐτὸν πίστις. 
 
 9. ἄρα ἀπολείπεται--- Θεοῦ, “so then there remain- 
 eth a rest for the people of God.” By rest is meant 
 perfect, real happiness. By the people of God are 
 meant all true Christians, or those who should 
 become so. The word σαββατισμὸς properly signi- 
 fies, a keeping of the Sabbath by holy rest, and 
 worship of God. But it is here used to denote that 
 rest and felicity in heaven, that eternal sabbath, 
 
4.26 HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 which God’s faithful servants will enjoy.* Exam- 
 ples from Philo are adduced by Carpz. and others of 
 a use of σάββατον in the metaphorical sense of a 
 serene and quiet life. Striking, indeed, in many 
 respects, are the coincidences between the modes of 
 thought and expression of that spiritual Jew, and 
 of the Apostle. 
 
 10. It is here observed by Theophyl.: "Epuyvyeces 
 πῶς σαββατισμὸν ὠνόμασε τὴν τοιαύτην κατάπαυσιν" 
 δίοτι, KC. 
 
 10. 6 γὰρ εἰσελθὼν---ὁ Θεύς, “ For he who hath 
 come unto the rest (of God), he also himself resteth 
 from his works, as God from his,”’ i. e. he who attains 
 to that felicity similar to the Divine, will enjoy the 
 most pure and perfect pleasure. ‘The whole passage 
 is allegorical. For the history is applied to a thing, in 
 many respects indeed different, though in some things 
 aptly corresponding to that with which it is com-. 
 pared. The sense, allegorically expressed, will be as 
 follows: ‘‘ God resteth; to his people is promised 
 rest; the Israelites have not attained to rest, by 
 reason of their unbelief; but by believing they will 
 enjoy this rest.” Expressed in the natural way, it 
 will be this: ““ God enjoys supreme felicity ; to men 
 also will God impart this; the Israelites, by 
 reason of their unbelief, have not been made par- 
 takers of this felicity; but by believing, they will 
 τι. (Rosenm.) 
 
 11. σπουδάσωμεν---κατάπαυσιν. On the preceding 
 allegorical application the Apostle engrafts an exhor- 
 tation (which is also a conclusion from it) to strive 
 after the attainment of that rest, namely, Heaven, 
 (and not, as Pisc. explains, the attaining unto obedi- 
 ence to Christ). It is observed by Theophyl., that 
 σπουδ. is used, in order to show that not faith of itself 
 suffices to bring us thither, but it must be accompa- 
 nied with a virtuous life. ‘The Commentators have 
 
 * So Theophyl.: Οὐκ εἶπε, κατάπαυσις, ἀλλὰ σαββατισμὸς, τὸ 
 οἰκεῖον ὄνομα θεὶς, καὶ ᾧ ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐπέτρεχον. Οὕτω δὲ καλεῖ τὴν 
 βασιλείειν τῶν οὐρανῶν. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. 427 
 
 ~ not observed that the εἰσελθεῖν εἰς is used with allusion 
 to the sense crouched under these words, namely, 
 εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. 
 
 11. ἵνα μὴ ἐν αὐτῷ---ἀπειθίας. “The construction 
 here is dubious. Some early moderns, and Abresch, 
 take it for ἵνα μὴ τῇ αὐτῇ τις ἐμπέσει ὑποδεδειγμένῃ 
 ἀπειθείᾳ. Which is the most obvious construction, 
 and in a Classical writer would be the true one; but 
 the character of the Apostle’s style, being so very 
 different, alters the case. The best Critics, from 
 Grot. to Dindorf and Rosenm., have seen that πάσῃ 
 must be taken absolutely, with reference to 3, 17.; 
 though here in a figurative sense. And the ἐν must 
 be considered as put for dia, by, after. An Hypal- 
 lage for τῇ ἀπειθείᾳ τῇ ἐν ὑποδείγματι, ‘Ne quis ves- 
 tram incidit in inobedientiam talem qualis illi exem- 
 plar dedere. See Num. 14. And this is supported 
 by the authority of the antient Commentators. 
 Ὑπόδειγμια is for παράδειγμια, of which Abr. and Dind, 
 adduce examples; as Eph. Syr. 3, 192., vmod. καὶ τύ- 
 πον, and 289., rod. ἁμαρτιῶν, and 247., ὑποῦ. ἀπιστίας. 
 I would compare Juv. Sat. 10, 167. Ut pueris pla- 
 ceas et declamatio fias! ‘* To point a moral, and adorn 
 a tale.” 
 
 12. Sav γὰρ ὃ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐνεργής. 
 
 By the λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, the best Commentators are agreed is 
 meant the language of God in Scripture, or in the Gospel, whether 
 in its promises, or threatenings, which latter are had especially in 
 mind. (Compare Ps. 95.) The ay is explained by the ἐνεργὴν ; 
 and both signify active, efficacious, what exerts its power. Then the 
 force of the Divine threats, when unheeded, are depicted by a most 
 sublime and beautiful image derived from that which in things cor- 
 poreal is thought the most cutting, namely, a μάχαιρα δίστομος (As 
 Apoc. 1, 16.), nv 5» 25n; a sword being always a symbol of 
 vengeance, Τομώτερος. This is explained by the Gloss. τμητικώτε- 
 pos. And so Hesych. Examples are adduced by Wets. from Soph., 
 Plato, &c., and among the rest Phocyl. 119., ὅπλον τοι λόγος ἀνδρ 
 
 τιμώτερον ἐστι σιδήρου. The word τομαῖος also occurs in Aschyl 
 and Eurip. 
 
 12. διϊκνούμιενος.---μιυελών. Wets. compares Aischyl. 
 Theb. 515., ἰκνεῖται λόγος διὰ στήθεων. And Dind., 
 Justin Mart., λόγου δυαμένου εἰς ψυχὴν διϊκνουμένης. 
 On the exact force of the metaphor in ἄχρι---πνεύ- 
 
4:28 HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 ματος, Commentators are not agreed. It seems not 
 necessary to refine, but, with Abr., Dindorf, &c., 
 regard the πνεῦμα and ψυχὴν (in this use) as a popu- 
 lar expression denoting the mind, thoughts, and 
 feelings. And pepiopod may be taken simply to sig- 
 nify the inmost part ; since, in an equal division of 
 any thing, the place of cutting, or dividing, will be 
 at the inmost part. With respect to the ἁνμῶν τε καὶ 
 μυελῶν, Grot. observes: “ Per translationem ea que 
 sunt corporis, applicat animo.” And Chrys., The- 
 ophyl., Theodoret, Isid. Pel. Ep. 1, 94., and Hamm., 
 rightly recognise an allusion to the Priests (in sancti- 
 fication) cutting the victim down the back-bone, so as 
 to search every bone and part, that all might be 
 found pure before the sacrifice. At the same time, 
 it is not improbable (though the Commentators do 
 not notice it) that there may be an allusion to that 
 most horrible exercise of the μάχαιρα δίστομος, by 
 which (as we find from the Classical writers) a man 
 was sometimes absolutely cut in two down the back- 
 bone. The ἁρμῶν are very applicable to the com- 
 missurce by which the ribs are fastened to the back- 
 bone. 
 
 The next words, καὶ κριτικὸς ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν 
 καρδίας, are, in some measure, exegetical, and show 
 whither the preceding comparison tended. The 
 sense is, that the word of God (or God by his word), 
 is a discerner and trier of the thoughts and feelings 
 of the heart (the ἔνθυμι καὶ ἐνν. being ἃ popular ex- 
 pression). The application is obvious. See the 
 Commentators. It is singular that they should not 
 have seen that the Apostle had in mind Ps. 7, 9. 
 (Theodot.) éracris καρδιών καὶ νεφρῶν ὁ Θεὸς. The 
 whole is well paraphrased by Jaspis thus: “ Mine 
 Dei non in irritum cadent; non est vana et sine viri- 
 bus ejus ira; mine Dei neglecte acerbissimé pun- 
 gunt et gravissimé vulnerant animum, animi corpo- 
 risque discidium inducere valent, non solum illis 
 hominum facta puniuntur, sed etiam consilia in in- 
 timis pectoris humani latebris ac recessibus abdita.” 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. 4.29 
 
 / 3 Ἁ e / 
 13. καὶ οὐκ ἔστι κτίσις ἀφανὴς ἔνωπίιον αὐτου. 
 
 By the αὐτοῦ is meant God, not the antecedent ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 The general sense of the words is sufficiently clear; but on the 
 mode of eliciting that sense from them Commentators are not 
 agreed. Some, as Camer. and Irhoven, recognise an agonistical 
 metaphor. But this is very harsh. The most favourite opinion for 
 the last century is that of Erasm., that as τραχηλίξειν signifies to 
 twist back the neck, so there may be an allusion to the antient cus- 
 tom, explained by Periz. on A¢lian V. H. 12, 58., by which criminals 
 proceeding: to execution had their heads drawn forcibly backward, 
 in order to bring their countenances the more under the gaze of the 
 multitude. But this seems very far-fetched, and it is not probable 
 such a circumstance would have been alluded to by the Apostle. 
 Upon the whole, I see no opinion so little liable to objection as that 
 of Chrys. and the other antients, and, of the moderns, Grot. Beza, 
 Atling, Hamm., Gatak., Braun., Beausob., Doddr.; Harwood, &c., 
 that the ἀφανὴς signifies καλύμμενα, tedavepwpéva, with an allusion 
 to the τραχήλισμος, or cutting down of the τράχηλος, or back-bone, 
 Just before adverted toin ἄχρι μερισμοῦ ἁρμῶν τε Kaluved@y. And, 
 although it is objected, that there is no authority for this significa- 
 tion, yet that is no more than may be said of many other idioms 
 of the Apostle, no doubt, often Cilicisms, or provincial phrases, and 
 therefore not found in the Classical writers ; though likely enough 
 to be known by Chrys., who was born and lived not many miles 
 from Cilicia, and whose authority, in such matters, ought to carry 
 the greatest weight. 
 
 13. πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν 6 Adyés. Some take the λόγος as 
 sermo ; others (like the Hebr. 127) to denote nego- 
 tium, res. And so Ern. and Rosenm. But this 
 seems very frigid. So that (especially on account of 
 the πρὸς) I prefer the interpretation of Chrys., The- 
 ophyl,, Gicumen., Syr., Wolf, Loesn., Abr., Dind., 
 and others, account, ᾧ μέλλομεν δοῦναι τοὺς λόγους καὶ 
 τὰς εὐθύνας τών merpaypevov. See Luke 16, 2., Rom. 
 14, 12., Hebr. 13, 17., 1. Pet., 4, 5., 1-Cor., 4. 5., 
 2 Cor. 9, 10. 
 
 14. ἔχοντες obv—@eov. The οὖν 15 resumptive; for 
 after the digression on the Jews in the desert, the 
 Apostle returns to the High Priest mentioned at 3, 
 1., and shows that Jesus Christ is far superior to the 
 High Priests of the Old Testament (Rosenm.), q. d. 
 ** We, too, have a High Priest, and one greater, and 
 who hath passed to the heavens (and not merely, as 
 the High Priests of the Old Testament, to the Sanc- 
 
430 HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. 
 
 tum Sanctorum), even Christ Jesus. Having, then, 
 such an one, let us hold fast by our covenant,” &c. 
 These two sentences are blended into one. 
 
 14. διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανοὺς, i. 6. literally, “ hath 
 passed through the heavens (so as to attain the high- 
 est, the seat of Divine majesty).” ‘There is (I think 
 rightly) thought by Carpz. to be an allusion to the 
 passing of the High Priest every year, εἰς μεσαίτατον 
 τὸν νεὸν (of which we read in Philo), and, as he also 
 says, through four porticos, which Joseph. and the 
 Rabbins say represented the heavens. ‘Thus all is 
 clear. By this ‘‘ passing to the highest heavens” it is 
 manifestly declared, that the work of expiation is 
 completed, and an access obtained to approach God 
 in prayer, with a hope of acceptance. ‘Tov υἱὸν τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ, “‘ even the Son of God himself, not, like Aaron 
 or Joshua, and the High Priests, a minister of God.” 
 Keardpev τῆς ὁμολογίας. I would not understand 
 thus (with many Commentators), cf the profession of 
 faith in the Priesthood, but take ὁμολ. in the same 
 manner as at 3, 1., of the Christian covenant, or 
 rather our covenanted faith in the Christian religion. 
 
 15. οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν---ἁμαρτίας. This is meant to 
 further show the superiority of the Christian High 
 Priest to that of the Mosaic Dispensation. In this 
 comparison I cannot, however, think (with Abr. and 
 Jaspis) that there is an allusion to the unfeeling 
 pride of the Jewish High Priests; that were too 
 frigid. Grot., and the best Critics, take the duvap. 
 as referred, ad effectum ; as supra, 2,18. The ac. 
 they interpret adversities, especially calamities suf-. 
 fered for religion’s sake; and the rere. they render, 
 ςς exercised with these afflictions,” &c. A mode of 
 interpretation supported by the authority of the 
 antient Greek Commentators. But thus the words 
 χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας will have a very frigid sense, i.e. 
 “ without giving way under his afflictions.” I must, 
 therefore, prefer the most extensive sense the word 
 will bear, and understand it of those various frailties 
 and weaknesses of our nature which expose us to 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. V. 431 
 
 numerous temptations, either to abandon religion, or 
 not to fulfil its injunctions. ‘Though, doubtless, the 
 Apostle had in view especially the temptations to 
 abandon the religion, from the afflictions which its 
 profession then brought with it. 
 
 The true sense of this whole verse has been ex- 
 cellently laid down in an admirable Sermon of Dr. 
 Blair; Vol: 2:, ps 117. 
 
 16. προσερχώμεθα οὖν---βοήθειαν, “having such a 
 High Priest, and Mediator, let us with good courage 
 approach (with our prayers) to the throne of grace” 
 (i. 6. of a gracious God). Some think there is here 
 an allusion to the Jewish notion of God having two 
 thrones, one of mercy, another of judgment. But 
 this seems frigid and far-fetched. Tlapéycias, 
 courage, confidence ; as often inthe New Testament. 
 Εὕρωμεν, obtain. "Ἐλεον is explained by the Philolo- 
 gists auxilium. If that be the sense, ἔλεον καὶ χάριν 
 may be an hendiadis. It is to be observed, that all 
 the gracious dispensations of God towards men are, 
 in the language of Scripture, called his mercies, to 
 hint to us our own unworthiness, and encourage a 
 spirit of humility. : 
 
 16. εἰς εὔκαιρον. βοήθειαν seems to be put for εἰς 
 βοήθειαν ἡμῶν ἐν καιρῷ, i. e. in the hour of affliction, 
 trial, and temptation. 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 The Apostle proceeds now to show the superiority 
 of the New to the Old Testament; and he begins 
 by first comparing the Priesthood, thus setting forth 
 the great superiority of Christ. As, however, it 
 might be objected, that many things were found in 
 the High Priests that were not in Christ (for he was 
 neither of the Priestly state, nor a Priest in any way, 
 nor chosen of men, nor had any of the outward ap- 
 pearance or pomp of a Priest, but every thing in him 
 was spiritual); the Apostle therefore states what 
 
432 HEBREWS, CHAP. V. 
 
 Christ really had in common with the other High 
 Priests, and then what were the points of superiority. 
 For when it can be shown that any one has certain 
 things in common with others, and in other things 
 exceeds them, then does his superiority appear. 
 (Theophyl.) 
 
 Ver. 1. πᾶς yap ἀρχιερεὺς---ὡμαρτιῶν. The Apos- 
 tle proceeds to prove the superiority of Christ’s 
 Priesthood over that of Aaron, by showing that he 
 hath all the qualities requisite in a High Priest, and 
 that in the highest degree. [las—capapriay, ‘* Every 
 High Priest taken, selected, and called from men is 
 appointed (such) for (the welfare of) men, in respect 
 to observances towards God, that he may offer gifts 
 and sacrifices for (their) sins. Aap. is, like the 
 Hebr. mm in Num. 25, 4., used in the sense segre- 
 gare. Αἱ τὰ must be understood κατὰ and πράγ- 
 ματα. Ἰροσφέρειν is a sacrificial term, signifying to 
 bring to the altar ; as Matt. 5, 23. Joh. 16,2. Acts 
 7, 42. &c. where see the notes. “The δώρα and θυσίας 
 are general terms, comprehending sacrifices of ever 
 kind. The former occurs in Matt. 5, 23. and Mark 
 1, 44., and is used of Holocausts in Levit. 4, 3. 
 [Some think δῶρα signifies spontaneous offerings ; 
 and θυσ. the sacrifices directed by the law. But it 
 would (perhaps) be difficult to establish this distinc- 
 tion. Ed.] Since, therefore, every High Priest is 
 appointed, not for his own sake, but for that of other 
 men, this holds good also of Christ. (Rosenm.) 
 
 Q, μετριοποιθεῖν δυνάμενος τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσι Kal πλανωμέ- 
 νοις. On the sense of μετριοπαθεῖν the Commentators 
 are at issue. ‘The best founded opinion seems to be, 
 that it here signifies ‘‘ to carry oneself with modera- 
 tion, lenity, and mercy, to hold in the passions with 
 such an even hand as not to give way to excess in 
 anger, or any of the violent feelings, and conse- 
 quently, bear with the failings of other men.” Ex- 
 amples of this signification are adduced by the Phi- 
 lological Commentators from Josephus and other 
 writers. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. V. 433 
 
 \ δ 
 ' Avyapevos is taken by Jaspis for ἵνα δύνηται, as ex- 
 pressing the cause why, &c. Compare 2,18. Grot., 
 Beza, and Owen think δυνάμενος refers ad effectum ; 
 as supra, 2, 18. and 4, 15.; q.d. “qui aptus, idoneus, 
 et prosperus sit.” 
 
 2. ἀγνοοῦσι kal πλανωμένοις. Some explain this, 
 
 those who sin through inadvertence, forgetfulness, 
 or sudden impulse, and not deliberately: in which 
 cases the High Priest was allowed to show clemency. 
 Others take the ἀγν. of vice or sin, with an adjunct 
 notion of ignorance. And this use is not unfrequent 
 in the Classical writers. But the former interpreta- 
 tion (which is espoused by the antient Commenta- 
 tors) seems more agreeable to the context. ᾿Επεὶ---- 
 ἀσθενείαν. ‘Che metaphor in περικεῖται is usually ex- 
 plained ‘‘ obnoxious est infirmitati, undique premi- 
 tur.” But, like most metaphors taken from dress 
 (see Eph. 6, 13. and Col. 3, 12.) it seems to import 
 what is habitual. By the ἀσθ. must be understood, 
 not misery (as Pierce and others explain), but 
 frailty, liability to sin. And Dindorf cites Eph. 
 Syr. 3. ἐγὼ ἀσώματος εἰμὶ, καὶ οὐ περίκειμα ἀσθενείαν. 
 Cicumen. explains it ἁμαρτίαν. But this cannot so 
 well be admitted. 
 
 8. καὶ διὰ ταύτην---ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, ‘* And for this 
 frailty, and the sin arising from it, he is bound to offer 
 up, as for the sins of the people, so also for his own 
 sins.” On the particulars of both kinds of sacrifices, 
 see Levit. 4, 9 and 16. Some carry the points of 
 comparison in this parallel too far, and refine too 
 much. Rosenm. observes, that it must not be ex- 
 tended ultra tertium comparationis. The similitude 
 (he adds) is this: ‘*A human Priest himself falls 
 into sin; therefore he exercises lenity towards those 
 who sin. Christ was afflicted ; therefore he is ever 
 ready to assist the afflicted.” Whence the Apostle 
 adds, c. 4,15. χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. ‘To the latter part of 
 this position I cannot assent. See the note supra, 
 4,15. It is (1 apprehend) meant, that as Christ ex- 
 perimentally knows all the infirmities and liabilities 
 
 VOL, VIII. QF ͵ 
 
484 HEBREWS, CHAP. V. 
 
 to temptation of our nature, so he is enabled and 
 fitted to act as our Judge. 
 
 4. καὶ οὐχ ἑαυτώ --- "Δαρών. A new argument, 
 namely, that Christ may justly be accounted a High 
 Priest, though not of the tribe of Levi. Τιμὴ de- 
 notes any public office, whether civil or ecclesiasti- 
 eal, and though applicable to the Priesthood in ge- 
 neral, yet was especially so to the High Priesthood, 
 which among the Jews (as a remnant of antient the- 
 ocracy) carried with it dignity and splendour almost 
 regal. Thus at the next verse the τιμὴ is called δόξα. 
 (Rosenm.) 
 ᾿ς 5, 6. οὕτω καὶ----γεγέννηκά σε. At ὁ λαλήσας repeat 
 ἐδόξασε from the preceding clause. It is observed 
 by Theophyl., that this is proved from the constant 
 language of Scripture; as Joh. 8. ἀπεσταλὴν παρὰ 
 τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ am’ ἑμαυτοῦ οὐκ ἐλήλυθα. Now Christ 
 did not act as those who snatch at honours, like 
 Korah and his conspirators. Christ’s Pontifical 
 office, too, was far superior to that under the law, 
 inasmuch as he was appointed to it by the immediate 
 investment of heaven, in virtue of his relation to God 
 as Son; and therefore was High Priest in a far more 
 elevated, nay even august sense; as is proved and 
 illustrated from Ps. 2., and then from Ps. 110, 4, 
 where ἱερεὺς is (as often) put for ’Apyiep.; in which 
 case the term is used κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. 
 
 The κατὰ τὴν τάξιν, as answering to the Hebrew 
 Wrist Υν. signifies καθάπερ, κατὰ τὴν ὁμοίοτητα ; AS 
 Macc. 9, 18. Now Christ is a High Priest like 
 Melchisedec; therefore there was no ~ need that he 
 should be born of the tribe of Levi. ‘This is further 
 urged infra, 6, 20. and c.'7. The Apostle now ex- 
 plains 1 in what ‘Jesus Christ, our High Priest, profits 
 us. (Rosenm.) Having himself experienced the 
 weaknesses, trials, and tribulations of human nature, 
 he can have a fellow feeling with his brethren who 
 are exposed to the same trials. 
 
 7. The Apostle (as Theodoret observes) proceeds 
 to show that our Lord, except sin, bore all the παθή- 
 
NEBREWS, CHAP. V. 435 
 
 para of human nature. ‘Ev ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς 
 αὐτοῦ, “ at the time when he lived as a man among 
 men.” ‘Hu. is often simply for ¢éme. ‘The mention 
 of σαρκὸς carries with it an adjunct notion of weak- 
 ness and affliction. ‘Ixerypias (on which see Ernesti) 
 is a stronger term than δεήσεις, which is a general 
 one to denote entreaty of every kind. It usually 
 happens that the stronger term is introduced Jast ; 
 of which the Commentators adduce examples. ‘The 
 words μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων are by some 
 thought to refer to the Passion, at which it is said, 
 ἐκτενέστερον προτηύχετο. By others, to his exclama- 
 tion on the cross. See Hildebr. de lacrymis Christi 
 and Braun ad ἢ. 1. Rosenm. rightly (I think) refers 
 it to both. The θανάτου is by Hyperius and Abresch 
 understood of the fear of death. 
 
 On the sense of εἰσακουσθεὶς ὑπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας there has been 
 no little difference of opinion. ‘This has partly arisen from the ex 
 tensive siynification of εὐλαβ. which often denotes reverentia, 
 pietas ; and so it has been taken by the antients and many moderns, 
 as Flaccius, Est., &e. So the Vulg. ‘* pro sua reverentid.”” Compare 
 Joh. 9, 31. And ἀπὸ is often used in the sense of ob, pre, and per. 
 This interpretation, however, is scarcely permitted by the context, 
 and is liable to other objections: so that I prefer that of Ernesti, 
 Abr., Wets., Dindorf, and Rosenm., whith indeed had been before 
 brought forward by Beza, Grot., and Hamm., and adopted by our 
 English Translators, and after them by Doddr. and Mackn., and 
 ably maintained by Whitby, namely, “ ereptus et liberatus est ab eo 
 timore.” This indeed is the proper, and not unfrequent, significa- 
 tion of εὐλαβεία. See Josh. 22, 24. and Acts 23,10. And so 
 Diphil, cited by Beza; θνητὸς πεφυκὼς μὴ εὐλαβοῦ τεθηκέναι. See 
 also a cloud of examples in Wets. ‘Thus the εἰσακουσθεὶς will bea 
 vox pregnans, “ signifying, ‘‘ was heard, and delivered from;” 
 many examples of which from the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin are 
 adduced by Dind. and the authors referred to. Abr. compares Job 
 35. yt praise my xd, “and he doth not so hear him as to 
 deliver him from the vehemence of his affliction.” This interpreta- 
 tion, too, is required by the context, as Cameron and others have 
 shown. Nor is the sense, if properly explained and understood, 
 liable to any objection. On which see Abr. and Wets.* 
 
 * Which Jatter Commentator observes: ‘‘ Vocavit εὐλαβείαν, 
 quam, si de alio quam de filio Dei loqueretur, dixisset δέος; ταρα- 
 χὴν, δειλίαν, ἀγωνίαν. Hic metus, et preces, et precum exauditio 
 describuntur Matth. 26. 36—42. Luc. 23, 41—45. Metus ille non 
 erat τοῦ πνεύματος, sed τῆς ψυχῆς, ex natura humana et infirmo 
 corpore consequens.” ’ 
 
 γώ 
 
480 HEBREWS, CHAP. V. 
 
 8. καίπερ ὧν---ὁπακοὴν. Many eminent modern 
 Commentators regard this verse as parenthetical, and 
 serving to restrict the sentiment couched in the pre- 
 ceding. See Abr., Heinr., and Dindorf. Καίπερ 
 ὧν υἱὸς, “ although he were a Son.” Ἔμαθεν---ὗπα- 
 κοήν. These words are not to be understood as im- 
 porting that he needed to learn that obedience; but 
 the meaning is, as the best moderns are agreed, 
 discere debuit, he had to learn; and the words are to 
 be taken populariter. Thus, Dind. observes, when 
 we familiarly say, ‘‘ men learn obedience,” we only 
 mean, that they do not wish to obey, and yet at 
 length learn to do so. See Pisc. in loc. Now the 
 obedience of Christ consisted in his accomplishment 
 of all that the Father had enjoined, even to the suf- 
 fering of death, for the expiation of the sins of men. 
 
 On the καίπερ Dindorf remarks: “ Vulgo pater 
 filium tractat amanter, nec cogit eum patiendo obe- 
 dire ; sed Deus filium tractat duriter, filium sibi ca- 
 rissimum.” See Pierceand Storr. In the ἔμαθεν ag’ 
 ὧν ἔπαθεν, Grot. and others observe, there is a paro- 
 nomasia, and an allusion to the Greek proverb: za- 
 θήματα, μαθήματα. So Croesus in Herod. 1, 107. τὰ 
 δὲ μοι παθήματα τὰ ἔοντα ἀχάριστα, μαθήματα γενόνεε. 
 
 9. καὶ τελειωβθεὶς----σωτηρίας αἰωνίου. The τελειω- 
 θεὶς must be understood as the τελειώσαι διὰ παθημά- 
 των at 2, 10. The term is used sometimes in this 
 Epistle in the sense to be brought to, and to arrive at 
 the height of felicity and glory. This is not (as some 
 think) an agenistical allusion, but rather a sacerdotal 
 one; though even ¢hat is not well established. In- 
 deed it is unnecessary to suppose any at all. 
 
 Αἴτιος, which is a word of middle signification, here 
 simply signifies the cause, or author of (as ἀρχηγὸς 
 τῆς σωτηρίας) ; in which sense it is often employed 
 in the best authors; though in the later ones it is 
 more frequently used in malam partem. See the 
 examples adduced by Wets., Kypke, and Carpz., 
 among which is Philo 2, 440. (speaking of. Noah), 
 αἴτιος σωτηρίας. By obedience (ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ) 15 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. V. 437 
 
 meant embracing his religion, and living suitably to 
 its precepts. The Commentators, however, think 
 there is an allusion to the obedience of Christ men- 
 tioned at ver.8.; q. d. ‘as Christ obeyed his Father, 
 and was by him made Lord of all, so also we, if we 
 obey Christ, shall receive eternal salvation.” 
 
 10. προσαγορευθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ--- Μελχισεδέκ. On 
 the sense of zpocay. interpreters are not agreed, 
 Some render it vocatus, appellatus, nominatus. And 
 this, Dind. thinks, is all that it signifies. Casaub., 
 however, renders it salutatus ; and others, cognomi- 
 natus, proclamatus, constitutus, &c. And this will 
 easily appear to be the true sense, if we consider that, 
 according to antient, and indeed modern, usage, ap- 
 pointment to any dignity or office is often made by 
 the sovereign not only in vesting the person with a 
 robe or ring, or other insignia of office, but by ad- 
 dressing and saluting him by the name of the office 
 and dignity ; as, for instance, in conferring the ho- 
 nour of knighthood. 
 
 The Apostle here (Rosenm. observes) returns to 
 the subject commenced at ver. 6., but soon again 
 makes a digression from it, extending to c. 7, 1. 
 
 11. περὶ οὗ---ἀκοαῖς. Ernesti well renders this: 
 “De quo nobis longa foret et difficilis intellectu 
 oratio, quoniam tardi estis.” Iegi οὗ, i. 6. the points 
 of similarity between the Priesthood of Melchisedec 
 and Jesus Christ. At περὶ οὗ----λόγος must be under- 
 stood ἐστι or éoras, “there is (or would be) much 
 more for me to say.” Now πολὺς ἂν εἴη 6 λόγος was a 
 frequent phrase, of which several examples are ad- 
 duced by Abr. and Wets. Auceguzvedros is synony- 
 mous with δυσεξοιστὸς and δυσδιήγητος. So Artemid. 
 On (cited by Wets.): ὀνείροι----ποικίλοι καὶ πολλοῖς δυ- 
 σερμιήνευτοι. The λέγειν is for the passive supine ; 
 and it is by some thought to be pleonastic. Carpz., 
 however, (from Chrys.) observes, that the λέγειν is 
 not to be understood simply, as if the difficulty were 
 in the doctrine itself, but only as it regards the He- 
 brews. And this indeed is evident from, and seems 
 
438 HEBREWS, CHAP. V. 
 
 hinted at in the words following ἐπεὶ νωθροὶ γεγό- 
 vare ταῖς ἀκοαῖς. With respect to the term νωθρὸς 
 (whatever be its origin; for of that the Etymologists 
 would do better to acknowledge i ignorance than put 
 forth the absurdities they do), it signifies sluggish 
 and slow of motion; and, like many such words, \ was 
 applied to the mind, and used to denote dull, stupid, 
 &c. of which Wets. adduces copious examples. But 
 the Apostle, per exegesin, adds ταῖς ἀκοαῖς, which is 
 used often of the ears of the understanding; on 
 which signification see Schleus. Lex. 
 
 _ Here, Dindorf and Rosenm. observe, commences 
 a digression containing reproof and consolation, and 
 which extends to the end of the next chapter. [{ is 
 well remarked by Theophyl. : Μέλλων εἰς τὴν διαφο- 
 ρὰν τῇ ς ἱερωσύνης καθεῖναι τὸν λόγον, πρότερον αὐτοῖς ἐπι- 
 τιμᾷ, δεικνὺς ὅτι διὰ τὸ νηπιώδες αὐτῶν τοσαῦτα ταπεινὰ 
 ἐφθέγξατο, καὶ τῷ κατὰ σάρκα λόγω ἐνδιέτριψεν" Ei yap 
 μὴ ἦσαν ἀσθενεῖς, πάλαι ἂν τῶν ὑψηλοτέρων ἐμνήσθη: Διὰ 
 τὴν ὑμετέραν οὖν νωϑρείαν, Φησι, δυσερμηήνευτός ἐστιν ὃ 
 λόγος 6 περὶ τοῦ, πώς ἐστιν ὁ Χοιστὺς ἀρχιερεὺς κατὰ τὴν 
 τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ" Καὶ διότι οὐ συνίετε ὑμεῖς, διὰ τοῦτο 
 ἐγὼ καλῶς ἐρμηνεῦσαι οὐ δύναμαι. So ἴο {Π6 Corinthians, 
 the Apostle says, he cannot “speak unto them as 
 unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, babes in Christ.” 
 
 12. καὶ yap ὀφείλοντες ---τοῦ Θεοῦ. ὙΠῸ καὶ is by 
 some rendered efenim, or preecipuée. But this is pre- 
 carious; and it is better to suppose a clause omitted, 
 - to which the γὰρ refers, aud assign to καὶ its usual 
 sense also, or even; 4. ἃ. “(And ‘such ye are) for ' 
 though ye ought, according to the time, to be 
 ἜΑΡΟΣ ὙΠ &c. This is, I conceive, the sense of 
 ὀφείλοντες, a kind of nominativus pendens, which is 
 best rendered by a verb and a conjunction. And so 
 (I find) Owen. Eivai διδάσκαλοι is put. populariter 
 tor to be able to teach. Διὰ τὸν χρόνον is well ren- 
 dered pro ratione temporis, &c. ‘ considering the 
 time which ye have been learning the Christian reli- 
 gion.” Of this sense of διὰ τὸν χρόνον examples are 
 adduced by Wets. and Munthe. And so the antients 
 invariably took it. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. V. 439 
 
 12. πάλιν χρείαν ἔχετε τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμάς, τίνα, &c. 
 The general sense is clear; but there is some diffi- 
 culty in exactly determining it; and that hinges on 
 διδάσκειν and τινα, which latter word may, according 
 to the punctuation, be taken either with the preced- 
 ing, or with the following. Most prefer the datter 
 mode, and subaud τινὰ in the former clause (or else 
 pe), or take διδάσκειν for διδάσκεσθαι. “The sense will 
 then be this: ‘ teach you what are the first ele- 
 ments.” Others take the τινὰ with the former clause, 
 cancelling the comma. ‘This is sanctioned both 
 by the antient and the most eminent recent Inter- 
 preters, as Arb., Pierce, J. Gronov., Mich., Heinr., 
 Dindorf, and Rosenm., and (I think) rightly ; for 
 thus much harsh subaudition is avoided. As to pe, 
 which Grot. supplies, it cannot be approved. Twa 
 is more agreeable to the Apostle’s modesty, and may 
 be rendered one, and either denote himself, or any 
 fit teacher. 
 
 12. τῆς ἀρχῆς is a genitive for the cognate adjec- 
 tive, the first. Στοιχεῖα, elementa, principles, literally 
 some first principles to go upon (from στοιχεῖν) in 
 order to develope the details of any art or science. 
 And the Christian religion itself, or rather the sys- 
 tem of truths of which it consists, and which are 
 denoted by the λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ (as 1 Pet. 4, 11.) may 
 be said to form a kind of science ; for which very 
 reason (and would that some who have a zeal, but 
 οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν, would bear it in mind!) civilization 
 ought ever to precede evangelization. 
 
 12. καὶ γεγόνατε χρείαν ἔχοντες, literally, “ and ye 
 became needing,” 1. e. such as to have need of. In 
 the γάλακτος, καὶ οὐ στερεᾶς τροφῆς there is a metaphor 
 by which doctrine is compared to food, occurring 
 also in 1 Cor. 3. init. (where see the note) and 1 Pet. 
 2, 2. and often in the Classical writers, from whom 
 many examples are adduced by Carpz. and Wets.* 
 
 * Thus Theophr. de c. p. 3,16. διὸ καὶ αὐτά στερεᾶς τροφῆς ἐλάτ- 
 rovos δεῖται ra πυκνὰ, Lucian Lexiph. 23. κατὰ τὸν τῶν ἀθλητῶν 
 νόμον ἣ στεῤῥά σοι τροφὴ συνήθης ἔστω. Arrian Epict. 2, 17. ov 
 
 θέλεις ἤδη, ὡς τὰ παιδία, ἀπογαλακτισθῆναι, καὶ ἅπτεσθαι τροφῆς 
 orepewrépas, 
 
440 HEBREWS, CHAP. V. 
 
 And many passages of very similar sentiment are 
 adduced by both these Commentators from Philo. 
 
 Στερεὰ τροφή properly signifies stiff, or solid, 
 food, called by Galen ἰσχυρὸν Poapa, as that of flesh 
 and grain in its most condensed form; the contrary 
 to which was called βρώμα ἀσθενεστερὺν, i. 6. vegeta- 
 bles, including milk, &c. which is such, though 
 formed in the stomach of an animal, and is well op- 
 posed to the στερ. τροφή. 
 
 13, 14. πᾶς yap—Kakod. 
 
 At γαλάκτος must be understood μόνον ; a very frequent ellipsis. 
 And μετέχειν signifies, in a general way, to live upon, eat, ἅς, 
 There is here some obscurity, occasioned by a confusion of the phy- 
 sica] and metaphorical (or allegorical) senses, which, if kept apart, 
 would stand as follows: “Thus (as) every one who can live only on 
 milk is, in some sort, a babe, (so) every one who can profit only by 
 the first elements of the Gospel, is also a babe in knowledge, and is 
 ἄπειρος λόγου dikawovvns.’ Such appears to be the simplest mode 
 of considering the passage, and the most effectual one of removing 
 the difficulties, at which the Commentators strangely stumble. 
 Here again the metaphor and sentiment are copiously illustrated by 
 Carpz. from Philo. One passage may suffice: p. 188 Ε. ἐπεὶ δὲ 
 νηπίοις μὲν ἐστι γάλα τροφή τελείοις δὲ τὰ ἐκ πυρῶν πέμματα, καὶ 
 ψυχῆς γαλακτώδεις μὲν ἂν εἶεν τροφαὶ κατὰ τὴν παιδικὴν ἡλικίαν ---- 
 τελείαι δὲ καὶ ἀνδράσιν εὐπρεπεῖς---αἱ ὑφηγήσεις. Schoettg. ob- 
 serves ἃ similar metaphor of the Rabbins, who call learners svgentes, 
 sucklings ; which will bring to the minds of many of my readers 
 the interesting picture of their venerable Alma Mater Cantabr. 
 
 As to the passages which Carpzov. gravely adduces, to prove that 
 milk was, among the antients, a usual food for babes (elegantly, I 
 would observe, termed by Soph. νέας τροφῆς), we may believe the 
 fact on the authority of less weighty vouchers. It may be well to 
 remark that milk has been, in all ages, recommended as a foed fit 
 for all very aged persons, and all whose powers of digestion are too 
 weak to separate the nourishment from solid fare: and this the 
 Apostle seems to allude to in the words following. 
 
 On the force of λόγου δικαιοσύνης there has been a variety of opi- 
 nions. The most favourite one with the recent Interpreters is that 
 of Grot. (ably supported by Abr., Rosenin., Zach., and Dind.), that 
 it signifies veri nominis institutio (as justi nominis statura), 1 1. 6. In- 
 struction and learning, such as it should be. But this is very harsh. 
 I am inclined to agree with the early moderns, as Beza and Owen, 
 and, of the later Commentators, Pierce, L’Enfant, and Doddr., and 
 of the recent ones, Heinr., that it signifies the doctrine of justifica- 
 tion by faith, which, it is probable, they, as well as the Galatian 
 Jewish Christians, had forgotten, or neglected. Storr thinks it sig- 
 nifies the doctrine of grace. But this is included in the other. In- 
 deed, the antients, and, of the moderns, Jaspis, take it to denote 
 omnia sublimiora et solidiora in Christologid. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. V. VI. 441 
 
 The terms τελείων and στερεὰ τροφὴ, and ἕξιν, are equally adapted 
 both tothe natural and allegorical sense. Téecos properly signifies 
 adult, of which sense examples may be seen in Schleus. Lex., to 
 which I add an apposite passage from Artemid. 1, 16, 1. p. 30. 
 ἀσθενεῖς γὰρ εἰσιν οἱ ἐν γάλακτι παῖδες" καὶ μὲν (read μὴν) δὴ καὶ 
 οἱ τελείοι, ὅσαν νοσοῦντες τροφῇ μὴ δύνωνται χρῆσθαι---χρῶνται. 
 The genitive in τελείων denotes fitness fore, Διὰ τὴν ἕξιν, ““ by habit 
 induced by long use and exercise.” For ἕξιν signifies, properly, a 
 habit of body, and, metaphorically, a habit of mind, which supposes 
 use, custom, and exercise. Τὰ αἰσθητήρια ἐχόντων, sub. dpyava,i.e. 
 τὴν αἴσθησιν, ἃ8 Rosenm. explains.* 1 should prefer τὰς αἰσθήσεις ; 
 as in ἃ fragment of Ailian p. 1051. (Var. Hist. Gron.) By καλοῦ 
 and κακοῦ is meant, what is true and useful, and what is false and 
 pernicious. The whole sentence is thus elegantly paraphrased by 
 Jaspis: ‘* Primis rel. Chr. rudimentis debetis imbui, non plenior et 
 altior, subtilior, sublimior, ac perfectior institutio in vos cadit ; 
 ejusmodi institutionem et queestiones illi modo concoquere pos- 
 sunt, qui multo usu ac diuturnd consuetudine exerciti internum 
 sensum judiciumque discretivum tam bene subactum habent, et 
 idoneam consecuti sunt animi facultatem, acrioresque sensus, ut apti 
 sint, ad veraa falsis discernenda, utilia a noxiis separanda, et honesta 
 ab inhonestis sejungenda.” 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 VERSE 1. διὸ---Φερώμεθα. Ard, wherefore. Jaspis 
 supplies, “ lest I should put you to too great shame, 
 if I were to speak to you again of fundamental doc- 
 trines, and that ye may not always remain the same 
 as I have described you, generally speaking, to be.” 
 ᾿Αφέντες, letting go, leaving. Eis τὴν τελειότητα de- 
 ρώμεθα. The gee. is explained, by most Commen- 
 tators, se convertere. But this is somewhat flat ; and 
 the nature of the metaphor (which is a nautical one, 
 and used properly of a ship carried forward in full 
 sail) requires a more forcible sense, literally, “ let us 
 drive at, hasten to:” which seems more worthy of 
 the Apostle, and agreeable to the context. Much, 
 however, depends upon the interpretation of τελειό- 
 tyra, on which the modern Commentators are not - 
 agreed. Grot. understands it of the interpretation of 
 
 * And he adds: ‘* Quanquam et organa sensoria rect? intelligere 
 potes. Sicut enim in homine externo lingua, palatum, nares indi- 
 cant, que res bone, que male sint, sic et homo interior sua habet 
 aioOnrjpia, per que facile judicat, quid verum, quid falsum.” 
 
442 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. 
 
 the figures of the Old Testament, which, by the dis- 
 pensation of God, had all a bearing on the Gospel, 
 and thither tended. Carpzov. and Dindorf under- 
 stand it of the σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίᾳ, 1 Cor. 2, 6 &7., 
 or of Christ’s priesthood, like that of Melchisedec. 
 Others adopt other interpretations. After all, I 
 cannot but think, with the antient and some early 
 moderns, and also Schleus., that the rea. denotes the 
 same with the λόγος δίκαιος at 5, 13., where see the 
 note. 
 
 1. μὴ πάλιν θεμέλιον καταβοαλλόμινοι---Θεὺν. 
 
 In the interpretation of these words the recent Commentators run 
 into marvellous diversities of speculation. I shall detail the simplest 
 (and perhaps truest) interpretation, namely, that of Chrys. and 
 Theophyl,: τουτέστι, μὴ πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς τοιαῦτα ποιοῦντες, οἷα ἐποι- 
 εἴτε ὁπηνίκα ἐμέλλετε βαπτίξεσθαι" οἷον τὴν ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων με- 
 τανοίαν, τουτέστι. τὴν ἀποταγὴν τῶν ἔργων τοῦ Σατανᾶ. Ὃ γὰρ 
 προσερχόμενος τῷ Χριστῷ, πρόδηλον ὅτι μετανοῶν ἐπὶ τῷ προτέρῳ 
 καὶ δόγματι καὶ βίῳ, οὕτω πρόσεισιν᾽ εἰ μὴ γὰρ καταγγῷ τοῦ προ- 
 τερου, πῶς τοῦ δευτέρου ἅψεται; διὸ ἐπάγει, καὶ πίστεως ; ἐπὶ Θεῷ. 
 Now the elementary observances of our religion are considered as a 
 foundation, on which the more recondite and difficult doctrines are 
 to be built: an architectural metaphor. In which view Carpzov. ἡ 
 cites Philo 1187. ἀρχὴν βαλλόμενος ὥσπερ θεμέλιον, and elsewhere. 
 And Dind. compares Ephr. Syr. Τὶ 2, 74. βαλεῖν καλὰς ἀρχὰς. 
 Abr. and Dind., however, observe, that the enumeration of impor- 
 tant doctrines subjoined is not to be considered as complete; since 
 others, not here mentioned (as in similar enumerations at 1 Cor. 
 15, 8 ἃ 4. 1 Thess. 1,9& 10, Tit. 2, 11—14.), are reckoned ἐν τοῖς 
 mpwrois: and, indeed, such a certain and definite enumeration of 
 the initiatory and elementary doctrines of Christianity is no where 
 to be found in Scripture. And further, that καταβ. μετανοίας can- 
 not mean lay a foundation for repentance, but lay a foundation quod ~ 
 constat articuli de emendatione.” See the excellent note of Ernesti. 
 
 With respect to the νεκρὰ ἔργα, all are agreed that they mean evil 
 deeds, as being νεκρὰ, i.e. bringing misery, viz. spiritual death. So 
 Philo p. 60. (cited by Carpzov.) 6 δὲ ψυχῆς θάνατος, ἀρετῆς μὲν 
 φθόρα ἐστι, κακίας δὲ ἀνάληψις. See Rom. 7,10. And Rosenm. 
 observes that so Symmachus interprets the denunciation at Gen. 2, 
 17. θνητὸς éon. Abr. compares Acts 14, 5. ἃ 3,26. And Gatak. 
 Adv, ¢. 31. had observed that μετανοεῖν ἀπὸ τινος is a phrasis preg- 
 nans, On the subject itself see Braun. 
 
 By “πίστις ἐπὶ Θεὸν is meant faith in God as He is revealed to us 
 in the Gospel of Christ, in whom the promises of a Messiah were 
 fulfilled. See Abr., Carpz, and Rosenm. 
 
 2. βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς, ἕο. The διδαχῆς is pleo- 
 nastic. On βαπτισμκὸν the Commentators are not 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. 443 
 
 agreed. Ernesti thinks it is the plural for the sin- 
 gular; as οὐρανῶν and οἰκτιρμῶν elsewhere. Which, 
 Dindorf says, may be true: but asks whence the 
 plural? Grot., Braun., and others, think the plural 
 has reference to its two-fold nature, internal and 
 external. See also Lord Barrikepon. Rosenm. ex- 
 plains it of the many spiritual washings prescribed by 
 the law, both for purposes of cleanliness and rell- 
 gion, especially the baptism of proselytes, to which 
 Christ’s baptism bore some resemblance. Now to 
 know the difference between these was the first foun- 
 dation of Christ’s religion. Others, as Limborch 
 and Dindorf, think there is reference to the baptism 
 of John (and perhaps of proselytes), as compared 
 with that of Christ. I must confess that I see no 
 ground on which to form any decided opinion. 
 
 The ἐπιθέσεως χειρών involves less difficulty, for, 
 with the exception of some who refer it to the Jewish 
 χειροθεσία at the day of expiation, the best Commen- 
 tators, antient and modern, are agreed that it must 
 - have reference to the laying on of hands, which, in 
 that age, accompanied baptism,* as a symbol of the 
 spiritual gifts vouchsafed to many of the primitive 
 Christians. And so, at ver. 4., there is mention made 
 τῶν μετόχων γεννηθέντων πνεύματος ἁγίου. 
 
 The ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν is by some, as Gerhard, 
 Sclater, Estius, and Rosenm., understood of the 
 resurrection only of the just, and therefore to hap- 
 piness. But this is a very groundless fancy. It is 
 surprising that none of the more recent Commenta- 
 tors should have seen that it is refuted, and the com- 
 mon interpretation placed beyond doubt by the 
 
 * On which Jaspis remarks; ‘‘ Ritus antiquissimus, Gen. 48, 14. 
 Num. 27, 18 seqq. 2 Reg. 5, 11. primis rel. chr. doctoribus usita- 
 tissimus, vel ad morbos sanandos, Mare. 16, 8. Act. 9, 12 ἃ 17. vel 
 ad homines novo muneri inaugurandos (ut idem esset ac χειροτονεῖν, 
 Act. 13, 23.), Act. 6,6. 8,17 & 18. 1 Tim. 4, 14. 2 Tim. 1, 6. vel 
 ad eximenda peccata, vel ad impertienda dona illa plane singularia 
 seu πνεῦμα ἅγιον conferendum in Christianos. Act. 8, 17. 19, 6. 
 Quare in veteri ecclesié manuum impositio cum baptismi ritu con- 
 juncta fuit.” 
 
4.44. HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. 
 
 words of the Apostle himself in his speech before 
 Felix, Acts 24, 15., where, in a confession of his 
 faith, he says : ἐχαίδαλὲ ἔχων---ἀνάστασιν μέλλειν ἔσεσ- 
 θαι νεκρῶν, δικαιών. τε καὶ ἀδικών. 
 
 8. καὶ τοῦτο ποιήσομεν, ἐάνπερ ἐπιτρέπῃ 6 Θεὺς. The 
 antients (see Theophy!.) and most eminent moderns, 
 are agreed that nese words have reference to the 
 ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα Φερώμεθα of ver. 1., and signify : 
 «* And now, with God’s permission and help, we pro- 
 ceed to this expianation of the more sublime doc- 
 trines of the Gospel, especially as they regard the 
 Old Testament, and its accommodation to Christ, or 
 the comparison of the history and economy of the 
 old covenant with those of the new.” Jaspis para- 
 phrases thus: “ Vos in ipsa allegoriarum adyta in- 
 troducam, fusius delegam, quid ex tota V. 'T. ceco- 
 nomia ad Christum accommodari possit, ut hujus per- 
 sonz summa dignitas inde eluceat, ac prastantia et 
 salubritas ejus operis inde intelligatur.” As to the 
 interpretation of Grot. and Hamm., as detailed by 
 Whitby, it is utterly inadmissible. Theophyl. rightly 
 observes on the ἐάνπερ ἐπιτρέπη 6 Θεός, that the 
 Apostle says this, not as though God would not per- 
 mit this, but as being accustomed to use such for- 
 mulas of dependance on Divine Providence. 
 
 4,5,6. These verses are closely united: but their connection with 
 the preceding is not easy of determination. Perhaps the mode of 
 tracing it proposed by Heinrich may be the best: “‘ Neque enim 
 tam facile est negotium, iterum tradere et commendare alicui ea 
 que jam respicit.” Rosenm. thinks the Apostle means to say that 
 his business is not with apostates, such as there were then among 
 the Jews (see 10, 26.), nor would he, for their sakes, repeat the 
 first elements of religion, presuming that would be in vain ; for it 
 cannot be that such men should be reformed, being like bad ground, 
 on which whatever is sown, is thrown away.” This view (nearly 
 that taken by Ernesti) is approved by Dind. 
 
 By ἀδυνατὸν, all the best Commentators are agreed, is meant, 
 not physical, but moral impossibility, or rather, by a popular hyper- 
 bole, extreme difficulty. And so, Dind. remarks, it is rendered in 
 the Old Vulg. difficile. And so Theophyl. explains it of sucha 
 degree of difficulty as to cause just despair. And this sense perquam 
 difficile et prope modum impossibile, I have often met with in the 
 Classical writers. Thus the disputes on this expression between 
 the Calvinists, Lutherans, Arminians, &c. prove mere logomachies. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. 44.5 
 
 Φωτισθέντας, “ fully instructed, imbued with Gospel truths.” A 
 metaphor occurring in 2 Cor, 4, 46., ἃς. This signification Dind. 
 has learnedly, but needlessly, discussed; since no one can doubt 
 or hesitate about it. It is a more interesting question whether the 
 word is to be understood of baptism. So the antients seem invariably 
 to have taken it. Hence the primitive Fathers frequently use φωτίθω 
 and its derivatives. This interpretation has, however, been objected to 
 by most modern Commentators. The chief arguments they use are, 
 that here, and in the parallel passage of 10, 26. φωτίξεσθαι signifies 
 λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἄληϑείας ; that it much lowers the dig- 
 nity of the sentiment; and that there was no reason why any ex- 
 press mention should be made of baplism; since those who are 
 here adverted to may be supposed to have been already baptized ; 
 nor could the benefits spoken of accrue to others. But these seem 
 not very forcible arguments. And I should be inclined, with 
 Whitby, to prefer the antient interpretation. But, in order to re- 
 concile the antient and modern opinions, we should bear in mind 
 the peculiar dispensation of the Gospel under which Christians of 
 that age lived, and which would authorize that to be then said of 
 baptism which could not be said of it inany other age. It is strange 
 the Commentators should not have thought of this, which will best 
 account for the μετόχους πνεύματος ἁγίου. Other modes of recon- 
 ciling the discrepancy may be seen in Est., Hyper., Limb., and 
 Doddr. But they seem precarious. 
 
 Tevoapévous τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου; enjoyed. A metaphor 
 not uncommon in the Classical writers, especially in the figurative 
 writings of Philo. See Carpz. The πνεύματος may be (as it is by 
 many) understood of the ordinary influences of the Holy Spirit ; 
 but it here seems far more natural to understand it of the extraor- 
 dinary ones (see Grot.) which were supposed to follow, and often 
 did follow, baptism. See Abr. The καλὸν ῥῆμα Θεοῦ is commonly 
 explained the Gospel covenant, and the promises of resurrection, and 
 eternal happiness. Theodoret explains ὑπόσχεσιν τῶν ἀγαθῶν. 
 And so Abr. Other interpretations are proposed by Pierce, Ern., 
 Mich., and Carpz. ingenious, but precarious; and indeed so flex- 
 ible is the term, that to fully determine ils meaning is very difficult. 
 But | prefer the first mentioned interpretation, i.e. the Gospel, 
 Christ's. religion, which is supported by the authority of all the 
 antients and, of the moderns, by Wets., Rosenm., Heinr., and 
 Dind., who compare the Hebr. 2 7:5 in Jer. 29, 10.33, 14. This 
 construction, with the accusative instead of the genitive, is some- 
 times found in the Classical writers. 
 
 Δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. Here again the sense is dubious; 
 and hence various are the interpretations that have been proposed 
 (which see in Dind.). Some antients and early moderns, and, of 
 the recent ones, Storr, interpret this of the miraculous ἐνεργήματα 
 of the primitive Christians; and they take μελλ. αἰῶνος of the 
 times of the Messiah. Others suppose the words to mean, what the 
 Gospel can effect in making us happy. Rosenm. renders, ‘had a 
 foretaste of the benefit of eternal life.” All these, and some other 
 
 ͵ 
 
446 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. 
 
 interpretations, yield a good sense, but are liable to various objec- 
 tions. One thing seems certain, that pedd. αἰῶνος must be under- 
 stood of the future world, or eternal life. I would therefore con- 
 jecture that this may mean “ the powerful supports of eternal life,” 
 i. e. of the Gospel which reveals it. 
 
 Καὶ παραπεσόντα----παραδειγματίξοντας. ‘The term παραπίπ- 
 τειν signifies properly to full aside, and, like the Hebr. bpp and dyn, 
 is sometimes used (as here) of falling away from religious faith and 
 profession. Abresch compares 2 Chron. 29, 19., where byna is 
 rendered ἐν τῇ ἀποστασίᾳ. And in Suidas Adam is called ὁ παρα- 
 πεσὼν. And in Polyb. we have παραπεσὼν τῆς ἀληθείας. In παλίν 
 ἀνακαινίθειν there is what appears a pleonasm; though such are 
 not unusual in antient and modern languages (and examples are 
 adduced by Abresch); indeed they sometimes, as here, tend to 
 strengthen the sense. With respect to the avakatvizey, this term 
 is found in the later writers; as Joseph., Philo, and Appian; and 
 sometimes signifies to thoroughly repair, as used of houses, or gar- 
 ments, and has occasionally a metaphorical sense. The critics, 
 however, are not agreed whether we are to here subaud ἑαυτοὺς 
 (as does Carpz.), or take it for ἀνακαινέξεσθαι; as does Abr., un- 
 derstanding the Apostle himself, or soiwwe other teacher. And Abr. 
 thinks this may be done, even though the active sense be retained. 
 It should seem, however, to be a matter of indifference whether the 
 active, or the passive sense be adopted, so that no improper stress te 
 laid upon the pronoun; for it seems to be a reflected verb. As to 
 the eis μετανοίαν, there is no occasion to take eis in the unusual 
 sense of διὰ, but regard the verb ἀνακαινέξειν, as a VOx pregnans, 
 importing reform and come to repentance. 
 
 The next words assign another reason why it is most difficult for 
 them to come to reformation, seeing that they ave crucified, &c. 
 (ἀνασταυροῦντας being for a verb and conjunction.) The best mo- 
 dern critics are agreed that the ava has no force ; and they adduce 
 many examples of such a use. And certainly, from the very nature 
 of the signification of this verb, that may very well be admitted, 
 ‘They have shewn by examples, that neither in this verb nor in ἀνα- 
 σκελιτίθειν has the ava any force. The common opinion seems to 
 have arisen from a well meant, but mistaken, piety, as if to place 
 such apostacy in the very worst light. The ἑαυτοῖς signifies guan- 
 tum in se; for {as Grot. observes) they are said to do what they 
 approve. Morus renders, “ to their detriment.” Tlapadevyparigew 
 signifies to make an example of any one, by bringing him to 
 punishment, and thereby to shame; and sometimes means no more 
 than ὑβρέξειν. It was, however, often associated with verbs denot- 
 ing public punishment, as here ; and this isall that need be attended 
 to. The sense is unnecessarily refined on by the critics. See, 
 however, Dind. It is rightly observed by Rosenm., that apostates, 
 and not evil living Christians, are here meant. And it may be added, 
 that apostates, by their desertion of the faith, represented the cru- 
 cifixion as just, and therefore did thus especially put the Son of God 
 to open shame. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VI, 447 
 
 7, 8. γὴ--τἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ. The Apostle now depicts, 
 by a beautiful image, the condition of those who, en- 
 joying the exuberance of Christian doctrine, apply this 
 blessing to a good use; as contrasted with those who 
 put it toa bad one. By this the extreme difficulty 
 of conversion in apostacy is placed in a yet stronger 
 light. (Dind.) The apodosis is here omitted; since 
 the application is obvious. 
 
 Of this figurative sense of πίνειν and πίπτειν the 
 philologists adduce numerous examples; and I have 
 myself collected several: but it is unnecessary to in- 
 troduce any, since such a figure is common even in 
 modern languages. Βοτάνη, like the Hebr. SW 
 (See Schleus. Lex.) denotes all the fruits of the 
 earth, both grass and corn. Εὔθετον, properly fitted, 
 or fit; also beneficial and useful. Vewpyetras is 
 well rendered, by whom it is dressed; having re- 
 ference both to grazing and agriculture. Thus our 
 term husbandman has reference to both. Μεταλαμ- 
 βάνει εὐλογίας α. π. @., ‘enjoys God’s blessing in a 
 plentiful produce.” So 2 Cor. 9, 6. “the smell of 
 a field which the Lord hath blessed.” This is the 
 usual language both of the Old and New Testament, 
 by which is inculcated the dependance of human 
 labour on Divine aid and blessing. Μεταλαμβάνει 
 εὐλογίας is an elegant term for εὐλογεῖται. The ap- 
 plication is obvious, on which see Chrys., Theophyl., 
 and others. But it must not be traced too minutely. 
 
 ᾿Εκφέρουσα. This is simply a variation of expres- 
 sion for τίκτουσα. ᾿Αδόκιμος, rejectanea. The sense 
 of the whole clause may be thus expressed: “ is 
 held despicable, and almost abandoned with a curse 
 (for with ¢hat such abandonment is usually accom- 
 panied), and whose end (if it be converted to use) 
 is to be burnt.” ᾿Αδόκιμος is used of whatever is 
 rejectaneous, whether money that will not pass, or, 
 in a general way, what men (as we say) would not 
 have asa gift. The éyyts is usually rendered pro- 
 pediem, and taken of time. But I prefer the version 
 of others, *‘ execrationi affinis,” or Anglicé, “is almost 
 
448 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. 
 
 $3 
 
 ready to be abandoned with a curse ;” Or, as others 
 explain, ‘‘is called accursed ;” a name given some- 
 times to barren fields by the antients. Αἱ ἧς τὸ 
 τέλος εἰς καῦσιν, the simplest ellipsis is ἐστι. And 
 the Commentators in the eis καῦσιν notice a Hebraism, 
 like Somn. So Is, 44,15. ἵνα ἦ ἀνθρώποις εἰς καῦσιν. 
 The εἰς καῦσιν. stands for the infinitive passive. The 
 burning, of course, applies, as Rosenm. says, not to 
 the land, but what grows uponit. Yet itis absurd 
 to extend it, as he does, to the farm-house and trees; 
 for however weary a husbandman might be of the 
 expense, it would do no good to burn his house and 
 the timber. But indeed the house is out of the 
 question; and as to ¢rees, such land seldom pro- 
 duces any. ‘The burning here spoken of has refer- 
 ence to what grows on the land, as bushes, thorns, 
 thistles and weeds, which, when burnt up by the 
 roots, leave the soil clear, and manure it for a better 
 produce. The application is obvious; but must be 
 traced with caution and judgment. 
 
 9. πεπείσμιεθα---σωτηρίας. The Apostle now (as 
 often) tempers severity with mildness, and uses 
 language expressive of hope 1 in them: for consider- 
 ing what precedes, πεπείσμαι can import no more 
 than a good hope; and such is the popular use of 
 this and similar words in all languages. “Ypoy, too, 
 does not necessarily imply all without exception. So 
 Theophyl : φησιν οὖν, ὅτι οὐχ ὡς κατεγνωκὼς ὑμῶν, 
 ταῦτα λέγω, οὐδὲ ὡς νομίϑων ὑ ὑμᾶς ἀκανθών πλήρεις, ἀλλὰ 
 δεδοικὼς ἵ ἐνα μὴ τοῦτο γένηται. 
 
 On the ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας the Commentators run 
 into strange diversities ; some regarding the ἐχόμενα 
 as pleonastic ; others taking the cwr. of temporal 
 deliverance. But the former is unsupported by the 
 usage of Scripture, and of the Apostle; and the 
 latter is at variance with the context. Others again, 
 as Schleus., take the τὰ ἐχόμενοι to denote constancy, 
 perseverance. .But this is so harsh as to deserve no 
 attention. The cwr. must denote salvation ; and it 
 is strange the Commentators should not have seen 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. 449 
 
 that the ἐχόμενα is an expression suited to the deli- 
 cacy of the Apostle, and the uncertainty which he 
 felt respecting their future conduct. His meaning 
 is, that he (hopes and) trusts he shall see in them at 
 least actions which are connected with salvation, as 
 leading to those higher advances in religion and 
 virtue which immediately tend to it. 
 
 Ei γὰρ οὔτω λαλοῦμεν is a formula mitigandi of 
 frequent occurrence. 
 
 10. οὐ γὰρ ἄδικος---ἀγάπης. The Apostle now ad- 
 verts to the cause for that hope and trust, namely, as 
 seated in the support of God, the author of constancy 
 and every other good work. 
 
 The κόπου is omitted in a few MSS. and Versions ; 
 and thrown out of the text by the recent Editors; 
 but (I think) on insufficient grounds. The MSS. in 
 question are such as have passed through the hands 
 of the corrector, and the emendation here arose from 
 over nicety. But though the κόπου has somewhat of 
 inelegance, yet it strengthens the sense; and though 
 the Critics think it has been introduced from 1 Thess. 
 1, 3., yet it were strange that it should have crept 
 into nearly all the MSS. Indeed the κόπου must be 
 retained ; and its genuineness is defended by Dind. 
 
 The ἄδικος is used with reference to the conde- 
 scension and benignity of God towards men. See 
 Ernesti. On the hendiadis in τοῦ ἔργου ὑμῶν, καὶ τοῦ 
 κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης, I would compare Soph. Aj. 536., 
 ἐπηνεσ᾽ ἔργον καὶ πρόνοιαν, ἥν ἔθου" Eurip. Pheen. 189., 
 φόβος, εἰ πείσω---μόχθου δὲ χάριν τήνδε ἐπιδώσω. It is 
 remarked by Rosenm.; “ Justitie est implere pro- 
 missa, quare Deus injustus aliquo modo dici posset, 
 si non staret promissis. Obliviscitur autem, qui non 
 remuneratur.” Εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, “towards him, 
 in his cause and for his sake.” Διακονέω is here (as 
 often) used of all those offices of humanity, hospi- 
 tality, and kindness active and passive, by which the 
 wants of Christian brethren are supplied, and their 
 comfort promoted. 
 
 VOL. VIII. ’ 26 
 
450 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. 
 
 11. ἐπιθυμοῦμεν----τέλους. We have here only to 
 remark, that ἡ πληροφορία τῆς ἐλπίδος is used (like the 
 same phrase at 10, 2.,and πληροφορία τῆς συνέσεως at 
 Col. 2, 2.) to denote spes certissima, “in order to 
 your having a firm and sure hope unto the end.” 
 
 12. ἵνα μὴ---ἐπαγγελίας, “ That ye be not (as 
 hitherto) dull and remiss (in that firmness of hope), 
 but be imitators of those who, through faith and con- 
 stancy, have attained the promises.” Μακροθυμία, 
 ἐς constancy and patient endurance ;” as Col. 1, 11., 
 where see the note. ΚΚληρονομούντων. Participle Im- 
 perfect. ‘The word here (as often) signities to obtain. 
 ᾿Επαγγελίας, “ the benefits promised.” 
 
 13. τῷ γὰρ ᾿Αβραὰμ.---καθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ. By the ἐπαγ- 
 γειλάμενος the Apostle means what is mentioned at 
 ver. 14.; and he takes occasion, from the promise 
 to Abraham, to speak of the firmness of the Divine 
 will and purpose, which he illustrates from an oath. 
 Philo, too (referring to Gen. 22,16 & 17.), says, only 
 “‘ sware by himself.” (Rosenm.) 
 
 14. λέγων---πληθυνώ ce. They μὴν is a common 
 formula jurandi, both in the Scriptural and the Clas- 
 sical writers. The passage here adverted to is from 
 Gen. 22, 17., Sept., except that for πληθυνώ ce, there 
 is πληθυνώ τὸ σπέρμα cov. ‘Lhe σε, however, may very 
 well include’ the σπέρμα, or posterity. The use of the 
 verb and Participle has usually (as here) an emphatic 
 and intensive force. 
 
 15. καὶ οὕτω---ἐπαγγελίας, “ And thus (by this 
 constancy of faith) he obtained the promised bene- 
 fits, both temporal, (in a numerous offspring) and 
 eternal, (in the admission to that salvation he looked 
 forward to).”. See Hebr. 11, 10. This, Dind. ob- 
 observes, must show us, that we may very well confide 
 in God’s promises, though we may not comprehend 
 the mode in which he will perform them. 
 
 16. ἄνθρωποι μὲν γὰρ κατὰ τοῦ μείϑονος ὀμνύουσι. 
 The connection is here obscure, and hence various 
 have been the modes of tracing it, for which I must 
 refer the reader to Dind. and Rosenm. By the τοῦ 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. 451 
 
 μείϑονος is supposed to be meant God. The con- 
 struction is thus laid down by Rosenm. : καὶ ὃ ὅρκος 
 cis βεβαίωσιν (sc. προσθετὸς 5. προστιθέμιενος) ἐστιν αὐ- 
 τοῖς πέρας πάσης ἀντιλογίας. He takes the καὶ in the 
 sense uf; and explains ἀντιλογία cogitatio in contra- 
 rium, or dubitatio; as'7,7. Yet I prefer the com- 
 mon interpretation, contradiction, or strife. Theoph. 
 well explains thus: ἐκ rod ὅρκου λύεται πάσης ἀντιλο- 
 γίας ἀμφισβήτησις" καὶ γὰρ λέγονται μὲν πολλὰ, καὶ ἀνι- 
 λέγονται ἐξ ἑκατέρου μέρους, ὃ δὲ ὅρκος τελευταῖος ἐπεισιὼν 
 καὶ βεβαίων, τὰ ἀμφίβολα λύει πάντα. I would com- 
 pare Liban. Or. 97 Β.; τὸ τὴν ἀμφισβητησιμωὼν πέρας" 
 and 190, a. 
 
 17. ἐν ὦ περισσότερον--ὅρκω. The ἐν ὦ is plainly 
 for διὰ τοῦτο wherefore. So Theophyl. explains it διὸ. 
 And he adds: ἐπειδὴ καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις 6 ὅρκος πᾶσαν 
 πίστιν ἐπιφέρει, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ὄμνυσιν. The 
 general sense is what Hardy (from the early 
 moderns) lays down; q. d. “Though a simple 
 promise of blessing would have sufficed, yet God, ex 
 abundanti, interposed an oath.” So Theophyl. ob- 
 serves, that the Almighty sware by himself, in order 
 to abundantly assure us that he will unalterably 
 keep, and certainly perform, all that He promises. 
 God’s swearing was, therefore, from condescension 
 to human infirmity. “Epectrevrey ὅρκῳ, literally, 
 ‘* he interposed with an oath,” i. 6. as the Vulg. well 
 renders interposuit gusjurandum. I would here 
 compare Soph. Electr. 47. 
 
 18. ἵνα διὰ δύο---ἐλπίδος, By the two immutable 
 things the best Commentators, antient and modern, 
 understand the promise of God, of itself’ immuta- 
 ble (See Rom. 11, 29.), and the oath of God, added 
 in condescension to human infirmity. Ψεύσασθαι, 
 fidem fallere. Rosenm. observes, ‘ improprie dici- 
 tur ψεύδεσθαι, cujus verbis aliquis fallitur, ideo quod 
 ea intelligit.”. ‘The promise and oath were both so 
 plain as to admit of no mistake. “Ive has here the 
 eventual sense. The παράκλησιν is by some antients 
 and moderns explained adhortationem. But the 
 
 463 
 
4.52 HEBREWS, CHAP. V1. 
 
 common rendering, consolation, is far more suitable 
 to the words following. At the καταφυγόντες Com- 
 mentators stumble. But it is only necessary to con- 
 sider this as two clauses blended into one, i. 6. “ to 
 take refuge in any hoped for place of security that 
 lies before us,”’ and “ to cling to it.” Rosenm. sup- 
 plies πρὸς, or εἰς τὸς ‘The metaphor in κρατῆσαι is 
 (as the Commentators remark) a nautical one, like 
 that in the next verse, and signifies, to lay hold of 
 and cling to any thing, as a drowning mariner does 
 toarope. It is here well remarked by Rosenm., 
 that the oath of God to Christians, here meant, is to 
 be sought in the example of Abraliam, proposed for 
 our instruction. Whence we may learn, that God, 
 if He wishes, or intends any thing or promise, does 
 it animo serio. “Now God has promised many things 
 to us Christians. Therefore, our hope is as certain 
 as if God had confirmed the promise by an oath.” 
 Perhaps, too, there is a reference to what is said at 
 7, 21. For, while God promised to Christ the 
 Priesthood by an oath, He promised to us the eter- 
 nal salvation to be attained by this our High Priest. 
 
 19, 20. ἣν ὡς ἔχομεν--- καταπετάσματος. The 7 and 
 ᾿εἰσερχομένην, are by some referred to παράκλησιν : by 
 others, to ἐλπίδα ; which mode of interpretation is 
 adopted by the antients, and the most eminent 
 moderns.. The ἔχομεν is well explained, by Abr. and 
 Dind., κατέχομεν, keep hold of; citing from an 
 anonymous writer, ap. Chrys.: κατέχειν τὴν ἄγκυραν 
 τοῦ πνεύματος. With respect to the metaphor, nothing 
 is more frequent among the Classical writers, from 
 whom examples are adduced by Palairet, Kypke, 
 and Wets., to which I add Aristoph. Eg. 1244., 
 Eschyl, Ag. 488., Eurip. H. F. 105., Artemid. On. 
 2, 23., Heliod. 2,199 & 172. From this, however, 
 it must not be inferred that St. Paul had read the 
 Greek Classics, for the expression seems to have 
 been proverbial (See Erasm. Adag.); as ἐν πείση 
 καρδίαν τηρεῖν (See Blomf. on βοῦν]. Pers. 68.) ; 
 and even on coins hope was sometimes represented 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. 453 
 
 under the symbol of an anchor. So Appian, 1, 620., 
 εἰπεῖν ἀσφαλείας τὴν ἄγκυραν εἶναι σύμβολον. By hope, 
 is meant, “{πΠ6 mind fraught with hope.” 
 
 Kal εἰσερχομιένην is best rendered by a verb and 
 relative, “and which entereth,” &c. The κατα- 
 πέτασμα was the thick veil, or curtain, which sepa- 
 rated the Sanctum from the Sanctum Sanctorum ; 
 though there is reason (from the Old Testament, 
 Josephus, and Philo) to suppose that there were two 
 veils placed nearly together, of which, the one 
 turned towards the Sanctum Sanctorum was called 
 the καταπέτασμα ; the other, towards the Sanctum, 
 the κάλυμμα. See Philo, 667, c. and the other 
 authors cited by Dind. ‘Thus, “ to enter into this 
 inner curtain,” signifies, to enter the place it separates 
 from the rest of the temple, i. e. the Sanctum Sanc- 
 torum, by which is here plainly meant heaven ; as 8, 
 2., and 9, 11.; a typical sense also found in Philo 
 and Josephus, the former of whom, 291, has εἰς τὸ 
 ἐσώτερον καταπέτασμα. And so Carpz. and Braun. 
 The force of the whole expression is well illustrated 
 by Theophyl. Thus: Λέγει ὅτι καὶ ἠχομένην αὐτὰ τῇ 
 ἐλπίδι. Αὕτη γὰρ εἰσέλθουσα ἔνδον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἐποίη- 
 σεν ἡμᾶς ἤδη εἶναι ἐν τοῖς ἐπαγγελμένοις, κἀν ἔτι κάτω 
 ὦμεν, κἂν μήπω ἔλάβομεν. “Γοσαύτην ἔχει τὴν ἰσχὺν ἡ 
 ἐλπὶς, ὥστε τοὺς ἐπιγείους οὐρανίους ποιεῖν. 
 
 20. ὅπου πρόδρομος ---αἰώνα, “ whither our precursor, 
 forerunner,” &c. 
 
 On προέδομος Dindorf has a learned note, which he concludes by 
 observing that εἰσῆλθεν πρόδρομον is a mere periphrasis for εἰσῆλ- 
 θεν πρὸ ἡμῶν : as πρόδρομος ἦλθε is for προῆλθε in Aischyl. Theb. 
 217. But το {151 must demur. The usage of a Poet will prove 
 nothing : and προῆλθε must there mean pravertit ; as it is rendered 
 by Bp. Blomfield. Though that is nothing to our present purpose. 
 And as to Charit. 8, 6. (cited by Dind.) where ships which have 
 arrived first of a fleet, are called πρόδρομοι (to which may be added 
 Eurip. Andr. 854., πρωτοπλοὺς tara), such passages are inapposite, 
 since the context here requires something more. ‘The word προδρα- 
 prety, as Carpz. remarks, is often used of running forward, to deliver 
 a message, make preparation, &c. And, he might have added, that 
 in this very sense the word occurs in Eurip. Iph. Aul. 424. Ἐγὼ δὲ 
 πρόδρομος, σῆς παρασκευῆς χάριν, ἥκω. Now this use of πρόδρο- 
 pos (as the antients and best moderns have seen) is here very 
 
4.54 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. VII. 
 
 applicable. A πρόδρομος, (Theophyl. observes,) supposes some to 
 follow him, and in no long time. It supposes, too, the possibility 
 of entering being ascertained, and preparation made for those that 
 follow. The best Commentary on this passage is Joh. 14, 2., “ I go 
 to prepare a place for you. And if 1 go and prepare a place for you, 
 I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, 
 there ye may bealso”’ And so Carpz., who has here best seen the. 
 sense, As tothe explanation of Mich. and Rosenm., principatus, 
 that is a too great lowering of the sense; and though they compare 
 2, 10., ἀρχηγὸς τὴς σωτηρίας, yet that passage is not to the purpose; 
 for it has been proved that the sense there is not captain of our sal- 
 vation, but author of our salvation. Hence it is clear that 
 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν was used κατ᾽ ἐπεξήγησιν, and must mean, ““ on our 
 behalf, for our sakes and benefit, by the preparation made, through 
 his intercession for us with the Father, &c.’"” See Chrys. and ‘Theo- 
 phyl. ; 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 After a long digression, the Apostle returns to 
 his subject, and explains the passage of Ps. 110, 4., 
 which he had brought forward, supra, 5, 6 & 10.; 
 and after removing the doubt which might seem to 
 hinder him from treating of the sublime doctrines of 
 the allegories and types of Christ, he especially 
 labours to convince them of the authority, preroga- 
 tives, and exalted Priesthood of Melchisedec. (Dind., 
 Rosenm., and Jaspis). In this Chapter is contained 
 a type of Melchisedec, accommodated to Christ. It 
 consists of two parts. Ist., From 1—10., the type is 
 described and explained; first, his Priesthood, simply 
 1—3., and then its excellence, 4—10. 2dly., From 
 11 fin. the type is transferred to Christ, and the 
 superiority of his priesthood over Aaron’s is demon- 
 strated. 
 
 VERSE 1. οὕτως γὰρ 6 Μελχισεδὲκ, &c. The γὰρ, 
 as Pierce and others have seen, is resumptive, and 
 has reference to 5,10. It is plain that the verb to 
 οὕτως 6 Μελχισεδέκ is not (as some fancy) ἐστι under- 
 stood, but μένει at ver. 38. On the story of Melchise- 
 dec and Abraham, as here referred to, see Gen. 14, 
 18. Some, indeed, have doubted whether such a 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 455 
 
 person did really exist, and, consequently, whether 
 this be a proper name. But that notion has been 
 discountenanced by almost every judicious Com- 
 mentator. It is justly remarked by Ernesti, that 
 “ Historical narrations (such as this) are not to be 
 taken allegorically, but in their plain grammatical 
 sense ; otherwise the Scripture would become mere 
 wax, to be moulded any way.” ‘This, therefore, is a 
 proper name, and of the same form with Adonizedec 
 and others. Now Melchisedec was (according to 
 the most antient custom) at once King and Priest. 
 A full account of him may be seen in Carpz. Appa- 
 rat. Antig. Sacr. Cod. 1, 4., p. 52., and Dind.* 
 
 On the region meant by Salem Commentators are 
 little agreed. ‘That it is the same with Jerusalem, 
 was the opinion of Josephus and almost all the an- 
 tients. And so most moderns, especially Reland, 
 and recently Michaelis. Others, however, as Carpz., 
 Heinr., and Dindorf, think it was not Jerusalem. 
 Carpzov. and Rosenm. say it was occupied by the 
 Jebusees, or was the capital of that region, not far 
 from the plain which was first called the valley of 
 Siddem, and afterwards the Dead Sea, where Sodom 
 and Gomorrah, Adar and Zeboim, were situated, 
 which city (Salem) being, in after times, perhaps 
 destroyed, ceased to exist, or took another name. 
 See Whitby and Mackn. 
 
 1. 6 συναντήσας ᾿Αβραὰμ, ὑποστρέφοντι ἀπὸ τῆς κοπῆς 
 
 * The latter distributes the opinions into two classes. Ist. That of 
 those who supposed him to be a Divine being, 2dly, a created one. 
 The former was maintained by some antient fanatics, as the Hiera- 
 critee, Melchisedeciani, and Ambrose ; nay, even some moderns, as 
 Molinzus, Gaillard, Hottinger, Starck, &e. 2nd., That of some (as 
 Origen and Didymus) who supposed him to be an Angel, Most 
 Commentators, however, suppose him to have beena man, Some 
 say Enoch; others, Shem; others, Job. All which opinions are 
 evidently open to objection. The best founded seems to be that of 
 Carpz., and most judicious moderns (and also Josephus) that he was 
 a principal person among the Canaanites and the posterity of Noah, 
 and eminent for his holiness and justice ; and, therefore, discharged 
 the Priestly as well as regal functions among the people, 
 
456 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 
 
 τῶν βασιλέων, καὶ εὐλογήσας αὐτὸν. The κοπῆς may 
 mean cutting in pieces, slaughter: but as κόπτειν 
 often signifies no more than to beat, 1.6. to defeat, 
 so κοπὴ perhaps here merely mean defeat. I would 
 refer to an important passage in Joseph. 1292, 28. 
 The εὐλόγησας αὐτὸν most recent Commentators take 
 to mean no more than congratulated him. And 
 Schleus. adduces as examples of this signification 
 Luke 2, 34. and Tob. 9, 6. But neither of these 
 passages will prove it. ‘The datter is not to the pur- 
 pose; and in the former the word may well admit of 
 that extent of signification which the antients and 
 earlier moderns are agreed in ascribing to it in the 
 present passage, and which, indeed, the words of 
 Genesis require. Ernesti has here an excellent note, 
 the substance of which is as follows: “ Evaoyeiy, in 
 the best Classical writers, signifies, 1st, to praise. 
 Qdly. In the New Testament, like ΤΊΣ, it signifies 
 ἁγιάϑειν, to ascribe holiness to. any thing by prayer, 
 and, as spoken of a person, alicut bene ominari, pre- 
 cari, alicui promittere et preedicare auctoritate Di- 
 vina; and such is the sense here. Now this kind of 
 εὐλογία could only be pronounced either by God, as 
 Gen. 1, 28., or by men divinely inspired (at least for 
 the time); as was Jacob when he blessed his sons.” 
 In the same way (I would add) the passage of Luke 
 above mentioned is to be understood : for Simeon 
 was then (as we learn from the Evangelist) ἐν τώ 
 πνεύματι, i. 6. divinely inspired ; and at ver. 25. it is 
 said: καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἦν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν. I trust, there- 
 fore, I have shown that this was (though Rosenm. 
 denies it) a sacerdotal benediction. 
 
 2. ᾧ kal δεκάτην ἀπὸ πάντων ἐμέρισεν ᾿Αβραάμ. 
 By the πάντων are, of course, meant πάντ. ἀκροθινίων, 
 which is expressed in Joseph. Ant. 1, 2., and indeed 
 infra, ver. 4. In vain do Heinr. and Dindorf endea- 
 vour to represent this as merely an interchange of 
 presents by courtesy between two princes. And 
 Heinr. thinks the proportion, namely, a tenth, was 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 45'7 
 
 merely accidental; the improbability of which it 
 were needless to point out.* That this was far dif- 
 ferent from an interchange of courtesy is plain from 
 the Apostle; and that the tenth was not accidental is 
 evident from the extreme antiquity of this custom of 
 all nations of making these grateful offerings, and 
 that in this very proportion.~ 'To the passages cited 
 by the Commentators and Ecclesiastical Antiquaries, 
 1 could add several from Herodot., Thucyd., &c.; 
 but it is not necessary. I would moreover observe 
 that the nature of the term ἐμέρισας evidently re- 
 guires this interpretation ; and the words of Genesis 
 are such as to permit no other. 
 
 2. πρῶτον μὲν ἑρμιηνευόμινος---εἰρήνης. The best mode 
 of taking these words is to consider them as elliptical, 
 and (with Carpzov) to be thus supplied: Πρῶτον μὲν 
 ἑομιηηνευόμενος ἐστι ὃ Μελχισεδὲκ κατὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ 
 βασιλεὺς Δικαιοσύνης" ἔπειτα δ᾽ ἐστι καὶ βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ, 
 ὅ ἐστι ἑομηνευόμιενον Βασιλεὺς Εἰρήνης. And so Heinr. 
 
 8. ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ. It is rightly observed, by 
 Dind. and Rosenm. (and this, indeed, others before 
 them had seen), that Melchisedec is so called, be- 
 cause his name was not preserved in the genealogies, 
 as is apparent from the following ἀγενεαλόγητος, 
 which is exegetical of the preceding. And Dindorf 
 ascribes the merit of this interpretation to A. Morus. 
 But it is due to Chrys. and Theophyl.; and such, 
 we may suppose, was the interpretation of the early 
 Christians ; since we find, in the very antient Syriac 
 
 * A similar misconception is guarded against by Theophyl. thus : 
 (p- 936.) Kai οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ὡς συστρατευσαμένῳ καὶ συμπο- 
 νήσαντι ἀπεμέρισέ τινα ἀμοιβὴν τοῦ καμάτου, ἀλλ᾽ οἴκοι καθημένω. 
 Διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ προεῖπεν ἀνωτέρω, ὅτι συνήντησε τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ 
 ὑποστρέφοντι ἀπὸ τῆς κοπῆς τῶν βασιλέων. 
 
 + Parkhurst, Heb. Lex. in v. "wy, thinks that from the well- 
 known practice of the Heathens in various and distant countries 
 (for which he refers to Spelman on Tythes, c. 26. Seld., c. 3. and 
 Lesley’s Divine Right of Tythes, ὃ. 7.) of dedicating tythes (i.e. 
 tenths) to their Gods, there is no room to doubt but that this reli- 
 gious custom was as antient as the dispersion of Babel, and even 
 made a part of the Patriarchal] religion before the Deluge. 
 
458 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 
 
 Version, “ cujus nec pater nec mater scripti sunt in 
 genealogiis.”” Now in this respect Melchisedec was 
 inferior to the Levitical Priests. And thus also his 
 anti-type, Christ, was ἀγενεαλόγητος. 
 
 The words μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν pyre ϑωῆς are (it 
 should seem) also exegetical, and are to be under- 
 stood of the Mosaic annals, and perhaps of some 
 
 other early chronologies preserved in the temple, 
 sometimes alluded to by Josephus. This seems to 
 be the simplest mode of interpretation ; though many 
 others have been proposed, which may be seen in 
 τ Wolf, and Dindorf. 
 
 8. ἀφωμοιωμιένος δὲ τῷ viw τοῦ Θεοῦ, μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς 
 τὸ διηνεκὲς. On the sense of these words there have 
 been numerous opinions. Dindorf offers the fol- 
 lowing interpretation : ‘‘ his de causis dicitur ἀφώ- 
 μοιωμένος τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, assimulatus in ea re filio 
 Dei: quod et filius Dei fuit sacerdos, sed none tribu 
 Levitica ; quod filius Dei dicitur neque initium vite 
 habere neque finem, et sacerdos perpetuus manere, 
 in eo quodammodo similitudinem habet cum Melchi- 
 sedeco, sed alio sensu omnia de Christo dicuntur.” 
 On the last words no determination can well be 
 made. See Dindorf. Perhaps the opinion of some 
 antients, as Theophyl. -, may be as near the truth as 
 any : Μελχισεδὲκ ἀτελεύτητον λέγεται ἔχειν τὴν ἱερω- 
 σύνην, οὐχ᾽ ὅτι on ἀεὶ ἐτεθνήκει yap" ἀμὰ καθὸ οὐκ ἐμ- 
 φέρεται τῇ γραφῇ τὸ τέλος αὐτοῦ, iy’ ἐντεῦθεν ἔχοιμεν 
 γινώσκειν, πότε ἡ ἱερωσύνη αὐτοῦ ἐπαύσατο. Upon the 
 whole, great judgment must be used in the adjust- 
 ment of the type and anti-type. 
 
 4. θεωρεῖτε---πατριάρχης. After having adapted 
 the figure to the reality, i.e. the things of Mel- 
 chisedec to Christ, he shows that the ficure, or type 
 (Melchisedec) is of greater dignity than those really 
 Priests among the Jews, nay, even their Patriarch 
 himself. But if the type be greater than these, how 
 much more will the reality, even the High Priest 
 Christ ? (Theophyl.) 
 
 Θεωρεῖτε, “ consider well, attentively reflect.” Ὁ 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 459 
 
 πατριάρχης, “ the founder of the nation.” So Philo: 
 ἀρχηγὸς τοῦ ἔθνους, & πολλών ἔθνων πατήρ. On the 
 ἀκροθινία the moderns are not agreed whether we are 
 to understand the whole of the spoils taken from the 
 enemy, or only those which had fallen to the share 
 of Abraham, as chief. The former is the opinion of 
 Hamm., Raphel, Kypke, Ernesti, Carpzov, and Mi- 
 chaelis. And this Philo and Josephus seem to coun- 
 tenance, by only using the general term λεία. But 
 for this sense there is no direct authority ; and as to 
 the thing itself, probability is adverse to it. I am 
 therefore inclined to adopt the interpretation of 
 Chrys. and Theophyl., and also of most moderns, 
 who take ἀκροῦ. in its most usual sense, as denoting 
 the τὸ ἐξαιρετὸν, or that which fell to his share as 
 chief; of which the tenth was offered by Abraham. 
 Thus δεκάτην ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων will mean dex. ἐκ (πάν- 
 των) τῶν ἀκροθινίων, i.e. all that he possessed. The 
 word (as we learn from the Etym. Mag.) was origi- 
 nally used to denote the top of a heap of corn, from 
 which a certain portion was taken as an ἀπαρχή. 
 
 5. καὶ of pev—avrov. The Apostle now proves 
 the superiority of Melchisedec to Abraham, by his 
 paying tythe to him. For the Levitical Priesthood 
 taking tythes of the people is an argument of their 
 superiority to the people; as is therefore Melchi- 
 sedec’s taking tythe of Abraham of his ‘superiority 
 to the Patriarch, and consequently of Christ, the 
 true High Priest, to all. (Thecphyl.) 
 
 ᾿Εντολὴν ἔχουσιν. The Commentators supply the 
 article, ““ the commandment.” They might have 
 compared Joh. 19, 7. νόμον ἔχομιν, &e. ᾿Αποδεκατοῦν 
 τὸν λαὸν, to tythe, i.e. take or receive tythes. This 
 sense of the word is rare (for elsewhere in the New 
 Testament it signifies to pay tythes); but Heinr. 
 adduces an example from 1 Sam. 8, 15. Heb. ty. 
 and Nehem. 10, 87. Κατὰ νόμον. So Joh. 19, 7., 
 just cited. At the words τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς atrav— 
 ᾿Αβραὰμ, some modern Commentators stumble, as 
 does also Rosenm. But there is no difficulty, if the 
 
460 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 
 
 mode of interpretation of Theophyl., above cited, be 
 adopted. And in the same way they are explained 
 by the best recent Commentators. 
 
 6. ὁ d€—edacyyxe. The Apostle here argues the 
 superior dignity of Melchisedec to Abraham, from 
 ais having, though not of the priestly or Abrahamic 
 race, taken tythes of him, and asked a blessing upon 
 him, though he had the promises, namely, that in 
 him should all the families of the earth be blessed. 
 It is strange that none of the Commentators should 
 have compared Gal. 3, 16. “to Abraham and his 
 seed were the promises made.” 
 
 7. χωρὶς δὲ πάσης---εὐλογεῖται. The δὲ is argu- 
 mentative, and may be rendered now. Χωρὶς πάσης 
 ἀντιλογίας, ““ beyond all dispute.”~ Theophyl. ex- 
 plains ἀναντιῤῥητῶς. In the τὸ ἔλαττον the Commen- 
 tators remark the use of the neuter for the mascu- 
 line; an idiom frequent in the Scriptural and Clas- 
 sical writers. But they do not notice that this may 
 often be traced to some cause apart from elegance of 
 diction. Here, considering how jealous the Jews 
 were of the dignity of Abraham, we may well ascribe 
 it to delicacy. 
 
 At edaoy. the Commentators stumble; as they do 
 also at the position. But the difficulty is of their 
 own making, and results from their unwarrantable 
 lowering of the sense of εὐλογ. just before. Besides, 
 the position is popular, and not to be pressed. [{ is 
 to be understood of what is usually the case. So 
 Theodoret explains: of peifous εὐλογεῖν τοὺς ἐλάττους 
 εἰωθβάσι. Theophyl. well adds: κρείττων ἄρα καὶ ὃ 
 Μελχ. ὁ τὸν Χριστὸν προτυπών τοῦ πατριαρχου. 
 
 8, καὶ ὧδε μὲν----ϑῆ. It is well observed by Carpz. 
 and Dind., that the ὧδε and ἐκεῖ are not (as some 
 say) particles of place ; but the former signifies hic 
 quidem, and is opposed to ἐκεῖ de, allic autem: a bre- 
 vity by which a repetition of the whole sentence from 
 ver. 5 and 6 is avoided. °“Qde, i. 6. in the Levitical 
 Law. So Theophyl.: ἐν τῷ νόμω. ᾿Αποθνήσκοντες, 1. 6. 
 persons who die, and are therefore only life pos- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 461 
 
 sessors. Exe? δὲ, i. 6. in the passage of Genesis, in 
 the history of Melchisedec. (So Dind.and Rosenm.), 
 or (as Theophyl. explains) ἐν τῷ πράγματι κατὰ τὸν 
 ~Meay. The sense of 9ῇ depends upon the interpre- 
 tation, supra ver. 3. 
 
 9. Kal, ws ἔπος----δεδεκάτωται. To preclude the 
 objection that might possibly be started by the 
 Priests of the Law, ‘*‘ And what is that to us, if 
 Abraham paid tythes:” the Apostle says that, through 
 the medium of Abraham, even Levi paid tythes, 
 Levi the origin of the Priesthood, and who received 
 tythes. Is not then Melchisedec greater than Levi, 
 as, in a manner, receiving tythes of him, through 
 the medium of Abraham? (Theophyl.) A some- 
 what bold argument, but very well suited to those 
 whom the Apostle is addressing. For (to use the 
 words of Jaspis) as the property of the parent is 
 called the property of the children, so the Jews, 
 whatever belonged to Abraham, considered as be- 
 longing to themselves, since for Abraham’s sake God 
 had promised he would bless his seed. 
 
 It is strange that so many moderns should render 
 the ws ἔπος εἰπεῖν summatim, or, “ to say the truth,” 
 quite contrary to the perpetual use of this common 
 phrase ; and that, from a fear lest the usual sense 
 should compromise the Apostie’s character. It is, 
 however, not only most agreeable to the context, 
 but is supported by the united authority of the 
 most eminent antients and moderns. See Theophyl. 
 and the sensible note of Mr. Slade. 
 
 10. ἔτι yap—Meay. The phrase ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ τοῦ 
 πατρὸς ἦν signifies that Levi, and consequently the 
 whole Sacerdotal tribe of Levi, were, though not 
 ἐνεργείᾳ, yet δυνάμει, in the loins of Abraham and 
 their Fathers. (Rosenm.) 
 
 11. εἰ μὲν οὖν----λέγεσθαι ; 
 
 The Apostle now proceeds to urge ἃ new argument. (See the 
 plan of the chapter.) Here the connection and course of reasoning 
 is obscure ; but of the accounts both of the antients and moderns, 
 
 the following I conceive to be the best. First of Theophyl. (from 
 Chrys.): "Εδειξεν, ὅτι ὁ Μελχισεδὲκ πολὺ βελτίων ἦν καὶ τοῦ 
 
 ey 
 
4.62 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 
 
 Αβραὰμ Kat τοῦ Λευὶ, ἐν τάξει ἱερέως αὐτὸς γενόμενος. Νῦν αὖθις 
 ἕτερον ἐπιχείρημα εἰσάγει, δεικνὺς ὅτι ἡ κατὰ Χριστὸν ἱερωσύνη 
 πολλῷ ὑπερέχει τῆς τῶν Λευΐτων' καὶ ὅτι ἡ μὲν τοῦ Χριστοῦ τελεία, 
 ἡ δὲ ἐκείνων ἀτελής καὶ γὰρ εἰ ἦν τελεία ἡ νομικὴ ἱερωσύνη, κατὰ 
 τὴν τάξιν Ααρὼν ἔδει ἀναστῆναι ἱερέα" 6 γὰρ Aapwy τῆς Λευϊτικῆς 
 ἦν φυλῆς" ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ααρὼν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν 
 Μελχισεδὲκ, λέγεται ἄνιστασθαι ἱερεύς" Λοιπὸν οὖν, ὡς ἀτελοὺς 
 οὔσης ἐκείνης, ἀλλὰ ἀντεισάγεται. Dind. explains as follows : ‘* The 
 Apostle had evinced by a comparison between Melchisedec and the 
 Levitical Priest, that these were far inferior to him, and so their 
 priesthood was removed at a great distance from his. Since, however, 
 it would not follow, (what he now proceeds to show,) that another 
 priesthood was to be put in the place of the Levitical; (for perhaps 
 both might stand together, one in heaven, where Christ is, the 
 other on earth, by aconstant Levitical succession ;) he shows that by 
 the Levitical Priesthood that was not effected which ought to have 
 been effected, and therefore it was no longer of any use ; and thus 
 also the institutes and laws of the Mosaic religion, which were con- 
 nected with that Priesthood, must likewise fall to the ground.” 
 
 Ei μὲν----ἦν, literally, “if there had been any perfecting of what 
 was proper by the Levitical priesthood,” i. 6. as Rosenm. explains, 
 <‘if the Levitical Priesthood had done what it ought, namely, 
 brought expiation, peace, holiness, and felicity, &c. And so Dind. 
 in an able note. Other Commentators, however, take τελ. in ano- 
 ther sense, to denote expiation by sacrifices, or moral perfection, or 
 complete happiness: all liable to objection, and little agreeable to 
 the’context. 
 
 Of {the words ris ἔτι χρεία---λέγεσθαι the simple sense (as Ern., 
 Dind., and Rosenm. are agreed) is this: ‘* what need was there 
 that it should be abolished and another put in its place.” For (as 
 Rosenm., observes) the Apostle urges the words of the Psalm. κατὰ 
 τὴν τάξιν Medy., in order to evince that a Levitical Priest is not 
 promised.” With respect to ἀνέστασθαι ἱερέα, it signifies to be 
 raised to the Priesthood ; as Exod. 1,16. Acts7,18. For (as Grot. 
 and Dind. observe) ἀνίστασθαι and myp are used of those who are 
 placed in offices of importance and dignity. Aéyeoar, be called, 
 namely, in the Psalm. But we must not overlook the parenthetical 
 clause ὁ λειὸς γὰρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ νεγομοθέτητο, where some difficulty and 
 uncertainty exists, owing to the extreme brevity with which it is 
 expressed. The words are thus explained by Theoph. : ὥρισθε ὥστε xe- 
 χρῆσθαι αὐτῇ, καὶ dv αὐτῆς ἅπαντα πράττειν. In nearly the same 
 manner Carpz. explains, whom see. The best of the later Com- 
 mentators think that the ἐπὶ expresses condition, i. e. ‘* on condition 
 of being subject to.” Perhaps the two significations may be united. 
 The use of νομοθ. in the passive is rare: yet Wets. adduces an ex- 
 ample from Demosth. c. Timarch.: τὰ ἐπὶ τῷ πλήθει νενομοτεθη- 
 péva δεινὰ. It is rendered by Dine. juberi ex lege, impelli ad ali- 
 quid vi legis, to be legislated. ‘The Commentators adduce examples 
 from Philo. In the ἔτι there is an elegance; and it is found ina 
 passage of Sext. Emp. cited by Wets. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 4.63 
 
 12, μετατιθεμένης ---- γίνεται. The sense here is 
 nearly the same as at ver. 11. ‘If the Levitical 
 Priesthood be changed, there is a change of the reli- 
 gion itself. For the ceremonial is contained in the 
 Levitical form of worship; so that without them the 
 Mosaic Law could not even be understood. There- 
 fore the priesthood falling, the Law must fall with 
 it. (Dind.) Μετατίθεσθαι signifies simply to be 
 changed ; nor is there (as Krebs fancies) an allusion 
 to playing at dice, or drafts. By μεταῦ., Rosenm. 
 observes, is meant a passing of the priesthood to one 
 not a descendant of Aaron; which the Psalm pre- 
 dicts would be. Νόμου, sc. ἱερατικοῦ. 
 
 13. The Apostle now confirms the abrogation of 
 the Priesthood by two arguments; 1. that Christ 
 was descended not from the tribe of Levi, but of 
 Judah, of which no one has hitherto held a sacred 
 Office. (Dind.) ᾿Εφ᾽ ὃν---τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ, ““ Jam vero 
 is, de quo illa (in Psalmo) dicuntur, alia de stirpe 
 natus est, &c. Illud γὰρ eo pertinet, ut, preestructis, 
 que oportebat jam ostendat, sensum Psalmi_ illius 
 omnibus partibus in Jesum Nazarenum competere. 
 (Rosenm., from Grot.) Eq’ ὃν, “ super quem,” “ de 
 quo.” So Theophyl.: περὶ οὖ. Meréyew signifies “ to 
 have any thing in common with another,” be a par- 
 taker with any, and a member of any body of men. 
 Munthe compares Diodor. Sic. 127. per. τῆς παρα- 
 λίου, ““ to be of the maritime district.” Προσέσχηκε 
 τῷ Θεῷ, sub τὸν νοῦν, ““ has attended to, devoted him- 
 self to the care of.” The Greeks frequently say 
 προσέχειν πελάγῳ, &c.; and Thucyd. 1, 15. προσεχ. 
 τοῖς ναυτικοῖς, Others render, appropinquare, operam 
 dare alicui. ‘The various readings here have arisen 
 from gloss, or misapprehension. 
 
 14. πρόδηλον---ἐλάλησε. It is rightly thought by 
 Dind., that there is no difference between προδ. here 
 and κατάδηλον at ver. 15. Yet the prepositions with 
 with which δῆλος is compounded have all, properly, 
 an intensive force ; and προδῆλος seems literally to sig- 
 
464. HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 
 
 nify the being plain at first sight. ᾿Δνατέταλκεν. This 
 is supposed by Theophyl. to be an allusion to the 
 prophecies concerning the star to arise from Jacob, 
 even the Sun of righteousness. But the best mo- 
 derns are agreed that the allusion is rather to the 
 springing up of plants, (like the Hebrew rmx in Jer. 
 23,5.) So in the Old Testament the Messiah is 
 often called a max, or plant. And Carpz. compares 
 a similar use of ἔρνος and θάλος by the Classical 
 writers, of heroes and illustrious persons. Eis ἥν. 
 Like ἐφ᾽ ὃν at ver 13. ‘* Moses (explains Rosenm.) 
 had said nothing about a Priest being chosen from 
 the tribe of Judah. It follows, therefore, from the 
 Psalm, that another law is to be substituted for the 
 law of Moses.” 
 
 15, 16. καὶ περισσότερον--- ἀκαταλύτου. The Apos- 
 tle now urges also the words of the Psalm, in which it 
 is said that the promised Priest would be a Priest for 
 ever. (Rosenm.) ‘The sense is: ‘‘ And what I said 
 (namely, that the Priesthood of Christ is far superior 
 to that of Aaron, and that the law is te be changed,) 
 is yet more plain, since such another Priest is pro- 
 mised like unto Melchisedec, who is not made such 
 by the force of a human law, but that which reaches 
 unto immortality.” The περισσότερον ἔτι καταδ. 
 Commentators compare with a Rabbinical form of 
 transition to another argument, WIA WW. Εἰ, si- 
 guidem, or rather quod, like the N; as Acts 90, 8., 
 and sometimes in the Classical writers. See Schleus. 
 Lex. Dindorf. renders it guandoquidem and quoniam. 
 ᾿Ανίσταται, “there is to arise.” “Os οὐ κατὰ νόμον ἐν- 
 τολῆς σαρκικῆς. ‘The κατὰ signifies per, through, by 
 the force of. ‘The σαρκικ. is taken by the best later 
 Commentarors to mean caducum, debile, quod homini- 
 bus mortalibus convenit, failing and perishable, en- 
 during only for atime. And they take νόμον ἐντο- 
 λῆς for ἐντολ. itself, lex quce constat preescripto. Per- 
 haps, it may be rendered, by a law of fleshly com- 
 mand,” 1. 6. a law suitable only to mortals. Κατὰ δύ- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 465 
 
 ναμιν ϑωῆς ἀκαταλύτου, “by the force of immortal life,” 
 i. 6. that the Priest to be created is to be immortal. 
 And such a power hath Christ. 
 
 Various, however, are the opinions in this verse, 
 which may be seen in Pole, Carpz., Dindorf, and 
 Braun. 
 
 147 Μαρτυρεῖ---Μελχισεδέκ. At μαρτυρεῖ some sup- 
 ply David; others (more properly) ἡ γραφὴ, 1. 6. the 
 Holy Spirit, or God speaking by him. As to the 
 var. lect. μαρτυρεῖται, it seems to be a mere paradior- 
 thosis. Heinr. and Rosenm. observe, that the nervus 
 probationis is in εἰς τὸν αἰώνα ; for it was to be proved 
 that Jesus is a priest κατὰ δύναμιν ξωῆς ἀκαταλύτου, 
 1. 6. αἰώνιον. 
 
 18, 10. ἀθέτησις---τῴ Θεῴ. 
 
 Thus far he has shewn that a change of the law is to be made; 
 now he subjoins a reason for this change of law. (Dind.) The 
 sense is: ‘‘ ‘There is implied in these words an abolition and abro- 
 gation of the preceding law, because of its weakness and uselessness 
 (for the purpose of real expiation.)” ᾿Αθέτησις signifies a setting 
 aside, or abolition of a law by the same authority that instituted it. 
 And ἀθέτησις γίνεται is for ἀθετεῖται. ‘Theophyl. explains: ἐναλ- 
 λαγὴ καὶ ἐκβολή. Τὸ ἀσθ. and τὸ ἀνωφελές, are adjectives neuter 
 for substantives. The ἀσθενὲς, Dind. observes, answers to σαρκικὸν.- 
 It signifies (as the Commentators explain) weak, as being insuffi- 
 cient to produce holiness and confer expiation. Aud Theophyl. 
 well remarks, that it was so, as consisting wholly of precepts 
 and prohibitions, without ministering any power for the perform- 
 ance of what was commanded, such as we have by the Holy Spirit.” 
 The ἀνωφελές (all Commentators are agreed) is to be taken com- 
 paraté. So Theophyl.: ὠφέλησε μέν" ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ ποιῆσαι τελείους 
 οὐκ ὠφέλησεν. The Apostle explains himself in the words following, 
 οὐδὲν yap ἐτελείωσεν ὁ νόμος, Where the Commentators, antient 
 and modern, consider the neuter as put for the masculine ; which 
 yields a good sense; but perhaps there is also an allusion to the 
 works themselves. See the note, supra ver. 7. The reason, Carpz. 
 observes, is, that in the law there is no justification. See Rom. 7. 
 and 8. For neither can the moral law make us holy, nor the cere- 
 monial expiate our sins.” 
 
 The clause following ἐπεισαγωγὴ--- Θεῷ, is obscure, by being 
 worded in a refined rather than a popular manner. The sense 
 partly depends on the construction. A verb is left to be supplied. 
 Most Commentators repeat ἐτελείωσεν ἡμᾶς ; as if this clause were 
 antithetical to the one which immediately preceded. But as the 
 preceding is a parenthetical explanation of the ἀσθ. and ἀνωφ., it 
 is not probable that the Apostle would extend the sentence to Θεῷ, 
 And thus, too, something is left wanting to correspond to the 
 
 VOL. VIIL 2H 
 
466 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 
 
 ἀθέτησι-ς---ἐντολῆς. 1 therefore agree with many eminent moderns, 
 that this clause is the antithesis to that; and γίνεται is to be re- 
 peated ἀπὸ κοινοῦ. This too, is supported by some antients. So 
 Scbol. Matth.: ἐπεισάγεται δὲ ἡ τῶν κρειττόνων ἐλπίς. And Theo- 
 phyl.: ἠθετήθη ἡ νομικὴ, ἐπεισήχθη δὲ ἔλπις, ἅς. ᾿Ἐπεισαγωγὴ 
 signifies introduction. It is said to be ἃ rare word. The Commen- 
 tators have, however, adduced one example from Joseph. Ant. 11, 
 6, 3., to which [ add ‘Thucyd. 8,92. I would also compare a simi- 
 lar expression in Eurip. Hel. 1037. εἰσφέρεις yap ἐλπίδας. By the 
 ἐλπίδος is meant, not the author of hope (as Rosenm. explains), but 
 the hope of salvation held forth in the Gospel, and introduced by 
 Jesus, by which (the Apostle adds) we (alone) have approach to 
 God, namely, with a hope of acceptance, through our great mediator 
 Jesus. For such appears to be the force of éyyé., which the Soci- 
 nians most unwarrantably pare down, and others as Braun, &c., 
 extend too far. ‘Theophyl. aptly adduces the preceding, εἰσερχομένην 
 eis τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος. 
 
 20—22. Here we have a third argument, directly 
 proving the superiority of Christ’s priesthood, from 
 the oath, or solemn asseveration, that it would be 
 perpetual. (Dindorf.) Now Christ being made 
 priest by the interposition of an oath, is greater than 
 the Aaronitish priests, who are made such without 
 an oath. ‘The very use of an oath implies something 
 of high importance, and therefore shows the august 
 dignity of Christ’s priesthood. (Ern.) The words 
 may be literally rendered: ‘And (there is this 
 argument too, that) inasmuch as he was made a 
 priest not without an oath, (for those have been 
 made priests without an oath, but he with an oath, 
 even that of him who said unto him, “The Lord 
 hath sworn and will not repent,” &c.), in just so 
 much, (so far, or thus,)is he made the mediator of a 
 better covenant.” In the οὐ χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας, there 
 is an elegant litotes: and γέγονε ἱερεὺς is to be sup- 
 plied from ἱερεῖς yeysvores, within the parenthesis; an 
 irregularity indeed, but often found in Thucyd. and 
 all writers who, from a superabundance of matter 
 and an anxiety to bring out the sense in the fewest 
 words, make long and involved sentences; of which, 
 I would observe, Lord Clarendon is the most remark- 
 able modern example. 
 
 Ὁρκωμοσία signifies literally oath-swearing. It is 
 arare word, though found in Ez. 17,18 & 19. 3 Esdr. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 407 
 
 8,95. Schleus. compares the similar forms ἀπωμοσία, 
 ἐπωμοσία, κατωμιοσία, συνωμιοσία. The Classical 
 writers use ὀρκωμόσιον, but in the tense covenant, or 
 treaty sanctioned by oath, and sometimes the sacri- 
 fice which accompanied it. Teyovsres is taken by the 
 Commentators for γεγόνασι. But it may be a nomi- 
 nativus pendens. 
 
 22, éyyvos. This (Dind. observes) is used for the 
 more Classical ἐγγυήτης and ἐξέγγυος ; and signifies 
 a sponsor, vas, pres, fide jussor, one who promises, 
 engages, and answers for another, or is surety for 
 him. Some recent Commentators render it auctor. 
 But this is letting the significancy of the term eva- 
 porate. It is by many rendered mediator, (and so 
 Theophyl. μεσίτην) ; as, supra, 6, 17., Christ is said 
 ὅρκῳ μεσιτεύειν. And such is the name assigned to 
 him infr. 8, 6. 9,15. Now the various senses of 
 ἔγγυος have alla reference to the different parts of 
 Christ's work, in being our mediator, and procuring 
 our salvation, especially that of shedding his blood 
 by dying, in order thus inauguraret foedus, as Ro- 
 senm. expresses it. See more on this important 
 subject in Carpz. 
 
 The force of διαθήκη has been before explained ; 
 and the superiority of the new to the old covenant 
 is too obvious to need treating on. See the Com- 
 mentators. 
 
 23, 24. καὶ of pev—mrapapevery. Another point of 
 superiority in Christ over the high priest of the law 
 is now touched on, namely, that the Levitical high 
 priesthood (for ἱερεῖς is put for apyiep.) was held only 
 by a succession of different persons (above seventy, 
 as we are told, up to the destruction of Jerusalem) ; 
 since those were mortal; but in the new covenant 
 there is only one Christ ; because he is immortal. 
 ᾿Απαράβατον ἔχει τὴν ἱερωσύνην, ‘he holds his priest- 
 hood in eternal continuity, without having to trans- 
 mit it to a successor.” For that is the force of ἀπα- 
 ράβατον (and so the Syr., Grot., and Braun.), since 
 the office (as Dind. explains) has not to pass ex de- 
 
 eessore ad successorem. Dind., moreover, remarks 
 ane 
 
4.68 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 
 
 that ἀπαραβ. is used by the Classical writers to de- 
 note immutable; which comes to the same thing, 
 It is explained by Hesych. ἀσειστὸν ; by Theophyl. 
 ἀδιάκοπον, ἀδιάδοχον; by Gicumen. ἀτέλευτον (1 con- 
 jecture ἀτελεύτητον) ; and by the Vulg. sempiternum. 
 ‘Thus (observes Theophyl.) Christ is as superior as 
 immortality is superior to mortality.” It is well 
 remarked by Rosenm.: “ Sacerdotium ejus primum 
 est in suo genere, et item ultimum. Hactenus au- 
 tem seternus sacerdos dicitur Christus, quatenus 
 nune, postquam in celum abiit, nobis salutifer est. 
 Hoc statim v. 25. aliis verbis repetitur.” 
 
 φῦ, tev—@cw. ‘This is, in some measure, exege- 
 tical of the preceding verse. On σώϑειν εἰς τὸ παντελὲς 
 Commentators differ in opinion. Some include tem- 
 poral salvation ; which may be admitted, but it was 
 probably not here in the mind of the Apostle. Παν- 
 'τελῶς is explained by some antients and many emi- 
 nent moderns as synonymous with εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς, 
 especially on account of the πάντως following. And 
 so Chrys. and Theophyl. explain: ‘‘both in this 
 world, and in the next.” Others, as Braun and Els- 
 ner, contend that it must mean omnino, prorsus, 1. e. 
 perfectim, to the uttermost. And this yields a sense 
 far more extensive and worthy of the Apostle; espe- 
 cially since (as Braun has suggested) there is an op- 
 position between the Levitical priesthood and Christ. 
 Perhaps, however, the above interpretations may be 
 united. 
 
 The προσερχομένους is to be understood like the 
 ἐγγίϑομιεν at ver. 19. And the ἐντυγχάνειν expresses 
 the whole of the mediatorial office expressed in the 
 ἔγγυος at ver. 22, On the expression ἐντυγχάνειν τινι 
 it is observed by Morus ap. Rosenm.: ‘ dicitur de 
 eo qui presens, absens, ulla de caussa cum altero 
 agit et tractat aliquid; et quot de caussis, quot item 
 modis cum altero agit, tot significationibus variatur 
 vis hujus verbi, adeoque de deprecante, commen- 
 dante, se alterius caussa interponente, accusante, 
 defendente, paciscente dicitur.” 
 
 2 τοιοῦτος γὰρ--- γενόμενος, “Such an one as high 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 4.09 
 
 priest it was suitable and fitting should be given to 
 us.” On the ἔπρεπεν see Ernesti. Ὅσιος, pious,* 
 holy, ἄκακος, blameless of all evil. And from the ge- 
 ral use of the word, there may be an allusion (as 
 Theophyl. thinks) to his being devoid of guile and 
 malice (as 1 Pet. 2, 22.), ἀμιαντὸς, unstained with 
 vice. And so of Christ it is said, ““ He did no sin.” 
 Of this term Classical examples are adduced by 
 Wets. Κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλών, 1. 6. not 
 only far removed from any resemblance to sinners, 
 but from any society with them. So Braun, Carpz., 
 and Camer. ὝὙψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος. In 
 the interpretation of this phrase some moderns, 
 especially the recent Commentators, run into most 
 wild speculations, which I shall not detail. On the 
 other hand, Braun, by seeking in every one of these 
 epithets a correspondence to the case of the Jewish 
 high priests, entangles himself in interminable dis- 
 cussions. It seems better to imitate the prudence 
 of the antients, who recognise no more in the words 
 than a phrase denoting exalted dignity and majesty 
 
 at the right hand of God. (Compare Col. 8, %. and 
 
 Eph. 4, 10.) And so the most judicious of the mo- 
 dern Commentators. With respect to the compari- 
 son which Braun has drawn between those qualities 
 of the great high priest and those which were re- 
 quired in the Jewish high priests, though I cannot 
 
 but think the Apostle had a general allusion thereto,’ 
 
 yet not (I conceive) to the extent which that learned 
 and ingenious, but too fanciful, writer supposes. It 
 is manifest that all this is spoken of the human nature 
 of our Lord. 
 
 Q7. ὃς οὐκ ἔχει---λαοῦ. On the force of καθ᾽ ἡμέραν 
 the Commentators are much at issue. Lachmacher 
 takes it of the day of expiation κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, with a 
 subaudition of τεταγμένην. But this is too arbitrary 
 an ellipsis to deserve notice. Others (as Rosenm.) 
 interpret it sepenumero, quandocunque res postulat. 
 
 * This, Ernesti observes, denotes both the holiness of his nature 
 and his actual holiness as a man, in that he did no sin. 
 
470 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 
 
 But. this is unauthorized, and merely a device to 
 avoid the difficulty. The phrase can only mean 
 every day (for ἑκάστην must be supplied); as it is 
 taken by the antients and the most eminent moderns. 
 (See Lim)., Braun, Wolf, Carpzov, and Mich.) It 
 is supposed to have reference to the daily offering 
 enjoined at Levit. 6, 20. (See Braun.) And Dind. 
 observes that from Levit. 4, 3., Theodoret, and 
 Maimonides, we learn that the High Priest every 
 day offered up a sacrifice or NOM for his own sins 
 and those of the people. And Philo, 505., among 
 the daily victims, reckons that ἥν ὑπὲρ αὐτών avayou- 
 σιν οἱ ἱερεῖς, καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους. Itis here observed 
 by Rosenm.: ‘‘ Facit ad nostram tranquillitatem, 
 quod Pontifex noster non debuit pro se sacrifium 
 offerre; nam ex eo discimus, eum omnia nostri 
 caussa et commodo nostro fecisse atque tulisse.” 
 
 27. τοῦτο yap ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ, ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας, 
 ““ For this (latter) he did once for all, when he offered 
 himself up to death (as a sacrifice for the expiation 
 of human sin), and therefore he had no occasion to re- 
 peat it (and as to the former, he needed it not, being 
 free from all sin).’’ Such a clause must be sup- 
 plied to complete the sense. That the τοῦτο yap, &c. 
 must be referred to what immediately precedes, is so 
 plain that none but those who wish to deceive them- 
 selves can come to any other conclusion. ‘The per- 
 versions cf the Socinians here, and throughout the 
 Epistle, are ably confuted by Braun. With respect 
 to the ἐφάπαξ, once for all (as Rom. 6, 10.), it is op- 
 posed to the καθ᾽ ἡμέραν. ᾿Αναφέρειν and προσφέρειν 
 are sacrificial terms. 
 
 Q8. ὃ νόμος γὰρ---τετελειωμιένον. Here is subjoined 
 the reason for the difference said to exist between the 
 Levitical Priests and Christ, our High Priest. ‘The 
 sense is: “ For the law maketh men High Priests, 
 who (themselves) have weakness (i.e. frailty) and 
 consequently sin (and therefore can, per se, offer no 
 expiation) ; but the promise of oath (i.e. the sworn 
 promise) which was subsequent to the law (appoints) 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. VIII. 471 
 
 the Son, who is supremely perfected, and exalted for 
 evermore.” The λόγος τῆς ὀρκωμοσίας is illustrated 
 by Ps. 110. The μετὰ τὸν νόμον, “ after the promul- 
 gation of the law,” is supposed to refer to the time of 
 David. See also Dindorf. On the sense of rerea. 
 Commentators are not agreed. Carpz. and Rosenm. 
 think there is a reference to the ἱερεῖον τελειωσέως, 
 the victim of perfection and consecration mentioned 
 by Philo, 676 a. Schleus. takes it to mean “ raised 
 to exaltation at the right hand of God.’’ I prefer 
 the sense assigned by Braun and Dind., consummate, 
 perfect, and who can therefore, by his own merits, 
 perfectly expiate. However, the interpretation of 
 Carpzov. may be conjoined. Ernesti explains it, 
 “immortal and exalted to the right hand of God.” 
 It is, however, not improbable that the term com- 
 prehends nearly al/ these and other senses assigned, 
 as including a constellation of all the excellences 
 that can be conceived, for the purpose above men- 
 tioned. 
 
 Theophyl. well points out the force of the anti- 
 theses thus: "Exe? νόμος, ἐνταῦθα λόγος ὁρκωμοσίας, 
 τουτέστι, βεβαιότατος, ἀληθέστατος" ἐκεῖ ἄνθρωποι δούλοι 
 πάντως" ἐνταῦθα υἱὸς, δεσπότης δηλαδή: ἐκεῖ ἀσθενεῖς, 
 τουτέστι, προσπταίοντες, ἁμαρτίαν ἔχοντες, θανάτῳ ὑπὸ 
 κείμενοι" ἐνταῦθα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωμιένος, τουτέστιν, 
 ἀΐδιος, δυνατὸς, οὐ νῦν μόνον ἀναμάρτητος, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ. 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 This Chapter commences with two propositions : 
 Ist, Christ is also High Priest in heaven. For in 
 heaven is the true sanctuary ; whereas the sanctuary 
 on earth contains merely an adumbration of the 
 celestial sanctuary; in heaven is the true tabernacle 
 of God; whereas, in the temple and tabernacle on 
 earth was only a shadow of the celestial tabernacle. 
 2dly, Since Christ is High Priest also in heaven, he 
 must have some victim to offer up to God, and this 
 victim is better han the Levitical ones. (Ernesti.) 
 
472 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. 
 
 It is now shown that Christ may be called High 
 Priest, because he has really performed all the offices 
 of a High Priest, and has discharged much more 
 exalted sacerdotal offices, inasmuch as his own priest- 
 hood is far more excellent, and of infinitely greater 
 dignity than Aaron’s. For Christ is a Priest in 
 heaven, not on earth. (Dind.) 
 
 1. κεφάλαιον de, Χο. On the sense of κεφάλαιον 
 Commentators are not agreed. Most of the early 
 ones render: ‘ summa, vel elenchus est.” Most of 
 the later ones, “ caput rei est.” Either signification 
 is supported by authority (see Wetstein’s examples) ; 
 but the latter seems the more agreeable to what fol- 
 lows: for (as Dind. observes) there is no recapitula- 
 tion there to be found. It is, moreover, supported 
 by the antients. So Theophyl. (from Chrys.) : ke- 
 ᾧάλαιον ἀεὶ τὸ μέγιστον ests. And then he states the 
 sense thus: Κεφάλαιον δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομιένοις, τουτέστιν, 
 ἵνα εἴπω τὸ μέγιστον καὶ συνεκτικώτερον, Θεὸν ἔχομεν 
 ἀρχιερέα. In some measure, however, the two signi- 
 fications merge into each other, and the former may 
 relate to what precedes ; the latter to what follows. 
 
 On τοῦ θρόνου τῆς μεγαλωσύνης I have before treated. 
 
 2. τῶν ἁγίων----ἄνθρωπος, ‘* A minister of the sanc- 
 tuary which God made (i.e. in heaven), and not 
 man.’ On λειτουργὺς, which is rendered, by Ernesti, 
 antistes sacrorum publicus, see the note on Rom. 
 13, 6. 15, 16. Phil.2, 25. By the ἁγία is meant the 
 sanctum sanctorum ; and, considering that the noun 
 closely united with it (namely σκηνῆς) has affixed to 
 it the epithet ἀληθινῆς (like ἄρτος ἀληθινὸς in Joh. 6, 
 32.), true and worthy of the name, it seems that that 
 epithet may also be mentally extended to ay., and 
 both &y. and ox. be so called, as being heavenly, and 
 therefore truly such, in opposition to the earthly 
 ones, which were only shadows of the heavenly. 
 ἜἜπηξεν, pitched, i.e. made. The term is accommo- 
 dated to the opposite, namely, the earthly tabernacle. 
 On the nature of Christ’s Priesthood see c. 7. On 
 the subject of the accommodation of the sentiment 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. 473 
 
 to Jewish opinions, the recent Commentators run 
 into very wild speculations, and seem to have yet to 
 learn ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ σωφρονεῖν. Ae: 
 
 3. πᾶς γὰρ---προσενέγκε. Dind. thinks this is an 
 answer to the objection, that Christ had never in his 
 life discharged the sacerdotal office. It is observed 
 by Rosenm., that he here shows why he said λειτουρ- 
 yos; namely, because such is every High Priest. 
 It is therefore necessary that Christ, whom the Psalm 
 calls a Priest, and one, indeed, far more excellent 
 than the Mosaic ones, should have somewhat to offer. 
 What that #his he tells us at 9, 2.; namely himself, 
 by whom we attain remission of sins, and eternal 
 salvation. 
 
 4, 5. εἰ μὲν γὰρ---ἐπουρανίων. The Apostle here 
 evolves the notion of High Priest and λειτουργὸς ἐπου- 
 pavios, brought forward at v.3. At ver. 4. one of these, 
 namely the ἐπουρ., is explained ab indirecto. After 
 the words εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἦν must be supplied ἱερεύς, which 
 is to be taken for ἀρχιερ. (Carpzov.) ‘The force of 
 the argument, which is deduced ex absurdo, is this: 
 “If I were to say that Christ is a Priest on earth, I 
 should not call him a Priest at all; since such there 
 are on earth to offer sacrifices; but these are no- 
 thing compared to the celestial Pontiff; since their 
 offices are but a faint adumbration of his true priest- 
 hood in Heaven. (Dind.) Ὄντων ray ἱερέων, ** since 
 there are already priests there.” οἵτινες ὑποδείγματι 
 καὶ σκίᾳ λατρέυουσι, who (however) perform the 
 ministry,” &c. In ὑποδείγματι and σκίᾳ the latter is 
 exegetical of the former, and properly signifies a 
 
 faint sketch, or outline, traced for a painter, or a mo- 
 del for an architect, who fills up the body or ὑπόστα- 
 ois of the figure, and complete the work. ‘The pro- 
 priety and force of the term is obvious. But it is 
 strange the Commentators should not have seen that 
 these Datives are put for the Accusative with εἰς. 
 Tey ἐπουρανίων, scil. μερῶν, i. 6. heaven itself, as Eph. 
 1, 20. Kalas κεχρημάτισται----ὄρει. The sense is: 
 ‘** As Moses, when about to set up the tabernacle, 
 
474 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. 
 
 was directed by God, See that thou make it after the 
 model shown to thee in the mount.” On χρηματί- 
 gecbas, to be Divinely directed, I have before treated. 
 The phraseology here is well illustrated from the 
 Rabbins, and Philo, by Braun and Carpzov. The 
 general sense is thus laid down by Rosenm.: ““ Om- 
 nia, que in templo tanquam in umbra representan- 
 tur, ea in ccelo sunt revera. In illo tabernaculo 
 sanctum sanctorum representat thronum Dei; sed 
 coelum revera sedes Dei est,” &c. 
 
 6. νυνὶ δὲ ---7“νενομοθέτηται. The νυνὶ, Grot. observes, 
 is not indicative of time, but opposition, i.e. “ ac- 
 cording as things now are.” So Theophyl.: νυνὶ δὲ 
 μὴ ὧν ἐπὶ γῆς, ἀλλὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἔχων, ἕο. Διαφορω- 
 τέρας τέτευχε λειτουργίας, “ he hath obtained, and 
 possesses, a more excellent ministry.” At διαῷ. must 
 be understood τοσούτω, to correspond to the ὅσῳ 
 just after. The κρείττονος διαθήκης μεσίτης is the 
 same with the ἔγγυος xg. διαθ. at 7, 22., where see the 
 note. The Atticterm was μεσέγγυος, which Hesych. 
 explains μεσίτης. On these terms, and the nature of 
 the superiority of the New Covenant see Braun and 
 Carpzov. “Hris νενομοθέτηται, literally, legislated, as 
 having been established and founded on better pro- 
 mises. Rosenm. observes that vevoy.. was used rather 
 than τίθηται, to show that this was at once a covenant 
 and a daw. Compare 7, 11. In ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν éray- 
 γελίαις the ἐπὶ denotes condition; and, indeed, this 
 preposition is often used in speaking of contracts. 
 The sense therefore will be: sub promissis praestan- 
 tioribus, “so as to contain better promises.” 
 
 7. εἰ γὰρ---τόπος. The argument at 7, 22. is here 
 pursued, and, from the introduction of a New Co- 
 venant, it is inferred that the former was insufficient : 
 a thing which God himself had foreseen, and there- 
 fore spoke of that new covenant to the first Israelites. 
 (Dind.) Αμεμπτος, irreproachuble. perfect, i.e. 
 able to accomplish all the purposes of such a διαβθ., 
 and to make men ἄμεμπτοι, to reform, save, and bless 
 them. See Braun, Limb., and Carpzov. With re- 
 spect to the words οὐκ dy δευτέρας ἐθητεῖτο τύπος, it is 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. 475 
 
 strange the Commentators should not have seen that 
 two sentences are blended into one, i.e. ““ ἃ second 
 could not have been sought for,” and, ‘ there would 
 have been no place for a second.’ It is well ob- 
 served, by Heinr., that ϑητεῖν τόπον is the Latin cir- 
 cumspicere. 
 
 On the imperfection of the Law see Whitby. 
 
 S—12. μεμφόμινος---διαθήκην καινήν. 
 
 That the old’Covenant was not perfect, not ἄμεμπτον, is now 
 proved from a passage of Jeremiah. (Dind.) The μεμφόμενος is, 
 by most recent Commentators, referred to διαθήκῃ. But, as Heinr. 
 and Dind. rightly observe, that would have required αὐτῇ to have 
 been expressed. The antients and early moderns, and, of the re- 
 cent Commentators, Heinr. and Dindorf, maintain that it must be 
 referred to αὐτοῖς (of which syntax Raphel and Wets. adduce many 
 examples) ; and this is required by the words following. 
 
 The passage is from Jer. 31, 31—34.; and agrees with the Sept., 
 excepting ‘a few minute discrepancies, supposed to have arisen from 
 citing by memory; but perhaps also attributable to some variation 
 between the Sept.Version then and at the present time. See Surenh. 
 βιβ. κατ. 625., and Mr. Horne’s Introd. in loc. Ἡμέραι ἔρχονται. 
 Present for Future, say the Commentators, But it may be rendered, 
 “are coming.” Καὶ, when (like the Heb. 1), or more simply, and 
 (then). Suvreréow, peragam, I will accomplish, form. So Jer, 34, 
 15. συνετέλεσαν διαθήκην. See Schleus. Lex. Ἔπὶ, super, erga, 
 Heb. nx, with. Οἶκον, people. Ἰούδα and Ἰσραὴλ Dindorf and 
 Heinr. take to denote all the Israelites of the twelve tribes; for 
 Israel did not then exist as a separate kingdom; though it was pro- 
 bably spoken of separately. And so Pierce, and most of the later 
 moderns, Yet see Braun and Mackn. Upon the general sense of 
 the passage see Pierce, Mich., and Rosenm. 
 ᾿ Kara, like unto, 3. Ἔν ἡμέρᾳ, ““ at the time.” *“Ev—adrovs, li- 
 terally, ‘“ in the day of my taking them by the hand (in order) to 
 lead them from.” The expression ἐπιλ. χειρὸς is a figure derived 
 from the simplicity of antient phraseology. At ἐξαγαγεῖν must be 
 understood eis τὸ or ἕνεκα. Ὅτι οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἐν, ἄς, The ὅτι 
 Macko, renders when. But the real sense is that of the common 
 version, because: for (as Dindorf observes) there now follows the 
 reason why a new covenant was to be formed, namely, because the 
 old one was not observed. Ἐμμένειν ἐν denotes ‘* to continue in, 
 and constantly and habitually observe and do any thing.” It is 
 often used of covenants. The full sense is: ‘* they did not continue 
 in the performance of the precepts enjoined in the covenant, and 
 covenanted to be performed.” Hence, as Rosenm. observes, διαθήκη 
 sometimes denotes the whole religion. It is then added ἡμέλησα 
 αὐτῶν, “ I neglected them,” as Mackn. renders. Preferable, how- 
 ever, is the common version, “1 regarded them not,” or Dod- 
 dridge’s, ‘‘ I disregarded them.” And the Commentators might 
 
476 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. 
 
 have compared 1 Sam. 2, 30., ‘‘ them that honour me I will honour, 
 and they that despise me, shall be lightly esteemed,” where the 
 Sept. has ἀτιμασθήσονται. There is here an apparent discrepancy be- 
 tween the ἡμέλησα of St. Paul and the Sept., and the mbya of the 
 Heb., rendered in our English version (conformably to good autho- 
 rities), “41 was a husband to them.” But that sense would be very 
 harsh; and the more profound researches of the great Orientalists 
 of the last two centuries (who, by uniting a study of the Syriac and 
 Arabic, and the other sister dialects, with that of the Hebrew, have 
 thrown so much light on very many obscure passages) here come to 
 our aid,and inform us that ya, from the use of the Arabic, may mean 
 fastidire, aversari. And they add, that such is the interpretation. 
 adopted by the greatest Jewish Expositors, who, besides a know- 
 ledge of Hebrew, were perfectly versed in the Arabic. See the notes 
 of Mich. and Dind. Thus all is plain, and the above passage of 
 i Sam. much confirms the interpretation. 
 
 10. ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη. The ὅτι, 95, is by Heinr. 
 rendered sed; by Carpzov and Rosenm., scilicet ; 
 which is preferable : but no great stress is to be laid 
 on the particle. Ausdots (as Ernesti observes) is, after 
 the Hebrew, put for the Indicative δώσω. But the 
 Sept. have here expressed a Hebraism which is not 
 found in our present text, namely {M1 for ΠΣ. The 
 ἐπιγράψω is very significant: q.d. “ I will cause that 
 they shall understand and keep in mind my precepts.” 
 A metaphor of which Carpzov cites an examp!e 
 from Philo 17 D. ἄνθρωποι γραψάμενοι ταῖς ἑαυτῶν 
 guyais. And Dind. one from Joseph. c. Ap. 2, 18., 
 where he says that the Jews have Moses’s νόμους 
 eyKeyapaypevous ταῖς ψυχαῖς. 1 add AXschyl. Choeph. 
 447. τοιαῦτ᾽ ἀκούων ἐν φρεσὶ γράφουι See Rosenm. 
 The words ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς----λαόν are rightly considered 
 by Carpzov as a formula solennis, which might be 
 added in forming any Divine covenant, and which 
 comprehends all the effects of Divine grace. The 
 words denote protection and benefits on the one 
 hand, and obedience and worship on the other. 
 
 11. καὶ οὐ μὴ διδάξωσιν--- αὐτου. The οὐ μὴ διδαξ. is 
 taken by the best Commentators in the sense, “ they 
 will have no need to teach.” Some MSS. read (from 
 the Heb.) διδάξουσιν, “* they will not teach.” The 
 sense is (as Doddr. observes): ‘they will not teach, 
 because there will be no need for it.” For. τὸν πλή- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. 477 
 
 σιον Griesb. edits, from several MSS., τὸν πολίτην. 
 And so the Sept. And certainly this is more agreeable 
 to the Scriptural style. Γνώθι τὸν Κύριον is explained 
 by Dind., ““ embrace the worship of the true God, 
 as contained in the religion of Moses.” But it seems 
 rather to refer to what is enjoined on the Israelites, 
 Deut. 6, '7., to converse on the truths of their reli- 
 gion in the course of their “ walking by the way,” 
 doubtless for the purpose of instructing the ignorant. 
 Now for this, it is predicted, there will be, compara- 
 tively, no need under the new and better covenant. 
 By the πάντες ἀπὸ μικροῦ are denoted all, of every age. 
 A proverbial phrase, signifying all, without exception. 
 
 12. ὅτι ἵλεως ἔσομαι---ἔτι. In these words, (Dind. 
 observes) the other promise, ‘‘ I will be their God,” 
 is explained; q.d. “1 will be merciful to their of- 
 fences, and I will no longer remember the sins of 
 this people.” Ἵλεως, mild, clement, easy to be en- 
 treated, ready to forgive. Ταῖς ἀδικίαις, 1. 6. to the 
 persons guilty of, &c. The terms ἅμαρτ. and ἀνομι.. 
 are nearly synonymous. It is observed by Ernesti, 
 that the latter signifies transgression against the law, 
 and the former, any transgression. See Ps. 32, 1. 
 Not to remember sins is a refined way of expressing 
 forgiveness of them. 
 
 13. ἐν τῷ A€yew—ahavicpod. From this prophecy 
 the Apostle proceeds to prove the abolition of the 
 old Covenant, and that by a popular argument and 
 illustration. (Dind.) ‘The words may be rendered 
 thus: ‘‘ By making mention of a new Covenant, he 
 represents the former as antiquated. Now what is 
 antiquated and grown old, weak, and useless, is near 
 to its end, and ready to be done away.” Such isthe 
 general sense. With respect to the phraseology, 
 πρώτην is for προτέραν; so also τελειοῦσθαι (as Ern. 
 remarks) is properly applicable to things ; and γη- 
 ράσκειν, to persons: but the terms are often inter- 
 changed in figurative diction. On the exact nature 
 of the metaphor in ἀφανισμοῦ the Commentators 
 differ (see Kypke, Braun, and Carpz.), and come to 
 
478 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. IX. 
 
 no certain determination. One thing is clear, that 
 the expression obscurely alludes to that destruction 
 of the Temple and the Jewish worship which took 
 place about ten years after. On the nature of the 
 various changes of the old Covenant see the learned 
 annotations of Braun. 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 After the foregoing comparison between the sacer- 
 dotal office of Aaron and Christ, it will now, ac- 
 cording to the primary purpose of the Epistle (which 
 see in the Argument) be shown that all that splen- 
 dour and magnificence of the Jewish λειτουργία, 
 which so dazzled, nay blinded the eyes of the Jews, 
 and which therefore they were so unwilling to lay 
 aside, is, in the new religion, far more august. From 
 different parts of Exod. 25—27. Paul shows that the 
 
 ‘whole Jewish worship was indeed splendid, but only 
 respected what is external, and was to be repeated 
 again and again. By the Divine counsel, then, it 
 was only to last for a time, till the perfect one was 
 to be introduced ; which was done by Jesus Christ. 
 (Jaspis. ) 
 
 Ver. 1. εἴχε----κοσμικόν. It is observed by Doddr., 
 that our Translators strangely supply the word cove- 
 nant instead of tabernacle, whereas most copies read 
 σκήνη, tabernacle, and that undoubtedly suits the 
 connection best. But, with his good leave, our 
 Translators are right, and he is wrong. ‘They did 
 well in supplying covenant, which the context re- 
 quires: and they justly considered σκήνη as having 
 no place; for it is not found in many antient MSS., 
 nearly all the Versions, and many Fathers and Greek 
 Commentators: and such has been the opinion of 
 almost every Critic for the last two centuries. I 
 suspect that Doddr. was misled by Whitby and Wolf, 
 who here warmly defend the σκήνη, but whose judg- 
 ment, in Critical matters, was but moderate. The 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 479 
 
 best Interpreters, from Chrys. to Dindorf, unite in 
 supplying διαθήκη from the preceding. See Chrys. 
 and Phot. ap. Gicumen. 
 
 1. δικαιώματα λατρείας, the ritual precepts and 
 constitutions pertaining to the public worship of 
 God; whatever God ἐδικαίωσεν, was pleased to ap- 
 point. So Theophyl.: θεσμοὺς καὶ νομοθεσίας. Some, 
 as Grot., Drus, Camer., Hamm., and Carpz., take 
 λατρείας for an accusative plural. But this is not so 
 agreeable to the context. The antient and the best 
 recent Commentators are agreed that aarp. is the 
 genitive singular, i. e. ‘the several ordinances of 
 worship.” ἽΑγιον κοσμικὸν, worldly sanctuary, as op- 
 posed to the celestial one, or heaven, which is the 
 seat of God. Other explanations of κοσμ.. are to be 
 found in the Classical writers; but this seems the 
 most natural. ‘The Apostle (Carpz. observes.) here 
 adverts to that first tabernacle of Moses which Philo 
 665. calls the ἱερὸν dopyrav (Sept. σκήνην τοῦ μαρτυοίου), 
 afterwards preserved in the treasury of the temple. 
 
 2. σκηνὴ γὰρ---ἁγία. These words have more per- 
 plexed the Commentators than they will confess ; 
 and have been most strangely rendered by some 
 Translators. (See the E. V.) The antient and best 
 moderns, however, are agreed that πρώτη has refer- 
 ence to place, not time. See Dindorf, and also Ro- 
 senm., who remarks that the σκήνη was the name 
 often given to the whole tabernacle or tent, of which 
 there were two parts, but which were also themselves 
 rightly termed σκηναὶ, as having each of them their 
 veil or curtain. Therefore (he adds) the σκήνη πρώτη 
 is the προτέρα or interior part, to which in the Tem- 
 ple that, place corresponds, which Philo calls the 
 πρόναος, 221. The second, on account of its greater 
 holiness, was termed the Sanctum Sanctorum, to 
 which, in the Temple, that part corresponded which 
 was called the 27, literally oracle-place. See Philo 
 665 c. and 668 c. | 
 
 2. ἐν ἣ ἥ τε λυχνία, the candlestick. See Ex. 25, 31 
 —39. 33, 17—24. and the note of Carpz. Tparefa— 
 
480 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 
 
 ἄρτων. This is rendered by the best Interpreters, 
 the table, and the twelve loaves exposed upon it; 7 
 πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων being (they say) for of προτίθεντες 
 ἄρτοι. See Exod. 25, 30. Or, as Braun thinks, 
 there is an hypallage for ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως ; as 
 Matt. 12, 44. They are so called (Rosemn. ob- 
 serves), as being always in sight of the Priests. Yet 
 it is more natural to suppose them so called, as being 
 placed before the Lord. And so (I find) Braun, 
 whom see. 
 
 8. μετὰ--- ἅγια ἁγίων, ““ After or beyond the se- 
 cond veil was the Holy of Holies.”. The Commen- 
 tators observe that the name καταπέτασμα signified 
 properly the veil spread opposite the Sanctum Sanc- 
 torum; and κάλυμα, that turned towards the temple. 
 See more in Carpz., Dind., and especially Braun. 
 Such matters of antiquarian research I must de- 
 cline; and indeed they seem more fitted to trea- 
 tises on Jewish Antiquities. The reader is referred 
 throughout this passage to Mr. Horne’s Introduc- 
 tion, and also to the authorities adduced by him. 
 
 4, Χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα θυμιατήριον. The θυμιατ. some 
 render, “ the = ae of incense.” It is, however, ob- 
 jected by others, that that cannot here be meant ; 
 since, as we find from Ex. 30, 1., Philo, Joseph, and 
 the Rabbins, it stood in the outer tabernacle. ‘They 
 therefore understand, the golden censer (1. 6. in- 
 censer), which, they say, was used by the High 
 Priest every year, on the day of expiation. And they 
 refer to Levit. 16, 19. So also Deyling Obss. P. 2. 
 p- 578., Alting, Ern.in loc., and Fisher. But this 
 interpretation 15 by Rosenm. thought harsh : and he, 
 in common with some others, as Mich., Heinr., and 
 Dind., conjectures that the true reading is ἱλαστήριον. 
 The reader will do well to consult the copious anno- 
 tation of Dind., who, however, acknowledges that 
 this is a turbidus locus, quem non facilé quis ad liqui- 
 dum perducat. And indeed the obscurity of the 
 passage, together with our imperfect information on 
 the subject, may prevent it from ever being tho- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 481 
 
 roughly understood; but ignorance is surely to be 
 preferred to the fancied light of conjecture. 
 
 4. περικεκαλυμιμένην πάντοθεν χρυσίω. This cor- 
 responds to what we find in Philo 668 ο. ἔνδοθεν καὶ 
 ἔξωθεν κεκρυσωμένη πολυτελώς, ‘richly gilded, inside 
 and outside.” See also 1050. And so Joseph. Ant. 
 3, 6, 5. χρυσῷ δὲ τὰ τε ἔντος Kal τὰ ἔξωθεν περιελήλατο 
 πᾶσα, ὡς ἀποκέκρυφθα τὴν ξύλωσιν. See Braun and 
 Carpz. It is evident that it was covered with thin 
 gold plates: a very antient custom, and of which 
 vestiges are found in the temples of Mexico, Peru, 
 and elsewhere in America. 
 
 Ἔν 4, 1. 6. not σκήνη, as most Commentators sup- 
 ply, but Bere. And so some antients and most 
 recent Commentators. And this seems most. suit- 
 able to the context. Difficulties, however, are by 
 some raised, and by others solved; on which, see 
 Dind. On στάμνος see Schleus. Lex. and Exod. 16, 
 82. Kal ἡ ῥάβδος ᾿Ααρων----διαθήκης. This is not at 
 variance with 1 Kings 8, 9. and 2 Chron. 5, 16. 
 where the tables of the above are said to have been 
 there. Inthe time of Moses (it seems) all three 
 were there ; but at the time of Solomon, only the 
 tables. Buxtorf, indeed, Hist. Arc. 7, 72. adduces 
 Jewish authorities which may induce us to suppose 
 that there were capsules or representations about the 
 ark, for the convenience of keeping some of the sacred 
 ornaments; and it is thought by some that the pot and 
 the rod were placed in these ledges of the ark ; .and 
 that when the ark was transported from place to 
 place, they were removed. This is not improba- 
 ble; though all is mere conjecture. 
 
 On the rest of the verse see Num. 17, 13. and 
 Exod. 25, 16.40, 20. and Braun, Dind., and Mackn. 
 
 5. Ὑπεράνω---ἰλαστήριον, ‘* the cherubims glorious 
 and resplendent with burnished gold.” (See Exod. 
 25, 22. and Levit. 16, 2.) So Rosenm. explains. 
 But considering what we are told in Ps. 80, 1. of the 
 glory of the Lord dwelling between the cherubims, 
 
 VOL. VIII, δι 
 
482 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 
 
 it cannot but be supposed there is ἃ reference 
 thereto; especially as the cherubims were symbols 
 of the Divine presence. See Whitby, and compare 
 his references. On the persuasion among all nations 
 of some particular place being selected by the Deity 
 for the manifestation of his presence by a visible 
 glory, see Mackn. and Parkh. Hebr. Lex. v. 295, and 
 a plate in loco, illustrative of the cherubims. Com- 
 pare also Ez. 1, 5—10. 10, 14. 41, 18 and 19. Now 
 these signified the supreme governance of God over 
 all created things, and his tutelary presence. See 
 Ex. 25, 22. &c. 
 
 5. ἱλαστήριον, cover, or lid, from 955, whence our 
 verb fo cover. Now this consisted of a sheet of pure 
 gold, which covered the ark of the covenant, and was 
 so called, because, on the solemn annual day of ex- 
 piation, it served to receive the blood of the bullock 
 sprinkled by the Hight Priest. See Rom. 3, 25. and 
 the note. 
 
 5. πεοὶ ὧν. Dind. supplies δικαιωμάτων λατρείᾳ, 
 mentioned at ver. 1. But perhaps we may under- 
 stand both the sacred things above enumerated, and 
 the services connected with them, or otherwise en- 
 joined by the Levitical Law. On the ark, tables of 
 the covenant, and cherubims, see Braun in loc. and 
 in his Select Sacr. p. 2. Κατὰ μέρος, “in every part, 
 ‘and according to all their allusions and symbols. It 
 is observed by Theophyl.: ᾿Εμφαίνει ἐνταυθα, ὅτι οὐ 
 ταῦτα ἦ μόνα τὰ ὁρώμενα, ἀλλ᾽ αἰνίγματά τινα ἦν, ἃ τὸ 
 θεωρεῖν καὶ ἐξηγεῖσθαι μοικροτέρου δεῖται χρόνου. 
 
 6. τούτων δὲ οὕτω κατεσκευασμιένων, © Quum ita se 
 habeat tentorii exterioris et interioris structura.” 
 Διὰ παντὸς, scil. χρόνου, perpetually, at all the regular 
 times of sacrifice, or daily, morning and evening. 
 The πρώτην σκήνην is to be taken as supra, ver. 2. 
 ᾿Επιτελοῦντες is, as some say, for ποιοῦντες. But it isa 
 stronger term, and adapted to the λατρείας, which 
 signifies, as at ver. 1., divine worship. 
 
 7. εἰς δὲ---- χωρὶς αἵματος. By the δεύτεραν, or ἐσω- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 483 
 
 τέραν, is meant the adytum. “Ara τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, “once 
 in the year,* 7202, the 10th of Tisri. See Ex. 30, 
 10. Levit. 16, 34. Προσῷ. is a sacrificial term, 
 which has been before treated on. Now these offer- 
 ings were made first for himself and his own ἀγνόη- 
 para (as we are told) with the calf’s blood; and 
 then, for those of the people, with the goat's. By 
 the ἀγνοήματα are meant properly the sins of igno- 
 rance, or those proceeding from human inadvertence 
 and infirmity, and not from deliberation. And so 
 some Commentators here explain, who include both 
 offences against the moral, and against the ceremo- 
 nial law. But the best modern Interpreters are 
 agreed that the word is here used by euphemism 
 (with reference perhaps to the term which would be 
 used by the High Priest in his prayer on the occa- 
 sion), for sins in general, 1. e. all but those of pre- 
 sumption, or of a deep dye, and such as the law 
 punished, or with respect to which it, at least, 
 allowed no expiation, or sacrifice, to avail; the sins, 
 negligences, and ignorances, of our Liturgy includes 
 both. See Grot., Wolf, Munthe, Loesn., and 
 others, who testify that this sense of the term, and of 
 its cognate ones ἀγνοία and others, is found not only 
 
 * By this, some say, we are not to understand, only once in the 
 year, but, in one day only. For on that day, the Rabbins tell us, 
 he entered and departed four times, to bring in singly the batillers, 
 the incense, the blood of the calf, and of the goat. To this, how- 
 ever, Ernesti opposes the authority of Levit. 16, 2 and 12., by which 
 it appears "that he went twice, And a passage of Philo, 1035. is ad- 
 duced, where it seems he asserted that he only went in once on that 
 day. But that has been proved not to have come from Philo. 
 After all, the whole is involved in uncertainty; and possibly the 
 custom varied at different times. Yet we can hardly suppose that 
 the High Priest could carry with him αὐ once all that was necessary 
 for the solemnity of the day. 
 
 As to his going alone, on that point all are agreed. See Cunzus. 
 It may be observed, that the Heathens carried this custom still 
 further; sometimes not allowing even the Priest to enter the ady- 
 tum except with his head shrouded. So Pausan. ἐν δὲ τῷ ἐκτὸς ὁ 
 Σωσίπολις ἔχει τιμὰς, καὶ ἐς αὐτὸ ἔσοδος οὐκ ἔστι πλὴν τῇ Oeparev- 
 οὔσῃ τὸν θεὸν, ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον ἐφειλκυσμένῃ ὕφος 
 λευκὸν. : 
 
 212 
 
484 ! HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 
 
 in the Sept. Version, but the Classical writers.* See 
 also the excellent notes of Whitby, Hamm., Le 
 Clerc, and Slade. 
 
 8. τοῦτο δηλοῦντος---στασιν. Recitatis cultus Levi- 
 tici ceremoniis Apostolus docet, quid eo significa- 
 tum fuerit, et quo modo. Constat enim omnia hec 
 symbolicé aliud quid innuisse. (Dind.) The sense 
 is: “The Holy Spirit (by) thus signifying to us that 
 the way to the Holy of Holies was, while the taber- 
 nacle had a standing, not yet laid open.”” Ayrotrros, 
 signifying, declaring. And so Philo frequently, as 
 cited by the Philologists. Τοῦ πνεύματος ἁγίου, namely, 
 by Moses. Μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι, ““ not distinctly re- 
 vealed. Τὴν τών ἁγίων ὁδὸν. By the way being re- 
 vealed is meant the true and efficacious approach to 
 God, and the mode of attaining the real ἅγια ἁγίων, 
 namely, heaven itself. The τῶν ἁγίων, Thopbhyl., 
 Grot., and other Commentators observe, is for eis τὰ 
 ayia. But of this they adduce no example. The 
 following therefore may be acceptable. Matt. 10, 5. 
 εἰς ὅδον ἔθνων μὲ ἀπέλθητε. By the ἡ πρώτη σκήνη is 
 meant the first tabernacle in which the Levitical 
 worship was performed. ᾿Εχούσης στάσιν. An ele- 
 gant expression, signifying sometimes no more than 
 standing, of which the Philologists adduce several 
 examples; but here (as Dind. rightly observes,) it 
 has the sense of vigere, valere, permanere. And so 
 Theophyl. explains: ἕως οὐ κρατεῖ ὃ νόμος, καὶ αἱ Kor’ 
 αὐτὸ λατρείαι τελοῦνται. 
 
 9. ἥτις (i. 6. σκήνη πρώτη) παραβολὴ (ἐστιν) εἰς τὸν και- 
 ρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα. ‘The παραβολὴ is well explained 
 by Chrys. and Theophyl. τύπος καὶ σκιαγραφίαᾳ. By 
 Hesych. πραγμάτων ὁμοίωσις. It is opposed to the 
 τελείωσις of the New Testament. See Cicumen. 
 Philo calls it ἀλληγορία. See Carpz. and Dind. The 
 καιρὸν ἐνεστηκότα Rosenm. and Dind. explain as a 
 
 * Of this I have noted numerous examples in my reading, of 
 which I will here adduce a single passage from Thucyd, 6, 89. ἀλλὰ 
 περὶ ὁμολογουμένης ἁγνοίας οὐδὲν ἂν καινὸν λέγοιτο. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 485 
 
 participle preterite for the present, denoting the 
 time when the Epistle was writing. For the temple 
 worship continued till the destruction of the temple 
 by Titus, when the signs ceasing, the thing signified 
 must succeed to their place. 
 
 9. Kal? ὃν δώρά---λατρεύοντα, “ up to which 
 time,” &c.; (καιρὸν being understood). Μὴ δυνά- 
 μεναι τελειῶσι τὸν λατρεύοντα, “ but which cannot 
 procure the expiation or remission of sins to the 
 worshipper.” So 7, 19. οὐδὲν ἐτελείωσεν ὁ νόμος, and 
 10, 1. where is read in some MSS., by a gloss, καθά- 
 ρισαι, and ver. 14. where Gicumen. explains ἀπήλ- 
 Aake τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. By τὸν λατρεύοντα is meant, not 
 the Priest, but the person in whose name the sin 
 offering was made. ‘The κατὰ συνείδησιν is explained 
 by Theophyl. κατὰ τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον. By Rosenm., 
 the mind and conscience, i.e. (he adds) so that no 
 suspicion should rest on the mind that any sin would 
 be unexpiated. ‘ Now the Hebrews (continues he) 
 well understood that the dabes animi could not be 
 expiated by the Levitical ceremonies; and that God 
 does not delight in gifts and offerings, but in a pure 
 mind. See Philo. 159 8. This, however, is too 
 fanciful; and is ascribing to the many the senti- 
 ments of the enlightened few. ‘There is far more 
 solidity in the exposition of Braun and Carpz., which 
 see. ; 
 
 10. μόνον---ἐπικείμενα. Now follows the reason 
 why he had denied the efficacy of oblations and 
 sacrifices to procure reformation or expiation; 
 namely, because they consist only in eaternals. 
 (Dind.) The sense is: and which are so consti- 
 tuted as to endure, and consist, only until the time 
 of reformation, as being placed only in meats,” &c. 
 The ἐπικείμενα is referred to δῶρα: and as δώρα καὶ 
 θυσίαι preceded, Heinr. thinks it an anacoluthon. 
 But in such a case the neuter is purposely adopted ; 
 πράγματα being understood; so that the ἐπικείμενα 
 is a nominativus pendens.” ᾿Επικεῖσθαι, Dind. ob- 
 serves, is used of laws; and signifies valere.” Or 
 rather, to be laid upon, enjoined, and made binding. 
 
486 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 
 
 And so itis used sometimes by Thucyd. The ἐπὶ 
 is rendered by Schlit. and Rosenm. preter. But 
 Braun and Dind. rightly explain it in, by. So the 
 Syr... See Hardy, supra. With the βρώμασι and 
 πόμασι the Commentators are somewhat perplexed. 
 They are commonly explained by the meats and 
 drinks forbidden to the Nazareei. But to this it is 
 objected by Mich., that the passage does not treat 
 of meats by which any one is polluted, but by which 
 he is sanctified. ‘Thus he, in conjunction with 
 Rosenm., refers the words to the eating of meats 
 which were holy, and a partaking of which was sup- 
 posed to have a sanctifying influence. See Hos. 8, 
 15. and Hebr. 18, 9—11. Thus the βρωμ. will de- 
 note the shew-bread and other oblation food, per- 
 mitted to the priest, but forbidden to the people ; 
 and the πόματα, the libations of wine, &c. to be 
 poured out on the altar; which formed a part of the 
 sacerdotal office. See Braun in loc. 
 
 Δικαιώμασι σαρκὸς. ‘These are explained by Dind., 
 from Carpz. and others, the laws and precepts which 
 pertained to the body and external things (as of the 
 distinction of meats and drinks, of ablutions, of cer- 
 tain days), and which therefore could not constitute 
 innocence, and integrity of mind and conscience ; 
 though (as Rosenm. adds) they liberated the person 
 from punishment, and admitted him to the society 
 of other men. 
 
 The καιρὸς διορθώσεως is explained by the best 
 Commentators, “the period which should introduce a 
 reformation of religion by the change of external 
 and corporeal into internal and mental worship.” I 
 cannot but suspect that the expression was used 
 with allusion to a common mode of speaking among 
 the Jews respecting the period of the advent of the 
 Messiah, at which they expected these blessings, of 
 moral and religious reformation, as well as political 
 deliverance, and temporal felicity. On which see 
 Whitby. 
 
 11, 12. Χριστὸς δὲ---άἀγαθῶν. Jam his tanquam in 
 protasi preemissis sequitur in hac apodosi palmarium 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 487 
 
 argumentum, qua Christum meliorem cultum, splen- 
 didiora et efficaciora sacra induxisse evincit. (Dind.) 
 It is now shown that by Christ, the author of a more 
 perfect religion, are produced all those effects which 
 by the high priests of the New Testament, and by 
 the Levitical worship, could not be brought about ; 
 that by him was laid open the way to true and spi- 
 ritual reformation, peace, and eternal felicity. 
 
 Μελλόντων ἀγαθών, i.e. (as the best Commenta- 
 tors are agreed) spiritual, celestial, and eternal bless- 
 ings, such as we expect to enjoy perfectly in a future 
 state only, though commenced in this. Besides, as 
 Braun observes, they were future as long as Christ 
 was future, and as long as the Tabernacle and its 
 worship stood. ‘The nature of them is well stated by 
 Carpz. and Braun, whom see. With ver. 12—15. 
 the Commentators might have compared 2 Cor. 4, 
 18., where see the note. 
 
 11. διὰ τῆς μείβονος καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς. On the 
 sense of σκηνῆς the Commentators are not agreed. 
 Many early moderns, as Cajet. and Menoch., and 
 of the recent ones Braun, take it to mean the 
 church of the New Testament, i, e. the whole earth. 
 (See Braun.) The antients, and many moderns, as 
 Pisc., Beza, Junius, Zeg., Capell., Grot, Hamm., 
 and Pierce explain it, the body, or human nature of 
 Christ; which they support from the verse follow- 
 ing, ‘* by his own blood.” And indeed that was a. 
 name often given to the body ; as Joh. 2, 21., where 
 Christ’s body is called a temple. Grot. observes, 
 that the Apostle, intending to say that Christ had 
 entered into the highest heaven, by sufferings and 
 death, in order that he might pursue the commenced 
 comparison with the priest of the law, chose to say, 
 that he entered through his body and through his 
 blood: for the body may, by metonymy, be put for 
 the pains of the body; and blood for death is fre- 
 quent.” Yet this interpretation is somewhat harsh ; 
 and many objections are made to it by Carpz. The 
 more recent Commentators, from Wets. downwards, 
 
488 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 
 
 are of opinion that the Apostle continues the simili- 
 tude commenced ; and they take the σκήνην to mean 
 coelum aérium et wthereum. Thus the ccelum as- 
 pectabile, they say, was sometimes called by the 
 Jews the tent of God: and they refer to 8, 2. & 4, 
 14. They then assign the following sense: ‘As 
 the high priest of the Old Testament passed through 
 the first tabernacle, and went to the adytum, so did 
 Christ, after death and resurrection, pass through 
 the air to the highest heaven, and sit at the right 
 hand of God.” I confess I am at a loss to say which 
 of these two interpretations I prefer. It may be 
 prudent, with Grot., to unite both, ““ Notandum (says 
 he), sape eandem rem V. ‘Testamenti ad plures sig- 
 nificatus referri; ut Pentorium exterius ad _ signifi- 
 candum ccelum astriferam ejusque effectus; ad 
 significandum totum cultum legalem ; ad significan-- 
 dum corpus Christi, propter diversa Tentorii illius 
 accidentia, que commode et huc et illuc referri 
 poterant.” 
 
 The expression χειροποίητος, denotes (as Carpz. 
 explains) works made by human hands, in opposition 
 as well to those which seem to exist sud sponte, as 
 to those which are celestial and divine: both of 
 which senses are illustrated by Elsner., to whose 
 examples I add an especially apposite one from Thu- 
 cyd. 2, 27. ἐγένετο φλὸξ τοσαύτη, ὅσην οὐδεὶς πω ἔς γε 
 ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον χειροποίητον εἶδεν: ἤδη γὰρ ἐν ὄρεσιν 
 ὕλη τριφθεῖσα ὑπ᾽ ἀνέμων πρὸς αὐτὴν, ἀπὸ ταυτομάτου 
 πῦρ καὶ φλόγα ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀνῆκε: where I shall have 
 occasion to adduce other examples. 
 
 11. οὐ ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως. Beza well renders this: 
 “non hujus structure,” not built by human hands, 
 as was the Levitical tabernacle. 
 
 12. οὐδὲ OV aiparos—etpapevos, “ Neither by the 
 blood of (victims such as) bulls and goats, but with 
 his own blood he entered once for all into the holy 
 of holies, having obtained eternal redemption for us 
 by his blood.” It is observed by Rosenm. that διὰ 
 denotes the necessary condition by which Jesus, our 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 489 
 
 high priest, passed through the sanctuary to the 
 adytum. or that is said to be done by any thing, 
 which is not done without it. So the Jewish high 
 priests did not enter the adytum without the blood 
 of bulls and goats.” Διὰ τοῦ αἵματος, by (the pour- 
 ing out of) his own blood, by which the expiation of 
 men was consummated; as by the entering of the 
 high priest into the adytum, and the sprinkling the 
 blood on the ἱλαστήριον the solemn act of expiation 
 was accomplished.” ᾿Εφάπαξ, once for all. This 
 is meant to signify that that one entering sufficed to 
 render us partakers of the benefits of his death, 
 without any repetition of the action, annually or 
 otherwise; the λύτρωσις being (as the Apostle adds) 
 αἰώνια. So Theophyl.: οὐ πρόσκαιρον καθαρμὸν, ws 
 ἐκεῖνοι, ἀλλ᾽ αἰωνίαν ἐλευθερίαν ψυχικῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. 
 
 18, 14. εἰ γὰρ---καθαρότητα. It is observed by 
 Dind., that this, together with the preceding, con- 
 tains a conclusion a minori ad majus.” Ταύρων is 
 for μόσχων; as being young bullocks: and indeed. 
 the words are used promiscuously in the Sept. and. 
 Philo, who at p. 675. says, that the ravgos and μόσχος 
 are offered πρὸς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτημάτων. He then says, 
 that the goat is σύμβολον τελείων, 6 καθαίρει καὶ κενοῖ 
 ψυχὴν ἀμαρτημάτων. 
 
 13. καὶ σποδὸς δαμιαλέως ῥαντίϑουσα τοὺς κεκοινωμιένους, 
 ‘‘the ashes of a heifer sprinkling (i. e. sprinkled 
 over) the defiled.”” (See Num. 19.); from which, 
 mixed with water, was compounded a sort of holy 
 liquid, whose sprinkling purified and admitted to 
 society and divine worship those who had been de- 
 filed by touching a dead body ora sepulchre. Ke- 
 κοινωμένοι, defiled. So Philo: ἀκαθάρτοι καὶ μεμιασ- 
 μένοι. (Rosem.) This use of καινόω is very rare in 
 the Classical writers; and no example is adduced of 
 it by the philologists. Yet I find one noted in my 
 adversaria (though I have inadvertently omitted to 
 mention the name of the author, probably Josephus 
 or Philo) κακῶς ἔϑων οἱ ἄνθρωποι, καὶ ἀλλήλους EKoIvE=" 
 νουν, Where it is plain we must read ἐκοίνουν. 
 
490 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 
 
 13. ἁγιάϑει πρὸς τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς καθαρότητα, “ so 
 cleanses and restores to legal holiness, or the external 
 purity above mentioned.” [loow μάλλον---ϑώντι, 
 “ how much more will the blood of Christ, who 
 through the external spirit offered himself to God a 
 perfect victim, cleanse your minds and consciences 
 from dead and sinful works, that ye may serve the 
 living God.” ‘The only real difficulty these words 
 contain is in the διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου, of which it is 
 no easy matter to settle the meaning. Various have 
 been the interpretations (which may be seen detailed 
 in Pole, Wolf, and Dind.). Most of the antients 
 and the earlier moderns understand it of the divine 
 nature of Christ. And this interpretation is ably 
 supported by Grot., Limb., Braun, Wolf., Schoettg. 
 Vitringa, Ernesti, Cramer, Storr, and Carpz., which 
 last Commentator fortifies it from Banab., Epirt. C. 
 6., and Theophyl. Others, as Abp. Tillots. and 
 Drs. Owen and Doddr., interpret it of the holy 
 spirit ; urging Christ’s being conceived, proclaimed, 
 anointed, working miracles, and at last laying down 
 his life by this spirit. Thus (Doddr. observes) it 
 seems a plain testimony to the eternity, and con- 
 sequently the deity of the spirit. Most of the recent 
 foreign Commentators, however, are of opinion that 
 πνευμο here signifies life, i.e. διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου, 
 may mean “per vitam eternam.” (See more in 
 Heinr., Doddr., and Rosenm.) This, however, ap- 
 pears to be an interpretation founded in error, and 
 does not bear the stamp of truth. The same may 
 be said of most of the modes of tampering with the 
 important word πνεῦμα, found in the foreign theo- 
 logians. I confess that, after all, I see no interpre- 
 tation so safe as the common one, first mentioned ; 
 though I cannot enter into any particulars of com- 
 parison between that and the second; but must re- 
 fer to the writers above adverted to. 
 
 Συνειδ, is well explained by Theophyl. “the inner 
 manner ;” by Gicumen, the mind. And the consci- 
 ence must be included. Nexen ἔργα, sinful deeds. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 
 
 See the note, supra 6, 1. By the @ew ϑωντι, is 1... 
 the only true, the eternal, and omnipotent God. See 
 Braun. 
 
 15. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστὶν. 
 
 And because this new covenant is not of victims, but has to 
 be established and ratified by the blood of the mediator himself, 
 therefore he is the mediator of the new Covenant. It has, 
 however, long been a matter of dispute, whether διαθ. should here 
 be rendered covenant, or testament.* The latter opinion is sup- 
 ported by many eminent moderns, and, among the more recent 
 ones, by Carpz, And this the context seems to require. Most of 
 the later Commentators, from the time of Le Clerc., think that both 
 significations, covenant, and testament, may have place ; there being 
 here a play upon the double sense of διαθήκη. For which criticism, 
 however, Le Clere incurred the severe castigation of Wolf, Oder, 
 Twells, and Carpz. Dind., however, thinks that dispute merely turns 
 on words; namely, because the mystical sense was called (populari- 
 ter) a lusus. True; but Le Clere’s whole language was indecorous, 
 not to say profane ; and therefore highly censurable ; thoagh I see 
 nothing so very objectionable in the criticism itself ; since examples 
 of this kind of lusus, on the different significations of a word, as also 
 the puronomasia, are frequent among the antients, and not uncom- 
 mon in our Apostle. Albertiand Dind. adduce two examples from 
 Philo, certainly one of the gravest of writers, where there is a similar 
 play on these two senses of διαθήκη. See p. 1052. If this be not’ad- 
 mitted, and the mediator be thought (as Doddr. maintains) “a very 
 improper expression,” we may, with Whitby, Pierce, Doddr., and 
 Mackn., render it covenant (See Macknight’s note). I, however, 
 agree with Mr. Slade (who has here a copious and able annotation), 
 that it is least exceptionable to suppose, that the Apostle, i: ver. 
 16 ἃ 17., is taking advantage of the two-fold sense of διαθήκη, in- 
 timating that it is applicable to the Christian dispensation, not only 
 as denoting a covenant (which is the usual signification of the word 
 in Scripture), but also in its general acceptation, of a testament - 
 
 * The state of the question is thus treated on by Slade. “To 
 the common translation there are several objections, st., The 
 very notion of a first testament is incorrect, for the Mosaic dispensa- 
 tion cannot be considered in that light. @nd., We cannot speak of 
 the mediator of a testament, 3rd., The argument fails, respecting 
 the necessity of the testator’s death, because the validity of the old 
 dispensation did not depend upon such an event. 4th., A testament 
 was never ratified by sacrifice, and, therefore, such a construction 
 here would exclude the doctrine of expiation. It appears that the 
 word διαθήκη must, in this verse, signify a covenant, as it always 
 does in the Sept. To this the great objection lies in ver. 16 ἃ 17., 
 where mention is made of the death rov διαθεμένου ; for a covenant 
 
 by no means requires the death of a contracting party in order to 
 its ratification.” 
 
402 HEBREWS, CHAP. ΙΧ. 
 
 the death of a testator being not less requisite to the operation of a 
 will, than the death of a victim to the validity of acovenant. And 
 so (he adds) Dr. Wells. Whitby’s arguments have been well 
 answered by Mr. Slade, who also further pre-occupies an objection to 
 the proposed interpretation, namely, that it appears to introduce a 
 sophism. “The passage (he truly remarks) might have been intended 
 not asa proof, but a detached illustration, showing that the Gospel 
 (ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη), whether regarded as a testament, or a covenant, 
 must be ratified by death.” 
 
 At εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν---παραβάσεων must be understood ἀπὸ. And 
 Rosenm. compares the Ciceronian phrase liberatur culpe, for aculpd. 
 The ἐπὶ Rosenm. takes in the sense in. But it seems better to 
 suppose it used in that of sub; as when speaking of the reign of a 
 monarch, or the duration ofa magistracy. Oi κεκλημένοι, 1. 6. cum 
 effectu, as Grot. explains, fuithful Christians. The ἐπαγγελία τῆς 
 αἰωνίου κληρονομίας signifies the promise of an eternal inheritance 
 in the promised future felicity, so often represented as such; in 
 order to show its certainty. 
 
 16. ὅπου γὰρ ---διαθεμένου. As the Apostle had, in 
 the preceding verse, made mention of inheritance, 
 so he now glides into the idea of a festament. It is 
 sufficient to observe, that the use of the word διαθ., 
 necessarily involves the death of the testator. ᾿Ανάγ- 
 ky is for ἀναγκαῖον ἐστι; and φέρεσθαι is for ἔπεσθαι, 
 or γένεσθαι. (Rosenm.) But this seems too arbitrary 
 and artificial. Others, as Grot. and Schleus., inter- 
 pret the φέρεσθαι, producere in foro, i. e. ** the death 
 of the testator must be proved judicially.” This, 
 however, seems not a little harsh. I am surprised 
 none of the Commentators should have seen that the 
 sense is this: “‘ A testament necessarily carries with 
 it an idea of the death of the testator.” The con- 
 struction is as follows: ἀνάγκη ἐστι (διαθήκην ταύτην) 
 φέρεσθαι θάνατον τοῦ διαθεμένου. ‘The words following 
 are illustrative. 
 
 17. διαθήκη yao ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία. This, Rosenm. 
 observes, is what the Roman Jurisconsults mean, 
 when they say, Testamentum morte confirmatur. 
 And he, in conjunction with others, takes the ἐπὶ in 
 the sense after. But it may signify in the case of ; 
 and μόνον is understood, βεβαία, carried into effect. 
 = - ΄ 
 Thus it answers to the μήποτε ἰσχύει, “ produces na 
 
 effect.’’ 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 4.98 
 
 18. ὅθεν---ἐγκεκαίνισται, ‘* whence not even the 
 first covenant was made valid without blood.”” The 
 ὅθεν Rosenm. refers to ver.15., and paraphrases,“ that 
 there should be some similitude between the old 
 and this new form of religion.” “Eyxexaiuoras, was 
 made valid, ratum, factum est. So Chrys. explains : 
 βεβαία γέγονεν ἐκυρώθῃ. A remarkable signification, 
 which may (I think) be best accounted for thus, 
 ᾿Εγκαινίϑειν, like J2M, signifies, properly, to renew, 
 and also to use for the first time, Anglicé to handsel; 
 and, as using any thing isa confirmation of its being 
 ours, or,in our power, so JM and ἐγκαινίϑειν came to 
 be applied to denote the solemn handselling of any 
 thing by various rites, whereby its possession was 
 confirmed and ratified; indeed we retain the remains 
 of this custom in what is familiarly called a house- 
 warming. Hence the term was applied to the 
 establishing, confirmation, and consummation of any 
 covenant which is the signification here required ; 
 and although the above mode of evolving it differs 
 from any yet proposed, I think it will be found cor- 
 rect. The Apostle has reference to Ex. 24, 1—8. 
 
 19, 20. λαληθείσης---τῷ raw, “ for when Moses 
 had recited the whole Law (the formula of the cove- 
 nant) to the people; as had been prescribed (by 
 God).” Πᾶσα ἐντολὴ, all the precepts in Ex. 21, 22 
 and 23. Λαλεῖν may very well denote recitation. 
 The κατὰ νόμον, Theophyl., Beza, and the best recent 
 Commentators, rightly render, *‘ by command of 
 God ;”’ for there is no article, and the context re- 
 quires this sense. Mera ὕδατος. ‘ At Ex. 24, 6. 
 (observes Rosenm.), it is only said, that the people 
 were sprinkled with the blood of the victims ; but 
 that it was usual for water to be mixed with the 
 blood, we learn from Levit. 14, 49—51., where also 
 mention is made of the scarlet wool and hyssop.” Ta 
 αἷμα may be rendered blood ; for the Hebrew (con- 
 firmed by the Sept. and Philo) has ym, “ the half of 
 the blood.” With respect to the water and the 
 branch of hyssop, they are not mentioned by Moses ; 
 
4.94: HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 
 
 though they may very well be accounted for, as 
 being (to use the words of Gom., Germ., Est., and 
 Rib.) “ aspersionis instrumenta commoda, ne sanguis 
 aspergendus concresceret :” for the wool imbibes and 
 retains the moisture, and the hyssop serves for the 
 sprinkling. That the περιῤῥαντήριον was formed of 
 hyssop and scarlet wool, we learn from Levit. 14. ; 
 and that hyssop was used in sprinkling, from Ps. 51, 
 7., Ex. 12, 22. 
 
 With respect to the αὐτὸ re τὸ βιβλίον, some would 
 join it with the preceding, in order to remove the 
 seeming discrepancy between this and the Mosaic 
 account, where it is only said, that the people were 
 sprinkled. But that is doing violence to the con- 
 struction; and as the account in question contains 
 other additions to (though not variations from) the 
 Mosaic account, it may be tolerated. And, as the 
 altar was sprinkled, it is probable that the book was 
 so likewise, just as it lay on the altar. These particu- 
 lars are supposed to have been derived from tradi- 
 tion. They are, however, adverted to by the 
 Apostle in the manner of things well known to his 
 readers. . 
 
 By the πάντα τὸν λαὸν, some (considering the great 
 number of the people, 600,000,) suppose only their 
 representatives. Others think that the words being 
 slowly and loudly pronounced by Moses, were com- 
 municated by heralds to all the assembled multitude. 
 Both conjectures are devoid of authority, or even pro- 
 bability. The frst cannot be thought of; and as to 
 the latter, it is too formal and hypothetical. The 
 words, or the substance of them, would be trans- 
 mitted to, and become known to, all the people, 
 without the intervention of heralds; for it was not 
 necessary that they should all have this knowledge 
 at the same instant. 
 
 20. λέγων" Touro—Qeds. Exod. 24,8. The διαθή- 
 κὴν ἐντέλλεσθαι is for the preceding διαθήκην συντελεῖν, 
 ποιεῖν, ἐγκαινίϑειν. Inthe Hebrew we have 3, cut, 
 which has reference to the cattle slaughtered at 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP, IX. 495 
 
 entering into a treaty. Πρὸς ὑμᾶς is for ὑμῖν, ** for 
 your benefit.” (Rosenm.) 
 
 41, καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν---εῤῥάντισε. In the Mosaic 
 account of this dedication we do not read that the 
 tabernacle with all its vases was sprinkled with blood. 
 Though this circumstance is also mentioned by 
 Joseph. Ant. 3, 8, 6., and Philo 675 & 676. (Dind.) 
 
 22. καὶ σχεδὸν---καθαρίϑεται. Grot. and Rosenm. 
 observe, that σχεδὸν is said prudenter ; since some 
 were cleansed with water, others purified with fire. 
 Καὶ χωρὶς αἱματεκχυσίας οὐ γίνεται ἄφεσις. Now, 
 under the Law, no expiation was performed without 
 blood shedding. ‘To which purpose, the Commentators 
 cite Maimon. de Pasch. 1, 6., fundamentum sacrificii 
 in aspersione consistit, and the Talmud: Non est 
 expiatio, nisi per sanguinem. In sacrifices where all 
 things were purified with blood, that the ἄφεσις ἁμαρ- 
 τημάᾶτων Was supposed to be attained, is clear from 
 the words of Philo, p. 840. (cited by Carpz. and 
 Dind.), τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ βωμῷ, δι’ οὗ πάντων ἁμαρτημάτων 
 καὶ παρανομημάτων ἀπολύσεις γίνονται, καὶ παντελεῖς 
 ἀφέσεις. Why no expiation was held good without 
 the shedding of blood, see Morus, cited by Rosenm. 
 
 23. ἀνάγκη---ταύτας. Now follows the conclusion. 
 “10 was, therefore, necessary that the shadow of 
 heavenly things (the tabernacle) should be purified 
 with these, but heaven itself, with better sacrifices 
 than these ;”’ 1. 6. “it was necessary that an ap- 
 proach to Heaven should be afforded by a more efii- 
 cacious sacrifice.” On ὑπόδειγμα see 8,5. Now, all 
 things done by the tabernacle worship, and the 
 priesthood of the Old Law, were but a shadow of 
 heavenly things. ‘Therefore, it was enough for them 
 to be consecrated to sacred uses by these, namely, by 
 the blood of bulls and goats. But those (namely, 
 the heavenly) were to be dedicated κρείττοσι θυσίαις, 
 i. e. with the sacrifice of Christ alone. The Plural 
 is here used for the Singular; as Matt. 21,7. An 
 enallage common in the Classical writers. In καθα- 
 ρίϑεσϑαι, there is a metonymy such as we often find, 
 
496 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 
 
 ‘when things partly similar, partly dissimilar, are 
 compared. For, as by the legal purification an 
 ‘entrance was afforded to the sanctuary, so, by taking 
 the effect for the cause, heaven is said καθαρίϑεσθαι, 
 instead of saying, that an entrance by them is given 
 to that heaven. (Rosenm.) Heinr. takes καθαρίϑεσθαι 
 actively, supplying ἡμᾶς; and he regards 670d. καθαρ. 
 θυσίαις as an exquisitius dictum. Schleus. Lex. un- 
 derstands expiation. ἸΠαρὰ ταύτας. The ratio of 
 this idiom is not well seen by the recent Commenta- 
 tors. The words simply mean compared with, or 
 than, these. So our than is derived from a verb sig- 
 nifying to compare. 
 
 24. οὐ γὰρ----οὐρανὸν. The force of χειροποιητ. has 
 been explained, supra, ver. 11. ᾿Αντίτυπ. is nearly 
 synonymous with ὑπόδειγμια, παραβολὴ, σύμβολον 
 (which terms are promiscuously used by Philo) ; and 
 on this term Ihave before treated. See also Carpz. and 
 Schleus. Lex. The sentiment is as follows: “ Christ 
 did not enter into the human holy of holies, which 
 was only an image representing the true one, namely, 
 heaven, but into heaven itself. Nov ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ 
 προσώπῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, sub. εἰς τὸ Or ὥστε, in 
 order to. On the signification οἵ ἐμφανισθῆναι the 
 Commentators somewhat differ. ‘The best founded 
 opinion seems to be, that it denotes to present him- 
 self, appear before. It is, we are told, a forensic 
 term; as Acts 24, 1.,25,2&15. But it means not 
 only present oneself at a royal court, to obtain 
 justice, but plead the cause of another, See Krnesti, 
 Carpz., and Dind., in loc. Here, by the context 
 (especially the ὑπὲρ ἡμών following), it must signify 
 appear, to plead our cause, to deprecate the wrath 
 of God, and obtain our pardon. It is observed by 
 Rosenm., that the High Priest is said to appear 
 before God, when he stands at the ark. By which 
 it was declared that the solemn expiation was then 
 made. So Christ entered into Heaven, and stood at 
 the right hand of the Father. Now, therefore, it 1s 
 declared that the whole expiation is effected, and 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 407 
 
 that pardon is obtained for men by the death of 
 Christ. See c.'7, 25. 
 
 25, 26. οὐδ᾽ ἵνα---ἀλλοτρίῳ. The οὐδὲ belongs, not 
 to ver. 24., but ver. 23.; and the οὐ γὰρ and οὐδὲ cor- 
 respond to each other. Thus ἀνάγκη must be 
 repeated. ‘The sense is: ‘* Neither was it necessary 
 that he should offer himself often, as the High 
 Priests enter the temple every year with another's 
 blood. The offering of Christ was his passion and 
 death, infinitely superior to the offering of the High 
 Priests, and especially as requiring only once to be 
 made, and not having need that Christ should de- 
 seend from heaven, and repeat it annually, or ever 
 again.” Ἐν αἷμ. is for σὺν αἷμ. The ἀλλοτρ. is used, as 
 better suited to the ἰδίω; but it has simply the sense of 
 ἄλλος. 
 
 26. ἐπεὶ ἔδει----κόσμου. This is ἃ parenthetical 
 clause, in which, Dindorf thinks, there is a reductio 
 ad absurdum. Though Grot. interprets the ἔδει 
 oportuisset (av being understood), as used not of 
 necessity, but of what is better and more expedient ; 
 q. d. “if there had been any greater efficacy in a 
 repeated offering, it would have been expedient that 
 he should,” &c. Nov δὲ. A νῦν coming after a δὲ 
 often (as here) denotes, not time, but opposition. 
 And soGrot. The sense may be thus expressed : 
 “as things now are; as there was no utility in a 
 repeated offering.” “Awa, once for all. ᾿Επὶ cuvre- 
 λείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων, “at the conclusion of the ages,” i. e. 
 the last of the Dispensations, the fulness of time. 
 See 1 Cor., 10, 11.,and the notes. Ernesti renders, 
 “in ultima mundi parte.’ Eis ἀθέτησιν dpaprias, 
 “forthe putting away and abolition of sin.” See 
 Dan. 9, 24. Διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωνται, “ he 
 hath been manifested by his own sacrifice ;” as 
 ἐμφανισθῆναι at ver. 24. So the High Priest had to 
 appear annually before God. It is observed by 
 Carpz., that this is a verbum sacrificantis in terrd, 
 equivalent to éeyyigew rw Θεῴ, καὶ ἑαυτὸν θυσίαν προσ- 
 φέρειν. Αηά 80 in Philo 1097, sacrificers are said 
 
 VOL. VIII, 2K 
 
498 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 
 
 ἐγγίϑειν, and φανεροῦσθαι τῷ Θεῴ. ‘There is an evi- 
 dent aliusion to his thus presenting his sacrifice. 
 
 27, 28. καὶ καθ᾽ ὅσον---κρίσις. ‘The Apostle shows 
 by a new argument, derived a simili, that Christ 
 ought once only to offer himself, namely, because his 
 sacrifice and death were one and the same. Nor 
 does he properly intend to affirm that all men must 
 die, but that it is appointed for them once to die, 
 and aiter death, nothing shall remain but judgment. 
 (Dind.) So Theophyl.: Nov καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν λέγει διὰ 
 
 Le ih, > , ε \ / \ ed aN , 
 τί ἅπαξ ἀπέθανεν 6 Χριστὸς" διότι, φησὶν, ἑνὸς θανάτου 
 ἀντίλυτρὸν ἐγένετο. ᾿Απέκειτο γὰρ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἅπαξ 
 ἀποθανεῖν" τοῦτο οὖν τὸ ἅπαξ ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ πάντων. 
 
 The καθ᾽ ὅσον is for Kabws. ᾿Απόκειται, ““ it is di- 
 vinely decreed and appointed.” Dindorf here ob- 
 serves, that ἀποκ. is used not only of rewards, but of 
 every thing appointed and destined to be. And 
 Wets. and Kypke adduce numerous Classical exam- 
 ples, not, however, very apposite. On the sentv- 
 ment it is well observed by Rosenm.: “ Opponuntur 
 5101 hominum mors et κρίσις ; Jesu mors et κρίσις: 
 κρίσις Jesu, ut gudicis, hominis ut judicandi.” 
 
 28. οὕτως -- σωτηρίαν. 
 
 Here ἅπαξ signifies once for all. See the note on Rom. 8, 21. 
 Προσενεχθεὶς, 561]. eis θυσίαν, ““ being offered up by himself.” So 
 Theophyl.: ὑφ᾽ éavrov. Ei yap καὶ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ θῦμα, 
 καὶ ἱερεῖον. ‘The πολλῶν is for πάντων, ““ all who should lay hold 
 on his salvation by faith and obedience.” ‘ It is not to be under- 
 stood (says Dr. Wells) that Christ was once offered to bear the sins 
 only of some certain persons, but that he was offered for the sins of 
 the whole world; though wicked men, by their impenitence, lay not 
 hold of this benefit ; and so it comes to pass, that Christ actually 
 bears only the sins of many; viz. of such as believe and obey the 
 Gospel, and so actually enjoy the benefit of Christ’s oblation, accord- 
 ing to Heb. 5, 9.” So Theophyl. (from Chrys.) : Τίνος δὲ ἕνεκεν 
 εἶπε, πολλῶν, Kal οὐ πάντων ; ἐπειδὴ μὴ πάντες ἐπίστευσαν. Ὁ 
 μὲν γὰρ θάνατος αὐτοῦ ἀντίῤῥοπος ἦν τῆς πάντων ἀπωλείας, καὶ 
 
 σον τὸ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, ὑπὲρ παντων ἀπέθανεν" οὐ πάντων δὲ τὰς ἁμαρ- 
 τίας ἀνήνεγκε, διὰ τὸ μὴ θελῆσαι αὐτοὺς. “Ὥστε ἄχρηστον ἑαυτοῖς 
 τὸν θάνατον τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐποίησαν. ᾿ 80 also ‘Theodoret: Τῶν 
 οὖν πεπιστευκότων μόνων τὰς ἁμαρτίας διέλυσε. See also Ecumen. 
 Theophyl. notices that πολλῶν may be taken for πάντων ; as at 
 Matt, 20, 28. And so most recent Interpreters, who might have 
 cited the Virgilian Unum pro multis dabitur caput. It comes to the 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. X. 409 
 
 same thing; and, in either way, the passage is rescued from Calvi- 
 nistic perversion. It may be observed, too, that this and the pre- 
 ceding passage are remarkable for containing a direct assertion of 
 the vicarious sacrifice of Christ; on which see Braun in loc., and 
 the excellent work of Abp. Magee on the Atonement. 
 
 Ἔκ δευτέρου. See the note of Limb., or the substance of it de- 
 tailed by Doddr, Χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. The sense of this term is obscure 
 and uncertain; consequently Commentators differ in opinion. 
 Whitby, Mich., Storr, Morus, Schleus, Mackn., and others, take 
 a&paor. to mean a sin-offering. But see the well founded objections 
 of Dind. and Slade. ‘he usual signification of the word may very 
 well be retained ; and, with Carpzov, Rosenm., Dind., and Slade, 
 we may render: ‘ sine peccati nostri onere, quod sibi ferundum 
 imposuit, quod in crucem sustulisse dicitur ;* or, with Hamm., 
 Pierce, and Doddr., “ without any of those sufferings which he 
 underwent as an atonement for sin;” which comes to the same 
 thing. The sense, then, is: ‘ without having occasion again to 
 bear our sins, by the sufferings he formerly underwent as an atone- 
 ment for them.” The eis σωτηρίαν may be construed either with 
 ὀφθήσεται, or with ἀπεκδεχομένοις. The former method is sup- 
 ported by the antients, the Syr., and the most eminent moderns ; 
 the latter, ‘« who look to him for salvation,” by Castell., Wolf, and 
 Slade, who compare Phil. 3,20. But that passage is not of the 
 same nature; and it may be questioned whether it can bear any 
 such sense. The former construction is undoubtedly the true one. 
 
 The whole passage is admirably explained by Theophyl. (from 
 Chrys.) thus: Ὀφθήσεται δὲ ἐκ δευτέρου οὐκέτι ἁμαρτίας ἐπιφερό- 
 μενος, οὐδὲ θανάτου δευτέρου δι᾽ αὐτὰς δεόμενος, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς κριτὴς εἰς 
 σωτηρίαν τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀπεκδεχομένοις, τουτέστι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς 
 αὐτὸν, καὶ ἐλπίξουσι τὴν αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν" πρόδηλον δὲ ὅτι καὶ 
 ἀξίως αὐτῆς ξῶσι. Καιτοιγε ov μόνον εἰς σωτηρίαν ἥξει, ἀλλὰ καὶ 
 εἰς τιμωρίαν τῶν ἀπίστων καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν" ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως τὸ φαι- 
 δρὸν εἶπε. 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 The Apostle proceeds to treat of the imperfection 
 of the Mosaic Law, and the perfection of the Chris- 
 tian religion, also the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our 
 sins, ver. 1—18. (Ern.) This Chapter is not con- 
 nected with the words immediately preceding, nor 
 contains the reason of them; but relates to what 
 was said on the entering in of the Priest to the 
 sanctum sanctorum every year ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίω ; 
 whereas Christ offered himself. The cause he de- 
 duces from the variety of sacrifices, and the nature of 
 the law. (Dind.) 
 
 ΟἿ ὦ 
 
500 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 
 
 VERSE 1. σχίαν---πραγμάτων, “ Kor the Law hold- 
 ing out only a shadow of the future and heavenly 
 blessings, not the very figure and substance of them. 
 Ἔχων, ‘since itheld out.” Zxiav, 1. 6. a faint sketch 
 or outline, opposed to which is the εἰκὼν, or the figure 
 filled up, and become a complete and substantial 
 form. So εἶδος, 2 Cor. ὅ, 7. See Chrys., Theophyl., 
 and C&cumen., and also Dind. The μέλλοντα ἀγαθὰ - 
 denotes, not the heavenly sanctuary, as Pierce fan- 
 cies, but, as the best antient and modern Commen- 
 tators are agreed, the benefits obtained by Christ, 
 true forgiveness of sins, and admission to eternal 
 happiness. See 9, 11. 
 
 1. κατ᾽ eviauriv—rerciooas, There is here a tra- 
 jectio and synchysis; and the construction is thus 
 laid down by Rosenm.* οὐδέποτε δύναται τελειῶσαι 
 τοὺς προσερχομένους κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις, ἅς 
 προσφέρουσιν (SC. ἱερεῖς) εἰς διηνεκὲς. By the προσερχο- 
 μένους are meant those who approached to the altar 
 (as Heb. 11, 6.), such as the Apostle afterwards calls 
 the λατρεύοντας, or worshippers. Τελειώσαι, make 
 perfect, fully expiate, and free from sin, i. e. quoad 
 mentem et conscientiam. 
 ον 9, ἐπεὶ οὐκ---κεκαθαομιένους. Many MSS. and other 
 authorities read ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν, which is approved by 
 most Critics, and has been received by Griesbach. 
 Thus the words will be taken interrogatively, with 
 this sense: ““ Would not those sacrifices have ceased 
 to be offered up every year?” And they remark that 
 ἐπεὶ may commence an interrogative sentence ; asin 
 Rom. 3, 6. and Aristoph. Nub. 689. Carpzov, how- 
 ever, thinks the common reading (which is, more- 
 over, found in Chrys.), is more agreeable to the 
 simple assertion which follows. And he observes 
 that Philo often uses ἐπειδὴ and ἐπειδὰν in the sense 
 siquidem, ceteroquin.. The sense is the same on either 
 reading: but I see no sufficient reason to abandon 
 the common one. Particles are often introduced ex 
 emendatione, and that arising from misapprehension ; 
 which seems to be the case here. ‘The reading κἄν, 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 501 
 
 was another emendation : for 1 remember no instance 
 of ἐπεὶ and οὐκ coming together. What are the 
 “critical reasons” for the new reading I am at a loss 
 imagine. 
 
 The sense is: “ otherwise (if men could not by 
 these sacrifices have been perfectly expiated) they 
 would have ceased being offered.’ For here, as in 
 ᾿ many other instances, the Greek and English idioms 
 coincide. See Viger. and Matth. Gr. Gr. 
 
 2. διὰ τὸ pydepiav ἔχειν----κεκαθαρμένους, ** by reason 
 of the worshippers, once purified, having no longer 
 any consciousness of sin, to deserve punishment and 
 need expiation ;” or, ““ they would have been freed 
 from the consciousness of sin, and the solicitude and 
 anxiety thence resulting.” Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. in 
 loc. well explains the use of συνειδ, by the Apostle 
 thus: ““ Sacrificia expiatoria V. ‘T. non poterant sine 
 fide in Messiam sic expiare peccata, ut conscientiz 
 hominum propterea tranquille fuerint, nullosque 
 peccatorum morsus ultra senserint. Sed sacrificium 
 Christi fide a credentibus apprehensum conscientias 
 sic tranquillas reddit, ut a metu peccatorum plané 
 sint immunes.” 
 
 8. ἀλλὰ lev adrais—evaurov. At αὐταῖς must be 
 understood θυσίαις, and (as Ernesti thinks) μονὴ after 
 ἀνάμνησις. The sense is: ‘ But in these sacrifices 
 there is only an annual commemoration (by the High 
 Priest, on the day of expiation) of the sins (commit- 
 ted) during the year ya ae _Theophyl. explains: οὐδὲν 
 ἅμα κατόρθουσιν αἱ θυσίαι, εἰ μὴ μόνον ἀνάμνησιν ἁμαρ- 
 τιών, τουτέστιν, ἔλεγχον. Οὐ γὰρ ἄφεσιν παρέχουσιν, 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἀποδεικνύουσι διὰ τοῦ ἀεὶ προσφέρεσθαι, ὅ ὅτι ἄλυτοι 
 εἶσιν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι τοῦ λαοῦ, Εἰ γὰρ ἐλύθησαν ai ἁμαρ- 
 τίαι, τι ἔδει θυσιῶν ; 
 
 4. ἀδύνατον---ἁμαρτίας. The Apostle _ (Theoph. ob- 
 serves) str engthens t the reasoning ἀπὸ τῆς εὐτελείας τῶν 
 προσαγόμενων, καὶ τοῦ μεγέθους τοῦ νοσήματος. By ἁ αμαρτ. 
 is meant the reatus, and the consequent punishment 
 resulting from it. Now the blood of bulls and goats 
 could only produce a corporeal or legal purity, could 
 
502 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 
 
 not cleanse tle conscience, or free us from all sin; 
 as does the blood of Christ. See Carpzov, who cites 
 a passage of Philo 3, 675 c., where it is said that all 
 sacrifices are only symbols of the purification of the 
 mind. | 
 
 5. διὸ εἰσερχόμενος ---ἀθβέλησας, ““ Wherefore, to show 
 this, where the Messiah is described as coming into 
 the world and commencing his work, he saith: 
 ‘* Sacrifices thou desirest not, but a body hast thou 
 purified me.” ‘ The Apostle (says Mr. Valpy) 
 opening the great plan of redemption, introduces 
 the Saviour as thus addressing his Father. See the 
 6th and following verses of Ps. 40., which is a pro- 
 phecy of Christ, upon the assumption of the hu- 
 man nature.” At εἰσερχ. the recent Commentators 
 subaud ws, and render the eimepy. venturus, as if 
 about to come. But this is a needless refinement. 
 Of course, it must mean his coming from heaven 
 into this world; and Whitby here ably refutes the 
 gloss of the Socinians, by which they would evade 
 this proof of the pre-existence of Christ in heaven 
 before he came into the world. λέγει, i.e. saith by 
 the mouth of David, who there (Ps. 40, 6 seqq.) 
 speaks in the person of the Messiah. 
 
 5. σῶμα κατηρτίσω μοι. As to the remarkable 
 discrepancy here between the Heb. and the Sept., 
 I cannot notice the conjectures which have been 
 hazarded, to account for that difference, or the re- 
 finements of interpretation by which they are at- 
 tempted to be reconciled. See Pole, Wolf, and 
 Dindorf. It may be sufficient to say that it is the 
 opinion of the most judicious, that the discrepancy 
 may best be removed by supposing that the Sept. 
 have translated freely, giving the real, though not 
 the literal sense; explaining it (as Mr. Slade says, 
 to whose note I refer for their particulars), in the way 
 of paraphrase, to those for whom they translated. 
 See Rom. 3, 12. There can be no doubt but the 
 phrase capo δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι must be understood of 
 Christ’s being clothed and fitted with a human body 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Χ, 503 
 
 for the purpose of making the sacrifice in question. 
 The sense intended by the Apostle is expressed by 
 Rosenm. thus: ‘‘ Since the sacrifices enjoined by the 
 Law of Moses could not take away sins, Christ was 
 pleased to offer up himself, and by this sacrifice to 
 expiate and bring us to salvation.” 
 
 6. ὁλοκαυτώματα---εὐδόκησας. At περὶ ἁμαρτίας 
 must be understood θυσίαν, Heb. TNUN, a sin-offering. 
 Οὐκ εὐδόκησας. A stronger term than the οὐκ ἤἥτησας 
 of the Sept. and the nosw x5 of the Hehrew. But 
 St. Paul regarded (and rightly) the verb ΓΝ as put 
 per meiosin. 
 
 7. τότε eitov—cov. At τότε there seem to be 
 some words omitted, which may be thus supplied : 
 ““ Seeing, then (said I), that thou art not appeased 
 by sacrifices, I said, Behold, here am I, ready to obey 
 thee, and fulfil all thy will.” Thus τότε must neither 
 be taken in sensu χρονικῷ, nor be regarded, with 
 Heinr., Mich., and Dind., as pleonastic. At τοὺ 
 ποιῆσαι must be understood ἕνεκα, which is for εἰς τὸ 
 ποιῆσαι. 
 
 Instead of κεφαλίδι other Translators have εἰλήματι 
 or βιβλίῳ, or τεύχει. The Heb. 2x2 undoubtedly 
 signifies a roll. But the best Critics have observed 
 that κεφαλὶς may be no more ; since it was so called, 
 with a reference to the wooden rolls, or staves, about 
 which the parchment was rolled wp; having at the 
 ends, or (I should conjecture) one end, a piece of 
 turnery, which, from bearing some rude*resemblance 
 of a head (as sometimes we see on walking-sticks), 
 might give name to the whole. By the keg. is, I 
 think, with Doddr., meant the Pentateuch, with allu- 
 sion to the general predictions in it of the Messiah. 
 
 8, 9. ἀνωτερον---εἴρηκεν. Rosenm., after observing 
 that these are not the words of the Psalm, but of St. 
 Paul, notices that it was not unusual for writers (as 
 Philo) to take another’s words, and then to bring 
 them forward, member by member, and deduce ar- 
 guments from them. And he lays down the senéi- 
 ment from ver. 5—Q9. thus: “ Obedience is better 
 
504 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 
 
 than external sacred rites. This obedience Christ 
 rendered, by willingly and promptly submitting him- 
 self to death, to this end, that we should be purified 
 from sin, and obtain pardon and acceptance.” 
 
 9. ἀναιρεῖ τὸ πρῶτον---στήση. Such is usual in dis- 
 junctive syllogisms. Τὸ πρῶτον, the Levitical sacri- 
 fices. Τὸ δεύτερον, i.e. τὸ ποιεῖν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 Αἰρεῖν, like ἀθετεῖν and καταργεῖν, signifies to abrogate. 
 ‘Iordvas signifies to set up, confirm. ‘The meaning 
 is, that the precept respecting sacrifices will now 
 cease, and another will hence have place, which the 
 Messiah had promised when he declared that he 
 would do the will of his Father. (Rosenm.) 
 
 (10. ἐν ᾧ--ἐθφάπαξ. The θελημ. is explained by 
 Ernesti P29, εὐδοκία, good pleasure of God: for to 
 God the Father, the antients, and most moderns 
 refer it; on which see Mackn. and Whitby ap Slade. 
 By Carpzov and Rosenm. it is referred both to God 
 the Father, and God the Son. And Rosenm. adds: 
 “ quia Deus hoc a Jesu fieri voluit, et Jesu id quod 
 voluerat Deus, fecit.” It is observed by Dind.: 
 « Agitur hic tantum de sacrificio, quo Christus semet 
 Patri obtulit, in eoque ejus voluntatem sive mandata 
 exsecutus est, que duplicis quidem generis erant, ut 
 partim homines sanioris religionis cognitione imbu- 
 eret, partim eorum causa mortem subiret.” Ἡγιασ- 
 μένοι, “ purified from sin.” For, as Rosenm. and 
 Dind. observe, ἁγιάϑειν is synonymous with καθαίρειν, 
 and has reference to the sacred κάθαρσις to be ob- 
 tained by piacular and various kinds of washings. 
 The sense, then, is, that “‘ weare rendered pure, and 
 obtain pardon and acceptance solely by the offering 
 of the body of Christ.” ᾿Εφάπαξ, i.e. once for all, 
 by an act neither needing nor admitting of repeti- 
 tion, on which our pardon may safely be rested, 
 since it will be for ever availing, and not be tempo- 
 rary, like that of the sacrifices of the old dispensa- 
 tion. 
 
 11. καὶ πᾶς---θυσίας. The Apostle proceeds to 
 show the infinite superiority of Christ to the High 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 505 
 
 Priests of the Old Testament, especially since they 
 were only ministers and servants, but Christ is 
 ‘Lord. (Rosenm.) This verse, Braun thinks, coheres 
 with ver. 12, 13, and 14. And here the Apostle 
 brings forward a new argument for the sufficiency of 
 the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, or rather confirms what 
 had been already said. λειτουργία may refer to those 
 parts (doubtless the most dignified) which the High 
 Priest had assigned to him in the ministration. The 
 ἕστηκε may be not without force; since (as Braun 
 observes) no Priest was allowed to δέ down in the 
 temple, on pain of death; though Chrys. says: ἄρα 
 τὸ ἑστάναι τοῦ λειτουργεῖν ἐστι σημιεῖον᾽ οὐκοῦν TO καθησ - 
 θαι, τοῦ λειτουργεῖσθαι. Rosenm., too, recognizes an 
 antithesis in πολλάκις and ἐφάπαξ προσφέρειν. 
 
 12, 13. αὐτὸς δὲ---Θεοῦ. The ἐκάθισεν is rightly 
 said, by Rosenm., to denote the majesty and dignity 
 of Christ, though that rather confirms the sense of 
 ἕστηκε in the preceding verse, which he rejects. 
 For in the temple every Priest was compelled to 
 stand, as being in the court of the Great King; but 
 Christ sits in the presence of God, and that at his 
 right hand, and is σύνθρονος. The force of the com- 
 parison is obvious. 
 
 On ver. 13. see the note on 1,13. By the enemies 
 of God, Dind. says, is meant whatever hinders the 
 salvation Christ wishes to obtain for his servants, 
 namely, sinful actions, superstition, idolatry, and 
 death itself; as is explained by the Apostle’s words 
 at 1 Cor. 15, 90. But this seems an unwarrantable 
 refinement : for though actions may be included, yet 
 surely the persons by whom the actions are per- 
 formed, must be chiefly understood. Who these 
 persons are, Braun has well shown, who also observes 
 that the ἐν δεξιᾷ, though propounded ἀνθρωποπαθώς, 
 must be understood Θεοπρεπώς ; since it is sometimes 
 used of God; as Is. 30, 38. 
 
 14. μιᾷ γὰρ---ἁγιαϑομένους, “For by one sacrifice 
 he hath for ever expiated those that were to be re- 
 deemed.” Terea., Dind. observes, answers to the 
 
506 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 
 
 phrase ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιεῖν at ver. 18., and to 
 περιελεῖν at ver. 11. And Carpz. and Dind. think 
 that the words εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς belong to rerea.; though 
 some refer them to προσῷ. ; others, to ayiag. 
 
 15—17. μαρτυρεῖ δὲ---μνησθώ ἔτι. The δὲ signifies 
 moreover. Μαρτυρεῖ, bears testimony, teaches, namely, 
 that we are expiated and blessed. To πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. 
 Here (Carpz. observes) is a proof of the Divinity of 
 the Holy Spirit ; since him whom at ver. 15 he calls 
 the Holy Spirit, he at 16. calls Κύριος, for which the 
 Hebrew original is 7. Rosenm. notices that 
 the words μετὰ τὸ προειρηκέναι are connected with 
 ver. 16.; and at the beginning of ver. 17. must be 
 understood εἶτ᾽ ἐπιλέσει. ‘* For (continues he) the 
 nervus probandi is in ver. 17. ‘the sins committed 
 by them I will remember no more,’ i. e. I will remit 
 and not punish (as supra 8, 12.):’’ and this is partly 
 clear from the introduction of the words at ver. 18., 
 and partly from many things being omitted after ver. 
 16., which had been brought forward at 8, 8. seq. 
 
 18. ὅπου δὲ---ἁμαρτίας. The argument goes to prove 
 the insufficiency of the Priesthood of the Old Testa- 
 ment. The majoriscertain. For oblationis madein order 
 to the obtaining of remission. Now since they could 
 obtain no perfect remission, but only a typical one, 
 which was rather a πάρεσις and ἀνοχὴ ; therefore the 
 προσφορὰ remained, and was to be every day re- 
 peated. Whence it follows, ‘‘ where there is perfect 
 remission of sin, no oblation can have place ;” for it 
 would thus be vain. The minor is this: that under 
 the New Covenant there is a perfect remission of 
 sins. (Braun.) To this purpose Carpz. cites Philo 
 675 c. and 843 c. whence it appears that in a sacri- 
 fice for sin there was said to. be sought παρὰ τῆς ἵλεω 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνάμεως ἁμνηστία ἀδικημάτων ; for that bulls 
 and calves were slain περὶ ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτημάτων. 
 
 19, 20. ἐχοντες οὖν---᾿ Ἰησοῦ. 
 
 I would render: “ Since then, brethren, we have obtained a pri- 
 
 vilege for an entrance into the Holies (i. e. heaven), through (the 
 efficacy of) the blood of Christ, to which entrance he hath prepared 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 507 
 
 for us a new and perpetual way, by the removal of the veil, even his 
 body.” Here (observes Rosenm.) there commences a new section 
 of the Epistle, which has been hitherto doctrinal, showing the suffi- 
 ciency of Christ’s Priesthood, and the weakness of the Aaronitish. 
 Now the Apostle proceeds to the horlutive, consolatory, and con- 
 firmatory, which extends to the end of the Epistle.” In the εἴσοδον 
 τῶν ἁγίων there is an allusion to the rite of the Old Testament 
 which forbade entrance to the Sanct. Sanctorum to any but the 
 High Priest. Now (it is shown) by the efficacy of the sacrifice of 
 Christ, all the faithful as well as Priests, are admitted to the Chris- 
 tian Sanctum Sanctorum, even heaven itself. Παῤῥησία, liberty, 
 privilege. See supra, 3, 16. 4,16. "Ev τῷ αἵματι Inaois, 1. 6. (as 
 Carpz. has shown) ‘ by the virtue and efficacy of the blood of 
 Jesus.” So Theophyl.: διὰ τοῦ αἵματος. The ἐνεκαίνισεν Chrys. 
 explains, ‘‘ formed and himself entered upon,” literally, created, 
 i. e. first laid open and himself entered upon. Now he that lays 
 open aroad, is said to have prepared or made it. See note supra, 
 9,18. ‘Oddy πρόσφατον καὶ ξῶσαν. The adjective πρόσφατος pro- 
 perly signifies newly slain, or recently spoken ; but chiefly the latter. 
 At length, however, it came to merely mean new-made (iike our 
 brand-new), and, in a general way, new. Now this way to heaven 
 might very well be so called, as having been hitherto unknown, and 
 then first, and also recently, opened out, and trodden by Christ. (See 
 Braun.) It is also called ξῶσαν, which is explained by Braun tri- 
 tam, well trodden ; by Rosenm. amenam, jucundam ; and by Ernesti 
 eternal, with reference to the perpetual sacrifice of Christ. But all 
 these interpretations are too fanciful, The only one that bears the 
 stamp of truth is that of the antients and several moderns vivifi- 
 cam, which tends to life and happiness. So Theoph.: Φωοποιοῦσα, 
 εἰς Φωὴν ἄγουσα, as opposed to the old road, which was θανατη- 
 φόρα. So at 6, 1. νεκρὰ is used of things which lead to death. See 
 also Joh. 14, 6. Now this way, on the contrary (Theophyl, ob- 
 serves) eis Φπὴν φέρει, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὴ Θῆ, καὶ διαιωνέξει. 
 
 By the διὰ τοῦ κατοπετάσματος, almost all Commentators are 
 agreed, is meant the veil of Christ’s body. ‘‘ For (observes Ro- 
 senm.) as the Pontifex Max. could not pass to the Sanctum Sanc- 
 torum, except by the removal of the veil; so neither could we, 
 unless by the body of Christ suffering death (and therefore the re- 
 moval of that veil) ascend to heaven.” See also the copious anno- 
 tation of Braun. But the ratio metaphore and the true sense is 
 still better explained in the racy and nervous language of Theoph. 
 (from Chrys.) as follows: ᾿Ενεκαίνισεν ἡμῖν τὴν ὁδὸν ταύτην τὴν εἰς 
 οὐρανὸν, διὰ τῆς σαρκός αὐτοῦ" ὅτε γὰρ ἤρθη ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ αὕτη, Kai 
 ἀναλήφθη, τότε ἀπεκάλυψεν ἡμῖν τὰ οὐράνια" Διὸ καὶ εὐκαίρως κατα- 
 πέτασμα αὐτὴν ἐκάλεσε" τοῦτο γὰρ ἴδιον τοῦ καταπετάσματος, TO, 
 ὅταν ἀρθῇ, ἀνακαλύπτειν τὰ ἔνδογ. 4 
 
 21, 22. καὶ ἱερέα μέγαν ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ. Re- 
 peat ἔχοντες from the preceding verse. The οἶκον 
 Θεοῦ may mean the Christian congregation, the 
 
508 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 
 
 Church (see 8, 6.) over which Christ presides. So 
 Est., Menoch., Zeg., and others. And this interpre- 
 tation is well defended by Grot. ‘Theophyl., how- 
 ever, after noticing this interpretation (which 15 
 given by Aicumen. and Theodoret), adds another, 
 which he prefers, namely, τὸν οὐρανὸν ; observing: 
 ἐν ἑκείνω γὰρ λειτουργεῖν τὸν ᾿Αρχιερέα λέγει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν 
 ἐντυγχάνοντα. And this is (I think, with reason) pre- 
 ferred by Gomar, Ribera, and most of the recent 
 Commentators. 
 
 Do: προσερχώμεθα. A term often (as also 11, 6.) 
 used by the Apostie and Philo in the sense λατρεύω, 
 draw near (and worship). Μετὰ ἀληθινῆς καρδίας, as 
 opposed to hypocritical piety, or inattentive prayer. 
 So Theophyl.: ἀδόλου, ἀνυποκρίτου. Or it may mean, 
 he thinks, ἀδιστάκτοο. And so Ernesti, ‘firmly 
 trusting in the merits of Christ.” Thus (observes 
 Dind.) the Hebrews say a8; as Is. 38, 4. where the 
 Sept. has ἀληθίνην καρδίαν. See also on Eph, 6, 5.” 
 And this is supported by what follows, which seems 
 exegetical. 
 
 22, ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως, “with a full and undoubt- 
 ing faith.” See 1 Thess. 1, 5. Col. 2, 2. and the 
 notes. I would compare Dionys. Hal. '729, 21. δόξα 
 τε ἰσχυρὰ, καὶ οὐ πολὺ ἀπέχουσα πίστις εἶναι. 
 
 22. ἐῤῥαντισμένοι---πονηρᾶς, ““ sprinkled as to our 
 hearts, from a consciousness of evil.” So Ernesti: 
 “‘ animis a conscientia peccati puris purgatis.” “ The 
 effect (observes Rosenm.) is put for the cause.” I 
 would compare Joseph. p. 6, 41. ἐπὶ συνειδότι πονηρῷ. 
 
 There is an allusion to the sacrificial rite by which 
 the mind as well as the body of the worshipper was 
 required to be pure. With respect to the λελουμένοι 
 τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ, this (Rosenm. observes) desig- 
 nates the external purity which is wont to be con- 
 joined with internal holiness. And in the times of 
 their Old Testament the Priests every day washed the 
 bodies (see Exod. 29, 4. and Levit. 16, 4.) ; to which 
 custom there is here an allusion. Ernesti thinks 
 there is in these words an ἐξεργασία, or parallelism. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 509 
 
 They cannot (he adds) be taken proprie, unless they 
 be understood of baptism, which cannot here be 
 meant. 
 
 23, 24, κατέχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος ἀκλινῆ, 
 “ Let us hold fast the profession of our hope οἵ sal- 
 vation by Christ.” ‘Opor. τῆς ἐλπίδος, * the profes- 
 sion of the religion which bids us hope.” See the 
 note on 8, 1. So ἐλπὶς is used in 1 Pet. 3,15. Theo- 
 phyl. explains: τὴν ὁμολογηθεῖσαν ἡμῖν τὴν ἐλπίδα. 
 And he thinks the ὁμολ. has reference to the confes- 
 sion at baptism. ᾿Ακλινῆ, firm, unwavering. So 
 Theophyl.: βεβαίαν. Wets. cites from Lucian, ἀκλινῆ 
 τὴν ψυχὴν. 
 
 24. καὶ κατανοώμιεν---ἔργων, ** Let us be mindful to 
 excite each other to mutual love and liberality.” 
 Karavociy signifies properly to mind ; and here, to be 
 mindful of, have a care of, be studious of. Schleus. 
 cites Is.57,1. Els παροξυσμὸν, &c. “ to excite each 
 other to,” or, ““ that we may be mutually excited, and 
 feel a mutual emulation.” So Theoph.: ἐπισκοπώμεν 
 εἴτις ἐνάρετος, iva τοῦτον μιμώμεθα. For, as Theodoret 
 observes, σίδηρος σίδηρον θήγει, καὶ λίθος λίθῳ προστριβό- 
 μένος ἀποκύει Dacya. Τ]αροξυσμὸς is a word of middle 
 signification, and may, as here, include incitement to 
 good as wellastoevil. By the καλὰ épyeare plainly 
 meant works of beneficence. 
 
 Q5. μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες---παρακαλοῦντες. 
 
 The ἐγκαταλ. is usually rendered relinquentes, deserentes, leaving 
 off. But the sense seems to be, “" failing in the duty of assembling 
 yourselves together.” For ἐπισυναγωγὴν is well explained by 
 Theophyl. τὸ ἐπισυνάγεσθαι. The question, however, is, what is 
 meant by ἐπισυν. Theodoret interprets it συμφωνίαν. And so 
 many moderns understand it of friendly society. Ernesti takes it of 
 the agape; others of apostasy from the Christian religion ; others 
 again, of collection for the poor, All these interpretations are open 
 to various objections: and I see no one so probable as the antient and 
 common ones, by which itis taken for the congregating themselves to- 
 gether for public, or at least common worship. That this interpretation 
 is of great antiquity, appears from the term having been so used in the 
 writings of the early councils, where the regulations of public wor- 
 ship are treated of. So Ignat. (cited by Grot.) πυκνότερον cuvayw- 
 yal γινέσθωσαν. And again: σπουδάξετε οὖν πυκνότερον συνέρχεσ- 
 θαι εἰς εὐχαριστίαν Θεοῦ καὶ δόξαν, See also Clemens and Just. 
 
510 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 
 
 Mart. And so Theophy]. must have taken it ; since headds: μηδὲ 
 χωρισμοὺς καὶ παρασυναγωγὰς ἐπιτηδεύειν, ““ and not studying se- 
 parations or bye-meetings, dissenting assemblies.” Now this inter- 
 pretation (notwithstanding what Ern. says) is very agreeable to the 
 context; and it is ably supported by Beza, Grot., Wolf, Carpz., 
 Dind., and Rosenm. It is, with great probability, conjectured by Est. 
 and Beza, that ἐπισυναγ. was used rather than ovvay., in order the 
 better to distinguish Christian assemblies from Jewish synagogues. 
 Toa neglect of public worship and schism the Hebrews (we are told) 
 were too prone. And to this purpose Hillah (cited by Schoettg. 
 Hor. Hebr.) says : ‘‘ Qui separat e congregatione, non videbit con- 
 solationem que Ecclesiam tangit.”’ 
 
 As to the context seeming to require us (as Homberg says) to 
 understand the ἐπισυναγ. of apostacy (of which Whitby takes it), 
 Grot. well remarks, that neglect of attendance on public worship is 
 the beginning of apostacy. As to private religious meetings, like the 
 agape, seeming more suitable to the context (as Ernesti contends), 
 itis to be remembered that all Christian congregations were as yet 
 small conventicula, or assemblies such as could conveniently meet at 
 private houses, (which has been already shown in the notes to the 
 former Epistles). Finally a desertion of the asssemblies for worship 
 was also sure to lead to the neglect of the καλὰ ἔργα Just men- 
 tioned; since the poor were chiefly relieved or supported by the 
 collections made at such meetings. I cannot conclude without ob- 
 serving, that in proof of the high importance of public worship, we 
 need only attend to the remark of one of the bitterest enemies of our 
 religion (for we must remember, “ fas est et ab hoste doceri’,) Gibbon, 
 in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 4. p. 83. ‘ The 
 devotion of the poet, or the philosopher, may be secretly nourished 
 by prayer, meditation, and study: but the exercise of public worship 
 appears to be the only solid foundation of the religious sentiments 
 of the people, which derive their force from imitation and habit. 
 The interruption of that public exercise may consummate, in the 
 period of a few years, the important work of a national revolution. 
 The memory of theological opinions cannot long be preserved 
 without the artificial helps of priests and of books.” On this subject 
 of public worship I beg to recommend to the attention of my rea- 
 ders the excellent treatise of Mr. Holden on the Christian Sabbath. 
 
 Καθὼς ἔθος τισὶν. This is by J. Capell. and Carpz. thought to be 
 a litotes, such as in 1 Cor. 10, 7. ᾿Αλλὰ παρακαλοῦντες, scil. ἑαυτοὺς. 
 Here most supply ἐπισυνάγεσθαι. But this seems too formal and 
 frigid, and not agreeable to what follows. Indeed most Commenta- 
 tors seem at a loss what sense to assign. It seems to refer to the 
 παροξυσμὸν at ver. 24., and must be extended to every kind of ex- 
 citement to virtue and. religion. Theophyl. well explains thus: 
 ἀλλήλοις ὄντες eis παραμυθίαν, καὶ eis τὸν Eva νουθετοῦντες, καὶ δι- 
 δάσκοντες, καὶ παρηγοροῦντες. The words μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες--- 
 τισὶν are, insome degree, parenthetical. 
 
 Τοσούτῳ---ἡμέραν. These words are hy some interpreted of the 
 destruction of Jernsalem, which may (they say) be connected with 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 511 
 
 the day of the Lord, or of judgment: since the Apostles themselves 
 and other Christians supposed that, on Jerusalem being destroyed, 
 their Lord would return, and release his followers from the prosecu- 
 tions of the Jews. ‘There is, however, no reason to abandon the 
 common interpretation, the day of judgment, which seems to be 
 required by the words following φοβερὰ τις ἐκδοχὴ κρίσεως, καὶ 
 πυρὸς Ξῆλος. Objections to it are indeed made, but such as ad- 
 mit of easy answer. 
 
 26, 27. Now is subjoined the reason why they 
 should not fall off from their Christian profession, 
 namely, that if, after having acknowledged the truth, 
 they deliberately apostatize, there will remain to 
 them no pardon of sins. A sentiment similar to one 
 at 4, 6. (Dind.) It is observed by Braun, that ver. 
 26—32. form a connected section. 
 
 The ἁμαρτ. is explained by the best Commentators 
 of apostacy from the Christian faith; which, they 
 say, is required by what precedes; and they observe 
 that ἑκουσίως is added, since for such a sin ignorance 
 cannot be pleaded. But perhaps the ἅμ. may have 
 reference to the whole of what preceded, and denote 
 that kind of sinning which consists not only in 
 apostacy from the faith, and abandoning the reli- 
 gion, but also a sort of virtual apostasy, by the 
 non-observance of its injunctions: and ἑκουσίως is as 
 suitable on this as on the former interpretation ; 
 since such conduct is deliberate. 
 
 The phrase λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας is 
 compared with the φωτισθῆναι, supra 6, 4., and taken 
 to denote a knowledge of the true doctrines of the 
 Gospel. But it seems to imply also that of the mo- 
 ral duties which it enjoins. Now tosuch, the Apos- 
 tle adds, there remains no sacrifice of purification 
 (i. e. as long as they continue such), but only a 
 φοβερὰ τις ἐκδοχὴ κρίσεως, a horrible expectation of 
 future punishment ; for words signifying expectation 
 are used both in malam and in bonam partem. Carpz. 
 cites Philo 1070. προδοκία κακοῦ. Andhe might have 
 added Thucyd. 7. ἐλπίδα τοῦ φόβου, for φοβέραν ἐλ- 
 πίδα. On ἐδοχὴ itself see Sallier. on T. Mag. 980. 
 The word is used by the Classical writers; but not in 
 
512 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 
 
 this sense. ‘The πυρὸς gyros plainly denotes the fiery 
 anger of God (with which expression may be com- 
 pared the διάπυρος and αἰθων of the Greek writers. 
 See Blomf. on Aischyl. Ag. 444); so often in the Old 
 Testament: andas fire is frequently said to eat up 
 what it consumes and destroys, so the wrath of God 
 destroys and casts into perdition τοὺς ὑπεναντίους, 
 namely, those who oppose his true religion, apostasy 
 either actual or virtual. 
 
 28. ἀθετήσας---ἀποθνήσκε. Here is an argument a 
 minori ad majus by which it is Shown, that those who 
 apostatize from the Christian religion will suffer 
 much heavier punishment than those who had sinned 
 against the Mosaic Law. (Rosenm.) ᾿Αθετήσας τις, 
 he who set at nought, violated, i. e. (as Rosenm. ex- 
 plains), ἑκουσίως. Now we are told that any trans- 
 gression of the Law, however minute, if it could be 
 traced to deliberation and wilfulness, was punished 
 with death. By the τὸν νόμον, Braun says, is espe- 
 cially meant the ceremonial law, for a violation of 
 which, he says, not even the High Priest, or the most 
 dignified persons were excused. 
 
 28. χωρὶς οἰκτιρμῶν, without mercy or pardon. The 
 ἐπὶ in ἐπὶ δυσὶ ἢ τρισὶ is rendered by Rosenm., 
 ‘* propter consensum duorum.” But I prefer, with 
 Dind., to take it to denote condition, i. e. literally, 
 “(if convicted) under the testimony of.” ᾿Αποθνήσ- 
 Ket, “is put to death.” 
 
 29, πόσω---ἐνύβρισας; These words place in a 
 very strong light the guilt of apostates and presump- 
 tuous sinners. ‘The interjected δοκεῖτε has great ele- 
 gance; as also the ἀξιωθ.; such kind of words 
 being of middle signification. Καταπατεῖν, like con- 
 culcare, is a term denoting the utmost contempt and 
 insult. I would compare Joseph. 1172, 32. φέρετε 
 δὴ τοίνυν φέρετε πατούμενα βλέποντες τὰ ἅγια and 1179, 
 10. πατήσαντες τοὺς νόμους. The τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης 
 κοινὸν ἡγησάμενος signifies, regarding the blood of 
 Christ, shed to ratify the Christian covenant, and by 
 which we Christians are sanctified unto God, as a 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 5138 
 
 thing common, as only the blood of a man, and that 
 a malefactor. For if Jesus were not the Messiah, 
 such he would necessarily be. The ἐνυβρ. answers 
 to the καταπ. just before. This term signifies to 
 grossly insult: and, after illustrating by examples 
 the use of the word, Dind. remarks that the Apostle 
 could not have employed a stronger term to desig- . 
 nate a contemner of the Gospel. And (we may 
 add from Bp. Middl.) it confirms the doctrine of the 
 personality of the Spirit; for it does not appear that 
 the verb ἐνυβρίξειν cam have for its object things or 
 qualities ; it is applicable to persons only. 
 
 With respect to the πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος, I cannot 
 but notice in the Foreign Commentators, with repro- 
 bation, the same perversion that so often attends their 
 interpretations of this word. Some (as Schleéus. in 
 his Lex.) would take it to denote the Christian reli- 
 gion; others, as Heinr. and Dind., recognize a peri- 
 phrasis for χάρις; thus effectually silencing the 
 word. And so Jaspis, ‘‘summo Dei beneficio.” 
 Somewhat preferable is the interpretation of Rosen., 
 “ the gifts of the Spirit,” which every apostate casts 
 off. But I see no reason to abandon the interpreta- 
 tion of the antients, and earlier moderns, which is 
 ably supported by Braun and Ernesti, namely, the 
 Holy Spirit, the third person of the sacred Trinity, 
 ‘* per quem (says Ernesti) gratia per Christum parta, 
 nobis obsignatur, dum ipse Spiritus Sanctus in nobis 
 fidem gignit, alit et conservat.” (See also Braun.) 
 It may be observed, that as in the former clause we 
 have Jesus Christ a person, so here we have the 
 Holy Spirit also a person. Finally, I cannot think 
 that apostacy alone is here meant, or (as Doddr. 
 supposes) the sin against the Holy Ghost; but all 
 wilful sin, and a presumptuously corrupt life; since 
 _ such must (as Diodati suggests) tend to that dread- 
 ful conclusion. 
 
 30. οἴδαμεν yerp—Kupios. The οἴδαμεν γὰρ τὸν εἰ- 
 πόντοι may be ἃ sort of formula of citation; though 
 very spirited. But I prefer, with Grot. and Ernesti, 
 
 VOL, VIII, 2L 
 
S14 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 
 
 to regard the οἴδαμεν as strongly emphatical, 1. 6. (as 
 Grot. explains) ‘“‘ cogitemus quis et quantus,” &c. or 
 (as Ern.) “ novimus enim quantam vim ad ulciscen- 
 dum et puniendum habeat, quam acer, quam potius,” 
 Χο. So also Dind. The words are from Deut. 32, 35. 
 mow men, ‘tome is vengeance and retribution.” 
 But the Apostle’s language is founded partly on the 
 Hebrew and partly on the Sept. ; unless perhaps that 
 might be different from what it now is. Κρινεῖ 15 by 
 some antients and moderns rendered, ‘‘ avenge his 
 people.” (See Theoph., Est., Grot., and Rosenm.) By 
 others, as Menoch., Calvin, Dind., and Wolf, ‘* will 
 condemn and punish :? which the Jews fancied the 
 Almighty would never do to the Jsraelites. But I 
 prefer the more extensive sense, judge. And so 
 Bezaand Braun. By his people is meant his Church, 
 consisting of good and bad, to each of whom he will 
 ‘* render according to his works.” 
 
 51. φοβερὸν----ϑῶντος, “* A horrible thing it is to fall 
 into the hands of the eternal God. So Cicero: 
 « Horribile est causam capitis dicere.” By hands is 
 meant power; and the context requires us to add, 
 “for punishment.” The ϑώντος may mean efernal, 
 or omnipotent ; or both; both being suggested by 
 the context; since to fall into the power, for punish- 
 ment, of a Being at once omnipotent and eternal, is 
 indeed HORRIBLE. 
 
 82. ἀναμιμνήσκεσθε---παθημάτων. Novo argumento 
 excitat illos Christianos, ut constantes esse in reli- 
 gione pergant, hoc nempe: eos hactenus jam varii 
 generis calamitates sustinuisse ; stolidé igitur agere 
 eos, qui post tantas calamitates fortiter superatas, 
 nunc demum deficiant. (Rosenm.) The use of the 
 adverb for the adjective (as here πρότερον for πρότε- 
 eas) is found in the best writers. Carpz. cites Philo 
 972. And he might have added, that it is common in 
 Thucydides. ΦΦωτισθέντες, “ after having been en- 
 lightened. (by the Gospel),” 1. 6. converted to the 
 true religion. Dind. compares Theophyl.: κηρύξας 
 --τοὺς πρὸς τῷ μεσημβρινῷ κλίματι ἐφώτισεν. ; 
 
 32. πολλὴν ἄθλησιν ὑπεμείνατε παθημάτων, * ye-en- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 515 
 
 dured a great conflict of sufferings.” Here there is 
 an agonistical metaphor, as in aywvigerbas, Col. 1, 
 29. So the Syr. uses the Greek word ἀγών. See 
 Grot., who adds, that by the term παθήματα are 
 meant afflictions of every kind; as Rom. 8, 18. 2 
 Cor. 1, 6 and 7. Phil. 3,°:10, &c. The term too is 
 well illustrated by Bos. Obss. Misc. p. 92. I would 
 add Thucyd. 2, 45. παῖσι δι’ ---ἢ ἀδελφοῖς ὀρῶ μέγαν τὸν 
 ἀγώνα. 
 
 33. τοῦτο μὲν---θεατριϑόμενοι. This partitive use of 
 τοῦτο μὲν τοῦτο δὲ is common in the Classical writers. 
 See Wets., Kypke, and Munthe. ’Oveidiopois καὶ 
 θλίψεσι θεατριϑόμενοι. ‘This is a continuation of the 
 agonistical metaphor, with an allusion to the ἀγὼν 
 maintained with beasts by miserable wretches, thus 
 θεατριϑόμενοι, exposed to the gaze of the multitude as- 
 sembled at the theatre, who to brutality added con- 
 tumely; for as Tacit. Annal. 15. (cited by Carpz.) 
 says (with a reference to the Christians), ‘ Pereun- 
 tibus addita ludibria.” See also Sueton, Juvenal, 
 and other writers referred to by Carpz. That capi- 
 tal punishments were often inflicted in the theatres, 
 he proves from Philo 977 8. See the whole of his 
 very interesting note. 
 
 33. τοῦτο δὲ---γενηθέντες, “ and partly since ye were 
 made partakers in the persecutions of those that 
 were so circumstanced, namely, by sympathy and 
 consolation, and partly by assisting them. In dvac- 
 τρεφομένων Kypke and Carpz. recognize a continua- 
 tion of the metaphor. (See their notes.) It, however, 
 ‘seems best, with the Syr., Casaub., Grot., and 
 Erasm., to suppose it said of those so treated. The 
 recent Commentators, Dind., Rosenm., and Heinr., 
 take the term to here signify vivere. But that yields 
 a feeble sense; and the harshness which they com- 
 plain of is fancied, or may be imputed to the bold 
 character of this very metaphorical sentence. 
 
 34. καὶ yap τοῖς---συνεπαθήσατε. This seems meant 
 to be exegetical of the preceding, and to illustrate 
 the mode in which this κοινωνία was ministered. - The 
 
 ZL 
 
516 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 
 
 sense is: “ You had (for instance—yag having here, 
 as often, the sense of exempli gratia) sympathy with 
 (me in) my bonds ;” namely, at Jerusalem. See Acts 
 21, 22. seq. Some MSS., Versions, and Fathers, 
 however, read τοῖς δεσμίοις. And this is preferred by 
 Grot., Hamm., Le Clerc, Mill, Bengel, Whitby, 
 Pierce, Morus, Storr., Heinr., and Dind. But I 
 cannot help thinking with Wolf, Carpz., Mich., 
 Noesselt, Matthai, and Mackn., that the common 
 reading is the more genuine. I cannot enter at 
 large into the reasons; but I will only observe that 
 the MSS. are very few, and for the most part inter- 
 polated and emended. The common reading is 
 also the more difficult one; and as to the charge 
 brought against it, that it was devised for the pur- 
 pose of proving Paul to be the author of the Epistle, 
 there is not a shadow of evidence; nor is it likely 
 that such a paradiorthosis could occupy nearly all 
 the MSS. There is greater probability that the 
 more difficult reading δεσμοῖς would pass into the 
 easier decpiois; which would, of course, eject the 
 μου----κοὶ Try ἁρπάγην---προσδέξασθε, and “ ye joyfully 
 met, received, and endured the ravage and spoil of 
 your property.” ‘These were outrages doubtless 
 arising from the unbounded license of the mob, when 
 under the influence of avarice, whetted by supersti- 
 tion ; though too often worked upon by the higher 
 powers. 
 
 On the pera χαρᾶς the Commentators refer to 
 Acts 5, 41. Matt. 5, 12. and James 1,2. The use 
 here of προσδ. is rare; nor are the examples of M34, 
 Job. 33, 20. quite apposite. 
 
 84. γινωσκόντες---μένουσαν. The ἐν is omitted in 
 many MSS. of various recensions, Versions, and Fa- 
 thers, and seems to have arisen from the ew preced- 
 ing. Certainly the ἑαυτοῖς makes a better sense 
 without it, being a dativus commodi. “YrapEw, sub- 
 stance, wealth. The term often occurs in the Sept., 
 and is also found in Acts 2,45. κτήματα καὶ ὑπάρξεις, 
 where see the note. "Eyev. By have, Grot. ob- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 517 
 
 serves, is here meant, have a claim to or title to any 
 thing. Kai μένουσαν, “anda durable one ;” as Matt. 
 6, 20. 19, 21. Mark 10, 21. Luke 12, 33. Prov. 8, 
 18. (cited by Grot.) The words ἐν οὐρανοῖς are by 
 many Critics supposed to have come from the margin. 
 But it is more probable that in the three MSS. in 
 which they are omitted (and which are all full of 
 emendations) they were thrown out, as difiguring 
 the beauty of the sentence. 
 
 35. μὴ ἀποβάλητε---μεγάλην. Tlapéyoia in this 
 Epistle often signifies constancy in the profession of 
 religion. (τη. and Carpz.) Or rather, confidence, 
 fortitude. In ἀποβ. Carpz., Rosenm., and Dindorf 
 recognize a metaphor taken from soldiers who (like 
 Horace) throw away their shields. And they com- 
 pare the expression shield of faith at Eph. 6, 16. 
 "Eye, “carries with it.’ Μισθαποδοσίαν μεγάλην, 
 “a great remuneration ;” namely, the ὕπαρξιν ἐν οὐρα- 
 vols. 
 
 36. ὑπομονῆς---ἐπαγγελίαν. The yap refers to a 
 clause omitted; 4. d. “(And well may I enjoin on 
 you the cultivation of this παῤῥησία) for ye have need 
 of patience and constancy.” “Iva τὸ θέλημα---ἐπαγ- 
 yeria, “so that (i. 6. if ye would expect this) after 
 having done and accomplished the will of God, ye 
 may obtain the promised salvation.”” By the θέλημα 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ is meant what God would have done, or suf- 
 fered: and it has reference to all the duties, whether 
 of doing, or suffering, which the circumstances in 
 which we are placed may impose upon us. See 
 Ernesti. ‘The Commentators, it may be observed, 
 usually limit the sense too much. 
 
 37, 38. ἔτι γὰρ---χρονιεῖ, The μικρὸν ὅσον signifies 
 avery little while. ‘Yo the examples of the Philolo- 
 gists 1 add Max. Tyr. D. 24, 6. and 1, 469. σμικρὸν 
 ὅσον, (where see Markl.) and Polyzen. 8, 10, '711. ἐπὶ 
 πλεῖστον ὅσον, a considerable time. The ὁ ἐρχόμενος 
 (he that is to come) was, as we find from the Gos- 
 pels, an usual title of the Messiah. See Whitby. 
 The passage introduced is taken from Hab. 2, 3 and 
 
518 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 
 
 4. It is thought the the Apostle accommodates the 
 language of the Prophet to his own times, and that 
 he inserts the two clauses for the sake of the conclu- 
 sion. See Mackn. Between the words of St. Paul 
 -and those both of the Hebrew and the Sept. (though 
 the latter is chiefly adhered to, for the sake of the 
 conclusion,) there is a remarkable discrepancy. 
 Some propose emendations of the Hebrew text; 
 while others (as Pococke) maintain that the text as 
 it stands is susceptible of the sense of the Sept. See 
 more in Mackn. and Slade. 
 
 "Hée.. This has in the Hebr. 827 83, “he will 
 surely come.” Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ϑήσεται. Also 
 cited in Rom. 1, 17. and Gal. 3, 11. The sense 
 here seems to be: “ The just, because of his implicit 
 faith, shall obtain salvation.” See the learned note 
 of Ernesti. Kal ἐὰν ὑποστείληται---αὐτῷῴ, ‘* But if 
 any one draw back, give way to fear, (so Hesych. 
 explains, φοβεῖται. See Gal. 2, 12.), and either apos- 
 tatize, or compromise his principles, or, through 
 failing in his expectations, cease to act up to the 
 duties of a Christian,” Οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή pov ἐν 
 αὐτῷ, “my soul shall have no pleasure in him,” i. 6. 
 he shall be exposed to my displeasure. Α litotes. 
 
 39. Ἡμεῖς---ψυχῆς. The Apostle (Theophyl. ob- 
 serves) softens the harshness of the οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ, &c. by 
 asentiment expressive of contidence in their firmness 
 and constancy, which must have been gratifying. 
 With respect to the words themselves, they are some- 
 what obscure, from the dense brevity of the phrase- 
 ology; but the context will guide us to their mean- 
 ing. Thus ὑποστολῆς, as is plain from the preceding 
 ὑποστείληται and the antithetical πίστεως, stands for 
 drawing back, and timidity; Carpz. rightly subauds 
 τέκνα or viol. It is an Hebrew mode of expression, 
 denoting timidity and doubt. The εἰς ἀπωλείαν, and 
 εἰς περιποίησιν ψυχῆς show the result and tendency of 
 each kind of conduct. By the περιποίησις is denoted, 
 not the possession (as recent Commentators explain), 
 but the gaining or saving of the soul. So Ernest, 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. XI. 519 
 
 “ut animam lucremur, zternam salutem consequa- 
 mur, servemur.” And so Theophyl., who para- 
 € “ ᾽ 5 9° > / A 
 phrases thus: Ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἐσμεν τῶν ἀπολλυμένων διὰ 
 Ν ε “ \ ᾽ aie ’ Ἂ , > \ 
 τὸ ὑποστέλλεσθαι Kal ἀπορῥᾳθύμειν ἢ διστάϑειν, ἀλλὰ 
 τῶν ἐν τῇ πίστει βεβαίων, ὧστε περιποιῆσαι τὰς ἐαυτών 
 ψυχὰς, τουτέστι, κτήσασθαι, φύλαξαι, καὶ σῶσαι. 
 
 CHAP. ΧΙ. 
 
 Ver. 1. From the mention of faith, the Apostle takes occasion to 
 describe its nature and efficacy. The δὲ has therefore a transitive 
 force, and may be rendered now. I would paraphrase: ‘* Now faith 
 (such as that I have mentioned, and by which the just shall live) 
 is a firm expectation and confident persuasion of the existence of 
 things not yet seen.” Ὑπόστασις isfrom ὑφέίστασθαι͵ to firmly consist, 
 and subsist. So the anticnts and earlier moderns render, the sub- 
 stance, οὐσία ΟΥ̓ οὐσίωσις, i.e. that which makes them subsist and 
 be. But this interpretation, Ernesti observes, yields scarcely a per- 
 tinent sense. And as ὑφίστασθαι, in the later Greek writers, fre- 
 quently signifies existimure, he, im common with most recent Com- 
 mentators, explains it firma expectatio; as supra 3, 14. Others of 
 the earlier and later moderns explain it base, foundation. But this 
 sense scems not suitable here. See the notes of Grot., Carpz., and 
 Elsner. 
 
 "EXeyyxos usually signifies a demonstralion. And so it is here ex- 
 plained by Theophyl.: δεῖξις, φανέρωσις. Carpz. explains, demon- 
 strata cognilio. Dind. (more properly) documentum, that being the 
 signification in familiar phraseology. Rosenm. interprets it, firm 
 and undoubted conviction, And so Luther, and (nearly) Doddr., 
 and also Hallet ap. Doddr., who explains; ‘‘ Such a kind of reason 
 and argument, as both convinces the understanding, and engages a 
 man to act according to that conviction.” It is, however, easier 
 to perceive the general meaning of the Apostle than to determine 
 the exact sense of each term ; since the sentence is worded popula- 
 riter, and not with philosophical accuracy; and in this and the 
 whole of what follows may plainly be recognised the ardent spirit 
 of the Apostle, which does not descend to petty niceties. In both 
 the above terms we are to understand that which causes the thing 
 tobe. So Theophyl. (from Chrys.) annotates thus: οἷον ἡ ἀνάσ- 
 τασις οὔπω ὑφέστηκεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ πίστις ὑφιστᾷ αὐτὴν; καὶ πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν 
 ἡμῖν τίθησι. And on ἔλεγχος he observes: ποιεῖ γὰρ ταῦτα βλέ- 
 πεσθαι τῷ νῷ ἡμῶν ὡς παρόντα. See the admirable exposition of 
 Chrys., as translated by Dr. Hales ap. Valpy. 
 
 By the faith now about to be treated on, and which respects 
 things past as well as future, is (as the best Commentators say) to 
 be understood a general faith and belief in the sayings and promises 
 of God. For by the examples the Apostle brings forward of an- 
 
520 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 
 
 tient times, it is plain he does not actually treat of faith in Christ’; 
 though from the former, as a genus, proceeds the Jatter as a more 
 excellent species, namely, a Gospel faith, which, as being reposed 
 in Christ, does, in fact, rest in God, since whatever Christ said, he 
 said in the name of God. See Ern., Carpz., Dind., and Rosenm. 
 
 2. ἐν ταύτῃ---πρεσβύτεροι, “ On account of (3) this 
 faith our ancestors were accounted praise-worthy.” 
 The πρεσβ., like veteres, πατέρες, signifies ancestors, 
 the Patriarchs, Prophets, and others, of whom some 
 are then mentioned. Maprupeiv τινι signifies to bear 
 witness to, and is almost always used in a good sense 
 for to praise. See Schleus. Lex. The antients, and 
 early moderns, supply a Deo; the recent ones, ab 
 hominibus. But both may be united. ‘The ἐν, like 
 the Hebr. 3, and διὰ, signifies propter, on account of. 
 So Beza, Pisc., Rosenm., and Dind. 
 
 8. πίστει voodpev—yeyovevas. Πίστις, Dind. ob- 
 serves, here signifies a full persuasion that the things 
 recorded in the Old Testament are true. For now 
 the Apostle employs the term in its more extensive 
 sense ; and then proceeds to use it in its limited 
 one.” The words may be rendered : ‘by faith it is 
 that we understand the universe κατηορτίσθαι ῥήματι 
 Θεοῦ, was created at the fiat of God’s will.” Karag- 
 τίϑειν signifies properly to repair, make whole what 
 is broken, torn, or disordered : and thus it is in the 
 Sept. and in the present passage used of the crea- 
 tion of the universe; since that carries with it a 
 notion of adjusting, digesting, &c., which is very 
 applicable to the chaos ‘ without form and void,” 
 out of which the world was created. The ῥήματι Θεοῦ 
 (i. 6. the fiat) has reference to the sublime passage 
 of Gen. 1, 3. And so elsewhere it is said: ‘“ He 
 spake the word, and they were made; he com- 
 manded, and they were created.” 
 
 3. εἰς τὸ μὴ ---γεγονέναι. These words present some 
 difficulty: but the best Commentators from Heins. 
 to Rosenm. have seen that εἰς τὸ is for ὥστε; and the 
 μὴ is to be referred to Φαινομένων ; a transposition 
 (as Heinr. observes) usual to the Hellenists. (See 
 Raphel.) So 2 Macc. 7, 28. ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 521 
 
 αὐτὰ ὁ Θεός. The sentiment is thus explained by 
 Rosenm.: * That the whole visible world was created 
 by the sole will of God, we learn by faith; for that 
 creation does not come under our view, as being 
 long past. Now we see trees arise from trees, ani- 
 mals generated from animals, and men from men. 
 But the first trees, animals, and men had not their 
 origin from such as now exist, and are seen. This 
 is therefore said, that we may the more readily be- 
 lieve that God can produce what we do not see. 
 
 4. πίστει πλείονα---Θεῷ, ‘‘ By the virtue of faith 
 Abel offered up a better and more acceptable sacri- 
 fice to God than Cain.” So Chrys. explains the 
 πλείονα by ἐντιμωτέραν. Braun compares the Hebr. 
 anv. And so in Matt. 6, 25. 12,41. Παρὰ Κάϊν 
 is put populariter for παρὰ τῆς τοῦ Ketiv, as it is exr- 
 pressed by the Syr. Now the offering was better and 
 more acceptable, as proceeding from faith. The na- 
 ture of this faith, and in what it differed from that 
 of Cain, is admirably shown and illustrated by Abp. 
 Magee on the Atonement, Illust. No. 64 & 65., 
 whom see, or the extracts in Slade and Valpy. See 
 also Mackn. and Hallet, by them cited, and other 
 writers referred to. 
 
 4. δι’ ys—aurod, * on account of which sacrifice he 
 was borne testimony to (by God) that he was 
 righteous,” i.e. pious and virtuous; or, “ he ob- 
 tained from God the praise of piety.” Thus he is 
 called by Philo δίκαιος ; as he is also in Matt. 23, 35. 
 He may indeed be so called κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, as being the 
 first and most eminent example of it. The words 
 paprupotytos—QOecod are (I think) exegetical of the δι᾽ 
 ἧς, kc. The sense is: “God himself bearing testi- 
 mony to: his offerings, that they were just ;” which 
 implies approbation of them. On the nature of, and 
 the modein which this approbation was signified, we 
 are left in the dark; and the Commentators, of 
 course, abound in conjectures, which (and especially 
 the speculations of the recent foreign Commentators) 
 I shall not detail. I cannot but suspect (though it 
 
522 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 
 
 seems to have occurred to none of the interpreters) 
 that the Apostle was well informed on this point, 
 and supposed his readers to be so, and that by éra- 
 dition. By tradition, too, Theodot., in rendering 
 Gen. 4, 4. καὶ ἐπεῖδεν 6 Θεὸς ἐπὶ ᾿Αβὲλ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις 
 αὐτοῦ has ἐνεπύρισε for ἐπεῖδεν. I suspect that some 
 copies had ἐπεῖδεν---αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνεπύρισε, from tradition, 
 doubtless, yet deserving of high credit, as not rest- 
 ing merely on oral testimony, but probably recorded 
 in those antient writings found in the antiquities of 
 the Hebrew nation, of which Josephus often makes 
 mention, and which he used in forming his cele- 
 brated history. Besides, this is supported by the 
 mode in which God usually signified his approba- 
 tion. Fire from heaven, it seems, consumed the 
 flesh of the ““ choice firstlings” sacrificed by Abel ; 
 while Cain’s “ fruits of the ground” remained un- 
 touched. Finally, we may very well believe in, what 
 (as Grot. tells us, on the passage of Genes.) even 
 Julian credited. 
 
 Kai ov αὐτῆς, “and by that faith and righteousness 
 so evinced.” For such, I agree with the antients, 
 seems to be meant by the ἧς, at which the moderns 
 stumble. In the readings λαλεῖται and λαλεῖ the 
 Commentators are at issue. The most eminent 
 Critics agree in preferring λαλεῖ, though resting only 
 on the authority of a few very antient MSS., the 
 Syriac and Coptic Versions, and some antient 
 Fathers. And certainly, if λαλεῖται cannot (as 
 Valckn. seems to have proved) be taken in a middle 
 or deponent sense, that reading deserves the prefer- 
 ence, as yielding a sense far worthier of the Apostle: 
 for the other can only signify, “is spoken of;” 
 which, as Dind. remarks, is a third (and frigid) repe- 
 tition of the same thing; while, according to the 
 one in question, the sense will be as follows: 
 “though now dead, his faith and righteousness 
 speak with a loud voice, and call upon us to imitate 
 his example.” See 12,4. That even the dead may 
 
 guratively be said to speak, no critic can doubt ; 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 523 
 
 since even inanimate things are said to speak. See 
 Rosenm., who cites the passage of Virgil, where of 
 the punishment of Phlegyas it is said: ‘* magna 
 testatur voce per umbras, Discite justitiam moniti.” 
 5. πίστει ᾿Ενὼχ--- Θεῷ. This is called, by Mr. 
 Slade, a commentary upon the elliptical expression 
 in Gen. 5, 24., where it is said of Enoch, he “ was 
 not; for God took him.” Most of the recent Com- 
 mentators, however, as Dind., Rosenm., and Mich., 
 regard it as founded in error. “ For (say they) in 
 the passage of Genesis we find not but that Enoch 
 died ; and nothing is said to define how he was trans- 
 lated, whether alive or dead. ‘The formula, God 
 ΤΡ, &c., cannot of itself signify, God removed him 
 alive; nor can οὐχ εὐρίσκετο and 122N signify any 
 more than “ he ceased to be.” But to this I must 
 demur. Will these moderns pretend to be better 
 judges of the force of Hebrew phraseology than the 
 antient Hebrew Interpreters themselves, who, from 
 the earliest ages downwards, have interpreted the 
 _ words of removal alive? i.e. the being, as we say, 
 translated. As far as the Sept. Version goes, the 
 position is manifestly false; for its language evi- 
 dently conveys the idea of a translation ; they render 
 the Mp? by Θεὸς αὐτὸν μετέθηκεν, which determines 
 the point; and the 1278, by οὐκ edpicxero; which 
 goes very far to determine it. And the same will 
 apply to Sirach 49, 14. This translation, too, is 
 evidently supported by Josephus and Philo. But 
 what reason (it may be asked) had the authors of the 
 Sept. Version and the Jewish Interpreters for sup- 
 posing this ¢ranslation? Because (it may be an- 
 swered) there really is something very peculiar and 
 mysterious in the expression. For (as Whitby ob- 
 serves) of all the rest it is said, that they died; but 
 of him this is not said, but only that 128, he was 
 not, for God took him. Neither is this said any 
 where else in the Mosaic writings. Suppose, in- 
 deed, the expressions 122°8 and mp are doubtful ; 
 
524 HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ, 
 
 yet the context,* and the circumstances of the case, 
 lead to the interpretation invariably adopted by the 
 antients, and confirmed by its being adopted by the 
 inspired writer. 
 
 With respect to the mode in which the translation 
 was effected, of that we are not informed: but it 
 seems a probable conjecture of Mackn. and others, 
 that the body of Enoch (as also that of Elijah) was 
 fitted for its new state by that sort of change which 
 the bodies of the righteous who are alive at the day 
 of judgment will go through. With the notions of 
 the Rabbins (which may be seen in Whitby) we have 
 nothing to do. 
 
 6. χωρὶς δὲ πίστεως---γίνεται. The phrase evager- 
 τεῖν τινι signifies to do what is pleasing to any one ; 
 and, as applied fo God, it must denote faith in his: 
 existence, and obedience to his will, whether as re- 
 vealed in Scripture, or in the book of nature. 
 
 The words πιστεῦσαι--- γίνεται are exegetical of the 
 preceding ; and the sense seems to be simply this: 
 « There can be no worshipping of God without a 
 firm belief in his existence, and that He will reward 
 those who study to do his will.” For faith in his 
 existence must precede worship of him; and who 
 would worship a Being who remained an uncon- 
 cerned spectator of what passes on the earth, and 
 with whom is no retribution? Such seems to be all 
 
 * For the εὐηρέστησεν ᾿Ενὠχ τῷ Θεῷ immediately preceding, 
 plainly indicates the cause ; as is suggested by St. Paul in the words 
 πρὸ γὰρ τῆς μεταθέσεως αὐτοῦ μεμαρτύρηται εὐηρεστηκέναι TH Θεῷ. 
 To understand death would be frigid. 
 
 + Thus it appears that it is not correct to call the words of St. 
 Paul (adopted from the Sept.) a commentary on the Hebrew; and 
 still less an accommodation of Jewish opinions; as do Dind. and 
 Rosenm. As to the opinion of early ages, of which Dind. makes 
 mention, that pious or great persons were supposed to be removed 
 from the world without death, with this we have nothing to do. 
 For the stories of Hercules, Semiramis, and Romulus (to, which they 
 advert), were, of course, mereimpostures ; though formed probably 
 on the traditional account, in the early nations, of this translation 
 of the Patriarch Enoch. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 525 
 
 that is meant, and no philosophical refinements are 
 to be sought. The μισθοδοσία, Carpzov thinks, in- 
 cludes the punishment to be inflicted on the wicked. 
 And so Theophyl.: Ei γὰρ μὴ πιστεύση τις ἀντίδοσιν 
 εἶναι καλῶν καὶ κακῶν, οὐκ ἄν εὐχρεστήση. Llws γὰρ ἂν 
 τὴν ἐπίπονον τῆς ἀρετῆς ὁδὸν βαδίσῃ, μὴ πεισθεὶς εἶναι ἐν 
 τῷ μέλλοντι πολλαπλασίας καὶ μονιμωτέρας τὰς ἀμοιβάς ; 
 
 The ἀδύνατον must be taken, populariter, for, ‘* it 
 is impossible to suppose.” It is plain that ἐκϑητεῖν is 
 here used, like the Heb. WW and wpa, of an earnest 
 endeavour to do the will of God. On the sentiment 
 that God is a rewarder of his faithful servants, Grot., 
 Wets., &c. adduce a vast number of Classical passages. 
 
 7. πίστει χρηματισθεὶς Nwe—airov. The term 
 χρηματίϑεσθαι is often, as here, used of having a 
 divine revelation, or being divinely inspired. So 
 Theophyl. : Σημείωσαι δὲ, ὅτι χρηματίϑει Θεὸς, χρη- 
 ματίξει καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα" κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον περὶ τοῦ 
 Συμέων. Ἣν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος 
 τοῦ ἁγίου. Θεὸς ἄρα τὸ Πνεῦμα. 
 
 7. περὶ τῶν μηδέπω βλεπομένων, ““ concerning things 
 not yet seen, but only to be viewed by the eye of 
 faith.” ‘There is a reference to ver. 1. πίστις ἔλεγ- 
 χος οὐ βλεπόμενων. Now the things unseen were the 
 deluge and the events accompanying it. 
 
 7. εὐλαβηθεὶς κατεσκεύασε κιβωτὸν. The εὐλαβ. is 
 by some moderns, as Grot., Vatab., Schmid, and 
 Schleus., taken to signify ‘* metu diluvii.”? And so 
 the Vulg. and Theophyl. But that sense seems in- 
 consistent with the faith ascribed to him ; though it 
 might admit of modification. I prefer, with most 
 moderns, as Ernesti, Rosenm., and Carpzov, &c. to 
 take εὐλαβ. of religious reverence in respect to the 
 oracle. Κιβωτὸν. This word, like Man, signifies 
 chest ; but might very well be applied to ships of a 
 square form. Many learned moderns have, how- 
 -ever, supposed that the ark was of a round form, as 
 better adapted to resist the waves. And that, in- 
 deed, seems to have been a very antient form ; since 
 in Thucydides we have perpetual mention of round 
 
526 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 
 
 ships; and we are told that the Corinthians first 
 made long ships, or triremes. The above Critics 
 found their opinion on the ark being called πλοῖον by 
 Berosus ap. Joseph. But that is no proof at all. 
 And common sense may show how improbable it 
 were that the first attempts at ship-building should 
 produce a round ship : a form which requires a de- 
 gree of science and skill such as we cannot suppose 
 Noah to have possessed ; especially, too, when we 
 consider the immense size of the ark, larger than a 
 first-rate ship of the line. Besides, the opinion in 
 question is directly at variance with the Mosaic ac- 
 count, which shows it to have been quite oblong, 
 300 by 50; though there is nothing there said to 
 compel us to suppose a square, and we may suppose 
 the corners to have been rounded off, very much 
 after the manner of the Chinese junks, which, in a 
 country where nothing changes, may be supposed of 
 the very form of the most antient ships, and those 
 would probably be made after the model of the ark. 
 
 Ar ἧς, i.e. (as Erasm., Rosenm., Grot., and Beza 
 explain) ‘* by the building of which ark.” Rather, 
 « by which faith.” Karexgwe τὸν κόσμον. For (as 
 Grot. observes) any one is said to condemn others 
 who, by his own deeds, shows what others ought to 
 have done; and thus convicts them of blame for not 
 having so done ; as Matt. 12, 41 & 42. See Theoph. 
 By δικαιοσύνης is meant the reward of righteousness ; 
 as sin is sometimes put for the punishment of sin. 
 
 8. πίστει καλούμιενος---ἔρχεται. Construe πίστει 
 with ὑπήκουσε; and before ἐξελθεῖν subaud ὥστε, or 
 εἰς ro. Ernesti observes that καλεῖν is used of the 
 offer of any divine benefits; and κλῆσις, in the New 
 Testament, signifies not only what God has offered, 
 but what he has given. Eis κληρονομίαν, “ for a pos- 
 session for himself and posterity.” The μὴ émora- 
 μενος ποῦ ἔρχεται Rosenm. renders, “* nesciebat, qua 
 et qualis erat illa terra.” The truth is, this seems a 
 popular mode of expression, such as is not uncom- 
 mon; and Abraham probably was by no means ig- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 527 
 
 norant of the country, or its productions; but went 
 without knowing whither he was going, as not know- 
 ing where it would please God he should settle in 
 the land. So ‘TheophyL. : οὐδὲ ἤδει, TIS ἐστιν ἡ γῆ 
 ὅλως ἐκείνη εἰς ἣν καλεῖται. 
 
 9. πίστει παρῴκησεν---αὐτῆς. The εἰς τὴν γῆν is for 
 ἐν τῇ γῆ. And τῆς ἐπαγγελίας is a genitive of the 
 substantive, for the cognate adjective, or par ticiple. 
 Παρῴκησε is πάροικος ἦν, 1, 6. ἀλλογενὴς, Sojourner, in 
 opposition to an ἐπιγενής. Asa proof of which he 
 even had to purchase the cave of Machpelah as a 
 burying-place for his family. In illustration of his 
 being a sojourner, it is added ἐν σκήναις κατοικήσας, 
 “ dwelling in tents ;’’ which we may suppose would 
 be the case, since the building of a house implies a 
 property in the land (see Grot. ); whereas setting up 
 a tent by: no means does this.* 
 
 9. μετὰ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ. This is strangely ren- 
 dered, in the EK. V. and other Versions (see Doddr. 
 and Mackn.), with, &c. The true force of the ex- 
 pression (which seems to be Hebraic) was well seen 
 by the antients. Thus Theophyl. explains: καὶ ὃ 
 ᾿Ισαὰκ καὶ 6 Ἰακὼβ οὕτω ταύτην κατώκησαν ὡς ἀλλο- 
 τρίαν. And so J. Capell. and Grot., who observe 
 that it denotes parity and mode ; 4. d. « as did also 
 Isaac and Jacob after them, to whom the same pro- 
 mise belonged.” See Grot. It seems meant to be 
 implied: “ and yet they, too, had faith in the pro- 
 mises.”” See Theophyl. 
 
 10. €&edéyero—é Θεὸς. ‘These words illustrate the 
 nature of that faith so conspicuous in all Abraham’s 
 peregrinations. ‘The sense is: ‘‘ He bore his pere- 
 grinations under the hope of the city that hath solid 
 foundations,” as opposed to the ταῖς σκήναις at ver. 9. 
 Now by this is doubtless meant, not Jerusalem (as 
 
 * And in those early periods, when population was very thin, 
 even foreigners seem to have been allowed to fix tents, and bring 
 cattle to graze where the land was not occupied by the natives. 
 Something after the manner of what are called the squatéers, in ue 
 back settlements of America. 
 
528 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 
 
 some Commentators suppose), even in the literal 
 sense, but (as appears from ver. 16. compared with 
 13 & 14.) the heavenly city, heaven. So Theophyl.: 
 ἐξεδέχοντο τὴν οὐράνιον πόλιν, ἥτις ἀληθινοὺς ἔχει θεμε- 
 λίους, ἀεὶ ἑστώτας, καὶ μηδέποτε σαθρουμένους. And so 
 Grot., Le Clerc, and Rosenm. Dind. and Heinr. 
 lose themselves in speculation. “Hs τεχνίτης καὶ dy- 
 p-rougyos ὃ Θεός. It is observed, by Chrys., that God, 
 though the τεχνίτης καὶ δημιουργὸς of the whole uni- 
 verse, is especially said so of the heavenly city, since 
 in heaven chiefly shines forth the majesty of the 
 Divine wisdom and power. 
 11. πίστει καὶ αὐτὴ--- ἔλαβε. 
 
 On this passage the recent Foreign Commentators stumble ex- 
 ceedingly ; and afford a notable specimen both of their delicacy and 
 their judgment. Questions of the sort they enter into are more fitted 
 for a work on surgery and midwifery than the exposition of the 
 word of God on so deeply serious a subject as that of the preter- 
 natural conception of the mother of the faithful. We will therefore 
 leave their discussions in medio, which certainly cannot be appli- 
 cable in the present case, since miraculous power was exerted upon 
 Sarah as well as Abraham. ‘Thus it is said, Gen. 21, 1. ““" And the 
 Lord visited Sarah.” It is strange, then, that the recent Commen- 
 tators should almost invariably adopt the conjecture of Michaelis, 
 viz. for αὐτὴ Σάῤῥα to read αὐτῇ Lapa. For, not to mention the 
 harshness of the two Datives, αὐτῇ Zappa, just after another Dative, 
 the occurrence of αὐτὴ is sufficient to condemn this conjecture ; 
 since, in the sense thus arising, αὐτὴ could have had no place. Be- 
 sides, as Grot. observes, from the examples of men, the Apostle passes 
 to women, that he may excite those of both sexes to the virtue of 
 faith. But why, then (it may be asked) did those Critics unani- 
 mously adopt that conjecture? Because, forsooth, the καταβολὴν 
 σπέρματος is not accordant with physical precision. What, then, is 
 nothing to be allowed for the delicacy of the sacred writer? but he 
 must express himself with the physical accuracy of an Hippocrates ? 
 I shall not enter further into particulars; but only observe that the 
 obscurity solely arose from delicacy ; and that the true force of the 
 words is that which was laid down by Chrys. p. 548, 15. (adduced 
 by that writer in a Homily on this Epistle) eis τὸ κατασχεῖν ro 
 σπέρμα; εἰς ὑποδοχὴν δυνάμιν ἔλαβεν ἡ νεκρωμένη, καὶ ἡ στεῖρα, 
 for she was both barren as well as old. And so Theophyl.: ἐνεδυ- 
 ναμώθη eis τὸ ὑποδέξασθαι καὶ κρατῆσαι τὸ καταβληθὲν eis αὐτὴν 
 σπέρμα τοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ. I am gratified te find that the above mode of 
 interpretation has the support of the acute Heinr. and the learned 
 Dindorf. 
 
 I must not omit to observe that many Critics would, on the au- 
 thority of some three MSS, and the Vulg., omit ἔτεκεν; but (I 
 
~~ 
 
 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 529 
 
 think) on very insufficient ‘grounds. For it seems plain that the 
 omission was purely from conjecture and emendation: and the 
 MSS. are such as are full of corrections; nay, Ernesti observes, 
 there is reason to suppose that the Codex Alexandrinus was occa- 
 sionally altered from the Vulg. 
 
 11. ἐπεὶ πιστὸν ἡγήσατο τὸν ἐπαγγειλάμενον, ““ since 
 she had judged him faithful and veracious who had 
 promised.” 
 
 12. διὸ καὶ---ἀναρίθμητος. It is well observed, by 
 Grot. and Rosenm., that the δὲ must be referred to 
 both Abraham and Sarah, i.e. the faithof both. At 
 ag ἑνὸς some subaud αἵματος or σπέρματος, as of Abra- 
 ham and Sarah. But I prefer, with Zeger, Camer., 
 Rosenm., Ern., &c., σώματος, which Grot. and most 
 Critics understand of Abraham. It seems better, 
 however, with Chrys., Theophyl., and others, to refer 
 it to Sarah. Which, too, appears to be more agree- 
 able to what precedes: and the Apostle himself, at 
 Rom. 4, 19., speaking of the faith of Abraham, says : 
 οὗ κατενόησε τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα νενεκρωμένον καὶ τὴν νέκρω- 
 σιν τῆς μήτρας Σάῤῥας. 
 
 Καὶ ταῦτα, et quidem, and that. The force of the 
 vevexpwpevov requires no explanation. ‘The phrases 
 καθὼς τὰ ἄστρα, &c. are plainly Oriental and popular 
 hyperboles, yet sometimes found in the Western 
 writers. Out of several examples I have collected 1 
 
 select the following. Aristoph. Lysistr. 1260. ἦν 
 
 γὰρ τὦνδρες οὐκ ἐλάσσως τᾶς Yappas, τοι Πέρσαι. 
 
 18. κατὰ πίστιν---ἀσπασάμιενοι. It was believed by 
 the Patriarchs, that though ¢hey could not see the 
 actual fulfilment of the Divine promises, yet these 
 would certainly be fulfilled in their descendants. 
 They may, however, be supposed to have discerned 
 the commencement of their fulfilment, in having chil- 
 dren from whom should arise so numerous a poste- 
 rity. (Dind.) 
 
 At the οὗτοι πάντες Commentators stumble. Grot. 
 and Sykes refer it to all the descendants downwards. 
 But of this opinion Whitby has shown the futility. 
 It must, with Rosenm. and Dind., be understood of 
 those that went before, i. 6. (as Chrys. and Theophyl. 
 
 VOL. VIII. 2M 
 
530 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 
 
 limit it) all that did die. My λαβόντες τὰς ἐπαγγε- 
 alas, “ without having received the promises.” It 
 is plain that these promises were not so much tem- 
 poral as eternal. See Whitby, Doddr., Mich., and 
 Abp. Magee, referred to by Slade. Κατὰ πίστιν, 
 ‘< with confidence in the promises, both temporal, 
 and eternal.” ᾿Αλλὰ πόῤῥωθεν αὐτὰς ἰδόντες, “ view- 
 ing them with the eye of faith.” ᾿Ασπασάμενοι, 
 ‘* embracing with delight.” Ὁμολογήσαντες ὅτι---- γῆς, 
 “ seeing and acknowledging that they were strangers 
 and sojourners on earth, as they were in the land 
 οἵ Canaan.” Taperidnpo, sojourners. The terms 
 properly signifies one who lives by another. See 
 Schleus. Lex. 
 
 14,15. οἱ yap τυιαῦτα--- ἀνακάμψαι. ᾿Ἐμφανίϑουσιν 
 plainly show, signify. “Ori πατρίδα ἐπιϑητοῦσι, αρ- 
 petunt, “ that they are seeking after and desiring to 
 have a country (either naturally or metaphorically 
 such); which, as long as they remained sojourners, 
 could not be the case. Different from the common 
 principle among the antients, that every place where 
 he can live well is, to a wise man, his country. See 
 the passages of Philo, cited by Carpz. and Wets. 
 
 15. καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐκείνης ἐμνημόνευον. It is observed, 
 by Dind., that μνημονεύειν indicates the desire and 
 love with which we remember any thing, like the 
 Heb. 45) in: Geni-8,>1. sand’ Ἐ 3: 8: Ὁ. 676.8 Sg 
 therefore (says Rosenm.) they called themselves 
 strangers, because they were sojourners in Canaan, 
 and accounted Chaldea their country, they might 
 have returned thither. Between the departure of 
 Abraham from Chaldea and the death of Jacob, 
 there was time for the Patriarchs to have returned 
 thither if they had loved it as a country.” If they 
 had sought a country (as observes Braun) no one 
 were more desirable than Chaldza, then far superior 
 in fertility and wealth to Canaan. 
 
 16. νυνὶ δὲ, Χο. ‘It is plain, then, that they dwelt 
 only on the promises of God respecting the posses- 
 sion of Canaan, as a country, by their posterity ; as 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 531 
 
 they did of the attainment by themselves of another 
 country, even a heavenly,” εἰς ἥν (says ‘Theophy].) 
 οὔπω εἶχε καιρὸν ἀναβῆναι. On the sentiment of hea- 
 ven being man’s proper country, numerous passages 
 are cited by: Wets. and Carpzov; as Anaxag. ap. 
 Diog. Laert. 2., who, to some one asking οὐδὲν σοι 
 μέλε: τῆς πατρίδος ; answered: Εὐφήμει, ἐμοὶ yap καὶ 
 σφόδρα μέλει τῆς πατρίδος" δείξας τὸν οὐρανόν. ‘To 
 which I add Plut. Non posse suav. ᾧ. 29, 1. οἱ μὲν 
 ἑτέρου βίου τὸν θάνατον ἀρχὴν χρείττονος νομίξοντες, ἐὰν τ᾽ 
 ἐν ἀγαθοῖς ὠσὶ μᾶλλον ἥδονται, μείϑονα προσδοκῶντες. 
 Plato: ἄνθρωπος φύτον οὐράνιον, οὐκ ἔγγειον. See also 
 Philo Jud. 196. fin. and Clem. Alex. 71 c. 
 
 16. διὸ οὐκ---πόλιν, “* Wherefore (because they had 
 this undoubting faith in the Divine promises) God 
 did not disdain to be called thetr* God, (and pro- 
 tector and benefactor).”? Οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεται αὐτοὺς, 
 “did not disdain, but vouchsafed.’’ The present, 
 Beza and Grot. observe, is for the preterite, Histori- 
 corum more ; as supra, ver. 14. At επικαλεῖσθαι must 
 be understood ὥστε. ‘The row. is rightly rendered, 
 by Grot. and Rosenm., destined (as Matt. 25, 34., 
 where see the note), and these words ἡτοίμασε yap 
 αὐτοὺς πόλιν, they observe, are exegetical of the ὁ 
 Θεὸς αὐτῶν. By the πόλιν is plainly meant heaven. 
 
 17, 18. πίστει προσενήνοχεν---ἀναδεξάμιενος. LI poc- 
 ᾧΦέρω is a sacrificial term, and signifies to bring (πρὸς) 
 to the altar; as James 2, 21. Now this Abraham 
 did ; and being prepared to sacrifice his son, he had 
 the same merit of obedience as if he had actually 
 sacrificed him. That this was always considered a 
 full and consummate sacrifice we are told by Philo 
 374 Ὁ. 
 
 Πειραϑόμενος, “ trying his faith, and putting it to 
 the utmost proof.’ Μονογενῆ, namely, by a lawful 
 wife. (Rosenm.) ‘The second clause of the sentence 
 
 * For (as Grot. observes) God was particularly called the God of 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and so named by Himself, not only 
 during their life, but after their death. Now the notion of God 
 implies also that of favour, protection, and benefit. 
 
 2m 2 
 
532 . HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 
 
 is, in some measures a parallelism: for the same cir- 
 cumstance of the offering up is brought forward, 
 with the addition of the τὸν μονογενῆ. And the words 
 οὐ Tas ἐπαγγελίας ἀναδεξάμιενος seem meant to sug- 
 gest the reason for the offering, namely, that he had 
 received the promises, and admitted them into his 
 heart by faith. For I assent to Grot. and Rosenm. 
 that ἀναδ. is more significant than the simple dex. 
 (though it is by some thought to be synonymous 
 with it.) And this appears to be required by the 
 circumstances of the case ; for the faith shown by 
 Abraham was the most wonderful instance of this 
 virtue on record ; since here (as Theophyl. observes) 
 not only did nature struggle hard, but the word of 
 God wrestled with the Divine order; He who had 
 said, “ To thee and thy seed will I give the land,” 
 ordering him, “ Slay thy son.”’ It is also observed, 
 by Theophyl., that Abraham was tried, not that God 
 wanted a proof of his virtue, but that we might learn 
 that virtue is evinced by experience and in works. 
 
 18. πρὸς ὃν ἐλαλήθη, “to whom, or concerning 
 whom,” &c. ‘These words are meant to set forth 
 the implicit faith of Abraham. The sense is: “ ‘That 
 Abraham, to whom it had been said by God: In 
 Isaac shall there be named a posterity to thee.” 
 Most recent Commentators, indeed, as Ern., Schmid, 
 and Rosenm., take the κληθ. simply in the sense of 
 esse. “ For (says Rosenm.) verba nominalia seepe 
 sunt realia.” ‘Thus Ern. renders: “ Isaac erit auc- 
 tor posteritatis tue.” Dind. and Heinr.: “ will be 
 called forth, arise, and be born.” But this would 
 require exxay9. I would therefore acquiesce in the 
 first detailed interpretation, or take cay. as a sort of 
 vox pregnans for, “ shall be and become famous.” 
 And so, nearly, Grot. 
 
 19. λογισάμενος ὅτι---ὁ Θεὸς. This shows the rea- 
 son why Abraham, though the promise of posterity 
 by Isaac seemed precise, yet did not hesitate to offer 
 up his son. (Dind.) 
 
 Λογισάμιενος is to be referred to προσενήνοχεν. Re- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 533 
 
 flecting that, though Isaac should die, yet the pro- 
 mise of posterity by him would be sure, inasmuch 
 as the same omnipotence that at first brought him 
 into being could even raise him from the dead.” 
 Such seems to be the meaning of the passage; 
 though it must be confessed that it is no easy matter 
 to determine the sense of the clause ὅθεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν 
 παραβολῇ ἐκομίσατο, of which four interpretations 
 have been proposed. Some, as J. Capell., Grot., 
 Heins., Calvin, Scaliger, Wolf, Warburton, Sykes, 
 and Stebbing, think it is meant that the whole trans- 
 action was parabolical, or typical of the method God 
 would pursue for the salvation of men. And this is 
 supported by the antients ; and may possibly be the 
 true interpretation. Yet it seems somewhat harsh 
 and arbitrary. See Ern.and Dind. 2. Hamm., our 
 Translators, Whitby, and Doddr., assign the sense: 
 ““ from whence also he had (originally) received him 
 figuratively, namely, from his own dead body and 
 the dead womb of Sarah.” See Rom. 4, 19, 3. 
 Grot., Capell., Heins., Calvin, Scaliger, and Ro- 
 senm., interpret: “ from whence also, by a sort of 
 image of the resurrection, he received him from the 
 dead.” Thus ἐκ νεκρῶν will be repeated. For (they 
 observe) Isaac was, in a manner, dead, in his father’s 
 opinion and his own; and he was restored to him, as 
 it were, from the gates of the grave. A comparison 
 found elsewhere; as 2 Cor. 1, 9 & 10. 4 Cam., 
 Raphel, Krebs, Dind., and Schleus., take ἐν παραβολῇ 
 for παραβολῶς ; adducing some examples of πάρα- 
 Porxws from Joseph. and otherwriters. And, indeed, 
 it frequently occurs in the Classicalauthors; but not 
 in Scripture, and ἐν παραβολῇ no where. Now as 
 few interpretations of the New Testament, resting 
 solely on Classical usage, are well founded, so nei- 
 ther, I think, is this. See the details in Dind. Of 
 the three former any one may be the true; though 
 I think the second, as being the simplest and most 
 natural, deserves the preference. 
 
 20. πίστει---ἰ Ησαῦ. At περὶ μελλόντων subaud 
 
584 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 
 
 προφητεύων. Or the words may connect’with πίστει, 
 i.e. “faith respecting things future,” or “ because 
 he had believed in God that great and glorious 
 things would come to pass in his posterity.” See 
 Gen. 26,4. (Rosenm.) Πίστει, “in faith and sure 
 confidence,” namely, that his blessing would be 
 effectual. And though it turned out different from 
 his expectation, yet that proves that his blessing was 
 delivered in faith. See Whitby and Mackn., or 
 Slade. 
 
 Q1 πίστει Ἰακὼβ---αὐτοῦ, 
 
 “9 In faith that his blessing would be effectual ;” doubtless from 
 the inspiration with which he was favoured. Kat προσεκύνησεν 
 ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδον αὐτοῦ. The Hebrew word corresponding 
 εἴο ῥάβδος may, according to its pointing, either signify a staff, or ἃ 
 bed’s head. ‘The former interpretation may be justified (see Doddr. 
 and Mackn.) ; but the best eritics prefer the latter. The bed, I 
 should conceive, was like what we call a Grecian sopha; and the 
 mon (literally, the leaning-place) was doubtless the wreath, or head 
 of the sopha, to which, therefore, Jacob, in aiming at a kneeling 
 or prostrate posture, would be turned, and lean. From a compa- 
 rison, however, with the passage of Genes. it appears that this 
 circumstance took place alittle before, namely, when he had received 
 the promise that he should be buried in the land of Canaan; and 
 this, therefore, the Commentators take to have been an act of wor- 
 ship to God in token of thankfulness for such a privilege as being 
 buried in the land of Canaan. ‘To remove the apparent discrepancy, 
 Mr. Slade conjectures that the Apostle intended the clauses of this 
 verse to be independent of each other (‘‘ By faith he blessed—and, 
 on another occasion, worshipped,” &c.), thus disregarding the 
 order of time. This 1 think far more probable than the method 
 proposed by Ernesti, which is too bold, and it is, 1 have no doubt, 
 the very truth. Such an anachronism is indeed so trifling as to 
 present no real difficulty. For I cannot agree with Mackn. and 
 others, that when the oath was made to him, Israel was not sick 
 in bed; and that his falling sick took place some time after. Now 
 μετὰ ταῦτα Often (as in the Gospels) denotes a short space of time. 
 And the expressions, the time drew nigh, and, thou shalt bury me, 
 plainly indicate sickness, though incipient, yet probably mortal. So 
 in the next verse we have: reXevréy—évereidaro. Besides, the 
 mbn and ἐνοχλεῖται ἀῤῥωστίᾳ of Gen. 48, 2., may very well be un- 
 derstood of severe sickness. This being the case, I cannot but re- 
 gard the προσκύνησις of Israel on having received his son’s promise 
 concerning his burial, as an act of devout thankfulness to God for 
 his protection throughout life ; conceiving himself now to have, in 
 a manner, done with this world. And this (1 imagine) caused the 
 Apostle to unite it so closely with the solemn blessing of his sens, 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ: 535 
 
 which took place, doubtless, a very short time after; for the sick- 
 ness of such very aged persons never lasts long ; since, as Sopho- 
 cles beautifully observes, (4, Tyr. 961. σμικρὰ παλαιὰ σώματ᾽ 
 εὐνάξει poi. 
 
 Thus all difficulty will vanish, and every thing be natural and con- 
 sistent. 
 
 22. πίστει Ἰωσὴφ ---ἐνετείλατο, when dying (as be- 
 fore ἀποθνήσκων), being shortly to die. ‘The ἐμνημό-. 
 νευσε evidently designates a prophetical annuncia- 
 tion; but whether by inspiration at the time, or 
 before, is not clear; yet, from a comparison with 
 the case of Jacob, Gen. 47., the latter (which is 
 supported by Capellus and Carpz.) seems the more 
 probable. At all events, he well knew, and declared 
 to his sons, that another country was promised to 
 them, to possess which they would leave Egypt. 
 The direction concerning his bones indicates the 
 same firm faith in the promises of God as that of 
 Jacob. 
 
 23. πίστει Μωὺῦσῆς, &c. i. 6. faith and reliance on 
 the assistance and blessing of God to their endea- 
 vours to save the child. Πατέρων, i. 6. parents, the 
 father and mother. A rare use, and of which the phi- 
 lologists adduce no apposite example. Διότι εἶδον 
 ἀστεῖον τὸ παιδίον. Handsome we know Moses was, 
 which might of itself raise the commiseration of the 
 parents. But probably there was also something 
 august in the countenance of the child, which 
 seemed to announce that he was born for great 
 purposes. 
 
 23. καὶ οὐκ ἐφοβήθησαν τὸ διάταγμια τοῦ βασιλέως. The 
 sense is: ‘* And (therefore) they did not heed the 
 king’s edict for the exposure and destruction of the 
 children.” 
 
 24—26. πίστει Μωὐσῆς---Φαραώ. Μέγας γενόμενος, 
 ‘“*when he had attained manhood (or rather matu- 
 rity ; being forty years old. So Herod. 4, 9, 15. 
 ἐπεῖ γένωνται τρόφεις. See Schmid and Rosenm.), 
 disdained to be called the adopted son of,” &c. The 
 words following, μᾶλλον--- ἀπόλαυσιν, place in a strong 
 point of view the merit of the sacrifice: for by re- 
 
536 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 
 
 nouncing the adoption, he ceased to be an Egyptian, 
 and to have the privileges thereof; and became an 
 Israelite, and was exposed to a participation in the 
 oppressions of his countrymen. The ἢ πρόσκαιρον 
 ἔχειν ἁμαοτιάς ἀπόλαυσιν, refers to the luxurious and 
 sinful pleasures of a court at that time the most cor- 
 rupt in the world. In πρόσκαιρον is contained an 
 indirect contrast between the ever-during promises 
 of God, and the fleeting pleasures of sin. This is 
 further illustrated in the next clause μείϑονα----τοῦ 
 Χριστοῦ, where, by a strong figure, the insults and 
 oppressions of the Egyptians are designated by the 
 ὀνειδισμὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, which most Commentators 
 are agreed signifies, ‘‘ such contumely as Christ suf- 
 fered.” Some, however, as Doddr., think it refers 
 to the relation in which Christ stood to Israel, as his 
 peculiar people (see Bp. Bull); and that he looked 
 forward to the reward, in the promise of God re- 
 specting a future Saviour. And surely (to use the 
 words of Doddr.) that reward could not be temporal 
 grandeur, which he might have had, with much 
 greater security and advantage, in Egypt; nor the 
 possession of Canaan, which he never saw. It must 
 therefore be the eternal inheritance, which was dis- 
 covered to him by the principle here so largely de- 
 scribed and recommended. 
 
 Q7. πίστει κατέλιπεν---ἐκαρτέρησε, ‘* By faith he 
 organized a systematical migration from Egypt, of 
 which he was the leader and head.” ‘The μὴ φοβη- 
 θεῖς τὸν θυμὸν τοῦ βασιλέως, is by the best Commentators 
 supposed to have reference to the angry words of 
 the King at his last interview, “See my face no 
 more,” ὅς. (Rosenm.) Tov yap ἀόρατον ws ὡρῶν 
 ἐκαρτέρησε. At ἐκαρτ. must be understood αὐτὸν, 1. 6. 
 τὸν βασιλέα. The sense is: “he courageously en- 
 countered the hazards of disobedience to the earthly 
 and visible King, as keeping in view his para- 
 mount duty to that Monarch who is invisible, the 
 Lord of heaven and earth.” In this absolute sense 
 καρτερεῖν frequently occurs in Euripides. It is re- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ. 537 
 
 marked by Theophyl.: ‘Qoavel yap ὁρῶν τὸν Θεὸν 
 συνόντα αὐτῷ, οὕτως ἐκαρτέρει πάντα. And he aptly 
 cites Ps. 15. 
 
 28. πίστει πεποίηκε---αὐτῶν, “In faith (viz. in the 
 divine protection) he kept the Passover, and ob- 
 served the sprinkling of the blood.” ΙΠοιεῖν, like the 
 Hebr. Mwy, signifies to celebrate, i. 6. to slay and 
 eat. See Matt. 26,18. And in this sacrificial sense 
 the Latins used facere, and the Greeks ἐρδεῖν and 
 ῥέξειν. (Ern.) Πεποίηκε τὴν πρόσχυσιν, ‘he sprinkled,” 
 &c. Now the Passover he, as he was commanded, 
 celebrated on the night of their departure from 
 Egypt. At ὁ ὀλοθρεύων, must be understood ἄγγελος 
 (as 1 Cor. 10, 10. ὁλοθρευτὴς), the angel of death who 
 brought the pestilence. I would observe that ὄλλυμι 
 (from whence ὄλεθρος) seems to signify totally de- 
 stroy, hurl to perdition; and ὅλως comes from the 
 Hebr. 75. Τὰ πρωτότοκα scil. yevvypara: for the 
 pestilence destroyed the first-born of animals as well 
 asmen. Θίγῃ is put, by euphemism, for destroy. 
 And indeed the touch of the plague is destruction. 
 
 Now the merit of faith under such peculiar cir- 
 cumstances was great indeed. 
 
 29. πίστει διέβησαν---κατεπόθησαν. The ἐρθρ. bar. 
 is commonly called the Red Sea. But this is founded 
 in a vulgar error, and the appellation rather arose from 
 its proper name Mare Erythreum, which, the Com- 
 mentators say, was derived from King Erythras, 
 undoubtedly the same with Esau, or Edom, who was 
 ared man. So Grot. and others. It is called by 
 Moses at Exod. 15, 22. Mp 05°, the weedy sea. And 
 such the accounts of modern tourists, as Niehbuhr 
 and others (see Harmer) testify it to be. But 
 whether these weeds give a colour to it, so as to 
 originate the name Red Sea, is, I think, very doubt- 
 ful. 
 
 “Hs (scil. διαβάσεως, for διέβησαν) πεῖραν λαβόντες, 
 making atrial, trying. So the best interpreters. See 
 Raphel, Kypke, and others. ΚΚατεπύθησαν, “ were 
 swallowed up by the sea,” literally, were swallowed 
 
538 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 
 
 down (κατὰ). The more correct expression would 
 have been κατεποντίσθησαν, which is used by Philo on 
 this subject. 
 
 30. πίστει----ἡμέρας. Some recent Commentators 
 (see Dind.) run into strange speculations on this 
 event, from which they strive to remove all idea of 
 miraculous power. Into these I shall not enter. 
 Ernesti, indeed, defends the miracle; but πίστει 
 cannot (as he would propose) be construed with 
 κυκλωθ., without great violence; neither is this ne- 
 cessary. The plain sense is: ‘It was by or through 
 faith that the walls of Jericho fell, after having been 
 besieged seven days;” the period foreshown by God, 
 at which the city walls should fall. Now this was 
 permitted to happen ἐπὶ πίστει, “on account of 
 the faith of Joshua and his army in the assurances of 
 God.” And therefore to that faith the fall of the 
 city may (popularly) be ascribed. 
 
 31. πίστει Ῥαὰβ---εἰρήνης. The sense of πορνὴ here 
 depends upon that of the Hebr. 72 at Josh. 2, 1., 
 which many eminent philologists derive from }%, 
 to feed, maintain ; thus taking it to denote a hostess, 
 or innkeeper. And this they support from the 
 Chaldee interpreter, and Chrys. And so (I would 
 add) Joseph. p. 179. Ed. Huds. See Carpz. Schleus. 
 and Dind., which last Commentator, however, urges 
 some strong reasons why this sense of hostess cannot 
 be acceded to. If so we may suppose, with many 
 Commentators, that she is called a harlot, as having 
 been onceso. See Matt. 21,31. There is no doubt, 
 however, but that the words hostess and harlot (or 
 procuress) were convertible terms; since among 
 those corrupt people, innkeepers were usually such. 
 See Grot.; hence Braun thinks she might be both. 
 I should rather conjecture that πορνὴ was the appel- 
 lation given, by that gross and vicious people the 
 Canaanites, to all hostesses, whether they were, or 
 were not πορναὶ, properly so called; and that Rahab 
 was not, and probably had never been, such. Now 
 her faith, which made her a fit object of mercy, was 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 539 
 
 in the existence of the one true God and of his 
 power (as evinced on many former occasions) to de- 
 fend the Israelites, his people, and destroy their 
 enemies. 
 
 91. δεξαμένη τοὺς κατασκόπους μετ᾽ εἰρήνης. The 
 best Commentators explain μετ᾽ εἰρήνης by per’ 
 ἐπιμελείας, multd cum solicitudine et humanitate, 
 amanter, benigné, which interpretation may be ad- 
 mitted; but there is perhaps an allusion to some for- 
 muia of address on receiving any one toa house; 
 and as the words at parting were, ‘Go in peace,” so 
 there might be, ‘‘ Come in peace,” like ond 8.3, which 
 salutation (as ὈΞῪ implied security, tranquillity, 
 and happiness of every kind) was an implied assur- 
 ance of kind treatment. 
 
 32. καὶ τί ἔτι λέγω ; ἐπιλείψει γὰρ μὲ διηγούμενον ὁ 
 χρόνος. ‘These were forms in common use with the 
 best writers, especially orators, from whom Wets. 
 adduces several examples. . 
 
 33, 34. of διὰ πίστεως --λεόντων. It is observed 
 by Rosenm., that these attributes of faith do not, 
 indeed, pertain to the whole of the persons mentioned 
 at ver. 32., but only some of them; yet almost all 
 of them subjugated kings and states. And this they 
 did through faith in the God of Israel. 
 
 33. εἰργάσαντο δικαιοσύνην. Menoch. and, of the re- 
 cent Commentators, Dind. and Rosenm., think that 
 δικαιοσ. may be understood specialiter, of just judg- 
 ment in deciding causes, as Samuel and others. 
 Theophyl. explains it τὸ ἑκαστῷῴ ἀπονεμιεῖν τὸ κατ᾽ 
 ἀξίαν, whether friends or foes. But it seems better 
 to adhere to the general sense, as being more appro- 
 priate and natural. So Ernesti explains, sancté, pie, 
 religiosé facere, ad legem divinam vivere. There 
 may be, too, an allusion to habitual virtue; as in 
 the of ἐργαϑόμιενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν in Matt. 7. 33., &c. 
 Now to do this they would be especially animated 
 by faith in God. 
 
 33. ἐπέτυχον ἐπαγγελιῶν, “by this faith they obtained 
 the promised blessings.” The histories of the Old 
 Testament are the best commentary on this clause. In 
 
540 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 
 
 the ἔφραξαν στόματα λεόντων there is reference to the 
 cases of Daniel, Samson, and David, on which see 
 the Old Testament. Now such things could only 
 have been done by the help of God, which would be 
 vouchsafed to faith alone. "Εσβεσαν δύναμιν πυρὸς. 
 This alludes to the case of Schadrach, Meshach, and 
 Abednego, Dan. 3, 27 ἃ 29. Of these it is figura- 
 tively said that they quenched the power of the fire, 
 namely, because their firm faith in the protection of 
 the God of Israel caused that it should have no 
 power over them, but, as far as respected them, be 
 quenched. ἔΕφυγον στόματα μαχαίρας. ‘This is an 
 evident Hebraism (though not merely such ; as ap- 
 pears from Soph. Aj. 651.) for “ escaped the edge of 
 the sword.” So the Sept. Φεύγειν μάχαιραν, Sirach 
 28, 18.and 1 Macc. 5, 28. See Carpz. and Heinr. 
 ᾿Απὸ ἀσθενείας, “from being weak.” An idiom found 
 in the Classical writers. So Thucyd. 7, 42. τῷ δὲ 
 στρατεύματι τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ws ἐκ κακῶν, ῥώμη TIS ἐγε- 
 yevyro. Rosenm. refers to the case of Samson, 
 Judg. 16, 19. compared with ver. 29. Παρεμβολὰς 
 ἔκλιναν ἀλλοτρίων. ‘The παρεμβ. may (as in the Clas- 
 sical writers) be put for the armies which filled the 
 camp. See Schleus. Lex. Kaivew is here, as often 
 in the best writers, used in a hiphil sense for ἐγκλίνειν. 
 It signifies to put to the rout, like the Latin inclinare 
 castra. See Dind. ᾿Αλλοτρίων, i. 6. the Gentiles 
 and idolaters. 
 
 35, 36. The Apostle now passes (by a natural 
 association of ideas, ) from the case of those who were 
 delivered from danger through faith, to that of those 
 who endured evils of every kind, under its support. 
 It is observed by Dind. : “Duo hec exempla matrum, 
 que demortuos filios in vitam revocatos acceperunt, 
 scriptori suggerunt tristiora fata illius mulieris quee 
 filios suos in crudelissima persecutione sub Antiocho 
 Epiphane necatos non recuperaret ἐξ ἀναστάσεως. 
 Nam antea nihil de persecutione in Judzos ob reli- 
 gionem suam grassante consignatam legimus.” 
 
 On the ἔλαβον, &c. see 1 Kings, 17, 30. and 2 Kings 
 4, 21. The ἐξ ἀναστάσεως is for ἀναστησάντας. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ. 541 
 
 35. ἐτυμπανίσθησαν. This term, which seldom 
 occurs in the Classical writers, is here used for 
 ἀποτ., Which is found in many good _ writers. 
 What sort of a punishment this was, 15 not 
 certain: but that it is here meant wnto death, 
 seems probable; and I would render ἐτυμπ., 
 beaten to death. So Gloss. Alberti, érupmavic- 
 θησαν: ἀνηρέθησαν. And so Cicumen. Much has 
 been said by a Gataker ap. Suic. Thes. in voc., 
 partly to the purpose, and partly not. The signifi- 
 cations assigned by the Greek Commentators are 
 chiefly three. Photius has the foliowing exposition : 
 τυμπανίξβεται" ξύλῳ πλήσσεται, ἐκδέρεται καὶ κρέμαται. 
 Others explain: σφαιρίϑεται, or ἀπετμήθησαν, or avy- 
 ρέθησαν. Now, to reconcile these, the modern Com- 
 mentators are much perplexed. Some of them take 
 the term to denote equulet supplictum. ‘The truth 
 seems to be, that τύμπανον, which comes from τύπτω, 
 signified, properly, a beating-stick (like the French 
 bdton) ; but was often used to denote a beating, or 
 whipping post. Hence τυμπανίϑεσθαι denoted the 
 punishment of the whipping post, i. 6. ξύλος πλήσσεσ- 
 θαι: and as that was often exceedingly severe, it is 
 no wonder that the term should be sometimes ex- 
 plained by the Greek Lexicographers σφαιρίξω, ἐκδέ- 
 pw, which signify, not literally, to flay, or strip off 
 the skin, but, metaphorically, to beat severely, some- 
 times even to death. So our flog, which is cognate 
 with flay. This signification indeed, of dégw (whence 
 δορὺ), is almost the only one occurring in the New 
 Testament. See Schleus. Lex. How τύπτειν came 
 to have the sense of κρεμάω, seems to have been thus. 
 The τύμπανον was probably made in this form, T ; so 
 that the criminal had his arms fastened to the two 
 horns of the post, with his head above the top of it, 
 and his feet bound to the lower part, without, how- 
 ever, reaching the ground; so that he might trul 
 be said κρεμᾶσθαι. It is obvious how effectually this 
 posture would promote the purposes of punishment, 
 by rendering it impossible for the poor wretch to 
 
542 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 
 
 shrink from the blows. Finally, how τυμπανίϑω 
 came to mean ἀποκεφαλίϑω, and ἀναιρέω, is (I think) 
 obvious: for most words denoting particular punish- 
 ments, are sometimes used, by metonymy, in a general 
 way, to signify all punishments producing the same 
 effect, whether to death, or not. Several instances 
 may be seen in the Notes of Gataker and Suicer. It 
 must also be observed, that, as the beating was 
 sometimes administered, not with sticks, or whips, 
 but with leather thongs, like the Russian Knout, 
 having pieces of lead sewed in them at the end, so 
 τυμπανίϑω came at length to be expounded σφαιρίϑω. 
 Here there is, doubtless, an allusion to the punish- 
 ment of Eleazer, recorded at 2 Macc., 6, 30., and 
 7, 3.5 seqq. 
 
 35. οὐ προσδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, “ not accept- 
 ing the liberation offered at the price of apostasy.” 
 This is a rare sense of ἀπολύτρωσις, which Schleus. 
 illustrates from Luke 21, 28., ἐγγίϑει ἡ ἀπολύτρωσις 
 ὑμῶν. The κρείττων ἀναστάσις Rosenm. explains, the 
 resurrection to another and a better life.* And 
 from 2 Macc., c. 8., it is clear that the doctrine was 
 then believed; though without the certainty of the 
 Gospel revelation. See Doddr. 
 
 80. ἕτεροι δὲ---φυλακῆς. Here, πεῖραν λαμβάνειν, as 
 supra, ver. 29., is used for πειρᾶσθαι (See Gatak. 
 Adv. ap. Pole). But here the sense is, experienced, 
 felt the force of. The ἐμπαιγμών is thought to allude 
 to 2 Macc., 7.1. For the historical illustration of 
 each particular, the ordinary Commentators, Pole, 
 &c., may be consulted. 
 
 * Which is confirmed by Theophyl., who explains Φωὴν αἰώνιον, 
 i. e.a heavenly one, better than that of the wicked, who will only 
 rise from their graves to suffer punishment here below ; while the 
 righteous will be caught up, to meet the Lord in the air, &c. Hal- 
 let thinks the opposition lies between the resurrection to eternal 
 life, which these martyrs expected, and the resurrection of the dead 
 children to life in the world just before. And this is countenanced 
 by some antients: but it seems precarious ; as does also the opinion 
 of Crell., Hamm., and Doddr., that the κρείττων is meant as opposed 
 to a present remission of their torments. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 543 
 
 37, 38. Here are enumerated the severer punishments, even unto 
 death, and that the most violent ᾿Ελεθάσθησαν requires no explana- 
 tion. With respect to the ἐπρίσθησαν, there is no doubt but that this 
 punishment was sometimes employed by the refined cruelty of those 
 barbarous times. The Commentators refer to the example of Isaiah, 
 who was, we are told, sawn in two by a wooden saw. They also cite 
 2 Sam., 12,3., 1 Paral., 20, 3., Amos 1, 3. To which I add Herod. 
 2, 139., συμβουλεύειν τοὺς ipéas—pésous διατάμεσιν. And this 
 punishment, I remember, is recorded in Diod. Sic. It has, how- 
 ever, Sometimes occurred to me that the word may have been used 
 populariter to denote, as we say, cut and hack any one to pieces. And 
 so Appian, speaking of the murder of Cicero, T.2, 556, 29., says 
 that the Centurion τὴν κεφαλὴν ἐπισπάσας, ἀπέτεμνεν, és τρὶς ἐπι- 
 πλήσσων, καὶ ἐκδιαπρίξων (sawing it off) ὑπὸ ἀπειρίας. 
 
 It is, however, a question of more difficult determination what is 
 to be said of the ἐπειράσθησαν, which almost all Critics regard as 
 corrupt, and of which there have been nearly a dozen different con- 
 jectures proposed. Some Critics employ the method of curing the 
 limb by amputation. But this is a sort of surgery which is better 
 not resorted to, except in extreme cases; and this is not one. In a 
 Classical author, indeed, 1 should be inclined to suspect the word 
 might be a Var. Lect. of the preceding ; but in the phraseology of 
 the Apostle the case is different ; and the authorities for the omission 
 of the word are too few, and easily accounted for (namely, from the 
 difficulty of the word) to merit any attention. I agree, with Mill, 
 Hallet, Pfaff, Schmid, Carpz., &c., that it must be retained, yet not 
 interpreted (as it is by some), of solicitation to apostasy; since that 
 was before mentioned; nor be explained, ‘ tried with afflictions,” 
 as it is by Schleus.; though he compares Ps. 35, 16., ἐπείρασαν με; 
 ἐξεμυκτήρισαν με. And he might have added Eurip. Med. 57., τοὺς 
 ἐν μεγάλαις δυστυχίαις ἐξεταξομένους. But thesense is too mild a 
 one. ‘The preference seems to be due to the interpretation of Sykes, 
 Semler, Ernesti, and others, who take this as a genus for species, and 
 understand it of torturing unto death,. So ἐτάθεσθαι is explained by 
 Hesych. βασανίξεσθαι. And ἐξετάθεσθαι is frequently used in that 
 sense in the Pandects. See St. Thes. So also Diod. Sic. x. 2, 525., 
 has ἐξέτασαι in the sense of tormenting. The werd may therefore 
 be rendered, ‘‘ tormentis (questioni admoti) tentati sunt,” 
 
 87. ἐν divw μαχαίρας ἀπέθανον. This seems to be a 
 blending of two phrases ; for I have no where else 
 met with the expression. It may be observed, that 
 the Apostle now, from the trials of faith in those 
 who had to encounter death, passes to the less vio- 
 lent, but scarcely less severe ones of the unhappy 
 persons who, having escaped their tyrants and perse- 
 cutors, were, as wretched outcasts, exposed to every 
 variety of misery. Περιῆλθον is well rendered, by 
 Dind., oberrabant. The περὶ may allude to the cir- 
 
544 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 
 
 cuitous tracks and by-paths they had to pursue, to 
 avoid their enemies. The μηλωταῖς and αἱγείοις δέσ- 
 pact, must not be taken literally, to denote sheep- 
 skins ; but, with the best Commentators, of rude 
 garments made thereof, with the wool left on. See 
 1 Kings, 19, 13 ἃ Τὸ 2 Kings, 2, 8., 13, 14. And 
 consult the learned note of Carpz., who shows, from 
 Philo, that such dresses were used by the poorest 
 class, and those exposed to the weather, especially 
 in travelling. Indeed, to the present day, they are in 
 use among the boors of Poland, Russia, and ‘Tartary. 
 
 37. ὑστερούμενοι, scil. ὑπαρχόντων, ‘destitute of 
 necessaries.” Θλιβόμενοι, ‘ pinched with want.” 
 Kaxouyotnevos, ‘ afflicted with evils of every kind.” 
 The next words, ὧν οὐκ ἦν ἀξίος ὃ κόσμος, are a paren- 
 thetical exhortation. Similar ones in sentiment are 
 adduced from a Rabbinical writer by Wets. It is 
 observed, by Grot., that the Apostle means by this to 
 say, that those of whom the world was not worthy, 
 were by that world thought unworthy, even of house 
 room! At καὶ σπηλαίοις καὶ ταῖς ὀπαῖς τῆς γῆς 
 cannot very well be repeated πλανώμενοι; but some 
 verb supplied from the context, which was omitted 
 by the emotion of the Apostle. Mackn. paraphrases : 
 “They wandered by day in deserts and mountains, 
 and by night lodged in caves and holes of the earth.” 
 Yet I suspect they often used these as day habita- 
 tions. ‘The sense may therefore be this: “they 
 wandered about in the desert, residing first in one 
 cave, and then in another.” The σπηλαίοις denotes 
 those large caves with which Palestine abounds, and 
 which are sufficiently capacious for the residence 
 (dreary as it must be) of a considerable number of 
 persons. This is evident from the interesting 
 account of what befel Josephus after the taking of 
 Jotapata. The ὀπαῖς denotes the smaller caves, 
 serving for a miserable lodging. Among the passages 
 cited by Carpz., there is Philo 1009., where it is said 
 that men, women, and children were driven out, and 
 compelled to shelter themselves in a cave. And 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ. 545 
 
 just after we have: ἐξεχέοντο εἰς ἐρημίαν καὶ αἰγιαλοὺς, 
 καὶ μνήματα. 
 
 869, 40. μαρτυρηβέντες διὰ τῆς πίστεως. See the 
 note, supra, ver. ὦ, Οὐκ ἐκομίσαντο τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. 
 On the sense οἵ érayy. the modern Commentators 
 variously speculate. It cannot mean earthly pro- 
 mises; for the fruition of these some did attain. 
 Rosenm., Morus, and Dind., interpret it of stable 
 felicity. The antients, and many moderns, take it 
 κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, to denote that of the Messiah, and the 
 blessings to be expected through him. So Chrys., 
 Carpz., and Storr. But the former interpretation 
 seems the more agreeable to the context. 
 
 The next words assign the reason for their not 
 having been permitted to attainthem. But there is 
 something about the sentence peculiarly perplexed. 
 The difficulty is not acknowledged by any but Er- 
 nesti and Dind., who consider it at large, and attempt 
 to remove it. ‘The sense probably depends upon the 
 interpretation of the τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν in the preceding 
 verse, which, if it be taken of the promise of the 
 Messiah, will require the present words to be ex- 
 plained (with Rosenm,) thus: “ Bona promissa 
 (tempore Messize demum percipienda) non consecuti 
 sunt, Deo melius nobis prospiciente, ita ut illi mi- 
 nimeé possent sine nobis (sine beneficio doctring 
 Christiane in nos collato) felicitate consummata 
 ornari.” If the interpretation of Morus, &c., be 
 adopted. the sense will be (as expressed by Rosenm.) 
 thus: ‘*Quoniam Deus nobis melius prospicere vo- 
 luit, ut scilicet illi ad perfectam felicitatem perveni- 
 rent sine nobis.’”’ Perhaps the obscurity has arisen 
 from extreme brevity, and the words may be thus 
 paraphrased: “ They all received not the promise 
 (held out to virtue, neither perfectly in the temporal, 
 nor at all in the spiritual one of the Messiah). No, 
 God was pleased, in the exercise of his providence 
 for us, to destine that they should not attain the 
 perfect fruition of the Divine promises, till the time 
 when they should enjoy them in common with us. 
 
 VOL. Vill. 2N 
 
546 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. 
 
 CHAP. XII. 
 
 Verse I, 2. τοιγαροῦν---πάντα. Having proved, by 
 numerous examples, the efficacy of faith, the Apostle 
 now proceeds, in the way of conclusion, to exhort 
 them to steadfastness in the Christian faith. Now 
 he founds his first argument on the great number of 
 witnesses to their conduct. ι 
 
 The τοιγαροῦν is conclusive: ““ Wherefore being 
 surrounded with such a cloud of witnesses.” By the 
 witnesses some: moderns understand the proofs and 
 evidences how highly God esteems faith, and how 
 much he will reward it. But this seems harsh and 
 precarious. It is far more natural, with all the 
 antients, and the most judicious moderns, to inter- 
 pret the pagr. of the worthies of the Old Testament, 
 some of whom have been just instanced, who by their 
 words and actions testified how much the objects of 
 their faith were valued above all worldly considera- 
 tions; including, also, the Confessors and: Martyrs 
 of the New ‘Testament, as the Proto-martyr Stephen, 
 &c. From what follows, it is plain that there is an 
 agonistical allusion : and the νέφος well answers to 
 the immense crowd of spectators, in the amphithea- 
 tre, seated one above another to an immense height. 
 Thus νέφος and nimbus were used of a large body of 
 men both by the Poets and prose writers. As to the 
 interpretation of Rosenm., it is sufficiently refuted 
 by the περικείμιενον, on which it is strange the Philo- 
 logical Commentators, who adduce such numerous 
 Classical citations on the νέφος, should not have 
 brought farward the Ovidian line, ““Consedere Duces, 
 et vulgi stante corond.” ‘The passage is elegantly 
 paraphrased by Wets. thus: ‘ Fingite animo vestro 
 omnes heroas, quorum constantiam et fidem modo 
 laudavi, vos circumstare, et spectatores sedere vestri 
 cursus, vestree vel constantiz vel defectionis. 
 
 "Oyxov, weight, load. 1 would compare Pind. 
 Olymp.9, 55., where the Scholiast explains : ἀπόῤῥι- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. 547 
 
 Wor, ἤγον ws βάρος ἀπόθου. Here there is a continua- 
 tion of the agonistical metaphor. ‘The ὄγκος denotes 
 the remains of unsubdued vices, and those various 
 sins, or vanities, including an excessive attachment 
 to the world, &c., which drag down the soul to earth, 
 and grievously impede us in running our spiritual race, 
 So Theodoret : εἰς τούτους τοιγαροῦν ἀφορώντες, κοῦφοι 
 περὶ τὸν δρόμον γενώμεθα, καὶ τὸν τῶν περιττῶν φροντίδων 
 ἀποῤῥίψωμιν ὄγκον. 
 
 The words following are exegetical of the preced- 
 ing: and the καὶ may be rendered even, or especially. 
 The εὐπερίστατον is variously explained. By Theo- 
 phyl.: τὴν εὐκόλως περιϊσταμιένην ἡμᾶς. By Theodoret : 
 εὐκόλως συνισταμένην TE καὶ γινομένην" καὶ γὰρ ὀφθαλμὸς 
 δελεάξεται, ἀκοὴ καταθέλγεται, ἀφὴ γαργαλίϑεται, καὶ 
 γλώσσα ῥᾷστα διολισθαίνει, καὶ 6 λογισμὸς περὶ τὸ χεῖρον 
 ὀξύῤῥοπος. It is explained by the best moderns 
 cingens, circumveniens, decipiens. And so Rosenm. 
 and Schleus. But this is paying no attention to the 
 εὐ. 1 cannot but suspect that there is in it a military 
 metaphor. And I have elsewhere observed agonis- 
 tical and military ones intermixed. The εὖ must then 
 be referred to the arch fiend, the Devil: and the 
 term may be rendered, skilful to draw up forces 
 around us, to surround and destroy us. What sin is 
 here meant we are left to conjecture. Most Com- 
 
 mentators suppose, apostacy. But, considering what: 
 
 has occurred in the preceding, there seems to be also 
 included practical apostacy, i. 6. the living without 
 any regard to our solemn obligations, as Christians. 
 By the ὑπομονῆς is denoted a patient endurance of 
 the difficulties which we may, nay, must, encounter 
 in our Christian course. It is plain that to run with 
 patience the race that is set before us, is to run the 
 Christian course so as to perform all the duties en- 
 joined by our spiritual ἀγωνοθέτης. Among the pas 
 
 sages here cited by the Philological Commentators: 
 
 the most apposite 1s Philo 203. τὸν προτεθέντα ἀγῶνα 
 τῶν Θείων καὶ ᾿Ολυμπίων ἀρετῶν. 
 2. ἀφορῶντες εἰς τὸν---Ἰησοῦν. Here again there 
 2N2 
 
548 HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ]. 
 
 appears to be a mixture of military and agonistical 
 metaphors. Jesus is represented as our ἀγωνοθέτης, 
 and also a leader, whose example his soldiers are 
 bound to follow. The τελειώτην seems to refer 
 to the former. By the τῆς πίστεως is not meant 
 our religion, but that faith in God, of which the 
 Apostle has just before adduced so many bright ex- 
 amples in the Patriarchs and Prophets, and to the 
 great archetype of those, and many other virtues, he 
 here directs our view. 
 
 He then proceeds to set forth the patient endur- 
 ance of Jesus, as evinced in accomplishing the work 
 of our salvation. ‘The ἀντὶ is variously interpreted : 
 but it seems rendered of ‘Theophy]. and Theodoret, 
 of the antients, and many eminent moderns, because 
 of; as Eph. 5, 31. The χαρὰ προκειμένη, Rosenm. 
 observes, is used as ἔλπις προκ. at 6, 18. And he 
 renders the χαρᾶς gaudium instans, summam potes- 
 tatem, qu mortem crucis consecuta est, Phil. 2, 9. 
 But it may be understood of the joyful event in con- 
 templation, which animated his endurance, namely, 
 the accomplishment of the work of human salvation. 
 So Slade: ‘* As Jesus endured for the joy of finishing 
 his scheme of salvation, should his disciples endure 
 for the joy of being partakers of it.” Αἰσχύνης κατα- 
 ᾧρονήσας, ““ despising the ignominy.” A spirited and 
 beautiful expression, to which I know no one com- 
 parable except that of Thucyd. 2, 62. ἰέναι δὲ τοῖς 
 ἐχθροῖς ὁμόσε, p7 φρονήματι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ καταφρονή- 
 ματι. So Herodian, L. 8. κρυοὺς καὶ θάλπους καταῷρο- 
 yoy. And Dio, Ο. 7. 127 ο. (cited by Wets.) μὴ 
 σπουδάσαι γνωσθῆναι δόξης καταφρονουμένης. The xa- 
 ταῷρ., Rosenm. observes, is to be taken comparate. 
 But this seems an unwarrantable limitation. 
 
 The words ἐν δεξιᾷ τε τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκάθισεν, 
 seem nof meant (as many take them) to suggest the 
 reason for the patient endurance of Jesus; but to 
 hint to us that we may expect our reward, as Christ 
 received his (so Phil. 2, 9. Διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύ- 
 woe), namely, that of being with Christ before the 
 presence of God for ever, though not as he is and 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. 549 
 
 Will be, ἰσύνθρονος and σότιμος with God, and united 
 with him in equality of dignity and power. 
 
 8. ἀναλογίσασθε γὰρ---ἀντιλογίαν. ‘The connection 
 here has not been well traced by the moderns ; 
 though it is ably pointed out by heophyl. In the 
 ἀναλογίσασθε there is thought to be a mathematical 
 metaphor. And so Schmid and Raphel. Most 
 Critics are agreed that it suggests the comparison ; 
 q. d. **compare him who suffered such things 
 (though the son of God) with yourselves. The ἀν- 
 τιλογίαν is, a8 Theophyl. says, emphatical. Its sense 
 is variously explained. In the E. V. it is rendered 
 contradiction. But this is too limited. It is, I think, 
 rightly taken by Chrys., Carpz., Dind., and Rosenm., 
 to denote all Christ's sufferings of every kind. 
 Though Ern. renders it by the general term contu- 
 melia; and refers to, and explains Luke 2, 34. Kap- 
 νειν signifies to fag, flag, &c. and corresponds to our 
 tire. ᾿Εκλύομαι is used as at Gal. 6, 9. where see the 
 note. Loesner well explains this and other cognate 
 terms, which he considers as agonistical. 1 would 
 compare Diod. Sic. 5, 9, 220. ἤδη κάμνοντες ταῖς 
 ψυχαῖς. 
 
 4. οὔπω μέχρις ----ἀνταγωνιϑόμιενοι. There is some 
 obscurity in these words. The difficulty turns on 
 the ἁμαρτία. Butit may be removed by reverting to 
 the use of that term at ver. 1.: and the best modern 
 Commentators are agreed that it has here nearly the 
 same sense, and denotes the sin of apostacy, either 
 properly so called, or what may be called practical 
 apostacy, including all those lusts which war against 
 the soul, and are so destructive of our well-being 
 here, as well as our happiness hereafter. See Ern. 
 and Dind., and the excellent illustrations of Chrys. 
 and Theophyl. At the same time, there seems to 
 be an allusion to the author and suggester of all, 
 even the Devil, to which, indeed, some wholly con- 
 fine it. : 
 
 The words μέχρις αἵματος (for αἱματεκχυίας, of 
 which Wets. adduces two examples,) show what kind 
 
550 HEBREWS, GHAP. XII. 
 
 of apostacy must principally be intended. “By resist- 
 ance to apostacy even unto blood,” is meant, so to over- 
 come the temptations of the flesh as to be ready to 
 shed one’s blood in the cause of the Gospel. Now 
 this the Prophets and others, especially Jesus Christ, 
 had already done. Those whom he 15 addressing, 
 the Apostle means to say, were called to compara- 
 tively light endurances ; and therefore had no excuse 
 for fainting under them. 
 
 5,6. καὶ ἐκλέλησθε---ἐλεγχόμιενος, ‘* And yet ye 
 have (it seems) forgotten the admonition which ad- 
 dresses you as sons.” It is observed by Rosenm., 
 that παράκλησις has here a combined sense of conso- 
 lation and exhortation. The passage here adduced 
 is from Prov. 8,11. For μὴ ὀλιγώρει Aquila has μὴ 
 ἀποδοκίμασον : and Symm. μὴ ἀποθῆς. The literal 
 sense is: “do not set lightly by.” So Hesych.: ὀλιγω- 
 pel ὀλίγην ἔχει φροντίδα: "Eneyxopnevos, ““ rebuked for 
 sin.” “Ov γὰο---παραδέχεται. For παιδεύει some MSS. 
 read ἐλέγχει. On the μαστιγοῖ it is observed b 
 Rosenm., that the Sept. for 83 (as a father) read 
 as. And this reading seems to be more agreeable 
 to the context. The metaphorical use of μαστιγοῦν 
 and similar words is frequent in the Classical writers. 
 The Commentators compare from the Sept. Tob. 13, 
 2. Sapient. 12, 22. 16,16. Παραδέχεται, receives 
 with approbation, loves; as Luke 16, 2. See Fisch. 
 Prolus. 1, 8. 
 
 7, 8. εἰ παιδείαν ὑπομιένετε--- Θεὸς, “ If (then) ye 
 bear (this) chastening of affliction,” ἄς. Ὑσομένειν, 
 Rosenm. observes, is here used in the sense of per- 
 peti; as James 1,12. Προσφέρεται, acts, deals. A 
 signification common in the best writers. Προσφέρεσ- 
 θαι literally signifies to conduct oneself towards. ‘The 
 sense is: ‘‘ God hath a paternal care for you.” The 
 parenthetical clause ris γὰρ---πατὴρ; is exegetical. 
 “Ὁ For what son does not receive correction of his 
 faults at the hands of a father?” Eide yapis-—viol. 
 The ἐστε seems to be for y7e. The sense is: ‘* If ye 
 were without chastisement, then would ye be bastards, 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. οὶ 
 
 and not sons. ‘That would argue a less care over 
 you by God. for of bastards men usually take less 
 care than of sons.” By πάντες must be meant all 
 God’s true sons and faithful servants; with especial 
 allusion to the Patriarchs and Prophets above men- 
 tioned. 
 
 9. εἶτα---ϑήσομεν; The εἶτα has an argumentative 
 force ; and when used (as here) in an interrogative 
 sentence, this particle has great elegance. It is 
 rendered by Rosenm. afqui, jam vero, τοίνυν, ἐπεὶ οὖν. 
 Here again (as Theophyl. well observes) the Apostle 
 shows by an argumentum ad hominem, that they 
 ought to bear, &c. And the πατέρας τῆς σαρκὸς. 
 Theophyl. well explains of σαρκικοὶ rar. ‘* These 
 (says Rosenm.), being themselves mortal, generated 
 us to mortality.” [Παιδευτὰς, correctors. Kal éverpe- 
 πόμιεθα, “we reverently submitted to their correc- 
 tion,” οὐκ ἐτολμώμεν ἀποπηδῆσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνετρεπόμεθα καὶ 
 ὑπεμένομεν, ὅσα av ἐπέφερον, paraphrases Theophyl. 
 In εἴχομεν and ἐνετρεπόμεθα there is a simple He- 
 braic construction. 
 
 9, ὑποταγησόμεθα, ‘shall we not obediently sufter 
 what he inflicts.” ‘This is (as Theophyl. observes) a 
 stronger term than ὑπομένομεν. With respect to the 
 τῷ πατρὶ τῶν πνευμάτων, it is variously explained even 
 by the antients. Some understand it of the spiritual 
 gifts; others of angels; others again, of souls. The 
 last mentioned interpretation seems the truest ; and 
 is supported by Grot.and many eminent moderns. 
 It is required, too, by the antithesis. Theophyl., 
 who adopts it, remarks: Πρὸς γὰρ ἀντιδιαστολὴν τῶν 
 σαρκικῶν πατέρων, εἶπε τὸ πνευματικόν. Rosenm. indeed 
 takes it to denote spiritual father: but he explains 
 it: perfectissimus, qui nunquam pro lubitu, sine. 
 idoneis rationibus castigat, vel errores in castigando 
 admittit, ut patres humani solent. God is indeed 
 supposed to be such by the context; yet that cannot 
 be elicited from the expression. 
 
 9. ϑήσομιεν is very emphatic, and has an allusion to 
 the felicity laid up for the just in heaven (and per- 
 
552 HEBREWS, CHAP. XHl. 
 
 haps also the perpetuity of it). 1 cannot but think 
 that Dr. Doddr. in his elegant Epigram (formed 
 from the Dum vivimus vivamus of the Heathen Poet) : 
 « Lord in my view let both united be, 
 I live to pleasure while I live to thee,” 
 had this passage in mind. 
 
 10. οἱ μὲν γὰρ--- αὐτοῦ, ‘* Now they for a few days 
 (only those of our childhood) chastened us.” The κατὰ 
 τὸ δοκοῦν, considered with the antithetical ἐπὶ τὸ συμ.- 
 Φόρον, must not be interpreted of arbitrariness only, 
 but a neglecting to direct punishment to its only 
 lawful end, the reformation and the final good of the 
 oifender; and aiming rather to excite fear, which is 
 only the means, rather than the end; and seeking an 
 end of their own, the giving vent to their passion 
 and ill humour. Εἰς τὸ μεταλαβεῖν τῆς ἁγιότητος αὐὖ- 
 τοῦ, ‘‘ for partaking of his holiness (δεκτικοὺς εἶναι τῶν 
 ἀγαθῶν αὐτοῦ, paraphrases Theophyl.); our virtue 
 being exercised and strengthened by calamity.” 
 Morus compares the precept to the Israelites: ‘ Be 
 ye holy; for I, your God, am holy;” and 2 Pet. 1, 
 4, θείας κοινωνοὶ Φύσεως. 
 
 Such appears to be the true sense; and it is sup- 
 ported by the best antient and modern Interpreters. 
 See Chrys., Ern., and Dind. 
 
 11. πᾶσα d6€—arrd λύπης. It is well remarked by 
 Theophyl.: πάλιν ἀπὸ τῆς κοινῆς ἐννοίας τὰς ἀφορμὰς 
 ἔλαβε τῆς παραινέσεως. ‘The δοκεῖ is emphatical: and 
 at χαρᾶς must be understood πράγμα ; and both are 
 equivalent to an adjective, distasteful; 4. ἃ. “ it 
 seems to be distasteful, if we consult our feedings ; 
 but it zs not.” So in the Proverbs: ‘* The root is 
 bitter ; but the fruit is sweet.” The words follow- 
 ing are exegetical, and the sense is: ‘‘ afterwards ‘it 
 is found to yield the wholesome fruit of virtue to 
 those who are exercised by it.” Εἰρηνικὸν, wholesome, 
 like the Hebr. 17%. So Rosen. and the best Critics. 
 It is explained by Theophyl.: ἀτάραχον, λεῖον, ἡδὺν. 
 And he observes: Ὁ μὲν yap λυπούμενος ταράττεται" 
 ἡ δὲ χαίρων λειότητα τινα ἔχει καὶ γαλήνην. It may, 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. δος 
 
 however (as Wolf thinks) have reference to that 
 “peace of God which passeth all understanding.” 
 
 Of the parallel passages here adduced by Wets. 
 from the Classical writers, the most apposite is Dio 
 Cass. p. 100. ἀγαπῶ ὑμᾶς, ὡς πατὴρ παῖδας----κγνώσεσθε 
 δὲ, ὅτι ἀληθὴ λέγω, ἕν μήτε πρὸς τὸ αὐτίκα ἡδὺ τὸ συμ.- 
 φέρόν κρίνητε μᾶλλον, ἢ πρὸς τὸ ἀεὶ ὀφέλιμοον. 
 
 12,13. The Apostle employs another image, to 
 excite them to constancy in bearing calamities, see- 
 ing that they produce such fruit. ‘There is here ad- 
 duced a passage from Is. 53, 3. where for ἀνορθώσατε 
 the Sept. has ἰσχύσατε. The metaphor is, by the 
 antients, and many moderns, thought to be an ago- 
 nistical one: but by others (as Carpz.) it is (more 
 probably, I think,) supposed to be derived from the 
 effects of extreme sickness (especially paralytick), or 
 violent fatigue. Thus it corresponds to the figura- 
 tive language at ver. 3. See Raphel, Carpz., and 
 Dind., which last Commentator compares Sirach 11, 
 14. οὐαὶ καρδίαις εἰλαῖς καὶ χερσὶ παρειμέναις. To which 
 I add Sirach 25, 23. and 2, 18. and Eurip. Alc. 204. 
 παρειμένη γε, χειρὸς ἄθλιον βάρος" and 411. ide γὰρ---- 
 παρατονοὺς χεῖρας. 
 
 On the next words, τροχιὰς ὀρθὰς ποιήσατε τοῖς 
 ποσὶν ὑμῶν, which are derived from Prov. 11, 26., 
 Dind. remarks: “ Ulterius inhzret isti allegoria, 
 qua actiones comparet cum gressibus pedum, uti 
 tota vita cum via et cursu confertur.” He also ob- 
 serves, that the force of the phrase is, ‘‘ walk in» a 
 straight path; turn neither to the right nor the left ; 
 weigh well your actions lest you err.’ And he 
 might have added, that probably the Apostle had 
 also in view Prov. 4,27. “Turn not to the right 
 hand, nor to the left: remove thy feet from evil.” 
 The sense, then, after withdrawing the metaphor, is 
 this: “ Take the straight road of piety and virtue, 
 removing all impediments in its course.” See Hardy. 
 It is not improbable that this is a metaphor derived 
 from the making of high roads, which among the 
 antients were always carried in a straight course. 
 
554 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. 
 
 Τροχία signifies properly a via trita; literally on 
 which men τρέχουσι. Hence our track. And so also 
 path, from pethian, to tread. Hesych. explains rpo- 
 χίαι by ai τῶν τροχῶν yapages. These, 1 suspect, 
 were sometimes formed by arf, and like our iron 
 railways. 
 
 13. ἵνα μὴ τὸ ywAov—paarov. Now when the feet 
 are lame, from paralysis or otherwise, they ἐκτρέπον- 
 ται, and produce no motion of the body. The ἱαθῃ 
 may refer to that moderate exercise by which such 
 members are benefited. And so the best Critics ex- 
 plain. The sense, however, is too imperfectly de- 
 veloped to enable one to be positive. ‘The moral 
 application 1 is obvious. 
 
 14. εἰρήνην διώκετε---τὸν Κύριον, “ Pursue and culti- 
 vate peace with,” &c. So 5 Cor. 14, 1. διώκετε τὴν 
 ἀγάπην. Compare also 1 Pet. 3,11. and Rom. 12, 
 18. Διωκ. is a strong term ; and is found in the best 
 Greek writers. ‘To the passages cited by the Philo- 
 logical Commentators I add Thucyd. 2, 63. μὴ φεύγειν 
 τοὺς πόνους, ἢ μηδὲ τὰς τιμὰς διώκειν, and Eurip. Ion. 
 443, ἀρετὰς δίωκε. It is here well remarked by Ro- 
 senm.: ‘* Concordia multum valet ad constantiam in 
 adversis. Ubi enim, qui in eodem coetu sunt, inci- 
 piunt discordes esse, ad alium coetum facile transe- 
 unt.”” He adds, that ἁγιασμὸς here stands for the 
 whole complexus virtutum. 
 
 By see the Lord is meant, obtain an admission to 
 heaven: and therefore the sense isthe same whether 
 Kugiov be interpreted of God, or of Christ. See Mr. 
 Valpy. 
 
 15. ᾿Επισκοποῦντες μήτις ὑστερῶν ἀπὸ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ. 
 
 There is an ellipsis of 7; and ἐπισκ. here signifies to see to, 
 attend, mind. ‘Yorepeiy signifies literally to be too late for; and 
 here, to fall short of, miss of. Dindorf renders it recedere, descicere. 
 But this explanation arose from his confining the sense to apos- 
 tacy: an undue limitation. For from the context it would appear 
 to extend to a neglect of the duties enjoined by the Gospel, as well 
 as a formal renunciation of faith in it. 
 
 The χάρις is variously interpreted. Most recent Commentators 
 take it to denote Christianity, the Gospel, or the doctrines of the 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. 555 
 
 Gospel. Theophyl. explains: τὴν πολιτείαν, καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα ἀγαθά. 
 Perhaps these senses may be conjoined, and thus it will denote the 
 Gospel of grace, the doctrines it reveals, the duties it enjoins, and 
 the blessings it holds out, both temporal and eternal. 
 
 In the next words μήτις ῥίξα πικρίας ἄνω φύουσα ἐνοχλῇ, there is 
 some obscurity, arising (I conceive) from a blending of two meta- 
 phors, an agricultural and a medical one. We have here an allusion 
 to, or application of, the words of Deut. 29, 18. The principal dif- 
 ference is, that for ἐνοχλῇ is read ἐν χολῆ. Hence (τοί, and many 
 other Critics would alter the ἐνοχλῇ here to ἐν χολῇ, which conjec- 
 ture they confirm from the Hebrew text, and a similar passage of 
 Acts 8, 23. But (as the best Critics from Hallet downward remark) 
 this is not a quotation, but a modified application of the passage. 
 And this Mr. Slade admits; though he thinks that as the verb 
 ἐνοχλῇ does not convey a very appropriate meaning, and as it bears 
 such a striking resemblance to ἐν χολῇ, he conceives there is great 
 weight in the conjecture. His second argument is stronger than 
 his first ; for surely ἐνοχλῇ does convey an appropriate sense, and is 
 well suited both to the medical and the agricultural metaphor ; as 
 will appear from the Classical passages adduced by the Philologists, 
 The term literally signifies to give trouble: and it is remarked by 
 Rosenm., that Hippocrates calls those medicaments ἐγοχλέοντα, 
 which raise disturbance in the bowels. Now bitter roots, when 
 once they get into a piece of ground, give no little trouble to eradi- 
 cate them ; and if not checked, spread so fast that they seem to 
 infect the ground to a great distance. And to this, I conceive, the 
 Apostle alludes in the μιανθεῖσι. Though at the same time, there 
 is also an allusion to the infection of vice. The ῥέξα πικρίας, it 
 must also be observed, does not refer to one sin, as apostasy, but a 
 virtual departure or ὑστέρησις from the benefits of the Gospel by 
 any gross immorality. Thus the Apostle immediately makes men- 
 tion of fornication and a Heathenish life, at variance with all religi- 
 ous obligation. But in the former sin the infectious tendency is 
 especially seen, when the sinner is a female. On which compare 
 Deut. 29, 1S., a passage which the Apostle might have in mind, as 
 St. Peter, Acts 8, 23. On the infectious nature of sin in general, 
 the Apostle at 1 Cor. 15, has the impressive maxim, ‘* Evil commu- 
 nications corrupt good manners.” And at 1 Cor. 5, 6.: “A little 
 leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” In Dionys. Hal. 602, 10. we 
 have also a very similar passage, where the two metaphors are 
 blended: ὥστε (I conjecture ὥστε ov) περίεστιν ἡμῖν ἴασιν καὶ ἀλεΐ- 
 ἤματα τῶν ἀναβλαστανόντων ἐξ αὐτῶν κακῶν ξητεῖν, ὁπόσα εἰς ἀν- 
 θρώπινον πίπτει λογισμὸν, μενούσης ἔτι τῆς πονηρᾶς Piens* ov γὰρ 
 ἔσται πέρας, οὐδὲ ἀπαλλαγὴ τῶν δαιμονίων χόλων, ἕως ἂν ἤδη ἡ 
 βάσκανος ἐριννὺς καὶ φαγέδαινα ἐγκαθημένη πάντα σήπη καὶ διαφ- 
 θείρῃ τὰ καλά. ᾿ ς 
 
 10. μὴ τις πόρνος, &c. In adverting to the case of 
 Esau, the Apostle does not (as some fancy) impute 
 
 fornication to him; but only means (though the 
 
556 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. 
 
 Commentators do not observe it) to hint at the simi- 
 larity between the fornicator and Esau, namely, in 
 this, that each sells what is most precious to him for 
 a worthless and paltry gratification. On the rights 
 of primogeniture, and the benefits attached thereto, 
 see the Commentators, or the writers on Jewish An- 
 tiquities. 
 
 17. ἴστε γὰρ----αὐτὴν. There is here an allusion to 
 Gen. 27, 32—40., which is the best commentary on 
 the present passage. ΚΚληρονομεῖν signifies simply to 
 obtain. Esaoyiav, the paternal blessing, and the 
 benefits flowing from it, and especially those of pri- 
 mogeniture. For the blessing Esau received was not 
 the blessing of primogeniture. The peravoia has 
 reference to Isaac, not to Esau. Meravolas τόπον οὐχ 
 εὖρε simply signifies, ‘‘ he found no mode by which 
 to move his father to alter his words.” Schleus. 
 cites Polyb. 4, 66. He might more aptly have ad- 
 duced Thucyd. L. 3, 36, 5. ὑστεραία μετανοία τις εὐ- 
 Obs ἦν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἀναλογισμὸς κι τ. a. The αὐτὴν may 
 be referred either to the εὐλογίαν, or to the μετανοίας : 
 but the latter seems preferable. See Slade. In 
 exenr. the ἐκ is intensive. 
 
 18—21. Adhortatur Paulus Hebreeos ad sanctimo- 
 niam, arcessens argumentum a figura legis veteris, 
 que, ut olim dabatur, populum requirebat purum et 
 castum. Multo magis nos sub Evangelio oportet 
 esse sanctos. Quanto enim doctrina evangelica 
 cum suis promissis preestat legi Mosis, tanto dam- 
 nabilior est ejus contemptus. Quod ut ostendat, 
 modum primo enarrat date ac promulgate Legis ; 
 postea, ut affectus fuit quum populus, tum Moses. 
 Potest etiam locus hic cum precedenti connecti 
 sic: Cavete vobis ne deficiatis a christiana religi- 
 one, qui enim deficiunt, ii amittunt bona multo pres- 
 tantiora lis, que amisit Esavus cum posteris, ex- 
 clusus e populo Dei. Nobis Christianis patet aditus 
 ad Deum et ccelum; veteri illi populo Dei non lice- 
 bat proprius accedere ad Deum. Lex Mosis est 
 severa, terrorem incutiens; religio Christiana est 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. 557 
 
 mitis, animum tranquillans. Hane rem _ illustrat 
 Paulus ex historia Exod. 19, 20. et cum conditione 
 veteris illius populi comparat feliciorem condi- 
 tionem Christianorum. (Storr.and Rosenm.) 
 
 18. ψηλαφωμένω, which is to be touched, reached. 
 So Rosenm. observes that ψηλαφάω sometimes signi- 
 fies not so much to feed, as to attain. And he might 
 have cited Acts 17, 27. ϑητεῖν τὸν Θεὸν, εἰ ψηλαφήσειαν 
 αὐτὸν καὶ εὕροιεν, where see the note. Whitby ex- 
 plains: ‘* which was material, and by being touched 
 after the prohibition, Exod. 19, 22. would procure 
 present death.” Compare Exod. 16, 10. and Deut. 
 4, 11 and 15. Γνόφος denotes a collection of clouds 
 piled together, or the thick darkness, almost to be 
 felt, thence arising. ‘Thus σκότος iS here added. 
 
 19. καὶ σάλπιγγος ἤχῳ, καὶ Φωνῇ ῥημάτων. By the 
 σάλπιγγος ἤχῳ is denoted the pealing of thunder, 
 which preceded and ushered in the Φωνῇ ῥημάτων, 
 the words of the commandments. So Matt. 24, 31. 
 ἐν σάλπιγγι φωνῆς μεγάλης, where see the note. Com: 
 pare also 1 Cor. 15, 52. and 1 Thess. 4,16. Παρῃ- 
 THT ATO μὴ reamnetiuens αὐτοῖς λόγον, εν prayed that not 
 a word more might be added.” Παραιτεῖσθαι signi- 
 fies to deprecate ‘(as αἰτεῖσθαι, to seek): and verbs of 
 such a sense are often followed by a μὴ pleonastic. 
 Such appears to be the true ratio of the expression ; 
 though most Interpreters take the wapyr. in the 
 sense to pray. 
 
 Τὸ διαστελλόμενον, the solemn edict, the forbidding 
 them to touch the mount, Exod. 19, 22. The words 
 following show the cause of their fear, namely, the 
 awful and mysterious sanctity of that ‘place, which 
 not even a beast might touch without being put to 
 death. The words ἢ βολίδι κατατοξευθήσεται are not 
 found in the best MSS., Versions, and Fathers ; and 
 having the appearance of coming from the margin. 
 
 21. καὶ, οὕτω---εἶπεν. I would point thus: καὶ, 
 οὕτω---φανταϑόμιενον. ‘The εἶπεν is thought by Ro- 
 senm. to refer to Moses’s thoughts; or it may (he 
 adds) be understood of the action. It must (I shoukd 
 
558 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. 
 
 conceive), at least, refer to the uttering of the words 
 following, at least to himself. Compare Job 4, 14. 
 Τὸ φανταϑόμιενον, the appearance, viz. of the fire, thun- 
 der, thick darkness, &c. The general sense con- 
 tained in the whole passage is as follows: ‘“ You 
 have not embraced a religion in which your approach 
 
 is‘encircled with such ineffable terrors.” 
 
 22—24. The Apostle now compares the economy of the Old Tes- 
 tament with that of the New, and the happiness of those who live 
 under the New Dispensation, (Dind.) It is of most importance 
 here to attend to the points of contrast here marked out, which are 
 skilfully stated by Theophyl. thus: ‘* They did not approach, as we 
 do, but stood afar off. Instead of Sinai, we have the spiritual 
 Mount Sion, the spiritual Jerusalem, i.e. heaven iiself, and not, as 
 they had, the desert. [Sols. 51, 3. ‘ will make her desert like the 
 garden of the Lord.” Edit.] Instead of the people, we have myriads 
 of angels. Instead of fear, joy (for that is implied by the ravny.).” 
 And Rosenm., contrasting the two Dispensations, says: “ἢ Mount 
 Sion King David had his palace; in the heavenly city Jesus Christ 
 hath his. Jerusalem was called ἱερόπολις ; but with better reason 
 is heaven called the πόλις Geos.” 
 
 The 2érros—raynyiper is, by Carpzov and Slade, joined with 
 μυρίασὶν ἀγγέλων. And this is supported by the antient Interpre- 
 ters, and seems the true construction. Παγήγυρις 18 often used in 
 the Classical writers to denote a general assembly of a whole people, 
 which, in antient times (in the Grecian states, and their Asiatic, 
 Italian, and other colonies), was drawn together by games and festi- 
 vals, sometimes annual, and sometimes quadrennial. Hence the 
 term came to be applied to the solemn assemblages of the Israelites 
 at Jerusalem on the celebration of the feasts. It answers to the 
 Heb. 1x10 (a feast) at Hos. 2, 11.; and is explained by Hesych. 
 ἑορτὴ. Here it may either denote the general assemblage, or the 
 place of assemblage. . 
 
 The πρωτοτόκων is, by some, explained of the Apostles. But it 
 may also denote all those personages eminent for their faith and 
 virtue; since the word, though properly used of those who are dear 
 as a first-born, yet extended to all to whom might be applied the’ 
 term carissimus. Indeed, the phrase following ἐν οὐρανοῖς ἀπογε- 
 γραμμένων seems exegetical of the preceding. On the force of azoy. | 
 see the note on Luke 2, 1. Kai κριτῇ---τετελειωμένων. It is rightly 
 remarked by Rosenm., that, from the context, it is plain κριτῇ de- 
 notes judge, not in its harsher acceptation, of one denouncing 
 punishments, or of a legislator, at whose presence on Mount Sinai 
 even Moses trembled (see ver. 21.) ; but in that milder sense in 
 which the term is used at 10, 30. and 2 Tim. 4, S. And so our 
 Poet, ‘“‘ Thus the great judge, with equal eye o’er all,” &c. So 
 also at Matt. 12, 23. κρινονία is explained, by the best Commenta- 
 tors, as simply denoting pre-eminence over,” &c. (where see the. 
 note.) In the τετελειωμένω» there is an agonistical metaphor, used | 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ. 559 
 
 of those who have attained the great end (τέλος) of their exertions, 
 the prize. See Phil. 3, 12. Theophyl. explains ταῖς ψυχαῖς τῶν 
 εὐδοκιμησάντων καὶ τελείων φανέντων παρὰ Θεῷ. So Doddr.: jus- 
 tified before God, sanctified in their natures, and holy in their lives.’ 
 The term is used of our Lord’s exaltation to glory at 7, 28: Here 
 it is applied to denote that blessed state to which the disembodied 
 spirits of the righteous may be permitted to attain before the resur- 
 rection (for τετελειωμένων is, as Schleus, says, for rerehewwpéva) ; 
 and it is used, by anticipation, of the τέλος, or prize, destined to re- 
 ward their labours. See Slade and Hallet. 
 
 To this glorious assemblage, which he so beautifully figures, the 
 Apostle finally adds καὶ διαθήκης:---ἰΑβελ. In which words there is 
 some obscurity arising from what Doddr, calls a transposition of 
 what one should have thought the most natural order here. This 
 he rightly ascribes to the rapturous manner in which St. Paul con- 
 ceived of these things, and his fulness of matter when he touched 
 upon them. Rosenm. here supposes an hendiadis, and renders: “ Ad 
 Jesum, qui novum foedus sanxit piaculo sanguinis sui,” &c. After 
 all that has been said, L must assent to the opinion of those eminent 
 Critics who think that παρὰ τὸν ᾿Αβὲλ may signify, ‘ better than 
 (the blood of) ΔΕ]. Which is quite agreeable to the popular 
 style, and is countenanced by the antients. Some MSS., indeed, 
 read τὸ ᾿Αβὲλ, se. αἷμα τοῦ ᾿Αβὲλ, but perhaps by a gloss. The 
 αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ adverts to that ceremonial sprinkling by the blood 
 of Christ in the New Covenant, by which our hearts (as the Apostle 
 said, supra 10, 12.) are “" sprinkled from an evil conscience,” and 
 we are liberated from the penalty of sin. So Theophyl.: Td yap 
 αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ῥαντισθὲν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ἀκάθαρε καὶ ἡγίασε. Thesense 
 of κρείττονα λαλεῖ παρὰ τὸν ᾿Αβὲλ is clear from Gen. 4, 10., cited 
 by Theophyl., who adduces the following exposition of Cyril: τὸ 
 μὲν αἷμα τοῦ ᾿Αβὲλ, κατεκράγει τοῦ φονευτοῦ" τὸ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν λαλεῖ πρὸς τὸν αὐτοῦ πατέρα. See Rosenm., who com- 
 pares 2 Macc. 8, 4.,and explains: ‘ The blood of Abel calls for ven- 
 geance, whereas that of Christ for remission of sins ; Christ inter- 
 cedes for us, and saves us everlastingly.” 
 
 25,20. βλέπετε μὴ παραιτήσασθε τὸν λαλοῦντα, B 
 παραιτ. is meant excuse yourselves from listening to, 
 reject, refuse to hear. Λαλοῦντα, ““ him that so 
 speaketh,” namely, better things than Abel. For 
 the λαλοῦντα is rightly referred by the antients to 
 Christ ; though by some moderns it is understood of 
 God. Ei γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι----ἀποστρεφόμενοι, ““ For if they 
 did not escape punishment who on earth rejected 
 him that spake unto them, how much less shall we, 
 if we despise him who speaketh from heaven. By 
 the ἐκεῖνοι---παραιτησάμενοι are meant the stiff-necked 
 and ever unbelieving Israelites. By the τὸν γρημα- 
 
560 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. 
 
 rigovra is meant Moses. The term ypyper. signifies 
 to promulgate Divine oracles, as Moses did the Law 
 at Mount Sinai. So supra, 8, 5. καθὼς κεχρημάτισται 
 Μωσῆς" and 11, 7. χρηματισθεὶς, &c. And so Jose- 
 phus very fr equently. Tov ἀπ᾽ οὐρανών, scil. χρημα- 
 τίβοντα. This, Rosenm. says, is for χρηματίσαντα. 
 But Jesus Christ may be said to address men from 
 heaven by his Gospel, and will continue to do so to 
 the end of the world. ᾿Αποστρεφόύμενοι, turn away 
 from, reject. 
 
 26. οὗ ἡ Φωνὴ τὴν γὴν ἐσάλευσε τότε, ““ Whose (ie 
 the Messiah’s) voice shook the earth,” i. e. the mount. 
 See Exod. 19, 18. Nov δὲ ἐπήγγελται, ““ but he hath 
 promised, saying (namely in Hage. 2, 6.), Yet once, 
 and again, I shake not only the earth, but also the 
 heaven.” The νῦν, Rosenin. observes, is to be taken 
 absolutely, i.e. in the sense of quod attinet ad pre- 
 sentia tempora. ‘Phe éryyy. may be understood 
 rather of solemn declaration than promise; though as 
 the thing declared is good in respect to the persons 
 addressed, therefore the term has both propriety and 
 elegance. It is agreed on by the best Commenta- 
 tors, that the highly figurative language of the Pro- 
 phet must be understood as predictive of that total 
 alteration, and thorough reformation in religion by 
 the promulgation of the Gospel, and which was also 
 brought to pass in that very age.* Of this metaphor 
 examples are cited by Pierce. See also the note of 
 Whitby. 
 
 Q7. τὸ δὲ---σαλευομένα, “ Now that yet once indi- 
 cates a change of the things which have been put in 
 commotion, inasmuch as they are so made that those 
 which are not shaken remain.” It is observed, bv 
 Rosenm., that we usually say ἔτι ἅπαξ, when we are 
 planning something great and hitherto unheard of. 
 
 * So Rosenm., who thus explains: ‘‘ Magnas, inquit, antehae- 
 feci mutationes; sed restat lunge major. Ila verba—commovebo 
 coelum, terram, maria, omnesque nationes—indicant: efficiam maxi- 
 mami orbis terrarum conversionem et revolutionem, sic ut omnes 
 nationes ad Messiam veniant.” 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. 561 
 
 But perhaps the phrase may also denote some change 
 of order or system that shall be unalterable: for the 
 ἅπαξ may mean once for all. The τὰ σαλευόμενα is, 
 by the best Interpreters, taken to denote the Mosaic 
 economy, shaken to the centre and entirely abro- 
 gated by Christ: and consequently the τὰ μὴ car. 
 will denote the system which succeeded to it, and 
 which will be unalterable until the final consumma- 
 tion of all things. And so Rosenm. Other inter- 
 pretations (though, I think, less probable ones) of 
 this dark passage may be seen in Theophyl. and 
 Dind. See also Slade. 
 
 28, 29. διὸ βασιλείαν---εὐλαβείας, ‘ Having, there- 
 fore, received an unchangeable and unalienable king- 
 dom,” &c. ‘This, again, is spoken by anticipation, 
 at least in its full sense, namely, the fruition of 
 eternal felicity. Rosenm. would take παραλαμβά- 
 vores for παραληψόμενοι. But this is unnecessary. 
 For the being put into a state of salvation is often 
 designated under the same image as salvation itself. 
 See Rev. 1, 6. 5, 10. Luke 12, 82., &c. Or by 
 receiving a kingdom may be meant, being received 
 into the Messiah’s kingdom, which had already com- 
 menced, and which will continue to the end of the 
 world. "ἔχωμεν χάριν is a phrase of no little diffi- 
 culty. Rosenm. and Dind. explain it, “ let us give 
 thanks.” But that yields a weak and inapposite 
 sense. I prefer, with the antients and most moderns, 
 to take χάριν in the sense grace; and éy. for xartey., 
 “let us hold fast,” &c. - Others interpret, “let us so 
 have it as to use it.” But that is included in the 
 interpretation just detailed. Εὐαρέστως, acceptably. 
 Μετὰ aidous καὶ εὐλαβείας, ““ with deep reverence and 
 fear (of offending him).” Or there may be an hen- 
 diadis. _I would compare Polyzn. 1, 16. θειοτέρω 
 φόβω. ‘The next words assign a reason for the 
 εὐλαβ. ; and are taken from Deut. 4, 24. The force 
 of the metaphor is truly awful; and the sense (as 
 Grot. remarks) is, that God is no less angry with 
 Christians who sin than he. was with the Jsraelites 
 
 VOL. VIII. 20 
 
562 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII, -XIII. 
 
 when they sinned ; and those whom He overtakes 
 He can easily, like a consuming fire, bring to perdi- 
 tion. This is meant, Theophyl. observes, not only 
 to alarm the wicked, but console the suffering and 
 oppressed righteous ; inasmuch as they have a God 
 who is able thus to consume their enemies. 
 
 CHAP. XIII. 
 
 Verse 1, 2. Having brought forward what forms 
 the principal subject of the Epistle, he now con- 
 cludes, with subjoining certain precepts, and com- 
 mences with charity, as being the mother of all other 
 virtues. (Hardy.) : 
 
 1. ἡ φιλαδελφία μενέτω, “ Let mutual love among 
 Christian brethren continue to be cultivated.” Com- 
 pare Rom. 12,10. ‘The practice among Christians 
 of calling each other by the endearing name of bro- 
 ther seems to have been derived from the custom of 
 the Jews. It is observed by Theophyl., that the 
 Apostle does not say acquire the virtues of Φιλαδελ- 
 dia and φιλοξενία ; for learned them they had: but, 
 amidst their peculiar dangers, they might be remiss 
 in the practice of them. Hence the propriety of the 
 μενέτω, 1. 6. ἑδραία ἔστω. 
 
 As closely connected with the above virtue, and 
 the chief evidence of it, the Apostle then inculcates 
 Φιλοξενία. In the μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε there is a sort of 
 Hebrew idiom not uncommon. It imports the being 
 continually alive to, and studious of. From the close 
 connexion of φιλοξενία and φιλαδελφία we may sup- 
 pose that the strangers here meant are Christian stran- 
 gers. Now the argument with which this admoni- 
 tion is strengthened is taken from Gen. 18 & 19., as 
 showing the reward of the virtue in question. Ro- 
 senm. states it thus: ‘* We may often chance to en- 
 tertain guests of far greater consequence than at first 
 sight they may have appeared to be. Hence the re- 
 wards of such hospitality will be greater than they ~ 
 would seem.” It is remarked, by Julian ap. Wets., 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. 563 
 
 that nothing so much tended to the growth of Chris- 
 tianity as the practice of hospitality among Chris- 
 tians one to another. 
 
 3. μιμνήσκεσθε---σώματι. The idiom in μιμν. is 
 like that in μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε just before. The decpiay 
 must, like the φιλαδ. and φιλοξ., be understood of 
 Christians in bonds (namely, for the Gospel’s sake). 
 ‘Qs συνδεδεμένοι, “as if you were suffering the same 
 evils.” So the Virgilian, ‘* Haud ignara mali miseris 
 succurrere disco;” and Achill. Tat. 7. p. 419. ἐγὼ 
 δὲ ὁ ἄθλιος, οὔτε αὐτὸν ἰδὼν, οὔτε ἔργου τινος κοινωνήσας ἢ 
 λόγου, συναπηγόμιην αὐτῷ δεδεμένος, ὡς τοῦ ἔργου κοινωνός. 
 
 3. τῶν κακουχουμένων, ““ the afflicted and mal- 
 treated.” In the ὄντες ἐν σώμαπι there is a Hebraism 
 for ἄνθρωποι ὄντες. Yet Rosenm. cites from Porphyr. 
 de abst. 38. τὶ δεινὸν ἦν, ἐν σώματι εἶναι; On this 
 and the following verse the Philological Commenta- 
 tors adduce numerous Classical citations ; but they 
 omit to notice that the strong argument to succour 
 human distress, from the recollection that we our- 
 selves are men, and exposed to like calamities, is 
 frequent in the Classical writers, in whom it is 
 usually expressed by ἄνθρωπον ὄντα. 
 
 4. τίμιος---- Θεός. At τίμιος 6 γάμος there is an 
 ellipsis either of ἐστι, or rather ἔστω, as the best 
 Critics are agreed; and this is more agreeable to 
 what precedes and what follows. The κοιτὴ is syno- 
 nymous with the γάμος in the former clause of this 
 parallelism. ᾿Εν πᾶσιν is, by Dind., taken as a mas- 
 culine for inter omnes, i.e. both the single and mar- 
 ried: by others, as a neuter, with the subaudition of 
 πράγμασι, omni ex parte. And this ellipsis I find 
 supplied in Dinarch. 94, 34. ἀχθομένη τοῖς παροῦσι 
 πράγμασι. But the former method is approved by 
 the most eminent Commentators, and seems more 
 agreeable to what follows. 
 
 4. κοίτη ἀμίαντος (scil. ἔστω), “let it be kept pure, 
 holy, inviolate, and unpolluted by adultery.” If ἔστι 
 
 » be supplied in the former clause, the sense will be 
 
 this : ‘* Marriage is in all respects honourable, and the 
 202 
 
564 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. - 
 
 bed is without defilement.” The ἀμίαντος will then de- 
 note that which is not liable to censure, nor morally 
 evil. Now the errors even of that early age might 
 make it not improper for the Apostle to inculcate 
 this truth.* It is, however, not improbable that the 
 sentence is purposely left doubtful, in order that both 
 the above senses might be included. 
 
 ἹΚρινεῖ is for κατακρινεῖ. This’ the Apostle de- 
 nounces not only against adultery, but fornication, 
 which leads to it. How different from the Grecian 
 sages and legislators, who tolerated simple fornica- 
 tion, as tending to preserve the virtue of married 
 women! Rosenm. observes, that when it is said 
 God shall judge, it is suggested that he will punish 
 even those violaters of purity who escape the world’s 
 judgment, or are not punished by human laws. 
 
 ὅ, 0. ἀφιλάργυρος---παροῦσιν. To the mention of 
 fleshly lusts is aptly subjoined that of the heartless 
 avarice which is usually found in the votaries of sen- 
 suality. Tpéros, for τρόποι, mores. Though the 
 singular is found in good authors, as Plato, and his 
 imitator Philo. The ellipses here are ἔτω anyre. 
 On ἀρκ. I have before treated. Τοῖς παροῦσιν, 561}. 
 χρήμασι, “ such means as are in your possession 
 (without excessive anxiety after what is not so).” 
 The παροῦσιν, too, has a notion of what is present, 
 in opposition to what is future. And this sense is 
 here very suitable. Wets. well paraphrases : “ Ne 
 anxii sint, sed officium facientes futura Deo com- 
 mendent, mediocribus interim contenti.”. Among 
 his numerous Classical citations are Justin 3, 1, 6. 
 Bacabasum, qui presenti statu contentus rem prodit 
 Artaxerxi. Phocylid. 4. ᾿Αρκεῖσθαι παρέουσι, καὶ ἀλ- 
 λοτρίων ἀπέχεσθαι. To which I add D. Cass. 253, 
 77. τοῖς παροῦσιν ἀρκεσθήσομαι" & 324, 26. τῇ παρούσῃ 
 
 * Even among the Heathens, it may be observed, marriage was 
 considered. not as a civil compact but as a religious ceremony. 
 Thus Thucyd. 1, 15,6. reckons this among the τὰ ἱερὰ, where the 
 Scholiast annotates thus: καὶ γὰρ ὁ γάμος ἱερός. And Duker refers 
 to Spanh. Dissert. 11, de Nummis, p. 292. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. 565 
 
 καταστάσει dex. Xen. Cyr. 2, 1, 6. ἀρκεῖ μοι τὰ πα- 
 ρόντα. Joseph. 858, 29. τοῖς παροῦσιν ἀρκών ἦν. Di- 
 narch. 94, 84. ἀχθομένη τοῖς παροῦσι πράγμασι. 
 
 Αὐτὸς, i.e. Θεὸς, just before. But the Hebrews 
 sometimes use N17 in like manner. ‘The words are 
 from Joh. 1, 6.; though similar ones are found in 
 Deut. 31, 6. 1 Paral. 28, 20. The words following 
 are from Ps. 118, 6., in which ἄνθρωπος is emphatic, 
 and signifies men. The passage is (as Rosenm. ob- 
 serves) very suitable to the Christians, who, for reli- 
 gion’s sake, were often deprived of their property. 
 
 7. μνημονεύετε τών ἡγουμένων ὑμών. ‘The Apostle 
 exhorts them to imitate the example of their spi- 
 ritual pastors, and those who have furthered their 
 Christian instruction. The ἡγουμ. will denote 
 Christian teachers of every kind, both Bishops, 
 Presbyters, and Deacons. See Luke 22, 26. Acts 
 15. 22. “Ὧν ἀναθεωροῦντες---πίστιν, “ surveying, atten- 
 tively considering the end and result of whose con- 
 duct, imitate their faith.” The ave is intensive; for 
 the term (as Theoph. observes) contains a metaphor 
 taken from painting, in which the pupils steadily 
 survey the archetype of their master. ᾿Αναστροφῆς 
 manner of life, conduct. So Theophyl. πολιτείας. 
 Compare 1 Tim, 4,12. James 3,12. 1 Pet. 4, 15 and 
 18. So Job. 4, 19. ἐν πάση ἀναστροῷῃ. And so not 
 unfrequently in the Classical writers. Τέλος denotes 
 the result, namely, the being liberated from the evils 
 of this world, and received to the fruition of the joys 
 of another and a better. In the next words μιμεῖσθε 
 τὴν πίστιν the Apostle adverts to that principle which 
 would enable them to show such examples of con- 
 stancy and of virtue. See Theophyl. 
 
 8. ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς---αἰῶνας. 1 agree with Mr. Slade, 
 that these words are to be referred both to the pre- 
 ceding and the following verses, and be understood 
 of the nature and object of their faith, as well as of 
 doctrines of their religion. This is supported by the 
 expositions of the antient Commentators. See Theoph.. 
 It-is observed by Rosenm., that the formula χθὲς καὶ 
 
566 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. 
 
 σήμερον answers to the Hebr. ΘΠ ὩΣ byan-"pa at 
 Exod. 5, 14. uéi olim, ita et nunc. Compare Gen. 31, 
 2, and Sir. 38, 14. 
 
 9. διδαχαῖς --- περιφέρεσθε, ** Be not hurried and 
 tossed about with various and strange doctrines.” 
 Some -MSS. read zapad., which many eminent 
 Critics prefer. The sense will then be, “ carried 
 out of your course.” But this, as the subject here is 
 instability, not apostacy, is less apposite. Whereas 
 περιφέρεσθαι signifies to be tossed to and fro, and so 
 to go no where. Besides, the common reading is 
 strongly confirmed by the parallel expression at Eph. 
 4, 14. pyjkeri—mepiepopevor παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκα- 
 λίας. Other reasons for retaining it may be seen 
 in Ern. 
 
 The ξέναις is thought by the best Commentators 
 to have reference to the doctrines of the Judaizers: 
 but it may advert to all doctrines at variance with the 
 Christian verity. Καλὸν γὰρ---περιπαθήσαντες. ‘The 
 καλὺν----οὐ is by some taken to be equivalent to melius 
 est. But this seems an unnecessary refinement. Be- 
 βαιοῦσθαι τὴν καρδίαν is explained by Rosenm., as a 
 Hebraism answering to 1? TD, se recreare, Gen. 18, 
 5.; and he renders it support and comfort. Xeapiri 
 denotes the Gospel, the doctrine of salvation by 
 grace, without the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law; 
 as is plain from the antithetical βρώμασι, which de- 
 notes the meat offerings of the Mosaic Law, which 
 some wished to be with the Christian Eucharistical 
 sacrifices. Iepimareiv here, as often, denotes habi- 
 tual practice of. 
 
 Others regard the καλὸν---καρδίαν as parenthetical, 
 and lay down a somewhat different, but not (I think) 
 so apt a sense. 
 
 10. ἔχομεν---λατρεύοντες. Sequitur locus propter 
 adhibitas allegorias satis tortuosus atque molestus, 
 in quo scriptor phantasiz sue vividitati admodum 
 indulgens ab una sententia in aliam, etsi maximé 
 semotam, transiliire non dubitat. Namque quum 
 autea dixisset, eos, qui ciborum discrimen observas. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. 567 
 
 sent, nihil inde utilitatis cepisse: nunc mortem 
 Christi, quia nonnulla sacrificia in cibum aliis cede- 
 bant, cum sacrificio confert, sed eo maximé impedi- 
 tum locum reddit, et perplexum. (Dind.) 
 
 The θυσιαστήριον is by some interpreted of Christ ; 
 by others, of the Eucharistical table ; by others again, 
 of the doctrine of the Gospel; and by others, of Di- 
 vine worship. ‘The first and second interpretations 
 seem to most deserve the preference: but I agree 
 with Dind., Rosenm., and Mackn., who suppose it 
 put, by metonymy, for the victim itself, i. e. Christ, 
 who was offered up for our sins; which offering is 
 commemorated in the sacrament. ’E& οὗ φαγεῖν---- 
 λατρεύοντες, “‘Christians have their victim, but of 
 which they are not authorized to eat, who are at- 
 tached to the tabernacle (worship), as are the Ju- 
 daizers.” Such is the sense laid down by the best 
 modern Commentators. See Dind. and Rosenm. 
 Now the reason is plainly this, that by placing salva- 
 tion on the ground of works, instead of grace, they 
 deprive themselves of the benefit of Christ’s sacrifice. 
 This is especially illustrated in the Epistle to the 
 Galatians and Ephesians. 
 
 11,12. Ὧν γὰρ, &c. In these words the Apostle 
 assigns a reason why to those attached to the Jewish 
 rites it is not permitted to enjoy the benefit of that 
 victim which Christians derive from it; namely, be- 
 cause they despise and regard him in no other light 
 than as a man deservedly brought to an ignominious 
 punishment. He adds, that at this no Christian 
 ought to stumble ; for it was expedient that our vic- 
 tim should, in this respect too, be like unto those 
 offered up by the High Priests. The whole passage 
 is allegorical. All the words in these verses are op- 
 posed to each other; αἷμα ϑώων and αἷμα ἴδιον Xoic- 
 τοῦ" ᾿Αρχιερεὺς O. T. and Jesus, ἀρχιερεὺς μέγας τῆς 
 ὁμολογίας: Κατακαίειν and πάσχειν" ἔξω τῆς παρεμβο- 
 λῆς, and ἔχω τῆς πύλης. As in sacrifices περὶ ἁμαρ- 
 τίας the victims were burnt, ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς, so 
 Christ was nailed to the cross ἔξω τῆς πύλης, accord- 
 
568 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. 
 
 ing tocustom. See Levit. 16, 2, 13, seq. 4, 16—18. 
 5—7. On the burning of victims, whose blood was 
 brought into the holy place, or Sanctum Sanctorum, 
 see Levit. 16, 27. 4, 21,11. s. 6, 23. Now in this 
 respect was Christ made like unto these victims, 
 namely, that he suffered without the gates of Jeru- 
 salem. But by his blood he really expiated the peo- 
 ple. Christians enjoy the victim, 1. e. the benefits of 
 Christ, who died for our sins; whereas the Jews, 
 who reject Jesus and his sacrifice, are not permitted 
 so to do. (Rosenm.) See also Whitby, Wells, and 
 Slade. 
 
 13. τοίνυν----ζέροντες, “ Wherefore let us go out of 
 the camp to him, and bear the ignominy shown to 
 him,” i. e. let us, after his example, patiently bear 
 the insults, persecutions, and anathemas of the Jews, 
 and, in a general way, whatever evil is to be endured 
 for Christ and his religion.” Now to gooué with him, 
 is to bring ourselves to the same mind as that with 
 which he went thither; and so to consider what he 
 there suffered for us, as to feel unshaken attachment 
 to his religion. Such is the sense as laid down by 
 the best antient and modern Interpreters. See 
 Chrys., Theophyl., Dind., and Rosenm. The ἔξω 
 πύλης is explained by Theophyl. ἔξω κόσμου, i. 6. the 
 vanities and vices of the world. 
 
 14. οὐ γὰρ---ἐπιϑητοῦμεν. This is, as Theophy]l. 
 observes, probatory, and meant to indicate the rea- 
 son, ἕο. (See Dind.) And he explains: ‘‘ we have 
 in this world no permanent abode (nay not even the 
 worldis such). We ought therefore to fly from it, 
 and run to that city which is to come, even heaven.” 
 The μέλλουσαν, as Ern. observes, involves the idea of 
 eternity. It is remarked by Carpz., that there is 
 here an allusion to what was said of Abraham, 11, 
 8—16., who looked to the πόλιν μέλλουσαν. The 
 ἐπιϑητοῦμιεν is emphatical, i. 6. “we have to seek.” 
 
 15. δι’ αὐτοῦ ody—adrov. From the whole passage, 
 especially 9—11. the Apostle deduces this exhorta- 
 tion: ‘‘ Wherefore celebrate God with hymns, and 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. 569 
 
 tell forth his benefits with a grateful mind.” He, 
 however, employs the sacrificial image, yet in his 
 mind; and means to say, that as the old Priesthood 
 is abolished, and fleshly sacrifices no longer to be 
 offered, we are to have recourse to spiritual ones, 
 literally, immolate hymns to God, as if sacrifices. 
 Now that the Jews made much of external divine 
 worship consist in sacrifices, and so represented va- 
 rious things, as penitence, prayer, alms, and hospi- 
 tality, under that image, has been shown and exem- 
 plified by Schoettg., Wets., Heinr., ἕο. (Dind.) 
 
 15. δι’ αὐτοῦ. Some render “ because of him.” And 
 so Ern.: “ propter Christum.” But I prefer, with 
 most antients and moderns, “through him (i. e. 
 Christ,) as our Mediator.” The θυσία ἀνέσεως an- 
 swers to the Hebr. TWN M3} at Lev. 7, 12. So Philo 
 842. (cited by Carpz.) tells us what this is, adding 
 that αἰνέσεως denotes ὕμνους, εὐδαιμονισμοὺς, θυσίας καὶ 
 ἄλλας εὐχαριστίας πρὸς τὸν τὰ ἀγαθὰ δωρούμενον. 
 
 15. καρπὸν χειλέων ὁμολουγούντων τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ. 
 This phrase is from Hos. 14, 2. where the Sept. de- 
 duce 5 from 5, not 1B, a calf. The sense is: 
 ‘“‘ whatever proceeds from the lips and mouth.” So 
 Rosen. Schleus. takes the καρπὸν χειλέων for λόγον. But 
 this will be too much paring down the sense. ‘The 
 whole passage may be thus translated: “ Through 
 him (i. e. Jesus Christ,) let us continually offer 
 up (not the bloody sacrifice of animals, nor the vain 
 oblations of the fruits of the earth,) the sacrifice of 
 praise to God, even the fruit (or oblation) of lips, 
 celebrating his name.”* Ὁμολογεῖν here, as often, 
 
 * So Justin Martyr, Greg., Naz., Chrys., Clem. Alex., Euseb., and 
 others cited by Suic. Thes. Eccl, 1, 1425. truly observe, that God 
 requires nothing but the sacrifices (bloodless ones) of pious praise. 
 It is strange that Pococke should render the words, “ the calves of 
 our lips :’’ a very harsh interpretation, and founded in error; for in 
 the former member of the sentence the Apostle has reference to the 
 bloody, but in the latter, to the bloodless sacrifices of the Mosaic 
 Law. Compare Hos. 14, 3. and Is. 57,19. A similar mode of 
 expression occurs in Pind, Isthm. 8, 101. ἐπέων δὲ καρπὸς ov κατέφ- 
 Ove, and Pind. Pyth. 2, 184, φρενῶν ἔλαχε καρπὸν. See Blomf. on 
 Eschyl. Theb. 614. 
 
570 HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ. 
 
 signifies to laud and celebrate. ‘Thus (Rosenm. ob- 
 serves) the Hebr. NWMis rendered by ἐξομολογεῖν and 
 αἰνεῖν. 
 
 16. τῆς δὲ---ὖὸ Θεός. The εὐποιίας is used κατ᾽ ἐξο- 
 χὴν to denote beneficence and charity ; and κοινωνίας 
 (which signifies the making others partakers of our 
 goods) is added exegetically, or to strengthen the 
 sense. Hence may be emended a passage of Ar- 
 temid. 2, 14. p. 166. πρὸς κοινωνίαν εἰσι ἀγαθοὶ, διὰ τὴν 
 πρὸς ἀλλήλους κοινωνίαν καὶ εὐνοίαν, for which I conjec- 
 ture εὐποίαν. In these words the Apostle adheres to 
 the same metaphor, or allegory, as at the former verse, 
 where see the note. On εὐραρεστεῖται, (which signi- 
 fies, “is well pleased,”) it is observed by Rosenm. : 
 ‘¢ Graecorum mos est, passiva formare et cum Nomi- 
 nativo construere, non minus ab Activis Dativum, 
 quam Accusativum regentibus.” 
 
 17. πείθεσθε---ἀποδώσοντος. It is plain that wed. 
 and tre. are expressions denoting to obey, show re- 
 verence to. The words αὐτοί---ἀποδώσοντος are by 
 Rosenm. considered to be parenthetical. But that is 
 not necessary. It should rather seem that the whole 
 passage is highly elliptical ; and it may be rendered 
 thus: ‘* They watch over your souls, and act (or 
 ought to act) as those who must give an account, 
 (and careful should you be) that they may do this 
 (i.e. give this account) with satisfaction, and not 
 with grief; for that were unprofitable and evil for 
 you (as well as for them).” Such appears to be the 
 complete sense; though the Commentators are not 
 quite agreed. It is well observed by Theodoret, that 
 the Apostle here enjoins on the disciples obedience 
 to their teachers, and at the same time reminds the 
 latter of their awful responsibility. Jor the λόγον 
 ἀποδώσοντες suggests the reward, or punishment (as 
 the case may be), which must result from the account 
 they have to give of their stewardship. rev. is a 
 very strong term, denoting deep seated grief. In 
 ἀλυσιτελὲς there is a common litotes. The ὑμῖν is 
 emphatical ; and the force of the ἀλυσιτ. is well 
 pointed out by Owen and Doddr. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. 571 
 
 18, 19. προσεύχεσθε περὶ τἡἡμιῶν ---- ἀναστρέφεσθαι, 
 ** Pray for us; for we trust we merit it by having a 
 good conscience, in all things wishing to act righte- 
 ously and holily.” ‘This, Rosenm. observes, glances 
 at the Jewish teachers, who had calumniated him, 
 and raised disturbances among the Christian bre- 
 thren. ‘The sense of the next-words is plain. The 
 humility as well as piety contained in this and the 
 preceding verse is truly edifying. ᾿Αποκαταστ. signi- 
 fies here, to be restored for the various purposes of 
 Evangelical instruction. From these words, Rosenm. 
 observes, it does not follow that he was then in 
 bonds; but rather being released from prison, he 
 waits for Timothy as the companion of his journey 
 (ver. 23). 
 
 20, 21. ὁ δὲ Ocis—Tyoodv, ‘ May God, the author 
 of peace and every kind of happiness, who raised 
 from the dead the great and supreme Shepherd of 
 the sheep (i. e. the Lord of all Christians), by the 
 blood of the everlasting covenant (offered by that 
 great Intercessor), may He perfect you in every 
 good work, to the doing of his will (and in order 
 thereto), working in you what is well pleasing in his 
 sight, &c. The use of ποιμὴν to denote supreme 
 head, is common even in the Classical writers, from 
 Homer downwards. The ἐν αἵματι διαθηκῆς αἰωνίου 
 strongly inculcates the doctrine of the Atonement. 
 Karaprigw signifies properly to make perfectly sound, 
 ἄρτιος. ‘The ἐν ἔργῳ ἀγαθώ is taken by the best Com- 
 mentators for εἰς ἔργον ἀγοθὸν. So the Hebrews use τῇ 
 
 The above clause εἰς τὸ----αὐτοῦ is closely connected 
 with the preceding: and rawy depends upon καταρ- 
 τίσαι. ΠΟ mode in which this working is effected is 
 explained by the Apostle himself at Phil. 2, 13 and 
 14. where see the note. 
 
 22. ἀνέχεσθε τοῦ λόγου τῆς παρακλήσεως, “ Bear 
 with,” &c. ‘This suggests the idea of profit by; for 
 he who bears with good counsel cannot fail to profit 
 by it. By the λόγου τῆς παρακλήσεως are, of course, 
 meant the hortatory and consolatory parts of the 
 
572 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. 
 
 Epistle. The words καὶ γὰρ----ὑμῖν are elliptical, and 
 signify, ‘for though I could have said much more, 
 and written a large epistle, yet I have been content 
 with this brief admonition.” ᾿Επιστέλλω in the 
 sense fo write an epistle, is very frequent. 
 
 23, 24. Τινώσκετε--- ἀπολελυμένον, “ Know ye that 
 our brother Timothy is set at liberty.” ᾿Απολελυμέ- 
 νον, “ e vinculis in libertatem prodiisse.” Some think 
 ἀπολύεσθαι here signifies proficisci, set off. And thus 
 they render, ‘‘ know that he has set off.” See Noes- 
 selt Opusce. Fascic. 1. p. 28. seq. Oi ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, 
 “ the Italians.” So in Philo Legat. ad Caium οἱ ἀπὸ 
 Ῥώμης are Romans ; oi ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Αλεξανδρείας, Alexan- 
 drines. Now there were many Christians already not 
 only at Rome, but throughout all Italy. (Rosenm.) 
 
573 
 
 EPISTLE OF JAMES. 
 
 WirH respect to the question on the canonical 
 authority of this Epistle, the following are the words 
 of Euseb. L. 2, 23., as translated “by Michaelis : 
 «But it must be observed that this Epistle is now 
 considered as spurious.” ‘This, however, is a very 
 incorrect version. In the original we have ἴστεον δὲ 
 ws νοθεύεται μὲν. Eusebius plainly pronounces his 
 own opinion of the Epistle being spurious, and does 
 not report it as merely that of others. As to the 
 reason assigned by Euseb. for his rejection, namely, 
 because not many of the antients have mentioned it, 
 that appears little satisfactory, nor seems to afford 
 any conclusive argument against the genuineness of 
 this Epistle. 
 
 On the Epistle itself it is observed by Hottinger ap. Jaspis : 
 “* Oratio Jacobi insignem habet δεινότητα, grandis est, vehemens 
 atque incitata, frequens imaginum luminibus et comparationum 
 atque exemplorum luce. Interdum sublimis spiritu poene prophe- 
 tico adsurgit, et sententiarum pondere ac troporum et figurarum 
 ornamentis et sermonis poeticii fulgorem effertur.” Jaspis gives 
 the following plan of the Epistle : “ Jacobus Christianis extra Pa- 
 lestine fines per orbem terrarum dispersis, maximé in Asia Minori, 
 primum graviter injungit patientiam in miseriis fortiter perferendis. 
 Deinde docet, meram religionem Christianam notitiam nihil plane 
 prodesse, nisi facta accesserint ; ad opprimendas pravas cupiditates 
 et peccati illecebras prorsus evitandas admonet, a rixandi studio 
 avocat, et pietatem re et facto maximeé conspicuam inprimis urget, a 
 nugarum temeritate, fastu, invidid et cupiditate in aliis dijudicandis 
 eos deterret, ad mansuetudinem contra, vite integritatem, equali- 
 tatem, et hospitalitatem cohortatur. Tum divitibus superbientibus 
 peenas divinas annuntiat, at pauperum afflictorum animos erigere 
 studet, iisque, si pii perstiterent, auxilium divinum promittit, levita- 
 
STA JAMES, CHAP. I. 
 
 tem quoque in jurando vetat, officia egrotis preescribit, ad preces 
 excitat, quas mirificé valere. Eliz exemplo probat. Tandem spem 
 peccatorum veniz omnibus facit, qui animum ab omni vitio revoca- 
 tum rectissimé confirmaverit, et ad alios emendandos gravissime 
 incitat.” 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Ver. 1. Κυρίου I. X. δοῦλος. Rosenm. observes, 
 that from this expression it cannot be inferred either 
 that James was, or was not of the twelve Apostles. 
 And, on the other hand, from the omission of ἀπόσ- 
 toaos it cannot be concluded that he was ποέ an 
 Apostle. For (as Benson observes) he was writing 
 to persons to whom his qualifications were well 
 known; therefore it was unnecessary to insert it. 
 Thus neither does St. John mention his Apostle- 
 ship, any more than St. Paul in his Epistles to the 
 Philippians, ‘Thessalonians, and to Philemon. 
 
 1. ταῖς δώδεκα Φυλαῖς ταῖς ἕν τῇ διασπορᾷ. The ἐν 
 τῇ διασπορᾷ, 561]. οὔσαις, is for διεσπαρμέναις. It is 
 not agreed whether by these are to be understood 
 the Jews dispersed, or the Jewish Christians. 'The 
 latter is indeed the more probable, though the dis- 
 putants seem to make a distinction without a differ- 
 ence; for although written especially for the use of 
 the latter, it must have been ¢ndirectly intended for 
 the benefit of the former. ‘The same applies to the 
 Epistle to the Romans. (See the introductory matter 
 to that Epistle.) With respect to the formula yai- 
 
 ew, scil. λέγει, bids, this is common both in the 
 Scriptural (see Acts 15, 23. 23, 26. 2 Joh. 11.) and 
 the Classical writers. On its use see Benson, 
 
 2—4, Orditur epistole argumentum, a commendanda Christianis 
 in Asia minore dispersis, iisque doctorum Judaizantium et novatu- 
 rientium insidiis undique perturbatis, malorum patientid, et in- 
 concuss& in religione tenenda constantia. Cui quidem cohortationi 
 ai {ον munit premittenda y. 2, sententia hac: Πᾶσαν χαρὰν, 86. 
 (Pott. 
 
 2. πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε. Wets, renders the πᾶσαν χαρὰν 
 merum gaudium; Pott, impense letandi materiam. Compare Col. 
 
JAMES, CHAP. I. O75 
 
 1, 9—11..1 Tim. 1,15 ἃ 16. Of this use of πᾶς and omnis ex- 
 amples are adduced by Wets. and Hottinger. Carpz., however, 
 takes the πᾶσαν for πάντως. But though this comes to the same 
 thing, yet it seems less exact. Here, of course, there is an ellipsis 
 of εἶναι and τοῦτο. Ὅταν πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις, ‘© when 
 ye fall into various trials and tribulations.” Πειρασμ. is used to 
 denote afflictions of every kind, but especially those which most of 
 all try our religious faith, as persecution for religion’s sake. Ro- 
 senm., however, thinks that St. James especially adverts to the trials 
 of poverty to which the Christians who came as exiles to Antioch, 
 were exposed ; since from this passage on the enduring of adversity 
 he, at ver. 9. seqq. and 2, 1. glides to that of the arrogance of the 
 wealthy. But this seems not a very strong argument; and the 
 speculations of Noesselt and others may very well be dispensed 
 with. On the subject of temptation in genéral, see the notes of 
 Whitby and Mackn., or Slade. On the use here of περιπίπτειν, 
 Pott dilates much. It may be sufficient to say, that the term is used 
 of what is evil (whence it has after it νόσῳ, συμφοραῖς, ἀτυχήμασι, 
 &c.; as may be seen by Wetstein’s examples) ; and is synonymous 
 with éurimre ἐν, or eis; though a stronger expression. 
 
 3. γινώσκοντες ὅτι--οὑπομονὴν, knowing (i. e. mindful) that this 
 exercise or trial of your faith produceth constancy. It is observed 
 by Rosenm.: ‘‘Sicuti auri experimentum (δοκιμον) ignis est, ita 
 Christianam fidem explorat, quicquid ei materiam prebet ad experi- 
 menta sui danda; quo pertinent calamitates. Fides autem sic ex- 
 plorata efficit constantiam, ὑπομονήν. Sienim periculum prospereé 
 cedat, vires ad bonum ipso usu augentur et confirmantur. Vitio 
 tamen hominum sepe accidit, ut res adverse exitum habeant per- 
 niciosum.” The jou. must be understood with the extent of sig- 
 nification assigned to zecpac. just before. 
 
 4. ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω, “ But let constancy pro- 
 duce her perfect effect,” i. 6. ‘“‘show itself by your works ;” for to 
 these St. James every where exhorts. The words following are 
 (as Noesselt remarks) exegetical of the τέλειον, “that ye may be 
 entire and perfect Christians, in nothing deficient.” And so Ben- 
 son, Rosenm., and many eminent Commentators. Others, how- 
 ever, as Luther and Carpz., render: “ Let your constancy endure 
 unto the end; i.e. as long as you live.” Thus (as Rosenm. observes) 
 the ἔργον τέλειον would be an ἀποτετέλεσμα; and therefore would be 
 an agonistical allusion. On perseverance to the end, see 2 Tim, 4, 
 7. This, however, seems not so naturala sense. On the force 
 of ἔργον consult the note of Kypke. 
 
 The following expressions τέλειοι, ὁλόκληροι, and ἐν μηδενὶ λει- 
 πόμενοι, are synonymous (see Tromm. Concord.) but accumulated 
 (as Pott says), propter studium dicendi ; the third being exegetical of 
 the first two, and perhaps containing a metaphor taken from the 
 race course. Storr thinks there is an agonistical allusion. I would 
 compare a similar passage of Isocrat. Panathen. τούτους φημὶ καὶ 
 φρονίμους εἶναι, καὶ τελείους ἄνδρας, καὶ πάσας ἔχειν τὰς ἀρετὰς. 
 TeX. signifies complete, perfect. ᾿Ὁλόκληρος properly denotes one 
 
576 JAMES, CHAP. I. 
 
 who is heir to the whole estate, entirely heir; but it was commonly 
 used to express what is entire, complete, and perfect. The most 
 eminent critics, as Krebs, Loesn., Morus, and Pott recognise an 
 allusion to the Jewish sacrifices, in which the victims were required 
 to be red. ὁλοκλ., and ἀμωμ. See a passage of Philo cited by Hot- 
 tinger. 
 
 5. εἰ δὲ τις ὑμῶν λείπεται σοφίας. On the sense of 
 this very extensive term σοφία, Commentators are 
 not agreed. Grot. and Rosenm. take it to denote 
 prudence in deciding and determining what is to be 
 done according to circumstances ; and this they think 
 is agreeable to what precedes. Others, as Carpz., 
 think it must denote spiritual, or Christian wis- 
 dom, as shown in deeds, or as understood by teachers ; 
 but this is too limited, and unsuitable to the context. 
 The sense is (I think) best laid down by Jaspis thus: 
 sapientia que cernitur in eo, ut quis justa cognitione 
 et recta scientia instructus, de causis et de fructu 
 harum miseriarum rité cogitet, justum pretium rebus 
 externis, quarum jacturam facit, statuat, firma 
 fiducia, preestantiaque animi gaudeat, ut sciat, quid 
 in singulis rebus agendum sit, quod personis, tem- 
 pori, ac loco conveniat. 3,13 & 17. Est sapientia 
 practica. See Mackn. and Doddr. Carpz. remarks 
 on the difference between knowledge and wisdom, 
 citing the Etym. Mag. inv.: Γνώσις Σοφίας διαφέ- 
 ρεται. Γνώσις μὲν ἐστὶ τὸ εἰδέναι τὰ ὄντα. Σοφία de, 
 καὶ τὸ τὰ ὄντα γενώσκειν, καὶ τὰ γνωστὰ πράττειν. 
 
 Διἰτείτω----ἀπλῶς, “ἰοῦ him ask it of God, who 
 giveth (this and all good gifts) to all men abun- 
 dantly.” Such seems to be the true sense: though 
 some take 0:0. absolutely ; as Luke 15,16. Similar 
 sentiments are adduced from the Classical writers 
 by Elsner (as Plut. de Is. and Os. Πάντα μὲν, ὦ ΚΚλέα, 
 δεῖ τ᾽ ἀγαθὰ τοὺς νοῦν ἔχοντας αἰτεῖσθαι παρὰ τών bewy, 
 μάλιστα δὲ τῆς περὶ αὐτων ἐπιστήμης ὅσον ἐφικτὸν ἐστιν 
 ἀνθρώποις μετίοντες εὐχόμεθα τυγχάνειν παρ᾽ αὐτῶν 
 
 " ἐκείνων, ὡς οὐθὲν ἀνθρώπῳ λαβεῖν μεῖξον, οὐ χαρίσασθαι 
 θεῷ σεμνότερον ἀληθείας") and Wets., as ‘Theocrit. Id. 
 17, 137. ἀρετήν γε μὲν ἐκ Διὸς αἴτεν. At πᾶσιν, Com- 
 mentaters seem to have thought some limitation 
 
JAMES, CHAP. I. O77 
 
 necessary. Thus Hardy subjoins: scil. pie et recté 
 petentibus. Rosenm., more regularly thus: κατὰ 
 τὴν αὐτοῦ δόσιν, dat cuique quantum et opus est ac- 
 cipere, Sir. 1,10. But perhaps neither subaudition 
 is necessary. It is simply meant that God is the 
 giver of that and every other perfect gift which he 
 imparts to all men, in various proportions according 
 to his own good pleasure. 
 
 The araws most interpreters render liberally. So 
 the Vulg. affluenter ; and the Syr., liberaliter. Ca- 
 pell. and Carpz. render it benigné, ex bonitate et 
 gratid, which (they observe) is agreeable to what 
 follows. Yet the best of the later interpreters (as 
 Pott and Rosenm.) explain it simpliciter, 1. e. non 
 ambitiosé, jactanter, aut (quod plerumque inter ho- 
 mines sit) in obliquum finem, sed mero studio bene- 
 ficiendi; comparing Rom. 12, 8. ἐν ἁπλότητι μετα- 
 διδόναι. Perhaps both the above senses may be 
 conjoined. 
 
 5. καὶ py ὀνειδίϑοντος. This is variously explained ; 
 either of reproaching men for their importunity, or 
 bestowing gifts in a haughty contumelious manner ; 
 or, not giving them at all. So Morus, Hottingen, 
 and Jaspis. But none of these interpretations (I 
 conceive) can be adopted, as being too limited. 
 The most natural and best founded one seems to be 
 that of some moderns, i. e. ‘* who does not (as men 
 too often do) upbraid others with the benefits con- 
 ferred, and make them irksome and odious by re- 
 iterated recapitulations.” * Such appears to be the 
 sense, on which we are not to seek refinements. 
 
 * Numerous parallel sentiments are adduced by Grot., Elsner, 
 &c. from the Classical writers, of which the most apposite are the 
 following. Philem. καλὼς ποιήσας ov καλῶς ὠνείδισας" ἔργον κα- 
 θεῖλες πλουσίου πτωχῷ λογῳ, καυχώμενος τὸ δῶρον ὃ δέδωκας φίλφῳ' 
 ἔργῳ, στρατηγὸς γέγονας, λόγῳ φίλος. Aristot. Rhet. 2, 6, αἰσχρὰ 
 --καὶ ἃ ἐποίησεν, dveidizew" μικροψυχίας γὰρ πάντα καὶ ταπεινό- 
 τητος σημεῖα. Ver. Andr. 1, 1, 16. Istheee commemoratio quasi 
 exprobratio est immemoris beneficii. Plut. de Adul. p. 64. ‘A 
 πᾶσα μὲν yap ὀνειδιξομένη χάρις ἐπαχθὴς καὶ ἄχαρις. Liv, 5, 44, 
 
 VOL. VIII. 2P 
 
ΕΣ 
 
 578 JAMES, CHAP. I. 
 
 5. καὶ δοθήσεται αὐτῷ. This requires the limitation, 
 *¢ if he ask it,” or, ‘‘ so far as may be necessary for the 
 purpose in view, and according to the good pleasure 
 of God.” 
 
 6. αἰτείτω----διακρινόμενος. “Ev πίστει, ‘a full as- 
 surance,” viz. of God’s power to give it, his benig- 
 nity, and his willingness to bestow it, as far as shall 
 be necessary, and for his real good. It is well ob- 
 served by Whitby, that ‘‘ hence it appears, that this 
 wisdom depends not on our own skill and strength 
 nor can it be attained without divine assistance.” 
 The μηδὲν (sub. κατὰ) διακρ. is exegetical, “ not 
 doubting of the power or benevolence, &c. of the 
 Deity.”” Rosenm. rightly remarks: ‘Sermo est de 
 precibus pro impetrandis bonis ad animi salutem 
 pertinentibus.” The force of διακριν. has been ex- 
 plained at Matt. 21, 21. Mark 11, 23. and Acts 10, 
 20. & 11, 12. compared with Judg. 22. and Sir. 7, 
 10. ‘The sense is here aptly illustrated by a com- 
 parison to a wave of the sea. There is the same 
 metaphor in our verb ¢o waver. 
 
 6. κλύδωνι θαλάσσης. So κλύδων ὕδατος, which is 
 most frequently used without the adjunct. The 
 two terms ave. and ῥιπ., the former of which never 
 occurs in the Classical writers, are nearly synony- 
 mous, and are equivalent to the more usual ones 
 κλυδωνίϑεσθαι and περιφέρεσθαι. It is obvious how 
 applicable this is to the mind of an unstable man, 
 fluctuating between hope and despair. See Pott. 
 
 7, 8. μὴ γὰρ οἰέσθω. It is well remarked by Ro- 
 senm., that these two verses are closely connected ; 
 and, when digested into the usual order, will yield 
 this sense: ‘* Let not such a man, doubtful in mind, 
 and fluctuating in all his actions, think he shall ob- 
 tain any thing of the Lord.” ’Exkejvos is for τοιοῦτος, 
 Λήψεται, shall obtain. ‘The sense of δίψυχος is dis- 
 
 pro tantis pristinis populi Romani beneficiis, quanto ipsi meministis, 
 nec enim exprobranda apud memores sunt, gratie referende. 
 Campare also Thucyd. 2, 40. 5. f. 
 
JAMES, CHAP. I. 579 
 
 cussed with unnecessary minuteness by the philolo- 
 gical Commentators. It is best explained by Ro- 
 senm. (in the words of Q. Curtius) qui nec velle nec 
 nolle quicquam diu potest, quemque modo concilii 
 peenitet, modo pcenitentie ipsius. “Ode, habits, 
 actions, &c. Now fluctuation in mind must produce 
 vacillation in action. 
 
 9—11. The Apostle now, passing from trials in general (of which 
 he has so far been speaking), to a particular kind of trials, exhorts 
 the poor not to suffer themselves to be depressed by their poverty, 
 and the rich not to let themselves be exalted over much by their 
 riches. ( Pott.) 
 
 9. καυχάσθω αὐτοῦ. The sense of these words is somewhat obscure 
 and uncertain. Hence the variety of interpretations. Many 
 moderns take ταπεινὸς in a._physical sense, as ταπεινὸς just before ; 
 and suppose the Apostle adverts first to the case of one reduced to 
 want, and then to that of one stript of his possessions, for religion’s 
 sake. But this is very harsh, and little agreeable to the words fol- 
 lowing. Pott paraphrases thus: ‘ tantum absit ut pauper egestate 
 animum suum infringi patiatur, ut (vel ipsa fortunarum jactura 
 propter religionem facta) dives potius sibi videatur, ac de divitiis 
 suis (verioribus, religionis beneficio sibi partis), glorietur.” And 
 he adds that there is a very similar passage in Prov. 13,7. 3, how- 
 ever, assent to the antients and carly moderns (including Rosenm.), 
 that ὕψει (which is for ὑψώσει) is to be understood of that spiritual 
 elevation to which he that humbleth himself before God, and _ faith- 
 fully serveth him, shall be exalted. Kavy. here denotes simply 
 rejoice. The sense may be thus expressed: ‘‘ Let him console him- 
 self under the distresses and contumelies attendant on poverty, in’ 
 the anticipation of that exaltation which he will one day:receive at 
 the hands of the Lord; an exaltation, indeed, of which he has in his 
 Christian calling ane election already a foretaste.” 
 
 In the words ὁ δὲ πλούσιος ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ, most recent 
 Commentators recognise an irony (and so Rosenm.), or an Oxymos 
 ron; as Jaspis, q. d. ‘* Pet him (if he will) glory in what, ffom 
 their instability and perishableness, might rather raise feelings of 
 humility.” But as ταπεινώσει must be interpreted agreeably to the 
 ὕψει preceding, it should seem to mean: ‘* Let him rather rejoice 
 in those humbling doctrines of the Gospel, whose observance can 
 alone save the rich man, who is encompassed with so many tempta- 
 tions, and whose salvation is so exceedingly difficult.” The words 
 following are merely illustrative of the instability of riches, and 
 require little explanation. It may suffice to say that χόρτος denotes 
 green herbage of every kind, like the Hebr.awy. The ἄνθος χόρ- 
 του is taken, by Hottinger, to denote the herba virens. But this 
 seems refining too much; nor is it agreeable to what follows, since 
 the two words are plainly distinguished ; and it very much detraets 
 from the beauty of the image, which is unfolded in the words fol- 
 lowing. Of this image we have an imitation in Cowper’s Task, Β 3., 
 
 ZPg 
 
580 JAMES, CHAP. I. 
 
 “ All flesh is grass, and all its glory fades 
 «¢ Like the fair flower dishevelled in the wind.” 
 
 The Future is put for the Present, or rather the Aorist, Hebraicé. 
 Upon the whole, it may be well to bear in mind, that there is here 
 an antithetical acuté dictum, and, therefore, the words are not to 
 be too rigourously interpreted. 
 
 11. ἀνέτειλε γὰρ ὃ ἥλιος, &c. It is remarked by Pott that the expli- 
 cation of the imagery passes into a narration of the things; as Ps. 
 103, 16., and some parables of our Lord. Or, as Rosenm. says, the 
 Aorists are put for Presents ; and, as Pott observes, the ἀνέτειλε 
 καὶ ἐξήρανε may be taken as put for dvareidas ἐξήρανε, the yap for 
 ὅτι, like the Hebr. "3, and the συν for ἅμα συν (or rather, 1 would 
 remark, for ἅμα). ‘The καύσωνι is by Benson, Pott, and Rosenm., 
 rightly taken, not for the ὁ ἥλιος καύσων, the meridian sun, but, 
 with an ellipsis of ἄνεμος, for the wind called the Simoom, which 
 usually blows up at sunrise. See also Chardin and Niebuhr, referred 
 to by Pott and Benson in loco. So Jerome, cited by Rosenm. : 
 < Cito flores pereunt, cito violas et crocum pestilens aura corrumpit.” 
 ᾿Εξέπεσε, shrivels. So bprin 15. 28. Εὐπρεπεία, in the Classical 
 writers, has several senses. In the Scriptural ones it has simply 
 that of beauty. So Hesych. εὐμορφία. 
 
 The words following οὕτω---μακρανθήσεται contain the applica- 
 tion. ““ Soalso perisheth and wasteth away the rich man in the 
 midst of his goings and devices, plans and counsels ;” or, according 
 to Rosenmuller’s version, together with, &c., which yields a good 
 sense, though not so good aone as the other; for the plans of the 
 rich are not altogether déstroyed by their death; but there is little 
 authority for this signification of ἐν. Πορείαις, literally, goings, 
 i. 6, devices, counsels. Μαρανθήσεται, aw. A term (Pott and 
 Rosenm. observe), properly used of flowers, but, in accommodation 
 ‘to the metaphor here, transferred to persons. Yet it is used by the 
 Classical writers in similar cases. See Wetstein’s examples, of 
 which the most apposite is Philo 258, 43., μήτ᾽ ἐπὶ πλούτῳ---σεμνυν- 
 θῆς, λογισάμενος; ὅτι καὶ ὀξεῖαν ἔχει τὴν μεταβολὴν, μαραιγνόμενα 
 τρόπον τινὰ, πρὶν ἀνθῆσαι βεβαίως. It is plain that the Apostle is 
 speaking of what is usual. 
 
 12, 18. Now, returning to the subject of ver. 2, 3 
 and 4., from which, from ver 5., he had made a di- 
 gression, St. James proceeds to treat on πειρασμοὶ in 
 general, and after having declared those happy who 
 patiently endure temptation, ver. 12., he -exhorts 
 Christians not to suppose (as perhaps some did) that 
 temptations, arising from evil concupiscence, proceed 
 from God, (ver. 18, 14 & 15.), to whom nothing but 
 good is to be attributed (ver. 16, 17 & 18.), and 
 especially that most precious benefit of the Christian 
 religion (ver. 19.). (Pott.) 
 
 The μακάριος ἀνὴρ is derived from the Hebr. WW 
 
JAMES, CHAP. I. 581 
 
 ON of Ps. 1, 1.; a common form, Pott observes, of 
 introducing moral precepts (as Matt. 5.), the con- 
 trary to which is οὐαὶ τῴ ἀνθρώπῳ, &c. It is strange 
 he should not have compared the Horatian ‘ Bea- 
 tus ille qui procul negotiis,” &c. “Os ὑπομένει πειρασ- 
 μὸν, “who is called upon to endure trials and adver- 
 sities ; so called, as serving to put men’s constancy 
 to the proof. See Matt. 5,10 & 11., Hebr. 12, 7., 
 &ce. The ὑπομένει Pott interprets, “ courageously 
 endures ;” and he supposes an agonistical metaphor. 
 But this is unnecessary ; since the simple sense is, 
 that ‘“‘ those who encounter adversity, are not there- 
 fore to be regarded as miserable, inasmuch as that 
 adversity is meant for their good in the end, serving 
 as an occasion for exercising their virtue; and so 
 giving them an opportunity of obtaining the reward; 
 as the Apostle suggests in the words following. 
 
 12. δόκιμος γενόμιενος ---αὐτὸν. Here there is plainly 
 an agonistical allusion ; and the δόκιμος γενόμιενος is 
 learnedly illustrated by Kypke from the δοκιμασία of 
 the Grecian ayaves. So Philo, p. 545. (cited by 
 Loesn.), ἀθληταὶ δυνάμεσι καὶ ῥώμαις καὶ εὐεξίαις σω- 
 μάτων μέγα φρονοῦντες, ἀνενδοίαστον νίκην ἐλπίσαντες, 
 ἐξαγώνιοι πολλάκις ἐγένοντο μιὴ δοκιμιασθέντες, ἢ κατα- 
 στάντες εἰς τὸν ἀγώνα, ἡττήθησαν. By στέφανον τῆς wis 
 is meant, the reward of (eternal) life and happiness ; 
 so that even loss of life (if it have to be endured for 
 religion’s sake) will be abundantly repaid by a happy 
 resurrection to another and an immortal one. Τοῖς 
 ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτὸν. An usual periphrasis (as Pott 
 remarks) for pious worshippers of God. 
 
 13,14. The Apostle, having said so much about 
 the benefit of temptation, guards them against the 
 mistake of making God the author of sin, or ascribing 
 temptations to iim, as that imports an impelling men 
 to sin. Such, he says, proceed not from God, but 
 from the lusts of men, which, if yielded to, will bring 
 death rather than a crown of life. And, therefore, 
 though trials may be ascribed to God, yet tempta- 
 tions in the bad sense must not. Sin and death 
 
582 JAMES, CHAP. I. 
 
 proceed from the lusts and wickedness of men; but 
 God is not the author of evil, but, like the sun, is an 
 universal benefactor, and the author of that is good ; 
 nay even exceeds that luminary, as not being subject 
 to change or variation. (Benson.) 
 
 Πειράϑ. is here used in the bad sense, namely, to be instigated to 
 evil. Many, it seems, there were who excused their sins, and 
 especially their defection from the faith, by alleging the perils which 
 accompanied it, and sought refuge in the doctrine of necessity. In 
 opposition, then, to this baneful errur, the Apostle assures them that 
 adversities are not sent by God, to make men worse, but to make 
 them better. Some Commentators think the Apostle has here 
 reference to the Szmoniani, who made God the author of sin, Bp. 
 Bull fixes on the Pharisees. But it is judiciously observed by 
 Carpz.: ‘ Ignorantur hi quos Apostolus intellexerit, et conjiciuntur 
 frustra. In depravaté natura omnium hominum heret sententia, 
 cui obviam it Jacobus. Is a Deo, ἀπειράστῳ κακῶν, immuni a 
 malo, removet culpam, et in cupiditates perversas conjicit.’ The 
 Heathens also, as may be seen by Wetstein’s citations, held this 
 doctrine. 
 
 13.6 γὰρ Θεὸς ἀπειραστός---οὐδένα. “* Now God (anno- 
 tates Rosenm.) wishes men to be as He is; andas He 
 is not tempted by sin, so neither does he tempt any to 
 sin.” See Sir. 15, 11., seqq. Upon this whole sub- 
 ject of temptation consult Benson. 
 
 14. ἕκαστος δὲ---δελεαϑόμενος, ‘* But whosoever is 
 tempted, and impelled to sin, is hurried away and 
 enticed by his own lusts.” ᾿Επιθυμία has here the 
 bad sense of evil concupiscence, a desire for things 
 which ought not to be sought after, or, not to that 
 degree. Rosenm. paraphrases: “when we are 
 seduced to evil, God is not the cause: but it is, that 
 we love the pleasures of this life, and this life itself, 
 more than we ought.’ And he cites Cicero in 
 Pisonem: Sua quemque fraus, suum facinus, suum 
 scelus—de sanitate ac mente deturbat.* ‘There is 
 (he observes) a Classical elegance in the phrase 
 
 * Tadd Aischin. c. T. p. 27, 5., μὴ γὰρ οἴεσθε ras τῶν ἀδικημάτων 
 7 > \ ~ > ’ > Li Es ey , > , ,ὔ 
 ἄρχας ἀπὸ Θεῶν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὑπ’ ἀνθρώπων ἀσελγείας γίνεσθαι--- 
 ἀλλ᾽ αἱ προπετεῖς τοῦ σώματος ἡδοναὶ καὶ τὸ μηδὲν ἱκανὸν ἡγεῖσ- 
 θαι, ταῦτα πληροῖ τὰ ληστηρία, ταῦτ᾽ εἰς τὸν ἐπακροκέλητα ἐμ- 
 βιβάξει, x. τ. A. And, alittle after: οὐ γὰρ τὴν αἰσχύνην, οὐδ᾽ 
 “" ΄ , > ΝΥ AG) -: ΄ > is 
 ἅ πείσονται λογίξονται; ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ οἷς κατορθώσαντες εὐφρανθήσον- 
 ται, τούτοις κεκλήνται. 
 
JAMES, CHAP. I. 583 
 
 ἐξέλκυσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας. Examples of it are 
 adduced by the Philologists. The term ἐξελκύω is 
 used with nouns denoting pleasure, habit, custom, 
 ἅς. Rosenm. compares from Virgil: Trahit sua 
 quemque voluptas. In δελεάφ, there is a metaphor 
 taken from fishing, common in the Classical writers, 
 from whom Wets. adduces many examples.* It is 
 truly remarked by the Commentators that the image 
 (which is not unlike one in Milton) is derived a mere- 
 trice. (See Carpz.) 
 
 15. cira—dapapriav. Now evil concupiscence con- 
 ceives, when we foster it in our minds, and take plea- 
 sure init. For then does actually follow meditated 
 sin, as parturition follows conception. (Rosenm.) 
 Συλλαβοῦσα τίκτει is for συλλαβάνει καὶ τίκτει. On 
 the term συλλαμβ., 561]. ἐν γαστρὶ, see Luke 1, 31., 
 and 2, 21. Of τίκτειν, in this sense, there are nu- 
 merous examples in the Classical writers. ᾿Αποτελεσ- 
 θεῖσα, when fully accomplished, perpetrated. So Po- 
 lyb., ἀσέβημα ἀπετέλεσαν. 
 
 he ἁμαρτία must be taken in a general sense: 
 and the best commentary on the ἀποκύει θάνατον, is 
 Rom. 6, 21., ὧν τὸ τέλος θάνατος, i. 6. death, punish- 
 ment, and misery. Pott compares Philo, p. 147 5. 
 Ἡ φύσις πρὸς γένεσιν πραγμάτων ὥρισεν ev ψυχῇ δύναμιν, 
 OF ἧς κυοφορεῖ, καὶ ὠδινεῖ καὶ ἀποτίκτει πολλὰ διανοία" 
 τῶν δὲ ἀποκυομένων---τὰ δήλεα---ἐστι κακία καὶ πάθος. I 
 add Aischyl. Pers. 826., ὕβρις γὰρ ἐξανθοῦσα ἐκάρπωσε 
 στάχυν ἔΑτης, ὅθεν πάγκλαυτον ἐξαμᾷ θέρος. Laonid. 
 Alex. ap. Brunck Anal. 2, 190., ὕμεας ἀφροσύνη μαιώ- 
 σατο, τόλμα δ᾽ ἔτικτε καὶ ἀφροσύνην. Plato Epist. 3., 
 βλάβην ἡδονὴ----γεννῷ ---δυσμιαθίαν καὶ λήθην καὶ ἀφροσύ- 
 yay καὶ ὕβριν τίκτει. 
 
 16, 17. These verses are closely connected together, and contain 
 perhaps an inference from the preceding. The erroneous doctrine 
 
 in question the Apostle opposes, by showing that so far is God from 
 being the author of evil, or men being impelled by him to sin, that 
 
 * The most apposite are the fullowing, Athen. 308, 1., ἀνελκυσ- 
 θεὶς δὲ οὐ δελεάθεται οὔτε σαρκὶ οὔτε ἄλλῳ τινι ἔμψυχον. Herod. 
 2, 70., Cic. de Senect. 13., Divine enim Plato escam malorum volup- 
 tatem appellat, quod ea videlicet homines capiantur, ut hamo pisces, 
 See more in Loesn., Schoettg., Alberti, and Carpz. 
 
584 JAMES, CHAP. I. 
 
 He is the only source of good. Now this he introduces with a for- 
 mula employed by the sacred writers, when they wish to recall men 
 from grievous though unperceived error ; as in 1 Cor. 6, 9. 15, 33. 
 Gal. 6, 7., &c., where see the notes. 
 
 17. πᾶσα δόσις---τέλειον. The πᾶσα Raphel, Rosenm., and Pott, 
 render mera (as a little before). But it is unnecessary to resort to 
 such asense. TeX. is a somewhat stronger term than ἀγαθὴ. ’Avw- 
 θὲν is for οὐρανόθεν (as Acts 14,7.) So the Heb. bynn. The 
 term, of course, denotes God in Heaven; but this is expressed by the 
 Apostle just after. Ἔστι κατ. So most Critics point. But others 
 take the ἐστι κατ. for καταβαίνει. So the Vulg. Antiq. and Syr., 
 James 3, 15. Joh. 1,33. And this is more agreeable to the usage 
 of the New Testament in mentioning what is customary. ᾿Απὸ τοῦ 
 πατρὸς τῶν φώτων. It is plain that πατὴρ is here, like the corre- 
 sponding words in most languages, put for author, producer: but it 
 is not so easy to settle the sense of φώτων. Heinr. takes it of the 
 Urim and Thunmim. Wolf, Mede, Schleus , and Reich, of every 
 sort of perfection and felicity. Grot., of spiritual gifts, Benson, 
 of revelation. Some recent Commentators, as Semler, Teller, Storr, 
 Rosenm., Meyer, Hottinger, Pott, &c., understand it of the sun, 
 moon, and stars (nay, even the whole universe), like the Heb, 1x. 
 And this, they think, is required by what follows. See more in Pott 
 and Slade. Upon the whole, this last interpretation may deserve the 
 preference : but it is not impossible that a metaphorical as well as 
 a physical sense is here intended. 
 
 The words following are, by Wets. and the best Commentators, 
 thought to contain an astronomical allusion; q. d. ““ In Him is 
 not, as in the sun (the greatest of corporeal lights), any παραλλαγὴ; 
 τροπὴ, OY ἀποσκίασμα ; all of these are astronomical terms, on which 
 see Wets. and Schleus. Lex. But perhaps this may be tuo fanciful 
 and far-fetched: and I am inclined to think, with Rosenm., that 
 παραλλαγὴ signifies any change by turns ; and the τροπὴ is synony- 
 mous ; and the τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα signifies the least sort of turning. 
 
 The doctrine of this verse brings to mind the etymology of the 
 term by which the Northern nations designate the Supreme Being, 
 and which is derived from the adjective good. 
 
 18. βουληθεὶς ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγω ἀληθείας. On 
 the sense of βουληθεὶς Commentators differ in opinion. 
 Wets. renders it, ‘ sapientissimo atque optimo con- 
 silio.” But this signification is devoid of authority. 
 Others render, “ sua sponte et ultra, nullis meritis 
 nostris permotus.” But such a sense cannot fairly 
 be elicited from the words. I prefer, with Benson, 
 Mich., Carpzov, Mackn., and Rosenm., to interpret 
 it, sua sponte, benignitate mentis, pro gratia et be- 
 nevolentia sua. Perhaps the above senses may be 
 conjoined. Carpzov aptly compares Eph. 1, 5. κατὰ 
 
JAMES, CHAP. I. 585 
 
 τὴν εὐδοκίαν θελήματος αὐτοῦ. See his examples of 
 βούλομαι to denote liking and desire. 
 
 It is well observed, by Benson and Mackn., that 
 ‘“‘ we have here the genealogy of righteousness. All 
 the righteous deeds which men perform proceed 
 from their renewed nature. ‘Their nature is renewed 
 by the power of truth (by the truths of the Gospel 
 through the operation of the Spirit), and God is the 
 prime mover in the whole.” 
 
 The ἀπεκύησεν (i.e. ἀναγενν.) has reference to our 
 spiritual regeneration by the Gospel to eternal life ; 
 with an allusion (as Hardy observes) to our adoption, 
 on which see Joh. 1, 12 & 13. and 1 Joh. 5, 18. 
 “Now the change (observes Mackn.) which God 
 produces in men’s dispositions and actions, by the 
 truths of the Gospel impressed on their minds, is so 
 great, that it may be called a begetting or creating 
 them anew.” 
 
 By the λόγῳ ἀληθείας is meant the Gospel; as 
 1 Pet. 1, 23. So Jaspis, whom see. 
 
 18. εἰς τὸ---κτισμιάτων. 
 
 The term ἀπαρχὴ denotes, properly, the first portion taken of any 
 thing ; and since that was usually the portion appropriated to show= 
 ing honour to man, or reverence to God (see Num. 13, 12. Deut. 21, 
 17. and Gen, 49, 3.), so it came to mean the first of any thing. The 
 sense assigned by Bengel, Mackn., Rosenm., and Pott, is as follows: 
 ““ ut simus primiac precipui omnium mortalium.” They refer to 
 the Schol. Medic. and to the Schol. on Eurip. Or. 96. Thus it will 
 denote the Jews: and Slade thinks the Apostle meant to remind his 
 Jewish brethren that they were the peculiar people of God whom he 
 had chosen as instruments of preserving the true religion ἀπὸ τῶν 
 αἰώνων, and who were especially and primarily called to embrace 
 and to promulgate the benefits of the Gospel. Luke 24, 47. Rom. 
 11, 16. Eph. 1, 12. 2 Thess. 2,13. In this view, therefore, they 
 might be truly and emphatically denominated. the first fruits of 
 creation, i. e. of all those who should be ultimately made partakers 
 of the blessings of Divine revelation.” Others, as Doddr., Noesselt, 
 and Jaspis, think the sense is, that they should be first numbered 
 among the congregation. See Rom. 16, 5. 
 
 19, 20. ὥστε---ὀργὴν. 
 
 The ὥστε is for διὸ or διὰ τοῦτο, “such being the case ; since, by 
 the true doctrine, we have become such as to be numbered with the 
 most precicus of God’s creatures, we ought with alacrity to learn 
 this salutary doctrine, and so to learn that we may be reformed and 
 
586 JAMES, CHAP. I. 
 
 made better men.” This position, that the Gospel ought not only 
 to be learned, but practised, the Apostle now especially dwells on up 
 to the end of the second chapter. (Storr and Rosenm.) It is re- 
 marked, by Carpzov, that the Apostle takes occasion from what has 
 been hitherto said specially, to give a general admonition. 
 
 The best Commentators are agreed that ταχὺς eis τὸ ἀκοῦσαι 
 (with which they compare Sir. 5, 11. γίνου ταχὺς ἐν ἀκροάσει) sig- 
 nifies, hear the word of truth just mentioned, namely the Gospel. 
 And they render λαλῆσαι teach; a signification elsewhere found. 
 “* Now it was (Benson observes) the temper of the Jews to be very im- 
 patient in hearing others, even when speaking on religious subjects ; 
 and yet very apt to assume authority to themselves, and to set up 
 for teachers.” And such, indeed, they have been in all ages. This 
 interpretation, however, seems harsh. It should rather appear that 
 the Apostle has in view discussions and disputations upon points of 
 doctrine.* 
 
 The ὀργὴν is usually rendered wrath, by which Benson understands 
 resentment against God as the author of our trials and afflictions. 
 But this seems not agreeable to what follows. I therefore prefer, 
 with Carpzov, Rosenm., and Pott, to take it to denote an impatient, 
 hot-headed spirit, immoderate fervour in discussing points of religious 
 doctrine. But I cannot agree, with some eminent recent Commen- 
 tators, that teachers only are meant ; and that this admonition is 
 intended to check their excessive zeal. It should rather appear to 
 be meant for those who set up for teachers, and were too pragma- 
 tical and dogmatising : errors likely enough to arise under the pre- 
 sent circumstances. This sense of ὀργὴ is frequent in the best wri- 
 ters, especially Thucydides. 
 
 Many examples of similar antithesis between ταχὺς and βραδὺς 
 are adduced by Wets.; and I had myself collected not a few: but it 
 is unnecessary to introduce any. 
 
 20. ὀργὴ γὰρ---κατεργάξεται. The Commentatators above men- 
 tioned here explain: ‘‘ an angry man does not act agreeably to the 
 precepts of religion, and therefore cannot teach:’’ which is very true, 
 but not (I think) the truth intended by the Apostle, who seems to 
 have meant to say, that such a vehement, intemperate, intolerant, 
 and disputatious a spirit was not calculated to promote the cause of 
 true religion. And this is nearly the sense assigned by Whitby, 
 Doddr., and Mackn. The subject is well illustrated by Benson. 
 
 21. διὸ amobeuevoi—xakias. The sense of this and 
 
 * On this subject the Philological Commentators supply us with 
 abundance of Classical illustrations. The rule of Pythagoras will 
 readily occur: but whether the Apostle had it in view is very doubt- 
 ful. It is observed, by Benson, that the antient philosophers have 
 taken notice, “ that men have two ears, and but one tongue, that 
 they should hear more than they speak. And likewise, that the ears 
 are always open, ever ready to receive instruction; but the tongue 
 is surrounded with a double row of teeth, to hedge it in, and keep it 
 within proper bounds.” 
 
JAMES, CHAP. I. 587 
 
 the following verses depends upon that of the pre- 
 ceding. According to the interpretation above 
 adopted, the furagiay will not denote vice and im- 
 morality (as most Interpreters explain it), but be 
 taken for βλασφημίαν and αἰσχρολογίαν, 1. e. such ill 
 language as intemperate disputation usually engen- 
 ders. And the περισσ. κακίας is not ill explained by 
 Rosenm. nimia morositas. I should, however, prefer 
 petulantia : for that teachers are not here especially 
 meant is plain from the following words ἐν πραὔτητι 
 δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον, of which the sense is: 
 “ receive and entertain with a meek and mild spirit, 
 and not with a violent and intemperate one, that 
 engrafted word which is able (and is meant) to save 
 your souls, (not to supply matter for mere animal and 
 carnal contention).” The ἔμφυτος λόγος is referred, 
 by the Commentators, to that figure by which the 
 Gospel committed to the mind is compared to seed 
 sown in the ground. It is opposed, Carpzov ob- 
 serves, to instruction which is not retained in the 
 memory, but merely strikes the ears, and takes no 
 root in the mind.” ‘There seems also an allusion to 
 what went before, namely, λόγος ἀληθείας ὦ ἀπεκύησεν 
 ὁ Πατήρ. The Apostle (I conceive) means to hint 
 that we are the more bound to use the Gospel for 
 the purpose it was intended to serve, since it is an 
 éudutos λόγος, one not natural to the human heart, 
 but implanted there for the most benevolent ends. 
 I would compare Julian de Regno (speaking of the 
 works of Plato) λόγοι καὶ θρέψαι ψυχὴν ξὺν ἡδονῇ καὶ 
 καθάραι δύναται. 
 
 22, γίνεσθε δὲ---ἑαυτοὺς. ΙΠοιήτης, in the Classical 
 writers, signifies the maker or author of any thing. 
 It here denotes, emphatically, one who performs and 
 puts in practice the injunctions of the Gospel, and 
 does not rest content with hearing them only. For 
 it is not sufficient, nor indeed of any avail, for aman 
 to know the truth, if he do not obey and follow it in 
 his life and conduct. 
 
 Then is suggested a reason for this; namely, that 
 
588 JAMES, CHAP. I. 
 
 by being barely hearers, they will but deceive them- 
 selves, and not attain the expected reward. See ver. 
 26 & 27. and Matt. 7, 21. Such, I conceive, is the 
 sense: though most Commentators take the words 
 to advert to the case of the hypocrite. But the hy- 
 pocrite cannot be said to deceive himself; though 
 he may deceive others: and as the subject is the ne- 
 cessity of practice rather than theory, the former 
 interpretation seems preferable. : 
 
 The Philological Commentators, as Elsn., Munthe, 
 and others, compare similar sentiments in the Clas- 
 sical. Thus Porphyr. de Abstin. p. 99. δι’ ἔργων 
 ἡμῖν ἡ σωτηρία, οὐ δι’ ἀκροάσεως λόγων φιλῆς. Seneca, 
 Ep. 108 & 75. See more in Pott. 
 
 23, 24. ἔοικεν---ἐσόπτρῳ. *Avdgi (which answers to 
 the Heb. Ὁ) is for τινι, any one, of either sex. 
 Κατανοίειν here signifies to contemplate, behold. To 
 πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως. The τῆς γενέσεως is thought, 
 by some, a Hebrew pleonasm. | And thus it is omit- 
 ted by the Syr. But it seems better, with Grot. and 
 Rosenm., to take it for γνήσιον, real, natural. Thus 
 the πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως is equivalent to τὴν εἰκόνα 
 τοῦ προσώπου ὁμοίαν ; asin Artemid. On. &, 7. κατοπ- 
 τρίφεσθαι δὲ καὶ ὁρᾶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνα ὁμοίαν ἐν κα- 
 τόπτρῳ ἄγαθον, &c. ‘The καταν. is, by Pott and 
 Rosenm., rightly taken of a hasty, casual, and tran- 
 sient glance. Pott paraphrases thus: ‘ formam 
 vultas nativam transeundo animadvertit, suppl. non 
 item maculas vultui haud ἐκ γενέσεως insitas, sed 
 propria culpa adspersas, ad quas animadvertendas 
 παρακύψει v. 25. sive accuratiori vultis exploratione 
 opus erat.” So also Mackn. But this seems too 
 far-fetched; and I agree with Hamm. and Slade, 
 that it only refers to a transient, casual, and careless 
 glance. See Slade in loc. The κατανόησε---ἦν, Ro- 
 senm. observes, is for κατανοήσας yap ἑαυτὸν, καὶ 
 ἀπελθὼν, εὐθέως ἐπιλανθάνεται ὁποῖος ἦν, 1. 6. “ He who 
 takes only a transient glance at his image, sees not 
 any dirt on his visage, and so neglects to wipe it off.” 
 See a similar passage in Philostr. V. Ap. 8, 26. p. 367. 
 
JAMES, CHAP. 1. 589 
 
 25. ὁ δὲ παρακύψας---παραμείνας. 
 
 Παρακύπτειν plainly signifies to stoop down by any thing in order 
 to examine it; and, in a general way, to attentively consider. - It is 
 not, however, so easy to determine the sense of νόμον τῆς ἐλευθερίας, 
 which is variously explained. By Grot., Wells, Benson, and Mich., 
 it is understood of deliverance from the ceremonial law, ‘* The law 
 of God (say they), as it subsists in the Gospel, is called perfect, on 
 account of its superiority to the law of Moses, and is here compared 
 toa mirror, because it shows every man the temper and disposition 
 of his mind, and what is its complexion and colour, just as a mirror 
 shews him the features and colour of his face. And it is called a 
 law of liberty, 1st, Because it delivers men from the slavery of their 
 lusts ; 2dly, Because it hath freed the Jews from the yoke of Moses, 
 which was a yoke of bondage ; 3dly, Because it delivers all true be- 
 lievers from the punishment of sin.” But γόμον has not the article ; 
 and the words following plainly require a far more general sense. 
 See Pott. Others, as Carpzov, would take éAev@epias for σωτηρίας. 
 ** For those (says he) whom the Son freeth are indeed liberated 
 (Joh. 8, 36.). So that the νόμος τέλειος ὁ τῆς ἐλευθερίας is the ex- 
 cellent doctrine of the Gospel, which liberates us from the curse of 
 the law, from bondage to sin, and fear of punishment, and which 
 confers eternal felicity.” In nearly the same way it is explained by 
 Pott and Rosenm. The νόμος τῆς ἐλευθερίᾳς, Rosenm. says, is that 
 doctrine which liberates us from the dominion of vices and lusts (as 
 Joh. 8, 31 & 32.), which St. James, throughout his whole Epistle, 
 exhorts them to guard against and avoid.” ‘This νόμος, or doctrine 
 (he adds), is called τέλειον, with reference to the whole as taken 
 conjointly, and not separately; and also, in comparison with the 
 imperfection of the Mosaic Law. Περιμένειν signifies to persevere, 
 as those do who survey their faces for the purpose of decoration, 
 
 25. οὗτος οὐκ ἀκροατὴς---ἔσται. He who forgets not 
 what he has learnt, but does it, shall obtain this free- 
 dom which the Gospel promises.” The genitive 
 ἐπιλησμονῆς 15 for the adjective ἐπιλήσμων. “Egyou. 
 The whole system of works is here considered as one, 
 i.e. the doing the will of God. See Wells. The 
 repetition of οὗτος has great energy. Otros μακάριος. 
 Carpzoy thinks there is an allusion to Ps. 82, Ἔν τῇ 
 ποιήσει αὐτοὺ, Sub. τοῦ νόμου, on account of (2) what 
 he does, his obedience to the Gospel, his ἔργον. 
 
 26. ef τις doxei—atrod: The Apostle here brings 
 the charge home, plainly alluding (though with deli- 
 cacy) to some among them who were of this descrip- 
 tion. ‘The words are rightly rendered by the Vulg.: 
 “ Si quis putat se religiosum esse,” &c. For, as 
 Rosenm. remarks, ἑαυτῷ is to be understood. Here, 
 
590 JAMES, CHAP. 1. 
 
 as before, conceit and spiritual pride is designated, 
 and not hypocrisy. See Carpzov. Θρῆσκος is for 
 θρησκευτὴς. ‘This is a rare signification, but noticed 
 by Hesych., who explains the term by εὐσεβὴς, δεισι- 
 δαίμων. Μὴ χαλιναγαγῶν γλώσσων αὐτοῦ, “ bridleth 
 not his tongue,”’ namely, from the linguee intempe- 
 rantia spoken of at ver. 19—21., where see the note. 
 ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἀπατῶν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ, sub. ἐστι (as Heb. 12, 15. 
 ὑστερῶν, sub. ἡ). So Carpzov, who (with Benson) 
 refers the words to the predicate, not the subject. 
 Nor need the ἀπ. be referred to χαλ., but ἀλλὰ may 
 be rendered sane, profecto, }28. And so in Rom. 
 6,5. Carpzov, however, remarks on the frequency 
 of the asyndeton in St. James’s style, which runs 
 through the whole of c. 5. The ἀπατῶν καρδίαν 
 αὐτοῦ is to be understood as the παραλογιϑόμενοι 
 ἑαυτοὺς supra, ver. 22. The metaphor in χαλιναγα- 
 γῶν is not unfrequent in the Classical writers. See 
 Wets., to whose examples I add Theodorides ap. 
 Brunck Anal. 2, 42. fin. Pollux, 6, 146. Philostr. 
 V. A. 4, 30. Eurip. Hel. 1388. & Orest. 10. Eurip. 
 Antiop. frag. 10. Aristoph. Ran. 838. 
 
 26. τούτου μάταιος ἡ θρησκεία, ““ is vain and ineffi- 
 cacious, not genuine, imaginary, and will never profit 
 him any thing.” 
 
 Q7. θρησκεία----πατρὶ. Having told them what is 
 not true religion, he bids them know what 15, and in 
 what it consists. ‘ True and genuine religion, such 
 as is acceptable to God, who is our Father (or 
 ἐς to God, even our Father,” or “to our God and 
 Father”), &c. See Carpzov. In καθαρὰ and ἀμίαντος 
 Rosenm. recognizes a metaphor taken from pearls, 
 or gems, which should be pure, and without stain. 
 Παρὰ τῷ Θεῴ, “in the judgment of God.” This 
 sense of παρὰ is frequent in the Classical writers. 
 At τῷ Ocw καὶ πατρὶ must be understood ἡμῶν. And 
 αὕτη is for τοιαύτη. It is by some thought to be 
 redundant ; but, in reality, like all such pronouns 
 demonstrative, adds to the strength of the sentence. 
 
 27. émokéerrerbai—Koopov. ‘This, Carpzov. ob- 
 
JAMES, CHAP. I. II. 591 
 
 serves, is not meant as a complete designation of 
 true religion, but some specimens are adduced : so 
 that there seems to be an ellipsis of καὶ τὰ ὁμοία or 
 καὶ τὰ ἄλλα, But this appears too arbitrary. It is 
 better to suppose, with Grot. and Rosenm., that the 
 Apostle describes true religion by two of its principal 
 effects, beneficence and purity of life; the species 
 being put for the genus; as Matt. 25, 34. "Exioxerr. 
 signifies, in a general way, to visit for the purpose of 
 condolence, comfort, conversation, and personal 
 relief. So Sir. 4, 10. γίνου ὀρφανοῖς ὡς πατὴρ, καὶ 
 ἀντὶ ἀνδρὸς τῷ μητρὶ αὐτών, 1. 6. τῷ χήρᾳ. By the 
 κόσμου some understand the affairs of the world, its 
 riches, honours, and pleasures. But this savours of 
 monkery. ‘The best Commentators are agreed that 
 it signifies (as often) the men of the world, world- 
 lings, profane persons. From these, then, and from 
 society with them, and from any participation in 
 their vices, we are to keep ourselves pure. See 1 
 Joh. 2,15 & 16. 2 Pet. 2, 18—20.* 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 VERSE 1. μὴ ἐν προσωποληψίας ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν- 
 δόξης. From exhortation to benevolence and care of 
 the poor, the Apostle proceeds to warn them against 
 a practice, the opposite to Christian benevolence, 
 namely, that invidious preference of the rich over 
 the poor in their religious assemblies. But to pro- 
 ceed to the words themselves, some (as Mackn., 
 
 * On this and the preceding Slade refers to Paley’s Serm. 21. I 
 would also refer to an equally excellent Sermon of Dr. Malthy, 
 vol. 1., from which I must content myself with introducing the fol- 
 lowing extract. “Vital religion, therefore, cannot be separated 
 from practical religion: and in vain will a man seem to be religious, 
 by the profession of faith and the observance of external ceremonies, 
 unless to that which is done in honour of God be superadded that 
 which is done for the happiness of man. Religion, then, unites 
 piety with benevolence; it is to do good, and to be good ; and what 
 may not be included in this definition is not essential to, nay, may 
 be repugnant to, the spirit of true religion.” 
 
 Oe ee 
 
592 JAMES, CHAP. II. 
 
 Storr, and Rosenm.) take μὴ ἐν---δόξης interroga- 
 tively, and regard ἔχετε as put for ἔχειν δύνασθε, 1. 6. 
 ‘Can you, if you be led by partiality, be accounted 
 as true worshippers of our Lord?” &c. This, how- 
 ever, is surely doing violence to the words. Almost 
 all other Commentators agree in regarding the μὴ as 
 prohibitie. At the same time, they differ in the 
 interpretation of the words ; and certainly the sense 
 is of no easy determination. Pott resolves the 
 phraseology thus : μὴ ἔχετε (1. 6. Katey.) τὴν προσωπο- 
 ληψίαν ἐν (1. 6. ἄμα σὺν) πίστει, “ do not, now you are 
 Christians, retain that preference of rich persons to 
 which you were formerly addicted.” But this can- 
 not be admitted as either the true construction, or 
 the real sense. Other interpretations I must omit. 
 The sense seems simply to be this: * Do not hold or 
 profess the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in (i.e. 
 with) the practice of undue respect of persons.” It 
 is rightly remarked, by Carpzov, that πίστις here 
 simply signifies “‘ the profession of the Gospel, or the 
 Christian religion,” (as 1 Tim. 3, 9., where see the 
 note), with which προσωπ. is inconsistent. See 
 Jaspis. ; 
 
 Tis δόξης is by some taken for τοῦ ἐνδόξου (as 2 
 Cor. 3, 9.); by others (as the Syr.) united with 
 πίστιν ; by others, again, joined with προσωπ. The 
 first is the most natural interpretation, and, as Carpz. 
 observes, there may be an allusion to his glory as 
 Son of God (see Joh. 1, 14. 2, 11.); but the second 
 may be admitted, and make no material difference in | 
 the sense. 
 
 Q—4. ἐὰν γὰρ---ἐσθῆτι, “ If, for instance,” &c. 
 
 Συναγωγὴν, religious assembly ; that appellation being yet, it 
 seems, in use; though this is the only place in the New Testament 
 where it occurs ; yet we have ἐπισυναγ. at Hebr. 10, 25. where see 
 the note. Benson thinks the Apostle makes use of the term, as 
 writing to Jews. Nay, Rosenm. observes (referring to Vitringa de 
 Syn. Vet. 1, 3,2.), that the synagogues themselves of the Jews 
 were sometimes dedicated to Christian worship. So also Horneius 
 Expos. in loc. But this must have been very rare, and only when 
 nearly all the congregation had become Christians; and, in the ge- 
 neral way the Apostle speaks, cannot be thought of. 1 agree with 
 
JAMES, CHAP. If. 598 
 
 Carpz. in understanding solely a Christian place of worship ; though 
 it is probable that when such were regular edifices, their plan was 
 very similar to that of the synagogues ; and when, on the other hand, 
 they were mere rooms in private houses, the Jewish practice of pro- 
 viding appropriate seats for the more honourable, prevailed. 
 
 ᾿Αγνὴρ, a person, whether Christian, Jew, or Heathen : for to all 
 access was granted ; as we learn from 1 Cor. 14, 25. Χρυσοδακτύ- 
 λιος, * one who wears a ring,” or rather rings ; for many such, we 
 find by the Philological Commentators, were worn by the rich. 
 Λαμπρᾷ, magnificent, splendid. Wrwyds, a poor man, whether 
 Christian, or ctherwise. ‘Purapa ἐσθῆτι, ‘ sordid shabby clothes,” 
 ᾿Ἐπιβλέψητε is for ἀποβλ. (as ἐφορᾷν and suspicere, adspicere, &c. 
 see Palairet and Krebs), ‘‘ look at with the attention and preference 
 which dress will not fail to attract.” Φοροῦντα, ‘* who wears, is 
 dressed in.” Σὺ κάθου ὧδε καλῶς, i. 6. commode, or honorat?. Ro- 
 senm. cites Hlian V. H. 2, 13.; ἐν καλῷ τοῦ Θεάτρου καθῆσθαι: Ὕπο- 
 πόδιον, foot-stool. All this supposes a similar distinction of seats to 
 that prevailing in the synagogues. On the mode in which this may 
 be supposed to have taken place Commentators variously speculate ; 
 and in so doubtful a manner nothing can be determined. 
 
 4. καὶ ov διεκρίθητε---πονηρῶν ; On the construction, punctua- 
 tion, and sense of this verse Commentators are divided. Many, 
 from the Syr. downwards, take the sentence interrogatively; and 
 unite διεκρίθητε with the verb suspended on ἐὰν yap, ascribing to 
 διεκ. the sense make a distinction. But this yields an objectionable 
 sense; and grammatical principles forbid us to suppose an interro- 
 gation. Sce Slade. I therefore agree with the best recent Com- 
 mentators in supposing that there is none: but I can scarcely ac- 
 cede to the opinion of Elsner and Slade, that there is a forensic 
 metaphor in δίεκρ.; for that would be forced, and lite agreeable 
 to the context. It seems better to understand it (with Carpz., 
 Storr, Pott, and Rosenm.,) of private gudgment (and consequent 
 preference) on wrong grounds, 
 
 4. ἐν ἑαυτοῖς is for ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν; as Mark 11, 23. It is 
 rightly observed by Rosenm., that κριταὶ is used of those qui dis- 
 cernunt, vel estimant: and that the genitive διαλ. is not of object, 
 but attribute, by an Hebraism ; ‘‘ Ye Judge according to false rea- 
 soning; ye are judges who reason ill,” namely, by judging of any 
 one’s worth by his apparel. In διεκρέθητε we have the passive for 
 the middle, 
 
 5. The Apostle now proceeds to show how unjust is 
 
 such partiality ; since those very poor persons whom 
 they despise, are especially dear to and accepted by 
 God; while the rich, whom they so highly honour, 
 are the very persons by whom the Christians are most 
 oppressed. ( Pott.) | 
 
 5. ἀκούσατε---οαὐτὸν ; “ hear and attend,” &c. The 
 οὐχ is interrogative. "ExaéEacha, like the Hebrew 
 
 VOL, VIII. 2Q 
 
594 JAMES, CHAP. Ii. 
 
 Wa, signifies to especially approve and love. The 
 sense is noé, I conceive, (as many Commentators ex- 
 plain,) that God shows impartiality, by loving the 
 poor as well as the rich, but that he loves and ap- 
 proves of them more; and that, because they are 
 better fitted to perform the duties of Christians, and 
 are not entangled in the temptations which beset the 
 path of the rich, of the difficulty of whose salvation 
 our Lord so awfully speaks. It is observed by Ro- 
 senm., that the first argument is deduced from the 
 dissimilarity of God’s judgment to that of men. The 
 πλουσίους ἐν πίστει he renders: “if they be rich in 
 faith.” But this seems too arbitrary. It should ra- 
 ther seem that the whole sentence is elliptical; and 
 its sense may be thus expressed: ‘‘ Does not God 
 view with especial approbation the poor, {the poor, I 
 say, in respect to this world’s goods, but) rich in the 
 treasures of faith and religion, even heirs of the 
 kingdom,” &c. Tod κόσμου, “in the sight of this 
 world,” or, ‘* in worldly possessions.” Πίστις here, as 
 often, signifies the Christian religion, the Gospel, 
 which is not unfrequently compared to a treasure. 
 At κληρ. Pott supplies ὥστε εἶναι. The other terms 
 have been before explained. On the Gospel’s being 
 first preached to the poor, see the notes of Benson, 
 Mackn., and Slade, which last Commentator’s re- 
 marks, however, on ἀγάπωσιν αὐτὸν are ill founded ; 
 since this is a mere formula expressive of devout 
 obedience. Far more judicious in his concluding 
 remark, that “ the Apostle only means thatthe Gospel 
 was preached especially to the poor; because they 
 generally possessed a spirit more favourable to its 
 reception ; and in order to show that its blessings 
 and privileges were universal, that the rich had no 
 right to that distinction and ascendancy which they 
 were always so ready to usurp.” . 
 
 6,°7. The first clause ὑμεῖς---πτωχόν ought to have 
 been thrown to ver.5. And so Cicumen. Indeed 
 the dé'seems to be adversative ; 4. d. ** while God, 
 on the one hand, so acts, ye,-on the other, despise 
 
JAMES, CHAP. II. 595 
 
 the poor.” Ἡτιμάσατε. Aorist for present, as ex- 
 pressive of custom and habit. Then follows (as 
 Rosenm. observes) the other argument against this 
 undue partiality, namely, that those to whom it 18 
 shown are the least worthy of it. And here the in- 
 terrogation has great spirit. ἹΚαταδυναστεύουσιν 
 ὑμῶν; do they not imperiously lord it over you?” 
 So the terms κατακυριεύω, κατεξουσιάϑω, on which see 
 Schleus. Lex. in V. and N. T. Such will apply to 
 the rich in every age. Kal adrol—xpirnpia: for καὶ 
 οὐχὶ αὐτοὶ εἰσι οἱ ἐλκ. These rich are supposed by 
 Rosenm. to have been of the unbelieving Jews, who 
 accused the poorer Christians to the magistracy. 
 But it is best to leave the sense unlimited, and un- 
 derstand the rich of very sort, both Christians, Jews, 
 and Gentiles. ’Eax. denotes violent abduction, like 
 σύρειν and rapere. So our haul and hale, which are 
 derived from the same source. 
 
 7. οὐκ οὐτοὶ---ὑμᾶς; βλασφην., defame, speak re- 
 proachfully and insultingly of. Ονομα, Rosenm. 
 observes, is here, as often, used for person, and 
 Christ is obviously meant; and the καλὸν signifies 
 venerable, august. Thus τὸ ἐπίκληθὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς will be 
 for ἐξ οὗ ἐπικαλεῖσθε or ἐπικλησιν ἔχετε. The sense, 
 then, is, that they reject Christ as an impostor, and 
 heap curses on him. Others, however, as Pott, ob- 
 ject, that thus a person is said ἐπικαλεῖσθαι ἐπὶ τινα. 
 And they understand the name of Christians, which 
 was first given at Antioch ; rendering the τὸ ἐπὶ κλη- 
 θὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, “after whom ye are called ;” as Gen. 
 48,16. 1 Kings 8, 16. Is. 4, 1. It is not material 
 which of these interpretations be adopted ; but the 
 former seems the more natural, and such an hypal- 
 lage is very common. Carpz. and Storr, supposing 
 the rich here mentioned to be Christians, understand 
 the βλασῷ. of causing the name of Christ and his re- 
 ligion to be disgraced by their unworthy conduct. 
 But this seems too harsh. 
 
 8, 9. εἰ μέντοι νόμον τελεῖτε βασιλικὸν. 
 
 Now the Jews, with undeviating hostility to Christians, showed 
 
 ea. 2 
 
596 JAMES, CHAP. II. 
 
 an especial zeal for the Mosaic Law. To these therefore the Apos- 
 tle opposes the sum and bulwark of universal law ; as Christ, Matt. 
 22, 34. seq. and St. Paul, Gal. 5, 14. and Rom. 13, 9. (Rosenm.) 
 On the sense of νόμον βασιλικὸν there has been some difference of 
 Opinion. The best Commentators, however, are agreed that as 
 βασιλικὸς so often denotes what is principal and most excellent (as 
 in several passages cited by Wets. from Plato, Arist., Xenophon, and 
 Aristid., and also Philo, (the imitator of Plato,) cited by Carpz.: Ba- 
 σιλικώτερον οὐδὲν τῆς ἀρετῆς; SO νόμος aod. may signify that 
 which is most excellent, and worthy of God, or, as Doddr. explains, 
 ** that which ought, with a kind of imperial authority to govern all 
 our sentiments ;” what Christ calls, Matt. 22, 39. ἐντολὴν πρώτην 
 kai μεγάλην ; and St. Paul, the πλήρωμα τοῦ νόμου, the primary and 
 most consummate precept, Rom. 13, 10. Gal. 5,14. Slade thinks 
 the expression may denote the supreme and indispensable obligation 
 of this law, and its pre-eminence above every other ; inasmuch as it 
 governs and includes all the duties which belong to the second 
 table—that law which (as Wells observes) is of principal regard with 
 respect to our duty to our neighbour. 
 
 Kara τὴν γραφὴν, namely, Levit. 19, 18. ‘ 
 
 9 εἰ δὲ---παραβάται, “Βαΐ if we show προσωποληψία, &c. Προσ- - 
 ὡποληπτεῖν is aterm scarcely ever found elsewhere. See the note 
 on ver. 1. ‘Apapriay ἐργάξεσθε, for ἁμαρτάνειν, like the Hebr. 
 TTS byp. ᾿Ελεγχόμενοι, ““ since ye are convicted.” A nominativus 
 pendens. In the phraseology here there is something unusual. 
 The sense is: ‘‘ ye are convicted as transgressors of the law.” By 
 the νόμ. some think is meant a law, namely, that at Levit. 19. 18. 
 Others, with more probability, understand the royal law just men- 
 tioned, which (as Rosenm. observes) is violated by all undue respect 
 of persons, or unjust partiality. 
 
 10,11. ὅστις γὰρ---ἔνοχος. By the whole law St. 
 James means the Law of Moses. Yet he hints that 
 the same holds good of the law of the Gospel; a 
 truth indeed admitted by all. Here is adduced the 
 reason why 6 προσωπολήπτης may be rightly termed a 
 παοραβάτης νόμου. Whosoever (it is said) shall keep 
 all other precepts, but violate one, namely, one 
 which involves capital punishment, he is held guilty 
 of all, and is punished with death, the same as if he 
 had violated all the precepts of the law. And so the 
 Rabbins have: “ He who transgresses one precept, 
 it is as if he transgressed all.’ The transgression 
 here meant is deliberate and wilful transgression. 
 Πταίειν ἐν ἑνὶ signifies literally to stumble at, trip up,’ 
 fall, sin, &c. At ‘vi must be understood λόγῳ “ one 
 article of the law.” (Rosenm ) The reason of this 
 
JAMES, CHAP. II. 597 
 
 denunciation is, as all Commentators admit, obvious; 
 namely, since he who wilfully violates one, at the 
 same time tramples on the authority by which allare 
 enjoined ; and this setting at nought the authority 
 of the Legislator, of course, draws with it the severest 
 penalty he can inflict. The saying of Draco will 
 readily occur. For the rest it may suffice to refer 
 the reader to Beza, Whitby, and Grot., or Slade. 
 "Evoyos (from ἐνέχεσθαι), “ liable to the punishment 
 of ;’ as 1 Cor. 11, 27. where see the note; and see 
 also the note on Matt. 26, 67. 
 
 11. ὁ yap—vopov. Grot. and Rosenm. aptly cite 
 Salvianus: “ Si enim pro arbitrio suo servi dominis 
 obtemperarent, ne in iis quidem in quibus obtempe- 
 raverint obsequuntur. . Quando enim servus ex 
 Domini sui jussis ea facit tantummodo, que vult 
 facere, jam non dominicam voluntatem implet, sed 
 suam.” 
 
 12. οὕτω λαλεῖτε---κρίνεσθαι. ‘““ Always remember 
 ye then so to speak, and so to act, as those who are 
 to be judged by a law of liberty.” The only diffi- 
 culty here is to determine the meaning of the νόμου 
 ἐλευθερίας, which is explained by Carpz. as equivalent 
 to νόμος ἐλευθερῶν, in Opposition to νόμος κατακρίνων, 
 i. e. “ So speak and so act that ye may be absolved 
 in that divine judgment, and not be condemned.” 
 But I see no reason to abandon the usual interpreta- 
 tion, by which it is explained: the law and doctrine 
 which frees us both from the ceremonial law and the 
 tyranny of sin, and the punishment thence resulting 
 (see Rom. 8, &.); 4. d. “ἃ severe judgment shall he 
 experience who transgresses this vou. βασιλικ᾽, Διὰ 
 νόμου is for κατὰ νόμον. It is remarked by Rosenm.: 
 “Ergo sermonibus et actibus, amore plenis πίστις 
 νόμου ἐλευθερίας comprobanda est.” Wets. observes, 
 that on works the Apostle treats to the end of the 
 chapter; on words, c. 3. 1. 
 
 13. 7 γὰρ Kpiois—éreos, “ For judgment without 
 mercy (shall be) to him who hath shown no mercy 
 und pity.” Kpioss carries with it the idea of severe 
 
598 JAMES, CHAP. II. 
 
 punishment; and the ἔλεος, 7, must be understood 
 of all the offices of humanity, love, and beneficence 
 to others. See Matt. 9, 13.and the note. ‘To this 
 the Apostle subjoins κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεος κρίσεως, the 
 sense of which is obscure: but it does ποΐ (as Mr. 
 Slade supposes) depend upon what reading is 
 adopted; since κατακαυχάσθω of the Alexandrian 
 and two other MSS. has no semblance of truth, and 
 is amere emendation. Retaining then (as we ought) 
 the common reading, the sense will be, according to 
 Carpz., as follows : ‘‘ He who obeys this law, despises 
 judgment, and fears it not. The merciful man looks 
 for every thing good from his merciful Father.” 
 And so Rosenm.: “ Beneficence triumphs over con- 
 demnation, and fears it not. God will not condemn 
 the imitators of his own goodness.” Other virtues 
 (he adds) are not excluded ;. but only the force of 
 beneficence is set forth. Compare Rom. 13, 8—10. 
 Perhaps, however, the sense of the words may be as 
 follows: ‘‘ The merciful man may venture, with holy 
 confidence, to meet judgment, trusting that that vir- 
 tue will serve to mitigate the severity of the divine 
 wrath. lisn@Batt compares Demosth. adv. Med. Οὐδεὶς 
 γὰρ ἐστι δίκαιος τυγχάνειν ἔλεου, τῶν μήδενα ἐλεούντων, 
 οὐδὲ συγγνώμη, τῶν ἀσυγγνωμοόνων. 
 
 14. The Apostle now returns to the subject 
 treated on at 1, 22—27., namely, that a knowledge 
 only of religion, ‘unaccompanied with good works, will 
 be fruitless. This is urged in opposition to those 
 Christians who too much ἢ gave in to the Jewish error, 
 that profession of a covenanted religion was enough, 
 without practice. So Jerome on “Mic. 35, « Pro- 
 mittunt eis pacem et regna ccelestia, et dicunt: non 
 necesse est, ut vivas continenter et sancte, habeto 
 fidem quam docemus, et omnia promissa Domini 
 consequeris.”’ 
 
 By πίστις is here meant such a faith as is not accompanied with 
 works, an external and historical faith, a bare profession or assent to 
 knowledge, like the ἀκρόασις at 1,22. See Grot. and Carpz., or 
 Slade. It is observed by Rosenm., that this passage would not have 
 been by some thought at variance with the doctrine inculcated by 
 
JAMES, CHAP. II. 599, 
 
 St. Paul, of obtaining remission of sins without works, and solely. 
 by Christ, if the scope of each Apostle had been attentively con- 
 sidered, ‘* Paul. (continues he) teaches us at Rom 8. that our 
 former sins are remitted, and we received into favour (for that is the 
 sense there of δικαιοῦσθαι) purely by grace, before we had con- 
 ciliated the favour of God by any works of merit. On the other 
 hand, James shows that faith (in its extended sense) is not genuine, 
 nor truly such, unless accompanied by good works. Therefore the 
 Apostles are not concerned with the same persons. For with the 
 former ὁ νόμος is the whole Jewish law ; and those against whom 
 he disputes are Jews, who fancy that they alone ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, by 
 the observance of the Mosaic law, are to be justified, to the exclu- 
 sion of Pagans. So that in this whole discussion we are to keep 
 the ἔγρα νόμου and ἔργα ἐγαθὰ quite distinct ; since in James ἔργα 
 are words and deeds agreeable to the Christian religion (ver. 8.) ; 
 and those against whom he was writing, were Christians, who se- 
 parated faith from good works, and held a bare faith to be suffici- 
 ent. But that conduct suitable to our profession is to be maintained, 
 that St. Paul also teaches, Rom. 2, 13. c. 6., and in all his Epistles. 
 The words of St. James may be illustrated from the arts exercised 
 in common life, in which theory is dead, i.e. useless, if not carried 
 into practice. So Philo, 430. Tis ὄνησις εὐφώνου ἡσυχάξοντος, ἢ 
 μὴ αὔλουντος αὐλητοῦ, ἢ κιθαριστοῦ μὴ κιθαρίξοντος, ἢ συνόλως τεχ- 
 virov τοῦ κατὰ τὴν τέχνην μὴ ἐνεργοῦντος ; ἡ γὰρ ἄνευ πράξεως 
 θεωρία ψιλὴ οὐδὲν ὄφελος τοῖς ἐπιστήμοσιν. Finally, the false opi- 
 nion of faith only being available to salvation, was very prevalent 
 among the Jews, who supposed that every Israelite who only held 
 the profession of Judaism, would at last have part in the other 
 world: and this St. James refutes.” The most satisfactory infor- 
 mation on this interesting subject may be obtained from the ad- 
 mirable Dissertation of Bp. Bull, Harm. Apost., and also the 
 notes of Whitby and Doddr, 
 
 15, 16. ἐὰν δὲ ἀδελφὸὺς---ὄφελος ; The Apostle now 
 illustrates the thing by a familiar comparison, or 
 simile, to this purpose: “As good words do not 
 profit the needy to whom they are addressed, even 
 though accompanied with good will; so neither does 
 faith, destitute of good works, benefit the believer.” 
 (Rosenm.) Γυμνοὶ, all clothed; as Matt. 25, 81, 
 Λειπόμιενοι ὦσι τῆς ἐφημέρου τροφῆς. A designation 
 of extreme poverty, denoting those who cannot ob- 
 tain food for the day which is passing over their 
 heads. Ὑπάγετε ἐν εἰρήνη. A common form of. fare- 
 well, or good-by. So Grot. Θερμαίνεσθε καὶ yopra- 
 Secbe. ‘These are deponent and reflected verbs, and 
 and import: ‘*go warm yourselves (with clothing), 
 
600 JAMES, CHAP. II. 
 
 and satisfy yourselves with food.” They also imply 
 a good wish that they may have food and raiment. 
 Θερμ. here denotes the warm of clothing; as Job. 
 31, 20. Τὰ ἐπιτήδεια τοῦ σώματος. ᾿Επιτηδ. properly 
 governs the dative; but sometimes, as here, the 
 genitive; in which case it is considered as a sub- 
 stantive, like many neuter adjectives with the ar- 
 ticle. Ti τὸ ὄφελος ; scil. ἐστι, “ what is the use (of 
 that to him)?” or, as some explain, ‘‘ what is the 
 use of such a mere profession of the Christian 
 name?” 
 
 17. οὕτω καὶ---ἑαυτὴν, “ So also faith, of itself, and 
 unaccompanied by works, is dead and useless.” A 
 repetition, in other words, of the sentiment at ver. 
 14. Nexpis here signifies fruitless, ineffective, use- 
 less. The καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν is by the Syr., Vulg., and most 
 interpreters, taken to denote sola, i. 6. if it be alone. 
 Thus it will be pleonastic; and such redundances 
 are not unfrequent in St. James. So Grot. and 
 Carpz. Others, as Pott and Rosenm., take it to 
 mean per se, 127. And this seems preferable. For 
 other interpretations the reader is referred to Pott. 
 The application is obvious. 
 
 18. ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις---ἔχω. The Apostle here fur- 
 nishes his brethren with a dialogue, by way of argu- 
 ment against a man who should magnify his profes- 
 sion of religion, and not concern himself with its 
 fruit. The words from ver. 18. to ver. 24. inclusive, 
 are addressed by a practical to a mere professing 
 Christian. (Slade.) 
 
 Various explications of this passage have been propounded, which 
 may be seen in Pole, Wolf, Storr, Carpz., and Pott. But it is 
 necessary first, that the reading be settled; for some copies have 
 ἐκ; others, χωρὶς. The former is defended by Mill, who supposes 
 the sense to be as follows: ‘“‘ Shew me thy faith by thy works: It is 
 the only way thou eanst show it: But, as thou hast no works to 
 produce, thou never canst shew me thy faith: I will prove that I 
 have faith by my works.’ (See also Doddr., Carpz., and Mackn., 
 or the abstract of their expositions in Slade.) And this will be not 
 unsuitable to the Apostle’s argument. But the other reading, 
 χωρὶς, which the E, V. follows, is far stronger in critical authority ; 
 and it is justly thought by the most eminent to yield a far more 
 
JAMES, CHAP. II. 001 
 
 apt sense, So Jaspis observes: ‘‘ Hc lectio acrius urget adver- 
 sarium et tanquam aculeis pungit absona loquentem, atque vel ideo 
 quod habet longé acutiorem et concinniorem sententiam, est Jacobo 
 dignior.” Thus the Apostle proves the necessity of good works, by 
 showing the impossibility of evincing the existence of faith without 
 them, See Wells or Slade. So Knapp and Rosenm., after observ- 
 ing that the words are ironical, lay down the following sense : 
 ‘« Shew me now the excellence of thy faith (if thou canst) without 
 works. I will not believe that the faith of which thou boastest, is 
 worthy of the name, unless thou show it me in re, and by thy 
 deeds.” 
 
 19. σὺ mioreveis—Gpicooves. An example is now 
 adduced, to confirm and illustrate the sentiment at 
 ver. 17., in which it was denied that faith alone (i. e. 
 without works) is available to salvation. Here is 
 taken for granted the frrsé article of belief (that 
 there is a God and one God only), whence depends 
 all faith in Christ. (Rosenm.) 
 
 19. καλώς ποιεῖς, “so far, so good.” Καὶ ¢pic- 
 σουσι, ‘shake and tremble while they believe; 
 since to them it brings no hope of salvation, but ‘a 
 fearful looking for of punishment, in proportion to 
 their iniquity.’ See Wolf and Slade. 
 
 20—22. Now is illustrated the nature of genuine faith by the 
 example of dbraham. Θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, &e., ‘ Shall I show thee 
 by examples from the Scripture thou professest to believe, that my 
 position is true?” “ArOpwre κενὲ, sub. φρενῶν, foolish man. So 
 the Syr., debilis, Carpz., levis (See his note). It may mean thought- 
 less. Rosenm. (after Grot.) compares the sp, Raca, Matt. 5, 22., 
 the μαῦρος of Christ, Matt. 23, 17 ἃ 19., and the ἀνόητος at Luke 
 24, 25., and Gal. 3, 1 ἃ 8. He observes, that hence we may infer 
 that the general use of such words is not forbidden, so much as the 
 employing them from hatred and passionate feelings, unaccompa- 
 nied with any desire to reform another; so Benson remarks, that 
 some of the same words, or actions, may be right, or wrong, 
 according to the temper of mind, or the principles, or views, from 
 which they proceed. ‘ Finally (continues he), when Christ and 
 the Apostles use these, it is generally when a whole class is desig- 
 nated, not an individual.” : 
 
 41, ᾿Αβραὰμ---θυσιαστήριον ; Δικαιοῦσθαι here signifies ‘ to be 
 approved, accepted, made meet for a reward.” See Hebr. 11, 31., 
 ᾿Ανενέγκας, “ when he had offered up.” For the actual preparation 
 so to do is always considered, both in the Scriptural and Rabbinical 
 writers, as a real sacrifice (see Hebr. 11, 4., and the note there). 
 And, as Benson observes, in all cases, what we would do, if per- 
 mitted, is regarded by God as if we actually did it. 
 
602 JAMES, CHAP. II. 
 
 On the supposed discrepancy between the doctrine of St. Paul and 
 St. James, Rosenm. has the following remarks. ‘ St. James has 
 been by some thought to contradict the express words of St. Paul at 
 Rom. 3, 28.; and itis not improbable that some vain persons did 
 abuse the doctrine there taught. But suppose that there were 
 some of the Christians to whom James wrote who abused the words 
 of St. Paul on justification. Thus, St. James will not contradict ϑέ. 
 Paul, but only a false explanation of his doctrine. Now, St. Paul 
 (it must be observed), when disputing against the Judaizers, who 
 imagined that, by an observation of the Mosaic Law, they might 
 attain the reward of eternal felicity, as of debt, had said that no man, 
 whether Jew or Gentile, can obtain acceptance, except by Christ’s 
 merits, not his own. Rom. 3, 25. But those Christians against 
 whom St. James is disputing, were of the persuasion (as appears 
 from the answer of the Apostle), that a person might be made par- 
 taker of eternal felicity, πίστει; χωρὶς ἔργων (ἀγαθῶν) ; and not 
 only is salvation by Christ attained by no merit of our own, but 
 there is even no need of reformation and acts of piety on our part. 
 Now this never entered into St. Paul’s thoughts. For, he plainly 
 teaches, Rom. c. 6 ἃ 8., that it is the great excellence of the Chris- 
 tian religion, that it imparts to us what the Law could not confer, 
 namely, by liberating us from the dominion of depraved lusts, and 
 exciting in our minds a desire of heavenly things, holy feelings, and 
 the study of true virtue. Thus St. Paul and St. James entirely 
 agree. ‘The former, teaches that there is no longer any need of the 
 Mosaic Law in order to obtain the favour of God, and attain unto 
 moral reformation ; that the Christian religion alone affords us all 
 that is necessary to salvation ; and that of this felicity we are made 
 partakers by no merit of our own, but purely by grace. The latter, 
 teaches that faith (i.e. ageneral profession of religion, or depend- 
 ance. on Christ for salvation) which is unaccompanied by good 
 feelings and virtuous deeds, is not of the right stamp, but imaginary 
 and fictitious. Now each Apostle illustrates his position by the 
 example of Abraham, and each suitably to the subject on which he is 
 treating.* Thus St. James does not deny that Abraham obtained 
 the Divine favour by faith ; but this he denies, that his faith was 
 destitute of good works. Abraham rather showed his faith and reli- 
 ance, by preparing to offer up his only sen (by Sarah), if God had 
 continued to require it. See Hebr. 9, 17. (Rosenm. ) 
 
 22. βλέπεις Or1—adrov, “ Thou seest that his faith was subservi- 
 ent unto works,” i.e. produced them. So the Syr.: “ fides ejus 
 auxilio fuit operibus suis.” This use of συνεργεῖν for ἐνεργεῖν or 
 βοηθεῖν is very uncommon; though some examples of it are 
 adduced from Philo, by Loesner and others. It is remarked by 
 Carpz. : “‘ Professio pietatis, et actio Abrahami heroica, hee duo si- 
 
 * The circumstance, Benson observes, of both Apostles fixing on 
 the example of Abraham, gives great confirmation to the opinion of 
 the antients, that St. James wrote this Epistle to rectify the mistakes 
 of such as had misinterpreted the Epistles of St. Paul, concerning 
 the doctrine of justification by faith. 
 
JAMES, CHAP. II. 605 
 
 mul conjungebantur et sibi succurrebant, neutra extabat sola.” Καὶ 
 ἐκ τῶν ἔργων ἡ πίστις ἐτελειώθη; i. 6. (as Rosenm. explains) from 
 his works (especially his sacrifice of hisson) he showed the truth 
 and purity of his faith.” So τελειοῦσθαι, to be acknowledged for 
 perfect, 2 Cor., 12, 9. Carpz. explains: “ His religion was known 
 to be genuine and pure, by being abundantly productive of good 
 fruits.” See the sensible note of Slade. 
 
 23. καὶ ἐπληρωθη----᾿λέγουσα. Carpz. renders: “ οἱ 
 confirmabatur quod dictum fuerat.” For (he remarks) 
 the words were said before the birth of Isaac, Gen. 
 15, 6. ‘H ypady is put, by metonomy, for the 
 passage of Scripture. “Exangaiby, ““ was found to be 
 true ;” or, “ this commendation of his faith was con- 
 firmed by the event.” So Benson ap. Slade 
 remarks: “ It does not follow, that every passage of 
 Scripture was intended as a prophecy of that parti- 
 cular event by which it is said to be fulfilled. The 
 Jews understood this and the like expressions in a 
 great latitude, and often meant no more than that 
 the passage was verified, that it might be fitly 
 accommodated to the case in hand.” καὶ ἐκλογίσθη 
 αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην, 1. 6. “ he was accounted worthy 
 of the Divine favour.” See the note on Rom. 4, 3., 
 καὶ Φίλος Θεοῦ ἐκλήθη, i. e. “ he was made the friend 
 of God ;” calling here standing for state, by a fre- 
 quent Hebraism. It is plain that the Apostle has 
 reference to Gen. 22, 16., Is. 41, 8., 2 Chron., 20. 7. 
 Compare Gen. 18, 17. And Philo 281 £., has the 
 very expression : μὴ ἐπικαλύψω ἐγὼ ἀπὸ ᾿Αβραὰμ. tot 
 Φίλου pov. And though the Hebr. has Tay; yet, as 
 Rosenm., remarks, that word is rendered, by the 
 Sept., Esth. 2, 18., friend. See also Matt. 15, 2. I 
 would compare Liban. 30. c., ὁ ἱερεὺς 6 παρὰ τοῖς 
 ἀγάλμασι βεβιωκὼς, 6 τῷ Θεῴ φίλος, 
 
 24—26. Dropping the prosopopceia, the Apostle 
 again speaks in his own person. See the note on 
 ver. 21. ‘The sense of ver. 24, is thus expressed by 
 Rosenm.: “ Hoc ergo dicit Apostolus: Ut, qui jam 
 credidit, Deum habeat amicum et fautorem, non suf- 
 ficere fidem suam, sed, si tempus detur et occasio re- 
 quiritet, bona opera, qualia prestitit Abrahamus.” 
 On Rahab and the signification of πόρνη see the noté 
 
604 JAMES, CHAP. II. III. 
 
 on Hebr. 11, 31. Οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη 3 “ Was 
 she not justified by her works, and thereby obtained 
 the favour of God, by being alone preserved, and 
 then united in marriage with an honourable person, 
 Booz?” Ὑποδεξαμένη, ‘ took them in (d7.);” which 
 implies kind treatment and hospitality. ᾿Αγγέλους, 
 spies. Such they were with respect to the Israelites, 
 as being sent to make report on their return; though 
 they would have been otherwise called by the citi- 
 zens of Jericho. ᾿ἘΕκβαλοῦσα. This verb does not 
 always import forcible ejection, but sometimes simply 
 to send forth, or away ; as Matt. 9, 25., ‘Erépa ado, 
 «“ς a different one from that they entered.” For she 
 let them down by the wall; and, as Rosenm. 
 supposes, pointed out another way to reach their 
 camp. But this is harsh and unnecessary. For 
 further observations on the case see the parallel 
 passage of Hebrews. 
 
 From all this the Apostle concludes that, as a 
 lifeless carcase is not a man; so the faith which does 
 not produce good works, is only the dead carcase of 
 faith, and not the genuine Christian faith,—a very 
 forcible simile. The sense of the words may be thus 
 expressed: “ For as the body, without the soul, is 
 dead, and useless to all the functions of human exis- 
 tence, so faith without works is dead,” i. e. (as 
 Rosenm. explains) does not produce what it ought 
 to produce, a continuance of the Divine favour, and 
 consequently eternal life. It is not vital, but useless 
 to edification, and so fails of eternal salvation. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 VersE 1. The connection here (if any be meant) 
 is so uncertain, that nothing can be decided. See 
 however Pott. 
 
 1. μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι----ληψόμεθα. At these 
 words many Commentators stumble. ‘There seems 
 to be here a popular mode of expression for, “ Put 
 
JAMES, CHAP. IIT. 605 
 
 away from among you that evil of πολυδιδασκαλία.᾽» 
 Now, the evil of many aiming to be teachers, when 
 Jew could be qualified, and when those few would 
 discharge the office, and do the good required, better 
 than many, is obvious.* Rosenm. explains διδασκ. 
 Bishops. But it rather refers to the offices of Pres- 
 byters and Deacons. What the Apostle here cautions 
 them against, was a fault into which the Jews and, 
 as may be seen, the Jewish Christians, were too apt 
 to fall, namely, of a pragmatical spirit, which aimed 
 at teaching others, and setting them right. He seems 
 also to have reference to self-appointed censors (to 
 which indeed Carpz. confines the sense), whose zeal 
 greatly exceeded their knowledge. See Benson and 
 Pott. 
 
 Then is subjoined the. reason: “for be ye well 
 assured that we (such of us as are teachers) shall 
 have a severer trial, and give a stricter account.” 
 Such (I find) is the sense assigned by Pott (whom 
 see); and it seems the most apt. Commentators, 
 however, take the κρῖμα for κατακρῖμα, condemnation, 
 and consequently punishment. But this requires the 
 subaudition of the clause: ‘‘if we fail to discharge 
 our office with fidelity, or are too censorious and 
 hard upon the failings of others.” The we is ex- 
 plained by Rosenm. as used per κοίνωσιν. But it is 
 not necessary to resort to that principle. 
 
 2. πολλὰ yap πταίομεν ἅπαντες. Here is adduced 
 the reason why a more severe judgment will be exer- 
 cised on teachers ; namely, since, as the governance 
 of the tongue is difficult, so it is often not attained 
 by them (Pott). This, however, seems very little to 
 the purpose. Rosenm. explains: “as in many 
 
 * I would compare a most apposite passage of Thucyd. 6, 72,, 
 μέγα δὲ βλάψαι καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν στρατηγῶν καὶ τὴν πολυαρχίαν 
 (ἦσαν γὰρ πεντεκαίδεκα οἱ στρατηγοὶ αὑτοῖς) τῶν τε πολλῶν τὴν 
 ἀξύντακτον ἰιναρχίαν. Also Plut. Camill. 18. 8. f., οὐδενὸς δ᾽ ἦττον 
 ἐτάραττεν ἣ πολυαρχία τὰ πραττόμενα" and Joseph. 172, 45., πολυ- 
 apxia γὰρ πρὸς τῷ τοῖς ὀξέως τί πράττειν, ἀνάγκην ἔχουσιν; ἐμποδίον 
 εἶναι, καὶ βλάπτειν πέφυκε τοὺς χρωμένους. 
 
606 JAMES, CHAP. III. 
 
 things we all offend, so there is the greater danger of 
 erring in the exercise of the office of teachers.” But 
 perhaps the Apostle here only adverts to that 
 secondary sense couched in the διδασκ. just before, 
 namely, that of censors, whom we familiarly call set 
 up teachers. And such (I find) is the view taken 
 by Benson, who paraphrases thus: “ And as we are 
 all liable to offend, more or less, we should be very 
 cautious how we censure others, or affect such a 
 station as will render our own faults so highly 
 ageravated.” 
 
 At πολλὰ must be understood κατὰ and μέρη, ‘+ in 
 many respects ;” or, as Pott and Rosenm. explain, it 
 stands for πολλώς, often. This wasa sort of common 
 phrase, or proverb, of which Wets. adduces several 
 examples. Πταίειν signifies, properly, to trip, but, 
 often, to offend, sin, (see Benson ap. Slade), of which 
 sense numerous examples are given by Wets. 
 
 2. εἴ τις ἐν λόγω οὐ πταίει, οὗτος τέλειος ἀνὴρ, 
 “Tf there be any man who does not even sin in 
 words, he will be a perfect man.” — “ But (observes 
 Rosenm.) the Apostle has just said that there is no 
 such person.” It is not, however, necessary to 
 rigorously to interpret the τέλειος, nor is this per- 
 mitted by the words following. We must under- 
 stand it of that comparative perfection to which good 
 men are permitted to attain.” So Carpz. explains : : 
 ““ He has made a great progress in virtue.” And so 
 also Beausobre and Doddr. Now the man who has 
 attained to this, it is added, is able χαλιναγωγῆσαι 
 ὅλον τὸ σώμα, “to hold in subjection the other 
 members,” since he can govern the tongue, which is 
 managed with the greatest difficulty; and, therefore, 
 as Benson adds in his paraphrase, such an one is 
 fittest to instruct the ignorant, and reprove the 
 guilty. I would compare, from an Author ap. Suid. : 
 σοφίαν δὲ ἑαυτοῦ κατεψεύδετο, καὶ χαλῖνος οὐκ ἦν ἐπὶ. 
 τῇ γλώσσῃ. 
 
 8. ἰδοὺ, τῶν ἵππων τοὺς γαλινοὺς---μετάγομεν. τι 
 is now shown by an apt similitude, that oftentimes 
 
JAMES, CHAP. ΠῚ: 607 
 
 little things stir great matters. And ver 3 & 4 seem 
 to be referable to ver. 5. Carpz., however, connects 
 this verse with the preceding thus: “ He who has a 
 proper controul over his tongue, can govern his 
 whole body, just as he who holds a horse by the 
 bridle, governs and turns about his whole body.” 
 (Rosenm.) And so Hottinger, whom see ap. Pott, 
 Χαλίνους---Αἄλλομεν. A common phrase in the Clas- 
 sical writers to denote bridling a horse. ἹΠρὸς τὸ 
 πείθεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἡμῖν, “that they may obey us,” i. 6. 
 (to use the words of Horace, cited by Rosenm.) ‘* ire 
 viam quam monstfat eques.” 
 
 4. καὶ τὰ macia—Povaynras, “ the barks (for πλοῖον 
 signifies not only a boat, but a ship, however large).” 
 Τηλικαῦτα, “ bulky as they are.” I would compare 
 Aristot. Quest. Mech. 5., μεγέθη πλοίων κίνεται (great 
 bulks of ships) ὑπὸ μικροῦ οἰάκος. Ὑπὸ σκληρών ἀνέμων, 
 * by stormy tempestuous winds, which add to the 
 difficulty of guiding them.” The epithet σκληρὸς, is 
 often used of winds (and sometimes thunder). ‘To 
 the examples adduced by Wets., I add Procop., p. 
 67., Dionys. Hal. p. 611., and Nicoph. p. 25. (Corp. 
 Byz.), ὁρμὴ τοῦ εὐθύνοντος, “the will of the steersman.” 
 A use of ὁρμὴ found in the later Historians. 
 
 4. οὕτω καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα μικρὸν μέλος ἐστι, καὶ μεγα- 
 λαυχεῖ ““ (85 ships are turned about with a compara- 
 tively small implement) so also the tongue, though a 
 little member, compared with the rest of the body, 
 may boast of doing great things (good or evil, 
 according to its use, or abuse).” So QCicumen. : 
 μεγάλα ἐργάϑεται, καλὰ δηλαδὴ καὶ κακὰ. And he adds: 
 οὐκ ἐξήπλωται δὲ οὕτως, ὅτι τοῦ συντετμιημένου λόγου μια- 
 θητὴς 6 ταῦτα γράφων. In this view I would compare 
 Anacharsis ap. Diog. Laert. 1, 105., ἐρωτηθεὶς τί 
 ἐστιν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἀγαθὸν τε καὶ φαῦλον ; ἐφὴ, γλώσσα. 
 The verb μεγαλαυχέω is said by Carpz. to be coined 
 by the Apostle; yet it occurs not only in the Sept., 
 but in the Schol. on Thucyd. 246., nay, in Isocrat., 
 Lucian, Diod., Plut., and other authors, cited by: 
 Wets. ᾿1δοὺ, ὀλίγον πῦρ ἡλίκην ὕλην ἀνάπτει, Here tay 
 
608 JAMES, CHAP. III. 
 
 signifies a heap of wood or faggots; as Thucyd. ὦ, 
 75. Some take it to denote forest ; which is sup- 
 ported by Hom. Il. a. 155., and Pind. Pyth. 3, 66., 
 cited by Wets. To which I add Thucyd. 2 m7, 
 ἐμβαλόντες δὲ πῦρ (kindling) ἥψαν τὴν Sajnv—avrKe. 
 See also  Thucyd. 4, 66., and Eurip. Ion. frag. 6, 2. 
 
 6. καὶ ἡ γλῶώσσα---ἡμώῶν, “And the tongue is, 
 like fire, the cause of numberless evils.” Ὁ κόσμος 
 τῆς ἀδικίας. On thesense of this phrase there has 
 been much needless discussion. ‘The only probable 
 opinion is, that it is used populariter, (as world in our 
 own language), 1. e. to denote a cumulus & congeries 
 malorum, or, rather, by metonymy, the cause of 
 them. On the rest see Slade. Carpz. explains 
 thus: “Etsi lingua est parvum membrum, ignis 
 tamen et ipse est; totam vitam nostram, et totum 
 terrarum orbem inflammare potest innumerabilibus 
 malis ;” quasi scriberetur τὸν κόσμον τῇ ἀδικίᾳ ἀνάπτει" 
 cui extinguendo non satis est mare, quod totum cir- 
 cumfluit orbem. 
 
 6. οὕτως ἡ γλώσσα καθίσταται ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν Hwy. 
 “It is in our members what fire is, when cast into ἃ 
 wood (for καθιστ. here signifies to become, be), 1. 6. it 
 may be compared to a devastating fire. So Rosenm. 
 Other modes of interpretation may be seen in Ben- 
 son, Semler, and Pott. Ἡ σπιλοῦσα, “ which stains, 
 corrupts the whole body,” as fire destroys the whole _ 
 wood. Kal φλογίϑουσα τὸν τρόχον τῆς γενέσεως. 
 These words involve no little obscurity. Several ex- 
 positions may be seen in Wets., Kypke, Heisen, and 
 Pott. The most naturaland probable one seeems to 
 be that of Grot., Heins., Aretas, Mich., Carpz., 
 Rosenm., Pott, and Schleus., namely: “It is that ~ 
 which sets on fire and destroys the whole course of 
 life, from boyhood to old age, and, by raising and 
 nourishing hatred and enmity, renders life a scene of 
 misery. Γενέσεως, nature (as 1, 23.), the world, life. 
 Thus the course of nature is a periphrasis of life. See 
 more in Slade. How this is brought about it were easy 
 to show; but the disquisition would: be here out of 
 
JAMES, CHAP. IIL. 609 
 
 6. καὶ φλογιϑομένη ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης. This, like many 
 others in the Apostle, is a dark sentence, the obscu- 
 rity of which may, perhaps, be ascribed to what 
 Carpz. somewhere calls the “ vehemens Jacobi et a 
 spiritu Divino immissus affectus.” ‘The most popu- 
 lar opinion is that of Grot., Benson, and Storr, that 
 the φΦλογιβομένη is put for the Future; and that it 
 refers to the future punishments of hell. The 
 Apostle is thought by most recent Critics to allude 
 to that common notion of the Jews, that punishment 
 was (by the lex talionis), literally, to be inflicted on 
 the very member with which any one had offended 
 in this life. So Sapient. 11,16. But it can scarcely 
 be supposed that the Apostle would condescend to 
 pointan admonition or a warning from so anilea 
 fancy, drawn from the very dregs of Pagan super- 
 stition. I am more inclined to think, with some 
 eminent moderns, that the word hedl is here put for 
 the Devil, and the evil passions with which he 
 inflames the heart of men, ‘‘ darts tempered in hell.” 
 See Benson and Mackn. I would compare Euthym. 
 1127. 5. f., τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους ἐξέκαυσιν 6 διάβολος. 
 
 7. πᾶσα γὰρ ᾧυσις---ἀνθρωπίνη, “ΝΟΥ all animals 
 in nature, whether volatile, reptile, or marine, are 
 tamed, and have been tamed, or subjected by human 
 nature,” i. 6. by man. Φύσις θηρίων is said to be for 
 θηρία. But it rather signifies animals in nature. 
 Φύσις ἀνθρωπίνη plainly denotes human kind, i. 6, 
 man, of which expression the Philologists adduce ex- 
 amples. The distribution of the θηρία into the τὰ 
 πετεινὰ, the ἐρπετὰ, and the ἐνάλια, was common. 
 See Gen. 9, 2., and the note of Carpz. So Theocr. 
 Id. 15, 118., πάντ᾽ αὐτῷ πετεηνὰ καὶ ἐρπετὰ τᾷδε πά- 
 ρεντι" and Atschyl. ch. ὅ, 78., where see Blomfield. 
 In dapageras καὶ δεδάμασται there is great point and 
 energy. ‘These terins refer to all the various arts by 
 which noxious animals are subdued, or tamed, and 
 the evils from them avoided. 
 
 8. τὴν δὲ γλῶσσαν οὐδεὶς δύναται ἀνθρώπων dapacai, 
 i. 6. “it is more difficult to repress the evils arising 
 
 VOL, Vill. Ω 
 
610 JAMES, CHAP. III. 
 
 from the abuse of the tongue, than those from the 
 most savage “beasts.” Such 1 believe to be the 
 general sense; though it is disputed among Com- 
 mentators whether the Apostle means one’s own 
 tongue, or the tongue of another. ‘The controversy, 
 however, is frivolous; since both may very well 
 have been had in view. See Benson. ᾿Ακατάσχετον 
 κακόν, μεστὴ ἰοῦ θανατηφόρου, ““ has evils which cannot 
 be effectually checked, but is full of deadly poison.” 
 ‘There seems to be an allusion to the bite of a 
 venomus reptile. Carpz. observes, that the origin of 
 the metaphor 15 in Ps. 139,14. The term éxaracy. 
 is sometimes (though Wets. fails to notice.it) used 
 of violent disorders which cannot be stopped (for it 
 does not, as Benson supposes, contain a metaphor de- 
 rived from beasts confined within a hedge). The 
 various ways in which the tongue may produce this 
 mischief may easily be imagined. 
 
 9. ἐν αὐτῇ εὐλογοῦμεν τὸν Θεὸν ----γεγόνότας. Here is 
 an amplification of the sentiment at ver. 7 & 8. Ἔν, 
 a, by, with. Ἑὐλογοῦμεν, we praise, worship. ‘Toy 
 Θεόν καὶ πατέρα, ““ God, even our Father,” or, “ our 
 God and Father.” See the note, supra, 1, 27. 
 Karapwucda τ. a., “imprecate curses on, heap in- 
 vectives ;” a mixture of cursing and abuse. Spoken 
 per κοίνωσιν, meaning, Rosenm. thinks, certain 
 teachers. But it rather seems to be meant, 
 generally, for all those whom it might concern, who 
 (by the evil example-of an age prone to this vice) 
 were probably not afew. The yeyov. καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν 
 has reference to Gen. 1, 26 & 27. Carpz. states the 
 argument thus: ‘It is preposterous to pretend to 
 worship God as our Creator, and return him thanks 
 for the benefits conferred on some of his creatures, 
 and yet others of his creatures, and those made in the 
 image of God, to revile, curse, and heap impreca- 
 tions on.” | 
 
 10—12. ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ στύματος--- γίνεσθαι. The dig- 
 _nified, gravity of this rebuke is truly admirable. 
 ᾿Ἐξέρχεται, issues. Οὐ χρὴ, Hesych. οὐ δεῖ, q. d. “it is 
 
JAMES, CHAP. III. 611 
 
 unsuitable to our high calling in Christ that the 
 noblest of God’s creatures should so abuse his facul- 
 ties as not even does the vilest.” See Sir. 28, 12—14. 
 
 This the Apostle then illustrates by two familiar 
 examples, arguing, as Grot. says, from what is 
 impossible in nature, what is absurd in morals. Μήτι 
 ἡ πηγὴ---πικρὸν. ‘The interrogative involves a strong 
 negation. ᾿ὈΟπῆς, the opening, whence the fountain 
 bubbles up. Βρύει, emits. ᾿Εκ τῆς αὐτῆς, i. 6. (as 
 Rosenm. explains) from the same opening, and at 
 the same time. At γλυκὺ and πικρὸν, must be under- 
 stood ὕδωρ. The μὴ δύναται---σῦκα ; is the same 
 with the pyri συλλέγουσιν---σῦκα ; at Matt. 7, 16.; 
 and many similar sentiments are adduced from the 
 Classical writers by Wets. and others. The meaning 
 of all such expressions is, that nothing can take 
 place contrary to the laws of nature. 
 
 The var. lect. here found in a few MSS., and 
 received by Griesb., is, I conceive, merely an emen- 
 dation of the early librarii. See Carpz. and Benson. 
 Slade thinks it is an improvement ; though he sus- 
 pects the passage to be altogether corrupt. 
 
 13. Having cautioned them against the abuse of 
 the tongue, the Apostle now goes further, and strikes 
 the very root of that evil, while he warns them against 
 envy and malice in their hearts; assuring them that 
 meekness, peace, and beneficence, proceed from 
 heaven ; but envy and contention are the offspring 
 of hell. (Benson.) The best Commentators suppose 
 that the admonition is especially intended for certain 
 conceited teachers, or persons who would be such, 
 and who promoted schisms and needless separations 
 of Christian societies. 
 
 13. τίς σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων. The σόφος and ἐπισ- 
 τήμων Pott compares with the Pay Coan in Hos. 
 14, 10., and Deut. 1,138 & 15. 4, 6. And he ob- 
 serves, that there is usually this distinction between 
 them, that the former denotes one who knows many 
 things; the latter, one who can teach them to others. 
 See Pollux. Yet they are here nearly synonymous. 
 
 ZR 
 
612 JAMES, CHAP. 111. 
 
 Δειξάτω ἐκ τῆς καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἐν 
 πρᾳὕτητι σοφίας, ““ Let him show, by a right and vir- 
 tuous conduct the works of wisdom* (as well as 
 utter the words), and that of a mild wisdom.” Such 
 is (I conceive) the true sense. ᾿Αναστροῴης “ life and 
 conversation.” Ey πρᾳύτητι σοφίας is for ἐν σοφίᾳ 
 πραείᾳ. The ἐν is for σὺν. So Rosenm. TIpair. 
 denotes. not only lenity, but patience and long suf- 
 fering, in opposition to the proud, passionate, and 
 morose dictatorial temper of the teachers in question 
 and other self-appointed censors. Grot. compares 
 the Horatian ‘‘mitis sapientia Leeli.” Tadd Philostr. 
 V.S. p. 407. fin. τὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας ἢθος---κεχγώσμενον 
 δὲ οἷον ἠδύσμιατι, Ty πρᾳότηι" and Ρ. 528. s. 1. τὸ κατὰ 
 φύσιν ἐρμηνεύειν μαθὼν, ἐπεκόσμησεν αὐτὸ weaicpery, 
 TPOTYT. 
 
 14. εἰ δὲ ϑῆλον πικρὸν ἔχετε καὶ ἐρίθειαν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ 
 _tyov. It has been much disputed whether these 
 words should be read interrogatively, or not. Most 
 recent Commentators adopt the former, assigning 
 the following sense: “ Do ye not falsely boast, arro- 
 gating to yourselves contrary to truth, the title of 
 wise?” Rosenm. compares a similar pleonasm at 
 Rom. 9, 1. The above method is also approved by 
 Carpz., who read the Epistle twice through, to de- 
 termine how far this interrogation were consistent . 
 with the scope of the Apostle. Yet the common 
 mode of taking the passage, yields a not contemptible 
 sense, and is adopted by Jaspis (whom see), as also 
 by Bp. Hall ap. D’Oyley. 
 
 15. οὐκ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ σοφία ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη, ‘* This 
 is not the wisdom which was sent by God (in the 
 Gospel), but earthly, animal, carnal, diabolical.” 
 The ἐπίγειος Rosenm. explains: non queerens cceles- 
 tia, sed terrena, conveniens curvis in terras animis. 
 On ψυχικὴ see the note on 1 Cor. 2. 14. and Jud. 19. 
 Δαιμονιώδης, i. e. such as we may conceive in Satan 
 
 * So Clem. Rom. ad. Cor. ὃ 3S. (cited. by Carpz.) ὁ σοφὸς ἐν- 
 δειενύσθω τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ ἔν ἐργοις ἀγαθοῖς. 
 
JAMES, CHAP. III. 613 
 
 and the demons, whose wisdom is but cunning and 
 guile, and such as, like theirs, is full of deceit. 
 Carpz. thinks there is chiefly reference to the self 
 erected censors, who only gratified their conceit and 
 malice, seeking neither the honour of God, nor the 
 reformation of men. 
 
 16. ὅπου γὰρ---πρᾶγμα. Axaracracia, tumult, dis- 
 sension; as Luke 21,9. and 2Cor. 6, 5. 12, 20., 
 where see the notes. Φαῦλον πρᾶγμα. This is ac- 
 counted an hyperbole. But the sense seems to be, 
 that from this source nothing but what is evil can 
 arise. 
 
 17. 7 δὲ ἄνωθεν σοφία---ἀνυπόκριτος. Under the 
 description of things and qualities the Apostle 
 couches that of persons. Thus the ἡ ἄνωθεν σοφία 
 is for of ἄνωθεν σοφοὶ. Now this wisdom, it is said, 
 is ἀγνὴ, pure from terrestrial dross. See 1 Joh. 3, 3. 
 Carpz. explains: a sincere and pure heart, removed 
 from all evil affections, which ἄσπιλον τηρεῖ ἀπὸ τοῦ 
 κόσμου. ΕἰἸρηνικὴ, ‘studious of peace,” in opposition 
 to the strife censured at ver. 15 & 16. ᾿Επιεικὴς, 
 gentle and candid, mild in judging of the lapses of 
 others, and interpreting every thing for the best, 
 sometimes yielding up its right, though it might 
 obtain it by law. Εὐπειθὴς, tractable, docile, and 
 accommodating. Μεστὴ ἐλέους καὶ καρπῶν ἀγαθών. 
 These must be united, as designating ἐλ. in its most 
 extensive sense, 1. 6. not only of mercy, but beneft- 
 cence and charity; which is especially signified by 
 the καρπών ἀγαθών. Compare 2, 14—17. ᾿Αδιάκριτος, 
 without undue partiality on account of religion, 
 sect, or party. Carpz. explains it : ‘animis benignus 
 ab iracundia et fervore intemperante, personarum 
 etiam delectu alienus,” as opposed to the ϑῆλος, ἐρι- 
 θεία, and ἀκαταστασία preceding. ᾿Ανυπόκριτος, un- 
 dissembled, candid, free from ambition, &c. 
 
 18. καρπὸς δὲ τὴς δικαιωσύνης---εἰρήνην. From the 
 flexibility of the phraseology it is difficult to fx the 
 sense of this verse. Carpz. has minutely discussed 
 it; but his interpretation is too bold and arbitrary. 
 
614 JAMES, CHAP. III. IV. 
 
 Rosenm. explains: ‘fructus autem probitatis salu-. 
 berrimus ab iis seritur, qui pacem colunt,”’ 1. 6. 
 “from the study of peace, which they cultivate, 
 many other virtues, as fruits, spring forth:” for as 
 all sorts of vices and evils of every kind arise from 
 envy and strife, so from the study of peace spring 
 all virtues and good of every kind. Δικαιωσύνη here, 
 as often, comprehends the whole range of buman 
 duty. Doddr. renders: ‘The fruit of righteousness 
 in peace is sown for them that make peace;” 4. d. 
 They who show a peaceful temper (supposing it to 
 proceed from right principles), may assure them- 
 selves that they shall reap a harvest, in a world 
 where righteousness flourishes in eternal peace. See 
 also Benson and Slade. With the καρπὸς δικαιωσύνης 
 I would compare Aristid. 1, 388. καρπὸς ἀρετῆς. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 From exhortation to the study of peace the 
 Apostle glides into reprehension of the opposite, 
 namely, of broils and disputes, to which too many, 
 especially of the teachers, or those who aimed at 
 being so, were probably addicted. Now these are 
 traced trom their fountain, even that of the lusts and 
 passions natural to the human heart. (Pott.) 
 
 Ver. 1. πόθεν πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι ἐν ὑμῖν ; οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν, 
 ἐκ τῶν---ὗὁμιώῶν ; : 
 
 In the πόλεμοι and μάχαι some erroneously recognise the ele- 
 ments of those seditions which afterwards broke oat into rebellion 
 against the Roman power. The words rather denote domestic 
 strifes, and contentions of sects and parties in the same city. (Ro- 
 senm.) These disputes, we may suppose, were fanned by the busy, 
 conceited, and perhaps ambitious and grasping persons before men- 
 tioned. See Noesselt and Pott, or Rosenm. Οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν, ἐκ τῶν 
 ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν τῶν στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν; The ἐντ, 
 must be referred to the words following, with the subaudition of 
 δηλάδη. ‘Héor. is put metonymically to denote lusts and passions ; 
 since these promise pleasure to their votaries. Now such would 
 vary in different persons (though chiefly, as Carpz. observes, con- 
 sisting of pride and selfishness) ; but still there was the lust or pas- 
 
JAMES, CHAP. IV. 615 
 
 sion warring in their members. The στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέ- 
 λεσιν, is explained by Rosenm. of vexing and troubling the mind. 
 And he cites Max. Tyr. Diss. 36. πόλεμον οὐ δημόσιον, ἀλλ᾽ idiw- 
 τικὸν, οὗ σιδηροφοροῦντα, οὐδὲ πυρφοροῦντα---ἀλλὰ γυμνὸν ὄπλων 
 ἀσίδηρον, ἄπυρον, λυμαινόμενον τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ αὐτὴν πολιορκοῦντα. 
 But this is paring down the sense, which has been well pointed out 
 by Carpz. thus: The seeds and causes of these contentions are ai 
 ἡδοναὶ, a word in the-New Testament almost always used in a bad 
 sense. ‘Theologians call it peccatum originis, the ἁμαρτία καθ᾽ 
 ὑπερβολὴν ἁμαρτωλὸς, the seed and fomentum of all evils, So supra, 
 1, 14. ἴδια ἐπθυμία" and 1 Pet. 2,11. ἐπιθυμίαι σαρκικαὶ αἵτινες 
 στρατεύονται κατὰ τὴς ψυχῆς (a twin passage ), and also Rom. 7, 23. 
 βλέπω δὲ ἕτερον νόμον ἐν τοῖς μέλεσί pov ἀντιστρατευόμενον, &c. 
 By the μελ. is evidently meant the depraved nature of man, ἡ σὰρξ. 
 The orpar. (which term is here used conformably to the military 
 metaphor) signifies, exert their force, excite, instigate to disturb- 
 ance,”’ Hottinger well renders : ‘‘ que corporis facibus inflammatz 
 istos in animis vestris tumultus cient.” Of πολ. and pax} in the 
 metaphorical sense Wets. adduces numerous examples. The ge- 
 neral sentiment is illustrated by Cic. de fin. (cited by Rosenm.) Ex 
 cupiditatibus odia, dissidia, discordia, seditiones, bella nascuntur. 
 To which I add Mac. Tyr. Diss. 41. p. 428. διὰ τὴς ψυχῆς νόσον ot 
 πολλοὶ πόλεμοι; ἃ Diss. 20, 6. μεστὰ πάντα ταῦτα πολέμου καὶ 
 ἀδικίας αἵ γὰρ ἐπιθυμίαι πλανῶτται πανταχοῦ, περὶ πᾶσαν γῆν καὶ 
 πλεονεξίας ἐπεγείρουσιν. Propert.2, 8. Hominum vitiis ad pre- 
 lium venitur. See also Strabo 780, 35. and Plato de Rep. 600 F. 
 2, 3. Now follows a more exact description of this 
 contest of the passions and appetites. (Pott.) ’Em- 
 θυμεῖτε, καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε, ‘ye desire riches, honours, 
 fame, pleasures,” &c. Καὶ but. Οὐκ ἔχετε (for 
 λαμβάνατε), acquire, obtain them not. Whitby and 
 Semler refer this solely to the Judaizers stirring up 
 civil commotions. But Rosenm. rightly accounts 
 that too hypothetical; and justly observes, that men 
 of the sort here described are found every where. 
 Povevere καὶ ϑηλοῦτε. Many critics, as Erasm. and 
 Beza, thinking Φονεύετε too strong a term, conjec- 
 ture d$oveire. But this would yield too weak a sense ; 
 and it is unsupported by any ΜΌΝ; so that not- 
 withstanding what Benson pleads in its favour, it 
 must be rejected. Neither is it necessary. We 
 have only to take Gov. in a similar mi/d sense to that 
 in which we had interpreted the πόλεμοι and μάχαι 
 just before; and such a sense is found in various 
 words both of the antient and modern languages. 
 
x 
 
 616 JAMES, CHAP. IV. 
 
 Thus it may be explained, with Wolf, Mich., Ro- 
 senm., &c.: ‘‘ye are ready to murder.” I should, 
 however, prefer rendering it: ‘‘ ye foster a brutal 
 
 and murderous spirit ;” or, taking ya. with it: “ye 
 foster a murderous hatred and jealousy, to come at 
 your ends:” which partakes of the guilt of murder. 
 So 1 Joh. 3, 15. ‘‘ whosoever hateth his brother is δ᾽ 
 murderer.” 
 
 2. οὐκ ἔχετε δὲ, διὰ τὸ μιὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς. 
 
 The sense of these words is obscure, from brevity, and may best 
 be expressed in a paraphrase thus: ‘* Ye attain not the pleasures 
 ye so vehemently long for and seek after [and no wonder, since vice 
 ever cheats its deluded votaries with the semblance, but never affords 
 the reality of pleasure], because ye do not (seriously) seek them 
 (where alone they can be found, in the practice of true virtue, and 
 in a humble dependence on the Lord of heaven and earth, the giver 
 of every good and perfect gift, casting all your care on Him who 
 careth for you).” Thus alone can disappointment, and the influence 
 of evil passions, be cut off, by subjecting ourselves as humble pen- 
 sioners on that God who waiteth to be gracious. See Matt. 6, 24. 
 
 The next words αἰτεῖτε, καὶ ov λαμβάνετε---διαπανήσητε are said 
 quasi per epanorthosin; q.d. ‘ Ye do, indeed, some of you ask, but 
 ye receive not what ye ask, because ye prefer improper petitions 
 (for instance), that ye may have wherewith to expend on your car- 
 nal appetites.” See Benson’s references, who adds, that we ought 
 to pray for such things only, and with such views, as are good in 
 themselves, and according to the will of God. See Ps. 15, 1. 33, 18. 
 34, 8S. 145, 18—20. Eccl. 2,6. Joh. 9, 31. 1 Joh. 3, 22. ἃ 5, 14. 
 The phrase δαπασᾷν ἐν is (1 think) rare. ’Es would have been 
 more correct. So Thucyd. 845. οἱ μὲν τὰ σώματα χείρω ἔχωσι, 
 δαπανῶντες ἐς τοιαῦτα ad’ ὧν ἡ ἀσθενεία ξΞυμβαίνει. 
 
 He now admonishes them to abstain from those 
 lusts whence come strifes and dissensions, and, in- 
 deed (ver. 4 & 5.), from all excessive attachment to 
 the things of this world. (Pott.) 
 
 4. μοιχοὶ καὶ μοιχαλίδες. In the interpretation of 
 these words Commentators (as on many other occa- 
 sions) run into two extremes. Some take them ina 
 strictly literal sense; others altogether in a figurative 
 one, namely, of spiritual idolatry, base worldly-min- 
 dedness, which would make no sacrifice for reli- 
 gion; and some understand, persons who were nel- 
 ther Christians nor Jews, and who brought disgrace 
 on both. See 2 Pet. 2, 1 & 2. But, assuredly, we 
 
JAMES, CHAP. 1V. 617 
 
 must not fail to include the literal sense ; since im- 
 morality, in the then corrupt state of society, was 
 sure to be found every where, for which, alas, the 
 propensities of our corrupt nature furnish, in all 
 ages, sufficient fuel. By the ὁ κοσμὸς is meant the 
 corrupt part of the world, and sin generally, the love 
 or preference to which must imply enmity to God, 
 as being at variance with all his plans for the promo- 
 tion of human virtue, and consequently happiness. 
 
 In the words ὃς ἂν οὖν βουληθη---κοαθίσταται there is 
 a sort of solemn repetition of the position involved 
 in the preceding interrogation. And καθίσταται is 
 very significant. 
 
 5, 6. ἢ) δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ γραφὴ λέγει: LI pds φθόνον 
 Sei | sola 
 
 There are few passages in the New Testament that have so much, 
 and with so little success, exercised the Commentators as the pre- 
 sent. It is impossible for me to detail and review even half of the 
 various interpretations proposed. First, some would avoid the dif- 
 ficulty by supposing the passage to be corrupt, or a mere assu- 
 mentum foisted in from the margin, and therefore to be cancelled. 
 But this is too violent a method to be thought of. As little atten- 
 tion is due to'the conjectures that have been hazarded. One great 
 difficulty is, that the words to which ἡ γραφὴ λέγει belong, are not 
 found in Scripture (though many Commentators refer to Gen. 6, 
 3 ἃ 5. and 8,21. Numb. 11, 29. Prov. 21, 10.), to avoid which, 
 some understand then interrogatively, taking the first clause as a 
 general intimation of the infallibility of God; i.e. ‘* Do ye think 
 that the Scripture can speak falsely ? or does the spirit which dwell- 
 eth in us incline us to vehement envy and rage?” See Slade and 
 his references. The best Commentators are agreed that ἡ γραφὴ 
 must refer to some passage of Scripture; and Semler and Knatch- 
 bull fix on some Apocryphal book, as Test. Simeonis §. 3., which 
 treats of the baleful effects of envy. But the two passages have no- 
 thing common between them but the subject; and to suppose an 
 Apocryphal book referred to as a passage of Scripture, is not to be 
 thought of. As to the methods proposed by Heins. and Pott, they 
 are justly objected to by Rosenm, Mr, Slade treats the words πρὸς 
 φθόνον---χάριν as parenthetical; and he translates thus: “ Think 
 ye that the Scripture saith falsely (the spirit, that hath taken up his 
 abode in us, resisteth and subdueth the feelings of envy, and gives 
 us a more abundant supply of grace)? wherefore this Scripture 
 saith, ‘ God resisteth,” ἃς, Or thus: ‘ Does the Spirit, which has 
 taken up his abode in us, lust unto envy ? yea, rather, if gives us 
 more grace.” The latter mode is greatly preferable: indeed, the 
 former (founded on. a criticism of Schleusner) can by no means be 
 
618 JAMES, CHAP. IV. 
 
 admitted, as devoid of authority, and contrary to allanalogy. One 
 thing seems clear, that the words in question are the words of St. 
 James, and that they must be divided into two clauses, each inter- 
 yogative. As to the expedient of a parenthesis, suggested by Mr. 
 Slade, it seems to be not only too arbitrary, but rather to tend to 
 break up the construction, and yet more obscure the sense. 
 
 Upon the whole, I see no serious objection to the first mentioned 
 interpretation, which is ably supported by Benson, who paraphrases 
 thus : ‘‘ Do you think that the Scripture speaketh in vain, or with- 
 out avery good reason, when it condemns such a worldly temper ? 
 No, that you cannot rationally suppose. Do you imagine that the 
 spirit of God, which dwelleth in us Christians, Jeadeth us to cove- 
 tousness, pride, or envy? No, by no means. On the contrary, 
 unto such as follow his guidance and direction, and excel in love, 
 humility, and moderation, as to the things of this world, he showeth 
 greater favour. Wherefore, the Scripture saith,” &c. But perhaps 
 no Commentator has so happily and so briefly expressed the sense 
 as the venerable Bp. Hall, ap. D’Oyley and Mant, as follows: ‘ This 
 the Scripture beateth upon every where; and do ye think it speaketh 
 thus in vain? Certainly every word thereof is to excellent purpose, 
 and shall be verified upon us. _Doth, then, that Spirit of God, 
 which we profess to have dwelling in us, lust after envy, and envy 
 the good things of others? Surely not: so far is He from that, as 
 that He giveth more grace where He hath given some already.” 
 The πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ seems to be a provincial expression. 
 
 The words μείξονα χάριν didwarare, by Storr, explained: “ God be- 
 stoweth more benefits than the world can bestow, if ye be its friends ;”’ 
 which is, perhaps, a more regular mode of filling up the ellipsis than 
 that of Bp. Hall. Διὸ λέγει. The διὸ may be rendered, in which 
 respect, in which view, agreeably to which. Λέγει, scil. ἡ γραφὴ. 
 The sense, then, is: ‘* In which view, I repeat, the Scripture saith.” 
 So in Prov. 3, 34. I would compare Aschyl. Pers. 832—6. Blomf. 
 Ζεύς τοι κολαστὴς τῶν ὑπερκόπων ἄγαν Φρονημάτων ἔπεστιν, εὔθυ-᾿ 
 vos βαρύς. Πρὸς ταῦτ᾽ ἐκεῖνον, σωφρονεῖν κεχρημένον, Πινύσκετ᾽ 
 εὐλόγοισι νουθετήμασι λῆξαι θεοβλαβοῦνθ᾽ ὑπερκόπῳ θράσει. By 
 the ὑπερηφάνοις, Rosenm. understands those before termed the 
 friends of this world, and the enemies of God, But it rather seems to 
 denote the envious, self-conceited, censorious, spiritually proud per- 
 sons above mentioned, in the whole of the preceding Chapter, and 
 to this verse of the present. Now these God resisteth, by refusing 
 his grace to prosper their endeavours. The raz. may denote all 
 those who are, in every respect, obedient to his will. 
 
 7. ὑποτάγητε οὖν τῷ Θεῷ, ““ Be subject (i. e. subject. 
 yourselves) to God; and seek his favour by perfect 
 obedience, and value it before that of the world.” 
 ᾿Αντίστητε τῷ διαβόλῳ. The die. is interpreted, by 
 many recent Commentators, the principle of moral 
 evil, i.e. the friendship of the world. But this is 
 
 very far-fetched. ‘There seems no reason to abandon 
 
JAMES, CHAP. IV. O19: 
 
 the common interpretation, the Devil, Satan (see 
 Benson), which is required by the φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμών 
 following. Now to resist the Devil is to resist the 
 temptations to sin (especially those before men- 
 tioned, namely, pride, self-conceit, sensuality, &c.) 
 which he is permitted to raise in the hearts of men. 
 And the most effectual mode of resisting such temp- 
 tations is by persevering in the practice of virtue, 
 supported by those aids to human weakness which 
 earnest prayer may draw down from Him who 
 knoweth our weakness, and remembereth that we 
 are but dust. This latter mean is, indeed, sug- 
 gested by the words following ; for ἐγγίσατε may 
 mean, draw near in prayer, as wellas 4 yield obedience. 
 8. ἐγγίσατε τῷ Dew, καὶ ἐγγιεῖ ὑμῖν. An expres- 
 sion, as Benson thinks, derived from the temple 
 worship, in which the Priests drew nigh to the 
 Shechinah, (See his references.) And thus may 
 Christians draw nigh unto God, as a royal 2; iest- 
 hood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, Pets 2.0.0 
 8. καθαρίσατε χεῖρας, ἁμαρτωλοὶ. of ay polluted 
 hands (says Benson) the antient Heathens meant 
 hands stained with blood or murder. See Herod. 1, 
 35. and Schol. on Soph. Aj. 667. But the Scriptures 
 do not confine the phrase to freedom from murder, 
 but extend it to vice, or wickedness in general. Now 
 both the Heathens and Jews used (and still do) to 
 wash their hands before worship : and to this the. 
 Apostle seems to allude.” ‘Apagrwaci. This may 
 denote all those guilty of great offences, especially 
 the ones above alluded to, pride, cruelty, sensuality, 
 hypocrisy, worldly-mindedness, &c. By the δίψυχοι 
 many Commentators understand those who were 
 wavering between two opinions, i. e. neither Jews, 
 nor Christians, but, by their immorality, a disgrace 
 to both religions. Another view is taken by Car pz. 
 whom see, and also Pott. The expression may, 
 however, denote persons who, though Christians, 
 were wavering and halting between two opinions, 
 the service of God and the service of the world, who, 
 
620 JAMES, CHAP. IV. 
 
 as we find from ver. 3., did indeed pray to God, but 
 prayed with hearts attached to the world, and with 
 tongues which sought alone the world’ s goods. Now 
 such as these had great occasion to purify their 
 hearts, and rectify such fatal misconceptions of 
 religion. 
 
 9. ταλαιπωρήσατε καὶ πενθήσατε mat κλάυσατε, &c. 
 In this verse there is a prophetical grandeur of style, 
 expressing the same thing in different language. 
 Hence the accumulation, bv climax, of terms desig- 
 nating sadness, intended to impress the Christians 
 whom he is addressing with the greater sorrow and 
 shame. Compare 5, 1. (Pott.) 
 
 The Apostle means to say that, by having been 
 guilty of such offences as those before mentioned, 
 
 ride, envy, sensuality, covetousness, &c., it is 
 fitting that they should not rejoice in the comforts of 
 the Gospel, but humble themselves by every act that 
 
 may be expressive of contrition. For, as Rosenm. 
 observes, it is this animt affectus that is chiefly had 
 in view. Weeping and mourning are to be consi- 
 - dered only as acts attendant on contrition, and it 
 is not so much these external acts, as rather the 
 internal feelings that are urged.” Ταλαιπωρήσατε, 
 “ἐ acknowledge and be deeply sensible of your miser- 
 able state, even amidst the world’s goods, which may 
 so soon fail you.” Ὁ γέλως ὑμών εἰς πένθος μετασ- 
 τραῷήτω, καὶ ἡ χάρα εἰς κατήφειαν, ““ Let your former 
 levity and sensual mirth be turned into deep peni- 
 tence and heavy sorrow at having offended God.” 
 Karygem is a strong term, used by the best authors, 
 from Homer to Plutarch. I would here compare 
 Dionys. Hal. 743, 33. Τελάτε, ἔφησεν, ἕως ἔξεστιν 
 ὑμήν, ἄνδρες ᾿Ῥαραντῖνοι, γελᾶτε' πολὺν γὰρ τὸν μετὰ 
 ταῦτα χρόνον κλαύσετε. 
 
 10. ταπεινωώθητε ἐνώπιον τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ ὑψώσει ὑμάς. 
 The Apostle here suggests some motives for conso- 
 lation amidst the deep sorrow and repentance to 
 which they are called, namely, that God will, if it be 
 real, heartfelt, and productive of true reformation, 
 
JAMES, CHAP. ΤΥ. 621 
 
 be the means of recommending them to the Divine 
 forgiveness, and raising them to the Divine favour. 
 For I cannot think, with some eminent Commenta- 
 tors, that this has reference to any temporal deliver- 
 ance and exaltation of the Christians within a few 
 years, by the removal of their persecutors, the Jews. 
 11, 12. The Apostle here cautions them against 
 censure and detraction, letting them know that it 
 was taking too much upon them, and was, in effect, 
 a censuring the Christian law, which forbade such 
 things; as well as displeasing to Christ, who is our 
 only lawgiver and judge. (Benson.) Apostolus 
 claudit monitiones de intempestiva censura aliorum, 
 quas inceperat Capite tertio, et huc usque communi- 
 verat rationibus: simul revocat nonnulla in memo- 
 riam ex superioribus. (Carpz.) | 
 11. μὴ καταλαλεῖτε ἀλλήλων. Καταλαλεῖν sienifies, 
 properly, to talk against, and hence to calumniate, 
 censoriously pronounce judgment against, διαβάλλω, 
 kakoroyew. Such had, perhaps, been the practice of 
 some who, in other respects, were not unobservant of 
 Christian duties. Into the speculations of Commen- ἡ 
 tators on the persons intended, and the particulars 
 of the calumny, I shall not enter. ‘O καταλαλών 
 ἀδελφοὺ ---νόμιοον, ““ He who calumniates or speaks evil 
 of another, and condemns him (i.e. on account of 
 things not forbidden in the Gospel, as the observa- 
 tion of days, meats, &c.), he censures and condemns 
 the law, and the religion itself, of Christ, as being 
 imperfect.” At νόμου must be understood ἡμῶν, or 
 τοῦ Χριστοῦ, i.e. νόμος τέλειος τῆς ἐλευθερίας 1, 25. 
 (Rosenm., partly from Bens.) It is simplest to sup- 
 pose the article omitted, which will stand for either 
 of these subauditions. Carpzov thinks that by the 
 νόμος is meant the νόμος βασιλικὸς at 2, 8., which pro- 
 hibits all calumny. See 1 Pet. 2, 1. and 2 Cor. 12, 
 40. It is rightly remarked, by Bensonand Rosenm., 
 that κρίνειν νόμον is, to declare it imperfect, by re- 
 garding a certain part-of Judaism as necessary to be 
 introduced ; and he who thinks he may lawfully 
 
622 JAMES, CHAP. IV. 
 
 calumniate others, does, in effect, condemn that law 
 as defective, because it has forbidden such calumny.” 
 Bp. Middleton would interpret νόμου of religion, or 
 moral obligation in general, to which candour and 
 good will are essential. A true remark, but such a 
 sense is not permitted by the context. See Carpzov 
 and Slade. 
 
 The Apostle then adds yet more. Ei δὲ νόμον 
 κρίνεις, οὐκ εἶ ποιητὴς νόμου, ἀλλὰ κριτὴς, “ thou art not 
 a doer of the law, but affectest to be a judge of it, 
 pretending to decide on what is and what is not ne- 
 cessary; a great presumption, which must draw 
 down the heavy wrath of God.” 
 
 The next words assign a strong reason why this 
 self-erected judgment ought not to be held upon 
 others. Eis ἐστιν ὃ νομοθέτης 6 δυνάμενος σῶσαι καὶ 
 ἀπόλεσαι" σὺ τίς εἶ ὃς κρίνεις τὸν ἕτερον ; q.d. “ Thou 
 intrudest into a province that ‘is none of thine. 
 There is one law-giver and judge (and one only), 
 who is (alone) able to save (such as obey him) and 
 to destroy (such as disobey his commands; such 
 being the case), who art thou (weak and erring mor- 
 tal, thyself accountable to that one judge,) that 
 darest to wrest judgment from his hands, and exer- 
 cise it on another (especially for not doing what 
 God has not required of him).’”? By εἷς is meant 
 Christ. Δυνάμιενος, “ who hath the right and power ; 
 as Acts 4, 20. 2 Cor. 13, 8. 
 
 13—15. The Apostles now reprove those who presumed too 
 much on the present life, and had not a due regard to their own 
 frailty and mortality, and perpetual dependance on the providence 
 of God. 
 
 13. ἄγε νῦν, “come now.” A particle (Rosenm. says), of exhor- 
 tation, to be referred to 5, 1. where it is repeated. It should rather 
 seem to be here a form of soliciting attention ; as Is. 1, 18. καὶ 
 δέυτε δὴ, διελέγχθωμεν, λέγει Κύριος. So the Latin age. In the 
 words σήμερον καὶ αὔριον---κερδήσομεν (where some MSS. have the 
 subjunctive, which, however, is less proper,) the Apostle represents 
 the wordly-minded persons in question as saying what, perhaps, was 
 sometimes only the subject of their thoughts. The rebuke, how- 
 ever, is well pointed, ‘There is an allusion to the commercial busi- 
 ness in which almost all-foreign Jews were engaged, and for the 
 furtherance of which they had to take long journeys to distant trading 
 
JAMES, CHAP. IV. 623 
 
 »places, as Tyre, Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, ἅς, 
 ᾿Ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα. A certain for an uncertain, but somewhat long, pe- 
 riod. See Benson’s references. Ποιήσομεν, spend, sojourn; as 
 Acts 15, 3. 18, 23. 20, 3, where see the notes. Sothe Latin facere 
 dies et unnos. 
 
 14. οἵτινες οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τὸ τῆς αὔριον, i.e. literally, ‘* ye who 
 know not (i. e. though ye know not) the event of the morrow.” 
 Here must be understood πεπραγμένον or πρᾶγμα, i. 6. * whether 
 you shall hold your property, or be removed from all enjoyment of 
 it by death, or hopeless sickness.” On the uncertainty of the mor- 
 row numerous passages are cited by the Riulplogists which may very 
 well be dispensed with. See Prov. 27,1. Then, to illustrate the 
 uncertainty of life, the Apostle subjoins: ποία γὰρ Gov ὑμῶν; 
 ““ For what, or how fleeting and frail, is your life! how short a span at 
 the most!” “Arpis yap ἐστιν ἡ πρὸς ὀλίγον φαινομένη, ἔπειτα δὲ ἀφα- 
 νιξομένη, ‘* Why it is a vapour, appearing for a short time, and 
 then vanishing away.” Tao, profecto, why. Similar comparisons 
 of life to a shadow are found in Ps. 102, 12. Job. 8, 4. 1 Chron. 
 29,15. And the Classical writers are fullof them. The conclusion 
 s, that we ought not to be too anxious to provide necessaries for so 
 short a sojourn, but we should cast ourselves on the protection of 
 that God on whom we wholly depend, and endeavour to seek his fa- 
 vour, and obtain his promises. 
 
 15. ἀντὶ τοῦ λέγειν ὑμᾶς" ᾿Εὰν---ἐκεῖνο. ‘hese words are closely 
 connected with σήμερον καὶ αὔριον (the clause rola γὰρ---ἀφανιξο- 
 μένη being parenthetical) ; and the sense is: ‘* instead of saying 
 (as yeought), If the Lord please that we live, we will do so and so.” 
 Now even the Heathens used expressions of this sort (of which many 
 examples are adauced by Wets.), though we may suppose, rather, as 
 common phrases and words of course; how much then is it the 
 
 duty of Christians to acknowledge and be deeply sensible of their de- 
 pendence on God for every thing.* 
 
 16. νῦν δὲ καυχᾶσθε ἐν ταῖς ἀλαϑονείαις, “ Whereas 
 now (or as things now are, as the custom too much 
 is), ye insolently boast.” So Jaspis: ‘ que vestra 
 est arrogantia, gloriamini.” And Schleus.: “ jac- 
 tabundi gloriamini.” And he compares 2 Macc. 15, 
 8. Or we may simply render: “ now ye rather ex- 
 ult in your boastful projects and plans.” Rosenm. 
 explains: ‘are tickled with the conception of the 
 thing, and, anticipating the pleasure of it, as if it 
 certain, ye break out into boasts.” See Carpz. 
 
 * Mackn. too much pares down the sense, when he says that the 
 Apostle does not mean that these words should always be used by 
 us, when we speak of our purposes respecting futurity; but that on 
 such occasions, the sentiment which these words egy should 
 ‘always be present to our mind. ah ἃ 
 
624 JAMES, CHAP. IV. V. 
 
 17. εἰδότι οὖν καλὸν ποιεῖν, καὶ μὴ ποιοῦντι, ἁμαρτία 
 αὐτῷ ἐστιν. This is a conclusion, having reference 
 either (as Beza and Est. think) to all the foregoing 
 reproofs, or (as it should rather seem) only to this 
 Heathenish custom of forming plans without refer- 
 ring their event to God. And so the best Commen- 
 tators. By the good is meant that of acknowledging 
 the providence of God. And ἁμαρτία must be taken 
 emphatically to denote wilful and deliberate sin. 
 The εἰδότι seems to hint at a probable reply from the 
 self-conceited teachers: ‘“ We know this very well.” 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Ver. 1. ἄγε νῦν of πλούσιοι, κλαύσατε ὁλολύϑοντες 
 ἐπὶ ταῖς ταλαιπωρίαις ὑμῶν ταῖς ἐπερχομέναις. The 
 first six verses of this chapter have been thought by 
 some to be addressed to the unbelieving Jews, among 
 whom the Jewish Christians lived and were perse- 
 cuted; and of whom many were rich, and for the 
 most part lived a very dissolute life; as we learn 
 from Philo. But, as Benson observes, it .is not 
 likely that the Apostle would read his Epistle. He 
 is therefore of opinion that they are here only apos- 
 trophized: and he gives examples of similar apos- 
 trophes from Rom. 18, 20. &c. 1, however, assent 
 to Rosenm. and others, that there is no reason why 
 we should not suppose the Christians who are cen- 
 sured atc. 2. It is rightly observed by Carpz., that 
 there commences with the words of ver. 1. the apo- 
 dosis, of which the protasis was extended from c. 4, 
 3—17.; and that the Apostle means those very 
 boasters, whom he had rebuked, and repeats the ἄγε 
 νῦν. Hethinks that these, in some measure, nominal 
 Christians, were rich wholesale dealers in merchan- 
 dize: whence mention is made of their gold, silver, 
 and precious garments. ? 
 
 1. κλαύσατε, “ weep” (for well ye may and will). 
 This use of the imperative for the future (in speak- 
 
JAMES, CHAP. V. 625 
 
 ing of a thing certain) is characteristic of the pro- 
 phetical style. Ἐπὶ, on account of: The miseries 
 here described are by some thought to have a refer- 
 ence to those which then impended over the Jews, 
 and took place soon after, in the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem and the universal dispersion, when those resi- 
 dent in foreign countries received much worse usage 
 than before. See Benson and Mackn. But it is far 
 more natural to interpret the words (with the antients 
 and most moderns) of the miseries and punishments 
 attending an abuse of riches, both in this world, and 
 especially in the next. See Carpz. and Rosenm. 
 
 2, 3. ὁ πλοῦτος ὑμῶν σέσηπε, καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια ὑμῶν ση- 
 τόβρωτα γέγονεν. 
 
 It is well observed by Carpz., that in σέσηπε we are not (as many 
 do) to dwell on the etymological sense of putrefaction (understand- 
 ing the πλουτ. of corn, wine, oil, fruit), but solely interpret it de 
 operibus caducis, of riches which come to nought and perish, The 
 perfect is here (as in the words following) used for the present, to 
 denote continuation of action, and habit. 
 
 3. Ὁ χρυσὸς ὑμῶν καὶ 6 ἄργυρος κατίωται. By χρυσὸς is meant 
 gold in ingots, or worked up into utensils, or coined; which last 
 use is frequent in the best authors. On κατίωται it is observed by 
 Rosenm., that though gold does not, properly speaking, rust, yet 
 by long use it contracts a green colour, and gathers a sort of acrid 
 humour.* 1 would here compare Philet. ap. Athen. 380 p. Εἰς 
 αὔριον οὐχὶ φροντίξειν ὁ,τι Ἔσται, περίεργον ἐστιν ἀποκεῖσθαι πάνυ 
 Ἕωλον ἔνδον ἀργύριον. The Mythological fiction of Tantalus (who 
 was punished with an insatiable desire for what he could not enjoy), 
 inculcates, it may be observed, a fine moral lesson on the punish- 
 ment of avarice even in this world. : 
 
 In the καὶ ὁ ἰὸς αὐτῶν εἰς μαρτύριον ὑμῖν ἔσται there is a beautifu 
 metaphor, by which, as Carpz. remarks, sense and speech is ascribed 
 to things inanimate. Ὑμῖν is for ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν, or ἐπὶ ὑμᾶς, or κατ᾽ ὑμῶν. 
 The sense is : “is a testimony of your covetousness, (since otherwise 
 your money would not have lain by you and rusted).’”’ See Matt. 8, 4. 
 10, 18. Kai φάγεται τὰς σάρκας ὑμῶν ws tip’ ἐθησαυρίσατε ἐν ἐσ- 
 χάταις ἡμέραις. A most sublime image (on which see Pott), taken 
 
 * I would add, that perhaps the antient gold and silver might 
 be more liable to rust, from having a greater proportion of alloy. 
 That gold coin was thought to be subject to rust, appears from 
 Theocrit. Id. 16. where he says that no one would give poets 
 money, nay, not rub off the rust of their money and give it them. 
 Χρυσὸς seenis properly an adjective signifying yeliow ; as ἄργυρος, 
 white. 1 find an allusion to the latter in Eurip. frag, (Ε4,ὅ. 
 
 VOL, VIII. 2 5 
 
626 JAMES, CHAP. V. 
 
 from the deleterious and painful effects of rust, when rubbed into 
 raw flesh. It describes the present misery and future never-ending 
 woe, which must result from the abuse of riches, or the amassing 
 them by lawless methods. At all events I cannot, with Benson and 
 others, refer to the miseries attendant on the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem. For the πῦρ plainly alludes to that state where ‘ the worm dieth 
 not, and the fire is not quenched,” Mark 9,44. With respect to the 
 words ἐθησαυρίσατε ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις, Which are abrupt, and have 
 somewhat exercised the Commentators, the best method is to repeat 
 πῦρ from the preceding clause, and render: ‘‘ For (I say) a fiery 
 punishment (see Hebr. 10, 27.) do ye treasure up against the last 
 days.” So Rom. 2, 5. θησαυρίξεις ὀργὴν. The ἐσχ. ij. answers to 
 the day of judgment in that passage, the period of judgment. 
 
 4. Ἰδοὺ, 6 μισθὸς τῶν ἐργατῶν τῶν ἀμησάντων---κρά- 
 ges. ‘The Apostle proceeds in a strain of warm in- 
 dignation against those who, in order to amass 
 riches, had not scrupled to defraud‘ their labourers 
 by various mean and dishonest artifices. By a beau- 
 tiful figure (found in Gen. 4, 10. 18, 20. Exod. 2, 
 23 and 24.), and elsewhere, the withheld wages are 
 said to call to God for vengeance. On which Ro- 
 senm. remarks: ‘ Clamare ad Celum (i. 6. ad 
 Deum) queedam scelera et flagitia dicuntur, quia et 
 graviora sunt allis, et justus judex inter homines iis 
 deesse solet.” So Benson: ‘ Those sins are said to 
 cry unto heaven, which so affect the guilty as to 
 seem, with a loud voice, to require vengeance.” So 
 we say, ““ crying sins.” The Apostle (1 would ob- 
 serve) appears to have had in view Malach. 8, 5. 
 προσάξω πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν κρίσει, καὶ ἔσομαι μάρτυς TAYIS— 
 ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀποστεροῦντας μισθὸν μισθουτοῦ. In this verse 
 there is a fine parallelism. Carpz. and Rosenm. re- 
 mark, that azevand ἀμάᾶσθαι are used of all agricul- 
 tural work, both in fields, and vineyards, up to the 
 time of harvest: and θηρίϑειν, of all harvest work. 
 But this may be doubted. ’Ape can scarcely sig- 
 nify more than mowing grass, or reaping corn; 
 though θηρίϑειν may denote the getting in of any of 
 the fruits of summer. ’Epy., however, may very well 
 denote agricultural labourers of every sort, and at 
 any season. It is needless to refine. On Kup. af. 
 see the note on Rom. 9, 29. and Benson in loc. By 
 
JAMES, CHAP. V. 627 
 
 entering into the ears of the Lord (in which there is 
 a fine anthropopathia,) it is implied that they are 
 heard, and will be attended to. 
 
 I would observe that this keeping back of the 
 wages does not necessarily imply utterly depriving 
 them thereof, but may, as we say, denote stopping 
 wages for various articles of food and clothing sup- 
 plied to the labourer, and perhaps charged at an ex- 
 travagant rate; which comes to the same thing. 
 And this is supported by Phocyl. (or rather the 
 Pseud. Phocyl.) in carmine νουθετικῷ (ap. Gaisf. 
 Poel. M. p. 447.) ver. 17. μισθὸν μοχθήσαντι δίδου" μὴ 
 θλῖβε πένηται, which appears to be an imitation of the 
 present passage. The practice seems to have ori- 
 ginated in the East, and thence passed into Spain. 
 Thus there is an allusion to it in a well known story 
 of Cervantes’ Don Quixote, vol. I. 
 
 5. ἐτρυφήσατε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, Χο. Having censured 
 their rapacity, the Apostle proceeds to animadvert 
 on their swinish sensuality. Thesense is: ‘* Ye live 
 in all manner of luxury and lasciviousness.”” On 
 omar. see the note on 1 Tim. 5, 6. ᾿Ηθρέψατε τὰς 
 καρδίας ὑμῶν ὡς ἐν ἡμέρη σφαγῆς, “ Ye fatten your- 
 selves as for ἃ day of slaughter,” i. e. as animals are 
 fattened up for slaughter. So Jerem. 12, 3. “ pull 
 them out like sheep for the slaughter, and prepare 
 them for the day of slaughter.” Ἐν is for eis. The 
 καρδίας is for ἑαυτοὺς. Schleus. renders it stomachs, 
 But see the note on Acts 14,17. It may be com- 
 pared with the Latin gentum. Here we have a fine 
 image to designate the degrading nature of gross 
 sensuality. Loesner compares Philo 990. where 
 Flacius, despairing of his safety, complains: ““ σιτία 
 μοι καὶ ποτὰ καθάπερ τοῖς θρέμμασιν ἐπὶ σφαγὴν δίδοται. 
 It is well remarked by Carpz., Pott, and Rosenm., 
 that by this figure is also implied the punishment 
 which will follow their luxury and sensuality. So 
 Carpz.: “ Ut pecorum instar mactemini, obsessi 
 Satanz porci, extremo judicii die exitio tradendi.” 
 
 282 
 
628 JAMES, CHAP. ¥. 
 
 IT would compare Aéschyl. Ag. 1659. where the 
 Chorus thus addresses Afgisthus: ΠΠράσσε, πιαίνον; 
 μιαίνων τὴν δίκην" ἐπεὶ maga, &c. 
 
 6. κατεδικάσατε, ἐφονεύσατε τὸν δίκαιον" οὐκ ἀντιτάσ- 
 σεται ὑμήν. The Apostle now touches on the merci- 
 less cruelty with which they endeavour to plunder 
 their inferiors of their little stock, to increase their 
 own overgrown stores. The κατεδικάσατε Rosenm. 
 explains: ‘“‘ Ye bring about, by contrivance and in- 
 fluence, that they shall be condemned by the Judges 
 (Christian or Heathen). And the ἐφονεύσατε : “ ye 
 as good as slay them, while by litigation and with- 
 holding from them their due, ye deprive them of the 
 means of subsistence.” Benson takes it literally ; 
 and some interpret it of the crucifixion of Christ. 
 
 The cowardice as well as cruelty of this is noted 
 by the οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται ὑμῖν: for little resistance 
 could the poor make in such circumstances! Τὸν δί- 
 kaioy is put collectively, singular for plural. 
 
 7. μακροθυμήσατε οὖν, ἀδελῷοὶ, ἕως της παρουσίας τοῦ 
 Κυρίου. From ver. 7—11. the Apostle turns to the 
 Christians suffering under their oppression, and ex- 
 horts them patiently to endure the injuries inflicted 
 on them, seeing that the advent of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ approaches. ‘This he confirms and illustrates 
 by the example of the husbandman waiting for the 
 early and latter rains, and by that held out to them in 
 the suffering Prophets. (Pott.) : 
 
 The μακροθυμ.. has a double signification, i. 6. pa- 
 tiently endure their persecutions, and patiently wait 
 for the coming of the Lord. This is by many under- 
 stood of the advent of the Lord to destroy the Jewish 
 nation. But although that may be included, I cannot 
 but think (with many eminent Commentators) that 
 it principally refers to the ast advent of the Lord to 
 the general judgment. (See a Sermon of Bishop 
 Horsely on this text.) For (as Rosenm. observes) 
 of the time thereof the early Christians had learnt 
 nothing certain; but ther were continually enjoined 
 
JAMES, CHAP. V. 629 
 
 to be mindful of that day which would liberate the 
 good from all the injuries and oppressions of the bad. 
 See ver. 8. 
 
 7. ὁ γεωργὸς ἐκδέχεται τὸν τίμιον καρπὸν τῆς γῆς. The 
 agricultural allusions of James and Jude are by some 
 ascribed to their having been husbandmen. Be that 
 as it may, it has been well observed by Benson, that 
 the works of nature afford the most obvious, noble, 
 and lively comparisons, and such as are most gene- 
 rally understood, and (I would add) especially by an 
 agricultural people like the Jews. Τίμιον, precious, 
 as supplying the staff of life. The πρώϊμον and 
 ὄψιμον denote, Carpz. and Rosenm. remark, what the 
 Hebrews called wpa or wow? and My Dw, 
 which are used conjointly in Deut. 11, 14. Joel 2, 
 23. and elsewhere. The zpwip. is that rain which 
 falls at the time when the seed is committed to the 
 ground, namely, the early autumnal rain. ‘That by 
 which the corn is brought to maturity is the ov. or 
 later spring rain. See Harmer. With the senti- 
 ment I would compare Aristid. 3, 270 c. ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ 
 οἱ γεωργοὶ πολλοστῴῷ μηνὶ τῶν σπερμάτων THY ἐπικαρπίαν 
 κομίξονται, καὶ οὐχ ἅμα τῷ κατἀλεῖν οὕτω κ. τ. A, 
 
 9. μὴ στενάϑετε κατ᾽ ἀλληλων, ἀδελφοὶ, ἵνα μὴ κατα- 
 κριθῆτε. Benson and Mackn. render: “ Do not 
 groan against each other.” But though this seems 
 more exact than our common version grudge, it is, 
 in fact, less so: for orev. is rightly supposed by the 
 best Commentators to denote that low, and some- 
 times inaudible, expression of discontent and um- 
 brage signified by our mutter, murmur, grumble. 
 And therefore it is not well rendered by Carpz. voci- 
 ferari. Now this querulous feeling would originate 
 from various passions, mostly above adverted to, 
 envy, pride, &c. Whether the words can be ex- 
 plained (as they are by some) of the καταλαλία before 
 mentioned, may be doubted. Rosenm. remarks, 
 that the poorer Christians are here forbidden to even 
 groan or murmur under the oppressions of the rich, 
 much less resist them. But this seems a misappre- 
 
630 JAMES, CHAP. V. 
 
 hension. The Apostle could scarcely mean to forbid 
 what is but the natural expression of affliction. He 
 seems merely to have in view that spirit of revenge 
 which is the result of it. There is, however, no 
 proof that the case of the rich and poor is_particu- 
 larly adverted to. It should rather seem that there 
 is reference generally to all those murmurings for 
 which, from the various competitions of life, and the 
 frailty of human nature, there may, nay must, be fre- 
 quent occasions, and for which mutual forbearance 
 (as the Poet says: 
 ** Gentle, compassionate, and kind, 
 To faults, compassionate, or blind,’’) 
 
 isthe best cure. The most powerful motive, how- 
 ever, to mildness in judgment is that then suggested 
 by the Apostle, iva μὴ κατακριθῆτε' ἰδοὺ, κρίτης πρὸ τῶν 
 θυρών ἔστηκεν, namely, that we have all to meet ἃ com- 
 mon judge, who, with respect to every one of us, may 
 be said to be “ at the door,” since the irreversible 
 judgment in effect takes place at what is to us the 
 advent of our Lord, even the day of our death. 
 
 10. ὑπόδειγμα λάβετε ---- Κυρίου. To encourage 
 them to the observance of this precept, the Apostle 
 points to the examples of those who had trod the 
 same thorny path before them. On ὑποδ. see Joh. 
 13, 15. And on the evils endured by the Prophets 
 see Hebr. 11, 33. seq. Μακροθυμία, ““ patient endur- 
 ance of adversity;” as Col. 1, 11. 2 Tim. 3, 10. 4, 2. 
 Hebr. 6, 12. Οἱ ἐλάλησαν τῷ ὀνόματι Kupiov, “ who 
 spake by the authority and orders of God ;” q. d. 
 ‘‘ If they had to encounter such evils, well may ye be 
 content to do so.” 
 
 11. ἰδοὺ, μακαρίϑομεν τοὺς ὑπομένοντας. “Yao. is 
 the participle imperfect ; and therefore we need not 
 adopt ὑπομεινάντας from a few MSS. Rosenm. well 
 paraphrases: ‘‘ We praise the constancy of those 
 who endured such evils, and we pronounce them on 
 that account blessed. ‘Therefore we should imitate 
 their example.” Τὴν ὑπομονὴν Ἰὼβ ἠκούσατε, << Ye 
 have (for instance) heard of, and know the patience 
 of Job.” Notwithstanding the doubts of some scep- 
 
JAMES, CHAP. V. 631 
 
 tical Theologians, it must remain unquestionable 
 that the main events of the interesting story of Job 
 were literally true; though some minor circum- 
 stances be worked up in the poetical and oriental 
 manner. On Job see some excellent observations in 
 Suid. Ἰώβ. 
 
 11. καὶ τὸ τέλος Kupiov εἴδετε. A brief expression 
 for: ‘ye know the properous end which the Loré 
 mercifully granted to him.” Κυρίου is, as Grot. ob- 
 serves, the genitive of cause, i. 6. ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου διδο- 
 μένον or dofev, of which he adduces as examples 
 2 Cor. 11, 26. 1 Pet. 8, 14. Thucyd. 8, 40. κίνδυνον 
 Tod ὑπολειπομένον ἔχθρου. ‘The τέλος x. is, however, 
 explained by Augustin, Luther, and Wets., the death 
 of Jesus Christ for our salvation, as represented in 
 the Eucharist. But this seems a groundless fancy, 
 which might have been spared, had they remembered 
 the words of Job. 42, 12. (which I am surprised 
 should not have occurred to any of the Commenta- 
 tors) ὁ δὲ Κύριος εὐλόγησε τὰ ἔσχατα ᾿Ιὼβ ἢ τὰ ἔμπροσ- 
 θεν, where the τὰ ἔσχατα answers to the τὸ τέλος of 
 the present passage. 
 
 12. πρὸ πάντων δὲ----ὅρκον. Hitherto, Pott. observes, 
 there has been a connection in the several parts ; 
 but from this verse (as the Apostle is hastening to a 
 conclusion) there seems to be no regular plan. At 
 ὀμνύετε τὸν οὐρανὸν there is an ellipsis of εἰς or the like. 
 At μήτε ἄλλον τινα ὅρκον. however, the preposition 
 must not be repeated. It is put for, μή ὀμνύετε ὅρκον 
 TWO, μήτε εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, μήτε εἰς τὴν γην, μήτε κατ᾽ 
 ἄλλο τὸ χρῆμα. The best Commentators are agreed 
 that the oaths here meant are (as the context re- 
 quires) those in common conversation, and on trifling 
 occasions, to the use of which the Jews were too 
 prone; and the Jewish Christians, probably, did not 
 sufficiently abstain from it. ‘Thus there was need to 
 remind them of our Lord’s prohibition. See Carpz. 
 As to judicial oaths, these are by no means forbidden 
 in the Gospel.” 
 
 12. ἵνα μὴ εἰς ὑπό κρίσιν πέσητε. The reading εἰς ὑπό- 
 κρισιν 1 suspect to be two readings melted into one. 
 
632 JAMES, CHAP. Vv. 
 
 The recent Editions have ὑπὸ, But εἰς seems to be 
 quite as good. ᾿Εμπίπτειν εἰς κρίσιν is cited by Ro- 
 senm. from Sir. 29, 19. Κρίσιν is for κατακρ., condenr- 
 nation, and consequently punishment. 
 
 This practice is also disapproved of by Isocr. ad 
 Demon. p. 7. ἔνεκα δὲ χρημάτων μηδένα Θεών ὀμόσης, 
 μηδὲ ἂν εὐορκεῖν μέλλης, δόφεις γὰρ τοῖς ἐπιορκεῖν, τοῖς δὲ 
 φιλοχρημάτως ἔχειν. 
 
 13. From hence to ver. 18. follows a general ad- 
 monition to preserve patience and fortitude under 
 adversity, and especially when suffering under 
 sickness. (Pott.) And in order to the attainment of 
 this, the Apostle very properly suggests the use of 
 prayer to God, who (to use the words of the Royal 
 Psalmist) “ holdeth our soul in life, and suffereth 
 not our feet to slip. Kekoraéeiy signifies to be in 
 trouble, calamity, or affliction. It is remarked by 
 Rosenm.: ‘ Judai quedam morborum atrociorum 
 genera tribuerunt demoniis, illisque ejiciendis adsci- 
 verunt varias formulas verborum et cerimonias 
 tristes. Talem morborum curationem prohibere 
 videtur Jacobus.”” But this is too hypothetical and 
 precarious. I would simply understand this passage 
 as enjoining the use of prayer, as the best unction 
 and balm for the wounds of affliction, in opposition 
 to those resources which the world suggests, as the 
 giving vent to passionate exclamations, the use of 
 strong liquors, taking refuge in noisy merriment, &c. 
 See Benson and Mackn. 
 ~ On the sense of ψάλλω see the note on 2 Cor. |, 
 17. and Col. 3, 16. 
 
 14. ἀσθενεῖ r1s—Kupiov. 
 
 The τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους Carpz. explains, viros peritos, pios, cordatos, 
 viros provectA jam tate, in quibus major rerum usus et consilia so- 
 lidiora sunt quam plerumque in junioribus. And he adds: “ Olim 
 consilia dabant ii ztate conspicui erant, et propter gravitatem 
 Patres, propter ztatem Presbyteri vocabantur.” To this, however, 
 it is objected by Noesselt and Rosenm., that the name πρεσβ. τὴς 
 ἐκκλησίας, in the New Testament, always denotes the presidents of 
 the church. ᾿Ασθενεῖ must, from the context, denote sickness. The 
 Apostle directs that these Presbyters be called in, and pray over 
 the sick, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. Now 
 Noes. and Rosenm., and many others, would join ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ 
 
JAMES, CHAP. V. 633 
 
 Κυρίου with προσευξ,, i. 6. “ pray in the name of Christ.” But this 
 seems harsh, It is better to refer the words both to the προσευξ. 
 and the ἐλαίῳ ; since the whole was done in dependence on the 
 aid of God, thus solemnly invoked; though, as far as regarded the 
 oil, it might be called a medical as well as religious means. For, 
 as Carpz. observes, the generous oil of the East has powerful medi- 
 cinal properties, and is used for various disorders; and he refers 
 to the story of the good Samaritan and Mark 6, 13. He and Ros. 
 would take the oil as put for any medicaments the case might re- 
 quire. But this seems too harsh; and would be supposing the 
 Presbyters skilful physicians; unless indeed they administered them 
 under the direction of such. ‘he difficulty might be removed by 
 supposing, with some eminent Commentators, as Deyling, Wolf, 
 Benson, that miraculous healing is here meant, with which the use 
 of oi] would not be inconsistent. Thus the disciples, Mark 6, i3., 
 used it even with the miraculous power. And even our Lord him- 
 self condescended in general to employ some media of producing 
 his miraculous effects. But this hypothesis is liable to some objec- 
 tions, which I cannot detail, and seems scarcely tenable: though I 
 would by no means deny that miraculous cures did sometimes then 
 arise from the prayer of faith, It isremarked by Rosenm.: ‘ Fuit 
 nempe hc commotio animi sanctior, non semper quidem, sepe 
 tamen, conjuncta cum restitutione valetudinis, precipue, silanguor 
 corporis ex animi meerore et tristitia ortus et auctus esset.” Which 
 { can scarcely understand. It should seem to have been a religious 
 ceremony accompanied with the use of oil, as a symbol of cure; 
 though it might sometimes contribute to it. How far and in what 
 proportion that means, or the strongly affected mind of the patient 
 or the real efficacy of the prayer of faith, produced these effects, 
 would, of course, be different in different circumstances ; and there- 
 fore nothing can well be defined. But one thing seems certain, 
 namely, that (to use the words of Doddr.) this is far removed from 
 the extreme unction practised by the Romanists, not for cure, but 
 when life is despaired of. See especially Benson. The term εὐχὴ 
 τῆς πίστεως, does not necessarily imply any extraordinary or miracu- 
 lous effect. And though it is said σώσει τὸν κάμνοντα, yet I agree 
 with Rosenm., that it does not follow that all the sick persons thus 
 prayed over recovered: the σώσει (and he might have added éyepec 
 and ἀφεθήσεται) is to be taken with restriction, i. e. “ this prayer will 
 help the sick, if it be the will of God, and expedient to his salvation. 
 That is (it is meant) the use of this religious ceremony shall tend 
 to produce the good effects implored, so far as may be consistent 
 with the plans of God, and his knowledge of the true state of the 
 patient’s heart. 
 
 16. ἐξομολογεῖσθε ἀλλήλοις τὰ παραπτώματα. This 
 is understood by most Commentators of confession 
 of some great sin which may have caused the dis- 
 order, and by which confession the recovery would 
 be furthered. But it may also be understood ge- 
 
634 JAMES, CHAP. VY. 
 
 nerally of a confession of injuries done to any person 
 or persons, accompanied with entreaty for pardon, 
 and which ought to draw from the injurer not only 
 forgiveness, but prayer. Thus (I find) Carpz. takes 
 this verse to commence a new exhortation, not con- 
 nected with the former. Yet it is harsh to take 
 ὅπως ἰαθῆτε (as he does) of the healing and amend- 
 ing of sinful habits; for the context requires it to 
 be taken in a physical sense. It may denote that 
 by the use of all the above means the healing of the 
 sick will be promoted; i.e. they will tend to produce it. 
 The prayers here meant, Rosenm. thinks, are public. 
 See more in Benson and Mackn, or Slade. 
 
 16. πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις---ἐνεργουμένη. Rosen. renders: 
 “ Precatio pii multtim valet efficere;” taking it for 
 ἰσχύει ἐνεργεῖν. But this is sinking the ἐνεργουμένη, in 
 which the difficulty is seated. Of all the versions the 
 E. V. effectual, is the worst, as being miserably tau- 
 tological. Possibly it may be rightly rendered by 
 Hamm., Bull, Benson, Wells, and Mackn., “ prayer 
 inwrought by the spirit ;” for this verb and its cog- 
 nate ones are often used of inspired prayer. See 
 Schl. Lex. or Wahl. I could compare Procop. B. 
 G. 2. p. 64, 29. ἀνὴρ δικαιός τε καὶ Θεῷ μάλιστα φίλος, 
 καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐνεργοῦσαν ἐς ὅ, τι βούλοιτο ἀεὶ τὴν εὐχὴν 
 ἔχων. But it is not clear that the context will per- 
 mit this: and it may very well be rendered, with 
 the Vulg., assidua, earnest, ardent ; for the participle 
 passive often signifies what is done with much la- 
 bour, évegyés. On the availing of the prayer of the 
 righteous see the numerous references in Benson. 
 
 17, 18. On ὀμοιοπαθὴς, “a mere mortal, of like 
 faculties with ourselves, with no more natural powers 
 than such as we possess,” see the note on Acts 14. 
 15. Προσευχῇ προσηύξατο, ‘prayed earnestly.” At 
 τοῦ μὴ must be understood ἕνεκα, ᾿Επὶ τῆς γῆς is 
 taken by most recent Commentators to mean the 
 ten tribes of Israel. And to this sense Benson thinks 
 the connexion determines it. On the trifling dis- 
 crepancy in the three years and six months of James, 
 
JAMES, CHAP. Y. 635 
 
 and what we find in Luke 4, 25., see the note on that 
 passage. Κάρπον is used collectively for fruits. 
 Βλαστ. is used of the growth of corn or grass, or any 
 other of the fruits of the earth. 
 
 It is observed by Rosenm., that St. James adduces 
 the example of Elijah, to show that God listens to 
 the prayers of good men; but does not define whether 
 he satisfies their wishes in a natural or ina miraculous 
 manner. See, however, Benson. 
 
 19, 20. The Apostle now, in some measure, re- 
 turns to the subject of ver. 15 & 16., in which, hav- 
 ing exhorted them to mutual confession, he now in- 
 culcates mutual assistance in correcting each other's 
 vices. (Pott.) 
 
 Πλανηθῇ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας must denote not only a 
 deviation from truth and purity of doctrine, but also 
 from true virtue. So Joh. 3, 21. ὁ ποιῶν ἀληθείαν. 
 Compare 1 Joh. 3, 8. Rom. 2, 8. and other places. 
 Thus ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ, will denote not only error of 
 opinion, but of practice. See Benson. aces ψυχὴν 
 ἐκ θανάτου, i.e. by leading him to reformation, he 
 will do what shall tend to the salvation of his house. 
 
 20. καὶ καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαοτιῶν. It has been a 
 disputed point whether this covering of sins should 
 be referred to the person who converts, or to him 
 that is converted. ‘The former opinion is adopted 
 by Bede, Aquin., Origen, Damasc., Vorst., Hamm., 
 Whitby, Wells, Pyle, and others; and it is counte- 
 nanced by a few parallel passages of the Old Testa- 
 ment, as Proy. 16, 6. and Dan. 14, 27.; and is ably 
 defended by Hamm. and Whitby. The datter opi- 
 nion is supported by the most eminent Commenta- 
 tors from Grot., as Benson, Pott, and Rosenm. 
 They argue (to use the words of Slade) that “it seems 
 hardly consonant with the language and doctrines 
 of the Gospel, that any sin should be forgiven, if it be 
 unrepented or persisted in; andif it be repented and 
 forsaken, it will be pardoned without the meritorious 
 act here mentioned.” This might perhaps admit 
 of a satisfactory answer; but when the context is 
 
636 JAMES, CHAP, ν. 
 
 attentively considered, I cannot but wonder that 
 any should ever have interpreted the words otherwise 
 than in the latter way. Tothe objection, that “thus 
 the latter clause will add nothing to the sense,”’ it 
 may be replied, with Mr. Slade, that the Apostle is 
 treating of the sick, &c. And he might have added 
 that innumerable instances of a similar exergasia are 
 to be found in Scripture. The passage is very well 
 paraphrased by Mr. Slade (after the above Com- 
 mentators) thus: “ Brethren, if any of you shall have 
 erred from the truth, and one shall have converted 
 him, know, that he who (in such circumstances, i. e. 
 of sickness or disease) shall have turned a sinner 
 from the error of his way (shall have led him effectu- 
 ally to repent of his offences, and have thus prepared 
 him for the prayer and blessing of the elders), will 
 be the means of saving him from death, and of 
 drawing a veil over many of his transgressions (of 
 screening them from the sight or remembrance of 
 God, as well as men, i. 6. of obtaining for them par- 
 don and entire forgiveness).” See also Bp. Hall ap. 
 D’Oyly. Now in this clause, as in the former one, 
 it is the tendency only that is spoken of, 1. 6. ‘‘he 
 shall do what will tend to save his soul from per- 
 dition, and will contribute to his former sins being 
 covered, hidden out of sight, and forgiven by God. 
 See Ps. 32,1. In no other way can it be under- 
 stood; since even ‘conversion, when real, does not 
 necessarily imply final perseverance, which can alone 
 ensure salvation. 
 
637 
 
 THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 
 
 For introductory matter to this Epistle I must 
 refer the reader to the usual authorities. I will only 
 observe, in reference to the doubt entertained 
 whether St. Peter’s remains are really deposited at 
 Rome, that the fact is attested by Procop. 195, 10. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Ver. 1. In this and the following verse there is 
 contained a salutation; but the exordium of the 
 whole Epistle extends to ver. 12. (Carpz.) 
 
 1. ἐκλεκτοίς, Christians (as Rom. 8, 33. and else 
 where). A title taken from the Old Testament, in 
 which the Israelites are called ETN. Παρεπιδή- 
 pos, IWIN, Jews dwelling out of the country, and 
 therefore sojourners. Some understand proselytes of 
 the gate, not circumcised, but worshipping the one 
 true God. This interpretation they found on C. 4, 3., 
 which seems to hint that those to whom Peter wrote 
 were not all Jews by nation. But see the note in 
 loco. (Rosenm.) The same view too, is taken by 
 Carpz., who observes that there were in the congre- 
 gation doubtless many converted Gentiles as well as 
 Jews. Soin St. Paul’s Epistles to Gentiles we often 
 meet with expressions which relate to Jews. And 
 Wolf, Rosenm., and Pott have shown that the Epistle 
 was written to all Christians, both Jewish and Gen- 
 tile, in the countries out of Palestine; though chiefly 
 to the Jews. For many things occur in the Epistle 
 which pertain to the Jews only ; and others only to 
 the Jews. 
 
638 1 PETER, CHAP. I. 
 
 1. διασπορᾶς Πόντου, “dispersed over Pontus.” The 
 Jews were indeed dispersed over various regions, at 
 different times and occasions, whether in wars, as by 
 Tiglath Phalesar, Shalmanazar, and Nebuchadnezzar, 
 or to avoid internal evils, on which accounts many 
 emigrated into Syria, Egypt, and other parts of the 
 Roman empire. See a curious passage in Plato 
 1031 bp. where are named Pontus, Galatia, Cappa- 
 docia, Asia, and Bithynia, all countries of Asia Mi- 
 nor. When, therefore, Asia is separately mentioned, 
 we are to understand Asia Proper, i. e. Proconsular, 
 viz. Phrygia, Mysia, Caria, Lydia, and the sea-coast 
 generally of Asia Minor. The ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπιδήμοις 
 διασποράς Πόντου, &c., are, then, the Jewish Chris- 
 tians dispersed over those countries. (Rosenm.) That 
 ἐκλεκτ. cannot imply absolute election to life eternal, 
 See Lardner ap. Slade. 
 
 2. κατὰ πρόγνωσιν Θεοῦ rarpis—Xpiorod. The 
 κατὰ πρόγνωσιν is to be referred, per trajectionem, to 
 the ἐκλεκτοῖς preceding.  IIpeyvwois here signifies 
 counsel, desire; as Acts 2, 23. The sense then is, 
 that they were brought to the Christian religion by 
 the counsel and desire of God the Father. See Eph. 
 1,5 &11. ᾿Αγιασμῷ, consecration, initiation. Now 
 those are initiated into religion (εἰς ὑπακοὴν), who are 
 instructed in it, which instruction was effected by 
 the spirit (πνεῦμα), not immediately, but through the 
 Apostles and other inspired teachers. Ὑπακοὴ does 
 not belong to αἵματος, but stands alone. ‘Pavriopov 
 7s joined with it, and must be taken passively. By 
 ὑπακοὴ is meant the embracing of the religion, ὑπακοὴ 
 πίστεως ; so termed, because a belief in the doctrines 
 and an obedience to the injunctions of Christ is in- 
 volved in embracing his religion. Ῥαντισμὸν is de- 
 rived from the ceremonial law. See Exod. 24, 8. and 
 Numb. 31, 23. So we, in entering the heavenly 
 sanctuary, must be sprinkled with the blood of 
 Christ, and purged from our sins; which is effected 
 by that blood. ‘The death of Christ is therefore the 
 cause of the remission of our sins, and a reason why 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. I. 639 
 
 we should avoid sin, and live holily, righteously, and 
 godly. 
 
 2. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη. ‘There is the same 
 prayer in 1 Cor. 1, 3. and elsewhere. 
 
 8. Incipit Petrus ab insigni religionis Christiane 
 commendatione, et commemoratione beneficiorum 
 Dei, in illos Judzos collatorum, v. 3—12. (Rosenm.) 
 The Apostle reminds them of the happy immortality 
 set before them in the Gospel, and which they would 
 obtain, if they continued true to their Christian pro- 
 fession. This paves the way for the mention of 
 trials and persecutions introduced at ver. 6. ’Ava- 
 γεννᾷν is here, by most recent Commentators, inter- 
 preted recreare, feliciorem reddere ; and this is coun- 
 tenanced by ἐλπίδα ϑώσαν just after. But it seems 
 only a secondary sense; and the primary one is, 
 doubtless, the regeneration we experience on be- 
 coming Christians. So, in a kindred passage of 
 Tit. 3.5. κατὰ τὸν αὐτοῦ ἔλεον ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς, Oia λου- 
 τροῦ παλιγγενεσίας, καὶ ἀνακαινωίσεως. Πνεύματος ἁγίου. 
 This regeneration, of course, implies a change for 
 the better, both physical and moral. 
 
 The ἐλπίδα gwoav, Carpz. explains, spem certam, 
 ἀσφαλῆ. But this is too limited. It must mean a 
 vigorous, active, spirit-stirring hope; as opposed to 
 the cold faint hope of Heathenism, nay, even Ju- 
 daism. ‘There may, too, be an allusion to the “ life” 
 which Christ emphatically “ brought to light.” Ro- 
 senm. and Pott render: letissimam. But this is 
 too vague. Now this hope was ministered by Christ’s 
 resurrection, inasmuch as that showed the possibility 
 of our own resurrection, and as being a proof and 
 pledge thereof, and a seal and confirmation of the 
 whole Christian doctrine. 
 
 4. εἰς κληρονομίαν ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀμίαντον καὶ ἀμάραν- 
 tov. The Apostle explains the object of that hope, 
 even the greatest felicity that can be enjoyed. 
 (Bens. and Rosenm.) Κληρονομία is often used to 
 denote certainty of attainment. Αφθαρτον, impe- 
 rishable, “like the joys of paradise (says Rosenm.), 
 
640 1 PETER, CHAP. I. 
 
 ever flourishing.”” Benson thinks there is an allu- 
 sion to the immortality of the former verse. ᾿Αμί- 
 αντον, undefiled, pure, uncontaminated by those frail- 
 ties and vices which so detract from all human hap- 
 piness, and untainted with that evil which in this 
 world is necessarily mixed with good. Such appears 
 to be the simplest sense; though Benson has many 
 refined speculations, and Pott runs into the other 
 extreme of treating the ἀφθ., ἀμιαντ., and ἀμαρ. as 
 mere synonymes, accumulated to represent consum- 
 mate felicity. ᾿Αμάραντον, never fading, because (as 
 Mackn. explains) it will never grow old; its beauties 
 will remain fresh through all eternity; and its plea- 
 sures never become insipid by enjoyment. Tery- 
 ρημένην ἐν οὐρανοῖς εἰς ἡμᾶς. So ἀποκεῖθαι, 2 Tim. 14, 
 8. and Col. 1, 4. where see the note. ‘* Not (ex- 
 plains Bens.) to be enjoyed in Canaan, or on this 
 earth, cr under the kingdom of a temporal Messiah, 
 but secure in heaven; which denotes its certainty, 
 duration, and excellence.” See 2 Pet. 3.13. 
 
 5. τοὺς ἐν δυνάμει Θεοῦ Gpoupoupevour—eo χάτῳ, “ For 
 ye who are preserved and guarded by the powerful 
 protection of God (who can give us all the felicity 
 we hope for), through faith, i. 6. through the pro- 
 fession of the Gospel, by which ye obtain it,” or (as 
 some explain) under condition of faith in the Gospel. 
 Now this, the Apostle says, is €roipy ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, 
 i. e. is reserved, destined to be revealed, and will 
 be revealed and imparted to us. “Ky καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ. 
 This some understand of the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem, or the Gospel age, the last end of the world. 
 But it seems most natural to interpret it of the final 
 consummation of all things. For, as Benson says, 
 the revelation of Jesus Christ is sometimes called 
 the end of the world, the last day, the last time. 
 And at the general conflagration a great salvation 
 shall be revealed.” See his note. 
 
 6. ἐν w ἀγαλλιάσθε---πειρασμιοῖς. By this very 
 hope of future felicity, and the beneficial effects of 
 adversity in producing moral reformation, the Apostle 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. I. 641 
 
 supported them under the tribulations to be en- 
 dured in the cause of religion. ᾿Εν ᾧ, by the per- 
 petual custom of the Apostle of joining periods to 
 periods by the use of the pronoun relative, is for ἐν 
 τούτῳ δὲ, 501]. καίρῳ ἐσχάτῳ; or we may, with Grot. 
 and Wolf, subaud χρήματι. (Pott) ᾿Αγαλλιᾶσθε 
 is for the future, ἀγαλλιάσεσθε. Εἰ δέον ἐστι, “if 
 thus it must be (see Acts 14, 22.);” namely, from 
 the nature of circumstances, and the disposition of 
 the Jews and Heathens. The sense is: “this feli- 
 city ye expect, although now, for a time ye feel 
 misery from various tribulations brought upon you 
 by the Jews and unbelieving Gentiles.” Ὀλίγον, 
 short, as compared with eternity. (Rosenm.) Other 
 modes of interpretation are propounded by some 
 Commentators. See Pole, Pott, and Benson. The 
 ὀλίγον may perhaps signify both a short time, and “in 
 a slight degree.” The εἰ δέον ἐστι may be rendered, 
 ‘* seeing it is needful.” And so Benson and Jaspis. 
 But it rather seems that the expression is highly 
 elliptical, and is used because some of those whom 
 the Apostle addressed were thus afflicted, and others 
 not. Now εἰ δέον ἐστι would, in its popular accep- 
 tation, embrace both. I wouldehere compare Phi- 
 lostr. V.. Ap. 4, 37. 
 
 7. ἵνα τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως----Χριστοῦ. The 
 τὸ δοκίμιον vp. τ. π. signifies, “ that by which your 
 faith is tried,” or, ‘“‘your approved faith,” i. e. re- 
 liance on God for a happy termination to your trials, — 
 and firm constancy by which you bear up under 
 them. See more in Benson and Pott. δοκίμιον is, 
 as Rosenm. says, put for δοκιμιὴ (as at James 1, 3.), 
 1. 6. πίστις δοκιμιαϑομιένη. Now this, it is said, is more 
 precious than the most precious of metals, and is far 
 more permanent than that which resisteth corruption 
 the longest, even gold. 
 
 By the ἀποκαλύψις ᾿[ησοῦ Χριστοῦ, must be meant 
 the advent of Christ to Judgment. Now as gold is 
 said διὰ πυρὸς δοκιμάϑεσθαι, so, it is meant, that our 
 
 VOL. VIII. 2T 
 
642 1 PETER, CHAP. I. 
 
 virtue, the most valuable of all our possessions, is 
 tried and proved. | 
 
 8. ὃν οὐκ εἰδότες ἀγαπᾶτε---δεδοξασμιένη, “ Whom, 
 though not having seen (when on earth), ye love, and 
 in whom, though not now beholding, ye rejoice with 
 joy unspeakable and glorious.” ‘The loving and trust- 
 ing in, denote the recognising him as Messiah, and 
 from him alone looking for salvation. ‘The εἰδότες is 
 supposed by Wells to allude to the case of Thomas, 
 and to the words which our Saviour uttered on that 
 occasion; ‘ Blessed are they that have not seen, 
 and yet have believed,” Joh. 20, 29. At ἀγαλλιᾶσθε 
 subaud εἰς ᾧ, which is for ἐφ᾽ ᾧ. Δεδοξαμιένη, exalted. 
 supreme. So 2 Cor. 3, 10, οὐδὲ δεδοξάσται τὸ δεδοξ- 
 ασιμένον ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει. Besides (as Pott remarks) 
 the blessedness of the Messiah’s kingdom is usually 
 represented under the term δόξα. See Schleus. Lex. 
 The ἀγαλλιᾶσθε is explained by Benson and the re- 
 cent Commentators as put for the future. And so 
 some of the antient Versions. But this is precarious, 
 and indeed unnecessary; since the joy in question 
 would have its commencement in this world; though 
 its consummation would be reserved for another. 
 
 9. κομιϑόμενοι τὸ τέλος τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν, σωτηρίαν 
 ψυχῶν. Agreeably to the interpretation of ἀγαλλι- 
 ἄσθε just mentioned, the κομιδόμιενοι is by some taken 
 for κομισάμενοι. But this is too bold. It is only 
 necessary to suppose the word to refer to their being 
 placed in a state which led to salvation, and that so 
 certain that, unless it were their own fault, they 
 might be said already to have it. Koig. here sig- 
 nifies to carry off as a reward; as 2 Cor. 5, 10. and 
 Eph. 6, 8. where see the notes. Τὸ τέλος, the best 
 Commentators are agreed (like the Hebr. N°77:s), 
 is, by an agonistical metaphor, used to denote the 
 crown, or reward. See Rom. 6, 21. Σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν. 
 So James 1, 21. σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμών. I agree with 
 Moldenhauer and Rosenm. that this has reference 
 to the present blessings as well as the future felicity, 
 conferred by the Gospel. | 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. I. 643 
 
 10. περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας ---προφητεύσαντες, “ concerning 
 which felicity, and its nature, the Prophets studiously 
 examined, and diligently enquired after (the Pro- 
 phets I say), who prophesied of the grace which was 
 to come unto you.” ‘The ἐξ. is intensive. They saw 
 (says Rosenm.) that something great was reserved 
 for our later times; but what it would be, the Pro- 
 phets did not fully apprehend. (Compare Luke 10, 
 24.) They prophesied, indeed, of the blessings of 
 which we are now made partakers; but, for the 
 most part, under types and shadows.” The various 
 blessings of the Gospel are here, as often, designated 
 by the general term χάρις: and (as Rosenm. ob- 
 serves) their being prophesied is mentioned, as show- 
 ing that they are not fortuitous. 
 
 11. ἐρευνῶντες εἰς τίνα---δόξας. ᾿Ερευν. is for ἐρευνή- 
 σαντες, and that for the verb. The sense, then, is; 
 ‘** For they diligently investigated at what time, and 
 what kind of time, that would happen which the Holy 
 Spirit, given by Christ, had showed to them, who, 
 by his inspiration, signified what Christ should suffer, 
 and the glory to which he should be exalted.” Τίνα 
 ἢ ποῖον are treated by Pott as synonymous; as in 
 Mark 4, 30. and Acts 7,49. He also adduces some 
 passages of the Classical writers. But in those cases 
 there are parallelisms, which is not the case here. Ro- 
 senm, rightly thinks the ποῖον may refer to the state 
 of the people, whether wholly free, or partly so, or in 
 bondage. ‘The Apostle is supposed to have in view 
 Dan. 9, 22 & 23. At τὸ there is the usual ellipsis of 
 ὃν. The Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ, because 
 it was then given by Christ to the Prophets (espe- 
 cially as concerning himself). Τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν raby: 
 ματα, sub. ἐσόμενα, which is for ἀποβησόμενα (like the 
 τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Acts 5,1.). There is the 
 same ellipsis at τὰς pera ταῦτα δύξας. The δόξας 
 refers to the various glories subsequent to the passion 
 of Christ, namely, his resurrection, ascension, glo- 
 rification, the sending of the Holy Spirit, the 
 
 272 
 
64:4 1 PETER, CHAP. I. 
 
 calling of the Gentiles, the working of miracles, &c. 
 Phil. 2, 9. 
 
 12. οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς" ἡμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν 
 αὐτὰ, ““Τὸ whom (in consequence of their anxious 
 enquiry) it was revealed, that not for their own be- 
 nefit, or with relation to themselves, but for us, and 
 to.us, they were made ministers of announcing those 
 things unto us (those things, I say) which now have 
 been (plainly) revealed to you by those who have 
 preached the Gospel to you, by the influence and 
 assistance of the Holy Spirit sent from heaven 
 (things, I say), over which the angels bend with ad- 
 miration, and delight to look into.” Of διακονεῖν in 
 the sense announce, Rosenm. adduces an example 
 from Joseph. Ant. 6,13. ταῦτα δὲ τῶν πεμῷθέντων 
 διακονησάντων πρὸς τὸν Νάβαλον. Ἐαγγελεῖν, in an 
 active sense, with the Accusative of person for ἃ 
 Dative, is frequent in Scripture. It is observed, by 
 Rosenm., that the predictions of the Prophets pre- 
 ceded, in order to increase our faith in the preaching 
 of the Apostles. Eis ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν παρακύψαι. Ἰίαρακ. 
 is taken as at James 1, 25., where see the note. By 
 the ἃ are meant ail the wonderful things above men- 
 tioned, before their event not thoroughly known to 
 the Angels, but now surveyed and contemplated 
 with wonder and delight; for that is the sense of 
 ἐπιθυμ. Perhaps nothing can more strongly excite 
 our admiration of the Gospel than this glorious 
 passage. 
 
 13. Now follows an exhortation to a holy life, 
 deduced from the foregoing commemoration of the 
 glories and blessings of the Gospel: and this is ex- 
 tended to 3, 16. (Rosenm.) 
 
 13. διὸ ἀναϑωσάμιενοι τὰς oodvas—Xpioro, “ Where- 
 fore, such being the glory and felicity prepared to 
 reward your obedience, gird up the loins of your 
 minds.’ A metaphor, as Rosenm. says, in which 
 there is blended the zmage of the thing, and the thing 
 expressed by theimage. It is (he thinks) a metaphor 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. 1. 645 
 
 taken from Oriental travellers, who, on setting out, 
 gird up their long flowing garments about their loins. 
 But it may have reference to any active exertion 
 or labour, to which such girding is there equally 
 necessary. ‘The application is obvious. On νήφειν 
 see 1 Thess. 5,6. and 2 Tim. 4, 5. and the notes. 
 Teaciws must be construed with ἐλπίσατε. It is, as 
 Fischer thinks, for τελέως, and stands in the place of 
 εἰς τέλος, constantly. In the words following Ro- 
 senm. thinks there is a trajectio for ἐπὶ τὴν χάριν τὴν 
 Φερομιένην ὑμῖν ἐν ἀποκαλύψει Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The 
 χάρις (he observes) denotes the highest effect of 
 Divine benevolence, namely, eternal felicity. égew 
 here signifies to offer: for that is offered unto all 
 who obey the Gospel ; but will be attained only at 
 the revelation of Jesus Christ, when he will show his 
 majesty to all, both men, angels, and demons. 
 
 14. ws τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, for τέκνα ὑπηκοά. The συσ- 
 χηματίϑεσθαι is strangely rendered, by Rosenm., 
 transformari. It rather means conformari, or, as being 
 reflected verb, se conformare, to conform, accommo- 
 date, mould oneself by (σὺν) any mould. What these 
 ἐπιθυμίαι were, we find from 4, 3. ᾿Εν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ is for 
 ἐν χρόνῳ τῆς ἀγνοίας (as at Acts 17, 30.). before they 
 had been enlightened by the Gospel. 
 
 15, 16. ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον, καὶ 
 αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι ἐν πάση ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε, ““Βαΐ, after 
 the example of the holy Being that hath called you, 
 be ye also, in all your conduct and behaviour, holy.” 
 Thus we are to imitate our Father and our God, as 
 good children do their parents. The sentiment is con- 
 firmed from Levit. 11, 44. It is well remarked, by 
 Rosenm., that such an imitation must be still more 
 incumbent on ws, who profess a far purer religion 
 than Judaism. 
 
 On ἀναστροῷῦ in the above sense I have before 
 treated. “Ayss, it may be observed, is an epithet 
 which is, above all others, applicable to God, and 
 ascribed to him in Scripture. See Pole’s Synopsis. 
 
 17. Now follows the second argument, by which 
 
646 1 PETER, CHAP. 1. 
 
 we are actuated to virtue, and that derived from the 
 Divine benignity and justice. The καὶ is rendered, 
 by Rosenm., immo. But it may more simply be 
 rendered porro, and further, moreover. Ei, 3, seeing 
 that. Πατέρα ἐπικαλεῖσθε τὸν ἀ. κι κ, τ. ἐ. ἐν, “γα Te- 
 ligiously invoke (or profess so to do) a Father who 
 impartially judgeth every one’s work.” ᾿Απροσῶώπο- 
 λήπτως, ““ without reference to birth or fortune, or 
 any thing but virtue.” [Ἔργον is a collective put for 
 the plural. “Ev φόβω τὸν τῆς παροικίας ὑμῶν χρόνον 
 ἀναστράφητε. ᾿Αναστρέφεσθαι signifies vervar?, se 
 gerere; as 2 Cor, 1,12. Eph. 2, 3. and 2 Pet. 2, 18., 
 and often in the later Classical writers. ‘Tov χρόνον 
 is an accusative of duration of time. ἹΠαροικίας, so- 
 journ; and that in two respects, both as sojourning 
 among the Gentiles, and as human life is itself a 
 sojourn. See Heb. 11,13., and consult Slade. 1 
 would compare Arrian Ep. 2, 23. and Philostr. V. 
 ap. 1, 22. 5. m. χρόνος τῆς ἀποδημίας. By ἐν φόβω is 
 denoted anxious caution in our conduct, through fear 
 of offending God; as in Phil. 2, 12. μετὰ φόβου καὶ 
 τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτών σωτηρίαν κατεργ., where see the note. 
 
 18, 19. εἰδότες ὅτι οὐ φθαοτοῖς---πατροπαραδύότου, 
 * Knowing (as ye do), and bearing in mind, that ye 
 were not, by corruptible things (however precious), 
 as gold and silver, liberated from your vain and 
 foolish conduct and manner of life received from 
 your forefathers.” Marais, vain, vicious; as Tit. 
 3,9. Ithas reference not only to tdolatry, but to 
 the other vices which that carries with it, and to 
 which human nature is so prone. *Eavrgwiyre may 
 simply signify liberated: but there is an allusion to 
 the atoning blood of Christ, without which not even 
 the religion that liberated them could have been 
 promulgated. Tipio αἵματι, “ with that blood which 
 procured us the most precious advantages.” The 
 ἀμιώμου and ἀσπίλου have an allusion to the requisites 
 in the victims, which were to be without blemish or 
 defect, i.e. by either being defective, or crippled in 
 any member. Of the blemishes mention is made in 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. I. 647 
 
 Levit. 22, 20—24. and Mal.1, 8. Now the spotless- 
 ness of Christ consisted in his being absolutely 
 exempt from all sin. The ws is taken, by Rosenm., 
 for ἀληθώς. But this is too arbitrary. The sense 
 is: “as (being).” So Pott resolves it by ἦν yap αἵμα 
 ἅμνου, &c. He observes that lamb and dove have 
 ever been symbols of innocence and patience. Com- 
 pare 1 Cor. 6, 20. & Rom. 4,7—9. And see Slade. 
 20,21. προεγνωσμένου μὲν, &c., “ΟΥ̓ that Christ (1 
 say) who was ordained, destined to this work of 
 liberation and redemption before the creation of the 
 world, but made his appearance in these latter times 
 for your sakes, who, by him and his preaching, trust 
 in God that raised him from the dead and glorified 
 him, so that your faith and hope are (reposed) in 
 God.” Such, I conceive, is the true sense. Lgoys- 
 νώσκειν here signifies, not to foreknow, but, what is 
 consequent on it, predetermine, predestinate, decree. 
 Thus it is joined with wpoopifev at Rom. 8, 29., and 
 Kypke adduces some Classical examples, but not 
 apposite. Ips καταβολῆς κόσμου, “ from eternity.” 
 This has been before explained. aveg. has the re- 
 flected sense, having showed himself, appeared ; which 
 may include his actions on earth. See Rosenm. On 
 ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν χρόνων see Heb. 1,1. Δι ὑμᾶς (on 
 which Pott unnecessarily dilates) plainly signifies, 
 you and your fellow Christians, or you Christians. 
 Δι’ αὐτοῦ, “ by him,” i.e. by his doctrine, miracles, 
 and the various blessings he imparted. See Joh. 
 14, 6. and Heb. 7, 25. By πίστις is meant not only 
 belief in God (for in that they were not wanting), 
 but trust in his mercy, as shown in sending the Mes- 
 siah to redeem and bless. ‘This includes (what the 
 words following hint at) their belief in the Divine 
 legation of Jesus. Or, as Benson explains, they 
 believed not so much in God who had brought them 
 out of the land of Egypt, who had raised and glori- 
 fied Jesus Christ. 
 * Q1. ὥστε τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα εἶναι εἰς Θεόν. 
 Rosenm. (from Bens.) paraphrases: “ In vain do 
 
648 1 PETER, CHAP. I, 
 
 your countrymen charge you with defection from 
 God; for your very faith and hope in Christ tend to 
 that God of whom they profess to be worshippers.” 
 In this and the preceding verse, Benson thinks the 
 Gentile converts are meant. But that seems an er- 
 roneous opinion. : 
 
 22, Afier having given the above arguments to 
 the living holily and righteously, he returns to the 
 exhortation that they should strive after virtue, and, 
 above all, brotherly love. (Pott.) 
 
 22. ras ψυχὰς ὑμῶν ἡγνικότες, &c., ‘ Wherefore, 
 having purified your hearts by your obedience to the 
 true doctrine, so far as to bear a sincere love to your 
 Christian brethren, see that ye (continue to) love 
 each other with a pure heart, and ardently.” In 
 ἡγνικότες Rosenm. recognizes a similitude derived 
 from the lustrations previous to sacrifice enjoined by 
 the Mosaic Law, Exod. 19,10, What the Christian 
 lustrations previous to worship should be, few can 
 need being informed. See Rosenm. By the ἀληθεία 
 is meant “the truth as it is in Jesus, the Gospel.” Ty 
 ὑπακοὴ τῆς ἀληθείας, “ hearkening to the Gospel of 
 truth, embracing the religion to whose acceptance it 
 invites. The διὰ πνεύματος, Benson explains, “ made 
 and confirmed by the Spirit.”. But it seems to refer 
 to the influence of the Holy Spirit, both in the pro- 
 mulgation of the Gospel, and in its operation on the 
 hearts of believers unto sanctification. Sover. 2. ἐν 
 ἁγιασμώ πνεύματος. ‘These words are, indeed, omit- 
 ted in some MSS. ; but that is only ex emendatione, 
 since they seem to interrupt the construction. ᾿Εκ 
 καθαρᾶς καρδίας is taken as at 1 Tim. 1, 5., where see 
 the note. I would compare βοῦν]. Eum. 282. 
 ἀφ᾽ ἀγνοῦ στόματος εὐφήμιος KaAwW— Αθηναίαν. ᾽Εκτε- 
 νῶς, ardently, as Christ loved us. 
 
 23. ἀναγεγεννημένοι οὐκ ἐκ σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς, ἀλλὰ 
 ἀφθάρτου. ‘These words assign a reason for this love. 
 And dvayey. is for ἀναγ. yap ἐστε. (Pott.) ““ For ye 
 have been born again,” 1. 6. of water and the Holy 
 Spirit, and have attained a moral regeneration, which 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. 1. 649 
 
 is the pledge of eternal salvation, regenerated (I say) 
 not of perishable seed, or by human means.” This, 
 Rosenm. observes, is levelled against the Jews, who 
 boasted of their descent from Abraham. Compare 
 Joh. 1, 18. 3, 6. Σπορᾶς ἀφθάρτου, * imperishable and 
 ever efficacious,” i.e. as the Apostle adds, the λόγου 
 ϑῶντος Θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, * the doctrine 
 of the living God.” The μένοντος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα may 
 either refer to God (and so Grot. and Est., who cite 
 Dan. 6, 26. αὐτὸς ἐστι Θεὸς Sov καὶ μένων), Or to λόγου, 
 i. e. the Gospel ; and this method, which is adopted 
 by Pisc., Vorst., Wolf, and almost all recent Critics, 
 is more agreeable to the propriety of language and 
 the context, especially the following citation from 
 Isaiah: “ Now this Gospel (annotates Rosenm.) re- 
 maineth for ever; for whatever God has said is for 
 ever true and valid.’ The application is obvious. 
 Λόγος Sav is for Δ. ϑωοποιών. See Acts 7, 88. 
 
 24, 25. The sentiment of the preceding verse is 
 amplified by a passage of Is. 40, 5 ἃ 7., in which, 
 however, the words of the Prophet are probably ac- 
 commodated to the present purpose; q.d. “ these 
 words of the Prophet Isaiah may, in a more excellent 
 sense, hold good of the Gospel.” - The sense of the 
 words is plain.» Sae§, our earthly, human nature, 
 man. Δόξα ἀνθρώποις, man in his most glorious state, 
 adorned with all that health, strength, beauty, riches, 
 honours, learning, and eloquence can give him. 
 ᾿Εξηράνθη 6 χόρτος, καὶ τὸ ἄνθος αὐτοῦ ἐξέπεσε. These 
 words are exegetical of the preceding ; and the past 
 tenses are used for presents, Hebraicé, or perhaps to 
 suggest the speed of the falling away. See James 
 1,11. Philologists compare the passage of Hom. II. 
 §. 146., and others. The application is obvious. 
 
 25. τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα Kugiov μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ““ But the 
 word of the Lord is invariably true, always effica- 
 cious, and tending to eternal life and happiness.” 
 Τοῦτο δὲ ἐστι τὸ ῥῆμα τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν εἰς ὑμᾶς, ““ And 
 that eternal truth is the very doctrine which is 
 preached to you, i.e. (as Benson paraphrases) “1 
 
650 1 PETER, CHAP. I. Il. 
 
 am desirous that you should know what I mean by 
 the seed of a spiritual and incorruptible life; and by 
 that word which renders men immortal, or makes 
 them to endure for ever. And therefore, I expressly 
 declare, I here mean the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Ver. 1,2. ᾿Αποθέμινοι οὖν πᾶσαν κακίαν---καταλα- 
 λίας, “ Seeing then that ye are regenerated by the 
 word of truth, laying aside the vices which are so 
 opposite to that state, as malice, guile, &c. Here 
 ἀποτιθ. is used as at James 1, 21. Eph. 4, 22 and 25. 
 Kaxia, though a general term, yet, from the context, 
 must here denote that species of evil, namely, malice. 
 Now to this and other vices associated with it the 
 Jews were too prone. 
 
 2. ‘Qs ἀρτιγέννητα βρέψη, τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα ἐπι- 
 ποθήσατε. ‘This is said in conformity to the meta- 
 phor at 1,23. Such they were, as being recent con- 
 verts. The metaphor was used by the Jews, who (as 
 will appear from the citations of Wets.) called new 
 converts sucklings. On ἀρτιγ. see Pollux 2,8. To λο- 
 γικὸν γάλα is for τὸ τοῦ λόγου y.. the milk of the Gos- 
 pel, which (especially in its elementary parts) is often 
 so called. See 1 Cor. 3, 2. Hebr. 5, 12. and the 
 notes. Whitby explains it of the milk which rational 
 creatures feed upon: and he compares Rom. 12, 
 1. and James 1, 21. But something higher seems 
 intended ; and this interpretation is (I think) not so 
 proper as the former. “Adora, pure, sincere, and 
 therefore salutary, in opposition to the mixed and 
 adulterated doctrines spoken of at 2 Cor.2,17. I 
 would compare Aischyl. Ag. 94. ἀδόλοισι παρηγορίαις. 
 In ἐπιποθήσατε, earnestly desire, the ἐπὶ is intensive. 
 ‘The application is obvious. 
 
 2. ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηθῆτε, “ that ye may make greater 
 and greater progress in knowledge and virtue.’ In 
 many MSS., Versions, and Fathers is added εἰς σω- 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. 11. 651 
 
 τηρίαν ; which reading is adopted by almost all recent 
 Critics. Yet, though it is well supported, I cannot 
 but suspect it (with Mill and Wolf) to be a gloss ; 
 since for its omission in so many MSS. no reason can 
 be imagined; but its addition is easily accounted 
 for. Wolf moreover thinks, that, had the Apostle 
 chose to add any thing further, he would have written 
 εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον ; as Eph. 4, 18. 
 
 3. εἴπερ ἐγεύσασθε ὅτι γρηστὸς ὁ Κύριος. Γεύεσθαι 
 here signifies to know by taste, or experience; as 
 Joseph. Ant. 2, 10, 3. Compare Ps. 39, 9. The 
 sense is: ‘‘ If indeed (as is the case) ye have expe- 
 rienced that the Lord is gracious and benignant ; 
 q. d. “* As infants in experiencing the sweetness of 
 the mother’s milk, seek it the more, aud love the 
 mother the better; so ye Christians, who have ex- 
 perienced the salubrity of the milk of doctrine, are 
 similarly affected towards Christ.” 
 
 4, 5. πρὸς ὃν προσερχόμιενοι---- Χριστοῦ. 
 
 It is rightly observed by Wolf and Pott, that these verses (in 
 which, using the words of Ps. 118, 12. the Apostle proceeds to ex- 
 hort Christians not only to receive, but also to observe the precepts of 
 the Christian religion) are closely connected ; the former contain- 
 ing ἃ protasis ; the latter, an apodosis. Rosenm. paraphrases thus : 
 “Α quo tempore Jesum, ἃ primoribus Judzorum reprobatum, Deo 
 autem carissimum, pro Messid agnovistis, eumque coluistis, ab eo 
 tempore ipsi quoque Deo estis cari ; estis pars societatis selectissi- 
 morum hominum, Deum secundum precepta Christi colentium.” 
 The words (he continues) designate the dignity and excellence of 
 Christians. Compare ver. 9. and Ps. 118, 22. Is. 8, 14. 38, 16. 
 Matt. 21, 42. Eph. 2, 20. By the ἀνθρώπων, men, are meant the 
 Jews, particularly those of the Sanhedrim, who rejected Jesus, 
 though declared by God himself the Messiah. Παρὰ δὲ Θεῷ ἐκλεκτὸν, 
 ‘in the sight of God most excellent.’ II. Θ. is a forensic metaphor. 
 The προσέρχεσθαι πρὸς τὸν Κριστὸν, come unto Christ, who is here 
 improprié called a living stone, is nothing more than believing in 
 and professing his religion. Then as Christ is compared with a 
 stone, so are Christians compared with the living stones of which 
 the ‘Temple was built, i.e. a society acknowledging Jesus for the 
 Messiah. 
 
 Καὶ αὐτοὶ---πνευματικὸς, “ Ye also are a part of the Temple, alle- 
 gorically so called; are members of that Church and society of 
 which Christ is the head and Lord. By the οἶκος πνευματικὸς is meant 
 the universal Church, all Christians throughout the world. Not 
 only (it is said) are Christians a part of this temple, but priests of it 
 
652 1 PETER, CHAP. 11. 
 
 themselves, i, e. as acceptable to God as those chosen priests of the 
 Old Testament. Πνευματικὰς θυσίας, i, e. sacrifices offered from 
 the heart (of which the antient ones were but types and shadows), 
 and consisting of prayers and good works of every kind. (Rosenm.) 
 See more in Pott, or in Whitby and Mackn., or the extracts in 
 Slade. I would observe that there is a very similar expression to 
 the παρὰ δὲ Θεῷ ἐκλεκτὸν, ἐντίμον, in the Carmina Sybillina Edit, 
 Gallei. ἐκλεκτὸν παρὰ πατρὶ Θεῷ καὶ τίμιον εἶναι, evidently an imi- 
 tation, probably from interpolation ; although I suspect that many 
 of those Carmina are fabrications of the Monks of the middle ages. 
 With the πνευματικὰς θυσίας 1 would compare Heb. 13, 16. τοιαύ- 
 rats θυσίαις evapereirar ὁ Θεὸς. Ps. 51, 17. and Aristid. 2, 278 8. 
 καὶ (νομίξε:») μήτε θυσίαν οὕτω λαμπρὰν, μήτε σπονδὰς κεχαρισ- 
 μένας, ὧν οὐχ ἥδιον ἂν εἶναι τοῖς θεοῖς, ἢ εἰ τὴν γνώμην ἐκ τῶν δυ- 
 νατῶν ὡς βελτίστην παρεχοίμεθα. A passage, supplying one among 
 the many proofs that the publication of the Gospel raised the tone 
 of morals among the philosophical and didactic writers of the Hea- 
 thens, most of whom, there is no doubt, read and profited by the 
 Scriptures; though very few, if any, vouchsafe to make the slightest 
 allusion to them: a disingenuousness worthy of such a cause as 
 they vainly endeavoured to prop up, by imparting to a false, sen- 
 sual, and worn-out religion, those spiritualities which were peculiar 
 to the Gospel of truth. 
 
 6. Returning to the subject of ver. 4., the Apostle 
 shows that, ina passage of the Old Testament, Christ 
 is compared with acorner-stone, and those who fly to 
 this stone are declared blessed. (Pott.) 
 
 6. διότι καὶ περιέχει, for περιέχεται : an hypallage fre- 
 quent in other verbs. Rosenm. compares Joseph. 
 Ant. 11, 4, 7. where Darius is said to have sent an 
 epistle to his Prefects, with the addition βούλομαι yi- 
 νεσθαι πάντα, καθὼς ἐν αὐτῇ περιέχει. See Raphel, 
 Krebs, and Kypke. In Acts 8, 32. we have 7 περιοχὴ 
 τῆς γραῴης. The citation which follows is from Is. 
 18, 16.; but it does not exactly correspond either 
 with the Hebrew or the Sept., at least as we now 
 have it. On the connection of the passage as it 
 stands, Commentators exceedingly differ. See Pole, 
 Wolf, at Pott. The passage is doubtless accommo- 
 dated by the Apostle. Rosenm. observes, that ac- 
 cording to the primary sense there is promised that 
 defence and security which Jerusalem would afford 
 to its inhabitants, and all who took refuge there from 
 Sennacherib. Thus Sion signifies Jerusalem; and 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. II. 653 
 
 the stone is a symbol of security. But in a sublimer 
 sense, the words hold good of Christ, to whom all 
 should take refuge who desire eternal salvation. 
 Then Sion-is the Jewish nation, from which Christ 
 descended ; and the corner-stone is Christ. 
 
 7, 8. ὑμῖν οὖν ἡ Tin τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, “ That stone 
 in respect of you has a price,” i. 6. you know its 
 price, while you know that Jesus is Lord and Mes- 
 βία ἢ. Ἡ τιμὴ. Abstract for concrete ἐντιμὸς ; allud- 
 ing to what preceded. ᾿Απείθουσι δὲ---- σκανδάλου. 
 Λίβον is for λίθος ; a construction found in Matt. 21, 
 52. and 1 Cor. 10, 16.: or there may be an ellipsis 
 of quod attinet ad. See the note on Matt. 21, 42. 
 Now this, it is said, is made the corner-stone, on 
 which any one may easily stumble: for although a 
 corner-stone is placed in order to sustain the walls 
 of an edifice, yet careless passers by may stumbie 
 upon it, to their injury; as the Jews had done, in 
 stumbling at the humble birth and lowly estate 
 of Jesus. Ot προσκύπτουσι τῷ λόγῳ, ἀπειθοῦντες, 
 “those who stumble upon are those who disbelieve 
 the doctrine, rejecting both Jesus and his doctrine.” 
 Εἰς ὃ καὶ ἐτέθησαν, ““ unto which (disbelief) they were 
 destined.’ A phrase derived from the usage of 
 common life, by which things that happen by the 
 permission of God, are referred to him, as the doer 
 and effecter. (Rosenm.) See Whitby, Benson, 
 Carpz., and Pott. I would observe that the ὑμῖν οὖν 
 ἡ τιμὴ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν may be rendered: “ To you, 
 therefore, who believe, is this preciousness.” The 
 τιμὴ is for ἔντιμος. Of this sense there is an example 
 in Plut. Is. § 5. οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτω τιμὴ Αἰγυπτίοις ὡς ὁ 
 Νεῖλος, where Reiske causelessly conjectures τίμιον. 
 And so ἀτιμία for ἄτιμον in 1 Cor. 2, 15. With 
 respect to the eis ὃ καὶ ἐτέθησαν, the above explana- 
 tion of it may (I think) be admitted. At all events, 
 it isably rescued from doctrinal perversion by the 
 Greek Fathers and Commentators. To the Scholiast 
 cited by Matt. and Slade I add Gicumen. whose ex- 
 position, however, is too long for me to insert. 
 
654: 1 PETER, CHAP. II. 
 
 9. ὑμεῖς δὲ, γένος ἐκλεκτὸν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνας 
 ἅγιον. Γένος ἐκλεκτὸν, a beloved people. ‘Taken from 
 Is. 43, 20., where the term is used of the Israelites. 
 Now it is yet more applicable to Christians. Βασί- 
 λειον ἱεράτευμα, “as Priests of the Great King of 
 Kings.” An appellation taken from Exod. 19, 6. 
 Sept., and applicable to Christians, as worshipping 
 the true God in a more excellent way than did the 
 Israelitish Priests of old. ὌΕθνος ἅγιον. See supra, 1, 
 15. Taken from Deut. 7, 6. and 14, 2. Λαὸς εἰς πε- 
 ριποίησιν. ‘Taken from Exod. 19, 5. where the Sept. 
 have λαὸς περιούσιος. |But at Malach. 3, 17. they ren- 
 der the same noun ΓΔ by εἰς περιποίησιν. See the 
 note on Acts 20, 28. “πως τὰς aperas— Gas, “That 
 ye should show forth (by words and deeds) the 
 praises of him who hath called (and drawn) you from 
 the darkness (of ignorance, sin, and misery,) to the 
 light (of knowledge, truth, and happiness).” Τὰς 
 ἀρετὰς, the praises, glories, exalted attributes of God; 
 Is. 42, 8. (in the Hebr. and Sept.) and 42, 12. ἀρετὰς 
 ἀναγγελεῖν. Schleus. also cites Is. 63, 7. τὰς ἀρετὰς 
 Κυρίου ἐν πᾶσιν οἷς ἡμῖν ἀνταποδίδωσι. (To which I 
 add Thucyd. 2, 40. τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀποδώσων, 1. 6. εὔνοιαν, 
 χάριν. Other examples from Josephus and_ the 
 Classical writers may be seen in Krebs. Ed.) Now 
 if it was the duty of the Priests to celebrate the 
 praises of the great God, how much more ought 
 Christians, whose dignity is greater than that of 
 those Priests. See 4, 11. Θαυμαστὸν, admirable, 
 worthy of all admiration. (Rosenm.) See Doddr. 
 
 10. of ποτὲ οὐ λαὺς, νῦν δὲ λαὸς Θεοῦ, “ Who for- 
 merly were not ἃ people of God, but now are so; who 
 were not (formerly) received into favour and made 
 a people of God, but now have been made 50.᾽ The 
 words are taken from Hos. 2, 25., but accommodated 
 (as the best Commentators say; see Pott, Rosenm., 
 and Doddr.) to the Gentile Christians. Compare 9, 
 25. where see the note. ‘They are, however, appli- 
 cable to Jewish as well as Gentile converts. ‘The 
 application is obvious. See Benson, Pott, and Ro- 
 senm., or Slade. 
 
 3" 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. If. 655 
 
 11. The Apostle now presses on them another 
 admonition, namely, to abstain from lasciviousness, 
 that so they might remove the suspicion of immo- 
 rality which the Heathens entertained respecting 
 them. (Pott.) 
 
 The πάροικοι are those who reside out of their 
 country ; the raperidypo, those who are staying, or 
 sojourning, out of it. Others explain the πάροικοι, 
 private guests, as opposed to ἕένοι, public ones. 
 Slade thinks it appears from the next verse, and from 
 the whole tenour of the Epistle, that the Apostle 
 intends a primary reference to the state of dispersion 
 in which his brethren then were ; it being especially 
 incumbent on them to be circumspect in their con- 
 . duct, for the honour and recommendation of their 
 religion in a foreign land.. But that makes a very 
 frigid reason for their abstaining, &c.; and Mr. 
 Slade took an incorrect view of the reasoning of 
 Grot., from whom he adduces an extract. That Com- 
 mentator, and from him Pott and Rosenm. steer a 
 middle course between the interpretation of Slade 
 and the common one, by which the Apostle is sup- 
 posed to speak of life as a pilgrimage. The Apostle 
 (they say) reminds them of their situation as πάροικοι 
 and παρεπίδημοι in a foreign country, and also of 
 their like situation in this world, as compared with 
 the next ; and then in the next verse takes occasion, 
 from their situation as Christian strangers in 
 Heathen countries, to press on them the duty of 
 adorning the doctrine of God our Saviour in all 
 things. Here Loesn. compares Philo 5, 18 p. To 
 which I add Kephantes ap. Stob. Serm. 323, 49. ἐπὶ 
 δὲ γῆς ἀπωκίσμενον χρῆμα. Cic. de Senect. memine- 
 rimus nos venire in hance vitam tanquam in hospitium, 
 non tanquam in domum. Natura enim hic commo- 
 randi diversorium, non habitandi locum nobis dedit 
 Hebr. 11, 13. ws ξένοι καὶ παρεπιδήμοι. 
 
 11. ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν σαρκικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν. These are 
 the ἐπιθυμίαι σαρκὸς at Gal. 5, 26., denoting not 
 only lasciviousness, but sensuality of every kind. The 
 
656 1 PETER, CHAP. IT. 
 
 αἵτινες στρατεύονται κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς assigns the reason 
 why, namely, since these militate against and are re- 
 pugnant to the welfare of their souls. Here Pott 
 rightly recognises a military metaphor, by which 
 lusts are considered as the enemies of the mind. And 
 he compares Marc. Anton. 2, 17. ὁ δὲ βίος πόλεμος. 
 He and most recent ΠΕΣ ἀψδνς ες take the Ψυχῆς 
 to mean mind and reason ; which however yields a 
 cold and frigid sense, not at all suitable to the 4pos- 
 tle; though it betrue that the indulgence of these 
 lusts is contrary to reason, and the happiness of man 
 in this world: in which view Wets. adduces several 
 Classical citations. 
 
 12, τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμών ἐν Tois—Karyy. 
 
 See the note on James 3, 13. Ἔν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “in the sight of 
 the Heathens, who are close observers and severe censors of your 
 actions,” “Iva ἐν ᾧ καταλαλοῦσιν---ἐπισκοπῆς. The ἐν ᾧ, like the 
 Hebr. \ws1, signifies inasmuch as, whereas. See Wets. Karadan., 
 “ they calumniate.” I would point: ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων, ἐποπτεύ- 
 σαντες δοζάσωσι: for at ἐποπτ. must be understood, not (as Rosenm. 
 supposes) ὑμᾶς, but αὐτὰ, 1. 6. τὰ καλὰ ἔργα ; as is clear from a 
 kindred passage at 8, 2. ἐποπτεύσαντες τὴν ἀγνὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν. 
 ᾿Ἐποπτεύω signifies to closely inspect: so that ἐποπτεύσαντες is for 
 ἐὰν ἐποπτεύσωσι, i.e. upon close inspection, and severe scrutiny. 
 By this means (it is said) they may be led to glorify God, by which, 
 (I agree with Beza, Calvin, and Rosenm.,) is meant give glory and 
 praise to, and conteive highly of that God and religion whereof 
 they before thought and spoke evil of. For δοξάξειν is, as Rosenm. 
 observes, used of divine worship of every kind. It is strange none 
 of the Commentators should have cited a kindred passage in 1 Cor. 
 14, 25. where, after a similar dissipation of Heathen prejudices, it 
 is added: καὶ οὕτω, πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον, προσκυνήσει τῷ Θεῷ, ἀπαγ- 
 γέλλων ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ὅντως ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστι. Now in this passage the 
 προσκυν. expresses that first and faint kind of worship which suc- 
 ceeds to some conviction of the truth. 
 
 As to the ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς, of this phrase, the sense is much 
 controverted. See Pole’s Synopsis; and Benson or Slade. Some 
 understand by it the day of judgment. But, as Benson says, 
 it plainly denotes something in this life. Others, as Whitby 
 and Mackn., take it of the time of persecution. Schleus. Grot., 
 Benson, and Jaspis, of the infliction of divine punishment. (See 
 more in Grot. and Benson). But that dees not suit the ddéae. 
 The two best founded interpretations seem to be, 1. that of Wolf, 
 Hamm., Raphel, Carpz., Slade, &c., who take it to allude to perse- 
 cution (see the details in Slade) ; 2, that of Pise., Calv., Menoch, 
 Est., Ger., Beza, Doddr., Pott, and Rosenm., who interpret: 
 «when God shall mercifully visit them with a conviction of the 
 truth and blessings of the Gospel.” The very same expression 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. 1]. 657° 
 
 occurs, and in the same sense, at Luke 1, 66,78. 7, 16, 19, 44. Acts 
 15, 14. Now this is surely quite agreeable to the context ; nor is it’ 
 (I think) open to any serious objections ; for such 1 cannot consider 
 those of Benson and Slade. 
 
 13, 14. The Apostle now proceeds to illustrate the 
 general precept of ver. 11 and 12. by the particular 
 duties to be observed among the Heathens both by 
 Jewish and Gentile Christians. (Pott.) 
 
 13. ὑποτάγητε. A passive in an hithpahel, or reci- 
 procal, sense, ““ subject yourselves.” aon ἀνθρω- 
 πίνῃ κτίσει, “to every institution or ordinance of 
 man,” i. e. every political institution. A sort of He- 
 braism, Rosenm. observes, from N23, ordinare, Sir. 
 38, 12. And so the Latin creare magistratum. ‘The 
 ἀνθρ. signifies that which is constituted by men, by 
 which is meant government, or those by whom it is 
 administered, as kings, governors, and magistrates in 
 general; for, ina popular sense, the κτίσις will apply 
 to all. Now on this interpretation the antients and 
 nearly all the moderns are agreed. Yet Pott objects 
 that this sense of κτίσις is devoid of authority. And 
 he would take πάση ἀνθο. xr. to mean “ all men.” 
 But this is liable to far more serious objections. 
 Compare similar admonitions in Rom. 13, 1. and 
 ΤΊ» 8, 1. 
 
 13. διὰ τὸν Κύριον, “ out of regard to the injunc- 
 tion of the Lord,” (at Matt. 22, 21.; see also Matt. 
 17,27.) This had probably been given in Peter’s hear- 
 ing ; but if not, it could not fail to come to his know- 
 lege. Βασιλεὺς js, by the usage of the Greek and 
 Hebr. (So csbn), used to denote the Imperator 
 Romanus, because he enjoyed that absolute power 
 which centered in the βασιλεὺς and J. “Yrece- 
 χοντι, Sovereign Lord. By the ἡγεμ. are denoted 
 provincial governors of every class, chiefly the 
 Legati Cesaris, or the Proconsuls. See more in Pott 
 and Rosenm., or the works on Roman Antiquities. 
 Av αὐτοῦ πεμπομένοις, “ sent out by him (i. 6. Caesar) 
 and deputed to govern.” This, Rosenm. observes, 
 is mentioned, that in case of civil commotion they 
 
 VOL. ὙΠ 2u . 
 
658 1 PETER, CHAP. II. 
 
 may know to whom obedience is primarily due.” 
 The words εἰς ἐκδίκησιν μὲν κακοποιῶν, ἔπαινον δὲ ἀγαθο- 
 ποιῶν advert to the only legitimate end and purpose of 
 all regular government, (see Rom. 13, 3 and 4.) ; 
 though there have been in all ages exceptions. So, 
 in an interesting citation from Ulpian adduced (from 
 Lardner) by Benson, government is defined to be the 
 power of punishing evil doers, facinorosos homines. 
 Now if any governors fail in their bounden duty, by 
 not punishing evil doers, or by evil treating those 
 that do weil, they must answer for the crime in ano- 
 ther world, and meet the consequences even in this. 
 
 15. ὅτι οὕτως ἐστὶ τὸ θέλημια τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀγαθοποιοῦντας 
 Φιμοῦν τὴν τῶν ἀφρόνων ἀνθρώπων ἀγνωσίαν. ᾿Αγαθο- 
 ποιεῖν often signifies to confer benefits ; here it simply 
 denotes well doing. ipodv, to reduce to silence, 1. e. 
 to leave them nothing to object. A frequent signi- 
 cation in the New Testament. See Schleus. Lex. or 
 Wahl. ᾿Αγνωσίαν, i. e. objection arising from igno- 
 rance or prejudice. ᾿Αφρόνων, foolish, without know- 
 ledge of the religion they revile. 
 
 16. ὡς ἐλεύθεροι---Θεοῦ. ᾿Ελευθ. free, viz. from 
 vices; as Joh. 8, 33 and 36. Rom. 6, 18 and 22. 
 The Christians, too, were free from the yoke of the 
 Mosaic Law, and from the necessity of worshipping 
 the gods of the Gentiles. But the Jews affected 
 political liberty; saying that God was their only King: 
 whence St. Peter adds: καὶ μὴ ὡς ἐπικάλυμμα ἔχοντες 
 τῆς κακίας τὴν ἐλευθερίαν, “not making use of your 
 Christian liberty as a cloak for evil (i. e. sedition), as 
 some Jewish Christians did, who expecting a politi- 
 cal kingdom, visible on the earth, were apt to suppose 
 Christians to be free from all public laws, κυριότητα 
 ἀθετοῦντες, as says Jude (Rosenm. from Benson). 
 ᾿Επικάλυμμα, cloak, pretext to shroud secret and evil 
 designs. ‘Qs δοῦλοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ‘as bound to the ob- 
 servance of the divine laws ;” and thence subject to 
 those whom God orders us to serve. For it is the 
 will of God that there should be magistrates whom 
 we may obey. 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. II. 659 
 
 Dye πάντας τιμήσατε, “ Honour all,” i. 6. to whom 
 honour is due; as Rom. 13, 7. A general injunction, 
 afterwards explained by its species. Try ἀδελφότητα 
 ἀγαπᾶτε, “love the Christian fraternity.” Abstract 
 for concrete. (Rosenm.) Τὸν Θεὸν φοβεῖσθε. This 
 term in Scripture unites the kindred notions of 
 reverence and obedience. It is also included in 
 τιμᾶτε. Pott. here cites Soph. Aj. 653. and Arta- 
 banus ap. Plut. ἴῃ Themistocl. p. 125. Ἡμῖν δὲ πολλών 
 νόμων καὶ καλῶν ὄντων, κάλλιστος οὗτος ἐστι" τὸ τιμᾷν 
 βαοίλέα; καὶ προσκυνεῖν εἰκόνα, Θεοῦ, τοῦ τὰ πάντα σώ- 
 Sovros. 
 
 18. οἱ οἰκέται, ὑποτασσόμενοι---σκολιοῖς, Now since 
 the conduct of Christian servants or slaves would be 
 likely to influence the opinions of their superiors 
 respecting Christianity, it therefore became a matter 
 of importance; and hence the injunctions of St. 
 Peter and St. Paul. 
 
 The article οἱ stands for the pronoun ὑμιεῖς 5 aS 
 often in St. Paul’s Epistles. The οἰκέται are supposed 
 to be the domestic slaves. but the term might 
 include freedmen acting in the capacity of domes- 
 tics. At ὑποτασσόμενοι must be understood ἐστε. 
 Ἔν παντὶ φόβῳ, “ with all reverence and submission.” 
 Πᾶς expresses the highest degree of any thing. Sxo- 
 λιοῖς, literally crooled, and, ina metaphorical sense, 
 awkward, per verse, morose, χαλέποις, δυσκόλοις. 
 
 19. τοῦτο γὰρ χάρις, “¢ for αὐτὸ γὰρ χάρις, 561], ἐστι,᾿ 
 says Pott, who also observes that the words admit of 
 various senses ; but he finally acquiesces in the fol- 
 lowing: ‘‘ For this is acceptable (to God), and con- 
 ciliates his favour.” A sense required by the ποῖον 
 γὰρ κλέος at ver. 20., and on which both the antients 
 and the best moderns are agreed. Here Θεῴ must 
 be understood, which is expressed i in some MSS. (by 
 
 a gloss) ; literally, “for this is a favour laid up with 
 Gad: and will be rewarded by him. The διὰ συνείδησιν 
 Rosenm. explains, ‘‘ from his consciousness of what 
 he owes to God.” Pott takes it to mean the meus 
 conscia Numinis. The former ἀντ, ae γος seems 
 
 ου 
 
660 1 PETER, CHAP. II. 
 
 preferable; but the expression may be explained 
 with Schleus., “‘ ob religionem quam Deus postulat.” 
 (So Rom. 13, 5. ἀλλὰ καὶ dit τὴν συνείδησιν,) “ from a 
 principle of religion, to do the will of God, and dis- 
 charge that duty.” And so Theodoret. λΔύπας is for 
 τὰ λυπηρὰ, grievances ; as Gen. 3, 16. 
 
 20. ποῖον yap κλέος--οὐπομιενεῖτε, “* For what praise 
 is it, if ye be roughly treated for your faults, ye 
 bear it patiently ?”? Κολαφίϑεσθαι may denote the va- 
 ous modes both by words and actions, by which 
 slaves were chastised for ill conduct. ᾿Αγαθοποῖειν 
 must denote “discharging your duty.” Kal πάσ- 
 χοντες, ‘and yet suffer ill treatment.” At the former 
 ὑπομενεῖτε must be understood κολαφίϑεσθαι, at the 
 latter πάσχειν, both taken from the context. Pott 
 adduces Senec. de benef. 4, 11. : 
 
 21—23. The Apostle now supplies them with a 
 strong motive to this obedience, appealing to the 
 example of Christ, for their imitation, who bore 
 keener contumelies, and more grievous sufferings with 
 unshaken constancy. (Pott.) 
 
 21. εἰς τοῦτο yop ἐκλήθητε, “ For to this purpose, 
 and on this condition, ye were made Christians, that 
 ye should follow the footsteps of Christ, and bear all 
 trials for conscience sake. Ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἔπαθεν---- 
 αὐτοῦ, “ Christ suffered for your sake, and for your 
 salvation, not for his own advantage.” ὙὙπογραμμὸς 
 signifies properly a faint chalked outline for a painter 
 to fill up, or a slight model for an architect to go 
 by: but it denotes, ina general way, an exemplar,a 
 copy. ‘The word is adduced from Polycarp and 
 Clem. Rom. by Schleus. Lex. Of these passages the 
 former is an imitation of the present one. : 
 
 Q2. ὃς ἁμιαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν---αὐτοῦ, These words 
 (which are trom Is, 53, 9.) simply signify, “ who 
 sinned neither in word nor deed, who suffered with- 
 out having committed any crime.” 
 
 23. ὃς λοιδορούμινος----δικαίως. See Matt. 26, 63 and 
 68. 27, 12, 29 and 39. seq. Παάδχων οὐκ ἠπείλει, 
 “ when suffering ignominy, stripes, nay crucifixion, 
 
1 PETER, CHAP, II. 661 
 
 uttered not a minatory or objurgatory expression.” 
 ᾿Αντιλοιδορέω 15 arare word. At rapadidov there is an 
 ellipsis, which most antients and moderns supply by 
 κρίσιν, ΟΥ τὴν ἀιτίαν αὐτοῦ. See Benson. Others, as 
 Beza, Bos, and Pott, understand ἑαυτὸν. And this 
 they might have supported from the wor ds, ** Father, 
 into thy hands I commit my spirit.” ‘The sense is 
 much the same. 
 
 24. ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ----ξύλον. ‘Apaptia stands for 
 the punishment of sin; as Joh. 9, 41. 15, 22 & 24. 
 Acts 22, 16. ᾿Αναφέρειν 1 is a stronger term ‘for φέρειν. 
 "Ext τὸ ϑύλον, “at,” or “on, the cross.” No passage 
 can more emphatically declare the glorious doctrine 
 of the atonement (the key-stone of the Gospel) than 
 the present, on which I can only refer the reader to 
 the admirable note of Whitby. 
 
 Ἵνα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀπογενόμιενοι, τῇ δικαιοσύνη ϑήσω- 
 μεν, ““τῃδὲ we being freed from the dominion of sin, 
 might live unto righteousness,” i.e. perpetually ex- 
 ercise ourselves therein. So Rosenm., from Beza 
 and Schmid. But it is far better, with the antients 
 and, of the moderns, Wolf, Raphel, &c. and recently 
 Pott and Slade, to take aroy. in the sense de (by an 
 euphemism), which is frequent in Herodotus. See 
 examples in Raphel, Krebs, and Wets. ‘This is also 
 confirmed by Rom. 6, 2 & 10. ἀποθνήσκειν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ. 
 and 6, 11. νεκροὶ εἶναι τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, i.e. wholly abstain 
 from sin. Οὗ τῴ porwr αὐτοῦ iadyre, ‘by ul ονα 
 stripes and miseries your wounds are healed,” 
 ye obtain salvation. ‘Taken from Is. 53, 6. Mainad 
 properly signifies a pinch, and the bruise and smart 
 resulting. 
 
 25. ἦτε yap ws πρόβατα πλανώμενα----μῶν. From 
 Is. 53, 6. The sense is: “For ye were as stray 
 sheep, without pasture, exposed to peril, and with- 
 out protection.” A fine image of complete misery, 
 and utter destitution. The comparison of disciples 
 with sheep is frequent. See Pott’s examples. Clas- 
 sical. passages in illustration of the propensity of 
 sheep to wander are very numerous. See the Phi- 
 
662 1 PETER, CHAP. 11. IL. 
 
 lologists. ᾿Ἐπεστράφητε, “ye are returned.” ᾿Επί- 
 σκοπὸν τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν. ‘* Now the ἐπισκ. τῶν ψυχῶν 
 (annotates Rosenm.) takes care of the souls, as the 
 shepherd does of the sheep.” ‘The καὶ is explicative. 
 Here there is a mixture of the image and the thing 
 compared: and ἐπισκ, is added, to explain how 
 Christ is our shepherd. On this passage see the note 
 of Mackn. or Slade. 
 
 CHAP, III. 
 
 Ver. 1, 2. From hence to ver. 7. follow the duties 
 of wives to husbands, and husbands to wives. 
 
 1, αἱ γυναῖκες, ὑποτασσόμεναι. Hereagain we have the 
 participle forthe verb, and the article for the pronoun. 
 In the ἰδίοις there isan Hebrew pleonasm. See 1 Thess. 
 2,14. and Eph. 5, 29. Benson, however, thinks it 
 has some force. By the subjection here enjoined is 
 meant such as is agreeable to the customs and Jaws 
 in force in any country. Yet the term never autho- 
 rises more than ready and willing obedience, not 
 slavish subjection. In which view Rosenm. cites 
 Joseph. Ant. 1, 49, 8. (of the maidens of Leah and 
 Rachel) δοῦλαι μὲν οὐδαμώς, ὑποτεταγμέναι δὲς On 
 the inferiority of the female sex Joseph. adv. Ap. 2. 
 (cited by Pott) shows that the Mosaic law speaks 
 decidedly. ᾿Αναστροφῆς, scil. καλῆς, ‘ virtuous con- 
 duct.” ”Avev λόγου, ““ without (further) proof, argu- 
 ment, or exhortation.” For such fruits of the Gos- 
 pel supply a tacit, but powerful proof of its benefi- 
 cial tendency, and a popular argument for its truth. 
 And (as Benson remarks) indeed in all times and 
 places, the way to recommend religion is not so 
 much to talk of it, as to dave according to one’s pro- 
 -fession. See the whole note. Κερδηθήσωνται, “ may 
 be gained, or won over.” So Matt. 18, 15. ἐκέρδησας 
 τὴν ἀδελφόν σου" and 1 Cor. 9,19. Of course, it is 
 nearly equivalent to σώξειν, “put in the way of sal- 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. III. 663 
 
 vation.” That Christian wives were often such, we 
 find even from Liban. (cited by τοὶ} “ῬΊΟΝ 
 quales feminas habent Christiani!” 
 
 Q. ἐποπτεύσαντες τὴν ἐν φόβῳ ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμών. 
 These words are exegetical of the preceding. The 
 sense is: ‘* when they see your chastity, respectful 
 obedience, and other virtues.” At ἐν φόβω some, as 
 Pott, subaud Θεοῦ. 
 
 8. ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὃ ἔξωθεν, ἐμπλοκῆς Τριχών, καὶ περι- 
 
 / 
 
 θέσεως χρυσίων, 7 ἐνδύσεως ee κόσμος. Compare 
 a kindred passage at i Tim. 2,9. "Epa. τρίχων, i. 6. 
 the curling, plaiting, ard other ornamental disposi- 
 tion of the hair, like the πλέγματα, braids, locks, οἵ 
 the above passage. ‘The τὰ κρυσία are explained by 
 Rosenm. of all the ornaments of female attire; and 
 he cites from Demosth.: χρυσία καλὰ ἔχουσαν, καὶ 
 ἱμάτια καλὰς And he remarks (after Kypke) that 
 as περιθέσεως is united, the youve. must especially 
 mean head ornaments, all of which, as we find from 
 Pollux 5, 16. were of gold; and sometimes the hair 
 was powdered with gold dust.” So Philo 689. (cited 
 by Pott.) πε “ΠΕΣ, τὸν κλῆρον, ὡσάνει κόσμον ἔξωθεν. 
 To the acm I would add, that these head orna- 
 ments are only specimens of the kind of κόσμος 6 ἔξω- 
 θεν, which is to be made subservient to the inner 
 adorning. 
 
 On the various female ornaments, as combs, bracelets, necklaces, 
 and a hundred other such ornaments, of which some conception 
 may be formed from a passage of Isaiah on this subject, and the 
 various articles dug up at Herculaneum and Pompeii, this is no 
 place to treat, though I have noted down a vast number of curious 
 passages. I shall, however, just introduce such as relate to the 
 ornaments for the hair. Most of my readers will remember the 
 Virgilian ‘‘crines nodantur in aurum;” and “ crinem—implicat 
 auro.” That gold was very antiently worn in the hair we find from 
 Hom. 1]. 8. $72. Herod. 1, 82. and Thucyd. 1, 6. χρυσῶν τεττίγων 
 ἐνέρσει κρωβύλον ἀναδούμενοι τῶν ἐν κεφαλῆ τριχῶν. Sometimes 
 in the form οὗ ἃ crown: as we find from Artemid. 2, 9, where see 
 Reisk. So also Joseph. 626, 30. καὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν κεκοσμήμενος τῇ 
 συνθέσει τῆς κόμης᾽ and 908, 42. This wearing of gold in the hair 
 was, however, especially in use among prostitules. So Pollux 4, 
 153. ἡ δὲ διάχρυσος ἑταῖρα, πολυν᾽ ἔχει τὸν κρυσὸν ἐπὶ τῇ κώμῃ. And 
 from Tabula sexta Instit. Justinian 10. we find that the lawyers 
 
664 1 PETER, CHAP. III. 
 
 wished to confine it to them. The words are as follows: *‘ Aurum 
 et pietas vestes matrone non Sestant, sed tantum meretrices."" We 
 may, however, suppose that these jurisconsults were not very suc- 
 cessful in their attempts to legislate for the regulation of female 
 attire. I can only refer to a beautiful and true sentiment in Phi- 
 lostr. Imag. p. S23. where for ἀειδῶς 1 conjecture ἀηδῶς, And 1 
 must conclude with the following pretty passage in the Precepta 
 nuptialia of Naumachius: Μὴ ov πότε χρυσῷ περιμάνεο, pyr’ 
 ἐπὶ δειρῆς πορφυρέην ὑάκινθον ἔχοις, ἤ χλωρὸν ἴασπιν. Χρυσός τοι 
 κόνις ἐστι καὶ ἄργυρος᾽ οἱ δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ λῆες ἐπὶ ῥηγμῖνι πολυψηφῖδι 
 θαλάσσης" where I would observe the Poet seems to have had in 
 view Eurip. Hec. 154. παρθένον ἐκ χρυσοφόρου δειρῆς. 
 
 4. ἀλλ᾽ ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καοδίας ἄνθοωπος---πολυτελές. 
 The ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος is the same with 
 the ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος of St. Paul, Rom. 7, 22., the mind, 
 heart. At ev ἀφθάρτῳ must be understood κόσμῳ, 
 Here internal and mental is put in opposition to ex- 
 ternal ornament; 4. d. ‘* Vests easily fade, and wear 
 out; but the internal ornament is ever during.” 
 (Rosenm.) It isin the words of the Poet, 
 
 «* A wreath that cannot fade, of flowers that bloom 
 With most success when all beside decay.” 
 
 It is well observed too, by Bens., that “ἃ great part 
 of religion consists in the government of the pas- 
 sions, and regulating the temper of the mind: and 
 such a dress of the inward man is incorruptible. 
 Whereas the richest ornaments will wear out and 
 perish.” 
 
 4. τοῦ πρᾳέος Kal ἡσυχίου πνεύματος, ‘a meek and 
 quiet disposition.” This sense of πνεῦμα occurs also 
 in 1 Cor. 4, 21. and Gal. 6,1. The Θεοῦ is empha- 
 tical, involving an opposition to the preference too 
 often given to external over internal excellences. 
 And yet meekness and a quiet spirit (as opposed to 
 a petulant and pragmatical one) is much lauded in 
 the Classical writers. 
 
 5. οὕτω yop πότε καὶ αἱ ἅγιαι γυναῖκες ---ἑαυτὰς. By 
 the ἅγιαι γυναῖκες are meant the wives of the Patri- 
 archs, of whom we read in holy writ. Ai ἐλπίϑουσαι 
 ἐπὶ τὸν Θεὸν, a periphrasis for “true worshippers of 
 God.” Ὑσοτασσόύμινοι, ‘as being also in subjection 
 
1-PETER, CHAP. III. 665 
 
 (and were also in subjection), how much more ought 
 Christian wives ?” 
 
 6. ὡς Σάῤῥα ὑπήκουσε τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ,, Κύριον αὐτὸν κα- 
 λοῦσα, “ Thus, for example (ὡς being for οὕτως), 
 Sarah was obedient to Abraham, calling him Lord,” 
 S778, Gen. 18, 12. Which is noticed in the Rabbi- 
 nical writers. Ὑχσακούειν is here used for ὑποτάσ- 
 σεσῦθαι. Elsn., Wets., and Pott prove from Plut. 2, 
 252 Β. and Aristoph. Ep. 565., that the Greek wives 
 called their husbands κυρίους ; nay, as we find from 
 Eurip. Med. 223. Hal. 578. and Ach. Tat. 309., 
 δεσπότας. And they might have added that the 
 Roman wives called their husbands dominos, as I 
 think we may infer from Virg. An. 4, 214. Con- 
 nubia nostra repulit, ac dominum Aineam in regna 
 recepit; and4,10. Phrygio servire marito. This ex- 
 treme subjection seems to have been kept up longest 
 in the East, where customs never change; but was 
 early laid aside in the hardy countries of the North ; 
 for from the Germania of ‘Tacitus it appears that the 
 situation there of wives differed little from what it 
 is in civilized countries of Europe at the present 
 day ; except that the former might be said to have 
 more open power, the latter more secret influence. 
 
 As to the names by which husbands are to be 
 addressed by their wives, the Apostle’s words are 
 not to be supposed authoritative. Reverence and 
 obedience are the bounden duty of wives ; and the 
 expression of this, as being made in terms purely 
 conventional, may very well vary with manners and 
 customs of different ages. See the note on Matt.18,17. 
 
 The words ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι; καὶ μὴ φοβούμεναι μηδεμίαν πτοίησιν, 
 are somewhat obscure, and have been variously interpreted. By 
 some, as Gatak., they are understood of voluntary and uncumpul- 
 sory subjection. But this is harsh. See other interpretations 
 stated and refuted in Bens, and Pott. Some there are (as Doddr. 
 observes) who think this clause is suggested as an argument to per- 
 suade them to do well, that they would be preserved from those 
 alarms and terrors which a perverse and rebellious contest with 
 superior power may bring with it, and which would indeed prove 
 
 as injurious to their peace as to their character. Rosenm. explains: 
 “si recte agetis, nullis perterritee minis," nempe maritorum infide- 
 
666 1 PETER, CHAP. 111. 
 
 lium, si forte ad abnegandam fidem religioni datam vos cogere 
 vellent. I should prefer, with Est. and Calvin, to understand it of 
 a firmness and intrepidity of character which would be necessary 
 to support their religious independence, when united to Heathen 
 husbands. The πτοίησιν is well explained by Calvin of that weak 
 timidity which fosters causeless fear, and is too often found in the 
 female sex. 
 
 7. The Apostle now treats on the duties of hus- 
 bands. Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως συνοικοῦντες κατὰ yywou. 
 Ὁμοίως is for πάλιν or ὡσαυτῶς: Zuvoixely signifies to 
 live in wedlock, including all conjugal duties and 
 offices. ‘To detail the Heathen notions of marriage, 
 as compared with those of the Gospel, were here out 
 of place. Κατὰ γνῶσιν, i.e. in a manner suitable to 
 that superior knowledge (as enlightened by the 
 Gospel) which they possess over the Pagans. Bens. 
 and Pott take it for ἐν γνώσει, “ prudently, discreetly, 
 and indulgently ;” as 2 Cor. 6,6. And the latter 
 compares it with other adverbial phrases formed by 
 κατὰ and a substantive. 
 
 7. ws ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ ἀπονέμοντες 
 τιμὴν. 
 
 Σκεύος, like the Heb. "23, signifies properly “‘ something made 
 for use, an utensil.’ Hence it is generally supposed to designate 
 the wife, as the utensil, or, tool for serving the purposes of the hus- 
 band. And so, they remark, Aristotle calls the wife the ὄργανον of 
 the husband. I cannot, however, help thinking, that as σκεῦος 
 simply signifies any thing made, so it may here only mean a creature. 
 Thus the sense will be, that ‘‘ woman is the weaker creature.” And 
 so, | find, Benson. In proof of the fact we need not the operose 
 citations of Wolf, Schoettg., and Wets. With respect to the words 
 ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν; they seem meant to further explain the former. 
 It is plain that the sense of τιμὴ, (as being a very extensive term,) 
 must be determined by the context and the subject: and the best 
 Commentators, from Bp. Hall to Slade and Valpy, are agreed that 
 it must here denote that indulgent care and respect which is shown 
 to valuable but fragile articles; as Lib. Mus.: Sicut honor quidam 
 habitur crystallinis, quia sollicité tractantur ; and honorare uxorem 
 is used by many Rabbinical writers. See Schoettg. and Wets. And, 
 besides other examples of ἀπονέμειν (tribuere) τιμὴν, they cite 
 Epict. 62. τιμῶνται at γυναῖκες ὑπὸ τῶν ἄνδρων. But there the 
 term is used in its proper sense. ‘They might have more aptly cited 
 Philo 2, 36, 9. (of Abraham with respect to Sarah) διὰ τὴν τιμὴν 
 ἥν ἀπένειμε τῇ γαμέτῃ. Eurip. Troad 735. ὦ φιλτατ᾽, οὐ πέρισσα 
 τιμηθεὶς τέκνον & Orest. 449. παῖδ᾽ ἀγκαλαῖσι περιφέρων, τιμῶν τε. 
 Eurip. Med. 657. φίλους τιμᾷν, And so Rom. 12, 10. τῇ τιμῇ 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. III. 667 
 
 προηγουμένους ἀλλήλους, where it denotes the duties of benevolence 
 and courtesy. 
 
 It is then added, to further show why they should be thus respect- 
 fully and indulgently treated (and not despotically, as if naturally 
 inferior and without souls), that they are fellow-heirs with them of 
 the grace of life and salvation, and destined to the same future feli- 
 city. A further reason is added in eis τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσ- 
 εὐχὰς ὑμῶν (for such appears to be the true reading, instead of the 
 ἐκκόπτ. Of many MSS., Versions, and Fathers), namely, that mutual 
 disagreements indispose the mind for that heartfelt prayer which 
 can alone be effectual, and draw down a blessing from the God of 
 peace. ᾿Εγκόπτειν signifies to cut off any one’s course, and conse- 
 quently to hinder, impede it. As to the var. lect. ἐκκοπτ, it only 
 denotes cutting our, and destroying. Now the former is the only 
 suitable sense. Many examples are adduced, by Schoettg., of si- 
 milar expressions in the Rabbinical writers; as: ‘* Num preces 
 quedam abscinduntur ?” There may be (as Doddr. thinks) an al- 
 lusion to social or family prayer, for which such dissensions greatly 
 unfit Christians. 
 
 8. The Apostle now, from hence to ver. 13., gives 
 some general directions, which concerned all the 
 Christians ; exhorting them to mutual affection and 
 concord; and toa kind treatment of all men, even 
 of their enemies and persecutors, as the most likely 
 way to soften them, and to obtain the Divine appro- 
 bation. (Benson.) 
 
 To τέλος is usually rendered denique, finally. But 
 the discourse does not draw toa conclusion. The 
 context seems to require the version of Erasm., 
 Vatab., Zeger, Grot., Bens., Rosenm., and Pott, in 
 summd, summatim. So the Classical ἐν κεφαλαίῳ 
 Rosenm. refers to Num. 31, 37—41., where it is 
 used to address the Heb. 23. And he adds that 
 after the particular duties, as of children, servants, 
 wives, and husbands, the Apostle subjoins those 
 which concern all the classes. ᾿Ομόφρονες denotes 
 mutual concord. Svpradeis, ‘ have a kind of sym- 
 pathy in each other’s sorrows ;” as Rom. 12, 5 & 15. 
 1 Cor. 12, 26. Heb. 10, 33 & 34. Φιλάδελφοι, see 
 1, 22. and the note there. This denotes benignant 
 courtesy. Others, indeed, read ταπεινοφρόνες, which 
 most Critics prefer. But the common reading, (I 
 agree with Bens.,) seems the more suitable to the 
 
668 1 PETER, CHAP. III. 
 
 context. Nor do I see in what it is difficult to ac= 
 count for the diversity. 
 
 .. 9. μὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ --- κληρονομήσητε. 
 See Rom. 12, 17. and the note. And on εὐλογοῦντες 
 see Matt. 5, 44. Eis τοῦτο ἐκλήθητε, ἵνα εὐλογίαν κλη- 
 ρονομήσητε, ““ For to this end were ye called, that ye 
 should obtain a blessing, i.e. every sort of felicity ; 
 therefore it behoves you to wish and pray for bless- 
 ings upon others.” _ | 
 
 (10. ὃ γὰρ θέλων ϑωὴν ἀγαπᾷν, καὶ ἰδεῖν ἡμέρας ἀγαθὰς 
 ---δόλον. By the last words εἰδότες ὅτι---κληρονομήσητε 
 being put in ἃ parenthesis, the connexion here will 
 be clearer ; for on the words λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας 
 the Apostle engrafts an exhortation to curb the 
 tongue (in expressions borrowed from Ps. 34, 13 
 & 14. Compare the words with the Heb. and Sept.). 
 Rosenm. would read, with the Syr., 6 γὰρ θέλων δωὴν, 
 καὶ ἀγαπῶν ideiv, &c. And this is plainer, and more 
 agreeable to the Sept.: but as there is no authority 
 for it, it seems to be a mere emendation. ‘The 
 Apostle appears to have blended the two clauses into 
 one: and we may render: “ he that would fain 
 enjoy life,’ &c. A sense also (I find) assigned b 
 Mackn.; and, though I know no authority for it, it 
 seems to be required by the context; the words 
 being exegetical. Παυσάτω, stop, repress. The pri- 
 mary sense of παύω and which often occurs in the 
 Classical writers. Kaxod, reviling. Δόλον, falsehood. 
 On this passage see an apposite Rabbinical citation 
 in Rosenm., and the note of Doddr. . 
 
 11, 12. ἐκκλινάτω ἀπὸ κακοῦ----αὐτὴν, Taken from 
 Ps. 34., with a change of person. Ζητησάτω εἰρήνην, 
 “‘ strive after peace and concord.” Διώκειν imports 
 strenuously endeavouring to attain at. 
 
 12. ὅτι of ὀφθαλμοὶ Κυρίου---κακά. The 664. sug- 
 gests intent observance and watching over; and éra 
 implies readiness to hearken to their petitions. Com- 
 pare Joh. 9, 31. James 5, 16. 1 would also subjoin 
 an elegant passage of Herodian, 7, 3, 7. ἦν δὲ καὶ τοῖς 
 
1 PETER, CHAP, ILI. 669 
 
 ὠσὶ κοῦφος ἐς διάβολας. The πρόσωπον is intended, 
 (per anthropopathian), to set forth more strongly the 
 displeasure of the Lord against evil doers; since by 
 this expression anger is denoted. ᾿Επὶ, against them, 
 i.e. for @pir punishment and destruction; as, in- 
 deed, is added in one MS. and the two Syriac Ver- 
 sions, but from the margin. 
 
 13. The Apostle now subjoins some further in- 
 ducements to a virtuous and holy life. (Pott.) Kat 
 τίς ὁ κακώσων ὑμᾶς, ἐὰν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ μιμηταὶ γένησθε ; 
 ** And who (ordinarily) will harm you, if ye be fol- 
 lowers of what is good and right? Few or none.” 
 ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε διὰ δικαιοσύνην, μακάριοι, “ But 
 even if ye suffer in the cause of virtue, or of your 
 religion.” (Matt. 5,10) This, as Rosenm. observes, 
 is a reply to an objection, that magistrates would 
 harm them even for what was good. Μακάριοι, 
 ‘‘ happy are ye.” ‘There seems to be a reference to 
 the words of our Lord, Matt. 5, 10. 
 
 14. τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε, μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε. 
 These and the words following Κύριον δὲ τὸν Θεὺν----- 
 ὅμων are from Is. 8,12 &18. Φόβος here is for φοβη- 
 τρὸν, terriculamentum; as Rom. 13, 3. See also 
 Jude 23. and the examples of Pott, to which I add 
 Artemid. 3, 66. p. 301. Athen. 316 ε. Liban. Or. 
 Parent. 9, 106. fin. 
 
 15. Κύριον δὲ τὸν Θεὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, 
 «ς Dominum Deum sancte colite.” ἊἜν ταῖς καρδίαις 
 Rosenm. renders, animo candido, sincero. But this 
 is too feeble. It rather means (according to the 
 antients and most moderns), to themselves, in their 
 secret retirements, and for their private comfort 
 under all circumstances, whether prosperous or ad- 
 verse. To this the Apostle adds: ἕτοιμοι δὲ (scil. 
 ἐστε) πρὸς ἀπολογίαν, Where Rosenm. supplies ““ reli- 
 gionis vestre.”’ But that is not necessary; since (as 
 Pott observes) πρὸς ἀπολογίαν is put for εἰς τὸ δοῦναι 
 λόγον. Ifthere were any ellipsis, I would supply τῆς 
 ἐλπίδος, from ἐλπίδος just after, which Rosenm. in- 
 
670 1 PETER, CHAP. III. 
 
 terprets religion ; referring to Acts 26, 7. But in 
 both cases it is a needless refinement. 
 
 Now the reply is directed to be made μετὰ πρᾳῦ- 
 Tyros καὶ φόβου, “so that ye do it meekly and re- 
 spectfully, not in an insulting, contempt@us, dog- 
 matical spirit.” 
 
 16. συνείδησιν ἔχοντες ἀγαθήν, “ Taking care to 
 have a good conscience.” “Iva ἐν ᾧ---κακοποιῶν, ‘So 
 that in that whereof they speak against you, as evil 
 doers, they who thus calumniate your virtues and 
 Christian behaviour may be ashamed.” Compare a 
 kindred passage at 2, 12. 
 
 17, 18.. κρεῖττον γὰρ ἀγαθοποιοῦντας---κακοποιοῦντας. 
 The Apostle here, by a tacit prolepsis, comforts the 
 Christians under the injuries of the profane, by an 
 argument derived from the will of God and the ex- 
 ample of Christ. Κρεῖττον, preferable. ‘The sense 
 may be thus expressed : ‘* He who suffers for crimes 
 can expect no recompense; but he who suffers for 
 God may look forward to a great one with confi- 
 dence.” "Ors καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθε, 
 4. d. ““1΄ Christ suffered for us who were then evil, 
 how much more should we be prepared to die, or 
 suffer tribulation, for the glory of Christ and the 
 edification of Christians.” “Iva ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ 
 Θεώ, “ that he might reconcile us unto God, and 
 make us acceptable worshippers.” For as προσέρ- 
 χεσῦθαι Θεῷ signifies to worship God, so προσάγειν 
 signifies to render any one fit to worship him [li- 
 terally, “ to introduce any one to the throne of 
 God ;” a metaphor taken from Courts. Edit.] With 
 respect to σαρκὶ and πνεύματι, they are variously in- 
 terpreted. ‘The latter term sometimes denotes soul : 
 but σὰρξ often signifies the human nature; and then 
 the πνεῦμα will be the divine spirit, the divine nature 
 
 of Christ. Accordingly, some explain: “ he was 
 
 put to death in respect to the body, but preserved 
 alive in respect to the soul;” the term ϑωοποιεῖν. 
 (they observe) often signifying not only vivificare, 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. III. 671 
 
 but also, like the Heb. NWN, in vitd conservare. 
 Others : “he died in respect to his human nature, 
 but was recalled to life by his divine spirit,” i. e. by 
 the divine energy that was in him. ‘ Now σὰρξ 
 (say they) very frequently denotes humility, huma- 
 nity. Then πνεῦμα denotes majesty, and, as the 
 subject is of Christ, the divine essence of Christ. 
 Thus πνεῦμα αἰώνιον is ascribed to Christ, Heb. 9, 14., 
 as well as, ch. 7, 16., δύναμις ϑωῆς ἀκαταλύτου. But 
 the context seems to require τὴν σάρκα to be inter- 
 preted body; and τὸ πνεῦμα, animum; with this 
 sense: “ Christ, in respect to the body, was, indeed, 
 put to death, but in respect to the mind he was 
 preserved alive.” (Rosenm.) And so Michaelis and 
 Bp. Middleton: “ carnally dead, but alive spiri- 
 tually ;” which is supported by most of the antient 
 versions. See also Bp. Horsley’s Serm. 30. And 
 this appears, upon the whole, to be the true sense : 
 though several objections are made by Mr. Slade on 
 the score of want of authority,” &c. 
 
 19, 20. ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασι πορευθεὶς 
 ἐκήρυξεν. 
 
 This passage is thought to present great difficulties, which the 
 Commentators attempt, in various ways, to remove. Some resort 
 to critical conjecture, which merits no attention, or (as Lord Bar- 
 rington) to an almost equally precarious mode of interpretation, on 
 which no dependance can be placed; as when Beza, Elsn., and 
 Mackn, suppose that the words ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασι do not mean 
 that the spirits were in prison at the Ume when Christ preached ta 
 them ; but that he preached by his spirit to the antediluvians, who 
 are now (i.e. in the age of Peter) in prison. And Beza and Bens. 
 think that the Apostle proposes this example to their brethren, to 
 deter them from being corrupted by those around them. The latter 
 explains the expression, “‘ the custody of death,” or ““ the state of 
 the dead.” Which may possibly be the sense; and it is preferable 
 to that assigned by Hamm., Whitby, Wells, &c., who understand it, 
 figuratively, of the being in bondage to sin, Is, 42, 7. 49, 9. 61, 
 1&2. But both the foregoing interpretations are liable to many 
 objections, some of which have been well stated by Mr. Siade, who 
 also justly excepts to the interpreting πνευμ. persons,or men, Very 
 harsh and far-fetched is the exposition of Pott, which is detailed by 
 Rosenm., and highly censurable is the remark: “ Petrus Christum 
 apud inferos tanquam κηρύσσοντα sibi fingit,” because, forsooth, it 
 had been the custom of the wise so to do, in compliance with the su- 
 perstition of the vulgar, that great men, after death, pursue the same 
 
672 1 PETER, CHAP. III. - 
 
 plans and purposes as when on earth; as, for instance, Hercules, 
 Agamemnon, Achilles, &c. This is surely in the worst spirit of the 
 New School; and the arrogance is only equalled by the folly of it. 
 To me no interpretation seems at all natural, or to carry with it 
 the stamp of truth, but the common one, namely, that Christ went 
 and preached (or rather, proclaimed his kingdom) to the antedilu- 
 vians in Hades. And this is supported by the united authority of 
 the antients and the soundest of our modern Commentators. (See 
 (CEcumen., Cyril, and Scho]. Matth.) Even Rosenm., acknowledges : 
 ‘‘ Videtur Petrus docere, Christum etiam post mortem corporis, 
 quoad animum a corpore separatum, et in ἅδην delatum, continudsse 
 negotium docendi et religionem tradendi, in quo peragendo vitam 
 suam in his terris consumserat.” The words certainly involve no 
 difficulty ; and the plain and natural sense is not to be rejected 
 because it contains matter of wonder, or what is little accountable, 
 to us with our present faculties. Man (as Mr. Slade says), on this 
 point, is not an adequate judge ; the subject lies entirely beyond the 
 reach of his knowledge: and we may apply to this case the remark- 
 able words of St. Paul, τὸ μωρὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ σωφώτερον τῶν ἀνθρώπων 
 ἐστι, 1 Cor. 1, 25. He also cites some excellent remarks from Bp. 
 Horsley, Serm. 20., the whole of which deserves attentive perusal. 
 See also Bp. Pearson on the Creed, p. 228. In the words following 
 ἀπειθήσασι πότε---ὕδατος there is no difficulty, if for ἅπαξ ἐξεδέχετο 
 we read ἀπεξεδέχετο, with many MSS. of different recensions. ‘The 
 common reading is justly supposed to have been a mere conjecture 
 of Erasmus. ᾿Απεκδέχεσθαι denotes long and patient waiting. Ἢ 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ μακροθυμία, for ὁ Θεὸς μακροθυμῶν. Eis ἣν is said to be 
 for ἐν 7. But it is a frequent phrase. The sense is: ‘‘ into which 
 a few (i.e. eight) persons (embarking) were saved through the 
 nater.”” The διὰ, Rosenm. says, is for ἐν. But we may compare 
 the expression σωθήσεται διὰ πυρὸς at 1 Cor. 3, 15. 
 
 21, 22. ᾧ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀντίτυπον, &c. “ The antetype 
 to which ark (namely, what corresponds to, and was 
 figured by it, i.e. by the preservation in it of Noah 
 and his family) doth now save us, as the ark did them 
 (I mean), baptism, which, it must be remembered, 
 is not merely the putting away the filth of the flesh 
 (by material water), but the answer of a good con- 
 science towards God. For some read ὃ, i.e. the 
 water : which, in the end, produces the same sense ; 
 but less regularly. ᾿Επερώτημα, Rosenm. observes, 
 signifies, properly, an interrogation, and then an en- 
 gagement resulting from it, a stipulation, promise. 
 “ Now in baptism (continues he) the minister used 
 to put the interrogation: ἀποτάσση τῷ Σατανᾷ; To 
 which the candidate answered, ἀποτάσσομαι. Again 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. III. IV. 673 
 
 he interrogated : συντάσσῃ τῷ Χριστῳ. Ans.: συν- 
 τάσσομαι. ΒΥ συνείδησις is meant what we are “ con- 
 scious of,” our internal per ceptions and feelings. The 
 ἐπερώτημα συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς εἰς Θεὺν will therefore 
 be the ἐ. σ. . &c. Oew ποιηθὲν, the promise made to 
 God that we will live righteously and_holily, that 
 we may have a conscience void of offence towards 
 xod. This Tertullian calls the sponsio salutis. Δι᾿ 
 ἀναστάσεως ᾽']ησοῦυ Χριστοῦ. This must be referred to 
 owSe. The sense is: ‘ Baptism, and sincere pro- 
 fession of religion conjoined with it, preserves us 
 from perdition, and procures us a hope of eternal 
 felicity, because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ ; 
 for from thence we also conceive a hope of our own 
 resurrection.” (Rosenm.) See the note of Carpzov, 
 and also Whitby, Benson, and Mackn., or the ex- 
 tracts in Slade. With the coved. ayas. I would com- 
 pare Herodian 6, 3, 9. τῆς ἀγαθῆς συνείδησεως τὸ 
 θαῤῥαλέον. 
 
 The remaining words ὅς ΠΥ ΕΟ τ are suffi- 
 ciently plain. On δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ see the note on 
 Rom 8, 34. And on ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων see the 
 note on Eph. 1, 21. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 This Chapter consists of fwo parts. In the jerst 
 (ver. 1—12.) is contained an exhortation to a holy 
 life. In the second St. Peter fortifies the Christians 
 against the persecutions which they were suffering 
 for religion’s sake. (Rosenm.) Having told them, 
 ch. 3, 17., &c., that if it was better to suffer for well- 
 doing than for wickedness, and enforced it by the 
 example of Christ, who suffered death for others, but 
 is now exalted to glory, he here returns to the same 
 subject, recommending it to them to imitate Christ 
 in his holiness as well as his sufferings. And, to 
 prevent the bad effects of the reproach which was 
 thrown upon them by their old acquaintance, who 
 continued in idolatry and vice, he puts them in mind 
 
 VOL. VIII. ΦΧ 
 
 ᾿ 
 . 
 
674 1 PETER, CHAP. Iv. 
 
 of a righteous judgment to come, when they should 
 be rewarded, and their enemies punished. (Bens.) 
 
 Verse 1,2. Χριστοῦ οὖν---ὀπλίσασθε. The ἔννοια 
 signifies the feelings, dispositions, &c.; and the 
 sense is: ‘© Arm yourselves with the same feelings 
 for patiently bearing the evils of this life, and the 
 impending persecutions for religion’s sake.” Ὅτι ὁ 
 παθὼν ἐν σαρκὶ, πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας, “ for he who suffers 
 in the flesh usually ceases to sin, and abstains from 
 it.’ See Rom. 6,7. On the benefits of adversity, 
 and especially if borne patiently, in promoting piety 
 (and, as Gray says, “leaving us leisure to be good, )” 
 not only the sacred writers treat, but also the pro- 
 fane ones. And the experience of every age con- 
 firms it. See Gray’s beautiful Ode to Adversity. 
 
 The words following are closely connected; and 
 the sense, according to the best Critics, is: ‘* so as 
 no longer to live conformably to the lusts of men, 
 but to the will of God.” See Carpzov. and Rosenm. 
 The εἰς τὸ signifies ita ut, soas. ᾿Ανθρωπ. must be 
 taken (as κόσμος often is) to denote men of the world, 
 ungodly persons, Βιῶσαι θελήματι Θεοῦ is well ex- 
 pressed by Doddr. in his celebrated epigram: “1 
 live to pleasure while I live to thee.” See Rom. 6, 
 ΤῸ 11. 
 
 3. ἀρκετὸς γὰρ---κατεργάσασθαι, “" Suffice it for us, 
 for the time past of our life, to have practised the 
 things to which the Heathens are prone.” The 
 words following πεπορευμένους ἐν ἀσελγείας are added 
 exegetically, Ἡμῖν is for ὑμῖν, per κοίνωσιν, and to 
 mitigate the severity of the censure. Κατεργάσασθαι, 
 practise, perpetrate ; for the term is mostly usedina 
 bad sense. Πορεύεσθαι, like the Heb. 77n, denotes ha- 
 bitual action. ’Eibupiais, lusts. Οἰνοφλυγίαις “ beastly 
 drunkenness ;” since οἰνοφλὺξ literally denotes one who 
 vomits up wine, like Polyphemus in Homer’s Odys. 
 On κώμοις see Rom. 13,13. Πύτοις, i. 6. συμποσίοις, 
 drinking parties, which, even though not extending 
 to drunkenness, are blameable, as fending to it in 
 the end. ᾿Αθεμίτοις εἰδωλοτρείαις, ““ abominable ido- 
 latries.”’ Now since the Jews are usually supposed 
 
| PETER, CHAP. lV. 675 
 
 to have been, in this age, not chargeable with zdo- 
 latry, many Commentators, as Whitby and Doddr., - 
 think the Gentile converts only are here addressed. 
 But there is no change in the form of address ; and 
 therefore it seems preferable, with Grot., Hamm., 
 Rosenm., and most recent Commentators, to under- 
 stand it, not of idolatry itself (of which Benson 
 rightly asserts that the Jews, as a body, are no where 
 charged either by Christ or the Apostles), but of a 
 participation in it (or the guilt of it) by imitating 
 some of the customs at the Gentile idol feasts, or 
 sometimes partaking of these, or frequenting games 
 in honour of the Heathen gods; or, at least, eating 
 of meats offered to idols; and, in a general way, 
 falling into idolatrous manners and heathen morals. 
 Now, from the close connection of the Jews with 
 the Greeks and other Heathens, they had, we know, 
 imbibed many of their opinions, and adopted many 
 practices which partook of idolatry. Of all which 
 Josephus and Philo supply abundant evidence. And 
 of the horrible corruption of Jews, as well as Gen- 
 tiles, no one who has read the histories of that age 
 can doubt. 
 
 4. ἐν ᾧ Eevigevrar—Paracdypowres. Mackn. ren- 
 ders the ev ᾧ “ on account of your former life.” But 
 this sense seems not well founded. Nor can I ap- 
 prove of the wherein of our common version, which 
 occasions a pleonasm. Preferable is the sense as-= 
 signed by Dind., en respect to which. But perhaps 
 it is rightly taken by Pott for ἐν τούτῳ δὲ Eevigovras 
 ὅτι, “ they wonder at this, namely, that,” &c. The 
 ἐν w is for ὑφ᾽ οὗ ; as in a passage of Josephus, cited 
 by Kypke. And so Rosenm. ξξενίϑονται, “ they 
 are amazed, surprised.” A signification found in 
 Joseph., Polyb., Plut., and the Greek Fathers. See 
 Elsn.,‘Wets., Krebs., and Kypke. Itis, by Rosenm., 
 derived from the admiration with which guests and 
 strangers view houses, public buildings, &c. for the 
 first time. Συντρεχόντων, ““ rushing eagerly with them 
 up to the same srk of profligacy and corruption ;” 
 
 2 Koz: 
 
676 1 PETER, CHAP. IV. 
 
 ‘for such is, by Wets., Pott, and Rosenm., supposed 
 to be the sense of ἀνάχυσιν, colluviem. The term 
 denotes, properly, the act of out-pouring; and then, 
 the place of emptying, &c. Τῆς ἀσωτίας. This de- 
 signates every kind of intemperance and corruption, 
 literally sottishness. See Wakef. on Eurip. H. F. 
 967. And it qualifies the ἀνάχυσιν. Baaogdyp. in- 
 cludes both bitter railing and every kind of mockery. 
 Now it is very natural men of this description should 
 so act; for, to use the words of a writer from whom 
 we should little expect such a reflection (Petron., 
 cited by Wets.), qui vitiorum omnium inimicus rec- 
 tum iter vitse coepit inspicere, primum propter morum 
 differentiam odium habet ; quis enim potest probare 
 diversa ? 
 
 5. ol ἀποδώσουσι λόγον τῷ ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι κρῖναι ϑών- 
 τας καὶ νεκρούς, for ἀλλ᾽ ἀποδωσ., Pott says. At τῷ 
 ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι kK. must be understood ἑαυτὸν, The 
 phrase ἑτοίμως ἔχειν signifies ‘to be prepared, to be 
 about to .do;” as Acts 21, 13.2 Cor. 12, 14. and the 
 best writers. It here does not import, as Rosenm. 
 explains, the having full power, but the fully in- 
 tending ; and is used to show the absolute certainty 
 of the action. This will not, therefore, prove that 
 the Apostle was in immediate expectation of the 
 judgment. 
 
 After all Benson’s refinements, the ϑώντας must 
 mean τοὺς ἔτιϑώντας, those (then) alive; as the vex- 
 povs, those already dead. So Rosenm.: ‘* tunc vic- 
 turos, quam veniet, et preemortuos,”’ 1. e. omnes om- 
 nino homines. Benson interprets the vexp. figura- 
 tively, i.e. ““ dead in trespasses and sins.” Wets. 
 explains, “ those who have died for the Gospel.” 
 Mackn. understands by the gavras καὶ νεκροὺς the 
 Jews and Gentiles. 
 
 0. εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ Kal νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη, ἵνα---πνεύμιατι, 
 
 The sense of these words is somewhat obscure; and therefore 
 the context is so much the more carefully to be attended to. Now 
 if this be done, I see not how the interpretations of those (as Whitby, 
 Bens., Doddr., &c.), who take vex. in a figurative sense, can be to- 
 
 lerated. Yet understanding it in a physical one (conformably to 
 the interpretation of the word adopted in the preceding verse), the 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. ly. 677 
 
 perplexing question is, how the Gospel can be said to be preached 
 to the dead? ‘This, as Wets. observes, is no where asserted in 
 Scripture. And he might have added, that it is contradictory to the 
 tenour of Scripture. For it is as certain that the Gospel is not 
 preached to the dead, as that the dead do not perform any acts of 
 religion. So Ps. 115,17. ‘‘ The dead praise not thee, O Lord, neither 
 all they that go down into silence.” To obviate this, some, as Slade, 
 comparing the passage with 3, 19., understand the Apostle to assert 
 that the Gospel had been preached, or proclaimed, even to the dead 
 ᾿ (καὶ νεκροῖς), that they will be judged by the law of nature for the 
 things done in the body, and be rewarded, in proportion to their 
 deserts, by a spiritual life, according to the will and power of God.” 
 But this is too harsh to be admitted. Others, as Jensius, Carpz., 
 and Rosenm. would take εὐηγγελίσθη to denote the announcing of 
 good news. Whether this sense can be admitted, I would not ven- 
 ture to say: but be that as it may, νεκροὺς must (I think) be inter- 
 preted as in the preceding verse; and it involves the least difficulty 
 to suppose, with the above mentioned Commentators, as also Wets. 
 and Jaspis, that it is meant of those who, being Christians, have 
 died for the profession of the faith. ‘The general sense is thus ex- 
 pressed by Rosenm.: ‘‘ Even to those who in these times have suf- 
 fered death, was brought the glad annunciation, that although they 
 -had suffered death in the flesh, yet by the divine omnipotence they 
 shall be made alive.” 
 
 The ἵνα is eventual. And κρίνεσθαι σαρκὶ is a phrasis pregnans, 
 or two phrases condensed into one, for, ‘‘ be capitally. condemned, 
 and suffer execution in the body.” Κατὰ ἀνθρωπους signifies, us 
 far as concerns, at the hands of men. ‘The κατὰ is used in confor- 
 mity to the κατὰ in κατὰ Gedy. 
 
 7. From the consideration of the awful event just 
 adverted to, the Apostle proceeds to exhort them to 
 the practice of sobriety, and regular constant prayer; 
 enjoining withal mutual love, hospitality, and a 
 right use of their spiritual gifts. 
 
 7. πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλος ἤγγικε. The expression τέλος 
 πάντων, is thought to involve some difficulty ; since, 
 if taken in its natural import, as denoting the end 
 of the world and the final consummation of all 
 things, it will show that Peter was informed as to 
 the period of that awful event. To obviate this, 
 many, as Schoettg. and Mede, interpret it of the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem. But (as Doddr. observes) 
 those to whom the Apostle was writing were little 
 concerned with such an event. (See, however, 
 Mackn.) Others, as Cicumen., explain τέλος, the 
 
678 1 PETER, CHAP. IV. 
 
 issue of the prophecies concerning that event. 
 Which is liable to the same.objection: and of ré- 
 των, according to either interpretation, no satisfac- 
 tory account can be given. Rosenm. would supply 
 ἀνθρώπων, and take the words to express this senti- 
 ment, ‘ The life of all men is short.” But that 15 
 so arbitrary a method, and yields a sense so precari- 
 ous and, a prima facie, improbable, that it cannot 
 be thought of. 
 
 Upon the whole, the first interpretation seems 
 preferable to either of the two others. (See Grot. 
 and Germ.) But there is noreason why we may not 
 understand the expression (with Doddr. and others, 
 as at James 5, 9. ἡ παρουσία τοῦ Κυρίου ἤγγικε,) of that 
 particular and personal consummation of all things, 
 which takes place at the death of every one. See 
 Bp. Horsley’s Serm. 1, 11 & 111. and the note of 
 Slade. 
 
 7. σωφρόνήσατε οὖν καὶ νήψατε εἰς τὰς προσευχάς, “ be 
 sober-minded, and watchful in the exercise of 
 prayer ;” literally, be vigilant for the exercise of 
 prayer, and to preserve a sober-mindedness of cha- 
 racter. Both necessary to support the life of God 
 in the soul of man. See 1 Thess. 5,6 & 8. and the 
 note there. The above signification of νήφειν is rare: 
 yet I have noted down the following example. Plut. 
 adv. Stoic. § 19. νήφων πρὸς ἀρετὴν οὐδὲ ἐστι. 
 
 8. πρὸ πάντων δὲ τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀγάπην ἐκτενὴ 
 ἔχοντες. Here, as often, the participle is for the 
 finite verb. Πρὺ πάντων, imprimis. See the note 
 on James 5, 12. ἔχειν ἀγάπην seems a popular 
 phrase for παρέχειν, exercise. ‘Kaurods is for ἀλλής- 
 λους ; as often. ’Exrevy, intensive, fervent. See the 
 note on 1, 22. 
 
 On the interpretation ef the words following, ὅτε ἡ ἀγάπὴ κα- 
 λύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, Commentators differ. Some {and especi- 
 ally the Romanists) explain: ‘ charity shall procure us pardon for 
 a multitude of sins.” But (as Doddr. observes) it would be mon- 
 strous to imagine, that acts of liberality to the poor can procure 
 the pardon of sin, while men continue in a course of impenitence 
 and unbelief; for by this the whole Gospel would be subverted. 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. IV. 679 
 
 Rosenm., explains thus: “ Amicitia et charitas proximo condonat, 
 quicquid condonari potest. Deinde etiam ecs, quos sincere amamus 
 a peccatis abstrahimus; cui consequens est ut Deus hominis jam 
 emendati priora peccata dissimulat.” But this seems scarcely taking 
 a right view. The sense (as required by the context) is plainly 
 this: ‘‘ For (this) affectionate feeling will cover and cause us to 
 forgive a multitude of offences in others.” So Prov. 10, 12., which 
 the Apostle had doubtless in view: ‘* Hatred stirreth up strife, but 
 love covereth sins ;’’ or in the words of the Christian Poet, 
 «Tis gentle, delicate, and kind, 
 To faults compassionate or blind.”’ 
 
 Thus καλύψει will be, as Hardouin says, for condonat. See Plut. 
 Vit. Pomp., cited by Valpy from Weston ap. Bowyer. To which I 
 add a yet more apposite passage from Procop. 129, 12. ἐνθυμεῖσθε 
 ὡς φιλία μὲν αἰτίας πολλὰς καλύπτειν πέφυκεν, ἐχθρὰ δὲ οὐδὲ τῶν 
 σμικροτάτων. As to the passage of James 5, 20., to which most 
 Commentators here refer, it is not of the same nature. Though, 
 however, the above must be considered as the only correct inter- 
 pretation of the words, yet it is not to be denied that the exercise 
 of this virtue will (in the words of Doddr.) “ entitle us, by divine 
 mercy, to expect forgiveness for numberless slips and failings. For 
 (as he adds) where acts of charity towards the souls and bodies of 
 men spring from an inward principle of love to God, and faith in 
 Christ, with that humble regard to his atonement and righteousness, 
 which every true Christian will have, it cheerfully encourages our 
 hopes of finding many merciful allowances from God in our final 
 account with him.” See the note of Slade. Finally, to use the 
 words of Sherlock, Dis. 6, Vol. 3. (referred to by Weston) Charity 
 is the assistant part of that repentance to which the promises of life 
 are made in the Gospel. 
 
 9. φιλόξενοι εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄνευ γογγυσμών. See Rom. 
 12, 13. Hebr. 13, 2. and notes. 
 
 10. ἕκαστος καθὼς ἔλαβε χάρισμια--- χάριτος Θεοῦ. 
 Here, as on many other occasions, the antients and 
 most moderns explain χάρισμα of the spiritual and 
 supernatural gifts vouchsafed to many of the primi- 
 tive Christians. Others, as Grot., Est., Rosenm., 
 and most recent Commentators, take it of any fa- 
 culty or endowment of mind. But though that may 
 be included, yet the other sense is, I doubt not, prin- 
 cipally intended; as appears not only by the con- 
 text, but by the term itself, which has usually that 
 force; asin 1 Tim. 4, 14. and the three celebrated 
 chapters of 1 Cor. 12, 13 & 14. on those χαρίσματα. 
 See the excellent note of Bens. At the same time, 
 from the words immediately preceding, I cannot but 
 
680 1 PETER, CHAP. Iv. 
 
 suspect (though the Commentators do not notice it) 
 that the Apostle also intended those temporal gifts, 
 natural or acquired (including those of fortune), for 
 which we are equally stewards, and have to admi- 
 nister for the good of others.* And this Gicumen. 
 includes. 
 
 11. εἴ τις λαλεῖ, ὡς λόγια Θεοῦ. “If any one (for 
 instance) has the gift, and feels an impulse to teach 
 and preach, let him speak as (one speaking) the 
 oracles and doctrines of God and Christ (and there- 
 fore true), and not mere human notions and inven- 
 tions.” Such, I conceive, is the real and complete 
 sense; and it is supported by the Syr. and other 
 antient Versions. See also Bens., and his remarks 
 on the λόγια. The ὡς is not (as Rosenm. supposes) 
 redundant. On λαλεῖ, see the note on 1 Cor. 14, 27. 
 
 11. εἴ τις διακονεῖ, &c., “If any one exercise the 
 office of Deacon, let him do it (heartily) as out of 
 the full strength which God supplies.” Or, as Ben- 
 son says, this clause may be filled up in like manner 
 with the former one. Now the Deacon’s chief, 
 though not sole, business was to attend to the care 
 of the sick, and the relief and sustenance of the 
 poor ; for which reason, the Commentators say, the 
 younger persons were selected, and to which there 
 is an allusion in the ἰσχύος. But this seems too fan- 
 ciful. At ἐν πᾶσι we may either understand ἀνθρώ- 
 ποις, With reference to both the orders just mentioned, 
 and all other Christians; or πράγμασι, denoting the 
 actions of such persons: or it may relate to both. 
 
 The doxology which follows is by Ben., Wets., 
 and most recent Commentators, as Slade, Rosenm., 
 and Pott, referred to God the Father; as at Gal. 
 $95: Rom. 15295), 11,536) OCor, 114 3814 But asd 
 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ seems here to mean by the religion of 
 
 * In which view I would compare Eurip. Pheen. 565. Οὔτοι ra 
 χρήματ᾽ ἴδια κέκτηνται βροτοὶ, τὰ τῶν Θεῶν δ᾽ ἔχοντες ἐπιμελούμεθα" 
 ὅταν δὲ χρήξωσ᾽ ἂν ἀφαιροῦνται πάλιν, and Phocylyd. ἔ, 2, 7. 
 οἰκονόμος τ᾽ ἀγαθὴ. : 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. IV. 681 
 
 Jesus Christ, the Gospel, whose manifestations have 
 been above adverted to, I cannot but agree with 
 Grot. and Doddr. in understanding it of Christ. 
 And Grot. aptly compares a very similar acclamatio 
 ad Christum at | Tim 4, 18. Κράτος, empire, domi- 
 nion ; as the Hebr. ty is sometimes rendered by the 
 Sept. δυναστεία. 
 
 12. From hence to ver. 19. the Apostle exhorts 
 them patiently to endure afflictions in the cause of 
 Christianity; especially employing two arguments: 
 1. That the more the trials are which we have borne 
 on earth, after the example of Christ, the greater 
 will be our reward (ver. 13). 2. That afflictions 
 suffered for conscience sake are no longer to be 
 accounted such (ver. 14. fin.). Now those for whom 
 the Epistle was meant seem to have been exposed to 
 many and fierce persecutions; since to these the 
 Apostle again and again reverts. (Pott.) The ar- 
 guments are thus stated by Benson. “ It was not, 
 the Apostle hints, a strange or unusual thing for the 
 people of God to be persecuted. 2. Though they 
 suffered here, as Christ did, they should hereafter 
 be glorified together with him. 8. Besides the pros- 
 pect of that future glory, they had, at present, the 
 spirit of God for their support and comfort. 4. That 
 
 ~it was an honour for any one of them to suffer, not 
 as a malefactor, but asa Christian. 5. Though af- 
 flictions began with the Christians, yet the weight 
 of the storm would fall on the unbelievers. 
 
 12. μὴ ξενίξεσθε τῇ ἐν ὑμῖν πυρώσει πρὸς πειρασμὸν 
 ὑμῖν γενομένη. The construction is thus laid down 
 by Rosenm.: Μὴ ξενίξεσθε (ἐπὶ) τῇ πυρώσει γινομένη 
 ἐν ὑμῖν πρὸς πειρασμὸν ὑμῖν, 1. 6. ὑμῶν. The literal 
 sense is: ‘* Be not surprised (and therefore troubled) 
 by, or through, fire for trial (i. e. the severe perse- 
 cution permitted, for your trial) which ye now suf- 
 fer. The words ὡς ϑένου---συμβαινόντος, are exege- 
 tical of e2. In the πύρωσις εἰς πειρασμὸν there is 
 an allusion to the qucestio; a torment by fire. So 
 
682 1 PETER, CHAP, IV. 
 
 Joseph. Val. 4, 469. (Transl. Whist.): “and they 
 made them pass the fiery trial.” Polyb. 22, 3, 7. οἱ 
 γὰο καίροι τὴν καίρον τὴν ἐκ πυρὸς βάσανον πρόσήγον. See 
 also 33, 9, 8. 
 
 18, ἀλλὰ καθὸ κοινωνεῖτε---ἀγολλιώμιενοι. ““ But 
 rather as ye participate in the sufferings of Christ, 
 rejoice; that at the time when his glory shall be 
 revealed, ye may (indeed) exultingly rejoice.” Kai- 
 νωνεῖν τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασι, signifies (as Rosenm. 
 explains) not only to bear similar sufferings with 
 Christ, but for a similar cause, even that of religion. 
 Pott compares James 1, 2. Hebr. 10, 34. Acts 5, 
 11. 2Cor. 1, 7. See also Tanchuma ap. Shoettg. 
 The ἵνα is eventual. On the ἀποκαλ. ᾿Ιησοῦ see 1, 
 7 & 13. In yap. ἀγαλλ. there is a sort of Hebraism. 
 
 14. εἰ ὀνειδίϑεσθε ἐν ὀνόματι--- ἀναπαύεται, “Τῇ ye 
 suffer reproaches in the cause of Christ, happy are 
 ye: for the spirit of glory and God (or a glorious 
 and godlike spirit) resteth upon you, resideth in, 
 shews itself in you.” Ἐν ὀνόματι for ἕνεκα Xpior., 
 “ for the sake, or in the cause of Christ and his re- 
 ligion.” On the τὸ τὴς δόξης Θεοῦ, Commentators 
 variously speculate. The above seems to be the 
 best founded interpretation. We have the genitive 
 for the cognate adjective, by Hebraism. As to the 
 reading δυνάμεως, it seems to be a gloss. The ἐφ᾽ 
 ὑμᾶς ἀναπαύεται alludes to a spirit imparted from the 
 Deity, by which such things are effected, and which, 
 as Pott acknowledges, is that by which Christians 
 were supposed to be enabled both to lead a holy life 
 and to work miracles. It is then added: κατὰ μὲν 
 αὐτοὺς βλασφημεῖται, κατὰ δὲ ὑμᾶς δοξάϑεται, “on their 
 part, as far as regards them, He (1. 6. the Spirit, or 
 God) is blasphemed and reviled, but as far as re- 
 gards you, he is celebrated and praised.” ‘They 
 (paraphrases Rosenm.) reproach your constancy and 
 fortitude as superstitious pertinacity, but you by that 
 very thing evince your reverence to God, who has 
 imparted that spirit.” 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. IV. 088 
 
 1ὅ, 10. μὴ γὰρ τις ὑμών πασχέτω ὡς Φονεὺς, ἢ κλέπ- 
 της, ἢ κακοποιὸς, ἢ ὡς ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος. ‘The γὰρ re- 
 fers to a clause omitted: ““ Misunderstand me not; 
 for I speak not of suffering in a bad cause. Let no 
 one (I enjoin you),” &c. This is preferable to taking 
 the yep for οὖν, with Rosen.; or in the sense only, 
 with the Syr. Πασκ. A forensic term, signifying 
 “suffer what the law adjudges.” Kakorojos. A gene- 
 ral term, which may be rendered, ‘or as guilty of 
 any other misdemeanour.” The sense of ἀλλοτριοε- 
 πίσκοπος is not so easy to determine. Cicumen. and 
 most moderns explain it, ‘‘ a busy body in other peo- 
 ple’s affairs.” Others, “ἃ censorious person,” which 
 may be included in the former. But this is by some 
 thought hardly consistent with the racyérw. Hence 
 Schleus. and others interpret it as an Hellenistical 
 phrase to denote an utterly vicious person, a man | 
 Jaden with vices. But for this the authority is very 
 weak. The same may be said of the exposition of 
 Pott. and Rosenm., ‘‘ one who lays snares for others, 
 arebel.”’ But these two last interpretations involve 
 far more difficulty than the common one. It is 
 surely not unreasonable to suppose, that there might 
 then be laws inflicting some actual punishment on 
 those convicted of busily prying into other people's 
 affairs, and, as is almost always the case, exaggerat- 
 ing what may be true, and fabricating falsities, to 
 their great injury. This interpretation, too, is 
 much confirmed by 1 Tim. 5, 13. where St. Paul 
 seems to have had in view this same vice of tittle- 
 tattling and back-biting, in the words περιέργοι, λα- 
 λοῦσαι τὰ μὴ δέοντα. ‘Thus, I think, it is clear that 
 the words περίεργος and ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος are as 
 nearly as may be of the same sense: the first mean- 
 ing a busy-body; and the latter a busy-body in 
 others’ affairs: which affinity (though it scarcely 
 needs the confirmation of Classical authority) is evi- 
 dent from Philostr. Epist. Apollon. 59. μὴ περίεργος 
 ἧς, οὐκ ἂν ἐν ἧς τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις mpaypaos δίκαιος, “if you 
 had not been a busy-body, you would not have been 
 
684 1 PETER, CHAP. iy. 
 
 a judge in other men’s affairs.”” See Eurip. Hip. 785. 
 and Markl. in loc. ; 
 
 16. εἰ δὲ ὡς Χριστιανὸς. Χριστιανὸς occurs only 
 thrice in the New Testament; Acts 11, 36. and the 
 present passage. It appears that now the name had 
 become thoroughly established. ’Ev τῷ μέρει τούτῳ, 
 “on this account (as 2 Cor. 3, 10. 9, 3. Col. 2, 16.) 
 namely, that ye have been thought worthy to suffer 
 afflictions for Christ’s sake.” 
 
 17. ὅτι 6 καιρὸς TOU ἄρξασθαι τὸ κρίμα ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ, “ For the time is at hand for judgment, and 
 to commence with the people of God” (i. e. Chris- 
 tians). See Slade. Κρίμα is variously interpreted : 
 but from the context the common interpretation 
 judgment may very well be supported. By this is 
 meant (as Rosenm. explains) 450, Dei constitutio, 
 de immittendis scil. adversis, namely, for the purpose 
 of purification, trial, and example to others. So 
 Benson says it designates the particular distress that 
 was to take place before Jerusalem should be de- 
 stroyed. The Christians were to expect to feel some 
 of the first effects of that general calamity. It was 
 to begin with them, as our Saviour had plainly pro- 
 phesied. It was God’s way of old to begin with 
 sending calamities on his own people.” See his _re- 
 ferences.* 
 
 17. εἰ δὲ πρῶτον ἀφ᾽ yay, τί τὸ τέλος τῶν ἀπειθούν- 
 τῶν τῴ τοῦ Θεοῦ εὐαγγελίῳ; “ If we Christians be 
 first afflicted,” &c. Τέλος, end, i. 6. lot. The sense, 
 then, is: “ what will become of the wicked?” It is 
 hinted that they will utterly perish. No obscure 
 prediction of the ruin which overwhelmed the Jew- 
 ish state a few years after. 
 
 18. καὶ εἰ ὃ δίκαιος μόλις σώϑεται, ὃ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρ- 
 
 * Schoettg. here aptly adduces from ἃ Rabbinical passage: 
 «‘Poene nunquam perveniunt in mundum, nisi impii in eo sint. 
 Vertin non incipiunt, nisi ἃ justis primdm.” And a little further 
 on: ‘‘ Quando potentia datur perditori, nullam ille inter justos et 
 impios differentiam observat : neque hoc tantum sed a justis pri- 
 mtim incipit,” Compare Jer. 10, 7. Ps. 68, 36.and see Wets.: 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. IV. ν. 685 
 
 τωλὸς ποῦ φανεῖται; A happy amplication of the sen- 
 timent from Prov. 11, 31. Sept. ‘The sense is: “ If 
 the righteous be with difficulty snatched from evils, 
 what shall be the lot of the impious and wicked ?” 
 The interrogation involves a strong negation, and 
 implies, (as Rosenm. says) utter perdition. Similar 
 sentiments are adduced from the Rabbinical writers 
 by the Commentators. On cwg. see Benson and 
 Slade. 
 
 19. ὥστε kal οἱ πάσχοντες---ἀγαθοποιΐᾳ, “ Where- 
 fore let those who suffer according to the will and 
 permission of God, commit their lives and souls unto 
 him, as unto a faithful and benevolent Creator, con- 
 tinuing in well-doing.” ‘The ψυχὰς most Commen- 
 tators explain themselves, by Hebraism. But Benson 
 well defends the common interpretation souls. It 
 may mean their dives, their souls, and every thing 
 that concerns both. [ΠΙιστῴ, veracious, true to his 
 promises. So Benson explains it: who may be de- 
 pended upon, as one of sufficient power, wisdom, 
 and goodness, to make all things conduce to the 
 good of the pious ; and particularly to raise them to 
 ahappy immortality. This promise he had made to 
 them in the Gospel, and they might trust to him for 
 the performance. ᾿Αγαθοποΐα is variously explained : 
 but it must be taken in its most extensive sense, 
 well doing of every kind. See also 1 Pet. 2, 14, and 
 2,15. 
 
 CHAP. Vie 
 
 Much depended on the conduct of the Bishops or 
 Pastors of the Church, especially in time of persecu- 
 tion. The Apostle therefore recommends it to 
 them to behave in a becoming manner, and take 
 particular care of the flocks committed tothem ; and 
 to their people, to behave well to them; and finally, 
 he expects al/ to behave well mutually to each other. 
 (Benson. ) 
 
 Ver. 1. πρεσβυτέρους τοὺς ἐν ὑμίν----κοινωνὺς. By the 
 
686 τ | PETER, CHAP. ν. 
 
 πρεσβ. are meant both the heads of congregations 
 (teachers, ver. 2.) and others employed on the go- 
 yenment thereof. The συμ. like the Latin cum, im- 
 ports community in office; as in numerous words. 
 It is observed by Benson and Mackn., that if Peter 
 had been the Prince of the Apostles, he would, in 
 this place, and in the inscriptions to his two Epistles, 
 have assumed the high prerogative ; and would not 
 have used the language he here does. ‘Though that 
 may be partly accounted for from condescension and 
 humility. ; 
 
 1. μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων, ‘an eye-wit- 
 ness of the sufferings on the resurrection of Christ 
 from the dead.’ All this, Benson has shown, 15 
 involved in the sense of the expression. See his 
 long and excellent note, and consult his references. 
 By apartaker of the glory to be revealed must be un- 
 derstood, with Whitby and Benson, a partaker then 
 in the pledge or earnest of the glory yet to be re- 
 yealed, the first fruits of the Spirit, the miraculous 
 gifts of the Spirit. See more in Benson. 
 
 2. ποιμάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, A com- 
 mon pastoral metaphor, by which leaders of any kind 
 (kings, teachers, and priests,) are compared to shep- 
 herds. The sense is: ‘ Nourish with sound doc- 
 trine, and superintend the morals of those committed 
 to your care.” My avayxacres, “not as if it were a 
 burthen, or as if ye were constrained.” I suspect 
 that this has reference to some who served the office 
 without stipend, but with indifference and want of 
 zeal. Μὴ αἰσχροκερδώς, ἀλλὰ προθύμως, “ not dis- 
 charging the office for the sake of the lucre (which 
 would be base), but with good will, toto corde (as 
 the Syr.), and only accepting the lucre, to enable you 
 to discharge the office.” 
 
 3. μηδ᾽ ὦ κατακυριεύοντες τῶν κλήρων. As Θεοῦ is 
 not in the original, Doddr. deserts the Common Ver- 
 sion, and renders as if it were an ellipsis of ἑαυτῶν." 
 But though Θεοῦ be not expressed, yet it is plainly to 
 be supplied both from the subject and.the context ; 
 
I PETER, CHAP. V. 687 
 
 for at the ποιμνίου just: after, it must be understood. 
 With respect to the κλήρων, this is variously ex- 
 plained; by Dodwell and Whitby, of the possessions 
 of the Church; for which signification there is suffi- 
 cient authority; but little probability in the thing 
 itself; though Slade thinks, that as there were con- 
 tributions, there might be a fund. But considering 
 the poverty of the primitive Christians, and other 
 circumstances, that is not likely. Now κατακυριεύον - 
 Tes κλήρων, in the simple diction of the Apostle, can 
 only apply to persons: and the Commentators have 
 well shown how it arose that Christian congregations 
 came to be called God’s heritages. See Grot., Bens., 
 Rosenm., and Doddr., or Slade. 
 
 3. τύποι, examplars, i. e. (as Rosenm. explains) : 
 “do yourselves what you enjoin on others,” con- 
 trary to the custom of the Scribes and Pharisees. 
 Matt. 23, 3 and 4. 
 
 4, καὶ φανερωθέντος τοῦ ἀρχιποιμιένος, κομιεῖσθε τὸν 
 ἀμαράντινον τῆς δόξης στέφανον. Pavep., “shall ap- 
 pear; as Col. 3,4. ΓΑρχιπ. Called at Hebr. 13. τὸν 
 μέγαν ποιμένα. On kousg. see 1, 9. With the ὁ τῆς 
 δόξης στεφανὸς (a glorious crown,) Rosenm. com- 
 pares Sir. 43, 11. κάλλος οὐρανοῦ δόξαι ἄρτρων. There 
 is an agonistical metaphor, which may be illustrated 
 from Eurip. Hipp. 73. πλεκτὸν στεφανὸν ἐξ ἀκηράτου 
 λειμῶνος. Soph. Aj. 465. στέφανον εὐκλείας. Eurip. 
 Suppl. 315. στέφανον εὐκλείας λαβεῖν and Antiop. 
 frag. 4. See also Biset on Aristoph. Lysist. 875 F. 
 The whole image is an expressive designation of per- 
 petuity. See Benson. 
 
 5. ὁμοίως νεώτεροι ὑποτάγητε πρεσβυτέροις, ““Τη like 
 manner ye people, submit yourselves to your teach- 
 ers.” Such is the sense assigned by the best Com- 
 mentators, and which seems required by the context, 
 not “ younger persons, submit yourselves to the 
 elder.” Rosenm. compares Luke 22, 2. where 6 
 μείϑων and ὁ νεώτερος are similarly opposed. I would 
 here adduce a fine sentiment of Aristid. 1, 431 ¢. 
 
688 1 PETER, CHAP. V. 
 
 εἰδότας ἐστιν οὖ, Kal Array νίκης εὐσ χημονεστέραν οὖσαν 
 καὶ πλείονος ἀξιαν. 
 
 5. πάντες O€, ἀλλήλοις ὑποτασσόμιενοι, τὴν ταπεινοῷρο- 
 σύνην ἐγκομβώσασθε. ᾿Εὐγκομιβοῦσθαι is derived from 
 κόμιβος, which signifies primarily a knot, top-knot, 
 topping, (and hence our comb; as a cock’s comb) : 
 Qdly, what we call a bow-knot or button, and other 
 ornamental fastening by which vestments are drawn 
 about any one; and 3dly, the vestment itself. It is 
 observed by Fischer de Vit. Lex. p. 18. and Schleus., 
 that ἐγκώμβωμα denotes a short jerkin (or rather, I 
 should suppose, something like our moveable capes), 
 put over the other garments, and fastened by knots 
 and bands to the collar. Hence ἐγκομβούῦσθαι came 
 to mean, in a general way, to be clothed: and as all 
 sorts of clothing are, in the antient languages, ap- 
 plied to denote moral habits, especially of virtue ; so 
 here the Apostie means, that they should put on 
 humility as as ornament, and wear it asa habit. And 
 this seems to be all that it is necessary to be kept im 
 view ; for to enter into all the argutie of the Com- 
 mentators (on which see Pole’s Syn. and Wolf) were 
 to little purpose. Schleus. compares 2 Macc. 7, 5. 
 ἀγριωτέραν ἐμπεπορπημένοι ὠμότητα. ‘Lo which I add 
 fElian V. H. p. 10. ἠμπείχετὸ δὲ σωφροσύνη, and Hom. 
 I]. a. 149. ἀναιδείην ἐπιεμένε, where Heyné remarks: 
 * Dicitur aliquis indutus, ἢ. 6. instructus, esse 115 
 qué ipsi propria sunt et solennia.” 
 
 6. ταπεινώθητε οὖν ὑπὸ τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
 &c. Christians are here exhorted to wholly submit 
 themselves to the governance of the Lord. ‘‘ Now 
 (observes Rosenm.) they submit themselves to God, 
 who acknowledge, and habitually feel, their total de- 
 pendence on him to whom they owe every thing, 
 who acquiesce in his will, and bear patiently the evils 
 of this life, who do not perversely resist his Provi- 
 dence, and who finally expect every thing good 
 from the power of God.” Κρατ. χεῖρα, like the Hebr. 
 ΓΡῚ my in Exod. 3, 9., signifies mghty power. ᾿Ἐν 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. V. 689 
 
 καιρῷ, “ at his own time, at the proper season.” In 
 some MSS. is added ἐπισκοπῆς. But that was evi- 
 dently foisted in from 2, 12. 
 
 7. πᾶσαν τὴν μέριμναν ὑμῶν ἐπιῤῥίψαντες ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν. A 
 further designation of this submission. ᾿Επιῤῥίψαι, 
 I conceive, is here a vox pregnans, for ἀποῤῥίψ. and 
 ἐπιῤῥίψ., 1. e. casting off all anxious cares and soli- 
 citudes, and reposing them on God and his Provi- 
 dence.” This is taken from Ps. 55, 23. Compare 
 Matt. 6, 25 and 80. Αὐτῷ μέλει περὶ ὑμιών, “ for 
 with him rests the care of you, and your concerns.” 
 Pott refers to Matt. 22, 16. Mark 12, 14. Joh. 10, 13. 
 12, 6., and compares Matt. 4, 25 and 30. 6, 25. and 
 also M. Anton. 4, 31. τὸ δὲ ὑπόλοιπον τοῦ βίου διεξέλθε, 
 ὡς Θεοῖς μὲν ἐπιτετρόφως τὰ σεαυτοῦ πάντα ἐξ OARS τῆς 
 ψυχῆς. ‘To which I add Soph. Electr. 178. where 
 there is the following fine sentiment ; θάρσει μοι, θάρ- 
 wet, τέκνον" "Ears μέγας οὐρανῷ Ζεὺς, ὃς ἐπορᾶ πάντα καὶ 
 κρατύνει" ᾧ τὸν ὑπεραλγῆ χόλον νέμουσα, K. τ. A. and 
 Eurip. Phoen. 717. ἀλλ᾽ εἰς Θεοὺς χρὴ ταῦτ᾽ ἀναρτή- 
 σαντ᾽ ἔχειν. 
 
 8—11. In this final admonition Christians are ex- 
 horted to constancy in their profession, in spite of 
 the evils with which they were encircled. (Pott.) 
 
 8. ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμών διάβολος. As διάβολος has no 
 article, many recent Commentators render it a mali- 
 cious accuser. But the words ἀντιὸ. and διάβ. are to 
 be closely connected; and I entirely agree with Bp. 
 Middleton, that the sense is, ‘‘ your opposing evil 
 spirit,” i.e. the evil spirit who is your opposer. 
 There is supposed to be an allusion to Job. 1, 7. 
 where Satan is similarly designated. ᾿Αντίδικος has 
 the general sense of ἔχθρος ; as Matt. 12, 39. ‘Qs 
 λέων wpuopevos, “as a lion roaring and raging for 
 food, and ready for his prey.” Our roar is doubtless 
 from wp. It is well observed by Doddr., that it was 
 natural St. Peter should give such a caution, since 
 he, through inattention to his master’s warning, had 
 yielded to a similar temptation. Rosenm. (after 
 Benson) remarks, that there is here ascribed to the 
 
 VOL. VIII. ZY 
 
690 1 PETER, CHAP. V. 
 
 Devil what he does by his instruments, the infuriate 
 persecutors, Jews and Heathens ; and that diabolical 
 temptation in general cannot be the subject, but 
 those tribulations which might sway their minds to 
 desert their Christian profession, and the necessity 
 for the exercise of fortitude and constancy ; as ap- 
 pears from ver.9. But, though such acted as the 
 subordinate agents of Satan, yet that will not ex- 
 clude, but rather suppose (as the words of the Apos- 
 tle require) the operation of their head and master ; 
 though as to the mode of operation we are (as in a 
 thousand other matters of undoubted fact) left in 
 the dark. Nay, it is difficult to imagine how, with 
 our present faculties, more light could have been 
 received. 
 
 9. ὦ ἀντίστητε στερεοὶ τῇ π. resist, and that unto 
 the last; never capitulate. So we are told to resist 
 the Devil, James 4, 7. Compare also Eph. 6, 13. 
 and see Benson. At oregéos τῇ πίστει Pott and others 
 strangely stumble, and pervert the plain sense, which 
 is: ‘continuing steadfast in faith.” Now this was 
 the most effectual mode of resisting him; since his 
 temptations were directed to induce them to re- 
 nounce their Christian profession. 
 
 9. εἰδότες τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθημάτων TH ἐν κόσμῳ ὑμιῶν 
 ἀδελφότητι ἐπιτελεῖσθαι. The τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθημάτων 
 is for τὰ αὐτὰ παθήματα. ᾿Επιτελ. is explained by the 
 recent Commentators happen. And this they sup- 
 port from Xen. Mem. 4, 8,8. But that is a very 
 feeble sense. Bens. renders, “ carried to a great 
 length.” But for that sense (which is somewhat 
 harsh) I know of no authority. It should rather 
 seem that the term is used for ἐνεργεῖσθαι, effected. 
 And may there not be some allusion to the predic- 
 tion of our Lord concerning these παθήματα ‘The 
 argument is this: ‘* your case is not singular: the 
 same persecutions are carried on in your Christian 
 brethren throughout the whole world.” ’Adead. is a 
 noun collective, signifying brotherhood : there is also 
 a subaudition of ovcy. Pott compares the well 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. V. 691 
 
 ~ known ‘* Solamen miseris socios habuisse malorum,” 
 and Cic. ad Fam. 6, 2. 
 
 10. ὁδὲ Θεὸς πάσης χάριτος---θεμελιώσαι. The πάσης 
 is not (as Pott supposes) put for μεγίστης, but (as 
 being the genitive of the efficient cause) the sense is: 
 «The God who is the author of blessings of every 
 kind ;” as 2 Cor. 13, 14, ἕο. ’O καλέσας ἡμᾶς---- 
 Niiosd, * who hath by Christ and his Gospel called 
 and invited you to seek eternal salvation.” δόξαν, 
 i.e. happiness of the most glorious kind. Ὀλίγον, 
 i. e. for this brief period of our earthly sojourn. Ke- 
 ταρτίσαι, ““ may he perfect you more and more in the 
 knowledge and practice of religion.” Στὴρ ίξαι, 
 « confirm you in the practice of what you hice 
 Σθενωσαι, “strengthen you to the performance.” 
 Θεβεχειάδαι; δὲ settle, immoveably ground you.” 
 These four terms are unwarrantably taken by Pott as 
 synonymous, and accumulated for greater effect. It 
 would have been truer if he had said that all these 
 particulars are ¢ncluded, as contributing to fit them 
 for the state of eternal glory just mentioned. On 
 the doxology at αὐτω---ἀμήν. see the note on 4, 11. 
 
 12. διὰ Σιλουανοῦ---ἔγραψα, ‘thus frigidly have I 
 written by Silvanus (to you, I apprehend, a faithful 
 brother), exhorting, and bearing strong testimony 
 that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.” 
 On Silvanus see 1 Thess., 1,1. At ὀλίγων there is 
 the common ellipsis of ῥημάτων. The clause ὡς royi- 
 Sonat, like many similar expressions both in the 
 antient and modern languages, implies, not doubé, 
 but firm persuasion; as Rom. 8,18. So that there 
 is no reason, with Grot., to resort to the sense δὲ bene 
 memini, which is founded, as Rosenm. shows, ona 
 baséless hypothesis. Ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ, εἰς ἣν ἑστήκατε, “that the religion in which 
 you are (I trust) firmly fixed, is the true one (and 
 not Judaism, your former faith).” 
 
 13. συνεκλεκτὴ, Wall, Mill, and others, suppose to 
 be a Christian woman, ‘the wife of Peter, some think. 
 Others, subaud ἐκκλησία (which is supported by the 
 
 ὧν 2 
 
692 1 PETER, CHAP. V. 
 
 Syr., Arab., Vulg., and Cicumen), i. 6. “ chosen by 
 God in conjunction with us.’ And I agree with 
 
 Wolf in preferring this, or διασποράν. 
 
 On the βαβυλῶνι there has been no little diversity of opinion. 
 Some, as Mill, Bertram, Pearson, Wolf, Wall, and Fabric., take to 
 denote Babylon in Egypt. But this has no probability, and has 
 been refuted by Lardner, who, with the antients, and many eminent 
 moderns, as Grot., Hamm., Whitby, and most of the Romanists, 
 think that by Babylon is, figuratively, meant Rome: and this is 
 supported by the united voice of antiquity; and, therefore, the 
 opinion merits great attention. Certain it is there are many points 
 of resemblance between that Queen of cities, and what we conceive 
 of antient Babylon. Hence the name has been applied to London, 
 Paris, &c. Were it not for this authority of antiquity on a point 
 where antiquity may be depended on, I should have been inclined 
 to adopt the opinion of Erasm., Germ., Beza, Gomar, Lightf., 
 Scaliger, Salmas., Cler., L’Enfant, Cumberland, Wets., Schleus., 
 Rosenm., Bens., &c., that it signifies Babylon in Assyria. But 
 those Commentators are not agreed whether to understand Selucia, 
 i.e. New Babylon, which (as Rosenm. observes) was the metropolis 
 of the eastern dispersion of the Jews, and whither it was likely St. 
 Peter, on Jeaving Jerusalem, would repair; or Old Babylon, which, 
 there is reason to think, was not yet totally deserted. The latter 
 opinion is adopted by Rosenm., and it seems preferable ; for there 
 is no satisfactory proof that Seleucia (though it stepped into the 
 place of Old Babylon, and was chiefly built from its ruins) ever 
 received the name of Babylon; though, I find, it seems to be so 
 called in some passages of Lucian, adduced by me in a Dissertation 
 on the Antiquities of antient Babylon, which I shall take an early 
 opportunity of laying before the public, in conjunction with others 
 on antient Carthage, antient Thebes, the Pyramids, the Labyrinth, 
 and other interesting monuments of the remotest antiquity. 
 
 13. καὶ Μάρκος ὃ υἱὸς pov. Whether υἱὸς is to be 
 understood in the physical or the figurative sense, 
 Commentators are not agreed. The former inter- 
 pretation is supported by some antients (see Qtcu- 
 men.), and, of the moderns, Heuman and others. 
 It is, however, a question which admits of no 
 certain determination : and the verdict of a critical 
 jury would probably be, “ Non liquet.” See Bens. 
 and Mackn., or Slade. I should, for my own part, 
 prefer the /atter interpretation, and, with many emi- 
 nent moderns, as Rosenm., &c., regard this Mark as 
 the same with the author of the Gospel. 
 
 14. ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλοις ἐν φιλήματι ἀγάπης. An 
 oriental custom of the highest antiquity, on which I 
 
1 PETER, CHAP. V. 693 
 
 have before treated. Now this Aiss was called 
 indifferently the kiss of peace, or the holy kiss, as 
 being used after prayer; as we find from Origen 
 (cited by Rosenm.). Hence some MSS. read ἐν 
 φιλήματι ayo. But the ἐν is doubtless from the 
 margin. On the εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πᾶσι I have before 
 treated. “Evy Χριστῷ ᾽Ἴησου, scil. οὖσι, a periphrasis 
 for Christians. 
 
694: 
 
 SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 
 
 Soon after the writing of this Epistle St. Peter 
 was crucified at Rome, and, as we are told, with his 
 head downward,—a mixture of cruelty and con- 
 tumely such as was not unfrequently exhibited. 
 Thus Joseph. 1297, 30., προσήλουν δ᾽ οἱ στρατιῶται 
 TOUS AAWTAS, ἄλλον AAAW πρὸς χλεύην. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Verse 1—4. Here we have the Introduction to 
 the Epistle, in which, after asserting his Apostolick 
 character, and addressing the Epistle to the Gentile 
 converts, St. Peter salutes them, and reminds them 
 that their Christian privileges were owing to the 
 favour of God in Christ, and in consequence of the 
 miraculous effusion of the Holy Spirit. (Bens.) 
 
 1. Συμεών. Some read Σιμὼν. But it matters not; 
 since the one is the Hebrew (found in Acts 15, 14.), 
 and the other the Hellenistick form. On the clause 
 Συμεὼν---ριστοῦ, see the sensible remarks of Mr. 
 Slade. ᾿ἸἸσότιμος is compared by Rosenm. with ἱσο- 
 μοιρὸς, and other Classical forms. And he notices 
 the elegant use of λαγχάνειν in the sense receive. 
 Slade thinks it contains an allusion to the Jewish in- 
 heritances, which were obtained by lot. And he 
 refers to 1 Pet., 5, 8. Δικαιοσύνη. A general for 
 the special term χάριτι, or the like. And so the 
 Hebr. Mp. “Τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος I. X. Not- 
 withstanding the opinion of Wets. and many dis- 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. I. 695 
 
 tinguished Scholars, I must still think that this 
 should be rendered, “ our God and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ :” the article not being repeated before σωτῆς- 
 ρος, because there is no change of person. See the 
 able note of Bp. Middlet. in loc., or the extracts in 
 Slade and Valpy. 
 
 2. χάρις ὑμῖν--- Θεοῦ. An earnest wish and prayer 
 for every blessing upon them which can result from 
 a right knowledge of God and our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ. Ἔν, 3, by. 
 
 3. ὡς πάντα ἡμιν---δεδωρημιένης, ““ Forasmuch as 
 God has, of his favour, given us all things which 
 pertain to life (i.e. happiness) and godliness.” Some 
 recent Commentators regard the ws as pleonastic, 
 adducing numerous examples. And this, as far as 
 concerns Genitives of consequence, may apply: but 
 when, as in a Latin or English version, the verb is 
 used, the sense will be because, or forasmuch as. The 
 construction of the sentence is thus laid down by 
 Pott: wes τῆς θείας δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ πάντα τὰ πρὸς ϑωὴν 
 καὶ εὐσεβείαν ἡμῖν δεδωρημένης, διὰ --- ἀρετῆς (δι’ wy— 
 φθορας) καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, Χο. The participle δεδωρημέ- 
 yys may be taken (as it is by some) in the passive 
 sense; but that will still more embarrass the con< 
 struction, and there is no reason why we should 
 not take it in an active sense; for, as Rosenm. 
 observes, in verbs which want the Perfect, or any 
 other tense of the Middle voice, the Passive is used 
 in its place ; of which Loesn. adduces numerous ex- 
 amples (in this very verb) from Philo. It is remarked 
 by Rosenm., that in ver. 3 & 4, there is the antece- 
 dent ; and in ver. 3, the consequent is διὰ τῆς ἐπιγνώ- 
 σεως ---ἀρετῆς, ““ by the knowledge of him who hath, 
 of his. glorious benignity, invited us thereto.” And 
 he adds: ‘‘ Hac ratione omnibus presidiis recte 
 agendi nos instruxit.” In διὰ δόξης καὶ ἀρετῆς there 
 is a common hendiadis: and on the sense here of 
 ἀρετὴ, see the note on 1 Pet., 2,9. Whitby, how- 
 ever, understands the words of the glorious effusion 
 of the Holy Spirit ; and Doddr. of that strengthen- 
 
696 @ PETER, CHAP. I. 
 
 ing energy which God exerts on the human mind, 
 which appeared in so extraordinary a manner in the 
 Apostolic age. 
 
 4. δι’ ὧν τὰ μέγιστα ἡμῖν καὶ τίμια ἐπαγγέλματα 
 δεδώρηται, ““ by which things.” This relates either 
 to πάντα, the more remote, or to δόξης καὶ ἀρετῆς, the 
 nearer antecedent. Μέγιστα καὶ τίμια. An Hendi- 
 adis for exceedingly precious, namely, as pertaining 
 to eternal felicity. On these promises Benson copi- 
 ously treats. But, after all that he urges, I cannot 
 abandon the common opinion, that by these are 
 meant the Gospel promises in general, such as pardon 
 of sins to the penitent, a glorious resurrection, and 
 eternal life,—the most powerful motives to holiness, 
 and to aim at the becoming partakers of the Divine 
 nature. 
 
 4. ἵνα διὰ τούτων γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως, “that 
 (excited by these promises) you might become par- 
 takers of the Divine nature.” ‘The Φύσις is by some 
 taken pleonastically. And they render the κοινωνοὶ 
 θείας φύσεως ‘ participants of God,” 1. 6. of his bene- 
 fits. And this is harsh and forced, and at variance 
 with the context. The best Commentators are 
 agreed that φύσις here denotes disposition. ‘Thus to 
 be κοινωνοὶ τῆς Φύσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, will be, to imitate 
 God’s perfections, aim at a similitude to his moral 
 properties and attributes. And this similarity, the 
 Apostle proceeds to teach them, is to be aimed at by 
 renouncing evil lusts and carnal appetites. ‘That 
 such will form us to a resemblance to God, we find 
 from 1 Joh. 3, 7., 1 Pet. 1, 13.* dpa here, and 
 
 * So Rosenm., who further argues from the substance of ver. 3 
 and 4., that the Apostle could mean no other conjunction than that 
 of similitude and imitation. See an able discussion of the sense of 
 this phrase in Bens., who, after offering six different interpretations, 
 acquiesces in the above detailed one. He concludes by observing, 
 that the affections, passions, appetites, and inclinations, “ implanted 
 in us by God our maker, and the things that are pleasant or useful 
 without us, are none of them in themselves sinful. They are, 
 indeed, temptations, and often, by the abuse of them, lead men into 
 sin. Butsin consists merely in the abuse or corruption of them, 
 that is, using them ina wrong kind, manner, or degree. Mankind 
 too generally fall in with the temptations.” 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. I. 697 
 
 at 2, 12 & 19., signifies corrupt morals. By the 
 world is meant, as usual, that part of it which not 
 only in that corrupt, but in every succeeding age, 
 may be said to be slaves of corruption and vanity. 
 See more in Pott and Rosenm. 
 
 5—7. Having reminded them that God had given 
 them all things. pertaining to a godly life, our Apos- 
 tle here mentions those virtues which were required 
 of them: withal intimating that, if professed Chris- 
 tians did not bring forth such fruit, they neither 
 duly attended to the nature of Christianity, nor 
 would they have any benefit thereby. (Bens.) 
 
 5. καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δὲ σπουδὴν πᾶσαν, παρεισ. “* Where- 
 fore using the utmost diligence.” The best Com- 
 mentators are agreed that this verse is connected 
 with ver. 3, and that the καὶ is to be taken, 
 as often, pro consecutivo. See Pott, Bens., and Ro- 
 senm. At αὐτὸ τοῦτο Rosenm. subauds did. But 
 κατὰ, Which is supplied by Homb., Schoettg., and 
 Wolf, is the milder ellipsis. As to the various read- 
 ings here found, they merely arose from the diffi- 
 culty, and are purely emendations. 
 
 zr. παρεισφέρειν, Rosenm. remarks, is here (as in 
 the best writers) used for σπουδάϑειν ; of which Wets. 
 adduces examples from Joseph. Ant. 20, 9, 12., and 
 also from Diod. and Liban. I cannot but think, 
 with the early moderns (as Beza, Erasm., and Pisc.) 
 that the παρὰ refers to the union of our diligence in 
 co-operation with the grace of God.” See Phil. 2, 
 12 and 13. And, even in the Classical use, co-opera- 
 tion is (I suspect) always implied. There is the 
 same allusion in ἐπιχορηγήσατε ; though it is simply 
 rendered exhibere. 
 
 On the exact sense of ἐν throughout this glorious 
 chain the Commentators are not agreed. The recent 
 ones takes it for σὺν ; others, for cis, unto; which, 
 considering the nature of the participles rape. and 
 ἐπιχορ.» seems to be preferable.* 
 
 * Slade thinks it may be a sign of the dative. But that is only 
 silencing a word which we cannot explain. Thereis more justice in 
 his remark, that ἐπιχορήγατε ἐν τῇ πίστει may be the same as χο- 
 
698 2 PETER, CHAP. I. 
 
 The ἀρετὴ most modern Commentators, from Hamm. to Pott. 
 and Rosenm., considering that several particulars included in the 
 general sense of the term are just after added, take in the more special 
 sense courage, like the Latin virtus. But this signification is unex- 
 ampled in the Scriptures: and the Apostle elsewhere shows too 
 little attention to logical regularity to allow us to lay much stress on 
 the argument adduced. Therefore, though this interpretation is 
 ably supported by Hamm., Doddr., Bens., Wall, Mackn., and Ro- 
 senm., [ cannot consent to abandon the common one, Christian 
 virtue, which is retained, and well illustrated by Schleus. Lex. 
 
 Τυγῶσιν. This is by many Commentators, in conformity with the 
 interpretation of ἀρετὴ just mentioned, explained prudence, wisdom, 
 discretion, so as not to unnecessarily expose themselves to danger. 
 But that is a very uncommon sense of γνῶσις ; and religious know- 
 ledge must surely here be understood. And so it is explained by 
 most Commentators. See Mackn. and Jortin ap. D’Oyley. 
 
 ᾿Εγκρατείαν. The virtues now enumerated are given as examples 
 of what is meant by the general term ἀρετὴ : and they are classed 
 first under the head personal virtues; 2. those that bave God for 
 their object; and 3. those that relate to man. Now the personal 
 virtues are ἐγκρατεία, temperance in the use of pleasure, and, if 
 need be, abstinence from it, and ὑπόμονὴ, patient endurance, or the 
 right government cf ourselves in adversity. Εὐσεβεία. This is 
 well explained by Mr. Slade a godly temper and behaviour, such a 
 spirit of godliness as shows itself in our intercourse with the world. 
 Yet we must not exclude that expression of godliness as shows itself 
 in all the external acts of worship and reverence to the Supreme 
 Being. Φιλαδελφία, i. 6. love to Christians. “Ayan. This signi- 
 fies love in general to others, considered not merely as Christians, 
 but as men. 
 
 On these separate terms I shall not further enlarge; that falling 
 rather under the province of the general Theologian, or Preacher, to 
 whom I must refer the reader in the many excellent Sermons on 
 this interesting portion of Scripture from the pens of our best 
 English Divines. 
 
 8. ταῦτα γὰρ ὑμῖν ὑπάρχοντα---ἐπίγνωσιν, “For if 
 these virtues reside in, abound in, and be on the in- 
 crease in you; they will shew you as persons not bar- 
 ren, or unfruitful, in respect to the knowledge of the 
 religion of Jesus Christ,” i. e. persons whose know- 
 ledge of the religion is not barren and unfruitful of 
 good works (as the calumnious Heathens pretend). 
 
 Such seems to be the complete sense ; and thus the 
 
 pnyhoare ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει. But itis not quite the same. The éwiand 
 ἐν may be expressed by our compound preposition unto: whereas 
 χορηγ. ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει can only mean ‘‘ supply do your faith ;’’ but 
 unto signifies in addition to and besides. 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. I. 699 
 
 words require no laboured explanation. See, how- 
 ever, Benson and Pott. 
 aA ey cs £ ny. £8 . 
 
 9. ᾧ yap py πάρεστι ταυτα---ἁμαρτιων, For he who 
 is destitute of these virtues is but blind and dull of 
 perception, forgetful of the purification of his former 
 sins.” Μυωπάξειν signifies to wink, or half shut the 
 eyes, as those do who, being short-sighted, endeavour 
 to discern a distant object. The sense is: “ He 
 who is destitute of the moral virtues, and yet expects 
 salvation of the Gospel, which imperatively enjoins 
 them, is blind, or sees a very little way into the true 
 nature of it, and forgets that he was cleansed from 
 his former sins only on condition of renouncing sin 
 in future.” Now to forget this were the greatest 
 blindness, such a setting light on the benefits of 
 baptism, as implies a contempt of the religion. Here 
 I would compare a passage of Plato, Ep. 7. τυφλὸς 
 ὧν καὶ οὐχ ὁρῶν οἷς ἀνέπεται τῶν πραγμάτων ἀνοσι- 
 ουργίαι. 
 
 Λήθην λαμβάνειν signifies to forget, like many 
 other phrases formed ae λαμβάνειν and a substantive. 
 
 On the καθαρ. τῶν ἁμαρτίων it is observed by Bens., that the 
 Scriptures often and plainly speak of a twofold justification, sancti- 
 fication, and salvation. The one initial; the other final. Whena 
 wicked Jew or Heathen took on him the profession of the Christian 
 religion by baptism, he was justified, purified, or saved, from his old 
 sins, upon that profession of faith in Christ. Acts 15, 9. 16, 31. 22, 
 16. Romans 16, 4. 1 Corinthians 6, 11. 2 Cor. 7, 1. pheriars 5, 
 26. Tit. 2, 14. Heb. 10, 22 and 23. 1 Pet. 3, 21. 2 Pet. 2, 20, &c. 
 But the final justification, sanctification, or salvation, is not to be 
 attained without Christian good works, or an holy life, after bap- 
 tism. Faith alone was sufficient for the former, but not for the 
 latter. Jer. 17, 7 and 8. Ezek. 18, 21, ἅς. Matt. 18, 35 Rom. 9, 6. 
 &c. 1 Joh. 1,7. It is truly remarked by Slade, that this text pow- 
 erfully corroborates two important doctrines, 1. that the rite of bap- 
 tism, duly administered, purifies from sin; 2. that men may fall 
 from a state of purification and grace. 
 
 10, 11. διὸ μᾶλλον, ἀδελφοὶ, σπουδάσατε βεβαίαν 
 ὑμῶν τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογὴν ποιεῖσθαι, ‘ Wherefore the 
 rather give diligence to this, only (by the practice of 
 these good works) to make our calling and election 
 sure, firm, stable, and efficacious.” The κλῆσις καὶ 
 ἐκλογὴ 1S explained by Rosenm., the greatest benefit 
 
700 2 PETER, CHAP. I. 
 
 by which God, of his providence, hath brought us to 
 the Christian religion, and promised us eternal life, 
 if we perform our part. I have more than once illus- 
 trated the sense of the words, on Rom. 11, 5. and 
 elsewhere. In refutation of an erroneous exposition 
 of Mackn., it is remarked by Mr. Slade, that their 
 calling to eternal life was conditional; and thus 
 there seems no impropriety in the converts being 
 enjoined to make that calling sure and effectual. 
 They were, at that time, in a state of election; but 
 it was a state from which they might fall ; they were 
 elect only so long as they were careful to maintain 
 faith and good works. 
 
 Βέβαιον γίνεσθαι Rosenm. explains ratum frert. 
 Now these divine promises (says he) we ratify by 
 faith, and the practice of good works. The διὰ τῶν 
 καλῶν ἔργων added in some MSS. and Versions, 
 seems to be a mere scholium. - 
 
 10. ταῦτα γὰρ ποιοῦντες οὐ μὴ πταίσητέ πότε, “ If ye 
 do this, ye shall never fail, or your hope of salvation 
 be frustrated.” Such is, doubtless, the sense; and itis 
 strange that Carpz., and seemingly Rosenm., should 
 render the οὐ μὴ πταίσητε πότε, ““ ye will never sin in 
 future,” i. e. ye will be careful lest ye forfeit eternal 
 felicity by sin. This is harsh. 
 
 11. οὕτω yap πλουσίως---- Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ‘ For thus 
 will, most mercifully, be granted you an entrance 
 to,” &c. Πλουσίως, “of abundant goodness; as 
 Eph. 2, 4. and elsewhere. Ὁ the Classical exam- 
 ples of Schleus. Ladd Herod. 2, 44. ἰδὸν (ἱρὸν) πλου- 
 σίως κατεσκευασμένον. And in Livy we have opulenter 
 for abunde. ᾿Ἐπιχορήγηθήσεται, grant; as 2 Cor. 
 9, 10. 
 
 12. διὸ οὐκ ἀμελήσω---αληθείᾳ, “ Wherefore (as the 
 thing is so momentous) on this sense.” See Slade in 
 loc. ‘*I shall never cease,” &c. From ver. 18. to 
 3, 13. the Apostle exhorts them not to suffer them- 
 selves to be deceived by false teachers ; premising a 
 brief mention, ver. 1i—15. of the causes by which 
 he thought proper to again and again urge them to 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. I. 701 
 
 hold fast that part of pure doctrine which was by the 
 false teachers, not only corrupted, but even derided. 
 
 The καίπερ εἰδότας may apply, if not to all, yet to 
 the greater part of those whom he is addressing. 
 (Rosenm.) I would compare Appian Pun. 58. εἰδό- 
 τας ὑμᾶς ἀναμνήσω. The ἐστηριγμένους ἐν τῇ παρούση 
 ἀληθείᾳ may be an hypallage, signifying, “ though ye 
 are at present established in the truth.” By Ro- 
 senm. it is considered as a brief expression for “ are 
 established in the truth which ye have hitherto pro- 
 fessed.” But this seems incongruous. 
 
 13, 14. δικαίον δὲ ὑἡγοῦμιαι----ὁπομνήσει, “ I think it 
 right, while I am in this earthly tabernacle, to (thus) 
 stir you up by admonition.” Δίκαιον, right, meet. 
 A popular use. On σκηνώμ. see 2 Cor. 5.1. For this 
 word in the sense corpus humanum no Classical au- 
 thority has (I believe) been yet adduced. It occurs, 
 however, in Eurip. Heracl. 690. σμικρὸν τὸ σὸν σκή- 
 va, Where see Barnes. 
 
 14. εἰδὼς ὅτι ταχινὴ ἐστιν ἡ ἀπόθεσις τοῦ σκηνώματός 
 pov. These words are rightly regarded by Carpz. as 
 parenthetical. ‘‘ Knowing that speedy will be my 
 laying aside of my tabernacle.” ᾿Αποτιθ., Rosenm. 
 observes, is properly used of putting off clothes; but 
 is applied, per similitudinem, to striking a tent; a 
 term here, as often, used to denote the body. Hence 
 those out of the body are at 2 Cor. 5, 3. styled 
 γυμνοὶ... , 
 
 In the words καθὼς καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς 
 ἐδήλωσέ μοι, the Apostle alludes to his martyrdom, 
 which took place, it seems, the next year. He 
 plainly adverts to the words of our Lord recorded at 
 Joh. 21,18 and 19. But whether καθὼς will admit of 
 the sense in the manner which, as Benson renders it, 
 Idoubt. It is plain that Christ foretold to Peter his 
 martyrdom, as he also did to Paul. (See 2 Tim. 4, 
 6.) But the question is, whether these words of the 
 Apostle were founded on any fresh revelation as to 
 the speedy approach of that event? ‘This the an- 
 tients say was the case. But the point admits of no 
 
702 2 PETER, CHAP. I. 
 
 certain determination. See the conjectures of Bens. 
 
 It seems highly probable that he had; but it is pos- 
 
 sible that he had not, and the words, it is evident, may 
 explained upon another supposition. 
 
 5. σπουδάσω δὲ καὶ----ποιεῖσθαι. The δὲ is resump- 
 tive: ‘I will (I say) strive, that after my departure, 
 you may ever have to be mindful of these things.” 
 "Eyew is here used for δύνασθαι ; as often. 
 
 16. οὐ yap σεσοΦισμένοις μύθοις---παρουσίαν. On the 
 connection of this verse with the preceding see Bens. 
 and Pott. It is briefly remarked by Rosenm.: 
 ‘¢ Here are laid down the reasons why the doctrine 
 delivered by the Apostle is true.” Σεσοφισμένοις 
 μύθοις, fables craftily devised, and artfully dressed 
 up, like the sophisms of the Philosophers. Nume- 
 rous Classical citations are adduced by Wets., but 
 not quite apposite. The following will, I think, be 
 found so. Diod. Sic. 2, 133. ult. μύθους ἡγοῦνται πε- 
 πλασμένους Tas περὶ τῶν ᾿Αμαϑόνιδων ἀρχαιολογίας, and 
 2, 504, 24. where it is said that men in prosperity 
 are accustomed καταφρονεῖν τῷ Θεῴ ὡς μυθών πεπλασ- 
 μένων, where Wesseling replaces the old reading τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ. I conjecture τών Θείων. 
 
 The δύναμις καὶ παρουσία Rosenm. takes as an hen- 
 diadis for δυνάτη παρουσία; which, he thinks, the 
 words following require. The sense (he adds) is: 
 ‘* Jesus Christ lived on this earth, and in many won- 
 derful ways proved that he was the Son of God; and 
 this we do not press on your belief, by the use of 
 such fictitious stories and fables as the Gentile legis- 
 lators had recourse to, or other crafty persons.” 
 The δυν. καὶ παρ. advert to the second advent of 
 Christ in majesty, to take vengeance on those that 
 know not God, and obey not the Gospel. See the 
 note on 2,1. The ἐπόπται γενηθέντες τῆς ἐκείνου pe- 
 γαλειότητος refers to the transfiguration, more plainly 
 adverted to in what follows. ᾿Επόπται is a term de- 
 rived from the Classical writers, where it is used to 
 denote one admitted to view the mysteries. So that 
 it need not be considered, with Mr. Slade, as merely 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. I. 703 
 
 synonymous with αὐτόπται; but only the two forms 
 may be compared. See the notes of Elsn., Bens., and 
 Mack., or the extracts in Slade. 
 
 17. λαβὼν yap παρὰ Θεοῦ πατρὸς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν. 
 Here again we have the participle for the verb. 
 ‘* For he received honour and glory from God the 
 Father ;” namely, at his transfiguration. See Matt. 
 17, 5. Φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῶῷ---δόξης, “such a voice 
 from the exalted glory (i. e. from the glorious Jeho- 
 vah) being uttered over him, saying, This is,” &c. 
 On which see the note on Matt..17, 5. seqq. At 
 αὐτῷ must be understood ἐπὶ. Rosenm. compares 
 Ps. 145, 3. μεγαλοπρέπειν τῆς δόξης. 
 
 On ver. 18. see on Matt. 17, 5. and Mark 9, 2. 
 
 19. καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον. It 
 is debated what is the sense of τὸν προφητικὸν ; and 
 whether the comparative in βεβαιότερον has any force 
 or not. The latter will partly depend on the former, 
 which some interpret of the gift of prophecy in the 
 Christian Church. But the antients, and the most 
 judicious moderns (rightly) maintain that it refers to 
 the whole body of the prophetical predictions concern- 
 ing the Messiah inthe O.'T. (See Bp. Horsley’s 15th 
 Sermon, or an extract from it in Slade ; and also Grot., 
 Bens., and Wolf.) And this is ably supported by 
 Knapp Script. var. argum. p. 1. seqq. If such be 
 the true sense, the comparative must have its usual 
 force. Thus Rosenm. explains: ‘‘ The prophecies 
 had always a great authority with us; but now they 
 have a far greater; since we see events so aptly cor- 
 responding to the predictions.” So Wets.: ‘‘ Sermo 
 
 Provheticus nunc firmior est, postquam eventu com- 
 robatus lury  ,. 
 
 adds) the Greek Goin cvemmne ΘΕ ἘΠ Ὲ < (he 
 or the extract from him in Rosenm. po ane 
 19. ᾧ καλώς ποιεῖτε eh τς ‘ μὴ ᾧ δ ποθ ee 
 do well to attend. So Josep ἐν gcainerrer 
 1.) οἷς (γράμμασι Apayov) momo j 
 i φο ee ibid to prophecies Serie 
 tascam) is, to investigate and reflect upon th 
 
704 2 PETER, CHAP. I. 
 
 sense and fulfilment.” It must, however, also imply 
 a prompt faith in the word of God. ‘Qs λύχνῳ gai- 
 νοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷῴ τόπω. Paivoyrs is to be taken as the 
 participle imperfect ; for that is required by the past 
 tenses of the verbs following. Avyvw, a lantern or 
 watch-light (as opposed to the sun), which shows 
 objects but dimly, as the prophecies pointed the way 
 of salvation. Αὐχμηρῷῴῷ torw, “ a dim and dark 
 place.” Avy. signifies, properly, dirty, squalid ; an 
 idea which, as regards places, we continually con- 
 nect with that of darkness. And hence the term 
 comes to have that sense. So Hesych.: αὐχμηρόν 
 oxorwoes. And so, in Mich. 4, 8., the Sept. have 
 αὐχμώδης ; Aquila, cxorwdys ¢ and the Vulg. nebu- 
 losus. Eas οὗ ἡμέρα---καρδίαις ὑμῶν, “ until the day 
 or time (of clearer knowledge) arise, and the dog-star 
 arise in your hearts.” This sentence (and, indeed, 
 the whole of this beautiful passage) is strangely mis- 
 understood by several eminent Interpreters. No 
 one has better explained the sense than Rosenm., as 
 follows: “ On the arrival of the sun, whose messen- 
 ger is the morning-star, the resplendent day dispels 
 all the darkness, and obscures that candle. So also 
 the doctrine of Christ dispels the darkness of igno- 
 rance, and, in respect to clearness, far surpasses the 
 doctrine of the Prophets. On an attentive compa- 
 rison this difference will be very apparent, and the 
 mind will be illumined with divine light. For it will 
 be evident, that the predictions of the Prophets were 
 dictated by the Holy Spirit, since the events so ad- 
 mirably correspond to the sayings.” See also Mr. 
 Slade’s note. Wie 
 20. Touto πρῶτον Λα ΤΕΥ. — pee. Γ ae 1515 2 
 «uverpreted. The difficulty hino 
 diet evcitaiMien Y hinges on the rare word 
 y eminent Commentators 
 
 which, indeed, yields a good sense 
 
 deducible from ‘the words; » but is not fairly 
 
 insomuch that some, by 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. I. 705 
 
 whom this interpretation has been adopted, have re- 
 sorted to emendation, conjecturing ἐπελεύσεως or ἐπη- 
 λύσεως, Which would yield the required sense; but 
 for neither of these is there any authority. Greatly 
 preferable to this is the common rendering, ‘ of 
 private explanation or interpretation.”* A frequent 
 sense of ἐπίλυσις. And so ἐπιλύω, in the sense explain, 
 occurs elsewhere in Scripture. ‘This interpretation, 
 too, is adopted by some eminent Critics, and recently 
 by Schleus. Bp. Horsley (who has four Sermons on 
 this text) explains (nearly in the same way), ‘“ no 
 prophecy is of self-interpretation.”” See the Sermons 
 themselves, or an extract in Slade. Carpz. explains 
 προφητεία of Scripture in general. But that sense 
 cannot be admitted, since the context evidently leads 
 us to prophecy. Rosenm. and Jaspis explain: “ no 
 prophecy can be expounded of itself, or by itself, nor 
 understood without comparing together the prophecy 
 and its event or completion, by the aid of history.” 
 Which is very true; but not, I think, the truth in- 
 tended by the Apostle ; since it is agreeable to what 
 follows: and this interpretation varies so entirely 
 from the second mentioned one, that it cannot (as 
 Mr. Slade supposes it may) be united with it. The 
 one above adopted has been, of late, ably defended 
 and illustrated by Knapp, ubi supra, and Rosenm. 
 acknowledges that thus the verse will connect with 
 the following. 
 
 91. οὐ yap θελήματι ἀνθρώπου ἠνέχθη---ἄνθρωποι, 
 ‘* For prophecy was never uttered by the will of 
 man, but the holy men of God spoke as they were 
 moved by the Holy Spirit.” ᾿Ηνέχθη, brought for- 
 
 * It is thus expressed by Mr. Slade : ‘* Prophecy gave no light to 
 the age in which it was delivered, and therefore was a lamp shining 
 in a dark place ; and let this be impressed upon you, that prophecy 
 was so entirely and exclusively designed for the benefit of future 
 ages, that its import was not always fully understood even by the 
 prophet himself, who was aware that his words were often inappli- 
 cable to the people immediately addressed (1 Pet. 1,11 ἃ 12.), and. 
 uttered them not from the suggestions or persuasions of his own 
 mind, but from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.” 
 
 VOL. VIII. 27 
 
706 2 PETER, CHAP. I. Il. 
 
 ward. The οἱ in οἱ ἅγιοι is omitted in some MSS., 
 and bracketed by Vater, but wrongly (I think) since 
 it bears the stamp of genuineness. ‘The title éy. 
 Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπ. was commonly given to the Prophets. 
 Φερόμενοι, carried away, inspired. Which (notwith- 
 standing what Rosenm. says) throws light on the 
 nature of inspiration. See Mackn. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 VeRSE 1. éyevovro—aaw. This connects well with 
 the preceding; showing that not all are prophets 
 who call themselves such ; many falsely assume the 
 name. The Apostle, therefore, now turns from true 
 prophets to false teachers. (Rosenm.) See the co- 
 pious explanation, by Benson, of the contents of this 
 Chapter, and the useful introductory remarks of 
 Slade from Sherlock, Benson, Paley, and Doddr. 
 
 1, ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ Wevdorpopyrai—amwaeiay, “ There 
 were, however, also false prophets among the (Is- 
 raelitish) people ; thus also will there be among you 
 false teachers, who shall introduce pernicious here- 
 sies, even denying the Lord that purchased them 
 (with his own blood); bringing thereby on them- 
 selves rapid destruction.” 
 
 As to the persons meant by these false teachers, 
 and the nature of their opinions, there has been much 
 debate. ‘The common opinion is, that they were 
 Nicolaitans, or Gnostics (persons who conjoined the 
 Oriental philosophy with the Christian religion). 
 But this has been convincingly refuted by Tittman 
 de Vestigiis Gnostic. &c. Yet it is observed by 
 Rosenm., that though the name Gnostics was not 
 known in those times, yet the dogmas of those who, 
 in the second century, were called Gnostics, might 
 be known and disseminated, Others take them to 
 have been Judaizers, who (like the Montanistee and 
 Sibyllistee of the second and third centuries), aban- 
 doning the true doctrine, feigned oracles against the 
 Roman government, and promised a new theatre of 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. II. 707 
 
 pleasure to their votaries. ‘These (I would observe) 
 seem to have commenced with being fanatics, and 
 ended with being hypocrites and knaves: and many 
 opinions of the Mahomedan system seem to have 
 been partly derived from that impure source. That 
 their tenets were most pernicious, appears from the 
 strong language of the Apostle at ver. 10. 
 Παρεισάξουσιν, ““ shall clandestinely introduce, 
 * ” 
 smuggle in. 
 
 This and the ἔσονται Storr understands not so much of prediction, 
 properly so called, as argumentantis, or consuetudinis; as appears 
 (he thinks) from the historical description which follows. But the 
 consuetudo cannot well be thought of; and though the other may 
 be tolerated, yet it is precarious and unnecessary. Aipéces ἀπω- 
 λείας, i.e. pernicious and sectarian errors. On aip. I have before 
 treated. Kai τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι. On 
 these words Commentators are not quite agreed. Some explain the 
 δεσπότην οὗ God. See Whitby, Bens., and Mackn., or Slade. But 
 this is very harsh. It is far more natural to take it of Christ; as, 
 indeed, the ἀγοράσ. requires; and the term δεσπ. differs scarcely at 
 all from Κύριος. It is truly observed, too, by Pott, that the passages 
 of the Old Testament, cited by Wets. and Benson, to establish the 
 other interpretation, are of quite another kind. (See more in his 
 note.) On what is meant by denying Christ as their Lord we are 
 left somewhat in the dark, owing to a want of historical testimony. 
 It cannot denote utterly denying his Messiahship, any more than, 
 according to Pott’s interpretation, denying Christ to be a Redeemer, 
 for that would be equivalent to denying him to be the Messiah ; 
 neither will the construction of the words permit this. As to the 
 sense proposed by Rosenm., “ not sincerely worshipping Christ,” it 
 is too vague and feeble. There seems to be here a provincial brevity 
 of diction; and the sense is probably this: ‘* denying him who pur- 
 chased them (i.e. their Redeemer) to be their Lord.” Storr and 
 Rosenm., conjecture that the controversy was “ de imperio Christi.” 
 It should seem that, from a misinterpretation of the words of the 
 Apostle, they stumbled at the descriptions of the majesty of Jesus 
 Christ and the ineffable glory of his second advent; and regarded 
 the account of the Apostles on that subject as a fable devised to hold 
 the disciples in subjection. Now this may possibly have been the 
 case; but, if so, they must have denied the proper deity of Jesus 
 Christ ; and they probably held opinions not very different from those 
 which afterwards generated Arianism and Socinianism; and there- 
 fore I must maintain that this text may, with great propriety, be 
 adduced in controversy with persons professing such tenets. Now 
 with this denial of the δεσποτεία of Christ was, as we learn from 
 what follows (and this, indeed, we might expect), conjoined an im- 
 patience of any government, and the vices allied to such a restless 
 
 spirit. 
 ZZ2 
 
708 2 PETER, CHAP. 11. 
 
 ᾿Απωλείαν does not, perhaps, mean perdition, but rather κρῖμα, 
 condemnation, and consequently punishment. So in the next verse 
 κρῖμα and ἀπωλεία are used in a parallelism, as synonymous. And 
 of some not dissimilar persons St. Paul (Rom. 13, 2.) says: οἱ δὲ 
 ἀνεστηκότες ἐαυτοῖς κρῖμα λήψονται. 
 
 2. καὶ πολλοὶ ἐξακολουθήσουσιν αὐτῶν ταῖς ἀπωλείαις. 
 Many MSS., Versions, and Fathers read ἀσελγείαις, 
 which is received by the recent Editors; but (I 
 think) on very precarious grounds. One may ima- 
 gine why ἀπωλ. should be changed into aceay.; but 
 not vice versa. ‘That the term doer. was very ap- 
 plicable to the persons in question, must be acknow- 
 ledged ; and it seems to be more agreeable to what 
 follows, the sense of which is, “ on account of which 
 the Christian religion (for that is what is meant by 
 the way of truth) wiil be evil spoken of, and regarded 
 as false.” I would compare Joseph. 1078, 5. ἀπισο- 
 τίαν τὴς ἀληθείας κατέχεεν, “he scattered a disbelief 
 even of truth; he made even truth to be disbelieved.” 
 Whether the persons in question were Judaizers, or 
 Gnostics, or Carpocratians, the words will equally 
 hold good. See Irenzeus, cited by Pott. 
 
 8. kal ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ πλαστοῖς λόγοις ὑμᾶς ἐμπορεύ- 
 σονται, ‘* And through covetousness, they will make 
 a mere gain of you (i. 6. of teaching you), and hawk 
 about such doctrines, as merchandize.” Mackn. 
 here recognizes a prediction respecting the Romish 
 Priests. Be that as it may, the words have been 
 made good in them. The Apostle (I conceive) 
 rather looks forward not so much to any particular 
 persons, as to those perversions and abuses of the 
 Gospel of which, from the corruption of human na- 
 ture, its teachers in every age would furnish lament- 
 able examples. 3 
 
 3. πλαστοῖς Adyos. Of πλάττειν λόγους Wets. ad- 
 duces two examples from Plato and Artemid.* Now 
 these 7a. Ady. consisted of speeches and doctrines 
 
 * [ add Eurip. Bacch, 199. πλασταῖσι βακχείαισιν. 5:55 p.70, 
 8. λόγοις πεπλασμένοις---ἀξιώσει πιστεύειν ὑμᾶς, ABschin. 31, 41. 
 πρᾶγμα λέγων πεπλασμένον, 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. II. 709 
 
 devised ad captandum, and adapted to the corrup- 
 tions of human nature, by representing (as most 
 Commentators suppose) the Christian freedom to be 
 a license for doing what they pleased. 
 
 In the next words οἷς τὸ κρίμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ, 
 καὶ 4 ἀπώλεια αὐτῶν οὐ νυστάϑει, the pen of the Apostle 
 seems dipped in gall; but the language is justified 
 by the occasion; and it is not tobe explained away, 
 and handled in the tasteless manner it is done by 
 Potts, who, however, on the νυστάϑει aptly cites 
 Eurip. Hee. 662. odror’ ἐνδει λυπρὰ σου κηρύγματα. 
 The wor. is indeed put for xpovigera:. So Adschyl. 
 Theb. 54. καὶ τῶνδε πύστις οὐκ ὄκνῳ yoovigerasr. The 
 term ἔκπαλαι is disapproved of by the Greek gram- 
 marians, but used by many good authors. See Pott. 
 None of the Commentators here remark on the 
 change from the future to the present tense, by 
 which the Apostle figures himself as present at the 
 time when the abuses shall arise, and denounces the 
 punishment as of old reserved for such deceivers. 
 
 4. Now follows the reason why these false teachers 
 are punished by God, namely, since God always 
 visits sin with punishment, and piety and virtue with 
 reward; and this is shown by the examples which 
 follow. In ver. 4—8. is contained the protasis ; and 
 in ver. 9 and 10. the apodosis. 
 
 Bi yap ὁ Θεὸς ἀγγέλων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, * For if (as we learn) the 
 Lord spared not even the angels, that were disobedient and rebelled 
 against him.” Compare Jude 6. ᾿Αλλὰ σειραῖς ξόφου ταρταρώσας 
 παρέδωκεν eis κρίσιν τετηρημένου. Many MSS. read τηρουμένους. 
 By the σειραῖς @dfov Rosenm. understands places whose darkness 
 held the prisoners, as it were, encaged, and with chains. And he 
 refers to Sap. 17, (17) 18. ἀλύσει σκότους ἐδέθησαν. Schleus. too, 
 after explaining σείραι ξόφου, as put for σείραι ξοφῶδεῖς, cites from 
 Apulej. tenebras arctissimas ; and refers to Hoelzl. on Ap. Rhod. 
 1, 218. It is strange none of the Commentators should have 
 thought of Herod. 5,77. where, in an Athenian inscription in the 
 Acropolis, it is said of captives held in fetters: Δεσμῷ ἐν ἀχλυοέντι 
 σιδηρέῳ ἐσβεσαν ὕβριν. So also Hschyl. Agam. 1631. 6 δυσφιλὴς 
 σκότῳ λίμος ξύνοικος. With which I would compare a similar ele- 
 gance of Burns: 
 
 «Then age and want, O ill-matched pair, 
 Show man was made to mourn.” 
 
710 2 PETER, CHAP. II. 
 
 In some MSS, ϑόφου is omitted; but that is to avoid the difficulty ; 
 and the common reading is confirmed by a kindred passage of 
 Jude 6. 
 
 Terapwoas, “ hurled them down to hell.” Every one will bring 
 to mind the sublime description of Milton, Parad. Lost. Taprapos 
 (plur. τάρταρα) is a word found in Homer and Hesiod, and signifies 
 the lowest and darkest pit in the universe.* It is needless to enter 
 into a description of what the antients figured to themselves under 
 this notion. Suffice it to say, that the Apostle employs it as a most 
 forcible adumbration of misery the most deplorable and hopeless. 
 Rosenm. observes, that all along is to be supplied the consequence, 
 “80 then neither will God spare others.” See Pole’s Syn., Whitby, 
 and Mackn., or Slade. 
 
 5. καὶ ἀρχαίου κόσμου οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλ᾽ ὄγδοον Nwe 
 δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα. ἐφύλαξε. ‘The ὄγδ. Noe signifies, 
 «¢ Noah, and seven others.” An idiom found in the 
 best writers from Herodotus and Thucydides down- 
 wards. Though it is usual to add the pronoun 
 αὑτὸς. Such is the only explanation that can well 
 be admitted. See Whitby, Hamm., and Rosenm. 
 The most apposite passage cited is that from Polyb. 
 16, 2. (by Raphael), τρίτος αὐτὸς 6 Διονυσιδωρος avev- 
 néaro. Now Noah is called a κηρὺξ δικαιοσύνης, be- 
 cause he did his utmost to recall men from the error 
 of their ways to a life of piety and virtue. See Hebr. 
 11, 7. 
 
 ΚΚόσμυ ἀσεβών, “ the world consisting of ungodly 
 persons.” For all but Noah’s family were such. 
 
 6. καὶ πόλεις---κατέκρινε. Καταστροφῇ κατέκρινεν 
 is well explained by Rosenm., “condemned them 
 to an overthrow ;” as κατέκρ. αὐτὸν θανάτω, in Mark 
 10, 33. and elsewhere. Others render, * punished 
 them with an overthrow.” But that would be too 
 harsh. 1 εφρώσας, “ burning to a cinder.” So Philo 
 369. (cited by Loesner), ἡμέρᾳ μιᾷ αἱ μὲν εὐανδροῦται 
 πόλεις τάφος τῶν οἰκητόρων ἐγεγένηντο, αἱ δ᾽ ἐκ λίθων καὶ 
 ϑύλων κατασκευαὶ τεφρὰ καὶ λεπτὴ κόνις. 
 
 * Of its origin the etymologists seem perfectly ignorant. (See 
 Lannep. Etym.) I suspect it to be an intensive reduplication of the 
 very old word tar, which in the earliest dialects seem to have signi- 
 fied dark; and indeed our term far appears to be derived froma 
 common source, 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. 11. 711 
 
 Ὑπόδειγμα, ‘an exemplar of the fate which the 
 wicked may expect.” See Loesner and Hypke, and 
 also Slade. 
 
 7. καὶ δίκαιον---ἐῤῥύσατος Δίκαιον, gust, as com- 
 pared with the rest. The construction is: Kkara- 
 πονούμενον ὑπὸ τῆς ἀναστροφῆς τών ἀθέσμων ἐν ἀσελγείᾳ. 
 Καταπονεῖσθαι is nearly synonymous with βασανί- 
 ϑεσθαι. ᾽᾿Αθεσμος is rarely used of persons. It here 
 signifies exlex, a despiser of all laws. The term is 
 applied to these, because they did not live after that 
 primeval law, partly of nature and partly of tradi- 
 tion, with which they were favoured. (Rosenm.) 
 
 8. βλέμματι γὰρ---ἐβασάνιϑεν. The construction 
 is: ὃ γὰρ δίκαιος ἐγκατοικῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς, ἐβασάνιϑε βλέμ.- 
 ματι καὶ ἀκοῇ, ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας, ψυχὴν δικαίαν, ἀνόμοις 
 ἔργοις. Βασανίϑειν is here used in a figurative sense. 
 Here again is to be supplied the consequence: “ If 
 God liberated those persons from afflictions, he can 
 liberate us also.” (Rosenm.) 
 
 9. οἷδε ΙΚυριος---πηρεῖν. It is well observed by 
 Whitby, that God’s knowledge here, as often, in- 
 cludes his power and will. And indeed this is found 
 in common phraseology. Teacup. must here de- 
 note calamities for their trial and probation. The 
 κολαξομιένους is said tobe for the future κολασθησο- 
 μένους. ‘The sense may be thus expressed: ‘‘ who 
 are to be punished.” It is observed by Rosenm., 
 that by one remarkable example a general sentiment 
 is inferred, namely, that the wicked will assuredly 
 be punished, in whatever that punishment may con- 
 sist. And Whitby well observes, that the evils the 
 wicked suffer in this life will not exempt them from 
 punishment in the life to come. See also Slade. 
 
 10. μάλιστα δὲ τοὺς ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασ- 
 μοῦ mopevop.evovs. ἹΠορεύεσθαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς, like the 
 parallel expression in Jude 7. (ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρ- 
 Kos ἑτέρας), signifies all uncleanness, both fornication 
 and adultery. ᾿Εν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμιοῦ, “in the lust of 
 defilement and pollution.” The first chapter of the 
 Epistle to the Romans is the best commentary on 
 
G12 2 PETER, CHAP. II. 
 
 this passage. apé, in the sense in which it is here 
 used, is rare in the Classical writers; but it occurs 
 in Max. Tyr. D. 26, 5. 11, 21. ἐπὶ σαρκῶν ἡδονὰς 
 ouvrerapevos. and infr. ἃ 7. οἰόμενος ἐν τῇ σαρκῶν Φύσει 
 κατορωρύχθαι τὸ καλὸν. and 11, 81. ἐφ᾽ ὕβριν σαρκών. 
 
 Κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας, ““ despising (all autho- 
 rity of) magistrates.” Abstract for concrete. Then, 
 by a sort of climax, the Apostle subjoins : roapyral, 
 αὐθάδες, δόξας οὐ τρέμουσι βλασῷημοῦντες. Here Bens., 
 Pott, and Rosenm. subaud ὄντες. The sense is: 
 ‘“‘ daring and self-willed as they are, they scruple 
 not to speak evil even of rulers in high stations, 
 nay, in the most exalted.” Such is by the best 
 Commentators regarded as the sense. On τολμ. 
 and dv. see Pott or Schleus., to whose examples I 
 add Thucyd. 1, 70. καὶ παρὰ δύναμιν τολμηταὶ παρὰ 
 γνώμην κινδυνευταὶ, where I shall have many similar 
 passages to cite. 
 
 11. ὅπου ἄγγελοι, &c., “ Whereas angels, though 
 far superior in strength and power, bring not a rail- 
 ing accusation against them (i. e. those of their 
 body, the bad angels), at the tribunal of the Lord.” 
 Most Commentators by αὐτών understand the magz- 
 strates, or bad. But I see not how that can be ad- 
 mitted: and it is well observed by Bens., that as it 
 is a rule of interpretation that the plainer and larger 
 account of any thing should be taken to explain 
 what is more brief and obscure, so this may very 
 well be explained from Jude 9., and if so, the other 
 interpretation is the true one. See Bens., and com- 
 pare the passages. And see also the note of Slade. 
 
 12. οὗτοι δὲ---καταφθαρήσονται. By the ἄλογα goa 
 are meant such as, like the animals devoid of reason, 
 follow their sensual appetites. ‘The εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ 
 φθορὰν is (I conceive) a clause forming an epithet of 
 2oa; and the sense is: ‘‘ whose sole end of creation 
 is the good of man, namely, to be taken and slaugh- 
 tered for food (according to Gen. 1.), or because the 
 good of man requires that they should be destroyed.” 
 Φυσικὰ is variously explained. By some, thus: 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. II. 713 
 
 ‘* natural (i. 6. naturally) brute beasts.” And this is 
 supported by the passage of Jude. But I prefer, 
 with Cicumen., of the antients, and most recent 
 Commentators, to point: ws ἄλογα ϑώα, φυσικὰ, ye- 
 γεννημένα, &c., i.e. such as follow the impetus of 
 sense, and are devoid of reason. 
 
 12. ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦσι βλασφημοῦντες, 1. 6. βλασφημ.. 
 ταὐτὰ τὰ πράγματα ἐν οἷς ayy. The ἐν corresponds to 
 the ΗΘ». 3. On the sense of the words the recent 
 Commentators variously speculate. See Storr in 
 loco, or as cited by Rosenm. ᾽ν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτών 
 
 καταφθαρήσονται. A fine antithetical expression, of 
 
 which the sense is: ‘ they shall perish for (or be- 
 cause) and by their own corrupt practices.” 
 13. κομιούμιενοι μισθὸν ἀδικίας. 
 
 A bitter sarcasm. This must be closely connected with the pre- 
 ceding ; and the sense is: ‘‘ Thus they shall receive the reward of 
 their unrighteousness.” For examples of this sense of μισθὸς I refer 
 to Herod. 3, 15. ἃ 8, 90, Plut. 1, 705. and Soph. Antig. 814. On 
 the participle κομιούμενοι is, as if it were a verb, suspended another, 
 which, together with the words following, seems to show the reason 
 why they shall thus suffer, and in which the Apostle, with great 
 spirit, resumes the charges just before made. 
 
 Ἔν ἡμέρᾳ. This is variously interpreted. Some, as Pott, Ro- 
 senm., and Schleus., take it (by an ellipsis of ἐκάστῃ) for daily. Est. 
 and Grot., ad breve tempus. But it is justly remarked by Slade, that 
 the former would require καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ; and the latter, eis ἡμέραν 
 (ἐφ᾽ ἡμέραν, he means). I should not, however, rest much upon 
 minute exceptions of this kind (since ἡδονὴν ἡγούμενοι, and many 
 other expressions of the Apostle, would be’vainly sought in the Clas- 
 sical writers), but that I conceive the sense (as Mr. Slade has shown) 
 arising from both the above interpretations, is very inferior to that 
 which the common one yields (in which I must acquiesce), namely, 
 in the day-time. And this is defended by Rom. 13, 12 & 13. 1 Thess. 
 5, 7., and by what we know of the manners and customs of the East 
 in every age; for (as Rosenm. says) drunkenness in the day-time is 
 seldom committed in the hot countries of the East (see Wets.). 
 And (I would add) about sunset the chief meal is made, to intemper- 
 ance in which, indeed, the τρυφὴν seems rather to point; but the 
 ἡ δον. may as well admit the othersense. I find, too, in Plut. Arat. 6. 
 ἡδονὰς καὶ πύτους μεθημερίνους mentioned as areproach. It is pos- 
 sible, too, that the Apostle might also have in view the ὀπίσω σαρκὸς 
 ἐν τῆ ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πορευομένους, supra, ver. 10, Thus, among: 
 the reproaches with which Demosthenes overwhelms his great rival 
 orator, we,find de Corona ὃ. μ. ἡ μητὴρ cou τοῖς μεθημερινοῖς γάμοις 
 ἐν τῇ κλισίᾳ χρωμένη. 
 
714 2 PETER, CHAP. II. 
 
 The Apostle thus proceeds, σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι, “ they are spots and 
 blemishes,” i. e. a scandal to the Christian profession. Abstract for 
 concrete. Judesays σπιλάδες, Σπῖλος signifies astain ; and μῶμος 
 imports what we call an eye-sore, or blemish, literally, what a pur- 
 chaser wonld find fault with. (See Benson.) 
 
 13. ἐντρυφῶντες ἐν Tals ἀπάταις αὐτῶν, συνευωχού- 
 μενοι ὑμῖν. This is a somewhat obscure sentence, 
 and variously interpreted. or ἀπάταις some, with 
 a very few MSS., would read ayarais. And this 
 seems to be countenanced by the passage of Jude: 
 but there is so little authority for it, and it has so 
 much the air of an emendation, that the soundest 
 Critics reject it, retaining the ararais. ‘The words 
 are explained, by some recent Commentators (in- 
 cluding Elsner and Rosenm.), of the wanton artifices 
 by which these persons sought to seduce the women 
 they found at the love-feasts to their base purposes. 
 (See Rosenm.) And this is supported by an antient 
 Scholiast ap. Matth., as also by Cucumen.; and is 
 somewhat countenanced by the verse following. 
 But, as Pott observes, that sense cannot fairly be 
 elicited from the words. And he, in conjunction 
 with Schleus., explains: “ oblectantes se in frau- 
 dibus suis et dolis, quibus utuntur ad alios decipien- 
 dos, et pecunia commungendos.” But this is too 
 bold, and is little agreeable to the context. Mr. 
 Slade interprets: ** Committing excess, when they 
 feast with you, by means of their deceits and impos- 
 ture.” This I am not sure that I understand. 
 Upon the whole, since the interpretation of Elsner is 
 supported by the antients, and quite agreeable to 
 the context, it must not (I think) be rejected on 
 account of any petty exceptions to the phraseology. 
 For the ὑμῖν, which, Pott says, is required, may be 
 understood from the ὑμῖν in the next clause. 
 
 14. ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες μεστοὺς μοιχαλίδος, Kal ἀκατα- 
 παύστους ἁμαρτίας, ““ Having eyes full of (and gloting 
 on) the adulteress, and that never cease from lasci- 
 viousness or wanton imaginations.” See Benson and 
 Doddr., partly from whom Rosenm. explains: ‘* Qui 
 oculos habent plenos adultera, sunt impuri homines, 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. II. 715 
 
 qui ex adulterz prasentis intuitu oculos pascunt, ἡ 
 absentis imaginem quasi vivam et nunquam evanes- 
 centem in oculis ferunt, adeoque fervore quodam 
 atque furore libidinis correpti sunt.”* For ἀκατα- 
 παύστους some MSS. have ἀκατάπαυστα. But that 
 is a mere emendation. The general sentiment is 
 well expressed by Benson thus: They are men of 
 insatiable lust: and in their eyes we might have 
 read the lasciviousness of their hearts. 
 
 14. δελεάϑοντες ψυχὰς ἀστηρίκτους, “ laying baits 
 for unstable minds (i.e. persons not confirmed in 
 Christian truth and practice) to draw them into 
 error and lead them into vice.” 
 
 Now to these the Apostle subjoins another trait, 
 which bears great affinity to luxury and lascivious- 
 ness, namely, covetousness ; and this is expressed in 
 the strongest terms, even ‘‘ a heart exercised with 
 insatiable avarice,’ which indicates a deep-rooted 
 and settled habit. I would compare Joseph. 1246, 
 11. γυμνάϑοντες τὴν ἀπόνοιαν. 
 
 The Apostle then indignantly adds: κατάρας τέκνα ! 
 by which are denoted persons the most execrable. 
 
 15. καταλιπόντες τὴν εὐθεῖαν ὁδὸν, “© After they 
 have deserted the true religion, the way which the 
 Apostles have pointed out.” Acts 13,10. This is 
 introductory to the comparison which follows. 
 
 ᾿Επλανήθησαν, ἐξακολουθήσαντες τῇ 600 τοῦ Βα- 
 λαὰμ, τοῦ Βοσὸρ. ‘The force of the comparison rests 
 in this, that as Balaam counselled the Moabites to 
 entice the Israelites to illicit connection with their 
 women, and thus lead them into idolatry, and draw 
 on them the heavy punishment of God, so these 
 
 * Here Wets. cites Timeus ap. Longin. p. 20. τὴν ἀνεψιὰν ἑτέρῳ 
 δοθεῖσαν---ὡρπάσαντα ἀπαλθεῖν, ὅ τις ἂν ἐποίησε ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς κόρας, 
 μὴ πόρνας ἔχων; Ladd Max. Tyr. Diss. 26, 11, 25. ὦ λίχνου ἐρωτος 
 καὶ ἀδίκων ἐγυπυιων καὶ ὀφθαλμῶν πονηρῶν" & infra ὃ. 8. ὅταν οἱ 
 ὀφθαλμοὶ λιχνώωσιν. Soph. Tr. 548. ὧν ἀφαρπάξειν φιλεῖ ὀφθαλμὸς 
 ἄνθος. Propert. 2, 12, 12. oculi sunt in amore duces. See also 
 Eurip, Hipp. 525. 
 
716 2 PETER, CHAP. Il. 
 
 false teachers, by giving Christians a licence to com- 
 mit immorality, namely, for the purpose of gratifyin 
 their own avarice, in like manner called forth the 
 severe castigation of God. Such is the view taken 
 by most Commentators. Perhaps, however, Peter 
 had regard only to the avarice of Balaam, like whom 
 these false teachers, for the purpose of gratifying 
 that base passion, make a gain of the Gospel in the 
 way above-mentioned. (Rosenm.) I cannot but 
 prefer the common and more extensive sense, since 
 that seems to be required by the force of the words 
 themselves, and the circumstances of Balaam’s case 
 (on which see Whitby and Mackn.). Tor though 
 we know nothing as to his immorality, yet avarice 
 tempted him to commit a base violation of his duty 
 as a Prophet, just as in the case of these false 
 teachers, avarice and sensuality tempted them to 
 falsify the Gospel, that they might make it the more 
 productive of gain to expend on their own lusts. 
 
 Βοσὸρ is thought to be a corruption of Βεωρ. See 
 Grot. and Light., as also Rosenm. and Mackn. Ὃς 
 μισθὸν ἀδικίας ἠγαπησεν, who was fond of gain even 
 at the price of unrighteousness.”  Rosenm. thinks it 
 doubtful whether he received the gifts brought by 
 the messengers or not; for that is not directly af- 
 firmed in Scripture. But, from the character of the 
 man, there can be no doubt but that he did; and 
 this. the. Jewish Interpreters, from Josephus and 
 Philo downwards, have always taken for granted, 
 and to it Peter evidently refers. See Whitby, who 
 compares Deut. 23, 5. and Nehem. 13, 2. 
 
 10. ἔλεγξιν δὲ ἔσχεν----παραφρονίαν, “ But he had a 
 rebuker of his iniquity ; for the dumb beast, speak- 
 ing with the voice of a man, checked the mad folly 
 of the Prophet.” At ὑποϑύγιον must be understood 
 κτῆνος or Swov, Angl. a pack-horse, or ass, a beast of 
 burden, and sometimes a horse generally: but, as 
 Grot. observes, ὑποϑυγ. is always used in the Sept. to 
 denote an ass or mule; for horses Judea did not 
 
2 PETER. CHAP. II. TF 
 
 produce. On the miracle itself, at which infidels 
 and sceptics have so unreasonably stumbled, this is 
 no place to treat. 
 
 Ilapadpoviay is, I suspect, an idiotical or provincial 
 term for παραφρόνησιν or παραφροσύνην. It must not 
 be too rigorously interpreted, but, like ἄνοια in the 
 Classical writers, taken to denote extreme folly. 
 Nay, in this sense, even μονία occurs in Dionys. Hal. 
 1, 438,11. Seealso Ecclesiast. 9, 3. And we often 
 use similar words in a mild sense. ‘Though the blind 
 and infatuated folly of Balaam throughout this whole 
 transaction, and his thus opposing the Divine will, 
 were little less than madness. 
 
 17. οὗτοί εἰσι πηγαὶ ἄνυδροι, “ These teachers and 
 preachers are wells without water,” i.e. they grie- 
 vously disappoint the expectation of all who seek 
 the refreshment of gospel truth. «“ They pretended 
 (observes Benson) to be fountains of deeper know- 
 ledge and greater purity than any others; but, when 
 aman came thirsting after truth and righteousness, 
 how great must be his disappointment when he found 
 nothing but emptiness and vanity.” In this compa- 
 rison (adds he) is pointed out their ostentation and 
 hypocrisy. ‘They made a show of something profit- 
 able and refreshing ; but it was only a mere show. 
 They were altogether empty and unprofitable: all 
 appearance, but no reality.” See also Mackn. 
 
 17. νεφέλαι ὑπὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμιενοι. Tor νεφέλαι 
 (which, however, occurs in Jude 12.), many MSS., 
 Versions, Editions, and Fathers, have ὀμίχλαι. “ Now 
 ὀμίχλαι (says Rosenm.) are condensed clouds, and 
 therefore very dark, yet not yielding rain.” And 
 this (if it be not an emendation) seems more appro- 
 priate. For as black clouds excite a greater expec- 
 tation of rain, so when they yield none, the disap- 
 pointment isthe greater. ‘The comparison intended 
 is plain. See Benson. 
 
 The denunciation then uttered against them is 
 truly awful, and the terms expressive of it most sub- 
 lime. Σκότου is meant (the Commentators say) to 
 
718 2 PETER, CHAP. II. 
 
 increase the signification of ϑόφου, i. 6. it is for ϑόφος ὁ 
 σκοτεινώτατος. Pott» compares the terms χθόνος πέδον 
 συμφορὰ πάθους, and cenum luti. The god. is used, 
 as at ver. 4. (and also Jude 6 & 13.), to denote tar- 
 tarus, or hell, And so Homer, cited by Schleus. 
 Lex.: τάρταρον ἠερόεντα, Sogov rep. It is observed, 
 by Rosenm., that the punishments of the other world 
 were adumbrated not only under the image of burn- 
 ing, but utter darkness; as Matt. 8, 12. 22, 13. 
 25, 30. 
 
 18. ὑπέρογκα γὰρ ματαιότητος φθεγγόμενοι. Here 
 (18 & 12.) we have the sentiment at ver. 17. further 
 enlarged on, and the Apostle passes on from the 
 metaphorical to the natural mode of expression. 
 (Pott.) The words of this verse are well paraphrased 
 by Benson thus: “ They, in high-sounding words, 
 and lofty, unmeaning phrases, make vain, boasting, 
 and arrogant pretences to a more thorough and sub- 
 lime knowledge of religion, than the true Apostles 
 and Prophets: but, by preaching such doctrines as 
 give indulgence to the lusts of the flesh, that is, to 
 lasciviousness, they lay a bait for those who, by em- 
 bracing Christianity, were thoroughly reformed, and 
 had escaped from such as still continue to live in the 
 error of idolatry and vice.’ (See his notes.) On 
 ὑπέρογκα. examples are adduced by Wets.; but not 
 such as are apposite. I would add the following. 
 Aristoph. Ran. 971. who calls the diction of A‘schyl. 
 οἰδοῦσαν ὑπὸ κομπασμάτων Kal ῥημάτων ἐπαχθῶν. Po- 
 lyeen. 749. 5. f. οὐ μόνον ἐξαρνος οὐκ ἦν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι καὶ 
 πλείονα ὄγκον προστιθεὶς. The genitive ματαιότητος is 
 (by Hebraism) for the cognate adjective. Ἂν ἐπιθυ- 
 μίαις is not (as some say) for εἰς ἐπτθ., but the ἐν sig- 
 nifies, like the Hebr. 3, by, through. ᾿Ασελγεία is 
 exegetical of the preceding. For ὄντως some very 
 few MSS. and afew Versions read ὀλίγως. And this 
 is approved by some Critics. But the word is 
 hardly found any where else, and can scarcely admit 
 of the sense viv, which they assign to it. I suspect 
 the reading to have originated in a mere error by 
 
Q PETER, CHAP. II. 719 
 
 mistake of the letters in the uncial characters, in 
 which the words are strikingly similar. Thus 
 ὌΝΤΩΣ," ΟΛΙΓΩΣ,. Certainly ὄντος is far more apt. 
 Mr. Slade thinks it was an intentional alteration. 
 And he ingeniously accounts for it. (See his note.) 
 
 19. ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπαγγελλόμενοι, 1. 6. “ They 
 held out to them both religious liberty, or a license 
 to do what they pleased, without fear of Him who is 
 invisible ; representing that true knowledge or right 
 faith would excuse defects in practice ; and political 
 liberty, pretending that the civil magistrates had 
 nothing to do with them.” See more in Whitby and 
 Benson. Now this, it is said, they did, being all the 
 while δοῦλοι τῆς φθορᾶς, 1. 6. enslaved to corruption, 
 and therefore little able to teach true liberty. Φϑορὰ 
 is here usedasat1,4. “Q γὰρ τις ἥττηται; τούτῳ καὶ 
 δεδούλωται. ‘The sense here is plain, and is the same 
 as at Joh. 8, 34. and Rom. 6, 16. where see the 
 notes. Pott thinks this has the air of a proverb. 
 Ἡττᾶσθαι τινι is for ἡττάσθαι ὑπὸ tivos,—a sort of 
 Latinism. See on this subject a fine passage of Cow- 
 per’s Task, Β. 5., commencing with: “ He is the free 
 man whom the truth makes free,” and ending with: 
 * Whom God delights in, and in whom he dwells.” 
 See also Mackn. or Slade. 
 
 20. εἰ yap ἀποφυγόντες---πρώτων. ‘The sense is 
 plainly that, now having become Christians, they are 
 amenable to a severer punishment for vice than if 
 they had continued Heathens. He that knew his 
 Lord’s will, and did it not, shall be beaten with many 
 stripes. Τὰ μιάσματα τοῦ κόσμου, ““ the contagion of 
 immorality which prevailed in the world.” Γέγονεν 
 αὐτοῖς τὰ ἔσχατα χείρονα τῶν πρώτων. Very similar 
 words occur at Matt. 12, 45. and Luke 11, 16. Wets. 
 compares Thucyd. 1, 86. διπλασίας Snel ἄξιοί εἰσιν, 
 ὕτι ἀντ᾽ ἀγαθῶν κάκοι γεγένηνται. 
 
 * With which I would compare Eurip. Hec. 858. Φεῦ, οὐκ ἔστι 
 θνητῶν, ὅστις ἔστ᾽ ἐλεύθερος. Ἢ χρημάτων γὰρ δοῦλος ἐστιν, ἢ 
 7 τύχης, Ἢ πλῆθος αὐτὸν πόλεος, ἢ νόμων τρῶς, Εἴργουσι χρῆσθαι 
 μὴ κατὰ γνώμην Tpdross, 
 
720 2 PETER, CHAP. II. ΠῚ. 
 
 Q1. κρεῖττον yap—evroays. Kp., preferable and in- 
 volving less blame and consequently punishment ; 
 since ignorance might have been some excuse. I 
 would compare a similar sentiment in Max. Tyr. 
 Diss. 12, 6. fin. 1, 226. φιλοσοφία δὲ καὶ ἐπιστήμη καὶ 
 ἀρετὴ τοῖς ἅπαξ. φευγουσιν ἀβατος μένει καὶ ἀδιάλλακτος. 
 The phrase ἁγία ἐντολὴ to denote the injunctions of 
 the Gospel, is somewhat rare. The rest of the 
 phraseology is plain. 
 
 22. συμβέβηκε δὲ αὐτοῖς τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς παροιμίας. To 
 7.7., “what is said in the proverb.” Rosenm. 
 compares from Lucian: τοῦτο ἐκεῖνο τὸ τῆς παροιμίας. 
 There is here reference to ¢wo proverbs, one that on 
 the dog, found in Prov. 26, 11., with this very appli- 
 cation. Compare the Hebr. and the Sept. Other 
 vestiges are found in allusions of Classical authors. 
 So, among the passages collected from the Philolo- 
 gists by Pott, there is Arrian Epict. 4, 11. ἄπελθε καὶ 
 χοίρῳ διαλέγου, iva ἐν βορβώρῳ μὴ κυλίηται. Yet this 
 (as well as the others I have seen) alludes to the 
 sow as fond of wallowing in mire, (which, Arist. H. 
 A. 8, 6. says, helps to fatten them. And see H. A. 
 5,45.); but I find no vestige of any proverb of this 
 kind in the Classical writers. It is therefore proba- 
 bly an Oriental one; and there is a faint allusion to 
 it in a passage of Sohar cited by Schoettg.: ‘* Voluit 
 Lot reverti ad sordes suas.” 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 The Apostle here gives them to understand that 
 he wrote this and the former Epistle, to put them in 
 mind of Christ’s final advent to judgment, and to ex- 
 cite them to prepare for it. But withal informs them 
 that they must expect to hear the notion ridiculed 
 by foolish and wicked men. To show how ill 
 founded is this ridicule, he intimates that the first 
 constitution of the earth was such as to occasion the 
 Flood, and the present one tends to a dissolution by 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. III. 721 
 
 fire, which will take place at its appointed time; and 
 that the reason why it is delayed, is, to give men an 
 opportunity for previous preparation [a reason for 
 this delay also assigned by St. Paul. Kdit.]. That 
 when the purposes of God are accomplished, the 
 day of the Lord will come suddenly, and the world 
 be destroyed by an universal conflagration; after 
 _ which there will be new heavens and a new earth for 
 the righteous. Finally, that it highly behoved them 
 to prepare for that awful consummation. (Bens.) 
 
 Ver. 1, 2. ἐν αἷς διεγείρω ὑμιῶν ἐν ὑπομνήσει τὴν εἶλι- 
 κρινῆ διάνοιαν, “in (both of) which I stir up your 
 sincere and well-meaning hearts by admonition.” 
 With ἐν ais for ἐν 4, ὡς καὶ ἐν τῇ eat Pott com- 
 pares a similar synthesis in Anton. 2 2, 4. Διεγειρὼν € ἐν 
 ὑπομνήσει he takes for διεγείρειν καὶ ὑπομιμνήσκειν. And 
 he considers διεγ.----διανοίαν as put, by hypallage, for 
 “ excite to the preservation of a sincere mind.” And 
 so Rosenm. But this is too harsh. ‘The sense, I 
 conceive, is what is expressed above. Their minds 
 were worthy and well meaning, but needed exhorta- 
 tation. See Benson. 
 
 2, μνησθῆναι---προφητών, “ that ye may be mindful 
 of the things predicted by the holy Prophets,” 
 namely, in the way of caution concerning the de- 
 ceivers before mentioned. So Rosenm. Or it may 
 be understood, in a general way, of the things per- 
 taining to the advent and kingdom of Christ. On ay. 
 see the note on 2 Pet. 1, 21. Kal τῆς τών ἀποστόλων 
 ἡμῶν ἐντολῆς, τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Σωτῆρος, “ the injunctions 
 and doctrines of us who are the Apostles of the 
 Lord and Saviour.” A trajectio for καὶ τῆς ἐντολῆς 
 ἑμῶν, τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Σωτῆρος. So Ro- 
 senm. and Pott, the latter of whom compares Jude 
 17. Other modes of interpretation may be seen in 
 Wolf, Bens., and Pott. But all involve more or less 
 of harshness. Pott and Rosenm. unite in taking 
 ἐντολὴ to mean doctrine, which I have included, but 
 as a secondary sense ; for it has (I think) been proved 
 by Benson that the other is the primary one. 
 
 [2] 
 
 VOL. VIII. JA 
 
722 2 PETER, CHAP. III. 
 
 8. ὅτι ἐλεύσονται ἐπ᾽ ἐσ χατου τῶν ἡμερῶν---ἐμπαῖκται. 
 
 After τῶν ἡμερῶν some MSS. Versions and Fathers add ἐν ἐμ- 
 παιγμόνῃ, Which will be for ἐν ἐμπαιγμῃ, since ἐμπαιγμὸς and ἐμ- 
 παῖγμα denote derision, ridicule. hese words, whether they be 
 joined with ἐλεύσονται, (as being put for ἐν ἔμπαιγμονῇ,) or be con- 
 strued with ἐμπαῖκται, are not a mere Hebrew redundancy, to in- 
 crease the strength ofthe sentiment. (Rosenm.) By the πρῶτον is 
 not so much to be understood what was to happen first, as (with 
 Bens.) a premise from whence they might conclude they ought to 
 remember the predictions of the Prophets and the injunctions of 
 the Apostles. See the note on 1, 20. And so Pott and Rosenm. 
 Ἔπ᾽ ἐσχέτου τῶν ἡμερῶν, sub. μέρους. Some understand this 
 of the period of the last dispensation to man, the whole of the times 
 of the New Testament. But this is too harsh. Others, as Bens., 
 interpret it of the Jewish system. But, as the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem happened about three years after, the Apostle would scarcely 
 have said ἐλεύσονται ἐμπαῖκται. Yet it is remarked by Mr. Slade, 
 that the scoffers were soon to come; otherwise there would have 
 been no need to caution the disciples against them; and in the 
 days of Jude (see his Ep.18 and 19.) they were come; and there- 
 fore the passage relates to some event or judgment near at hand. 
 To this I cannot but assent; and, though the interpretation of Pott 
 and Rosenm. tandem, posthac, is very plausible, yet it seems so much 
 a device for the nonce, to escape the difficulty, that I prefer under- 
 standing the words, with many Commentators, and, amongst the 
 rest, Mr, Slade, both of the destruction of Jerusalem and the final 
 advent to judgment ; and I cannot but accede to his mode (at ver. 
 7.) of accounting for the two subjects being here connected. 
 
 Ἐμπαῖκτοι, scoffers. Benson remarks that he should have taken 
 these to have been the Sadducees among the Jews, and the Epicu- 
 reans among’ the Heathens (who made a jest of religion anda future 
 state), had it not been for the parallel passage of Jude 18 and 19., 
 from which it appears that they had been professors of the Christian 
 religion, though now tainted with Sadducean and Epicurean so- 
 phisms. As to ridicule being the test of truth, or the way to find it 
 out, that (he thinks) is disputable. ‘‘ Certain it is (continues he) 
 that such scoffers seldom attend to evidence, and seem not much 
 concerned to find out and retain the truth, however they may excite 
 persons well disposed to enquiry to place it in a clearer light, and to 
 show their ridicule ill founded.” See also Mackn. 
 
 8. κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας αὑτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμιενοι, ““ liv- 
 ing after their evil lusts.’ See Mack. and Bens. ap. 
 Slade; and compare 1 Tim. 4, 1. 2 Tim. 3, 1. Ro- 
 senm. extends the zop. to sentiments as well as morals 
 and actions. 
 
 4. καὶ r€yovres’ [Ποῦ ἐστιν---αὐτοῦ. By the αὐτοῦ is 
 plainly meant Christ. From the character of the men, 
 this cannot import any enquiry in the promises of 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. III. γ 8 
 
 Christ’s coming in Scripture; nor is it to be thought 
 (with some) that they expected his second coming 
 and thought it long. ‘This is merely to be regarded 
 asa popular form of expression, not dissimilar to 
 some in our own language, in which was implied a dis- 
 belief that he will come αὐ all, and an insinuation 
 that there was no hope of an event so long delayed. 
 So Bens. paraphrases ; ‘‘ Where is the promised ad- 
 vent of Christ? what proof or sign of his appearing 
 again?” And he adds, that by “this coming is evi- 
 dently meant the advent to judgment; as the con- 
 text requires. See the note on 2 Thess. 2, 1. Thus 
 they stifled at once the fears of the wicked, and the 
 hopes of the righteous. Indeed there were some 
 things in the then state of the world, which, from a 
 misunderstanding of our Lord’s predictions, might 
 encourage such scepticism. 
 
 4. ἀφ᾽ ἧς yap οἱ πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν, πάντα οὕτω δια- 
 μένει ἀπ᾽ ἀςχῆς κτίσεως. Rosenm. paraphrases: * Our 
 Fathers have successively died, nor has any one 
 come to life. And as from the creation of the 
 world all things are carried on by an alternate course 
 of living and dying, so does the order of nature re- 
 main the same. Thus they will fancy, that what has 
 been so long deferred will never come to pass.” 
 
 5—7. The Apostle means here to refute the scoffers, who said 
 that the whole system of nature remained, and would always remain 
 in the state it had been in from the creation, nor would the world 
 ever be destroved (ver. 4). Against these, then, he shows that all 
 things have not remained in the state in which they were created by 
 God; for that the world (i. e. our earth with its atmosphere) had 
 once been destroyed by water (ver. 5 and 6.), and would again be 
 destroyed in like manner, even by fire. This those scoffers did not, 
 or would not, know. (Rosenm, ) 
 
 5. λανθάνει γὰρ αὐτοὺς τοῦτο θέλοντας. Most Commentators 
 and Translators, from Beza aud Luther, take the θέλοντας for θε- 
 λόντως, Or ἐβελέμξα, sponte. But this yields a precarious and frigid 
 sense, Θελ. has (I think) no where that signification at the end of 
 asentence. Wells and Slade interpret, wilfully, But for this there 
 isno authority. I prefer, with Heins., Mede, Hamm., and many 
 recent Commentators, as Rosenm., to take θέλοντας for existimantes, 
 quia existimant,—a frequent sense both in Greek and Latin. This 
 indeed would properly require the article, which, however, might 
 easily, by a writer so little attentive to the nicer proprieties of the 
 
 SA 2 
 
724 2 PETER, CHAP. III. 
 
 language, have been omitted ; or it might have been absorbed by 
 τοὺς preceding. The sense, then, seems to be: ‘‘ those who think,” 
 namely, ὃ ὅτι πάντα οὕτω διαμένει. 
 
 By the οὐρανοὶ (as Rosenm. observes) are meant, not the etherial, 
 but the aéreal heaven, the atmosphere encircling the globe. The 
 Apostle, it must be observed, speaks in the popular manner, and 
 not with philosophical precision, which indeed in that age was very 
 inconsiderable, compared to the knowledge of our great modern 
 Astronomers. 
 
 The words καὶ γῆ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ de’ ὕδατος συνεστῶσα are variously 
 explained. Most Commentators take συνεστῶσα to mean standing 
 out: and Camerar. regards the ἐξ as put for ἐκτὸς and πρὸς ὕδατι, 
 and the διὰ for pera ὕδατος, or ἐν μέσῳ ὕδατος. Grot. refers the 
 συνεστ., by zeugma, to the heaven as well as the earth; so that 
 Peter may be understood as saying that the earth emerged from 
 the water; and thus συνεστῶσα will be equivalent to σύστασιν ἔχ- 
 ουσα. But the Apostle seems not to have spoken with reference to 
 cosmogony, but (as most recent Commentators after Capellus 
 suppose,) meant to have συνεστ. taken in the sense consist, subsist. 
 See Kypke, Elsn., Pole, and Rosenm., or Slade. 
 
 5. τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγῳ, ‘by the fiat of God.” So else- 
 where in Scripture. 
 
 6. δι’ ὧν ὁ τότε κόσμος ὕδατι κατακλυθεὶς ἀπώλετο. 
 
 The dv ὧν is by some, as Beza and Rosenm., taken for διὸ, proinde. 
 Pott, however, objects that for this there is no authority. And he, with 
 Causaub. and many others, subauds ὑδάτων. ‘To which Rosenm. 
 objects, that the singular just after occurs. Either of the two 
 interpretations may be admitted ; but not the subaudition of οὐρα- 
 νῶν, With the antients, and Mede, Beza, Wets., Whitby, Wolf, and 
 Benson. The ὁ τότε κόσμος is by almost all explained, the world 
 and its inhabitants, as they existed at the Deluge recorded by Moses. 
 But since the opposition is not ὁ viv κόσμος, but οἱ νῦν οὐρανοὶ καὶ 
 yn, Rosenm. thinks that the Apostle distinguishes these heavens and 
 this earth from others. And he would understand, not the deluge 
 in the time of Noah, but some former one; adopting the opinion of 
 Burnet, in his Theory of the Earth, L. 3., C. 11., that there was 
 quite a different appearance of earth and heaven before the deluge 
 in the time of Noah. He then adds: “" Verisimilis est mihi eorum 
 sententia, qui statuunt, orbem terrarum diu post primam illam uni- 
 versi hujus creationem, inundatione quadam universali, illo Noachico 
 diluvio multo terribiliore et diuturniore penitts esse devastatum, 
 omnibusque quibus antea ornatus erat rebus spoliatun; renovatum 
 autem ‘deinde a Deo, et habitationem factam esse hominum et ani- 
 malium, hancque metamorphosin describi a Mose.” A conjecture 
 indeed highly ingenious, and which is thought by natural Philoso- 
 phers to be somewhat confirmed by the recent discoveries in geology. 
 But it is in vain to seek for any support to it in the words of the 
 Apostle, which, if taken in a popular sense, are quite consistent with 
 the deluge in the time of Noah ; and as that is especially adduced as 
 
 an example and warning in a similar passage of Matt. 24, 37—39., 
 
 so it seems to be meant here. 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. III. 725 
 
 7. οἱ δὲ νῦν οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῇ αὐτοῦ yoyw τεθησαυρισ- 
 μένοι εἰσι. 
 
 “Βαϊ the present heaven and earth, by the same fiat (of God) 
 remain,” Τεθησαυρισμένοι is well rendered by Schl. Lex. repositi 
 et asservati. Πυρὶ τηρούμενοι, ““ being reserved unto fire unto the day 
 of judgment, in which the wicked will come to perdition.” That 
 the world would be sometime destroyed by fire was the opinion not 
 only of the Jews, but of most of the Heathen Philosophers, espe- 
 cially the Stoics. Of this the Commentators adduce abundant 
 proofs and illustrations, which I must omit; only observing, that 
 no good natural Philosopher could come to any other conclusion, 
 who reflected on the combustible and agitated state of the interior of 
 this globe. From the interesting account of the Island of Owhyhee 
 lately published by an intelligent Missionary we find, that the whole 
 of that Island, of more than 4000 square miles, seems to be situated 
 on the funnel of an immense submarine volcano, since the whole Island 
 is composed of Lava in different stages of decomposition, and changes 
 of many miles in extent, by which whole bays are filled up, &c., show 
 the awful power of the fire beneath. 
 
 8. ἐν δὲ τοῦτο---ἡμέρα μία. ‘The ἐν τοῦτο μὴ λανθα- 
 νέτω ὑμιᾶς is a most solemn formula of soliciting seri- 
 ous attention ; and the scope of the following passage 
 is, to show why the Lord defers the last judgment 
 from day to day; namely, out of his singular 
 patience and clemency: and this is prefaced» with 
 the remark, that periods often seem to us long, which 
 are short. The saying that one day is with God as a 
 thousand years, and a thousand years as one day, 
 was frequent with the Hebrews; as we find from the 
 Rabbinical writers. It occurs in Ps. 90,4. The 
 Apostle means, that we are only to take especial care 
 that that time, whensoever it shall come, may not 
 find us unprepared. That to our minds some things 
 seem long, and some things short; but to God 
 nothing is either long or short ; ; and he shows the 
 same faithfulness in “what he renders late as what 
 early. (Rosenm.) See Bens. and Mackn. Here 
 Wets. compares Plut. 111 c. and 554 D. λέγω δὲ 
 πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸν πολὺν χρόνον" ἐπεὶ τοῖς γε θεοῖς πᾶν ἀνθρω- 
 πίνου βίου διάστημα τὸ μηδὲν ἐστι" καὶ τὸ νὺν ἀλλὰ μὴ 
 πρὸ ἐτών λ. τοιοῦτον ἐστιν, οἷον τὸ δείλης, ἀλλὰ μὴ πρωΐ ᾿ 
 στρεβλοῦν, ἢ 7 κρεμαννύναι τὸν | πονηρὸν. 
 
 9. οὐ βραδύνει ὁ Κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας (ὥς τινες βρα- 
 δύτητα ἡγοῦνται), * ‘Phe Lord does not procrastinate 
 as to his promises, as some think (attributing to him) 
 
726 2 PETER, CHAP. III. 
 
 a slowness of performance.” Such appears to be the 
 true sense of these words, somewhat obscure from 
 brevity. At the erayy. is to be supplied ἕνεκα, quod 
 attinet ad, or the like: and by promise is meant ful- 
 filment of promise, by a common metonymy : so that 
 there is no need to supply (with Schleus.) ἀναπλήρω- 
 σιν, or τελείωσιν ; Still less, to resort to any change 
 of ‘reading (with Grot.), or unauthorized construc- 
 tion (with Mackn.). 
 
 9. ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ἡμᾶς, “ But shows long- 
 suffering towards us,” i. e. does this, to evince his 
 long- suffering towards us. As the Philological 
 Commentators here fail us, the following passages 
 may be acceptable. Aristoph. Av. 1620., é ἐὰν TIS ἀν- 
 θρώπων ἱ ἱερεῖον τῷ Θεών εὐξάμενος, εἶτα διασοφίϑηται, 
 λέγων, μενέτοι Θεοὶ (the Gods will wait), ἀναπραξόμεν 
 καὶ ταῦτα" where the Schol. explains: ἀνεξίκακοι καὶ 
 οὐκ εὐθέως τιμωρούμενοι. Schol. on Soph. Trach. 274., 
 οἷοι οὐδὲ αὐτὸ τὸ Θεῖον ὑβριξόμιενον κηρυττεῖ, ὃ λίαν ἐστὶν 
 GNC τ κυ τατον, With the sentiment compare Rom. 2, 
 44-95 2 22., where see the notes. 
 
 ‘9. εἰς μετανοίαν yweyout. This seems to be a 
 
 opular form for μετανοεῖν, though it is found in 
 Plut., cited by Wets.: εἰς μετανοίαν ἐπὶ τοῖς πραχθεῖσι 
 χώρησας. Kypke compares Philemon apud Stob. 
 serm. 66., p. 421., γαμεῖν ὃς ἐθέλει, εἰς μετανοίαν ἔρχεται. 
 Yet I think, with Rosenm., that it is ἃ stronger ex- 
 pression than μετανοεῖν, and may be rendered se con- 
 vertere, confugere ad penitentiam, to betake oneself 
 to repentance. 
 
 O. ἥξει δὲ ἡ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης ἐν νυκτὶ. The 
 words ἐν νυκτὶ are not found in some antient MSS., 
 many Versions, and some Fathers: and as one can 
 so much more easily account for their addition than 
 their omission, they are rightly cancelled, or brack- 
 eted. Yet ifthey be not understood, much of the force 
 of the comparison will be lost. By the ἠμέρα is un- 
 doubtedly meant the day of judgment, which will 
 come upon men as unexpectedly as a thief in the 
 night. 
 
 Οἱ οὐρανοὶ, 1. 6. the aéreal heaven, the atmosphere ; asat ver. 6. 
 ‘Por2ndor, ‘with a mighty crash.” Hesych. explains it σφοδρῶς, 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. III. 727 
 
 ἡχητικόν. It signifies properly whiz; and then the noise made by 
 any falling body (so Lycophr. cited by Wets.: Πύργων dm’ ἄκρων 
 πρὸς νεόδμητον vexty ῥοιξηδὸν ἀκβράσασα κύμβαχον δέμας. and 
 Hero ap. Museus 339. ῥοιξηδὸν προκάρηνος ἀπ᾽ ἡλιβάτου πέσε 
 πύργου), or body impelled to perpetually accelerated motion, ‘The 
 word (Bens. observes) is used to express the hissing noise of a dart 
 passing through the air, the flight of birds, the swift motion of the 
 winds, the running of a chariot, the rulling of an impetuous tor- 
 rent, the noise of soldiers running to battle, the crackling of a 
 wide-spreading fire, the rushing sound of a violent storm or tem- 
 pest.” Παρέρχεσθαι properly signifies to pass by, and also away, 
 and also (as here) to perish, i. e. as to the purpose it had served, So 
 Bens. observes, that “ it isnot necessary to suppose, with some, that 
 the world will be annihilated, or removed with its atsmosphere, from 
 its present orbit. It may be said to ‘ pass away,’ if the form and 
 constitution be altered; as the old world is at ver. 6. said to have 
 been destroyed by water.” 
 
 Στοιχεῖα δὲ καυσούμενα λυθήσονται. Commentators are not 
 agreed what sense to ascribe to στοιχεῖα. Some understand the 
 air. Others the stars, or heavenly bodies) And so Mede, Wolf, 
 Whitby, Wells, ἃς, But, as Rosenm. rightly remarks, that inter- 
 pretation rests on no sufficient ground. Slade thinks it cannot 
 properly mean the elements: and he would refer it to οἱ οὐρανοὶ, 
 which goes before, and explain it (with Mackn.) of the electric 
 matter, the sulphureous vapours, and whatever floats in the air, 
 together with the air itself. But this cannot (I think) be admitted. 
 I most approve of the interpretation of Rosenm. (from Bens.) : 
 partes, etiam aspectabiles, ex quibus omnes res naturales, que sub 
 celo sunt, componuntur. So Bens.: ‘‘ Suppose that the earth, air, 
 and water shall all be subdued by the prevalence of fire; and their 
 stamina, or first and constituent principles, quite altered thereby ; 
 then it may very properly be said, The elements being on fire shall be 
 dissolved. Again, what is here called the elements being dissolved, 
 is at ver. 12. called their being melted. ‘hey are not, therefore, to 
 be annihilated, but subdued, and greatly altered by the prevalence 
 of fire.” 
 
 Καὶ γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα κατακαήσεται. By the ἔργα Rosenm. 
 (after Heins.) understands, queecunque industria hominis aut labore 
 parta ministerio ejusdem cedunt atque usui, dicuntur: inter que, 
 ut facultates ac opes, ita qu# ex arte ac ingenio proveniunt. Ἔν 
 αὐτῷ, for iz’ αὐτῷ. The sense is: “ the works of both nature and 
 art, each of the most stupendous or exquisite sort, all shall be in- 
 volved in overwhelming ruin.” To use the words of our English 
 Eschylus, ‘‘ The cloud-capt towers, the gorgeous palaces, the so- 
 lemn temples, the great globe itself, and all that it inherits, shall 
 dissolve, and, like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a rack 
 behind !” 
 
 11,12. ποταποὺς δεῖ ὑπάρχειν μας. ἹΠοταπὸς, is 
 more significant than ποῖος. What follows contains 
 
728 2 PETER, CHAP. III. 
 
 the answer to this interrogation. And Benson ob- 
 serves that, in the common way, the question and 
 answer are intermingled. Indeed this is frequent 
 in the popular style. Possibly, however, there may 
 be no interrogation at all, but only an exclamation. 
 
 In εὐσεβείαις, which is exegetical of ἐν ἁγίαις dva- 
 orgo@ais, the plural refers to the number. The 
 words προσδοκώντας, &c. are either in answer to the 
 interrogation, or exegetical of the preceding, for (δεῖ 
 ὑμᾶς) mpocdoKkwyTas εἶναι. Zmevdw is not here to be 
 taken in its usual active sense, but in one in which 
 it occasionally occurs in good authors, adfectare, 
 earnestly desire. And this is what the Vulg. and 
 Beza meant by properantes in, or ad, which Pott, 
 without reason, censures. ‘The ad answers to ad in 
 ad-fectare. Rosenm. well explains it cupidus esse, 
 adfectare, avide desiderare ; referring (after Kypke) 
 to Eurip. Hec. 1175 and 120. (See more in Wolf, 
 Wets., and Kypke.) This indeed is a very frequent 
 sense in the best writers. 
 
 At δι’ ἣν Rosenm. subauds ἡμέραν, taking it for 
 ἡ ἡμέρᾳ. And so the E. V. But I prefer, with 
 Bens. 3 Groti,; Esta Bisc., δες: παρουσίαν. ΠΙυρούμενοι, 
 i. e. “ melted like metal in a furnace :” for the verb 
 is often so used. ‘Tyxeras, ‘‘are (to be) dissolved.” 
 So Is. 64, 1. ὄρη τακήσεται. See notes on ver. 7 
 and 10. 
 
 13. καινοὺς δὲ οὐρανοὺς ---προσδοκώμιν, 1. 6. a NeW 
 universe. And this the Hebrews designated by the 
 expression, as Gen. 1,1. The sense is, that from 
 the reliques of the antient fabric another and better 
 will arise. ‘This may be understood either physi- 
 cally, of a better corporeal world, or figuratively, of 
 the new state of things in the eternal and blessed 
 abodes of aaye (Ros.) Κατὰ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα. 15. 
 θὅ, 17. ἃ 66, 22. See more in Bens. It is proved 
 by Whitby and Mackn., that there can here be no 
 reference to the Millenium. See their notes, or the 
 extracts in Slade. 
 
 13. ἐν οἷς δικαιοσύνη κατοικεῖ, “in which righteousness 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. III. 729 
 
 alone (i. 6. the righteous) is to dwell, and not, as in 
 the present one (see Matt. 25, 32.), mixed with 
 wickedness” (i. 6. the wicked). 
 
 14. ταῦτα προσδοκῶντες, σπουδάσατε --- εἰρήνη, 
 ‘¢ Wherefore, seeing that ye expect such things (are 
 sometime to happen) strive, by being spotless and 
 blameless, to be found of him in peace.” Or ἀσπιλ. 
 and ap. may be taken with εὐρεθηναι. The sense is 
 much the same. Ἐν eigyyy may be rendered, with 
 Carpz. and others, cum bona conscientia, i. e. in 
 peace with their consciences, or (as Pott explains) 
 with each other. But the context rather re- 
 quires the common interpretation, ‘‘in peace with 
 their great Judge.” An expression which can re- 
 quire no explanation. ‘Thus it is not necessary, 
 with Rosenm., to take it for εἰς εἰρήνην, “ for your 
 good and happiness.” 
 
 15. καὶ τὴν τοῦ Kugiov ἡμῶν μακροθυμίαν, σωτηρίαν 
 ἠγεῖσθε, ““ And reckon (as you justly may) that this 
 long extended waiting, and forbearance of the Lord 
 is meant to be our salvation, 1. e. to promote it (by 
 giving us an opportunity for working it out).” See 
 Bens., whose subaudition, however, of εἰς is inad- 
 missible. On the sentiment I could adduce several 
 Classical passages, but I forbear. 
 
 15. καθὼς καὶ ὃ ἀγαπητὸς ὑμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος κατὰ 
 τήν αὐτῷ δοθεῖσαν σοφίαν ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν. Rosenm. ob- 
 serves, that the καθῶς is not to be referred to the 
 preceding words only, but also to ver. 14. He does 
 not say that Paul used the same words, but that he 
 wrote of the same things.” Now ἀδελφὸς Peter 
 might well call him, since he was a brother Apostle 
 as well as brother Christian. ”*Eypobev tpi, ““ hath 
 “written to you.”* ΤῸ what Epistle this alludes 
 
 * It is well observed by Bens., that St. Peter addressed his Epistles 
 to the Christians dispersed in Asia Minor; and therefore the 
 ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν shows that some Epistles of St. Paul are here alluded 
 to, that were sent to the same persons.” Now, although we find 
 no Epistle of St. Paul immediately addressed to any of the pro-~ 
 vinces mentioned at 1 Pet. 1, 1.; yet it is probable from Eph. 1, 1. 
 that all the Epistles (not excluding, as Doddr. think, even that to 
 
730 2 PETER, CHAP. III. 
 
 Commentators are not agreed. The subject in 
 question is treated of at Rom. c. 2, 9 & 11., and 
 especially at Hebr. 10., and elsewhere. Indeed, St. 
 Peter is justified in saying that his beloved brother 
 has spoken of these things in all his Epistles. See 
 the long list of similar passages adduced from St. 
 Paul’s Epistles by Benson and Slade. 
 
 16. ἐν οἷς ἐστι δυσνόητά τινα---ἀπωλείαν. It has 
 been matter of great dispute among critics whether 
 ἐν ois, or ἐν αἷς, be the true reading. If the former 
 be adopted, the subjects will be meant. And this 
 is supported by incomparably the greater number of 
 MSS., and by most Commentators and critics. If 
 the latter be adopted, the Epistles themselves and 
 the Apostle’s method of treating the subjects will be 
 intended. And this is supported by some valuable 
 MSS., both the Syriac Versions, the Arab., &c. (See 
 Griesb.) It is also defended by Beza, Germ., Mill, 
 T. Smith, and Bens., and recently by a scholar 
 scarcely inferior to any of these, Dr. Maltby, Serm. 
 1, 419., who observes that it ‘‘ agrees infinitely better 
 with the context; though (for reasons which will 
 readily occur to the minds of critics) the other 
 might, at an early period, usurp its place.” Tor my 
 own part, I would retain the common reading, which 
 I think came from the Apostle: but it seems to me 
 probable that he had in mind as well the difficulty 
 of the style and manner, as the abstruseness of the 
 subjects. And it is strange Mr. Slade should so 
 warmly repel the “charge” of ‘“ obscurity” made 
 against St. Paul's Epistles; which he thinks the 
 greatest injustice. Surely if he had but considered 
 that many causes contribute to produce this, with- 
 out reflecting any blame on the Apostle, and im- 
 
 the Romans), though addressed to particular churches, were meant 
 for general circulation ; and therefore the Epistles to the Galatians, 
 Ephesians, Colossians, and Timothy, were in some measure meant 
 for the Asiatic churches in general. And at all events, there must 
 have been many among those to whom St. Peter addresses himself, 
 that were St, Paul's converts. 
 
2 PETER, CHAP. III. 731 
 
 peaching the ways of Almighty Providence, he 
 would have forborne language so inconsistent with 
 his usual good sense. 
 
 On the nature of these difficulties many eminent 
 Commentators have treated. See the Preliminary 
 Essays and Dissertations of Mackn., the Preface of 
 Locke to his Paraphrase on the Epistles, and an ad- 
 mirable Sermon on this text by Bp. Atterbury, vol. 
 3. p. 29. On difficulty of interpretation in general 
 I would cite Jambl. de Vit. Pyth. C. 1. 5. f. τὸ μα- 
 θήμασιν ἀπεξενωμένοις καὶ τισὶν ἀποῤῥήτοις cupPdros 
 ἐπικεκρύφθαι, ψεύδεσί re καὶ νόθοις συγγράμμασιν ἐπισ- 
 κιάσεσθαι" ἄλλαις τε πολλαῖδ τοιαύταις δυσκολίαις παρα- 
 ποδίξεσθαι" ἐξαρκεῖ γὰρ ἡμῖν ἡ τῶν θεῶν βούλησις, μιεθ᾽, ἧς 
 καὶ τὰ τούτων ἔτι ἀπορώτερα δυνατὸν ὑπομένειν. 
 
 By the ἀμαθεὶς are meant those not well acquainted 
 with the subjects discussed, and also the style of 
 writing, and unskilled in interpretation in general. 
 ᾿Αστηρικτοὶ, ““ without fixed or solid principles of 
 Christian knowledge.” ZrpeBactow, wrest, pervert. 
 See Slade. By the ws καὶ ras λοιπὰς γραφὰς Grot. 
 has rightly observed may be understood the Gospels 
 and Acts then published, and in the hands of most 
 Chirstians. But surely the books of the Old Testa- 
 ment, especially the prophetical ones, must be in- 
 cluded. And so Germ. and Hamm. Πρὸς τὴν ἰδιάν 
 αὐτῶν ἀπωλείαν. Most Commentators take the ἀπω- 
 λείαν to denote perdition, eternal punishment in an- 
 other world. Most recent ones render it ad perni- 
 ciem, namely (says Rosenm.), by approaching them 
 with an evil mind, and pernicious prejudices. So 
 Bens. : “ The fault was not in the Scriptures, but in 
 themselves. They were resolved to continue in 
 their vices, and to support themselves therein; and 
 came to read the Scriptures without a love of truth 
 and righteousness; and to find in them what would 
 answer their corrupt views.” ‘The truth perhaps 
 lies in the medium. ‘The εἰς may denote tendency to 
 perdition, namely, if the corruption be wilful, or 
 
732 9 PETER, CHAP. III. 
 
 might have been avoided by proper means, or not 
 duly repented of. See note on 2 Pet. 2, 1. 
 
 17. ὑμεῖς otv—oryprypod. ἹΤΠρογινώσκοντες, “ pre~ 
 viously warned of these perils and dangers.” Φυ- 
 λάσσειν is here used in a reciprocal sense, as often 
 in the Classical writers. See Wets. The sense is: 
 “be on your guard.” Τῶν ἀθεσμῶν πλάνῃ συνπαχ- 
 θέντες, “ hurried away by the error and deceit of 
 those lawless (scoffers),” mentioned supra, 2,77. In 
 cuvar. there isa metaphor taken (as Bens. says) from 
 a torrent. See Gal. 2,13. The ἐκπέσητε τοῦ ἰδίου 
 στηριγμιοῦ is well opposed to the ἀστηρικτοι at ver. 16. 
 Σ τήριγ. denotes constancy in the faith as well as in 
 the purity of doctrine. On éxmimr. see Gal. 5, 4. 
 and the note there. 
 
 18. adgavere δὲ ἐν χάριτι---- Χριστοῦ. In av§. there 
 is an idiom (elsewhere found), by which with the 
 sense of the verb is conjoined a notion of endeavour ; 
 i. 6. ‘strive, endeavour, seek to grow in.” I would 
 render: “strive to grow in the grace and the know- 
 ledge of Jesus Christ,” or ‘‘in the favour of Jesus 
 Christ and the knowledge of his religion,’ which 
 would tend to the other. It is not necessary, with 
 Rosenm., to suppose an hendiadis. 
 
 On the doxology here addressed to Christ see 
 Bens., or Slade. 
 
733 
 
 THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 The contents of ch. 1, 1—11. areas follows. The 
 doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ taught by the 
 Apostles, is of divine revelation. Christians are to 
 imitate the perfections of God; the light of holiness 
 is to be studiously followed, and the darkness of sin 
 avoided. On this condition only is the forgiveness 
 of sins, obtained by the death of Christ, to be ex- 
 pected. ‘The slaves of sin are the enemies of God. 
 Sinners are benefited by the atoning blood of Christ, 
 if they obey his precepts and follow his example. 
 Now this had already been inculcated by Christ 
 himself. (Knapp and Rosenm.) 
 
 1. ὁ ἦν am’ ἀρχῆς---λόγου τῆς ϑωῆς, “ That which 
 took place from the first promulgation of the Gospel, 
 which we (i.e. 1) have heard, which we have seen 
 with our eyes, which we have surveyed, and which 
 even our hands have handled, concerning (I say) the 
 Logos, and author of everlasting life.’ The sen- 
 tence is completed at ver. 3., ver. 2. being parenthe- 
 tical. The ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς Bp. Bull, Carpzov, and 
 others, understand of the beginning of the world; 
 as 3, 8., taking the ¢ as neuter for masculine. But 
 this, though true in one sense, cannot (on account of 
 the context) be considered as ¢he truth here meant. 
 So Rosenm. observes, that from the context it is 
 plain the subject is the Λόγος τῆς ϑωῆς, whose history, 
 St. John affirms, was perfectly known to himself and 
 the other Apostles. ‘The ἀρχὴ is explained, by most 
 modern Commentators, of the entrance of Christ 
 upon his ministry, and the first promulgation of the 
 
784 1 JOHN, CHAP, I. 
 
 Gospel. See Rosenm., Mackn., Benson, and Whit- 
 by, which last Commentator adduces as examples of 
 this sense of am ἀρχῆς, Joh. 15, 27. Acts 1, 21. 
 1 Joh. 2,7 & 24. 3,10, 2 Joh. 5. Εἶναι is here, as 
 often, used of action. The expressions ἀκηκόαμεν, 
 ἑωράκαμεν, &c. constitute a form of protestation usual 
 in cases of seeming improbability. There is, too, a 
 climax. See Slade. The ἐθεασάμεθα is a stronger 
 term than ἑωράκαμεν, and answers to our survey, 
 inspect, implying accurate knowledge. The ai χεῖρες 
 a ἐψηλάφησαν refers to what is recorded at Joh. 
 
 27. See Doddr. Mackn. thinks it may also 
 ae to the other opportunities the disciples had of 
 handling their master, and knowing that he had a 
 real body. The plural ἡμῶν 18, ‘by most recent 
 Commentators, supposed to be put (after the manner 
 of the sacred writers, especially St. Paul) for the 
 singular. But it may be intended to include the 
 other Apostles. It is observed, by Rosenm., that 
 St. John here appeals to the testimony of the senses, 
 because of false teachers, who had neither seen nor 
 heard Christ ; and he then briefly repeats what he 
 had more fully said in the Preface to his Gospel, 
 1, 1—14., meaning (as it seems) to show what fol- 
 lowed from the accounts contained in the Gospel 
 both for doctrine, and practice. 
 
 1. τοῦ λόγου τῆς ϑωῆς. Thus at Joh. 1. Christ is 
 called both the 6 λόγος, and 7 gw. Slade explains: 
 « Jesus Christ, the author and principle of life.” 
 And so Hardy: “ qui est essentialiter ipsa vita, et 
 causaliter fons et auctor vite.” 
 
 2. καὶ ἡ ϑωὴ ἐφανερώθη. These words are, in the 
 best editions, thrown to ver. 2., with which the pre- 
 sent verse is closely connected, forming part of the 
 parenthesis of which it consists. The sense is: 
 « For Jesus Christ, the author of life and salvation, 
 was manifested,” namely, ἐν σαρκὶ ; as at 1 ‘Tim. 
 3,16. Kai (like the Heb. 4) is for γὰρ, as not un- 
 frequently i in the simple diction. 
 
 2. τὴν Sony τὴν αἰώνιον, ἥτις ἣν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. I. 135 
 
 ‘* We (I say) having seen him, do bear testimony to, 
 and announce to you the (author of) eternal salva- 
 tion, who was with the Father, but has been mani- 
 fested to us.”” On the sublime sense of ἣν πρὸς τὸν 
 πατέρα. see Joh. 1, 1 ἃ 2. and the note. Both pas- 
 sages supply an irrefragable proof of the pre-exist- 
 ence of Jesus Christ. 
 
 3. ὃ ἑωράκαμεν. There is here (as Erasm., Beza, 
 Zeger, and Benson observe) a resumption of what 
 was before said; q.d. ‘* That (I repeat) which we 
 have seen and heard.” Rosenm. recognizes a προ- 
 θεραπεία ; q.d. ‘ wonderful, nay, incredible it may 
 seem that the Son of God assumed the human nature! 
 but no other than what we know, and what we have 
 seen, declare we unto you.” The next words show 
 the purpose of the thus announcing it, namely, “that 
 ye also may have communion with us, and partici- 
 pate in the benefits which we enjoy from this reli- 
 gion.” Kal ἡ κοινωνία δὲ---- Χριστοῦ, ‘* Now our com- 
 munion is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus 
 Christ.” The δὲ is variously rendered ; and by some 
 it is thought pleonastic ; but I prefer, with Rosenm., 
 the sense gam vero, now. ‘The purpose of the sen- 
 tence is (as Est. observes) to show the dignity of 
 this communion. On the nature of the connection, 
 the reader may consult Morus ap. Rosenm. 
 
 4. καὶ ταῦτα. γράφομεν ὑμῖν, ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμών ἢ πε- 
 πληρωμένη, “ These things write we unto you, that 
 your joy may be complete and full, by attaining the 
 end of your hopes, even everlasting life.” Others 
 for ὑμῶν read ἡμών. But the common reading is de- 
 fended by Joh. 3, 29. and 2 Joh. 11. See Carpzov. 
 
 5. καὶ αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ éerayyeria—vpiv. There are 
 few points on which Critics are so agreed as that for 
 ἐπαγγελία we should read ἡ ἀγγελία, with many ex- 
 cellent MSS., Versions, and Fathers. “ For (say 
 they) the context requires, not promise, but message 
 and declaration.” Andsothe E. V. This, indeed, 
 is very true; but ἐπαγγελία has sometimes that 
 sense; asin 2 Tim. 1, 1. and Polyb. 24, 10, 8. 
 
736 1 JOHN, CHAP. I. 
 
 Yet as ἀγγελία frequently occurs in St. John, it 
 seems to deserve the preference. Rosenm. renders 
 it doctrine. But this is too arbitrary. If we unite 
 the senses of declaration, precept, and message, we 
 shall (I think) attain the full sense. The idea mes- 
 sage is required by the avayy. 
 
 5. ὅτι ὃ Θεὸς dws ἐστι---οὐδεμία. It is well ob- 
 served, by Carpzov, that the phrases ἐν αὐτῴ εἶναι 
 Or μένειν ἐν τῇ κοινωνίᾳ εἶναι μετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, also ἐκ 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι, and finally εἶναι τὸ τέκνον τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 and ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας. all these St. John had heard 
 from Jesus himself, as well as many other recon- 
 dite phrases which he has adduced in his Gospel. 
 With respect to the das, this is ἃ symbol of what is 
 most pure and lovely, and, as the best Commenta- 
 tors are agreed, denotes the wisdom, holiness, truth, 
 purity, and other attributes of the Supreme Being. 
 By σκοτία is, on the contrary, meant moral imperfec- 
 tion ; for darkness is a symbol of ignorance, vice, 
 misery, &c. In the application of this to practical 
 use, it may be well to bear in mind the observation 
 of Rosenm.: “ Totus locus agit de hominum simili- 
 tudine cum Deo, ea parte, ut et homines fugiant 
 Vitia et sint sancti. Non excluditur tamen veri et 
 boni cognatio.” 
 
 6. ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμιεν, ‘live in ignorance 
 and vice.” Οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀληθείαν Carpzov well 
 renders: ‘‘ non exercemus veritatem, non agimus 
 sincere et integre;” as Joh. 3, 21., where see the 
 note. 
 
 7. ἐὰν δὲ---,Ωδτωτὶ, This verse is the exact counter- 
 part of the last ; and περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ Φωτὶ is the con- 
 trary to περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ σκότει. “Qs αὐτὸς ἐστιν ἐν τῷ 
 Φωτὶ, ““ and strive to imitate his perfections.” Ka- 
 νωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων, “ we hold common fel- 
 lowship,”’ viz. by mutual love, having the idem velle 
 and the idem nolle, &c. Kai τὸ αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 --Δμαρτίας, Then the blood of Christ cleanseth us 
 from all former sin.” By αἷμα is meant the sacrifice 
 of the death of Christ ; as Heb. 9,18. The efficacy 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. I. 737 
 
 of atonement, however, is conditional; and the sins 
 here meant must be sins of infirmity and frailty, 
 heartily repented of and entirely forsaken. Carpzov 
 supplies εὐπεριστάτου, ““ which yet besets us;’’ refer- 
 ring to Heb. 12, 1. But this is too arbitrary a sub- 
 audition. 
 
 8, 9. ἐὰν εἵπωμεν ὅτι---ἷμῖν. By ἁμαρτία is meant 
 sin in any way, whether through ignorance, or 
 knowingly and habitually. Now those are said to 
 deny that they have sinned, who deny that they have 
 incurred blame by sin, and so either excuse or palliate 
 what they have done, and dissemble the fault. So 
 at Jer. 2, 25. the phrases non peccare, and nullam 
 commereri poenam are interchanged. Here, then, 
 are designated persons who neither grieve at the 
 sins committed by them, nor ask pardon for them, 
 nor intend amendment of life. ‘Eavrots πλανώμεν, 
 καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν, “* we impose upon (and 
 injure) ourselves; and truth and religion have no 
 place in our hearts.” (Rosenm.) 
 
 Πιστὸς, veracious, true to his promises. Δίκαιος, 
 merciful, good. Rosenm. paraphrases: ‘“ Si confi- 
 teamur peccata nostra, Deus pro sua veracitate et 
 benignitate nobis peccata remittit, omnemque cul- 
 pam tollit.”” See Benson ap. Slade. 
 
 10. Here is a repetition, in other words, of what 
 was said at ver. 8.; a manner of further enforcing 
 any important truth frequent with St. John. Ψεύστην 
 ποιοῦμεν αὐτὸν. This is well rendered, by Pisc., 
 “‘ mendacitatis eum arguimus,” but still closer by 
 Grot., mendacem facere (as Job 24, 25.), aliquem 
 pro mendaci habere, to account him for a liar, or so 
 to act as if we did. And Grot. compares Heb. 6, 6., 
 ‘‘ crucify the Lord afresh.” The words following 
 are exegetical, and well explained, by Carpzov, ‘‘ we 
 do not believe and obey his doctrine,” literally, ‘ his 
 word has no place in our hearts,” namely, either for 
 belief, or (as consequent upon it) obedience. By 
 the ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ is meant the revelation of God in 
 
 VOL. VIII. 3 B 
 
738 1. JOHN, CHAP. I. II. 
 
 the Gospel; as Joh. 5, 88. 8, 37. Carpz. compares 
 James 1, 21. δέξασθαι τὸν ἐμῴφυτόν λόγον. See Mackn. 
 and Rosenm. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 VERSE 1. ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν, “ These things am I 
 writing to you.”” For, as Rosenm. observes, it re- 
 gards as well what follows, as what precedes. “Iva μὴ 
 ἁμάρτητε, ‘to caution you against sin, by showing 
 you that all wilful and habitual sin is utterly incon- 
 sistent with Divine communion.” Kal ἐὰν ἁμάρτῃ, 
 ** If, however, any do sin,” i. e. as Carpzov explains, 
 through frailty, ignorance, or precipitancy—he need 
 not despair of pardon, for in that case, ἄς. Παρά- 
 κλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. By rapaKa. is meant 
 an advocate, one who will plead our cause, a depre- 
 cator, and, in a general way, a helper. Of which 
 sense many examples are adduced by Loesner from 
 Philo; as 560 p., where Joseph. says to his brethren 
 μηδένος ἑτέρου δεῖσθε παρακλήτου. Of this forensic and 
 aulick term I have before treated. See the note on 
 Joh. 14. 10., and Elmsley on Eurip. Med. 155. “There 
 is nothing (Doddr. observes) that illustrates the mat- 
 ter more than the residence of some eminent persons 
 from distant provinces in the courts of great princes, 
 or states, whose business it was constantly to nego- 
 tiate with them the affairs of those whom they repre- 
 sented, to vindicate them from any unjust aspersions, 
 and to promote their interests to the utmost of their 
 power.” ‘* Now, asin common life (observes Ro- 
 senm.), any one who has found a friend to help him 
 forward, does therefore the more confidently look for 
 success ; so we, when filled with compunction for 
 sin, so much the more confidently trust for pardon, 
 in reliance on Jesus, who is the ἱλασμὸς περὶ τῶν 
 αμαρτΐων. — 
 
 Aixatov, sinless; as 1 Pet. 3,18. Heb. 7, 26. 
 
 2. καὶ αὐτὸς ἵλάσμος ᾽στι, Κο. The καὶ αὐτὸς ἐστι 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. II. 739 
 
 is for ὅς ἐστι; and ἱλασμὸς is for ἱλαστὴς ; by a me- 
 tonymy of the effect, i.e. (as Rosenm. explains) 
 sacrificium pro reatu; as Ez. 44, 27. Ps. 49,8. See 
 the excellent note of Whitby, or the extract in Slade. 
 
 By the ἡμῶν many recent Commentators under- 
 stand Christians in general ; and by ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου, 
 the whole human race, of course including Heathens. 
 
 . And (as observes Doddr.) ‘Christianity could surely 
 receive no prejudice by supposing that truly virtuous 
 Heathens may be accepted by God, in consideration 
 of the atonement which Christ has made.” This, 
 however, seems not to have been here had in view ; 
 for the Apostle (as many eminent Commentators, 
 antient and modern, suppose,) appears to be only 
 speaking of believers; by the ἡμῶν meaning the 
 Jewish people; and by the dao τοῦ κόσμου, all the 
 Gentiles who believe and embrace the truth. See 
 Pole’s Syn. and Bens. Wolf, indeed, and almost all 
 the Dutch Commentators take the ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου to 
 mean the whole human race; but then they under- 
 stand only such as may be Christians. See the notes 
 in D’Oyley and Mant. 
 
 3. καὶ ἐν τούτω γινώσκομεν---τηρώμεν, ““ And by this 
 we know (or may know) that we have a right know- 
 ledge of Him (i. e. Christ), if we keep his command- 
 ments.” The ἐγνώκαμεν some explain of real know- 
 ledge, not speculative and sterile, but practical and 
 useful. Others, observing ‘ verba notitia: sepe af- 
 fectum denotant,” explain it love; comparing the 
 Heb. yt and Joh. 10,14. (See Carpzov.) It is, 
 moreover, not agreed whether by αὐτὸν be meant 
 Christ, or God the Father. Those who adopt the 
 former interpretation urge that Christ was just be- 
 fore mentioned. But the same will hold good of the 
 Father ; and the latter is supported by ver. 5. It is 
 at ver. 6. (as Carpzov observes) that Christ, and faith 
 in him, is spoken of. Γινώσκειν αὐτὸν must then be 
 interpreted according to the person understood by 
 αὐτὸν. The term may, in a general way, import to 
 
 3B ἐν ale 
 
740 1 JOHN, CHAP. Il. 
 
 have a right knowledge of his will, &c. In ver. 4. 
 there i isa Tepetition of the sentiment, supra, 1, 8. 
 
 5. ὃς δ᾽ ἂν τηρῇ---τετελείωται. By the λόγον is 
 meant (as Rosenm. observes) the preceptive part of 
 Christianity. ᾿Αληθώς ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ τε- 
 τελείωται. The best Commentators, as Whitby, 
 Carpzov, and Rosenm., are agreed that the sense is: 
 “ In him, truly, a sincere love towards God is 
 evinced. In this sense rea. is used at 2 Cor. 12, 9. 
 ‘* Now the precepts of Christ (annotates Rosenm.) 
 express the will of God. No one can more strongly 
 evince his love towards God than by wholly accom- 
 modating himself to his will. Bs 
 
 (5. ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐσμεν. The same 
 sentiment in other words: for (as Rosenm. observes) 
 to be in God, to have God, to be conjoined with God. 
 are all synonymous phrases, denoting that conjunc- 
 tion with God mentioned at 1, 3. 
 
 6. ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ---περιπατεῖν. On the phrase μένειν 
 ἐν Χριστῷ see ver. ὅ. By περιπατεῖν is here, as often, 
 meant life and habitual conduct. ‘The sentiment is, 
 that consistent disciples imitate their master. Odrws 
 is omitted in one MS., the Vulg., and some Latin 
 Fathers. But that may be accounted for from the 
 particle being, in Latin, superfluous. Here (Bens. 
 observes) the Apostle sums up all he had said at ver. 
 3. and 4, 5. 
 
 7, 8. ἀδελφοὶ, οὐκ ἐντολὴν----ἀργῆς, “ Brethren, I en- 
 join no new commandment upon you, but an old 
 
 commandment, which ye had trom the beginning.” 
 Such is (I ἘΠ ΣΤῊ the sense of the words: but < on what is 
 meant by the ἐντύόλὴν παλαίαν there is much diversity of opinion. 
 Some, as Hamm., Carpzov, and Rosenm., refer it to what was said 
 at ver, 6. on the imitating Christ, and abstaining from vice. And 
 Rosenm. thinks this is levelled against the false teachers, who disse- 
 minated new doctrines, and did not follow those of Christ, but pro- 
 pounded fancies of theirown. The ἐντολὴ he would take for the 
 complexus plurimus precepturum, the principal doctrines of Christia- 
 nity ; as 2 Pet. 2,11. 3,2. Heb. 7,18. 19,19. And he lays down 
 the foilowing as the general sense: “" Religionis doctrine, quas ego 
 yobis trado, de.necessitate peccata fugiendi et sancté vivendi, non 
 sunt novee, sed jam ab initio Evangelii omnibus cognite.” But in 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. Il. 741 
 
 this there is something strained and harsh. Mackn. proposesa new, 
 but most far-fetched interpretation, The most eminent Commen- 
 tators, from Bp. Bull to Benson and Bp. Horsley, refer the subject 
 matter of ver. 7, 8. to that of 9—11., nainely, that Christians should 
 love each other even as Christ had loved them. Now this was an 
 early injunction of Christ, and had been all along inculcated by the 
 Apostles and true teachers ; the contrary to which was a recent in- 
 novation of false ones. Jt was, indeed, as old as the Mosaic law ; 
 but, en the other hand (for that is the sense of πάλιν) certain con- 
 siderations entitled it to the appellation of new, both as regarded 
 Christ and themselves (6 ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν). See the 
 paraphrase of Benson and his note, and the excellent paraphrase of 
 Doddr., as also Bp. Horsley’s Sermon on Joh. 13, 34., or the extract 
 in Slade, and the notes of Bp. Hall and Abp. Secker ap. D’Oyley and 
 Mant. 
 
 The words ὅτε ἡ σκοτία rapayerat, καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη 
 φαίνει are obscure and variously interpreted. I would translate : 
 ““ For the darkness is passing away, and the true light now shinetb.”’ 
 The connection seems to be this: “ And your obligations to fulfil 
 such a command are proportionably greater, for the darkness is 
 more and more dispelled, and,” &c. 
 
 9. ὁ λέγων---ἄρτι. By ἀδελῷ. is meant fellow-crea- 
 ture. See Matt. 5, 44. ᾿Εν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἐστιν, “ is yet 
 in the darkness of ignorance, and has no true know- 
 ledge of religion.” In this ignorance sin also seems 
 implied. The ἕως ἄρτι refers to the light having 
 shone on the world. It is truly remarked, by Ro- 
 senm., that to many this might seem a new doctrine ; 
 and the misanthropic spirit of the Jews is well known. 
 
 10, 11. ἐν to φωτὶ μένει, καὶ σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ 
 ἐστιν. Μένει seems to be for ἐμμένει ; and it isa sort 
 of vox pregnans, well explained by Rosenm.: “ eo 
 ipso declarat et ostendit se constantem esse,” &c. 
 By φωτὶ is meant the true religion, and the duties it 
 enjoins. It isthen added: καὶ σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῷ otk 
 ἐστιν, which words are variously explained. Benson 
 takes the αὐτῷ to refer to φωτὶ; and he renders : 
 ** there is no danger of his stumbling in that.” This 
 he supports with his usual ingenuity: but it is not 
 without reason that almost every other Commentator 
 takes it to refer to the person. Rosenm. paraphrases 
 thus: “in eo nullum obstaculum (virtutis) est; ni- 
 hil est quod eum impediat, quo minus nempe in 
 eognitione veri et virtutis studio crescere possit.’? 
 
742 1 JOHN, CHAP. IL. 
 
 Our affections and lusts (he adds) lay stumbling- 
 blocks for our virtue; whereas in his heart who has 
 true Christion love, the baleful passions of envy, 
 hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness, find no 
 place. 
 
 The words of the antithetical clause ὁ δὲ μισὼν--- 
 αὐτοῦ, Rosenm. rightly remarks, are not to be rigor- 
 ously interpreted. His exposition, however, is some- 
 what vague. The sense (I conceive) is: ‘* Such a 
 man shows that he is involved in the grossest igno- 
 rance of true religion, its essence, and duties; and 
 as far as he is a professor of Christianity, and aims at 
 salvation, he entirely wanders both in conception 
 and action from the object he seeks; and, like the 
 blind Sodomites, vainly wearies himself to find the 
 door of salvation.” 
 
 12. With the portion consisting of this and the three following 
 yerses Commentators have been not a little perplexed ; and most of 
 them stumble at what they please to call the fautology, on account 
 of which much ambiguity is supposed to exist in several of the ex- 
 pressions. Many, Mr. Slade says, with reason, ‘‘ adopt the conjecture 
 of Doddr., and suppose, from the great similarity of expressions, that 
 some were corrections of others ; and that, by mistake, all of them, 
 original as well as corrected, were received into the text.” And he 
 adds, that there does appear, altogether, from MSS. and Versions, 
 “no small uncertainty respecting the true reading. A consistent in- 
 terpretation (he thinks) of the passage might be obtained, by omit- 
 ting the two first clauses of ver. 13. as far as τὸν πονηρὸν; and by 
 beginning it with ἔγραψα ὑμῖν παίδια, instead of γράφω, which 
 reading is supported by some of the best authorities, and it will 
 agree with what follows.” He observes, too, that this construction 
 is supported by the context. (See more in his note.) But to all 
 this I must demur. Neither conjectures nor transpositions (espe- 
 cially when, asin the present case, they are unsupported by autho- 
 rity,) have, in the course of this work, received much attention from 
 me, nor do they seem entitled to it. And as to tautology, the no- 
 tions of the antients and the moderns differ exceedingly on this point, 
 the latter of whom have a fastidiousness thereon quite unknown to 
 the former. Now repetitions abound in the Apostle, and what are 
 called tautologies are not rare. But these ({ conceive) are seldum 
 imtroduced, except for the purpose of enforcing some precept, &c. ; 
 and such seems to be the case here, as I shall show in the annota- 
 tions, in the course of which the ambiguities and difficulties com- 
 plained of by Slade will (I trust) be removed. And, first, much 
 obscurity is removed from the passage by the view of the whole 
 traced out by Carpzov, whom see in loco, He takes the primary pro~ 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. II. 743 
 
 position and thesis to be contained in ver. 15. μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσ- 
 μον, μηδὲ τὰ ἐν κόσμῳ, which he prints in capitals, Rosenm., (who 
 entirely adopts his view,) observes, that certainly “the repeated verbs 
 γράψω, ἔγραψα, and also the repeated nouns rexvia, πατέρες, and 
 νεανίσκοι, are the same impelling causes insisted on anew. It is 
 plain, then, that the sentence is continued, and no full stop must be 
 placed, except after κόσμῳ." 
 
 Τεκνέα. ‘The best Commentators are pretty much agreed that 
 this is a general address, comprising all Christians, as at ver. 1.» 
 and frequently elsewhere in St. John. (See Beza and Wolf.) The 
 words dre ἀφέωνται ὑμῖν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ are sup- 
 posed, by Rosenm., to contain a reason why Christians ought not 
 to prefer the world (ver. 15.) ; namely, since the forgiveness of sins 
 should always be an incentive to the striving after holiness, and es- 
 pecially the cultivation of mutual love. 
 
 13. γράφω ὑμῖν; πατέρες, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, “1 write to 
 you, fathers, for ye know him that is from the beginning.’ ΜΓ, 
 Slade (rightly I think) supposes that the use of the word rekcvia 
 suggested to the Apostle the idea of addressing himself to the three 
 gradations of Christians denominated by children, young men, and 
 fathers. And he cites Schol. ap. Matth. Here, however, we are en- 
 countered with diversity of opinions. Many Commentators suppose 
 that this is meant for a distribution of Christians into the different 
 degrees of spiritual progress. But there is hardly any thing to coun- 
 tenance the notion. There seems scarcely more than an allu- 
 sion to the different degrees of proficiency which might be presumed 
 in those different ages ; and Rosenm. thinks these are introduced 
 oratorié: adding: ‘ Solent nempe qui ad alios verba faciunt spe 
 singulorum ordinum, singularumque actatum homines alloqui, non 
 quod heec vel illa admonitio ad unius conditionis homines pertineat, 
 sed ut declarent, se omnibus ac singulisaliquid dicere posse.” In this, 
 however, there is something rather too artificial to suit the plainness 
 and simplicity of the Apostle’s style. On the distribution of the 
 three ages which constitute the term of life, he might have ob- 
 served, that such was not unusual to the antients. So Thucyd. 6; 
 18. (1.2, 354, 6. Bekker.) καὶ νομίσατε νεότητα μὲν καὶ γῆρας 
 ἄνεῦ ἀλλήλων μηδὲν δύνασθαι, ὁμοῦ δὲ τὸ τε φαῦλον καὶ τὸ μέσον καὶ 
 τὸ πάνυ ἀκριβὲς ἂν ξυγκραθὲν μαλιστ᾽ ἂν ἱσχύειν. 7 Ἐ50ῃγ]. Sept. 
 Theb. 10. Ὑμᾶς δὲ χρὴ νῦν, καὶ τὸν ἐλλείποντ᾽ ἔτι Ἥβης ἀκμαίας, 
 καὶ τὸν ἐξηβον χρόνῳ, Βλαστημὸν ἀλδαένοντα σώματος πολὺν, Ὥραν 
 τ᾽ ἐχονθ᾽ ἕκαστον" & 660. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὔτε νιν φυγόντα μητρόθεν σκότον, 
 Our ἐν τροφαῖσιν, οὔτ᾽ ἐφηβήσαντά πω, Οὕτ᾽ ἐν γενείου ξυλλογῇ τρι- 
 χώματος, to omit many other passages which I shall adduce on the 
 passage of Thucydides. 
 
 The words ὅτε ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς are very remarkable: for 
 the best Commentators are agreed that the expression cannot mean 
 God, but Jesus Christ (since, as Rosenm. observes, He is in this por- 
 tion plainly distinguished from Him), and denotes his eternal being 
 with God the Father. Rosenm. aptly compares Joh, 1, 1. ἐν 
 apxn ἦν ὁ λόγος, Tadd Theophyl. Sim. 115 c, ἐπετίμησε yap rots 
 ἐθνεσιν ὁ ὧν am ἀρχῆς. Ὁ 
 
744 1 JOHN, CHAP. II, 
 
 . The application is obvious: that they will not prefer to this eternal 
 Being things temporal and speedily to perish, ver.17. See Rosenm, 
 
 The νεανισκοὶ are persons in the flower of life. And the νενική- 
 κατε τὸν πονηρόν alludes to those fiery temptations of Satan (‘< darts 
 tempered in hell’), or carnal temptations, which he levels particu- 
 larly. against such. For as the knowledge} of Christ is presumed 
 to be most in the aged, so carnal temptation, and, as it is to be 
 hoped, effectual resistance thereto, is to be expected from those 
 in the flower of age. 
 
 By the παιδέα are evidently meant the youths, or striplings. See 
 Benson. 
 
 14. ἐγραψα ὑμῖν---ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς. The repetition has peculiar energy : 
 and Rosenm. well translates: ‘‘ Tenete, quaso, senes, quod scrip- 
 serim, vos cognovisse,”” &c. And he remarks, that they are enjoined 
 to bear in mind by what means they have arrived at that happy state, 
 and to always strive after further degrees of perfection. 
 
 "Ore ἱσχυροί ἐστε---πονηρόυ. There is no need to resort to the 
 metathesis here supposed by Rosenm. ‘The words may be rendered : 
 ““ For you (I presume) are strong (in the Lord), and the word and 
 revelation of God abideth in you, and (1 trust that) you have exerted 
 your strength and conquered the evil one.’ 
 
 15. μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον, μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. Now comes 
 the weighty admonition so long suspended on the construction. 
 Here the Apostle cautions Christians against the love of this world, 
 and (as Bens. observes) enforces the caution with three arguments. 
 Ist. The love of God and the love of the world are inconsistent. 
 2dly. This world will soon pass away. S3dly. The rewards of sincere 
 piety will be eternal. 
 
 The κόσμον is, by most Commentators, explained the evil part of 
 the.world. (See Pole.) But I rather apprehend that the limitation 
 (for such must be supposed) is to be made at the word ἀγαπᾶτε, and 
 that this signifies this excessive degree of attachment which it is 
 never safe to devote even to the most legitimate objects of regard, 
 and the most important business of the world, otherwise it will 
 clash with the love towards God, (with which Price. compares the 
 religio patris,) and eventually destroy it. The above view (I find) is 
 supported by Bens. and Doddr. See the excellent note of the former, 
 
 16. ὅτι πάν τὸ ἐν κόσμῳ---ἐστι. ‘These words con- 
 tain the reason; and the Apostle here contemplates 
 the case when the affections (as it too often happens) 
 are absorbed and diverted from their proper object, 
 not by the legitimate and laudable objects of the 
 ~ world, but such as are altogether carnal and at va- 
 
 riance with our high calling in Christ Jesus. 
 
 It is evident from the words following that πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ 
 must denote ‘‘ whatever disposition of mind is (centered) in the 
 world,” which implies an excessive attachment to it. Of this the 
 Apostle gives three examples ; the ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκὸς, the ἐπιθυ- 
 
 ia τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν, and the ἀλαξονεία τοῦ βίου, which are supposed 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. II. 745 
 
 to be meant for the three different stages of life above mentioned ; 
 and it is generally thought that young men are cautioned against 
 the lusts of the flesh, old men against covelousness, and children 
 against the pride of life. Bens. however, supposes that the youth 
 were cautioned against indulging the lusts of the flesh, young men 
 or middle-aged persons against the pride of life or ambition, and 
 old men against covetousness. And in Jike manner Wolf and Doddr. 
 explain the ἀλαξονεία. Yet in these criticisms there is something 
 precarious ; and any such application of the three terms seems too 
 formal for the simplicity of the Apostle’s style. I rather imagine 
 that a caution is here intended against the most formidable temp- 
 tations that beset persons of every age. The ἐπιθυμία evidently 
 signifies sensual excess of every kind. The ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν 
 is by some applied to lasciviousness ; as Matt. 5, 28. 2 Pet. 1, 14. 
 where see the notes. And this I can myself confirm from Philostr, 
 V. Ap. 1, 42. τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν, ὅπερ εἰσάγονται διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν. 
 6,11. βρώσεως τε καθαρῷ, ἱμέρου τε ὃς φοιτᾷ δι’ ὀμμάτων. Hesch. ΠῚ. 
 Ρ. 53 ἡ ἐπιθυμέα ἡ διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἐρχεται. AEschyl. Agam. 718. 
 seqq. μαλθακὸν ὀμμάτων βέλος Δηξίιθυμον ἔρωτος ἄνθος Παρακλίνουσ᾽. 
 Eurip. Hippol. 527. Monk. Ἔρως, Ἔρως, ὁ κατ᾽ ὀμμάτων Στάξεις 
 πάθον, &c. Others interpret it of covetousness ; which may be plau- 
 sibly maintained (see the Jearned note of Carp.) ; but it is best to 
 take the expression in its most extensive sense, to denote a desire 
 for the gay vanities, the external gaudes (as they are called by our 
 old writers, ) of this world. This interpretation is confirmed by Ezek. 
 94-95% λαμβάνω τὴν ἔπαρσιν τῆς καυχήσεως αὐτῶν, τὰ ἐπιθυμήματα 
 τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν. As to the ἀλαξονεία τοῦ βίου, it is chiefly exegetical 
 of the preceding ; or may have, as Rosenm. thinks, especial allu- 
 sion to the ostentatious vanities of dress, and (he might have added) 
 all such other kinds of ostentation as the rich delight in. It is not 
 ill rendered by Tindale the pryde of goodes. It is best expressed by our 
 old word braveries, i. e. the ostentations, pomps, and splendours of 
 this world. 
 
 Now these, the Apostle adds, are not ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, i. 6. (as Ro- 
 senm. explains) are not agreeable to the will of the Father; and (as 
 Mr. Slade observes) he shows us, that though God, as our Creator, 
 is the author of our natural appetites, the abuse of them “ is of the 
 world,” 
 
 17. καὶ 6 κόσμος παράγεται, Kal ἡ ἐπιθυμία αὐτοῦ. 
 Hi pereunt, et perit id, quo delectantur, morte 
 finem imponente omnibus mundanis desideriis. Ca- 
 duca omnia, et citO transeuntia. (Rosenm.) The 
 παράγεται seems to denote the gradual perishing ofall 
 these things, which, as it were, fade from our eyes. I 
 would compare 1 Cor. 7, 31. παράγει γὰρ τὸ σχῆμα 
 τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, Where see the note. Ὁ δὲ ποιών τὸ 
 θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, μένει εἰς τὸν aiwva. By μένει εἰς τὴν 
 αἰώνα is (I conceive) not meant, as Rosenm. explains, 
 
74.6 1 JOHN, CHAP. Il. 
 
 ‘* he shall never cease to practise virtue, and find its 
 reward,” but simply, he shall have an eternity of life 
 and happiness; the objects of his love and attach- 
 ment will continue for ever, and will not, as in the 
 case of the sensual and worldly minded, leave him 
 even before he leaves them.” 
 
 18. Irom hence to ver. 28. the Apostle cautions 
 the Christians against those deceivers who then ap- 
 peared in great numbers: and points out to them 
 the many advantages which they kad for knowing 
 the truth; and the many obligations which they 
 were under to adhere to it, and to practise accord- 
 ingly. (Bens.) 
 
 18. ἐσχάτη dpa ἐστίν. On the sense of this expres- 
 sion Commentators are by no means agreed. Ro- 
 senm. enumerates five principal various interpreta- 
 tions. 1. “the last age of the world. But this can- 
 not be admitted, since the Apostle is speaking of 
 what is shortly to happen. 2. “ The time near unto 
 the destruction of Jerusalem.” But neither can 
 that be intended, if, as some say, the Epistle was 
 written in the name of Domitian. 3. ““ Perilous and 
 evil times.” 4. ‘The future or coming period,” 
 (from the Hebr. =n NNN), alluding to some 
 prophecy then well known. Knapp thinks the Apos- 
 tle has reference to the predictions of Christ respect- 
 ing some future false prophets (i. 6. teachers feign- 
 ing divine inspiration), Matt. 7, 15. 24, 11 and 24. 
 Mark 18, 22 and 23. “ Now (continues he) the per- 
 versity of many teachers in this age did seem to 
 point at the fulfilment of the predictions. In the 
 present evils the Apostle saw a prelude to future 
 and more serious ones, although of the exact time 
 when these should happen he knew not. See Acts 
 26, 29 and 30. 1 Tim. 4, 1. 2 Tim. 3, 1 sey. 4, 5. 
 2 Thess. 2, 3—12. 2 Pet. 3, 20. Jude 17 and 18.” 
 A highly ingenious, but (I think) somewhat too ar- 
 tificial an interpretation. As to the fourth, it has 
 very little to recommend it. The third, which is 
 supported by Schoettg., Wolf, and Rosenm., seems 
 to deserve the preference. 
 
 een ... 
 
1: JOHN, CHAP. If. 747 
 
 18. καθὼς ἠκούσατε ὅτι ὁ ἀντίχριστος ἔρχεται---ὥρα 
 ἐστίν. On the subject of the ἀντίχριστος there is as 
 little agreement of opinion as on the ἐσχάτη ὥρα. 
 (See Pole’s Syn. and Wolf.) It is observed by Ro- 
 senm. and Slade that the ἀντι. may signify in the 
 place of, or in opposition to. And some suppose that 
 the Apostle means the impostors who (as we find 
 from Josephus), after the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 rose up, and pretended to be the Messiah. But the 
 points of similarity are fewer than those of dissimi- 
 larity. The latter sense, therefore, of ἀντι. must be 
 adopted: and the best founded opinion seems to be 
 that of most early Commentators, and recently Ben- 
 son, Doddr., Rosenm., &c., that the Apostle means 
 false teachers, whose life and doctrine were in oppo- 
 sition to Christ and his religion; and the term is 
 supposed to be synonymous with the ὁ ἀντικείμενος of 
 St. Paul at 2 Thess. 2, 4. From the description St, 
 John gives of these men further on, and at 4, 3. and 
 2 Eph. 7., it appears that they were not (as Whitby 
 supposes) unbelieving Jews, persons who pretended 
 to be Christians, and yet maintained that Jesus was 
 not the Messiah; or, if the Messiah, in some pecu- 
 liar sense of their own. Others say they were apos- 
 tates. Andall the classes of early heretics are fixed 
 upon by some one or other of the Commentators, 
 (See Carpz.) Upon the whole, no certainty can be 
 attained, for want of more information on the reli- 
 gious state of those times. See Bp. Bull’s Judicium 
 Ecclesiz, p. 33, 38. and Vitring. Obss. Sacr. L. 5. 
 c. 12. 
 
 19. ἐξ ἡμών ἐξῆλθον.----μιῶν. The antithesis is very 
 pointed, but can scarcely be expressed in any other 
 language. The é&72ov is perhaps a vox preeenans. 
 And the sense seems to be this: “ They went forth 
 from us, and therefore had arisen from us; but they 
 were never really of us, not Christians in heart, but 
 who, after having become such, imbibed false no 
 tions, and threw the society into confusion.” 
 
 19. εἰ γὰρ---μεθ ἡμών. The Apostle proves their 
 
748 1 JOHN, CHAP. II. 
 
 former falseness from their subsequent apostacy. In 
 the next words ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα Φανερωθώσιν ὅτι οὐκ εἰσι πάντες 
 ἐξ ἡμῶν there is an ellipsis, which some supply by, 
 this was permitted by God. But that is too arbitrary 
 a subaudition. It is plain that ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθον must 
 be supplied from the former part of the verse (and 
 so the Syr. and E. V.); though the former may be 
 included in a secondary sense. 
 
 The words ὅτι οὐκ ἐισι πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν admit of two 
 renderings. E. V. &c. ‘“ that they were not all of 
 us.” But that cannot be the sense. They must 
 rather (by a sort of Hebraism, as v. 21. πᾶν ψεῦδος --- 
 ἐστι) be for drs πάντες εἶσι οὐκ ἐξ ἡμών, “ that they 
 were not any of them of us. Elio: for ἦσαν, as often. 
 Rosenm. assigns the sense, ‘‘ that not all those who 
 are in our societies are Christians at heart.” But 
 this the Φανερωθῶσιν will not permit; and at ὅτι οὐκ--- 
 there would be a very harsh ellipsis. 
 
 20. καὶ ὑμεῖς χρίσμα ἔχετε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου, “ ye are 
 anointed,” &c. Now anointing, according to Ori- 
 ental manners, is supposed to accompany inaugura- 
 tion to any office of dignity. This anointing may be 
 considered as alluding to our Christian inauguration 
 by the sacraments and the preaching of the word. 
 From a comparison of ver. 24 and 27. it appears that 
 this unction or anointing denotes the first instruction 
 in the Christian religion, the fruit of which is a 
 knowledge of the truth (ver. 20, 21 and 27). Since, 
 then, the thing is sufficiently shown by the writer 
 himself, we must not attend to those who maintain a 
 different sort of unction. (Rosenm.) ‘There may, 
 however, be an allusion to the imparting of the yapic- 
 para of the Holy Spirit, then so frequent. See the 
 note on 2 Cor. 1, 22. and Mackn. in loco. ᾿Απὸ τοῦ 
 ἁγίου may either mean God, or Jesus Christ ; though 
 the /atter interpretation is the more probable. See 
 Beza, Grot., Whitby, Wells, Doddr., and Mackn., or 
 the extracts in Slade. Καὶ οἴδατε πάντα. The ravra 
 must (as Grot. observes) be restricted by the subject 
 matter (as in 1 Cor. 9, 22. 15, 27.), and denote all 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. 11. 749 
 
 things necessary to salvation, and to avoid the delu- 
 sions of those impostors, viz. (as Rosenm. observes) 
 that the kingdom of Christ is not of this world (Joh. 
 18, 36.), that we are to render unto Cesar the things 
 that are Cesar’s, &c. (Matt. 22, 21.), that the jus 
 gladii is not to be seized, by taking the law into our 
 own hands. 
 
 21. οὐκ typava—oldare αὐτὴν. Rosenm. takes the 
 οὐκ ἔγραψα for, “non ea mihi scribendi fuit causa.” 
 But this is too harsh a subaudition. It is more na- 
 tural, with Carpz., to take ὅτι in the sense quasi, i. 6. 
 ἢ» (supposing) that.” And the words ἀλλ᾽ éri—éors 
 require a similar subaudition. Thus: “ but as sup- 
 posing, or trusting, that ye knowit.” For, as Bens. 
 observes, even persons in possession of knowledge, 
 nay, endowed with the Spiritual gifts, stood in need 
 of repeated cautions and admonitions. \ He might 
 have compared a kindred passage of 2 Pet. 1, 22. 
 Διὸ οὐκ ἀμελήσω ὑμᾶς ἀεὶ ὑπομιμνήσκειν περὶ τούτων, καί- 
 περ εἰδότας καὶ ἐστηριγμιένους ἐν τῇ παρουση ἀληθείᾳ. 
 
 Q1. ὅτι πᾶν ψεῦδος. Here is ἃ common Hebraism, 
 by which πᾶν with an οὐκ following stands for a ne- 
 gatio universalis, The sense is well expressed by 
 Benson thus: “ and are sensible that no false doc- 
 trine proceeds from the truth, or is consistent with 
 it.” By the truth is meant the pure Gospel ; and by 
 the ψεῦδος, the erroneous doctrines of the Anti- 
 christs. 
 
 22. τίς ἐστιν ὃ ψεύστης.-Χριστός ; This is.(as Ro- 
 senm. says) to be taken comparaté ; since there are 
 other kinds of impostors. ‘* Who is an impostor, if 
 he be not ?” i. e. who is so great an impostor as he 
 who denies that Jesus is the Messiah? ᾿Αρνεῖσθαι 
 and many such verbs take a negative after them, 
 which, not being expressed in other languages, is 
 thought a pleonasm, but it tends, as in the case of 
 two negatives, to strengthen the negation. 
 
 22, οὗτός ἐστιν----οἷὸν. ‘Rosenm. observes, that ἀονεῖσ- 
 θαι here signifies to detract from the faith and autho- 
 rity of; as Acts 3,13 and 14. And it is truly re- 
 
750 1 JOHN, CHAP. II. 
 
 marked by Whitby and Rosenm., that dgv. τὸν Πατέρα 
 does not signify to deny the existence of God, and 
 so be an Atheist, but (as Whitby says) to deny, 1. 
 the truth of his testimony, c. 5, 10. Joh. 3, 33.; 2. 
 the doctrine of the Father, or that doctrine which 
 proceedeth from him ; for “he whom God hath sent, 
 speaketh the words of God.” Joh. 3, 24. Whence 
 it is evident (continues Whitby) that he who denieth 
 the Son, cannot retain the true knowledge of the 
 Father, because he can be known only through the 
 Son. Joh. 1, 18. 4, 23 and 24. 8, 19 and 55. 14, 6 
 and 7. 16,3. Matt. 11, 27.” Or it may signify (as 
 Morus explains) to deny that the Father sent the 
 Son for the salvation of men, to deny the Father’s 
 benefits, as conferred on men by Jesus Christ.” So 
 also Rosenm. and Wets. 
 
 23. πᾶς 6 ἀρνούμενος τὸν ‘Tidy, οὐδὲ τὸν Πατέρα ἔχει, 
 ςς He who denieth honour to the Son, hath not the 
 Father in honour or in knowledge, receives not his 
 doctrine.” It is observed by Rosenm., that ἔχειν 
 Θεὸν, and κοινωνίαν ἔχειν μετὰ Θεοῦ, as also εἶναι ἐν Oca, 
 are in this Epistle interchanged, and denote all the 
 unity and relationship with God effected by religion. 
 See also Bens. The words 6 ὁμολογών---ἔχει, found 
 in many MSS., Versions, and Fathers, and received 
 by Griesb., Matt., Knapp, and Vater, have the ap- 
 pearance of being genuine; for they not only seem 
 to be required by the sense, but they savour of the 
 style of St. John; and their omission may better be 
 imputed to homeoteleuton than their addition to a 
 marginal scholium. 
 
 24, 25. ὑμεῖς olv—peverw. "An ἀρχῆς. “ from the 
 commencement of your evangelization.” Grot. re- 
 marks, that the construction is κατὰ τὸ σημαινόμιενον 5 
 as at ver. 27; for the Apostle begins as if to say: 
 “Ye then, what ye have heard from the beginning, 
 retain ;” but for the retain he puts, “ let it remain 
 in you.” 
 
 24, ἐὰν ἐν ὑμῖν μείνη ---μενεῖτε. Now, remaining in 
 implies favour, and the receiving the promises of 
 
1 JOHN CHAP. II. δὲ 
 
 God by the Son. The promise of the Father, i. 6. 
 the thing promised by the Father, is then said to be 
 eternal life and happiness. ‘The accusative is put 
 for the nominative, like the well known urbem quem 
 statuo vestra est. See, however, Bens. or Slade. 
 
 26. ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν περὶ τῶν πλανώντων ὑμάς. 
 The περὶ some render on account of ; as Matt. 4, 6. 
 Most assign to it the sense concerning. If it be ren- 
 dered quod attinet ad, the former signification may 
 be included. Ilaavaivrwy may signify those who are 
 seducing them, which imports the endeavour, whe- 
 ther successful or not. See Bens., Wells, and Doddr. 
 
 Q7. καὶ ὑμεῖς τὸ χρίσμα ὃ ἐλάβετε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἐν ὑμῖν μέ- 
 νει. The καὶ ὑμεῖς is rightly taken by Rosenm. for ad 
 quod attinet ; the ὑμεῖς being put absolutely. On 
 χρίσμα see the note supra, ver. 20. The words καὶ 
 οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε ἵνα τις διδάσκη ὑμᾶς, however, are 
 somewhat obscure. ‘They seem to express that the 
 persons he is addressing stand in need of no admoni- 
 tion to maintain a virtuous course: and Carpz. re- 
 marks that the τις (according to the usage of the 
 Apostle) denotes himself. But the words cannot have 
 such a meaning ; otherwise why did the Apostle ad- 
 monish them. Either, therefore, the expressions 
 must be understood with restriction (as they are by 
 Grot.) to time, places, and circumstances (on which 
 see the excellent note of Doddr.), or import that 
 they had no need of information for the purpose of 
 distinguishing false teachers from true ones; for 
 many had the gift of discerning spirits. See 1 Cor. 
 12,10. and the note. (Consult Mackn. and Slade.) 
 Or, with Bens. and Rosenm., we may suppose the 
 τις to relate to any of those impostors ; or at διδάσκη 
 understand τι, 1. e. ‘any thing those impostors could 
 teach you.” But this is not so natural a mode of in- 
 terpretation. 
 
 27. GAN ὡς τὸ αὐτὸ χάρισμια---μιενεῖτε ἐν ἀὐτῷ. Kal, 
 and so. Ψεῦδος is for ψευδὲς ; and (as Rosenm. ob- 
 serves) the same thing is said first affirmatively, and 
 then by denying the opposite. The peveire is by 
 
752 : 1 JOHN, CHAP. II. III. 
 
 some considered as the future for the imperative. 
 But that comes in the next verse. It seems better, 
 with Grot., Bens., and Rosenm., to take it for a 
 future bene sperantis et ominantis ; ‘‘ ye will (I trust) 
 remain in him, and continue in his doctrine.” 
 
 28. καὶ viv, τεκνία, μένετε---παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ. ‘The 
 sense (I conceive) is this: ** And now, my children, 
 (to my hope and trust let me add my injunction,) 
 abide (I say) in him, that when he shall appear, we 
 (i. 6. not only ye, but myself,) may have confidence, 
 and not have cause to blush and be confounded at 
 his presence, when he cometh.” In the change of 
 persons we may observe great delicacy; for the re- 
 jection and disgrace of the disciple tends to the dis- 
 credit of the teacher. See 1 Thess. 2, 19 and QO. 
 Hebr. 13, 17., &c. The καὶ νῦν is (as Carpz. observes) 
 a formula used in exhortation deduced from _pre- 
 mises, and may be rendered proinde. See also Slade. 
 Αἰσχύνεσθαι ἀπὸ τινος is compared with the Hebrew 
 1 win. So we say to blush at. Now such blushing 
 implies rejection. 
 
 20, ἐὰν εἰδῆτε----γεγέννηται. With these words Bens. 
 makes a new section commence. Δίκαιος, virtuous. 
 Γινώσκετε may be taken either for an indicative or 
 imperative. Toei τὴν δικαιοσύνην (as usual in St. 
 John,) imports an habitual practice of virtue. Ἔξ 
 αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται, ““15. his genuine son, is acknow- 
 ledged as such, and beloved.” In this sonship is im- 
 plied both a similarity with God, of feeling, thinking, 
 and acting, and the favour and benefits usually im- 
 parted by fathers to sons. On the expression see 
 more in Mackn., or Slade. The transition from 
 Christ to God is compared by Rosenm. with that at 
 ver. 3, 5, and 16. from God to Christ. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 St. John represents it as the honour and privilege 
 of the disciples of Christ, that they are the sons of 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. II. . 753 
 
 God, and entitled to future happiness. But, withal, 
 he lets them know, that the way to prepare for that 
 future felicity is, by purity of heart and life; that 
 the practice of righteousness is the only sure proof 
 that we are born of God, and are true Christians ; 
 as vice is an unquestionable proof of a man’s belong- 
 ing to the wicked one. (Bens.) 
 
 Ver. 1. Were ποταπὴν ---κληθῶμεν. Nova excitatur 
 attentio ; sed coheret oratio cum superioribus. (Ro- 
 senm.) dere, reflect, consider. Ἰ]οταπὴν ἀγάπην, 
 “ what an amazing proof of love.” “Ive τέκνα Θεοῦ 
 κληθώμεν. The καὶ ἐσμεν added in many MSS. and 
 Versions is from the margin. ‘The Apostle has re- 
 ference to the name applied to Christians by Christ 
 himself, Matt. 5, 45. On the import of the term see 
 the note supra, 2, 29. It appears (Slade says) from 
 the preceding verse, that the Apostle alludes to 
 those who actually were the sons of God, ‘‘ by doing 
 righteousness.” 
 
 1. διὰ rovro—aurcv. Benson observes, that the 
 two members of this argument are transposed ;— Be- 
 cause the world knew him not, therefore it knows not 
 us. Or the truth is first laid down, and then the 
 reason of it assigned. He adds that, when it is said 
 the world knew them not, it is meant, did not fully 
 comprehend what glory and felicity was implied in 
 being sons of God, and heirs of the eternal inherit- 
 ance, and this for the same reason, that they knew 
 not God (or Christ) and his doctrine, being blind in 
 heavenly things.” 
 
 2. vov τέκνα Θεοῦ ἐσμεν---ἐστι. Here we have a so- 
 lemn repetition of the same assertion, another truth 
 being engrafted upon it with respect to our dignity 
 and glory in the future world. I would paraphrase 
 thus: ‘‘ (As to our present state) now (I repeat) we 
 are already sons of God, and (as to our future one) it 
 does not yet appear what we shall be. However, this 
 we do know, that when he shall appear we shall be 
 like unto him, for we shall see him as he is.” On the 
 τέκνα see the note on 2, 29. Οὕπω ἐφανερώθη, “ it 
 
 VOL. VIII. tow 
 
754 1 JOHN, CHAP. III. 
 
 does not yet appear even to true Christians (much 
 less to the profane world; they cannot form any ac- 
 curate conceptions).” Ti ἐσόμεθα, “ in what state or 
 situation we shall be placed, and what called, what 
 dignity,” ὅς. ; for τι is a very extensive term, and is 
 (as Rosenm. observes) applied to all qualities. ‘The 
 οἴδαμεν Carpz. and Rosenm. treat as an expression 
 frequent in St. John, equivalent to sane, certissime. 
 And they might have compared the οἶδα ὅτι, and εὖ 
 οἶδ᾽ ὅτι of Thucyd. and the Attics. But this seems a 
 needless refinement. At ἐὰν φανερωθῇ the best 
 Critics, as Grot., Carpz., and Rosenm. take ἐὰν for 
 ὅταν. Butit is more correct to say that ὅτι ἐὰν is for 
 ὅταν. See several examples in Benson, and Whitby. 
 It remains, however, matter of enquiry, what is the 
 nominative to φανερωθῇ. Perhaps Θεὸς, or rather, as 
 Beza, Vorst., Menoch., Gomar, and most Commen- 
 tators suppose, Χριστὸς, ‘To this, however, objec- 
 tions are made by Bens. Yet ἐφανερώθη occurs in 
 this very sense at ver. 5. He and Tindall, Grot., 
 Carpz., Rosenm., and Jaspis think that τι ἐσόμεθα 
 must be repeated, ‘“ what shall be our then state and 
 dignity,” (which, however, as Slade observes, comes 
 to the same thing,) i. 6. (explains Rosenm.) not ;in 
 goodness only, but in eternity and blessedness ; no 
 longer liable to sin and death, our knowledge and 
 love of virtue cousummate. 
 
 2, ὅτι ὀψόμεθα αὐτὸν kabws ἐστι, 1. 6. NOt ἐν αἰνίγμα- 
 τι, but πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον, as says St. Paul, 
 1 Cor., 13, 12.3 and hence will arise felicity the 
 most complete. ‘The Commentators enlarge much 
 further: but they seem to forget the words just 
 before, οὕπω ἐφανερώθη τι ἐσόμεθα, which, after all 
 human speculations have been carried the furthest, 
 will remain true. 
 
 The ὅτι signifies stguidem, and the ὅτι ὄψομεθα, is 
 meant to show why we shall be like unto him. 
 
 3. Kal πᾶς ὃ ἔχων---ἁγνός ἐστι. Try ἐλπίδα, i. 6. 
 this hope of participation in felicity with God and 
 Christ, and of greater resemblance to their holiness. 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. III. + MSS 
 
 ᾿Αγνίξει. This is one of those verbs which imply 
 endeavour, i. e. ““ strives to purify himself.” Kadds 
 is by the best Commentators interpreted not of purity, 
 but samilitude (as Matt. 5, 48.), i. 6. so as to become 
 pure in like manner, though not in the same degree, 
 as He is pure and holy. See the excellent notes of 
 Beza and Whitby. 
 
 4. πᾶς ὃ ποιών τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν mores. 
 The best Commentators are agreed that by ποιεῖν 
 ἁμαρτίαν is meant habitual, wilful, and flagitious sin, 
 moral contamination, in opposition to the purity just 
 before mentioned. The τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ is equiva- 
 lent to ἀνομεῖ, 1. 6. νόμον παραβαίνει, scil. rod Θεοῦ. 
 And so Rosenm. explains. Carpz., however, under- 
 stands, by the phrase ποιεῖν ἀνομίαν, “ contaminate 
 the doctrines and laws of Christ, and violate his 
 religion.” See the paraphrase of Slade. 
 
 5. καὶ oldare—ev αὐτῷ οὐκ ἐστι. The Apostle now 
 adduces other reasons why we are to live holily; 
 Ist., Because Christ appeared on the earth for the 
 very purpose of suppressing sin, that men should no 
 longer commit it. (Rosenm.) But, considering 
 how frequent in Scripture is the expression αἴρειν 
 ἁμαρτίαν, always denoting the procuring pardon, by 
 taking away the guilt of sin, and thus atoning for it, 
 I cannot but adopt that sense here; and so Bens., 
 who has an excellent note. Yet the context and 
 course of reasoning seems to require the other, 
 namely, the being freed from the dominion and 
 power of sin (Rom. 6, 6.); a sense supported by 
 Hamm., Whitby, Doddr., Mackn., Rosenm., and 
 others. Perhaps, therefore, it may be best to unite 
 both interpretations ; 1. 6. Jesus Christ appeared on 
 earth, to abolish the tyranny of sin, and suppress all 
 deliberate sin, not merely by purity of doctrine, and 
 holiness of life (as Rosenm. supposes) but by making 
 an atonement for all involuntary and not deliberate, 
 or at least repented of and forsaken sin. 
 
 6. πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων, οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει. It is plain 
 that ἁμαρτάνειν here, as throughout this Epistle, 
 
 θοῷ 
 
756 1 JOHN, CHAP. III. 
 
 denotes habitual or deliberate sin. See Doddr. 
 Ἑωρακεν. This term, like the Hebr. 8 (from 
 whence it is derived), here signifies to know: an 
 idiom found in modern languages, by which corpo- 
 real perception stands for mental. The ἔγνωκεν 
 seems added exegetically, or to strengthen the 
 sentence, and need not be explained (with Rosenm.) 
 venerates and loves. The other pnrases of the verse 
 have been before explained. See Bens. 
 
 7. τεκνία, μηδεὶς πλανάτω ὑμᾶς. ‘There is here (by 
 a phrase found also at Eph. 5, 6., 2 Thess., 2, 3. See 
 also 1 Cor., 3, 18.) an allusion to false teachers, who 
 then (as now) devised other ways of being righteous 
 than that appointed by God; though even without 
 such, the heart of every man is too apt to deceive 
 him, by insinuating that a profession of the Christian 
 faith, and a love of virtue, will stand in the place of 
 the performance of theone, and the practice of the 
 other. 
 
 The ποιῶν must, as before, be understood of habi- 
 tual virtue in the main course of our lives. For 
 so (as Doddr. observes) it is necessary to interpret 
 the phrase, in order to avoid an indulgence as extra- 
 vagant as the severity we have just before opposed. 
 Bens. (after Le Clerc.) compares a similar sentiment 
 of Aristot.: “ Then shall a man be righteous. 15.) 
 If he does the things which are righteous, and knows 
 what he does. 2dly., If he does them freely, or out 
 of choice. Sdly., If he continues firmly and con- 
 stantly in that course of action.” To which I add 
 Themist.: ἐκ τῶν τὰ δίκαια πραττόντων ὃ δίκαιος γίνεται, 
 καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τὰ σώφρονα ὃ σώφρων. See also Slade. 
 
 8. ὃ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν. . The 
 ποιῶν must again be understood of habié ; and there 
 is a brevity (unnoticed, however, by the Commenta- 
 tors) which requires to be thus supplied, and the 
 whole rendered as follows: “ He that practises sin 
 
 must not say he is a son of God; no,) he is (a son) 
 of the Devil (and this son-ship is established by 
 strong similitude) ; for the Devil has been habitually 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. III. 757 
 
 and perpetually sinning.” It is not necessary to 
 press on the ax’ ἀρχῆς, which some interpret, “ from 
 the beginning of the human race.” Rather, “ from 
 time he began to sin.” It should seem that as the 
 present tense here denotes continuity of action (See 
 Bens.), so the ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς may import perpetuity of 
 action. ‘The expression, son of the Devil, occurs at 
 Joh. 8, 44 & 47., where see the notes. 
 
 At the words εἰς τοῦτο---διαβόλου, the argument 
 requires a καίτοι, and yet. Indeed, the omission, or 
 peculiar use of the particles, isone of the causes of 
 difficulty in St. John’s writings. The sentiment is 
 nearly the same as at ver. 5.; but, as for αἴρειν we 
 have λύειν, there is no direct allusion to the atoning 
 for sin. Though, as death and misery are conse- 
 quences of sin, they are the works of the Devil, and, 
 therefore, the atonement of Christ as much destroyed 
 the latter, as his Divine precepts and holy example 
 did the former. See Bens. 
 
 9. πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ. 
 
 The Commentators have failedto observe thatthe words πᾶς οὐ ποιεῖ 
 contain nearly the same sentimentas the πᾶς---ἁ μαρτάνει; forson-ship 
 and intimate union are cognate ideas. They must therefore have the 
 same sense ; and ἁμαρτίαν ποιεῖ must be explained, like ἁμαρτάνει, 
 of deliberate and habitual sin. Here, however, some words are added 
 by way of explanation, to show the πῶς ; and as these words contain 
 an obscure expression, (ὅτε σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ péver,) and 
 another of some latitude, (οὐ δύναται,) it is no wonder that they 
 should have been misunderstood. That they cannot be meant to 
 assert the doctrines of perfection, and the impossibility of the Saints 
 falling away, is (as Benson observes) quite certain from the many 
 exhortations and threatenings of this Epistle (as well as the rest of 
 the New Testament), which show not only the possibility, but the 
 danger of the Saints falling away. That, in point of fact, none are 
 free from sin, is asserted supra, 1, S. And as the sense of ἁμαρτίαν 
 ov ποιεῖ is Clearly ascertained from ver. 5., so from thence it will 
 appear what that of ob δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν is not; namely, that it 
 cannot signify absolute impossibility, by the exertion of any exter- 
 nal power, for that would prevent every kind of sin as well as habi- 
 tual and deliberate sin; indeed deliberation would be out of the 
 question. We must therefore resort to some other mode of inter- 
 pretation. δύναται some explain, will not, does not choose. But 
 this, though a not unexampled signification, is too vague. It is 
 better, with the most eminent Commentators, from Grot. to Rosen., 
 to take it of moral impossibility, i. 6. he, as it were, cannot bring 
 
758 1 JOHN, CHAP. Ill. 
 
 himself to commit such sin, it is foreign from his disposition. 
 And Grot. adduces several Scriptural and Classical examples. See 
 also Wets. This sense, too, of δύνασθαι, is every where recognised 
 by the antient Commentators, and here, by GEcumen. And in the 
 same way the expression is understood by Milton, cited by Valpy. 
 Indeed, the idea is quite common in the modern languages, See a 
 kindred passage at 5, 18. 
 
 The reason for this is then suggested in the words ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 γεγέννηται; i. 6. he remembers his affinity to God. and the obligation 
 thence resulting to imitate him. 
 
 But we have not touched on the obscure expression ὅτε σπέρμᾳ 
 αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῶ μένει, which is assigned as a reason why he does not 
 practise sin, The best founded interpretation seems to be that of 
 Grot., adopted by Bens., Rosenm., and most recent Commentators : 
 Quia verbum Dei, quod quasi semen est, quo divina natura in nobis 
 gignitur, in ipso vegetum existit, vel vim suam exserit. Semen Dei 
 est verbum Evangelii. Matth. 13, 19., 1 Pet, 1, 23. Jac. 1, 18. 
 Μένειν, hic est inesse, quod intelligendum ἐνεργῶς, ita ut nec are- 
 factum sit, nee suffocatum, sed naturam efficientiamque retineat. 
 Est autem talis argumentatio : Fieri non potest, ut qui filius est Dei, 
 in eo non sit verbum, quod est semen divinum. At verbi vis ea est, 
 ut nos a peccatis arceat jubendo, vetando, pollicendo, comminando. 
 All this is true as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. 
 
 The vital principle of a holy life committed to our hearts (like a 
 seedling to the ground), consists not only in the word of God, but 
 also the Divine grace by that word is made effectual. Here Carpz. 
 cites the words of Virgil : ‘ igneus est illi vigor et ccelestis origo 
 Semini.” And he interprets the σπέρμα of the sanctification of the 
 Holy Spirit, by which it reforms the will, and produces salutary 
 fruits. Galat. 5,22. An antient Interpreter ap, Gicumen, under- 
 stands it of the Spirit, received at Baptism. 
 
 10. ἐν τούτῳ φανερά ἐστι---οὑτοῦ. Here the Apostle 
 repeats what he had before said, that ‘ every one 
 who does not practice righteousness, is not of God:” 
 but in the words ἐν τούτῳ Gavepa ἐστι Ta τέκνα τοῦ 
 
 n A \ “ = /, 
 Θεοῦ καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου, he means to say, that 
 by this, i.e. the having, or not having or practising 
 this righteousness, the children of God are plainly 
 distinguished from those of the devil. Φανερά, “ plain 
 (to be distinguished).”’ , 
 
 On this general position the Apostle engrafts a 
 more special one, regarding that part of the duty to 
 men which consists in love and kindness to our 
 brethren, i. e. not only our brother Christians, but 
 our brother men. So Carpz. explains it Φιλαδελφία, 
 Φιλανβρωπία, Now this is so important as to form a 
 
 test of our being sons of God. See Bens. 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. ΠΙ. 759 
 
 The phrases made use of have been all before ex- 
 plained. 
 
 11. From hence to ver. 24. the Apostle continues 
 the above exhortation, and urges it by various argu- 
 ments; 1. That the precept is of equal antiquity and 
 authority with that enjoining holiness of life, as 
 originating in Christ himself. 
 
 ᾿Αγγελία is commonly interpreted message: but it 
 seems to denote a command to be delivered to others, 
 an injunction. See Bens. 
 
 12. οὐ καθὼς ΚΚ ἄϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν. This, Rosenm. 
 says, is an elliptical expression for οὐκ ἐσμεν ἐκ τοῦ 
 πονηροῦ καθως Kaiv ἦν. But it seems to be rather an 
 idiotical and provincial form of expression: and we 
 may suppose an ellipsis of οὕτω ποιώμεν ὅς, “ And not 
 as Cain, who was a son of the devil, and murdered his 
 brother (so det us do, by repressing that love, and 
 fostering those feelings of hatred, which may tend 
 to murder).” Then, by way of caution, the Apostle 
 suggests the cause of this hatred, namely, envy and 
 malice at his brother’s superior goodness and favour 
 with God. In which view Rosenm. cites Cic. Cat. 
 Maj. 
 
 18. μὴ θαυμάϑετε, ἀδελφοὶ μου, εἰ μισεῖ ὑμᾶς 6 κόσμιος. 
 Grot., Bens., and Rosenm. think there is here an 
 igitur ; taking this to be an inference from the pre- 
 ceding example. So Rosenm. observes: ‘ Mores 
 contrarii et perversi solent semina et cause esse 
 discordiae et odiorum.” And he adds: ‘ Indicium 
 enim impiorum est semper insectari pios.” Yet the 
 Apostle seems, from the next verse, to hint that as 
 the profane world was sure to hate Christians, so 
 they should the more love each other. 
 
 14. ἡμεῖς oldapev ὅτι---ἀδελφούς. Bens. well para- 
 phrases thus: “ But let us not be discouraged by 
 that hatred, since we have such glorious prospects. 
 For we know that we have passed over from that 
 state in which we were liable to the second death, 
 into that in which we have a well-grounded title to 
 immortal life, because we love the Christian 
 
760 1 JOHN, CHAP, III. 
 
 brethren. He that loveth not his Christian brother, 
 still remaineth liable to the second death.” See his 
 note. 
 
 15. πᾶς ὃ μισών---ἐστι. A fifth reason for their 
 cultivating love to the Christian brethren ; namely, 
 “that hatred of them, or want of love to them, was 
 a sort of murder, or one step towards it-? And who 
 would not be shocked at the thought of being a 
 murderer? (Bens.) Now this was meant to explain 
 the introduction (somewhat abrupt) of Cain the 
 Sfratricide, ver. 12. ᾿Ανθρωποκτόνος imports “ a dispo- 
 sition which tends to violence and murder.” So, I 
 find, Virg. Atn. 6, 607., places in his Tartarus those 
 “« quibus invis? fratres, dum vita manebat.” And as 
 murder cannot but exclude from eternal life, so must 
 that which is the seed and origin of it disqualify any 
 one to be a son of God. So Rosenm. observes, that 
 the intentions are the same in both. . And it may be 
 added, as Christ not only forbade adultery, but an 
 evil eye, so is not only murder forbidden, but male- 
 volence and anger, which tend to it. The same ap- 
 plies to all other crimes. . 
 
 16. ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν ----ἔθηκε, “ By this we (may) 
 know (what) love (is), namely, that he laid down his 
 life for us, and (thus) ought we to lay down our 
 lives for our brethren.’ Now ἀγάπη, like all names 
 of virtues and vices used in a general way, takes the 
 article. And Rosenm. renders: ‘‘ the true nature 
 of love.” But it must surely be mentioned with 
 reference to Christ, 1. 6. (as Carpz. renders) amor 
 immensus Christi erga redemptos. With the ἐκεῖνος 
 Carpz. compares a similar use of the Hebr. N17. 
 
 The καὶ contains the apodosis, ‘‘ and we, on our 
 parts, in return.” On τιϑέναι ψυχὴν, see Joh. 10, 11. 
 15, 17. 13, 37 & 38. &c. On the force of the ex- 
 pression ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφών τὰς ψυχὰς τιθέναι, 
 much has been written. It would seem most agree- 
 able to the words to understand it, with Grot., Are- 
 teus, and others, of martyrdom, which many were 
 then called upon to endure. Yet this the context 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. III. 761 
 
 scarcely permits. I am therefore inclined to think, 
 with Carpz., Rosenm., and Jaspis, that here is to be 
 considered dlsaie ἐπε: notio universalis, and the ex- 
 pression (which seems to be proverbial), is not to be 
 
 rigorously interpreted, but understood of making 
 very great sacrifices, exposing ourselves to imminent 
 per ils, as omnia facere aliorum caussa, signifies que- 
 vis officia humanitatis et charitatis, et fidem pre- 
 stare summam. See more in Carpz., who adduces 
 Scriptural examples. See also Doddr. 
 
 17. ὃς δ᾽ av ἔχη---ἐν αὐτῷ. Biov, facultates, property, 
 that on which we live. See Schleus. Lex. Χρείαν 
 ἔχειν, is one of the many phrases formed from ἔ ἔχω 
 and a noun, and signifies to be in need. Kai κλείση 
 τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦς On ona. see Luke 1, 
 78. 2 Cor. 6,11., and the note. Αποκλείειν signifies 
 to shut out, and here it is used figuratively of shutting 
 up one’s heart, and barring it against the entrance 
 of compassion. In πῶς ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ, the inter- 
 rogation involves a strong negation. 
 
 18. μὴ ἀγαπῶμεν- -ἀκηβείᾳ. In this antithetical 
 sentence λόχῳ and ἔργῳ (which are often opposed in 
 the Classical writers) are explained, and the sense 
 strengthened by γλώσσῃ and ἀληθείᾳ. The sentiment 
 inculeated is obvious. Compare James 2, 15 & 16. 
 Wets. cites Theogn. 972., to which I add Soph. 
 Antig. 539. λόγοις δ᾽ ἔ eyo Φιλοῦσαν οὐ «στέργω φίλην. 
 
 19. καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας Ermer, 
 «« And by this we know whether we are of the truth 
 (in this respect,” i. e. of love to others). Rosenm. 
 compares the phrases ἐκ Θεοῦ εἶναι, and εἶναι ἐκ τὴς 
 ἀληθείας, 1 i. 6. to be agreeable to truth, and sincerely 
 profess it. And Carpz. adds, ἐκ τοῦ Διαβόλου εἶναι, 
 Joh. 3, 8. ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, &c. ‘The ἀληθ. he explains 
 true religion. Carpz. understands it of the pure 
 doctrines of the Gospel, or holiness of life, or both. 
 Thus he takes the expression ἐκ τὴς ἀληθείας εἶναι to 
 be equivalent to ἀληθινοὶ εἶναι ; and therefore by oi 
 ἐκ τὴς ἀληθείας may be denoted true Christians, sons 
 of God, and united with him. But the context seems 
 
762 1 JOHN, CHAP, III. 
 
 to limit the expression to that part of true Christi- 
 anity, which consists in love of our neighbour for 
 God's sake. 
 
 19. καὶ ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ πείσομεν τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν" 
 The future indicative is here for the subjunctive. 
 The sense is: “ And in the sight, in respect of Him 
 (our Judge), we may, in this important respect, 
 pacify, set at rest, and quiet our hearts.” For he 
 who truly loves all men, may trust that the mercy 
 and favour of God will not be withheld from him. 
 On the above signification of πείθω something appo- 
 site may be found in the note on Matt. 28, 14. See 
 also Grot. and Bens. 
 
 20. ὅτι ἐάν--- γινώσκει πάντα. Some difficulty here 
 arises from extreme brevity, to remove which a 
 clause must be supplied from the preceding verse, 
 either (with Bens.) at the commencement of the sen- 
 tence; or, (with Rosenm.) after καρδία, thus: “But 
 if our heart and conscience condemn us of want of 
 this kind feeling towards men (then may we noé set 
 our minds at rest, and hope for the mercy and favour 
 of God).” Such seems to be the more natural me- 
 thod, and it is supported by the authority of the 
 antients. (See, however, another proposed by Morus 
 and Noesselt. ap. Rosenm.) But perhaps this clause, 
 and especially the next and more difficult one, may 
 be illustrated by supposing an aposiopesis. ‘The 
 words pel2wy ἐστὶ»----πάᾶντα, may be thus rendered : 
 “Nay, still less reason can we have to assure our 
 hearts, since God knoweth far more of our failings 
 than even our memories and consciences can supply 
 (for He knoweth them all); still less reason, there- 
 fore, will there be to assure our hearts.” See Slade. 
 
 21. ἐαν ἡ καρδία---Θεόν. ‘This is the opposite to 
 the former sentiment. The μὴ καταγινώσκῃ must 
 not be rigorously interpreted: and the case supposed 
 is that of a son of God whose conscience is clear, 
 not seared, and deadened by repeated strokes, and 
 where the examination has been diligent, and the 
 scrutiny unsparing. 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. III. 768 
 
 The wage. has been before explained. On 
 the term see the note on Hebr. 4, 16.  Bens., 
 Schoettg., and Vater rightly connect these words 
 with the preceding, as assigning a reason for his holy 
 confidence. A punctuation strongly supported by 
 5, 14. 
 
 22. Here St. John assigns another reason for cul- 
 tivating universal righteousness, and_ particularly 
 mutual love; namely, “ that then their prayers 
 would be heard, and God would grant them all pro- 
 per blessings.” (Bens.) 
 
 23. καὶ αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ ----ἡμῖν, ** And his 
 commandment, the chief of all, is, that we believe in 
 the Divine mission of his Son Jesus Christ, and love 
 each other according to the injunction he gave us.” 
 Carpz. takes ἡ ἐντολὴ to mean the sum of the pre- 
 cepts: 4. d. ‘* Ordo salutis talia postulat,” πίστιν 
 καὶ ἀγάπην; aS 1 Tim. 1, 5. τὸ τέλος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας 
 ἐστὶν ἀγάπη ἐκ πίστεως. Rosenm. observes, that the 
 singular is used, because one precept follows from 
 the other. He therefore who believeth in Jesus, 
 and loveth his fellow creatures, obeys the religion of 
 God, and is accepted by him (ver. 24). ; 
 
 24. καὶ 6 τηρῶν---αὐτῷῴ, ‘* And he who keepeth his 
 precepts (generally) abideth in Him, and He in 
 him ;” which implies love and favour and blessing 
 from God. In the next sentence is given a test of 
 the having this abiding of God in them, namely, 
 by the imparting of the Holy Spirit and its gifts, 
 whether extraordinary or ordinary, which, in either 
 case, imply the approbation and favour of God, and 
 from the presence or absence of which we may infer 
 our spiritual state. Such seems to be the true sense, 
 though the Commentators do not quite see it. Ro- 
 senm. compares Eph. 1, 14. 2 Cor. 1, 22. and 
 Mackn., Joh. 14, 23. Benson well observes, that 
 from this text and 2, 20 and 27. and 5, 16. it appears 
 that many of those to whom the Apostle wrote, had 
 the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. Nay, he says, 
 that most, if not al/, the adult Christians every 
 
764 1 JOHN, CHAP, III. Iv. 
 
 where had those miraculous gifts. But this seems 
 on many accounts utterly incredible. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Ver. 1—6. What has just been said of true Chris- 
 tians having the Spirit, as a proof of Divine favour, 
 introduces a digression on false teachers, or persons 
 pretending to spiritual gifts ; and rules are given for 
 discriminating one from the other. 
 
 1. μὴ παντὶ πνέυματι πιστεύετε. By πνευμ. most 
 Commentators understand one setting up for an in- 
 spired teacher; as 1 Tim. 4, 1. and 1 Cor. 12, 10. 
 And Rosenm. observes: “ Nam profiteri est homi- 
 nis concedentis aliquid, vel negantis.” But actions 
 are often ascribed to things, especially faculties 
 which tend to produce action. And some Commen- 
 tators maintain that it signifies the Spirit, by which 
 the man is actuated. (See Bens.) ‘This, however, 
 comes to the same thing; or both may be admitted ; 
 nay, the signification doctrines (which some adopt) 
 may be included. Here I would compare Philostr. 
 Vit. Ap. 3, 45. Olear. καὶ yap κέρδος εἴη μήτε πιστεύειν, 
 μήτε ἀπιστεῖν πᾶσιν. Phocyl. 13, 74. μὴ πίστευε rax- 
 ora, πρὶν ἀτρεκέως πέρας ὕψει. Diog. Laert. 9, 88. 
 δοκιμάϑειν τὰς Φαντασίας. 
 
 1. ἀλλὰ δοκιμάϑετε τὰ πνεύματα, εἰ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν. 
 Here πνεῦμα must be taken in the second and third 
 of the above senses, 1. 6. “try whether they seem to 
 have originated from God and the Holy Spirit.” 
 The reason given is, that many false teachers are 
 gone abroad into the world. The ἐξεληλύθασιν εἰς 
 τὸν κόσμιον is explained by τοί. and most Commen- 
 tators, publice se ostenderunt, vel apparuerunt popu- 
 lo; as Joh. 6, 14. 10, 36. 12, 46. Still there is no 
 example of ἐξερχ. εἰς τὸν κοσμ..» which appears to be a 
 provincial expression. 
 
 ῳ͵ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκετε τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ‘ By this 
 rule which follows (a rule, too, given by Christ, 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. Iv. 765 
 
 Matt. 11, 6. 26, 31.), ye may know.’ A sense of 
 the present Indicative, frequent in St. John. Our 
 English Translators, and Doddr., take γινώσκετε in 
 the Imperative. But this is not so proper, nor so 
 suited to the Apostle’s style. 
 
 2. πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ 
 ἐληλυθότα, ἐκ τ. Θ. ἐ. 
 
 The πνεῦμα must have the first of the above senses, i. 6. the person. 
 ‘Opodoyet is rendered, by Rosenm., docet. But it rather signifies, 
 “* professes and teaches.” ὈἜρχεσθαι is a vox solennis of the mission 
 and appearance of Divine legates. Ἔν σαρκὶ. It is truly remarkable 
 that so many able Commentators, as Grot., Vorst., and others ap. 
 Pole, should take up with an interpretation which could only have 
 been expected from the Socinians (who are resolved to find their 
 opinions every where), namely, “‘ was a mere man.’* Which is so 
 contrary to St. John’s perpetual assertions in his Gospel and Epistles, 
 that it cannot be the sense. And even had that not been the case, 
 the sense were too strained and unnatural a one to be adopted. 
 Adverting to the known opinions of the hereticks of that age, which 
 consisted not in a denial of the Divinity, but the humanity of Christ, 
 the best Commentators are agreed that there is reference to the 
 tenets of the Doctors and others, who held Jesus Christ to have been 
 a mere φάντασμα, and not having areal body. Now the Apostle 
 maintains that he came really (clothed) in the flesh, i. e. in a human 
 body, and subject to all corporeal pains and weaknesses. As to the 
 being a mere man, that is quite another thing; and that St. John 
 could not mean that is clear from what has been said above, nay, the 
 passage supplies an inference the very contrary. The arguments 
 for the other interpretation, adduced by Grot., Vorst., and Schliting, 
 are too weak to merit attention; and the interpretation above 
 adopted is established, beyond doubt, by Bens. and Carpzov. 
 
 The var. lect. ὃ Avec τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν may be justly considered, with 
 
 Mill, &c., as a mere marginal Scholium. And the textual reading, 
 here and just after, besides other proofs, is established by an imita- 
 tion of St. John’s disciple, Polycarp, Epist. ad Phil. ὃ. 2. (cited by 
 Carpz.) πᾶς γὰρ ὅς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογεῖ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυ- 
 θῆναι. 
 
 8. καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ---ἔστι. This is (after the 
 manner of St. John) a strengthening of the position 
 just laid down by an affirmation of the converse. 
 
 Kal τοῦτο ἐστι τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου---ἤδη. Here there is 
 
 * Now (as Mackn. observes) the Doctors as well as people be- 
 lieved the Son of God to be himself God. This has been abundantly 
 proved by some learned Jews. See the Lettres de quelques Juifs, 
 addressed to Voltaire, and the Vindicie Biblicz of a Jearned Jew of 
 this country. 
 
766 1 JOHN, CHAP. IV. 
 
 an ellipsis either of χρῆμα, or πρᾶγμα, or of σημεῖον, 
 or (as Carpzov and most Commentators suppose) 
 πνεῦμα. See the note on 2, 18., from which and the 
 present passage, Mackn. observes, “ it appears that 
 Antichrist is not any particular person, nor any par- 
 ticular succession of persons in the church, but a 
 general term for all false teachers in every age.” 
 Now these false prophets, Carpzov remarks, had, in 
 various places, appeared, and endeavoured to per- 
 suade others that the Messiah would come pera πολ- 
 λῆς Paytacias, and not ἐν σαρκὶ. But, especially 
 among the Philippians, there seem to have been 
 these enemies τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
 of whom both St. Paul makes mention in his Epistle 
 3, 18., and Polycarp in his Ep. §. 13. πᾶς yap ὅς ἂν 
 μὴ Gporoyy “I. X. ἐν σαρκὶ ἔληλυθέναι, ᾿Αντίχριστός ἐστι" 
 καὶ ὅς μὴ ὁμολογήση τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ, ἐκ τοῦ 
 διαβόλου ἐστί. 
 
 4. ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστε, τεκνία, καὶ νενικήκατε 
 αὐτούς. Rosenm. takes the expression ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 εἶναι to be equivalent to intelligens esse religionis. 
 But this is too limiteda sense. It must here denote 
 those who to sound knowledge unite right disposi- 
 tions, supported by the Holy Spirit. See more in 
 the note on ver. 1. and elsewhere. Νενικήκατε (which 
 is vaguely explained by Rosenm.) must signify, “ ye 
 have thwarted and frustrated all their attempts, by 
 force, or fraud, to pervert you from the truth, and 
 purity of the Gospel.” The next words ὅτι μείϑων 
 ἐστιν ὃ ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμιῳ Seem to have reference 
 to ἃ clause omitted ; not, however, that supplied by 
 Benson, but the following: “ (and no wonder) be- 
 cause,” &c. The 6 ἐν ὑμῖν must denote, “* God, who, 
 by the Holy Spirit, enlightens and strengthens you.” 
 
 The ὃ ἐν τώ κόσμω is explained, by Rosenm., 
 ἐς inscii errori et ignorantize dediti;” q. d. “ The 
 doctrine of God, which is in you, is strong enough 
 to refute those who are given to error; Verum est 
 magis potentie falso, praeponderat falso ;” as if no 
 more be meant than the adage, “ Truth is mighty 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. Iv. 767 
 
 and will prevail.” But this is an utter perversion of 
 a passage which plainly inculcates the doctrine of 
 spiritual influence, both for good, and for evil. 
 
 5. αὐτοὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἰσι, “ The teachers I allude 
 to are not (I repeat) of God, but are of the world, 
 mere worldlings. Hence from that spirit they speak, 
 and (from the same spirit) the world heareth them 
 (and receives doctrines adapted to their taste).” 
 Such is (I conceive) the full sense; and all the above 
 subauditions are requisite. See Benson. Rosenm. 
 illustrates the sense from Joh. 3, 31. 
 
 6. ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, &c. By ἡμεῖς, the best Com- 
 mentators are agreed, is meant, “ we, the Apostles.” 
 But it may include other divinely commissioned 
 teachers; as Timothy, Titus, and others. ᾿Ακούειν 
 is here to be taken as in the preceding verse. See 
 Benson. 
 
 6. ἐκ τούτου γινώσκομεν TO πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ τὸ 
 πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης. From this, i.e. the receiving, or 
 the rejecting this doctrine, we may know (i.e. per 
 κοίνωσιν, ** ye may know’) how to distinguish the 
 spirit of truth, and that of error (and the persons 
 who are thereby actuated).* 
 
 7. The Apostle now returns to the subject of love 
 to others, treated of at 3, 23. And this reiteration 
 Benson ascribes to the false teachers being very de- 
 fective in this duty. Ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστι. 
 Grot. observes, that by the very name of the Deity 
 every one understands what is most excellent. We 
 may, however, especially advert to that name by 
 
 * « None (observes Benson) but Apostles and Prophets, persons 
 who gave abundant proof of a divine mission, can justly speak in 
 this knowledge, and make the following them, or their doctrines, 
 the standard of truth, or detection of error.” I would add that, as 
 then the receiving the Apostles as divinely commissioned teachers, 
 and embracing their doctrines, was the way to distinguish those who 
 were of God; so now the reverently receiving the truths of the 
 Gospel as contained in the Holy Scriptures, and promulgated by 
 God's ministers, properly commissioned, is the touch-stone te try 
 men's hearts, whether they “‘ savour of the things that be of God,” 
 or ‘‘ those that be of men.” 
 
768 1 JOHN, CHAP. Iv. 
 
 which the Northern languages designate Him, and 
 which, I believe, to be the adjective good taken sub- 
 stantively. 
 
 The phrases “ to be born of God and to know God,” 
 have been before explained. They, of course, imply 
 an imitation of the excellences of God. ‘* Such a 
 person (to use the words of Benson in his para- 
 phrase), like a genuine son, resembles his heavenly 
 Father, and shows that he rightly understands the 
 nature and will of God, as made known by the Chris- 
 tian revelation.” 
 
 8. ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν, &c. This, after the foregoing 
 note, can require little explanation. Οὐκ ἔγνω must 
 mean, ‘ does not truly know God.” Ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη 
 ἐστίν, “ God is love itself,” i. 6. the most benevolent 
 of beings, the benevolent Being. See Benson. 
 
 9. ἐν τούτῳ---ϑϑήσωμεν δι’ αὐτοῦ. Here we have the 
 same sentiment as at Joh. 8, 16., where see the note. 
 Ἔν ἡμῖν, κ΄ ἴῃ respect of us.” By ϑήσωμεν are de- 
 noted all the blessings of the Gospel, both in this 
 world and especially in the next. Rosenm. explains 
 it, knowledge, virtue, peace of mind, hope of felicity 
 here, and the fruition of it hereafter. Σώφϑειν, cwr7- 
 gia, &c. have sometimes this extensive sense. 
 
 10. ἐν τούτῳ ἐστιν yj ἀγάπη. Quod generalius dix- 
 erat, id specialits explicat. (Grot.) St. John’s 
 meaning is, that God loved us first. (See ver. 19.) 
 Men are, generally, very ready to love those by 
 whom they are first beloved. But such was the 
 astonishing love of God to men, that, when they were 
 sinners and enemies, he so loved the world as tosend 
 his most beloved Son to live and die for them. ‘This 
 was a matter of free-grace, or pure favour. (Bens.) 
 
 10. οὐχ ots. For ὅτι οὐχ. “ This love was espe- 
 cially stamped by his sending (as a pledge of it) his 
 beloved Son, for the purpose of expiating our sins.” 
 
 11. ἀγαπητοὶ, i—ayarav. The Apostle directs us 
 to imitate the example of Him whose sons we pro- 
 fess to be. 
 
 12. Θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεθέαται. Bens. paraphrases: 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. IV. 769 
 
 “ No man hath, with his bodily eyes, seen Gop at 
 any time.” And, therefore, we cannot have such 
 visible converse and sensible communion with him, 
 as we may have one with another. But if we love 
 one another, we are in the Divine favour, and our 
 love of God is perfect and complete.” So Rosenm.: 
 “no one is conversant with God, as men with men: 
 but although there be not such a society with God, 
 yet we assuredly know that we do love and are loved 
 by him, if we love others.” The words ὁ Θεός ἐν ἱμῖν 
 μένει, &c., signify that there is real conjunction and 
 perfect love. 
 
 13. ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν---ἡμῖν, The same senti- 
 ment as at 3, 4., except that here is added ὅτι ἐν αὐὖ- 
 τῷ μένομεν. ‘The Apostle now mentions another evi- 
 dence that we are united with God, namely, that 
 although God be not visibly present, yet we enjoy 
 the benefits he confers on us, and so we know we are 
 conjoined with him. (Rosenm.) The πνευμ. com- 
 prises all the manifestations of the Spirit, both ordi- 
 nary, and extraordinary, on which so much has been 
 already said. 
 
 14. καὶ ἡμεῖς τεθεάμεβα----κόσμου. Σωτῆρα is in appo- 
 sition with υἱὸν, and has the sense of, as Saviour, i. e. 
 to be the Saviour. There seems to be a clause 
 omitted,* which Rosenm. well supplies thus (as to 
 what I said, ** that the Son was sent by God for the 
 salvation of men,” and that thus a striking proof was 
 given of the love of God, no one should doubt) : for 
 we are eye-witnesses to the thing. We have seen 
 him dead and risen again.” Now that he should die 
 for the redemption of the human race our Lord had 
 said, Matt. 20, 26 & 28., and assuredly God would 
 not have raised him from the dead, had he been a 
 deceiver. 
 
 15. ὃς dv ὁμολογήσῃ ὅτι--- Θεῷ, On the connection 
 see Benson. ‘The sense is: ‘* Whosoever shall con- 
 fess that Jesus is the Son of God (the Saviour sent 
 for our salvation), he is really united with God (in 
 mutual love).” Now the Apostle takes for granted, 
 
 [9] 
 
 * VOL. VIII. oD 
 
770 1 JOHN, CHAP. Iv. 
 
 not only that the profession is sincere, but produc- 
 tive of asuitable conduct. And, indeed, as in times 
 like those, open confession and undaunted profession 
 implied sincerity, it was likely to draw with it the 
 other. See Benson. 
 
 16. καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐγνώκαμιεν----ἡμῖν. ““ And (to induce 
 men so to believe) we (Apostles) can affirm that we 
 do surely know the love which God hath to us.” See 
 the note on ver. 14. Ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη---ἐν αὐτῷ. An 
 earnest repetition of what was said supra, ver. 8 & 
 122 & 3, Sh. 
 
 17. ἐν τούτῳ τετελείωται---κρίσεως, ““ By this (may 
 we know that) our love is perfect and sincere, 
 namely, by having confidence (of our acceptance) in 
 the day of judgment.” Such seems to be the true 
 sense. ‘Though Translators and Commentators dif- 
 fer, and especially on the signification of ἵνα. See 
 Pole’s Synop., Wolf, and Benson. Μεθ’ ἡμῶν, within 
 us,inus. A rare sense. 
 
 17. ὅτι καθὼς---τούτῳ, namely, ‘‘ for the reason that 
 as God is (thus disposed towards us men), so also 
 are we in this world (disposed) towards others, 
 namely, because we imitate the example of love, &c. 
 set us by our heavenly Father, and therefore may 
 hope for acceptance.” Such (chiefly formed upon 
 Benson and Rosenm.) seems to be the true sense, 
 though the Commentators differ. See Pole’s Syn. 
 and Carpzov. 
 
 18. φόβος οὐκ ἔστιν---ἔχει. The literal sense is as 
 follows: “ (Slavish) fear exists not in this love, but 
 perfect love (such as this) casts aside fear; for (such) 
 fear carries with it terror (which is inconsistent 
 with love; since) he who so feareth is not perfected 
 in love, does not love perfectly and sincerely.” 
 Φόβος here signifies a fear, not of displeasing God, 
 but of incurring his punishment, which conscience 
 raises. The rest of the sentence requires little ex- 
 planation. See Benson, or Rosenm. and Slade, the 
 latter of whom truly observes that casting out fear 
 cannot mean the fear of losing or suffering any thing 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. Iv. 771 
 
 by means of our brother; for, in truth, perfect love 
 might not always exclude such a fear: but the ex- 
 pression plainly refers to the preceding verse, and is 
 contrasted with a joyful confidence in the mercy of 
 God; and the word κόλασις, which follows, is pro- 
 perly opposed to that feeling of satisfaction and de- 
 light which flows from such a confidence. 
 
 19. ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμιεν---ἡμᾶς. The best Commenta- 
 tors, from Grot. downwards, take ἀγαπῶμεν in the 
 subjunctive (on which see Benson): “ Let us there- 
 fore (so) love him, because he first loved 5. A 
 repetition of the argument above. [Πρῶτος is here 
 put for πρότερος. 
 
 20. ἐὰν τις---ΦἉΨεύστης ἐστίν. The reason is plain. 
 For he really loves God who imitates him. Now 
 in God is the most perfect benevolence towards 
 all men. Whosoever, therefore, hateth men, hateth 
 God, and thwarts his benevolent designs. (Rosenm.) 
 ‘O yap μὴ ἀγαπῶν---ἀγαπᾶν. Rosenm. compares 
 Philo de Decal. p. 761 pb. ἀμήχανον εὐσεβεῖσθαι τὸν 
 ἀόρατον ὑπὸ τῶν εἰς τοὺς ἐμφανεῖς καὶ ἐγγὺς ἀσεβούντων. 
 He also gives a statement of the argument. The 
 following, however, given by Slade (from Whitby) is 
 the simpler. ‘“ The Apostie is contrasting our love 
 of God with the love of our neighbour: in a reli- 
 gious point of view, the obligation to both is the 
 same; both being equally enjoined, ver. 21. And 
 with respect to circumstances, purely natural, we 
 have more powerful motives to the love of our neigh- 
 bour, as being more fully acquainted with him by 
 ocular experience, than we can possibly be with 
 God.” See 2,4. 9,10 & 11. 3,17. 4, 12. and the 
 notes. Benson observes that there is an allusion to 
 the proverb, “ Ignoti nulla cupido.” But that seems 
 little probable. 
 
 21. καὶ ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν---ἔχομεν---αὐτοῦ. The 
 ἐντολὴ here is the ἀγγελία mentioned at 3, 11., where 
 see the note. Now this ἐντολὴ is, that “ he who pro- 
 fesses to love God, should love his brother also,” 
 
 3D 2 
 
772 1 JOHN, CHAP. IV. V. 
 
 Otherwise, by neglecting the latter, he cannot 
 acceptably perform the former. It is the union of 
 both that can alone obtain the favour of God. 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Verse 1. From hence, to ver. 13., St. John con- 
 tinues to recommend that love of the Christian 
 brethren which arises from a love to God, and a 
 regard to his commandments: and intimates, that a 
 true faith in Jesus, as the Christ, will enable us to 
 overcome the temptations of this world. And to 
 establish such a faith in them, he refers them to the 
 testimony or evidence which God had given to the 
 mission of his Son Jesus Christ, to which, if they 
 paid a proper regard, they might, through him, 
 expect everlasting life. (Bens.) 
 
 1. πᾶς 6 πιστεύων ὅτι---γεγέννηται. ‘This is closely 
 connected with the preceding: and the Apostle goes 
 on to enjoin mutual love of Christian brethren ; 
 urging it on this ground, that Christians are children 
 of God, our heavenly Father. The πιστεύων implies 
 (as Rosenm. explains) a true and sincere belief, and 
 that shown in a profession of faith, in a hope in the 
 promises, and, as resulting from that hope, a fulfil- 
 ment of the precepts. On the force of ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 vey. see the notes on 3, 9., and 4, 7. The καὶ at καὶ 
 πᾶς, signifies but. Of πᾶς 6 ἀγαπῶν, which words 
 have the air of an adage, the sense is obvious: but, 
 as Rosenm. observes, we are to understand them of 
 brothers of a common father. 
 
 2. ἐν τούτω γινώσκομεν ὅτι---τήηρωμεν. ‘These words 
 are connected with the preceding; the Apostle 
 arguing e generali ad speciale. Since what was said 
 at ver. 1., was universally true, so also it holds good 
 of the love of God. (Rosenm.) There has here 
 been some doubt about the construction, and, as de- 
 pendent thereon, the sense ; and the contrary would 
 seem more apposite. Qicumen. supposes an inver- 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. V. 773 
 
 sion, Grot., a transposition ; thus: ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκο- 
 μεν ὅτι τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαπώμιν, ὅταν ἀγαπῶμεν TA τέκνα αὐ- 
 τοῦ, καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμιεν. And so Dr. 
 Clarke. Carpz. would take ἀγαπῶμεν for a second 
 Future; and he renders the ὅταν quamdiu. Another 
 interpretation is proposed by Morus, which may be 
 -seen in Rosenm. ‘The frst mentioned method 
 seems to be somewhat preferable, but it is utterly 
 unauthorized, and too violent to be admitted. 
 Indeed, the sense yielded by the words as they now 
 stand, is unobjectionable in itself, and not inappo- 
 site; and they may be thus rendered: “ By this 
 may we know that we love the children of God 
 aright, when (or in that) we love God, and keep his 
 commandments.” The aright is well supplied by 
 Bens. ; and the ὅταν is by Rosenm. taken for ὅτι; 
 though that is not absolutely necessary. 
 
 3. αὕτη γὰρ---τηρώμεν, “for this is the decisive 
 proof of our love to God, that we keep his command- 
 ments.”? ‘The Commentators remark that the ἀγάπη 
 is to be taken objectively, and there is in it a metony- 
 my for ostenst amoris. And they might have com- 
 pared 4, 10., ἐν τούτῳ ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη ὅτι, ὅζο. On the 
 sentiment see Bens. “The words καὶ αἱ ἐντολαὶ, &c., 
 are supposed by him to answer to a probable objec- 
 tion; and he thinks there is a meiosis; referring to 
 Matt. 11, 28—30., and other texts. It should rather 
 seem that they are levelled against the Jews or Juda- 
 izers, who supported a system whose injunctions 
 were a heavy burthen; whereas the yoke of Christ is 
 comparatively easy, and his burthen light. And, as 
 Slade says, “this must refer not to extreme but to 
 ordinary cases.” In proof of this the Apostle, in 
 proceeding to show how it is easy, adverts to” those 
 points in which the Gospel is especially superior to 
 the Law, namely, the love of God, as opposed to the 
 fear of him, that renewal of the heart by the com- 
 munication of Divine Grace, which the Law did not, 
 and could not provide. The sentiments of the 
 
 ᾿ 
 « ᾽ 
 oa Se 
 
"174 1 JOHN, CHAP. ν. 
 
 Heathen writers on this subject are adduced by 
 Grot. and Priceeus, with which we may dispense. 
 
 4. ὅτι πᾶν τὸ γεγεννημιένον ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, νικᾷ τὸν κόσ- 
 pov, “ Now, as a proof of this (γὰρ), whosoever is 
 born of God, conquers (the temptations of) the 
 world.” Πᾶν is the neuter for the masculine. An 
 idiom common both in the Scriptural and Classical 
 writers, and which indicates universality. Here it 
 is possible there is an ellipsis of γένος. Whether it 
 comprehends (as Slade thinks) the regenerate princi- 
 ple in the soul, may be doubted. What is meant by 
 the being born of God, and the mode by which the 
 victory is obtained, has been before shown. But the 
 grand principle by which the victory is obtained, is 
 suggested by the Apostle himself in the words καὶ 
 αὕτη--- πίστις ἡμῶν, where at νίκη there is a metonymy 
 of the effect for the efficient ; and αὕτη is for τοῦτο ; 
 as just before. The Aorist is used to denote what 
 happens at all times, and is customary. How faith 
 produces this effect, can require no explication. 
 
 5. tis ἐστιν---Θεοῦ. Here (as Rosenm. observes) 
 the Interrogation is strongly affirmative; as 2, 22. ; 
 q. ἃ. “ if such a person cannot conquer the world, no 
 other can.” Now, the believing that Jesus is the 
 Son of God, signifies not only believing in his God- 
 head (for such is the import of the title Son of God, 
 on which see the excellent note of Mackn., and 
 Horsley ap. Slade), but in his power and ability to 
 impart salvation, by atoning for our sins. This will 
 apply to every individual, since all are sinners. The 
 connection with the following is thus traced by 
 Rosenm.: The reason why he who believes Jesus to 
 be the Son of God, can overcome evil affections is, 
 that in him was fulfilled all that was expected from 
 the Messiah. For he both instituted baptism, and 
 expiated us by his blood. 'To this is added the 
 weighty testimony of God himself. These three things, 
 then, as confirming the same thing, take away all 
 doubt.” See Bens, 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. V. 775 
 
 0. οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δι᾿ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Incous ὁ 
 Χριστός. 
 
 The best Commentators are agreed that here διὰ is put for ἐν 
 (which, as well as διὰ, is often put for σὺν), and that ὁ ἐλθὼν dv 
 ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος signifies, ‘ came with the use of (i. 6. introdu- 
 cing) baptism, and in order to shed his blood,” i. e. in order to pu- 
 rify and to save. See Pole’s Syn. (cited by Slade), and also Whitby, 
 Doddr., and Mackn. Many recent Commentators, as Zachariz, 
 Bengel, Moldenh., and Rosenra., think that by his baptism is meant 
 his own baptism by John, when was pronounced the testimony of 
 God to his Divine mission. This appears to me not so suitable a 
 sense. The opinion of Gomar, Hamm., Bens., and Horsley, that the 
 Apostle meant the blood and water which issued from our Lord’s 
 side, has little probability, and is refuted by Mr. Slade. As to the 
 interpretation of Grot., it is utterly untenable. 1 must, for my own 
 part, acquiesce in the opinion of Whitby, and others above referred 
 to; and I cannot but think, with Carpz., that St. John intended the 
 two sacraments ; by water, meaning the λοῦτρον παλιγγενεσίας, and 
 by blood, i. 6. the Lord’s Supper, in which the wine is poured out as 
 a symbol of the blood of the New Covenant. By the former (Carpz. 
 adds), we are regenerated, and become sons of God; and by the 
 latter, we are united with God, and obtain a victory over the world 
 (ver. 4 & 5.). 
 
 In the words οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι povov, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι 
 καὶ τῷ αἵματι the Apostle (as Rosenm. observes) 
 shows that the words preceding were expressed con- 
 sideraté. Compare Joh. 19, 30. καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἐστι τὸ 
 μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμα ἐστιν ἡ ἀληθεία, * Moreover it 
 is the Spirit that hath taught us this doctrine respect- 
 ing the Saviour, and the purpose of his coming upon 
 the earth, and hath borne witness to the truth 
 thereof; and firmly may we rely on his testimony, 
 since that Spirit is truth itself.” Such seems to be 
 the best founded sense. Rosenm. thinks, that the 
 last words refer to those passages of the Gospel of 
 St. John, where the Spirit of truth is mentioned. 
 The ἀληθεία he refers to the atéevria and ἀξιοπιστία 
 of the divine testimony. And the ὅτι (he observes) 
 answers to the Hebr. °5, stqguidem, quippe. Various, 
 however, are the interpretations of the passage that 
 have been proposed, for which I must refer the 
 
 reader to Pole, Wolf, Bens., and Rosenm. 
 
 7,8. On these very celebrated verses tracts, nay whole volumes 
 have been written. It were hopeless for me to attempt, in such a 
 limited space as the nature of my plan permits (and especially to- 
 
776 1 JOHN, CHAP. V. 
 
 wards the conclusion of a work which has already far exceeded the 
 prescribed bounds,) to give any satisfactory view of so extensive 
 ἃ question as they involve. I think it better, therefore, for the pre- 
 sent, to decline any examination of the passage ; and 1 am the more 
 induced to do this, since able condensed views of the question are 
 to be found in works which I presume most of my readers possess, 
 especially Slade’s Annotations, Horne’s Introduction, Nolan on the 
 Greek Vulgate, and finally (instar omnium), the recent Treatise of 
 the venerable and very learned Bp. Burgess, which has caused some 
 of those who were most firmly opposed to the authenticity of the 
 verses to hesitate, and others, to sing their παλινώδια. Now as 
 few could have conceived it possible for so much more to have been 
 said in defence of the verses than had before been brought forward, 
 and as no one can foresee the perfection to which Biblical research 
 may hereafter be carried, so I would deprecate that spirit by which 
 this and other similar supports of our faith are abandoned, with 
 an inconsiderateness that contemplates our stores as inexhaustible. 
 
 To me it appears probable that the verses are genuine: but I am 
 inclined to agree with the learned Bps. Horsley and Middleton that 
 they will, if genuine, not decidedly prove the doctrine of the 
 Trinity; and therefore by far too much anxiety about the determi- 
 nation of the critical question as to their authenticity has been felt 
 and expressed by the Orthodox in general. Much, too, is it to be 
 lamented that controversies on a passage which affects (as most 
 think) our faith, should have been made the means of violating that 
 Christian charity without which faith itself and knowledge were 
 vain, and a tinkling cymbal. 
 
 9. εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυ- 
 pla τοῦ Θεοῦ μείϑων ἐστιν. Λαμβ., ‘receive and admit ἃ 
 testimony in a court of justice.” A forensic term, 
 Thus according to Deut. 17, 6. 19, 15. the testimony 
 of two or three witnesses was to be received. Hence 
 the Apostle adds: ὅτι adry—viod αὐτοῦ, ““ For that is 
 to be accounted as the testimony of God, which he 
 hath testified of hisSon.” From this concurrent tes- 
 timony it appears, that Jesus was declared to be the 
 Son of God by God himself. (Rosenm.) See Bens., 
 from whom the above is chiefly derived. 
 
 10. ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔχει THY μαρτυ- 
 ρίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ““ He that believeth on Jesus, as the 
 Son of God, or the Messiah, hath received, and re- 
 tains in himself, the above mentioned divine testi- 
 mony.” (Bens.) ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ is emphatical, and 
 indicates firm assent, surety, and safety. See Est., 
 who takes the ἐν for σὺν, secum. Ὁ μὴ πιστεύων τῷ 
 
 ee ee 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. ¥. 777 
 
 Θεῴ, ψεύστην πεποίηκεν, “ treats God asa liar; acts 
 as if he thought him so;” as 1,10. The preterite is 
 put for the present, “ more Hebreo,” Grot. says; 
 but this use is found in the Classical writers. In ὅτι 
 οὐ----τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Θεὸς is put for αὐτὸς. In which 
 Grot. again recognises a Hebraism. But it seems 
 rather used reverenter. The idiom in μαρτυρίαν 
 μεμαρτ. is very common. - 
 
 11. καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία--ταὐτοῦ ἐστιν, “ And 
 this is (the chief thing testified to summum testimoni- 
 um, as Rosenm. explains) that he hath bestowed onus 
 (the means of attaining) eternal salvation. And this 
 salvation is attained through his Son.” Αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ 
 μαρτυρία, as Joh. 1,19. ‘* Here (observes Rosenm.) 
 St. John shows how nearly our happiness is con- 
 nected with this doctrine of Jesus, the Son of God. 
 For by the Son is obtained salvation; by him the 
 Father has opened the way to eternal bliss. ‘There- 
 fore the sum of the Gospel consists in acknowledg- 
 ing Jesus as the Christ, or the Son of God. Com- 
 pare Joh. 17, 3. Matt. 16, 16.” 
 
 12. ὁ ἔχων---ϑωὴν. Rosenm. takes ὁ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν 
 for ὁ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν ws υἱὸν ; as Matt. 145. ὡς προφήτην 
 αὐτὸν εἶχον. See Hardy. Vorst. and Pisc. explain: 
 ‘‘amplectitur per fidem affectuosam et obedientem.” 
 But I prefer (with Benson) to take the ἔχων for κα- 
 τέχων ; not unlike the ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῶ at ver. 10. ἔχει 
 τὴν ϑωήν. Grot., Hardy, and others explain, ‘* hatha 
 promise of and sure title to eternal life.” Rosenm. : 
 ‘© may hope for.” So Menoch.: ‘* habet vitam gratiz 
 in re, et ρου in spe,’”’ hath the means of attaining 
 it. The opposite is expressed in οὐ py—ody ἔχει, 
 which words require no explanation. 
 
 13, ταῦτα---τοῦ Θεοῦ. There seems, at first sight, 
 a sort of tautology in these words. But this is re- 
 moved by supposing, with Vorst., Beza, Gom., 
 Hamm., Bens., Carpz., and Rosen., that πιστεύειν here 
 denotes emphatically a continuance, constancy in, 
 and increase of belief. Which is preferable to read- 
 ing, with Grot., for ἵνα mor., οἱ πιστεύοντες ; ἃ mere 
 
778 1 JOHN, CHAP. V. 
 
 emendation. The sense is: “that ye may know 
 and be assured that ye have (thereby) the means of 
 attaining eternal life; and that (knowing this), ye 
 may indeed believe and continue in the pure Gospel.” 
 
 14. καὶ αὕτη ἐστιν 7% παῤῥησία. ““ΤῸ enforce the 
 foregoing exhortation to believers, namely, to be 
 confirmed and constant in the faith, the Apostle 
 shows them here what a special advantage believers 
 have above other persons, namely, confidence in all 
 their approaches to God, and a full assurance. 
 There seems to be in this and the next verse an allu- 
 sion to the promise which our Lord made to his 
 Apostles, and which John has recorded in his Gos- 
 pel, c. 14, 12—14.; also c. 16, 23 and 24.” (Valpy.) 
 
 The αὕτη ἡ παῤῥησία is used as the preceding 
 αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία, αὕτη ἡἣ μαρτυρία. The sense is: 
 “and on this (namely, that we know we may expect 
 future salvation,) rests our sure confidence in God.” 
 Tlagéyoia is taken as at 3, 21. 
 
 14. ὅτι ἐὰν τι αἰτώμιεθα κατὰ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ, ἀκούει 
 ἡμῶν, “that if we pray for any thing according to 
 his will, he will hear τι5. The κατὰ ro θέλημα αὐτοῦ 
 is explained by Rosenm., “such things as may tend 
 to his glory, and to our spiritual good.” What is 
 chiefly inculcated (continues he) is, that we are to 
 leave all to the divine will, according to which the 
 whole universe is governed after the example of 
 Christ, who prayed: ‘‘ If it be possible, let this cup 
 pass from me; yet not my will, but thine be done.” 
 Bens. understands the whole of this verse and the 
 remaining ones as chiefly containing directions to 
 those who had the extraordinary and miraculous 
 spiritual gifts, how to use them. But though that 
 seems to throw some light on ver. 16 and 17., yet it 
 is too hypothetical to be safely adopted. It, there- 
 fore, appears better, with most Commentators, to 
 keep these separate from the two following (which 
 seem addressed to the Apostles only), and under- 
 stand them of the prayers of Christians in general. 
 
 15. καὶ ἐὰν οἴδαμεν ὅτι---αὐτοῦ, Plain as the words 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. V. 779 
 
 may seem, there is some difficulty in the sentiment, 
 which Morus ap. Rosenm. attempts to remove by 
 rendering thus: “ Et si hoc est verum, eum nos 
 exaudire, verum est et hoc: nos habere res petitas ab 
 illo (nosque eas illi debere acceptas referre).” But 
 to lay such a stress on rag’ αὐτοῦ, is too arbitrary and 
 harsh. It is better to take the words in their plain 
 and natural sense, thus: ‘* And knowing, as we do, 
 that he heareth us, in whatever petitions we prefer, 
 we may know that we have (i. 6. shall have) from him 
 the petitions we thus (i.e. according to his will) desired 
 of him.” ΑἹ ὁ must be understood kara. The diffi- 
 culty, which perplexes almost all the Commentators, 
 may be removed, by supposing (with Doddr.) that 
 κατὰ τὸ θέλημα is to be supplied from the preceding 
 verse. Or at least the petitions must be supposed κατὰ 
 τὸ θέλημα (in the sense that has been just explained) ; 
 for otherwise, the Apostle’s own words teach us, 
 they will not be patiently heard, much less granted. 
 Now the above will hold good, whether the petitions 
 were for ordinary blessings, or extraordinary inter- 
 positions. 
 16, 17. ἐὰν τις ἴδη τὸν ἀδελφὸν---θάνατον. 
 
 Gomar observes, that from prayer offered up for ourselves St. 
 John passes to that offered up for others. The passage, however, is 
 involved in great obscurity. ‘The difficulty chiefly rests with the 
 phrases ἁμαρτία μὴ πρὸς θάνατον, and ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον, as also 
 Φωὴν 781 ἴεν. By the ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον some understand the 
 sin against the Holy Ghost. Others, any grievous sin, as idolatry, 
 homicide, adultery. Others, again, as Schoettg., such a sin as was 
 held capital in the Mosaic Law. All very improbable. More atten- 
 tion is due to the interpretation of Carpz.. whom see. As to that 
 of Rosenm. (also embraced by Morus), though ingenious, it is so 
 much at variance with the context, and (as Jaspis says) so abhor- 
 rent from the style of St. John, that it cannot be safely adopted. I, 
 however, so far agree with Rosenm., that these verses are in some 
 measure distinct ; since they seem to regard prayer in extraordinary 
 cases, as the other, ordinary ones. But I cannot assent to the opi- 
 nion of Bens,, Mackn., and others, that the words are to be inter- 
 preted of the body, not the soul; and that the Apostle alludes to 
 those diseases which were inflicted as a punishment for sin, and 
 which were often healed by the prayer and anointing of the elders 
 (1 Cor. 11, 30. 12, 9. James 5, 14.), who were endued with a power 
 of discerning in what cases their gifts of healing should be bestowed; 
 and whether or not (according to the nature of the offence, or the 
 
780 1 JOHN, CHAP. V. 
 
 offender, ) the sin committed was a sin unto death.” The whole 
 passage is thus paraphrased by Benson: ‘< For instance, if a Chris- 
 tian, by an impulse of the spirit, perceives that any Christian bro- 
 - ther has sinned such a sin as to draw down upon himself a disease, 
 which is not to end in death; but to be miraculously cured by 
 him; then let him pray to God, and God, in answer to his prayer, 
 will grant life and perfect health unto such Christians as have 
 sinned a sin, which is not to end in death. There is a sin which 
 draws down a disease, upon Christians, that is to end in death. .1 
 do not say, or mean, that any Christian shall pray for that ; because 
 in such a. case God would not hear his prayer, nor miraculously 
 cure his Christian brother at his request. Every unrighteousness is 
 such a transgression of the divine Jaw, as offends God. But all 
 sins are not equally heinous and aggravated. And, consequently, 
 they do not draw down equal punishment upon men. For a 
 greater sin is unto death, whilst a lesser sin is not unto death.” 
 
 ᾿Αμαρτάνειν ἁμαρτίαν is thought to be a Hebraism ; but I find it 
 in Eurip. Hippol. 20. rev" ἡμάρτηκεν eis σ᾽ ἁμαρτίαν; 
 
 18. οἴδαμεν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐ 
 ἁμαρτάνει.  Byo yey. ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ is meant the (true) 
 son “of God, in opposition to those who sin unto 
 death. The expression has been before explained. 
 ‘Apapr. must be understood (as often before) of ha- 
 bitual and deliberate sin. It may be rendered: 
 “ς does not practise wickedness.” Τηρεῖ ἑαυτὸν, care- 
 fully keepeth himself (from such base and unworthy 
 conduct).” ‘Tyg. is a very strong term. Carpz. refers” 
 to Hesych. τηρεῖ. φρονεῖ. And he compares Eph. 6, 11. 
 Rosenm. compares James 1, 27. ἄσπιλον ἐαυτὸν τηρεῖν. 
 Kal ὁ πονηρὸς οὐχ ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ ‘“‘ and so the evil 
 Being touches him not (so as to hurt him).” The 
 Commentators are agreed, that by FEBS se is, per 
 litoten, here meant to hurt and destroy, as Joh. 9, 
 19., for the Hebr. y33. See more in Elsn., or Bens. 
 and Slade. ‘The general sentiment is, that the true 
 Christian does not practise sin; as in a kindred 
 passage at 3, 9. πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημιένος--- γεγέννηται, where 
 there is the same repetition of yeyevy., meant to draw 
 the attention to that point of doctrine. 
 
 19. οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐ ἐσμεν. The connection and 
 sense seems to be this: “ And it is no wonder that we 
 who are true Christians, should thus keep ourselves 
 from sin, for we assuredly know that we are of God, 
 are his children, and that the world at large lieth 
 
 eee a υυυθδομι 
 
 —_—- μδνδκι 
 
1 JOHN, CHAP. Vv. 781 
 
 under the dominion of the evil one.” Hence sin, 
 though it may be naturally expected from them, were 
 highly inconsistent in us.” Many, indeed, take τῴ 
 πονηρῷ as a neuter, though, as Grot. admits, with 
 allusion to the masculine. But the masculine is re- 
 quired both by the preceding verse, and the present 
 one, and it yields the stronger sense. So Pisc., 
 Camer, Beza, Zeg., Vorst., Gom., Est., Calvin, Bens., 
 ἕο. The phrase κεῖσθαι ἐν may, indeed, be (accord- 
 ing to Classical use) more agreeable to the neuter 
 (and Rosenm. cites Eurip. Andr. ἐν κακοῖς κεῖσθαι" and 
 Seneca, Ep. 59. in vitiis jacuimus) ; yet κεῖσθαι ἐν τινι 
 sometimes signifies, to lie under the power of, and 
 be subject to any one. Thus Raphel cites from 
 Polyb. 6, 6, 13. ἐν τοῦ συγκλήτῳ κεῖται. And other 
 examples I could myself adduce. 
 
 20. οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι---διανοίαν, “ We, moreover, as- 
 suredly know that the Son of God (the Messiah) is 
 come, and hath given us this understanding, that we 
 may know him that is true (i. e. the true God, and 
 the most acceptable way of obeying and worshipping 
 him). And indeed we are in union with the true 
 
 od, by means of his Son Jesus Christ.” "Hxes, for 
 ἧκεν. So we say, is come. With respect to the un- 
 derstanding, that was communicated by the preach- 
 ing of the Apostles. Τὸν ἀληθινὸν, THE TRUE Being, 
 Deum Optimum Maximum. So Joh. 17, 5. τὸν μιόνον 
 ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν. See also 1 Thess. 1, 9. The Θεὸν 
 added in some MSS. is doubtless from the margin. 
 In knowledge (the best Commentators are agreed), is 
 here included worship and obedience. ‘The nature of 
 the wnion here mentioned has been before explained. 
 The ἐν in ἐν τῷ υἱῷ is by most rendered zn, as in the 
 former clause. But the best Commentators from 
 Grot. to Rosenm. assign to it the sense per. And so 
 Tyndale. Certainly this sense is more apt: and 
 Bens. has shown from several examples that ἐν may 
 have two significations in the same sentence. 
 
 20. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς, καὶ ἡ ϑωὴ αἰώνιος. 
 This has been, by most Commentators and Theolo- 
 
782 1 JOHN, CHAP. V. 
 
 gians antient and modern, considered as a complete 
 proof of the deity of Christ. That life and eter- 
 nal life are by the sacred writers perpetually ascribed 
 to Christ, as the author, is certain; and the words 
 are no where applied to God the Father. It is by 
 some, however, thought more agreeable to the con- 
 text to refer the οὗτός, not to the immediate antece- 
 dent, but to αὐτοῦ. And so Grot., Clarke, Bens., 
 Wets., Rosenm., Schleus., and most recent Inte- 
 preters. ‘There is supposed to be an elliptical ex- 
 pression for οὗτὸς ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς, καὶ (αὐτὴ) ἡ ϑωὴ 
 αἰώνιος ; (as Joh. 17, 3.) or καὶ (ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ) ἡἡ αἰώνιος. 
 The former is preferable, and though by Slade ac- 
 counted not as a natural construction, yet it may be 
 admitted in such a writer as St. John, where many 
 constructions are harsh and anomalous. Upon the 
 whole, no certain determination can be formed on 
 the sense. 
 
 21, φυλάξατε ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων, ““ guard 
 against, and cautiously avoid every kind and degree 
 of idolatry,”’ whatever partakes of and approaches to 
 it.” See Bens. "Avy. This is equivalent to, “ I 
 heartily wish and pray that ye may do so.” 
 
 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN. 
 
 Tue style and sentiments of this Epistle plainly 
 show it to be St. John’s; and if it was, at first, not 
 received into the canon, that was from its brevity, 
 ~ and its being addressed only to one family. 
 
 Ver. 1. ὁ πρεσβύτερος, This is often a noun of 
 dignity. Hence some have fancied the writer to be 
 another John, presbyter of Ephesus, mentioned by 
 Papias ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3, 29. But πρεσβ. 
 may very well have the sense διδάσκαλος. It may, 
 
2 JOHN. 783 
 
 too, import senior grandevus (sub ᾿Απόστολος); for 
 John was undoubtedly then the senior Apostle (being 
 ninety-seven), and long survived all the others. 
 Thus he might very properly be called ὁ πρεσβύτερος 
 kar’ ἐξοχὴν. And, as Carpz. observes (from whom 
 the above is chiefly derived), all churches of Chris- 
 tians, if they heard any one called ὃ πρεσβύτερος, 
 although the name of John were not added, yet 
 would not fail to know that ke was meant. For he 
 was not only the senior Apostle but most probably 
 the senior Christian. And that St. John (from his 
 characteristic modesty) was accustomed to suppress 
 his name, we find trom his Gospel 13, 19 ἃ 26, 21, 
 20.” 
 
 On the controverted and indeterminable question 
 concerning the expression ἐκλεκτῇ Κυρίᾳ (of which 
 four interpretations have been proposed) it may 
 suffice to refer the reader to Carpz., and especially 
 Slade, by whom the subject is ably treated. He 
 seems right in preferring the common interpretation ; 
 but I cannot agree with him, that the article is im- 
 proper, which, though it is not in the text, is under- 
 stood, and ought therefore to be expressed, since it 
 would have reference to the address or direction 
 which contained the name. Besides, the very epi- 
 thet ἐκλ. seems to require it. This is rendered by 
 Rosenm. carissima. But that is too feeble a sense. 
 By Mackn., excellent. Possibly (as this seems to 
 have been a person of some distinction) he thought 
 the expression equivalent to the common address, 
 most excellent, and excellency. But that were con- 
 founding antient and modern phraseology. The 
 sense seems to be: “to the truly Christian Lady.” 
 And so many eminent Commentators, as Schleus. 
 and Bens. 
 
 1, ods ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. The οὖς may very well 
 be supposed to refer to both the children and the 
 mother, or to the latter only. See Slade. Now as 
 to the ‘children, it will not (as Rosenm observes) 
 prove that they were all males ; since by τὰ τέκνα at 
 
784 2 JOHN. 
 
 1 Pet. 3, 6.'are denoted both sons and daughters. 
 It will, however, prove that some, probably the 
 greater number, were males; or if not, as the Apostle 
 chose to employ a word referring to either gender, 
 he could not, if there were any males, do otherwise 
 than use the masculine, as being what grammarians 
 call the worthier gender. 
 
 Ἔν ἀληθείᾳ is an adverbial phrase for ἀληθώς. As 
 there is no article, it is not well rendered by our 
 translators in the truth; though immediately after 
 the Apostle uses ἀληθεία with the article, in the 
 sense of the Gospel. Such changes are common in 
 St. John. 
 
 2. διὰ τὴν---αἰῶνα. This is closely connected with 
 the preceding. ‘* We (I say) love you because of 
 the truth (i. e. the true religion) which remaineth in 
 us, and will ever remain;” i.e. by hypallage, ‘in 
 which we continue and will ever continue.” 
 
 3. ἔσται---Θεοῦ πατρὸς. Future for optative, by 
 Hebraism. Χάρις and ἕλεος are used, by metonomy 
 of the effect for the cause, to denote all the blessings 
 attendant on the true profession of the Gospel. 
 And the εἰρήνη παρὰ Θεοῦ πατρὸς is exegetical of the 
 preceding. See Col. 1, 1. 1 Thess. 1, 1. 2 Thess. 
 1;:2. -1.-Timisl,y 2: 2 Times 1. 2: Tit. Δ ef By 
 ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπη, i.e. (as Grot. and Rosenm. ex- 
 plain) ““ by knowledge of the truth, and mutual 
 love.” For by these we preserve and increase God’s 
 benefits. 
 
 4. ἐχάρην λίαν ὅτι---ἀληθείᾳ, “41 have rejoiced (or 
 I do rejoice) greatly, because I have found some of 
 your children living in (the profession and practice 
 of) the truth, as we have it revealed to us (through 
 Jesus Christ) by God the Father.” It is, very pro- 
 bably, conjectured that these children were some 
 whom business had brought over to Ephesus, and 
 whom the Apostle, by conversation and society, had 
 found in the right path. And this is supported by 
 a kindred passage at 3 John 3. If such be the case, 
 
 ee 
 
2 JOUN. 735 
 
 this cannot (as some fancy) glance at other children 
 who were not so. 
 
 5. καὶ viv—ar’ ἀρχῆς. Seea kindred sentiment at 
 1 Joh. 2,7 & 8. and 10,11 & 16. ’Epwraw, beseech. 
 "Ar ἀρχῆς, “" from the first promulgation of the 
 Gospel.” The ἐρωτώ---ἶνα ἀγαπώμεν (which i is said 
 to be. a delicate mode of expression for ἐρωτώ ἵνα 
 ἀγάπητε) ought, consistently with our ideas, to be 
 rendered: ‘ Ἵ beseech thee, let us love each other, 
 cultivate mutual iove.” 
 
 6. καὶ αὕτη ἐστιν 4 ἀγάπη--- αὐτοῦ. The idiom in 
 αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη, frequently occurs in the first 
 Epistle and in the Gospel. It has been doubted 
 whether by ἡ ἀγάπη we are to understand the love 
 of God, to be shown by keeping his commandments 
 (as Joh. 14, 15 & 21. 23, 24. 15,10. 1 Joh. 2, 5. 5, 
 3.), or love towards one another, which God has by 
 Christ enjoined on us; as Joh. 13, 34 & 35. 15, 12 
 & 13. Rom. 13, 8,9, & 10. 1 Joh. 3, 23. 4, 21. Bens. 
 fixes on the latter; but Grot. and Rosemn., the 
 former; and with reason, since true love of God 
 includes a love of our neighbour. By the command- 
 ment from the beginning is meant mutual love. The 
 Apostle means, “that “this is his commandment,” 
 which is, therefore, to be obeyed. 
 
 7. ὅτι πολλοὶ---σαρκὶ. Carpz. and Rosenm. regard 
 this verse as the protasis, and the next as the apo- 
 dosis: and so the ὅτι, they say, may be rendered 
 because, or be omitted. But I prefer stuipposing a 
 connection between this and ver. 3., regarding ver. 
 4—6. as parenthetical; q.d. “(1 rejoiced that you 
 and your children walked in the truth, and I cannot 
 but exhort you to continue so to do) "for many de- 
 ceivers are abroad in the world, who will not allow 
 that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.” Πλάνοι, 
 « false teachers.” For εἰσῆλθον some MSS. read ἐξελθ., 
 which is confirmed by the first Epistle 2, 19. ᾿Ερχό- 
 μενον is the participle imperfect. Ἔρχ. ἐν σαρκὶ, 1. 6. 
 **came with the real human nature,” as opposed to 
 
 VOL. VIII. -3E 
 
786 2 JOHN. 
 
 a mere phantasm. See the note on 1 Joh. 4, 2 & 8. 
 On ὁμολ. see the note on 1 Joh. 4, 2. 
 
 7. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος, “ That person is the 
 kind of deceiver I mean.” This change from the 
 plural to the singular is (Carpz. observes) frequent 
 in St. Joh. See his examples, and compare 1 Joh. 
 2,18. 5, 16. Or οὗτος may, as Beza, Glass, and 
 others think, be for πᾶς τοιοῦτος, “ every such 
 person.” 
 
 8, βλέπετε envrods—amorcBopev. Βλέπω is here, 
 as often, used for φυλάσσω. See Schl. Lex. It is 
 rarely found, as here, with an accusative; q. d. 
 ‘‘mind yourselves, take heed to yourselves.” “Ive 
 μὴ ἀπολέσωμεν--- ἀπολάβωμεν, “that we (your teachers) 
 lose not what we had laboured for, but that we may 
 receive our reward.’ The var. lect. ἀπολέσητε ἅ 
 εἰργάσασθε, is doubtless an emendation. ‘The textual 
 reading must be retained, as being the more diffi- 
 cult, and supported by many similar passages of the 
 New ‘Testament, which represent teachers as receiv- 
 ing in proportion to the progress of the taught, and 
 as being dishonoured by any disgrace attending 
 them. See Bens. It is strange that Carpz. should 
 recognise a κοίνωσις ; a figure here inapplicable, and 
 seldom used by St. John, though often by St. Paul. 
 
 The μισθὸν πλήρη ἀπολάβωμεν, is very vaguely in- 
 terpreted by Commentators. It must mean, “ that 
 reward which we shall receive, if ye continue stead- 
 fast.” But the πλήρη seems to hint at some reward 
 which the teacher would receive in the other case; 
 which indeed were but just, since disciples may 
 apostatize, and bring diseredit to the master, without 
 his being to blame. It may therefore (as Mr. Slade 
 thinks) refer to the joy and satisfaction which they 
 would naturally derive from the complete suecess of 
 their labours. 
 
 9. πᾶς ὁ παραβαίνων---ἱὸν ἔχει. At παραβαίνων must 
 be supplied τὴν διδαχὴν. Rosenm. refers to Hebr. 
 2, 2., where the term is thus used absolutely. And 
 he might have compared 1 Thess. 4, 8.6 ἀθετών. ‘The 
 
2 JOHN. 787 
 
 Apostle alludes to the false teachers above men- 
 tioned, who’ had corrupted the Gospel, by misre- 
 presenting the character of Jesus. Μένων ἐν τῇ διδ,, 
 for ἐμμ. or diay. Θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει, “holds not God in 
 proper regard.” Thus 1 Thess. 4, 8. ὁ ἀθετών--- 
 ἀθετεῖ τὸν Θεὸν. Now this implies a loss of commu- 
 nion with him, and favour from him. See the note 
 on 1 Joh. 2, 23. 
 
 10. εἴ τις ἔρχεται---μιὴ λέγετε, “If any (teacher) 
 come to you, and bring not (i.e. teach not) this 
 doctrine (namely of Christ), receive him not into 
 your house, nor say unto him, God speed thee.” 
 Some Commentators think that this matron whom 
 the Apostle is addressing, was a Deaconess, and re- 
 ceived stranger Christians into her house, entertain- 
 ing them at the expense of the church. But then the 
 admonition would have been rather suited to the 
 Presbyters and others who superintended the funds 
 for such purposes. It seems more probable (as Bens. 
 supposes) that she was a person of some property 
 and distinction, who was in the habit of showing 
 kindness and hospitality to Christian strangers, espe- 
 cially teachers. 
 
 10. χαίρειν αὐτῷ μὴ λέγετε. A form of salutation 
 expressive of friendly feelings. Butas the receiving 
 any such teacher into her house, and addressing such 
 a salutation, could not but imply some degree of 
 approbation and countenance to his doctrines, so it 
 is forbidden by the Apostle; though by no means 
 out of any uncharitable disposition towards such 
 persons, as men. As to the Jewish custom of not 
 coming within four cubits of the heretic, here ad- 
 duced by Lightfoot, &c., it has nothing to do with 
 the case in question. See Whitby, Bens., and Doddr., 
 and also Slade. 
 
 11. ὁ yao λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν, κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις 
 αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς. Here is subjoined the reason, 
 which is sufficiently plain: for hospitable reception 
 implies regard and approbation, and would, in some 
 measure, make any one answerable for the mischief 
 
 SER 
 
788 8 JOHN. 
 
 such persons might do by means of that counte- 
 nance. I would compare Eurip. Med. 661. See 
 Mackn. or Slade. 
 
 12. οὐκ ἠβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου kal μέλανος, “41 would 
 not write (i.e. express my thoughts) by paper and 
 ink.” This seems a sort of proverbial phrase. The 
 word χάρτης is the Latin charta Grecized. Rosenm. 
 observes, that it occurs in Hesych. in v. τόμος, but in 
 no other Glossary. “Lag. πρὸς ὑμᾶς seems a popular 
 expression. Drown πρὸς στόμα λαλῆσαι 15 a prover- 
 bial one. The Commentators compare a similar one 
 in Hebr. But, if I am not mistaken, it occurs in the 
 Classical writers; though I have only noted down 
 Synes. 169. A. συνεῖναι σοι κατὰ πρόσωπον. Πεπλη- 
 ρωμένη, complete; as far as it would be so by con- 
 price rather than by letter. See Mackn. and 
 
 ade. 
 
 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN. 
 
 VER. 1. ὁ πρεσβύτερος. See the note on ver. 1. of 
 the foregoing Epistle. Γαίος is the Roman name 
 Caius, which was a very common one. See Rosenm. 
 and Mackn., or Slade. ᾿Ἐν ἀληθείᾳ is for ἀληθώς ; as 
 2 Joh. 1. 
 
 2. περὶ πάντων---ψυχή, “ above all things I heartily 
 wish and pray that thou mayest be prospered, and 
 enjoy health of body, even as thy soul prospereth.” 
 The περὶ may he construed either with εὔχομαι, or 
 with edod. In the former case it will be for ὕπερ, 
 “above all things ;” in the latter, for ἐν πᾶσιν, 1. 6. 
 all things regarding the eternal state, especially 
 health, the principal one, which is here mentioned. 
 But the former seems the more natural mode of 
 
3 JOHN. 789 
 
 interpretation; and it is adopted by Schleus., to 
 whose examples I add Pind. Ol. 6, 84. περὶ θνητών, 
 ante omnes mortales. Evodovcbas properly signifies 
 “to be set well forward on one’s way;” 2. “to go 
 in one’s way aright ;” 3. “ to be prosperous ;” as here 
 and Rom. 1, 10. εἴπως πότε εὐοδωθήσομιαι, where see 
 the note. Rosenm. explains as if the Apostle were 
 only wishing Caius the ‘‘ mens sana in corpore sano:” 
 a sort of sentiment more suited to a Heathen philo- 
 sopher than a Christian Apostle. This mens sana 
 may be very consistent with an utter neglect of the 
 soul, and our immortal interests. 
 
 8. ἐχάρην γὰρ λίαν---περιπατεῖς. The use of the 
 genitive absolute in this sense (i. e. when thy brethren 
 came) is unusual. Μαρτυρούντων σου τῇ ἀληθεῖᾳ, is a 
 brief and popular phrase for, ‘‘ bearing testimony 
 that thou walkest fn the truth.’ The words follow- 
 ing are exegetical, and καθὼς simply signifies ὅτι, 
 namely, that. So our old English as how. Compare 
 a parallel passage in 2 Joh. 4. 
 
 4. μειϑοτέραν τοὐτων---περιπατοῦντα. ‘The τούτων, 
 scil. πραγμάτων, is for τούτου͵ The ἵνα, Rosenm. 
 says, if for? ἵνα. But for the ἢ there is no occasion. 
 Otherwise it is omitted in the best writers. ‘Texve, 
 spiritual children, disciples. See 1 Tim. 1, 2 & 18. 
 2 Tim. 2, 2. Μὲειβοτέραν is a provincial form for 
 μείϑονα. Rosenm. compares with it χειριστοτέρη in 
 Hippocr. and ἐσχατώτεραν in Aristotle. But those 
 forms are of a different nature. 
 
 5, 6. πιστὸν ποιεῖς, sub. ἔργον. By mor. is meant 
 “an action worthy of the faith,” i. 6. the Gospel. 
 Wets. adduces an example of ποιεῖν πιστὰ. But that 
 is in another sense. Rosenm., more aptly, compares 
 Liban.: οὐχ Ἡλληνικὴν τοῦτο ποιεῖς, “ worthy of a 
 Grecian.” Schleus. classes this passage with Tit. 
 1, 6. τέκνα ἔχων mista. The ἐὰν is for av. In καὶ 
 τοὺς ξένους, the καὶ signifies even. The var. lect. καὶ 
 ταῦτα εἰς ξένους, is doubtless ex emendatione. Now 
 other Christians might show hospitality to those 
 brethren whom they knew, (for we are not consider- 
 
790 3 JOHN. 
 
 ing public hospitality shown by the Deacons to all 
 Christians) ; but Caius showed it to those who were 
 strangers to him. 
 
 6. οἱ ἐμαρτύρησάν σου τῇ ἀγάπη ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησίας. 
 These words are parenthetical. By ἐκκλησ. the 
 Commentators understand the £phesian church. 
 But it may designate the church Catholic. Ouvs 
 καλῶς ποιήσεις προπέμψας ἀξίως τοῦ Θεοῦ, 1. 6. literally, 
 ‘‘whom sending forward, and helping on their way, 
 thou wilt do well, and worthy of God.” On προ- 
 πέμπω I have before treated. See Tit. 3, 1. ᾿Αξίως 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ. This is obscurely rendered by our trans- 
 lators, “after a godly sort.” Better by Pisc. and 
 Rosenm., “as becomes those who serve God, and 
 agreeably to our duty to Him to whom we owe every 
 thing.” See Col. 1, 10. 1 Thess. 2. 12. 
 
 7. ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἐξῆλθον, pydev λαμβάνοντες 
 ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν, “ For, for the sake of his name, or 
 religion, they went forth, taking nothing from the 
 Gentiles.” Some MSS. after ὀνόματος add αὐτοῦ, 
 which, at all events, must be supplied: for it seems 
 harsh to take ὀνομ. for Christ, i. e. the Christian re- 
 ligion; as does Rosenm. ‘The construction which 
 some lay down, ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν, is extremely 
 harsh, and the sense thence arising unauthorized and 
 not agreeable to the context. According to the 
 common mode of interpretation, as Bens. observes 
 (whom see), there is a close connection with the 
 verse following. And this “taking nothing” from 
 their Gentile converts, was agreeable to the custom 
 of St. Paul. The whole is well rendered by our 
 translators. ἜΕδῆλθον is used absolutely. We are to 
 understand not so much, “ from among Christians 
 (with many Commentators),” as, ‘from their homes 
 and their business.” ᾿Λαμβάνοντες is for ἀπολαμβ. 
 
 8. ἡμεῖς οὖν ὀφείλομεν---ἀληθείᾳ, The we does not 
 (I conceive) denote (as Benson thinks) Jewish Chris- 
 tians, but Christians in general, meaning such as are 
 in stated abodes. ᾿Απολαμβ. is for ὑπολαμβ., “ re- 
 ceive with hospitality.” And so some MSS.; but 
 
 el pees 
 
3 JOHN. 791 
 
 perhaps ex emendatione. Ἵνα συνεργοὶ y. τ. a., “ that 
 we may co-operate with those that propagate the 
 truth (i.e. the Gospel), by furthering it all in our 
 power.” So in 2 Cor. 1, 25., we have συνέργοι εἶναι 
 τῆς χαρᾶς. 
 
 9. ἔγραψα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, i.e. to the church to which 
 Caius belonged. The ἔγραψα is well rendered, by 
 Benson and others, “1 had written ;” which is pre- 
 ferable to reading ἔγραψα av, I would have written, 
 which requires a harsh subaudition. The subject of 
 the writing is supposed to have been to recommend 
 the brethren above-mentioned to the Gentiles. But 
 without knowledge of the circumstances no certainty 
 can be attained. ‘O φιλοπρ. αὐτών is for αὐτῆς, by 
 the figure πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον ; ἐκκλησίας being a 
 noun of multitude. Whether this Diotrephes was a 
 Presbyter, or a Deacon, is not known. ‘The former 
 is the more probable. As to the conjectures re- 
 ‘ specting him, they are founded on no evidence, and 
 merit littleattention. Οὐκ ἐπιδέχεται jas. By ἡμᾶς 
 is, of course, meant me John: but whether it signi- 
 fies ‘‘ my person,” or my Apostolical office, or my ad- 
 monitions and recommendations, Commentators are 
 not agreed. It must chiefly refer to his office, but, 
 in a secondary sense, to his admonitions. Οὐκ ἀπο- 
 δέχεσθαι τινα seems to have been a proverbial expres- 
 sion ; signifying ‘‘ to have nothing to do with a per- 
 son,” meaning that we reject his interference. It is 
 probable that Diotrephes, as Presbyter, refused to 
 receive the letter, thereby declining to receive St. 
 John’s directions, or recognize his Apostolical autho- 
 rity. Thus there is every reason to suppose him to 
 have been one of the false teachers. 
 
 10. ὑπομνήσω αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ποιεῖ, A. 7. ᾧ. ἡ. 
 Ὑπομιμνήσκειν properly signifies only to remember : 
 but it is often used by those who modestly suppress 
 part of their meaning, to denote ‘‘ remember to do 
 any thing, whether good or evil.” So Luke 23, 42. 
 * remember me, when thou comest into thy king- 
 dom,” and Gal. 2, 10. “ remember the poor.” See 
 
792 3 JOHN. 
 
 also Heb. 13,3 & 7. We have the very same idiom; 
 too, in our own language. ‘Thus here the sense is: 
 “1 will remember (to reprove and punish his pre- 
 sumption and irregularity).’’ So Carpzoy explains; 
 comparing 2 Cor. 13, 2. ἐὰν ἔλθω οὐ φείσομαι. This 
 is greatly preferable to rendering it admonish, with 
 Grot. and Rosenm.; a mode of interpretation which 
 seems to have been adopted, to elude the objection 
 that remembrance of injuries was unworthy of an 
 Apostle: but Whitby has completely overturned 
 that cavil. 
 
 10. λόγοις πονηροῖς φλυαρών ἡμᾶς. Prvagéw is pro- 
 perly a verb nenter, signifying to blow bubbles, trifle, 
 and also to chatter, prate: and as by Gavagos are 
 denoted praters in 1 Tim. 5, 13., so it is justly 
 thought that Φλυαρέω here signifies to chatter against, 
 i.e. to calumniate any one by false and vain words. 
 
 The οὔτε---καὶ may seem harsh (though the Com- 
 mentators notice it not); but it may be observed 
 that it often occurs in Thucyd. I would write οὐ re 
 —kal. Onthe καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐκβάλλει it is no 
 easy matter to determine whether there be here 
 meant those that received the strangers, or the stran- 
 gers themselves. The former is certainly more 
 agreeable to the common rules of construction ; yet 
 as ἐκβ. ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, if so applied, can signify 
 nothing short of excommunication, which we can 
 hardly suppose even Diotrephes would denounce 
 against those who received Christian strangers, I am 
 strongly inclined to adopt the Jatter interpretation, 
 which is supported by Heumann, Carpzov, Rosenm., 
 Jaspis, and other recent Commentators, viz. to reject 
 them, not receive them as Christians into the society 
 of Christians there, and, by denying them any sup- 
 port, thus compel them to depart and go elsewhere: 
 It would, moreover (though the Commentators have 
 not observed it), much clear the sense, if the words 
 καὶ τοὺς βουλομένους κωλύει were put into a paren- 
 thesis. And the καὶ may be rendered imo. Thus 
 no objection will remain to this interpretation. 
 
8 JOHN. 793 
 
 11. μὴ μιμοῦ τὸ κακὸν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ; q.d. ““ imi- 
 tate not the evil example of Diotrephes, but the good 
 one of the others. ‘O ἀγαθοποιῶν, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν" ὃ 
 δὲ κακοποιῶν οὐχ ἑώρακε τὸν Θεὸν. The Apostle now 
 changes the special admonition into a general one. 
 The sense is: ‘‘ He who practises what is good is (a 
 son) of God; he who practises any sort of evil, doth 
 not (really) know God or religion, because by his 
 actions he shows he is not sensible of his obligations 
 to virtue.” On the import of the phrases see 1 Joh. 
 2, 29. 3, 6. I would observe that there is a re- 
 markable var. lect. (which has escaped all the Com- 
 mentators) to be found in Gregor. Corinth. in Her- 
 mog. p. 904. med. (Orat. Graec. Reisk 8.) τέκνια, ras 
 ἀγαθοποιὸς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν, ὃ δὲ κακοποῖος οὐκ οἶδα πόθεν 
 ἐστιν. Anda little after he adds: διὰ τὸ λυπηρὸν τοῖς 
 ἀκούουσιν, οὐκ εἶπε σαφῶς, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ 
 ἔδωκε αὐτὸ τοῖς βουλόμενοις ἔξωθεν νοεῖν. 
 
 10. Δημήτριος μεμαρτύρηται ὑπὸ πάντων, καὶ ὑπ’ αὐτῆς 
 τῆς ἀληθείας. ‘This Demetrius is thought to have 
 been one of the principal of those whom St. John 
 had recommended to Caius. Μεμαρτύρηται ὑπὸ πάᾶν- 
 των, “ has a testimony (for good) borne to him by all 
 (who know him).” In this absolute sense pagr. fre- 
 quently occurs. So Acts 16, 2. ὃς ἐμαρτυρεῖτο ὑπὸ 
 τών ἐν Λύστροις, Χο. See also the note on Heb. 11, 2, 
 Καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἀληθείας. An acuté dictum, which 
 must not be pressed upon. ‘The τῆς αὐτῆς ἀληθείας 
 is well explained, by Carpzov, re ipsd. So Rosenm. : 
 « Non hominum tantum, sed et veritatis ipsius testi- 
 monio ornatur: non solum dicitur esse, sed et est 
 bonus.” And he might have cited the Atschylean 
 Οὐ δοκεῖν ἀριστὸς, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι θέλει. 
 
 12. μαρτυροῦμεν, 561]. αὐτῷ. Some interpret : ‘*We 
 and the others of the Church at Ephesus.” But it is 
 sufficient, to understand the Apostle. The next 
 words καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι ἡ μαρτυρία ἡμῶν ἀληθής ἐστι are 
 aptly compared with Joh. 19, 35., &c.; and it is 
 hence (as well as from other passages) satisfactorily 
 proved that St. John was the author of the Epistle. 
 
794 8 JOHN. 
 
 13, 14. See the note on a kindred passage at 2 
 Joh. 12, 15., Εἰρήνη oo. A Hebrew form of ad- 
 dress. So A rcoysw. Οἱ φίλοι. Mackn. explains, 
 the Christians. And he observes that this is the only 
 example of the appellation found in Scripture. But 
 I should doubt even this one. The article seems to 
 stand for the pronoun: ‘ your friends (and mine) 
 salute thee.”? Τοὺς φίλους must mean “ our friends.” 
 All these were doubtless Christians. 
 
" 795 
 
 THE 
 
 GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 VERSE 1. δοῦλος--Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. This appella- 
 tion is not inconsistent with Apostleship: for St. 
 Paul sometimes uses the δοῦλος by itself, (and so 
 James 1, 1.); at other times, in conjunction with 
 amoor.; aS Phil.1,1. ᾿Αδελφὸς ᾿Ιακώβου. He makes 
 mention of James, his brother, as being well known, 
 and of great influence among the Jewish Christians. 
 (Rosenm.) Tots ἐν Θεῷ ---κλητοῖς, By the κλητοὶ are 
 meant Christians. And the ἐν Θεῴ πατρὶ ἡγιασμένοι 
 are what St. Paul, at 1 Cor. 1, 2. calls ἡγιασμένοι ἐν 
 Xp. "I. The var. lect. qyer. seems to be a gloss. 
 Now the term 7y. being so general, proves that it 
 was addressed to Christians of every kind. See 
 Mackn. and Slade. 
 
 2. ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη Kal ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη, “ May 
 mercy, and peace, and love abundantly be your por- 
 tion.” Now ἔλεος and εἰρήνη (which denote mercy 
 and acceptance from God, and peace with him) are 
 mentioned as being the choicest of spiritual bless- 
 ings; and ἀγάπη, or mutual love, which is the very 
 bond of peace, as being the most promotive of tem- 
 poral happiness. On πληῦ. see 1 Pet. 1, 2. 
 
 8. ἀγαπητοὶ, πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμιενος----ἁγίοις πίστει, 
 ** Brethren, when I thus made it my earnest busi- 
 ness to write unto you concerning the common sal- 
 vation, I thought it needful to insert an exhortation 
 that you should zealously strive for the preservation 
 of the faith which has been, once for all, delivered 
 
796 JUDE. . 
 
 to the saints.” The expression πᾶσαν σπουδὴν π΄. is a 
 very strong one. Of itself σπουδὴν ποιεῖσθαι (not 
 ποιεῖν, aS Rosenm. has it) signifies to use all one’s di- 
 ligence. It is nearly equivalent to σπουδάϑειν. One 
 may compare the σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρεισφέρειν of 2 Pet. 
 1,10. On περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας Pric. and Wets. 
 adduce several passages. ‘The most apposite is 2 
 Macc. 9, 21. ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμιην φροντίσαι τῆς κοινῆς 
 πάντων ἀσφαλείας. -In the rest of the passages σω- 
 τηρία denotes temporal preservation; while here it 
 signifies eternal salvation, or the means of attaining 
 it, namely, the Christian religion. See the note on 
 Philem. 5. ᾿Αναγκαῖον ἔσχον, necesse duxi, savours of 
 Latinism. “Exaywvigerbar τ΄ πίστει, 1. 6. ἀγονίϑεσθαι 
 ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει. An agonistical metaphor. So Sir. 4, 
 28. ἀγώνισαι περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας. The sense here is, 
 to earnestly strive for the preservation of the true 
 faith, in opposition to false doctrines. The ἅπαξ is, 
 by most Commentators, rendered olim, i.e. at the 
 beginning of the Gospel. And so Carpz. and Hanl. 
 compares Philo T. 2, 387. τοῖς ἅπαξ παραδοθεῖσι. 
 Others, as Schleus., explain it omnino, perfecte. But 
 this seems not so proper a.sense as the former. 
 There may, however, be also an allusion to the doc- 
 trine being propounded once for all, and admitting of 
 no change. 
 
 4, παρεισέδυσαν---ἀσεβεῖς. The Apostle now as- 
 signs the reason why such care was necessary to pre~ 
 serve the purity of the faith. Παρεισέδυσαν. Παρὰ, 
 which properly signifies by, has here the sense of by 
 the by, covertly. See Elsner, Krebs, Kypke, and 
 especially Wets. The words ἄνθρωποι οἱ πάλαι προ- 
 γεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα are regarded by Pric. 
 and Bens. as parenthetical, and exegetical. But it is 
 too violent to separate τινες from ἄνθρωποι ; nor is it 
 necessary, since the sense arising is much the same. 
 The οἱ πάλαι wp. ἐ. τ. τ. κι is rendered by Bens., 
 ‘© and who were long ago described as persons who 
 should come under this condemnation.” By Ro- 
 senm.: “ men on whom God long decreed this pu- 
 
JUDE. 797 
 
 nishment.” Κρῖμα for κατάκριμα, condemnation, which 
 involves the sense of punishment. The προγεγ. is 
 thought, by Rosenm., to allude to the custom of 
 judges putting certain persons on a list for execu- 
 tion ; and it signifies (he adds), in a general way, to 
 proscribe. He compares 2 Pet. 2, 3. οἷς τὸ κρῖμα 
 ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ, &c. The τοῦτο, he thinks, is for 
 poly, παραπλήσιον. Rather, (1 would say,) for τοιοῦτο. 
 There is, no doubt, reference to the examples fol- 
 lowing in ver. 5—7. It is meant that the punish- 
 ment which formerly befel the Israelites, or the rebel 
 angels, or Sodom, such a punishment awaits them. 
 
 4. τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριν μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσελγείαν, 
 “who turn the gracious dispensation of the Gospel 
 (meant to encourage virtue and exertion, and pro- 
 mote holiness) into an occasion for lasciviousness.’’ 
 Compare 1 Pet. 2, 16. For examples of this sense 
 of grace Benson refers to 1 Pet. 2, 16. Acts 13, 43. 
 2 Cor. 6,1. Tit. 2,11. Heb. 12,15. Now the ori- 
 ginal intention (says he) of the grace of God in the 
 Gospel, was to promote all manner of purity or holi- 
 ness. Luke 1,74 & 75. Rom. 2, 3., &c. Eph. 1, 4: 
 & 2,10. 1 Thess. 4, 7. Tit. 2,11 & 12. 1 Joh. 1, 7. 
 But, because God was merciful to the penitent, they 
 represented his mercy as boundless, and equally ex- 
 tended unto those who wallowed in lewdness and all 
 manner of vice.” Μετατίθεσθαι signifies to change, 
 to alter a thing from its original purpose. ‘Thus here 
 it denotes the abusing religion to lasciviousness. So 
 Apulej., cited by Pric. (speaking of a Christian 
 woman); *“ Mentita sacrilegia presumptione Dei 
 quem predicaret unicum, matutino mero, et con- 
 tinuo stupro corpus manciparat.” It is observed by 
 Rosenm., that the false teachers against whom Jude 
 inveighs were the same with those so strongly cen- 
 sured by Peter and John. 
 
 4. καὶ τὸν μιόνον----ἀρνούμιενοι. Rosenm. compares 2 
 Joh. 7. Tit. 1,16. 2 Pet. 2, 1. and the notes. He 
 also observes that ἀρνεῖσθαι here comprehends both 
 deeds and words. See more in Slade. 
 
798 JUDE. 
 
 5. ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ 
 τοῦτο. Ποῖ has been much debate on the signifi- 
 cation of ἅπαξ, which is variously interpreted. So 1:16 
 refer it to εἰδότας, and render it omnino. Others, 
 take it to belong to the δεύτερον following, in the 
 sense, that God once indeed led his people from 
 Egypt, but afterwards destroyed the unbelieving. 
 Thus the τὸ δεύτερον, which just after follows, will not 
 be without its antitheton. Tinally, the words ἅπαξ 
 τοῦτο may be connected with ὑπομνῆσαι, thus: vrop- 
 νῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι ἅπαξ τοῦτο, καιπὲρ εἰδότας UUdsS. 
 (Rosenm.) ‘They may be rendered: “I recall to 
 your remembrance what you have once heard.” 
 “Απαξ does not signify primd vice ; nor is it opposed 
 to δεύτερον, secundd vice: but δεύτερον signifies postea, 
 deinceps ; and ἅπαξ is to be rendered jampridem, 
 dudum, and is to be referred to εἰδότας. From 
 your earliest years these histories have been known 
 to you; now recall them again to your remem- 
 brance.” (Carpz.) The τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας Grot. 
 takes for ἀπειθήσαντας ; since those that obey not, 
 show that they do not believe as they ought. So in 
 Hebr. 4, 2., the word is said not to have been mixed 
 with faith, &c. And, as Whitby says, unbelief was 
 the cause of their apostacy and all their sins. ‘ ‘This 
 destruction (says Rosenm.) was effected in various 
 ways; by serpents, by diseases, by the Angel, by 
 the hands of the Levites, &c. Now it is hinted, that 
 God will also give up to destruction those who, 
 after professing the Christian faith, deny their Lord 
 Jesus Christ.” 
 
 6. ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτών ἀρχὴν. 
 
 On the sense of τὴν ἀρχὴν there is some doubt. Some, as Grot., 
 Beza, and most early Commentators, explain, “ their first state.” 
 Others, as Menoch., Bens., and, of the recent Commentators, 
 Schleus. and Laurman., and especially Carpz., take it to mean their 
 original dignity; i.e. ‘‘ who preserved not their prerogatives as 
 sons of God, and the original excellence with which they were 
 created, the truth and holiness created with them.” And so Cyril, 
 cited by Carpz. For examples of this signification in the Classical 
 
 writers, Schleus. refers to Irmisch on Herodian 2, 3, 9. 
 The ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον is explained by Grot. and 
 
JUDE. τ ἘΝ 
 
 Rosenm., “ left their proper habitation, heaven, and descended to 
 the infernal regions." Laurman supposes a metaphor taken from 
 fugitive slaves, who, absconding from their home, had afterwards 
 assigned to them a much worse habitation. Bens. and Schleus. 
 render the oixr., ‘* their proper situation (proudly aspiring to a 
 higher).” Thus the words will be exegetical of the preceding. And 
 this, seems, upon the whole, the best mode of interpreting them. 
 The oixr., Laurman observes, is a rare word. He refers to a passage 
 of Plut., to which I add Joseph. 199, 7. 
 
 6. eis κρίσιν---τετήρηκεν, “ he hath reserved in chains of darkness 
 against the judgment of the great day.” Compare a kindred passage 
 of 2 Pet., 2,4., where see the note. Τηρεῖσθαι is used for φυλάττεσ- 
 θαι, Acts 25, 21. Τὴ κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας signifies the judgment, 
 condemnation, and punishment of the great day. For eis ἡμέραν 
 κρίσεως, 2 Pet., 2, 9., 3,7., 1 Joh. 4, 17. This seems not so much 
 an hypallage (which Rosenm. calls it) as a blending of two synony- 
 mous phrases, eis ἡμέραν κρισέως, and eis μεγάλην ἡμέραν. On 
 the δεσμοὶ and ais. it is needless to speculate. ὑπὸ Φόφον see Bens. 
 and Rosenm. I would here compare Soph. Antig. 948, 
 
 Hanlei#thinks the story derived from the Apocryphal Books, and 
 Jewish ‘Mythology, and neither confirmed, nor rejected by the 
 Apostle, who only makes use of the circumstances of the story as 
 examples to show the Jews the miserable consequences of error and 
 vice. But to this I must demur, as there is something unsound in 
 the principle. And I shall here adduce the words of a profounder 
 Theologian and an abler Scholar, Laurm. ad ἢ. 1. p. 49., ““ Admit- 
 tendi mythi nullam video rationem; sed historiam arbitror veré 
 gestam, nobis omnino incognitam. Unde tante tenebrze, haud 
 facile discutiende, ob historiz, priscz antiquitatis, inscitiam.” He 
 refers to C, Olear. Diss, de angelis desertoribus et captivis, ap. Thes. 
 Nov. P. 2. p. 1008. 
 
 7. ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Τόμοῤῥα---ἐκπορνεύσασαι. The ai 
 περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις are the cities or towns circum circa, 
 like the περιοίκοι of the Greeks (See Gen. 19, 25. 
 Sept.), namely, Adama, Zeborm, and Zoar, which 
 were subject to, and in the vicinity of, Sodom and 
 Gomorrha, and participated in their vices. These 
 shared in their punishment, except Zoar, which was 
 spared at Lot’s entreaty. The towns, it may be ob- 
 served, are put (as often) for the znhabitants. ‘The 
 ἐκ in éxmogy. is (as often) intensive. The verb itself 
 is used in the Sept. At τρόπον must be understood 
 κατὰ. See Schleus. Lex. The τούτοις is by some 
 referred to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha: 
 by -others, to the false teachers in question; by 
 
 others again, to the angels above mentioned, The 
 
800 JUDE. 
 
 Jjirst mode of interpretation seems to deserve the 
 preference; and we may here suppose the figure 
 προς τὸ σημαινόμενον. So Blackw. and Laurman. 
 The words ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας are exeyeti- 
 cal of the rerogy. ‘This expression, on which Com- 
 mentators needlessly enlarge, is an euphemism, 
 denoting adultery, sodomy, and other abominations, 
 for which those cities were infamous. The use here 
 of ἀπέρχεσθαι seems to have been idiotical, like our 
 popular use of the expression go after. 
 
 Now, of these it is further said, πρόκεινται δεῖγμα, 
 1. 6. ὡς παράδειγμα, OF ὑποδείγμα, 1. 6. to succeeding 
 ages (So 3 Macc., cited by Rosenm.): σὺ---σοδομίτας 
 πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ κατέφλεξας, παράδειγμα τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις 
 καταστήσας ; or, as in 2 Pet., 2,6., τῶν μελλόντων 
 ἀσεβεῖν. There (1 would observe) ἕνεκα 18 under- 
 stood ; and τών pear. do. is put for πᾶσι τοῖς μέλλουσι 
 ἀσεβεῖν. Δίκην ὑπέχειν is a common phrase denoting 
 to suffer punishment. On the πῦρ αἰώνιον Commen- 
 tators (I think) refine too much. Bens. explains it, 
 a fire which burnt till it utterly consumed them. See 
 Whitby. It is not necessary to press on the αἰώνιον, 
 We need only suppose that the Apostle’s meaning 
 is: “they are publicly set forth (xpox., which is a fo- 
 rensic term) for an everlasting example (in their 
 fiery destruction) of the punishment God sometimes 
 inflicts for sin in this world, and which is but a faint 
 type of that which he hath reserved for the next.” 
 See Wells. 
 
 8. ὁμοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι ἐνυπνιαϑόμιενοι, “ In like 
 manner (notwithstanding such awful examples of 
 punishment are held out), these dreamers defile the 
 flesh (with lewdness), set at nought government, and 
 revile dignities.” The antients, and most Commen- 
 tators, from Erasm. downwards, fancy, in the evuz. 
 an allusion to the obscene dreams of those vicious 
 persons. But I agree with others, as Beza, Grot., 
 Heins., Wolf, Pricaeus, and the best Commentators, 
 since their time, that the term here signifies stulta 
 imaginari. It alludes (they think) to the dreaming 
 
 Se ee ὙΝ 
 
JUDE. 501 
 
 idle fancies of the false teachers, of whom Apulej. 
 (cited by Pric.) says, vigilantes somniant. See Bur- 
 net ap. Johns. D. 17. And so in Cowper’s Task. 
 Bens. ap. Slade explains: ‘‘ dreaming idle dreams, 
 turning the grace of God into licentiousness, and 
 promising themselves and their disciples security and 
 lasting happiness in those courses, which the Gospel 
 condemns.” Carpz. and Rosenm. think there is an 
 allusion to the lethargy of obdurate vice. 
 
 The κυριοτ. (as the best Commentators are agreed) 
 denotes, not angels, but human governors. This 
 term, like the Latin potestas, is used for the persons 
 exercising the dominion. So the Italian podesta, a 
 governor. ᾿Αθετεῖν, literally, signifies in nullo loco 
 habere, to set at nought. So 2 Pet. 2, 11., karadpo- 
 νεῖν. The verb is used by Polyb., Diod. Sic., and 
 Josephus, cited by Schleus., Lex. The σάρκα μιαίνου- 
 σι alludes to fornication, adultery, and sodomy. 
 
 The δόξας is by some (even Schleus.) interpreted of 
 angels. But Grot., and most other Interpreters, take 
 it to denote the higher magistrates, as xvpior., the 
 lower. Laurman, however, thinks them synony- 
 mous. This term (like the κυρ. before) is put for the 
 persons bearing the office. 
 
 9. ὁ δὲ Μιχαήλ---ἸΚ ύριος. 
 
 Slade traces the connection thus: “ The Gnostics imitate the 
 fallen angels in their rebellious speeches and conduct; the arch- 
 angel will afford them a better example, who, even under the great- 
 est provocation, refused to pronounce a harsh sentence of condemna- 
 tion against a fallen spirit.” On the arch-angel Michael see Mackn. 
 and others, and especially Laurman. Rosenm, thinks the Apostle 
 derived the story from an Apocryphal book entitled ἀνάβασις τοῦ 
 Μωσέως, mentioned by Origen. Qicumen. (cited by Rosenm.) gives 
 the story thus: Λέγεται, τὸν Μιχαὴλ τὸν ἀρχάγγελον τῇ τοῦ Μωῦ- 
 σέως ταφῇ διηκονηκέναι: Τοῦ δὲ διαβόλου τοῦτο μὴ καταδεχομένου, 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιφέροντος ἔγκλημα διὰ τὸν τοῦ ᾿Αιγυπτίου φόνον, ws διὰ τοῦτο 
 ἐνόχου ὄντος Mwicéws, καὶ μὴ συγχωρεῖσθαι τυχεῖν τῆς ἔντιμου τα- 
 φῆς, &c. which is the best commentary on this passage. 
 
 Διακρένεσθαι τινι signifies to have a law-suit with, or, in a ge- 
 neral way, to havea dispute with. Οὐκ ἐτόλμησε, non sustinuit, in 
 animum induxit, could not bring himself. So Theogn. 369. (cited 
 by Laurm.) See Schleus. Lex. Wassenburg ap. Laurm. para- 
 phrases thus: “‘ non ausus est ea que Dei erant, sibi arrogare, 
 quanquam Archangelus.” Kpiow βλασφημίας is for κρισ, βλάσφη- 
 
 VOL. VIII. | 3 F 
 
802 JUDE. 
 
 μον, Which occurs in 2 Peter 2, 11. ᾿Επέφερειν i3 a forensic term. 
 Rosenm. thus states the argument: “1 Michael scrupled to revile 
 the Devil (an exalted angel the worst of demons), who himself, 
 though impious, had received from God some power in the world, 
 how can we excuse those who do not hesitate to revile human ma- 
 gistrates, nay even good angels.” It is well observed by Doddr., 
 that the argument rises from the detestable character of the devil ; 
 q d. “ΤΕ the angel did not rail even against the devil, how much 
 less ought we against men in authority, even supposing them in 
 some things to behave amiss.” Yo do it therefore when they behave 
 well, must be an offence yet much more aggravated. 
 
 9. Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος. The words are derived from Zach. 3, 
 2., but differently applied. ᾿Ἐπιτιμᾷν carries with it (as often) a 
 notion of punishment as well as rebuke. 
 
 On this story Rosenm. refers to a Dissertation on the verse in 
 Pott's Syllog. Comment. 6, 170. seq. from which he makes an ex- 
 tract. But the more sound and judicious of my readers will prefer 
 the following from the very learned and able Commentary on this 
 Epistle by Laurman, which is a treasure of information on every 
 point connected with it: “ Judas historiam narrat, non mythum 
 vid. locum de fonte doctrine Jude. At ignoramus quam narrat 
 historiam, et quo fonte petitam: et quod rei difficultatem auget, 
 non omnem historiam narrat, at ex historid quippe tum temporis 
 bene cognité fragmentum tantum delibavit.” Finally, ] agree with 
 Mr. Slade, that it is difficult to believe an inspired Apostle would 
 enforce or recommend his doctrine by a mere fable; and besides, he 
 evidently mentions it not asa fable, but a fact ; and the converts, at 
 least, would conclude that he was persuaded of its truth. 
 
 10. οὗτοι de, ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασι, βκασφημοῦσιν. Com- 
 pare 2 Pet. 2,12. By the things they do not under- 
 stand (i. e. the purpose and use of) are (as the best 
 Commentators think) meant laws and magistracies. 
 Schleus. and Laurman, however, explain: que ne- 
 queunt facere, scil. ex virium tenuitate. Ae, immo 
 vero, whereas. "Oca δὲ φυσικῶς---φθείρονται, ‘but by 
 those things which by natural instinct they know 
 and feel, by those they corrupt themselves.” Φυσικώς, 
 ‘“by the natural instincts, the impulses of appetite 
 and passion, and sensual pleasure;” partly such as 
 is adverted to in the σάρκα μιαιν. 5 and partly of glut- 
 tony, ascribed to them by the ἑαυτὸν ποιμαίνοντας at ver, 
 12. Φθείρονται, “abuse to their own injury.” Passive 
 for reciprocal. (Rosenm., partly from Grot.) Thus 
 they abused the instinctive knowledge they pos- 
 sessed, to the destruction both of body and soul. 
 
 11. Hic non poenam enarrat, sed vitia enumerat. 
 
JUDE. 803 
 
 (Laurm.) Comparatione instituta cum tribus impro- 
 bis, Caino, Balaamo, et Cora, qui in sacra scriptura 
 pessimeé audiunt, falsis fratribus creat invidiam. Ipsa 
 tamen facinorum, qua commiserunt, convenientia 
 non nimis est urgenda. (Wassenb. ap. Laurm.) 
 
 11. οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς. Non imprecatur, sed denunciat ex- 
 itium. (Carpz.) ἹἸΠορεύεσϑαι ὁδῷ τινος signifies to fol- 
 low any one’s example. The points of resemblance 
 are: 1. Hatred and persecution of the brethren, that 
 disposition of mind which tends to murder. Thus 
 every such person is in 1 Joh. 3, 15. called a mur- 
 derer. (See the note there.) 2. Avarice. 3. Pride. 
 
 11. καὶ τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν, 
 “ἼΤΊΘΥ impetuously rush upon the sin committed 
 by Balaam for the lucre of gain ;” i. 6. as he excited 
 the people to whoredom with the Moabites, so they, 
 through love of lucre, encourage Christians in carnal 
 lusts. See Apoc. 2, 14 and 13. The ey. is a 
 strong term; and (as Laurman says) there is a meta- 
 phor derived from a river which breaks its banks, and 
 inundates the country round. See Elsn., Kypke, &c. 
 Laurm. cites Test. 12 Patr. ap. Grab. Spicileg. 1, 45, 
 τοῦ μὴ πορευθῆναι ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ νεότητος καὶ πορνείᾳ, ἐν 7 ἐξε- 
 χύθην ἐγὼ. See Gen. 49, 4." 
 
 11. καὶ τῇ ἀντιλογια τοῦ Κορὲ ἀπώλοντο, i. 6. (as 
 Rosenm. explains) καὶ ὡς ὁ Κορὲ ἀντιλέξας ἀπώλοντο. 
 The ἀπώλοντο Rosenm. takes as aorist for future, or 
 present. The latter method is greatly preferable. 
 He adds: “ As that sedition was against Moses, so 
 was this against Christ and his religion.” In a simi- 
 lar way ἀντιλογία is used in the Protevang. Jacobi c. 
 9. (cited by Laurm.) As examples of this spirit 
 Carpz. refers to 3 Joh. 9. and 1 Cor. 1, 11. And he 
 observes that these three, the ἐπορεύθησαν, ἐξεχύθη- 
 σαν, and ἀπώλοντο, are used gradatim of a single life, 
 and the perdition it brings with it. 
 
 12. οὗτοί εἰσιν--σπιλάδες. Οὐὖτοι, Laurm. remarks, 
 is often used by St. Peter of those wretches whose 
 crimes are so graphically depicted by himself and St. 
 Jude, the latter of whom here presents an admirable 
 
 3F2 
 
804 JUDE. 
 
 delineation, derived from things most obvious in na- 
 ture, and which strikingly evinces his learning, taste, 
 and power of eloquence. 
 
 “These wretches (says the Apostle) are spots and a disgrace to 
 your love-feasts, when they feast with you to an excess which shows 
 no reverence to God or regard to man.” By the ayaz., Agape, are 
 meant those sacred meals which at first, among the primitive Chris- 
 tians, preceded the Eucharist, and afterwards succeeded it, and to 
 which all, especially the richer, furnished their contributions. Now 
 these were at first frugal and sober, but became in process of time 
 more luxurious ; and the poor were generally excluded, while the 
 rich, without restraint, gratified their appetites; until inthe fourth 
 century the custom was solemnly abolished by the counsel of Lao- 
 dicea. These love-feasts, it may be observed, somewhat resembled 
 the ἐράνοι of the Greeks ; a term similarly derived from épaw. See 
 Athen, 862 Ε. and Lennep. Etym. Gree. inv. On feasts in general 
 there is an apposite passage in Athen, 363 Ὁ. 
 
 Σπιλάδες. This word is often used in the Classical writers of 
 denote rough and sharp rocks, partly jutting out of the sea, and 
 concealed by it, around which breakers arise. Hence many emi- 
 “nent recent Commentators recognise an allusion to these false 
 teachers who, like such rocks, are pernicious to those who meet with 
 them ; shipwreck the faith, and corrupt the morals of those who 
 hold intercourse with them. So Laurm., who adduces similar ex- 
 pressions from Cicero. See also Wets. Such may possibly be the 
 sense; but there seems something so incongruous in the figure, 
 that I am inclined to retain the common interpretation, spots, in 
 the same sense as the σπῖλοι at 2 Pet.; especially as 1 am sup- 
 ported by such eminent critics as Beza, Grot., Hemsterh., Bens., 
 Scheid, and Wassenburg. And this conveys a far more consistent 
 and apposite sense. 
 
 As to the argument derived from the difference of the twe forms 
 σπῖλος and σπίλας, that seems frivolous, as it regards St. Jude. The 
 gloss of Hesych., which represents the antient opinion, is strongly 
 in its favour. And so the Vulg. macule, And that the words some- 
 times (as Laurm. shows ) interchange senses, rather countenances 
 the common interpretation, which is, moreover, confirmed by the 
 general idea which prevails in these two words, and many cognate 
 ones, Σπίω is (I suspect) cognate with the Latin spuo, and our 
 spi-t, and sputt-er, and spot; hence spi-got. Nay, even σπι-νγθὴρ 
 comes from ozt-w or origw, to spurt or sprinkle. Thus the leading 
 sense is to spié. Now a spot is properly something spié out, and 
 which stands out as a stain on any thing. And what are such rocks 
 as those here meant but spots on the sea? for such they appear at a 
 distance ; and why they should be so called, it were as needless to 
 enquire, as why rocks should be called χοιράδες. Fancy must have 
 scope in either case. 
 
 Συνευωχούμενοι, ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες. Pric. and Rosenm. 
 connect the συνευωχούμενοι ὑμῖν, not with the preceding, but with 
 
JUDE. 805 
 
 the following: and for ποιμαίνοντες they read ποιμαίνουσι, or take 
 it fora participle. But there is no necessity for any change in the 
 punctuation and construction; and for a change in reading, no au- 
 thority. The common reading and interpretation is preferable : and 
 συνευωχ. and ποιμαίνοντες are each a Nominativus pendens. The 
 ἀφόβως most refer to the former; but others, with more reason, to 
 the latter. There is, too, aclimax. It seems to mean, ‘‘ with no fear 
 or care but for themselves, with none for their fellows, or for the 
 poor.” The ἑαυτοὺς isemphatical. 030s here signifies anxious care. 
 
 Νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι, ὑπὸ ἀνέμων περιφερόμεναι. See the note on 
 2 Pet. 3, 17. And consult Pric. in loc. ‘* These waterless clouds 
 (says Rosenm.) are fit emblems of the false teachers, who promised 
 much of evangelical truth and purity, but furnished little worthy 
 of the title; q.d. “ As clouds carried about in the air, but devoid of 
 water, do not nourish the earth, so these boasters hurry about, pro- 
 mising much, but performing little, nay, infecting rather than irri- 
 gating the minds of the faithful.” ‘This, however, may be pushing 
 the comparison a little too far. 
 
 Δένδρα φθινοπωρινὰ, “ trees as they are at the end of Autumn, 
 without leaves or fruit.” So most Commentators explain. But 
 these false teachers may be said to have had leaves, if they had not 
 fruit. I therefore prefer supposing trees as they are tqwards the 
 end of Autumn, with leaves, but without fruit, i,e. promising, but 
 not performing ; as in the case of the fig-tree, Mark 11, 13. Or we 
 may, with many Commentators, aideiiana trees whose early fruit 
 (or buds) withereth, and never cometh to perfection, like fruit with 
 a worm at the core. But this is denoted by the next word ἄκαρπα. 
 And ( would observe) there seems to be a climax in erga φθινο- 
 πωρινὰ, ἄκαρπα, δὶς ἀποθανόντα; ἐκριξώθεντα. The dis ἀπυθανόντα 
 is explained, by the best Commentators, “ doubly, i.e, altogether 
 dead.” But there seems an allusion to the preceding terms, which 
 denote only those barren; such only thus far living. See Benson, 
 Slade, and Mackn. In the ἐκριξωθέντα we have the upex of the 
 climax ; for of trees uprooted there can be no more hope of fruit. 
 The application is abvious, See Laurm, 
 
 13. κύματα ἄγριαι θαλάσσης, ἐπαφρίξοντα τὰς ἑαυτῶν 
 αἰσχύνας, “rough, wild, raging waves of the sea, 
 foaming out (only) their own shame.” The epithet 
 ἄγριος is applied to various objects, but rarely to ina- 
 nimate ones. The Commentators compare Sap. 14, 
 1., ἄγρια κύματα. The ἐπαφρίξβοντα is usually rendered 
 despumantes, foaming out (as if ἐξαφρ. 5, which occurs 
 in Aischy].{Agam. 1034., αἱματηρὸν ἐξαφρίξεσθαι μένος). 
 But it shoula rather be, foaming up, i. 6. on the 
 shore: for the ἄφρον is not only the foam of the sea, 
 but, as we find by the Schol. on Hom. Il. ο. 626., the 
 τὸ χορτώδες τῆς θαλάσσης, ἀπόβλημα, the wreck, or 
 
806 - JUDE. 
 
 sea-weeds, &c., thrown up on the shore by the sea. 
 And this illustrates the αἰσχύνας just after. Tor, as 
 the wreck is the refuse of the sea, so were the foolish 
 and obscene discourses (for αἰσχυνὰς is rightly sup- 
 posed by Rosenm. to denote the αἰσχρολόγιαι, the 
 filthiness and foolish talking, mentioned by St. Paul) 
 which these persons spouted forth, their shame. 
 Here Laurm. (after Alberti) cites Mosch. Idyll. 5,5. 
 Ρ. 375., Edit. Valckn. : ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὅταν ἀχήσῃ πολιὸς βυθὸς 
 ade θάλασσα ἸΚυρτὸν ἐπαφοίϑῃ (Br. ἐπαφρίσδη) τὰ δὲ 
 κύματα μακρὰ μιεμήνη. This I had myself noted, and 
 on which I would remark that there is, properly, a 
 lacuna between κύματα and μεμήνη. This, Valckn. 
 has supplied by μακρὰ : aconjecture eagerly caught 
 up by Wakef.; but, I conceive, injudiciously. I 
 would read κάρτα, which will (I think) meet with 
 the approbation of the learned. 
 
 13. ἀδτέρες πλανῆται, οἷς ὁ ϑύφος τοῦ σκότους εἰς τὸν 
 αἰῶνα τετήρηται. Rosenm. supposes this expression 
 to be used in allusion to the ἀστέρες διαθέοντες, with 
 reference to the wandering unsettled habits of those 
 teachers, ever on the watch to gratify their appetites. 
 Τῇ 30, the Apostle had perhaps in view the words of 
 the Psalmist: ‘ They will run here and there for 
 meat, and grudge if they be not satisfied.” Now 
 stars was (as Grot. observes) the name by which, 
 among the Jews, teachers were designated. ‘The 
 πλαν. has no reference to the planets, but signifies 
 errones. Thus Plato (cited by Tiren.) calls mer- 
 chants (or rather pedlars) the planetas urbium. On 
 these wandering stars see Milton ap. Bens., and also 
 Carpz. and Hanlein. 
 
 The rest of the phraseology is the same with 2 
 Pet. 2, 17., where see the note. 
 
 It is observed by Laurm., that these verses(12 and 
 13.), in exquisite beauty of imagery, elegance of ex- 
 pression, and force of wholesome admonition rediquis 
 palmam faciunt dubiam. ‘The passage is well imitated 
 by Cowper, Task, p. 177., “ Lust in their hearts.”’ 
 
JUDE. 807 
 
 14—15. προεφήτευσε δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἔβδομος ἀπὸ ᾿Αδὰμ, 
 Ἐνὼχ. ‘These verses Rosenm. takes to be parenthe- 
 tical; the comparison begun at ver. 12 and 13, 
 being continued at ver. 16.; and what is here said of 
 Enoch, being introduced in order to show how heavy 
 a judgment hung over the wicked. On Enoch, the 
 seventh in lineage from Adam, and the book of 
 Enoch (cited by some of the Fathers, and whose au- 
 thority is defended by others), this is no place to 
 treat ; nor indeed is it a matter of much conse- 
 quence, since (as Bp. Sherlock and others observe) it 
 can by no means be proved that this is a quotation 
 from that work; nor would it prove, in any case, 
 the inspiration of the book from which it was taken, 
 but only the truth of this particular passage, of 
 which the Apostle was well qualified to judge, though 
 it might be, as Slade thinks, a prophecy of Enoch’s 
 preserved by tradition. On Enoch see Laurm., 
 from whom it appears that the great Dutch Divines, 
 Ens. Munting, Patzt, &c., have of late come over to 
 the opinion of the earlier Commentators (though 
 abandoned by most of the later ones), that Enoch 
 did not die, but really ascended to heavenalive; and 
 that therefore the case affords a good popular argu- 
 ment for the immortality of the soul, and the rewards 
 of virtue. And this opinion he himself embraces. 
 He moreover truly remarks, that the style of this 
 passage (so different from the terse phraseology of St. 
 Jude’s Epistle) bears strong marks of genuineness, 
 i. e. of the earliest antiquity, and seems to have been 
 faithfully followed by the Apostle, and translated, 
 literally, from Hebrew into Greek. 
 
 The προεφήτευσε is rendered by Rosenm. docuit. 
 But the word seems to have a middle signification 
 between prophesied, and foretold. Nor is ἦλθε for 
 the Future: but the Prophet uses the past tense, as 
 if the Lord were already come. It may be rendered, 
 is come. *Ey μυριάσιν ἁγίαις αὐτοῦ, “ with his holy 
 myriads,” i. e. with myriads of his holy ones, namely, 
 his angels, the hosts that are represented as accompa- 
 
808 JUDE. 
 
 nying him. The ἐν is for σύν, [Ποιεῖν κρίσιν, to exer-_ 
 cise Judgment, pass condemnation. ᾿Εξελέγχ. is a 
 stronger term than ἐλέγχειν, and signifies to utterly 
 convict, and consequently punish. See Schleus. 
 Lex. Ἔργα ἀσεβείας is for ἔργα ἀσεβῆ. Τῶν σκληρῶν, 
 “ harsh things,” i. 6. words. Laurm. observes, that 
 this alludes to the blasphemies mentioned supra, ver. 
 9&10. Itis strange no Commentators should have 
 compared Ps. 94, 4. 
 
 10. οὗτοί εἰσι---χάριν. Here is a resumption of 
 what was said at ver.12 & 13.; the οὗτοί being again 
 used in the same sense. By the γογγυσταὶ most un- 
 derstand revilers and censurers of their superiors. 
 But it seems rather to be a general term: for γογγύϑω 
 signifies to mutter, murmur, grumble, &c.; and thus 
 yoyyvor. will denote discontented, envious, malicious 
 persons, who, in their murmurs, spare neither man 
 nor God. 
 
 Μεμψίμοιροι is a modification of the former; and 
 the term is explained by Cicumen., 6 πάντα καὶ αἰεὶ 
 σκώπτειν ἐπιτηδεύων. Laurman thinks it equivalent. 
 to the μεμφόμενος τὸ ἀγαθὸν φιλεγκλήμων, fault-finder. 
 See the spirited sketch of such persons in Theophr. 
 Char. Eth. c.17. It denotes, then, those who see 
 every thing in the worst light, or (to use the words 
 of Seneca (cited by Pric. and most other Commen- 
 tators), omnia deplorantes, quibus nulla non causa 
 in querelas placet. 
 
 By the κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι are 
 usually supposed to be denoted those who live only 
 for their lusts. But it may, more suitably to the 
 preceding words, be rendered, men who care not for 
 the opinion of others, nay, little solicitous about the 
 favour of God, and following their own opinions 
 only, the προπετεῖς of 2 Tim. 3, 4. 
 
 In τὸ στόμα αὐτών λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα there is a He- 
 braism for λαλοῦσι ὑπέρογκα, scil. ῥήματα. “YrésoyKos 
 signifies of exceeding bulk. So Heysch. explains it 
 ὑπέρμετρος. See the note on 2 Pet. 2,18. I would 
 compare Auschyl. Theb. 438. ἐς οὐρανὸν Πέμπει----κυ- 
 
JUDE. 
 
 βαίνοντ᾽ ἔπη. ‘ Now that there were (observes 
 senm.) among the Jews many persons. disconten 
 with their lot, and who, hurried away by a false hope 
 of the temporal kingdom of the Messiah, broke out 
 into vain complaints of the injustice of God, the his- 
 tories of the disturbances and seditions (which we 
 learn from Joseph. and Sueton. were commenced by 
 the Jews) plainly show us.” 
 
 The Apostle then adds another odious trait, θαυ- 
 μάᾶβοντες πρόσωπα, ὠφελείας χάριν" which Rosenm. 
 explains, “ paying adulatory court to personages,” or 
 great and influential persons. So θαυμάϑειν πρόσωπον 
 δυναστοῦ in Levit. 19, 15., and θαυμάϑειν for τιμᾷν In 
 Sir. 7, 29. In this sense, too, it often occurs in the 
 Classical writers, especially Thucyd. But as θαυμά- 
 Sev πρόσωπον, corresponding to 3.25 NW) very often 
 occurs in the Sept., and always in a forensic sense, 
 synonymous with λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον, or προσωποληπ- 
 rev, so 1 think with Loesner, that this is the sense 
 here (especially as Rosenm. gives no authority for 
 πρόσωπον, a personage, or dignified person ;) and that 
 this juridical term is meant to allude to the sitting 
 in judgment, and pronouncing on men’s characters, 
 which they arrogated to themselves. The πρόσωπα 
 may therefore (as Loesner says) denote all persons 
 from whom they could get any thing; which is de- 
 noted by the wPercias χάριν, with which I would com- 
 pare Thucyd. 1, 28. φίλους ποιεῖσθαι οὕς οὐ βούλονται, 
 ὠφελείας ἕνεκα. Now this ὠφελεία was, in the case of 
 judges, some present either of money, or valuable 
 goods; and, in the present case, much the same, or 
 what they could get. 
 
 17. The Epistle concludes, as usual, with exhor- 
 tation. Μνήσθητε τῶν ῥημάτων----Χριστοῦ. The προει- 
 ρημένων denotes the words which had been delivered 
 
 * One might also compare the sesquipedalia verba of the Poet. 
 Bens. explains it of mystified terms and magnificent pompous 
 phrases which had no great meaning, if any at all, but served to 
 amuse unthinking people, and make them fancy they were let into 
 the mysteries of the Gospel and the deep things of God. 
 
δι. JUDE. 
 
 to them by the Apostles before those false teachers 
 crept in. This, as Rosenm. observes, may include 
 both epistolary and viva voce instruction. See 2 
 Pet. 3, 2 and 3. It has been supposed that Jude was 
 not an Apostle: but (as Laurm. observes) this pas- 
 sage will not prove it, any more than (as Wolf ob- 
 serves) Hebr. 13, 7. will prove that St. Paul was not 
 a teacher. 
 
 18. ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν, &c. The ὅτι is rendered by 
 Doddr. for; better by our Translators how; though 
 that is obsolete. I would render namely that. The 
 second ὅτι is suited to citation. ‘The passages of the 
 Old Testament adverted to are supposed by Knapp 
 to be Acts 20, 29 and 30. 1 Tim. 4, 1. 2 Tim, 3, 1 
 seq. 4, 3. 2 Thess. 2, 3—12. 2 Pet. 3, 2 and 3. It 
 is agreed by the best Commentators that the phrase 
 ἐν ἐσχάτῳ 15 here not to be rigorously interpreted, 
 but understood of future time generally. And Ro- 
 senm. observes, that the words, though predictions, 
 were not prophecies. The Apostles foresaw that, 
 after their departure, false teachers would creep in, 
 and by attractive doctrines draw many to follow 
 them. 
 
 By ἐμπαῖκται, as at 2 Pet. 3, 3., are denoted scof- 
 fers, men who made a jest of serious and vital reli- 
 gion, and especially of the doctrines of the advent of 
 Christ to judgment, and the resurrection of the dead. 
 Tay ἀσεβειῶν (which is not found in the parallel pas- 
 sage of Peter) has the force of the adjective ἀσεβεὶς : 
 and in both this passage and that I would, with 
 Laurm., take the whole phrase as at ver. 16., and 
 understand it of a self-willed, conceited spirit, that 
 which follows its own fancies and whims. So that 
 there is no occasion to adopt Bentley’s conjec- 
 ture ἀσελγειών. It was the common interpretation, 
 not the common reading, that wanted rectifying. 
 The epithet ἀσεβεὶς is surely applicable to such per- 
 sons, since such a spirit could not but lead them to 
 pervert the Gospel, and corrupt it by impure ad- 
 
JUDE. 811 
 
 mixtures of their own notions: a highly presumptu- 
 ous and sinful conduct. 3 
 
 19. οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίξοντες ψυχικοὶ, πνεῦμα μὴ 
 ἔχοντες. Carpzov will have it that the hortatory 
 part of the Epistle only commences here: and most 
 Commentators regard this as a continuation of the 
 description of the heretics, interrupted by ver. 17 and 
 18. But it should rather seem that the Apostle, 
 having commenced the exhortation at ver. 17., flow 
 interprets it (hurried away by the indignation called 
 forth by the κατὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορεύομιενοι), 
 and levels at them another sentence of bitter cen- 
 sure, exclaiming οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ, &c. **(Aye,) these are 
 the very men who (even now) excite separations,” 
 Χο. ‘The best Critics are agreed that ἑαυτοὺς is not 
 genuine, but from the margin, and founded on a 
 two-fold view of the sense ; and that the term ἀποδιο- 
 ρίϑοντες (which, however, is admitted by Schleus. to 
 be ambiguous, ) signifies those who by false doctrines 
 (or, as Laurman explains, variety of opinions,) ex- 
 cited separations and schisms both of themselves and 
 others; and (as some add) by their corrupt lives 
 threw the society into confusion. But this is here 
 incongruous. ‘Tindal renders, “ those are makers 
 of sects.” 
 
 The last trait is ψυχικοὶ (εἰσι), πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες. 
 The ψυχικοὶ Laurm. well explains, homines qui, veluti 
 animalia bruta, unicé sensuum vi et impetu feruntur, 
 celsioris animi et rationis usu omnino destituti. See 
 Suic. Thes. c. 1589. and the note on 1 Cor. 2, 14. 
 Pric. and Laurman aptly compare Herm. Past. 2, 
 12. Hunc spiritum terrestrem habens, exaltat se, et 
 improbus est et verbosus, et in deliciis conversatur, 
 et in voluptatibus multis, et mercedem accipit. The 
 πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες is explained by Rosenm., nec vo- 
 luntatem, nec propositum, nec studium habent sen- 
 tiendi agendique convenienter dictamini divino: 
 destituti morali perfectione, ad quam Deus per auxili- 
 uM τοῦ πνεύματος (religionis) adducit. But this I must 
 regard as that kind of perversion which the word πνεῦ- 
 
812 JUDE. 
 
 μα too often suffers at the hands of the recent foreign 
 Divines. Krebs and J. B. Carpz. rightly explain the 
 οἱ πνεῦμα ἔχοντες, the unregenerate, who only follow 
 the impulses of nature common to brutes, who expe- 
 rience not in themselves, or do not yield, to the 
 guidance of the Divine Spirit, nor have its gifts any . 
 fruit in their doctrine. See a passage of Clemen. 
 Alex. cited by Wets. on Eph. 2, 1. 
 
 QB. The Apostle now resumes his exhortations, 
 and bids them not only beware of the artifices of the 
 false teachers, but study to advance in religious 
 knowledge and practice; and to ensure the success 
 of their endeavours, he enjoins them to pray in the 
 Holy Spirit. (Laurman.) 
 
 On the force of the metaphor in ἐποικοδόμοῦντες see 
 the note on 1 Cor. 3, 10. seq. By πίστις is here meant 
 the Christian religion. And ἁγιωτάτῃ is a most ap- 
 propriate epithet, not so much as denoting the faith 
 once delivered to the saints (as Wets. and Laurman 
 explain), as that originality in the Holy Being, and 
 intended to make some men holy. So our Lord 
 says: “Be ye holy as 1 am holy.” Here, it may be 
 observed, the effects of the Gospel are contrasted 
 with those of the false teachers. 
 
 The words ἐν πνεύματι oyiw, are by some con- 
 nected with the preceding; by others (and more 
 rightly) with the following. The evis for διὰ, per. by 
 the aid of, under the direction of. Laurm. observes, 
 that the best commentary on this may be derived 
 from Rom. 8, 26. τὸ yap τί προσευξώμεθα καθὸ δεῖ, οὐκ 
 οἴδαμιεν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει στεναγμοῖς 
 ἀλαλήτοις" where see the note. 
 
 Q1. ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπη Θεοῦ τηρήσατε. ‘The ἑαυτοὺς 
 is by most Commentators rendered yourselves: but 
 by others, as Ers., Pisc., Est., Bens., and Laurm., 
 each other ; which is more significant and agreeable 
 to the context, ver. 20—23. And that ἑαυτοὺς often 
 has this signification, is certain. But both may be 
 united, thus: ‘Strive to preserve yourselves and 
 each other in the love of God,” or rather, “in love 
 
JUDE. 818 
 
 to God;” for this, Bens. and Carpz. prove, is required 
 by the context ; though the term sometimes signifies 
 the love God bears us. 
 
 ΠΡροσδεχόμιενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ Κυρίου, “ expecting and 
 trusting (thereby) to obtain mercy and acceptance 
 with God.” The εἰς ϑωὴν αἰώνιον, is exegetical of the 
 preceding, and denotes the end to which this tends, 
 even eternal salvation. 
 
 22, 23. To the right understanding of these verses 
 it is necessary to attend to the sense of ἐαυτοὺς ἐν 
 ἀγάπη Θεοῦ τηρήσατε before laid down; and we may 
 paraphrase thus: ‘‘(And in the exercise of this vi- 
 gilant exertion to keep each in the love of God, re- 
 member that ye are not to abandon all those who 
 seem to wander from the true faith, no,) some treat 
 compassionately and mildly, making a distinction 
 (between those and the desperately perverse) ; 
 others (even if the danger seem great, and the 
 chance of saving them small) yet anxiously strive to 
 save; snatching them, as it were, out of the fire.” 
 Such, I conceive, is the true sense of these obscure 
 verses, on which Commentators differ in opinion. 
 And this view is supported by the authority of the 
 best interpreters. As to the various readings, they 
 seem to be no more than irregular methods of re- 
 moving the difficulty by re-writing the passage. 
 
 ᾿Ελεεῖν here denotes (as often) to treat kindly. 
 Διακρινόμιενοι is used as a deponent for διακρίνοντες, 
 and involves the common ellipsis μεταξὺ αὐτῶν καὶ 
 τῶν ἄλλων. I suspect that the Apostle did not ex- 
 clude even the false teachers themselves, but intended 
 that some exertions should be made to save even 
 some of them. And as the ods μεν ἐλεεῖτε may re- 
 spect the people seduced; so may the ods δὲ denote 
 some of the deceivers, and to them the words ἐν φόβῳ 
 σωξβεῖτε are very suitable. Now the sense of these 
 words is (I conceive), not “terrify with denuncia- 
 tions of Divine vengeance,” as Grot., Pisc., Est., 
 Bens., and almost all Commentators explain, but, 
 with anxiety,’ which implies circumspection and 
 
814 JUDE. 
 
 exertion. So Phil. 2, 12. pera φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν 
 ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν karepyagere and 1 Pet. 1,17. ἐν φόβῳ, 
 ‘cautiously and providently.” In short, it imports 
 an anxious and diligent use of al/ the methods of re- 
 formation, not only by arguments derived from fear, 
 but love. | 
 
 Ἔκ τοῦ πυρὸς is a proverbial expression, in fre- 
 quent use among the Jews, and occurring also in the 
 Classical writers; as Liban. Orat. 712 B. πόλλους ἴσως 
 δυνήσεται τοῦ πυρὸς ἐξέλεσθαι. 
 
 The concluding words μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τὴς 
 σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα, have much perplexed the 
 Commentators, who, the greatest part of them, 
 strangely wander. See Pole. The most successful 
 have been Wolf and Bens., the former of whom 
 thinks they contain an earnest injunction to abstain 
 from every appearance of evil: and he compares 
 1 Cor 6, 20. But the words are so closely connected 
 with the preceding that I cannot but think the mean- 
 ing is: ‘* Let, however, your endeavours to reform 
 them be made with great caution; be careful to 
 avoid being yourselves corrupted by their society, 
 and show a hatred of whatever partakes, in the 
 slightest degree, of vice and sin.” This, which I 
 conceive to be the true sense, Bens. alone seems to 
 have discerned. On the origin of the phrase μισεῖν 
 ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα, no certainty can be attained. It 
 was probably a proverbial one. 
 
 24, 25. Now follows the epilogus, or solemn doxo- 
 logy with which the Apostles usually conclude their 
 Epistles ; and this is one not inferior to any in the 
 New Testament. The sense is too plain to require 
 much illustration. Απταιστος Valck. explains ἄπροσ- 
 koros, qui pectus purum et firmum gestitat. I pre- 
 fer ἄπτωτους. As to the reading ἀσπίλους, it is a 
 gloss. Vorst. here recognizes an agonistical meta- 
 phor. The στῆσαι is well explained, by Laurm., 
 stare facere, i.e. sistere. Now στῆσαι ἀμώμους an- 
 swers to φυλάξαι ἀπταίστους. ἈΚατενώπιον τῆς δόξης 
 αὐτοῦ, “in the presence of the glorious God.” Ἐν 
 
JUDE. 815 
 
 ἀγαλλιάσει, ‘ with exultation and holy confidence.” 
 Compare 1 Joh. 4,12. Μόνῳ coda Θεῷ. The σοφῴ 
 is not found in many MSS., ‘Versions, ‘and Fathers ; 
 and it is rightly (1 think) rejected by almost ail 
 Critics; not but that the epithet is very suitable, 
 
 though it is not hujus loci. ‘The name σωτὴρ is often 
 applied to God the Father, as the original author of 
 our salvation. So in 1 Tim. 2, 3. “and. Tit. BS. 
 
 3,4. The words διὰ Ἰησοῦ Miieroo τοῦ Κυρίου ΤῊΝ 
 added in some MSS., seem derived from the margin. 
 Δόξα, scil. ἔστω, be ascribed. Μεγαλωσύνη, majesty. 
 
 Κράτος, ty, dominion. There i is a par allelism between 
 δόξα καὶ μεγαλωσύνη and κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία. Compare 
 a similar doxology in Apoc. 5,13. Before καὶ νῦν 
 -Griesb. inserts, from a few MSS. and two Latin 
 Fathers, πρὸ πάντος τοῦ αἰῶνος. But it is far easier to 
 account for the insertion of such a clause in those 
 few MSS., than for its omission in all the rest, all the 
 antient versions, &c. I suspect, therefore, that it is 
 derived from the margin, and it may be dispensed 
 with, since νῦν will very well include all the time up 
 to the present instant ; whence it is sometimes used 
 of pasttime. (See Steph. Thes., Viger., and Hoogev.) 
 From the Vulgate, and the early Latin liturgies, 
 came the doxology used in our Church, “ As it was 
 in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world 
 without end, Amen.” With this Grot. aptly com- 
 pares the well known Virgilian line, Semper honos 
 nomenque tuum laudesque manebunt. 
 
 FINIS, σὺν Θεώ, 
 
 J.B. Nichols, 25, Parliament-street, 
 
 εὐ te i οὐκ. 
 
ee en ae eee ere 
 πὰ ial al 4 ‘ig Fh 
 
 Lr. 
 
 b> 
 " 
 
 * 
 * 
 
BS2341 .B657 v.8 
 = a annotationis sacrae 
 
 wi VA 
 
 1 wre 00055 0162 
 
ἘΝῚ ᾿ 
 oe ᾿ Ἦν, τὴ 
 
 ue 
 
 7 
 
& ols eer tey 
 
 ee ee ee 
 Ser vane 
 Der erage te 
 ἡ δε PAG ge ahem Oe ἄρας; ὅν ote κα 
 ween tes 
 
 Perea nt 
 
 SF ste Rabdi eRe, 
 
 Seryynre, 
 MOR 6 fo age) 
 
 ᾿ τὴ kone 
 ΠΟΎΣ J ᾿ ΟΝ 
 CCE ἀνα eee ra 
 . hy SET ALOR. 
 ARAM SE 
 tates ΟΥΤΩΣ 
 #2 yhetents, 
 reer oe pagrus 
 Fei ETS Sever 
 ΗΝ 
 PMN ER λον He 
 OP FRE PAG, Meare 
 
 αν std cer Ay 
 DESNQE ANWR tos Se AS κεν kn δ μον 
 Ὁ) Negeathy e UP ab SAAB ITEC bat obit om manger ἐδ 975. α 
 ΕΝ Vlg ND ἀγα 
 Vt as ἀκ ΣΑΣ Te 
 es ἢ) 
 BMA NATAL ag 
 ΝΣ t Noe hehe oy 
 SEER δα EEE ALE re mat : RUT bed he 
 ᾿ eeu es ba u bey 
 ἢ ΓΚ ]Π Ὁ 
 
 igs 
 Ure dete an 
 yw 
 
 ae 
 ee Wes 
 
 aa 
 co Nath SHAD 
 NON 
 ny 
 ANEsds 
 Bae pneny 
 ties 
 
 ΤΟΥΤῚ 
 
 ΝΥΝ 
 
 βονιν φῦ 
 
 Bd ee ae Herat 
 
 Je Fin (mrss Magers estes wee 
 
 ters tar arate Cw dirteewe Phe 
 sediaget: ὁ δὲν τ τ an ien taken mcory 
 
 TADS ea TAA, 
 feaeereys ὦ 
 
 ΠΟΥ 
 *2 re ΤΩΣ 
 oe helt a8 Sete 
 ere pereetrriaty 
 rycen iran 
 
 anes 
 wets ace yeaa tnd 
 
 me tinlantnrsss ans αν 
 
 rant RE Rak ay 
 
 oer errs. hes 
 Bint eth wet ve ueah swat 
 Pores 
 privates: te 
 ΝΣ 
 “ : ΆΚΝ ΨΥ 
 τὸν Ewe wale, : 
 Sher Wee anes τ οὐ eit 8 ahs 
 re AE nut jes 
 PDair ee,