Ses 
 Noe. 
 
 = 
 aN; Wiles 
 ar eases 
 
 ¥ 
 AS. 
 
 Sk 
 
 , 
 
 < 
 3 
 23; 
 Ae 
 
 Ke 
 
 5 
 ety 
 
 
 
 :: 
 
 Pines 
 
NY 
 oD 
 o 
 oO 
 har 
 aed 
 1 
 
 
 

 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2009 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetictimtituOOhuth 
 

 

 

 

 
 CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
 HAND-BOOK 
 
 THE SPITE 
 TIMOTHY AND TITUS, 
 
 BY 
 
 JOH. ED.” HUTHER, TxD., 
 
 PASTOR AT WITTENFORDEN BEI SCHWERIN. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
 
 DAVID HUNTER, B.A., 
 
 AND TO 
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, 
 
 BY 
 Dr. GOTTLIEB LUNEMANN, 
 
 PROFESSOR IN THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GOTTINGEN. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
 
 Rev. MAURICE J. EVANS, B.A. 
 
 WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY 
 TIMOTHY DWIGHT, 
 
 } PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN YALE COLLEGE. 
 
 FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY. 
 NEW YORK AND LONDON. 
 
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1885, 
 By FUNK & WAGNALILS, 
 in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 
 
 THE present volume of Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Hand-book 
 to the New Testament contains the Commentaries on the Pastoral 
 Epistles, by Dr. Huther, and on the Epistle to the Hebrews, by Dr. 
 Lunemann. In the work of preparing these Commentaries for pub- 
 lication in the American edition, I have followed the same general plan 
 with that which was adopted in the volume on the Epistles to the Col- 
 ossians, Philippians, and Thessalonians, issued within the present year. 
 The limits imposed upon me have made it impossible to discuss all the 
 points of interest or importance, which the Epistles offer for consider- 
 ation, as fully as might have been desired. But I have endeavored to 
 follow the course of the chapters and verses, and, in some sense, to give 
 a continuous series of annotations on the several Epistles. These anno- 
 tations cover more than one hundred and twenty pages, and I trust that 
 they will prove to be not otherwise than suggestive and helpful to the 
 student. 
 
 The question as to the Pauline authorship of these Epistles is dis- 
 cussed with much learning, ability and fairness by Drs. Liinemann 
 and Huther. I would commend the careful reading of what they have 
 written to all who may use the volume. With the general conclusions 
 which they reach, I would here express my agreement, believing, as I 
 do, that Paul may probably be regarded as the writer of the Pastoral 
 Epistles, but not of the Epistle to the Hebrews. For the reason, how- 
 ever, which was mentioned in my preface to the volume on “ Phil- 
 ippians,” etc., I have refrained from entering upon an independent 
 examination of this question, and have confined myself wholly to anno- 
 tations explanatory of the meaning and thought of the epistles. In the 
 course of these annotations, indeed, I have considered the plan of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, and have pointed out its un-Pauline character ; 
 but this matter was so intimately connected with the primary purpose 
 of my notes that it could not be passed over altogether. What I have 
 been led, thus incidentally, to set forth respecting this point is submit- 
 ted to the candid consideration of the reader. 
 
 iii 
 
iv PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 
 
 As in former volumes, the references to pages in Winer’s and Butt- 
 mann’s Grammars of the New Testament, are given both to the German 
 and American editions of those works—the American edition being 
 designated by the letters E.T. In my own notes, the pages of the 
 American translation only are indicated. The abbreviations of the 
 names of commentators, in my annotations, will be readily understood 
 by the reader. For other abbreviations, reference may be made to 
 page xxiv. of the volume on the Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 As in the case of the two other volumes of this Commentary, which 
 have passed under my editorial care, I dedicate my portion of the 
 present volume to the Students and Graduates of the Divinity School 
 of Yale College. It is a pleasure to me to unite my name, once more, 
 with theirs, in a book whose object is to aid all honest students of the 
 New Testament writings in an impartial investigation of their meaning, 
 
 TIMOTHY DWIGHT. 
 New Haven, Oct. 22d, 1885. 
 
AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 In publishing the fourth edition of my Commentary on the Pastoral 
 Epistles, I recall with painful feeling the man who began and conducted 
 the work in which I count it a special honor to take part. When the 
 third edition of my Commentary on the Epistle of James appeared in 
 the year 1870, he was still busy with undiminished mental vigor in 
 conducting his work nearer to that goal of completion, which he had 
 kept before him from the first. At that time I did not anticipate that 
 in a few years he would be called away from his work. Through his 
 death Science has sustained a heavy loss, but she has this comfort, that 
 if he himself has departed from her, the work to which he devoted the 
 labor of a lifetime still remains, a brilliant example of the most 
 thorough and unbiassed exegesis, of an exegesis which, holding itself 
 free from all subjective caprice, “devotes itself soberly, faithfully, sub- 
 missively, to the service of the Divine Word.” The works of Meyer 
 testify that he himself adhered to the law which he set down for the ex- 
 positors of the holy Word, viz. that “they must interpret its pure con- 
 tents as historical facts in a manner simple, true, and clear, without bias 
 and independent of dogmatic prejudice, neither adding nor taking away 
 anything, and abstaining from all conjectures of their own” (Preface 
 to the fifth edition of the Commentary on 1 Cor.).—Since he invited me 
 to take part in the work, it has been my constant endeavor to imitate 
 his example; and it shall always be so with me, so long as I am spared 
 to go on with it. Of what use is it, either to theological science or to 
 the Church, if the expounder of the holy Scriptures uses his acuteness 
 in endeavoring to confirm from them his own preconceived opinions, 
 instead of faithfully interpreting and presenting the thoughts actually 
 contained in them ?—The same endeavor has guided me in this new 
 revision, as will be shown, I hope, by the revision itself. In addition 
 to the scrutiny to which I have subjected my earlier work, I have also 
 carefully considered and examined the writings on the Pastoral Epis- 
 tles, published since 1866, when the third edition of this Commentary 
 appeared. Above all, I have examined the third edition of van Ooster- 
 zee’s Commentary, the practical exposition by Plitt, and Hofmann’s 
 - Commentary. While fully acknowledging the acuteness displayed in 
 v 
 
vi , AUTHOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 Hofmann’s exposition, I have but seldom been able to agree with it; 
 for the most part, I have felt myself bound to refute it. However con- 
 vincing it may frequently appear at the first glance, as frequently it 
 will not bear an unbiassed, scrutinizing consideration. While it cer- 
 tainly does not yield itself to exuberant fancies, it still follows a mode 
 of exegesis, in which the chief purpose is to put forth new and striking 
 explanations, and then to support them with all kinds of ingenious 
 arguments.—Nevertheless I feel myself bound to express my thanks to 
 it, because it has incited me to examine the thought of the holy text all 
 the more carefully and thoroughly. 
 
 The disfavor with which the Pastoral Epistles used often to be re- 
 garded has gradually disappeared, and rightly ; for the more deeply 
 we enter into the spirit of their contents, the more they appear worthy 
 of the apostle whose name they bear. Excellent service. in presenting 
 their fulness of thought has been done by Stirm, a deacon in Reutlin- 
 gen, in his treatise published in the Jahrbuch fur deutsche Theologie 
 (vol. xviii. No. 1, 1872), and called “ Hints for Pastoral Theology con- 
 tained in the Pastoral Epistles.” The more they who are entrusted 
 with the clerical office make use of the contents of these epistles as their 
 guiding star, the richer in blessing will their labors be-—To that same 
 end may the Lord of the Church bless this my new work! 
 
 JOH. ED. HUTHER. 
 WIrTENFORDEN, November, 1875. 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES, 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 SECTION 1—TIMOTHY AND TITUS. 
 
 IMOTHY.—He was the son of a Christian Jewess (yvvacxdc 
 ’Tovdaiag mioryc, Acts xvi. 1) named Eunice (2 Tim.i. 5), and 
 of a Greek. We cannot determine for certain his place of 
 
 
 
 birth. The passage in Acts xx. 4 does not prove that he was 
 born in Derbe, since the position of «ai forbids the connection of Tiudéeo¢ 
 with AepBaioc.! From Acts xvi. 1, we might possibly take Lystra to be his 
 birthplace. If this be right, we may from it explain why in Acts xx. 4, 
 Tu66e0¢, without more precise description, is named along with Caius 
 of Derbe, since Lystra lies in the neighborhood of Derbe.2 From 
 his mother and his grandmother, called Lois, he had enjoyed a pious 
 education; and he had early been made acquainted with the holy 
 scriptures of the Jews (2 Tim. i. 5, iii. 14,15). When Paul on his second 
 missionary journey came into closer connection with him, he was 
 already a Christian (uabyrfc), and possessed a good reputation among the 
 believers in Lystra and Iconium. Paul calls him his ré«vov (1 Tim. i. 2, 18; 
 2 Tim. i. 2; 1 Cor. iv. 17), from which it would appear that he had been 
 converted by the preaching of the apostle, probably during the apostle’s 
 first stay in Lystra (Acts xiv. 6,7); and, according to the reading: rapa 
 tivev, in the passage 2. Tim. iii. 14, by means of his mother and grand- 
 mother. Paul, after circumcising him, because his father was known in 
 
 the district to be a Gentile,* adopted him as his assistant in the apostleship. 
 
 1 Wieseler (Chronol. des apost. Zeitalters, p. held identical with the one mentioned in xix. 
 
 25) argues that AepBatos should go with Tijmo- 
 Geos. He points out that in xix. 29, Taios is 
 called a Macedonian along with Aristarchus, 
 and that xx. 4 would agree with this if kat 
 But in 
 this construction «ai before Sexodvdos is super- 
 
 Taios were joined to @ecoadovixéwy. 
 
 Suous The Gaius here named is not to be 
 
 29; see Meyer on Acts xx. 4. 
 
 2 According to Otto, the #v does not denote 
 Timothy’s abode, but only his temporary so- 
 journ occasioned by the presence of Paul—an 
 assertion which the context flatly contradicts. 
 
 3From the expression: ori EAAnv umipxev 
 (Acts xvi. 3), Otto wishes to infer that the 
 
 1 
 
a THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 From that time forward, Timothy was one of those who served the apostle 
 (ele tv diaxovobvtwr ait, Acts xix. 22), his ovvepyéc. The service (dcaxovia) 
 consisted in helping the apostle in the duties of his office, and was there- 
 fore not identical with the office of those called evangelists (this against 
 Wiesinger). See on 2 Tim. iv. 5—Timothy accompanied the apostle 
 through Asia Minor to Philippi; but when Paul and Silas left that city 
 (Acts xvi. 40), he seems to have remained behind there for some time, 
 along with some other companions of the apostle. At Berea they were 
 again together. When Paul afterwards traveled to Athens, Timothy 
 remained behind (with Silas) at Berea; but Paul sent a message for him 
 to come soon (Acts xvii. 14, 15).!. From Athens, Paul sent him to Thessa- 
 lonica, to inquire into the condition of the church there and to strengthen 
 it (1 Thess. ili. 1-5). After completing this task, Timothy joined Paul 
 again in Corinth (Acts xviii.5; 1 Thess. iii. 6). The two epistles which Paul 
 wrote from that place to the Thessalonians were written in Timothy’s 
 name also (1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1).2 When Paul on his third 
 missionary journey remained for some considerable time in Ephesus, 
 Timothy was with him; where he was in the interval is unknown. 
 Before the tumult occasioned by Demetrius, Paul sent him from Ephesus 
 to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22). Immediately afterwards the apostle wrote 
 what is called the First Epistle to the Corinthians, from which it would 
 appear that Timothy had been commissioned to go to Corinth, but that 
 the apostle expected him to arrive there after the epistle (1 Cor. iv. 17, 
 xvi. 10; 11); 
 out this journey.—When Paul wrote from Macedonia the Second Epistle 
 
 Matthies asserts without proof that Timothy did not carry 
 
 to the Corinthians, Timothy was again with him;?* for Paul composed 
 that epistle also in Timothy’s name, a very natural act if Timothy had 
 shortly before been in Corinth—He next traveled with the apostle to 
 Corinth; his presence there is proved by the greeting which Paul sent 
 from him to the church in Rome (Rom. xvi. 21).—When Paul after three 
 
 father was “properly a Hellene, but that not 
 much of a Gentile nature was to be seen in 
 him,” because vrapxecv, in contrast to gatveo- 
 6a, is— “to be fundamentally ” (!). 
 
 1 There is no tenable ground for Otto's asser- 
 tion that Silas remained at Berea, and that 
 Timothy, after completing the apostle’s com- 
 mission in Thessalonica, joined Silas again 
 at Berea on the return journey, from which 
 placa the two traveled together to Corinth. 
 
 2 Otto asserts that in Corinth Timothy made 
 
 “his first attempts at the xjpuvypa Tod Adyou (2 
 Cor. i. 19),” which is in manifest contradiction 
 with1 Thess. iii. 1-5. Srypigery and mapaxtAetv 
 Tept THS MiaTews Necessarily include the «cypvc- 
 gew Tov Aoyov, and are not to be regarded 
 merely as the fulfillment of a “ messenger’s 
 duty, demanding no particular experience 
 nor ability.” 
 
 8 Wieseler assumes that Timothy joined 
 Paul again while still in Ephesus (l.c. pp. 57 
 f.), but his proofs are not decisive. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 months left Greece, Timothy, besides others of the apostle’s assistants, 
 was in his company. He traveled with him dypx tie ’Asiac, i. e. as far as 
 Philippi, from which the passage across to Asia Minor was usually made. 
 From there Timothy and some others went before the apostle to Troas, 
 where they remained till the apostle also arrived (Acts xx. 8-6). At this 
 point there is a considerable blank in Timothy’s history, since he is not 
 mentioned again until the apostle’s imprisonment in Rome.’ He was 
 with the apostle at that time, because Paul put his name also to the 
 Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Philippians. This fact 
 is at the same time a proof that no other of his assistants in the apostle- 
 ship stood in such close relations with him as Timothy.—When Paul wrote 
 the last epistle, he intended to send him as soon as possible to Philippi, in 
 order to obtain by him exact intelligence regarding the circumstances of 
 the churches there (Phil. ii. 19 ff). 
 
 From our two Epistles to Timothy we learn also the following facts 
 regarding the circumstances of his life :— 
 
 According to 1 Tim. i. 3, Paul on a journey to Macedonia left him 
 behind in Ephesus, that he might counteract the false doctrine which 
 was spreading there more and more. Perhaps on this occasion—if not 
 even earlier—Timothy was solemnly ordained to his office by the laying on 
 of hands on the part of the apostle and the presbytery. At this ordination 
 the fairest hopes of him were expressed in prophetic language (comp. 1 
 Tim. 1. 18, iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6), and he made a good confession (1 Tim. vi. 
 12).—Paul at that time, however, hoped soon to come to him again.—As 
 to the period of Paul’s apostolic labors into which this falls, see 2 3.—Later 
 on, Paul was a prisoner in Rome. When he was expecting his death as 
 near at hand, he wrote to Timothy to come to him soon, before the 
 approach of winter, and to bring him Mark, together with certain belong- 
 ings left behind in Troas (2 Tim. iv. 9, 11, 18, 21)—Regarding this impris- 
 onment of Paul, see ¢ 3. 
 
 Timothy is only once mentioned elsewhere in the N. T., and that is 
 in Heb. xiii. 28. It is very improbable that the Timothy there mentioned 
 is another person; and from the passage we learn that when the epistle 
 was written, he was again freed from an imprisonment, and that its 
 author, as soon as he came, wished, along with him, to visit those to whom 
 the epistle was directed. 
 
 According to the tradition of the church, Timothy was the first bishop 
 
 1Jn this itis presupposed that thetwo Epis- and the Epistle to Philemon, were written in 
 tles to the Colossians and to the Ephesians, Rome, and not, as Meyer assumes, in Ceesarea 
 
4 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES, 
 
 of Ephesus. Chrysostom, indeed, merely says: djiov, re éxxAnoiay Aourdv 
 qv mexcotevpévoc 6 Tidbeoc, 7 Kai éOvog dAdKAnpov to TH ’Aciac (Homil. 15, on 1 
 Tim.); but Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 4), says directly: TuuéOeoc rye év 
 "Egéow maporxiac iotopeitat mpa@tog tiv Ertoxoryy eiAnoévac. Comp. also Const. 
 Apost. i. 7, ch. 46; Photit Bibl. 254——From the First Epistle only this 
 much is clear, that the apostle gave to him a right of superintending the 
 church at Ephesus, similar to that which the apostles exercised over the 
 churches. It was a position from which afterwards the specially episcopal 
 office might spring, but it cannot be considered as identical with the 
 latter. 
 
 Titus.—Regarding the circumstances of his life, we possess still less 
 information than regarding those of Timothy. He was also one of Paul’s” 
 assistants, and is first mentioned as such in Gal. ii. 1, where Paul tells us 
 that he took Titus with him to Jerusalem on the journey undertaken 
 fourteen years after his conversion or after his first stay in Jerusalem. 
 Though Titus was of Gentile origin, Paul did not circumcise him, that 
 there might be no yielding to his opponents.—When Paul wrote the First 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, he sent Titus to Corinth, that a report might 
 be brought to him of the state of matters there. Paul was disappointed 
 in his hope of finding him again at Troas (2 Cor. ii. 18), but afterwards 
 joined him in Macedonia (2 Cor. vii. 6). The news brought by Titus led 
 him to compose the Second Epistle. With this he sent Titus a second time 
 to Corinth, where he was at the same time to complete the collection for 
 the poor of the church in Jerusalem, which he had already on a previous 
 occasion begun (2 Cor, viii. 6, 16, 23)—When Paul, from his imprisonment 
 in Rome, wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, Titus was not with him, 
 but had gone to Dalmatia (2 Tim. iv. 10). On this point we do not 
 possess more exact information. / 
 
 From the Epistle to Titus itself, we learn that he had assisted the 
 apostle in his missionary labors in Crete, and had been left behind there 
 in order to make the further arrangements necessary for forming a church 
 (Tit. i. 5). By the epistle he is summoned to come to Nicopolis, where 
 Paul wished to spend the winter (Tit. 111. 12)—Paul calls him his yvfouov- 
 réxvov Kata Kownv rior, from which it appears that he had been converted 
 to Christianity by Paul. 
 
 According to the tradition of the church, Titus was installed by Paul as 
 the first bishop of Crete. Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 4): Tud0ede ye wiv rig 
 év ’Edéow mapotkiac ioropeitat mpatog tiv ExioKoTAY elAnyévar’ Oc Kai Titog rev emi 
 
 Kparne éxxAnocov; comp. Jerome, Catal. Script. Eccles.; Theodoret on 1 Tim. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 iii; Theophylact, Proem. ad Tit.;, Const. Apost. vii. 46. He is said to have 
 died and been buried in Crete in his ninety-fourth year. 
 
 SECTION 2.—CONTENTS OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 First Epistle to Timothy.—The epistle begins with a reminder that the 
 apostle had left Timothy behind in Ephesus in order to counteract the 
 heresies of certain teachers. These heresies are described in detail, and 
 the evangelic principle of life is placed in opposition to them (i. 3-10) by 
 directing attention to the gespel as it had been entrusted to the apostle. 
 This furnishes an opportunity for expressing his thanks for the grace 
 shown to him in it (11-17), to which is added an exhortation to Timothy 
 to act rightly in regard to it (18-20). Then follow particular directions, first 
 as to public intercessions and the behavior of the men and women in 
 the meetings of the church (ii. 1-15), and then as to the qualities 
 necessary in a bishop and*a deacon (iii. 1-13). After briefly pointing out 
 the essential truth of the gospel (14-16), the apostle goes on to speak 
 further regarding the heretics, and confutes their arbitrary rules (iv. 1-6). 
 After this we have further exhortations to Timothy,—first as to his 
 behavior towards the heresy (7-11), then as to his official labors (12-16), 
 and lastly in reference to his attitude towards the individual members of 
 the church. Under this last head are given more detailed instructions 
 about widows and presbyters (v. 1-25), to which are added some special 
 remarks regarding slaves (vi. 1, 2).—After another attack on the heretics 
 (3-10), there follow again exhortations to Timothy to be true to his calling, 
 which are interrupted by an allusion to the rich (11-22). 
 
 Second Epistle to Timothy.—The epistle begins with the apostle’s assurance 
 to Timothy that, full of desire to see him again, he remembered him always 
 in prayer, and was convinced of his unfeigned faith (i. 3-5). This is 
 followed by an exhortation to stir up the gift of the Spirit imparted to him, 
 and not be ashamed of the gospel, but to be ready to suffer for it (6-8) ; 
 his attention also is directed to the grace of God revealed in the gospel, 
 and to the apostle’s example (9-12). Then follow further exhortations to 
 Timothy to hold fast the doctrine he had received, and to preserve the 
 good thing entrusted to him, the apostle also reminding him of the con- 
 duct of the Asiatics who had turned away from him, and of the fidelity 
 of Onesiphorus (13-18).—The doctrine received from the apostle he is to 
 deliver to other tried men, but he himself is to suffer as a good soldier of 
 Jesus Christ, and to remember the Risen One; just as he, the apostle, 
 suffers for Christ’s sake, that the elect may become partakers of blessed- 
 
6 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 ness (ii. 1-13). Then follow warnings against the heresy, which may 
 exercise on many a corrupting influence, but cannot destroy the building 
 founded by God (14-19). Instructions are also given how Timothy is to 
 conduct himself towards this heresy, and towards those who give them- 
 selves up to it (20-26). With prophetic spirit the apostle points next 
 to the moral ruin which threatens to appear in the future in the most 
 varied forms. He pictures the conduct of the heretics, and exhorts 
 Timothy on the contrary—in faithful imitation of his exemplar as 
 before—to hold fast by that which he knows to be the truth (iii. 1-17). 
 In reference to the threatening general apostasy from the pure doctrine 
 of the gospel, the apostle exhorts Timothy to perform faithfully the 
 evangelic duties of his office, especially as he himself was already at the 
 end of his apostolic career (iv. 1-8). Then follow various special com- 
 missions, items of news, greetings, the repeated summons to come to him 
 soon before the approach of winter, and finally the Christian benediction 
 with which the epistle closes. 
 
 The Epistle to Titus After a somewhat elaborate preface, Paul reminds 
 Titus that he had left him behind in Crete for the purpose of ordaining 
 presbyters in the churches there. The qualities are named which the 
 presbyter ought to possess, and Paul points out the upholding of the pure 
 gospel as the most important requisite of all, that the presbyter may be 
 able to withstand the continually growing influence of the heretics. The 
 mention of the heretics in Crete gives the apostle an opportunity of 
 quoting a saying of Epimenides, which describes the character of the 
 Cretans, while at the same time he sketches the heretics, with their 
 arbitrary commands and their hypocritical life, and vindicates against 
 them the principle of life in the gospel (i. 5-16). Then follow rules of 
 conduct for the various members of the church, for old and young, men 
 and women, together with an exhortation to Titus to show a good 
 example in work and doctrine, and especially to call upon. the slaves to 
 be faithful to their masters. These exhortations are supported by pointing 
 to the moral character of God’s grace (ii. 1-15).—Then follows the injunc- 
 tion that Titus is to urge the Christians to obedience towards the higher , 
 powers, and to a peaceful behavior towards all men. The latter point is 
 enforced by pointing to the undeserved grace of God which has been 
 bestowed on Christians (iii. 1-7). To this are added warnings against 
 heresy, and directions how Titus is to.deal with a heretic (8-11). The 
 epistle closes with an injunction to come to the apostle at Nicopolis, some 
 
 commissions, greetings, and the benediction. 
 
INTRODUCTION. a 
 
 The First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus are letters on 
 business, both occasioned by the apostle’s desire to impart to his colleagnes 
 definite instructions for their work in Ephesus and in Crete respectively. 
 The Epistle to Titus has at the same time the purpose of enjoining him, 
 after the arrival of Artemas or Tychicus, to come to Paul at Nicopolis.— 
 The Second Epistle to Timothy is a letter “purely personal” (Wiesinger), 
 occasioned by the wish of the apostle to see him as soon as possible 
 in Rome. It was written, too, for the purpose of encouraging him to 
 faithfulness in his calling as a Christian, and particularly in his official 
 labors. The apostle felt all the greater need for writing, that he perceived 
 in his colleague a certain shrinking from suffering —The instructions in 
 the First Epistle to Timothy refer to the meetings of the church, to 
 prayer and the behavior of the women in the meetings, to the qualifica- 
 tions of bishops and deacons, to widows, to the relation of slaves to their 
 masters, but at the same time also to Timothy’s conduct in general as 
 well as in special cases—In the Epistle to Titus the apostle instructs 
 him regarding the ordination of bishops, the conduct of individual mem- 
 bers of the church, both in particular according to their age, sex, and 
 position, and also in their general relation to the higher powers and to 
 non-Christians. In all three epistles, besides the more general exhorta- 
 tions to faithfulness in word and act, there is a conspicuous reference to 
 heretics who threaten to disturb the church. The apostle exhorts his 
 fellow-workers not only to hold themselves free from the influence of such 
 men, but also to counteract the heresy by preaching the pure doctrine of 
 the gospel, and to warn the church against the temptations of such heresy. 
 He imparts also rules for proper conduct towards the heretics. 
 
 The three epistles are closely related in contents, and also in the expres- 
 sion and the form in which the thoughts are developed. They have thus 
 received a definite impress, which distinguishes them from the apostle’s 
 other epistles. All Paul’s epistles contain expressions peculiar to him 
 alone, and this is certainly the case with every one of these three. But 
 there is also in them a not inconsiderable number of expressions peculiar 
 to them all, or even to two of them, and often repeated in them, but 
 occurring only seldom or not at all in the other epistles of the N.T. The 
 nature of the Christian life is denoted specially by eioéBera. 1 Tim. ii. 2, 
 iii. 16, etc.; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Tit. i. 1 (evoeBév, 1 Tim. v. 4; eboeBdc, 2 Tim. iil. 
 12; Tit. ii.12). The following virtues are specially extolled as Christian :— 
 ceuvéryc, 1 Tim. ii. 2, iii. 4; Tit. ii. 7 (ceuvdc, 1 Tim. ii. 8,11; Tit. ii. 2); 
 
 — owppoobvy, 1 Tim. ii. 9,15 (cédpor, 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. 1. 8, ii. 2,5; cwgpdvue, 
 
8 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 Tit. ii. 12; cwpporéu, Tit. ii. 6; owppovifer, Tit. ii. 4; copporopdc, 2 Tim. 1. 7). 
 The same or very similar words, which occur seldom or nowhere else, are 
 used to denote the doctrine of the gospel; e.g. the word dé:dackadia, espe- 
 cially in connection with tycavovcw, 1 Tim. i. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 3; Tit.i.9, ii. 1. 
 The use of byaivw and iyeje in general is peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles: 
 Aéyor bycaivovrec, 1 Tim. vi. 3; 2 Tim. i. 13; Adyog byujc, Tit. ii. 8. We may 
 also note: % Kat’ evoéBecav didacKkadia, 1 Tim. vi. 3, and 7 aAgbera 7 Kat’ evoé Berar, 
 Tit. i. 1; % xaay ddackadia, 1 Tim. iv. 6 («add is also a word which occurs 
 very often in all three epistles). Even in describing the heresy there is a 
 great agreement in all three. Its substance is denoted in a more general 
 way by pido, 1 Tim. i. 45 2 Tim. iv. 4; Tit. i. 14; more specially by yeve- 
 adoyia, 1 Tim. i. 4; Tit. iii. 9. Frequently it is reproached with occasion- 
 ing foolish investigations (uwpai Cyrqoec), as in 1 Tim. vi. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 23; 
 Tit. iii. 9. In 1 Tim.i.6 it is on this account called paraoAoyia, and in 
 accordance with this the heretics are called in Tit. i. 10 yarawAdyo. In 
 1 Tim. vi. 4 the blame of Aoyouayia: is given to it, and in 2 Tim. ii. 14 there 
 is a warning against Aoyouayetv. The same reproach is contained in ai 
 BéBndor Kevopwvriat, Which is found in 1 Tim. vi. 20, and 2 Tim. ii. 16.—But 
 also in other respects there is a striking agreement in these epistles. 
 Among the points of agreement are’ the formula, miatd¢ 6 Adyoc, 1 Tim. i, 15, 
 iii. 1,iv. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 11; Tit. iii. 8; the word apréoua:, 1 Tim. v. 8; 2 Tim. 
 ii. 12, 18, iii. 5; Tit. i. 16,-ii. 12; the formula of assurance, dauapripeobat 
 évdriov (rod Beod Kai kupiov "I. Xp.), 1 Tim. v. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1; the figu- 
 rative expression, 7 mayi¢ rvov dia3ddov, 1 Tim. iii. 7; 2 Tim. ii. 26; the 
 phrase, gvAdocew tiv rapabjxny, 1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 12, 14; further, the 
 words, kar’ éxcraygv, 1 Tim. i. 1; Tit. 1.3; troueuvgoner, 2 Tim. ii. 14; Tit. 
 iii. 1; 8? fv airiav, 2 Tim. i. 6, 12; Tit. 1.13; 4 éxiddvera (rod Kvpiov), used of 
 the fature return of Christ, 1 Tim. -vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8; Tit. ii. 18; 
 deorérn¢ (instead of «ipioc, Eph. vi. 5; Col. iii. 22), 1 Tim. vi. 1; 2 Tim. ii. 
 21; Tit. ii. 9; mapacreioar, 1 Tim. iv. 7, v. 11; 2 Tim, ii. 238; Tit. i. 10; 
 SiaBeBaoroba repi tivoc, 1 Tim. i..7; Tit. iii. 8, etc.—Wherever in the three 
 epistles the same subject is spoken of, substantially the same expressions 
 and turns of expression are used, though with some modifications. Thus 
 the benedictions in the inscription agree: ydpic, éAeoc, eiphvy (Tit. 1. 4 should, 
 however, perhaps have the reading: ydpuc¢ xai etppvy). In reference to the 
 redemption by Christ we have in 1 Tim. 11. 6: 6 dove éavrdy avtidutpov bxép 
 révrov; and Tit. ii. 14: d¢ &Mdoxev éavrdv brép judvr, wa Avtpdoytac juac; in ref- 
 erence to his office Paul says in 1 Tim. ii. 7: ei¢ 6 (7d papripiov) éréOyv eyo 
 
 whpv§ Kal amdotodoc . . . diWacKahog evar ; and so alsoin 2 Tim.i. 11. The 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 necessary qualities of the bishop are mentioned in the same way in 1 Tim. 
 iii. 2 ff. and Tit. 1.6: pag yuvarkdg avip, copper, gAdsEvoc, 7 TApowvoc, wy TAHKTIC. 
 The general exhortations to Timothy in 1 Tim. vi. 11 and 2 Tim. ii. 22 
 agree with each other almost to the very letter. 
 
 In the other Pauline epistles the fullness of the apostle’s thought strug- 
 gles with the expression, and causes peculiar difficulties in exposition. 
 The thoughts slide into one another, and are so intertwined in many 
 forms that not seldom the new thought begins before a correct expression 
 has been given to the thought that preceded. Of this confusion there is 
 no example in the Pastoral Epistles. Even in such passages as come 
 nearest to this confused style, such as the beginning of the First and 
 Second Epistles to Timothy (Tit. 11. 11 ff., 111. 4 ff), the connection of ideas 
 is still, on the whole, simple. It is peculiar that, as De Wette has shown, 
 the transition from the special to a general truth is often made suddenly— 
 thus 1 Tim. i. 15, ii. 4-6, iv. 8-10; 2 Tim. i. 9 ff, 11. 11-18, i. 12; Tit. ii. 
 11-14, iii. 4-7; and that after such general thoughts a resting-point is 
 often sought in an exhortation or instruction addressed to the receivers of 
 the epistle, as in 1 Tim. iv. 6, 11, vi. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 14, iii. 5; Tit. ii. 15, iii. 8: 
 
 SECTION 3—TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMPOSITION OF 
 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 1. First Epistle to Timothy—Regarding the time of the composition of this 
 epistle, different views from an early period have been put forward, since 
 the indications contained in the epistle itself leave a difficulty in assigning 
 to it its proper place in the events of the apostle’s life. According to 
 these indications, Paul had been for some time with Timothy in Ephesus, 
 and had traveled from there to Macedonia, leaving Timothy behind in 
 Ephesus to take his place. Probably the epistle was written by Paul from 
 Macedonia, to remind Timothy of his charge, and to give him suitable 
 instructions; for, although Paul hoped to return to Ephesus soon, still a 
 delay was regarded as possible (chap. iii. 14, 15).—According to Acts, Paul 
 was twice in Ephesus. The first occasion was on his second missionary 
 journey from Antioch, when he was returning from Corinth to Antioch 
 (Acts xviii. 19). On this first occasion he stayed there only a short time, 
 as he wished to be in Jerusalem in time for the near-approaching festival. 
 The composition cannot be assigned to that occasion, since there was at 
 that time no Christian church in Ephesus, and Paul was not traveling to 
 Macedonia.—On his third missionary journey Paul was in Ephesus a 
 .secoud time. This time he stayed for two or three years, and then, after 
 
10 _ THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 the riot caused by Demetrius, traveled to Macedonia and Greece (Acts xx. 
 1, 2). Theodoret, and after him many other expositors, assume that Paul 
 wrote the epistle on this journey to Macedonia, or in Macedonia. But to 
 this the following circumstances are opposed :—(1) According to Acts xix. 
 22, Paul, before his own departure from Ephesus, had already sent Tim- 
 othy to Macedonia; we are not told that Timothy, after being commis- 
 sioned to go to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17), returned to Ephesus again before 
 the apostle’s departure, as the apostle certainly had expected (according 
 to 1 Cor. xvi. 11). (2) When Paul undertook that journey, he did not 
 intend to return soon to Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 6, 7), which decidedly was 
 his intention at the time of the composition of the epistle (1 Tim. iii. 14); 
 and on his return journey from Greece he sailed from Troas past Ephesus 
 for the express purpose of avoiding any stay there (Acts xx. 16). (8) Ac- 
 cording to 2 Cor. i. 1, Timothy was in Macedonia with Paul when he 
 wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and, according to Acts xx. 4, 
 he accompanied the apostle on his journey from Corinth to Philippi. 
 Timothy therefore must also have left Ephesus after the apostle’s depart- 
 ure, although the apostle had charged him to remain there till his own 
 return (1 Tim. iy. 13), and this we can hardly suppose to have been the 
 case. All these reasons prove that the apostle’s journey from Ephesus to 
 Macedonia, mentioned in Acts xx. 1, cannot be the same with that of 
 which he speaks in 1 Tim. 1. 3. 
 
 Some expositors (Bertholdt, Matthies), alluding to Acts xx. 3-5, suppose 
 that Timothy set out from Corinth before the apostle, and then went to 
 Ephesus, where he received the epistle. The supposition is, however, 
 contradicted by ropevduevoc ei¢ Maxedoviav, This objection Bertholdt can 
 get rid of only by the most arbitrary combinations, Matthies only oy 
 most unwarrantably explaining zopevéuevoc to be equivalent to ropevdueror. 
 Besides, Luke’s historical narrative is against the whole hypothesis, unless, 
 as Bertholdt actually does, we charge it with an inaccuracy which distorts 
 the facts of the case.—If the composition of the epistle is to be inserted 
 among the incidents in the apostle’s life known to us, the only hypothesis 
 left is, that the apostle’s journey from Ephesus to Macedonia, which is 
 mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 8, and during which Timothy was left behind by 
 him in Ephesus, falls into the period of his sojourn for two or three years 
 in Ephesus, but is not mentioned by Luke. This is the supposition of 
 Wieseler (Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters), who follows Mosheim anil 
 Schrader. It is not only admitted, on the whole, that the apostle may 
 
 possibly have made a journey which Luke leaves unnoticed, but there are 
 
INTRODUCTION. ih 
 
 also several passages in the Epistles to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xvi. 17 ; 
 2 Cor. ii. 1, xii. 14, 21, xiii. 1, 2) which put it beyond doubt that Paul had 
 been in Corinth not once but twice before their composition, but that the 
 second time he had stayed there only a short time. For this journey, of 
 which Luke tells us nothing, we can find no place in the apostle’s history, 
 unless during his stay at Ephesus; see Wieseler, l.c. pp. 232, ff. It is 
 natural, therefore, to identify this journey with the one to Macedonia 
 mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 3, and to suppose that the epistle was written on 
 this journey from Macedonia. There are still, however, several consider- 
 ations against this view. One is that both the church organization pre- 
 supposed in the epistle, and the requirement that the éxicxoro¢ should not 
 be vedguroc, indicate that the church had already been some time in exist- 
 ence. To this Wieseler, indeed, replies that the journey was undertaken 
 shortly before the end of the apostle’s stay in Corinth, so that the church 
 had then been long enough in existence to justify the presupposition and 
 the requirement. But still there is against this hypothesis the considera- 
 tion that it supposes the apostle to have been in Corinth himself, shortly 
 before the composition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, so that he 
 could not therefore have any sufficient occasion for writing to the church 
 there. Besides, the passage in Acts xx. 29, 80 is against Wieseler’s view. 
 According to the epistle, the heresy had already made its way into the 
 church at Ephesus, but, according to that passage, Paul mentions *he 
 heresy as something to be expected in the future. Supposing even that 
 the words é& iuav aitov do not refer to the church, but only to the presby- 
 ters assembled at Miletus, still ei¢ tuace in ver. 29 must be taken to refer 
 generally to the Christians in Ephesus. Surely Paul, in his address to the 
 presbyters, would not have passed over the presence of heretics in 
 Ephesus, if he knew the church to be so much threatened by the danger 
 that he thought it necessary, even before this, to give Timothy solemn 
 instructions regarding it, as he does in his epistle-—Further, the view 
 implies that Paul had only for a short time been separated from Timothy, 
 _and that he must have sent him away immediately after his own return. 
 But how does the whole character of the epistle agree with this? The 
 instructions which Paul gives to Timothy indicate that the latter was to 
 labor in the church for some time; and the greater the danger threatened 
 it by the heresy, the more inconsistent it seems that Paul, after giving 
 these instructions, should have taken Timothy away so soon from his 
 labors in the church.—The views mentioned hitherto proceed from a pre- 
 ‘ supposed interpretation of 1 Tim. i. 3, viz. that Paul commissioned Tim- 
 
12 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 othy to remain in Ephesus, and that the commission was given when 
 Paul departed from Ephesus to Macedonia. This presupposition, how- 
 ever, has been declared erroneous by several expositors, who refer 
 Topevouevog ei¢ Maxedoviay not to the apostle, but to Timothy. Paulus 
 explains zpooueivac as = “abide by a thing,” joins topevduevoc ei¢ Maxed. to 
 in rapayyeianc, and takes the latter imperatively, so that the sense is: “As 
 1 have exhorted thee to abide in Ephesus, and warn them against false 
 doctrine, so do thou travel now to Macedonia, and exhort certain people 
 there to abstain from false doctrine.” The opinion of Paulus is therefore 
 that Paul wrote the epistle during his imprisonment at Ceesarea.—Schneck- 
 enburger and Bottger try to help the matter by conjecture, wishing both 
 to read, instead of zpooyeiva, the participle mpooyeivac. The former then 
 assumes that the epistle was composed at the time denoted in Acts xxi. 
 26; the latter, that it was written in Patara (Acts xxi. 1), or in Miletus 
 (Acts xx.17). These obviously are arbitrary suppositions. If the journey 
 to Macedonia, mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 3, is not to be understood as one 
 made by the apostle, but as made by Timothy, then it is much more 
 natural to suppose with Otto that this is the journey of Timothy which is 
 mentioned in Acts xix. 22, and that Paul wrote the epistle in Ephesus. 
 This is the view which Otto has sought to establish in the first book of 
 his work of research, Die geschichtlichen Verhiiltnisse der Pastoralbriefe. But 
 this, too, is wrecked on the right explanation of 1 Tim. i. 3, which refers 
 ropevopevog ei¢ Mak. to the subject contained in wapexddeca; see on this point 
 the exposition of the passage. 
 
 The Epistle to Titus.—The following are the historical circumstances to 
 which this epistle itself points. After Paul had labored in Crete, he left . 
 Titus behind there. Then he wrote to the latter this epistle, instructing 
 him, so soon as Artemas and Tychicus had been sent to him, to come 
 with all haste to Nicopolis, where the apostle had resolved to pass the 
 winter.—The epistle, indeed, contains nothing definite regarding the first 
 beginning of Christianity in Crete, nothing regarding the duration and 
 extent of the apostle’s labors there, nothing regarding the length of time 
 which intervened between the apostle’s departure from Crete and the 
 composition of the epistle; but it is probable that when Paul came to 
 Crete he found Christianity already existing there, and that he himself 
 remained there only a short time; for on the one hand there were 
 already Christian churches there in the chief places, at least in several 
 towns of the island, at the time of composing the epistle, while on the 
 other hand they were still unorganized. It is probable that the epistle 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 was written by Paul not long after his departure, for it is not to be sup- 
 posed that Paul would leave his substitute in the apostleship long without 
 written instructions. It is probable also that Paul gave Titus these instruc- 
 tions some time before the beginning of winter, for it would have been 
 meaningless to give instructions, unless Paul intended Titus to labor in 
 Crete for some considerable time. 
 
 If we set out with the presupposition that the composition of the epistle 
 is to be placed in that period of the Apostle Paul’s life which is described 
 in Acts, we may thus state more definitely the question regarding the 
 apostle’s stay in Crete, and the composition of the epistle. Did both take 
 place before, or after, or during the two or three years’ stay in Ephesus 
 (Acts xix.)? Each of these suppositions has its supporters among exposi- 
 tors and critics. Those who place the two events in the period before the 
 stay at Ephesus, assume as a fixed date either the time during which Paul 
 was first in Corinth (Acts xviii. 1-18) (Michaelis), or the time during 
 which he was traveling from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18, 19) (Hug, 
 Hemsen), or, lastly, the time after he had passed through Galatia and 
 Phrygia in the beginning of his third missionary journey, and before he 
 went from there to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 23) (Credner, Neudecker). 
 To all these views alike, however, there is this objection, that Apollos 
 could not be the apostle’s assistant before the (second) arrival in Corinth 
 (Acts xvill. 24-xix. 1), whereas he is so named in this epistle. We would 
 then have to suppose that another Apollos was meant here—which would 
 be altogether arbitrary. There are, besides, special objections to these 
 three views. Against the first, according to which Paul had made the 
 journey from Corinth to Crete, and from there to Nicopolis in Epirus (iii. 
 12), and had then returned to Corinth, it may be urged that the apostle’s 
 second stay in Corinth, alluded to in 1 Cor. xvi. 7, 2 Cor. ii. 1, ete., did not 
 take place then, but later. Against the second, we might object not only 
 that the journey from Corinth to Jerusalem was undertaken with some 
 haste, so as to leave no room for labors in Crete, but also that it takes 
 . Nicopolis to be the town in Cilicia, without giving any reason why Paul 
 should pass the winter there and not in Antioch. As to the third view, 
 which is, that Paul for this third missionary journey had chosen Ephesus 
 mainly as his goal (Acts xviii. 21), and that his labors, therefore, on the 
 journey thither consisted only in confirming those who already believed 
 (Acts xviii. 23: émornpifev mévtac rove pabytac), how are we to reconcile 
 with it the facts that Paul, instead of going at once to Ephesus from Phrygia, 
 ' went to Crete and Corinth, that he there resolved to pass the winter in 
 
14 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 Nicopolis (by which Credner in his Hinl. in d. N. T. understands the town 
 in Cilicia), and that then only did he go to Ephesus ?—There is still less 
 justification for the opinion of some expositors, that Paul traveled to 
 Crete at the date defined by Acts xv. 41, and wrote the epistle later during 
 his two or three years’ stay in Ephesus. The former part of this is con- 
 tradicted by the route (comp. xv. 41 and xvi. 1) furnished by the apostle 
 himself; the latter, by the circumstance that almost the whole of the 
 apostle’s second, and a part of his third, missionary journey lay between 
 the beginning of Titus’ independent labors in Crete and the despatch of 
 the epistle to him. 
 
 The second supposition is, that both events are to be placed in the time 
 after the apostle’s stay at Ephesus, 7. e. in the period mentioned in Acts 
 xx. 1-3. Its representatives, as before, differ as to the details. Some 
 suppose that Paul, on the journey from Ephesus to Greece, went from 
 Macedonia (vv. 1, 2) to Crete; others, that he undertook this journey 
 during his three months’ stay in Greece (ver. 3). According to the former 
 opinion, we should have to suppose that Titus, after completing his 
 second mission to Corinth, returned again to the apostle in Macedonia; 
 that Paul then made the journey with him to Crete, and from there 
 returned to Macedonia alone; that he then wrote the epistle from 
 Macedonia, and afterwards went to Corinth. In this way, therefore, Paul 
 after composing the Second Epistle to the Corinthians would have twice 
 journeyed past Greece, whereas it must have been of great importance to 
 him, after the last news he had received from Corinth, not to put off his 
 journey thither.—The /atter opinion, supported particularly by Matthies, 
 refutes itself, in so far as the three months which Paul spent in Hellas 
 were winter months, in which traveling to and fro to Crete was hardly 
 possible. Besides, it was when Paul returned from Crete that he formed 
 his plan of passing the winter at Nicopolis. He then informed Titus of 
 it, with the remark that he was to come to him in that place, after he had 
 first waited for the arrival of Artemas or Tychicus. Wiesinger is right in 
 saying: “ Unless we exercise ingenuity, we must take the xéxpixa wapayer- 
 paca (chap. iii. 12) to have been written before the approach of winter.” 
 
 The third supposition is, that Paul undertook the journey to Crete from 
 Fphesus before his departure to Macedonia, and also wrote the Epistle to 
 Titus from there. Wieseler defends it with great acuteness. It puts the 
 case in this way. After Paul had stayed over two years in Ephesus, he 
 made by way of Macedonia (1 Tim. i. 3) a: journey (the second, not men- 
 - tioned in Acts) to Corinth. On this journey, which was but short, he was 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 accompanied by Titus, who also went with him to Crete. On departing 
 from Crete, he left Titus behind there, returned to Ephesus, and from 
 Ephesus wrote the Epistle to Titus. Then he sent Timothy to Macedonia, 
 instructing him to go to Corinth, and wrote afterwards our First Epistle to 
 the Corinthians. He next sent Tychicus and Artemas to Crete, and bade 
 Paul went on 
 They did not 
 
 meet, however, at Troas, but in Macedonia, when Titus was a second time 
 
 Titus return to him. Titus was sent afterwards to Corinth. 
 
 the journey to Macedonia, hoping to meet Titus at Troas. 
 
 sent away to Corinth. After the apostle had written our Second Epistle 
 to the Corinthians, he went through Macedonia to Nicopolis in Epirus, 
 where he spent the first months of winter, going afterwards to Corinth.— 
 However well all this seems to go together, there are still the following 
 reasons against the hypothesis :—(1) If Paul made the second journey to 
 Corinth at the time here mentioned, he can have employed only a short 
 time in it. How, then, can we conceive that he used this short time for 
 missionary labors in Crete? (2) Paul wrote to Titus that he was to remain 
 in Crete till Tychicus and Artemas were sent to him, and that then he was 
 to come to Nicopolis. This hypothesis would make out that he had 
 changed his mind, for according to it he bade Titus come to him at 
 Ephesus. Besides, we cannot think that, just after he had assigned to 
 Titus an important task in Crete, he should take him so quickly away 
 from it again. (8) It is improbable also that Paul should have chosen for 
 his winter residence a town in which he had not been before, and where, 
 therefore, he could not know how he would be received. His resolution 
 seems rather to presuppose that he had labored before in Nicopolis.! (4) In 
 1 Cor. xvi. 6 Paul writes to the Corinthians: rpd¢ imac dé tuyiv rapapuerd, F 
 kai rapayeyidow. According to Wieseler, this mpd¢ iuac is not to be referred 
 to the Corinthians alone, but generally to the Christians in Achaia, to 
 whom (according to i. 2) the epistle is addressed. As Nicopolisin Epirus, 
 
 on the authority of Tacitus,? was counted as belonging to Achaia, Wiese- 
 
 10Otto objects to this, that Paul might very 
 well spend a winter in a town in which he 
 had not before preached; but that is not the 
 point. The point is that Paul should have 
 formed a resolution to remain for the winter 
 in a town, even before he knew whether 
 his preaching would be received there or 
 not. 
 
 2Tacitus, Ann. ii. 53: “Sed eum honorem 
 Germanicus iniit apud urbem Achajae Nico- 
 
 polim.” Pliny also, Nat. Hist. iv. 2, assigns 
 
 Nicopolis to Acarnania, while Strabo, xvii. p. 
 840, describes, according to the arrangement 
 of the Emperor Augustus, the province in 
 these words: ‘EBddunv & ’Axaiay péxpr @er- 
 TaAdtas Kat Aitwi@v kai ’Akapvavewy kal TLVeP 
 "Hretpwrixkwv ebvav, 60a TH Maxedovia mpoow- 
 
 ? 
 
 pioto.” (Wieseler, |. c. p. 353.) In opposition 
 to Wieseler’s assertion, Otto (pp. 362-366) 
 seeks to prove that Nicopolis itself was not 
 counted in Achaia, but only the suburb of the 
 
 town situated on the Acarnanian side. 
 
16 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 ler is of opinion that by spending the winter in Nicopolis the apostle kept 
 the promise given in that passage. But although the epistle was not 
 directed merely to the church in Corinth, it has a special reference to that 
 church, so that its readers could surely understand the words only of an 
 intended stay in Corinth, and not in a place so far distant from Corinth. 
 Paul could not possibly be thinking then of Nicopolis, as is obvious from 
 the fact that at that time, as Wieseler himself maintains, he had not been 
 there; he did not preach the gospel in Nicopolis till later. Paul, how- 
 ever, in the epistle regarded his readers as Christians only, not as those 
 who were afterwards to be converted to Christianity. Lastly, although 
 Augustus extended the name of Achaia to Epirus, it does not follow that 
 in common life Nicopolis was considered to be in Achaia. It should be 
 added, too, that Paul, in Wieseler’s representation, had not at all fulfilled 
 the promise given in Tit. ii. 18, for he supposes that the apostle remained 
 in Nicopolis only two months of winter, and therefore went to Corinth in 
 the middle of winter.—There may be, too, some accessory circumstancés 
 which are favorable to Wieseler’s view, and give it an air of probability ; 
 such circumstances as the following :—that Apollos was along with Paul 
 in Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 12; Tit. ili. 18); that Tychicus as an Asiatic (Acts 
 xx. 4) probably became acquainted with Paul in Ephesus, and that the 
 mention of him in Tit. 111. 18 agrees with the composition of the epistle 
 in Ephesus ; that by the two brothers who accompanied Titus to Corinth 
 we may understand Tychicus and Trophimus—make the theory probable, 
 but cannot completely establish its correctness. Like Wieseler, Reuss 
 (Gesch. d. heil. Schriften d. N. T., 2d ed. 1858, 2 87, pp. 73 f.) connects the 
 apostle’s journey to Crete with his second (see Meyer on 2 Cor., Introd. 3 2 
 Rem.) journey to Corinth during the three years’ stay at Ephesus; but he 
 differs from Wieseler in supposing that Paul journeyed first to Crete and 
 then to Corinth, that from the latter place he wrote the epistle, that he 
 then went farther to the north to Tlyricum, where trace of him is lost, 
 and returned to Ephesus towards the end of winter. To all this we must 
 say that not only is it inconceivable that Paul should have interrupted his 
 three years’ stay by various missionary journeys, occupying so much time, 
 and to districts so remote, but also that Acts xx. 81 contradicts such a 
 theory. Otto, too, refutes the theory of the apostle’s journey to Crete, and 
 the composition of the epistle during the three years’ stay at Ephesus. 
 In his opinion, Paul made from Ephesus an excursion to Crete,—not 
 mentioned in Acts by Luke,—and on that occasion visited Corinth é 
 rapédw (1 Cor. xvi. 7; 2 Cor. ii. 1, xii. 14, 21, xiii. 1, 2). Then in Ephesus 
 
INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 after he had written the lost epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 9), he 
 addressed a letter to Titus whom he had left in Crete—The passages 
 quoted put it beyond doubt that Paul from Ephesus made a visit to 
 Corinth éy rapédy before composing what is called his First Epistle to the 
 Corinthians. Not only, however, is there no indication that Crete was at 
 that time the goal of his journey, but it is also improbable. The theory 
 makes the journey in any case a short one, and Paul could not well 
 choose for its goal a country in which he could not beforehand determine 
 the length of his stay, as he had not been there before. Otto recognizes 
 fully the objections arising from the contents of the epistle, which are 
 against placing the date of composition in the three years’ stay ; but he 
 thinks to overcome them by supposing that the dates in it rest on a plan 
 of the journey, afterwards altered by the apostle. It is certainly clear 
 from 2 Cor. i. 15, 16, 23, that Paul, on account of circumstances in Corinth, 
 did indeed alter the plan of the journey he had previously formed ; but 
 that he ever intended to go to Nicopolis in order to spend the winter 
 there, is a fiction contradicted by what he says himself in the passages 
 quoted. According to these, his original plan was to come from Ephesus 
 direct to Corinth, to pass from there to Macedonia, and to return from 
 Macedonia to Corinth again in order to set out for Judea. There is no 
 trace in the apostle’s plans of a journey to Epirus and a winter residence 
 in Nicopolis. The latter he could not even think of, for the reason 
 quoted above. 
 2. Second Epistle to Timothy.—The historical circumstances alluded to in 
 the epistle prove that it was written by the apostle in imprisonment 
 in Rome; comp. i. 8, 12, 16, 17, ete—This imprisonment has been 
 held to be the same as that mentioned by Luke in the Acts, and a 
 different date has therefore been assigned to the composition of the epistle. 
 Wieseler, following Hemsen, Kling, and others, supposes that the epistle 
 belongs to the time following the dveria, mentioned in Acts xxviii. 30, and 
 was therefore composed after the Epistle to the Philippians. He rests his 
 | supposition on two grounds—(1) That while in his Epistle to the Philip- 
 pians the apostle was still able to cherish the hope of being soon set free, 
 in this epistle he expresses definite anticipations of death. (2) That in 
 Phil. ii. 19-24 the apostle expresses his intention of sending Timothy to 
 Philippi, and that at the time of composing this epistle Timothy was 
 actually in those regions, viz. at Ephesus. Against this second ground 
 Otto rightly maintains that “ Timothy would not have served the apostle 
 
 as a child his father,” if after being expected to bring (Phil. ii. 19) comfort 
 2 
 
18 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 to the imprisoned apostle by the news from Philippi, he did not return at 
 once to Rome, but proceeded instead to Ephesus, and there remained till 
 the apostle “by a solemn apostolic message compelled him to return.” 
 Besides, Otto insists that, as Wieseler’s interpretaton of 2 Tim. iv. 16 is 
 that “the apostle is telling Timothy of his first azo4oyia,” the latter 
 according to this was sent away before the first judicial hearing, 7. e. before 
 he could know how the case would end; whereas according to Phil. ii. 23, 
 24, “he makes the despatch of Timothy depend on his expectation of a 
 favorable conclusion of the trial.” —On these grounds Otto rejects Wieseler’s 
 hypothesis, but at the same time he himself—agreeing with Schrader, 
 Matthies, and others—supposes that the epistle was written in the begin- 
 ning of the dveria mentioned, and therefore before the composition of the 
 Epistle to the Philippians. But, as Wieseler and Wiesinger rightly 
 observe, “the whole position of the apostle as represented in the epistle ” 
 is against this view. According to the apostle’s utterances in the Epistle 
 to the Philippians, he was uncertain about the fate hanging over him, 
 but circumstances have so shaped themselves that the expectation of being 
 freed from imprisonment decidedly prevailed with him, and hence he 
 wrote: wérola év Kupiw, Ot. . . Taxéwe éAevooua. In this epistle there is 
 no trace of any such expectation. The apostle rather sees his end close 
 approaching, chap. iv. 6-8; and although in the first arodoyia he had been 
 rescued, as he says, é« otéuatog Aéovtoc, and now expresses the hope that 
 the Lord would rescue him a76 ravri¢ épyov rovnpod, he is thinking not of 
 a release from imprisonment, but of a rescue cic tyv Baoideiav abtov TH 
 éxovpaviov. Otto indeed maintains that the apostle’s expressions in chap. 
 iv. 6-8 do not refer to the end of his life, but to the end appointed to him 
 of his missionary labors in the apostleship, and that in the Second Epistle 
 to Timothy there is no trace whatever of anticipations or expectations of 
 death ; but this assertion is based on an exposition which, however acute, 
 is anything but tenable. See on this the commentary on the passages in 
 question.—Besides, several of the special notices made by the apostle 
 weigh against the composition of the epistle during the imprisonment 
 mentioned by Luke. Of special weight are the remarks regarding Erastus 
 and Trophimus. Of the former Paul says that he remained in Corinth, 
 of the latter, that he was left behind in Miletus sick. This presupposes a 
 journey made by the apostle to Rome by way of Corinth and Miletus. 
 But on the voyage which Paul made from Caesarea to Rome as a prisoner, 
 he did not touch at these places. Hence we cannot but suppose that the 
 
 xeference in both cases is to the apostle’s previous journey to Jerusalem; 
 
INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 but against this there is the inconceivability of his still mentioning those 
 circumstances after a lapse of several years. Besides, according to Acts 
 xxi. 29, Trophimus was with the apostle in Jerusalem. Wieseler can only 
 get over this by the following artiticial combination: ‘The ship in which 
 Paul as a prisoner embarked at Caesarea in order to be brought to Rome, 
 went to Adramyttium in the neighborhood of Troas. With it Paul went 
 as far as Myrain Lycia. There he embarked in another ship which sailed 
 direct for Italy. Trophimus accompanied the apostle to Myra; there he 
 stayed behind on account of his illness, in order to go on with the ‘ship 
 from Adramyttium as far as Miletus, which was probably his place of 
 residence, and where he wished to stay.” This arrangement, artificial to 
 begin with, is contradicted by the apostle’s expression in chap. iv, 20. 
 Besides, all this could not but have been long known to Timothy, who 
 was with Paul in the interval, known all the more if, as Wieseler thinks, 
 the apostle had intended to take Trophimus with him to Rome as a 
 witness against his Jewish accusers. It is an unsatisfactory device to 
 maintain that the emphasis is laid on Tpdguov dé and on aobevoivta, and 
 that Paul by this remark wished to remind Timothy only of the feeble 
 health of Trophimus, which might even prevent him from coming to 
 Rome. The sentence has anything but the form of such a reminder.— 
 Otto attacks the point in a different way, by questioning the presence of 
 Trophimus in Jerusalem at the time when the apostle was put in prison. 
 He asserts that joav mpoewpakétec in Acts xxi. 29 must be referred to the 
 apostle’s presence in Jerusalem four years previously, since according to 
 Acts xx. 4 Trophimus accompanied the apostle on his return from his 
 third missionary journey only into Asia and no farther. Against this, 
 however, it is to be noted that the apostle’s companions there named did 
 really go farther, as is plain from Acts xxi. 12; for by the jueice Luke 
 cannot have meant himself alone, but himself and the companions who 
 had accompanied the apostle on his journey to Macedonia. “A ypx rae ’Aolag 
 in Acts xx. 4 simply means that these companions of the apostle remained 
 with him till he had come to the place where the passage across to Asia 
 was made. There they left him, crossing over to Troas without him; 
 but later on, Paul again came to them here, and then they continued 
 their journey in company. No hint is given by Luke that they remained 
 at Miletus after the apostle’s departure. There is therefore no ground for 
 assuming that Trophimus was not in Jerusalem when the apostle was put 
 in prison. Rather the opposite. It is inconceivable that the Asiatic Jews 
 
 should after so long a time have used a suspicion formed four years before ag 
 
20 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 a ground of complaint against the apostle. We do not see why they should 
 not have brought it forward when it was formed. Besides, according to 
 Otto’s hypothesis, these same Asiatic Jews must be regarded as having 
 been present in Jerusalem on both occasions.—In regard to the mention 
 of Erastus, Wieseler is of opinion that he too was important to the 
 apostle as a witness, and that the apostle had summoned him to Rome 
 either through Timothy himself or through Onesiphorus, but that he 
 stayed on nevertheless at Corinth, and that this is what Paul now com- 
 municates to Timothy. But there is nowhere the slightest trace of such 
 asummons. Further, the order in which ver. 20 occurs, by no means 
 makes it probable that it referred to judicial matters. Something was 
 said of these in vv. 16 and 17, and these verses could not but have been 
 connected with ver. 20 if the reference in them had been the same; they 
 are, however, separated from it by the greetings in ver. 19. On the other 
 hand, they are immediately attached to the apostle’s summons to Timothy 
 to come to him zpé yedvoc. It is more than probable that vv. 20 and 21 
 stand in a similar relation to each other as do vv. 9 and 10. In the latter, 
 Timothy knew that Demas, Crescens, and Titus were with Paul in Rome, 
 and so Paul announces that they had left him; in the former, Timothy 
 was in the belief that Erastus and Trophimus had accompanied Paul to 
 Rome, and so Paul now announces that this was not the case. In this way 
 everything stands in a simple, natural connection.—Otto’s explanation, 
 too, is unsatisfactory. According to Acts xix. 22, Paul during his stay in 
 Ephesus sent Erastus along with Timothy to Macedonia. Otto now 
 supposes that both were to make this journey by way of Corinth, and 
 there await the apostle. But, afterwards Paul changed the plan of his 
 journey ; he himself proceeding to Macedonia without touching at Corinth, 
 and sending for Timothy to come thither, while Erastus remained at that 
 time in Corinth, to which fact allusion is now made in "Epaoroc éuewvev by 
 Kopivto. This, however, is inconceivable. If the case were as Otto thinks, 
 Timothy himself could not but know very well that Erastus, with whom 
 he had made the journey to Corinth, had been left behind in Corinth. : 
 And what purpose was the allusion to serve, since the stay of Erastus in 
 Corinth some years before could in no way furnish a reason for his not 
 being with Paul in Rome after the lapse of these years ?—Further, if we 
 suppose that the epistle was composed during the apostle’s imprisonmenié 
 in Rome, which is known to us, the charge given to Timothy in chap. iv. 
 13 is very strange. According to Otto, Paul left behind the articles here 
 mentioned when he set out from Troas, as is mentioned in Acts xx. 18, 
 
INTRODUCTION. | 
 
 because they were a hindrance to his journeying on foot, and he intended 
 to return into those parts later. But according to Acts xx. 22-25, the 
 apostle at that time cherished no such intention; and if those articles 
 were a hindrance to his journeying on foot, his companions might have 
 taken them on board ship.—Finally, it is worth noting that in the epistle 
 no mention whatever is made of Aristarchus, who had accompanied the 
 apostle to Rome. Otto tries to explain this by saying that Paul had only 
 to mention his actual fellow-laborers in the gospel, and that Aristarchus 
 was not one of these, but simply looked after the apostle’s bodily main- 
 tenance. This, however, is one of Otto’s many assertions, which are only 
 too deficient in actual as well as apparent foundation. The result of 
 unbiassed investigation is that the imprisonment of the Apostle Paul in 
 Rome, during which he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, is not the 
 imprisonment mentioned by Luke, during which he wrote the Epistles to 
 the Philippians, to the Ephesians, and to Philemon. 
 
 ReMARK.—Otto has attempted, not only to weaken the strength of the argu- 
 ments against the composition of the epistle during that imprisonment, but also 
 to give some as positive proofs that the epistle could have been written only at that 
 time. One such argument is that, if the epistle is to belong to a second imprison- 
 ment of the apostle in Rome, the situation of the apostle during it must have 
 been the same as during the first imprisonment. He argues that this is altogether 
 incredible, since the apostle’s favorable situation during the former had its ground 
 only in an dveove quite unusual and produced by peculiar circumstances, an dveoug 
 which was much more considerable than that granted to him in Caesarea. The 
 latter consisted only in this, that it was permitted to him to be attended by his 
 own followers—whether kinsmen or servants; it was not permitted to have per- 
 sonal intercourse with his helpers in the apostleship, as was granted to him in 
 Rome. This assertion rests, however, on an unjustifiable interpretation of the 
 passage in Acts xxiv. 23, where Otto leaves the concluding words: 7 tpooépyeo- 
 6a avt@, altogether out of consideration. Certainly the apostle’s eustodia militaris 
 in Rome had a mild form; but there is no proof that it may not have been so 
 during his second imprisonment, all the less that its occasion and special cireum- 
 stances are wholly unknown to us. Otto further asserts that about 63 there 
 prevailed at the imperial court, through the influence of Poppaea, a feeling 
 favorable to the Jews, that this feeling caused the apostle’s confinement to be 
 made more severe after lasting two years, and that this is even clearly indicated 
 by Luke in the word akwAtroc, Acts xxviii. 31. But Otto himself makes this 
 friendly disposition to the Jews active even in 61: how then is it credible that 
 not till 63 had it any influence in aggravating the apostle’s situation? The asser- 
 tion is erroneous that Luke’s @xwAbrwe indicates any such thing.—If it were the 
 case that Nero was influenced by Poppaea’s favorable inclination to the Jews to 
 cast the blame of the fire in 64 on the Christians, it does not follow from this that 
 Paul was not set free in the spring of 63, though this favorable disposition of 
 the court towards the Jews might explain his condemnation in 64 after a brief 
 
yp THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 imprisonment.—Wieseler thinks that “the chief judicial process against Paul and 
 his por7 aro/oyia before the emperor and his council took place only after the 
 two first years of his imprisonment in Rome;” against which Otto maintains that 
 by the xpory arodoyia in 2 Tim. iy. 16 we are to understand the process before 
 Festus, mentioned in Acts xxv. 6-12. If Otto were right in this assertion, the 
 Second Epistle to Timothy must have been written during the first imprisonment 
 at Rome. But in order to confirm this assertion, Otto sees himself compelled not 
 only to give an unwarrantable interpretation of the expressions in 2 Tim. iv. 16, 
 17 (see on this the exposition of the passage), but also to assume that Acts xxiv. 
 1-21 mentions only the preliminary process—the nominis delatio, not the actio. 
 For the proof of this, Otto appeals to the use of amexpify te 6 ILavAoc instead of 
 aredoyyoaro in Acts xxiy. 10. This, however, manifestly proves nothing, since 
 Paul himself distinctly called his speech an arodoyia (ver. 10: Td epi éuavrow 
 arooyovjar). The whole process before Felix wears so decidedly, from beginning 
 to end, the character of the actio, that it cannot in any sense be considered simply 
 a nominis delatio. Otto, too, falls into contradiction with himself by saying else- 
 where that the nominis delatio took place in Jerusalem when Festus went there 
 after entering on his office.—-In defence of his opinion that the epistle was written 
 in the beginning of the first Roman imprisonment, Otto appeals further to the 
 peculiarities which are already apparent in the first seven verses, and insists that 
 these peciliarities can only be explained from the circumstances of that period of 
 the apostle’s life. As peculiarities of this nature, Otto mentions: (1) The 
 emphasis laid on holding fast by the promise and faith of the fathers, both on the 
 part of the apostle and on that of Timothy; (2) The apostle’s allusion to the 
 earliest circumstances of Timothy’s life and ministry ; (3) Timothy’s irresolution 
 in regard to ministering as a missionary ; and (4) the repeated mention and dis- 
 cussion of imprisonment on the apostle’s part. Taking up these points in succes- 
 sion, we may note the following :—(1) Not only at the time indicated, but from» 
 the very beginning of his apostolic labors, the apostle “had to consider, regarding 
 the gospel, whether it was compatible with the faith inherited from the fathers, 
 or involved a departure therefrom.” It would be strange if the apostle had first 
 been led to such consideration by:the accusations of the Jews before Felix and 
 Festus. (2) It is quite natural that the apostle should make less mention of the 
 circumstances of Timothy’s previous life and ministry in the First Epistle than in 
 the Second. The former is more official in character, the latter more personal. . 
 If that allusion to Timothy’s earliest circumstances is to be inexplicable after 
 Timothy had already given proof of himself in the apostle’s imprisonment in 
 Rome, then it must be quite as inexplicable that Paul, in the beginning of his 
 imprisonment, says not a syllable to Timothy to remind him of the fidelity which 
 he had shown to the apostle on his third missionary journey. (3) The Second - 
 Epistle does, indeed, presuppose that Timothy had slackened in his zeal to labor 
 and suffer for the gospel; but this might have happened later quite as much 
 as earlier. Besides, the decline of zeal was not to such an extent as Otto in 
 exaggeration says, “that he had almost abandoned his office through anxiety 
 and timidity.” (4) In the other epistles, written during his imprisonment, the 
 apostle makes mention of it not less than in this. There is, however, no reason 
 for saying that in this one he designedly explains the significance of his 
 
 imprisonment in a way which suits only the beginning of the imprisonment in 
 Rome. 
 
INTRODUCTION. yA 
 
 From the survey we have made, it is clear that the composition of all 
 three epistles does not fall into that period of Paul’s life described in Acts, 
 and that there is nothing in the same period to account for their origin. 
 In spite of these opposing difficulties, it might be held as not absolutely 
 impossible that one or other of them was written at some time during that 
 period ; but there are two considerations of special weight against this— 
 (1) There is the same difficulty with all three in finding a place in the 
 period specified for the epistle, and in each case combinations more or 
 less improbable, and of a very ingenious nature, have to be used. (2) 
 The very events and circumstances in the life of the apostle which are 
 pre-supposed in these epistles must be regarded as omitted in Acts, which 
 is not the case to the same extent with any other of the Pauline Epistles. 
 And even apart from all this, there are other weighty reasons against 
 assigning their composition to that period—reasons contained in the 
 structure of the epistles themselves. As to their contents, there runs 
 alike through the three Epistles, as before remarked, a polemic against 
 certain heretics. These heretics are of quite another kind than those 
 with whom Paul has to do in the Epistles to the Galatians and to the 
 Romans. They are similar to those against whom he contended in the 
 Epistle to the Colossians—heretics, of such a nature as could only have 
 arisen at a later time, and whose appearance in the church is indicated as 
 something future in Paul’s address to the Ephesian presbyters at Miletus. 
 Christianity must have already become an aggressive power, before such 
 a mixture of Christian with heathen-Jewish speculation could be formed 
 as we find in these heretics——Then as to the form of the epistles, é. e. the 
 diction peculiar to them, it has manifestly another coloring than in the 
 other Pauline Epistles, so much so that we cannot explain the difference 
 from the fact “that these epistles were written to the apostle’s pupils and 
 assistants, the others to churches and members of churches” (Otto). It is 
 inconceivable that the First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus 
 should have been written almost at the same time with the First Epistle 
 to the Corinthians, in the period between the composition of the Epistle 
 to the Galatians and that of the Epistle to the Romans; and it is equally 
 inconceivable that the Second Epistle to Timothy should have been 
 written at a time so much later than those two with which it stands in 
 every way so closely connected. The hypothesis brings together things 
 different in kind, and sunders those that are like one another. 
 
 . REMARK.—Otto’s attempt to prove the close relationship between the First 
 _ Epistle to Timothy and the First Epistle to the Corinthians—both of which he 
 
24 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 refers to the same church and assigns to the same period—must be considered 
 entirely unsuccessful. The contrasts of the epistles compel Otto himself to take 
 some precautions in order to blunt the edge of certain objections to his assertion. 
 His precautionary remarks are—(1) That the image of the condition of the. 
 Corinthian church, which was in his mind when writing the Epistle to Timothy, 
 had become different when he wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians ; and (2) 
 that the apostle “had to write in one fashion to the church, and in another 
 fashion to his deputies.” There are, indeed, in the epistles some points of agree- 
 ment, which, however, may be satisfactorily explained by their common authorship ; 
 in both, attention is directed to heretics, and both refer more specially to the 
 inner circumstances of the church than the apostle’s other epistles. Otto has only 
 succeeded in making it probable that the heretics in the two epistles were the 
 same, He arbitrarily constructs for himself, out of the apostle’s theses in the 
 Epistles to the Corinthians, an image of the antitheses of the heretics, atid 
 unjustifiably refers to the latter trains of thought which are quite unsuitable. 
 Nevertheless, he has not succeeded in proving that the heresy spoken of in the 
 Pastoral Epistles, the nature of which may be gathered from the expressions: 
 pvbot, yeveadoyia., etc., was also the doctrine of the heretics in Corinth. 
 
 The result of an unbiassed investigation is—(1) That all three epistles 
 belong to one and the same period of the apostle’s life, and (2) that this 
 period does not fall into that portion of the apostle’s life with which we 
 are more closely acquainted through Acts and the other Pauline Epistles. 
 Their composition must accordingly belong to a later time in the apostle’s 
 life; and this is possible only if Paul was released from the imprisonment 
 at Rome mentioned by Luke, and was afterwards a second time imprisoned 
 there. 
 
 The narrative in Acts cannot be used to disprove the historical truth of 
 such a release and renewed imprisonment on the apostle’s part,! since, so 
 far as it is concerned, the apostle’s martyrdom at the close of the impris- 
 onment there described is as much, an hypothesis as the release. It 
 depends on the notices of the elder Fathers. In this respect, however, we 
 1nust not overlook the fact that in general their communications regarding 
 the apostle are only scanty. In their writings they are not so much con- 
 cerned for historical truth as for exhortation and dogma; their writings 
 serve the present, and cast only an occasional glance on the facts of the 
 past. Hence we are not surprised that they give but little information 
 regarding the events of Paul’s life, and that little only by allusions.—The 
 first clear and distinct notice of Paul’s release from the imprisonment 
 mentioned by Luke is found in Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 22): rére pév (i.e. 
 
 10tto came forward in 1860 as a decided Saint Paul; sa double captivité a Rome, étude 
 opponent of this conjecture, and in the same historique, par L. Ruffet. 
 year there appeared in its defence the work, 
 
i. INTRODUCTION. 25 
 
 after the lapse of the two years, Acts xxviii. 30) obv arodoynodpevov adic éxi 
 THY TOU Kypvy“aTog dlaKoviay Adyog Exel oTEiAacbar Tov azéoToAov, deiTepov J 
 émiBavta TH avTh TéAEL TO Kat’ adrov (2. €. Nero) redewOjvac paptupiw® év © decpoig 
 Exouevog tiv mpoc Tipdbeov devtépav értotoAyy ovvtatrer, duov onuaivwy Thy re 
 mpotepav avT@ yevouévyv aroAoyiav kai tiv mapanddac Tedeiwow. This testimony 
 
 It has been 
 declared invalid, (1) because Eusebius himself does not appeal to reliable 
 
 of Eusebius has, however, not been left unquestioned. 
 
 authorities, but only to tradition (Aéyoc); and (2) because his conviction of 
 the accuracy of this tradition rests only on the Second Epistle to Timothy 
 itself, and particularly on his explanation of 2 Tim. iv. 16,17. But, on 
 the other hand, it is to be observed that the formula Adyoc éyex (for which 
 there also occur the expressions: Aéyo¢ katéyer, mapevdjpapuev, ioropeita, 
 éyvauev, EuavOavouer, 7) Tapadoore Teptéxer) does not, in the mouth of Eusebius, 
 quite mean “as the story goes” (Otto), but is used by him when he wishes 
 to quote tradition as such, without intending! to mark it as erroneous. 
 Hence his testimony proves this, if nothing more, that in his time the 
 opinion prevailed that Paul was released again from that imprisonment. 
 Then it is to be noted that Eusebius does indeed explain the quoted 
 passage incorrectly, by understanding the words + EbpboOyv ék otéuatoc 
 Aéovroc, of the release from the first imprisonment, but that this incorrect 
 explanation arose from his conviction agreeing with the tradition, and not 
 the tradition from the explanation, as Rudow thinks (in his prize treatise, 
 De argumentis  histor., quibus epistolarum pastoral. origo Paulina 
 impugnata est, Gottingen 1852): in illam sententiam adductus est interpre- 
 tatione falsa . . . verborum éppioGy «.7.A., quae qauum ad Neronem referret, 
 putavit, apostolum jam semel saevo Neronis judicio eyasisse.— 
 Though it may seem strange that Eusebius quotes no definite testimony 
 from an older writer in support of the correctness of the tradition, still 
 this proves nothing against it, all the less that he mentions no testimony 
 which contradicts it. For the truth of that tradition some earlier docu- 
 ments seem also to speak. In the first place, the passage in Clemens 
 The Codex Alex. is the only MS. of it 
 
 preserved,’ and its text, as amended by the conjectures of the editor 
 
 Rom., 1 Hpist. ad Corinth. chap. v. 
 
 Junius, runs thus: dca CyAov [6] Maidog trouovgc BpaBeiov [éxecy]ev . . . 
 
 1Jt is clear that Eusebius by this formula 
 does not mean to denote simply a vague re- 
 port, for he not only directly reeognizes the 
 accuracy of the Adyos under discussion, but 
 also confirms it by his interpretation. 
 
 2 Translator’s 
 
 Yote—Another ms.. fortu- 
 
 nately unmutilated, was discovered in the 
 library of the Holy Sepulchre, at Fanari in 
 Constantinople, and was published in 1875 by 
 Bryennius, metropolitan of Serrae. Later 
 still, a Syriac ms., purchased for the Univer 
 
 sity of Cambridge, has been found to contain 
 
26 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 Kppv& [yevd]uevoc év th avatoAq nai év [rH] dioer, Tov yevvaiov tHe mioTewe avToi 
 KAéog éAaBev* Sixaoobvyv didakac bAov Tov Kéopov K[ai éxi] Td Tépua THE dicews 
 tov Kai paptrpyoag éxi TOv Hyousévwv, odTwC amnAAayn Tov Kéouov.' If the 
 expression: 70 tépua tH¢ dicewc, Means the limits of the west, we can 
 only understand it to be Spain, and in that case this passage favors the 
 theory that the apostle was released from the first Roman imprisonment. 
 The reasons urged against this by Meyer, in the fifth edition of his Epistle 
 to the Romans, are not sufficient. Meyer makes appeal to the following 
 facts :—(1) That Clement’s words in general bear a strong impress of 
 oratorical hyperbole; but this is seen at most in the expression: 6/ov 
 tov Kéouov, Which, however, is sufficiently explained by the previous: 
 év Th avatoAq k. év 7. dice. (2) That Clement speaks from Paul’s point 
 of view; but avarozg and dio are simple geographical designations, 
 just like our expressions east and west. (3) That, if Spain were meant, 
 the waprupyoac éxi tov youn. Would transport us to the scene of a trial in 
 Spain; but that is not the case, since oi #yobwevor (note the defin. article) 
 can only be understood as denoting the highest officials of the empire, 
 and besides, in Clement’s time it was known generally that Paul had 
 suffered martyrdom in Rome. (4) That Clement otherwise would indi- 
 cate by the otrwe that Paul’s death took place in Spain; but oitwe does 
 nothing but bring together the preceding facts? The meaning is: in this 
 way, viz. after he had taught righteousness to the whole world, and come 
 to the limits of the west and “borne testimony before those in power”. . .; 
 ovtw¢ is used in the very same way here as shortly before in the passage 
 about Peter: ovy éva, ovdé dio, adda rieiovac brhveyxev mévouc, Kai ovTw 
 Laptuphoac éropevOn eic Tov ddetAduevov Torov THE JdEnc.—That Clement did not 
 mean Rome by this expression, is shown by the fact that he was hinself 
 in Rome, and would therefore hardly speak of that city as the répua r. 
 If Clement 
 
 had not wished to point to some place beyond Rome, he would have been 
 
 dicewc, and also by the very emphatic position of those words. 
 
 content with the expressions previously used, since they would have been 
 perfectly sufficient to denote the apostle’s labors in the west, and therefore 
 in Rome. Several expositors, however, deny the proposed interpretation 
 
 a translation of Clement’s two epistles.—See 
 Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. 
 I. p. 557. 
 
 1The text, according to Dressel and others, 
 runs somewhat differently. See on this point 
 Meyer’s Comment. iiber den Brief an die Rimer, 
 
 5th ed. p. 15. Meyer remarks: “Still the 
 
 various readings of the different revisions of 
 the ... text make no material difference in 
 regard to this question.” 
 
 2Hofmann (D. heil. Schr. Thi. V. p. 8) 
 wrongly refers ovtws only to d:a ¢nAov; but 
 the wide interval between ottws and da GnAov 
 
 is decisive against this. 
 
INTRODUCTION. rH 
 
 of the word répua as equivalent to limits. The explanation given by 
 Schrader and Hilgenfeld: “the boundary limits,” and that by Matthies: 
 “the centre of the west,” are altogether arbitrary. Otto’s explanation seems 
 to have more justification. Following Baur and Schenkel, Otto seeks to 
 prove, on “ philological grounds which they have not supplied,” that by 
 Td Tépua THe Svoewe We are to understand “the goal in the west appointed to 
 the apostle.” He wishes, in the secondary use of the word, to maintain 
 the original meaning, according to which 70 répua denotes “ the goal-point, 
 the goal-pillar, in the hippodrome and the stadium.” He supplies with 7d 
 tépua the genitive of the tpéywv, who in this place is Paul, and takes the 
 genitive ric dtcew as the genitive of the stadium. But the very last quo- 
 tations which Otto brings forward from the classics to support his assertion, 
 show his error. In the passage, Eurip. Alc. 646: é7i répy’ jxwv Biov, the 
 pronoun is not to be supplied with répya, but with Biov; it does not mean 
 “come to his goal of life,” but “come to the goal of his life.” So also 
 with the passage in Suppl. 369, where we have: éri répua éudv Kaxdv ixduevoc, 
 and not éxi répua éudv xaxov. Accordingly, in the present passage, if the 
 third personal pronoun were to be supplied, it should be with dicewe and 
 not with répua; but that would be meaningless. But, further, it is 
 arbitrary here, where there is no hint of a figure taken from running a 
 race, to supply with 7d répua the notion of the apostolic ministry, sepa- 
 rating t7c¢ dtcews from its close connection with ro répua, and taking it as 
 equivalent to év rq dice; all the more that, when so understood, the words 
 are a somewhat superfluous addition. Besides, it is improper to consider 
 the Sioewe as the stadium, and then to place the répuza not at the end of it, 
 but somewhere in the middle. If répua in the secondary application is to 
 retain its original meaning, 70 tépua tH dicewe is either to be explained: 
 “the goal to which the diow extends,” or, more naturally : “the goal which 
 is reached by passing through the dio.” This may be the ocean which 
 bounds the dioic, but quite as well the extreme land of the west. If the 
 text is rightly restored by Junius, appeal may also be made to this passage 
 for the apostle’s journey to Spain, but certainly not for successful Jabors 
 there, which rather appears to be excluded by the use of the simple éA60v. 
 Wieseler, however, has his doubts about the correctness of the restoration, 
 as he believes that the original text was not kai éi 76 répya x.7.2., but Kai 
 to 7d tépua. This he translates: “after he had taught righteousness to 
 the whole world, and had appeared before the highest power of the west, and 
 had borne witness before the first,” etc. His explanation, however, is 
 contrary to the meaning of the word, for répua does sometimes occur— 
 
28 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 only in connection with éye—in the sense of “the highest power or decision,” 
 but it never denotes “the supreme government.” Besides, this conjecture 
 and its explanation would designate the supreme imperial government 
 simply as that of the west, while its authority extended equally over the 
 east. Least of all would Clement, who, according to Wieseler’s own 
 expression, “is obviously tuning a panegyric on Paul,” have used any 
 If he had understood 7é 
 répua in that sense, he would surely have added to the word not simply 
 Still less 
 
 can Rudow’s opinion (in the work quoted, p. 7) be justified, that we should 
 
 limited description for that supreme authority. 
 THe Svoewc, but—as was the actual fact—r7je avaroAgqe kai tHe dboewe.4 
 
 not read ézi, but oc, and explain it as equivalent to “ paene ad finem imperii 
 occidentalis ; ” for on the one hand this gives to é¢ an impossible significa- 
 tion, and on the other it attributes to Clement a very commonplace 
 thought. 
 
 The second passage is found in the Muratorian Canon, composed about 
 A.D. 170. It runs thus: Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro 
 scribta sunt. Lucas obtime Theophile comprindit, quia sub praesentia 
 ejus singula gerebantur, sicuti et semote passionem Petri evidenter 
 declarat, sed profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam_proficiscentis. 
 From these words, in themselves unintelligible, this much at least is 
 clear, that Paul’s journey to Spain was the subject of tradition in the 
 author’s time. Even if, as Wieseler thinks, the word “ omittit” has been 
 dropped after proficiscentis, the words do not say that the journey did not 
 take place, or that it was doubtful and disputed, but only that Luke did 
 not mention it——Otto conjectures that in the author’s time some began, 
 for ecclesiastical purposes, to maintain the journey into Spain to be an 
 historical fact. This conjecture, as well as the other, that the original 
 text of the Canon afterwards received many interpolatory additions, is a 
 mere makeshift in order to confirm, against the testimony of the Canon, 
 the hypothesis that Paul did not make the journey to Spain.’ 
 
 1 Wieseler’s other opinion is arbitrary, that 
 in the words “aprupyoas emt Toy Hyoumevwv” 
 the nyovpevor are the principes who composed 
 the concilium which the emperor was wont to 
 consult in his judgments. 
 
 2Tt is strange that Rudow, in his conjecture 
 and its explanation, does not understand 
 Spain by répua 7. dve., but Rome (rd répua rt. 
 évo., non ad Hispaniam sed ad Romam refer- 
 endum puto), which would make the mean- 
 
 ing to be that Paul had come almost to Rome. 
 
 3It will be sufficient here to quote some of 
 the conjectures proposed. Otto thinks that 
 for sicuti and sed, sic uti and sic et should be 
 read. Laurent (Weutest. Studien, p. 109) makes 
 the conjecture: sicuti et semota passione 
 Petri evidenter declarat et profectione Pauli 
 ab Urbe Spaniam proficiscentis. Many have 
 tried to make the passage clear by retrans- 
 Schott (Der erste Brief 
 
 Petri, p. 353) translates it: xa@as Kai, mapeies 
 
 lating it into Greek. 
 
 MapTupiay mev Thy ToD Ilérpov havepws amrowy- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 29 
 
 From this passage it follows that tradition preserved the report of a 
 journey made to Spain by the apostle, but not of successful /abors there.’ 
 This (confirmed by the formula in Eusebius: Adéyoc éyer) agrees with the 
 release of the apostle from the imprisonment in Rome, mentioned by 
 Luke, since the journey could only have taken place if Paul were again 
 at liberty—As nothing can be shown to be decidedly inaccurate in this 
 tradition so as to prove its impossibility, or even its improbability,? we 
 are justified in using this result in determining the date at which our 
 epistles were composed. If we can find no suitable date for any one of 
 them in the apostle’s life, down to his first imprisonment in Rome; if, at 
 the same time, the composition of all three necessarily belongs to one and 
 the same period of the apostle’s life, and the contents of the epistles point 
 to a later period,—then we are surely justified in assuming that they were 
 written after the imprisonment recorded in Acts, the First Epistle to 
 Timothy and the Epistle to Titus in the period between this first and a 
 second imprisonment at Rome, and the Second Epistle to Timothy during 
 the second. This view—if we take for granted the genuineness of the 
 epistles—is the only one tenable after the investigation we have made, and 
 hence also more recently it has been accepted by the defenders of their 
 authenticity (even by Bleek, who, however, disputes the authenticity of 
 the First Epistle to Timothy), with the exception of Matthies, Wieseler, 
 and Otto.A—The answer to the question, What date is to be assigned to 
 the second imprisonment? depends on the date fixed for the first; and for 
 this the year of Festus’ entry on office furnishes a fixed point, since Paul 
 
 paiver, mopetay S€ THY Tod IlavAov amd THs TO- 
 Aews eis THY Zmaviavy mopevowevov. Hofmann 
 (D. h. Schr. pp. 9 f.): kaOws kat mapeis TO TOV 
 Iletpov 1a00s cadha@s Sndot, Tavdov dé Thy 
 Topelay €is Thy Lraviav mopevomevov. 
 
 Meyer’s Rémerbrief, 5th ed. pp. 17 f. 
 
 Comp. 
 
 1 When this is observed, it may be explained 
 
 also how Innocent 1. (a.p. 416) could write: 
 
 ’ manifestum in omnem Italiam, Gallias, His- 
 
 panias, Africam atque Siciliam ... nullum 
 
 instituisse ecclesias, nisi eas, quas venera- 
 
 bilis ap. Petrus aut ejus successores con- 
 stituerint sacerdotes. 
 
 2 The words of Origen in Euseb. ili. 1: ri det 
 mept IlavAov Ae€yerw amd ‘lepovoadnm Mexpl TOU 
 *TAAvpiKod memAnpwKOTos TO eEvayyeALov TOD 
 _ Xptorod Kai totepov ev TH ‘Puy emt Nepwvos 
 
 wenaptupnKoTos, do not exclude the journey te 
 
 Spain (against Meyer), but any apostolic 
 labors there. On the whole, however, too 
 much should not be inferred from these brief 
 summaries, for otherwise it might be con- 
 cluded from these words that Paul had 
 preached only from Jerusalem to Illyria, and 
 not in Rome.—It is of still less importance 
 that'there is no mention of any release of the 
 apostle in the Hist. apostolica of pseudo-Ab- 
 dias. 
 
 3 Kolbe, too (in a review of Hofmann’s com- 
 mentary, Zeitschr. f. die luth. Theol. u. K. 1875, 
 No. 3), will acknowledge no second imprison- 
 ment of the apostle, which he holds to be an 
 unnecessary hypothesis, “ not necessary after 
 Wieseler in so natural a manner (!) had 
 assigned to the Pastoral Epistles their proper 
 
 place in the apostle’s life.” 
 
30 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES, 
 
 arrived at Rome in the spring of the following year—If, with Anger, 
 Wieseler, Hofmann, we suppose that Festus entered on office in the year 
 60, then Paul was released from the first imprisonment in 63, and the 
 second imprisonment took place either after or before the burning of Rome 
 and the consequent persecution of the Christians (in the summer of 64). 
 The first supposition seems to be opposed by the fact that in the Pastoral 
 Epistles there is not the slightest allusion to this persecution, while the 
 second gives, from the spring of 63 to the summer of 64, too short time 
 for the events to which the Pastoral Epistles bear witness. It is true that 
 the objection to the first supposition may be weakened by dating the 
 apostle’s martyrdom as late as possible, say in 67 or 68. For this we have 
 the support of the old tradition; but on the one hand the tradition is very 
 uncertain,’ and on the other we would have the apostle laboring for so 
 many years after his first imprisonment, that it would be inexplicable 
 why not a scrap of information has been preserved regarding it. The 
 objection to the second supposition is of less importance, for, even if the 
 time allowed be short, it is not too short. The events would be placed in 
 the following order :—In the spring of 63, Paul leaves Rome; he lands at 
 Crete, where he spends a short time only, and, leaving Titus behind, 
 proceeds to Ephesus, where he meets Timothy. Soon after he crosses to 
 Macedonia, and from there writes the Epistle to Timothy; then somewhat 
 later, after resolving to pass the winter in Nicopolis in Epirus, he writes 
 the Epistle to Titus. 
 way of Troas, and then proceeds, without halting there, by Miletus, where 
 
 Towards the end of winter he returns to Ephesus by 
 
 he leaves Trophimus behind sick, and by Corinth, where Erastus does not 
 join him as he wished, to Spain; and from there (perhaps as a prisoner) 
 to Rome. In this way he might still arrive at Rome some time before the 
 burning, and undergo his first trial, after which he wrote the Second 
 Epistle to Timothy.? Shortly before the burning, or in the persecution 
 
 1In Jerome (Catal. ec. 15) it runs: Decimo short for the journey to Spain and Rome, 
 
 quarto Neronis anno eodem die quo Petrus 
 Romae pro Christo capite truncatus sepul- 
 tusque est in via Ostiensi. 
 
 2Against this reckoning, Otto raises two 
 points in particular—(1) the shortness of the 
 period indicated, and (2) the apostle’s sum- 
 mons in 2 Tim. iv. 9 and 21. As to the first 
 point, Otto grants that about five months 
 might be sufficient for the journeys from 
 Rome to Nicopolis, but thinks that the time 
 from March to the middle of July 64 is too 
 
 since the apostle “must have preached in 
 Spain, been taken prisoner, undergone a pro- 
 cess before the provincial court, and again 
 made appeal to Caesar.” But these presup- 
 positions are not to be considered as at all 
 necessary, since the actual course of events 
 As to the 
 
 second point, Otto maintains that Timothy 
 
 may have been quite different. 
 
 could get from Ephesus to Rome in one 
 month, and that if the same time is to be 
 given for forwarding the Epistle, Paul could 
 
INTRODUCTION. 31 
 
 occasioned by it, the apostle suffered martyrdom, and by the sword, 
 according to the testimony of tradition. Wiesinger grants, indeed, that 
 in this view the favorable treatment of the imprisoned apostle is more 
 natural than by supposing that he was imprisoned after the burning ; but 
 still he thinks that he cannot agree to it. His chief grounds against it 
 are—(1) that the Second Epistle to Timothy is brought too close to the 
 first ; (2) that the apostle, according to 1 Tim. ii. 14 ff., did not stay so 
 short a time in Ephesus; (8) that it is inconceivable how the Asiatics (2 
 Tim. i. 15-18) should be still in Rome during the time of the apostle’s 
 imprisonment, and how Timothy had already been informed of their 
 conduct. But, on the other hand, it is to be observed (1) that there is no 
 hint of the Second Epistle being written a long time after the First, the 
 agreement between them rather testifying against this; (2) that from 1 
 Tim. iii. 14 ff. no conclusion can be drawn of a long stay made by the 
 apostle in Ephesus; (8) that the verb azeorpdgycav in 2 Tim. i. 15 does not 
 imply the presence of the Asiatics in Rome. Ruffet agrees in the repre- 
 sentation here given, but remarks: Huther fait mourir Paul en 64, pendant 
 la grande persécution. II est difficile, dans ce cas, d’expliquer le procés de 
 Paul. He gives 66 as the year of the apostle’s death. Against him it 
 must be maintained that there is no ground for assuming that the process 
 was carried out formally, and that it is arbitrary to assign 66 as the year 
 of the apostle’s death. 
 
 REMARK.—Meyer (Apgesch. 3d ed. 1861, Introd. sect. 4) has sought on two 
 grounds to prove, against Wieseler, that the retirement of Felix from office did 
 not take place in the year 60, but in 61. His first ground is, that it follows from 
 Josephus, Vita, ? 3, that in the year 63 Josephus went to Rome in order to obtain 
 the release of some priests who had been imprisoned by Felix, and sent thither. 
 Now, if Felix retired from office in 60, Josephus would have put off his journey 
 too long. But, on the other hand, before undertaking this journey, Josephus had 
 to await the result of the complaint (Antig. xx. 8, 10) made to the emperor against 
 Felix by the Jews ; and when Felix was acquitted, it could only appear to Josephus 
 to be unfavorable to his purpose. He would hardly, therefore, undertake his 
 journey immediately after he had received news of it. Meyer’s second ground 
 is, that from Josephus, Antig. xx. 8.11, it is clear that Poppaea was already Nero’s 
 wife at the time when Festus entered on office, and she became so in May 62. But 
 the passage in question does not at all prove that. What Josephus says is this. 
 
 not write in the beginning of July, but only the letter by the shortest route, and supposed 
 in the middle or end of August, that Timothy that Timothy would and could choose the 
 was to make haste to come to him before shortest route for his journey. Besides, it is 
 winter! But even this assertion has only an to be observed that taxéws and mpd xerpavos 
 apparent justification, since it rests on the are not immediately connected with one 
 ‘ubproved presupposition that Paul forwarded —_ another. 
 
32 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 About the time when a great impostor was destroyed with his followers by the 
 troops which Festus, on entering office, sent against him, Agrippa built in Jeru- 
 salem the great house from which he could see into the temple. The Jews built 
 a wall to prevent his looking into the temple, and, after vainly negotiating on the 
 matter with Festus, they brought the case before Nero by means of ambassadors. 
 Nero gave them a favorable answer, t7 yvvaixi Ilorryia ixép tov "Iovdaiwy den- 
 Geion xapilouevoc. Josephus does not say how much time was taken up in building 
 the house, in erecting the wall, in negotiating with Festus, in sending the ambas- 
 sadors, in awaiting Nero’s answer ; but it is more than probable that some years 
 must have passed while these things were going on. Besides, it is least question 
 able whether the use of yvv7 implies that Poppaea was then Nero’s wife—If 
 Meyers reckoning were still to be correct, the apostle’s release would have taken 
 place shortly before the fire.» The fact that there is no allusion to Nero’s perse- 
 cution in the epistles would have to be explained in this way, that the apostle was 
 already made acquainted with it when he was with Timothy in Ephesus.—Dr. H. 
 Lehmann (Chronologische Bestimmuny der in der Apgesch. Kap. 13-28, erzéhlien 
 Begebenheiten, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, No. 2, pp. 312-819) gives the date of 
 Festus’ entry on oflice quite differently from Wieseler and Meyer. According to 
 Lehmann’s investigation, the year 58 is both the earliest and the latest possible 
 date for the recall of Felix. He believes that Feiix was not recalled after the 
 year 58, because Felix was acquitted from the charge raised against him by the 
 Jews through the intercession of his brother Pallas, who, according to the express 
 statement of Josephus, was then in high favor with Nero. But Pallas was in favor 
 with Nero only till 59; his influence was very closely connected with that of 
 Nero’s mother, Agrippina, so that her downfall and murder in 59 would necessa- 
 rily deprive Pallas of Nero’s favor, just as some years later (in 62) he was 
 poisoned by Nero, who coveted his treasures—Lehmann is of opinion also that 
 Felix was not recalled before 58, because the revolt of the Egyptians (Acts xxi. 
 38) cannot have taken place before 56.—According to this, Paul would therefore 
 be at liberty again in the spring of 61, which certainly would be a result very 
 favorable to dating the composition of the Pastoral Epistlés before Nero’s 
 persecution. 
 
 As to the place of composition, Pauk wrote the First Epistle to Timothy 
 after his departure from Ephesus, probably in Macedonia, or at least in 
 the neighborhood ot that country, while Timothy was in Ephesus. In 
 accordance with this, the subscription in Auct. Synops. runs: ad paxedoviac, 
 while in the Coptic and Erpenian versions Athens is set down quite arbi- 
 trarily as the place of composition. In several mss., on the other hand, 
 we find the subscription which has passed into the Received Text: a7d 
 Aaodixeiac, rig éott pytpbrodic &pvyiac tHe Taxatiavgc; in Cod. A simply azd 
 Aaodixeiac. This place is assigned to it also in the Peschito, the Aethiopic 
 version, in Oecumenius, Theophylact, -ete. The addition ry¢ Maxariavze 
 points to a division which arose in the fourth century. The opinion that 
 the epistle was written in Laodicea is probably grounded on the fact that 
 this epistle was regarded as identical with the érorod# éx Aaodixetag men- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 33 
 
 tioned in Col. iv. 16. Theophylact says: rig dé qv % éx Aaodixeiag; 4 mpog 
 Tyud0eov mpary, abty yap ék Aaoducevag éypaon. 
 
 The place in which the Epistle to Titus was written can only be so far 
 determined, that it was on the apostle’s journey from Crete to Nicopolis. 
 The subscription in the Received Text runs: po¢ Titov ri¢ Kpytov exxan- 
 siac xpatov émiokorov xeipotovyfévta éypagn and NexordéAewg tio Makedoviac. 
 This has, however, arisen out of a misconception of chap. iii. 12, where 
 the word éxez proves that Paul, at the time of composing the epistle, was 
 not yet in Nicopolis.—If the epistle was written on the apostle’s journey, 
 between the first and second imprisonment at Rome, we cannot, with 
 Guericke, assume that it was composed in Ephesus; for if Paul had 
 already in Ephesus the intention of passing the winter at Nicopolis, he 
 could not, after leaving Ephesus and arriving in Macedonia, write to 
 Timothy that he thought of coming again to him soon, 1 Tim. iil. 14. The 
 Epistle to Titus can therefore have been written only after the First 
 Epistle to Timothy. While composing the latter, he was, indeed, thinking 
 of a speedy return to Ephesus, but he considered it possible then that his 
 return might be delayed (1 Tim. iii. 15). This actually took place when 
 he resolved to pass the winter at Nicopolis, after which resolution he 
 wrote to Titus. 
 
 As to the Second Epistle to Timothy, there can be no doubt that it was 
 written in Rome, as many subscriptions say. Only Bottger (Beitrage, etc., 
 part 2) supposes that Paul wrote it in his imprisonment at Caesarea— 
 which, however, rests on the utterly incorrect presupposition that Paul 
 was only five days a prisoner in Rome. 
 
 SECTION 4.THE HERETICS IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 All three epistles contain warnings against heretics. These are described 
 as follows : 
 
 First Epistle to Timothy —They have left the path of faith and of a good 
 conscience (i. 5: dv (é.e. kabapag Kapdiag Kat ovverdgoewc ayadig Kal TiotTews 
 avuroxpitov) aotoxhoartec; 1.19: qv (i.e, ayadiy ovveidnow) twec arwoduevor rept 
 tiv miotww évavdynoav; Vi. 21: rept tiv Tiorw jotéynoav). They are estranged 
 from the truth (vi. 5: droorepypévor tie aAqfeiac), and do not abide by the 
 sound doctrine of the gospel (vi. 8). Morally corrupt (vi. 5: JegOappévoe 
 zov vowv), they have an evil conscience (iv. 3: kexavtypiacpévor thy idiav 
 cwveidnow). Beclouded with self-conceit (vi. 4: tetigeray), they boast of a 
 special knowledge (vi. 20: re pevdovipov yrécewc), Which they seek to spread 
 
 "by teaching (i. 3: érepodidackareir). Their doctrine is a meaningless, empty, 
 3 
 
34 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 profane babble (i. 6: parawdoyia; vi. 20; BéByAor Kevogovia), a doctrine of 
 the devil (iv. 2: didackatia: daoviov). Its contents are made up of pro- 
 fane and silly myths (i. 4, iv. 7: BéBnAot kai ypaddere pvbor) and genealogies 
 (i. 4: yeveadoyiat atépavror), which only furnish points of controversy and 
 arouse contests of words (i. 4, vi. 4), in which they take a special delight 
 (vi. 4: voodv rept Cythoe Kai Aoyouaxiac). Without knowing the meaning 
 of the law, they wish to be teachers of it (i. 7: GéAovte¢ eivar vouodiddcKator), 
 and add to it arbitrary commands forbidding marriage and the enjoyment 
 of many kinds of food (iv. 3; KkwAbovrec yaueiv, aréxeobar Bpwpatwv); by their 
 ascetic life they seek to gain the reputation of piety in order to make 
 worldly gain by it (vi. 5? vouitovrec, Toptouov elvar THY evoé Berar). 
 
 The Epistle to Titus—The heretics (i. 9: of avriAéyovtec) belong especially 
 to Judaism (i. 10: wadora of éx xepitouqc). While boasting of their special 
 knowledge of God, they lead a godless life (i. 16), condemned by their 
 own conscience (iii. 11: .avtoxatdxpiroc). What they bring forward are 
 Jewish myths (i. 14: rposéyovree "Iovdaixoic pibowc), genealogies, points of 
 controversy about the law (ili. 9), and mere commands of men (i. 14: 
 évtohai avdparuv arootpedopévov aAnbecav). They are idle babblers (i. 10: 
 pataédoyor), Who with their shameful doctrine (i. 11: diddoxovrec & pi dei) 
 seduce hearts (i. 10: gpevardrar), cause divisions in the church (iii. 10: 
 aipetixot avOpwro), and draw whole families into destruction (i. 11: éAove 
 oixove avarpérover); and all this—for the sake of shameful gain (i. 11: 
 aiaxpov Képdove yapw). 
 
 Second Epistle to Timothy.—Here, just as in the First Epistle, the here- 
 tics are denoted as people who have fallen away from the faith, who are 
 striving against the truth (ii. 18: srepi ray aAgbevay jordxnoar ; il. 8: avbioravtrat 
 TH dAnSeia . . . adbKywor epi Tv Tiotw; ii. 25: ot avridvatiBépevor), who are 
 morally corrupt (ili. 8: av@pwro karepBapnévor Tov voov; ili, 13; rovypoi 
 av0pwror), Who are in the snare of the devil (ii. 25), so that there already 
 exist among them that godlessness and hypocrisy which, the Spirit 
 declares, will characterize mankind in the last days. They seek to extend 
 their doctrine, which is nothing but an unholy babble of empty myths, 
 and contains nothing but points of controversy ; and this they do by 
 sneaking into houses, and by knowing especially how to befool women , 
 (iii. 6), just like the Egyptian sorcerers who were opposed to the truth 
 (iii. 8)—Contrary to the truth, they teach that the resurrection has 
 already taken place (ii. 18: Aéyovrec trav avdoracw 7bn yeyovévat). 
 
 Have the Pastoral Epistles to do with one or with several different 
 classes of heretics? Credner (Hinleitung in d. N. T.) assumes four differ- 
 
INTRODUCTION, 30 
 
 ent classes. He takes the heretics of the Epistle to Titus to be non- 
 Christians, azd those of the two Epistles to Timothy to be apostatized 
 Christians, while he divides the former—in consequence of the paicora, 
 chap. i. 10.—into Jews, more precisely Essenes, and into Gentiles who are 
 not further described, the /atter into heretics of the present and heretics of 
 the future (1 Tim. iv. 1 ff.; 2 Tim. iii. 2 ff.) —These distinctions are, how- 
 ever, not justifiable, for the expression oi é« mepitouqe does not necessarily 
 denote Jews who are not Christians (comp. Acts xi. 2; Gal. ii. 12). 
 Further, 4/c7a does not establish a difference in regard to the heretics, 
 but only indicates that some were added who were not é mepirouje. 
 Lastly, in 1 Tim. iv. 1 ff. and 2 Tim. iii. 2 ff. the future is certainly spoken 
 of; but there is no hint in either of the passages that a heresy would 
 appear different from the present one.—Thiersch (Versuch zur Herstellung, 
 etc., pp. 236 f. and 273 f.) divides the heretics into three groups—(1) Juda- 
 ists, 7. e. Judaizing teachers of the law to whom there still clung the spirit 
 of Pharisaism ; (2) some spiritualistic Gnostics who had suffered ship- 
 wreck in the faith; (8) impostors. He supposes that the first are men- 
 tioned in the Epistle to Titus and in some passages of the First Epistle to 
 - Timothy, the second in the First and Second Epistles to Timothy, the last 
 in 2 Tim. iii. But apostasy from the faith is charged not only against 
 those mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 19, but also against those in 1 Tim. i. 3 ff, 
 and in the Second Epistle to Timothy the same characteristics are attri- 
 buted to the heretics as in the Epistle to Titus; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 23 and 
 Tit. iii. 9. As to the impostors, they are not at all distinguished from the 
 other heretics as a special class—Wiesinger confesses, indeed, that the 
 errors placed before us in the three epistles are substantially the same; but 
 he thinks that on the one hand “more general errors” are to be distin- 
 guished from those of individuals, and on the other hand phenomena of 
 the present from those which are designated as future. Hofmann’s view 
 is allied to this. He thinks also that those against whom Paul had a 
 special polemic (Tit. i. 9, 10, iii. 9; 1. Timeis3 ff., etc.) are distinct from 
 those to whom Hymenaeus and Philetus belonged (2 Tim. ii. 17), and 
 from those mentioned in 2 Tim. iii. 6 ff.; and further, that those charac- 
 terized in 1 Tim. iv. 1-4 are to be regarded as people of the future, and 
 not of the present. Against this, however, it is to be maintained that 
 such a distinction of different classes is not marked in any way by the 
 apostle, and that the men of the future mentioned by him are character- 
 ized in substantially the same way as the men of the present against whom 
 he directs his polemic. Mangold (Die Irrlehrer der Pastoralbriefe) rightly 
 
36 4 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 maintains that the polemic of the Pastoral Epistles is not directed against 
 different forms of heresy, but against one and the same heresy; but he 
 agrees with Credner in thinking that the heretics mentioned in the Epis- 
 tle to Titus stood quite outside of the Christian church, since it is not said 
 of them that they had fallen away from the faith. But against this it is 
 to be observed that the polemic in the N. T. is everywhere directed only 
 against those who, as members of the church, sought to disturb the true 
 faith, and not against non-Christians who assailed the Christian faith from 
 without! It is arbitrary also to distinguish the aipetikoi mentioned in 
 chap. iii. 10 as corrupted Christians from those named in chap. i. 10 as 
 non-Christians. *, 
 
 The second question is, Of what nature was the heretical tendency 
 against which the Pastoral Epistles contend? The views on this point 
 differ widely from one another. The heretics have been held to be—(1) 
 Gnostics, either “forerunners of the Gnostics of the second century ” (so 
 most expositors), or “Cerinthians” (Mayerhoff in his work, der Brief an 
 die Colosser, 1838; Neander in the first edition of his apostol. Zeitalter), or 
 Gnostics of the second century, in particular Marcionites (Baur); (2) Cab- 
 balists (Grotius, Baumgarten) ; (8) Pharisaic Judaists (Chrysostom, Jerome, 
 partly also Thiersch); (4) Hssenes (Michaelis, Heinrichs, Wegscheider, 
 Mangold, partly also Credner), or Therapeutae (Ritschl); and lastly, (6) 
 Jewish Christians. These last either had a preference for allegorical inter- 
 pretations of the Jewish genealogies (pedigrees), which in itself was inno- 
 
 cent and not delusive, but which might easily lead to apostasy from the faith 
 
 10tto decides quite differently by roundly 
 calling the heretics Jews, and remarking: “1 
 have found no passage in the two epistles, 
 not even in a/i the Pauline Epistles, which 
 compelled me to suppose that the heretics 
 But should 
 not this assertion be at once refuted by the 
 fact that Paul, when speaking of non-Chris- 
 
 were members of the church.” 
 
 tians, always denotes them as such, Gentiles 
 as Gentiles, Jews as Jews; whereas of the 
 heretics, against whom he contends, he no- 
 where says that they stand outside of the 
 And would not both his 
 polemic and his warnings have quite another 
 
 Christian church ? 
 
 character if the hereties did not belong ex- 
 ternally to the church?—Otto grants that 
 many members of the church had been led 
 astray by those non-Christian heretics; but 
 
 would not those betrayed have sought to 
 spread their opinions among their fellow- 
 members, and thus become false teachers 
 themselves? Besides, Otto can support his 
 opinion only by an artificial interpretation of 
 the single passages in question, as is the case 
 
 -among others with 1 Tim. i. 3 (see the expo 
 
 sition of the passage) and with 2 Cor. xi. 1 
 23. 1 Cor. iii. 15 along causes him some 
 scruples; but he overcomes them by refer- 
 ring the pronoun avrds to 0 denéAcos, altogether 
 omitting to observe that Paul in this passage 
 is not thinking of heretics at all—Whether 
 the tives in Acts xv. 1 were also Jews—and 
 
 ‘not Christians—Otto does not say ; if he were 
 
 consistent in his opinions, he would be bound 
 to maintain the former. 
 
INTRODUCTION, 37 
 
 (Wiesinger, who, however, remarks that in some are found the germs of 
 the later gnosis), or they were busying themselves with investigations 
 regarding the legal and historical contents of the Thora, to which they 
 ascribed a special importance for the religious life (Hofmann). The second 
 and third views have already received a sufficient refutation. The words: 
 Hédovtec eivar vouodidacKkaio (1 Tim. i. 7), are the only argument in favor of 
 the opinion that these opponents resembled those against whom Paul 
 contended in the Epistle to the Galatians and in the first part of the Epis- 
 tle to the Romans. From 1 Tim. iv. 3, Tit.i. 14, it is clear that their zeal 
 for the law did not at all agree with the pharisaically-inclined Jewish-Chris- 
 tians, as they did not maintain the necessity for circumcision —Cabbalists 
 they cannot be called, although there existed earlier among the orthodox 
 Jews many elements from which was developed the cabbalistic system 
 afterwards imprinted on the books of Jezira and Sohar; these were secret 
 doctrines, and it cannot be proved that these heretics had the same views. 
 For that matter, there are even some points here, such as forbidding to 
 marry, the spiritualistic doctrine of the resurrection, which are foreign to 
 Cabbala. There is only one kindred point in the phenomena of the two: 
 they both consisted in combination of revealed religion with speculation 
 originally heathen. 
 
 The view that the heretics were Essenes has found in Mangold a de- 
 fender both thoroughgoing and acute; but he has been able to prove the 
 identity of the two only by a somewhat bold assertion. Proceeding from 
 the opinion “ that Essenism was only an attempt to carry out practically 
 the Alexandrine-Jewish philosophy in the definite arrangements of a 
 sect,” he deduces from this the unjustifiable canon: “If, therefore, any 
 trait in the picture of the heretics should find a direct parallel, though 
 only in such a passage of Philo as gives quite general characteristics of 
 the Jewish-Alexandrine philosophy, we ought not to hesitate in explain- 
 ing this trait to be Essenic, provided only it does not stand in contradic- 
 tion with the definite information given by Philo and Josephus regarding 
 this sect.”—Mangold tries to trace back to Essenism not only the yeveadoyiaz, 
 but also the other traits in the picture of the heretics, especially the pifo:, 
 the Cyrfoec, the yraou pevddveuoc, the asceticism, the doctrine of the resur- 
 rection, the view of the person and work of Christ, not indeed expressed, 
 but indicated, the greed, the hypocrisy, the comparison with the Egyptian 
 sorcerers, etc. But if he had not the aid of the canon quoted, and of an 
 interpretation sometimes very forced, the result would simply be this, 
 that in the heretics of the epistles there existed some traits which belonged 
 
te) THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 also to Essenism. On the other hand, the heretics had many peculiarities 
 not found among the Essenes, and the Essenes again had distinct char- 
 acteristics of which there is no mention here (comp. Uhlhorn’s criticism 
 of Mangold’s book in the Gott. gel. Anz. 1857, No. 179)—The fact that 
 Mangold could only justify his assertion that the heretics were Essenes by 
 identifying the general Jewish-Alexandrine speculation with Philonism 
 and Essenism, is a sufficient proof that his assertion has no firm and sure 
 ground.—Against Ritschl’s view that the heretics were Therapeutae, Uhl- 
 horn’s remarks (in the criticism quoted) are sufficient: “ They have no ~ 
 hesitation in assuming a quite close connection with the Jewish-Alexan- 
 drine philosphy, nor would they make any difficulty of importing into it 
 the principles of Philo. But then new difficulties appear. If it is already 
 hazardous to imagine Essenes in Ephesus and Crete, it might become 
 much harder tosuppose that there were Therapeutae in those regions. Their 
 whole nature is so thoroughly Egyptian, that we can hardly venture on 
 the hypothesis of the sect being transplanted and extended into Asia 
 Minor and Crete. Yet that would be the smallest difficulty. The main 
 point is that the picture of the heretics applies to the Therapeutae much 
 tess than to the Essenes ; not only because the most striking characteristics 
 of the Therapeutae are wanting, but also because there are features which 
 do not suit the Therapeutae at all. Thus, e.g., the busy activity men- 
 tioned in 2 Tim. iii. 6 stands in glaring contrast with their habits of con- 
 templation.” 
 
 The view which is by far the most prevalent is, that the heresy was 
 Gnosticism, either “a rough elementary form of gnosis,” or one of the 
 cultivated systems. Baur, as is well known, declares himself for the 
 latter with great decision. His judgment (Die sog. Pastoralbriefe des Ap. 
 Paulus, 1835, p. 10) runs thus: “We have before us in the heretics of the 
 Pastoral Epistles the Gnostics of the. second century, especially the 
 Marcionites.” For the Marcionitism Baur appeals—(1) to the Antinom- 
 ianism denoted in 1 Tim. i. 6-11; (2) to the ascetic aréyeofa Bpwuaror, 
 1 Tim. iv. 8, which was founded on a certain opposition and dislike to 
 God’s creation—as to something unclean, and therefore on a decidedly 
 dualistic view of the universe (such as Marcion in particular held); (3) to 
 the doctrine of the resurrection, mentioned in 2 Tim. ii. 18; (4) to the 
 express mention of the Marcionite antithesis, 1 Tim. vi. 20.—Of these 
 reasons we must at once strike out thé first and the last, as resting on an 
 arbitrary and quite unjustifiable interpretation. As to the second, the 
 opposition made to the asceticism of the heretics in Tit. i. 15 and 1 Tim. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 39 
 
 iv. 8,4, by no means points to a decided form of dualism; and with 
 regard to the third ground, it is to be observed that the doctrine of the 
 resurrection had no more connection with Gnosticism than with other 
 speculative systems.—For the Gnosticism of the heretics, Baur produces 
 the following grounds -—(1) The myths and genealogies by which the 
 Valentinian series of aeons and the whole fantastic history of the pleroma 
 were denoted. This, he says, is apparent from the adjective ypaddyc, 
 which was chosen because the Sophia-Achamoth was. denoted as an old 
 mother. (2) The emphasis laid in the epistles on the universality of the 
 divine grace, by which is expressed the opposition to the Gnostic distinc- 
 tion between pneumatic and other men. But even these grounds furnish 
 no proof that the heresy belonged to the second century, for series of 
 emanations and particularism were not phenomena of cultivated Gnosti- 
 cism alone. The interpretation of the word ypaédyc¢, however, certainly 
 needs no serious refutation. Baur further declares that even the author of 
 the epistles was infected with Marcionitism, as appears especially from the 
 opposition in which the av6pwrxo¢ of 1 Tim. ii. 5 stands to épavepaby év capi in 
 1 Tim. iii. 16, also from the passage in 1 Tim. iii. 16, where two sets of clauses 
 are opposed, the one more Gnostic, the other more anti-Gnostic; lastly, from 
 the use of doxologies that have a Gnostic sound. But apart altogether from 
 single pieces of arbitrary conjecture, of which Baur is guilty in his proof, 
 how curious in itself the opinion is, that the assailant of Marcionitism 
 should himself have been half a Marcionite, without having any suspicion 
 of his self-contradiction! In his work, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, 
 1845, Baur brought forward yet another new and peculiar proof of his 
 assertion that the Gnosticism of the heretics belonged to the second 
 century. He finds it in the express statement of Hegesippus (Eusebius, 
 Hi. E. iii. 32), that the pevddveyoc yvoow did not appear openly till there 
 were none of the apostolic circle left. From this Baur draws two infer- 
 ences—(1) that Gnosticism belonged only to the post-apostolic age; and (2) 
 that the author of the Pastoral Epistles borrowed the expression 7 
 pevdaveuoc yvoow from Hegesippus. But against the first inference it is to 
 be noted that in this passage it is not only not denied, but it is even 
 expressly stated that there had existed earlier such as “ corrupt the sound 
 rule of wholesome preaching,” and that it is simply remarked that the 
 érepodiddoxaroc ventured only after the death of the apostles to preach their 
 heresy quite openly and freely. Against the second inference we must 
 maintain that the passage in Eusebius (as Thiersch in his Versuch zur Her- 
 _ stellung, etc., pp. 301 ff., and following him Wiesinger and Mangold, have 
 
40 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 proved) is not a simple quotation from Hegesippus, but that the thought 
 only was expressed by Hegesippus, while its elaboration and form are 
 due to Eusebius; and that “although the Ebionite Hegesippus would 
 hardly have used the Pastoral Epistles for expressing his Own views, yet 
 there is no reason why these expressions in Eusebius should not be traced 
 back to the Pastoral Epistles as their source” (comp. Mangold, pp. 108- 
 112). Thus the theory that the heretics in question were Marcionites, or 
 other Gnosties of the second century, has no real foundation ; for which 
 reason, as Mangold says, “all exegetes and writers on Introduction who 
 have studied the question are unanimous against Baur’s view ” (Mangold, 
 p- 14).—Quite as little support has been given also to the theory that the 
 heretics were Cerinthians ; and rightly so, since it cannot be proved that 
 they held the doctrine of Cerinthus regarding the Demiurge, or his 
 Docetism or the Chiliasm ascribed to him by Caius and Dionysius.—The 
 answer to the question whether Paul’s opponents were Gnostics (so far, of 
 course, only followers of a gnosis still undeveloped) or not, depends to a 
 large extent, if not wholly, on the meaning to be given to yeveadoyias. 
 Trenaeus and Tertullian, whom many later expositors have followed, 
 understood by it, “Gnostic series of emanations.” In more recent times 
 an attempt has been made to maintain that we are to understand by it 
 Diihne (Stud. wu. Krit. 1833, No. 4), supported by Man- 
 gold and Otto, makes it more definite, and says that by it are meant the 
 
 actual genealogies. 
 
 genealogies of the Pentateuch, along with its historical sections, the 
 former of which Philo interprets in his rpéro rye puy7jc. But there is not 
 the slightest indication in the Pastoral Epistles that the heretics here 
 mentioned made any such interpretation themselves. Wiesinger has let 
 this more definite statement drop, and explains the yeveadoyiac to be simply 
 Jewish genealogies. Hofmann, on the contrary, going back again to Philo, 
 considers them to be not genealogies proper, but “the whole historical 
 contents of the Thora.”? Both these expositors do. not wish to regard 
 Paul’s opponents here as heretics in the proper sense. Wiesinger, as he 
 
 developes this point, contradicts himself. For, when he grants that they 
 
 11f Hegesippus did use the expression 7 
 Wevdavupmos yvaots, it is in any case more pro- 
 bable that he should have borrowed it from 
 the First Epistle to Timothy, than that the 
 author of the epistle should have taken it 
 from Hegesippus. 
 
 2This explanation Hofmann justifies by re- 
 ferring to Philo’s division of the historical 
 
 contents of the Thora into two parts: ro epi 
 TS TOU Ko pov yeveoews and Td yeveadoyiKov. 
 But though Philo uses the name 70 yevead- 
 oyixov for the part after the history of the 
 creation, because it begins with a genealogy, 
 it does not follow, as a matter of fact, that the 
 single historical events are designated by the 
 word yeveadoyiat. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 4} 
 
 cultivated an arbitrary asceticism,—that they strove after a higher holi- 
 ness as well as a higher knowledge than the gospel presents, and that they 
 sought to attain this by an allegorical interpretation of the genealogies,! 
 —he is manifestly describing them as heretics in the proper sense of the 
 term. Hofmann does not indeed fall into this contradiction, but with his 
 view it remains wholly unexplained how they could give to the study of 
 the historical contents of the Thora a special importance for the religious 
 life, if they still did not seek to get from it knowledge transcending the 
 gospel. The following points are against both these explanations :—(1) 
 The sentence of condemnation pronounced in the epistles is so sharp, 
 that it points to something quite different from mere unprofitable specu- 
 lation. Although Paul, as these argue, calls their reasonings paraioAoyia 
 and xevogwvia, he describes this empty babble of theirs not merely as a 
 useless, foolish, old woman’s chatter, but also as something unholy, 2. e. 
 profane (é87A0c, comp. Heb. xii. 16), and the reasoners as those who, 
 fallen away from the faith, contradict the truth, and are morally corrupt 
 in thought. (2) Paul defines the yeveadaoyiac more precisely by the adjec- 
 tive azépavta, which gives, not, as it has been wrongly explained, the 
 nature of the investigations regarding the yeveadoyia: (as those “ which spin 
 on ad infinitum,” Wiesinger; or “the end of which is never reached,” 
 Hofmann), but the nature of the yeveadoyia themselves. Since neither the 
 Jewish genealogies nor the facts given in the Thora are unlimited, we can 
 hardly understand the yeveadtoyiac to be anything else than “ Gnostic series 
 of emanations,” which have no necessary termination in themselves, and 
 can therefore be regarded as unlimited.—Besides the expression yeveaioyiat 
 arépavro, there are other features in the apostle’s polemic pointing to the 
 Gnostic tendencies of his adversaries here, who boasted of a special know- 
 ledge, called by Paul yraore pevddveuoc ; still their Gnosticism is quite dis- 
 tinct from Gnosticism proper, ¢.e. from the Gnosticism which spread so 
 widely in the church in the second century. The soil of the latter was 
 Gentile Christianity; the soil of the former was Judaism, or Jewish 
 Christianity mingled with Gentile speculation. An appeal to the Mosaic 
 law was quite out of place in Gnosticism proper, but these heretics wished to 
 be vouodiddcxato. The asceticism of the Gnostics was based on dualism; the 
 ascetic precepts of these heretics proceeded from the distinction—con- 
 tained also in the law of Moses—between clean and unclean; and although 
 
 1 Wiesinger has not observed that allegor- knowledge obtained in other ways makes 
 ical interpretation is not to be regarded as use of allegorical interpretation for its own 
 . the source nf any special knowledge, but that confirmation. 
 
42 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 they inconsistently spiritualized the contrast between spirit and matter, 
 there is nothing to show that they adopted dualism proper, though we 
 may take it for granted that they were so inclined. Gnosticism distin- 
 guishes between the Demiurge and the highest God—a distinction not 
 known to these heretics. Finally, while Gnosticism is substantially 
 Docetie in its view of the Redeemer’s person, it is nowhere said that these 
 heretics were Docetic; it rather appears on the whole as if the idea of 
 redemption had not with them the central importance which it had in 
 Gnosticism.—All these details prove that, although the heresy in question 
 was in many respects akin to Gnosticism, its nature was still distinct. 
 Peculiar to both is the mingling of revealed religion with Gentile specu- 
 {ation; but in the one case—in Gnosticism—Christianity itself was invaded 
 and penetrated by heathen philosophy ; while here, on the other hand, 
 Judaism first underwent that process. This Judaism, modified by specu- » 
 Jation and united with Christianity, assumed, indeed, new elements, and’ 
 suffered thereby many alterations. Still there was no substantial change 
 of form, the Christian element in this form of Jewish Christianity being 
 always overpowered by the Jewish. From it there arose such phenomena 
 as are presented in the Ebionite, the Clementine, the Elkesaitic, and other 
 heresies which are distinguished from systems strictly Gnostic, by pre- 
 serving as much as possible a monotheistic character. To this speculative 
 Jewish Christianity belongs also the heresy mentioned and combated in 
 the Pastoral Epistles. It does not follow, however, that it was one single 
 system definitely developed; the apostle rather keeps in view the general 
 tendency which embraced manifold distinctions, so that all the individual 
 features dwelt on by him were not necessarily characteristic of all these 
 heretics. The general judgment refers to all. All who have yielded to 
 this tendency stand opposed to the doctrine of the gospel as well as 
 to Christian morality ; but all did not give direct utterance to the principle 
 that the resurrection had already taken place, or that marriage was to be 
 avoided, and we are not bound to regard them all as impostors, or as men 
 who put on the appearance of piety only from motives of greed. One 
 point might be more prominent in one, another in another; they are all, 
 however, governed by one spirit, which could. only exercise a disturbing 
 influence on true Christianity.—This tendency is substantially the same 
 as that combated in the Epistle to the Colossians. The distinction is 
 simply this, that at the time of composing the Pastoral Epistles the same 
 heresy was found in a stage of higher development. The doctrine of 
 angels had already assumed the form of an emanation theory; the cen- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 43 
 
 trast between spirit and matter had been made wider, and the self-seeking 
 motives in its followers had become more distinct.! 
 
 SECTION 5.—AUTHENTICITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 Eusebius reckons the Pastoral Epistles among the homologumena, as 
 there existed not the smallest doubt of their genuineness in the catholic 
 church. They not only stand as Pauline Epistles in the Muratorian Canon 
 and the Peschito, but they are also repeatedly quoted as such by Irenaeus, 
 Tertullian, and Clemens Alex. Though they are not specially quoted by 
 earlier ecclesiastical writers, yet many expressions and sentences occur 
 showing that they were not less known than the other Pauline Epistles, 
 such expressions appearing as quotations, or at least as reminiscences.” 
 Clemens Rom. not only makes use of the expression eioéBera, so often 
 used in the Pastoral Epistles to denote Christian piety, but also in Ep. I. 
 ad Corinth. chap. 2, we have a phrase almost agreeing with Tit. iii. 1: 
 éTouuot ei¢ Tav Epyov ayaboy, and in chap. 29 there is an echo of the words in 
 1 Tim. ui. 8 which can hardly be denied: zpoceAAauev ait@ év doiotnTe Wuyye, 
 ayvac Kai auiavtove yeipac aipovtec tpd¢ avtév.—In the Epistles of Ignatius, the 
 passage in the Ep. ad Magnes. chap. 8: py mavacte raic érepodokiaic, unde 
 pvieiuact Toig TahaLoic avogeréoy ovo, reminds one of 1 Tim. i. 4 and Tit. iii. 
 9.—Still more striking is the agreement between some passages of the 
 Epistle of Polycarp and corresponding passages in the Pastoral Epistles. 
 Thus in particular chap. 4: apy7 ravtwv yarerov gidrapyupia’ eiddérec ody, dre 
 ovdév eionvéyKamev ei¢ Tov Kécpov GAN ovdé éeveyKeiv TL Eyouev, OTAtcapeba ToiC 
 ordoe THE dixaoabvye, with 1 Tim. vi. 7, 10,—an agreement which even de 
 Wette can only explain by supposing Polycarp to have been acquainted 
 with this epistle—In Justin Martyr the expressions @eocéBera and evoéBeca 
 frequently occur. In his Dialog. c. Tryph. chap. 47, we have: 4 xpyorérne 
 kai 7 otdavipwria tov Ocov, as In Tit. 11. 4.3 In the Ep. ad Diogn. chap. 4, 
 there isthe expression : avt@v OeoceBeiac uvoThpiov uy TpocdoKhone K.T.2., Which, 
 compared with 1 Tim. iii. 16, is not to be overlooked.—Hegesippus (Euseb. 
 H. E. iii. 32),in agreement with 1 Tim. vi. 20, calls the heresies yvaore 
 pevdaveupoc, provided that Eusebius is quoting him verbally, and not simply 
 
 1To the view expressed here, Zéckler (in 
 Vilmar’s Past.-theol. Bldtter, 1865, p. 67) has 
 given his adherence. 
 
 2Comp. especially Otto’s thorough inves- 
 tigation in the excursus, “ The External Tes- 
 timonies to the Authenticity of the Pastoral 
 Epistles,” appended to his work, Ueber die 
 
 geschichtl. Verhdltnisse der Pastoralbriefe. 
 
 3The appeal to Euseb. H. E£. iii. 26, who 
 quotes words from a work of Justin’s, is out 
 of place, since the expression: 70 méya THs 
 OeoceBeias pvotypiov, occurring there, does 
 not belong to the quoted passage. 
 
44 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 giving the substance of his thought; see p. 48.—Theophilus of Antioch 
 says, ad Autolyc. ii. 14, clearly alluding to 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2: ére pév cai repi 
 tov brotdocecba apyaic Kai éFovoiac, Kai evyectac irép avTav, KeAever buiv Oeiog 
 Adyoc, bTw¢ ypenov Kai yobyiov Biov diayouev.. In Athenagoras, also, there are 
 several allusions to passages in our epistles; thus, Leg. pro Christ. pp. 87, 
 39, etc.—It might indeed be thought strange, that when the older ecclesi- 
 astical writers are dealing with the same subjects as occur in the Pastoral 
 Epistles, or subjects akin to them, there is not some more definite allusion 
 to these epistles; but this is quite natural, when we take into account 
 their relative independence.—According to the testimonies quoted, it is a 
 point beyond dispute that the- Pastoral Epistles from an early time were 
 It is differ- 
 In Marcion’s Canon all three are 
 wanting, and Tatian acknowledged only the Epistle to Titus as genuine. 
 
 regarded in the catholic church as genuine Pauline Epistles. 
 ent, indeed, with the Gnostic heretics.” 
 
 We cannot infer, from the absence of the epistles in his Canon, that 
 Marcion did not know them. Jerome, in his introduction to the Com- 
 mentary on the Epistle to Titus,’ reproaches him as well as other heretics 
 It is well known what liberties 
 
 Marcion ventured to take with many N. T. writings recognized by him- 
 
 with rejecting the epistles willfully. 
 
 self as genuine; and it is quite in keeping with his usual method, that he 
 should without further ado omit from the Canon epistles containing so 
 decided a polemic against Gnostic tendencies. The striking fact, however, 
 that Tatian acknowledges the Epistle to Titus as genuine, may arise from 
 his being more easily reconciled to it than to the Epistles to Timothy, 
 because in it the heretics are more distinctly called Jewish heretics than 
 
 in the latter; comp. i. 10, 14, 111.9. But however that may be, the oppo- 
 
 1 We should also note Theoph. Ant. ad Aut. 
 i. 2: Omws 7 Kai TovUTO cis detyma, TOU mEAAELY 
 AapBavery Tovs avOpwrovs mEeTavoLav Kat adeoty 
 apuaptumv 6.’ vdatos Kat AovTpov TadALyyevedias 
 TaVTAS TOUS TMpOociovTas TH aANOEla Kal avayev- 
 vwwevous; comp. with Tit. ili. 5. 
 
 2Nevertheless, in the fragments of some 
 Gnosties, preserved to us by the Fathers, 
 there are some passages which point back to 
 the Pastoral Epistles. Thus in Herakleon 
 (Clem. Al. Strom. Book iv. p. 502) the phrase: 
 apvncac0ar éavtov ov Svvatar, is to be com- 
 pared with 2 Tim. ii. 18; and in the extracts 
 from Valentinian sources which are contained 
 in the work: ’Ex trav @eoddtov Kai THs avato- 
 
 Aukys Kadoumerns Sidackadtas Kata Tovs Ovad- 
 
 evTivov xpovous emtTomat, usually appended to 
 the writings of Clem, Al., we have the expres- 
 sion $s ampoottov, with which comp. 1 Tim. 
 vi. 16. 
 
 3Liecet non sint digni fide, qui fidem pri- 
 
 See on this, Otto, J. ¢.- 
 
 mam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem loquor et 
 Basilidem et omnes haereticos, qui V. laniant 
 Test., tamen eos aliqua ex parte ferremus, si 
 saltem in Novo continerent manus suas. . . 
 
 Ut enim de ceteris epistolis taceam, de quibus 
 quidquid contrarium suo dogmati viderant 
 eraserunt, nonnullas integras repudiandas 
 crediderunt, ad Timotheum videlicet utram- 
 . . Sed Tati- 
 anus, qui et ipse nonnullas Panli epistolas 
 
 que, ad Hebraeos et ad Titum. . 
 
 repudiayvit, hane vel maxime, h. e. ad Titum, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 45 
 
 sition of these heretics, when the genuineness of the epistles is recognized 
 by the Fathers, can furnish no reason for doubt, all the less that Tertullian 
 even expresses his wonder how Marcion could have left them out of his 
 Canon.—After Tatian, their genuineness remained uncontested till the 
 beginning of this century; only the more recent criticism has attempted 
 to make it doubtful. At first the assault was directed against the First 
 Epistle to Timothy. After J. E. C. Schmidt, in his Introduction, had 
 expressed some doubts, its authenticity was disputed in the most decided 
 manner by Schleiermacher in his letter to Gass, 1807. Schleiermacher 
 acknowledged the authenticity of the two other epistles, and tried to 
 explain the origin of the First by saying that the others had been used 
 and imitated. He was at once opposed by Planck, Wegscheider, Beck- 
 haus, who stoutly defended the epistle attacked by him; but the contro- 
 versy was by no means settled by them. Criticism went farther on the 
 way once opened, directing its weapons against the presupposition from 
 which Schleiermacher set out in his polemic. From the inner relation- 
 ship of all three epistles, it was impossible to deny that many grounds 
 which Schleiermacher urged against the authenticity of the one epistle 
 were not less strong against that of the others. Eichhorn therefore 
 attacked the authenticity of all three, and was followed by de Wette (in 
 his Hinleitung ins N. T. 1826), but with some uncertainty. For although 
 de Wette declared them to be historically inconceivable, and combined 
 Schleiermacher’s view, that the First Epistle to Timothy arose from a 
 compilation of the other two, with Eichhorn’s theory, that not one of the 
 three was Pauline, he still confessed that the critical doubts were not 
 sufficient to overturn the opinion cherished for centuries regarding these 
 epistles, which did indeed contain much Pauline matter, and that the 
 doubts therefore only affected their historical interpretation—De Wette’s 
 theory, so wavering in itself, was besides only of a negative character. 
 Eichhorn, on the other hand, had already tried to reach some positive 
 result, by expressing the opinion that the epistles were written by a pupil 
 of Paul in order to give a summary of his verbal instructions regarding 
 ‘the organization of churches. In this he was supported by Schott (Isagoge, 
 1830), who, in a very arbitrary fashion, ascribed the authorship to Luke.— 
 Again, there was no lack of defenders of the epistles assailed. Hug, 
 Bertholdt, Veilmoser, Guericke, Bohl, Curtius, Kling, and others! took 
 
 Apostoli pronuntiandam credidit; parvipen- 1Neander, also, in his Gesch. der Pflanzung 
 dens Marcionis et aliorum qui cum eo in hace ... der Kirche, 1832; confessing, however, 
 parte consentiunt, assertionem. that he had not the same confident conviction 
 
46 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 up the defence, partly in writings of a general character, partly in special 
 treatises. Heydenreich and Mack also made a point of refuting the 
 charges in their commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles —Eichhorn’s pos- 
 itive result had remained very uncertain, a mere suggestion without any 
 tenable grounds. So long as no firmer and better supported theory was 
 brought forward, the defence also had no sure basis. Baur was right 
 (Die sog. Pastoralbriefe des Ap. P. aufs neue kritisch untersucht, 1835) in say- 
 ing that “there was no sufficient basis for a critical judgment so long as it 
 was known only that the epistles could not be Pauline; that some positive 
 data must also be established by which they could be transferred from the 
 time of the apostle to some other.” The theory which Baur had formed 
 of the relations of Christian antiquity, together with the peculiar char- 
 acter of the Pastoral Epistles, led him to believe that they had been 
 written while Marcionite errors were current, and written by an author 
 who, without being able to get rid of Gnostic views himself, had in the 
 interests of the Pauline party put his polemic against Gnostic doctrines in 
 the mouth of the Apostle Paul. In this way Baur thought he had found 
 a firm positive foundation for criticism, and thereby brought it to a con- 
 clusion. But his opinion did not stand uncontested. Baumgarten, Bottger, 
 and Matthies, in particular, appeared against it, and it is only the later 
 Tubingen school that has given adherence to it. Even de Wette, in his 
 commentary, 1844 (though he was more decided than ever in disputing 
 the authenticity), declared himself against it, though in a somewhat 
 uncertain fashion. His words are: “Since the references to Marcion are 
 not at all certain, and the testimonies to the existence of the Pastoral 
 Epistles cannot be got over, we must apparently assume an earlier date 
 for their composition, say at the end of the first century.’”—Credner, in his 
 Hinleitung ins N. T. 1836, advanced a peculiar hypothesis, viz., that, of the 
 three epistles, only the one to Titus is genuinely Pauline, with the excep- 
 tion of the first four verses; that the Second Epistle to Timothy is made 
 up of two Pauline Epistles, the one written during the first, the other 
 during the second imprisonment at Rome, and is interwoven with some 
 pieces of the forger’s own; lastly, that the First Epistle to Timothy is a 
 pure invention. As a matter of course this ingenious hypothesis found no 
 adherents, and, later, Credner himself (das N. T. nach Zweck, Ursprung, 
 Inhalt fiir denkende Leser der Bibel, 1841-18438, chap. ii. pp. 98 f.) withdrew 
 it, and declared all three letters to be not genuine.—Soon after the appear- 
 
 of the genuineness of the First Epistle to Timothy as of the direct Pauline origin of all the 
 other Pauline Epistles. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 47 
 
 ance of this commentary, Wiesinger, in his commentary, 1850, declared 
 himself for the genuineness of all three epistles, and made a thorough- 
 going defence of them. Later, however, Schleiermacher’s hypothesis 
 found a supporter in Rudow (in the work already quoted, 1850)—Reuss, 
 in the second edition of his Gesch. der heil. Schriften, 1853, is not quite 
 certain of the genuineness of the Epistle to Titus and of the First Epistle 
 to Timothy, but is quite confident that the Second Epistle to Timothy is 
 genuine. On the other hand, Meyer, after declaring in the first edition 
 of his Convmentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1836, the genuineness of 
 the Second Epistle to Timothy to be beyond doubt, in the second edition 
 of the same commentary, 1854, acknowledges that the three epistles stand 
 or fall with each other; and that if they were written by Paul, it could 
 only have been after the first imprisonment in Rome, the one mentioned 
 by Luke. At the same time, he disputes the reality of a release and a 
 second imprisonment, and therefore cannot admit the genuineness of all 
 three epistles. His remarks amount to this, that the more precarious the 
 proof of the second imprisonment, the greater justification there is for 
 the doubts of the genuineness, doubts arising from the epistles them- 
 selves —About the same time, Guericke, in his Neuwtest. Isagogik, 1854, 
 re-stated his conviction of the genuineness of all three epistles. Mangold 
 (in his work, Die Irrlehrer der Pastoralbriefe, 1856) admits, on the contrary, 
 that neither the heresy mentioned in the epistles, nor the precepts con- 
 tained in them regarding church matters, militate against their origin in 
 the time of Paul. At the same time, he remarks that their authenticity 
 is dependent on the solution of a whole series of other questions, and that 
 the weight of these compels him to take the side of the exegetes who do 
 not acknowledge their Pauline origin—Bleek (Hinleitung ins N. T. 1866) 
 defends the genuineness of the Epistle to Titus and of the Second Epistle 
 to Timothy. Regarding the First Epistle to Timothy, he thinks that it 
 presents difficulties so considerable that we may suppose it to have been 
 written in Paul’s name by an author somewhat later, but within the 
 orthodox church. Hausrath (Der Apostel Paulus, 1872) considers the 
 epistles to be not genuine, but conjectures that the Second Epistle to 
 Timothy is based “on a short letter addressed to Timothy by the apostle 
 
 ? 
 
 from his imprisonment in Rome.’ Plitt thinks them Pauline in contents, 
 but supposes that “they have been worked up afterwards by the addition 
 of one or two utterances from oral tradition, which has given a somewhat 
 different color to them.” As the latest decided defenders of the genuine- 
 ness besides Otto (1860), we may name specially, L. Ruffet (1860), van 
 
 Oosterzee (1861, ’74), and Hofmann (1874). 
 
48 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.’ 
 
 The reasons which chiefly awaken doubt regarding the genuineness of 
 the epistles are the following three :—(1) the difficulty of conceiving his- 
 torically that Paul composed them; (2) allusions and discussions which 
 point to a later time than that of the apostles; and (3) their peculiarity 
 in development of thought and mode of expression, departing in many 
 respects from the epistles which are recognized to be genuine. 
 
 As to the first reason, the difficulty exists only when we presuppose that 
 the apostle was not released from the Roman imprisonment mentioned 
 in Acts, and that therefore the First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle 
 to Titus must have been composed before, the Second Epistle to Timothy 
 during that imprisonment, if they are to be considered genuine at all. 
 But this presupposition, as already shown, has no sufficient grounds, and 
 with it disappears one reason for disputing the authenticity of the epistles. 
 
 In regard to the second reason, there are especially three points to be 
 considered—(1) the heretics against whom all the three epistles contend ; 
 (2) the church-organization presupposed in the First Epistle to Timothy 
 and in the Epistle to Titus; and (8) the institution of widows, mentioned 
 in the First Epistle to Timothy. 
 
 1. In regard to the heretics, comp. 24. Only by taking a false view of 
 their nature can these be adduced as testifying against the authenticity of 
 the epistles. In what the author says of them, there is nothing which 
 compels us to assign them to the post-apostolic age. 
 
 2. The church-organization.—Those who dispute the genuineness of the 
 Pastoral Epistles, especially Baur and de Wette, reproach their author 
 with hierarchical tendencies, and maintain that the establishment and 
 improvement of the hierarchy, as intended by the hints given in these 
 epistles, could not have been to Paul’s advantage. While de Wette con- 
 tents himself with this general remark, Baur goes more into detail. In 
 the earlier work on the Pastoral Epistles, he remarks that in the genuine 
 Pauline Epistles there is no trace of distinct officers for. superintending 
 churches (comp. on the contrary, Rom. xii. 8: 6 xpoiorduevoc; 1 Cor. xii. 28: 
 KvBepvgoerc), Whereas, according to these epistles, the churches were already 
 so organized that éricxoror, tpeoBirepor, and didxove: have a significant promi- 
 nence. In this he assumes that the plural rpeoBirepo denotes collectively 
 the presidents who, each with the name of iioxoroc, superintended the 
 individual churches. In the later work on Paul, Baur asserts that the 
 Gnostics, as the first heretics proper, gave the first impulse to the estab- 
 lishment of the episcopal system. Granted that such was the case, that very 
 fact would be a reason for dating the composition of the epistles earlie 
 
INTRODUCTION, 49 
 
 than the time of Gnosticism, since there is no trace in them of a regular 
 episcopal system. Even if Baur’s view regarding the relation of the 
 expressions mpeoBitepoe and éxioxoroc Were correct, the meaning of érickoro¢ 
 here would be substantially different from that which it had later in the 
 true episcopal system.—In our epistles we still find the simplest form of 
 church-organization. The institution of the deacons had already arisen 
 in the beginning of the apostolic age, and although tradition does not 
 record at what time the presbytery began or how it was introduced, it 
 must, apart from all the evidence in Acts, have arisen very early, as we 
 But all the 
 
 instructions given in our epistles regarding the presbyters and deacons 
 
 cannot conceive a church without some superintendence. 
 
 have clearly no other purpose than to say that only such men should be 
 taken as are worthy of the confidence of the church, and are likely to 
 have a blessed influence-—Where in this is there anything hierarchical ? 
 Had the Pastoral 
 Hpistles arisen at a later time, whether at the end of the first or in the 
 
 How different the Epistles of Ignatius are on this point! 
 
 middle of the second century, the ecclesiastical offices would have been 
 spoken of in quite another way. Wiesinger is right in insisting on the 
 identity between bishop and presbyter which prevails in the epistles, on 
 the entire want of any special distinctions given to individuals, and also 
 on the absence of the diaconate in the Epistle to Titus. “On the whole,” 
 says Wiesinger, “there is clearly revealed the primitive character of the 
 apostolic church-organization ” (comp. also Zéckler, /.¢. p. 68). Wiesinger 
 is also right when he points to dpéyeo6at éxioxorge, to the vedduroc, and to the 
 diaxrixée as signs that the epistles were composed in the later period of 
 Paul’s labors. It may be thought strange, however, that while such indi- 
 cations are not contained in the epistles recognized to be genuine, they 
 are given here; but it must, on the other hand, be observed that it must 
 have been the apostle’s chief concern in the later period of his life, all the 
 more that he saw the church threatened by heretics, to instruct the men 
 who had to take his place in setting up and maintaining the arrangements 
 for the life of the church.! There is no ground whatever for asserting that 
 Paul had not the least interest in ecclesiastical institutions, and that this 
 
 want had its deep ground in the spirit and character of the Pauline 
 
 1The charge, that the system is insisted on 
 too strongly, is in any case exaggerated. In 
 the Second Epistle to Timothy nothing is 
 said of it at all, and in the two others it is dis- 
 cussed only in a few single passages, and in 
 such simple fashion that nothing more is said 
 
 4 
 
 than is absolutely necessary. In particular, 
 the divine origin of the episcopal office is 
 nowhere named, much less emphasized. 
 Even Clement of Rome insists on the signifi- 
 eance of the office quite differently from 
 
 what is done here. 
 
00 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES, 
 
 Christianity. Besides, all this is in most striking contrast with the infor- 
 mation given us in Acts regarding the nature of the apostle’s labors.! 
 
 3. The institution of widows.—Schleiermacher quoted what is said in 1 
 Tim. v. 9 ff. regarding the yfpa, as a proof of the later origin of this 
 epistle. At the same time, he did not, like many other expositors, under- 
 stand ver. 9 to refer to their being placed on the list of those whom the 
 church supported, but to their admission as deaconesses; and he thinks 
 that such a regulation, ordaining that deaconesses shall promise perpetual 
 widowhood, that they shall not marry a second time, and that their chil- 
 dren shall be grown up, is not conceivable in the apostolic age (Ueber den 
 1 Br. an Tim. pp. 215-218). While Schleiermacher thus takes ypa to be a 
 name for the deaconesses, Baur gives a different explanation of the word 
 as used in ver. 9. He thinks that this expression denoted, in the ecclesi- 
 astical language of the second century, those women who devoted them- 
 selves to an ascetic mode of life, and who in this capacity formed an 
 ecclesiastical grade very closely connected with the grade of ézicxoro, 
 mpeoBitepor, and didxovor, on which account the name of deaconesses was 
 given to them. It seems, says Baur further, that they were not real 
 widows, but bore that name. As a proof of this, Baur quotes in particu- 
 lar the passage of Ignatius, Hp. ad Smyrn. chap. 18, where he greets rove 
 oikoug TOV adeAd@V ody yvvalei Kai TéKvoLc, Kai TaC TapHévovc, Ta¢ AEyouévac yHpac. 
 But that passage only -proves that in the second century there were virgins 
 who, of course for ascetic reasons, remained in that condition, led a 
 retired life, and, as solitaries, were named yapa.2 It cannot, however, be 
 in the least inferred from this that the yjpa: named in the First Epistle of 
 Timothy were such rap6évo.; on the contrary, everything here said of the 
 xipac shows that actual widows ‘are meant. It is true that in verse 9 only 
 those widows are spoken of who can be called church-widows ; but Baur’s 
 assertion, that at the time of the composition of the epistle, according to 
 ver. 11, virgins also were received into the number, is an erroneous 
 opinion, which can only be supported by a wrong interpretation of the 
 
 verse. On the whole, however, it is very questionable whether we should 
 
 1 Only this much is correct, that Paul in his 
 apostolic labors could not begin with regula- 
 tions for the church, and could not expect 
 from 
 
 salvation church-organization. But 
 
 later, when there had developed a manifold - 
 
 life in the churches, he kept organization 
 more in mind—a fact which does not conflict 
 with his peculiar spirit. Luther’s conduct in 
 
 this respect forms an interesting parallel. 
 21Tt is incorrect to interpret, as do Béttger 
 and Wiesinger, map8évous of real widows, and 
 to take the addition tas Aeyouevas xypas as a 
 more precise explanation of the expression 
 
 map0evovs. In that case Ignatius could not 
 
 ' but have said; ras xypas, tas Aeyoméevas map 
 
 Oévous. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 51 
 
 think of deaconesses at all in the passage. This view was disputed 
 formerly by Mosheim and recently by de Wette. Mosheim supposes that 
 the y7pa, as ecclesiastical personages, are to be kept distinct from the 
 deaconesses, and that Tertullian, de vel. virg. chap. ix., speaks of those 
 who are also called xpeaBiridec, presbyterae, presbyterissae. (The other 
 proof-passages to which Mosheim appeals are : Palladii vita Chrysostomi, 
 p. 47; Hermae, Pastor, Vision II. p. 791, ed. Fabricii—Lucianus, de morte 
 Peregrini, Works, vol. iii. p. 385, ed. Reitzian. ; particularly also the eleventh 
 canon of the Council of Laodicea, which in the. translation of Dionysius 
 Exiguus runs thus: mulieres, quae apud Graecos presbyterae appellantur, 
 apud nos autem viduae seniores, univirae et matriculariae nominantur, 
 in ecclesia tanquam ordinatas constitui non debere.) The distinction, 
 according to Mosheim, lay in this, that the deaconesses acted as attendants, 
 observed what went on among the women, and did not venture to sit 
 down among the clergy; while the spiritual widows occupied an honorable 
 place in the congregation, had a kind of superintendence over other 
 women, and were employed in instructing and educating the orphans who 
 were maintained by the love of the churches. If Mosheim’s view is 
 correct (see on this the exposition of 1 Tim. v. 9 ff), we can see no reason 
 why such a grade of widows should not have arisen in the apostolic age. 
 Even de Wette thinks it probable that, from the very first, pious widows 
 had an ecclesiastical position, and his only objection is that in this place 
 it is presupposed to be a position defined by law and resting on a formal 
 election. But karateyéobw in ver. 9 by no means presupposes an election 
 in the proper sense. The demand that the widow should be évd¢ avdpoc 
 yuh has caused much difficulty; this difficulty, however, vanishes when 
 the expression is rightly explained (see the exposition). 
 
 Besides the points mentioned, many others are quoted in proof by the 
 opponents of the authenticity ; all these, however, fall to the ground when 
 the passages are explained. There is no doubt that the attacks often pro- 
 ceed from nothing but a groundless view of the relations of the apostolic 
 age, and not seldom rest on the wrong presupposition that usages and 
 views met with in authors of the second century were formed only in their 
 time, and were not rather propagated from the preceding age. We can 
 only discuss one more point here, and that is the assumed vedry¢ of 
 Timothy. It has been thought strange that in both Epistles to Timothy 
 he should be spoken of as still a young man; that, as de Wette says, the 
 author “places him on a low-footing, reminding him, as a beginner whose 
 faith is weak and doctrine hesitating, of his pious education, of the 
 
52 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 instruction received from Paul, of the use of the Holy Scriptures, ques- 
 tioning his ability to understand a parable, and exhorting him, as a 
 coward, to brave devotion to the cause of the gospel.” We need hardly 
 remark how much exaggeration there is in this description. But as to 
 Timothy’s youth, de Wette assumes that at the time of the apostle’s 
 Roman imprisonment he had already been about ten years in the 
 ministry of the gospel, and was then at least thirty-five years of age. This 
 reckoning, however, is very uncertain. The manner in which he is spoken 
 of in Acts xvi. 1 ff., on-his first acquaintance with the apostle, would 
 rather suggest that he was then a good deal younger than twenty-five. It 
 is to be observed that Paul, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, also 
 feels himself compelled to remark regarding Timothy : pj rie abrov eEovbe- 
 ‘vq6y, Which remark was certainly caused by his youth; see Meyer on the 
 passage.—Besides, we must take into consideration both the difference 
 between his age and that of the apostle, and also the relation of his age 
 to the position which the apostle had assigned to him shortly before the 
 composition of the epistle, and which gave him the superintendence over 
 the church with the oldest in it, etc. Further, we do not see what should 
 have moved a forger to represent Timothy as younger than he could have 
 been according to historical facts —It is not right to say that the pressing 
 exhortations imparted to him in the epistles place him on too low a foot- 
 ing, since Paul had had many sad experiences in the last period of his life, 
 and he is far from refusing to put any confidence in his pupil. 
 
 As to the third reason, we have already remarked that the Pastoral 
 Epistles have much that is peculiar in expression and in development of 
 thought. The only question is, whether the peculiarity is great enough to 
 be an argument against their apostolic origin. The number of drag 
 deyoueva Occurring in them is obviously not decisive, since every one of 
 Paul’s epistles contains less or more of such expressions peculiar to itself ; 
 thus the Epistle to the Galatians has over fifty ; the Epistles to the Ephe- 
 sians and the Colossians have together over 140.—The use of some of these 
 expressions in later authors (e. g. avOpwroc tov Ocov in Ignatius, Ep. ad Rom. 
 chap. 6; didackariac dapoviey in Tertullian, De praeser. haer. chap.7) is 
 clearly no proof that they belong only to post-apostolic times. It would 
 be otherwise if such expressions could be shown to have arisen from some 
 
 1Bleek takes objection to uydeis cov tHs - commissions.” It is, however, to be observed, 
 veoTnT0s Katappoveitw, because “though Tim- that Paul in the epistle is giving him a 
 othy was not yet at the time exactly old, he position in the church such as he had never 
 had been Paul’s trusted helper for many before occupied. 
 years, and had received the most weighty 
 
INTRODUCTION. 53 
 
 view or custom which was formed only in a later age; but that is not the 
 case. The statements that the expression pac yuvarxdc avip presupposes an 
 unapostolic view of marriage, that the plural BacAei¢ points to a period 
 when, in consequence of the custom of adoption, introduced since 
 Hadrian, there were co-emperors besides the emperor proper, and other 
 similar statements, made by Baur, ere arbitrary and without proof. On 
 the other hand, the peculiar circumstances of these epistles made peculiar 
 expressions necessary. Apart from the reference to the circumstances of 
 the church here discussed, and to the position of the receivers of the 
 epistles as assisting the apostle in his ministry, there is especially the 
 heretical tendency, which could not but exercise a distinct influence on 
 the expression. This would happen not merely in passages directly 
 polemical, but also in the sections containing more general exhortations 
 connected by the author in any way with the heretical-errors. Wiesinger 
 is right in remarking: “Considering all the circumstances, that the 
 epistles are aimed at new phenomena, that they are addressed to fellow- 
 teachers, that they are kindred in contents, and were composed at the 
 same time, the peculiar vocabulary is conceivable, and, in comparison 
 with Paul’s other epistles, presents no special difficulty.” —The epistles are 
 peculiar, not only in individual expressions, but also in the entire manner 
 of their thought and composition, and from this some have tried to prove 
 that they are not genuine. But even this phenomenon is sufficiently 
 explained by the peculiar circumstances, in so far as they are in some sort 
 business letters, for the express purpose of conveying to their receivers 
 short and simple directions on certain points. In this way the lack of the 
 dialectic, which elsewhere is so characteristic of Paul, is not surprising. 
 Nothing is proved against their authenticity, when de Wette notes the 
 peculiarity that “there is -an inclination to turn away from the proper 
 subject of the epistle to general truths, and then commonly a return is 
 made, or a conclusion and resting-point found, in some exhortation or 
 direction to the readers.” Such rapid transitions to general sentences are 
 found often enough in Paul; comp. Rom. xiii. 10, xiv. 9, 17; 1 Cor. iv. 20, 
 vii. 10, ete. Apart from the form of presenting the subject, the mental 
 attitude indicated in the epistles is said to testify against the Pauline 
 authorship. De Wette directs attention to the following points as un- 
 Pauline :—the prevailing moral view of life, the frequent injunction and 
 commendation of good works, of the domestic virtues among others, the 
 advocacy of moral desert which almost (?) contradicts the Pauline doctrine 
 of grace, the defence of the law in which a moral use of it is granted. 
 
54 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 But, on the one hand, emphasis is laid most strongly on the ethical char- 
 acter of Christianity in all Paul’s epistles; and, on the other, there is 
 nothing in these epistles to advocate moral desert to the prejudice of 
 divine grace. De Wette acknowledges the universalism in 1 Tim. ii. 4, iv. 
 10, Tit. ii. 11, to be Pauline, but he thinks that it has a different polemical 
 bearing from that usual with Paul. The natural reason for this is, that 
 Paul has not to do with Judaizing opposition here, as in his other 
 Epistles——De Wette’s chief complaint is, that the injunctions given to 
 Titus and Timothy are too general and brief. But why could the apostle 
 not have contented himself with giving the chief points of view from 
 which they were to deal with the various cases? Besides, if they are 
 really so brief, how comes it that the church has always found in them a 
 rich treasure of pointed and pregnant instruction? Nor has the church 
 erred in this respect, as may be seen from Stirm’s excellent treatise among 
 others: “Die pastoraltheologischen Winke der Pastoralbriefe,” in the 
 Jahrb. fur deutsche Theologie, 1872, No. 1. 
 
 It would certainly awaken justifiable scruples, if it could be proved that 
 other Pauline epistles had been used in composing these three. The pas- 
 sages on which this charge is founded are as follow:—From the First 
 Epistle to Timothy, i. 12-14 compared with 1 Cor. xv. 9, 10; ii. 11, 12, with 
 1 Cor. xiy. 34, 35. From the Second Epistle to Timothy, i. 3-5 compared 
 with Rom. i. 8 ff.; ii. 5 with 1 Cor. ix. 24; ii. 6 with 1 Cor. ix. 7 ff; ii. 8 
 with Rom. i. 3; ii. 11 with Rom. vi. 8; ii. 20 with Rom. ix. 21; iii. 2 ff. 
 with Rom. i. 29 ff.; iv. 6 with Phil. ii. 17. From the Epistle to Titus, i. 
 1-4 compared with Rom. i.1 ff. Certainly the partial agreement is too 
 great to be considered purely accidental. But it is as natural to suppose 
 that the same author, when led to deal with the same thoughts, em- 
 ployed a similar form of expression, as that a forger made use of some 
 passages in the genuine epistles of Paul in order to give his work a 
 Pauline coloring. 
 
 As a whole, therefore, the diction and thought peculiar to the Pastoral 
 Epistles cannot be regarded as testifying against their genuineness. But 
 as each of the epistles may bear special traces of non-Pauline origin, 
 we must further consider the criticisms made against them singly. 
 
 The First Epistle to Timothy —According to Schleiermacher, it arose out 
 of a compilation of the two other epistles. As proof of this, Schleier- 
 macher mentions several facts, viz., that many expressions standing in a 
 right connection in them, are here used unsuitably; that resemblances 
 and agreements are found which amount to an appearance of plagiarism ; 
 
INTRODUCTION. 55 
 
 and that this appearance is made an undeniable truth by misunderstand- 
 ings and by difficulties, only to be explained by the hypothesis of their 
 being imported from the one epistle into the other. The expressions to 
 which Schleiermacher thus directs attention are as follow :—i. 1: owr%p 
 and xo-’ éxcraygv (Tit. 1.3); ver. 2: yryoiw téxvw év riorec (Tit. i. 4); ver. 4: 
 uior (Tit. i. 14); mpoot yew, yevearoyiac (Tit. iii. 9); Cyrhoee (idem); ver. 6: 
 aoroxgoavtes (2 Tim. ii. 18); ver. 7: diaBeBaoioda: (Tit. iii. 8); ver. 10: 
 bytaivovoa didacxadia; ver. 16: irorimworc; ii. 7 compared with 2 Tim. i. 11; 
 iil. 2: vyparcov (Tit. ii. 2); ver. 3: duayov (Tit. iii. 2); ver. 4: ceuvdrye (Tit. 
 li. 7); ver. 9: év xabapa cvvedqoee (2 Tim. i. 8); ver. 11: py deaBddoue (Tit. 
 ii. 3); iv. 6: wapyKoAobOyxac (2 Tim. iii. 10); ver. 7: BeBAAove (2 Tim. ii. 16) ; 
 ver. 9: muotog o Adyoc (2 Tim. ii. 11; Tit. iii. 8). But when considered 
 impartially, these expressions are by no means unsuitably used in the 
 First Epistle to Timothy ; it cannot therefore be proved that they are bor- 
 rowed, and Porrowed unskilfully. The agreement of the Pastoral Epis- 
 tles in the} mode of expression is sufficiently explained by the fact that 
 they were wrii‘en with no long interval between them. Comp. with this 
 the general agreement between the Epistles to the Colossians and to the 
 Ephesians.—Besides this, however, Schleiermacher charges the epistle not 
 only with want of internal connection, launching out often from one sub- 
 ject to another, but also with containing many thoughts foreign to Paul 
 (i. 8, ii. 14, 15, ii. 5, ete.). But on the former point it is to be noted that 
 the epistle is not a work on doctrine, but a business letter, in which sub- 
 jects of various kinds are treated according to circumstances; and on the 
 latter point, that the thoughts mentioned are not at all in contradiction with 
 Paul’s views.—De Wette, too, has no grounds for asserting that the execu- 
 tion does not correspond with the aims proposed in the epistle. The pas- 
 sage in i. 8, for example, does not justify any one in expecting an elaborate 
 polemic against the heretics; it is sufficient for the purpose to give some 
 of their characteristics. As a rule, Paul enters on a thorough polemic 
 only against those opponents who disputed his gospel from presupposi- 
 tions recognized by himself; this, however, was not the case with these 
 heretics.—The charges, that the directions for managing the church are 
 too general and insignificant, and that the exhortations given to Timothy 
 (i. 18 f., iv. 7 ff., 12 ff, v. 23, vi. 11 ff.) are not suitable to his character and 
 position, are not to the point; and the same may be said of the assertion, 
 that a business letter addressed to Timothy ought to discuss the apostle’s 
 special relations with the church at Ephesus, which was so dear to him. 
 As to other points, de Wette holds that Schleiermacher goes too far in his 
 
56. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 unfavorable judgment, and does not agree with the theory of a compila- 
 tion. Still he, too, places this epistle after the other two, and considers it 
 the last written, though he assigns all three to the same author. All this 
 makes it inconceivable how the forger did not express in one epistle what 
 he wished to write in the apostle’s name.—Mangold agrees with de Wette 
 in regarding the First Epistle to Timothy as the last written. The chief 
 ground for this view is the advanced stage of heresy shown in the epistle. 
 When the Epistle to Titus was written, the heretics, according to this 
 theory, still stood outside the church as purely Jewish Essenes, and had 
 had some trifling success only in Crete. When the Second Epistle to 
 Timothy was composed, they had found a more favorable soil in Ephesus; 
 by fusing their dogmas with Christian ideas they had won over notable 
 members of the church, so that there was a danger of this heresy eating 
 into it like a cancer. The author was not deceived in this respect, but saw 
 “the introduction of Essene dogmas into Christianity completed,” and 
 the heretical transformation of the fundamental ideas of Christianity into 
 Essenism carried out to its ultimate consequences; hence he wrote 
 another Third Epistle. In the earlier epistle, however, “he had chosen 
 the situation in Paul’s imprisonment just before his death,’ and thus 
 “he had now to select some earlier period in the apostle’s life for writing 
 anew.” The hypothesis is clever enough, but on the one hand there is no 
 ground for presupposing’that the heresy is more advanced in the First 
 Epistle than in the Second, and on the other hand the forger would have 
 acted most foolishly in placing the later stage of the heresy in an earlier 
 period. Altogether, apart from the necessary explanation which these hypo- 
 theses give of some points, they leave many other points quite untouched. 
 Mangold, in agreement with de Wette, gives one more proof for this 
 theory of later composition—viz. that the Hymenaeus, mentioned in the 
 Second Epistle as a member of the church, had already been excommuni- 
 cated in the First. But, granting the identity of the persons, why could 
 Paul not bring forward later as a heretic a man who had been excommu- 
 nicated for his heresy? Besides, in the manner in which the man is men- 
 tioned in 2 Tim. ii. 17, there is no indication that Timothy had known 
 anything of him before. Bleek (Hinleitung in das N. T.) has anew sought 
 to prove the correctness of Schleiermacher’s view, that the First Epistle to 
 Timothy is the only one not genuine. The chiefground on which he relies 
 is the entire want of allusion to personal relations in the church; but this 
 want is sufficieatly explained by the motive of the, epistle. Bleek thinks 
 it strange that in the instructions regarding the bishopric no mention is 
 
INTRODUCTION. 57 
 
 made of any particular person in Ephesus fitted for the office; but we 
 must remember that those instructions were given to Timothy not for the 
 Ephesian Church alone. Stress is laid on the absence of any greetings 
 from Paul to the church or to individual members of it, and from the 
 Macedonian Christians to Timothy; but greetings were not at all neces- 
 sary, and there are other epistles in which they are altogether wanting or 
 very subordinate. All the other reasons advanced by Bleek, he himself 
 declares to be secondary. When impartially considered, they are seen to 
 have no weight—especially for one who, like Bleek, acknowledges that 
 the epistle contains nothing un-Pauline. 
 
 The Epistle to Titus—The criticisms made on this epistle by de Wette 
 are, that it neither agrees with the state of things mentioned in it, nor 
 corresponds with its purpose and the relation of the writer to the reader. 
 As to the first point, it rests chiefly on the erroneous theory, that the 
 epistle was written soon after the gospel was first preached in Crete. If 
 Christianity had already spread to Crete and in the island before the apos- 
 tle arrived there, there would be nothing strange in mentioning the multi- 
 tude of heretics, nor in the blame given to the Cretans in spite of their 
 readiness to receive Christianity, nor in the instructions which presuppose 
 that Christianity had been some time in existence there. With regard to 
 the second and third charge, we must note, on the one hand, that de Wette 
 arbitrarily defines the purpose of the epistle to be, “to give to Titus instruc- 
 tions about the choice of presbyters, and about contending with heretics,” 
 which certainly makes the greatest part of the epistle appear to bea 
 digression from its purpose; and, on the other hand, that the weight and 
 importance of the general instructions and exhortations for the develop- 
 ment of the Christian life have received too little recognition—Reuss 
 (Gesch. d. heiligen Schriften des N. T., 2d ed. 1853) shows greater caution 
 than de Wette in his opinion: “The somewhat solemn tone may excite 
 surprise, not less so that Paul apparently found it necessary in a special 
 letter to say things to Titus which were self-evident. This surprise may, 
 however, give way before the consideration that Paul did not consider it 
 necessary to deliver to his substitute a kind of official instruction and author- 
 ization as his certificate in the churches. More simply and surely it may 
 give way, when it is remembered that the apostle wrote for special reasons 
 and that an important matter could never appear to him to be too strongly 
 enjoined.”—As to other points, even de Wette acknowledges that the epistle, 
 “though not written with the Pauline power, liveliness, and fullness of 
 
 thought, has still the apostle’s clearness, good connection, and vocabulary.” 
 
58 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. * 
 
 The Second Epistle to Timothy.—In this epistle, apart from the historical] 
 inconceivability which it seems to him to share with the other two, de 
 Wette takes exception to the following points, viz.: that, as already 
 remarked, Timothy is not treated in a proper fashion, and that many 
 exhortations (especially ii. 2, 14-16, ii. 14-iy. 2), as well as the prophetic 
 outbursts (iii. 1-5, iv. 8) and the polemic attacks (ii. 16-21, 28, iii. 6-9, 18), 
 do not accord with the purpose of inviting him to come to Rome.—But as 
 to the first accusation, the apostle’s exhortations do not by any means pre- 
 suppose such a feebleness of faith and faintness of heart in Timothy, as de 
 Wette in too harsh a fashion represents; besides, a forger would hardly 
 have sketched a picture of ‘Timothy in contradiction with the reality. 
 The second accusation is based solely on de Wette’s inability to distinguish 
 between the occasion and purpose of an epistle. De Wette further finds 
 fault with the epistle, that here and there it is written with no good gram- 
 matical and logical connection, and without proper tact (for which he 
 appeals to iii. 11, iv. 8!); but these are subjective judgments which decide 
 nothing.—Schleiermacher declared the process of thought both in this 
 epistle and in that to Titus to be faultless; and Reuss pronounces the 
 following judgment on them: “ Among all the Pauline Epistles assailed 
 by criticism, no one (except the one to Philemon) bears so clearly the 
 stamp of genuineness as this epistle, unless it be considered without any 
 perception of the state of things presented in it. The personal references 
 are almost more numerous than anywhere else, always natural, for the 
 most part new, in part extremely insignificant; the tone is at once pater- 
 nal, loving, and confidential, as to a colleague; the doctrine brief and 
 hastily repeated, not as to one ignorant and weak, but as from one dying 
 who writes for his own peace.—The reference to the apostolic office is the 
 chief point from beginning to end, and there is no trace of hierarchical 
 ambition or any other later tendencies.” Bleek is decided in maintaining 
 the authenticity both of the Epistle to Titus and of this epistle. 
 
 The following are the results of an investigation which takes the actual 
 circumstances into careful consideration :—1. The external testimonies 
 are decidedly in favor of the authenticity of the epistles. 2. The difficulty 
 of bringing them into any period of the apostle’s life disappears when we 
 assume a second imprisonment at Rome. 8. The internal peculiarity of 
 the epistles, both in regard to the matter discussed in them and in regard 
 to the process of thought and mode of expression, presents much that is 
 strange, but nothing to testify against the authenticity. 4. “There is no 
 
 sufficient resting-place for the critical judgment of rejection, so long as we 
 
INTRODUCTION. 59 
 
 only know that the epistles cannot be Pauline; everything depends on 
 
 b 
 
 proving positively that they arose at a later date.’ Such is Baur’s opinion. 
 But this positive proof entirely breaks down. Baur’s attempt has no eyvi- 
 dence to support it; de Wette makes an uncertain conjecture; and Man- 
 gold, who sees Essenism in the heresy, himself admits that this is no 
 reason for assigning the epistles to the post-apostolic age. If there are 
 difficulties in vindicating the Pauline authorship, it is still more difficult 
 to prove in whole or in part how a forger could manufacture three such 
 epistles as these are, in form and contents, and foist them on the Apostle 
 Paul.—Since, therefore, there is no sufficient proof of the post-apostolic 
 origin of the epistles, we may further (as Wiesinger also has completely 
 shown) maintain their right to a place in the Canon as Pauline writings, 
 all the more that the Pauline spirit is not contradicted in them, and that, 
 in comparison with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, they show a 
 decided superiority in their whole tenor.) 
 
 1Guericke: “The Pastoral Epistles are against the enemies of the kingdom of God; 
 certainly not written in so fresh and livelya but he is at the same time filled with a sad- 
 manner, nor do they enter as thoroughly into ness all the more deep, as he beholds the 
 details, as do Paul’s earlier epistles. They kingdom of Antichrist develop now and 
 show us the great apostle as a grey-haired threaten the future. Thus the fragile (?) 
 man, bent with age, with persecution, with covering reveals all the more nobly the spirit 
 anxiety (?). His hate is especially sharpened __ of faith and love which dwelt within him,” 
 
60 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 THatbhov pos Tipédeov extotody xportn. 
 
 A, al. have the shorter inscription pd¢ Tiuéfeov a, which in D E F G is pre- 
 ceded by the word apyeras. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Ver. 1. éritay#v] & reads instead érayyeAiav, a reading not found elsewhere, 
 and not confirmed by its meaning; it may have arisen inadvertently from 2 Tim. 
 i. 1—Ocov owrHpo¢ 7juov.|] In the later Mss. there is great variety in the reading, 
 partly by arranging the words differently, partly by adding the article to one or 
 other of them, partly by inserting the word rartpé¢ ; Tov owripo¢g 7juav Oeov, 73, 
 80, 116, 213, al., Arm.—rov owrijpog Os0v juav, 37.—Oe0v TaTpo¢ Kai CwTipog juaV, 
 38, 48, 72, al., codd.—xai kvpiov ‘Ijoov Xpiorov] kai is omitted by various cursives, 
 or placed before owrypo¢; the latter in the Mss. just named, as well as in Ambros., 
 who has Oeo0v kai cwrHpo¢ juov; the former in Ar. pol., which has Qe0v owrijpo¢ 
 juav, Kvpiov. In many cursives kai is omitted along with xvpiov following it ; 
 Ocov owrjpog jyuov, in 17, 31, al. ; Tov cwrjpog zor, 43, and in those above men- 
 tioned, 38, 48, 72, and in Ambros.—Cod. 118 has Tov owrijpo¢ juav I. X. kat kvpiov’I. 
 X.—«vpiov is wanting in the most important authorities, A D* F G, many cursives 
 and translations (Syr. both, Copt. Sahid. Aeth., etc.) ; hence it is omitted by 
 Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch., while Matthaei has retained it with the 
 remark: ita omnes omnino mei.—Instead of "Ijoot Xpiorov, the most important 
 Mss., etc., have the reading Xporov ‘Ijoov, which is therefore adopted by Griesb. 
 x has the same reading as the Rec.: kai xvpiov ’Ijo. Xp.—Ver. 2 yuov after 
 matpoc is wanting in A B D* F G 17; 23, al., Copt. (not Sahid.) Arm. Slav., ete., 
 and is therefore tobe deleted ; the interpolation is easily explained from a com- 
 parison with the other Pauline Epistles—Ver. 4. For yeveasoyiaic, Kevodoyiasg 
 occurs as a conjecture.—Instead of Cyt#oerc, x, A and some cursives have éx¢yriaecc, 
 which is adopted by Tisch. 8. This reading may be the original one, which as a 
 ara& Aeyou. in the N. T. was changed into the usual Cyr7oev¢ ; the meaning is the 
 same.—Oixodouiav (Rec.) is found perhaps in no Greek ms. According to Tisch., 
 D*** has it; but this is denied by Reiche (Commet. crit. in N. T. I. p. 356). It 
 is, according to Reiche: “nil nisi error typothetarum Erasmi, aut conjectura 
 
 Srasmi ipsius;” the latter he considers more probable. By far the most have 
 oikovouiav ; only D* and Iren. gr. ap. Epiph. have oixodoufv (aedificationem : Lyr. 
 Erp. Syr. p. in m. Vulg. Ambr. Aug. Ambrosiast.). The reading oixovoyiav is 
 supported by authorities so important, that we cannot doubt its correctness. 
 Matthaei says: oixovouiav ita ornnes omnino mei, ac ii quidem, qui scholia habent, 
 etiam in scholiis, uti quoque interpretes editi, olxodouiav nihil nisi error est typo- 
 thetarum Erasmi, 6 cum v confuso, nisi Erasmus deliberato ita correxerit ad 
 Latinum aedificationem.— Ver. 8. Instead of ypyrat, Lachm. reads ypyonra, after A 
 73, Clem. The common reading is nore natural, and is to be considered right, as the 
 
CHAP. I. 1, 2. 61 
 
 other has not sufficient testimony.—Ver.9. Instead of the regular forms ratpaAdaie 
 and pytpaaoac, A D F G 48, 72,93, al. have tarpodg’ace and pytpoAgac, which 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted ; several cursives have tatpadoiai¢ and pytpa- 
 Aviaic.—Ver. 11. In D* and several versions there stands before kata the art. 77; 
 a manifest interpolation in order to connect kata «.7.A. with the foregoing 
 diWackaria—Ver. 12. kai yapw éyo] The most important authorities, A FG . 
 17, 31, 67** 71, al., Copt. Aeth. Arm. Vulg., etc., also x, are against Kai, which 
 seems to have been added in order to join this verse more closely with the previous 
 one. In Matthaei «a/ stands without dispute. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 left it out; 
 Tisch. 7, with Wiesinger, had retained it, following D K_ L, several versions, and 
 Fathers.—évduvayocarti pe] x has the pres. évdvvayovrts, and omits ve; a reading 
 supported by no other authority.—Ver. 13. tov mpdorepov dvra] A D* F G x 17, 
 67*** 71, 80, al., Dial. c. Mare. have 76 instead of tov. The latter is a correction 
 in order to join the partic. and the following subst. more closely with the previous 
 ue. Lachm, and Tisch. adopted 7¢. Matthaei, on the other hand, reads rv, 
 with the remark: 7d 7p. in nullo meorum inyeni, nisi in uno Chrysostomi @ qui 
 fortasse voluit, Tov 7d mpétepov. Muralto likewise reads 76v.—After dvra, A 73 
 have we, which is also adopted by Lachm. It disturbs, however, the natural 
 connection, and the authorities for it are not sufficient ; hence it is not adopted by 
 Tisch—Ver. 15. ~ omits tév before xéovov.—Ver. 16. Lachm. and Tisch. 7, 
 following A D, ete. read Xp. Iyo.; Tisch. 8, following x K L P, reads ‘Io. 
 Xp.—Instead of tasav according to D K L, Tisch. rightly adopted azacav from 
 A F G, etc.—Ver. 17. Instead of ag#apt», D* has the reading afavarw, and F G 
 have this word inserted after 6v@.—The word 004@ is rightly rejected by Griesb. 
 Knapp, Lachm. Tisch. Buttm. and others, since A D* F G x 387, 179, 73, the 
 Syr. Copt. Arm. and other versions testify against it. It was probably an inter- 
 polation from Rom. xvi. 27; Matthaei retained it, remarking: Vulgatum habet 
 et repetit Chrys. xi. 569, 570; item i. 464, c. v. 398, e. Ath. ii. 425, 453. Attamen 
 o0¢@ abest ap. Cyrill. v., a. 295, haud dubie casu ac per errorem. Ex omnibus 
 omnino Codd. omittunt soli A D F G 37. Reiche (Comment. crit. in N. T. II. 
 pp. 860-863) maintains that oo¢@ cannot be an interpolation from Rom. xvi. 27, 
 because the doxology there is not genuine. See, on the other hand, Meyer in his 
 critical remarks on the passage; he holds o0¢@ to be genuine, on internal grounds, 
 viz.: (1) Because Paul had no reason for emphasizing the unity of God against 
 the heretics; and (2) because the reading “6vm o09@ Oe@ is the more difficult 
 one. But these internal grounds are insufficient against the weight of the author- 
 ities—Ver. 18. Instead of orpatety, ~ has otparevoy. 
 
 Vv. 1,2. [On Vv.1, 2, see Note I., pages 86, 87.] As in most of his 
 other epistles, Paul here calls himself an apostle of Jesus Christ in the 
 narrower sense of the term, according to which it was applied only to 
 those immediately called by Christ to the ministry of the gospel. He 
 directs attention to the immediate nature of the call by adding the words 
 Kar’ éritayny Ocod owthpoc huav «.t.A. In 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Eph., Col., 2 Tim., dua 
 HeAfuatoc Ocov is used for a like purpose. The expression kar’ éxcrayiy K.7.A. 18 
 found elsewhere in the inscription only in Tit. i. 3, where, however, it is not 
 placed in such close connection with azécroz0¢ as here (comp. besides 
 Rom. xvi. 26, also 1 Cor. vii. 6; 2 Cor. viii. 8). The 6éAjua is the source 
 
62 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 of the ém:tay7, by which we are to understand the commission given to 
 the apostle. By this addition the apostle expresses his “assured con- 
 sciousness of the divine origin and worth of his apostleship ” (Matthies). 
 It is not, however, an “involuntary” expression. The apostle deliberately 
 insists on his apostolic authority, for the very sufficient reason that he 
 was laying down in his epistle rules for church life. Heydenreich’s sug- 
 gestion, that Paul meant at the same time to confirm Timothy’s position, 
 is very far-fetched —6e0v owripoc judév] This collocation of the words is 
 only found elsewhere in the N. T. in Jude 25; in all passages of the Pas- 
 toral Epistles it usually runs: 6 owryp judv Oedc. In this passage owryp 
 juav is added as in adjectival apposition to Geov; while in Luke i. 47 it is 
 marked as a substantive by the article. In the Pastoral Epistles corjp is 
 used both of God (so frequently in O. T.; comp. LXX. Ps. xxiv. 5; Isa. xii. 
 2, xlv. 15, 31; Wisd. Sol. xvi. 7; Ecclus. li. 1) and of Christ; in the other 
 Pauline Epistles (e.g. Eph. v. 23; Phil. iii. 20), as well as in John iv. 42, 
 Acts v. 31, etc., it serves to denote Christ. Heydenreich is right in 
 remarking that God does not bear this name as preserver and benefactor 
 of men in general, but on account of the means He has instituted for 
 saving and blessing us through Christ.—xai Xpioroi 'Iycov] These words are 
 added on account of the apostle’s Christology ; so also in Gal. i. 1—rie¢ 
 éAridoc juav] Christ is so named because He is both “the ground of our 
 hope ” (Wiesinger) and the object of it. He is hoped for, because by Him 
 the cwrypia is brought to completion (Calvin: in eo solo residet tota salutis 
 nostrae materia); comp. the expression in Col. i. 27: 9 éAmic ripe dokqo.— 
 Tipobéiw yvyoiw téxvy év miote.] Paul calls Timothy his child; he was not so 
 Kata oapxa but év riore, since he was converted to the faith by Paul, as we 
 learn from 1 Cor. iv. 14-17. Paul usually calls himself the father of those 
 who had been led to the faith by him (comp. Gal. iv. 19). The idea of 
 réxvov is strengthened by yvgowc, perhaps by way of contrast with the 
 heretics. The opposite of yvrjowc¢ is véb0¢ or obk bvTw¢ Sv (comp. Plato, 
 Rep. 293). This addition also gives prominence to the fact that Timothy 
 was his son in the faith, not in appearance but in truth; hence Paul calls 
 him also in 1 Cor. iv. 17 his réxvov ayarntov Kai miotév év Kupio.év rioter] 
 “in the sphere of faith,” is not to be connected with yrycim but with réxve, 
 as defined more closely by yvyoiw; comp. Tit. i. 4, and see Winer, p. 130 
 [E. T. p. 187].—ydprc, toc, etpfvy7] This collocation occurs only in the 
 Pastoral Epistles and in 2 John 3; in the other Pauline Epistles it runs : 
 xapic buiv Kai eiphvyn. In Gal. vi. 16, however, eipyvn and éAeog are connected 
 with one another. In Jude 2 we have: éieo¢ tyiv nai eiphyn Kai ayérn. The 
 three expressions manifestly do not indicate three different gifts of grace, 
 but only one. The distinction is, that yap points more to the soil from 
 which the gift comes, and eipfvy denotes its nature, while the éeo¢ 
 (standing between the two others in the Pastoral Epistles) lays stress on 
 the element of compassionate love in yapic.t Otto arbitrarily finds in 
 
 1 Wiesinger is right in not agreeing with to the apostle’s position as a prisoner. Van 
 ’ Olshausen, who wishes to see in the expres- Oosterze® aptly remarks: “Grace may be 
 sions owrty7p, €Amis, EAeos, a Special reference called the greatest benefaction for the guilty, 
 
CHAP, 1,3, 4, 63 
 
 éAeoc “a reference to the official position,” appealing to such passages as 
 1 Tim. i. 18, 16; 1 Cor. vii. 25; 2 Cor.iv.1. Paul does also acknowledge 
 that his call to the ministry of the word came from God’s éAeo¢ ; but. it 
 does not follow from this that the word é4eo¢ is used only in reference to 
 the official position; comp. Gal. vi. 16; 2 Tim. i. 16, 18—ard @e00 rarpac 
 xal «.7.4.] Even with the reading judy the genitive Xpicrod ’"Incod cannot 
 be made to depend on Oeov. Next to the Father, Paul names Christ as 
 the source from which the blessing comes, because all the Father’s gifts 
 of blessing come through the Son. 
 
 Vv. 3, 4. [On Vv. 3, 4, see Note II., pages 87-89.] The apostle reminds 
 Timothy, in the first place, of a previous exhortation, obviously for the 
 purpose of impressing it more deeply on him.—The most natural con- 
 struction of the sentence appears to be, to take it as an anacolouthon, to 
 connect éy ’Edéom with mpoopeivar, to refer ropevéueroc to the subject of 
 mapexddeca, and to make ia dependent on rapexdideod ce x.7.A. This con- 
 struction is held by most expositors to be the only admissible one. The 
 missing apodosis cannot, however, be supplied before iva, because iva is 
 closely connected with what precedes; we may insert with Erasmus “ ita 
 facito,” or with Beza “ vide,” or with most expositors “otto Kai viv rapa- 
 cad” (Winer, p. 530 [E. T. p. 570]). The peculiarity in such an involun- 
 tary (Buttm. p. 831 [E. T. 386]) anacolouthon is, that the grammatical 
 connection is not established by, inserting the omitted apodosis. The 
 most simple course is to suppose that the apostle had “otro kai viv rapa- 
 ” in mind, but the place for it was lost in the abund- 
 ance of the thoughts that streamed in on him.—Several expositors depart 
 from the construction commonly accepted. Matthies takes xpocueiva as 
 “stay,” not as “remain behind,” refers zopevduevoc not to the subject of 
 rapexddeca, but to ce (making an unjustifiable appeal to Eph. iii. 17, 18, iv. 
 i. 2; Col. iii. 161), and explains the whole thus: When Timothy was 
 intending to travel to Macedonia, Paul had charged him to stop at Ephesus 
 and remain there. Schneckenburger (see his Beitriige 2. Einl. pp. 182 ff.) 
 arbitrarily changes the infin. zpooveiva into the partic. rpocpeivac, and 
 refers ropevduevoc to the following clause: iva rapayyeidnc. Otto treats 
 Topevduevoc in the same way, at the same time connecting év ’E¢écow with 
 mapexadeca, taking rpoopeivac in an absolute sense, making the apodosis 
 begin with wa, and translating: “Just as I exhorted you to stand firm in 
 Ephesus, so shalt thou on the journey to Macedonia command the people 
 not to give attention to strange teachers, nor to hold them in esteem,” ete. 
 
 Kado” or “ ovTw Toilet 
 
 compassion for the suffering, peace for the 
 contending (?) disciple of the Lord.” Hof- 
 mann is right in his remark on 1 Tim. i. 1, 
 that xdpis with ard does not denote God’s 
 thoughts, but “that in which His thoughts 
 are shown, the grace which man receives.” 
 In his explanation of 1 Tim. i. 2: “ ydprs is that 
 
 1In the passages quoted, Paul adds the 
 participles to the previous clauses in the 
 nom., and these participial clauses thus 
 acquire the independence due to them 
 according to the context. But in these pas- 
 sages the relation of the participial clause to 
 the preceding main clause is quite different 
 
 which is imparted to man by God, who wishes 
 -him well,” the idea of xdépuc is made far too 
 general. 
 
 from what it is here, where there is no reason 
 whatever for departing from the regular con- 
 struction, 
 
64 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 This construction is, however, so artificial, that it is obviously incorrect to 
 every one who is not blinded by the desire of placing the date of the com- 
 position of the epistle in a period of the apostle’s life known to us. 
 
 REMARK.—In order to justify his view of the sentence, Otto tries to prove the 
 incorrectness of the usual construction, and to get rid of the objections to his own. 
 The hypothesis of an ellipsis he rejects on account of the rule that the emphatic 
 word can never be omitted, and that if we supply the apodosis by “ ovtw kai viv 
 rapaka/@,”’ the emphatic words are kai viv. But these words are not by any 
 means the most emphatic. The apostle might be using them not specially of the 
 contrast between past and present, but only to give point to his former exhorta- 
 tion; hence he might easily omit the apodosis. Otto further maintains, that in 
 the usual construction Kkaoc, which always denotes a material, actual correspond- 
 ence, even to identity of motives, and further, of material contents, does not get 
 its full force. On this point we indeed grant that the peculiar meaning of kafoc¢ 
 (as distinguished from oc) is not distinctly marked by the expositors; but it is 
 not at all necessary in the usual interpretation to weaken arbitrarily the force of 
 kaOoc, since the apostle’s former exhortation could not but be his guide in the 
 present one. Still less difficulty, however, is presented by xafac, if we choose to 
 supply ott roiec (as Hofmann does), since the meaning then is, that Timothy’s 
 conduct is to be conformed to the exhortation already given by the apostle-—Otto 
 tries further to show that in the usual explanation the participle topevoyevog is 
 not in its proper place. The rules which Otto lays down on the subject of partici- 
 pial clauses in order to support his assertion are, on the whole, not incorrect. The 
 passages he quotes from the N. T. certainly show that the participle following a 
 finite verb mostly defines it more precisely ; that it either explains more precisely 
 the verbal notion, or gives ‘the accompanying circumstances of the verb. But 
 Otto has overlooked the departures from this rule which occur in the N. T.; 
 comp. Luke iv, 40 with Mark i. 31; Matt. xii. 49 with Acts xxvi. 1; Matt. xxii. 
 15. with Matt. xii. 14; further, Luke xxiv. 17.' It cannot be denied that the par- 
 ticiple following sometimes gives simply the time in which the action of the finite 
 verb, takes place; that here, therefore, the Topevouevoc may simply denote the 
 time of the former exhortation.’ Otto quotes the passage in Acts xii. 25 as sup- 
 porting the rule that the participle following should serve to explain the verbal 
 notion, and justifies this by saying that the participle tAypacavtec tiv diakoviav 
 gives the motive of the return. But to give the motive is no explanation. In this 
 passage, however, the position of the participle after the finite verb is justified in 
 this way, that it gives the motive for the action expressed by the finite verb. So, 
 too, in the passage here there is nothing to be said against the connection of 
 Topevouevog with tapexaAcoa, so soon as we suppose that the journey was the occasion 
 
 10tto tries to weaken the force of this 
 passage against him by assuming a rhet- 
 orical inversion, because, he says, it is de- 
 elared “that taking a walk and holding 
 solemn dispute are inconsistent with one 
 another” (!). 
 
 2In his groundless denial of this, Otto 
 thinks that if topevouevos be joined to wapexa- 
 Aeoa it must be assumed to be a circumstance 
 
 accompanying the mapexadeoa, but that this 
 assumption is impossible, since a continuing 
 fact (part. pres.) cannot be regarded as the 
 accompanying circumstance of a concluded 
 fact (part. aor.). But Otto overlooks the fact 
 that wopevouevos in this connection is not to 
 be understood in the sense of continuing a 
 journey, but in the sense of beginning one, 
 of setting out. 
 
CHAP. I. 3, 4. 65 
 
 for Paul giving Timothy the exhortation in question. Lastly, Otto attacks the 
 usual construction from the notion of tpoopetvar, because this word is explained 
 in the construction to be equivalent to “remain, stay ;” whereas, when not con- 
 nected with a dative (or with a participial clause representing a dative), but 
 standing absolutely, it has the meaning: “to maintain the position hitherto 
 possessed, to stand firm.” Hence, if any definition of place is added, it is not as a 
 completion of the verbal notion, but only indicates where the standing firm takes 
 place. Otto infers from this: “accordingly év ’Edéow here does not complete 
 xvosueival, but rather tpooueivac is absolute, and év ’Edéow gives the place at 
 which the whole sentence, viz. tapexdAeod oe mpoopetvat, took place.” This infer- 
 ence. is obviously incorrect, since from Otto’s premises it only follows that, if év 
 ’Hoéow belongs to tpooweivat, the place is thus given where Timothy is to stand 
 fast,—in particular against the heretics,—it does not follow that év ’Edéow may be 
 connected with xpooyeivar. Besides, from Acts xviii. 18, it is clear beyond dispute 
 that xpocuévew does occur in the N. T. in the weakened sense of “remain 
 stay.”! Otto does not disguise the objections to his view, but he thinks that when 
 thoroughly weighed they are more apparent than real. In this, too, he is wrong. 
 It is indeed right to say that in the N. T. a sentence often begins with wa without 
 any verb preceding on which it depends,—and this not only in cases where the 
 governing verbal notion is easily supplied from what precedes, as in John i. 8, ix. 
 3, xiii. 18, 2 Cor. viii. 7, but also when that is not the case, so that the clause 
 beginning with iva stands as an imperative clause, as in Eph. v. 33; Mark v. 23 
 (comp. Buttm. pp. 207 f.). But in all passages where Wa is used elliptically, 
 this is shown clearly and distinctly by the form of the sentence, which is 
 not the case here. It is right also to say that emphatic parts of the clause con- 
 strued with iva are often placed before iva, so that ropevduevoc, therefore, might 
 very well be connected with the clause following wa; but this, too, is always 
 indicated clearly by the form of the sentence. Wherever words standing before 
 wa are to be referred to what follows iva, these words cannot possibly be con- 
 ‘nected with what precedes them, and the part of the sentence following Wa is 
 incomplete in itself, so that it has to be taken along with the part before twa. It 
 is wrong to maintain that the participial clause topevduevoc eic Maxed. becomes 
 emphatic by contrast with év ’E¢éow, inasmuch as what tgok place in Ephesus is 
 now to take place also on the journey to Macedonia ; for—the two things are not at 
 all the same. In Ephesus (according to Otto’s view), Paul exhorted Timothy to 
 stand firm; but on the journey to Macedonia, Timothy is to encounter those who 
 had been led astray. Lastly, it is right to assume that the sender of a letter, if he 
 has anything to say of the place from which the letter is sent, may speak of it by 
 
 1Jn this passage, also, Otto claims for zpoc- more, and with abandoning his post.— 
 
 pévevy, aS a VOX Militaris, the meaning: “keep 
 one’s ground,” remarking, “for the cireum- 
 stances in Corinth were such that they might 
 well have induced Paul to cease his labors 
 and depart.” But this assertion is in contra- 
 diction with Luke’s statement, that the 
 attack attempted by the Jews through Gallio 
 was decisively warded off. Otto’s explana- 
 tion, too, becomes all the more unsuitable, 
 since, according to it, Luke would charge 
 ‘the apostle with not holding his ground 
 
 5 
 
 Further, Otto seems to hesitate whether to 
 take mpoopmetvac in the present passage as 
 really absolute, or whether to supply with it 
 the dative éuoc. After finally deciding for 
 the former, he then explains mpoopetvac as 
 “keeping ground along with the leader 
 appointed by God in the struggle against all 
 the attacks of the heretic,’ and thus in self- 
 contradiction returns to the latter, since this 
 leader is the Apostle Paul. 
 
66 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 name, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 32, xvi. 8, so that év "E¢éow might convey to us that Paul 
 was himself in Ephesus while writing ; but we must take into consideration the 
 special circumstances of the case. According to Otto, our epistle isa paper of 
 instructions which the apostle put into Timothy’s hands in Ephesus, where he 
 wrote it before setting out for Macedonia. In that case it was improper to men- 
 tion the place by name. We cannot understand, then, why Paul in such a 
 paper of instructions should have laid special stress on the exhortation he had 
 imparted to Timothy in the very place where he put that paper into his hands. 
 
 Some expositors take the whole section vv. 5-17 to be a parenthesis, 
 and ver. 18 to be the apodosis corresponding to ka#éc. The awkwardness 
 of this construction is obvious; but Plitt thinks that, though it is not with- 
 out its difficulties, most May be said for it. He is wrong, however, since 
 TavTnv THY Tapayyediav, In ver. 18, does not resume the rapexdAecd ce —If we 
 avoid all subtleties, we cannot but explain it: ven as I exhorted thee to 
 remain in Ephesus when I set out for Macedonia, that thou mightst command 
 certain men not to teach false doctrine . . . even so do (or: even so I exhort 
 thee also now).' Regarding the meaning of kafé¢ and rpoopeiva, see the 
 above remark.—zapexdAeoa] Chrys.: axove td mpoonvéc, mac ov didacKa2ov 
 Kéypntat poh, AAW oikétov ayeddv' ov yap elev érétaka, ovdé éxéAevoa, ovd? Trapy- 
 veoa, GAAa ti; mapexadeod oe. Towards Titus, however, Paul uses the expres- 
 sion dveraFauny (Tit. i. 5), although he was not less friendly towards him 
 than towards Timothy.—ropevéuevoc ei¢ Maxedoviav] “when I went away, 
 from Ephesus to Macedonia; ” zopevéo6a: has in itself the general meaning 
 of going, but it is also used of going away from a place, both absolutely 
 (Matt. xi. 7) and connected with azé (Matt. xxiv. 1, xxv. 41, xix. 15: 
 éxeifev; Luke xiii. 31: évreifev). Otto explains it: “on the way to Mace- 
 donia,” which is grammatically correct, but opposed to the connection of 
 ideas. There is no ground whatever for thinking that Paul, in this ex- 
 pression, had in mind one particular place on the way to Macedonia, viz. 
 Corinth. We can see no reason why Paul should have expressed himself 
 indefinitely. Otto, indeed, is of opinion that Timothy could not have 
 been uncertain about the meaning of the expression; and that the apostle 
 chose it in order to spare the feelings of the Corinthians, and that he 
 might not confess to the heretics how they had provoked his apostolic 
 opposition to an exceptional degree. But the first reason proves too 
 much, since Paul, if he refrained from the definite expression because 
 Timothy knew his wishes without it, would also have refrained from the 
 indefinite expression. The other two reasons are weak, because if Tim- - 
 othy was to labor successfully against the heretics, he must necessarily 
 appeal to the authority of the apostle in whose name he was to labor. 
 Besides, such playing at hide-and-seek as Otto imputes to the apostle, is 
 in entire contradiction with Paul’s frank character.—iva rapayyeiAne k.7.A.] 
 gives the purpose for which Timothy was to remain in Ephesus. The 
 
 1 Hofmann is wrong in asserting that Paul, " writer was the subject, but only an exhortation 
 when he wrote xa@ws (not as), could not have as to what Timothy was to do.” 
 had in mind.“ any expression of which the 
 
CHAP. I. 3, 4. 67 
 
 theory that this gives at the same time the purpose of the whole epistle 
 (Matthies), which opinion de Wette brings forward as proving the epistle 
 not to be genuine, is wrong.—rapayyeianc] does not necessarily involve the 
 suggestion of publicity which Matthies finds in it.—rioi] The same indefi- 
 nite term is used for the heretics also in vv. 6, 19, iv. 1, v. 15, etc.: “cer- 
 tain people whom the apostle is unwilling to designate further; Timothy 
 already knows them” (Wiesinger).—y7 érepodidacxadeiv] [I b.] The word, 
 which is not made up of érepog and didaokdiew (= diddoxevv), but is derived 
 from érepodiddoxadoc, occurs in the N. T. only here and in vi. 3 (comp. 
 érepotvyeiv in 2 Cor. vi. 14). In érepoc there is not seldom the notion of 
 different in kind, strange, something not agreeing with something else, but 
 opposed to it. Accordingly, in the apostle’s use of the word, a érepodiddo- 
 xadoc is a teacher who teaches other things than he should teach, who puts 
 forward doctrines in opposition to the gospel; and érepodidackadeiv here 
 means nothing else than to teach something opposed to the gospel (Heb. 
 Xlli. 9: didayaic rorkiAare Kai Eévare uy Tapagépecbe); Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 4; Gal. 
 1. 6: evayyéduov érepov. Wiesinger, in order to favor his theory that heresy 
 proper is not spoken of, weakens the meaning into “teach otherwise,” so 
 that according to him it signifies “teaching things which lie apart from 
 7 kat’ evoéBecav didackadia.” This is incorrect, for in that case some more 
 precise definition would have been given——Even in classic Greek, érepoc, 
 in composition, often has the meaning alleged by us; thus érepodoteiv = 
 diversae opinionis esse; comp. Plato, Theaet. p. 190 E: dégav eivar wevd7 
 70 érepodoéeiv. According to Otto, érepodidackadeiv means: “to have another 
 teacher, to follow another teacher.” Otto wrongly appeals for this to 
 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iti. 32, where érepodiddoxatoc does not mean false 
 teachers, but “such members of the church as had abandoned the teach- 
 ing of the apostles and become attached to strange teachers;” and also 
 to Ignat. ad Polycarp. chap. 3, where érepodidacxadovvrec has the same mean- 
 ing.’ Otto also makes appeal to the Greek usage, according to which, in 
 composite nouns, the concluding word, if it be a noun, does not contain 
 the subject of the fundamental thought in such composite words, but the 
 nearer or more distant object. But this rule is only valid with adjectival 
 forms. In composite substantives, on the contrary, the concluding word 
 (if it be an unaltered substantive) may also denote the subject, which is 
 only defined more precisely by the word that precedes.2—There is no 
 
 1The first passage runs: tyvtxadra (viz. after 
 the apostle’s death) ris a@éov mAavns apxnv 
 €AduBavey » avaTacts Sa THS TaY éTepodidac- 
 KaAwy amarys, oi Kat... yuury Aormov 7Sy 
 Kehady TO THs GAnOecas Kypvymate THY Wevdu- 
 vuLOVv yv@o.v avTiknptTTe émexeipovy. The 
 relative clause shows most clearly that the 
 word érepodidackador means nothing else than 
 false teachers.—The second passage is: ot 
 Soxodvtes agiomuotor elvar Kai érepodiSacKad- 
 ovvTes pn ge KatamAngoéTwoav; in which, 
 also, false teachers, heretics, are meant, as is 
 evident from the injunction: uy ce x.7.A., as 
 
 well as from the exhortation that follows. 
 2The adj. erepdrovs certainly does not 
 denote “a halting foot,” but “one who has a 
 halting foot.” On the contrary, caxdSoudos is 
 not “one who has a bad slave,” but “a bad 
 slave.” Comp. also ptxpoBactreds, Wevdduar- 
 ts, and others; in the N. T., especially the 
 expressions: Wevdodidackados (Wevdompodyzns, 
 Wevdsuaptup, WevdaroaTodos), 2 Pet. ii. 1, and 
 kadodtdacKados, Tit. ii. 3. It is to be noted, 
 also, that in Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Rhet. 42, 
 kaxodtdaoKxadecy does not mean “to have a bad 
 teacher,” but “ to teach what is bad.” 
 
68 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 ground whatever for Schleiermacher’s opinion, that the verb suggests the 
 idea of a hierarchy.—To 7 érepodidackareiv there is added a second point: 
 pndé mpoocéyew K.7.2., Which Timothy is to forbid to twec.t Except in the 
 Pastoral Epistles, zpooéye does not occur in Paul. Here, as in Tit. i. 14, 
 it includes the notion of agreement; so also in Acts villi. 6.—yidore kai 
 yeveadoyiac| The «ai is to be taken epexegetically ; we can neither join the 
 two expressions as an hendiadys (fabulosae genealogiae, Heumann), nor 
 regard them as denoting different things. The notion of pio has been 
 limited too narrowly by many expositors,—as by Theodoret, who under- 
 stands by it the traditional supplements to the law; or by others, who take 
 it as dénoting the allegorical system of interpretation, or the Jewish 
 stories of miracles (such as occur in the pseudo-epigrapha or the Apoc- 
 rypha), or even the Gentile mythologies. Leo is wrong in agreeing with 
 Theodoret’s exposition, appealing to Ignatius (Hp. ad Magnes. chap. 8), 
 and alluding to ver. 7. From that verse it is certainly clear that heretics 
 had peculiar views regarding the law, which were in contradiction with 
 the gospel; but it is a mere assertion to say that wifo here refers to these 
 views, all the more that the word stands closely connected with yeveaAoyiac. 
 De Wette limits the meaning of the word in another fashion, inferring 
 from 2 Pet. 1. 16: cecogicpévor pifor, that the pifoc here meant, formed the 
 definite element in an artificial system; the notion of something artificial 
 is obviously imported. Other expositors take the expression quite gen- 
 erally in the sense of “false doctrine,’ as Suidas explains the word: 
 pvbocg Adyoc Wevdye, eixovilwv tHv aAgGevav; this is too indefinite. Paul rather 
 employs it because it was used to denote false ideas regarding the nature 
 of the Godhead. The word that follows defines the nature of these pif 
 more precisely—On the yeveadoyia: azépavtor, see Introd. sect. 4. Wies- 
 inger’s view, that they denote the genealogies in the O. T., as well as that 
 of Hofmann, that they are the historical facts in the Thora, are both to be 
 rejected. Credner’s view, that the genealogies of Christ are meant, is 
 quite arbitrary. So, too, with Chrysostom’s explanation : ojuac cai “EAAqvac 
 avtov évraida alvitrecta, brav Aéyn pibore Kai yeveadoyiatc, de. Tod¢ Geode aitav 
 kataheydvrov. It is very far-fetched to refer to the Kabbalistic Sephiroth. 
 The application of the expression to the Essenic doctrine of angels 
 (Michaelis), is contradicted by the fact that theories of emanations cannot 
 be proved to have existed among the Essenes. The view upheld by most 
 expositors, that the apostle was thinking of the series of emanations in 
 the speculation of the heretics, must be considered the right one. It is 
 confirmed by the addition of the adjective azépavra. The genealogies are 
 “unlimited,” since there was no necessity for them to stop at any point 
 whatever. The conclusion was altogether arbitrary : hence, in the various 
 systems, the genealogies of the aeons differ from one another in all sorts 
 of ways.—airivec| is not simply an attributive relative; it gives at the same 
 time the reason of the foregoing exhortation jp? xpocéyew “as those 
 
 1 Without grounds in usage or in fact, Hof- ~ therefore the érepod. was to be applied names 
 
 mann asserts that “mpogéyew tui is not an and the mpocexeuv x«.7.A. to others.” 
 expression applicable to a teacher, and that 
 
CHAP. I. 3, 4. 69 
 
 which.” !—2Zyrioee mapéxovot adAAov 7) oixovouiav Oeov] [II c.] Both notions: 
 Cyrhoere and oiKkovox. Gcov, may be taken either subjectively or objectively. If 
 tyrnoece be taken objectively it is “points of controversy, questions of dis- 
 pute;” if subjectively it is “investigations, controversies, disputations ”’ 
 “each one trying to maintain his arbitrary fictions,” Matthies). If 
 oikovouia Oeov is taken objectively, it is “the salvation of God” (“the salva- 
 tion grounded historically in Christ and publicly preached by means of 
 His apostles,” Matthies; or according to others, “the ministry of the 
 gospel ;” or, lastly, “the divine gift of grace,” i.e. the divine influence on 
 individuals by which they are brought to the faith). If it is taken subjec- 
 tively, it is ‘the work of man as an oixovduoc Ocov;”? de Wette: “the work 
 of a steward of God in the faith (to be awakened or to be furthered).” 
 This latter may be taken, in a general sense, as meaning, “the Christian 
 activity, the Christian exercise of the divine gifts of grace,”? or, more 
 narrowly: “the maintaining, the strengthening in Christianity, the nourish- 
 ment in the faith by the spiritual food of Christianity, which the teachers 
 as stewards of God distribute,” Zachariae. The meaning of rapéyovor is 
 also modified according to the interpretation of these two notions. If they 
 are interpreted objectively, rapéyew is “reach forth, present;” if subjec- 
 tively, it is “cause, bring about” (so Gal. vi. 17; also frequently in classic 
 Greek and in the Apocrypha of the O. T.)* Zjryoe is not identical with 
 CArnua; oikovowia 1s indeed used in the sense of “ office of steward,” but 
 oixovoyia Ocov denotes “the preparation, the arrangement made by God” 
 (comp. Eph. i. 10, iii. 9), and never “the divine salvation.” Hence the 
 subjective interpretation (Hofmann) is to be preferred to the objective (as 
 formerly in this commentary; also Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee). In any 
 case, Matthies is wrong in taking ¢yrfoe¢ subjectively and oixovouia Oeot 
 objectively, and then assuming that wapéyerv is used in a zeugma. Otto’s 
 explanation is purely arbitrary.. He explains (yrjcee by “speculations,” 
 and oikovouiav Oeov tiv év rioter by “a system of divine order in the universe 
 (se. creation and government), resting on faith, grounded in faith,—the 
 cosmogony and physics of the Jewish gnosis.” Of the latter phrase, he 
 says that Paul “adopts the hypocritical name which the vouodiddoxaho 
 claimed for their system, so that the ¢yrfoewc form the real, the oixov. 4 év 
 niores, on the contrary, the pretended contents of the pifo: and yeveadoyiat.” 
 By the addition of ry év riote:, the labor of the oixévoyoc Oecd is defined 
 more precisely as one in the sphere of faith (not “causing faith,” Hof- 
 mann).—u4a2A0v 7] as in several passages of the N. T., John in. 19, Acts 
 xxvii. 11, 2 Tim. ili. 4, stands here in the sense of denying the thought 
 contained in the following member, so that (with Suidas) it is equivalent 
 to xai ov.*—With the reading oixodouia (or oixodou7) Ocov, We Must interpret, 
 
 1Comp. Soph. Oed. R. 1184; Pape, Handwért- 3Comp. Wahl, Clav. libr. V. T. apocryph., 
 erbuch der griech Spr. See the word ootcs. under the word. 
 2 Thus Reiche: istacommenta. . . non ex- 4Hofmann wrongly applies this form of 
 
 hibent, praebent, efficiunt dispensationem expression in order to dispute the reference 
 (distributionem) bonorum quae Deus Christo of yeveadoyiac to the series of aeons, say- 
 misso in nos contulit. ing: “How could it occur to the apostle to 
 
70 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 “the edifying in the faith as decreed by God” ees inaccurately: “the 
 improvement towards God in the faith ”). 
 
 Ver. 5. bee vy. 5-11, see Note III., pages 89, 90.] To dé réAo¢ tHe mapayye- 
 diac éoriv x.7.A.] It oe be denied that in wapayyeAiac we have an echo of 
 sa ae in ver. 3; but it does not follow that we are to understand by it 
 the command =a the apostle gave to Timothy not to teach falsely (so 
 Bengel: praecepti quod Ephesi urgere debes). It rather stands here in 
 contrast with the érepodidacxadia Just mentioned, and denotes the command 
 which is serviceable to the oixovuia Oeod (ver. 4). It is equivalent to the 
 évroay in vi. 14, the evangelic law which forms the external rule for the 
 conduct of Christians (Hofmann). The apostle alludes to this because he 
 is about to pass to the doctrine of the heretics regarding the law.—It is 
 wrong to understand by rapayyedia the Mosaic law (Calvin, Beza, and 
 others), from which there would arise a thought foreign to the context; 
 and it is unsatisfactory to take it in a general sense as “ practical exhorta- 
 tion” (de Wette, Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee), for in that case the impera- 
 tive should have been used instead of éorw. It is a peculiarity of the N. 
 T. usage to take expressions which of themselves have a more general 
 signification, and to mark them off with the definite article as ideas spe- 
 cifically Christian ; thus 7d sbayyéAvov, 7 bdo¢ (often in Acts), 7d kfpvyua, and 
 others.—réAoc] is neither “ fulfillment” nor “chief sum” (Luther, Eras- 
 mus: quod universam legis mosaicae vim compendio complectitur ac 
 praestat est caritas), but “goal, scopus ad quem tendit rapayyedia”’ (Koppe, 
 Wegscheider, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others!)—While the érepodidaoxaria 
 only causes Cyr#oevc, Which serve to engender divisions (yevvior udyac, 2 
 Tim. ii. 28), the aim of the command of the gospel is love —aydarn ék kabapag 
 xapdiac x.t.A.] [III b.] The gospel proclaims to the believer one divine act, 
 the reconciliation through Christ grounded in God’s love, and it demands 
 also one human act, viz. love, for tAfpopa véuov 4 ayarn (Rom. xiii. 10). 
 Leo and Matthies wrongly explain aydéz7 here of love to God and to one’s 
 neighbor. Here and elsewhere in the N. T., where no other genitive of 
 the object is added; we-should understand by it love to one’s neighbor. 
 The words following declare of What nature this love should be.—é« 
 kafapac kapdiac] kapdia denotes the inward centre of human life, especially 
 as the seat of emotions and desires. Hence in regard to love it is often 
 remarked that it must come from the xapdia (comp. Matt. xii. 37), and 
 from a heart that is pure, ¢-e. free from all self-seeking; 1 Pet. i. 22: é 
 xabapacg Kapdiag adAndove ayarhoate éxrevc; comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 5: 4 aydrn 
 ... ov Cyrei ta éavtjc—The two additions that follow: kat ovvedfoews 
 ayabijc Kai miotewe avuroxpitov (as is clear from.1 Tim. i. 19, iii. 9, iv. 2), are 
 added with special reference to the heretics, who are reproached with 
 haying both an evil conscience and a pretended faith.—ovveidnore ayabh 
 (ver. 19; 1 Pet. iii. 16; xa%%, Heb. xiii. 18; xafapd, 1 Tim. iii. 9; 2 Tim.i. 
 
 treat the question only as a possible one, | possibility is not indicated by maAdov 7. 
 whether these follies of their own invention 1Arriani dissertt. Hpict. Book I. chap. 20: 
 could not in some measure be useful to TéAOS €oTl TO EredOar Oeics. 
 
 what he calls oixovouiay @cov? Such a 
 
CHAP iy 6:70. 71 
 
 3) is not “ the conscience pure from the guilt of sin” (de Wette), nor “ the 
 conscience reconciled with God” (van Oosterzee, Plitt), nor “the con- 
 sciousness of peace with God” (Hofmann). Although “a conscience not 
 reconciled with God and one’s neighbors cannot love purely,” there is no 
 hint here of the element of reconciliation. It is simply the consciousness 
 of cherishing no impure, wicked purposes.'—riotc] is not confidence 
 towards one’s neighbor, as it might be here when placed in connection with 
 the idea of love; but, in accordance with the contents ofthe epistle, is 
 “ faith,” which in Gal. v. 6 also is denoted as the ground of love.—davuré- 
 kptto¢ (also in Rom. xii. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 6; 1 Pet. i. 22, connected with the 
 idea of love) denotes truth and uprightness in opposition to all flattery. 
 It is used here not without allusion to the heretics who conducted them- 
 selves as believers in order to gain a more easy admission for their 
 heresies. 
 
 Vy. 6, 7. At ver. 6 the apostle passes to the heretics.—év] refers to the 
 ideas immediately preceding: é« xafapac xapdiac x.7.A., not—as Wiesinger 
 rightly remarks—to ayar7 direct, “since ei¢ pataoAoyiav manifestly denotes 
 a false goal in contrast with the true goal, which is dyar7.”*—aoroyjoartec] 
 This verb occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles, in this passage and also in 
 1 Tim. vi. 21 and 2 Tim. ii. 18 (where it is joined with zepi and the accusa- 
 tive). Here it stands in its original sense: a scopo sive meta aberrare,® 
 which corresponds to the ré4o¢ mentioned in ver. 5, and gives us to under- 
 stand that the heretics had at first been on the way which leads to the 
 goal, but had not remained in it. In this way Schleiermacher’s criticism 
 (p. 90), that the word here is far from clear, loses its force.—é&etparnjoav] é& 
 has its full force (Josephus, Antig. xiii. 18: éxrpérecOae tH¢ dd0v dikaiac) in 
 this verb, which, except in Heb. xii. 18, only occurs in the Epistles to 
 Timothy. The goal to which they have come after turning from the 
 Téhog THe Tapayyediag 18 patawdAoyia. This word (only found here; Tit. i. 10: 
 patatoAdyo.) characterizes the heresy as empty in nature, contributing 
 nothing to the furtherance of the Christian life. It consists on the one 
 hand of pibow Kai yeveadoyiac, on the other of such definitions regarding 
 the law as were opposed to evangelic doctrine. This latter reference is 
 proved by the close connection of the verse with what follows.—#éAovrec ] 
 The participle does not express contrast: “although ;” it gives rather a 
 more precise definition of the previous verb éferpazycav. Some expositors 
 (de Wette: wish to be, without being so in reality; Bengel has temere ; so also 
 Plitt) rightly urge that 6éAew expresses an allegation of their own; Hofmann, 
 
 10tto on 2 Tim. i. 3 (pp. 302 f.) explains the 
 expression ka@apa ovveidyors rightly (follow- 
 
 2 Hofmann is wrong in disputing the reason 
 given by Wiesinger, and maintaining that 
 
 ing Matthies) as “the self-consciousness of 
 pure thoughts and endeavors;” but, on the 
 other hand, he is wrong in regard to 1 Tim. 
 i. 19, where he interprets aya@y ovveid. as 
 “the conscience innocent and expectant of 
 all salvation,” “the consciousness of divine 
 grace supporting itself by daily putting to 
 death the old nature.” 
 
 mapayyeAca and not téAos THs mapayyeAtas i8 
 opposed to patavodoyia. There is no ground 
 also for his assertion that acroxety has here 
 the general sense of “to leave uncared for.” 
 The éfetpamynoayv clearly shows that aoroxety 
 is to be taken in its own proper sense. 
 3Comp. Plut. de Defect. Oracul. chap. 10. 
 
72 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 on the other hand, wrongly takes it in the sense of “arbitrary assump- 
 tion.” —voyodddoxator] Luther’s translation is, ‘“‘ masters of the Scripture” 
 (and similar explanations are given; Heinrichs has “ teachers’’); but this 
 does not give the full force of véuoc. By véuog we must of course understand 
 the Mosaic law, though it does not follow that the heretics here were 
 Judaizers such as those against whom Paul contends in the Epistles to 
 the Romans and to the Galatians: they might rather be men who acquired 
 the name by laying down arbitrary commands in their interpretations of 
 the law, and calling these the right knowledge of the law. Baur’s theory, 
 that Paul gave this name to the heretics because of their antinomianism, 
 is quite arbitrary, and contrary to the natural meaning of the words. De 
 Wette rightly disproves this by referring to Tit.i.14, from which it is 
 abundantly clear that the heretics made it their business to lay down arbi- 
 trary commands. Baur’s appeal to ver. 8, according to which he thinks 
 the heretics must have declared that the law was not good, must decidedly 
 be rejected, since the idea is only an arbitrary importation into ver. 8.2— 
 pi voovvtec] This participle expresses contrast (Leo : quamquam ignorant), 
 “without, however, understanding.” The object of vootvrec is given in a 
 sentence of two clauses: pyre... ware. The first: pare & Aéyovor, is clear 
 in itself; the second: ware rept tive diaBeBaovvra, has been variously ex- 
 plained. Most find the difference between the clauses to lie in this, that 
 the one refers to the utterances themselves, the other to things of which 
 the utterance was made, i.e. to the subject-matter of the doctrine (so 
 Raphelius, Leo, Matthies, Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee, Hofmann). De 
 Wette, again, thinks that this explanation rests on a grammatical error, 
 and that “epi rivev does not refer to the things of which corroboratory 
 assertions were made, but to these assertions themselves” (Luther: what 
 they say or what they suppose). In support of this opinion de Wette wrongly 
 appeals to Tit. 111. 8.4 He is wrong, too, in translating d:aBeB. by “ cor- 
 roborate ;” it means rather: “give full assurance.” Hofmann says, “to 
 express oneself with confidence regarding anything.” The expression is 
 quite general, and Mack seems to be arbitrary in limiting the thought by 
 explaining how 4 Zey. refers to expressions in the law brought forward as 
 proofs of assertions with which they had no real connection, and cep? riv. 
 Be. to those assertions for which proofs out of the law were given, and 
 which in themselves had no meaning. Paul merely says that the voyodsda- 
 oxadoe possessed no insight into the nature of the law, and hence they 
 made assertions regarding it which were not understood even by themselves.‘ 
 
 1Hofmann’s reason for this explanation is, gospel.” In this explanation he overlooks 
 
 that “vouodidacxador., Who make the law of 
 Israel the subject of their instruction, have 
 no. business in the chureh of the gospel.” 
 This is altogether wrong, as may be seen when, 
 further on, Paul appears as a vouodidacKados. 
 
 2Contrary to the train of thought, yan Oos- 
 terzee remarks on vopodidackador: “notin a 
 good, rather in a bad, non-evangelical mean- 
 ing of this word; men who mixed up law and 
 
 the OéAovres eivat. 
 
 ’The classical usage is against de Wette’s 
 explanation; comp. Plutarch, Fabii Vita, 
 chap. 14: dcaBeBarovmevos rept Toy TpayLaTwv; 
 Polyb. xii. 12. 6: Stopugomevos cai dcaBeBacovpme- 
 vos TEpt TOUTWY. 
 
 4On the conjunction of the relative and ine 
 terrogative pronouns @... tivwyv, see Winer 
 p. 159 [E. T. p. 169]. 
 
CHAP. I. 8—10. te 
 
 Ver. 8. In contrast with the heretics’ advocacy of the law, the apostle, 
 in what follows, states its real value. [III ¢, d.J—Oidayev 6é, bre «.7.A.] Baur 
 wrongly infers from these words that the heretics, as Antinomians, had no 
 desire to vindicate the law as good. It is not these first words, but the 
 words édv Tuc «.7.2., that are directed against the heretics. In spite of Hof- 
 mann’s denial, oidayev dé stands in a concessive sense, (Wiesinger), as in 
 Rom. vii. 14, 1 Cor. viii. 1, the apostle making an acknowledgment which 
 is restricted by édv ric «.7.A.; still we cannot translate it simply by concedi- 
 mus, as Heinrichs does.—xatd¢e 6 véuoc] By véuoc we must understand, 
 neither the Christian moral law, nor a single part of the Mosaic law, but 
 the latter as a whole. It is of the entire Mosaic law in its existing form ag 
 a revelation of the divine will given in a system of written commands—it 
 is of this that Paul uses xadé¢ as a suitable epithet. It is not enough 
 to take xadéc as equivalent to agéAywoc (Theodoret), though the idea 
 of usefulness is included in it; «a%é¢ denotes generally the internal 
 excellence of the law, just as the same is set forth in still more signifi- 
 cant expressions in Rom. vii. 12,14. But the good and excellent quali- 
 ties of the law depend on its being applied according to its nature 
 and signification : when applied otherwise, it ceases to be xadéc. Hence 
 Paul, in opposition to the heretics, adds: éav tie ait vouinwc ypita. The 
 vouiuwc, Which is clearly a play on words with vdu0c, only expresses the 
 formal relation; we can only infer from the thoughts that follow what 
 is meant by the lawful use of law.1 De Wette rightly remarks: “ There 
 is in this passage nothing but what the words really say, that the Chris- 
 tian teacher must not uphold the law as binding on the dikasoc.” While 
 nearly all expositors understand by zc the Christian as such, Bengel 
 remarks: Paulus hoc loco non de auditore legis, sed de doctore loquitur ; 
 in this he is right, as is acknowledged also by de Wette, Wiesinger, van 
 Oosterzee, Hofmann. Paul says nothing here as to how the law is to 
 be obeyed, but rather he tells us how it is to be made use of by Christian 
 teachers. 
 
 Vv. 9, 10. Hidde roito] is not to be referred to cidayev, but to rue, 7. e. to 
 the teacher of the church., The use of the same verb is against the con- 
 struction with oidawev. As to the meaning of the word, it is to be observed 
 that here, as in many other passages of the N. T., it expresses not only the 
 idea of knowing, but also that of “weighing, considering.” De Wette 
 says, “as he knows and considers.” The law is rightly used only when 
 it is considered that, ete.—éri dixaiw véuo¢ ov xeirat] [III e.] We may, with 
 Hofmann, take this sentence quite generally, so as to understand by 
 véuoc not any special law, but law in general, and by dikasog any one who 
 does rightly, ice, and not for the law’s sake2 In that case we would 
 have the same thought here as in Antiph. ad Stobaewm, 9: 6 undéiv adixav 
 
 
 
 1 Most expositors have on this passage told _ place, since there is no ground for them in 
 us wherein consisted the material advantage the apostle’s words. 
 _ of the law; but however correct their state- 2Theophyiact: os 8’ aito rd Kadov Thy Te 
 ments in themselves may be, they are out of TOVyplay Let Kal THY apeTHY TEepLTTVGCETEL, 
 
74 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 ovdevoc deitat véuov.i—The sentence, however, may also be taken in such a 
 way as to make véuoc the Mosaic law (notwithstanding the omission of the 
 article; comp. Rom. 1. 12, 14, 23, al.), and dixawe the righteous man in 
 the specially Christian sense, 7. e. the man who, in faith as a child of God, 
 fulfills the divine will in the free obedience of the spirit. In that case we 
 have here the thought which forms the fundamental idea of Paul’s view 
 regarding the relations of the Christian to the law (comp. Rom. vi. 14; 
 Gal. v. 18, al.). As Paul in ver. 11 appeals to the gospel entrusted 
 to him for confirmation of the thought expressed in this verse, the con- 
 nection of ideas decidedly favors the latter view, which is adopted also by 
 Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Van Oosterzee, et, al.—xeitac] has not, as 
 Heydenreich thinks probable, the additional notion of an oppressive bur- 
 den; véuoc keirac Simply means, according to a usage current even in pro- 
 fane writings: ‘the law is given, exists.” Otto rightly remarks: “the 
 vouoc Keiwevog is One Which has not only been given, but is still valid.” 
 The collocation does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.; comp., however, 
 Luke i. 34 (Phil. i. 16); 1 Thess. 11. 3; especially also 2 Mace. iv. 11.—If 
 the law was not given for the diac (as the heretics falsely maintained), 
 then it is valid only for the ddccoc. This thought Paul emphasizes by 
 pointing out the nature of the dducog In various aspects, mentioning them 
 at first in pairs.—davouole dé kat avurordxtowc] These two ideas, which express 
 the most decided contrast, are rightly placed first. “Avoyos, in 1 Cor. ix. 21, 
 means the heathen (Rom. 11. 14: v7 ra py} vénov Eyovra); but here it means 
 those who withstand the law, who do not serve the law, but their own 
 pleasure; comp. Mark xv. 28.—To this corresponds the following avuzé- 
 vaxrot (only here and in Tit. 1. 6,10; comp. Heb. ii. 8), as a designation of 
 those who submit themselves to no higher will, no higher order. It is 
 quite arbitrary, with Tittmann and Leo, to refer avou. to divine, and avour. 
 to human ordinances.—aceBéou kai duaptwdoic| These ideas (found together 
 also in 1 Pet. iv. 18 and in Wisd. xli. 5) are distinguished from the fore- 
 going by a more definite reference to God ; aceBjce (used by Paul only here 
 and in Rom. iv. 5, v. 6) is the man who does not stand in awe, who hasno 
 holy awe of God in his heart.—davocioue kai BeBHrow | give prominence to the 
 opposition to what is holy. ’Avécie (againin 2 Tim. iii. 2), when joined 
 with doef in the classical usage, refers.to the injury of human rights. 
 This distinction, however, cannot here be pressed. » Bé87A0c, which occurs 
 only in the Epistles to Timothy and in Heb. xii. 16 (the verb 887260 in 
 Matt. xii. 5; Acts xxiv. 6), is synonymous with davéowc. In these first three 
 pairs the dd:co. are characterized as those who stand opposed to what is 
 divine, recognizing no divine law, and having no awe of God, and whose 
 life is not consecrated by communion with God.—The ideas that follow 
 refer, on the other hand, to our relations with our neighbor.—zarpaddgate Kai 
 untpaardsac] only here in N. T.: parricides and matricides. Hesychius 
 explains them: 6 rév rarépa atiudlov, Tixtwr,  Kteivov; and similarly Mat- 
 
 1Comp. also the expression of Socrates in 2Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 8. 13: aveBearépovs 
 Clemens Alex. Stromata, iv. 678; vouov Evexev  Tepi Oeovs, Kai avogiwTépous Tepi ouyyeveis. 
 aya0av ovK av yeverOat. 
 
CHAP, i 11. 716 
 
 thies: “those who actually assault father and mother.” As the word 
 occurs in this wider sense in Demosth. 752, 14; Lys. 348, ult.; Plato, 
 Phaed. chap. 62, it may be so taken here. At least we cannot, with de 
 Wette, quote the following avdpodévorg as a cogent reason against it— 
 ardpogdvorc] 2 Mace. ix. 28; drag Aeyéu. in N. T.; the compound is selected 
 to correspond with the previous words.—répvoie, dpoevoxoitac] refer to 
 unchastity, the one towards the female, the other towards the male sex; 
 for this latter, comp. Rom. 1. 27; 1 Cor. vi. 9.—avdparodioraic] The Scho- 
 liast on Aristoph. Plut. v. 521, says: sipyta: avdparodiotig rapa 7d avdpa 
 arodidocba, tovtéote TwAeiv. This crime is often mentioned in Greek 
 authors; but also in Ex. xxi. 16; Deut. xxiv. 7.—weboraic, éxvdpxore] stand 
 both in opposition to truthfulness ; éxiopxog is one who wantonly breaks 
 an oath, as well as one who swears something false-—We cannot help see- 
 ing that in enumerating these various classes of the advo, the apostle has 
 had the Decalogue in mind, not adhering to it strictly, but partly extend- 
 ing, partly limiting it, still without departing from its order—In order to 
 describe the dadvxia as a whole, the apostle adds: kai ei te érepov tH bytarvobon 
 diWackakia avtixerraz.—The expression 7 byiaiv. didack. is one of those which 
 only occur in the Pastoral Epistles, and help to give them a peculiar 
 impress; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 3; Tit. ii. 1, 1. 9—In 1 Tim. vi. 3 and in 2 Tim. 
 i. 18, we have byaivovtes Adyor; in Tit. 11. 8, Adyoe bye. In these epistles 
 byaivery is even used figuratively in another connection ; thus Tit. i. 18, 11. 
 2 (voceiv in opposite sense, 1°Tim. vi. 4); elsewhere in the N. T. it occurs 
 only in its proper meaning. The expression diWackadia is particularly 
 frequent in these epistles, sometimes denoting “the doctrine” (so here) in 
 the objective sense, sometimes subjectively, “the teaching” (comp. chap. 
 iv. 1, 6, 13, 16, al. ; 2 Tim. iii. 10, iv. 3; Tit. 1. 9 ff.).—He lays emphasis on 
 sound doctrine, as opposed to the pataodoyia of the heretics. Luther 
 translates dy:aivovca inaccurately by “wholesome ;” the wholesomeness is 
 only the result of the soundness. By 7 by:aiv. did. is here meant the pure 
 gospel, free from all foreign admixture, having nothing unclean or sickly 
 init. The apostle here is certainly thinking chiefly of the ethical side of 
 the didack.; still Leo is wrong in translating it “sound morality.” By the 
 form ei... avrixecrac Paul gives us to understand that there are indeed 
 other forms and shapes of unrighteousness, incompatible with the pure 
 doctrine of the gospel. The neuter form ti érepov is strange. In expla- 
 nation, we might appeal to passages like 1 Cor. 1.17, Heb. vii. 7, and 
 others, where the neuter denotes persons; but the use of the verb 
 avrikerrae is against this. It is better to regard it as a transition from per- 
 sons to things.! 
 
 Ver. 11. Kara 7d evayyéuov x.7.4.] may be joined with avrixecra:, so far as 
 the grammar goes; but the thought is against this, since the by:aiv. didack. 
 is simply the doctrine of the gospel, and the whole of the added clause 
 would be very slipshod. There is as little ground for joining it with 
 
 1As Wiesinger rightly remarks, vv. 9 and such as consider the law a means of attaining 
 10 show that the apostle is not contending to a still higher moral perfection.” 
 ‘here against actual Judaizers, but “against 
 
76 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 didackazia, as Was done by Theophylact (ri by. 6., ri obon Kara 7d ebayy.) and 
 approved by many later expositors. The only right construction is to 
 refer this addition to the whole of the preceding thonght (Wiesinger, Platt, 
 van Oosterzee, Hofmann), so as to bring the thought to a concluding 
 point. Similarly in Rom. ii. 16, cava 7d evayy. is joined with what precedes. 
 The apostle asserts thereby that his doctrine regarding the law is not 
 founded on his own private opinion, but on the gospel entrusted to him. 
 In order to make its authority plainer asa rule of life, he describes it 
 as 7d evayyéhuov the dbEy¢ Tov pakapiov Ocov (de Wette, Matthies)—The 
 genitive rie ddE7¢ is not to be interpreted by the adjective évdogoc, and 
 then joined with 7d evayy. (=7d ebayy. évdofov; Luther: “according to 
 the glorious gospel”), or even with ®zod (Heinrichs: = tov paxapiov kat 
 évddgov Ocov); the genitive saould rather be allowed to retain its special 
 meaning. ‘H d6fa tov Oot may be the glory of the Christians, which is given 
 them by God.! It is more natural, however, to understand the expres- 
 sion here, as in 2 Cor. iv. 4, 6, Rom. ix. 23, etc., of the glory dwelling in 
 God, peculiar to Him, “revealed to the world in Jesus Christ” (Wiesinger). 
 The relation of the genitive tij¢ déEx¢ to 76 ebayyédvov is not to be taken to 
 mean that the déga was declared to be the ground of the gospel (the 
 gospel proceeding from the glory of God); the déga is rather contained 
 in the gospel (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt), so that it is thereby 
 revealed and communicated to men.—God’s nature is here described 
 more precisely by the adjective yaxap/ov, by which still greater emphasis 
 is laid on God’s défa, manifesting itself in the gospel in its peculiar power. 
 Though the word is not foreign to the N. T., it is used only here and in 
 vi. 15 as an attribute of God. It is not improbable that the apostle uses 
 it with some reference to the heretics. If, in ver. 4, we are to understand 
 by the genealogies, series of aeons emanating from God, he might readily 
 use paxdpioc of God in order to mark the divine unity, for holiness excludes 
 all division of nature. Theodore of Mopsuestia thinks that God is here 
 called paxdpioc, not only because He has 76 waxdpiov in His nature dia rH 
 atperrérntoc, but also because out of His grace He imparts it to us.?- ‘The 
 words that follow declare that the gospel was entrusted to the apostle: 
 6 ériotebOny éyo (Tit. 1.3). Regarding the construction of these words, cf. 
 Buttmann, Gr. Gram. 3121.7; Winer, p. 244 [E. T.p. 260]. The same 
 construction is found in Rom. iii. 2; Gal. ii. 7; 1 Thess. 11. 4; 1 Cor. ix. 
 17. It is to be observed that this construction of the verb oretecfu, apart 
 
 1Gomp. Rom. vy. 2. Wegscheider: “accord- blessed God? God is not blessed if He is for 
 
 ing to the gladdening doctrine of the salva- 
 tion which the blessed God imparts to us;” 
 Theodoret: evayy. d6&ns TO Kipvypa KeKxAnKev, 
 amevdav Thy wéAAovoay okay emayyeAAeTat TOLS 
 meorevovor, and Theophylact. 
 
 2Otto takes the reference otherwise. He 
 refers the word to the’ heretics, inasmuch as 
 they taught the eternal continuance of the 
 law: “The eternal continuance of the law 
 presupposes a godlessness that cannot be 
 amended, And these vopodidacxadcr teach a 
 
 ever afHicted with those opposed to Himself, 
 with the avouots «.7.A. I teach that God got 
 rid of this opposition by reconciling the world 
 to Himself, and that we have indeed a blessed 
 God.” Hofmann refers paxapiov to this, that 
 the heretics “make the law the subject of their 
 instruction in the place where there should 
 only be preached the things by which God 
 has glorified His blessedness.” In any ease, 
 Paul chose the attribute, because the heresy 
 stood in contradiction to God's blessedness. 
 
 ‘ 
 
CHAP, 1 12: Ti. 
 
 from the Pastoral Epistles, occurs only in the epistles of Paul, and only 
 where he speaks of the gospel, or the office given him to hold.! 
 
 Ver. 12. [On Vv. 12-17,see Note IV., pages 90, 91.] After pointing.in these 
 last words to his personal relation to the gospel, the apostle, down to ver. 
 17, describes the grace experienced by him, not merely “to let it be seen 
 what assurance he had for his gospel” (Wiesinger), but also to prove by 
 his own example (pic brorizwow x.7.2. ver. 16) the glory of the gospel 
 entrusted to him as the evayy. tie 66En¢ Tov paxapiov Ocov. There is therefore 
 no ground for de Wette’s criticism, “that the self-styled apostle lets fall 
 here the thread of his meaning, that he may not have to take it up 
 again.” This section is in the closest connection with the preceding one, 
 since it shows how deep is the contrast between the heresy and the gospel. 
 The heresy, on the one hand, takes up unfruitful speculations, and, when- 
 ever it wishes to become practical, it places the Christian in bondage to 
 the law. The one thing which is all-important, the forgiveness of sins, 
 it does not assure, and hence it does not know the compassion of the 
 Lord. On the contrary, it is of the very essence of the gospel to reveal this 
 compassion ; and in proof of this, Paul appeals to his own experience. 
 [IV a, b.|—yapw éyo] We have the same expression in 2 Tim. i. 3 (comp. 
 also Luke xvii. 9; Heb. xii. 28); and in the other Pauline Epistles we 
 have instead : ebyapicté.— 76 évdvvaudcarri pe] must not be limited to the 
 strength granted for enduring afflictions and sufferings; it is rather to be 
 applied to his whole work as an apostle. The proper reason of thanks- 
 giving is only furnished by the clause that follows 67 «.7.2.; but an additional 
 reason is given in this participle.2—Xp.o76 ’ Ijood «.7.2..] is not to be explained, 
 according to some older expositors: “qui me potentem reddidit Christo,” 
 for Christ, but as a dative closely belonging to the verb.—ér. morév we 
 nyqoato| [IV ¢.] xioré¢ corresponds with the following d:axovia. The reason 
 of his thanksgiving is Christ’s confidence in him that he would become a 
 faithful dcdkovoc. This confidence the Lord has shown by committing to 
 him the ministry of the gospel, hence he adds: 
 is either “placing me in the ministry ” (Heydenreich, van Oosterzee, Hof- 
 mann), or “setting me apart for the ministry’ (de Wette, Plitt, Winer). 
 The latter seems to be more in accordance with the usage of the N. T.; 
 comp. 1 Thess. v.9. De Wette rightly remarks that the participle does not 
 stand for &¢ rifeofai we, nor is it to be taken as a pluperfect ; it is simply the 
 proof of xorév jie jy.; see also Winer, p. 326 [E.T. p. 348].—If the apostle’s 
 thanks are due to the Lord on the general ground of His confidence, they 
 are all the more due that he had been before an opponent of the gospel ; 
 to this the next verse points. 
 
 Géuevoc cic dvaxoviav, Which 
 
 1 We need not be surprised that here, and 
 somewhat frequently in the Pastoral Epistles, 
 Paul directs attention to himself and his office, 
 if only we reflect that the apostle was fully con- 
 scious of his position towards the development 
 of God’s kingdom, and that he was bound, 
 therefore, to vindicate fully the principle of 
 the Christian life which he had enounced. 
 
 2According to the reading of &: evéduva- 
 povrvte without ue is to be taken as asimple at- 
 tribute: “ Christ Jesus who bestows strength.” 
 
 3 Cf. 1 Cor. vii. 25; yvwpny dé didwuc ws nden- 
 évos Uo KuUplov muaTOs eivar. Paul gives the 
 nature.of this écaxovia in Acts xx. 24: 7 dtaxo- 
 via nv éAaBov mapa Tov Kuptov “Ingov, dcapap- 
 TUpacOau To evayyeALov THS XapLTos TOD Meov. 
 
78 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 Ver. 18. Td xpérepov dvra BAdognuov K.7.A] Td mpdrepov is equivalent to the 
 adverb xpérepov, just as, in Matt. xxvi. 45, 76 Aouréy is equivalent to Aourév. 
 The participle stands here in the relation of contrast to what precedes: 
 “though I was before,” or “I who was nevertheless.” —2ac¢npuov] only here 
 as a substantive; comp. on this Acts xxvi.11. For the most part, the 
 idea of BAaconuia is used in reference to what is divine (Suidas: 7 eic Gedv 
 iBpic).—kai dvdxtyv] Leo says: “ Paulus non dictis tantum sed etiam factis 
 furuerat in Christianos;” the word occurs only here in the N. T.; on the 
 subject-matter, comp. Acts xxii. 4; Gal. 1. 18.—«ai iBpictpv] also in Rom. 
 i. 30. Luther translates “reviler,” but Wegscheider: “one who does 
 violence.” Neither translation expresses the full meaning as it is ‘given in 
 Tittmann’s (Syn. p. 74) explanation: “qui prae superbia non solum con- 
 temnit alios, sed etiam contumeliose tractat, et injuriis afficit.” ‘YBpivew 
 denotes the arrogant conduct of another, whether in words or in actions. 
 —The context leads us to think of Christ’s work, or Christ Himself, as the 
 object of the apostle’s blasphemy.—Having judged his former conduct in 
 straightforward fashion, Paul goes on to contrast with it the grace of the 
 Lord: aAw 7Are_byv, adding, however, by way of explanation: 67 ayvoov 
 De Wette is not correct in supposing that the intended 
 aim of these words is to furnish some excuse for himself.\—72«747v | (Luther: 
 “to my lot did compassion fall’’) is not to be limited to the pardon of his 
 persecuting fury (Matthies: “to me was my mad eagerness in persecu- 
 tion most graciously forgiven”), but should be taken more generally of 
 the grace imparted to the apostle.,—ayvoér] (comp. Rom. x. 2: ZyAov Ceov 
 Eywr, GAA ov Kar’ éxiyvwou’), 7. e. Without knowing how grievously I sinned 
 therein. The reason of. this unconsciousness was év azotia. Mack is 
 wrong in inverting the relation, as if the apostle added év azoria to explain 
 How far the azioria was one to be blamed, Paul does not here 
 say: the idea is to be taken in its purely negative form. It was not this, 
 but the ayvoa grounded on it, which lessened his guilt. 
 
 Ver. 14. The last words might be so explained as to weaken seemingly 
 the divine grace; and therefore the apostle feels bound to set forth its 
 abundant riches.—ireperiedvace d& 1) yapic x.7.A.] The verb imeprAeovacew 
 only occurs here in the N. T., and is not current in classical Greek. The 
 simple wAcovafew, with the classic writers, means: ‘to be more, 7. e. than 
 the measure demands, therefore to go beyond the measure;” but in 
 several passages of the N. T. it has clearly the meaning: “become more, 
 therefore increase, grow larger.” Comp. 2 Thess. i. 3 (synon. with 
 trepaveaverv); Rom. v. 20, vi. 1 (Meyer: accumulate); so also Phil. iv. 17 
 and 2 Cor. iv. 15 (Meyer has there: “become abundant .. . increase,” and 
 
 éroinoa év amiotia. 
 
 his éyvora. 
 
 cedes in ver. 12 might seem to support this, 
 but what follows is entirely against such a 
 limitation of the thought. 
 
 _Hofmann wrongly taixes €v amortia as in 
 pure apposition to the participle ayvooy, and 
 
 1 Wiesinger: “The words are not intended 
 to exculpate his acts, but to explain wherein 
 the power of divine grace began to work on 
 him.” Similarly Plitt, van Oosterzee, and 
 others. 
 
 2Otto wrongly finds in nAe7Onv a special 
 reference to the fact that Paul “ was entrusted 
 with the ministry of the word.”"—What pre- 
 
 maintains that ayvoety is not always an igno- 
 rance which simply does not even know, but 
 a misconception of something which it should 
 
CHAP! a, 13s 14: 79 
 
 here: “be increased”). The prefix izep serves, with Paul, to strengthen 
 the idea with which it is joined; thus érepavéaver, 2 Thess.i.3; trepextepicood, 
 Eph. iii. 20; trepaiav, 2 Cor. xi. 5, al. In Rom. v. 20, ireperepiocevoev seems 
 to mean that the éxjedvacev 7) duaptia was surpassed by the yapic (So Meyer; 
 Hofmann differs). If we assume here this reference of surpassing, we 
 cannot regard 7Ae/yv as the thing surpassed. For yapic cannot be 
 regarded as something surpassing. é/eo¢ ;' but iep in that case would have 
 to be referred to 1d mpédrepov bvta BAaodyuov K.7.A. Hence the apostle’s 
 meaning in ireper/edvacev would be that grace was manifested to him in 
 abundant measure, far surpassing his enmity (so in a former edition of 
 this commentary); but in that case aaa 7AenOyv «.7.2. would be parenthet- 
 ical. It is more correct not to assume such a reference here, but to 
 explain tirepricovafew: “to go (abundantly) beyond the measure”’ (Plitt, 
 van Oosterzee, Hofmann). The apostle added tzeperA. 7) yapic to HreHfinr, 
 because the latter expression did not seem enough to his mind, which was 
 penetrated by the unbounded greatness of the grace he had experienced. 
 “Tt is as though he wrestles with speech in order to find some sufficient 
 expression for the feeling which quite overpowers him” (van Oosterzee). 
 The particle dé belongs to the relation of climax existing between the two 
 clauses, as in Heb. xii. 6; it corresponds to the English yea or aye in a 
 climax.2—peta riotewe Kai ayaryc] [IV d.] The preposition werd with the 
 genitive serves to connect the fact with the points that accompany it. 
 Miorre and ayazy therefore are, properly speaking, not mentioned as results 
 of the ydapic, but as blessings immediately connected with ydpic. They 
 form, as de Wette says, the subjective side of the condition of grace. Leo 
 is right, therefore, in saying: “verbis werd «.7.2. indicatur, 7. «. ay. quasi 
 comites fuisse illius ydpitoc”’ (so also Plitt and van Oosterzee); but he is 
 wrong, if he means that Paul added these words to tell in what the grace 
 was manifested as izeprAcovafovea.—By riotic k. ay. 7 év Xp.’I. we are not 
 to understand God’s faithfulness and love in Christ, nor the apostle’s 
 endeavor to bring others to faith and love; nor, again, is év to be explained 
 by ova or by ec. The words rye év Xp. I. are added to tHe ayaryc, and mark 
 the love as one “ that has its ground and middle-point in Christ” (Matthies); 
 ef. 2 Tim. 1.18. It is doubtful whether the addition is to be referred also 
 to riotewc (for this Matthies, Plitt, van Oosterzee; against it, Hofmann) ; 
 since xistewe does not properly require it, it might be better to limit the 
 reference to ayér7c.3 “Tn contrasting his former azoria with his present 
 
 have known. But this more precise refer- 
 ence is clearly not contained inthe words 
 
 2Hofmann explains é€ as ranking another 
 fact with the one already mentioned; but in 
 
 themselves. 
 
 1Chrysostom : ovK éeTimwpyOynv? HAenOnv yap, 
 ap’ ovv TOUTO MOVOY, Kal “éxpL TOUTOV 6 EA€EOs, 
 Tov wy Sovvat Tinwpiav; ovdaua@s* adAa Kal 
 Etepa moda kat peyada, dca TOUTO Pyaiv’ UreE- 
 pemA: 7 xapts, SyA@v, OTL UmEpéBn Kal TOV EAcoV 
 ta S@pa* Tav’Ta yap ovK eAeovVTOS EoTLY, aAAG 
 dtdovvtos Kat ofddpa ayaravtos. Similarly 
 Leo. In this view the force of yAey{@yv is 
 ‘arbitrarily weakened. 
 
 nAenOnv and vreperA. » Xapis we have not two 
 different facts, but one and the same fact— 
 though expressed in two different ways. 
 
 3 Hofmann alleges against the connection 
 with miorews, that “éy would have a different 
 meaning when joined with miotews; accord- 
 ing to Eph. i. 15; Col. i. 4;” but his reason is 
 without force, as this other reference is here 
 cut off by the intervening ayamns. 
 
80 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 increasing mor x. ay.” (Heydenreich), Paul does not lose sight of the 
 heresy which did not effect oixovouia Ozov év rio-e (ver. 4), and had not the 
 ayarn (ver. 5) as its goal. 
 
 Ver. 15. Muord¢g 6 Adyog «.7.4.] [IV e.] With this formula, which is pecu- 
 liar to the Pastoral Epistles (found besides here in iii. 1, iv. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 
 11; Tit. ii. 8; only m Rev. is there a similar formula: otto: of Adyo mioroi 
 cai aAnGivot eiot, XX1, 5, XXil. 6), the apostle introduces the general thought 
 whose truth he had himself experienced.—«ai raon¢ arodoyqe asic] This 
 addition is also iniy. 9; the word azodoyf4 occurs nowhere else in the N. T. 
 (comp. azédextoc, ii. 3, v. 4). As Raphelius has shown by many proofs 
 from Polybius, it is synonymous in later Greek with xiore: the verb 
 arodéxecbar (“ receive believing”) is used in the same sense in Acts ii. 41. 
 The adjective raoyc describes the axodoy# of which the word is worthy, as 
 one complete and excluding all doubt.—érz Xp. ’Ijo. 7AOev sig tov Kéopov] 
 This expression, found especially in John, may be explained from the 
 saying of Christ: é§7A00v mapa tov ratpic Kai éAfAvba sic Tov Kéowov, John 
 Xv1. 28, xéooc having here a physical, not an ethical meaning: “the 
 earthly world.”—Ayaprodoi stands here in a general sense, and is not 
 with Stolz to be limited to the opponents of Christianity, nor with 
 Michaelis to the heathen. As little can the idea of céoa be limited in the 
 one direction or the other. After this general thought, that the aim of 
 Christ’s coming is none other than the cwrypia of sinners, the apostle 
 returns to his own case, adding, in consciousness of his guilt (ver. 18): dv 
 mpardg eime éyo, “of whom Iam first.” [IV f.] Paul says this, conscious 
 of his former determined hostility to Christ when he was a B/dodyyog K.7.A. 
 (ver. 15), and considering himself at the same time as standing at the 
 head of sinners. It is inaccurate to translate tparo¢ without qualification 
 by “the foremost” (in opposition to Wiesinger and others). Even in Mark 
 Xl. 28, 29, rpory ravtwv évtoAg is the commandment which stands at the 
 head of all, is first in the list, and devrépa is the one following. In order 
 to. qualify the thought, Flatt wishes to translate zparoc by “one of the 
 foremost,” which he thinks he can justify-by the absence of the article. 
 Wegscheider, again, wishes not to refer dv to duaprwAotc, but to supply 
 owlonévwv OY ceowsuévov; and similarly Mack explains év by “of which 
 saved sinners.” All these expositions are, however, to be rejected as pieces 
 of ingenuity. The thought needs no qualification—at least not for any 
 one who can sympathize with the apostle’s strong feeling. The apostle 
 does not overstep the bounds of humility in what he says in 1 Cor. xv. 9 
 and Eph. iii. 8; neither does he overstep them here. 
 
 Ver. 16. After calling himself the first of sinners, Paul gives the reason 
 why he, this foremost sinner, found grace. He begins with 44d, since it 
 must appear strange that grace was imparted to him.—d:d rovro AAeHOyv] 
 De Wette says: “therefor (to this end) did I receive grace.”—iva év éoi 
 tTpatw évdeiEnrar Xp. "I. tiv aracav paxpobvuiav.—év éu. mp.] stands first for 
 de sake of emphasis; év is not equivalent to “by means of,” but to “in 
 the case of” (comp. Rom. vii. 19). To supply auapro26 with mpdérw (first 
 ed. of this commentary, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others) is arbitrary. 
 
CHAP. L. 15-17. 81 
 
 There is no need to supply anything. The thought is: “in my case, 
 Christ first showed His entire jaxpofyyia.”! Paul says this, meaning that 
 the entire fullness of Christ’s yaxpo$uia (Buttmann, p. 105 [E. T. 120]) 
 could not be shown to those who before had received grace, because they 
 had not cherished such decided enmity to Christ as he. The zporw there- 
 fore has Gracav corresponding with it; the greater the guilt, the greater 
 the manifestation of yaxpouuia: Bengel says: “cunctam longanimitatem : 
 quum minores peccatores etiam mensura quasi minor possit restituere.” 
 It is not necessary to give the word paxpotyyia the meaning here of “mag- 
 nanimity”). (Heydenreich, Matthies: “long-suffering or magnanimity”). 
 The apostle here regards the love of the Lord as not causing judgment to 
 follow straight on condemnation, but as patient, and granting space for 
 conversion. In this Paul has given the purpose of his pardon; but he 
 states it still more definitely in the words that follow: mpé¢ trotitwow Tov 
 perdovtov moteverr éx’ ato. The expression imorimwo, “likeness, image,” 
 occurs elsewhere only in 2 Tim. i. 18; it is synonymous with irdderyua in 
 2 Pet. ii. 6, and other passages. Elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles we 
 find rioc (Rom. v. 14; 1 Cor. x. 6, 11; Phil. iii. 17). Leo, without sufficient 
 erounds, explains the word by institutio. The idea of type is not contained 
 in the word itself, but is here transferred to it from the jue AdévTwv.—mloTebew 
 ix’ abt] This construction of the word mretew is found in the N. T. only 
 here and in Rom. ix. 33, x. 11, 1 Pet. ii.6; but in all these passages it 
 occurs in words quoted from Isa. xxviii. 16, where the LXX. has simply 
 § miorehwv. It may be explained in this way, that faith has confidence as 
 its substance and basis. Matthies rightly says: “és air, not so much in 
 Him as the object of faith, but rather trusting im faith on Him as the 
 absolute basis of our salvation.” —eic Coyv aidéviov] These words are not to 
 be joined to the distant izorizwow (Bengel), but to the zoreterv immediately 
 preceding. They present the goal towards which the misretew éx’ aire is 
 directed (Wiesinger). As Paul usually sets forth his conduct to others as 
 a type, so here he gives to his experience a typical meaning for future 
 believers? This may be explained from the peculiar and important 
 position which he held for the development of God’s kingdom on earth, 
 and of which he was distinctly conscious. 
 
 Ver. 17. “Ex sensu gratiae fluit doxologia” (Bengel). With this 
 doxology the apostle closes the digression begun in ver. 11, and returns 
 again to the proper epistolary style—ro d& Baoiei Tov aévov| [IV g.] 
 This designation for God is not found elsewhere in the N. T. (even the use 
 of Bacideic of God only occurs elsewhere in chap. vi. 15 and Matt. v. 30), 
 but it is found in the Apocrypha of the O. T. in Tob. xiii. 6, 10. (Eeclesias- 
 ticus xxxvi. 19: 6 Oed¢ TOV aidvor.) OF aidvec means either “the world,” as 
 
 1Hofmann: “If mpatos before had the way: “The aim is to give a type, not to them, 
 
 meaning of locality, here wpwétw has the 
 meaning of time as opposed to Trav pedAAovTwY 
 TuoTEveLV.” 
 
 2Hofmann, without grounds, disputes this 
 view, and gives the apostle’s thought in this 
 
 6 
 
 but of them; they were to know that they 
 had to expect such conversions as his, the 
 conversions of revilers and persecutors.” 
 But there is no hint whatever of revilers and 
 persecutors only in ot seAAovtes TLOTEVELY. 
 
82 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 in Heb. i. 2, xi. 3 (see Delitzsch and Limemann on this passage), or “ the 
 times.” [IV A.] The former meaning is adopted by Chrysostom, Leo, 
 etc.!; the latter, by Matthies : “the ruler of all times, so that all generations 
 are at the same time concretely included.” Ina similar way, Heydenreich 
 has “ the supreme ruler of time, and of all that takes place in its course.” 
 This latter explanation is supported as correct both by the preceding 
 ueAAbvtwv (van Oosterzee), and also by the ag@aprw following, and by ei¢ 
 Tove aidvas tov aidvwv farther on.? It is incorrect to take aidvec as equiva- 
 lent to “eternity,” and translate: “to the king eternal” (de Wette, but 
 tentatively; Hofmann: “the king who is for ever and without end”’),? for 
 aiavec never has that meaning in itself. Only in the formulas azd trav 
 aidvev and ei¢ tov¢ aidvac does the meaning of the word approach that 
 idea. Besides, the apostle would surely have expressed that adjectival 
 idea by an adjective. It is quite erroneous to take the word here in the 
 Gnostic sense of series of emanations, synonymous with yeveatoyia in 
 ver. 4; for, on the one hand, no proof is given that this expression had 
 been already used by the heretics alluded to in this epistle; and, on the 
 other, the apostle considered the whole theory of genealogies as belonging 
 to the sphere of myths. It was impossible, therefore, for him in his 
 doxology to speak of God as the king of things which were to Him nothing 
 but the inventions of fancy.—igbaprw] is only used of God elsewhere in 
 Rom. i. 23 (Plut. adv. St. 31; Wisd. of Sol. xii. 1). Matthies: “God is the 
 Imperishable One, because His nature is unchanging and based on itself,” 
 equivalent to 6 pévoc Exywv abavaciar, chap. vi. 16.—daopatw] comp. Heb. xi. 
 27 (without 6eéc), Rom. i, 20, and Col. i. 15 (with @edc); equivalent to év eidev 
 ovdeic avopdruv, ovdé ideivy divata, Chap. vi. 16; comp. also John i. 18.— 
 pévw OeG] chap. vi. 15: pdévoc duvactye ; comp. also John v. 44, xvii. 3; Rom. 
 XV1. 27: ydvy co Oc. The words ad6dprw . . . Oe are to be taken as in 
 apposition to 76 Baoei. But it is doubtful whether 6e6 is to be joined 
 with 46v only, or also with ag@@apr~ and dopatw, as is commonly done. 
 De Wette is wrong in asserting that all these predicates are used of God 
 superfluously : they’ manifestly express the absolute exaltation of God 
 above all conditioned finite being, and are occasioned naturally (which 
 Hofmann disputes) by the contrast with the heresy which denied the 
 absoluteness of the divine existence.—rij7j Kai d6Ea] The two words are 
 united also in Rom. ii. 7, 10; Heb. ii. 7; but only here and in the Apoca- 
 lypse do they occur in doxologies. Paul elsewhere uses only défa, and 
 always with the article—eic rode aiévac tov aiéver] a very common con- 
 clusion in doxologies, and found in Paul’s other epistles. It is not to be 
 overlooked that this doxology has a peculiar character distinct from those 
 usually occurring in Paul, both in the mode of connection (elsewhere a 
 pronoun connects them with what precedes) and also in the designation 
 for God and the expressions used. 
 
 1Leo appealing to Eusebius, de Laud. Con- Bacwrei2 mavtwyv Tov aidvev Kai » Seoroteta 
 stant. chap. vi. p. 431, ed. Heinrichs: tov péeyav cov év Taon yeveg Kal yeved. 
 Tov gUumayTos ai@vos Bac.Aéa. 3 Wiesinger explains it: “He is a king of 
 
 2Comp. Ps. exly. 13, LXX.: 7 Bactdeia cov the aeons, which together give the idea of 
 
CHAP, I. 18. 83 
 
 Ver. 18. [On Vy. 18-20, see Note V. pages 91, 92.] Paul again addresses 
 himself to Timothy direct.—rairyv tiv rapayyediav] [V a.] cannot be 
 referred back to iva xapayyeiAnce in ver. 3 (Otto), because there he was 
 speaking of a xapayyeAia which Timothy was to receive, here he is speak- 
 ing of a mapayyedia to which Timothy was to give heed. Nor can it be 
 referred to kafa¢ mapexddeca oe (Plitt), since that denotes only a special 
 commission, to which there is here no allusion. Some have therefore 
 joined rait7v immediately with the following ia, and taken iva as intro- 
 ducing the object... This construction, however, is opposed by the order 
 of the words; after the verb and the parenthesis xara ra¢ «.7.2., we no 
 longer expect an expansion of the thought contained in ratty r. rap? 
 The only course remaining is to agree with Hofmann in referring radr. rt. 
 mapayy. back to tig tapayyediag in ver. 5; not, however, agreeing with him 
 in interpreting the word here, “the Christian teaching,” but taking it in 
 the same sense in both places.—zrapariMeuai oo] comp. 2 Tim. ii. 2. The 
 verb is here explained by most expositors, against usage, as equivalent to 
 “lay to heart”? (Luther: “order,” in the sense of “recommend to”). 
 Otto, and following him Hofmann, took it in the sense of “give some- 
 thing into one’s charge,’ which meaning is possible, but not imperative. 
 In itself the word means “bring something before one,” and is defined 
 more precisely by its context, z.e. the purpose of bringing before is not con- 
 tained in the word itself. Waparifecfac tapayyediav may therefore quite 
 well mean: propose a command to one, viz. that he may act in accordance 
 with it%—réxvov Tyw.] see ver. 1.—xata tag mpoayobcac éxi o& xpogyrteiac] 
 [V b.] Before giving the command itself, Paul inserts these words to add 
 force to his exhortation ; for they are not (as some expositors, Oecumenius, 
 Heumann, Flatt, wish) to be placed after iva in sense, but to be joined 
 with maparibeyar.—xard, “in conformity with,” not “justified and occasioned 
 by.” —zpoayotoac stands here quite absolutely, with the same meaning as 
 in Heb. vii. 18: a6érnow . . . yivetar mpoayobone évroage, “the law that pre- 
 ceded ;”’* the xpoay. rpodyr. are accordingly “the promises that preceded.” 
 Matthies is wrong in explaining zpodyouca in connection with é7i cé, as 
 
 eternity, just as His kingdom is an everlast- 
 ing kingdom.” 
 
 1So0 Chrysostom and Theophylact, Mat- 
 thies, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee ; 
 also in this commentary; comp. Winer, pp. 
 314 f. [E. T. p. 334 f]. 
 
 2 Hofmann wrongly maintains that this con- 
 struction is impossible in point of language 
 * and in point of fact: “in point of language, 
 because mapatiGecac does not mean lay to 
 heart, but propose, and a command is not pro- 
 posed (why not?); in point of fact, because 
 what he calls tas mpoayovoas émi oe cannot 
 furnish any standard for the apostle’s injune- 
 tion to Timothy to discharge his office well” 
 
 (why not?). 
 
 - °8In Matt. xiii. 24, 31, it is joined with mapa- 
 Body; it is used of setting forth a doctrine in 
 
 Acts xvii. 3; it is chiefly used of setting forth 
 food, as in the N. T. Mark viii. 7; Luke ix. 
 16, x. 8, xi. 6; it has the sense of “ committing 
 to the care of” in Luke xii. 48. 
 
 4Comp. Linnemann and Delitazsch on the 
 passage. Otto is wrong in asserting that 
 mpoayery is never used of priority of time. 
 While it occurs more frequently in the sense 
 of “precede some one,” it has in other pas- 
 sages of the N. T. (e.g. Matt. xxvi. 32; Mark 
 vi. 45) the meaning practically of “go before 
 some one in any direction whatever,” the 
 notion of space manifestly passing into that 
 of time. In the passage in Hebrews, Otto 
 thinks . that mpoayovoa ought to mean: 
 “driving forward from one election of high 
 priest to another” (!). 
 
84 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 equivalent to “leading towards thee,” 7.e. “pointing or aiming towards 
 thee.” This meaning zpodyew never has; as a transitive verb it certainly 
 means: “lead forward to any one;” but this is manifestly a different idea 
 from that which Matthies ascribes to it. Otto explains it: “the prophecies 
 that guide to thee,” making appeal to Xenophon, Memorab. iv. 1, in which 
 passage Kiihner paraphrases mpoayew by viam monstrare. In this case we 
 should have to understand it: those among the prophecies that showed 
 others the way leading to Timothy, a statement clearly without meaning. 
 It is, however, altogether arbitrary when Otto defines the prophecies more 
 precisely as those that led to Timothy’s ordination, or occasioned it.—ézi 
 cé| is not to be connected with poayotcac, but with mpodyrteiac, as Luther 
 rightly translates it : “according to the former prophecies regarding thee ;” 
 or de Wette: “in accordance with the preceding prophecies on thee ” (so, 
 too, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann). On the other hand, the 
 translation: “ vaticinia olim de te praenuntiata” (Heydenreich), is inac- 
 curate. Al él o& mpod. are: the prophecies (expressed) over thee (the 
 peculiar meaning of éri as descending to something should not be over- 
 looked); while zpoay. describes these as preceding Timothy’s apostleship.’ 
 —rpogyteiac| Chrysostom: 1d tHe diWacKakiacg Kai iepwobvyc agiwpa, péya bv, 
 The Tov Oeov deitac Whdov ... dua TO Tadaioy ard THC TpodyTeiag yivovtat oi 
 iepeic, Tovréote ard mvetuatoc dyiov. Obrwo 6 Tim. ypéOy. This is wrong, 
 simply because Timothy’s office was not a priestly one. It is quite arbi- 
 trary to translate mpogyteiae by: “doctrines, exhortations,” or “ hopes,” or 
 “good testimonies’ (Heinrichs: “by means of the good hope and expec- 
 tation which every one cherished regarding thee”). IIpogyreiae here, as 
 always, are utterances proceeding from the Holy Spirit, whatever be their 
 contents or their occasion; here it is most natural to think of prophecies 
 made when the éxifeouw tov yepov tov rpecButepiov (chap. iv. 14) was 
 imparted to Timothy and made regarding his worthy discharge of the 
 office (Wiesinger).?—iva orpateby év avtaic tiv Kadqv otpareiav] [V c.] Pur- 
 pose of the raparifeuai oor. rpareia (elsewhere only in 2 Cor. x. 4) is 
 frequently translated: inaccurately by “fight;’? Luther is more correct: 
 “that thou mayest exercise in it a gdod knighthood.”  Xrpareia denotes the 
 entire warfare; the only thing wrong in Luther’s translation is the indefi- 
 nite article. Though the Christian calling is not seldom deseribed as a 
 warfare, yet here the word is used specially of Timothy’s office, in which 
 he had to contend against the érepodidacxadoivrec (vv. 3 ff.).3 De Wette 
 inaccurately explains it: “that thou conduct thyself worthily and bravely 
 
 1Jn taking the words thus: at émi oé irpo- 2According to Hofmann, they were pro- 
 
 ontecar, there is not, as Otto maintains, a 
 change of order not occurring in Greek; 
 comp. 2 Cor. vili. 2: 9 cata BaBovs mTwxeta 
 It is also wrong to say that the prepo- 
 sitional clause must flow from the substan- 
 tive, and that wepi, therefore, should stand 
 here for émi. In the passage quoted, cata 
 manifestly does not flow from the idea of the 
 substantive mrw ela. 
 
 auTov. 
 
 phecies “which had promised to Paul that 
 Timothy would be a true servant of the 
 gospel, and had confirmed him in his choice 
 when he assumed Timothy as his colleague 
 in the apostleship.” 
 
 3 Manifestly Paul here returns to vv. 3ff.,and 
 so far gives reason for saying that here “we 
 have not in form but in substance ” the apod- 
 osis which was wanting before (Wiesinger). | 
 
CHMPT TLS; 20) 85 
 
 in the discharge of thy evangelic duty ;” as if the words were: iva xaéc 
 otpar. T7v orpareiav. The chief accent rests on év airaic, not on Kadgv; the 
 orpareia assigned to Timothy is in itself xa4#, quite apart from his behavior 
 m it.—év airaic] According to Matthies, Winer (p. 362 [E. T. p. 387]), 
 Wiesinger, Otto, and others, Paul conceives the rpogyreia as an armor 
 round Timothy: “as though equipped with them;” it might, however, 
 be more natural to translate: “within them,” i.e. in their limits, not 
 exceeding them. The interpretation: in accordance with them (van Ooster- 
 zee, Hofmann: “the prophecies are to be regarded as a rule of conduct es 
 is against the usage of the N. T. 
 
 Ver. 19. The manner in which Timothy is to discharge his office, is 
 given still more precisely in the words éywv riorw Kai ayabiv ovveidnow. It 
 is difficult to bring éyev into direct connection with the preceding figure 
 otpareia (Matthies: “hold fast the faith which elsewhere, in Eph. vi. 16, is 
 called a shield, a weapon of defence in our warfare;”’ Otto thinks that Paul 
 conceives ior and ay. ovveidnowe as “the contending power which the 
 general commands, 7.e. as his troops!”). It is simply “holding, main- 
 taining” (de Wette), i.e. not denying. The reason for the collocation 
 peculiar to this epistle of rior and ayaby cvveidyow, and for the strong 
 emphasis laid on the latter idea (comp. ver. 5, iv. 2, etc.), is, that the 
 apostle regards the denial of the ay. ovveid. as the source of the heresy. 
 This is proved by the words that follow, in which Paul returns to the 
 mention of the heretics: gv (viz. dyabjv ovveidyow) twee (comp. ver. 6) [V d.? 
 —arwcapevo.] This expression, not strange (de Wette) but suitable, denotes 
 the “ wantonness ” (de Wette) with which the heretics sacrificed the good 
 conscience to their selfish purposes.'—repi tiv riotw évavdyyoay] vavayeiv 
 occurs only here in a figurative sense. Ilepi gives the matter in which 
 they had made shipwreck, i.e. suffered loss. Tepi with the accusative, 
 equivalent to quod attinet ad, is found in the N. T. only in the Pastoral 
 Epistles; comp. 1 Tim. vi. 4,21; 2 Tim. ii. 18, iii. 8; Tit. ii. 7; see Winer, 
 p. 379 [E. T. p. 406]. 
 
 Ver. 20. "Qv éoriv ‘Ypévacoc kai ’AAEavdpoc] In 2 Tim. ii. 17, the apostle 
 names two false teachers-whose words eat like a cancer—Hymenaeus and 
 Philetus. There is no ground for distinguishing between the Hymenaeus 
 there and the one here mentioned. No difficulty is caused even by the 
 fact that “the one here is mentioned as a man cast out from the church, 
 and the other merely as an example of error” (de Wette) ; for Hymenaeus 
 and Philetus are not so tenderly dealt with in the other passages as de 
 Wette seems to think. As to Alexander, we must leave it unsettled 
 whether he is the same as the one mentioned in 2 Tim. iv.14. The 
 reasons are not decisive which seem to tell against the identity, viz. that 
 in the other passage the surname 6 yadxeic is added, and that “he is 
 
 1Van Oosterzee remarks on aya0yv cvveisy- | mann’s opinion, that the good conscience is 
 ow “as a troublesome reminder,” which is compared to “the ballast which gives the 
 not appropriate, because ay. cvverd. is not the necessary stability to a ship,” is wrong, since 
 conscience exhorting to good and punishing  amwetc@ac does not mean “to cast overs 
 evil, but of willing and doing good.—Hof- board.” 
 
86 ; THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 mentioned there not as excommunicated, but rather as still coming in 
 contact with the apostle; not as a heretic, but as an opponent” (de 
 Wette). It is, however, quite arbitrary to regard the Alexander (Acts xix. 
 33) who took part in the uproar at Ephesus as identical with the one men- 
 tioned here (see Meyer on the passage).\—oi¢ rapéduxa 7@ carava] [V e.] 
 the same excommunication of which the apostle speaks in 1 Cor. v. 5 
 (comp. Meyer on the passage). It is not simply excommunication from 
 the church, but with the purpose of ensuring, through Satan’s means, 
 dAeOpo¢ tHe capxéc to the one excommunicated. This is shown not only by 
 the formula itself, but also by the solemnity with which Paul there 
 expresses himself. The added clause, iva raidevéoow k.7.2., makes it clear 
 that here also the apostle had in mind eic¢ 6Ae6pov 7. capx., for that clause 
 at the same time gives the purpose of the rapédoxa, which is the reforma- 
 tion (iva 7d rveiza ow, 1 Cor. v. 5), or at least the preservation, of the 
 excommunicated man from iacdyueiv.2—radevew] in classical Greek 
 equivalent to “educate, especially by instruction,” so also Acts vii. 22, 
 xxii. 3, has elsewhere in the N. T. the meaning of “ punish in order to 
 reform,” i.e. chastise; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 25; 1 Cor. xi. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 9, 
 especially Heb. xii. 5-11. In Rev. iii. 19 it stands connected with ééyyeuw 
 (in Luke xxiii. 16, 22, the purpose of reformation falls quite into the back- 
 ground).—The diebpoc tice capkéc is intended by the apostle to be a chas- 
 tisement to the one named, that he may be kept from further reviling. 
 The expression f2acd7ueiv shows that they had not only suffered ship- 
 wreck in faith, but: in their unbelief were on the point of proceeding 
 actually to revile the Lord. 
 
 Nores spy AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 2 ps Inga 
 
 The opening salutations of the Pastoral Epistles have some peculiarities which 
 distinguish them from those of the other Pauline Epistles, and some which dis- 
 tinguish them from each other. The reader finds himself passing in these letters, 
 even at the beginning, into a new sphere of language to some extent, and the 
 question which meets him is whether the change is so great as to indicate a differ- 
 ence in the authorship. In the decision of this question two facts, which are 
 noticeable everywhere in Paul’s writings, must be borne in mind :—namely, the 
 freedom which characterizes his style, even where he uses phraseology of the same 
 
 10tto (pp. 98-112) gives a very vivid and 
 detailed picture of the tumult at Ephesus in 
 which a certain Alexander took part, in order 
 to prove the identity of the two Alexanders, 
 and confirm his view regarding the date of 
 the composition of this epistle. ~ But even if 
 the course of that tumult was as Otto de- 
 scribes it, with the aid of many arbitrary 
 suppositions, still we car by no means infer 
 the identity he maintains. in order to prove 
 it, Otto does not despise many strange 
 
 assumptions, such as, that the designation 
 xadkevs (2-Tim. iv. 14) was given to Alexander 
 because he was one of those who manufac- 
 tured the miniature silver temples; further, 
 that he, deceived by the soothsayers, had 
 
 -made no objection to the union of the worship 
 
 of Jehovah with heathen idolatry. 
 
 . 23In opposition to Hofmann’s opinion, that 
 neither here nor in the passage of Corin- 
 thians we are to think of an excommunication 
 from the church, comp. Meyer on 1 Cor. v. 5. 
 
NOTES. 87 
 
 general character, and the readiness with which he adopts new expressions, as he 
 moves from one section of his epistles to another, according as the subjects of dis- 
 cussion or the errors which threaten the churches become new. 
 
 Though addressed to individuals who had long been closely related to himself, 
 it is evident that the Apostle, in these letters, has reference to the churches which 
 were, and were to be, under their general superintendence. The letters, accord- 
 ingly, have a double character, and they can only be properly explained as this 
 peculiarity is observed. It is in this way, undoubtedly, that the use of the word 
 ardorodoc in all the three letters is to be accounted for, as contrasted with the 
 simple déouioc of the Epistle to Philemon, the only other letter addressed to an 
 individual. Possibly, the combination of the two elements may be seen in Tit. i. 
 1, where the words dovéog and aréotoAoc are both used. With respect to the use 
 of the phrase car’ émitayyv Geov, it may be noticed: (1) that it occurs in Tit. i. 3 
 in connection with the more definite statement that the Apostle was intrusted with 
 the matter of proclaiming the gospel ; (2) that in this employment of the phrase 
 we find a close resemblance to its use in Rom. xvi. 26; (3) that in 2 Tim. i. 1 the 
 common Pauline phrase dca GeAjpuatoc Oeov is substituted for it; (4) that in the 
 last mentioned passage the words kar’ érayyediay Cwy¢ are added, with which we 
 may compare kata qwiotw KT.A... . én EAridt Cuong aiwviov of Tit. i. If. (see 
 THE éAridog judv, 1 Tim.i.1). The similarity and, at the same time, variety of 
 thought and expression are, thus, so characteristic of Paul, that the mere fact of 
 the non-occurrence of the phrase kat’ émitay. Geotv elsewhere (except in Tit. i. 3, 
 and Rom. xvi. 26) can hardly be regarded as showing the words to be un-Pauline. 
 The same, in substance, may be said of the word ocwrip as applied to God the 
 Father. This application of the word in the Pastoral Epistles, however, is a 
 point worthy of consideration with reference to the view presented in them of the 
 relation of Christ to the Father. It will be noticed that cwr7p is connected with 
 Geov in this salutation of 1 Tim., while in the opening verses of Tit. it is joined 
 both with @eov (ver. 3) and with Xp. Ijoov (ver. 4) and in 2 Tim. i. 1, 2 it is not 
 found. The addition of the word éAeo¢ to the ordinary ydpic Kai cipyvn of the 
 Pauline salutations is peculiar, but can hardly be considered as a matter of diffi- 
 culty—especially as, according to the larger part of the oldest authorities, it does 
 not occur in the Epistle to Titus. Tisch., Treg., W. & H., Alf, R. V., EIIL., 
 Huther, and others omit the word in Titus. The greater fullness of expression in 
 the salutation of the last-named Epistle, by reason of which it reaches twice the 
 length of those in the letters to Timothy, is to be explained in connection with 
 the double character of all these epistles already alluded to. 
 
 II. Vv. 3, 4. 
 
 (a) On the construction of vv. 3, 4, nothing need be added to what is said by 
 Huther in his note. The apodosis to be supplied is oitw kai viv tapaxaro, With 
 this construction, the sentence implies a condition which is apparently inconsist- 
 ent with the placing of the Epistle within that portion of Paul’s history which is 
 included in the narrative of the Acts. The same thing is indicated by other con- 
 siderations connected with this and the other two Epistles. The allusion to the 
 fables and endless genealogies points to a later date for the letter than that at 
 which the Epp. to the Ephesians and Colossians were written.—() The word 
 _ érepodidackaAeiv seems to be a sort of negative to tpocéyevv K.T.2. as a positive. The 
 
88 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 former may be regarded as describing in its opposition to the gospel, what the 
 latter sets forth in its own character. This view-is not only made probable by 
 the construction of the two parallel clauses, but also by vi. 3, the only other 
 passage in which érepodcd. occurs. In that passage it is contrasted with “consent- 
 ing to sound words” and “ the doctrine which is according to godliness.” Though 
 a word not used elsewhere, and perhaps, as some hold, coined by this writer, it is 
 a word which is so easily formed and which, in the idea suggested by it, is so 
 nearly kindred to undoubtedly genuine Pauline expressions (comp. Gal. i. 6f. ete.) 
 that no objection can be made to it, as if it could not be employed by the Apostle. 
 As to the other words in the corresponding clause—iore and yeveasoyiaic,—the 
 former is found in iy. 7, where the adjectives profane and old wives’ are joined with 
 it, in 2 Tim. iv. 4, where the “ofor are contrasted with the truth, and in Tit. i. 14, 
 where they are called Jewish, and are connected with commandments of men who 
 turn away from the truth. The latter word, on’ the other hand, occurs only once 
 elsewhere—Tit. iii. 9, where it is used in connection with foolish questionings, 
 strifes, and fightings about the law. There can be little doubt, as the two words are 
 careiully considered, that the doctrines or views which the writer has in mind 
 are Jewish. They are distinctly called Jewish in Tit. i. 14, and are so described 
 in other passages as related to the law, that there can scarcely be any question 
 respecting this point. Indeed, vv. 7 ff. of the present chapter make this evident. 
 The words themselves, however, are such as manifestly could not be used of the 
 Judaistic doctrine referred to in Gal., and they seem to indicate something more 
 than is hinted at in Eph. or Col. This further growth and development may be 
 more distinctly noticed in the many other statements made in these epistles respect- 
 ing the errors. They show that, on the moral side, there was a movement 
 towards license rather than asceticism, and, on the intellectual side, a progress in 
 the general line of the Gnostie ideas. That the tendency to asceticism is still mani- 
 fest, however, is clear from 1 Tim. iv. 8; and the terms and descriptions, in gen- 
 eral, which are employed do not indicate any such marked remove from the 
 state of things presented before us in Col., as to prove a much later date for the 
 Pastoral Epistles. In the rapid movement of thought which we may ‘believe to 
 have characterized that early period of the history of the church, it is not diffi- 
 cult to suppose that the change which occurred between the time of w riting to 
 the Romans and that of addressing the Colossians may have been followed by a 
 change between the time of the epistle to the latter and the Epistles to Timothy 
 and Titus, such as appears in the descriptions of errors which they contain, even 
 if these last mentioned letters were separated from Col. by but four or five years. 
 —(c) The word (yryoerc is, strictly, of the active form and to be understood in an 
 active sense. But, as it seems to border in its idea both upon the active and 
 passive sense, and as olxovouiavy, when connected with @eov, has apparently else- 
 where the objective meaning, it may be regarded as somewhat more probable-that 
 both words are here to be taken objectively, than subjectively, as Huther in his 
 last edition prefers. Grimm Lex. N. T. takes them objectively, so Ell., Alf. 
 Wiesinger, and others. Grimm says, “quae materiem disceptationum potius quam 
 dispensationem rerum, quibus deus christianam salutem praeparavit et paravit, quae fide 
 amplectenda est (cognoscendam) praebent.” Ell. says, “The fables and genealogies 
 supplied questions of a controversial nature, but not the essence and principles of 
 the divine dispensation.’ The question between the two explanations’ of the 
 words is one of much uncertainty, an| the most that can be affirmed, on either 
 
NOTES. 89 
 
 side, is a probability. With either interpretation of oixovoyiav, the added words 
 év riorec denote the sphere within which the dispensation or stewardship moves. 
 —(d) aitwee may mean since they, or suchas. W. and H., with & A 17, read 
 éxCytyoete. So also Treg. and Tisch. 8th ed. and the text adopted by R. V. This 
 form occurs nowhere else. 
 
 III. Vv. 5-11. 
 
 (a) That there is a close connection between tapayyediac of ver. 5 and the cor- 
 responding verb in ver. 4 can hardly be doubted; but, as the verb, as here used, 
 adds to itself the idea expressed in p7 étepod.dackadeiy, it is probable that the noun 
 extends itself, also, to the same thing, and thus the “charge” contains that which 
 belongs in and with “the healthful teaching.” The end and aim of this is love. 
 Love here means love to one’s neighbor, as Huther remarks, and from the con- 
 nection with what follows seems to stand in contrast to that which the tuvéc were 
 promoting —(b) The contrast of aya7y, although in the fori of expression with 
 paratodoyiav, must be in reality with that to which the “ata. leads. This does 
 not seem to be merely the strifes which attend upon, or are likely to be produced 
 by, the éxCyr7ceve (comp. Tit. ii. 9), but all tnat which, in these Epp., is indicated 
 as the result of the doctrine of these men. Having swerved from a pure con- 
 science, heart, etc., they had turned aside—these words and the following point 
 apparently to such a turning from the true teaching of the gospel towards the law, 
 as not indeed, like the Galatian Judaizers, merely to make the latter essential to 
 justification, but rather to misconceive the purpose of the law and even direct it 
 to wrong ends. Alf.says: The Apostle was dealing “ with men who corrupted the 
 material enactments of the moral law, and founded on Judaism not assertions of 
 its obligation, but idle fables and allegories, letting in latitude of morals and un- 
 holiness of life. It is against this abuse of the law that his arguments are 
 directed ; these men struck, by their interpretation, at the root of all divine law 
 itself, and therefore at that root itself does he meet and grapple with them.”— 
 (c) That the law here referred to is the Mosaic Law is proved both by the 6 véuoe 
 of ver. 8 and the fact that the fables, ete., are called Jewish (Tit. i. 14). This 
 being the case, there can be little doubt that vowodsdacKado: means teachers of this 
 particular law, and it is highly probable that 1éuo¢ of ver. 9 has the same refer- 
 ence. This law is the only one, apparently, of which the Apostle speaks, or which 
 he has in mind, in any passage in these epistles——(d) The relation of the persons 
 spoken of to the law is suggested by the clause éav ti¢ avTG vouiuwe ypytrat, This 
 expression points to what is said by Alford, as quoted above, and would scarcely 
 have been used by the Apostle of the Galatian teachers.—(e) The exact meaning 
 of the word dixaiw of ver. 9 is somewhat doubtful. The contrast with avduore, ete., 
 and the not improbable connection in thought, in the use of these words, with the 
 prohibitions of the Decalogue, point to the ordinary sense of dixaoc, The refer- 
 ence, on the other hand, to the Pauline gospel in ver. 11, and the fact that here, 
 as elsewhere in his Epistles, the Apostle apparently contends against those who 
 oppose his own doctrine, suggest that he has in mind righteousness in the 
 peculiarly Christian sense. Not improbably, there may be a certain union of the 
 two elements in the word, as connected with the fact that these teachers of the 
 law were pressing their opposing views even to the point of lawlessness and laxity 
 in morals.—(f) The connection «f sara 76 ebay. which Huther favors is that which 
 
90 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 most of the recent commeniators adopt. This phrase, accordingly, refers to all 
 that has been said about the law. Adéy¢ is an objective genitive, and probably has 
 reference to the revelation of the Divine glory which the gospel makes, as con- 
 trasted with the erroneous and empty doctrines of the false teachers. 
 
 IV. Vv. 12-17. 
 
 (a) With regard to the connection between this passage and what precedes, two 
 remarks may be made: (1) that, as the letter isone having both a personal anda 
 general or public aim, itis not strange that the writer should at times turn, even 
 somewhat abruptly, to a matter related to his own experience or his individual 
 reminiscences. Such transitions from the general to the individual are, in such a 
 letter, no indication of weakress of style or thought; and (2) that, if such a 
 transition is allowed to the author here, the thought moves on in a suitable pro- 
 gress from the verses which precede to the end of this passage. If these letters 
 were written by Paul, they belong to the latest period of his life. His impulse 
 towards dwelling upon his own personal history is observable in all his Epistles, 
 even those of earliest date. That, in later years, this impulse should have become 
 stronger, is only what might be reasonably expected. Advancing life and its 
 many trials and successes made him recall, with ever fresh interest, what he had 
 gone through, and, especially, the wonder of the Divine grace in his case. Pas- 
 sages like the present, therefore, so far from being a ground of objection to the 
 Pauline authorship of the Epistle, are, on the contrary, entirely consistent with 
 it—(b) It is to be observed, also, that, in the case of this particular passage, no 
 just objection can be made to the Pauline authorship on the ground that one who 
 was so familiar with Timothy as the Apostle was, and had long been, could not be 
 expected to make to him suth detailed statements respecting himself and his own 
 history. Whatever may be said of other cases, there is nothing here which is 
 inconsistent with what a man like Paul might have said in grateful remembrance 
 of his past life—(c) The meaning of orc in ver. 15, where it is used of a thing 
 (Adyoc), is, apparently, worthy of credit. Probably, the adjective has a similar mean- 
 ing, trustworthy, to be relied upon, worthy of credit, in 1 Cor. vii. 25; possibly, also, in 
 2 Tim. ii. 2. The correspondence of ver. 12 with the verse mentioned in 1 Cor, 
 in its general thought (comp. 7Ae#4nv ver. 18, #Aenuévoc x.7.2. in 1 Cor.), and the 
 fact that the Divine choice of Paul for the ministry was made before the question 
 of actual faithfulness in service could arise, favor giving to the adjective the sense 
 of trustworthy in this verse. It is commonly, however, rendered faithful. So 
 Huther, Alf., Ell., R. V., Bib. Com., and others, (“He knew me to be such an 
 one, in His foresight, as would prove faithful to the great trust,” Alf.)—(d) Love 
 and faith in ver. 14, are immediately connected with 7 ydpc Tov Kupiov 7udv, and 
 thus are here viewed as divine gifts. They are suggested, probably, by the thought 
 of vy. 4, 5, where these words occur as the end and sphere of the divine tapayyeAia 
 and oixovouia. The closeness of the thought here to that of the earlier verses 
 is thus manifest—(e) Ver. 15. The phrase tiord¢ 6 Adyoc, which occurs several 
 times in these Epistles, refers here, and perhaps in all cases, to what follows. The 
 word Aéyo¢ seems to have the sense of common or fixed-saying,—something of the 
 character of a proverbial sentence. The introduction of the words with this for- 
 mula is to be accounted for in connection with the public character of the latter, 
 while the preceding and following words have a more individual reference. This 
 
NOTES. 91 
 
 intermingling of the two is a part of the semi-official style in which the Epistle 
 is written. It cannot be regarded as an Epistle written simply for the private 
 reading of Timothy.—(j') The statement that Christ Jesus came into the world 
 to save sinners is intended, apparently, to contrast the gospel with the doctrine of 
 the errorists, in that the great distinguishing characteristic of the gospel is its 
 design of saving sinners. The errorists gave themselves to a vain discoursing 
 about the law and legal righteousness, which moved in the outward region and 
 even tended to laxness in true morality; but the teaching of the gospel was a 
 teaching of forgiveness, and, then, of inward sanctification. To no better illustra- 
 tion of the power of this Christian doctrine, or its transforming effect, could the 
 Apostle refer than his own life, and so he at once turns again to his own case— 
 declaring himself to be spato¢ among sinners, and the one in whom, as tp@roc, the 
 long-suffering of Christ was shown as an example for all who should follow in 
 after times. p@rto¢ of ver. 15 almost certainly means first, in the sense of chief; 
 mpotw of ver. 16 has primarily, if not exclusively, the sense of first, as related to 
 Tov weAAdvTwv—it is possible, however, that in tparw, also, there may be combined 
 with first in time, or succession, the idea of chief—(g) The peculiarities of the 
 doxology in ver. 17 are (1) the introduction of the words with a substantive form 
 in the dative, instead of a relative pronoun as in all other cases in Paul’s writings 
 where a dative opens a doxological clause; (2) the use of BaoAci¢ asa designa- 
 tion of God, which does not occur in the other Pauline Epistles; (3) the expres- 
 sion Bac, Tov aidvwv, This expression is not found elsewhere in the N. T. On 
 the other hand, a¢4apréc is applied to God by Paul in Rom. i. 28; aéparoe, in Col. 
 i. 15; pdvoc, in Rom. xvi. 27. d0Sa and tiwq are used in connection with each 
 other by Paul, but not in a doxology. In the variety of the Pauline expressions, 
 which include even several of the words here used, we may easily find a place for 
 a doxology of this character, although one precisely like it, in all respects, may 
 not be discovered. The turn to the doxology, like that to the expression of 
 thanks in ver. 12, is somewhat abrupt—more so than is ordinarily the case in the 
 Pauline doxologies. The connection in the thought is, possibly, though not very 
 probably, in the words aiéviov—aioverv. The suggestion of the ascription of praise 
 to God comes undoubtedly, from the thought of the divine mercy and grace which 
 had been manifested in his case.—(h) That tov aidvev here means the ages, and 
 not the world, is rendered probable both by the ai@viov which precedes and the 
 aiavacg aiévwv which follows, and by the fact that the relation of God to the world 
 does not seem to be naturally suggested in this place. The ages are, apparently, 
 all the ages of duration, and so, although the word is not equivalent to the adjec- 
 tive eternal, the idea of eternal existence is suggested in connection with it. The 
 connection of a¢#aptw and aopatw with Geo¢—the King of the ages, the incorrupt- 
 ible, invisible, only God—is probably to be preferred to that which seems to be 
 adopted by R. V.: the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, the only God. 
 
 V. Vv. 18-20. 
 
 (a) Vv. 12-17 are, evidently, in one sense—so far as they express the writer's 
 thankfulness and refer to his own experience—a digression or parenthesis. In 
 another sense—so far as there is a reference to the doctrine of the gospel—they 
 -set forth what is in the line of the preceding verses. While, therefore, it may be 
 questioned whether tapayyeAiav of ver. 18 is to be immediately connected with the 
 
92 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 same word in ver. 5, it is probable that, in the general thought, the Apostle goes 
 back to that verse, and that, in this word, he refers tothe comprehensive charge 
 appertaining to the Christian teaching. This charge he commits—deposits, as it 
 were, in his hands—to Timothy, in accordance with the prophecies, ete. As these 
 prophecies assigned to Timothy the work of a preacher and missionary, the ful- 
 fillment of the general charge of the gospel in his case would be accomplished by 
 his “warring in the sphere of them the good warfare.” The charge is, therefore, 
 committed to him by the Apostle, in order that he may war, ete. This explana- 
 tion of the word wapayyediav, and of the construction, seems, on the whole, the 
 simplest and best—making iva «.7.A, denote the end in view of tapari#eyai, rather 
 than finding in that clause the explanation of what is meant by the mapayyediay, 
 This view is confirmed by the correspondence of tiorw and ayabyv cvveidnow of 
 this verse with the same words in ver. 5, and in the general similarity of their 
 relation to the main thought in the two cases.—(b) R. V. renders ra¢ mpoayoicac 
 K.T.A.which went befere on thee, in the text, and led the way to thee, in the margin. A. R. 
 V. substitutes this marginal rendering for the text. This rendering of A. R. V. 
 is favored by the position of the words ézi oé, but as mpoay. in Heb. vii. 18 has the 
 sense of foregoing, former, and as there seems little occasion here to introduce the idea 
 of led the way to thee, it is probably better, with Huther and many of the best recent 
 comm., to give the participle the meaning former or preceding, and to make é7i oé 
 qualify mpodyreiac, (So Alf., EIL, Fairbairn, Holtzm., Grimm, and others).—(e) 
 Alf, Ell., Plumptre, Bib. Com., as well as the writers mentioned by Huther, 
 regard év airai¢ as carrying in it the figure of armor. This seems, however, so 
 doubtful, that it is safer to take év more generally, in the sense of in the sphere of. 
 It was in the sphere of what these prophecies suggested, that the warfare, in 
 Timothy’s case, could be rightly carried forward. With rv kaAgjv orpareiav we 
 may compare the kindred, and yet different, phrase tov KaAdv ayova, 2 Tim. iv. 7? 
 —(d) That 7v of ver. 19 refers to ay. ovveidyow only is indicated both by the sing- 
 ular number and by the fact that it was by wilfully thrusting from themselves 
 that which is indicated by 7, that they made shipwreck concerning tioTic. That 
 THv TioTw is, ina certain sense, objective here is evident; but that it means the 
 faith, as a system of doctrine, is doubtful, or even improbable. The use of tiotv¢ 
 in the latter sense, in the Pauline Epistles, is questionable—(e) The expression 
 mapéduKa 7 Laravd (ver. 20) is found elsewhere only in 1 Cor. v. 5. In that 
 passage it seems to indicate something additional to, and different from, excom- 
 munication. While the latter was the act of the church, this was a thing, appar- 
 ently, which appertained to the apostolic office alone. Not improbably, it may 
 have been attended by some bodily evil in the person thus delivered ; but this 
 cannot be confidently affirmed. From the final clauses added both in 1 Cor. and 
 here, it seems probable that the design of it was reformatory (comp. especially iva 
 TO rvevua Cully ev TH Huepa Tod Kupiov 1 Cor. v.5). That the result was always, 
 reformation is not certain. Apparently this was the result in the case mentioned 
 in 1 Cor., as we may infer from what the Apostle says in 2 Cor. ii. 5 ff.,—if, indeed 
 this penalty was there finally inflicted. 
 
CHAP. II 93 
 
 CHAPTER IT. 
 
 Ver. 1. zapaka2.6] Instead of this, D* F G, Sahid. Clar. Boern. Hilar. Ambro- 
 siast. ed. Cassiod. (alicubi) Or. (ter ut Rec.) have the imperative tapakaiet, which 
 is manifestly a conjecture for the purpose of giving to the words the form of a 
 commission to Timothy.—7avTwr] is omitted in some codd. (G, G, Boern. Or. 
 [semel]); it might easily be overlooked as merely strengthening the tpatov.— 
 Ver. 3. In A 17, 67** 8, Cop. Sahid. yap is wanting, and is therefore omitted by 
 Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 8; it is retained in Matthaei and Tisch. 7—Ver. 6. 76 
 fapriptov Katpoicg idiore] Some codd. have the reading ov 70 papr. x. id, £d63y (D* 
 ® G, Clar. Boern. Harl.* Ambrosiast.; while some cursives have the reading ov, 
 but without ¢d647). This reading has only arisen out of a desire to connect the 
 words more closely with what precedes. The omission of the words 70 paprupiov 
 in A is to be considered merely an error in copying. Lachm. in his large edition 
 (so also Buttm.) left them out; in the small edition he retained them. W has the 
 reading kai for 76.—Ver. 7. The words év Xpior@ were rejected from the text 
 even by Griesb. (so also Scholz, Lachm., and others), because they are wanting in 
 the most important authorities, in A D* F G 3, 6, 23* 31, al., Syr. utr. Arr. 
 Copt. etc.; on the other hand, they are found in 8 Matthaei, however, has 
 retained them with the remark : adhuc maneo in ea sententia, ut credam, ab Praxa- 
 postolis et Euchologiis exclusum esse in fine lectionis. If they are compared with 
 Rom. ix. 1, it is easy to explain how they came into the text—Instead of év 
 miotet, 8 has év yvécer. Buttm., following A, reads év tveiwats.—Ver. 8. Instead 
 of the singular dsadoyiouov, F G 17, 47, 67** al., Syr. utr. Boern. Or. (ter sed ter 
 ut Rec.) Eus., ete., have the plural dsaAjoyiouev (Tisch. 7); Matthaei remarks on 
 this: hujusmodi lectiones plerumque placent viris graece doctis ; verum in N, T. 
 contraria ferenda est sententia. Most authorities, including &, have the singular 
 (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8). The plural is with Reiche to be considered a mere 
 correction, all the more that the singular of the word does not occur elsewhere in 
 the N. T. (except in Luke ix. 46, 47) ; comp. especially Phil. ii. 14—Ver. 9. xai 
 Tac] are wanting in A 71; «ai alone is wanting in &, and rae alone is wanting 
 in D* F G 67** 73, al., Or. Lachm. and Buttm. omitted both words, Tisch. only 
 Ta¢.—i xpvo®] Instead of the Rec. 7 (in D*** K L, ete.), Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 
 rightly adopted «ai, following A D* F G, etc. Tisch. retained the Ree. ypvoe, 
 following D K L, ete.; Lachm. and Buttm., on the other hand, read ypvoiw 
 following A F G, ete. As both forms are used in the N. T., we can hardly decide 
 which is right here—Ver. 10. The reading ¢ instead of 6, found in some cur- 
 sives, Arm. and Cypr., is manifestly a correction to facilitate the interpretation — 
 Ver. 12. Instead of yuvarkt dé diddoxew (Tisch. 7), we should follow A D F GX, 
 al., Arm. Vulg. It. Cypr. Jer. Ambrosiast., and read diddoxew dé yvvaiki, which 
 has been received into the text by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8. Hofm., for the sake 
 . of his exposition, prefers the Rec—Ver 14. Instead of the Ree. ataryteioa, Lachm. 
 Buttm. Tisch. read the compound éfa7ar7eioa, on the testimony of A D* F G 
 
94 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 17 28, al., Mt. K., Bas. Chrys. If the compound had not such weighty authorities 
 in its favor, we should be inclined to account for it out of Rom. vii. 11 and 2 Cor. 
 xi. 3.—Ver. 15. On the reading yap for dé, found in some codd., Matthaei rightly 
 remarks: ita centies istae particulae ... praesertim in principio pro arbitrio 
 mutantur. 
 
 Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-7, see Note VI., pages 109-111.] After directing Timo- 
 thy’s attention generally to the ozpareia to which he had been appointed, 
 Paul proceeds to mention in detail the things for which, in his office, he 
 had to care. This connection of thought is marked by the particle of 
 transition oiv (Wiesinger), which therefore does not stand (as de Wette, 
 following Schleiermacher, thinks) without any logical connection.! [VI a.] 
 —rpotov tévrwor] is not to be taken with zoveioba, as Luther does: “to do 
 before everything else,” but with zapaxara (Heydenreich, Matthies, de 
 Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee).—oveiabar deqoere x.7.4.] [VI b.] The apos- 
 tle herewith begins to give “instructions regarding public prayer ” (Wies- 
 inger). The idea of prayer is here expressed by four words. Aéyow and 
 Tpooevyy are connected in other passages as synonyms—in Eph. vi. 18, 
 Phil. iv. 6; the difference between them is this, that déyow can be used 
 only of petitionary prayer, zpocevyy of every kind of prayer. Not less 
 general in meaning 1s évrevévc, from évrvyyavew ti incidere in aliquem, 
 adire aliquem, and in reference to God: pray (Wisd. viii. 21, xvi. 28). The 
 reference to another is not contained in the word itself, but in the prepo- 
 sition connected with it, asin Rom. xi. 2: xara two¢; and Rom. viii. 34; 
 Heb. vii. 25: ixép twoc. Accordingly, the substantive évrevéic, which 
 occurs only here and in chap. iv. 5, does not in itself possess the meaning 
 of intercession for others, but denotes simply prayer as an address to God 
 (Wiesinger).? The three words, accordingly, are thus distinguished : in 
 the first, the element of insufficiency is prominent; in the second, that of 
 devotion; and in the third, that of child-like confidence (prayer—the 
 heart’s converse with God). Calvin is right in his remark, that Paul 
 joined these three words together here “ut precandi studium et assidui- 
 tatem magis commendet ac vehementius urgeat.” *—evyapioriac] “prayers 
 
 the punishment of sin; mpooevy%, prayer for 
 the bestowal of benefits; évrevéis, prayer for 
 the punishment of the unrighteous (Theodo- 
 ret: denats eat, Urép amadAayis TLv@v AUTNpaV 
 
 1 Hofmann’'s reference of odv toi. 15 and the 
 conclusion of ver. 16 is far-fetched: “If Christ 
 came into the world to save sinners, and if 
 the long-suffering of God towards the man 
 
 whom He made His apostle from being a re- 
 viler, was to be a prophecy regarding the con- 
 version of those who were afterwards made 
 to believe on Him, it becomes Christians not, 
 in sectarian fashion, to limit its command to 
 its sphere at that time, but to extend it to all 
 men.” 
 
 2Comp. Plutarch, Vita Numae, chap. 14: pH 
 movetaGat Tas mpos TO Oetov evtevgers ev arxo- 
 Alq Kai Tapépyws. 
 
 3In regard to the more precise definition 
 of the word, there is much that is arbitrary 
 in expositors older and more recent. Thus 
 senovs is understood to be prayer for averting 
 
 ixereta mpoohepomevn’ mpowevxy eat aitnats 
 ayadav’ évrevéis eats KaTnyopia Tay adikovYTwY; 
 so, too, Theophylact and Oecumenius). Pho 
 tius (ad Amphil. qu. 193) explains évtvxéa in 
 the same way: evtuxia (oTay Tis Kata TOV ade- 
 KovVTwY évTUYXaVN TO Bee, MpoTKadrovpmevos 
 avrov eis exdixynowv); but the other two words 
 differently: Sénous wey AéyeTar, OTav Tis @ceor 
 a&.ot €is mpayua’ mpocevxy Sé, bray vuvy Tor 
 @eov. Origen (wept evx7s, 3 44) finds a climax 
 in the succession of the words, and dis- 
 tinguishes mpocevxai from denoecs in this way, 
 that the former are prayers joined with a Sogo- 
 Aoyia, made for greater things and peyade 
 
CHAP. I. 1, 2. 95 
 
 of thanksgiving,” the apostle adds, because in Christian prayer the giving 
 of thanks should never be wanting ; comp. Phil. iv. 6: 
 kat tH deqoet peta evyapiotiag Ta aithuata budv yvwpilecbar zpdc Tov Oedv.— 
 trép raver aviporwr] is not to be referred merely to evyapiotia, but also 
 to the preceding words (Wiesinger). The prayer of the Christian com- 
 munity (for this and not private prayer is here spoken of ) is—in petition 
 and thanksgiving—to embrace all mankind. [VI c.] 
 
 Ver. 2. ‘Yrép Baoidéwv] Baovdeic are not merely the Roman emperors, the 
 apostle using the plural because of the emperor’s colleagues (Baur); the word 
 is to be taken, in a more general sense, as denoting the highest authorities in 
 the state —xai ravtwv tov év brepoyxy dvTwv] not only denoting the governors 
 in the provinces, but all who hold the office of magistrate anywhere. The 
 expression is synonymous with éovoia: imepéxovoa: in Rom. xiii. 1; comp. 
 2 Mace. i. 11: avjp év brepoxy xeiuevoc. Josephus calls the magistrates 
 simply ai irepoyai (Antiqg. vi. 4, 3). In the old liturgies we find, in express 
 accordance with this passage, the déyow imép BaciAéwr Kai tov év brepoyn, 
 brép THC Eiphryc Tov oburavroc Kéouov. The purpose for which intercession is 
 specially to be made for all men in authority is given in the words that 
 follow: iva jjpeyov Kai yobxwov Biov diaywuev, Which, as de Wette rightly re- 
 marks, denotes the objective and not the subjective purpose. Paul does not 
 mean here to direct attention to the value which intercession has for our 
 own inner life, and by means of this for outward peace, as Heydenreich 
 (“Christians are to pray also for heathen rulers, that by this prayer they 
 may keep alive within themselves the quiet submissive spirit of citizens”’), 
 Matthies (“animated with loving thoughts towards the representatives of 
 the government, they are to be blameless in their walk, and to strive after 
 the undisturbed enjoyment of outward peace’’), and others think; but 
 the apostle is speaking of the still, quiet life as a blessing which the 
 church obtains by prayer to God for the rulers. The prayer is directed, 
 as Wiesinger rightly remarks, not for the conversion of the heathen 
 
 éV TAVTL TH TpocEevyH 
 
 dvéotepov, while évrevéers are the prayers of 
 one who has mappyoiay twa mActova.—still 
 more arbitrary is Kling’s explanation, that 
 dejoecs are prayers in reference to the circum- 
 stances of all mankind; mpocevxat, prayers 
 for some benefit; évrevéers, prayers for the 
 aversion of evil. Matthies is partly right, 
 partly wrong when he says: dénors is the 
 prayer made with a feeling of the need of 
 God, so that the inner side of the need and of 
 uprightness (?) is particularly prominent; 
 mpogevxy, prayer, in the act of devotional 
 address to the Godhead, therefore with refer- 
 ence to the outward exercise (?); évtevéers, in- 
 tercession, made not so much for ourselves 
 as on behalf of others (?).—There is no ground 
 whatever for the opinion of Heydenreich, 
 that the first two expressions are used of 
 prayer (Sénovs = petition ; mpocevxy = thanks- 
 giving) for the whole Christian community, 
 while the other two (évtevéis = petition ; evxa- 
 
 protia = thanksgiving) are used of prayer for 
 the whole of mankind. Lastly, we may note 
 the peculiar view of Augustine (Ep. 59), 
 according to which the four expressions are 
 to be understood of prayers used at the cele- 
 bration of the Lord’s Supper, denoers being 
 the precationes before consecration; mpogev- 
 xai, the orationes at the benediction, con- 
 secration, and breaking of bread; évtevéecs, 
 the interpellationes at the benediction of the 
 congregation; and evxaprozia, the gratiarum 
 actio at the close of the communion. Plitt so 
 far agrees with this view of Augustine, that 
 he thinks the apostle’s various expressions 
 denote the various liturgical prayers, as they 
 were defined even in ancient times at the 
 celebration of the Eucharist (?). 
 
 1 Hofmann maintains, without grounds, that 
 iva «.7.A. does not give the purpose of the 
 prayer for all men and for rulers, but “the 
 purpose for which rulers exist” (!). 
 
96 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 rulers, but for the divine blessing necessary to them in the discharge of 
 their office (Rom. xiii. 14)—The adj. jpeuoc occurs only here! in the N.T., 
 and jovxioc Only here.and in 1 Pet. i. 4 (synonymous with zpaic). The 
 expression Piov didyew also occurs only here; in Tit. iii. 3, déyew is used 
 without Biov—No exact distinction can be established between jpeuog and 
 jovyioc. Olshausen (in Wies'nger) says, without reason, that the former 
 means: “not disquieted from without;” the latter, “from within.” ’Hpéua 
 denotes, in classic Greek at any rate, “still, tranquil existence;” but 
 jovxu¢ (Fovyoc) has the same meaning, and also denotes that there is no 
 disturbance from without. The collocation of the two words serves to give 
 more force to the thought; a jp. «. goby. Bioc is a life led without dis- 
 turbance from without, with no excitement of fear, etc.—iov didyew] 
 “spend life, more than iyew” (Wiesinger); the same expression is often 
 found in classical writers.—év rdoy evoeBeia kat ceuvdtnrc]. Not on this, but 
 on 7p. kat jody. is the chief emphasis of the sentence laid (Plitt); the 
 words only add a more precise definition. EioéZeva, a word foreign to the 
 other Pauline Epistles, and (with eiceS%e, eboe Bic, ebae3év) occurring only 
 in the Pastoral Epistles, in Acts, and in 2 Pet., denotes the godliness of 
 the heart; cenvdryc, also peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles (cenvde, only here 
 and in Phil. iv. 8), denotes the becoming conduct of the Christian in all 
 the relations of life. Hofmann is arbitrary in separating this addition 
 from what immediately precedes, and joining it with roveiofar defoere x.7.A., 
 as “denoting the manner in which the prayer commended is to be made.” 
 
 Ver. 8. [VI d.] This verse points back to what was said in ver. 1; not, 
 however, in such a way as to make ver. 2 a parenthesis (so in a former 
 edition of this commentary), but rather so as to include the points men- 
 tioned in it.—rovro] does not refer to the thoughts immediately preceding, 
 but to the soveiobar defoerc irép Tavtov avOporov k.7.2.—The highest 
 motive of the Christian to such prayer is the good pleasure of God.—xaor 
 kai arddextov | amédextoc (like arodoy#) occurs only in this First Epistle to 
 Timothy ; it is synonymous with.ebdpecroc in Col. iii. 20 (roiro yap evapecrov 
 éotiv év Kupiw).—évOrioy Tov, cwtHpoc Audv Ocoi] is referred only to arddexrov by 
 several expositors, who either take *a/év absolutely (de Wette: “good in 
 itself;”” so also van Oosterzee, Matthies: “xa%. denotes the endeavor 
 recommended in its inner worth and contents”), er, as Leo, supply with 
 it évdriov tov avOpdrev: “which is praiseworthy, se. before men.” The 
 latter is clearly quite arbitrary; but even for the former there is not 
 sufficient ground, all the more when we compare 2 Cor. viii. 21: mpovootyev 
 yap Kaa ov pdvov évorcov Kupiov, aAAd Kai Evorvov avdpdruv.2 On owrhp, see i. 1. 
 —Paul uses this name for God here because he has already in mind the 
 thought that follows (Wiesinger). 
 
 1Nor is the positive jpewos used in the 
 Greek classics. As yet it has been found 
 only in the Inscript. Olbiopol. n. 2059, v. 24, by 
 Lobeck; see Winer, p. 68 [E. T. p. 70]; Butt- 
 mann, p. 24 [E. T. 28].—The substantives 
 novxia and npewta are frequently found to- 
 
 gether in the classics; e.g. Demosth. de Con- 
 tributione, 28; Bekk. s. Dorville, On Chariton, 
 p. 411. 
 
 ‘2 Heydenreich’s opinion is utterly erro- 
 neous, that Paul calls prayer for all «adoy, 
 because it is not only right and good, but 
 
CHAP. II. 3-5. 97 
 
 Ver. 4. Ground of the previous thought. The general intercession 1s 
 xan. x. a0. before God, because He, etc. It is not unusual to give in @ 
 relative clause the grounds of a previous statement. “Oc tavrac avépdroug 
 GéAe owjvac (comp. Tit. ii. 11)] [VI e.] The chief accent is laid on ravra¢ 
 (corresponding with iép avtwv, ver. 1), which is therefore placed first. 
 God’s purpose of salvation extends to all, and therefore the prayer of 
 Christians must include all. Wiesinger, however, is right in remarking 
 that “the apostle in é¢ «.7.4, does not mean specially to give a reason 
 for prayer for the conversion of all men, but for prayer generally 
 as a duty of universal love to men.” Chrysostom puts it differently : 
 pyuow Tov Osdv' ek mavtac avOparoug GéAEL owlyvat, Gére Kai ob’ et dé OéAeELC, 
 edyou' Tov yap TowiTev (Tov OeAdrvTwv) éoTl 7d ebyecha.—The true con- 
 nection of thought is obscured if we supply the intermediate thought, that 
 prayer for all, and specially for kings, serves to maintain the peace without 
 which the spread of Christianity would be hindered.'—«ai eg ériyvoow 
 GAnOeiac éA0civ] The same connection of words is found elsewhere only in 2 
 Tim. iii. 7; on the meaning of éx/yvwow, see my Commentary on Colossians, 
 pp- 74 f., Remark.—The connection of the two expressions cwfjva: and ei¢ 
 ixiyv. ad. éAbew may be regarded differently. Hofmann takes them to be 
 in substance identical; Heydenreich takes the latter as an explanation of 
 the former, “showing how and by what means God wishes to effect the 
 salvation of all;” he therefore regards the éxiyrwou rt. aa. as the means of 
 the owrypia. So, too, Winer (p. 514 [E. T. p. 553]): “at first the general 
 purpose is mentioned (ai, and in pursuance of this), then the immediate 
 purpose (as a means of attaining the other).” It is explained in the same 
 way by Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others. But it seems more natural 
 to regard the ériyvwore tig adnfeiag as the goal to which the rescue (sw6jvar) 
 leads (so, too, Plitt).? 
 
 Ver. 5. Elc yap ede] [VI f.] The particle yép connects this verse with 
 the thought immediately preceding (Wiesinger), and not, as Leo and 
 Mack think, with the exhortation to pray for all.* The apostle wishes by 
 it to confirm the idea of the universality of the divine purpose of salva- 
 tion as true and necessary : he does this first by pointing to the unity of 
 God. There is a quite similar connection of ideas in Rom. ii. 30 
 (emphasis is laid on God’s unity in another connection in 1 Cor. viii. 6, 
 and, in a third connection, in Eph. iv. 6). From the unity of God, it 
 necessarily follows that there is only one purpose regarding all; for if 
 
 “brings a benefit to the Christians, by recom- his theory of predestination, has to take 
 
 mending them to their rulers.” 
 
 1Mosheim (Instit. Hist. Eccles. maj. I. 36): 
 Id sanctus homo tradit:: nisi pax in orbe 
 terrarum vigeat, fieri nullo modo posse, ut 
 yoluntati divinae, quae omnium hominum 
 salutem cupit, satisfiat; bellis nimirum fla- 
 grantibus haud licuisset legatis Jesu Christi, 
 secure ad omnes populos proficisci. 
 
 2In this verse the idea of the universality 
 of God’s purpose of salvation is clearly and 
 ‘distinctly expressed. Calvin, in order to save 
 
 7 
 
 refuge in an exposition more than ingenious: 
 de hominum generibus, non singulis per- 
 sonis, sermo est; nihil enim aliud intendit, 
 quam principes et extraneos, populos in hoc 
 numero includere. 
 
 3Van Oosterzee confuses the two refer- 
 ences: “God’s universal purpose of salvation 
 is here established in such a way that at the 
 same time there is to a certain extent (!) an 
 indication of a third motive for performing 
 Christian intercessions.” 
 
98 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 there were various purposes for various individuals, the Godhead 
 would be divided in its nature. As there is one God, however, so 
 also there is one Mediator.—eic¢ kai pecitye Ocov Kai avOpdorwv] The 
 word jecity¢' occurs elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles only in Gal. 
 iii. 19, 20, where the name is given to Moses, because through him 
 God revealed the law to the people. Elsewhere in the N. T. the word is 
 found only in Heb. viii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24, and in connection with dcabjxyc, 
 from which, however, it cannot (with Schleiermacher and de Wette) be 
 concluded that the idea mediator refers necessarily to the corresponding 
 idea covenant. Christ is here named the peaitn¢ Ocov kai avOpdrwv, because 
 He is inter Deum et homines constitutus (Tertullian). He is the Mediator 
 for both, in so far as only through Him does God accomplish His purpose 
 of salvation (His 6éAev) regarding men, and in so far as only through 
 Him can men reach the goal appointed them by God (cwfjvar kai cic 
 ériyv. aa. éA6eiv). Hofmann says: “He is the means of bringing about 
 the relation in which God wishes to stand towards men, and in which 
 men ought to stand towards God.” As with the unity of God, so also is 
 the unity of the Mediator a surety for the truth of the thought expressed 
 in ver. 4, that God’s 6éAew refers to all men.—To define it more precisely, 
 Paul adds: avOpwroe Xpioric “Ijoovc. This addition may not, as Otto and 
 others assume, have been occasioned by opposition to the docetism 
 of the heretics. In other epistles of the N. T. special emphasis is 
 laid on Christ’s humanity, with no such opposition to suggest it; thus 
 Rom. v. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 21; Phil. ii. 7; Heb. ii. 16,17. Inthis passage the 
 reason for it is contained first in the designation of Christ as the ecirye ;? 
 and further, in the manner in which Christ carried out His work of 
 mediation, 7.e., as the next verse informs us, by giving Himself up to 
 death.’ 
 
 Ver. 6. ‘0 dove éavriv avtiAutpov trép ravtwv] The word avridvtpov, which 
 occurs only here, is synonymous with avraAzayua in Matt. xvi. 26; it is 
 distinguished from the simple Airpov, as Matthies rightly remarks, only in 
 this, that the preposition makes the idea of exchange still more emphatic. 
 According to the usage of the N. T., there can be no doubt that the apos- 
 tle here alludes to Christ’s reconciling death ; comp., besides Tit. 11. 14, 
 Matt. xx. 28, ete., especially I Pet. i. 18,19, where the rijwov aiva is men- 
 tioned as the means by which we are redeemed. The expression doic 
 éavtév has here—where avridvrpov is added by way of apposition to éavrév 
 
 1 Regarding the use of the word in classical wrought only by a man. Only a man could 
 
 Greek, comp. Cremer, s.v.—There is no 
 necessity for Cremer’s opinion, that peotrns 
 in the passages of Hebrews does not so much 
 mean “mediator” as “surety.” 
 
 “2Theodoret: av@pwrov 6€ Tov Xprorov wvo- 
 pacev, ered) peaitny exadecev’ evavOpwrycas 
 yap é“eolTevcev. 
 
 %The avOparwv suggested the av@pwros all 
 the more naturally, thet in the apostle’s con- 
 sciousness the owrtnpia of men could be 
 
 reconcile men with God; only, indeed, the 
 roan of whom it was said os ébavepwOn ev capxt 
 (chap. iii. 16). Hofmann supposes that Christ 
 Jesus is here called av@pwz7os, “in order to 
 say that, as He became man to be mediator, 
 He is therefore the mediator and saviour not 
 of this or of that man, but of all men without 
 distinction.” This thought, however, is more 
 the ground of the els, for even the mediator 
 “of this or that man” might also be a man. 
 
CHAP. II. 6. 99 
 
 (as in Matt. xx. 28, Airpov is in apposition to ry puyijv avtov)—the emphatic 
 meaning of self-surrender to death, as in Tit. ii. 14, Gal. i. 4 (comp. also in 
 John vi. 51, 9» [rv odpxa ov] dow, which, indeed, is uncertain critically), 
 where dove éavtév has the same meaning as rapadoi¢g éavtév in Gal. ii. 20; 
 Eph. v. 25 (comp., too, Rom. viii. 32). He gave Himself as a ransom by 
 giving Himself up to death. The thought on which it is based is this: 
 men were held év 7 éfovcia tov oxérove (Col.i. 18) ; from this they could not 
 free themselves (ri ddéces dvbpuro¢ avtdddAayua tie Wuyne avtov; Matt. xvi. 
 26); Christ therefore gave the avridvtpov necessary to free them; this ran- 
 som is Himself (dove éavrdv), i.e. His life: ryv Wuyi avtov, Matt. xx. 28; so 
 that by this, cwrypia is purchased for them. This, however, was done for 
 the benefit not of some, but of all. Hence Paul adds expressly irép 
 (equivalent to: in commodum!) ravtwv, which is emphatic, and with 
 which he returns to the beginning of ver. 4. In this, as at 1. 15, the apos- 
 tle revealed the substance of the tyaivovca didackadia, only that here he 
 defines his former expression more precisely. [VI g, h.]—In order, how- 
 ever, that this act of love on the Lord’s part may bring forth its fruit, it 
 must be proclaimed to the world; this is indicated in the words that fol- 
 low.—r0 papripiov Kaipoic idiow| Td paptipiov is not to be taken as in apposi- 
 tion to avridvtpov, and explained of the death of Christ (Chrysostom : 
 papripiov rd réfoc); itis to be regarded as in apposition to the thbught 
 contained in the previous words of this verse (not “to the whole of what 
 was previously said,” Hofmann). This does not mean, however, that 76 
 paptipiov denotes Christ’s gift of Himself as a ransom (or “ Christ’s sacri- 
 fice’), to be “the witness of salvation set forth at the appointed time, the 
 historical fact that the divine purpose of salvation is realized ” (Matthies) ;? 
 for zapripiov is not the deed itself, but the attestation, the proclamation of 
 the deed ; comp. 1 Cor. i. 6, ti. 1. Nor does it mean that by papripiov we 
 are to understand the testimonium, quod Deus per Christi vitam, doc- 
 trinam et mortem protulit, vera esse ea omnia et rata, quae V. T. pro- 
 phetae fore divinaverant (Heinrichs), for there is nothing to indicate an 
 allusion to O. T. prophecy. The act of Christ already mentioned is called 
 To paptipiov, in so far as this was its meaning and purpose. Bengel: 7d 
 papripiov ace. absol. ut évdevyua, 2 Thess. i. 5, innuitur testimonium redem- 
 tionis universalis.* The reason why the preaching of the gospel is called 
 faptipov, is that its subject is an historical fact, the importance of which 
 becomes known only by individual experience.—xarpoic idiouc] “is to be con- 
 nected with 76 papripiov, just as if it were connected with 16 yaprypotpevov” 
 
 - 1Van Oosterzee asserts, without reason, that 
 umep here is to be taken in the sense of sub- 
 stitution. 
 
 2 Leo’s explanation is substantially the same 
 as this: Quae Christus, inquit apostolus, ad 
 homines seryandos fecit, ea sunt ipsius Dei 
 testimonium. Quid vero testatus est Deus 
 eo, quod Jesum Christum mori passus est? 
 Quid aliud, quam amorem suum in genus 
 
 - humanum plane incomparabilem ? 
 
 3 Van Oosterzee believes that waprvpiov here 
 must be taken as in apposition to avtiAutpor, 
 the apostle calling the Lord’s surrender of 
 Himself the great paptvpiov, with special 
 reference to the truth mentioned in ver. 4. 
 But against this it is to be remarked, that 
 this explanation does not give a right defini- 
 tion of the relation of apposition, nor of the 
 meaning and purpose of the waptupuov. 
 
100 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 (Hofmann); the same expression is found in vi. 15; Tit. 1.3; also Gal. 
 vi. 9 (Acts xvii. 26: Kaipot rporetaypévor); Chrysostom : roi¢ mpoogKovar Karpoic. 
 
 Ver. 7. This verse defines more precisely the previous yapripwr, it was 
 for proclaiming the yapripiov that the apostle received the office entrusted 
 tohim. The chief emphasis rests on the universality ; the subject of the 
 uapropiov is the fact that Christ gave Himself a ransom for all—eic 6 éréOnv 
 ty KApvé Kai axdoroAo¢| Comp. on this, Eph. iii. 1-12; Col. i. 25-28; 2 Tim. 
 i. 9-11.—eie¢ 6: for which (wapripiov), viz. “ for proclaiming which.”  éré@yv 
 is to be taken in close connection with kfpvé «.7.A.—xjpvé, it is true, only 
 occurs here and in 2 Tim. i. 11 as a name for the preacher of the gospel 
 (in 2 Pet. ii. 5, Noah is called a kfpvE dexacoobvyc) ; but xkypiooew is used very 
 frequently of the preaching of the gospel. In 1 Cor. i. 21, xjpvyya is iden- 
 tical with evayyéaov. In order to direct attention to his peculiar apostolic 
 authority, Paul adds to the general idea of «pve, the more specific expres- 
 sion atéctodog. By the addition of aAjOevav Aéyw, ob pebdouar, the truth of 
 the eic 6 is confirmed ;! he explains himself sufficiently on account of the 
 heretics who wished that Paul should not be considered an apostle by the 
 appointment of God. [VI 7.]—The further definition: didackadtoc evar, is 
 to be taken in apposition to «jpvE x. axéatodoc. It was added to make 
 clearer the reference to the heathen already indicated in eic 6, not, as 
 Hofmann thinks, to form an apposition to the subject of aA7Aevav Aéyo; 
 had that been so, we should have had an emphatic yé. The connected 
 words éy rioter kai adndeia do not form the object of 6d. (Heydenreich 
 takes it as “equivalent to év rH riorec TH aAndw7, a teacher of the Gentiles 
 who is to instruct them in the true religion”); they are loosely added, 
 according to a common usage of the N. T., and denote here the sphere in 
 which he was appointed to discharge his office as teacher of the Gentiles. 
 The peculiar point of view must not be lost by arbitrarily changing the 
 words into év ry mister T. aAnfu7, Or, as Leo does, into micti¢ kai aAnbivéc. It 
 is wrong also to render ior here by “faithfulness,” and ai7é. by 
 “verity” (Hofmann: éy ziore, equivalent to “faithfully,” and é aAnbeia 
 to. “in verity ”). Iorc is faith, the subjective relation, and ayia is truth, 
 the objective benefit, appropriated in faith (so also Plitt and van Oosterzee).? 
 
 1 Wiesinger less suitably refers the addition 
 to the 6&6. €@vav, which in that case should 
 have been preceded by a xat. Otto (p. 117) 
 unjustifiably uses this asseveration of the 
 apostle to confirm his assertion that the 
 epistle was written during the apostle’s stay 
 at Ephesus, insisting that Paul, after he was 
 put in prison in Jerusalem, was acknowl- 
 edged an apostle in all Christian churches, 
 and from that time, therefore, had no ocea- 
 sion for this asseveration. Apart from other 
 points, Otto errs in referring the words 
 adnGevav x.7.A. only to the expression amogTo- 
 Aos, whereas they apply to the entire thought 
 in eis 6 x.7.A. Paul does not make assevera- 
 tion that he was appointed an apostle, but 
 that he was appointed an apostle of the uap- 
 
 tup.ov, the subject of which he had already 
 mentioned. Comp. on this the passages 
 quoted above. 
 
 2Bengel seems to take the words in a sense 
 corresponding to the formula of asseveration, 
 adn. Aéyw x.7.A. He says in regard to this 
 formula; “ pertinet haec affirmatio ad comma 
 praecedens; nam subsequenti additur paral- 
 lela: €v m. kai adn@.;” a view for which there 
 is no justification Matthies expresses him- 
 self somewhat obscurely; for while he in the 
 first place mentions faith and truth not only 
 as the elements, but also as the aims of the 
 teaching, he says at the end of the discussion: 
 “The apostle is teacher of the Gentiles in such 
 a way that he knows himself to be impreg- 
 nably established thereby in faith and truth.” 
 
CHAPS Tie i7,—8: 101 
 
 Ver. 8. [On Vv. 8-10, see Note VII., pages 111, 112.] After giving, in the 
 digression of vv. 3-7, the grounds of his exhortation to prayer for all, Paul 
 returns to the exhortation itself in such a way as to define it more precisely 
 in regard to those who are to offer the prayer.—fobAoua: obv mpooet xecba 
 rove avdpag év mavti térwy] “Hoc verbo (obtAoua) exprimitur auctoritas 
 apostolica,” Bengel; comp. v. 14; Tit. 11.18: “J ordain.” [VII a.J—oir] 
 Bengel’s explanation: “ particula ergo reassumit versum 1,” is not quite 
 accurate; the particle connects with ver. 1 in order to carry on the thought 
 there expressed.—pocei yeotar] [VII b.] Bengel: “sermo de precibus pub- 
 licis, ubi sermonem orantis subsequitur multitudinis cor.” Matthies 
 wrongly disputes the opinion that tpoceiyeofa here is used of “ prayer in 
 the congregations.” The whole context shows beyond doubt that the 
 apostle is here speaking of congregations.—rov¢ avdpac] opposed to rac 
 yuvaixac, ver. 9. Paul assigns to each part its proper share in the assem- 
 blies for worship; “he has something different to say to the men and to 
 the women ” (Wiesinger).—év avr? réxw] does not stand here in opposi- 
 tion to the Jewish limitation to the temple (Chrysostom and others) : 
 “not once found” (de Wette), nor to the synagogue (Wolf), nor in refer- 
 ence to the various places of Christian worship in Ephesus (van Oosterzee), 
 nor to the neighboring congregations belonging to Timothy’s diocese 
 (Heydenreich) ; it is to be taken generally, not in the sense of every place, 
 “where the religious mood, custom, or duty cherishes it” (Matthies), but 
 to all places where Christian congregations assemble (Wiesinger).—As to 
 the construction, év tavti té7w does not belong to poset yeobac alone, but 
 “to the whole clause ” (Wiesinger, Matthies, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). 
 The apostle means to lay stress not on this, that men are to pray, but on 
 how they are to pray; the chief emphasis, therefore, rests on éraipovra¢ 
 k.7.A.—éraipoytac daiove yeipac| The Jews lifted up their hands not only in 
 swearing an oath, Gen. xiv. 22 (Rev. x. 5), and in blessing, Lev. ix. 22 
 (Luke xxiv. 50), but also in prayer, Ps. xxviii. 2, xliv. 21, lxiii. 5, ete. This 
 passage is a proof that the same custom was observed in the Christian 
 church. It is true that in the N. T. it is nowhere else mentioned, but in 
 Clement’s First Epistle to the Corinthians we have at chap. xxix. an 
 evident allusion to this passage: mpocéAuyev avt@ év doldtyT. Woygc, ayvac 
 kal duavtove yelpac aipovrec mpo¢ avtév.—Regarding the form <doiove for éciac, 
 see Winer, p. 67 [E. T. p. 68].'—The hands are holy which have not been 
 given over to the deeds of wicked lust; the opposite is given by juapai, 
 BéBndroe yeipec, 2 Macc. v. 16; comp. on the expression, Job xvii. 9, Ps. 
 xxiv. 4, and in the N. T. Jas. iv. 8 especially: kaBapicate yeioac Kai dyvioate 
 capdiac. Hofmann is ingenious is defining éc/ove yeipe¢ more precisely by 
 what follows: “The hands of the one praying are éo. only when he is 
 inwardly saturated with the consecration without which his praying does 
 not deserve the name of prayer.”’—ywpic opyyz¢ Kat diadoyiopov] Bengel is 
 more pregnant than exact when he says: “ira, quae contraria amori et 
 mater dubitationis; dubitatio, quae adversatur fidei. Fide et amore constat 
 
 1Tt would be very forced to connect ociovs with émaipovtas as a masculine, which Winer 
 considers at least possible. 
 
102 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 christianismus, gratiam et veritatem amplectens. Gratia fidem alit; veri- 
 tas amorem Eph. iv.5;” for diatoyioude is not to be rendered by “doubt,” ! 
 which never is its signification. The rendering “contention ” is also inac- 
 curate; diadoyiouog is equivalent to consideration, deliberation, cogitatio. 
 In the N. T. the singular occurs only here and in Luke ix. 46, 47; it is 
 usually in the plural. The word is in itself a vox media, but it is mostly 
 used where evil or perverted thoughts are spoken of; comp. Matt. xv. 19; 
 Mark vii. 21; Luke v. 22, vi. 8, xxiv. 38. That it is to be taken here malo 
 sensu, 1s shown by the close connection with opy7, which indicates that it 
 is applied to deliberation towards one’s neighbor ; comp. Meyer on Phil. 
 iil. 14, and especially Reiche, Comment. Crit. in N. T., on this passage. In 
 the Pastoral Epistles, special stress is laid on peaceableness as a Christian 
 virtue, ili. 3; Tit. ii. 2; 2 Tym. ii. 24. 
 
 Vv. 9, 10. ‘Qoaitac yuvaixac «.7.4.] After speaking of the men, Paul turns 
 to the women, and gives some precepts regarding their behavior in 
 church assemblies——As to the construction, it is obvious that the verse 
 depends on Potdoua in ver. 8. Several expositors, however, connect it 
 not only with obdoua, but also with Bobsouar rpocebyeotac: “I will that 
 the men pray .. . so also the women ;” they then take what follows: év 
 KataotoAy Koouig K.T.2., aS Corresponding to éaipovrac «.7.A., ver. 8, and as 
 defining more precisely the manner in which the women are to pray. 
 The infinitive xocyeiv, however, is against this construction. De Wette, 
 indeed, thinks that it is added to the infinitive mpocebyeota by asyndeton ; 
 but although the connection of several infinitives with one another asyndet- 
 ically frequently occurs (v. 14, vi. 18; Tit. iii. 1, 2), there is no example of 
 two infinitives being thus connected? Hofmann is forced to assume that 
 Koowetv “is a consequence dependent on pera aidovce Kat cwppoobvyc;” but 
 how can self-adorning be considered a consequence of ‘ modesty and 
 good sense”? Though sometimes the infinitive does stand connected in 
 such loose fashion with what precedes, it would be difficult to find an 
 instance of such a connection as Hofmann here assumes.—Against that 
 construction there is also this point: since in ver. 8 zxpocebyechac Means 
 prayer made by the men aloud in the church, here in ver. 9 it would have 
 to be taken in a weakened sense; and it is so rendered by de Wette and 
 Hofmann: “taking part in prayer.’’—According to this, the verse cannot 
 be dependent on fotAouar rpocetyecta, but on BotAoua alone, so that év 
 KataoToAy «.7.2. merely states how the women are to adorn themselves (so, 
 too, Plitt). De Wette, indeed, thinks that objection may be made to this 
 construction because the affirmative év «ar. «.7.4. is followed not only by a 
 negative py év 7A, «.7.4., but also by a second affirmative in ver. 10. This 
 accumulation of clauses, however, cannot be urged, since we have a simi- 
 
 1So0 Bengel, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, could have been no doubt regarding it. Then 
 Theodoret, Luther, and many others. he asks: “ Have we not elsewhere examples 
 £Wiesinger unites the kcoopecy with the “enough of a similar change of construction ?” 
 xpooevxecGar, and defends it with the remark, To this we must answer, “ No,” unless “simi 
 that if instead of the asyndeton cf the in- lar” be taken in too wide a sense. 
 finitive xoouety we had the participle, there 
 
Chap. it, 9), 10; 103 
 iar accumulation in vy. 11,12. Nor is the particle ésairw¢ an argument 
 against us, since it stands in other places where the same predicates are 
 not used (comp. ill. 8; Tit. ii. 3). ‘Qoatrwe may be used wherever the 
 members to be connected contain something not exactly alike, but of a 
 kindred nature, as is the case here with dciove . . . duadoy touov and év 
 cwppootvy¢,’ Nothing is to take place in the church, neither 
 among the men nor among the women, which can hurt its spiritual 
 dignity.—év xataor0Aq Kkoouiw] [VII ¢.] karaorody may, according to Greek 
 usage, denote “ sedateness of nature.” ? Hence it is that some expositors 
 (de Wette among others) take it here as equivalent to habitus catdoryjya 
 (Tit. 11. 3); but it never occurs in that sense. The words that follow: yA 
 év TAéypmaow . . . ivatiou@ modvredei, Show that the word is to be understood 
 of clothing. True, it does not originally mean this, but the letting down, 
 e.g., of the repipor%4 (Plutarch, Pericl. 5). This meaning, however, might 
 easily pass into that of “the garment hanging down,” and then further, 
 into that of “clothing in general.” This is the explanation given here by 
 most expositors (also by Plitt and Hofmann ; van Oosterzee translates it: 
 “bearing,” but explains it afterwards : “ xatacroA7 = évdyua”’). Some take 
 it quite generally ; others, again, understand it of the garment enveloping 
 the whole body (Chrysostom: 7 dumexyévy ravtobev mepiotédAovoa Kahac, pi 
 meptépywc). This last explanation has no sufficient support in the etymol- 
 ogy, nor in the ordinary usage.—xéouioc] does not mean “ delicately ” 
 (Luther), but “modestly, honorably” (comp. iii. 2); beyond these passages, 
 it is not found in the N. T.—yera aidot¢ kai owppocivyc] The outward modesty 
 which makes itself known in the dress, is to be accompanied by inward 
 purity and chastity, since the former would otherwise be of no account. 
 While aidé¢ denotes the inward shrinking from everything immodest, 
 owppooivy expresses the control of the desires ; 7d kpateiv Ydovev Kai éxiOvuiov 
 (Luther): “with modesty and propriety.’ *—It is to be noted that cwdpocivy 
 (apart from Acts xxvi. 25: cwdpocbynce phuata axodbéyyouar, in Opposition to 
 paivouat) occurs only here and in ver. 15, and that all words kindred to it 
 (except cwgpovetv in Rom. xii. 3, opposed to tirepdpovety in 2 Cor. v. 18, 
 denoting the opposite of the ecstatic state ; also in Mark y.15; Luke viii. 
 
 KaTaOTOAH . . . 
 
 elsewhere as feminine virtues. 
 
 1It is necessary therefore to do, as van 
 Oosterzee does, supply the participle mpoo- 
 evxouevas with yuvaixas because of the wo- 
 a@vTws. 
 
 2JTn this sense the word is found, e.g. in 
 Arrian (Epict. ii. 10), joined with aidés and 
 nepotys.—In the passage of Josephus, B. J. 
 li. 8.4: katacToAy Sé kal gX}Ma THMaTOS OmoLov 
 Tots meta HoBov wardaywyoupevors Tavoty, Which 
 is commonly quoted as a proof of the mean- 
 ing “clothing,” the meaning is doubtful. 
 Salmasius explains it: sedatus animus et 
 remissus, elato et superbo tumentique oppo- 
 situs, in contrast with opyjs, ver. 8; but in 
 that case the added adjective coapucos is super- 
 fluous. 
 » %The two words are also placed together 
 
 See Raphe- 
 lius, who quotes, among others, the passage 
 from Epictetus (Hnchir. chap. 62): mulieres 
 in ornatau spem collocant omnem; quare 
 operae pretium est, dare operam, ut sentiant, 
 sibi non ob aliud honorem haberi, 7 To xoo- 
 plat atvedGat, Kai aidjmoves ev swhpocvry. 
 Although in the Cyropaedia (Book viii.) the 
 two words are thus distinguished: Seyper (se. 
 Cyrus) d€ aiém Kai cwhpoovvnv tyde, ws TOUS 
 pév aidovmévous, Ta ev TW havepw aiaxpa dev- 
 yovtas, Tous 5€ owhpovas, kat Ta ev TO ahavet, 
 the distinction cannot be regarded as always 
 valid.—Aristotle (het. i. 9) explains cwhpocvrvy 
 in the following fashion: cwdpoavvy apety, de’ 
 hv mpos Tas noovas TOV THMAaTOS OUTWS EXOVELY, 
 @s 0 vOmos KEAEveL. 
 
104 THE FIRST -EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 35; 1 Pet. iv. 7), such as owgpovile, cwppovicpdc, co¢pwr, owpdvec, are found 
 only in the Pastoral Epistles —yy év rAéyyaow x.t.4.] Instead of xAéypara, 
 we have éuxdoxq [rpryor] (Isa. iii. 24: TWP) in 1 Pet. ili. 3, which is partic- 
 ularly to be compared with this passage ; it denotes “ the artificial plaits 
 of hair.”’'—xai ypvoiw] The «ai divides the ornament into two parts, 7Aéyyara 
 belonging to the body itself, and what follows being the things put on the 
 body. In 1 Pet. iii. 8, we have wepibeore ypvoiwv (comp. Rev. xvii. 4).—It 
 is wrong to connect ypvoi with the previous m/éyu. as a hendiadys for 
 riéyua ypvowv (Heinrichs).—i papyapitac] The gems are not named in 
 Peter, and instead of iwaticpicg roAvteAge We have there évdvore ivatiov ; the 
 adjective rodvreage (Matt.: pwaraxad ivaria) is contrasted with kéopcoc.—arn’ 
 5 mpérec x.7.2.] Most expositors? refer 0? épywv ayabov to xoopeiv, and take 
 OcocéBecav as asparenthesis.* But there are three points 
 against this, viz., that the ornament of the women is already named in év 
 KataoToA x.7.A., that the preposition dia does not suit with Kxooveiv (which 
 is construed previously with év), and that “ good works” would be unsuit- 
 ably described as ornament here, where he is speaking of the conduct of 
 the women in the assemblies.of the church, unless we arbitrarily limit the 
 general idea to offerings for the poor, as is done by Heydenreich and yan 
 Oosterzee. Theodoret rightly joins 6? épy. ay. with the immediately pre- 
 ceding érayyeA. OeoceB. (“ evoéBecav éxayyéAAeobe, Kal tv OC Epywv aperhv”’).S 
 The comma before d:4, which is found in the editions, must therefore be 
 deleted. [VII d.] Hofmann connects the words with what follows, taking 
 dia in the sense of accompanying; but dca never has such a simple copu- 
 lative meaning.o—The relative 6 stands here either for év rot» 6, for 
 which Matthies appeals, but wrongly, to Rom. vi. 21 and x. 14; or more 
 probably for «a? 6. So far as the meaning goes, the various reading o¢ 
 (kaboc, Eph. v. 8) is correct. Hofmann wishes to refer 6 to kooyeiy éavtrac 
 in such a way that “the latter is mentioned as a thing . . . seemly for 
 women.” The intervening 4424, however, manifestly makes this con- 
 struction impossible.—érayyeAAopévare Oeoo’éBevav | éxayyéAAeobar Usually means 
 in the N. T. “promise.” Matthies’ accordingly renders the word here by 
 “ sive information, show ;’” so, too, Luther ; “who therein manifest blessed- 
 ness.” But it is more correct here to take the word in the sense in which 
 profiteri artem is used, so that @eocéBeca is regarded as an art or a handi- 
 craft. De Wette rightly says: “who make profession of blessedness ;” so, 
 too, vi. 21; comp. Xenophon, Memor. i. 2,7: aperjv éxayyeAAduevoc (Ignatius, 
 ad Ephes. chap. 14: ovdeic riot éxayyeAAduevog auapraver).—eooé Bera] only 
 here in the N. T. (LXX. Gen. xx. 11; more frequently in the Apocrypha; 
 
 O mpemer .) . 
 
 1Clemens Alex. Paedag. iii. 11: mepimAokar 
 ETALPLKGL TOV TPLXWV. 
 
 2 Among them Wegscheider, Flatt, Heyden- 
 reich, Leo, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Ooster- 
 zee, also Winer, p. 149, note 1 [E. T. p. 158, 
 note 1]. 
 
 3Van Oosterzee explains it as “a causal 
 periphrasis to show why precisely this orna- 
 ment is extolled by the apostle.” 
 
 4So, too, Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, etc.; 
 and among more recent names, Mack, Mat- 
 thies, and Plitt. 
 
 5 Hofmann thus paraphrases the thought: 
 “They are to do what is good, and to learn in 
 atill seclusion. The former is that which is 
 to be accompanied by the latter.” He appeals 
 to 2 Cor. ii. 4. He does not prove, however, 
 that that passage justifies such a paraphrase. 
 
CHAP. 11. 11, 12. 105 
 
 GeoceByc, John ix. 81; LXX. Ex. xviii. 21), is equivalent to cioéBeca—di 
 ipywv ayatov] must not be limited to works of benevolence alone. 
 The addition of these words is fully explained by a comparison with 
 2 Tim. iii. 5." 
 
 Vv. 11,12. [On Vv. 11-15, see Note VIII., pages 112, 113.] Further injunc- 
 tions for women.—yvr7 év jovyia pavbavétw] év jovyia, “ without speaking 
 herself; pavédverv denotes here, as in 1 Cor. xiv. 31, attention to the word 
 in order to learn from it what is necessary for advancing and building up 
 the Christian life. [VIII a, b.]—év racy ixorayy] “in complete subordination,” 
 i.e. without contradiction—The thought here expressed is to be filled up 
 by what Paui says in 1 Cor. xiv. 385 (which passage should be particularly 
 compared with this”): e dé te wabeiv BéAovow, év oikw Tobe iWiove avdpac érEpw- 
 tatworv.—‘‘ Spiritual receptivity and activity in domestic life were recog- 
 nized as the appropriate destiny of women, and therefore the female sex 
 was excluded from the public discussion of religious subjects ” (Neander).§ 
 Though in Christ there is no distinction, yet Christianity does not put an 
 end to the natural distinctions ordained by God; it recognizes them in 
 order to inform them with its higher life.—didaoxew 62 yvvaiki obk éxitpéxw] 
 Awd. stands first in emphatic opposition to wavfavew ; in the parallel passage 
 (1 Cor. xiv.) 6d. stands instead of the more general word Aadeiv.—ovdé 
 abbervreiv avdpéc] Leo: “ aifevteiv et avbévty¢ apud seriores tantum scriptores 
 ita occurrit, ut dominit notionem involvat; melioribus scriptoribus est 
 avbévrnc idem quod airéyep.”* Luther has rightly: “that she be master 
 of her husband;” whereas in the translation: “to assume to herself 
 respect or mastery” (Heydenreich, de Wette, van Oosterzee), the notion 
 of assumption is imported. Hofmann, too, is wrong when he says that 
 avdevretv IN Conjunction with the genitive of the person should mean: “to 
 act independently of this person, 7.e. as one’s own master” (!)—Many 
 expositors (Matthies, and earlier, Estius, Calovius, and others) assume in 
 this word a reference to domestic relations; whereas Heydenreich, de 
 Wette, Wiesinger, and others, limit even this command to behavior in 
 the assemblies for divine worship.6 This last is correct, as is shown by 
 aan eiva ev Hovyia, Corresponding to év yovyia in ver. 11. 
 tT. avdp. puts the prohibition to teach under a more general point of view, 
 
 Yet ovdé avbevreiv 
 
 and at the same time confirms it. 
 
 The relation between writing and tears is 
 obviously quite different from that between 
 Jearning in stillness and good works. 
 
 1Calvyin gives the connection with the pre- 
 ' ceeding words rightly: si operibus testanda 
 est pietas, in vestitu etiam casto apparere 
 haec professio debet. 
 
 2Otto quotes the agreement of these pas- 
 sages with one another as a proof that the 
 letters are contemporaneous. It is, however, 
 to be observed that Paul himself, in the 
 words: @s év magats'tatis exkAnolats TOY aylwy 
 (1 Cor. xi. 33), describes the maxim as one 
 ‘which he was seeking to establish in all the 
 
 Nor can it be denied that women are 
 
 churches. Hence there is nothing strange 
 in his urging it on Timothy’s attention at a 
 later period, just as he had urged it before on 
 the Corinthians. 
 
 3 Geschichte der Pflanzung der Kirche durch 
 die Apost., Part I. p. 125. 
 
 4See Valekenaer, Diatr. in Eurip. rell. chap. 
 xviii. pp. 188 tf.; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 120. 
 
 5 Hofmann, iz opposition to these two views, 
 maintains that the apostle here speaks of the 
 “ Christian life in general,” “of all action for 
 which there was occasion in ordinary life ;” 
 but the context gives no ground for his asser- 
 tion, 
 
(106 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 not avfevreiv 7. avdp. in the assemblies, because in the apostle’s opinion that 
 does not beseem them at any time. The reason why not, is given in the 
 verses that follow.—It is to be observed, further, that ver. 12 corresponds 
 exactly with ver.11: yuv7 . . 
 
 év Tdoy brorayy . 
 
 . yuvaki; pavOavétw . : . SidacKew ovK éexitpéto ; 
 
 . . od avdevTeiv Tov avdp.; év Hovyia . . . GAA’ eivac év Hovyia. 
 This parallelism is clear proof that the same thing is spoken of in ver. 12 
 as in ver. 11, which Hofmann denies. Still ver. 12 is not therefore super- 
 fluous, since it both emphasizes and more precisely defines the particular 
 ideas in ver. 11.—aA# eivac év yovyia| The same construction is found in 1 
 Cor. xiv. 34. The infinitive is dependent on a SobAoua: to be supplied from 
 ovn éxitpéxo—an abbreviated construction which occurs also in classic 
 Greek.—De Wette rightly directs attention to these points, that we must 
 not by arbitrary interpretations take away the clear definite meaning from 
 the commands here laid down, in order to make them universal in appli- 
 cation; and, on the other hand, that they are not to be considered as local 
 and temporal ordinances: they are rather injunctions to be still held valid 
 as applying to public assemblies.! 
 
 Ver. 18. First reason for the previous prohibition, taken from the history 
 of the creation. [VIII ¢.J—Ver. 14. The second reason, taken from the 
 history of the fall. Elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles we find proofs that 
 the historical facts of the O. T. are to the apostle full of meaning as 
 symbols of higher, universal truths. So here, the facts that Adam was 
 first created, and that Eve, not Adam, was tempted by the serpent, are to 
 him prototypes and proofs that it is becoming for the wife not aifevrei 
 avdpéc, but to be meekly subordinate to the husband. Hence he says: 
 "Addu yap mpatoc éxAdoy, eitra Kia. - The verb xAdooew occurs in the N. T. 
 only here and in Rom. ix. 20, both times in its original meaning. The 
 meaning “ create,” here appropriate to the word, is, however, found in the 
 LXX. Gen. ii. 7, from which passage the apostle here has drawn (comp. 
 also 2 Mace. vii. 23: Compare 1 Cor. xi. 2 ff., 
 where the apostle says that the husband is eixwv Kat d6EFa Ocov, and the wife 
 dda avdpéc, because the husband is not é« yvvaixédc, but the wife é& avdpéc. 
 De Wette, without reason, thinks that the author of this Epistle to Timothy 
 had that passage in mind. 
 
 Ver. 14. kai ’Adaiu obk yrarhO7] In order to justify this expression, the 
 
 wey: ae ; 
 6 TAdoac avbporov yéveow). 
 
 1Compare with this apostolic expression, 
 Const. Apost. iii. 6: obx émutpémomev yuvatkas 
 ddacke ev exkAnala, aAAG movov mpocevxEed Oat 
 Tertull. De 
 Virg. Vel.: non permittitur mulieri in eecle- 
 sia loqui, sed nee docere, nee tinguere, nec 
 ullius virilis muneris, nedum  sacerdotalis 
 officii sortem sibi vindicare. It is curious 
 that in the Apost. Const. it is permitted to 
 women mpogevxeoOa in church, while here it 
 is granted only tomentodoso. But, on the 
 one hand, mpogevxeoOar in the Constitutions 
 does not mean exactly prayer aloud ; and, on 
 the other hand, this passage here does not 
 
 Rare ; : 
 kat tov didacKkaAwy émaxoverv. 
 
 plainly and directly forbid zpocevxerbar to 
 women; it only forbids distinctly d:dacKcew 
 on their part.—There is the same apparent 
 contradiction between 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35, and 1 
 Cor. xi. 5, 13. While in the former passage 
 Aadety is forbidden to women, in the latter 
 mpocevxecOar and even mpodytevery are pre- 
 supposed as things done by women, and the 
 apostle does not rebuke it.—The solution is, 
 that Paul wishes everything in church to be 
 done evoxnmovws kat kata tag; while, on 
 the other hand, he holds by the principle: 
 “70 mvevpa pn oBevvuTe” (1 Thess. vy. 19). 
 Meyer on 1 Cor. xi. 6 differs. 
 
GHAP aie 16-15. 107 
 
 expositors have sought to define it more precisely, mostly by supplying 
 mpatoc. So Theodoret; Tertullian, too (De Hab. Mul.), says, perhaps 
 alluding to this passage: tu divinae legis prima es desertrix. Others, 
 again, supply i706 Tov dgewe (Matthies: “ As the apostle remembers the O. T. 
 story of the fall, there comes into his thoughts the cunning serpent by 
 which Eve, not Adam, let herself be ensnared”’). De Wette thinks that 
 the author is insisting on the notion be charmed, betrayed (by sinful desire), 
 as opposed to some other motive to sin. Hofmann arbitrarily supplies 
 with ’Adau ov« yrarity the thought: “so long as he was alone.’—The 
 apparent difficulty is solved when we remember the peculiarity of alle- 
 gorical interpretation, which lays stress on the definite expression as such. 
 This here is the word azarav (or éararav). On this word the whole 
 emphasis is laid, as is clearly shown by the very repetition of it. This 
 word, however, in the Mosaic account of the fall, is used only of the 
 woman, nut of the man, for in Gen. ii. 138 the woman expressly says: 
 6 dguc Hratyoé we; the man, however, uses no such expression. And in the 
 story there is no indication that as the woman was deceived or betrayed 
 through the promises of the serpent, so was the man through the woman. 
 —Adam did certainly also transgress the command, but not, as the woman, 
 influenced by azazvy. Paul, remembering this, says: ’"Aday ob« yratHOy, 7 08 
 yuy eSararnfeica. Bengel: serpens mulierem decepit, mulier virum non 
 decepit, sed ei persuasit. To supply anything whatever, only serves there- 
 fore to conceal the apostle’s real meaning.—7/ dé yury éSararTyHeioa Ev Tapa- 
 Baoee yéyove] This betrayal of the woman by the serpent is mentioned by 
 Paul also in 2 Cor. xi. 8, where he employs the same word: éazarg@v.— 
 The emphasis, as is apparent from what precedes, is not on the last words, 
 but on éfararyfeica; hence it is not right to supply tpéry with év rap. yey. 
 IlapaB8acrc here, as elsewhere (oi obk gore véuoc, cide TapaBactc, Rom. iv. 15), 
 is used in regard to a definite law.—The construction yeyovévac év occurs 
 frequently in the N. T. in order to denote the entrance into a certain con- 
 dition, a certain existence. De Wette: “fell into transgression.” Luther 
 wrongly: “and brought in transgression.”—As to the thought itself, 
 expositors find the force of this second reason to lie in the fact that in the 
 fall the weakness of the woman, her proneness to temptation, was mani- 
 fested, and that consequently it is not seemly for the woman to have 
 mastery over the man. But did the man resist the temptation more 
 stoutly than the woman? Paul nowhere gives any hint of that. The 
 significant part of the Mosaic narrative to him is rather this, that the 
 * judgment of God was passed upon the woman because she had let herself 
 be betrayed by the serpent, and it is in accordance with this judgment that 
 the husband is made lord over the wife.' 
 Ver. 15. Swdjoera dé dia tHe TeKvoyoviac] coffoera dé IS IN Opposition to 
 the previous év rapaBdce yéyove. Still this sentence is not intended merely 
 
 1The right interpretation of this passage but then he is thinking of the man as the 
 does not even in appearance contradict Rom. image of God, of the woman as the image of 
 v. 12. In the latter, Paul does not mention the man. 
 * the woman, but the man, as the origin of sin; 
 
108 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 to moderate the judgment pronounced in ver. 14 (Matthies); after the 
 apostle has forbidden to the woman any activity in church assemblies as 
 unbecoming to her, he now points to the destiny assigned her by God, the 
 fulfillment of which brings salvation to her. The subject of cwfycera: is 7 
 yurn, to be supplied from the preceding words; but, of course, it applies 
 collectively to the whole sex, while referring specially to Eve.'—cwfjcera 
 is to be taken here in the sense which it continually has in the N. T. (not 
 then equivalent to “ she will win for herself merit and reward,” de Wette). 
 Every reason to the contrary falls to the ground, if only we consider that 
 texvoyovia is regarded as the destiny assigned to the woman by God, and 
 that to the woman curnpia is assured by it under the condition given in 
 the words following: éav «.7.A._ It is to be noted also, that though faith is 
 the only source of salvation, the believer must not fail in fulfilling his 
 duties in faith, if he is to partake in the owrpia—did is taken by several 
 expositors (also Wiesinger) in the sense of “in;’’? but this is wrong, for 
 either this signification “in” passes over into the signification “by means 
 of,” or it has much the same force as “ notwithstanding, in spite of ” (Rom. 
 li. 27; see Meyer on the passage); ds¢, however, cannot be used in this 
 sense, since rexvoyovia would in that case have been regarded as a hin- 
 drance to the attainment of the owrypia. This militates also against Hof- 
 mann’s view, “that odfecdar did twoc has the same meaning here as in 1 
 Cor iii. 15, to be saved as through something;” this explanation also 
 makes the rexvoyovia appear to be something through which the woman’s 
 ooleova: is endangered.’—rexvoyovia, a word which occurs only here in the 
 N. T. (as also rexvoyovéw-only in chap. v. 14, and rexvorpogéw only in chap. v. 
 10), can have here nothing but its etymological meaning. [VIII d.] 
 Some, quite wrongly, have taken it as a term for the marriage state, and 
 others have made it synonymous with rexvorpodia. This latter view is 
 found in the oldest expositors.~—The question, how the rexvoyovia contrib- 
 utes to the cwrypia, is answered by most by supplying® with the one or 
 
 1Even Theophylact declared against the 
 curions view, that Mary is to be taken here 
 as subject. Clearly also Eve cannot here be 
 meant. 
 
 2Van Oosterzee translates éca by “ by means 
 of,” and then says: “it simply indicates a 
 condition in which the woman becomes a par- 
 taker of blessedness,” leaving it uncertain in 
 
 5 Most think of the faithful fulfillment of 
 mmaternal duty in the education of children. 
 Chrysostom: texvoyoviay, g@yo., TO wy jLovov 
 TEKELV, AAG Kai KaTa Oedy avayayety.—Accord- 
 ing to Heinrichs, Paul means here to say: 
 mulier jam hoc in mundo peccatorum poenas 
 luit, dua tHs Texvoy. eo, quod cum dolore par- 
 turit, adeoque haeec texvoy. eam quasi ower 
 
 what relation the apostle places rexvoyovia to 
 owblec@ar. 
 
 3Hofmann says in explanation: “If it is 
 appointed to the woman to bear children in 
 pain, she might succumb under such a 
 burden of life;’ but, in reply, it is to be 
 observed that rexvoyovia does not mean “to 
 bear children with pain.” : 
 
 Thus Theophylact remarks, not without 
 wit: ov yevynoar povor Set, dAAG Kal TaLdevoat” 
 TOUT® yap OvTws TeKvoyovia, ei SE ov, OVK eat 
 ' Texvoyovia, adAAa TexvopOopia extat Tals yuvarki. 
 
 putanda est, et ipsa owgecOar da THs TeKvoyo- 
 The passage quoted by Heinrichs, Gen. 
 ili. 16, does not denote the texvoyovia as such, 
 but the pains connected with it as a punish- 
 ment of transgression. According to Plitt, 
 the texvoy. serves to further the woman’s 
 gwtmypia; on the one hand, because by the 
 fulfillment of her wish gratitude is aroused 
 within her; on the other hand, because of 
 her care for her children she is preserved 
 from many frivolities. 
 
 vias. 
 
NOTES. 109 
 the other something of which there is no hint in the words of the apostle, 
 and by which the thought is more or less altered. This much may be 
 granted, that Paul, by laying stress on the rexvoyovia (the occasion for 
 which was probably the koAtwv yayety on the part of the heretics, chap. iv. 
 3), assigns to the woman, who has to conduct herself as passive in the 
 assemblies, the domestic life as the sphere in which—especially in regard 
 to the children—she has to exercise her activity (comp. v. 14).—In order 
 not to be misunderstood, as if he had said that the rexvoyovia as a purely 
 external fact affects cwrypia, he adds the following words: é@v peivwow év 
 miorer «.T.A. The subject of veivwow is the collective idea yy (see Winer, 
 pp. 481, 586 [E. T. pp. 516, 631]), and not, as many older (Chrysostom and 
 others) and later (Schleiermacher, Mack, Leo, Plitt) expositors think: 
 “the children.” This latter might indeed be supplied from rexvoyovia, but 
 it would give a wrong idea.—It is quite arbitrary, with Heydenreich, to 
 supply “ man and wife.”—Paul uses the expressions év miatez «.7.2. to denote 
 the Christian life in its various aspects. They are not to be limited to the 
 relation of married life, tiotve denoting conjugal fidelity ; ayary, conjugal 
 love; dy:acudc, conjugal chastity ; and cwdpocivy, living in regular mar- 
 riage. Lwdpooivy is named along with the preceding cardinal virtues of the 
 Christian life, because it peculiarly becomes the thoughts of a woman 
 (comp. ver. 9), not because “a woman is apt to lose control of herself 
 through her excitable temperament” (Hofmann). There is in the con. 
 text no hint of a reference to female weakness.! 
 
 
 
 Norres py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 Wile Vivenl—7. 
 
 (a) The connection of the particle oiv of ver. 1, which has occasioned difficulty 
 in the minds of some writers on this Epistle, is probably to be explained by the 
 fact, already referred to, that the letter is an official, as well asa personal one. 
 The official character is indicated at the beginning (i. 3), and is to be regarded as 
 carried over to this chapter through i. 18, although the latter verse is not to be 
 limited in its application simply to Timothy’s official duties—(b) Alf. regards 
 rroveiofac as inthe middle voice because of the position in the sentence, which 
 would, he thinks, throw too much emphasis on it if taken asa passive. It would 
 seem, however, to be the simpler construction in such a sentence to make the 
 prayers, etc., the subject of the infinitive as a passive verb, and so R. V. and the 
 _ great majouity of the best comm. explain it—(c) Considering the official charac- 
 ter of the letter, it can hardly be doubted that the Apostle refers in this passage to 
 public, not private prayers. This reference to public service and meetings of the 
 church is apparent, also, in the closing verses of the chapter, (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 2 ff, 
 
 1De Wette asserts too much when he says 
 that this passage is in contradiction with 1 
 Cor. vii. 7 ff., 25 ff., 38 ff. The truth is rather 
 that the matter is regarded from various 
 points of view. In 1 Corinthians the apostle 
 ' ig delivering his judgment, while he con- 
 
 siders the difficult position of Christians amid 
 the hostility of the world, without for a mo- 
 ment denying that rexvoyovia is an ordinance 
 of God. Here, however, he is considering 
 only the latter point, without entering into 
 every detail. 
 
110 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 xiv. 34 ff). The argument for the same reference in the intermediate verses 
 is, accordingly, a very strong one. This especial reference to public religious ser- 
 vice is natural in a letter which, of course, could not, in such exhortations, be 
 intended for the individual himself who was addressed, but must be designed to 
 guide him in his oversight of the churches. The great prominence given to 
 prayers for kings and those in authority (in high place, R. V.) is doubtless to be 
 explained in connection with the peculiarities of the age, and with the tendencies 
 of the Pauline doctrine of Christian liberty and equality to lead some to excess, 
 so that they became disposed to carry the application of it unduly into the sphere 
 of civil and social relations. It may be questioned whether, in the changed con- 
 dition of the present, such peculiar prominence would be given to this subject,— 
 the exhortation to pray for magistrates being placed as the “first of all” exhorta- 
 tions. The peculiar necessity for such a state of mind and feeling towards the 
 existing authorities as would indute Christians to make public supplications for 
 them, and the evil or danger of the opposite state of mind, are indicated by the 
 iwwa clause, which gives the end in view of the exhortation.—The same thing may, 
 no doubt, be said, mutatis mutandis, of the directions and statements with regard 
 to the women, as also those respecting servants or slaves, in these and the other 
 Epistles of Paul. Practical exhortations or rules of this character must vary in 
 some degree, in respect to the prominence and force given to them, with the 
 changes in circumstances and the progress of public sentiment, which are the 
 result of the working of Christianity in the history of the world. “The political 
 duty of men in a Christian state,’ says Dr. Washburn in Schaff’s ed. of Lange’s 
 Comm., “cannot be the same with that of the primitive church under a Nero.”— 
 (d) The connection of ver. 3 with vv. 1, 2, is evidently that of a ground or reason 
 for the fulfillment of the duty to which he exhorts them. The connection of ver. 
 4 with ver. 3 is that of proof or evidence that God would have all men attain sal- 
 vation. The immediate connection in both verses, accordingly, is with the idea 
 of “all men,” which is suggested at the opening of ver. 1. We must believe, 
 however, that there is a reference in the author’s mind to that which he had made 
 so prominent—the prayers for kings and persons in authority,—and that his sug- 
 gestion is founded upon some hesitation on the part of many Christian believers 
 to offer such prayers. As Dr. Plumptre says (Schaff’s Pop. Com.), “ Men were 
 tempted to draw a line of demarcation in their prayers, and could hardly bring 
 themselves to pray for a Nero ora Tigellinus. St. Paul’s argument is that such 
 prayers are acceptable with God because they coincide with that will which, 
 though men in the exercise of the fatal gift of freedom may frustrate it, is yet 
 itself unchangeable.”—(e) OéAe: of ver. 4, as distinguished from BovAouat, denotes 
 the desire or gracious will of God, what He would have, but not that purpose 
 which will necessarily be carried out. The doctrine of an unlimited atonement is 
 implied in this passage, but not that of universal salvation. The universality 
 of the provision for all is set forth in different places in Paul’s writings. Univer- 
 sality of realization of the offered blessing is not declared. It is made dependent 
 on the action of man in accepting or rejecting the offer. Comp. iy. 10, in connec- 
 tion with this verse, as indicating the Apostle’s view so far as it is given in this 
 Epistle—(f) The unity of God (ver. 5) is presented here, not for its own sake, 
 but as bearing upon the statement of ver. 4. This verse, therefore, cannot pro- 
 perly be urged as an argument against the divinity of Christ. The fact that there 
 is one God and one mediator is a ground of confidence that there is a common 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTES. ier 
 
 salvation forall. The demands of the thought, accordingly, occasion the presen- 
 tation of God and Christ in their separateness, rather than their oneness with 
 each other, and also cause the setting forth of Christ as avpwzoc, rather than fede. 
 R. V. brings out the force of the anarthrous avfp. by the words “himself man.” 
 The rendering of A. V., the man Christ Jesus, is misleading. avfp is added, appar- 
 ently, as indicating the community of nature between the mediator and those for 
 whom he acts. Comp. Heb. ii. 10 ff—(qg) The connection in thought between the 
 first clause of ver. 6 and i. 15,and the “healthful teaching ” spoken of in i. 10, 
 which Huther points out,is evident, and the fact of this connection places the true 
 construction of 70 zaptipiov substantially beyond doubt. japripiov is the testi- 
 mony which consists in the proclamation of the great truth of the gospel just 
 mentioned, 6 dove «7.2, That the writer’s thought moves on without any break 
 of connection from i. 3 to this point, is shown by the striking correspondence be- 
 tween vy. 6, 7, and the yerses of chap. 1. which have just been referred to. The 
 want of logical connection which de Wette and some others find in ov of ver. 1 
 cannot, therefore, have been apparent to, or intended by, the writer.—(/) In Matt. 
 xx. 28, Mk. x. 45, we find the expression Ai7pov avti roA/ Gv, with the words dovvar 
 _Tiv woxnv avtov, These passages show that the reference here is to Christ’s giving 
 up His life. It is worthy of notice that the preposition av7i occurs, in such phrases, 
 only in the two cited verses of Matt. and Mk. Elsewhere the prep. is either 
 ixép, as here, or wepi. The force of avri is here, however, possibly sugzested by 
 the compound avtiAvtpov.—(i) The introduction of the words a//feiav 2éyw, 00) 
 werdouat (ver. 7) must be regarded as intended for the church and other readers, 
 rather than Timothy himself. The tendency to the repetition of expressions such 
 as make up this verse—independently of these particular words,—which we 
 observe in this Epistle, must be admitted to be singular; but it cannot be urge | 
 as a very weighty argument against the Pauline authorship, when it is remem- 
 bered that the Apostle was always disposed to speak of himself and his own ex- 
 periences; that he had now for years seen errors developing, and assaults of diffe r- 
 ent kinds made upon the doctrine which he preached; and that he was moving 
 onward, at this time, into his later life. Instances of an increasing tendency of 
 this character among prominent men of our own day, who are not far from the 
 age of the Apostle when he wrote this letter, could be easily pointed out. 
 
 VII. Vv. 8-10. 
 
 (a) BovAouat is regarded by Huther as equivalent to “I ordain.” It expresses 
 more than 6éA@ and seems to carry with it here, and in Tit. iii. 8, the force of 
 mapayyé/7@, which we find in other Epistles. Holtzm. (Tit. iii. 8) says it is an 
 expression of apostolic authority, which is not connected with the word as used 
 ‘by Paul in his undoubtedly genuine writings—(b) The position of tpocehyeatac 
 in the sentence is, probably, due to the connection (o/v) with the idea of prayer 
 as presented in ver. 1.. Thecontrast of rov¢ avdpac with yvvaixac (ver. 9), together 
 with what issaid respecting women in vy. 11 ff, makes it probable that a certain 
 emphasis was, also, Intended to be placed on totic avdpac, so that, in ver. 9, Koouelv 
 alone, and not this verb in connection with poset yeaa, is the object of Borsouar 
 as relatel to that verse. In the modifving participial clause, lifting up holy hans, 
 ete., the word da/ove is the one on which the empliasis is to be placed, and th n 
 . the words yopic «7.4, are added in further explanation. On diasoyiouor comp. 
 
112 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 note by Am. Ed. on Phil. ii. 14.—(c) Ell. agrees with de W. and some others in 
 making karaoroAy of ver. 9 substantially, though Ell. says not exactly, equivalent 
 to kataoriuare of Tit. ii. 3. He would translate here in seemly guise—the prevail- 
 ing idea here being, as he suggests in his note on Tit. ii. 3, “ outward deportment 
 as enhanced by what is purely external, dress, etc.,” while in Tit. it is “ outward 
 deportment as dependent on something more internal, e.g. manner, gesture, ete.” 
 L.& S., Grimm, Rob., Alf., Fairb., Plumptre, R. V., and others agree with 
 Huther, and this view seems, on the whole, the best. Holtzm. gives both views, 
 but apparently is disposed to favor that of Huther. He calls attention to the fact 
 that the suggestions of the verse have reference to the meetings of the church for 
 worship, and adds that there is no prohibition of all adornment of dress on the 
 part of women on other occasions—(d) The view of Huther, that dv épywv ayatov 
 is to be taken as qualifying éray)eAAouévaic, is not favored by most commentators. 
 The objections which he urges ate certainly worthy of serious consideration; but 
 the use of 6, in such a sentence, for év Toi7w 6 or for Ka 6 seems quite improb- 
 able, and the natural contrast would appear to be between one kind of adornment 
 (uy év 7Aéyuaow «,7.A,) and another (d¢ épy. ay.). The reference of the sentence 
 is to public assemblies, but this does not seem necessarily, as Huther apparently 
 supposes, to limit the épy. ay. to offerings for the poor, ¢.e. things done in the 
 meetings. The women are to appear inthe meetings with the adornment, not of 
 dress, but of their general good works. 
 
 . 
 
 VIII. Vv. 11-15. 
 
 (a) The views of Paul with reference to the speaking of women in the public 
 assemblies are found expressed in 1 Cor. xi. 2 f., xiv. 34 ff, and in this passage. 
 In 1 Cor. xi., there is but little on the subject, but, as the thing which the Apostle 
 disapproves of is praying and prophesying by the women without a veil, it seems 
 not improbable that such prophesying or prayer, provided the veil is worn, is, 
 under some circumstances, allowed. In 1 Cor. xiv., there is a more full statement, 
 and one which corresponds very closely with that which is contained in these verses. 
 The phrase év 7ovyie here is equivalent to ovyatwoav of 1 Cor. xiv. 84; Aadetv of 
 that verse is substantially equivalent to d:daoxecv of this; while the words yav¥a- 
 vet, UroTacoeoVa or its kindred noun, and éztpé7 are used in both alike. The 
 grounds of the prohibition, ete., however, are somewhat different in the two cases. 
 The two grounds here given are, (1) the fact that the man was created before the 
 woman, (2) that the woman fell into transgression through being deceived. The 
 first of these points is suggested, in a slightly different form of expression, in 1 
 Cor. xi. 8,9, but neither of them appears in 1 Cor. xiv. In that passage, on the 
 other hand, the reason given why the woman should not speak is, that it is 
 aicypov for her to do so, and the reason for her subjection is, that the law requires 
 it. As to the matter of speaking, the objection, in both 1 Cor. xi. and xiy., seems 
 to lie more exclusively in the region of propriety and what is becoming. Here, 
 it is connected with arguments derived from the story of Adam and Eve.—(b) If 
 the expressions of the Apostle are interpreted naturally, and according to legiti- 
 mate rules.of interpretation, there would seem to be no question as to what his views 
 were ;—namely, that, in the condition of things in the particular churches to which 
 he was writing, at least, (or in all the churches of his time, perhaps, comp. 1 Cor. xi. 
 16, xiv. 86), the speaking or teaching of women in the church meetings should 
 
NOTES. 113 
 
 not be permitted. A possible exception is, perhaps, made in 1 Cor. xi., in case a 
 woman was inspired by the gift of prophecy. Even then, however, she was to 
 have a symbol of subordination on her head.—(c) The arguments which are set 
 forth in the passage in the epistle before us are not such as would, probably, be 
 brought forward by writers at the present time, and the aicypéryc, or indecency, 
 of such an act on the part of a woman would not be felt by the ordinary Chris- 
 tian mind of to-day as keenly, as the Apostle apparently felt it at that time. The 
 change is, doubtless, owing to the influence which Christianity has had upon the 
 condition of woman, and upon the estimate placed by man upon her. As to the 
 perpetual force of the prohibition here given, it will depend, in part at least, on 
 the question how far, in practical matters of this character, directions are to be 
 looked for in the Scriptures, or indeed are possible, which shall be equally adapted 
 to all circumstances—even to opposite conditions.—(d) The reference of t7¢ Tekvo- 
 yoviag (ver. 15) to “the relation in which woman stood to the Messiah ”—the child 
 bearing—which Ell. favors, and which is also advocated by Hammond and Words., 
 and adopted by the English Revisers in the text of R. V., is rejected by other 
 comm., and even passed, almost or altogether, without notice by some of high 
 authority. Alf. says, it is “a rendering which needs no refutation.” Plumptre, 
 with somewhat less positiveness, says, “ It is scarcely credible that St. Paul, if he 
 meant this, would have expressed it so obscurely.” Huther, de W., Holtz., and 
 others, make only the slightest allusion to it. A. R. V., on the other hand, while 
 not allowing it a place in the text, inserts it in the margin. The position taken 
 by the American Revisers is, perhaps, to be accepted, but the explanation given 
 by iluther as to this and the other words of this verse is, more probably, the cor- 
 rect one. 
 
114 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 CHAPTER ITI. 
 
 Ver. 1. riotéc] Instead of this, D has avbpérioc, and some Latin Fathers 
 have humanus. “ Haec lectio vetustior est Hieronymo. Quod si vero vetustior 
 Hieronymo, vetustior quoqne est nostris codicibus omnibus. Nemo tamen ita 
 temerarius est, ut eam probaret,” Matthaei—Ver. 2. Instead of vy@a2eov, Griesb., 
 following the weightiest authgrities, accepted the form vydddcov; so, too, Scholz, 
 Matthaei, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch—vVer. 3. The words yz aicypoxepd7 are left out 
 in A DFG 5, 6, 17, al., Syr. Arr. Copt. ete. Griesb. is right, therefore, in strik- 
 ing them out; they were probably interpolated from Tit.i.7. De Wette’s sug- 
 gestion, that they may have been omitted intentionally as superfluous, since 
 agiAapyvpov follows, is very improbable; comp. Reiche, Comment. crit. on this 
 passage.— Ver. 4. For tpowtdyevov, 8 has the form tpovotavéuevor, occurring only 
 in later authors—Ver. 6. Several cursives have the reading «ai wayida after 
 dvaB6Aov, which, however, is manifestly taken from the next verse—Ver. 7. dei dé 
 avtov} So Griesb. and Scholz, following the Ree. ; Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. left 
 out av7ov, because it is not found in A F G H. 17, Copt. Boern.; in Matthaei it 
 stands without dispute. The insertion is more easily explained than the emis- 
 sion.—Ver. 9. For év cadapa ovvedjocr,® has the singular reading: Kai xkadapag 
 cvverd7oewc—which can only be explained from an oversight occasioned by the 
 genitive before.—Ver. 14. raxvov] Lachm. and Buttm. read év rayev, following A 
 C D* 17, 71, 73, al. (rayeiov and tayéwe are also found). The Rec., which has the 
 testimony of D*** F G K L, al., Chr. Theodoret, al., and is retained by Tisch., is” 
 the more difficult reading; besides, in the other passages of the N. T. where the 
 word occurs, the comparative form can be easily explained; év tdyer seems to be an 
 explanatory correction.—In ver. 15, D* Arm. Vulg. Clar. Or. Ambrosiast. have o« 
 inserted after dei— Ver. 16. For the Rec. O¢6¢, the most important authorities have 
 the reading 6¢, as A C F G* 8 17, 73, 181. Further, the Copt. Sahid. and Gothic 
 versions, also the Syr. Erp. Aeth. Arm., have the relative. Orig., Theod. Mops., 
 fpiph., Cyr., Al., Jerome, Entherius, beyond doubt, found the latter reading in 
 their Mss. ; with several others it is at least probable. ~The Rec. @cdc is found, on 
 the other hand, in D*** K L, in nearly all cursives, in the edd. Arab. p. Slav. 
 Ms., and besides in Greg. Nyss. (who seems once, however, to have read 6c) Chrys. 
 Theodoret, Didym. (De T'rinitate, p. 83) Damase. Oecum. Theophyl. In Ignatius 
 (Ep. ad Ephes. 3.19) we find Oe0¢ avipurivw¢ gavepodpevog ; in the Apost. constitt.: * 
 Ocd¢ Kips oO éripaveic yuiv Ev capKi; in Hippol.: Osd¢ év oGuatt épavepody , in 
 Gregor. Thaum. (see pot. Apollin. in Photius): Oed¢ év capxi gavepwIeic—all 
 which passages seem to testify in favor of Oe颗In the ms. gr. D* is found the 
 reading 6, The It. and Vulg. have: mysterium s. sacramentum, quod manifes- 
 
 10n the point that in A and C there was _ vol II. pp. 56-76; further, Tisch. Proleqg. ad 
 originally written not ®= but OS, comp Cod. Ephr. sec, vii. p. 39, excursus on 1 Tim 
 Griesb. 1n Symb crit. vol. 1. pp viii-liv., and lil. 16, 
 
CHAP. Il. 1, 2. 115 
 
 tatum est, and in this they are followed by the Latin Fathers, excepting Jerome 
 himself. This translation does not, however, point necessarily to the reading 6; 
 it might also be taken from 6¢, which was referred to “vorjpiov, Till Wetstein, 
 the reading 6¢ was generally held to be the right one,—later also by Matthaei, 
 Tittm. Scholz, Hahn, Heydenr, Linck, Mack ; the reading 0 is specially defended 
 by Wetstein and Schulthess. Almost all later critics and expositors, both on 
 external and internal grounds, have rightly preferred the reading 6c, which is 
 accepted also by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. Comp. the thorough investigation by 
 Reiche, Comment. crit. ii., on the passage. 
 
 Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-7, see Note IX. pages 133-135.] After speaking of the 
 behavior of men and women in the church-assemblies, Paul goes on te 
 give instructions regarding the proper qualifications of office-bearers “u 
 the church. He begins emphatically with the introductory words : x:ord¢ 
 6 Adyoc, which here, as in i. 15, do not refer to what precedes (Chrysostom, 
 Erasmus, and others), but to what follows. [[X a.J—ei tice émoxorie 
 opéyetac] Since éricxorg corresponds with éxicxoroc in ver. 2, the word does 
 not denote here generally “ the office of one who is set over others” (Hof- 
 mann), but specially “ the office of a bishop ;” for only in this way can the 
 inferences in vy. 2 f. be drawn from what is said here. Why the previous 
 words moti¢ 6 Adyoc should not be in agreement with this, we cannot 
 understand.—Emoxory has a similar meaning in Acts i. 20, where it de- 
 notes the office of apostle; comp. Meyer on the passage. In the N. T. 
 the word usually means “the visitation.”—dpéyerac does not necessarily 
 imply here, as de Wette thinks, the notion of ambitious striving; comp. 
 Heb. xi. 16.—The ground of the dpéyec#a: may indeed be ambition, but it 
 may also be the zeal of faith and love. The apostle does not blame the 
 opéyecdac in itself; he merely asks us to consider that the éxicxorg is a 
 kadov Epyov, and that not every one therefore may assume it.—xatovd épyor 
 éxudvuei] Leo and others take épyov here in the sense of 7i; but it seems 
 more correct to hold by the meaning: “ work, business” (Luther, Mat 
 thies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others); comp. 2 Tim. iv. 5; 
 épyov Toincov evayyedotov ; 1 Thess. v. 18, where the church is exhorted é:a 
 To épyov avrav to the love of the mpoictauevor. It is, however, very doubtful, 
 to say the least, that the word is chosen to lay stress on the thought that 
 the éxicxor# is an office of work and not of enjoyment (Jerome: “ opus, 
 non dignitatem, non delicias;”’ Bengel: “negotium, non otium ”).— 
 Kadov, see 1.18; 2 Tim. iv. 7. 
 
 Ver. 2. Aci obv tov éxioxorov averiAnrtov eiva k.7.A.] Tov éxioxororv, aS a Name 
 for the superintendent of the congregation, only occurs in the Pastoral 
 Epistles (here and at Tit.i.7), and in Acts xx. 28; Phil. i. 1 (the verb 
 éxvoxoreiv is found in 1 Pet. v. 2). There can be no doubt that in the N. 
 T. the éicxoro: and the rpeoBirepor denote the same persons. [IX }.] The 
 question why these different names should be given to the same persons 
 has been differently answered. 
 
 RemMarK.—Baur supposes that every single town had originally one superin- 
 tendent, who in his relation to the congregation was called éxicxo7oc, but that 
 
116 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, 
 
 when several érickorov over single congregations were taken together, they were 
 for the most part designated by the co-ordinate name of zpeoBirepor. He finds the 
 chief support for his opinion in the passages, Tit. i. 5: twa xataorhon¢e Kata réAwv 
 mpeoButépove, and Acts xiv. 23: yetpotovyoavtec . . . mpeaButépove Kat’ éxKAnoiar ; 
 but the form of expression here used does not necessarily imply that every single 
 town (or congregation) received or was to receive only one presbyter. Since xara 
 méAw (éxkAyoiav) means: by cities, 7. e. in every city, and the plural (zpeoBurépovc) 
 is herewith joined with it, it may be taken in Baur’s sense, but it may also be as 
 well taken to mean that the plural refers to each single city. The passage in 
 Acts xv. 21, to which Baur appeals, proves nothing for his view, since it is well 
 known that there were several synagogues in each city of the Jewish country.— 
 According to the view of Kist,! the Christians in any one place formed originally 
 several house-congregations, each of which had its particular superintendent. 
 The college of presbyters then consisted of the superintendents of those house- 
 congregations in one city, which, taken together, were regarded as a congregation. 
 ‘he passage in Epiphanius, Haer. lxix. 1,? shows that in later times such an 
 arrangement did exist; but there is no passage in the N. T. to prove that that was 
 the original arrangement. In the N. T. the presbyters are always named as the 
 superintendents of one congregation, and there is nowhere any hint that each 
 house-congregation had its special superintendent. Even when James (vy. 14) 
 enjoins that a sick man is to summon Tove mpeoBurépove tie éxkAnoiac,—and not 
 the presbyter of the house-congregation of which he was a member,—his words 
 are clearly against Kist’s view.—The most probable theory is, that originally the 
 superintendents of the single congregations—according to the analogy of Jewish 
 custom—bore the name of mpeofirepo, but, that, in so far as they were éricKxo7ovr- 
 Tec in reference to the congregation, they were called éxicxoro.; comp. Acts. xx. 
 17 and 28.—There are, however, two striking facts to be noticed. In the first 
 place, Paul in his epistles (the Pastoral Epistles excepted) makes use of the word 
 éxioxoroc only in Phil. i. 1, and of the word zpeoirepor not at all. Nay, he almost 
 never mentions the superintendents of the congregation except in Eph. iv. 11, 
 where he calls them Touuéveg Kai didaoKkador, and 1 Thess. v. 12, where he mentions 
 them as tpoiorduevor tuav (comp. also Rom. xii. 8: 6 tpoicrawevoc) ; comp., how- 
 ever, the passages quoted above frdém Acts. From this it is clear that at first his 
 attention was directed to the congregation only in its indivisible unity, and only 
 by degrees does he give more prominence to-its leaders. We cannot, however, 
 conclude from this, either that the congregations in the earlier period had no 
 leaders, for it lay in the very nature of a congregation to have some kind of 
 leading; or that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul, for why in the 
 later period of his career should circumstances not so have shaped themselves 
 that he thought it necessary to give the leaders more prominence ?—The second 
 striking fact is, that both in this passage and in Tit. i. 7 the singular éxioxoroc and 
 not the plural évioxo7oz is used, though in the latter passage the plural peoBirepox 
 immediately precedes, and here at ver. 8 we have the plural dcdkovoc (comp. also 
 v.17: of Kadae mporotates mpeoBitepor). Is there any reason for this in the 
 nature of the episcopate? The fact certainly might be interpreted to favor 
 
 
 
 \[llgen’s Zeitschrift f. hist. Theol. Il. 2, pp. - ’AAcEavSpeca rd Eva apxrerioxoTov ovaat, kai 
 47 ff. kar’ iav ravtais émiteTaymevor eiol mperBuTe- 
 2 Ooar exkAnoiat THs KaBoALKHs exxAyaias ev pot dia Tas exkAnotagtiKas Xpelas TOY OlKNTOPwY 
 
CHAP, Itt. 2. 117 
 
 Kist’s view; but it may more simply and naturally be explained from the fact that 
 both times a t¢ precedes, and this almost by necessity compels the use of the 
 plural after it. 
 
 Ovv] is not simply a particle of transition. From the fact that the 
 érioxory 18 a Kaddv épyov, the apostle deduces the necessity of a blameless 
 character on the part of the éricxoroc; Bengel: bonum negotium bonis 
 committendum.—averiAyrrov eivac] In enumerating the qualities which an 
 éxioxorog must possess, the apostle begins appropriately with a general 
 idea; so also Tit. 1.7: averiAnrroc, equivalent to 7 mapéyov katyyopiac adopuhy, 
 Schol. Thucyd. v. 17. It is important that they who stand at the head of 
 the church should lead an irreproachable life in the opinion both of Chris- 
 tians and of non-Christians.—yva¢ yovacxog avdpa] [LX c.] This expression 
 cannot here, be properly referred to polygamy; for, although polygamy 
 might at that time be still found among the civilized heathen, and even 
 among the Jews,’ it was as a rare exception. Besides, there is an 
 argument against such an interpretation in the phrase évd¢ avdpoc yuvg, v. 
 9; for similarly such a phrase ought to refer to polyandry, which abso- 
 lutely never occurred.—Most recent expositors? take the expression as 
 referring to a second marriage after the death of the first wife. Heyden- 
 reich quotes many testimonies from the earlier Fathers to justify this 
 view. The results which these give are the following: Firstly, Many held 
 marriage after the death of the first wife to be something immoral. Athena- 
 goras® calls second marriage a evrper7¢ woryeia; and Tertullian repudiates 
 it utterly, as do the Montanists. Secondly, This was, however, by no means 
 the view that generally prevailed. It had many decided opponents, but 
 even opponents of the view regard* abstinence from a second marriage 
 as something praiseworthy, nay, meritorious. Hermas® and the later 
 Fathers, as Chrysostom, FEpiphanius, Cyril, all write in this strain. 
 —Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, iii. p. 461) says, that he who marries 
 a second time does not commit sin. Thirdly, As to those who held office 
 in the church, it was a general principle that they should not marry a 
 second time. The proof of this is the objection which Tertullian puts in 
 the mouth of his opponents against his condemnation of second marriages: 
 adeo, inquiunt, permisit Apostolus iterare connubium, ut solos qui sunt in 
 Clero, monogamiae jugo adstrinxerit (de Monogamia, chap. 12). Origen’s 
 words are in complete accordance with this: ab ecclesiasticis dignitatibus 
 non solum fornicatio, sed et nuptiae repellunt; neque enim episcopus, nec 
 presbyter, nec diaconus, nec vidua possunt esse digami.—On the other 
 
 1Comp. Justin Martyr, Dialog. c. Tryph.; commentarium, quae reperiri potuerunt; ed. 
 Chrysostom on the passage; Josephus, Anffq. O. F. Fritzsche, pp. 150-152. 
 
 vii. 2. ; 5 Past. mandat. iv. chap. iv: dic, Domine, si 
 2Leo, Mack, de Wette, Heydenreich, Wies- vir vel mulier alicujus discesserit et nupserit 
 
 inger, van Oosterzee, Plitt. aliquis eorum, num quid peccat? Qui nubit, 
 3 Leg. pro Christo, p. 37, edit. Colon. non peccat; sed si per se manserit, magnum 
 4Still there are exceptions, such as Theo- sibi conquirit honorem apud Dominum. 
 
 dore of Mopsuestia, who shows his freedom Sou yap kexwAvTaL mpds TOU vosLoU" OV mANpOL 
 
 of thought in arguing most decidedly against O€ Tis KaTa TO EeVayyeALov WoALTELas THY KaT 
 this view; see Theodori ep. Mops. in N. T. — éwitacw TeAevétyTa, 
 
118 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 hand, there is a weighty counter-argument in the fact that the earlier 
 expositors of the Pastoral Epistles (Theodoret, Theophylact, Jerome, 
 Oecumenius) do not share in this view,! though the practice prevailing in 
 their day must have made the interpretation to them an obvious one. 
 Besides, nowhere else in the N. T. is there the slightest trace of any ordi- 
 nance against second marriages; nay, in Rom. vii. 2, 3, and also in 1 Cor. 
 vii. 39, Paul declares widows to be perfectly free to marry again; in 1 Cor. 
 vii. 8, he even places widows and virgins on the same level; and in this 
 epistle, v. 14, he says: Botdoua vewrépac (ygpac) yaueiv. It would certainly 
 be more than strange if the apostle should urge the younger widows to a 
 step which would hinder them later in life from being received into the class 
 of church-widows (see on chap. v. 9)—Appeal has been made to the facts 
 that the nuptiae secundae were held to be unseemly for women even among 
 ihe heathen?; but it is to be observed, on the other hand, that it was con- 
 sidered in no way objectionable for a man to marry again after the death of 
 his wife, and that there exists no trace of the opposite principle. (There is 
 no ground for Heydenreich’s opinion, that the priests highest in rank, e. g. 
 the Pontifex Maximus, could only be married once.) Hence, neither 
 Christians nor non-Christians could be offended if the presbyters of the 
 churches were married a second: time, and Paul would have laid down a 
 maxim which in his day had never been heard of. The undecided oppo- 
 sition to second marriages appeared among the Christians only in the 
 post-apostolic age, when asceticism was already taking a non-Pauline 
 direction, and was therefore inclined to give its own interpretation to the 
 apostle’s words. Besides, the expression here, as also in Tit. i. 6, stands in 
 the midst of others, which denote qualities to be possessed not only by the 
 bishop, but also by every Christian as such. Accordingly, there is good 
 ground for taking the disputed expression simply as opposed to an 
 immoral life, especially to concubinage. What he says then is, that a 
 bishop is to be a man who neither lives nor has lived in sexual intercourse 
 with any other woman than the one to whom he is married (Matthies, 
 Hofmann’), Thus interpreted, the apostle’s injunction is amply justified, 
 not only -in itself, but also in regard to the extraordinary laxness of 
 living in his day, and it. is in full harmony with the other injunctions. 
 The expression under discussion might also be possibly referred to 
 successive polygamy, é.¢. to the re-marriage of divorced persons, but its 
 terms are too general to make such a reference certain.A—v7¢diu0v] only 
 
 1Chrysostom places the two views together: 
 ov vomobeTav TOUTO HyatY, ws mH civar ekdv avev 
 TovtTou (yuvatkos) yiver@ar' aAAa THY apmeTpLay 
 KwAdvwv, érerdyn emt Tov "Iovdaiwy e&nv, kat dev- 
 Tépors Optadery yap.ots, Kal Svo ExeLy KaTa TAVTOV 
 yuvatkas. J 
 
 2Comp. Rein, Das rémische Privatrecht, pp. 
 211, 212, and the Latin word univira. 
 
 8 Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 421) says: 
 
 “The injunction is, that the husband have no 
 other wives in addition to his own wife, and 
 
 the widow (chap. v. 9) no other husbands in’ 
 addition to her own husband.” So also in his 
 ¢omment. on Tit, i. 6. 
 
 4As a matter of course, Paul did not, as 
 Carlstadt thought, mean in these words to 
 command the bishop to marry; but, on the 
 other hand, there is at bottom a presuppo- 
 sition that it is better for a bishop to be 
 married than to be unmarried (see vv. 4, 5).— 
 We should note also as an exegetical curiosity, 
 that some Catholic expositors, in the interests 
 
CHAP! Troe. 119 
 
 here and in ver. 11 (Tit. ii. 2). In its proper meaning it is equivalent to 
 wh oivy TOARG mpooéyorra, ver. 8; but it is also used in a kindred sense 
 (like the Latin sobrius) to denote one who is not enchanted nor intoxicated 
 by any fleshly passion. It is used, therefore, of sobriety of spirit. This is 
 the meaning of the word here, where it is joined immediately with cé¢pova, 
 and where the original sense follows in the word zapo.oc, ver. 3. Even 
 the root-word v7go occurs in the N. T. only in the figurative sense, as in 1 
 Thess. v. 6, 8, where it is joined with ypyyopeiv, and stands in. opposition to 
 the spiritual caGeidevv and wefiev; and in 1 Pet.iv.7, where it is also connected 
 with cugpovetv.eagpova, récpuov] see 1. 9—Bengel: quod cé¢gpwr est intus, 
 id xéoutoc est extra. Theodoret: kéoptoc nai p6éypate Kai oyfjuate Kai BAEupare 
 kat Badiouatt woTe Kai dia TOV CMUuaToc daivecHar THY THE WvyAC owhpoobvyv.— 
 giAdEevov] in special reference to strangers who were Christian brethren; 
 comp. 1 Pet. iv. 9; Heb. xiii. 2; Rom. xii. 18.—d.daxrixév] “able to teach ” 
 (Luther); “good at teaching” (van Oosterzee). Acdaxtixéc is one who pos- 
 sesses everything that fits him for teaching, including also the inclination 
 (Plitt: “inclined to teach”) or the “willingness” (Hofmann). Hofmann is 
 wrong in specializing it into “a moral quality.” That is justified neither 
 by the etymology of the word (comp. the similarly-formed rpaxrixdc, ypa- 
 gixéc, etc.) nor by the position in which it stands here or in 2 Tim. ii. 24. 
 The word is found elsewhere only in Philo, De Praem. et Virt. 4, not in 
 classic Greek. Though the public address in the congregation (both that 
 of the diackatia and that of the xpodyreia, 1 Cor. xii—xiv.) was permitted 
 to every one to whom the Holy Spirit had imparted the ydpioua, still the 
 éxickoroc in particular had to know how to handle doctrine, in instructing 
 the catechumens, in building up the faith of the church, and in refuting 
 heretics (see Tit. 1. 9); hence Paul, in Eph. iv. 11, calls the zoiuevec of the 
 church, d:dacKaior. 
 
 Ver. 3. The positive characteristics are now followed by two that are 
 negative (or three, according to the Rec.): 7) xdpowov| This word occurs 
 only here and in Tit. 1.7. Though it is used (comp. rapowéo, LX-X. Isa. 
 xli. 12) also in the wider sense, as equivalent to contumeliosus (Josephus, 
 Antiq. vi. 10, where it stands opposed to the word cw¢poveiv), yet there is 
 here no sufficient ground for departing from its original sense. It is true 
 that, as Bengel indicates, the 427 érvecx# afterwards seems to be in favor of 
 the wider meaning here, without special reference to drunkenness; but 
 the contrast is the same in the other case, if we only remember that rapov- 
 voc does not mean simply “drunken” but “impudent, arrogant in intoxi- 
 cation.” —nq rAgernv] This word also may be taken in a narrower and a 
 wider sense. Here, as in Tit. i. 7, it denotes the passionate man who is in- 
 clined to come to blows at once over anything. With these two ideas there 
 are three plaeed in contrast; not, however, in exact correspondence, for in 
 
 of celibacy, have explained the word yvuvy of refutation which is accorded to it by Winer, 
 the ehurch.—The strange opinion of Bret- pp. 111 f. [E. T. p. 117 f]. 
 
 schneider, that jas is here the indefinite 1Comp. Aristophanes, Acharnians, 981, where 
 article, and that Paul meant a bishop should the scholiast explains it #e@vgos Kal UBprotis, 
 ‘be married, hardly needed the elaborate see Pape on the word. 
 
120 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 that case the reading of the Rec., i) aio ypoxepd7, would be indispensable, and 
 for this reading there is too little testimony; but in such a way that the 
 conduct denoted in the one case is opposed to thatin the other.—aa7’ éxcerky, 
 auayov, agiAdpyvpov] In Tit. ili. 2, as here, the first two expressions stand 
 together. “Ayuayoc does not occur elsewhere in the N.T.  ’Ezvecxje does not 
 mean “ yielding,” for it does not come from eixw, but from eixé¢ (ovna).—The 
 nearest meaning is “beseeming.” As used, however, it has mostly the 
 sense of moderateness and gentleness (in Plutarch, Pyrrh. 23.—éruveikdc is 
 used along with zpawc). Luther rightly: “mild.” "Auayoc is equivalent to 
 peaceful; Luther: “not quarrelsome.”—<agiAdapyvpov (only here and in 
 Heb. xiii. 5; @cAdpyvpoc, 2 Tim. i. 2 and Luke xvi. 14; the substantive 
 @iAapyvpia, 1 Tim. vi. 10) lays stress on a point of which no hint was given 
 before. It is joined with djayoc, since avarice necessarily brings strife 
 with it. 
 
 Ver. 4. In the second verse, the apostle touched on the subject of mar- 
 riage-life; here, he directs how the bishop is to conduct himself in his 
 own house.—rov iWiov vixov Kakde rpoictéuevov] Though idcoc is used at times 
 in the N. T. instead of the simple possessive pronoun, it is here emphatic, 
 in contrast with éxxAyoia Oeov, ver. 5.—oixoc here, as elsewhere, denotes the 
 entire household, including slaves. It is above all important that he 
 should act properly in regard to the children; hence the apostle adds: 
 réxva éyovta év brotayh peta mdone ceuvdrntoc] [LX d.] From a comparison 
 with the corresponding passage in Tit. 1. 6, it is clear that he is speaking 
 here, not of the father’s disposition, but of that of the children (in oppo- 
 sition to Hofmann). The éyovra év troraym corresponds in sense with 
 1... avuréraxra in the other passage, and in construction with éyovra 
 . . . py év Katnyopia aowriac. The bishop is to preside over his house in 
 such a way that the children shall not be wanting in submissiveness. The 
 words pera mdone ceuvérytoc are to be connected with what immediately 
 precedes, and not with zpoiorduevov (Hofmann). If it be right to refer 
 them to the fathers (Heydenrich, Matthies, van Oosterzee), éyew must be 
 explained as equivalent either to tenere (Matthies: “holding the children 
 in obedience’’) or to catéyew (van Oosterzee). That, however, is arbitrary; 
 besides, the parallel passage in Tit. i. 6, where aowria is the opposite of 
 ceuvérne, is against it. Leo, Mack, de Wette, Wiesinger, are right there- 
 fore in referring the words to the children. The idea of ceuvéry¢ does not 
 forbid this reference, if only we avoid thinking of little children; comp., 
 by way of contrast, the conduct of the children of the high priest Eli, in 
 the O. T. 
 
 Ver. 5 in a parenthesis gives the reason why a bishop ought to know 
 how to govern his house properly.—ei dé ti¢é tov idiov oikov mpoorHvat ovK 
 olde] dé shows that the confirmatory clause is adversative; the conclusion 
 is made a minori ad majus. Bengel: plus est regere ecclesiam, quam 
 familiam.J—ré¢ éxkAnoiag Ocov éripeAjoerac] The contrast here made be- 
 comes still more forcible when it is observed that in ver. 15 Paul calls the 
 
 1Theodoret: 9 7a guixpa olkovomecy ovK eldws, THS SUVaTaL TOY KpELTTOVWY Kal Ociwy mLoTEVORVAL 
 Ty emimedrccap, - 
 
CHAP. 111. 4—6. 121 
 
 éxkAyoia the oixog Ocov.—éxipeAgoetac] The future here, as often with the 
 Greeks, expresses the capability; see Bernhardy’s Syntax, p. 377. The 
 verb éxmedéouae has not only the more general meaning of “take care of 
 something” (Luke x. 34, 35), but also more definitely, “ fill an office, be 
 overseer over something,” in which sense it is used here.—For a right 
 understanding of the connection of this verse with what precedes, it is to 
 be observed that the first requisite for a successful superintendence is 
 obedience (ézoray7) from the church towards its superintendent. It is the 
 bishop’s duty so to conduct himself that the members of the church may 
 be obedient to him, not as servants to a master, but as children to a father, 
 that they may show him obedience in love. 
 
 Ver. 6. Mj veddutov] depending on dei . . . elvac in ver. 2, is attached to 
 the previous accusatives, ver. 5 being a parenthesis. Neéguto¢ is rightly 
 explained by Chrysostom: ov tov vedrepov évtaifa Héyet, GAA Tov veEoKATH- 
 antov; comp. 1 Cor. ili. 6,7. Heinrichs is wrong if he thinks that, on 
 account of what follows, the explanation rejected by Chrysostom is really 
 the right one; for the rapid promotion to the episcopate of one newly 
 admitted into the church, might easily have consequences to be dreaded 
 by the apostle—The reason why a “novice” (Luther) should not be 
 bishop is given in the words that follow: wa yy rvdabeic¢ cig Kpiua éurréon 
 tov diaBdAov. Trdwbeic: [IX e.] “lest he being beclouded with conceit (of foolish 
 pride).” The verb (which occurs only here and in vi. 4 and 2 Tim. iii. 4) 
 comes from ridoc, which in the figurative sense especially denotes darkness, 
 as beclouding man’s mind so that he does not know himself, so that the 
 consciousness of his own weakness is hidden from him; in 2 Tim. iii. 4 it 
 is appropriately joined with pydév éxotduevoc (comp. Athenaeus, vi. 238d). 
 Tvdwfeic describes the conduct of the veé@yto¢g which brings on him the 
 kpiua tov dia3dA0v.—eic Kpiwa éuréon Tov dia3dAov] Nearly all expositors take 
 6 614Bo0A0¢ here and in ver. 7 to be the devil. Some, again, explain it as 
 “the libellous fellow.”! Against this latter view, however, there are three 
 decisive arguments—(1) According to the constant usage of the N. T., the 
 substantive 6 6:480/0¢ always denotes the devil (it is otherwise in the LXX., 
 but only in Esth. vii. 4, viii. 1)? (2) The singular has the definite article, 
 which seems to mark out one definite individual, for the collective use of 
 the singular can always be inferred from the context (as in Matt. xii. 35; 
 Rom. xiv. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 18; Jas. ii. 6; this, indeed, is less the case in Jas. 
 v. 6); besides, here the idea of “libeller” is too indefinite for the train of 
 thought; hence Hofmann is forced to define it arbitrarily: ‘“ whoever 
 makes it his business to speak evil of Christianity.” (8) If, in the ex- 
 pression 7 tov dvaBdAov rayic, at 2 Tim. li. 26, tov diaBdAov cannot mean 
 anything else than the devil, it is arbitrary to render it otherwise when 
 used in the same expression at ver. 7.—«piva is not equivalent to “ charge, 
 accusation ” (Matthies), but “the judgment,” especially “the judgment of 
 
 1Mosheim, Wegscheider, Hofmann; Luther: ii. 26 and in Eph. vi. 11, even Hofmann takes 
 “the slanderer.” it to be the devil; but, on the other hand, 
 2Paul uses the word only here and in ver. both here and in Eph. iv. 17 he takes it to be 
 
 7; 2 Tim. ii. 26; Eph. iv. 17, vi.11. In2 Tim. the human slanderer. 
 
122 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 condemnation.” —rov d:a3620v is mostly (even by Wiesinger and van Ooster- 
 zee) taken to be the genitivus objecti (comp. especially Rev. xvii. 1), equiva- 
 lent to “the judgment which is executed on the devil” (van Oosterzee), 
 because «pivevv is not the devil’s business; Bengel: diabolus potest oppro- 
 brium inferre (ver. 7), judicium inferre non potest, non enim judicat, sed 
 judicatur.! But the notion that the devil is delivered to condemnation 
 because of self-conceit, cannot be scripturally proved. For this reason, 
 and also because rot daBd/ovu in ver.7 is manifestly the subjective genitive, 
 it is preferable to take it in the same way here (so, too, Plitt).2. Of course 
 the xpiva of the devil cannot mean a trial which the devil hoids, but the 
 judgment which serves to give him foundation for accusing man with God 
 (comp. the name for the devil, kaz#ywp, in Rey. xii. 10).8 
 
 Ver. 7. Aci dé kai paprupiav Kadgy Eyer ard Tov éEwbev] Aci 5é (Which does not 
 present something opposed to ver.6) adds a new requirement to those 
 already given in vy. 2-6, a requirement needed for the sake of those who 
 are not Christians. Thus det here becomes connected with the dei in ver. 
 2.—naprvpia occurs in the Pauline Epistles only here and in Tit. i. 13.— 
 axd tov elev] oi éwHev (for which Paul commonly uses oi é£w) are those 
 outside the church ; az6 is equivalent not to “among,” but to “from;” the 
 testimony comes from those who are not Christians. In the choice of a 
 bishop, care is to be taken that he is a man who has led an irreproachable 
 life even in the eyes of those who are not Christians. The reason is added 
 just asin ver. 6: iva py eic¢ dveWiopov éuréon Kai rayida Tov diaBddov] dverdiopdv 
 may be taken absolutely (Wiesinger, Pltt), or joined with rod 6:aZ. (van 
 Oosterzee). The former view is supported by the fact that éuxéoy separates 
 dve. from rayida; the latter, by the fact that the preposition is not repeated 
 before rayida. The passage in vy. 14, 15, when compared with this, sup- 
 ports the former view, which is further established as correct by the 
 consideration that we cannot well suppose oved/few to be an act of the 
 devil. Since dvecdioudc is not defined more precisely, it must be taken as 
 quite general in meaning.—«ai rayida tov diaBdAov] the same expression in 
 2 Tim. ii. 26; in 1-Tim. vi. 9.it stands without rod diaB., and there, too, it 
 is joined with zeipacudc (elsewhere only in Rom. xi. 9, which follows Ps. 
 Ixix. 23). It is a figurative name for the lying in wait of the devil, who is 
 represented as a hunter. The idea of its association with dvedoué¢ is this, 
 that the disgrace incurred by one who has not a good testimony from the 
 non-Christians, is used by the devil as a snare, not only to tempt him, but 
 also to seduce him into apostasy from the gospel.‘ 
 
 1Jt is out of place to appeal to 2 Pet. ii.4 and 
 Jude 6 (Wiesinger), since in these passages 
 mention is made, not of the judgment which 
 will bé passed on the devil, but of the judg- 
 ment which will be passed on a number of 
 wicked angels. 
 
 2Had the apostle been thinking of the 
 judgment which will be passed on the devil 
 
 have expressed himself more clearly, with 
 
 something like this: tva ph xpivntar adv To 
 dtaBorw. 
 
 3Hofmann asserts that it is irrational to 
 speak of a judgment which the devil pro- 
 nounces ; but we may ask, on the other 
 hand, whether it is not irrational to speak of 
 a devil without judgment. 
 
 4 In explaining tov d:aBoAov Hofmann ex- 
 plains éuréon (eis) tay. T- deaB. to mean, that 
 the slanderer tries to ensnare such a one in 
 
CHAP. Ill. ?—9. tes 
 
 Ver. 8. [On Vv. 8-13, see Note X. page 135.] From this to ver. 13 we 
 have instructions regarding the deacons. [X «.]—dcaxdvovg aoavTu¢ oEpvoug 
 x.t.a.| The deacons, as at first instituted in the church at Jerusalem, were 
 originally almoners of the poor (Acts vi. 1-6). They are mentioned again 
 only in Phil. i. 1. In Rom. xvi. 1, Paul calls Phoebe a dudkovoc of the 
 church at Cenchrea. There are some other passages which allude to the 
 diaconate—Romi. xii. 7; 1 Cor. xii. 28 (avridgperc); 1 Pet. iv: 11. It is 
 known that this office in the chureh was afterwards not confined to its 
 original object, but there is nothing to indicate how far it was developed 
 in the apostolic age. Many of the duties assigned to the deacons in later 
 times, can only be arbitrarily connected with the office in the apostolic 
 age. Only it is to be observed that both here and in Phil. i. 1, the deacons 
 are named ajter the bishops.—écairoc] marks here, as in ii. 9, the transi- 
 tion to ordinances in regard to another class of persons, indicating at the 
 same time their similarity to those preceding. —oepvoic | The accusative 1s 
 dependent on det elvar, which is to be supplied; regarding the idea con- 
 tained in the word, see il. 2.—7 diddyove] the word diAoyos only here. In 
 Prov. xi. 18, LX X. ; in Ecclus. v. 9, 14, vi. 1, xxvili. 18, we have the similar 
 word: diyAwooos! (comp. also dipuxzoc in Jas. iv. 8); Theophylact: asa 
 @povowrTes Kal aAara Aéyovrec, Kat GAda Tovroie Kal aAAa éxelvolc.—ly] OLV@» TOAAG 
 mpooéyovtac] mpoaé yew here, as in iv. 18 and Heb. vii. 13: “be addicted to ; ¥ 
 
 Tit. 11. 3: py olive ToAA@ SedovAwpévac.— pL] aio ypokepdeic | only here and in Tit. 
 i. 7; comp. 1 Pet. v. 2: brtoxorrobyrec . . . pydé aicypoKepdac, GAA Tpofijuwc ; 
 and Tit. ii. 11, where it is said of the heretics that they by unseemly doc- 
 trine destroy houses aia xypov Képdove yapw. These passages show that we 
 are not to think here of gain from “dishonorable dealing ” (Luther, 
 Theodoret: 2 mpayyatev aia xpav kat Aiav atérov), but rather of using the 
 spiritual office for a material advantage (comp. vi. 5). 
 
 Ver. 9. “Eyovrac TO pevotipiov 776 riotewc év Kabapa cvverdjoer| The emphasis 
 is not on éyortac, as if it meant “holding fast,” but on & Kabapa cvvecdyoet 
 (Wiesinger).—ro pvorhprov 77/¢ rictewc] This collocation occurs nowhere else. 
 Iliore is not the doctrine of faith (Heumann), but subjective faith (de 
 Wette). Mvarfpiov ‘is the subject-matter of faith, i.e. the divine truth, 
 which is a secret not only in so far as ‘t was hidden from the world until 
 it was revealed at the appointed time (Rom. xvi. 25) and remains hidden 
 to every man till the knowledge of it is wrought in him by the Spirit 
 of God (1 Cor. ii. 7-10, 14), but also in so far as it is even to the believer 
 imepBdAAovoa THE Yradewc (Wiesinger). The expression is synonymous 
 with that in ver. 16: 70 T7¢ eva eBelac pvoTnpiov.— v kabapa ovvedfoe.]| Comp. 
 i.5, 19. The clause is to be joined closely with éyovrac, and is to be under- 
 stood neither specially of occupying the office, nor quite generally of the 
 virtuous life, or “the moral disposition ” (Hofmann), but of purity and 
 uprightness in regard to the mystery of the faith. It stands in contrast 
 with the impurity of the heretics, who had their conscience stained by 
 the mingling of truth with errors; comp. iv. 2. 
 
 the sense of “ showing him as an evidence of selects such a man as its head” ('). 
 the state of morality in an association which 1Theogn. v. 91: os uu yAwoor dix” Exel. 
 
124 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 Ver. 10. Kai obror d& doxiyualécbwoav mpatov| The particles cat . . . dé mean 
 and also, xai being purely copulative ; dé, however, opposing and empha- 
 sizing! something new. Since this new thing, which is necessarily em- 
 phatic, always stands between kai and 6é, otto, as van Oosterzee has rightly 
 seen, must be opposed to those before named, 7.e. to the presbhyters; it is 
 to be explained : “and these too, i.e. not only the presbyters, but also the 
 deacons, are first to be proved.” It is wrong, therefore, to make doxiat- 
 éofwoav emphatic, and to explain otro. without reference to those before 
 named (“and these are further to be proved’), as was done in the former 
 editions of this commentary.?, Had he wished to say that, the apostle 
 could not but have written kai doxiwalécbwoar 62 oitor; comp. John viii. 16. 
 It is true that nothing has been said hitherto about an examination in 
 regard to the office of presbyter; but, of course, such an examination 
 must have preceded the election. The examination for the office of 
 deacon would certainly refer to the life and stedfastness in the faith. He 
 does not say who was to undertake the examination, but it is natural to 
 suppose that it was to be undertaken by those who elected. At the first 
 institution of the diaconate the election was made by the church, the instal- 
 lation to the office by the apostles. It is not known how it was managed 
 later in the apostolic age. Heydenreich makes the examination too for- 
 mal when he says: “ They are to be examined first by Timothy, with the 
 aid of the presbytery ; the votes of the members of the church are to be 
 taken concerning his worthiness,” etc. On the other hand, the force of 
 doxuatéctoocay must not be weakened by such explanations as: “ Paul 
 wishes only those to be made_diaxovon regarding whom a definite opinion 
 had already been formed in the church” (so in the second edition of this 
 commentary); or: “itis the moral testing which naturally took place 
 when they lived for some time under the eyes of the church and its 
 leader;” or: “it is in substance the same thing as py vedpuTov, used 
 regarding the choice of presbyters ” (Hofmann).—It is quite wrong, with 
 Luther (“and these are first to be tried”’) and others, to understand the 
 words as if they meant that candidates were first to be tried in the affairs 
 ‘of the diaconate.—eira dvaxoveitwoav, avéyKaAnroe bvtec] The participle ex- 
 presses the condition under which they are to be admitted to the office 
 of deacon. Avaxoveiv, as applied definitely to the office of deacon, oecurs 
 only here, at ver. 14, and in 1 Pet. iv. 11. 
 
 Ver. 11. Twvaikag doattw¢ ceuvac x.t.2.] [X b.] No further hint is given 
 as to what women he is here speaking of; only it is to be observed that 
 these instructions regarding them are inserted amongst the rules for the 
 diaconate, since ver. 12 continues to speak of the latter. They must 
 therefore, at all events, be regarded as women who stand in close relation 
 to the. deacons—either the wives of the deacons or the deaconesses. 
 Mack’s supposition, that they are the wives of the deacons and of the 
 bishops, is quite arbitrary. The second view is found as early as in Chrys- 
 
 1Comp. Meyer on John yi. 51; Hartung, * Wiesinger, too, seems ft» ta'se it in this 
 Lehre von den Partik. d. gr. Spr. I. pp. 181 ff; way: “These, however, alsu are first to be 
 Buttmann, p. 312 [E. T. 364]. proved, then they may serve.” 
 
CHAP. ur. 10-13. 125 
 ostom (yvvaikac diaxdvove 70°), Theophylact, Oecumenius, Grotius, and 
 others; de Wette, Wiesinger, and Hofmann also think it correct. The 
 principal grounds for it are—(1) the word écairwe, which indicates that the 
 apostle here passes (see ver. 8) to a new class of ecclesiastical persons 
 (Wiesinger); and (2) the fact that the instructions given in this whole 
 section are rather directions for election than exhortations to the persons 
 named, On the other hand, the omission of aitov (de Wette, Wiesinger) 
 and the expression morac¢ év raow, usually understood, as de Wette 
 wrongly thinks, of conjugal fidelity, are of no weight—Against this view, 
 however, there are two circumstances which should be considered, viz., that 
 the instruction regarding the deaconesses is inserted among those given to 
 the deacons, and also that the apostle calls them quite generally yuvaies, 
 instead of using the definite ai diaxovoc (comp. Rom. xvi. 1). This makes 
 it probable that by the yevaixec we should understand the deacons’ wives 
 (so, too, Plitt). The reason of the special exhortation would then be, not, 
 as Heydenreich says, that even the domestic life of the deacons should 
 be considered, but that the office of the deacons, consisting in the care of 
 the poor and the sick, was of a kind in which their wives had to lend a 
 helping hand. Hence we can explain why the wives of the bishops are 
 not specially mentioned.’—p7 diaBddove] duaBoroc, as an adjective : “slan- 
 derous,” occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles, here and at 2 Tim. ii oR 
 Tit. ii. 3.—vngariove] is not equivalent to p77 vive T6AAw Tpocexovoac, Ver. ore 
 it is to be taken in the same sense as in ver. 2 (in opposition to Wiesinger, 
 van Oosterzee).—morac év raow] “ faithful in all things ;” év raow forbids 
 us to limit the command of fidelity to any one sphere; it is not merely 
 faithfulness at home nor in the duties of the church that is meant. 
 
 Ver. 12. The apostle returns to the deacons, and gives regarding their 
 domestic life the same instructions as he gave in vv. 2-4 in regard to the 
 bishops. 
 
 Ver. 13. To these instructions he adds in this verse a reason: oi yap 
 kadoc duakovpcavrec (dcaxovety is here and in ver. 10 used in the official sense) 
 BaOudv gavtoic Kaddy TEprrovovyTat.” The word abudc, [X c.] which occurs 
 only here, denotes, like gradus, in the figurative sense, a degree of honor. 
 As to what is to be understood by this, expositors are not agreed; but we 
 may reject at once all explanations in which a comparative is put in place 
 of the positive xa4év. This objection applies to the view that Bafude denotes 
 here the higher ecclesiastical office, the office of bishop,? which view, 
 moreover, presupposes a regulation of rank altogether foreign to the 
 
 1Van Oosterzee’s view is arbitrary, that 
 those deacons’ wives are meant who at the 
 same time held the office of deaconess. 
 
 2Hofmann thinks that ver. 13 is connected 
 only with ver. 12; because a man might fill 
 the office of deacon well, though he lacked 
 the qualities named in vv. 8-10, but not if 
 his house were badly managed. But that 
 is not the ease. Those qualities, not less 
 than the one given in ver. 12, are the neces- 
 
 sary conditions for filling the office of deacon 
 well. 
 
 3Jerome: “bonum hie pro gradu majori 
 posuit; sunt enim minores [diaconi] ;” Ben- 
 gel: “gradum ab humilitate diaconiae ad 
 majora munera, in ecclesia. Qui in minore 
 gradu fidelis est, ad majora promovetur ;” so, 
 too, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, 
 Heumann, Heydenreich, Baur, Plitt, and 
 others. 
 
126 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 apostolic age. The same objection applies to the view that Sabuic Karéc is 
 a higher stage of the life of faith, 7.e. an increase in Christian perfection. 
 The expositors who hold by the positive «addéc, interpret the idea, some of 
 the future, others of the present life. The former understand by it “a 
 higher stage of blessedness ;”’? the datter explain the expression as applying 
 to “respect in the church.” *—Heinrich, de Wette, and Wiesinger agree 
 with the view of the former, only modifying it to mean nota stage of 
 holiness, but “the expectancy of it.” This modification is, however, 
 unwarrantable, since the idea of “expectancy or claim” is imported. 
 Safuéc Means a stage; it cannot at the same time mean the claim toa 
 stage; and if Babué¢ must mean the claim to something, then there is 
 nothing to indicate what the claim refers to.—The decision between the 
 two interpretations depends on the explanation of the words that follow: 
 Kal roAAqv Tappyciay év mioter TH Ev Xptot@ "Incotv] wappyoia means, in the 
 first place, candor in speech; then more generally, bold courage in action, 
 synonymous with ddea (Hesychius); and lastly, firm confidence in some- 
 thing; thus in reference to men, 2 Cor. vii. 4 (70224 jor rappycia xpoc bac), 
 or to God, viz. the confidence which the Christian in faith has in the saving 
 grace of God ; so in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in the First Epistle of 
 John If Bafudc is to be referred to future blessedness, then zappyoia here, 
 as in 1 John ii. 21, Heb. iv. 16, is confidence towards God. But in 1 John 
 iil. 21 we have zpoc¢ tov Oeév along with xappyoia, and in Heb. iv. 16 pera 
 mappnoiac is added to define more precisely the clause: zpocepyaueba TH 
 Afpdvw tHe xapito¢; as to the parallel passage in vi. 19, to which de Wette 
 likewise appeals, the reference to the future life is distinctly expressed by 
 the words eic 75 wéAAov. Of all this there is nothing here; there is nothing, 
 either here or with xaAdv Bafuédy, to direct us to the future life, nothing to 
 indicate that with zappycia we should supply xpd¢ tov Oedv, or the like. 
 Hence it is more natural to refer these ideas to the sphere in which 
 the diaxoveiv takes place, and to understand by BaAusc, respect in the 
 church.;* by rappyoia, confidence in their official labors. These two things 
 stand in closest relation. to one another, since only he can possess right 
 confidence in his office who is open to no just reproach, who is honored 
 for conducting himself well in the matters with which his office is 
 concerned. Wiesinger, against this view, maintains that “the aorist 
 (Staxovgoavtec) makes the Babusv éavt. Kara. mepix. appear to be the final 
 result of the official labor;”® but if that were the case, the present 
 zepixovovvrat Should not have been used, but the perfect ; for the acquisi- 
 tion does not take place after the official labor, but during it—Certainly 
 
 the spiritual life, and also of eternal blessed- 
 
 ’ 
 
 1S0 Theodoret (rdv tiptov TodTov Babwov ev 
 
 To méAAovTe AnWovTat Biw), Flatt, and others. 
 2So Galvin, Planck, Wegscheider, Leo, Mat- 
 thies, and others. . 
 
 3 Regarding Luther’s translation of rappyaia 
 by “joyfulness,” see my Comment. on the 
 Epistles of John, 30 ed., on 1 John iy. 17. 
 
 4Van Oosterzee’s opinion is manifestly 
 wrong, that Ba@uds is-“a beautiful stage of 
 
 ness.’ 
 5The other grounds apply only to the ex- 
 position of Matthies, who understands by 
 “the influential post;” by 
 mappyoia, “the free play of thought and 
 speech, a wide open field of spiritual activity.” 
 In this he certainly exceeds the meaning 
 which may be assigned to these words. 
 
 BaOuos Kadds 
 
CHAP. II. 14, 15. 127 
 the aorist is somewhat strange; but it may mean that the Safyoc k.7.A. is 
 always the result of good service.—The verb xepiroeiofa, in the N. T. 
 only here and in Acts xx. 28, has even in classical writers the meaning 
 “oain for oneself.” The dative éavroi¢g is added to show clearly that he is 
 speaking of the gain to the deacons themselves, and not to the congrega- 
 tion—év riorer tH év XpioTH “Tjoov] is not to be joined with Babuéy and 
 xappyoiav (van Oosterzee), but only with rappyciav.” Itis not the sphere 
 in which, nor the object in regard to which, there is wappycia (Heumann : 
 “the boldness to teach the Christian faith even in public ;” Wegscheider : 
 “free activity for Christianity, or a greater sphere for the spread of Chris- 
 tianity ”); but it denotes the wappyoia as Christian, as rooted in Ghristian 
 faith. The construction of xiore with év following it, is found also in 2 
 Tim. iii. 15; Gal. iii. 26; Eph. i. 15; Col. i. 4 (only that in these passages 
 there is no article before év, while there is one before rior; on the other 
 hand, comp. Acts xx. 21, xxvi. 18). This construction may be explained 
 to mean that Christ is the object of faith already apprehended; the 
 believer not only has Christ before him, but he tives in communion 
 with Him. 
 
 Vv. 14, 15. [On Vv. 14-16, see Note XI., pages 135-137.] The apostle has 
 come here to a resting-point, since he has brought to an end his instructions 
 regarding some of the chief points to be noticed in the affairs of the 
 church; but, before passing to any new matter, he casts a glance back on 
 the instructions he has given, and tells what was the occasion of his giving 
 them.—rairé co. ypadw] Bengel’s explanation: “raiza, @.e. totam episto- 
 lam,” in which Hofmann agrees, is so far right, that raira refers rather 
 to the instructions that precede (from ii. 1 onward).—éA7ifov <Afet Tpoc GE 
 rayiov] é2xifwv does not give the real (“ hoping,” Matthies), but the adver- 
 sative ground (Leo: Part. éArifev per xaivep seu similem particulam esse 
 resolvendum, nexus orationis docet; so, too, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, 
 Plitt). The real ground is given by the following wa. Hofmann asserts, 
 but does not prove, that this view does not accord with the following é. 
 Hofmann finds that a@x/Zov only expresses an accompaniment of the act 
 of writing, and that it was added “lest Timothy should infer from the 
 sending of an epistle that the apostle meant to leave him for some time 
 in Ephesus;” but in this he imports a motive of which the context 
 furnishes no hint.—réyiov [XI a.] (comp. on this form, Winer, p. 67 [E. 
 T. p. 69]; Buttmann, p. 24 [E. T. 27]) is here taken by most expositors as 
 a pure positive “soon ;” the comparative sense (according to Winer, pp. 
 
 1Hofmann’s explanation of faOuds and 
 mappyoia agrees in substance with that given 
 here. He is wrong, however, in asserting 
 that the deacons do not acquire both during, 
 but only after their tenure of office. If the 
 latter were the case, the means by which it 
 takes place would not be given. 
 
 2 Hofmann, indeea, nolds even this connec- 
 tion of ideas to be unsuitable ; but we do not 
 see why the mappyova may not be marked as 
 
 Christian, as rooted in faith in Christ. To 
 connect it with what follows, would be to 
 suppose that the apostle lays emphasis on a 
 point, which to Timothy would be self-evident. 
 
 3Hofmann’s assertion, that the reference 
 of radra to what precedes is forbidden by the 
 present ypadw (for which we should have had 
 éypada), is contradicted by 1 Cor. iv. 14, xiv. 
 97: 2 Cor. xiii. 10; Gal. i. 20; also by 1 John 
 ii- 1. 
 
128 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 227 f. [E. T. p. 243]), though in the background, has not wholly disap- 
 peared: “sooner” (not “than the arrival of this letter,” or “than thou 
 wilt have need of these instructions,’ Winer) “than is or was to be 
 expected.’’—In spite of this hope, the apostle’s arrival might possibly be 
 longer delayed, and this possibility had induced him to impart his instruc- 
 tions by writing, lest Timothy should be without them.—éav dé Bpadive 
 (the verb only here and at 2 Pet. ii. 9), wa eldje wc dei év oixw Oeod ava- 
 orpéoecbar] rac dei avaotpégecba refers not so much to the Christian life in 
 general, as to behavior in church life, viz. in divine service and in church 
 arrangements. This limitation is clearly indicated by the connection 
 with what precedes, the raira referring us back (in opposition to Hof- 
 mann). Its subject is either Timothy, in which case oé is to be supplied 
 (Luther: “how thou shouldst walk; ” so, too, Wiesinger), or no definite 
 subject should be supplied: “how one should walk.’’? Both explanations 
 are possible in language and in fact; but the second may be preferred, 
 because Paul in the preceding part (to which raira refers) did not say 
 what Timothy was to*do, but what arrangements were to prevail in the 
 church; Hofmann thinks differently, as he understands rtatvra of the 
 whole epistle. The expression oixog Ocov denotes properly the temple at 
 Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 13), then also the O. T. people as the church in 
 which God had His dwelling (Heb. iii. 2,5); in Christian usage it is the 
 N. T. people in whom the dwelling of God has been fully realized; Heb. 
 i. 6 (Heb. x. 21); 1 Pet. iv. 17; synonymous with it are the expressions : 
 katoukntipiov Oeov, Eph. ii. 22; vade Oeov, 1 Cor. ili. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16.—To 
 elucidate the symbolic expression, Paul adds : frie got éxKAnoia Ocod Cavroc | 
 The pronoun jrwc (= “se@ing it”) makes the explanatory sentence 
 emphatic, by indicating why there should be such behavior in the house 
 of God as Paul had prescribed (which Hofmann denies); and the reason 
 is not simply that it is an éxxAgoia, 7. e. a church, and as such has necessa- 
 rily certain definite ordinances, but still more definitely because it is a 
 church of God, of the living God, who as such esteems highly His ordi- 
 nances in. His church.—There follow in simple apposition the words: 
 otbAoc Kai Edpainua tie aAnbeiac] [XI b.] Fhese words are in apposition to 
 éxxAnoia O. C., and as such are rightly explained by the older? and most of 
 the recent commentators.’ Some Protestant commentators, however, in- 
 
 1The impersonal de? is usually joined with 
 the accusative and infinitive, the infinitive 
 
 29: mevOapxetv Sec ed; Xv. 5: Set wepiremvew 
 avrovs; Tit. i. 11: ovs det émiotouegew; the dec 
 
 - denoting the thing, the accusative the person 
 who must do the action expressed by the 
 ' yerb. More frequently thé person is not 
 named, but is easily supplied from the con- 
 text. as e.g. in Matt. xxiii. 23, where vpas, in 
 Luke xii. 12, where again tuas, and in Luke 
 Xv. 32, where cé is to be supplied. Hofmann 
 is therefore wrong in asserting that there is 
 no linguistie justification for supplying oé 
 here, where eidyjs precedes. Sometimes, 
 ‘however, Set refers to no particular person; 
 so John iv. 20: omov mpooxuvety dec; Acts vy. 
 
 in that case corresponds to the English “ one 
 must.” It is arbitrary, with Hofmann, to 
 supply twa here, and understand by it one 
 who “has to govern a house of God.” 
 
 *Theodore of M. rightly says: éxxAnotas ov 
 TovS olKouS Aéyet TOUS EVKTNPLOUS KaTa THY THY 
 ToAA@v cuvyPecav, GAAa TOY TLOT@Y TOV OVA- 
 Aoyov, b0ev Kat oTVAov avTyv Kai éSpawpa T. 
 adv. éxddecev, ws av ev avT? THS aAnOeias Thy 
 avoTacw éxovons. 
 
 3 Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, Mack, 
 Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann; 
 
CHAP. Ur. 16. 129 
 
 fluenced by their polemic against the Catholic idea of the church, have 
 taken these words as the beginning of the following sentence.’ The 
 reasons against this construction are—(1) That the new thought would be 
 taken up in a very abrupt and sudden manner, while by connecting it 
 with the previous words, the train of thought is suitable and natural ; (2) 
 That “grammatically the third defining term, simply adjectival, éyoA. 
 yéya, cannot well be placed in co-ordination with two predicates like 
 otidoc and édpaiwua” (Wiesinger, following Schleiermacher); and (3) That, 
 whereas 1d tic eboeBetac wrot#piov is nothing else than the a/#Geca, this con- 
 struction would make the former designate the latter as oriAog Kai édp., 
 which would clearly be unsuitable. There is manifestly nothing to be 
 said for the opinion of some commentators,’ that by or. x. édp. we are to 
 understand Timothy .’—oriAoc in the figurative sense occurs only here and 
 at Gal. ii. 9; Rev. iii. 12. The oixoc Ocov is called orbdoc tHe aAnbeiac, inas- 
 much as the pillar supports and bears the roof resting on it (see Meyer on 
 Gal. ii. 9), but not “inasmuch as it serves to elevate something and make 
 it manifest” (Hofmann). The same idea is expressed by the second word: 
 édpaiwua, the base, foundation (similarly #eyéAcoc, 2 Tim. ii. 19), a word which 
 is only used here in the N. T. The thought that the divine truth is supported 
 and borne by the church, has nothing startling when we remember that 
 the church, as the olxoc¢ cov, has the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of 
 truth; the Spirit of truth, therefore, is its indwelling, all-penetrating prin- 
 ciple of life, by which it stands in closest communion with its head.* But 
 if the church is set up to be the preserver of divine truth, it is all the 
 more important that all should be well-ordered in it. These words stand, 
 therefore, in close connection with what precedes; but, at the same time, 
 they make the transition to what follows, where the apostle in a few brief 
 characteristics gives the nature of the truth, that he may from this point 
 return to his polemic against the heretics, and continue it further. 
 
 Ver. 16. Kai éuoroyouuévwe péya éoti 7d tHe evoeBeiac wrotHptov] Kai connects 
 what follows with the preceding words, and in such a way as to empha- 
 size the following predicate.—éuoroyounévwe] which only occurs here, 
 means neither “manifestly ’’ (Luther), nor “according to the song of 
 praise” (Mack), nor even “correspondingly ” (Hofmann ®); but: “as as 
 
 now, too, by van Oosterzee, 3d ed. ‘Van Oos- 
 terzee is, however, inclined to conjecture 
 that “there is here a corruption of the text 
 
 which cannot now be restored with certainty.” 
 ' 1First, in the edition of the N. T. at Basel, 
 1540, 1545; later, Bengel, Mosheim, Heyden- 
 reich, Flatt; formerly also van Oosterzee. 
 
 2Gregory of Nyssa (de Vita Mosis): ov wovov 
 Tlétpos wai “laxwBos kai Iwavyvys otvAoe THs 
 axxAnoias ciot ... 0 Oelos amdaTodos Kal Tov 
 Tipd@cov otvAov Kaddv éTEeKTHVATO, ToLjoas 
 avrov, Kabws dyoti TH dia dwvy, oTvAOV Kal 
 éSpaiwua THs EKKAnglas 
 
 3Though Chrysostom construes rightly, he 
 . yet inverts the meaning of the sentence: ovx 
 @s éxeivos 0 "lovdatkds olxos 8., ToUTO yap EaTL 
 
 9 
 
 To cuvéxov Thy TicTW Kal TO KHpYyHa’ y yap 
 GAjberd eater THS ExkKAnGias Kal oTVAOS Kat 
 edpaiwma. 
 
 4Wiesinger rightly calls attention to the 
 distinction which should be made between 
 “the truth as it is in itself, and the truth as 
 it is acknowledged in the world,” and then 
 says: “in the former respect it needs no 
 support, but bears itself; in the latter, it 
 needs the church as its support, as its bearer 
 and preserver.” If the Catholic Church has 
 drawn wrong conclusions from the apostle’s 
 words, it has itself to blame, and not the 
 apostle. 
 
 5 Hofmann, without reason, takes objection 
 to the sense given to the apostle’s remark, 
 
130 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 acknowledged” comp. 4 Mace. vi. 31, vii. 16, xvi. 1; Josephus, Antiq. i. 10. 
 2, ii. 9. 6).—péya] comp. Eph. v. 32 (kai 7d puorhpiov rovTo péya Eoriv), has the 
 sense of “important, significant.”—The subject of the sentence: 7d ric 
 evoeBeiag pvorhpiov, is a paraphrase of the 4/7#ea in the preceding verse. It 
 is so called by the apostle, because, as the substance of the Christian fear 
 of God, or piety, it is hidden from the world: the sense is the same, there- 
 fore, as that of rd pvothpiov tij¢ wiorewe in ver. 9. It is wrong to translate it, 
 as Luther does: “the blessed secret,” or to explain it: “the doctrine 
 which leads to godliness.” Wiesinger is incorrect in explaining it: “a 
 secret accessible only to godliness ;” and Hofmann in saying: “the truth 
 which is of such a nature as to produce godliness where it finds accept- 
 ance.”—The purport—. e. the christological purport—is now given in the 
 next clauses, Paul laying stress on it on account of the polemical ten- 
 dency of the epistle against the heretics (chap. iv.), whose theology and 
 Christology were in contradiction with the gospel.—As to the construction 
 of these clauses, there would be no difficulty with the reading Gedc. 
 [XI ¢, d.] If6 be read, it must relate to pvor#pir, which also might be the 
 construction with é¢. According to the Vulgate (sacramentum quod 
 manifestatum est), the latter is the construction adopted by the Latin 
 Fathers who understood Christ to be the pvorgpiov,'—an interpretation 
 quite unjustifiable and unsuitable to the general train of thought. Several 
 expositors (Mangold, Hofmann, and others) assume the first clause: 
 dc . . . capxi, to be the subject, and the other five clauses to form the 
 predicate; but “on account of the parallelism, that is not advisable” 
 (Winer, p. 547 [E. T: p. 588]). It is much more natural from their simi- 
 lar form to regard all six clauses as co-ordinate. Then the subject to 
 which é¢ relates isnot named ; but, according to the purport of the various 
 clauses, it can be none other than Christ. [XI e.] This curious omission 
 may be thus accounted for; the sentence has been taken from a formula 
 of confession, or better, from an old Christian hymn, as its metrical and 
 euphonious character seems to indicate. This view is also adopted by 
 Heydenreich, Mack, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt—The 
 opinion of Matthies is untenable, that the apostle does not name Christ 
 expressly, in order to maintain the character of rd pvorAprov (in the sense: 
 Acknowledged great, etc., . . . he who is revealed, etc.), and that this 
 absolute use of the relative pronoun is found elsewhere in the N. T. In 
 the passages quoted by him, Rom. ii. 23, 1 Cor. vil. 37, John i. 46, iii. 34, 
 1 John i. 8, the pronoun has not the absolute meaning alleged by him. 
 The first clause runs: é¢avepd6n év capxi] éoavepoOy is often used of Christ’s 
 appearance on earth, of His becoming man, 1 John i. 2, ili. 5; it presup- 
 
 that believers acknowledged the secret of 
 godliness to be great. But if this thought is 
 meaningless here, not less is the one he sub- 
 stitutes: “to the greatness of the house of 
 God corresponds the greatness of the mystery 
 of piety.” 
 
 1Kven Buttmann is of this opinion, as he 
 
 quotes this passage (uvorypior, ds epavepwOn) 
 under the rule (p. 242) [E. T. p. 282], that the 
 relative agrees with the natural gender of 
 the preceding substantive. 
 
 .2Comp. Rambach’s Anthoiogie christl. Ge- 
 sdinge aus allen Jahrh. d. Kirche, I. 33, and 
 Winer, p. 594 [E. T. p. 639 f.]. 
 
CHAP. I. 16. 131 
 poses a previous concealment,’ and consequently the pre-existence of 
 Christ as the eternal Logos.—'Ey capxi] (comp. 1 John iv. 2: éAnAvbae év 
 capxi; Rom. vill. 38: év duotiuarte capKd¢ auapriac) denotes the human nature 
 in which Christ appeared; John i. 14: 6 A6yo¢ odpé éyévero.—With this first 
 clause the second stands in contrast: édccadOy év rvebuatc] Means (as in 
 Matt. xi. 19; Luke vii. 35): to be shown to be such a one as He is in 
 nature; here, therefore, the sense is: He was shown in His divine glory 
 (as the Logos or eternal Son of God), which was veiled by the odpé. “Ev 
 mvevpate is contrasted with év capxi, the latter denoting the earthly, human 
 manner of His appearing, the former the inner principle which formed 
 the basis of His life. Though év with zvebnate has not entirely lost its 
 proper meaning, yet it shades off into the idea of the means used, in so 
 far as the spirit revealed in Him was the means of showing His true 
 nature.’ It would be wrong to separate here the tvevua from His person, 
 and to understand by it the spirit proceeding from Him and imparted to 
 His own, it is rather the living spiritual principle dwelling in Him and 
 working out from Him (so, too, Plitt)—Chrysostom diverges from this 
 exposition, and explains éd:xac667 by : déAov ot éxoinoev, dxep 6 rpoohrye Aéyet. 
 6¢ duapriay ovk éroince ; and Bengel takes the meaning of the expression to be 
 that Christ bore the sins of the world (peccata peccatorum tulit . . . et 
 justitiam aeternam sibi suisque asseruit); but both views import ideas 
 which are here out of place. The expression év rvebware has also found 
 very varying interpretations. Instead of rveiua being taken in its real 
 sense, particular elements of it in the life of Christ, or particular modes 
 of revealing the zveiua, have been fixed upon, or zveiva has been taken 
 simply of the divine nature of Christ.3—éo67 ayyéAocc] The right meaning 
 of this third clause also can only be got from a faithful consideration of 
 the words. The word 6¢67 is in the N. T. frequently joined with the dative, 
 Matt. xvii. 3; Luke i. 11; Acts vii. 2; 1 Cor. xv. 5-8; Heb. ix. 28, ete. In 
 all these passages it is not the simple “was seen,” but “was revealed ” or 
 “appeared ;” it always presupposes the activity of the thing seen.—From 
 the analogy of these passages, we must think here of Christ going to those 
 to whom He became visible, so that all explanations which take 496 
 merely as “was seen” are to be rejected.—In the N. T. dyyedou is especially 
 applied to angels ; in itself the word may also denote human messengers 
 (comp. Jas. iil. 25). To take it here in this latter sense (which Hofmann 
 
 1Hence the same word is used also of the 
 - resurrection and second coming of Christ. 
 
 2Baur is wrong in explaining év mvevmate 
 “as spirit.” This cannot be justified by exe- 
 gesis, and hence Baur contents himself with 
 the mere assertion that it is so. 
 
 8’ The older expositors take mvevua to denote 
 particularly Christ’s miracles (Theodoret: 
 amede(xOn Sa Tov Oavuatwy Kai anedhavOn, ore 
 @eds adnOns Kai @eod vids). Others apply it 
 to the Spirit imparted to Him in baptism; 
 others, to the outpouring of the Spirit at Pen- 
 ’ tecost; others, to Christ’s resurrection as the 
 
 most glorious work of the Spirit (so Heyden- 
 reich in particular). Akin to this view is 
 that of Hofmann, who says that rvedua is 
 “that which quickens, makes alive,” and 
 deduces from this “that spirit changed the 
 existence of Christ in the flesh... into 
 something that had its nature from the 
 Spirit,” and explalns édix. év av. as relating 
 to the justification He received through His 
 resurrection. All these explanations fall to 
 the ground when it is observed that the con- 
 text contains no reference to any such special 
 fact. Glassius explains it thus: Justus de 
 
132 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 does), as denoting the apostles to whom Christ appeared after His resur- 
 rection, is impossible, because nothing, not even the article, is used here 
 to point to them in particular. If, then, dyyeAo can only mean angels, it 
 is most natural to take ogfy ayyéAoc of the ascension, by which Christ—as 
 the Glorified One—was made manifest to angels (so, too, Plitt). Still there 
 is nothing here to lay stress on the ascension (as is done in the sixth 
 clause); the pointis, that He who was justified év rveiuare presented Him- 
 self to the angels in His glory.—Baur, indeed, in gnostic fashion interprets 
 the passage of Christ as passing through the various series of aeons, but it 
 is clear that the words neither demand nor even justify such a view. No less 
 arbitrary is de Wette’s opinion, that probably the a¢@jva ayyéAore relates to 
 a supernatural scene differing from the ascension, and forming the anti- 
 thesis to the descent into hell=-The very form of the expression shows 
 that we are not to think of appearances of angels at various moments in 
 the earthly life of Christ, as some expositors suppose. More noteworthy 
 is an explanation given by Chrysostom and approved by some later 
 expositors, especially by Matthies and Wiesinger.!. Matthies appeals to 
 passages which he thinks are elucidated by the words, passages where 
 Christ is said to have been manifested as .. . head to all things in heaven 
 and on earth, Eph. i. 20 ff, iii. 10, iv. 8 ff.; Col. i. 15 ff., ii. 10, 15; Heb. 1.6 
 ff. But, though Christ’s lordship over all is spoken of in such passages, 
 it is not said that Christ was made manifest to the angels only by means 
 of His incarnation. The only passage which might be quoted here is 
 Eph. iii. 10, which, however, rather declares that to the angels the eternal 
 decree of the divine loye or of God’s wisdom was to be made known éa 
 tHe ExxAnoiac. But such cannot possibly be the meaning of o¢67 ayyédote. 
 Wiesinger simply explains it: “the angels saw the capxwévta on earth;”’ 
 but obviously the sentence is meant to express something which befell not 
 men, but angels.—éxnpbyIn év EIvecwr] for éExnpiyIn, comp. Phil. i. 15; and 
 for év é3veow, Matt. xxvili. 19. There is no good reason for taking é0v7 
 here as relating not to the nations in general, but, as Hofmann thinks, to 
 the heathen exclusive of the Jews.2—émorebdn év Kéouw] eroteb dy is not, 
 with some expositors, to be explained by éducaré07: “He has been testi- 
 fied” (viz. by the miracles of the apostles), or by “ fidem sibi fecit” (“he 
 gained belief for Himself”); it is to be taken in its proper meaning. The 
 word xécuoc has the same general meaning as the preceding v7; van 
 Oosterzee is wrong in thinking that it ought to be taken here in an eth- 
 ical sense.—‘ Jesus is personally the subject-matter of preaching and of 
 faith ” (Hofmann).—averjody év d6=y] Mark xvi. 19; Acts i. 11 (Acts x. 16), 
 where the same verb joined with eic obpardy is used of Christ’s ascension. 
 This supports the opinion of most expositors, that the same fact is men- 
 
 elaratus est et filius Dei comprobatus in 
 Spiritu i. e. per deitatem suam, cujus vi 
 miracula fecit. 
 
 1 Chrysostom says: 67 ayyéAots* WoTeE Kai 
 a@yyedo. we0” nuav eldov tov vidv Tov Meow, mpo- 
 Tepov ovx opwvtes. Theodoret’s expression is 
 
 still more pointed: thy yap adpatov tis 
 Georntos iat ovde Exetvor EWpwy, cGapKwhevTa 
 b€ eOeaaavTo. 
 
 2We cannot, in any case, see how “the sen- 
 tence is emptied of its meaning” by regard 
 ing Israel as included in the idea of €6vn. 
 
NOTES, 133 
 tioned here.—év dé&y] may be taken as an adverbial adjunct equivalent to 
 évddsuce (similarly 2 Cor. 11. 8; Col. i. 4); but in that case the expression 
 of this sixth clause would be quite out of keeping with the others. Wahl 
 takes the expression per attractionem pro: daveA. sic ddfav kai éoriv év O6En, 
 which is the only right exposition.!. The apostle did not write ei¢ dééav, 
 but év dé&y, to show that Christ not only entered into glory, but abides for 
 ever in it (so, too, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). Still we cannot go so far as 
 Matthies, who says that the result rather than the act of the transition is 
 here mentioned; the expression with forcible brevity includes both points. 
 De Wette’s assertion, too, is quite arbitrary, that Paul is speaking here 
 not of the historical ascension, but of a heavenly occurrence.—In what 
 relation now do these six clauses stand towards each other ?—We cannot 
 help seeing that there is a definite order in their succession. It is beyond 
 doubt chronological, since the second clause does not relate to the out- 
 pouring of the Holy Spirit, and the last points more to Christ’s life in 
 glory than to the historical ascension. But, at the same time, we can 
 recognize a close relation between the clauses. Matthies, de Wette, 
 Wiesinger, and Hofmann have adopted three groups, each containing two 
 clauses; but, though ayyéAoue and éveow are contrasted, still this arrange- 
 ment would separate between the fourth and fifth clauses, whose connec- 
 tion Theodoret rightly points out: ov« éxnpiyin pdvov, aAAd Kai érioteb dy. 
 Besides, in order to make the correspondence complete, éxypiydy év 
 é3veow should have come before o¢37 ayyéAoe. It is more correct, there 
 fore, to divide the whole into two parts, each with three clauses, the two 
 first in each case referring to what took place on earth, the third to what 
 took place in heaven (so, too, Plitt?). 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 Dee Vivi 17: 
 
 (a) W. and H. connect the words tvord¢ 6 Adyo¢ with the closing words of the 
 preceding chapter. The great majority of comm., as well as Tisch., Treg., Lachm., 
 connect them with what follows. The latter connection seems more probable, 
 because it makes the transition to chap. iii. less abrupt, and because the phrase is 
 better adapted to the following than the preceding statement.—(b) The identity 
 of the office of éxicxoroc and mpeoBiTepoc, at the date of these epistles, is now so 
 generally admitted by the ablest and most candid scholars, that further discussion 
 of the question is hardly necessary. The absence of the word mtpeoPitepoc from 
 the earlier Pauline Epistles, to which Huther calls attention, is noticeable, but is, 
 doubtless, to be accounted for by the fact that those epistles were occupied with 
 subjects quite remote from the constitution and offices of the church, and espe- 
 
 1Strange to say, Hofmann disputes this, on 
 the ground that Jesus “ was not received into 
 glory, but into the celestial sphere.” He 
 appeals for this to Heb. i. 3, which is utterly 
 from the point. 
 
 2 Baur maintains that in these six clauses 
 every two form a contrast, the one being 
 
 more gnostic, the other more anti-gnostic. 
 But in that case the author of the epistle 
 would, in the second part, have very strangely 
 given up the order observable in the first. 
 Besides, of all the clauses, the third has by 
 far the most resemblance to Gnosticism. 
 
134 . THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 cially by the fact that that constitution was in the earlier apostolic times of the 
 simplest sort, and the official character of the leaders had little of the prom- 
 inence which was subsequently given to it. In the only instance in which Paul 
 speaks of éxicxoroz, in his epistles which were written before the three to Timo- 
 thy and Titus, (Phil. i. 1), he evidently presents them as secondary to the church. 
 The development of church organization which is indicated even in these three 
 epistles is seen, so soon as the matter is carefully examined, to be very moderate. 
 There are only two officers mentioned—presbyters and deacons, who are, also, 
 alluded to as early as Acts vi. and xi.—(c) that the words pag yuvacxog avdpa do 
 not have reference to contemporaneous polygamy, is evident from the reasons 
 indicated by Huther, especially from the fact that the corresponding phrase in v. 
 9, évd¢ avdpdc yuv#, cannot be interpreted in this way. They must either be un- 
 derstood as opposed to a second marriage after the death of the first wife—succes- 
 sive polygamy, as it is sometimes called—or to an immoral life in the way of 
 concubinage. The former of these views is held, in addition to the writers men- 
 tioned in Huther’s note, by Ell, Alf., Holtzm., Bib. Com. [the writer in this 
 com., however, includes marriages after divorce], and others. Plumptre (so Conyb., 
 Bloomf. 9th ed.) favors the reference to a second marriage after divorce, but 
 this is justly objected to on the ground that there is no distinct mention of divorce. 
 Fairbairn holds that the apostle “simply required that when one was called to 
 office in the Christian church, there should be but one living woman to whom he 
 stood related as husband.’ Hofmann and Matthies agree with Huther in suppos- 
 ing the meaning to be, “that a bishop is to be a man who neither lives, nor has 
 lived, in sexual intercourse with any other woman than the one to whom he is 
 married.” The subject.is briefly considered by Dr. Woolsey in his work on Divorce 
 and Divorce Legislation. It is, also, discussed in an extended note (Appendix B.) 
 in Fairbairn’s Com. on the Past. Epp. Comp., also, the comm. generally. 
 
 The natural interpretation of the words, as affected by the corresponding phrase 
 used with regard to widows, the absence of any reference to divorce, the indica- 
 tions in early writers that second marriages were not approved, or that abstaining 
 from them was commended, and the propriety of special self-restraint on the part 
 of officials in the churches, which might, not improbably, have been felt by Chris- 
 tians at that time, strongly favor the explanation which makes the apostle refer to 
 second marriages. On the other hand, it is clear that Paul allows widows to re- 
 marry, in 1 Cor. vii. 39, and that his whole treatment of the subject of the mar- 
 riage relation, as, indeed, that which we find throughout the N. T., considers its 
 obligations as ceasing with the death of either party. In the case of the younger 
 widows, he even recommends second marriage in this epistle (v. 14). This recom- 
 mendation in their case, however, can hardly be regarded as inconsistent with a 
 statement opposing re-marriage in the case of presbyters.—(d) The words pera 
 raone ceuvoryto¢g (ver. 4) are probably, though not certainly, to be connected with 
 éyovra «7.2, and referred to the children—oeuy. here denoting propriety and 
 becoming modesty in deportment, gravity. So Huther and most comm.—(e) The 
 word 7u¢ade_i¢ (ver. 6) apparently refers to the puffed-up or conceited state of 
 mind, which might naturally be connected with the elevation of a recent convert 
 to such a position as that of a presbyter. The dignity of the position is implied 
 by the word, but there does not seem to be anything in. it, or in the word vedgutec, 
 which is inconsistent with the Pauline authorship of the letter, or which demands 
 for it a later date. The word dcaféA0v undoubtedly, as Huther clearly proves, 
 
NOTES. 135 
 means the devil. This word, in ver. 7, is a subjective genitive. Huther takes it 
 in the same way in ver. 6. But «piva isa word which naturally suggests the idea 
 of divine judgment, in such a case ; the N. T. conception of judgment as related 
 to the devil is that of judgment passed upon him; it is necessary, if Huther’s 
 view be adopted, tomake xpiwa mean (as he holds) “the judgment which serves to 
 give the devil foundation for accusing man with God,” or (as Holtzm. holds) “the 
 judgment of the devil speaking through the heathen,” or to give it some other 
 and improbable meaning. For these reasons, the genitive in ver. 6 must be 
 regarded as objective. 
 
 X. Vv. 8-13. 
 
 (a) It is noticeable that the qualifications for the office of deacon are mainly 
 the same in substance with those for the office of éricxoroc, and that, in both 
 cases, they are mainly in the line of general moral character. Both classes of 
 officials were to be selected from among those members of the churches who had 
 such virtues, and were in such a degree free from immoral and evil habits or ten- 
 dencies, that they would have the respect both of the church and of those outside 
 of it. The absence of any emphatic presentation of other points may naturally 
 indicate an earlier, rather than a later date for the Epistles, and thus point to 
 their authorship as within the life-time of Paul. There is certainly no special 
 development of ecclesiasticism, and no special alarm indicated as to dangers of 
 heresy, in these specified qualifications. Nor is there much to be discovered in 
 them, as showing a growth in the character or functions of the offices from the time 
 of the earliest notices which we have of them.—(b) That yvvaixac (ver. 11) refers 
 to the wives of the deacons, and not to a special order of deaconesses, is rendered 
 probable by the considerations mentioned in Huther’s note,—especially, by the 
 fact that the writer returns immediately, in ver. 12, to the subject of the deacons. 
 This view is taken by A. V., Conyb., Wieseler, Mack, and others. De W., Alf, 
 Ell, Plumptre, Hofmann, and others understand the reference to be to deacon- 
 esses. The grounds for this view are, that there is no avrov referring to the dea- 
 cons, that there were deaconesses in the churches, that ®cabrw¢ indicates a similar 
 official character in these women to that of the deacons (comp. ®caitwe of ver. 8 
 connecting the deacons with the bishops), and that tord¢ év aovv is appropriate 
 to official position. The absence of avtev, however, is less remarkable than the 
 absence of the designation as deaconesses; the evidence as to the existence of 
 deaconesses in the churches generally, at the date of these ‘letters, is uncertain ; 
 dcatrwc is easily explicable on either view ; tord¢ év raow is a phrase which does 
 not require a reference to an office, but may be equally applicable to those not in 
 official station.—(c) The word Sadyov (ver. 13) is rendered in R. V. by standing. 
 ‘This rendering seems better than degree, of A. V., and the meaning, though quite 
 uncertain, is probably a good standing—an honorable position as connected with 
 the office which they hold. The force of év riore: is that of the sphere in which 
 the confidence moves, and perhaps, also, that on which it is grounded. appycia 
 can hardly be limited, with Huther, to confidence in their official labors. 
 
 XI. Vv. 14-16. 
 
 (a) W. and H., Treg., and R. V. read, with Lachm. and Buttm., é réyer tn 
 place of téycov. The latter reading, which is adopted by Tisch., has the support 
 
136 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 of &, in addition to the authorities mentioned by Huther. The fact that Paul 
 was hoping soon to return to Ephesus, when taken in connection with the fact that 
 he had left that city not long before the date of the Epistle, and that he had, 
 apparently, passed some time there with Timothy before his departure, makes it 
 somewhat surprising that he should add to the suggestions of the earlier verses of 
 this chapter such a passage as this which now follows—a passage, which gives a 
 solemn and formal declaration of the great Christian truth and of the relation of 
 the church to it. » Like other peculiarities in the Epistle, which have a more or 
 less similar character, it indicates that the Apostle was writing for the churches, 
 as well as for his younger companion and friend. In connection with this more 
 general design, the explanation which Huther gives of avaorpégeoda as having an 
 indefinite subject, how one should behave, conduct oneself, may not improbably be the 
 correct one—(b) The common view of the construction of orvAo¢g Kai édpaiwpa, 
 that they are in apposition with é«xAyjoia, is that which, on the whole, best accords 
 with the position of the words and the general indications of the sentence. The 
 assertion of Huther, however, that there is manifestly nothing to be said for the 
 opinion of some commentators, that by o7. x. édp. we are to understand Timothy, is 
 hardly founded in fact. This reference of the words is in accordance with the 
 possibilities of the sentence ; it harmonizes with the reference of o7vAoc to individ- 
 uals in Gal. ii. 9, the only other passage where Paul uses the word (comp. also 
 Rev. iii. 12); it avoids the mingling of figures, which the other explanation 
 involves; and it closely connects the whole statement with the suggestions to Tim- 
 othy in a most natural way. If referred to Timothy, however, of must be under- 
 stood as the subject of avaorpépeoda. The absence of of; the fact that or. x. édp. 
 follows, instead of preceding the words referring to the church; and perhaps the 
 somewhat easier connection of ver. 16 with ver. 15, if the other view is taken, 
 favor the uniting of the words with écxAyoia, Holtzm. suggests a connection with 
 Seov Covroc, after the manner of Mk. vii. 19; Jas. iii. 8; Rev. iii. 12. This, how- 
 ever, seems quite improbable in a sentence like the present.—(c) The reading 6c, 
 instead of ede, in ver. 16, is now almost universally admitted to be the genuine 
 text. So Griesb., Tisch., Treg., Lachm., Buttm., W. and H., Green, Alf., Words., 
 Ell.,.de W., Holtzm., Fairbairn, Plumptre, Bib. Com., v. Oost. in Lange, R. V., 
 and substantially all recent critics and scholars of note. Dr. Scrivener says, in 
 his second edition, 1874, “ We must consider it highly probable (indeed, if we 
 were sure of the testimony of the first-rate uncials [referring especially to A and 
 C], we might regard it as certain) that... Jedc of the more recent many [must] 
 yield to é¢ of the ancient few.” In his third edition, 1883, he repeats this state- 
 ment, but adds: “Yet even then the force of the Patristic testimony remains 
 untouched,” and closes by saying: “I dare not pronounce ede a corruption.” He 
 thus seems to feel the great difficulty of accepting Jedc, but to be, of late, some- 
 what more inclined to hesitate in rejecting it. Dean Burgon, in his volume 
 entitled “The Revision Revised,” makes a characteristic assault on the reading 
 6c, and a defence of Sede, even claiming for the latter reading the Alex. MS., in 
 regard to which Alford, twenty years ago, said: “It is to to be hoped that A will 
 never again be cited on the side of the received text.” The discussion by Dean 
 Burgon in favor of Sede, and that by Dr. William Hayes Ward (Bib. Sac. Jan. 
 1865), in favor of 6c, will give the student a full presentation of the case, as 
 viewed at present on both sides. Dean Burgon is, probably, the latest scholar of 
 much eminence; who will appear in the annals of the defence of the reading Veds, 
 
NOTES. 137 
 
 and his work, in this section of it, as well as in its other parts, will gain the atten- 
 tion of interested students on this account, when the views which it advocates 
 have ceased to be supported by learned men.—(d) The result of all the most care- 
 ful examinations of the MSS. A and C, which have been made by different 
 scholars, and under the most favorable circumstances now possible—although two 
 or three among these scholars have doubts—must be regarded, it is believed, as 
 decisive, that the original reading of those MSS. was 6¢. This was, undoubtedly, 
 the original text of &, and as the reading 6 in D is, in all probability, a corruption 
 of 6c, and B does not include the Past. Epp., the earliest manuscript evidence is 
 unanimous against Jedc. This evidence is supported by the Syriac and Egyptian 
 versions; and by the Latin versions also, which, however, read quod.—(e) If 6¢ is 
 adopted as the text, R. V. has probably the correct rendering, making 6¢ the subject 
 of each of the verbs: who was manifested, was justified, ete. The zvorfpiov is, thus, de- 
 fined to be Christ. The question as to whether Paul believed or taught the divinity 
 of Christ does not depend on the textual reading of this verse. If the correct read- 
 ing is Vedc, there is a special declaration respecting it here, in that the name Oed¢ 
 is given to Him, but the support of the doctrine does not lie in this statement. 
 
i38 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Ver. 1. tAdvow] For this, many cursives and Fathers have 7Advyc, which, how- 
 ever, is only a correction, perhaps after 1 John iv. 6.—Ver. 2. Instead of the 
 form kexavr7paopévev (Rec. Tisch.), we should probably, after A Ly, read kexavo- 
 Typlacuévov (Lachm. smaller ed., Buttm.).—For idiav ovveidgow, which is sup- 
 ported by the weightiest authorities D* has (in Matthaei, E) ovveidyow éavtov.— 
 Ver. 6, For 'Ijoov Xjiorov, so many important authorities (A D F G, many cur- 
 sives, etc.) have Xpiorovd ’Iyoov, that the latter must be held the right reading. — 
 ™H¢ Kadne diWacKadiac| for which some cursives, ete., have 7% Ka7q didacKadia, 
 which may have arisen from a belief that these words are co-ordinate with toi¢ 
 Aéyou.—For the Rec. 9 tapyKoAotInxac (Tisch.), Lachm. smaller ed., and Buttm., 
 following A 80, have adopted the gen. 7¢ tap7xk., an attraction seldom occurring, 
 but not without examples ; see Winer, p. 154 f. [E. T. p. 163. f.].—Ver. 8. In ® the 
 preposition pec is wanting before oAiyov; possibly mpo¢ dAiyov may have been 
 formed on the analogy of the tpo¢ wavta.—For the Ree, érayyediav, which is found 
 in the weightiest authorities, and is received by nearly all critics and editors, K8, 
 many cursives have the plural ézayyeAiac. This is defended by Matthaei and 
 Rinck as the original reading, but is disputed by Reiche (Comment. crit. I. pp. 
 389 f.). It is at least possible that the singular found its way into the text as a 
 correction.—Ver. 10. xa? xotl@pev, Rec., supported by F G K, most cursives, ete. 
 (Tisch. 7); in A C D8 17, 47, al., Syr. Arr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. ete., kai is want- 
 ing, and is therefore omitted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 8. Its genuineness is 
 very doubtful—Instead of the Rec. ovesdiGéue8a (supported by D L, most versions, 
 Theodoret, etc., Tisch. 7), A CF G K8, al., have the reading aywwfdéueda, which 
 has been adopted by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8. The authorities give a preference 
 to the latter reading, yet.it may have arisen from Col. i. 29. Reiche defends the 
 Rec. ; we cannot decide with certainty which is original ; see further in the expo- 
 sition of the verse—Ver. 12. Between év aya7y and év miotec the Rec. has év 
 mvetuare; rightly withdrawn from the text as not genuine by Griesb. Scholz, 
 Lachm. Tisch., following the weightiest authorities (A C D F G 31, 47, 70, 71, 
 al., Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. etc., Clemens, Chrys. etc.) ; comp. Reiche (Comment. crit. 
 I. p. 892)—Ver. 15. For év raow, Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. rightly adopted 
 raow (without év), after A C D F G® 17, 31, al., Syr. Erp. Copt. ete., Clem. Chrys. 
 ete. It is defended, too, by Reiche as the original reading; év appears to have 
 been inserted from the analogy of Rom. i. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 19. 
 
 Ver. 1. [On Vy. 1-5, see Note XII., page 153.] In the first five verses 
 of this chapter, Paul speaks of the heretics, directing special attention in 
 ver. 3 to one point in their doctrine.—rd 6 mvedpa pytd¢ Aéyed] [XII b.] 
 The dé connects this verse with the beginning of iii. 16, and connects it by 
 way of contrast. Td mvevua is the Holy Spirit, as the source of prophecy. 
 
CHAP. Iv. 1. 139 
 
 To explain the expression by of zvevuatixoi (Heydenreich) is inaccurate. 
 Paul goes back here to the fundamental basis of all prophecy.—pyraec 
 (araé Aey.) means: “in express words,” and is used particularly with quota- 
 tions.! Heydenreich is inaccurate in explaining it as equivalent to caddc, 
 gavepoc; Luther: “distinctly.” The apostle, then, appeals here to a 
 prophecy of the Spirit expressly worded. Such a prophecy of the future 
 apostasy lay before him in many utterances, both of Christ and of others; 
 besides, the Spirit declared them to the apostle himself—Leo is wrong: 
 animus mihi praesagit.—ore év borépoue Kaipoi¢ arootHoovtai twee THe TicTewc | 
 We might readily take torepor xaipoi here as equivalent to éoyaro. Kacpoi .* 
 but we must not overlook the difference between the two expressions. The 
 former points simply to the future, the latter to the last time of the future, 
 immediately preceding the completion of God’s kingdom and the second 
 coming of Christ (so, too, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). It is unsuitable to press 
 xaipéc here in the sense of “ the fitting time,” and to translate it with Matthies: 
 “in the fitting time hereafter.”—Twee are not the heretics, but those who 
 are led away from the faith by the heretics. The apostasy belonged to 
 the future, but the heresy to the present. Hofmann thinks differently, 
 assigning the heresy also to the future, though the apostle’s expression 
 does not warrant this. We must not, however, with Otto, infer that in 
 the apostle’s time the heretics were still outside the church.—daroorjoovra 
 tHe wiotewc| “This sentence forms the antithesis to what has preceded, iii. 
 15, 16” (Wiesinger) ; for the expression, comp. Luke viii. 13; Heb. iii. 12; 
 Wisd. iii. 10; 1 Macc. i. 15, and other passages.—zpocéyovrec] comp. i. 4; 
 the partic. tells how the apostasy is brought about.—zvebyac. zAdvoic] the 
 mvevpata TAdva are in contrast with the rvetua in ver.1; and the former 
 are as little to be identified with the heretics, as the latter with the prophets 
 (Wolf: spirituales seductores, 7. e. doctores seducentes). The xveiuara are 
 rather the active spiritual powers hidden in the heretics, the tools and ser- 
 vants of the devil. As the truth is one, so also is its principle one: 7é 
 mvevua THC aAnOeiac. Error on the other hand is manifold, and is supported 
 by a plurality of spirits, who may, however, be regarded: as a unity : 7d 
 mvevua THC TAdvyAc, 1 John iv. 6.—These wvetpara are called z/dva, because 
 they seduce man from the truth to falsehood; comp. 2 John ver. 7.—xai 
 diackariac darpovior | daoviov is not the objective,* but the subjective geni- 
 tive. The daiuéva are the source of the doctrines which are opposed to 
 the truth, of the cogia dayoriidye (Jas. 11. 15); comp. Col. 1. 22. It is wrong 
 _to suppose that the dauévia are the heretics themselves. As with veya 
 in ver. 1, Paul goes back here to the inner grounds; the didackadia: pro- 
 
 1[Huther must mean that pytas is amaég Aey. 
 in the N. T.; for it is found in Sext. Empir. 
 adv. Log. i. 8: 0 Zevoday pytas dyoiv; also in 
 Strabo, i. p. 4 B, and Polybius, ii. 23. 5.—Tr.] 
 
 2Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 1: ésxatat nuépar; 1 Pet. 
 1.5: Katpos eoxatos; 2 Pet. iii. 3; Jude, ver. 
 18; in Ignatius, Ep. ad Ephes. c. xi.; éoxartou 
 _ Katpot. 
 *Plitt is not wrong in observing that “the 
 
 errors now described by the author were no 
 longer matters purely of the future; they 
 were already appearing.” 
 
 4Heydenreich: “doctrines regarding dem- 
 ons, a characteristic of Essene-gnostic here- 
 tics who spoke so much of the higher world 
 of spirits, of aeons,” ete. 
 
 5 Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Winer, p. 176 
 [E. T. p. 187]. 3 
 
140 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 ceeding from these form the opposite of the didackadia 4 Tov cwripog juav 
 Ocov.) 
 
 Ver. 2. ’Ev tiroxpioe: pevdordywv] Leo: “errarunt sine dubio, qui geni- 
 tivos, qui sequuntur, PevdoAdywv, kexavtypracpévor, KwAvdévtwr, lege appositionis, 
 junctos esse dicebant cum voc. daijoviev;”? but we must also reject Leo’s 
 opinion, that év éizoxp. wevd. was added to the previous statement as a 
 second characteristic of the heretics, meaning: eadem simulantes, quae 
 simulare solent homines wevdoddyor, etc.; pevdo., KexavTyp., KwAvévTwv denote 
 the heretics themselves, and not those whom they imitated. To regard 
 the genitive ypevdoAdyor as dependent on didackadriaw, and év troKpicer as 
 defining more precisely the substantive following it (Estius: doctrinis, 
 inquam, hominum in hypocrisi loguentium mendacium), would make a 
 double difficulty of construction. Nor can Luther’s translation be de- 
 fended: “by means of such as are speakers of lies in hypocrisy.”  ’Ev 
 broxpices is either to be taken with azoorjcovrac (so Bengel: Constr. cum 
 deficient ; hypocrisis ea, quae est falsiloquorum, illos auferet; tuvec aliqui, 
 illi, sunt seducti; falsiloqui, seductores ; falsiloquorum, genitivus, unice 
 pendet ab hypocrisi), or, still better, with zpooéyovrsc (Wiesinger, van 
 Oosterzee, Plitt). The objection of Matthies, which agrees with Leo’s 
 explanation, that in that case we should have had instead of év either dia 
 or évexa with the article, is contradicted by the usage of the N. T. In the 
 N. T. év is not seldom used with the instrument, and in regard to the 
 article there prevails a greater freedom of use than in classic Greek. 
 Hofmann strangely combines da:yoviwv év broxpices pevdoddywv into one idea, 
 explaining dacyoviov to be an adjective with pevdoAdywr, and év izoxpice: also 
 as a qualification of wevdodédywv in the sense of “ hypocritical.” *—The hypoc- 
 risy of the heretics consisted in giving themselves, in obedience to a false 
 spiritualism (see ver. 8), the appearance of a spiritually-inspired life — 
 The word wevdordyor (“ liars,” Luther) occurs only here in the N.T. In 
 sense it is equivalent to wpevdodidacKaroc, 2 Pet. ii. 1, and wevdorpodsrnc, 1 
 John iv. 1 (comp. paraiodAdyo, Tit. 1. 10).—kexavrypiacuéven tHv idiav ovveidnow] 
 On the grammatical structure, comp. vi. 5 (diedapyévoe GvOpwroe Tov voor; 
 the more precise definition is not infrequently added in the accusative, see 
 Winer, p. 215 [E. T. p. 229]), “ branded as to their conscience” (Wahl: 
 KexavTyplacpuévyy éyovtec THY Ld. ovveidnow).—It is to be noted that the kavrypidfew 
 (cauterio notare) was not only done on slaves “ut facilius possent dis- 
 cerni” (Leo), but was also a form of punishment for marking criminals as 
 such (comp. Meyer on Gal. vi. 17). As these bore the brand on their 
 forehead,—that is the figurative expression.—so do the heretics bear it on 
 their conscience, 7.e. they bear in their conscience the knowledge of their 
 
 2Hofmann opposes the view here put for- 
 ward that év imoxpioec is to be taken with 
 
 1The expression dayuévia occurs often in 
 the synoptic Gospels; in John only in the 
 
 singular. Paul has it only here and in 1 Cor. 
 x. Otto uses this last fact as a proof that the 
 two epistles were contemporaneous, but he is 
 wrong; the reference is different in the two 
 eases; in the passage of 1 Cor. it is not the 
 “ gnostic” heresy that is spoken of. 
 
 mpogéxovtes, and makes the curious remark 
 that év “can only introduce that which is of 
 use to me for doing something, not that 
 which makes me do a thing only in so far 
 as it is of use to another to determine me 
 to do it” (!). 
 
CHAP. Iv. 2, 3. ; 141 
 
 guilt.!. Theodoret (followed by Heumann) wrongly understands the apos- 
 tle’s expression to denote moral deadness.?,_ The apostle does not blame 
 the heretics for having a conscience completely blunted, but for acting 
 against their conscience; comp. Tit. ii. 11: airoxaraxpito¢.—On idiar, de 
 Wette remarks that it is not emphatic here; but it is not improbable that 
 the apostle had some such side-thought in mind as Bengel suggests : dum 
 alios tamen urgent (so, too, Wiesinger). 
 
 Ver. 3. Further description of the heretics. [XII ¢, d.]—Kodvévtwv 
 yaueiv] Since even the Essenes and Therapeutae made abstinence from 
 marriage a necessary condition of a ‘holy life, there is no ground whatever 
 for supposing that this description proves the heretics to have been fol- 
 lowers of the later Christian gnostics (especially of Marcion, according to 
 Baur).—aréyeotar Bpwuatwv] similar construction in ii. 12; 1 Cor. xiv. 34; 
 the infinitive is dependent on the keAevdvrwv implied in kwAvévtov (=kerev- 
 évrwv wh); see Winer, p. 578 [E. T. p. 622]; Buttmann, p. 343 [E. T. 401.]. 
 Isidor of Pelusium unnecessarily corrects aréyeobar into avréyeodar. In 
 the Epistle to the Romans (chap. xiv.) the apostle speaks of weak breth- 
 ren’s anxiety in regard to the enjoyment of many meats, and the heretics 
 combated in the Epistle to the Colossians are distinctly described as forbid- 
 ding the enjoyment of certain meats ; but neither here nor in these passages 
 is it said what kinds of meat were forbidden, nor why (comp. also Tit. i. 14, 
 15). Itis, however, not improbable—if we follow the analogy of later 
 gnostics—that animal food, and perhaps also wine (Col. 11. 6: év pace 7 
 év réoe), are specially meant. There is no indication that the prohibition 
 was founded on gnostic dualism (van Oosterzee); it is more probable that 
 the false asceticism of the heretics was connected with the Mosaic dis- 
 tinction between clean and unclean (comp. Tit. i. 15); so also Wie- 
 singer.*—In the Epistle to the Colossians (ii. 22) the apostle indicates the 
 perversity of such a prohibition in a brief relative clause; and so also 
 here.—é 6 Ged¢ éxricev ei¢ peradmw «.7.A.] Different answers have been given 
 to the question why only the second, and not also the first error is refuted. 
 It may have been that the heretics did not make abstinence from mar- 
 riage, as they made abstinence from certain meats, a command laid on 
 all. It may have been, too, “that the prohibition to marry stood in 
 manifest contradiction with the divine order of creation, whereas the pro- 
 hibition of certain meats might appear less objectionable because of its 
 analogy with the prohibition in the law of Moses ” (Hofmann). Besides, 
 the apostle has already indicated in ii. 15 the opposition of the gospel to 
 
 -this prohibition to marry—The word pera%yy¢ occurs only here, though 
 in Acts xxvii. 33 we find peradAaBeiv tpod7c.—The apostle does not content 
 himself with saying that God made food to be enjoyed, but he shows at 
 
 1Theopbylact rightly: emet cvvicacw €av- 3 Hofmann, with no good reason, declares, 
 Tots akaOapaiav TmoAAnv, dua ToUTO TO auvELdos on the other hand, that attention is directed 
 avtav avetadeimrous Exec Tovs KauTHpas tou here to the Essenes and Therapeutae, and to 
 pumapov Biov. the weak Christians mentioned in the Epistle 
 2yéxpwois Kai amoBoAy maoys aicOyjcews, to the Romans, as well as to the heretics at 
 éoxaTn avadynolia’ Oo yap TOU KavTHpos TOTOS Colosse. 
 - yexpw0els THY mpoTepay aigOyaww amoBaAAet. 
 
142 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 the same time how God meant it to be enjoyed, viz.: pera evyapuorttas 
 (comp. on this 1 Cor. x. 31). He then limits the general thought by a 
 special reference to believers: toig miotoig Kai émeyvwxdor tHv adqderav, as 
 those in whom the purpose of creation is fulfilled, solis filiis suis Deus 
 totum mundum et quicquid in mundo est destinavit, qua ratione etiam 
 yocantur mundi heredes (Calvin). The apostle’s thought is distorted by 
 adding “also”’ before roig weoroic, as is done by some expositors.—Heyden- 
 reich rightly says that the words are equivalent to wa oi moro kai oi 
 éreyvokdres THY GAnO. weTaraBoow avTov peta evyapiotiac. Hofmann unjusti- 
 fiably takes exception to this, and—in spite of 67: beginning a new sen- 
 tence—seeks to connect toi¢ ioroi¢ not with what goes before, but with 
 what follows (!). The added words: roi¢ mucroi¢ x.7.A., Show most clearly 
 the perverse conduct of the heretics in forbidding the enjoyment, and to 
 believers of all people. Iloroi are “ believers,” and not ‘“ those convinced 
 that enjoyment is permitted to them ;” ézeyv. r. a470. also does not denote 
 a special class of the zorév: “the Christians who have come to the true 
 gnosis” (as Heydenreich thinks probable), but the zvcroi themselves, as 
 those who, in contrast to the heretics, have recognized the truth, ¢.e. the 
 divine truth. Kai is epexegetical; comp. ii. 4. 
 
 Ver. 4. "Ore mav xrticua Oeov xaddv] This verse gives the ground of the 
 preceding thought, which Hofmann denies. Bengel wrongly takes it to 
 be in apposition to aAydeav.—«ticua, which does not occur elsewhere in 
 Paul, means here of course the creatures of God destined for nourishment. 
 On the principle here expressed, comp. Rom. xiv. 14: obdéy kouviv de avbrod, 
 and ver. 20: mavra xadapd; Acts x. 15: @ 6 Oed¢ éxaddpice, ob py Koivov.—kai 
 ovdév aréBAnrov] comp. Hiad, iii. 65: obtoe aréBAnr éoti Oedv épixvdéa ddpa; 
 and the scholiast’s remark : aréRAyra’ aroBoaje a&va* Ta Urb Gedy, oyoi, Suddueva 
 Jépa ovK gots wév apvgcacda. Here the thought stands in contrast with the 
 idea of defilement caused by partaking of certain meats. Going back to 
 the pera ev yapioriac in ver. 3, the apostle defines it more precisely, though 
 not by mentioning an accessory point merely ; pera ebyapiotiac AauBavduevov 
 (Eph. y. 20: ebyapiorowvtec révrore trip ravtwr), because God wishes. His 
 gifts to be enjoyed with thankful heart, and the purpose of creation is 
 therefore fulfilled only by him who partakes with thankfulness. 
 
 Ver. 5 serves to elucidate the thought’ expressed in ver. 4, that every 
 meat taken with thanksgiving is good, and not to be rejected.—Ay:dlera 
 yap dua Adyov Geov Kai ~vrevFewc} dyidfew is not “declare to be clean and 
 permissible,” but “make something holy.” In itself the meat is not 
 something holy, for, as a purely material thing, it can be called neither 
 holy nor unholy (so also van Oosterzee). It is less suitable to say, with 
 Wiesinger, that ‘the «rio being burdened with a curse, is subject to 
 uaradrnc and the dovieia tHe @9opac;”’ but it is made holy for those who 
 enjoy it by the Adyoc Geot. Wahl and Leo take Oe0v to be the objective 
 genitive, and interpret it as “oratio ad Deum facta,” which makes the 
 expression synonymous with évrevéie following it; but Adyo¢ Oeod never 
 occurs in this sense. Other expositors have supposed that reference is 
 made to.some particular passage of the Scriptures, either to Gen. i. 31 or 
 
a oe. 
 
 CHAP. Iv. 4—6. 143 
 Acts x. 15; but de Wette rightly remarks that the words in that case go 
 quite beyond ver. 4, and touch on the question whether certain meats are 
 clean orunclean. For the same reason, Adéyo¢ Oeot cannot mean generally 
 “the expressions of the divine doctrine, the principles of Christianity ” 
 (Heydenreich). Since the expression points back to pera edyapioriac in 
 ver. 4, and is closely connected with évrevéie, it can only mean the word 
 of God occurring in the prayer of thanksgiving (de Wette, Wiesinger, van 
 Oosterzee), either in this sense, that the word of thanks itself is called the 
 Word of God, inasmuch as it is the expression of God’s indwelling Spirit, 
 or because the prayer is supposed to consist of the words of Scripture.— 
 Regarding értevéic, see ii. 1. 
 
 Ver. 6. [On Vv.6-10, see Note XIIT., pages 1538-155.] After describing the 
 heretics, the apostle turns again to Timothy, exhorting him, in the first 
 place, with special regard to the matters last under discussion, and then 
 more generally in regard to the duties of his office.—raira izorudésevoc 
 toic adeAgoic] tavta [XIII a.] does not, as Heydenreich supposes, pass over 
 all intermediate matter and go back to the christological doctrines ex- 
 pressed in iii. 16. It is more correct, with Hofmann, to refer it to the 
 whole section from iii. 16 to iv. 5 (so Chrysostom); but possibly also Paul 
 had in view only the prohibitions of the heretics (Wiesinger ; van Oosterzee 
 doubtfully ).—irorit_ecda: (the middle only here, the act.in Rom. xvi. 4), prop- 
 erly : “ put under the hand or foot,” may also mean “instruct” (Josephus, 
 Antiq. i. 14), as much as “advise” or “command” (Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 
 8.7); here it stands more in the latter sense; Luther: “point out.”— 
 Hofmann wrongly explains it as equivalent to “take as a theme,” and— 
 against the natural structure of the sentence—connects it with what fol- 
 lows, though in this way it becomes tolerably superfluous.—xarodc éon 
 diakovoc Xpisrov Ijcov| Paul here uses didxovoc, inasmuch as Timothy was 
 formally appointed to serve in the work of Christ; it has the same 
 meaning as “so wilt thou well occupy the office committed to thee (d:axovia, 
 2 Tim. iv. 5).” To this is attached the participial clause: évtpepduevoc toic 
 Adyoug THE TioTEwe «.7.A.]| The present participle does not stand for the per- 
 fect participle, but brings out how Timothy is to behave at all times, in 
 order to fulfill his commission as a kaidc didxovog "I. Xp. It declares that 
 he is to be one who makes the words of faith his nourishment. It is 
 inaccurate, therefore, to translate évtpedouevoc by innutritus (Bengel?), or 
 “reared ” (Luther)? The Adyo tye xiotew are the words in which faith 
 
 1Jn the Apostolic Constitutions, vii. 49, there praeteriti, innutritus; nutrimentum per- 
 
 stands the following grace before meat: evAo- 
 yurTos ei, Kupre, 0 tpedwv we ex vedTnTOS Lov, O 
 8500s Tpopyy macy capKki, TANPwWaOV Xapas Kal 
 «eUdpocvrns Tas kapdlas Hu@r, va TaVTOTE TacaV 
 a@UTapKeLav EXOVTES, TEPLTTEVWMEV Eis TAY Epyov 
 ayadov év Xp. Incov, T6 Kupiw nua, dv od cot 
 b0fa, Tun Kal KpaTos Eis TOUS aimvas, auyy. 
 2Bengel, however, did not overlook the 
 signification of the present altogether, since 
 ‘he explains thus: Praesens cum respectu 
 
 petuum. Chrysostom remarks: 70 dinvexés 
 HS €ls Ta ToLlavTa mpocoxns SyAw@v. Winer 
 says: “évtpeddouevos shows that the Aoyou rhs 
 migtews are to Timothy a permanent means 
 of nourishment and culture.” 
 
 3 As to the meaning of the word evtpedec Oar 
 (in N. T. admoé Aey.), see Philo, Leg. ad Caj.: 
 évetpadys Tots lepois ypaupmacv, and Plato, 
 Leg. vii. 798a: ots yap av évtpadwcr vepors. 
 
144 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 expresses itself. The added words: kai rtij¢ xadje didacKkadiac (see i. 10), 
 make the contrast with the heretics more decided, and the further clause: 
 n (7¢) mapnxodobdynKac, shows that Timothy had hitherto been faithful to 
 pure doctrine. This latter perfect stands in apt contrast with the present 
 participle évtpedéuevoc. The original meaning of the verb: “follow near 
 any one,” furnishes naturally for the present context the meaning: 
 “which thow hast faithfully followed, to which thou hast remained faithful.” 
 The translation : “according to which thou hast formed thyself,” is inac- 
 curate; the word occurs in the N. T. only here and in 2 Tim. iii. 10, as 
 well as in Luke i. 3 and Mark xvi. 17. 
 
 Ver. 7. The exhortation to Timothy in the previous verse, that he 
 should continue faithful to sound doctrine, is followed by an injunction 
 to keep from heresy.—rove dé BeByrAovc kai ypadderg pibove rapartov] rapactov' 
 Thy Tehelav aropuyny aivirrera, Chrysostom: “have nothing to do with.” 
 Here, as ini. 4, the apostle calls the heresies pi#o, in reference to the 
 fictions they contained; but at the same time he describes them more 
 precisely by the adjectives é8yA0. and ypaddeve. On the former, comp. i. 
 9 (Luther: “unspiritual”).. It is in contrast with éo.¢, and would be 
 manifestly too strong, if the pio were only “things which bear no moral 
 fruit,’ which “have an innocent aspect,” and only “possibly lead to 
 apostasy ” (against Wiesinger).! Tpadédy¢ (occurring only here) is equiva- 
 lent to ‘‘ old-wifish ” (Luther), 7. e. antiquated ; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 28. Otto 
 regards “the pifoe ypaddece on the formal side as myths, such as are told 
 to children by old fathers ;” but the passages quoted by him from Plato? 
 do not support his opinion. These merely say that nurses, mothers, and 
 more generally old wives, are to tell myths to the children, from which 
 we can infer neither that ypadde refers merely to the form of the story, 
 nor that Paul had any thought of a reference to children.—The apostle’s 
 exhortation does not touch so much on Timothy’s teaching as on his own 
 personal conduct; but correctness of conduct is all the more necessary 
 that it is a condition of the right fulfillment of his dvaxovia.—ybiyuvate dé 
 ceavtov mpdce evoéBevav] [XIII b.] After telling Timothy what he is not to 
 do, viz. that he is not to give himself up to the piforg BeBydoic, he tells 
 him now what—in contrast to these things—he is to do. The 6é indicates 
 not only the transition to a new thought (Hofmann), but also the contrast 
 to what has preceded. The figurative expression yvurdfew is used also in 
 classic Greek of every straining exercise. This meaning is to be main- 
 tained here.*—zpéc indicat finem, ad quem illa yoxvacia vergat (Leo); this 
 goal is evoéBeca, t.e. Christian piety rooted in faith. Comp. on this verse, 
 2 Tim. ii. 22, 23. 
 
 Ver. 8. The reason for the previous exhortation is given by contrasting 
 
 1 Hofmann is right in saying that BéByAos apostle cannot, however, truly describe in 
 does not properly mean “ wicked” or “god- ~-this way the doctrines of devilish liars.” 
 
 less,” but “unholy.” He, however, overlooks 2 Republic, i. 350 BE; ii. 377 C, and 378 D. 
 the fact that it denotes not simply the nega- -. ®Theodoret: yupvacias apa xpeia cai Torwr 
 tion, but also the opposite of what is holy. Sinvex@v’ 0 yap yuuvatépevos Kal aywvos Mi 
 
 He is wrong, therefore, in maintaining: “ the Ovros aywviferar idSp@tos axpr. 
 
CHAP. Iv. (7, 8. 145 
 the cwpariuxy yopvacia with the yvuracia pic eboéBevav. [XIII ¢.]—# yap 
 oupariKy yuwvacia poo ddAiyov éoriv wpédAcuoc| Regarding the meaning of 
 swat. yuuv., there are two opinions which need no refutation: the one is 
 that it means the ceremonial law; the other is that of Chrysostom, who 
 understands by it disputation with the heretics.” It is a question whether 
 Paul makes use of the word with or without reference to the heretics. 
 Many expositors* adopt the former view, and explain the coparixy yuuvacia 
 to mean the practice prevailing among the heretics of abstaining from 
 marriage and from certain meats. The connection of ideas is against this 
 view, since in the words immediately preceding he was not speaking of 
 rules of abstinence, but of the myths of the heretics; the sense is also 
 against it, for Paul could not possibly say of the heretics’ mode of life, 
 which before he had called devilish, that it was zpd¢ ddAiyov adéAquoc x.7.2. 
 Wiesinger thinks the apostle had in mind, not that degenerate form of 
 asceticism which was to appear in the future, as he described in ver. 3, but 
 “the phenomena of the present,” viz. an asceticism to which even Timo- 
 thy (v.28) had some inclination. But since, in Wiesinger’s opinion, even 
 this asceticism is to be regarded as an error, we cannot well refer to it the 
 words xpoc¢ ddiyov éoriv odéAyuoc—Hofmann understands the copyariny yuu- 
 vacia to be a discipline such as the apostle practiced on himself in abstain- 
 ing from things permitted ; not, however, as if the self-denial were any- 
 thing in itself, but only lest he should be hindered by the needs of the 
 body from attaining the goal. For this Hofmann quotes 1 Cor. ix. 27. 
 But the discipline which Paul practiced on himself was by no means a 
 purely bodily one; it was rather a yuuvacia rpic evoéBecav, since the faithful 
 fulfillment of official duty formed part of the eioéBera. The expression is 
 therefore to be explained simply from itself, and we must understand by 
 it the exercise of the body in general.~—The reason why Paul here speaks 
 of bodily exercise is contained in the previous exhortation: yiuvate of rpd¢ 
 This he wishes to make emphatic by contrasting with it the 
 
 yuuvavew practiced so carefully among the Greeks, though only xpd¢ oA/yov 
 
 ogéauov. The connection of ideas is by no means, as de Wette thinks, a 
 mere “lexical allusion,” nor is the idea itself superfluous.—zpic dAi‘yov is 
 in Jas. iv. 14 used of time: “for a short time.” In this sense many have 
 taken it here; but the contrasted zpdc¢ zavra is against this. It is inac- 
 curate also to regard, as Heumann does, zpic 6%/yov as equivalent to odio 
 (Luther: “of little use’); it means “for little.’ Paul does not mean to 
 say that the cou. yuuvacia is of no use, but that its use extends to little, 
 only to some relations of the present, earthly life.® It is different with 
 
 9 2 
 evoé Berar. 
 
 1 Braun, Selecta sacra, i. 10, 2 156. 
 
 2Chrysost.: unde els yusvaciay mote katabes 
 geauTor, Siadeyomevos mpods Exelvous’ OV yap EaTL 
 mpos Tovs Stectpapmevovs paxomevoy ovjgar 
 Tl ToTe. 
 
 *Of the older, Ambrosius, Thomas; of the 
 more recent, Calvin, Grotius; also Heyden- 
 veich, Leo, Matthies. 
 
 4As Theodoret, Pelagius, Wolf, and others 
 
 10 
 
 (of those more recent, Mack, de Wette, and 
 van Oosterzee) have rightly explained it. 
 
 5If oAcyor (without mpés), the reading of &, 
 is correct, then the meaning is that which 
 Luther has expressed. Still oAcyov might be 
 taken also as a milder expression for the 
 absolute negation: of little use, i. e. properly 
 speaking, of no use, viz. for the calling of 
 Christian. But even this view does not 
 
146 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 that to which Timothy is exhorted: 7 dé evoéBeva tpdg mavta OoéAipde eT] 
 A more exact contrast would have been presented by 7 dé yupvacia » mpoc 
 evoéBecav ; but Paul could here speak at once of the use of evoéera in order 
 to strengthen the previous exhortation. Tlpé¢ zavra is here opposed to 
 mpo¢ oAiyov. The general reference thus given must not be arbitrarily 
 limited. There is nothing, no active occupation, no condition, no human 
 relation, on which the evoéBeca does not exercise an influence for good.— 
 érayyediav Exovoa Cuge tHe viv Kal THE peddobonc] This participial clause 
 gives a reason for the words immediately preceding, and confirms them. 
 De Wette, and following him Wiesinger, explain (by appealing to passages 
 such as Ex. xx. 12; Deut. iv. 40; Matt. vi. 33; Eph. vi. 2, and others) («7 
 7 vov as equivalent to “a long and happy life.” But Cog with 7 viv cannot 
 have a meaning different from_that which it has with 7 peAAoiea. It is 
 incorrect also to understand by fw7 “eternal life, life in the full and true 
 sense of the word” (Hofmann),! for it is arbitrary to maintain that r7¢ viv 
 kai THE weAAovone Was added to Cu only as an after-thought. This con- 
 trast forbids us to understand (07 as anything else than simply “ life; ” 
 Cum 4 viv is the present, Cw? 7 eAAovea is the future life which follows the 
 earthly. The genitive is to be taken as a more remote objective genitive,— 
 “promise for the present and the future life ” (so, too, van Oosterzee and 
 Plitt). (XIII d.] The thing promised is not indeed named, but it can be 
 easily supplied. 
 
 Ver. 9 [XIII e.] serves to strengthen the expression immediately pre- 
 ceding (not the thought in iii. 16, against Heinrichs), whereas in 1. 15 
 (comp. also iil. 1) the same words refer to what follows. The yap in ver. 
 10 prevents us from connecting them with what comes next. Itis no less 
 unsuitable to refer them, as Hofmann does, to the 67 following, and to 
 regard eic rovro . . . as a parenthesis. This connection is opposed not 
 only by the harshness of the construction, but also by the consideration 
 that, as a matter of fact, the conduct of the Christian, viz. 7Amixévai k.7.2., 
 needed for Timothy no such confirmation as is given in these words.? 
 
 Ver. 10. Eic¢ rovro yap Komiipev' Kai overdiCdueba x.7.2.] The particle yap 
 [XIII f.] shows that this verse is to serve as a reason or confirmation of 
 the preceding thought that godliness is profitable for all things, having 
 promise of this and the future life. Lic rovro is by expositors either 
 referred directly to this thought (de Wette, van Oosterzee), or is joined 
 with the é7. following (Wiesinger); in the latter case the 7Arikauev points 
 only to the thought in ver. 8. The former construction deserves the pref- 
 erence, not only because it is more natural to refer the roiro to the thought 
 of ver. 8 so purposely confirmed by ver. 9; and also because eic¢ rovro 
 cannot be taken as equivalent to dia rovro (by which Theodoret para- 
 phrases it), id circo (Beza). Hic always points to a goal (and not to the 
 
 justify the interpretation of yuuzvacia which _2This difficulty is concealed in Hofmann 
 we have rejected above. by laying the emphasis on @e@ Govt, so that 
 11It is clear that gw7 is not the “ blessed life” muaTos © Adyos x.7.A. is to refer to the thought 
 
 (Matthies), since evoéBeca itself denotes the that God is a living God. 
 blessed life. 
 
cHAP. Iv. 9, 10. 147 
 
 reason of something.) "HAmckévac, however, as an already existing condi- 
 tion, cannot be regarded as the goal to which the xonvav is directed ; hence 
 Luther’s translation: “to this end we labor also... that we... have 
 hoped,” cannot be justified. The meaning therefore is: In regard to this, 
 that godliness has promise, viz. in order that this promise may be fulfilled 
 in us, we labor.—With the Rec. Kal KOTL@mEv Kal overdiGoueba, Kal... kai 18 
 either equivalent to “both . . . and,” or the first «ai is equivalent to “vea 
 also,” and the second «ai is simply “and.” In the former case the two ideas 
 corvav and ovedifecbar are more widely separated ; in the latter, they are 
 more closely connected. The second view seems to bemore natural. There 
 is very weighty authority for the reading: kot@pmev Kal ayoriloueta, which 
 also gives a thoroughly appropriate meaning; but still the Rec., for which, 
 too, almost all expositors 1 have decided, might be preferred. The change 
 of dveiCducba into aywriféuela May be easily explained from the following 
 facts, that in Col. i. 29 xomay is joined with aywrifectar, that dvedifer does 
 not occur elsewhere in Paul (except at Rom. xv. 3 in an O. T. quotation), 
 that the passive dvesdiCoueba does not seem suitable, whereas aywrléueba 
 agrees well with the figure in ver. 8. On the other hand, the change of 
 aywvitoueda into dvecdiCoueba 18 scarcely explicable. The plural kora@yev 
 is not to be limited to the apostle, or to him and Timothy; it expresses 
 the general Christian consciousness. The verb, often joined with 
 another verb which has in it the idea of active exertion (1 Cor. iv. 12; 
 Eph. iv. 28; Col. 1. 29), does not denote simple labor, but labor with 
 trouble and suffering : “ to toil and moil ” (Heydenreich) ; «at dvediCoueda 
 again points to the reproach which the Christian bears from the world. 
 Overditouesa is a “ concise expression for we endure to be slandered” 
 (Wiesinger).—ore HArixaper imi Geo Cavre] If ei¢ tovr0 refers to what pre- 
 cedes, ore is equivalent to “because;” the meaning in that case is: in 
 regard to the promise given to evoéBera, We take trouble and reproach» 
 upon ourselves, because we have set our hope on the living God, and are 
 certain, therefore, that that promise does not remain unfulfilled. ‘Or 
 refers to both the preceding verbs, and does not merely stand “in close 
 connection with the latter,” as van Oosterzee without reason thinks. The 
 perfect 7Amixayev as here: 1 Cor. xv. 19; 2 Cor. i. 10.—God is here called 
 the living God, inasmuch as He fulfills what He has pronised.—FEAzmicew 
 is construed with é7i and the dative, because the living God is regarded as 
 the ground on which the hope rests. The construction is only found here 
 at vi. 17, and at Rom. xv. 12 in an 0. T. quotation. Elsewhere éArifew 18 
 
 ‘construed with év, or ec, or éri and the accusative—The relative clause 
 
 bc ote owTap Tavtav avdparwy, pdduota TioT@v SeYVeS as a seal of the hope 
 grounded in God. Since God is the owrgp, this hope, too, cannot be vain; 
 de Wette is wrong, therefore, in asserting that this clause is “out of all 
 keeping.” —The first words are explained by ii. 4: d¢ tavrac avdporove Béher 
 codpva. By pddicta motov it is indicated that the will of God unto 
 salvation is realized only in the case of believers. Mdéavora does not stand 
 
 1De Wette, Wiesinger, Reiche, van Oosterzee, Hofmann, and others. 
 
148 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 here “unsuitably ” (de Wette); it rather gives suitable expression to the 
 thought that God is and continues to be the cwr#p for all, whether they 
 desire cwrypia or not; but in the proper and special sense the owrypia is 
 only for believers who really desire it. 
 
 Ver. 11. [XIII g.] Mapayyeare radra nai didacke] Timothy is to proclaim 
 to the community that which Paul has enjoined to him. Taira refers not 
 only to what is in ver. 10 (according to Hofmann: “to God’s living power 
 and willingness to help ”), but to everything that has been said previously 
 in regard to evoéBeca. The two verbs rapayyéArew and diddoxew tell how 
 he is to proclaim these things. They are not distinguished from each 
 other as referring, the one to private, the other to public instruction, nor 
 as expressing, the one, generally public proclamation, the other, more 
 especially exact instruction, €xplanation, information (Matthies); but 
 mapayyéAdew, Which in the N. T. has constantly the sense of “ command,” 
 indicates that Timothy is to hold up these things (raira) to the community 
 as the standard of their conduct. 
 
 Ver. 12. [On Vv. 12-16, see Note XIV., pages 155, 156.] From this 
 verse on to the end of the chapter, Paul instructs Timothy how he is to 
 behave towards the community that his rapayyéAAew kai diddoxevv (ver. 11) 
 may not bein vain. [XIV a.]—pydei¢ cov rie vedryroc katagpoveitw] [XIV b.] 
 cov is dependent on r7¢ vedrnroc, Which is the object of katagpov. Wahl, on the 
 contrary (followed by Leo and Matthies), construes cov directly with xaradp., 
 and takes r7¢ veér. as a genitive defining the substantive more precisely 
 (= pydeic dia tiv vedtyTa Katadpovgon cov, Chrysostom), so that xaradp. here 
 (like karyyopeiv) would be connected with a double genitive (comp. Buttm. 
 p. 143 [E. T. 165]). This construction, however, is more forced than the 
 former, and xaragp. occurs nowhere else with it.—According to the form 
 of the sentence, the command is directed to the community, but in sense 
 to Timothy. Timothy is not to permit the authority entrusted to him as 
 representative of the apostle, to be limited on account of his youth: . 
 “permit no one to despise thy youth.” The aiaa, however, attached to this 
 injunction shows that he is to effect this especially by his Christian 
 conduct; most expositors find here-only this last thought—That he may 
 retain respect, he is to make himself an example to all: a4Aa rixo¢ yivov tov 
 motov. A comma is not unsuitably placed after tiordv, giving the clause 
 greater independence, and making the qualifications that follow: év Ady 
 «.7.A., more emphatic. On the exhortation rizo¢ yivov, comp. besides Tit. 
 li. 7; Phil. iii. 17; 2 Thess. iii. 9; 1 Pet. v. 3. Tivov does not mean 
 “become,” as if Timothy had not been so hitherto, but “be.” The next 
 five words: év Adyw x.7.4., tell wherein Timothy is to be an example to 
 believers. We cannot but observe that theré is a certain order in the 
 succession of the words. First we have év 26yw and év dvacrpodp. Adyoc 
 includes every kind of speaking (not merely doctrine), i. e. teaching, exhort- 
 ing, Warning, comforting, etc., both im public assemblies and in private 
 intercourse. ‘Avaotpogf is the life as embodied in deeds. Word and life 
 are the two forms of revealing the inner hidden disposition. To this inner 
 life we are directed by the next words: év ayarn, év riorec, which denote 
 
CHAP. Iv. 11-14. 149 
 the powers that give motion to the Christian life. The last word: év dyveig, 
 gives, finally, the nature of the life that is rooted in faith and love. The 
 word does not denote here specially chastity in the relation of sex, but 
 generally “purity of moral behavior” (Hofmann); comp. ayvéc, v. 22; 2 
 Cor. vii. 11; Jas. ili. 17; dyvérnc, 2 Cor. vi. 6; ayvivew, Jas iv. 8; 1 Pet. 1. 22; 
 1 John iii. 3. 
 
 Ver. 13. “Ewe épyouac] comp. iii. 14. De Wette says in explanation: “so 
 long as thou in my absence dost preside over the church at Ephesus.” 
 This does not agree with the circumstances, inasmuch as Timothy had 
 not been installed as the regular superintendent of the church. That was 
 an office held more by presbyters.—zpéceye (i. 4, 11. 8, iv. 1): “curam et 
 studium nava;” de Wette: “ wait.” —rq dvayvécer, Th TapaKAjoet, TH didackaric] 
 Bengel rightly says: “lectioni Scripturae sacrae in ecclesia; huic adjun- 
 guntur duo praecipua genera, adhortatio, quae ad agendum et doctrina, 
 quae ad cognoscendum pertinet.”—avayrao in Acts xiii. 15, 2 Cor, iii. 14, 
 is used of the reading of the law and the prophets in the synagogue; this 
 custom was continued in Christian congregations——The two expressions 
 rapakaAnow and didackadia are found elsewhere in connection with one 
 another (Rom. xii. 7,8; comp. also mapayyeAde Kai didacke above). Chry- 
 sostom is wrong in his explanation: rapakAyjouc’ mpo¢ adAgiove, dWackaria® 
 With as little ground do others understand by é:dack. private 
 instruction, and by rapax2. public preaching; or also by the former, in- 
 struction for catechumens, and by the latter, instruction for the church.? 
 
 Ver. 14. M7 ayéder tov év coi yapiouatoc] [XIV c.| Timothy is not to let the 
 xapioua lie unused; he is to apply it diligently and faithfully to the pur- 
 pose for which it was imparted to him. This exhortation does not imply 
 blame, nor does that given in 2 Tim. i. 6—The word yapuopa may be 
 applied to every gift of God bestowed on man by God’s yap. In the 
 N. T. it denotes both generally the new spiritual life wrought in the 
 believer by the Holy Spirit, and also specially every faculty imparted for 
 special Christian work (ixavéryc, comp. 2 Cor. iii. 5). Here, where he is 
 speaking of Timothy’s official work, it can only mean the faculty given 
 him for the office (not simply “the gift of teaching,” as Hofmann thinks), 
 in regard both to the kvBépryowe and specially to the rapdxAnow and didac- 
 xadia (not, however, as Chrysostom explains it, the didackadia itself). It is 
 not to be taken as denoting the office itself; the év coi is against this, and 
 nowhere in the N. T. has the word this meaning.2—é £6667 co:] not as 
 
 mpoc TavTac. 
 
 tinguishing in the office—{1) the rights of 
 office ; (2) the occupations of office) as the 
 
 1Van Oosterzee’s remark is also wrong: 
 “The former was necessary for individuals 
 
 in special circumstances, the latter for all 
 every day;” because all need continually 
 both the éSacxadia as well as the mapakAnots. 
 
 2Otto grants, indeed, that xdpioua never 
 stands exactly for office, but thinks that 
 xdpisua may be used as a predicate of the idea, 
 office, which is certainly right. Otto, how- 
 _ ever, does mot wish to take xapiova here as 
 the office generally speaking, but (dis- 
 
 rights of office: “A position of power working 
 out from within.” To é he assigns the 
 meaning “resting upon some one;” but, 
 whatever Otto may say against it, the avagw7v- 
 perv (2 Tim. i. 6) does not accord with that 
 idea. So long as any one holds the office, the 
 rights of office remain to him undiminished; 
 for these lie not in the person, but in the 
 office, in the person only as holding the office 
 
150 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 Heinrichs says: a me, Apostolo, but, as a matter of course, by the Holy 
 Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 4).—d.a rpodyreiac pera éxibécewc Tov Yeipov Tod rpeoBurepion] 
 dua is here “by means of,” so that the zpodyreia is to be regarded as the 
 means through which the yapiua was given to Timothy (by the Holy 
 Spirit). It is arbitrary to weaken this, the proper meaning of the prepo- 
 sition, as Beza does when he explains it: per prophetiam i.e. ita jubente 
 per os prophetarum spiritu sancto;? and as Otto also does, when he finds 
 here the thought that the ordination was occasioned by the pogyreia. 
 Though Hofmann in his Schriftbeweis (II, 2, pp. 278 f.) had explained it: 
 “The word of prophecy pointed out Timothy as the one to be appointed 
 the apostle’s colleague,’ he now says: “dca xpogyreiag does not mean by 
 meuns of prophecy, but in consequence of prophecies.” This latter expla- 
 nation, however, agrees with the one which he disputes, since the expres- 
 sion “in consequence of” gives not merely the relation of time, but also 
 the relation of cause. We must reject even the qualification of the mean- 
 ing which Matthies demands: ‘The fundamental meaning of the prepo- 
 sition 6:4, which may be shortly defined as means, may be so modified 
 in many cases as to give the manner in which something is done, or the 
 intermediating form under which something comes into life.” We must 
 reject this, because, as de Wette rightly remarks, there would otherwise 
 be no indication of a relation of cause. Besides, such passages as Acts 
 viii. 17, 18, ix. 17, xix. 6, 2 Tim. i. 6, prove that we must keep by the 
 proper meaning of dia. The zpogyreia is mentioned as the means, but in 
 close connection with éri@ecie tov yepav. Tpodyreia (i. 18) is not equivalent 
 to “foretelling,” but is more generally the word proceeding immediately 
 from the Holy Spirit—whether the word of promise, or of exhortation, or 
 of prayer. This word was spcken at the time (we7a) when the presbytery 
 laid their hands on Timothy and appointed him to his ministry. 
 ixibécewce T. x. i8 to be taken in close connection with 6:a zpogyreiac; the 
 laying on of hands is to be regarded as part of the means; comp. 2 Tim. 
 i. 62 Otto wrongly says: “The laying on of hands is not a coefficient of 
 the ordination, but ‘an act connected with the ceremony of ordination ; 
 the ydpuza was imparted to Timothy along with the laying on of hands, 
 not by means of the laying on of hands.” Wherein, then, did the cere- 
 mony of ordination consist? It is curious that Hofmann, influenced by 
 2 Tim. i. 6, says regarding werd, that “it was of course the apostle’s busi- 
 ness to impart the gift to Timothy by laying on of hands,” but then grants 
 that “the presbytery of Timothy’s home-church took part in the laying 
 on of hands,” without telling us what then signified the presbytery’s lay- 
 ing on of hands. The hands were imposed by the presbytery, but Paul 
 
 Mera 
 
 For such a meaning of ev, Otto has produced 
 some passages from classic Greek, but none 
 from the N. T. 
 
 1Beza goes still farther wrong when he 
 continues: “ Potest tamen etiam sic accipi, 
 ut idem valeat eis mpopyreiay, i. e. ad prophet- 
 andum; vel év mpopyrtea, ita ut quod sit hoc 
 
 donum exprimat apostolus.” 
 2De Wette rightly: “The pod. is only 
 named as a part of the whole act of conse- 
 
 eration by which the xap. was imparted, and 
 
 the preposition 6:4 is not to be referred in 
 strictness only to mpo@., but also to the next 
 words,” 
 
CHAP. Iv. 14. 151 
 does not say who uttered the zpogyreia. Leo remarks: “adfuerunt for- 
 tassis, quum manus imponebantur Timotheo, prophetae Christiani, qui 
 praesagiebant faustissima quaevis, et dignum eum fore dicebant ecclesiae 
 doctorem ” (similarly Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others). It is, how- 
 ever, most probable to assume that they who uttered the xpogyreia were 
 the same as they who laid their hands on Timothy,! so that we cannot 
 think here of prophets, in the narrower sense of the word, as present at 
 the ordination —The ézi@eoue tov year is well known as a symbolic action 
 of the early Christians ; it was the symbol and means not only of impart- 
 ing the Holy Spirit in general (Acts viii. 17, xix. 6; Heb. vi. 2), but also 
 of bestowing the inward equipment for a special Christian ministry (Acts 
 vi. 6, xii. 3; comp. also Acts xiv. 23). By the presbytery, we must under- 
 stand the college of presbyters belonging to the church in which the 
 hands were imposed. What church this was, we are not told. Ecclesi- 
 astical tradition, followed by Mack, makes it the church at Ephesus; 
 Matthies, Leo, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others think it more probable 
 that the ordination took place at Lystra, where Paul assumed Timothy as 
 his companion, and that the ordination was held for this very purpose.” 
 To this latter view we must object, that there is no passage in the N. T. 
 to prove that the reception into the number of the colleagues of the 
 apostles was made with such a solemn ceremony. It is more natural to 
 suppose that such a reception took a freer form, and that a regular ordi- 
 nation was only held after a more independent position had been assigned 
 to the colleague, a position not merely of carrying out certain instructions, 
 but of representing the apostle in a more complete way, viz. in a particular 
 church, such as Timothy now held. Perhaps, therefore, this ordination 
 of Timothy had taken place when Paul on his departure for Macedonia 
 left Timothy behind him in Ephesus as his substitute (i. 3); still it is also 
 possible that it had been done on some earlier occasion.—It is strange 
 that in 2 Tim. i. 6 the laying on of hands is mentioned only as the act of 
 the apostle. Paul might certainly be speaking there of some other occa- 
 sion than here, for the consecration by laying on of hands might be 
 imparted on different occasions to the same man. It is more probable, 
 however, that he is speaking of the same occasion in both passages, 
 and “that Paul imposed hands along with the elders, but as the first” 
 (de Wette).—It is further to be remarked that the word zpecPurépiov occurs 
 elsewhere in the N. T. only as a name for the Jewish Sanhedrim (Luke 
 - xxii. 66; Acts xxii. 5), and that it is used here only of the college of the 
 Christian presbyters of a church. 
 
 1Bengel is wrong: “Constr. prophetiam 
 presbyterii, nam manus imposuit Paulus 
 Timotheo; impositio manus proprie fit per 
 unam personam et quidem digniorem; pro- 
 phetia vero fiebat etiam per aequales, per 
 plures.” : 
 
 2So also Hofmann, in whose opinion the 
 ’ “precedent” here alluded to (which, how- 
 ever, he is not willing to recognize as an 
 
 ordination) must have taken place in Tim- 
 othy’s “ home-church.” 
 
 3 Otto, in accordance with his whole view, 
 places Timothy's ordination in the last period 
 of Paul’s three years at Ephesus. The 
 reasons by which he seeks to establish this 
 period as the one most exactly correspond- 
 ing in Timothy’s life, are anything but suff. 
 cient, 
 
152 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 Ver. 15. In order that Timothy may rightly lay to heart the exhorta- 
 tions just given, Paul continues: raita pedéra, év TovToug iodi] tavta refer- 
 endum ad omnia ea, quae a ver. 12, usque ad ver. 14, praeceperat Paulus 
 Timotheo, Leo.—edAevav occurs elsewhere in the N. T. only at Mark xiii. 
 11 and Acts iv. 25, where it means “think, consider, reflect on some- 
 thing,” equivalent to meditari. The more original meaning, however, is 
 “exercere, carry on something with care;” this is to be maintained here, 
 where it is a matter of putting recommendations into practice. De 
 Wette: “let this be thy care.”—év robrow iod:] added to strengthen the 
 preceding words; it is equivalent in meaning to the Latin omnis (totus) in 
 hoe sis..—iva cov 4 mpoxor? davepa 4 tacw | With zpoxorg (only elsewhere in 
 Phil. i. 12, 15), “ progress,” not {progressiveness”” (Hofmann), we may 
 either supply “in filling thy office” (Heydenreich ; de Wette: to the 
 perfection of the God-man, 2 Tim. iii. 17), or more generally, “in the 
 Christian life.” The purpose of this lay in the fact that Timothy was to 
 be a tiroc tév moter. 
 
 Ver. 16. Cumulat sane h. 1. Paulus adhortationes, unde ejus amorem 
 in Timotheum et in Christianos Timotheo subditos intelligas, Leo.—éreye 
 ceavt@| “ take heed to thyself,’ refers to ver. 12; kai rH didackatia refers to 
 ver. 138. Heinrichs wrongly combines the two together as an hendiadys 
 (‘pro ceavré ut possis tradere bonam didackadiav”). On the other hand, 
 however, we must not understand the didacxadia to mean the doctrine of 
 others (Heydenreich: take heed, that nothing is neglected in the instruc- 
 tion of Christians by the teachers placed under thy oversight).—éziyeve 
 avroic|] avroi¢ is not masculine, as Grotius and Bengel think, the one 
 understanding it of the Ephesians, the other of the audientes. It is neuter, 
 and as such it is to be referred not only to what immediately preceded 
 (= in this attention to thyself and to the doctrine ”’), but, glancing back 
 to robtow, tavTa in ver. 15 (Wiesinger), it is to be referred also to all the 
 precepts from ver. 12 onward. Hofmann is wrong in connecting r4 didao- 
 kadia With ériveve, and explaining airoic as the dativus commodi; _for, 
 on the one hand, no subject precedes to which airoic could be referred ; 
 and, on the other, there is nothing to show-that airoic is the dat. com- 
 modi.—The exhortations close with words confirming them : roiro yap 
 rowv | “if thou doest this” (regarding the form of the clause, comp. ver. 
 6); Kai ceavtdv cdcee Kai Tove akobovtdg cov] [XIV d.] Without reason, 
 de Wette thinks that cécec has in Timothy’s case a different meaning 
 from that which it has in the case of others; that in his case it is to be 
 understood of the higher (!) cwrypia, in theirs simply of the cwrnypia. 
 Lélew Means originally “save;” but in the N. T. it has in connection with 
 Christian doctrine not only a negative, but also a positive meaning. Hence 
 we cannot, with Mack, take it here as signifying merely, protecting from 
 heresy and its effects.- Luther translates it rightly: “thou shalt make 
 blessed,” ete.—7. e. thou shalt further thine own salvation as well as the sal- 
 vation of those who hear thee, 7. e. of the church assigned to thee. [XIV e.] 
 
 1Hor. Ep. i. 1, 11, quid verum atque decens curo . . . et omnis in hee sum. 
 
NOTES. 15a 
 
 Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 XII. 1-5. 
 
 (a) The reference here made to heresies or erroneous teachings seems not to be 
 introduced because the writer would discuss them as an independent matter ; but, 
 on the other hand, the teachings are spoken of as connected with the duty of 
 Timothy respecting them. The point of these verses is thus found in the open- 
 ing words of ver. 6.—(b) The prophetic declaration is one which, not improbably, 
 the Apostle may have himself received from the Holy Spirit, but it may also, as 
 Alf. holds, include the general prophetic testimony which the Spirit bore through- 
 out the church. These introductory words are, apparently, a part of what Paul 
 would have Timothy call to the minds of the Christians in Ephesus. By the 
 mention of this declaration of the Spirit, he would warn them against the errors 
 and show them that they were d:dacxaAia dJaipwoviov.—(c) The characteristics of the 
 erroneous doctrines which are set forth are twofold, as indicated by kw/vovtwv 
 yaueiv and aréyeodar Bpwudtwv (ver. 3). The latter point is closely connected, 
 both in the statement of it and in the accompanying words which follow in wv. 46, 
 5, with what is said of the Judaistie party in the earlier epistles. Comp. Rom. 
 xiv. 1-6; 1 Cor. viii. x. The former point is not alluded to elsewhere, but is 
 very probably connected with the Essenic tendency of which we find indications, 
 though in another line, in the Ep. to the Colossians. There is nothing here 
 which suggests any further progress in error than might easily have taken place 
 before the death of Paul. The passage is interesting, as showing how the Apostle’s 
 view on the subject of meats remained precisely the same through the successive 
 periods of his life—(d) The persons who teach these doctrines and who lead 
 astray the tivé¢ are described as characterized by falsehood and hypocrisy, and as 
 having their conscience branded with the mark of their own guilt. These points, 
 especially if they are to be further explained by what is said in such passages as 
 2 Tim. iii. 1 ff., Tit. i. 10 f., indicate a degree of conscious wickedness in these 
 teachers, which was beyond what appears in the earlier epistles, and, in some 
 degree, beyond what is suggested even in those of latest date previous to the 
 Past. Epp. The steady movement along the Jewish line, and outward from it, is, 
 however, strikingly manifest as the letters pass on from one period to another, 
 and the links which unite the following to the preceding ones, in each case, are 
 evident. That yevdo2dyav is dependent on izoxpicer and refers to the teachers, 
 not to the dayudva, is admitted by most commentators. 
 
 XIII. Vv. 6-10. 
 
 (a) The simplest and most natural reference of taira in ver. 6 is to the first 
 five verses of the chapter. By this reference this entire passage is made to cor- 
 respond with those which precede and follow, as bearing upon Timothy’s official 
 action and as written especially from the standpoint of suggestions to him. The let- 
 ter was for him primarily; its lessons or directions or warnings for the church were 
 only through him and the method of his working. By suggesting to the brethren 
 these things (itor éuevoe is rendered by R. V. putting in mind ; it possibly means 
 - teaching or setting forth (Ell.) or commanding (Holtzm., comp. Huther), Timothy 
 would be a good minister of Christ Jesus, i.e. one who, so far forth as this matter 
 
154 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 was concerned, faithfully performed the duties of his office. The following parti- 
 cipial clause presents the subjective condition which will accompany the bearing 
 in his own mind, and suggesting to the brethren, the things referred to—that is, 
 which will accompany the faithful discharge of duty. He will himself be in a 
 state of continual nourishment in and by the words of faith and of the good teach-_ 
 ing. The good teaching, which is the healthful teaching of i. 10, is here opposed to 
 the errors referred to in vy. 1-5. It is opposed, also, to the profane and old 
 wives’ fables of ver. 7, which, quite clearly, are the same with those mentioned 
 ini. 4. It is thus evident that the errors alluded to ini. 4 and iy. 1-5 are the 
 same, the latter verses giving certain characteristics of them. Indeed, there can 
 be little doubt, as the “ito, etc., are spoken of in different places in the three 
 epistles, that all the descriptive phrases marking the errors and errorists are to be 
 taken together as giving the compréhensive idea of what the heresies were—(d) 
 Ver. 7—While refusing and having nothing to do with the fables, Timothy was 
 to exercise himself as an athlete—this strong word seems to be used as a complete 
 opposite to apaitov—with a view to evoéBeca, This last word, although not 
 equivalent to “vor7piov evoe3. of iii. 16, can hardly, when its contrast to the pido 
 is noticed, be altogether unconnected in thought with it. Asa teacher of others, 
 and called to preside over the churches after the manner of the apostles, this 
 friend of Paul was to make earnest effort in the sphere of the kay didackadia— 
 the very central truth of which (the vor, evoeBeiac) was 6¢ égavepody K.7.A.—to the 
 end of that piety whose final issue was to be eternal salvation—(c) yap of ver. 8 
 evidently gives a reason for the exhortation yiuvate. The thought of this yap 
 clause is, however, undoubtedly suggested, as are similar figures elsewhere, e. g. 1 
 Cor. ix. 24 ff, by the Greek athletic exercises and contests, with which both the 
 writer and the person addressed had now been long familiar. The other explan- 
 ations mentioned by Huther, which give the word a special reference to abstain- 
 ing from meats and from marriage, or a more general one to asceticism, are to be 
 rejected. Ell. argues for the latter explanation, that the context seems to require 
 a contrast between external observances and inward holiness, and that ascetic 
 practices formed a very distinctive feature of the current Jewish theosophy. But 
 it cannot be justly affirmed that the context requires this contrast which Ell. 
 speaks of. If it were so, we might even expect the author to have expressed the 
 thought of ver. 7a in words more exactly adapted toset it forth, using the yuuva- 
 Cew form there. Moreover, as Huther and other commentators say, the Apostle 
 could not admit that the erroneous doctrines. or practices, to which he had just 
 referred as teachings of demons, were profitable for a little. The answer which 
 Ell. attempts to give to this objection to his view, that Paul is speaking, not of 
 the more extreme development of asceticism referred to in vv. 2, 3, which belonged 
 to the vorepor kacpoi, but of a more innocent asceticism of the time then present, 
 is quite inadequate, because the only subject to which allusion has been made is 
 the asceticism described in vy. 2, 3, and, if there is any close connection between 
 ver. 7 and the preceding verses, such as the contrast which Ell. supposes requires, 
 tlie allusion here must be to those two verses—(d) The best explanation of Cw7e is 
 that which regards it (with Huther) as a mere remote objective genitive, or (with 
 Alford) as a possessive genitive—(e) The connection of mordc 6 Adyoc (ver. 9) is 
 (as Huther takes it) with what precedes. This is made probable, though not cer- 
 tain, by the yap which follows. In 2 Tim. ii. 11, notwithstanding the following 
 y4p, the phrase, in all probability, points to what is found in the succeeding clause. 
 
NOTES. 155 
 
 The decision, in each case, depends on the character of the sentences in the con- 
 text. Here the preceding sentence is the one which has the character of a gen- 
 eral or well-known saying, such as is required by the formula toré¢ «7.2. In 2 
 Tim. ii. 11, the following clause has this character—(/) yap of ver. 10, whatever 
 view is taken of zor. 6. Ady.,is to be connected with the clause which precedes 
 those words. The determination of the reference of the words elc TOUTO is more 
 difficult. Probably, however, Huther is correct in referring them to the state- 
 ment that godliness is profitable, etc., and in giving to 67: the sense of because.— 
 (g) Ver. 11is made the beginning of a paragraph by Tisch., Treg., W. and H., and 
 others, but as Taira evidently refers to what precedes, and there is a turn in the 
 thought in vv. 12-16 to what concerns Timothy himself more directly, it may be 
 questioned whether the new paragraph should not open with the 12th verse. 
 
 XIV. Vv. 12-16. 
 
 (a) These verses present before us exhortations or suggestions, which would 
 seem adapted rather to a young man who was beginning or had recently begun 
 his work as a preacher, than to one who, like Timothy, may, not improbably, have 
 been at this time from thirty-six to forty years of age, and who had been for many 
 years an associate in missionary labors with the Apostle. Possibly, they were 
 designed to have a bearing upon other preachers whom Timothy might appoint, 
 as well as upon himself, and may have been governed in their form of expression, 
 in some degree, by this fact. Possibly they may be accounted for by the fact that 
 the Apostle was now becoming advanced in years, and thus was disposed to look 
 upon his younger companion as even younger than he really was. But the expres- 
 sions of this character which are found here, and in some other places in the eys- 
 tles to Timothy, must be regarded as somewhat peculiar and as difficult of expla- 
 nation in an entirely satisfactory way. The difficulty is not such, however, as to 
 overbalance very weighty arguments which support the Pauline authorship of 
 the epistles. Dr. Plumptre thinks that Timothy may not have been more than 
 from twenty-eight to thirty-three at this time; but, when it is remembered that 
 ne was old enough, at his first appearance in the history recorded in the Acts, to have 
 already gained the favorable opinion of the churches both in Lystra and Iconium, 
 and to make Paul desirous of associating him with himself as an assistant in his 
 missionary work, it is almost impossible to suppose that he was under the age of 
 twenty-one at that time, and, not improbably, he was above that age. It is more 
 reasonable, therefore, with Bp. Ellicott, to place his age, at the time when this 
 epistle was written, at thirty-eight to forty. He could hardly have been less than 
 thirty-five, and probably not so young as this. He had been, for fourteen 
 years or more, an intimate and most trusted companion of the Apostle—(b) The 
 exhortations here given, as well as those of the earlier part of the chapter, havea 
 certain reference to Timothy’s public life and relations. It was his action and 
 conduct as related to the church, which Paul had in mind. But evidently it is his 
 own personal action, as connected with his own personal living in and before the 
 church, which is now made prominent—(c) The gift alluded to in ver. 14 is that 
 which belonged to Timothy as a preacher—the tapakAjowc and didacKadia, ete.,— 
 and the recognition of it, and perhaps its special impartation, is pointed out by 
 the accompanying words as having taken place in connection with a public setting 
 apart for his work. This gift is said here to have been bestowed by means of pro- 
 
156 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 phecy. Apparently there was in the case of Timothy something kindred to what 
 is recorded in Acts xiii. 1 ff in connection with the setting apart of Panl and 
 Barnabas for their missionary work. The laying on of hands was also added in 
 the case of Paul and Barnabas. With reference to Timothy this imposition of 
 hands is said here to have been by the body of elders; in 2 Tim. i. 6, by the 
 Apostle himself. The relation of prophecy to the end in view was that of Divine 
 indication or direction that Timothy was to be thus set apart; that of the imposi- 
 tion of hands was symbolic. The true relation of the two seems to be indicated 
 here by the use of the preposition dia with tpogyreiac and peta with érvdécewce. In 
 2 Tim. i. 6, d/a is, by a less strict use, connected with the latter word. Huther 
 seems disposed to believe that this ordination took place when Paul left Timothy 
 at Ephesus on his own departure for Macedonia. But there is no sufficient reason 
 to reject the view that it was earlier than this, and the word avafwrupeiv of 2 Tim. 
 i. 6 rather favors that view than otherwise. Whichever of these views is correct, 
 the ordination was by the elders, Paul uniting with them (unless 2 Tim. i. 6 
 refers to another oceasion, which is quite improbable), and nothing in the matter 
 of ordination beyond this can be inferred from the passage-—(d) The last clause 
 of the 16th verse combines the results of the exhortations given, as affecting both 
 his own future and that of those over whom he presided or to whom he preached. 
 This result will be salvation. The prominent thought in the writer’s mind, in 
 accordance with all that has preceded, is, probably, that, through such action as 
 would tend to his own salvation, Timothy would secure the salvation of his 
 hearers. A certain special emphasis is thus laid upon kai rod¢ akobovrag cov.—(e) 
 It has been quite commonly supposed that Timothy had a certain timidity of 
 character, which led the Apostle to give him such exhortations as that which is 
 found at the beginning of ver. 12. There is, apparently, no evidence of this, 
 except that which the exhortations suggest. They would seem, in themselves, to 
 suggest youthfulness or inexperience rather than timidity, but may possibly be 
 accounted for in a measure, if not indeed wholly, by the latter. The interweav- 
 ing in the epistle of personal counsel with directions which were to affect others, 
 or the churches, is so remarkable, that it must everywhere be borne in mind 
 in case of questions or difficulties which arise. 
 
or 
 
 CHAP. V. 157 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Ver. 4, pavéavétwoarv] The reading pavfavétw, which is found in some cur- 
 sives, 3 35, and many others, as well as in Vulg. Clar. Ambr. Aug. Ambrosiast. 
 Pel., is to be regarded as a correction, ti¢ y7pa being supposed to be the subject of 
 the verb. As to the correctness of this supposition, see the exposition.— 
 axédextov] The words xaAov kai, which precede in the Ree., are rightly omitted 
 from the text by Griesb., who follows all uncials, very many cursives, versions, 
 etc. ; they are beyond doubt taken from ii. 3—Ver. 5. Instead of éxi tov Oedv, 8 
 and some other authorities have the reading é7i xipiov.—Ver. 8. rv oikeiwv] The 
 article is wanting in A D* F GS; probably not genuine; Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 
 8 omitted it—For the active tpovoet (Tisch. 7), D* F G K 8, al., have the mid- 
 dle tpovoeira (Tisch. 8), which, however, may be a correction after Rom. xii. 17; 
 in 2 Cor, viii. 21 the reading is doubtful—Ver. 10. érexvorpdgycev] The reading 
 érexvogopecev in F G, gr. is strange, since the word occurs nowhere else.—Ver. 1L 
 For kataorpyvidowor (Rec. Lachm. ed. maj., Tisch. 7, following C D K L®, most 
 others), A F G 31 have the reading xataotpyvidcovery (Lachm. ed. min., Buttm. 
 Tisch. 7). The infrequency of the construction of ovav with the indie. pres., 
 which occurs only a few times in the N. T. (compare especially Rey. iv. 9), might 
 be an argument for the originality of the latter reading; but most authorities are 
 against it—Ver. 14. Before vewrépac there stands in D* and some cursives the 
 article tac; some other cursives, as well as Slay. Chrys. Theodor. ete., have y#pac 
 after vewrépac; clearly an explanatory correction—Ver. 15. It is doubtful 
 whether tvec was originally placed before or after é&etparycav, For the former 
 position (Rec. Tisch. 8) we have the authority of § C D K L P, al. ; for the latter 
 (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 7), that of A F°G, al—Ver. 16. The Rec. miotoc¢  mioTH 
 is found in D K L, nearly all cursives, some versions, and in Ath. contra Arr. 
 Tisch. 7 retained the Rec. ; on the other hand, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8 omitted 
 moto¢ 7. The expositors (also Reiche) have declared for the Ree. It is to be 
 noted further, that in Vulg. ed. Ambros. Aug. Pel. the words 7 7oT7 are omitted, 
 and also that in Boern. Vulg. ms. the translation si quis fideles habet viduas is 
 found. For further remarks, see the exposition of the verse.—Instead of ézapxeitw 
 (Rec. Tisch. 7, following C D K L P, al.), A F GW have the middle éxapxeictw 
 ’ (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch: 8), which is indeed the original reading, the change being 
 occasioned by the év#pxecev in ver. 10, and the étapxéoy in ver. 16.—Ver. 18. For 
 Bowv ahodvra ov diyudcerc, Lachm. and Buttm., on the authority of AC P 37, 57, 
 78, 80, al., Copt. Arm. Vulg. Chrys. ete., read ot giuaaeie Bodv ado@vra, which, 
 however, might be a correction after 1 Cor. ix. 9. Tisch. has the common read- 
 ing.—Ver. 20. After toc, Lachm. and Buttm., on the authority of A D* Clar. 
 Theoph. Ambros. Jerome, read dé, which in F G, Boern. Vulg. ms. is found after 
 auaptavovrac. This variety in the position of dé makes it suspicious in any case.— 
 . Ver. 21. Xpiotod "Incot (Scholz, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. Reiche, etc.), instead of 
 the usual reading xvpiov "Ijoov Xpiotov. Against xupiov we have the testimony of 
 
158 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 A D* FG 17, 31, al., Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Clem. Basil. ete., and for Xpiorotd 'Iyjoob 
 we have that of A D* G 17, 31, 73, al., versions, even the Sahidic and Fathers.— 
 For mpécxiiow (Ree., with the authority of F G K, many others, It. Vulg. ete.) it 
 is too rash, with Lachm. and Buttm., on the authority of A D L 10, 31, al., Ath. 
 Bas. etc., to read tpdoxAyow ; because, notwithstanding the testimony of the oldest 
 Mss., the sense almost imperatively demands tpéckiioww, This is a case where 
 Tisch.’s words (see the article “ Bibeltext des N.T.” in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopddie, 
 U. pp. 183 f.) apply: “In spite of the great preference to be given to our oldest 
 Greek Mss., we must not overlook the fact that sometimes those opposed to them, 
 and centuries later, have at the same time the authority of much older versions 
 and Fathers.” Tisch. retained the Rec. ; he explains (1. ¢. p. 164) mpéckAyow as 
 an itacism occasioned by the dictation of the text; similarly Reiche on the pas- 
 sage.—Ver. 23. Rec. oréuayov oov (Fisch. 7, after D F G K L, al.); the oov is 
 wanting in A D* P®& (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8); in any case, the later addition is 
 easier to explain than the omission—Ver. 25. After @caiTwc, Lachm., on the 
 authority of A F G g., inserted dé; it is possible that dé was struck out by a 
 copyist on the analogy of ii. 9—rTa «ada épya] Instead of this reading, A D F G 
 & 37, 116, al., Vulg. Clar. Boern. Theophyl. Aug. Ambros. Pelag. are decisive for 
 7a épya ta kaAd (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.).—Instead of the Rec. éo7: after mpédnAa, 
 there stands in D F G P 17, 67* 93, al., eiocwv; in A 8 67** it is omitted (Lachm. 
 Buttm. Tisch.).—divatac] Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. read the plur. divavra:, 
 on the authority of A D®& 17, 44, 67, 71, al., plur. edd. Theodoret. 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. Directions regarding Timothy’s behavior towards elder and 
 younger church-members of both sexes.—zpeoBurépw py éxutagtnc] Chrys- 
 ostom rightly remarks: dpa rd agioua viv gyoiv; ob oluat’ aAAG wept wavTdg 
 yeynpaxéroc¢. Otherwise we could not but take vedrepor as equivalent to 
 didxovo., and understand by vedérepac the deaconessess, which, however, 
 would be arbitrary. There is, besides, no ground for Mack’s opinion, that 
 the oi veérepo. mentioned in Acts v. 6 (ver. 10: of veavioxor) were “ church 
 servants.” By far the greater number of expositors rightly agree with 
 Chrysostom.—érixAgjocew] only octvurring here, properly “strike upon,” 
 then ‘scold, make violent: reproaches.” The opposite: Gal. vi. 1, xarap- 
 ritew év mvebyate xpadrntoc. It is presupposed: in this and the next exhor- 
 tations that the church-members named had been guilty of some 
 transgression or other.—daAAd mapakddee o¢ rarépa x.7.4.] It is not to be 
 forgotten that Timothy was still a vede. As such he is in his office to deal 
 in childlike respect with the elder men and women, if they had rendered 
 themselves liable to his correction.—vewrépove d¢ adeAgodc] supply only 
 rapaxaaec; still Bengel is right in meaning when he remarks on ,7 
 imemanenc: hoc pertinet etiam ad ea, quae sequuntur. By dc adeAgoice and 
 &¢ adeAgdc it is implied that Timothy was not to exalt himself over those 
 who were of the same age as himself or younger, but that he was to deal 
 with them in brotherly love as his equals.—The addition év racy dyveia, 
 which follows &¢ adeAgac, may grammatically be referred to all the mem- 
 bers; but Chrysostom! and most expositors since, connect it closely with 
 
 1Ohrysostom: wy molt, dyol, THy Tis wikews MOvOY EimYS apapTiav, aAAa wydé Vrofnav, not, 
 
cHAP. v. 1-4. 159 
 the words immediately preceding. Rightly; since, even when taken in 
 the more general sense of “ purity of morals” (iv. 12), it cannot rightly be 
 referred to the preceding relations; but it is very appropriate to the last, 
 all the more if it be taken in the more special sense of “modesty, 
 chastity.”’! 
 
 Ver. 8. [On Vv. 3-16, see Note XV., pages 178-181.] From this to ver. 16 
 we have instructions regarding the widows of the church. [XV a.]—yapac - 
 t/ua] Theodoret, Theophylact, Pelagius, and most recent expositors, among 
 others, de Wette and Wiesinger, refer riza to the support of the widows 
 by money. De Wette explains riva directly as “ care for them, supportthem,” 
 adding, “he isspeaking of support from the church-purse.” Wiesinger, 
 on the other hand, remarks: “ We do not say that tudo means ‘support’ 
 exactly, but it means an honoring which was to manifest itself in support- 
 ing them.” In proof of this view, appeal is made to the passages in Acts 
 vi. 1, xxviii. 10; Matt. xv.4-6; but wrongly. In the two last passages the 
 meaning “support with money” can only arbitrarily be given to tua@v 
 (see Meyer on Acts xxviii. 10); and though the widows were supported by 
 the church, as we learn from Acts vi. 1,? we cannot from that draw any 
 inference as to the meaning of tyu@. But even the context does not 
 necessitate us to specialize the meaning. Granted that all that follows 
 referred only to money-support to be given to the widows, why should not 
 these special exhortations be introduced by one of a more general nature? 
 Besides, the support mentioned being the business of the church, and not 
 of Timothy alone, the apostle—according to the analogy of karaieyéobu 
 (ver. 9)—would not have written riva, but yypac tiuacAwoav. Hence, with 
 several old and some recent commentators, such as Matthies, van Ooster- 
 zee, Plitt, Hofmann, we should retain the usual meaning of ryu@v. Their 
 support by the church is simply a consequence and proof of the ryav.— 
 rac évtwc yhpac] is added to define more precisely what widows Paul was 
 thinking of, viz. those who are widows in the true and proper sense of the 
 word (Luther: right widows). *Ovrwe is used as an adjective only here in 
 the N. T2 What kind of widows are meant thereby, we are to infer from 
 what follows. : 
 
 Vy. 4-8. [XV b.] There are two opposing views regarding the explana-, 
 tion of this section. (1) The view upheld by the majority of recent com- 
 mentators, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, which is as follows. 
 Paul is giving Timothy instructions to support the “veal” widows. From 
 these he distinguishes (ver. 4 being in contrast with ver. 3) the widow who 
 has children or grandchildren, because they are able and ought to care for 
 her. With pavOarvérooay we should supply as subject récva # éxyova, and 
 
 Sas° ere 15n yap ai mpds Tas vewTEepas yevouevat 
 omtAla SvoKdAws Stapivyovaorw vrowiar, det 5é 
 yivecOat mapa Tov émtaxdmov Kat TovTO, dia 
 TovTo, ev maon ayveia mpooriOyor.—On the 
 words s adeApdas, Bengel briefly and aptly 
 
 says: hic respectus egregie adjuvat castitatem. 
 
 1Comp, Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. p. 36: 
 
 Kad’ jAtkiay Tovs pév viois Kat Ovyarepas 
 voodmev, Tos Sé adeAdovs Exomev Kai adcApas- 
 kal THs mpoBeByxdcr Thy TOV TaTépwy Kal 
 MyTEpwv TYLHY amrovepoper. 
 
 2Comp. also Ignatius, ad Polycarp. chap. iv.; 
 Justin Martyr, Apolog. i. 67. 
 
 8 Plato, Phaedr. 260a: ta 6vtTws ayabe 
 
160 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 we should understand by rév idiov oixov and roi¢ rpoydvoe the widowed 
 mother or grandmother. Ver. 5 contrasts again with ver. 4; kai peyovwpévn 
 explains the signification of 7 évtw¢ yipa. The predicate Hamme x.7.2. 
 denotes the life-work which the “right,” i.e. the forsaken, widow has to 
 fulfill, her fulfillment of it being a necessary condition of receiving support. 
 Ver. 6 declares negatively what conduct the apostle expects from an 
 évtws yxypa, and to such conduct Timothy (ver. 7) is to exhort them. At 
 ver. 8, Paul returns to ver. 4, 7¢ referring to the widows’ relations, and 
 Tov Wiwv Kat wadcora [ror] oixeiov to the widows themselves.—(2) The view 
 upheld by most older and some recent commentators, especially Matthies 
 and Hofmann, which is as follows. After enjoining on Timothy to honor 
 the “real” widows, Paul first directs the widows who have children or 
 grandchildren (still uncared for), to show these all loving care, and 
 thereby recompense the love shown to themselves by their parents. The 
 subject of pavtavétwoar is tie yapa (as a collective idea); tov idcov olxov are 
 the children or grandchildren, and oi zpéyovo the dead parents of the 
 widow. Ver. 5 describes the “real” widow as one who in her loneliness 
 leads a life pious and consecrated to God; and asa contrast to this we 
 have the picture of a wanton widow in ver. 6. In ver. 8, again (ver. 4), 
 widows who have relations needing their care are again reminded of the 
 duty of this care.—Each of these views has its difficulties. Against 
 the second view, the supporters of the first maintain the following points: 
 —(1) that as ver. 4 is in contrast with ver. 8, and ver. 5 in contrast again 
 with ver. 4 (dé), the yjpa spoken of in ver. 4 cannot be regarded as 
 belonging to the évtwe yipac; and (2) that as evceBeiv (ver. 4) applies 
 more naturally to the. conduct of children towards their mother (or 
 grandmother) than vice versa, and as the thought: the widow is by her 
 care for her children to make recompense for the care shown to herself 
 by her parents, is ‘somewhat far-fetched” (de Wette), the évrec yipa can 
 only mean the widow with no relations for whom it is her duty to care.— 
 But the first view has also its difficulties. If we adopt it, we find it strange 
 that the apostle should not have written simply airy for rdv idcov-olxoy, 
 and airy for roic mpoydvorc, all the. more that oi mpéyovor is a name for 
 “progenitors.” Further, zpérov, which Wiesinger translates inaccurately 
 by “before all,” does not get its full force. It is arbitrary to understand 
 by téxva } éxyova, grown-up children, especially as the expression réxva 
 éyew makes the children appear dependent on the mother (comp. iii. 4; 
 Tit. 1. 6). De Wette says regarding ver. 5: The author would have more 
 clearly said: “ Remind a true and forsaken widow to whom thou dost 
 give support, that it falls upon her to show an example of confidence in 
 God and of continual prayer;” but we can hardly think that the apostle 
 would have expressed this thought in such an uncertain way. Even the 
 three repetitions of the same thought in vv. 4, 8, and 16, is at least very 
 strange. Finally, the idea of money-support, on which this view lays all 
 
 1 Hofmann, however, takes these verses they are here interpreted by most expositors; 
 (5-8) in a different way from that in which see farther on. 
 
CHAP. ivi 4-8; 161 
 
 stress, is purely imported. These difficulties are too considerable for us to 
 regard the first view as right in spite of them.!'—De Wette and Wiesinger 
 are certainly right in regarding ver. 4 as contrasted with ver. 3, and ver. 5 
 with ver. 4, as well as in thinking that the word yevovepévy sets forth the 
 apostle’s mark of the évrwe ypa; but they are not justified in inferring 
 that in ver. 4 he is speaking of a widow with relations who can take care 
 of her. Why, in that case, should the apostle in ver. 5 have said regard- 
 ing the évtw¢ y7pa, that she was to mpoopévew raic defcece Kai Taig rpocevyaic, 
 and to do so vukrd¢ kai juépac, for all this is in no way opposed to what 
 is said in ver.4? The zpoopévew leads us to suppose that the apostle was 
 thinking of a widow who had not to care for relations —The right view 
 will accordingly be this. After exhorting Timothy to honor the “ real ” 
 widows (see on ver. 3), Paul distinguishes from these évtw¢ yfpaic, in the 
 first place, the one who is not forsaken, but has children or grandchildren 
 (not grown up); and he lays it on her as a duty not to neglect them. 
 Then he describes the conduct of the “real” or forsaken widow, who has 
 therefore no idvov oixov, showing what beseems her in her position in life 
 as a Christian widow; so that he is contrasting the widow who works 
 diligently for her own, and the lone widow who continues day and night 
 in prayer. As opposed to the latter (or even to both), he mentions in ver. 
 6 the yipa oxaratéoa, who is, however, to be considered as dead, because 
 her conduct is in entire contradiction with her widowed state. Then 
 there is a natural transition to the exhortation in ver. 7, which gives the 
 apostle an opportunity for uttering, in ver. 8, a general maxim in order to 
 impress once more on the widow with relations to care for, the exhorta- 
 tion in ver. 4.—Ver. 4. téxva 7 éxyova] éxyova here (in connection with 
 téxva) means the “grandchildren ” (réxva réxvwv, Hesychius).? In classical 
 usage, 6 éxyovoc is usually the son (7 éxyovoc, the daughter), but also the 
 grandson ; r@ éxyova denotes properly posterity.*—yavdavérwoar] The subject 
 for this verb might be taken from the object in the protasis; but the form- 
 ation of the sentence is more correct, if we take the subject of the protasis 
 (rte yjpa) to be the subject here also. Tic y7#pa is then a collective idea, 
 and takes the plural. Winer, too (p. 586 [E. T. p. 631]), supports this 
 opinion.—zpérov] viz., before they give themselves up to the care of the 
 church for them, with special reference to what follows: ypa katateyéoto, 
 ver. 9, or better perhaps: “before she makes work for herself outside the 
 house ” (Hofmann).—rév idsov oikov evoeBeiv] The term oixov likewise shows 
 that he is speaking not of the things which the children are to do for 
 - their widowed mother (or grandmother), but of the things which the 
 widows as mothers are to do for the children; because the mother or 
 
 1Van Oosterzee, in agreeing with the first 2 Luther translates it “ Neffen” (nephew), 
 view, thinks it puzzling that this commentary which in Old German usage has the meaning 
 gives the preference to the second. But he “descendant, grandchild ;’ comp. Gen. xxi. 
 does not by this furnish anything towards 23; Job xviii. 19; Isa. xiv. 22. 
 the solution of the.question, all the less that 3Comp. Wisd. xl. 15, xliv. 11, xlv. 13, xlvi. 
 
 he has neglected to enter in any way upon the 22; synonymous with 70 o7eppa. 
 - aifficulties surrounding the view he adopts. 
 
 11 
 
162 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 grandmother does not necessarily belong to the olxoc of a grown-up son 
 or grandson, whereas the children not grown up necessarily belong to the 
 olxog of the widowed mother. The meaning therefore is: they are not to 
 forsake their house, i.e. their children or grandchildren. The term 
 evoeBev is used to show that the house is a temple to whose service they 
 are to devote themselves. Matthies inaccurately translates: “ practice 
 piety in regard to one’s own house.” Oixov is not the accusative of refer- 
 ence, but purely an objective accusative; comp. Acts xvii. 23, and Meyer 
 on the passage. “To honor one’s house” is therefore equivalent to 
 serving it with pious heart;! Luther’s translation: “rule-divinely,” is not 
 to the point.—xai auoiBac arodiWédvac toig rpoyévore] According to the context, 
 the meaning is this: the widows by the eisefeiv of their house, 7.¢. by 
 their pious care for their children and grandchildren, are to recompense 
 the love shown to themselves by their parents.?, Though this thought is 
 peculiar, it is neither ingenious (de Wette) nor far-fetched (Wiesinger).— 
 ayor87, in the N. T. araf Aeyéu32—oi mpéyovor, in contrast with the previous 
 ra éxyova: the progenitors; in the N. T. only here and 2 Tim: i.3. It 
 would be against usage to understand by it the (widowed) mother or 
 grandmother who is still alive—roiro yap éote axddextov x.7.A.] comp. Ui. 3. 
 
 Ver. 5 [XV c.] defines more precisely what widows the apostle specially 
 exhorts Timothy to “ honor.” —7 62 dvtw¢ yhpa Kai pepovwpévy| Kal wEepovepévn 
 is an epexegetical addition, defining 7 évtwe yypa as one with no relatives 
 who take care of her, or of whom she takes care.—jArixev éxi Tov Oedv] 
 The distinction between éArixévac éxi with the dative (iv. 10) and éArcx. éxi 
 with accusative, is that in the former case the object furnishes the ground 
 on which the hope rests; in the latter, the goal towards which it is directed. 
 —xai rpoopuéver (strengthened form of pévec; tH mpooevyy mpookaprepeiv, Rom. 
 xii. 12; Col. iv. 2) raic degoece x. Taig mproevyaic (comp. li. 1) vuKroc K. juépac 
 (1 Thess. ii. 9). With this we may compare what Luke (ii. 37) says of 
 Anna the prophetess. Matthies rightly remarks: “The idea of the 
 genuine widow is explained not abstractly, but in concrete form, in actual 
 realization, for which reason we: have the indicative used instead of the 
 imperative or optative, as if a single representative of the whole class 
 were described in living, personal form.” Hofmann will not allow this 
 natural explanation to stand, because “the predicate which names a moral 
 behavior does not accord with a subject denoting an outward state.” 
 Taking 7 6é as a relative pronoun, he connects it with #Ariuev éri O., and 
 regards kat mpoouevet (for xpoopuéver) as the apodosis, évtw¢ yipa Kai pepove- 
 névn forming an affix to 7 dé Apart from the objection that the meaning 
 
 1It is certainly correct that evoeBetv is used 
 properly of conduct towards God, and then 
 of conduct towards parents and persons of 
 higher position; but itis not restricted to 
 such use. In Euripides, Alcestis, 1151, it is 
 used, e.g. of gevor. Hofmann well says: “If 
 a widow turns her back on the house of her 
 dead husband and of her relations, she 
 neglects her nearest duty, and sins against 
 
 the holiness of family ties.” 
 2Chrysostom: amAGov éxetvor (oi mpdyover): 
 ovK novvnOns avtois amodovvar Thy ayorByny: ev 
 Tots exyovots auerBov: amodidov To odetAnua 
 dca Tov Tratdwv. 
 ~ 8apo.B. arodidovat, Euripides, Orestes, 467. 
 4Jerome (Ep. ad Gerontiam): quibus deus 
 spes est, et omne opus oratio. 
 
CHAP. v. 5-8. 163 
 
 advanced by Hofmann would have been expressed much more naturally 
 by 7 6& évTwc yipa kK. meu., 7 WAnixev Eri Ocdv, Kai Tpoopeveit, the Meaning 
 would be far from appropriate here. Besides, it gives no characteristic 
 mark of the widow, for the hope which results in continual prayer is not 
 peculiar to widows. Hofmann in his polemics does not observe that, in 
 the apostle’s presupposition, she whose outward condition is more 
 definitely described is a believing widow. When this is observed, we 
 cannot deny the appropriateness of the reference (in Wiesinger) to 1 Cor. 
 vii. 32 ff. 
 
 Ver. 6. 'H 6% oxataddca] The opposite of the évtws yipa who has dedi- 
 cated her life to piety. 27araiay, “revel, be wanton,” occurs elsewhere 
 only in Jas. v. 5 (Wisd. xxi. 15). There is nothing to show that the apos- 
 tle was here thinking of the squandering of the support received.—{éca 
 téSvyxe] These words have been taken as exhorting Timothy to consider 
 the wanton widow as dead, and not to support her; but this takes away 
 all point from the words. The right meaning is obtained by comparing 
 such passages as Eph. iv. 18, Rev. ii. 1, and others similar. While the 
 widow who conducts herself as a widow should, lives in God, the wanton 
 widow leads a life given up to the desires of the world, a life only in 
 appearance, the very opposite of the true life. Theophylact: «av doxei 
 Chv Kata THY aiodyTyY, TédvNKE KaTa TrEd[LA. 
 
 Ver. 7. After describing briefly the conduct of the two classes of 
 widows, the apostle continues: kai taita tapdyyeAde] tavta refers to what 
 was said regarding widows. Timothy is, by way of exhortation, to 
 announce to the church, therefore to the widows, what the apostle has 
 written to him; sapayyeAde, comp. iv. 11—iva averidAnrro: dow] iva here 
 gives the purpose (at 2 Thess. iil. 12 it stands after tapayyéArew Kk. Tapakare 
 in a different sense). The subject of the clause is not the dependants 
 (réxva kai éxyova, ver. 4) of the widows, much less they along with the 
 widows (Heydenreich), or men and women (Grotius), but the widows 
 spoken of in the preceding verses. 
 
 Ver. 8. [XV d.] Et dé tue tév iWiwv Kat pddwora [ror] olKeiwy ob rpovost] 
 “ But if any one does not take care for his relatives, and especially for those of 
 his household ;” tic is here quite general in meaning, and this generality 
 must in the first place be maintained. —r6v idiov and [rv] oiketwv are not 
 neuters, but masculines. In the N. T., as a rule, oi idvoc are those in close 
 fellowship and community with another. For instance, in John xiii. 1 
 the relation of Christ to His disciples is thus named.  0i ids is here 
 ’ wider in meaning than oi oixeio, which is “those properly of the house- 
 hold.” Hofmann thinks that, if the reading without the article be 
 adopted, ~aAcora does not belong to the verb, but to oikeiwv = oixevorator, 
 It is well known that in classic Greek the superlative is sometimes 
 expressed by yd/.ora before the positive. But this usage is never found in 
 the N. T.; and besides, here, where oixeioc refers to rdv idiov olxov (ver. 4), 
 and is therefore equivalent to “member of the household or family,” the 
 superlative oixeératroc is meaningless. To paraphrase it into “nearest 
 - kinsman ofall” is purely arbitrary. At any rate, the article is by no 
 
164 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 means necessary before oixeiwy, since the idvoc and the oixeioe belong to one 
 class; the intervening pddota makes no difference, although it lays 
 special emphasis on the latter.—rjyv ciotw jpyyta] inasmuch as he does 
 not do that to which faith, if it be a living faith, incites him; fides enim 
 non tollit officia naturalia, sed perficit et firmat, Bengel.—xai éorw amiorov 
 xeipwv] “Arcoroc here is not (as at 2 Cor. iv. 4; Tit. i. 15) “an enemy of 
 Christ,” but ‘one who is not a Christian,” one who as such is incited by 
 natural law to love his own children (comp. Matt. v. 46, 47).!. The refer- 
 ence of this general thought varies according to the various interpreta- 
 tions of ver.4. If rékva kai éxyova be taken there as the subject of 
 pavdavétwoar, then it refers to the relation of these to the widowed mother 
 or grandmother ; if the proper subject be ai yjpa, it refers naturally to 
 the conduct of the widows. There is nothing to show that the apostle 
 here was thinking of the mutual relation between the widows and their 
 dependants (Matthies). Still less correct is it, with Hofmann, to wrench 
 ver. 8 away from ver. 4, and to understand by ruc “the father of: a family,” 
 “who at his death leaves wife and child unprovided for, when he might 
 well have provided for them.” Such a sudden transition from what hith- 
 erto has been the subject of discussion would be exceedingly strange ; nor 
 is there any hint of it given by the verb zpovoeiv, which denotes care in 
 general terms, not “‘care for those left behind at death.” Paul has hitherto 
 been speaking of the conduct of widows, and only to that same subject 
 can this verse be referred. 
 
 Vv. 9 ff. From this point the apostle takes up a special class of widows, 
 viz. those who had been placed by the church on a formal list, and who 
 accordingly possessed a certain position of honor in the church. From 
 ver. 16 it is to be inferred that it was the duty of the church to care for 
 them so long as they lived, while from ver. 10 it appears that they had to 
 perform for the church certain labors of love suited to them. The various 
 views regarding them have already been given in the Introduction, 2 5; 
 each has its special difficulties. Still Mosheim’s view is the most proba- 
 ble; only what the apostle says of these widows does not justify us in 
 transplanting into the apostolic age the ecclesiastical institution of the 
 xipat (rpecBirepat, tpecBor.dec) in the same form as it had at a later date. 
 We have here only the tendencies from which the institution was gradu- 
 ally developed. Though the apostle takes it for granted that the church 
 takes care of these widows, we cannot conclude that, as the older exposi- 
 tors assume,* he means by the karateyéow their reception into the number 
 
 1Calvin says on this: quod duabus de 
 causis verum est, nam quo plus quisque in 
 cognitione Dei profecit,eo minus habet ex- 
 cusationis; .. . deinde hoe genus officii est, 
 qnod natura ipsa dictat, sunt enim oropyat 
 dvotkat. 
 
 2With his view de Wette and Wiesinger 
 agree; also Hofmann in substance. Even 
 van Oosterzee refers us to Mosheim; but he 
 wrongly identifies the widows here men- 
 
 tioned with the deaconesses, whereas Mos- 
 heim clearly distinguishes between them. 
 
 Chrysostom in his commentary explains 
 this passage as meaning, receiving in order 
 to care for. In his Hom. 31, in div. N. T. loc., 
 however, he interprets it of receiving into an 
 ecclesiastical office, saying: xa@amep cio map- 
 Oévwv Xopol, ovTw Kai xnp@v TO TaAaLoyv Hoav 
 Xopol, kal ovx e&jv avTais amA@s eis Tas XNPAS 
 eyypaderOar, 
 
CHAP. V. 9. 165 
 
 of the widows to be supported by the church. Poor widows, like poor 
 persons generally, would surely be supported by the church without being 
 placed in the special class of the yjpac here meant.—Vv. 9, 10. yapa 
 katareyéoSw] [XV e.] xaratéyerv (az. Aey. in N. T.), properly “select,” then 
 “place upon a list,” used especially of the citizens chosen for service in 
 war. yfpa is not the subject, but the predicate; Winer, p. 549[E. T. p. 
 590]: “as widow let her be registered (enrolled) who is not under sixty ” 
 (so, too, Wiesinger, Hofmann). The common translation is: “let a 
 widow be chosen” (so de Wette, van Oosterzee, Plitt.)—pj éAattov érav 
 éEnxovta yeyovvia] Leo and some others connect yeyovvia with what follows 
 (Vulgate: quae fuerit unius viri uxor; so Luther). A comparison with 
 iii. 2 shows that this is incorrect; besides, the construction itself demands 
 the connection with what precedes. The genitive does not depend on 
 yeyovvia (as Luke ii. 42: ore éyévero érav dddexa), but on éAarrov, and is 
 equivalent to 7 ér7 é&jxovra.2—évoc¢ avdpoc yuv7, after the explanation given 
 at iii. 2 of the corresponding expression: jwa¢ yuvaixde avfp, denotes the 
 widow who has lived in sexual intercourse with no one but her lawfully 
 wedded husband.—év épyoe xahoic waptupovuévy] paptepeiv in the N. T. has 
 often the meaning: give one a good testimony; hence the passive is: 
 possess a good testimony (uaptupiav Kadjv éxew, ii. 7). ’Ev here (as elsewhere 
 in connection with verbs of similar meaning, see Wahl, s.v. év H. a.) gives 
 the ground (of the good testimony); comp. Heb. xi. 2, for which in Heb. 
 xi. 39 we have 6:4.—The épya kata (comp. ver. 25, vi. 18, and other pas- 
 sages in the Pastoral Epistles) are not only works of benevolence, although 
 to these chief attention is directed, but generally “good works.” —ei 
 érexvorpodnaev] et cannot be joined immediately with xaraieyéodu, since the 
 sense forbids us to consider this and the following clauses as co-ordinate 
 with what precedes. It is rather attached to the év épy. Kad. uaprupovuévn, 
 not, however, in such a way (as Heydenreich thinks) as to stand for dre 
 (which is also not the case in Acts xxvi. 22, 23), but in such a way as to 
 distribute the preceding idea into its single parts, and connect them with 
 it in free fashion, “if namely.” Luther: “and who has a testimony of 
 good works, as she has brought up children.”—On érekvorpégyoev (az. Aey.) 
 Theodoret remarks: ov @péWae pdvov araitei, AAA Kai 7d evoeBa¢ Apépat. 
 Wrong; the verb, not “rear” (van Oosterzee), but “nurse” (Luther), 
 refers to the attention of love, as do the verbs that follow ; compare Acts 
 xxii. 3: avateSpappévoc distinguished from reracdevuévoc. There is no reason 
 for thinking here of strange children, since it may rightly be called a 
 kadov épyov, if a mother does not entrust the rearing of her children to 
 others, but takes care of them herself (in opposition to Leo and Wie- 
 singer); the apostle is not thinking of the distinction between strange 
 children and one’s own. Heydenreich, de Wette, and others think that 
 Paul bases this exhortation on the ground that the rexvorpodia was part of 
 the official duties of a y#pa, and that she must have practised them before; 
 
 1Comp. Aristophanes, Acharn. 1629, Lysist. 2Comp. Demosthenes, in Timocrat. p. 481; 
 14. 6. yéyova ovx EAatTov 7} TpiaKovTa ETH, 
 
166 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 but they are wrong, because in that case we could not but consider the 
 Eevodoyelv x.t.A. as also the special duties of such widows.—ei égevoddxnoev] 
 comp. iii. 2; Tit. i. 8 (gAégevoc); Rom. xii. 13; Heb. xiii. 2. The word 
 Eevodoxew (Euripides, Alc. 555) is in the N. T. amaf Acy.—ei aytwv rédac 
 %vupev] comp. John xiii. 5 ff.; also Luke vii. 44. Wahl: pedum lotio 
 (apud Judaeos) opus erat servile eademque apud eos in primis humani- 
 tatis officiis hospiti praestandis ponebatur. The feet-washing is meant 
 literally, and not merely as “a symbolic expression for the manifestations 
 of self-denying love ” (first ed.); although Paul might at the same time be 
 thinking of other services of lowly love.'—The ayo are not merely the 
 gévo. (in Opposition to Wiesinger), but the Christians in general who came 
 into the house as guests.—ei OArBopévorg éxfpxecev] Bengel arbitrarily limits 
 the meaning of BABduevor, wishing to interpret it only of the poor; it is to 
 be taken more generally as equivalent to “those in distress.” ’Exapxeiv in 
 the N. T. only here and at ver. 16.—After naming several works of love in 
 detail, the apostle adds more generally, in order to exhaust the év épy. xa. 
 paptupeiotar: ei mavti épyw ayado éxyxoAovdyoe.2 Hence we must not here 
 think of works of benevolence only, but take rav épyov in its entire mean- 
 ing.—éraxodovdev (in the N. T. only here at ver. 24, at Mark xvi. 20, 
 where it is absolute, and at 1 Pet. ii. 21, where it is joined with roe izveor) 
 is mostly referred to persons; but we cannot therefore, with Schleier- 
 macher, supply here avroic, ¢.e. OABouévore.® It stands here in the same 
 sense as didxevv, Vi. 11; 1 Thess. v. 15; Heb. xii. 14. Luther: “who has 
 followed every good work.” * 
 
 Ver. 11. Newrépac 62 yipac tapaitov] [XV f.] vewrépac is not here strictly 
 comparative in reference to ver. 9 (Wiesinger: “widows under sixty 
 years’); it is rather a positive, as in vy. 1, 2 (so, too, van Oosterzee).— 
 rapaitov| in opposition to karadeyéo¥w, ver. 9 (and in opposition to riva in 
 ver. 3); yet in such a way that, according to the analogy of the passages, 
 iv. 7, 2 Tim. ii. 28, Tit. iii. 10, Heb. xii. 25, it denotes not only that they are 
 to be omitted from the xaratéyeoda, but also that they are to be 
 avoided personally. . Luther: “the young widows, however, get rid 
 of.’® The reason for this injunctionis given by the apostle in the next 
 
 1Theophylact: ei tas écxatas wmypecias 
 Tois aylors avemaraxvvTws egeTEAECE. 
 
 2This Hofmann wrongly disputes, wishing 
 to lay the emphasis not on rav7i épy. ayaé., but 
 on érnxodovence: “if there was any good to be 
 done, she was to follow after it with all diligence, 
 she was to make it her business.” 
 
 3Bengel gives a peculiar reference to the 
 word, which cannot be justified, saying: 
 antistitum et virorum est bonis operibus 
 pracire Tit. iii. 8, 14, mulierum, subsequi, 
 adjuvando pro sua parte. : 
 
 4 Hofmann is indeed not wrong in contend- 
 ing against the view that ver. 15 points to the 
 services which the widows here mentioned 
 are to perform for the church. He says that 
 this verse only tells that “she must have 
 
 fulfilled the duties of a mother and a Christian 
 housewife.” But the enumeration of all these 
 duties indicates that as a church-widow she 
 must be practised in the exercise of many 
 services of love. 
 
 5 Baur at an earlier period (Die Sog. Pastoral- 
 briefe, p. 47) construed vewrepar xnpac gramma- 
 tically together, and only—very arbitrarily, it 
 is true—maintained that these xjpac are dis- 
 tinguished from those in ver. 9 by being only 
 virgins (and not évtws xjpac) bearing the 
 name of xjpa. Later (Paulus, d. Ap. J. Chr. 
 p. 497) he expressed the opinion that vewrépas 
 and x7pas are not to be taken together, that 
 the one is the subject rather, the other the 
 predicate, and that the words accordingly 
 have the sense: “Younger persons of the 
 
CHAP. V. 11. 167 
 
 words : brav yap KataoTpyvidows Tov Xpiotov yapelv dé20vow] The meaning of 
 the verb is variously given by expositors. Several take it as equivalent to 
 “be voluptuous, lust after,” and so refer it to sexual relation, appealing to 
 Rey. xviii. 9, where orpyav is used along with opveter. But this col- 
 location does not prove that the verbs are related in sense, all the less that 
 in the passage topveverv is not used literally. Even in Rev. xviii. 3, otpqvo¢ 
 has not the meaning of sexual desire, but more generally of “ wantonness.” 
 There is no justification, therefore, for de Wette’s translation : “ to feel 
 sexual desire,” and that of Jerome :! quae fornicatae sunt. Others main- 
 tain here the more general meaning of the word luxuriari (Wiesinger ; 
 van Oosterzee also translates: “if they have become luxurious,” but ex- 
 plains it of voluptuous desire, of the pruritus libidinosus). Since the word 
 orpivoc also occurs in the sense of violent desire for something,’ Plitt 
 explains orpyva@v as equivalent to “go in pursuit of the satisfaction of 
 one’s desires,” but without saying what desires are here meant. In Pape, 
 the word is explained as equivalent to “be insolent ” (otpjvog = “ inso- 
 lence”).2 It will be most correct to adhere to the meaning “be luxuri- 
 ous.” In all these various explanations the prefix kara is taken in the 
 sense of hostile opposition, and the genitive tov Xpvorov regarded as the 
 object to which those widows are opposed by their etpyvav. This refer- 
 ence of xara is in entire accordance with Greek usage; comp. in the 
 N. T. the words: xkaradvvacrebw, Kataxavydopar, KaTavapKdw, katacogilopac. 
 Hofmann’s explanation completely diverges from these: “ After such 
 widows have let the Saviour have their whole desire, after they have 
 delighted in Him, they wish to marry.” For this interpretation of «aza- 
 orpnvav Xpiorov, Hofmann appeals to Ps. xxxvii. 4, where the Hebrew 
 min-y wyNnn (“rejoice in God, delight in God”) is translated in the 
 LXX. by kataorpudav tov kupiov, But to this there are three objections— 
 (1) This interpretation of xaraorpupav in a good sense is quite singular in 
 nature; (2) cataorpygav cannot without proof be considered identical with 
 karaotpyvav ; and (8) éray is explained simply by “after that,” whereas it 
 properly means: “in case that, so soon as.” “Orav may indeed be some- 
 times rendered by “after that;” but whereas the latter only expresses 
 the relation of time, éravy is only used in such cases of an inner relation. 
 In the present case it shows that the JéAew yapyew is something which has 
 its ground or presupposed condition in the karaorpyyav of the widows. But 
 
 how can it be imagined that delight in the Lord gives any ground what- 
 ever for the desire of marriage ?—Besides, the whole context compels us 
 to take xaracrp. in a bad sense.t—yayeiv séAovow] We must not overlook 
 
 female sex do not receive into the list of the 
 xjpa.” This only adds to the arbitrariness 
 of the historian, the arbitrariness of the exe- 
 gete. 
 
 solentius et lasciviugs me gero adversum); 
 
 similarly Theophylact: xa@umepnpavever Gat. 
 4Eyen earlier expositors rejected the 
 
 strange opinion which Heydenreich adopts, 
 
 1 Ep. 123, al. 11,:ad Agerochiam al. Geron- 
 tiam. 
 
 2 Lycophr. 438, see Pape, 5, 8. v. 
 
 8So, too, in Stephanus (xatacTpyyidw = in- 
 
 that “orpyreav in its root-signification and 
 origin mapa To oTepety Kat amoomayv Tas nvias 
 means, cast off the reins, be or become 
 unbridled.”—Quite as wrong is the inversion 
 
168 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 the fact that Paul does not say simply yayovow; he wishes here to bring 
 out the direction in which their thoughts turn. If a widow received the 
 honorable distinction of xataAéyeoUar, she had to recognize it as her duty 
 to devote her life henceforth to her office, to her works of love for the 
 church. These she must regard as her life-vocation. But in young wid- 
 ows the worldly desire was roused only too easily, so that they put aside 
 their life-vocation, and sought only their own satisfaction in forming a 
 new marriage, thereby withdrawing themselves from the work for the 
 church. Their thoughts were therefore turned to something else than the 
 things to which their position in the church directed them.! 
 
 Ver. 12. “Eyovoa kpiva, 671] Almost all expositors take 67: as introducing 
 the object, so that what follows describes the xpiza which the widows 
 have to suffer. There is variance only in the more precise definition of 
 xpiua, Whether it is to be understood as the judgment of God (Wiesinger, 
 van Oosterzee), orthe judgment of men (Wegscheider : “ they draw blame 
 on themselves; ” Plitt: “they meet with reproof”), or the judgment of 
 their own conscience (so in this commentary ; comp. iv. 2: Kexavtypiacpévor 
 tv iiav ovveidyow). Hofmann takes ér as “ because,” as there is no article 
 with xpiva: “they are liable to condemnation ;” but this makes the 
 meaning of kpiva éyew too vague. Since theuse of the article in the N. 
 T. is so wavering, it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion. Plitt’s 
 explanation may be taken as the most natural.—ére ray mpédryv riotw 
 n0étnoav | tHv riotw abereivin Polybius (who often uses aéereiy by itself) is 
 “fidem fallere, break a pledge.” This meaning has rightly been main- 
 tained here by most.2 We cannot infer from this expression that any 
 formal oath not to marry again was demanded when they were received 
 _ into the number of church-widows; but it certainly does follow that the 
 reception pledged the widows to devote their lives only to the service of 
 the Lord. To this pledge they were unfaithful so soon as they began the 
 behavior described in ver. 11. It is out of place here to appeal to such 
 passages in the Fathers as testify that in later times the deaconesses had 
 to vow that they would not marry. [pér7v does not stand for xpérepay, 
 but is used by the apostle because the vow (tacit or expressed) to serve the 
 Lord was taken at the beginning of their new position in life. Calvin 
 wrongly takes the zpéry zioti¢ as the fides in baptismo data, referring the 
 unfaithfulness to the desire to marry, which is defined more precisely by 
 orav KaTaoTpyvidowor tT. Xp. 
 
 Ver. 18. [XV g.] “Aya dé kat apyat pavOavovor repiepyduevar Tac oixiac] By 
 far the greater number of expositors connect pav@avove. immediately with 
 repepxoueva, “they learn to run about in houses” (Luther; so, too, de 
 
 of thought which Heinrichs takes up, saying: 
 clarius mentem expressisset Ap. inverso or- 
 dine: orav yap yapueiv béAwowr, katagtpyvi@ce 
 Tov Xpiorov; for yauety GéAovow is a con- 
 sequence of the cataorpyriav, not vice versd. 
 1It is to be noted that Paul does not speak 
 of the @éAew yamety on the part of the widows 
 as necessarily a xatagtpyviav tov Xpiorov. 
 
 He is not uttering any general principle; he 
 is dealing only with the actual cireumstances 
 which were occurring among the widows 
 under discussion. 
 
 2So Chrysostom: mapéBynoav tas cuvOyKas; 
 Augustine on Ps. lxxy.: primam fidem irri 
 tam fecerunt; voverunt et non reddiderunt. 
 
CHAP. vy. 12-14. 169 
 
 Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). But uwevlavew with the partic. does not 
 mean learn; it is “ observe, perceive, remark ;”’ pavéavery, in the sense of 
 learn (“accustom oneself’’), has always the infinitive (comp. ver. 4). Leo 
 therefore takes it here as “be wont to:” but this sense only occurs in the 
 preterite. Winer (pp. 325 f. [E. T. p. 347]) thinks it probable that apyai 
 uavOdvovor are to be taken together, “ they learn idleness” (or “they learn 
 to be lazy;”’ so in the second edition of this commentary; so, too, Hof- 
 mann). It is in favor of this construction that the chief emphasis is laid 
 on apyai; but no passage can be found confirming it. Besides, the posi- 
 tion of apyai shows that it belongs to the subject. Bengel had taken 
 refuge in supplying something explaining it : discunt quae domos obeundo 
 discuntur, i. e. statum familiarum curiose explorant. Buttmann (pp. 260 
 f. [E. T. 303 f.]) agrees with this explanation, only that he regards the 
 supplied words; statum, etc., as too arbitrary and sweeping ; he observes : 
 “what they learn repiepyouevac t. oix. 18 sufficiently indicated, not indeed 
 grammatically, but in sense, by apyai, ¢Abapoi, reprépyor, AaAovoar Ta py SéovTa.” 
 But if, as Buttmann thinks, we are to assume here an anacolouthon, it 
 would be more natural to find the hint of what is to be supplied in the 
 mepupxouevae T. oik., SO that the meaning would be: they learn repiepyduevac 
 this very tepiépyeobar.—On the construction mepiepyduevar tac olkiac, Comp. 
 Matt. iv. 23: mepupyev bAnv tv TadsAaiav.mov évor dé apyal. adAd Kai dAvapor 
 «.7.A.] gAvapar, “ talkative” (Luther), only occurs here; the verb ¢Avapéw in 
 3 John 10. Theophylact : repiodebovea: tag oikiac, ovdév GAN 7) Ta TabTIHE Ete ExeivyVY 
 gépovot, kai Ta éxeivyc ele rabryv. Calvin: ex otio nascebatur curiositas, quae ipsa 
 garrulitatis est mater—xai repiepyo., “ inquisitive,’ Luther (likewise az. 
 Aey.; but in 2 Thess. ili. 11: pydév épyalopévove, aAAa repiepyaouévovc), forms 
 a peculiar contrast to the preceding dpyai; Chrysostom: 6 yap ra éavrod pip 
 pepyvov Ta érépov pEpiysvyoe. TavTWC.—Aahovoa Ta py Séovta] added to define 
 further what precedes.—In these two verses Paul sets forth the danger of 
 recelving young widows into the class of church-widows. It is not improb- 
 able that there were definite instances, and these caused the apostle to 
 speak in this general way. 
 
 Ver. 14. Positive instructions regarding young widows.—fobdouar obv] 
 Bobdouac does not express a wish merely (de Wette : “I hold it to be advis- 
 able, desirable ”’), but a definite command ; comp. ii. 8.—oiv shows that this 
 thought is a deduction from the one previous ; Leo: quae quum ita sint. 
 —veuwrépac, sc. x#pac, not the virgins, as Baur thinks.—yapeiv] [XV h.] used 
 also in 1 Cor. vii. 89 of the re-marriage of widows.—rexvoyoveiy (am. Acy., 
 ‘the substantive in ii. 15) does not include, according to the notion peculiar 
 to himself, the rearing of children (van Oosterzee.) The apostle mentions 
 single points; every one can supply the appropriate details for himself. 
 Leo rightly says that the idea of rearing children is included rather in the 
 
 
 
 1 Winer, indeed, quotes two passages, one Buttmann remarks on the first, that the 
 from Plato, Euthyd.276b: ot apabets apa copot addition gopoi (which is quite meaningless) 
 pavOavovor, and thé other from Dio Chr. 55. is rejected on ms. authority, and on the other 
 558: 6 Swxpatys ote pev mais av éuavOave that it is of quite a different nature. In both 
 
 “AOogd0s Thy tTcv maTpds TExVNV, aknKOamer. eases he is clearly right, 
 
170 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 next word.—oixodeororeiv (a7. Aey.; the substantive often occurs in the N. 
 T.) denotes properly the work of the husband, and is equivalent to row 
 oikov mpoioracta, ili. 4,12; here it is used of the wife, who necessarily has 
 her share in ruling the household.—ydeuiav agopuyy didévar TH avtiKermévo 
 Aowdopiag yapw] The last words : AowWopiac yap, are not to be taken with 
 Botaoua (Mack: “I will... for the sake of the reproach which would 
 otherwise be cast upon the church; ”’ the meaning is obviously the reverse 
 of this, so soon as these words are placed in thought after yayeiv, since 
 xapw never loses the sense of “for the sake of,” nor with 76 avticeévo 
 (Leo: “inimica ad calumniandum parato”). They are to be connected 
 With adopujv didéva, but notin such a way as to form a supplement to that 
 phrase (de Wette, with the remark that this is indeed a strange construc- 
 tion; also Wiesinger) ; the supplement should have been in the genitive, 
 see 2 Cor. v.12. In short, Aodop. yap. only defines agopuyy didévac more 
 precisely. A definite object is not to be supplied (Leo: occasionem se. 
 ipsas seducendi praebere ; so, too, van Oosterzee, and in this commentary), 
 but the interpretation is: “they are to afford the enemy no opportunity for 
 slandering,” i. e. they are to abstain from everything which the enemy may 
 use for slandering the church (not merely the widows); so, too, Hofmann 
 on the whole. By the avrueiuevoc is meant either the devil (so most of the 
 older commentators,! also Leo and Matthies; van Oosterzee uncertain) or 
 the human enemy, the Jew and Gentile (so de Wette, Wiesinger, Plitt, 
 Hofmann). Hofmann is wrong, however, in asserting that rod catava in 
 ver. 15 is decisive against the first explanation, for aitod would have been 
 used.—De Wette joins the last part of the clause to what precedes, in such 
 @ way as to supply: “and in this way.” But there is no hint of this limit- 
 ation. If we add it simply to what precedes, it is more natural to refer 
 it to the whole conduct of the widows. $ 
 
 Ver. 15. Reason for the injunction given: 767 yap twee éEetpdrnoav oricw 
 tov catava.—riwvic, viz. “ widows;” é£erparyoav x.7.2.; comp. i. 6; dricw, 
 comp. Acts v. 37, xx. 30: they have turned away, viz. from the Christian 
 path of life, and have followed Satan. This does not necessarily mean a 
 formal apostasy from Christianity, or a connection with the heretics; it 
 may also mean yielding oneself up to an un-Christian, carnal life (Wiesin- 
 ger). This arose from their not living in accordance with the rule laid 
 down by the apostle—On #67, Bengel rightly remarks: particula provo- 
 candi ad experientiam. De Wette is quite unjustified in asserting that 
 Paul could not yet have had such an experience. 
 
 Ver. 16. According to Heydenreich, Leo, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oos- 
 terzee, and other expositors, this verse is in substance a repetition of what 
 was already said in vv. 4and 8; but if a right view of those verses be taken, 
 there is not so much repetition—Hofmann wishes to separate ver. 16 from 
 what precedes it, as he separates ver. 8 from the preceding words: “If in 
 ver. 16 the apostle comes to speak of the case in which the support of a 
 
 1Comp. Constit. Apost. iii. 2: vewrépacs SiaBdAov eréowor, Kat mayidas moAAas, Kat 
 
 ‘(xijpats) 5€ mera THY TOU mpwrov TEAEUTHY ovy- em.Ouuias voyTous. 
 Kexwpic0w kai Oo devTEpos, iva MH Eis Kpiua TOW 
 
CHAP. Vv. 15-17. ee ass 
 widow is not to fall a burden on the church, this has no reference to the 
 honoring of widows.” There is as little ground for the one separation as 
 for the other; for it is not to be supposed that xaradéyeofar in ver. 9 does 
 not refer to the church’s support.—ei tv¢ miord¢ H mioTH Exer yApac] LXV 7.]so 
 runs the Rec. (Tisch. 7). But the weightiest MSS. have the reading: ei tu¢ 
 mioty Exec ynpac (Tisch. 8), which is decidedly to be preferred. The other 
 is only a pointless correction, arising from the idea that the husband 
 should be named along with the wife, and without considering that 7 is by 
 no means suitable to the mention of both together, and that ri¢ tuor# must 
 in any case be a Christian spouse. The reason why the wife and not the 
 husband is named is, that on her was laid the duty of caring for the wid- 
 ows belonging to the house. The éyev expresses the close connection of 
 the widows with the particular family, a connection which may most 
 naturally be supposed to be one of kin.’’ Erasmus translates it: si qua 
 mater habet filiam viduam ; and de Wette, too, supposes that by widow 
 here we are to understand the daughter, niece, etc., not the mother, aunt, 
 etc. This limitation, however, is not contained in the expression itself. 
 Had Paul thought of the relationship in this definite way, he would have 
 expressed himself accordingly.—xai 4) Bapeiow 7 éxxAyjoia] let not a charge 
 or burden be laid on the church by undertaking the support of such wid- 
 ows.2—The next words give the reason : iva taic¢ évtwe yipace x.7.A.—On the 
 train of thought in this section dealing with widows, Matthies rightly says: 
 “ Complaints are made from the most various quarters regarding difficul- 
 ties and inequalities, regarding want of order and clearness, regarding rep- 
 etition and confusion in this section; but all this is, for the most part, 
 founded on presuppositions which have no basis in fact.” We cannot but 
 see that the train of thought is simple and natural, so soon as we observe 
 that the chief point in the apostle’s mind in this section is the injunction 
 regarding the xatatéyeoda: of the widows, and that in ver. 4 he is not speak- 
 ing as in ver. 16 of widows to be cared for, but of those who have to care 
 for the children or grandchildren belonging to them. 
 
 Ver. 17. [On Vv. 17-20, see Note XVI., page 181.] In this and the 
 following verses Paul instructs Timothy as to his behavior towards the 
 presbyters.3—oi xaAdc mpoeotorec mpeoBirepor OuTAqe TiuAe aELcobaSwow| On Kaaae 
 mpoeotarec, comp. ili. 4. The contrast to the elders “who superintend 
 well,” is formed by of duaptdvorrec, ver. 20, not merely, as van Oosterzee 
 thinks, “those who distinguish themselves Jess in their office ;” kaAac¢ does 
 not denote a special distinction, but conduct worthy of the office.—Chrys- 
 ostom explained riu4 by depareia kai Tov avayKaiwy xopyyia; de Wette trans- 
 
 1Hofmann thinks that “here the case is 
 supposed of a Christian woman haying widows 
 in her house who, for a3 long or short period, 
 are serviceable, helpful to her.” But, as a 
 matter of course, such widows receive hire 
 from those in whose service they work, and 
 their support can therefore not be laid as a 
 burden on the church. 
 
 2The verb belongs to later Greek for the 
 
 common Bapvverv; only the form BeBaphuac 
 is Attic; comp. Buttmann, Ausf. Gr. II. p. 88. 
 3Strange to say, Hofmann asserts that in 
 ver. 17 mpeoBvrepor are not the presbyters, but 
 “the men of advanced years, from whom the 
 superintendents were chosen, and out of these 
 the apostle exalts those who occupy this office 
 worthily.” Only in ver. 19 does he think tha 
 mpeaBurepos is used in the official sense. 
 
172 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 lates it directly by “reward.” True, tyu4 does occur in classic use in the 
 sense of “ present, reward’; but the context by no means demands that 
 meaning here (in opposition to de Wette). We must keep here to the 
 general meaning of tw, “ honor,’—as in vi. 1 (comp. also ray, ver. 3), 
 —although we may grant that the apostle was thinking particularly of the 
 honor which the church was bound to show to their elders by presenting 
 them with the means necessary for their support. It is quite erroneous 
 to interpret tu of a maintenance definitely fixed. The adjective duxAje 
 is taken by most expositors in the wider sense; but though in the use of 
 dixdéoc it is not necessary to urge an accurate measure, still it is never 
 equivalent to z/eiwv. It is certainly wrong to refer (see de Wette on the 
 passage) the durAge here to the heavenly and earthly honor (Ambrosius), 
 or to the distinction between -respect and reward (Matthies), or to the 
 double portion of the first-born (Grotius), or to the double portion which, 
 according to the Const. Apost. ii. 28, the presbyter received in the oblations 
 (Heydenreich and Baur); all these references are arbitrary. The double 
 honor here is that which comes to the presbyter on account of his office 
 (not, as Hofmann thinks, on. account of his age’), and that which he 
 obtains by filling his office well.— pddsora of komi@vtec év Adyw Kai didacKaria | 
 [XVI a.] On korévtec, comp. iv. 10. Wiesinger says rightly: “we need 
 not seek any special emphasis in komi@vrec: those who toil and moil in op- 
 position to those who do not; xomidw is used, as elsewhere, of the teacher’s 
 arduous vocation.’ —The preposition év denotes that Adyoc x. 6. is the sphere 
 in which the work takes place (van Oosterzee).—/éy kai didackaria is not 
 to be taken as an hendiadys. <Adéyoc is more general, didackadia more spe- 
 cial. Special stress is laid here on the latter, because activity in teaching 
 was of special importance as a bulwark against heresies. This addition 
 does not prove that at the time when this epistle was composed there was 
 a clear distinction between ruling and teaching presbyters (in opposition 
 to de Wette and Baur). The apostle might quite well have used the 
 same expressions, although the individual superintendents labored accord- 
 ing to their gifts and free determination, not according to fixed rules. 
 Ver. 18 furnishes the reason for the instruction given in ver. 16, a reason 
 which attaches itself to the idea of komivrec. [XVI b.j—2éyer yap 4 ypagy’ 
 Bovv adoovra ob giyudoerc] This expression is found in Deut. xxv. 4.  ¢iude, 
 though often used figuratively in the N. T., stands here in its literal 
 meaning. The whole passage, however, is taken figuratively, just as at 
 1 Cor. ix. 9, where Paul handles it at greater length.2—To these words of 
 Scripture the apostle further adds: kai aoc 6 épyatnce Tod puotod avrow] 
 These words are not quoted from the O. T., for the passages to which 
 attention has been directed at Lev. xix. 18 and Deut. xxiv. 14 run differ- 
 ently ; but they are found in the N. T. at Luke x. 7 (similarly Matt. x. 10). 
 Hence Baur and Plitt maintain that they are quoted from Luke.—The 
 Aéyer 4 ypady does not, however, compel us so to refer the words; the 
 
 1It mighteven be ayoungerman who filled t@v aAdywv Oo vomos, GAA’ Umép TOV veww wal 
 the office of a presbyter. Adyov exovTwr. 
 2Even Philo says (De Sacrif.): ov yap umép 
 
CHAP. v. 18-20. 173 
 apostle simply adds to the words of Scripture a proverb (Christ, too, in 
 the passage quoted seems to use the phrase as proverbial). So Calvin, 
 also Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann.—The two sentences, according 
 to the apostle’s meaning, express the same thought; hence it is not 
 improbable that the second was added as an interpretation of the first. 
 
 Ver. 19. The apostle now defines the proper conduct on Timothy’s part 
 towards the presbyters who do.not superintend the church «a6, but 
 expose themselves to blame, thereby doing hurt to their official influence. 
 —Kara rpecButépov xatyyopiav uu rapadéxov] Chrysostom wrongly remarks 
 on mpecButépov: ovxi Td akiwua, aAAd Fv yuxiav. Timothy is not to receive 
 an accusation (aryyopia, Luke vi.7; John xviii. 29) in order to decide 
 regarding it, éxrd¢ ei yu éxi dbo  tpidv papripwr. On the pleonasm, éxrd¢ 
 et wy, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 459; comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 5, xv. 2. Paul is 
 here referring manifestly to the Mosaic law, Deut. xix. 15 (LXX.: ézi 
 otéuatog Ovo wapTipwv Kai emi oTduaTog TpL@v papTipwv oThoeTa Tav pHa); 
 comp. Deut. xvii. 6 (éri duct papreow 7 éxi tpioi paprvor). It is a question 
 whether he does so in the sense—corresponding with the law—of ordain- 
 ing that Timothy is only to receive an accusation against a presbyter 
 when supported by the testimony of two or three witnesses (so de Wette,! 
 Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and in general most expositors); or whether 
 here, as in Matt. xviii. 16, there is only a somewhat general reference to 
 the law, and it is merely said that Timothy is to receive the accusation 
 only when brought before him in presence of two or three witnesses? (so 
 Hofmann; comp., too, Winer, p. 351 [E. T. p. 375]; Buttmann, p. 289 
 [E. T. 336]; é2? uapripwv occurs also in the classics in the sense of “before 
 witnesses ”). As he is not speaking here of a decision, but only of the 
 reception of an accusation (in order that a decision may be made), and as 
 the construction also is irregular, the second view may be adopted as the 
 more probable one (different in the third edition of this commentary). 
 Reference to the law is made in the N. T. also at Matt. xviii. 16; 2 Cor. 
 xiii. 1, and Heb. x. 28; comp., too, John viii. 17. 
 
 Ver. 20 contains a further instruction regarding his conduct toward the 
 presbyters.—roi¢ ayaprdvovtacy does not refer to the members of the 
 church in general (de Wette, Wiesinger), but to the presbyters (van Oos- 
 terzee, Plitt, Hofmann),—those presbyters who, in their official work or 
 general walk, do not conduct themselves in a manner worthy of their 
 office. In such cases it does not matter whether a charge against them is 
 brought before Timothy or not.2—évériov ravtwv teyyve] The most natural 
 reference of ravtec also is to the presbyters. [XVI ¢.] It would clearly be 
 too much to expect that Timothy should punish ail sinners before the 
 
 1De Wette’s question, whether Timothy 
 was not to observe this precept of justice in 
 the case of accusations against others, is not 
 to the point. Timothy was not appointed 
 judge over all matters of private dispute. 
 2The suitability of such a precept is mani- 
 _fest when we consider the position which 
 Timothy had to take up towards the presby- 
 
 ters; comp. on this Hofmann. 
 
 3 Neither the present (a4uaptavovtas) nor the 
 lack of 8€ disproves this view. The aorist 
 (auapricavtas) would have pointed to some 
 earlier incident, and é€ would be necessary 
 only if the apostle had had clearly in mind 
 the contrast to the caA@s mpoeaTates mpeaBve 
 tTepot mentioned in ver. 17. 
 
174 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 whole church (comp. Matt. xviii. 15-17); that would be unsuitable, even 
 in the case of presbyters who had sinned. On ééyyevv, “ censure,” comp. 
 Luke iii. 19; Tit. i. 18, ii. 15.—iva kai of Aorroi H6Bov Exwor] “oi Aovroi may 
 be only the rest of the same class to which the auapravorres belong,” 
 Hofmann. 
 
 Ver. 21. [On Vv. 21-25, see Note XVII., pages 181, 182.] The apostle 
 concludes the section, on the proper conduct towards the presbyters, with 
 a solemn adjuration to observe the precepts given.—d:ayapripoya évarvov Tov 
 Ocov Kai Xpiotov "Iyoov Kai Tov éxdeKTOv ayyéAwv] In the N. T. the verb 
 Siapapropecdac means “testify” (so Acts vill. 25, x. 42, xviii. 5, etc.) and 
 “ adjure,’ and in the latter sense often serves to strengthen an exhortation 
 (Luke xvi. 28; Acts ii. 40; 1 Thess. iv. 6; 2 Tim. ii. 14, etc.); so, too, here. 
 The addition kai rv éxAexrov ayyédwv is explained from the idea that the 
 throne of God is surrounded by angels as His servants. The reference to 
 the last judgment is wrong, as in Bengel (with whom Wiesinger and van 
 Oosterzee agree): repraesentat Timotheo judicium extremum, in quo 
 Deus revelabitur et Christus cum angelis coram conspicietur. Paul is 
 appealing, not to something future, but to something present.—The éxAexrav 
 cannot be taken as a genitive dependent on rv ayyéAwv (= “before the 
 angels of the elect, 7. e. believers,” so Hofmann); éxAexrov, as its position 
 between the article and the substantive shows, is an adjective belonging 
 to ayyéAwv.! It does not distinguish higher angels from lower,’ nor the good 
 from the bad, nor the guardian angels of Timothy and the Ephesian 
 church (Mosheim) from all others, nor the angels in general from earthly 
 beings; it is to be taken simply as an epitheton ornans. The angels as 
 such are éxAexrot @cov, Whom God has chosen as the objects of His love ; 
 comp. 1 Pet. ii. 4, where ékAexrée is synonymous with évrioc. Wiesinger 
 rightly remarks that éxdexroi is to be taken as a general epithet of all 
 angels, like dy: ayy., ayy. ¢wréc, and the like. It is added in order to give 
 greater solemnity to the form of adjuration.3—iva raira gvAdenc] [XVII a.] 
 ravra does not refer to “ everything that has been said to Timothy regarding 
 his conduct towards each class” (Hofmann), but to what was said in vy. 17- 
 20 regarding the presbyters. The solemn adjuration is due to the import- 
 ance which the office of presbyter had for the church. De Wette, Wiesinger, 
 van Oosterzee refer it only to ver. 20; but this is contradicted by the close 
 connection of the verse with what precedes.—Xwpi¢ mpoxpiparoc, pndév K.7.A.] 
 mpoxpiua, “ prejudice,” in a favorable as well as an unfavorable sense. 
 
 1Cases occur in which the genitive of a 
 substantive is governed by a substantive like- 
 wise in the genitive (e.g. 2 Cor. iv. 4); cases, 
 too, in which the dependent genitive pre- 
 cedes the substantive governing it (e.g. Rom. 
 xi. 13); but none in which the genitive of a 
 substantive—in form adjectival—governed by 
 a substantive in the genitive, stands between 
 it and the article belonging to it. 
 
 2Baur explains the expression from the 
 gnostic idea of angels who stand in special 
 connection with the Redeemer. Irenaeus, i. 
 
 4.5: ot nAwwKores avtov (rod SwrHpos) ayyeAor, 
 Vii. 1: ot wepi Tov Swrnpa ayyedor; iv. 5: ot 
 ayyeAot ot pet’ avTod ot Sopuypopor.—But apart 
 from other reasons, the expression here used 
 is much too indefinite to be referred to that 
 idea. Van Oosterzee takes éxAexrot to denote 
 the highest orders of angels, but does not 
 
 _prove that the word is used in such a way. 
 
 3Comp. with it the form in Josephus, where 
 (Bell. Jud. ii. 16. 14) in Agrippa’s address to 
 the Jews we have: paptvpoua &’ éyo weév 
 UM@V TA GyLAa Kal TOUS Lépous ayyéAous TOD Beod. 
 
CHAP. V. 21, 22. 175 
 Several expositors take it here in an unfavorable sense, so that the next 
 words : pydév roy Kata tpdokAcow, form a contrast to ywpi¢ mpoxpipartog (so 
 in this commentary). But as there is nothing to indicate a contrast, it is 
 better to take the second member as defining the first more precisely: 
 “without prejudice, doing nothing by favor.”—Hofmann translates mpoxpyna , 
 by “preference” (so Leo); but Wiesinger has already remarked that this 
 meaning cannot be proved. If xpéx«Ayow were to be taken as the original 
 reading, it would have to be explained as Theophylact explains it: zpocka- 
 heitai ce TO év pépoc cig TO BonSeiv abTO pH Toivuv womjone Kata THY Eketvov Tpdo- 
 kAnjow, which nevertheless is still an artificial interpretation.? 
 
 Ver. 22. The exhortation in this verse: yeipac tayéwe pndevi ércrider, is 
 not defined further. [XVII 6.] In the N. T. the laying on of hands is 
 mentioned on various occasions; thus specially in healing the sick 
 (whether by Christ or His disciples), in bestowing the divine blessing 
 (Matt. xix. 13, 15), in imparting the Holy Spirit (Acts vii. 17), in appoint- 
 ing to a definite ecclesiastical office (Acts vi. 6), in setting apart for special 
 church work (Acts xiii. 3). It has been thought that Paul has here in 
 mind the laying on of hands which was done at the readmission of 
 excommunicated persons (de Wette, Wiesinger); but there is no trace in 
 the N. T. of the existence of this custom in apostolic times. It is more 
 natural to refer it to the ordination, whether of a presbyter or deacon 
 (besides the older expositors, Mosheim, Otto, van Oosterzee,’ Plitt, and 
 others); but in that case ver. 22 should have come before ver. 21. Hof- 
 mann thinks that it is used of the appointment to a church office; but of 
 this there is no hint in the context. It will be most correct to take the 
 exhortation quite generally, so that the meaning is, Timothy is to lay hands 
 tayéwe, t.e. “in over-hasty fashion,” on no one—whatever the occasion 
 may be. The reason why not, is given in the next words: pdé Kowdver 
 duaptiae addotpiacc. The aAdaorpia: duaptiac are not, as Hofmann thinks, the 
 sins of those who are hasty in the laying on of hands, but the sins of 
 those on whom hands are too hastily laid. He who thoughtlessly lays 
 hands on the unworthy, thereby declaring them worthy of the divine 
 blessing, makes himself a sharer in their sins. Against this Timothy is to 
 guard; he is rather to observe what Paul expresses by saying: oeavrév 
 ayvov tipe. This exhortation is in itself quite general, but it stands here 
 in close relation to the foregoing warning. Timothy is to keep himself 
 pure (ayvé¢ as in iy. 12, not in the special meaning “ chaste’), particularly 
 in not making himself a partaker of others’ sins by laying hands on them 
 too hastily. This reference, declared by van Oosterzee to be the only one 
 possible, is wrongly denied by de Wette and Wiesinger. Heinrichs and 
 others err in regarding the apostle’s exhortation as “a prohibition against 
 intercourse with wicked men.” [XVII c.] 
 
 1Reiche is wrong in saying: Huther et 
 Matthies, quin lectionem hane (mpogKAnovv) 
 absurdam Lachmanni auctoritate sequantur, 
 parum abesse videntur. The reading mpoo- 
 Aco is distinctly enough preferred by Mat- 
 
 thies, as well as in this commentary, in spite 
 of the weight allowed to the important 
 authorities that testify for the other reading. 
 
 2Van Oosterzee wrongly thinks that vv. 24, 
 25, are in favor of this explanation; there is 
 
176 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 Ver. 23. EXVIT d.] Myxérc idporérer «.r.2.] OF course the apostle does 
 not mean to forbid Timothy to drink water at all, but only urges him not 
 to avoid wine altogether. idpororeiv does not exactly mean “ drink water,” 
 but: “ be a water-drinker,” and is only used of a man who makes water his 
 special and exclusive drink; see Winer, p. 464 [E. T. p. 498]. The reason 
 of Timothy’s abstinence from wine is not that he, after the fashion of the 
 Essenes, regarded its enjoyment as something not permitted to him, nor 
 that he subjected himself to an asceticism wrong in nature (Wiesinger) ; 
 but that, in his zeal for moderation (which is a part of the dyveia), and in 
 order to set an example against excess, he avoided wine, whereby, how- 
 ever, he might appear to favor a false asceticism (so, too, van Oosterzee). 
 If this be kept in view, we cannot overlook the connection of the verse 
 with what precedes. De Wette rightly remarks (following Estius, Grotius, 
 and others) that this exhortation contains a limitation of the previous 
 exhortation, and at the same time a contrast to exaggerated asceticism. 
 As areason for Timothy’s enjoying some wine, Paul adduces his sickliness. 
 It does not, however, follow, as Matthies thinks, that the apostle made 
 this exhortation only out of concern for Timothy’s health. Had that been 
 the case, we cannot but hold, with Schleiermacher, that the apostle here 
 descends to particulars which strangely interrupt the train of thought, 
 since ver. 24 is clearly attached again to ver. 22. 
 
 Ver. 24. [XVII e.] This and the following verse, in close relation to one 
 another, as écattw¢ shows, express a truth quite general, which the context 
 defines more precisely.—riwév avOpdrov ai duaptiac tpddnroi eit] mpddydo¢ 
 does not mean “ formerly manifest,”! but “manifest before all eyes.’”? 
 Comp. Heb. vii. 14 (see Delitzsch, comment. on the passage) ; Judith viii. 
 29; 2 Mace. ili. 17, xiv. 39.3—zxpodyovoa eic¢ kpiow is here, as often, intransi- 
 tive (opp. axoAovdery, comp. Matt. xxi. 9), equivalent to “precede.” Accord- 
 ing to the sense, we must supply as the dative of more precise definition : 
 “those who have committed the sins.”—eic xpiow, equivalent to “to judg- 
 ment.” The meaning therefore is: some men are in such a condition 
 that their sins are not only made manifest by the xp/ovc, but they are already 
 notorious beforehand; they precede to judgment those who have practiced 
 them, and thus show in anticipation the result of the judgment.—The 
 next clause forms the contrast to this thought: riot 62 Kat éraxodovdovew} 
 éxaxodovdeiv corresponds to the rpodyer, and ddyAoc naturally suggests 
 itself in contrast with xpdédy20. The meaning is: Some men are in such 
 a condition that—in regard to the xp/au—their sins follow them, 7. e. that 
 their sins are only made manifest by their coming to judgment; the 
 judgment alone makes their sins manifest—Mack imports arbitrary 
 references by his interpretation : “they follow hard on their heels, so that 
 they cannot remain unknown, except to those hasty and careless in observ- 
 ing.”—De Wette is right in his explanation: “ with some they are only 
 
 in them no hint of any reference to ordina- 2Chrysostom, Theodoret, de Wette, Wies+ 
 tion. inger, Hofmann, and others. 
 - 1Calvin, Beza, Leo, Mack, Matthies, and 8So also in the classics (conap. the Lati» 
 
 others. . propalam.) 
 
CHAP. Vv. 23-25. 177 
 
 known afterwards;” but he is wrong in his additional remark: “when 
 they have gone on a longer or shorter distance ;” on this point there is 
 clearly nothing said here.—As the verse has the appearance of an aphorism, 
 xpiowe is to be taken quite generally; but since the apostie utters this 
 general sentence in reference to ver. 22, it is to warn Timothy that he is 
 to lay hands on no man rashly, etc., without a kpiovg 2. e. without subject- 
 ing him to a judgment whereby sins, usually hidden, may become mani- 
 fest—As there is no good ground for interpreting ver. 22 of ordination, it 
 is wrong to take «pice here as identical with doxpagew, ii. 10. For de 
 Wette’s explanation also: “the ecclesiastical decision of the moral censor,” 
 there is no sufficient ground. There is as little ground for the opinion of 
 some expositors (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann) who interpret the 
 kpioe of the judgment of God, and find the thought expressed that in the 
 divine judgment all sins alike, whether manifest before or hidden, shall 
 come to light. Wiesinger further assumes that thereby the exhortation 
 ‘to Timothy to beware of others’ sins as of his own, is strengthened. But, 
 on the one hand, it is arbitrary to supply Oeod with xpiow :+ on the other 
 hand, the apostle is not discussing various sins, but the sins of various 
 men. Further, it is wrong to obscure the meaning of éraxoAovdover, and 
 to put in its place the thought, “they are hidden.” Besides, we cannot 
 see how the thought thus taken could serve Timothy as a standard for his 
 conduct, for those sins which are only made manifest by the last judgment 
 must remain hidden to Timothy, in which case he could not be reproved 
 for laying hands on those who had committed such sins? To the opinion 
 that Paul wished to strengthen his exhortation to Timothy by alluding to 
 the last judgment there is this objection, that the only reason for drawing 
 a distinction between manifest and hidden sins, would have been a suspi- 
 cion on Paul’s part that Timothy was guilty of secret sins. But how 
 could he have such a suspicion, and how can this interpretation agree 
 with tiv avdpdrev and tuoi dé?—The xpiowe here mentioned is therefore 
 not the divine judgment, but a trial which Timothy must hold, lest the 
 thing of which he is warned in ver. 22 should happen (so, too, Plitt). 
 
 Ver. 25 supplements ver. 24, the distinction between manifest and 
 hidden being applied to good works.—ocaitw¢ kai ra Epya Ta Kaha mpddnAa | 
 It may be supposed from what precedes that rev av3porev is to be 
 supplied here. But it is improbable that Paul was thinking definitely of 
 this, otherwise the clause following would have received another form. Hof- 
 mann maintains that the Ree. 7péd724 éorw is the original reading, taking 
 the words dsabrwe . . . Kaad as a complete clause, and explaining 7pédn4 
 éotw by: “there are manifest (ones).” This purely arbitrary view needs 
 no refutation. The assertion that the apostle could not say that the good 
 
 1]It is certainly correct to say that xptots, 2This objection does not affect Hofmann’s 
 even without @cod, sometimes in the N. T. interpretation, for he—unjustifiably—sepa- 
 denotes the judgment of God; but this only rates vy. 24, 25 from what precedes, and 
 takes place when the context gives clear in- wishes to regard them as introductory ta 
 
 dication of it, as in Jas. ii. 13, which is not — what follows. 
 the case here. 
 
 12 
 
178 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, 
 
 works were manifest, is contradicted by the addition of the necessary 
 restriction in the next words.—xai ta dAAwe éyovra is not to be referred to 
 kata, but to mpédy2a: the good works with which it is different, 2. e. which 
 are not mpédnAa.—xpuBgvar ov dbvavrac] “ can, however, not remain contin- 
 ually hidden;” they will likewise become manifest on a careful xpiovc. 
 Ver. 24 was a warning against showing favor too hastily; this verse is a 
 warning against condemning too hastily. 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 XV. Vv. 3-16. 
 
 (a) After the general directions respecting the treatment of older and younger 
 members of the churches, both men and women, special suggestions are given 
 with reference to widows. The primary object of these suggestions seems to be 
 to determine what widows shall be supported by the church. It will be observed 
 that this is the first and main point which is presented. The widows who are 
 really such (vTw¢) are those who have no children or grandchildren to provide for 
 them, who are feyovwuévar, who are sixty years of age and, therefore, are not likely 
 to marry again. Unless they are in such circumstances, their own friends are to 
 support them, that the church may be able to give all its help to those who pecu- 
 liarly need it. It will, also, be observed that the other points specified have 
 reference to character and conduct in past life, or in their present widowhood, 
 which have rendered them worthy objects of the church’s care. Comp. what is 
 found in ver. 9, and ver. 5. Nothing is said of any official duties or official char- 
 acter as appertaining to these widows. The word katadeyéodw simply means to 
 be entered upon a list, and its meaning is fully answered by the recording on a 
 list of persons who should be supported by the congregation out of the common 
 funds. Is it certain, even, that the verb must have so definite a meaning as this? 
 The arguments urged in favor of a certain official character as belonging to them 
 are the following: (1) that it is required that they should be sixty years of age. 
 If it were a mere matter of support, it is said that widows under this age might be 
 destitute. But it is of permanent pensionaries of the church that the Apostle is here 
 speaking, and that such a limit of age should be required for them is not surprising. 
 (2) That such a widow, it is said, must have been the wife of only one hus- 
 band, i.e. should not have been twice’ married. This, it is claimed, could hardly 
 be made an essential condition to her being supported by the church. This argu- 
 ment will, of course, be worthy of consideration, only in case the meaning of the 
 phrase is the one mentioned. If, on the other hand, the words mean that there 
 must have been no violation, in any degree, of the marriage relation, the condi- 
 tion might well be deemed a necessary one. But even if the former sense is correct 
 —as, in all probability, it is—there might easily have been, at that period, sufficient 
 _ reasons for making a second marriage a disqualification for admission into the 
 number of those who were to be permanent pensionaries of the church; as there 
 were for making it such in the case of persons who might be thought of, on other 
 grounds, as candidates for the office of éricxoroc. Such a condition would be as 
 unlikely to be mentioned, at the present day, with reference to the latter position 
 as the former. (3) That ver. 10 implies that the persons had been in possession 
 of property; and, accordingly, that persons of this class, not those who had been 
 
NOTES. 179 
 
 always poor, would by this understanding of the passage, be allowed support. 
 This argument, however, depends on inferences from ver. 10, which are not at all 
 necessary. (4) That ver. 12 implies a pledge to remain a widow, and this indi- 
 cates an order or official class. This is the strongest of the points urged. But it 
 ‘is to be observed: 1, that miorw does not necessarily mean a pledge; 2, that the 
 words connected with the 7iorvv clause involve something more than the mere dis- 
 position to marry a second time ;—kataorpyviaowor can scarcely have less force than 
 oraradooa of ver. 6, which denotes wantonness, living riotously (Ell.), giving one- 
 self to pleasure (R. V.) ;—it is something which causes one to be dead while still 
 living; 3, that immediately after the allusion to these younger widows who thus 
 become wanton against Christ, the writer refers to the point that widows, who 
 have friends to aid them, should not be supported by the church, precisely as he 
 makes the same statement after alluding to the elder widows who give themselves 
 te pleasure ;—the question of support by the church is the prominent question in 
 mind, and everything apparently turns upon this point; 4, that, as it is declared, 
 in ver. 8, that the person who does not provide for his family denies the faith, it 
 is not strange if it is here declared, that those who marry through becoming 
 wanton against Christ, reject their first faith. The evidence in this passage of an 
 ecclesiastical order of widows, with vows of perpetual widowhood, is, to say the 
 least, very uncertain, and an argument against the Pauline authorship of the epis- 
 tle as connected with any late development of such an institution rests on very 
 precarious foundations. 
 
 (b) The question as to what is the subject of vavdavérwoav (ver. 4)—whether 
 the widows or the children—is much disputed. But the following considerations 
 seem decisive in favor of the latter: 1, The 16th verse, the correspondence of 
 which with vv. 4,8 can hardly be doubtful, clearly refers to the supporting of 
 widows by relatives. 2. The only natural interpretation of ayouBac atodidvac Toi¢ 
 mpoydvore of ver. 4, is that which understands the words as requiring of children 
 that they should make return to their parents for what the parents had done for 
 them. 3. The connection of ver. 5 with ver. 4 indicates that jeuoveuévn refers to 
 a bereft or solitary state in which the widow is left without help and care from 
 others, rather than to a condition in which she has no one as the object of her 
 care. 4. The contrast between the widows mentioned in ver. 4 and the “ widows 
 indeed ” of ver. 3, as connected with the similar contrast which evidently relates 
 to the matter of support in ver. 16, renders it altogether probable that that which 
 (to the Apostle’s thought as here presented) made the widow an évTwe y#pa, was 
 the fact that she had no children to support her. 5. It may be added that, while 
 Tic xnpa may be regarded as a collective idea, and thus may be taken as a plural 
 subject, the use of the plural verb pavdavétwoar points more naturally to the plural 
 nouns téxva and éxyova, The objections to this view, which are presented by 
 Huther, are not of special weight. He urges the use of rév idvov olkov and rToic¢ 
 mpoydvorg instead of ait#v and airy. But this is accounted for very simply and 
 easily, by the desire of the writer to put the sentence in a general form; comp. - 
 ver. 8. He urges, secondly, that of xpéyovor means progenitors, and thus seems 
 inappropriate as referring to parents. But its use may be explained as suggested 
 by éxyova, and, as Alf. says, it was the only word which would include both mother 
 and grandmother. He argues, thirdly, that the expression réxva Zye makes the 
 children dependent on the mother (iii. 4; Tit. i. 6), and that it is an arbitrary sup- 
 position to suppose that grown-up children only are here alluded to. This argu- 
 
18U THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 ment has no force, if the indications of the context show that the writer has in 
 mind mature children, who can care for their parents. What the age of the 
 children is, and whether they are regarded as independent of parents or depend- 
 ent on them, must be determined, in all such cases, by the thought of the author 
 at the time. Finally, the objection which he finds in 7pétov seems to have no 
 foundation, for, in such a sentence, first is often used as denoting before proceeding to 
 take another course,—here, before leaving her to the care of the church. De W., 
 Wies., Ell., Alf, Fairb., Plumptre, Bib. Comm., v. Oost., and others regard the 
 children as the subject of pavdavérwoav, Luther, Calv., Holtzm., Hofm., and 
 some others agree with Huther in making the widows the subject.—(c) Ver. 5 is 
 sometimes taken as indicating duties which belonged to the ecclesiastical widow. 
 The verse, however, is not put in the form which would directly point to this, and 
 it may be satisfactorily and more simply explained as designating the general 
 characteristics of the widow who is “e“xovwuéevy, and who is to be honored as 6vTw¢ 
 anpa. The words tavta mapayyeAde of ver.7 probably refer to vv. 5, 6.—(d) Ver. 
 8, which is expressed in a general form, favors the reference of the wavdavérwoav 
 of ver. 4 to the children and grandchildren—independently of other considera- 
 tions—for the reason that cases were not unlikely to occur in which they would be 
 disposed to neglect the widow and leave her to the care of the church, whereas cases 
 in which a widowed mother would leave her young children, that she might be- 
 come an ecclesiastical widow, were less likely to suggest themselves to the writer’s 
 mind. The meaning of aziotov is unbeliever (R. V.), not infidel (A. V.). The per- 
 son thus neglecting his own family was worse than the ordinary heathen, whom 
 natural affection impelled to provide for his own.—(e) y#pa of ver. 9 is regarded 
 by Winer and most commentators as a predicate, and not improbably it is so. So 
 R. V. That this must necessarily be the case, however, may be questioned.—( f ) 
 The rejection of the younger widows (ver. 11) is evidently founded on the fact 
 that they are likely to desire to marry, and liable to do so because of a disposition 
 to turn away from Christ to the pleasures and worldliness of an unspiritual life. 
 That persons who had been placed among the number of those who were to 
 receive support from the church as permanent pensionaries, on the ground of their 
 solitary and bereft condition, should be thus turning aside, was likely to be a cause 
 of scandal and evil, and the danger of it was to be avoided. It involved a rejec- 
 tion or abandonment of their first faith—comp. above, hath denied the faith—or of a 
 pledge which they had given. If the latter meaning is to be assigned to 7iotTvy, the 
 conclusion does not necessarily follow (as Huther also affirms), that there was any 
 formal vow not to marry again. It is to be observed, also, as Huther says in his 
 footnote, that Paul does not represent the desire to marry, in the case of the 
 younger widows, as necessarily a Kataotpyviav tov Xpiorov. If there was any 
 “order” of widows, everything in the passage shows that it had as little as possi- 
 ble of ecclesiastical development.—(g) The construction of ver. 13 is difficult, but, 
 on the whole, the supplying of elvaz, and making apyai predicate to this infinitive, 
 seems to be the least objectionable way of explaining the sentence. The explan- 
 ation given by Holtzm. (comp. Words.) which takes “av, absolutely, and contrasts 
 learning by going about from house to house with learning from their husbands 
 at home (ii. 11), must be regarded as quite improbable-—(h) The ground of the 
 direction given that the younger widows should marry, is one which is in the gen- 
 eral line of thought in the passage ;—Aovdopiac is the reproach which conduct such 
 as that indicated in the preceding verses might occasion, and éeTpamyoav «,7.A, 
 
NOTES. 181 
 
 corresponds closely with xataotpyvidowow x.t.A, of ver. 11—(i) That to7/, and not 
 mLoTO¢ ij TeoT?H, is the true text in ver. 16 is to be believed, because it is given by the 
 best authorities and because it is the more difficult reading. The use of the fem- 
 inine is connected, possibly, with the fact that, since ver. 8, the discourse has been 
 wholly about women—possibly, however, with the fact alluded to by Huther, that 
 the duty specified would fall especially upon the woman. The reading with both 
 masc. and fem. would have seemed antecedently more natural. 
 
 XVI. Vv. 17-20. 
 
 (a) The indications of ver. 17 are that there were presbyters who, in addition 
 to the work of presiding, devoted themselves to teaching and preaching. But 
 that there was a marked division between two classes of elders—ruling and teach- 
 ing elders—is neither stated, nor rendered probable, by this verse. The words 
 of Rom. xii. 7 ff. and 1 Cor. xii. 28 may, probably, point to a combination of 
 these gifts as often belonging to preachers and teachers, but, neither there nor 
 here, is there anything to show established ecclesiastical orders. The so-called 
 ruling elders, or presiding elders, of different modern branches of the church 
 have certainly no connection with what the Apostle is here speaking of. The 
 persons to whom he alludes were neither lay-elders, nor presbyters presiding over 
 a district or over a body of presbyters or churches in a district. They were 
 presiding and teaching presbyters of single churches, étickoroe in the N. T. 
 sense of that word.—(b) The 18th verse makes it evident that, if the word riuuje 
 (ver. 17) does not distinctly mean reward or remuneration, this idea was prominent 
 in the Apostle’s mind as connected with the honor of which these presbyters 
 were to be accounted worthy. The quotation from the O. T. in the first clause 
 as united with the words agvo¢ «.7.A, of the second, and as used and applied in 
 1 Cor. ix. 9, scarcely admits of any other explanation. The second clause of the 
 verse is not found in the O. T., and nothing sufficiently near to it in form of ex- 
 pression is there discoverable to justify the application to this clause of 7 ypad@7 
 Aéyec in the ordinary N. T. sense of that phrase. It is found, however, in Luke 
 x.7. Does the union of the two clauses by kai prove that ypad7 is here used by 
 the writer as covering the N. T.,as well as the O. T.? The most that can be 
 fairly affirmed is, that it may indicate such a use, but not that it cannot be 
 otherwise. This verse does not, therefore, afford a decisive argument to prove 
 a later date for the epistle than the end of Paul’s life; nor can it be regarded as 
 an argument overbalancing strong evidences which may be discovered on the 
 other side. The explanation given by Huther is a possible, and even a not 
 improbable one; and this notwithstanding the fact, which Holtzm. alleges, that it 
 is not in accordance with N. T. usage to unite a Scriptural and a mere proverbial 
 statement in this way.—(c) 7avTwv of ver. 20 is explained by Huther as referring 
 to the presbyters. This reference, however, is certainly not necessary, and it seems 
 quite doubtful, since the tavTwv has no limiting word added to it. Ell. would, for 
 a similar reason, give a general sense to Tove duaptdavovtac; but the sequence of 
 the verses more naturally suggests the supply zpeoBurépove with this participle, 
 as also the understanding of oi Aovroi as meaning the rest of the presbyters. 
 
 XVII. Vv. 21-25. 
 
 (a) The reference of tavra gv2dEy¢ of ver. 21 may be to vy. 17-20, as Huther 
 supposes, but is more probably to be limited to vy. 19, 20. The explanation given 
 
182 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 by Huther of tpoxpiaroc, on the other hand, is better than that of other writers, 
 who give it an unfavorable sense; because the word, in itself, does not necessarily 
 have that sense, and because it seems improbable that the two opposite sides 
 would be presented without some separating particle or, at least, a kai. The 
 second phrase follows the first as if explanatory—(b) The question as to what 
 imposition of hands is referred to in ver. 22 cannot be confidently answered. The 
 indefinite and general expression, in itself, is favorable to Huther’s view. On 
 the whole, however, the connection must be regarded as favoring the application 
 of the words to the ordaining of presbyters. Ell. agrees with de W. and Wiesin- 
 ger in-referring the words to the laying on of hands at the absolution of penitents 
 and their re-admission to church-fellowship.—(c) The second and third clauses 
 of ver. 22 are thought by Ell. and de W., to imply too much of evil in candidates 
 for ordination and presbyters, provided the yepodecia of ordination is to be under- 
 stood as referred to. But the general form of the statement does not, in such 
 cases, affirm, necessarily, that what is spoken of is of frequent occurrence.—(d) 
 The meaning of ver. 23, so far as the words of the verse are concerned, is suffi- 
 ciently clear, but the question as to its connection with the context is one of much 
 difficulty, and has given rise to various explanations. Among the most singular 
 of these is that of Plumptre, who is one of the very recent writers on this epistle. 
 His view is, that the preceding verse refers especially to cases of trials where 
 offences against purity were to be considered. “ All experience shows,” says 
 Plumptre, “that it is the weakened, bloodless brain that can least control its 
 thoughts and is most open in its thoughts to impure imaginations.” Paul there- 
 fore, probably under the advice of Luke, his medical adviser, suggests to Timothy 
 that he should get his brain “into a state of healthy equilibrium” in preparation 
 for such trials by “a moderate use of the stimulant which he had hitherto denied 
 himself.” A recommendation to bishops and judges to guard themselves against 
 the polluting influence of ecclesiastical cases of the sort indicated by a moderate 
 use of stimulants, is certainly somewhat remarkable. Alford thinks that Timothy 
 had a timidity and feebleness which prevented such keen sighted judgment and 
 vigorous action as a bishop should show in estimating the characters of candidates 
 for the ministry. Stimulants, taken with moderation, might overcome this feeble 
 condition. This is hardly more probable than the suggestion of Plumptre. Some 
 have supposed that it is a mere suggestion bearing upon Timothy’s health, with 
 no reference to the preceding verse. The insertion of a recommendation -of this 
 kind, respecting the bodily health of ‘the person addressed, is, however, in such a 
 context, so improbable that this view must be rejected. ‘The true explanation is 
 suggested by the connection, and by the fact that the thought passes on in the 
 same line, but to a more general statement, as the sentences move from ver. 22 
 to ver. 24. There can be little doubt, therefore, that ver 23 is a limitation of 
 the last clause of ver. 22 in such a way as to indicate that what is mentioned in ver. 
 22 b., is not to be carried to the extent of extreme asceticism.—(e) The words of 
 vy. 24, 25 contain the statement of a general truth, but, in the connection, they 
 must be regarded as having a more or less particular application to the subject 
 which is especially under consideration. The word xpiow is to be taken in a 
 wide and general sense, and the application will be determined by the matter 
 which happens to be under discussion. The reference, so far as questions respect- 
 ing presbyter are concerned, must naturally be to the judgment or trial of those 
 questions: 
 
CHAP. VI. 183 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Ver. 1. The reading dob2ov (F G) is to be regarded as a correction ; s0, too, 
 with the reading dovAeiag (73, Sahid.).—Ver. 2. In & the words dre adeAgoi eiow 
 are omitted, probably through an oversight. Instead of the curious evepyeciac 
 here, F G, gr. 46, and some other cursives have the reading evoeBeiac ; 45 has 
 ipyaciac.—Ver. 3. Instead of zpooépyetat (Ree. with the support of nearly all MSS.; 
 Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 7), has the reading mpooéyerae (in Latin: acquiescit), 
 which Tisch. 8 adopted. This form occurs nowhere else in the N. T.—Ver. 4. 
 Tisch. 7 read épecc, after D F G L, ete. ; Tisch. 8, on the contrary, €p/¢ (Ree. with 
 the support of A K® etc.; so, too, Lachm. Buttm.). It can hardly be decided 
 which is the original reading; the meaning is substantially the same in either 
 case; possibly the singular was changed into the plural on account of the other 
 plurals.—Ver. 5. Instead of the Rec. tapadsarprBai, Griesb. rightly adopted dvava- 
 patpBai, on the weightiest authority : A DFGYS, al., 10, 17, 28, ete., Clem. Basil. 
 Chrys. ete. In one MS. dcarrapadiatpiBai is found ; others have dcatpi3ai ; others, 
 maparpiBai; and one di @ rapatpiBai, which Reiche approves.—The words adic- 
 taco ard Tov ToovTwY are, according to A D* F G& 17, 67** 93, al., Copt. Sahid. 
 Aeth. Vulg. It., probably to be considered an addition not genuine, although they 
 are found in K L, nearly all cursives, and the Fathers, Ambros. Pel. Chrys. ete. ; 
 Griesb. marked them as very much to be suspected; Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 
 omitted them; Reiche, on the other hand, defended them as genuine.—Ver. 7. 
 djiov] is wanting in several of the weightiest authorities, in particular AF G® 
 17, Copt. Sahid. Aeth. etc., on which account it was also struck out by Lachm. 
 Buttm. Tisch. 8. But asit is almost indispensable for the sense, its omission may per- 
 haps be only an oversight, unless 671, as Buttm. p. 308 [E. T. 358], thinks, be elliptical 
 for djaov brz.—Ver. 8. Instead of dvarpoodc, D F G and several cursives have the 
 common singular form dcatpo97v ; and instead of apxecdnodueda, there is found in 
 30, 117, 219, al., Vulg. Chrys. ete., the form apxecSjoaueba ; see on this, Winer, p. 
 72 [E. T. p. 75].—Ver, 9. ‘After rayida, D* F G, several cursives, Fathers, and 
 versions have Tow dcaZ6/0v, which, however, is to be regarded as an insertion from 
 iii. 7—Ver. 11. Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, omitted the article tov before Ge0v ; it 
 is wanting in A & 17.—In & the word evoéBerav is wanting —7pgérnra] This read- 
 ing stands only in later MSS. ; A FGR® 71, Ignat. Petr. Alex. Ephr. Hesych. 
 have tpairdbecav, which is therefore rightly adopted by Scholz, Lachm. Buttm. 
 Tisch._—Ver. 12. cic jv] The Ree. is ei¢ iv Kai. The kai was rightly omitted by 
 Griesb., on the authority of all uncials, many cursives, Syr. Arr. Copt. ete., Chrys. 
 Theodor. ete.—Ver. 13. The oo: after mapayyéAw (Rec. supported by the most 
 important authorities, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 7) was omitted by Tisch. 8, on the 
 authority of F G 17, etc.; so, too, with the article tov before 90, after §, 
 though it stands in nearly all authorities. Instead of CworocovvTo¢ (Ree. K L®, 
 al.), A DFG 17, ete., Ath. Cyr. ete. have Cwoyovovvtoc, which deserves preference 
 as the more unusual word. Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. adopted it into the text; 
 
184 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, 
 
 Reiche, on the other hand, defends the Rec., especially on the ground that Paul 
 uses the word Cwozoveiv continually of the futura hominum mortuorum ad vitam 
 restitutio, quacum rerum universarum instauratio conjuncta erit—Ver. 17. év 7¢ 
 viv aidv] is changed in D E, Syr. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. ete. into ted viv aidvoc. For 
 aid, ® has yaipo; and for byyAogpoveiv, byyAa gpoveiv, which Tisch. 8 adopted. 
 —ivy 7@ 09] For the preposition év (Rec. D*** K L, Tisch. 7, Reiche), A D* F 
 G &, several cursives, ete., have éxi (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8). This reading 
 seems, however, to have arisen from a correction in order to make this clause sym- 
 metrical with the one previous. The article to (Rec. A D*** E K L, etc.; Lachm. 
 Buttm. Tisch. 7) is wanting in D* F G 8, al. (Tisch. 8).—r» Cov] omitted by 
 Lachm. and Tisch., after A G 17, 28, 47, al., many versions, is to be regarded as 
 not genuine. It may have been inserted from a recollection of iv. 10.—7avra 
 thovoiwe| adopted by Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. for w/Aovciwg ravra, after D E 17, 44, 
 46, al. Syr. Arr. Copt. Vulg. ete., Basil. Chrys. Theodoret, etc. Lachm. and 
 Buttm. read, on the authority of A 17, 37, 57, al., 7a mavta rAovoiwe, which might 
 deserve preference as the more difficult reading—Ver. 19. The Rec. aiwviov is 
 manifestly a correction of the original 6vtwe (in A D* E F G® 17, 28, 31, 57, al., 
 Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. ete., Constitut. Clem. Orig. Basil. ete.), which Griesb. rightly 
 received into the text.—Ver. 20. mapadijxyv] rightly adopted by Griesb. for 
 mapakatav7Kyv, on the authority of A D EF G® 31, 37, 44, al., Sahid. Syr. Clem. 
 Ignat. al. ; comp. 2 Tim. i. 12,14. The reading xavvogwvriag (for xevod.), in F G 
 73, It. Vulg. (profanas vocum novitates) and the Latin Fathers, is an oversight 
 arising from the similarity of a and ¢ in sound.—Ver. 22. 7 yapi¢ peta cov] For 
 cov, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, after A F G 17, al., adopted ye ior, perhaps a cor- 
 rection from 2 Tim. iv. 22 and Tit. iii. 15. Tisch. 7 had the Rec. cov, after D E 
 K L, most cursives, several versions, ete—The Rec. aj at the end (after D** 
 K L) is to be regarded as not genuine, on the authority of A D* F G8, ete. 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. [On Vv. 1, 2, see Note XVIII., page 198.] Precept regard- 
 ing the conduct of Christian slaves. [XVIII a.]—iéoo eisiv ir6 Cuydv doior] 
 dovaoc is added to explain eiciv txi¢. Paul does not say simply dco 
 eisiv dovio., because he wishes to mark the oppressive circumstances of 
 the condition of aslave. (vyéc¢is not used elsewhere in the N. T. of the 
 yoke of slavery (in Herodotus: dotduov Cvyév). The expression is not to be 
 ‘limited to those slaves who were oppressed more than usual by their mas- 
 ‘ters, as Heydenreich thinks, quoting 1 Pet. ii. 18. It is clear from the 
 clause iva x.7.2., a8 Well as from the contrast in ver. 2, that Paul is think- 
 ing here of the slaves who had heathen masters.—roic idiove dearérac] iWiovg 
 is so far emphatic, that it directs attention .to the circumstance of the per- 
 sonal relation more than would be done by the usual pronoun.—zrdone¢ 
 riyuq¢ (t. e. of all honor which is due to them as masters) a&/ove iyeiofwow (f. 
 agwvv, v.17); comp. the exhortations in Tit. 11:9; Eph. vi. 5-8; Col. iii. 
 22-95; 1 Pet. ii. 18—In confirmation, Paul adds iva py 76 bvoua k.7.2.; 
 comp. Tit. ii. 10..—rd dvoua row Oe00 | comp. Rom. ii. 24.—7 didacxaria] the 
 gospel, as the doctrine prevailing among Christians—Ver. 2. oi dé ricroic 
 
 1The meaning is correctly given by Chry- dnuncer TOAAGKLS WS OTACLY EuTrOLODY TO Soyma* 
 sostom: 0 amgtos av peéev dn Tovs SovAous otav d€ tdn mevOouevous, waddAov trevaOyceTat, 
 sa THY Tiotir avOadws mpodepopevous, BAag- waAAov mpogeger Tois Aeyouevors 
 
CHAP. vi. 1, 2. 185 
 
 Eyortec deorérac] The adversative dé shows that the apostle is here speak- 
 ing of other slaves than in ver. 1, viz., as he himself says, of those whose 
 masters are zoro/, not keeping their slaves as ix Cvyév, but treating them 
 kindly and gently because of their zior«¢. This last point is, indeed, not 
 formally expressed here, but it is presupposed in pj katagpoveitwcav.— 
 morove is either to be joined with deorérac as an adjective, or to be taken as 
 a substantive, deoxérac defining it more precisely : “who have believers as 
 masters.” The order of the words might give the preference to the latter 
 view.—/) katagpoveitwoar’] karagpoveiv denotes here conduct towards masters 
 in which the honor due to them is not given.—or: adeAgoi eiow] These words 
 are not the ground of the previous exhortation; they are the ground on 
 which the dovAoc might be led to think their masters of little worth; not 
 the slaves, but the masters, form the subject (de Wette, Wiesinger; van 
 Oosterzee, and others).—d424 wa2Aov dovdevérwoar] uadAov, equivalent to “ all 
 the more.” —are mioroi eior Kai ayaryrtoi, of K.7.A.] With ayaryrot we must sup- 
 ply Qcov (Rom. i. 7; comp. Rom. xi. 28); “beloved of God;” this is sup- 
 ported by the close connection with toroi—The subject is formed not by 
 the slaves (Wetstein: intelligo non de dominis, sed de servis, qui dant 
 operam, ut dominis beneficiant et bene de iis mereantur), still less by both 
 slaves and masters (Matthies), but by the masters only. The only possible 
 construction is this, that of . . . avriAauBavéuevor forms the subject, moroi 
 ... ayaryroi the predicate [XVIII 6.]; for the article shows that the 
 words oi r7¢ x.7.A. do not give a more precise definition of what precedes. 
 Most recent expositors (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, also 
 hitherto in this commentary) understand by 7 eiepyecia the kindness which 
 the slaves show to their masters by faithful service, and explain av7iAau- 
 Baveoda as equivalent to “receive, accept ;” but this explanation cannot 
 be justified by usage.1. In the N. T. the word occurs only in Luke i. 54 
 and Acts xx. 35, in the sense of “accept of some one.” This sense it has 
 also in classic Greek, when it refers to persons; in reference to things, it 
 means: “carry on something eagerly,” also: “ make oneself master of a 
 thing.” Hofmann accordingly is not incorrect in translating: “devote 
 themselves to kindness, making it their business.” If we keep strictly to 
 this meaning, as indeed we must, then the words oi Tr. evepy. avTiAauBaveuevor 
 apply to the Christian masters in regard to their conduct towards their 
 slaves, so that the meaning of the exhortation is: “ Serve (your masters) 
 all the more, that they, devoting themselves to kindness towards you, are 
 believers and beloved (of God).”? De Wette, against this explanation, main- 
 tains that “it makes the predicate ‘believing’ somewhat superfluous, 
 
 1De Wette wrongly seeks to justify this 
 meaning by saying that avtcAapBaveo@ar also 
 means: “perceive with the senses,” and that 
 in Porphyrias, De Abstin. i. 46, it means: mje 
 éEgbiwy TAELOvwY ydSovey avTiAjWeTac. Though 
 the Vulg. translates it; “qui beneficii par- 
 ticipes sunt,” and Luther; “and are partakers 
 of the benefit,” the word is taken in a sense 
 foreign to it. The same is true of Ieyden- 
 
 reich’s explanation: “avyxow.vwvot THs Xapt- 
 tos” (Phil. i. 7), wherein he also arbitrarily 
 takes evepyeoia as equivalent to xaprs. 
 
 2So rightly Theophylact: oi tis evepyeotas 
 avrtAapBavouevor, Tovtéat.: oi Searotar ot 
 dpovtigovtes Tov evepyeTervy Tovs SovAovs; SO, 
 too, Chrysostom, Grotius, Wegscheider, Leo, 
 and others, 
 
186 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 because the masters, being kindly towards their slaves, are already show- 
 ing their Christian faith in action.” He is wrong; for, on the one hand, 
 evepyeoia towards slaves might be true even of heathen; and, on the other, 
 Paul wishes to insist on the Christian belief of the masters as a motive 
 for careful and faithful service. Hofmann is wrong in thinking that «ai 
 
 . avridauB. does not depend on 67, but forms an independent clause in 
 this sense, that the slaves who serve their masters willingly in distribut- 
 ing their alms, are beloved (viz. by their fellow-Christians). This view is 
 opposed not only by the «ai (for to what previous sentence is it to be 
 attached ?), but also by this, that whereas the dvr:AauBardueve are the slaves, 
 tov deorérwv is arbitrarily supplied with evepyeciac—The apostle concludes 
 the exhortations given in regard to the slaves with the words: raira didacke 
 kai mapakdaer, Which Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. wrongly refer to what fol- 
 lows; comp. iv. 11, vy. 7; the right construction is given by de Wette, 
 Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others. 
 
 Vy. 3-5. [On Vy. 3-10, see Note XIX., pages 198-200.] Description of 
 the heretics. [XIX a, b.]—ei ree érepodidackare1] On érepodWacKareiv, comp. 
 1.3; ei tu often occurs in the epistle for éor¢ or the like; comp. iii. 5, v. 
 8; the thought is given in its most comprehensive form.—«a? pu) tposkpyera 
 «.7.4.] [XIX ¢.] defines érepodidackadeiv more exactly, characterizing it as 
 opposed to the pure doctrine of the gospel, [XIX d.] asa preaching there- 
 fore of heresy (not merely “of a doctrine which has not the quality of 
 being pious” (!), Hofmann).—zpooépyeotac is used of mental agreement, 
 and is equivalent to “agree with” (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee) ;! 
 On by:aivover Adyoe, comp. i. 10. Hofmann arbitrarily explains the word 
 by : “devote oneself to a thing; employ one’s pains on it.” If zpooéyerat 
 is the correct reading, then it is to be explained: “and does not hold fast 
 by sound words.” The genitive tov kvpiov ju. I. Xp. gives the source from 
 which the Adyor proceed. Kal rH kar’ evoéBevav didackaria] an epexegetic 
 addition to what preceded. The expression is not, with Leo and Wiesinger, 
 to be explained by: doctrina ad pietatem ducens; xara rather expresses 
 .. the relation of correspondence, suitability (van Oosterzee). By eicéBera is 
 meant Christian piety.—Ver. 4. terigwra:] comp. iil. 6.2 With this word 
 -begins the apodosis, which Wegscheider, Mack, and others find expressed 
 only in adicraco ard Tt. Towttwr, Which words we can hardly consider gen- 
 
 uine. ndév éxiotduevoc (comp. i. 7), the participle is not to be resolved 
 into “although;” all the more that rerigwrac conveys a suggestion of 
 
 dumbness. Their knowledge, on which they presume, is limited to fables, 
 and does not penetrate into the truth.—a”A2a voodv epi Cyrfoee Kai Aoyoua- 
 xiac| voodv, in contrast with byraivover Adyoue in ver. 8.—Ilepi Cytioerg K.7.A. 
 gives the sickness of which he is ill. Luther, not clear: “diseased in 
 
 1Comp. Philo, de Gigantt. p. 289: pmSevi 
 mporepxecbar yrwouy TOV cipnuévwr. 
 2 Hofmann thinks that reridwrac does not 
 
 moral, but in regard to their spiritual con- 
 dition.” This opinion is contradicted by the 
 fact that in what follows voo@y «.7.A. mani- 
 
 here, as in iii. 6, contain the idea of darkness, 
 since “ Paul means to express regarding the 
 schismatics an opinion, not in regard to their 
 
 festly denotes a moral fault. 
 3Comp. Plato, Phaedr. p. 288: 0 voo@y epi 
 Adywv axonv; Winer, p. 379 [E. T. p. 406}. 
 
CHAP. VI. 3—5. 187 
 
 questions ;” Stier, correct: “diseased with.”—On (nro, comp. i. 4; the 
 addition of Joyouayiae denotes more exactly the nature of the Cyrioevc. 
 Calvin: Aoyouaxiag nominat contentiosas disputationes de verbis magis, 
 quam de rebus, vel (ut vulgo loquuntur) sine materia aut subjecto. The 
 word (occurring only in later Greek) is az. “ey., the verb Aoyouayeiv, 2 Tim. 
 ii, 14—Hitherto he has described the “condition of soul among the 
 érepodWackahovvres ” (Wiesinger) ; the consequences of their (77. and Aoyou., 
 particularly the destructive tendencies, are given in what follows: é& ov 
 yiverat .7.A.] o06voc, épic,t BAacdnuia, form a-climax. [XIX e.] PBAaognuiac 
 and inévora rovypai are wrongly understood by Chrysostom of conduct 
 towards God. On the latter expression, equivalent to “ wicked suspicion ” 
 (Luther), see Wisd. iii. 24; the word is az. Aey. in the N. T. Hofmann 
 wishes to separate movypai from irdvoat, and to connect it with the next 
 word, “ because irovoeiv in itself means suspecting evil.” But, on the one 
 hand, érovoeiv has often the simple meaning “conjecture” (e.g. Acts xiii. 
 25; also in classic Greek); and, on the other hand, “the suspicion of 
 something evil,” and “the evil, wicked suspicion,” are by no means 
 identical things.—Ver. 5. diarapatpiBai] This word and rapadcatpiBai (ac- 
 cording to the usual reading) are not equivalent, as Heydenreich thinks; 
 see Winer, p. 96 [E. T. p. 102]. The distinction between taparpi37 and 
 dvatpiB4 is to be maintained. Avatp:87 means, in regard to time: “its con- 
 sumption, pastime, occupation ;” with the prefix zapa there is added the 
 idea of idle, useless, so that rapadvatp137 denotes the useless occupation of 
 time. The word raparp:34 (only in later Greek) means: “ wrangling, dis- 
 pute;” da serves to intensify the meaning, hence diaraparpi34 iS equiva- 
 lent to “continuous or violent wrangling” (de Wette). Luther translated 
 it: “scholastic disputes.” As the idea of strife has been given already by 
 Epic, We might be inclined to consider the Rec. to be the original reading, 
 were the evidence for it not too weak. The same may be said of the 
 reading dvarpeBai, which Hofmann, without sufficient ground, maintains to 
 be “what was originally written.” At any rate, the idea “continual 
 wrangling” is not so identical with that of “strife” (pic) as to prevent 
 them from being used together? Reiche paraphrases the reading 6’ @ 
 rapatpiBai as equivalent to per quae, nempe vitia morbosque animi vs 4, 
 exoriuntur rixae et certamina, etc.; but d’ @ is not equivalent to per quae, 
 and the previous é& dv is against this construction.—die¢fapuévov avbporov 
 rov vovv] Regarding this accus., see Winer, p. 215 [E. T. p. 229]; comp. 2 
 Tim. iii. 8:5 “whose understanding is destroyed.’—kai areotepypévov TIC 
 aAnbeiac] “who have been robbed of the truth.” This and the previous par- 
 ticipial clauses indicate that formerly the heretics had their understanding 
 
 avdpes.—The meaning “ provocations” (Mack), 
 and this other: “wicked and hurtful meet- 
 ings or clubs” (Heinrichs), can be assigned 
 neither to tapadtatpiBai nor to dvamaparprBat. 
 
 1Clemens Al. Stromata, vii. p. 759: vmod dSo- 
 focohias émnpméevor épiGovtes meAovar. 
 
 2O0ecumenius explains the expression amo 
 MeTapopas Tov Wwpadréwv mpoBatwv, and Chry- 
 
 sostom says likewise : ka@amep Ta Wwpadéa TOV 
 mpoBdtwv mapatpiBomeva vooov Kal Ta vytal- 
 vovTa éumiumAnowv, oUTwW Kal oDTOL ol TOVNpOL 
 
 3 Xenophon, De Exped. Cyri, iv. 259; dvepOape 
 févot TOS OPBadpous. 
 
188 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 sound, and were in possession of the truth, but that they had lost both these 
 jewels, according to iv. 1, by the influence of demons. It should never 
 have been denied that they who are thus described were actual heretics. 
 —The next clause adds another peculiar characteristic, which proves the 
 Sepbappévov K.7.A.: vouildvtwy roprouov elvae tHv evoéBevav] ropioudc (Only here 
 and at ver.6; comp. Ecclus. xiii. 19, xiv. 2) is equivalent to “means of 
 gain,” i.e. a business bringing gain; Luther: “ trade.”—Wegscheider 
 wrongly explains eioéBera as equivalent to 7 Kav’ evoéBecav didackadia. The 
 idea is to be kept in its proper meaning; although that which the heretics 
 made to appear evoéBera Was not evoéBeva, but only the appearance of it (2 
 Tim. ill. 5: pdpewow evoeBeiac), by means of which they sought to make 
 earthly gain (Tit. i. 11).—As to the construction, it seems most natural to 
 make the substantive at the beginning of the verse dependent on é& dv 
 yiwera, ver. 4, along with the substantives before it. Hofmann, on the con- 
 trary, thinks it curious, “that besides the bad things already mentioned, 
 there should also be named those with whom they occur;”’ and he wishes 
 rather to regard rovypat dcatpiBai (which he reads) as in apposition to 
 Cythoete Kai Aoyouayiac, just as in Jas. iii. 8, where the nominative stands in 
 apposition to the previous accusative as a kind of exclamation. This 
 construction is possible, but it is by no means necessary, and from the 
 structure of the sentence not even probable-—The last remark furnishes 
 the apostle with an opportunity for a digression on Christian contentment.! 
 
 Ver. 6. "Eore 62 x.7.A.] Calvin: eleganter et non sine ironica correctione 
 in contrarlum sensum eadem verba retorquet. The meaning is: piety is 
 certainly a opionéc, but in another and higher sense than the heretics 
 suppose ; éo7: is Opposed to voufdvtwv (ver. 5), Wiesinger.—ropicpic péyac 
 
 x.7.A.] [XIX f.] zopiouéc has here the same meaning as before; Luther 
 wrongly says: “it is, however, a great gain, one that is blessed,’ ete—7 
 
 evoéBeva wera avtapkeiac | “Piety when united with contentment,” which certainly 
 belongs of necessity to true piety. The gain of which the apostle is here 
 thinking is not the heavenly, eternal blessings (Theodoret: rjv yap aidvov 
 _ jyiv ropifer Cogv; Calvin, Heydenreich, Matthies, and others), but the gain 
 to which we are directed in the next verses, 7-10. Several expositors hold 
 the gain to be the abrdpxeca itself (so Chrysostom, Bengel: nam affert 
 de Wette, and others?) ; but this reference is not indicated. in 
 the added words : On aivrdpxesa, comp. Phil. iv. 11: é&a 
 éuahov é&v oi¢ Etptt avrdpKne elvat. 
 
 Ver. 7 begins the confirmation of the principle that godliness with con- 
 tentment is a great ropioudc. The apostle here places two clauses together, 
 each of which contains a well-known and undoubted truth: “ We brought 
 nothing into the world,” and “ We can take nothing out of it.’® The question 
 
 avTapKelan 5 
 
 peta avTapKeiac. 
 
 1Hofmann’s opinion, that the deductions 
 following are not occasioned by the conduct 
 of the heretics, but by Timothy’s conduct, 
 are not warranted by the exhertation in ver. 
 11: Tatra dhevdye. 
 
 2 Van Oosterzee :“ In one short, compressed 
 
 sentence, the apostle expresses two chief 
 ideas, that true piety of itself makes content, 
 and that by doing so it brings great gain.” 
 8The same two thoughts are found else- 
 where in collocation; so Job i. 21; Eccles. v. 
 14; also in the profane writers, e. g. Seneca, 
 
CHAP. VI. 6-9. 189 
 
 is unly, in what relation do they stand to one another? According to the 
 common view, the first thought serves to confirm the second: “As we 
 brought nothing in, it is manifest that we will take nothing out.” Against 
 this, Hofmann maintains that the second thought is in no way a conse- 
 quence of the first. He therefore takes djAov ére as an adverbial: 
 “clearly,” standing at the end of the sentence, but belonging to both 
 clauses; and he explains: “Clearly we have brought nothing in, and can 
 also take nothing out.” He is certainly right that the first does not strictly 
 prove the second; but then the apostle did not intend that it should; he 
 simply placed the two sentences together, the second corresponding to 
 the first in such a way as to be confirmed by it in popular opinion. 
 Hence it is not right to connect—contrary to the order of the words— 
 djAov ore with the first sentence. As to the lack of d7A0v before dre (see 
 the critical remarks), de Wette observes: “that in popular logic the con- 
 sequence is often quoted with 67 as the reason, e.g. Homer, I. xvi. 35, 
 Od. xxii. 36.” This, however, is not to the point here; in the two passages 
 quoted, 67: simply denotes the logical ground of knowledge. 
 
 Ver. 8. “Eyovrec dé] De Wette thinks that for dé we should have had oi». This 
 is certainly right; still the bearing of this verse on the previous one would 
 have been different from what itis now. The apostle used dé because he 
 had in mind the contrast to those striving after earthly gain.—d:atpoddc¢ Kat 
 oxerdouata] The same collocation in Sextus Empiricus, Book ix.1; the two 
 expressions only occur here in the N. T. (dcatpo¢7, 1 Mace. vi. 49). Sxéracua, 
 the covering, hence both clothing and dwelling. Here it is to be taken in 
 the former sense ; de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others include 
 both senses in it; but it is more than improbable that one word should be 
 used to denote two different objects.!. In food and clothing the necessary 
 wants of life are also elsewhere summed up; comp. Matt. vi. 25; Jas. ii. 
 15; Gen. xxvili. 20.—robroe apkecOyoducha] “we will be content with them.” 
 Hofmann’s explanation is wrong: “so will we have enough of them.” The 
 passive apxeiofa occurs as a personal verb only in the sense of “ be content 
 with ;” comp. Luke ii. 14; Heb. xiii. 5; 3 John 10; 2 Mace. v. 16; 4 
 Mace. vi. 22; so, too, continually in profane writers; comp. Pape, s.v.— 
 The future is here taken imperatively by several expositors. It is well 
 known that the imperative is often expressed by the future, but there is 
 no passage which exactly corresponds with this (comp. Buttmann, p. 221 
 [E. T. 259]). It is better, therefore, to take the future here in the sense 
 of sure expectation (so de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt; comp. 
 Winer, p. 296 [E. T. p. 315 f.]). 
 
 Ver. 9. Of d& Bovdduevor zhovreiv] [XIX g.] dé expresses opposition to 
 what immediately preceded. rAovreiv is properly not “become rich,” but 
 “ be rich.” —éurinrovow (cf. iii. 7) cic retpacpdv Kai rayida] De Wette explains 
 it inaccurately : “to whom enticing opportunities present themselves for 
 unrighteous gain.” In éuzizrew is contained the indication of the power 
 
 Ep. 102: non licet plus efferre, quam intul- 1Chrysostom : tovadta audrévyvcOat, & oKe- 
 eris. For the second thought, comp. Job magat “ovov Hnuas opeiAer Kat wEpLoTEiAae THF 
 Exvil. 19: Ps: xlix: 12: yUpvwou. 
 
190 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 which the zecpacuéc (“the temptation to enrich oneself unrighteously ”) 
 exercises over them.—By rayida, the re:paoyéc is defined to be a power fet- 
 tering and taking prisoner.—xai éxbuuiac roAdac avofrove Kai BAaBepdc] This 
 is the consequence immediately connected with what precedes: by falling 
 into wepacuéc, they fall into many foolish and hurtful lusts, 7. e. these lusts 
 are not only excited in them, but gain power over them. Thus the seduc- 
 tive power of the wecpacuéc can be recognized in the éxuuiac. These are 
 also avéyro, because instead of the gain which was expected to come from 
 satisfying them, they bring hurt only.—cirwee (explanatory: “such as”) 
 Buvdilovor cig bAe0pov Kai axoAevav] Budigew; in the literal sense at Luke v. 7; 
 2 Mace. xii. 4.—Destruction is likewise the deep into which they are 
 plunged by their desires. The expression is strengthened by bringing 
 together the two synonymous ideas. There is no ground for van Ooster- 
 zee’s conjecture that 62¢%poc denotes the destruction of the body, aréAeca 
 the destruction of the soul. De Wette incorrectly explains the words of 
 “moral ruin,” against which Wiesinger justly observes: “ they are in that 
 already.” 6Ae%poc stands here as in 1 Thess. v. 3,2 Thess. i. 9 (6%e8po¢ 
 aiavioc) ; axdAea, aS in Phil. i. 28 (opp. 7 cwrypia), iii. 19, and other passages. 
 —There is no good ground (with Olshausen in Wiesinger) for understand- 
 ing 62e9po¢ exclusively of temporal destruction. 
 
 Ver. 10 gives a reason for the thought in ver. 9.—/ifa yap rdévTwv Tov Kakav 
 éotiv 4 giAapyvpia] It is to be observed that Paul does not mean to say, 
 whence all «axa whatever proceed, but what proceeds from @¢:Aapyupia. 
 Hence there is no article with jifa. Hence, too, de Wette’s correcting 
 remark, that ambition, too, may entirely destroy man, does not affect the 
 author of the epistle—By 7a «axé may be understood both physical and 
 moral evils (wickedness) ; here the latter idea is uppermost.! g:Aapyupia only 
 here in the N. T. (VJer. viii. 10, LX X.).—je twice dpeydpevor] opéyeodac does 
 not mean deditum esse, but it is to be acknowledged that the manner of 
 connection is not exact, since ¢:Aapyupia, as de Wette rightly says, is itself 
 an épefic. Hofmann’s interpretation is artificial. He makes dpéyeota de- 
 
 note here “ the grasping of a man after something out of his way,” and 
 _ “the thing after which he reaches sideways is said to be the plant which 
 afterwards proves to be to him a root of all evils,” so that 7¢ does not refer 
 to giAapyrpia, but to pila mdvtwv tov Kaxov.—arerAavhSnoav ard Tie riarewc | 
 The reason of this is the inner connection between faith and blessedness. 
 The denial of the one necessarily implies the denial of the other. The 
 aorist passive has a neuter sense ; Luther rightly: “have gone astray from 
 the faith.” The compound only here and at Mark xiii. 22; the aré added 
 serves to intensify the meaning.—xai éavroi¢e mepiérepav odbvag trodAaic] 
 TepiTeipe ar. Zey. “ pierce through,” not “sting all round, wound in every 
 part” (Matthies). The édvvac roAdai, here regarded as a sword with which 
 they have pierced themselves through, are not the outward pains which 
 they have drawn on themselves by avarice, but the stings of conscience 
 (“the precursors of the future a7é/«a,” Wiesinger) which they have pre- 
 
 1Otherwise in Polycarp, Ep.4: apxn ravtwy xaderav pidapyupia. 
 
CHAP. VI. 10-12. 191 
 
 pared for themselves by apostasy from the faith. To this his own exper- 
 ience the apostle here directs attention, that he may thereby present more 
 vividly the destructiveness of the g:Aapyupia. 
 
 Ver. 11. [On Vv. 11-21, see Note XX. pages 200, 201.] The apostle 
 again turns to Timothy, exhorting him to a faithful fulfillment of his 
 Christian and evangelical vocation.—si dé] opposed to rwée ver. 10. [XX 
 a.J]—é avdpare [tov] Ocotv] The-expression may be taken in a more gen- 
 eral or a more special sense; so, too, in 2 Pet. i. 21. It does not, however, 
 follow “that Paul thus names Timothy here because of his evangelic 
 office;” the exhortations following rather show that the apostle was 
 thinking of Timothy’s position as a Christian; comp. 2 Tim. iii. 17.— 
 tavta gevye| tavta refers to the @:Aapyvpia and that which is connected with 
 it (de Wette, Wiesinger, and others) ; not to everything that has been said 
 in vy. 3-10, because “vy. 17 ff. show that the author is keeping in view 
 the subject of riches,” de Wette.  detyev vitare; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 22; 1 
 Cor. vi. 18. Hofmann wrongly deduces from this exhortation that Timo- 
 thy had some inclination to gAapyupia ; one might as well deduce from the 
 next exhortation that Timothy had no inclination to dicacooivy «7.2. Itis 
 to be observed that it is not said ¢eiye ax6 or éx TovTwv; comp., besides, the 
 passages quoted.—diwxe d& tiv Sixacocbvyv] didxey here as in Deut. xvi. 20, 
 LXX.; Rom. xii. 18, and other passages of the N. T.!. Paul names six 
 Christian virtues which Timothy is to cultivate, the six being arranged in 
 pairs. The two most general in meaning are placed first: dixacocivyv 
 (righteousness) and evoéBevav (comp. Tit. ii. 12). Then follow ziorw (not 
 ‘faithfulness or conscientiousness,” but “ faith ”’) and aydryv as the ground 
 principle of the Christian life. Last come tizouoviy and xpaizéSerav [XX b.] 
 (az. Aey., Philo, de Abrah. p. 379), which denote the Christian conduct 
 proper in regard to the hostility of the world against the gospel, the 
 former being opposed to submission, the latter to exasperation. 
 
 Ver. 12. ’Ayovifov tov xaddv aydva tHe Tiotew] [XX c.] Here, as in i. 18 
 (tHv KadAjv orpateiav), We must not overlook the definite article. The strug- 
 gle to which Timothy issummoned is the struggle (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 25) of 
 the faith appointed to Christians; on this comp. 2 Tim. iv. 7.—éAaBov ric 
 aiwviov Coc] éxiAauBdvew (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 24 and Phil. iii. 12, where the 
 apostle uses the expressions AauBdvew and xatazauBdverv) denotes the actual 
 grasping, aidvioc Cw# being regarded as the BpaGeiov; not, however, accord- 
 ing to Winer’s remark (p. 293 [E. T. p. 312}), “ as result of the struggle, but 
 as object of the striving.” It is not improbable that Paul is here speaking 
 figuratively. It is different, however, with the next words: eic¢ Fv éxApdIne, 
 by which eternal life is pointed out as the goal of Timothy’s vocation ; 
 comp. 1 Pet. v. 10.—«xai duoréyyoac tiv Kaj 6uoroyiav] Heinrichs incorrectly 
 takes «ai for cai yap: “for thou hast also.” Commonly this clause is made 
 to depend still on cic wv (Leo: eic wv pertinet non solum ad éxA#Fyc, sed 
 etiam ad dyoAdyyoac). De Wette,on the contrary (Wiesinger and van Oos- 
 
 ~Neque exteris scriptoribus infrequens est  Cyropaedia, viii. 1. 39; Thucydides, ii 5; 
 aec hujus verbi notio; see Xenophon. Leo. 
 
192 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 terzee agree with him), rightly regards it as simply co-ordinate with ei¢ jv 
 éxAydnc. So,too, Hofmann: “the relative clause, as is not seldom the case 
 in Greek, passes into a clause independent of the relative.” Still the two 
 clauses must be taken as standing in close connection ; Timothy’s xa2q 
 éuoaoyia is the answer which he gave to the «Ago proclaimed to him (so, 
 too, Hofmann).—r7 Karj éuoroyiav] [XX d.] In this phrase, too, exposi- 
 tors have not observed the definite article. Paul does not say that Timo- 
 thy confessed a confession good “in its contents and in the enthusiasm of 
 its utterance,” de Wette; but that he confessed the good confession, 7. e. 
 the definite confession of Christ to which the disciples of the Lord are 
 appointed. Hence it is quite wrong to think of éuoAoyia as a vow or the 
 like; that contradicts the constant usage of the N. T.; comp. © Cor. ix. 
 13; Heb. iii. 1, 4,14, x. 23.—Paul is clearly referring here to a definite fact 
 in Timothy’s life, but what it was he does not say. Chrysostom says: 
 avamipvgoKer THE KaTHXHoEwe avTév, and thinks therefore of the confession of 
 Timothy at his baptism. Others, on account of ver. 18, understand it of 
 a confession which Timothy had confessed during a persecution. Accord- 
 ing to most, Paul is here thinking of the same act as that to which iv. 14 
 refers. Since in this whole section, vv. 11-16, there is nothing to direct 
 the attention to Timothy’s official position, and since the évoAoyia is closely 
 joined with the éxaydnc, the view first given is to be considered the right 
 one (Hofmann). 
 
 Vy. 13, 14. TapayyéAAw oor] Matthies regards ri xarqv duoroyiav as the 
 subject belonging to this; but against this construction there is both the 
 meaning of the verb and the rypijoai ce following.’ Leo justly says: quo 
 magis ad finem vergit epistola, eo gravior existit apostoli oratio. To give 
 his exhortation greater force, Paul adds to rapayyéA2w (comp. i. 8) the 
 words of adjuration : évérvov tov Oc00 x.7.2.—Todi Gwoyovotvtoc Ta Tavta] Cwoyo- 
 vetv in the classic usage, equivalent to “bring forth alive, make alive,” 
 serves in the LXX. for translating the Piel and Hiphil of 1 in the double 
 signification : “ maintain in life,” Ex. i.17; Judg. vili.19, and other pas- 
 _ sages; and “make alive,”’ 1 Sam. ii. 6 (comp. 2 Kings v. 7). In the N. T. 
 it occurs here and at Luke xvii. 33, Acts vil. 19, in the sense of “maintain 
 in life.’ When connected with ra rdvra, Cwoy. is not to be understood 
 specially of the resurrection (de Wette, van Oosterzee), but either “of God’s 
 might that wpholds everything” (Wiesinger, Hofmann), or, still better, of “ His 
 power that quickens everything” (Plitt), in the same sense as it is said of God 
 in Neh. ix. 6: ot Cworoeie ra tavTa. God is therefore mentioned here as the 
 source of life for the universe (ra wavr7a), there being a special reference to 
 ver. 12: émiAaBov tic aiwviov Coyc¢.—Kai Xp.’Iyo. row paptuphoavro¢g éxt Iovriov 
 TiAdrov rv Karp duoroyiav] tv k. 6uodoyiay is not dependent on rapayyéAAw 
 (Matthies: “I make known to thee... the good confession ’’), but on 
 paptuphoavroc. It is open to question, however, whether the «aA7 duoAoyia 
 is the confession of the Christian which Timothy too has made (Wiesin- 
 
 > The objections made by Matthies against __ this, that he considers the definite article ™ 
 the correct construction are only founded on to be unsuitable before xadny ouodoyiav. 
 
CHAP. VI. 13, 14. 193 
 ger, Plitt, Hofmann), or the confession which Christ made (Leo, van Oos- 
 terzee). In the former case, waprupew is much the same as “testify, 7. e. 
 confirm, declare for truth ;” in the latter it is kindred in meaning with 
 duoroyetv, Wiesinger asserts that yaptupety never has the latter meaning, 
 but unjustly ; because in John v. 82 we have paprupiav yaptupen, and in John 
 iii. 11 we have 6 oidayev Aahovuev kai 6 éwpdxayev paptrporuev (1 John 1. 2; 
 Rev. i. 2). On the contrary, there is no passage to be found where paprupetv 
 with the accus. means so much as “ confirm the truth of an utterance by 
 a testimony in regard to it.”! The first view, therefore, is to be rejected 
 as contrary to usage. Besides, the confession made by Jesus, and Timo- 
 thy’s confession mentioned in ver. 12, are not in contents different from 
 one another. De Wette thinks that paprupeiv “is used here in the well- 
 known ecclesiastical signification, consequently that Christ is represented 
 as the first martyr,” and that the meaning is: “ Christ confirmed the con- 
 fession of the truth by His suffering and death.” This is not only against 
 the usage of the N. T., but fails also by generalizing in an arbitrary way 
 the idea of 7 Kay duodoyia.—lf 4 x. 640A. is the confession which Christ 
 witnessed of Himself, x? Tovr. 1A. cannot mean: “under Pontius Pilate” 
 (de Wette), but only: “before Pontius Pilate.” ’Exi stands here as 
 in Matt. xxvili. 14, Acts xxv. 9, xxvi. 2, and other passages.—As 
 the words added with rod Oevi point back to ri¢ aiwv. Cue, SO do those 
 added here with Xp. ’Iyo. point back to kat duoddynoac K.7.A.—rtypqoai 
 ce tiv évtoAyy domthov, averiAnntov] These words, depending on rapayyéAio, 
 give the purpose of Paul’s exhortation to Timothy. Tzpew, joined with 
 évroaf in many passages of the N. T., means “keep, observe,” as in chap. 
 v. 22 (de Wette and most expositors ; Wiesinger differs).—T7v évroagu is not 
 asingle moral or official law given specially to Timothy ; it is synonymous 
 with # tapayyedia in i. 5 (so, too, Hofmann), pointing out the law of the 
 gospel as the divine standard, according to which the Christian has to 
 regulate his life.2—domAov and averiAytrov must, from their position, be 
 referred to évroaqv,? and not toce.t Expositors take domaAov and averiAnrtov 
 as two co-ordinate adjectives, so that for the sense «ai has to be supplied 
 between them (so hitherto in this commentary). This, however, is against 
 usage; «ai is dropped only when more than two attributes are reckoned, 
 comp. e.g. iii. 2 ff., or when the one adjective forms one idea with the sub- 
 stantive, so that the other adjective defines the compound idea more pre- 
 cisely (comp. e.g. 1 Cor. x.4; see Winer, pp. 488 f. [E. T. p. 525]). It is 
 
 1Had Paul wished to express the thought 
 that Christ had confirmed, by word or deed, 
 
 terzee) is arbitrary. Still it might perhaps 
 be said that Paul sums up in tv évtoAjv the 
 
 the truth of the Christian confession, he 
 would have written the dative ry kaAj omoAo- 
 yia.—The expression paptupiav paptupecr, also 
 occurring in classic Greek, does not mean: 
 “confirm the truth of a testimony,” but 
 simply: “testify, i.e. make a testimony.”— 
 The old expositors justly directed attention 
 to Matt. xxvii. 11 and John xviii. 26 f. in re- 
 gard to 7 Kady opodoyia. 
 
 2The speeial reference to ver. 12 (van Oos- 
 
 13 
 
 commands which he gave to Timothy in vv. 
 11, 12. In this command, however, there is 
 also contained the sum of the whole Christian 
 law. 
 
 3 With de Wette, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hof- 
 mann, and others. 
 
 4As Leo, Matthies, Wiesinger, and most 
 suppose. Wiesinger thinks that aon. and 
 averid. denote the result of ryphaae Thy EvToAny. 
 But how can this be justified grammatically? 
 
194 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 more correct, therefore, to connect domAov closely with évro2#, and to take 
 averiAyxtov in such a way that it declares how Timothy is to keep this 
 évtoAy doraoc: he is to keep the commandment which is in itself spotless, 
 and to keep it so as to expose it tono blame.—apé ypu rij¢ éxi@aveiac T. Kupion ju. 
 'Ijo. Xp.] [XX e.] 7% éxiddvera is the second coming of Christ. The word 
 occurs outside of the Pastoral Epistles only in 2 Thess. ii. 18 (2 Tim. iv. 1,8; 
 Tit. ii. 13; in 2 Tim. i. 10, it is used to denote Christ’s first coming in the 
 flesh). For the second coming we usually have azoxdéAuyue (1 Cor. i. 7) or 
 mapovoia. The word éxigaveca brings into prominence the element of visi- 
 bility in the rapovsia; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 8 (Wiesinger). Chrysostom’s 
 explanation is wrong: péype ti of¢ TeAevt7#¢-—Bengel : fideles in praxi sua 
 proponebant sibi diem Christi, ut appropinquantem, nos solemus nobis 
 horam mortis proponere. 
 
 Vv. 15, 16. The apostle concludes with a doxology, which is attached to 
 the previous words by means of the relative clause jv . . . deer x.7.2.—fv 
 Katpoicg idiowg deter] On xarpoic id., comp. ii. 6; Tit. i. 3; also Gal vi. 9.— 
 detec] Bengel: ostendi dicitur, quod jam ante erat, Acts ili. 20. The verb 
 does not mean “effect ;” nor is it, with Heydenreich, to be translated: 
 “which He will show in its majesty, ‘will cause to follow and present in 
 visible glory,” but simply: “which He will make visible, cause to appear.” 
 The expression is used by the apostle in reference to Christ’s present hid- 
 denness. The hope of the near return of Christ did not lead the apostle 
 to fix arbitrarily the hour when that would take place.—Instead of the 
 simple Oed¢, there follows, as subject to deiFe:, a series of designations for 
 God, by which Paul represents God as the blessed, the only potentate, the 
 immortal, the invisible—in one word, the absolute (comp. with this i. 17). 
 This he does not simply for the purpose “of giving to his words a more 
 solemn conclusion” (de Wette), but to satisfy the inward impulse of nam- 
 ing the chief features of the idea of God as rooted in the Christian con- 
 sciousness—specially in opposition to the fictions of the heretics (accord- 
 ing to Wiesinger, “in antithetic reference to the striving after earthly 
 riches, rebuked in the preceding verses”).—é jaxdpic] comp. i. 11; 
 paxdpioc is to be taken as‘an adjective, as is clear from the omission of the 
 article before pévoc—Kai pdvog duvdcrnc] To God alone as the Almighty is 
 the predicate duvacry¢ due in the absolute sense; hence the addition of 
 uévoc. The supreme power contained in dvvdorye (comp. 2 Mace. xii. 15; 
 3 Mace. v. 51) is made still more prominent by the next words: 6 Bac”cic 
 tov Baoidevdvrwy x.7.A.; comp. i. 17; Rev. xvii. 14; Deut. x. 17; Ps. exxxvi. 
 3.—Ver. 16. 6 pdvoc Eywv adavaciav] comp. i.17. ’Adavacia is synonymous 
 with agdapsia, 1 Cor. xv. 53.1—¢éc oikév arpéortov] This idea that God, who 
 is Himself called light (1 John i. 5), dwells in light, is found nowhere else 
 in the N. T.; but we may compare with it Ps. civ. 2; Ezek. i. 26 ff.2—The 
 
 1Justin -Martyr (Quaest. et Respons. ad 2Chrysostom remarks on this: ovxcodv Kat 
 Orthod. 61): ovos Exwv Thv aBavaciay A€yeTat TOmw eEuTEeplei(AnmTar; amaye: ovx iva TovTO 
 0 @eds, OTe OVK Ek OeANmatos aAAoV TavTHY EXEL, vonowmev, add’ wa TO akaTaAnmTov Tis OElas 
 KaQamep ot AouTot mavtes GPavaTot, AAA’ Ex TIS dicews Tapactian, bas avTov oie elmev 
 
 Olixelas evotas, | aMpOsLTOV, OUTW Beodoynaas, ws Hv avTw SuvaToy. 
 
CHAP, vi. 15-17. 195 
 verb oixeiv is found only here in the N. T. with an accusative; the con- 
 struction is often found in the classics, also 2 Mace. v. 17, vi. 2.—azpéouroc 
 is az. dey. in Holy Scripture. This participial clause does not serve as a 
 reason for the one previous (Hofmann: “by dwelling in light unap- 
 proachable”’), but adds to it a new definition of the divine nature ——To the 
 idea that God is surrounded by an unapproachable majesty of light, there 
 is attached the corresponding thought: 6v eidev oddeig avbpdrur, ovdé ideiv 
 dvvarae; on which comp. John i. 18; 1 John iv. 12; Matt. xi. 27. The fol- 
 lowing two sentences may serve as explanation : Theophilus (ad Autol. p. 
 71): 1d eidog Tov Ocod . . . pH Svvauevov oo¥aApoic capkivorc dpadjvac; and 
 Dionysius Areop. (De Divin. Nom. ch. i. p. 376, I. ed. Corder) 
 Siavoiate adiavégrov éote TO brép didvorav év.'—O TY Kai Kpato¢ aidviov] comp. 
 1. 17. ; 
 
 Ver. 17. The apostle might have stopped at ver. 16; but, glancing back 
 to vv. 9 ff., he adds another injunction in regard to the rich.2—roi¢ rAovaior 
 év TO viv aid] [XX f.] Chrysostom: ¢eict yap nai GAdor miobvowt év 7G 
 Still we cannot press the contrast so far as to make the earthly 
 riches necessarily exclude the heavenly (wealth in God, Luke xii. 21).— 
 mapayyeAre pn tpndoopoveiv| stwnAodpovetv only here and at Rom. xi. 20 
 (Rom. xii. 16: ra byydAa gpoveiv): “ exalt themselves haughtily over others 
 because of their possessions.” —y7dé 7AriKévae ixt TAobTOV adnAbTHTL] adnAbTHE 
 (ax. Aey.), from adnAoc, which is equivalent to “not manifest, hidden,” is 
 properly “hiddenness,” then “ wncertainty.” The word indicates that it is 
 uncertain whether or not riches continue to him who possesses them 
 (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 26: ad7/4wc). Instead of the substantive, we might have 
 had the adjective: éxi 76 riobtw 76 ad72o (Luther : “on uncertain riches ”’); 
 still the form of expression here makes the idea of uncertainty more 
 prominent (see Winer, p. 221 [E. T. p. 236]), and that is all the more 
 appropriate here that it points out more forcibly the folly of the hope. 
 Hofmann explains ad7A6r7¢ unsuitably by “hiddenness,” in the sense of 
 “the rich man having put his riches safely away,” as if riches would be 
 put safely away by being hidden —aav év 76 6e6] The construction of 
 éArifew with év is in the N. T. the more uncommon one, but comp. Eph. 
 i. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 19—The truth that all hope must rest on God is con- 
 firmed by adding the words: 76 rapéyovte juiv ta wavra (7.e. all that we 
 possess) tAovainc eic anéAavow] sic ardéAavow (comp. iv. 3: ei¢ perdAnyr) is 
 not added by way of opposition to a wrong abstinence, but in opposition 
 to the tnAogpovetvy and HAmiKévae Ext TAobTw. The apostle means to say that 
 God does not give us earthly blessings that we may possess them and be 
 
 : jTaoalc 
 
 bédAovTe. 
 
 1There is no good ground for deriving, 
 with Hofmann, all these names for God from 
 His relations “to other potentates who meet 
 with trouble, whom death does not permit to 
 abide, who are not unapproachable and in- 
 visible.” And there is as little ground for 
 saying that this doxology was added, because 
 the apostle intended to describe “God who 
 will grant to see the appearance of Jesus as 
 
 judge with reward or punishment, to describe 
 Him as a potentate who is infinitely more 
 and higher than all earthly kings and lords,” 
 and did so because Timothy “was in danger 
 of injuring his position as a Christian, and 
 his calling as a teacher for the sake of gain” (!). 
 
 2““There Paul had spoken of the dangers 
 of those who wish to become rich; now he 
 turns to those who are rich” (van Oosterzee), 
 
196 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 proud over them, but that we may enjoy them,—according to His will,— 
 and therefore use them rightly. 
 
 Ver. 18. The negative ideas of the previous verse are followed by four 
 positive, joined two and two.—aya¥oepyeiv, wiovteiv év Epyowe Katoic] These 
 ideas are synonymous, the second, however, being stronger than the first. It 
 is not probable that we are to think only of the practice of benevolence ; 
 that is brought out in the next two expressions. On aya¥oepyeiv, comp. 
 Acts xiv. 17, where, however, the Rec. has ayadoroov ; the word ayavorouew 
 in Num. x. 82, LXX.; 1 Macc. xi. 33.—Aovreiv év épy. ay. hints at roic 
 riovoiowe év tT. viv aiave (Wiesinger).—etueradédrove elvat, kowwrixobc] The two 
 expressions occur only here in the N. T.: eradidwu is, however, used 
 specially of giving to the poor in Luke iii. 11; Rom. xii. 8; Eph. iv. 28. 
 Some expositors wrongly find in xowwKot¢ an express contrast to tp7Ao- 
 gpovev ; Chrysostom : = éuAntixot, rpoonveic. It stands here like kowoveiv, 
 Gal. vi. 6; xowwvia (joined with evroiia), Heb. xiii. 16. 
 
 Ver. 19. ’Arodnoavpifovtac éavtoic Oeuédvov xadév] The participle tells what 
 the rich desire by the conduct already mentioned; it is not to be ex- 
 changed with the infinitive. ’Azo#jo. and @euéAvov are not exactly suitable 
 to one another. This, however, is not to be corrected by conjecturing 
 (with Clericus) xeeu4Acov or (with Lamb, Bos) 6éua Aiav caddy, nor by explain- 
 ing @euéAvov as equivalent to déua (Tob. iv. 9; Leo: “and gather for them- 
 selves a good fund for the future ’’), nor even by taking dzodyo. as absolute 
 and @eué2.ov as in apposition. Wolf: ita . ... ut divites thesauros sibi 
 ipsis colligere jubeantur, qui sint fundamento alicui olim inservituri; 
 Luther: “ gather treasures, to themselves a good ground for the future.” — 
 arodyoarpife] “lay something aside for the purpose of preserving, and 
 therefore collect.” It is unnecessary to give the word here the more 
 general signification of “acquire.” The apostle’s thought is, that the 
 rich, by giving away their #jcavpoic in sympathetic love, are gathering for 
 themselves a treasure, and are also laying a good foundation on which 
 their future salvation is built.—eic 7d péAAov is not to be connected with 
 xaddv, but with the verb: “for the future.”—iva émAdBovrat tH¢ bvtTw¢ Cope) 
 iva does not express the consequence, “so that,” but the purpose, “in 
 _order that.” ’EmAdBwvra, comp. ver. 12; de Wette, rightly: “in order 
 . that they (at the same time planting their feet on this basis) may seize; ” 
 Tie 6vTw¢ Cupc, COMP. V. 3. 
 
 Vy. 20, 21. Final exhortation and benediction to Timothy. The apostle 
 begins fervently and impressively with: 5 T:uédee (Matthies).—rjv zapa- 
 SyKnv gvAazov] [XX g.] comp. 2 Tim. 1. 12, 14; rapadjxn is a “ possession 
 entrusted;” Paul does not say what kind of possession. Even in these 
 parallel passages a more precise definition is, not given, except that at 
 ver. 12 he denotes by pov that it is entrusted to him, and in ver. 14 adds 
 the adjective xaamv. In any case there is meant by it here a gift entrusted 
 to Timothy by God, which gift he is to preserve (¢(4aZov) from every hurt. 
 As the apostle puts its preservation (¢vAdosevv) in close connection with 
 the éxrpéreoda: of the heretics, we may understand by it either Timothy’s 
 diaxovia (de Wette, Otto), or the gospel, “sound doctrine ” (Wiesinger, van 
 
CHAP. VI. 19-21. 197 
 
 Oosterzee, Hofmann).—As the chief purpose of the epistle is to instruct 
 Timothy regarding his conduct in the ministry committed to him, it 
 seems right to understand by zapadj«y a possession entrusted, not to all 
 Christians, but to Timothy in particular. Thus—in spite of the absence 
 of cov—the first view deserves the preference, all the more that in the 
 other passages quoted this meaning of the word is the most suitable. The 
 next word, éxtperéuevoc, shows that Timothy would injure his office by 
 entering upon the PéB7Ao. xevogwoviac. Plitt arbitrarily takes rapadjxn as 
 equivalent to “ eternal life.” —éxrperduevoc rag BeBydove xevodwviac] ixtpérea Far, 
 properly: “turn away from anything ;” then with the accusative (as in 2 
 Tim. iii. 5: arorpérecda): “avoid,” synonymous with zapateiotar.— 
 kevodwria | Synonymous with paraodoyia, i.6; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 16: “empty 
 talk without anything in it.” —This talk is still more precisely defined by the 
 next words: kat avtutécere tio Pevdwvripov yvdcewc] It is to be observed that 
 avrudécerc is closely connected with the previous kevogwriac, the article .ra¢ 
 belonging to both words and the genitive ric evd. yvdcewe referring to both 
 alike. Hence avrvdéceve must here express some thought corresponding 
 with xevogwriac. It is not therefore advisable to understand by it in general 
 terms “ the statutes of the heretics against the gospel” (Matthies, Wies- 
 inger), or “the controversial theses of the heretics directed against the 
 gospel” (so before in this commentary’); it is much more correct to 
 understand it of the theses which the heretics sought to maintain against 
 one another (Hofmann). Thus understood, the word corresponds to 
 Aoyouaxiac in ver. 4. It is possible that these had the character of dialectic 
 proofs (Conybeare and Howson, quoted in van Oosterzee), but the word 
 itself does not show this. Baur’s assertion is purely arbitrary, that the 
 contrariae oppositiones are here meant which Marcion exerted himself to 
 establish between the law and the gospel.—ric pevdevipov yrdceac| The 
 expression is easily explained by the fact that the heretics boasted of 
 possessing a knowledge, a @:Aosogia (Col. ii. 8), in which there was a more 
 perfect science of divine things than that presented by the gospel—Paul 
 was also acquainted with a yvaow, which, however, was rooted in faith, 
 and was effected by the zvedua Xpiorov. But the yvédor of the heretics did 
 not deserve this namie, and hence Paul called it pevddveuoc (occurring only 
 here in the N. T.); on which Chrysostom aptly remarks: érav yap riore uH 
 el, yvaots ovk got. Baur, without just ground, seeks to draw from the use 
 of this word a proof for his hypothesis that the epistle was composed at 
 the date of the heresy of Marcion.—Ver. 21. jv twee érayyeAAduevor] 
 érayyéAdeoSa: stands here in the same sense as in ii. 10; Luther inexactly : 
 “which some allege.” —zrepi tiv riotw qordyycav] The same construction 
 in 2 Tim. ii. 18; with the genitive, 1.6. The érayyéAreotar tiv werd. yr. 
 includes (comp. i. 6) the doroyeiv rept rt. rior, “ erring in regard to the 
 faith.” This Wiesinger wrongly denies, with the remark that “the apostle 
 did not consider the mere occupation with such things to be apostasy, but 
 
 1 Against these explanations there is also containing anti-evangelic doctrines had de 
 the relative clause jv «.7.A. attached to yvw- —_ parted from the faith. 
 gews, since, of course, the followers of a yywors 
 
198 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 only a possible occasion for apostasy. ’Exayy. manifestly denotes more 
 than merely being occupied with a thing. By ruveg here, as in i. 3, 6 
 (vi. 3), we must understand the heretics. 
 
 Ver. 22. The benediction, as in the other Pauline Epistles. If tuédv is 
 the right reading, we can only infer from it that Paul intends the bene- 
 diction for the whole church, not that he addresses the epistle to the 
 whole church along with Timothy. 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 XVIII. Vv. 1, 2. 
 
 (a) It is somewhat remarkable that the exhortation to slaves should be the only 
 one having reference to civil or social relations, which is given here. Comp. Eph. 
 vy. 22-vi. 9; Col. iii. 18-iv. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 18-111. 7., where other relations are men- 
 tioned. The distinction made here between slaves having heathen and those hay- 
 ing Christian masters, is not found elsewhere in Paul’s writings. These two facts, 
 as well as the words addressed to the slaves, may indicate the danger, in the case 
 of this considerable section of the early believers, that the doctrine of Christian 
 liberty which the Apostle preached might be carried to excess in other lines than 
 those which were in the sphere of the distinctly Christian life. The evil to the 
 cause of the gospel in all such undue pressing of liberty and equality, which was 
 at that time especially to be apprehended; is indicated, in this passage, at the end 
 of ver. 1. It was, that scandal and offense would be occasioned—that the name 
 of God and the Christian teaching would be spoken ill of and blasphemed. The 
 word katadpoveitwoav is somewhat surprising, and seems to show how far the feel- 
 ing of the slaves, that Christianity destroyed all former distinctions, was sometimes 
 carried. In the other passages referring to slaves, even in Tit. ii, 9 f., obedience, re- 
 fraining from gainsaying and purloining, serving heartily and not with mere eye- 
 service, etc., are the things spoken of —() The explanation of oi avtiAaufavépuevor as 
 the subject of the clause in which it stands, is the simplest and most natural one. 
 This clause thus becomes parallel with the preceding 67: clause—the slaves are 
 not to despise the masters on the ground that the latter are brethren, but are to 
 perform the duties of slaves to them because of this fact. In the word evepyeciac, 
 however, the Apostle seems to give a hint of the feeling which the master should 
 have towards the slave. He should regard the slave’s service as a evepyecia, a 
 benefit or good deed rendered. Huther, Holtzm., and some others refer the evepy. 
 to the masters, and make the words mean “ those who devote themselves to kind- 
 ness towards you.” This is in accordance with the use of avr:Aau3. in most, if 
 not all, cases of similar construction and reference in the classics. Wiesinger 
 thinks Paul may have used the compound verb in a sense derived from its two 
 component parts: receive in return, and that there may thus be a reference to a 
 reciprocal relation between the master and the slave. 
 
 XIX. Vv. 3-10. 
 
 (a) W. and H., and Treg., like Tisch., Lachm., and Buttm., connect tavra ... 
 wxapakéAer with the following paragraph. R. V., on the other hand, unites these 
 2Hofmann, coinciding with Wiesinger’s science, brought them unawares on the 
 
 view, says: “The occupation with that which wrong track ;” but the “unawares” is purely 
 elaimed, but did not deserve, the name of imported into the verse. 
 
NOTES. 199 
 
 words, as does Huther, with what precedes. Ell, Alf., Fairb., Holtzm., agree 
 with R. V. and Huther, and this is, perhaps, the more correct view.—(b) The 
 following passage is declarative, not hortatory. The Apostle turns—quite abruptly, 
 if ravra k.7.A. is to be joined to the previous verses—to the subject of the errors 
 and heresies once more. He here presents certain further characteristics of the 
 false teachers, bringing out especially their avariciousness. It was not unnatural 
 for the Apostle to close the epistle with this matter, with which he had opened it 
 —making further statements respecting it, and urging Timothy to avoid the errors, 
 and to give himself to the true doctrine and to the good fight of the faith.—(c) 
 The verb tpoogpyerac (for which Tisch. 8th ed. alone among the textual editors 
 reads tpooé yerat, following §& ), from the original sense of the word to come to— 
 thus to come to, in order to visit to surrender, etc., passes, apparently, here to the 
 meaning consent to, or agree with ; Tpooéyetat, in the middle voice, means to cling 
 to, or, as Huther says, hold fast to. The latter has so little support that it can 
 hardly be adopted, but it would seem to be the word which the Apostle would, in 
 this connection, have been more likely to use—(d) In the word érepod:dacxarei 
 the Apostle returns to the ێrepodidacxadia of i. 3. Comp. also, tyiawoicy 
 didackanic i. 10, with dy. Ady. These two correspondences, together with the fact 
 that this subject mainly occupies the remainder of this chapter, make it probable 
 that it was his design to close the letter with the same admonition and exhortation 
 with which he had begun it, and thus to give a double emphasis to his words. 
 The expression 77 kav’ evoéBerav didack, is, through the phrase pvorfpiov evoe3. of 
 ili. 16, which contains the great central truth of the Christian doctrine, easily con- 
 nected with the suggestion, which is found in i. 10, of the accordance of the 
 healthful teaching with the gospel. The similarity in the expressions py émiord- 
 fLevoc and juz voovvtec of i. 7, may, also, be noticed. Zyt#oeve and Aoyouayiac, also, 
 unquestionably correspond with ¢yrjoec of i. 4. The clause beginning with é£ 
 ov merely sets forth the results in feeling, disputation, wrangling, etc., which 
 naturally follow from such ¢77. kai Aoy. The added words vouiGévtwy «.7.., accord- 
 ingly, describe the peculiar characteristic of the erroneous teachers which is here 
 made prominent, as distinct from and beyond what has been mentioned before. 
 These words indicate avariciousness or, at least, that the persons spoken of 
 regarded piety simply as a means of advancing themselves in worldly good; “a 
 new business, an investment, a means of getting on in life,’ Plumptre, “a gain- 
 ful trade,” Conybeare. In Tit. i. 11 similar teachers are referred to as teaching for 
 the sake of base gain, an expression which seems to point to avariciousness on 
 their part. The same thing would appear to be indicated here, by the fact that 
 the Apostle goes on, in ver. 9 f., to speak of the desire to be rich and the love of 
 money.—(e) With regard to particular words in vv. 4, 5, there can be little doubt 
 that Huther’s explanation of BAacgyuia, ixévoia Tov., and dvataparpiBai is correct. 
 Envy and strife were the first results, and these led to the other things which are 
 mentioned. The words retigwrac and voov mepi Cythoetc Kai Aoy. are strikingly 
 descriptive of skeptics, especially of intellectual skeptics, of all ages—(/) The 
 gain mentioned in ver. 6, which appertains to piety when united with content- 
 ment, is apparently the blessing in peace of mind, happiness, ete., which, when 
 the man is sufficient for, and in, himself, in the sense of being independent of the 
 riches, etc., of the world, he has through his piety. dp of ver. 7 gives the 
 ground of the necessity and reasonableness of the adding of contentment to piety, 
 when speaking of the latter as a source of great gain. The word 67/ov of this 
 
200 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 verse must, apparently, be rejected by reason of the great weight of manuscript 
 evidence against it. The sentence becomes, with this omission, quite difficult. 
 The suggestion of Buttm. (E. T. p. 358) that 67: alone may be equivalent to d7A0v 
 ére seems doubtful. The expl. of de W. mentioned in Huther, with which R. V. 
 perhaps agrees, is also a questionable one, both because of the use of 67 and the 
 antecedent improbability that the writer would bring out the thought in this 
 way; but it is, probably, the best one that can be offered.—(g) The contrast of 
 ver. 9 with ver. 8, and the use of SovAduevor, “are minded to be rich,” as well as 
 the word @Aapyvpia of ver. 10,show that the writer is referring to those who give 
 themselves wholly, and to the entire exclusion of the avrapxeca just mentioned, to 
 the work of acquiring riches. It is such @:Aapyvpia, which is a root of all evils. 
 That pita necessarily means a root, as distinguished from the root, cannot be affirmed, 
 because the article may disappear by reason of the fact that the word is in the 
 predicate. That it, in all probability, has this meaning, however, can hardly be 
 questioned, and it is not to be doubted that R. V. expresses the right idea of the 
 sentence by rendering Tavtwy tov kaKkdv by all kinds of evil. Alf. insists that pifa 
 means the root. Most of the recent commentators agree with R. V. 
 
 XX. Vv. 11-21. 
 
 (a) That of is contrasted with tivéc of ver. 10, and that tavra refers to the 
 love of money, etc., just mentioned, is indicated by all the considerations which 
 the passage suggests. That the expression “man of God” is not applied to 
 Timothy as an official term, is rendered probable by the use of the same expres- 
 sion in 2 Tim. iii. 17, where it clearly refers to the believer as a man of God. The 
 fact that Timothy was a man of God should keep him from the course which was 
 followed by these men who had gone astray, and should lead him to pursue that 
 line of life to which God calls—(b) irouovn and rpairavera are, apparently, 
 intended to be connected together—stedfast endurance, pressing on in spite of all 
 trials or persecutions, was to be accompanied by gentleness of temper as related to 
 the trials or to the authors of them. tpaizdVera is nearly equivalent to tpaérne, 
 and may mean meekness or gentleness. Here it may, notimprobably, include both. 
 _ —(e) Tov Kaddv ayova (ver. 12): Timothy is exhorted to do what, in 2 Tim. iv. 7, 
 Paul declares himself, by the use of the same words, to have done. The Chris- 
 -tian course, which is called orpareiay in i. 18, is here called ayova, a contest in the 
 
 sense of the Greek games (comp. dpéyov, 2 Tim. iv. 7). \miorie does not here, 
 or indeed in any place in the Past. Epp., as, also, it does not elsewhere in Paul’s 
 writings, mean the system of faith, the doctrine believed by Christians. It 
 always refers to subjective faith, though sometimes this is viewed subjectively, and 
 sometimes in a more objective way—(d) The good confession which Timothy is 
 said to have confessed (probably—by reason of the close connection with é«A7dn¢ 
 (as Huther also says)—at the time of his baptism) was not in form, or precisely, 
 the same with that made by Christ before Pilate. Indeed, Christ can scarcely be 
 said, in the strict sense, to have confessed the good confession. This was what 
 Timothy did; but Christ’s witnessing or confessing was through His acts and His 
 general declarations made when He was on trial at Pilate’s tribunal. Huther is 
 apparently correct, however, in making yaprupeiv-here substantially equivalent to 
 ouodoyeiv, as against the view of EIl., Alf, Grimm, and others, that it means 
 attest, bear witness to, by His sufferings and death. Holtzm. agrees with Huther, 
 
NOTES. 201 
 
 If Huther’s view is correct, éti means before ; but if the view of Ell. is adopted, 
 it may be rendered by wnder,—which meaning is given by him and de W. Alf, 
 however, holds that, even with this latter explanation of “aprupeiy, the preposition 
 means before.—(e) Typyjoa . . . méXpt Tic Exupaveiag points towards (though it may 
 possibly be explained otherwise) an expectation that the ém@dveca would soon 
 take place. The setting forth of this “appearance” as made visible by the power 
 of God the Father is very distinct and emphatic in these verses, and the state- 
 ments seem to represent it as a glorious manifestation in which both God and 
 Christ have part, though the manifestation itself is here, as everywhere else, the 
 émipavera TOV Xptorov, 
 
 (f) Ver. 17. The aidv ovro¢ seems to be alluded to, here, in contrast to the 
 érigaveca as the beginning of the aia wéAdAwv, It is spoken of however, primarily, 
 in its contrast, as related to the character of its works, with the good works of the 
 Christian life. The “éAAwv idea is brought out distinctly in ver. 19. In connec- 
 tion with, and through these good works, they were to lay up for themselves, as a 
 treasure, a good foundation on which to rest, that they might be able to lay hold 
 upon that real life which belongs to the ai@v wéAAwv. The doctrine of good works 
 as a ground of reward, but not as a ground of justification, is here indicated. 
 
 (g) Whether tapadjKyv (ver. 20) refers to the dcaxovia or the didackadria bytaivovoa 
 is uncertain ; but, as the contrast throughout the epistle seems to be between the 
 latter and the erroneous teaching, it may be regarded as more probable that it is 
 this which the Apostle means. The use of yvoovc here belongs to the later period 
 of the life of Paul, rather than the earlier, but does not seem to carry us far 
 beyond the time of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. 
 
202 ‘tHE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 Tabhov 4 xpos Tipddcoy extatodn deutépa, 
 
 A. al. have the shorter superscription: pig Tiudfeov B’; so, too, D E F G, 
 but with dpyera: preceding. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Ver. 1. Tisch., on the authority of DE F G K P X&, al., several versions, and 
 Fathers, adopted Xporov "Iycov instead of the Rec. "Iyoot Xpiorod (A L, pl. 
 etc., Lachm. and Buttm.). For the singular érayyediav, § has the plural éray- 
 yediac.—Ver. 3. To T@ Oe@ there is added yov in D* E 17, Sahid. Vulg. ed. 
 Sixtin. Demidor. Clar. Germ. Or. Ambrosiast. etc. Imitation of Rom. i. 8.—Ver. 
 4. The reading étvzo# (G, Boern. utrumq. Chrys.) seems only to have arisen 
 from an endeavor to simplify the structure of the sentence.—Ver. 5. For AquBdavev 
 (Rec. with D E K L, al., Chrys. Theodoret, etc.), Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. read 
 AaBov, on the authority of A C F G 17, 31. This latter deserves preference as 
 the more difficult reading, all the more that it is preceded by the present ézvzof@v, 
 —Instead of Awid:, some ss. have Aoid:, others Awidy, and one Aaié:; still the 
 Ree. is too strongly suported to leave doubts of its correctness. For Evvixy, several 
 cursives have Evveixy.—Ver. 7.,deAiac] The reading Jdovdeiac (in 238, Aeth. 
 Didym. Chrys.) has clearly arisen from Rom. viii. 15.—Ver. 11. é6vv (Tisch. 8 
 omits) may possibly have been inserted on the analogy of 1 Tim. ii. 7 ; but since 
 it is wanting only in A &, and some cursives, it is safer to regard it as the original 
 reading, all the more that it is necessary for the meaning.—Ver. 12. In &, kai is 
 wanting before tavra; all other mss., however, support its genuineness.—For 
 rapakatabyjkny (Rec.), we must read here and at ver. 14, tapatjxyy, just as in 1. 
 Tim. vi. 20.—The ov that follows is wanting in D* E and some cursives; it was 
 probably omitted because in those two other passages no pronoun stands with the 
 word.—Ver. 15. The mode of writing the name ®tyeAAo¢ varies very much; the 
 best supported is @iyeAoc, which Lachm. and Tisch. adopted—For ‘Epyoyévyc, 
 Tisch. has adopted ’Epyoyévyc, with the remark: testatur antiquissimus accentuum 
 testis D*** ete.—Ver. 16. For éxyoyivty (Ree.), all uncials, except K, several cur- 
 sives, also Basil. Oec. Theodoret, have éra:oyiv6y (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.) ; comp. 
 Winer, p. 70 [E. T. p. 73].—Ver. 17. Tisch. 7 retained the Ree. oxovdardérepov, 
 with D*** FE K L, al. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 adopted, ovovdaiwe, on the authority 
 of C D* F GX, al.; Buttm. read oxovdaorépoc, on the authority of A. This 
 last reading seems to be only a correction of the Ree. Which of the two others 
 is the original one, cannot be decided. The positive may be considered a correc- 
 tion of the comparative ; but, on the other hand, the latter is more usual with 
 Paul than the former, which occurs with him only in Tit. iii. 18. Besides, the 
 comparative is often found in Paul where we might except the positive (comp. 
 1 Dir > iit. 4h) 
 
CHAP: i. 1-3: 203 
 
 Vv.1,2. [On Vv. 1, 2, see Note XXT., pages 218, 219.] Aca beA#patoc] comp. 
 on 1 Tim. i. 1. [X XI a.]—The words of this address are peculiar: xar’ éray- 
 yeriav Cuong tH év XpoT@ "Iyoov; they are not to be joined with GeAguaroc, 
 nor with the following Tiwoé», but with ardctodog «7.4. ’Erayyedia in the 
 N. T. constantly means “the promise ;” it is incorrect to translate it here 
 by “preaching;” comp. 1 Tim. iv. 8. Its object is the Co7, the blessed 
 life which “exists objectively, and is presented in Christ” (Wiesinger). 
 The preposition «aré shows that Paul’s apostleship stands in connection 
 with this promise. Matthies defines this connection more precisely 
 by saying that xara denotes the harmony between the plan of salvation, 
 of which that érayyed/a is the chief element, and the apostleship. But it 
 is more natural, and more in accordance with the passage in Tit. i. 2, to 
 explain it, as does Theodoret, followed by de Wette and Wiesinger: a7éc- 
 ToAdv pe TpoEBaAeTo 6 Bede WoTE pe THY ExayyeAfeioay aidviov Cayv Toi¢ avOparore 
 knpvEa, so that card directs attention to the purpose; see Winer, p. 376 
 [E. T. p. 402]. Otto contends that xara means “for the purpose,” and 
 that «ypigac should be supplied. He explains it more generally: ‘in the 
 matter of, in regard to,” with the remark: “Paul means toe say that his 
 apostolic office . . . in its entire work is defined by that promise.” This 
 explanation, however, comes back substantially to the former one, since 
 the work of the apostolic office is specially the xypicoev. Hofmann 
 explains «ard as equivalent to “in consequence of,” in the sense, viz., that 
 the promise of life forms the presupposition of Paul’s apostleship; but for 
 this there is no support in usage; besides, it is self-evident that without 
 that promise of life there would be no apostleship.—Ver. 2. Tipobém ayarnro 
 téxvw | ayarnté, LX XI b.] in distinction from yvryciw, 1 Tim. i. 2 and Tit. 
 i. 4, does not indicate a greater confidence, nor even blame, as if Timothy, 
 by showing a want of courageous faith, no longer deserved the name 
 (Mack). 
 
 Ver. 3. [On Vv. 3-5, see Note XXITI., pages 219, 220.] Xdpw étyw 76 Oc] 
 [XXII a.] As in several other epistles, Paul begins here with a thanks- 
 giving to God,—only he usually says eiyapior or evdoyytic 6 Oedc. The 
 expression is only in1 Tim. i. 12 (elsewhere in the N. T. Luke xvii. 9; 
 Heb. xii. 28). To 76 Oe there is next attached the relative clause: © 
 Aatpetw ard rpoydvwr év Kabapad ovvedjoe., Which is added because the apostle 
 wishes to remind Timothy of his zpéyova, viz. his grandmother and 
 mother,—not to bring into prominence a relationship different from the 
 apostle’s own (Hofmann), but one corresponding with his own.—az7d rpoyévev 
 [XXII 6.] is not equivalent to ad Bpédove, iii. 15; it means that the 
 apostle serves God ‘‘in the manner handed down by his progenitors, as 
 they had done ” (Buttm., p. 277 [E. T. 322]), or that the service of the zpéyo- 
 vot, 7. €. not the ancestors of the Jewish people (Heydenr. and others), but 
 the progenitors of the apostle himself (so most expositors), is continued 
 in him, and denotes therefore “the continuity of the true honoring of 
 God by Judaism ” (de Wette). Otto says that the expression is not to be 
 referred to the education (Flatt) or disposition (Winer, p. 349 [E. T. p. 
 372]; van Oosterzee, Wiesinger), but to the ancestral mode of worship; 
 
204 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 but, in reply, it is to be observed, that on account of év kabapa ovvedhoet 
 the reference to disposition is by no means to be considered as excluded.) 
 The apostle, by his conversion to Christianity, did not interrupt his con- 
 nection with the Aarpevew of his ancestors, because it was a necessary 
 condition of the new faith to honor the God of revelation whom the Jews 
 served. This utterance regarding the apostle himself, and particularly 
 the words év xadapa ovved., are.not in contradiction with 1 Tim. i. 13 and 
 similar passages, since the apostle, even while he was zealous for the law, 
 served the God of his fathers év xa. ovvecd., as little then as afterwards 
 falsifying the revealed word with arbitrary fictions, which was done by 
 the heretics; comp. Acts xxiii. 1, xxiv. 14 ff. Hofmann is wrong in 
 breaking up the inner relation of these words, referring Aatpetw only to 
 and mpoyéver, and not also év kal. cvverdjoer, Which he refers only to the 
 apostle. This he does, although the structure of the sentence is most 
 decidedly against such a distribution of the references——On év xa@. ovvewd., 
 comp. 1 Tim. 1. 5.2—é¢ adid2eurrov k.7.2.] [XXII c.] o¢ doesnot give the reason 
 of thanksgiving, as Chrysostom explains it: ebyapioré 7H Oe@, Ott uéuvnuai cov, 
 gnoiv, obtw of giAG, and as Luther translates: ‘that I,” ete. Against this 
 there is not only the word dc, but also the sense. The apostle, in his 
 giving of thanks to God, often indeed recalls his wveia of those to whom 
 he writes (Rom.i.9; Phil. i.3; 1 Thess. i.2; Philem. 4), but he never 
 points them out as the ground of his thanksgiving. Otto, while granting 
 that there are objections to it, wishes to take o¢ as the same as 67, and to 
 regard it asa particle.of the reason, equivalent to é7¢ oitwe, which, how- 
 ever, cannot be justified from usage. Just as little should we take dc 
 adverbially with ada. Mack’: “I thank God, ete. ...I keep right 
 continually,” ete—A subordinate clause begins with 6c, which, however, 
 does not mean: “since, quippe, siquidem ” (Heydenreich, Flatt, Matthies : 
 “in so far”), “so often” (Calvin: “ quoties tui recordor in precibus meis, 
 id autem facio continenter, simul etiam de te gratias ago”), but expresses 
 the parallel relation of the subordinate clause to the principal one, and 
 should be translated by “as.” (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee) ; in Gal. vi. 10, 
 
 1Had the apostle not been conscious that 
 his ancestors had served God ev xa. cvvecs., 
 he would not haye expressed himself as he 
 does here. 
 
 2Otto rightly: “With Paul ovveidyots is 
 purely the self-consciousness of the subject. 
 ' The consciousness is pure, when it is con- 
 scious of no impure strivings. Impurity 
 appears whenever any one, under the pre- 
 tence of serving God, follows aftor his own 
 selfish purposes.” There is no ground for 
 Hofmann’s assertion, that the xa@. cvveidnats 
 is only “a conscience free from conscious- 
 ness of guilt, such as only that man can have 
 who is conscious of the forgiveness of his 
 sins.” 
 
 8Theé particle a does sometimes occur in 
 classic Greek in such a way that it is resolv- 
 
 able into ore ovrws; but, as is shown in the 
 very nature of the word, only in cases when 
 the sentence beginning with os expresses 
 something surprising, something exciting . 
 astonishment, in particular, therefore, after 
 the verb @avydgw. It follows,as Pape says, 
 s.v., that “in such cases we may translate it 
 with the simple how.” ‘That such is the case, 
 is proved by ‘all the quotations brought 
 together by Otto (p. 301) from the Greek 
 classics. It is therefore entirely erroneous for 
 Otto to say quite generally that “it is in the 
 manner of genuine Greek to contract the 
 causal ore with the following otrws into the 
 adverbial pronoun @s.”’ Only if the adcaAeurrov 
 Exo THV rept gov pvecay occurred to the apos- 
 tle as something strange, astonishing, could 
 as be explained here by ote ovtws.—Besides, 
 
CHAP. I. 4. ; 205 
 .* 
 
 é¢ has a very similar meaning. The sense accordingly is: “ I thank God, 
 as Iam continually mindful of thee in my prayers,” so that already in the 
 subordinate clause it is indicated that the thanksgiving to God refers to 
 Timothy. In Rom. i. 9, 6¢ stands in quite another connection, which 
 makes de Wette’s objection all the less justifiable, that here it has been 
 taken from that passage.—adiddeitt0ov Eyw TH Tepi cov preiav]| De Wette 
 arbitrarily maintains that Paul would have said: adiaieitrw¢ pveiav cov 
 Though Paul does so express himself in Rom. i. 9 (and simi- 
 larly Eph. i. 16), it does not, however, follow that he might not use 
 another form of expression in another epistle, especially since the con- 
 nection of uveiav with yew is by no means unusual with him; comp. 
 1 Thess. iii. 6.—adidAecr7ov stands first for emphasis. There is nothing 
 strange here in pveia being joined with epi, since pracoda takes that con- 
 struction even in the classics.—év rai¢ degceci wou vuKtoc Kal juépac] Taic is 
 not to be supplied before vv«réc, since the last words are not to be taken 
 with deyoeor, but either with adiad. éyw «.7.A. (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee) 
 or with what follows (Matthies, Plitt, Hofmann). The first construction 
 is preferable, because the chief emphasis is laid on the preceding thought, 
 the éxitodév being made subsidiary ; besides, the apostle had no particu- 
 lar reason for directing attention to the uninterrupted duration of his 
 longing for Timothy as the source of his unceasing prayer. The assertion, 
 that vuxrdc Kai quépac is superfluous on account of the previous adidAeitrov, 
 is not to the point; comp. Acts xxvi. 7, where the same words are added 
 with év éxreveia. 
 
 Ver. 4. As in Rom. i. 11, Phil. i. 8, and other passages, Paul also 
 expresses here his longing to see the person to whom the epistle is 
 addressed. The participle éz:zodév is subordinate to the previous éyw; to 
 it, in turn, the next participle wexvyuévoc is subordinated. The longing for 
 Timothy causes him to be continually remembered in the apostle’s prayers, 
 and the remembrance is nourished by thinking of his tears.—sov tov 
 daxptwv|] [XXII d.] By these are meant—as the verb peurnuévoc shows— 
 not tears which “ Timothy shed” when at a distance from the apostle 
 (Wiesinger), and of which he knew only through a letter (which Timothy 
 therefore “shed by letter,” Hofmann) ; but the tears of which he himself 
 had been witness, the tears which Timothy shed probably on his departure 
 from him (van Oosterzee, Plitt). These were, to the apostle, a proof of 
 Timothy’s love to him, and produced in him the desire of seeing Timothy 
 again, that he might thereby be filled with joy. In this connection of the 
 clauses with one another, the apostle has not yet given the object of 
 thanks appropriate to the ydpw yw; he does not do so till ver. 52— 
 
 TOLOVILAL, 
 
 
 
 it is inaccurate for Otto to ascribe to as a 
 causal signification, and then call the clause 
 
 that it makes a subordinate participle peuvy- 
 wévos depend on the subordinate participle 
 
 beginning with it an objective clause. 
 1Comp. Herod. i. 36; Plato, Lach. p. 181 A; 
 Xenophon, Cyrop. i. 6. 12; so, too, with prnpo- 
 veve.v, Heb. xi. 22. 
 2 Against this view it cannot be maintained 
 
 émtroav, for that is not in itself impossible; 
 nor can it be said “that the insertion of a 
 clause penvynuévos between idetv ge and iva 
 is intolerable,” since the chief stress is not 
 On Menvnuevos, but on émumoGav «.7.A. Further, 
 
206 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 According to Hofmann, the reason of the thanks is already given in the 
 participial clause peuryuévoc. But the idea that Paul thanks God for 
 Timothy’s tears, is out of all analogy with the other epistles of the apostle. 
 Even the wa yapac rAqjpwdd is against this view, for the apostle could not 
 possibly say that he remembers Timothy’s tears in order that he may be 
 filled with joy. 
 Ver. 5. ‘Yréuvrnow AaBov tHe «.7.A.] [XXII e.] This participial clause is to 
 be taken neither with peyvnuévoc nor with éxizobav (de Wette, Leo); the 
 sense forbids us to subordinate it to one of these ideas, and the want of 
 the copula xai to co-ordinate it with them. Otto joins it with iva yapa¢ 
 rAgpw8a: “that I may be filled with joy, as I (se. by thy personal presence 
 in Rome) receive a renewal of my remembrance of thy unfeigned faith.” 
 Against this construction, however, there are the following reasons :—(1) 
 That to supply “by thy presence” is not only arbitrary, but does not suit 
 with the idea tzéuryow AauBdvew, since the impression made on us by 
 anything before the eyes cannot be described as reminding us of that 
 thing. (2) That, if the remembrance of Timothy’s constancy in the faith 
 is so unceasing with the apostle that he thanks God for it, itis quite incon- 
 ceivable how he could still wish to receive a izéuryo of it. (3) That we 
 see ourselves forced by it to prefer the reading AauBavev (which Tisch. 
 adopted) to 2aBév.—The only remaining course is to connect trouv. af. 
 with ydapw iyo tO Oe (so Wiesinger, Plitt, and others). It does stand at 
 some distance from it, but that cannot be considered a good reason against 
 the construction. The construction in Phil. i. 8-5 is similar. Nor can we 
 make objection that “ Paul according to this view would not thank God be- 
 cause Timothy stands in such faith, but because he has been brought to his 
 recollection ” (Hofmann), for the participial clause does not give the reason 
 of the thanksgiving directly, but only hints at it. It is the same here as at 
 Eph. i. 15and Col.i.3, where, too, the subject of thanksgiving is not the axoter, 
 but that which the apostle had heard.—izéuryow AaBov is not equivalent 
 to “recordans, as I remember” (de Wette: “retaining the remem- 
 brance ”’), for txéurqoc’ in the N. T. (comp. 2 Pet. i. 18, ii. 1; also Ecclus. 
 _ xvi. 11;.2 Mace. vi. 17) has an active signification ; it is equivalent, there- 
 fore, to “since I have received remembrance,” @. e. “since I have been 
 -reminded” (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). It is not said what 
 had reminded the apostle of Timothy’s faith. Bengel supposes that it 
 was externa quaedam occasio, or a nuntius a Timotheo ; Wiesinger, that it 
 was Onesimus. But it suits better with the context to regard the tears 
 just mentioned as causing the recollection, inasmuch as they were to the 
 apostle a proof of his unfeigned faith. It is unnecessary to derive the 
 bréurnore from some inner working of the apostle’s soul (so formerly in 
 this commentary); there is no hint of any such thing. The present 
 AauBdvov is not against this interpretation, since these tears came so vividly 
 before the apostle’s soul that he was thereby reminded more and more of 
 
 it cannot provoke objection that Timothy’s see him again, since these were a proof of his 
 tears nourished in the apostle the longing to love—and of his faith. 
 
CHAP. I. 5, 6. 207 
 
 Timothy’s faith.—rijc¢ év coi avuroxpitov zictews] see 1 Tim. i. 5; this, now, 
 is the subject of the thanksgiving——As Paul is conscious that the God 
 whom he serves was the God also of his ancestors, he can remind Timothy 
 of the fact that the faith which dwells in him was before the possession 
 of his grandmother and mother.’—7rv¢ évesxyoe mpatov] évorxeiv as in ver. 
 14; Rom. viii. 11; 2 Cor. vi. 16. The word is chosen here “to denote 
 faith on its objective side as a possession coming from God” (Wiesinger), 
 and it declares that “it has not become a merely transient feeling, but an 
 abiding principle of life dwelling in them” (van Oosterzee).—zpérav is 
 not, with Luther, to be translated by “ before,” but to be taken in its proper 
 meaning, in reference to the zpéyove. of Timothy. The point brought out 
 is, that Timothy was not the first of his family to be a believer, but we 
 cannot press the point so far as to suppose that a distinction is drawn 
 between the apostle whose ancestors served God as Jews, while Timothy’s 
 ancestors were heathen (so Hofmann).—év rH wayyy cov «.7.2.] Regarding 
 paupyn, see Wahl on the passage.—This grandmother of Timothy is not 
 mentioned elsewhere. Of the mother, it is said in Acts xvi. 1 ff. that she 
 Was a yur "lovdaia miorH; her name is given only here. The mention of 
 the two is not to be regarded as a superfluous—or even surprising—after- 
 thought. Paul might repose in Timothy all the greater confidence, that 
 he, brought up by a pious mother, had before him her example and that 
 of his grandmother.—This confidence the apostle expresses still more 
 definitely in the next words: wéresowat dé, bt Kat év coi, With which Hey- 
 denreich wrongly supplies évockjoec instead of évorkei. 
 
 Ver. 6. [On Vv. 6-14, see Note XXIII., pages 220-222.] Av fv aitiav avay- 
 pvqoxw oe x.7.A.] This verse contains the chief thought of the whole chap- 
 ter. By 6? fv aitiav (a formula which occurs in Paul only here, at ver. 12, 
 and at Tit. i. 18; aizia not at all in the other Pauline epistles), the apostle 
 connects his exhortation with the previous xézepar «.7.7., smce his con- 
 viction of Timothy’s faith was the occasion of his giving the exhortation. 
 There is no ground for the objection raised by Otto against this connec- 
 tion of thought, that aitia “never expresses anything but the external 
 objective occasion ;” he is no less wrong in wishing to refer 6” jv airiav 
 not to avayiuvgckw, but to avatworrpeiv. In that case’the apostle would have 
 written 60 fv aitiay avalwriper k.7.2. (as Otto explains the expression). The 
 verb avayuimvgoxew, properly, “remind of something,” contains in itself the 
 idea of exhorting; the apostle finely interprets the word so as to make 
 Timothy appear himself conscious of the duty which was urged on him; 
 irouuvgoxer is Often used exactly in this way.—davalwrupeiv rd ydpiopua Tov 
 
 1Since Timothy’s avumoxpitos miatis is 
 
 yovo. cannot be taken further than on the 
 Christian faith, faith in Jesus Christ, it is 
 
 part of the apostle’s mpdoyovor.” The apostle 
 
 manifestly wrong to regard the miorts of the 
 grandmother and mother as only faith in the 
 O. T. promise (Otto); the relative j7us shows 
 that the two are identical. From Paul’s 
 ascription to himself of a Aatpevew amo mpo- 
 yovwv, we cannot infer, with Otto, that the 
 “matter of faith on the part of Timothy’s zpo- 
 
 does not at all boast of the mics of his 
 ancestors, but says merely that he serves the 
 same God as they had served. Timothy’s 
 faith could only mean something to him, if it 
 was not only faith in the promise, but also 
 faith in Him who had appeared according te 
 the promise. 
 
208 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 Gcov] [XXIII a.] avafwrupeiv: az. Aey.: “fan into life again.”!? By yapiopa 
 7. 9. is meant here, as in 1 Tim. iv. 14, the fitness (ikavéryc) bestowed by 
 God on Timothy for discharging the épyov evayyedsor00 (iv. 5), Which fitness 
 includes both the capacity and also (though Hofmann denies this) zeal 
 and spirit for official labors. The context shows that the courage of a 
 Christian martyr is here specially meant. This rappycia is not the work 
 of man, but the gift of God’s grace to man. It can only be kept alive 
 unceasingly by the labor of man.2_ Bengel is not incorrect in remarking 
 on this exhortation: videtur Timotheus, Paulo diu carens, nonnihil 
 remisisse ; certe nunc ad majora stimulatur. His former zeal seems to 
 have been weakened, particularly by the apostle’s suffering (ver. 8), so 
 that it needed to be quickened again.* Otto here, too, understands by 
 xapicoua, the “ right of office ;” but this does not accord with the verb ava- 
 Cwrvpeiv, since the right did not need to be revived. However Timothy 
 might conduct himself in regard to the right imparted to him, it remained 
 always the same; if he did not exercise it as he should have done, he 
 himself or his activity needed the avalwrupeiv, but not the right which had 
 been delivered to him with the office4 On the next words: 6 éorw év oot 
 Sia tHe Exibécewe TOV Ye—pov yov, comp. 1 Tim.iv.14. There can be no reason 
 for doubting that the same act is meant in both passages. As to the diffi- 
 culty that, whereas in the former passage it was the presbytery, here 
 it is Paul who is said to have imposed hands, see the remark on that pas- 
 sage. The reason for this lies both in the character of the epistle, “ which 
 has for its foundation and in part for its subject the personal relation 
 between the apostle and Timothy,” as well as in Paul’s exhortation to 
 Timothy in ver. 8, “to make the gift an effective agent for him through 
 whom the gift was received ”’(Wiesinger). 
 
 Ver. 7. The exhortation in ver. 6, Paul confirms by pointing to the 
 spirit which God has given to His own people: ot yap dwxev juiv 6 Osd¢ 
 mvebua decdiac| [XXIII b.] By juiv, Otto understands not Christians in gen- 
 eral, but the apostle and Timothy in particular as office-bearers. The 
 context, however, does not demand such special reference, since the 
 apostle, in order to confirm his exhortation to Timothy, might very well 
 
 . 
 
 1Gomp. Jamblichus, De Vit. Pyth. chap. think that we cannot infer from it that there 
 
 XVi.: aveCwarvper TO Beto ev avTn. 
 
 2Chrysostom: Set gov mpo8vsutas mpos 70 
 xdpicpa Tov @cod:... ev nuiv yap ott Kat 
 oBéoat, kat avaijar TOTO: UTd Mev yap paduptas 
 kal axndias oBévvuTat, Uo Sé vyWews Kal mpooc- 
 ox7s Sveyetpetac. 
 
 2It has been already remarked (Introd. 3 
 3, p. 27) that Otto is not justified in accusing 
 Timothy of having almost laid down his office 
 through anxiety and timidity. It isa part of 
 this accusation that Otto here finds it said 
 that “ Timothy was to resume the duties de- 
 livered to him by the apostolic laying on of 
 hands.”—The meaning of avagwrvpety is mis- 
 taken by van Oosterzee and Pilitt, if they 
 
 had been an actual decrease of Timothy’s 
 official zeal. 
 
 4Otto contends, that “along with the office, 
 when the hands were laid on him, Timothy 
 received the understanding, the personal 
 gifts for filling it.” Against this it iS to be 
 remarked—(1) That the natural talents are 
 not bestowed along with the office, but the 
 conscious and intentional concentration and 
 employment of them in the office, otherwise 
 the receiver of the office is only a dead 
 machine in it; and (2) that the apostle, in 
 laying on hands, acted as the instrument ot 
 the Holy Spirit; and of this Timothy was alse 
 aware. 
 
CHAP. I. 7. 209 
 
 appeal to a fact which had been experienced by Christians in general as 
 well as by himself. Besides, the juac in ver. 9 is against Otto’s view. 
 IIvevpa here is either—(1) the objective spirit of God, the Holy Spirit (Ben- 
 gel, Heydenreich, Otto), of whom it is first said negatively that it is not a 
 spirit of devdia, 7. e. not a spirit producing decA/a in man, and then positively 
 that it is a spirit of diva «.7.4., 7. e. a Spirit imparting divawe to man; or 
 (2) rvevua is the subjective condition of man, the spiritual life wrought in 
 him by the Spirit of God (Mack, Matthies, Leo, similarly, too, Hofmann’), 
 which is then described more precisely as a spirit, not of devaia, but of 
 divayuc x.7.A. The context in which the similar passage in Romans stands, 
 and especially the passage corresponding to this in Gal. iv. 6, make the 
 first view preferable.—de:2ia denotes timidity in the struggle for the king- 
 dom of God; comp. John xiv. 27; Rey. xxi. 7, 8—The ideas divayc, ayarn, 
 and cugpovicuéc are closely related to each other. That the Christian, as a 
 warrior of God, may rightly wage the warfare to which he is appointed, 
 he needs first divayc, 7. €. power, not only to withstand the attacks of the 
 world, but also to gain an increasing victory over the world. He has 
 need next of aydz7, which never suffers him to lose sight of the goal of the 
 struggle, 7. e. the salvation of his brethren, and urges him to labor towards 
 it with all self-denial. Lastly, he has need of cw@povicude. While Chry- 
 sostom and Theophylact leave it uncertain whether this word is to be 
 taken intransitively, reflectively, or transitively,? later expositors (Hof- 
 mann too: “ discretion”) have taken it as synonymous with cwdpocivn;* 
 de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt make it reflective, “ self-control” 
 (properly, therefore, “the cwdpdoc directed towards oneself”). Neither 
 explanation, however, can be justified by usage. Etymology and usage 
 are decidedly in favor of the transitive meaning, which therefore must be 
 maintained, with Otto, unless we attribute to the apostle a mistake in the 
 use of the word. In itself the Holy Spirit might be called rveiua cwopo- 
 vionov in the other sense, since the owdpovifev is His characteristic, He prac- 
 tises it; but, as the preceding genitives denote effects, and not qualities, 
 of the spirit, the genitive cwgporvcuot would stand to zvetya in a relation 
 differing from that of the other genitives. The Holy Spirit can therefore 
 receive such a designation here, only in so far as He produces the cwd¢povi- 
 few (comp. Tit. ii. 4) in the Christian, 7. e. impels him not to remain inac- 
 tive when others go wrong, but to correct them that they may desist. 
 Thus taken, the idea of cagporoude appropriately includes that of ayazry, 
 part of which is to be active in amending the unhappy circumstances of 
 the church,—here all the more appropriately because the thought which 
 is true of all Christians is specially applied here to Timothy.‘ 
 
 1Hofmann, to a certain extent, combines secpacuds quty emcyévntar, mpds cwdpovicpov 
 the two, saying: “The spirit which we have _— rodrov Sexumue8a: H twa Kai aAAots Guev gwhpo- 
 received is, looking to its source, the Spirit vioTat. 
 
 of God; but, looking to what we become 3 Thus Augustine, ad Bonif. iv. chap. 5: con- 
 through it, it becomes in us the spirit of our tinentia; Vulgate: sobrietas; Beza: sanitas 
 life thus created.” animi;. Leo: temperantia. 
 
 2Theophylact: # twa cadppoves Guev' .. . 7 4The explanation here given of cwdporcpuds 
 
 iva owhpovicpov exwuey TO TVEDMA, Kay TIS is in substantial agreement with that pro 
 
 14 
 
210 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 Ver. 8. M7 oiv (deduction from what has preceded: since God has given 
 us the spirit of divayec x.7.2., then, etc.) éxacxvvOj¢ Td wapripwod Tod Kupiov 
 juav] [XXIII c.] On the construction, comp. Rom. i. 16: ov éxawyxivoua rd 
 evayyéAtov.—papripior, like waprupetv in 1 Tim. iii. 16, does not denote the 
 martyrdom of Christ, nor even specially the testimony regarding the 
 martyr-death of Christ (Chrysostom : 7 aicyivou, dtu tov éotavpwuévov Knpio- 
 cevc), but more generally the testimony regarding Christ, which certainly 
 includes the other special meaning. Kvpiov is not the subjective genitive,! 
 but the objective*—The connection between this and the preceding 
 thought is brought out by Bengel’s words: timorem pudor comitatur; 
 victo timore, fugit pudor malus.—y7dé éué tov désuiov aitov] Paul places 
 himself in immediate connection with the gospel, as he was a prisoner 
 because of his witness of Christ; and the reason of the special mention of 
 himself lies in the summons to Timothy to come to him at Rome? Paul 
 calls himself décueoc Xpiorod here and at Eph. iii. 1, Philem. 9, because he 
 bore his bonds for Christ’s sake; or better, because “ Christ (Christ’s cause) 
 had brought him into imprisonment and was keeping him there ” (Winer, 
 p- 178 [E. T. p.189]; Meyer on Eph. iii. 1; Wiesinger). The expression in 
 Philem. 13: deouoi rot evayyediov, forbids the explanation: “a prisoner 
 belonging to Christ.” Hofmann is inaccurate: “a prisoner whose bonds 
 are part of his relation to Christ.”—aa2d ovyxaxowdOyjoov 7O evayyeriw] “ but 
 suffer with (sc. me) for the gospel ;” the verb, occurring only here and per- 
 haps at ii.3 (the simple form at ii. 9, iv. 5; Jas. v. 18), is limited more 
 precisely by the reference to the previous éué. Luther (“suffer with the 
 gospel, as I do”’) refers the ovv to the dative following; but against this 
 there is the unsuitable colloéation of person and thing. The dative ra 
 evayy. is to be taken as dativus commodi,’ as in Phil. i. 27 : cvvabAowrec rH 
 miore Tov evayyediov; in Heb. xi. 25: cvyxaxovyeicbac 76 Aa@, the dative has 
 another meaning.—xara divauw Oeov] [XXIII d.] These words do not be- 
 long, as Heinrichs thinks possible, to 76 evayyediw, in the sense: doctrina 
 cui inest divauic Ocov, but to the preceding verb. The meaning, however, 
 is not: “strengthened through God’s aid ” (Heydenreich), but xara denotes 
 - the suitability : “in accordance with the power of God which is effectual 
 in thee,” or “which will not fail thee” (Hofmann). Abvauic Oeov is not 
 here “the power produced by God,” nor is it “God’s own power ” (Wies- 
 inger), in the sense of an abstract idea apart from its actual working -in 
 the believer. 
 
 posed by Otto, except that Otto regards the 
 owdpovicpuos as a work, official in kind. 
 
 1 Wahl: testimonium quod dixit Jesus de 
 rebus divinis quas audivit a Patre; Hof- 
 mann: “the truth of salvation witnessed by 
 Christ.” Hofmann for this explanation 
 appeals wrongly to 1 Cor. i. 6, ii. 1; besides, 
 Maptupioy does not mean “ truth of salvation,” 
 unless it is so defined. 
 
 3 De Wette, Wiesinger. 
 
 3 Wiesinger: “Here the twofold contents 
 ef the epistle are set forth as the theme; for 
 
 the contents of the epistle are simply the gen. 
 eral duties laid on Timothy as a preacher of 
 the gospel; and the particular service of love 
 which he was to render to the imprisoned 
 apostle.” 
 
 *Chrysostom rightly says: ovyxaxora@naor, 
 dyno, TO evayyeAiw, ovX ws TOD EvVayyeAtou 
 kaxoraQovvtos, adAa Tov maOnTny Sdreyecpwr 
 Umép Tov evayyeAiov magxeLv. 
 
 5 Mack, Matthies, Wiesinger, van Ooster- 
 zee, Plitt, Hofmann. 
 
CHAP, <r Sy 9: 211 
 
 Ver. 9. In the series of participial and relative clauses which here fol- 
 low each other in the Pauline manner, the apostle details the saving 
 works of God’s grace, not so much “ to bring into prominence the divayec 
 Gcov ” (Wiesinger), as to strengthen the exhortation in ver. 8.—roi cécavroc 
 jac Kai Karécavtuc KAgoee ayig] This thought is closely related to the one 
 preceding, since the mention of the divine act of love serves to give 
 strength in working and suffering for the gospel—The «a2eiv is placed 
 after the oafew, because the salvation of God, the curypia, is imparted to 
 man by God through the call. The thought is to be taken generally of 
 all Christians, and not merely to be referred to Paul and Timothy, as 
 several expositors think, at the same time explaining «Ajovc of the special 
 call to the office of Christian teacher (Heydenreich)—KAjore in the N. T. 
 constantly denotes the call to partake in the kingdom of God, the call 
 being made outwardly by the preaching of the gospel, inwardly by the 
 influence of the spirit working through the word. K2jow and xateiv are 
 similarly joined in Eph. iv. 1—The added ayia defines the «Ajove more pre- 
 cisely in its nature, not in its working (de Wette, “ hallowing”’).—In order 
 to denote the oéfew! and xadeiv as purely acts of God’s grace, and thus set 
 the love of God in clearer light, Paul adds the words: ot xara ra Epya jar, 
 aaja x.t.2. The first clause is negative, declaring that our works were not . 
 the standard (xara) of that divine activity (comp. Tit. iii. 5). The second 
 clause is positive, setting forth the principle by which alone God has 
 guided himself. De Wette is inaccurate in explaining xa7d as giving the 
 motive; that is not given by xazv4, but by é¢; comp. Rom. ix. 11. The 
 only rule for God in the work of redemption is God’s idia zpéfeoue ; comp. 
 on this Rom. viii. 28 f.; Eph. i. 11; Tit. ii. 5: xara rv airov eZeov. “Idco¢ 
 is here emphatic, in order to show that this his purpose has its ground in 
 himself alone.2—xai yapw zi dofeicay juiv év XpiotS “Inoot xpd ypdvov aiwvior] 
 [XXIII e.] By this addition still greater emphasis is laid on the thought 
 contained in the previous words, since the idia xpéfecie is called a yapec 
 which has been already given us in Christ zpd ypdvev aiwviov. It is natural 
 to take zpé ypév. aiwv. as identical with xpd rév aidéver, 1 Cor. ii. 7 (Eph. i. 4: 
 mpo kataBo2qc Kéopov), 7. e. to regard it as a term for eternity, since the ypéve 
 aiévo are the times beginning with the creation (so hitherto in this com- 
 mentary). Heydenreich and others with this view explain dédovac as 
 equivalent to “destinare, appoint;”’ but as the word does not possess this 
 meaning, it is better to adhere to the idea of giving, but in an ideal signifi- 
 cation, “in so far as that which God resolves in eternity is already as good 
 as realized in time” (de Wette).  *Ev Xpior6 "Ijoov, which is attached im- 
 mediately to dofeicav, denotes Christ Jesus as the mediator through whom 
 grace is imparted to us, but in such a way that Christ’s mediatorship is 
 regarded as one provided by God before time was. But the expression 
 
 1De Wette’s assertion, that with Paul God “purpose;” see Rom. i. 13; Eph. i. 9, 11. 
 is never the Saviour, is contradicted by 1 3 Hofmann, in his Schriftbew. I. p. 232, puts 
 Cor. i. 21. forward the explanation: “It is the eternal 
 2 Tpé@coxs, as Wiesinger rightly remarks, is conduct of God the Father to the Son, in 
 not equivalent to “foreordination,” but to | which and with which there is given to us 
 
212 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 mpo xpov. aw. may be otherwise taken. In Tit.i. 2, it clearly has a weaker 
 signification, viz. “from time immemorial” (similarly Luke i. 70: az’ 
 aiavoc). Ifthe expression be taken in that way here, dofeicav may be ex- 
 plained in the sense that to us the ydapec is already given in the promise 
 (Tit. i. 2 also refers to God’s promise); so Hofmann. In that case, how- 
 ever, év Xpior@ "Ijoot is not to be taken in the sense of mediation, which 
 does not agree with the addition of ’Ijcov to Xpiord, but as Hofmann ex- 
 plains it: “ry 606. ju. év XpiorG "Inood denotes that the grace given us was 
 given that Christ Jesus might be given us; He, however, has been given 
 us from the beginning of time, when God promised the Saviour who was 
 to appear in the person of Jesus.” This view (especially on account of 
 Tit. i. 2) might be preferred to the one previously mentioned. As con- 
 trasted with xara ra épya juév, stress is to be laid on zpd ypdveu aiwviov. If 
 the imparting of the grace is eternal (resting on the eternal counsel of 
 God), it is all the less dependent on the works of man. 
 
 Ver. 10. eavepaeicav dé viv] These words form a contrast with ri 
 dofeicavy . . . Tpd pdr. aiwv., the grace being concealed which was bestowed 
 on Christians in Christ before the ages. It is to be observed that the idea 
 of the ¢avépwore does not refer here to the decree, but to the grace of God; 
 Heydenreich is therefore inaccurate in saying that “the gavepotv here de- 
 notes the execution of the divine decree which was made from eternity, 
 and has now come forth from its concealment.” The means by which 
 the ¢gavépwore of the divine grace has been made, the apostle calls the 
 Emipavera Tov owTHpoc Huav Xpiotov "Iqoov. ’Eni@aveca is used only here to 
 denote the appearance of Christ in the flesh. Asa matter of course (so, 
 too, van Oosterzee, Plitt, and others), it denotes not only the birth of 
 Christ, but also His whole presence on the earth up to His ascension. 
 There is added rot cwtzpo¢c jyudv in reference to Tov cdcavtoc yuac, Ver. 9, in 
 order to make it clear that the grace eternally given to us was made mani- 
 fest by the appearance of Christ Jesus, because He appeared as our corp 
 (see on 1 Tim. i. 1). The means by which He showed Himself to be this, 
 and by which He revealed that grace, are told us in the two participial 
 3 clauses: Katapyfoavtoc mév Tov Oavatov, dwticavtoc 6& Cunv Kai adfapaiav dia Tov 
 . evayyediov. [XXIII f.]—xarapyeiy, properly, “make ineffectual,” means here, 
 as in 1 Cor. xv. 26, Heb. ii. 14, “ bring to nought.” Odvaroc is death, as the 
 power to which man is, for his sins, made subject, both for time and for 
 eternity. It is not the “prince of the realm of the dead,” as Heydenreivh 
 thinks (also in Heb. ii. 14 there is a distinction between @dvaro¢ and 
 duaBor0c). Still less to the point is the hypothesis of de Wette, that the 
 katapyeiv Tov Bdvarov is spoken “ with subjective reference to the power of 
 death over the mind, or the fear of death ;” the discussion here is not of 
 subjective states of feeling, but of objective powers. The question whether 
 
 who are in Christ the grace of God eternally ;” and that every position of the individual is 
 but he has since withdrawn it—Wiesinger grounded on this eternal grace presented to 
 remarks that the mpo@ears is not to be under- the world in Christ; but this limitation is ia 
 stood of a purpose in reference to individuals, no way indicated by the context. 
 
 but of the purpose in reference to the world, 
 
CHAP. 1. 10-12. 213 
 
 @avaroc means here physical or eternal death, may be answered in this 
 way, that the apostle regards the two as one in their inner relation to one 
 another. The second clause: gwticarvto¢g dé x.7.2., corresponds with the 
 first: katapy. «.7.A. wrifew has usually the intransitive signification : 
 “shine,” Rev. xxii. 5; but it occurs also as transitive, both in the literal and 
 derivative sense, Rev. xxi. 23, John i. 9. In 1 Cor. iv. 5, it is synonymous 
 with gavepoiv: “bring to light from concealment ;” so, too, in Ecclus. xxiv. 
 30, and in this sense it is used here. The expression is all the more 
 pointed that @dvaroc is ““a power of darkness” (Wiesinger) ; comp. Luke 
 i. 79.—Heydenreich’s explanation: “Christ raised the hope of immor- 
 tality to fullest certainty,” weakens the apostle’s meaning. (4 denotes 
 the blessed life of the children of God, which is further described as 
 eternal, ever-during, by the epexegetical «ai agHapsia (Wiesinger). This 
 life was originally hid in God, but Christ brought it to light out of conceal- 
 ment, and brought it dia tov ebayyediov. These added words are to be re- 
 ferred only to the second clause, for the annihilation of death was not 
 effected by the gospel, but by Christ’s death and resurrection——On the 
 other hand, the revelation of life was made by the preaching of the gospel, 
 inasmuch as Christ thereby places before us the Cw kai agGapoia as the in- 
 heritance assigned us in Him.—It is incorrect, with Wiesinger, to separate 
 dua tov evayyediov from the nearest verb to which it is thoroughly suited if 
 taken in a natural sense, and to connect it with the more distant gavepwbei- 
 ca, the means of which, moreover, is already given in dia rie Emipaveiac. 
 Plitt wrongly thinks that the construction here is somewhat careless, and 
 that dia 7. evayy. is to be co-ordinated with d:a rH éripaveiac, giving a still 
 more precise definition to gavepwbeioar. 
 
 Ver. 11. Eic 6 éré0yv «.7.4.] With these words the apostle turns to his 
 office and his suffering in his office, in correspondence with jydé éué 7. déou. 
 avrov, ver. 8. The relative 6 does not refer to the thoughts expressed in 
 the previous verses, but to evayyediov: “for which,” i.e. in order to preach 
 it. Comp. the parallel passages in 1 Tim. ii. 7. 
 
 Ver. 12. Av jv airiav (see on ver. 6) refers to what immediately precedes: 
 “therefore, because I am appointed apostle.” [XXIII g.J—xai raira 
 maoyw] goes back to ver. 8. Kai expresses the relation corresponding to 
 what was said in ver. 11.—a2? obx éxacybvouac] viz. of the sufferings; said 
 in reference to uy obv érayvrfjc in ver. 8. Imprisonment is to me not a 
 disgrace, but a katyyua; comp. Rom. v. 3; Col.i. 24. The apostle thereby 
 declares that his suffering does not prevent him from preaching the 
 aptiptov Tov Kupiov (ver. 8) as a K#pvé K.7.2. The reason is given in the next 
 words: oida yap @ wexiotevka. Heydenreich inaccurately: “I know Him on 
 whom I have trusted ;” de Wette rightly : “ I know on whom I have set 
 my trust.”—This is defined more precisely by: kat réretouar, bre dvvardg 
 gore k.T.A., Which words are closely connected with those previous, in the 
 sense: I know, that He in whom I trust is mighty, ete—The confidence 
 
 1 Wiesinger: “ Death as the power to which makes the bodily death the precursor of 
 the whole man, both body and soul, has fallen death eternal.” 
 @ prey in consequence of sin, and which 
 
214 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 that God can keep His rapafjxy, is the reason of his ovk érawyxiveoba 
 With oida . . . Kai rérevopat, comp. Rom. xiv. 14; with ore duv. gore, comp. 
 Rom. xi. 23, xiv. 4; 2 Cor. ix. 8—On the meaning of rv rapabjxyy 
 [XXIILh.] (Ree. rapaxarabpxyy) wov, expositors have spoken very arbitrarily.* 
 —The same substantive occurs again at ver. 13; so, too, at 1 Tim. vi. 20.— 
 It is hardly possible to imagine that Paul in ver. 14 should have meant 
 something else by wapajxy than he means here; all the less that he con- 
 nects the same verb with it in both passages. Though here we have pov, 
 and God is the subject, still the supposition is not thereby justified. The 
 genitive “ov may either be subjective or objective. In the former case, 7 
 rapa. yov is something which Paul has entrusted or commended to God; 
 in the latter, something which God has entrusted to Paul, or laid aside for 
 him (a deposit destined for him). With the former view Hofmann under- 
 stands by rapafjxy the apostle’s soul which he has commended to God; 
 but there is nothing in the context to indicate this. Hofmann appeals to 
 Ps, xxxi. 6; but against this it is to be observed that nothing can justify 
 him in supplying the idea of “soul” with the simple word zapa6jxy.— 
 With the latter view of the genitive, Wiesinger understands by it the Coy 
 kai a@bapoia (iv. 8: 6 diKacocbvyc otépavoc) already mentioned ; so, too, Plitt ; 
 van Oosterzee, too, agrees with this view, though he, without good grounds, 
 explains ov as a subjective genitive. Against this interpretation there is 
 the fact that with the sentence eic 6 éré6yv the apostle’s thought has already 
 turned from the fw «ai agfapcia to his diaxovia, The following interpreta- 
 tion suits best with the context: for what other reason could there be for 
 the apostle’s oi éxaicyivoua than the confidence that God would keep the 
 dvaxovia in which, or for whose sake, he had to suffer, would keep it so 
 that it would not be injured by his suffering.—It is less suitable to under- 
 stand by the rapatjxy the gospel, because the pov, pointing to something 
 entrusted to the apostle personally, does not agree with this. By adding 
 cic éxeivyy thy juépav, the apostle sets forth that the zapajxy is not only 
 kept “till that day” (Heydenreich, Wiesinger, Otto *), but “for that day,” 
 
 1Theodoret says: mapakaTabyKny, Hh TV 
 
 miotw dyot Kat TO KYpYyLa, ] TOvS TLOTOUS, 
 ovs mapeeTo a’T@ 6 Xpiotos 7H os avTos Tape- 
 Gero TO Kupiw, H TapakatabyKynv Aeyer THY 
 avTipicbiav. 
 
 2 Wiesinger adduces three counter-reasons 
 —(1) in ver. 14 @vAacoew Is represented as 
 Timothy’s business, here as God’s; (2) in ver. 
 14 rapaéyxy refers to the doctrine, here it is 
 represented as a personal possession; (3) in 
 ver. 14 he is discussing the right behavior 
 for Timothy, here the confidence in the right 
 behavior. But against the first reason, it is 
 to be observed that @vddocew of every gift of 
 grace is the business both of God and of the 
 man to whom it is entrusted; in ver. 11 it is 
 expressly said, Sua mvevpatos ayiov. Against 
 the second reason, it may be urged that to in- 
 terpret mapaéyxy of doctrine in ver. 14 is at 
 
 least doubtful; but even if it were correct, 
 still the gospel, too, might be regarded as 
 something given personally to the apostle ; 
 comp. 1 Tim. i. 11: ro evayyéAcov . . . 
 TevOnv eyo; Rom. ii. 16: To evayyeAcov pov. 
 
 Against the third reason, it may be said that 
 
 no one ean really keep the blessing entrusted 
 
 to him without having confidence that God © 
 keeps it for him, and no one can have this 
 
 confidence without himself preserving the 
 
 blessing (da mv. aycov). 
 
 3 Otto wrongly uses this passage to support 
 his assertion that in this epistle “there is no 
 trace to be found of forebodings and expecta- 
 tions of death.” He says: “If Paul has con- 
 fidence in the Lord, that he can maintain for 
 him the rapa6yxy till the mapoveia, he must 
 also have hoped that his official work would 
 not be interrupted by his bodily death, since 
 
 6 émuo- 
 
CHAP. I. 13, 14. 215 
 
 i. e. that it may be then manifested in its uninjured splendor. The 
 phrase ékeivy 7 quépa is equivalent to 7 juépa tod Xpwrov, “the day of 
 Christ’s second coming”; it is found also in ver. 18, iv. 8, 2 Thess. i. 10, 
 and more frequently in the Gospels. On the meaning of the preposition 
 eic, comp. Meyer on Phil. i. 10. 
 
 Ver. 13. Exhortation to Timothy—irorirwow Eye tyrawdvtwv Adywv, dv 
 «.t.A.] For irotixwore here, as in 1 Tim. i. 16, “type” is to be retained. 
 There is no reason for explaining the word here by “sketch” (Flatt), 
 or docendi forma et ratio (Beza), or a written sketch given by the apostle 
 to Timothy (Herder). Timothy is to carry with him the words he had 
 heard from Paul as a type, i.e. in order to direct his ministry according to 
 it. Luther translates izorizwo«¢ by “ pattern” (so, too, de Wette, Wie- 
 singer, and others), but the reference thus given is not in the words them- 
 selves. The verb éyew stands here in the sense of xaréyew.! It is incor- 
 rect, with Hofmann, to take ior. tyaw. Aédyov as the predicate of the 
 object, and to assume accordingly that it is a contracted form for trorizu- 
 ow éxe bylawévtTwv Adyov THY broTiTwow TOV Adywr Ov K.T.A. Such a contrac- 
 tion is inconceivable, nor does Hofmann give any instance to prove its 
 possibility. The words év rq riote: kai ayary ti «.7.A., Which are neither 
 to be joined with jxovcac, nor, with Hofmann, referred to what follows, show 
 that the éyew does not take place externally, but is an effort of memory. 
 ’Ev is not equivalent to “with” (Heydenreich); the ior and aydrn are 
 rather regarded as the vessel, in which Timothy is to keep that type. 
 The added words: ty év Xpiorg "Ijoov, which go only with aya» (de Wette, 
 Wiesinger, Hofmann), mark the Christian character of the love which 
 Paul desires from Timothy : “the love grounded in Jesus Christ;’’ comp. 
 1 Tim.i.14. On the expression doy. ty., comp. 1 Tim.i.10. The article 
 is wanting, “‘ because this expression had become quite current (like véyo¢ 
 and others) with the author” (de Wette, Wiesinger)—Why this exhorta- 
 tion, as de Wette thinks, gives Timothy a low place, we cannot under- 
 stand; every appearance of such a thing disappears when it is remembered 
 that the apostle, grey-headed and near his end, is speaking to his pupil 
 and colleague after enduring painful experience of the unfaithfulness of 
 others, to which unfaithfulness he returns afterwards—Even de Wette 
 wrongly asserts that this verse has no connection with the one preceding; 
 for Paul has been speaking of himself and of the gospel entrusted to him, 
 with the desire that Timothy should always keep in mind his example. 
 
 Ver. 14. The exhortation in this verse is most closely connected with 
 that.in ver. 18, for rapadjxn here, as in ver. 12, is the ministry of the gos- 
 pel.—ryv Kxadjv rapadhny gbAagtov] 7 Kary rapadijxn is, like 4 KaAy didacxaria, 
 1 Tim. iv. 6; 6 kaddg ayer x.7.2., to be taken in a general objective sense. 
 There is no sufficient reason for interpreting rapa%jxn otherwise than in 
 ver. 12—whether, with Wiesinger and Hofmann, as equivalent to “the 
 
 the apostle in it does not in any way express does not mean “ maintain.” 
 
 the hope that God’ would maintain for him his 1Bengel rightly: vult Paulus ea, quae 
 official work till the day of Christ.” The “ for Timotheus semel audierat, semper anime 
 him” is arbitrarily imported, and ¢vAacoey —_ejus observari et Impressa manere. 
 
216 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 sound doctrine,” or, with van Oosterzee, as equivalent to 7d yépioua. 
 Since all that the apostle has enjoined on Timothy from ver. 6 onward 
 has special reference to the discharge of his office, we may surely under- 
 stand rapadjxy to have the same meaning here as in ver. 12; besides, as 
 already remarked, it is not conceivable that Paul, in two sentences so 
 closely connected, should have used the same word with different mean- 
 ings. It need not excite wonder that in ver. 12 Paul looks to God for the 
 preservation of the zapad#xn, while here he lays it on Timothy as a duty ; 
 God’s working does not exclude the activity of man. vAdcoew here, as in 
 ver. 12, is: “to keep from harm uninjured,” and from the tendency of the 
 whole epistle it is clear that this exhortation referred to the heresy which 
 perverted the gospel.—éva rvebuarog dyiov.]! Timothy is not to employ any 
 human means for preserving the rapadjxy; the only means is to be the 
 Holy Spirit, ze. he is to let the Spirit work in him free and unconfined, 
 and only do that to which the Spirit impels him. The Spirit, however, is 
 not something distant from him, as is shown by the words: rod évorxovvrog 
 év jutv, On évotxovvtoc, comp. ver. 5. Ev juiv denotes the Spirit as the 
 one principle of the new life, working in all believers. ‘Hyiv, here as in 
 ver. 6, must not be referred simply to Paul and Timothy; nor isit to be 
 overlooked that Paul does not say év coi. 
 
 Ver. 15. [On Vv. 15-18, see Note XXIV., page 222.] The apostle 
 reminds Timothy of those who had deserted him. [XXIV a.] This isdone 
 to incite Timothy to come to Rome with the greater speed, and also 
 not to be ashamed of Paul, the prisoner of Christ, as the others 
 had been (ver. 8).—oida¢ rovro] expresses not the probability merely (as 
 Matthies says), but the certainty that he knows.—ér areorpdgyoav pe] The 
 aorist passive has here the force of the middle voice ; for the same con- 
 struction, comp. Tit. i. 14; Heb. xii. 25; see Wahl on the passage, and 
 Buttmann, p. 166 [E. T. 192]. The word does not denote the departure 
 of any one, but is equivalent to aversari, properly, “turn one’s counte- 
 nance away from any one,” and so “throw off inwardly the acquaintance 
 
 of any one.”? Without reason, de Wette denies that it has this meaning 
 here. There is therefore in the verb no ground for the common opinion 
 that the rdvrec of év 7H ’Acia had been. with Paul in Rome, and had again 
 returned to Asia (Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger). Nor is there more 
 ground in the term used for the subject ; avre¢ oi év rH ’Acia are “all who 
 are in (proconsular) Asia;” but, as a matter of course, that cannot mean 
 all the Christians there. Perhaps Paul was thinking only of his colleagues 
 who were then residing in Asia (Otto); but in that case he would surely 
 have designated them more precisely. It is possible that the construc- 
 tion has its explanation in the addition dv éotw iyeAAog Kai ‘Epyoyévne, 
 viz.: “all the Asiatics, to whom belong Phygellus and Hermogenes.” In 
 any case, these two are named because they were the most conspicuous 
 in their unfaithfulness to the apostle. Paul gives no hint of it, and we 
 
 Chrysostom: ov yap éotiv avOpwrivns Wuxis 2So in the N. T., in the LXX., the Apocry- 
 oudé duvvdpews, TodaiTa éumiotevdevta apxegat pha of the O. T., and the classical writers; 
 mpos Thy pvdakny. comp. Otto, p. 283. 
 
CHAP. I. 15-18. pA Ui 
 
 ean hardly think it probable that they were heretics, and that the other 
 Asiatics had also fallen away from the truth (Otto). 
 
 Vy. 16-18. With these unfaithful Asiatics, Paul contrasts the faithful- 
 ness of Onesiphorus, probably that he might place an example before 
 Timothy.—d¢7 éAeo¢ 6 Kbpiog TH ’Ovyoipépov oikw] [XXIV b.] didvar ée0¢ does 
 not occur elsewhere in the N. T. Regarding the form 47, proper to 
 later Greek, see Buttmann, Ausfuhrl. Gramm. 3 107, Rem. 9; Winer, pp. 
 75 f. [E. T. p. 78]. By 6 xipic we must understand Christ, according to 
 the usage of the N. T. Onesiphorus is named only here and at iv. 19. 
 Many expositors (also Hofmann) think that his household only is in both 
 passages mentioned, because he was’ no longer in life. This opinion is 
 confirmed by the way in which mercy is wished for him in ver. 18 (de 
 Wette).—Paul expressed such a wish because of the love that had been 
 shown him; 67 rodAdkic pe avéwrte] avapiyew, properly, “cool,” then 
 “refresh, enliven” (Od. iv. 568: yop), occurring only here in the N. T. 
 (more frequently in the LXX.; avayvéic, Acts ili. 19), is not to be derived 
 from pvy7 (Beza), but from piyo. De Wette, without ground, thinks that 
 a bodily refreshment of meat and drink only is meant; it should rather 
 be referred more generally to all proofs of love on the part of Onesiphorus. 
 These were all the more precious to the apostle that they were given to 
 him in his imprisonment, and proved that Onesiphorus was not ashamed 
 of his bonds (vy. 8, 12); this is expressed in the words that follow. On 
 Gdvowv, comp. Eph. vi. 20.—Ver. 17. a4Ad] in opposition to the preceding 
 ovK.—yevouevoc év ‘Poun] (comp. Matt. xxvi.6; Acts xiii. 5). Itis not said 
 what moved him to journey to Rome; it is mere conjecture to suppose 
 that it was business matters.—orovdaiérepov (Rec. Tisch. 8: orovdaiwe) élyrncé 
 pe] The comparative is the right reading, and is to be explained by refer- 
 ring to r. dAvoiv pov ovk éxacyivdn, “all the more eagerly” (Wiesinger, 
 Hofmann).—The ¢yreiv stands in sharp contrast with azeorpddyoay pe, ver. 
 15.—The addition of kat eipe brings out that Onesiphorus had sought him 
 till he found him.—Paul at first wished mercy only to the house of Onesi- 
 phorus; he now does the same to Onesiphorus himself.—Ver. 18. Mat- 
 thies, Wiesinger, Hofmann think that edpeiy Meoc is a play on words with 
 the preceding eipe; but this is at least doubtful.—The repetition of kipzo¢ 
 is striking : 6 xbpioc . .. mapa kvpiov. We can hardly take these to refer to 
 two different subjects (according to de Wette, the first being God, the 
 second Christ; according to Wiesinger and Hofmann, the very oppo- 
 site).—6 xipioc here is in any case Christ, as in ver. 16, iv. 18 (certainly 
 not: “the world-ruling, divine principle,” Matthies). The apostle in what 
 follows might simply have said etpeiv eAeoc év éx. tT. juépa; but in his men- 
 tal vision of the judgment, seeing Christ as judge, he writes down rapa 
 xupiov just as-it occurs to him, without being anxious to remember that he 
 had begun with diy aire 6 Kipioc. The phrase etpioxes éAeog rapa with 
 genitive does not occur elsewhere; only in the Song of the Three Chil- 
 dren, ver. 14, have we evpeiv éheoc; in 2 John 8: éora . . . éeog . . . mapa 
 
 
 
 
 
 1Van Oosterzee: ‘An inartistic form of expression, in which the second xvpsos may be 
 taken for the reflective pronoun.” 
 
218 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 @cov. As to the expression, we should compare especially Heb. iv. 16: 
 iva AGBupev éAeo¢ Kai yapw ebpwpev (ebpiox. yap, Luke i. 30; Acts vil. 46, 
 and often in the LXX. and the Apocrypha of the O. T.). On év éxeivy rq 
 juépa, comp. ver. 12. This wish the apostle utters not only because of 
 the love Onesiphorus had shown him in Rome, but also because of what 
 he had done in Ephesus, of which, however, he does not wish here to 
 speak further, as it is well known to Timothy.—xai 60a év ’Egéow Sijxdvyce] 
 Heydenreich, Hofmann,! and some others supply oi, others roig ayiore ; 
 both are unnecessary. Even without supplying anything, we can of 
 course understand that he is speaking of services rendered in the church. 
 On the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that Onesiphorus was 
 actually a didkovoc of the church.—féAriov od ywooxerc] The adverb BéAriov 
 only here; the comparative does not simply stand for the positive, see 
 Winer, pp. 227 f. [E. T. p. 242]. There is a comparison implied here: 
 “than I could tell thee,” or the like.? 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 XXII. Vv. 1,2. 
 
 (a) The expression which is peculiar to the salutation of this Epistle, as com- 
 pared with any other, is Kaz’ émayyediav Cugc. The preposition here is taken by 
 Grimm, Rob., and most of the recent commentators in the sense of purpose, object 
 or intention—to make known the promise of life. That it ordinarily in the N. T. 
 has, in such constructions, the sense of according to cannot be doubted. The ex- 
 amples quoted by Winer and others in support of the former meaning hardly seem 
 to be, in the full sense, parallel with the case here presented. They either suggest 
 the idea of motion, or, like one which Winer cites—«ar’ atiyiav Aéyo—have the 
 preposition in the sense of by way of, or have some kindred peculiarity. It can- 
 not be denied, however, that the use of card as denoting direction towards an 
 object or purpose is a known use in Greek writers. The phrase kata xiorw in Tit. 
 i. 1 is a stronger case than the present one, as favoring this meaning in the 
 phrase aéoroAo¢ xara followed by an accusative. It may be said as to both cases, 
 that the presumption from Pauline and N. T. usage is strongly against this sense ; 
 that, in the verse before us, there is no special difficulty in explaining the words 
 with the ordinary sense of kara in such phrases—the promise of life is the funda- 
 mental thing, in conformity with which all offices in the church and all commis- 
 sions to preachers and messengers are given of God; and that, even in the case” 
 of Tit. i. 1 f., it is not impossible to assign to the preposition the same meaning, 
 because of the connection of faith with the eternal life promised by God, which 
 is there presented as being close and immediate. Still it must be admitted, that 
 it is much less probable that Paul would speak of himself as being an Apostle in 
 accordance with the faith of men, than as being such in accordance with the will or 
 
 1 Hofmann supposes that those services are 20tto supposes that Onesiphorus was the 
 meant which Onesiphorus, after his return first to seek Paul out in his imprisonment, 
 from Rome to Ephesus, rendered tothe apos- and that he brought the news spoken of from 
 
 tle for the purpose of disarming the charges Ephesus: but these are conjectures which 
 that had brought him into prison. This, can hardly be called probable, as there is no 
 however, is a mere conjecture, ground on which to rest them. 
 
NOTES. 219 
 
 command of God. Noyes translates by according to in 2 Tim. i. 1 and for in Tit. 
 i. 1, and this seems, not improbably, the best rendering. R. V., like A. V., has 
 according to in both cases.—(b) The discussions of some of the commentators as to 
 whether aya77 (ver. 2) is not purposely used as indicating that Timothy, having 
 lacked in courage or faith since the first epistle, could not now be called yvyjatoc, 
 or (as Alf. presents it in a milder way) as showing more of love on Paul’s part, 
 indeed, but less of confidence, must be regarded as without any reasonable ground. 
 Paul must be allowed to have written his letters with the freedom with which men 
 of his free, ardent spirit write in all ages. He wrote yvyowo¢ twice in these three 
 epistles and ayam779¢ once, instead of writing yv7jovoc three times, because he was 
 alive in the region of thought and affection, and not mechanically obedient to 
 grammarians and critics. 
 
 XXII. Vv. 3-5. 
 
 (a) The same freedom of a living writer is shown in the expression of thanks 
 +n vv. 3 f. There are certain correspondences between this passage and the 
 thanksgiving at the beginning of the Ep. to the Romans, but, when taken in con- 
 nection with the marked differences, they are not such as characterize an imitator 
 trying to pass off his work under the name of another, but a writer precisely like 
 the Apostle Paul, whose combination of similarities and dissimilarities in this way 
 is a most marked, and even inimitable, feature of his style-—(b) Of the two ex- 
 planations which Huther allows for the meaning of 47d tpoyévwv, and which he 
 quotes from Buttmann and de Wette, the latter is the more probable: “The ser- 
 vice of the Apostle’s progenitors is continued in him.” With év xadapa ovvecd. 
 we may compare év 7@ mvebuarti pov of Rom. i. 9, though the meaning of the 
 phrases is not precisely the same.—(c) The explanation of the quite difficult and 
 involved sentence beginning with ydapw éyw and ending with the fifth verse, which 
 is given by Huther, Ellicott, and Wiesinger, is the one which commends itself. 
 This explanation makes the passage accord with the general expressions of thanks 
 which are found at the opening of different epistles, (1) in that it gives a ground 
 for the thankfulness in something which the Apostle hears or knows of the person 
 or persons addressed (here: since I have been reminded of the unfeigned faith 
 that is in thee) ; (2) in that it places the mentioning of the person addressed in 
 the writer’s prayers in just that relation to the thought and sentence, which it 
 ordinarily has in such passages ; (3) in that it gives due subordination to the 
 secondary clauses étutoJ@v k.7.2., wey. K.7.A.; (4) in that it assigns to @¢ the 
 meaning as, instead of how which is far less natural. Had the Apostle intended 
 to refer to his unceasing remembrance, etc., as the ground of his thankfulness, he 
 would have used 67/, or have said how unceasingly I have, or how unceasing is ; (5) 
 in that it makes that which is evidently the thing for the bringing out of which 
 the sentence was written—the faith of Timothy, handed down to him, as it were, 
 from the previous generations—the cause of the feeling whose expression has the 
 first and prominent place in the sentence.—(d) The words peuvyt. cov TOV daKkpvwov 
 (ver. 4) are parenthetical as related to the clauses preceding and following, and 
 iva yapac TAnpwdG is to be connected with éxixovav oe ieiv, Tisch. 8th ed. unites 
 iva k.7.A. with ueuy. o. T. daxp. W. and H. place a comma between these words and 
 daxpowr, but do not place one between them and txduv700. Treg. places a comma 
 both ‘before and after the iva clause. The text adopted by R. V. places a comma 
 before the clause, and a colon after it. The punctuation of Treg. is correct, if the 
 
220 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 view of the construction just given is to be accepted. Against that given by Tisch. 
 may be urged the naturalness and fitness of connecting iva with émimxodov K,7.7., 
 and the improbability (not to say, with Huther, impossibility) of the Apostle’s say- 
 ing, that he remembers Timothy’s tears in order that he may be filled with joy. 
 Against that of W. and H., the arguments presented by Huther in his note on ver.5, 
 in opposition to Otto’s view, or the last two of them, are of so much force as to 
 make it quite improbable. That of R. V. is exposed to the objections which are 
 involved in the reasons given above for connecting i76yu, AaBov with éxyw yapw.— 
 (e) AaBov (ver. 5), thus gives the ground of Paul’s thankfulness, and, being an 
 aor. part., refers to what he had already received. It seems better to suppose 
 that the reminding referred to had come to him through some messenger, or other 
 external means. It is much less probable that the remembrance of Timothy’s 
 tears (which were shed, we may believe, at the time of Paul’s parting from him, 
 and which therefore may have been in his recollection ever since), was the cause, 
 as Huther holds. Both the word iméuvyore and the aor. part., as Holtzm. also says, 
 point to an outward, rather than an inward occasion. Alford, who with some 
 other writers, is disposed to find evidences everywhere that Timothy’s character 
 had much of weakness and timidity, supposes that there is an evidence of the 
 same thing here—the remembrance being of the past, and the present existence 
 of the faith being only introduced, somewhat later, as a confident hope. The 
 baselessness of this view, so far as this passage is concerned, is shown by almost 
 every word in the sentence, which is full of affection and commendation ; by the 
 fact that the whole record of Timothy’s career, so far as the N. T. gives it, pre- 
 sents him as Paul’s most trusted associate and helper; and by the correspondence 
 of this expression of thankfulness with the expressions of the same feeling in 
 other epistles—especially with that in Phil., which is the most affectionate letter 
 of all those which Paul addressed to the churches. 
 
 XXIII. Vv. 6-14. 
 
 (a) The yapioua of ver. 6 is that which was connected with his office as a 
 preacher. This is proved by the clause which follows, since that clause evidently 
 refers to Timothy’s ordination. This gift of the Holy Spirit the Apostle exhorts | 
 ‘ him to stir up—davaCwrrpeiv meaning either to kindle up or kindle afresh, but, in 
 either case, not necessarily implying that the flame had died away or been extin- 
 guished. The entire exhortation of this passage can be accounted for as the 
 expression of the urgent desire which, in the circumstances in which he himself 
 was at the time, Paul may have felt that his younger friend should be earnest and ~ 
 faithful in all the emergencies of his work. The appreciation of the trial which 
 would come upon his faithful helpers and companions, in case of his death, must 
 have been in his mind in view of the threatening possibilities of the future, and 
 he may, most naturally, have been impelled to urge them not to be ashamed of 
 the gospel, as he had not been, but, on the other hand, to stir up afresh the divine 
 gift which had been imparted to them, and to be ready to suffer hardship for the 
 gospel. That avafo7. does not imply that Timothy’s faith had failed, is indicated 
 by the words 6? fv airiav, which connect it immediately with the expression of 
 his confidence that the faith was still existing and with the allusion to the remind- 
 ing of it which he had received —(b) yap (ver. 7) evidently introduces a reason 
 —which belongs to the very foundation of the Christian life—for the exhortation 
 
NOTES. pial 
 
 of ver. 6. This reason is expressed on the positive and negative side. The word 
 nw refers, probably, to all Christians, not to preachers only ; comp. Rom. viii. 15. 
 mvevua, in such phrases as this, is best taken as referring to the Holy Spirit 
 (though it cannot be affirmed that this is certainly the meaning), and the geni- 
 tives are characteristic gen. These words in the genitive, however, decAiac, duva- 
 uewe, k.7.A., indicate the results which come (or, as devAiac, do not come) from the 
 Spirit,—that is, the Spirit is so characterized because He produces these results. 
 —(e) With éraoyuvdje x.7.A. (ver. 8) comp. Rom. i. 16. With some of the words 
 of vv. 9,10, comp. Eph. i.11; ii. 7,9; Rom. xv. 16, xvi. 25 f., and other passages. 
 Whether there is a special reference here to the desired coming of Timothy to 
 Rome, or whether the meaning is more general, is doubtful. But, as there is no 
 distinct allusion to a visit to Rome and no apparent necessity of limiting the words 
 in their application, it is better to adopt the latter view. If the reference is gen- 
 eral, cvyxaxoradyoov must be understood in a similar way. This suffering of evil 
 was to be for the gospel, and with Paul (civ), but not merely by sharing in his 
 work or trials in Rome—(d) kara dvvaucv is best explained in connection with the 
 following words, and thus as denoting God’s power in salvation. So EIL, Alf., 
 Fairb., Bib. Com., Wiesinger and others. Holtzm., de W., and others agree with 
 Huther. The addition of the full description of the divayi¢ as displayed in sal- 
 vation is apparently for the purpose of enforcing the exhortation uz émaiwy. K.7.A. 
 Vv. 9. 10, accordingly, both “ bring into prominence the div, Geov” (Wiesinger), 
 and “strengthen the exhortation of ver. 8” (Huther).—(e) mpd ypdvwv aiwviwy 
 (ver. 9). The similarity between the expressions here and in Rom. xvi. 25 f. 
 makes it almost certain, that, in this phrase, the Apostle refers to the purpose of 
 God, in eternity past, to bestow grace in Christ. In the sense of being thus pur- 
 posed and determined, the grace was already given. But it was not yet mani- 
 fested. The manifestation and real bestowment of it took place when Christ 
 appeared. The word éx:@aveva is, as Huther remarks, found in this place only as 
 referring to the appearance of Christ in the flesh. But the corresponding verb 
 occurs, with a similar reference, in Tit. ii. 1, Comp. also Tit. iii. 4, 5, in which 
 verses there are further points of similarity with this passage.—( jf) The use of 
 Katapyyoavtoc with Tov Javarov (ver. 10), as compared with 1 Cor. xv. 26, indicates 
 a reference to death as a power or enemy of the kingdom of God and His people. 
 The use of the word gwricavro¢g in the contrasted clause implies a revelation of 
 something unknown to their minds. The two words together seem to suggest a 
 destruction of the power of death through this revelation, and thus a removal of 
 that power, not only in itself as in 1 Cor. xv., but also in its influence and terror 
 for the Christian believer. The word Gavaroc here has, primarily and of itself, the 
 sense of physical death, but, in its-connection with the following words, it suggests 
 that which attends upon physical death as a consequence in the future. 
 
 (g) The reference in 6’ #v aitiav (ver, 12) is not to érédyv éy@ «.7.2, considered 
 in itself alone, but to the fact that Paul’s appointment as a preacher was related 
 to the proclamation of such a glorious truth so wonderfully exhibiting the power 
 of God. In this way, the connection of the entire passage iv.8 ff becomes clearly 
 manifest.—(h) The meaning of tapadyjxyv of ver. 12, if determined by the pre- 
 ceding context, would seem, most naturally, to be the d:axovia or yapiopua which had 
 been bestowed upon the Apostle. If determined by the fact that ov is added 
 here, and not in other places where the word occurs; that the adjective «aA7v, on the 
 other hand, is not here added, as it is elsewhere ; and that God is spoken of in this 
 
222 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 verse, as He is not in the other passages, as guarding (@vAdfac) the tapadjxny 
 “against that day” (in the other cases Timothy is exhorted to guard it), the word 
 would seem to mean something committed by Paul to God, rather than something 
 committed by God to Paul. TI, finally, it is to be determined by the tapadjxyv of 
 ver. 14, and that word by the corresponding word in 1 Tim. vi. 20 (see note XX y. 
 above), the meaning will be the truth which is preached—that which appertains to 
 the gospel. The considerations suggested in connection with the second way of 
 explaining the word strongly support that explanation.—(i) It will be observed 
 that the allusion to the tyaivovtec Adyor in this passage occurs only in ver. 13. 
 The fact that it does occur in this verse makes it altogether probable that ~apa- 
 YyKnv of ver. 14 corresponds in meaning exactly with tapadjxyv of 1 Tim. vi. 20. 
 The fact, on the other hand, that these words do not occur until ver. 13 may easily 
 account for a difference in the application of tapadqxyv of ver. 12 from that which 
 is made in ver. 14. The objection suggested by Huther and some others against 
 giving wapad, a different reference in the two verses of this chapter is thus 
 removed. 
 
 XXIV. Vv. 15-18. 
 
 (a) The abandonment of Paul by the persons alluded to in these verses, and 
 the grateful mention of the friend who had aided and comforted him in his 
 imprisonment, are inserted here as matters personal to himself, of which he might 
 easily and naturally write in a personal, friendly letter. Perhaps the reason 
 of their insertion may be partly, also, the desire to give emphasis to his urgent 
 request to Timothy which is presented in the preceding part of the chapter. 
 That the latter object was in the Apostle’s mind is, possibly, indicated by the 
 opening verses of the second chapter.—(b) That Onesiphorus was dead at the 
 time of the writing of this letter is not improbable, but it is by no means certain. 
 The indication of anything like praying for the dead, in the doctrinal sense of that 
 phrase, must be admitted to be very questionable. Whether there is any such 
 indication depends on whether Onesiphorus had already died, which cannot be 
 proved, and whether, if he had died, this expression of a wish must be under- 
 stood as, strictly speaking, a prayer for the dead, which also cannot be proved. 
 The doctrine, therefore, is weak in both of its foundations, and it cannot be rested 
 ’ upon this passage. Onesiphorus probably had been, or, if still living, was, a resi- 
 dent of Ephesus; but even if living, he was now absent from his home, comp. 
 iv. 19. ; ; 
 
CHAP. ILI. Zoo 
 
 CHAPTER. II. 
 
 Ver. 3. In place of od obv kaxoratycov, we should read ovykaxorabyoov, which 
 is supported by the weightiest authorities, and adopted by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 
 It is found in A C* D* K* F G® 17, 31, al., Vulg. It. Aug. Ambrosiast. Pel. Gil- 
 das. The Rec. is found apart from K L only in the altered text of C D E, and 
 especially in the Greek Fathers, for which reason Reiche regards it as the origi- 
 nal reading. Probably the beginning of ver. 1 gaveoccasion to the alteration, 
 which was also recommended by the lack of any word to which the prefixed pre- 
 position refers. Even the occurrence in some mss. of the reading ovvetpatiary¢ 
 for otpati@ry¢ is a proof that ovyKaxor, is original.'—For ‘Ijoov Xpiotod we should 
 read Xpiorov ‘Iyjoov, following the weightiest authorities—Ver. 4. The words To 
 Oe¢ added to orparevouevoc in some MSS., etc., have arisen from a misapprehen- 
 sion; the apostle is speaking not of God’s foes, but of foes in general—Ver. 6. 
 The reading mpérepov in 8 for tpa@tov seems to be a mere correction.—Ver. 7. 4 
 Aéyo] Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. rightly read 6 Aéyo, after A C F G, 17, a/., Chrys.; 4 
 is a correction, in order to bring out a reference to the three previous sentences.— 
 dacer] for don, after A C* D E F GS 17, al., Copt. Arm. ete., Ambrosiast. Fel. 
 etc.; dy is explained from i. 17, 18.—Ver. 12. For apvoiea we find in A C sev- 
 eral cursives, translations, and Fathers, the future apvycduefa, which Lachm. 
 Buttm. and Tisch. adopted; the presents (imouévoyuev ; atvorovuev) seem to be in 
 favor of our adopting the present here; but the very same reason might have 
 suggested the alteration of the future into the present.—Ver. 13. After apvycacta 
 we should read yap, according to the weightiest authorities, and this Griesb. 
 adopted into the text—Ver. 14. tov xvpiov] Instead of this, C F G & 37, al., Copt. 
 Arm. ete., Chrys. Theoph. ete., have tov Oeov (Tisch. 8); but Tov xupiov is the 
 original reading ; the correction may be explained from 1 Tim. v. 21; 2 Tim. iy. 
 1.—Instead of the infinitive Aoyouayeiv (C*** DE F G K LS, the cursives, several 
 versions, etc., Tisch.), we find Aoyoud yer in A C* Aeth. Vulg. etc. (Lachm. Buttm.). 
 According to the former reading, the verb Aoyou. is dependent on dayaprupédmevoc ; 
 according to the latter, dcazapr. is connected with what precedes, and Aoyouayer 
 begins a new imperative clause. For the decision on the point, see the explana- 
 tion of the verse.—Hic¢ ovdév] A C, 17, al., have éw’ ovdév (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.) ; 
 F GX (first hand), Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pelag. etc., ém’ ovdevi yap, Of these 
 various readings, least can be said for é7’ ovdev? yap; it seems to have arisen from 
 an endeavor to form these words in the same way as those that follow; even the 
 yap is only an insertion by way of explanation. Of the two others, éx’ obdév is to 
 be preferred as the less usual form; ei¢ oidév occurs elsewhere in the N. T., and 
 evxpyotoc, especially in iv. 11, is construed with ei¢—Ver. 19. & has tavrac before 
 tov¢ évtac, probably a later addition.—xvpiov for Xpcotov was rightly adopted by 
 
 1To Reiche’s remark: Quomodo in unius be replied that the scribe was probably in- 
 Codicis D lectione ovvotpariétys lectionis duced by the previous cvyxak. to prefix evr 
 gvykakor. praesidium sit, non video, it may also before the word otpatiérys. 
 
224 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 Griesb.—Ver. 21. #jy:acpévov, ebypyotov, instead of pyracpy. Kai ebxp., after A C** 
 D* E* F G, ete.—Ver. 22. Between werd and tv there is found 7dvtwv (Lachm. 
 Buttm.) in A C F G 17, 28, al., Aeth. Slav. ete., Chrys. Theodoret, etc.; F G fur- 
 ther omit the article Tév. Since wdvre¢ stands in the same expression at Rom. 
 xi. 12, 1 Cor. i. 2, it seems to have been inserted from these passages. Tisch. 
 omits 7advrwy, on the authority of DEK L, al., Vulg. Copt. Syr. ete—Ver. 25. 
 For 66, Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. rightly read 64’y, after A C D* F G ® (first 
 hand), 31, al., Ephr. Chrys. ms. Isidor. 
 
 Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-7, see Note XXV., pages 241-243.] After interrupting 
 his exhortations by an allusion to the unfaithful Asiatics and to the faith- 
 ful Onesiphorus, Paul with oi resumes his exhortations to Timothy, at the 
 same time connecting them by oiv with those already given. [XXV a.] 
 In the first place, he now appeals to him : évdvvayod év 7H yapite TH év Xp. ’Tyo.] 
 [XXV b.] évdvvapoiodai does not mean : “ feel oneself strong,” nor : “ depend 
 on something” (Heydenreich) ; but: “ become strong, grow strong” (see 
 Eph. vi. 10). The active voice is found in iv. 17 and 1 Tim.i.12. As the 
 apostle sees the end of his labors draw nearer, he is the more anxious 
 that Timothy, for whom he has the warmest paternal love (réxvov sv), 
 should become a stronger and bolder champion for the Lord.—év rq yaperc] 
 may either be a completion of the idea of évdvvauod (Wiesinger), or define 
 it more precisely (van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann). The second view is 
 the correct one: Timothy is to become strong by the yapic 7 év Xp., that 
 he may be capable of discharging faithfully the office entrusted to him; 
 comp. the passage in Eph. vi. 10.—) yapic 7 év Xp. ’1.] is not the office of 
 teacher (Calovius and others), nor is it equivalent to ydpeya, i.6; on the 
 other hand, it is not “the life imparted by divine grace,” nor “ the redemp- 
 tion” of the Christian (Wiesinger); it is objectively the grace dwelling in 
 Christ, the grace of Jesus Christ, or better: “the grace obtained for us in 
 the person of Christ’ (Hofmann).—év is explained by Chrysostom and 
 others as equivalent to dia; this is not incorrect, only that év indicates a 
 ‘more internal relation than 6:4. The believer lives in the grace which is 
 in Christ ; the strengthening to which Timothy is exhorted can only be 
 effected by his abiding in this grace. 
 
 Ver. 2. While ver. 3 corresponds with the first verse, ver. 2 seems to con- 
 tain a thought foreign to this connection. But as the contest to which ~ 
 Paul is exhorting Timothy, consists substantially in the undaunted preach- 
 ing of the pure gospel and in the rejection of all heresy, it was natural for 
 him to exhort Timothy to see that others were armed with the word for 
 which he was to strive. The true warrior must care also for his compan- 
 ions in the fight.—kai @ jKoveac rap’ éuov| (comp. i. 13: dia roAAGY papripwr). 
 These words belong immediately to jxovcac ; Heydenreich is wrong im sup- 
 plying paprupoiyueva or BeBawineva. According to Clemens Alexandrinus, 
 Hypotyp. i. 7, Oecumenius, Grotius, and others, uéprupec is equivalent to 
 véuoc Kai rpodyrai, for which there is as little justification as for the opinion 
 that the other apostles are meant. The preposition d:4@ is explained by 
 Winer, p. 354 [E. T. p. 378]: “ intervenientibus multis testibus, with inter- 
 
CHAP. II. 1-3. 225 
 
 vention, i.e. here in presence of many witnesses ” (so, too, the more recent 
 expositors). Right; but da is not equivalent to évémiov (1 Tim. vi. 12), Aca 
 intimates that the witnesses were present to confirm the apostle’s word, 
 or, as Wiesinger says, “that their presence was an integral element of that 
 act to which the apostle is alluding.” —According to Matthies, van Ooster- 
 zee, Hofmann, the apostle is thinking here of his public discourses on 
 doctrine ; but the whole character of the expression, particularly also the 
 otherwise superfluous addition of dca 0AA6v wapripor, make it more prob- 
 able that the words refer to a definite fact, the fact spoken of in 1 Tim. iv. 
 14; 2 Tim. i. 6(Wiesinger). In that case, the paprupec are the presbyters 
 and other members of the church who were present at Timothy’s ordina- 
 tion. Mack rightly directs attention to 1 Tim. iv. 14; but he is wrong in 
 explaining dca apt. by dia mpogyreiac, “in consequence of many testimo- 
 nies.”—raita rapadou mioroig avdporoc] [XXV c.] Heydenreich: “ this 
 doctrine commit to faithful keeping and further communication as a 
 legacy, as a precious jewel” (comp. Herod. ix. 45: rapadijxyv tyiv ta érea 
 rade Tid_ewac); but the expression 4@ jxovoac does not refer so much to the 
 whole of evangelic doctrine as to the instructions given to Timothy for 
 the discharge of his office.—ruotoi¢ avdpéroc] not “ believing,” but “ faith- 
 ful, trustworthy ” men.—oirive¢ ixavoi éoovtar kai Erépove didaEac] Heydenreich 
 thinks that this denotes a second quality of those to be instructed by 
 Timothy, a quality in addition to their “honest sense,” viz. their capacity 
 for teaching ; but oirwec, which, as contrasted with the simple relative pro- 
 noun, refers to a subject undefined, but in various ways definable,’ points 
 back to moroic, so that the meaning is: “who as such,” etc. The future 
 écovra: does not stand in the same sense as the present, but denotes their 
 capacity as one depending on the tradition to be imparted to them (“as 
 the consequence of the rapatidecda,” Wiesinger). The xai before érépove 
 is not to be overlooked; “ others too,” 7. e. “others in turn.” Who are 
 the érepo.? According to the common presupposition, with which van 
 Oosterzee also agrees, the frepo are the church, or more generally the 
 hearers of the preaching of the gospel. But in this view the xa/, which 
 does not belong to érépoue ddé=ac (Hofmann), but to érépove, is inexplicable ; 
 itis more probable that Paul means other moroi dvdpwror (de Wette, Wies- 
 inger). Paul gathered round him pupils to whom he gave instructions in 
 regard to their office ; they, too, are todo the same; those chosen by them 
 the same in their turn, etc., that in the church there may abide a stock 
 of apostolic men who will see to the propagation of pure doctrine.—The 
 words did 7oAAGY paptipor show that there is no thought of a secret doc- 
 trine; nor is he speaking of the regular employment of teachers who, in 
 the absence of Timothy, are to take his place in the church at Ephesus, 
 “ne sine episcopo vaga oberret ecclesia” (Heinreichs). 
 
 Ver. 3. EvyxaxordOnoov] [XXV d.] Timothy is not to shun a community 
 of suffering with the apostle, i. 8, 12, 16.—d¢ katoc orpariarye “Inoov Xpiorov | 
 otparidtnc stands elsewhere in the N. T. only in its proper sense, but, as is 
 
 1gee Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 387. 
 15 
 
226 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 well known, the kindred words orpareia, otpareveoba, are often used of the 
 Christian life. Here, however, the apostle is speaking not generally of 
 Timothy’s work as a Christian, but more specially of his work in the office 
 committed to him, viz. of his struggle against the opponents of evangelic 
 truth and the toils connected therewith. [XXV e.] 
 
 Ver. 4. “ Hoc versu commendatur 76 abstine; accedit versu seq. 76 sus- 
 tine” (Bengel).—ovdei¢ otpatevouevoc | alludes to OTpaTlarye : “no one serving 
 as a soldier” (de Wette); comp. 1 Tim. i. 18.—éuréxerar raic tov Biov mpay- 
 pateiaic*] éudAéxecbac elsewhere only in 2 Pet. ii. 20.—zpayyareia] occurs 
 only here in the N. T. (the verb mpayyareteo#a, Luke xix. 18); ai tov Biov 
 mpayyz. are the occupations which form means of livelihood; Heydenreich : 
 “the occupations of the working class as opposed to those of the soldier 
 class.” —From these the orpatevéuevoc abstains iva t6 otpatodoygoavte apécy | 
 atpatoroyyoac (only here), from oroarojoyeiv: “ gather an army, raise troops,” 
 is a term for a general.—Only that soldier who gives himself up entirely 
 to military service, and does not permit himself to be distracted by other 
 things, only he fulfills the general’s will. The application to the orparirye 
 Ino. Xp. is self-evident; he, too, is to devote himself entirely to his service, 
 and not to involve himself in other matters which might hinder him in 
 his proper calling. The literal interpretation, according to which the 
 apostle or preacher should take no concern whatever in civil affairs, is 
 contradicted by Paul’s own example; according to the precept here 
 given, he is to avoid them only when they are a hindrance to the duties 
 of his office. 
 
 Ver. 5. A new thought is added, that the contender who wishes to be 
 crowned must contend voyizwc.—éav dé Kai 402% Tic] kai connects this thought 
 with what precedes: “if one, too, does not permit himself to be kept 
 from the struggle by other occupations; ”? but the figure here is different 
 from that we had in ver. 4, a@deiv (az. Aey. in the N. T.) denoting the con- 
 test in running, to which the Christian calling is often compared; comp. 
 iv. 7, 8; 1 Cor. ix. 24, 25.—ob oredavovrar, éav yy) vopiuwc abAjon] The runner, 
 in order to gain the prize, must in the contest adhere to its definite rules. 
 Theodoret : kai 7 abAnruch véuore Exer Tide, Ka? ob¢ xpoohKer Tove aOAnrac aywvi- 
 * Ceotar' 6 dé mapa TobTove Tadaiwy, Tov oTeddvwr diayapraver. In this, too, accord- 
 “ing to 1 Cor. ix. 25, éyxpatevecfac should be observed.* The word vouiuoc 
 occurs only here and in 1 Tim. i. 8—The thought contained in it is this, 
 that Timothy, in order to share in the reward, must conduct himself in 
 his evangelic warfare according to the laws of his evangelic office. 
 
 Ver. 6. To the two foregoing sentences Paul adds still another, expressed 
 figuratively : Tov Komi@vra yewpyov det mparov k.t.A. Many expositors assume 
 
 1Ambros. de Offic. i. 1: is, qui imperatori 
 militat, a susceptionibus litium, actu nego- 
 tiorum forensium, yenditione mercium pro- 
 hibetur humanis legibus.—Athan. Dict. et 
 Interpr. Parab. 8. Ev. qu. 119: ei yap émryecw 
 Baovrct 0 péAAwy oTparevecOat ovK apécel, Eav 
 4n adjoyn Tagas Tas TOU Biov povtidas, Toop 
 
 padAov pméAAwY oTpaTevOjvar TO Emovpaviw 
 Bactrc ; 
 
 2Hofmann denies this connection of 
 thought, maintaining wrongly that «ai could 
 only have this meaning if the apostle had 
 continued to use the same figure. 
 
 8Comp. Galen, Comm. in Hippocr. i. 15: o% 
 
CHAP. Il. 4—6. 227 
 that there is here an inversion of phrase, and explain the words as equiva- 
 lent to Tov yewpydv, kom@vTa TpaTov, dei TOV KapToOv peTad., or as Wahl and 
 Winer (in the earlier editions of his Grammar) put it, tov yewpyov, tov HéA0vTa 
 TOV KapTav petad., dei TpTov Koray, SO that mparov is attached to koma in 
 meaning, and the sentence contains an exhortation; Beza: necesse est 
 agricolam, ut fructus percipiat, prius laborare. Heinrichs, on the other 
 hand, remarks: nihil attinet, mutare quidquam, aut transponere, dum- 
 modo zpérev cum Grotio adverbialiter pro ita denum dictum putemus, 
 emphasinque ponamus in 7dr xom@v7a. But this explanation of zpérov 
 cannot be justified. Matthies, de Wette, and others reject the supposition 
 of any inversion, and explain xpérov as “first before all others,” so that 
 the meaning would be: “as the husbandman first enjoys the fruits of the 
 field, so, too, has the servant of the gospel a notable reward to expect for 
 his work” (de Wette); but this thought diverges entirely from that con- 
 tained in vv. 4, 5, and neglects, besides, the emphasis laid on xomvta.— 
 It is accordingly to be explained: Not every one, but that husbandman 
 who toils hard at his work, is first to enjoy the fruits; Wiesinger: “the 
 working farmer has the right of first enjoying the fruits, not he who does 
 not work; therefore, if thou dost wish to enjoy the fruits, work.” So, too, 
 van Oosterzee. Hofmann, against this explanation, upholds the meaning 
 of dei, which does not express what ought to happen, but what must happen, 
 in so far as it lies in the nature of things. Aez certainly has this meaning 
 of necessity (not that of duty); but if xom@vra be regarded as furnishing 
 the condition under which the husbandman tilling the ground must, 
 before all others, be partaker of the fruits of the ground tilled, then dei 
 in the former explanation presents no difficulty ; in this case it cannot be 
 said, with Hofmann, that the zpérov is meaningless. It is to be observed 
 that xoriévra does not contrast the husbandman who works with the hus- 
 bandman who does not work, but the husbandman who works hard with 
 the husbandman who carries on his work Jazily—Hofmann, in interpret- 
 ing the sentence as declaring that Timothy must bear everything, whether 
 good or bad, that arises from his work, departs from the figure, which 
 clearly does not say that the husbandman must content himself alike 
 with good fruit and with weeds, but rather that in the nature of things 
 the husbandman should before all others enjoy the fruit for which he has 
 labored. It is incorrect, with Theodoret and Oecumenius, to understand 
 xporov of the preference over the pupil which is the teacher’s due; or to 
 find in the words of the apostle the thought that the teacher must appro- 
 priate to himself the fruits of the spirit which he wishes to impart to 
 others. Even Chrysostom rightly rejected the opinion,’ that here the 
 
 suffering want in it. This, however, is a re- 
 proof which cannot be justified. Van Ooster- 
 zee rightly says: It is undoubtedly a Pauline 
 
 yuuvacTal Kal ol vowisws aOAodYTES ETL peEV 
 Tov apiotov Tov aptov povov eaBiovar, emt dé 
 tov Seimvouv To Kpéas. 
 
 1This opinion is also brought forward by 
 Otto, who refers all three sentences to anxiety 
 regarding bodily wants, as if Timothy had 
 become careless in his office through fear of 
 
 principle that the teacher has a right to 
 suitable support from the church; but this is 
 not the principle taught here. 
 
228 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 apostle is speaking of the bodily support due to the teacher; but he 
 himself gives the words a wrong subsidiary sense when he thinks that 
 Paul wishes to console Timothy regarding the preference shown in the 
 reward. 
 
 Ver. 7. [XXV//.] As he has been expressing his exhortations in figura- 
 tive gnomes, Paul thus continues: véec 6 2éyw] which does not refer imme- 
 diately to the thoughts expressed, as Heydenreich, Matthies, and others 
 think, but to the form of expression. It does not mean, therefore: “lay 
 these exhortations to heart,” but: “mark or understand what I say” (de 
 Wette); comp. Matt. xxiv. 15; Eph. iii. 4, 20; so, too, Hofmann, only 
 that he for no sufficient reason refers the words merely to the last sen- 
 tence. Plitt is of opinion that the apostle is intending thereby to give a 
 quite general warning against misconceptions; but this would be an 
 arbitrary disturbance of the connection of ideas—To this exhortation 
 Paul confidently adds that God will not fail to bestow on Timothy under- 
 standing in this and all other points; yap here, as elsewhere, is a particle 
 of explanation.—év rao. belongs to this verse, and not, as Sam. Battier 
 thinks, to the following one. 
 
 Ver. 8. [On Vy. 8-18, see Note XXVI., page 248.] Moyydveve "Inoovv 
 Xpiordv] pvryoveve is usually followed by the genitive; but the accusative 
 is found both here and at 1: Thess. ii. 9. Timothy is to remember Jesus 
 Christ, that he may gain the proper strength for discharging his official 
 duties—to remember especially His resurrection, in which He triumphed 
 over sufferings and death, and in which is contained for the believer the 
 seal of his victory;! hence Paul adds: éyyyepyévov éx vexpav, “as one who 
 rose from the dead.” [XXVI a.J—The added asyndeton: é oxépyatoc 
 AaZid, does not denote the humiliation, but the Messianic dignity of 
 Christ.2. The antithetical relation between the two clauses is here the 
 same as in Rom. i. 3, 4 (é« oz. AaBid . . . & avaordcewc vexpov), where it is 
 distinctly marked by kata capka . . Hofmann incorrectly 
 makes both é« orépy. A. and é« vexpov depend on éyyyepuévov; in that case 
 the verb would have to be taken in two different senses; besides, é« 7. 
 _oxépu. is nowhere found in connection with éyeipec#a. There is nothing 
 - to indicate (Wiesinger) that é« orépy. AaBid*is an antithesis “to the docetic 
 error of the heretics” (van Oosterzee). Heydenreich rightly rejected the 
 secondary references which many expositors give to these words, such as: 
 that they indicate a similarity between the vicissitudes of Christ’s life and 
 those of David; or that they are to serve as a proof of the certainty of 
 Christ’s resurrection (Michaelis); or that they denote the whole state of 
 
 . KaTa TvEvua. 
 
 1Hofmann wrongly maintains that “the 
 remembrance of Jesus Christ was not to be a 
 pledge to Timothy of his victory over all he 
 had to encounter for Christ’s sake, but only 
 to make him willing to endure.” Such wil- 
 lingness could only have comé to him from 
 the conviction that the victory of Christ was 
 a pledge of victory to the believer. 
 
 Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, pp. 113 f.): 
 
 “Timothy being disinclined to suffer for the 
 gospel’s sake, the apostle reminds him that 
 through death Jesus attained to the heavenly 
 glory, to which He had a right through His 
 descent from the line of David.’—Van Oos- 
 terzee incorrectly assumes that é« omépu. A. 
 simply denotes the human origin of Jesus. 
 The apostle clearly goes beyond this in men: 
 tioning David oy name. 
 
CHAP! tie 7-10) 229 
 
 Christ’s humiliation (Mosheim), and so on—The added words: kara 7d 
 evayyéAtov ov, may be referred either to pryydveve .7.A. (Hofmann), or to the 
 attributes of "Ijo. Xpurév. The latter reference is the more probable one; 
 Paul, as a rule, does not use the formula xara 7d evayy. to denote the rule 
 for the believer’s conduct, but to confirm a truth he has expressed (comp. 
 Rom. i. 16, xvi. 25; 1 Tim. i. 11). To refer it only to é orépu. A. is arbi- 
 trary. Still more arbitrary is Jerome’s opinion, that Paul by 70 ebayy. pov 
 means the gospel of Luke (Baur). 
 
 Ver. 9. In this verse Paul again, as before, points to his own example, 
 in order to encourage Timothy to the ovyxaxorabeiy +6 eva} yedio, 1. 8, ii. 3. 
 —iv »] [XXVI 0.] according to Paul’s manner, refers to evayyédiov imme- 
 diately preceding, and not to the more distant "Ijoovv Xpicrév. The prepo- 
 sition év is not equivalent to did, Col. iv. 8 (Heydenreich). Matthies 
 presses the original signification too far when he gives the interpretation : 
 “the gospel is, as it were, the ground and soil in which his present lot is 
 rooted.” Beza rightly gives the meaning thus: cujus annuntiandi munere 
 defungens; de Wette says: “in preaching which.” Comp. Phil. iv. 3; 
 1 Thess. ii. 2. Hofmann incorrectly explains év by “in consequence of,” 
 which év never does mean, not even in 1 Tim. i. 18.—xaxora9@] is an allu- 
 sion to ver. 3.—yéype deoudv] comp. Phil. ii. 8: péype Savdrov.—Qe Kakoup- 
 yoc directs attention to the criminal aspect of Paul’s bonds, and thereby 
 strengthens the xaxorado wéyps deouov.! The word kaxovpyoc occurs only 
 here and in Luke’s gospel; it is synonymous with kaxoroic, 1 Pet. iv. 14. 
 —a4An 6 Adyog Tov Oecd ob dédJerac] [XXVI c¢.] Chrysostom explains it: 
 deopovvtar pév ai yeipec, aA2 ovy | yA@tta; Comp. Phil. i. 12. The meaning 
 according to this would be: ‘the bonds do not, however, hinder me from 
 freely preaching the gospel.” But this limitation is not contained in the 
 words themselves; they have rather the more general meaning: “though 
 I (to whom the gospel is entrusted) am bound, the gospel itself is not 
 thereby fettered, but goes freely forth into the world and works unfettered ” 
 (2 Thess. ili. 1: 6 Adyoc rod kvpiov rpéyer). This is the very reason of 
 the apostle’s joy in his bonds, that Christ is preached; comp. Phil. i. 
 18. This connection of ideas does not, however, compel us to take da 
 tovro with these words (Hofmann). If so connected, d:@ roiro would 
 rather appear to be a modification added loosely; besides, Paul never 
 places it at the end of a sentence—Some have wrongly understood by 
 6 Ady. t. @. here, the divine promises, and have taken ot déderar to mean 
 that these do not remain unfulfilled. 
 
 Ver. 10. Ava roir0] Bengel : “ quia me vincto evangelium currit.” Hey- 
 denreich wrongly refers it at the same time to the reward to which ver. 8 
 alludes. The knowledge that the gospel is unfettered in its influence 
 enables Paul to endure all things for the sake of the éxJexroi. Ad rovre 
 cannot be referred to what follows (Wiesinger), because of the did rove 
 éxdexrove ; it would be another thing if iva «.7.4. were joined immediately 
 
 1 Otto, opposed to Wieseler, rightly remarks as to an increase in the severity of his 
 that these words do not justify any inference imprisonment. 
 
230 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 with izopvévo; but even in that case the “ abrupt transition ” would still be 
 an objection.—ravra irouévw] ixouéverv does not denote suffering pure and 
 simple, but the willing, stedfast endurance of #t—By adding to révra 
 trouévo the words dia tod¢ éxAexrovc, explained by the emcnnaee 
 clause, Paul declares that he patiently endured everything for the sake of 
 the éxAexroi, because he knows that the gospel is not bound—is not made 
 ineflectual—by his bonds. Were it otherwise, were the gospel hindered 
 in its influence by his suffering, then he would not endure for the sake of 
 the éxdexroi. Hofmann has no grounds, therefore, for thinking that the 
 connection of dia rovro with the sentence following it would give an 
 impossible sense. It is wrong to supply «ai before dia +. é«a. (Heyden- 
 reich), as if these words furnished an additional reason to that contained 
 in dia tovTo.—oi éxAexroi] This name is given to believers, inasmuch as the 
 deepest ground of their faith is the free choice of God (i. 9). Heydenreich 
 leaves it indefinite whether “ Christians already converted” are meant 
 here, or “those elected to be future confessors of Christianity; ” so, too, 
 Matthies; de Wette, on the other hand, understands only the latter, 
 whereas Grotius and Flatt think only of the former. The words them- 
 selves do not prove that Paul had any such distinction in mind; kai airoi 
 does not necessarily imply a contrast with present believers (de Wette), 
 but may be quite well used in relation to the apostle himself, who was con- 
 scious of the cwrypia attained in Christ (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). Comp. 
 especially Col. i. 24, where the apostle places his suffering in relation to 
 the éxkajoia, as the cdua tov Xpiorov jof which the ékAexroi are members.! 
 In how far the apostle bears his afflictions dia rode éxA., is told by the 
 words: iva kai avtol cwrnpiac tiywor tHe év Xp. "Injoov. The question how 
 the apostle might expect this result from his rdvra bropéverw, cannot be 
 answered by saying, with Heinrichs: “as he hoped to be freed from his 
 sufferings;” the result was to be effected not by a release, but by the 
 patient endurance of the suffering, inasmuch as this bore testimony to 
 the genuineness and strength of his faith, not, as van Oosterzee thinks, 
 because the apostle stedfastly continued to preach. The apostle’s suffer- 
 "ing for the gospel was itself a preaching of the gospel. We must, of 
 course, reject the notion that Paul regarded his sufferings as making 
 Atonement for sin, like those of Christ—The addition pera dé6En¢ aiwviov 
 points to the future completion of the salvation. It directs special atten- 
 tion to an element contained in the owrypia, and does not contrast the 
 positive with the negative conception (Heydenreich). 
 
 Vv. 11-13. In order to arouse the courage of faith, Paul has been direct- 
 ing attention to the resurrection of Christ and to His own example; he 
 now proceeds, in a series of short antithetical clauses, to set forth the rela- 
 tion between our conduct here and our condition hereafter. This he 
 introduces with the words motd¢ 6 Adyoc. [XXVId.] The yép following 
 
 1Hofmann rightly remarks: “The apostle sponsibility, if he did not help those destined 
 names those towards whom he has to fulfill for salvation to that for which God ordainea 
 his. calling, for the elect’s sake, because this them.” - 
 designation denotes the heaviness of his re- 
 
 ‘ 
 
CHAP. I. 11-13. 231 
 seems, indeed, to make the words a confirmation of the thought previ- 
 ously expressed, as in 1 Tim. iv. 9 (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
 Flatt, de Wette, Wiesinger, Plitt); but Paul only uses this formula to con- 
 firm a general thought. There is, however, no general thought in the 
 preceding words, where Paul is speaking only of his own personal cir- 
 cumstances. Hence the formula must, as in 1 Tim. i. 15, iii. 1, be referred 
 here to what follows, and yap explained by “namely” (so, too, van 
 Oosterzee).—We cannot say for certain whether the sentences following 
 are really strophes from a Christian hymn! or not; still it is not improba- 
 ble that they are, all the more that the same may be said of 1 Tim. iii. 16. 
 The first sentence runs: ei ovvareddvopev Kai ovfjoouev] ovv refers to Christ, 
 expressing fellowship, and not merely similarity. De Wette points us to 
 Rom. vi. 8 for an explanation of the thought; but the context shows that 
 he is not speaking here of spiritual dying, the dying of the old man, 
 which is the negative element of regeneration (against van Oosterzee), but 
 of the actual (not merely ideal) dying with Christ. In other words, he is 
 speaking of sharing in the same sufferings which Christ endured (so also 
 Hofmann), and whose highest point is to undergo death. The meaning 
 therefore is: “if we in the faith of Christ are slain for His sake;” comp. 
 Phil. iii. 10; also Rom. viii. 17; Matt. v.11; John xv. 20, and other pas- 
 sages, The aorist cvvaredavouer is either to be taken: “if we have entered 
 into the fellowship of His death,” or it denotes the actual termination : 
 “ ifya® are dead with Him, we shall also live with Him.”—ov{joouev, cor- 
 responding to ovvareddvouev, is not used of the present life in faith, but of 
 the future participation in Christ’s glorified life (so, too, Hofmann) ; comp. 
 1 Thess. v. 10.—Ver. 12. The second sentence runs: ¢ trouévouer, Kat 
 ovBaciAevoouev| This sentence corresponds with the previous one in both 
 members; comp. Rom. will. 17, where ovurdoyew and ovrdogacdauev are 
 opposed to one another. On ovufac., comp. Rom. v. 17 (év Com Baovdeboove:) ; 
 it denotes participation in the reign of the glorified Messiah.? Like death 
 and life, so are enduring and reigning placed in contrast.—The third sen- 
 tence is a contrast with the two preceding: «i aprycéueda, sc. Xprordv] 
 comp. Matt. x. 33; 2 Pet. ii. 1; Jude 4; used here specially of the verbal 
 denial of Christ, made through fear of suffering. kaxeivoc apvjoetar nuac : 
 “he will not recognize us as His own,” the result of which will be that we 
 remain in a state without grace and without blessing. The meaning of 
 this sentence is confirmed by ver. 13.—ei amotovmev, éxeivog muoto¢ pévec] 
 azote does not mean here: “ not believe, be unbelieving ”* (Mark xvi. 
 11, 16; Acts xxviii. 24), but—in correspondence with dapveicta— be un- 
 faithful,” which certainly implies lack of that genuine faith from which 
 the faithful confession cannot be separated. In Rom. iii. 3 also, unbelief 
 
 1Miinter, Ueber die dlteste christliche Poesie, 
 p. 29, and Paulus, Memorabilia, i. 109. 
 
 2The ov¢qv begins for the believer imme- 
 diately after his’ death (Phil. i. 23; comp. 
 also Luke xxiii. 43); the guuBactdAevery not 
 till after Christ’s tapovoia; comp. Hofmann. 
 
 3Such is the explanation of Chrysostom, 
 who gives Christ’s resurrection as the sub- 
 ject of unbelief: ei amotodmev, OTe avéeotn, 
 ovdévy amo €xecvos, and 
 assigns to apvyjcac@a yap éavt. ov Suv. the 
 strange signification of ovx €xet dvaww mH elvac, 
 
 TovTov BAamTeTat 
 
232 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 and unfaithfulness go together, since the people of Israel, to whom the 
 Adyta Ocovd Were given, showed themselves unfaithful to God by rejecting 
 the promised Messiah, and this after God had chosen them for His 
 people.—éxeivog miotd¢ péver] miotég can only mean “faithful.” The faith- 
 fulness of the Lord is shown in the realization of His decree—both in 
 acknowledging and in rejecting; the context preceding shows that the 
 latter reference predominates.—The next words confirm this truth: 
 apvgcac8ar yap éavrov ov divarat, Which declare the azoria of the Lord to 
 be an impossibility, since it involves a contradiction of Himself, of His 
 nature. 
 
 Ver. 14. [On Vv. 14-21, see Note XX VIL., pages 243-245.] In this verse 
 the apostle goes on to set before Timothy how he is to conduct himself in 
 regard to the heresy appearing in the church.—raira sropipvyoKe) 
 [X XVII a.] raira refers to the thoughts just expressed and introduced by 
 the formula ziori¢ 6 Adyoc; of these thoughts Timothy is to remind the 
 church, not future teachers in particular (Heydenreich). The apostle 
 says trouvgoKerv, because these thoughts were known to the church; 
 comp. 2 Pet. 1. 12 (ov ayeAgow . .. bude bropupvhoxen . . . Kairep eiddrac).— 
 Stawaptupouevog évoriov Tov Kvpiov] iv. 1; 1Tim. v.21. With the reading 
 Aoyouayer (see the critical remarks) these words belong to what precedes, 
 a new section beginning with 7) Aoyoudyer; on the other hand, with the 
 Ree. ph Royouayeiv, the infinitive depends on dvayzapr. Hofmann wishes to 
 take the Rec. imperatively ; but to give an imperative force to an infini- 
 tive standing among several imperatives, would be something unheard 
 of—It can hardly be decided which is the right reading. De Wette and 
 Wiesinger have declared themselves for the Rec., because “the verb 
 d:auapt. is commonly used by Paul for introducing exhortations, and is 
 not in keeping with the weak appeal raira tropuiurvyone.” These reasons, 
 however, are not sufficient, since dvawapr. may quite as well be connected 
 with what precedes as with what follows, although it does not occur else- 
 where in the N. T. in such a connection; and raira izou. is not used by 
 the apostle in so weak a sense that he could not strengthen it by such a 
 
 form of adjuration. Nor can it be maintained that the exhortation jj 
 Aoyouayer is unsuitable for Timothy, since there is again at ver. 16 an 
 exhortation quite similar in nature; comp. also ver. 23. There is more 
 force in Reiche’s observation : supervacaneum .. . fuisset, Timotheo, uno 
 quasi halitu bis fere idem imperare, ju) Aoyoudyer, and ver. 16, rac OF... 
 kevodwviac tepiictaco ; but, on the other hand, 7 Aoyoudyec is a suitable addi- 
 tion to the exhortation : raita brouiwvyoxe. On the whole, seeing that the 
 transition from the one exhortation to the other is somewhat abrupt, and 
 that the authorities are mostly on the side of the Rec., this reading should 
 be preferred—On the conception of. Aoyouaye, comp. 1 Tim. vi. 4.—ei¢ 
 [éx’] obdiv yphoyov] Regarding this appended clause in apposition, see 
 Winer, p. 497 [E. T. p. 533]. yproruoc is a word which only occurs here; 
 in Tit. iii. 9 the Cyr#oere Of the heretics are called avadedeic Kat pataror.—ént 
 Katactpo¢h Tov axovdvtar] “which is useful for nothing, (serving rather) to the 
 perversion of the hearers ; Chrysostom : ov povov ovdév &k ToLVTOV KéndoC, aAAa 
 
CHAP. Ir. 14, 15. 233 
 
 kai BAaBy 70AAG.—Kataotpooy (opposed to rH oixodouq) here and in 2 Pet. ii. 
 16, where it has its proper meaning; it is synonymous with «aaipeore in 
 Z Cor. xiii 10. ’Exié here does not express the aim (Gal. v. 18; Eph. ii. 
 10), but the result (Wiesinger). Xenophon, Memor. ii.19: éxi B24Bn. 
 
 Ver. 15. [X XVII 6.] Continuation of the exhortation to Timothy.— 
 arovdacov ceavtov JdKyuov rapactioat 7H OH] orovdafew expresses the eager 
 striving, as in Eph. iv. 3, 1 Thess. ii. 17, etc., and has a suggestion of mak- 
 ing haste, iv. 9, 21; Tit. ili. 12—déxuov, equivalent to probatus, tried, is 
 absolute, and should not to be taken with épyaryv (Luther, Mack). A more 
 precise limitation is given in the next words: rapactjoac 6 OG; comp. 
 Rom. vi. 13, 16, and other passages in the Pauline epistles; here it has 
 the additional meaning: “for the service of.” Hofmann gives an unsuit- 
 able construction by joining 76 @cé—in spite of rapacr#oar—with déxipov 
 (= “approved by one”), separating épyatyv averaicyvytov from one 
 another, and connecting épyaryy with déxuov, so that averaicyvytov forms a 
 second predicate to épydryv, opforouovvra «.7.A. being added as a third. All 
 this not only assigns to déxiwoc a meaning which it never has in the N. T, 
 (not even in Rom. xiv. 18; comp. Meyer on the passage), but separates 
 mapaorqoat from the 76 Geo standing next to it, although Paul almost never 
 uses the word without adding a dative of the person (comp. in particular, 
 Rom. vi. 13, xii. 1; 1 Cor. viii. 8; 2 Cor. xi. 2; Eph. v. 27).—épydrnv averaé 
 oxvvtov] épydtnc specially de opere rustico; used, besides, of the work in 
 the field of God’s kingdom (2 Cor. xi. 18; Phil. iti. 2)—averaioyuvroc; in 
 the N. T. a azag Aey., and in classic Greek used only in Sp. as an adverb 
 with the signification: “immodestly, shamelessly.” It is synonymous 
 with avaicyvvtoc, which in classic Greek is used only in a bad sense: “ one 
 who is not ashamed when he ought to be.” It cannot, of course, have 
 this meaning here. The most reliable interpretation is to keep by the 
 fundamental meaning of the word taken in a good sense: “who is not 
 ashamed, because he has nothing to be ashamed of.’ Bengel: cui tua 
 ipsius conscientia nullum pudorem incutiat; de Wette, Wiesinger, van 
 Oosterzee, Plitt translate it simply: “who has nothing to be ashamed of.” 
 Hofmann arbitrarily explains it as equivalent to: “of whom God is not 
 ashamed,” a meaning suitable to the context only if dé«woc be taken in 
 the sense he maintains. The next words make the definition still more 
 precise: dpforouovvta tov Adyov tio aAyVeiac] opdoroueiv, atak Aey., 1s rightly 
 explained by most as recte tractare (which is the actual translation of the 
 Vulgate); but there is very great variety in the derivation of the notion. 
 Melanchthon, Beza, and others derive the expression ab illa legali victi- 
 marum sectione ac distributione Ley. i.6; Vitringa, from the business 
 Tov olxovduov, Cul competat panem cibosque frangere, distribuere filiis fami- 
 lias; Pricaeus, a lapicidis; Lamb. Bos, from the ploughers, qui arantes 
 réuverv Thy yay, oxile et Exicxilecy apovpac dicuntur, yet in such a way that it 
 
 1The harm of Aoyouaxetvy consists not so contention” (Hofmann), as in this, that those 
 much in this, “that its tendency with those who give ear to it are led away from the 
 who listen to it is to make the Christian doc- fundamental principles of Christianity. 
 trine seem uncertain, since it produces such 
 
234 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 is committed to those qui rectas vias insistunt. De Wette (Wiesinger 
 agreeing With him) maintains the latter; recte secare viam, Aéyov being 
 put for ddév. Certainly réuverv is often joined with 6déc, xéAevdoc ; but it 
 does not follow that in dpYorouerv by itself there is contained a reference to 
 the way.) As little can we say that any other of the references is con- 
 tained in it. .The word in itself means: “cut rightly,” or, according to 
 Pape: “cut straight, in straight direction ;” then, the notion of réuvew fali- 
 ing into the background, as is often the case with xavoroyeiv, it has the 
 more general signification: “deal rightly with something so as not to 
 falsify it.”’—Hofmann’s explanation is curious: “cut straight through 
 ihe word of truth, é. e. cut it, so that it is a straight cut, passing into the 
 heart of it, whereas a slanting cut would not reach the inner part of the 
 word of God, but only touch the outwork.” This explanation—apart 
 from other reasons—is refuted by the fact that dp¥oroveiy has not the signi- 
 fication: “cut through the middle point.” The Gloss. ordinar. explains 
 it: secundum competentiam singulorum, ut: altis spiritualia, lae distri- 
 buere parvulis, so that Paul is directing Timothy to preach the word 
 according to his hearers’ capacity of understanding. This is the meaning 
 also according to Luther’s translation: “who rightly parts the word of 
 truth;” but the thought is entirely foreign to the context.~—Chrysostom 
 explains it by réuvecv ra vida kai ta ToraiTa éxkérTew; SO, too, Oecumenius; 
 but this is unsuitable, for there is nothing false in the Aéyo¢ rice aAné., and 
 therefore nothing to be separated from it—The expositors are quite wrong 
 who refer the expression to a life in accordance with God’s word=karé 76 
 evayyéduov ophérata Bi.vv.—The right interpretation makes it the simple 
 opposite of kamyAebvew tov Adyov Tov Geov, 2 Cor. ii. 17.4 
 
 Ver. 16. Tac dé BeBpAove Kevodwriag (comp. 1 Tim. vi. 20), repiictaco] 
 “avoid” (comp. Tit. ii. 9, synonymous with éxrpérecfa, 1 Tim. vi. 20); 
 properly: “go out of the way.” Beza is wrong: cohibe, i.e. observa et 
 velut obside, nempe ne in ecclesiam irrepant.—The reason for the exhorta- 
 tion follows in the next words: émi rAeiov yap rpoKdéyovow doeBeiac] mpoxdrrecy 
 here is intransitive (comp. iii. 9, 18), and dceBeiac is the genitive depend- 
 ing on ézi rieiov,o not the accusative, as if zpox. had here the transitive 
 
 - 
 
 1De Wette, indeed, appeals to LXX. Proy. 
 iii. 6, xi. 5; but in these passages od6v appears, 
 and the verb, like the Vw, has the transitive 
 signification: “ make straight, smooth.’=—-Nor 
 does the passage in Eurip. Rhes. v. 422: ev@ecav 
 Adywv Téeuvwy KeAcvOor, justify de Wette’s ex- 
 planation. The possibility of substituting 
 Adyor for odov is not proved simply by remark- 
 ing that “the word isa way.” We certainly 
 do speak of “ walking in the path of the divine 
 word, of virtue,” ete., but not of “walking in 
 the divine word, in virtue.” 
 
 2Perhaps the expression may be explained 
 in this way, that the imparting of the Adyos 
 THs adnBeias makes it necessary to part it, 
 since only a part of it can be delivered each 
 
 time; it therefore amounts to saying that this 
 
 parting is to be done rightly, so that the Adyos 
 THs adnOeias may receive no injury. 
 
 %In Beza’s explanation: nihil praetermit- 
 tere, quod dicendum sit, nil adjicere de suo, 
 nil mutilare, discerpere, torquere, deinde 
 diligenter spectare, quid ferat auditorum 
 captus, the first part alone is to the point. 
 
 4In the Fathers the word ép@oTou/a is some- 
 times found synonymous with op@odogta. 
 Clemens Alex. Stromata, vii. p. 762: thv amo- 
 OTOALKHY ExKAnGLacTLKHY Gwgwy OpPoTOMiav TOV 
 Soynatwv; but this usage took its rise from 
 the above passage. 
 
 5In Diod. Sicul. there occurs: émi micro 
 kaxias mpoBaivew; see Bengel on the passage. 
 
CHAP. 1. 16-18. 235 
 
 meaning “to further.” The subject is formed by the heretics whom the 
 apostle has in mind, not the Kevopwria, as 6 Adyoc avtov shows. Hence 
 Luther's translation is incorrect : “it (evil talking) helps much to ungodly 
 character ;” besides, it puts the present for the future. Bengel: Futu- 
 rum, proprie; est enim praedictio, ut ée:, ver. 17 ; comp. ii. 3 ff., 6. Hof- 
 mann wishes a distinction to be made between those who deal in ef. 
 xevogwriat and those to whose number Hymenacus and Philetus belong: 
 and according to him, the subject should be taken from the op éo71 «.7.2., 
 so as to mean the followers of these two heretics. We cannot, however, 
 understand why Paul should not have included among the fe. Kevopwriare 
 the heresy that the resurrection had already taken place, unless this ex- 
 pression be greatly weakened, as Hofmann indeed does, to favor his view 
 of the heresy at Ephesus (see Introduction, @ 4). In any case, it is a mis- 
 take to take the subject for xpoxdpovew only from what follows, since such 
 subject does not present itself naturally ; and there is least ground of all 
 for supposing that it must be ot repi ‘Yuévacov kai diAnré6v.—The yap, which 
 refers only to the sentence immediately preceding, makes the increasing 
 godlessness of the heretics the reason why Timothy should not meddle 
 further with the xevodwviar, but simply oppose to them the word of truth. 
 
 Ver. 17. The increase of the doé8era is closely connected with the fur- 
 ther spread of the heresy. On this point the apostle says: Kai 6 Adyo¢ avTav 
 de yayypacva voi é&&er] yayypawa, [XXVIT c.] an eating ulcer, like cancer, 
 called in Galen the cold burn (c@akedoc) ; vouny &xEew=ve we (Acts iv. 17: 
 inl rAeciov dravéuecbar), “eat into the flesh, spread ;” comp. Polybius (ed. 2. 
 Tauchnitz), i. 4, viii. 5: % row rvpd¢ vou7 is equivalent to the spreading of 
 fire; i. 81,6, used of an ulcer (Pape, s.v. vouy).—Jerome, Hp. ad Galat. + 
 doctrina perversa, ab uno incipiens, vix duos aut tres primum in exordic 
 auditores reperit, sed paulatim cancer serpit in corpore. The body on 
 which the gangrene is found, and in which it spreads ever wider, is the 
 church. He is therefore speaking here not so much of the intensive in- 
 crease of the evil (Mack, Wiesinger) in those attacked by it, as of its exten- 
 sive diffusion (so most expositors), thinking, at the same time, of the ever 
 deepening mark which it is making on the inner life of the church. 
 Chrysostom rightly says: ro wavy Avuaiverar; but his further explanation is’ 
 not apposite : évraifa 7d adiépbwrov avtav d1/Aoi, for the apostle does not say 
 here that the heretics are beyond amendment.—Of these heretics Paul 
 mentions two: Hymenaeus and Philetus, of whom nothing further is 
 known, except that the former is possibly the same as the one named in 
 1 Tim. i. 20 (see on that passage). 
 
 Ver. 18. More precise description of the heretics, in the first place gen- 
 erally, as men who “have erred in regard to the truth” (de Wette).—repi tiv 
 GApbevav notdynoav] see 1 Tim. i. 6, vi. 21. The chief point in their heresy 
 is given thus: 2éyovte¢ tiv avdoraoww On yeyovévac.—Both Irenaeus and Ter- 
 tullian mention Gnosties, who denied the resurrection in its literal sense.’ 
 
 1CGomp. Tertullian, De Resurr. chap. asséverantes ipsam etiam mortem spirit 
 xix. : resurrectionem mortuorum distorquent ualiter intelligendam . .. resurrectionem 
 
236 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 There is no ground for Baur’s assertion, that there is allusion here vo 
 Marcion. The passage in 1 Cor. xv. 12 proves that the doctrine of tne 
 resurrection of the dead had even in the apostolic age become a stumbling- 
 block to many in the church.—The denial of these heretics was closely 
 related to views which made a false contrast between flesh and spirit.— 
 They had already exercised an injurious influence on others, as the next 
 words declare: kai avatpérover tiv twav riotw] not: “whereby they make 
 many err in their persuasion :” ziorvv is the Christian faith which includes 
 the certainty of the future resurrection, and avarpérew (see Tit. i. L1) 
 means “ evertere, destroy.” 
 Ver. 19. As a contrast to the unsettling action of the heretics, we have 
 6 pévtoe ateped¢ Beuédvog Tov Oeov éotyKev] Oeuédv0c (properly an adjective, 
 supply Aifoc) is originally the foundation-stone of a building; if that signi- 
 fication be retained here, the building can only mean the church of 
 Christ. The question then arises, what is its foundation-stone? and to 
 this various answers have been given. Ambrosius understands it to be 
 God’s promises; Bengel, the fides Dei immota; Heinrichs, the Christian 
 religion ; Ernesti, the doctrine of the resurrection (ver. 18) ; Calvin, the 
 election of grace. All this is arbitrary. The éeuéAvoc must be something 
 which, according to the next verse, can also be regarded as oixia, [XX VII 
 d.] viz. as Heydenreich says: éxkAjola reOeweduouérn rd Ocod (similarly de 
 Wette and Wiesinger). Paul, however, calls it @euéAoc, not because that 
 word denotes a building, which is not the case, but because the church, as 
 it was originally set by God in the world, only forms the foundation of the 
 building which is to be perfected gradually (so, too, van Oosterzee). Chry- 
 sostom’s explanation is inapposite: ai orepeal Wuyal éorhxacr merqyviar Kai 
 axivnrot; for Paul is not thinking here of individual believers, but of the 
 church of which they are members. Possibly the @euéAcoe does not mean 
 anything definite, and the apostle “ merely intends to say that the church 
 is frmly founded” (Hofmann); but that is not probable, especially as the 
 attribute oreped¢ and the verb éoryxev point to a definite, concrete concep- 
 tion in the apostle’s mind.—crepede and éornxev form a contrast to avarpé- 
 -rovot. Though the faith of some may be destroyed, the foundation of 
 God, i.e. which God’ has laid, still stands firm, unwavering —The mark 
 of this is given in the next words: éyov tiv o¢payida tabtyr] odpayic, “the 
 seal,” is partly a means of keeping safe, partly a sign of relevancy, 
 partly a form of declaration whereby a document or the like is proved to 
 be valid. Here it is the inscription! on the @exéAuc, according to Wies 
 inger, “asa guarantee that the éxxAyoia ixd tov Ocod reOeweAvouévn has an 
 existence not to be shaken;” or, better still, as God’s testimony to the 
 peculiar nature of the structure (similarly Hofmann: “because through 
 it God so acknowledges the structure as to declare of what nature He 
 means it tobe when thus founded”); van Oosterzee combines the two 
 
 eam vindicandam, qua quis addita veritate 1The figure is-founded on the custom of 
 redanimatus et revivifactus Deo, ignorantide placing inscriptions on the door-posts as well 
 morte decussa, velut de sepulcro yeteris as on the foundation-stones; comp. Deut. vi. 
 hominis eruperit. 9, Xi. 20; Rev. xxi. 14, 
 
CHAP. I. 19, 20. 237 
 
 interpretations—Paul mentions two inscriptions. The first, with allusion 
 to Num. xvi. 5 (the LXX. puts PV! for PYV)), is éyvw Kipioc rove bvrac 
 abrov. Haec sententia ...a parte Dei (Wolf)—éy] Bengel: novit 
 -amanter, nec nosse desinit, sed perpetuo servat suos: a word of comfort 
 for the believers exposed to the destroying influence of the heretics in the 
 church. The other inscription (with which we may compare Num. xvi. 
 26; Isa. lii. 11) runs: aroarhitw amd adixiac Tag 6 dvouatwv TO dvoua Kupiov| 
 
 - Haec sententia . . . a parte hominum (Wolf). ’Advuxia is the sum total of 
 everything opposed to God, including heresy.—ovoyatew 1o dv. T. Kup., 
 according to Wahl, is equivalent to mim ova 8p, nomen Dei invocare. 
 This is incorrect; it corresponds rather to the phrase : émkadciobar TO Svop. 
 kupiov (Tov Kbpiov, ver. 22). Bengel correctly says: quisquis nominat 
 nomen Christi, ut domini sui—This second inscription is an exhortation 
 to believers to abstain from all unrighteousness notwithstanding the 
 seductive influence of the heretics—Heydenreich : two truths must like- 
 wise characterize the indestructible temple of God, the church, and these 
 denote the comfort and hope, but also the duty and responsibility of the 
 true worshipers of Jesus." 
 
 Ver. 20. To the church as the epéArog tov Ocov only those belong whom 
 the Lord acknowledges as His, and who abstain from every kind of advxia. 
 This thought is contained in ver. 19. But there were also in the church 
 ddcxor, opposing the gospel by word and deed. This strange fact Paul now 
 explains by a figure: év peyady dé oixia] The Greek expositors understand 
 by oixia “the world,” to which Calvin rightly objects : ac contextus quidem 
 huc potius nos ducit, ut de ecclesia intelligamus ; neque enim de extraneis 
 disputat Paulus, sed de ipsa Dei familia. Itis different with the similar 
 passage in Rom. ix. 21 ff.—ov« gore udvov oKein xpvoa Kai apyupa, ahaa Kat 
 Ebquva Kal doTpdxiva] By the former articles are meant the worthy, genuine 
 members of the church; by the Jatter, those not genuine (not: those less 
 good, Estius, Mosheim, and others) : “each class, however, contains degrees 
 within itself; comp. Matt. xiii. 23” (Wiesinger). The apostle’s distinction 
 is given more precisely in the next words, which cannot be referred alike 
 to each of the two classes named, but express the same antithesis: cai @ 
 pév ev¢ Tysqv, Viz. the oKeby Xp. K. dpy.; @ dé cic arisiav, Viz. the oxeby Sv. K. 
 botpax, [XXVILe.] To this Hofmann objects, that the material of the 
 vessels does not determine their purpose and use, and that the second 
 clause, therefore, does not correspond with the first; “ the first antithesis 
 rather declares that in the house of God there are members of rich gifts 
 and spiritual attainments, and members whose gifts are few and who 
 spiritually are of no consideration.” But in this way there is manifestly 
 imported an antithesis of which there is no hint in the context. It is 
 indeed true that vessels even of wood and clay may be applied to honor- 
 able uses; but undue pressure is laid on the apostle’s words when they are 
 
 1Chrysostom understands @ewéALos of in- éxew emi TOV TpayLaTwV, amd Tov yvwpiferbas 
 dividual believers, and is therefore compelled brd ToD @cod Kal py ocuptaparoAdAvabat, ara 
 to give this thought an incorrect reference: rod adiotavar amd adikias, TAUTS Ta yrwplo- 
 
 xodev SyAat cigiv; avd TOU Ta Ypaupata TAvTG pata TOU Oepedtov. 
 
238 THE SECOND EPiSTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 interpreted in accordance with such a possibility —ei¢ tyu#v and ei¢ atimiav 
 do not refer to the house, nor to their possessor, on whom they bring 
 honor or shame (Matthies), but to the vessels themselves (de Wette, Wies- 
 inger, van Oosterzee). To some honor is given, to others shame, i. e. in 
 the various uses to which they are applied by their possessors. The inser- 
 tion of éroiacpéva Would give an unsuitable thought; see Meyer and de 
 Wette on Rom. ix, 21. 
 
 Ver. 21. Without explaining the figure, the apostle carries it on, but in 
 such a way as to show to the members of the church how each one may 
 become a vessel to honor.—éav obv tig éxxabdpy éavtov ard TobTwr] éExxabaipew, 
 according to classic Greek (also 1 Cor. vy. 7), is an intensive form of ka6ai- 
 pew (N. T. xaSapifew).1 The opinion (formerly expressed in this commen- 
 tary) was incorrect, that é« only foreshadows the azé rotrw. The transla- 
 tion is inaccurate: “if one keeps himself pure” (Heydenreich, equivalent 
 to Kabapov, adyvov égavrov typeiv); Luther rightly: “ purifies himself.’ The 
 word indicates the departure from impure companionship; comp. ver. 19, 
 azoorAtw, and 1 Tim. vi. 5 (according to Rec.) agicraco ard tev TowbTwr.? 
 Wiesinger makes the construction pregnant: “separate oneself from 
 these by self-purification;” it is more correct, however, to regard the 
 separation itself as the purification—da7d robrwy] cannot according to the 
 context be taken as a collective neuter: “from such things,” a7d ray 
 elpnuévav, Hyovv adikiac, atyuiac, OY eVeN amd Tov BEBHAwY Kevodovidv, Ver. 16; 
 it refers rather to @ dé ei¢ atyiav. Luther: “from such people;” comp. 
 the passage quoted, 1 Tim. vi. 5. Hofmann is altogether mistaken in his 
 curious idea that az6 7oitwy means “ from that time forward,” and is to be 
 connected with what follows. This reference is nowhere in the N. T. 
 expressed by azd robrwv (comp. Matt. xxvi. 29: az’ dpe); besides, this 
 more precise definition of éora is quite superfluous, whereas éxxafapy 
 éavtév Without more precise definition is too general.—éorar oxevog cig Tour, 
 jytacuévov] Lachmann has wrongly deleted the comma between tw. and 
 yyvaon. Hic does not depend on #y., but ox. ei¢ tu. forms here, like 4 pév 
 ei¢ Tyuqv in ver. 20, one idea to which various attributes, jy:acuévov being 
 ’ the first, are added in order'to describe the nature of such a ox. ei¢ tiy.— 
 yylaouévov] is NOt =oxevoc éxAoyjc, Acts ix. 14 (Heydenreich), but: “ sanc- 
 tified,” as belonging to the Lord. Eiypyorov = “ good for using ;” 76 deorérn, 
 “the master of the house ;” ei¢ wav épyov ayabdy yroyacuévov (comp. Rev. ix. 
 7), “prepared for every good work.” While all expositors join 7@ deorérn 
 with ed ypyorov, Hofmann prefers to refer it to what follows, without giving 
 any reason for so doing. Elsewhere in the N. T. eiypyoroe occurs only in 
 connection with the dative of more precise definition (iv. 11; Philem. 11). 
 
 Ver. 22. [On Vv. 22-26, see Note XXVIII.; page 245.] Timothy is 
 exhorted to Christian behavior; it is impossible to overlook the connec- 
 
 1Chrysostom rightly says: ov« ele: kaOapp, the doctrine of predestination: Volumus et 
 
 adX’ éxxabapy, TOVTEOTL, TaVTEAMS Kabapy. efficimus, sed per eum qui gratis et in soli- 
 2 Bengel remarks: Activum cum pronomine dum efficit in nobis bonam et efficacem vo- 
 reciproco indicat liberrimam facultatem fide- — luntatem, tum quod ad é:a@eouv, tum quod ad 
 
 lium.—Beza seeks, on the other hand, to save tvepyecay attinet. 
 
CHAP. U1. 21-24. 239 
 
 tion with what precedes.—rac dé vewrepuxag éxOuuiac)] [XXVIII a.] vewre- 
 pikai is am. Aey., Juveniles, quibus juvenes indulgent, not cupiditates rerum 
 noyarum. Chrysostom and Theophylact rightly remark that the meaning 
 is not to be limited too closely to zopveia.1| Hofmann supposes that the 
 desires are meant which are found in younger members in contrast with 
 those advanced in years, e.g. the desire for brilliant gifts and offices; but 
 neither the context nor the expression supports his interpretation. This 
 reference is rather a pure importation into the text, and is adopted by 
 Hofmann that it may agree with his erroneous view of ver. 20; it is 
 opposed, finally, by the diwxe dixavoobvyv K.t.A.—diwxe dé dixavoobvyv k.7.A.] 
 very similar to 1 Tim. vi. 11.—eip#v7y, “i. e. inner fellowship and harmony ” 
 (de Wette)—yeré should not be construed with diwxe, but with eipyvyy; 
 comp. Heb. xii. 14.—jerad mavtwv tr. érixadovuévov tov kipcov] This expression 
 occurs somewhat frequently as a name for Christians; comp. Acts ii. 21, 
 ix. 14; Rom. x. 12. The passage in 1 Cor.i. 2 shows that Christ is meant 
 by xipioc.—éx xabapac kapdiac| belonging not to diwke but to émcadovpévor, 
 stands here in special contrast to the heretics who did also call Christ their 
 Lord, but not from a pure heart. Chrysostom’s remark: pera tov dAdwv 
 ov xp} Tpaov elvac, goes too far, since in ver. 25 there is an express appeal 
 for mpaérnc towards the avridcaribéuevor; still the believer can only keep 
 peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart, the others he 
 must oppose. Eip#vy is mentioned last, because the apostle is thinking of 
 it specially ; comp. the next verses. 
 
 Ver. 28 is in contrast (dé) with ver. 22. As in 1 Tim. i. 4, vi. 4, Cyrjoe 
 are brought forward as the characteristic of heresy. Paul calls them 
 pwpat kai araidevtor] pwpai, Tit. iii. 9—araidevto, properly, “uninstructed ;” 
 in N.T. az. Aey.; more frequently found in LXX. and Apocrypha, but 
 only in reference to persons. It is synonymous with pwpdc (7°02); even 
 here, where it refers to things, it is synonymous with popé¢ (= ineptus). 
 There is no just ground for Hofmann’s supposition, that it is to be derived 
 here not from radevecba, but from madevew, and hence that it means 
 “unsuited for educating spiritually” (Mosheim, Heydenreich, Mack, 
 Matthies) —On rapa:rov, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 7, v. 11.—eidé¢ does not give the 
 reason why Timothy should follow the exhortation (equivalent to “ since, 
 or because, you know”); it forms part of the exhortation in the sense: 
 “as you know (consider); ” comp. Tit. iii. 11; 1 Cor. xv. 58; Col. iii. 24, 
 iv. 1.—érz yevvoor payac] waya, Jas. iv. 1,synonymous with wéAeuor ; opposed 
 to eipyvn, ver. 22. 
 
 Vv. 24-26. In regard to the last thoughts, Paul gives a sketch of the 
 conduct which beseems the dodAo¢ kupiov. Aovaoe kupiov is here, as often, one 
 who has been charged with the office of preaching the gospel —0d dei na y- 
 eofa:] [XXVIII b.] Luther is inaccurate : “must not be disputatious ;”’ it 
 does not denote so much the disposition as the act, and is in close relation 
 with the preceding udyac; it furnishes the reason, therefore, why he 
 should not devote himself to foolish investigations, which only give rise 
 
 1Theodoret: tpubyy, yéAwros tuctpiay, O-Exv Kcvny Kat Ta TovTOLS MpoTomota. 
 
240 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 to contentions.—aA/’ #rwv eivar epic mavrac | qmoc, here and at 1 Thess. ii. iis 
 “amiable, friendly ;” properly, “addressing in a friendly manner;” it 
 forms a pointed antithesis to ua yecAar.—didaxrixdv (1 Tim. iii. 2). Hoe non 
 solum soliditatem et facilitatem in docendo, sed vel maxime patientiam 
 et assiduitatem significat, Bengel. According to the context here, the 
 word expresses not only the ability, but also the willingness to teach— 
 avetixaxov] am. Aey. (aveEtcaxia, Eeclus. ii. 19, kindred in meaning with é7uei- 
 ceca), denotes the opposite of irritability : “ patient, submissive” in regard to 
 contradiction (perhaps slanderous).—Ver. 25. év zpaéryti is wrongly joined 
 by Luther with avegixaxov : “ who can endure the wicked with gentleness ; ” 
 it belongs rather to what follows, and describes the manner of raWebew.— 
 raweve 18 here equivalent not to erudire, but to corripere. Luther: 
 “punish,” set right, see 1 Tim. i. 20.—rod¢ avtidiaribepévove] am. Aey., Synony- 
 mous with avrAéyorrec, Tit. i. 9, and denoting all opposed to the word 
 of truth preached by the dovéoc xvpiov. The context compels us to inter- 
 pret it not as “the unbelievers ” (Hofmann), but specially the heretics. 
 The name, however, is not given to them because they are “weak in 
 faith ” (Wiesinger). Luther’s translation is too strong : “ contumacious;” 
 comp. with this passage Tit. i. 9,138. The rule here laid down is not in 
 contradiction with the &Aeyye aitoi¢ aroréuwc, Tit. i. 18, not because the 
 avridiariéuevor here are different from the avriAéyovtec Of Tit. i. 9, as Hof- 
 mann maintains, but because even with the éaéyyevv amoréuwe there should 
 also be the év xpaéryr raidevew. The purpose which should guide the servant 
 of the Lord in his conduct towards the avridvatiéuevor is given in the next 
 words.—pqrore dO avtoic 6 Bede petdvorav] pArore, “ whether it may not be,” 
 is joined with the conjunctive and the optative; comp. Buttmann, p. 22 
 LE. T. 256]. The veravora is here supposed to be necessary because the ground 
 of opposition is aducia; petdvoa is the change of thought which is necessary 
 ele éxiyvwow dAnbeiac—Ver. 26. Kai avavyywow &k THE TOV dLaBdAov rayidoc] In 
 the verb avavfgew, the ava may express motion from beneath, as in other 
 verbs thus compounded (e.g. avaféw), so that it is equivalent to “become 
 sober,” 7.e. “come up out of the stupefaction which holds them down”. 
 - (Hofmann '); but the usual meaning of the word in classic Greek is, how- 
 ‘ever, “become sober again.” If the word has this meaning here, then 
 ‘the dvridvaréuevor must be the heretics. The error into which they had 
 fallen is to be compared with the intoxication which beclouds men’s Wits ; 
 the verb is az. Aey. In 1 Cor. xv. 34 we have éxvfdexv.—The figure rayic is 
 certainly not in harmony with this verb; but a collocation of various figu- 
 rative expressions is not infrequent; here it is more easy to justify it, as 
 an intermediate thought like kai pvcbéow (Heydenreich) may be at once 
 supplied. The collocation may indeed be altogether avoided, if, with 
 Michaelis and Hofmann, we connect éx tye... mayidog with swypyuévor 
 following; but against this there is the signification of this word, which 
 does not mean being saved, but being taken captive.—éfCwypyuévor br’ abrod 
 ei¢ 70 éxeivov HéAnua| [XXVIII c.] Cwypet has here the same meaning as in 
 1Hofmann appeals to avagqv, Rom. vii. 9, for this signification; but comp. Meyer on that 
 passage. 
 
NOTES. 241 
 Luke v.10: “catch,” the notion “alive” being allowed to fall into the 
 background. It is questionable whether the devil or the dovAo¢ kupiov (ver. 
 24) is to be regarded as the Cwypav. Several expositors, Wetstein, Bengel, 
 Mack, Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others, have declared themselves in 
 favor of the second view. But against this there is the perfect, since the 
 avavgge does not take place until they have been caught by the dovAo¢ Beod ;! 
 besides, the meaning thus obtained would be open to the reproach of 
 being too artificial.2~—With the jirst view (Matthies, de Wette, van Ooster- 
 zee, Plitt) éwypyuévoc may be joined in a natural sense with the preceding 
 rayidoc; Luther is therefore right: “ by whom they are caught at his will.” 
 The last words: ei¢ . . . OéAnua, are by Beza joined with davav#wow: ad 
 illius, nempe Dei, voluntatem, videlicet praestandam ; hunc enim locum 
 sic esse accipiendum mihi videtur utriusque illius relativi pronominis 
 . éxeivov) proprietas et ipsa constructio postulare. But éxeivov 
 may very easily refer to the same subject as airov.A—As with Beza’s inter- 
 pretation, éCwyp. ix. avrov, “would be made too bare” (de Wette), the 
 additional clause under discussion is to be joined with é€wypyuévor, as in- 
 deed it ought to be, according to its position.—Aretius takes the correct 
 view of éCwyp., but wrongly explains the words ei¢ «.7.A. as equivalent to 
 “according to God’s will, i.e. so long as God pleases.” Heinrichs, too, 
 though he refers éxeivou rightly, wrongly says it is equivalent to ex suo 
 arbitrio, pro suo lubitu. Eic stands here rather as in 2 Cor. x. 5; the 
 HéAnua tov diaBddov is regarded “as a local sphere” into which they 
 have been taken; see Meyer on the passage quoted. 
 
 (aitov . . 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 XXYV. Vy. 1-7. 
 
 (a) The emphatic ot of ver. 1 can only be explained by a reference to the 
 persons alluded to in i. 15 f.—probably by way of contrast to of év rH ’Aoia. The 
 words which follow, however, clearly indicate a connection with what precedes 
 those verses. The particle oiv, accordingly, must be regarded as including all 
 the previous context in itself—(b) The word évdvvayov is connected in thought 
 with ovyxaxoradyoov of ver. 3 (comp. i. 6, 7 and i. 8). These verses relate to 
 Timothy’s own condition and action. The second verse refers to what he is to 
 do in respect to other teachers. With ver. 2 may be compared 1 Tim. i. 3 and 
 Tit. i. 5, though here the exhortation may perhaps bear upon a succession of 
 teachers who were to follow afterwards, while, in the other epistles, the reference 
 is to those who were teaching errors, or to the appointment of presbyters in the 
 
 1Hofmann does not acknowledge the val- 
 idity of the objection: “The perfect partic. ex- 
 presses nothing else than a condition abiding 
 thenceforward;” but this “thenceforward” 
 is quite unsuitable here, for in the connec- 
 tion of eG¢wypnuévor with avavyywor that per- 
 fect does not show the position into which 
 they enter only by avavydery—and which re- 
 mains thenceforward, but to the position in 
 
 16 
 
 which they were when the avavyndew took 
 place. 
 
 2This is valid also against Theophylact’s 
 explanation: év mAavy vixovtar adAa Swypy- 
 Gévres UTd Oeod .. . avavywouw ard Tov VdaTwv 
 THs TAarns. 
 
 3See the passage cited by de Wette; Plato, 
 Cratylus, p. 430 E: det&ac atta av mév TUXN, 
 éxeivou eixkova; comp. also Kthner, 2 629, A 3. 
 
242 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 churches. The insertion of ver. 2 in this place is somewhat strange, and the 
 connection is somewhat loose. Yet it was not altogether out of place, in the set- 
 ting forth of what Timothy was to be and do as a faithful worker in the Church, 
 now that the Apostle was in prison and in danger of death, to call his attention, 
 to the duty of seeing that the truth was committed to other faithful men who 
 might unite with or follow him in the same great work.—(c) Tuvoroic avOpdroie 
 (ver. 2)—The question whether a succession of teachers is here alluded to, is one of 
 some uncertainty. Huther and a considerable number of the recent commentators 
 maintain that such a succession was in the writer’s mind. The points on which 
 the question turns are the following:—1l. Whether xai belongs to érépove or to 
 dasa érépove, 2. What is the intended reference of érépovc. 3. Who are meant 
 by ToAA@v paptripev, The third of these points bears only indirectly upon the 
 decision. But it may, nevertheless, have a certain influence, which may prop- 
 erly be considered. As to kai, there seems to be no special ground for affirming 
 with Huther, against Hofmann, that it qualifies érépovg only. Paul may easily 
 be supposed to have desired Timothy to commit the word to trustworthy persons, 
 who had, in addition to other things, the particular quality of aptness to teach, 
 and to have expressed this by xai. It must be admitted, however, that érepor seems 
 somewhat better adapted to designate other teachers, than simply other persons, i. e. 
 the ordinary hearers of the gospel. That érepoc may denote the latter cannot be 
 denied, but the use of the word can be more readily accounted for, if the former 
 meaning is given. The bearing of dca 70AA, apr. on the subject is connected with 
 the question as to whether these words refer to the presbyters who participated 
 in Timothy’s ordination. If they do, there is a certain probability, arising from 
 this fact, that the Apostle’s mind was dwelling, throughout the passage, only on 
 the committing of the truth to teachers and preachers. The reference to Timo- 
 thy’s ordination is favored by many of the recent commentators. It is, however, 
 to say the least, very doubtful. The most that can be affirmed, therefore, is that 
 there is a slight probability that a succession of teachers is intended by érépovg. 
 That there is anything in the words which necessarily implies the transmission 
 of doctrine or truth independent of the common Scripture revelation, cannot be 
 affirmed.—(d) ovykaxora6yoov (ver. 3) is undoubtedly parallel with the same 
 verb in i. 8, and has the same meaning. R. V., however, renders in i. 8, 
 suffer hardship with the gospel—making T@ evayyeAiw depend on ovv—while here 
 ’ it renders, in the text, suffer hardship with me, and, in the margin, take thy part 
 in suffering hardship. The recent commentators are disposed to supply with 
 me in i. 8, and to make T@ evay. mean for the gospel, as Huther and Note XXIII. ¢ 
 above.—(e) The thought seems to pass, through the last clause of ver. 3, which 
 suggests the readiness of the soldier to suffer, from ovykaxora@ycov to the more 
 general ideas, which are unconnected with that verb, in vy. 4-7. These verses 
 set forth the call upon the Christian preacher, to give himself wholly and faith- 
 fully to his work—a thought which is presented under three figures:—1l. that of 
 the soldier, who does not involve himself in the matters which belong to civil 
 life; 2. that of the athlete, who contends in the games with hope of success only 
 as he acts in accordance with the rules of the contest—giving up all things for, 
 and subordinating all things to the attainment of the end, comp. 1 Cor. ix. 24 ff; 
 and 3. that of the husbandman, who partakes of the fruits only as he works hard 
 for them. The same idea lies at the foundation of all the figures, and this 
 explanation which regards them as a threefold presentation of a single thought, 
 
NOTES. 243 
 
 is the simplest and most satisfactory one.-—(/) The object of ver. 7 seems to be to 
 call Timothy’s especial attention to the thought suggested by these illustrative 
 references, as bearing upon his own official life and work. yap, which Huther 
 regards as a particle of explanation, can be understood, as Ell. and de W. take it, 
 as causal. The demand in vdec may well be made, and it can be fulfilled, for, ete. 
 The causal force of yap is so nearly universal in the N. T., that the presumption 
 is strongly in favor of this sense. 
 
 XXVI. Vv. 8-13. 
 
 (a) The relation of ver. 8 to what precedes is indicated by the fact that 
 xaxora@ is found in the first clause of ver. 9. This verb is connected in thought, 
 evidently, with ovyxaxor. of ver. 3. The remembrance of Jesus Christ as risen 
 from the dead is suggested as a means of strengthening Timothy (édvvayov) in 
 the line of the endurance of suffering. The encouragement derived from this 
 remembrance, however, is not founded on the fact that Christ suffered death, but 
 that He had the victory over it. Accordingly, as Wiesinger remarks, the words 
 éx orépuatog Aaveid do not refer at all to Christ’s humiliation. They “mark, as 
 at Rom. i. 3, only His outward, visible nature in distinction from the invisible ; 
 and in both relations, here as there, He appears exalted and glorified; since, 
 according to the flesh, the promise given to the house of David is fulfilled in Him, 
 and as risen from the dead, He is declared the Son of God in power nara mvevpa 
 ay. Rom. i. 4.” Thus in this verse, as in Rom., Paul “comprises in these two 
 predicates the substance of the gospel,” and “the clause ‘according to my gospel’ 
 becomes perfectly intelligible.’—(b) The antecedent of © at the beginning of ver. 
 9 is evayyé/uoy, 2. e. in the sphere of his work as a preacher of the gospel. Comp. 
 Phil. i. The reference to his own suffering in the word xaxora06, is an indication 
 that the civ in ovykaxor, of ver. 3 is to be taken with a pot to be supplied.—(c) 
 The “not binding” of the word of God is evidently contrasted with the “binding” 
 of the Apostle (ov dédeta:—deouov), and thus refers to the fact that the preaching 
 of the gospel is not prevented by his imprisonment, and cannot be. For this 
 reason he stedfastly endures, ete. The use of the word éxAexretc, as designating 
 Christians, here, is probably connected with that of od dédera:—both expressions 
 suggesting the idea of the Divine power, or purpose, as not to be overcome by any- 
 thing that human opposition can do.—(d) Ver. 11—That ziord¢ 6 Adyoc refers 
 here to what follows, is indicated by the fact that the following words are of the 
 character which is suited to that phrase, while the preceding words are not so, 
 either in themselves, or as they stand here in dépendence on iva, The yap, which 
 introduces the following clauses apparently goes back in its force to the thoughts 
 of the 9th and 10th verses. It thus passes over the phrase mor. 6 Ady. Huther, 
 here as in ver. 7, takes yap in the sense of namely; but see note on that verse, 
 above. As connected with vv. 9, 10, these successive clauses form a ground of 
 encouragement and of warning. 
 
 XXVII. Vv. 14-21. 
 
 (a) The reference in raira of ver. 14 is to vv. 12, 13, or perhaps to vy. 8-13. 
 The things spoken of in the following verses are among those which appertain to 
 a denying of Him and a proving unfaithful to Him, The principal reference is 
 to the erroneous teachings and doctrines, which are alluded to in all the Past. 
 
244 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 Epp.; but there are, also, exhortations addressed to Timothy to guard himself 
 against evils and dangers. The heresies are here described by the words 40) ouay- 
 ew (comp. 1 Tim. vi. 4), BeByAovg (comp. 1 Tim. i. 9, iv. 7, vi. 20), Kevopwviag 
 (comp. 1 Tim. vi. 20), 7oréxnoav (comp. 1 Tim. i. 6, vi. 21), wwpag Cyryoere (comp. 
 Tit. iii. 9), yevveor wayac (comp. Tit iii. 9). They are, moreover, additionally set 
 forth here, in their injurious and destructive influence, as to no profit, subverting 
 those who hear, eating as doth a gangrene, overthrowing faith, being ignorant 
 questions; and their teachers are described as vessels unto dishonor, and taken 
 captive by the devil (but see, on this last phrase, Note XX VIII ¢). Though in 
 some of these additional points the statements are kindred to those found else- 
 where, the description, as a whole, is the most full and detailed which the Apostle 
 gives. There seems, however, to be nothing, in these verses, which marks any 
 special growth or development as compared with the other two epistles—(b) Ver. 
 15 sets forth the course to be pursued by Timothy with reference to his own office 
 and work, as ver. 14 has pointed out what he should do in the way of reminding 
 and charging the members of the church. In contrast with ver. 16, on the other 
 hand, ver. 15 gives that which may be called the positive side of Timothy’s duty, 
 while ver. 16 gives the negative side. In ver. 15 épydary#v aver, serves to define 
 déxyov more particularly, and the clause opfotouovvra x.7.A, defines, still more par- 
 ticularly, the words py av. The real point of the verse is thus found in opfor. 
 x.7.A. This phrase is rendered by R. V. (1) in the text, by handling aright the 
 word of truth, (2) in the margin, by holding a straight course in the, ete. (3) also in 
 the margin, by rightly dividing the, ete., which last rendering is that of A. V. text. 
 The translation of R. V. text is the one approved by Huther, who says the word 
 in itself means to cut rightly, indeed, or cut straight (as Pape), but that the notion 
 of réuvew falls into the background, and so the sense is to deal rightly with some- 
 thing, so as not to falsify it. Alf. agrees with Huther. So Fairb. and others. EI. 
 de W. and others connect the word more directly with the idea of cutting a way, or 
 road, straight. Plumptre thinks the figure is connected with the accuracy of cut- 
 ting essential in surgery. The view of R. V. text is, perhaps, the most satisfac- 
 tory. —(c) That o¢ yayypaiva vou é€ec of ver. 17 is to be understood in an ex- 
 tensive, rather than an intensive meaning, is shown by the fact that the thing 
 which thus eats is 6 Adyo¢ ava, i.e. the teachings of the errorists which over- 
 throw the faith of those who hear them, and by the general indication, in ver. 14, 
 _ that the writer has the church, and the effect of true and false teaching upon the 
 church, in mind. The marginal rendering of R. V., spread, accordingly, gives 
 the sense in which eat is here used. It spreads like an, eating ulcer.—(d) The 
 Geuédvog of ver. 19 must (as Huther says) be something which can be explained 
 consistently with the use of oixia in ver. 20. It must, also, be something which 
 can effectually stand against, and resist, all the teachers and doctrines which turn 
 aside from the truth. And it must be something on which the inscriptions men- 
 tioned can be conceived of as written. That these conditions may be fulfilled, 
 and that the statement respecting the vessels in the house may be satisfactorily 
 met, it would seem that the apostle must have in mind here the church. The 
 church is, however, viewed under the figure of a building, and, in a certain sense, 
 apart from its members. Not that the members do not compose the house, and 
 make its foundation as well as the superstructure. But the figure pictures it as 
 containing the members, and in it are vessels of different sorts. On the foundation 
 of the building are inscribed two Divine declarations :—the first indicating that 
 
 
 
NOTES. 245 
 
 the true disciples are safe in His care, “The Lord knoweth them that are His;” 
 and the second calling them to their duty, “ Let every one that nameth the name 
 of the Lord depart from unrighteousness.” The contrast of the church in its true 
 discipleship to its adversaries, within as well as without, and its security against 
 them—its firmness and perpetuity—are thus set forth; and, at the same time, all 
 within it are admonished to be in the truest and complete sense disciples.—(e) 
 The question whether Paul means by “the vessels unto honor” the same that he 
 means by “ the vessels of gold and silver,’—and so, in each case, there is a corres- 
 ponding idea presented in two different phrases,—or whether, on the other hand, 
 the vessels to honor and dishonor are different from those of gold, etc., and of 
 wood, etc., cannot be determined with certainty. AI] that can be said is that the 
 individual member of the church, whoever he may be, can become, not only a 
 vessel to honor, but both good for the Master’s use and prepared for every good 
 
 work. 
 XXVIII. Vv. 22-26. 
 
 (a) The comparison of ver. 22 with 1 Tim. vi. 9-11 makes it altogether probable 
 that émvGvuia has its ordinary sense of evil desires or lusts, and does not mean 
 either “ cupiditates rerum novarum,” or desires for brilliant gifts, or desires in the 
 line of the false yroow. The reference is to those émSuyyiae (1 Tim. vi.) which 
 appertain to the moral debasement of the false teachers, and which are contrasted 
 with righteousness, etc. These were the same é7v¥., in their larger development, 
 as those to which persons might be exposed in youthful life—(b) The word 
 paxeota of ver. 24 is determined in its meaning mainly, if not wholly, by wayac 
 of ver. 23. The dovdoc xvpiov, who is here the official servant or preacher, is for- 
 bidden to contend after the manner of the false teachers. They were prone to 
 angry controversy. He must be mild, speaking in a gentle way, patient, apt to 
 teach, etc. The dovdo: xvpiov in recent years, as well as in earlier times, seem to 
 have been more ready to obey the Apostle’s injunctions in some other lines, than 
 in this—(c) The question as to the meaning of aiTov and éxeivov, in ver. 26, is one 
 of much difficulty. If, however, éxetvov can be referred to the same person with 
 avTov, there can be little doubt that the explanation which regards them as both 
 used of the devil, is that which best meets the demands of the sentence. This 
 interpretation accords most fully with the perfect tense in the participle &wyp7- 
 pévot, with the verb avavinpwow as suggesting the idea of recovery, and with the 
 natural connection of aitov with d:a3620v. It avoids the difficulty of making the 
 capture by the devil to be designed to the end of accomplishing the Lord’s will that 
 deliverance should take place, which is required if avrov is referred to d:a36Aov and 
 éxeivov to the Lord. It also avoids the unnaturalness of mingling the idea of recov- 
 ery of men (or of awaking them to sobriety) out of a snare with that of being taken 
 captive by a person who rescues or awakes them, which is necessary if airov is re- 
 ferred to the Lord’s servant. Instances are cited by Kiihner, and referred to by 
 Huther and Alf., (Plato Cratyl. p. 480 E. and Lysias e. Eratosth. p. 429), which may, 
 to say the least, justify the application of the two pronouns to the same person. 
 I', however, such an application can ever be allowed, the present sentence is one in 
 which it may easily be believed, that a special emphasis was designed to be 
 placed upon the agency of the devil in carrying out his own will. R. V. text 
 has having been taken captive by the Lord’s servant unto the will of God. The two 
 other possible renderings are placed in the margin. A. R. VY. places in the text 
 the explanation favored in this note: having been taken captive by him unto kar wil. 
 
246 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Ver. 1. yivwoxe] For this, Lachm. and Buttm., on the authority of A F G 238, 
 al., Aeth. Boern. Aug., adopted yevaoxete. Tisch., on the authority of C D E K 
 L 8, most cursives, versions, ete., retained the Rec., of which reading nearly all 
 expositors, even Reiche, have declared themselves to be in favor. Still the plur. 
 might be the original reading, since there was no occasion for changing the sing. 
 into the plur.—Ver. 2. ¥ omits oi before avfpwro; a mere alteration, because the 
 art. seemed to present a difficulty in meaning.—Ver. 3. x omits aoropyo..—Ver. 6. 
 aixuaswrifovtes, for aixuaswrevovrec, was adopted even by Griesb. on the 
 authority of A C D* E F G yx, many cursives, versions, and Fathers.—Before 
 yuvacxapia the Rec. has the art. 74, which, however, was deleted by Griesb., on the 
 authority of A C D E F G x, ete.—Ver. 8. The two names are differently written 
 by some mss.; for, Iavyijc, C* has “Iwavvy¢; Vulg. Cypr. etc. have Jamnes ; for 
 TauBpic, F G, Vulg. It., many Fathers, also the Talmudists, have Maypje. 
 Matthaei thinks that this change was made arbitrarily by Origen, who had a 
 fashion of altering proper names, partim propter ineptas allegorias, partim prop- 
 ter ineptas etymologias suas——Ver. 9. The reading in A, dravora for avoca, must 
 be regarded as an arbitrary alteration—Ver. 10. tapyxoAoibyKac] Rec. Tisch. 7; 
 for this, A C F G x 17, al., have the aorist tapyxoA0tOyoac, which was adopted by 
 Lachm. and Tisch. 8; F and G have the simple 7xoAovfyoac. The perf. seems to 
 be a correction made after the analogy of 1 Tim. iv. 6.—Instead of the difficult 
 Ti aywyh, there is found in D* gr. rH ayarn, a manifest correction—Ver. 11. For 
 éyévero, Lachm. and_Buttm. read éyévovto, after A 38, al. ; but there is not sufl- 
 cient testimony to establish its genuineness.—Ver. 12. Tisch. 7: evoeBa¢ Civ, Ree. 
 supported by a large majority of authorities; on the other hand, Tisch. 8: C7 
 evoeBac (Lachm. Buttm.), after A P yx, etc.—Ver. 14. tivoc] The reading tiver, 
 - which has the testimony of A C F G 17, 71, al., Slav. It. Ambrosiast., and was 
 - adopted by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch., deserves to be preferred to the usual tivoc, for 
 this reason, that the latter may easily be explained to haye arisen from thinking 
 here of Paul only. De Wette is undecided, but Reiche is in favor of the Ree— 
 Ver. 15. The art. 7a before iep&is placed in brackets by Lachm., and omitted by 
 Tisch. 8; it is wanting in C** D* F G y.—Ver. 16. As kai seems to disturb the 
 construction, it is omitted in several versions and Fathers; Origen even has 
 once: Oedrvevatoc obca, wgéAuud¢ éoTt.—For édeyxov, Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 
 adopted éAeyy6v, on the authority of A C F G x, 31, 71, 80, al. 
 
 Ver. 1. [On Vy. 1-9, see Note XXIX., page 258.] Consequent on the 
 previous exhortations we have a foreshadowing of the evil state of things 
 in the future.—roiro d8 yivwoxe |. Even if the plural yvooxere be the correct 
 reading, it does not follow that the epistle-was directed to others beside 
 Timothy; when an exhortation is general in nature, there is nothing 
 strange in an extension of the point of view.—drc év éoydrag juépatc) 
 
CHAP. 11. 1-5. 247 
 
 [X XIX a.] comp. 1 Tim. iv. 1; Grotius wrongly translates: posthac. It 
 denotes a definite period, not, however (asin Actsii. 17; Heb. i. 1), the pre- 
 sent, the time between the appearance of Christ in the flesh and His second 
 coming to judgment (Heydenreich), nor the time in which the errors 
 shall come to an end (Mack), but the time immediately preceding Christ’s 
 mapovoia, in which time, according to apostolic prophecy, the might of the 
 wicked one shall be fully revealed in order to be completely overcome; 
 comp. 2 Pet. i. 3; Jude 18.—évorjoovrar] évicrnu, as an intransitive verb, 
 has the sense of “be near at hand,” but in such a way that it passes over 
 into the sense of “be present;” thus in Rom. viii. 38, 1 Cor. iii. 22, 
 éveotora and yéAAovra stand in sharp antithesis as “things present” and 
 “things future.” Bengel therefore is correct: aderunt. The same is the 
 case with the Latin instare; hence there is no ground for finding fault 
 with the Vulg. “instabunt” (de Wette), since in the future something 
 future was denoted. Luther is not quite exact: “will come.”—«acpoi 
 xareroi] de Wette: “critical times;” «apéc is not simply the time, but 
 the state of things at the time.—The next verses show in what way these 
 xaipoi Will show themselves to be yateroi. 
 
 Vv. 2-5. "Eoovra: yap oi avOpwro.] [XXIX b.] The article oi is not to be 
 overlooked. Luther is inaccurate: there will be men; Nouveau Test. 4 
 Mons: il y aura des hommes. The article points to the generality, but, 
 as Matthies rightly observes, not exactly “all without exception, rather 
 taking the average, as a general rule.”—Bengel : majore gradu et numero 
 tales, quam unquam, in ecclesia.—Mack is incorrect: “the people of 
 whom I am speaking.”—¢iAavro (ax. Aey.). It may be explained from 
 Arist. ad Nicom. ix. 8: trove giAabrove év aisxyp@ axokddovor. Heinrichs, on 
 the analogy of 1 Cor. x. 24, says: (yrév ra éavtov, uy Ta Tow érépov.—_HuAdpyvpo] 
 only elsewhere in Luke xvi. 14; the substantive occurs in 1 Tim. vi. 10.— 
 aralovec, brephoavor] Rom. i. 30; the first expresses boastfulness without 
 intending contempt for others; the second, pride and haughtiness with 
 contempt for others; see Meyer on that passage. Hofmann’s explana- 
 tion of aAdfwv is not appropriate: “he who attributes to himself an honor 
 which is not his.”—Adodyuor] “slanderous;’’ not quite “ blasphemous ” 
 (Matthies). In 1 Tim. 1. 13 a definite reference to divine things is given 
 by the context.—yovevow areibeic] Rom. i. 80.—ayapioro:] elsewhere only in 
 Luke vi. 85 (Ecclus. xvi. 29; Wisd. xxix. 17).—avéowr] 1 Tim. i. 9. Beza: 
 quibus nullum jus est nec fas.—Ver. 3. doropyo:] Rom. i. 81, especially of 
 the natural affection between parents and children: caritate a natura ipsa 
 nobis insita orbati, Heinrichs.—éorovd] Rom. i. 81; both those who 
 make no covenant (Luther: “irreconcilable”) and those who do not 
 keep a covenant made, “ covenant-breaking.” Hofmann says: “ one who 
 is destitute of moral sense of justice ; ” but that does not give the reference 
 peculiar to the word.—0év4fo/0c] 1 Tim. iii. 11.—dxparei¢ (az. Aey.), “having 
 no control over one’s passions; ” 1 Cor. vii. 5: axpacia; the opposite is 
 éyxpathc, Tit. i. 8.—avijuepor] (ar. Aey.). Oecumenius makes it equivalent 
 tO auoi, axavipwro; Synonymous with avedrefjuovec, Rom. i. 31.—agiAdyabos 
 (az. Aey.); the opposite: @Adyabo., Tit. i. 8. Theophylact: éx@pot mavrd¢ 
 
248 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 ayaboo. Luther wrongly: “unkindly.”—Ver. 4. xpodérac] Luke vi. 16; 
 Acts vii. 52; here: “men among whom there is no fidelity ’ (Wiesinger). 
 —rporereic¢] (Acts xix. 36), qui praecipites sunt in agendo (Bengel), “ fool- 
 hardy.” Hofmann’s is too weak: “ inconsiderate.”’—rervgwpévor] 1 Tim. 
 ili. 6, vi. 4, “‘ puffed up,” not merely “made stupid ” (Hofmann).—#Aqdovoe 
 paaArov h gAdbeor (both words az. dey. Philo, de Agricult.: giAgdovov kat 
 gidoraby wadrrov % giAdpeTov Kai @iAdHeov épyatecar); such paronomasia are 
 often found in the N. T.; see Wilke’s Hermeneutik, vol. II. p. 846: “rather 
 hunting after pleasure than seeking after God.” '—Ver. 5. éyovre¢ pépdwow 
 evoeBeiac | pdopdworc, Rom. ii. 20, in a different meaning from here; see 
 Meyer on that passage. We must not, like Beza, understand it to be 
 vera forma et effigies pietatis, sicut in lege proponitur; it rather denotes 
 the external form in general. But as Paul contrasts it here with divaywe, it 
 acquires the signification of mere appearance in distinction from true 
 nature.—ryv dé divauw avtie jpvnuévor] Sbvayuc in contrast with pépdworc : 
 “the living, powerful nature of genuine blessedness”’ (Heydenreich).— 
 povnwévot] 1 Tim. v. 8; Tit. i. 16, 11.12: “they show that they do not pos- 
 sess the dévayic, and do not wish to possess it.”—This ends the enumera- 
 tion of the characteristics which Paul uses to describe. the men in the 
 last times.—Rom. i. 30, 31 is similar to this passage; Wiesinger (fol- 
 lowing Olshausen) aptly remarks: “it is a new heathendom under a 
 Christian name which the apostle is here describing.”—A definite con- 
 nection between the ideas cannot be established,’ but in both passages 
 kindred ideas are placed together. Thus the two first are compounded 
 with ¢io¢ ; then follow three expressions denoting arrogance; to yovetou 
 arabeic there is added aydpicro; this word begins a longer series of words 
 beginning with @ privative, and the series is interrupted by d:dfod0v; the 
 next expressions: mpoddrat, mporeretc, SeeM to form a paronomasia; to 
 mporereic there is added the kindred notion rervgwpuévor ; Some more general 
 notions close the list. But this very confusion brings out more vividly 
 the varied manifestations of the evil one. - It is to be observed, however, 
 . that the list begins with ¢/Aavro, that accordingly only such qualities are 
 enumerated as have their root in gAavria, and that hypocrisy is the last 
 mentioned, as the means by which the selfish man seeks to conceal his 
 selfishness by a show of piety —Heydenreich wrongly tries to establish in 
 the particular expressions a special reference to the peculiar nature of the 
 heretics—As the closing word; Paul adds the exhortation: kai rovrovc 
 arorpérov] axorpérov, ax. rey. (1 Tim. vi. 20: éxrpérecfar), is kindred in 
 meaning with zaparod, ii. 23: “from these things turn away, these things 
 sarepyilecbies HTTovs «TOV 
 
 1Theod. v. Mopsu.: pidavtoi eiow ot Tavta, MaxnV, akpatets 
 
 mpos Thy EauT@v wpédAELcav TOLOUYTES, adagoves 
 Kavxwpmevor Exev 6 mH EXOvOLY, UTEpHpavol E- 
 yada povoovtes emt Tois ovat, BAaodymor 
 KaTnyoplats XalpovTes, avogvor emipedccav TOU 
 Sixaiov my moLovpevor, aaTopyor mepi ovdéva 
 cxéow éxovtes, dorovdor ov BéBaror wept Tas 
 didias, oVde GANBEts wept & TuVTLBEVTaL, SuaBodAor 
 tavTa Te éxel, éxetva évTadOa A€yovTes emi TH 
 
 _ radar, avyjmepor ovdSemLas XpHOTOTHTOS ETLMEAOV- 
 
 peEvOL, TeTUPWLEVOL EyaAa HpovovdvVTEs Em TOLS 
 LN Tpogover. 
 
 2 Hofmann does indeed seek to establish an 
 order in accordance with definite points of 
 view, but he does not accomplish this without 
 much ingenuity and many inaccurate inter 
 pretations. 
 
CHAP. III. 6. 249 
 
 avoid.”—This exhortation shows that Paul in single phenomena of the 
 day already recognized the approach of the kacpoi yaderot which were to 
 come fully in the future. 
 
 Ver. 6. In this verse the apostle passes on to definite facts in the pres- 
 ent. We cannot but see that he is thinking of the heretics on whose 
 aoéBeva he lays stress also in other passages; comp. ver. 8 (il. 16). Hof- 
 mann says that “ Paul was thinking of people who wished to be consid- 
 ered, and pretended to be, on good terms with Timothy ;” but there is no 
 hint of this in the context. By similarity of disposition they belong 
 already to the number of the godless men of the future ; hence Paul says: 
 éx tobTwv yap elow] yap gives the reason of the previous exhortation, as the 
 apostle means to declare that men such as he has described already 
 exist.—ol évdivovrec el¢ Tac oixiac] évdiverv here, “ enter, press into,” with a sug- 
 gestion of secrecy; Luther: “who slip into houses here and there;” 
 Bengel: irrepentes clanculum ; in this sense the word is azaf dey... The 
 form of expression oi évdivovrec shows that this évdivew is a characteristic 
 of those of whom the apostle is speaking —The purpose of this secret 
 entering is given in the next words: kai aiyuadwrilovtes yuvaixdpia «.7.A.] 
 [XXIX ¢.] aixparwrifew, a verb belonging to later Greek: “make a pris- 
 oner of war; ” it denotes here, getting complete possession of; the word 
 is thoroughly apposite for describing the conduct of the founders of hereti- 
 cal sects.2—yvvaixapia] az. Aey., the diminutive with a suggestion of con- 
 tempt; “the contemptuous epithet indicates their weakness and prone- 
 ness to temptation” (van Oosterzee)—The nature of these yuvackapia is 
 described in the following three participial clauses: ceowpevuéva duapriacc] 
 cwpevew (Rom. xii. 20), “ gather, heap up,” corresponds to the Latin cumu- 
 lare: “cumulatae peccatis.”—dyéueva éexvIvpiare rorxidace (Rom. vill. 14; 
 Gal. v. 18, ayeoSa rveipar:). Luther is inaccurate: “who go on with 
 manifold lusts.” Their internal motive and spring of action are their 
 manifold lusts.2—Comp. Tit. iii.38.—Ver. 7. rdvrore pavddvovta] Bengel adds 
 the adverb: curiose. The incentive of their pavddvew was not the search 
 after truth, but mere desire for entertainment, a longing for intellectual 
 pastime (comp. the description of the Athenians, Acts xvii. 21); this long- 
 ing makes them the prey of teachers who promise new wisdom. Hence 
 it goes ON: Kal pydérore eic Exiyvocw aAjiSeiag EAEiv Suvdueva] yundérore 18 az. 
 hey.; dvvdueva is emphatic; they cannot attain to the truth, because the 
 necessary conditions do not exist in their inner life.—Mosheim thinks 
 that the three participial clauses describe the three different classes of the 
 yuvaixdpia: (1) sinners, (2) seekers after happiness, (8) devotees; they 
 rather denote various traits in the same persons, and “the very union of 
 
 1Chrysost: eldes, ro avaicxuvtov THs ebyAwoe 
 Sia Tov eimetvy; evdvvovtes’ TO aTimov, THY 
 amTaTyVv, THY KoAakelav. 
 
 2The word occurs in Ignatius (Ep. ad Phila- 
 delph. chap. ii.) in the same sense as here: 
 modAot AVKoL aktomLaToL HOovy Kaky alxprAwTl- 
 
 Govat Tovs Peodpopous. 
 
 8Chrysostom: ti éote morkidats; evTavda 
 TOAAG HvigaTo, THY TPUdHY, THY agXnKLoTUYHY, 
 Thy Aayvetav. 
 
 4C@hrysostom: érerd) éavtas Katexwoay Tais 
 ALapTHMacLr, 
 
 émOvytars exetvars Kal ToS 
 
 émpwby avtav 7H Stavora, 
 
250 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY..- 
 
 such traits is characteristic ” (de Wette).—It is no matter of surprise that 
 the heretics, to win more followers, turned their attentions to the fair 
 sex ; that has been done by heretics in all ages. It is a charge brought 
 specially against the Gnostics by various writers.!. This, however, cannot 
 be taken as a proof of the later composition of the epistle, all the less that 
 many expressions in the descriptions of the Fathers show that they had 
 this description in their thoughts. 
 
 Ver. 8. Further description of the heretics: 6v rpérov dé "lavvqc «ai 
 IauBpi¢ avtéotyoav Mwioei] Paul here compares the heretics to the Egyp- 
 tian Magi who are mentioned in Ex. vil. but not named. Origen (Tract. 
 35 in Matt.) thinks that the apostle extracted them from a liber secretus 
 which bore the title ““Jamnes et Mambres.” That is, however, doubtful ; 
 Theodoret’s supposition is more probable: ra pévroe robTwv dvéuata ovK éx 
 Tie Oeiag ypagyc pweuddynxev 6 Yeiog ardatoAoc, aAW EK THO aypdgov Tov "Tovdaiwy 
 diackariac. The names were a part of Jewish tradition from which they 
 passed into the Talmudic and other Jewish writings; see Targum Jona- 
 than, Ex. vii. 11, xxii. 22. Even the Pythagorean Numenius in the second 
 century mentioned them, as Origen (Contra Celsum, iv.) and Eusebius 
 (Praep. Evangel. ix. chap. 8) inform us. ‘“ According to Jewish tradition, 
 they are said to have been the sons of Balaam, and at first the teachers of 
 Moses, but afterwards his chief opponents, and to have perished at last with 
 the Egyptian army in the Red Sea;” see Heydenreich and Wetstein on this 
 passage.—The correlation of 6v rpézov . ovrw does not necessarily 
 place emphasis on the similarity of the manner of the act, but often only 
 on the similarity of the act itself (comp. Matt. xxiii. 87; Acts vii. 28). 
 Possibly, therefore, the heretics are compared with these sorcerers only 
 because they both withstood the truth (so Plitt)—Possibly, also, it is 
 because the resemblance lay in the heretics preaching the same thing as 
 Timothy, just as the sorcerers did the same thing as Moses, the heretics 
 and the sorcerers having the same purpose of striving against the truth 
 (so Hofmann). Still the mention of the sorcerers at all is strange ; hence 
 
 “we may suppose that the heretics by some more characteristic trait sug- 
 gested the resemblance to the apostle’s mind, and that this trait was their 
 use of magic arts, to which there is allusion made also in yéyrec, ver. 18 
 (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee”). The dé not only marks the transi- 
 tion to a new thought, but also introduces something in contrast to what 
 
 1Trenaeus, i. 13. 3, says of Marcus the Val- Apelles Philemonem comitem habuit; Mon- 
 
 entinian Gnostic: padcora mepi yuvaikas aoxo- 
 Aetrac; and Epiphanius, Haer. xxvi.,expressly 
 upbraids the Gnostics with éuzatgew rots 
 yuvatkaptors and with amwatay To avrots meLb6- 
 pevov yuvatketov yevos; see Baur, p. 36. The 
 passage, quoted by Mack from Jerome (Ep. 
 ad Ctesiphontem), is very descriptive: Simon 
 Magus haeresin condidit adjutus auxilio He- 
 lenae meretricis; Nicolaus Antiochenus 
 omnium immunditiarum conditor choros 
 duxit foemineos; Marcion quoque Romam 
 praemisit mulierem ad majorem lasciviam ; 
 
 tanus Priscam et Maximillam primum auro 
 corrupit, deinde haeresi polluit; Arius ut 
 orbem decipéret, sororem principis ante 
 decepit. Donatus Lucillae opibus adjutus 
 est; Elpidium caecum Agape caeca duxit; 
 Prisciliano juncta fuit Galla. 
 
 2Van Oosterzee here makes an apposite 
 allusion to Simon Magus, to Elymas, to the 
 itinerating devil-exorcisers among the Jews, 
 and to the magic arts practised from time 
 immemorial at Ephesus, comp. Acts xix. 19. 
 
CHAP. 1. 8-11. 251 
 
 preceded : what they did they did with an appearance of piety, but in 
 truth they were opposing the truth.—«areg6apyévoe tov vowv] The verb 
 katagbeipw (az. Aey.; in 2 Pet. ii 12 it is the reading of the Rec., but there 
 is more testimony for the simple verb) is synonymous with diagveipo, 1 
 Tim. vi. 5.—addxeuoe repi tiv riot] Luther’s translation: “ incapable of 
 believing,” is inaccurate; nor is Beza’s explanation suitable : rejectanel, 
 ie. falsae et adulterinae doctrinae doctores, quos oporteat ab omnibus 
 rejici. ’Adéd«euoc is one who does not stand proof, and in connection with 
 rept tiv rior One who does not stand proof in regard to faith: “not stand- 
 ing proof in respect of faith” (Matthies, de Wette); comp. L “Diana-is £9: 
 The description here given of the heretics is the same as in 1 Tim Vi.o% 
 SiepSapuévor TOV vovv Kal areotepnpévor THC adn teiac. 
 
 Ver. 9. A ground of comfort.—a22’ ob rpoKdyovow éxt mAeiov] This ap- 
 pears to stand in contradiction with ver. 13 and ii. 16, 17. Bengel 
 remarks: non proficient amplius: non ita, ut alios seducant ; quamquam 
 ipsi et eorum similes proficient in pejus ver. 19. Saepe malitia, qaum 
 late non potest, profundius proficit. This, however, is not a satisfactory 
 explanation, since vou ée, ii. 17, and rAavovrec, ver. 18, point to the 
 increasing extent of the heresy. Chrysostom, however, says rightly : «av 
 mpbrepov avdjon Ta THC TAdvyC, Eig TéAog ov diapéver. The contradiction exists 
 only when the apostle’s words are wrongly pressed so as to contain a 
 denial of every further extension of the heresy. For the present their 
 influence is extending ; but later it will come to an end; this does not 
 contradict the apostle’s prophecy in vv. 1-5, since Paul does not say that 
 the demoralization of men will be brought about by the heretics of whom 
 he is thinking hege.. Hofmann sees no apparent contradiction, as he 
 supposes that Paul in the passages mentioned is not speaking of the same 
 people; but in this he is wrong, since both the context and the expression 
 show that those mentioned in ver. 13 are the same as those in vv. 6-9.— 
 The apostle confirms the thought expressed by adding the words: 4 yap 
 dvora avtav éxdndoc gotae tacw] The avora (= “ want of judgment, sense- 
 lessness ”) of the heretics does not refer so much to their doctrines opposed 
 to the truth, as to their conduct described in ver. 6.—éxdyAo¢ (am. rey.) ..- 
 dc Kat # éxelver éyévero] “as they were put to shame before Moses,” Ex. viii. 
 18 f., ix. 11 (de Wette). 
 
 Vy. 10, 11. [On Vv. 10-17, see Note XXX., pages 258, 259.] As a contrast 
 +o the heresy, the apostle now describes Timothy’s former conduct, for the 
 purpose of inciting him to show a like fidelity still. [XXX a.J]—oid dé 
 rapykozov8ncac| The verb denotes neither that he was an actual witness 
 (Chrysostom: robtwv ob paptug; so, too, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Eras- 
 mus, and others;—this exposition is unsuitable, since these events, ver. 
 11, in the apostle’s life had taken place before Timothy’s conversion), nor 
 even that the knowledge was gained through others (Luther: “thou hast 
 come to know”). TapaxoAovdeiv means “ follow,” either theoretically, as 
 in Luke i. 8 (“of intellectual following after, by which the knowledge of a 
 thing is gained,” Meyer on the passage), or practically, as in 1 Tim. iv. 6. 
 Here it can only have the latter meaning. Here, however, as in 1 Tim. 
 
252 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 iv. 6, it is not equivalent to imitari, follow as a pattern (de Wette), for that 
 does not agree with dwyyoi¢ (ver. 11), but the apostle’s didackaria, aywy? 
 k.7.A. are regarded as guides by which Timothy is to steer his course 
 through life (so also van Oosterzee, Hofmann, Otto'). Wiesinger explains 
 it: “thou hast let thyself be moved by my didackadia «.7.2. to join thyself 
 to me.” But this explanation unjustifiably limits the zapaxodovteiv to 
 “the act by which Timothy first joined himself to the apostle ;” further, 
 this notion of joining himself is imported; and finally, it would seem 
 superfluous to enumerate the particular points if they are only to be 
 understood as motives for Timothy’s joining himself to the apostle-—The 
 aorist says that Timothy followed the apostle before; there is no indica- 
 tion whether he did so later. This earlier period was, of course, the time 
 when he was the apostle’s ovvepyéc. The perfect would have meant that — 
 Timothy continued to do so.—youv rH didackatia] [XXX b.] comp. 1 Tim. 
 iv. 6.—rq ayoyi] With this and the following words ov is to be supplied. 
 Mack wrongly says that ov is not to be supplied, and that dywyf and the 
 terms following do not refer to Paul, but to Timothy: “thou hast followed 
 my doctrine in behavior,” etc. Apart from the unnatural construction, 
 this view is decidedly opposed by ver. 11, for it is quite untenable to sup- 
 pose that Timothy in the places named suffered persecution just as Paul 
 did.—aywyy (az. dey.) in classic Greek is both transitive, “the guidance,” 
 and intransitive, “ mode of life,” ratio vivendi. The latter meaning (see 
 Esth. ii. 20) should here be retained; the word cannot of itself mean 
 puidance of the church, as some interpret it. Luther says well: “my 
 manner.” —rq mpodéce:] cf. Acts xi. 28, “the purpose on which the mode 
 of life is founded.”—r4 riorer] not “ fidelity in office,” nor “ conscientious- 
 ness,” but “faith.”—r7 paxpodvuia «.7.4.] The difference between saxpo- 
 Syua and brouovg is, that the former is applied to one who is not irritated, 
 the latter to one who is not discouraged.—Ver. 11. roi¢ dwwyyoic, roig Tadjyu- 
 aow] The transition to these is formed by irouovg. The idea of dwypoi¢ is 
 expanded by adding ta3juacwv. The apostle is thinking specially of his 
 persecutions, and his reason is that Timothy shrank to a certain extent 
 from suffering ; comp. i. 6-8.—oid jor éyévovro (éyévero)] ola is distinguished 
 from the relative a4, inasmuch as it points to the nature of the radjuara; 
 a Would have limited ra¥juacw to what the apostle had to endure in 
 Antioch, ete.; but ota indicates that he means by. ra¥juaow all sufferings 
 of the same nature as those endured in Antioch, ete. This is the case also 
 with oiove farther on. The sufferings endured in Antioch, etc., are men- 
 ‘tioned because they took place at the time when Timothy was adopted 
 by Paul as his colleague—In the next words: oiove diwypyove impveyxa, the 
 
 
 
 LOtto: “mapaxoAovGery is to be taken in its nium, and Lystra. Hence, however, he is 
 
 most literal sense, not comprobari, amplecti, 
 or even imitari, but follow after. Timothy of 
 his own accord not only followed after his 
 
 doctrine, but also his sufferings; for that 
 
 these lay in the path of an apostle was shown 
 clearly enough by events in Antioch, Ico- 
 
 not to be surprised if he finds on his way the 
 very thing he had willingly followed after.”"— 
 Hofmann explains it: “ Timothy as scholar 
 followed that in which Paul had preceded 
 him as teacher, so that Christianity taught 
 him what Christianity was.” 
 
CHAP. im. 12, 13; 253 
 
 verb is emphatic; it was important, when directing Timothy to the ex- 
 ample given him, to remind him that the persecutions had been borne 
 undauntedly—and then that the Lord had granted rescue from them all; 
 hence he continues: kai é« ravtov pe épioato 6 xipwc. Erasmus, Flatt, 
 Mack, Heydenreich unnecessarily take the sentence: oiovce . . 
 as a touching appeal; Hofmann, both this sentence and the preceding 
 one: oid wo éyévero x.t.A, This would only be an unsuitable interruption 
 of the quiet train of thought.'—izodépe denotes persevering, stedfast 
 endurance, 1 Cor. x. 13; 1 Pet. 11. 17.—kai é« mévtov pe «.7.4.2] | He men- 
 tions his sufferings, and his rescue from them, that he may encourage 
 Timothy to be ready to suffer for Christ’s sake. It is to be observed that 
 ye épvoaro refers not only to rescue from bodily danger, but also to rescue 
 from the danger of being unfaithful to his calling, so that out of his suffer- 
 ings he had issued without hurt to body or soul ; comp. iv. 17. 
 
 Ver. 12. The principle here laid down is intended, like the mention of 
 Timothy’s conduct in ver. 11, to incite Timothy to willing endurance of 
 suffering.—xal ravrec dé] wai . . . dé, see 1 Tim. ili. 10.—oi éAovrec] is here 
 emphatic: “they whose thoughts are thus directed.”—¢jv evoeBac] the 
 adverb evoeBac only here and in Tit. 11. 12.—év Xpior@ "Ijoot] denotes the 
 pious life as Christian in its nature; but it is to be observed that, accord- 
 ing to the apostolic view, true eioéBeva is possible only in communion with 
 Christ. Hofmann unsuitably remarks that the emphasis should not be 
 on év Xp. ‘Ino., but on eiceBdc, for Cyv evceBdc év Xp. ’Ino. forms only one 
 idea: that of the Christian life of piety.—d.wy6joovra] expresses the cer- 
 tainty: Christian piety cannot continue without persecution, because the 
 world is hostile to the kingdom of God; comp. John xv. 19, 20; Matt. x. 
 22, 38, and other passages. Wiesinger rightly remarks: ‘“ Not to comfort 
 himself does the apostle say this, but to show that his experience was a 
 universal one, as something necessarily bound up with evoeBac Cp,” and, it 
 should be added, to give encouragement to Timothy. 
 
 Ver. 13. Matthies (with whom Wiesinger agrees) thus states the con- 
 nection between this and the preceding verses: “ Quite different is it with 
 evil men, who, instead of suffering for the truth, proceed always farther 
 in their wickedness ;”’ but there is no real opposition in the two thoughts 
 thus opposed. The apostle here continues the description of the heretics 
 which was interrupted at ver. 10; in contrast with oi #éAovrec evaeBadc Cyv, he 
 
 . UmgveyKa, 
 
 troduction was necessary, if the apostle 
 wished to express his thought in a relative 
 clause. 
 
 2Chrysostom: apudotepa mapakAyjoews, OTL 
 kal éy® mpobvuiay maperxounv yevvatay, Kal OvK 
 
 1Hofmann maintains that if the sentences 
 beginning with ofa and otovs were to be rela- 
 tive sentences, the apostle would have writ- 
 ten: Tots Suwyots, olovs UmAveyKa, Tots 7ab7- 
 Mmacwv, oid wor éyéveto; but this would make 
 too wide a separation between the cognate 
 ideas Stwypois and raOjuacrv, and the second 
 
 eyKaTeAcipOnpy. 
 
 3Bengel: extra Jesum Christum nulla 
 
 sentence: ola «.7.A,, would be only a weak 
 appendage.—The objection, that the relative 
 sentence with Siwyuots is quite superfluous, 
 is quite removed if the emphasis be placed 
 on umyveyxa. Nor can it be said that “ dimy- 
 wovs is unskilfully introduced,” since this in- 
 
 pietas. 
 
 4 Wiesinger argues, on the other hand, that 
 “suffering for the sake of holiness, and 
 advance in wickedness with outward success,” 
 do form a contrast; but the idea “with out 
 ward success” is entirely imported. 
 
254 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 calls them zovypot dvOpwro. Kai yonrec, and says of them, rpoxérrew éxt rd 
 xeipov, which is all the more suitable that it was the very reason why per- 
 secution was threatening the honest disciples of Christ, and with them 
 Timothy.—zorypoi dé dvbpwro] As the article is wanting, the thought is 
 quite general, but «ai yéyrec clearly shows that the heretics mentioned 
 above are specially meant (in opposition to Hofmann). Paul gives this 
 name to the heretics, with reference to ver. 8, where he compared them 
 to the Egyptian sorcerers. The word yéye¢ is az. Aey. (yonteia, 2 Mace. xii. 
 24); it is equivalent to uayoc, Acts xiii. 6, 8 (comp., too, Acts viii. 9, 11). 
 Hofmann generalizes the idea to that of a traitor; but this is all the more 
 arbitrary, that the expression is undoubtedly an allusion to ver. 8.—zpoxé- 
 Wovow éxi 7d yeipov] denotes a greater degree of wickedness, while ver. 9 
 refers to the increase in the extent of its influence.—How this increase of 
 wickedness comes to pass, is told by the words raavévrec kai rAavdpevor, 
 Bengel and Heydenreich make riavévrec and yéyrec, tAavéuevor and rovnpot 
 parallel to each other; for this, however, there is no ground. Even the 
 meaning of rAaveuevor is against the parallel, for it is neither transitive: 
 “leading astray” (Matthies), nor middle: qui se seducendos permittunt 
 (Bengel), nor even intransitive: “going astray’ (Hofmann); it is purely 
 passive : “being led astray” (Luther), or otherwise it would have been 
 put first. He who leads others astray is himself led astray. 
 
 Ver. 14. To the good testimony given to Timothy by Paul in ver. 10, 
 there is added the exhortation to stand stedfast in the truth.—si dé] said 
 in opposition to the heretics.—péve év ol¢ Euafec] uéve, see 1 Tim. ii. 15; 
 John viii. 81.—év oic is equivalent to év robroi, d.—Eyabec] comp. ii. 2.— 
 kai] (sc. 4; not évolc, as Heydenreich suggests) éroréfyc] not= quae tibi 
 concredita sunt (Beza, Luther: “and is entrusted to thee”); for rioré 
 does not mean “entrust to,” but confirmare. It is rightly interpreted by 
 the Greek expositors, with whom also de Wette and Wiesinger agree ; 
 Theophylact: pera r2npodopiag Euabec; properly, “of which thou hast been 
 assured,” i. e. of which thou hast been convinced for certain ;! it serves 
 to give “ more force to éuafec” (Wiesinger), by declaring that Timothy was 
 also convinced of the truth of what he learnt (so, too, van Oosterzee, 
 Plitt, Hofmann).—To strengthen the exhortation, Paul reminds Timothy 
 of those from whom he learnt the truths of the gospel: eid mapa tivwr 
 éuabec] eidéc, see ii. 23.—rapa tivov] [XXX c.] With the usual reading rapa 
 
 tivoc, Which Hofmann prefers, tivoc is not, as some think, Christ, but the | 
 
 apostle as teacher; but still it would be strange for Paul not to name him- 
 self directly and without periphrasis, as he usually does when speaking 
 of himself; comp. ii. 2. If rivwv be the correct reading, then these teach- 
 ers cannot be the root waprypec mentioned in ii. 2 (Matthies), nor Paul 
 and Barnabas (according to Acts xvi. 1 comp. with xiv. 6 ff., Grotius) ; but 
 only, as is shown by azé Bpédove following, the grandmother and mother of 
 
 1JIn elassie Greek moréw occurs specially = “after they had made him swear.” Comp. 
 in connection with opxw; thus Thucydides, also Hom. Od. i. 21. 218: also 2 Mace. vii. 24, 
 iv. 88: Kal muotdéoavtes avTov Tols SpKots, 1. €. Xii. 25. 
 
 “after they had made sure of him by oath” 
 
CHAP. I. 14, 15. 255 
 Timothy, whose faith the apostle expressly mentions, i. 5 (so, too, van Oos- 
 terzee and Plitt)—Timothy had already been instructed in the truth of 
 the gospel before Paul met with him, nay, even before this instruction he 
 had been carefully made acquainted with the holy Scriptures. This very 
 fact, that from childhood he had been under the influence of divine truth 
 and been nourished by the bread of life, was to be an incentive to him to 
 adhere faithfully to this word of truth. 
 Ver. 15. Kai 67] Most expositors, including Wiesinger, Plitt, and Hof- 
 mann! assume that eidd¢ and 67 . . . oidac are co-ordinate sentences giv- 
 ing the reason why. In a eco of this irregular construction, Bengel 
 directs us to John ii. 24, 25; Acts xxl. 29; but wrongly.2—Beza, on the 
 other hand, gives the right construction by making xa? 67. dependent on 
 eidac: sciens a quo didiceris, teque a puero sacras literas novisse. This, 
 too, de Wette (van Oosterzee agreeing with him) adopts, correctly remark- 
 ing that cidéc usually denotes not only knowledge, but also reflection.— 
 ard Bpégove Ta iepa ypduparta oidac] axd Bpépovc, Mark ix. 21: raididébev.8 "Ard 
 Bpégove stands first because it is emphatic; it points back to rapa rivev 
 éuabec. In order that he may continue in what he has learned, Timothy 
 is to remember his teacher, and also that he has known the holy Scrip- 
 tures from childhood.—ra iepa ypaupata] This name for the O. T. only 
 occurs here; in John vii. 15 without ispd; the more usual name is ai 
 ypagai, with and without dyia. De Wette’s conjecture is quite arbitrary, 
 that the author of the epistle was also thinking here of some writings of 
 the N. T.—ra duvapevd oe cogioa ig owrnpiav] ta duvdueva is present and not 
 preterite (“quae poterant,” Bengel); it tells us of a permanent character- 
 istic of the O. T. (de Wette, Wiesinger). Zogifev is equivalent to sapien- 
 tem reddere; to explain the word as synonymous with é:daoxew is inaccu- 
 rate. When joined with ¢¢ ocwrnpiay it is usually taken in the sense: 
 “teach the way to holiness;” but, as Paul adds dia ziorewe «.7.2., which 
 cannot be joined immediately with cwrypiav (= ry dia cwrnp.), but belongs 
 to codica, that interpretation is here unsuitable; he who has faith is 
 already on the way to cwrnpia, or rather is in possession of the cwrypia. 
 We must therefore adhere to the full signification of cw@ifew; so that he 
 is speaking here not of the first instruction in salvation, but of the ever 
 deepening knowledge of it, how that furthers the owrypia (so, too, Wiesin- 
 ger, van Oosterzee, Plitt).—d:a rictewe tHe év Xp. ’Iyoov] comp. 1 Tim. iii. 18. 
 Wiesinger rightly remarks that these words are not to be taken as giving 
 the means immanent in the Scriptures, but “ contain the necessary condi- 
 tion attached to the use of the O. T.” (de Wette). Hofmann asserts that 
 
 1Schriftbew. I. pp. 675 f., and so also in his 
 commentary. — 
 
 2 Hofmann, in regarding the appeal to Acts 
 Xxii. 29 as appropriate, overlooks the differ- 
 ence of construction in the two passages. In 
 Acts xxii. 49, two sentences beginning with 
 ore are dependent on éemcyvovs, whereas here 
 the first independent sentence would be ex- 
 pressed by a participle (eiéws instead of ore 
 
 oléas), to which a sentence beginning with 
 ére is made co-ordinate. This irregularity of 
 construction is manifestly not removed by 
 Hofmann’s remark, that the first sentence 
 gives an additional fact, the second furnishes 
 a reason. 
 
 3 Chrysostom: 
 Antip. Th. 32: 
 
 €k mpwoTns yAtkias; Comp, 
 
 ex Bpedeos. 
 
256 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 go. ei¢ owrnpiav Only denotes an instruction, “ giving complete acquaintance 
 with salvation ;” for “in order that Timothy might remain in what he had 
 learnt, it was only necessary for the Scripture to teach what he knew.” 
 But what any one already knows does not require still to be taught to 
 him; and instruction leading on to knowledge ever more complete, does 
 not hinder him from abiding in what he has already learnt. Accord- 
 ing to Hofmann, dia rictewe is to be joined with cwrzpiav, because—as 
 he strangely enough asserts—‘‘instruction by means of faith is a 
 chimera ” (!). 
 
 Ver. 16. Reason given for the last thought.—raca ypady Gedrvevaroc 
 kal wgéduog Tpoc K.7.A.] [XXX d.] raca ypagh, not: “the whole of Scrip- 
 ture ” (Beza: tota scriptura, i.e. Canon Hebraeorum), but “ every Scrip- 
 ture;” or, still better, “all Scripture.” —fedrvevoroc] az. rey.; the explana- 
 tion of this word, which also in classic Greek is applied to seers and poets, 
 is specially aided by the passage in 2 Pet. 1. 21: id rvebyartoe dyiov depdmevor 
 éAddqoav oi aytot Bod avOpwror.—In various old versions (Syr. Vulg.; so also 
 in Clement, Origen, Tertullian, etc.) «ai is wanting; and Luther did not 
 express it in his translation; in that case eérv. is clearly an attribute 
 ‘belonging to the subject; Luther: “all Scripture inspired by God is.” 
 With the correct reading, however, #eérv. may be a predicate ; so Bengel: 
 est haec pars non subjecti (quam enim scripturam dicat Paulus, per se 
 patet), sed praedicati; so, too, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Ooster- 
 zee, and others. Other expositors, again, such as Grotius, Rosenmiiller, 
 Heinrichs, Plitt, Hofmann, take @edzvevoroc as an attribute of the subject, 
 even with this reading, and explain «ai as “also.” This construction is 
 the right one. On the one hand, it is ungrammatical to explain raoa 
 ypaoy by “the whole of Scripture.” Wiesinger argues against this by 
 appealing to Eph. ii. 21 and to Heb. iii. 3; see Meyer on the one passage 
 and Delitzsch on the other, where, too, Liinemann translates: “every 
 house.” + Wiesinger argues also that ypad# is regarded as a proper name, 
 which he tries to prove by 2 Pet. i. 20 and John vii. 15; but, though a sub- 
 Stantive is used once without an article, it does not follow that it has the 
 ‘signification of a proper name (on John vii. 15, comp. Meyer). On the 
 other hand, this sentence does not properly give a reason for the preced- 
 ing thought (Wiesinger), but rather confirms it, and hence there was no 
 reason for directing attention to the fact that the whole of Scripture is 
 Gedxvevoroc. There was no doubt.on that point (viz. that the whole of Scrip- - 
 ture and not a part of it was inspired by God), but on the point whether 
 the Scriptures as Geérvevoror are also (Kai serves to confirm) o¢éAcuor. There 
 is no ground for. asserting that, with this view, there could not have been 
 an ellipse of éorw (Wiesinger).—rxpic didackadiav x.7.2.] Heydenreich thinks 
 that the apostle is not speaking here of the profitableness of Scripture in 
 general and for all Christians, but of its utility to teachers of religion. So 
 also Hofmann: “ The sentence does not say of what service Holy Scrip- 
 
 ‘Not less inappropriate is van Oosterzee’s passage, and Winer, pp. 105 f. [E. T. p. 111] 
 appeal to Eph. iii. 15 (comp. Meyer on the and to 1 Pet. i. 15. 
 
GHAP:: Tit; A 7, 257 
 
 ture is to him who reads it, but what use can be made of it by him who 
 teaches.” This view, however, is wrong; neither in ver. 14 nor ver. 15is 
 there anything said regarding Timothy’s work in teaching ; the apostle does 
 not pass on to this point till the next chapter, ver. 17 notwithstanding. — 
 mpoc didaox.; Holy Scripture is profitable for teaching by advancing us in 
 knowledge ; zpoc¢ éAeyxov (or éAeyudv), by convincing us of sin and rebuking 
 us on account of sin.' Chrysostom understands it only of the conviction 
 of error; so, too, Bengel: convincit etiam in errore et praejudicio versan- 
 tes; Heydenreich, too, refers it, like didackadia, only to what is theoretical. 
 ’EAéyyvew certainly does occur in this sense, Tit. i. 9, 13, but it is more fre- 
 quently used of what is practical, 1 Tim. v. 20; Tit. ii. 15.—rpic éxavépbwow] 
 by working amendment in us.’—ézavop@. (az. dey.) is synonymous with 
 vovdecia, 1 Cor. x. 1l.—rpog raideiav tiv év duxacoobvy| by advancing us in the 
 further development of the Christian life. Luther is not wrong in trans- 
 lating radeia by “ correction,” inasmuch as in N. T. usage it is applied to 
 the education which not only develops the existing good, but also counter- 
 acts existing evil. dicacoctvy : “ the Christian life of piety.”—Theodoret : 
 éxrraidever yuac Ta edn THC apeTtjc.—There is an obvious climax in the series of 
 these thoughts. 
 
 Ver. 17. “Iva declares the purpose which Scripture is to serve.—apruoc 7 6 
 tov Ocod GvOpwroc] aprioe (literally, “ adapted”) is a dz. Aey., equivalent to 
 rédewoc, Col. i. 28, ‘ perfect;” according to Hofmann: “in suitable condi- 
 tion,’ which, however, agrees with the notion of perfection.—é roi Oot 
 avtporoc] [XXX e.] is mostly understood by expositors to denote those 
 entrusted with the office of evangelist, and is referred specially to Timo- 
 thy. The latter point is clearly wrong, since ver. 16 is general in sense ; 
 the apostle speaks here not of Timothy only, but of every one who is an 
 av$p. 7. Ocov. Even although Timothy is so named in 1 Tim. vi. 11 with 
 reference to his office, it does not follow that here, where the thought 
 is quite general, it is a name for the office; every believing Christian by 
 his relation to God (van Oosterzee: “he who by the Holy Spirit is born of 
 God and is related to God’’) may receive the same name.—rpoc rav épyov 
 ayabov éEnptiouévoc] a more precise definition of aptvoc.—rav épy. ay. is also, 
 for the most part, understood to have an official reference. Bengel : gen- 
 era talium operum enumerantur ver. 16; nam homo Dei debet docere, 
 convincere, corrigere, instituere iv. 2. But this is wrong; it is rather to be 
 taken quite generally (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee ; de Wette differs). Ver. 
 16 does not tell for what purpose Scripture may be used with others, but 
 what is its influence on one who occupies himself with it; and though iv. | 
 2 does deal with Timothy’s official work, that does not prove that wav épy. 
 ay. is only to be limited to this special thought.—éypriouévoc] equipped, 
 Luther: “skilled.”—The same word occurs in Acts xxi. 5, but in another 
 connection (see Meyer on the passage); corresponding to it we find xaryp- 
 tiouévoc in Luke vi. 40 and other passages. 
 
 1Theodoret: éAéyxer yap ynuay TOY Tapa- 2Theodoret: mapaxadet kai tTovs mapatpe 
 Pouov Biov. mévtas emraveAOerv cis THY EVOEiay Oddr. 
 
 17 
 
258 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 XXIX. Vv. 1-9. 
 
 (a) The use of the word éoyaracc, as distinguished from torépoe (1 Tim. iv. 1), 
 shows that the reference here is to what are especially called “the last days,” that 
 is, the time just preceding the second coming of the Lord. This is indicated, 
 also, by the future of the verb as connected with xapoi—the grievous times are 
 not present, but future, belonging to the last period. The 5th verse, however, 
 can hardly be explained, without finding in its words an intimation, that what 
 thus belonged to the future was already beginning. According to the most natural 
 interpretation of these verses, therefore, they would seem to point to the Parousia 
 as, to the writer’s view, not very remote. Yet the time of its coming was uncer- 
 tain, and it is evident from iv. 6, that he did uot himself now expect to live to 
 see it—(b) The description of the men of these coming times is, in several par- 
 ticulars, somewhat strikingly similar to that which is given of the heathen 
 nations in Rom. i. 28 ff. At the same time, it is evident that it goes beyond what 
 is there found, and we may believe that the Apostle bases his representation of 
 their character on that of the erroneous teachers whom he sees already at work, 
 and that he carries into the descriptive words the force which results from them. 
 The words, accordingly, have a deeper meaning and they represent a depraved 
 moral condition which is, in the sense that it comes from a wilful rejection of the 
 truth, worse than that depicted in the earlier epistle—(c) Fairbairn supposes the 
 persons alluded in ver. 6 as taking captive, etc., to be not teachers, but “of the class 
 called sorcerers or magicians, men of bloated consciences and reprobate minds, 
 who for merely selfish ends, played upon the weakness and credulity of mankind, 
 and pre-eminently upon certain portions of the female section of them.” The 
 general reference to teachers, however, which is manifest in all the other passages 
 in which the errors are spoken of, renders it probable that a similar reference is 
 to be found here. The action of these teachers was of the insinuating, selfish and 
 misleading character, which Fairbairn suggests. He thinks the women here re- 
 ferred to were “the frivolous and worldly-minded, who lived, for the most part, 
 in fullness and pleasure, but were visited at times with recoils of feeling, guilty 
 compunctions, fears of a judgment to come.” 
 
 XXX. Vv. 10-17. 
 
 (a) In this passage Paul sets forth the past course of Timothy, in contrast to ~ 
 the course of the false teachers, and then urges him to continue in the same. 
 Writers who, like Alford, regard Timothy as having grown weak and become 
 fearful, find in the aorist tense, tapyxoAov6y0ac, as distinguished from the perfect, 
 an intimation of this change. This seems unnecessary. The aorist refers to the 
 time past, when Timothy had been in association with the Apostle as a fellow- 
 laborer, and the standpoint of time which divides the past from the future is 
 taken, as so frequently in Paul’s writings. Had there been any such special 
 change, or falling back from faithfulness, in Timothy, it could hardly fail to have 
 been brought out with greater clearness and definiteness.—(b) The reference to 
 the Apostle’s own history and experience, which is made in these verses, is strik- 
 ingly in accordance with his ordinary manner of alluding to himself in his earlier 
 
NOTES. 259 
 
 epistles. The particular references here given are introduced, as explained by 
 Huther, because the things mentioned took place when Timothy became his com- 
 panion. The statement of the deliverance which had been granted to himself, 
 and the declaration of ver. 12, are doubtless designed to strengthen and encourage 
 Timothy to meet the sufferings which he might be called to undergo.—(c) The 
 reading tivwy (ver. 14) is preferred by Huther, as also by Tisch. 8th ed., Treg., W. 
 & H., Alf., and others. So also R. V. This reading has the best manuscript 
 authority, and may easily have been changed by copyists to tivoc, in order to 
 connect the instruction of Timothy with Paul. If tivwr is adopted, it refers, in 
 all probability, to the grandmother and mother (comp. i. 5). That an allusion 
 to them would be natural here, is indicated by the fact of the previous allusion in 
 the first chapter, and that they are the persons whom the Apostle has in mind is 
 rendered probable, if not certain, by the words azo {pégoue of yer. 15—(d) The 
 construction of ver. 16 adopted by R: V., which makes @eézvevoroc a part of the 
 subject and gives to xai the meaning oe is probably correct. The decision re- 
 specting this point depends mainly on the connection of thought with the preced- 
 ing verse. That verse assumes the ‘gpa character of the ypauwuara, and predicates 
 of them that they are able to make Timothy wise unto salvation. It is exactly in 
 accordance with this to regard ver. 16 as assuming the Yeorv. character of every 
 Scripture, and as affirming that it is useful for the particular ends mentioned, 
 which are all connected with the wisdom unto salvation through faith in Christ 
 Jesus. The formal statement, that at Scripture i is inspired,-is.not_demanded by the _ 
 context, or, “or, apparently, by_anything in Timothy’ s condition, and it seems ante- 
 cedently ‘improbable that it would be made to him in such a passage as this, which 
 relates to other subjects more immediately. Paul is not making an emphatic 
 contrast here between the truth and the false teaching, considered in themselves 
 or as to the source from which they come. He is, on the other hand, speaking 
 only of the perfecting of the man of God and the furnishing him thoroughly for 
 every good work.—The determination of the question as to the relation of teorv. 
 to the sentence does not necessarily affect the teaching of the verse as to inspira- 
 tion. If the adjective belongs to the subject,it.is to be observed, that, according 
 _to the suggestion.of the. preceding verse, where iepd is a descriptive adjective, it 
 most naturally qualifies maca ypady as an attributive word. It covers 7aca ypagn, 
 accordingly, and does not mark or distinguish one ypag7 in the ‘epa yp. from 
 another. The doctrine of the verse is thus, probably, the same—so far as inspira- 
 tion is concerned—whichever construction is adopted. The doctrine is distinctly 
 declared, if Georv. is a predicate ; it is assumed and implied, if ¥eorv is part of the 
 subject. Questions of dynamical or mechanical or minute verbal inspiration are, | 
 as Bp. Ellicott remarks, not determined by this verse. These questions must find 
 their answer and solution in the various statements and phenomena of the Old 
 and New Testaments, which have a bearing upon the subject.—(e) The phrase 
 6 Tov Veov avOpwroc, (ver. 17), if determined in its meaning by the 16th verse, is 
 to be taken in a general sense and with reference to every Christian. This must, 
 probably, be regarded as the meaning intended by the writer; but it is not impos- 
 sible that, in applying the general truth to Timothy, he inanete of him more 
 particularly with reference to his official life, which was, indeed, the life within 
 ‘which thegood-works appointed for him to do would mainly fall. 
 
260 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 VER. 1. dtapapripoyac] The words ovv éy following this in the Ree. were 
 omitted from the text by Griesb., on the authority of A C D* EF GL» 17, 
 al., Syr. Erp. Copt. ete—The same is the case with the words tod kvpiov, against 
 which there is the testimony of A C D* F G & 31, 37, al—For xpivew the 
 aorist xpivac is found in F G, several cursives, Theodoret, and Theoph. ; this 
 construction does occur sometimes in the N. T. (also in classic Greek), but there 
 is not sufficient authority for it here—xara riv éxi@pdvecav] For xara (Ree. after 
 D*** E K L, ete.), sai is the reading of A C D* F G 8 17, al., Copt. Vulg. 
 ms. It. Harl. etc. This reading, as it implies a change of construction in the verb, 
 and even then makes the connection difficult, is of a kind which would easily give 
 occasion for correction; the easiest correction was into «até. Chrysostom in his 
 commentary reads: év 7H émigaveia. Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. rightly adopted kai, 
 which is approved also by Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, and van Oosterzee. 
 Reiche, on the other hand, because of the difficulty of the reading, kai, regards 
 the Ree. as the original reading, while he connects kata with péAAovrag xpivew as 
 a preposition of time.—Ver. 2. Tisch. 7 reads érvtiuyoov, rapaxaAecov, with the 
 majority of the authorities ; whereas Tisch. 8 reads tapaxadecov, éxitiunoov, The 
 placing of éxitiuyoov first may be a correction, because this word is related in 
 meaning to the previous éAeyfov.-Ver. 3. tag iiac érifuuiac] adopted by Griesb. 
 in place of ta¢ émAyuiag rac idiac, on the authority of A C D E F G 8 3, 37, 
 al., Arm. Vulg. ete—Ver. 6. Instead of tie éuje avadtcewc, which is the Ree. 
 supported by D E K L, al. (Tisch. 7), it is more correct, with Lachm. Buttm. 
 and Tisch. 8, to read ti¢ avadtoedc pov, on the authority of A C F G x, al— 
 Ver. 7. For tov ayova tov kaddv (Tisch. 7), Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, on the 
 authority of A C F GX, al., adopted dv Kadov ayova, which is certainly in 
 harmony with the usage of the Pastoral Epistles, but for that very reason may be a 
 ‘correction.—Ver. 10. For the Ree. éyxaréAutev.(D* K 8, ete.), Tisch. 7 adopted 
 the imperfect éyxaréAectev, on the authority of A C D** and *** E F G L, 
 etc.; Tisch. 8 retained the Rec. which is supported by D* K 8, ete—In C 8, 
 several cursives, and Fathers, T'adiav is found instead of the Rec. Tadariav ; 
 Epiph. Haer. 57, dis. says: ov yap év Tadaria, &¢ tivec rAavatlévtec vouitovow, 
 aAsa év ty Tadia; of this reading Reiche says: est utique notatu digna; .. . me 
 cum Bengelio in hance lectionem inclinare sentio. But the Mss. almost all support 
 the Ree. ; and it cannot be inferred from the name -Kpyoxye (Crescens) that this 
 man was sent more probably to Gaul, where Latin was in use, than to Galatia, 
 where Greek was spoken (Reiche) ; it is too rash, therefore, to regard this as the 
 original reading. Tisch. 8, however, adopted it, whereas Tisch. 7 does not even 
 mention it; Hofmann thinks it the correct reading—Ver. 11. For dye, Lachm. 
 Buttm. and Tisch. 7 read the form éyaye, which, however, does not seem to have 
 sufficient testimony in A 31, 58, ete.; Tisch. 8 retained the Rec., with the support 
 of almost all authorities—Ver. 13. For gedovyv are found also the forms gacAavny, 
 
 
 
CHAP. Iv. 1, 2. 261 
 
 gaAdvnv, geAdvav ; but geAdvyv is best supported. While Tisch. 7 adopted the 
 imperfect azéAevtov, on the authority of A C F G, ete., Tisch. 8 read the aorist 
 arédurov (Rec.), on the authority of D E K 8, al.; so, too, Lachm. and Buttm. 
 —Ver. 14. arodéce] This is rightly read by Scholz, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, on 
 the authority of A C D* gr. E F G 8 6,17, al., Copt. Arm. ete., Chrys. Theo- 
 doret, instead of atodéy, which has the support of D*** E** K L, ete., Tisch. 
 7, Reiche—Ver. 15. av6éornxe] Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8 rightly read avréory, on 
 the authority of A C D* F G &, al.; Tisch. 7 read avééoryxev, on the authority 
 of D*** E K L, ete—Ver. 16. ouurapeyévero] Following A C F G & 17, al. 
 Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8 adopted the simple tapeyévero ;—no doubt the compound 
 ouurapey. (Tisch. 7) occurs seldom in the N. T., being found elsewhere only in 
 Luke xxiii. 48; but it seems nevertheless to be a correction made on account of 
 ot. Here, too, the readings vary between the imperfect éyxatéAevtov (Rec.) and 
 the aorist éyxatéAutov; Tisch. 7 has the former, Tisch. 8 the latter; comp. vv. 10 
 and 13.—Ver. 17. Instead of the singular dxotoy, Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 
 rightly read the plural axotows:, supported by A C D EF G 8 17, 39, al—Ver. 
 18. Kaé at the beginning of the verse was rightly omitted by Lachm. Buttm. and 
 Tisch., on the authority of A C D* & 31, al., versions, Fathers; it was inserted 
 to connect this verse with the preceding one—Ver. 20. M:Ajt»] For this A has 
 MyAwre, and Arab. Medity.—Ver. 22. For the Rec. 6 Kbpioc "Inoovg Xpioté¢ (C 
 D E K L), Lachm. and Buttm. have 6 xépio¢ "Iycove (A 31), Tisch. only 6 kiproc 
 (F G 17, etc.). Lachmann’s reading should perhaps have the preference, as 
 it is the one most open to correction.—4ay4v was omitted by Griesb. as a later 
 addition. 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. [On Vv. 1-8, see Note XXXL. pages 275-277.] Exhortation to 
 faithful performance of official duty, enforced by the introductory formula: 
 Sawaptipouat évoriov tov Oeov x.7.A.] Comp. ii. 14; 1 Tim. v. 21.—rov pédrov- 
 roc Kpivew ¢. Kk. vexp.] Theophylact rightly expounds it: Cavra¢ Kai vexpove 
 Aéyer Tove Hn areAfdvtac, Kai Tog T6TE KaTahEeLpOyoouévove CavTac; COMp. if 
 Thess. iv. 16, 17; 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52. Christ is called judge of the dead and 
 the living, also in Acts x. 42; 1 Pet. iv.5; itis quite wrong to suppose 
 that the spiritually dead and living are meant. The allusion to the last 
 judgment gives special strength to the exhortation —«ai jv émpavecav 
 avrov] Most expositors adopt xara, the usual reading, as the correct one, 
 and then take it asa preposition of time (Matt. xxvii. 15; Acts xiii. 27; 
 Heb. iii. 8), belonging to xpivew. With the correct reading, tiv émig. x71. 
 depends on dcavapripoua: as the accusative of the oath (so, too, van Oos- 
 terzee and Plitt). [XX XI a.] It is, however, to be noted that in the N. T. 
 Siapapripecbac does not mean “swear” by itself, but only in connection 
 with évdériov tov Ocod (only in the Pastoral Epistles), and therefore only in 
 this connection does it, like other verbs of swearing, govern the accusative, 
 as Hofmann rightly remarks. Hence it follows that «ai does not connect 
 éxidavecay with the previous évémov, but belongs to the following xaé: 
 “both ... and” (Hofmann). De Wette, appealing to Deut. iv. 26, incor- 
 rectly expoundsit: “TI call his appearance, etc.,to witness;” present things 
 may be summoned as witnesses, but not future events like the érupavea of 
 Christ—The Vulg. has: per adventum, without sai: probably a transla- 
 
262 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 tion of xardé, which is taken as xara with the genitive, Matt. xxvi. 63.— 
 émipaveca, See 1 Tim. vi. 14.—xai tiv Bacrdsiav abrov] Several expositors join 
 the two expressions as an hendiadys (Bengel: éravera est revelatio et 
 exortus regni) = tyv én. tH¢ Baoideiac avtov; but the airov with émd. is - 
 against this. The two things are considered separately (Wiesinger: “the 
 repetition of airod is rhetorical; each element is intended to be taken 
 independently, and considered in its full significance”); the Baodeia abtov 
 is the regnum gloriae which begins with the return of Christ—The reason 
 for adding these words lies in the xpivew ¢. x. v.; Paul says he has Christ’s 
 second coming and kingdom in his thoughts, that he may give greater 
 importance to his exhortation.—Ver. 2. kjpvgov tov Adyov] In 1 Tim. vy. 21, 
 diaz, is followed by iva with the conjunctive ; but here we have the simple 
 imperative, which makes the appeal all the more urgent (Wiesinger).—rov 
 Aéyov, sc. tov Oeov] This more precise definition is wanting here, because 
 the emphasis lies chiefly on the verb, Paul indicating to Timothy the work 
 to be done.—érioryH evKaipw¢ axaipwc] [XX XI b.] Most expositors join these 
 words closely with «jpvfov insense. Heydenreich : éxiori, sc. ro knpbooew, 
 Theodoret : oby drAde kai bg Ervyev abrov Kypittew mapeyyvd, aAAa rdvta Karpov 
 éritqdevov Tpo¢ TovTo vouifew. WVulg.: “insta;” Luther: “ persist;” so also 
 van Oosterzee ; similarly Wiesinger, who, in harmony with ériyeve abroic, 
 1 Tim. iv. 16, expounds it: ‘“‘ keep one’s attention or activity directed to a 
 thing.” But this is not the usual meaning of the verb; it means rather 
 “ step towards or draw near” (Hofmann is less precise: “approach, appear”), 
 comp. Luke ii. 8, 38, and other passages. The word is defined more pre- 
 cisely by xfpvgov tov Aéyov: draw near with the preaching of the word. 
 Who are the persons to whom Timothy is to draw near, may easily be 
 supplied from the context, viz. to those to whom he has to preach the 
 word. It is incorrect to think only of the whole church (Bretschneider : 
 accede ad coetus christianos, so also de Wette), or only of the individual 
 members (so before in this commentary). Plitt is correct: “draw near 
 (to men), viz. with the word.’’—evxaipuc axaipwc"] Chrysostom : ju) Karpov &ye 
 Gpiouévov, aet coi kaipoc éorw. The further definition given by Chrysostom : 
 _kav év Toic Kwvdivo.c, Kav év deouwTypie ne x.7.2., or by Theodoret: kai év deouw- 
 - TIP, Kat Toiw Kat Tapaxeruévyc Tparétyc, and-others similar by other exposi- 
 tors, are wrong, since we ought to think here not so much of the cireum- 
 stances in which Timothy (or more generally the preacher of the word) 
 may be, but of the circumstances of the hearers: “whether the time 
 seems to thee seasonable or unseasonable for it” (de Wette, Wiesinger, 
 van Oosterzee). Hofmann is wrong: “whether he comes seasonably or 
 not to those whom he approaches with the word ;” for there was no need 
 ‘to tell Timothy that the preacher was not bound to inquire into his 
 hearers’ opinion and act accordingly. For the truth, the occasion is 
 always seasonable. He who desires to wait until the occasion seem com- 
 
 ‘Similar collocations without any particle ates; madaywyo éuBpiber orcs, evKaipws 
 of union or separation are not found in the akaipws. émrémAntrev. Julian: émropeveto émi 
 N.'T., but oceur in Greek and Latin classics; Tas Tov iAwy oixias akAnTos KEeKAnmevos. 
 see Bengel on this passage. Nicetas Choni- Virgil: digna indigna pati. 
 
CHAP. IV. 3, 4. 263 
 
 pletely favorable for his work, will never find it. This is particularly true 
 of the exercise of the evangelic office—Note, finally, Beza’s remark: 
 nempe quod ad carnis prudentiam pertinet; nam alioqui requiritur 
 sanctae prudentiae spiritus, captans occasiones ad aedificationem oppor- 
 tunas.—é2eyéov] should be restricted neither to heresies nor to moral 
 transgressions; it includes blame of everything blameworthy.—ércriuyoov] 
 stronger than é4eygov: “blame with decided manifestation of dislike ;” 
 often in the Gospels, also in Jude 9.—rapaxaiecov] Blame and exhortation 
 should be joined in order to cause edification; blame by itself embitters, 
 exhortation by itself is ineffectual—év rdoy paxpobvuia kai didayn] An 
 appendix to zapaxddecov, or, according to the reading of Tisch. 8, to 
 éxitiugoov, With which, however, it seems less appropriate. On jaxpoOvuia, 
 comp. ili. 10.—dé:day7] The exhortation is to be of a kind that will instruct; 
 the purpose, as Heydenreich aptly remarks, is not to produce momentary 
 emotion and violent tumult of feeling. Avdayf is instruction, and is not 
 equivalent to studium alios vera docendi. It is wrong, too, to make it an 
 hendiadys, as if it were év rdon didayqe paxpobvuia.i—Note the connection 
 of this verse with 11.16. The preacher of the divine word has not to 
 perform the work of teaching, of reproving, etc., without placing himself 
 under the teaching, the reproof, etc., of the divine word. 
 
 Vv. 3, 4. Ground of the previous exhortation, éorac yap kaipdc, bre] 
 [XXXI1 ¢.] see ii. 16, 17, iii. 1 ff—The éora shows that he is speaking not 
 of the present (Heinrichs), but of the future; comp. ii. 1; 1 Tim. iv. 1.— 
 tHe bytavovonc didacxadiac] see 1 Tim. i. 10.—ov« avéfovrac] [XXXI d.] 
 comp. Acts xviil. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 4. De Wette: “find intolerable, because 
 not consistent with their desires.”—a2A2a kata rac iWiag ériBuulac] “ accord- 
 ing to wilful, selfish lusts;” the accent is on idéac—a contrast to obedience 
 under the divine will.—éavroic éxicwpetaover didackddove] éxtowpeber (am. Aey., 
 the simple form in ii. 6), “heap up, procure in abundance.” Heyden- 
 reich’s conjecture is groundless, that the word here has the suggestion of: 
 they will set him up for a burden to themselves (Luther: “ burden them- 
 selves’’) for their own hurt; on the other hand, Chrysostom is right: 16 
 adiakpitov TARO Sia Tov Exrtowpevoovor, Edjiwoe. We cannot but see that the 
 word here is meant to indicate the contemptible part of their conduct. 
 The ézi does not compel us to follow Hofmann in his exposition: “in 
 addition to those who represent sound doctrine;” what follows rather 
 shows that they turn away from all such.—The reason is given in the 
 words: kvyGduevor tiv axonv. Kvifw (ar. Aey.), tickle, cause to itch; «v766- 
 pevor tiv axonv, “be tickled in the ear,” i.e. feel a tickling in the ear (rv 
 axoyv being the accusative of more precise definition). This tickling is 
 usually taken to mean a pleasant sensation;' so Hesychius: (yrovvrec ri 
 axovoa Kal’ jdovgv, and almost all expositors. But this view, before adopted 
 in this commentary, is opposed by the fact that (yrotvrec is purely imported. 
 The present participle cannot mean: “that they wish to feel a tickling in 
 the ear, but only that they do feel it.” Hofmann is therefore right in 
 
 1Plutarch (De Superst. p. 167): povoixyy avOpwmos ov tpvdis Evexa Kai KvycEews wey 
 So0nvat. 
 
264 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 explaining this tickling-of the ear to mean the desire of hearing some- 
 thing different from what they had heard before; “because they feel a 
 tickling in the ear, they procure for themselves teachers after their own 
 lusts.” —Ver. 4. kai amd pév tig ad. K.7.A.] tHe aAnbeiag = THe by. didacKadias. 
 —éini dé rove pidovc] see 1 Tim. i. 4.—éxrparqoovtac] see 1 Tim. i. 6. 
 
 Ver. 5. A general exhortation summing up the particulars already 
 mentioned.—od dé] see ili. 10—rj¢e é&v rao] vide, synonymous with 
 ypnyopeiv, 1 Thess. v. 6, and cwpoveiv, 1 Pet. iv. 7, opposite of “be intoxi- 
 cated ;” it denotes the clear prudence in thought and action which it is 
 all the more necessary for Timothy to show, because there is impending 
 what the apostle in vv. 3, 4 has described.—év raov] “in all parts.”— 
 kaxoraOjoov] [XX XI e.] see i. 8, ii. 3.—épyov roinoov evayyeduorov] According 
 to Eph. iv. 11, there were special evangelists, who were distinct both from 
 the apostles and from the pastors and teachers. Theodoret characterizes 
 them in the well-known words: zepiovrec éxjputtov. They did not belong 
 to a particular church like the zrovuévec, but traveled about like the apostles, 
 preaching the Gospel to the Jews or heathen. They could lay no claim 
 to authority in their office, since, as Otto rightly remarks,! they labored 
 not in consequence of an office committed to them, but by means of a 
 xapicua imparted to them, as did also the zpodyra. It is incorrect to 
 identify them with the assistant apostles. Philip was an evangelist (Acts 
 xxi. 8), but not an assistant apostle. Timothy, Titus, and others were 
 assistant apostles, and as such, evangelists only in the same sense in which 
 the apostles themselves were evangelists ; standing in closer relation to 
 the apostles, they were their ovvepyo¢ in all official duties, and all they did 
 belonged to their diaxovia (so, too, Plitt).2 As the ebayyerifecbar was Tim- 
 othy’s chief vocation (as with the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 1.17), the apostle 
 exhorts him: épyov roijoov evayyedcorov, adding the further exhortation : 
 tiv diakoviay cov rAnpoddpnoov. This latter is not to be taken as a mere 
 repetition of the preceding one, or as “only laying emphasis on the 
 same thought by the use of rAypodépycov” (Wiesinger), since, as the 
 whole of the first epistle testifies, his dcaxovia included more than the 
 ebayyeniteobac (which Hofmann wrongly denies *).—zAypogopeiv] synony- 
 mous here with zAypotv, which is even the réading of some Mss. Luther 
 rightly: “execute;” see Col. iv. 17; Acts xii. 25. Though zAypogopetv in 
 
 1Comp. too, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, pp. 
 272 f. 
 
 2 Wiesinger is wrong in thinking that Timo- 
 thy’s office was only that of an evangelist, and 
 therefore quite the same as Philip had, and 
 that his labors beyond that in Ephesus did 
 not belong to his étaxovia. It is certain that 
 his labors were done on the special commis- 
 sion of Paul; but it is incorrect to suppose 
 that Paul commissioned him to do anything 
 beyond his office —Otto’s remark on the re- 
 lation of the evangelists to the assistant 
 apostles agrees in substance with what has 
 been said above, only it might be more than 
 
 doubtful that their preaching, as he thinks, © 
 was confined to an account of Christ’s words 
 and works, that they were therefore only 
 “heralds of the gospel history.”—Otto rightly 
 says that the assistant apostles “ represented 
 the apostle in the entire range of his work.” 
 
 3 Hofmann, without reason, supposes that 
 at the time when Paul wrote this epistle, and 
 even before, Timothy was no longer an 
 assistant to Paulin the apostleship. Thera 
 is no hint of this anywhere; on the contrary, 
 the contents of the second epistle are de- 
 cidedly against the supposition. 
 
CHAP. Iv. 5, 6. 265 
 
 this sense is dz. Acy., still it is well employed “to indicate the full measure 
 of activity, in which not the least point may fail” (van Oosterzee). Beza’s 
 exposition is too ingenious: ministerii tui plenam fidem facito, i. e. veris 
 argumentis comproba te germanum esse dei ministrum. 
 
 Ver.6. Paul points to his approaching death in order to strengthen his 
 exhortation to Timothy to fulfill his duties faithfully. [XX XI f.] As he 
 himself cannot any longer contend against the increasing disorder, Timo- 
 thy must be all the more careful to prove himself faithful—éya yap 767 
 orévdouar] éy@ is emphatic by position, being in contrast with ov, ver. 5.— 
 767] not “soon,” but “already ;” it denotes present time; his sufferings 
 form already the beginning of the orévdecfar.—orévdouar] Wahl wrongly 
 takes the verb here in the middle voice : sanguinem meum libo, i. e. vires 
 et vitam impendo. But it is impossible thus to supply the object; the 
 verb is passive. It does not, however, stand for kataorévdoua: “IT am 
 besprinkled,” 7. e. [am consecrated for the sacrificial death (Heydenreich 
 and others); the proper meaning is to be retained: “I am made a libation, 
 poured out as drink-offering” (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hof- 
 mann). The meaning is, dropping the figure, already is my blood shed: 
 comp. Phil. 11. 17. De Wette maintains that the forth of expression is 
 incorrect without éxi rH Ovoig «.7.A.; but why, it is difficult to see. Hein- 
 richs wrongly lets the idea of sacrifice drop out of the word, and explains 
 it quite generally as effundere, 7. e. viribus defici, “ my end is already near, 
 itis all over with me.” Luther translates it inexactly, but rightly enough 
 in meaning: “I am already offered.”—Paul does not use @iouar, but oxév- 
 dowat, not because he means to declare that he is fully and conupletely 
 offered for God’s cause (Oecumenius: rie pév Ovoiac pépoc ti pdvov C&G 
 ei¢ Ouuiaua ageepovto" 4 dé oxovd7 Gaxaca avT@ adiépwrar), but because the 
 shedding of blood is analogous to the pouring out of the drink-offering ; 
 and as the libation formed the conclusion of the sacrifice, the apostle’s 
 martyrdom closed his apostolic service, which to him was the same as a 
 service of sacrifice (Rom. x. 16; Phil. ii. 17).—The idea contained in the 
 figurative expression that his death was near, is again expressed by Paul 
 in the next words: kai 6 kaipd¢ ti¢ avaricedc pov égéotnxe] The verb dvartew 
 means “unloose what was tied,” so that avd/vo1 might be equivalent to 
 “unloosing,” dissolutio (Vulgate, Matthies); but it is more correct to 
 return to the usage by which in nautical language dva4tew with or without 
 dykypav means “weigh anchor, depart,” or even of an army, “strike tents, 
 set out on the march.” Hence avdivore is equivalent to “departure, set- 
 ting out,” and ought to be explained as the departure from this life; see 
 Phil. i. 23.1. Elsner and Wolf think that there is here a special reference 
 to rising from table, and that the word is used in very close connection 
 with oxévdoyac: moris olim erat, ut, qui de conviviis discederent, diis liba- 
 rent; discedentes autem dicebantur dvadtovrec et libantes (Wolf), and 
 
 10Otto objects, that in Phil. i. 23 avaddoac tion is made still less forcible by the fact 
 does not of itself mean the departure from that this meaning of the word is clearly in- 
 the flesh, but only when connected with the dicated, not only by the preceding omévdouat, 
 co-ordinate civ Xpiorg civat. But his objec- but also by vy. 7, 8 
 
266 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 that Paul means to say : se ex hac vita molestiisque exsatiatum abiturum, 
 libato non vino, sed sanguine suo (Elsner). But, on the one hand, the 
 allusion to orévdovat is not to heathen, but to Jewish ritual; and, on the 
 other hand, there is no hint of the figure of a feast. Not less arbitrary is 
 Beza’s explanation, that avaavorw refers specially to the departure from 
 battle.—igéornxe] “is near at hand;” Luther incorrectly: “is ready.” 
 
 ReMARK.—<According to the exposition which has been given here, and which, 
 in substance, is generally accepted, this passage decidedly contradicts the hypothe- 
 sis that Paul wrote this epistle at the beginning of the imprisonment mentioned 
 by Luke. Otto, therefore, to favor this hypothesis, finds himself compelled to 
 give orévdoua: another signification. This he tries to obtain from a searching con- 
 sideration of the passage in Phil. ii. 17. He tries to prove that the apostle in 
 that passage could only have used ozévdoua in the sense of “devotion to his mis- 
 sionary labors.” His proof is based on the assertion—apparently to the point, 
 but in reality erroneous—that when the particles i kai are joined together, “the 
 kai resumes the statement made under «i the conditional particle, at the same 
 time marking it as an actual fact.” This assertion is apparently to the point, since 
 ei kai is used often where an actual fact is under discussion; and in this way, e. g., 
 the passage at 2 Cor. iv. 16 may be explained: “if our outward man is destroyed, 
 —and it is actually being destroyed,—then,” etc. But the assertion is erroneous, be- 
 cause ¢ Kai is also used in passages where no actual fact is under discussion. This, 
 e. J. is the case in the passage 1 Cor. vii. 21, where, clearly, the explanation can- 
 not be given: “if thou canst become free—and thow canst indeed become free.” Otto 
 has quite overlooked the fact that « «ai with the indicative cannot be different 
 from the simple ¢ with the indicative, and this does not declare the fact to be act- 
 ual, but only supposes it to be actual, whether actual or not; the fact may be actual, 
 but it may quite as well not be actual, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 12, 18, where both cases 
 stand close to one another. Hence it is not the case that o7évdeo#ac must denote 
 something which, as the apostle said it of himself, did actually take place; it can- 
 not therefore be understood to mean the apostle’s martyrdom, because, according 
 to Phil. i. 25, he was expecting to be freed from imprisonment, but must mean 
 simply the cessation of his missionary labors—As for the evidence by which Otto 
 seeks to obtain this meaning for o7évdeodaz, it must be held erroneous, since there 
 is no justification whatever for the assertions on which it rests—vyiz. (1) that by 
 the éy contained in oxévdoua (standing here in opposition to ot) the apostle 
 meant his “apostolic labors ;” and (2) that in Acts xxiii. 11, by the word of the 
 Lord “ Rome was appointed to the apostle as the goal of his apostolic calling, be- “ 
 yond which he was not to preach the gospel.” Though it may be said that “the 
 apostle’s ego lived and wrought only in one thing, and that, to preach the gospel 
 to the heathen,” it by no means follows that when he is speaking of himself, he 
 does not mean himself, his person, but his apostolic calling. And though, accord- 
 ing to Phil. i. 25, 26, the apostle expects to continue his labors after the Roman 
 imprisonment, it is a pure fiction to suppose that these labors were to be episcopal 
 rather than apostolic,—As a result of this interpretation of orévdouac, Otto can- 
 
 1Weiss (Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 588) rightly slightest hint that he is to advance with his 
 says: “If it be said to the apostle that he is preaching only so far as Rome.” 
 to testify also in Rome, there is not the 
 
CHAP.-1Va%, 8: 267 
 
 not understand avdAvovg to mean the departure from this life ; it is quite consistent 
 for him, therefore, to say : “avadvorg can only be the discessus, abitus from the 
 place in which Paul then was, this place being the tépza of his apostolic career.” 
 This exposition presupposes an erroneous view of Acts xxiii. 11, and its unsuit- 
 ability becomes all the clearer when Otto continues: “when the messenger has 
 come to his destination, and executed his commission, he must return to him by 
 whom he was sent; Paul was sent by Christ, to Christ he must return; this is 
 what the apostle says: the time of my return home is near, for I am at the goal, 
 and have discharged my commission.” And then Otto still thinks that the apos- 
 tle might with this cherish the expectation of being able to labor among the 
 Philippians /or a longer period, since é¢éoryxev does not mean “is near,” but sim- 
 ply “is impending” (!). Finally, there is nowhere the slightest trace that the 
 apostle thought at any time before his death of ceasing to be the apostle of the 
 Lord. 
 
 Ver. 7. In the prospect of his approaching end, Paul expresses the con- 
 sciousness of having been faithful in the career appointed to him, and the 
 hope of the heavenly reward.—There is no ground whatever for de Wette’s 
 assertion, that this expression is opposed to Christian humility.—rov kaddv 
 ayéva hyoviowat| Luther inaccurately : “ I have fought a good fight.” The 
 definite article must not be overlooked; see 1 Tim. vi. 12. The perfect 
 nyovioua Shows that the apostle now stood at the end of the fight to which 
 he was called as the apostle of the Lord,’ and that he had fought through 
 it faithfully—Baur, quite arbitrarily, isof opinion that Phil. i. 80 was here 
 made use of; as little was the passage at Phil. iii. 12 ff. used (de Wette). 
 —rov dpduov tetéAnxa] The same thought is expressed by the more definite 
 figure of a race. The point chiefly brought out is that the apostle, after 
 continuing it without stopping, now stands at the goal. Compare with 
 this passage Acts xx. 24; the same figure is used also in 1 Cor. ix. 24, and 
 is indicated in Phil. ii. 12 ff—ryv riorw rerppnxa] “ Ihave kept the faith,” viz. 
 against all inducements to deny it. Heydenreich wrongly takes this 
 expression also as a figurative one, and expounds ziorc to mean fidelity 
 in observing the laws of battle and rules of the race; comp. against this, 
 1 Tim. vi. 12.—rdv xatdv ayava ric rictewc] Bengel: res bis per metaphoram 
 expressa nunc tertio loco exprimitur proprie. 
 
 Ver. 8. Aourév| Wahl interprets it by 767 (jam, already), but this mean- 
 ing is very doubtful. Other expositors take it to be equivalent to 7d 
 dordv: “for the future ;” Heydenreich: “one day, after course and fight 
 are finished.” But the present aréxecrac is against this; it cannot be 
 “future in sense” (Hofmann), for the signification of the word forbids it. 
 Beza’s interpretation suits the context best: “in reliquum;” and with 
 this de Wette and Wiesinger agree. At the end of his life-course, when 
 he has faithfully played out his part, there remains nothing more for the 
 apostle—than to receive the reward which is already prepared for him.— 
 arékertai wor] comp. Col. i. 5 (see my Commentary, p. 57).—4é rij¢ dixatooivye 
 
 1Hofmann wrongly maintains that the Christian calling. The context clearly points 
 
 apostle is not speaking here of his labors in to the former. 
 the calling of an apostle, but generally of his 
 
268 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 orégavoc] Continuation of the figure from ver. 7.—é oréavog is used for the 
 prize of victory in 1 Cor. ix. 25.. The genitive rie duxawoobvye, like rhe Cone 
 in Jas.i. 12, Rev. ii. 10, and rie dééy¢ in 1 Pet. v. 4, may be taken most 
 naturally as the genitivus appositionis, and d:xavoctvy as the perfect state, 
 granted at the judgment to the believer by the sentence that justifies him 
 (so, too, van Oosterzee). Ackatocivy does not denote the act of justifying so 
 much as the state of justification. [XX XI g.]—Two other interpretations 
 are found in Heinrichs: ore. dixavoc., ¢. e. corona, vel quae dixaivce dabitur 
 ei, qui ea dignus est, a duxaiw xpirq (“the crown of just recompense,” Hey- 
 denreich, Matthies, and others; but d:xavooivy never means recompense), 
 vel quae mihi ob dicavocivyy debetur. This last interpretation is found in 
 Chrysostom : dicacoobvyv évraifa tiv Kabédov gyoiv aperqv; also in de Wette, 
 Wiesinger, Plitt. It is indeed possible, but improbable, because in that 
 case we would not be told of what the crown of victory consists. Besides, 
 the analogy of the passages quoted is against this interpretation.'—It is 
 manifestly quite out of place to understand dixavocivy here, as Calovius 
 and Mosheim do, of the imputed righteousness of Christ—év aroddcer 
 (often used to denote the divine recompense on the day of judgment, 
 Matt. xvi. 27; Rom. ii. 6) x01 6 Kipwoc (ti. €. Christ) év éxeivy th juépa, 6 dixacoc 
 xpithe (see ver. 1), in apposition to 6 kbpic. There is nothing strange in 
 laying stress on the righteousness of the judge, since that forms the main 
 element in the divine judgment. God’s ydpic does not take away His 
 Sixacooivy, and the gospel does not deny, but confirms, the truth that for 
 the believer the judgment will take place xara ra épya avrov, or Kata THY TpaEw 
 To this truth Paul often directs attention, not only for exhortation, 
 but also for comfort ; see 2 Thess, i. 5.~—While Paul expresses for himself 
 the hope of the reward of victory, he knows that he is not claiming some- 
 thing special for himself alone. Hence he adds: ov pdévov dé éuoi (se. aro- 
 ddcet K.T.A.), aAAd Kai aot Toicg HyarnK6or] the perfect in the sense of the pre- 
 sent: “who have fixed their love on,” 7. e. “who love” (comp. Winer, p. 
 256 LE. T. p. 273]). But if we proceed from the standpoint of azodécev, 
 the perfect may also be understood to mean: “ to those who in this mortal 
 life have longed for the appearing of the Lord ” (Hofmann).—r)v éxipdvecav 
 aitov] is not to be understood of the first appearance of the Lord in the 
 flesh, i. 10, but, according to the context, and in harmony with ver. 1, of 
 
 avrov. 
 
 1 Hofmann disputes the interpretation given 
 above, because “Life, glory is a blessing, 
 . Whereas righteousness is a condition which 
 is rewarded;” but righteousness, taken as it 
 is taken here, is a blessing. On the other 
 hand, Hofmann disputes Wiesinger’s inter- 
 pretation, at the same time giving one of his 
 own which is far from clear: “he who 
 obtains the orépavos adjudged to him, is 
 thereby acknowledged ‘to be a righteous 
 man.” 
 
 2De Wette is wrong in his assertion, that 
 this passage is incompatible with Paul’s view 
 of grace, and that from a subjective stand- 
 
 point God’s righteousness can only be feared 
 if we are rightly humble and have knowledge 
 of self. If it is not denied that in the Pauline 
 passages, Rom. ii. 5 ff., 2 Thess. i. 5, a reward 
 is expected from God’s righteousness, we can- 
 not see why Paul could not possibly have 
 claimed it for himself. Was the conscious- 
 ness of his fidelity in the service of the Lord, 
 which, moreover, he expresses elsewhere, 
 altogether incompatible with his utterance 
 of humility in Phil. iii. 12?—The contrast of 
 objective and subjective point of view—to 
 which contrast de Wette makes appeal—does 
 not exist for the Christian consciousness. 
 
CHAP. Iv. 9-11. 269 
 the second coming. The verb jyar7xé0 is not opposed to this, for it is 
 used elsewhere to denote the desire for something future ; see 1 Pet. iii. 10. 
 Matthies: “to all who in love for Him wait longingly for His second 
 coming.” 
 
 Ver. 9. [On Vv. 9-22, see Note XXXII., pages 277, 278.] From this 
 verse to the end we have detached commissions and items of news. ‘ This 
 forms the second chief section of the epistle. The apostle, with his usual 
 habit of keeping the more personal matter for the end, places it after the 
 exhortations given to Timothy about his office” (Wiesinger).—ozotdacov 
 éAbeiv mpoc pe tayéwc] [XXXII a.] Here the apostle’s wish that Timothy 
 should come to him, hinted already in i. 3, 8, isdistinctly expressed. Even 
 if it were the proximate cause of his writing, it is arbitrary to regard this 
 as the chief purpose of the epistle, as de Wette does.'—The apostle wished 
 him to come, because those who had assisted him hitherto had left him. 
 
 Ver. 10. Anuac yap pe éyxatédurev] [XXXII b.] éycaradcizew is equivalent 
 to “leave in the lurch.” It is wrong to interpret this either of a depart- 
 ure from the place merely, or of an entire apostasy from the gospel. 
 Demas is mentioned also in Col. iv. 14 and Philem. 24 as a cuvepyé¢ of the 
 apostle.—ayarjoac tov viv aiéva] The reason why Demas had left him ; 
 ayarjoac, not “having. fixed his love on” (Matthies), but “because he 
 loved.” —rdv viv aidva] the present world, as opposed to the future, 7. e. the 
 earthly, visible blessings of life. In the desire for these things, Demas 
 had left the apostle and gone to Thessalonica, kai éropebfy ei¢ Oecoahovixyy, 
 perhaps “for the sake of trade,” as some conjecture, or because it was his 
 native place.2—Kpjoxye sic Tadatiay, sc. éropet6y; but without ayarqoag Tov 
 vov aiava. Crescens is mentioned only here. Nothing further is known 
 of him, nor do we know why he had set out for Galatia, and Titus for 
 Dalmatia. The verb ézopet() is against the suggestion of Matthies, that 
 they had been sent thither by Paul.’ 
 
 Ver. 11. Aoveac éor? pdvoe per’ guov] There is no reason for doubting that 
 this Luke was the apostle’s well-known assistant. He accompanied Paul 
 on his second missionary journey from Troas, Acts xvi. 10, then on his 
 third journey, Acts xx. 5-xxi. 18. He was with Paul both in his impris- 
 onment at Caesarea and in the first imprisonment at Rome, Acts xxvil.; 
 Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24.—Médpxov avadaBov ayaye (OY Common reading: 
 aye) peta ceavtov] Mark, too, is the young apostle with whom we are 
 acquainted from the Book of Acts. According to Col. iv. 10, Philem. 13, 
 he was likewise with Paul in his first Roman imprisonment ; avaaBav, 
 see Acts xx. 14. It is not known where Mark was at this time. The 
 reason why Paul wished to have him is given in the words: éore yap jor 
 
 1 Hofmann’s remark is purely hypothetical,  oixoc tpudav, % mer’ Euod TadaimwpeiaGar Kat 
 
 that orovéacoy «.7.A. is not an invitation, but 
 refers to Timothy’s willingness to come, 
 which he had expressed to Paul in a 
 letter. 
 
 2Chrysostom: rys averews epacbeis, Tov 
 axwwSvvov Kat Tod agdhadovs, “addov eElAeTo 
 
 cuvdtahépery or ToVs TapovTas Kivdvvous. 
 
 3 Hofmann, taking TaAcav to be the original 
 reading, supposes that Crescens and Titus 
 had left the apostle in order to work for the 
 gospel in places to which Paul himself had 
 not come. 
 
20 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, 
 
 edxpyotoc ei¢ dtakoviay| ebypyotoc, ii. 21. Acaxovia here is to be understood 
 of the apostolic office’ (according to Wiesinger: “of Mark’s personal ser- 
 vices, but certainly in the apostle’s vocation ”’). . 
 
 Ver. 12. Tigixov dé aréotei2a sic “Egecov] Tychicus was in Greece with 
 Paul on the third missionary journey, and preceded him to Troas, Acts 
 xx. 4,5. According to Col. iv. 7 and Eph. vi. 21, Paul sent him from 
 Rome to Asia Minor. Otto thinks that this was the occasion mentioned 
 here, and tries to prove it particularly by an interpretation of the passages 
 quoted from the Epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians. There are, 
 however, well-founded objections to his theory. The facts are such, the 
 two occasions on which he was sent can obviously not be identical.—ei¢ 
 *Egeoov| Paul here mentions Ephesus as the place to which he had sent 
 Tychicus ; but we cannot infer from this, as Theodoret and de Wette infer, 
 that Timothy had not at that time lived in Ephesus.—The reason why he 
 was sent is not given. Possibly it was to convey this epistle (Wieseler) ; 
 but not probably, for in such a case Paul would have certainly written 
 mpoc of (Tit. 111. 12; Wiesinger). 
 
 Ver. 138. Timothy is commissioned to bring with him certain belong- 
 ings. The first named is Tov geAdvyv. On the various spellings of this 
 word, see the Greek lexicons. Regarding the meaning, Chrysostom said : 
 perovyv évtavba 70 iuatiov Aéyer’ Tie Jé pact TO yAwoodxouor, EvOa Ta BLBAia ExELTO ; 
 and the most recent expositors are still at variance. Matthies takes it in 
 the second meaning : “ cloak-bag, covering for books,” because it is improb- 
 able that Paul should have left his traveling cloak behind him. De Wette 
 adopts the first meaning, for the reason given by Bengel: theca non seor- 
 sum a libris appellaretur. This is the more probable view; there is little 
 force in the objection, that we cannot see what use Paul would have for 
 the mantle when he was expecting death so soon.—év aréJurov év Tpwads 
 mapa Kadpz»]| From this it is clear that Paul had been in Troas before he 
 came to Rome, but the time is not stated. In any case, it is very improb- 
 able (see Introd. p. 25) that this sojourn was the one mentioned in Acts 
 xx. 6. He did not, however, touch at Troas on his voyage from Caesarea 
 ‘to Rome.—Carpus is mentioned only here.—xai ra BiBria, wartora Tae pEu- 
 Bpdvac] Since Paul says nothing further about them, it is idle conjecture 
 to define more precisely the contents of the books written on papyrus, 
 and of the more valuable rolls of parchment. 
 
 Vy. 14,15. Warning against a-certain Alexander. ’AAéFavdpoc 6 yadxeic] 
 see on 1 Tim. i. 20.—70224 wor axa évedeifaro] The words point to a per- 
 sonal injury which he had inflicted on the apostle. This must, however, 
 be added to an attitude of opposition to his words, as is shown in the 
 words : Aiav yap avréotn toic jyerépore Adyorc] It is doubtful where this was 
 
 1What Otto (pp. 257 ff.) on this passage 
 adduces regarding the relation of Mark to 
 Paul are groundless suppositions. It is a 
 purely arbitrary assumption that Mark, after 
 abstaining for some time from work among 
 the heathen, had again offered his services 
 to Paul through Timothy. And it is equalty 
 
 an assumption to say, that from the words 
 evxpyotos x7T.A. it would appear that Mark 
 could not have hitherto given Paul his 
 services, because m that case Paul would not 
 have “censured him regarding his useful- 
 ness for the ministry” (I). 
 
CHAP. Iv. 12-17. 271 
 done, and wnere Alexander was at the time of the composition of this 
 epistle. Further, the warning: 6v kai od gvAdooov, may refer both “to 
 Timothy’s presence in Ephesus and to his future stay in Rome” (de 
 Wette). Wiesinger conjectures that this Alexander, a native of Ephesus, 
 had come from there to Rome to give testimony against the apostle (at 
 his xpéry aodoyia, ver. 16), and had afterwards returned to Ephesus. 
 This conjecture obtains some~ probability from the fact that in the very 
 next verse Paul speaks of the azo/oyia ; but this fact cannot be regarded as 
 making the matter certain. The words preceding this warning, if we read 
 arodacet avT@ 6 Kipiog Kata Ta Epya avtov, present no difficulty. [XXXII c.] 
 Even with the reading azodéy they cannot form a reason for reproaching 
 the apostle with a desire for vengeance ; Christian love does not extinguish 
 the feeling of justice; besides, the apostle does not speak the words because 
 of the personal injury, but because of Alexander’s hostility to the truth? 
 Vv. 16,17. Information regarding the apostle’s present condition, év rq 
 mTpoty jov arohoyia| arodoyia: the public appearance before the court; 
 comp. Phil.i.7. "Ev 7@ zpéry shows that there was a second appearance 
 in order to bring the case to an end. On the time when the first trial took 
 place, see the Introduction, where, too, there is a discussion of Otto’s 
 hypothesis, that it means the proceedings before Festus, as recounted in 
 Acts xxv. 6-12.—oideic jor mapeyévero] “no one stood on my side, was 
 present with me,” viz. as patronus* (defender). It is the negative expres- 
 sion of the thought which in the next words is given positively: a//a 
 mavtec pe éyxatédurov. [XXXII d.] As to the reason why they had left the 
 apostle, Theodoret says rightly : ot kakoySeiac wv, aAAa devdiag 4 broxopyote. 
 [XXXII e.]—However much this want of evangelic spirit may have 
 pained the apostle, he says no word in anger: 7 aitoic AoyioSein : “ may 
 it not be reckoned to them, but pardoned.”—Ver. 17. 6 68 kipid¢ por 
 mapéoty | said in sharp antithesis to the previous thought. The presence 
 of the Lord manifested itself to the apostle in the courage which he had 
 to testify freely and openly regarding Him; hence kai évedvvapuooé pe] 
 Chrysostom : tappyoiay éxapioato; comp. 1 Tim. i. 12; Phil. iv. 18. Ac- 
 cording to Otto, this expression means simply that the Lord “ maintained 
 the apostle’s cause against his accusers,’ which is clearly an unjustifiable 
 paraphrase of the word, as the apostle is speaking not of his cause, but of 
 himself. Even if évedvvéuece be used in a forensic sense, its signification 
 cannot be altered; it applies to the strengthening which enabled the 
 
 1Hofmann supposes that this Alexander 
 was the same as the one mentioned in Acts 
 xix., and that he had given testimony against 
 the apostle in Ephesus. The opinion is 
 manifestly too far-fetched, that Luke would 
 not have mentioned him in the Acts, if the 
 Roman Theophilus, for whom in the first 
 place he wrote the Acts, “had not known 
 Alexander from some other source, in the 
 manner in which we make acquaintance with 
 him in the passage before us.” 
 
 2 Justin (quaest. 125, ad Orthod.) says of these 
 words: mpérovoa avépt arooToAw wy exdixovvTe 
 éautov, adda didovte tomov TH Opyy; Comp. 
 Rom. xii. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 23. 
 
 3 Wolf: verb. oupumapayiveo@ac indicat pa- 
 tronos et amicos, qui alios, ad causam dicen- 
 dam yoeatos, nune vraesentia sua, nune etiam 
 oratione adjuvare solebant. Graeci dicunt 
 nune rapayiverOar, nUNe Tapecvar, NUNC oup- 
 mapetvar.—Ssee further, in Rein, Rém. Privat- 
 recht, p. 425; Schomann, Attisch. Recht. p. 708. 
 
272 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 apostle so to speak as to ward off sentence against him. The purpose of this 
 strengthening was: iva dé? éuov td Khpvyywa rAnpodopy dy] According to the 
 meaning suitable to the word zAnpogopeiv in Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5, Beza trans- 
 lates: “ut per me praeconio evangelii fides fieret.’”” Heydenreich, too, 
 thinks that 7/ypo¢. refers to the confirmation of the gospel or testimony 
 to it, either through the proofs delivered by Paul or through the joy he 
 exhibited. But it is safer to take zAypod. in the same sense here as in 
 ver. 5, some of the Mss. even reading 7Aypwdh for tAnpodopydy. It is, how- 
 ever, inaccurate to take the expression in the sense of: “that I might be 
 enabled to preach the gospel” (de Wette). In this interpretation full 
 force is not given to zAypogopety. These words must be taken in very close 
 connection with kai axotcn mdvra ta é6vy, and referred to the apostle’s 
 being called to preach the gospel to the heathen. The kfpvyya, se. tov 
 evayyediov, was fulfilled by Paul, inasmuch as it was done openly before all 
 people (Wieseler, Wiesinger) in the metropolis of the world (was delivered 
 before the corona populi, before the court). Hofmann, regarding this 
 interpretation of the apostle’s words as forced, understands iva «.7.A. in 
 this way: “If courage and strength had failed the apostle before the 
 heathen tribunal of the metropolis of the world . . . his confident belief 
 that the heathen world was called to become the church of Christ would 
 have been shattered.” But the words 6? éuod . . . tAnpodopy dH distinctly 
 say that the preaching had been carried out by the apostle himself, and 
 not simply that the preaching to be done by others would not be hin- 
 dered by him, 7. e. by his conduct.—The iva was fulfilled by the apostle’s 
 speech in the zpéry axodoyia. Otto, on the contrary, asserts that the first 
 arodoyia and the preaching in -Rome took place at different times, and 
 that iva refers to what was to be done afterwards in Rome by the apostle. 
 This is wrong, since in that case twa ought not to stand before, but after 
 épprodyv.—kal éppiodyv éx otdpuatoc Aéovtoc] second proof of the help and 
 presence of the Lord.—oréua Aéovrog has been very variously explained. 
 The expression is not to be taken literally (Mosheim), but figuratively, and 
 is to be referred to the punishment of being thrown to the lions.—Chrys- 
 ostom and many after him take Nero to be the Aéwv; Pearson again takes 
 Helius Ceasareanus, since Nero at’ the time had departed for Greece. 
 Wahl thinks 4éo» a metaphor for tyrannus crudelis, while Wolf explains 
 it to be omnis illa hostium caterva, quorum conatus in prima apologia. 
 tunc facta eluserit.! All these-interpretations are inappropriate. In the 
 first place, the metaphor is not in 2éwv alone, but in oréua 2éovroe (so, too, 
 van Oosterzee, Hofmann); and, secondly, this expression can hardly be 
 referred simply to the danger that threatened the apostle from men, but 
 also to the danger prepared for him by the might of Satan, which was 
 opposed to Christ. Hence the -interpretation “deadly danger” (so 
 de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee) is not sufficient.2, Paul escaped from 
 
 10tto adopts an explanation to suit-his itthe apostle was delivered when he appealed 
 opinion that this aroAoyia took place in Caes- to the emperor, and Festus received the 
 area before Festus: “Judaism was the lion appeal. 
 that panted for the apostle’s blood,” and from 2Hofmann: “ His danger was a greater one, 
 
CHAP. Iv. 18, 19. 273 
 
 - the danger impending over him, unhurt in body and soul (see on iii. 11), 
 escaped as a conqueror in the eyes of the Lord, and hence he says: 
 epptodyv &k oT6uatog A€ovTOS. 
 
 Ver. 18. In the assured confidence of faith, the apostle adds to éppiodnv 
 the word of hope: picerai ye 6 Kbpio¢g ad ravtog épyou rovnpod, for he knows 
 that the Lord—even if it be through death (ver. 6)—will bring him into 
 His kingdom. [XXXII /.]. épyov rovypév is not equivalent to evil, as 
 Luther translates it and Matthies explains it: from every evil circum- 
 stance.” Taken in this sense, the thought would be quite irreconcilable 
 with the apostle’s conviction in ver. 6. Besides, in the N. T. zovypév never 
 refers to merely external affliction ; it denotes rather what is morally evil. 
 Still it cannot here mean the evil work which the apostle might do 
 (Chrysostom: wav dudpryza; Grotins: liberabit me, ne quid agam Chris- 
 tiano, ne quid Apostolo indignum ; de Wette: “from all evil work which 
 I might do through want of stedfastness, through apostasy, and the like ;” 
 so, too, Beza, Heydenreich, and others). It must be interpreted of the 
 wicked works of the enemies of the divine word; only with this view is 
 the verb picera: appropriate, especially when combined with cose: (Wies- 
 inger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). The apostle was still exposed to the 
 attacks of the evil one, but he expresses the hope that the Lord would 
 save him from them, so that they would do him no harm. Not, indeed, 
 that he would not suffer the martyrdom he expected, but that through 
 this he would come into the heavenly kingdom of the Lord, where there 
 was prepared for him orégavoc tig Sixavootvyg (ver. 8).—kai cdaer ig THY 
 Baotdeiav abtos THv éxovpdviov] obser cic is a pregnant construction: he will 
 save me and bring me into = cdlwv ager we ei¢ (Heydenreich).—The expres- 
 sion 7 BaoiAeia 4} érovpdvioc does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.; but the 
 idea is thoroughly apostolic and Pauline. For though Paul often calls 
 Christ’s kingdom a future one, Christ is also present to him as PaovAede év 
 roi¢ érovpaviow, Whose BaciAeia, therefore, is also a present one.’ The con- 
 text points to this meaning here. In Phil. i. 23, Paul expresses the long- 
 ing to come to Christ through death ; here he expresses the hope that the 
 Lord would remove him into His kingdom é« zavric épyou movnpov.—As a 
 suitable and natural utterance of awakened feeling, there follows a dox- 
 ology which in this place cannot surprise us, though commonly his 
 doxologies refer to God and not to Christ specially.’ 
 
 Ver. 19. Paul sends greetings to Prisca and Aquila.—Paul had become 
 acquainted with them in Corinth (Acts xviii. 2), from which they accom- 
 panied him to Syria (ver. 18). When Paul wrote the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans they were in Rome (Rom. xvi. 13), but they were in Corinth at the 
 time of his writing the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xvi. 19).— 
 kal tov ’Ovnoiddpov oikov, see on i. 16. 
 
 to lose .. . before the tribunal hiscourage in dom of the Lord, “in contrast with the earthly 
 confessing Christ. That he had escaped it, dominion of the present” (Hofmann). 
 he owes thanks to God’s help.” 2In Rom. xvi. 27, ix. 5, Heb. xiii. 21, the 
 
 1There is nothing to indicate that the reference is at the very least doubtful. 
 apostle is here alluding to the heavenly king- 
 
 18 
 
274 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 Ver. 20. "Epactog iuecvev év Kopivy] While on his third journey, the 
 apostle sent forward a certain Erastus from Ephesus to Macedonia along with 
 Timothy (Acts xix. 22). It can hardly be doubted that it is the same man 
 who is mentioned here. It is more uncertain if the one alluded to in 
 Rom. xvi. 23 is also the same (as Otto thinks); still it does favor the iden- 
 tity that the latter dwelt in Corinth as 6 oixovéuocg tie méAewc, and that the 
 Erastus here mentioned remained in Corinth. Meyer, however (see on 
 Rom. xvi. 23), and Wiesinger think it improbable. Hofmann holds that 
 the Erastus mentioned in Acts xix. 22, and the city chamberlain in Rom. 
 xvi. 23, are two different men, and that the one mentioned here is identi- 
 cal with the latter.—éyevve] 7. e. “he remained in Corinth, viz. when I left 
 it;” the tense favors this view. Paul notices the fact because he thought 
 that Timothy believed that Erastus had left Corinth with the apostle. 
 Hug explains it: “ Erastus, whom I expected in Rome, remained behind 
 in Corinth ;” but this would suit better with the perfect. Besides, there 
 is nothing to indicate such an expectation.—Tpdgiyov dé axédurov év Midi 
 aodevovvta] Trophimus, an Asiatic, accompanied Paul on his third journey, 
 and went before him from Greece to Troas (Acts xx. 4). His presence in 
 Jerusalem was the occasion of the tumult against Paul (Acts xxi. 29),— 
 From this passage it would appear that Trophimus had wished to accom- 
 pany the apostle on his journey, but had been left behind at Miletus sick. 
 The apostle cannot have been in Miletus with Trophimus before the first 
 imprisonment in Rome; hence the expositors who deny that Paul was 
 twice imprisoned in Rome, and admit the genuineness of the epistle, are 
 driven to great straits in interpreting this passage. Thus Hug, Hemsen, 
 ‘and Kling hold azéjcrov to be-the third person plural. Wieseler does not 
 give the proper force to azéAutov, which—as de Wette rightly remarks— 
 presupposes that they had been previously together in Miletus. Regard- 
 ing the views of Wieseler and Otto, comp. Introduction, 23, pp. 17 ff. It 
 is altogether arbitrary to read év Mediry, or to suppose that Miletus in 
 Crete is meant.—The reason for speaking about Erastus and Trophimus 
 appears in ver. 21; comp. vv. 9, 10. He did not mention them in ver. 10, 
 because “ there he was speaking only of those who had already been with 
 -him in Rome and had left him ” (Wiesinger). Hofmann thinks that Paul 
 mentions them in reply to a question from Timothy regarding the two 
 who might serve as witnesses for his defence; but this is mere conjecture, 
 for which no good grounds can be given.! 
 
 Ver. 21. Zroidacov xpd yeyudvoc éAeiv] see ver. 9, taxéoc. Even if po 
 xeiavog is to be connected with rayéwc, it does not follow that the epistle 
 was written just before winter; comp. Introd. 3 3. Xeyudév may indeed 
 mean the “ winter-storm ” (Wieseler), but it is more natural here to under- 
 stand it of the season of the year (Wiesinger). Timothy is to come to the 
 
 1Hofmann regards them as suitable wit- present in Corinth on the occasion mentioned 
 nesses for the defence, assuming that- the in Acts xviii. 12, and Trophimus when Paul 
 charge against the apostle rested on this, was made a prisoner at Jerusalera. Both 
 
 that his preaching of the gospel was contrary might therefore testify that Paul was not to 
 to the constitution of the state. Erastus was blame for these tumults. 
 
NOTES. 275 
 
 apostle before winter, that the winter might not prevent him from coming 
 soon.—Finally, Paul sent greetings from Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and 
 Claudia, who are mentioned only here and from all the Christians in 
 Rome. These are named specially, not as the apostle’s cbvepyo, but proba- 
 bly because they were personally acquainted with Timothy. Linus is 
 probably the one whom the Fathers name as the first bishop of Rome. 
 Ver. 22. Benediction. This is peculiar in its nature. Only at the end 
 of the First Epistle to tne Corinthians do we find, as here, a double bene- 
 diction, and there it runs differently. For 6 «ipuc . . . and 7 yap. . 
 the form elsewhere is always 4 ydpic tov Kvpiov.—pera Tod mvebuatd¢ cov] 
 comp. Gal. vi. 18; Philem. 25.—j xapc¢ we? duov] comp. 1 Tim. vi. 22. 
 
 Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 XOXO Vive —s- 
 
 (a) The view of Huther with respect to dazapripoya k.7.A. seems to be the 
 correct one—namely, that «ai before éx@dvecav means both, and that the true ren- 
 dering is, I adjure thee in the sight of God and of Christ Jesus, both by His 
 appearance and His kingdom. There is no satisfactory ground of objection to this 
 view, and it avoids the difficulty of joining the simple accusative after a verb of 
 swearing in a parallelism with the év@zvov construction. The allusion to the appear- 
 ance and kingdom, as well as to the dead and living—that is, those who at the time 
 of the judgment (the Parousia) shall have already died and those who shall then 
 be still alive—is an indication (additional to the others already noticed in the two 
 Epp. to Timothy) of the impressiveness of the thought of the Parousia to the 
 Apostle’s mind. It had an emphasis, and living power, to his apprehension such 
 as to Christians in our own day it does not have, and such as may,—not improbably, 
 to say the least,—find its explanation in the thought that it was near. The “king- 
 dom,” cannot here have the same sense, precisely as in 1 Cor. xv. 24 ff., but must 
 refer to that consummated and victorious state of things which is introduced by 
 the Parousia.—(b) The explanation given of érior73. by Huther, with whom 
 de Wette, Holtzmann and some others substantially agree, has in its favor the 
 more common meaning of the verb. It does not seem perfectly clear that it has 
 the precise sense be instant, in a sentence of this character. Yet the supply of 
 a dative from the preceding verb «#pvsov is not difficult, and, with such a supply 
 there can be little doubt that the verb may mean give attention to, fix the mind upon, 
 be attentive to. On the other hand the use of the mere verb draw near, as equiva- 
 lent to draw near to men with the word, in such a series of exhortations as we find 
 here, must be regarded as in a high degree improbable. The question is one 
 which cannot be decided confidently in favor of either meaning as against the 
 other, but the objection to the rendering be instant of R. V., A. V., (so in substance, 
 if not exactly, many commentators including EIl., Alf., van Oost., Fairb., Plumptre 
 and others), is, on the whole, less serious than that which lies against Huther’s 
 rendering —Plumptre explains edcaipw¢ axaipo¢ as meaning “ with or without what 
 seems to men a special opportunity.” Not improbably, however, there is a some- 
 what stronger force in the latter word, such that it means “even when men think 
 it unseasonable.” That the action of the preacher, in this matter, is not to be 
 carried beyond due limits is indicated by the reasonableness which directs in the 
 
276 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 application of all Christian rules of such a character, and is even suggested by 
 Matt. vii. 6—(c) The future referred to in éorac kacpdc (ver. 3), in connection with 
 similar passages already noticed, is best explained as the time of development of 
 error previous to the Parousia, which, in its beginnings and foreshadowings, gave 
 signs of its coming even at the date of the latter. It is evident, in all these pas- 
 sages, that Paul describes the future errors in terms corresponding very nearly to 
 those in which he sets forth the false doctrines of the present. His conception 
 seems to be only that of a further and natural growth in the same line. Timothy 
 is to be faithful and earnest in his work, in order that the growth may be arrested, 
 or its injurious consequences may be averted, as far as possible. And this is 
 especially urged upon him, because the Apostle now feels that his own time for 
 working draws near to its end.—(d) The subject of avéfovra is probably persons in 
 the church, as it is of such persons that the writer speaks in the several passages 
 where the healthful teaching and its opposite are alluded to. The errors are 
 those of professed Christians, which, starting from a Jewish origin, developed 
 under the influence of Greek or Oriental thought intermingling with Judaistic 
 ideas. The use of the article with mvGovc in ver. 4 can hardly be satisfactorily 
 accounted for, except as some connection is given to these fables with those men- 
 tioned in 1 Tim. i. 4 and elsewhere.—(e) The repetition of the word kaxoradyjoov 
 (ver. 5) in this new exhortation to Timothy to fulfill the duties of his ministry, in 
 contrast to a yielding to errors or the erroneous teachers, shows how important an 
 element in the life before him the Apostle thought such hardship and suffering 
 would be, and how essential the stedfast enduring of such evil, in the times then 
 present and to come, was to his apprehension. The word evangelist, as here used, 
 refers to Timothy’s work as a preacher going about from place to place in his 
 missionary labors. In a similar sense, all Paul’s assistants, and even Paul him- 
 self, though an Apostle, had been evangelists from the beginning. 7Axpogépycov 
 (ver. 5) has the sense of fulfill, rather than make full proof of (omnem in partem 
 manisterio satisfacio, Grimm, Lex. N. T.). Alf. says, “fill up in every point, leaving 
 nothing undone in.”—(f) The contrast between the Apostle’s expression in Phil. 
 ii. 17 and that in ver. 6 of this chapter is noticeable. There, he merely supposes 
 the case, & kai orévdoua, saying that he will rejoice if the result of his trial 
 should even prove to be death, but adding, immediately afterwards, his strong 
 hope in the Lord that it will not be so. Here, on the other hand, he realizes the 
 certainty of the future, and speaks of himself as if already dying or being offered. 
 ‘His work is done, and the reward will be given at the day of the appearing. The 
 cause is to be committed to his younger associates, who should keep the command- 
 ment and fulfill the ministry until that appearing (1 Tim. i. 14). The word avaav-- 
 ow, which is here used in the clause following oévdouai, is also found, in the 
 verbal form, in Phil. i. 23. It is interesting to observe, in connection with this 
 word, that while the Apostle, at the time when there was an uncertainty as to his 
 fate, and a possibility, yet only a possibility, that he might be put to death, 
 declares that he has a desire to depart, and that it is far better. He now declares, 
 when the certainty has come, his satisfaction in review of the past, and his 
 undoubting confidence for the future—(g) d:xavoobyy¢ of ver. 8 is best taken, as 
 Huther takes it, as gen. of apposition. So also Holtzm., and others. Ell., Plumptre, 
 and others, prefer to make it a sort of gen. possess. Ell. places at the foundation 
 an objective notion, “the crown for which (so to speak) dcx. has a claim,” but says 
 it is “in fact a sort of proleptic gen. possess.” Alf., with something of the same 
 
NOTES. DAE i | 
 
 objective idea perhaps, says “the bestowal of which is conditional on the substan- 
 tiation and recognition of righteousness.” dckacoovvy has here, apparently (as gen. 
 appos.), the ordinary, not the peculiar Pauline (forensic) sense. (So Grimm, de W., 
 and others.) 
 
 XXXII. Vv. 9-22. 
 
 (a) The request made in ver.-9 connects itself, in some sense, with what is said 
 in vy. 6-8—thus tayéw¢e may be partly, or possibly wholly, accounted for. But 
 the main connection is with ver. 10. The thought turns here, at the close of the 
 epistle, to more personal matters, as was natural in view of the Apostle’s own con- 
 dition and his friendly relations with Timothy. The verb ovovddew carries with 
 it the idea of earnest endeavor, as well as of haste (ovevdev). Timothy is thus 
 urged to make every effort to hasten his departure from Ephesus, and his arrival 
 at Rome. In ver. 21, the limit of time is more definitely indicated, before winter. 
 As the winter season would begin as early as November, and about three or four 
 months must be allowed for the passing of the letter from Rome to Ephesus, for 
 Timothy’s necessary preparations, and for the journey from Ephesus to Rome, the 
 date of the Epistle must be placed as early in the year as June or July. Vv. 6-8, 
 therefore, cannot be understood as meaning that the Apostle regarded his death 
 as certainly to take place in the most immediate future. He must have thought 
 that his life might be spared for a few months, but he evidently looked for the 
 end—as he did not in Phil. i. ii—as a thing to be confidently anticipated, and 
 that at an early time.—(b) Of the persons here mentioned, Demas, Luke, Mark and 
 Tychicus are alluded to in Col., and the first three of them in Philem. The desertion 
 of Demas had evidently occurred since the date of those letters, and apparently 
 after the arrival of Paul in Rome, on his second visit to that city. Whether 
 Demas had abandoned the Christian faith is not distinctly stated. It is stated, 
 however, that he had forsaken the Apostle (left him in the lurch, Huther) because 
 he loved the present aiév, An unchristian motive for his action is, therefore, 
 affirmed.—(c) The true reading in ver. 14, as proved by the weight of manuscript 
 evidence, is avodéoe. The statement is, accordingly, that the Lord will reward 
 him according to his works, and all questions as to the propriety or probability of 
 an expression of a desire on Paul’s part that he should be thus rewarded are set 
 aside by the fact that no such desire is expressed—(d) The use of the word 
 éykatéAecrov in ver. 16 fayors the view that the same word in ver. 10 does not 
 imply an absolute defection from the faith. The argument from this verse is not 
 ilecisive, however, for the word may be modified as to its force, in each case, by 
 the sentence in which it stands. In the present case, Paul prays that their 
 abandoning him may not be laid by God to the charge of the persons alluded to. 
 The language is milder than that used respecting Alexander, even if the reading 
 arodacet be the right one in the verse which refers to him, and certainly so, if 
 aroday is there the correct text.—(e) The “ first defence,” which is mentioned in 
 ver. 16, is supposed by some of the best recent commentators who think that Paul 
 was twice in Rome, to have been connected with a first hearing or trial within the 
 time of the second imprisonment. This view is favored by the fact that, during the 
 period of the first imprisonment, Timothy had been with Paul in Rome previous 
 to the date of the Ep. to the Philippians, and would scarcely need information as 
 to what happened at or near that date. The general indications of that Epistle 
 would seem, also, to suggest such a condition of things, and such prospects as to 
 
278 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 
 
 the issue of the trial, as to make it unlikely that all his friends would desert him 
 at that time. If the reference is, thus, to the time of the second imprisonment, 
 the iva clause of ver. 17 must refer to his defence, and not to subsequent mission- 
 ary labors, and this is indicated, also, by the insertion of this clause between the 
 évedvvauwoe and the éppiodtyv clause, both of which relate to the defence or trial. 
 The lion is probably to be understood as meaning either the devil, as the power 
 that brought the danger upon him and thereby a temptation to sin, or Nero, as 
 the one before whose tribunal he stood. The expression may, however, simply 
 denote “deadly danger”—a figurative way of setting forth this idea. This seems 
 less probable. Ver. 18 may, perhaps, be regarded as favoring the reference of 
 déovtoc to Satan. Evidently we must conclude from vy. 6-8, that the Apostle 
 does not mean by ver. 18 deliverance from imprisonment or death—(/f) That 
 6 Kvptocg of ver. 18 refers to Christ is made clear by the words t7v BactAciav avTou, 
 and, if so, the verse contains a doxology to Christ. 
 
CHAP. I. 279 
 
 Habiov tod dxosréhov 4 mpos Tiroy éxtotody. 
 
 In A, al. the inscription begins with dpyeraw; in DE FG it runs simply po¢ 
 Titov, . 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Ver. 1. For Iyoot Xporoi, Buttm. and Tisch. 7, following A, al., adopted 
 Xp.orov "Ijoov; but the majority of the most important Mss. (DY EFG HI K 
 Ly) support the Ree. (Lachm. Tisch. 8)—Ver. 4. xapu¢ kai eipyjvy] So Scholz, 
 Tisch., following C* D E F G J x 73, al., Syr. Copt. Chrys. Aug. al—Lachm. 
 and Buttm. retained the usual reading: ydpic, éAeo¢, eipyvy; it is found in A C** 
 K L, etc., but seems nevertheless to be a correction from the analogy of 1 Tim. i. 2; 
 2 Tim. i. 2—Tittmann’s reading: yapic, éAeoc, kai eipfvn, is quite arbitrary —Mat- 
 thaie : é2e0c nullus meorum omittit, nec ex quinque iis, quos postea consului. Reiche 
 decided for the reading of Tisch.—a? kvpiov "Ijoov Xpiorov] For this Lachm. 
 Buttm. Tisch. read xa? Xpiorod ’Ijoov, on the authority of A C D*al., Vulg. 
 Copt. Arm. Theodoret, ete——Ver. 5. So far as internal evidence goes, we cannot 
 decide whether the Rec. xaréAurov or the reading axéAvrov (Lachm. Tisch.) is the 
 original one; both may be corrections, the latter on the analogy of 2 Tim. iv. 20, 
 the former on the analogy of Acts xviii. 19, xxiv. 27. Hofmann prefers KaraAei- 
 mew, because it means: “leaving some one behind in going away;” but the sim- 
 ple verb is in no way unsuitable in the passage. The external evidence (A C D* 
 F G, al., Or. Basil. ms.) is in favor of arédurov, It is uncertain, too, whether the 
 aor. amédutov (Rec. supported by D E K x, al. Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8) 
 or the imperf. azéAecto (A CF G J L, al, Tisch. 7) is the original reading. 
 Hofmann prefers the imperf. “because it was part of the purpose for which Paul 
 at that time left Titus behind;” but this would not prevent the apostle from 
 writing the aor.—The authorities waver between the middle éxdcopbaon (Rec. 
 Tisch.) and the act. éridcopAGoy¢ (Scholz, Lachm. Buttm.). Since in classic Greek 
 the middle is more current than the active, it may be supposed that the middle 
 was a correction. It can hardly be supposed that the copyists did not know the 
 middle form (Hofmann).—Ver. 10. In A C J x, many cursives, etc., kai is want- 
 ing between 70A20i and avurtéraxrol, for which reason it was omitted by Lachm. 
 and Tisch. 8. Tisch. 7 retained it, on the authority of DEFGKL, several 
 cursives, etc. The «ai was perhaps added to be in accordance with classical 
 usage.—In several mss. (F G 67* 73, al.), as well as in some versions, Oecum. 
 Hilar., a kai was inserted after avuréraxtot.—Ver. 15. The pév following tévta 
 in the Rec. is to be deleted, on the authority of A C D* E* F G x 17, al., Vulg. 
 It. Or. Tert. ete—For pewacpuévorc, weuraupévore is found in A C K L y, many 
 cursives, etc., and was adopted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. (see Winer, p. 84 
 [E. T. p. 88]). D* has ueneavuévorg. 
 
280 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1+4, see Note XX XIII., pages 290-292.] Iavro¢ dovAo¢ 
 6c00] [XX XIII a.] This designation, which indicates generally the official . 
 position (Wiesinger: “dovAoc Ocov here in the same sense as in Acts xvi. 
 17, Rev. 1. 1, xv. 3, etc., not as in 1 Pet. ii. 16, Rev. vii. 3,” etc.), is not 
 usually found in the inscriptions of the Pauline Epistles. In the Epistle 
 of James we have: Ocov kai xupiov "I. Xp. dovaoc, and in writing to the 
 Romans and Philippians Paul says dovdoc I. Xp.—arédororoc dé 'I. Xp.] dé 
 indicates here not so much a contrast (as Mack thinks) as a further defini- 
 tion (Matthies: a more distinct description); comp. Jude 1. With this 
 double designation comp. Rom. i. 1: dovsog "I. Xp., kAnri¢g ardorokoc.—kara 
 miotw éxAext@v Ozov] kaTd is explained by Matthies to mean: “ according 
 to faith, so that the apostleship is described in its normal state, in its 
 evangelic character; ”’ but it is altogether opposed to the apostolic spirit 
 to make appeal on behalf of the apostleship to its harmony with the faith 
 of the elect. Kara rather expresses here the general relation of reference 
 to something: “in regard to faith ;” the more precise definition must be 
 supplied. This, however, can be nothing else than that which in Rom. i. 
 5 is expressed by elc¢ (sie braxoyy micrewc év aor tT. éOvecw). It is on ac- 
 count of the rioric éxA. Ocov that he is a dovA. Ocod and azxdéor. Xp., and to 
 this his office is related, see 2 Tim. i-1. This general relation is limited 
 too precisely by the common exposition: “for producing faith,” ete. 
 Hofmann thinks the apostle uses xara mor. éxA. to describe faith as that 
 which is presupposed in his apostleship, as that without which he would 
 not be an apostle; but, on the one hand, we should in that case have had 
 vou; and, on the other hand, caré does not express a presupposition or 
 condition.—The expression éxAexrol Oeod is taken by de Wette in a pro- 
 leptic sense, to mean those who, by the free counsel of God, are predesti- 
 nated. to faith; and xard riotw éxA. O., according to him, declares the 
 faith of these elect to be the aim of the apostolic office. Wiesinger, on 
 the contrary, thinks the expression é«Aexroi Ocov quite abstract, leaving it 
 uncertain “whether the «Ajo has already taken place in their case or 
 not;” but he agrees with de Wette in taking the éxAexroi to be the object 
 of the apostolic labors, so that the meaning is: in order to produce or 
 further faith in the elect. But in the’N. T. the expression éAexrod Oeod is 
 always used of those who have already become believers, never of those 
 who have not yet received the xAjowe. Since it cannot be said that the - 
 purpose of the apostolic office is to produce faith in the éxAexroé (Plitt: 
 “that the elect may believe ”’), who as such already possess faith, nor that 
 it is to further their faith, riotw éxdAexrov must be taken as one thought, 
 the genitive serving to define more precisely the faith to which Paul’s 
 apostolic office is dedicated. We have therefore here a contrast between 
 the true faith and the false rior, of which the heretics boasted —x«ai éri- 
 
 1There is no doubt that in classic Greek  .. . dAdAnoGe, kara Ayjida. But the relation 
 kara sometimes denotes the aim of exertion; here is quite different, being active. Kara 
 see Ktihner, 2 607.—Herod. ii. 152: xara thy  aiotw would therefore mean “in order to 
 Aninv exmAdoavtes. Thucydides, vi. 31: cara believe,” which would give no sense. 
 Ocav Heev. Odyssey, iii. 106: 7 Te Kata mpg 
 
CHAP. I. 1, 2. 281 
 
 yrwoy dAnOeiac tHe Kat’ evoéBecav] In genuine faith the knowledge of the 
 truth is a substantial element; and Paul here lays stress on this element 
 to point the contrast with the heretics. The éxiyvwou is the subjective 
 aspect, as the aAfea is the objective—rjc Kar’ evoéBecav [XXXII 6.] 
 serves to define 4a4/0ea more precisely! De Wette, Wiesinger, van 
 Oosterzee, Plitt interpret 7 «ar evoéBecav: “leading to holiness,” thus, in- 
 deed, naming a right element in truth, but one rather indicated than 
 expressed by xara; it is merely said that here a truth is under discussion 
 which is in nature akin to evoéBera. Hofmann translates it “piously,” 
 asserting that kar’ evoéBevav without the article stands for an adjective ; 
 but had Paul used the clause as an adjective, he would certainly have 
 written: tic Kar’ eboéBecav aAnbeiac (as in Rom. ix. 11: 7 kar’ éxhoyny mpdbe- 
 cic). Besides, the translation “ piously” is not sufficiently clear. 
 
 Ver. 2. ’En’ tdridc Cofe aiwviov] [X XXIII c¢.] ew éarids, “in hope” 
 (comp. Rom. iv. 18, viii. 21; 1 Cor. ix. 10). It is not to be taken with 
 éixiyvwoic aAnbetac (“ the knowledge of the truth which gives hope of an 
 eternal life,’ Heydenreich, but with hesitation; Wiesinger: CIS a 
 knowledge whose content is that a#Hea, and whose ground and condi- 
 tion is the hope of eternal life, by which hope it is supported and 
 guided ”), nor is it to be taken with evaéBea (“a holiness the possessor of 
 which is justified in hoping for eternal life,” which Heydenreich likewise 
 considers possible), nor with r7¢ kar’ ebvoéBecav (Matthies: “ truth and holi- 
 ness in their inner relationship are founded evangelically on the hope of 
 eternal life”), nor even with the two ideas closely connected: riorw and 
 ériypowow ad. (so Plitt: “the ior and the éxiyvwore rest on the éAmic”’); 
 but it is to be joined with azdorodog x.7.A. 7Paul by this declares that the e 
 tAric Cwmc alwviov is the basis on which he stands as an ardotodocg Incov 
 Xpiorod xara riotw «7.42 Van Oosterzee: “ Paul in ver. 4 says he fulfills 
 his task with or in hope of eternal life ” (so, too, Hofmann).—The believer, 
 it is true, possesses the Cw aidvo¢ in the present ; but its perfection will 
 only be granted to him in the future (comp. Col. iii. 8,4); here it 
 is to be considered as a future blessing, which is indicated by é7’ 
 Axidt.—hv ixnyyeidato 6 apevrdnc Ode xpd yxpdvov aiwviwv] [XX XIII d.| av 
 relates to Cofc aiwviov, and not, as some expositors (Flatt, Mack, and 
 others) think, to aA7@eva.—érnyyeidato, Viz. dua Tov TpopyT@v, COM). Rom. i. 
 2—6 apevdjc cdc] This epithet occurs only here; aipevdfe is equivalent to 
 rioréc, danOje in regard to the divine promises, comp. Heb. vi. 18: adivarov 
 pevoacbar Oedv; 1 Cor. i. 9; Rom. iii. 4—rpd ypdvev aiwvior here is not 
 equivalent in meaning to xpd KkataBorqje xéowov or similar expressions ; for 
 in that case éxyyye/Aaro must have meant promittere decrevit, or the like, 
 as Chrysostom expounds it: dvefev rabta podpioto, which is impossible. 
 It is equivalent to ax aidvoc, Luke i. 70: “before eternity, 2. e. before the 
 
 1As Chrysostom says: éott yap aAj@era  amdatodos x.7.A., the objection of Wiesinger 
 mpayuatwv, add’ ov kat’ evocBerav, oiov 70 is overcome, viz. that in connecting it with 
 eidévar Ta yewpytKa, TO cidevar TEXVAaS, AANOHS anéatodos there should be a dé or something 
 éotiv eidévau’ GAN’ avy Kat’ evo€Beray y adyPera. similar to indicate the co-ordinate position 
 If ém’ édmide be in this way connect-d with — of émi and xara. 
 
282 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 earliest times’ (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann), comp. 2 Tim. 
 i. 9.1 De Wette rightly remarks that apparently the opposite is declared 
 IN pvothpiov ypdvowe aiwviow cearynuévov, Rom. xvi. 25. 
 
 Ver. 3. [XXXII e.] "Egavépwce dé xaipoic idiowe tov Adyov avtow] épavépwoe 
 forms an antithesis to éryyyeiAato. True, the promise is a revelation, but 
 only a revelation in which the point under consideration still remains 
 hidden. The object of é¢avépwoe is not the same as that to which éryy. 
 relates, viz. 7v, i.e. T7v Conv aidvov; Beza: quam promiserat Deus 
 manifestam autem fecit ... The object is rév Adyov aitov, which is not 
 to be taken as in apposition to gv (or as Heinrichs even thinks, to éA7zida 
 Cw), though it is strange that égav. should begin a new sentence. This 
 is one of the cases where—as Buttmann, p. 328 [E. T. 383], remarks—a 
 relative sentence passes almost imperceptibly into a principal sentence, 
 without such continuation changing the actual principal sentence into 
 one subordinate.—rov Adyov avrov] is, of course, not a name for Christ 
 (scholiasts in Matthaei), but the gospel, which contains the azoxaivyuc 
 pvornpiov, Rom. xvi. 26, or, as is said here, ry Came aiwviov.A—Kaipoic idiow] 
 comp. 1 Tim. ii. 6. How this ¢avépwore of the divine word took place, is 
 told in the next words: év kypbyyate 6 ériarebOny éyo] Kfipvyua (see 2 Tim. 
 iv. 17) is not quite “the general preaching of the gospel by the apostles ”’ 
 (Matthies, Wiesinger), the thought being limited by the words following; 
 kpvyua is to be taken as forming one thought with what follows: ‘“ the 
 preaching entrusted to me.” Paul had some reason for describing his 
 preaching as the means by which this revelation was made, since he recog- 
 nized the depth of the divine decree as no other apostle had recognized it, 
 and by him it was proclaimed “to all peoples” (see 2 Tim. iv. 17).—é 
 éxtotevOnv éy] see 1 Cor. ix. 17; Gal. ii. 7; 1 Thess. ii. 4; 1 Tim. i. 11—To 
 define and emphasize the thought that the xjpvyya was not according to 
 his own pleasure, Paul adds: kar’ éxitayyv tov cwrhpoc mudv Oeov] comp. 1 
 Tim. i. 1. Hofmann construes differently, connecting together xara riorw 
 and éx’ éAridc as well as év «npiyuart, and then joining kar’ éxirayqy im- 
 mediately with axéorodoc. But this construction not only makes rév Adéyov 
 airov (which, according to Hofmann, is in apposition to #v) quite super- 
 fluous, but separates ideas closely attached to each other, «#pvyua and 
 Adyoc, éxcorebOyv and kar’ éxitayhy. 
 
 Ver. 4. Titw yrytiy téxvy Kata Kowny riotw] [XXXII fj On yracio réxve, 
 see 1 Tim. i. 2. Kara xouy riorw gives the point of view from which Titus ~ 
 can be considered the genuine son of the apostle. Beza: 7. e. fidei 
 respectu qua quidem et Paulo patri et Tito filio communis erat. There 
 is nothing to indicate that in using xow#v Paul was thinking of an origi- 
 nal difference between them, he being a Jewish Christian, Titus a Gentile 
 
 1Calvin rightly says: hie, quia de promis- the apostle changes its object, or rather its 
 sione tractat, non omnia saecula compre- name; eternal life is in its appearance still 
 hendit, ut nos addueat extra mundi creatio- something future, revealed only as Adyos. 
 nem, sed docet, multa saecula praeteriisse, ex Hence, too, it is plain that the gw aidvios is 
 quo salus fuit promissa. here to be regarded as the content of this 
 
 2 Wiesinger rightly: “Any one can see why Aoyos in specie.” 
 
CHAP. I. 3-6. 283 
 
 Christian.—ydpic [éAeoc], eipyvy «.t.A.] see on 1 Tim. i. 2—The designation 
 appended to Xpiorov, viz. tov owrypoc ijuov, is peculiar to this epistle. 
 [XX XIII, g.] 
 
 Ver. 5. [On Vv. 5-9, see Note XXXIV., pages 292, 293.] The epistle be- 
 gins by the apostle reminding Titus of the commission already given him 
 by word of mouth. [XXXIV a.]—roirov yapw arédirov oe tv Kpgry] 
 [XXXIV b.] Regarding the time when this happened, see the Introduc- 
 tion ; as to the reading, see the critical remarks.—iva ra Aeirovta éridiop- 
 Goon] ta Agixrovra: quae ego per temporis brevitatem non potui coram 
 expedire (Bengel).—ézidvop§éon¢ | The preposition ézi does not serve here 
 to strengthen the meaning (~omni cura corrigere, Wahl) but conveys 
 the notion of something additional: “ still further bring into order.’—ra 
 Aeixovta| means “ that which is wanting,” 7. e. here that which was want- 
 ing for the complete organization of the church. The apostle himself 
 had already done something, but in many respects the churches were not 
 organized as they ought to be; presbyters had still to be appointed to 
 gather single believers into a firmly-established church. This Titus was 
 now to do,! as the next words say: kai Kataotjonc Kata TéAW mpeaButépove. 
 [XXXIV c.]—xara 76Av] For the expression, comp. Luke viii. 1; Acts xv. 
 21, xx. 23; and for the fact, Acts xiv. 23. Baur wrongly assumes that 
 each méAic was to receive only one presbyter, see Meyer on Acts xiv. 23.— 
 ac éy oo duetazaunv] “ relates both to the fact and to the manner of it, 
 the latter being set forth more fully in mentioning the qualities of those 
 to be chosen” (de Wette). Hofmann, without sufficient ground, wishes 
 mpecButépove to be regarded not as the object proper, but as something 
 predicated of the object, which object is found by the words ei ri «.7.2. 
 This view is refuted by the addition of kata réAuw 
 
 Ver. 6. Ei tic éotiv] [XXXIV d.] This form is not, as Heinrichs and 
 Heydenreich think, selected to express a doubt whether such men could 
 be found among the corrupt Cretans. The meaning is rather : “ only such 
 an one as.” —avéyxAntoc] see 1 Tim. ili. 10; averxiAnrroc is used in 1 Tim. iii. 
 2. The objection which de Wette raises on the ground that Titus is in 
 the first place to have regard to external blamelessness, has been proved 
 by Wiesinger to have no foundation whatever.—j.ac yuv. avip] see 1 Tim. 
 ili. 2—réxva Eywv tiora] comp. 1 Tim. ii. 4, 5; x74, in contrast to those 
 that were not Christian, or were Christian only in name.—py7 év Katnyopia 
 dowriac] “qui non sunt obnoxii crimini luxus” (Wolf); dowria is a de- 
 bauched, sensual mode of life (1 Pet. iv. 4; Eph. v. 18).2—# avuréraxra] 
 see 1 Tim. iii. 5. Comp. the picture of the sons of Eli in 1 Sam. ii. 12 ff. 
 As the bishop is to be an example to the church, his own house must be 
 well conducted. 
 
 1Theod. y. Mops. : 0 yap THs evoeBeias Adyos 
 mapededoTo tact map’ avTov, éAcimeTo SE oiKko- 
 VOMATAL TA KATA TOUS TEMLOTEUKOTAaS Kai Eis 
 appoviav avTo’s KaTagTHoaL Tails exKAnoLagTi= 
 Kats dvatuTwocect. 
 
 2Hofmann rightly remarks, that (accord- 
 ing to the apostle’s injunction) “Titus was to 
 
 appoint the superintendents according to his 
 own choice, and was not to cause them to be 
 elected by the Christians who were still to be 
 organized into a community.” 
 
 3Chrysostom: ovx cite wh atA@s aowrTos, 
 GAAa unde StaBoAnv Exery ToravTHY, myNdE Tov: 
 pas civar ddێns. 
 
284 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 Ver. 7. Aci yap] The statements of ver. 6 are now confirmed by alluding 
 to the higher moral necessity ; “ det is the emphatic word” (Wiesinger).— 
 Tov imiok. avéykAytov elvac] avéykA. is resumed from ver. 6, that the thought 
 may be further developed. It is to be noted that the name ézicxoroc 
 appears here; it is given to the presbyter as superintendent of the church. 
 As such “he must not be liable to any reproach, if he is to guide the 
 church ” (Wiesinger).—o¢ @eov oixovduoy] is added to give the reason for 
 that higher necessity of the avéyx. eivac; Heydenreich wrongly turns it to 
 mean simply that he must know how to superintend his house well.— 
 “as,” 1. e. “ since he is.” —Oeov oixovéduoc is the bishop in so far as there 
 is committed to him by God authority in the éxxAyoia as the olxoc Ocov (1 
 Tim. iii. 15). Mack is not wrong in proving from this expression that the 
 éxioxorot are not merely “ ministers and plenipotentiaries of the church.” 
 Eyen if they are elected by the church, they bear their office as divine, 
 not exercising it according to the changing pleasure of those by whom 
 they are elected, but according to the will of God.—wy aidddy] occurs only 
 here and in 2 Pet. ii. 10. It is compounded of airéc and ddéw, and 
 synonymous with airdpeokoe (2 Tim. iii. 2: giAavroc), “who in everything 
 behaves arrogantly and regardlessly as seems good in his own eyes; ” 
 Luther: “ willful.”—py dpyidov] ar. rey. “passionate;” oi dpyitor rayéwc 
 opyiCovrat.—uy mapowov] see 1 Tim. iii. 3.—p) rAgKT rv] see also 1 Tim. iii. 
 3.— pi aicypoxepd7| see 1 Tim. iii. 8; perhaps with special reference to the 
 opportunities which the bishop had in his office of acquiring gain.—These 
 five negative qualifications are opposed to arrogance, anger, and avarice ; 
 several positive qualifications follow. 
 
 Ver. 8. ’AAAG giAdEevov] see 1 Tim. iii. 2.—Adyabov] az. Aey. (the oppo- 
 site in 2 Tim. iii. 8), loving either the good or what is good. Chrysostom 
 is inaccurate: 7a abtob rdvra Toic Seopévore rpoiéuevoc ; and Luther : “kindly.” 
 —oappova] see 1 Tim. iii. 2—dixaiov, dcvov] These two ideas are frequently 
 placed together. '—dixawoc is one who does no wrong to his neighbor; 
 écvo¢ is one Who keeps himself free from that which stains him in the 
 éyes of God; synonymous with dxaxoc, ayiavroc, Heb. vii. 26.—éyxparq] ar. 
 dey? There is no ground for limiting the word to the relation of the 
 sexes; besides, éyxpdreca and éyxparevesOac in the N. T. hardly convey any- 
 thing more than the general idea of self-control. -The three last qualifica- 
 tions are closely related to each other, describing the conduct of the man 
 towards his neighbor, towards God, towards himself; comp. ii. 12.—The 
 positive qualifications in this verse are not direct antitheses to the negative 
 qualifications in the preceding verse; still there is a certain antithesis of 
 cognate ideas. This is the case with 7 avfady and gcAdFevov, diAdyabov ; with 
 [a opyihov, ui) mapowvov, wy TAHKTHY, ANA cHdpova; pH aicxpoKepd7 and dikatov, 
 éo.ov, éyxpat7. Still these epithets, though corresponding to one another, 
 are not quite the same in the extent of their application. 
 
 ie 
 
 1Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 10; Eph. iv. 24; Plato Hkovra mpatrwy Sika’ av mpartor, mepi Se 
 (Gorg. 507 B) this distinguishes between Oeovs dara. 
 them: Kai py mepi pév avOpwrous Ta mpoo- 2Chrysostom: tov ma@ous Kparovvta, Tov Kat 
 
CHAP. I. 7—9. 285 
 
 Ver. 9. To these requisites, somewhat general in nature, Paul adds 
 another with special bearing on the official duties of a bishop: avreyéuevov 
 Tov Kata THY didayiv TLoTOU Aé6yov] The exposition given by most of the com- 
 pound idea rot . . . Adyouv is inaccurate and confused. Heydenreich 
 divides the expression into two parts: (1) 6 mortd¢ Adyoc, “the true doc- 
 trine of the gospel;” and (2) 6 Adyoc kata tiv diayhv, “the doctrine in 
 which the bishop is instructed,’ and gives the following translation : 
 “holding firmly, as instructed, by the word which is certain (to reliable 
 doctrine).” But manifestly this translation arbitrarily inverts the mean- 
 ing. The words xara tHv didayyv are not dependent on orev, but on 
 Adyov, defined by microv, so that rod x. 7. did. ricTod Ady. is equivalent to row 
 TloTov Adyov, Tov Kata THY diWayxHv. ‘O rLoTd¢ Adyoc does not occur elsewhere in 
 our epistles, but there is no doubt that Paul means thereby the pure, whole- 
 some word (Adyor tytaivovrec, 1 Tim. vi. 8; of Adyou tHe Trictewc, 1 Tim. iv. 6) 
 of the gospel, in contrast,to the false doctrine of the heretics. He uses 
 the epithet mioré¢ because it is not treacherous, it can be relied on: “the 
 sure, reliable word.” 'This sure word is defined more precisely by kara ry 
 didaynv] didaxg is not active (Luther: “that which can teach ”), but means, 
 as it often does in the N. T., “doctrine.” Here it denotes “the Christian 
 doctrine,” which is none other than that preached by Christ Himself and 
 by His apostles; so Matthies, Wiesinger, Plitt, Hofmann. It is less 
 appropriate to explain didaxyz to be “the instruction imparted” (so van 
 Oosterzee, and formerly in this commentary);! comp. 1 Tim. iv. 6; 2 
 Thess. ii. 15.—avréyeofa (in Matt. vi. 24, synonymous with ayarav, opposed 
 to xaragpoveiv ; used in a similar sense, 1 Thess. v. 14) occurs often in 
 Polybius (see Raphelius on the passage) in the sense of: adhaerere, 
 studiosum esse (avréyeobar tic aAnfeiac). Here, too, it has this meaning, as 
 in Phil. 1.16: éwéyew ; 2 Thess. ii. 15: xpareiv, “adhere to.” Luther: “he 
 holds by the word.”—Heydenreich rightly remarks that this does not 
 indicate the zeal the teacher was to show in speaking of divine doctrine, 
 but his own internal adherence, etc.—iva «.r.A.] This adherence to the 
 word is necessary for the bishop that he may discharge the duties of his 
 office. It is further defined more precisely in two ways: iva dvvatic 7 
 kai... kai: “both ...and.” The first is: wapaxareiv év rH didackadia TH 
 by:atvoton, Which refers to believers. capaxaieiv] encourage, exhort ; viz. to 
 remain in the way on which they have entered, and to advance ever 
 further in it, ¢v being here instrumental: “through, by means of.” Mat- 
 thies is incorrect : “to edify in sound doctrine; ” comp. 1 Thess. iv. 18— 
 7 didack. 4 bycaw.] see 1 Tim. i. 10.—The second is: rove avriAéyovrac éhéyxerv | 
 “ By correction and reproof to refute those who contradict” (viz. the 
 pure doctrine of the gospel), by which are meant the heretics.—Even 
 in classic Greek, the two conceptions “refute” and “reprove” are some- 
 
 YAOTTYS, Kal xXELpos, Kal OPOaduav aKxodaoTwr" 815; ot Kata THY TapadkAnoty Adyor, and accord- 
 TOUTO yap éoTiv éyxpatera, TS pySevi VToaVpec- ing to this 0 kata thy ddaxqv Adyos would be 
 Oar wader. ; the word whose content is doctrine. But the 
 
 1Several expositors cite, in explanation of attribute moros makes this explanation 
 
 this expression, the passage from Polyb. p. unsuitable. 
 
286 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 times combined in ééyyew ; see Pape, s.v.—This verse leads on to further 
 description of the heretics. 
 
 Ver. 10. [On Vv. 10-16, see Note XX XV., pages 293, 294.] Eiol yap] yap 
 shows that this verse serves to explain the preceding words. [XXXV a.]— 
 roadoi [kai] avurdraxror] If xai be read, the phrase should be explained by 
 the usage common in Greek of joining 7020 with an adjective following 
 it (see Matthiae, 2 44, 4, p. 830), and avuréraxro taken as an adjective. If 
 kai be omitted, avuréraxroe may be taken as a substantive. The heretics 
 are so named because they set themselves in opposition to the gospel and 
 refuse obedience to it; the word is found also in 1 Tim. i. 9; Tit.i. 6.— 
 The heretics are further styled yaraiédoyor] see 1 Tim. i. 6, and ¢pevardrac 
 (az. dey.; the verb in Gal. vi. 3), “ misleaders,’ almost synonymous with 
 yonrec, 2 Tim. iii. 18.—pddcora ot éx mepitouqce] A name for the Jewish- 
 Christians, as in Gal. ii. 12.—yd/.ora indicates that the preachers of heresy 
 in Crete were chiefly Jewish Christians, but that they had also found fol- 
 lowers among the Gentile Christians. These appended words do not com- 
 pel us to take avurdéraxro: as the predicate, and the Christians of Crete as 
 the unexpressed subject of ciciv (in opposition to Hofmann). Of course 
 Paul by eioiv yap. x.7.A. means to say that Crete is the place where such 
 chatterers are to be found. 
 
 Ver. 11. Oi¢ dei excorouifew] goes back to the end of ver. 9.—érioropiteww 
 (az. dey.) is from éxioréuov, Which denotes both the bridle-bit and the 
 muzzle, and is equivalent either to freno compescere, coercere (synony- 
 mous with roi¢ yatuwode cic Ta orduata BadAdew, Jas. iii. 8), or to os obturare 
 (= d¢yuorv, Matt. xxii. 34). The latter signification is more usual (see 
 Elsner, p. 382): “put to silence.’?\—oirwwec (= quippe qui, and giving the 
 reason for od¢ dez) bAove oikove avatpérovor| The chief emphasis is laid on éAove: 
 not merely individuals, but also whole families are misled by them into un- 
 belief Avarpéxew] see 2 Tim. ii. 18; “ the figure is here used in keeping 
 with oixove”” (Wiesinger).—dddoKovrec & yy dei] “ teaching what should not 
 be taught; ” this shows the means by which they exercise so destructive 
 an influence; 4 yy dei, equivalent to ra ua déovra, 1 Tim. vy. 18.2—This 
 refers to pataidroyot, Just as avatpérove: does to dpevarara.—The purpose. is 
 briefly set forth by aicypov xépdove yapw: The disgrace of their gain con- 
 sists in the means they employ for acquiring it. The apostle adds these 
 words to point out the selfish conduct of the heretics, who work only for 
 their own profit. 
 
 Ver. 12. Paul quotes the saying of a Cretan poet as a testimony 
 regarding the Cretans.—eizé ric é& abtev idioc aitav mpodhryc] é avtav is 
 by most expositors referred to the preceding oAdoi or to oi éx mepitopie; 
 but such a reference is unsuitable; the apostle is rather thinking of Cre- 
 tans in general.—The idsog airév declares still more strongly that the say- 
 
 1Theophylact: éAéyxeww ohoSpas, Bare amo- ception what the latter denotes objectively. 
 KAclewy avTois Ta OTOMaTA. We cannot, however, go as far as Hofmann, 
 
 2The distinction between & wy Set and & ov who says: “» indicates that they who thus 
 Set is rightly given by Winer, p. 448 [E. T. p. teach are conscious they ought not to do so, 
 480]. The former expresses asa moral con- and teach in this way nevertheless.” 
 
CHAP. I. 10-13. 287 
 
 ing proceeds from a Cretan and not from a stranger, see Winer, p. 146 LE. 
 T. p. 154].—xpogirnc] According to Chrysostom, Theophylact, Epiphanius, 
 Jerome, it is Epimenides who is meant. [XXXV 0b.] This Epimenides 
 was a contemporary of the’seven wise men, and by some was even reck- 
 oned as one of them in place of Periander; he was born in the sixth 
 century B.c. The saying quoted by Paul, which forms a complete hex- 
 ameter, is said to have been in his lost work zepi ypyouav. Theodoret, on 
 the other hand, ascribes the saying to Callimachus, who, however, was a 
 Cyrenian in the third century B.c.; besides, it is only the first words that 
 occur in his Hymn. ad Jov. ver. 8. Epiphanius and Jerome think that 
 Callimachus took the words from Epimenides. Paul does not call Epi- 
 menides a xpogjr7¢ because poets and philosophers were often called 
 prophets in ancient times, but because the saying of Epimenides described 
 beforehand the character of the Cretans as it was in the apostle’s time. 
 Still it is to be noted that this very Epimenides was famed among the 
 Greeks for his gift of wisdom, so that even Cicero (De Divinat. XViil.) 
 places him among those vaticinantes per furorem.'—Kpjrec dei pevorat | 
 Chrysostom refers these words chiefly to the pretence of the Cretans that 
 Jupiter lay buried among them; to this, at any rate, the verse of Calli- 
 machus refers ;* but the Cretans in ancient times were notorious for false- 
 hood, so that, according to Hesychius, xpyrifew is synonymous with 
 pevdeoba xai anxarav; for proofs of this, see in Wetstein.——KaKa Opia] denot- 
 ing their wild, unruly character; some expositors refer this name 
 specially to the greed of the Cretans, as Polybius, book vi., specially men- 
 tions their aicypoxepdia kat rAcovecia; but it is more than improbable that 
 Epimenides had this meaning in his words.—yaorépec apyat] synonymous 
 with Phil. iii. 19: dv 6 Ode  Kovdia (comp. Rom. xvi. 18; 2 Pet. ii. 13, 
 14); this denotes the Cretans as men given to sensuality. Plato, too (De 
 Legg. i.), reproaches them with lust and immodesty.—The apostle’s pur- 
 pose in quoting this saying of Epimenides is indicated in the next verse. 
 The national character of the Cretans was such that they were easily per- 
 suaded to listen to the heretics, and hence it was all the more necessary 
 to oppose the latter firmly. 
 
 Ver. 18. In confirmation of the verse quoted, Paul Says : 7 aptupia 
 avtn éotiv adnOyc, and attaches to it an exhortation to Titus.’ Bertholdt, 
 without reason, holds this verse to be a later interpolation —év jv airiay | 
 
 1Comp. Diogenes Laertius, Vita Philos. p. time. But in spite of the character here de- 
 81, ed. Henr. Steph. scribed, there might still be many individuals 
 ready to receive the gospel; and yet because 
 
 2This ver. : 5 
 Pris kere rans of that peculiarity there was ground for 
 
 Kpijtes aet Wedorar, anxiety lest they should be easily misled into 
 Kpijres érextyvavto" unfaithfulness. De Wette is also wrong in 
 Kai yap Tapov, & ava, ceio thinking that the expression regarding the 
 av && ov Oaves* éoTi yap det. Cretans in yy. 12 f. does not harmonize with 
 
 the apostle’s prudence in teaching.—But how 
 
 3 De Wette thinks this confirmation by Paul bitterly Luther expresses himself regarding 
 
 himself hard and unjust, since the gospel had the Germans, calling them, e.g., animals and 
 
 been received in Crete in such a way that mad beasts! Was Luther on that account 
 several churches were formed in a short deficient in prudence in his teaching? 
 
288 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 see 2 Tim. i. 6. Chrysostom: did tovro" éredy 700g abroic gory irapov kai 
 Jodepov Kai axédaaorov; it refers to the picture of the Cretan character 
 given in the testimony.—éAeyyxe airoig aroréuwc] éAeyxe, as in ver. 9; “the 
 apostle here drops all reference to the bishops to be appointed, and assigns 
 to Titus himself the duty of applying a remedy ” (Wiesinger).—airoic] 
 not so much the heretics as the Cretans, who were exposed to their mis- 
 leading influence. These latter needed the éAéyyewv, because they were 
 not resisting the heretics as they ought, but (as oiri,e¢ bAove oikove avarpé- 
 mover Shows) were yielding to them easily.—aroréyuc] “sharply, strictly ;” 
 elsewhere only in 2 Cor. xiii. 10; the substantive azorouéa in Rom. xi. 
 22.—iwa byivwow év tH riote:] “that they may be sound in the faith.” De 
 Wette takes this as the immediate contents of the é/éyyew, just as iva 
 occurs with zapaxaAciv, but without good grounds. ’Ey here is not instru- 
 mental (Heinrichs: per religionem), but ior is the subject in which 
 they are to be sound. 
 
 Ver. 14. One especial requisite for the tyaivew év rH riotec is given by 
 Paul in the participial clause: py mpocéxovrec "Iovdaixoic pvdow Kai évrodaic¢ 
 x.7.A.] mpooéxovrec, see 1 Tim. i. 4, iv. 1. Here, as in the epistles to Timo- 
 thy, the heresies are called yifo., from the theories they contained; see 
 on 1 Tim.i.4. Here, however, they are further defined by the epithet 
 Iovdaixoi, as they were peculiar to Jewish speculation, though their sub- 
 stance was derived from Gentile modes of thought. The description, too, 
 in the First Epistle to Timothy shows that to the speculative part of the 
 heresy there was added a legal element founded on an arbitrary interpre- 
 tation of the Mosaic law. The évrodai of the heretics are here called évro- 
 Aai avépirwv arootpedouévor tiv aegbecav: “commands of men which depart 
 from the truth,” because they were founded not on Christianity, but on the 
 arbitrary wills of men estranged from Christianity. These évroAai con- 
 visted not so much of moral precepts, as of prohibitions of food and the 
 like, see 1 Tim. iv. 3. Hofmann refers the adjective "Iovdaixoic, and the 
 defining words avépérwv x.7.2., to both substantives,—a possible construc- 
 tior. but not necessary. His reasons are far from sufficient.—azoorpedo- 
 pévov’ see 2 Tim. i. 15. [XXXV ¢] 
 
 Ver. 5. The anvostle, bearing in mind the prohibitions of the heretics, 
 opposes te them a general principle which shows their, worthlessness.— 
 mavta Kafapa “ig xabapoic] ravra quite generally: all things in themselves, 
 with which a man may simply have to do, but not a man’s actions, nor, 
 as Heydenreich thinks, the errors of the heretics. The usual explanation 
 which limits the bearing of the words to the arbitrary rules of the heretics 
 regarding food and other things, is only so far right that Paul lays down 
 his general principle with special reference to these rules; but zévra 
 itself should be taken quite generally. Even the exposition of Matthies: 
 “all that falls into the sphere of the individual wants of life,” places an 
 unsuitable limitation on the meaning. Chrysostom rightly: odév 6 Ocd¢ 
 axafaprov éroincev.—xabapad as the predicate of xavra is to be connected 
 with it by supplying éori: “all is pure,” viz. roi¢ xaapoic. Bengel: omnia 
 externa iis, qui intus sunt mundi, munda sunt. Many expositors wrongly 
 
 
 
CHAP. “1.” 14,110: 289 
 
 refer the conception of xafapoi to knowledge! It should rather be taken 
 as referring to disposition : to those who have a pure heart everything is 
 pure (not: “to them everything passes for pure’’), i.e. as to the pure, 
 things outside of them have no power to render them impure.” On ka6a- 
 poic, van Oosterzee remarks: “ By nature no one is pure; those here 
 called xafapoi are those who have purified their heart by faith, Acts xv. 
 9.” This is right, except that Paul is not thinking here of the means by 
 which the man becomes xafapéc; the indication of this point is given 
 afterwards in azioroc. The apostle purposely makes the sentence very 
 emphatic, because it was with the distinction between pure and impure 
 that the heretics occupied themselves so much.—The contrast to the first 
 sentence is given in the words: roi¢ dé peusaupévore Kai axiatote ovdév Kabapév. 
 Regarding the form peyiaypévoc, see Winer, p. 84 [E. T. p. 88].2 The 
 verb forms a simple contrast with xafapoic, and stands here not in a Levit- 
 ical (John xviii. 28), but in an ethical sense, as in Heb. xi. 15; Jude 8. 
 Kai azioroe is not an epexegesis of pewiayu., but adds a new point to it, 
 viz. the attitude of the heretics towards the saving truths of the gospel. 
 The two words do not denote two different classes of men, as the article 
 toi¢ 18 Only used once. To these impure men nothing is pure, 7. e. every 
 external thing serves only to awaken within them impure lust.—a/aa 
 pepiavta avtav Kai 6 voice Kai 4 ovveidnowc] This sentence expresses posi- 
 tively what oidév kabapév expressed negatively, at the same time furnish- 
 ing the reason for the preceding thought. De Wette’s opinion therefore 
 is not correct, that “for 4224 there should properly have been yap; the 
 author, however, makes moral character equivalent to moral action.” The 
 relation of the two sentences is pretty much the same as if, e.g., we were 
 to say: he is not rich, but his father has disinherited him. If Paul had 
 used yap, the sentence would simply have furnished the reason for what 
 preceded ; aAAa, on the other hand, indicates the contrast. Still we must 
 not conclude, with Hofmann, that the second sentence merely says the 
 same thing as the first. It should be interpreted: “but to them every- 
 thing is impure, because their vov¢e and their cuveidyore are defiled.” —Noi¢ 
 and ovveidyove do not here denote the inner nature of man on the two 
 sides of knowledge and will (so Hofmann). Novc is the spiritual faculty 
 of man acting in both directions; in N. T. usage the reference to action 
 prevails, vov¢ being equivalent to the practical reason. uveidyou, on the 
 other hand, is the human consciousness connected with action, and ex- 
 pressing itself regarding the moral value of action; it corresponds to 
 “conscience” (see on 1 Tim.i.38). The two conceptions are distinguished 
 
 1As Jerome; qui sciunt omnem creaturam 
 bonam esse, or as Beza: quibus notum est 
 libertatis per Christum partae beneficium. 
 
 2From the same point of view we have in 
 the Testam. XII. Patriarch. test. Benjam. chap. 
 Vili.: 6 Exwy Stdvorcay KaBapay ev ayarpn, ovx 
 Opa yuvatka €is mopveiay’ ov yap éxer miagpov 
 éy 77 kapdia. Kindred thoughts are found in 
 
 19 
 
 Matt. xxiii. 26; Luke xi. 41; comp. also the 
 similar expression in Rom. xiv. 20. 
 
 3 Also Veitch, Irregular Greek Verbs, s. v. 
 
 4De Wette asserts, without reason, that 
 ovveidyots is the “ consciousness that follows,” 
 since the consciousness of the deed may pre- 
 cede as well as accompany and follow it— 
 Wiesinger explains vods inaccurately by: “the 
 
290 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 from each other by «ait . . . «ai, and at the same time closely connected. 
 By this, however, no special emphasis is laid on the second word (formerly 
 in this commentary). In iii. 11 (airoxardxpiroc) and 1 Tim. iy. 2, the 
 apostle again says as much as that the conscience of the heretics was 
 defiled. Though the thought contained in this verse is quite general in 
 character, Paul wrote it with special reference to the heretics, and is there- 
 fore able to attach to it a further description of them. 
 
 Ver. 16. Oedv duoroyovow eidévac] not: “they pretend” (Matthies), but 
 “they loudly and publicly confess,”’ that they know God. Paul leaves it 
 undecided whether their confession is correct or not. He does not grant 
 to them, as de Wette thinks, that “they have the theoretical knowledge 
 of God, and in a practical aspect,” nor does he deny this to them. His 
 purpose here is to declare that, in spite of this their confession, their 
 actions are of such a nature as to argue that they had no knowledge of 
 God: roic dé épyoue apvotvtar] apvovvtar, Opposed to duoAoyovow, see 1 Tim. 
 y.8; 2 Tim. iii. 5. Supply Oedv eidévac (so, too, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). 
 —pdeAvnrot vtec Kal amefeic] Bdedvktéc (az. Aey.), equivalent to abomina- 
 bilis, detestable (comp. Luke xvi. 15); Luther: “whom God holds in 
 abomination.” —The word is joined with axd@aproc in Proy. xvii. 15, LX X. 
 Paul does not apply this epithet to the heretics, because they were defil- 
 ing themselves with actual worship of idols, which especially was re- 
 garded by the Jews as #déAvyua, but in order to describe their moral 
 depravity.—xai areieic] “and disobedient,” synonymous with avuréraxro 
 in ver. 10; this indicates why they are deAvKtoi.—kai mpdc av épyov aya- 
 Gov adéxiuor] “the result of the preceding characteristics” (Wiesinger) ; 
 addxiuoc, aS 2 Tim. iii. 8. : 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 XXXII. Vv. 1-4. 
 
 (a) With respect to several of the points in these verses which contain the 
 salutation of this Epistle, the reader is referred to Notes I. and XXI., above. A 
 ’ few words as to some of them may be.added here:—1. That xara rictw can be 
 ; explained, with R. V. and A. V., as meaning according to, is denied by Alf., who 
 says “it is inadmissible.” The objection made to this explanation is substantially 
 that which Huther presents, “that it is opposed to the apostolic spirit to make 
 appeal on behalf of the apostleship to its harmony with the faith of the elect.” 
 But if the faith of the elect is here spoken of, as it may be, in its relation to the 
 great truth towards which the faith goes out, and on which it rests, this objection 
 falls away. It must be admitted, however, as already remarked in Note XXI., 
 
 entire spiritual habitus” (van Oosterzee still 
 more inaccurately by: “the tendency of the 
 man, the direction of his entire disposition”), 
 but cvveténaots quite accurately by: “the moral 
 consciousness of my thinking and action in 
 their relation to the law.” 
 
 1Hofmann asserts that this explanation is 
 
 contrary to the meaning of the word, and that 
 opodoyecv here must be taken in its most gen- 
 eral signification as — “ declare, affirm ;” but 
 we cannot see why. It is to be noted that 
 ouodoyery in the N. T. always indicates an 
 utterance more or less emphatic; also Matt. 
 vii. 23 (comp. Meyer on the passage). 
 
NOTES. 291 
 that this sense of the preposition is less probable here than in the case of kar 
 érayyediav of 2 Tim. i. 2, and that, with this sense, the expression becomes a quite 
 peculiar one, to which we find nothing fully corresponding elsewhere in Paul’s 
 declarations as to his apostleship. The meaning given by Huther, “in regard to 
 faith,’ or the more definite one expressing purpose, “for faith,” Ell., Alf. or 
 “for producing faith,’ Dykes and others, is, on the whole, to be preferred. 
 Holtzmann says according to, secundum fidem catholicam. He urges, and the argu- 
 ment must undoubtedly be regarded as having force, that the same preposition in 
 the phrase kar’ evoéfecav, and also in the phrase, in ver. 4, kata kowjv rior, and 
 it might be added, in kar’ émvtayyv (ver. 3), has this signification. Still the gen- 
 eral thought of Paul—that his office was given according to Divine appointment, 
 but for the purpose of producing faith on the part of men—might easily suggest to 
 the reader the different uses of the preposition as intended here.—2. As to the 
 relation of ékAexTov to Tiotvv, the view of Huther, with whom EIl., Alf., and 
 some others agree, is to be adopted, because of the reason which Huther presents, 
 and also because, if the meaning were the producing of faith and knowledge in 
 the elect, the exAextoi would probably be mentioned after both of the nouns tiortvv 
 and éxiyvwovv, and the expression would more naturally be év toi¢ éxAexroi¢ than 
 éxAext@v.—(b) ELL, and de W. give to kar’ evoéBevav the same sense, so far as the 
 preposition is concerned, as to kata rior, But it is much more in accordance 
 with the analogy of ordinary usage, in such cases, to make it define the truth 
 spoken of as that which corresponds with evoéBeva—(c) én’ éAmids ,7.A. is most 
 naturally connected, not with azéoroAo¢ as Huther takes it, but with ziorvy and all 
 that follows as far as evoéBevav, The faith and knowledge, etc., rest upon hope of 
 eternal life. When all these words are taken together, and especially when they 
 are taken in connection with what follows, we may notice how nearly they ap- 
 proach, in the main idea, to the étayyediav Cue of 2 Tim. i. 2, and how possible 
 it is to regard them, though primarily referring to what is subjective to the Chris- 
 tian mind, as suggesting also the objective truth which is at the foundation of the 
 belief and knowledge—the truth and promise appertaining to the eternal life. 
 The possibility of giving to cata, eyen in the phrase kata riotiv, the sense of 
 according to is clearly not to be rejected altogether, and without hesitation, as 
 Alford rejects it. The question is one of probabilities only, and the most that 
 can be affirmed as to the other sense—for, or in relation to, or to produce—is that it 
 has somewhat greater probability in its favor—(d) The correspondence in phrase- 
 ology of vv. 2, 3 with 2 Tim. i. 9, 10 is worthy of remark. Except for the word 
 oeorynpévov, there is a noticeable correspondence with Rom. xvi. 25. In regard to 
 this word, the suggestion of Alford is a just one, that there is a mingling, in both 
 of the passages in the Past. Epp., of the two ideas of the actual promise, made in 
 time, and of the purpose fixed from eternity, as the result of which the promise 
 came. The purpose was kept in silence (ceovy.) through eternal times, but has 
 now been made manifest to all by the prophetic writings and by the apostolic pro- 
 clamation.—(e) Tisch. places a comma after aiwviwy of ver. 2, and thus makes 
 Aéyov depend on é¢avépwoev, So R. V., Huther, Alf., Ell., and many others. On 
 the other hand, W. and H. omit the comma following aiwviwv and insert one 
 after idiove. They accordingly seem to regard tov Adyov as in apposition with 7». 
 This construction ‘is much less simple, for, though the other involves a change from 
 a relative to an independent clause, such a change is not so singular, in a writer 
 like Paul, as the introduction of such a peculiar apposition as Adéyov following 7» 
 
292 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 would be in the present sentence.—(f) kata xow7jv riotw (ver. 4) qualifies yuyoiw 
 véxv, Titus was the genuine son of Paul only in accordance with the faith, which 
 was common to the two and to all Christians——(g) The application of the word 
 owthp both to ded¢ (ver. 3) and Xpuoro¢ "Inoove (ver. 4) is noticeable. The omission 
 of éAeo¢ is to be allowed, on the authority of the best manuscripts and versions. 
 
 XXXIV. Vv. 5-9. 
 
 (a) The epistle opens, like 1 Tim., with the statement as to the purpose with 
 which the Apostle had left his friend and assistant in the place where he had 
 himself been working on behalf of the Church. The indications of the passage, 
 and of the epistle, are such that we must suppose, even as in the case of Ephesus 
 as alluded to in 1 Tim., that the Church in Crete had not now been just established, 
 but that it had been founded at an earlier time, and had been in existence for a 
 considerable period. During a recent visit, however, Paul had evidently done 
 something in the way of strengthening and more permanently organizing the 
 believers, and now, as he is himself called to move on to other regions, he leaves Titus 
 to complete the work. The striking correspondences between this letter and 1 
 Tim., both in the matters referred to and in language and style, show clearly that 
 the two epistles belong to the same period of the Apostle’s life. Their date must 
 be after the close of the history as given in the Acts, and the one must have been 
 separated from the other by an interval of only a few months or a year.—(b) The 
 phrase tovrov yap occurs in Eph. iii. 1. 14, in both of which verses it refers to 
 what precedes. Here it undoubtedly refers to what follows, and rovrov is explained 
 by the wa clause. éxidtop§aoy is to be understood as Huther interprets it—the pre- 
 position “ conveying the notion of something additional,” and thus answering to 
 Ta Asizovta, Kai adds the particular thing which follows with a certain emphasis, 
 showing that this was a matter of special importance as accomplishing the end in 
 view.—(c) The fact that the tpeofirepo and the éxickoro: were the same is plainly 
 set forth in this passage. As to the manner in which the presbyters were to be 
 appointed, Huther quotes approvingly the remark of Hofmann, that the appoint- 
 ment was to be made by Titus himself, according to his own choice, and not in 
 connection with an election by the Christians, who were as yet not organized into 
 a community. Dykes, on the other hand, says “it was part of the apostolic 
 ‘ function to institute church officers. But the word ordain (used of deacons in Acts 
 ~ vi. 3) tells nothing of how the elders were selected or appointed.” Wiesinger 
 also remarks that “the expression throws no light on the question whether this 
 appointment of presbyters was to be with or without the co-operation of the 
 church. In Acts vi. 3, kadvordvar expresses an action common to the apostle and 
 the church. In Acts xiv. 23, we read yerpotovgoavte avtoi¢ mpeoBurépovc, which, 
 compared with 2 Cor. viii. 16, represents the idea of a co-operation on the part of 
 the church as more probable, although it does not necessitate such a supposition, 
 comp. Acts x. 41.” The view of Wiesinger is probably correct. That the church 
 took action in matters of its own government, and generally, if not always, in the 
 selection of its officers, is indicated in several places in the N. T., and cannot 
 reasonably be questioned, as these indications are observed. That in the case of 
 newly organized bodies of believers such appointments were made, with the consent 
 of the church, by Paul or his associates is not impossible or improbable. But 
 there is no satisfactory evidence, that these officers were imposed on the churches 
 
NOTES. 293 
 
 without such consent.—(d) The qualifications for the office of bishop or presbyter, 
 which are given here, are substantially the same with those mentioned in 1 Tim. 
 The slight differences in the words and in the order of arrangement, and the 
 addition in ver. 9 of what is found in another connection in 1 Tim., are charac- 
 teristic of the style of Paul in different epistles belonging to the same period of 
 time. The thing required of the bishop in ver. 9 is, in substance, the same as 
 that which is urged upon Timothy in relation to his own personal work, in 1 Tim. 
 i.3 ff. The force of avteyéuevov (ver. 9) is given by Grimm as firmiter adhaerere, 
 holding firmly to. The construction of the following words is that which Huther 
 favors. The Apostle, accordingly, demands of the éxicxoroc, that he should hold 
 fast to the “faithful” (i.e. trustworthy, to be relied wpon) “word,” which is in 
 accordance with the Christian doctrine (the instruction which has been given 
 him), in order that, etc. The two things which are referred to in the iva clause 
 are things which are needful in all ages, but there is no doubt that they are 
 introduced, here, in a special connection with the demands of the particular time 
 and region in which these two friends of the Apostle, Timothy and Titus, were now 
 carrying forward their work. May it not be the fact, also, that, in the case of 
 some of the more general words which precede those of ver. 9, points are mentioned 
 with respect to the qualifications of the presbyter-bishops, which are suggested by 
 opposite characteristics in the erroneous teachers of the day ? 
 
 XXXYV. Vv. 10-16. 
 
 (a) Ver. 10 introduces the statement of the existence of such errorists as the 
 ground for the necessity of the qualification just mentioned (ver. 9) in the person 
 who is to be appointed a presbyter. Vv. 10, 11 set forth the fact that they are 
 mainly Jewish Christians, and add two other points which are also mentioned in 
 1 Tim. vi. 5 ff, and 2 Tim. iii. 6, 7, though not in precisely the same terms— 
 namely, avariciousness and the subverting of whole houses, which latter expres- 
 sion seems to refer to a perverting them from the faith. The point indicated by 
 HataoAdyo: is found, also, in the corresponding passage 1 Tim. i. 6, and that 
 indicated by didacx. G@ uy dei, in 1 Tim. v. 13. The heretics, thus, are evidently 
 the same class of persons in the two epistles—(b) The quotation in ver. 12, 
 and one or two other quotations occurring in other places (Acts xvii. 28,1 Cor. xv. 
 33), have been supposed to indicate a wide acquaintance on the part of the Apostle 
 with Greek literature. But the evidence for this is very slight, and the inference 
 which may be drawn is, rather, on the other side—namely, that the very small 
 number of allusions in his epistles to anything in the writings of Greek authors 
 shows him to have had little knowledge of them. The characteristics here 
 mentioned as belonging to the Cretans, and the words which follow, make it probable 
 that the persons to whom the sharp reproof was to be given, were the members of 
 the church, whom the heretical teachers were leading astray, rather than the 
 teachers themselves. The verb éAeyye conveys the idea of confuting, and not 
 simply of reproving or rebuking—(c) The heretics are further described in the 
 words following av3peérwv of ver. 14, but in a manner which, in general, corres- 
 ponds with what we find in the epistles to Timothy (1 Tim. vi. and 2 Tim. iii. iv.). 
 Here the foundation of the whole is placed in-the fact that they are not ka¥apoé. 
 The reader, who carefully and candidly examines the false doctrines against which 
 Paul contends in his various epistles, and the characteristics of the false teachers 
 
294 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 as he gives them—tracing the matter in the chronological succession of the 
 letters,—may convince himself of two things: 1. that the Jewish element, which 
 was the original one, and was, at first, unmingled with any other, continued even 
 to the end, only that, as time moved on, it became united with, and greatly affected 
 by, Greek or Oriental philosophizing ; and 2. that the development of error was 
 in the exact line in which it might naturally have been expected to take place, 
 and neither more rapid nor greater than the possibilities of the period of Paul’s 
 life-time allowed. ; 
 
CHAP. II. 295 
 
 CHAPTER ITI. 
 
 Ver. 3. év xataorfuat:] For this F G, without reason, have xataoyhuati.— 
 Some mss. (C H** al.) have the reading ‘eporperei; Vulg.: in habitu sancto, 
 which gives a good enough meaning, but must, however, be regarded as a mere 
 correction ; see Reiche on the passage—7/ oivw] A Cy 73, al., have the reading 
 pndé for wy.—Ver. 4. For the Rec. cwppovifworv, supported by C D E K L, cwdpovi- 
 Covey is read by AF G Hy, al. (Lachm. Tisch.). The conjunctive seems to be a 
 correction, because the indicative contradicts the force of the iva; but also in 1 Cor. 
 iv. 6, Gal. iv. 17, it stands after va. In these passages, however, Meyer explains 
 iva as equivalent to ubi ; comp. Winer, pp. 272 f. [E. T. p. 290], and Buttm. p. 
 202 [E. T. 235]. As in later post-apostolic times, the construction with the indic. 
 was not unusual, cwpovifovew is possibly to be ascribed to a later copyist.—Ver. 
 5. Instead of the word oixovpov¢ (Rec. supported by D*** H J K, the cursives, 
 Fathers, and versions), which occurs frequently in classic Greek, A C D* EF G 
 x have the word oixovpyov¢ (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.), which is not used elsewhere. 
 Matthaei declares this to be a lectio vitiosa et inepta; so Reiche. De Wette 
 thinks it an error in copying, as the word does not occur elsewhere. This cer- 
 tainly is possible, and yet it is strange that it should have such weighty testimony. 
 Matthaei thinks that the scribae istorum sex codicum were so very barbari that 
 the word oixovpé¢ was unknown to them; but that is hardly conceivable——Ver. 
 7. The Ree. advagtopiav (D*** E** L, al., Chrys.) is to be exchanged for the read- 
 ing a@dopiav (A C D* E* K y, al., Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.), though Reiche seeks 
 to prove from the meaning of two substantives not used elsewhere that the Rec. 
 should be preferred. As the adj. ad:a@opoc frequently occurs, and agvopo¢ but 
 seldom, we may readily suppose that the Rec. was a correction in keeping with 
 the more usual adjective—After oewvétyta, D** KE, gr. 23, 44, and many other 
 cursives, etc., have the word agVapoiav ; but the weightiest authorities are against 
 its genuineness, A C D* (E apud Mill) F G 47, al., Syr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. 
 It. ete.—Ver. 8. epi 7judév] so Griesb. Scholz, Tisch., supported by C D E FG 
 K L Px 17, 23, al., many versions and Fathers. Lachm. retained the common 
 reading.—Both readings give a good sense, but the testimony assigns the prefer- 
 ence to 7@v. Matthies wrongly says that A C D E F G have the reading tov. 
 —Ver. 9. Instead of idiowe dsorérace (Tisch. 8, on the authority of CF G K Ly), 
 Lachm. (so, too, Tisch. 7) reads deorérare idiowe, on the authority of A D E 27, 
 al., Vulg. It. Jerome, Ambrosiast. al—Ver. 10. For 4, the correction y7dé is 
 found in D F G, al, 17.—rxacav riorw] for tiotw racav (Tisch. 7). This is 
 read by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, on the authority of A C D E x 31, 37, al., Vulg. 
 Clar. Germ. Jerome, Ambrosiast—After d:dacxadiav Griesb. inserted 17”, with 
 the support of the weightiest authorities, A C D E F G I x, al., Chrys. Theodor. 
 —Ver. 11. Instead of 7 owrypic¢ (Tisch. 7), cwrfproc, without the article, has been 
 adopted by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8, on the authority of A* C* D x, Syr. utr. 
 
296 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 The reading: tov owr7po¢ juov, found in F G, Copt. Aeth. al., must have arisen 
 from ver. 10; still ~ has owr7jpoc¢.—Ver. 13. Tisch. 7 reads "Iycov Xpiorov, with 
 the support of most Mss.; on the other hand, Tisch. 8 reads Xpuoroi Iyoov. 
 
 Ver. 1. [On Vy. 1-8, see Note XXXVI., pages 305, 306.] Instructions 
 to Titus how he is to exhort the various members of families, down to 
 ver. 10. [XXXVI a.]—ci dé] see 2 Tim. iii. 10, iv. 5. A contrast with the 
 ‘heretics, not, however, as Chrysostom puts it: aitoi elow axafapror GAAd mi 
 rovTwr évexev ovyhong. It is with regard to their unseemly doctrine that 
 Paul says: ob dé Addee & mpérer tH bytaw. didackadia. In contrast with 
 their pido. and évroAai avdporuv, Titus is to speak things in harmony with 
 sound doctrine, by which are meant not so much the doctrines of the 
 gospel themselves, as the commands founded on them, vy. 3 ff. (Wiesin- 
 ger). On rq ty. did., seei.9. [XXXVI b.] 
 
 Ver. 2. The members of the family are distinguished according to age 
 and sex. First, we have zpeoBirac, which is not equivalent to mpecBurépove, 
 the official name, but denotes age simply: senes aetate; Philem. 9; Luke 
 1. 18.—vygariove civac] The accusative does not depend on a word under- 
 stood such as rapaxaer, but is an object accusative to the verb preceding 
 Adrer & mpérer: “viz. that the old men be vypdAcov.”—vygadiove] see 1 Tim. 
 iil. 2.—ceuvoic] see 1 Tim. ii. 2.—oddpovac] i. 8; 1 Tim. iii. 2.—iyraivovrac 
 Th Tiorel, TH ayaty, TH brouovg] On the use of the dative here, for which in 
 i. 13 there stands the preposition év, see Winer, p. 204 [E. T. p. 217]; it 
 is to be explained as equivalent to “in respect of, in regard to.”—To riotic 
 and aya7y, the cardinal virtues of the Christian life, ixovov” (quasi utrius- 
 que condimentum, Calvin) is added, the stedfastness which no sufferings 
 can shake. All three conceptions are found together also in 1 Thess. i. 3 
 (4 tropovn tie éAridoc); brou. and miorec in 2 Thess. i. 4; ay. cad irou., 2 
 Thess. iii. 5; comp. also 1 Tim. vi. 11; 2 Tim. iii. 10. 
 
 Ver. 3. IpeoBiridag (“the aged women ”= zpeoBirepa in 1 Tim. v. 2) 
 aoabrwc (see 1 Tim. ii. 9) év kataorjpare isporpereic] [XXXVI c.] xardornua 
 is taken in too narrow a sense, only of the clothing (Oecumenius: ré 
 ~ repiBd2aa). Itdenotes the entire external deportment; Jerome: ut ipse 
 éarum incessus et motus, vultus, sermo, silentium, quandam decoris sacri 
 praeferant dignitatem.. Heydenreich, on the other hand, makes the con- 
 ception too wide, when he includes under it the temper of mind.—iepo- 
 mpereic] (a7. ey.) 18 equivalent to Kalo rpérer ayiow, Eph. vy. 3; comp. also. 
 1 Tim. ii. 10. Luther rightly: “ that they behave themselves as becometh 
 saints.”"—yu7 dcaBdaove] see 1 Tim. iii. 11.—y7 oinw 702A Sedovdwpévag is 
 equivalent to ji oiv. x. xpooéyovrac in 1 Tim. iii. 8.—xarodidacxarove] (az. 
 dey.) Beza: “ honestatis magistrae ; agitur hic dé domestica disciplina; ” 
 but not so much by example as by exhortation and teaching, as appears 
 from what follows. 
 
 Vv. 4,5. "Iva owppovilwor race véac «.7.2.] Since cwdpovifew must necessarily 
 have an object, ra¢ véac «7.2. should not, like rpecBirac vydadiove elvat, ver. 
 2, and rpeoBiridac, ver. 3, be joined with Adie, ver. 1 (Hofmann), but with 
 swppovifovow, so that the exhortations given to the young women are to pro- 
 
CHAP. II. 1-6. 297 
 ceed from the older women.'—cugpovifew] (a7. Zey.) is properly “ bring 
 some one to cwdpocivyn,” then “amend,” viz. by punishment; it also occurs 
 in the sense of “ punish, chastise ;” it is synonymous with vovfereiv.2 Ac- 
 cording to Beza, it expresses opposition to the juvenilis lascivia et alia ejus 
 aetatis ac sexus vitia—The aim of the owdpovifew is given in the next 
 words: giAdvdpove (am. dey.) eivar, prAotéxvouc (az. Aey.). These two ideas are 
 suitably placed first, as pointing to the first and most obvious cireum- 
 stances of the véa.—Ver. 5. cégpovac ayvac] The latter is to be taken here 
 not in the general sense of “ blameless,” but in the more special sense of 
 “chaste”? (Wiesinger).—oixovpotc (Rec.); Wahl rightly: “ex oixog et obpo¢ 
 custos: custos domus, de feminis, quae domi se continent neque repiépy- 
 ovra, 1 Tim. v.13.” Vulgate: domus curam habentes; Luther: “ domes- 
 tic.” The word oixovpyotc [XXXVI d.] (read by Tischendorf, see critical 
 remarks) does not occur elsewhere; if it be genuine, it must mean 
 “working in the house” (Alford: “workers at home’’), which, indeed, does 
 not agree with the formation of the word. The word oi«ovpyeiv occurring 
 in later Greek means: “make a house;” see Pape, s. v. — aya6ac] is rightly 
 taken by almost all as an independent epithet : “kindly.” Some expositors, 
 however, connect it with oixovpot¢ (so Theophylact, Oecumenius) ; but this 
 is Wrong, since oixovpoic¢ is itself an adjective. Hofmann joins it with oixoup- 
 yotc, and translates it “good housewives” (so Buttmann, in his edition 
 of the N. T., has no comma between the two words); but where are the 
 grounds for explaining oixovpyotc to mean “ housewives” ?—iroraccopévac Toig 
 idiowe avdpaow] On roi¢ idiow avdp., comp. 1 Cor. vii. 2. The thought that 
 wives are to be subject to their husbands is often expressed in the N. T. 
 in the same words, comp. Eph. v. 22; Col. iii. 18; 1 Pet iii. 1. Itis to be 
 noted that the apostle adds this iroracoovévac after using ¢:Advdpove. The 
 one thing does not put an end to the other; on the contrary, neither 
 quality is of the right kind unless it includes the other. How much 
 weight was laid by the apostle on the irordccecfac may be seen from the 
 words : iva py 6 Adyoc Tov Oeot BAacdnuAra, Which are closely connected with 
 brotaccouévac K.7.2.; Comp. ver. 10, where the same thought is expressed 
 positively, and1 Tim. vi. 1. The apostolic preaching of freedom and 
 equality in Christ might easily be applied in a fleshly sense for removing 
 all natural subordination, and thus disgrace be brought on the word of 
 God ; hence the express warning.* 
 
 Ver. 6. Tove vewrépove] “the younger men ;’ 
 
 ’ 
 
 not, as Matthies supposes, 
 
 10f course there might be circumstances 
 in which owdpovigery could stand without an 
 
 tion is expressly given, or can be easily 
 supplied from the context. 
 
 object, as e.g. mapaxadecy in 2 Tim. iv. 2 (to 
 which Hofmann appeals); but here a definite 
 object was needed to tell to whom the cwdpov. 
 of the older women had reference, it being 
 impossible to assign it to them without some 
 limitation. It is to be noted that in the pas- 
 sage—in which mapexadcoey is joined with 
 another transitive vyerb—the object is very 
 easily supplied, and that in the N. T., when 
 wapaxadecy is used, the more precise limita- 
 
 2 Dio Cassius, lv. p. 650: Set tots méev Adyots 
 vouOetety, Tovs Sé ametAats awhpovicery. 
 
 8Chrysostom: 7 oikoupds yuvn Kai codpwv 
 €gTat’  OiKovpos Kal olKOovouLKn OUTE TeEpi 
 Tpupyv, ovTe mept efddous akalpous, OvTE TeEpL 
 GAAWY TOV TOLOVTwWY agTXoANOyCETAL. 
 
 4The remark of Chrysostom: et oupBatn 
 yuvalka mLoTHY amigTw ouVOLKOVGaY, my clvac 
 évapetov, n BAachynuia emt Tov Oeov dScaBatverv 
 elwGev, is unsatisfactory, because the apostle’s 
 
298 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 the younger members of the church, without distinction of sex.—décab- 
 tw¢] here, as in ver. 3, on account of the similarity of the exhortation.— 
 mapakdAer ougpoveiv| equivalent to cd¢povag elvar, opposed to omnibus immod- 
 eratis affectibus (Beza). Hofmann: “The whole purport of the apostle’s 
 exhortations is included by the apostle in the one word cwpoveiv, which 
 therefore contains everything in which the moral influence of Christian- 
 ity may be displayed.” 
 
 Vv. 7, 8. The exhortation by word is to be accompanied by the exhor- 
 tation of example. [XXXVI e.]—zepi rdévta] does not belong to what 
 precedes, but begins a new sentence, and is put first for emphasis. Tdvra 
 is not masculine: “towards every one,” but neuter: “in regard to all 
 things, in all points.” —oeavrov rape xouevoc tirov Kadav épywv] On the use of 
 the middle rapéyec6a with the pronoun éavrév, “show himself,” see Winer, 
 p. 242 [E. T. p. 257].2—rizov, “type,” is in the N. T. only found here with 
 the genitive of the thing.—xa2a épya] 1 Tim. v.10; an expression often 
 occurring in the Pastoral Epistles.—év ry didackatia agfopiav] This and the 
 following accusatives are dependent on zepeyéuevoc; see Col. iv. 1. Luther 
 inaccurately : “with unadulterated doctrine, with sobriety,” etc. ; Jerome: 
 in doctrina, in integritate et castitate —a@Aopia, only in later Greek, is from 
 agopoc,? which is equivalent to “chaste,” and therefore means “ unstained 
 chastity.” ‘AdvapSopia (Rec.) is of more general signification; it is also 
 used of virgin chastity,t but denotes in general soundness, also especially 
 incorruptibility. Older as well as more recent expositors (Heydenreich, 
 Mack, Wiesinger) refer the word here to the disposition: “ purity of dis- 
 position ;”® but it is more in accordance with the context to understand 
 by it something immediately connected with the didackadia, to which ceuvd- 
 tyra also refers. Matthies, de Wette, and others refer it (as does Luther 
 also) to the subject-matter of the doctrine; de Wette: “incorruptness in 
 doctrine, 7. e. unadulterated doctrine.” But in that case it would mean 
 the same thing as the following Aéyov by; there isno justification for Ben- 
 gel’s interpreting év didacxadia to mean public addresses, and Aéyov the talk 
 of daily intercourse. According to its original meaning, a¢Sopia is most 
 suitably taken to mean chastity in doctrine, which avoids everything not 
 in harmony with its true subject and aim, and it has a special reference to 
 the form (comp. 1 Cor. ii. 1, 3). So, too, van Oosterzee: “the form of the 
 doctrine which Titus preaches is to be pure, chaste, free from everything 
 that conflicts with the nature of the gospel.” —ceuvéryra, on the other hand, . 
 
 words are thereby arbitrarily restricted to a 2Comp. Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 1. 39: mapa- 
 relation which is quite special. Serywa ... Toiovde eavTov mapeixero. 
 1 Hofmann remarks that the transition to 3In Artemidorus, ver. 95: de virginibus 
 
 the younger men makes it clear “that he was puerisque intactis et illibatis legitur; Reiche; 
 to exhort the younger women also himself, _Esth. ii. 2: xopaova ap@opa cada tT, etder. 
 and not merely by means of the older ones;” 4 Artac. 26, Diodorus Siculus, i. 59. 
 
 but in that case Paul would simply have 5 Reiche, who prefers the reading aédad@o- 
 written : Tovs vewrepovs owhpovery,and further, piav, agrees with the exposition of Erasmus; 
 in that case it would have been more natural _integritas animi nullis cupiditatibus corrupt) 
 for him to mention the vewrepo firstand then non ira-non ambitione non avaritia. 
 
 the véas. 
 
cHAP. 1. 7-10. 299 
 denotes dignity in the style of delivery. Both these things, the a@sopia 
 and the cenvérnc, were injured by the heretics in their Aoyouayias.'—Adyov 
 byw axatéyvoorov (ar. Hey.) refers to the subject-matter of the doctrine : 
 “ sound, unblamable word,” is opposition to the corruptions made by the 
 heretics—The purpose is thus given: ‘va 6 é§ évavriag évtpari| 6 && évavtiag 
 (ar. Aey.), qui ex adverso est; according to Chrysostom: 6 diaBor0¢ Kai 
 rac 6 éxeivw diaxovodyevoc; but the next words are against this interpreta- 
 tion. According to ver.5 and 1 Tim. vi. 1, it means the non-Christian 
 opponent of the gospel, and not the Christian heretic (Heydenreich, Wies- 
 inger).—évrpary, “be ashamed, take shame to oneself ;” 1 Cor. iv. 14; 2 
 Thess. iii. 14. The reason for the shame is contained in the words: p7dév 
 Exov repli judar (or duav) Aéyew gavdov] “ having nothing wicked to say of us.”— 
 If rep juav be the correct reading, it is not to be limited to Titus and 
 Paul, but should be taken more generally. With the reading iar, on the 
 other hand, the apostle’s words refer to Titus and the churches that follow 
 his example. 
 
 Vv. 9,10. [On Vv. 9-15, see Note XXXVII., pages 306-311.] Exhor- 
 tation in regard to slaves.—dotAoue idiowe deororaic (or deororaic idiowc) brordo- 
 ceodal] [XX XVII a.] The construction shows that Paul is continuing the 
 instructions which he gives to Timothy in regard to the various members 
 of families, so that vv. 7 and 8 are parenthetical ; tapaxdiex is to be supplied 
 from ver. 6. Heydenreich and Matthies wrongly make this verse depend- 
 ent on ver1. The harder the lot of the slaves, and the more unendur- 
 able this might appear to the Christian slave conscious of his Christian 
 dignity, the more necessary was it to impress upon him the irordocectac. 
 Even this is not sufficient, and so Paul further adds: év raovw ebapéorouc 
 eat. ’Ev raow, equivalent to “in all points” (ver. 7: mepi ravra ; Col. iii. 
 20, 22: xara révra), is usually joined with ebapéorove eivar; Hofmann, on 
 the contrary, wishes to connect it with irordccecda. Both constructions 
 _are possible; still the usual one is to be preferred, because the very posi- 
 tion of the slaves made it a matter of course that the ixordocecFa should 
 be evinced in its full extent, whereas the same could not be said of eva- 
 pector elvat, since that goes beyond the duty of brordocectac. The word 
 evdpeoroc occurs frequently in the Pauline Epistles, but only in speaking 
 of the relation to God. The two first exhortations refer to general con- 
 duct; to these the apostle adds two special points: 7 avriaéyovtac and ui 
 vooditouévove. Hofmann is wrong in saying that i) avti2éyovrac is the anti- 
 thesis of ebapéorove. The conduct of slaves, which is well-pleasing to mas- 
 ters, includes more than refraining from contradiction. Van Oosterzee 
 says not incorrectly : “It is not contradiction in particular instances, but 
 the habitus that is here indicated.” Luther: “not contradicting.” The 
 verb voogitecda: is found only here and in Acts v. 2, 3: “not pilfering, 
 defrauding.”—The next words: a42a@ racav riotw évdeckvupévove ayadyv 
 (Luther : “but showing all good fidelity”), is in the first place opposed to 
 
 1Hofmann wishes to refer both words to in that case Paul does not specially name the 
 
 the subject-matter and form alike; and so, latter. 
 also, with Adyov vye7; but we cannot see why 
 
300 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 uh voopiCouévove, but includes more than merely to abstain from defrauding 
 (in opposition to Hofmann). As in ver. 5, so, too, here, where the main- 
 tenance of the natural duties of subordinates is under discussion, the apos- 
 tle adds iva rv didackadiav x.7.4., except that the expression is now positive, 
 whereas before it was negative; the thought is substantially the same. 
 —7 diWaoKakia is equivalent to 6 Adyoc, To evayyéAvov.—rov cuTHpoc Hu. Ozov] see 
 1 Tim. i. 1; not, assome expositors (Calvin, Wolf) think, Christ, but God.— 
 koopa] “do honor to.”—év rac] ver. 9, “in all points,” not“ with all, in 
 the eyes of all” (Hofmann).—Chrysostom : ob yap a76 déyuato¢ déyuara, aan’ 
 and mpayuatwv Kai Biov Ta JSédyuata Kpivovow oi “HAAnvec’ éotwoav év avroi¢ Kai 
 yuvaikec Kai dovdor diWdoKador 1a THe oiKelag avaoTpodye. 
 
 Vy. 11-14. [XX XVII b.] Foundation for the moral precepts given from 
 the nature of Christianity: eximium ex evangelii medulla motivum 
 inseritur (Bengel).—Chrysostom ! and others refer ver. 11 (yap) only to the 
 exhortation to slaves which immediately precedes. It is more correct, 
 however, to refer it to the whole sum of moral precepts, given from ver. 
 1 onwards (so, too, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann).—éredavy yap 4 xaptc Tov 
 Ooi] éxepavy (see il. 4) is used of the sun in Acts xxvii. 20. Possibly 
 Paul is speaking here with this figure in-mind (comp. Isa. ix. 2, Ix. 1; 
 Luke i. 79), as Heydenreich, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee suppose; but pos- 
 sibly, also, the expression simply means that the yapic rov Ocov, formerly 
 hidden in God, has come forth from concealment and become manifest 
 and visible.—) yapi¢ tov Ocov] The old writers on dogma give to this 
 expression, which denotes the absolute ground of the work of redemp- 
 tion, too special a reference to Christ’s incarnation.2. It need hardly be 
 said that he is speaking here not simply of a revelation of the divine 
 grace by teaching, but also of its appearance in act, viz. in the act of redemp- 
 tion —To define the yap more accurately, there is added: owrjpio¢ raow 
 avéporow] not: “as bringing salvation” (de Wette, van Oosterzee). This 
 would make cwr#pioc here the main point, which from the context it can- 
 not be; the main point is not given till tadebovca. Lwrfpio¢ is rather an 
 adjective qualifying the substantive ydpic: “ there appeared the grace 
 bringing salvation to all men.” With the Rec.  cwrfpwe this construction 
 is beyond doubt.— raow avOpdroc] does not depend on éegdvy, but on 
 swthpioc. Matthies is not intelligible in regarding it as dependent on both.’ 
 —The emphasis laid on the universality of the salvation, as in 1 Tim. i. 
 4 and other passages of the Pastoral Epistles, is purely Pauline. 
 
 Ver. 12. Iadebovea juac, va «.7.2.] On this the chief emphasis is laid. 
 By zawdetovca the apostle makes it clear that “the grace of God has a 
 paedagogic purpose” (Heydenreich). Here, as also elsewhere in the N. 
 T., madevew does not simply mean “ educate,” but “educate by disci- 
 
 \TIoAAnv mapa TOV oiKEeT@Y amatTHGas THY 
 apeTHv, amayer Kat THY aitiav dcxatiav, de Hv 
 OpeiAovat ToLovTOL Eivar ot oiKéTat. 
 
 2Oecumenius: 
 Theodoret: rovrov xapiv évnvOpwmycev Oo po- 
 veyevns TOU Meo vids: iva k.7.A. 
 
 H mwETa GapKos emdnuia; 
 
 8 Wiesinger translates: “ for there appeared 
 the grace of God which brings salvation to all 
 men;” and on the construction of maow 
 avOpwrors he afterwards says: “according to 
 the context, it can only be construed with 
 owTyptos.” 
 
 . 
 
CHAP, IU. 11-13. 301 
 
 plinary correction.” Hence Luther is not incorrect in translating: “and 
 chastises us.” This reference is to be noted here, as is shown by the next 
 words: apvycduevor «.7.4. “Iva does not indicate the purpose here, but the 
 object to be supplied, for rad. is not subjective, but objective; the sentence 
 beginning with iva might also have been expressed by the infinitive; comp. 
 1 Tim. i. 20; not therefore “ in order that. we,” but “ that we.” On this use 
 of iva, see Winer, pp. 314 ff. LE. T. pp. 334 ff. |'—dpvyoduevor] see i. 16: 
 “denying,” é.e. renouncing, abandoning.—r7jv acéBeav] is not equivalent 
 to eidwAodatpeiav Kal Ta rovypa déyyata (Theophylact), but is the opposite of 
 evoéBevav: the behavior of man, ungodly, estranged from God, of which 
 idolatry is only one side.—xai rag Koopsxag éxuuiac] koopuxdc Only here 
 and in Heb. ix. 1, but there in another connection. The coop. exOuuiat 
 are not “desires or lusts referring to the earthly, transient world” (first 
 edition of this commentary ; so, too, Wiesinger), but “ the lusts belonging 
 to the xécyoc, i.e. to the world estranged from God,” which, indeed, is the 
 same thing (so, too, van Oosterzee). Kindred conceptions are found 
 éxtyuia capxéc, Gal. v. 15; Eph. ii. 8; avépdrov éeriBrpiat, 1 Pet. iv. 2— 
 cudpévac Kat dixaiwg Kai evoeBOc Chowuev] see 1.8 (cdgpova, dixaor, bqov). This 
 denotes the life of Christian morality in three directions. Immediately 
 after éx@uuia we have the opposing conception cugpdvec, which expresses 
 self-control. Ac«aiwc denotes generally right conduct such as the divine 
 law demands, having special reference here, as in i. 8, to duty towards 
 one’s neighbor. EiceBac (opposite of daoéBerav) denotes holiness in thought 
 and act.—Even the older expositors find in the collocation of these three 
 ideas an expression for the whole sum of duties. Wolf: optime illi res 
 instituunt, qui per 7d eiceBac officia adversus Deum, per 70 dixaiwg Officia 
 adv. proximum, per 7d cwgpdve¢ vero illa adv. hominem ipsum indicari 
 existimant; still it might be doubtful whether Paul regarded the ideas as 
 so sharply distinct from each other.—év 7@ vov aiovc] Paul adds this to 
 remind Titus that for the Christian'there is another and future life towards 
 which his glance is directed even in this ;—still these words cannot be 
 construed with pode xouevo. 
 
 Ver. 13. Mpocdeyouevor tiv pakapiay éArida] The strange collocation of 
 mpoodey. and éAnida is found also in Acts xxiv. 15: éArida Eyov .. . Hv Kal 
 abtot ovtot mpoodéxovtar; SO, too, in Gal. v. 5: éArida . . . arexdexoueba. The 
 reason of it is that é4méc not only denotes actively the hope, but also 
 passively the thing hoped for, the subject of the hope; comp. Col. 1. O24) 
 Aric ) amoxeimévn év T. ovpavoic; comp., too, Rom. viii. 24.—axapiav] Paul 
 thus describes the é%xida in so far as the expectation of it blesses the 
 believer. Wolf wrongly interprets 7 ax. éxic as equivalent to y éArilo- 
 uévn paxapiorne.—This éAri¢ is further defined by the epexegesis: Kal érupa- 
 vetav the d6Enc Tov peyadov Ocod Kai owrypoc juav "I. Xpiorov] [XXXVII c. 
 pages 307-311.] According to Hofmann, the adjective paxapiav as well as 
 
 1 Wiesinger translates: “educating us,that proper signification, however, tva does not 
 we... live holily,” but thinks that tva is to give the aim, but the purpose. If it be taken 
 be retained in its proper signification as in this sense here, we cannot but translate if 
 denoting the aim of the maiSevma. In its “in order that.” 
 
302 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 the genitive rjc dégy¢ «.7.2. belongs to both substantives, to éAzida and to 
 éxipdvecav, because, as he thinks, 7 paxapia éAzic is not a conception com- 
 plete in itself. But Rom. xv. 4 shows this to be wrong. The genitive | 
 could only be construed with the two substantives by giving it a different 
 reference in each case. Hofmann, indeed, maintains that this presents 
 no difficulty, as it occurs elsewhere; but he is wrong in his appeal to 
 Rom. xv. 4 (comp. Meyer on the passage) and to 1 Pet. i. 2 and 2 Pet. iii. 
 11 (comp. my commentary on the passages).—Beyond doubt, the érigaveia | 
 tie J6En¢ «.7.4. denotes Christ’s second coming (1 Tim. vi. 14); it may, 
 however, be asked whether peyd4ov Gcot is an independent subject or an 
 attribute of ’Ijco. Xp. The older expositors are of the latter opinion ; the 
 orthodox even appealed to this passage against the Arians. Ambrosius, 
 however, distinguishes here between Christus and Deus Pater.! Erasmus, 
 too, says: simul cum Patre apparebit eadem gloria conspicuus Dominus 
 ac Servator noster J. Chr.; and Bengel says of Oeod simply: referri potest 
 ad Christum. Among more recent expositors, Flatt, Mack, Matthies, 
 Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann, adopt the former view; while de 
 Wette, Plitt, Winer, pp. 123 f. [E. T. p. 180], adopt the latter. Heyden- 
 reich leaves the question undecided.? It cannot be decided on purely 
 grammatical grounds, for wey. Oeot and owrypo¢ ju. may be two attributes 
 referring to ’Iyo. Xpiorov; still it may be also that owrqp. juadv "Ijo. Xp. is a 
 subject distinct from yey. Oeov, even although only one article is used.* 
 The question can only be answered by an appeal to N. T. usage, both for 
 this passage and others like it: 2 Pet.i.1; Jude 4: 2 Thess.i.12. In 
 2 Pet. i. 11, iii. 18, the unity of the subject is beyond doubt. The following 
 points may be urged in favor of distinguishing two subjects :—(1) In no single 
 passage is Oed¢ connected directly with "Ijcotc Xpioré¢ as an attribute (see 
 my commentary on 2 Pet. i. 1); i.e. there never occurs in the N. T. the 
 simple construction 6 O2d¢ juav "Ij. Xp., or 4 Oed¢ "Inoot¢ Xp., or "Ino. Xp. 
 6 @ed¢ yuov, Whereas xipio¢g and cwrf#p are often enough construed in this 
 
 .1The words of Ambrosius are: hance esse 
 dicit beatam spem credentium, qui exspect- 
 ant ‘adventum gloriae magni Dei, quod reve- 
 lari=habet judice Christo, in quo Dei patris 
 videbitur potestas et gloria, ut fidei suae 
 praemium consequantur. Ad hoe enim rede- 
 mit nos Christus, ut, puram yvitam sectantes, 
 repleti bonis operibus, regni Dei haeredes 
 esse possimus. 
 
 2Heydenreich wrongly supposes that S0éa 
 here is the glory which God and Christ will 
 give to believers. 
 
 ’Hofmann wrongly asserts that because 
 gwT7pos yuav stands before "Incod Xprotov, 
 and with peyéAov @eod under one and the 
 same article, therefore nua@v must belong to 
 Heyadov Beod as much as to owrpos, and pe- 
 yaAou to swrnpos as much as to Veod, and both 
 together to "Incod Xpiorod as predicate. 
 There are instances enough of two distinct 
 
 subjects standing under one article only, and 
 we cannot see why these instances should not 
 be quoted here. Itcannot indeed be said that 
 gwtTnpos nuav “I. Xp. needs no article; for, 
 although owrt7p as well as cvptos may be con- 
 strued with I. Xp. without the article, still 
 there is no instance of kxvpros nu@v being 
 without the article when construed with ‘I. 
 Xp. But the article before pey. @cod may, 
 according to N. T. usage, be also referred to 
 gwrtipos “I. Xp. without making it necessary 
 to assume a unity of subject; comp. Buttm. 
 pp. 84 ff. [E. T. 97, 100]; Winer, pp. 118 ff. [E. 
 1. p. 124 ff.]. Hofmann is no less wrong in 
 what he says regarding the necessity of the 
 reference of weyadov and of jxeay. Paul, in- 
 deed, might have written: tod ey. @eod Kai 
 "Inc. Xp. Tod owripos duav, but he could also 
 express the same thought in the way he has 
 written it. 
 
CHAP. II. 13. 303 
 way. (2) The collocation of God (@eéc) and Christ as two subjects is 
 quite current, not only in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. i. 1, 2, v. 21, vi. 13; 
 2 Tim. i. 2, iv. 1; Tit. i. 4), but also in all the epistles of the N. T., Pauline 
 or not, so much so, that when in some few passages the turn of the expres- 
 sion is such as to make Geé¢ refer grammatically to Christ also, these 
 passages have to be explained in accordance with the almost invariable 
 meaning of the expression. (3) The addition of the adjective peyaaov 
 indicates that @cod is to be taken as an independent subject, especially 
 when it is observed how Paul in the First Epistle to Timothy uses similar 
 epithets to exalt God’s glory ; comp. 1 Tim. i. 17, iv. 10, vi. 15, 16, especially 
 i. 11; w ddEa Tov paxapiov Oeov. It is true the expression 6 péyac Oed¢ is 
 not found in the N. T., except in the Rec. of Rev. xix. 17, but it occurs 
 frequently in the O. T.: Deut. vi. 21, x. 17; Neh. ix. 32; Dan. ii. 45, oe 4) 
 —For the unity of the subject only one reason can be urged with any 
 show of force, viz. that elsewhere the word éridveca is only used in refer- 
 ence to Christ; but Erasmus long ago pointed out that it does not stand 
 here érp. tov Oeov, but rH¢ d65y¢ Tov @cov. Wiesinger, too, has to admit 
 “that, according to passages like Matt. xvi. 27, Mark viii. 38, Christ 
 appears in the glory of the Father and at the same time in His own glory 
 (Matt. xxv. 31), and His appearance may therefore be called the appear- 
 ance both of God’s glory and of His own.” Wiesinger, indeed, tries to 
 weaken this admission by remarking that in reality itis Christ Himself 
 who will appear év dé6fy tov tarpoc, and not God, that therefore 6é&a would 
 be construed with the genitives in quite different relations, and that on 
 grammatico-logical principles it must mean either é owrype yuov Iy0. 
 Xpiot}, OY Tov curhpoc juav év tH JdSy Tov ueyadov cov (Matthies). But his 
 remark is wrong. Even if the subjects be distinct, the genitive tov pey. 
 @cov stands in the same relation to r7¢ dé57¢ as does the genitive owr7jpo¢ 
 ju. I. Xp. Nor is the form of expression necessary on which Matthies 
 insists, because in the N. T. God and Christ are often enough connected 
 simply by «ai without marking their mutual relations. Wiesinger further 
 remarks that no reason whatever can be found in the context for connect- 
 ing Ocdéc here as well as Christ with the éxdveca, but he has manifestly 
 overlooked the ‘relation of mpoodexé6uevor thy exidaverav THe ddsyC TOU MEY. 
 Gcon to Exedary % yapic Tov Oeov.2—Chrysostom rightly says: 
 évravba éripavelac’ Kai yap elo dio" 7H bev mpérepa yapitoc, } dé devtépa avTaro- 
 décewc. The yapec of God has already appeared ; the déga of God appears 
 only at the day of completion, when Christ is made manifest in His 66§a, 
 which is the éé¢a of God. Though not so directly as it would have been 
 if the subjects were identical, this passage is still a testimony in favor of 
 
 Ovo deikvuow 
 
 1Usteri (Paul. Lehrb. 5th ed. p. 326) says: 
 “God the Father did not need the extolling 
 epithet wéyas;” to which it may be replied: 
 “Did Christ need such an epithet?”—If Hof- 
 mann be right in remarking that Christ is 
 not 6 @eds, which is the subject-name of the 
 Father, then it is very questionable that Paul 
 
 would call Him 6 péyas Geds. 
 
 2Van Oosterzee has advanced nothing new 
 in support of the view disputed above. The 
 appeal to 2 Pet. i. 11 is of no use, unless it be 
 proved in passages beyond dispute that cds 
 like xvptos, is joined with *Incods Xprotos ag 
 an attribute. 
 
304 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 the truth of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity..—Matthies suggests that in 
 the expression tov weyddov Oeovd there is an allusion to the great Zeus wor- 
 shiped in Crete, but that is more than improbable.—The genitive cwrjpo¢ 
 is not dependent on ézigaveray, but on rie déEyce. In 1 Pet. iv. 13 also 
 Christ’s second coming is called the revelation of His dééa. 
 
 Ver. 14. The thought in this verse is very closely related to ver. 12: 
 rawWevovoa judc, iva k.7.A., as it shows how far the appearance of the grace 
 of God exhorts us to deny aoéBea «.7.A. In construction, however, it is 
 connected with owrjpo¢ ju. I. Xp.—éd¢ Mwxev éavtév] comp. Gal. i. 4, equiv- 
 alent to zapédoxev éav7dv, Eph. v. 25. The conception of the voluntary 
 submission to death is not contained in éav7év (Heydenreich) so much as 
 in the whole expression.—izép jjudv] is not equivalent to av7i jor, but: 
 “for us, on our behalf;” the notion of arti, however, is not excluded 
 (Matt. xx. 28). The purpose of this submission is given in the next words: 
 iva AutpooyTat juac] Avtpovoba: “ set free by means of a ransom.” In Luke 
 xxiv. 21 (comp. too, 1 Mace. iv. 11, and other passages in the Apocrypha) 
 the reference to ransom falls quite into the background ; but in 1 Pet. i. 
 18, 19, where, as here, the redemption through Christ is spoken of, the 
 tiwuov aiua Of Christ is called the ransom. _The same reference is indicated 
 here by the previous édexev éavtév, comp. 1 Tim. ii. 6. The middle form 
 includes the reference which in the next clause is expressed by éav76.— 
 and maonc avouiac| “from all unlawfulness.” ’Avoyia is regarded as the 
 power from which Christ has redeemed us; it is opposed to cudpédveg Kai 
 dikaiwe Kai evoeBoc Cav: “the unrighteousness in which the law of God is 
 unheeded.” It is wrong to understand by dvouia “not only the sin, but 
 also the punishment incurred by sin” (Heydenreich), or only the latter ; 
 comp. Rom. vi. 19, 2 Cor. vi. 14, and especially 1 John iii. 4: 7 auapria éoriv 
 4 avouia.—kai Kabapion éavtS Aadv repiobovov] positive expression of the 
 thought which was expressed negatively in the previous clause. De 
 Wette and Wiesinger without reason supply juac as the object of xabapion, 
 the object is Aadv repiobotov.—repiobaiog (az. Aey. In N. T.). Chrysostom 
 wrongly interprets it by éeAeyuévoc, ovdév Eyav Kxowdv mpd¢ Tod¢e Aotrodg ; 
 Theodoret more correctly by oixeioc ; so, too, Beza: peculiaris, and Luther : 
 ““@ people for a possession.” The phrase Aad_e repiotovoc belongs to the O. 
 T., and isa translation of the Hebrew m0 Dy, Ex. xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6, 
 xiv. 2, xxvi. 18, LX X.; in the church of the N. T. the promise made to 
 the people of Israel is fulfilled;comp.1 Pet. ii. 9: Aad¢ cig repiroinow.— - 
 éaur® corresponds with Avtpdoyrac axé. The sentence is pregnantly 
 expressed, and its meaning is: “that He by the purifying power of His 
 death might acquire for Himself (éav7) a people for a possession.””—The 
 moral character of the Aade mepiobc. is declared by the words in apposi- 
 tion, CyAwrAv Kaddv épywv: accensum studio bonorum operum.—De Wette 
 is inaccurate in saying that the apostle is speaking here not of reconcilia- 
 
 1Calvin: Verum brevius et certius repellere gloriae revelationem, ac si diceret, ubi 
 licet Arianos, quia Paulus, de revelatione Christus apparuerit, tune patefactum nobis 
 magni Dei locutus, mox Christum adjunxit, iri divinae gloriae magnitudinem. 
 ut sciremus, in’ hujus persona fore illam 
 
NOTES. 305 
 
 tion, but only of moral purification. Wiesinger rightly asks: “ What else 
 are we to understand by éoxev tavrov brép quov than the reconciling 
 death?” But de Wette is so far right, that reconciliation is not made the 
 chief point here, but rather, as often in the N. T., e.g. 1 Pet. i. 17, 18, the 
 design is mentioned for which Christ suffered the death of reconciliation ; 
 comp. Luther’s exposition of the second article of faith. 
 
 Ver. 15. Taira (viz. these moral precepts, see ver. 1, with the reasons 
 given for them, vv. 11-14) Adder Kai mapaKare kai édeyxe] The distinction 
 between these words is correctly given by Heydenreich. Aateiv denotes 
 simple teaching, rapaka2. pressing exhortation, é@éyy. solemn admonition 
 to those who neglect these duties. ‘The theoretic, the paraenetic-practi- 
 cal, and the polemic aspects of the preaching of the gospel are combined ” 
 (Matthies).—era raone émitayie] According to 1 Cor. vii. 6, ovyyvoun is the 
 opposite of éxray7 ; this clause therefore enjoins that Titus is not to leave 
 it to the free choice of the church whether his exhortations shall be 
 obeyed or not, but to deliver them as commands. De Wette translates: 
 “with all recommendation,” which is right in sense; still éxitay# is not 
 properly recommendation but command, and it is therefore better to say, 
 “with entire full command.” —With this the final words are closely con- 
 nected: pundeig cov mepippovelta] Tepuppoverv (ar. Aey.); properly : “ consider 
 something on all sides;” then: “think beyond, despise,” equivalent to 
 karagpovetv ; comp. 1 Tim. iv. 12. Luther is right in sense: “let no man 
 despise thee,” viz. by not receiving thy teachings, exhortations, and 
 admonitions as commands, and by thinking lightly of them. There is 
 nothing to suggest that Titus is to conduct himself so that no one may be 
 right in despising him. 
 
 Nores py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 XXXVI. Vv. 1-8. 
 
 (a) The passage which now follows, and which has reference to the exhortations 
 and instructions to be given by Titus to men and women, according as they were 
 older or younger—Huther says, to the members of families, but the words may be 
 regarded as more general in their application,—is opened by a direction addressed 
 to him to speak the things befitting “ the healthful teaching.” As related to what 
 goes before, this direction forms a contrast to the course pursued by the false 
 teachers (dé). As related to what follows, it finds its special application in the 
 several lines which are mentioned. Evidently, as thus applied, the practical 
 bearing of the didacxaiia, is what the Apostle has in mind. Very probably it may 
 be because of this fact, that the peculiar expression & mpérer TH by. 516. is used.— 
 (b) In suggesting the exhortations which Titus should give to the older men and 
 the older women in general, it is noticeable that Paul bids him urge upon all of 
 them such actions, and the possession of such qualities, in the main, as in 1 Tim. 
 he sets forth as proper to be required in presbyters and in the class of widows to 
 whom he specially refers. Thus, in 1 Tim., the presbyter-bishop is to be vyparvos, 
 oddpur, and, in Tit. i. 8, 9, holding fast to and able to exhort in the tycav. d10aoK. 
 The women, on the other hand, who are alluded to—the wives of the deacons or, 
 
 20 
 
306 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 if it be so, the deaconesses—are called upon to be “7 didBodor, ceuvat, vygddsor, and 
 those widows who are to receive support from the church (1 Tim. iv. 3 ff.) are 
 required to have exhibited virtues in their past career, which are preparatory in 
 their nature to those demanded of the older women here. These facts tend to 
 show how completely the Apostle’s mind, in all the suggestions as to the officials of 
 the church, or those in any more public station among the body of believers, was 
 upon the moral and Christian qualifications which were needed, and how very 
 alight, as yet, was the development of the idea of government, authority or office 
 in the churches. The latest epistles of Paul have scarcely anything, if indeed 
 anything, more in the line of the latter idea, than the earlier ones. It is worthy 
 of notice, also, that, in 1 Tim., where he brings out these moral qualifications, etc., 
 as necessary for bishops and deacons, and for widows who were to be placed upon 
 the list of widows, he simply says, with respect to the older and younger men and 
 women, that Timothy should treat them as he would treat parents, or as he would 
 treat brothers and sisters; but here, on the contrary, not dwelling so largely on the 
 case of persons holding public station, he deals fully with the demands of the 
 Christian teaching on al/ men and women, according as they are old or young. 
 This, again, is suggestive as to how widely removed the Apostle’s thoughts were 
 from the notions of office and authority, which arose in later times——(c) On the 
 word kataorjuarte (ver. 3) see Note VII. c, above, 1 Tim. ii. 9. The thing required 
 of all women in the church-meetings, in that passage, is in this place demanded— 
 so far as Kataorjuate here corresponds with xatacrey there—of the elder women at 
 all times. katdotyua has, however, a somewhat more internal reference, as we 
 may not improbably hold, and perhaps a more extended meaning, than kataoto?.7— 
 (d) The reading oixovpyot¢ (ver. 5), workers at home, is so largely supported by the 
 best authorities, that it must be adopted as the true text. Tisch., Lachm., Treg., 
 W.&H.,, Alf. adopt it. With either reading, oixoupyot¢ or oikovpot¢ (keepers at home), 
 the contrast with mepiepyéuevae Tac oixiac of 1 Tim. v. 13 can hardly be mistaken. 
 The ‘va clause which follows is one indication, among many, that the evil-speak- 
 ing on the part of those outside of the Church, in case the Christian women 
 violated the sentiment of the age and country in regard to the proper position of 
 their sex, was a chief reason for the Apostle’s urgency in his exhortations as to this 
 matter. The exhortation to the younger men is comprehended in the word 
 
 - owppoveiv, but this seems here to be, in connection with the various other terms of 
 
 -the preceding verses, a word which is intended to be comprehensive in its mean- 
 -ing.—(e) To the end of adding the greatest force to his exhortations to others, 
 Titus is urged in vv. 7, 8 to exhibit the characteristics, in his own living, which 
 heasks them, according to their position, to manifest in theirs; and the same thing” 
 is urged to the end that those who were adversaries, whether Jewish or Gentile, 
 may not be able to say anything evil of the life or action of the believers, and 
 thus may be put toshame. The emphasis in the position of 7 d:dacxadia (ver. 7) 
 is, not improbably, that of contrast to épywv, but it may also be connected with the 
 general prominence which is given in the Past. Epp. to the healthful teaching, as 
 opposed to the present and threatening errors. 
 
 XXXVII. Vv. 9-15. 
 
 (a) The exhortation to slaves, which in 1 Tim. is given by itself (vi. 1, 2), is 
 here placed at the end of a series of exhortations to different classes, as it is in 
 
NOTES. 307 
 
 some of the other epistles. But it is thrown into an especial prominence by the 
 fact that the closing words of it—the iva clause of ver. 10—are made the intro- 
 duction to the very important declaration of the fundamental Christian truth 
 which is set forth in the following verses. These verses, in their immediate 
 grammatical connection (yap), and by reason of the word owrfpio¢ (ver. 12) as 
 related to owr7jpoc (ver. 10), are to be joined with what is said about the slaves. 
 But, in their wider application, as a reason for the course of life and conduct indi- 
 cated, they extend in their force over all the verses from the beginning of the 
 chapter; and, in themselves, they contain an independent and comprehensive 
 statement. ‘Tisch. and several of the leading commentators make a paragraph at 
 ver. 11, joining vv. 9, 10 with vv. 1-8. W.& H. make a half-paragraph at this 
 point. Not improbably, this is the correct division of the passage. Treg., how- 
 ever, unites vv. 9,10 with the following verses, beginning the new paragraph 
 with ver. 9, and R.V. unites all the verses, from ver. 1 to ver. 14 inclusive, in 
 one paragraph.—(b) In the passage vv. 11-14, as proved by the yap and its con- 
 nection with what precedes, the chief idea, as related to the context, is to be 
 found in the iva clauses—primarily, in the first iva clause, apvyoauevor . . . Cowper 
 év T@ vuv ai@v, and secondarily, in the second ta clause, Avtpoonta .. . Epywr. 
 The emphasis, however, which is given to these ideas is, that the very object of 
 the manifestation of the grace of God, and of the gift which, as the result of that 
 grace, Christ made of Himself, was that the ends thus indicated might be realized. 
 That which lay at the foundation of the purpose and work of God, which Chris- 
 tianity proclaims; that, also, for which Christianity takes its followers under its 
 educating and disciplinary influence, and bids them look forward to the hope and 
 glory of the future, is that they may become a peculiar people zealous of good 
 works. The beginning and the ending of the whole doctrine of Christianity, thus, 
 is the divine life in the soul; and, because it is so, the exhortations given to every 
 believer, according to his own particular station, age, duty, office, is to let that life- 
 principle work out into his character and conduct. This it is which makes the 
 grace of God owr7pio¢ and gives to God Himself and Christ the title of cory judr. 
 
 (c) Ver. 13. The question as to the construction of the words Tov peyddov Beov 
 kai owtypog yuav "Iyoov Xpictov (T. R.), or Xprorod "Inoov (Tisch. 8, W. & H. 
 text), has been much discussed. According to R. V. marg., A. R. V. text, and 
 many commentators, these words should be rendered of the great God .and our 
 Saviour Jesus Christ; according to R. V. text, A.R. V. marg., and many com- 
 mentators, on the other hand, they should be rendered of our great God and 
 Saviour Jesus Christ. In the latter case, the name 4ed¢ is given to Christ; in the 
 former, it is not thus given. The limits of this note will only allow a very brief 
 presentation of the arguments, on both sides, which seem to be especially worthy 
 of being considered. 
 
 A. The grounds on which the latter view of the construction and meaning is 
 maintained are as follows:—I. The general rule that where two appellative words 
 are united by «ai under a common article, they belong to one subject. As both 
 6eé¢ and owryp are, in themselves and originally, appellative words, as they are 
 thus united under one article, and as they are followed by ’I. Xp., with which, if used 
 as appellatives, they would naturally be connected, it must be inferred that it was 
 the writer’s intention thus to connect them.—1. To this argument it is answered, 
 first, that the words @e00 and cwr7jpoc, as here used, are not appellatives, but proper 
 names, i.e., nouns which, though originally common nouns, had become by usage 
 
308 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 quasi-proper names, and that, like proper nouns generally, they may be joined under 
 one article whenever the two persons are conceived of as standing in a common 
 relation to the matter under consideration. They are thus conceived of here, it is 
 claimed. This answer is not to be regarded as satisfactory, for, though owr#p ap- 
 parently came to be used as a proper name in this way, at a later time, it cannot 
 be affirmed that the apostolic authors so used it. A careful examination of the 
 subject, some years ago, convinced the writer of this note that there is no N.T. 
 passage which will support such an affirmation, and he is glad to find himself sus- 
 tained in this opinion by the late Prof. Ezra Abbot, a scholar as fair-minded as he 
 was eminent, who (though holding, on other grounds, that Geov is not to be referred 
 to Christ) says, “I find no sufficient proof of his [Alford’s] statement that owr#p had 
 become in the N. T. ‘a quasi proper name.’ ”—2. To this argument it is answered, 
 secondly, that 7u0v which is joined with owr7jpo¢ serves the purpose of defining the 
 latter word, and thus renders the repetition of the article unnecessary. An ex- 
 amination of all the passages in which the word owr#p is used in the N. T. will, it is 
 believed, show that the article is added wherever owr#p is found with 7uév, unless 
 some other and sufficient reason for its omission is apparent. In other words, owr7p 
 nav does not seem to occur, as Tpdcwrov avTov may occur (instead of Td tpdcwr7. air), 
 because the person cannot be supposed to have more than one face. It is, also, to be 
 observed that such an omission of the articie, on such a ground, is less naturally 
 to be expected in a compound phrase of the character which we find here, than in 
 simple phrases, like 4e0¢ owrip 7juav. The kindred expression in 2 Pet.i. 1, where 
 the words are Tov Geov judv Kai owripoc ’I. Xp., and owrypoc has, accordingly, no 
 juav connected with it, may, also, have its due weight as bearing upon this point.— 
 3. To this argument it is answered, thirdly, that the omission of the article is owing 
 to the fact that the appositional word precedes the proper name. It is believed 
 that, with reference to this point as well as to those already mentioned, the 
 passages in which owr7p is used in the N. T., if examined, will show that there is 
 no justification for this position, and especially none as bearing against the general 
 rule in such a compound phrase.—4. To this argument it is answered, fourthly, that 
 the article may be omitted in this case, as in Phil. iii. 20, because the writer 
 wishes to “fix attention on the quality, or character, or peculiar relation expressed 
 by the appellative.” As in Phil. iii. 20 Paul says, “we wait for a Saviour, the 
 ' Lord Jesus Christ,” cwrjpa azexdex6ueha xipiov I. Xp. so here he may intend to 
 ‘say, “of the great God and a Saviour of us, Jesus.Christ.” The want of parallelism 
 ‘between the two cases, however, will be observed, it is believed, by the careful reader, 
 and the writer of this note can scarcely doubt that -it will be generally admitted, 
 not only that the cases are different from each other, but also that the proposed 
 rendering of the present passage is contrary to the analogy of all passages in the 
 N. T., which are similar to it, and to all the probabilities which such a compound 
 phrase suggests—5. It is answered to this argument, finally, that language is not 
 bound by absolute laws, which admit of no deviation-from their utmost strictness; 
 that the only object of the article is to give definiteness, and, where this is evident 
 enough without it, a writer may trust to the intelligence of his readers; and that 
 we find such expressions in the N.T. as trove twAovvtag Kai ayopatovrec (Matt. xxi. 
 12), where the persons described as buying and selling are manifestly not the 
 same. This is, no doubt, to be admitted; but the phrase now in question is not 
 parallel with that in Matt. xxi. 12, or similar ones. The N.T. writers do not 
 speak of God and Christ in this way, except where the words Geé¢ and Xpiord¢ are 
 
NOTES. 309 
 
 proper names (as e.g. Paul and Barnabas, Acts xv. 22, are spoken of in a united 
 capacity by the use of the words t@ HavAw kai Bapvafg, as contrasted with Acts 
 xy. 2, where they are mentioned in a more individual relation, and 7 II. kai 7@ B. 
 is the expression employed), and in the phrase Tov Geov Kai kupiov "I. Xp., in respect 
 to which it may be noticed that «vpco¢ is often used as a proper name, while cwryp 
 is not. 
 
 II. The fact that the relative pronoun in ver. 14 is in the singular number, and 
 manifestly refers to Christ, shows that there is only one person—namely Jesus 
 Christ—spoken of in ver. 13.—It is said in reply to this argument, that, after 
 alluding to two persons, it is perfectly allowable for a writer to add a relative 
 clause which refers only to the latter. Gal. i. 3, 4 is cited as a parallel case, 
 where tov dévro¢ x.7.A. follows the words “from God the Father and our Lord 
 Jesus Christ,” but evidently belongs only with ’Iyc. Xp. 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6 is, also, 
 referred to. In the latter passage, however, the words are ei¢ yap Oedc, ei¢ Kai 
 eoityg .... Xp. "Ijoovce, 6 dove éavrdv avtidvtpov, and the construction of the 
 sentence varies from that of the verses before us in just that particular (kai coming 
 after, not before, the second ¢ic, and meaning also), which makes it perfectly clear 
 that 6 dov¢ must refer to Xp. ‘I only. In the former case, the two are plainly 
 distinguished by the word tatpé¢ added to @eov; the sentence is one in which 
 kupiov is used, which is a quasi-proper name, as ow77p is not; and there is no 
 allusion to anything (such as éri@aveva of the present passage) which may, by any 
 possibility, be regarded as having an exclusive reference to Christ. 
 
 III. The word éripaveca is one which is always used of Christ in the N. T., and never 
 of God the Father—To this argument it is answered, that the expression here 
 used is not éripaveca, but éripavera rij¢ dé; that the coming of Christ is repre- 
 sented in Matt. xvi. 27, Mark viii. 38 (comp. Luke ix. 26) as being év rH d6&y Tov 
 matpoc avtov; that in 1 Tim. vi. 14-16 God is spoken of as “showing” the 
 éripavera of Christ, and words setting forth the glory of God are added; that 
 Jewish writers often called any extraordinary display of divine power an éri@avera 
 of God, and that it was very natural in these sentences, and in the development of 
 the thought expressed in them, to speak of the ér@aveca of the glory of God as the end 
 of that great plan which, in its beginning, was an émidaveva of His grace (éteddvy 
 7 Xapic Tov Geov).—That the future éx<aveva denotes an appearing of Christ, accord- 
 ing to the N. T. writers, cannot be questioned. There is, no doubt, a certain 
 probability arising from this fact that the reference of this word is in all cases, 
 and so in this passage, wholly to Him, and this probability may, perhaps, be 
 regarded as somewhat strengthened. in the verses before us, by the fact that the 
 following relative clause is descriptive of Him only. But the candid scholar will 
 be disposed to admit that this argument has been pressed too strongly by many 
 writers, and that its force is greatly weakened, if not, indeed, entirely set aside, by 
 the considerations mentioned. 
 
 IV. Arguments derived (x) from the addition of the adjective yeya/ov to Gov, no 
 instance of which occurs elsewhere in the N. T.—that its use would be unnecessary 
 and antecedently improbable, if applied to God the Father, or that, as an adjective, 
 it must most naturally be understood as belonging to @eov and cwrypoc, and thus, 
 like the article, as uniting the two as appellatives of Christ ; or (y) from the fact 
 that Aadv tepiobavov properly, and according to the O. T. conception, means the 
 people of God, God’s peculiar possession—that the use of this expression, therefore, 
 carries with it the implication that the relative é¢ must include in its antecedent Geow, 
 
we 
 310 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 and that Christ must, accordingly, be here called God,—must be regarded as of 
 comparatively little weight. The use of adjectives as descriptive of God is some- 
 what characteristic of the Past. Epp., and, although this particular adjective, uéyac, 
 does not occur in connection with 46g elsewhere in Paul’s writings, or in the N. 
 T., it is found frequently in the O. T., e.g. Deut. x. 17; Neh. ix. 32. For 
 adjectives and descriptive words used with 6e¢é¢ in the Past. Epp., comp. 1 Tim. i. 
 11, iv.10, Tit. i. 2,1 Tim. i. 1, Tit. ii. 3. As for the expression Aadv zep., on the 
 other hand, the relation of Christ to the Church, in the N. T., is such, that the 
 transference of such a phrase from its O. T. reference to the people of God to this new 
 and peculiar reference could hardly be considered strange, even on the part of an 
 author who might always be disposed to distinguish God and Christ by the names 
 Ge6¢ and Xpcoréc, and never to apply the former name to our Lord. 
 
 B. The grounds on which the interpretation of the words which make them 
 distinguish between Christ and God—“ the great God, and our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ ”—is maintained, are the following:—I. The fact that, though Paul uses 
 the word eé¢ more than five hundred times, he never employs it as descriptive of 
 Christ.—On this point, the reader is referred to note cii. by the present writer, 
 page 396 ff. of Meyer’s Com. on Romans, Am. ed., and an article by the same, in 
 the Journal of the Society of Bibl. Lit. and Exegesis for 1881. 
 
 II. The fact mentioned by Huther, that we do not find the word @eé¢ connected 
 directly with ’I. Xp. as an attribute—in such a phrase, for example, as 6 ed¢ I, Xp. 
 —These two arguments must, both of them, be regarded as worthy of very serious 
 consideration. It is to be remarked, however, that it was altogether in accordance 
 with what might naturally be expected of the apostolic writers, that they should 
 prevailingly speak of Christ as man, Saviour, Lord, ete. and only rarely as God. 
 Even John speaks of Him as God only twice in his Gospel, and, possibly, once in 
 his first Epistle. It was only in*harmony with this general usage, also, that they 
 should be indisposed to employ such phrases as 6 Ged¢ juav ’I. Xp., and that, in case 
 of referring to the deity of Christ at all, they should make use of expressions like 
 the present, in which His relation to men as their Saviour is added, or like that 
 in Rom. ix. 5, where the declaration that He is Gedg is associated with a statement 
 of what He was kata capxa. It cannot be too emphatically insisted upon, or too 
 carefully borne in mind, that the belief of the apostles that Christ was (eéc need 
 not necessarily have led them to declare it, often, in their writings, or even to 
 _ state it anywhere in the particular form 6 Ged¢ "Iyoot¢g Xpiaréc. 
 
 III. The frequency with which God and Christ in their distinction from each 
 other, are brought together in the N. T., and by Paul in his Epistles, as having a 
 common relation to men in the way of grace and the plan of salvation, makes it 
 probable that the same sort of union of the two is intended here, and not a pre- 
 sentation of Christ as Himself 6eé¢. The force of this argument, it is claimed, is 
 increased by the fact, that such a uniting of God and Christ, as two subjects, occurs 
 in several places in the Past. Epistles, and—in connection with the repeated pre- 
 sentation of the idea of God as working through Christ—may be regarded as even 
 somewhat peculiarly characteristic of them. Especially, it is urged that there is 
 a very striking correspondence between 1 Tim. ii. 5 f. and this passage.—The answer 
 to this argument must be found in the consideration that the doctrine of the 
 divinity of Christ, when it affirms that He is called @eéc, only affirms that He is 
 called thus in some passages. It claims, not that He is generally described by 
 this name, or that He is not distinguished from God the Father by giving the 
 
NOTES. 311 
 
 name 9eé¢ to the Father, and «ipio¢ to Him, in most places where they are both 
 referred to. All that it asserts is that, as Christ in the view of the N. T. writers 
 is God, it is natural that they should sometimes speak of Him as Gedc, and that, 
 this being both possible and natural, the several passages should be interpreted 
 according to grammatical rules and the suggestions of the context. 
 
 IV. The evident reference of the word Geod in ver. 11 to God the Father, it is 
 claimed, makes it altogether improbable that Oeov in ver. 13 has any other 
 reference.—Undoubtedly, this position would be the true one in most sentences. 
 The phenomena of the present sentence, however, it is answered, remove this 
 improbability, and render it apparent to the reader that the word 6eov, which 
 denotes the Father in the former verse, denotes Christ in the latter. 
 
 The acceptance or rejection of the doctrine that Christ is divine will, almost 
 necessarily, affect the mind of the student, in some degree, with respect to the 
 weight which he gives to the several considerations mentioned and the readiness 
 with which he will admit, or refuse to admit, that Geov here is an appellative word. 
 The question, however, isone which properly lies within the region of interpreta- 
 tion, and is to be determined by grammatical and linguistic probabilities. It is a 
 question, as it appears to the writer of this note, which is nearly evenly balanced— 
 the strong arguments, on the one side, heing those which are connected with the 
 article and the probability that éz:@aveca must limit the whole expression to Christ ; 
 the strongest argument, on the other, being the fact that Paul, confessedly on the 
 part of all, very rarely applies the word 6e6¢ to Christ—some writers even maintain- 
 ing that he never does so. Of the two arguments which are thus mentioned as 
 favoring the application to Christ, the force of the first has, in the judgment of 
 the writer of this note, been too little regarded by many of the recent commen- 
 tators, and that of the second has been given greater weighi by Bp. Ellicott and 
 others than it justly merits. On the other hand, the argument pressed upon the 
 other side in respect to the use of 6e¢¢ by Paul—when emphasized by the presen- 
 tation of numbers, as five hundred compared with two or three—is made to carry 
 with it a weight which the mere numbers do not warrant. 
 
 The tendency of recent writers is, apparently, somewhat strongly towards the 
 rendering of A. R. V. text, which is also the rendering of A. V. Huther, who 
 adopts it, says that “though not so directly as it would have been if the subjects 
 were identical, this passage is still a testimony in favor of the truth of the doctrine 
 of Christ’s divinity.” Alford, who also adopts this rendering, takes even a stronger 
 position, and says, “whichever way taken, the passage is just as important a 
 testimony to the divinity of our Saviour.” It is evident that the doctrine does 
 not depend on this verse, and is at most only supported by it. The doctrine is 
 inwoyen in the N. T, teaching as a whole. 
 
312 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS, 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Ver. 1. apyaic nat éEovciac] In A C D* E* FG 17, 31, al., Damase. kat és 
 wanting, and was therefore omitted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. It can hardly 
 be done without; but, as the «ai is wanting also between the next two words, it 
 seems to have been wanting here originally, and to have been inserted later. F 
 G have a xai inserted between the verbs——Ver. 2. For undéva, F G have p77; 
 but the former is supported alike by suitability to the context and by the weighti- 
 est testimony.—Instead of xpadyra (Rec.), Lachm. Buttm. Tisch., on the authority 
 of A GC, etc., adopted here and elsewhere the form zpairyta.—y has, instead of 
 évdekvuévoug mpaityra, the reading évdeixvuctac orxovdiv.—Ver. 5. dv] For this 
 we should probably read 4, as is done by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, on the authority 
 of A C* D* F Gx 17, al., Clem. Cyr. The 6», which Tisch. 7 retained, seems 
 to be a correction from the analogy of classic Greek.—For rév aitov édeov, 
 Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch., on the authority of A D* E F G 81, al. Clem. Max. 
 al., read TO avtov éAeoc¢; D E F G Ambr. Aug. etc., put aitov after éAeo¢.—Before 
 Aovrpov, Lachm. and Buttm. put Tov, on the authority of AW—After avaxarvdceus, 
 D* E* F G, Ambr. Aug. ete., have the reading 6:4, which is manifestly an inter- 
 pretation.—Ver. 7. yevoueta] Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. rightly read yevyOduev, on 
 the authority of A C D* F G, 17, al., Chrys. Ath—vVer. 8. 7@ ce] According to 
 all uncials, the 76 should be deleted; so, too, with 7a before xaAa.—Ver. 9. For 
 épec¢ (Tisch. 7) there is found in D E F Gy the singular épw (Tisch. 8), which 
 is indeed the original reading altered on account of the plurals around it—Ver. 
 10. The fee. wera piay wai devtépav vovdeciav (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8) is sup- 
 ported by A C K L xy, all cursives, Vulg. ete. ; Tisch. 7 adopted instead of it: 
 ueTa piay vovdeciay kai devtépay, on the authority of D E F G, several, Fathers, 
 etc. Reiche rightly prefers the Rec.—Ver. 13. Tisch. 7 reads ’A70226, while 
 ‘Tisch, 8 gives ’A7v0AAGv; some Mss. have ’A702A6va—While Tisch. 7, with the 
 support of most authorities, read Aeizy (so, too, Lachm. and Buttm.), Tisch. 8 
 adopted Aimy, on the authority of ~ D* ete—Ver. 15. In D** and D*** E F G 
 H K L, al., several versions, ete., the word au forms the close; but it is want- 
 ing in A C D* 17, ete. Tisch. and Buttm. omitted it; Lachm. enclosed it in 
 brackets. 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. [On Vv. 1-3, see Note XX XVIIL., pages 322, 823.] Instructions 
 to give exhortations regarding conduct towards the authorities and 
 towards all men.—brouipenoxe abroie] [XXXVIII a.] (see 2 Tim. ii. 14) 
 presupposes that they are aware of the duties regarding which the exhor- 
 tation is given. It is not so certain that Paul is alluding to definite pre- 
 cepts already expressed by him.—airoic] viz. the members of the church. 
 —apyxaic (kai) é€ovoiac brorascectac] [XXXVIII b] apyai x. éovoia asa 
 name for human authorities is used also in Luke xii. 11 (comp. too, Luke 
 
CHAP. 11. 1-3. ola 
 
 xx. 20; éovoiac alone, in Rom. xiii. 1). The two words are joined together 
 in order to give fuller expression to the notion of authority. It cannot, 
 however, be shown that the one denotes the higher, the other the lower 
 authorities (Heydenreich). It is at least doubtful whether this inculca- 
 tion of obedience to the authorities had its justification in the rebellious 
 character of the Cretans nationally (Matthies and others). Similar pre- 
 cepts also occur in other episties of the N. T.; and here the exhortation 
 harmonizes with the injunctions given in chap. ii. The Christians needed 
 the exhortation all the more that the authorities were heathen.—ze:ap- 
 xeiv] here in its original signification: “obey the superior.’ Its meaning 
 in Acts xxvii. 21 is more general. The zec6apyeiv is the result and actual 
 proof of the iordocecba. The want of xai does not prove, as de Wette 
 thinks, that it does not belong to the datives apyaic¢ (k.) é. Kai would 
 have been out of place here, since the following words also are to be con- 
 strued with that dative—zpoc wav épyov ayabov éroiuovg eivac] [XX XVIII ¢.] 
 not to be taken generally, but in very close connection with apyaic: “ for 
 the authorities prepared to every good work” (so, too, Wiesinger and van 
 Oosterzee). The ayafév is not without significance, as it points to the 
 limits within which they are to be ready to obey the will of the authori- 
 ties.— Ver. 2. yundéva BAacdnueiv] The new object uydéva shows that from 
 this point he is no longer speaking of special duties towards superiors, 
 but of general duties towards one’s neighbor. BAacgnueiv is used specially 
 in reference to what is higher, but it occurs also in the more general sense 
 of “revile.” Theodoret: udéva ayopevew xaxdc.—auayoue elvar, Excecxeic] see 
 1 Tim. iii. 3; the first expresses negatively what the second expresses 
 positively —racav évdeckvuuévove (see ii. 10) rpaityta mpd¢ ravtac avipdrovc] 
 Chrysostom : kai ’Iovdaiove kai "EAAqvac, woxOjpove K. rovnpotc.—It is impossi- 
 ble not to see that the apostle is thinking specially of conduct towards 
 those who are not Christian. 
 
 Ver. 3. [XX XVIII d.] “Huev yap] yap shows that the thought following 
 it is to give a reason for the previous exhortation. But the reason does 
 not lie in this verse taken by itself (Chrysostom: ovxovr uydevi overdionc, 
 gyot ToLwovTOG yap HC Kai ob; SO, too, Hofmann), but in this verse when con- 
 nected with the verse following. The meaning therefore is: As we were 
 in the state in which they are now, but were rescued by the kindness of 
 God, it becomes us to show kindness and gentleness towards those whom 
 we were at one time like. ‘Hyev stands first as emphatic; zoré, “at one 
 time,” viz. before we became believers. Wiesinger: “The contrast to 
 moré is given by ére dé in ver. 4; we have here the well-known contrast 
 between moré and viv; comp. Rom. xi. 30; Eph. ii. 2, 11, 18, v.8; Col. i. 
 21, ili. 7,8; they are the two hinges of the Pauline system.”—xai jjueic] 
 “we too ;”” jueic includes all believing Christians. It is to be noted that 
 even here Paul makes no distinction between Jewish and Gentile Chris- 
 tians (otherwise in Eph. ii. 3).—<avéyra] is equivalent to éoxotiopévor TH 
 
 1Theodoret: ovSé yap eis amavta Set Tots véwe Trunv’ et S& SvoceBeivy KeAcVoeLEV, aVTL 
 G@pxovar meOapxetv, dAAa Tov ev Sacpoy Kai Kpus avtTiAéyerv ; comp. Acts iv. 19. 
 Tov Popov elodepery, kat THY TMpOgHKOVCAY amo: 
 
314 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 dcavoia, Eph. iv. 18; without understanding, viz. in reference to divine 
 things; not simply : “blinded regarding our true destiny ” (Matthies), or : 
 “without knowing what is right” (Hofmann). Heinrichs refers this and 
 riavémevor to idol-worship, but the apostle is not speaking here of Gentile 
 Christians alone.—areveic] disobedient to divine law ; Heydenreich wrongly 
 refers it to the relations with the authorities—r/avéuevor] (see 2 Tim. iii. 
 13) stands here not in a neuter, but in a passive sense: “led astray,” pro- 
 ceeding on a wrong path, not merely “in regard to knowledge,” but more 
 generally. Wiesinger: “sc. amd tic aAqSeiac, aaydea being regarded not 
 as abstract truth, but as the sum total of moral good ;” comp. Jas. v. 19; 
 Heb. v. 2.—dovrebovrec éexvdupiarc kai yOovaicg roixiAac (see 2 Tim. iii. 6) 7dovai, 
 as Jas. iv. 1,8. He who follows his lusts is a slave to them, hence doviei- 
 ovrec; see Rom. vi. 6, 12. Michaelis gives it too narrow a meaning by 
 referring it to sins of lust.—év kaxia Kai ¢8évp diayovtec] Kaxia is not “ vile- 
 ness,” but “ wickedness ;”? comp. Col. i. 8; Eph. iv. 31; otherwise in 1 
 Cor. v. 8 and other passages, where it is synonymous with rovypia— 
 duayovrec] connected with Siov only here and in 1 Tim. ii. 2.—orvyyroi (az. 
 hey.) is equivalent to juwonroi (Hesychius), “ detested and detestable ;” it is 
 wanting in Luther’s translation.—coovvreg aaagaove] comp. Rom. 1. 29. 
 
 Vv. 4-6. [On Vv. 46, see, Note XXXIX., pages 323-325.] "Ore dé 7 
 xpnorérne Kai 7 diAavdpuria x.7.A.] [XX XIX a.] xpyorérng as a human qual- 
 ity; 2 Cor. vi.6; Gal. v. 22; Col. ii. 12; used of God, Rom. ii. 4, xi. 22 
 (often in the LXX.); with specia! reference to God’s redemptive work in 
 Christ, Eph. ii. 7—o:Aavdpuria] elsewhere only in Acts xxviii. 1 (2 Mace. 
 vi. 22, xiv. 9) asa human quality. De Wette remarks on it: “ unusual 
 for the idea of ydapic.” The reason why Paul makes use of the word here 
 is contained in ver. 2, where he exhorts to mpabryc pic ravtac av¥parovc. 
 Xprorérn¢ corresponds in conception to mpairye (both words stand closely 
 connected in Gal. v. 22 and Col. iii. 12); and in allusion to xpéc x. avdp., 
 Paul adds @Aavpwria. The goodness and love of God to man, on which 
 our salvation is based, should lead us to show benevolence and gentleness 
 _toallmen. At the same time, the ypyorérn¢ and ¢giAavbpwria of God form 
 a contrast with the conduct of men as it is described in ver. 3in_ the 
 words: év kakia . . . ycovvtec GAAHAove.. Hofmann rightly remarks that as 
 wAavSpwria has the article, it is made independent and emphatic by the 
 side of the yprorérnc; it does not, however, follow from this that ypyorérne¢ 
 here denotes “ the goodness of God in general towards His creatures.”— 
 éxedavy] just asin ii. 11.—roi cwrhpoc judv Ocot] see 1 Tim. i. 1.—Ver. 5. 
 [XX XIX b.] The apodosis begins here and not at ée0¢,so that the words ovi« 
 
 . . édeog modify éowsev ; SO more recent expositors, even Hofmann.—ov« 
 && Epywv tov év dixatoobvy & érorfoapev jueic] On é, comp. Rom. iii. 20. Mat- 
 thies wrongly : “not from works appearing in the form of righteousness 
 which we accomplished, #.e. not from our works produced with the appear- 
 ance of righteousness.” “Epya ra év dixacoobvy are rather: “works which are 
 done in righteousness.” ’Ev denotes the condition of life in which the works 
 are accomplished (de Wette, Wiesinger). Ackaiootvy here is not justification 
 (van Oosterzee: justitia coram Deo), but rghteousness, integrity ; so, too, 
 
CHAP. 111. 4—6. 315 
 
 Hofmann.—é éroujoapuev jyeic] jueic is added emphatically to make the 
 contrast all the stronger (Wiesinger). Paul is not speaking of works 
 which may have been done by us, but denies that we have done such 
 works of righteousness. Bengel rightly: Negativa pertinet ad totum ser- 
 monem: non fueramus in justitia: non feceramus opera in justitia: non 
 habebamus opera, per quae possemus salvari.—The thought here ex- 
 pressed is not, as de Wette thinks, unsuitable to the context. In its neg- 
 ative form it rather serves to give emphasis to aAAd xara (by means of) 76 
 avrov édeoc, and hence to the conception of the divine ypyoréryc and ¢iAav- 
 Opwria. Wiesinger: “The apostle even by the contrast of the oi« wishes 
 to make it quite clearly understood that saving grace is quite free and 
 undeserved.” ?—On kara 7d ait. oc, comp. 1 Pet. i. 8.—owoev jude] se. 6 
 Asiére . . . éregavn does not mean: “ when or after it had appeared,” 
 but: “when it appeared,” the saving is here represented as simultaneous 
 with the appearance of the divine ypyordéry¢ «.7.2., although da refers 
 éowoev to its application to individuals, which is different in time from the 
 ére «7.2. above. But Paul could rightly put these two things together, 
 because the goodness of God which appeared in Jesus Christ comes to 
 perfection in the saving of individuals by the Aourpdy ratcyyeveciac; the 
 former is the efficient cause of the other.—juac is not to be referred to all 
 mankind, but to believers. The means by which the saving is effected 
 are set forth in the words: dca (row) Aovtpod raduyyeveciag Kai avaxawdcewc 
 rvetpato¢g dyiov] The expression : 16 Aovtpdv radtyyeveciac, has been very arbi- 
 trarily interpreted by some expositors, some taking 2ourpév as a figurative 
 name for the regeneratio itself, or for the predicatio evangelii, or for the 
 Holy Spirit, or for the abundant imparting of the Spirit. From Eph. v. 
 26 it is clear that it can mean nothing else than baptism; comp. too, Heb. 
 x. 23; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Acts xxii. 16.—tadvyyevecia] occurs also in Matt. xix. 
 28, but in quite a different connection, viz. in reference to the renovation 
 of things at Christ’s second coming ; comp. however, 1 Pet. i. 3, 28, avayev- 
 vaw, and John iil. 3 ff., yeryydjvar dvodev.—According to the context, Paul 
 calls baptism the bath of the new birth, not meaning that it pledges us to 
 the new birth (“to complete the process of moral purification, of expia- 
 tion and sanctification,” Matthies), nor that it isa visibleimage of the new 
 birth (de Wette), for neither in the one sense nor in the other could it be 
 regarded as a means of saving (éowsev juac dia). Paul uses that name for 
 it as the bath by means of which God actually brings about the new birth.’ 
 
 OBe6c. 
 
 1Similarly Theophylact: éswoev nuas ovK 
 €& Epywv, Ov éToijoapmer, aVTL TOD’ OVTE ETOLHTA- 
 ev epya Scxarocvvys, ovTE ErWOnueEV Ex TOUTWY, 
 adda To Tav H ayaboTns avTOD éroince. 
 
 2 Hofmann is not correct in analysing épywr 
 tav ev dixavocvyy into two statements. He 
 says that é& épywr is “in the first place to be 
 conceived by itself,’ and that tov év Sux. 
 further “denies that we have done what we 
 should have done in order to deserve to be 
 saved.” He then maintains that the relative 
 
 sentence belongs to tay év Stxatocvvy. But 
 €pya Ta ev Sixacoovvy forms one conception, 
 and on this the relative sentence depends. 
 3It is certainly right to say that baptism 
 carries with it a pledge to continue the pro- 
 cess of purification, and that, from its outward 
 form, it bears in itself a symbolic character; 
 only these are not the reasons for which the 
 apostle calls it the Aovtpdv madcyyeveoias.—In 
 the first edition of this commentary I re- 
 marked: “ Baptism is regarded as the inner 
 
316 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 Comp. with this the apostle’s expressions elsewhere regarding baptism, 
 especially Rom. vi. 3 ff., Gal. iii. 27, Col. ii. 12, which all alike assign this 
 real signification to baptism.—xai avaxawécewg rvebtuatoc ayiov] The genit. 
 mv. dy. is the genit. of the efficient cause: “the renewal wrought by the 
 Holy Spirit ” (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). This may be taken as 
 the continuing influence of the Spirit working in the regenerated Chris- 
 tian, or as the single act of inward change by which the man became a 
 Kauwy Ktiow (2 Cor. v. 17), a téxvov Geo. Here the word is to be taken in the 
 latter signification, asis clear from its connection with éowoev jude ;' other- 
 wise in Rom. xil. 2; Eph. iv. 22-24. According to some expositors, the 
 genit. avaxawécews is dependent on 6:4; Bengel: duae res commemoran- 
 tur: lavacrum regenerationis, quae baptismi in Christum periphrasis et 
 renovatio Spiritus sancti. According to others, it depends on Aovrpov, and 
 is co-ordinate with radiyyeveciac; Vulgate: per lavacrum regenerationis et 
 renovationis (de Wette, Wiesinger). The latter is the right view, for 
 “what else could avaxaivwore rv. dy. be than the new birth denoted by raduy- 
 yevesia?”’ (Wiesinger). In this way avak. rv. dy. is added epexegetically to 
 the previous conception radryyevecia, explaining it, but not adding any new 
 force to it.2 Heinrichs quite wrongly thinks that 7». dy. here is the 7». 
 hominis ipsius, which (quatenus antea fuit WoyiKdy, capxixdy, Exiyewov) be- 
 comes holy by the avaxaiv.—Ver. 6. ob ééxeev tg quae TAovoiwc] ov is not 
 dependent on rot Aovrpov, but on rvebuaroe ayiov. The genit. od is in accord- 
 ance with the common Greek usage. Heydenreich explains it wrongly 
 by supposing éf or a@’ to have been omitted: “ from which he abundantly, 
 of which he poured out an abundant measure.” —éééyeev é@ jac] an ex- 
 pression which has passed from the O. T. (Joel iii. 1; Zech. xii. 10) into 
 the N. T. It is used to describe the gift of the Holy Spirit; see Acts ii. 
 17, 38, x. 45. The rich abundance of this gift is indicated by Aovcinc.3— 
 颒 juac| goes back to jude in ver. 5. Christians are saved by God pouring 
 upon them, at baptism, the Holy Spirit, which renews them. The apostle 
 is not speaking here of the gift of the Spirit which was made at Pentecost, 
 but of the gift made to individuals, and made after the outpouring at Pen- 
 
 new birth manifesting itself in the external 
 
 -* Hofmann indeed disputes our remark that 
 act of the bath.” This is not apposite, since 
 
 avaxa. T. mv. is added epexegetically to 
 
 baptism is not the new birth itself, but the 
 means for producing it. 
 
 1 These words, madvyyeveoia and avakaivwats, 
 do not occur in classic Greek. In the former 
 word, which Hofmann translates awkwardly 
 enough by “resurrection,” the prefix maAw 
 points to the former sinless condition of man, 
 into which he is restored from his corrup- 
 tion. Thus madcyyeveoia, in Matt. xix. 28, 
 corresponds in conception to amoxatacracts. 
 It is doubtful whether the same reference is 
 adapted to avaxatvwors (which only occurs 
 here and in Rom, xii. 2); the ava does not 
 make such reference necessary. Expositors 
 tacitly. avoid this question; comp. Cremer, 
 Worterb. d. neut. Grd¢. 
 
 madvyy.; because, as he says, maAcyyeveoia is 
 “an incident of the resurrection,’ whereas 
 avakaivwots is “a work of the Holy Spirit.” 
 But is not this renewing work of the Holy 
 Spirit an incident for him on whom it is 
 wrought? He further maintains that it might 
 be said: €owoev nuas Sv avaxatvwoews mvev- 
 patos ayiov, but not eowoev nuas dca madcy- 
 yeveoias; but this we cannot admit. The 
 iatter may be said quite as much as the 
 former. i 
 
 8It is 0 @eds here who imparts the Holy 
 Spirit, whereas in Acts ii. 33 the gift is ascribed 
 to Christ; see John xiy. 16 comp. with John 
 xy. 26. The explanation of this is contained 
 in the da. 
 
CHAP. Ill. 7. 317 
 
 tecost.—d1a “Ino. Xp. tov owriyoc jjuav] This does not belong to éowser, which 
 is already defined by dia rod Aovtpod «.7.A. It goes with é£éyeev, so that 
 Christ here, as elsewhere in the N. T., is represented as the medium by 
 which the Holy Spirit is sent.! In order to understand the train of 
 thought properly, we must note that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is 
 not a consequence, but the substantial inward fact in baptism, which is 
 the bath of the new birth. 
 
 REMARK.—-The question why the apostle here speaks of baptism is rightly 
 answered by Wiesinger in this way. Baptism, as the bath of the ta/cyyevecia, 
 “is the basis on which rests all further growth in the life of the Spirit,” inasmuch 
 as by it the believer is removed from the elvac év capki into the elva: év rvebuare or 
 év Xp:or@, i.e. into the condition in which it is possible for him to live no longer 
 kata oapka, but kata tvedvua, On the other hand, the apostle does not mention 
 faith here as a medium of the saving love of God, because he is looking away 
 entirely from the human aspect of the matter, and considering only the divine 
 work in the saying of men. Leaving faith out of consideration, baptism is to the 
 apostle what he says of it here, viz. the means of the new birth or renewal by the 
 Holy Spirit, and also, according to ver. 7, of the completion of the dixaovo Fat ; 
 and baptism does not become this to him by means of faith. Hence the apostle’s 
 expression cannot be rectified conjecturally by supplying this point, viz. faith. It 
 is true that in other passages of the N. T. éote denotes that which brings about 
 the new birth, the receiving of the Holy Spirit, justification ; and the one expres- 
 sion should not be neglected for the sake of the other. There is here a problem 
 which it is the task of Biblical Theology and of Dogmatics to solve; here, how- 
 ever, as the passage before us presents no handle for the discussion, it can only be 
 indicated without solving it. This much only may by said, that according to 
 these sayings of the Scriptures, man only becomes a té/evoc év Xpior@ when he is 
 justified and regenerated both by baptism and by faith (the faith, viz., which is 
 miotec &€ axonc, Rom. x. 17). 
 
 Ver. 7. “Iva declares the purpose, not the consequence. It is doubtful 
 whether it belongs to ééyeev (Heydenreich, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, 
 Plitt, Hofmann) or to éowoev as defined by dca tov Aovtpov . . . Tov owrTHpoc 
 juav (Bengel, de Wette, and others). The thought is substantially the 
 same with both constructions, since the cwrypia is necessarily brought 
 about by the outpouring of the Spirit. Still the structure of the sentence 
 is in favor of the reference to ééyeev. Wiesinger rightly considers the 
 other view “to be unnecessarily harsh, ignoring the explanatory relation 
 of vv. 6 and 7 to ver. 5, and depriving éééyeev of its necessary definition.”— 
 dixawwtévrec] not “found righteous” (Matthies), still less “sanctified,” but 
 “justified,” é:e. “acquitted of the guilt, and with it, of the punishment.” 
 Hofmann rightly says that this justification means the same thing as in 
 Rom. iii. 24; that it does not mean the change of our conduct towards 
 
 1Matthies remarks, by adding the words __ is out of place, as Paul is not in the least dis 
 &a “I. Xp., faith is at the same time assumed cussing subjective conditions. 
 as the subjective condition; but the remark 
 
318 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. , 
 
 God, but of our relations to Him.'—rj éxeivov yapit:] does not belong to 
 what follows, but to what precedes. Justification is an act of grace. 
 ’Exeivov does not refer to God as the subject of ééyeev (van Oosterzee, Plitt, 
 and formerly in this commentary), but to ’Iyjoot Xporov (Hofmann), 
 according to the usage of the N. T., for which see Acts iii. 13 ; John vii. 45. 
 Comp. Winer, p. 148 [E. T. p. 157]; Buttmann, p.91. [E.T. 104]. Heydenreich 
 and Wiesinger are wrong in referring it to tvebyaroc; for, on the one hand, 
 this would involve the wrong conception that justification is a work of the 
 Spirit ; and, on the other hand, there is no mentionin the N. T. of a yapu 
 tov mveiuatoc.—Th yapite points us back to ovK é& épywv.2—KAypovdmo 
 yervnbowev [yevdueda] Kar’ iAnida Cua aiwviov] [XX XIX c.] war éArida can- 
 not, as Heydenreich thinks probable, be construed with faze aiwviov as one 
 conception, so as to be equivalent to Came aiwviov éAriCouévnc. On the other 
 hand, it is also unsuitable to take kar’ éAr. (. aiwv. together: “in accord- 
 ance with the hope of eternal life” (Matthies), because in that case kAnp. 
 would not be defined. Kar éAxida should rather be joined with kAyp. 
 yevn#., and then the genit. (w%¢ aiwviov belongs to the latter. Chrysostom 
 has two interpretations: kav’ éArida, tovréote Kadac HATicapev, obTwo aToAad- 
 couev, f), OTe On Kai KAnpovduor éoré. According to the former view, the 
 words would have to be translated: “in order that we, in proportion to 
 our hope (i. e. as we hope), may become heirs of eternal life ;” according 
 to the latter, it would be: “that we, according to hope, might become 
 heirs of eternal life.” The latter view is the correct one. The apostle is 
 speaking not of the future, but of the present condition of believers. They 
 are heirs of eternal life; but they are so in hope, not yet in actual posses- 
 sion ; for (a7 aiévoc¢ in its full meaning is something future, Rom. vi. 22, 
 23.—xar’ éArida stands here as tr éAridc in Rom. viii. 24; see Meyer on 
 the passage.® : 
 
 Ver. 8. [On Vv. 8-11, see Note XL. page 325.] IWucorde 6 Adyoc] [XL a.] 
 refers, as in 1 Tim. iv. 9, to what precedes, but not to the last sentence 
 merely.t It refers to the entire thought expressed in vv. 4-7.—xai zepi 
 tobTtav BobAouai ce diaBeBawvota] Regarding the construction of the verb 
 SiaBeB., see on 1 Tim.i.7. Vulgate rightly: de his volo te confirmare; 
 Wiesinger : “and on these points I wish you to be strongly assured ;” Beza, 
 
 1The apostle says nothing here regarding 
 the relation of justification to the dvaxaivwots 
 wrought by the Holy Spirit. It is wrong at 
 any rate to regard the latter as the ground 
 of the former, so that God justifies man 
 because he is renewed. Nor, on the other 
 hand, ean the renewing be regarded as a 
 later consequence of the justification, in the 
 sense that God imparts to man the Holy Spirit 
 after man has been justified. The two things 
 are very closely connected. Justification is 
 to be regarded as the ground of renewing, 
 while renewing is the actual completion of jus- 
 tification. God justifies man so as to renew 
 him, to make him His child born of the Spirit. 
 
 2Chrysostom: maAw xapcte, ovK operday. 
 
 8This passage, vv. 4-7, is substantially ~ 
 different from that in ii. 11-14. While in the 
 latter the chief point is the paedagogic aim 
 of the work of redemption, and the apostle 
 accordingly is,thinking how Christians are 
 pledged to a holy life, in the former the chief 
 
 point is the undeserved love of God made 
 
 manifest in the work of redemption. Hence 
 in this passage also much emphasis is laid on 
 the idea of regeneration, which is granted to 
 the Christian by the gift of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 4So Chrysostom: éecdy mepi pedAAovTwv dta- 
 A€EXOn Kai ovmw TwapovTwr, emyyaye TO aftomrio~ 
 TOV. 
 
CHAP, 11.°8, 9: 319 
 
 on the contrary: haec volo te asseverare. De Wette also maintains that 
 rept roorwy is the immediate object, but without proving it—iva gpovrifwor 
 -Kahov épywv xpoicracda oi meriorevxdtes [7H] Oc@] In harmony with the 
 train of thought in vv. 2, 3 ff., Paul here gives a practical purpose as his 
 motive. The subject oi remorevsdrec Oem are Christians generally; the 
 designation is used because the Cretan Christians had before been heathen, 
 Luther translates it rightly: “those who have become believers in God ;” 
 while Wiesinger is wrong in explaining it: “those who have put faith in 
 God, i. ¢. in His gospel.” The phrase morebew Oe@ expresses the relation 
 to God Himself, not merely to His word; comp. Acts xvi. 34. 96 is used 
 here as 7@ kup» often is, comp. Acts xvill. 8, xvi. 15; it is synonymous 
 with eic tov Oedv, John xiv. 1; comp. miorevew TO dvéuare "I. Xp., 1 John 
 iii. 23, and r. eic tr. 6v., John i.12. Hofmann is altogether mistaken in 
 construing 9e@ with what follows. If @e@ were to be opposed to avdparoie, 
 the latter would have been put before ogéAua; besides, ravra clearly forms 
 the beginning of a new clause.—ppovrifew (a7. Aey., often in the Apocrypha 
 of the O. T.,also in the LXX.), “reflect on something, take an interest in 
 something ;” here, as often in the classics, with a suggestion of anxiety 
 (comp. 1 Sam. ix. 5, LXX.).—xardv épyov] depends on zxpoioraota:; it is 
 quite general, and should not be restricted to the services to be rendered 
 .to the church (Michaelis), nor to official duties' (Grotius), nor to deeds of 
 charity (Chrysostom).—rpoicracba here and in ver. 14 is used in the same 
 sense as when it is joined with réyvy¢? being equivalent to exercere, “ carry 
 on, practise an art;” properly, it is “present oneself before.” The Vul- 
 gate translates it: bonis operibus praeesse, which, however, is obscure; 
 Beza incorrectly: bene agendo praecedere, which he explains in a pecu- 
 liar fashion by sanctae et rectae vitae antistites. Wolf thinks that cpoior. 
 denotes not only the studium, but also the patrocinium of good works; 
 comp. Rom. xii. 17: rpovoeiodar Kxadd.—ravra tore [ra] Kad nat opérrua Tr. 
 avdpéroc] see 1 Tim. ii. 3. Tatra does not refer to katov épyww (Heinrichs, 
 Wiesinger), for the apostle certainly did not need to say that xaAa épya are 
 xaza for men; nor does it resume cep? toitw (de Wette, Hofmann). It 
 should be referred either to ¢povrifew Kar. tpy. mpoioraodac (Heydenreich, 
 Matthies) or to daBeBawic8a: The latter reference might be preferred— 
 as confirming the exhortation made to Timothy. On the reference of 
 tavta to one subject, see Winer, p. 153 [E. T. p. 162]. 
 
 Ver. 9. Contrast to the last words.—popac¢ d& Cyrhoec Kat yeveadoyiac K.7.A.] 
 tnrhoeic, see 1 Tim. i. 4; connected with pwpdc also in 2 Tim. ii. 23; kai 
 yeveadoyiac, see i. 4; the latter refers to the contents, the former to the 
 
 - form.—xat épev [éperc] Kat wdyac vowxac] epic, like the other words, serves to 
 describe the behavior of the heretics; it is not therefore épere tac mpd¢ 
 aipetixovc, as Chrysostom interprets it, but quarrels such as take place 
 
 1 Hofmann, too (Schriftbew. II. 2), restricts terpretation, however, he seems to have 
 kad. épy. mpotor. to “honest exertion,” by given up, as he does not mention it in his 
 which “each one may support himself and commentary. 
 contribute to the needs of others, or to the 2Synesius, Ep. 2; Athenagoras, xiii. 612¢. 
 purposes of Christian church-life.’ This in- 
 
320 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 among the heretics. The ywayac voyuxai are disputes about the law and the 
 individual precepts of the law; see 1 Tim. i. 7 and Tit. i. 14—Heyden- 
 reich wrongly refers the adjective voycxde also to épece. Hofmann even refers 
 it to all the preceding conceptions, arbitrarily explaining vowai of the 
 contents of the Pentateuch, é.e. of the Thora; with him, therefore, the 
 Curqoewe vowwkai are “discussions in which all disputed questions in the 
 Thora are taken up,” and the yeveasoyiac vowukai are “investigations into 
 the historical contents of the Thora.”—zepioraco] see 2 Tim. ii. 16—With 
 these fables and quarrels that go on among the heretics Titus is to have 
 nothing to do.—Eioi yap avogedeic kai paracoc] contrast with ravrd dore Kaha 
 K.7.A.—paraio¢, like bows, 1 Tim. ii. 8, is used as an adjective of two 
 terminations, 
 
 Vy. 10, 11. An injunction regarding behavior towards the heretics.— 
 Aipetixov avdpwrov] [XL b.] aiperixde (az. Aey.) is not equivalent to conten- 
 tiosus, but is, according to Calvin: quisquis sua protervia unitatem 
 ecclesiae abrumpit, any one who causes departure from the pure sound 
 doctrine of the gospel. With this Wiesinger agrees, only that he wishes 
 to consider the divisions as not brought about by heresies, but by “ eccen- 
 tricities and perversities.’ The word aipécecc is often used by Paul 
 of ecclesiastical divisions, 1 Cor. xi. 19; Gal. v. 20. So, too, in 2 Pet. ii. 1, 
 where it expressly refers to heresies..—yera piav kai devrépav vovS_eciav 
 rapaitov] Vitringa (De Vet. Synag. iii. 1. 10) understands zapa:roi to mean the 
 formal excommunication, and vovdecia the excommunicatio privata, as 
 these were appointed among the Jews for certain cases. But he is wrong ; 
 Paul is not speaking here of excommunication proper. Novdesia (1 Cor. 
 x. 11; Eph. vi. 4) is equivalent to “reprimand,” including both blame and 
 exhortation. This is not to be employed once, but several times: “ after 
 one or two.”—zapaitoi] 1 Tim. iv. 7. Bengel: monere desine, quid enim 
 juvat? laterem lavares.—Ver. 11. eidéc] see 2 Tim. ii. 23.—ére é&éorparra 
 6 towitoc] “that such an one is perverse;” comp. Deut. xxxii. 20: 67x 
 yeved éSeotpauuérn éoTw, PNNA 717; it shows the total perversion of 
 ‘thought and endeavor. Baur says arbitrarily and wrongly: “he has 
 turned away from us, and departed out of the communion of believers.” — 
 Kai duapraver Ov avtoxaraxpitoc] defines the preceding words more precisely. 
 ‘Qv abtoxardkpitoe is connected with duapraver, but not with ééorparrac also 
 (Hofmann). The perversity shows itself in the fact that he sins condemn- 
 ing himself. Abroxardxpirog is equivalent to xexavrypracuévoc tiv iWiav cvvel- 
 Snow, 1 Tim. iv. 2, qui suopte judicio est condemnatus. The meaning is: 
 he sins with the consciousness of his guilt and of his own condemnation, 
 so that there is no hope of his return. . 
 
 Ver. 12. Invitation from the apostle to Titus to come to him at Nico- 
 polis so soon as he had sent Artemas or Tychicus. Artemas is not men- 
 tioned elsewhere; regarding Tychicus, see 2 Tim. iv. 12. The object in 
 sending them is not told. Had the apostle’s purpose been that Artemas 
 
 4Comp. also Rom. xvi. 17: mapakaA® vpas mapa thy didaxnv nv vets euabere mocovvtas 
 mKorTeiv Tovs Tas StyooTacias Kai Ta onavdara kat éxxAivate am’ avTav. 
 
CHAP. 111. 10-14. O21 
 
 or Tychicus should continue the work begun by Titus, he would surely 
 have given some hint of it, and not contented himself with the simple 
 xpoc sé. It is more probable that the apostle wished to have Titus brought 
 by one of them, as he could not yet determine the exact time when he 
 was to come (Hofmann). Nicopolis is a name borne by several cities, one 
 in Epirus, built by Augustus as a memorial of his victory at Actium; 
 another built by Trajan in Thrace ; and another in Cilicia. In the sub- 
 scription of the epistle there stands: ad NuxordéAewe tc Makedoviac, which 
 may mean either the city in Thrace or that in Epirus. It does not 
 appear from his words that Paul wrote the epistle there; on the con- 
 trary, the éxez rather shows that Paul himself was not there when he 
 wrote the epistle. His purpose was to pass the winter there; comp. 
 Introd. 2 3. 
 Ver. 13. Zyvav tov vojuxdv] Zenas is otherwise unknown. The epithet 
 _rov vow. shows either that he had been formerly a Jew learned in the 
 Scriptures, a ypayparede (Matt. xxii. 35, and other passages), or—as is more 
 probable—that he was one skilled in law, a jurisconsultus.\—«ai ’A70220] 
 He is known from Acts and 1 Corinthians ; but it is not known when he 
 went to Crete2—orovdaing mpdrenpov] “ equip carefully for departure ;” on 
 xporéurew, comp. 3 John 6. Wiesinger translates oxovdaiwg by “ hastily,” 
 unsuitably, as the words iva «.7.2. show. In orovdaiwe the prevailing con- 
 ception is zeal; orovdaing éxerv is equivalent to “be zealous for a thing.” 
 Luther: “make ready with diligence.”—iva pydev avtoic Asizn] Hofmann’s 
 opinion, that “ this is an imperative sentence in itself,” is all the more 
 arbitrary that iva manifestly refers to orovdaiwc; comp. besides what was 
 said on 1 Tim. i. 3. 
 
 Ver. 14. MavSavétoaav 62 Kat ob jyétepor] of quérepor are the Christian 
 brethren in Crete, not, as Grotius thought, Zenas and Apollos. Kai stands 
 with reference not merely to the Jews (Hofmann), but to non-Christians 
 in general. As non-Christians provide for the needs of their own, so 
 ought Christians, and not refrain through their anxiety for heavenly 
 things.—katav épywrv xpotorasdar] inthe same general sense as in ver. 8, 
 but the words following give the phrase a more special reference to works 
 of benevolence ; ei¢ ta¢ avayKaiac ypeiac, “ in regard to the necessary wants.” — 
 wa uh dow axapro| The subject is of juérepor. Hofmann construes the 
 words el¢ Tac dvaykaiacg ypeiag with the clause of purpose following them. 
 He says that “ the particle of purpose is placed after the emphatic part 
 of the clause,” a thing which frequently occurs in the N. T., and for this he 
 appeals to Winer, p. 522 [E. T. p. 561]. In this he is entirely wrong. 
 Such a construction seldom occurs, and of all the passages there quoted 
 by Winer, that from 2 Cor. xii. 7 alone is to the point; the rest are of 
 quite another kind. It is quite clear from what was said on iva in 1 Tim. 
 
 1Strabo, 12, p.539: ¢&nyynThs TOY vopwr, xa0a- ceed by Crete to Alexandria, which was Apol- 
 mep ot Tapa “Pwpatou VOMLKOL. los’ native place, and that Paul gave them 
 2 Hofmann suggests that Zenas and Apollos this epistle to Titus to serve them also as @ 
 set out from the place where Paul was at the letter of recommendation. These are mere 
 time of writing the epistle, in order to pro- conjectures, for which there is no foundation. 
 
 21 
 
322 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 i. 3,1 that such a construction is not to be admitted here. The exhorta- 
 tion in the passage does not refer simply to the present case of equipping 
 Zenas and Apollos, which indeed occasioned it, but is in general terms, 
 and is applicable to all cases where the necessary wants of others have 
 to be considered (van Oosterzee). 
 
 Ver. 15. End.—aorafovrai ce oi per’ uot ravtec] is not to be understood 
 generally of believers, but of the apostle’s fellow-workers.—éoraca: rovg 
 giAowvrac Auac év riorec] gvAeiv marks the inner, personal relation. The 
 distinction between ayar@v and ¢Aeiv is plain from a comparison of John 
 iii. 16, yyaryoev 6 O8d¢ Tov Kéopov, With John xvi. 17, 6 rarqp gidei iuac; also 
 Matt. x. 37. ‘Hyde, i.e. the apostle—'H yapic peta ravtwv ior] “ with you 
 all,” i.e. “ with thee and all Cretan believers.” The form of the benedic- 
 tion does not imply that Titus was to communicate the epistle to the 
 churches in Crete. 
 
 Norres By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 XXXVIII. Vv. 1-3. 
 
 (a) The word avrotc, following, as it does, after the specification of various 
 classes of persons who make up the entire membership of the church, and after 
 ii. 15, which, by its ratra Aadec k.7.A., as well as its uydeic, suggests a general refer- 
 ence, must be understood as meaning the Christians in Crete universally. Comp. 
 2 Tim. ii. 14, where, though the word airoic is not found, there is, in connection 
 with irouiuryoxe, the same suggestion of admonition to all. The first of the things 
 which Titus is urged to put them in mind of, is obedience to magistrates. This 
 duty is thus put in a parallelism, here, with that of slaves to their masters, as the 
 latter is, elsewhere, joined with similar suggestions as to the relation of wives to 
 their husbands. These three things, as already noticed in other epistles, were 
 likely to be lost sight of, by reason of the doctrine of Christian equality and of the 
 new position which the Christian believers regarded themselves as having at- 
 tained, and hence it is not strange that they are pressed in the same way, or on 
 the same grounds, in different epistles—(b) The kai between apyaic and éovoior 
 which is found in T. R. is: to be rejected, as Tisch., W. & H., Treg., Alf., Ell. 
 Huther and others hold. evap yeiv is best taken independently, and as having 
 its fundamental meaning; to obey one in authority. The connection of apy., éove. 
 with wevSapy., making this verb the result and proof of ioraco., which is favored 
 by Huther, involves so peculiar and uncommon a construction as to render it 
 much less probable. The double expression, however, is somewhat strange, what- 
 ever explanation of it may be attempted. Ell. thinks that tev3apy. may, possibly, 
 have the sense here of coactus obsequi, and iroracs. that of lubens et sponte submittere, 
 which Tittmann assigns to the two verbs in their distinction from each other. 
 This, however, seems doubtful, and, if it were intended, the reverse order would be 
 more natural—(c) The clause tpdc¢ 74v épy. k.7.A. is taken by Huther and some 
 others in immediate connection with dpyaic, and thus as referring to the duties 
 of citizens or subjects of government. This connection is supposed by some to be 
 indicated or favored by Rom. xiii. 3. Huther and some others think that the ayadév 
 
 1To say that with the common construction mann), is not to the point, since it can easily 
 the clause of purpose is too general (Hof- be defined from what precedes. 
 
NOTES. ode 
 
 points to good works as those in respect to which alone they were to be ready to 
 obey the magistrates. Wiesinger, on the other hand, says, that, while it is im- 
 plied that the magistrate requires good works, the idea that obedience is not to be 
 rendered to what is evil is not intended to be distinctly expressed, and that it does 
 not belong to the context to suggest any thought on this point. When we con- 
 sider (1) the fact that the exhortation certainly turns from duties to magistrates to 
 what is more general, in the next clause, if not here; 2. the independent form of 
 this clause, and its parallelism, in this respect, with that which precedes and 
 those which follow ; 3. the very general character of kindred expressions in 1 Tim. 
 v.10; 2 Tim. ii. 21, iii. 17; Tit. i. 16; and 4. the apparent improbability that, if 
 a limitation to duties towards rulers were intended, there would be no word re- 
 ferring to them in the clause, there seems to be much reason to question whether 
 any such special reference was in the mind of the writer. The connection with 
 Rom. xiii. 3, certainly, seems very remote——(d) The reason for the exhortation 
 which now follows in vv. 3-6, is similar, in one aspect of it, to that which is 
 given, in ii. 11 ff, for tlie exhortations of that chapter—namely, that the very ob- 
 ject and purpose of the divine work of redemption was to accomplish that to 
 which the exhortation points. This point is even brought out with an especial 
 emphasis, by presenting the contrast between what the Christians were before con- 
 version (ver. 3) and what belongs to the new life upon which they have entered 
 (ver. 2). But there is another aspect in which the matter is here set forth. In 
 this view of the words, the reason given is different from that in the verses men- 
 tioned, and the emphatic juev and jueic, as well as the ypyoréry¢ and giAavdpwria, 
 indicate that the force of the thought is to be found herein—namely, in that, 
 having been rescued from the state in which unconverted and heathen men are 
 living, by the kindness of God and His love towards man, the Christian ought to 
 manifest a similar spirit towards his fellow-men. A combination of the two 
 thoughts, with a certain emphasis upon the latter, is, apparently, to be discovered 
 in the verses, and was, probably, in the mind of the Apostle. The emphasis re- 
 ferred to indicates something corresponding in vv. 1,2. We may believe that, 
 while the writer’s expressions in those verses are universal and are to be allowed 
 a universal application, he intends to give a special prominence to the feeling and 
 actions of the members of the church towards those who are outside of it and are 
 unbelievers. The characteristics mentioned in ver. 3 are those which are espe- 
 cially descriptive of the heathen, as we see in Eph. and Rom. The word jjei¢ may 
 include all, whether they had been Gentiles or Jews, but the former class are so far 
 in his thought as, of themselves, to suggest the words in their fullness of meaning. 
 
 XXXIX. Vy. 4-7. 
 
 (a) The word ére is contrasted here with the toré which precedes, and marks 
 the transition from the old to the new condition of things. It is evident, how- 
 ever, that the matter of salvation is spoken of especially from the divine side of it. 
 This is indicated by the words ypyorory¢ and @Aavip., also by éAeoc, by the reference 
 to the gift of the Spirit, by 77 éxe/vov yapiti, and even by éowsev as here used. The 
 fact that the kindness of God and His love towards men have been manifested to 
 those who had previously been avéyro1, avedHei¢ «.7.A., is that on which the special 
 emphasis is laid. The manifestation, as in ii. 11, was through the appearance of 
 Christ in the world.—(6) In connection with this setting forth of the kindness 
 
324 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS. 
 
 and love of God, Paul takes occasion to give a statement of the means by which 
 God accomplishes the end, which His love has in view—namely salvation. This 
 statement was not essential to the main thought of the passage, indeed, but was 
 very naturally suggested by it, just as a similar statement—though not, indeed, 
 in all its details, which, as here, are modified by the context—was suggested and 
 introduced in Rom. iii. 23-26. The Pauline doctrine of justification and salvation 
 s set forth, first, negatively—it is not as the result of works which we had done 
 in the sphere of our own righteousness (emphatic jueic¢); and then, positively. 
 On the positive side, we have presented before us: 1. the originating cause of 
 wustification and salvation, the mercy and grace of God; 2. an allusion to the 
 objective means in the offering of Christ; 3. the means by which the provision 
 made by God is applied and rendered effectual in the individual man, baptism and 
 tne gift of the Spirit; 4. the final object and purpose of the provision: that the 
 peliever may become an heir of eternal life. The especial peculiarity of the 
 passage, as compared with the one in Rom. iii., to which reference has just been 
 made, is in the prominence given to baptism and the impartation of the Spirit, 
 rather than the work of Christ and faith. This peculiarity may, perhaps, be 
 accounted for, so far as the reference to the Spirit is concerned, by the fact that 
 the contrast in the character and conduct between the present and past life of 
 the jueic (vv. 1, 2, comp. with ver. 3) was in the writer's mind. With respect to 
 the matter of baptism as here spoken of, the following points may be noticed :—1. 
 There is nothing in the passage which expresses with definiteness the precise 
 relation, which, according to the author’s conception of the matter, baptism has 
 to regeneration or salvation. He simply says, by means of the washing (or laver, 
 bath) of regeneration God saved us. But how it was by means of this, he does 
 not declare by any more detailed statement. The preposition 6:4 is one the 
 limits of whose meaning and application (within the general sense of means) are 
 widely extended. 2. There is no passage in the N. T. which, fairly interpreted, 
 necessarily ascribes saving efficacy to baptism, considered in itself. All the 
 passages which relate to the subject are either as little, or even less, definite in 
 their statements than the one now before us. 3. The uniform representation with 
 regard to baptism and the work of the Spirit is that the latter is internal, trans- 
 forming and renewing, the former external. The internal, according to the N. 
 T. everywhere, is the essential; the external is not so. 4. The symbolic idea of 
 ’ baptism, as the outward sign of the inward change, will meet the demands of all 
 the N. T. passages, and of this passage in particular. Nothing more than this can 
 be proved, either from the dca of this passage or from the genitive tadcyyeveciac— 
 for the Aovtpév is a Aout, Tadcyy., if baptism is the outward symbol and seal, and 
 dva denotes means, if this outward symbol is looked upon as that which accom- 
 panies or follows upon the act of faith, and as that which marks the convert as a 
 believer—(c) The construction of the genitive Coe aiwviov of ver. 7—whether it 
 depends on éAmida, or on K«Anpovduo.—is doubtful. -The immediate connection of 
 the words with éArida, while they are separated from «Anpovdsor, and the phrase 
 éx’ éAride CwH¢ aiwv, ini. 1 favor the view that they depend on Az. The im- 
 probability that the writer would use «Aypovdjuo. without some such defining word, 
 may be urged in support of the construction which unites the genitive with that 
 noun. Alford claims that «Aypov, stands alone in every place where Paul uses it 
 in a spiritual sense, and cites Rom. iy. 14, viii. 17; Gal. iii. 29,iv. 1,7. But in 
 all these passages the context suggests the defining genitive immediately, or mor» 
 
NOTES. BOAT, 
 
 clearly than it does here, and they can hardly be considered as parallel cases. 
 Huther urges in favor of his view of the meaning that the Apostle is speaking not 
 of the future, but of the present condition of believers. But may it not be, that 
 he is carrying forward the thought of the werk of saving us even to its end? The 
 use of kar’ éArida, in the sense of tH éAmidc of Rom. viii. 24, “in hope, as con- 
 trasted with actual possession,” is not demanded by the context here, as it is in 
 Rom. R. V. text makes Cw depend on éArida, R. V. marg. joins it with xAnpovduol. 
 Not improbably, this is the correct presentation of the matter. 
 
 XL. Vv. 8-11. 
 
 (a) With the solemn formula iord¢ 6 Adyoc referring to the declaration of the 
 Christian truth in vv. 4-7, the Apostle now brings his letter to a close,—taking 
 occasion, at the end, to say once more what he had in substance said before: that 
 his desire and command was, that Titus should confidently affirm this truth, and, 
 on the other hand, should avoid the questionings, genealogies and strifes to which 
 the false teachers and their disciples gave themselyes—the object of all, both the 
 affirmation of the truth and the avoidance of the error, being that the believers 
 might be careful to maintain good works. This last phrase, kaAov ipywy mpoistacta., 
 in rendered in the margin of R. V., profess honest occupations. But as the idea of 
 good works, as belonging to and to be cultivated by the Christians, is so prominent 
 in this Epistle, and as the verb can be used in the sense of carrying on or practicing 
 an art, or in the sense of curam gerere, operam dare, (Grimm), there can be little 
 doubt that the other meaning is the one here intended.—(b) The word aipetixdv 
 (ver. 10) is, quite probably, to be rendered by factious. This accords with the 
 sense in which aipeove is to be understood generally in the N. T. The aip, avdp, 
 is one who causes divisions. 
 

 
 
 
 
 A Orit 
 
 
 
 = ' ; wh 7 Cte . tre i ima tm 
 ~ 2% CD a) am rrkeeg terol wt dh Popo es 
 
 ey 
 
COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 
 
 BY 
 
 DR. GOTTLIEB LUNEMANN, 
 
 PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GOTTINGEN. 
 
 @RANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
 
 Rev. MAURICE J. EVANS, B.A. 
 
 WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES BY 
 TIMOTHY DWIGHT, 
 
 PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN YALE COLLE@E, 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; oo 
 » . : a 
 
 sae Poamenneg 
 
 Bere ay 
 A a te ay 
 
 - Bm AME Of i ct 
 
 S a wig 2 a 
 
 : | AY STAT TT Eye gee 
 
 ’ F = : 
 MRNA RAD Ve PU MET et NF Wi egies i Mees eg: ; Pos 
 f: Sere AA a is 5 
 
 = ad / a 
 
 { 28 Hain si USO (My, PWuey xe) has Pe hd ee 
 
 
 
 e ay du Litera oh ME the mls es 
 = pie =e . 
 
 , p 7 ~~ a, <<. > - “ep a ‘ Fe 
 
 . ie ae SAL +e Po ‘neat: tiiGuaieae OTs a ee ¥ & a b- a, 
 
 tee =e ee arg eae a ME arc FO MT? og ie 
 
 setid “ee AF aii eae 
 
 hf eetia' ns gon. ¥ <: ie 
 
PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR. 
 
 . 
 
 Tur idea and aim contemplated in the Meyer series of commentaries, 
 as also the general plan laid down for the work of translation, has 
 been already explained by Dr. Dickson in his Preface to the Epistle 
 to the Romans, and elsewhere. The merits, also, of Dr. Liinemann as 
 a coadjutor of Meyer, have been sufficiently discussed by Dr. Gloag in 
 connection with his translation of the Epistles to the Thessalonians. 
 It only remains to add, that the aim in the translation of this commen- 
 tary has been to give a faithful and intelligible rendering of Lune- 
 mann’s words, and in general to produce a worthy companion volume 
 to those of the series already issued. It is hoped that a comparison 
 with the German original will show that the work has not suffered in the 
 process of transferring to our own soil. 
 
 It will be admitted that the commentary of Linemann on the 
 Hebrews—of which the first edition appeared in 1855, the second in 
 1861, the third in 1867, and the fourth, enlarged and greatly improved, 
 in 1874—has claims of a very high order in a grammatical and lexi- 
 cographical respect. He threads his way with a nice discrimination 
 amidst a multitude of conflicting interpretations, and generally carries 
 conviction with him when he finally gives his own view, or that in 
 which he concurs. Even where, as in the case of some three or four 
 controverted explanations, he may not have weighed the whole argu- 
 ment in favor of an opposite view, he has at least revealed to us the 
 process by which his own conclusion is reached, thereby contributing 
 to place the reader in a position for forming an independent judgment 
 for himself. 
 
 The opinions of Dr. Liinemann, as regards the position occupied by 
 the writer of our Epistle towards the Scriptures of the Old Testament, 
 have been expressed with great candor. Unfortunately no one seems 
 to have made the questions here raised a matter for any very prolonged 
 and detailed examination since the time of John Owen. With the 
 eventual answer which shall be given to these questions will stand or 
 fall the claim of Barnabas to the authorship of the Epistle, and many 
 other things besides. 
 
 It is, however, by his grammatico-critical and purely exegetical 
 
 329 
 
e 
 
 330 PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR. 
 
 labors that Liinemann has rendered the greatest service to the cause 
 of sacred literature. The judicious use of his commentary can hardly 
 fail to lead to a more intimate acquaintance with the letter and spirit of 
 this apostolic writing, well styled by the Helmstadt professor Walther 
 a “beyond all measure profound epistle.” 
 
 Of the very abundant exegetical literature pertaining to the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, our space admits of the mention of but a very few 
 writings. Nor was it needful to give an account even of all that have 
 been collated in preparing this translation. Most of the German com- 
 mentaries published after the middle of the eighteenth century were 
 entirely overshadowed by the appearing of the great work of Bleek, 
 and those of subsequent writers. For many particulars concerning 
 the authors specified in the following list, more especially of those who 
 flourished about the time of the Reformation, I am indebted to the 
 kindness of the Rev. James Kennedy, B.D., librarian of New College, 
 Edinburgh. To the list of works enumerated might be fittingly added 
 the suggestive translation of the New Testament made by Sebastian 
 Castellio (1542-1550), mostly during the time of his retirement in 
 Basle. 
 
 M. J. E. 
 
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 FOR THE GREEK FATHERS. 
 
 Cramer (J. A.), S. T. P.: Catena Graecorum Patrum. Tomus vii. 
 8yvo, Oxonii, 1844 
 
 ON THE VULGATE TEXT. 
 
 JustTrINIAN (Benedict), +1622: Explanationes in omnes Pauli Epistolas. 
 Lugd. 1612. 
 
 FRANCISCO DE RiBERA: Commentary. 8vo, Col. Agr. 1600. 
 
 Crario (Isidore) [Clarius]: Novum Testamentum Latiné, adjectis scholiis. 
 
 Authore Isidoro Clario. 8vo, Ant. 1544. 
 Lupovicus DE Tena: Commentary. folio, Toleti, 1611. 
 “ Lond. 1661. 
 
 Prmastvs, Bishop of Adrumetum, sixth century: Commentary on the Epis- 
 tles of Paul. That on the Hebrews is by some attributed to Haymo, 
 Bishop of Halberstadt, f 853. 
 
 ON THE GREEK TEXT. 
 
 Asrescu (Peter), Professor at Groningen, { 1812: Paraphrasis et Annota- 
 tiones. Leyden, 1786-90. 
 [Continued by Vitringa to end of chap. vii. 1817.] 
 
 Anaus (Joseph), Professor in Regents Park College, London: Commentary on 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews. In Schaff’s Popular Commentary. 
 
 New York, 1882. 
 
 BAuMGARTEN (S. J.), ¢ 1757, and Semier: Erklirung des Briefes. Halle, 1763. 
 BIESENTHAL (J. H. R.): Epistola Pauli ad Hebraeos, cum rabbinico commentario. 
 Berol. 1857. 
 
 Bisping (A.): Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Briefen des Ap. Paulus [vol. iii.]. 
 Miinster, 1855-63. 
 
 BLEEK (Franz), ¢ 1859: Der Brief an die Hebriier. Berlin, 1828-40. Der 
 
 Hebrierbrief erklirt. Edited by Windrath. Elberfeld, 1868. 
 BULLINGER (Heinrychus), ¢ 1575: In omnes Apostolicas Epistolas, Divi videlicet 
 Pauli xiiii. ete. Commentarii. [P. 639-731.] fol. Tiguri, 1549. 
 
 Cameron (John), Professor at Saumur, f 1625: Annotationes in N.T. Edited 
 by Lewis Cappel. 1628. 
 331 
 
332 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE, 
 
 CAPPEL (Jacques), ~ 1624: Observationes in Epistolam ad Hebraeos. 
 8vo, Sedan, 1624. 
 Carpzov (J. B.), Professor at Helmstiidt, | 1803: Sacrae Exercitationes . .. ex 
 
 Philone Alexandrino. 8vo, Helmst. 1750. 
 CRAMER (Johann Andreas), Professor at Kiel, ¢ 1788: Erklirung des Briefes an 
 
 die Hebrier, 2 parts. Copenh. 1757. 
 De WEettTE (W. M. L.), ¢ 1849: Kurze Erklirung, ete. 
 
 Die Briefe an Tit. Tim. und Heb. [vol. ii. part 5]. Leipz. 1844, al. 
 De.irzscu : Commentar zum Brief a. d. Hebr. Leipz. 1857. 
 
 [Eng. transl., T. & T. Clark, 1868.] 
 Dickson (David), ¢ 1662: Short Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 [See also RomANsS. ] 8vo, Aberdeen, 1649, 
 D’OurrEIN (Jan.): Zendbrief...aan de Ebreen, ontleidet, uitgebreed en 
 verklaard. IAL 
 
 ExsrArpD (H. A.), Professor at Erlangen: Commentar iiber den Hebrierbrief. 
 KG6nigsberg, 1850. 
 [Eng. transl., T. & T. Clark, 1853. Revised, with additional notes, by 
 Prof. A. ©. Kendrick, D.D. . New York, 1858.] 
 Ewa tp (G. H. A.), Professor at Géttingen, + 1876: Sendschreiben an die Hebriier. 
 Gotting. 1870. 
 
 GERHARD (John), ¢ 1637: Commentarius super Epist. ad Hebraeos. 8vo, Jenae, - 
 
 1661. 
 
 Gomar (Francis), Professor at Leyden, + 1641: Analysis Epistolae Pauli ad 
 Hebraeos. Opera [pp. 285-880]. Amstel. 1644. 
 
 GouGE (W.), D. D., + 1653: Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2-vols. 
 [Reprinted 1866, 1867.] fol. Lond. 1655. 
 
 Guers (E.): Etude sur |’ Epitre aux Hébreux. Genéve et Paris, 1862. 
 
 Hormann (J.C. K. von), ¢ 1877: Die Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments. Vol. v. 
 8vo, Nérdlingen, 1873. 
 
 HotzHever (Otto): Der Brief a an die Ebriier ausgelegt. Berlin, 1883. 
 Hypertus (Andreas), ¢ 1564: Commentarii in Epistolam D. Pauli Apostoli ad 
 Hebraeos. fol. Tiguri, 1584. 
 
 Jones (W.), D.D.: Commentary on the Epistles to Philemon, Hebrews, and 
 the First and Second Epistles of John. fol. Lond. 1636. 
 
 Kay (William), D. D., Rector of Great Leghs: Commentary on the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews. In the Bible (Speaker’s) Commentary. 
 London and New York. 
 
 Kee (H.): Auslegung des Hebriierbriefs. Mainz, 1833. 
 KiuceE: Der Hebriierbrief, Auslegung und Lehrbegriff. Neu.-Ruppin, 1863. 
 Kurtz (J. H.), Professor at Dorpat: Der Hebriierbrief exklirt. 1869. 
 
 Lawson (George), Rector of More, Shropshire: Exposition of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews. fol. Lond. 1662. 
 
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 330 
 
 M’Caut (J. B.), Canon of Rochester: A Paraphrastic Commentary, etc. 
 Lond. 1871. 
 MANCHESTER (George Montagu, Duke of): Horae Hebraicae [Heb. i-iv. 11]. 
 Lond. 1835. 
 Manoury (A. F.): See Pastoral Epistles. 
 MENKEN (Gottfried), + 1831: Homilien tiber das 9% und 10% Kap., nebst einem 
 Anhange etlicher Homilien tiber Stellen des 12°" Kap. Bremen, 1831. 
 Motz (C. B.): Der Brief an die Hebrier [ Lange’s series]. Bielefeld, 1861. 
 [Translated by A. C. Kendrick, D.D. New York, 1871.] 
 
 OECOLAMPADIUS (Joannes), ¢ 1531: In Epistolam ad Hebraeos J. O. explanationes. 
 4to, Argentorati, 1524. 
 
 [From notes taken by some of the hearers. ] 
 OweEN (John), D. D., ¢ 1683: Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 4 vols. 
 fol. London, 1668-74, al. 
 
 PELLICAN (Conrad), ¢ 1556: Commentaria Bibliorum. 9 vols. 
 fol. Tiguri, 1532-42. 
 [ Vol. ix. “in omnes Epistolas.” ] 
 Piscator (John), Professor at Herborn, ¢ 1626: Analysis Logica Epistolae 
 Pauli ad Hebraeos. 
 {[Commentarii in omnes libros Novi Testamenti, 3d ed. fol. p. 674-718. 
 Herbornae, 1638.] 
 
 REICHE (J. G.): Commentarius Criticus in Novum Testamentum. 3 vols. 
 4to, Gottingen, 1853-62. 
 [ Vol. iii. In Hebraeos et Catholicas Epistolas. ] 
 Reuss (Ed.): L’Epitre aux Hébreux. Essai d’une traduction nouvelle, accom- 
 
 pagné dun commentaire théologique. Strasbourg, 1862. 
 Rieum (E. C. A.): Lehrbegriff des Hebriierbriefs. Ludwigsb. 1858, 1859. 
 
 Routiock (Robert), Principal of the University of Edinburgh, + 1598: Analysis 
 Logica in Epistolam ad Hebraeos. Accessit brevis et utilis Tractatus 
 de Justificatione. 8vo, Edinburgi, 1605. 
 [Rollock carried the work only to xi. 6, the rest was finished and edited 
 by Robert Charteris, at Rollock’s request. ] 
 
 Scuiicutine (Jonas), + 1664, and JoHN CRELL, ¢ 1633: In Epistolam ad 
 
 Hebraeos Commentarius. 8vo, Racoviae, 1634. 
 Scumip (Chr. Fr.), ¢ 1778: Observationes . . . historicae, criticae, theologicae 
 
 super Epistolam ad Hebraeos. 8vo, Lips. 1766. 
 Scumip (Erasmus), ¢ 1637: Notae in Novum Testamentum. 1658. 
 Scumipt (Sebastian), ¢ 1696: In Epistolam ad Hebraeos Commentarius. 1690. 
 SrewaRpD (George): Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 8vo, Edin. 1872. 
 Srier (Rudolf), + 1862: Der Brief an die Hebriier, in 86 Betrachtungen ausge- 
 
 legt. 2 parts. 1842. 
 Srvuartr (Moses), Professor of Sacred Literature at Andover, t 1852: Commen- 
 tary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2 vols. 8vo, 1827, 1828, al. 
 
 THoLuck (Andreas), Professor at Halle, { 1877: Kommentar zum Briefe an dic 
 Hebrier. 8vo [1836], 8d ed. Hamburg, 1850 
 
334 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE, 
 
 VALCKENAER (Lewis Casp.), Professor of Greek at Leyden, ¢ 1785: Selecta e 
 Scholiis. Edited by Wassenbergh. Tom. ii. Amst. 1817. 
 
 WALTHER (Michael), Professor at Helmstiidt, ¢ 1662: Griindliche, erdeutliche 
 und ausfiihrliche Erliuterung der... Ep. St. Pauli an die Hebrier. 
 
 fol. Niirnberg, 1646. 
 
 WIESELER (Karl), Professor at Greifswald: Untersuchung tiber den Hebrierbrief, 
 namentlich seinen Verfasser und seine Leser. 8vo, Kiel, 1861. 
 Wirticu (Christoph), Professor at Leyden, | 1687: Commentarius in Epistolam 
 ad Hebraeos. Edited by David Hassel. 1692. 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 SEC. 1—THE AUTHOR. 
 
 HE Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of an unknown writer. 
 The question, by whom it was composed, was already vari- 
 
 ously answered in ancient times, and has not to the present 
 
 
 
 day been solved in a way which has found general assent. 
 The supposition that the Apostle Paul was its author has 
 obtained the widest currency and the most lasting acceptance. And in 
 reality this supposition must most readily suggest itself, since an unmis- 
 takeably Pauline spirit pervades the epistle, and single notices therein, 
 such as the mention of Timothy as a man standing in very close con- 
 nection with the author (xiii. 23), might appear as indications pointing to 
 Paul. Nevertheless, there is found nothing which could have the force 
 of a constraining proof in favor of this view, and, on the contrary, much 
 which is in most manifest opposition thereto." For— 
 
 (1) The testimonies of Christian antiquity in favor of Paul as the author 
 of the epistle are neither so general nor so confident as we must expect, 
 if the epistle had been from the beginning handed down as a work of the 
 Apostle Paul—Not unfavorable to the claim of Paul, but yet by no means 
 decisive, are the judgments of the early Alexandrian Church. Pantaenus, 
 president of the school of catechetes in Alexandria about the middle of 
 the second century, the first from whom an express statement as to the 
 name of the author has come down to us, certainly assigned the epistle 
 to the Apostle Paul. But yet it is to be observed that even he felt called 
 to set aside an objection, which seemed to lie against the justice of this 
 view, namely: that, contrary to the custom of Paul, the author has not, 
 even in an address prefixed to the epistle, mentioned himself by name; 
 whether it was that this difficulty first arose in the mind of Pantaenus 
 
 1Comp. J. H. Thayer, “Authorship and the Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. xxiv., Andov. 1867, 
 Canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in p. 681 ff. 
 335 
 
336 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 himself, or that, in opposition to others who had raised it, he wished to 
 show the invalid nature thereof. (Comp. the notice of Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus on Pantaenus, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 14: "Hdy dé, &¢ 6 waxdpeog 
 éAeye wpeoBvTepog, érel 6 Kiploc, aréaToAog dv Tov TavTOKpaTopoc, aTEGTAAn TpdG 
 ‘EBpaiouc, did wetpidtyta 6 TLabdAoc, O¢ av sic ta Evy areotaApuévoc, odK éEyypadet 
 éavtov 'ESpaiwv axdorodov bua Te Tv Tpd¢ TOV Kbpiov Tiuyv dud Te TO EK TEpLOvOiag 
 Kai Toi¢ ‘EBpaiowg éexcoréAreww, E9vOv Khprka dvta Kai axéotodov.).—Clemens Alex: 
 andrinus, too, the disciple of Pantaenus (end of the second and beginning 
 of the third century), makes repeated mention of the epistle as a work of 
 the Apostle Paul (Strom. ii. p. 420, iv. p. 514 sq., ed. Sylburg, Colon. 1688, 
 al.). But yet he does not venture to ascribe it in its present form imme- 
 diately to Paul. Not only is for him, too, the same objection, which his 
 teacher already had undertaken to set aside, still of sufficient weight for 
 him to attempt its removal in a new, though, it is true, equally unsatis- 
 factory manner; but also the un-Pauline character of the language in the 
 epistle does not escape his glance. Rather to Luke than to Paul does the 
 garb of the letter seem to him to point. On this account he assumes that 
 a Hebrew (Aramaic) original writing of Paul forms the substratum of the 
 epistle, but that our present epistle is only a version or adaptation of that 
 original writing by Luke, designed for Hellenes. (Comp. Eusebius, Hist. 
 Eccles. vi. 14: Kai rv zpoc ‘EBpatovc d& ExotoAjv Ilabdov wév elvai oyot, yeypad- 
 Vat dé 'EBpaiorg ‘EBpaikh duryi, Aovkdy 8 gidotinwc aitiy pwedepunveboavta éxdovvat 
 toig "EAAnow* bSev Tov abtov ypdta ebpiokeodar Kata THY Epunveiay TabTHE TE THE 
 éxoroAqe Kat Tov xpdtewv" uy mpoyeypddVar dé Td TavAoc ardatohoc, eixdTwe. 
 ‘EGpaiore yap, dyoiv, exiotéddwv rpdAnyuw elAnddor Kar’ abTod Kal brontebovow avtov 
 ouveT@e Tavv ovk év apxy axéotpepev avtodve 7d dvoua Geic.—Equally does Origen 
 (+ 254) make the Epistle to the Hebrews stand, it is true, in some relation 
 to: the Apostle Paul, as he accordingly more than once cites passages 
 therefrom as sayings of Paul (e.g. Hxhort. ad Martyr. 44, in Joh., ed. Huet. 
 t. ii. p. 56; ibid. t. iii. p. 64, t. x. p. 162, al.). But not only is he aware 
 that in point of fact deniers of the composition of the epistle by Paul have 
 arisen (oi aderovvreg tiv ExioToAHy wc ob MatAw yeypaupévyv, Hpist. ad African. 
 c.9. Comp. also in Matt. xxiii. 27 sq.: Sed pone aliquem abdicare episto- 
 lam ad Hebraeos, quasi non Pauli); he too, for his own part, is not able 
 to bring himself to recognize the epistie as a work of Paul in the narrower 
 sense. Only the thoughts of the epistle does he ascribe to Paul; the dic- 
 tion and composition, on the other hand, he denies to be his. Since he 
 admits withal that the contents of the epistle are Pauline, he regards the 
 
 ancient tradition, which traces it back to Paul, as not unfounded; he has 
 
INTRODUCTION. 337 
 
 therefore no fault to find if a church looks upon the epistle as the work 
 of Paul. By whom, however, it was in reality composed is, he thinks, 
 known only to God. Tradition, he tells us, speaks sometimes of the 
 Roman bishop Clement, sometimes of Luke, as the author. (Comp. the 
 two fragments of the lost homilies of Origen on the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, preserved in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 25: "Ore 6 yapaxryp tite 
 AéEewe THE Tpd¢ ‘EBpaioug éEmiyeypappévye ExvoToAqe ovK Eyer TO Ev Adyw idiwriKdv Tod 
 arootéAov, Guoroyfoavtog éavtov idiatyy eivae TO Adyw, TovTéoTL TH Hpdoel, GAAG 
 fot 7 émoToAn ovvdécer THE AéEEwC EAAHVIKWTE PA, TAG 6 ETLOTaMEVOE KpivEely dpacewv 
 diapopag buohoyhoa av* TaALy Te avd OTL TA VOhuaTa THe ExLoTOAHC Pavudora EotL Kat Ov 
 Sebtepa TOV arooToAtKGv duoAoyoupévwvy ypaymatov, Kai TovTO av ovudfyoar elvat 
 aAndic Tac 6 Tpocéywov TH avayvdcet TH aTooTOALKH. . . . "Ey® dé arroparvduevoc 
 eitou’ Gv, OTe TA wev VOHUATA TOV aToaTOAOD éoTiv, 7 JE Ppaotg Kal 7 GiVvIEDLE aTOUVy- 
 Movevoavroe TLvoe TA AmTooTOALKA Kal WoTEpEL GYOALOypadHoavTéc Tog TA Eeipnuéva 
 i76 Tov OidackdAev, Ei tic obv éxxAnoia Eyer TabTyv THY ExtoTOAHVY a¢ TlabAov, aitn 
 evdokimeita Kal él TOUTY' Ov yap ElKH ol Apyaior avdpec Hc TlabAov abrAv rapadedé- 
 kaow Tic dé 6 ypdpac! rAvErLoTOAHY, TH wiv aAndéc Gedc oldEv' H 68 Ele Huae 
 p0acaca iotopia i7é Tier pév AeydvTwr, OTe KAgune 6 yevduevoc éExioxorog ‘Payaiwy 
 éypawe THv ExtotoAgy, O76 Tivwv dé, OTe AovKac 6 ypawac TO evayyé ALov Kal Tac Tpakerc.) 
 —Only subsequently to the time of Origen, accordingly, was the epistle 
 universally regarded within the Alexandrian Church, as within the Egyp- 
 tian Church in general, as a writing which proceeded immediately from 
 
 the Apostle Paul. Declarations thereof are appealed to, as simply the 
 
 1That 6 ypawas denotes the actual author, 
 and not, as Olshausen (“De auctore ep. ad 
 Hebr.,” in his Opusce. Theol., Berol. 1834, p. 
 100), Stenglein (Historische Zeugnisse der vier 
 ersten Jahrhunderte iiber den Verf.des Br. an 
 die Hebr., Bamb. 1835, p. 35), and Delitzsch 
 (“Ueber Verf. und Leser des Hebraerbr.,” in 
 Rudelsbach u. Guericke’s Zeitschr. f. die Luth. 
 Theol. 1849, p. 259), assert, with the assent of 
 Davidson (Introduction to the Study of the New 
 Testament, vol. I., Lond. 1868, p. 228 f.), the 
 mere “scriba” or “penman,” is shown even 
 by the analogy of the closing words: Aovkas 
 © ypawas TO evayyé\tov Kal Tas mpaéecs. 
 Wrongly does Delitzsch (in his Kommentar, 
 p- Xvii.) object that Origen, indeed, concedes 
 to the apostle a part [in its composition], and 
 that Luke also, in the Gospel and the Acts, 
 was working up a material not of his own in- 
 vention, but one ready to his hand. For the 
 
 22 
 
 part which Origen assigns to Paul is not an 
 active, but a passive one; that Paul exerted 
 an immediate influence on the writing of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, or was directly 
 occupied with the same—of this Origen says 
 nothing; the dependence upon Paul is limit- 
 ed in his estimation to the fact that the epistle 
 was composed by a disciple of Paul, and in 
 the spirit of Paul. By the consideration, 
 however, that Luke in his two works was 
 using a material “ready to his hand,” his 
 authorship in reference to these works is not 
 annulled; for the notion of authorship is not 
 destroyed by the mode in which it is exer- 
 cised. Besides, if Origen had wished to 
 denote the particular way in which the 
 writings of Luke arose, he would have put, 
 not 0 ypaas, but 0 cuvtagayevos, or Some- 
 thing similar. 
 
338 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 words of Paul, by the Alexandrian bishops, Dionysius, about the middle 
 of the third century (in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 41); Alexander, about 
 312 (in Theodoret, H. E. i. 3, Opp. ed. Schulze, tom. iii. p. 736, and in 
 Socrat. H. E. i. 6, ed. Vales., Paris 1686, p. 11); Athanasius (} 378), in his 
 thirty-ninth epistola festalis, and elsewhere; Didymus, the president of the 
 Alexandrian school of catechetes (+ 395), the Egyptian monks, Macarius 
 the elder, and Marcus Ascetes (c. 400), and others. 
 
 In the ancient Syrian Church the epistle, it is true, was held very early 
 in ecclesiastical repute. For it is already received: into the Peshito, be- 
 longing to the end of the second century. But that it was so soon as this 
 held to be a work of Paul, does not follow from this reception. On the 
 contrary, the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews has been placed in the 
 Peshito not already after the letters of Paul addressed to churches, but 
 only after those of his letters addressed to private persons, might rather 
 be interpreted as a sign that this letter, only on account of its similar 
 character, had been attached, as it were, by way of appendix to the 
 Pauline Epistles, while not assigned to Paul himself. Yet the later church 
 of North-Eastern Syria seems to have ascribed this writing to the Apostle 
 Paul. For while Jacob, bishop of Nisibis (¢. 325), cites declarations of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews only in general as utterances of an apostle (Gal- 
 land. Bibl. Patr. v. pp. xvi. lxii. al.), and this indefinite mode of citation 
 is also the prevalent one with Jacob’s disciple Ephraem Syrus (f+ 378) ; 
 yet the latter, at any rate, seems not to have doubted the composition by 
 Paul, since (Opp. Graec. tom. ii., Rom. 1748, fol. p. 203) he joins together 
 the passages Rom. ii. 16, Eph. v. 15, Heb. x. 31, by the common introduc- 
 tory formula: Ilepi rabry¢ tHe juépac Bog Kat Iavdog 6 aréotodoc, and then 
 abruptly separates from further citations by the words: Bog dé kai 6 
 
 _paxapiog Uerpoc—In like manner in Western (Grecian) Syria, after the 
 -middle of the third century, the epistle ‘was probably assigned to the 
 Apostie Paul; since, in the letter issued by the Antiochian Synod (c. 264) 
 to Paul of Samosata, Heb. xi. 26 and sentences out of the two Epistles to 
 the Corinthians are connected together as sayings of the same apostle 
 (comp. Mansi, Collect. Concil. t. i. p. 1088). 
 
 Elsewhere, too, in the Eastern Church, the opinion that Paul was the 
 author became in subsequent times more and more general. Neverthe- 
 less, doubts as yet by no means ceased to be heard. Thus Eusebius of 
 Caesarea (in the first half of the fourth century) often, indeed, quotes the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews as the work of Paul, and without doubt reckons 
 
 it, since he expressly accepts fourteen Pauline Epistles (Hist. Eccles. iii. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 309 
 
 3), in the chief passage on the New Testament canon (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25), 
 —as a constituent part of the epistles of Paul, which are mentioned only 
 in general,—to belong to the Homologumena. But yet he regards the 
 epistle only as a version from a Hebrew original of Paul (Hist. Eccles. iii. 
 88), and can tell of Greeks who, in reliance upon the adverse judgment 
 of the Roman Church, denied the Pauline origin of the epistle in any 
 sense (Hist. Eccles. iii. 3). Nay, in another place (Hist Eccles. vi. 13), him- 
 self even reckons the epistle among the av7iAeyéuevar ypagai;! inasmuch as 
 he places it in one line with the Wisdom of Solomon, that of Jesus Sirach, 
 and the epistles of Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, and Jude! On the other 
 hand, the epistle is acknowledged as directly the work of Paul, in the 
 sixtieth canon of the Council at Laodicea after the middle of the fourth 
 century, by Titus of Bostra (+ ¢. 871), by Basil the Great (7 379), and his 
 brother Gregory of Nyssa; by Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (7 386); by 
 Gregory of Nazianzus (+ 389), in the Jambi ad Seleucum, where, neverthe- 
 less, the remark has been inserted: ruvé¢ dé dao tHv Tpd¢ ‘EBpaiove vddov ; 
 by Epiphanius (+ 402), Chrysostom (+ 407), Theodore of Mopsuestia (f ¢. 
 428), and others. Yet Theodoret in his Prooemium to the epistle (comp. 
 also Epiphanius, Haer. 69. 37) is still engaged in polemics against those 
 of Arian sentiments, who rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews as véHoc, 
 denying its Pauline authorship. 
 
 While thus the testimonies of the East in general are favorable indeed 
 to a Pauline origin of the epistle, an immediate composition thereof by 
 Paul, however, was for the most part asserted only in later times, whereas 
 in the earlier period more generally only a mediate authorship was main- 
 tained ; the West, on the other hand, during the first centuries, does not 
 acknowledge an authorship of Paul in any sense.—A voucher for this 
 statement is Tertullian, belonging to the North African Church, at the 
 end of the second century and the beginning of the third. Only on a 
 single occasion does he make express mention of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, in order to cite from it the words vi. 4-8, and it is here evidently 
 his endeavor to rate as highly as possible the authority of the writing 
 cited by him. Of a composition thereof by the Apostle Paul, however, he 
 knows nothing; instead of Paul he names Barnabas as its author, and 
 that not in the.form of a conjecture, but simply and without qualification, 
 
 1 According to Delitasch, indeed (Komment. Tats amd T@Y avTLAEyoLEeVwY ypaday 
 p- xvii. f.), this supposition rests upon a mis- MapTupiats, THS Te Aeyomevns SadouavTos codias 
 understanding of the words of Eusebius. kat THs “Incov Tov Sipax Kart THS Pods 
 But Eusebius’ words are surely clear enough. ‘EBpatovs émtatoAns, THS TE Bapvafa 
 
 They are as follows: xéxpyntac & év avrtois cai kai KAyjmevtos Kat ‘lovda. 
 
340 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 in such wise that he manifestly proceeds upon a supposition universally 
 current in the churches of his native land. (Comp. de Pudicitia, c. 20: 
 Volo tamen ex redundantia alicujus etiam comitis apostolorum testimo- 
 nium superducere, idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure disciplinam 
 magistrorum. Exstat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, a Deo satis 
 auctoritati viri,’ ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentiae 
 tenore: “aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potesta- 
 tem?” Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabae illo apocry- 
 pho Pastore moechorum. ... Hoc qui ab apostolis didicit et cum 
 apostolis docuit, nunquam moecho et fornicatori secundam poenitentiam 
 promissam ab apostolis norat.)—Also, in the time immediately following, 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews cannot in Proconsular Africa have been 
 regarded as a writing of the Apostle Paul. This is proved on the author- 
 ity of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (fF 258), who, with the single exception 
 of the short Epistle to Philemon, makes citations from all the letters of 
 Paul, and yet nowhere quotes passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 but asserts, on the other hand, that Paul wrote only to seven churches 
 (comp. Testim. adv. Jud. i. 20; De Evhortat. Martyrii, c. 11). 
 
 But as the early Church of North Africa, so also the early Roman 
 Church knew nothing of an appertaining of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 to the Pauline collection of letters. This is the more noteworthy, inas- 
 much as within the Roman Church the earliest trace is met with of the 
 existence of the Epistle to the Hebrews. For a series of characteristic 
 expressions of the latter is taken up by Clemens Romanus (towards the 
 end of the first century) in his Epistle to the Corinthians (comp. specially 
 cap. 86 with Heb. vi. 4, i. 3, 4,5, 7,138; cap. 17 with Heb. xi. 37; and in 
 _ general, Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel History, Part ii. vol. i., Lond. 
 1748, p. 62 ff.; Bohme, p. Ixxy. sq.). These derived expressions, however, 
 are not introduced as citations, but are blended with his own discourse. 
 They prove, therefore, only that Clement was acquainted with the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, and highly prized it, but afford no information on the ‘ 
 question as to whom he regarded as the author. That, however, Clement 
 believed the Apostle Paul to be the author is rendered extremely improb- 
 able by the position which the Roman Church of the subsequent period 
 assumed towards this epistle. In the fragment on the canon of the 
 Roman Church, discovered by Muratori, belonging to the close of the 
 second century, it is stated that Paul wrote to seven churches; upon 
 
 1Thus we have to read, with Oehler (Tertull. Opp. tom. i., Lips. 1853, p. 839), in place of 
 adeo satis auctoritatis viri. : 
 
INTRODUCTION. 341 
 
 which follows an enumeration of our present thirteen Pauline Epistles. 
 Besides these, two other letters are then named, which have been forged 
 as coming from Paul; but of the Epistle to the Hebrews not even mention 
 is made. It cannot thus in the Roman Church of that time have been 
 invested with any canonical authority, much less have been looked upon 
 as a writing of the Apostle Paul—tIn lke manner Caius, presbyter at 
 Rome at the end of the second century and beginning of the third, recog- 
 nized, in express opposition to the repi To cuvratrecy Kalvac ypagac 
 npowéterad te kai Téamua, Only thirteen epistles as the work of the 
 Apostle Paul, to the exclusion of the Epistle to the Hebrews (comp. 
 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 20)—Even as late as about the middle of the 
 third century the Epistle to the Hebrews was not in the Roman Church 
 esteemed to be a work of Paul, nor indeed regarded as a canonical writing. 
 This is evident from the fact that Novatian, in his dissertations, De Trinitate 
 and De Cibis Judaicis (in Gallandi, Biblioth. Patr. t. ii. p. 287 sqq.), although 
 these abound in Biblical citations, and although their subject might natur- 
 ally suggest the employment of the Epistle to the Hebrews, nowhere so 
 much as makes mention of the same; an omission which, supposing its 
 recognition as a canonical writing, and one proceeding from Paul, would 
 be the more inexplicable, inasmuch as Novatian could hardly have urged 
 any passage of Scripture in favor of his severer view with regard to the 
 receiving again into the communion of the church of those who had 
 lapsed, with greater appearance of justification than this very text of Heb. 
 vi. 4-6.—So likewise Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. vi. 20) expressly observes with 
 respect to his age (first half of the fourth century): ka? ei¢ devpo mapa 
 ‘Pwpaiwy tisiv ov vouiterar TOU arooréaov tuyyaverv—Of Irenaeus, moreover, 
 the representative of the Church of Southern Gaul at the end of the 
 secéond century and beginning of the third, Stephanus Gobarus relates, in 
 Photius, Bibl. Cod. 282 (ed. Hoeschel, Rothomagi 1653, fol. p. 903), that he, 
 equally as Hippolytus, denied that the Epistle to the Hebrews was com- 
 posed by Paul. In harmony with this statement is the fact that Irenaeus, 
 in his great work Advers. Haereses, often as he had occasion to cite this 
 epistle, and frequently as he otherwise adduces proof passages from the 
 epistles of Paul, yet nowhere appeals to the Epistle to the Hebrews. In 
 the lost writing BiBAiov diaréfewv diagdpwr, he did indeed, according to a 
 notice in Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. v. 26), cite some passages from the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews (just as he did from the Wisdom of Solomon); but that 
 Irenaeus regarded the Apostle Paul as its author is not said by Eusebius 
 either. 
 
342 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Only after the middle of the fourth century did the opinion that Paul 
 was its author gradually find acceptance in the West—a change of views 
 which, without doubt, is to be traced to the preponderating influence of 
 the Greek Church upon the Latin. As a work of Paul it is cited by 
 Hilary, bishop of Poitiers (¢ 368); Lucifer of Cagliari (F371); his contem- 
 porary, Fabius Marius Victorinus ; Philastrius, bishop of Brescia (f ¢. 387); 
 Ambrose, bishop of Milan (7397); Rufinus of Aquileia (7 c¢. 411); Jerome 
 (+ 420); Augustine (+430), and others. That change of views comes out 
 with special distinctness in the African synods at the end of the fourth 
 century and the beginning of the fifth. In the thirty-sixth canon of the 
 synod at Hippo (893), as in the forty-seventh canon of the third synod at 
 Carthage (897), in the determination of those books of the New Testa- 
 ment to be held as canonical, the number of the epistles of Paul is 
 declared to be altogether thirteen; and then is added: by the same, the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews (Pauli apostoli epistolae tredecim ; ejusdem ad 
 Hebraeos una). This separate mention shows that at this time they did 
 not yet venture to concede to the Epistle to the Hebrews a perfectly equal 
 rank with that of the thirteen universally recognized letters of Paul. 
 Presently after, however, in the twenty-ninth canon of the fifth Cartha- 
 ginian synod (419), it is said, on the occasion of a similar enumeration : 
 epistolarum Pauli apostoli numero quatuordecim. Yet, spite of this 
 revolution of the judgments in general, doubts as to the canonicity and 
 Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews were not entirely reduced to 
 silence, even in this late period. Philastrius still remarks that the same 
 was only rarely read in church among the Latins (Haeres. 89); and in 
 Haeres. 88 mentions, among the books which, according to the appoint- 
 ment of the apostles and their successors, were alone to be publicly read 
 ‘in the assemblies, only thirteen Pauline Epistles. The commentary of 
 Hilary (Ambrosiaster), moreover, covers indeed the whole thirteen Pauline 
 Epistles, but not the Epistle to the Hebrews; and even Rufinus adds, on. 
 a mention of the epistle (Invectiva in Hieronymum 1, Opp. Hieronymi, ed. 
 Martianay, t. v. p. 279), the words: si quis tamen eam receperit. With 
 like wavering does Jerome also often express himself (e.g. on Tit. i. 5, 
 Opp. ed. Vallars, 2, t. vii. P. 1, p. 695: Si quis vult recipere eam epistolam, 
 quae sub nomine Pauli ad Hebraeos scripta est.—Ibid. on ii. 2, p. 714: 
 Relege ad Hebraeos epistolam Pauli, sive cujuscunque alterius eam esse 
 putas), and observes expressly, e.g. Epist. 125 ad Evagrium (ed. Martianay, 
 t. ii. p. 571): Epistola ad Hebraeos, quam omnes Graeci recipiunt et 
 nonnulli Latinorum.—Comment. on Matt. xxvi. 8, 9 (ed. Vallars, t. vii. P. 1, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 343 
 
 p. 212): Paulus, in epistola sua, quae scribitur ad Hebraeos, licet de ea 
 multi Latinorum dubitent.—Catalog. c. 59 (ed. Martianay, t. iv. p. 117): 
 sed et apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli apostoli non habetur; and 
 similarly elsewhere. In like manner Augustine also observes (De Pecca- 
 torum meritis et remissione, 1. 27, Opp. ed. Bened. t. x., Antw. 1700, p. 18) 
 that the Epistle to the Hebrews is nonnullis incerta, although he himself is 
 decided in his judgment by the auctoritas ecclesiarum orientalium, among 
 whom this writing also is held in canonical repute. 
 
 But as we are not able to appeal, in support of the hypothesis that Paul 
 is the author of this epistle, to the decided and unanimous tradition of 
 antiquity, so also— 
 
 (2) The hints afforded by the epistle itself, with regard to the person 
 and historic situation of its author, do not lead us to think of the Apostle 
 Paul. The passage ii. 3 is absolutely decisive against Paul. For here the 
 author reckons himself among the number of those who have received 
 their knowledge of the gospel not immediately from the Lord Himself, 
 but only through the medium of the first disciples and ear-witnesses. He 
 claims thus no equal rank with the twelve apostles, but takes his place at 
 the standpoint of Luke (Luke i. 2). That is, however, the direct opposite 
 of the manner in which Paul expresses himself, when he sets forth, 
 whether polemically or without any secondary aim, how he obtained his 
 acquaintance with the gospel: he denies expressly that he had acquired 
 his knowledge of the gospel from the teaching of men; it was communi- 
 cated to him immediately, by revelation, from the Lord Himself, and on 
 that account he stands upon a complete equality of apostolic dignity with 
 the twelve original apostles (Gal. i. 1, 11, 12, 15, 16, 11. 6; 1 Cor. ix. 1, xi. 
 23; Eph. iii. 2, 3.\—Indications of a Pauline origin, it has been thought, 
 may be discovered in x. 34, xill. 18 f., 28, 24. But altogether without 
 reason. The first passage would favor a reference to Paul only in the case 
 that the lectio recepta toic decpoic pov Were correct. It is, however, deci- 
 dedly false; instead thereof we have to read roic¢ deopiow. The second passage 
 likewise affords no sufficient ground for thinking of Paul. For the state- 
 ment that the author was a prisoner is not at all to be found in it; since 
 the concluding words of xiii. 23 plainly show that the author, at the time 
 of inditing his epistle, was in a position of entire freedom.’ Further, from 
 
 1That the author of the Epistle to the He- Hilgenfeld’s Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1864, H. 4, 
 brews was in a state of captivity, and was p. 357 f.) has nevertheless felt bound to deduce 
 begging of the church for intercession with from the form of the text in the Codex Sin- 
 God in his @Atfis, Tobler (“Studien nach dem aiticus: mpocevxeaGe mept nuay OTe Kady. Ba 
 
 Codex Sinaiticus uber den Hebrierbrief,” in yap OTe KaAny ovvidno.y Exouev ev TaGLY KaAws 
 
344 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 the third passage we may certainly conclude that the author was on terms 
 
 But this 
 fact could be regarded as a sign indicative of Paul himself only if Timo- 
 
 of friendship with Timothy, the well-known assistant of Paul. 
 
 thy were characterized as a person who occupied a subordinate position 
 towards the author, which is not the case. As the words read, the 
 passage is appropriate to any disciple of Paul as the writer. To this the 
 consideration must be added, that in the passage in question the deliver- 
 ance of Timothy out of his captivity is announced: the readers must thus 
 have had a knowledge of the imprisonment itself; it could not therefore 
 have been either insignificant or of short duration. Of an imprisonment 
 of Timothy, however, so long as he was the assistant of Paul, there is not 
 found the slightest trace, either in the epistles of the latter or in the Acts 
 of the Apostles. Much more probable is it, therefore, that this notice 
 refers to an imprisonment suffered by Timothy only after the death of the 
 Apostle Paul. The fourth passage, finally, is supposed to show that the 
 epistle was written from Rome, and on that account probably by Paul. 
 But from oi a7d rie "Iradiac the author could send salutations only if he 
 were somewhere outside of Italy. If he had himself been present in 
 Italy, with the Italian Christians from whom the salutations come, at the 
 
 time of the composition of the epistle, he must have indicated them as oi 
 
 Oédovtes avactpéperdar. According to Tobler, 
 kady. 0a is to be derived from cadet, and in- 
 deed is to be regarded as an earlier contrac- 
 tion for xadeoueOa, in which the quantity of 
 the crasis has remained resting on the former 
 vowel (!); so that caAeto@ar, in this connec- 
 _ tion, would correspond to the Latin in jus 
 ‘vocari, citari, Acts iv. 18, xxiv. 2, and the sense 
 would result: “ Pray for us, for we are sum- 
 moned before the tribunal, must plead in our 
 own defence; that we may have a good con- 
 science, a cheerful spirit, to give an account; 
 for in all things, and in this case too, we wish 
 to walk rightly.” But in order to perceive 
 the erroneousness of such a mode of argu- 
 ment, a glance at the codex itself may suffice. 
 ‘his presents Heb. xiii. 18 in the following 
 arrangement: 
 
 mpogevxeabe Tre 
 
 pt NMwY oTe Kady. 
 
 0a yap oT Kadnv 
 
 ovvidynow K.T.A. 
 
 Evidently «adj. is nothing else than the cadnv 
 
 following in the next line, inasmuch as a 
 stroke at the end of a line is very often placed 
 in the Cod. Sin. instead of an end letter; so 
 that by a mere error of transcribing, of which 
 there are very many in the Cod. Sin., ort kaAnv, 
 which belonged only to the third line, was 
 wrongly placed in the second, and here 
 pushed out the three first syllables of the 
 
 * qev8oue8a, which the-copyist had before him 
 
 in the text given him for copying. That the 
 copyist really had me@oue@a—for which, - 
 moreover, the fourth hand has put wemoc@apex 
 by way of correction—before him for copying 
 is clearly shown, as well by the 6a, as also by 
 the yap of the third line. Comp. against 
 Tobler also Volkmar, in Hilgenfeld’s Ztschr. 
 f. wiss. Theol. 1865, H. 1, p. 108 ff. 
 
 1That Ebrard (p. 417 ff.) fs very much in- 
 clined to bring out of the construction of 
 Phil. ii. 19, 23 an imprisonment of Timothy at 
 Rome, at- the time when Paul was held cap- 
 tive there, deserves to be mentioned only as 
 a curiosity. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 345 
 
 év ty 'Iradig (comp. 1 Pet. v.18). At most, we could only assume that 
 the author had meant by oi ad ry "Iradiag Roman Christians out of the 
 province, in opposition to oi év ‘Pouy, the Christians of the Roman capital. 
 Then he would certainly have been dwelling in Rome. But how would it 
 be explicable, in that case, that he should neglect to convey a salutation 
 from these Christians of the capital? While, on the other hand, if the 
 author was writing outside of Italy, the isolated expression of greeting 
 from oi amd t7¢ "Iradiag is simply explained on the supposition, that in 
 the place of his dwelling for the time being, a Christian church from 
 which he could likewise send salutations did not yet at all exist. 
 
 Against Paul as the author argue— 
 
 (8) The style and manner of presentation characteristic of the epistle. 
 Origen has already observed (vid. supra, p. 331), that every one who is a 
 judge of the diversities of language must admit that this writing is 
 ovvdéces TIC AéFewe EAAnvixnwrépa than the letters of Paul; and the same fact, 
 even before his time, drew the attention of Clemens Alexandrinus (vid. 
 supra, p. 2), as in general the widespread belief of antiquity in a Hebrew 
 original of the epistle is based upon such divergency. But the epistle is 
 distinguished not merely by a purer Greek,—with which are found mingled 
 Hebraisms, for the most part only in the citations borrowed from the Old 
 Testament,—it is also more perfectly rounded off into periods, and more 
 rhetorical. Whereas Paul wrestles with the language in order to express 
 in words the abundance of thoughts pouring in upon him, and irregular- 
 ities of grammar, variations of structure, and anacoluthias are nothing 
 rare with him, the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews always flows 
 on in smooth facility. The harmonious symmetry of the sentences is 
 preserved uninterrupted, even where parentheses of considerable extent 
 are inserted (comp. vil. 20-22); nay, parenthesis is enclosed within paren- 
 thesis, and yet the writer steadily returns to complete the construction 
 begun (comp. xii. 8-24). The greatest care is bestowed throughout upon 
 euphony and musical cadence (comp. e.g. i. 1+, vii. 1-3), upon the effective 
 grouping of words (comp. e.g. vii. 4), and even the use of particles and 
 participles betrays throughout an acquaintance with the art of composi- 
 tion and a learned rhetoric. While the Apostle Paul is everywhere con- 
 cerned only about the matter itself which he is presenting, never troubles 
 himself about a fair form of its clothing in language, and with him even 
 the most affecting outbursts of natural eloquence are never anything but 
 the immediate product of the moment,—in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 
 the endeavor after euphony and adornment of style extends even to the 
 
346 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 details of expression and the turns of the discourse. Where, for instance, 
 the plain and simple p.o#éc, of which Paul regularly makes use, might 
 have been placed without any difference of sense, the author of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews chooses just as regularly the fuller sounding 
 uobarodocia (11. 2, x. 35, xi. 26), and in accordance therewith makes use of 
 épkwpocia (vil. 20, 21, 28), aivarexyvoia (ix. 22), and other sonorous com- 
 Whilst, further, e¢. g., the sitting of Christ at the right hand of 
 God is indicated by Paul simply by év deé:a tod Be0d Kabjuevoc (Col. ili. 1; 
 comp. also Rom. viii. 834; Eph. i. 20), in the Epistle to the Hebrews the 
 majestic formulas: éxafioev év defid tHE wEeyadwobvag év bypndoic (i. 3), ExdBicev 
 
 pounds. 
 
 év deE1a Tov Opdvov tHe weyadwotvyc év Toic obpavoic (Vili. 1), év deEa Tod Apdvov 
 Further, that 
 which Paul predicates of Christ, in describing Him simply as éixav rov 
 
 Tov Heov Kexdfixev (xii. 2), serve to express the same thought. 
 
 feov (2 Cor. iv. 4), or as eix@v tov Oeov Tov aoparov (Col, i. 15), or as év popon 
 feov irapyov (Phil. ii. 6), is expressed by the author of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews in more carefully chosen language by means of the character- 
 istic dv axabyacna tHe dbEn¢ Kai yapaKtAp THE bmooTaGEwe Tov Heov..—As, how- 
 ever, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews surpasses the Apostle Paul 
 in respect of this external side of the diction, and of all writers of the 
 New Testament comes nearest to a classical perfection,—in such wise that 
 only some portions in Luke bear comparison therewith,—yet, on the 
 other hand, he falls considerably behind the Apostle Paulin respect of 
 the inner character of his mode of presentation. There is wanting to his 
 argumentation that dialectic acuteness (comp. ée. g. xii. 25), to his sequence 
 of thought that severe and firm connectedness (comp. e.g. iv. 14), to his 
 expression that precision and definiteness (comp. e. g. vii. 27), which are 
 characteristic of the Apostle Paul. 
 : _ (A) Deviations from Paul are shown, further, in the doctrinal subject- 
 matter of the epistle. Certainly in the main, and regarded as a whole, its 
 fundamental doctrinal conception is the same as in the Pauline Epistles, 
 as also in details it affords manifold notes of accord with the doctrinal 
 
 presentation of the latter.2 Nevertheless, this dogmatic harmony is not 
 
 1 Many further differences of language in 
 details, in part connected with the fact that 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrews the language 
 is preponderantly rhetorical, with Paul pre- 
 ponderantly dialectic, see in Schulz, Der 
 Brief an die Hebr., Breslau 1818, p. 135 ff.; 
 Seyffarth, De ep. quae dicitur ad Hebr. indole 
 maxime peculiari, Lips. 1821, p. 25 sqq. 
 
 2Comparisons of points of coincidence, 
 which, however, stand in need of critical 
 sifting, see in Fr. Spanhemius, De auctore 
 epistolae ad Hebraeos (Opp. t. ii., Lugd. Bat. 
 1703, fol. p. 171 sqq.); Cramer, p. lxix. sqq., 
 Petr. Hofstede de Groot, Dis- 
 
 putatio, qua epistola ad Hebraeos cum Paulinis 
 
 xx sqq:s 
 
 epistolis comparatur, Traj. ad Rhen. 1826, 8. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 347 
 
 without peculiar, individual, independent coloring in the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews! The Apostle Paul regards as the most important fact in the 
 history of salvation, the resurrection of Christ; by this did the work of 
 salvation first receive the divine sanction and attestation; by it was Christ 
 first by a divine deed proved to be the Son of God. Of the death of 
 Christ, therefore, Paul speaks almost always in connection with the resur- 
 rection. This importance, however, the resurrection of Christ has not 
 for the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Only incidentally, in the 
 invocation xiii. 20, is it mentioned by him; in the body of the epistle, on 
 the contrary, stress is laid exclusively upon the death of Christ and the 
 heavenly high-priesthood, of which office the Saviour Christ, exalted to 
 the right hand of God, is the occupant and fulfiller. In addition to this, 
 the notion of xiorcc is different with our author from what it is with 
 Paul. 
 and the épya véuov, and has its object in particular in Christ, the author of 
 
 Whereas with Paul the ziorce involves an opposition to the véuoc 
 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other hand, understands thereby in 
 general the believing, humble confiding in God’s grace and promises, in 
 opposition to the seeing of their realization,—a phase of the conception 
 which but rarely (comp. 2 Cor. v. 7) is met with in Paul. It is, moreover, 
 a remarkable fact that no reference is made to the participation of the 
 Gentiles in the Messianic kingdom,—although the author must have 
 entertained the same views as Paul on this point, inasmuch as he regards 
 Judaism only as an imperfect preparatory stage to Christianity, and 
 demands a coming forth from the former, in order to become partakers of 
 the blessings of the latter,—whence it seems to follow that the author 
 found his life’s task not so much in the conversion of the Gentiles, as in 
 the conversion of his Jewish kinsmen. Peculiar to this epistle is, further, 
 the prevailing fondness for a typico-symbolic mode of contemplation,’ 
 
 1Yet on account of this independence to 
 regard the epistle, with Riehm (Lehrbegriff 
 des Hebrderbriefs, Ludwigsb. 1858, 1859, II. p. 
 861 ff.), after the example of R. Késtlin (Theol. 
 Jahrbb. of Baur and Zeller, 1854, H. 4, p. 463 
 ff.), also Ritschl (Entstehung der altkathol. 
 Kirche, 2 Aufl., Bonn 1857, p. 159 ff.) and Weiss 
 (Studien u. Kritiken, 1859, H. 1, p. 142 ff.), as 
 not the work of a writer of the Pauline school, 
 but to discover in it a later stage of develop- 
 ment of the primitive apostolic Judaeo- 
 Christianity, is a proceeding not warranted 
 by any sufficient ground. There is the less 
 
 reason for such judgment, inasmuch as a very 
 close personal connection of the author of 
 the epistle with Paul and his disciples and 
 fellow-laborers is conceded; in the doctrinal 
 conception of the epistle not only no con- 
 tradiction of Paul is discovered, but, on the 
 contrary, a higher agreement with him on all 
 essential points; and it 1s, moreover, taken 
 tor granted that the epistle arose through the 
 incitement and under the influence of Paul- 
 inism. 
 
 2Comp. de Wette, “ Ueber die symbolisch- 
 
 typische Lehrart des Briefes an die Hebr.” 
 
348 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 which is met with indeed in Paul’s writings (e.g. Gal. iv. 21 ff, 1 Cor. x. 
 1 ff.), but yet only in isolated instances; and other peculiarities besides. 
 Comp. Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebruerbr. 1. p. 221 ff., 385 ff., IL. p. 632 ff., 821 
 ff.; Davidson, Introduction, I. p. 241 ff. 
 
 (5) Decisive against Paul are, further, the citations from the Old Testa- 
 ment. While Paul not merely makes use of the LX X., but is also at home 
 in the original Hebrew text, and often independently translates this for him- 
 self, for the most part also cites with more or less freedom and from mem- 
 ory ; the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews follows the LX X exclusively, 
 and generally with great exactness. He even bases an argument upon 
 its inaccurate renderings (comp. specially x. 5-7), in such wise that he 
 can have possessed no knowledge of the Hebrew, or at any rate but a very 
 unsatisfactory knowledge,—a fact which even in early times was not over- 
 looked by the opponents of the Pauline origin of the epistle (comp. 
 Jerome on Isa. vi, 9, Opp. ed. Martianay, t. ili. p. 64: Pauli quoque idcirco 
 ad Hebraeos epistolae contradicitur, quod ad Hebraeos scribens utatur 
 testimoniis quae in Hebraeis voluminibus non habentur). The references 
 in detail see in Bleek, Abtheil. 1, p. 338-369. 
 
 (6) The author describes, ix. 1-5, the arrangement of the Jewish sanc- 
 tuary, and presupposes (ver. 6) that this still continues in its original form 
 in the Jewish temple of his time. In so doing, however, he falls into 
 divers historic errors (comp.*the exposition), such as would have been 
 impossible with Paul, who had lived a considerable time in Jerusalem. 
 
 (7) If Paul were the author, he would not have deviated from his con- 
 stant practice of mentioning his name in an address prefixed to the epis- 
 tle. For a tenable ground for such deviation is not to be discovered. 
 
 Comp. Bleek, Abth. 1, p. 295 ff. 
 
 . (8) Regarded in general, it is very improbable that Paul should have 
 written an epistle to purely J udaeo-Christian congregations, to whom the 
 epistle is, however, addressed (see sec. 2). For he would thereby have_ 
 been untrue to his fundamental principle of not intruding into another 
 man’s sphere of labor (Rom xv. 20; Gal. ii. 9). 
 
 The arguments enumerated are in their totality of such constraining 
 force that we can feel no surprise if, upon every revival of the critico- 
 scientific spirit in the church, doubts, too, with regard to the Pauline 
 origin of the epistle should always be excited afresh, after they had long 
 seemed to have died out. At the time of the Reformation, Cajetan and 
 
 (in the Theologiche Zeitschrift of Schleiermacher, de Wette, and Lucke, Heft 3, Berlin 
 1822, p. 1 ff). 
 
INTRODUCTION. 349 
 
 Erasmus within the Catholic Church declared themselves against the claim 
 of Paul to the authorship of the epistle. The former was on that account 
 assailed by Ambrosius Catharinus; the latter was compelled to defend 
 himself against the Sorbonne, and the Council of Trent suppressed all 
 further expression of a freer judgment, in decreeing the epistle to be the 
 fourteenth epistle of Paul.! Yet more decidedly was the Pauline author- 
 ship of the epistle denied by the Reformers. Luther separated the Epis- 
 tle to the Hebrews from the letters of Paul in his editions of the New 
 Testament, and placed it, with the Epistles of James and Jude and the 
 Apocalypse, after “the right certain main books of the New Testament,” 
 since those four books “ of old time (verzeiten) had another estimation put 
 upon them.” “ First of all,” he says (see Walch, Thl. 14, p. 146 f.), “that 
 this Epistle to the Hebrews is not St. Paul’s or any other apostle’s, is 
 shown thereby, that it stands in chap. ii. 3 thus: this doctrine has come 
 down to us through those who themselves have-heard it of thte Lord. By 
 this it is made clear that he speaks of the apostles as a disciple to whom 
 such doctrine has come from the apostles, perhaps long after. For St. 
 Paul, Gal. i. 1, powerfully attests that he has his gospel from no man, nor 
 by man, but from God Himself. Besides this, it has a hard knot, in that 
 it in chap. vi. and x. straightway denies and refuses repentance to sinners 
 after baptism, and in xii. 17 says Esau sought repentance and yet did not 
 find it. The which, as it sounds, seemeth to be against all gospels and 
 epistles of St. Paul. And although one may make a gloss thereon, yet 
 the words after all sound so clear, that I know not whether it will suffice. 
 To me it seems that this isan epistle put together out of several parts, and 
 not in regular order treating of one and the same thing. However this 
 may be, it certainly is a wondrously fine epistle, which speaks in a mas- 
 terly and solid way of the priesthood of Christ out of the Scriptures, and, 
 moreover, finely and fully expounds the Old Testament. This is clear, 
 that it comes from an excellent learned man, who was a disciple of the 
 apostles, had learned much of them, and was firmly experienced in the 
 faith and exercised in the Scripture. And though he, indeed, lays not the 
 foundation of the faith, as he himself testifieth, chap. vi. 1, that which is 
 the office of the apostles,—yet he builds thereon fine gold, silver, precious 
 stones, as St. Paul says, 1 Cor. iii. 12. On that account we shall not be 
 troubled if perchance a little wood, straw, or hay be therewith mingled, 
 but receive such fine teaching with all honor, without being able to equal 
 
 4Fourth sitting of the 8th April 1546: Tes- Pauli apostoli, ad Romanos . . . ad Phileme 
 tamenti Novi... quatuordecim epistolae nem, ad Hebraeos. 
 
300 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 it in all respects to the apostolic epistles. Who wrote it, however, is un- 
 known, and will indeed remain unknown for awhile yet; but that is no 
 matter. The doctrine shall content us, since this is so firmly based on 
 and in the Scripture, and likewise shows a right fine grasp and measure 
 As Luther, so also Mel- 
 
 anchthon, the Magdeburg Centuriators, Lucas Osiander, Balduin, Hunnius, 
 
 for reading and handling the word of Scripture.” 
 
 and others, denied the Pauline origin of the epistle; and of the Reformed 
 Church, Calvin, Beza, Jos. Scaliger, Dan. Heinsius, cum multis aliis. 
 Later, however, even in the Protestant Church the supposition that Paul 
 was the author became gradually again more general, and was after the 
 beginning of the seventeenth century the ecclesiastically accepted opinion, 
 from which only the Arminians and Socinians ventured to depart. A 
 freer research was first set going again by Semler and Michaelis; it has 
 almost universally decided unfavorably to Paul. Yet the theory of a 
 directly Pauline origin has still found defenders in Storr, Hug, G. W. 
 Meyer (in Ammon and Bertholdt’s Krit. Jowrnal der neuesten theol. Literat., 
 Bd. ii. St.3, p. 225 ff), Heinreichs (but comp. the preface to the second 
 edition), Hofstede de Groot (Disputatio, qua ep. ad Hebr. cum Paulinis epp. 
 comparatur, Traj. ad Rhen. 1826), Moses Stuart, Gelpke ( Vindiciae originis 
 Paulinae ad Hebraeos epistolae, nova ratione? tentatae, Lugduni Batav. 1832, 
 8.), Paulus, Stein, Bloomfield (Greek Testament, 9th ed. vol. ii., Lond. 1855, 
 p. 572 ff.), Biesenthal (Epistola_ Pauli ad Hebraeos cum rabbinico Commen- 
 tario, Berol. 1857; Ztschr. f. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1866, H. 4, p. 616), J. 
 Chr. K. vy. Hofmann (Der Schriftbeweis, II. 2,2 Aufl., Nérdling. 1860, p. 
 105, 878; Die heil. Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhiingend untersucht, Thi. 
 5, Nordl. 1873, p. 520 ff.), Robbins (in Park and Taylor’s Bibliotheca Sacra, 
 vol. xviii., Andover 1861, July, p. 469 ff.), W. Volck (in the Dorpat Ztschr.. 
 fiir Theol. u. Kirche, Jahrg. 1869, Bd. ii. H. 4, p. 504 ff.), J. B. M‘Caul (The 
 ‘Epistle to the Hebrews in a Paraphrastic Commentary, with Illustrations from 
 Philo, the Targums, the Mishna and Gemara, the later: Rabbinical Writers, 
 etc., Lond. 1871, p. 4, 329), Joh. Wichelhaus (Akadem. Vorless. wher. das N. 
 
 1 Yet, while the Lutheran Church preserved 
 in its symbols a freer position towards the 
 canon, the Reformed Church in the Confessio 
 Belgica (cap. iv. p. 171 sq., ed. Augusti. Comp. 
 also the Helvetica of 1566, cap. xi. p. 25 sq., 
 xvi. p. 43, and the Bohemica of 1585, art. iv. p. 
 281, vi. p. 286,xXx. p. 323) adopted the decision 
 that Paul wrote fourteen epistles. 
 
 2The nova ratio consists in the cireumstan- 
 
 tial demonstration that the Epistle to the He- 
 
 brews betrays an affinity to the writings of 
 Seneca (!), mainly to his little book de Provi- 
 dentia, which reaches so deeply that it cannot 
 have arisen by accident. It is thus in all 
 probability due to a personal intercourse of 
 the writer of the epistle with Seneca,—a fact 
 which is applicable only in the case of Paul, 
 who, according to a trustworthy early 
 tradition, was brought into communication 
 
 with Seneca. 
 
INTRODUCTION. dol 
 
 T., herausgeg. v. A. Zahn, Halle 1875, p. 3 f.), and Jatho (Blicke in die 
 Bedeutung des mosaischen Cultus, Hildesh. 1876, p. 1 ff.); while Woerner 
 (Der Brief St. Pauli an die Hebraer,, Ludwigsb. 1876, p. 2538 f.) expresses 
 himself with hesitation, and Guericke (Hinleitung in das N. T. p. 441), 
 Delitzsch (in Rudelbach and Guericke’s Zischr. f. d. Iuth. Theol. 1849, p. 
 266, and in the commentary), Ebrard, and some others seek at least to 
 trace back the epistle indirectly to Paul, inasmuch as they suppose it to 
 But that this 
 last modification also is an untenable and unjustified one,is evident. For, 
 
 have been written by his direction and under his oversight. 
 
 of a fact of this kind there must of necessity be some indication found in 
 the epistle itself; whereas this writing everywhere gives the impression of 
 an independent work of an independent Christian teacher. So likewise, 
 inasmuch as then, too, Paul would surely be the only representative of 
 the subject-matter of the epistle, the meaning of such expressions as ii. 3 
 and others would become more absolutely inexplicable. 
 
 If the Epistle to the Hebrews can thus be neither directly nor indirectly 
 a work of the Apostle Paul, the question further arises, whether the true 
 author is still to be discovered with any degree of probability. The 
 decision of some has been in favor of Barnabas, others of Luke, others of 
 Clemens Romanus, others again of Silvanus, and others, finally, of 
 Apollos. 
 
 Barnabas has been looked upon as the author by J. E. Chr. Schmidt 
 (Histor.-Krit. Hinlett. in’s N. T., Abth.1, p. 289 ff.), Twesten (Dogmatik. Bd. 1, 
 4 Aufl. p. 95), Thiersch (De Epistola ad Hebr. commentatio historica, Marb. 
 1848, p. 1"), Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, Gotting, 1848, 
 p. 504 ff.; Untersuchung tiber den Hebraerbrief, namentlich seinen Verfasser 
 u. seine Leser, 1 Halfte [Schriften der Universitit zu Kiel aus dem Jahre, 
 1860, 4, Bd. VII.; also printed separately, Kiel 1861, 8]), Adalb. Maier 
 (Comment. wb. d. Br. an d. Hebr., Freib. im Br. 1861, p. 18 ff), Ritschl 
 (Theol. Studd. u. Kritt. 1866, H.1, p. 89), and Renan (L’Antechrist, Paris 
 
 1873, p. xvii. f. 210 f.).2— According to Wieseler, of all the claims to the 
 
 1Yet Thiersch—and similarly Maier— vero Paulus sua manu adjecerit atque ita, 
 
 assigns also a part in the composition of the 
 epistle to the Apostle Paul. Thiersch says, 
 t.c.: “ Barnabam igitur, qui et ipse gentium 
 fuit apostolus, et Paulum communi consilio 
 et conjuncta opera literas illas elaborasse 
 existimo. Ita quidem ut in maxima parte 
 Barnabas, vir ille dono prophetiae et fervore 
 
 TrapakAjogews insignis agnoseatur, epilogum 
 
 concedente Barnaba, suam fecerit epistolam.” 
 Comp. also Thiersch, Die Kirche im apostol. 
 Zeitalter, Frankf. and Erlangen 1852, 
 197 ff. 
 
 2Joh. Cameron is also named as a repre- 
 sentative ef this view. Bleek (Abth. 1, p. 261, 
 note 364) refers to Cameron’s Quaestio ii. wm 
 Ep. ad Hebr., and Ullmann (p. 389, note) to hi 
 
BT THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 authorship, that of Barnabas is best vouched for by the tradition of an- 
 tiquity. But in reality there remains only the single testimony (certainly 
 a very definite one) of Tertullian (vide supra, p. 333 f.) in favor of Barnabas. 
 For that it was also held in the majority of churches of the East to be a 
 work of Barnabas, cannot be inferred, with Wieseler (comp. already UIl- 
 mann, p. 391), from the words of Jerome (Epist. 129, ad Dardan., Opp. ed. 
 Martianay, t. ii. p. 608): Illud nostris dicendum est, hanc epistolam, quae 
 inscribitur ad Hebraeos, non solum ab ecclesiis orientis sed ab omnibus 
 retro ecclesiasticis Graeci sermonis scriptoribus quasi Pauli apostoli sus- 
 cipi; licet plerique eam vel Barnabae vel Clementis arbitrentur, et nihil 
 interesse, cujus sit, quum ecclesiastici viri sit et quotidie ecclesiarum 
 lectione celebretur. To supply a nostrorum to the plerique, with Tholuck 
 and Delitasch, out of the preceding nostris, is indeed impossible; plerique 
 can receive its more precise definition only either from the last member 
 of the sentence beginning with ab, or else from the two such members. 
 But it is in an equal degree unjustifiable, in connection with the latter 
 supposition, to assign vel Barnabae, in distinct separation, to the ecclesiae 
 orientis, and vel Clementis to the Graeci sermonis scriptores, and then to 
 help out the verdict thus gained—to wit, that the majority in the East 
 traced the epistle indeed to Paul, but derived its present Greek form from 
 Barnabas—with the conjecture “ that the original tradition of those Eastern 
 churches pointed to the sole authorship of Barnabas.” Rather is Jerome’s 
 manner of expressing himself in the fore-cited passage in more than one 
 respect inaccurate; inasmuch as he is, moreover, acquainted with Luke, 
 asa third person who might be mentioned in the same category with 
 Barnabas and Clement, and elsewhere is able to adduce only a single 
 early authority in favor of the opinion that Barnabas composed the epistle, 
 ‘and this authority belonging not to the Eastern church, but to that of the 
 West. The passage finds its corrective in the words of the Catalogus 
 Seriptorum, c. 5 (Opp. ed. Martianay, t. iv. p. 103 sq.): Epistola autem, 
 quae fertur ad Hebraeos, non ejus creditur propter stili sermonisque dis- 
 tantiam, sed vel Barnabae juxta Tertullianum, vel Lucae evangelistae, 
 juxta quosdam, vel Clementis Romanae ecclesiae episcopi, quem ajunt 
 ipsi adjunctum sententias Pauli proprio ordinasse et ornasse sermone,— 
 according to which Jerome was acquainted only with Tertullian as the 
 representative of the view that Barnabas wrote the epistle. If, further, 
 
 Myrothecium Evangelicum. But in the latter of the author as Apostolus, but certainly dis: 
 work, at any rate, there is found no statement tinguishes him from the Apostle Paul. Comp, 
 of this kind. Inthis Cameron usually speaks e.g. on Heb. vii. 18, ed. Salmur., 1677, 4, p. 270. 
 
 \ 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3593 
 
 Philastr'us, Haer. 89, observes: Sunt alii quoque, qui epistolam Pauli ad 
 Hebraeos non adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabae esse apostoli, 
 aut Clementis de urbe Roma episcopi, it is likewise entirely unprovable 
 that the aut Barnabae did not refer merely to Tertullian. In like manner 
 it does not, of course, at all follow, from the fact that the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews is placed after the Pastoral Epistles in the Peshito, that the early 
 Syrian Church regarded the epistle as the work of none other than Barna- 
 bas. It is, in the last place, a mere assertion when we are told that in the 
 Versus scribturarum sanctarum—an ancient stichometric catalogue of the 
 sacred writings of the O. and N. T., which is preserved to us, inserted in the 
 Codex Claromontanus between the Epistle to Philemon and that to the 
 Hebrews (comp. Cod. Claromontanus, ed. Tischendorf, Lips. 1852, 4, p. 468 
 sq.)—the Epistle to the Hebrews bears the name of an Epistola Barnabae. 
 (So first Credner in the Theol. Jahrbb. 1857, p. 307 ff.; Gesch. des Neutest. 
 Kanon., Berl. 1860, p. 175 ff.) That catalogue presents only the words: 
 Barnabae epist. ver. DCCCL; it simply mentions, therefore, the Epistle of 
 Barnabas, and adds how many verses or lines (stichot) it contains. The 
 supposition is thus only natural, that the same writing is meant which 
 elsewhere in the early church bears the name of the Epistle of Barnabas, 
 and in the Codex Sinaiticus is bound up with the canonical books of the 
 New Testament. Nay, this supposition is raised entirely beyond doubt 
 by the fact that, in addition to the “ Barnabae epist.,” and on the same 
 level therewith, the Pastor, the Actus Pauli, and the Revelatio Petri, thus 
 writings which in later time were just as little reckoned among the 
 canonical books (the “ sanctae scribturae ” of the catalogue) as the Epistle 
 of Barnabas, are likewise enumerated and stichometrically defined in this 
 catalogue. Moreover, the Epistle to the Hebrews, if this had been 
 thought of in connection with the “ Barnabae epist.,” must at least have 
 been denoted by the reading Barnabae ad Hebraeos epist.; as also Ter- 
 tullian (comp. p. 7) did not deem the addition ad Hebraeos, for the desig- 
 nation of our Epistle to the Hebrews, redundant. It is true the assertion 
 has been made, that the number of lines mentioned points to the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews. But we should be permitted to make a deduction from 
 this number of lines, only in case the number of lines for the several books 
 of the New Testament were a fixed one in the mss. It is, however, an 
 altogether wavering and changing one. Thus the accounts of the lines 
 for the Epistle to the Hebrews (comp. Tischendorf, N. T. ed. 7, P. ii. p. 
 596) vary between the numbers 703 and 830. Not one of these numbers 
 
 reaches the sum of 850 mentioned in the catalogue. If, therefore, we are 
 23 
 
304 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 to make any deduction at all from these data, we must rather suppose 
 that the number 850 is much more favorable to the epistle otherwise 
 known as the Epistle of Barnabas than to our Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 since the former exceeds the latter in extent by about a third. (In the 
 Codex Sinaiticus the Epistle of Barnabas occupies 533 columns, and the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews 403.) It is asserted, further, that the Barnabae 
 epist. of the catalogue must be regarded as the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 because it has obtained a place in the enumeration before the Revelation 
 of John and the Acts of the Apostles, and so by the intervention of the 
 two latter writings is separated from the Pastor, the Actus Pauli, and the 
 Revelatio Petri. But this order of enumeration does not warrant such con- 
 clusion, any more than a special mark of design is to be discovered in 
 the unusual order of mentioning the Epistles to the Colossians and Phile- 
 mon only after the Pastoral Epistles, which is observed in the same cata- 
 logue. The consideration that, if our view be correct, the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews has been entirely passed over without mention in the catalogue, 
 can present no difficulty. We need not even suppose that the mention 
 thereof has been overlooked in consequence of a mere blunder in copy- 
 ing. This is indeed possible, since the Epistles to the Thessalonians and 
 that to the Philippians have for a like reason been passed over unmen- 
 tioned, and otherwise the negligence of the copyist displays itself in the 
 catalogue, in the fact that the two Epistles of Peter, e. g., bear therein the 
 appellations ad Petrum I. and ad Petrum Il. The non-mention of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews is rather to be explained simply from the fact, 
 well known from other sources, that this epistle was not invested with any 
 canonical authority in the early church of the West, from which this cata- 
 logue comes down to us.—Favorable to the claim of Barnabas might 
 - appear the historic incident of his receiving this his name (vide rapa- 
 ' KAfoews), according to Acts iv. 86, on account of his gifts of prophetic or 
 spiritual utterance, with which the eloquent language of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews might be shown to accord. Nor would there be anything directly 
 opposed to such view in the circumstance that in Acts xiii. 9 ff., 16 ff, xiv. 
 9 ff., not Barnabas but Paul is described as the chief speaker, and that 
 consequently the former is in Acts xiv. 12 compared to Zeus ; the latter, on 
 the other hand, to Hermes. For although the Epistle to the Hebrews is 
 superior in point of diction to the Pauline Epistles, a greater facility of 
 graceful writing does not of necessity argue a greater facility of oral dis- 
 course. In favor of Barnabas, might, further, his birth in Cyprus be sup- 
 posed to plead, and consequently—since Cyprus was in various ways 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3099 
 
 connected with Alexandria—the Alexandrian type of thought which 
 appears in the epistle would not be inappropriate to him. But absolutely 
 decisive against Barnabas is the fact that, according to Acts iv. 86, 87, he 
 was a Levite, and must have long time dwelt in Jerusalem, since he even 
 possessed land there. He must therefore have been more accurately 
 informed with regard to the inner arrangements of the temple in Jerusa- 
 lem at that time than was the case with the author of our epistle.! For 
 the temple at Jerusalem is meant (see sec. 2), and not that at Leon- 
 topolis in Egypt, as Wieseler supposes. 
 
 Luke has been frequently regarded even in early times as at least the 
 translator or the penman of the epistle; and a share in the work of its 
 composition has been ascribed to him by Hug (in the later editions of his 
 Einleit. in’s N. T.), and more recently Delitzsch (in Rudelb. and Guericke’s 
 Zeitschr. fur. die Luth. Theol. 1849, H. 2, p. 272 ff, and in the Kommentar 
 zum Hebr -Br. p. 704) and Ebrard, as also J. v. Déllinger (Christenthum 
 u. Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung, Regensb. 1860, p. 86), inasmuch as 
 the first-named attributes to him the linguistic garb of the epistle, and the 
 others assign to him the elaboration of the thoughts furnished to him by 
 the Apostle Paul. As the independent composer, on the other hand, Luke 
 has been regarded by Grotius and 8. Crell (in the pseudonymous writing, 
 Artemonii initium ev. Joannis ex antiquitate ecclesiastica restitutum, P. 1, 1726, 
 8, p. 98); and Delitzsch also (comp. his commentary on the Ep. p. 707) 
 now holds this view to be at least possible. To the Pauline Christian 
 Luke, certainly the self-characterizing of Heb. ii. 3 is appropriate (comp. 
 Luke i. 2), as well as the purer Greek and the more skillful formation of 
 periods. There are also to be discovered certain peculiarities in the 
 phraseology—to which Grotius already calls attention—which are met 
 with only in the writings of Luke and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 Nevertheless, these points of contact are only of a subordinate nature, 
 whilst side by side with them a thorough diversity of style and presenta- 
 tion is to be observed. In Luke, where he writes independently, there is 
 displayed a mere smoothness in the flow of the language; in the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, on the other hand, a self-conscious majesty of rhetoric 
 reveals itself. Moreover, there is nothing in Luke to correspond to the 
 Alexandrian—Jewish spirit of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The proof 
 which Delitzsch has recently sought to establish in his commentary— 
 
 11f the so-called Epistle of Barnabas were against the claim of Barnabas. But the gen- 
 genuine, the diversity of character between uineness of that epistle is, to say the least, 
 that and the Epistle to the Hebrews would doubtful. 
 likewise form a decisive counter-argument 
 
356 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 namely, that the most decided similarity as regards the choice of words 
 and the construction of the sentences connects the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 with the writings of Luke, nay, that even in characteristic points of doc- 
 trine a striking coincidence is to be observed between the respective writ- 
 ings—was therefore predestined to failure. The evidence for his assertion 
 has been scattered by Delitzsch through his whole commentary; and it 
 almost seems as though this, for the reader and critic highly inconvenient 
 mode of proceeding, had been chosen under the unconscious feeling that 
 the evidence was not in a position to admit of synoptical classification, 
 without in such case at once being laid bare in all its weakness. For; so 
 soon as we critically sift that which has been uncritically piled together 
 by Delitzsch ; so soon as we separate therefrom that which is not exclu- 
 sively peculiar to Luke and the Epistle to the Hebrews; sosoon as we 
 also put out of the account that which Luke has only taken up out of the 
 sources employed by him, and cease to lay any weight upon isolated 
 expressions and turns of discourse which were the common property 
 either of the Greek language in general, or of the later Greek in particular, 
 and are only accidentally present in Luke and the Epistle to the He- 
 brews,—there is nothing whatever left of an actual affinity, such as must 
 of necessity admit of being traced out between works of the same author. 
 That, namely, on which Delitzsch founds his argument is the following :— 
 
 The particle re, i. 3, and fréquently, is but rarely found in the N. T. save 
 in the writings of Paul, and more especially of Luke.—The middle zr oveio- 
 Oat, i. 8, is a favorite one with Paul, and particularly so with Luke. It is 
 here similarly used, as e.g. in defoere roveiodar, Luke v. 33; Phil. i. 4; 1 
 Tim. ii. 1; xorerdv roveioSa, Acts viii. 2; avaBodjv pndepiav roeioda, Acts 
 xxv. 17.—rapa, after the comparative, i. 4, is also not foreign to Luke 
 - (Luke iii. 18).—0 é, i. 18, in the third place,.as Luke xv. 17; Acts xxvii. 14; 
 ’ Gal. iii. 23.—7 pooéyerv Trevi, i. 1, like mpooéyew roic Aahovuévorc, Acts Xvi. 
 14.—ra dxovodévra, ii. 1,is the word of salvation, which in the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews is nowhere called evayyéAvov, as also Luke in his writings (with 
 the exception of Acts xv. 7, xx. 24) loves to express the idea of evayyéAvov 
 by various forms of periphrasis.—ovve tewaprupe iy, il. 4, is formed after 
 the manner of ovveritideodar, Acts xxiv. 9.—rockiAae duvdpece, ii. 4, has 
 its analogon in Acts ii. 22 (comp. 2° Thess. ii. 9).—dcapuapripectas, 11. 6, 
 is specially frequent in Luke, e.g. Acts xx. 23, xxiii. 11—The construction 
 év yap T@ «.7.A,,i1. 8, corresponds entirely to that of Acts xi. 15.—apynyée, 
 ii. 10, xii. 2, is the name which Jesus bears also in Acts iii. 15, v. 831— 
 xatapyeiv, il. 14, a favorite word with Paul, is found besides in the N. T. 
 
INTRODUCTION. oor 
 
 only in Luke xiii. 7.—d47 ov, ii. 16, occurs, it is trve, only here in the N. 
 T.; but yet 67, which also is rare in the N. T., occurs with the greatest 
 comparative frequency in Luke ii. 7. The coloring of the expression is 
 thoroughly Lucan. The 6%ev, which is met with six times in the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, is foreign to the letters of Paul, but occurs Acts xxvi. 19. 
 ‘Ouorw3 Hvac is employed exactly as Acts xiv. 11 in the cry of the men of 
 Lystra. ‘IA doxeo¥ac has in Luke xviii. 13 its single parallel in the N. 
 T. Kara ravra is, Acts xvii. 22, certainly to no less extent Lucan than 
 Pauline. Ta rpd¢ ed occurs, indeed, elsewhere only v.1 and Rom. 
 xv. 17; but at Luke xiv. 32, xix. 42, Acts xxviii. 10 (comp. also Luke xiv. 
 28, Acts xxill. 30, according to the tertus receptus), ra mpéc is likewise 
 found as a current form of expression.—divacaz, ii. 18, here, as with 
 few exceptions throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews, construed with the 
 infinitive aorist, just as in Luke i. 20, 22, iii. 8, v. 12, and often.—zézov dev 
 metpaoveic, ii. 18, has again its parallels in Luke; inasmuch as, accord- 
 ing to Acts xx. 19, sufferings, as such, are recpaouoi; and according to 
 Luke xxii. 28, the sufferings of the Lord in particular were so.—yéro you, 
 iii. 1, vi. 4, is found elsewhere in the N. T. only Luke v. 7.—« aravoeiv, 
 ili. 1, x. 24, is a favorite word with Luke, e.g. xii. 24, 27, and often; comp. 
 especially Acts xi. 6.—The yép, ili. 16, accentuating the question, is equally 
 Lucan, Acts xix. 35, viii. 31, as Pauline, 1 Cor. xi. 22.—a22’ 02, iii. 16, is 
 placed as in Luke xvii. 7 f.; comp. aada ri, Matt. xi. 7-9.—émayyedia, in 
 the signification of assurance, promise, iv. 1, is of most frequent occurrence 
 with Luke and Paul; and the combination with the bare infinitive, instead 
 of rod ciceAdeiv, which recurs xi. 15, is like that of Acts xiv. 5.—eiayye- 
 Aifecdar, iv. 2, used passively of the persons to whom glad tidings are 
 proclaimed, is common to the Epistle to the Hebrews with Luke vii. 22, 
 xvi. 16.—xairoz, iv. 3, is a particle, attested also Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 27, as 
 well as xairovye and Kaiye aero KataBoAne Kéopmov, iv. 3, ix. 26, is not met 
 with in the LXX., but is found in Luke xi. 50, and often elsewhere in the 
 N. T.—With (4 6 Aédyo¢ rod Feod, iv. 12, we may compare, in addition 
 to 1 Pet. i. 23, also Acts vii. 88 (Aéya Gévra); and roudrepoc ixép, iv.12, 
 is construed as Luke xvi. 8.—évSupugoecc, iv. 12, occurs elsewhere only 
 Acts xvii. 29; Matt. ix. 4, xii. 25.—xpareiv, iv. 14, vi. 18, with the geni- 
 tive, as Luke viii. 54.—Of aodéveca, iv. 15, mention is made in Luke v. 15 
 and other places; comp. Matt. vill. 17.—repixeiodai ru, v. 2, is found 
 elsewhere in the N. T. only Acts xxviii. 20.—The construction édé6facev 
 yevn dqnvac, v. 5, issimilar to that of Luke ii.1; Acts xi. 25, xv. 10; Col. 
 
 e 
 
 iv. 6—Kadoag xai év érépw, V. 6, is similar to the reading of Acts xiii. 
 
358 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 30.—peTa Kpavyie tayupac kai dakpbor, vy. 7, reproduces the most 
 salient features with which precisely Luke (xxii. 839-46) describes the 
 agony of prayer in the garden, as these now force themselves upon the 
 mind.—In the use of evAdBeva, v. 7, and evaaBeiodai, the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews coincides in a characteristic way with the usage of Luke 
 (apart from Acts xxiii. 10).—a76, v. 7, is employed exactly asin Luke xix. 
 3, xxiv. 41; Acts xii. 14, xx. 9, xxii. 11—On aircoc, v.9, we have to com- 
 pare apyyyéc, il. 10; Acts ili. 15, v. 31—gépeodas, vi. 1, expresses the 
 idea of external impulse and forward pressing urgency, as Acts ii. 2—é 
 Aédyoc tov Xptoroi, iv. 1,as 6 Adyoc Tov Kupiov OY Tov Seot= Td evayyéuov, MOSt 
 frequently in the writings of Luke, who hardly ever uses evayyéAvov—The 
 construction wet dvova amd, vi. 1, 1s Lucan, Acts viii. 22; moreover, mo- 
 Teverv Ext Tov Vedv Or Tov Kipcov, Which is not entirely foreign to Paul’s 
 writings, Rom. iv. 5, 24, is found with Luke, as well as mioretew eic, at least 
 more ordinarily than with any other N. 'T. writer, Acts ix. 42, xi. 17, xvi. 
 31, xxii. 19; and as to the thing intended, Acts xx. 21 is similar to Heb. 
 vi. 1, inasmuch as in the former place 77 eic Sedv peravorav is employed 
 with as little apparent significance, and as really deep significance, as in 
 the latter place ricrewc éxi Yedv.—With reference to the delineation of the 
 sin against the Holy Ghost, chap. vi. and x., the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 has its immediate parallel in Luke xii, 8-10.—é7zi with a genitive, after a 
 verb of motion, vi. 7, as Acts_x. 11, and frequently —eideroc, vi. 7, is in 
 the N. T. a word of Luke’s, xiv. 35, ix. 62.—In vi. 9 also we hear the lan- 
 guage of Luke. For as 7 éyouévy, Luke xiii. 38, Acts xx. 15, xxi. 26, xiii. 
 44, denotes the day immediately following,so too éyéueva cwtnpiac, that 
 which stands in immediate connection with the salvation, which has refer- 
 — ence to the salvation.—The classic é eey with a following infinitive, vi. 13, 
 _is Lucan, Luke vii..42, xii. 4; Acts iv. 14, xxv. 26. Considering the Lucan 
 - form of the expression, it is doubly noteworthy that allusion is made pre- 
 
 cisely in Luke’s writings, as well Luke i. 73 as Acts vii.17, to the solemn 
 
 confirmation of the promise by an oath, Gen. xxii. 16 (comp. xxiv.7).—kai 
 
 obtoc, Vi. 15, is used as Acts vii. 8, xxvii. 44, xxviii. 14, and also frequently 
 
 with Paul.—The wév solitarium, vi. 16, belongs to the number of the not 
 
 rare anacoluths, as well of Luke, e.g. Acts i. 1,as of Paul, e.g. Rom. xi. 13 
 
 f—Bov2, vi. 17, of God’s gracious will, is an expression current with 
 .Luke, vii. 30, Acts ii. 23, and frequently. With Paul, only Eph. i.11.—On 
 
 tpdypara, vi. 18, we have to compare zpdyyzara, Luke i. 1.—xartragebyecr, 
 
 ‘i. 18, is found also Acts xiv. 6.—rarpiadpyye is a Hellenistic word, and 
 
 in the N. T. Lucan; it occurs elsewhere only Acts ii. 29, vii. 8, 9.—iepa- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 359 
 
 reia, vii. 5, the epistle hasin common with Lukei.9 (comp. i. 8: iepa- 
 Tevew).—To0vT é~oTcv, K.7.A, Vil. 5,18 a Hebraistic mode of expression, as 
 Acts li. 80.—aprupeio tar, vil. 8, xi. 2, is a favorite expression as well in 
 the Acts, vi. 3, x. 22, xvi. 2, xxil. 12, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It 
 is found, besides, only once with Paul and once with John.—éviora- 
 ofa, vil. 11, to be set up by God upon the theatre of history, as Acts iii. 22, 
 vii. 87; and according to the ordinary interpretation, also Acts xiii. 32.— 
 mpooéy ery revi, vil. 13, as 1 Tim. iv. 13, comp. Acts xx. 28.— cig, vii. 14, 
 as Actsii. 25; Eph. v. 82.—ei¢ 16 wavredéc, vil. 25, is found again in the 
 N. T. only Luke xiii. 11—The avayxyv éyew conjoined with the infinitive, 
 vil. 27,is Lucan, Luke xiv. 18, xxiii. 17; while Luke in the Gospel and 
 Acts employs, instead of avagépecy in the sense of offering, the expres- 
 sion zpoogépecv, likewise usual in our epistle—aiyd ivdc, viii. 2, the 
 epistle has in common with Luke xvi. 11 and the three Johannine writ- 
 ings, and besides these only 1 Thess. i. 9.—Aarpetecy, viii. 5, is specially 
 frequent in the writings of Luke.—The passive use of ypyuarilecbar, 
 viii. 5, is found also in Acts x. 22, Luke ii. 26, and twice in Matt.—To the 
 passage of Scripture cited, vill. 5, Stephen refers in Acts vii. 44. This is 
 again to be noted as a Lucan parallel.—ayeurros, viii. 7, passively, as 
 Luke i. 6, and everywhere in the N. T.—The mode of expression, { nreiv 
 térov, vill. 7 (comp. Térov eboickew, xii. 17), is similar to that of rérov 
 AauBavev, Acts xxv. 16; térov didéva, Rom. xii. 19.—ércxeio daz, ix. 10, 
 with the subsidiary idea of pressing and burdening, as Acts xv. 10, 28.— 
 With wéxpe katpov dcopAdceas, ix. 10, we have to compare Acts xxiv. 8, 
 where the text wavers between d.op§aydtov and kafopboydtwv.—r apayiyvec- 
 Gaz, ix. 11, is the usual word for historic self-presentation and presence, 
 Luke xii. 51; Matt. iii. 1; 1 Mace. iv. 46.—ob yerpororgrov, ix. 11, 24,isa 
 word of Luke’s in like connection, Acts vii. 48, xvii. 24.—To 10 idvov aia, 
 ix. 12, xiii. 12, a parallel is presented in Acts xx. 28.—A trpwoce, ix. 12, is, 
 along with aroAttpwore, a word of Luke’s, Luke i. 68, ii. 88; comp. aroaé- 
 tpworc, Luke xxi. 28 (in the usage of Paul the only word) ; Avrpote6a, Luke 
 xxiv. 21; Avrpwrjc, Acts vil. 85.—dv4, ix. 14, of the inner principle, just as 
 Acts 1.2, xi. 28, xxi. 4.—The mode of expression, 24a Beiv ty» éxayyediay, 
 ix. 15, xi. 13, in the sense of the taking to oneself the very blessing pro- 
 mised, the epistle has in common with Acts ii. 33.—As to ix. 15, the most 
 apt N. T. linguistic parallel is Acts xiii. 38 f.,so also in expression and 
 thought everything is Lucan. To be compared is Acts iii. 25; Luke xxii. 
 29 f.—On rovro 7rd ala, ix. 20, which, as seems probable, consciously or 
 involuntarily refers to the words of the Supper, we have to observe that 
 
360 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 in these the éoriv is wanting only with Luke, xxii. 20; although they read 
 similarly in Matt.and Mark.—o yedév, ix. 22, occurs only twice besides in 
 the N. T., and precisely with Luke, Acts xiii. 44, xix. 26. On each occa- 
 sion it stands in immediate connection with rac¢.—ageoce, sc. duaptiar, ix. 
 22, commonly met with in Luke’s writings—To aivarek y voia, ix. 22, 76 
 imép tuav éxxvvouevov, Luke xxii. 20 (comp. xi. 50), forms verbally and really 
 the most natural parallel.—éugaviferv, ix. 24, xi. 14, is a word common 
 to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and especially Luke, who employs it as 
 
 a“ 
 
 well in the signification “ make known,” Acts xxiii. 22, as “ present one- 
 self, appear,” Acts xxiv. 1 (= éudavifew ti éavtév= éudaivecbat).—a 7 0 Ke io- 
 Gaz, ix. 27,is in the N. T. common to Luke xix. 20; with Paul, Col. i. 5; 
 2 Tim. iv. 8.—éx devrépov, ix, 28, as Acts x. 15, xi. 9, and elsewhere.— 
 The construction of rateo#a: with the participle, x. 2, for the rest the usual 
 one, is the same as Acts v. 42, ov« éxatovto diddoKovtes.—avaipeiv, X.9, is a 
 favorite word with Luke.—repvedeiv, x. 11, as Acts xxvii. 20, repiypeiro 
 maoa éAric.—rapofvoudc, x. 24, is found elsewhere in the N. T. only Acts 
 xv. 39, there in a good sense, and here in a bad sense.—riw pia, x. 29, is 
 found only here in the N. T.; to be compared, however, is Acts xxii. 5, 
 xxvl. 1l— 7d trap yorra, x. 34, with the genitive, as e.g. Luke xi. 21 
 (with the dative, e.g. Luke viii. 3)—7 poodéyeoda, x. 34, of willing re- 
 ception, as e.g. Luke xv. 2.—irapécc, x. 34, is a word of Luke’s, Acts ii. 
 45.—el var tivdc, X. 89, with personal subject and genitive of the property, 
 as Luke ix. 55 (Rec.); Acts ix. 2—The infinitive with Tov, Xi. 5, a not un- 
 classic form of expression, is in the N. T. specially peculiar to Luke.— 
 éxCnrteiv, xi. 6, as Acts xv. 17; Rom. iii. 11—The construction of rod 
 with the indicative, xi. 8, is as Acts xx. 18, x. 18, xv. 36, and frequently 
 elsewhere.—r ap&kyjoev, xi. 9,18 equivalent to rapouxeivy 72Hev, of which 
 the style of Luke presents not a few examples. Apart from the most 
 ‘similar passage, Luke xxiv. 18, raporkeic el¢Iepovoadfu, where this reading 
 is too ill attested, we have to compare Acts vii. 4, ic fv dpeic viv KaTotKeire ; 
 Xl. 19, ete rHV Kavodpecav dvétpeBev; Luke xi. 7; Acts viii. 40, and xviii. 21,7 
 xix. 22, Ree —ric imayyehiac tHe airHe, Xi. 9, is written instead of cis 
 aiTa¢ éxayy., aS elsewhere only Luke ii. 8—Corresponding to the kai airy 
 Lappa, xi. 11, there is found also in Luke kai airée¢ in like position with 
 proper names, Luke xx. 42, xai abric Aavid; xxiv. 15, kat abrdc Ijoove ; comp. 
 Acts vill. 13, Ziuwv cai aitée— For the combination divayce eic, xi. 11, 
 only Luke v. 17, divayig kvpiov jv eic rd tacba aitovc.—The 616 cai, xi. 12, 
 Xili. 12, bringing cause and effect, means and end, reason and consequence 
 into very close reciprocal relation, is equally Lucan (Luke i. 35; Acts x. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 361 
 
 29, xiii. 85) as Pauline.—amofvjox evv, xi. 21, to lie a-dying, as Luke viii. 
 42.—aoreiov, xi. 28, comp. doreiov TO Ge@, Acts vii. 20.—é ri, xi. 30, of the 
 space of time, as Luke iv. 25; Acts xiii. 31, xix. 10.—The mode of expres- 
 sion épyadfec@ac dtkatocbyvyny, xi. 33, recurs also Acts x. 35 (comp. Jas. i. 
 20).—The phrase oréua payaipac, xi. 34, is Lucan, Luke xxi. 24—To 
 the iva kpeitrovog avactacewc Thyworr, Xi, 35, a parallel is presented 
 by rvyxavew avactdcewc, Luke xx. 39.—The heightening érz dé, xi. 36, is 
 met with also Luke xiv. 26; Acts il. 26—téo7repotpmevor, xi. 87, is used 
 absolutely, as in Luke xv. 14; Phil. iv. 12, al—We are reminded as well 
 by mapakanoce as by dbcadéyerar, xii. 5, of Luke in the Acts. There 
 we meet with tapaxAnore of apostolic address, going to the heart, Acts 
 xiii. 15, xv. 31 (comp. also 1 Tim. iv. 18); there also d:aAéyeo6a, in the 
 inchoative sense: “to open a conversation, to enter upon it,” is the con- 
 stant word for the standing up of Paul among the Jews, Acts xvii. 2, 17, 
 xviii. 4, and often besides—On greg dcadéyetas, xii. 5, we have to com- 
 pare Luke xi. 49: 7 cogia tov Geov eimev.petarauBdaverv, xii. 10, is (be- 
 sides 2 Tim. ii. 6) the word common to the Epistle to the Hebrews and the 
 Acts for “to become possessed of,’ i. e. to come into the enjoyment or pos- 
 session of a thing.—dé waAdov, xii. 13, as Luke x. 20 (Rec.).—The combi- 
 nation pila rixpiac, xii. 15, comp. vod? mixpiac, Acts vill. 23; and the 
 verb évoydAciv, Luke vi. 18 (according to A B L, al.), comp. oyAciv, Acts 
 v.16; and rapevoyiseiv, Acts xv. 19, is Lucan—The accus. cum infin. up 
 mpootedqvar avtoicg Adyor, xii. 19, governed by the tapytHoavrTo, em- 
 ployed, as ver. 25, Acts xxv. 11, in the sense of “ begging off from, declin- 
 ing with entreaty ” (pure Greek, with 7 in the infinitive clause), resembles 
 Luke xx. 27.—évrpoyoe, xit. 21, is found elsewhere in the N. T. only Acts 
 Vil. 32, xvi. 29—Iepovoadagy, xii. 22, is the form of the name with Luke, 
 Paul, and in the Apocalypse.—a7oyeypappévov év ovpavoig, xii. 23, has 
 its parallel in Luke x. 20: ra dvéuara ipav éypadyn év Toic¢ obpavoic; and the 
 verb aroypdadecba:, in Lukeii. 1, 3,5.—Aéyov, xii. 26, the Hebrew TON), 
 is employed as in Luke i. 63, and frequently in the N. T., specially with 
 Luke.—The neuter plural of the subject, 7a «7 cadevémeva, xii. 27, is 
 combined with the singular of the predicate yeivy, as Acts i. 18, xxvi. 24; 
 and the perfect is followed by the subjunctive (conjunctive) aorist, as e.g. 
 Acts ix. 17.—étyerv yapcyr, xii. 28, to cherish and manifest gratitude, as 
 Luke xvii. 9; 1 Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. i. 3—The conception in the exhorta- 
 tion, xiii. 7, is out and out Lucan. For jyotmevor is the Lucan apellative 
 of the leaders of the congregation, Acts xv. 22, comp. Luke xxii. 26, else- 
 where only Heb. xiii. 17, 24. Paul says similarly, zpoictdyevor, 1 Thess. 
 
362 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 v.12. Then Aadeiv rdv Adyov rod Geowv isthe ordinary Lucanic expres- 
 sion for the preaching of the gospel, Acts iv. 31, viii. 25, xiii. 46, and often. 
 The verb avafewpeiv, of continued penetrating contemplation, occurs 
 again, outside of the Epistle to the Hebrews, only Acts xvii. 28. And for 
 éxBacce (1 Cor. x. 18), of the end of life, or as it is here designedly termed, 
 of the walk, Luke has at least the synonymous expressions é£odoc, Luke 
 ix. 31, and ag@Evc, Acts xx. 29.—aAvoiteréc, xiii. 17, does not occur else- 
 where in the N. T., but AvorreAet is found Luke xvii. 2.—revAéue0a, xiii. 
 18, is Lucan, according to Acts xxvi. 26.—éivdziov tov Oeod, xiii. 21, is 
 with Luke, much more than with Paul, a favorite expression, and to the 
 preface to the wish (ver. 20) there is no more fitting parallel than Acts xx. 
 28, where the church of the Lord is, as here, designated as a flock which 
 He has purchased by His own blood.—xiii. 22 is altogether Lucan: avé- 
 xveo8as, to give a patient, willing hearing, Acts xviii. 14, comp. 1 Cor. xi. 
 4; Adyoc rapakdagoewc, Acts xill. 15; éxcoréArecy (like mittere), to write 
 a letter, elsewhere only Acts xv. 20, xxi. 25.—The azoAtecy, not occurring 
 with Paul, is employed in the style of Luke, as well of release from custody 
 or prison (apart from Luke xxii. 68, xxiii. 16 ff, e.g. Acts iii. 18, iv. 21), as 
 of official delegation, Acts xiii. 3, xv. 30 (for which Paul has réurew; e. g. 
 2 Thess. iii. 2); solemn dismission, Acts xv. 33; and in general, dismissal, 
 Acts xix. 41, xxiii. 22.—oi aré tic ’Iradiac, xiii. 24, denotes the Italiotes, 
 according to the usage of Luke, Acts x. 28, 38, xii. 1, xvii. 13, xxi. 27. 
 That which Delitzsch adduces besides (in the commentary, p. 705 f.) in 
 favor of Luke as the penman of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in favor 
 of a joint-participation of the Apostle Paul in the composition thereof, 
 namely—(1) that the worldly calling of Luke as a physician (Col. iv. 14) 
 _ isin striking keeping with the conformation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 -Inasmuch as this, so to speak, contains an anatomic (iv. 12 f.), a dietetic 
 ~(v. 12-14), and a therapeutic passage (xii. 12 f.), and much besides which 
 would seem appropriate to the pen of a physician; as, e.g., the use of 
 vuipoc, V. 11, vi. 12; Bpdyata kai réuata (as with Hippocrates, ed. Littré, i. 
 622, iv. 380), in connection with which it might perhaps be observed that 
 ércyesperv, aS employed Luke i. 1, is a favorite word of Hippocrates; (2) 
 that it is hardly accidental that the Epistle to the Hebrews, according to 
 its earliest location, followed immediately upon the Epistle to Philemon, 
 among the last words of which occurs the name of Luke; (8) that it is 
 hardly accidental, that just where the author of the Acts begins to relate 
 with “we” (xvi. 10), the account of the association of Timothy with Paul 
 has preceded; and, finally, (4) that it is hardly accidental that the Epistle 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 363 
 
 to the Hebrews begins in a manner so strongly alliterating on the name 
 
 IAYAOS,—all these are arguments which ought not to have been found 
 
 at all, in a work which lays claim to a scientific character. 
 
 Fully decisive against Luke is the consideration that he, according to 
 
 Col. iv. 14 as compared with Col. iv. 11, was a Gentile-Christian,’ whereas, 
 
 as is universally admitted, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews can 
 
 only have been a born Jew. 
 
 That this counter-moment is not to be set 
 
 aside by the shift of Delitzsch (in the dissertation, p. 274), to the effect that 
 Luke, as is made manifest in his other writings, had “enough lived him- 
 
 self into that which was Jewish and Christian ” to be able to compose the 
 
 epistle “in accordance with the hints 
 
 ” of Paul, is self-evident. 
 
 The claim of Clemens Romanus to the authorship has been favored by 
 
 some among the moderns. 
 
 Erasmus was inclined to regard him as such; 
 
 and, finally, Bisping, following the example of Reithmayr (Einleit. in die 
 kanon. BB. des N. T., Regensb. 1852, p. 681 ff.), has decided in favor of 
 
 Clement. In order, however, not t 
 
 o approach the declaration of the 
 
 Council of Trent too nearly, Bisping assumes that Clement prepared the 
 
 epistle independently as a sort of homily, only as far as xiii. 17, to which 
 
 xiii. 18 ff. was then added as a brief supplement by the Apostle Paul, in 
 
 order thereby to adopt the whole letter as his own. 
 
 But—apart from the 
 
 fact that xiii. 18 ff. can proceed from no other author than that of the 
 
 whole preceding letter, inasmuch as a change of the speaking subject is 
 
 11f J. N. Tiele (in the Theol. Studien und 
 Kritiken, 1858, H. 4, p. 753 ff.) has sought to 
 prove from the many Hebraisms in the 
 writings of Luke that he must have been a 
 Jew by birth, that is altogether wide of the 
 truth, since those Hebraisms in Luke are to 
 be set down only to the account of the sources 
 from which he draws.—Delitzsch also (in the 
 commentary, p. 705) now holds that the deduc- 
 tion of Luke’s Gentile origin, made from Col. 
 iv. 11, 14, is by no means certain (yet without 
 advancing his reasons for this judgment); 
 and Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. 2, 2 Autfi., 
 Nérdl. 1860, p. 99 f., directly disputes the 
 soundness thereof. . But neither do passages 
 like Acts xx. 6, xxvii. 9, point to a born Jew 
 as the author of this work, as is supposed by 
 Hofmann; nor ean, in Col. iv. 10, 11, the sense 
 be found, with Hofmann, that while, on the 
 one hand, Aristarchus had come to Rome 
 with Paul and belonged to his well-known 
 
 surroundings; of the number of Jewish- 
 Christians, on the other hand, beyond those 
 of his own company, who were teaching the 
 word of the gospel in Rome, only Mareus and 
 Jesus united with him in harmonious work- 
 ing. For of such diversity of character in 
 the relations of the three persons mentioned, 
 towards each other and towards Paul, neither 
 6 guvatxuadwtos pov, Ver. 10,—which, as is 
 evident from yer. 23 of the contemporaneous 
 Epistle to Philemon, can only be understood 
 figuratively,—nor any other expression 
 affords a hint; ot évtes éx mepiTomis’ obTor 
 povoe k.7.A. (ver. 11) cannot therefore be re- 
 ferred back simply to Mdpxos and “Iygovs, 
 but must at the same time be referred to 
 *Apiotapxos, unless that which naturally be- 
 longs to one whole is to be unnaturally dislo- 
 cated and rent asunder. The demonstrative 
 force of Col. iv. 11, 14 continues accordingly 
 
 to assert itself in undiminished vigor. 
 
364 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 nowhere indicated, but, on the contrary, the opposite clearly presupposed 
 in ver. 22—the sentences in the first, indisputably genuine, Epistle of 
 Clement to the Corinthians, which in point of contents and composition 
 remind of the Epistle to the Hebrews (vid. supra, p. 7 t.), have evidently 
 only been taken over by him from this epistle, in consequence of a use 
 and imitation thereof. For, as regards originality and grasp of mind, the 
 Epistle of Clement is far inferior to the Epistle to the Hebrews. In other 
 respects, the character of the respective writings is too greatly diverse for 
 them to be able to proceed from one and the same author. Of the Alex- 
 andrian speculative mind, and the oratorical flight of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, not a trace is found in the Epistle of Clement. 
 
 Of Silvanus have Bohme and Mynster (Kleine theol. Schriften, Copenha- 
 gen 1825, p. 91 ff., and Studien wu. Kritiken, 1829, H. 2) thought ; and Riehm 
 also (Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. II. p. 893) regards this supposition as possi- 
 ble. But Silvanus was, according to Acts xv. 22, originally a member of 
 the Christian congregation at Jerusalem. He, too, must thus have had a 
 more exact acquaintance with the temple of that day, than is displayed 
 by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 The opinion that Apollos was the author of this epistle was first 
 broached by Luther. Comp. on Gen. xlviii. 20 (ed. Witeberg. 1561, t. vi. 
 p. 710): autor epistolae ad Hebraeos, quisquis est, sive Paulus, sive, ut 
 ego arbitror, Apollo.—Sermon von den Sekten, 1 Cor. iii. 4 ff. (with Walch, 
 Th. xii. p. 1996): “This Apollo was a highly intelligent man ; the Epistle 
 Hebraeorum is of a truth his.”—Epist. am Christtag., Heb, i. 1 ff. (with 
 Walch, Th. xii. p. 204): “That is a stout, powerful, and lofty epistle, 
 which soars high, and treats of the sublime article of faith in the Godhead 
 of Christ; and it is a credible opinion that it is not St. Paul’s, for the rea- 
 ‘son that it maintains a more ornate discourse than is the wont of St. Paul 
 in other places. Some think it is St.“Luke’s, some St. Apollo’s, whom St. 
 Luke extols as having been mighty in the Scriptures against the Jews, 
 Acts xviii. 24. It is indeed true that no epistle wields the Scripture with ~ 
 such force as this; that it was an excellent apostolic man, be he whoso- 
 ever he may.” Luther’s conjecture has been accepted by Lucas Osiander, 
 Clericus, Heumann (Schediasma de libris anonymis ac pseudonymis, Jenae 
 1711, 8, p. 38 sqq.), Lorenz Miiller (Dissertatt. de eloquentia Apollinis, viri 
 apostolici, Schleus. 1717), Semler (in his “Contributions to a more accu- 
 rate understanding of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” prefixed to Baumgar- 
 ten’s commentary, p. 15 f.; yet he expresses himself with hesitation), 
 Ziegler (Vollstand. Hinleit. in den Br. an die Hebr., G6tting. 1791, 8, p. 255 
 
INTRODUCTION. 365 
 
 ff.), Dindorf (on EHrnesti lectt. p. 1180); and recently by Bleek, Tholuck, 
 Credner, Reuss, Bunsen (Hippolytus und seine Zeit, Bd. I., Leipz. 1852, p. 
 365), Henry Alford (Greek Testament, vol. iv. P. 1, Lond. 1859, Prolegg. p. 
 58 ff.), Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. I. p. 894), which last, however, 
 only claims the same degree of probability in favor of Apollos as of Silva- 
 nus; Biumlein (Commentar iib..d. Ev. des Joh., Stuttg. 1863, p. 26), Samuel 
 Davidson (Introduction, p. 255 ff.), J. H. Kurtz (der Br. an die Hebr. erkl., 
 Mitau 1869, p. 55 f.), Hilgenfeld (Hist.-krit. Hinl. in das N. T., Leipz. 1875, 
 p. 3896, 386 ff.), and others, even by the Catholics Feilmoser (Hinl. in’s N. 
 T. p. 859 ff.) and Lutterbeck (Die neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe, Bd. IL., 
 Mainz 1852, p. 101 ff.).1_ It is, moreover, the only correct one. The men- 
 tal portrait which we are compelled to form to ourselves of Apollos, in 
 harmony with the notices of the Acts (xviii. 24 ff.) and the First Epistle 
 to the Corinthians (chap. i-iv., xvi. 12), harmonizes exactly with the 
 traits in which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has unconsciously 
 depicted himself. This agreement is so striking and reaches so deeply, 
 that as against it, seeing the lack of a definite tradition coming down from 
 the apostolic age, the circumstance becomes of no moment, that among 
 the conjectures of the ancients not one has lighted upon Apollos as the 
 author of the epistle. Apollos was no immediate disciple of the Lord, 
 but belonged to a second generation of Christians. By friends of Paul he 
 was more deeply instructed in Christianity, and lived on terms of inti- 
 macy with Paul himself. He was, however, as a Christian teacher, too 
 original and prominent for standing merely in the relation of an apostolic 
 helper. He was a Jew by birth, and his labors as a Christian teacher 
 were directed by preference to the conversion of his Jewish kinsmen ; on 
 which account the personal acquaintance of the author of the epistle with 
 the Palestinian Jewish-Christians, presupposed Heb. xi. 19, can least of 
 all surprise us in the case of Apollos. He was a native of Alexandria, 
 versed in the Scriptures, and qualified for expounding and applying the 
 same, and for deducing therefrom the proof that Jesus is the Messiah. 
 Appropriate to him as an Alexandrian is the preponderantly typico-sym- 
 bolic mode of teaching in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the endeavor to 
 point out under the veil of the letter a deeper spiritual meaning. He 
 was above all distinguished by the gift of brilliant eloquence. In him, 
 finally, as an Alexandrian Jew, the exclusive use of the LXX., as well as 
 
 1According to Lutterbeck, however, the Luke, Clement, and others of the Pauline 
 Apostle Paul must have added the last nine school, have issued the epistle. 
 
 terses, and Apollos, in communion with 
 
366 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 the want of acquaintance with the internal arrangement of the temple in 
 Jerusalem at that time, need cause no surprise. 
 
 That, if we are to fix upon a particular person as the author of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, this can be no other than Apollos, because con- 
 tents and form of the epistle are so admirably fitting to no other Christian 
 teacher of the apostolic age as to this, is admitted also by W. Grimm 
 (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 74 ff.). He finds, however, an instance of 
 decisive counter-evidence against Apollos in the passage Heb. ii. 3 as 
 compared with Acts xviii. 24-28. For, according to Heb. ii. 3, the mes- 
 sage of salvation had come to the author of the epistle, equally with his 
 readers, by the instrumentality of those who had heard the Lord Him- 
 self; whereas, according to the Acts, Apollos, as a disciple of John, had 
 been only in the vestibule of Christianity, and had been first introduced 
 into the sanctuary thereof by means of the Christians Aquila and Pris- 
 cilla, who were converts of Paul’s, But apart from the fact that—as 
 Grimm himself acknowledges—the narrative of Acts xviii. 24 ff. is so far 
 obscure and not free from self-contradiction, as it represents Apollos, 
 although he knew only the baptism of John, nevertheless as xatyyypévog 
 tiv ddov Tov Kupiov, and an akpLBd¢ diddoKew Ta wept Tov ’"Inood is attri- 
 buted to him (ver. 25)—we must remember that at Heb. ii. 3 recipients 
 and author of the epistle are characterized only as belonging to a second 
 generation of Christendom. Not that every single one of the persons 
 mentioned ver. 3 had received the word of salvation at the mouth of im- 
 mediate ear-witnesses, or were by these specially received into instruction, 
 is expressed ; but only that the message of salvation was handed down in a 
 certain and trustworthy way from the original ear-witnesses to the totality 
 of the Christian circle which is formed by the jueic, and thus came to the 
 knowledge of each single one of this totality. Even, therefore, if Apollos 
 had not been directly brought into any intercourse with the axotcavrec, 
 yet the passages Acts xviii. 24 ff. and Heb. ii. 3 would not be irreconcil- 
 able the one with the other. But is it at all conceivable that such a 
 leading Christian teacher as Apollos, who continued in such intimate 
 association with the Apostle Paul, should come into no personal contact 
 whatever with the original apostles ?—To the further objections brought 
 by Grimm against the Apollos-theory, he himself attaches no decisive 
 weight. They are the following :—(1) In connection with a former disci- 
 ple of John, it must appear exceedingly strange that he makes no men- 
 tion, i. 1, of the distinguished position occupied by John the Baptist, as 
 the greatest prophet (Luke vii. 28, Matt. xi. 11) and forerunner of the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 367 
 
 Lord, towards the kingdom of God; (2) Clemens Romanus, although 
 making frequent use of the epistle, could hardly have known it as a work 
 of Apollos, since it would otherwise have only been natural that he 
 should, in the 47th chapter of his Epistle to the Corinthians, have re- 
 minded the Corinthian Christians of our epistle as a work of Apollos. 
 
 ” But that Clement must necessarily have so acted cannot be maintained. 
 For a reference to John the Baptist, however, Heb. i. 1 offered no occasion 
 whatever; because it was with the author only a question of contrasting 
 with each other the revelations of the Old Testament and that of the New 
 Testament as such. 
 
 SEC. 2.—THE PERSONS ADDRESSED." 
 
 That the epistle was designed for a Jewish-Christian circle of readers is 
 not only universally acknowledged, but also becomes so palpably certain 
 from contents and aim (comp. sec. 3), that Roeth’s supposition of the 
 opposite (Hpistolam vulgo “ad Hebr.” inscriptam non ad Hebr., i.e. Chris- 
 tianos genere Judaeos, sed ad Christianos genere gentiles et quidem ad Ephesios, da- 
 tam esse, Francof. ad Moen. 1836, 8) can only be regarded as a manifest error. 
 But likewise the view represented by Braun, Lightfoot (Harmony of the 
 New Testament, I. p. 840), Baumgarten, Heinrichs, Stenglein (/.c. p. 61, note, 
 p- 90), and Schwegler (Nachapostolisches Zeitalter, Bd. I. p. 304), that the 
 epistle was addressed, without respect to any particular locality, to all 
 Jewish-Christians in general, is one which is characterized a priori as abso- 
 lutely untenable. For everywhere throughout the epistle are individual 
 wants of the readers presupposed, such as were by no means common to 
 all Jewish-Christians ; and even the personal references, V. 2, vi. 10-12, 
 x. 32 ff, xii. 4, xiii. 7, 19, 28, 24, suffice to show that the author had before 
 him a definite, locally-bounded circle of readers. How could the author, 
 among other things, promise his readers a speedy visit (xiii. 23), if he had 
 thought of them as the J ewish-Christians scattered in all lands? 
 
 The Jewish-Christians in all Asia Minor, or at least in Pontus, Galatia, 
 Cappadocia, Bithynia, and Asia proconsularis, have been regarded as the 
 original recipients of the epistle by Bengel, Ch. F. Schmid (Observatt. super 
 ep. ad Hebr. p. 16 sq.), and Cramer; those in Asia Minor, Macedonia, and 
 Greece, by W. Wall (Brief Critical ‘Notes, etc., Lond. 1780, p. 318) and 
 Wolf; the Laodiceans, by Stein (Komment. zu dem Ev. des Lucas, Halle 
 1830, p. 289 ff.); the Galatians, by Storr and Mynster (Kleine theol. Sch rif- 
 
 1Comp. my Whitsuntide Programm: De literarum, quae ad Hebraeos inseribuntur, primis 
 lectoribus, Gott. 1853. 
 
368 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 ten, Copenhag. 1825, p. 91 ff.); the Lycaonians, by Credner (inl. in d. N: 
 T., Th. 1, Abth. 2, Halle 1836, p. 564); the Antiochians, by Béhme and 
 Hofmann (Die h. Schr. N. T., Th. 5, p. 531); the Cyprians, by Ullmann 
 (Studien u. Kritiken, 1828, p. 397); those in one of the numerous Greek 
 cities on the coast of Asia Minor, or of Syria and Palestine, by Grimm 
 (Theolog. Literat.-Bl. to the Darmstadt Allg. Kirch.-Zeit. 1857, No. 29, p. 
 660; but not decidedly); the Macedonians, specially those of Thessa- 
 lonica, by Semler (in Baumgarten, p. 37 ff.) and Nésselt (Opuscc. ad inter- 
 pretationem sacrarum scripturarum, Fasc. I., Halae 1785, p. 269 sqq.); those 
 of Corinth, by Mich. Weber (De numero epistolarwm ad Corinthios rectius 
 constituendo, Wittenb. 1798-1806) and Mack (Theolog. Quartalschr. 1838, H. 
 3); those of an Italian congregation, perhaps of the great city Ravenna, 
 by Ewald (Gott. gel. Anzz. 1863, p. 286; cf. Gesch. Isr., Bd. VI. p. 638, Das 
 Sendschreiben an die Hebr., G6tt. 1870, p. 6); those of Rome, by Wetstein 
 (Nov. Test. I. p. 386 sq.), and recently by R. Késtlin (Theol. Jahrbb. of 
 Baur and Zeller, 1850, H. 2, p. 242), who, however, afterwards withdrew 
 this opinion (vid. infra); by Holtzmann (Theol. Stud. und Krit., 1859, H. 2, 
 p. 297 ff., in Bunsen’s Bibelwerk, VIII., and in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. f. wiss. 
 Theol., 1867, H. 1, p.1ff.), by Alford (Greek Test., vol. IV. part 1, Lond. 
 1859, Prolegg. p. 62 ff.), by Kurtz, p. 42 ff, by Renan (L’ Antechrist, Paris, 
 1873, p. xviii. ff., 211), by Mangold (in Bleek’s Hinleitl. in das N. T., 3 Aufl., 
 Berl. 1875, p. 612 f.), and by Harnack (Patr. Apostt. Opp. I. p. 1xxxii.); 
 those of Spain, finally, by Nicolaus de Lyra (in the Prooemium to the 
 epistle) and by Ludwig (in Carpzov’s Sacr. Evercitt. in St. P. ep. ad Hebr., 
 Helmst. 1750, p. lix. sq.). 
 
 _ All these opinions, however, which in part rest upon the erroneous sup- 
 position that the epistle is the work of the Apostle Paul, find their refuta- 
 tion at once in the fact that it cannot have been addressed to so-called 
 mixed assemblies, Gonsisting of Jewish- and Gentile-Christians, but only 
 to an exclusively Jewish-Christian circle of readers. Not even the slightest 
 reference is made to conditions such as must of necessity arise from the 
 living together of converted Jews with converted Gentiles, and which, by 
 reason of the manifold conflicts to which they would give occasion, were 
 of too great importance to be passed over unnoticed.!. Nowhere is the rela- 
 
 1 For this reason it cannot be asserted, with 
 Holtzmann (Stud. u. Krit. 1859, H. 2, p. 298), 
 that there is nothing at all centradictory in 
 the supposition of the epistle being addressed 
 to a large congregation, still outwardly com- 
 
 posed of Gentile- and Jewish-Christians; 
 
 that there the epistle had naturally sought 
 out its Jewish readers; and on that account 
 it leads us, without any address properly 
 speaking, in mediam rem. That the epistle 
 
 presupposes exclusively Jewish-Christian 
 
 readers has been ar°” disputed by Wieseler 
 
INTRODUCTION. 369 
 
 tion of the Gentiles to the Jews, and of both to the kingdom of God, spoken 
 of; rather is everything specially referred to the Jewish people of God, 
 already sanctified in their fathers. Unmixed Jewish-Christian congrega- 
 tions, however, cannot be historically proved, in the late time at which 
 the date of the epistle falls (see sec. 4), in any of the fore-mentioned 
 places. The fact, likewise, is opposed to those suppositions, that the 
 readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews regarded the continued participation 
 in the institutions of the Jewish temple-service and sacrifices as so necessary, 
 that without this they thought they could obtain no complete expiation 
 of their sins. Such a form of Judaism, still continuing to operate in the 
 Christian state, does not apply to the Jewish-Christians of the diaspora, 
 but only to those who had their dwelling-place in the immediate vicinity 
 of the Jewish temple. For in the case of Jews who lived at a greater dis- 
 tance from the temple, the zeal for the Mosaic law manifested itself 
 naturally most of all in a tenacious clinging to the rite of circumcision, 
 to the injunctions regarding food and purification, to the observance of 
 the Sabbath, and the like. 
 
 A Jewish temple, however, besides that at Jerusalem, existed at the 
 time of our epistle only in Egypt. The epistle can therefore only have 
 been addressed either to the Christian congregation in Palestine, mainly 
 in Jerusalem, or to Egyptian, specially Alexandrian, Jewish-Christians. 
 The latter supposition has found defenders in J. E. Chr. Schmidt (Hist.- 
 krit. Einl. in’s N. T., Giessen 1804, p. 284, 293), Bunsen (Hippolytus und 
 seine Zeit, Bd. I., Leipz. 1852, p. 365), Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. 
 Theol. 1858, H.1, p. 103; Hist.-krit. Hinl. in das N. T., Leipz. 1875, p. 885 
 f.), Volkmar (Gesch. des Neutest. Kanon, von C. A. Credner, Herausgg. v. 
 G. V., Berl. 1860, p. 182), Ritschl (Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1866, H.1, p. 
 90), and in particular Wieseler (Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters, Gott. 
 1848, p. 481 ff.; Untersuchung uber den Hebraerbrief, namentlich seinen Ver- 
 Jasser u. 8. Leser. Second half. [Schriften der Universitat zu Kiel aus d. J. 
 1861, 4, B. VIII.; also separately printed, Kiel 1861, 8.] Comp. also 
 Studien u. Kritiken, 1847, H. 4, p. 840 ff.; 1867, H. 4, p. 665 ff), and R. 
 Kostlin (Theol. Jahrbb. of Baur and Zeller, 1854, H. 3, p. 388 ff.) ; Davidson, 
 too (Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, vol. I., Lond. 1868, p 
 265 ff., 270), although he does not decide, gives it the preference. The 
 
 (Schriften der Univers. zu Kiel aus d. J. 1861, p. NV. T. p. 380, 386), but in a by no means con- 
 21 ff., Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 695 ff.), by Holtz- vincing manner. See the detailed and 
 mann (in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. effective refutation of this supposition in 
 1867, p. 26 f.), by Mangold (in Bleek’s Hinl. in Grimm (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p 
 d. NV. T. p. 612), and by Hilgenfeld (Hindi. in d. 34 ff). 
 
 24 
 
370 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS: 
 
 prevailing opinion, on the other hand, is the first one. Within recent times 
 it has been maintained by Bleek, Schott, de Wette, Thiersch, Stengel, 
 Delitzsch, Tholuck, Ebrard,! Bisping, Bloomfield, Ritschl (Hntstehung der 
 altkathol. Kirche, 2 Aufi., Bonn 1857, p. 159), Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebr.- 
 Br. I. p. 81), Maier, Langen (Tiibing. theol. Quartalschr. 1863, H. 3, p. 3879 
 ff.), Moll, and others? And rightly so. 
 
 In favor of Alexandria as the place of destination for the epistle, the 
 following arguments have been advanced :— 
 
 (1) Even in ancient times the Epistle to the Hebrews bore likewise the 
 title of a letter to the Alexandrians, and in general there is seen to be 
 a wavering within the early church itself in the indication of the original 
 circle of readers. Whether, indeed, the superscription Ilpé¢ 'EBpaioug pro- 
 ceeds from the author himself, a view to which Bleek and Credner are 
 inclined, is doubtful. But not only is this superscription very ancient, 
 since it is found in the Peshito, and with Tertullian, Origen, and many 
 others; but the fact, moreover, is universally presupposed in Christian 
 antiquity as beyond doubt that the ‘ESpaio., whose name the epistle bears 
 The evidence for this state- 
 ment is afforded by Pantaenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Chrys- 
 
 at its head, were the Palestinian Christians. 
 ostom, Theodoret, and many others. It is now indeed supposed that we 
 possess a testimony in favor of the Alexandrians as the original recipients 
 of the epistle, namely, in the so-called Canon of Muratori, in which we 
 read: Fertur etiam ad Laudecenses (Laodicenses), alia ad Alexandrinos, 
 Pauli nomine finctae (fictae) ad haeresem Marcionis, et alia plura, quae 
 Fel enim 
 For that by the words alia ad Aleran- 
 drinos the Epistle to the Hebrews is meant must be assumed, as is sup- 
 
 in catholicam ecclesiam recepi (recipi) non potest (possunt). 
 cum melle misceri non congruit. 
 
 posed, since otherwise the Epistle to the Hebrews would, remarkably 
 enough, not be even mentioned in the fragment, which, forsooth, is a list 
 both of the genuine and spurious epistles ascribed to the Apostle Paul. 
 Now this epistle, it is argued, not being in the early Roman Church, either 
 
 }Very arbitrarily, nevertheless, Ebrard in a community;” nor, finally, from xpeiav 
 
 represents the epistle as not being written to 
 the whore congregation at Jerusalem, but 
 only to “a private circle of neophytes” there. 
 For it neither follows from y. 12 “ that all the 
 readers had embraced Christianity at one 
 and the same time, the one with the other;” 
 nor from vi. 10 that we can think “only of a 
 very narrow and limited circle of individuals 
 
 éxeTe Tod SidaoKer Vuas, V. 12, “that the readers 
 were really again placed under instruction.” 
 
 2W. Grimm also supposes now that the 
 epistle was addressed to a town of Palestine; 
 only not Jerusalem, but Jamnia. Comp, 
 Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 71 f. Never. 
 theless we know nothing of the existence of 
 
 a Christian congregation in Jamnia. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 371 
 
 regarded as a work of Paul, or indeed as canonical, must have been men- 
 tioned by name precisely in this passage, in which the writer is speaking 
 of epistles of which the authorship is falsely imputed to the Apostle Paul. 
 But against this it must be said that the characteristics of the epistle ad 
 Alexandrinos, of which the fragment makes mention, are not suitable to 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews. For the former was a forgery, composed 
 “ Pauli nomine,” the meaning of which is too distinct for us to be able, 
 with Wieseler, to subtilize it into the statement that the epistle had only 
 indirectly, from its contents and general bearing, left the impression of its 
 proceeding from Paul; which rather can only indicate that this epistle, in 
 a prefixed address altogether wanting to the Epistle to the Hebrews ae 
 forth the claim to be a work of Paul. it was fabricated “ad 
 haeresem Marcionis,” which can mean nothing else but that its con- 
 
 Moreover, 
 
 tents were in agreement with the errors of Marcion, and were designed to 
 wage a propaganda for the same. With Marcionite errors, however, the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews has confessedly nothing in common; but, on the 
 contrary, “its fundamental doctrine of Mosaism as pointing forward to 
 Christianity, as well as the idea of the incar nation of the Divine Logos, is 
 in glaring contrast with Marcion’s Gnosis” (Grimm, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 
 1870, p. 55), as accordingly it obtained no reception into Marcion’s canon." 
 That, finally, the fragmentist must necessarily have mentioned the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews cannot be asserted, inasmuch as, considering the non- 
 currency thereof within the early Roman Church, it was quite possible 
 that he should not be at all acquainted with it. Comp.also Fr. H. Hesse, 
 das Muratori’sche Fragment neu untersucht und erklart, Giessen 1873, p. 201 
 ff—But as it cannot be shown that the Epistle to the Hebrews passed in 
 antiquity for an epistle to the Alexandrians, so in like manner it cannot 
 be shown that this epistle was regarded by others in early times as an 
 epistle to the Laodiceans. This last has been inferred from the words of 
 Philastrius (Haeres. 89): Haeresis quorundam de epistola Pauli ad Heb- 
 
 raeos. Sunt alii quoque, qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos non adserunt 
 
 1This counter-moment Wieseler now, in- 
 deed, seeks to deprive of its force, by giving 
 to the words in Muratori’s fragment another 
 punctuation than that given above, as also 
 formerly by himself, in supposing the comma 
 after Marcionis is to be deleted, and one 
 placed after fictae ; so that the sense shall be: 
 “There is also in circulation an epistle to the 
 Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians, 
 
 which have been fabricated under the name 
 of Paul; 
 
 also several other things current, which, ete.” 
 
 with the sect of Marcion there are 
 
 But what unnatural twisting and rending by 
 such construction of that which is simply 
 and naturally connected; and how little can 
 it serve to the recommendation thereof, that 
 ad haeresem Marcionis must be taken in the 
 
 sense of apud Marcionitas! 
 
Sis THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabae esse apostoli aut Clementis de urbe 
 Roma episcopi. Alii autem Lucae evangelistae ajunt epistolam etiam ad 
 Laodicenses conscriptam. Et quia addiderunt in ea quaedam non bene 
 sentientes, inde non legitur in ecclesia; etsi legitur a quibusdam, non 
 tamen in ecclesia legitur populo, nisi tredecim epistolae ejus et ad Heb- 
 raeos interdum. But manifestly the words Ali autem, etc., are only a 
 concise expression for the declaration that others looked upon the evan- 
 gelist Luke as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and not only as 
 the author of this, but also of the Epistle to the Laodiceans. The Epistie 
 to the Laodiceans was not at all read in the service of the church; the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other hand, was read indeed in the service 
 of the church, not, however, as the thirteen Pauline Epistles, regularly, 
 but only occasionally. Just as little, finally, is there any indication of a 
 controversy with regard to the original recipients of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, when Chrysostom, in the Prooemium of his commentary, takes 
 up the question: tov 62 obow éxéoreAdev; and then answers this with é joi 
 Sokei év Iepoooabuorg kat Tadaorivy. For Chrysostom perceived that the 
 superscription of the epistle was in and of itself an ambiguous one, inas- 
 much as it admitted the possibility of thinking of the Jewish-Christians 
 in general as the recipients of the letter; he thought it needful, therefore, 
 to state the limitation with which in his estimation the IIpd¢ ‘E8paiove, of 
 such wide signification, is to be understood. 
 
 (2) The description of the Jewish sanctuary (ix. 1-5), as well as the acts 
 of ritual performed in the same (vii. 27, x. 11), is supposed to point to the 
 
 * 
 
 1 The opinion, still entertained by Wieseler, 
 that the quia addiderunt in ea is to be referred 
 to tlie Epistle to fhe Hebrews, is manifestly 
 untenable in face of the contradiction in that 
 
 _ ease arising from the conflicting statements 
 non legitur in ecclesia and in ecclesia legitur 
 interdum. The new punctuation, moreover, 
 
 by which Wieseler seeks to help his accepta- 
 tion of the words of Philastrius out of the 
 difficulty, is no happy one. According to 
 
 Wieseler, namely, we have to divide as fol- 
 
 lows: ... Episcopi, alii autem Lucae evan- 
 gelistae. Ajunt epistolam etiam ad Laodicen- 
 ses conscriptam. Et quia, ete. Against this 
 arrangement of the words argues—(1) That 
 the proposition Ajunt . . . conscriptam would 
 then stand forth quite abrupt and without 
 
 any connection, whereas when we make the 
 
 beginning of a new proposition with Alit 
 autem, the grammatical nexus of the sentence 
 is an- entirely simple and natural one; (2) 
 That if Philastrius had wished first to begin 
 a new proposition with Ajunt, he would have 
 appended the closing member of the previous 
 sentence, not in the form: alii autem Lucae 
 evangelistae, but in the form of expression 
 corresponding to that which precedes: aut 
 Tnucae evangelistae ; finally, (3) that the position 
 assigned to etiam points to the fact that it 
 serves specially to bring into relief ad Lao- 
 dicenses, and consequently opposes the Epistle 
 to the Laodiceans to another epistle already 
 mentioned, If Philastrius had only intended 
 to say that the Epistle to the Hebrews too, 
 so far as its destination is concerned, was 
 considered as belonging to Laodicea, then 
 
INTRODUCTION. oie 
 
 temple at Leontopolis in Egypt. But even if it could be proved that the 
 temple arrangements at Leontopolis furnished the standard for that 
 description, and that the original regulations of Moses were identified with 
 these, yet only the conclusion would be warranted with respect to the author, 
 that he must have been by birth an Egyptian Jew, but it could not be 
 inferred with equal necessity that his readers also were to be sought in 
 Egypt. Nevertheless, that assertion itself by no means admits of proof. 
 For Josephus—to whose testimony Wieseler appeals,—where he is describ- 
 ing in general that iepév at Leontopolis, designates the same as épovov (Antiq. 
 xii. 9. 7), or as taparAgovov (Antig. Xx. 10) 76 év ‘Tepoooatporc, but then ob- 
 serves, Bell. Jud. vii. 10, 3, where he is relating somewhat more exactly, as 
 follows: ’Oviac tov wév vadv ody buoLovy YKodduyoe TO év ‘IepoooAbuou ada 
 Tipyo TaparAjovoy, Aiduv peyddwy etc éEjxovTa THEW aveotHKéTa, TOW Bwpov 
 dé THY KaTaGKEVHY TPO TOV OLKOL éFeulpugoato kal toig avabjpaciy 
 dpoiwe Exdounce, ywpi¢ THO TEpl THY Avyviav Katackevgc. Ov 
 yap éroince Avyviay avrov dé yarxevodpuevoc Tov Abyvov yYpvooiv éripai- 
 vovra ckhac ypvoyc dAboews éexpéuacev. Josephus accordingly relates that 
 the temple of Onias in Egypt was indeed as to its outward form different 
 from the temple at Jerusalem, inasmuch as it stood upon a foundation or 
 sub-structure! of great stones rising sixty cubits high, and_ thereby 
 acquired a tower-like appearance ; that, on the other hand, its inner 
 arrangement, with the single exception of the golden candlestick, was 
 constituted in the same manner as that of the temple at J erusalem, for 
 the altar of burnt-offering and the other sacred objects were similar in 
 both. Now, how does it follow from these statements that the golden altar 
 of incense in the Egyptian temple occupied the very site which the author 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews assigns to it at ix. 4, in contradiction with the 
 
 etiam—inasmuch as it would in that case translating déAAa as “but yet,” and accord- 
 
 belong to the whole proposition—must have 
 been placed immediately after Ajunt. 
 
 1Tf Josephus had, as Wieseler supposes, 
 ascribed to the vads only a total height of 
 sixty cubits, he would neither have character- 
 ized it as tower-like, nor have designated it 
 as unlike the vaés in Jerusalem. For the 
 jatter also had, at any rate, a height of sixty 
 eubits. It is true Wieseler finds actually ex- 
 pressed by adda mvpyw mapatAnc.ovy not a 
 dissimilarity, but a resemblance to the temple 
 erected at Jerusalem by Zerubbabel; but he 
 reaches this result only by unwarrantably 
 
 ingly taking aAAa . . . aveoTynKOTa aS a kind 
 of parenthetical insertion: “Onias erected 
 the temple not indeed equal to that one in 
 Jerusalem, but yet tower-like, since it was 
 built up of large stones sixty cubits high; in 
 the construction of the altar, however, he 
 imitated that of his native land.” That adda, 
 on account of the preceding ovx, can signify 
 only but, on the contrary [sondern], and in- 
 troduces the particular point of difference by 
 which the before-mentioned dissimilarity 1s 
 evidenced, ought not to have been called in 
 
 question. 
 
374 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 actual position thereof in the temple at Jerusalem, namely, in the Most 
 Holy Place? of such a difference—and surely just this point would have 
 called for proof—Josephus says in truth nota single word, but, on the 
 contrary, leaves the opposite impression. And then how could the author 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews, if he had had the temple of Onias before 
 him in his description of the sanctuary, have written év 7 7 Avyvia, ix. 2, 
 when, according to the express statement of Josephus, there was not 
 therein a lamp-stand resting on the ground, as in the temple at Jerusa- 
 lem, but a chandelier suspended by a golden chain?—In Philo, too, 
 Wieseler has subsequently (comp. Studien u. Kritiken, 1867, p. 673 ff.) 
 fancied he could discover a support for his opinion. In de sacrificantibus, 
 2 4 (ed. Mangey, II. p. 253), and de animal. sacrific. 310 (ed. Mangey, II. 
 p. 247), it is thought that Philo expressly testifies that in the temple of 
 Onias the altar of incense, as well as the vessels mentioned Heb. ix. 4, 5, 
 were present in the Most Holy Place. Yet how entirely unsuccessful this 
 attempted proof of Wieseler’sis, has been already convincingly shown in 
 detail by Grimm, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 60 ff—But just as little do 
 the notices, Heb. vii. 27, x. 11, lead to think of the temple of Onias. For 
 even supposing—what is far, however, from being the case—that it could 
 be historically proved, with regard to the Egyptian temple, that the high 
 priest entered into the Most Holy Place every day, yet such fact would 
 not so much as accord with the presuppositions of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews. For, Heb. ix. 7, it is expressly said that the high priest went 
 into the Most Holy Place only once in the year. Nor, as we need hardly 
 remark, can this passage, in connection with ix. 4, vii. 27, x. 11, contain 
 the sense which Wieseler would put into it, that the high priest entered 
 indeed the Most Holy Place every day, but only once in ‘the year with 
 blood. For to eic Hév THY. KpOTHY oKyvav dia TavrTo¢ eiciaow oi lepsic Only the 
 words etc dé tiv devtépav drat tov iriavtov pdvoc 6 apyepebe form the oppo- 
 sition, and not until after the laying down of this opposition is the nearer 
 modality for the final member added, namely, that the high priest, in the 
 (special) case of his entering the Most Holy Place, enters it not without 
 blood. 
 
 The fact, however, in general, that the original recipients of the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews attached so high a value to the temple service and the 
 sacrificial ritual, that even as Christians they regarded continual partici- 
 pation in the same as necessary for the attaining of salvation, is one 
 which points not to Alexandrians, but only to Palestinians. For, quite 
 apart from the consideration that we do not even know from other sources 
 
INTRODUCTION. 375 
 
 whether the Christian congregation of Alexandria was an unmixed 
 Jewish-Christian one, nay, whether an organized Christian congregation 
 existed there at all so early as the time of our letter, the Alexandrian 
 Jews had been so greatly affected by Grecian culture and philosophy, that 
 their whole bent of mind had become a spiritualistic one. Far from all 
 narrow-minded cleaving to the letter of the Mosaic law, they sought by 
 allegoric interpretation to discover and bring into recognition the deeper 
 spiritual sense underlying the precepts and institutions of Judaism. In 
 addition to this, the temple of Onias in Leontopolis was not able to boast 
 even in Egypt itself of any high estimation. The Egyptian Jews were to 
 a great extent displeased that it did not stand upon Moriah ; the Egyptian 
 Samaritans, that it did not stand upon Gerizim (comp. Jost, Allg. Gesch. 
 des Israel. Volks, in 2 vols., Bd. I. p. 515 ff.). The yearly temple-gifts, too, 
 were on that account for the most part sent not to Leontopolis, but to 
 Jerusalem (comp. Frankel, Histor.-krit. Studien zu der Septuaginta, Bd. I. 
 Abth. 1, Leipz. 1841, p, 186, note d) ; and pilgrimages of Alexandrian Jews 
 to Jerusalem, to offer prayers and sacrifices in the temple there, did not 
 cease so long as this temple continued to exist. Even Philo vouches for 
 this. (Comp. Opp., ed. Mangey, t. I. p. 646: xa?’ dv ypdvov cic TO TaTpwov 
 igpov éoreAAdunv evEduevog TE Kal iow.) 
 
 (3) In favor of the supposition of Alexandrian readers is the fact further 
 thought to plead, that the epistle is not composed in Aramaic; a Greek 
 epistle to Palestinian Jews would at any rate, it is argued, be less probable 
 than an Aramaic letter. But as it is absolutely certain, on the one hand, 
 that the Palestinians understood not only Aramaic, but also Greek ; so, 
 on the other hand, it is altogether doubtful whether the author, who by 
 his whole epistle proclaims himself to be a non-Palestinian, was in an 
 equal degree qualified for writing not only a Greek, but also an Aramaic 
 epistle. 
 
 (4) “The whole manner of conducting the argument and the spiritual 
 exposition of the ideas employed,” is said to accord best with the supposi- 
 tion of Alexandrian readers. But that this mode of argumentation is 
 thought of “at once as familiar to the readers,” cannot be maintained. 
 There can thus be found therein only an indication as to the author, and 
 not as to his readers. 
 
 (5) That the author so exactly follows the Septuagint in his Old Testa- 
 ment citations, even in the case of striking deviations of the same from 
 the original text, is said not to harmonize with the hypothesis of Pales- 
 
 tinian readers, since with them the Septuagint was held in no estimation ; 
 
376 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 but certainly with that of Alexandrians, for whom the Septuagint had 
 long been the accepted book of the synagogues. But were that transla- 
 tion really in so little credit in Palestine, then neither would the Apostle 
 Paul, educated as he was at Jerusalem, have made such frequent use of it, 
 nor would the Palestinian Josephus have fallen back upon that oftener 
 than upon the original text. Moreover, the fact that the Alexandrine 
 recension is to be traced in the text of the Septuagint used in the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews (comp. Bleek, I. p. 372 ff.), and (Heb. xi. 35 f.) reference is 
 made to the second Book of Maccabees (KGstlin, /. c. p. 402), 7. e. a writing 
 peculiar to Alexandrian Judaism, admits only of an inference pointing 
 back to an Alexandrian author, but not to Alexandrian readers. 
 
 (6) To the Alexandrians as original recipients of the epistle, is the 
 circumstance, finally, supposed to point, that the first mention of the 
 epistle is met with in the Alexandrian fathers. These same Alexandrian 
 fathers, nevertheless, confessedly agree in speaking of the epistle as 
 addressed to the congregations in Palestine. 
 
 As, however, no valid ground is to be adduced in favor of Alexandria 
 as the place of destination for the epistle, so are the objections urged 
 against the claim of Palestine very easily disposed of. They are the 
 following :—(1) That the readers, according to Heb. x. 32 ff., xii. 4, had 
 already endured persecutions, but not peypi aivatoc, which consistently 
 with Acts vili. 1-3, xii. 1, 2, could not have been said of the Palestinian 
 Christians; (2) That the readers, according to Heb. vi. 10, xiii. 16, had 
 exercised liberality towards other Christians, and were still further enjoined 
 to do so, whereas, according to Acts xi. 30, Gal. ii. 10,1 Cor. xvi. 1-3, 
 2 Cor. viii. 9, Rom. xv. 25 ff., these very Palestinian Christians appear as 
 3 poor and in need of assistance; (3) That according to Heb. ii. 3 they had 
 received their knowledge of the gospel only from a secondary source; (4) 
 Finally, that (xiii. 18, 19, 23) they are represented as standing in friendly 
 relations as well towards the author, who was surely an adherent of Paul, 
 as towards the Pauline disciple Timothy. That, nevertheless, these 
 relations were of a particularly close and intimate nature does not - 
 follow from the passages adduced ; a friendly footing, however, of a more 
 general kind with Apollos, and, after the death of the Apostle Paul, also 
 with Timothy, has nothing surprising about it. The other statements to 
 which allusion is made all find their justification in the fact that, as is also” 
 clearly apparent from xiii. 7 and y. 12, the recipients of the letter already 
 belonged to a second generation of Christians. 
 
 Whilst the above-mentioned arguments are common to the majority of 
 
INTRODUCTION. 377 
 
 those who dispute the Palestineo-Jerusalemic destination of the epistle, 
 Kostlin has sought to confirm his position by the following additionai 
 counter-moments peculiar to himself :— 
 
 (1) The author, as is shown by his entire dependence upon the Septua- 
 gint, was acquainted only with Greek. But it results from xiii. 19 that he 
 himself belonged to the congregation to which he is writing. If, there- 
 fore, the epistle were directed to Palestine, the author himself would have 
 been a Palestinian Christian; as such, however, hardly of so exclusively 
 Hellenistic culture, but without doubt familiar with the vernacular of 
 Palestine, and notably acquainted with the original text of the Old Testa- 
 ment. Reply: But that the author himself was a member of the congre- 
 gation to which he is writing, does not at all follow from xiii. 19. Comp. 
 the exposition of the passage. 
 
 (2) It cannot be assumed that in the Palestinian Christendom, or rather 
 in the chief congregation thereof, that of Jerusalem, in the first century, 
 and notably in the years 60-70, there could have been found such great 
 indifference as regards the knowledge of the central truths of the Christian 
 faith, so great want of capacity for understanding the mysteries of the 
 Christian doctrine, such culpable lukewarmness and weakness of faith, a 
 discontent on account of Jewish reproaches and persecutions, which was 
 altogether unworthy of their position, while they must long have been 
 accustomed to these, and such a disloyal inclination to a relapse into 
 Judaism, as the epistle presupposes in its recipients. But where, we ask. 
 could there have been a Jewish-Christian congregation in connection with 
 which the conditions described would have been more easily explicable, 
 than precisely in Jerusalem, where the ancient ritual, with its seductive 
 splendor and its charms for the sensuous nature, stood before the very 
 eyes of the Christian converts, and the tenacious power of resistance on 
 the part of the ancient Judaism most vigorously exerted itself? Comp. 
 also Acts xxi. 20 ff. 
 
 (8) If Jerusalem had been the place of destination for the epistle, the 
 author (ii. 8) could not have omitted to remind the readers that the Lord 
 Himself had walked, and taught, and wrought among them, had in their 
 midst, nay, before their eyes, suffered the death of the cross, among them 
 had found the first witnesses of His resurrection and ascension ; and the 
 more so, since during the years 60-70 there must still have been a large 
 number of the immediate disciples of Jesus present in Jerusalem. But, 
 in reply, we cannot at all expect to see the personal life and labors of 
 Jesus described ii. 8, because the connection does not lead thereto. Fo1 
 
378 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 that which is essential in ii. 3 is not the relation to author and readers of 
 the epistle, but that about which the writer is concerned is only to oppose 
 to the Old Testament Adyoc, as something higher, the salvation of the 
 Christians. The question thus, in connection with this opposition, is that 
 of the Christians in general, or of the salvation which is the common 
 possession of all Christians ; while, then, only as a mere secondary consid- 
 eration, which might have been wanting without prejudice to the connect- 
 edness of thought, the remark is yet further added, that the knowledge 
 of this Christian blessedness has been transmitted in a sure and trust- 
 worthy manner to the present (second) generation of Christians, to which 
 alike author and readers of the epistle belong. An occasion for speaking 
 more fully of the erewhile personal activity of Jesus among the readers 
 did not accordingly at all present itself; and a reason for urging the 
 declaration ii. 3 against the supposition of Palestinenses as recipients of 
 the epistle is the less to be thought of, inasmuch as the fact that the Lord 
 had once Himself proclaimed the salvation to the ancestors of the present 
 church members is not excluded by the words. But that a great number 
 of the original disciples must have been still living in Jerusalem during 
 the years 60-70 is a gratuitous assertion, to which may be opposed the 
 consideration that surely Luke too, in the prologue of his Gospel—i. e. 
 of a writing, the composition of which at any rate falls within the decade 
 of the seventies, which thus is only a few years later in date than our 
 epistle—without hesitation reckons himself and his contemporaries as 
 5elonging to a second generation of Christians. Even supposing, however, 
 that immediate disciples of Jesus were still to be found in Jerusalem, yet 
 these could number towards the close of the sixties, to which time the 
 origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to be assigned (comp. sec. 4), only - 
 a few solitary individuals; a possible exception here and there would 
 have been no hindrance in the way of characterizing the members of the 
 congregation of that day as belonging to a second generation of Christians, 
 just because only the character of the congregation in general, or as it 
 presented itself in the main and on the whole, was being taken into 
 account. 
 
 (4) The author presupposes, in various passages, what does not apply to 
 the case of the primitive congregation, that his readers have been for only 
 a comparatively short time members of the Christian church. But from 
 ili. 14, vi. 11, x. 32, vi. 1-5, x. 28, this conclusion does not follow; on the 
 other hand, the opposite is to be inferred from v. 12. 
 
 (5) The Jerusalemic Christians, he asserts, consisted partly of members 
 
INTRODUCTION. 379 
 
 who became believers immediately after the resurrection,—some of them, 
 perhaps, even earlier,—partly of such as only later acceded to this primi- 
 tive stock. They composed a congregation which was only gradually 
 formed, and, particularly so long as James was alive, received constant 
 augmentation from the adherents of Judaism; the community of the 
 ‘EBpaioe had not arisen in this gradual manner during a long succession of 
 years; but the conversion of all its members, or at least of by far the 
 greater number, had taken place at one and the same time: it must have 
 been formed by the simultaneous passing over of a considerable number 
 of Jews to the Christian church, and have maintained itself up to the 
 time of our epistle with much the same total of members as it at first 
 counted. But fora conclusion of this kind the words év alc gwriobévte¢ 
 ToAdyy GAnow breueivate Tafnudatwv, X. 32, afford no warrant. For only the 
 fact is there brought into prominence, that the conflict of suffering, which 
 the readers formerly endured, fell at a period of their life in which they 
 were already Christians. On the peculiar circumstances (modality) of 
 their conversion the words contain nothing. 
 
 (6) From the carefully-chosen designation roi¢ ayiovc, it is evident 
 that the ‘ESpaio are here presupposed to be a non-Palestinian community, 
 who have aided the Palestinenses with their support. Any other. congre- 
 gation (!) than the primitive one could not have been thus simply desig- 
 nated as oi dyrot, whereas the employment of this name with regard to 
 that congregation is very frequent (1 Cor. xvi.1; 2 Cor. viii. 4,ix.1; Rom. 
 xv. 20,31). A usage to be accounted for by the fact that, as distinguished 
 from all the other éxxAyoia:, the Palestinian, and specially the Jerusalemic 
 Christians, were the dy: kar’ éox#v, who before all others, chosen and 
 separated from the world by Christ and His apostles themselves, became 
 the first recipients of the divine word and of the Holy Spirit, were the 
 first witnesses and intermediate channels of Christian truth for all other 
 Christian communities, and were also, as such, acknowledged (specially 
 Rom. xy. 27), until, owing to the destruction of Jerusalem and the rending 
 progress of Gentile Christianity, this relation of dependence and filial 
 affection was gradually dissolved of itself—In order, however, to show the 
 mistake in such reasoning, it suffices to point to the use of of dyw: in 
 passages like 1 Cor. vi. 1, 2, xvi. 15; Rom. xii. 13, xvi. 2; 1 Tim. v. 10; to 
 the addresses of the Pauline epistles; to the addition rév év ‘Iepovoaryu, 
 considered necessary in connection with rév dyiwy, Rom. xv. 26; and 
 many similar instances. (1 Cor. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 1, on the other 
 hand, there was no need of such addition,—against Kurtz,—because the 
 
380 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 collection which is the subject treated of in those passages was a business 
 already known to the Corinthians, and before earnestly enjoined upon 
 them: while, Rom. xy. 25, it was already apparent from vuvi dé ropebvouat 
 ei¢ ‘Iepovoaagu, and, Rom. xv. 31, from 7 ei¢ ‘IepovoaAjp, of What ays the 
 apostle was speaking.) Yea, Késtlin has even overlooked the considera- 
 tion, that by means of this argument, if it were well-grounded, he would 
 most effectually refute himself! For what further proof, that the 
 readers of the letter are to be sought in Jerusalem, would it then need 
 than the utterance of our epistle itself, xiii. 24: aoxdoaobe mavtag tov¢ qyov- 
 pévoug tudv Kai Tavtag TovE adyiouvg? 
 
 (7) That the Jerusalemic congregation remained, as is clear from Acts 
 ii. 46, iii. 1 (comp. xxi. 20), from the first in connection with the temple 
 ritual. By the recipients of the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other 
 hand, all religious connection with Judaism was originally relinquished, 
 and only now had they become involved in peril, as: well through the 
 influence of teachings which would urge the necessity of holding firmly 
 to the Mosaic law (xiii. 9 ff.), as also, as it seems, through the influence of 
 enticing offers (comp. xii. 16 f.), partly also by harassing manifestations of 
 ill-will on the part of their former Jewish fellow-believers, of being seduced 
 into a return to the Jewish religious constitution. But the actual state of 
 matters is by this assertion inverted into its exact opposite. For that the 
 recipients of the Epistle to the Hebrews not only still continued to occupy 
 themselves with the Jewish temple-service and sacrificial ritual, but even 
 regarded participation therein as a necessary requirement for the com- 
 Plete expiation of sins, certainly underlies the whole argumentation of 
 the epistle as an everywhere-recurring presupposition. 
 
 SEC. 3.—OCCASION, OBJECT, AND CONTENTS. 
 
 The Epistle to the Hebrews was occasioned by the danger-to which the 
 Christians in Palestine, particularly in Jerusalem, were exposed, of re- 
 nouncing again their faith in Christ, and wholly falling back again into 
 Judaism (comp. specially vi. 4-6, x. 26 ff). This danger had become a 
 very pressing one, inasmuch as many had already as a matter of fact 
 ceased to frequent the Christian assemblies (x. 25). The epistle accord- 
 ingly aims, by the unfolding on every side of the sublimity of the Chris- 
 tian revelation as the perfect and archetypal, above that of the Old Testa- 
 ment as the merely preparatory and typical, as well as by setting forth the 
 terrible consequences of an apostasy, to warn against such falling away, 
 and to animate to a faithful perseverance in the Christian course.—Differ- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 381 
 
 ently, but quite incorrectly, does Thiersch (De epistola ad Hebr., Marb. 
 1848, p. 2 sqq. ; Die Kirche im apostolischen Zeitulter, Frankf. and Erlang. 
 1852, p. 188 ff.) define the object of the epistle, to the effect that it was to 
 be a consolatory letter to the Christians of Jerusalem, on account of the 
 exclusion from the Jewish temple with which they had been visited on 
 the part of their unconverted compatriots at the outbreak of the Jewish 
 war. Nothing in the epistle points to any such state of the matter; but, 
 on the contrary, even the one passage, Heb. xiii. 13, serves to place in a 
 clear light the erroneousness of this conjecture. For, instead of men- 
 tioning a state of exclusion, and bestowing a word of consolation upon the 
 occasion of an event like that, the author here assuredly summons to a 
 coming forth out of Judaism as a voluntary act, and thus, as in his other 
 reasoning, presupposes that the readers were still in the midst of Judaism, 
 and adhered thereto with narrow-minded and unchristian stubbornness. 
 A special support for his hypothesis Thiersch fancies is to be found in the 
 eleventh chapter. All the historic instances there adduced are, he tells 
 us, chosen by the author with a special bearing upon such a position of 
 the readers as is assumed by him. But a glance at the paraphrase of the 
 eleventh chapter, which Thiersch affords in proof of this assertion, shows 
 that everything from which he derives his argument has first been im- 
 ported by himself into the text.—That, finally, also Ebrard’s view—accord- 
 ing to which the epistle was designed to be “a kind of manual (Leit- 
 Jaden)” (!) for Jerusalem “ neophytes” (!), who, “out of dread of exclu- 
 sion from the temple cultus,” seemed about to withdraw again from 
 Christianity '—is an extremely arbitrary one, needs hardly a word of 
 further demonstration. 
 
 As regards its contents, the epistle is ordinarily divided into two parts,— 
 a dogmatic (i. 1-x. 18) and a paraenetic (x. 19-xiii. 25). But a rigid separa- 
 tion does not exist, inasmuch as exhortations, some of them of considerable 
 extent, are already often incorporated in that first part, and the main 
 
 tendency of the whole letter is a paraenetic (hortatory) one. 
 
 1“ Hostility of the other Jews,” and “ appre- 
 hension of being excluded from the temple 
 cult,” is also assumed by y. Déllinger (Christ- 
 entrum und Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung, 
 Regensb. 1860, p. 84) as the cause of the 
 tendency to apostasy; while Kluge (der He- 
 brderbrief. Auslegung und Lehrbegriff. Neu- 
 Ruppin 1863, p. 203 ff.) discovers in the letter 
 a product of the Jewish apocalyptics (? !) 
 transplanted upon Christian soil, which as 
 
 such has arisen only after the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, and received its outward occasion 
 from the final catastrophe of the Jewish 
 people. Deriving its theme from Rom. xi. 
 32, it is supposed to pursue the soterio-paeda- 
 gogic object of an exhortation to repentance 
 for the chosen people, and of a warning te 
 the Jewish-Christian readers descended from 
 Israel against apostasy from their living 
 hopes. 
 
382 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 The contents themselves run as follows:—The revelation of God in 
 Christ is superior to His revelations under the Old Covenant. For Christ, 
 as the Son of God, is exalted above the angels, as mere servants (chap. i.). 
 So much the more are we called to hold firmly to the Christian faith. 
 For if even the Mosaic law, given through the ministry of angels, could 
 not be transgressed with impunity, the culpability of slighting the Chris- 
 tian salvation, proclaimed by the Lord and attested by God Himself, is 
 incomparably greater (11. 1-4). Not to angels, but to Christ, the Son of 
 man, is the Messianic kingdom made subject. Certainly Christ was for a 
 little time abased beneath the angels; but thus it must be, in order 
 that mankind might obtain salvation: He must suffer and die, and 
 in all things become like unto men, His brethren, in order to be 
 able, as High Priest, to reconcile them to God (vv. 5-18). Therefore 
 consider well Jesus, the Envoy and High Priest of our confession! He 
 is more exalted than Moses; so much higher does He stand than Moses, 
 as the son, who is lord over the house, has precedence over the servant 
 of the house (ili. 1-6). Take heed, therefore, in accordance with the 
 admonition of the Holy Ghost, of unbelief and apostasy; since the fate 
 of the fathers, who because of their disobedience became the prey of de- 
 struction, serves to you as a warning. The promise of God of an enter- 
 ing into His rest is still unfulfilled; to you, also, the entrance is open, if 
 you have faith, whereas rebelliousness against the admonition which is 
 addressed anew unto you delivers you over to the vindicatory righteous- 
 ness of God (iv. 1-13). The readers ought to hold fast to the Christian - 
 contession, since they possess in Jesus a High Priest who is not only 
 highly exalted, but also is qualified to redeem mankind (vv. 14-16). The 
 two main essential qualifications which every human high priest must 
 possess,—namely, the capacity for having sympathy with erring humanity, 
 and the being no usurper of the office, but one called of God to the same, 
 —Christ also possesses. He is a High Priest after the manner of Mel- 
 chisedec (v. 1-10). But before the author passes over, as is his purpose, 
 to the more detailed presentation of the high-priestly dignity belonging to 
 Christ after the manner of Melchisedec, and thus to His exalted rank 
 above the Levitical high priests, he complains, in a digression, of the low 
 stage of Christian knowledge at which the readers, who ought themselves 
 long ago to have been teachers of Christianity, still remain. He exhorts 
 them to strive after full manhood and maturity in the Christian life, and, 
 in a note of warning, reminds them that those who have already experi- 
 enced, in its influence upon them, the fullness of blessing which pertains 
 
INTRODUCTION. 383 
 
 to Christianity, and nevertheless apostatize from the faith, by their own 
 fault let slip beyond recovery the Christian blessedness; then, however, 
 expresses the confidence he feels that it will not be so with the readers, 
 who have distinguished themselves, and do still distinguish themselves by 
 works of Christian love, and indicates what he desires of them, namely, 
 perseverance to the end; while at the same time he directs their attention 
 to the inviolability of the divine promise and the objective certainty of the 
 Christian hope (v. 1l-vi. 20). With the seventh chapter the author 
 returns to the subject under discussion. He dwells first upon the person 
 of Melchisedec himself, following up the hints of Scripture as he presents 
 to his readers the exalted position of Melchisedec, and shows a threefold 
 superiority of the same over the Levitical priests (vil. 1-10). From this 
 relation of inferiority, however, it follows now that the Levitical priest- 
 hood, and thus consequently the Mosaic law in general, is imperfect and 
 incapable of leading on to perfection. For otherwise there would have 
 been no need, after the law had long been instituted, of the promise and 
 the appearing of another priest of other descent (vv. 11,12). That the 
 Levitical priesthood, together with the Mosaic law, has lost its validity, is 
 evident from the circumstance that Christ, to whom that divine utter- 
 ance Ps. cx. 4 has reference, belongs as a matter of fact to a tribe which, 
 according to Mosaic ordinance, has no part in the administration of the 
 priestly office (vv. 18, 14); it is further evident from the consideration 
 that the new priest who is promised is to bear a resembiance to Mel- 
 chisedec, in which is implied just the particular, that his characteristic 
 peculiarity is other than that of the Levitical priests (vv. 15-17). The 
 end, to the bringing in of which the Levitical priesthood was wanting in 
 power, is attained by Christ’s everlasting priesthood after the manner of 
 Melchisedec (vv. 18, 19). The preeminence of this over the Levitical 
 priesthood appears further from the fact that it was constituted by God 
 by virtue of an oath, whereas the former was constituted without an oath 
 (vv. 20-22). The Levitical priests, moreover, die one after another: 
 Christ’s priesthood, on the other hand,—and that forms a third point of 
 superiority,—since He ever liveth, is an unchangeable and intransitory 
 priesthood (vv. 28-25). A fourth point of superiority is manifested in the 
 distinction, that while the Levitical priests are sinful men, who each suc- 
 cessive day must offer sacrifices for their own sins and the sins of the 
 people, Christ is the sinless Son of God, who once for all has offered up 
 Himself as a sacrifice (vv. 26-28). But not only as regards His own per- 
 
 son is Christ exalted far above the Levitical priests: the sanctuary, too, in 
 
384 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 which He exercises the high-priestly functions, is exalted far above the 
 Levitical one. For Christ administers His office of high priest in the 
 heavenly tabernacle, erected by God Himself, of which, as the prototype, 
 the earthly tabernacle in which the Levitical priests minister is a mere 
 copy (vill. 1-5). So much more excellent is the personal ministry of 
 Christ, inasmuch as the covenant, whose Mediator He is, is a better cove- 
 nant, because resting upon the foundation of better promises. The char- 
 acter of this promised new covenant is a more inner, spiritual one; and 
 by the promise of a new covenant the old is declared to be worn out and 
 no longer serviceable (vv. 6-13). In the disposition of the Mosaic sanec- 
 tuary itself, and the ordering of the priestly ministration in conformity 
 therewith, lies the indication on the part of God, that Mosaism is not 
 itself the perfect religion, but only the preparatory institution for the same 
 (ix. 1-8); as accordingly also the Levitical sacrifices, since they belong to 
 the domain of carnal ordinance, are not in a position to make real atone- 
 ment, whereas the sacrifice of Christ, presented by virtue of an eternal 
 spirit through the efficacy of His own blood, possesses an everlasting 
 power of atonement (vy. 9-14). In order to be the Middle Person of the 
 New Covenant, Christ, however, must needs suffer death. That follows 
 from the notion of a diafjxn, since such acquires a binding character only 
 when the death of the d:aféuevoc has been before proved; as accordingly 
 also the first, or Old Testament d:atj«xy, was not consecrated without blood, 
 and without blood-shedding there is, under the Mosaic law, no forgiveness. 
 For the consecration of the earthly sanctuary the blood of slain animals _ 
 sufficed, but for the consecration of the heavenly sanctuary there was 
 need of a more excellent sacrifice than these; this Christ has offered once 
 for all:at the end of the world, by His sin-cancelling sacrificial death ; and 
 in connection with His return, to be looked for unto the salvation of 
 them that wait for Him,-no repetition of sacrifice will be necessary (vv. 
 15-28). In the imperfection of the Mosaic law is to be sought the cause 
 that under it the expiatory sacrifice is repeated every year; that repeti- 
 tion contains the reminder that there are ever sins still present, as truly 
 -a cancelling of sins by the blood of bulls and of goats is from the very 
 nature of the case impossible (x. 1-4). Already in Scripture has it been 
 expressed, that not by animal sacrifices, but only by the fulfilling of the 
 will of God, deliverance from sins is to be attained. On the ground of 
 this fulfillment of His will by Christ are we Christians sanctified (vv. 5-10). 
 Hereupon the main distinction between the Old Testament high priest 
 and the High Priest of the New Testament is once more brought into 
 
INTRODUCTION. 380 
 
 relief—namely, in that the former daily repeats the same sacrifices with- 
 out thereby effecting the cancelling of sin; the latter, on the other hand, 
 by His sacrifice once offered, has wrought everlasting sanctification ; and 
 finally, attention is drawn to the Scripture testimony, that there is no 
 more need for further expiatory sacrifice (vv. 15-18). 
 
 The readers in possession of such an High Priest, and the blessing 
 mediated by Him, are to cleave with resolution and constancy to the 
 Christian faith, to incite one another to love and good works, and not, as 
 has become a practice with some, to forsake the religious assemblies. And 
 the more so since the Advent is now close at hand (vv. 19-25). For he 
 who wittingly contemns recognized Christian truth, and sins against it, 
 will not escape the avenging judgment of God (vy. 26-31). Mindful of the 
 Christian courage they have displayed in former days, the readers are not 
 to lose their Christian cheerfulness, but to persevere in the Christian 
 career; for only a short time longer will it be before the return of Christ, 
 and the entrance into the promised fullness of blessing (vv. 32-89). The 
 author hereupon defines the nature of the rioree which he requires of the 
 readers, and then sets before them examples of the heroism of fasth from 
 times gone by (chap. Xi.). In possession of such a multitude of examples, 
 and with the eye fixed upon Jesus Himself, the readers are to endure 
 with stedfastness the conflict which awaits them, and to regard their suf- 
 ferings as a salutary chastisement on the part of that God who is full of 
 fatherly love towards them (xii. 1-13). To this attaches an exhortation 
 to concord and growth in holiness (vv. 14-17). The very constitution of 
 the New Covenant, to which the readers have come, obliges them to the 
 endeavor after sanctification. Whereas the Old Covenant bore the char 
 acter of the sensuous, earthly, and that which awakens merely fear, the 
 New Covenant has the character of the spiritual, heavenly, brings into 
 communion with God and all holy ones, and confers reconciliation. The 
 readers are therefore to be on their guard against apostatizing from the 
 New Covenant, for their guilt and exposure to punishment would be 
 thereby incomparably augmented. Rather should they be filled with 
 gratitude towards God for the participation in the unshakable kingdom 
 of the New Covenant, and serve Him with awe and reverential fear (Vv. 
 18-29). To this are now appended exhortations to continued brotherly 
 love (xiii. 1), to hospitality (ver. 9), to the assistance of prisoners and 
 oppressed (ver. 3), to chastity (ver. 4), to the eschewing of covetousness and 
 to contentment (vv. 5, 6), to the remembering of former teachers and the 
 emulating of their faith (ver. 7), to the avoidance of unchristian doctrines 
 
 25 
 
386 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWs. 
 
 and precepts (vy. 8-15), to benevolence (ver. 16), to obedience towards the 
 presidents of the congregation (ver. 17). There follows a call to intercession 
 on behalf of the author (vy. 18, 19), a wish of blessing (vv. 20, 21), the 
 petition for a friendly reception of the epistle (ver. 22), the communica- 
 tion of a piece of intelligence (ver. 23), the prayer for the delivery of sal- 
 utations, and, at the same time, the conveying of salutations to the read- 
 ers (ver. 24), and the concluding wish of blessing (ver. 25). 
 
 SEC. 4—TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. 
 
 The epistle can only have been written at a late time. For, according 
 to il. 8, xiii. 7 (comp. also v. 12, x. 32 ff.), the recipients belonged to a 
 second generation of Christians. According to xiii. 7, the presidents and 
 teachers of the congregation had already been snatched away from the 
 same by death, and that a death by martyrdom. The death, too, of James, 
 the brother of the Lord, who as president of the congregation at Jerusa- 
 lem was reckoned one of the pillars of the Christian church (Gal. ii. 9), must 
 thus have already taken place; as it is, moreover, on general grounds 
 hardly conceivable that, so long as James was still living, an encroach- 
 ment upon his province, by means of a letter of such tone and contents 
 as are displayed by the Epistle to the Hebrews, should have been made 
 by the author of this epistle. The Epistle to the Hebrews cannot there- 
 fore have been written before the year 63 (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9.1). Its 
 time of composition, however, must yet fall in the period before the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem. For the presupposition that the Levitical service 
 of the temple is still continuing, underlies the current of the whole epis- 
 tle. Instances in proof are found not only viii. 4,5, ix. 6 ff., xiii. 10 ff, 
 and specially ix: 9,—where the continued existence of the foretabernacle 
 (or holy place) in the Jewish sanctuary is expressly explained as a typical 
 reference to the time now being, in which the priests still continue to offer 
 sacrifices which are unable to afford satisfaction to the conscience (comp. 
 besides vii. 8, 20, vili. 13, x. 2),—but also in general a great part of the 
 contents of the epistle, wherein the erroneous persuasion of the readers 
 that the attainment of everlasting salvation is not possible without con- 
 tinued participation in the Levitical sacrificial rites and temple cultus, is 
 controverted by our author. Further, our epistle must have been com- 
 posed even before the beginning of the Jewish war; for if this had already | 
 broken out, distinct references thereto could not have been wanting. Yet 
 it would seem that the commotions and insurrections which immediately 
 preceded the outbreak of the Jewish war had already begun. For, x. 25, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 387 
 
 reference is made to the fact that the visible signs of the approaching 
 advent of Christ have already appeared before the eyes of the readers ; 
 and their personal condition was, according to xii. 4 ff, xiii. 13, one of 
 great suffering. That supposition is thus the most natural one which 
 places the date of the epistle’s composition between the years 65 and 67. 
 
 According to Orelli (Select. patrum eccles. capp- ad eionyntixiy sacram perti- 
 nentia, P. L1., Turic. 1822, p. 4 sq.), the Epistle to the Hebrews was com- 
 posed only towards the year 90; according to Holtzmann (Zeitschr. f. wiss. 
 Theol. 1867, p. 6 f.), Harnack (Patrum Apostt. Opp. I. p. Ixxxii.), and others, 
 only after the persecution under Domitian; according to Schwegler (Nach- 
 apostolisches Zettalter, Bd. II. p. 309), somewhere about the close of the first 
 century; according to Hausrath (Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch., 1st ed. IL. p. 
 401 f.), only after Trajan’s persecution ; according to Volkmar (Religion 
 Jesu, p. 388 f.) and Keim (Geschichte Jesu v. Nazara, Bd. I., Ziirich 1867, p. 
 148 f., 636) only between the years 116-118. See, on the other hand, the 
 remarks of Grimm in the Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 23 ff. Without 
 ground does Mangold (in Bleek’s Einl. in d.N. T., 8d ed., Berlin 1875, p. 
 617) object against the conclusiveness of Grimm’s reasoning, that ‘the 
 author of the Epistle to the Hebrews conducts his argument on the basis 
 of the Scripture representation of the tabernacle” as of “a purely ideal 
 magnitude,” which does not guarantee “the actual continuance of the 
 temple cultus.” This objection would be admissible if the preterites eiyev, 
 ix. 1, and kareoxevacd7, ix. 2, had, in the formula which resumes all the 
 previous description,—roitwr dé ovrwe kareokevacpéver, ver. 6,—been followed 
 by a participle qorist. But it becomes directly impossible when instead 
 thereof a participle perfect is chosen ; inasmuch as, by this construction, 
 beyond doubt the opinion of the author is manifested that in the inner 
 arrangement of the temple the inner arrangement of the tabernacle is 
 still perpetuated. The following praesentia can therefore be understood 
 only in the most strictly present sense, and not “as praesentia of the legal 
 defining.” 
 
 The place of composition is indeterminable. Only thus much is clear 
 from xiii. 24, that it is to be sought outside of Italy. 
 
 SEC. 5.—FORM AND ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. 
 
 That the composition was an actual letter, and not, as has been assumed 
 by Berger (Gotling. theol. Bibl., Th. IIL. St: 3, p. 449 ff.; Moral. Einleit. in 
 das N. T., Th. III. p. 442 f. Comp. also Reuss, Geschichte der h. Schrr. N. T., 
 5th ed., Braunschw. 1874, 2151), a homily, is acknowledged, and is, more- 
 
388 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 over, rendered certain by the personal allusions at the close of the com- 
 position, since these admit neither of our regarding them, with Berger, as 
 the later appendix of another author, nor, with Schwegler (Nachapostol- 
 isches Zeitalter, Bd. II. p. 304), as a “literary fiction.” 
 
 In like manner, the opinion frequently expressed in ancient times,— 
 originally broached with a view to the removal of the difficulties arising 
 from the literary character of the book, upon the presupposition of the 
 authorship of the Apostle Paul,—and in recent times specially advocated 
 by Joseph Hallet, jun., and John David Michaelis, that the epistle was 
 originally composed in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and only after- 
 wards translated into Greek, is at the present time universally recognized 
 to be erroneous. Even on account of the great freedom with which the 
 translator must have proceeded in the remoulding of the original,—on 
 account of the purity in the Greek expression, the skill in the formation 
 of genuine Greek periods, such as are foreign to the Aramaic,—on account 
 of the many compound terms, the equivalent of which could have been 
 expressed in Aramaic only by means of periphrases (as toAvmepoc Kai roAv- 
 tpérwc, i. 1; aratyaopua,i. 3; petporabeiv, V. 2; evrepioratoc, xii. 1, etc.),—on 
 account of the multitude of paronomasias, which could not possibly be in 
 every case the work of chance (i. 1, 11. 2, ii. 3, ii. 8, 11. 10, ii. 18, iii. 18, iv. 
 Bowe AVS, Ve $A, vil..3,)vil./9) vile 13, vil 19, 22° wins 25,24 ax 5 10) xe Don 
 29, x. 34, x. 38, 39, xi. 27, xi. 37, xii. 24, 25, xiii. 14)—and on account 
 of the ambiguous use of dcaOj«n, ix. 15 ff.,! this view is wanting in all prob- 
 ability and naturalness. Absolutely inadmissible, however, it becomes 
 oly from the fact that the author, not only in connection with his Biblical 
 citations, but also in the conducting of his argument, bases his reasoning 
 throughout upon the form of the text in the LXX., even when this ver- 
 sion gives a sense entirely at variance with that of the original text. With 
 particular distinctness does this appear x. 5 ff., where in place of the 
 Hebrew » 2 DIS the entirely diverse cOua dé xatnptiow por of the LXX. 
 8 adopted by our author, and then at ver. 10 the rpoogopa rod cuarTog ’Inoow 
 Xpiorov brought into relation therewith. 
 
 1 Nevertheless, as has already been observed the Chaldee Paraphrasts, as also in the Pe- 
 Yy Braun, as also by Bleek, the Por shito,—might certainly also haye combined 
 xrdopted by the Aramaic from the Greek and _ the twofold signification of a “covenant” and 
 eecurring in the Talmud, as frequently also a “testament.” 
 in the Peshito; or the Dips more usual with 
 
CHAP. IL 389 
 
 ‘H xpos ‘EBpaious éxtotody. 
 
 A B K® have merely IIpo¢ ‘EGpaiove. Simplest and probably earliest super- 
 scription. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Ver. 1, én’ éoydtov] Elz.: éx’ éoydtwr. Against AB D E K L M8, most 
 min., Vulg. Copt. a/., and many Fathers. The plural éo ya47w» arose from the 
 Tv immediately following.—Ver. 2. In place of kai Tovc al@vag Exoincoev 
 » of the Recepta, A B D* D*** KM 8, 17, 37, al., Vulg. It. Copt. Syr. al., Patres 
 Gr. et. Lat. m. have kai éroinoev tovc aidvac, Already recommended by 
 Griesb. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. In addition to the strong 
 attestation, this position of the words is favored by the internal ground that in 
 this order the emphasis falls, as was required, upon évo0iycev, instead of falling 
 upon Tove ai@vac.—Ver. 3. Before kadapiopudv, Elz. Wetst. Griesb. Matth. 
 Scholz, Bloomf. Tisch. 7, Reiche (Commentarius Criticus in N. T., t. III. p. 6 sq.), 
 with D***, almost all min. Syr. utr. (Aeth. ?) Ath. p. 362, Chrys. in text. et 
 comm. dis., Oec. Theoph. Aug. (?) add 6’ éavrov. But d’ éavrod instead of 
 which 6? aitov (according to Theodoret’s express observation to be read as d? 
 avtov) is found with D* 137, Copt. Clar. Germ. Cyr. (semel) Didym. Theodoret, in 
 t. et comm. Euthal. Damasce. in textu, is wanting in A B D** &, 17, 46* 47, 80, 
 Vulg. Arm. Cyr. (saepe) Cyr. Hieros. pseudo-Athanas. (ed. Bened. ii. 337), 
 Damase. (comm.) Sedul. Cassiod. Bede. Already suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 
 991). Rightly deleted as a gloss by Bleek, de Wette, Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and 8, 
 and Alford. For although the addition 6? éavrov (by Himself, 7.e. by the offer- 
 ing of Himself, inasmuch as He was at the same time High Priest and Victim) is 
 in perfect keeping with the after deductions of the epistle, it is nevertheless not 
 indispensable ; and though it is conceivable that 6 éavtov was taken up into the 
 preceding airov, yet it is, on the other hand, hardly credible, seeing the endeavor 
 of the author after linguistic euphony, that he should have placed the words 
 avrov, 6’ éavtov (aitov) in immediate juxtaposition the one with the other.— 
 Instead of tocyodmevocg TOV duaptLov, Bengel, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 
 8, Alford read: TGv dwapti@v roinodpevoc. In favor of the latter decides 
 the preponderant attestation on the part of A B D E M 8, 37, 46, al., Vulg. It. 
 Cyr. Cyr. Hieros. Athan. Did. ps.-Athan. Dam. (comm.).—7ev ayaptiov] Elz. 
 Matth. Scholz: tov duaprtiov Auav. But yudv is wanting in A B D* E* 
 M &*, 67** al., Vulg. It. Copt. Syr. Aeth. Cyr. utr. Nyss. Didym. Damasc. Aug. 
 Sedul. Cassiod. al. Already suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 496) and Griesb. 
 Rightly rejected by Lachm., Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Reiche, Alford. It was 
 added as a dogmatic precaution, in order to guard against a referring of the words 
 also to the own dyapria of the subject.—Ver. 8. paBdoc evdirytoc 7 pasdoc TH¢ 
 BaoiAsiac cov] Instead of that, Lachm. in the edit. stereot. (as likewise Tisch. 8) 
 
390 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 read: cat (A B D* K* M 8, 17, Aeth. Clar. Germ. Vulg. ms. Cyr.) 7 (A B M8, 
 Cyr.) paBdocg tH¢ (ABM S8** Cyr.) evdtryto¢ paBdocg (A B M &** Cyr.) 
 t7¢ BaotAeiac cov, In the later larger edition, vol. II., on the other 
 hand, he has adopted kai paBdoc tHe ev¥ityTog PaBdog THE Bacl- 
 Aciag cov, The kai at the beginning is, as also Bleek and Alford 
 decide, to be looked upon as original, but in other respects the Recepta 
 is to be retained, inasmuch as the 7 before the first paBdoc (in the first 
 edition of Lachmann) would be a variation from the text presented by the 
 LXX., such as could hardly be ascribed to the author of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, considering the closeness with which he follows that translation in other 
 cases, and the purity in other respects of his Greek expression.—Ver. 9. avouiav] 
 A®, 18, 23, al., Cyr. Chron. Alex. Eus. Chrys. ms. @dc«iav; preferred by Bleek, 
 since it is also found in the Cod. Alex. of the LXX. Adopted also by Tisch. 8. 
 But avouiav might easily be changed into adcxvay, since the latter formed a more 
 direct opposite to the preceding d:cavoovvyy.—Ver. 12. éAvE e¢ ] Beza, Bengel, Tisch. 
 8: aAAdgecc. Only insufliciently supported by D*8* 48, Vulg. (not Harl.*) It. 
 Tert.—airoi¢] Lachm.: avtovc¢, o¢ iwarcoy, after A B D* E 8, Aeth. Arm. - 
 Clar. Germ. Spite of the strong authority, an apparent gloss, explanatory of 
 aoe TeptBddacov. 
 
 Vy. 1-4. [On Vv. 1-3, see Note XLI., pages 410-414.] Without beginning 
 with the ordinary salutation, with the omission even of any kind of pre- 
 face, the author proceeds at once to place the revelation of God in Christ 
 in contrast with the revelations of God under the Old Covenant, inasmuch 
 as he characterizes the revelations under the Old Covenant as imperfect, 
 while he shows the perfection of this new revelation by a description of 
 the incomparable dignity of its Mediator. With vy. 1-8 the author strikes 
 the keynote for all that which he is subsequently to disclose to the 
 readers. The utterances of these three verses afford the theme of his 
 whole epistle. [XLI a.] For the later dogmatic disquisitions are only the 
 more full unfolding of the same; and for the later paraeneses they form 
 thé motive and fundamental consideration. To ver. 4, however,—which 
 combines grammatically with that which precedes into the unity of a 
 well-ordered, rhetorically vigorous and majestic period,—vyv. 1-3 stand 
 related as the universal to the particular, since that which was before ex- 
 pressed in a more general way is in ver. 4 brought into relief on a special 
 side, which finds in the sequel its detailed development, in such wise that 
 then ver. 4 in turn forms, as regard its conten%s, the theme for the first 
 section of the epistle (i. 4-11. 18). 
 
 On vv. 1-8 comp. L. J. Uhland, Dissert. Theol. ad Hebr. 1. 1-3, Pars I., 
 II., Tubing. 1777, 4—G. M. Amthor, Commentatio exegetico-dogmatica in 
 tres priores versus epistolae ad Hebraeos scriptae (Coburg), 1828, 8.—(J. G. 
 Reiche), In locum epist. ad Hebr. i. 1-8 observationes, Gotting. (Weihnachts- 
 programm) 1829, 4. 
 
 Ver. 1. Modtvuepie kai roAvtpéra¢ «.7.2.] [XLI b.] After God had spoken. 
 oftentimes and in manifold ways of old time to the fathers in the prophets. 
 The twofold expression toAvuepac Kai ToAvtpémwc¢ (comp. Maximus 
 Tyrius, Dissert. vii. 2, xvii. 7) is by no means merely rhetorical amplifica- 
 
CHAP. I. 1. 391 
 
 tion of one and the same idea (Chrysostom: rovréote diadépwc ; Michaelis, 
 Abresch, Dindorf, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Reiche, Tholuck,! and others). Té 
 roAvuwepéc is that which is divided into many parts (r6 ig TOAAG peEpifduevor, 
 Hesychius). IToAvuepae¢ therefore presents the Aadeiv of former ages 
 from the point of view of something which was accomplished in a multi- 
 plicity of successive acts, whereas toAutpérwc brings out the manifold 
 character of the modality in which, in connection with those acts, the 
 Aadeiv Was accomplished. Common thus to both expressions is, indeed, 
 the notion of changeful diversity; but the former marks the changeful 
 diversity of the times in which, and the persons through whom, God 
 revealed Himself; the latter, the changeful diversity of the divine revela- 
 tions as regards contents and form. For not only was the substance and 
 extent of the single revelations disproportioned, but also the modes of 
 their communication varied, inasmuch as God spoke to the recipients of 
 His revelations sometimes by means of visions and dreams, sometimes 
 mouth to mouth (comp. Num. xii. 6 ff.), sometimes immediately, some- 
 times by the intervention of an angel, sometimes under the veil of symbols 
 and types, sometimes without these? By the very choice of roAvuepi¢ Kai 
 modvtpérw¢e Our author indicates the imperfection of the O. T. revelations. 
 No single one of them contained the full truth, for otherwise there would 
 have been no need of a succession of many revelations, of which the one 
 supplemented the other. And just so was the continual change in the 
 modes of communicating these revelations a sign of imperfection, inas- 
 much as only a perfect form of communication corresponds to the perfect 
 truth.—As, moreover, on the one hand, by means of the adverbs the im- 
 perfection of the O. T. revelation is indicated in contrast with the perfec- 
 tion of the N. T. revelation; so, on the other hand, by means of the 
 identity of the subject 6 @eé6¢ in AadAgoac and éAdAnoev, the inner connec- 
 tion between the revelations of the O. T. and that of the N. T. is brought 
 into relief, and in this way attention is tacitly drawn to the fact that the 
 former was the divinely appointed preliminary stage and preparation for 
 
 1 The last-named expositor would otherwise 
 expect an antithetical amads (!) or epamaé at 
 the close of the verse. 
 
 2 Erroneously does Grimm (Theol. Litera- 
 turbl. to the Darmstadt A. A. Z. 1857, No. 29, 
 p. 661) raise against the above explanation, 
 according to which woAvtpémws has respect 
 not only to the purport, but also at the same 
 time to the form of the divine revelations, 
 the objection that the properly understood 
 ey tots mpod. (see below) does not accord 
 therewith, inasmuch as revelations “mouth 
 to mouth,” or by the intervention of angels, 
 would not have been a speaking of God in the 
 prophets, but to (mpos) the same. For what 
 is spoken of (ver. 1) is not the relation of God 
 to the prophets in itself alone, but the rela- 
 tion of God to the fathers through the medium 
 of the prophets. The fact, however, that the 
 
 prophets, as men in whom God was present, 
 brought to the knowledge of the fathers the 
 revelations received, is independent of the 
 way and manner in which those revelations 
 were previously communicated to themselves 
 by God.—Since, moreover, the prophets as 
 recipients of revelation in the first rank are 
 distinguished from the fathers as recipients 
 of revelation in the second rank, and only an 
 interweaving of the relation of God to both 
 takes place, we cannot assume either, with 
 Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 90), who in 
 other respects rightly explains roAvutporws, 
 that the form of the communication of the 
 word of God to the prophets is to be taken 
 into account only so far as a duly propor- 
 tioned form corresponded to it, even as in 
 the prophetic word the revelation of God be 
 came known to the fathers. 
 
392 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 the latter —[XLI ¢.]—7ra2.a] of old, in long bygone times. For Malachi was 
 looked upon as the last of the O. T. prophets, and since his appearing 
 already from four to five centuries had elapsed. Delitzsch: rd4a is not 
 so much antiquitus as antehac, since the contrast is not between ancient and 
 recent or new, but between past and present. Wrongly; for the opposition 
 of a ‘“‘ prius” and “ post” had certainly been already expressed by Aadjoac 
 and éAdAnoev, whereas mada: still finds its special, and indeed very signifi- 
 cant opposition in éx’ écydrov tév juspov Tobrwv, and must accordingly be 
 explained after the analogy of this—Aade] particularly in our epistle of 
 very frequent use, to indicate divine revelations. Comp. ii. 2, 3, iii. 5, vii. 
 14, ix. 19, xi. 18, xil. 24, 25.—roic xatpdow] to the fathers (forced, and need- 
 lessly ; Kurtz: roic ratpdow, and equally so afterwards juiv, is dativus com- 
 modi) t.e. to the forefathers of the Jewish people. Comp. Rom. ix. 5. The 
 expression in its absolute use characterizes author and recipients as born 
 Jews.—rpog7ta] is to be taken in the widest sense, in such wise that all 
 holy men of the O. T. history who received revelations from God are 
 comprehended under it. For unquestionably the aim of the discussion now 
 begun, that of expressing the pre-eminence of the revelation contained in 
 Christ over each and all of the O. T. revelations, demands this. But thus 
 must Moses also, and very specially, be reckoned as belonging to the zpogqraz, 
 since Moses held the first rank in the series of development of the pre- 
 Christian revelations; as, accordingly, iii. 2 ff., the superiority of Christ 
 even over Moses is expressly asserted. Nor does the wider acceptation 
 of zpo¢y#rac encounter any difficulties on the ground of Biblical usage. 
 Comp. e.g. Gen. xx. 7, where Abraham is spoken of as a xpo@grn¢ (8°22.) 
 Deut. xxxiy. 10, where it is said of Moses: kai ov« avéotn ete mpodgrne év ‘Iopana 
 &¢ Mwoiojc.'\—By virtue of this wider acceptation of xpodjra in itself, the 
 opinion of Er. Schmid and Stein, that év roi¢ mpogpracc signifies: “in the 
 prophetic Scriptures,’ becomes an impossibility ; quite apart from the 
 consideration that this interpretation is also sufficiently refuted by the 
 antithesis év vig. But just as little is é roic mpoofrae to be made equiva- 
 lent to dca tév mpopytdv For the linguistic character of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews affords no warrant for the supposition of such a Hebraism in 
 the interchange of prepositions. Nor is this proved by ix. 25, to which 
 Tholuck appeals in following the precedent of Fritzsche (Jen. Literaturzeit. 
 1848, p. 59). ’Ev is of more extensive significance than dca. While the 
 latter would signify the mere medium, the mere instrument, év implies that 
 God, in revealing Himself to the fathers by the prophets, was present in 
 the latter, was indwelling in them, in such wise that the prophets were 
 only the outward organs of speech for the God who spoke in them. 
 Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 3; Matt. x. 20.—é’ éoydrov tov juepov tobtov] Anti- 
 thesis to ré4a. Wrongly does Delitzsch, with the approval of Meier, take 
 
 1Philo, too (de nom. mut. p. 1064 A, ed. Man- Tholueck, Stengel, Ebrard, Bisping, Bloom-. 
 gey, I. p. 597), calls Moses the apxirpodyrys. field, Delitzsech, Maier, and M’Caul. 
 
 2As is done by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 8 Comp. also Schnéckenburger in the Theol 
 Theophylact, Primasius, Luther, Calvin, Gro- Stud. u. Krit. 1861, H. 3, p. 557. 
 tius, and the majority, also B6hme, Reiche, 
 
CHAP. I. 2. 393 
 
 rév juepov Tobrwv as apposition to én’ éoydrov: “at the period’s close, which 
 these days form,’—for which, on account of the article before juepov, the 
 placing of éxi row éoydrov would at least have been required,—while he 
 then still more arbitrarily finds in écyatov rév juepov “the expression 
 indicative of one idea, equivalent to D0 8,” and makes roirwv 
 belong logically to the whole idea! The juépac aita are identical with 
 that which is elsewhere called 6 ai@v oiroc, in opposition to 6 aidv uéAAwv. 
 The demonstrative totroy refers to the fact that these juépac are the 
 period of time in which the author equally as his readers lives, and of an 
 éoyatov of these juépac he speaks, because like all N. T. writers—the 
 author of the Second Epistle of Peter (ii. 4 ff.) excepted—he regards the 
 return of Christ, for the transforming of the present order of the world and 
 the accomplishment of the Messianic kingdom, as near at hand; comp. 
 x. 87, ix: 26.—juiv] to us, namely, who belong to the age just mentioned, 
 Antithesis to toi¢ matpdow.—év vig] anar- 
 throus, as vil. 28; not because vidc has acquired the nature of a nomen 
 proprium,’ but for the indication of the essential property : in one (to wit, 
 Christ) who is not merely prophet—who is more than that, namely, Son. 
 Vy. 2-4. EXLI d.] The author unfolds the idea of superiority contained 
 in vid, ver. 1, in sketching a brief portraiture in full of the Son of God, 
 and setting vividly before the readers the incomparable dignity of this 
 Son, as manifested in each single one of the various periods of His life. 
 Ver. 2. As far as tij¢ duvayewc avtov, ver. 3. The dignity of the Son as 
 the premundane Logos.—T:3évac with double accusative, in the sense 
 of roeiv twa tt, is no Hebraism (DW, WW), but is very frequent with the 
 classics.2. "ESy«ev, however, has reference not so much to the time when 
 Christ, having completed the work of redemption, has returned to the 
 Father in heaven (so the Greek expositors; and in like manner Prima- 
 sius, Erasmus (Paraphr.), Calvin, Cameron, Corn. a Lapide, Grotius, 
 Schlichting, Calov, Hammond, Braun, Limborch, Storr, Ebrard, Delitzsch, 
 Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 295 ff.;* Maier, Moll, and others), but 
 
 the écyatov tev nuepOv TobTwr. 
 
 Christ are described in their historic succes- 
 sion, so that only in connection with the in- 
 
 2Comp. e.g. Herodian, Hist. v. 7.10; ’Eq’ termediate member—or . .. dépwv Te «.7.A., 
 ois “AvTwvivos Tavy noXaAAE Kat METEYLYVMOKE, ver. 3 (see on the verse)—there resounds 
 throughout, in addition to the main reference 
 
 1Béhme, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, 
 Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 272. 
 
 Riehm, 
 
 Aguevos avTov viovy Kal KolWwvov THS apxys; 
 
 Xenophon, Cyrop. iv. 6.3: womep av evdaipova 
 matépa Tats Tin@v 7LHein; Aeclian, Var. Hist. 
 xiii. 6; Homer, Odyss. ix. 404, al. Comp. also 
 Elsner ad loc.; Kuthner, II. p. 226. 
 
 3 According to Riehm, the author first (ver. 
 2) glaneed at the final point of the power of 
 the Redeemer, and then at the beginning 
 thereof, and after this (ver. 3) described the 
 way to that final point with respect to the 
 beginning. But however delicate and acute 
 this conception of the subject, it is too greatly 
 refined and artificial. In point of simplicity 
 and naturalness it falls short of the view that 
 at vv. 2,3 the various phases of the life of 
 
 to an earlier condition of the life of Christ, at 
 the same time the subordinate reference toa 
 later condition of His life. That which 
 Riehm urges in support of his own view, and 
 in refutation of the opposite one, is easily dis- 
 posed of. When he thinks, in the first place, 
 that only by his apprehension the whole 
 structure of the period becomes thoroughly 
 clear, this is already shown to be inaccurate 
 by the fact that the simple is always more 
 clear than the complex. For even if it be 
 admitted in some respects that a new division 
 of thought begins with the 6s, ver. 3, which 
 specially brings into relief the subject, where- 
 
394 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 relates to the appointment made in the eternal decree of God before all 
 time; thus has reference to Christ as the premundane Logos. This appli- 
 cation is required in order to a due proportion with the declarations 
 immediately following, and to the logical development of the well thought 
 out periods, in which the discourse reaches the exaltation of the incarnate 
 Redeemer only with éddicev iv deed tHe peyadwoivyg év bWydoic, ver. 38. 
 The idea of the pre-existence of Christ or the Son of God as the eternal 
 Logos with its nearer definitions, as this comes forth here and in that 
 which immediately follows, is the same as is met with also in Paul’s 
 writings.’ Yet, in the shaping of this idea on the part of the author of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, not only the teaching of Paul, but likewise the 
 Logos-speculations of Philo, with whose writings the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews has manifold points in common, have not been without influ- 
 ence.—«Aypovduov ravrav] heir, i. e. (futur 2 Possessor and Lord of all things, 
 namely, of the world? Comp. Gal. iv. 7; Rom. viii. 17.—dv ob] by whom. 
 Grammatically unwarranted, Grotius : propter quem (d? 6v). Comp. also 
 il. 10.—ai éroinoev] The emphasis falls upon the word éroiyoev, on that 
 account preposed, while rode aiévag only takes up again under a varying 
 form a notion already expressed in that which precedes, and «aé indicates 
 
 no heightening of the expression (even, or more than this ; 
 
 as before 6 @eds was the subject, yet nothing 
 is to be inferred from this, because the 
 character of the relative statements, ver. 2, is 
 not changed thereby, inasmuch as the refer- 
 ence to God assuredly appears in the third 
 relative clause, namely, in xexAypovopunxer, 
 ver. 4. When Riehm further Gontends that 
 in his explanation yer. 2 agrees much better 
 with that which precedes,—inasmuch as by 
 the vies, ver. 1, the historie Christ is con- 
 fessedly to be understood, but now an inex- 
 plicable leap in the thought would arise, if 
 the author had first ascribed to the historie 
 Christ a number of predicates, which were 
 appropriate to Him only as the premundane 
 
 Logos, and should only afterwards speak of - 
 
 His present glory,—-this contention is already 
 sufficiently refuted by the wholly parallel 
 procedure of the Apostle Paul, Phil. ii. 5 ff, 
 who likewise takes his departure from the 
 historic Christ, and then, in the same order 
 which Riehm calls an “inexplicable leap in 
 the thought,” attaches thereto further state- 
 ments with regard to the person of the Re- 
 deemer. Moreover, in our passage the order 
 of suecession censured as an “inexplicable 
 leap in the thought” is perfectly justified, 
 because vids, ver. 1, is the total expression, 
 which, as such, includes in itself all the stadia 
 in the life of Christ; and thus from it one 
 might proceed with equal justice immediately 
 to the premundane Christ as to the exalted 
 Christ. If Riehm further supposes that in 
 connection with the appointment as heir, ver. 
 
 Wolf and 
 
 2, we cannot think of a destination made in 
 the eternal decree of God, then the analogous 
 declaration of Scripture: marépa moAA@v €Ovav 
 Téecka oe, Rom. iv. 17, already proves the 
 opposite; and if he finds the expression 
 kAnpovomos appropriate only to the incarnate 
 Son, inasmuch as the name could hardly 
 
 “otherwise occur in connection with riOévac 
 
 than in reference to a possession which the 
 kAnpovonos once had not, there underlies this 
 objection only this amount of truth, namely, 
 that the expression «Anpovoxos no doubt in- 
 cludes in itself a reference pointing to the 
 future; but that which it is designed to ex- 
 press by the first relative clause is assuredly 
 also only the thought that Christ was in the 
 ideal sense before all time appointed or made 
 something, which in the real sense He could 
 only be in the full extent at the end of all 
 time. When, finally, Riehm believes that 
 dv EOnKev KANpovomoy TavTwr, Ver. 2, must be 
 understood of the dominion of the exalted 
 Christ, for the reason that the passage i. 8, 9, 
 bearing upon the dominion of the exalted 
 Christ, is supposed to refer back to those 
 words, this is altogether erroneous, since a 
 special referring back on the part of i. 8, 9 to 
 the opening proposition of ver. 2 is not by 
 any means to be admitted. See below, Les 
 analysis of contents of vy. 5-14. 
 
 1Comp. Col. i. 15 ff.; Phil. ii. 6; 1 Cor. viii. 
 6, x. 4, xv. 47; 2 Cor. iv. 4, viii. 9. 
 
 2Chrysostom: T@ S& rod KAnpovdmov dbvduare 
 kexpntat, dvo SnA@v, kal Td THs VidTHTOS yryCLOV, 
 
CHAP. I. 2. 395 
 
 others), but is intended to bring out the accordance between the state- 
 ment in the second relative clause and that in the first; so that the fact 
 that by the Son the aiaveg were created is made to follow as something 
 quite natural, from the fact that He was by God constituted KkAypovdpoc 
 ravruv (by whom He also created, etc.). Wrongly does Riehm (Lehrbegr. 
 des Hebrierbr. p. 298 f.) invert the relation of the two members indicated 
 by «ai, in finding out the sense : “the installation of the Son in the office 
 of the world’s dominion is in entire accordance with the fact that by the 
 Son the world was created; in other words, from the relation of the Son 
 to God and the world, revealed in the latter fact, His installation in the 
 office of the world’s dominion presents nothing extraordinary, but rather 
 appears something which we could not at all expect to be otherwise.” 
 [So in substance Owen, who seeks to combine the two meanings of 
 ruséva.] Had this been meant, then 6? ob éroiyoev rove ai@vac, dv Kat 
 BOnKev KAnpovopov TavtTov must have been written. For the «ai of the second 
 clause accentuates the fact that what follows is in accord with that which 
 precedes, not that what precedes is in accord with that which follows. 
 Comp. Phil. iii. 20, where by means of kai the fact that we expect the 
 Lord Jesus Christ from heaven as a deliverer is represented as something 
 quite natural, since our roAirevya is in heaven; but not conversely is the 
 fact that our xodirevua is in heaven deduced from the presupposition of 
 our expecting Christ from thence.—rove aiavac| does not here denote the 
 ages; either in such wise that the totality of the periods of time from the 
 creation of the world to its close is meant (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecu- 
 menius, Theophylact, Thomas Aquinas, Daniel Heinsius), for this thought 
 would be too abstract ; or in such wise that the two main periods in the 
 world’s history—the pre-Messianic and the Messianic—are to be under- 
 stood thereby (Paulus, Stein), for in connection with the absolute rov¢ ai@vac 
 no one could have thought of this special division into two parts. Nor 
 must we either apprehend rove aidvac of the Aecons in the sense of the 
 Gnostics (Amelius in Wolf, Fabriciss, Cod. Apocryph. N. T.1.p. 710) ; for at 
 the time when our author wrote this notion of the word did not yet exist. 
 rove ai@vac is to be understood of the worlds, of the totality of all things 
 existing in time (and space), so that it is identical with the preceding 
 xévtev and the following ra zavra of ver. 3. 6 aiay, it is true, has always 
 with the classics the strict notion of duration of time ; but, as in the case 
 of the Hebrew 02)); this notion might easily pass over into the wider 
 notion of that which forms the visible contents of time, thus into that of 
 the complex of all created things. This interpretation is confirmed by 
 the reading of xi. 3, where aidvec cannot possibly be used in any other 
 sense.—As parallel passages to this second relative clause of ver. 2, express- 
 ing the thought of a creation of the universe by the premundane Son of 
 God, comp. in Paul’s writings, Col. i. 16: 1 Cor. viii. 6; in those of John, 
 John i. 3,10. Philo, too, supposes the world was created by the Logos, 
 as the earliest or first-born Son of God.' 
 
 Kal To THs KUpLOTHTOS AvanogTaaToV. p. 162): i8€ Thy peyloTny oiKiav 7 modu, Toves 
 1Comp. de Cherubim, p. 129 (ed. Mangey, I. Tov Koopov" evpyceis yap aitiov ev avTou Tur 
 
396 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 Ver. 3. Continued description of the dignity of the Son. The main 
 declaration of the verse, é¢ éxddicev év deEta tHE peyadwobvyg Ev inroic, is 
 established on the grounds presented in the preceding participles dv... 
 gépov ve. . . Touodpuevoc. The grounding, however, is a twofold one, inas- 
 much as the participles present still relate to Christ as the Aédyo¢ dcapxoc, 
 and describe His nature and sway, while the participle aorist has as its 
 contents the redeeming act of the Adyo¢ évoapxoc. Of the two present par- 
 ticiples, the first corresponds to the former half of the proposition, ver. 2, 
 and the second to the latter half—év azaiyacua] not: quum esset, but : 
 quum sit araby., or as axabyaoua. For the evar arabyacpya x.7.2. and dépew 
 Ta ravra x.7.A., Which was appropriate to the Son of God in His prehuman 
 form of existence, has, after the exaltation or ascension has taken place, 
 become again appropriate to Him.!—aratyaoua] [XLI e.] an Alexandrian 
 word, occurring Wisd. vii. 26, and frequently with Philo, but only here in 
 the N. T. It is explained either (1) as a beaming forth or radiance, i. e. as 
 a ray which flows forth from the light, e.g., of the sun.? Or (2) as image, 
 reflected radiance, i.e. as a likeness formed by reflex rays, reflection. In 
 favor of the former interpretation it may be advanced that Hesychius 
 paraphrases azaiyascua by jiov déyyoc; and in Lexic. Cyrilli ms. Brem. are 
 found the words: aratyacua axtic Hiov, 4 mpdrn Tov ALaKod gwrd¢ aroBorg, 
 as accordingly also Chrysostom and Theophylact explain aratyacua by 
 d@¢ &k gwréc, the latter with the addition 1d azatyaoua ék Tov AAiov Kai ovy 
 vorepov avrov; and Theodoret observes: Td yap azabyacua Kai éx tov rupd¢ 
 éote Kai obv TH Tupi éore Kai aitiov piv Eyer TO vp, AYdpioTov dé EoTL TOU 
 mupoc’ && ob yap TO Top, && Ekeivov Kai 7d arabyacua. But without reason 
 does Bleek claim, in favor of this first interpretation, also the usage of 
 Philo and Wisd. vii. 26. For in the passage of Philo, de Speciall. legg. 211 
 (ed. Mangey, IT. p. 356), which Bleek regards as “ particularly clear” (Td 
 & éupvoduevov [Gen. ii. 7] d7A0v Oc aibépiov jv rvevua Kar ei df Te albepiov 
 
 * 
 
 Gedv, vd’ ob yéyovev, UAnv Sé Ta Téocapa 
 é& ov Opyavov sé 
 Ocov, de’ oF 
 
 ouveKkpaén, 
 kKaTeckevacdy, 
 
 oTOLXELa, 
 Adyov - 
 
 THs 6€ KatacKevyns aitiay Thy ayaboryTa Tov- 
 
 Snpcovpyov.—De Monarch. lib. ii. p. 823 B (ed. 
 Mangey, II. p. 225): Adyos 6€ eri cixwy Geod, 
 6.’ oF Gupmas 0 K6omOoS Edy MLOV_P- 
 yeito.—Legg. allegor. lib. iii. p. 79 A (ed. 
 Mangey, [. p. 106); oxra Bcod S5é 6 Adyos avTod 
 éoTlv, @ KabdTweEp bpyavw mpoaxXpyaa- 
 MEVOS EkOTMOTOLEL. 
 
 1 Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 159 f., 2d ed.; 
 comp. also his remarks in the Commentary, 
 p. 64 ff.) believes that the év amavyacua k.T.A. 
 and the ¢épwv ta wavra «.7.A. must be referred 
 exclusively to the exalted Christ, but on 
 untenable grounds. For from the consider- 
 ation that 6épwv re ra wavra “forms the 
 most unambiguous contrast to the condition 
 of Christ’s life in the flesh,” nothing is to be 
 argued in favor of this view; because this 
 contrast is equally to be supposed, when we 
 
 understand these words alike of the premun- 
 dane as of the exalted Christ. The further 
 assertion, however, that in the case of a re- 
 ferring of ®v amavyaocua. k.t.A. to that 
 whieh Christ is apart from His humanity, 
 the declaration ver. 3 must haye been con- 
 nected by means of 6s éaru instead of dv, is 
 lacking in all grammatical support. or, se 
 far as concerns the sense, there is no differ- 
 ence whatever between és éorw and ov: only 
 regard for rhetorical euphony and the due 
 rounding off of the periods determined the 
 author upon expressing himself as he did. 
 2So Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz, 
 and Hofmann, after the example of Clarius, 
 Jac. Cappellus, Gomar., Schlichting, Gerhard, 
 Caloy, Owen, Rambach, Peirce, Calmet, Heu- 
 mann, Béhme, Reiche. ‘ 
 So Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wit- 
 tich, Limborch, Stein, Grimm (Theol. Litera- 
 turbl. to the Darmstadt A. Kirch.-Z. 1857, No. 
 29, p. 661, and in his Lewric. NV, T. p. 36), Nickel 
 
CHAP Ista: 397 
 
 mvEevpaTog KpEITTOV, ATE THC pwakapiag Kal Tplouakapiag gicews anatyaoyua), there 
 is found no ground of deciding either for or against this acceptation of the 
 word. The other two passages of Philo, however, which are cited by 
 Bleek, tell less in favor of it than against it. For in the former of these 
 arabyacua is explained by éxuayeiov [impression] and az écracua [shred] 
 as synonyms, in the latter by wiunua |copy}. (De Opific. Mundi, p. 33 D, 
 in Mangey, I. p. 35: wag avbpwroe Kara pév THv didvorav Gikeiwrar Bei Adyw, 
 THG aKapiag pvoews éExuayeiov 7 axédotacua  arabyacua yeyovec, Kata dé THY 
 TOV G@puaTog KaTaoKERY anavte TP Kbouw.—De plantat. Noe, p. 221 C, Mang. I. 
 p. 8387: To dé dyiacua oiov ayiwy arabyacua, piunua apyetirou™ éxei Ta aicbAcer 
 Kada Kai vogoee Kar@v eixdvec.) Finally, there are found also, Wisd. vii. 26, 
 as kindred expressions, besides azatyacua, the words écortpov and eikév. 
 (Arabyaoua yap éote dwrd¢ aidiov Kal ésonTpov aKnAidwrov THE TOU Aeod évepyeiac 
 Kai eikOv THC ayabérytoc aitov.) The decision is afforded by the form of the 
 word itself. Inasmuch as not aravyacuéc, but aravyacua is written, an 
 active notion, such as would be required by Bleek’s acceptation, cannot be 
 expressed by it, but only a passive one. Not the ray itself, but the result 
 thereof must be intended. For as ar7yna denotes that which is produced 
 by the aznyeiv, the resonance or echo, and azockiasua that which is pro- 
 duced by the amooxafev, the shadow cast by an object, so does araiyacua 
 denote that which is produced by the aravydfew. ’Araiyacua is therefore 
 to be rendered by reflected radiance, and a threefold idea is contained in 
 the word—(1) the notion of independent existence, (2) the notion of 
 descent or derivation, (3) the notion of resemblance.—ryc déEyc] of His 
 (the divine) glory or majesty. For the following ai70% belongs equally to 
 tho ObEno AS tO THE brooTdcEwc.—Kat yapaKtip THe broctdcewc avTov] [XLI f.] 
 and as impress of His essential being, so that the essential being of the 
 Father is printed forth in the Son, the Son is the perfect image and coun- 
 terpart of the Father. Comp. Philo, de plantat. Noé, p. 217 A (ed. Mangey, 
 I. p. 832), where the rational soul (} Aoyc«y yvyx7) is called a coin which 
 stands the test, ovoweioa kat turwSeica odpayidse Geor, 7¢ 6 YapaKTHp 
 éoriv aidcoc Adyoc. Inthe N. T. the word yapaxr#p is found only in 
 this place. To interpret izéoracvc, however, in the sense of rpdcwrov, or 
 “Person,” ! is permitted only by later usage, not by that of the apostolic 
 age. For the rest, that which is affirmed by the characteristic arabyacua 
 the d6Enc Kal yapaxtip tHe brootdcewc avrov, the Apostle Paul expresses, Col. 
 i. 15, by eixdv rod Oeod rod dopdrov, and, Phil. ii. 6 (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4), by év 
 uopoy cov imdpywv.—dépov te Ta TdvTa TO phuare THC Suvdpewc aitod] [XLI g.] 
 and as He who upholds the whole creation by the word of His power. Comp. 
 Col. i, 17: Kat ra révra év abre ovvéoryxev; Philo. de Cherub. p. 114 (ed. 
 Mang. I. p. 145): 6 mrydadsoiyor Kat KvBepvirng tov mavTo¢ Adyo¢ Beioc.—r a 
 xévra is not to be limited, with the Socinians, to the kingdom of grace, 
 but is identical with wévrev; and rove aidvac, ver. 2, thus denotes the com- 
 
 {Reuter’s Repert. 1857, Oct., p. 17), Moll, and exposition], Beza, Piscator, Cornelius a La- 
 
 others; so substantially also Riehm (Lehrbegr. pide, Gerhard, Dorscheus, Caloy, Sebastian 
 aes Hebrderbr. p. 279). Schmidt, Bellarmin, Braun, Brochmann, 
 
 1Thomas Aquinas, Caietan, Calvin [in the Wolf, Suicer. 
 
398 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 plex of all created things. On gépecy in the signification: to uphold any- 
 thing, so that its continued existence is assured, comp. Plutarch, Lucull. 6 : 
 gépew tyv réAWJI—rO phuate TI¢ Suvapews avtou| more emphatic than if 76 
 phate avtov 7 dvvatg@ Were written, to which Wolf, Kuinoel, Stengel, 
 Tholuck, Bloomfield would, without reason, make the words equivalent.? 
 —Not the gospel, however, is meant by pjua tio duvapewc; but as by the 
 word of Omnipotence the world was created (comp. xi. 3), so is it also by 
 the word of Omnipotence upheld or preserved.—airoi] goes back to dc, 
 thus to the Son, not to God (Grotius, Peirce, Reiche, Paulus). [XLI h.J— 
 kabapiouov Tov duaptiov Tomodpuevoc] after He had accomplished a cleansing 
 from the sins. [XLIi.] Progress of the discourse to the dignity of the 
 Son as the eternal Logos incarnate, or the Redeemer in His historic ap- 
 pearing on earth. The nearer defining of the sense conveyed by the 
 declaration ; kaBapicuov Tov duapti@v roioauevoc,—with regard to the gram- 
 matical expression of which LXX. of Job vii. 21, 2 Pet. i. 9, may be com- 
 pared,—was naturally presented to the readers. As the object on which 
 the kaapicud¢ was wrought was understood as something self-evident, the 
 world of mankind, which until then was under the defiling stain of sins, 
 without possessing the power for its own deliverance; as the means, how- 
 ever, by which the ka@apicud¢ was accomplished, the atoning death of 
 Christ. [Owen compares the lustrations, i. e. purifications by sacrifice, and 
 cites Lucian’s piouev piv abtov tov Kpnuvov Kkabapiouov Tov otpaTod éoduevor, 
 “We shall cast him down headlong for an expiation of the army.’’] To 
 conceive of the duapriac themselves as a direct object to kabapioudv, to 
 which Bleek and Winer, Gramm. 5th ed. p. 214 (differently, 6th ed. p. 168, 
 7th ed. p.176 [E. T. 187]), were inclined, and in favor of which Delitzsch 
 and Alford (comp. also Hofmann ad loc.) pronounce themselves with 
 decision,—in such wise that these are thought of as the disease of the 
 human race, which is healed or put away by Christ,—is not at all war- 
 ranted by the isolated and less accurate form of expression : éxaBapioAn 
 avtov 4 Aéxpa, Matt. vill. 3. Nor is it requisite to supply azé before tay 
 duaptiav, and assume a pregnancy of expression, since xafapéc and its 
 derived words are not only connected by azé, but likewise, with equal 
 propriety, by the bare genitive.®—éxdAoev év deed tHe peyadoobvye év iyAvic} 
 sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Culminating point of the 
 description. Characteristic of the dignity of the Son after the completed 
 work of redemption, in the period of His return to the Father, which fol- 
 lowed the period of His self-abasement. The sitting at the right hand of 
 God is a well-known figure, derived from Ps. cx. 1, in order to designate 
 
 1Valerius Maximus, xi. 8.5: Humeris ges- ab eo sustentatur orbis. 
 
 tare salutem patriae; Cicero, pro Flacco, ec. 
 38: Quam (rempublicam) vos universam in 
 hoe judicio vestris humeris, vestris inquam 
 humeris, judices sustinetis; Seneca, Ep. 31: 
 Deus ille maximus potentissimusque ipse 
 vehit omnia; Herm. Past. iii. 9. 14: Nomen 
 Filii Dei magnum et immensum est et totus 
 
 2O0ecumenius: pHpma Sé ele Secxvis mavra 
 eVKOAwS avToV ayew Kat dépev. Theophylact: - 
 THALKOUTOVY GyKov THs KTigEws TOV UTEepmEyav 
 @s ovdév avros SiaBactager Kai Adyw povy 
 mavTa Suvaneva, 
 
 3See Kuthner, II, p. 163. 
 
CHAP. I. 4. 399 
 
 supreme honor and dominion over the world (Rom. vii. 34, al.).—év 
 dyyaoie] Comp. Ps. xciii. 4, exiii. 5; tantamount to év roi¢ obpavoic, Heb. 
 viii. 1; or é roig érovpaviow, Eph. i. 20; or év ipiorow, Luke ii. 14, xix. 38, 
 al. The addition belongs not to peyatwoovnc (Beza, BOhme, Bleek, Ebrard, 
 Alford),—since otherwise the article would be repeated,—but to éxatioev. 
 The plural év dprAoic is explained from the supposition of several heavens, 
 in the highest of which the throne of the Divine Majesty was placed. 
 
 Ver. 4. [On Vv. 4-6, see Note XLIIL., pages 414+416.] The author has 
 first, vv. 1-8, instituted a parallel between the mediators of the Old Testa- 
 ment revelations in general or i pleno, and the Mediator of the Christian 
 revelation. [XLII a.] But among the revelations of God under the Old 
 Covenant, none attained in point of glory to the Mosaic ; inasmuch as 
 this was given not only through the medium of a man enlightened by the 
 Spirit of God,—#. e. by one of the mpogqy7a, mentioned ver. 1,—but, accord- 
 ing to the universal J ewish belief (vid. ad ii. 2), was given by the instru- 
 mentality not only of Moses, but also of angels. As, therefore, the author 
 has maintained the superiority of Christ, as the Son of God, over the 
 mpoomtar, so is he now naturally further led to show the superiority of 
 Christ over the angels also. This is done in the declaration, ver. 4, which 
 in a grammatical sense is closely connected with that which precedes, 
 and serves for the completing of the description of Christ’s characteristic 
 qualifications ; at the same time, however, logically regarded, affords the 
 theme for the following disquisition, which constitutes the first section of 
 the epistle (i. 5-ii. 18).—The supposition of Tholuck, that the addition of 
 ver. 4 “has an independent object,” 7. ¢. 1s oceasioned by polemic refer- 
 ence to the opinion spread abroad among the Jews, in addition to other 
 conceptions with regard to the person of the Messiah, that He was an 
 intermediate spirit or angel,' is entirely erroneous. It finds no counte- 
 nance whatever in the reasoning of the author, and is opposed to the 
 whole scope of the epistle, that of showing in detail the inferiority of the 
 Old Covenant as compared with the New, and of influencing in a corres- 
 ponding manner the conduct of the readers. [XLII }, c.]—The orat orical 
 formula of comparison: tocotTo . . . 65%, which recurs vil. 20-22, viii. 
 6, x. 25, is found likewise with Philo, but never with Paul.—«peitror] better, 
 or‘more excellent, namely, in power, dignity, and exaltedness ; comp. Vil. 
 19, 22, viii. 6, ix. 28, x. 34, x16. -35,, 40) Sule 24.—yevduevoc] marks the 
 having begun to be in time, whereas ov, ver. 8, expressed the timeless 
 eternal existence. Kpeirrov tov ayyéawv did Christ become just at that 
 time when, having accomplished the work of redemption, He sat down 
 at the right hand of the Majesty on high. The yevéuevoc thus closely 
 attaches itself to the édSoev, ver. 38, [XLII d 1.] and is more fully 
 explained by the fact that Christ, by virtue of His incarnation, and so 
 
 1That the defective view with regard to bability. Comp. the “Observations on the 
 Christ, which saw in Him only an angel, must Epistle to the Hebrews,” contributed by 
 have called for rectification, has likewise Riehm from Schneckenburger’s remains, in 
 been thought probable by Schneckenburger, the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1861, H. 3, p. 544 ff. 
 who sought further to confirm this pro- 
 
400 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 long as He dwelt on earth, was made lower than the angels; comp. ii. 7, 
 9.—The comparative d:agopoérepor, found in the N. T. only here and 
 vili. 6, serves, since even the positive dsadopov would have sufficed for 
 the indication of the superiority, for the more emphatic accentuating 
 of the signification of the word. The opinion of Hofmann, that the 
 comparative is chosen. because the name dyyedoc is in itself an évoya 
 didgopov, When the author contrasts the spirits of God with men living in 
 the flesh, is quite remote from the idea of the passage—rapd] after a 
 comparative is very common in our epistle; ef. iii. 3, ix. 28, xi. 4, xii. 241 
 With Paul it never occurs. Similar is izép with the accusative, Heb. iv. 
 12; Luke xvi. 8.—évoua] must not, with Beza, Calov, Wittich, Storr, Valck- 
 enaer, Zachariae, Heinrichs, be altered into the notion of “dignity.” For 
 this évoua never signifies in itself, and its substitution would in our passage, 
 in relation to xpeittwv yevduevoc, bring about only a tautology. The name 
 of pre-eminence above the angels, which Christ has obtained as an inher- 
 itance, is the name viéc, Son of God,—comp. ver. 5 and ver. 1,—while 
 the angels by their name are characterized only as messengers and 
 servants of God. Contrary to the context, Delitzsch says: the name vidc 
 suffices not to express the thought in connection with évova. The supra- 
 angelic name, to which the author refers, lies beyond the notionally 
 separating and sundering language of men. It is the heavenly total- 
 name of the Exalted One, His W157 OY, nomen explicitum, which in this 
 world has entered into no human heart, and can be uttered by no human 
 tongue, the dvoua 6 ovdei¢ oidev ei jy avtéc, Rev. xix. 12. The following 
 words of Scripture are, he supposes, only upward pointing signs, which 
 call forth in us some foreboding as to how glorious He is. But this is 
 opposed to the connection. For even though it be true, as advanced by 
 Delitzsch in support of his view, that in the following O. T. passages there 
 occur also, in addition to vidéc, the wider appellations @ed¢ and es yet, 
 onthe other hand, not merely év vid, ver. 1, as likewise ver. 5 with its 
 proof-giving ydp, but also the antithesis mpocg piv Tove ayyéAove and mpdc¢ dé 
 Tov vidv, VV. 7, 8, shows that vide is the main conception, to which the 
 words of address: 6 6ed¢ and xpse, vy. 8, 10, stand in the relation of 
 subordination, inasmuch as they are already contained in this very idea 
 of Son.—The perfect kexAypovédunxev, however, not the aorist ExAnpovounoer, 
 is employed by the author; because Christ did not first obtain this name 
 at the time of the kafifew & de&a THe weyad., ver. 3, but had already as 
 pre-existing Logos obtained it as an abiding portion and_ possession. 
 [XLII d 2.] We have not, in connection with kexAnpovdunxev, to think 
 “quite in general of the O. T. time, in which the future Messiah received 
 in the Word of God the name of Son,” as is asserted by Riehm (Lehrbegr. 
 des Hebraerbr. p. 274), whose statement is endorsed by E. Woerner2 For 
 this view is contradicted by the dv ob Kai éroincev Tove aldvac, ver. 2, in its 
 
 1Comp. also Luke iii. 13; 3 Esdr. iy. 35; Bynoav; Herod. vii. 103: Winer, p. 225, [E. T. 2401. 
 Thuceyd. i. 23: nAiov re éxAetWers, ai TUKVOTEpPAat 2 Der Brief St. Pauli an die Hebrder, Lud 
 Tapa Ta €x TOU mply Xpovov mynmovevdumeva suveE- wigsb. 1876. 
 
CHAP, I. 5. 401 
 
 relation to év vie, ver. 1, according to which Christ already existed as the 
 Son before all time. The declarations of ver. 5, which Riehm has urged 
 in favor of the construction put by him on our passage, have only the 
 object of affording vouchers for a condition of things already existing.— 
 The difficulty raised, for the rest, that the name of Son is here insisted on 
 as a distinguishing characteristic of Christ, while, nevertheless, in single 
 passages of the O. T.,! angels too are called sons of God, is already dis- 
 posed of by the reflection that this is not the characteristic name for the 
 angels as such. There is no need, therefore, of the justification of the 
 author made by Bleek, that this writer, since he was not at home in the 
 Hebrew text of the O. T., but only in the Alexandrine version thereof, 
 which latter freely renders the majority of those passages by dyyeAo tov 
 cov, may easily have overlooked, or perhaps have otherwise interpreted, 
 those passages in which the literal translation is found in the LXX. (Ps. 
 xxix. 1, Ixxxix. 7 [Gen. vi. 2, 4?]). 
 
 Vy. 5-14 follow the scriptural proof for ver. 4, and that in such form 
 that in the first place, ver. 5, the diagopérepov rap’ avtov¢ KeKAnpovdunkev 
 évoua is confirmed, and then, vv. 6-14, the xpeitrov yevduevoc Tov ayyéAwr. 
 
 Ver. 5. Tive yap eixév rote tov ayyéAwv] For to which of the angels has He 
 ever said, i. e. to none of the angels has He ever said—The position of the 
 words serves to put a strong accentuation at the same time upon tiv and 
 upon tov ayyéAov.—The subject in eizev is 6 @e6c¢, as is evident alike from 
 the passage itself which is cited, and from our context; inasmuch as both 
 in that which precedes (vv. 1-4) 6 @ed¢ was expressly mentioned as the 
 subject of the main proposition, ant in that which follows (ver. 6) the 
 subject of eioayayy tiv xpwréroxov can only be God.—zoré] is particle of 
 time, at any time, unquam. Wrongly taken by Ch. F. Schmid, Kuinoel, 
 and others as a mere strengthening particle, in the sense of the German 
 doch or the Latin tandem. For then zoré must have been placed immedi- 
 ately after tav.—The citation vidc ...ce is from Ps. ii. 7, in verbal 
 accordance with the LXX. In its historic sense the psalm relates to an 
 Israelite king (probably Solomon), who, just now solemnly anointed in 
 Zion as theocratic king, in the lofty feeling of his unity with Jehovah, 
 warns the-subjugated nations, who are meditating revolt and defection, of 
 the fruitlessness of their undertaking. The author, however, sees Christ 
 in the person addressed, even as a referring of this psalm to the Messiah 
 was quite usual among the Jews of that period, and in the N. T. the 
 Messianic interpretation thereof is further met with, besides ver. 5, in 
 Acts xili. 83.—vide ov] my Son, i.e. in the sense of the psalm, the king of 
 my theocracy, my representative, the object of my fatherly love and 
 protection. The author, on the other hand, takes vide in the sense 
 unfolded, vv. 2, 3.—éya ofepov yeyévvnxd oe] I have this day begotten thee, 
 i.e. in the historic sense of the original. I have, by the anointing accom- 
 plished this day, installed thee as the theocratic prince. In the sense of 
 the author, yeyévvy7«a denotes the fact of having become the Son. The 
 
 1 Job i. 6, ii. 1. xxxviii. 7; Gen. vi. 2,4; Ps. xxix. 1, lxxxix. 7; Dan. iii. 26. 
 
 26 
 
402 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 question is now, how he conceived of the c#uepov. [XLII d 3.] Itis 
 referred either to the moment in which Christ was manifested to be the 
 Son of God, i.e. to the moment of the Resurrection or the Ascension,! or to 
 the moment of the Incarnation,’ or, finally, to the period before the crea- 
 tion of the world, thus to eternity. That the author? attached no definite 
 notion to the ojuepov, as being without significance for his demonstration, 
 is an unexegetical supposition. Exclusively correct, because alone in 
 harmony with the context, is the referring of the ojyepov to eternity; since, 
 according to ver. 2,God created the world by Christ as the Son, thus Christ 
 must already have existed as Son before the foundation of the world. 
 With Philo, too, occurs the same interpretation of ojuepov, as signifying 
 eternity.°—xai raa] and further, serves, as frequently (e.g. ii. 13, x. 30; 
 Rom. xv. 11, 12; 1 Cor. iii. 20; Philo, ed. Mangey, I. p. 88, 490, al.), for the 
 introduction of a new passage of Scripture. The kai wéaw «.7.2. is not, 
 however, to be taken as an assertory declaration, so that merely eizev 
 would have to be supplied (in accordance with which Lachmann punctu- 
 ates); but the question is continued in such wise that the proposition is 
 to be completed by kai (rive eitév rote tov ayyéAwv) radv.—This second 
 citation is derived from 2 Sam. vii. 14, in verbal accordance with the LXX. 
 Comp. also 1 Chron. xvii. (xviii.) 18. @i7@ and airéc refer in the historic 
 sense to Solomon. To David, who designs building a temple to Jehovah, 
 the divine direction comes by Nathan to desist from his purpose. Not 
 David, but his seed, who shall ascend the throne after him, is to build a 
 temple to Jehovah ; to him will Jehovah for ever establish the throne of 
 his kingdom; to him will Jehovah be a father, and he shall be to Him a 
 son, and, if he transgress, Jehovah will chasten him with the rod of men 
 and with the stripes of the children of men. Even this latter addition 
 (which, for the rest, is not found in the parallel passage, 1 Chron. xvii. 
 (xvili.) 13) makes it impossible to refer the words to the Messiah, as, 
 moreover, the reference to Solomon is rendered certain even from the O. 
 T. itself by the following passages: 1 Kings v. 19 (5), viii. 17 ff.; 2 Chron. 
 vi. 9,10; as also 1 Chron. xxii. (xxiii.) 9 ff., xxviii. (xxix.) 2 fi —eiva etc | 
 Formed after thé Hebrew 2 they Comp. viii. 10, al. 
 
 Ver. 6. [XLII d4.] "Ora, with the conjunctive aorist, takes the place of the 
 Latin futurum exactum. See Winer, p.289[E.T.308]. "Orav eicayayy can- 
 
 lHilary, in Psalmum ; Ambrose, de Saeram. decret. Nicen. Synod. 213; Basil, contra Eunom. 
 
 3.1; Calvin, Cameron, Grotius, Schlichting, 
 Limborch, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Calmet, 
 Peirce, Storr, Bloomfield, Bisping, Maier; 
 comp. Delitzseh, who would have the words 
 interpreted of “the entrance of the Son into 
 the kingly life of supra-terrestrial glory in 
 God, of which the resurrection is the initial 
 point.” 
 
 2Chrysostom, Theodoret, Eusebius, in 
 Psalmum, alii; Piseator, Béhme, Kuinoel, 
 Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 123 f. of the 2d ed.; 
 Woerner. 
 
 Origen in Joh, t. i. c. 32; hihatinatae de 
 
 2. 24; Augustine, in Psalmum [Arnobius of 
 Gaul, in Psalmum]; Primasius, Theophylact, 
 Thomas Aquinas, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, 
 Calov, Wittich, Braun, Carpzoyv, Bleek [but 
 with wavering; more decidedly in the 
 lectures edited by Windrath, Der Hebrderbr., 
 erklirt von Dr. Fr. Bleek, Elberf. 1868], Stein, 
 Alford, Kurtz, and the majority. 
 
 4As Bleek I., de Wette, and Riehm (xehr- 
 begr. des Hebrderbr. p. 287 f.) deem possible. 
 
 5Comp. De Profugis, p. 458 E (with Mangey, 
 I. p. 554): onpepov 8 
 advefityTos aiwy’ mynvav yap Kal eviauT@r Kai 
 
 €oTiv 0 amépatos Kat 
 
CHAP. I. 6. 403 
 
 not consequently mean, as was still assumed by Bleek I., and recently by 
 Reuss :' “ when He brings in,” but only: “when He shall have brought 
 in.” To take wadcv, however,’ as ver. 5, i.e. merely as the formula for 
 linking on a new citation, is forbidden by the position of the words. It 
 must then have been written: wddw 0é, orav cioaydyp . . . Aéyer. The 
 possibility of an inversion of the wad is defended, it is true, by Bleek, 
 after the precedent of Carpzoy, on the authority of two passages in Philo 
 (Legg. Allegor. iii. p. 66; ed. Mangey, p. 93). But neither of these presents 
 a case analogous to the one before us, nor does an inversion of the waa 
 at all take place in them. For in both zdw has the signification in turn, 
 or on the other hand, inasmuch as in the former two classes of persons (6 
 dé voov tov idiov arodeizwov and 6 dé rad axodipadoKwy Hedy) in the latter two 
 classes of défac or opinions (7 pév tov émt pépouc, tov yevryrov Kai OvyTov 
 irodurovoa and 7 dé TaAw Hedv arodoKiudgovoa), are compared together by 
 way of contrast, in such wise that in both 74% only serves for bringing 
 the dé into stronger relief, and in both has occupied its legitimate place. 
 By virtue of its position, 7@4cv, in our passage, can be construed only 
 with eicoayayy, in such wise that a bringing again of the First-born into 
 the world, which is an event still belonging to the future, is spoken of. 
 In the former member of ver. 6 the reference can accordingly be neither 
 to the time of the Incarnation of the Son;* nor to the time of the Resur- 
 rection and Exaltation to heaven ;* nor® to a moment yet preceding the 
 Incarnation of Christ, in which the Father had, by a solemn act as it were, 
 conducted forth and presented the Son to the beings created by Him, as 
 the First-born, as their Creator and Ruler, who was to uphold and guide 
 all things,6—which in any case would be an entirely singular thought in 
 the N. T..—but simply and alone to the coming again of Christ to judg- 
 ment, and the accomplishment of the Messianic kingdom.’ The objection 
 brought by Bleek and Ebrard against this interpretation of the former 
 member, required as it is by the exigencies of the grammar, viz. that the 
 discourse could not turn on the bringing again of the First-born into the 
 world, unless an earlier bringing in of the same into the world, or at least 
 
 auvodws xpdvwv meptodo. Sdymata avOpumwv 
 €igiy apiOuov exteTimyKoTwY, To 8 aweudés 
 OvoLa al@vos n onMEpor. 
 
 1Comp. Reuss, L’épitre aux Hébreux. Essai 
 dune traduction accompagnée d'un commentaire 
 (Nouvelle Revue de Théologie, vol. v. 4e, 5e, 
 et 6e livraison, Strasb. et Paris 1860, p. 199). 
 
 2 With the Peshito, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, 
 Jac. Cappellus, Sehlichting, Grotius, Lim- 
 borch, Hammond, Bengel, Wolf, Carpzov, 
 Cramer, Valckenaer, Schulz, Kuinoel, Bleek, 
 Stengel, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Reuss, alii. 
 
 3Chrysostom, Primasius, Calvin, Owen, 
 Caloy, Bengel, Storr, Kuinoel [Stuart: or be- 
 ginning of His ministry], Bleek IT. alii. 
 
 4Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, Wittich, 
 Braun, Wetstein, Rambach, Peirce, Whitby, 
 and others 
 
 5 As Bleek I. supposed. 
 
 6In like manner Reuss, l. c. p. 201: “Il est 
 plus naturel de songer au moment, ot le 
 monde nouvellement créé était sommé de 
 reconnaitre le Fils comme créateur. A ce 
 moment, les anges seuls étaient les étres 
 formant pour ainsi dire l’Eglise du Verbe 
 (comme xii. 22), et qui pouvaient recevoir 
 Vordre de Dieu d’adorer le Fils.” 
 
 7So, rightly, Gregory Nyssen, contra Eunom. 
 Orat. iii. p. 541; Cornelius a Lapide, Cameron 
 [Mede: for the inauguration of His millennial 
 kingdom], Gerhard, Calmet, Camerarius, 
 Estius, Gomar, B6éhme, de Wette, Tholuck, 
 Bisping, Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 172, 2d 
 ed.), Delitzseh, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrd- 
 erbr. p. 306, 617), Alford, Conybeare, Maier, 
 Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M’Caul, Woerner. 
 
404 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 a former being of the Son év rH olxovuévy had been explicitly spoken of, is 
 invalidated by vv. 1, 8, where certainly the discourse was already of the 
 historic appearing of the Son on earth, and thus of a first bringing in of 
 the same into the world. The additional objection of Bleek, however, 
 that the author would hardly have limited the scope of a divine summons 
 to the angels to do homage to the First-born to a time even in his day 
 future, is set aside by the consideration that, according to ii. 9, Christ was 
 during His earthly life humbled to a condition beneath the angels, and 
 only the Parousia itself is the epoch at which His majesty will be unfolded 
 in full glory.—7év xpwréroxov| in the N. T. only here without more precisely 
 defining addition; comp, however, Ps. Ixxxix. 28 (27). That the expres- 
 sion must not be regarded as equivalent to jovoyevic,! is self-evident. But 
 neither is it identical with the tpwréroxog maoye Kticewe, Col. i. 15, in such 
 wise that the temporal priority of Christ, as the eternal Logos, over all 
 creatures, and the notion of His precedence over all creatures, necessarily 
 resulting therefrom, should be contained in the word. For this interpre- 
 tation is excluded by the absoluteness of the expression in our passage. 
 Rather is Christ called the First-born with respect to Christians, who are 
 His brethren (ii. 11 f.), and therefore likewise vioi of God (ii. 10). Comp. 
 also Rom. viii. 29.—As, for the rest, the author of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews terms Christ the First-born Son of God; so does Philo also term 
 the Logos the First-born Son.*—7 oixovyévy] the world, not in the widest 
 sense (equivalent to oi aidvec, Bleek; or to 7 oixovpévn 7 wéAAovoa, (BOhme) ; 
 but, since the former member has reference to the Parousia, the habitable 
 earth.—Aéyer] sc. 6 Oedc, not 74 ypaey (Grotius, Clericus, Bohme, and others) 
 The present is chosen, because the utterance of God, which shall infallibly 
 be made in the future, stands already noted down in the Scripture ——The 
 citation is not derived from Ps. xevii. 7, but from Déut. xxxii. 43. For, in 
 the former passage, the LX X. have a reading divergent from that of our 
 text, in thé words: kai tpooxvvfcate avt@ ravtec [oi] dyyedor avtov, Whereas in 
 the Codex, Vaticanus of Deut. xxxii. 43, the words occur asin our text; while 
 the «aé, taken up by the author into his citation, manifestly points—seeing 
 that it is without any importance for his reasoning—to the verbatim repro- 
 duction of an O. T. utterance. Now, it is true our author follows in other 
 cases a form of the Sept. text which bears affinity less to that contained 
 in the Codex Vaticanus than to that in the Codex Alexandrinus, and the 
 latter displays the variation from the Cod. Vat. Deut. xxxii. 43, in so far 
 as viot eov is found therein in place of ayyeAor beov. But the Song of 
 Moses, of which Deut. xxxii. 43 forms the conclusion, is communicated 
 anew, in many mss. of the LXX., and so also in the Codex Alexandrinus, 
 
 1As is done by Primasius, Oecumenius (7 
 $€ mpwrdtoxov ovK emi Sevtépov Ayer AAA’ Emi 
 évos Kal ovov Tov yevynbevTos Ex TOV TaTpds), 
 Clarius, and even now by Stengel. 
 
 2Bleek, Grimm in the Theol. Literaturbl. 
 to the Darmstadt A. K.-Z., No. 29, p. 662; 
 Riehm, Lehrbegy. des Hebrderbr. p. 292 f.; 
 
 Kurtz, Ewald, and others. 
 
 3Comp. de Agricultura, p. 195 B (ed. Mangey, 
 I. p. 308): tov opGov avTod Adyov, mpwToyovov 
 De Confus. Ling. p. 329 (ed. Mang. I. p. 
 415): todrov wév yap mpeoBitatov vioy o TeV 
 OvTwy avererAe Tatyp, dv ETEPpwWOL mpwTdyovoV 
 wvonacer, al. 
 
 viov. 
 
CHAP:-T. ¥: 405 
 
 in a second recension, having its place after the Psalms; and in this 
 second recension the Codex Alexandrinus, too, reads adyyedot Geov, only 
 the article of has been interpolated between rdvrec and ayyedo. It is 
 probable, therefore, that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews did 
 not take the citation direct from Deut. xxxii. 48, but mediately, 7. e. from 
 that second recension of the hymn.—It remains to be said that the words 
 of the citation are wanting in the Hebrew; they are found only in the 
 LX X.—xzpockvveiv] with the dative only in the case of later classic authors, 
 whereas the earlier combine the accusative with this verb.!. The N. T. has 
 both constructions, as besides them the Hebraizing turns tpockvveiv évoruov, 
 or éurpoofév two, OY Tov Toddv Twoc. See the Lexicons.—air}] That this 
 pronoun of the third person was to be referred to the Messiah naturally 
 suggested itself, inasmuch as Jehovah is the subject speaking immediately 
 before in the Song. [XLII e.] 
 
 Vv. 7-12. Contrastful comparison of a declaration of Scripture charac- 
 terizing the angels, and two declarations characterizing the Son. [On Vy. 
 7-14, see Note XLIII., pages 416-420. ] 
 
 Ver. 7. [XLIII a.] Upéc¢] with regard to,as Luke xx.19; Acts xii. 21; 
 Rom. x. 21, and frequently.~—uév] corresponds to the dé of ver. 8, 
 thus places ver. 7 in express opposition to ver. 8 [XLIII 6.J— 
 aéyec] namely, God, in the Scripture-—The citation is from Ps. civ. 4, 
 according to the LXX. (Cod. Alex., whereas Cod. Vatican. has zip ¢Aéyov 
 instead of rupd¢ ¢Adya). The psalm praises Jehovah as the Creator and Sus- 
 tainer of alli nature. In the Hebrew the words cited read: rIs79 nmyy, 
 oi we PNW Nin and, having respect to their connection with what 
 precedes and that which follows, no doubt can obtain on the point 
 that they are to be rendered,—what is objected thereto by Hofmann 
 (Schriftbew. I. p. 825 f., 2 Aufl.), Delitzsch, and Alford is untenable,—‘ God 
 
 ‘makes winds His messengers, and flames of fire (lightnings) His servants,” 
 in such wise that the thought is expressed: as the whole of nature, so are 
 also winds and lightnings servants of God the Lord.3 Otherwise have the 
 LXX. apprehended the sense of the words, as is shown by the addition 
 of the article before ayyéAove and Ae:rovpyoic, and they are followed by our 
 author. [So the Targum also.] They have taken rot¢ ayyédove airov and 
 Tove Aeitoupyove avTov as the objects, tvebuara and svpd¢ dAdya, on the other 
 hand, as the predicates to roy, thus have found the meaning of the 
 words: “He makes His angels winds, and His servants a flame of fire.” 
 If we now observe the scope of the thought of those declarations of 
 Scripture concerning the Son which follow, vv. 8-12, placed as they are in 
 antithetical relation to the one before us, it is evident that the author 
 must haye discovered the inferiority of the angels compared with the Son, 
 as attested in Scripture, in a twofold respect—(1) that the angels are ser- 
 
 1Comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 463; Bern- 3Comp., as to the thought, Xenophon, 
 hardy, Syntax, p. 118, 266. Memorabilia, iv. 3. 14, where quite similariy 
 
 2Comp. Matthiae, p. 1181; Winer, p. 378 [E. lightning and winds (xepavyds and aveuor) are 
 T. 405]. called umnpérat Tay Bear. 
 
406 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 vants, whereas the Son is ruler; (2) that the angels are mutable and per- 
 ishable, whereas the Son abides the same for ever.—The conception of such 
 a subjection on the part of the angels, that they must submit even to be 
 changed into elements, is, Moreover, not uncommon among the Rabbins.! 
 —rveiyata| not: spirits (Luther, Erasmus, Paraphrase ; Clarius, Piscator, 
 Owen, Seb. Schmidt, Brochmann, Bengel, Bohme), but : winds—erroupyoic] 
 only another name for ayyéove. 
 
 Vv. 8, 9derived from Ps. xlv. 7,8 (6,7). The psalm is an epithalamium, 
 a wedding-song. But even by Rabbins like Aben Esra, Kimchi, and 
 others, it is Messianically interpreted—Ver. 8. [XLII ¢.] The nomina- 
 tive 6 @e6c is taken by our author in the sense of the vocative (comp. e.g. 
 Col. iii. 18 ff.; Luke viii. 54; Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 182]; Kiihner, II. p. 
 155), thus as an apostrophe to the Messiah.? In the Hebrew words: J¥02 
 WwW) py Dos DIN is not vocative, but to be translated either after the 
 analogy of Ley. xxvi. 42 (21py? SYS, 151) I will remember my 
 Jacob’s-covenant, 7. e. the covenant: made by me with Jacob), with Bleek, 
 de Wette, and Kurtz: “ thy throne of God,” 7. e. “ thy divine throne; ” or, 
 with Ewald (ad loc. and Gramm. 3 547): “thy throne is (throne) of God or 
 divine.” The Greek 6 @e6c, too, it has been thought by Grimm (Theol. 
 Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt Allg. Kirch.-Zeit. 1857, No. 29, p. 662) and 
 Ewald (das Sendschr. an d. Hebr. p. 55), ought not to be explained 
 in the sense of a vocative. According to Grimm, the words are to 
 be taken in the acceptation: “Thy throne, 7. e. the foundation of Thy 
 throne, is God;” according to Ewald, they say that “the throne of the 
 Messiah for everlasting ages is God Himself, so that where He reigns, there 
 God Himself is virtually ever present.” But the argument urged by 
 Grimm in favor of this construction—that, since Philo, as frequently also 
 the Christian Alexandrians, makes a sharp distinction between 6 ded¢ (with 
 the article) as'a designation of ,God, and 6eé¢ (without an article) as 
 designation of the Logos, it is hardly to be regarded as probable that a 
 man of Alexandrian culture, like our author, would have called Christ as 
 to His divine nature 6 @e6c-—would have had weight only if that designation, 
 in place of being met with in a citation, had occurred in our author’s own 
 discourse.—ei¢ Tov aidva tov ai@voc] se. éotiv. So LXX., Cod. Alex.; Cod. 
 Vatican. : The same (merely Hellenistic) formula, 
 strengthening the simple ei¢ rdv aidva (v. 6, and often), also Tob. vi. 18; Ps. 
 Ixxxiii. 18, al. In independent discourse the author uses in place thereof 
 
 ei¢ ala@va ai@voc. 
 
 1Comp. e. g. Shemoth rabba, sec. 25, fol. 123. 2 Against the peculiar opinion of Hofmann 
 
 8: “aliquando ipsos (angelos) facit ventos, q. 
 i. qui facis angelos tuos ventos, aliquando 
 ignem, q. d. ministros tuos flammam ignis.” 
 Jalkut Simeoni, part Il. fol. 11. 3: “Angelus 
 dixit ad Manoah: nescio ad cujus imaginem 
 ego factus sim; nam Deus singulis horis nos 
 immutat; curergo nomen meum interrogas? 
 Nonnunquam facit nos ignem, alias venfum, 
 interdum viros, alias denique angelos.” See 
 in general, Schéttgen and Wetstein ad loc. 
 
 (Schriftbew. I. p. 168 f., 2 Aufi.), that, vv. 8, 9, it 
 is not Christ whois addressed; that, on the 
 contrary, the author of the epistle leaves it to 
 the reader “to fake the words: 6 @povos gov 0 
 @eds, as an address to Jehovah, or with a right 
 understanding of the connection 80) 
 DON as an address to the king, the anointed 
 of Jehovah,” see Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebra- 
 erbr. p. 286, Remark, 
 
CHAP. I. 8-9. 407 
 
 ele rd dinvexéc. Comp. vil. 3, x. 1, xii. 14.—paBdog etObrytoc] a sceptre of 
 uprightness, i.e. of righteousness. «vite, in the N. T. only here; but 
 comp. LXX. Ps. ix. 9, xvii. 5, xevi. 10, xeviii. 9. Comp. also Aeschylus, 
 Persae, ver. 726 f. (according to the division in Hartung’s edition, Leipzig 
 1853) : 
 
 év’ dvdp’ araone ’Acidog unhotpépov 
 
 Tayelv, ExovTa OKAMTpOV EVvVOVYTHpPLOY, 
 
 Ver. 9. "Hyarnoac dixasooivyy «.7.A.] Thou lovedst righteousness and hatedst 
 wrong. In the Hebrew the corresponding verbs have a present significa- 
 tion: thou lovest justice and hatest wrong. Our author, however, refers 
 the aorists of the LXX. to the historic life of the Son of God upon earth. 
 —0dia tovto] therefore, i.e. as a reward for the ayarav dixavocbvyy Kai puceiv 
 avouiav. Comp. 66, Phil. ii. 9. Erroneously Augustine (én Ps.), Thomas 
 Aquinas, Gerhard, Dorscheus, Brochmann, Sch6ttgen, and others: for this 
 cause, that thou mightest love righteousness, etc.—éypicév ce, 6 Oedc, 6 Oedg 
 cov éAaov x.7.A.] [XLII d.] O God, Thy God hath Thee anointed with oil of 
 gladness above Thy companions. Here, too, the author takes 6 éed¢ as an 
 apostrophe,! whereas in the Hebrew ® TON is the subject to }]W), and is 
 taken up again into the discourse, and more nearly defined by TTR. 
 The anointing with the oil of joy in the psalm is a figurative designation 
 of the blessing and abundance given by God. Our author, however, 
 understands it of the anointing to be king, as a figure of the divine glory 
 with which the Son, after His life upon earth and His exaltation to heaven, 
 has been crowned. Comp. also Acts iv. 27, ii. 36. Thesense of the author 
 is departed from when the Fathers and earlier expositors interpret the 
 expression of the anointing of the Son with the Holy Ghost.—On the 
 double accusative combined with éypicev (Rev. iii. 18), see Winer, p. 212 
 [E. T. 226]. As an analogon, comp. also Aristophanes, Acharn. 114: iva 
 * wh oe Bayo Bauua Lapdmaxdv.—llapa rove petrdyxove cov] [XLIII e.] refers in 
 the original to the contemporary kings, the rulers of other lands. But 
 what our author understood by it in the application is obscure. Kuinoel, 
 Ebrard, Delitasch, and Moll suppose the author, like the Psalmist, to 
 intend the other kings; Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 306), all earthly 
 and heavenly princes; Wittich, Braun, Cramer, the kings, high priests, 
 and prophets of the O. T., inasmuch as they were anointed as types of 
 Christ; Klee, all the creatures; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
 Bengel, and Bisping, men in general; Theodoret, Calvin, Beza, Cameron, 
 Piscator, Schlichting, Maier, Kurtz, the Christians specially [Owen hesi- 
 tates between all believers and prophets and apostles]; Bleek, Olshausen, 
 Alford, and Ewald finally, after the precedent of Peirce and others, the 
 angels, “as beings which do not indeed appear as sitting at the right hand 
 of God, but yet as existing in immediate proximity to the divine throne.” 
 The last supposition is the most probable. It is true de Wette regards it 
 
 10n account of ver. 8 this construction is Delitzsch also leaves the choice open), that 
 more natural than the supposition of Grimm, we have to explain in accordance with the 
 le. p. 602; Alford, and Ewald (to which Hebrew: “God, even Thy God.” 
 
408 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 as the least conceivable, because the author has “ placed the angels in no 
 
 other position than deeply below Christ,” and Ebrard even thinks the. 
 author must have been “beside himself” if he had referred the words to 
 the angels. But (1) it is a question throughout the whole section of a 
 comparison of Christ with the angels ; the renewed indication of this point 
 of comparison also in yer. 9 cannot therefore in itself be found unsuitable. 
 (2) If shortly before (ver. 7) the angels are placed deeply below Christ, so 
 
 it will be admitted their inferiority is likewise expressly intimated by 
 
 means of rapé in our passage. (3) The angels were, in the conception of 
 
 the author, the next in rank after Christ; for they are exalted above men. 
 
 To whom, therefore, could the author more fittingly apply the designation 
 
 uéroyo than precisely to them? The objection of Delitzsch, finally, that 
 
 after all angels are not anointed ones, would be of weight only if the 
 
 author were obliged of necessity to think of the yéroyor too as anointed ; 
 
 he finds, on the contrary, in the anointing only of the Son, a fact ex- 
 
 pressed, from which the exaltedness of the same above His companions, 
 
 i.e. of those who of all others stand nearest to Him in dignity, is neces- 
 
 sarily deduced. For zapé is used here not in the sense of the quantity 
 
 arising from the notion of comparison, but denotes the part accruing to 
 
 one to the exclusion of others. 
 
 Vv. 10-12. A second citation—co-ordinate with the Scripture testimony 
 adduced, vv. 8, 9—derived from Ps. cii. 26-28 (25-27) according to the 
 LXX. [XLII f.] The psalm is a lamentation, belonging probably to 
 the first century after the Captivity. The words of address refer in the 
 original to God. The author, however, mainly indeed misled? by the 
 xopte in the LXX., which was the ordinary appellation of Christ in apos- 
 tolic time, takes tleé utterance as an address to Chiist, the Son of God. 
 This interpretation must the more have appeared to him unquestionable, 
 inasmuch as -the -scope of the utterance fully harmonized with his own 
 conception, of the Son of God as the premundane Logos. Comp. vv. 2, 3. 
 When, for the rest, Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 169 f., 2 Aufl.) supposes that 
 the author found no address whatever to Christ designed in the xipie of 
 the psalm, but only meant to say in the words of Scripture what was true 
 of Jesus according to his own belief and that presupposed in the readers, 
 this is a freak of fancy without anything to justify it, and even opposed to 
 the context (comp. zpac¢ dé rdv vidv, (ver. 8). For the author can have been 
 concerned only about this very object of proving the higher attestation 
 
 1According to Delitzsch, indeed, it would shows so deep an insight into the innermost 
 be “a poor look-out” if that were “true.” core of the O. T.,” that is a prejudiced verdict, 
 But when, following in Hofmann’s steps, he arising from subjectivity and dogmatic par- 
 objects against it that “we may already see tiality, to the establishing of which it would 
 from viii. 8 ff., xii. 6 ff., that the author is far have been necessary first of all to bring for- 
 from everywhere understanding Christ to be ward the proof that the author of the Epistle 
 intended by the O. T. xvptos,’’ these passages to the Hebrews in reality possessed an accu- 
 naturally prove nothing, since the usual rate knowledge not only of the Greek text of 
 practice is never the constant and invariable the LXX., but also of the original text of the 
 practice. When Delitzsch further adds: ©. T.,—a proof which even Delitasch has not 
 ‘such perversity originating in ignorance is been able to afford. 
 not to be laid to the charge of an author who 
 
CHAP. 1- 10-12. 409 
 
 given to his assertion by the Scriptures.—Ka/] not a constituent part of the 
 citation, but a brief formula of connecting, when a further passage of Scrip- 
 ture is linked to that which precedes, comp. Acts i. 20.—oid kar’ apyac, kipre, 
 Thy yay éeuediocac] LX X.Cod. Alex.: kar’ apydc ob, xipie, THY yav MepwEdincac ; 
 Cod. Vatie. : car’ apyac THY yqv ob, Kbpie, EBeuediwoac. It is probable the author 
 changed the position of the words in order to make oi the more emphatic. 
 —xar’ apyac] in the beginning. With the LXX. elsewhere only Ps. cxix. 152, 
 instead of the more usual év apyq Or az’ apyjc, but frequently met with in 
 Philo and the classics (see Raphel, Wetstein, and Munthe ad loc.). In the 
 Hebrew stands the more general D199, “formerly,” or “of old.” 
 
 Ver. 11. Avro] refers back not to earth and heaven, ver. 10, taken 
 together (Kuinoel, Stuart, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Kurtz), but, as is evident 
 from the following mwd»rec, and in particular from éAigec, ver. 12, 
 only to of ovpavoi.—arodoivta] shall perish. Comp. Isa. xxxiv. 4, li. 
 6, lxv. 17; 2 Pet. ui. 18; Rev. xx. 11, xxi. 1—od d2 diapéverc] but 
 Thou abidest for evermore (throughout all duration of time, da). On 
 account of the environment of futures, and because the future is used 
 here in the Hebrew, Bleek, after the example of Luther, Cornelius a 
 Lapide, Peirce, Bengel, Wetstein, alii, accentuates: diayeveic. So also the 
 Vulgate (permanebis). Hardly in the sense of the author. For, since he 
 employed only the LX X., not the Hebrew original, he surely took od d 
 dia. as a parallel member to od dé 6 airo¢ ei, ver. 12, consequently also con- 
 strued the former as a present.—o¢ indtiov radawijoovra] will grow old like a 
 garment, which by long use is worn out and laid aside, to be replaced by a 
 new and better one. Comp. Isa. 1. 9, li. 6; Ecclus. xiv. 17. 
 
 Ver. 12. Kai doet repu3draov siete aitod¢ Kai aAAayjoovta] and as a cloak 
 (something flung about one) wilt Thou roll them up, and they shall become 
 changed. Tn the original: As the vesture dost Thou change them, and they 
 are changed. This sense of the original is rendered by the LXX. accord- 
 ing to the reading of the Cod. Vat.: kai doei repiBdAauv aAAdzere abtove Kab 
 aidayhoovra; Whereas the Cod. Alex. presents é4ifeve; and this is also most 
 probably the reading followed by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 in our passage.—oi« éxAeipovo] will know no end. 
 
 Ver. 13. Further citation from Ps. cx. 1, according to the LXX. The 
 psalm was looked upon universally in the time of Christ (comp. Matt. xxii. 
 44 ff.; Mark xii. 35 ff; Luke xx. 41 ff), and also in later times by many 
 Rabbins (see Wetstein on Matt. xxii. 44), as a prophecy relating to the 
 Messiah; inasmuch as on the ground of the superscription WI David 
 himself was regarded as the author of it, and in connection with this view 
 the reference to the Messiah was easily proved on the ground of the words 
 at the beginning: “‘to my Lord speaketh Jehovah,” according to which 
 David acknowledges, in addition to his God, also a Lord over him. The 
 superscription 1, nevertheless, indicates not the writer, but the subject 
 of the psalm. It is in its historic sense an oracle pronounced to David, 
 when the latter was preparing for war against his powerful foes. See 
 Ewald on the Psalm.—-;*: ‘] 5é in the third place, as often occurs 
 
410 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 after prepositional combinations.'—The sitting at the right hand, figure 
 of the highest honor and dominion, see on ver, 3.—izorédiov trav roddv cov] 
 the footstool of Thy feet. There lies in the expression an allusion to the 
 custom of the victor of placing his foot upon the neck of the vanquished, 
 in token of the complete subjection of the latter; comp. Josh. x. 24— 
 ixoréduov] first used in the Greek of a later age.’ 
 
 Ver. 14. Confirmation of the mpdc¢ tiva dé Trav ayyéAwy eipnkév rote, Show- 
 ing the inconceivableness of such a thing by a reference to the nature of 
 the angels, and with this the termination of the present train of thought.— 
 The emphasis rests upon ravreg and Aectovpycxa: are not all (alike, 
 whether they belong to a lower or higher class of angels) ministering 
 spirits [spirits in waiting]? «veiwara here in a different sense from ver. 
 7.—ei¢ dvaxoviav] XLII g.] for service, sc. which they render to God, not 
 to the men who shall inherit the cwrypia; otherwise, in place of 61a Tove 
 péhaovrac, the dative toig uéAAovor KAnpovopeiv owrnpiav (1 Cor. xvi. 15) or the 
 genitive tov peAAdvtwy x.7.A. Would have been placed.—The participle 
 present arooteAAbmeva brings out the permanent, habitual character of 
 the action expressed by the verb.—d:a rove x.7.2.] for the sake of those who 
 shall inherit (everlasting) salvation (this is intended by corypiar, although 
 without the article, see Winer, p. 114 [E. T. 120]; not: deliverance from 
 peril, as Michaelis, Schleusner, BOhme, Kuinoel assume), 7. e. in order, by 
 means of the offices in which they are employed by God, to bring it in for 
 the same. 
 
 Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 XLI. Vv. 1-3. 
 
 e 
 
 (a) The Epistle to the Hebrews differs from the Pauline Epistles at its begin- 
 ning, not merely in the fact that the name of the author is not given, but also in 
 two other points which are connected with this omission. There is no salutation— 
 “race and peace” to the readers,—and, also, no introductory passage of a general 
 character. On the other hand, the writer proceeds at once to state the subject on 
 which he proposes to discourse, in vv. 1-8, and then enters immediately upon his 
 extended argument. The subject of the Epistle is: The superiority of the N.T. 
 system or revelation to the O. T. system or revelation. This subject, however, is 
 not presented in the form of a definite proposition, such as might be found at the 
 beginning of a treatise or a philosophical thesis, but, after the manner of Paul’s 
 Epistles, in the form which is characteristic of a letter addressed to a church for 
 the final purpose of admonition and exhortation. The Epistle is rhetorical, and 
 artistically arranged, in a degree quite beyond the ordinary letters of Paul, but it 
 nowhere loses the character of a letter, or assumes that of a rhetorical or oratorical 
 discourse. 
 
 (b) In the statement of the subject or proposition to be proved, the writer sets 
 forth the superiority of the N. T. to the O. T. revelation, primarily, by describing 
 it as év vi, and secondarily (in connection with this fact), as being,—not, like the 
 
 1Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 378 f.; Hartung, I. p. 397; Winer, p. 519, [E. T. 558}. 
 Partikellehre, I. p.190 f.; Ellendt, Lewic. Soph. 2Comp. Sturz, de dial, Alex. et Maced. p. 199. 
 
NOTES. 411 
 
 D.T. system, revealed toAvuspo¢ Kai rodutpérw¢, but—complete and full. The 
 primary emphasis on the thought suggested by év vi of ver. 2 is shown by the 
 fact, that the whole of the following argument is the setting forth of Christ as 
 superior to the agents employed for introducing and carrying forward the O. T. 
 system; and the secondary emphasis on the other point is made clear by many 
 hints and statements in the course of the argument, as well as by the prominent 
 position given to the two adverbs at the opening of the first verse. In this con- 
 nection, it may be noticed that the words év Toic xpoo#tarc—though, in the position 
 given them in the arrangement and statement of vy. 1, 2, they are codrdinate (in 
 contrast) with év vig—are, in relation to the substance of thought filling the Epistle, 
 scarcely more than mere descriptive words characterizing the O. T. revelation. 
 The contrasts of the Epistle are not between Christ and the prophets, but first, be- 
 tween Christ and the angels and Moses, and secondly, between Christ and the O. T. 
 High-priests. The angels and Moses are the instrumental agents who introduce 
 the old system; the High priests, the instrumental agents who carry it forward. 
 The prophets are not spoken of as connected with either office. Indeed the word 
 prophet is not used elsewhere in the Epistle, except in the enumeration of the 
 heroes of faith in xi. 32, “Samuel and the prophets.” The special emphasis on 
 roAvu. kat ToAvrp. in the arrangement of words in ver. 1 is due to the demands of 
 the thought in that verse, rather than of the thought in the epistle. As related to 
 the thought of the epistle, the rendering of R. V. brings out the emphasis cor- 
 rectly :—“God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by 
 divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto 
 us in His Son,” or, as in the marg., a Son. 
 
 (c) With respect to the words of ver. 1, the following points may be noticed : 
 1. God is evidently declared to be the author of the two revelations.—2. The verb 
 ja2«iv has in these verses, and so, to a considerable extent, throughout the epistle, 
 a certain technical or peculiar sense,”and refers to the revelations which God 
 makes.—3. The two adverbs, at the beginning, serve the purpose of setting forth 
 the partial and incomplete character of the O. T. revelation. The distinction be- 
 tween them is that which is given by Liinemann in his note.—4. év does not mean 
 by, but in.—5. If the text-reading é7’ éayatov Tov juepav TovTwy is adopted, as it 
 undoubtedly should be, t. 7. Tour. is used as equivalent to 6 aidv ovroc, and the 
 N. T. revelation is conceived of (as ordinarily by the N. T. writers) as made in the 
 closing period of the ante-Messianic age, 1. e., the period before the full establish- 
 ment of the Messianic kingdom.—6. vig is translated both by A. V. and R. V. 
 “his Son.’ It is difficult, in a version, to express the exact idea of vi@ as here 
 used in distinction from T@ vi@, or TO viv aitov. What the writer means is: one 
 who stands in the relation of son to God, and not in the position of a mere prophet. 
 It is a characteristic, descriptive word here, and not a proper name. What Christ 
 is, as Son, is set forth in the sentences which follow, and, indeed, throughout the 
 epistle. 
 
 (d) The statements in vv. 2, 3 respecting the one who is vide are contained in 
 three relative clauses, the last of which includes several minor and participial 
 clauses. If the progress of the compound sentence is closely observed, it can 
 hardly fail to be noticed that the verbs are intended to be arranged in a certain 
 chronological succession. This is clear in the case of éroinoev—roinoapevoc— 
 éxadioev; and, this being the fact, it can hardly be otherwise than true, that the 
 same holds good respecting @37xev, as related to the other words. As the yerb 
 
412 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 éroijoev evidently refers to the time of creation, é37kev must have reference to 
 what preceded that time, and hence is, doubtless, to be understood of the eternal 
 purpose of God, who appointed the Son, while in His condition as Aéyo¢ aoapkoc, 
 heir of all things. In the carrying out of this purpose, He made the worlds 
 through Him; employed Him as the one who should make purification of sins; gave 
 Him a seat at His own right hand in the Heavens; and bestowed upon Him a 
 more excellent name than on any other. The correspondence of this description 
 of the Son with that which is given by Paul in Col. i. 15 ff. is very noticeable. 
 See, also, notes of Amer. Ed. on that passage in Col., in Meyer’s vol. on Phil., Col. 
 and Thess. The idea of kAnpovduov ravtwv, which is not presented in Col., is here 
 introduced, not improbably, in connection with, and as preparatory to, the thought 
 of the dominion of Christ, which is referred to in the latter part of this chapter, 
 and of that glorious consummation which is alluded to in chap. ii. The suggestion 
 of the Headship of Christ and His exaltation is made, in another form and in a 
 somewhat different connection, in Eph. i. 20 ff, Phil. ii. 8-10, and at the end of the 
 passage in Col. (i. 18 6). 
 
 (ec) The word azaiyacua (ver. 3) is one whose precise meaning has been much 
 discussed and is quite difficult of determination. It is derived from a7é6 and 
 avyacua, avyatw, avyj. The formation in va and the most natural sense of a7é 
 would seem to suggest the idea of light flashed or rayed forth from a luminous body. 
 If, however, a76 is to be understood in the sense which it has in the kindred verb 
 of sound, a77xéw, to sound back, and in the corresponding noun azfynua, echo (or 
 the sound coming back, or sent back, from an object which has been struck, as it 
 were, by that which went forth from the resounding body), the idea of azabyacua 
 will be that of reflection. Either sense of a6 in compounds is, apparently, allow- 
 able. This word occurs in but few places, and unfortunately for the decision of 
 the question of its exact signification, the passages in which it is found are open 
 to dispute. There is bait one passage in the O. T. Apoe. books, Wisd. vii. 26, and 
 none in the O. T. or N. T. except the one before us, which can throw any light 
 on the meaning. _ Directly opposite views are held, as e.g. by Bleek and Liinem, 
 respecting Wisd. vii. 26. The fact mentioned by Liinem., that éoorrpov and eixév 
 are used in parallel clauses of that verse, is undoubtedly favorable to his under- 
 standing of avaiy. as there used. But it is not decisive, because the writer may 
 have intended to use two figures—one of rayed-forth light, as connected with 
 aidiov ¢@¢, and another of a mirror or image, as related to évépyeva and ayadéryc 
 (see the words of the passage in Wisd., as quoted by Liinem.) ; and, as Bleek says, 
 the meaning may be, that wisdom is a light beaming forth from the everlasting 
 light, and, for this very reason, an image, ete. The passages cited from Philo and 
 other writers by different comm. are equally uncertain, though the first one which 
 Liinem. gives from Philo seems to be more naturally interpreted according to 
 Bleek’s view. 
 
 The position taken by Liinem., that the form in sa, as distinguished from joc, 
 determines the question, can hardly be sustained. All that the form in ya requires 
 is, that the passive idea should be in the substantive, and this is found in the flashed- 
 forth light. More properly we may say, with Cremer (Lex. N. T.), that the noun 
 may mean either brightness or reflection, so far as its derivation is concerned ;—and 
 so we must form our conclusion according to the probabilities of the passage which 
 may be before us. In noticing these in the present case, we may observe that 
 66£a seems to refer to the being of God as manifesting itself outwardly, and trdéo7n0r¢ 
 
NOTES. | 413 
 
 to the being of God in its inward essence. This being the fact, we may believe 
 that the writer had in his mind the two ideas, and that, in his description of the 
 Son, he intended to set forth His relation to God, with emphasis and complete- 
 ness, by the use of the two words. If this was his purpose, it is probable that he 
 did not desire simply to make an ordinary parallelism— as of a reflected image of 
 a luminous body and a stamped image of a die or stamp ;—but that he wished to go 
 beyond this, and, in his parallelism, express in each part that which belonged to 
 the peculiar figurative word which he selected. The Son is, thus, on the side of 
 the défa (the outward manifestation of God’s being) the effulgence—the rayed-forth 
 light,—which comes from it, and, on the side of the trdoraote (the inward essence) 
 the express image, the exact counterpart, answering to it. 
 
 The decision between the two possible meanings of atatyacpua is, however, not 
 essential to the doctrine of the passage, and is not of great importance even as 
 bearing upon the main thought of the two clauses ; for, in either case, the inter- 
 pretation of the words places them in close relation with the words of Paul, in 
 his later Epistles, and of John, in his Gospel, and makes this writer declare that 
 Christ is ek@v Geov, with all which that expression involves. 
 
 Grimm (Lex. N. T.) gives to axaiyaoua the meaning splendor repercussus ; iE: 
 and S. 7th ed. and Rob. regard it as meaning effulgence. R. V.,and A. V., as well as 
 the recent English translations generally, adopt the latter signification: effulgence, 
 brightness. So also, in addition to the writers mentioned by Liinem., Alf., W. and 
 Wilk., Bib. Comm., Angus., in Schaff’s Pop. Comm., Stuart and others. Ebrard 
 translates by ray-image—“a light radiated from another light, and viewed as now 
 become an independent light”—thus fully satisfying the passive form. 
 
 (f) There can be no reasonable doubt, both by reason of the correspondence 
 with déga and because the use of the word in the sense of person belongs only to a 
 later time, that indéoracie here denotes essence or substance—that which stands 
 under the outward form. Of this essential being of God the Son is the yapaxryp, 
 the very image (R. V. text), the impress (R. V. marg). Ebrard says, “ As it belongs 
 to the dé£a to concentrate and reproduce itself in a form composed of rays, a sun, 
 so it is proper to the ovoia or técracce to stamp itself out in a manifest form or 
 figure. This form or figure, however, is not to be viewed as a copy, bet as an im- 
 mediate and substantial rendering visible and corporeal, of the btéaraovc.” 
 
 (g) The close connection of the ¢épev clause with the preceding words by Te, 
 is, doubtless, intended to intimate that the statement of this clause naturally 
 follows upon that which goes before. Being the atavyacua K.7.A., it is His office, 
 as to create, so also to sustain all things. The participles &v and ¢épov are evidently 
 continuous present participles, and indicate what the Son is in His permanent 
 existence and in His work of power.—(h) The word airov, in the expression 7 
 phuare tHe Svvauewc avtod, is to be referred to Christ for the following reasons :— 
 1. Because the clause is a participial descriptive clause, which has reference to 
 the Son. 2. Because the action spoken of (¢ép#v) is an action of the Son. 
 3. Because there is nothing in the surrounding context which necessitates any 
 other reference. 4. Because the entire passage is evidently designed to set forth 
 the glory of the Son. 5. Because the instrumental agency of the Son in the crea- 
 tion, as presented in the kindred passages of John (Gosp. i. 3) and Paul (Col. i. 16 
 £.), points only to what is declared here in the last clause of ver. 2; while what 
 Paul says in Col. i. 17 (abré¢ éorw mpd navtwv kal Ta ravTa év aiT® ovvéoryKer) 
 accords rather with the present verse, if aitov is understood of the Son, than if of 
 
 
 
414 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 the Father. The complete dependence of the creation on the Son is the ideaon which 
 both writers are insisting with emphasis. 6. Because the statement, if airov is 
 made to refer to the Father, contains a thought not thus formally expressed else- 
 where in the N. T. 
 
 (i) The participle rocyoapevoc is antecedent to éxaf:cev, and describes the work 
 of the Son while in His earthly life, and what He accomplished especially through 
 His death. The preceding participles are clearly distinguished from this, and 
 their reference and significance are indicated by this fact, as well as by the other 
 suggestions of the passage. The explanation: cleansing, or purifying from, rather 
 than of, which is given by Liinem. to kafapioudv as connected with tov auapridv is 
 probably correct ; comp. 2 Pet. i. 9. Bleek, Alf., and others say of. De W. 
 agrees with Liinem. It does not seem probable, on the other hand,—certainly, 
 not necessary,—that év iydoic should be taken, as Liinem. holds, with éxadioev, 
 The connection with “eyaAwovvy¢ is sustained by a number of parallel cases in the 
 N. T., where the article is omitted with a defining prepositional phrase following 
 a noun; and by means of this connection the expression here used becomes more 
 simple and natural. 
 
 Ke Vivre. 
 
 (a) At the 4th verse the development of the subject of the epistle begins, and 
 from this point the argument in proof of the proposition involved in the first three 
 verses moves steadily forward through the entire letter, until the end of the twelfth 
 chapter is reached. The plan of the epistle is fundamentally different from that 
 which we discover in the principal doctrinal epistles of Paul. In the latter, Paul 
 has, in each case, a doctrinal section, containing the proof of the proposition which 
 he desires to establish ; and only when this is finished does he turn to a practical 
 section, whose exhortations are more or less connected with what has been pre- 
 viously proved. This writer, on the other hand, carries his argument, as just in- 
 timated, throughout his whole work, and interweaves into it a hortatory element 
 at every stage of its progress. This hortatory element is everywhere the same. 
 The exhortation is-always directed to one object—that the readers should not 
 abandon the N. T. system and go back to Judaism, but'should hold fast and endure 
 to the end. It is repeated at the close of the presentation of each point of the 
 argument ; and, in each successive case, the readers are urged to yield to it in view 
 of what has been established in the next preceding sub-section. 
 
 The underlying thought of the writer, as he begins his course of reasoning, seems 
 evidently to be the following :—The N. T. system is superior to the O. T. system, 
 in the first place, because the instrumental agent employed by God to introduce it 
 is more exalted than the instrumental agents employed to introduce the O. T. 
 Of these latter agents there were two: the angels and Moses. Christ is more ex- 
 alted than either of these. And first, He is more exalted than the angels. This 
 underlying-thought is plainly indicated by the progress of the argument, but it is 
 left to the reader to supply. It must be supplied at the beginning of ver.4 in 
 order to make the statement of the plan, and also of the proof, complete. 
 
 It is the last of these points which is now developed :—Christ is more exalted 
 than the angels. This is proved, /irst, in what may be described as a more direct ; 
 and, secondly, in what may be styled a more indirect way. The former in i. 5-14; 
 the latter in ii. 5-18. ‘The hortatory passage belonging to the former includes ii. 
 1-4; that which belongs to the latter is found in iii. 1. Then follows, in iii, 2— 
 
NOTES. 415 
 
 iv. 16, the comparison of Christ with Moses, together with a hortatory passage 
 appertaining to it. In the direct setting forth of the superiority of Christ to the 
 angels two points are presented: 1. He is called Son, while they are called ser- 
 vants, vv. 5-7. 2. He has everlasting dominion, while they are sent forth as 
 messengers and ministers, vv. 8-14. 
 
 (6) While the plan of the epistle, as well as the absence of any salutation or in- 
 troductory passage, distinguishes it from the Pauline writings, it will be noticed 
 that the omission of what has been alluded to as an underlying thought, and the 
 manner in which the first point of the argument is brought in, as grammatically 
 subordinate to the verb éxdfiev k.7.., are characteristic of Paul’s style. We find 
 thus, here as everywhere throughout the epistle, that combination of resemblances 
 to the letters of the Apostle with marked differences, which renders the question 
 of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews one of so much difficulty. It 
 must be admitted, however, that these points of unlikeness which are met with at 
 the very beginning, and which have been mentioned, are deserving of most serious 
 consideration. They are points connected with the essential elements of an 
 author’s thought and his manner of writing, and points in which it is not easy to 
 believe that a man of Paul’s peculiar habits of mind would have turned aside, in 
 one of his epistles, from his ordinary course in his other writings. 
 
 (c) The view of Liinem., expressed at the beginning of his note on ver. 4,—that 
 the author at first, in vv. 1-3, has reference to the O. T. revelations in general, and 
 now, in this verse, turns to the Mosaic—is hardly to be accepted, because it breaks 
 the unity of the passage, and because the comparison throughout all the epistle is 
 between the Mosaic and the Christian revelations. 
 
 (d) As to the individual words and phrases of vy. 4-7, the following points may 
 be noticed :—1. yevduevoc is, as Liinem. also says, to be connected with éxdticev, and 
 thus refers to the time when Christ took His seat at the right hand, ete. It indi- 
 cates, together with the verb, the last step in that succession which begins with 
 éOnxev of ver. 2.—2. With respect to kekAnpovounkev Alford justly remarks, that 
 “the kpeitTwv yevou. is not identical with it, but in proportion to it: the triumphant 
 issue of His Mediation is consonant to the glorious name which is His by inherit- 
 ance.” The verb kAzpov. is, thus, used because Christ, in His very nature, stands 
 and has always stood in the relation of vidc, and also because, in a certain sense 
 and completeness, He entered into possession of His glory as vid¢ at the time when 
 His earthly work was finished.—3. With respect to the question of the time indi- 
 cated by ojuepov, it may be noticed: (x) that the time-element is not the promi- 
 nent one in the writer’s thought as he introduces these citations; vidg is the em- 
 phatic word. It is not impossible, therefore, that the citations are made without 
 attaching any definite notion to ofuepov, as Riehm and de Wette suggest. It is 
 evident, however, (y) that, if 742 of ver. 6 is explained according to its position 
 in the sentence, there is a reference in that verse to time—a fact which would 
 seem to suggest, at least, a similar reference in ver. 5. It will, also, be observed 
 (z) that, in the O. T. passages as originally written (Ps. ii. 7 and 2 Sam. vii. 14), 
 the time-element is not without prominence. While it cannot properly be 
 affirmed, therefore, with Liinem., that the view of de W. and Riehm involves an 
 unexegetical supposition, it must be regarded as not improbable that the writer 
 of the epistle had in his mind the idea of time. If he had this idea, the deter- 
 mination as to what the time which he thought of was, will depend on the adjust- 
 ment to each other of two points:—jirst, the evident fact that in the O.'T. the 
 
416 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 words, both in Ps, ii. and 2 Sam. vii., refer primarily to Solomon (or in Ps. ii. to 
 some Israelitish king), and, so far as they are Messianic, to the Messiah’s reign on 
 earth, and, secondly, the preceding and following context in this chapter. This - 
 adjustment seems, on the whole, to be most successfully made by carrying back— 
 in the transference of the application of the words from the earthly king to the 
 Divine Son—the time of constituting the sonship, or “begetting,” to the period 
 indicated in é6jxev k.7.A, of ver. 2. There are, then, two epochs referred to,—that 
 in ver. 2, when it was said to the Son, “Thou art, etc.; To-day have I begotten 
 thee,” and “I will be to him,” ete.; and that in ver. 6, when it is said, “Let all 
 the angels worship him:”—the epoch of His appointment as heir of all things, and 
 the epoch of the final consummation of His glory at the end of His work. Both 
 parts of ver. 5 have reference to the same time.—4. The position of tau, of ver. 
 6, in the sentence in which it stands, and the connection of the verses, make it 
 almost, if not indeed absolutely, certain, that it is not parallel with the same word 
 in ver. 56, but that it qualifies eicayayy. The objections to this view, which are 
 mentioned by Bleek, in his first edition, and Ebrard, are satisfactorily answered 
 by Liinemann. The appropriateness of the word eicayayy to express the idea of 
 the introduction to the full possession of the kingdom (comp. Exod. xiii. 5; Deut. 
 vi. 10, etc.); the reference of oixovévy in ii. 5 to the Messianic aiov; the following 
 verses of this chapter which speak of eternal dominion and the subjection of all 
 enemies; and the evident intention of the author, in the early verses, to cover in 
 thought the whole progress of the work of the Son, even to its end ;—all these 
 things point very clearly to the second coming as indicated by wad. 
 
 (e) Ver.7 may be regarded as having a twofold connection. By the construction 
 
 with év and dé, and the correspondence of mpo¢ trode ayyéAove with mpoc Tov vidr, it 
 is evidently intended to have a close relation to ver. 8. By the indication that 
 the angels are, like the winds and the lightning, mere servants of God, it stands 
 in contrast to ver. 5, where Christ is presented as Son, and gives, as it were, a 
 ground for the call apon the angels to worship Him, which is quoted from the 
 LXX., in ver. 6. 
 XLII. Vv. 7-14. 
 (a) The immediate and special connection of ver, 7 is, as intimated in the pre- 
 ceding note, with ver. 8, and the «a at the beginning of the verse adds the state- 
 meni of these two verses to that of vv. 5, 6. That the sense of the original passage, 
 Ps. civ. 4, is diflerent from that of the LXX, translation which is quoted by the 
 writer of the epistle, is rendered probable by the verses which precede and follow 
 the one quoted, and by the progress of thought in the Psalm. We may hold, there- 
 fore, with Liinem., Bleek, Ebrard, de Wette, W. and .Wilk. and other comm., 
 that the Heb. is to be translated, as in A. R. V., “ Who maketh winds his messen- 
 gers, flames of fire, his ministers.” [R. V., gives this rendering for the first clause, 
 but translates the second, “his ministers a flaming fire” ]. On the ground that 
 the order of the words in this verse is different from that in the previous verses of 
 the Psalm, and that the rendering favored by Liinem., joins a singular object 
 flaming fire with a plural predicate, Alford, Delitzsch, Stuart and some others 
 insist that the Heb., means: “who maketh his messengers winds,” ete. Moll 
 holds that, as the Hebrew verb here used, when it has a double Acc., usually 
 means to make out of something, the words may be properly translated : “making His 
 messengers out of winds, His servants out of flaming fire.” 
 
NOTES. 417 
 
 The writer to the Hebrews evidently quotes from the LXX., and, whatever 
 may be true as to the O. T. passage as originally written, his idea is that the 
 angels are, like the winds and the lightning, mere ministers or servants for the 
 accomplishment of God’s will. 
 
 (b) As mpéc of ver. 7 must be translated with respect to, there can be little doubt 
 that the same meaning is to be given to péc¢ in ver. 8. The preposition in the 
 latter verse might be taken, so far as the verse itself is concerned, in the ordinary 
 sense of to, and so Bleek understands it. He holds that the author uses 7pdéc¢ in the 
 same sense in the 7th ver., also, without being distinctly conscious that the words 
 there cited are not, after the same manner, addressed to the angels, as those of 
 ver. 8 are to the Son. But the argument in the case goes rather from ver. 7 to 
 ver. 8, than from ver. 8 to ver. 7. 
 
 (c) Thecomm. generally regard 6 6ed¢ of ver. 8 as a vocative, both in this author’s 
 use of the words and in the LXX. So Liinem., Alf., Moll, W. and Wilk, Stuart, 
 Bleek, Ebrard, de Wette, Delitzsch, and many others. Comp., also, Buttm., p. 
 140. As to the construction in the orginal Heb. of the Psalm, there is much 
 more difference of opinion, but a large proportion of the best recent writers hold 
 that the Hebrew word, also, is a vocative. The writer of the present note would 
 offer the following suggestions with respect to the matter: 
 
 1. There is no reasonable ground to doubt that the author of this Epistle 
 believed, as Paul and John did, in the divinity of Christ. The correspondence 
 between the early verses of this chapter and such passages as John i. 1 ff and Col. 
 i. 15 ff. (see Note of Am. Ed. in Meyer’s Comm. on Col.) places this beyond ques- 
 tion. The legitimate and natural explanation of vv. 2, 3 of this Chap., also, 
 establishes this view. Whatever, therefore, may be true as to 6 Oed¢ in ver. 8, or 
 Elohim in Ps. xlv. 6, the doctrine of this Epistle is not affected. The question 
 concerns the statement of this particular verse alone, and is only as to whether the 
 name God is given to Christ in this place. 
 
 2. With regard to this question it may be noticed, first, that Elohim in the O. T. 
 passage is, by no means, necessarily a vocative, but may be either a genitive in 
 sense: “thy throne of God”=thy divine throne, or thy throne is (throne) of 
 God, or divine—in the former case, the Elohim having more of the adjective- 
 genitive character, and, in the latter, more of the predicate-genitive character ;— 
 or it may be a predicate nominative: “thy throne is God”=God is the 
 foundation of thy throne. [R. V. gives, as a marginal rendering, “Thy 
 throne is the throne of God”]; secondly, that the explanation of Elohim in 
 the Hebrew Psalm as a vocative is opposed by the fact, that this word is not used 
 of the person addressed anywhere else in the Psalm; that, on the other hand, God 
 is spoken of as distinct from him in two different places—as blessing him in ver. 
 2, and anointing him in ver. 7; and that God is even described in ver. 7 as his (thy) 
 God. The explanation of the word as a genitive or nominative, on the contrary, 
 is favored by all that is said of the honor and majesty of the ruler referred to as 
 given to him by God, as the reward of his loving righteousness, ete. ; thirdly, it must 
 be admitted, however, that the genitive and predicate constructions alluded to are, in 
 sentences of this sort, somewhat less simple and natural than that with the vocative, 
 provided the latter be possible, as it certainly is here. The passages cited in sup- 
 port of these constructions are few in number, and it is claimed by some writers, 
 that none of them are exactly parallel to the one before us. This latter position, 
 however, cannot be sustained,—at least, so far as to exclude their force as confirm- 
 
 27 
 
418 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 ing the possibility of a corresponding explanation here; fourthly, as the Psalm 
 has, apparently, a Messianic character, it is more difficult than it might be in 
 other cases, to pronounce a decisive judgment respecting the employment in it of 
 such a word as Elohim as a vocative of address; yet, inasmuch as there can be 
 little doubt that it had a primary reference to some earthly ruler (perhaps, 
 Solomon), it would seem that its interpretation must be mainly determined by 
 this fact. Now it is to be noticed that, while the word Elohim is applied to kings 
 or magistrates in two or three places in the O. T., Ps. Ixxxii. vv. 1, 6, Ex. xxi. 6, 
 xxii. 8, it is thus applied, apparently, not to the individual magistrate, but to 
 the collective magistracy (comp. Delitzsch on this verse). It is nowhere used as 
 a title in addressing a human ruler.—In view of these considerations, it seems, on 
 the whole, not improbable that Klohim in the original Psalm-passage is to be regarded, 
 not as a vocative, but as having a genitive or nominative character. This explana- 
 tion of the word, however, cannot be insisted upon as more than probable. It 
 cannot, by any means, be affirmed as beyond question. 
 
 3. Respecting the words as used by this writer, who quotes from the LXX, it is 
 clear that the genitive construction is impossible. That 6 ded¢, however, may be a 
 predicate nominative, and that the meaning may be, as Grimm givesit, “Thy 
 throne, i. e. the foundation of thy throne, is God,” can hardly be denied. On the 
 other hand, the use of the nominative, with the article, as a vocative is, as Buttm. 
 says, well-known both in the O. T., and N. T., and is also found in the colloquial 
 language of classical writers, such as Plato and Aristophanes. In an ordinary and 
 independent N. T. sentence, written in this form, the interpretation of 6 Ged¢ as a 
 vocative would, undoubtedly, be the most natural one. But, in the present case, 
 the fact that it is an O. T. passage, which, in the original Hebrew, may probably, 
 or at least not improbably, have had another construction, must be borne in 
 mind, and must be allowed such weight as it deserves. 
 
 4. It is worthy of consideration, also, that the writer of the Epistle does not 
 seem to use this word eé¢ as showing the superiority of Christ to the angels; 
 that is, he does not seem to make it a prominent point in his argument. This is 
 indicated by two facts connected with the passage: (x) the fact, that the main state- 
 ment of the cited verses, and the main idea which the author of the Epistle 
 apparently desires to set forth in his use of them, is that the throne of the Son is 
 for ever and ever, i. e. that He has had bestowed upon Him everlasting dominion, 
 while the angels have not; and not that He is 6c, while they are not; and (y) 
 the fact, that the word 6e6c, which, if intended to be used in the argument, was of 
 more significance and importance than any other in the entire passage, is intro- 
 duced in so incidental a way, and is passed over without emphasis, and without 
 developing or dwelling upon the idea which it suggests. If the author not only 
 understood the O. T., in these verses, to declare the Son to be God, but proposed 
 to make use of this declaration as presenting a great fact respecting His exaltation 
 above the angels, in the same way as he did of the statement in ver. 5 a, it seems 
 very strange, that he should not have placed it at the beginning of his argument. 
 This was the position which would naturally have been assigned to it; because, if 
 the Son was God, His superiority tothe angels was put beyond question, and the 
 revelation through Him was the greatest of all possible revelations. Indeed, if 
 He was addressed as God and declared to be God in the O. T., what further proof 
 of His superiority to the angels and Moses could be needed ina writing whose 
 entire argument isso manifestly founded upon the statements of the O. T.? It is 
 
NOTES. 419 
 
 evident, however, that the writer makes no further allusion to these words—as 
 involving a declaration that Christ has the name vedc—in the entire course of the 
 Epistle, and that he does not lay emphasis, in any other passage, on the fact that 
 He has this name. 
 
 The considerations on the different sides of this question, which have been thus 
 briefly, and some of them incidentally, mentioned, must influence the decision 
 that is reached. It seems possible to take one or another of three positions. In 
 the first place, we may assume, either (x) that the writer to the Hebrews uses 6 
 4e6c as a vocative—founding our view upon the greater simplicity and naturalness 
 of the construction in the Greek, and perhaps, also, in the Hebrew, if the word is 
 thus understood ; or (y) that he uses it as a nominative—giving the greater weight 
 to the other reasons suggested above. In the second place, if we adopt (x), we 
 may hold either (x*) that, in the use of the vocative, he intended to make the 
 statement, which the employment of the name #eé¢ might naturally involve, a 
 part of his proof of the main proposition which he was undertaking to defend; or 
 («**) that, without any such intention, he simply cited the passage as he found it 
 in the LXX.—allowing the vocative to express whatever it might to the mind of 
 any reader, but not designing to press it as a vital point in the argument. The 
 probabilities of the case seem to the writer of this note to favor either <** or y, 
 rather than x*. Perhaps «** may be regarded as the view which best meets the 
 difficulties of the case. 
 
 (d) The construction of the first 6 Yed¢ in ver. 9 is, also, a point of discussion 
 among commentators. A.R. V. marg., Liinem., Blk., Ebr., de W., and others hold 
 that the writer of the epistle uses this, also, as a vocative. R. V., A.B. V. text, 
 A. V., Alf, Grimm, and many others regard it as a nominative, with which the 
 second 6 edc is in apposition. The opinion is almost universal that the word in 
 she Hebrew is, in this case, a nominative, (Ebrard, however, denies this), and 
 there seems to be no reason for making it a vocative as used in the epistle, except 
 the correspondence with the (supposed) vocative in ver. 8. But such a cor- 
 respondence is not demanded by the passage, and the reasons which may be 
 thought to require the explanation of 4 Seéc, of ver. 8, in this way, do not exist in 
 connection with ver. 9. Delitzsch, Stuart, and some others agree with A. R. V. in 
 allowing either rendering of the word in this verse. Prof. Stuart, at the end of 
 his notes on vv. 8, 9 has the following words: “Does the word vedc here denote 
 the divine or the kingly nature or condition of the Messiah? Most interpreters, who 
 admit the doctrine of the Saviour’s divine nature, contend for the first of these 
 senses; as I have myself once done in a former publication. But further examina- 
 tion has led me to believe, that there are grounds to doubt of such an application 
 of the word Seéc in this passage. The king here called Weéc, has for himself a 
 Sede; ‘thy God hath anointed thee.” The same king has associates (ueToyouc). As 
 divine, who are the pétoxor with the Saviour, to whom He is preferred?” Ho 
 thinks the title Elohim may be applied, (as in the case of magistrates, but In a 
 peculiar and preéminent sense) to the Messiah as King. His opinion borders 
 thus upon that which is alluded to in this note under x**. He adds that, from 
 other statements of the writer, there is no doubt of his regarding the Messiah as 
 having a divine nature. The same is true, it may be added, if we interpret 6 ded¢ 
 in these two verses according to the manner indicated by y above. 
 
 (e) The reference in rove peroxouc cov (ver. 9) is, in the original Psalm, evi 
 dently to other kings. The same general reference—that is, the exaltation of this 
 
420 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Son, in His everlasting dominion, above all others who, as having dominion or 
 sovereignty, might be thought of in comparison with Him—seems to be intended 
 by the writer, in his citation of the words. The objection which de Wette pre- 
 sents against referring meTdy. to the angels, is one of much force:—that “the 
 author has placed the angels in no other position than deeply below Christ ;” and 
 the answers to it, which Liinemann gives in his note, do not set it aside. 
 
 (f) The citation from the Psalms (cii.; ci. LXX.) in vy. 10-12 is evidently 
 intended by the writer of the epistle to set forth the idea that the Son abides the 
 same for ever (so Liinem.). In connection with vy. 8, 9, however, we may believe 
 that this idea is, in the writer's mind, closely related to the thought of the do- 
 minion of the Son; and hence that by all these verses, as brought together, he 
 means to contrast the everlasting sovereignty of Christ with the temporary and 
 changing offices of the angels, who are servants. This citation is peculiar in two 
 respects: 1. in that «ipee has no corresponding word in the Hebrew text, and is 
 manifestly borrowed from the LXX., and 2. in that the words are addressed in the 
 original Psalm to God, and refer to Him. The first point is easily explained by 
 the writer’s constant, and apparently exclusive, use of the LX.X. for his quotations. 
 The second is regarded by Liinem. as due to his being misled by the «ipve into the 
 idea that the words were addressed to the Son. This supposition does not seem 
 to be necessary, and it is exposed to the following objections: (w) that a careful 
 reading of the Psalm in the LXX. must have shown him, as the examination of 
 the original Hebrew showed those who read it, that the Psalmist was speaking of 
 and to God, and not Christ ; (x) that his own use and understanding of «pcoc, both 
 in passages which he writes himself and in some which he quotes from the O.T., 
 make it clear that he, like the other N. T. authors, recognizes the possibility of the 
 application of the word to God—the mere presence of the word, therefore, could 
 scarcely lead him into error; (y) that the difficulties of this passage cannot be 
 considered in entire independency of those which meet us in other O. T. citations, 
 which the writer makes, and in which such an explanation as Liinem. here gives 
 will not prove satisfactory; (z) that, if Apollos.was the author of the epistle and 
 was (as is declared in Acts xviii. 24) duvaroc év taic ypadaic, it is especially im- 
 probable that an error like this, which’ does not seem to belong to an earnest stu- 
 dent of the O.T., should have been made by him. The explanation of many such 
 cases is, rather, to be found in the view which the N. T. writers had of the O. T. 
 hey regarded it as so full of Christ in all its design and purpose, as having the 
 consummation of its history and prophecy so completely and exclusively in Him— 
 as being so wholly without significance, even, except as it was realized, in all its 
 foreshadowings, by His life and work—that they carried Him in thought, as it 
 were, into any and every part of it, and saw Him in many of its words, whose first 
 pointing, as they well knew, was to some other than Himself. Their view was in 
 one sense, if not indeed in another,—it was, as regarded from the highest stand- 
 point, and, may we not say, in the truest conception of the whole matter,—the 
 right view. He, who filled the whole, must also fill the parts. 
 
 (g) The explanation of dcaxoviay (ver. 14) given by Liinem., Alf, de W., Blk., Moll, 
 and others—that it refers to their service to God, which has in view the eternal 
 salvation of His people, and is thus for their sake or on account of them—is undoubt- 
 edly correct. The contrast between the angels and the Son in respect to the end- 
 jessness of the sovereignty is thus set forth with a similar emphasis to that with 
 which, in vy. 7, 8, the contrast with reference to the sovereignty itself is presented 
 
CHAP. II. 42] 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Ver. 1. Instead of the Recepta: j7ua¢ tpooéyerv (K L, Theodoret), Lachm. 
 Tisch. and Alford read: tpooéyerv 7ua¢. In favor of the latter decides the 
 preponderating authority of A B D E®8, Vulg. Athan. Aug. alii—Ver. 4. aitov] 
 D* E*: tov Yeov, Explanatory gloss.—Ver. 6. Ti éorcv] Lachm. (but only in the 
 ed. stereot.) Bleek, and Kurtz: ti¢ éo7¢v. Only insufficiently attested by C* Clar. 
 Sangerm. Tol. Copt. Damascenus, although also A contains ti¢ in Ps. vili. By 
 reason of the preceding tic, ti might easily pass over into ti¢—Ver. 7. After 
 éotedavwoac aitév there is added by Elz., with A C D* E* M8, many cursives 
 and translations, Theodoret, Sedulius: kai katéotyoacg avtov éri ta Epya 
 Tav yetpov cov, Against B D*** E** K L, more than 65 min., Syr. (codices 
 and some edd.) Slav. ms. Chrys. Damase. alii. The addition already regarded as 
 spurious by Mill (Prolegg. 1376, 1421). Bracketed by Lachm. and Bloomf. 
 Rightly deleted by Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Alford, 
 Reiche, and others. Complementary gloss from the LX X. Comp. the exposition 
 of ver. 7—Ver. 8. év yapT@] So ACK L,al. Lachm. and Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, 
 after BD E M 8, 23: év tO yap.—Ver. 9. Besides yapite Aeov (so also in 
 the Cod. Sinait., as well as A B C D E K L, al.), Origen,—in Joann. i. 1, Opp. iv. 
 41; in Joann. xi. 49, Opp. iv. 393; in Joann. extr. Opp. iv. 450,—Theodor. Mop- 
 suest. (in N. T. commentariorum quae reperiri potuerunt, ed. Fritzsche, Turic. 1847, 
 p. 163 f.), and Jerome, on Gal. iii. 10, know ofa reading yopic¢ Yeov, to which 
 the two former give the preference. Theodoret ad loc. and ad Eph. i. 10, takes 
 notice only of the reading ywpic eo, In like manner do, also, Anastas. abbas 
 Palaestin., in the 8th century, in his work, Contra Judaeos (Latin ed. Canis.), in 
 ant. lect. iii.; Ambrose, de fid. ad Gratian. ii. 8, 63, 65, v. 8.106; Fulgentius, ad 
 Thrasimund. iii. 20; and Vigilius Thapsens. Contra Futych. ii. 3, cite in accord- 
 ance with the same; it has also passed over into single mss. of the Peshito (some- 
 times in combination with the ordinary reading; so also in Syr. Cod. Heidelber- 
 gens.: “ipse enim excepto Deo per beneficentiam suam pro quovis homine 
 gustavit mortem,” according to Tremellius in Tisch. edd. 7 and 8); comp. La 
 Croze, Histoire du Christianisme des Indes, iii. 3, 64; Bode, Pseudo-crit. Millio- 
 Bengel, t. ii. p. 339. So, too, it is found in Arab. Petropolitana of the 8th century 
 (in Tisch. edd. 7 and 8): “quare yopic Veov, qui eum sibi fecerat templum, 
 gustavit mortem itép tévtwv Tov avdporur?’ Above all, this reading was 
 championed by the Nestorians (see Oecumen. and Theophyl. ad loc.). Among 
 later expositors it has found defenders in Camerarius, P. Colomesius (Observatt. 
 sacr. p. 603), Bengel, Ch. F. Schmid, Paulus,-and Ebrard. But neither in our 
 codd. nor in the versions (with the exceptions above named) does ywpic Seot 
 find any countenance; it is met with only in the Cod. M (of Tisch. ; with Wetst. 
 and Griesb.: Cod. 53) of the 9th or 10th century, and in the Cod. 67 of the 11th 
 or 12th century—in the latter only on the margin. On internal grounds, too, it 
 is to be rejected (see the exposition, and Reiche in the Commentarius Criticus, p. 
 
422 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 14 ff.). Probably arose from the placing of ywpic¢ Yeov, occasioned by 1 Cor. xv. 
 27, asa gloss to the words of ver. 8: oidév agyxev ait avuréraktov ; and this 
 gloss being erroneously regarded by a later transcriber as a correction of yapere 
 Jeov, ver. 9,was taken up in place thereof into the text—Ver. 14. Elz. Mat- 
 thaei, Scholz: capko¢ kati aivatoc. But ABCD E M8, 37, al., many ver- 
 sions and Fathers, have aijato¢ kai capKkoc. Already approved by Bengel 
 and Griesb. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. The Recepta is a 
 later transposition, since the order caps kai aiva is elsewhere the more usual 
 one.—Tov avTov] D* E* It. Eus. Theodoret (semel), Jerome: t&v avtav 
 madnuatav, (Erroneous) explanatory gloss.—dva tov Yavatov] D* E* It.: dua tow 
 Yavarov Yavatov. An addition incompatible with that which follows. Proceeded 
 from an erroneous twofold writing of Yavarov. 
 
 Vy. 1-4. [On Vv. 1-4, see Note XLIV., pages 446, 447.] The author, in 
 availing himself of the communicative form of speech, deduces from the 
 superiority of the Son over the angels, set forth in chap. '1., as likewise 
 from the fact that even the Mosaic law, given through the instrumentality 
 of angels, could not be transgressed with impunity, the imperative obliga- 
 tion for the readers to hold fast to the salvation revealed by Christ, securely 
 handed down, and confirmed by God with miracles. Thus there already 
 comes out here the paraenetic main tendency of the epistle: to animate 
 the Hebrews, urgently exposed as they were to the peril of apostasy, to 
 perseverance in the Christian faith, as this aim is also manifested else- 
 where in repeated admonitions (¢. g. ii. 6, 14, iv. 14, vi. 11, x. 28) ; although 
 the author has the intention of speaking further concerning the relation of 
 Christ to the angels (comp. ver. 5 ff.). 
 
 Ver. 1. Aca roiro] [XLIV b.] therefore, sc. because Christ, the mediator 
 of the New Coverfant, is as the Son of God so highly exalted above the 
 angels, the intermediate agents in the giving of the Old Covenant.—ée7] 
 indication of the inner necessity resulting of itself from the described con- 
 ditions.—*tepioooré pwc] so much the more, sc. than would be the case if He 
 who proclaimed the axove#évra were one of lower rank. We have not, 
 however, to connect teptocorépwc with dei (Grotius, Bengel, Dindorf, 
 Bohme, Kuinoel), but with tpocéyerv as the main idea.—rposéyew toi 
 mp.] to give heed or attention to anything, sc. in order to hold fast to it.— 
 roi¢ akovobeiow] to that which has been heard. The salvation preached by 
 the Lord and His immediate disciples is intended, of which the readers 
 had heard. Comp. ver. 8. [XLIV ¢.]—jrore rapappvoper] lest haply we 
 should be carried past it, i. e. lest we lose it, fail of obtaining the salvation 
 promised to us by the word we have heard; comp. ver. 38. |The interpre- 
 tation of Erasmus, Clarius, Beza, Cameron, Stuart, al.: lest we forget it, or 
 let it escape attention, is unmeaning and almost tautological. rapapprauev 
 (or rapapvouev, as Lachmann and Tischendorf 2 and 7 write it, after A B* 
 D* L’&), moreover, is not, as Wittich, Dindorf, and others suppose, con- 
 junctive present active of rapappvéo,—for the forms rapappréw, rapappie, 
 
 1Comp. LXX. Proy. iii. 21: vié wh mapappuys, thpnoov Sé éuny BovdAny Kai Evvorav. 
 Pp 
 
CHAP. II. 1-3. 423 
 
 rapappinuc are mere figments of the grammarians,' in order to derive cer- 
 tain tenses therefrom,—but sec. aorist conjunct. passive from tapappéw. 
 
 Vv. 2-4. Establishing of the det repuocotépws mpooé yew jag Toi¢ akovobeiacy, 
 ver. 1, by a warning reference to the great responsibility and culpability 
 in the case of its neglect, and this in a conclusion a minore ad majus. 
 Not justifiably does de Wette take vv. 2-4 asa “ proving of the danger of 
 the wapapp.” For not the possibility of foregoing salvation, but the cul- 
 pability of losing it through neglect, forms the central thought in vv. 
 2-4. 
 
 Ver. 2. '0 dv ayyéAwy Aadnbeig Aébyoc| the word proclaimed by angels (not: 
 by human messengers, 1. €. prophets; so Daniel Heinsius and G. Olearius, 
 against the connection with chap. i., and contrary to Biblical usage), 7. e. 
 the Mosaic law. Of an activity of the angels in connection with the act 
 of legislation on Sinai nothing indeed is mentioned in Ex. xix.; it was, 
 however, a traditional view very widely spread among the Jews. See 
 Schoettgen and Wetstein on Gal. 11. 19. The earliest traces thereof appear 
 Deut. xxxiii. 2, LXX., and Ps. Ixviii. 18 (17). It is clearly enunciated Acts 
 vii. 53; Gal. iii. 19; Josephus, Antiq. xv. 5. 3.—To understand other divine 
 revelations given through the intervention of angels, like Gen. xix. 26, to 
 the exclusion of the Mosaic law (Dorscheus, Calov, Schoettgen, Carpzov, 
 Semler, al.), or with the inclusion of the same (Baumgarten, Ewald, 
 M’Caul: “To my mind, the transition to the law exclusively is in the 
 present instance somewhat abrupt. Does it not rather also refer to the 
 ministrations of angels vouchsafed from time to time during the whole of 
 the earlier dispensation, and to which allusion is made in the concluding 
 verse of the first chapter? ”), as intended by the 6 d¢ ayyéAwv Aadnfeic Adyoc, 
 is forbidden—apart from the connection in its main points, and the whole 
 tendency of the epistle—by the expression 6 Aéyo¢ in the singular.—The 
 preterites éyévero and éAaPev characterize the period of the Mosaic law 
 as a past one, the condition of life prevailing in the same as one now obso- 
 lete and historically surmounted.—féBavoc ] [XLIV d.] firm, 7.e. inviolable 
 and obligatory, as is evident from the explanatory clause «ai raca 
 uofar. immediately following —7apafBaace the objective transgression, 
 xapakof the subjective listless hearing or inattention, Uebertretung and 
 Ueberhorung. Not inaptly Bohme, in preserving the paronomasia, “non 
 commissa solum, sed omissa etiam.”—évdcxoc] just, in the N. T. only here 
 and Rom. iii. 8. ucarodocia] selected, sonorous word, a favorite one with 
 our author in the sense of the simple p.oféc, but not occurring elsewhere 
 in the N. T. The term is a vor media, signifies thus recompense. Tt is here 
 employed in the unfavorable sense (== punishment), x. 35, xi. 26, in the 
 favorable sense (= reward). 
 
 Ver. 3. The apodosis follows in the form of a question, which for the 
 rest extends only to cwrpiac, not to the close of ver. 4.—réc] how is it 
 possible that.—jueic] has the emphasis. The Christians in general are 
 
 1 Without warrant Delitzsch denies this. He has not been able to adduce an instance in 
 favor of the opposite opinion. 
 
424 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 meant, in opposition to the men once belonging to the O. T. theocracy, of 
 whom the writer has spoken at least by implication in ver. 2.—éxgevtdue6a] 
 stands absolutely, as xii. 25; 1 Thess. v. 3. Needlessly do Heinrichs, 
 Stengel, Ebrard, Bisping, Maier, and many others supplement from ver. 2: 
 tiv évdixov pcbarrodociav.— aeAnoavrec] Instancing of the case or condition, 
 after the arising of which an escape or deliverance from punishment 
 becomes an impossibility : in case that, or if, we shall have neglected (slighted). 
 The participle aorist is properly used, since the culpability must first have 
 been incurred before a punishment can ensue.—ryAiKaity¢ owrnpiac] 
 [XLIV e.] such a salvation, i.e. one so great, so far surpassing in exalted- 
 ness that of the O. T—ryAcatty¢ does not in itself contain a reference to 
 q7e¢ (Tholuck and others; the former will then have jv taken in the 
 sense of dore), but stands there independently of any correlative; it is 
 then, however, after the question has closed with cwrypiac, enforced by the 
 clause with ye (quippe quae).— ire apyjv AaBovoa Aarsiobat dia TOU Kvpiov, 
 bd Tov akovodvtwv Eig nuac &BeBadty| which indeed, at first proclaimed by the 
 Lord, was handed down with certainty to us by them that heard it. Wrongly 
 does Ebrard translate: “ which was confirmed to us by the hearers, as one 
 proclaimed by the Lord from the very first,’ in supposing that apyjv 
 AaBovca depends upon éBeBaaby as an “apposition of object.” For how 
 can apyiv AaBdv Aadreiofac denote something proclaimed “from the very 
 beginning,” or “from the commencement ”? And how unskilfully would 
 the author have proceeded in the choice and position of his words, if—as 
 Ebrard supposes—he had wished to express the thought, “ that the cwrypia 
 was directly revealed by the Lord, has been transmitted to us as a cer- 
 tainty, and thus asa divine legitimation of the cwrpia by the axotcavrec, 
 the ear- (and eye-) witnesses!” “Apy7v AaPeir, to begin, always presup- 
 poses an oppositiofi, expressed or understood, to a being continued, or to 
 a being brought to an end. When thus in our passage there is mention 
 made not only of an dpyjv 2aBeiv Aareioba by the Lord, but also of a BeBaw- 
 Ajvac cig 7yuac On the part of those who heard the Lord, it is clear that the 
 author will have these two factors regarded as statements of two distinct 
 but mutually corresponding periods of time.—In general, it is wrong when 
 Ebrard, in connection with his explanation just adduced, will find in ver. 
 3 the twofold contrast with the law—(1) That the law was a mere word 
 (Aéyoc); the gospel, on the other hand, a deliverance, a redemption, an act. 
 (2) That the cwrypia was manifested and proclaimed to men as at first 
 hand, by the Lord Himself; the law, on the contrary, only at second hand, 
 by the angels. For, as concerns the first alleged point of difference, 
 assuredly the emphasis rests neither upon Adyoc, ver. 2, nor UpON owrypiac, 
 ver. 3; but, ver. 2, upon d? ayyéAwrv, and, ver. 3, upon ryAikabryc. The 
 second alleged point of difference falls, however, with the consideration 
 that the author employs the preposition dca, as before ayyéAw, ver. 2, so 
 
 1Theodorus Mopsuestenus: éxetvo vouimwv  emayyedia Kai abavacias imoaxects’ O0ev Kad 
 Scots Fv povov, évtaida Sé Kal xapis TvEUpaTos Sixaiws THALKaUTHS elzeEV. 
 Kat Avots apapTnaTwy Kai BaciAcias ovpavav 
 
CHAP. ll. 3. 425 
 also before rov kvpiov, ver. 3; thus indicates that the supreme Author alike 
 of the Mosaic law and of the gospel is God Himself, both consequently 
 are proclaimed to man “ only at second hand.” The pre-eminence of 
 the gospel can accordingly have been discovered by our author only in 
 the fact that in connection with this the Lord Himself was the interven- 
 ing agent; in connection with the law, on the other hand, only the angels, 
 who, according to chap. 1., are subordinate to the Lord.—izd tov akoveay- 
 rav] by them that heard it (sc. from the Lord ; rapa rou Kupiov, Chrysost.), thus 
 by His apostles and immediate disciples. From these axobcavrec the author 
 distinguishes himself and his readers (eic juac). As well he himself as the 
 Palestinian Christians to whom he writes must consequently have already 
 belonged to a second generation of Christendom, and the author of the 
 epistle cannot have been Paul (comp. Introd. p. 11). [XLIV g-| When 
 Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 378, 2 Aufl.) objects to this: “from ei¢ juac is 
 in truth evident only that the author belonged not to the number of those 
 who could testify that they had with their own ears heard the Lord, at 
 the time when He was upon earth proclaiming that salvation which 
 they now preached,” this is indeed perfectly correct. But when he adds 
 that Paul likewise had certainly only heard the word of salvation from 
 the mouth of those who had listened to Jesus, this is—so long as the 
 solemn asseveration of Paul himself (comp. expressly Gal. i. 12) has any 
 value for us—decidedly false. For Paul reckons himself not among the 
 disciples of the axoicarrec, but among the dxobcavtec themselves. For the 
 circumstance that the axobe was otherwise brought about in his case than 
 in the case of the original apostles, inasmuch as these had stood in the 
 relation of axoécavrec to the Christ walking upon earth, Paul, on the other 
 hand, stood in the relation of an axoboag to the exalted or heavenly Christ, 
 left the essence of the matter itself untouched. Nor even by the assump- 
 tion of a so-called dvaxotvwowc, to which recourse has very frequently been 
 had, can the conclusion resulting with stringent necessity from the words 
 of our verse be set aside ; for that which the writer of a letter says to his 
 readers by means of an avaxoivwor is always of such nature as to be like- 
 wise true of himself; never can it stand in excluding opposition to him- 
 self.—éBeBad6y] corresponds to the éyévero BéBawc, ver. 2; and etic puas 
 éBeBadOn is a well-known blending of the notion of rest with that of the 
 preceding movement. See Winer, p. 386 f. [E. T. 414 f.] Theophylact: 
 SieropOpmevOn cic uae BeBaiwc kai wLoT Oe, it came to usina firm, trust- 
 worthy manner, so that it has become for us a owrnpia PeBaia. Wrongly 
 Heinrichs (and so also Seb. Schmidt, Wittich, Wolf, Cramer, Paulus, and 
 
 1] cannot bring myself to recall this remark, is, moreover, remote from the thought of the 
 
 although Delitasch takes so great offence at 
 it that he finds therein “a toning down of the 
 opposition in gross misapprehension of the 
 sense of the author.’ The conception of an 
 “immediate ” speaking on the part of Jeho- 
 vah in the N. T., on which Delitzsch insists, 
 p. 49, 51, is regarded in general unbiblical ; it 
 
 author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the 
 whole chapter in itself shows: only by forcing 
 upon him dogmatic notions already a priori 
 determined, and entirely disregarding the 
 laws of grammar, can it be brought out from 
 his statements. 
 
426 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 others), according to whom ei¢ #ua¢ signifies ad nostra tempora, or usque 
 ad nos. 
 
 Ver. 4. Luveripaprupovvtoc tov Oeow x.7.A.] im that, with them (the axovcarrec), 
 God bore testimony in addition, to the same (the salvation, the owrypia), by 
 signs and wonders. The doubly compound word ovver:yaprupeiv in the N. 
 T. only here. Nor is it found at all in the LXX. With later profane 
 writers, on the other hand, it is not rare oyweia and répara only dis- 
 tinguished in the form of conception as signa and portenta, not different 
 in the notion conveyed by them. Comp. Fritzsche on Rom. xv. 19 (t. iii. 
 p. 270).—roixita¢] belongs only to dvvayzecw. The adjective is not likewise 
 to be referred to pepicuoig (Bleek, Maier). For the notion of rockiAov is 
 again specially brought into prominence in the sequel, in that it forms an 
 element also in the contents of kata ri avtov bé4n0w.—The duvdpecc, how- 
 ever, are not miraculous acts, but the source of the same: miraculous pow- 
 ers.—kai Tvevuatoe ayiov pepiopuoic K.7.A.] and distributions of the Holy Spirit 
 according to His good pleasure. xvebpatog dayton is genitivus objectiv., not 
 subjectiv. (Cameron and others); and wepsopuéc, which (iv. 12) signifies 
 dividing, denotes here, in accordance with the use of the verb pepifec», 
 vii. 2, Rom. xii. 3, 1 Cor. vii. 17, 2 Cor. x. 18: an apportioning or dealing 
 out, distribution.—xara tiv abtod béAnow] Addition, not to the whole period, 
 ver. 4 (Abresch, Bhme), nor to rouxita . . . weptopoic (Bleek), but only to 
 pepisnoig (de Wette, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz), on 
 which account this is also placed after the genitive wveiuaroc dyiov. abtod 
 relates back to rod deod, not to rvebuatoc ayiov (Oecumenius, Carpzov), and 
 the whole addition xara rv abrod bé40w has the design not only in general 
 of representing the bestowal of the gifts of the Spirit on the part of God as 
 a work of His free grace, but also of pointing to the manifold character 
 of those distributfons, inasmuch as, according to God’s free determination 
 of will, the Holy Spirit was communicated in greater fullness to the one 
 than to the other, and of the special gifts of the Spirit to the one was 
 granted this, to the other that. Comp. 1 Cor. xii? 
 
 Vy. 5-18. [On Vv. 5-8, see Note XLV. pages 447-450.] Further 
 investigation of the relation of Christ to the angeéls, and demonstration of 
 the necessity for the death of Christ. Not to angels, but to Christ, the 
 Son of man, has, according to the testimony of Scripture, the Messianic 
 world been subjected. Certainly Christ was abased for a short time lower 
 than the angels; but so it must be, in order that mankind might obtain 
 aalvation; He must suffer and die, and become in all things like unto 
 men, His brethren, in order to be able as High Priest to reconcile them to 
 God. 
 
 Ver. 5. [XLV a.] The author has brought into relief the fact, ver. 3, 
 that it was the Son of God, or the Lord, according to chap. i., highly ex- 
 alted above the angels, by whom the Messianic salvation was proclaimed, 
 
 .1See examples in Bleek, Abth. IL 1 Hilfte, ad Phryn. p. 7, 353; Pollux, v. 165: BovAnots 
 p. 218. ér.Ouuia, dpegis, Epws’ n SE OEAHatS idiw 
 £On the un-Attic @éAnars, comp. Lobeck, rexdv. 
 
cHAP. I. 4, 5. 427 
 
 and from whose immediate disciples it was handed down to Christendom. 
 He now justifies this order of things as founded in a higher divine decree, 
 and already foretold in the Scriptures of the Old Covenant. That order 
 of things is, however, justified, in conformity to the comparison of Christ 
 with the angels, which is begun with i. 4, first, e contrario or negatively, 
 ver. 5, and then, ver. 6, positively. The emphasis lies in ver. 5 upon avy é- 
 2occ, and this then finds its antithesis in avépwroc and vid¢ avpdmov, ver. 
 6. For when the author first in an absolute form of expression says : For 
 not unto the angels has He put into subjection the world to come, and 
 ‘then continues: But one in a certain place testifies, etc., the sense—on 
 account of the close connectedness of ver. 6 (see on that verse) with ver. 
 5—is certainly this: for, according to the testimony of Scripture, the world 
 to come is put in subjection, not to angels, but to Christ, the Son of man. 
 —ayyédows] without article. For it stands generically : beings who are 
 angels, who have the nature of angels (Bleek). [Owen: nature angelical.] 
 De Wette supposes the reason for the anarthrous form to be in the possi 
 bility that only a part of the angels are to be thought of. Unsuitably, 
 because in connection with obx dyyéAow already the definite antithesis: 
 ‘but to the Son of man,” was present to the mind of the author (comp. 
 ver. 6).—iréragev] sc. 6 dedc, which naturally follows from the roi @eov of 
 ver. 4, The verb expresses the notion of making dependent, or of the 
 placing in a position of subjection, and is chosen because the same expres- 
 sion is employed in the citation presently to be adduced (comp. ver. 8).— 
 Thy oikovpévny tv wéAAovoar] the world to come. This mode of designating it 
 is explained from the well-known Biblical phraseology, according to 
 which the Messianic period was distinguished as the aiay pé 2/0, from the 
 pre-Messianic as the aiap ovroc.! What is meant, consequently, is not 
 something purely future (Theodoret : 6 uéAiwv Biog ; Oecumenius: 6 écdpuevog 
 xécuoc; Schulz: the new order of the world which is approaching ; Bleek 
 IL. : the blessings of the kingdom of God which will first be manifested and 
 conferred upon believers at the return of the Lord in glory; Grotius, 
 Maier, and others: heaven, as the future dwelling-place of the Christians 
 also), but the new order of things in the Messianic kingdom, which in its first 
 manifestations has already appeared, but as regards its completion is still a 
 future one. Calvin: apparet non vocari orbem futurum dumtaxat, qualem 
 e resurrectione speramus, sed qui coepit ab exordio regni Christi, comple- 
 mentum vero suum habebit in ultima redemptione. — tiv oiKouyévyy tiv 
 uéAAovoay is itself without emphasis ; on the contrary, only resumes under 
 another form the ryducabry¢ cwrnpiac of ver. 3. It results from this, that 
 the opinion according to which the tacit contrast is to be supplied in 
 thought to the declaration, ver. 5: “the present world is indeed” to be 
 regarded as “subjected to the angels, by them swayed and governed” 
 (Cameron, Bleek, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 656, al.), is a baseless 
 
 1We have not to seek the origin of the promised belonged as yet to the purely future 
 addition tiv «éAAoveay in the fact that at the (so, along with the right explanation this 
 time of the Psalmist (ver. 6), that which was likewise in Bleek I.). 
 
428 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 one. For it must then have been written ob yap ryv wéAAovoAaY oikovpévyy 
 ayyéhoug irérazev.—repi 7g Aadovpev] does not go back to 1. 6 (Theophylact, 
 Zeger, Grotius, Schlichting, Schulz, Bohme, comp. also Delitzsch),—against 
 which the present 2adovuev, in place of which a preterite must have been 
 expected, and not less the addition ryv uéAAovoay to riv oikovuévyy, is decisive, 
 —nor is AadAovuev put in place of a future: “de quo in sequenti testimonio 
 loquemur ” (Vatablus); but the relative clause is to be taken quite gener- 
 ally: which is the subject of our discourse (our epistle). Too specially 
 Kurtz: “of which we are speaking just now, in this section of our epistle,” 
 which would have called for the addition of a viv. The plural AaAoiuev, 
 moreover, has reference merely to the writer. Comp. v. 11, vi. 9, 11, xiii. 
 18. Without good reason does Bengel supplement nos doctores; while 
 even, according to Hofmann, “all who believe the promise, the apostle 
 and his readers,” are the subject of AadAotyev, Inasmuch as it is only a 
 question of an “additional explanatory clause, when the apostle adds 
 that that world to come is intended, of which the Christians speak!” 
 Ver. 6 attaches itself closely to ver.'5, in that the adversative dé (differ- 
 ent from the disjunctive a@22d, but, on the contrary. Comp. Hartung, 
 Partikell. I. p. 171), as iv. 18, 15, ix. 12, x. 27, xii. 18, 1 Cor. vii. 15, 25 fin.., 
 and frequently, as it were correcting the preceding negative statement, 
 now places in opposition the actual state of the question: Some one, how- 
 ever (some one, on the contrary), testified in a certain place and said. Quite 
 wrongly does Heinrichs suppose an entirely new section of the epistle to 
 begin with ver. 6.—ot ti] The wavering character of this form of cita- 
 tion is derived by Grotius from the consideration that the Psalms were the 
 work of different authors, and the authors of particular psalms were often 
 unknown. But the eighth Psalm, here cited, is, both.in the Hebrew and 
 the LXX., expressly ascribed to David. According to Koppe (Excursus I. 
 ad epist. ail Roman., 2d ed. p. 879), Dindorf, Schulz, Heinrichs (comp. also 
 Stengel), the indefiniteness of the formula is to be explained by the fact 
 that, the author is citing from memory. But the words agree too exactly 
 with the LXX. to be a citation from memory, and, moreover, the indefi- 
 nite mov occurs again, iv. 4, in connection with the citation of Gen. ii. 2, 
 thus in connection with an appeal to a passage of the O. T. Scripture, of 
 which the place where it is found could not possibly escape the memory 
 of our author. De Wette, after the precedent of Bleek [cf. Peshito: the 
 Scripture witnesses, and says], regards it as the most correct supposition 
 that the author “ was not concerned about the particular writers of Scrip- 
 ture, since for him God or the Holy Ghost spoke through the Scripture.” 
 Yet, if the reason for the form of expression is to be sought in this, then 
 in general we should hardly expect the personal indication tic to be 
 added, but rather a passive construction to be chosen. According to Hof- 
 mann, finally, rod tc is intended to declare “that it is indeed a matter of 
 indifference for his purpose who said this, and where it is found; that it 
 is adduced as the utterance of some man, only an utterance which comes 
 invested with the authority of Scripture!” The indefinite mode of cita- 
 tion has probably no other than a rhetorical ground, inasmuch as the 
 
CHAP. II. 6. 429 
 author presupposes a universal acquaintance with the passage, without 
 concerning himself to learn whether it is known to all cr not.! The same 
 reticence in the mode of citation is often found with Philo.A—The citation, 
 which extends to rodév abrov, ver. 8, is from Ps. viii. 5-7 (4-6). [XLV 6.] 
 The utterance in its historic sense contains a declaration with regard to 
 man in general ; but the author, on the ground of the ideal import of the 
 passage, as likewise in particular on the ground of the expression vidc 
 avdporov, Which in consequence of Dan. vii. 18 was current with the Jews 
 as an appellation of the Messiah (comp. John xii. 34), which, too, was one 
 often bestowed by Jesus upon Himself, finds in it a declaration concern- 
 ing the Son of man kaz’ éoxHv, t.e. concerning Christ.? Paul, too, has 
 Messianically interpreted the psalm, 1 Cor. xv. 27 f. (comp. Eph. 1. 22).— 
 Ti éotw avdpwroc «.7.2.] Whatis man that Thou art mindful of him, or the 
 son of man that Thou regardest him! i.e., in the sense of the original, How 
 small, weak, and insignificant, as compared with the majestic heavenly 
 bodies, is man, that Thou shouldst nevertheless take a loving and careful 
 interest in him! In the application: How great and full of dignity is 
 man, that Thou so greatly distinguishest him with loving care! (Kuinoel, 
 Heinrichs, BGhme, Bleek, Stein; otherwise, de Wette, Hofmann, Schrijt- 
 bew. II. 1, p. 45,2 Aufl.; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 361; Alford, 
 Moll, Kurtz, al.). Thus the author cow/d understand the words, although 
 the “ being mindful” and “ looking upon” do not very well accord there- 
 with, in that he was guided in his acceptance of them pre-eminently by 
 the final clause dé) . . . aitov.—7] instead of this } is found in the 
 Hebrew, thus introduces a purely parallel member, in such wise that vidc¢ 
 avdporov is identical with adv3pwro¢c in the first member, and is distin- 
 guished therefrom only as a more sharply defined presentation of the 
 same notion. 
 
 1So substantially also Chrysostom (rodro dé 
 QUTO, Olmal, TO KpVTTELW Kal My TLOéVaL TOV 
 eipnkoTa THY mapTupiayv, AAA’ ws TEepipepomervnv 
 kal katadyAov ovcay cioayeuy, SeckvivTos éoTiv, 
 avTovs opodpa éumetpovs civar Tov ypahav), 
 Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Jac. 
 Cappellus, Cornelius a Lapide [Owen: “the 
 reason is plain; both person and place were 
 sufficiently known to them to whom he 
 wrote ”], Caloy, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Alford, 
 Maier, Moll, Kurtz, al. 
 
 2Comp. e. g. de ebrietate, p. 248 (ed. Mangey, 
 I. p. 365): etme yap mov tus (sc. Abraham, Gen. 
 xx. 12). Further examples see in Bleek, 
 Abth. II. 1 Halfte, p. 239. 
 
 %In contradiction with the design of the 
 whole explication, as this clearly manifests 
 itself from the context, do Beza, Piscator, 
 Storr, Ebrard, Delitazsch (p. 57, 59), Hofmann 
 (Schriftbew. Il. 1, p. 45, 2 Aufl.), Alford, Moll, 
 and others, refer av@pwmos, even in the sense 
 of our author, and vios av@pwrov to man gen- 
 erally, namely, to the man of the New Cove- 
 
 nant, inasmuch as he shall receive the 
 dominion over all things, in the possession 
 of which Christ is already set. When Ebrard, 
 p. 84, asserts that the “ Messianic” interpre- 
 tation “of the non-Messianic eighth Psalm” 
 cannot be laid to the account of the author 
 of the epistle, without charging him with “a 
 downright Rabbinical misunderstanding of a 
 psalm ;” and when, in like manner, Delitzsch, 
 p. 57, declares it “not at all conceivable that 
 the author of our epistle should without any 
 explanation have referred av@pwmos and vios 
 av@parov of the psalm to Christ,” unless we 
 are to attribute “the uttermost limitation of 
 thought to the N. T. exposition of Scripture,” 
 that is nothing else than a controlling of the 
 author of the epistle by preconceived opinions 
 of one’s own, from which, in the face of 1 Cor. 
 xy. 27 f., one ought to have shrunk. For the 
 rest, against the view espoused by Ebrard, 
 Delitzsch, and Hofmann, comp. also Riehm, 
 Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 368 ff., note. 
 
430 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Ver. 7. [XLV ¢ 1, 2, 3.] "HAdrrwoac aitiv Bpayt te map’ ayyédovc] Thus 
 the LXX. translate the Hebrew D778) OD TION. The sense of the 
 Hebrew is: “Thou hast made Him only a little lower than God, hast 
 made Him only a little less than God.” The Spayt rc is consequently 
 in the original a note of degree, and the whole former member 7Aatrwoag 
 
 . ayyéaovg contains in the original the same thought as the immedi- 
 ately following 66&% Kai tiuq éoreddvwcac aizév. The author, however, takes 
 the Bpayi te of the LXX. in the temporal sense: “for a short time” 
 (comp. ver. 9), and finds in the second member an opposition to the first, 
 in such wise that in the application he refers the statement of the first 
 clause to the humiliation of Christ, that of the second to the eraltation of 
 Christ.—The words following these in the LXX. (as also in the Hebrew): 
 kai KatéoTyoag abtoy éxl Ta épya TOV yetpov cov (comp. the critical remarks), 
 nave been left out by the author as unsuitable to his presentment. For 
 the statement that God has set the Son of man or the Messiah over the 
 works of creation which proceeded from the hands of God, might appear 
 to contain a contradiction to i. 10 (comp. also i. 2), where earth and 
 heaven were designated as works created by the hands of the Son. 
 
 Ver. 8. Hdavra imétatag iroKdtw tov roddv avtov] All things didst Thou 
 put in subjection under His feet. In the psalm these words refer to the 
 dominion which God has conferred upon man over the earth, and indeed 
 specially (comp. Ps. viii. 8, 9 [7, 8]) over the whole animal world. The 
 author of the epistle, on the other hand, taking 7davra in the absolute 
 sense, understands them of the dominion over the universe which has 
 been conferred upon Christ, the Son of man. Comp. Matt. xxviii. 18.— 
 With év yap 76 brordEar... dvuréraxkroy the author still dwells on 
 the closing words of the citation: tavra tréragac «.7.4., in order by way 
 of elucidation to unfold its contents, and thus to place in clearer light the 
 truth of the main thought expressed vv. 5-8. ydp consequently refers 
 back to that which immediately precedes, and the supposition of Tholuck 
 —that év yip tO irordga x.7.4., a8 the clause which affords the proof, is 
 parenthetically preposed to the viv dé x.7.2., as the clause which is to be 
 proved, so that the connection would be: “but now we see not yet all 
 things made subject to Him; for, according to the declaration of the psalm, 
 all things without exception are subject to Him ”—is to be rejected as 
 entirely unnecessary ; quite apart from the fact that no instance of such 
 parenthetical preposing of an elucidatory clause with ydép is to be found 
 anywhere in the N. T. (not in John iv. 44, 45 either), although not rare 
 with classical writers.1. Nor does yap stand for oiv (Heinrichs, Stengel), 
 but is the explicative namely. [XLV ¢c 4.] The subject in trordéaz, 
 further, is not David, the singer of the psalm (Heinrichs), but God; and 
 the emphasis rests upon the opposition between ra@ wdvra and obdév. 
 The threefold air @, finally, relates not to man in general,” but to the Son 
 
 1Comp. Hartung, Partikell. I. p.467; Ktih-  rotius, Owen, Whitby, Storr, Kuinoe), 
 ner, Gramm. II. p. 454. Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, Hofmann, 
 2 Beza [Piscator: the believers], Schlichting, Woerner, and others. 
 
CHAP. I. 7-9. 431 
 
 of man, and that not merely as regards its signification,’ but—as is shown 
 by the ’Iyoovv, only incidentally added, ver. 9—to the Son of man as He 
 appeared in Christ as an historical person.’ The sense is accordingly : by 
 the fact, namely, that God made-all things subject to Christ, the Son of 
 man, He left nothing that is not subjected unto Him; itis thus also—this 
 natural inference the author leaves to the readers themselves to make— 
 to Him, the Son of man, and not to the angels, that 7 olkovuévy 7 édAovoa 
 (ver. 5), which is only a part of that ra rdvra, is subjected; nay, the 
 angels themselves, seeing that all things have been put in subjection under 
 Him, are themselves subject to Him.—With viv d% obrw dpoper av1o 
 ra navra broreraypuéva the author limits the immediately preceding 
 declaration by an admission, by which, however, as is then further shown, 
 ver. 9, the correctness of the former assertion as to the actual state of the 
 matter suffers no infringement: now, however,—that must be conceded, 
 —we see not yet all things subjected unto Him. For we are as yet in the 
 condition of the earthly body; as yet the kingdom of God is only partially 
 established ; as yet it has to wage warfare with many enemies (comp. x. 
 12,13; 1 Cor. xv. 24-27) We shall see that all things have been made 
 subject to Christ by God the Father only when Christ shall have returned 
 for the consummation of the kingdom of God. 
 
 Ver. 9. [On Vy. 9-16, see Note XLVI, pages 450-452. ] Proof that, not- 
 withstanding the circumstances just mentioned, the matter itself which 
 has been asserted is perfectly true. Certainly we do not, at the present 
 moment, as yet see all things made subject to Christ, the Son of man; but 
 we do see Him already crowned with glory and honor, in that after suffer- 
 ing and dying He has been exalted to the right hand of the Father. From 
 the reality of the one, however, which we see, follows of necessity the 
 reality of the other, which we do not yet see. For if the word of Scripture: 
 d6&n Kal Tinh éEotedgdveocac avTor, has already been fulfilled in His 
 case, there can be no kind of doubt but in like manner also the further 
 word of Scripture: tavta iméragacg broxatw Tov Todo avrtov, in- 
 separably connected as it is with the former, has already attained its 
 realization in Him.—The words of ver. 9 have undergone a strange mis- 
 interpretation on the part of Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 45 ff. 2 Aufl.). 
 As Hofmann with regard to ver. 7 already denies that the two members 
 of the sentence in that verse: #Adrrwoac abrov Bpayi te rap’ ayyédove and 
 86En Kad TUL éoTeddvocac avrév, form in the mind of the writer an opposi- 
 tion to each other, so just as little is the writer in ver. 9 supposed to have 
 had present to his mind in connection with rdv Spay te zap’ ayyédoue 
 faarrauévov the humiliation of Christ, and with d6& Kai tip eotedavapévov 
 the exaltation of Christ. Ver. 9 is thought rather to refer exclusively to 
 the Jesus “living in the flesh,” and the connection is thus explained : 
 “Par from its being the case that we see all things subjected to man, He, 
 
 1Masch, Bleek, de Wette. Stuart, Conybeare, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des He 
 2Calvin, Gerhard, Caloy, Seb. Schmidt, brderbr. p. 364; Kurtz, Ewald, al. 
 Wittich, Peiree, Schulz, Tholuck, Klee, 
 
432 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 on the contrary, of whom that which the psalm speaks of man holds good 
 in full truth, Jesus namely, stands before our eyes in a position of divine 
 appointment, as such demanded by the existing calamity of death, which, 
 according to ver. 14, makes the devil a ruler and us bondsmen.” For by 
 Bpayd te map’ ayyédovg nAaTTwpévog there is reference made, in the opinion 
 of Hofmann, to the person of man, of which the psalm is treating, with 
 regard to the dignity belonging thereto as conferred by God,—inasmuch 
 as Bpaxi te is to be taken of degree,—but by ro radyua tov Oavarov is indi- 
 cated the misfortune consisting in death itself, and not his suffering of 
 death ; and dééa Kai tiyu4 finally expresses, according to ii. 3, v. 4, 5, the 
 glorious character of his position by virtue of his vocation. The sense of 
 ver. 9, then, is supposed to be: “ What He, in whom the wealth of human 
 nature has appeared in full truth, denotes and represents on the part of 
 God,—for the former is meant by ru4, the latter by 6éfa,—that He denotes 
 and represents, for the reason that mankind is obnoxious to the suffering 
 of death, and to the end that He might taste a death which should redound 
 unto good for every one!” See, on the other hand, the remarks of 
 Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 333 ff, note—rov Bpayt tre rap’ 
 ayyédAove qAatTwopévor is the object, and dé6Ey Kai Tiwh Ectedavapévov 
 the predicate to BAérouev, while ’Iyoovv is the appositional nearer defi- 
 nition of the object brought in only at the close. The sense thus is: “ But 
 we do indeed see the one for a time abased below the angels, namely Jesus, 
 crowned with glory and honor.” Wrongly others: “ As the one for a time 
 abased below the angels do we recognize Jesus, who is crowned with glory 
 and honor.” For, in order to express this thought, ’Iycowv rov 
 
 éoregavwpévov must have been placed. Wrongly likewise Ebrard, mai 
 whom Delitzsch agrees in substance, who takes “Iyoovv as object, 
 HAaTTupmévov AS adjectival attr ibute fo ‘Ijoovv, and éoredavwuévov as predicate 
 to the object. The sense then is: “ mankind is not yet exalted ; but Jesus, 
 who was indeed abased for a while below the angels, we see already 
 crowned with glory and honor.” This construction, which at any rate 
 rests upon the false supposition that the subject of discourse, vy. 6-8, is 
 not already Christ, the Son of man, but only man in general, and that the 
 author of the epistle had regarded as fully identical the two utterances of 
 the psalm: d6&y kai tiwh éotepdvocac aitév, and ravra imétakag broKdtw Tov 
 rodav avtov, would only be permissible in the case that ’Iycotv dé, tov 
 Bpaxb te rap’ ayyéAove HAattwpévov, BAETomev K.T.A., OY Tov dE Bpayxb Te rap’ 
 ayyéhove HAatrwpévov "Incovv BAéromev x.t.2., had been written. By the 
 position of the "Ijootv after BAérouev it becomes impossible ; since in con- 
 sequence thereof ‘Ijoovv appears as entirely unaccentuated, consequently 
 can be regarded only as a supplementary addition by way of elucidation 
 with regard to the question who is to be understood by the 6 Bpayi re 
 rap’ ayyéAovg HAatTwpévoc. "Ijcovwv might even have been entirely left out 
 without detriment to the sense and intelligibility of that which the author 
 would imply; it is nevertheless inserted, in order, by the express mention 
 of His name, to cut off every kind of doubt upon the point that it is 
 no other than Christ, the historic Redeemer, of whom the citation ad- 
 
CHAP. II. 9. 433 
 
 duced, vv. 6-8, is treating.—féropuev] we see, perceive; namely, with the 
 eyes of the mind; comp. iii. 19, al. For it is openly testified that Christ 
 rose from the dead, and ascended to the right hand of the Father in 
 heayen; and Christians feel that He is reigning in power and glory by 
 means of the Holy Spirit, which He has conferred upon them.—dé.a 76 
 radnua tov Oavdtrov] [XLVI a.] on account of His suffering of death, belongs 
 not to Bpayt te wap’ ayyédove HAarropévov,' but to dosy Kai typ Eorepavapévor. 
 Only this mode of referring the clause has the merit of naturalness from 
 the position of the words; only this is grammatically and logically justi- 
 fied. For not only with this construction does dia with the accusative 
 retain its only possible signification, but the thought likewise finds its con- 
 firmation in the sequel (da tadyudtov tederoa, ver. 10), and accords with 
 the view of Paul, Phil. ii. 9, according to which the exaltation of Christ to 
 the right hand of the Father was the consequence and divine recom- 
 pense of the voluntary abasement endured even to the death of the 
 cross. Supposing the connection to be with that which precedes, 
 dua 7d rd0nua Tov Oavdrov must contain a later added nearer definition to 
 jiatromévov; but a second supplementary nearer definition, seeing that 
 "Inoowv already occupies such a position, would be extremely improbable, 
 when we consider the carefulness with regard to style which prevails in 
 this epistle; it would not, like "Ijcoiv, have a purpose to serve, but be 
 merely an instance of linguistic negligence such as ought not to be readily 
 laid to the charge of our author. Moreover, dia 1d radynua tov Gavarou, 
 referred to that which precedes, does not even admit of any satisfactory 
 explanation. For, as thus combined, it is interpreted either: humbled by 
 reason of the suffering of death, 7.e. by suffering death, or: humbled for 
 the sake of the suffering of death, z.e. in order to be able to undertake it. 
 But in the latter case the choice of the preposition d:4 would be an ex- 
 _ceedingly ill-judged one, since we must, at any rate, have expected eic¢ 7d 
 récyew Tov Odvarov, or something similar. In the former case, on the 
 other hand, 6:4 must have been combined with the genitive instead of the 
 accusative, quite apart from the consideration that the author can hardly 
 be supposed to limit the humiliation of Christ to the moment of His 
 death, but rather (comp. ver. 14), like Paul, to comprehend in general the 
 whole period of His life in the flesh—érwc¢ yapite Yeov imép wavto¢ yebonrar 
 Savitov] that He by the grace of God might taste death for every one, does not 
 depend upon d6&y Kai tiuq éote~avouévov. For the enduring of death was 
 certainly not something which was to take place only after the exaltation, 
 but already preceded this. The contorted interpretations, however : so 
 that He died for all, or: in order that He may have suffered death for all,’ or : 
 postquam mortem gustavit,© are grammatically impossible. But since a 
 
 10rigen, in Joann. t. ii. ec. 6; Augustine, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. 
 
 contra Maximin. iii. 2. 5; Chrysostom, Theo- 
 doret, Oecumenius, Beza, Schlichting, Cor- 
 nelius a Lapide, Cameron, Caloy, Limborch, 
 Semler, al. 
 
 2Luther, Calvin, Estius. Grotius, Bengel, 
 Wetstein, Bohme, Bleek, Tholuck, de Wette, 
 
 98 
 
 des Hebrderbr. p. 357; Alford, Maier, Moll, 
 Kurtz, Ewald, and many others. 
 
 3 Erasmus, Paraphr., Tena, Ribera, Morus, 
 Valekenaer, Kuinoel. 
 
 4 Ebrard. 
 
 5 Schleusner. 
 
434 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 connecting of the final clause with 7Aarrwuévor,' is, considering the gram- 
 matical construction of ver. 9, quite inconceivable, ézw¢ «.7.2. can be only 
 a further, but pregnant, exponent of the preceding 1d ra8nua tod Savdrov: 
 on account of His suffering of death, namely, in order that He might, ete.— 
 xapizt Yeov] for the grace and love of God is the supreme cause of the 
 redeeming death of Christ (comp. Rom. vy. 8; Gal. ii. 21).—izép] on behalf 
 of, for the weal of —ravréc] is not neuter, in such wise that the declaration 
 should apply to the whole creation, including the angels (Theodoret, 
 Oecumenius, Theophylact; comp. Origen, in Joann. t. 1. c. 40);? for this 
 thought comes into collision with ver. 16, and the expression thereof 
 would be incorrect, since we must expect in that case imép raone tie 
 kticewc, or at least imép tov xavréc. Tlavtéc is masculine, and has reference 
 only to mankind. The singular, however, is placed, not the plural ravtwv, 
 in order distinctly to bring out the thought that Christ died on behalf of 
 each single individual among men (namely, who will appropriate the sal- 
 vation offered him), not merely for mankind as a totality, as a compact 
 corporation. [Piscator and Owen understand: each and every one, sc. of 
 the roAdoi viot mentioned ver. 10. Cf. Acts xx. 28.]—yebeodar Yavarov] rep- 
 resents the experiencing of death under the figure of a tasting of the same. 
 Comp. Matt. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1; Luke ix. 27; John viii. 525 The 
 formula is only a more significant expression for the ordinary arodvjoxerv. 
 Neither the notion of the brief duration of Christ’s death‘ nor along with 
 this the notion of the reality of that death® nor, finally, the notion of the 
 bitterness of the death sufferings ® lies in the expression. 
 
 ReEMARK.—In connection with the explanation of the reading ywpic Seow 
 (see the critical remarks) comes forth the main diversity, that these words were 
 either taken as clysely conjoined with izép tavréc, or regarded in themselves as 
 an independent nearer defining of the verb. The former mode of explanation is 
 adopted by Origen, Theodoret, Ebrard, Ewald: “in order that He might suffer 
 death for all beings, with the exception of God alone ;” further Bengel, and Chr. 
 F. Schmid: “in order that, with a view to purchasing or subjecting all things 
 except God, He might suffer death.” But against both acceptations is the fact 
 that tavréc cannot be neuter (see above), against the latter, moreover, in particular 
 the fact that the notion: “in order to purchase to himself,” cannot possibly be 
 expressed by the mere imép wavtéc. As an independent addition ywpi¢ deov is 
 taken by Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Ambrose, Fulgentius, the Nestorians, and P. 
 Colomesius (Observatt. Sacr. p. 603) : “that He might taste death without God, 
 ie. without the participation of His Godhead, with the mere sharing of His 
 
 1Akersloot, Bengel, Bhme, Bisping. 
 
 2Ebrard, too, finds the thought expressed 
 in vrép mavtos: “that Christ by His death 
 has reconciled absolutely all things, heaven 
 and earth;” but in connection therewith in- 
 consistently takes mavrés as a masculine. 
 
 3The formula corresponds to the rabbinical 
 mn opy (see Schoettgen and Wetstein on 
 Matt. xvi. 28), and has its manifold analogies 
 in the Greek turns: yeveo@ar .6x8wv (Soph. 
 
 Trachin. 1101), kxax®v (Eurip. Hec. 379; Luc. 
 Nigr. 28), rév@ous mexpov (Burip. Alcest. 1069), 
 movwv (Pindar, Nem. vi. 41), o’orod (Homer, 
 Odyss. Xxi. 98), THs apxns, THs €AevOepins 
 (Herod. iv. 147, vi. 5), ete. 
 
 4Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
 Primasius, Clarius, Camerarius, 
 Peirce, Cramer, Ch. F. Schmid. 
 
 ‘6 Beza, Bengel. 
 
 ®Caloy, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz. 
 
 Theophyiact, 
 Braun, 
 
CHAP. 11. 10. 435 
 
 humanity in death.” But that such a thought, in itself entirely alien as it is to 
 the Biblical writers, could not have been expressed by ywpi¢ Feoi, is at once appar- 
 ent. There must at least have been written ywpi¢ tic avtod Sedtyroc. To this 
 place further belongs Paulus, with an appeal to Matt. xxvii. 46: “as without 
 God, as one abandoned by God, not delivered.” But the added “as,” by 
 which alone the interpretation becomes tolerable, is, without grammatical justifi- 
 
 cation, the expositor’s own additamentum. 
 
 Ver. 10. [XLVI b.] Not without design has the author, ver. 9, added to 
 the declaration 66&y kai tyuq éotepavopévov the indication of the cause, dca 
 TO Tadyua tov Yavarov, and then brought into relief this superadded 
 clause by the final statement: o7wco ydapite BYeor brép ravric 
 yevontac Savdrov. For the Redeemer’s death on the cross, ridiculed by 
 the Gentiles as folly, was to the Jews an offence (1 Cor.i. 23). Even to the 
 Hebrews, to whom the author is writing, the thought of a Messiah who 
 passed through sufferings and death might be a stumbling-block not yet 
 surmounted, and, with other things, have contributed to shake their con- 
 fidence in Christianity, and incline them to relapse into Judaism. With- 
 out, therefore, further giving express utterance to the conclusion to be 
 expected after ver. 9 (see on ver. 9, init.), but rather leaving the supplying 
 of the same to the readers, the author passes over, ver. 10 ff., at once to 
 the justification of that fact regarded as an offence, in bringing into relief 
 the consideration that the choice of that way, so apparently strange, of 
 causing the Messiah to attain to glory through sufferings and death, was 
 altogether worthy of God (ver. 10), and necessary (vv. 14-18), in order that 
 Christ might be qualified to be the redeemer of sinful humanity.—Wrongly 
 does Tholuck suppose that ver. 10 attaches itself to dé&y éoredavwuévov, ver. 
 9, and expresses the thought that the glorification of Him could not fail 
 of its accomplishment, who became to others the author of salvation. For 
 the centre of gravity in the proposition lies not in reAedoa, but in did 
 madyudtov, Which Tholuck erroneously degrades to a mere “secondary 
 thought.” —érperev] it was befitting; not an expression of necessity (Kui- 
 noel, Bloomfield, al.), but of meetness and becomingness, in relation partly 
 to the nature of God (comp. dé? év ra mdvra kai 6’ ob Ta ravTa), partly to 
 the ends He would attain (ef. vv. 14-18).\—airé dv av ré mévra Kai dv ob Ta 
 mavta] does not relate to Christ (Primasius, Hunnius, K6nigsmann, 
 Cramer, al.), but is a periphrasis for God. This periphrastic delineation, 
 however, of the divine characteristics justifies the érperev in its truth and 
 naturalness. For He who is the Supreme Cause and Creator of the Uni- 
 verse cannot have done anything unworthy of Himself.—ra révra] the 
 totality of all that exists, not merely that which serves for the bringing about 
 of salvation (Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, Paulus).—0v 6v] for the sake 
 of whom,? characterizes God as the One for whom, i.e. to accomplish whose 
 
 1Comp. Philo, Legg. allegor. I. p. 48 E (with aicxtaTos mepiTiOévar Oavpacta KadAAN. 
 Mangey, I. p. 53): mpémer TO Bed uTeverv 2Not: “at whose command or will,” as 
 kat oixodouety ev Wuxn Tas apetas—De incor- Wieseler (Comm. ib. d. Br. an die Gal., Gott. 
 rupt. Mundi, p. 950 B (with Mangey, II. p. 500): 1859, p. 111) will have é&’ ov explained. 
 éumpemes 5¢ Oem TA auopha wophovv Kai Tots 
 
436 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 ends, all things are designed, and corresponds to the ei¢ avrév, Rom. xi. 
 36, 1 Cor. viii. 6; while d¢ od characterizes Him as the One by whom all 
 things have been effected or created, inasmuch as, according to the 
 popular conception, the notion of the originating is not strictly separated 
 from that of effecting, since both are summed up under the more general 
 notion of disposing, preparing [roiv, rapackevatew, éroyuafew]; comp. 1 
 Cor. i.9; Gal. i. 1. In the case of our author, moreover, the placing of 
 the inaccurate 6d’ od instead of the more accurate é oi (comp. Rom. xi. 
 36) or ig’ od, may also have been occasioned with a view to the parono- 
 masia produced by the use of the twofold d:a with different cases.— 
 rohAove viove ei¢ bday ayayévta] is not a preposed apposition to Tov apyyyov 
 che owtnpiac avtav: “it became God to make Him,—as one who led many sons 
 unto glory,—namely, the Beginner of their salvation, perfect through suffer- 
 ings”! Such construction is not indeed to be opposed, as BOhme and 
 Bleek think, on the ground that the article 7év could not in that case 
 have been wanting also before roAdotc. On the contrary, either the addi- 
 tion or the omission of the article before zoAAobe would be justified; only 
 a modification of the sense results from the choice of the one or the other 
 course. Ifthe article is placed, then rdv roAdodve viodce sic déEav ayayévTa 
 and rov apynyov tHe cwrnpiac avtov are two parallel but co-ordinate utter- 
 ances, in such wise that the second repeats the first only in more sharply- 
 defined form of expression. In connection with the omission of the arti- 
 cle, again, the first expression stands in the relation of subordination to 
 the second, and is a preposed statement of the reason for the same. But 
 what really decides against that view is—(1) That according to ver. 11 the 
 believers are brethren of Christ, and sons of God; consequently zoAAov¢ 
 viovc¢ ei¢ défav ayayévra would be unsuitable as an utterance with respect 
 to Christ, while thé interpretation of the vioie as sons of God, adopted by 
 Nickel, l:c.,in connection with the referring of the ayayévta to Christ, 
 would be unnatural. (2) That, assuming the identity of the subject in 
 ayayévra and apynyév, both expressions would in effect cover each other, 
 consequently become tautological. We must accordingly take, as the 
 subject in roAdode viode eic d6Eav ayaydvta, God; in Tov apynyov Tic owrnpiag 
 aitov, Christ2 It cannot, however, be urged against the referring of 
 ayayévra to God (Carpzoy, Michaelis, and others), that we have not, instead 
 of the accusative ayayévra, the dative ayayév71, which no doubt would have 
 been more accurate on account of the preceding ai7@; since this very 
 accusative is otherwise the general case of the subject grammatically con- 
 strued with the accusative. Transitions to the latter, spite of a preceding 
 dative, are accordingly nothing rare.2—IIoAAob¢] not equivalent to mavra¢ 
 
 Delitzseh, Buttmann (Gramm. p. 262), [E. T. 
 306]; Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 51 f.), 
 Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 581), Al- 
 
 1Primasius, Erasmus, Paraphr.; Estius, 
 Heinrichs, Stuart, Winer, p. 321 f.[E. T. 343]; 
 Ebrard, Nickel, in Reuter’s Repert. 1857, Oct. 
 
 p. 20, and many others. 
 
 2So0 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
 Jact, Erasmus, Annott.; Luther, Vatablus, 
 Calvin, Piscator, Grotius, Owen, Bengel, 
 Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Bisping, 
 
 ford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Woerner, and many 
 others. 
 
 8Comp. Acts xi. 12, xv. 22; Luke i. 74; 
 Kiihner, Gramm. II. p. 346 f.; Bernhardy, 
 Syntax, p. 367, fin. 
 
CHAP. 11. 10. 437 
 
 (Seb. Schmidt). To2206¢ renders prominent only the notion of multitude 
 or plurality, quite apart from the question whether or not this plurality is 
 to be thought of as the totality of mankind; comp. 1x. 28; Rom. v. 15, 
 viii. 29; Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28.—eic¢ dégav] The ddga is not distinguished, 
 as to the thing itself, from the ¢wr7pia mentioned immediately after. The 
 Messianic glory and blessedness is intended thereby. The word 6¢éa, 
 however, was chosen in accordance with the words: 0654 Kat tyy éote@a- 
 vouévov, ver. 9, taken over from the psalm cited.—ayayévta] [XLVI e.] 
 cannot signify: “since He would lead.”? For the aorist has never a 
 future sense. Butneither is ayayévra to be rendered by “qui adduxerat ;”? 
 in such wise that the thought were directed to the saints of the 
 O. T., already led to glory. For the characterizing of Christ as the 
 apynyo¢e tHe owtypiac avtov. shows that the vioi, in whom was 
 accomplished the eic¢ déFav dyecdac on the part of God, must already 
 have been in communion with Christ,’—the communion with Christ 
 was the conditioning cause of their attainment to the doga. Accord- 
 ing to Tholuck, who is followed by Moll, the participle aorist indi- 
 cates, “as the nearer defining of the infinitive aorist reAedoa, the 
 specific character of the same without respect to the relation of time.” 
 But only the infinitive, not the participle aorist is used non-temporally ; 
 and the “specific character” of redecdoar cannot be expressed by ayayévra, 
 for the reason that the personal objects of ayayévra and redeaoa are 
 different. a@yayévra can have no other meaning than: since He led, and 
 is the indication of the cause from the standpoint of the writer. The par- 
 ticiple aorist has its justification in the fact that, from the moment Christ 
 appeared on earth as a redeemer, and found faith among men, God in 
 reality was leading eic dégav those who believed, 7. e. caused them to walk 
 in the way to the déga. For only this notion of title to the dééa in rever- 
 sion, not that of the actual possession of the same, can be meant; inas- 
 much as the possession of the dé&a will only come in at the Parousia. The 
 causal relation, however, of the participial clause: roAAod¢ viode eic ddgav 
 ayayévra, to the main statement: éxpere Tov apynyov THE owTnpiac avuTav da 
 radnuadtwv reAe@oa, and consequently the justification of the latter by 
 the former, lies in the fact that the woAdoi vioi, just because they were not 
 angels but men, could only be redeemed in that Christ for them became 
 man, and for them suffered and died; even as the author himself will : 
 more fully show, ver. 14 ff. Others find the causal relation by sup- 
 plying, in thought, dca tadyudrwv to the first clause also.* But in this case 
 
 1Bleek, Stengel, Bloomfield, and Bisping; 
 after the precedent of Erasmus, Annott. ; 
 Pisecator, Grotius, Owen, Seb. Schmidt, Lim- 
 borech, Peirce, Starek, Wolf, Storr, Ernesti, 
 Dindorf, Schulz, Bbhme, Kuinoel, Klee. 
 
 2With the Vulgate, Estius, Hofmann 
 (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 39, 1 Aufl.; Komm. p. 121; 
 differently Schriftbew. 2 Aufl. p.51), and others. 
 
 % For the same reason have we to reject the 
 kindred interpretation of Kurtz, who takes 
 
 the ayeuv eis Sdéav as preceding the reAcraoat, 
 and refers the vioi to the believing contempo- 
 raries of Jesus, with the inclusion of the beltev- 
 ers under the Old Covenant. 
 
 4So Jac. Cappellus: “quum tot filios suos 
 per afflictiones consecrasset, afflictionum via 
 perduxisset ad gloriam pater coelestis, dece- 
 bat sane et aequum erat, ut principem salutis 
 eorum eadem via perduceret ad coelestem 
 gloriam.” In like manner Grotius: “quia 
 
438 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 the express addition of dé ra9nuarwy in the first clause could not have 
 been omitted.—rov dpynyév] [XLVI d.] Comp. xii. 2; Acts ili. 15, v. 31. 
 Designation of the beginner, or first in a series, to which the further notion 
 of author then easily attaches, so that the word is frequently used, as here, 
 exactly in the sense of airwc. Instances in Bleek, Abth. Il. 1 Halfte, p. 
 302.—redevoar] to bring to perfection, to lead to the goal, does not here 
 express “an inner moral perfection, which has as its consequence the 
 attainment of the highest outward goal” (de Wette, Tholuck, Riehm, 
 Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 343, 346; and, long ago, Cameron), nor does it 
 denote the close of the appointed course with which God has brought 
 Jesus to the goal of that which He was to become, to the end of His 
 earthly temporal existence (Hofmann); but resumes the notion of the 
 d6&n Kal Tim oTegavovoda, ver. 9, and is identical with this. 
 
 Vy. 11-18. [XLVI e.] Elucidatory justification, in passing, of the 
 expression toAA0d¢ viobc, employed ver. 10; in proof of the brotherly 
 relation existing between Christ and believers, already indicated by that 
 expression. That this view as to the aim and signification of vy. 11-18 is 
 the true one, is contested indeed by Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 
 366 f. (comp. also Kurtz, and Hofmann ad loc.). According to Riehm, vy. 
 11-18 are to be regarded not as mere accessory remarks, but as the first 
 link in the proof for ver. 10, to which then ver. 14 f. attaches as second 
 link ; in such wise that only in the two thoughts together (vv. 11-13 and 
 ver. 14 f.), not in ver. 14 by itself (see on the verses) alone, is a confirma- 
 tion of ver. 10 to be found; and accordingly the (argumentative, not 
 explicative) yap, ver. 11, belongs not merely to ver. 11. The following 
 “chain of reasoning,” namely, is supposed to shape the course of thought: 
 “it became God,tete. For—(1) Christ is brother to the Christians; it is 
 thus not unbecoming that He should have-been made like them ; and (2) 
 He must be made like them, because His suffering and death were neces- 
 sary, if they were to be saved.” The untenable character of this state- 
 ment of the connection of thought, as made by Riehm, is, however, 
 sufficiently apparent from the fact—apart from the consideration that the 
 contents of vy. 11-13 manifestly point back to the expression zo/Aod¢ viodc, 
 ver. 10—that if the proof for the main thought of ver. 10 was designed in 
 reality already to begin with vv. 11-138, it would surely not be the proposi- 
 tion: it is not unbecoming that Christ should be made like unto the Christians 
 (of which there was no express mention so early as ver. 10), which must 
 have been proved, but solely and simply the proposition : it is not unbe- 
 coming that God should have led Christ through suffering to perfection, in 
 which the true central thought of ver. 10 is contained. But such proof is 
 not given.—é te yap dyidfov . . . mavtec] Now He who sanctifies and those 
 who are sanctified (through Him, 7. e. through His atoning sacrificial death,} 
 
 fieri non potest, ut qui se pietati dedunt, non 1Delitzsch arbitrarily takes aycagerv, ver. 
 multa mala patiantur ... ideo Deus voluit 11, as synonymous with reAecody, ver. 10: “In 
 ipsum auctorem salutiferae doctrinae non order to be crowned with Sega cat tin Jesus 
 nisi per graves calamitates perducere ad must first be sanctified, or, as the author 
 statum illum perfectae beatitudinis.” says, ver. 10, be made perfect through suffer- 
 
CHAP. 11. 11, 12. 439 
 
 comp. x. 10, 14, ix. 13 f., xiii. 12) all have their origin in One,—is a special 
 statement concerning Christ and Christians. To take the words as a 
 proposition of universal validity, the application of which to Christ and 
 the Christians was left to the readers, wherein there is specially an under- 
 lying allusion to the O. T. high priest and those whose cleansing from sins 
 he accomplished (Schlichting, Gerhard, Schéttgen, a/.), is forbidden by the 
 connection with that which precedes and that which follows.—The present 
 participles 6 dy:dfov kai of dyvaféuevoc are used substantively. Comp. 
 Winer, p. 381 f. [E. T. 853].—é& évdc ravrec] se. eioiv. évdc¢ is masculine. 
 Wrongly is it by others taken as a neuter, in that they either supplement 
 in thought: oxépyaroc, or aiuatoc, or yévoug (so Carpzov, Abresch, al.), or 
 else explain: ex communi massa (Jac. Cappellus, Akersloot), or “of one 
 and the same nature” (Calvin, Cameron: ejusdem naturae et conditionis 
 spiritualis; Cornelius a Lapide, Owen, Whitby, Moses Stuart); for neither 
 is the supplying of a substantive admissible, nor can éx, expressive as it 
 is of the origin, be transformed into a declaration of nature and constitu- 
 tion. We have, however, to understand by évé¢, not Adam?! or Abraham* 
 but God. Yet the notion of fatherhood, which is in this way assigned to 
 God, is not to be expounded in the universal sense, in such wise that God 
 would be called Creator and Father in relation to Christians also, only in 
 the same manner in which He is the Creator of every creature,*® but is to 
 be referred specially to the fact that Christians are His spiritual children.‘ 
 Comp. John viii. 47; 1 John iii. 10, iv. 6, v.19; 3 John 11.—révrec] Peirce 
 and Bengel would have taken with of dyia{éuevo. alone. The position of 
 the word, however, renders this impossible. Rather does ravrec, after 
 the close connection between the dy:dfwv and the ayaféueroe has already 
 been accentuated by means of the ré. . . xaé, still further lay stress upon 
 the fact that they all, the Christians not less than Christ, are é évéc.—d.’ 
 jv aitiav] Wherefore. Comp. 2 Tim.i. 6,12; Tit.i.13. The same formula 
 also not rarely with Philo—ov« éracytverac] He (sc. 6 ayialov) is not 
 ashamed. For Christ is the higher one. Comp. xi. 16.—airotc] se. rov¢ 
 ayalopévove. 
 
 Vy. 12, 18. Documentary proofs from Scripture for the otk érawybverac 
 adeAgove avtov¢ Kadetv, ver. 11. [XLVI f-] 
 
 Ver. 12. First proof, taken from Ps. xxii. 23 (22). In its historic sense 
 the citation has reference to the composer of the psalm himself, who in 
 the deepest distress supplicates God for deliverance, and promises to 
 praise Him for the deliverance granted. The author of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, on the other hand, interprets the psalm Messianically, and 
 regards Christ as the subject speaking therein.—arayyeA6] LX X.: dinyqoouac. 
 
 ings, inasmuch as the sufferings melted away inian, Hunnius, Baumgarten, Zachariae, 
 
 that about Him which was not capable of ex- 
 altation, that He, Himself sanctified before, 
 might be able to sanctify us, and so to raise 
 us to like éofa.” Of a being sanctified, on 
 the part of Christ, there is no mention made 
 either here or anywhere else in the epistle. 
 1Erasmus, Paraphr.; Beza, Estius, Just- 
 
 Bisping, Wieseler in the Publications of the 
 University of Kiel, 1867, p. 26; Hofmann, 
 Woerner. 
 
 2 Drusius, Peirce, Bengel. 
 
 So Chrysostom and the majority. 
 
 4Piscator, Grotius, Limborch, 
 Bleek, Delitzsch, Alford, Moll. 
 
 Paulus, 
 
440 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Ver. 13. Second and third proofs, taken from Isa, viii. 17,18. The design 
 of the author in dividing into two different citations, by means of kai 
 maAcv,the words which stand together in the Hebrew and the LXX., is 
 not to present the relation of community between Christ and the Christians 
 on two different sides, in that, namely, it is indicated in his first passage 
 how the incarnate Son of God descended to the standpoint of man; in 
 the second, on the other hand, how redeemed men are raised by God to the 
 standpoint of Christ (Kurtz),—all of which is subtle and far-fetched; but 
 only to pile up the Scripture testimonies, inasmuch as the end of ver. 17, 
 as well as the beginning of ver. 18, seemed to him to contain each in itself 
 an independent means of evidence for that which he would make good. 
 The words of the first proof passage : temtoila¢ écouae éx’ aiT@, are likewise 
 found in the LXX. at 2 Sam. xxii. 3 and Isa. xii. 2. But that the author 
 was not thinking of one of these passages (according to Ebrard, of the 
 first), but of Isa. vii. 17, is the more natural supposition, because with the 
 LXX. and in the original the words, which here, too, are first adduced 
 (only in partially inverted order, and augmented by 276): Kai meroidc 
 écouar éx’ av’t@, immediately precede the directly following passage, taken 
 from Isa. viii. 18. In their historic sense the words cited refer to the 
 prophet and his sons, and, indeed, with the LXX., the idod . .. Aed¢ is a 
 further unfolding of the subject in éooua. The author of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews, however, regards the words as an utterance of Christ, led 
 thereto, as Bleek rightly conjectures, by the xa? épei, interpolated by the LX-X. 
 before ver. 17, which seemed to indicate another subject than the prophet, 
 since he spoke throughout the whole section in the first person; and 
 other than God, since He is spoken of, by virtue of éz’ aiz7é, as the one in 
 whom the speakex trusts. The demonstrative force ‘of the words cited is 
 found by.our author in the fact that the person speaking, ¢. e. Christ, places 
 Himself, by'means of the testifying of His confidence in God, upon the 
 same level with other men;? as also in that the author understands by the 
 rawia, not the children of the speaker, but the children of God, the 
 children whom God the Father has given to Christ. 
 
 Vv. 14, 15. The author, after the subsidiary remarks, vv. 11-138, returns 
 to the main thought of ver. 10, now further to develop the same. [XLVI g.] 
 To lead Christ through sufferings to perfection, was a provision worthy of 
 God. For it was necessary, if Christ was to be the Redeemer of sinful 
 humanity. In order, however, to be able to take upon Himself sufferings 
 and death, He must become man as other men, and place Himself upon 
 one level with those to be redeemed.*—otv] is the outward sign of that 
 return to the main thought. Logically it belongs not to the protasis, with 
 which it is grammatically connected, but to the main thesis: Kai abric¢ 
 maparAncing peréovev «.7.A. An attachment of ver. 14 to ver. 18, therefore, 
 is effected only in so far as ra radia, ver. 18, has given occasion for the 
 
 1Theophylact: Kat dca tovrov Seikvvowv, ote em’ adTO, TovTETTL TS Tarpi. 
 avOpwros Kat abeAhos nuav yéyovev. Haomep yap 2Comp. on yer. 14, Zyro in the Theol. Studd. 
 ExacTos TOY avOpwrwy, oTw Kal avTos TéemoLOEV u. Ixritt. 1864, H. 3,.p. 516 ff. 
 
CHAP. 11. 13, 14. 441 
 
 resuming of this word in the first clause of ver. 14. In a strangely per- 
 verted fashion Heinrichs (comp. also Valckenaer): “ Quod si homo fuit 
 Christus, infans quoque primo fuerit omnemque in nativitate sua humanam 
 naturam induerit necesse est.”—xexovvéryxev] here, as often in the case of 
 the classics, combined with the genitive ; whereas elsewhere in the N. T. 
 the dative is used with kowovety (Rom. xy. 27; 1 Tim. v. 22; 1 Pet. iv. 18, 
 al.). The persons with whom the communion or the common participation 
 takes place are not the parents (Valckenaer, who supplies yovevoc), but the 
 children themselves. One radiov with the other, one as well as the other, 
 has part in blood and flesh, or possesses the same. The perfect, however, 
 indicates the constant and definitive character of the order of nature, as 
 this has always prevailed already, and still continues to assert its sway.— 
 aiuatoc Kat capxéc| The same succession of words, also Eph. vi. 12. Other- 
 wise more ordinarily: cap& kai aiua. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 50; Gal. 1. 16; 
 Matt. xvi. 17; Ecclus. xiv. 18, xvii. 31. aiva xai oapé, the two main 
 constituents of the sensuously perceptible outward nature of man.— 
 TaparAjoioc] is not: “ equally,” ! or: “ likewise,” ?—a signification which 
 is linguistically undemonstrable——but : in a manner very closely resembling. 
 It expresses the resemblance with the accessory notion of the diversity ; 
 in such wise that the author characterizes the human form of Christ’s 
 existence, in all its correspondence with the form of existence of other 
 men, as still different from the latter. And rightly so. For Christ was no 
 ordinary man, but the incarnate Son of God. He was distinguished from 
 His human brethren by His sinlessness (comp. iv. 15). As therefore Paul, 
 Phil. ii. 7 (and similarly Rom. viii. 3), speaks of the incarnate Christ not 
 as dv@pwroc yevduevoc, but as év duorcdpmate avOporwv yevouevoc, EVEN SO 
 the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews also here places not é& icov, but 
 TapatAnoiwcg wetéoxev Tov aitov. Comp. also bev ddedev Kata TdvTa ToiC¢ 
 adeAdoig 6porwOAvac, ver. 17.—pyetécxev] The aorist. For the incarnation 
 and the earthly course of Christ is a fact already belonging to the purely 
 past; now Christ is already the glorified Son of God—rév airér] se. 
 aiwatoc kat oapkéc. Erroneously, because without taking into account the 
 reference imperatively required by the former clause, Bengel: eadem, quae 
 fratribus accidunt, sanguine et carne laborantibus, ne morte quidem 
 excepta.—dva tov Aavarov] [XLVI h.] by means of death, the enduring of 
 which first became possible by the taking upon Him of flesh and blood. 
 Bengel: dia tov davarov Paradoxon. Jesus mortem passus vicit; diabolus 
 mortem vibrans succubuit—The placing of the characteristic tov 76 
 Kpatoc éyovta Tov Oavarov before tov dia fodor is chosen, in order to 
 gain a marked contrast to the preceding d:a tod @avarov. [XLVI i.]—A 
 ruler’s power over death,* however, is possessed by the devil, inasmuch as 
 
 1Bleek, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, 3Cameron, Owen, Akersloot, Cramer, 
 Grimm in the Theol. Literaturbl. to the Béhme, Zyro, Moll, Woerner. 
 Darmstadt A. K. Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 663; Hof- 4 Over-refinedly does Ebrard take ro kpatos 
 mann, Schriftbew. IT. 1, p. 57,2 Aufil.; Riehm, absolutely, and rod @avarov as genitivus sub- 
 Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 313 f.; Maier. jectivus: “him who holds in his hands the 
 
 2De Wette. power which death exerts over us.” 
 
449, THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 by the enticement of the devil sin came into the world of men, and sin 
 brings about death for man. Comp. Wisd. ii. 24: gdvm dé diaBddAov Oavaros 
 elonAbev eig Tov Kéopov; Rom. v. 12. 
 
 Ver. 15. Kai] consecutive: and in consequence thercof—arahiaéy] stands 
 absolutely : might set free, deliver. Without warrant do Grotius, Wolf, and 
 others supplement rod 9$6f0v or tov g6Bov bavarov.—Toirovc] does not go 
 back to ra radia (BOhme, Kuinoel), but serves for the bringing into relief 
 of the following 600, and ro trove boo. «.7.A. is a periphrasis of the unre- 
 deemed humanity ; the thought is not merely of the Israelites (Akersloot, 
 Rambach, Braun, Woerner), and still less merely of the Gentiles (Peirce). 
 —6B8w Gavarov| out of fear of death, causal definition to dia mavric tov CHv 
 évoyor yoav dovAciag.—dia ravtog tov Cyv] throughout the whole life. The 
 infinitive is employed, by virtue of the addition zavréc, entirely as a sub- 
 stantive (dia maone tHe Cwgc). This practice is more rare than the coupling 
 of the infinitive with the mere preposition and article. Yet this very 
 infinitive (jv is found exactly so used, as Bleek remarks, with Aesch. 
 Dial. iii. 4 (Gorep cig érepov Cyv érbavoipevoc); Ignat. Hp. ad Trall. 9 (ob 
 xopic Td adnOwvov Civ oik Exouev), ad Ephes. 3 (kai yap "Inoovce Xpuioti¢ td adia- 
 Kpitov nuav Cyv).—évoyor yoav dovieiac] belongs together; were held in bond- 
 age, had become subject to bondage. [XLVI j.] We have not to construe 
 évoxot joav With $68 Gavarov, and dovdeiac with aradAd=n (Abresch, Din- 
 dorf, Bbhme). For against this the position of the words is decisive. On 
 the thought, comp. Rom. viii. 15. 
 
 Ver. 16. [XLVI &.] The necessity for the assumption of flesh and 
 blood on the part of the Redeemer is more fully brought to light by 
 means of an establishing of the characteristic tobrove éo01 x.7.4., ver. 15. 
 This assumption Was necessary, since the object of this redemption was 
 confessedly not angels, i.e. beings of a purely spiritual nature, but 
 descendants of Abraham, i.e, beings of flesh and blood.—ob dyrov] or 4h 
 mov, as it is more correctly written, dees not signify: “nowhere” (Luther, 
 Zeger, Calvin, Schlichting, Limborch, Bisping, al. ; Vulg.: nusquam), in 
 such wise that zov should be referred to a passage in the O. T., and the 
 sense would result: nowhere in the O. T. is it spoken of, that, etc..—For 
 such reference must at least have been indicated by the context, which is 
 
 “not the case. A% rov stands rather, according to purely classical usage 
 (in the N. T., for the rest, it is found only here; with the LXX. not at all), 
 to denote, in ironical form of expression, the presupposition that the 
 statement to be expressed is a truth raised above all doubt, which must be 
 conceded by every one. It corresponds to our “ assuredly,” “surely ” 
 (doch wohl), “I should think,” to the Latin “ opinor.” *—ér:AauBdvecbai 
 twoc] to take a helping interest in any one (comp. Ecclus. iv. 11), here to 
 deliver him from the guilt and punishment of sin (comp. a7a2Ad&y, ver. 
 15; and el¢ rd iAdoneofa tac duaprtiac tov Aaov, ver. 17; wrongly, because 
 
 1 Ebrard still finds in ver. 16 a proof from versally acknowledged fact of the O. T.! 
 the O.T. Only he supposes the author did “Comp. Hartung, Partikellehre, I. p. 285; 
 not here feel it needful to cite a single pas- Klotz, ad Devar. p. 427, 
 sage, but that it sufficed to remind of a uni- 
 
CHAP. 1. 15, 16. 443 
 
 vobrove boo k.T.A., ver. 15, stands not in reciprocal relation with émAap- 
 Baverar, but with the antithesis ov« ayyéAwv asia oréppatocg ’ABpaay, ver. 16; 
 Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 59, 2 Aufl.: “in order that the fear of death 
 might not in our life terrify and enslave us”). The present, since the 
 éxcAauBavecba is something still continuing. The interpretation of Chry- 
 sostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Erasmus, Luther, Clarius, 
 Vatablus, Zeger, Calvin, Beza, Calov, Wolf, and many others: not angels, 
 but the seed of Abraham, that is to say: not the nature of angels, but the 
 nature of the seed of Abraham did Christ assume, has fallen into deserved 
 disrepute;! only Castellio, however, first perceived its grammatical 
 impossibility. The proposal of Schulz to supply 6 @avaro¢ from vy. 14, 
 15 as the subject to érAauBaverac: “ for certainly he (death, or the lord of 
 death) does not lay hold of, or carry off, angels, but the posterity of Abraham 
 does he lay hold of,” is indeed grammatically permissible ; logically, how- 
 ever, it does not commend itself, inasmuch as ver. 17 stands in close con- 
 nection with ver. 16, but at ver. 17, as vv. 14, 15, the subject again is 
 naturally Christ—ayyédov] without article, like the following ozépuaroe 
 ’"ABpadu, generically. The author here excludes the angels from the 
 province of the redemption which takes place through Christ. He is 
 thus brought into contradiction with the teaching of Paul (comp. Col. 1. 
 20)—a position which is wrongly denied by Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 
 59 f.; Delitzsch, and Moll; by the first-named upon the untenable ground 
 that “the design in this connection was not to say whom Jesus helps and 
 whom He does not help, but what He is for those with whom He concerns 
 Himself, for whom He exerts Himself! ”—orépyatoc ’ABpadu] does not 
 denote mankind in general (Bengel, B6hme, Klee, Stein, Wieseler, Chron- 
 ologie des apostol. Zeitalters, p. 491 f., al.), in such wise that the expression 
 should be taken in the spiritual sense, or “the congregation of God, 
 reaching over from the O. T. into the N. T., which goes back to Abraham’s 
 call and obedience of faith for its fundamental beginning, Israel and the 
 believers out of all mankind, the whole good olive tree, which has the 
 patriarchs as its sacred root, Gal. iii. 29; Rom. iv. 16, xi. 16” (Delitzsch, 
 Hofmann, II. 1, p. 60,2 Aufl.; Kluge, Kurtz), which must have been 
 introduced and made manifest by the context; but the Jewish people 
 (comp. tov Aaod, ver. 17; tov Aadv, xiii. 12). For Apollos, who (according 
 to sec. 1 of the Introduction) is to be regarded as the author of the epistle, 
 the conviction of the universality of Christianity must, it is true, have 
 been not less firmly established than for Paul himself. He has men- 
 tioned, however, in place of the genus—i.e. in place of mankind in 
 general—only a species of this genus, namely, Jewish humanity; just 
 because he had only to do with born Jews as the readers of his epistle. 
 Grotius: Hebraeis scribens satis habet de illis loqui; de gentibus alibi 
 loquendi locus. Rightly at the same time does de Wette remark that 
 Paul, even under a precisely identical state of the case, would hardly 
 have expressed himself as is here done.” 
 
 1M’Caul alone has espoused it afresh. logie, vol. V., Strasb. et Paris 1860, p. 208): 
 2Comp. also Reuss (Nouvelle Revue de Théo- “Nous doutons, que Paul etit pu traiter un 
 
444 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 Ver.17. [On Vy. 17, 18, see Note XLVIL., pages 452, 453.] Inference from 
 ver. 16, and consequently a reverting to the main statement in ver. 14— 
 ébev] wherefore, sc. on account of the essential constitution of those to be 
 redeemed, as indicated in ver. 16. [XLVII 6.] The particle é@ev is of 
 very frequent occurrence in the Epistle to the Hebrews (comp. iii. 1, vii. 
 25, vill. 3, ix. 18, xi. 19). In Paul’s writings, on the other hand, it is 
 nowhere met with.—dagevaev] He ought. Expression, not of the necessity 
 founded in the decree of God (ef. ée., Luke xxiy. 26), but of that founded 
 in the nature of the case itself, comp. v. 38, 12.—«ara ravra] in all respects. 
 —épowbjvac] is not: “to be made the same or equal,’? but expresses, as 
 always, the notion of resemblance. Christ was in all things similar to men, 
 His brethren, inasmuch as He had assumed a truly human nature; He 
 was distinguished from them, however, by His absolute sinlessness. 
 Comp. iv. 15.—Aejuwv] merciful, fall of compassion. for the sufferings of 
 the adeAgoi, may be taken by itself} but also as créc, may be taken with 
 apxuepevc.* In the former case, which, on account of the position 
 of the words, seems more natural, «aé denotes “and in conse- 
 quence thereof,” so that éejuov indicates the quality, the possession of 
 which fits him to become a mvord¢ apyrepev¢e—ror6c] faithful, so fulfilling 
 His high-priestly office as to satisfy the requirements of those to be recon- 
 ciled.—ra xpd¢ tov bedv] with regard to the affairs of God, or: with regard to 
 the cause of God. Comp. v.1; Rom. xy. 17.—iddcxeo#a] middle voice.— 
 tov Aaov] of the people (of Israel, xiii. 12), see on ver. 16.—The idea of the 
 high-priesthood of Christ here first comes out in this epistle. From iv. 14 
 onwards it is unfolded in detail. It is disputed, however, at what point 
 our author thought of the high-priestly office of Christ as beginning, 
 whether even on eafth, with His death on the cross,> or only after the return to 
 the Father’; in such wise that, according to the view of the author, the 
 offering of His own body upon the earth, and the entering with His own 
 blood into the heavenly sanctuary, is to be regarded only as the inaugu- 
 ration of Christ to His high-priestly dignity, this dignity itself, however, 
 beginning only with the moment when Christ, in accordance with Ps. ex. 
 1, sat down at the right hand of-God the Father, Heb. viii. 1.6 It is cer- 
 tainly undeniable that the author in the course of his epistle very strongly 
 accentuates the high-priesthood of Christ (comp. v. 9 f., vi. 19 f., vii. 24-26, 
 vill. 4, ix. 24). But the polemic against readers who thought they could 
 not dispense with the ritual of the Jewish sacrifice of atonement for the 
 
 nareil sujet en s’imposant un silence absolu 8 Luther, Grotius, Bhme, Bleek, Stein, de 
 J) Pp 
 
 sur un principe, qui était, A vrai dire, le 
 centre de son activité apostolique.” 
 
 1Chrysostom: ri éote kata mavta; éTéxOn, 
 byaly, erpadhny, qvénOn, Erabe Tavta amep ExpHr, 
 TéX0s avéBavev. Theodoret: ‘Onoliws yap quiv 
 kat tTpopyjs petéAaBe Kai mévov wméuerve Kai 
 nOvunoe Kal edaxpuce Kai Oavatov Katedééato. 
 
 2Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Bisping, De- 
 litasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 
 820; Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, ai. 
 
 Wette, Tholuck, Woerner [after Peshito, 
 Arabic, and Ethiopie versions]. 
 
 4Owen, Bengel, Cramer, Storr, Stuart, Eb- 
 rard, Delitzsch, Riehm, p. 830; Alford, Moll, 
 Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann. 
 
 5So Cramer, Winzer, de sacerdotis officio, 
 quod Christo tribuitur in ep. ad Hebr., Lips. 
 1825, Comment. I. p. vi. sq.; de Wette, De- 
 litzsech, Alford, and others. 
 
 ®So Bleek and Kurtz, after the precedent 
 
CHAP ir by, 1S. 445 
 
 attainment of salvation, naturally led him to insist with emphasis on the 
 superiority of Christ as the heavenly High Priest over the Jewish high 
 priests as the merely earthly ones. Since now, on the other side, it is 
 equally undeniable that the author places the voluntary sacrificial death of 
 Christ, and the entering with His blood into the heavenly Holy of Holies, 
 —as the two inseparable acts of the same proceeding,—in parallel with 
 the slaying of the sacrificial victim, and the entering of the earthly high 
 priest with the sacrificial blood into the earthly Holy of Holies, and looks 
 upon the sins of men as completely expiated by the sacrificial death of 
 Christ itself (comp. i. 14 f., vii. 27, ix.11-14 26, 29, x. 10, 12, 14, xiii. 12), 
 there can be no room for doubt, that according to the mind of our author 
 the investiture of Christ with the high-priestly dignity had already begun 
 on earth, from the time of His death; and the representation of mankind 
 in the presence of God is to be thought of as the continued administration 
 of the high-priestly office already entered upon. So in substance also 
 Riehm (comp. the detailed discussion by this writer, Lehrbegr. des 
 Hebraerbr. p. 466-481); although it is certainly not in accordance with 
 the view of the writer of the epistle, when Riehm afterwards (like Hof- 
 mann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 68 f., 2 Aufl.) supposes a distinction is to be 
 made between Christ as High Priest and Christ as High Priest after the man- 
 ner of Melchisedec, in that he represents Christ as having become the former 
 by virtue of that which He did during the days of His flesh, as well as on 
 His entrance into the heavenly Holy of Holies, and the latter only by 
 virtue of His exaltation to God, where He ever liveth to make interces- 
 sion for us. 
 
 Ver. 18. Elucidatory justification of iva édejuov yévytac x.7.A., and by 
 means thereof corroborative conclusion to the last main assertion : OgeAev 
 Kata Tdvta Toic adeAgoic ouowfjvac. Christ, namely, became qualified for 
 having compassion and rendering help, inasmuch as He experienced in 
 His own person the temptations, the burden of which pressed upon the 
 brethren He came to redeem. Comp. iv. 15, 16—é» }] equivalent to é 
 Toor ore (comp. John xvi. 30: év roitw, propter hoc), literally: upon the 
 ground of (the fact) that, in that, i.e. inasmuch as, or because. The inter- 
 pretation “ wherein,” or “in which province,” ? with which construction 
 an év toit» corresponding to the év © has to be supplied before divara., 
 
 and éyv » itself is connected with réxovfev or with repacfeic, or else by the 
 resolving of the participle into the tempus finitum is connected in like 
 measure with both verbs, is to be rejected; not, indeed, because in that 
 case the aorist érafev must have been employed (Hofmann, Schriftbew. 
 II. 1, p. 892, 2 Aufl.), nor because the plural év oi¢ must have been placed 
 (Hofmann, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 320, note),—for 
 only slight modifications of the sense would result in this way, the sub- 
 
 stance of the statement itself remaining untouched,—but in reality for the 
 
 of Faustus Socinus, Schlichting [Whitby], on Rom. viii. 3, p. 93. 
 
 Griesbach, Opusc. II. p. 436 sq.; Schulz, p. 83 f., * Luther, Casaubon, Valekenaer, Fritzsche, 
 
 and others. l.c. p. 94, note; Ebrard, Bisping, Kurtz, Woer- 
 1 Comp. Bernhardy, Synt., p. 211: Fritzsche ner, and others. 
 
446 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 reason that the thought thus resulting would be unsuitable. For Christ’s 
 capacity for conferring sympathy and help would then be restricted within 
 the too narrow bounds of like conditions of suffering and temptations in 
 the case of Himself and His earthly brethren. Bleek, too, understands év 
 @ in the ordinary signification: “ wherein,” but then—after the example 
 of Chr. Fr. Schmid—takes the words év @ rézovfev as a kind of adverbial 
 nearer defining to aiti¢ reipacbeic : “ Himself tempted in that which He 
 suffered,” 7. e. Himself tempted in the midst of His sufferings. So like- 
 wise more recently Alford: “for, having been Himself tempted in that 
 which He suffered.” Against this, however, the violence of the linguistic 
 expression is decisive, since recpacbeic yap avtic év Toi¢ mafjuacwv, or ScMe- 
 thing similar, would have been much more simply and naturally written. 
 —The emphasis rests not upon rézovfev (Hofmann), but upon abréc 
 mecpacbeic, inasmuch as not the rdoyev in and of itself, but the racyew 
 in a definite state, is to be brought into relief: because He Himself suffered 
 as one tempted, i.e. because His suffering was combined with temptations. 
 aito¢ meipacbeic, however, was designedly placed at the end, in order to 
 gain thereby a marked correspondence to the following tote re:pafouévore. 
 —divara] not a note of the inclination (Grotius: potest auxiliari pro potest 
 moveri ad auxiliandum, and similarly many others), but of the possibility — 
 toi¢ metpalouévorc] a characteristic of toi¢ adedgoic, ver. 17. The participle 
 present, since the state of temptation of the human brethren is one still 
 continuing.—fonbjoar] to come to the help, sc. in that He entirely fills with 
 His Spirit the suffering ones, whose necessities He has become acquainted 
 with as a result of His own experience. 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EpITor. 
 XLIV. Vv. 1+. 
 
 (a) These vérses contain an exhortation founded upon vy. 4-14 of the preceding 
 chapter and should, properly, be joined with that chapter. The exhortation is, 
 in substance, that which we find in all parts of the Epistle—the one great exhor- 
 
 tation which the writer presses upon the readers, and for the purpose of giving 
 ~ force to which he writes the letter—on the negative side, not to apostatize from 
 Christianity to Judaism ; on the positive side, to hold fast their Christian faith and 
 confession to the end. Sometimes, the positive side is more prominently presented, 
 as it is here; sometimes the negative side is emphasized; sometimes they are 
 both set forth. But the substance of the thought and the end in view are always 
 the same.—(b) dca rovro points back to the whole passage i. 4-14. That passage is 
 thus made the ground of dei mpocéyevv «7.2, The latter words are, again, through 
 7 4p of ver. 2 founded upon what is said in vy. 2 ff. These verses, however, con- 
 tain—so far as their statement as to the two systems or revelations is concerned— 
 nothing more than has been suggested in chap. i., namely, that the revelation 
 which has come through the Lord must, for this very reason, be superior to that 
 which came through angels. But in connection with the repeated expression of 
 this thought, reference is made to the greater danger resulting from neglecting 
 the greater system. The introduction of the yap sentence after the dia tovro—as 
 
NOTES. 447 
 
 considered both in the repetition of the main thought and the addition of the 
 special reason,—and the consequent resting of the dei «7.4. on both what 
 precedes and what follows, is in accordance with one of the peculiar charac- 
 teristics of the Pauline style—(c) Though there is no special emphasis to be laid 
 upon 7uac, the reference in the word is plainly to the readers as those who have 
 heard and accepted the Christian revelation. They are reminded of the duty— 
 the moral necessity (Je?)—of giving more earnest attention to what had been 
 heard, than would have been demanded if the new system were only like the old. 
 Trapappvouev is rightly explained by Liinem. It means to be carried by as on a 
 flowing stream, floated past, and thus to drift away, as R. V. The verb is appro- 
 priately chosen as suggesting the idea of indifference or want of thoughtfulness 
 which is opposed to tepiocotépwg mpooé err, 
 
 (d) BéBacog (ver. 2) seems to be immediately related in thought with éAaBev évd, 
 wot, and tapaxon mis-hearing, “the subjective listless hearing or inattention” 
 (Liinem.), may, not improbably, be added to rapaaore transgression in connection 
 with the idea conveyed in tapappvauev.—(e) The word owrypiac has, in this place, 
 a peculiar sense, which is both demanded and indicated by the context. It means 
 not salvation, but a salvation or a system of salvation. The rendering of the word by 
 salvation, A. V., R. V., is likely to mislead the English reader.—(j') The contrast 
 between the two systems is set forth, in vv. 2, 3, by 6c’ ayyéAwy AaAnheic¢ and Aaheiodat 
 dia Tov kupiov. The writer, throughout the entire epistle, presents the same idea 
 which he expresses here ;—namely, that there are two revelations, both of which 
 alike come from God, but one of which is made through angels (or Moses), while 
 the other is given through Christ. The superiority of the latter to the former, 
 accordingly, is not in the originating source of the system, but in the instrumental 
 agent employed. 
 
 (g) The argument against the Pauline authorship which Liinem., Alf., Blk., 
 aud others find in the words ind tv dkovodvTur ei¢ judg éBeBaodyn, deserves 
 serious consideration. These words show that the writer places himself, with the 
 readers, among those to whom the knowlege of the N. T. revelation had not come 
 directly from Jesus, but only from those who had heard Him. Paul, on the other 
 hand, claims with regard to himself, in Gal. i.11 ff, that he had derived the 
 Gospel immediately from Christ. The only ways of reconciling the two state- 
 ments, as being made by the same auther, are either (1) to suppose that he uses , 
 the “communicative we,” or (2) that, while, in Gal., he is speaking of the great 
 impartation of the Gospel truth in preparation for his apostleship and ministry, 
 he is, in this passage, referring only to the fact, that, not having been associated 
 with Jesus when He was on the earth, as the other apostles were, he, like the 
 readers, was obliged to depend on their testimony for his acquaintance with many 
 of the things which Jesus did and said. To the former supposition Liinem. very 
 properly objects, that “ what a writer of a letter says to his readers by means of 
 an avaxkoivwore is always of such a nature as to be likewise true of himself.” With 
 regard to the latter supposition, it cannot be affirmed that it is impossible, but it 
 may justly be declared in a high degree improbable. 
 
 XLV. Vv. 5-8. 
 
 (a) At ver. 5 the writer begins the more indirect argument in proof of the 
 exaltation of Christ, as the instrumental agent in the N. T. revelation, above the 
 
448 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 angels. His thought has been understood in two different ways, according as the 
 reference in vv. 6 ff. has been supposed to be to Christ, or to man. If the former 
 view is taken, the fact that the oixovuévy péndovoa, 7. e. the aiav uéA2ov or the Mes- 
 sianic period, is subjected, according to God’s plan, to Christ, is made the ground 
 of the assertion of His superiority. He was, indeed, for a time made lower than 
 the angels, but this was only for the purpose of the accomplishment of His great 
 work. At the consummation of the work, the glory belonging to Him in con- 
 nection with it began to be manifested, and it will be manifested hereafter in its 
 fullness. On this interpretation, the thought centres upon Christ throughout. 
 If the latter view is adopted, on the other hand, the writer presents the oixovy. 
 péX2. as subjected, not to angels, but to man. Man, indeed, is not yet elevated to 
 the dominion designed for him, but the exaltation has already been given to the 
 representative man, Jesus Christ, and He is to lead his brethren—the sons of God 
 among mankind, of whose nature He has partaken—to the attainment of it in the 
 future. ‘The main purpose of the passage is the same, in whichever of the two 
 ways it is explained. But, in the latter case, the line of thought is somewhat 
 more indirect than it is in the former. The considerations which favor the latter 
 view are the following:—(1) The verses quoted from the Psalm refer, in the 
 original, not to Christ, but to man. (2) The later verses of the chapter speak of 
 the exaltation of man as the end accomplished by the work and exaltation of 
 Christ. (3) It gives the simplest and most natural explanation of the introduction 
 of the thought of Christ’s assuming the nature of man and undertaking to help 
 man. (4) It best accounts for the fact that the name of Christ is not introduced 
 in ver. 5. On the contrary, the former view is favored by the following considera- 
 tions :—(1) that Christ is made prominent throughout the entire passage; and (2) that 
 the order of words in ver. 9 is not "Ijoovv dé Tov x.7.A. B2éropev, (as if the writer 
 would call attention to the realization of the fact in the case of Jesus as having 
 already been witnesged, though not as yet seen in the experience of mankind uni- 
 versally), but tov dé... yAaT~wu. BAEropuev "Iyooiv (as if the name Jesus were only 
 added without emphasis, for the purpose, simply, of designating the person who 
 had already, in the preceding verses, been spoken of as the one who was made 
 lower than the angels). The force of this last objection to the reference of vv. 
 6 ff. to man is insisted upon by Liinemann and others. But it does not seem to be 
 conclusive, because the object of the writer may have been, not to say: we do not 
 yet see man exalted to his destined glory and dominion, but we do see Jesus thus 
 exalted; but to say: we do not yet see man, indeed, exalted, but we do see the 
 representative man, namely, Jesus, crowned, etc. Now if this was the author’s de- 
 sign, and if he desired to express his thought in the exact phraseology of the 
 Psalm, it is difficult to see how he could have adopted’ any better course than the 
 one which we find him to have taken. 
 
 (b) The reference of the words, as used by the Psalmist, is evidently to the 
 honor put upon man by his Creator, and the dominion given to him over the 
 other creatures on the earth—the sheep and oxen, the beasts and birds and fishes 
 (vv. 7,8 of the Psalm). The Psalmist is contemplating the glory of God’s power 
 and being as manifested in the starry heavens, and is filled with wonder that He 
 should have so “visited” man and been “mindful of him,” even making him 
 “but little lower than God,” and subjecting all things to him. The writer of the 
 epistle transfers the thought to the aidv y£//0v, and to the dominion of man, or of 
 Christ, in that period. He quotes from the LXX, and incidentally, thus, brings 
 
NOTES. 449 
 
 in a reference to a temporary condition of Christ, or man, below the angels, which 
 is not to continue, since the coming age is, by God’s appointment, not to be sub- 
 ordinated to the angels, but to him. It is doubtful whether the writer supposed 
 the Psalmist to have intended, in his words, to make any reference either to the 
 aiov “éAAwv or to the Messianic King. The words were suited to express his own 
 thought respecting the point in hand, and he used them for the purpose for which, 
 in the highest and best sense, the Old Testament, in all its parts and words, had 
 been Divinely prepared. 
 
 (c) With respect to individual words and phrases in these verses, the following 
 points may be noticed:—1. The explanation given by Liinem. of ayyéAore as used 
 without the article, and of epi 7¢ Aadovuev as equivalent to “which is the subject 
 of our discourse (our epistle),”’ is to be adopted as correct. 2. The indefiniteness 
 in the use of t¢ and Tov, in ver. 6, is characteristic of the writer of this epistle. He 
 seems, in general, to be less careful to present the name of the O. T. author whose 
 words he cites, than he is to give the words themselves. That such words are in 
 the O. T., which was God’s earlier revelation and which is so reverenced by the 
 readers, is the point of all importance to his mind. The use, in different passages, 
 of the different phrases: “a certain one says,” “the Holy Spirit says,” “he hath 
 said somewhere,” “it is witnessed,” “the exhortation which says,” may be some- 
 times accidental and sometimes determined by special reasons; but the same de- 
 sign, to bring out the thought for its own sake, and as coming from God, not from 
 any particular prophet or writer, is manifest, whatever may be the form of ex- 
 pression. 3. Spay tt, This expression is, apparently, used here in a different 
 - sense from that of the corresponding phrase in the original Psalm. The meaning 
 of the Psalmist is, as given in R. V., “Thou hast made him but little lower than 
 God.” The dignity and exaltation of man are thus set forth, as they are, also, in 
 the following clause: “and crownest him with glory and honor.” But here, the 
 thought must be that of man’s inferiority, as is evident from the reference to Jesus 
 in ver. 9. The words, as here used, may refer to degree or to time, a little, some 
 little in measure, or for a little time. As between these two meanings, the former 
 is favored by the fact that, in the original passage, the idea is that of measure or 
 degree; and, though the writer of the epistle might, in employing the passage for 
 his special purpose, change the thought from but little to some little, he was less 
 likely to give an altogether new sense to the words. But, on the other hand, the 
 interpretation of the phrase as meaning for a little time is exactly suited to the ap- 
 plication which is made of the clause to Jesus in ver. 9; it is, also, fitted to the 
 course of thought, in the chapter, respecting man, if the primary reference of vy. 
 6-8 is to him, and not to Christ ; and it likewise accords with the suggestion which 
 arises from oi7w of ver. 8. Liinem., Blk., Grimm, de W., Calv. and others adopt 
 this view. 4. yap of ver. 8 is regarded by Winer, p. 447, as giving the proof that 
 there is nothing which was not put in subjection to Him, and, therefore, indirectly 
 of ver. 5: that the world to come is also subjected to Him. This case, however, is 
 one of the strongest which we find in the N.T., as showing that this conjunction 
 was occasionally used by the writers of its different books in the sense of namely, in- 
 deed, that is, certainly. The connection with ver. 5 is remote, not to say, harsh. 
 That with ver. 8a, on the other hand, is difficult, and involves some degree of 
 tautology, if yap is regarded as argumentative. But if ydp is taken as explicative, 
 this latter connection is most simple, and is just in accordance with what might be 
 gxpected :—God is declared by the Psalmist to have put all things under him, 
 
 29 
 
450 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 This means, certainly, that there is nothing which is not put under him. We do 
 not, as yet, however, see this grand result secured in its completeness. But we do 
 see it begun and the assurance of the end given, in that we behold Jesus crowned 
 with glory. The progress of the thought may thus be regarded as proving this 
 sense of ydp (as Liinem. also takes it) to be the true one. 
 
 XLVI. Vv. 9-16. 
 
 (a) With reference to the difficulties in the construction of the last portion of 
 ver. 9, we may notice: 1. that, for the reasons suggested by Liinem., the words 
 dia TO TaOnua Tov Gavatov are not to be connected with 7AatTwpévov, but with 
 éorepavepnévov; 2. that, with the latter connection, these words have a peculiar 
 and marked emphasis—the author must have intended to make especially promi- 
 nent, at this point, the ground of Christ’s exaltation to glory ; 3. that, inasmuch 
 as this was evidently his intention, the further explanation of His suffering of 
 death in relation to its purpose as bearing upon mankind, might naturally be 
 added; 4. that, for the sake of not breaking the close union between dia rt. rad. 
 and éoregav., and of not interfering with the primary emphasis on the former of 
 these two expressions, and the secondary on the latter, this desired addition might 
 be separated by éoregav. from the words to which it immediately belonged ; 5. 
 that the relation of Christ to men—and in the way of delivering them from the 
 fear and power of death by His own sufferings and dying—which is presented in 
 the following verses, is developed out of the comprehensive statement of this 
 verse, and thus demands, for the greatest clearness of the thought, the placing of. 
 the words: ‘that he should taste of death for every man,’ where they are, i. e., 
 at the end of ver. 9. These considerations render it almost certain that the é7we¢ 
 clause belongs with wa@jua (as if he had said: on account of that suffering of 
 death, which He suffered in order that, etc.). The words of this clause, it may be 
 added, are a plaifi declaration of the universality of the atonement. 
 
 (b) Ver. 10 sets forth the fitness that Jesus should have had this experience 
 appointed to Him by God. The fact of this fitness is developed and established 
 in vy. 11.ff. As men, and not angels, are the sons of God who are to be brought 
 to glory, there was a need that He who was to be the leader of the great company, 
 and the representative man, should partake of their human nature, and should 
 ‘pass through their experience. He must be perfected as a leader and Saviour 
 through sufferings. reAeaoae does not, probably, convey the idea of bringing to 
 perfection with respect to moral character, but in relation to His office —Liinem. 
 says it is equivalent to dé6&y . . . orepavovcdat, but this is doubtful. 
 
 (c) That the participle ayayévra refers to God, not to Christ, is proved by the 
 considerations which Liinem., presents in his note. The explanation of the aorist 
 tense is to be found in the fact, that the whole work of the ayevv is conceived of 
 as, in a sense, centered in the reAe@oa of Christ. This gathering up of the results 
 of Christ’s death and glorification into the one fact of His death and glorification, 
 is characteristic of the Pauline mode of thought. Comp. for a similar centering of 
 all results of evil in the first transgression of Adam, Rom. vy. 12.—R. V., text 
 renders ayay. in bringing—so also A. V. R. V., marg. has having brought. The 
 rendering bringing, as he did, which is suggested by Alford, seems perhaps more 
 exactly to suit the aorist participle—(d) The word apyvyév is found twice in this 
 epistle, in this verse and xii. 2. In the latter passage, it is explained by Grimm 
 
~~ = 
 
 NOTES. 451 
 
 (Lex. N. T.), as qui in aliqua re praeit,and he adds the words: eoque modo exemplum 
 edit. It is used by Plutarch, Isocrates and others, as Bleek shows, with reference 
 to the originator of a family as the leader of his descendants. It is, also, employed 
 as equivalent in meaning to airwc, This last sense is given to it here by 
 Liinem., Bleek, Grimm, and others. The connection of thought in this chap- 
 ter, and also in chap. xii., seems, however, to point to the fact that Christ not only 
 is the author of salvation or faith for His brethren, but that He is so by being their 
 leader—the one who went through their experience to the glorious consummation, 
 and thus became the first, and, as it were, the representative of them all. The 
 choice of the word, instead of aitvoc, we may believe to have been determined by 
 the desire of the writer to bring out this compound idea of cause and leader, 
 which aito¢ would not have suggested.—(e) Vy. 11-138 do not appear to be merely 
 subsidiary and, as it were, parenthetical, as Liinem., regards them. They form 
 a part of the proof given of ver. 10, though, as compared with vv. 14, 15, a sub- 
 ordinate part. In developing the idea of the fitness, that, in His plan of bring- 
 ing His sons to glory, God should perfect the apy7yoc through sufferings, two 
 thoughts needed to be presented and confirmed—namely, that the apy7yo¢ was a 
 son, as the viot for whom He was to accomplish the great result were sons, and 
 that, in order to have their position fully, and be a leader for them, it was necessary 
 for Him to become a partaker of their human nature, and thus to become subject 
 to death. These two thoughts might, not improbably, have been introduced codr- 
 dinately by ordinary writers, as two grounds for the statement or suggestion of 
 ver. 10. But this author, who constantly manifests the Pauline influence in his 
 manner of writing, introduces the first and less important thought by yap, con- 
 necting it immediately with odode vioic, and then afterwards, in ver. 14, he 
 brings in the second thought as an inference (oiv) suggested by the words ra 
 xaiia of ver. 18. The immediate and grammatical connection is, in this case, 
 accordingly, as so often in Paul’s epistles, different from the logical connection.— 
 (f) We find a use of O. T. passages in vv. 12 f. similar to that which has been 
 noticed in ch. i., and ia vv. 6-8 of this chapter. The change in the reference of 
 7a racdia, by which it is made to designate, not the children of the prophet, as in 
 the O. T., but the children of God, is, also, noticeable, and finds its explanation in 
 the way in which the author viewed the O. T. Such a change was, at the most, 
 a sacrifice of the letter for the more full and perfect setting forth of the Divine 
 truth. The O. T. was filled with foreshadowings of Christ and the new system. 
 (g) The movement in the thought from vy. 11 ff. to what follows is evidently 
 through ver. 14a towards vy. 146, 15—the emphasis being on the idea expressed 
 in the latter. .The representative is crowned with glory and honor on account of 
 his suffering of death, because this was the course by which the end which God 
 had in view—the deliverance of men from the fear of death—might be accom- 
 plished. To this end, accordingly, Christ becomes a son, in the human sense, and 
 partakes of flesh and blood.—(h) katapy7joy is used here in a sense similar to that 
 which we find in 1 Cor. xv. 24, 26, i.e. of bringing to nought (R. V.) or destroying 
 the power of the enemy to do injury with respect to the thing in question. Here 
 the devil is deprived of the power of death so far as the persons mentioned, the 
 viot or radia, are concerned.—(i) The power of death, here spoken of, is appar- 
 ently that connected with fear. This verse may, perhaps, be regarded as throwing 
 light on some passages in Paul’s writings, where death is referred to as the conse- 
 yuence of sin, and as showing that to the Pauline thought death, as thus used, 
 
452 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 always carried with it this idea, and did not mean simply the separation of the 
 soul from the body. However this may be, the power of death is here ascribed to 
 the devil, as we cannot doubt, because he was the one who introduced sin into the 
 race, through the temptation at the beginning, and death is the result of sin. See 
 Rom. y. 12, 1 Cor. xy. 56, and other passages.—(j ) dovdeiag seems to be deter- 
 mined in its meaning by the earlier words of the clause. It does not denote the 
 bondage to the law of decay and death, the bondage of corruption, Rom. viii. 21, but 
 the bondage to the fear of death as a terrible and hopeless evil—(k) The imme- 
 diate connection of ver. 16 through yap is, manifestly, with vv. 14, 15, as still 
 further explanatory of what is there said. It seems, however, to be an unnecessary 
 addition, so far as this object alone is concerned, and to be even repetitious, in its 
 idea, of what has been already brought out with sufficient fullness. It is not 
 improbable, therefore, that the writer was led to write these words, not so much 
 for the purpose of adding a new point or argument, as of calling attention at the 
 end, as he had done at the beginning (ver. 5), tothe fact that the oixouyévy péAAovea 
 was, in God’s plan, subjected not to angels, but to men. The use of the words 
 “seed of Abraham,” instead of men, is most simply explained in accordance with 
 Liinemann’s supposition: the author writes thus just because he had only to de 
 with born Jews as the readers of his epistle. That there is a conflict between the 
 statements of this passage, and of this verse, and Paul’s declaration in Col. i. 20, 
 has been maintained by Liinemann and some others. But when we take the 
 different passages in Paul’s writings, which relate to the work of redemption, into 
 careful consideration, it can hardly be doubted that his including of the angels in 
 the aroxata/Aagac of Col. i. 20 is, in no sense, such as to cover the ground of this 
 author in this chapter. Paul does not regard the angels as among the sons of 
 God whom Christ leads to salvation and glory through His sufferings, and into 
 the experiences of whose nature Christ enters for this end. 
 
 XLVI. Vv. 17-18. 
 
 (a) The elose Gorrespondence between these verses and those at the end of the 
 fourth chapter will not fail to be observed. This correspondence isseen: 1. in the 
 ideas and expressions of these corresponding verses in the two chapters; 2. in the 
 connection of the verses, in each case, with the preceding context; 3. in the fact 
 that the word dpyepev¢ is found in each, whereas neither this word nor any sug- 
 gestion of the idea of the High-priesthood of Jesus is introduced anywhere else in 
 the first and second, or again in the third and fourth chapters, (iii. 1 forms no 
 proper exception, see note on that verse). It can scarcely be questioned, it would 
 seem, that when a writer, who is so careful with respect to the artistic arrangement 
 of his work as the author of this epistle is, has two such passages in two correspond- 
 ing places, he means to make them parallel to each other. When we observe 
 also, that the High-priesthood of Christ is the subject of the second half of the 
 epistle (v. 1—xii. 29), and that this second part is that‘on which the author 
 dwells with greater fullness and emphasis, we may believe that, in these verses, 
 he intends to give a hint or foreshadowing, at the close of each subdivision of the 
 first section of his work, of that which is to be the great thought of its second and 
 most important division. An artistic arrangement of this character is quite foreign 
 to the style of Paul in his thirteen epistles—(b) As to the similarities between 
 ii. 17, 18 and iv. 14-16, the following points may be noticed: 1. The use of the 
 
NOTES. 453 
 
 same words, in the case of apyvepets, rerpagouar, Boyfjoar (Bofberav), juowbpvac (kal? 
 éuotdryta), 2. The general correspondence in the thought, where the words are 
 unlike, as e. g. “the merciful high-priest in things pertaining to God,” as compared 
 with “approaching the throne of grace (through him) that we may find mercy ” ; 
 “in that he has suffered being tempted, he is able,” etc., as compared with 
 “tempted in all points like as we are;” “he becomes a merciful and faithful high- 
 priest through being made like unto his brethren,” as compared with “he is able 
 to sympathize with our infirmities because he was tempted like ourselves.” The 
 few differences in expression and in the minor details of the verses are only such as 
 might be expected in a careful rhetorical writer, who would avoid mechanical 
 repetition, and who, in the latter case, is drawing nearer to the thoughts and 
 expressions of the second part of the epistle. 
 
454 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Ver. 1. "Ijootv] Reeepta: Xprotdv "Incovv, Rightly rejected by Griesb. 
 Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, de Wette, Tisch. Alford, al. For against it stands the pre- 
 ponderating authority of A B C* D* M x, 17, 34, al., many vss. and Greek as well 
 as Latin Fathers, and not less the usus loguendi of the epistle, since Xpiord¢ ‘Iycon¢ 
 is found nowhere else therein, Ijoov¢ Xpiordé¢ only [vi. 20, with D* E* It.] x. 10, 
 xiii. 8 [20, with D* 17, al.], 21; quite commonly, on the other hand, the simple 
 "Inoove (ii. 9, iv. 14, vi. 20, vil. 22, x. 19, xii. 2, 24, xiii. 12, 20) or the simple 
 Xpworéc (iii. 6, 14, v. 5, vi. 1, ix. 11, 14, 28, xi. 26)—Ver. 2. év 0A 76 oikw avrow] 
 Instead thereof, Tisch. 1 and 2 reads merely év T@ oikw avrov, But for the 
 deletion of 62 the authority of B, Sahid. Erp. Ambr. does not suffice. 62 is 
 defended not only by AC DE K L Mx, Vulg. al., but also by the consideration 
 that it forms a constituent part of the passage Num. xii. 7, to which the writer 
 has respect, and the complete formula év 6A 7@ oikw avTov is, on account of its 
 repetition in ver. 5, already presupposed for ver. 2.—Ver. 3. otto¢ dé6&y¢] Elz. 
 Matthaei, Bloomfield: dé6&7¢ ovroc, Against A BC D E y, 37, 47, al., It. Chrys. 
 Transposition for bringing into marked relief the opposition oftog rapa Moiajv. 
 —Ver. 4. In place of the Recepta ta tavra, Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 
 read only tavra, To be preferred, not merely on account of the strong attesta- 
 tion by A B C* D* E* K M yg, al. mult., Chrys. ms., but also because the notion 
 of the universe, which ta tavra@ would contain, does nqt suit the connection — 
 Ver. 6. In place of éavrep, Lachm. (this editor, however, only in the edit. 
 stereot.; in the larger edition he adds wep in brackets) and Tisch. have adopted, 
 after B D* E* M y* 17, the mere é4v. The author, however, is fond of the 
 fuller éd4v7ep (comp. ver. 14, yi. 3), and here it has preponderating testimonies 
 (A C D*** E** K L y*** Lucif. Cal.) in its favor—péype tésovg BeBaiay xara- 
 oxywuev] Instead of this, Tisch. 2 and 7 reads merely katdoyouev. But, for the 
 omission of the words péype TtéAeug BeBaiav (already condemned by Mill, Prolegg. 
 1208, and more recently by Delitzsch and Alford), the authority of B, Aeth. Lucif. 
 Ambr. does not suffice; and as a gloss from ver. 14 they can hardly be regarded, 
 inasmuch as, with regard to the object the author has in view, they are just as 
 little without significance here as there. See,moreovet, the observations of Reiche, 
 p- 19 sq.—Ver. 9. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomf. have é7eipacdv we oi 
 matépeg vuav, édokiuacayv pe. - Defended also by Reiche. But the only 
 accredited -reading is éveipacav oi ratépec iuov év dokipacia, Already 
 preferred by Griesbach. Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Alford, al. 
 éreipacay, in place of éreipacay ye, is demanded by A BC D* E* y* 17, It. 
 Copt. Lucif.; €v.doxeuacia in place of édoxivacay ye, by A BC D* E M xX* 78, 
 137, It. Copt. Lucif. Clem. Al. protrept. c. 9, 2 84, Didym.—Ver. 10. Elz. Matthaei, 
 Scholz, Bloomf. Reiche: +7 yeved éxeivy. More correctly, after A B D* Mx, 
 6, 17, al., Vulg. Clem. Did. Bengel, Bohme, Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Alford 
 (recommended also by Griesb.): 77 yeved tabty. Deviating from the LXX., 
 
CHAP. da: 1: 455 
 
 the author chose rary, inorder to make the bearing of the passage upon the 
 readers the more palpable—Ver. 13. The Recepta ti¢ && bpov (adopted by 
 Tisch. 8) is, with Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, Bloomf. Tisch. 1, 2, 7, Alford, al., 
 to be transposed into é£ uv rx¢, in accordance with B D E K L, 46, 48, Theo- 
 doret, Damase. al. By means of the transposition, the person of the readers, in 
 opposition to the fathers in the wilderness, comes out more emphatically, and 
 more in accordance with the context.—Ver. 14. Elz. Matthaei, Bloomf.: yey éva- 
 wev Tov Xpcorov] But the important attestation by ABCD EH MY, al, 
 Vulg. Clar. Germ. Cyr. Damase. Lucif. Hilar. Hier. Ambr. Vigil. Taps. decides in 
 favor of the order of the words tov Xprotov yeyovaper; accepted by Griesb. 
 Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, Tisch. Alford, al. 
 
 Vv. 1-6. Even above Moses is Christ exalted. By so much higher than 
 Moses does He stand, as the son exercising authority over his own house 
 has precedence over the servant of the house. This new dogmatic con- 
 sideration, to which the discourse now advances, was indeed already con- 
 tained implicite as the minus, in the preceding argument as the majus ; ib 
 must, however, still be separately insisted on, inasmuch as, in addition to 
 the angels as the suprahuman agents (Vermittler) in connection with the 
 founding of the Old Covenant, Moses, as the human agent (Vermitiler) in 
 the founding of the same, could not remain unmentioned. Appropri- 
 ately to the subject, however, the author treats of this new point of com- 
 parison only with brevity, blending the same with the exhortation, 
 derived from that which precedes, to cleave firmly unto the end to Christ 
 and the Christian hope ; and then, from ver. 7 forward, further developing 
 this exhortation in detail,—in the form of a parallel instituted between 
 the people of God of the present time, ¢.¢. the Christians, and the people 
 of God of Moses’ time,—in their interest, with even a warning impres- 
 siveness. 
 
 On Vy. 1-6, comp. Carl. Wilh. Otto, der Apostel und Hohepriester unsres 
 Bekenntnisses. An Exegetical Study on Heb. iii. 1-6, Leipz. 1861, 8vo." 
 
 Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-6, see Note XLVIII., pages 470-472. "Odev] refers 
 back to the total characterization of Christ given in chaps. i. ii. [XLVIIT 
 
 1 This writer finds (comp. p. 96), by dint of a 
 long extended chain of arbitrary assertions 
 and erroneous presuppositions, the absolutely 
 impossible sense in the words: “(Ver. 1) 
 From this (ii. 10-18), beloved brethren, who, 
 delivered from death, are presented a sacri- 
 fice to God, and have your right of citizenship 
 in heayen, perceive that the Ambassador and 
 High Priest, who in His own person has 
 borne our confession to the heavenly goal, and 
 as mediator continually introduces into 
 heaven, namely Jesus (ver. 2), is one en- 
 trusted (an organ of confidence) of Him who 
 made Him (such), 7. e. (comp. p. 65) called 
 Him into existence as Jesus, as was also 
 Moses in the house of God, 7. e. in the limita- 
 tion and subordination, as this was presup- 
 posed by his position in the house of God. 
 
 (Ver. 3) For (comp. p. 87) greater glory (i. e. 
 higher position of power) has been vouchsafed 
 to this man than to Moses, in which measure, 
 as the house (sc. of God), so has He who has 
 fitted it up, greater honor (sic!). (Ver. 4) For 
 every house is fitted up by some one (but to 
 correspond to all its requirements, no one is 
 able); He, however, who has fitted it up with 
 all things (se. as Jesus the house of God, for 
 time and eternity) is omnipotent, is of divine 
 nature. (Ver. 5) And Moses, indeed, was 
 trustworthy in all his house, as a servant, to 
 testify what was to be revealed (ver. 6): Jesus, 
 however, as the Christ (comp. p. 90), trust- 
 worthy as Son (se. of God) over His (se. God’s) 
 house. Whose (sc. God’s) house we are and 
 remain, if at any rate we retain the joyfulness 
 and boasting of hope to the end.” 
 
456 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 a.] Wherefore, i.e. seeing that it stands in such wise with Christ, His 
 nature and disposition. As regards its contents, 6@ev is unfolded by the 
 Tov ardoToAoy kai apylepéa THE duoAoyiac Huov immediately following, inasmuch 
 as by these designations the preceding total-characterization of Christ is 
 recapitulated in its two main features (vid. infra). For if the author says: 
 “Therefore regard well Jesus, the axdécrodoc kai apyepede rie dpuodhoyiac 
 juav!” that is only a Greek form of expression for the thought: “ There- 
 fore, because Jesus is the azéatodoc Kai apytepede Tc buodoyiac Hudv, regard 
 Him well! ”’—dadeAgoi ayior] belongs together. With Michaelis, to separate 
 the two words from each other by acomma, would be permissible only if 
 by the isolation thereof a gradation were obtained. But this is not the 
 case; since then only two relations parallel to each other, namely, on the 
 one side the relation of the readers to the author (dadeAgoi), and on the 
 other side their relation to the non-Christian world (ayov), would be ren- 
 dered separately prominent.—dadeAgo/] designates the readers not as 
 brethren of Christ (so with an unwarranted appeal to ii. 11, 12, 17, Peirce, 
 Michaelis, Carpzov, Pyle; comp. also Delitzsch, according to whom this 
 is at least also to be thought of), nor does it express the brotherly relation 
 in the national sense, 7. e. the descent from the Jewish people common to 
 the author and readers (Chr. Fr. Schmid), but has reference to the spirit- 
 ual, ideal brotherly relationship, into which author and recipients of the 
 letter have been brought towards each other by the common bond of 
 Christianity.—xAjoews éxovpaviov pétoyor] ye who are partakers of a heavenly 
 calling. This second direct address—to which Grotius needlessly supplies 
 “ nobiscum ’’—strengthens the former, and the two forms of address ex- 
 plain the ground of the obligation to the xaravoei, by pointing to the 
 reader’s state of grace. k«Ajovce stands actively. It denotes the call or 
 invitation, which God! has by Christ given to the readers, to participation 
 in the Messianic kingdom. This calling, however, is termed ézovpdvcoc, 
 either because the blessings, the possession of which it promises, are exist- 
 ent, in heaven and of heavenly nature (Grotius, al.), or, what is more 
 probable, because they have come to men from heaven [so Owen], where 
 God their supreme author has His throne, and whence Christ their pro- 
 claimer and procurer (Vermittler) was sent forth. It is possible, however, 
 that both references are to be combined: “a calling which proceeds from 
 heaven and leads to heaven.” *—karavofeare]| direct your view to Jesus, sc. in 
 order to cleave firmly to Him; regard well what He is and what you have 
 in Him!—rdv ardorotov Kai apyuepéa tHe dpuodoyiac judv|] [XLVIII b.] the 
 Envoy und High Priest of our confession, is comprehended into a unity of 
 idea by the article 76v only once placed (“ Him who is azéorodoc and apyee- 
 pebe in one person ”’), in connection with which rie éuoAoyiag juov is then 
 also most naturally referred in equal degree to both substantives. r17¢ 
 bpmoAoyiac uv, however,is not to be resolved into dv duoAoyoduev (Luther, 
 
 1 For God, as everywhere with Paul also, not 2So Bengel, Tholuck, Stuart, Ebrard, Bis- 
 Christ, as Delitzsch supposes, is thought of as ping, Delitasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Heb- 
 the cadav, riéerbr. p. 693; Alford, Maier, Kurtz, and others. 
 
CHAP. Ill. 2. 457 
 
 Cameron, Calov, Wolf, de Wette, Maier, and others; similarly Delitzsch: 
 “who is the subject-matter of our confession ; ” and Riehm, Lehrbegr. des 
 Hebrierbr. p. 427 f.: “who appertains to our confession ”’), but stands, like 
 rior, Gal. i. 23, and éric, Col. i. 5, objectively : of our Christian confession 
 (of our evangelical faith). Comp. iv. 14, x. 23; 2 Cor. ix. 193) Dian: vi. 
 12,13. [So Calvin, Piscator, Owen (with hesitation), Stuart.] The opposi- 
 tion is to the pre-Christian or Mosaic confession, without, however, the 
 emphasis, as Kurtz supposes, falling upon juov, which is forbidden by the 
 position of the words: The deputed One (sc. of God) for our confession, t. e. 
 sent by God (comp. Gal. iv. 4; Matt. x. 40, al.) in order to bring about our 
 confession or Christian faith. The signification “mediator,” which Tho- 
 luck attaches to the word dréoroAoc, after the example of Braun and 
 others, appealing in favor thereof to the authority of Rabbinico-talmudic 
 usage, the latter never has. The notion of mediator follows, alike for 
 anéoronov as also for dpyepéa, only from the context. By azécrodoy, 
 namely, is referred back to the main thought of the last and highest di- 
 vine revelation (the Aadeiv), contained in Christ, of which the writer has 
 treated i. 1-11. 4; by apycepéa, to the main thought of the reconciliation 
 of sinful humanity to God by Christ, then further treated in the second 
 chapter. Aptly, therefore, does Bengel distinguish azéorodov and apyiepéa 
 as “eum, qui Dei causam apud nos agit” and “ qui nostram causam apud 
 Deum agit.” 
 
 Ver. 2. [XLVIII ¢.] The discourse takes a turn, by virtue of a further 
 alleging of reasons for the katavogcare, to the comparison of Jesus with 
 Moses, in that first of all the relation of parity between the two is brought 
 prominently forward. The O. T. passage which the author here has under 
 consideration is Num. xii. 7, where Moses is designated by God as faithful 
 in all His house.—évra] characterizes the being faithful as an inherent 
 property; the sense of a strict present is not to be asserted for the parti- 
 ciple (with Seb. Schmidt and Bleek), according to which we should have 
 to think only of an exalted Christ ; rather does mordv dvra attach itself as 
 well tothe notion Ijcovv tiv ardotodov THC dpohoyiacg nuav as to the notion 
 ‘Inoovv Tov apyrepéa THE Suoroyiac jpuav; dvta embraces, therefore, equally 
 the time from which Christ, as the incarnate Son of God, had appeared 
 upon earth, and the time from which He, invested with the high-priestly 
 dignity, has returned to the Father, and now continues to fulfill in heaven 
 His high-priestly office.—r@ roujoarre avtév] [XLVIII d 1.] Periphrasis 
 of God: Him who created Him. Only this sense of the calling forth into 
 eristence can the word oveiv have when placed absolutely ; comp. LXX. 
 Isa. xvii. 7, xliii. 1, li. 18; Hos. viii. 14; Job xxxv. 10: Ps. xev. 6, cxlix. 2; 
 Ecclus. vii. 30, ai. Rightly is this accepted by the early Latin translation 
 of the codd. D E (fidelem esse creatori suo), Ambrose (de fide, 3. 11), Vigi- 
 lius Tapsensis (contra Varimadum, p. 729), Primasius, Schulz, Bleek, 
 Alford, Kurtz, and Hofmann. Contrary to linguistic usage—for an appeal 
 cannot be made to 1 Sam. xii. 6 (where roviv (NW) has its ordinary sig- 
 nification), and still less to Mark iii. 14 (where a nearer defining is given 
 to the verb by means of iva «.7./.), or to Acts 11. 36 (where a double accusa- 
 
458 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 tive is found)—do Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
 Vatablus, Clarius [Calvin], Cameron, Piscator, Grotius, Owen, Wolf, 
 Bengel, B6hme, Kuinoel, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Stuart, Ebrard, 
 Bisping, Delitasch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 286 f.), Reuss, Maier, 
 Kluge, Moll, M’Caul, Woerner, and the majority, interpret 76 moujoavre 
 either by : who appointed Him thereto (sc. Apostle and High Priest), or 
 ordained Him thereto; or—what amounts to the same thing—explaining 
 the supplementing of a second accusative to woujoavre as unnecessary, by : 
 who set Him forth upon the stage of history. Whether, for the rest, the 
 author referred the notion of having created to the incarnation of Christ, 
 as the above-mentioned early ecclesiastical writers suppose, or to His 
 premundane generation as the First-born (cf. 1. 5, 6), which Bleek rightly 
 regards as at least possible, cannot be determined.’—é¢ kai Moio7e] se. 
 miotoe Fv TO Touwoavte avtév.i—iv bAw TO oikw adtov] does not belong to 
 avtév, in such wise that we have, with Calvin, 
 Paulus, Bleek, Ebrard, and Hofmann, to enclose o¢ kai Mwioy¢ within 
 commas, but it is to be comprehended with ¢ xai Mwivoje (de Wette, 
 Kurtz, and the majority). For not only, Num. xii. 7, do the words 
 appended: év 62 7@ olxw aitod, stand in special relation to Moses,—so 
 that the author might very well derive from that place the same addition 
 with the same special reference to Moses,—but also the equal reference 
 of év 62 T@ oikw avtov to Christ, as to Moses, would be unsuitable to the 
 connection with that which follows, since the author, ver. 5 and ver. 6, 
 definitely distinguishes the place occupied by Moses, as the position of a 
 servant év 6%» 7 oiky, from the place occupied by Christ, as a position 
 of ruler éx? rév olxov; and in harmony with this distinction, already ver. 
 3 characterizes Moses as merely a member of the oj«o¢g itself; Christ, on 
 the other hand, a¢ the founder of the oixoc.—airod] refers neither to Christ 
 (Bleek) nor to Moses (Oecumenius and others), but, as also determined by 
 the form of the expression with the LXX. (éy 62» 76 oixp pov), to God.— 
 But the house of God is the people of God, or the kingdom of God; and 
 iv denotes the province, in the administration of which the mordv eivac was 
 made manifest. 
 
 Ver. 3.2 [XLVIII d 2.] Continued alleging of reasons for the karavogeare, 
 ver. 1, in bringing into more distinct relief the exaltedness of Christ above 
 Moses. Ver. 3 is not, as de Wette supposes, explication or analysis of 
 
 TLOTOV OVTA TO TOolyoavT 
 
 1 That which Delitzsch urges against either 
 possibility, namely, that “although the man 
 Jesus as such, so far as that which is essential 
 in the notion of creation is the state of be- 
 ginning in time, must be regarded as a 
 creature, there could be no more unsuitable 
 expression—because one almost unmean- 
 ingly colorless, or even indecorous—for the 
 matchless and unique act of the formation 
 of the humanity of the Son in the womb of 
 Mary, than the term zovecv, for the use of 
 which, in this sense, no instances can on that 
 very account be adduced;” and that “after 
 
 the author has, i. 2, employed movety as ex- 
 pression of the pure idea of ereation, he could 
 surely not now have employed it of the sub- 
 limer genesis of the Mediator of the world’s 
 creation,” falls to pieces, because it rests 
 upon mere ‘subjectivity. For it is nothing 
 more than a pronouncing upon the mind of 
 the writer from the standpoint of the critie’s 
 own ready-formed dogmaties. 
 
 2Comp. Gabler, Dissert. exeg. in illustrem 
 locum Heb. iii. 3-6, Jena 1778. (Reprinted in 
 the Opusce. acad. vol. II. Ulm 1831, 8.) 
 
CHAP. Im.) 3,4: 459 
 
 ver.2. For a placing upon a parallel cannot be explained or analyzed by 
 a placing superior.—oiroc] se. "Incoie —On wapa after a comparative, see 
 at i. 4.—7giwra] has been counted worthy, sc. by God. The verb stands, as 
 ordinarily (comp. 2 Thess. i. 5, 11; 1 Tim. v. 17; Heb. x. 29), in the real 
 sense, so that it includes the notion of the possession obtained.—The 
 figure in the proposition of comparison, kaé’ dcov mieiova Timyv EyxeEL 
 Tov oixov x.7.A., is Occasioned by the preceding é b/w 76 oixw adtov 
 added in ver. 2. The words contain a truth of universal validity, the 
 application of which, for the rest, to Christ and Moses, follows of itself. 
 Greater honor than the house (in the wider sense [of household], the 
 family and servants included therein) has he who has prepared it. Thus, 
 also, Christ stands higher in honor and glory than Moses. For founder 
 and establisher of the house of God, or the divine kingdom,—which in its 
 first formations reaches back to the time of the Old Covenant, but by the 
 New Covenant comes to full realization,—is Christ ; while Moses is only a 
 part of the olxog¢ itself, only a (ministering, cf. ver. 5) member of this 
 house, or an oix«éry7¢ in the same. Confusing and full of caprice is the 
 indication of the connection of thought of vv. 8-6 as given by Delitzsch. 
 See, in opposition to him, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. p. 809.—rov oixov] 
 is governed by the comparative rAeiova: more (greater) honor than the house. 
 Mistakenly do Homberg, Wolf, Peirce, Michaelis, Heumann, Semler, 
 Morus, Ernesti, Heinrichs, Paulus, Stengel, and others make it depend 
 upon tiuqv: greater honor of the house, or in the house.—karackevagew] im- 
 plies more than oixodoveiv. Not only the erection of the house, but also 
 the arrangement thereof, the providing of it with the necessary furniture 
 and servants, is thereby expressed. 
 
 Ver. 4. [XLVIII d3.] The author has spoken, ver. 2, of the house of 
 God, and yet, ver. 3, has ascribed the founding and preparing of the same 
 to Christ. For the justification of this apparent contradiction does the 
 remark, ver. 4, serve. Although every house has its special preparer, yet 
 this notwithstanding, it is God who has prepared all things. That special 
 foundership of Christ does not exclude the universal higher foundership 
 of God. The proposition ver. 4 is incidental to the main argument. It is 
 not, however, to be enclosed in a parenthesis, because abrov, ver. 5, refers 
 back to 6eé¢, ver. 4.—In the second clause, #eé¢ is subject, and 6 dé 
 mavta kataokevacag predicate. Wrongly has @eé¢ been ordinarily 
 taken by others as predicate, and as subject either 6 d& ravta kataoxevdcac 
 or merely 6 dé, since avra Kkatackevacac was taken as a defining adjunct. 
 The second member of the proposition was then referred to Christ, and 
 the statement found therein that Christ is God.! But with this thought 
 the sequel is not in keeping. For not of Christ’s being God, but of His 
 exalted relation to the house of God as the vide, while Moses was only a 
 Gepaxwv, does the author speak, vv. 5, 6.—7avra] denotes not the univer- 
 
 1So Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Schmidt, Wittich, Braun, Akersloot, Calmet, 
 Clarius, Beza, Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Corne- Bengel, Cramer, Whitby. Stuart, Baumgarten, 
 lius a Lapide, Cameron, Piscator, Owen, Seb. and many others; also still Woerner. 
 
460 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 sality of all created things, thought of as a unity, but in general: each and 
 all, that exists. 
 
 Ver. 5 as far as airov, ver. 6. Return to the point of comparison between 
 Christ and Moses, ver. 2 (7vo76¢), and the exaltedness of the former above 
 the latter, ver. 3 (vidc, émi .. . Gepadmwr, év).—xai] is the more sharply- 
 defining “and indeed ;” whereas év serves to bring into relief the per- 
 sonal name Moioye, and finds in Xpioréc¢ dé, ver. 6, its emphatic opposition. 
 Vy. 5, 6 init. does not, accordingly, contain a second proof for the superior- 
 ity of Christ to Moses! but is only a more detailed unfolding of the 
 thoughts, ver. 2 and ver. 3.—zuoréc] sc. #v, or else éoriv, in connection 
 with which latter mode of supplementing, the thought would be less of 
 the historic fact as such, than of the fact as it still continues present in the 
 O. T. narrative.—airov] refers not to Mwio7c (as Ebrard assumes, since he 
 starts with the erroneous presupposition that the author speaks of a 
 twofold oixoc, and that the design of vv. 5,6 was just that of rendering 
 clearly apparent the difference of the house entrusted to Moses on the 
 one hand, and that entrusted to Christ on the other), but to 6eéc, ver. 4.— 
 &¢ Oepatwv] in his capacity as servant, comp. Num. xii. 7. Upon this, as 
 upon the preceding év, rests the emphasis of ver. 5.—ei¢ wapripiov] belongs 
 It is unnaturally referred back by Estius, Seb. Schmidt, Sten- 
 gel, and others to micté¢e.—eic paptipiov tov Aadnfjoouévov] [XLVIII d 4.] 
 to give testimony to that which should be spoken, or proclaimed to the people. 
 Ta AadAyOno6ueva are not the revelations afterwards to be given in Christ,? 
 which must have been more precisely specified ; and still less does the 
 expression indicate; ‘dicenda a nobis in hac epistola de cerimoniis earum- 
 que significatione et usu” (Pareus), but the law to be proclaimed by Moses, 
 at the mandate of God, to the Jewish people is intended. 
 
 Ver. 6. Xpictic dé de vidc] Christ, on the other hand, in His capacity as 
 Son, sc. riotég éotw. Upon this supplement depends é7? rév olkov avrow 
 (comp. Matt. xxv. 21, 23); and as vide forms an ascent from the preceding 
 Oeparuav, so does éxi form.an ascent from the preceding év. Erasmus, 
 Paraphr. ; Vatablus, Piscator, Grotius, Delitzsch, Moll, and others supply 
 to Xpicric 62 . . . aitovd simply éoriv, whereby, however, the relation of 
 just proportion between ver. 5 and ver. 6 is destroyed. The opening 
 words of ver. 5, moreover,—inasmuch as they attach themselves not only 
 to ver. 3, but also again to ver. 2,—manifestly point to the fact that the 
 author will indicate not the mere difference between Christ and Moses, but 
 their difference within the quality common to both. Yet others, as Bleek, 
 de Wette, and Bisping, supply a double mvoréc éorw, the first after Xpuord¢ 
 dé, the second after airot; since* they refer airov back to vide: Christ, 
 however, is faithful, as a son is faithful over his house. But a satisfactory 
 ground for taking oixo¢ airov, ver. 6, otherwise than the same expression 
 
 “ 
 
 to feparur. 
 
 1Calvin, Bengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Woer- 
 ner. 
 
 2 Erasmus, Calvin, Cameron, Caloyv, Seb. 
 Schmidt, Owen, Limboreh, Wolf, Wetstein, 
 Ebrard, Delitazsch, Alford, Moll, Fwald, 
 
 M’Caul, Woerner, and others. 
 
 8As the Vulgate, Beza, Estius, Grotius, 
 Owen, Er. Schmid, Calov, Wolf, Carpzov, 
 Cramer, Baumgarten, Gabler, Valekenaer, 
 Béhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Tholuck, and others. 
 
CHAP, Il. 5, 6. 461 
 
 ver. 5, is not to be found. The house of God, or the divine kingdom, is 
 for Moses and Christ the common sphere of operation; only by the posi- 
 tion which the two occupy towards this house, are they distinguished the 
 one from the other.—As avroi, ver. 6, so is the relative oi, with which 
 the author prepares the way for a transition to the paraenesis, not to be 
 referred to Christ,’ but to God ;? [XLVIII d 5.] although as regards the 
 matter itself even the former reference would not be incorrect, since the 
 house of God, ver. 2, is likewise characterized as the house of Christ, 
 ver. 3.—The article before oixo¢ was not imperatively required, although 
 the whole Christian community forms a single indivisible house of God, 
 since the notion of the word was one sufficiently well known, and, more- 
 over, adequately defined by that which precedes—The absolute declara- 
 tion: of oiké¢ éowev gueic, onthe import of which 1 Cor. iii. 9, 16, 2 Cor. 
 vi. 16, Eph. ii. 20 ff, 1 Tim. iii. 15, 1 Pet. ii. 5, iv. 17, is to be compared, 
 and which is taken in a strangely perverted way by Ebrard (p. 187) and 
 Delitzsch as the logical antithesis to sic wapripiov tov AaAnOyoouévov, ver. 5, 
 the author limits by a condition—The fuller éavzep is foreign to the 
 epistles of Paul.—rjv rappyciav] not the bold confession* to which BeBaiav 
 kataoyouev Would not be fitting, but cheerful confidence as a disposition. 
 Comp. iv. 16, x.19,35. riv rappyoiav, to which rye éAridoc® belongs in 
 like manner as to 7d xabyjua (against Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 
 739), is the main idea, whereas «ai 7d kai yyua adds only an explicative 
 subsidiary factor. That is manifest from the feminine BefSaiav (which 
 Stengel wonderfully refers back, in a constructio ad sensum, to éAridoc). 
 Instances of the agreement of the adjective in point of gender with the 
 remoter substantive, in cases where this forms the principal idea, occur 
 also with the classics.“—The é47ic¢ is the Christians’ hope of the consum- 
 mation of the kingdom of God, and the glorification of the Christians 
 bound up therewith. Comp. Rom. v. 2, also Heb. vi. 11, 18, vii. 19, x. 23. 
 kat yyua, however, is not here either equivalent to kabyyovc,’ any more 
 
 1Oecumenius, Jac. Cappellus, Piscator, 4Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Hammond, 
 
 Owen, Whitby, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, 
 Woerner, al. 
 
 2Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Stengel, 
 Stuart, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, 
 Hofmann, and others. 
 
 3 Philo, too, often employs the same figure, 
 applying it to the human soul. Comp. de 
 Somn. p. 587 E (ed. Mangey, I. p. 648): o7ov- 
 Sagov ov, ® Wux7y, Aeov oikos yeveoOat, iepov 
 ayvov x.t.A.—De resip. Noé, p. 282 E (ed. Man- 
 gey, I. p. 402): tis yap otkos mapa yevéoer Sv- 
 vat av akvompeméeotepos evpeOjvar bea mAHV 
 Wux7js TeAElws Kekabapwevns Kal movov TO KaAOV 
 Hyoupevns ayabov;...katoxery dé A€yeTar ev 
 OLKw 0 Beds OVX ws EV TOTH (TEpLEXEL yap Ta TATA 
 mpos uydevos meptexXomevos), AAA’ ws TpOvoLay Kal 
 empeAeray exelvou TOV Xwplov SiahepovTws ToLov- 
 fLevos’ TavTt yap Tw dSeamoCovTe oiKias 4 TavTHS 
 KaTa TO avaykatov avymTat dpovtis. 
 
 Limborch, Whitby, Heinrichs, and others. 
 
 5 Both words are found combined in Jo- 
 sephus likewise, Antig. xvi.3.3: kat Sevvos Ov 
 Tov Tpomov ‘Avtimatpos, emerdy Tappynaias 
 TLVOS THS OV TPOTEPOV OVAGHSEATLOOS 
 QVTETOLHTAaTO, play EoxeV UTdOETLY KaKOUV 
 Tovs adeAdous, K.T.A. 
 
 ®Comp. Hom. Jl. xv. 344: tradpw kat oxo- 
 Aomecou evimaAnéavtes OpuKTH; Hesiod. Theo- 
 gon. 972 f.: Os cio’ emt yhv Te, kal evpeéa vata 
 Garacons, Tagoav; Xenophon, Anab. i. 5.6: 
 0 6€ aiyAos S¥vaTat Emta OBOAOVS Kal nuLoBo- 
 Avoy “AtTiKxovs; Thucydides, viii. 63: mué@o- 
 MEVOS Ta TEPL THY vavmaxiay Kai TOV STpoOL- 
 Buxtdnv kai tas vats ameAnAvOoTa. See 
 Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 431. 
 
 7 Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Stengel, Bis- 
 ping, Maier, and others. 
 
462 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 than 2 Cor. y. 12, ix. 8, which have been unwarrantably appealed to (see 
 Meyer ad loc.), but denotes the subject of the boasting. Sense: provided 
 we shall have maintained the Christians’ hope as a cheerful confidence and sub- 
 ject of boasting firm unto the end.—péxpe tédovc] not: until the death of each 
 individual (Schlichting, Grotius, Kuinoel) ; not: “until the final decision 
 of the readers in favor of going over to Christianity ” (! Ebrard), but as 
 ver. 14, vi. 11, 1 Cor. 1. 8, al., unto the end of the present order of the world, 
 intervening with the coming again of Christ, and thought of as in the 
 near future (comp. x. 25, 37), at which time faith shall pass over into sight, 
 hope into possession. 
 
 Ver. 7-iv. 138. [On Vv. 7-14, see Note XLIX., pages 472, 473.] The author, 
 in detailed development of the paraenesis already contained in vv. 1, 6, 
 warns against unbelief and apostasy, making the basis of this warning the 
 admonitory utterance of Scripture in Ps. xcv. 7-11; and by means of a 
 parallelizing of the people of God of the present time, 7. e. the Christians, 
 with the people of God of Moses’ day, ¢.e. the Israelite fathers in the 
 wilderness,—a parallelizing equally suggested by this passage of Scripture 
 as by the preceding comparison of Christ with Moses,—he sets forth 
 before the eyes of his readers the fate of the ancient people of God, who 
 because of their unbelief were consigned to destruction, that the readers 
 may earnestly ponder thereon. [XLIX a.] 
 
 Ver. 7. Aw] [XLIX b.] Wherefore, i.e. either: because Christ stands 
 higher than Moses,! or, which is better: because we are the olxog of God, 
 only in the case that we hold fast the rappyoia and the kabynua of the 
 Christian hope unto the end (ver. 6). [XLIX c.] The tempus finitum 
 belonging to Avé is BAémere, ver. 12,” in such wise that xafoc . . . Katdrav- 
 civ wov forms an intervening clause. The length of the intervening clause, 
 at which de Wette*takes umbrage, decides nothing against the supposition 
 of such construction, which at all events possesses the advantage of 
 greater regularity and naturalness, since the author, owing to the care 
 which he everywhere bestows upon his diction, in other cases, too, accur- 
 ately fits in his discourse again to the opening words of the proposition, 
 notwithstanding the occurrence of lengthy intervening clauses. Comp. 
 vii. 20-22, xii. 18-24. That, moreover, which de Wette further objects, 
 that in the intervening clause the discourse takes a new departure with 
 66, ver. 10, forms no valid counter-argument, since the connectedness of 
 the preceding and following words as part of a Biblical citation follows 
 naturally. In any case, ver. 10 connects itself with that which precedes, 
 without a new beginning, in a simply relative fashion, if—as we are per- 
 fectly justified in doing—we write 6’ 6 instead of 6:6. When de Wette, 
 finally, discovers a difficulty in the fact that the warning, vy. 12, 18, does 
 not appear in the form of a simple application of the passage of Scripture, 
 but, on the contrary, begins with an analysis of the same, this also is 
 
 1S0 Carpzov, Zachariae, Boéhme, Stuart, tor, Pareus, Grotius, Owen, Seb. Schmidt, 
 
 Kurtz, and Woerner; comp. already Schlicht- Limborch, Bengel, Peirce, Carpzov, Wetstein, 
 ing. Abresch, Zachariae, B6hme, Bleek, Bisping, 
 
 2Erasmus, Annott.; Calvin, Estius, .Pisca- Alford, Kurtz, Woerner, al. 
 
CHAP. UI. 7-9. 463 
 
 without weight, inasmuch as the correctness of this assumed fact must 
 itself be contested. In addition to this, if the author had conceived of 
 the structure otherwise than has been indicated, he would assuredly have 
 ‘placed Baérere obv, ver. 12, instead of the disconnected aéxere. For 
 neither is it permissible to appeal (with Tholuck) to the disconnected 
 Baémere, xii. 25, in proof of the opposite, since this passage, on account of 
 the rhetorical character of the description which there immediately 
 precedes, is totally different from ours. Others,! connect 6:6 immediately 
 with py oKkAypivyte, in connection with which, however, the direct address 
 of God, coming in ver. 9 ff, occasions a great harshness; or else,” leave 
 the application yy oKAnpbvyte tag Kapdiac ijuov to be supplied in thought 
 from these words; or, finally, supplement 6vé in a somewhat free manner : 
 therefore conduct yourselves in accordance with that which the Holy Ghost speaks. 
 —rd mveipa Td Gywov] the Spirit of God in prophecy; comp. ix. 8, x. 15.— 
 ahwepov éav THE Pwvig avtov axovoyre] isin the Hebrew apown Yopa-DN D177) 
 an independent clause, and the expression of a wish: “would that you 
 would only to-day listen to His (God’s) voice!” It is possible that the 
 LXX. also understood the words as a wish, since elsewhere, too (e.g. Ps. 
 exxxix. 19), they render the particle of wishing, 0%, by édv. Differently, 
 however, does the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews take the words 
 (against Hofmann). He regards éav as the protasis, and ji okAnpivyTe as 
 the apodosis; comp. ver. 165, iv. 7.—In the application of#uepov denotes 
 the time of salvation which has come in with the appearing of Christ 
 upon earth, and 7 gev7y abrov the voice of God which through Christ 
 sounds forth to the readers by means of the gracious message of the 
 _ gospel. 
 
 Ver. 8. Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation (contumacy), on the 
 day of temptation in the wilderness. In the original, xaparcxpacpoc and 
 meppacusc are proper names (“as at Meribah, as on the day of Massah in 
 the wilderness” [13°V23 799 B72 N23), which, however, are under- 
 stood by the author in the appellative sense (comp. ver. 16), in that he 
 takes kata tiv quépav Tov TELpacuwov aS an epexegetical note of time to év 
 1@ mapazuxpacu@. On the history, comp. Hx xy. J-7-) Num. xx, 1-15. 
 tov reipacuov] in the active sense : the tempting of God by contumacious 
 behavior, comp. ver. 9. 
 
 Ver. 9. 0d] is taken by Erasmus Schmid, Bengel, and Pierce as attrac- 
 tion to wecpacuov instead of @, wherewith. But in this case od would have 
 been connected immediately with wepacuov. It is the local ‘“ where;” 
 thus stands, as frequently, in the sense of érov, and refers back to ép7u@.— 
 ov éreipacav of Tatép|es tuav Ev SoKL“acL a] where your fathers essayed tempta- 
 tion, onthe ground of proving or testing, i. e. where your fathers tempted me * 
 and put me to the test. dokcuacia as weipacecv here in the bad sense. 
 
 1As Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Wittich, appeal to Rom. xv. 3, 21,1 Cor. i. 31, 11. 9: 
 
 Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Stengel, Eb- 3In an unnatural manner, Hofmann: as 
 rard, Bloomfield, Delitasch, Reuss, and Hof- eldov, so also even émetpagav finds its object in 
 mann. Ta Epya Mov. 
 
 2As Tholuck, de Wette, and Maier, who 
 
464 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 The former contains an enhancement of the latter. This involves doubt 
 with regard to the inclination of God to render help, that doubt with 
 regard to His power of doing s0.—kai eidov] «.7.4.] and yet saw my works 
 forty years long. This was a fact that aggravated their guilt. In the 
 original, reocapdxovra éry belongs to the following zpocdyfica. To the 
 author of the Epistle to the Hebrews also this original connection was 
 known, as is evident from ver. 17. If he nevertheless refers reooapdaxovra 
 érn to that which precedes, and moreover consolidates this connection by 
 means of the dé (d’ 6) interpolated only by himself, he must have been 
 guided by a distinct design in doing so. Rightly, therefore, is it assumed! 
 that the author discovered in the forty years during which the Israelites 
 in the wilderness saw the works of God, a typical reference to the about 
 equal space of time during which the Hebrews had now also witnessed 
 the government of God as manifested in Christ, and would make this 
 reference clear to the readers, in order thereby to render the more impres- 
 sive his exhortation to receptiveness, while there is yet time. The 
 reminder of Akersloot, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Abresch, Bleek, and others, is at 
 the same time worthy of notice, viz. that also in the Talmud and by the 
 Rabbins a duration of forty years is assigned to the Messianic kingdom 
 with reference to Ps. xev. and the forty years of the wilderness. 
 
 Ver. 10. Ad rpocdybica tH yeved tatty] Wherefore I conceiwed an aversion, 
 or was incensed against this generation —On 46:6, see at ver. 9. The verb 
 rpocoxbifecv, is not found at all in the classics, in the N. T. only here 
 and ver. 17; with the LXX., on the other hand, very frequently —In 
 yeved lies neither the subordinate notion of meanness (Heinrichs, Sten- 
 gel), nor yet the intimation that the men of acertain period belong in 
 point of character and mind to a definite class (Bleek). Each of these 
 subordinate notiohs ry yeved acquires only by the ratty which is added.— 
 dei] note of time to zAavévra, not to eitov (Erasmus).—avroi dé] So the 
 LXX. in the Cod. Alex., whose form of the text the author for the most 
 part reproduces; the Cod. Vatican. has more in accordance with the 
 Hebrew: kai abrot obk éyvocay. 
 
 Ver. 11: ‘Qe dpoca év tH opyh uov] as accordingly T (as to the sense equiv- 
 alent to: so thatI; see Winer, p. 431 [E. T. 462]; in the Hebrew WW) 
 sware (comp. Num. xiv. 21 ff., xxxii. 10 ff.; Deut. i. 34 ff) mm (not: by) my 
 wrath.—ei ticeAeboovtar ete THY KaTaravoiv wov] not enter, shall they, into my rest. 
 ei is an exact imitation of the negative Hebrew particle D8 in formulas of 
 swearing, and is to be explained from an aposiopesis of the latter clause.’ 
 —xartdravoic] in the sense of the psalmist, the undisturbed possession of 
 
 1Calov, Wittich, Akersloot, Surenhus, 
 Schottgen, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Abresch, Béhme, 
 Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. 
 des Hebrderbr. p. 618; Alford, Reiche, Comm. 
 Crit. p. 22; Maier, Moll, Kurtz, and others, 
 
 2Comp. Sanhedr. fol. 99,1: R. Eliezer dixit: 
 dies Messiae sunt quadraginta anni, sicut 
 dicitur: quadraginta annos sqq. (Ps. xev. 10): 
 
 Tanchuma, fol. 79, 4: Quamdiu durant anni 
 Messiae? R. Akiba dixit: quadraginta an- 
 nos quemadmodum Israélitae per tot annos in 
 deserto fuerunt. 
 
 8 Comp. Mark viii. 12; Ewald, Krit. Gramm. 
 p.. 661; Winer, p. 466 [E. T. 500]; Buttmann, 
 Neut. Gr. p. 308 [E. T. 358). 
 
CHAP, 11. 10-12. 465 
 the land of Canaan promised by God. Afterwards, because with the 
 possession of the promised land the expected full repose and happiness 
 had as yet by no means come in, the ‘meaning of the promise was subli- 
 mated, just as that of the kindred «Aypovoyetw tiv yiv Ps. XXXVil. 9, into the 
 everlasting Messianic blessedness. This reference obtains, as is evident 
 from the following disquisition, with our author also. 
 
 Vy. 12, 18. [XLIX d.] Close of the period begun with 61, ver. 7.—BAé- 
 mere] beware, take heed.—uy mote éorac] py after BAére, dpa, and similar 
 words, with the indicative future (comp. Col. ii. 8), expresses at the same 
 time with the warning, the fear that the warning will be slighted? The 
 enclitic tore appended to the 4, not: at any time (Beza and others), but: 
 haply [ii. 1; Luke xiv. 29; Acts v. 39; Matt. iv. 6, ete.]—éy ra buoy] dif- 
 ferent from év tuiv. Calvin: Nec tantum in universum praecipit aposto- 
 lus, ut sibi omnes caveant, sed vult ita de salute cujusque membri esse 
 sollicitos, ne quem omnino ex iis, qui semel vocati fuerint, sua negligen- 
 tia perire sinant. Comp. ver. 13, x. 24, xii. 15.—xapdia rovnpa arwotiac] an 
 evil heart of unbelief; comp. iv. 2, 8. Wrongly Schulz and others: of 
 faithlessness or areifera, iv. 6, 11, ii. 18; for the latter is only the conse- 
 quence of the amoria. amcoriag is either genitive of origin, which pro- 
 ceeds from unbelief (Owen, Bleek, Stengel, and others), or genitive of 
 result, which leads to unbelief, renders inclined to the same (de Wette, 
 Bisping, al.), or genitive of reference to a more precise characterization of 
 rovnod: a heart evil (on account) of unbelief, which is then equivalent to 
 kapdia Tovnplav axcoriac éxovoa (So Winer, p. 183 [E. T. 194.]; Ebrard, 
 Alford, Meyer, Moll, and Hofmann). The last acceptation is to be pre- 
 ferred, since thereby amoriac is more clearly brought out as the main idea 
 (for kapdia rovnpd is only a clothing of the same attaching itself to aet rAa- 
 vovrat TH Kapdia, ver. 10).—év TO arroorHvat ard Heod Cévroc] More precise defi- 
 nition ® to amoriac for the declaration of the outward form of appearance, 
 ‘in which the inner unbelief comes forth : in the falling away from the living 
 God, or in such wise that a falling away from the living God takes place. God 
 (not Christ: Gerhard, Dorscheus, Calov, 8. Schmidt, Schéttgen, Carpzov, 
 al.) is called living, not in opposition to the dead works of the law (ix. 14, 
 vi. 1; Bleek), nor in opposition to the idols of the heathen, similarly as 
 2 Kings xix. 16, 1 Thess. i. 9, 2 Cor. vi. 16, Acts xiv. 15 (Béhme and 
 others)—both of which must have been suggested by the context,—but 
 because He does not allow His declared will to be slighted with impunity. 
 Comp. x.31. That which is meant is the relapse from Christianity into 
 Judaism.‘ 
 
 1Comp. Deut. xii. 9,10: Ob yap nKaTe Ews TOD 
 vov €is THY KaTaTavoLY' kal eis THY KANpOoVvoLiar, 
 hv KUptos O Beds Hav Sidwory Duty’ Kat dcaBy- 
 geabe Tov lopdavyny kai kaTouknoeTe emt THS YS, 
 Fis KUptos 0 Geds Huo@v KaTakAnpovopel UmiV Kat 
 KaTaTavoel Vas amd TaVYTWY TOV €XOpaV VMaV 
 TOV KUKAwW Kal KATOLKHTETE ETA aopadrelas. 
 
 2 Comp. Winer, p. 468 f. [E. T. 503]; Hartung, 
 Partikellehre, Il. p. 140. 
 
 30 
 
 3Schlichting: Duplex est enim increduli- 
 tas; una eorum, qui nunquam Deo credunt; 
 altera eorum, qui credere desinunt, h. e. a 
 Deo desciscunt seu apostatae fiunt. 
 
 4Limborch: Defectio hic intelligitur a re- 
 ligione Christiana; quia enim illa continetur 
 ultima ac perfecta Dei voluntas, hine sequi- 
 tur, quod is, quia a religione Christiana deficit, 
 ab ipso Deo deficiat. Ergo quicunque deserta 
 
466 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Ver. 13. ‘Eavroic] tantamount to 44A42.0vc, comp. 1 Cor. vi. 7; Eph. iv. 
 32; Col. iii. 13; 1 Thess. v. 18; 1 Pet. iv. 8, al. ; Kihner, II. p. 325.—aypec 
 ov] [XLIX e.] in the inclusive sense: as far as that, 7.e. so long as.’ aypuc 
 ov Td ohuepov Kadeitar] so long as the to-day, of which mention is made in the 
 passage of the psalm, is named, or: so long as it is still called “ to-day,” 
 and it is thus not yet too late to be obedient to the admonition of the 
 psalm? Others:* so long as that to-day of the psalm is called out, i.e. is 
 called out, or proclaimed, to you.—The “ to-day ” is not the duration of the 
 lifetime of the individuals,t but (comp. péype tédovc, vv. 6, 14) the continued 
 existence of the earthly world, which, with the Parousia of Christ—thought 
 of as near at hand (x. 25, 37)—attains its end.—dardry rij¢ duapriac] by the 
 deception (the treacherous enticement or alluring) of sin. The duapria 
 is here personified, comp. Rom. vii. 11. What is meant is the allurement 
 exerted by the seductive splendor of the ancient cultus to a relapse into 
 the same, and therewith to an apostasy from Christianity. 
 
 Ver. 14. Warning justification of iva py) oxAnpyvOh gE budv Tuc k.7.A., ver. 18, 
 inasmuch as the fulfilling of a condition is necessary to the attainment of 
 salvation.— péroyou tov Xpiorov] Participators in (iii. 1, vi. 4, xii. 8) Christ, 
 z.e. in His treasures of blessing and in His glory. Schulz, Delitzsch, 
 Ewald, Hofmann, and others explain: Associates of Christ (i. 9), i.e. His 
 brethren (ii. 11 ff.), or His ovyxanpovéuor (Rom. viil. 17), inasmuch as “the 
 d6£a, into which Christ, the Anointed One existing in kingly glory, has 
 entered as our apyryéc, is, by virtue of the KAjou érovpdvioc, not only His, 
 but also owrs, although as to its revelation and consummation in hope” 
 (Delitzsch) ; against which, however, the fact is decisive that édvrep x.7.A. 
 points to a relation not of equality, but of dependence, and perdyove tov 
 Xpiorov eivac corresponds to the notion of eicépyeota: ei¢ THY KaTaravow, VV. 
 11,18. Compare, moreover, against Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Heb- 
 raerbr. p. 719, note.—yeyévauev] we have become. The author does not write 
 éouév, as ver. 6, in order to dismiss at once the thought of claim existing 
 from the first, and, on the contrary, to represent the said prerogative as 
 one only acquired (by faith, comp. éavzep k.7.A.).—édvrep thy apynv tic 
 trrooracewc K.7.A.] if so be that (provided) we preserve the beginning of the con- 
 fidence firm to the end, comp. ver. 6, fin. ixéataccrc does not here denote 
 fundamentum (Erasmus, Paraphr.; Seyffarth, p. 67: prima religionis fun- 
 
 fide Christiana ad Judaismum redeunt,a Deo 
 deficiunt; licet enim Deum non abnegent, 
 qui legis Mosaicae auctor est, tamen, quia 
 
 Tw, advvatov eipyvns TUXELY Ta MpayKaTa. JO- 
 sephus, Antiq. x. 2. 2: nbxeto meéxpis THs avTov 
 Gwis elpnvnv vmapfac; Xenophon, Cyrop. v. 4, 
 
 Deus nune non secundum legis praecepta se 
 eoli velle testatur, sed juxta evangelium il- 
 lique credentibus fidem in justitiam imputa- 
 turum, etiam, qui illud deserunt, a Deo defi- 
 cere dicendi sunt. Deus enim multis ac evi- 
 dentissimis signis ac miraculis se Christum 
 misisse ostendit, et yoce e caelo demissa tes- 
 tatus est eum esse suum filium, in quo sibi 
 complacuit jussitque ut eum audiant. Ergo 
 praecepta ejus sunt praecepta Dei, ete. 
 
 1Cf. 2 Mace. xiv. 10: .axpt yap Llovdas mepiec- 
 
 16: Kai o méev “Acavptos Siwéas aypis ob} aahades 
 WeTO Eivat, aTETPaTETO. 
 
 2So Luther, Estius, Schlichting, Owen, Carp- 
 zov, Stuart, Bleek, Alford, Maier, Kurtz, al. 
 
 3As Heinrichs, Dindorf, BGhme, Kuinoel, 
 Klee, Tholuck, Moll, Hofmann. 
 
 4Basil, Ep. 42, Opp. iii. p. 130: 7d ojmepov 
 onMatver GAov TOV xpovory THs Gwis nuov; Theo- 
 doret, Theophylact, Primasius, Erasmus, Es- 
 #ius, Cornelius a Lapide, J. Cappellus, Dor- 
 scheus, Valckenaer. 
 
CHAP rie 13-16; 467 
 
 damenta; Schulz: the first [anfanglichen] firm foundation; Stein and 
 others), nor substantia, whether this be taken as reality [Wesen], as Luther 
 (the reality begun), or as that of which a thing consists [Bestand], which con- 
 stitutes it (Vatablus: illud, per quod primum subsistimus, i.e. fidem fir- 
 mam; Estius : fidem, per quam in vita hac spirituali subsistimus ; Bisping : 
 the beginning of the subsistence [of Christ in us], 7.e. faith; Ewald, al.). 
 The expression stands, on the contrary, in the well-ascertained significa- 
 tion: confidence, which notion is here naturally defined by the connection 
 as confidence of faith (not hope, as Whitby and Delitzsch think).\—rjv apyyv 
 t7¢ wrootacewc] the beginning of the confidence, i.e. not: the first confidence, 
 which now begins to diminish,? but the confidence with which we have made 
 a beginning, in stich wise that ry apy4v corresponds to the following pé ype 
 téxove BeBaiav. Thus, rightly, Bleek, de Wette, Alford. 
 
 Vv. 15-19. Confirmation of the warning statement, ver. 14. That the 
 blessing-fraught fact (wero yor tod Xpiorov yeydvauev), declared ver. 14, is real- 
 ized singly and solely in the case that the condition stated, of firmness of 
 faith to the end, is fulfilled, is shown by the example of the Fathers. 
 Their unbelief, their a7:oria (comp. ver. 19), was the cause why they did 
 not attain to the goal. 
 
 Vy. 15, 16. [On Vv. 15-19, see Note L., pages 473, 474.] With regard to 
 the construction of ver. 15 the views of expositors greatly differ. It is 
 assumed—(1) That ver. 15 forms an independent, complete sentence. It 
 is then supposed that the citation introduced by év 76 2éyec#ar embraces 
 only the words ojuepov . . . axovonre, and that afterwards with yj) cxAnpivyre 
 x.7.A, the author proceeds, it is true, in the following words of that Bibli- 
 cal citation, but appropriates them to himself, and employs them only for 
 the clothing of the admonition to be uttered on his own part.? As, how- 
 ever, the same words: yy oxAnpivyte tac Kapdiac iuav be év T@ TapaTiKpacya, 
 had already been adduced, ver. 8, in the midst of the Biblical citation, and 
 
 ‘as a constituent part thereof, it could not possibly occur to the reader here 
 at once to detach them from ofuepov . . . axobonre, and to understand them 
 as words of the author addressed to themselves; and the less so, because 
 ver. 16 ff. there follows a comment on the passage, in which ver. 16 
 glances back to ojuepov . . . maparixpacuo, ver. 15 (ver. 7 f.); ver. 17 tothe 
 mpoooxtioa k.7.A., ver. 10; ver. 18, finally, to the éwooa x.7.A., ver. 11, so that 
 the natural explanation can only be, that the author intended to refer 
 
 1 Comp. Heb. xi. 1; 2 Cor. ix. 4, xi.17; LXX. 
 Ps. xxxix. 8; Ezek. xix.5; Ruthi.12. Com- 
 
 avTav Tis U7 ToLOVTOLS UTOTTATEwS. 
 2rnv UrooTtaacwy, Hv npkacbe Exety Vel Hv elxeTE 
 
 pare also Polybius, iv. 50. 10: Oi 8 ‘Pdédvor, 
 Bewpovvtes Thy Tov BuCavtiwy UméoTacw, Tpay- 
 Batikas dtevonOncav mpds Td KaOikéaPar THS TpO- 
 Oévews ; Vi. 55. 2: OVX OUTH THY Sivauev, ws THY 
 UmécTaci avTov Kai TOAMaY KaTaTeETANYLEVOV 
 Tay evavtiwv ; Diodorus Siculus, Excerpta de 
 Virt. et vit. (Opp. ed. Wesselingins, t. ii., Am- 
 stelod. 1745, fol.) p. 557: 7 év rats Bacdvois br6a- 
 Taos THS Wuxis Kal TO KapTepikoV THs TOY Se_voaV 
 Uromovns mepl wovoy eyev7yOy Tov “Aptotoyeitova ; 
 Josephus, Antig. xviii. 1. 6: 7d aweTdAAaKTov 
 
 év apxy, Cameron; tiv UrdaTacww THy ef aPX7Ss 
 Grotius, Wolf, Bloomfield; tv mpaétny vrdc- 
 Tag. AS Thy TpwTHY TiaTLY, 1 Tim. Vv. 12,and as 
 Thy ayarny thy mpwrnv, Rey. ii. 4; Abresch, 
 Tholuck, Stuart, Delitasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. 
 des Hebrderbr. p. 754; Maier, Kurtz, Hof- 
 mann. 
 
 3So Flacius Illyricus, Jac. Cappellus, Carp- 
 zov, Kuinoel, Winer, Gramm., 5 Aufl. p. 
 620, and Bloomfield; comp. also Hofmann 
 ad loc. 
 
468 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 back to the whole Scripture citation already previously adduced, vv. 7-11, 
 but that—inasmuch as he might presuppose it as known from that which 
 precedes—he expressly repeats it only to the point at which the first mem- 
 ber of his comment could attach itself. (2) Ver. 15 is connected with 
 that which precedes, in that é 16 Aéyeofa x.7.A. is either regarded as 
 epexegesis to yéypr Téove, ver. 14,' or is attached to the conditional clause 
 édvrep . . . kataoywuev there occurring,’ or to all the words of ver. 14: 
 . karacxouev, or, finally, is construed with apaka2eire, ver. 13.4 
 But in the first case one must expect aypuc ob Aéyerar, or Something similar, 
 in place of év 7@ Aéyeofa. In the other cases ver. 15 would drag as a feeble 
 addition; in the last, moreover, ver. 14 would, contrary to all probability, 
 become a parenthesis. (8) Ver. 15 is combined with that which follows. 
 With ¢oB7fauev oiv, iv. 1, it is connected by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
 Theophylact, Olearius, Wittich, Valckenaer. Vy. 16-19 must then be 
 regarded as a parenthesis, and ody, iv. 1, as a particle of resumption. But 
 of a resuming of the, as yet, incomplete thought, ver. 15, in iv. 1, there is 
 no appearance in the form of discourse in the latter passage, notwith- 
 standing the accuracy of style on the part of our author. On the con- 
 trary, from the tenor of iv. 1, itis indubitable that this verse is represented 
 by virtue of ody as a consequence from iii. 16-19. These verses, there- 
 fore, can form no parenthesis. But thus every possibility of connecting 
 ver. 15 with iv. 1 falls away.—There remains, therefore, no course open 
 but to take ver. 15 with the first question of ver. 16: rivec yap axotoar- 
 tec mapeTrixpavav; as one whole. Thesense is: “ When it is said: ‘to- 
 day,’ etc., (now, I ask:) who then were they who, although they heard 
 (the voice), resisted ? was it not all, etc.?” On év 16 AéyeoGa, comp. év 
 tg Aéyewv, Vili. 18.—yap serves for the strengthening of the particle of 
 interrogation, but, at the same time, confirms the state of the fact ex- 
 pressed, ver. 14.6 From what has been already observed, it is evident that 
 ver. 16 contains two questions, of which the second forms the answer to 
 the first. .[L b.] This view of ver. 16, appearing only rarely in antiquity 
 (in the Peshito, with Chrysostom and Theodoret), and only asserted afresh 
 since the beginning of last century, is now almost universally regarded as 
 the true one. According to the mode of interpretation formerly current, 
 two affirmative statements were recognized in ver. 16, the first of which 
 was limited by the second. revéc was accordingly written instead of 
 tivec,’ and the thought was found expressed that some, it is true, but by 
 
 ueTOVOL . . 
 
 1 Primasius, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bis- 
 ping, Reuss. 
 
 2 Erasmus Schmid, Wolf. 
 
 8 Ebrard, Alford. 
 
 4Cameron, Peirce, Bengel, Cramer, Baum- 
 garten, Abresch. : 
 
 5This is done. by Semler, Morus, Storr, 
 Heinrichs, Dindorf, Béhme, Klee, Bleek, de 
 Wette, Tholuck, Winer, p. 532 [E. T. 571]; 
 Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, and 
 Woerner. 
 
 6See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 245f. Comp. also 
 Matt. xxvii. 23; John vii. 41; Acts xix. 25; 1 
 Cor. xi. 22. 
 
 7Wrongly is it supposed by Bisping, who 
 (equally as M’Caul) espouses afresh this in- 
 terpretation formerly current, that it is a 
 matter of indifference whether in connection 
 therewith the two clauses be taken as ques- 
 tions or as absolute statements. For, in 
 reality, ov has in a question, like the Latin 
 nonne, always an affirmative sense. See 
 
cHaP. ut. 17, 18. 469 
 
 no means the totality of the Israelites, proved rebellious. As those who 
 formed an exception to the rebelliousness or unbelief of the rvéc, exposi- 
 tors accordingly thought either of Joshua and Caleb only,! or else, with 
 reference to Num. xiv. 29 ff., i. 45, 47, at the same time of all the Israel- 
 ites who, at the numbering, had not attained an age of twenty years, as 
 also the Levites and women? But, considering the small number of re- 
 sponsible believers, which, in comparison with the enormous total mass 
 of responsible unbelievers (more than six hundred thousand), retires alto- 
 gether into the background, the latter could not possibly be designated 
 by the mere twé¢; nor can appeal be made for the opposite view to 1 Cor. 
 x. 7-10, since the rwéc there several times recurring specializes only the év 
 roic reioowv, ver. 5, in its different subdivisions. In addition to this, the 
 interrogatory form in the parallel clauses, vy. 17, 18, already presupposes 
 the interrogatory form also for ver. 16, and, as follows of necessity from 
 the whole subsequent disquisition (comp. iv. 1, 2, 6, 8), the thought must 
 be expressed in ver. 16 that the whole of the Israelites were disobedient 
 in the wilderness, and therefore came short of the promised goal, in con- 
 nection with which the wholly isolated exceptions are passed over un- 
 noticed as not being taken into account.—a244] decides the preceding 
 question with the expression of astonishment conveyed in a counter- 
 question : but (can there be a doubt as to the answer?) was it not all of 
 those who came forth out of Egypt ?—rdvrec oi] Erroneously Bengel, 
 Schulz, Kuinoel, and others: only such as, ete.—did Moicéwc] by Moses, t. e. 
 by his agency and under his guidance. Acd is used with considerable free- 
 dom, since we should properly expect with it, instead of é&eAfévrec, a pass- 
 ive notion as éayévtec. Comp. d¢ dy émcoteboare, 1 Cor. iii. 5. 
 
 Vv. 17, 18. Further development of the truth, ver. 16, by means of 
 recapitulation of the other main points of the Scripture citation. It was 
 _ just this perverse totality of the Israelites with whom God was wroth on ac- 
 count of their sin forty years long, and against whom, on account of their 
 disobedience, He closed by an oath the entrance into His xatdravovwe.—Ben- 
 gel, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Delitzsch, Moll, Hofmann, and 
 others, place the second note of interrogation, ver. 17, immediately after 
 duaptioacw, and then take ov... épfuw as an assertory statement. But 
 on account of the environment of purely interrogatory clauses, and be- 
 cause the author indicates the result at which he aims only in ver. 19, it 
 seems more correct, with Luther, Calvin, Beza, Mill, Wetstein, Bleek, de 
 Wette, Tholuck, Alford, Maier, and others, to take the whole clause: 
 obyi. . . épfuw, together as a single question, in such wise that ov K.T.A. 
 forms a prolonged characterization of toi¢ ayaptyoacw.—roic dyapthoacty | 
 those that had sinned, namely, by unbelief and apostasy from God.—op ra 
 kaka x.t.2.] pictorial description of seizure by a violent death, taken from 
 Num. xiv. 29, 32.—xaa] limbs (specially hands and feet), with the LXX., 
 
 Kihner, II. p.579; Hartung, Partikellehre, U1. tainly all.” 
 
 p. 88. aAA’ ov mavtes cannot consequently 1S0 Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, 
 signify, as Bisping maintains, “but certainly Seb. Schmidt, Owen, and others. 
 
 not all,” but, on the contrary, only “ but cer- 2So0 Cornelius a Lapide, Braun, Carpzov, al. 
 
470 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 translation of the Hebrew 0°)39, thus in general bodies or corpses.— 
 éxecev| fell down, were stretched out dead, comp. 1 Cor. x. 8. 
 
 Ver. 18. Ticw] Dativus incommodi.—p7 cicedetcecbac] On account of the 
 variation of the subject in the tempus finitum and the infinitive, an inac- 
 curacy instead of ju) eiceAcicecbar abtobc, but excusable since the subject 
 of the infinitive was naturally afforded by the context.—e ~#| Observe 
 the mastery Of style on the part of the author, appearing even in the 
 variation of the negations: aaa’ ob... obyi . . . et ph, Vv. 16-18. 
 
 Ver. 19. Closing result from vv. 15-18.—«xai BAéropev] thus we see then. 
 Grotius (to whom Carpzov and others assent) : “ Ex historia cognoscimus.” 
 But more correctly Seb. Schmidt (with whom Owen, Bleek, Alford, and 
 others agree): “ 8Aézrovev non de lectione aut cognitione historiae, sed de 
 convictione animi e disputatione seu doctrina praemissa.”—d? azoriav] 
 on account of (their) unbelief. Placed with emphasis at the end. 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 XLVIII. Vv. 1-6. 
 
 (a) Ver. 1 contains an exhortation which is parallel with the one in ii. 14 
 (katavofoate—oei Tepicootépwc Tpooéxewv), but which, through 64ev, is connected with 
 the next preceding passage, as the previous exhortation is with i.4-14. It is the 
 one, often-repeated exhortation, which is pressed upon the readers as the result of 
 the argument in all its parts. Im this case, the hortatory passage is closely joined 
 in the grammatical construction with what follows in ver. 2, which is a part of the 
 words contrasting Christ with Moses. This grammatical union, however, is only 
 incidental to the epistolary and Pauline character of the,writing. In relation to 
 the thought and to the plan of the epistle, this first verse of chap. iii. should be 
 placed at the end of chap. iii—(6) The word azécrodo¢ is used here in a sense in 
 which dyyedoc might be used—that is, as designating the one sent from God to 
 communicate the revelation, and thus to become the instrumental agent in the 
 introduction of the N. T. system. It is doubtless chosen because the writer wished 
 to compare Christ, in this regard, with the angels, and yet felt naturally impelled 
 to avoid, in this connection, the-use of ayyeAoc. The addition of apyepev¢ cannot 
 be regarded as anything more than a passing allusion to the title given in ii. 17, 
 and thus must be considered, as it were, accidental. There is no dwelling upon the 
 thought suggested by this title in the following context, as there has been none in 
 the preceding context. The suggestion of Liinem.; that apy. refers back to the 
 main thought of chap. ii—the reconciliation of sinful humanity to God by Christ— 
 is to be rejected, because the main thought of chap. ii. is rather that of the death 
 of Jesus for all men, and His preparation to be a leader of the great company to 
 salvation, than that of presenting an offering on their behalf before God, or minis- 
 tering as a priest. The latter ideas belong to the distinctive peculiarities of the 
 high-priestly office, and to this author's conception of it; and the treatment of 
 these which he gives is wholly in the later chapters—The genitive t7¢ éuoAoyiag 
 juav may be considered, grammatically, a possessive genitive. Jesus is the 
 apostle of, i. e., appertaining to, our confession. But He is so, not as being the one 
 whom we confess, but the one who introduces the new confession. The actual 
 
NOTES. 471 
 
 relation of the two words is, accordingly, an objective one, when the fundamental 
 thought is considered. 
 
 (c) Ver. 2 is introduced by évra as a mere descriptive phrase, setting forth the 
 faithfulness of Jesus, and belonging with ver. 1. In the plan of the epistle, 
 however, the comparison of Jesus with Moses begins here, and vy. 2-6 stand in 
 a parallelism with the entire comparison with the angels in chaps. i., ii. In the 
 development of the argument here, ver. 2 presents the fact that Christ and Moses 
 were both instrumental agents employed by God and doing faithfully His 
 appointed work. Ver. 3 and ver. 5 set forth the superiority of Christ, in that He 
 was employed to establish and preside over the house of God, while Moses was 
 only, as a servant, a part of the house, and one whose work found its end, not in 
 itself, but in what was to follow after him. There are not two distinct and inde- 
 pendent ideas in ver. 3 and ver. 5; there is only a development of one idea, which 
 appears in the two separated verses by reason of the incidental insertion of ver. 
 4.—(d) With respect to minor points in vy. 2-5, the following remarks may be 
 made :—1. toijoavre is translated in A. V. and R. V. by appointed (though the 
 marg. of both versions reads, Gr. made). Liinem., Blk., Alf., Grimm, and others 
 maintain that this meaning cannot be given to vove’v when it stands absolutely, as 
 it does here—that a second accusative cannot, in such a case, be supplied with this 
 verb from the context. They hold that made or created is the meaning of the 
 word, As to whether it refers to the incarnation or to the pre-mundane condition 
 of the Son, there is some difference of opinion. On this point, it may be observed, 
 (w) that, inasmuch as ver. 1 and, also, ver. 5 speak of official position, the idea of 
 appointing to office is most suitable to the context, and this sense is, therefore, the 
 most natural one for the word, if, indeed, it is a possible sense in such a case; (2) 
 that the idea of creating the Son, either by an eternal generation or through His 
 incarnation, is not suggested in the epistle elsewhere, and seems unlikely to have 
 been presented here ; (y) that this verb in 1 Sam. xii. 6 may have this meaning, 
 and according to Gesenius and other prominent autharities does have it, although 
 there is no second accusative in the text—a probability even, that this is the 
 correct understanding of the word in that passage, being found in the second verse 
 which follows (ver. 8), where, in referring to the same matter, the word sent is 
 used, and where it can hardly mean sent by creating ; (z) that, if ever allowable to 
 omit the second accusative, it would seem very natural to do so here, because the 
 word designating office has been just mentioned, and because the repetition of it 
 would be rhetorically offensive. The use of tovjoavt:, instead of the participle of 
 the verb xatvoravac (y. 1, vii. 28, viii. 3), is, not improbably, connected with its 
 use-in 1 Sam. xii. 6—2. yap of ver. 3 is to be joined with katavoyoare (ver. 1) in 
 the grammatical construction of the sentences as they are written. But, if the 
 thought of vy. 2-6 be considered, as apart from ver. 1, yap has no proper -place 
 in ver. 3. Some particle signifying but or however would be more suitable to the 
 passage considered as independent and beginning with ver. 2—3. Ver. 4 is 
 explained most satisfactorily by Ebrard, as showing that the declaration of ver. 3 
 is not inconsistent with that of ver. 2, or, in other words, “that the ‘ being faith- 
 ful’ might be predicated of Christ although He was the xatackevacac.” By this 
 explanation the yap which opens the verse is easily accounted for, and the verse 
 itself, though subordinate and secondary, comes into living connection with the 
 development of the leading thoughts.—4. tov ZaAmFyoouévwv of ver 5, is best 
 understood as referring to the N. T. revelation. This is indicated by the fact that 
 
472 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Aadsiv is used especially of the two revelations, in this epistle ; by the future tense, 
 which naturally refers to the latter of the two, and also to what is future to the 
 time of Moses’ testimony ; and by the indications which the writer gives that, in 
 his view, the O. T. revelation through Moses was only a preparation and fore- 
 shadowing of the revelation through Christ—5. The reference of airod in vy. 2, 5 
 is to God, and the house of God is one and the same, only conceived of in its 
 O. T. and N. T. condition. Of this house we i. e., the writer and his readers, are a 
 part, 7/, and only if they hold fast to the end. The clause ov olkég éoyev of ver. 6 
 forms an easy transition to the hortatory passage which follows, iii. 7-iy. 13. 
 
 XLIX. Vv. 7-14. 
 
 (a) From ver. 7 to iv.13 we have the hortatory passage belonging to the 
 portion of the argument just given, vv. 2-6. This passage is made up of four 
 parts: the first containing the general exhortation of the epistle (as presented in 
 this connection), which is enforced by a quotation from the Psalms, vv. 7-14; 
 the second calling attention to the cause of the failure of the persons spoken of in 
 the Psalm-passage to receive the promised blessing, vv. 15-19; the third suggesting 
 the danger that the readers might fail of the blessing from a similar cause, iv. 
 1-10; and the fourth pressing the exhortation anew, in view of the fact that the 
 word of God, which threatens punishment to the disobedient, is sure to be fulfilled, 
 iv. 11-13.—(6) In the first part of the passage, the exhortation is found in vv. 
 12-14 (negatively, not to apostatize, ver. 12; positively, to hold fast, vv. 18, 14). 
 It is connected by 66 of ver. 7 with vv. 2-6, and is thus founded upon the 
 superiority of Christ to Moses—the Psalm-passage having, as related to the 
 progress of the thought, a parenthetical character. This Psalm-passage would 
 more naturally have had its place after ver. 14, but it is inserted immediately 
 after 616 in order to give additional force to the exhortation. vé of ver. 7, 
 accordingly, qualifids BAérere «.7.4. of ver. 12; kadéc of ver.7 follows BAérere K.7.A, 
 in thought, and also qualifies it; but 616 of ver. 10 is merely a part of the cited 
 passage, connecting mpoodydioa K.7.A. With éreipacay «.7.A. of ver. 9, and has no 
 bearing upon the main thought in ver. 12.—(c) The connection of 6:6 of ver. 7 
 with the thought that we are the oixoc of God only in case we hold fast ete., which 
 Liinem prefers, is to be rejected—at least, so far as the development of the main 
 thought of the epistle is concerned—irst, because the main thought of the epistle 
 is, not that we are the oixo¢ of God only in that case, but it is that Christ is 
 superior to the agents employed by God in the O. T. revelation ; secondly, because, 
 even in the preceding verses, ov olxog «.7.A., is only a subordinate and secondary 
 clause, while the principal idea is the exaltation of-Christ above Moses; and 
 thirdly, because, in the artistic arrangement of the epistle, the writer seems in 
 every case, as already suggested, to found his exhortation on the point which he 
 has made of chief importance in the next preceding sub-section. If d¢é is to be 
 joined with ov oixdg éouev, therefore, it is only a grammatical connection, as we 
 may say, and not the logical one. There is no necessity, however, for regarding 
 this as the grammatical connection.. 
 
 (d) The exhortation vy. 12, 13 is affected, in the expressions used, by the words 
 quoted from the O. T. Comp. «apdia rovypa (which, as Liinem. says, is only a 
 clothing of the idea attaching itself to dei tAavevrac ry Kapdia); TO ohuepov KadetraL; 
 okdyovvd7. It is characteristic of Paul’s style, after the insertion of a parenthetical 
 
NOTES. 473 
 
 passage of this sort, e. g., Rom y. 15-17, to express the following part of the main 
 discourse in language which is, more or less, influenced by the parenthesis. But 
 in this writer we notice something more than this :—namely, that, after a citation 
 from the O. T., he is disposed to linger, in the presentation of what follows, within 
 the language of the verses cited, and that he apparently thinks that, by so doing, 
 he can give greater emphasis and force to the suggestions which he has to set 
 before his readers. This peculiarity of his style, as connected with O. T. quota- 
 tions, is strikingly manifest from this point of the epistle to the end. 
 
 (e) In connection with what has been noticed under (d), the expression aypc¢ 
 ov TO onMEpoV KadeiTaL isto be explained. 70 o7jwepov means the to-day of the passage 
 quoted ; and the period within which the invitation and call of God come is set 
 forth by this word, because of the writer’s desire to move in the sphere of that 
 passage, so far as his language is concerned. dypcc¢ ov and xadeira are to be under- 
 stood as Liinem. interprets them. The former of these two expressions probably 
 refers, as he also says, to the time before the Parousia, but this view of the matter 
 is not rendered absolutely necessary by the words used. 
 
 (f) The yap of ver. 14, after the 6:6 of ver. 7, is to be explained as the yap of 
 ii. 2 following da rovro of ii. 1 (See Note XLIV b above). The thought and 
 language of this verse are nearly the same as in ver. 6 6. It will be noticed, how- 
 ever, that, in addition to the minor differences (yeyévayuev substituted for éovev and 
 THY apxnv the brooTdcewc for Tv Tappyoiav k,7.2.), we find here pétoyxor Tov Xpiorov 
 in place of ov oixoc. 'This change of expression is indicative of the fact that the 
 idea of Christ is the prominent one throughout the entire passage from the begin- 
 ing of the chapter, and it may thus be regarded as confirmatory of the view 
 advocated above, respecting the connection of 66 (ver. 7) with the thought of 
 Christ as being higher than Moses. 
 
 L. Vv. 15-19. 
 
 (a) The question whether ver. 15 is to be connected with ver. 14 or with vv. 
 - 16-19, is one of much difficulty. The connection with the following verses is 
 favored, 1. by the fact that, at this point, there is a turn—from the application of 
 the passage from the Psalms to the readers—to the setting forth of the reason why 
 the persons in the O. T. history, to whom the passage alludes, failed to receive 
 the offered blessing; 2. by the fact, at such a turning-point, it was natural that 
 the writer should repeat the leading verse of the cited passage; 3. by the fact, 
 that in i. 8 and viii. 15, when making a turn which is in some measure, though 
 not precisely, similar to that which he makes here, the writer uses the phrase év 
 T& with an infinitive—and, in viii. 13 at least, without any particle of transition; 
 4. by the fact, that the correspondence of the latter part of ver. 14 with the latter 
 part of ver. 6 renders it probable, as Bleek says, that the thought of vv. 12-14 
 is intended to close with ver. 14; 5. by the fact of the feeble and dragging—we 
 may add, unnecessarily repetitious—character of ver. 15 as an addition to vv. 
 12-14; 6. by the fact that, while there are two other cases in which the writer uses év 
 7 with an infin. in a sense kindred to that which it has here, if ver. 15 is joined 
 with vy. 16-19, there is no place where he uses it with such a meaning as is 
 assigned to it if this verse is united with ver. 14, i.e. while, as long as, seeing that, 
 tnasmuch as, ete. For the latter ideas, we should rather expect aypic ov, or 626, or 
 some similar expression. The «nly objection to the connection with ver. 16 lies 
 
474 THE EPISTLE TO THE HBBREWS. 
 
 in the word yép. This particle must in this case be taken in the sense of then, or 
 pray, which seems somewhat improbable in such a sentence ; while, on the other 
 hand, if ver. 15 is joined with ver. 14, yap has its ordinary meaning for, and is 
 quite in place. This objection, however, does not appear to be insuperable. 
 Liinem. seems to hold that yap has a kind of double force, strengthening the 
 particle of interrogation and, at the same time, confirming the statement of the 
 fact expressed in ver. 14. But if ver. 15 begins a new thought, it is improbable 
 that yap goes beyond it to ver. 14. The bearing of vv. 15-19 is rather towards iv. 
 1 (comp ovv of that verse). On the whole, therefore, the connection of ver. 15 with 
 vy. 16-19 is to be accepted as that which was intended by the author, and yap is 
 to be taken as haying no reference to ver. 14.—Dr. Kendrick, in a note in Moll’s 
 Commentary on the Ep. to the Heb., defends the connection of ver. 15 with iv. 1, 
 adopting the view of Chrys. and others mentioned by Liinem. He modifies 
 Chrysostom’s view somewhat, and holds that, “as the writer was about to proceed 
 to the train of thought ch. iv. 1, he was led, especially by the language of the 
 quotation itself, to restate, sharply and distinctly, what had been previously but 
 implied and hinted at, the actual crime and the actual punishment of the ancient Israel- 
 ites ;” that “he therefore abruptly breaks off in the middle of his sentence [end of ver. 
 15], to introduce, in a series of sharp interrogations and statements, these ideas : 
 which being accomplished, he returns,—with a natural change of construction 
 occasioned by the long interposed passage,—to the idea which at iii. 15 he had 
 started to develop.” By this method the objections to the view which makes 
 ver. 15 a protasis, to which iy. 1 is the apodosis, 
 
 
 
 namely that the particle ovv is 
 out of place, and that vv. 16-19 become a mere parenthesis, in the strict sense, 
 whereas ovv can only be properly explained as pointing back to those verses—are, 
 in his judgment, obyiated. But such a digression at ver. 16 seems improbable, as 
 compared with the straight-forward progress of thought which the connection of 
 ver. 15 with vy. 16-19 gives, as set forth above. If the anthor had it in mind, at 
 all, to state sharply‘and distinctly the actual crime, ete., of the ancient Israelites, he 
 could accomplish this end with far more of impressiveness, if he turned directly 
 to it at the close of ver. 14, and made it the next prominent thought of the passage, 
 than if he introduced it only in a parenthetical way after beginning the expression 
 of another idea. Moreover, as Bleek says, this writer, as contrasted with Paul, is 
 careful to avoid such anacoluthic constructions, which leave the end not in accord 
 with the beginning. 
 
 (b) The twec of ver. 16 is now universally regarded as interrogative, not 
 indefinite, as A. V., and the earlier writers: referred to by Liinem., understood it.— 
 aad is rendered by nay in R. V. It is well explained by Grimm (Lex. N. T.), 
 by “at eur rogo? nonne erant omnes, ete.’ Alf. says that it expresses “a negation 
 of the uncertainty implied in the question—a ground why the question should not 
 have been asked at all’ That the two parts of ver. 16 are both interrogative is 
 proved, beyond reasonable doubt, by the interrogative character of vy. 17, 18.— 
 The close connection of amei0eva and amoria is made clear both in these verses 
 and in iv. 1-6, azvoria is the foundation of a7etFeva, 
 
CHAP. IV. 475 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Ver. 2. Better attested, it is true, than the nominative singular ovykexpauévoc 
 (ovyxexpauuévoc), which the Recepta presents, is the accusative plural of this par- 
 ticiple, inasmuch as A BC D* M, 23, al., Theodor. Mops. read cvyxekepacuévove 
 (ouvaexepacuévovc), and D*** E K L, 4, 6, 10, al. plur., Cyr. Alex. (semel) Macar, 
 Chrys. Theodoret, Phot. al., cvyxekpapévove (ovykexpaypévovc), and also the 
 majority of translations (Syr. poster. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. al.) render in the 
 accusative. Griesbach therefore commended the accusative to notice. ouyKe- 
 kpau(“)évove is adopted into the text by the edd. Complut. Antw. Plantin. 
 Genev., by Matthaei and others; cvyxexepacuévovc, by Lachm. Tisch. 1, and 
 Alford. The accusative is, notwithstanding, to be rejected, as opposed to the con- 
 text and unmeaning. This reading being accepted, we have as exposition either : 
 “but the word listened to did not profit them, since they were not mixed in faith 
 or joined together in one with Joshua and Caleb, who heard, i. e. were obedient to 
 the word listened to” (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius. Hammond, Cramer, Mat- 
 thaei, al.). But this interpretation is in conflict with iii. 15 ff., according to which 
 the whole people of Israei brought out of Egypt by Moses is described as rebel- 
 lious and unbelieving; between two classes thereof, on the other hand, a class of 
 believers and another of unbelievers, no distinction whatever is made. Moreover, 
 in connection with this interpretation, toi¢ axotcaow suffers transmutation into a 
 notion which it cannot have, regarded in itself only, much less here, seeing its 
 evident correspondence with the preceding axoye. Not less untenable is the 
 modification of this construction with Alford, who, rejecting all reference to 
 Joshua and Caleb, will have to/¢ akotoacw taken, not at all in the historic sense, 
 but, like John y. 25, as an indication of the category: “6 Adyo¢ tie aKxoge having 
 been mentioned in the general sense of the word heard, oi axotoavrec is also in the 
 general sense of its hearers, and the assumption is made that the word heard has 
 naturally recipients, of whom the normal characteristic is faith. And so these 
 men received no benefit from the word of hearing, because they were not one in 
 faith with its hearers; did not correspond, in their method of receiving it, with 
 faithful hearers, whom it does profit;” as, accordingly, Alford himself frankly 
 confesses that he does not feel satisfied with this explanation, and is only driven 
 to adopt it on the ground of critical and grammatical difficulties,—difficulties of 
 the latter kind, nevertheless, do not exist, and those urged by Alford are easily 
 solved. Or else a passive notion is substituted for the active toic axoicacw, So 
 already Theodore of Mopsuestia, who thinks toi¢ axovofeicw' must be read (in 
 Nov. Test. Commentariorum quae reperiri potuerunt Coll. O. Fr. Fritzsche, Turici 
 1847, p. 166: pydé yap tic otécHw apkeiv aiTe tTHv éexayyediav TOV wEA?A6VTWV, GoTEp 
 ovdé Exeivoig: ob Yap Zoav Kata THY TioTLY ToOlC ETayyEADELoL CVA MmEVOL: 
 b0ev otTwE avayvworéioy’ uy Ov) KEKEpacuéevO’E TH TioTeEL TOC AKOVO= 
 
 1 Also in one cursive ms. (Cod. 71) is found tots axovaGetouv. 
 
476 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Weiov, iva ein taic mpoc avtove yeyernuévaig Exayyediate Tov Aeov did Mwoéwc) ; 
 further, as it appears, Theodoret, since—although in our editions toi¢ axobcacw 
 precedes—he makes use of the words: ti yap wvycev q Tov Geov émayyedia Tov¢ 
 taityv Setauévovc, wy TioT@¢ deEauévovg Kai TH TOV Geo Suvdper tebappyKérag Kat 
 olov Toic Heo’ Adyore avakpabévrac; and recently Bleek, who, led thereto by Noes- 
 selt’s remark on Theodoret’s exposition of Heb. iv. 2 (Thed. Opp. t. iii., Hal. 1771, 
 -p- 566, note 1), conjectures Toi¢ akovopuaccv, For such alteration of the text, 
 however, there exists not the slightest diplomatic justification. We must there- 
 fore regard the accusative plural as having arisen from a transcriber’s error, to 
 which the preceding ékeivovg gave occasion, and look upon the nominative singu- 
 lar of the Recepta ovykekpapévog, which yields an excellent sense (see the 
 exposition), as that which was originally written by the author. Rightly, there- 
 fore, is the Recepta defended by Mill, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Reiche (p. 24 sqq.), 
 and others, and also received again into the text by Tisch. 2 (cuykexpapévoc), 7 
 (cvvKexpapévoc), and 8 (cuvKexepacuévoc), Nor is it by any means so badly attested 
 that one could assert, with Bleek, that it could “claim not much more authority 
 than as being a not improbable conjecture.” For it is supported by the testimony 
 of the Peshito, which in antiquity surpasses any of our Mss., as well as by the 
 Codex Sinaiticus, which has 7 ovvkexepacuévoc. It is found, besides, in the Vulg. 
 It. Erp., as well as with Cyr. Alex. (sem.) [Theodoret (Hervet.)] Lucif. and in 
 five cursives (17, 31, 37, 41, 114)—Ver. 3. eicepyducba yap] A C: eioepyoueba 
 ovv. But with an exhortation, the following oi mvotetoavtec is irreconcilable, 
 instead of which wvotevovtes or dia wictewe must be placed.—Ver. 7. Elz. Wet- 
 stein, Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomf.: eipyrac. But in favor of tpoeipytat, which 
 is indirectly supported also by zpoeipyxev in B, 73, 80, the preponderating 
 authority of A C D* E*8, 17, 23, 31, al., Syr. utr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Cyr. Al. 
 Chrys. Theodoret. Lucif. Bed. is decisive. Commended already by Grotius, Ben- 
 gel, Griesbach, Rightly adopted into the text by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. 
 Approved also by Reiche—Ver. 10. azd tév épywv aitov] D* E, Syr. poster. 
 Cyr. Chrys. ms.: a76 Tavt@v Tov €pywov aivtov, Expansion from ver. 4.— 
 Ver. 12. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield: puyje te kal mvebtmatoc. But 
 ve is wanting in A B C H L ® (in which last originally only pepiopod Kai 
 mvevjlato¢ was written, which, however, was already supplemented, as it would 
 appear by the first hand, by a wuy7e inserted before «ai), 3,73, al., with Origen 
 (three times), Athan. Euseb. Chrys. Theodoret, Cyril Al. (eleven times), John 
 Damasc. Theoph. and many others. Condemned already by Bengel and Gries- 
 -bach, [Doubted by Owen.] Rightly rejected by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. 
 Addition for the sake of uniformity with the following clause: dpuév te Kai 
 xve2@v, in which te is wanting with no witnesses—Ver. 15. Instead of the 
 meTeLpapévov, commended by Griesbach and adopted by Matthaei, Tisch. 1, 
 2, 7, and Bloomfield, as earlier by Mill and Bengel (also preferred by Reiche), the 
 meTerpacmévov of the Recepta, supported by A B D EX, Origen (four times), 
 Chrys., al., is to be retained, with Wetstein, Scholz, Lachm. Alford, and Tisch. 8. 
 For the context demands the notion of having been tempted, for which, in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews (cf. ii. 18, xi. 17, 37), only the verb mwecpdafecbar is 
 used, while tevwecpamévov would yield the totally unsuitable sense: who had 
 made attempts.—Ver. 16. Elz.: 2 ¢0v. The form of the word, preferred by Tisch. 
 Bloomf. and Alford, é2eo¢, is, however, required by A B C* D* K 8, 17, 71, al: 
 pl., Antioch. 
 
cHar, ay. 1. 477 
 
 Vv. 1-13. Thus, then, the promise of entering into God’s rest is still 
 unfulfilled. The promise yet avails for the Christians. - Let, therefore, 
 the readers be careful, lest they, too, by disobedience and unbelief forfeit 
 the proffered salvation. 
 
 Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-3, see Note LL. pages 495-497.] Exhortation to the 
 readers, deduced from the historic fact, iii. 15-19, and softened by the form 
 of community with the readers adopted by the author, which, however, is 
 involuntarily abandoned again at the close of the verse.—®oB7fapev ov | 
 [LI a.] Let us therefore be apprehensive —Indication not of the mere being 
 afraid, but of the earnest endeavor, based upon the fear of coming short of 
 the proposed goal.1—xararermouévng . + avrov] is made by Cramer and 
 Ernesti dependent on torepyKévar, against which, however, the anarthrous 
 participle in itself suffices to decide. It is parenthetical, and Kkataneirouévns 
 with emphasis preposed : while there yet remains promise of entering into 
 His rest. But a promise remains so long as it has not yet received its 
 fulfillment. For with its fulfillment it ceases to be a promise, loses its 
 existence—inasmuch as the character of the future essential to it has then 
 become present. Erroneously do Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Strigel, 
 Hyperius, Estius, Schlichting, S. Schmidt, Limborch, Braun, Semler, 
 Carpzoy, al., explain : “by neglect or non-observance of the promise.” 
 For, although catadeimery can signify that (comp. Acts vi. 2; Baruch 
 iv. 1), yet in that case the article t7¢ could not have been wanting before 
 érayyediac; and certainly also an active (katadeipacg THY érayyediar) 
 would have been chosen in place of the passive participle. Finally, against 
 the latter explanation, and in favor of that above given, pleads the 
 amodeimerat, vv. 6, 9.—avrov] not of Christ (Rambach, Chr. F. Schmid), but 
 of God. This is required by the connection, alike with that which pre- 
 cedes (iii. 11, 18) as with that which follows (vv. 3-5, 10).—7 kataravoic | 
 the repose and blessedness which belong to God Himself, and which 
 ~ shall become the portion of believing Christians in the epoch of consum- 
 mation beginning with the coming again of Christ.—doxq borepnxévar| should 
 appear [be seen] to have come short, i.e. to have failed of attaining to the 
 catéravorc. The infinitive perfect characterizes that which, with the 
 dawn of the Parousia, has become an historically completed, definite 
 fact. doh botepyxéva, however, does not stand pleonastically in place of 
 the bare toreph or botepyon (Michaelis, Carpzov, Abresch, al.), nor is it 
 placed “because, in connection with the question whether and where the 
 iorepnkévat exists as & concluded, and therefore irreparable, fact, the human 
 perception does not extend beyond a mere videtur ” (Kurtz); for it is not 
 here a case of a question to be decided by men still living upon earth. It 
 serves rather, as the videatur often added in Latin, to give a more refined 
 and delicate expression to the discourse. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 16. Errone- 
 ously, however, Delitzsch, that in dom there is contained not only 4 
 
 1Galvin: Hie nobis commendatur timor, peamus. Metuendum ergo, non quia trepi- 
 non qui fidei certitudinem excutiat, sed tan- dare aut diffidere nos oporteat quasi incertos 
 tam incutiat sollicitudinem, ne securi tor- de exitu, sed ne Dei gratiae desimus. 
 
478 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 softening, but, at the same time, also an accentuation of the expression ; 
 the sense being: “they are to take earnest heed, lest haply i should even 
 seem that this or the other has fallen short.” For the augmenting “ even ” 
 is only arbitrarily imported—Grotius explains dox@ by: “ne cui vestrum 
 libeat,’ for which, however, the construction with the dative (dox@ sor) 
 would have been required, and to which, moreover, the infinitive perfect 
 does not lend itself. Schéttgen finally, Baumgarten, Schulz, Paulus, 
 Stengel, Ebrard,and Hofmann take doxj in the sense of opinetur. The 
 author is thus supposed to be warning the readers against the delusion 
 that they were too late, i.e. that they lived at a time when all the prom- 
 ises had long been fulfilled, and no further means of salvation was to be 
 expected. But the linguistic expression in itself is decisive against this 
 interpretation. The author could not then have put ¢oBybapuev obv, pyrore, 
 but must have written 7 ody goBybduev borepyxévar, OY something similar. 
 Moreover, the whole historic situation of the readers of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews is out of keeping with this view. It was not therein a question 
 of consoling and calming those who still despaired of being able at all to 
 attain to salvation, but of the warning correction of those who were want- 
 ing in the assurance of conviction that faith in Christ is the sufficient and 
 only way to salvation. Only a warning to the readers, not by their own 
 behavior, like the fathers, to incur the loss of salvation, can therefore be 
 contained in ver. 1. 
 
 Ver. 2. [LI 6.] corroborates in its first half the xaradevrouévye, ver. 1, 
 while the second half shows the danger of the torepyxévac in the example 
 of others. The emphasis in the first half lies upon éopvév edyyyeAropuévor. 
 The sense is not: for we, too, like them, have promise (to express this the 
 addition of #ueic after cai yap would have been called for), but: for 
 promise (sc. of entering into the Kardzavoi, cf. vv. 1, 8) have we indeed, 
 even as they (the fathers), se. had it—Most arbitrarily is the meaning of 
 this and the following verse apprehended by Ebrard. According to 
 Ebrard, ver. 2 ff. proclaims as the reason why the Jews did not attain the 
 promised kardravoic, not their “subjective unbelief,’ but “the objective 
 imperfection of the Old Testament revelation.” With the second half of 
 ver. 2, namely, a gradation (!) is supposed to begin, and the progress of 
 thought to be as follows: “The word which we have received is even in- 
 finitely better than the word which the Israelites received through Moses. 
 For, first, the word spoken by Moses was unable to bring the people to 
 faith—it remained external to them; it set forth a promise, it is true, and 
 also attached a condition, but it communicated no strength to fulfill this 
 condition (vv. 2-5, comp. vv. 12, 18); but, secondly, the promise there 
 given was not even in its purport the true one; there, earthly rest was 
 promised; here, spiritual and everlasting rest (vv. 6-10).” That the con- 
 text affords no warrant for the bringing out of such a meaning is self-evi- 
 dent. For neither does the author here distinguish such twofold word of 
 promise, nor a twofold xararavorc, nor can Adyog . . . pa ovyKekpayévoc 
 signify a word which “ could not prove binding.”—Erroneous, too, is the 
 view of the connection on the part of Delitzsch, to whom Riehm (Lehrbegr. 
 
CHAP. Iv. 2. 479 
 
 des Hebrderbr. p. 798 ff.) accedes in all essential particulars. According 
 to Riehm, the (as yet unproved) presupposition is first provisionally ex- 
 pressed in the parenthesis, ver. 1, in a simply assertory manner, viz. that 
 there is still in existence a promise of entering into the rest of God, a 
 promise of which the fulfillment is yet outstanding, and this presupposi- 
 tion is then repeated, ver. 2, in other expressions of a more general bear- 
 ing, no doubt, but essentially in the same way of simple assertion. Upon 
 this, however, the author now wishes to furnish proof that such presuppo- 
 sition is fully warranted. Accordingly, ver. 3, he formulates that presup- 
 position in the most definite manner, inasmuch as in the opening words 
 of ver. 3, eloepyoucba . . . mioTevoavtec, he lays down the theme which is to 
 be proved in the sequel. This proof is afforded in the following way: the 
 rest of God has existed long; nevertheless, in the oath of God, mentioned 
 in the words of the psalm, a rest of God is spoken of as yet future, and of 
 a truth it is one and the same rest of God which, according to Gen. ii. 2— 
 in so far as God enjoys it alone—has existed from the beginning of the 
 world, and, according to the word of the psalm,—in so far as the people 
 of God are to participate therein,—is one yet approaching. Although 
 thus the long present rest of God was the aim and end of the creative 
 activity of God, yet it is not the final aim which God has proposed to 
 Himself. On the contrary, it is clearly apparent, from a comparison of 
 the word of God pronounced upon the Israelites in the time of Moses, a 
 word confirmed by an oath, with the account of the rest of God on the 
 seventh day, that, according to the gracious designs of God, the rest, 
 which He has enjoyed alone from the foundation of the world, should 
 eventually become a rest of God which He enjoys in communion with 
 His people. It is therefore indubitably certain, that even after the com- 
 pletion of the work of creation and the ensuing of the rest of God, there 
 is still something outstanding [unfulfilled], an azoAecrduevov, and this con- 
 ‘sists in the fact that some, received by God into communion with Him- 
 self, are made partakers of that repose of God. This view is a mistaken 
 one, because—(1) As regards the assumed proof, the assertion that in the 
 oath of God, spoken of in the words of the psalm, mention is made of a 
 - yet future rest of God, is entirely untrue. Not of a particular form of the 
 rest of God, which is still future, is the discourse, but only the fact is 
 represented as future that it is shared on the part of men who enter into 
 it. For a rest of God which has already existed long is not opposed to a 
 rest of God which is still future, nor is the rest of God, mentioned Gen. ii., 
 distinguished as of another kind than that mentioned in the psalm. On 
 the contrary, the rest of God, or—what is identical therewith—the Sab- 
 bath-rest of God, has existed in fact and without change from the time of 
 the completion of the works of creation, and this same rest of God it is, 
 the participation in which was once promised to the Israelites on the con- 
 dition of faith, and now upon the same condition is promised to the 
 Christians ; it is a question therefore only of the Christians taking warn- 
 ing from the example of the fathers, and not, like them, losing the 
 promised blessing through unbelief. (2) That the author was desirous of 
 
 
 
480 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 still proving the xatateirecbar érayyeAiay, cannot at all be supposed. For 
 this was a fact which, as self-evident from that which precedes, stood in 
 no need of a demonstration; it is therefore expressed not only ver. 1, but 
 also ver. 6,in a mere subsidiary clause, consequently in the form of log- 
 ical subordination ; and even ver. 9, in which it is introduced in an appar- 
 ently independent form, decides nothing against our explanation, because 
 ver. 9, while forming a certain conclusion to that which precedes, yet 
 contains only the logical substructure for the exhortation attaching itself 
 afresh at ver. 11. That at which the author alone aimed, in connection 
 with ver. 2 ff., was therefore the impressive confirmation of the paraenesis, 
 ver. 1; and just this paraenetic main tendency of our section likewise fails 
 of attaining due recognition in connection with the explanation of Delitzsch 
 and Riehm. But when Delitzsch thinks he can support his view, that the 
 Kataherrouévnc éxayyediac, ver. 1, is first proved in the sequel, by declaring 
 the otherwise to be accepted “thought that the promise of entering into 
 God’s rest has remained without its fulfillment in the generation of the 
 wilderness, and thus is still valid,” to be “entirely false,” and exclaims : 
 “What logic that would be! The generation of the wilderness perished 
 indeed, but the younger generation entered into Canaan, came to Shiloh 
 (the place in the heart of the land, which has its name from the rest, Josh. 
 xviil. 1), and had now its own fixed land of habitation, whither Jehovah 
 had brought and planted it, and where He fenced it in (2 Sam. vii. 10);” 
 such conclusion would be justified only if the author had not understood 
 the promise given to the fathers in the time of Moses, of entering into 
 God’s kataravoic, at the same time in a higher sense, but had regarded it 
 as fulfilled by the occupation of Canaan under Joshua; such, however, 
 according to the distinct statement of ver. 8, is not the case.—«a/] after 
 kabarep, the ordifiary «ai after particles of comparison. See Winer, p. 
 409 [E. T. 440].—6 Adyoe tie axoge] [LI ¢.] Periphrasis of the notion éray- 
 yedia, ver. 1: the-word of that which is heard (axof in the passive sense, as 
 Rom. x. 16; Gal. iii. 2; 1 Thess. ii. 18; John xii. 38), 7.e. the word of 
 promise which was heard by them, or proclaimed to them. This peri- 
 phrasis is chosen in order already at this stage to point out that it was by 
 the fault of the fathers themselves that the word of promise became for 
 them an unprofitable word, one which did not receive its fulfillment. It 
 remained for them a word heard only externally, whereas, if it was to 
 profit them, they must manifest receptiveness for the same, must beliey- 
 ingly and confidingly appropriate the same. This culpability on the part 
 of the fathers themselves is brought into direct relief by the participial 
 clause 7 ovyKkekpamévoc TH TioTeLr TOi¢g Akovcacry, containing the in- 
 dication of cause to otk OdéAnoev, Wherein rH riorec forms an emphatic 
 opposition to the preceding rie dxoge. The sense is: because it was not for 
 the hearers mingled with faith; the dative roic axotcacw denoting the sub- 
 ject, in relation to which the Ww ovyk. Th miorec took place. See Winer, p. 
 206 [E. T. 219]... But that the fault of this not being mingled was not in 
 
 1Thus interpret Erasmus, translation, Cal- boreh, Bengel, Kypke, Storr, Stuart, Reiche, 
 vin, Castellio, Gerhard, Owen, Calov, Lim- Comm. Crit. p. 30; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des He 
 
CHAPS EV. 3; 481 
 
 the word but in the men, was naturally understood from the connection. 
 ovykexpauévoc is not to be connected with roi¢ axotcacw, so that rq miores 
 would have to be taken as the dativus instrumentalis : “ because it did not, by 
 means of faith, mingle with them that heard it, become fully incorporated 
 with them” (Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Dorscheus, 8. Schmidt, Wolf, 
 Rambach, Michaelis, Carpzov, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Valckenaer, Klee, Paulus, 
 Stein, Delitzsch, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, Woerner). For manifestly the 
 centres of thought for the adversative clause lie in r7¢ akoje and rH 
 miotel, While 7toi¢ axotoaow only takes up again the indication of the per- 
 sons, already known to us from the éxetvouc, although now as characterizing 
 these persons in attaching itself to t#¢ axoye—roic axotcaccv, however, 
 not the mere demonstrative pronoun, is put by the author in order thus 
 once more to place hearing and believing in suggestive contrast. Further, 
 the author did not write 7 ovyKexpapévoc th xiotes TOV AkovoarvTor, be- 
 cause he would thereby have conveyed the impression that the Israelites 
 in the wilderness possessed indeed zioric, but the word of promise which 
 was heard did not blend into a unity with the same; whereas by means 
 of uy ovyKexpapévoc tH miotee Toig akotcaorv he denies altogether the 
 presence of iore in them. 
 
 Ver. 3. [LI d.] Confirmation, not of xatadevtouévne éxayyediac x.7.2., Ver. 
 1 (Bengel), nor of kai yap éopev edyyyedouévor, ver. 2 (de Wette, Bloomfield, 
 Bisping), and just as little of the two clauses of ver. 2 taken together 
 (Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerb. p. 799; Moll), but of r@ riorev, 
 ver. 2. So also Bleek, Alford, and Kurtz. What Riehm (p. 800, note) 
 alleges against this interpretation—viz. that the author has already, in iii. 
 15 ff. (specially iii. 19), shown clearly enough that the Israelites in the 
 wilderness could not enter into the promised rest on account of their 
 unbelief, that it was therefore impossible that a special proof for this fact 
 should once more be required—does not apply ; because this very toreverv 
 was the main question, about the quite special accentuation of which he 
 is seen from the context to be concerned. For surely the whole disquisi- 
 tion, iii. 7-iv. 18, has its all-combining centre precisely in the endeavor tc 
 animate to riore the readers, who were in danger of sinking, like the 
 fathers, into azoria. The emphasis rests, therefore, upon of meoret- 
 cavrec, andthe sense is: for into rest enter just those of us who have manifested 
 faith. For ot reoreboarvtec cannot signify: if we have displayed 
 faith (Bohme, de Wette, Bisping); this must have been expressed 
 by the anarthrous moretcavtec. On the contrary, of motetoavtec adds 
 a special characterization of the subject of cicepyduefa, and has the 
 aim of limiting the quite generally expressed “we” to a definite class of 
 us. The present eicep xyéue6a is employed with reference to the certainty 
 of that to be looked for in the future, and oi micretoavtec, not of moTebovTec, 
 is placed, because the crete must have already preceded as an historic 
 fact, before the sicépyechac can be accomplished.—xafa¢  eipyKev K.7.A. | 
 
 brderbr. p. 696, note; Maier, and others. which is open to no grammatical objection 
 Heinsius, Semler, Kuinoel, al., take tots (cf. Winer, p. 206 [E. T. p. 219]), and makes no 
 akovoac. as equivalent tovmd Tavakovoavtwy, alteration in the sense, 
 
 31 
 
482 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 [LI e.] Scripture proof for the first half of ver. 3, from the already cited 
 words of Ps. xcv. 11. Wrongly is xa#a¢ eipyxev connected by Piscator with 
 ver. 1, by Brochmann and Bleek II. with ver. 2. For to suppose paren- 
 theses before it is unwarranted. In quite a contorted manner Hefmann 
 (p. 187): with xa6o¢ eipyxev begins a protasis, which finds its apodosis in 
 mahw tiwva dpiler juépav, ver. 7; and even the fact that the latter is apodosis 
 to émet arodeixerae does not, according to him, preclude the possibility of 
 this construction, because this second protasis is connected by oiv with 
 the first, as a deduction from the same !—eipyxev] sc. 6 be6¢.—év TH opyh pov] 
 sc. at their unbelief and obstinate perverseness, which naturally suggested 
 itself to the readers from the passage of the psalm more copiously adduced 
 in the third chapter, and the reasoning of the author there attached to it. 
 —kaitot Tov épywv ard KataBoAge Kédopov yevnbévtwr] although the works were 
 convpleted from the creation of the world ; and accordingly the ckataravoic 
 of God was something long present and lying in readiness, in which the 
 Israelites, if they had been believing, might well have obtained part. The 
 words, therefore, serve to point out the deep significance of the divine 
 oath." Wrongly are they taken ordinarily as epexegesis to ty Kataravoiv 
 pov, in supplying xararavow afresh after cairo. Then either trav épyov 
 x.7.2. is made dependent on the xatdravow supplied, in that cairo is taken, 
 contrary to linguistic usage, in the sense of “et quidem:” “into the rest, 
 namely, from the works which had been completed from the creation of 
 the world ” (so Schlichting, 8. Schmidt, Wolf, Carpzov, Kypke, Baumgar- 
 ten, Stuart, Heinrichs, Klee, Bloomfield), to which construction, more- 
 over, the repetition of the article ra» after tov épywv would have been in 
 any case necessary; or else tov ipywv . . . yevnbévtwy is regarded as a geni- 
 tive absolute : “namely (or even, although), into a rest, which ensued upon 
 the works of cyeation being completed” (so Vatablus, Calvin, Beza, Lim- 
 borch, Cramer, Bohme, Bisping), which however, in like manner, must 
 grammatically have been otherwise expressed. But, in general, the 
 author cannot here have been at all occupied with the subjoining of a 
 definition with regard to the kind of rest which was meant, since he does 
 not anywhere distinguish several kinds of rest, but without further remark 
 “presupposes that the xarazavore which ensued for God after the comple- 
 tion of the works of creation is identical with that once promised 
 to the Israelites and now promised to the Christians—rév épyov] 
 sc. tov Oeov. The necessity for thus supplementing is apparent from 
 ver. 4; comp. also ver.10. Very arbitrarily, and forcing in a thought 
 entirely foreign to the context, Ebrard understands rav épywv of the 
 works of men, supposing that with kaOdc eipyxev “the author proceeds 
 to show to what extent even the O. T. itself points out the insuffi- 
 ciency of the law and its épya”’ (!), regards rav épywv as antithesis to the 
 preceding oi moreboarrec (!), and finds the thought, “that all that which 
 
 1The aim in xaitoe tay épywy k.7.A. is not, as tution of the Sabbath] into the rest here in- 
 Bleek thinks, to prove: “that men had not tended by God;” for this was a truth which 
 perchance even then, after the creation of hardly steod in need of any proof. 
 the world, entered with Him [se. by the insti- 
 
CHAP. Iv. 4-6. 483 
 can be calle€ épya has been wrought from the time of the creation of the 
 world, but has not sufficed to bring mankind to the kardravoic, to a con- 
 dition of satisfied repose,” whence follows “that an entirely new way of 
 salvation—not that of human doing and human exertion, but that of 
 faith in God’s saving deed—is necessary in order to attain to the xard- 
 ravowe” (!).—ard KataBorge Kéonov| from the foundation of the world, i. e. since 
 the world began. Comp. ix. 26; Matt. xiii. 35, xxv. 34; Luke xi. 50; Rev. 
 Rt. 8) KVT.'S 
 
 Ver. 4. [On Vv. 4-10, see Note LII., pages 497, 498.] Scripture proof for 
 the thought implicitly contained in xairo «.7.4., ver. 8, viz. that the actual 
 existence of the divine kartazavoic, from which the Israelites were to be 
 excluded, has not been wanting. [LII a, b.]—The citation is from Gen. ii. 
 2, according to the LX-X., with some non-essential variations.—To cipyKev 
 we have to supply as subject, not 7 ypag7 (BOhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, 
 Bisping, al.), but 6 6ed¢. For although, in the citation, God is spoken of 
 in the third person, yet in eipyxev, ver. 4, the subject must be the same as 
 In Kai év Toit TaAL, Sc. eipyKev, ver. 5; in this latter passage, however, the 
 subject can only be 6 6eéc, as is proved by the following yov.—zov] see on 
 li. 6.—repi tHe €Bd6un¢] with regard to the seventh day. 
 
 Ver. 5. Renewed contrastful presentation of the relations of the Jewish 
 forefathers to this existing rest of God: “And yet He says again in this 
 place (namely, the passage already cited ver. 3): they shall not enter into 
 my rest.” —év tob7»] stands substantively, without requiring a supplement- 
 ing of rérm (Kuinoel), or ypdve (Abresch), or wadue (Carpzov). Comp. év 
 étépw, V. 6. 
 
 Vv. 6,7. The author, founding his reasoning, on the one hand, on the 
 truthfulness of God, and on the other, on the actual state of matters de- 
 clared from a//d, ver. 2, to kxataravoiv pov, ver. 5, now returns to the 
 statements: katadectomévne émayyediac, ver. 1, and cal yap éopuev 
 evny yeAtomévor Kabadrep Kaketvor, Ver. 2, in order, by means of the open- 
 ing words of the psalm cited, to render clear the truth contained in these 
 statements concerning the non-fulfillment of the promise as yet, and also 
 the necessity for not closing the heart against the same.2—The sense is: 
 since then it still remains, i.e. is to be expected with certainty, that some 
 enter therein (inasmuch, namely, as God carries also into effect that which 
 He promises), and the earlier recipients of the promise did not enter in because 
 of their unbelief, He marks out anew a definite day, etc. From this relation 
 of the first half of the protasis to the second, as that of a general postulate 
 
 1Comp. Winer, p. 549 [E. T. 590]; Buttmann, 
 p. 71 [E. T. 81]. 
 
 2 Ebrard has here, too, entirely misappre- 
 hended the connection. He says: “ Vv. 6-8, 
 the author passes to a new thought, to a new 
 point of comparison between the work of 
 Christ and the work of Moses. The oppo- 
 sition between the work of the one and that 
 of the other is twofold. . . . The first imper- 
 fection in the work of Moses consisted (iy. 
 
 2-5) in the fact that his work conferred no 
 power for fulfillment—did not eombine by 
 faith with the hearers,—and on that account 
 did not avail to lead into rest; the second 
 consists in the fact that the rest itself, into 
 which the Israelites might have been led by 
 Moses, and then by Joshua were led in, was 
 only an earthly typical rest, whereas Christ 
 leads into an actual rest, which intrinsically 
 corresponds to the Sabbath-rest of God.” 
 
484 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 to a special historic fact, is explained also the indefinite rcvd¢ in the 
 first clause. Wrongly Delitzsch, according to whom uvd¢ signifies: 
 “others than those.” Some, again, find in ézel oby arodeimera twa 
 eiceAOeiv the meaning: since then the promise, of entering into His rest, is 
 still left, 7. e. awaits its fulfillment. So substantially Bleek : “since it now 
 remains, that the divine rest has not yet been already closed by the com- 
 plete (?) fulfillment of the prophecy relating thereto, in such wise that no 
 more entrance exists for them.” Against this, however, pleads the fact 
 that the author would then have illogically co-ordinated, the one with the 
 other, the two protases ver. 6, since the first would surely contain the 
 result of the second. For the sequence of thought would then be: the 
 former recipients of the promise came short of attaining salvation, and the con- 
 sequence thereof is that the xararavowe stands open for others. It must thus 
 have been written: éret obv dmodeimerae tivac eloeAbeiv eicg aitHv, TOV 
 mpoTepov evayyeAlobévtoav ovK eioeAbdvTwv Ot anreiBerav.—oi rpdrEepov 
 evayyedobévrec] sc. the Israelites in the wilderness. 
 
 Ver. 7. The apodosis. We have not to construe in such wise that the 
 first ofuepov shall be taken as apposition to juépav: “ He marks out, there- 
 fore, again a definite day (fixes anew a term), namely, ‘a to-day,’ in that 
 —as was before observed—He says in David, so long time after, ‘ To-day, 
 etc.” Nor yet so that the first ofmepov is connected with Aéyev: “ He 
 fixes, therefore, again a day, in that, after so long a time, He says in 
 David ‘to-day ;’ even as it says: ‘To-day, if ye, etc.’”? On the contrary, 
 the first o/uepov already begins the citation; is then, however,—on account 
 of the words parenthetically introduced by the author: év Aad... 
 mpoeipnra,—resumed in the second ofuepov.—év Aavid] not: apud Davidem, 
 i.e. in the Book of Psalms,’ but: in the person of David, as the instrument 
 of which God neade use for speaking. The ninety-fifth psalm, although 
 not Davidic, was ascribed to David in the superscription of the LXX., 
 whom our.author follows.—uera tooodrov ypdvov] from the time of Joshua 
 (ver. 8).—kafac mpoeipyra:] Reference to iii. 7 f., 15. 
 
 ‘Ver. 8. Justification of the wdAw twa dpifer juépav, ver. 7. If Joshua 
 had already introduced into the rest of God, God would not still have 
 spoken in the time after Joshua of a term (period) of entrance into the 
 same.—abroic] sc. rode mpdrepov evayyediobévtac, ver. 6.—Kararatew] here (in 
 accordance with the classic usage) transitive, as Ex. xxxiii. 14, Deut. iii. 
 20, v. 33, al.: to lead into the rest—iAdAec] sc. 6 Oedc.—peTa ravra] belongs 
 not to aAAye uépac (Hofmann, al.), but to éAdaé, and corresponds to the 
 ueTa TOCOUTOY ypdovoy, ver. 7. 
 
 Ver. 9. [LII c.] Deduction from vy. 7, 8, and consequently return to 
 the first half of ver. 6. “Thus still remaining, still awaiting its advent, is 
 a Sabbath rest for the people of God,” inasmuch, namely,—what the 
 author in reasoning with the Hebrews might presuppose as admitted,—as 
 
 1 Calvin, Beza’ Grotius, Jac. Cappellus, Carp- 3 Dindorf, Schulz, B6hme, Bleek, Ebrard, 
 
 zov, Schulz, Klee, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, | Alford, Woerner, al.; with comparison of 
 Maier, M’Caul, Moll. Rom. xi. 2, ix. 25. 
 
 3 Zeger, Schlichting, Heinrichs, Stengel. 
 
CHAP. Iv. 7-11. 485 
 
 from David’s time down to the present no one had entered into the 
 xararavore of God. As Sabbatic rest the author characterizes the rest of 
 God, in adherence to the thought of ver.4. As a type of the everlasting 
 blessedness do the Rabbins also regard the Sabbath.’—dpa] at the begin- 
 ning of a sentence is, in prose, foreign to the classics. Comp. however, 
 Rom. x. 17; 2 Cor. vii. 12; Luke xi. 48; Winer, p. 519 [E. T. 598]; Butt- 
 mann, p. 318 [E. T. 371].—The expression caf Parropoc (from cafBarifer, 
 Naw, to observe the Sabbath, Ex. xvi. 30, al.) only here and with Plutarch, De 
 Superstit. c. 3.—r@ Aap tov Gbeov] to the people which appertains to God, is 
 recognized and treated by Him as His people, since it has believ- 
 ingly devoted itself to Him. Comp. Gal. vi. 16: 6 ‘Iopa7ya rou Oeov. 
 
 Ver. 10. [LII d.] There is not an establishing of the reasoning in ver. 
 9 by a reference to the essence of the Sabbatic rest (Delitzsch and Riehm, 
 Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 804), but justification of the expression oaa- 
 riouoc, employed ver. 9. For not that which constitutes the nature of the 
 Sabbath is here brought out, but the fact that in the case supposed a 
 xararavew can be ascribed to man, even as to God. Wrongly (because at 
 least clocAfav yap cic THY KaTdravowy abTov «7.2. Must have been written) 
 does Schulz refer 6 yap eiceAAdv to 6 Aadc: “and when it has entered,” 
 etc. And just as wrongly, because the context affords no point of support 
 for the same, do Owen, Alting, Starck, Valckenaer, and more recently 
 Ebrard and Alford, find in 6 cice26év a designation of Christ, in connection 
 with which the épya are then understood of the redemption completed, or 
 also of the sufferings and death undergone. On the contrary, ver. 10 con- 
 tains a universal proposition: for whoever has entered into His (namely, 
 God’s) rest, has also on his part attained to rest from his works (the burdens 
 and toils of the earthly life:? even as God from His own (works, the works 
 of creation); for him has thus the Sabbath of everlasting blessedness 
 set in. 
 Vy. 11-13. [On Vv. 11-18, see Note LIII., page 498.] Conclusion by 
 way of warning admonition.—orovddcwpev] not: festinemus (Vulg.), but: 
 let our earnest effort be directed to this end—oiv] [LIII a.] deduces the 
 inference from all that has been hitherto said, from iii. 7 onwards.— 
 éxeivnv tiv Kataravow]| that very kataravore, of which the discourse has 
 heretofore been, which was described as a karéravoe of God, as one 
 already promised to the fathers, and then again to us, as a possession 
 which they, on account of their disobedience and unbelief, failed to obtain, 
 
 1Comp. e. g. Jalkut Rubeni, fol. 95.4: Dixe- 
 runt Israélitae: Domine totius mundi, os- 
 tende nobis exemplar mundi futuri. Re- 
 spondit ipsis Deus S..B.: illud exemplar est 
 sabbatum. R. D. Kimchi et R. Salomo in Ps. 
 xeii.: Psalmus eantici in diem Sabbati, quod 
 hic psalmus pertineat ad seculum futurum, 
 quod totum sabbatum est et quies ad vitam 
 aeternam. See Wetstein and Schéttgen ad 
 loc. 
 
 2Comp. LXX. Gen. iii. 17: émuxatapatos 4 
 
 yi év Tois Epyots gov; V. 29: obtos Stavaravcer 
 Has amd Tov épywv nuav Kal awd Tov AUTO 
 TOV XElpOv NUaV Kal amo THS yHS, Hs KaTypa- 
 caro KUptos 6 Beds. Comp. also Rev. xiv. 13. 
 What is meant is not the works or labor 
 “of sanctification” (Tholuck, Grimm, Theol. 
 Literaturbl. to the Darmst. A. K.-Z. 1857, No. 
 29, p. 664); and still less the ritual ordinances 
 of Judaism (Braun, Akersloot, Cramer, Sem- 
 ler, and Griesbach). 
 
486 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 but which is still open to us as an ideal Sabbatic rest and everlasting 
 blessedness, if we manifest faith and confidence.—iva py év TO aito tu 
 brodeiyuate méon THC amefeiac] lest any one fall into the same example of 
 unbelief, i.e. lest any one fall into the same obstinate perversity as the 
 fathers, and like them become a warning example for others.) rimrecy 
 év is also quite usual in classical authors; see Passow and Pape ad vocem. 
 From rimrecv eic it is distinguished only by a greater degree of signifi- 
 cance in that it does not merely like this express the falling into some- 
 thing, but also the subsequent lying in the same. Others,’ take réoy 
 absolutely : “fall, i.e. to be brought to ruin, perish.” In that case éy is 
 explained either by per (Wolf, Stengel, Ewald, al.), or “comformably to 
 [gemiss]” (Tholuck), or propter (Carpzov), or, what with this construction 
 would alone be correct, of the condition, the state in which one is (Bleek, de 
 Wette, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm, Maier, Moll): “in giving the same 
 example.” But this whole construction is artificial. Opposed to it is 
 likewise the position of zéoy. For had this word such emphasis as it 
 must have so soon as it is taken in the absolute sense, it would not have 
 been inserted in such subordinate, unaccentuated fashion between the 
 other words, but have been introduced at the very beginning of the 
 proposition : iva uA ti wéon K.T.A. 
 
 Vv. 12, 18. Warning demonstration of the necessity for compliance 
 with the exhortation uttered ver. 11.3—6 Adyo¢ tov beot] the word of God. 
 [LIII b.] By these words we have not* the hypostatic word of God, or 
 Christ, as the second person of the Godhead. For although this mode of 
 designating Christ in the case of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 according toi. 1-8, and on account of the points of contact he displays 
 with Philo, can present nothing strange in itself, yet the expression was 
 
 ¢ 
 
 1 Thus the Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Cornelius tic basf%. According to Ebrard, the pre- 
 
 a Lapide, Grotius, -Abresch, Alford, Kurtz, 
 Hofmann, Woerner, and others. 
 
 2As Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
 lact, Vatablus, Calvin, Schlichting, Jac. Cap- 
 pellus, Wolf, Bengel, Carpzov, Schulz, Hein- 
 richs, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, 
 Bisping, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the 
 Darmstadt A. K.-Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 664; the 
 last-named because the expression “to fall 
 into an example,” instead of “to afford an 
 example,” is supposed to be a forced one,— 
 
 the expression, however, is only a concise, 
 
 one (see above),—and because mimre is 
 probably chosen with a retrospective glance 
 to iii. 17, the passage to which reference is 
 here made, with the difference that the word 
 there denoted the physical destruction. But 
 such intention in connected with the choice 
 of the word is not at all to be assumed), De- 
 litzsch, Riehm (Lehrbeqr. des Hebrderbr. p. 
 174), Maier, Kluge, Moll, Ewald. 
 
 8 Ebrard’s commentary here too abounds in 
 quixotic caprice, such as disowns all linguis- 
 
 ceding warning of ver. 11 is yet further en- 
 forced, ver. 12, by the reminder that in our 
 ease (!) that excuse (!) is removed, which, ac- 
 cording to ver. 2 (!), still existed in the case 
 of the contemporaries of Moses. For us 
 nothing is wanting (!) on the part of the word 
 of God; for (!) the word of God is living, pow- 
 erful, penetrating into the soul; if we (!) 
 
 ~ should fall victims to unbelief, the guilt 
 
 would rest upon ourselyes alone (!). Accord- 
 ing to Ebrard, the genitive tov 6e00 forms an 
 opposition to the first person plural orovéacw- 
 wev (!), and ver. 12 a supplementary material 
 opposition to ver. 2 (!). That “this profound 
 and delicate connection has hitherto been 
 overlooked by all‘ expositors” is natural 
 enough. Even after Ebrard has discovered 
 it, it will still remain unnoticed. 
 
 4With many Fathers, Oecumenius, Theo- 
 phylact, Thomas Aquinas, Lyra, Cajetan, 
 Clarius, Justinian, Cornelius a Lapide, Jac. 
 Cappellus, Gomar, Owen, Heinsius, Alting, 
 Clericus, Cramer, Ewald, al. 
 
CHAP. IV. 12 487 
 
 too unusual for it to be employed and understood without further indica- 
 tion, in this special sense, where the connection did not even lead up ta 
 it. Moreover, the predicates évepyfe, trouarepog «.7.2., and kpituxde (instead 
 of kpitfe), seem better suited to an impersonal than a personal subject. The 
 majority understand 6 Adyoc tov Geow of the word of God, as proclaimed 
 and as preserved in Scripture. They refer it then either to the gospel,' or 
 to the threatenings of God,? or, finally, to the threatenings and promises of God 
 taken together. 6 Aédyoc tov Geo is to be understood quite generally : 
 “that which God speaks,” as, indeed, the whole proposition, vv. 12, 13, 
 contains a general sentence. But that “that which God speaks” was 
 then, in its application to the case here specially coming under notice, 
 the call to receptivity of heart repeatedly made by God through the 
 psalmist, and the exclusion from His xardravore threatened in the event 
 of obstinate disobedience and unbelief, was for the reader self-evident 
 from the connection.—The word of God is characterized in progressive 
 enhancement. It is called (av, living, on account of its inner vital power 
 (not on account of its everlasting, intransitory continuance, Schlichting, 
 Abresch; nor as “cibus ac nutrimentum, quod hominum animis vitam 
 conservat,” Carpzoz; nor, in opposition to the rigid lifeless law, Ebrard) ; 
 évepyhe, effective, on account of its asserting itself, manifesting itself vig- 
 orously in the outer world. The latter is the consequence of the former, 
 and both in this connection refer to the power of punishing its contemners, 
 which is inherent in the word of God.—The penetrating sharpness of this 
 power of punishment is described in ascending gradation in the sequel. 
 —kai toudrepoc irép Tacav payatpav dictouov] and more trenchant than every 
 (any) two-edged sword. trép after a comparative (Luke xvi. 8; Judg. xi. 
 25, LXX. Cod. Vaticanus), like rapa, i. 4. wdyarpa dictopoc, a sword 
 with twofold mouth, é.e. with an edge on both sides (aygorépwfev o&eia).4— 
 The proof for the statement :, rowatepoc brép tacav payaipav dictouov, is CONn- 
 ‘tained in the words: kai dvixvobmevog aype uepiopov puyac Kat mvebwatoc, apuav 
 re Kal pveaov] and piercing to the separating of soul and spirit, joints as well 
 as marrow. [LIII ¢.] wepcoué¢ denotes the action of separating, and the 
 separating subject is the word of God. Wrongly does Schlichting (comp. 
 also BOhme) take it locally, or as reflexive : to the secret spot where soul and 
 spirit separate. Such construction is to be rejected, as otherwise the clause 
 following would have also to be explained in like manner: where joints 
 and marrow separate. Joints and marrow, however, not being, in the 
 human organization, things coming into direct contact, the thought would 
 be inappropriate, whether we understand dpuév re Kai pveAdv in the literal 
 or non-literal sense. Schlichting, to be sure, will make dpuév te Kai wredov 
 no longer dependent upon epiouov, but take it as co-ordinate with pepiopod 
 
 1 Cameron, Grotius, Wittich, Akersloot, Eb- iii. 16; Prov. v. 4. Comp. poudata dtorouos, 
 
 rard, al. Rev. i. 16, ii. 12; LXX. Ps. cxlix. 6; Ececlus. 
 2Schlichting, Michaelis, Abresch, B6hme, xxi. 3. Similarly, Eurip. Helen. 989: éuov 
 
 Heinrichs, al. mpos frap doar Siatonov kipos trode; Oresh 
 3 Beza, Schulz, Bisping, al. 1309: Simrvxa, Siotowa paoyava. 
 
 4The same expression in the LXX. Judg. 
 
488 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 (“ ... ut gladius iste penetrare dicatur ad loca in homine abditissima, 
 etiam illuc, ubi anima cum spiritu connectitur et ab eo dividitur, itemque 
 ubi sunt membrorum compages et medullae’’). But for this distinction 
 the repetition of ayp: before dpyov would have been necessary. An entire 
 failure, finally, is also the method proposed by Hofmann! in order to 
 preserve the local acceptation, in making uy kai rvebuatoc dependent on 
 dpyav te kai prvedAov: “to the point at which it dissects and dissolves both 
 joints and marrow of the inner life, the secret ligaments of its connection 
 and the innermost marrow of its existence.” For then the readers would 
 be required to understand an arrangement of the words which has not, as 
 Hofmann thinks, perhaps “its parallel”? in Heb. vi. 1, 2, but which is, on 
 the contrary, altogether impossible, on account of the addition of we propor 
 already to Woyje kat rvedparoc, and therefore nowhere finds its analogon 
 in the N. T., not to say in the Epistle to the Hebrews. All four words: 
 Wuyic, Tvebpatos, dpuov, and pverdv, depend upon pepiouoi, and not 
 a dividing of the soul from the spirit, of joinings or joints from the marrow, is 
 intended, nor yet a dividing of the soul and spirit from joints and marrow 
 (Bohme), but a dividing of the soul, the spirit, etc., each in itself is meant. 
 The two last substantives, however, are not co-ordinate to the two first 
 (Calvin, Beza, Cameron, Storr, Delitzsch, al.), but subordinate. For pvx% 
 and mrvetpa, which are distinguished from each other as characterizing 
 respectively the lower sensuous life and the higher life of the spirit, here 
 set forth without any more special limitation the inner side of human 
 life generally, in opposition to the cua or body, which latter alone an 
 earthly sword is able to pierce, and dpyoi re xai pwvedoi isnot to be 
 understood of the joints and marrow of the body,’ but of the ligaments and 
 marrow of the ~vy# and wvevpa, is thus a figurative expression to de- 
 note the innermost, most hidden depth of the rational life of man. In 
 such transferred signification pveAd¢ is used also with the classics.* 
 
 serving to their movement, and cuts through 
 
 1 Schriftbew, I. 2 Aufl. p. 297, and likewise 
 stillin his Comm. p. 192. : 
 
 2So Delitasch still explains, who represents 
 the author as giving expression to the grossly 
 sensuous conception, regardless whether 
 such conception is in harmony with the 
 author’s refined mode of thought,—that the 
 word of God points out “to man the antithe- 
 istic forces of his bodily nature, which has 
 become wholly, and to all the joints and 
 marrow (cerebral marrow, spinal marrow, 
 etc.), a seat of sin and death!” The expres- 
 sion is supposed to adapt itself, without itself 
 becoming figurative, to the figure of the 
 paxatpa, Itis presupposed that the word of 
 God has already accomplished its work of 
 dissection (!) to the skeleton, with its bones 
 and sinews (!), or_at- least presupposed that 
 all, so far as this, is manifestly to be per- 
 formed with ease. A stop, however, is not 
 made here, but it further separates the joints 
 ef the bones, with the sinews or tendons 
 
 the bones themselves, so that the marrow 
 they contain is laid bare. Thus, then, the 
 word renders the whole man transparent to 
 God and to himself, and unveils in sharpest 
 and most rigid analysis his most psychico- 
 spiritual and innermost physical (!) condi- 
 
 ‘tion; whereby it is then seen that, in so far 
 
 as the man has not yet given seope to the 
 work of grace, and in so far as the latter has 
 not yet been able to accomplish itself, the 
 marrow of the body ts as corrupt as the spirit, 
 which is as it were the marrow of the soul, 
 and the joints of the body as corrupt as the 
 soul, which is as it were the joint of the 
 spirit (!). 
 
 8Comp. Themist. Orat. 32, p. 357: (o5v¥vy) 
 elo Sedukuia €is aUTOV TOU TOY LUEAOY THS WUXIS § 
 Burip. Hippol. 255f.: xpiv yap jetptas eis ad- 
 AjAovs hiAtas OvyTovs avakipvacBar Kai MH Tpds 
 akpov muedov Wux7s. 
 
CHAP. ive, WS! 489 
 
 dpudc, however, a fastening together, uniting, joint, could likewise be em- 
 ployed metaphorically, inasmuch as it receives its signification as joint of 
 the human body only from the addition of rov cauarog or from the con- 
 nection, but elsewhere occurs in the most varied combinations and rela- 
 tions.'—It is, moreover, worthy of notice that Philo also ascribes to his 
 divine Logos a like cutting and severing power. He calls the same rouev¢ 
 Tov cuuravtwr, Which God has whetted to the most piercing sharpness, 
 which on that account not only separates all sensuous things and pene- 
 trates to the atoms, but even divides the supra-sensuous, separating the 
 soul into the rational and irrational, the reason into the true and false, 
 the perception into the clear and the obscure.2—«ai kputixdg EvOuuqcewv Kat 
 évvorav kapdiac] and qualified to take cognizance of, or to judge (wrongly 
 Heinrichs, Kuinoel, al.: to condemn), the dispositions and thoughts of the 
 heart.—ivOvujoeov |] Matt. ix. 4, xii. 25; Acts xvil. 29.—évvoidv] 1 Pet. iv. 1. 
 Ver. 18. Transition from the word of God to God Himself. That the 
 twofold airov and the ov, ver. 18, cannot be referred to Christ,’ follows 
 from the correct interpretation of 6 Adyo¢ roi Geov, ver. 12. That, however, 
 in general not the total notion 6 Adyo¢ rov Geov (so Ebrard still) can form the 
 subject of the pronouns, ver. 18, but only the 6 @eé¢ to be deduced there- 
 from, is evident from the expression toi¢ 6¢0a2oi¢ aitod, which is appro- 
 priate only to the latter, not to the former. The transition from the word 
 of God to God Himself was, moreover, a very natural one, inasmuch as 
 in the word of God, God Himself is present and operative.—«rioic] as Rom. 
 vili. 39, and frequently, in the most universal sense: any creature, and in- 
 deed here not merely as regards its external existence, but also as regards 
 its inner essence. Quite mistakenly Grotius, who is followed by Carpzov : 
 Videtur mihi hoe loco «rio significare opus hominis, quia id est velut crea- 
 tura hominis.—dé] on the contrary. See onii. 6.—retpayydicuéva] laid bare. 
 Hesychius: regavepwpéva. tpayndifecvy means: to bend back the neck of 
 ‘the victim, in the act of slaying, in order to lay bare the chest, then gen- 
 erally: to lay bare, disclose, expose to view. See the Lexicons of Passow 
 
 1Comp. ¢.g. apuos Ovpas, Dionys. Hal. v. 7; 
 apmot Avdwv, Ecclus. xxvii. 2, al. 
 
 2Comp. especially, Quis rerum divinarum 
 haeres. p. 499 (with Mangey, I. p. 491): Ei7’ 
 emtAeyer’ AvetAev avta péoa [Gen. xy. 10] 7d tis 
 
 VOS TOV TOMEa TOY TULTAVYTwWY avTOD Adyor Siat- 
 pet THY Te Anophoy Kal amoLov TOY OAwY ovalar, 
 kai Ta e€ avTins aToKpLOevTa Téecoapa TOU KOT}LOU 
 ororxeia, ete. Comp. also de Cherubim. p. 
 112 f. (with Mangey, I. p. 144), where Philo 
 
 ov mpoabels, iva Tov adidaxtov evvons Oedv TéL- 
 VOVTA TAS TE TOV TWMATWY Kal TpayuaTwY EES 
 amracas nprdcbar Kai nvaabar Soxovaas pices 
 T@® TOMEL TOV TUMTAVTMY AVTOVASYY' 
 Os, els THY O€uTaTHY akovnbeEls akpyv, Scarpav 
 ovdérote Ajyet TA aicOnTa wavTa’ éreday Sé pé- 
 XPl TOV aTopwv Kat Aeyouevwv apepav SicEcrOn, 
 TAALV ATO TOUTWY TA AGYw HewpNTa Eis aVONTOUS 
 Kal ameptypadous poipas apxeTar Scacpecy ovTOS 
 © ToMevs....°EkaoTov ovv TOY TpL@v SietAe pe- 
 gov, THY Mev WuxHV Els AoyLKdV Kal aAoyor, TOV 
 dé Adyov Eis aAnOEs TE Kai Wevddos, Thy 5é aicOnow 
 cis KaTaAnTTLKHY hayTaciay Kal akaTaAnmTTov.— 
 Ibid. p 500 (I. p. 492): Ovtws 0 Oe0s axovnoape- 
 
 findsin the dAoyivy poxdaca, Gen. Wi. 24, 
 asymbol of the Logos, and then observes 
 with regard to Abraham: Ov x opds, ote Kat 
 "ABpaap 0 aodos, nvika npgato kara Oeov eTpety 
 TaVvTAa Kal wNOoeVv amoAEiTELY TH yevYynTw, AanBa- 
 ver THS HAoyivns porgacas (i.e. of the 
 divine Logos) wiunpma, TUP Kat waxac- 
 pav [Gen. xxii. 6] dceAety kai xatapdAcéar 7d 
 Ovytov ad’ EavTod yALxomeEvos, va yuevy TH Sua- 
 VOLa METAPALOS TpOS Tov BEoV avamTy. 
 
 3 As is done even by Dorscheus, Caloy, Wit 
 tich, Braun, Brochmann, and Schéttgen, al- 
 though they do not explain hypostatically 
 the word of God in yer. 12, 
 
490 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 and Pape on the word.’ Others ? would, after the precedent of Perizonius, 
 ad Aeliani Var. Hist. xii. 58, derive the signification “lay bare” to tpayyAi- 
 Ce, from the practice in antiquity of laying hold of transgressors by the 
 neck when they were being led away to execution, and bending back the 
 head, that they might be exposed to the gaze of all. Appeal is made not 
 amiss to Suetonius in favor of this custom, Vitell. 17 : donec (Vitellius) 
 religatis post terga manibus, injecto cervicibus laqueo, veste discissa, semi- 
 nudus in forum tractus est... reducto coma capite, ceu noxii solent, 
 atque etiam mento mucrone gladii subrecto, ad visendam praeberet faciem 
 neve submitteret. In like manner to Pliny, Panegyr. 34, 3: Nihil tamen 
 gratius, nihil seculo dignius, quam quod contigit desuper intueri delatorum 
 supina ora retortasque cervices. Yet a Roman custom cannot in itself 
 afford a standard for determining the signification of a Greek word. Yet 
 others, as Cameron, Brochmann, and Klee, suppose the general significa- 
 tion: “to lay bare,” for tpayyAifev, to arise from the circumstance that 
 the verb is used also of the wrestler, who grasps his opponent by the throat, 
 and hurls him down backwards, whereby the face of the latter is exposed 
 to the full view of the spectators.* But the exposing of the face of the 
 thrown opponent was a circumstance of no importance in the rpayyAifeew 
 of the athlete, because not at all necessarily connected therewith. Fur- 
 ther, and not less improbable derivations, see in Bleek.—zpé¢ év x.7.A.] 
 [LIII d.] is to be taken in close combination only with the airod imme- 
 diately preceding, not likewise, as is done by Michaelis, Bloomfield, and 
 Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. 2 Aufl. p. 104), with the first airov, and upon 7uiv 
 falls no emphasis (against Ebrard and Alford). The words for the rest 
 have too little the character of independence to justify our taking them 
 alone, with Alford, and separating them by a colon from that which pre- 
 cedes.—rpic dv 7Av 6 Adyoc] towards whom exists for us the relation, i. e. with 
 whom we haveto do. Calvin: vertendum erat: cum quo nobis est ratio: 
 cujus orationis hic est sensus, Deum esse, qui nobiscum agit, vel cam quo 
 nobis est negotium, ideoque non esse ludendum quasi cum homine mor- 
 tali, sed quoties verbum ejus nobis proponitur, contremiscendum esse, 
 quia nihil ipsum lateat. Comp. 1 Kings ii. 14 and 2 Kings ix. 5: Adyo¢ por 
 xpoc o&.4—Incorrectly do Luther, Vatablus, Cameron, Schlichting, Corne- 
 lius a Lapide [Piscator hesitates between this and the rendering above 
 given], Grotius, Calov, Wolf, Schulz, Stengel, al., generally with an appeal 
 to mpdéc, i. 7, 8, and a comparison of v. 11, take rpdc bv yuiv 6 Adyog as equiv- 
 
 1Comp. Hom. J. i. 459: ab épvoav, sc. tov 
 Tp&xXnAov Tov Lepov ; Orpheus, Argon. 311: tad- 
 pov aacov, avaxAtvas Kedadny eis aibépa Stay ; 
 P. Fr. Ach. Nitsch, Beschreibung des héiuslichen, 
 gottesdienstlichen u. s. w. Zustandes der Griechen, 
 2 Aufl. Th. I. p. 667. : 
 
 2As Elsner, Wolf; Baumgarten, Kuinoel, 
 Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, and Maier. 
 
 ®Cameron: Videtur esse metaphora petita 
 are palaestrica. Nam luctatores tum demum 
 adversarium dicuntur tpaxnAcgerv, cum ob- 
 
 stricto collo ita versant, ut objiciant spectato- 
 rum oculis nudum conspiciendum et retec- 
 tum undiquaque, id quod tum demum max- 
 ime fit, quum ejus cervicibus inequitant. 
 
 + Aristides, Leuctr. iv. p. 465: é€mot S€ Kat 
 TOUTO Oavpacrov haiveTat, El TLS TO Mev @nBaiovs 
 fLovous avTimadous nuty KataderhbOjvar Sede, To 
 SE mpds audorepous uty elvar Tov Adyov, ovdevds 
 afvov xpiver poBov. Further examples in 
 Wetstein and Bleek. 
 
CHAP. Iv. 14. 491 
 
 alent to rept ov nyiv 6 Aéyoc. Moreover, something entirely foreign is im- 
 ported by Ewald when, with a reference to ii. 10 f., he finds in the words 
 the sense: “to whom, as a friend and brother, we can always most confi- 
 dently speak.” Finally, the Peshito, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
 lact, Primasius, Erasmus Paraphr., Clarius, Zeger, Owen, Limborch, 
 Michaelis, Whitby, Cramer, Stuart, Hofmann, a., explain: to whom we 
 shall have to give an account of our actions. In itself this interpretation 
 would be admissible; but, inasmuch as the words must in consequence 
 thereof be taken in reference to an event yet future, we should necessarily 
 expect the addition of éora. 
 
 Ver. 14-x. 18. [On Vv. 14-16, see Note LIV., pages 498, 499.] The 
 author has, in that which precedes, compared Christ with the angels and 
 then with Moses, and proved the superiority of Christ over both. He 
 applies himself now to a third point of the comparison, in that he insti- 
 tutes a comparison between Christ and the Levitical high priests, and 
 developes on’ every side the exalted character of His high-priesthood 
 above the Levitical high-priesthood, with regard to His person, with regard 
 to the sanctuary in which He fulfills His office, and with regard to the 
 sacrifice presented. The copiousness of this new dogmatic investigation 
 —w hich is subservient to the same paraenetic aim as the preceding expo- 
 sitions, and therefore opens with an exhortation of the same nature with 
 the former ones, and is presently interrupted by a somewhat lengthy 
 warning-paraenetic interlude—is to be explained by the greater import- 
 ance it had for the readers, who, in narrow-minded over-estimate of the 
 temple cultus inherited from the fathers, regarded the continued participa- 
 tion in this cultus as necessary for the complete expiation of sin and the 
 acquiring of everlasting salvation, and, because they thought nothing 
 similar was to be found in Christianity, were exposed to an imminent peril 
 
 of turning away from the latter and relapsing entirely into Judaism.’— 
 "The transition to this new section is formed by vv. 14-16. 
 
 Ver. 14. The introductory phrase : éxovrec oby apyxtepéa, presupposes that 
 the author has already had occasion to speak of Jesus as ap xeepe bc. We 
 are therefore led back for obv to ii. 17, iii. 1. But, since there is further 
 added to dapyvepéa the qualification péyav and dveAnAvddra Tove ovpa- 
 voc, and thus also these characteristics must be presupposed as known 
 from that which precedes, we have consequently not to limit oiv, in its 
 backward reference, to ii. 17, iii. 1, but to extend it to the whole disquisi- 
 tion, i. 1-iii. 6, in such wise that (logically, indeed, in a not very exact 
 manner) péyav, dueAyAvddra Tovs ovpavooc glances back in general to the dig- 
 nity and exaltedness of the person of Jesus, as described in these sections. 
 —Frroneously does Delitzsch suppose that by means of ov the exhorta- 
 tion Kpatauev TH¢ duodoyiac is derived as a deduction from vv. 12, 13. Such 
 
 1 Compare the explanation already given by pukat, add’ VnAoTEpa Kal TeAcLOTEpa TAVTA, Kat 
 Chrysostom, Hom. viii. init. : "Emevdy yap ovdev ovdey TOV TwmaTLKaY, To SE TAY EV Tols Mveupa- 
 hv (sc. in the New Covenant) cwpatikov 7 pav- TiKois WV, OVX oUTw dé TA mvevpaTika TOUS agGe- 
 TATTLKOY, OLOV OV VAS, OVX Gyva aylwv, ovX Lepevs veaTepous EmHYETO Ws TA gwhaTiKd, TOUTOU Xapr 
 TrogavTHV EXOV KaTacKEUyY, OV TapaTynpHaeErs vO- tovrov OAov KLvEr TOV ADYOV. 
 
492 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 opinion would be warranted only if, with the omission of the participial 
 clause, merely xpatdpuev obv rij¢ 6uodoyiac had been written. For since kparé- 
 ev THC duozoyiac has received its own justification in the prefixed éyovrec 
 x.7.4., apart from that which immediately precedes, itis clear that, in con- 
 nection with ver. 14, there is no further respect had to the contents of yv. 
 12,13. Itis not therefore to be approved that Delitzsch, in order tomake 
 room for the unfortunate reference tovy. 12, 15, will have ody logically 
 attached to the verb xpatduev, instead of the participle, with which it is 
 grammatically connected, and to which, as the most simple and natural, 
 the like passage, x. 19 ff., also points. What labored confusion of the re- 
 lations would Delitzsch require the reader to assume, when he is called to 
 regard éyovrec «.7.2. as being at the same time a recapitulation of that 
 which has been said before, and continuation of the argument; and yet, 
 spite of all this, to look upon kpatéuev tie éuodoyiac as a deduction from vy. 
 12,13! In any case, the connection asserted by Delitzsch to exist between 
 ver. 14 and vv. 12, 13: “the word of God demands obedience and appro- 
 priation, z.e. faith, not, however, as merely a faith locked up within the 
 vreast, but also a loud Yea and Amen, unreserved and fearless confession, 
 auodoyia from mouth and heart, as the echo thereof,” is in itself a baseless 
 imagination ; because the before-demanded zicoti¢ and the here de- 
 manded déuodoyia are by no means distinguished from each other as a minus 
 and a majus, but, on the contrary, in the mind of the author of the epis- 
 tle are synonyms. It results that oiv stands in a somewhat free relation 
 to the foregoing argument, consequently must not at all be taken as, 
 strictly speaking, an illative particle, with which that which precedes is 
 first brought to a close, but as a particle of resuming, which, in the form of 
 a return to that which has already been said before, begins a new section. 
 —péyav] does notan such wise appertain to apyepéa that only in combi- 
 nation with the same it should form the idea of the high priest (Jac. Cap- 
 pellus, Brain, Rambach, Wolf, Carpzoy, Michaelis, Stuart), but is indica- 
 tive of the quality of the high priest, and means evalted, just as péyac, x. 
 21, in combination with iepéic. Comp. also xiii. 20.—As the author of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews represents Christ the Son. of God, so also does 
 Philo’ represent the divine Logos as 6 péyac¢ apyiepetc.2—dveAnAvtbra rove 
 ovpavoi¢] elucidatory demonstration of uéyav. Wrongly is it translated by 
 Luther (as also by the Peshito): who has ascended up to heaven ; by Calvin, 
 Peirce, Ernesti, al. : qui coelos ingressus est. It can only signify [Piscator, 
 Owen, Bengel, Tholuck, Stuart, al.]: who has passed through the heavens, se. 
 in order, exalted above the heavens (cf. vii. 26; Eph. iv. 10), to take His 
 seat upon the throne of the Divine Majesty (i. 3,18). Allusion to the 
 high priest.of the Old Covenant, who, in order to make atonement for 
 the people, passed through the courts of the Temple, and through the 
 Temple itself, into the Most Holy Place. Comp. ix- 11.—tyooiv rap vidy 
 
 1 De Somn. p. 598 A, with Mangey, I. p. 654. apXLEpEvs 0 TPwWTSyOVOS avTOD Helos Adyos, ETEpoV 
 2Comp. ibid. p. 597 (I. p. 653): Avo yap, ws dé Aoyixy Wuxy, Hs Lepeds O mpds aAyPeray av- 
 eokev, tepa Oeov, Ev pev Gd€ O KOTMOS, EV w KaL Opw7ros. , 
 
CHAP, Iv. 15. 493 
 
 tov Geov] emphatic apposition to apyepéa péyar k.7.2., in which the charac- 
 terization of Jesus as the vide rot Geot (i. 1, 5, vi. 6, vii. 3, x. 29) serves anew 
 ‘to call attention to the dignity of the New Testament High Priest. Quite 
 mistaken are Wolf and Béhme in their conjecture that the object in the 
 addition of rév vidr tov beov is the distinction of Jesus from the Joshua 
 mentioned ver. 8. For the mention of Joshua, ver. 8, was, as regards the 
 connection, only an incidental one, on which account there also not even 
 a more precise definition was given to the name.—«partapev rie duoroyiac] 
 let us hold fast (vi. 18; Col. ii. 19; 2 Thess, ii. 15; wrongly Tittmann: lay 
 hold of, embrace) the confession. éuoAoyia is not, with Storr, to be referred 
 specially to the confession of Christ as the High Priest, but to be taken in 
 general of the Christian confession. The expression is here too used 
 objectively, as il. 1, of the sum or subject-matter of the Christian’s belief. 
 
 Ver. 15. Further justification of the demand, ver. 14, of stedfast adher- 
 ence to the Christian confession.! For the High Priest of Christians is 
 not merely a highly exalted One (ver. 14), He is also qualified, since as 
 Brother He stands very closely related to believers, and has been tempted 
 as they are, to have sympathy for their weaknesses. Comp. ii. 17, 18.7 
 Whereas dvvdyevov ovurabjoa and rerepacuévov Kata ravta Ka? dGuordtyta 
 bring out the homogeneity of the New Testament High Priest with that 
 of the Old Testament (comp. v. 2), the dissimilarity at the same time ex- 
 isting between the two is rendered apparent by yopic duaptiac.—ovurabeiv] 
 to have sympathy, compassionate feeling —Comp. x. 34. Preliminary con- 
 dition to bestowing succor and redemption.—ai dofévecac judv] the condi- 
 tions of human weakness, as well moral as physical, which have been 
 called forth by the entrance of sin into the world.—zere:pacpévov dé] con- 
 tains in the form of a correction of 4) dvvdéuevor the proof of the capacity 
 for having sympathy.—xara ravta] Comp. 1. 17.—«xal? éuoidryta] se. judv, 
 (comp. vil. 15: xara tiv duoibryTa MeAyioedéx), or juiv,s or even xpoc 
 juac * in like (similar) manner as we.—yupic duapriac| without sin, i. e. with- 
 out sin arising out of the temptations, or more clearly: without His 
 being led into sinning, as a result of His being tempted. Comp. vii. 
 26; 2 Cor. v. 21; 1 John i1.5; 1 Pet. ii. 22. When Hofmann (Schriftbew. 
 II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 37) and Delitzsch will discover in these words the additional 
 
 1[neorrectly does Ebrard take ver. 15 as 
 elucidation of €xovres apxeepea. 
 
 2Calvin: In nomine Filii Dei, quod posuit, 
 subest ea majestas, quae nos ad timorem et 
 obsequium adigat. Verum si nihil in Christo 
 aliud consideremus, nondum pacatae erunt 
 conscientiae. Quis enim non reformidet 
 Filii Dei conspectum, praesertim quum re- 
 putamus, qualis sit nostra conditio, nobisque 
 in mentem ventunt peceata nostra? Deinde 
 Judaeis aliud obstare poterat, quia Levitico 
 sacerdotio assueyerant: illie ceernebant hom- 
 inem mortalem unum ex aliis electum, qui 
 sanctuarium ingrediebatur, ut sua depreca- 
 tione reconciliaret fratres suos Deo. Hoe 
 
 magnum est, quum mediator, qui placare 
 erga nos Deum potest, unus est ex nobis. 
 Haec illecebra poterat Judaeos illaqueare, ut 
 sacerdotio Levitico semper essent addicti, 
 nisi occurreret apostolus, ac ostenderet 
 Filium Dei non modo excellere gloria, sed 
 aequa bonitate et indulgentia erga nos esse 
 praeditum. 
 
 3 Comp. Polyb. xiii. 7. 2: "Hv yap etéwAov yu- 
 VALKELOV, TOAUTEAECLY LMaTiots NULETMEVOV, KATA 
 Se thy pophHy cis OoLdTHnTAa TH TOV NaBudos yu- 
 vatki dtaddpws atecpyacpevov. 
 
 4Comp. Philo, de Profugis, p. 458 A, with 
 Mangey, I. p. 553: cata thy mpds TaAAa ofoLe 
 TTA. 
 
494 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 indication that in the case of Jesus temptation aiso found no sin present, this is 
 indeed true as to the fact, but open to the misconception of being sup- 
 posed to imply that even the possibility of sinning on the part of Jesus is 
 denied, whereas surely this possibility in itself must be conceived of as an 
 essential factor in the idea of being tempted ; and opposed to the context, 
 because ywpi¢ duaptiac is the continued note of modality of tereipacuéver, 
 and thus cannot possibly specify something that was already present, even 
 before the respafeofac came in. More in accordance with the context, 
 therefore, does Alford express himself: “Throughout these temptations, 
 in their origin, in their process, in their result,—sin had nothing in Him : 
 He was free and separate from it.” Wrongly Jac. Cappellus, Calmet, 
 Semler, Storr, Ernesti, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others: tempted in all 
 things, sin excepted. For in that case ywpic¢ t7¢ aduapriac (with the article) 
 would be written, and this be connected immediately with kara xavra. 
 Mistaken, however, is also the explanation of Oecumenius, Schlichting, 
 Dindorf: without having committed sin, as a guiltless one; an interpretation 
 which would be admissible only if wecpafeo@ac could be referred specially 
 to the enduring of outward sufferings, which might be seen to be a conse- 
 quence of sin.--Comp., for the rest, on ywpi¢ duapriac likewise the kindred 
 statements concerning the divine Logos in Philo.! 
 
 Ver. 16. Encouragement, derived from the character of the High Priest 
 of the New Testament, as brought into relief, ver. 15.—zpocépyeofar] 
 approach, draw near, in order to have community with something. Comp. 
 vii. 25, x. 1, 22, xi. 6, xii. 18, 22. Too specially Delitzsch, Kurtz, and 
 Ewald, who explain: drawing near in prayer for aid or succour.—pera 
 rappnoiac] with confidence (iii. 6), inasmuch as we possess, in the very office 
 of intercessor, a High Priest who is not only exalted, but also full of 
 sympathy, who thus has notonly the power, but also the will to help.— 
 Opdvoc tHe yapitoc] not: Christ Himself (Gerhard, 8. Schmidt, Carpzov, 
 Ernesti, al.), not: the throne of Christ (Primasius [also Tena, arguing from 
 the Vulgate of ii. 9], Schlichting, Limborch, Ch. Fr. Schmid, al.), but the 
 throne of God, at whose right hand Christ is seated. Comp. viii. 1, xii. 2 
 [Eph. ii. 18]. It is called, however, the throne of grace, because the 
 nature of the New Covenant has, as its presupposition, not strictly judicial 
 retribution, according to the works of men, but compassion and grace on 
 the part of God; the believer feels himself united to God as a loving 
 Father, who has remitted to him the guilt and punishment of sin. A 
 reference for the rest to the cover of the ark of the covenant, regarded as 
 the seat of the Godhead in the sanctuary (the 152 or iacrfpwv of the 
 Old Covenant), assumed by Piscator, Schéttgen, Wolf, Carpzov, Cramer, 
 Abresch, Kuinoel, Paulus, al., and still in recent times by Bloomfield and 
 Bisping (comp. also Kurtz ad loc.), in connection with the expression: 6 
 Opévoc tie xépiroc, is not indicated by anything in the text.—To obtain 
 
 1De Profugis, p. 466 B (with Mangey, I. p. vov adda kai axovoiwy adixnuaTwy auéToxXov.— 
 562): Adyouev yap, Tov apxtepéa ovK avOpwrov _— Ibid. p. 467 C (I. p. 563): apéroxos yap eat ama- 
 GAAG Adyov Oetov elvat, TaVTWY OVX EKOVTLWY [L0- padextos mavTos elvar MEPUKEV AuapTHUc TOS. 
 
NOTES. 495 
 
 mercy and find grace (Luke i. 30; Acts vii. 46; comp. jM 839, Gen. vi. 8, 
 xviii. 3, and frequently) are synonymous terms. All distinctions, as that of 
 Béhme: éAcoc magis id appellat, quo indigebant calamitatibus oppress 
 lectores, yapic, QUO peccatis non carentes; of Stein, that éeo¢ relates to 
 compassion towards the sinner, yapic to every manifestation of grace; of 
 Bisping, that éeo¢ refers more to the forgiveness of sins and deliverance 
 from sufferings, while xépu refers to the communication of higher gifts 
 of grace; of Hofmann, that ydpu ebpickew means “ to be brought into a 
 state of favor with any one, to become an object of his good-will ;” 
 AauBdvew éeoc, on the other hand, is “a receiving of that which the kind 
 and gracious One accords to those in need of His kindness, just on account 
 of their need,” and many others, are untenable.—ei¢ ebxaipov BofGecav] for 
 timely help, i.e. in order that we may in this manner attain to a help which 
 appears on the scene, while it is still the right time, before it is yet too 
 late (iii. 18). Wrongly Tholuck, Delitzsch, Moll, Kurtz, and Hofmann: 
 “before the one in conflict with the temptations succumbs ; ” and others 
 (also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. p. 740): “as often as we stand in 
 
 need of the Bo7fea.” 
 
 Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 LI. Vv. 1-3. 
 
 (a) Vv. 1-10 constitute the third part of this extended hortatory passage (see 
 Note XLIX a above), in which the readers are reminded of the danger that they 
 might fail of entering into the rest of God from the same cause which had led to 
 the failure of the ancient Israelites—namely, atoria, Odv of ver. 1 refers to what 
 is said of the Israelites in vv. 15-19; ¢0878ayev calls to mind the reason for 
 apprehension, and, at the same time, urges the course of action which such appre- 
 hension would naturally suggest; doxm and vorepyKévac are to be explained, with 
 Liinem., the former as an intentional softening of the expression, and the latter as 
 in the perfect because, at the time of decision as to who shall find entrance, these 
 will prove to have already failed. The genitive-absolute clause, intermediate 
 between ¢037SGuev and doxi tor. (KaTarerrropévne éxayyeAiac. .. avTov) stands in a 
 circumstantial relation to the sentence. This is indicated by the position of the 
 words after #7ore, which shows that they do not give a reason for the exhortation 
 to be apprehensive of the danger and thus avoid it, but set forth a circumstance 
 connected with the statement of the thing to be apprehended. They were to fear 
 lest, their condition being the same with that of the Israelites, in respect to the 
 fact of the promise, the result at the end might be the same. The emphasis on 
 katakerrouévyg and the use of the word are connected rather with the thought de- 
 veloped later in the chapter (see vv. 3 ff.), than with the demands of the thought 
 in this verse. The omission of the article with éxayyediac is due, no doubt, to the 
 fact that it was the idea of promise, rather than of the particular promise, which was 
 here prominent in the writer’s mind. That the great promise of God is one and 
 the same is made sufficiently clear in subsequent verses.—(b) Ver. 2, as Liinem. 
 remarks, “corroborates in its first half the katadevrouévyc (ver. 1), while the 
 second half shows the danger of the iotepyxévae in the example of others.” This 
 verse belongs, thus, immediately with ver. 1, and serves to complete its idea. It 
 
496 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 is to be observed, however, that the substance of this verse is really gathered 
 up into the ov of ver. 1 with the following kata/ev7., and consequently that 
 it has a repetitious character, such as we often see, in similar cases, in Paul’s 
 writings. 
 
 (c) As to the text and construction of ver. 2 b, the following suggestions may be 
 offered :—1. The nominative of the participle (ovyxex.) is read by Tisch. 8, as 
 Liinem. states in his critical notes, but Lachm., Treg., W. & H., Alf, R. V., read 
 the accusative. The external evidence, as may be seen by the presentation of it 
 given by Liinem., strongly favors the accusative, which is also favored by the con- 
 sideration that it is the more difficult reading. The change from o¢ to ove, how- 
 ever, is only a slight one, and might, easily, as it would seem, have been made by 
 a copyist, who, without carefully examining the bearing of it on the thought of 
 the sentence, was influenced, by the preceding éxe‘voue, to put the participle in the 
 same case.—2. The reading with the accusative—because they were not mixed in 
 faith, or united by faith, with those who heard—presents a thought which is not 
 in the special line of the surrounding context. This is evident for the following 
 reasons : first, because the context does not call attention to those who received the 
 word by faith, in the early times, but finds all its emphasis in centering the 
 thought upon those who did not thus receive it; secondly, because the context 
 uses hearing in the more objective or passive sense, i. e. that hearing which is 
 involved in the proclamation, and not receptive hearing; thirdly, the context, 
 in ver. 2 a and also in ver. 6, distinctly sets forth the persons, to whom the good 
 tidings were preached, as the same with the disobedient ones—the same with those 
 who had been mentioned in iii., 16 ff.; fourthly, the argument of the context 
 which follows is to show, that the rest remains for the readers to enter into it, 
 because it had not been entered already ;—but, to make an allusion to Caleb 
 and Joshua, who, in a certain sense, had entered it, would not only be wholly 
 unnecessary, but would diminish the rhetorical force of the passage. On the 
 other hand, the reading with the nominative places the sentence in the direct line 
 of all that is said from iii. 15 to iv. 10. Like Rom. v. i., therefore, this verse 
 must be reckoned among the small number of passages, where it seems probable 
 that the internal evidence is to be regarded as out-weighing the external. The 
 internal evidence, in this case, is supported by 8 and by Vulg., and some other 
 authorities which read the nominative. A. R. V., reads the nominative in the 
 text and the accusative in the margin; R. V., the acc. in the text, and the nom. 
 in the margin. 
 
 (d) In ver. 3 a, there is a twofold emphasis—on eicepyéueba, by reason of its 
 position and as related to vv. 4-10; andon ot mioreioarrec, as related to the idea 
 of faith which, through 7% xiorec and azotia, is made so prominent in the pre- 
 ceding context. There is a turn in the thought, in this verse, from the danger of 
 failure through unbelief, and the vital necessity of faith, to the certainty of the 
 reward in case we have faith. In order to the setting forth of this certainty, 
 which is expressed in the emphatic cicepyoueha, the writer proceeds in vy. 4-10 
 to establish the fact that the rest really awaits the entrance of the true believers.— 
 (e) In the latter part of ver. 3, two points are to be noticed :—1. That xaAac eipyrer 
 k.7.A., introduces the proof of the necessity of faith, which is suggested in oi mor. 
 This proof lies in the fact that the Israelites were refused entrance notwithstand- 
 ing that the rest had long since been prepared—it must have been their disobedi- 
 ence, therefore, occasioned by their atioria, which caused their rejection. 2. That 
 
NOTES. 497 
 
 the clause following xaito, though connected by that word, as just indicated, with 
 the xa$éc clause, gives in its own suggested thought the foundation for the next 
 verses, 4-10. 
 
 LI. Vv. 4-10. 
 
 (a) In the development of the proof given in these verses (with which, as 
 already stated, the last clause of ver. 3 is, in thought, to be connected), there are, 
 apparently, four steps: 1. The rest of God was established by Him at the end of 
 the work of the creation of the world, 2. This rest was not entered by the 
 Israelites of Moses’ time; it remained, therefore, open for others. 3. It was not 
 entered, in the full sense, in the time of Joshua; it was reserved for men who should 
 follow afterwards. 4. It was not entered, even in David’s time, as indicated by 
 the very exhortation of his Psalm, which is still read in the days present to the 
 writer and his readers. The arrangement of the steps is not in the order of direct 
 succession, but according to the incidental suggestions of each sentence as intro- 
 ducing the next. It follows, as we may say, the grammatical, rather than the 
 logical law of connection and progress. But the thought may be easily traced ; 
 and the conclusion is reached in ver. 9, that there is a rest yet remaining, and that 
 it is a oaBBariouéc—a rest such as God Himself had “ when the works were done.” 
 
 (b) With respect to the immediate and grammatical connection of the passage 
 (4-10), the following points may be observed :—1. yép of ver. 4, grammatically, 
 gives the reason for the whole sentence from &¢ &poca to yevvnbévTar, and it 
 covers in its force ver. 4 and ver. 5. In the special progress of thought in vv. 
 4-10, ver. 4 may he regarded as giving the proof of what is suggested as to the 
 first provision of the rest in ver. 3c, and ver. 5 repeats, for the purposes of this 
 passage, the statement of the failure of the Israelites in the times of Moses, which 
 is still further mentioned in ver. 66. Vv. 5, 6 b, thus contain the second step of 
 the proof.—2. oiv of ver. 6 connects arokeimerat K.7.2., as an inference, with what 
 precedes, and é7e? +ntroduces these words as a protasis, to which épiler K.7.A. (ver. 
 7) answers as an apodosis. The chief statement of these two verses is, evidently, 
 that of ver. 7, and, in relation to the main thought of the passage, these verses 
 declare that the exhortation in the Psalms shows the rest to be still open for 
 entrance, in the time of David.—s. yap of ver. 8 introduces that verse as a proof 
 or justification of the words 7a/uv dpiler nuépar. There would have been no such 
 reference to a new day, if the rest to which Joshua led the people had been all 
 that was meant. It is evident, however, that the placing of ver. 8 after ver. 7 and 
 the connecting of the two by yap belong only to the incidental and grammatical 
 progress of the verses, and not to the historical order of the proofs. 
 
 (c) The introduction of the word oaParioudc (ver. 9), in place of KxaTéravore, 
 cannot be satisfactorily explained without giving it a deeper significance. The 
 progress of the steps in the argument, which shows that nothing in the past has 
 exhausted the meaning of the offer of entrance into the rest, points to the same 
 significance. The word arohe(rerat, also, Which carries with it the idea of remain- 
 ing over, and the implication that what is referred to had not yet been fully 
 realized, accord with this deeper sense. The rest which remains is a future and 
 heavenly one—the one clearly revealed by Christ. 
 
 (d) The two views respecting § clceA#Ov of ver. 10—that it refers to Christ, and 
 that it designates the individual believer, whoever he may be—are, both of them, 
 liable to serious objections. Without expressing a confident opinion on the sub- 
 
 32 
 
 
 
498 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 ject, the writer of this note would offer the following suggestions, which may be 
 regarded as favoring the reference to Christ :—(1) If we consider ver. 3, by its 
 emphatic eicep xouea, as intended to turn the thought of the readers to something 
 outside of the mere exhortation—namely, to the certainty that they will enter 
 the rest, if they believe-——we may find a most appropriate conclusion to the 
 development of this idea in the statement of ver. 9, that the rest is a oa ariopdc, 
 and in the proof of this statement, which is found in the fact that it is the rest 
 which Jesus entered at the end of His work.—-(2) This view of the matter 
 removes, in some measure, the prolonged and repetitious character of the horta- 
 tory section, iii. 7—iv. 13, by connecting these verses with the idea (which is 
 suggested in ch. ii. 9,10) of Jesus as leading the sons of God to the glory awaiting 
 them. At the same time, however, it does not destroy the close union of the 
 verses with those which precede, and their manifest grammatical subordination 
 to the exhortation of vv. 1, 2—(3) A certain rhetorical parallelism, in this 
 grammatically subordinate passage, to the thought of ch. ii. is thus given—though 
 not such an elaborate parallelism as is supposed by Ebrard—and this we might 
 naturally expect in these chapters.—(4) The reference of ver. 10 to Jesus makes 
 this verse a declaration that Jesus has entered the heavenly rest, as ch. ii. 9 
 affirms His entrance into the heavenly glory—in both cases, leading the way for 
 His people.—(5) By means of this declaration, the way is prepared—as it is not 
 so fully otherwise—for the introduction of vv. 14-16, which correspond so closely 
 with ii. 17, 18.—The objections to this view are found in the fact that Jesus is not 
 mentioned by name in the yerse, and in the absence of any allusion to Him in 
 connection with oi mcoretoavrec, in ver. 3, or even in the entire passage lii. 7-iv, 
 9. The objections to the other view are the use of the aorist instead of the pre- 
 sent, both in the participle and the verb, and the emphatic avrdéc, which is less 
 easily accounted for if the reference is to any believer whatsoever. 
 
 
 
 e IT. Vvyi11-1s. i 
 
 (a) obv of ver. 11 deduces thé inference from iii. 7 onwards, according to 
 Liinem.’s view. “More probably, we are to refer it to the preceding verses of this 
 chapter (vv. 3-7) ; so Alford and others. This latter reference is unquestionable, 
 if the design of these verses as following eicepyoueba, which has been alluded to, 
 is to be admitted. In any case, there is undoubtedly a special pointing of odv to 
 the idea expressed in oa3Baricu6c—(b) The Aoyoc Tov Geov (ver. 12) must, at least, 
 be regarded as including and giving prominence to the idea of a threatening of 
 punishment, if, indeed, it is not to be limited in its meaning to this—(c) The four 
 genitives wvyie¢ x.7.2. (ver. 12) may, each of them, depend on sepcopov, or the last 
 two may depend on yep., and each of the first two on both of the last two. The 
 latter construction is, perhaps, to be preferred—(d) The explanation of tpo¢ 6» 
 juiv 6 Adyoc to which Liinem. gives his assent, is the most satisfactory one. The 
 danger attending neglect of the new revelation and the certainty of punishment in 
 case of falling away are suggested here, as in other places, in connection with the 
 one, ever-repeated exhortation. 
 
 LIV. Vv. 14-16. 
 
 (a) The view of Liinem. and other writers, who regard these verses as properly 
 to be united with ch. v., is to be rejected. This is evident, first, because of the 
 
NOTES. ; 499 
 
 very striking parallelism between these verses and those at the end of ch. ii., both 
 in their words and thoughts and in the manner of their introduction ; secondly, be- 
 cause ch, y. introduces the discourse respecting the subject of the high-priesthood in 
 the most natural way, by presenting certain essential qualifications and then add- 
 ing the statement that Christ had these qualifications, and thus most appropriately 
 opens the new section; thirdly, because these last verses of ch. iv. are mainly 
 hortatory, and are accordingly, in contrast to v. 1 ff., adapted to form the conclusion 
 of the preceding section. The dividing point between the first and second main 
 divisions of the epistle is the end of ch. iv—(5) As to the correspondences and 
 differences in the words here used and those in ii. 17, 18, see Note XLVII bd. 
 above. The second part of the first main division closes, like the first part, with 
 a brief passage which is a foreshadowing of and preparation for the thoughts 
 of the later chapters. 
 
500 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Ver. 1. Instead of the Recepta d@pa te kai Avoiac, Lachm. and Tisch. 1 
 read merely d@pa kai Ovoiac. But the single testimony of B (D**?)—for 
 nothing is here to be inferred from the Latin versions—does not suffice for the 
 condemnation of the particle. te is protected by A C D*** (D*: re ddpa) E 
 K L &, by, as it appears, all the cursives, Epiph. and many others. Cf. also Heb. 
 vill. 3, ix. 9—~-Ver. 3. Elz.: dca tattyv. Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 
 Delitzsch, Alford, al.: dv’ ait4#v. To be preferred on account of the better 
 attestation by A B C* D* x, 7, 80, al., Syr. utr. Chrys. ms. Cyril. Theodoret 
 (alic.).—Instead of the Recepta éavtov, there is placed in the text by Lachm., 
 after B D*, airov; by Tisch. 1, ai70v.—But éavrov is found in A C D*** E 
 K L ¥, almost all min., and many Fathers, and is on that account to be retained, 
 with Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 2, 7,and 8, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, and others. 
 —The preference over the Recepta irép ayaptiév (supported by C*** D*** E 
 K L, the majority of the min. Chrys. Theodoret ad loc., al. ; defended by Bleek, 
 and more recently by Bloomfield and Reiche) is merited by the reading wepi 
 duapti@v, already commended to attention by Griesbach; adopted by Lachm. 
 Tisch. and Alford, with the assent of Delitzsch and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Heb- 
 rderbr. p. 434), partly on account of the stronger attestation by A B C* D* x, 17, 
 31, 47, 75, 118, Chrys. codd. Theodoret (semel), partly because tepi might easily, 
 on account of the vepi placed twice before, be altered into izép, in conformity 
 with b7ép duaptiov, ver. 1—Ver. 4. aAAa Kadobuevoc]. So rightly already the 
 Editt.. Complut. and Plantin.; in like manner Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, 
 Knapp, Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, after the 
 preponderating authority of A B C* D E K x, 238, 37, 44, al. plur., Chrys. 
 Damase. Procop. Oecum. The article added in the Recepta: A/a 6 Kadoipe- 
 voc, is not only badly attested (C** L, Constitutt. apostoll., Theodoret, Theophy- 
 lact), but also unsuitable, since not a new subject in opposition to the unemphatic 
 Tic is required by the context, but an antithetic nearer defining in opposition to 
 the significant oy éavr@.—Instead of the Recepta xabarep (C** D*** E K L 
 x*** Theodoret), anproved by Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, de 
 Wette, Bloomfield, al., Lachm., after C* (?) Chrys. Procop. reads: kadc; Tisch., 
 with Alford, after A B D* 8* Damase.: kadoorep. The last, in favor of 
 which Delitzsch also declares himself, deserves the preference as the best attested, 
 and as most in keeping with the predilection of the author for harmonious com- 
 binations.—The article 6 before ’Aap6v in the Recepta was already with justice 
 deleted in the edit. Complut., and later by Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, 
 Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others. Against it decides the weighty author- 
 ity of A BC D E K LX, many min. and Fathers.—Ver. 9. Elz. Matthaei, 
 Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: troig imxakotovory aitg raorv. But 
 preponderating witnesses (A B C D E 8, 17, 37, al., Syr. utr. Copt. It. Vulg. 
 Vigil. Cassiod. Chrys. Cyril, Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl.) require the order: 
 
CHAP. vy. 1-5. 501 
 
 mao.v troi¢ trakobovory aivtg. Already recommended by Griesbach. 
 Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford. Approved also by Delitzsch. 
 The sequence of the words in the Recepta is a later alteration, in order to bring 
 out the more noticeably the paronomasia of toe trakovovow with the foregoing 
 ray brakov.—Ver. 12. Kai ov oTepedc tpodic] So Elz, Lachm. Bloomfield, Alford, 
 al. ; while Tisch. 2, 7, and 8 has, after B** C, 17, 8* Copt. Vulg. Orig. (thrice) 
 Cyril, Chrys. ms. Aug. Bede, only ov otepeac tpodye. But «ai is protected 
 by A B*¥ D E K L &8*** the majority of the min., many versions, and several 
 Fathers. 
 
 Vy. 1-10. [On Vv. 1-10, see Note LV., pages 519-522.] Emphasizing 
 of two main qualifications of the earthly high priest, in which Christ 
 likewise is not wanting. [LV a.] 
 
 Vy. 1-3. [LV 6.] The first qualification : the capacity, as man, who him- 
 self is subject to human weakness, to deal leniently with erring humanity. 
 To what extent and under what modification this characteristic of the 
 earthly high priest is applicable also to Christ, is not discussed by the 
 author in our passage. This might appear remarkable, since with respect 
 to the second necessary qualification of the earthly high priest, further 
 added ver. 4, the parallel relation in the case of Christ is expounded in 
 detail from ver.5 onwards. But yet there was no need of an express 
 application to Christ, of that which was observed vy. 1-3. What the 
 author had had to say with regard to this was already clear to the readers 
 from the earlier disquisitions of the epistle itself. The element of the 
 homogeneity of Christ with.the Jewish high priest, namely, that He, like 
 the Jewish high priest, can have sympathy with sinful man, since He had 
 become in all points like unto men His brethren, had been fully traced 
 out in the second chapter, and attention is called anew to it in iv. 15 by 
 the duvduevov cvuraljoa taic aobeveiarc juav and remecpacuévov Kata Tava 
 ka?’ duoidrnra. The element of the dissimilarity, on the other hand, 
 namely, that while the Jewish high priest had to offer for his own sins, 
 Christ was without sin, is first brought prominently forward in iv. 15 by 
 means of opie duaptiac, and, besides this, followed already from the 
 exalted position the author had, in the opening chapters of the epistle, 
 assigned to Christ as the Son of God.—tThat, in reality, also the paragraph 
 vy. 7-10, no less than vv. 5, 6, is subordinate to the second main consider- 
 ation, expressed ver. 4, has been denied, it is true, by Beza, Schlichting, 
 Hammond, Limborch, Storr, Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, and others. They 
 are of opinion that from ver. 5 onwards an application of all the state- 
 ments, vv. 1-4, to Christ ensues ; that this, however, takes place in inverse 
 order, so that vv. 5, 6 refer back to ver. 4, vv. 7, 8 to ver. 2, and finally, vv. 
 9,10 to ver. 1. The untenable character of such opinion is self-evident. 
 For—(1) vv.7, 8 cannot have the design of applying to Christ that which was 
 observed ver. 2, because only the parenthetic clause of ver. 7 (denoewe .. « 
 ebaaBeiac) adapts itself to any extent to the contents of ver. 2, and this 
 parenthetic clause stands in logical subordination to ver. 8 as the main 
 point of the argument, consequently just ver. 8 and ver. 2 must present a 
 
502 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 similarity of contents, which is not the case. (2) That vy. 9, 10 should be 
 referred back to ver. 1 cannot be accepted as correct, because ver. 1 forms 
 in itself no independent and complete statement, but stands in closest 
 concatenation with ver. 2, so that only with this verse comes in what is 
 for ver. 1 the all-essential point of nearer definition —From the foregoing 
 it results that the harmonizing view of Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 
 444, 447) is unwarranted. According to this view, vv. 7, 8 are indeed, 
 “in the first place,” or “ formally,” a link in the demonstration that Christ 
 did not become high priest by an act of arbitrary self-glorification, but as 
 regards the “ contents” or “ tenor” form, “at the same time also an indi- 
 cation corresponding to vv. 1-3, and pointing out that Christ upon His 
 path of suffering has passed through experiences which were adapted not 
 only to make Him acquainted with the human doéveva, but also to prove 
 in Him the capacity for the perpiordbea.”—With Tholuck, for the rest, to 
 take vy. 1-8 still in relation to the preceding chapter, as an antithesis to 
 ver. 15, and to begin a new section with ver. 4, is not permissible. Fora 
 comparison of the main contents of vv. 1-3 with the main contents of iy. 
 15, points to the fact that the author designs to bring out a relation of 
 resemblance and affinity. We cannot possibly, therefore, attach, with 
 Tholuck, to the particle yap, v.1, the sense: “the distinction namely 
 arises, that.” The consideration, moreover, presents itself, that ver. 4 can 
 only appear in relation to vv. 1-8, alike as regards tenor of contents as 
 with regard to its lax grammatical nexus, as a further co-ordinate link in 
 an enumeration, before begun, of the qualifications essential to the char- 
 acter of every earthly high priest, consequently is not appropriate to the — 
 introduction of a section entirely separated from that which precedes. 
 Vey e Jystification of the déivacbar ovurabyaa taic aobeveiae judyv, iv. 
 15, as a necessary qualification in the case of Christ, since it is an indis- 
 pensable requirement even in every earthly high priest. ydp does not 
 glance back to iv. 16, as is maintained by Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 
 '395) and Delitzsch. For v. 1-3 can in point of contents be taken neither 
 as enforcement nor as elucidation of the admonition, iv. 16. The suppo- 
 - sition of Hofmann and Delitzsch, however, that ydép logically controls the 
 whole section, v. 1-10, is arbitrary, inasmuch as ver. 4 ff. is logically and 
 erammatically bounded off from vy. 1-3, and the assertion that the aim 
 in the section, v. 1-10, is to enforce the exhortation, iv. 16, by a reminder ~ 
 “of the nature of the high-priesthood of Jesus, how on the one hand it 
 bears resemblance to that of Aaron, and on the other hand to the priest- 
 hood of Melchisedec”’ (Hofmann), or of the “blending of Aaronitic 
 humanity (tenderness) with the Melchisedecian dignity in the person of 
 Jesus ” (Delitzsch), is entirely erroneous; because, vv. 5-10, Aaron and 
 Melchisedee are not yet at all distinguished from each other as the lower 
 and the higher; but, on the contrary, this relation—in which the one 
 stands to the other—is for the present left wholly in abeyance, and all 
 that is insisted on is the fact that Christ, even as Aaron, was called by God 
 to the high-priesthood, and that a high-priesthood after the manner of 
 Melchisedec.—zac] refers, as is evident from é avOpérwv AauBavéuevoc, and 
 
CHAP. V. 2 503 
 
 from ver. 3, to the earthly, i. e. the Levitical, high priest. Wrongiy, because 
 going beyond the necessity of the case and the horizon of the epistle, 
 Grotius (comp. also Peirce): Non tantum legem hic respicit, sed et morem 
 ante legem, quum aut primo geniti familiarum aut a populis electi reges 
 inirent sacerdotium. But neither is é& avOpdaruv AauBavduevoc a part of the 
 subject (“every high priest taken from among men, in opposition to the 
 heavenly One;” Luther, Seb. Schmidt, Wittich, Akersloot, Peirce, Wet- 
 stein, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Abresch. Kuinoel, Paulus, Stengel, comp. 
 also Tholuck),—for then the order wa¢ yap && avépoérwv AauBavduevoc 
 apytepeve Would have been chosen,—nor is it intended “ to lay stress upon 
 the phenomenon, in itself remarkable, that the high priest has to repre- 
 sent men, who are thus his equals, in their relation to God” (Hofmann, 
 (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 396, 2 Aufl.)—for thereby a reference altogether 
 foreign to the connection is introduced, and the thought thus presupposed 
 is itself a singular one, because, so far from its being remarkable, it is, on 
 the contrary, natural and appropriate that like should be represented by 
 its hike; it would be remarkable and unnatural if, for instance, a man 
 should represent angels,—but it contains a note of cause to imép avépo- 
 mov kadiorata. The twice occurring avdpo7wv stands full of emphasis, 
 and presents a correspondence between the two. By the é& avépérwv 
 AauBavéuevoc the irép avporwv xadioratac is explained and justified. 
 For the very reason that the high priest is taken from among men, is he 
 also appointed or installed in his office as:mediator with God.—xaV¥iorara:] 
 not middle, so that ra mpo¢ tov bedv Were accusative of object thereto (Calvin: 
 Curat pontifex vel ordinat, quae ad Deum pertinent; Kypke), but passive, 
 so that ta mpédc Tov Gedv, as 11. 17, is to be taken as an accusative absolute. 
 —iva «.7.A.] epexegetic amplification of irép avépérwv kabiorarae Ta mpd¢ 
 Tov Gedv.—dpa [J21P, ,,.] and @vciae are properly distinguished as 
 gifts and sacrifices of every kind, and bloody sacrifices. The distinction, 
 ‘however, is not always observed. Comp. e.g. LX X. Lev. ii. 1 ff., Num. vy. 
 15 ff, Gen. iv. 3,5, where @vcia is used of unbloody sacrifices; and Gen. 
 iv. 4, Lev. i. 2, 3, 10, al., where dépa is used of bloody sacrifices. In our 
 passage the author has, without doubt, specially the bloody sacrifices in 
 mind ; as, accordingly, in the course of the epistle he opposes the sacrifice 
 presented by Christ to the Levitical victims in particular—irép duaptidv] 
 i.e. for the expiation thereof. It belongs not merely to @vciac (Grotius, Lim- 
 borch, Bengel, Dindorf) or to dép4 te kai @voiac (Owen, Alford), but to the 
 whole clause of the design. 
 
 Ver. 2 is to be coupled with ver. 1 without the placing of a comma, in 
 such wise that the participial clause: yerpsorateiv duvdjevoc, connects itself 
 immediatety with the preceding clause of the design. The purpose of the 
 author is not to mention the bare fact that the high priest presents gifts 
 and sacrifices for the expiation of sins, but to dwell on the fact that he 
 presents them as one who is capable of petpiorrabeiv, petptorrabeiv Svvaevog 
 
 1When for the rest Hofmann (Schriftbew. Tata... iva mpoodépy could be chosen, and 
 II. 1, p. 396, 2 Aufl.) supposes that for the ex- not KxaOioratar ... cis TO mpoodeperv, Since 
 pression of this relation of thought only xe@ic- _ the latter would “ only be a declaration of the 
 
504 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 is therefore neither to be resolved into wa divyrac wetrp. (Heinrichs), nor is 
 it connected, by reason of a negligent participial construction, like Aau- 
 Pavéuevog with apyepebe (Stengel), nor is it added merely “appendicis 
 loco” (Bbhme).—yerpiorabeiv] stands not in opposition to cvurabjoa, iv. 
 15, for the indication of a difference between the human high priest and 
 the divine one (Tholuck); it is not, however, identical in meaning with 
 cuurabeiy (Oecumenius, Calvin, Seb. Schmidt, Baumgarten, Semler, Storr, 
 Abresch, a/.), but expresses a kindred notion. It is by virtue of its com- 
 position equivalent to wertpiwe or Kata TO pétpov raoye, and is accord- 
 ingly used of the moderating of one’s passions and feelings, as opposed to 
 an unbridled surrender thereto, but also as opposed to that absolute ard6eia 
 which the Stoics demanded of the sage.!_ Here the moderation or tender- 
 ness in the judgment formed upon the errors of one’s neighbor is intended, 
 as this is wont to arise from a sympathy with the unhappiness of the 
 same which is produced by sin. Thus: to be tenderly disposed or equitable. 
 —roic ayvootow Kai TtAavopévorc] Dativus commodi: in consideration of the 
 ignorant and erring. Lenient designation of sinners. Perhaps, however, 
 designedly chosen (comp. also ix. 7: irép éavtov kai tHv Tov Aaod dy vonpma- 
 twv) in order to bring into relief only one species of sins, the sins of pre- 
 cipitancy and without premeditation, inasmuch as according to the 
 Mosaic law the sacrificial expiation extended only to those who had 
 sinned dxovciwg ; those, on the other hand, who had sinned deliberately 
 and with forethought were to be cut off from the congregation of Jehovah, 
 Num. xv. 22-81; Lev. iv. 18 ffh—émet kai aiticg repixertar acbéverav| Con- 
 firmation of the duvauevoc: since he indeed himself is encircled (as with a 
 garment) by weakness (altogether beset with it). dao@éveva is to be under- 
 stood, as vil. 28, of the ethical weakness, thus also actual sin, compre- 
 hended under thig‘expression ; comp. ver. 3.—The construction wepixerwat 
 tt, Which in the N. T. occurs likewise Acts xxvii. 20, is genuine Greek.? 
 Ver. 38. Logical consequence from the second half of ver. 2. The words 
 form a merely incidental observation. They would be on that account 
 better regarded as an independent statement than, with de Wette, 
 Delitzsch, Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 397), and Woerner, 
 thought of as still dependent on érei, ver. 2.—d? abrfy] sc. acbéverav, Quite 
 untrue is the assertion that the feminine is used Hebraistically instead of 
 the neuter, which even Bengel and others, with a mistaken appeal to 
 Matt. xxi. 42 (see Meyer ad loc.), still hold to be possible.—égeide:] Refer- 
 ence not, as is supposed by BGhme and Hofmann, /.c., to the precept in 
 the law of Moses (Lev. iv. 3, ix. 7, xvi. 6, al.), but, as ii. 17, to the inner 
 
 vocation” of the high priest, while the former must naturally be changed into the accusa- 
 
 “can take to itself the participial clause pe- 
 Tpioradery Suvapmevos, and thereby signify to 
 what end it serves in the exercise of his office, 
 that he has been in this way appointed there- 
 to,” this is grammatically altogether baseless. 
 Either turn of discourse was equally open to 
 the choice of the author. Only,in case the 
 atter was chosen, the nom*ative Suvapevos 
 
 tive duvapmevov. 
 
 1Comp. Diogen. Laert. v. 31: én S€ (sc. 
 Aristotle), tov coddy my elvar péev amady, pe- 
 tpvoraéy Se. Further instances in Wetstein 
 and Bleek. 
 
 2Comp. Theocrit. Idyll. xxiii. 14: UBpw tas 
 dpyas mepixecuevos; Kiihner, Gramm. IL. p. 
 231; Winer, p. 215 [E. T. 229]. 
 
CHAP. Va 6-0: 505 
 
 necessity arising from the nature of the case. Non-natural the view of 
 Delitzsch and Moll, that both alike are intended.—zpoodépe'y] stands, as 
 Luke vy. 14, Num. vii. 18, absolutely. With Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. 
 p. 484), to look upon wepi duaprcov as definition of object to mpoodéperv 
 is inadmissible, inasmuch as only the singular form wepi duapriag is 
 employed to indicate the notion of “ sin-offering”’ with the LXX., as also 
 in our epistle. Comp. Reiche, Commentarius Criticus ad loc. p. 35. 
 
 Ver. 4. [LV ¢.] The second necessary qualification: to be no usurper of 
 the office, but one called of God to the same.—xai] Progress, not from ver. 
 3, nor yet from ver. 1, in such wise that Aaufdve, ver. 4, should form a 
 paronomasia with AauBavéuevoc, ver. 1 (BOhme, Bleek, Bisping, Alford, 
 Maier), but from vv. 1-3.—And inot to himself does any one take the honor 
 (here under consideration), ¢.e. not any one appropriates or arrogates to 
 himself the high-priestly dignity on his own authority.'.—a”Aa xadobuevog 
 brd Tov Oeov] sc. AauBaver aizyv, he receives it. The AauBdver here to be 
 supplied has consequently—what is wrongly denied by Delitzsch, Hof- 
 mann, and Woerner—another notion than the Zau3dver before placed. 
 This diversity of notion, nevertheless, comes out more strongly in Ger- 
 man, where two different verbs must be chosen to indicate it, than in 
 Greek, where one and the same verb combines both significations in itself. 
 —xaloorep Kai ’Aapov] se. KAnfeic bxd Tov Oeov avtyy eidAndev. These words 
 still belong to that which precedes. They are unnaturally referred by 
 Paulus to the sequel, as its protasis—Aaron and his descendants were, 
 according to Ex. xxviii. 1, xxix. 4 ff., Lev. viii. 1 ff., Num. iii. 10, xvi.—xviii., 
 called by God Himself to the high-priesthood.2 Not until the time of 
 Herod and the Roman governors were high priests arbitrarily appointed 
 and deposed, without respect to their descent from Aaron.? That, how- 
 ever, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Abresch, and others con- 
 jecture, the author intended by the words of ver. 4 at the same time to indicate 
 that the high priests of that period were no longer true high priests at all, 
 since they had acquired their office at the hand of men, and in the way 
 of venality, is not very probable, inasmuch as the author would otherwise 
 have expressed himself more clearly with regard thereto. 
 
 Vv. 5-10. Demenstration of the presence of the qualification, mentioned 
 ver. 4, in the case of Christ also. 
 
 Ver. 5. In like manner also Christ appointed not Himself to be High 
 Priest, but God the Father has appointed Him. The main emphasis in 
 the verse falls upon ovy éavtdv . . . add 6 Aadgoac. With Hofmann for 
 the rest (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 398, 2 Aufl.), to take the opening words of the 
 verse : ottw¢ kal 6 Xpiordéc, separately as an independent clause, is not 
 
 1Comp. Xiphilinus, Galb. p. 187: vouigwv tis; jam vero Deus id ipsi dedit, cujus est 
 ovK elAnhevar THY apx7yv, dAAG SeddcOat aviTo. magnitudo et potentia et regnum. Quicum- 
 2Comp. Bammidbur rabba, sec. 18, fol. 234.4 que igitur contra Aaronem surgit, contra 
 (in Sehottgen and Wetstein): Moses ad ipsum Deum surgit. 
 Corachum ejusque socios dixit: si Aaron 3Comp. Josephus, Antig. xx. 10. 5: Winer, 
 frater meus sibimet ipsi sacerdotium sumsit, Bibl. Realwérterb. I. p. 591, 2 Aufl. 
 recte egistis, quod contra Ipsum insurrexis- 
 
506 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 warranted on any ground. ovy éavrov éddEacev yevnfjvac apxtepéa] He did 
 not glorify (comp. John viii. 54) Himself (arbitrarily encircle Himself with 
 honor and glory) in order to be made a high priest—éddgacev] is to be taken 
 quite generally, so that it first acquires its nearer definition and comple- 
 tion, under the form of the intention, by means of yevyfjvar apyiepéa. See 
 Winer, p. 298 [E. T. 318]. The referring of the verb, with de Wette, spe- 
 cially to the glorification, mentioned ii. 9, is forbidden by the parallel rela- 
 tion to ver. 4, in that ovy éavrov éddtacev yevyfivar apyiepéa manifestly 
 corresponds exactly to the foregoing statement, ovy éav7@ tie AapBaver rHv 
 tyuqv. On account of this parallel relationship in itself, clearly indicated 
 as it is above by the otrwe kai, is the view of Hofmann too (Schriftbew. II. 
 1, p. 398 f. 2 Aufl.) entirely erroneous, namely, that ovy éavrov éddzacev 
 acquires its nearer defining of signification from vv. 7, 8, in that this rela- 
 tive clause denotes the same thing as that negative clause, and conse- 
 quently is to be brought into relief; not a path of self-glorification was it, 
 but a path of anguish and suffering, by which Christ attained to glory. 
 The violence done in this explanation is already shown, in the fact that 
 the relative clause, ver. 7 ff., is logically subordinate to the oby éavrov 
 édéfacev, as a farther demonstration of the truth thereof; and, moreover, in 
 this relative clause the mention of the suffering of Christ forms not the 
 main element, but only a subsidiary member.—a22’ 6 Aadkjoac mpd¢ abtov 
 K.7.2.] sc. avtov éddgacev yevnbyvac apyepéa. The participle aorist AaAgoac is 
 anterior in point of time to the édéfacev. Thus 6 AaAgjoac: He who had 
 said, sc. before the creation of the world; comp. 1-8. Inasmuch as the 
 connection with that which precedes, and the opposition oby éavrdv aan’ 6 
 Aarnoac, place it beyond doubt that the author can here only design to 
 mention the person or authority by virtue of which Christ possesses His 
 high-priesthood, it results that in the words vié¢ yov ef od «7.4. a proof 
 for the fact that Christ is High Priest is not to be sought. Against 
 Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, Limborch, Whitby, Peirce, Stengel, 
 Ebrard, Maier, and others. If it were here already a question with the 
 author of adducing a proof, he would have written without an article a47’ 
 6 Oed¢ AaAnoac (“but God, in saying to Him,” etc.), instead of writing 
 with the article a2 6 Aadrfoac. But why does not the author simply say 
 6 6e6¢? Why does he employ the periphrasis of the idea of God by means 
 - of the words (already cited, 1.5) from Ps.ii.7? In order to render already 
 apparent, by this designation of God, how little ground can exist for sur- 
 prise that He who occupies the rank of the Son of God should, moreover, 
 also of God be appointed High Priest. 
 
 Ver. 6 now introduces the proof from Scripture that Christ, the Son of 
 God, has also been appointed High Priest.—kafoc cai év érépw Aéyer] as He 
 (sc. God) accordingly speaks in another place of Scripture (namely Ps. ex. 
 4; comp. Heb. i. 18)—x«ai] belongs not to év érépw,-so that we should 
 have to assume that the author has already found in the citation, ver. 5, 
 a Scripture proof for the high-priesthood of Christ, and now in ver. 6 is 
 adding thereto a second Scripture proof for the same thing (Schlichting, 
 Ebrard, and others), but it belongs to the whole relative clause kafa¢ Aéyer, 
 
CHAP. Vv. 6, a. 507 
 
 and is just the ordinary «ai after a particle of comparison; comp. ver. 4. 
 By means of this correct apprehension of the force of «ai the objection is 
 further set aside, that ver. 6, if a Scripture proof was first to be given in 
 this place, must have been joined on to that which precedes simply with 
 Aéywr, as ii. 6, iv. 7, or with paprepet yap, as vil. 17 (Abresch), or with Aéyec 
 yap, or at least with xafoc without «ai (Ebrard).—év érépw] See on év rotre, 
 iv. 5.—iepetc] for the author equivalent to apyrepeti¢; comp. ver. 10, vi. 
 20. This equalization is likewise warranted. For Melchisedec (Gen. xiv. 
 18 ff.), with whom the person addressed is compared, was at the same 
 time king and priest; but with the attributes of a king the attributes of 
 an ordinary priest are irreconcilable; the character sustained by a 
 superior or high priest alone comports therewith.—«ara tiv rag Med yuce- 
 déc] not: in the time of succession (Schulz), but : after the order or manner 
 (7937-22) of Melchisedec, in such wise that thou obtainest the same 
 position, the same character, as he possessed. Comp. vil. 15: kara tiv 
 éuodtyta MeAyioedéx.—eic Tov ai@va] the author combines (contrary to the 
 sense of the original) with ispet¢ into a single idea, comp. vil. 3, 8. 
 
 Vv. 7-10. [LV d.] Further proof—accessory to the Scripture testimony, 
 ver. 6—that Christ did not on His own authority usurp to Himself the 
 high-priesthood, but was invested with the same by God. Far removed 
 from all self-exaltation, He displayed in His earthly life the most perfect 
 obedience towards God. In consequence thereof He became, after His 
 consummation and glorification, the Procurer (Vermittler) of everlasting 
 blessedness for all believers, and was appointed by God High Priest after 
 the manner of Melchisedec.—We have to reject the explanation—mainly 
 called forth by the expression zpocevéykac (compared with vv. 1 and 3)— 
 of Schlichting, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Braum, Limborch, Akersloot, Cramer, 
 Baumgarten, Heinrichs, Bdhme, Klee, Bloomfield, and others, according 
 to which the design in vv. 7-10 is to show that Christ already discharged 
 the functions of the high-priestly office during His earthly life, in that He 
 offered prayers as sacrifices to God. For evidently the main gist of vy. 
 7-10 lies in the words of ver. 8: éuavev aq dv ixadev THY brakogjy, to 
 which the statements vy. 9, 10 attach themselves only for the completion 
 of the figure traced out vv. 7, 8, and for leading back to ver. 6. But by 
 the fact that Christ manifested obedience, it cannot by any means be 
 shown that He was already executing the office of High Priest.—Quite 
 mistaken also is the opinion of Kurtz, that, vv. 7-10, a “third require- 
 ment of the Levitical high-priesthood, namely, obedience to the will of Him 
 that founded it” (2), is shown to be satisfied in Christ. For neither does 
 the form of the grammatical annexing of ver. 7 to that which precedes 
 point in any way to the conclusion that the author designed to string on 
 to the two necessary qualifications of the earthly high priest yet a third 
 one of equal value; nor, as regards the import, is anything else to be 
 found in vv. 7, 8 than a wider unfolding of the foregoing statement, ov x 
 éavutov édofdoev yevydivac apyepéa, ver. 5. 
 
 Ver. 7. 0c] [LV e.] refers back to the last main idea, thus to 6 Xprorég, 
 ver. 5. The tempus finitum belonging thereto is éua6ev, ver. 8, in that vy. 
 
508 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 7-10 form a single period, resolving itself into two co-ordinate statements 
 . Kat éyévero). To connect the 6é¢ first with éyévero, ver. 9 (so 
 Abresch, Dindorf, Heinrichs, Stengel, and others), is impossible, since ver. 
 8 cannot be taken as a parenthesis.—év rai¢ ijuépace tig capKdc aitov] in the 
 days of His flesh, i. e. during the time of His earthly life.’ On the whole 
 expression, comp. ii. 14; on ai #uépa, in the more general sense of 6 ypévoe, 
 x. 32, xii. 10. False, because opposed to the current linguistic use of cap 
 (Gal: ii. 20; 2 Cor. x.3; Phil. i. 22, 24; 1 Pet. iv. 2, al.), and because év rai¢ 
 jucpate The capko¢ avtod Obtains its Opposition in reAewheic, ver. 9,—Wwhereby, 
 in general, the period of Christ’s life of humiliation is contrasted with the 
 period of His life of exaltation,—Schlichting: what is specially meant is 
 “tempus infirmitatis Christi, et praesertim illud, quo infirmitas ejus max- 
 ime apparuit ... dies illi, quibus Christus est passus.” The note of 
 time : év raic juépare TH¢ capKd¢ avTov, however, is to be construed with the 
 main verb évafev, not with the participles mpocevéyxac kai eicaxovobeic, Which 
 latter form a simply parenthetic clause.—As the occasion of this paren- 
 thetic clause deyoere . . . evAaBeiac,—in connection with which we have 
 neither, with Theophylact, Peirce, B6hme, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, 
 Maier, Kurtz, and others, to derive the coloring of the linguistic expres- 
 sion from the author’s having respect to certain utterances of the Psalms 
 (as Ps. xxii. 25 [24], ibid. ver. 3 [2], exvi.1 ff), nor with Braun, Akersloot, 
 Bohme, al., to suppose a reference to the loud praying of the Jewish high 
 priest on the great day of atonement; neither is there an underlying 
 comparison, as Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 399 f. 2 Aufl.) strangely sup- 
 poses, of the supplication of Jesus, which He before (!) the learning of 
 obediente offered for Himself as a sacrifice on account of weakness (}), 
 with the sin-offering which, according to ver. 8, the Levitical high priest 
 had on this day to yfresent for himself before he could yet offer on behalf 
 of the people,—the author has present to his mind, according to the pre- 
 vailing and, beyond doubt, correct view, the prayer of Christ in Gethsem- 
 ane, as this was made known to him by oral or written tradition. [LV /)] 
 Comp. Matt. xxvi. 36 ff. ; Mark xiv. 82 ff.; Luke xxii. 39 ff. It is true we 
 do not read in our Gospels that Christ at that time prayed to God pera 
 daxphov. But, considering the great emotion of mind on the part of the 
 Saviour, which is also described in the account given by our evangelists, 
 that fact has nothing improbable aboutit; comp. also Luke xix. 41; John 
 xi. 35. On account of the addition peta kpavyye ioyvpac, others 
 will have us understand the loud crying of Christ upon the cross (Matt. xxvii. 
 46; Mark xv. 34), either,’ besides the prayer in Gethsemane, or,* exclusively, 
 or even,® the last ery, with which He departed (Matt. xxvii. 50; Mark xv. 37; 
 
 (d¢ éuabev . . 
 
 1Theodoret: ‘Hyépas S& oapkds Tov Tis 
 Ovnrétntos épyn Katpov, TovTéoTLY HYika OvnTov 
 elxe TO gOpa. ary: 
 
 2Comp. in particular, Matt. xxvi. 37: jp§ato 
 Avreto@at Kai adymoverv; Mark xiv. 33: np&ato 
 éxOauBetoOar Kai adquoverv; Luke xxii. 44: 
 Mat yevouevos ev aywvia EKTEVEeaTEpoY Tpoo- 
 
 nuxeto* éyéveto Sé O idpOs avTod woei OpduBor 
 aipatos KataBaivovtes emt Thy yiv. 
 
 3As Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Piscator, 
 Owen, Limborch, Schulz, Stein, Stuart, De- 
 litzsch. 
 
 4 As Cajetan, Estius,Calovy, Hammond, Kurtz, 
 
 5As Klee. 
 
CHAP. V. 7. 509 
 
 Luke xxiii. 46). The supposition of such references we cannot, with de 
 Wette! characterize as “entirely unsuitable.” For de Wette’s objection, 
 that the author “manifestly regarded the prayer as the preparation and 
 condition of the évafe,” that it must “ thus precede the suffering,” does not 
 apply, since mpocevéykac is not to be resolved into “after,” but into “in 
 that,” or “inasmuch as.” Not as “ preparation and condition of the éuafe” 
 is the prayer looked upon by the author, but rather is the historic fact of 
 the fervent prayer of Christ mentioned by him as an evidence that Christ 
 in reality submitted Himself to God, even in the severest sufferings. For 
 that which Hofmann (I. c. p. 67) objects hereto, that the author, if he had 
 meant this, would have written: yafov ag’ ov Exavev tiv DraKkony deyoelg TE 
 kal iketnpiac mpoojveyxer, is devoid of sense; because, by means of such a 
 transposition, that which is merely a secondary statement would be made 
 the main statement. Yet the supposing of such references is not neces- 
 sary, since also the plural dejoecc te kat ixerypiac, to which appeal has been 
 made, is sufficiently explained by the repetitions of the prayer in the gar- 
 den of Gethsemane.—To ixetypia, which conjoined with déjoe further 
 occurs LXX. Job xl. 22 [27], as also with the classie writers, éAaia or pafdoc 
 (not «4ddoc) is originally to be supplemented, inasmuch as it denotes the 
 olive branch which the supplicant pleading for protection bore in his 
 hand. Later it acquired like signification with ixere‘a or ixeoia. It implies 
 thus the prostrate or urgent entreaty of one seeking refuge. As an inten- 
 sifying of déyar¢ it is rightly placed after this.—po¢ tov Suvayevoy o@lewv 
 abrov éx Savarov| is most naturally referred to xpocevéyxac (so Calvin, 
 Abresch, al.). To the connecting with dejoece Te Kat ixetnpiac? we are forced 
 neither by the position before pera kpavy7¢ isyupac, nor by the fact of the 
 combination of xpoodépew with the dative being chosen elsewhere in the 
 epistle (ix. 14, xi. 4), as it is also the more usual one with classical writers, 
 since likewise the conjoining with zpéc is nothing out of the way. Comp. 
 e.g. Polyb. iv. 51. 2: TpoceveyKapevoe Tpog TOV’ A YaLov (equivalent to 7@ ” Ayala) 
 tiv yapw tattyv. In the characteristic of God as the One who was able to 
 deliver Christ from death, there lies, at the same time, the indication of 
 that which Christ implored of God. cofecv éx Javarov, however, may 
 denote one of two things, either: to save from death, in such wise that it 
 needs not to be undergone, thus to preserve from death, or: to save out of 
 the death to which one is exposed, so that one does not remain the prey 
 of death, but is restored to life. In favor of the former interpretation 
 seems to plead the fact that Christ, according to the account in the Gos- 
 pels, in reality prayed that He might be spared the suffering of death. 
 Nevertheless what decides against this, and in favor of the second, is the 
 consideration, in the first place, that Christ in reality still suffered death, 
 and then the addition in our verse that the prayer of Christ was 
 answered. And then, finally, we have to take into account the fact that, 
 according to our Gospels also, Christ does not pray absolutely to be pre- 
 
 1Comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 2Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Ab 
 70 f. 2 Aufl. ford, Maier, Moll. 
 
510 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 served from death, but makes this His wish dependent upon the will of 
 the Father, thus entirely subordinates Himself to the Father.—xai eioaxove- 
 Bele ard THE evaaBeiac] and being heard by reason of His piety, or fear of God. 
 [LV g.] In this sense is edAdBeva (cf. xii. 28) rightly taken by Chrysostom, 
 Photius, Oecumenius, Theophylact, the Vulgate (pro sua reverentia), Vigil. 
 Taps., Primasius, Lyra, Luther, Castellio, Camerarius, Estius, Casaubon, 
 Caloy, Seb. Schmidt, Calmet, Rambach, Heinrichs, Schulz, Bleek, Bisping, 
 Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr, p. 327), Alford, Reuss, Maier, 
 Moll, Kurtz, and others.!| a6, as an indication of the occasioning cause, is 
 also of very frequent occurrence elsewhere; cf. Matt. xxviii. 4; Luke xix. 
 3, xxiv. 41; John xxi. 6; Acts xii. 14, xx. 9, xxii. 11; Kiihner, Gramm. I, 
 p. 270. Christ, however, was heard in His prayer, inasmuch as He was 
 raised out of death, exalted to the right hand of God, and made partaker 
 of the divine glory. To be rejected is the explanation of the word pre- 
 ferred by Ambrose, Calvin, Beza, Cameron, Scaliger, Schlichting, Grotius, 
 Owen, Hammond, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Wetstein, Whitby, Carpzov, 
 Abresch, BGhme, Kuinoel, Paulus, Klee, Stuart, Stein, Ebrard, Bloomfield, 
 Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt A. K.-Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 665), 
 Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. 1, p. 69, 2 Aufl.), and many others, according to 
 which a pregnancy of meaning is assumed for the same, and eiAdBeva is 
 interpreted in the sense of “ metus :” “ heard (and delivered) from the fear.” 
 There is then found expressed in it either the thought (and this is the com- 
 mon acceptation) that Christ was delivered from His agony of soul by the 
 strengthening on the part of the angel, Luke xxii. 43, or evAdBea is under- 
 stood by metonymy of the object of the fear, 7. e. death, from which Christ 
 was delivered by the resurrection. So, among others, Calvin: “ exaudi- 
 tum fuisse Christum ex eo, quod timebat, ne scilicet malis obrutus suc- 
 cumberet, vel morée absorberetur ;” and Schlichting: “a metu i.e. ab eo, 
 quod metuebat, nimirum morte.” But against the first modification of 
 this view pleads the fact that the being heard must refer to the same thing as 
 that for which Christ had prayed, but from that which precedes it is evi- 
 dent that Christ had besought God not for deliverance from the agony of 
 soul, but for deliverance from death. Against both modifications pleads 
 the fact that the strong signification of fear is never expressed by eiAdBea. 
 Only the mild signification of timidity or awe (whether reverential awe of 
 the Godhead, i. e. piety, or shyness of earthly things), as well as the notion 
 arising from that of timidity, namely heedfulness, discretion, cireumspect- 
 ness in arranging that which is adapted to the bringing about of a definite 
 result, lies in the word; as accordingly also the Greeks themselves, par- 
 ticularly the Stoics, expressly distinguished from each other 4680¢ and 
 evadBeca, and pronounced ¢680¢ to be worthy of reprobation ; edAdBeca, on 
 
 1JIn this explanation Linden on Heb, vy. 7-9 not natural, inasmuch as éuaGev already has 
 (Stud. u. Krit. 1860, H. 4, p. 753 ff.) likewise a nearer definition before and after it, and 
 concurs, only he would have amd tis evAa- . the linguistic symmetry with the foregoing 
 Betas separated by acomma from that which  participial clause is destroyed by the eiow 
 precedes, and taken in conjunction with that — ckovo@eis standing alone. 
 whieh follows. This construction, however, is 
 
CHAP. Vv. 8. 511 
 the other hand, to be a duty. See the instances in Bleek. Nor do the 
 passages anew adduced by Grimm, /. c., Wisd. xvii. 8, 2 Mace. viii. 16, Ec- 
 clus. xli. 3, in which the word is supposed to be used in the sense of 
 fear, and the demonstrative force of which is acknowledged by Delitzsch 
 (p. 190, and Observy. and Correctt.), Riehm (J. c.), and Moll, prove what 
 they are thought to prove. For in the first-mentioned passage we have to 
 understand by kateyéAaoroc evAdBera the perverted, idolatrous, and there- 
 fore ridiculous religious awe of the Egyptian magicians ; the second pass- 
 age is only a dissuasive against standing in any awe of the outward super- 
 iority in force of the hostile army; and the third, finally, against feeling 
 any awe of death, since this is the common lot of all men. The notion 
 of mere awe, however, is, on account of the preceding strong expressions, 
 peta Kpavyye toyupac kal daxpiwv, unsuited to our passage.! In addition to 
 this, the assumed constructio praegnans in connection with a verb like 
 eloakovod Arar is, In any case, open to doubt, and is not yet at all justi- 
 fied by the alleged parallels which have been adduced.2—The addition kai 
 eloakovotele ard TIc evAaBeiac contains, for the rest, logically regarded, merely 
 a parenthetic remark, called forth only by the contents of the foregoing 
 participial clause. 
 
 Ver. 8. Kairep ov vide] belongs together. With Heinrichs and others, 
 to construe «aizep with éuafev, and in this way to enclose ver. 8 within a 
 parenthesis, is forbidden by the grammar, since xaizep is never combined 
 with a tempus finitum. xairep Ov vidc, however, is to be connected neither, 
 by virtue of an hyperbaton, with defoee . . . mpooevéyxac, which Photius 
 (in Oecumenius) and Clarius consider permissible, but which is already 
 shown to be impossible by means of the addition kai eicaxovobeic ard rhe 
 evAaBeiac, nor yet with xa? eicaxovobeic ard tic ebAaPBeiac itself (Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact). For against the latter xairep is decisive, according to which 
 the property of Sonship is insisted on as something in consequence of 
 which the main statement might appear strange; it is not, however, 
 strange, but, on the contrary, congruent with nature, if any one is heard 
 by the Father on account of his sonship. xairep ov vide belongs, therefore, 
 to éuabev ad’ Ov éxabev tHv braxofv, and serves to bring the same into relief 
 by way of contrast. Notwithstanding the fact that Christ was a Son, He 
 
 will. 
 
 lAccording to Tholuck, the author has 
 before his mind the first petition of the Re- 
 deemer in prayer at Gethsemane, the petition 
 with et dvvarov, in which is expressed a con- 
 dition of “lingering hesitancy,” of “ detrec- 
 tatio” (!), which also according to him evAa- 
 Beva exactly indicates. From this hesitancy, 
 which with the Redeemer continued just so 
 long as He was absorbed in an abstract man- 
 ner in the greatness of the impending suffer- 
 ing, He was delivered. Thus, it is true, the 
 first prayer uttered in this condition remained 
 unfulfilled, but it was certainly annulled in 
 the second, wherein His own will had be- 
 come perfectly harmonized with the divine 
 
 So Tholuck. But neither does evAaBera 
 ever signify “lingering hesitancy ” (not even 
 in Plutarch, Fab. Maz. ec. 1, where it denotes 
 nothing more than caution or wariness). 
 
 2Namely Ps. xxii. 22 [21] (0°77 *327pD) 
 “uv sy, which, however, the LXX. did not 
 understand, and reproduced without preg- 
 naney); LXX. Job xxxy. 12 (€xet kexpatorrar 
 kat ov pH evoakovon [Kai] ard UBpews Tovnparv, 
 where, however,-a7d «.7.A., as in the Hebrew, 
 refers back to the first verb); Ps. exviii. 5 (kat 
 emnKkouce tov els mAaTUcMoY KUptos); Heb. x. 
 22 (€pprvtitpmeéevor Tas Kapdias amd cuverdnoews 
 movnpas). 
 
612 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 learned from suffering (learned, in that He suffered) obedience, resigna- 
 tion to the will of the Father. Comp. Phil. ii. 6-8.—The article before 
 traxoyvy marks the definite virtue of obedience. The article here cannot 
 denote, as Hofmann will maintain (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 72, 2 Aufl.), the 
 obedience “already present,” or the obedience “in which Jesus stood.” 
 For, on the one hand, there must then have been previous mention of 
 the obedience of Jesus, which is not the case; and then, on the other 
 hand, we cannot any longer predicate the learning of a virtue of one in 
 whom this virtue is already present. But altogether, that which Hofmann 
 brings out as the import of ver. 8 is a wonderful Quid pro quo. Instead 
 of recognizing, to wit, in vv. 7, 8 the sharply and clearly defined leading 
 statement: 6¢ év Taic yuépac THE CapKoc avTOU . . . éuabev . . . THv braKof#v, In 
 itself, and in its simply confirmatory relation to ovy éavrov édédgacev, ver. 5, 
 Hofmann will have the stress to be laid upon the subsidiary defining note 
 ag’ ov éxabev, and then, moreover, make the whole weight of the words: 
 kairep Ov vioc, fall upon that same a@’ dv éxafev! In this way the thought 
 expressed in ver. 8 is, forsooth: that Jesus afterwards (!) suffered that (!) 
 for the averting of which He had made entreaty. The special point is 
 not that He learnt anything as Son, nor that He learnt obedience (? !). 
 He did not learn to obey, but the obedience in which He stood, He now 
 (!) or in a new manner (!) so learnt, as it should there (!) be exercised, 
 where (!) it was a question (!) of suffering. And this is to be taken as the 
 meaning, in spite of the fact—apart from all other arbitrary assumptions 
 —that we have a@’ dv érafev written, and not even év oi¢ éxabev, which at 
 least must be expected as a support for such an exposition as that ?— 
 éuabev] The disposition of obedience Christ possessed even before the 
 suffering. But this needed, in order to become vouched for, to be tested 
 in action. And tlfis continued development of the disposition of obedi- 
 ence into-the act of obedience is nothing else than a practical learning of 
 the virtue of obedience —az76 with, wavaver, as Matt. xxiv. 32, xi. 29, 
 denoting the starting-point.—a¢’ dv éxafev] well-known attraction in place 
 of ar éxeivwr & xaf_ev—The combination éuabev . . . éxabev is also of fre- 
 quent occurrence with the classic writers and with Philo.’ 
 
 Ver. 9. Kai rerewfeic] and being brought to consummation, i.e. being 
 crowned with glory by His exaltation to heaven (comp. ii. 9, 10), se. in 
 consequence of the obedience to God proved by His sufferings and death 
 —iyévero] He became. Author and Mediator of everlasting blessedness for 
 His believers, Christ certainly was even during His earthly life. But in 
 an eminent manner, because formally and manifestly accredited by God 
 as such, He became so first by His resurrection and exaltation.—raouw] 
 perhaps added in order to indicate the equal claim of the believing Gen- 
 tiles also, to the salvation in Christ.—roic éraxobovoww airé] The expression 
 
 1Comp. Herod. i. 207: ra S€ por wabyjpata, 
 axapiora, paOnuata yeyovev; Soph. 
 Trach. 142 f.: as & éym @vpopOopa, mrt’ éxma- 
 Gors ma8ovca; Xenoph. Cyrop. ili. 1.17: raO@nwa 
 apa Tis Wuxas ov A€yets tivar THY gwppocvvyy, 
 
 »s 
 e€ovTa 
 
 womep AUTHY, OV maOnua; Philo, de speciall, 
 legg. 6 (with Mangey, II. p. 340): ” ex tov 
 madeitvy wan. Many other instances in Wet 
 stein. 
 
cHaAP, v. 9-11. . 513 
 
 attaches itself in point of form to rv braKoqy, ver. 8, with which it forms 
 a paronomasia; in point of subject-matter it is not different from roic¢ 
 motevovow (iv. 3). Comp. Rom. x. 16; 2 Thess. i. 8, al—The mode of 
 expression: aitiév Teve eivae ouotypias (comp. Tov apynyov THe owTHpiac 
 avrov, ii. 10), [LV h.] is also often met with in Philo, Josephus, and the 
 classical writers.!. The adjective aitévco¢g with owrypia in the N. T. only 
 here. Comp., however, LXX. Isa. xlv. 17. 
 
 Ver. 10 [LV i.] is not to be separated from ver. 9 by a colon, and to be 
 referred back to all that precedes, from ver. 7 onwards (B6hme). On the 
 contrary, the statement connects itself closely with ver. 9, in that it con- 
 tains an elucidation of the aitv¢ cwrnpiag aiwviov there found. Christ be- 
 came for all believers author of everlasting blessedness, in that He was 
 saluted (or named) of God as High Priest after the manner of Melchisedec. 
 That is to say: In order to become the mediate cause of salvation for 
 others, Christ must be the possessor of high-priestly dignity; but this was 
 ascribed to Him on the part of God in the utterance from the psalm, 
 already cited in ver. 6. Bengel: tpoonyopia, appellatio sacerdotis, non 
 solum secuta est consummationem Jesu, sed antecessit etiam passionem, 
 tempore Psalmi cx. 4.—To appoint or constitute (Casaubon : constitutus ; 
 Schulz: proclaimed, publicly declared or appointed ; Stengel : declared, 
 appointed ; Bloomfield: being proclaimed and constituted) tpocayopet- 
 evv, a drag Aeyduevov in the N. T., never means; but only to address, 
 salute, name. 
 
 Ver. 11-vi. 20. [On Vv. 11-14, see Note LVI., pages 522, 523.] The author 
 is on the point of turning to the nearer presentation of the dignity of 
 High Priest after the manner of Melchisedec, which pertains to Christ, 
 and thus of His superiority over the Levitical high priests. But before he 
 passes over to this, he complains in a digression of the low stage of Chris- 
 tian knowledge at which the readers are yet standing, whereas they ought 
 - long ago themselves to have been teachers of Christianity; exhorts them 
 to strive after manhood and maturity in Christianity, and with warning 
 admonition points out that those who have already had experience of the 
 rich blessing of Christianity, and nevertheless apostatize from the same, 
 let slip beyond the possibility of recall the Christian salvation ; then, how- 
 ever, expresses his confidence that such a state of things will not be the case 
 with the readers, who have distinguished themselves, and still do distin- 
 guish themselves, by works of Christian love, and indicates that which he 
 desires of them,—namely, endurance to the end,—while at the same time 
 reminding them of the inviolability of the divine promise and the objec- 
 tive certainty of the Christian hope. 
 
 Ver. 11. Mept ob] [LVI a] sc. Xpiotod apyepéoc xara tv razw Medyioedéx. 
 To this total-conception, as is also recognized by Riehm (Lehrbegr. des 
 Hebriierbr. p. 780), is wep? ob to be referred back. We have to supplement 
 not merely Xpiorod (Oecumenius, Primasius, Justinian), because that 
 would be a far too general defining of the object, inasmuch as confessedly 
 
 1 Instances in Wetstein, Kypke, and Bleek. 
 33 
 
514 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 the discourse is not first about Christ in the sequel, but everywhere 
 throughout the epistle. But neither is MeAyioedéx to be supplied to oi! 
 For even though—a fact to which Bleek appeals—the author, after hay- 
 ing concluded the digression (vii. 1 f.), begins by characterizing this same 
 Melchisedec, yet this description is subordinated to a higher aim, that of 
 setting forth the high-priestly dignity of Christ; as surely also the refer- 
 ence of vii. 1 ff. to the close of the digression (vi. 20) clearly shows, since 
 the former is represented by yap as only the development now begun of 
 the main consideration: "Iycot¢ kata tyv TaELty MeAyroedéix apyre- 
 pevo yevomevog cic Tov aidva, taken up anew, vi. 20. To take ov as a 
 neuter,? and to refer it to the high-priesthood of Christ after Melchisedec’s 
 manner,—according to which ov would thus have to be resolved into zepi 
 Tov Tpooayopevtyvar avTov bd Tov Geov apylepéa Kata THY Tafw MedAyioedéx,— 
 is possible indeed, but not so natural as when it is taken as a masculine, 
 since the discourse in that which precedes was about the definite person 
 of Christ.—rodi¢ juiv 6 Adyoc] sc. éoriv. [LVI b.] Wrongly, because other- 
 wise dv ei7 must have been added, and because a detailed development 
 of the subject really follows afterwards; Peshito, Erasmus, Luther, and 
 others: concerning which we should have much to speak.—xai] and ° 
 indeed.—éyew | belongs to ducepujvevroc. Heinrichs erroneously joins it 
 with juiv 6 Aédyoc—Even on account of the connectedness of the Aéyew 
 with dusepufvevtoc, but also on account of the preceding 77», followed by 
 no tpiv, it is inadmissible,’ to suppose the difficulty of the exposition or 
 rendering intelligible of the Aéyoc to exist on the part of the readers, and 
 thus to interpret dvcepujvevtoc in the sense of dvovéyroc, 2 Pet. iii. 16. On 
 the contrary, as the author has abundant material for discoursing on the 
 subject announced, so is it also difficult for the author to render himself 
 intelligible thereon to the readers. The ground of this difficulty which 
 obtains for him is introduced, by the clause with érei, which on that 
 account is to be referred only to dvcspupvevtoc Aéyew, not at the same time 
 (Hofmann) to rodtic juiv 6 Aédyoc. For the rest, Storr and Bleek have 
 already rightly remarked, that in the connecting of Adyor with the two 
 predicates odie and ducepuqvevtoc a sort of zeugma is contained, inasmuch 
 as Adyoc is to be taken in relation to the first predicate actively, in relation 
 to the second passively. On the high-priesthood of Christ after the man- 
 ner of Melchisedec, the author has much fo speak ; and truly it is difficult 
 for him to make plain to his readers the contents or subject of his discourse. 
 —yeyévare] [LVI c.] characterizes the spiritual sluggishness or dullness of 
 the readers not as something which was originally inherent in them, but 
 only as something which afterwards manifested itself in connection with 
 
 1 Peshito, Calvin [Piscator hesitates between 
 this and the following application], Owen, 
 Schéttgen, Peirce, Semler, Chr. Fr. Schmid, 
 Bleek, de Wetie, Tholuck, Alford, Maier, al. 
 
 2With Grotius, Cramer, Storr, Abresch, 
 Bohme, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Stengel, Bisp- 
 ing, Delitasch, Kurtz, and others. 
 
 8 With Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Peirce, Chr. 
 Fr. Schmid, Valekenaer, Kuinoel, and others. 
 4This is erroneously denied by Delitzsch 
 and Alford. Even the two instances from 
 Dionys. Halicarn., on which Delitzsch relies, 
 
 ‘plead against him. 
 
CHAP. v. 12. 515 
 
 them.’—vwpéc] in the N. T. only here and vi. 12.—rai¢ axoaic] with regard 
 to the hearing, i.e. the spiritual faculty of comprehension? The plural is 
 used, inasmuch as the discourse is of a multitude of persons. On the 
 dative, instead of which the accusative might have been placed, comp. 
 Winer, p. 202 [E. T. 215]. 
 
 Ver. 12. Justification of the reproach: vwtpoi yeyovate tate axoaic, ver. 11. 
 —xai yap dpeiaovres eivar diddoxaror] for when ye ought to have been teachers. 
 cai gives intensity to the ogeiAovrec elvar didacxador, Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 10, 
 al. Arbitrarily Bloomfield (ed. 8), according to whom an intermediate 
 link is to be supplied in connection with «a yap: “[And such ye are,] 
 for though ye ought, according to the time, to be teachers,” ete.—d:a rov 
 ypévor] by reason of the space of time, @.e. because already so considerable 
 a space of time has passed since ye became Christians. In like manner 
 is da Tov ypdvov often employed by classical writers.*—As regards that 
 which follows, there is a controversy as to whether we have to accentuate 
 viva or tuvd. [LVI d.] The word is taken as an interrogative particle by 
 the Peshito and Vulgate, Augustine, Tract. 98 in Joh. ; Schlichting, 
 Grotius, Owen, Wolf, Bengel, Abresch, Schulz, Kuinoel, Klee, de Wette, 
 Tischendorf, Stengel, Bloomfield, Conybeare, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. 
 des Hebraerbr. p. 780; Reuss, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann, and 
 the majority. As an indefinite pronoun, on the other hand, it is taken by 
 Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, Peirce, Cramer, Heinrichs, Bohme, Lach- 
 mann, Stuart, Bleek, Ebrard, Bisping, Alford, Woerner, and others. The 
 latter alone is grammatically possible. For in the opposite case, since the 
 subject is a varying one in the tempus finitum (ypeiav éxere) and the infini- 
 tive (d:déoxerv), either the infinitive passive must be written, tov dcdaoke- 
 ofac tuac, or to the infinitive active a special accusative of the subject 
 (perhaps éué) must be further added. Nor is 1 Thess. iv. 9 decisive in 
 opposition hereto, since there the reading of Lachmann: od xpeiav 
 éyomev ypadew syiv, is the only correct one. See, besides, the remarks in 
 my Commentary on the Thessalonians, ad loc. As, moreover, in a gram- 
 matical respect, so also in a logical respect is the accentuation tiva to be 
 rejected. For upon the adopting thereof the thought would arise, that 
 the readers anew required instruction upon the question: which articles 
 are to be reckoned among the oro.xeia tHe apyic TOV Aoyiwv Tov Geov, OF else: 
 of what nature these are. But manifestly the author is only complaining— 
 as is plain also from the explicative clause: kat yeyévate «.7.2.—of the fact 
 that the readers, who ought long ago to have been qualified for instruct- 
 ing others, themselves still needed to be instructed in the orovyeia. While, 
 for the rest, de Wette and Riehm erroneously find in the indefinite twa 
 
 1Chrysostom: 70 yap eimety émet vwOpot 
 yeyovate Tais akoats SyAovvTos Hv, OTL maAat 
 vyla.vov Kal yoav ioxupol, TH TpoOvmLa CEeovTes, 
 Kal VOTEpPOY aV’TOUS TOTO TaMety mapTupEl. 
 
 2Comp. Philo, Quis rer. divin. haeres. p. 483 
 (with Mangey, I. p. 474): év aWvxots avdpracuy, 
 ols @ta mév EaTtuv, akoal Sé ovK Everowy. 
 
 3Comp. e. g. Aelian, Var. Hist. iii. 37: ot 
 mavy map’ avrois yeyynpaxdres . . . mivovat 
 Kévevov, btav Eavtors cuvedaauv, OTL mpos Ta 
 épya Ta TH Tatpid. AvotTedodyTaA aX PNTTOL 
 ciowv, YroAnpovans H5y Te avTOts Kat THS YYOUNS 
 Sua Tov xpovor. 
 
516 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 “too strong a signification,” Delitzsch is equally mistaken in characteriz- 
 ing it as “ unmeaning ” and “ flat.” With justice does Alford remark, in 
 opposition to the last-named: “So far from twa, some one, being, as 
 Delitzsch most absurdly says, ‘matt und nichtssagend,’ it carries with it 
 the fine keen edge of reproach ; q. d. to teach you what all know, and any 
 can teach.”—iyuac] preposed to the td, in order to bring into the more 
 marked relief the antithesis to eiva: diddcxato.—The notion of rudimenta 
 already existing in 7a orovyeia is made yet more definitely prominent 
 by the genitive t#¢ apy7e (Calvin: “ quo plus incutiat pudoris ”). Thus: 
 the very first primary grounds or elements.\—rov Aoyiwv tov eov] of the utter- 
 ances of God. Comp. Acts vii. 88; 1 Pet. iv. 11; Rom. iii. 2. What is 
 intended is the saving revelations of Christianity, which God has caused 
 to be proclaimed as His word. To think of the Old Testament prophe- 
 cies, and their interpretation and reference to the Christian relations, is 
 inadmissible; since the expression ta Aéyia rov Yeov, in consideration of 
 its generality, always acquires its nearer defining of meaning only from 
 the context, while here, that which was, ver. 12, mentioned as ra orovyeia 
 THE apxyRc Tov Aoyiwv Tov Beov, is immediately after (vi. 1) designated 6 rie 
 apxi¢ Tow Xpiotov Adyoc.—yeyévare] reminds anew, even as the preceding 
 maacv, of the earlier more gladdening spiritual condition of the readers. 
 —yahaxtocg Kai ov otepeac tpodyc] On the figure, comp. 1 Cor. ili. 2: yada 
 iuac éxética, ob Bpdoua.—By the milk, the author understands the elemen- 
 tary instruction in Christianity; by the solid food, the more profound dis- 
 closures with regard to the essence of Christianity, for the understanding 
 of which a Christian insight already more matured is called for. In con- 
 nection with the former, he thinks of the doctrinal topics enumerated vi. 
 1, 2 (not, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, 
 Clarius, and others suppose, of the doctrine of the humanity of Christ in 
 contradistinction from that of His Godhead, which is foreign to the con- 
 text); in connection with the latter, mainly of the subject, just the treat- 
 ment of which will pre-eminently occupy him in the sequel,—the high- 
 priesthood of Christ after the manner of Melchisedec.—The statement of 
 ver. 12 has been urged by Mynster,* Ebrard, and others, in proof that the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews cannot have been addressed to the Palestinean 
 congregations, particularly not to the congregation at Jerusalem. The 
 tenor of the verse might, it is true, appear strange, considering that the 
 congregation at Jerusalem was the parent congregation of all the others, 
 and out of its midst had proceeded the most distinguished teachers of 
 Christianity. Nevertheless this last fact is not at all called in question by 
 
 TeAciors Sé Ta Ek TUPOY TEMmaTa, Kal Wux7s 
 yadaxTwoders ev Gv elev Tpopal Kara Thy TaLduKHy 
 
 1 Analogous is the use of the Latin prima 
 rudimenta, Justin. vii. 5; Liv. i. 3; prima 
 
 elementa, Horace, Serm. i. 1. 26; Quintil. i. 1. 
 %3, 35; Ovid, Fast. iii. 179. 
 
 2 Peirce, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Schulz, Stengel, 
 and others; comp. also Hofmann and Woer- 
 ner ad loc. 
 
 3Philo, de Agricult. p. 188 (with Mangey, I. 
 p. 301): ’Emei S€ vntiots wev eote yada Tpody, 
 
 HAtkiay, Ta THS EyKUKALOV MOVOLKHS mpoTracded- 
 pata’ TéAecae 5€ kai avdpaow evmpereis ai dra 
 ppovyigews Kal cwhpodvvys Kal amagns apeTns 
 vdnynoers. Quod omnis prolus liber, p. 889 A 
 (II. p. 470), ad. 
 
 4 Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1829, H. 2, p. 338. 
 
CHAP. Vis, 1. 517 
 the statement of the verse. For the author has present to his mind the 
 condition of the congregation as it was in his own time; he is addressing 
 —in favor of which also d:a@ tov ypdvov pronounces—a second generation 
 of Palestinean Christianity. The narrow-minded tendency, however, 
 which this second generation had assumed, instead of advancing in its 
 growth to the recognition of the freedom and universality of Christianity 
 as the most perfect religion, might well justify with regard to it the utter- 
 ance of a reproach such as we here meet with. Only thus much follows 
 from the words,—what is also confirmed by xii. 7,—that when the author 
 wrote, James the Lord’s brother had already been torn from the congre- 
 gation at Jerusalem by death, since he would otherwise certainly have 
 written in another tone. 
 
 Vv. 13, 14. Establishing of the yeyévate ypeiav iEyovtec yddAaxtoc Kal ov 
 otepeac tpogyc, ver. 12. Sense: for it is universally characteristic of him who 
 (in a spiritual respect) has need of milk, that he is, because not of ripe age, 
 still inexperienced in the Aédyoc dixavocivyc ; and this is just your case. Solid 
 food, on the other hand, is proper only for the réevor; réAevor, however, ye are 
 not yet. [LVI e.] In connection with this acceptation of the words, there 
 is no occasion for finding anything out of place in the yd@p in relation to 
 that which precedes, and either, with Storr, making it co-ordinate with 
 the yap, ver. 12, and referring it back like this to ver. 11,—which on ac- 
 count of the figure vv. 13, 14, retained from ver. 12, is already seen to be 
 inadmissible,—or for saying, with Bleek and Bisping, that the progress of 
 thought would come out more naturally if the author had written: dc 
 yap 6 arepoc Adyov Sikatocbvyg petéyet yaAaKktoc’ vATi¢g ydp éoTw.—d pETéEYuV 
 yadaxtoc] he who (in a spiritual respect) partakes of milk, i.e. only in this 
 possesses his nourishment, is not in a position to take in solid food.’— 
 areipog Adyov dikatocivyc] se. éotiv, he is still inexperienced in the word of 
 righteousness. [LVI f.]| Expositors have almost without exception been 
 -guided by the presupposition (as also Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Kurtz 
 still are) that Adyo¢ dixacocbvyc is only a varying form of expression for the 
 same idea as is expressed, vv. 12, 14, by oreped rpodq, or, vi. 1, by redecdrye. 
 Adyoc dSixacocivyc has then either been taken as equivalent to Adyoc dixavog 
 or téAevoc, and the higher, more perfect type of doctrine found indicated in 
 the expression.?. Or dckavocivyg has been more correctly regarded as geni- 
 tive of the object. In the latter case dicatoctvy is taken either, as Michaelis, 
 ad Peirc., with an appeal to the Hebrew P75, in the sense of aiteva,* as 
 
 1Bengel: Lacte etiam robusti vescuntur, 
 sed non lacte praecipue, nedum lacte solo. 
 Ttaque notantur hoe loco ii, qui nil denique 
 nisi lac aut capiunt aut petunt. 
 
 2So Schlichting (“sermo justitiae videtur 
 positus pro sermone justo, h. e. perfecto ac 
 solido”), Grotius (“ Hie écxatoovvys dixit pro 
 TeAeLoTynTos .. . et genitivus est pro adject- 
 ivo”’), Abresch (“ doctrina vel institutio justa, 
 h. e. perfecta, plena, omnia complectens, quae 
 ad perspicuam distinctamque pertineant doc- 
 
 trinae Christianae intelligentiam’’), Schulz 
 (“that true [rightly so called] higher doc- 
 trine”), Kuinoel, Bisping, Kurtz, and many 
 others. 
 
 3 Delitzsch, too, with an illusion to the use 
 of pis, Ww, ow, takes é&txatocvvyn as 
 a synonym of aA7jGeva ; but will then have the 
 genitive dixacoovvys looked upon not as ex- 
 pressing the contents, butas a defining of the 
 quality of Aoyos, and will interpret Adyos of 
 the faculty of speech. Thus, then, Adyes 
 
518 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 the doctrine of the essence of the matter itself, in opposition to the typical 
 figures thereof; or 2édyoc dikatootyy¢ is understood specially, as by Oecu- 
 menius, of the Adyog repi ti¢ YedryTo¢ Tod Kupiov, or, as by Carpzov, of the: 
 “ doctrina de sacerdotio Jesu Christi Melchisedeciano, quae dicitur 6 Adéyo¢ 
 Sixavoobyy¢ propterea, quia Melchisedecus, vi nominis, Bacizede dixaroobvyc 
 vertitur, vil. 2, eaque appellatio ad Christum sacerdotem applicatur, cujus 
 mpérov fuit mAypdcat racav dixacoobvyv, Matt. ii. 15;” or the words are 
 made to refer, as by Primasius, Zeger, Bengel, de Wette, and others, to 
 intellectual and moral perfection in general, as also already Chrysostom, who 
 explains the expression by 7 dvw @Aocogia (and after him Theophylact), 
 leaves us the choice of understanding the ioc dxpoc Kai AKprBwpévoc 
 (according to Matt. v. 20), or tov Xpiordv kat tov byyddv epi aitovd Aéyov. 
 But the fundamental presupposition, out of which all these interpreta- 
 tions have sprung, is an erroneous one. For the emphasis falls not upon 
 Adéyou dixaoobync, but upon the adzecpoc, on that account preposed. Not 
 for a non-possession of the Adyoc dicacoovyc, but only for a want of expe- 
 rience in the same, only for an insufficient, schoolboy’s knowledge of it, 
 does the author blame the readers. The Adyoce dixacoobvy¢ in itself, there- 
 fore, stands as indifferently related to the notion of the oreped tpodh or 
 rerewéryc as to the notion of the oroyeia, to which Ebrard reckons it. Only 
 by the more or less exhaustive imparting of its subject-matter does it be- 
 come the one or the other. For the word of righteousness is nothing 
 more than a periphrasis of Christianity or the gospel, inasmuch as just the 
 righteousness availing with God! is the central-point of its contents. 
 
 dixatogvvys is taken to mean: “the faculty to the connection, as Riehm (Lehrbegr. des 
 
 of speaking in accordance with righteous- 
 ness,” i.e. the “discourse on spiritual things 
 which is guided in strict accord with the 
 norm of the true, and harmoniously com- 
 bines all the factors.of the case, proportion- 
 ately regarded, without leaving one of them 
 out, of sight ;” and in yer. 13 is supposed to be 
 contained the following “most rigid connec- 
 tion of ideas:” “he who must still receive 
 niilk is still ignorant of rightly-constituted, 
 i.e. right-teaching or orthodox, discourse; 
 for he isa child only beginning to lisp, and 
 not yet capable of speech.” This strange 
 view, based upon the incomprehensible 
 grounds, that “since vymos (from vy and ézros) 
 denotes one incapable of speech, an infant, 
 there is a presumption in favor of Adyos in 
 ametpos Adyov Sikacoovvys having the signi- 
 fication of faculty of speech,—and this 
 signification is here the more probable in 
 regard to the aig@yTypia occurring in the 
 antithetic parallel clause, inasmuch as 0 Aoyos, 
 in the sense of language, is met with count- 
 less times in Philo along with the aio@nors or 
 the mévte aic@joes, of Which the organs are 
 known as aio@ytHpia,’—bears its refutation 
 upon the face of it. It is not at all suitable 
 
 Hebrdéerbr. p. 734) and Alford have already 
 observed; since according to this there is no 
 question as to the faculty for speaking on 
 spiritual subjects, but only as to the faculty 
 for understanding the same.—As “discourse” 
 will Hofmann also have Adyos interpreted, in 
 that he fully subtilizes the notion lying in 
 S:xkavocvvy, and finds indicated by the total 
 expression Adyos dSuxatoovvys only “ correct 
 discourse.” For, according to him, the words 
 ver. 13 are used in their most literal sense, 
 and allude to the fact that he who is still fed 
 
 - with milk at the maternal breast is as yet no 
 
 judge of correct discourse! 
 
 10f the righteousness availing with God 
 (comp. also xi. 7), have Beza, Jac. Cappellus, 
 Peirce, Storr, Klee, Tholuck, Bleek, Stein, 
 Ebrard, Bloomfield, and others already 
 rightly interpreted d:cavocvvy.—In the above 
 exposition, Alford,, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des 
 Hebrderbr. p. 733), and Woerner have con- 
 eurred; save that, according to Riehm, by 
 virtue of an over-refined distinction, the 
 gospel is not called the word of righteous. 
 ness “because the righteousness availing 
 with God is the central-point of its contents,” 
 but “because it leads to righteousness; 
 
NOTES. 
 
 519 
 
 Quite analogous to this mode of designation is the Pauline characteriza- 
 tion of the gospel office of teaching by 7 dcaxovia tHe Suxavoobyys, 2 Cor. iil. 
 
 9, and of the teachers of Christianity 
 
 by diakovor dixavoabvys, 2. Cormsx. 103 
 
 on which account also it is unnecessary, for the justification of the expres- 
 sion chosen, with Bleek, Bisping, and Maier, to assume an allusion to the 
 exposition of the name Melchisedec, Bacirede dexacoobvyc, given Mile 
 
 virwoc yap éotw] for he is still a babe, a novice in Christianity. 
 
 Setting 
 
 forth of the naturalness of the azerpo¢ Zéyou diKavoovvys. 
 
 Ver. 14. The opposition: for perfect or more matured Christians, on 
 the other hand (and only for them), is the solid food—reAeioy is with 
 emphasis preposed.—rév dia tiv éEw x.7.A.] more precise characterizing 
 
 of the réAewr: for those who, etc.—é 
 It corresponds to the Latin habitus, and is 
 
 the N. T. a azag& Acyopevov. 
 
 used in particular of the condition produced by use and wont. 
 
 ec] like the following aio Sntipiov, in 
 
 Here it 
 
 denotes the capacity or dexterity acquired by practice.'—ra aioSnthpia] the 
 organs of the senses ; transferred to that which is spiritual: the power of 
 
 apprehension 2—yeyvuracpéva] Predicate ; 
 
 literally: as exercised.\—rpoc 
 
 dudkpiow K.7.2.] for the distinguishing of good and bad. [LVI g.] The words 
 
 may be taken with yeyuuvacpvéva, or 
 expression yeyuzvacpéva éxdvtwv. 
 
 The kaaév te kal Kkakév, 
 
 they may be taken with the whole 
 
 however, is 
 
 to be understood of the right and the wrong, or of the wholesome and the 
 pernicious, not, with Stein, of that which is morally good or evil.* [LVI h.] 
 
 Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 LV. Vv. 1-10. 
 
 (a) This passage presents, 
 
 qualifications which are necessary for the high-priestly office. 
 is set forth in vv. 1-3; the second, in ver. 4. 
 
 as is generally admitted by commentators, two 
 
 The first of these 
 The second qualification is 
 
 ‘perfectly evident from the words used: the high-priest must not take the office 
 for himself, but must be called to it by God. There can be as little doubt as to 
 
 the general meaning of what is said respecting the first qualification. 
 
 The con- 
 
 struction of the sentence in which it is described, however, is somewhat question- 
 able. The order of the words, as Liinem., also remarks, shows that & avdporwv 
 
 because, by its proclamation to man, the 
 possibility is created and the opportunity is 
 afforded of entering into a condition of the 
 rightness of his relation to God, inasmuch, 
 namely, as he assumes a believing attitude 
 towards the word proclaimed.” But why 
 should the author, familiar as he was with 
 Paul’s manner of teaching, and attaching his 
 own doctrinal presentation thereto,—albeit 
 with independence of character,—have 
 shrunk from recognizing, as the central 
 theme of the gospel, “the righteousness 
 which avails with God,” since even this was 
 only a general notion, which did not exclude 
 a peculiar conception and treatment, where 
 
 it was a question of the development of de- 
 tails, and insistance thereon ? 
 
 1Comp. Quintil. x. 1. 1: firma quaedam 
 facilitas, quae apud Graecos égs nominatur. 
 
 2Comp. LXX. Jer. iv. 19: ra aig@ntypra 77S 
 Wuxys ov. 
 
 30n the whole turn of discourse, comp. 
 Galen, De dignot. puls. 3 (in Wetstein): 6s pev 
 
 ‘yap... To aig@nTypov ExeL yeyURVacLEevov 
 
 ixavas ... oUTOS apioTos ay ely yromwr. 
 4Chrysostom: viv ov mept Biov avTe 0 
 Adyos, Stay Ayn’ mpos Staxprory Kkadov Kat 
 Kaxov (TOTO yap wavTi avOpwuTw SuvaTov etdevat 
 kai evKoAOV) GAA® Tmept SoymaTwv Vyiay Kat 
 DYNA, StePOappévwv TE Kat TAMELVOV. 
 
520 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 AauPavouevog belongs with the predicate, and not with the subject. It is clear, 
 also, that the writer is not, as yet, contrasting the heavenly and the earthly high- 
 priests, as he does in chs. vii ff, but is, in these introductory verses, simply show- 
 ing what the high-priest must be, and that Christ answers to the demands of the 
 office. It would be out of the line of thought, therefore, to make these words a 
 part of the subject, as designating the priest who is taken from among men. But, 
 if they are united with the predicate, the question may be asked whether they 
 have a more prominent, or a less prominent position. Is this participial clause 
 a mere incidental expression, the chief emphasis resting upon what follows ‘va to 
 the end of ver. 2: Every high-priest is appointed, etc., taken as he is from among 
 men, in order that, etc.? Or does it contain in itself the chief point, which is, as 
 it were, only unfolded in the iva clause: Every high-priest is appointed as one 
 who is a man, and this to the end that, etc.? The emphatic position of the words 
 and the fact that they seem scarcely necessary, if they express only a secondary 
 and incidental idea, strongly favor the latter view of the construction. In either 
 case, the general meaning is, that the high-priest must be a man, or one who, as 
 a man, is able to sympathize with men in their infirmities. 
 
 (6) The yap at the beginning of ver. 1, connects the idea of the necessity of this 
 sympathy with the statement, in iv. 14-16, that we have a high-priest who has 
 been tempted like ourselves; but this connection is grammatical, rather than the 
 necessary logical connection of the main thought. The main thought turns here 
 into a new line, of which, as already remarked, iv. 14-16 (like ii. 17, 18) gives 
 only a foreshadowing hint.—dvvayuevoc has nearly, if not precisely, the same 
 relation to poogépy «.7.2., which Aauavduevoc has to kabiorara, if the latter is 
 explained in the second way mentioned above: his appointment as being a man 
 is in order that he may offer the sacrifices as one who is able, ete—Ver. 3 is, not 
 improbably, best explained, with Liinem., as an independent sentence, containing 
 an observation which is incidental, so far as the chief point in discussion in the 
 other verses is concerned. : 
 
 (c) That, in vy. 4-6, Christ is declared to have the second of the two qualifica- 
 tions mentioned, is admitted by all. With reference to special points in these 
 three verses, it may be remarked: 1. That in ver. 5 the writer substitutes for 6 
 ede (ver. 4) the sentence 6 Aadgjoac x.7.A. This sentence includes the characteristic 
 word used by the author to describe divine utterances and revelations, and also the 
 passage cited from the Psalms, which was introduced at the very beginning of the 
 first part of the epistle (i. 5); 2. That ver. 6 does not stand in a parallelism with 
 ver.5 6. Ver.56 is simply a description of the One who calls Christ to the office of 
 high-priest—é Aad#joac with its dependent words being the subject of the verb to 
 be supplied from édéface, Ver. 6, on the other hand (see xa¥ac¢), gives the proof 
 that 6 Aadgjoac k.7.A., did what is indicated by éd6Eace.—3. From these two facts 
 it is to be inferred, that the author wrote his sentences intentionally in this 
 way. He designed, with rhetorical force and in an artistic manner, to unite the 
 beginning of the second division of his work with the beginning of the first, and 
 to call the attention of his readers to the thought, that He who had made Christ 
 His agent in introducing the N. T. system, had also made Him His agent in 
 carrying it forward. 
 
 (d) In vv. 7-9, Christ is presented as having the first of the two qualifications 
 for the high-priestly offiee. That such a presentation is the design of these verses is 
 proved by the following considerations:—1. The artistic arrangement of the 
 
NOTES. 521 
 
 epistle, which is so clearly manifest in all its parts, renders it extremely improb- 
 able that, after having formally stated the two things mentioned in vv. 1-4, the 
 first one, and the one which had been set forth with greatest fullness, should be 
 passed over without notice in the application of the matter to Christ. 2. What 
 is said respecting Christ in vv. 7-9, both as to His own experience and as to the 
 result of it, is wholly unconnected with the statement of vv. 5, 6; but, on the 
 other hand, it accords with what is indicated in vy. 1-3. That in consequence of 
 His having gone through the experiences of human weakness and suffering, as 
 attendant upon His being a man, He is enabled to be the high-priest for men, is 
 the thought of these verses;—that such experience and qualification are essential 
 to the office, is the thought of vv. 1-3. 3. There is no satisfactory reason for 
 denying this reference to the first verses of the chapter—neither the absence of 
 the phrase é&. avtp. AaqufZ. or of the word avipwroc, for the idea is sufficiently 
 suggested by the words “in the days of his flesh,” as well as by the other indica- 
 tions of human experience ; nor the fact that certain expressions are found which 
 remind us of the second chapter, for the high-priestly office, and its work for men, 
 find their full significance only as they help men to eternal salvation; nor the 
 correspondence in some points with iv. 14-16, for, as has been already intimated, 
 that passage is only preparatory to this, and is not determinative of the plan or 
 main ideas of this introduction to the second leading division of the letter; nor the 
 repetition, in ver. 10, of the words of ver. 6, for this repetition is only for the purpose 
 of forming a transition from the introductory passage to the development of the 
 first point connected with the exaltation of Christ’s priesthood above the O. T. 
 priesthood,—namely, that it is after the Melchisedek order, as contrasted with 
 the Aaronic or Levitical. This writer does not turn aside from his line of 
 thought without coming back to it again, as Paul does under the influence of some 
 new idea or word. He isa rhetorician, rather than an ardent advocate, and he 
 cares for the form, as well as for the substance. When he leaves his thought in 
 incompleteness, he returns to it again. The plan is never forgotten. But, at the 
 same time, he is not slavishly bound to the use of the same words. He moves in 
 .the circle of ideas, not of mere expressions, and so he readily brings out a new 
 thought, or application of thought, in words kindred to those which hemay have 
 already employed elsewhere and for a different purpose. 
 
 (e) The close connection of ver. 7 with vv. 5, 6 by the relative 6¢ may be 
 accounted for after the same manner with many other unions of sentences in this 
 epistle, and in Paul’s letters. It is a characteristic of epistolary writing to connect 
 independent thoughts in this dependent way.—(/) The correct view of the ex- 
 pressions referring to Christ’s prayers, ete, seems to be this: that they are 
 intended to be descriptive of His whole earthly life, in this regard, but that thev 
 are chosen, to a considerable extent, if not altogether, under the influence of the 
 story of the scene in Gethsemane. It is improbable that the sole reference, in the 
 thought, is to that scene. But that the writer should make the language belong- 
 ing to, or suggested by, this decisive hour of Christ’s history serve to represent His 
 whole history of suffering, supplication, obedience, is not at all strange or 
 unnatural—(g) The view of Liinemann, and the many writers whom he mentions 
 as agreeing with him, respecting eicaxovodeic ard tic evAaeiac, is to be adopted. — 
 (kh) The use of aitioc in ver. 9, instead of apy7yéce which is found in ii. 10, may, 
 not improbably, be due to the fact that the writer has not here in mind the idea 
 of leading the way as the first of a great company, but only of cause as connected 
 
522 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 with the work of the high-priest—(i) The connection of ver. 10 with ver. 3 is 
 like that of ver. 1 and ver. 7 with the verses which immediately precede them. 
 As to the relation of ver. 10 to the main thought, see under (d) above. 
 
 LYI. Vy. 11-14. 
 
 (a) The reference of oi) (ver. 11)—whether to Melchisedee, or to Christ as priest 
 after the order of M., or (as neuter) to the topic of Christ’s Mel. priesthood—is 
 uncertain. In any éase, we have the same general purpose in the passage. The 
 fact that Christ is the principal subject of the preceding verses, that ver. 10 is 
 opened by a participle referring to Him, that it is His doctrine, in its elementary 
 and deeper parts, which is mentioned at the beginning of ch. vi., and that His 
 correspondence with Melchisedek in the matter of the priesthood is presented in ch. 
 vii., may lead to the conclusion that the writer intended to refer, not to Melchisedek, 
 and not to the mere topic or proposition, but to what is set forth in the words of 
 ver. 10, ae. Christ as high-priest after the Melchis. order. Liinem.’s view, there- 
 fore, though not certainly correct, is probably to be adopted —(b) The verb to be 
 supplied with zodvd¢e 6 Adyo¢ is, undoubtedly, éor/v, and so the meaning is: we 
 have many things to say (R. V.). The strict sense of the words, accordingly, is 
 that which Liinem. gives: “the author has abundant material for discoursing on 
 the subject announced.” When connected with the following phrase ducepuhvevtog 
 Aéyew, however, it is not impossible that, along with this primary and proper 
 meaning, the words are intended to suggest that the unfolding of the subject, 
 being duoepujvevroc, requires for the readers an extended presentation. This 
 possibility is suggested, also, by the éze which follows, if this word, as may be 
 intimated by the form of the sentence, is to be connected in thought with the 
 whole clause rep? ob... . Aéyerx.—(c) The verb yeyévare, like many other words 
 and statements in the epistle, implies that the readers were falling back, rather 
 than pressing forward in their Christian life—(d) On the possibilities of the con- 
 struction of tov diddoxerv and twa (ver. 12), see Buttm.pp. 260, 268, Winer p. 
 339, and Liinem.’s note on 1 Thess. iv. 9, to which he himself refers in his remarks 
 on the present verse. That the use of the infinitiye active, in such a case, with- 
 out the supply of a new subject, and instead of the infinitive passive, is possible, 
 may, perhaps, be admitted—though, to say the least, it seems questionable. But 
 that it is improbable in a sentence which can be otherivise explained satisfactorily, 
 may be safely affirmed. The present sentence, however, can not only be inter- 
 preted without serious difficulty, by making t-va the subject of ypd@ecv, but, if this 
 construction is adopted, the meaning accords with what we must believe the writer 
 to have intended. It is scarcely conceivable that he meant to say, that the readers 
 had become so dull and sluggish in all their Christian understanding as not to 
 know whether repentance and faith were fundamental and elementary doctrines. 
 There is certainly nothing in the context which implies this. The context 
 intimates only that they needed milk, i. e., instruction in the elementary things, 
 (not information as to whether these things were elementary or not) (vv. 12 8, 13), 
 and that they should move beyond these things to those which were higher, or 
 should open their minds to the truth so as to receive and understand a discourse 
 on the higher things (vi. 1 ff). There can be little doubt, therefore, that tia is 
 the indefinite pronoun, not the interrogative—(e) The explanation given by 
 Liinem. of the sequence of thought in vy. 12 , 13, shows that it is not necessary 
 
. 
 
 NOTES. F034 
 
 to suppose, that the author sacrificed the sense to the word-arrangement in the 
 order of the clauses of vv. 13, 14. But it can hardly be doubted that Bleek is 
 correct in saying, that the reverse order would have carried forward the thought 
 more simply and naturally. Ver. 120 is only a renewed expression, in a figurative 
 way, of what it is involved in 12 a. The object of vv. 13, 14 is to prove—not so 
 much that the one who partakes of, or needs, milk, rather than solid food, is in 
 want of instruction—as that the one who is inexperienced in the word of righte- 
 ousness, being v#tvo¢ and not TéAevoc, requires milk i.e. elementary teaching. Not 
 improbably, the writer places the yetéyov yadaxrog first, under the influence of his 
 tendency towards rhetorical word-arrangement.—(f) Grimm (Lex. N. T.) 
 regards Adyo¢ T7¢ dikaoovvyc as equivalent to doctrina de modo quo homo conditionem 
 deo probatam consequatur, giving thus a general meaning to dix, This is one of the 
 instances in which this writer may intend to use the word in the distinctively 
 Pauline sense. But that he does have this intention cannot be confidently 
 affirmed. The only case where the Pauline idea is beyond doubt is xi. 7. Grimm 
 says of Baovdede dcxacoovvye in vil. 2—the interpretation of the name of Melchisedek— 
 that it means rer, qui ipse deo probatur et cives suos deo probatos reddit. The fact 
 that the verses of ch. vii. and those here used are both connected with the allusion 
 to Melchisedek renders it not improbable that the writer's idea of righteousness 
 in the two cases was the same; but the separation of the two verses by the sixth 
 chapter, and the fact that the word is not immediately joined with what is said of 
 Christ’s Mel. priesthood, make it somewhat doubtful. The most that can be 
 stated with confidence is, that Aoy. dvx., as here used, may mean the doctrine of 
 righteousness by faith, and may, also, mean the doctrine of righteousness in the more 
 general signification of the word.—( gy) The reference of the thought of the 
 passage to doctrine and teaching shows that xadovd te Kai xaxod has the same 
 reference. The same fact, also, shows that aic#T7p1a means the perceptive 
 faculties, or, as Alf., says, the inner organs of the soul. 
 
 (h) This passage (vv. 11-14) is evidently a mere digression and parenthesis, as 
 related to the direct development of the thought suggested in ver. 10, and carried 
 on in ch. vii. It is however, a digression which is very easily and naturally 
 made. Ch. vi. is introduced in connection with the last part of this passage, i. e., 
 the present vyriétn¢ of the readers, when they ought to be téAevor, But it is not 
 a part of the same parenthesis. It is, on the other hand, the hortatory passage 
 belonging to this new sub-section of the epistle, which is introduced before the 
 argumentative part of the section—instead of after it, as in other cases—because it 
 was so readily suggested to the writer’s mind by the closing verses of ch. v. 
 
524 THE EPISTLE TC THE HEBREWS. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Ver. 2. Instead of the Recepta d:day%¢, Lachm. reads dcdaxqv. But the 
 accusative has the support only of B and the Latin translation in D (doctrinam), 
 and is a mere transcriber’s error.—Ver. 3. Elz.: tocjooper, after BK L y, It. 
 Vulg. Basm. Copt. Syr. utr. Ambrose. Retained by Lachm. Tisch. and Bloomfield. 
 Defended also by Reiche. But as more original, on account of the symmetry 
 with gepoueda, ver. 1, appears the conjunctive to1yower, already commended 
 to notice by Griesbach ; approved by Bleek, Delitzsch, and Alford. It is attested 
 by the strong authority of A C D E, 23,31, 39, al. mult., Arm. Chrys. (codd.) 
 Theodoret (comment.), Oecum. Damase.—Ver. 7. éx’ avti¢] B** 213, 219** al. : 
 ém’ avrg, Alteration in favor of the more prevailing linguistic usage—To the 
 Recepta ToAAakic Epyopmevov, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford have 
 preferred the order épyépuevov moddakec. The external accrediting is for 
 both substantially equal. The Recepta is attested by A C K L, Vulg.; Lach- 
 mann’s reading by B D E xy, 37, 116, ai., It. Syr. utr. Copt. al. But in favor of 
 the originality of the latter pleads the greater euphony, for which the author 
 is wont to show a predilection—Ver. 9. The mode of writing «peiccova, 
 followed by Bengel, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, al., after the precedent given 
 by the Edd. Complut. and Plantin., instead of the Recepia xpeittova, is here 
 required by A BC D*** (E?) L yx, al. Otherwise, i. 4, vii. 7, and frequently. -= 
 Ver. 10. kat tie ayaryc] Elz. Matthaei: cal tov Kétov THe Gyanyne. But rov 
 xémov is wantinggin A BC D* E* y, 6, 31, 47, al., Syt. utr. Erp. Basm. Aeth. 
 Arm. Vulg. Clar. Germ., with Chrys. (twice) Antioch. Theoph. Jerome. Already 
 condemned by Beza, Mill, Bengel, al. Rightly deleted by Griesb. Knapp, 
 Lachm. Seholz, Tisch. Alford, Reiche, and others. Gloss from 1 Thess. i. 3.— 
 Ver. 14. Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2, Bloomfield, Reiche: 7 «4». 
 Instead thereof, Lachm. Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, and Alford have ei «4v. The latter, 
 approved also by Bleek and others, is, on account of the weighty authority of 
 A B(C L**: e uf) D(D corr.: € 7) Ex, 17, 28, al., Didym. Damase. Vulg. It. 
 Ambrose. Bede (: nisi), to be looked upon as the original reading. 7 “yy isa 
 later conversion of the non-Greek expression of the LX X. into Greek.—Ver. 
 16. dvdpuror pév yap] So Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloom- 
 field, and Alford. But j#év is wanting in A B D* x, 47, 52, Cyril. Rightly 
 rejected by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8.—Ver. 18. dev] Bleek and Tisch. 8, 
 after A C y*, 17, 52, Cyril, Didym. Chrys. al.: tov dedv.—Ver. 19. Instead of 
 the Recepta ao¢aA7, which is confirmed also by the Codex Sinaiticus, Lachm., in 
 the stereotype edition, writes, after A C D*: aogad4v (so also Tisch. 7),in the 
 larger edition: dogaA#v, But the form is hardly to be justified. Yet comp. 
 Winer, p. 64 [E. T. 66]. 
 
 Vy. 1-3. [On Vv. 1-3, see Note LVIT., pages 549, 550.] It is disputed 
 whether in these verses the author carries out his purpose of advancing, 
 
CHAP. VI. 1-3. 525 
 with the pretermission of the Christian elementary instruction, to objects 
 of deeper Christian knowledge ; or whether there is contained in the same 
 a summons to the readers, no longer to cling to the doctrines of the first 
 principles of Christianity, but to strive to reach beyond them and attain 
 to Christian maturity and perfection.!. The former supposition is favored 
 by Primasius, Luther, Vatablus, Zeger, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Pisca- 
 tor, Schlichting, Grotius, Owen, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Peirce, Cramer, 
 Michaelis, Morus, Storr, Abresch, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Klee, de Wette, 
 Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, Reiche (Comment. Crit. p. 86 sqq.) 
 Conybeare, Reuss, M’Caul, Hofmann (Komm. p. 231), and many others; 
 the latter, on the other hand, by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, Genna- 
 dius (in Oecumenius), Theophylact, Faber Stapulensis, Calvin, Clarius, 
 Justinian, Jac. Cappellus, Bohme, Stuart, Bleek, Ebrard, Hofmann (Schrift- 
 bew. I. p. 6386, 2 Aufl.), Moll, and others. [LVII a.] The connection with 
 the preceding and following context decides against the first acceptation 
 and in favor of the second. The author has just now charged the readers 
 with dullness, and complained that they are still children in Christian un- 
 derstanding. It is not possible, therefore, that he should now continue in 
 the strain: “on that account he purposes, passing over the doctrines of 
 the initial stage, to treat in his address of objects of higher, profounder 
 Christian knowledge ;”” whereas, on the other hand, the exhortation to 
 ascend to a higher stage fittingly links itself to the complaint of the lower 
 standpoint of the readers, which still continues unchanged notwithstand- 
 ing all legitimate expectation to the contrary. No wonder, then, that ex- 
 positors have been forced, in connection with the first-named explanation, 
 to have recourse to arbitrary interpretations of the d:6, vi. 1; either in 
 completing the idea, as Grotius, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, and others, 
 
 1Delitzsch and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des He- 
 “brderbr. p. 781 f.), to whom Maier, Kluge, 
 Kurtz,and Woerner have given in their adhe- 
 sion, have thought to be able to escape the 
 stringency of the above either... or. 
 
 They will have us recognize the one to the 
 non-exclusion of the other, in that they find 
 expressed at the same time the exhortation 
 to the readers to strive after the teAevdrys, 
 and the design of the writer to lead forward 
 the readers to the reAecorns. But this (comp. 
 also Reiche, Comment. Crit. p. 37, note 2) is an 
 unnatural, absolutely impossible assumption. 
 The announcement of the author’s design to 
 advance to a more difficult section of his dis- 
 quisition, and the exhortation to the endeavor 
 after Christian maturity addressed to others, 
 are two so mutually irreconcilable declara- 
 tions, as not possibly to admit of being com- 
 pressed at the same time into the $épec@ac 
 emt, ver. 1, and rovro wocecy, ver. 3. Just as 
 little can at the same time be indicated by 
 teAeoTns, ver. 1, the condition of ripe age in 
 Christianity, and the Christian teaching 
 
 activity of another in reference to higher 
 things. If, therefore, the author had designed 
 to express both together,—alike an incite- 
 ment of the readers, as also the carrying out 
 of his own intention,—he must necessarily 
 have brought under review each one sepa- 
 rately, i. e. first the one and then the other. 
 In addition to this, there is the further con- 
 sideration that the view of Delitzsch and 
 Riehm bears the character of half measures. 
 For they do not even venture to push it to a 
 consistent conclusion, in that surely the same 
 two-sidedness of reference which attaches to 
 the principal verb depwpueba (and to the todto 
 tmoujowmev Which resumes the thought of the 
 same), must also attach to the participles 
 adévres and xaraBadAdpmevor; but as it is, the 
 participles are supposed to haye gramma- 
 tically, it is true, the same two-sided subject 
 as the principal verbs; logically, on the other 
 hand, to refer preponderantly (i. e. according 
 to the preceding remark in Delitzsch, p. 209, 
 init.: exclusively) to the author! 
 
526 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 by: “therefore, because surely rio one of you wishes to remain a v@ruoc,” 
 —which, however, as the middle term, must have been expressly added, 
 since no reader could divine this from that which precedes,—or in refer- 
 ring it, as Schlichting and Reuss, to the first words of v.11: repi ob rodi¢ 
 juiv 6 Abyoc Kai SvcepuAvertoc Aéyerv, and regarding all that intervenes in the 
 light of remarks appended by way of parenthesis,—which, nevertheless, 
 is to be rejected, even on account of the intimate connection of ducepujver- 
 roc Aéyev, V. 11, with the following éze? «.7.4.,—or finally, what is lexically 
 impossible, denying to it a causal signification, and then translating it 
 either, as Morus, by “yet” (doch), or, as Zachariae, by “ nevertheless ” 
 (indessen), or as Abresch, by vero, enimvero.—But no less does the coherence 
 with that which follows decide against the first interpretation and in favor 
 of the second. For it is quite comprehensible how the reason given, ver. 4 
 ff.,should be able to lend emphasis to a preceding exhortation, but not how 
 the declaration of the author, that he now intended to pass over to more 
 difficult, more profound themes for instruction, should be explained 
 thereby. (See on vv. 4-6.) In agévrec there lies no decisive ground in 
 favor of either the one or the other view (against de Wette, Bisping, and 
 others), and éx? ri reAeéryta, as also Veuédwov xataBadrAduevor, is More rele- 
 vant to the case of the readers than to that of the author (vide infra).— 
 Ai] [LVII b 1.] therefore, i. e. since the solid food is suited only to réAevoe, 
 ye, however, do not yet belong to the number of the réAecoe.—agvévar] is not 
 only employed by orators and historians to indicate that they intend to pass 
 over some subject or leave it unmentioned,! but serves with equal fre- 
 quency to denote the leaving unnoticed or leaving aside of an object in 
 actual conduct.? In our passage it is the leaving aside of the lesser, in 
 order to reach beyond it and attain to the higher. Entirely akin to the 
 aguévac Tov THE apY# Tov Xpiorov Adyov is that which Paul, Phil. iii. 14, denotes 
 as ériaySaveodar Ta briow. As in the passagenamed Paul speaks of a for- 
 getting of that already attained upon the path of Christian perfection, 
 only with.a glance at the goal as yet unattained, and not in an absolute 
 sense,—as though he would in reality deny all actual significance to that 
 which was already attained,—quite so does the author of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews stir up the readers to an ag:évar rov THe apy TOU Xpiorov Adyov, 
 only inasmuch as they are called to rise, beyond that which forms a mere 
 preliminary stage, to something higher, without in any way implying 
 thereby that the rie apyie tov Xprorod Adyoc, which certainly, as a base pre- 
 supposed as already present, remains necessary for all subsequent build- 
 ing, should at all cease to be their possession. The objection, that agévre¢ 
 cannot be referred to the readers, because instead of a leaving aside (let- 
 ting go) a holding fast or renewing of the ric apyne ToD Xpiotov Adyoc must 
 rather be demanded as a means for attaining to the reAevéryc, has therefore 
 no force.—rov rie apyye Tod Xpiorov Adyov] the word of the beginning concern- 
 
 1Comp. e. g. Demosth. de Falsa Legat. p. 433, Luke y. 11: adévtes mavta HKodovOnoay avT@; 
 28: mavra Ta dAAa adeis, & TavTEs Dyes LoTE Epw. Eurip. Androm. 393: aAAa Thy apxnv ageis 
 2Comp. e.g. Mark vii. 8: apévres Thy EvToAny mpos Thy TedevTHV, VoTEpayv ovaav, Hépy- 
 Tov Oeov Kpateite THY Tapadoow TaY avOpwrTwr ; 3Comp. Calvin: Jubet autem omitti ejus- 
 
CHAP. VI. 1-3. 527 
 ing Christ, i. e. the Christian doctrine in its first rudiments or elements. 
 tae apxiye locks together with ro» Aéyov into a single notion, and upon 
 this total-notion tov Xpcorot depends. The whole expression, however, 
 amounts to the same thing as was before (vy. 12) denoted by ra crovyeia re 
 apXi¢ TOV Aoyiwv Tov Veov.—7 Tedev6ryc] In Connection with our apprehension 
 of vv. 1-8, determines itself naturally as perfection, i.e. manhood and 
 maturity in Christianity, and that in an intellectual respect, not in an 
 ethical or practical one, in which latter sense the expression has been 
 accepted—arbitrarily, because opposed to the connection with y. 11-14— 
 by Chrysostom (Sio¢ apictoc).! Those who find in vv. 1-3 a statement of 
 the author concerning his intention, must naturally understand rf eA ec 6- 
 tne of the perfection of doctrine, 7. e. of the deeper disclosures with regard 
 to Christianity. But this is, at all events, a forced interpretation of the 
 simple notion of the word, such as neither corresponds to the usage in 
 other cases (comp. Col. 11. 14), nor in our passage appears in keeping with 
 the context. For, since immediately before the discourse was of 7 éAecor 
 in opposition to vgmco1, so here only the condition of the ré%ecoe can 
 consistently with nature be the meaning of the reAevérye. Had the 
 author intended the perfection of doctrine, he must at least have written 
 émi ta tov tedeiwv instead of émi tyv TeAeéty7Ta; for only in this way 
 would he have acquired a notion corresponding to the preceding 7 orepea 
 tpody, V. 14.—gepdueda] The author includes himself in the exhortation 
 (cf. iv. 14, al.), and thereby tempers the same. ¢épeodac éxi tu, to be 
 carried away to something, to strive with zeal after something.—vepédcov Kara- 
 Baadrecda] a formula fully current in later Greek style (Dionys. Halicarn. iii. 
 69; Josephus, Antiq. xi. 4. 4, al. [whereas Paul and Luke employ rvdévaz, 1 
 Cor. iii. 10; Luke vi. 48, xiv. 29]), to denote the laying of the foundation. 
 Even on account of the usualness of this mode of speech, it is quite a 
 misapprehension of the meaning when Ebrard would here vindicate for 
 ‘kataBadAeota the signification : “demolish.” But also the position of the 
 word decides against this, since kataBaAAémevo. must have its place be- 
 fore Geuédov, whereas the placing of it after shows that the emphasis must 
 fall upon Se éAcov, not upon the verb; GeuéAcov thus stands in antithesis 
 to the following reAedéryra. The participial clause: uy raacv Gewédrcrov 
 cata. x.t.4., accordingly forms an elucidation to agévre¢ rdv tHe apyAe ToD 
 Xpicrov Adyov.—The genitive weravoiac, etc., indicates the material with 
 which the foundation is laid, and, indeed, each two of the instances named 
 belong together, so that three pairs of the first principles of Christianity 
 are enumerated. The article before the single substantives is omitted 
 throughout; not, as BOhme and Bleek suppose, out of a consideration for 
 
 modi rudimenta, non quod eorum oblivisci 
 unquam debeant fideles, sed quia in illis 
 minime est haerendum. Quod melius patet 
 ex fundamenti similitudine, quae mox sequi- 
 tur. Nam in exstruenda domo nunquam a 
 fundamento discedere oportet; in eo tamen 
 jaciendo semper laborare ridiculum. 
 1Gennadius (xpyotH moActeia kai THs TigTEws 
 
 aéia), Photius () év tats apetais mooxo7y, 7 
 Tov OArtWewy Kal Swwyn@v Kal TeLpagmeV V70- 
 povn), Occumenius (7 Tav Epywv drdogodpia), 
 Clarius (non solum superioris illius de Christo 
 theologiae comprehensio, quantum homini 
 fas est, verum etiam profectus in virtutes et 
 afflictionum persecutionumque tolerantia), 
 and others. 
 
528 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 the rhythm, lest otherwise the articles should too greatly accumulate, but 
 because the sense is: with things such as wetdvoca, etc.—Further, as sub- 
 ject in xataBad2duevor We have to regard the readers of the epistle (not the 
 author), because the same subject is presupposed for the peravora and the 
 Oeuériov KataBaarecda; but the wetadvocra, which cannot denote the doctrine 
 of the change of mind,—since otherwise, as with the words in ver. 2, the 
 addition of ddayy could not have been wanting,—but expresses the act 
 of the change of mind itself, beyond doubt relates to the readers of the 
 letter, not to the author.—Not anew are the readers to lay the foundation by 
 petavowa ard vexpov épywv and rioric éxi Jedv; since this foundation has with 
 them already been laid, it is now thus only a question of continuing to 
 build upon the foundation laid. Not in such wise are they accordingly to 
 behave, that the primary requirement of turning from the épya vexpé and 
 having ziorce towards God, must ever afresh be made with regard to them. 
 —The construction wetdvora ard, as with peravoeiv, Acts viii. 22; LXX. 
 Jer. vill. 6.—a7d vexpov épyov] [LVI b 2.] By vexpdé the works are not 
 characterized as sinful, and by sin occasioning death (Piscator, Schlichting, 
 Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Peirce, Abresch, Bisping, Stuart, and others), 
 nor as defiling, as according to the law of Moses contact with a dead body 
 defiled (Michaelis, al.), but as in themselves vain and fruitless [see on ix. 14]. 
 Perhaps the author has—what is on no sufficient grounds contested by R. 
 K6stlin (Theol. Jahrbb. von Baur und Zeller, 1854, H. 4, p. 469 ff., Remark), 
 Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 568), and Kurtz—before his. mind the 
 service of works under the Mosaic law, from which the readers had not 
 yet been able to free themselves. A contradiction, as Riehm supposes 
 (I. c. p. 835 f.), of the fact recognized, p. 16, that xiore with the author of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews does not, as with Paul, involve an opposition 
 to the véuoc andethe épya véuov, lies not in this expression. For neither in 
 our passage is mention made of vexpa épya-in relation to zioric, but only in 
 relation to-the factor of the eravoa which precedes the riotie.—xat ricrews 
 éxt Sed]. The positive reverse side to the negative peravoiac ad vexpav Epywr. 
 The ideas conveyed by the yeravoeiv and moretew, the perévora and the riorie, 
 likewise associated with each other, Mark i. 15;. Acts xx. 21. These words, 
 however, are to be understood, as Abresch, Bleek, and others rightly insist, 
 in accordance with the signification, which the author is otherwise wont 
 to attach to riotic, of the believing confidence in God, as the one who in 
 part has already fulfilled the promises of salvation given in the person 
 of Jesus Christ, in part will yet completely fulfill’ them. 
 
 Ver. 2. Bartionov didayzc] [LVII b 3.] We have not to divide by a 
 comma, with Cajetan, Luther, Hyperius, Sykes, Semler, Morus, Heinrichs, 
 Schulz, de Wette, Conybeare, and others [after the Syriac], in such wise 
 that Barrionot and didayf are each separately enumerated as a particular 
 subject for elementary instruction in Christianity. 4day7z must in this 
 case mean.the elementary instruction in Christianity connected with 
 baptism, imparted either before or after the same. But since, at the close 
 of the verse, the dvdoracic vexpov and the xpiva aiévov are mentioned, 
 while the treatment of these subjects for teaching belonged equally to the 
 
CHAP. “Vis. 529 
 first stage of instruction in Christianity, it is not easy to perceive why, in 
 addition to that diday4, these two points, presupposed in the same, should 
 be brought into special relief by the author. Then there is the considera- 
 tion that all the particulars which are mentioned before and after as con- 
 stituent parts of the @euédwov, are designated by a double expression. 
 Seeing the care bestowed by the author upon the symmetrical proportions 
 of his discourse, we should therefore naturally be led to regard Bazticuév 
 didayy¢ as a corresponding double expression. But even as thus appre- 
 hended the expression is capable of a twofold explanation. The question, 
 namely, is whetber the author is speaking of Bamrciopoi didayaje or of a 
 In the first case baptisms with a view to doctrine are 
 meant, in the second instruction concerning baptisms. In the first accepta- 
 tion the term is taken by Bengel, Michaelis, Maier, Kurtz, as also Winer, 
 p. 181 [E. T. 192] (less decidedly, 5 Aufl. p. 217); in the last, by Bleek and 
 the majority. Against the first view pleads, on the one hand, the fact that 
 the addition diday7¢ would be something too little characteristic, almost 
 unmeaning, since a Christian baptism, not preceded, accompanied, or 
 followed by instruction in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, 
 would be something inconceivable; on the other hand, that in this way 
 the erroneous secondary meaning would arise, that there were, in addition 
 to the Christian baptisms with a view to doctrine, also other Christian 
 baptisms. We follow, therefore, the second mode of interpretation. In 
 connection with this the plural Barrio still presents some difficulty. 
 Gerhard, Dorscheus, Ernesti, M’Lean, Stuart, and others arbitrarily set 
 aside this difficulty, in that they suppose just the plural to be placed for 
 the singular. But neither is the plural to be explained by the assumption 
 that respect is had to the proneness of the Hebrews for often repeating 
 the Christian baptism, in conformity with the many farriouoi in Judaism,} 
 or, at the same time, to the outward and inner baptism.? Just as little by 
 the supposition that reference is made to a plurality of baptismal candi- 
 dates or baptismal acts,? or to a repeated immersing of the candidate. 
 Most in its favor has the opinion of Jac. Cappellus, Seb. Schmidt, Schétt- 
 gen, Wolf, and others;* namely, that the author is thinking not so much 
 of Christian baptism in itself, or exclusively, as along with it at the same 
 time of the relation of the same to the Jewish lustrations, and perhaps 
 also to the baptism of John. This view appears at least to acquire a 
 point of support from ix. 10, according to which the readers still continued 
 to esteem the washings enjoined by the Mosaic law as of importance for 
 Christians too. Yet it seems to be precarious, with Jac. Cappellus, Bleek, 
 and others, to urge in favor of this acceptation the distinction that in the 
 N. T. only Baxriopva is used for Christian baptism in the proper sense of 
 
 Baxtiopov didayy. 
 
 1Cecumenius, Theophylact. 
 
 2Grotius, Whitby, Braun, Brochmann; 
 Reuss: la différence du baptéme d’eau et du 
 baptéme d’esprit. 
 
 %Theodoret, Primasius, Beza, Er. Schmid, 
 Owen, Heinrichs, al. 
 
 34 
 
 4In which more recently also Bohme, Kui- 
 noel, Klee, Bleek, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloom- 
 field, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. 
 des Hebrderbr. p. 724), Alford, anc Moll have 
 concurred. 
 
530 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 the term, Bazrioudc, on the other hand, being in the N. T. a word of wider 
 signification (ix. 10; Mark vii. 4); precarious, because the expression 
 Barvioua not occurring at all with the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 [as also Josephus designates the rite of John only by Barrioudc, the action 
 by Barrio, Antig. xvi. 5. 2], with regard to his usage in this respect thus 
 nothing can be determined.—In close inner connection with the Bazrco- 
 wot stands the érideore yvecpov. As therefore the readers ought no 
 longer to be in need of teaching concerning the nature of the former 
 (and concerning its pre-eminence over the kindred institutions of Judaism), 
 so was it also to be reasonably expected that they should experience a 
 necessity for being instructed concerning the-nature of the latter (and 
 concerning the eminent blessings which attend thereon). The reference 
 is to that laying on of hands by which those previously baptized were 
 fully received into the communion, and through which the reception of 
 the Holy Ghost was wont to be vouchsafed to them. Comp. Acts vili. 17 
 ff., xix. 6. From this close inner connectedness of the érideore yerpov 
 with the Barricvoi results that, also as regards the external arrangement 
 of words, the genitive éxvdécewc does not depend immediately upon 
 Geuérvov, but like Barticvov upon didayijc¢. But, moreover, even the fol- 
 lowing genitives, dvactdcewc and kpivaroc, are, as rightly apprehended 
 by Storr, BOhme, Ebrard, Bisping,’ Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, and Woerner, 
 governed by didayye. For not by the resurrection of the dead, and the 
 everlasting judgment itself, since these facts will first unfold themselves in 
 the future, but only by the doctrine thereof can the foundation be laid in 
 Christianity. It would, however, be arbitrary to assign to the words 
 avdaoraoie and xpiva in themselves a signification which they can only have 
 in combination with the foregoing d:day%¢. A’ grammatical harshness 
 (de Wette) is not to be discovered in this construction, on account of the 
 close connection of the last clauses by means of re and te . . . kai; any 
 more than de Wette is right in regarding Parrioyov didayyc, in the mode 
 of interpretation above ‘followed, as an unnatural trajection without an 
 example in the writings of our author; for Barripudv is preposed because 
 the emphasis rests on that word, and an analogon in our epistle is already 
 afforded by the xvetuatog dyiov pepicpoic, li. 4.—avactdceie Te vexpov Kai 
 kpiuatoc aiwviov] Two dogmas already belonging to the Jewish theology, 
 which obtained. by means of Christianity only their more definite, con- 
 crete signification. The expression in both ‘these clauses is used quite 
 generally. We have therefore no warrant for limiting, with Estius, 
 
 1Wrongly, however, is it supposed by 
 
 tionis, quae doctrina est baptismi et impo- 
 Bisping (as before his time by Gennadius in 
 
 sitionis manuum ... Nisi enim_appositive 
 
 Oecumenius, and Klee) that petavotas and 
 migtews, ver. 1, are already dependent upon 
 6dax7ns.—Just as wrongly would Calvin, who 
 is followed by Piscator and Owen, enclose 
 Bartiopav didaxijs, emBerews Te xe_pav within 
 a parenthesis, “ut sit appositio ... hoe sensu. 
 Non jacientes rursus fundamentum poeniten- 
 
 tiae, fidei in Deum, mortuorum resurrec- _ 
 
 legas, hoe erit absurdi, quod bis idem repetet. 
 Quae enim baptismatis est doctrina, nisi 
 quam hie recenset de fide in Deum, de 
 poenitentia et de judicio ac similibus?”— 
 Both views are deprived of their support by 
 the reflection that weravora and miotts, ver. 1, 
 denote not a doctrine, but an act [against 
 Stuart]. 
 
CHAP. VI. 3. 531 
 
 Schlichting, Schéttgen, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, and others, the advdoaracie 
 to the godly, the «piua to the ungodly. On the contrary, both have 
 reference to the pious or believers, and the ungodly or unbelievers in 
 common, 
 
 Ver. 3. Repetition of the exhortation, ver. 1, in order immediately to 
 give thereto so much the greater emphasis by attaching the warning, ver. 
 4 ff—xai roito rovjowpev] [LVI b 4.] just this let ws do—rovro] sc. rd éxi 
 tay TehebtyTa dépecda, ver.1.'_ To rovro we cannot supplement from the 
 participial clause, ver. 1: 70 @euédcoy nataBadrrcoda, as was done, on the 
 presupposition of the reading rovjoouev, by Jac. Cappellus (who, however, 
 besides this gives also the true reference, and comes to no decision), 
 Schlichting, Grotius, Dorscheus, Wittich, Limborch, Calmet, Zachariae, 
 Storr, Abresch, and is still done by Hofmann, as it is also regarded by Tho- 
 luck as possible; in such wise that there should issue the sense: this also, 
 namely, the laying of the foundation, the author will do, se. at another 
 and more favorable time, if God permit. For—apart from the unsuit- 
 ability of the sense resulting, according to which the author would declare 
 his intention of treating the more difficult earlier than the more easy, 
 which latter surely contains the preliminary condition for the under- 
 standing of the former—against such supplementing the fact is decisive, 
 that the “# in connection with karaBaAdduevor, ver. 1, would be arbitrarily 
 set aside; against the apprehending in this sense, the fact that for the 
 expression of such a meaning oujoouev dé Kat tovro must have been 
 written.—édvrep éitpéxy 6 Oedc] provided that God permits it (1 Cor. xvi. 7), 
 inasmuch, namely, as all things, even the carrying into effect of good 
 resolutions, are subordinated to the higher decree of God. Incompre- 
 hensible, therefore, is the assertion of de Wette, who has therein followed 
 Abresch, that the addition édvrep «7.4. is plainly irreconcilable “with the 
 taking of our verse in the sense of a demand.” For the supposition, that 
 in this case “the encouraging belief in God’s gracious assistance ” must 
 be expressed, is an altogether erroneous assumption, since the author in 
 the present passage is by no means aiming at the consolation of the 
 readers, but, on the contrary—as is shown by vy. 4-8—at the alarming of 
 them. To an encouraging and pointing to God’s gracious help the 
 discourse first advances, vv. 9, 10. 
 
 Vy. 4-8. [On Vv. 4-8, see Note LVIIL., pages 550, 551.] Warning enforce- 
 ment of the foregoing exhortation, by dwelling on the impossibility of 
 leading back Christians who have already experienced the abundant 
 blessing of Christianity, and for all that have fallen away again from the 
 same, anew to a state of grace. [LVIII a.] Very appropriately (against 
 de Wette) does this warning justification attach itself to the preceding 
 demand; since the readers were not merely still far from the redevdrn¢ in 
 Christianity, but were, moreover, upon the way of entirely falling off 
 again from Christianity. Comp. especially x. 25-81. In order, therefore, 
 
 
 
 1Theodoret; avti tov omovddcwev, emiOuunowmer, mavta movov vmép THs TeAELdTNTOS 
 aoracwpu.c8a, 
 
532 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 to deter them from such contemplated apostasy, there is very fitly set 
 before the eyes of the readers the magnitude of the culpability which the 
 completed apostasy would involve, and the terrible nature of the divine 
 punitive judgment which it would entail—In connection with the other 
 view, that a declaration of the purpose of the author is contained in vv. 
 1-3, the connection of thought would be: Passing over the subjects of cate- 
 chumenical instruction in Christianity, I shall apply myself to the subjects 
 of deeper Christian knowledge. For it is surely impossible to convert 
 anew Christians who have already been enlightened, and then have fallen 
 away again. By the fruitlessness of enlarging on the initial doctrines, 
 therefore, the author would justify his resolution. But one does not per- 
 ceive the relevancy of this statement to the case of the readers. For since 
 a preparatory transition, such as is afforded by the paraenetic gepayeda, 
 ver. 1. and rovjoouev, ver. 3,—in that the endeavor after Christian perfec- 
 tion necessarily includes the putting away of all that is opposed to it, thus 
 also of the inclination to apostasy,—would then be entirely wanting, on 
 the contrary, the declaration of the purpose of the author would connect 
 itself with the censure expressed, v. 11-14; in this way the explanation 
 of this resolution must be found in the presupposition either that the 
 readers already actually belonged to the number of the rapazeoévrec, or 
 else that, since they must already be reckoned among the ré%e.o1, what 
 is said admits of no application to them. In the first case, however, the 
 author would represent his own undertaking, for the benefit of such 
 readers to pass over to the higher subjects of teaching, as a fruitless one; 
 in the last case, having already just before blamed the readers for their 
 varétnc, Would have fallen into self-contradiction. 
 
 Ver. 4. Tap] goes back to the last main utterance,—thus to rtoiro rovjou- 
 pev, ver. 8, and*by means thereof to éxt tiv rerevdryTa gepdpeda, ver. 1, not to 
 uy waAw Senédiov kataBarAduevor, ver. 1, nor yet to édvrep énitpéry 6 Bebe, 
 ver. 3,? still less, at the same time, to édvrep émitpéty 6 Bebo and py radaw 
 SeuéA. KataB.i—adivatov] it is impossible. The import of the expression is 
 absolute; and to weaken it into “ difficile est,” * according to which we 
 
 should have to suppose a rhetorical exaggeration, is an act of caprice. 
 - Nor are we justified in seeking to obtain a softening of the declaration, as 
 is done by Er. Schmid, Clericus, Limborch, Schéttgen, Bengel, Cramer, 
 Baumgarten, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Bloomfield (comp. already Ambrose, de ° 
 Poenit. ii. 3), by urging the force of the infin. active avakacvifecy as pointing 
 to human activity, and thus, with a reference to Matt. xix. 26, making the 
 impossibility to exist only on the part of men, not on the part of God. 
 For only the impossibility of the avaxacyifecv in itself is accentuated, 
 without respect to the person by whom it must otherwise be effected. 
 Instead of the infinitive active, therefore, the infinitive passive dvaxacviC- 
 coda: might have been chosen by the author without affecting the 
 
 1 Whitby, de Wette, Bloomfield, Conybeare. 4So, after the example of the Latin trans- 
 
 2Piscator, Abresch, Delitasch, Kurtz, Hof- lation in D and E: Ribera, Corn. a Lapide, 
 mann, Woerner. Clerieus, Limborech, Storr, Heinrichs, Kui- 
 
 *schlichting. noel, and others. 
 
CHAP. vi. 4. 533 
 
 sense.—rov¢ amaf .. . aid@voc, ver. 5] characterizing of such as have not 
 only become Christians, but also have already experienced the plenitude 
 of blessing conferred upon Christians.—rod¢ axat goticdevtac] those who 
 were once illumined (x. 32), i.e. had already, through the preaching of the 
 gospel, been made participants of the light of the knowledge (sc. of Chris- 
 tianity as the perfect religion). As regards the thought, the same thing 
 is said by werd 70 AaBeiv tiv éxiyrwow tH¢ adAndeiac, X. 26.—araé belongs, as 
 to gwriodévrac, so also to the three following participles (against Hofmann), 
 and finds its opposition in wd/cr, ver. 6. It does not signify “plene” or 
 _“perfecte” (Wolf), nor does it denote an act which admits of no repeti- 
 tion (Delitzsch) ; contains, however, the implication, that the once ought 
 to have sufficed and satisfied. Comp. [ix. 26] x.2; Jude 3.—¢wrilecv 
 viva, [LVIII 8.] of the spiritual enlightenment effected by teaching, is 
 purely Hellenistic.'—yevoapévoug te tH¢ dupeac tHe éxovpaviov] and have tasted 
 the heavenly gift. yevecdai tevoc, to taste or receive a savor of a thing, 
 figurative indication of perception by one’s own experience. See on ii. 9. 
 The construction of the verb with the genitive (instead of being with the 
 accusative, as ver. 5) does not justify us, with many strict Reformed 
 expositors, in finding a mere “ gustare extremis labris ” in the expression. 
 Besides, such an interpretation would be in conflict with the design of the 
 writer, since it cannot be within his intention to represent the culpability 
 of the persons in question as small; he must, on the contrary, aim at 
 bringing out the same in all its magnitude.—By dwped éxovpavioc, Pri- 
 masius, Haymo, Estius, Michaelis, Semler, and others understand the 
 Lord’s Supper ; Owen, Calmet, Ernesti, Whitby, M’Lean, Bloomfield, the 
 Holy Ghost (against which the following special mention of the same is 
 decisive); Klee, regeneration in general, in contradistinction from the 
 special communication of the Spirit in baptism; M’Caul, “the persuasion of 
 the eternal life, the ydapicua tov Seoi, Rom. vi. 23;” Hofmann, righteous- 
 ness ; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, 
 Paraphrase ; Cameron, Hammond, Rambach, Ebrard, Maier, the forgive- 
 ness of sins; Justinian, Schlichting, Grotius, the peace of mind arising from 
 forgiveness; Pareus, faith; Seb. Schmidt, Dorscheus, Peirce, Bengel, 
 Carpzov, Cramer, Bisping, and others, Christ ; Morus, Heinrichs, B6hme, 
 Kuinoel, Stuart, Stengel, and others, the Christian religion or the gospel; 
 Abresch, Bleek, the enlightenment imparted to men through the preaching 
 of the gospel, or the heavenly light itself, which effects the enlightenment, 
 and by means thereof communicates itself to men. Inasmuch as re 
 points to a close connection between the second clause and the first, and 
 the emphasis rests upon the.foregoing yevoapévovc, 4 doped is at any 
 rate to be taken quite generally. Most naturally, therefore, shall we 
 think in general of the gift of grace, i.e. of the abundant grace of Chris- 
 tianity. It is called heavenly, inasmuch as Christ was sent forth from 
 heaven in order to communicate it, and heaven is the scene of its full 
 realization.—kai petéyoue yevydévtac mvebuatoc dyiov] and were made par- 
 
 1Comp. Eph. iii. 9; John i.9; LXX. Ps. exix. 130; 2 Kings xii. 2, xvii. 27, aé. 
 
534 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 takers of the Holy Ghost. The consequence and seal of the gift of grace 
 just mentioned. 
 
 Ver. 5. Kai xarov yevoauévore Oeod pia] and have tasted the refreshing 
 word of God. That the author already makes use afresh in this place of 
 the verb yeveoda, after he has only just before employed it ver. 4, Bleek 
 ascribes, not wrongly, to a certain perplexity on the part of the writer 
 about finding for the idea to be expressed another term of the same im- 
 port. For the supposition of Delitzsch, that the repetition of the same 
 expression is to be explained from the design of bringing out so much the 
 more strongly the reality of the experiences made and of their objects, 
 would be admissible only if the second yevoauévovc, like the first, were 
 placed emphatically at the beginning of its clause, and there were not 
 already another verb inserted between the two yevoapévoue. yebecdar is 
 here, as John ii. 9, construed with the accusative, which occurs only in 
 the Hellenistic, never with the Greek classic writers. To assume, how- 
 ever, a different signification in the case of the two constructions,—Ben- 
 gel: “alter (genitivus) partem denotat; nam gustum Christi, doni 
 coelestis, non exhaurimus in hac vita; alter (accusativus) plus dicit, 
 quatenus verbi Dei praedicati gustus totus ad hanc vitam pertinet, quan- 
 quam eidem verbo futuri virtutes seculi annectuntur;” Bloomfield: 
 “here (ver. 4) yeboaoda signifies to have experience of a thing, by having 
 received and possessed it; whereas in the clause following it signifies to 
 know a thing by experience of its value and benefit ;” Delitzsch (comp. 
 also Moll): “with yevoauévove tic dwp. tie éxovp. is combined the concep- 
 tion that the heavenly gift is destined for all men, and is of inexhaustible 
 fullness of intent; with Ka%dv yevoapévove Heod pjua, however, the concep- 
 tion that God's precious word was, as it were, the daily bread of those thus 
 described,”’—is already forbidden by the homogeneity of the statements, 
 ver. 4 and ver. 5.—The expression pjuata caaé serves, LXX. Josh xxi. 
 45, xxiii. 15, Zech. i. 18, for the rendering of the Hebrew 2.077290 and 
 D'210 037 and is used of words of consolation and promise spoken by 
 God or the angel of God. In accordance therewith, we shall best also 
 here refer kaAdv Ae0v pjua to the gospel, inasmuch as God thereby gives 
 promises, and fulfills the promises given.'—Others? understand the ex- 
 pression of the gospel in general; in connection with which some, as , 
 Calvin and Braun, see denoted in xadév a contrast with the Mosaic law, 
 the characteristic of which was judicial severity. According to Bleek, 
 finally, we have to think of a personified attribute of God; which is sup- 
 posed to be here mentioned because the gospel, with its consolatory mes- 
 sage, is an efflux from the same,—an interpretation, however, which finds 
 no sort of support in the context.—dvvapuere te uéAAovTog aidvoc] and powers 
 of the world to come. What is intended is the extraordinary miraculous 
 
 1So Theodoret (thy brécxeow tov ayabdv), 2As Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
 Estius, Schlichting, Grotius, Limboreh, Owen, lact, Primasius, Faber Stapulensis, Jac. Cap- 
 Whitby, Abresch, B6hme, Kuinoel, Klee, de _ pellus, Piscator, Bengel, Peirce, Heinrichs, 
 Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Alford. 
 Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz. 
 
CHAP. VI. 5, 6. 539 
 
 powers wrought by the Holy Ghost, as these were called forth by the new 
 order of the world founded by Christ. The aiav péAAwv, namely (comp. 
 oixouuévn 7% uéAdovoa, 1. 5), is for the author nothing purely future,—so that 
 we have not! to think of the everlasting life, or of the glory coming in 
 with the Parousia of Christ, of which believers have received a foretaste 
 here upon earth,—but already begins, according to his view, with the 
 appearing of Christ upon earth, in that only its consummation still be- 
 longs to the future, namely, the time of Christ’s return. 
 
 Ver. 6. Kai raparecévtac|] and (in spite of this) have fallen, i.e. have 
 fallen away again from Christianity —r4aa] belongs to avaxawifev. The 
 taking of the same with raparecévrac (Heinsius, Alting, Peirce, and others) ° 
 has the position of the word against it. A pleonasm, however (Grotius), 
 is not produced by wadcv along with the ava in avaxawifew. For ava 
 marks out the becoming new as a change ensuing, in opposition to the 
 preceding state of the old man; whereas 7éAcv has reference to the fact 
 that the class of men described have already experienced that change, 
 namely, at their first conversion.—davakawifew] to renew, to fashion inwardly 
 new. Tosupplement an éavrotc¢ to the verb (Erasmus, Vatablus, al.), 
 according to which the preceding accusatives of the object would be 
 changed into accusatives of the subject, is arbitrary.—eic¢ petavovay] not 
 equivalent to dca jeravoiac (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Zeger, Corn. a 
 Lapide), but under the form of conception of the result: in such wise 
 that change of mind or repentance should arise therefrom.—avacravpodrtac 
 x.7.2.] since they, ete. Note of cause to adivatov avaxawifew. The impossi- 
 bility of the renewal is explained by the magnitude of the culpability. By 
 their action such men bear witness that the Son of God is in their estima- 
 tion a transgressor and deceiver who has been justly crucified.—The com- 
 pound form avacravpovy occurs with classic writers only in the sense 
 of “nailing up to the cross.”? In itself, however, the explanation is 
 equally admissible: “ crucify afresh.” Thus it is accordingly taken with- 
 out questioning by the Greek interpreters, and probably was so meant by 
 the author.—éavroic] Dativus incommodi: to their own judgment. Vata- 
 blus: in suam ipsorum perniciem. Too weak, Bleek,—to whom Delitzsch, 
 Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 769), and Alford give in their adhesion, 
 —‘“they crucify Him to themselves, in so far as, by that crucifying again, 
 they rob Him of themselves, who were in His possession.” False is the 
 interpretation of Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Jac. Cappellus, Lim- 
 borch, Bohme, Bisping: as much as in them lies, bcov 76 é@’ éavtoic; Hein- 
 richs: each one for himself; Schulz: by themselves [by their own act]; 
 Grotius, Abresch, Tholuck, explaining by the supposition of the so-called 
 Dativus localis: in themselves; Hofmann: as regards their own persons ; 
 Klee: to their contentment ; Stengel: to the joy and pleasure of their obdurate 
 heart ; Kurtz: to the gratification of their hatred or their enmity against Him. 
 Over refinedly Bengel and Delitzsch: sibi, as an opposition to rapaderypuaric- 
 
 1With Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, B6hme, 2Comp. L. Bos, Exercitatt., and Wetstein 
 Kurtz, and others. ad loc. 
 
536 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 ovrac, ostentantes, sc. aliis.—rdv vidv tov Beot] A more palpable manifesta- 
 tion of the enormity of the crime than would have been the case had he 
 written tov Xpioréy or Incovv. Comp. x. 29.—rapadevyyarifew] to expose to 
 scorn and insult; here, inasmuch as the death of the cross was a shameful 
 one. apadetyyarifew stronger than the simple decyyarifew, Matt. i. 19. 
 Concluding remarks on vy. 4-6.—The declaration of vv. 4-6 has been 
 of importance for the controversy of the early church, as to the question 
 whether those who relapsed from the gospel renounced for ever the hope 
 of salvation, or whether by means of sincere repentance they might once 
 more attain to a state of salvation. The rigoristic view was especially 
 maintained by the Montanists and Novatianists; and already Tertullian, 
 de Pudicitia, c. 20, appeals to our passage in favor thereof. In opposition 
 to this view, another sense was universally put upon the passage in the 
 orthodox church from the time of the fourth century. The words were 
 interpreted of an impossibility of imparting a second time the baptism 
 once administered, and the consequent condemnable character of such an 
 act, in that according to a later usus loquendi (first met with in Justin 
 Martyr, Apol. i. 62, 65) they took @wrifev to be a designation of baptism, 
 referred dvaxawifew sic jetavorcav to the repetition of baptism, and in 
 avaoravpowvtac «.t.A. found the indication of that which such repetition 
 would produce or involve! That this interpretation, which is still fol- 
 lowed among later expositors by Faber Stapulensis, Clarius, and Calmet, 
 is a wrong one, is now generally admitted. The justification, however, of 
 this passage, which furnished to Luther a determining reason for denying 
 to the epistle canonicity in the narrower sense (see the Introduction, p. 
 18), is afforded by the fact that—as is also pointed out, x. 26-31—the 
 author is speaking not of a falling away in general, but of a clearly defined 
 falling away, 7.é, as is rightly urged by Calvin, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, 
 Estius, Seb. Schmidt, Peirce, Carpzoyv, Tholuck, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, 
 Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2; p. 841 f. 2 Aufl.), Maier, and others, those 
 Christians are described who commit the sin against the Holy Ghost 
 (Matt. xii. 31 f.; Mark iii. 28 f.; Luke xii. 10), or the duapria rpic 
 Sdavarov (1 John y. 16). For Christians are described who fall away, not, 
 e.g., from mere weakness, from a mere wavering of conviction, but in 
 spite of a better knowledge, and in spite of having experienced the treas- 
 ures of grace in Christianity; Christians who, according to the parallel 
 passage, x. 26 ff., against their better consciousness and conscience, tread 
 under foot the Son of God as though He were a deceiver, brand His blood 
 
 Svuvbarrto- 
 
 1Comp. e. g. Theodoret: Tay ayav advvatwv, 
 dyno, Tovs TS Tavayiw mpoceAnAvOdtas Bar- 
 TiTUATL Kal THS TOV Belov mvEvmaTos XapLTOS 
 BeTELAnboTas Kal TOV aiwviwy ayabav Sefape= 
 vous Tov TUmov avOis mpoceAOely Kal TuXELVY 
 étépov Bantiopatos. Tovto yap ovdév éoriv 
 ETEpov, ) maALY Tov viov TOV bEod TS GTaVPa 
 TpocTyAMoat kal THY yeyevrnMEeVHY aTiLiav TAAL 
 ait mpocdwor. "Qomep yap dmaé Td maOos 
 @UTOS Umemeev, OUTW Kal yuas amak aiTa 
 
 TPOTHKEL KOLWWYHTAaL TOV TaouS. 
 peda S€ avta ba Tov Bamticpatos Kai cuvay- 
 totapeba. Ovx oidv te ovY HMas maALY amTro- 
 Aavoa THs TOV Bamticpatos SwpEas. ~XpioTos 
 yap avaotas €K veKp@v ovK Te amrobvyoKel, 
 Odvatos avTov ovK Er Kuptever. “O yap amebave, 
 TH amaptia améBavey ébamaé, 6 Sé Cy, Gn TO 
 Geo. Kat yu@v S€ 6 madards avOpwros cuve- 
 otavpwHdyn év Td Bantiomatt, TOU Bavatov Tov 
 TuTov dSefapevos. 
 
CHAP. VI. 7. 537 
 
 shed for redemption as the blood of a transgressor, and scoff at the Spirit 
 of grace as a spirit of falsehood. In regard to men of this kind, the 
 adivatov marw avaxarvivew ei¢ petavocay is employed in its full right, since 
 with them there must be inwardly wanting every kind of receptiveness or 
 receptibility for the weravora. The reference of the declaration to the sin 
 against the Holy Ghost is, moreover, so much the more unquestionable, 
 inasmuch as the author by no means says that the readers have already 
 committed it, but, on the contrary, only sets at once before their eyes asa 
 terrible warning the extreme length to which their conduct may lead 
 them. 
 
 Vv. 7, 8. Confirmation of the adivaror x.7.2. on its objective side; since 
 in connection with so great culpability and such ingratitude the divine 
 punishment cannot fail to ensue. This thought is rendered manifest by 
 means of a similitude. The common subject for ver. 7 and ver. 8 is not 
 merely y#, but y7 7 miovoa tov én’ aizae ipyouevov ToAAdKc betév taken to- 
 gether. For the intention of the author is to point to the diversity of 
 result arising from equally favorable preliminary conditions. The main 
 point of the similitude, however, lies in ver. 8, while ver. 7 serves only by 
 way of preparation, and as a means of bringing out into bolder relief the 
 following opposition.—y7 yap 7 muwvca .. . terdv] for the field which has 
 drunk in the rain frequently coming down upon it. Figure of the men before 
 described, who ofttimes have experienced God’s gracious benefits, and have 
 received the same into themselves—The participle aorist rcotca is 
 chosen, while then participles present (rikrovca, éxdépovea) follow, because the 
 fact already historically completed is to be emphasized, from which, then, 
 two different effects are developed for the time present—A rivecv, 
 tixtecy, etc., is ascribed to the y7, because this, as in general is very fre- 
 quently the case, is personified as a part of the life-displaying, assiduously 
 productive nature.—én’ airjc] The construction of éxi with the genitive, 
 after a verb of motion, is distinguished from the more usual one with the 
 accusative, in this respect, that the former includes in itself at the same 
 time the notion of tarrying. Comp. Winer, p. 352 [E. T. 876].—xai 
 tixrovoa] In place of this, merely tixtovea or tiktovoa vév would have been 
 more correctly written. Kai, however, does not stand in the sense of 
 “also” (Hofmann), but is the ordinary “ and.”—Bordvy] in the N. T. only 
 here, employed by the LXX. as a rendering of SWI (Gen. i. 11, 12), 2y. 
 (Ex. ix. 22, x. 12,15), and V1) (Job viii. 12), denotes, according to its deriva- 
 tion from (écKo, originally herbage or pasturage, but then also every kind 
 of vegetation or produce of the field —ei%eroc] well-placed, fit, profitable. 
 Comp. Luke ix. 62. xiv. 35.—éxeivo¢] may be referred to et¥erov (Béhme 
 and the majority), but it also admits of being referred to rixrovca (Bleek, 
 Alford, Hofmann).—4d? otc] for whose sake. Grammatically false, the Vul- 
 gate, Zeger, and others: a quibus Calvin: quorum opera; Erasmus, 
 Vatablus, Heinrichs, and others: per quos; Luther: for those who till it; 
 Schulz: for those who labor on it; Wieseler (Comm. wb. d. Br. P. an die Gal., 
 Gott. 1859, p. 111): at whose command and disposal—kai yewpyeirar] it also 
 (or even) ts cultivated, brings into relief the naturalness of the ti«recv Bordvyn 
 
 
 
538 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 ebSetov éxeivorc, in that the éxeivoe are the proprietors of the land, to whom 
 the cultivation and produce of the same pertains. Incorrectly Schlichting 
 (as likewise BOhme, Kuinoel, Hofmann): Ait autem “e¢ colitur,” ut ad 
 imbrium irrigationem etiam terrae istius diligentem accedere culturam 
 ostendat. In the application of the figure, the éxetvor, dv’ ob¢ Kad yewpyeira 
 are God and Christ; not God alone (Schlichting, Grotius, Cramer, de 
 Wette, Tholuck, Alford), since in this way justice is not done to the 
 plural.—vera2auBaver evaoyiac ard tov Seov] receives part in the blessing at the 
 hand of God, namely, in that its fruitfulness is progressively augmented. 
 Comp. Matt. xiii. 12; John xv. 2. Too weak, Grotius, Wittich: it is 
 praised or commended by God.—azd rod Seov] from God (as the bestower), 
 is best connected with petaAauBaver, not with edAoyiac. 
 
 Ver. 8. The contrast.—Ex@épovca] [LVIII c¢.] as to its signification not 
 different from the preceding tixtovoa. Without justification by usage is 
 it supposed by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Cornelius a Lapide, 
 Grotius, Wittich, Valckenaer, Klee, and Bloomfield, that the word is to be 
 taken in malam partem, namely, in the sense: “ Ejicere quasi abortus.”— 
 dxavdac Kai tpidaove] Thorns and thistles. Proverbial designation of rankly 
 springing weeds and wild growth.'—adéxiuoc] se. éoriv, it fails to stand the 
 test, is rejected, namely, in the judgment of God, as is self-evident from the 
 axd tov Yeov in the preceding clause. Wrongly, therefore, Hofmann: it 
 is unworthy to be treated as arable land.—x«ai xatapac éyyic] and near to 
 the curse, i.e. not: devoted to the execration of men (Hofmann), but 
 exposed to the peril of being abandoned by God to everlasting barrenness 
 and desolation. Enhancement of adéxiwoc. At the same time, however, 
 there is to be found in éyyéc a softening of the expression, manifestly 
 with a reference to the fact that it is not yet too late for the readers to 
 combat their lustings after defection, and to return fully into the right 
 way (comp. ver. 9 ff.).2—7ce 7d TéAoc ele Kavow] sc. éoriv, and its ultimate fate 
 issues in burning. ye is referred by Camerarius, Abresch, Heinrichs, 
 Stuart, Bleek, to xatdpac; but more correctly by Chrysostom, Theophy- 
 lact, Luther, Seb. Schmidt, Bengel, Carpzov, Schulz, Bohme, Kuinoel, 
 Stengel, Bisping, Delitasch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. .des Hebraerbr. p. 773), 
 Alford, Maier, Kurtz, Ewald, Woerner, and the majority, to the main 
 subject; in such wise that the relative is to be complemented by vie, 
 ex@epovonce axavdac kai tpBdaAove. In connection therewith, however, to 
 take eiva: cic, with Carpzov, Bbhme, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Bisping, Maier, and 
 others, as a Hebraism Q m1), is inadmissible. See Winer, p. 173 [E. T. 
 184.]—The understanding, moreover, of a burning of the field, or of its 
 produce, in order that the land may be improved, as that which is 
 intended by «aiore (Schlichting, Bloomfield, and others), is forbidden by 
 the connection, since no other than the divine punitive judgment. burst- 
 ing in upon it has to be described. What is meant is the burning up of 
 
 1Comp. Gen. iii. 18; Hos. x. 8 (V1) yp); © Adyos. Kartdpas yap eimev éyyls, ov Katapa* 
 Matt. vii. 16. 6 5& pnderw eis THY KaTapay euTegwV GAN’ evyvs, 
 2Chrysostom; BaBat, moony €xet TapapvOiav yevowevos Kai pakpav yeveoOar SuvyceTat. 
 
CHAP. vi. 8—10. 539 
 
 che nield itself by fire and brimstone coming down from heaven; by which, 
 e.g., the soil of Sodom and Gomorrah was rendered for ever incapable of 
 tillage (Bleek, Tholuck, Ebrard, Alford, Maier, Moll, al.). Comp. Gen. 
 xix. 24; Deut. xxix. 23; also Heb. x. 27: rupo¢ CyAog éodiew pédAovtog rove 
 DrevavTiove. 
 
 Ver. 9. [On Vy. 9-12, see Note LIX., pages 552, 553.] Softening of the 
 foregoing warning representation by attestation of the confidence, that 
 this description will not be applicable to the readers.—Mereiopeda dé repi 
 tjuov] [LIX a.] But we are convinced in regard to you. Comp. Rom. xv. 
 14.—rereicueda] stronger than reroiSayev.—repi buov] has the emphasis. 
 It is therefore already placed here, not first after owrypiac—The appellation 
 ayaryrot only here in the epistle.'—ra xpeiooova] of that which is better. This 
 may refer to the subjective side, but it may also refer to the objective side 
 of the foregoing comparison. In the first case the sense is: that your 
 condition is a better one, than that you should be compared to a land 
 bringing forth thorns and thistles; in the latter case: that your fate will 
 be a better one than curse and perdition. On account of the plural ra 
 xpeicoova we shall do best to combine both factors together, as, indeed, the 
 last is but the consequence of the first. When, however, Hofmann thinks 
 that ra xpelooova does not at all point to the foregoing comparison, but 
 stands by itself without any reference, in that it denotes only the good in 
 opposition to the bad, this is not only opposed to the context, but also 
 grammatically false, since the comparative is never placed for the posi- 
 tive. See Winer, p. 227 f. [E. T. 242 f.]—kat éydueva owrnpiac] and of that 
 which stands in contact with salvation, i. e. that you will attain to salvation. 
 [LIX b.] éyéuevov, with the genitive, denotes that which is closely 
 joined to an object, that which is either outwardly (logically or tempor- 
 ally) or inwardly bound up with it. Instances in Bleek, I. 2, p. 220 ff— 
 el kal obtwc Aadovwev] Chrysostom: BéAtiov yap tuac toig phuace goPyoal, wa 
 uy Tolg Tpdynacw aAynonte.—obTwc] sc. as was done vv. 4-8. 
 
 Ver. 10. Reason for the good confidence expressed ver. 9. [LEX c.]—ob 
 yap adixoc 6 Sedc, emidadécdar] for God is not unjust, that He should forget. 
 God exercises retributive righteousness. Since, then, the readers have 
 performed, and do still perform, actions worthy of Christian recognition, 
 it is to be expected that God will be mindful thereof, and, provided they 
 will only perform their own part fully (comp. vv. 11, 12), will conduct 
 them with His grace and lead them to the possession of salvation. A 
 claim to demand salvation of God, on account of their behavior, is not 
 conceded by the words of ver. 10; only as a factor which God, by virtue 
 of His retributive righteousness, will take into account in connection with 
 the final result, is this brought forward for the consolation and encourage- 
 ment of the readers; while, moreover, reference is at once made anew, 
 ver. 11 f,, to the still unsatisfactory character of their Christian state, and 
 
 1Schlichting: Apposite eos sic vocat, ne liora ominemur iis, quos amamus, et, si quid 
 putarent, eum aliquo ipsorum odio laborare, severius dicimus, animo corrigendi non 
 sed ut scirent, eum amore Christiano erga nocendi cupido dicamus, 
 ipsos flagrare, qui amor facit, ut semper me- 
 
540 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 in general to the peril of falling again from their state of grace.—ézi.adéo- 
 8a] The infinitive aorist expresses the mere verbal notion, without 
 respect to the relation of time.! It is to be taken neither in the sense of a 
 preterite (Seb. Schmidt: ut oblitus sit) nor of a future (Bisping and 
 others).—rov épyov iuav| your work (as lying completed), ¢.e. that which 
 you have done. The expression is quite general. A more precise limita- 
 tion thereof may be found in the following «ai ry¢ ayarne, by taking kai. 
 as the epexegetic “and indeed,” “and that.” So Peshito, as also Kurtz 
 and Woerner. But since, in any case, the passage x. 32 ff. is to be com- 
 pared as a real (though not verbal) parallel to the statement ver. 10, and 
 there, in addition to the love displayed, the stedfastness manifested by 
 the readers under persecutions is lauded, it is most natural, with Schlicht- 
 ing, Grotius, and others, to suppose that just to this the general roi épyov 
 juov in our passage also more especially alluded.—rje¢ ayaryc] [LIX d.] 
 has not in itself alone the notion of love “to the brethren,” in such wise 
 that cic rd dvoua avtovw would have to be translated: “for His name” 
 (Matt. x. 41, 42, xviii. 20), i.e. to His honor (Vulgate: in nomine ejus; 
 Béhme and others: é7? +6 d6véuate aitov, Matt. xvii. 5). On the contrary, 
 The ayarn¢e acquires its object in the ei¢ 7d dvoua avtov, to be construed in 
 relation to 7 évedeifaode (Not to diaxovgoavtes x.7.A., to Which Beza was 
 inclined). Thus: the love which ye have shown to His name (sc. God’s name, 
 not Christ’s, Ernesti and others). This is the more general object, which 
 only then obtains its more special reference and indication of purport by 
 Staxovgoavtec «.7.A. A love exercised towards Christian brethren, inasmuch 
 as Christians, as God’s children, bear the name of God.—diakovioartec roi¢ 
 dyiowe| in that ye have rendered service to the saints (the fellow-Christians), 
 have aided them when they were in distress and affliction (not specially : 
 in poverty). But that this was not merely a virtue exercised once for all, 
 but one still continuously exercised, is clearly brought out by the addition 
 kal dcaxovovrrecs. [LIX e. | 
 
 Vv. 11, 12. To that which the author hopes with regard to the readers, 
 he now attaches that which he wishes to see performed by them.—ér6oy0i- 
 pev dé] [LIX f.] now we long, most ardently desire. Stronger expression 
 than @éAouev or Bovdadueda [to set-one’s heart on it, Matt. xiii. 17; Acts xx. 
 83; 1 Tim. iii. 1, ete.].—éxaorov tuév] More emphatic and accentuating 
 than the mere tude would be. There is denoted by it, on the one hand, 
 that the heart-felt interest which the author cherishes in the readers ex- 
 tends to every single one of them. On the other hand, there lies in it the 
 thought that if haply single individuals among the readers already cor- 
 respond to the demand here made, it is still of supreme importance that 
 every one of them should so comport himself as is mentioned.—In the 
 sequel, tiv avray évdeixvvodac oxovdgy isnot in such manner to be 
 taken together with aypce réAovc that the main stress should fall upon 
 this, and rpdc-tHv rAnpodopiay tHe éAridoc be regarded as a mere 
 subsidiary factor. In connection with this mode of interpretation,’ the 
 
 1See Ktihner, II. 2 445, 2. menius, Theophylact, Grotius, Seb. Schmidt, 
 * Adopted by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecu- Limborch, and others. 
 
CHAP, ‘Vr. LE 12, 541 
 demand of the author would amount to this, that the readers should 
 manifest the same zeal which, according to ver. 10, they have already dis- 
 played, even to the end or in all future time. But in such manner it is 
 assumed that the author has every reason for being satisfied with the 
 Christian condition of the readers, and desires nothing more than a con- 
 tinuance of the same, whereas the whole epistle testifies that the state of 
 things with the Hebrews was very different from this. Hence it is evi- 
 dent that the emphasis rests quite as much upon mpoc¢ t7v TAnpodopiav 
 THe EAridoc aS Upon aype Tédove. The thought must thus be: the author 
 longs for the readers to display the same zeal which they have already 
 manifested in regard to an active love, in equal measure also in another 
 relation, namely, in regard to the 7Aypodgopia «.t./.,! in connection with 
 which, however, aype téAovge is best taken, not, as is generally the case 
 even with this correct determination of the thought, with évdeixvvcba, but 
 in close juxtaposition with mpd¢ ty rAnpodopiav tig éAridoc.—rpo¢ Tv TAnpo- 
 gopiav tHe éAridog aype TéAovc] [LIX g.] in regard to the full certainty of con- 
 viction concerning the Christian’s hope, unto.the end, t. e. in such manner that 
 ye cherish and preserve to the end the Christian’s hope of the Messianic 
 kingdom to be looked for at the coming again of Christ, as a firm confi- 
 dence of faith, untroubled by any doubts. Comp. iii. 6, 14. Opposite is 
 the wavering conviction that the subject of the Christian hope is one 
 founded in objective truth; the standing still upon the path of Christianity 
 before the goal is reached, and the tendency to fall away again from 
 Christianity and to relapse into Judaism.—z27podopia] We have not,” to 
 apprehend in the active sense of “perfecting, making full or complete;” 
 but to take it, as everywhere in the N. T. (1 Thess. i. 5; Col. ii. 2; Heb. x. 
 22; comp. also Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5),? in the passive sense.—d ype réA0ve | unto 
 the end, 7.¢. until (at the Parousia of the Lord) hope passes over into the 
 possession [of the kingdom] itself. 
 
 Ver. 12. Further prosecution of pic tiv mrAnpodopiay tic éAridoc ayxpe 
 tédove, ver. 11.—iva py vobpoi yévyobe] that ye become not sluggish. The 
 yévyo8e, pointing to the future, stands in no contradiction with yeydvare at 
 v.11. There, the sluggishness of the intellect was spoken of; here, it is 
 sluggishness in the retaining of the Christian hope. There is therefore no 
 need of the conjecture vé9o (after xii. 8) for vwdpoi (Heinrichs).—pruyrat 
 dé Tov dia TioTews Kai KaKpoduuiac KAnpovouobyTwY Tac érayyeAiac] but rather imi- 
 tators of those who, through faith and perseverance, inherit the promises. Of 
 the two substantives ticrewc kai waxpo¥vuiac, the latter forms the lead- 
 ing idea; comp. ver. 15, where only paxpodvufoce is placed. Kaé is there- 
 fore the more nearly defining “ and indeed.” Thus: by faith, and indeed 
 by persevering constancy in the same.—The wakpoSvuia, elsewhere usually 
 the divine attribute of long-suffering or forbearance, is likewise predicated 
 
 180 Bengel, Cramer, Chr. Fr. Schmid, 
 Bohme, Stuart, Bleek, Ebrard, Delitasch, 
 Alford, Conybeare, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, and 
 others. 
 
 2 With Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Schulz, 
 
 Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, and others, after 
 the example of the Vulgate: “ad expletionem 
 spei.” 
 
 3 With Erasmus, Vatablus, Zeger, Calvin, 
 Beza, Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, 
 
542 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 of men, Col. i. 11; Jas. v. 7, 8, 10; LXX. Isa. lvii. 15 (dAcyopbyoug didn 
 pakpodvuiav), and frequently, and in the first-named passage combined with 
 vrouovy as a synonym.—The éxayyediac are those given by God in the time 
 of the Old Covenant, which by means of Christianity attain to their full 
 realization. Comp. vil. 6, viil. 6, xi. 18, 17, 33; Rom. ix. 4, xv.8; 2 Cor. i. 
 20, vii. 1; Gal. ii. 16. Comp. also the singular 7 érayyedia, ix. 15, x. 36, 
 Xl. 89.—KAypovopeiv tac émayyeAiac denotes: to enter into the heritage of 
 these promises, 1. €. to attain to the enjoyment or possession of the blessings 
 placed in prospect by them. That in our passage (comp. ix. 15, x. 36, xi. 
 39) KAnpovousiv tac érayyediag cannot be understood, with Schulz and Bleek, 
 of the mere “receiving of the imparting of the promises as such, apart 
 from their fulfillment,” is shown by the very position of the words, accord- 
 ing to which the main force of the statement is contained not in tae 
 éxayyediac, but in KAnpovoyotvtwr. Comp. also ver. 15, where for the same 
 reason éréruyev is placed before the substantive ra¢ érayyediac. Besides, 
 it is also evident from the fact that in such case there would be nothing 
 in ver. 12 to correspond to the conception of the ensuing possession itself, 
 indicated as this is in the aypc téAove of ver. 11.—In connection with 
 TOV KAnpovoxobvtwrv almost all expositors,' think of the patriarchs, 
 especially Abraham, and of them either alone or with the inclusion of all 
 believers of the New Covenant. This interpretation, however, to which 
 they were without any necessity led by the consideration of ver. 18, is 
 untenable. For, in order to harmonize with it in its first-named form, 
 the writing of «Aypovouycavtwy would have been necessary,—for which, ac- 
 cordingly, many will have the participle present to be taken; to harmon- 
 ize with it in its last-named form, the writing of kAypovouycavtwr te Kai KAnpo- 
 vowovvrwy Would have been required. The characterizing oi dia riotewe Kai 
 pakpoSuuiag KAnpovoyewvtes Tac émayyediac is, on the contrary, quite a general 
 one, and the participle present marks out that which assuredly takes place, 
 or in accordance with a constant and fixed rule (as a rewarding of the ful- 
 filled preliminary condition of rior Kai paxpoduuia). The thought is 
 therefore, not that the readers should take the patriarchs as a model, but 
 in general that they should take as such those who manifest persevering 
 constancy in the faith, and, on that very account, beyond doubt attain to 
 the possession of that which is promised. 
 
 Vv. 138-15. [On Vv. 13-20, see Note LX., pages 553-555.] Proof of the gen- 
 eral truth that stedfast endurance leads to the possession of the promised 
 blessing, from the special instance of Abraham. [LX a.] Calvin: exem- 
 plum Abrahae adducitur, non quia unicum sit, sed quia prae aliis illustre. 
 —T@ yap ’ABpadu érayyeiAdpuevoc 6 bed¢] for when God had given promise to 
 Abraham. [LX 6 1.] érayyerAdpevoc we have, with de Wette, to take as 
 in point of time anterior to Suocev. It has reference to the promises 
 which God had already, Gen. xii. 7, xvii. 5, 6, xviii. 18, imparted to Abra- 
 ham, and which were then, Gen. xxii. 16-18, not merely repeated to him 
 Calov, Wolf, Abresch, Heinrichs, Bohme, Tho- 1Jneluding Béhme, Bleek, de Wette, Tho. 
 
 luck, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, luck, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Kluge. 
 and the majority. 
 
CHAP. VI. 13-15. 543 
 
 by God, and confirmed by an oath, but likewise, in part at least, were ful- 
 filled (see at ver. 15).—érel ar’ ovdevoc x.t.A.] because there was no greater or 
 higher (ovdevdc, masculine, not, as Hofmann supposes, neuter), by whom 
 He could swear, He sware by Himself. [LX 6 2.] Relation of the words, 
 LXX. Gen. xxii. 16: xar’ iuavtov pooa, AEyeL kopioc, With the reason for 
 this form of declaration inserted. 
 
 Ver. 14. Ei pay «.7.A.] Adducing of the declaration, Gen. xxii. 17, with 
 the difference, that in the case of the LXX. rAjOwG 7o oréppa cov is in 
 harmony with the original put in place of tAnduve oe. This deviation is 
 not to be explained by the supposition that the author chose ce instead 
 of rd omépua cov merely “ for brevity’s sake” (Jac. Cappellus), or “in order 
 to present the promise in a form as concentrated as possible” (Delitzsch), 
 or that he cited from memory (Abresch), or that he wished to place in the 
 background all thought of the merely physical descendants of Abraham, 
 and direct the glance of the reader exclusively to the spiritual or heavenly 
 posterity of Abraham, which was appointed to him through Christ (Bohme, 
 Bisping, and others). It has its ground simply in the fact that the author 
 was here occupied exclusively with the person of Abraham himself 
 (Bleek, de Wette, Maier).—i jv] in place of the Greek # pv, or of the & 
 uf, formed after the Hebrew xb-o8, is met with elsewhere in the LXX. 
 (Ezek. xxxiil. 27, xxxiv. 8, XxXXv. 6, XXXvVl. 9, al.), not, indeed, so far as 
 concerns our passage in the Cod. Alex. and Cod. Vatic., but yet in other 
 ancient Mss.; and in any case, our author found it in the copy of the 
 LXX. used by him.—The combination of the participle with the tempus 
 finitum of the same verb (evAoyav evsoyzow x.t.A.) is a well-known Grecising 
 of the Hebrew infin. absol., occurring exceedingly often in the LXX., and 
 serving generally—as here—for the augmented and solemn emphasizing 
 of the idea contained in the verb. See Winer, p. 332 [E. T. 354]. 
 
 Ver. 15. Kai otrwc] [LX 6 3.] and in this way, i.e. since God on His part 
 had in such manner afforded documentary evidence for the solemnity of 
 His resolve. otrwc¢ belongs to éérvyzer. The combining of it with paKpo- 
 Suufjoac, as is done by Stein, Tholuck,? and Bisping, and consequently 
 taking the participle as an epexegesis of obrwc, 1s inadmissible, because in 
 that case the waxpodvuia of Abraham in particular must have been spoken 
 of immediately before. The opinion of Delitzsch, however, who is fol- 
 lowed by Maier, that “ the combination of the two combinations ” is “ the 
 right one,” refutes itself, since it requires that which is logically impossible. 
 —naxpobvujcac] because he showed [or: had shown] persevering stedfastness (se. 
 in the faith, comp. ver. 12), in particular by the fact that he had just now 
 been so ready at God’s behest to sacrifice his son Isaac, although this 
 
 1Gomp. Philo, Legg. allegor. iii. 98 E (with 2 Who unaccountably advances, as an argu- 
 Mangey, I. p. 127), where, with regard to the ment in support, the supposition that “then 
 same passage of Scripture, it is said: ed Kat a parallel arises between the Christians, who, 
 TO opkw BeBarooas Tv UmécxXeoLV, Kal OpK® according to vv. 17, 18, are, on the ground of 
 
 Seomperet. ‘Opas yap o7e ov Kas? eTEpOV the divine oath, to hold fast the hope, and 
 duvver Seds—ovdev yap avrov KpetTTOvV—aAAG Abraham, who likewise did so.” 
 
 Kae’ éavTod, Os éoTe TAVTWY apioTos. 
 
544 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 soon appeared to afford the only hold for the realization of the divine pro- 
 mise.—éréruyev tig emayyeniac] he obtained the promise, i.e. the thing [LX } 
 4, 5.] promised, inasmuch, namely, as not only Isaac was given back alive 
 to Abraham, but he further lived to see the time when two sons were born 
 to Isaac (comp. Gen. xxi. 5, xxv. 7, 26), and thus the divine promise was 
 fulfilled in its earlier stage. Not a fulfillment, which Abraham first wit- 
 nessed in the life beyond the grave (Maier, Hofmann), is intended. Nor 
 have we here to take érayyedia, with Bleek, in the active sense [the giving 
 of a promise], and to refer it to the Messianic salvation placed in pros- 
 pect. For, apart from the consideration that in this case éréruyev rie 
 érayyediac Would, in relation to éray)..Aduevoc, ver. 18, indicate no advance, 
 the emphatically preposed éréruyev can be understood only of the obtaining 
 possession of the promised object itself. The promise repeated to Abra- 
 ham, Gen. xxii. 17, 18, presented itself under a twofold point of view. 
 His seed was to be multiplied, and in his seed were all nations of the 
 earth to be blessed. Only the first of these in its earlier stage could Abra- 
 ham, from the nature of the case, live to see; the fulfillment of the latter 
 was attached to the appearing of Christ upon earth, which was to be 
 looked for in the distant future. The first-named reference obtains ver. 
 15. The last-named mode of contemplating the subject underlies the 
 KAnpovouoe tHE éxayyediac, Ver. 17. That, too, which we read xi. 18, 39, is 
 spoken from the last-named point of view, on which account there is not 
 to be found in these passages a contradiction of ours. 
 
 Vy. 16-20. [LX c.] Not without design did the author, in connection 
 with the historic fact, vv. 183-15, make mention also of the divine oath, 
 although the mention thereof in that place was not necessarily required 
 by the relation to ver. 12. His object, namely, was further to bring into 
 special prominenge the practical advantage accruing to the readers from 
 this circumstance. This he accomplishes vv. 16-20. For, since the pro- 
 mise imparted to Abraham; in so far as it respected the blessing of all 
 nations by means of his seed, could receive its’ fulfillment only in condi- 
 tioning connection with Christ, the Saviour of all believers, the Christians 
 are thus the heirs of the Abrahamic covenant; so also by the oath of God 
 there is guaranteed to them, no less than to Abraham, an indefeasible 
 claim to the object of promise. To hold fast to the Christian hope, object- 
 _ ively assured and undisappointing as this is, the Christians therefore must 
 feel themselves most powerfully animated. 
 
 Ver. 16. Tap] [LX d1.] establishes the érei kat” ovdevdg k.7.A., Guooev Kab 
 éavrov, ver. 13. Not, however, ver. 16 merely (against Hofmann), but the 
 whole paragraph, vv. 16-18, is to be looked upon as an establishing of 
 these words. For ver. 16 is only a lemma, only a preparation for ver, 17 
 f.; and, indeed, ver. 16 states the practice valid among men with regard 
 to the taking of the oath, while ver. 17 f. there is shown in connection 
 with this the object contemplated by God in His declaration upon oath.— 
 Kara Tov peiCovoc] by the Higher One. meilovoc is not neuter (M’Caul : “to 
 a thing that is greater, e.g. the temple, the altar ;”» Hofmann), but mascu- 
 line, and thereby God is intended.—With «ai the second half of the sen- 
 
CHAP. VI. 16, 17. 545 
 
 tence, ver. 16, is closely attached to the first: “ and so,” “and conse- 
 quently.” To the habitual practice of men just mentioned, the legal 
 relation therefrom arising is joined on.—rdoy¢ aitoig avtidoyiag mépag etc 
 BeBaiwow 6 dpkoc] the oath is to them an end to every kind of (every conceiv- 
 able) contradiction, unto establishment..—For avzcioyia as“ contradiction ”’? 
 comp. Vii. 7, also xii.3; Jude 11. The signification “dispute,” “ litiga- 
 tion,” ® is certainly perfectly warranted by the usage alike of the classical 
 writers (Xen. Hellen. vi. 8. 9) as of the LXX. (Ex. xvili. 6, Heb. 13; Deut. 
 xix. 7, 2°; Prov. xviii, 18, O°2)19, al.). But here this meaning is remote 
 from the connection, since ver. 16 serves for the explanation of. the trust- 
 worthiness of a divine declaration, but not the explanation of a con- 
 tention between God and men (Bleek). [LX d 2.] The meaning 
 ~“dubitatio,” “doubt,” assigned to the word by Grotius and Cramer, it 
 never has.—ei¢ BeBaiwow] unto ratification, or the creation of an indefeasible 
 claim. Wrongly do Jac. Cappellus, Peirce, Paulus, and others take e¢ 
 BeBatworr—which belongs to the whole second clause, not merely to mépac¢ 
 (Bohme, Bleek, Bisping, Alford)—along with 6 épxoc: “the oath given in 
 confirmation,” which must have been expressed by 6 sig BeBaiwow opxoc.— 
 It results as a necessary inference from ver. 16, that the author did not 
 regard the taking of the oath on the part of men as anything forbidden. 
 Comp. Calvin: Praeterea hic locus docet aliquem inter Christianos juris- 
 jurandi usum esse ligitimum.... Nam apostolus certe hic de ratione 
 jurandi tanquam de re pia et Deo probata disserit. Porro non dicit olim 
 fuisse in usu, sed adhue vigere pronuntiat. 
 
 Ver. 17. "Ev 6] Upon the basis of which fact, i. e. in accordance with this 
 human custom, as one validamong men. é ¢, namely, refers back to the 
 whole contents of ver. 16 (not merely to 6 épxoc), and coheres not with 
 Bovrdsuevoc éxidei€ar,t nor yet with the whole clause following,> but with 
 iuecirevoev bpxy.—reptoodrepov] is to be taken along with éudeisav. It does 
 ‘not, however, signify wnto redundancy, since this was not at all required 
 (Beza, Schlichting, Seb. Schmidt, Carpzov, Storr, Klee, and others), but: so 
 much the more, or: more emphatically, than would have been done by the 
 mere imparting of the promise.—roi¢ KAnpovdpore t7I7¢ éxayyediac]| to the heire 
 of the promise. By the kay povédjor, Grotius, Owen, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, 
 Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, and others understand the patriarchs 
 as well as all believers; Tholuck and others, only the Old Testament saints ; 
 Morus even (notwithstanding the plural), only Abraham ; Calvin, the Jews. 
 But, as is clearly apparent from the elucidatory wa éxeyev, ver. 18, only 
 the Christians can be meant.—rd aperdberov rij¢ Bovage abou] the unalterable- 
 
 
 
 1Comp. Philo, de sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, p. 
 146 (with Mangey, I. p. 181): Tov te wyy mortev- 
 Hvar xdpw amotovmevor Katapevyovowy ed’ 
 dpkov avdpwror’ o dé Feds Kal N€ywv TLTTOS éoTw" 
 ote Kal TovVs Adyous av’ToV BeBaroTyTOS évexa 
 pndév bpxwv Scadépey - . . OV yap 60 OpKov 
 mugtos 6 eds, GAAG dV avTov Kal O OpKos 
 BeBacos. 
 
 35 
 
 2Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, 
 Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Woerner. 
 
 3 Assumed by Theophylact, Erasmus, Zeger, 
 Cameron, Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, Hein- 
 richs, Bohme, Stengel, and the majority. 
 
 4Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Rambach, Hofmann, 
 al. 
 
 5 Delitasch, Alford. 
 
546 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 ness of His decree, namely, to make all believers blessed through the seed 
 of Abraham. [LX d3.] Arbitrarily, because to the violent setting aside 
 of the nearest circle of thought furnished by the context itself, Abresch 
 (and similarly Michaelis, Storr, and Delitzsch): “ crediderim, non juratam 
 eam promissionem spectari, quam Abrahamo factam in superioribus dix- 
 erat, sed illud nominatim jusjurandum, quo Christus sit pontifex creatus 
 ad Melchisedeci rationem” (Ps. ex. 4). Neither ver. 20, nor vii. 1 ff., nor 
 vii. 20, 21, 28, nor v. 10, contains a justification of this view.—The sub- 
 stantively employed adjective brings out the idea of the unchangeable- 
 ness, about the accentuation of which the author was here principally 
 concerned, more emphatically than if rv Bovdgy aitov tiv aueraberov had 
 been written.—aerd6eroc¢ in the N. T. only here and at ver. 18.—évecirev- 
 cev opxw] He came forward, as an intervening person, with an oath. As an 
 intermediate person, sc. between Himself and Abraham. Men swear by 
 God, because He is higher than they. Thus, in the case of an oath among 
 men, God is the higher middle person [so peoiryc, Josephus, Antiq. iv. 6. 
 7], or the higher surety, for the fulfillment of the promise. But when 
 God takes an oath He can only swear by Himself, since there is no higher 
 one above Him, and thus only Himself undertakes the part of the surety 
 or middle person. peoctetvecy, in the N. T. only here, is employed transi- 
 tively and intransitively ; in the latter sense here. It is taken transitively 
 by Oecumenius, who supplements ry itécyeow; and Bohme, who supple- 
 ments t7v BovAgjy. 
 
 Ver. 18. Indication of purpose to éuecitevcev bpxy, ver. 17, and conse- 
 quently parallel to the participial clause there, zepicodrepov BovAduevog éxcd. 
 Toi KAnpovdu. THe Ex. TO GueTaOeTov THC BovAge aivrov, but no mere repetition of 
 the same, since the divine purpose, which was there presented purely ob- 
 jectively in relation to Christians, is now subjectively turned in relation 
 to them.—éva_ dbo mpayudtwv apetabétwv] by virtue of two unalterable facts, 
 namely, by virtue of the promise and the oath. Against the connection 
 (comp. vv. 13, 17) Reuss: l’une de ces choses c’est la parole évangélique 
 ‘apportée par Christ, l’autre le serment typique donné 4 Abraham.—dio] 
 See Winer, p. 63 [E. T. 64]; Buttmann, p. 25 [E. T. 28].—év ol¢ adivarov 
 - Wepoacba bedv] in which (i. e. in connection with their fulfillment) it is im- 
 possible that God should have lied (deceived). For God is faithful. His bare 
 word is trustworthy ; how much more thus when He confirms it by an ° 
 oath! To supply a jude to petoacfa (Heinrichs) is inadmissible.—rapdxdy- 
 ow] not “ consolation,”’' but, as the hortatory‘tendency of our whole sec- 
 tion requires: encouragement.,—Upon rapdkanorv éxyopuev, not upon of 
 katagvyévrec,s does kpatgoar THEO TpoKEetmévnc EATidS oc depend; so that 
 
 1Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, Jac. Cappellus, 
 Piscator, Schlichting, Grotius, Owen, Bohme, 
 Ebrard, Bloomfield, Bisping, and the ma- 
 jority. ; ; 
 
 2 Oecumenius, Theophylact, Estius, Semler, 
 Carpzov, Stuart, Bleek, Tholuck, de Wette, 
 Delitzsch, Alford, Conybeare, Maier, Moll, 
 Kurtz, and others. 
 
 3Primasius, Erasmus, Beza, Schlichting, 
 Grotius, Akersloot, Wolf, Carpzov, Abresch, 
 Schulz, B6hme, Kuinoel, Klee, de Wette, 
 Ebrard, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, 
 Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 749), Al- 
 ford, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M’Caul, and many 
 others. 
 
cHApy vi,” 18,19, 547 
 oi kataguydvrec is to be taken! absolutely. [LX d 4.] of xaragvydvrec] those 
 who have fled, with the subordinate notion of having found refuge, thus the 
 sheltered, saved ones. As regards the sense, the expression is to be thus 
 filled up: we who have fled out of the sinful world, and have fled to God. 
 As an analogon is compared oi cwfduevor (Acts ii. 47, al.).—Kpatjoa tH¢ Tpo- 
 Keyuévng éAridoc] to hold fast? to the hope lying in readiness. To interpret 
 kpatnoac as “tolay hold,’ * with a right combining with zapdakAqjov, is 
 forbidden by the connection; comp. ver. 11, according to which the read- 
 ers already possess the éAric, but not as yet any mAypodopia thereof; comp. 
 further the dia pakpobvuiac, ver. 12, and paxpobuugoac, ver. 15.—t7¢ TpokeEl- 
 pévne éaridoc [LX d5.] is not the same thing as tHe éAridoc Tov mpoKerpée- 
 var, “to the hope of the blessings of salvation which lie before us, which 
 await us,” * in such wise that a mingling of the objective notion of éaric¢ with 
 the subjective notion thereof would have to be assumed. Still less are we at 
 liberty ® to interpret éA7ic in itself alone as “res sperata ”’ (comp. Col. 1. 5). 
 
 / On the contrary, ver. 19 points to the Christian hope in the subjective sense. 
 As mrpokecwévn, however, lying at hand, or existing in readiness, this is char- 
 acterized, since it is already infused into the Christians, has already been 
 communicated to them as a blessing for possession, with their reception 
 of Christianity. nd 
 
 Ver. 19. Description of the absolute certainty of this Christian hope— 
 qv] sc. éarida. The referring back to wapdakAnow (Grotius and others) is pos- 
 sible only in connection with the erroneous interpretation of this word as 
 “solatium,” whereas, with the right apprehension of ver. 18, mapdaxAnow 
 éyouev serves for the mere introduction of kpatjoar tie mpokeypévye EArridoc ; 
 qv thus most naturally links itself with éAidoc as the last preceding lead- 
 ing thought. To this must be added the consideration that frequently also 
 elsewhere in antiquity—though nowhere else in Holy Scripture—the 
 anchor is already employed as a figure of hope, and appears also upon! 
 ‘coins as a symbol theoreof.® jv de dyxupav Eyouev tHe Wuy7nc| which we possess 
 even as an anchor of the soul, 7. e. in which we possess, as it were, an anchor of 
 the soul, which affords it support and protection against the storms and 
 perils of the earthly life-—There exists no good reason for making é yecv 
 equivalent to karéyew.’—aogaay te Kai BeBaiav Kat eioepyouévyv K.t.A.] which 
 (se. anchor) is sure and firm, and reaches into the interior of the veil. 
 Wrongly does Carpzov (and so also Reuss) construe all these words with 
 mv (se. éArida). For, in order to render this possible, éyouev must have re- 
 ceived its place only after 7c wuyje, in such wise that d¢ dyxvpav rie Woxne 
 should admit of being separated by commas from that which precedes and 
 follows. Equally inadmissible is it, however, when Abresch, Bohme, 
 
 1With Oecumenius, Camerarius, Cameron, 
 Seb. Schmidt, Heinrichs, Bleek, Maier, Hof- 
 mann, and others. 
 
 4Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Maier. 
 5 With Grotius, Seb. Schmidt, Wittich, 
 Peirce, Limborch, Heinrichs, Bohme, Kui- 
 
 2Luther, Schulz, Stuart, Bleek, Conybeare, 
 Maier, Moll, Hofmann, and others. 
 
 3 Wolf, Tholuck, de Wette, Alford, Kurtz, 
 Ewald, al. 
 
 noel, Klee, Bloomfield, Alford, Hofmann, and 
 others. 
 6See Wetstein, Kypke, and Kuinoel ad loc, 
 7 Abresch, Dindorf, Bloomfield, and others, 
 
548 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Bleek, Bloomfield, and others take only daogaA7 re kai BeBaiay along with 
 ayxvpav, and then refer back eicepyouévyy eig Td EodTEpov Tov KaTaTeTaopaToc tO 
 qv (se. éArvida). For although the figure of an anchor reaching on high, 
 instead of penetrating into the depths, is an incongruous one, yet meta- 
 phors are never to be pressed, and in our passage the choice of the ex- 
 pression eisépyecbar ei¢ Td éoTepov points to the retention of the figure of 
 the anchor, as well as the closely uniting re... nai... xaito the inti- 
 mate coherence of the three characteristics —«ararérasua] [LX d 6.] with 
 the LXX. usually (Ex. xxvi. 31-35, xxvii. 21; Lev. xxi. 23, xxiv. 3; Num. 
 iv. 5, al.), in the N. T. always (x. 20; Matt. xxvii. 51; Mark xv. 38; Luke 
 xxiii. 45) of the second (ix. 3), or innermost curtain of the temple, the 
 curtain before the Most Holy Place (131517)..—7r0 éoérepov tov Katarerdopa- 
 toc] the interior of the veil, 7. e. that which is the interior with respect to the 
 veil, or exists within the same, thus behind it. Designation of the Most 
 Holy Place. Comp. Ex. xxvi. 33; Lev. xvi. 2, 12,15.-.The Most Holy 
 Place is spoken of as a symbol of heaven, where God is enthroned 
 in His glory, and at His right hand is enthroned the exalted Christ. 
 
 Ver. 20. Close of the digression made from v. 11 onwards, and apt re- 
 turn to v. 10.—ézov] whither. Inexact, as Luke ix. 57, John viii. 21 f., and 
 often, instead of the 670, which is never used in the N. T. (see Winer, p. 
 439 [E. T. 472]); yet more significant than the latter, since it contains, in 
 addition to the notion of having entered, the additional notion of remain- 
 ing.—pddpouoc] as harbinger. The expression, in the N. T. only here, 
 characterizes Christ as the first member in a series, thus glances at the 
 fact that those who believe in Him shall attain to the Most Holy Place. 
 Comp. John xiv. 2, 3.—izép judv] inour interest, or for our eternal welfare, 
 namely, to obtain pardon for us (ix. 12), to represent us in the presence of 
 God (ix. 24), anfl to open up for us an entrance into heaven itself (x. 19f.). 
 irép juav is to be construed, not with xpédpouoc (Heinrichs, B6hme, Tholuck, 
 Ebrard, and others), but (as already the Peshito) with sio7A#ev—In that 
 which follows the emphasis rests upon cata tyv Taéiv MedAyroedéx 
 (Bohme, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Hofmann), which on that account is 
 preposed ; not upon ei¢ rév aiéva (Bleek, Woerner), which latter, on the 
 contrary, as an additional note of definition is derived only from the 
 Kara THyv TaEW MeAyio. 
 
 1Comp. also Philo, de vita Mosis, iii. p. 669 667 C (II. p. 148): é« 5¢ trav abtay 76 Te Kata 
 B (with Mangey, II. p. 150): ev d¢ TO wedopiw méTac.a Kat To Acyoumevov KaAUL MA KaTETKEVE- 
 
 TOV TETTAPWY KAL TEVTE KLOVWY, OTEP EGTL KUPLWS Gero’ TO ev Elow KaTa TOUS Téegoapas Kiovas, w 
 eimety mpovaov, eipyoumevov dvolw Vpacpnact, TO émuxpUmTynTac TO aduvtov’ To & c~w KaTAa To¥s 
 meéev e€vdov dv kadeitat KaTtaTwéTacpwa, WEVTE K.T.A, 
 
 te 8 extos mpocayopevetar KaAvuma. Ibid. p. 
 
NOTES. 549 
 
 Norres py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 LVII. Vv. 1-3. 
 
 (a) The question which is suggested by Liinem., at the beginning of his note 
 on these verses, is one respecting which the most able scholars have taken 
 opposite sides. The possibility of both explanations should be acknowledged, 
 and the considerations on both sides should be fairly presented and weighed. In 
 favor of the view, which makes the verses contain an exhortation to the readers 
 to press forward in their Christian life to higher things, the following arguments 
 may be urged. 1. The special point of vv. 12-14 is the fact, that the readers have 
 not advanced as they should have done. The exhortation, that they should now 
 move onward, is the most natural thing to follow. 2. The word used to describe 
 the condition in which the readers now are, is v7/7coc ; that in which they should be, 
 is TéAcor. It was more natural, it would seem, to exhort them to press on to TeAecérne, 
 than to propose to go on himself, while they were yet vy7vov, to discuss a theme 
 appropriate to those who had become ré/evor. 3. The thought presented in vy. 
 4-6 is that of the danger which threatened, in case the readers should fall away 
 from their Christian position, and the fact of this danger is made a reason for 
 what is said in vv. 1-3. But this fact is not adapted to such a purpose, if those 
 verses merely set forth a proposal to treat of the Melchisedek priesthood, 
 rather than repentance, while it is peculiarly fitted to be a ground of moral 
 exhortation to the readers. 4. The illustration drawn from productive and 
 unproductive land in vv. 7, 8, can only be applied to growth in character and 
 progress in Christian development. 5. When the writer proceeds to speak hope- 
 fully of the readers, in vv. 9 ff, he refers to their faith and love, and urges them 
 to press on in hope. 6. In addition to these points belonging to the detail of 
 the chapter, there is another consideration of great weight, which seems to the 
 writer of this note almost decisive—namely, the fact that ch. vi., as stated in 
 Note LVI i, contains the common exhortation of the epistle—not to apostatize, but to 
 go forward—as founded upon the present portion of the argument (Christ’s Mel. priest- 
 hood). This common exhortation of the epistle, however, is always addressed to 
 the readers, and has reference to their moral life. 
 
 The arguments in favor of the other view are, 1. that tovjoouev of ver. 3 is 
 quite appropriate as a statement that the author will proceed to discuss the 
 higher theme, but seems unsuitable, and not to be expected, if the reference is 
 to an exhortation to grow in Christian life, addressed to those who were still 
 vamiot When they ought to be réAecor. This is the strongest point on this side of 
 the question. Liinem., indeed, defends the reading tovjowuev. But, in the first 
 place, this reading has the majority of the best authorities against it, and is 
 rejected by Tisch., Treg., Lachm., W. and H.; and, in the second place, even if 
 the subjunctive be read, such a peculiar repetition of the exhortation appears 
 antecedently improbable. 2. The words katafadAduevor x.7.2., present a certain 
 difficulty as connected with making the words a moral exhortation, for these 
 persons had already begun the Christian life, and had thus already laid the 
 foundation, and vy. 4-6 seem to indicate that the writer was not contemplating a 
 second beginning. On the other hand, if vv. 1, 2 are applied to a discourse upon 
 higher subjects, as distinguished from lower, this participle might easily be used. 
 3. Although the thought of vv. 12-14 is of Christian development, there is a 
 
550 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 special reference in those verses to the difficulty resulting from the vymwe con- 
 dition in the matter of apprehending the higher truths, and the whole passage 
 is introduced by, and subordinate to, a declaration as to the difficulty of un- 
 folding the subject of the Melchisedek priesthood. 
 
 (b) With reference to individual words and phrases in these verses, it may be 
 remarked :—1. 6:6 refers to the verses which immediately precede. If ¢epoueda 
 k.7.2., is a moral exhortation, 6:é refers to the fact that the readers have not pro- 
 gressed in their Christian life as far as they ought, considering the time which 
 had elapsed since their conversion. If gep. is a word expressing the desire and 
 purpose of the writer to discuss the higher subjects, 6/6 apparently has reference to 
 the fitness that the Christian, who has been long in the new life, should turn his 
 thoughts to these things.—2. a70 vexpov épywv. The word vexpa here and in ix. 
 14 is best explained by deW. and Thol., as “die nicht aus rechter Lebenskraft 
 hervorgegangen sind.” This view corresponds with that of Bleek, Alford: “dead 
 i.e. devoid of life and power,” and others. Grimm says, wi et fructu carentia. 
 Liinem. ; in themselves vain and. fruitless—3. That the view of Liinem., respecting 
 Bartiouav diay is correct, is rendered probable by the fact that baptism is 
 everywhere connected with faith, as belonging to the beginning of the Christian 
 life, and by the fact that, as the whole Christian course moves in the sphere of 
 teaching (comp., didaoxaio, didacxew, v.12), it is improbable that the writer 
 would speak of teaching, or of the baptism of teaching, as one of the elementary 
 things. His view with respect to the reference of éruJécewe yecpov to the laying 
 on of hands which was connected with reception into the full communion of 
 the church, and the dependence of this and the following genitive phrases, as 
 well as of Batriouor, on didayie, is, also, to be accepted—4. If we read rocjoopev 
 in ver. 8, and consider ver. 1 as containing a moral exhortation, we must regard 
 the author as adding to his exhortation an expression of confidence—in some 
 measure kindred to that in vv. 9 ff—that the readers will press forward. The 
 sentence, however, becomes parenthetical under these circumstances, for yap of 
 ver. 4 must be connected with the exhortation. _ If we read rocgfowuev, this verb is 
 a repetition, in substance, of depoueda, The édavrep clause is better adapted to 
 the future Tovjoouev, and it must be‘admitted that it favors the application of 
 rome. to the writer’s purpose. with reference to his own discourse. 
 
 LVIII. Vv. 4-8. 
 
 (a) With respect to these verses the following points may be noticed. 1. The 
 emphatic expressions which are used and the repetition of substantially the 
 same idea under so many forms—once enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, 
 made partakers of the Holy Spirit, tasted the good word of God and the powers 
 of the age to come—prove that the writer had in mind persons who had actually 
 entered upon the Christian life. 2. He supposes the case of the falling away of 
 such persons. 8. He says that, if they fall away, it is impossible to renew them 
 again to repentance. 4. The illustration given in vv. 7, 8 must be regarded as 
 conveying the author’s meaning in the verses which it is intended to illustrate. 
 5. The kindred passage x. 26, 27, is so similar in its thought to the present 
 verses, that it may be properly regarded as further expressing the writer’s idea of 
 the subject presented. 
 
NOTES. Sal 
 
 The points thus mentioned may suggest certain conclusions, or possible infer- 
 ences. 1. As to the bearing of the passage on the doctrine of the perseverance of 
 the saints—it must be admitted that it cannot be cited among the proof-texts 
 establishing that doctrine. Whether it can be reconciled with the doctrine, as 
 applying to all actual cases of those who become Christians, will depend on the 
 question whether the writer means to present the matter only in a hypothetical 
 way, or to convey the idea that there are instances in which apostasy really 
 occurs. The determination of the probabilities in respect to this question may, 
 perhaps, both justify and require the examination of passages which are to be 
 found in other parts of the N. T. 2. As to the question whether the persons here 
 alluded to are those who commit the sin against the Holy Ghost, it may be 
 remarked (x) that the sin against the Holy Ghost, so far as the indications of the 
 passages in the Gospels, where it is mentioned, are concerned, involves a bitter 
 hostility to Jesus (as indicated by the Pharisees’ charge, that He cast out the 
 demons by Beelzebub), which is not clearly set forth, either here, or even in x. 26, 27 ; 
 (y) that that sin is spoken of in the N. T. as committed by persons who were not 
 Christians ; and (unless the sin 7pd¢ Yavarov, 1 John vy. 16, is to be understood as 
 meaning this, which is, to say the least, open to question) is spoken of only as com- 
 mitted by such persons; (z) that the purpose for which, apparently, the writer 
 introduces these verses—namely, to warn the readers against falling by pointing 
 to the dangers consequent upon it—makes it probable, that he intended to present 
 the case of those who fell as they were themselves likely to fall, unless they arrested 
 their course; whereas he does not intimate that they were moving on in a heaven- 
 daring way, but rather were allowing themselves to drift away from the truth by 
 carelessness and neglect, or by an over-estimate of the Jewish system. So far as 
 the illustration in vv. 7, 8 goes, it may be added, the non-production of fruit is 
 placed in a parallelism with falling away—3. With regard to the word adivarov, 
 two suggestions may be offered :—(x) The corresponding passage in the tenth 
 chapter says: “there remains no longer a sacrifice for sins,” which seems to mean, 
 that there is no other and further provision for redemption. (y) There would 
 - seem to be an antecedent improbability that a man who falls away, should be 
 placed absolutely beyond the power of regaining the blessing by renewed 
 repentance and faith. In view of these two considerations, the question may 
 be raised whether the writer does not mean by advvarov simply what he means 
 by the words in x. 26, and whether his thought, in both cases, is not, that, if the 
 way which Christ has opened is left, no other way except or beyond this will 
 open. The suggestion of punishment which both passages distinctly present 
 must be borne in mind, however, in the consideration of such points. 
 
 (6) The several phrases, gwrvobévrac x.7.A., have apparently the same general 
 purpose, and present the same general idea under different forms. With respect 
 to two of these phrases, it may be remarked that dwpead apparently means the 
 gift of grace (comp. Rom. y. 15. 17), and that the duvayere wéAAovroc aidvoc are the 
 miraculous spiritual gifts, or powers, of every kind, which belonged to the Chris- 
 tian dispensation as the readers knew it. The expression aiav péAAwy is very 
 probably used, because it had already been spoken of as the age or world of Christ 
 and His people, in ii. 5.—(c) The words y7 7 utca.... vérdv, kai of ver. 7 are, 
 doubtless, to be supplied in thought before éxdépovca of ver. 8. It was the land 
 which had experienced the gifts of God (the abundant rain) and yet brought forth 
 only thorns and thistles, which was cursed. 
 
552 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 LIX. Vv. 9-12. 
 
 (a) dé of ver. 9 is however—the turn of the thought, at this point, being in the 
 line of correcting a possible misapprehension: In saying this which I have said 
 of those who fall away, I do not mean that you are of this number and are to meet 
 their fate—(b) It will be noticed that kpeioocova and éyoueva are united under 
 one article. They refer, therefore, to the same things, which are described as both 
 better and pertaining to salvation. This common reference of the two—the latter 
 evidently designating the future reward—and the fact that the thought of the 
 preceding verses, with which this verse is immediately connected, is of the fate 
 awaiting those who fall, prove that the writer is speaking in these words only of 
 the objective side, as Liinem calls it, not of the subjective side, of the heavenly 
 reward, i. e., not of character and life. The «ai which unites the two words is 
 like the xai which we sometimes find in Paul’s writings, adding a more specific to 
 a more general word, and answering to our expression that is to say: “ Things that 
 are better and, to explain the word more definitely, pertain to salvation. I am 
 persuaded that you will not be rejected, but saved.’ The rendering of A. V., and 
 R. V., may possibly lead the reader to suppose that the writer had two different 
 classes of things in mind.—(c) yap of ver. 10 introduces, as the ground of the 
 writer’s confidence, that his readers will attain the reward of salvation, the fact 
 that God is righteous. It is evident, however, that the righteousness of God is not 
 here referred to as suggesting the idea of salvation by works; for the doctrine of 
 this author, as truly as that of Paul, is, that men are saved by faith. The reference 
 must be to the fact that God, having promised to reward those who believe for their 
 Christian living and action, will not unrighteously fail to fulfill His word. Were 
 He to forget their work and love, it would, in view of His promise, be: unright- 
 eous. The words dixavoc and ad:xoc are to be understood, generally, in the N. T., 
 in the sense of righteous and unrighteous, rather than of just and unjust. The latter 
 word is used in the same larger. sense here, involving the idea of not being con- 
 formed to right i.e. to what one ought to be or do; but in the connection there is, 
 apparently, a suggestion of the thought of a kind of injustice in relation to those 
 who had depended on His promise.—(d) The toi xérov of T. R., which precedes 
 THC ayarne’ is undoubtedly to be omitted, and the latter expression is added by kai 
 in tov épyov iuev for the purpose of bringing out distinctly the relation which the 
 work had to God—it was an exhibition of love towards Him, (hence the words 
 évedeiEaotle ei¢ TO bvoua avtov). ‘To forget the épyov, therefore, would involve an 
 unrighteousness on the part of God—a failure to do what His promise to His 
 people bound Him to do.. Comp. also ver. 13 ff—(e) The work, which was the 
 manifestation of love to God, consisted in their past and present rendering of 
 service to their fellow-Christians. The representation, which is frequently made 
 to the N. T., of God and Christ as experiencing or feeling what is experienced 
 or felt by believers, is found in this passage ; and in connection with such passages 
 as this, we may get some light with respect to the interpretation of statements 
 like those in Col. i. 24. See notes on that passage—(f) dé of ver. 11 is not, 
 apparently now, as Liinem. renders it, nor and, as in R. V.; but it has somewhat 
 of adversative force, as suggesting that, while they had done well in the line of 
 love, there was another line in which they had not yet as faithfully fulfilled the 
 duty of the Christian life. In connection with this movement of the thought, it 
 becomes plain that by the same zeal or diligence the writer means the same which 
 
NOTES. 553 
 
 they had shown in the line of love and work. The other line, in which he would 
 have them press forward, was that of hope and stedfast endurance.—(q) mpéc, 
 with a view to, as looking towards, the full assurance of hope. The question 
 whether 7Aypogopia means full asswrance or fullness arises in every passage where 
 the word occurs. The indications of this Epistle, in its general thought, seem to 
 favor the former meaning, for we are led by these indications to the conclusion 
 that the persons addressed were losing confidence in the Christian system, in their 
 Christian faith and hope, and that the writer desired them to gain full assurance, 
 and not to fall entirely away. On the general question as to this word, the notes 
 of Bleek on this passage, and Lightfoot on Col. ii. 2 may be compared.—(h) that 
 pakpofuuia of ver. 12, and waxpobvujoac of ver. 15 have a sense kindred to that 
 which is elsewhere expressed, in the substantive form, by izouovy, is made evident 
 by the demands of the passage. 
 
 LX. Vv. 13-20. 
 
 (a) The writer, by way of encouragement to the readers to yield to his ex- 
 hortation, gives in these verses two facts, on the ground of which they may 
 have confidence that, if they stedfastly endure, they will receive the promised 
 reward. These facts are both derived from the O. T., as his proofs throughout 
 the entire epistle rest upon these older writings to which, as they were looking 
 towards Judaism, the readers were turning with a renewal of their early trust. 
 They are, 1. The experience of Abraham—he patiently endured and in con- 
 sequence thereof obtained the promise (vv. 13-15); and 2. The oath of God, which 
 was added to His promise (vv. 16-20). 
 
 It will be noticed that, in the development of the thought, these two things 
 are united in vv. 138-15. Ina letter so truly Pauline in many of its characteristics, 
 it is natural that there should be such an intermingling of the two, since the 
 promise which included the oath was given to Abraham, and the author’s wish 
 was evidently to make an historical reference to Abraham’s case. But it will, 
 also, be noticed by the careful reader, that the emphasis in vy. 13-15 is laid upon 
 the statement of the 15th verse, and that, while the oath is alluded to in vv. 13, 
 14, the development of the thought respecting it, as bearing upon the point in 
 discussion, is found wholly in vv. 16-20. There can be little doubt, therefore, that 
 the writer intended, in his argument, to make these two points co-ordinate, and 
 to present each with its independent force. If the arrangement of the verses 
 had corresponded precisely with the movement of the leading thoughts, the 
 order would have been ver. 13 a, ver. 15, and then y. 13 6, 14, united with ver. 
 16 ff—the construction of the sentences being slightly changed by reason of the 
 change of order. 
 
 (6) With reference to the individual words and phrases, the following points 
 may be noticed :—1. The purpose of the argument, as indicated above, accounts for 
 the emphatic position of ’ABpaau in ver. 13. The case of Abraham is selected, 
 both because the promise was made to him and, also, because of the fact, on the 
 ground of which Paul, in his epistles, carries back his O. T. arguments to 
 Abraham’s history, namely, that he was the one with whom the old covenant was 
 made, and the one on whom the Jews fixed their thoughts—2. The adding of 
 the oath to the promise is suggested in this first statement; and, as Liinem. 
 remarks, the aorist participle étayyecAduevoc is to be accounted for in this way: 
 
554 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 after He had promised, (Gen. xii, xvii, xviii), God confirmed the promise by an 
 oath (Gen. xxii. 16, 17, the passage here cited).—3. ov7w refers to the fact stated 
 in vy. 13 6. 14, and thus is one of the words which belong to the arrangement 
 adopted by the author, as indicated above—4. The “obtaining” alluded 
 to in ver. 15 is best explained as that which Abraham actually realized, 
 but which is viewed, not simply in itself, but in its foreshadowing and 
 assurance of the future.—5, jaxpotuuyqoac signifies that the jaxpofuuia was both 
 antecedent to and, in one sense, the cause of the “obtaining.”—6, 7 érayyeiia 
 in this place (ver.15), as also in ix. 15, x. 36, xi. 13, etc., has the sense of the 
 fulfillment of the promise. Comp. Gal. iii. 14 and some other passages. 
 
 (¢) The object of vv. 16-20 a, is evidently to show that the oath of God 
 insures absolute certainty of the result. The development of the thought here 
 involves five points:—1l. With men an oath is the highest and final thing in the 
 way of confirming what they say. 2. The force of the oath lies in the fact that 
 it is sworn by the one greater than themselves i. e. by God. 3. God, in order 
 to give the strongest emphasis to His promise, adopts the same course with men ; 
 He gives His oath, and, as He is Himself the greater one, He swears by Himself. 
 4, Those who lay hold of the hope which God has revealed, have, therefore, two 
 things on which to rest, the promise and the oath, both of which are immutable, 
 and in both of which there can be no falsehood. Their hope, therefore, will be to 
 them as an anchor to the soul. 5. And since this is a hope entering within the 
 veil, Jesus—who, as leading the sons of God to glory, has, first among them all, 
 been crowned (ch. ii)—has, also, as their forerunner passed within the veil, in 
 His priestly character, for these and on their behalf. Thus naturally and easily 
 the line of the discourse is brought once more to the priesthood ; the digression 
 y. 11-14, which passed into the common exhortation vi. 1 ff, is brought to its 
 close; and with the words of ver. 20 b, which repeat very nearly those of v. 10, 
 the subject of Christ’s Melchisedek-priesthood is again set forth. Chap. vii then 
 proceeds with the discussion of this subject. : 
 
 (d) As to the words and phrases in vv. 16-20, we may remark :—1. yap of ver. 
 16 belongs, in thought with ver. 13 }, and like ovrw of ver. 15, might probably 
 have been omitted or changed for some other construction, had the arrange- 
 ment of the sentences been according to the succession of the main thoughts.— 
 2. R. V. renders avriAoyiag (ver. 16) dispute, but the suggestion of Bleek quoted 
 by Liinem., that the context points, not to a contention between God and man, 
 but to the trustworthiness of a-divine declaration, is of much force, and it seems 
 quite probable that the word here means contradiction. Dr. Angus, in Schaff’s 
 Pop. Comm., gives the sentence thus: “and for confirmation, when any statement 
 of theirs is contradicted, the oath is final.”—3. Liinem. regards BovArje (ver. 17) 
 as meaning God’s decree to make all believers blessed through the seed of 
 Abraham. This may, not improbably, be the correct view, but it may be that 
 the word has a somewhat more general meaning—will or counsel, in general—4. 
 The construction of kpatjoat (ver. 18) is uncertain. But as it may depend on 
 Kataguyévtec; as the phrase oi katapvydvtec seems to call for some word which 
 may complete its idea; and as tapdkAnov, if it means consolation, does not require 
 any such additional word, or, on the other hand, if it means encouragement, may 
 find one easily in the thought of the spatijoa already introduced with oi xar., 
 it is probable that the author intended. to connect it with the participle—5. 
 éAri¢ of ver. 18 is, apparently, to be taken in the subjective sense :—hope whieh 
 
NOTES. 555 
 
 the Christian may have in his soul, rather than the objective :—the thing hoped for, 
 because of the descriptive words in ver. 19 which characterize the former. This 
 subjective hope, however, is viewed, as faith is sometimes viewed in the Pauline 
 Epistles, in an objective light, and is thus made dependent on the verb KpaTyoat, 
 Thus, also, it has the participle zpoxeuévyc united with it—it is said to be set 
 before us as something which we may lay hold of. This view of éAzic satisfies 
 the demands of the entire sentence of vv. 18, 19 better than that of Liinem., 
 who makes the hope merely subjective, and gives to poxeu., the meaning lying 
 at hand, or that of Alford and others, who regard it as equivalent to the thing hoped 
 for, or even that of Bleek, deW., Thol., and others, who consider the meaning 
 to be the hope of the things which lie before us, rie éAmidoc Tov Tpokeuévov,.—b. The 
 closing words of ver. 19, which are descriptive of the hope viewed under the 
 figure of an anchor, easily lead to those of ver. 20 and, in connection with the 
 latter, form the transition to ch. vii. With 7d éo@repov tov KataneTaouatoc the 
 more particular reference of the writer’s language to the old tabernacle 
 begins, and, by these words and zpddpoyoc, he shows that he is now passing from 
 the thoughts of the earlier section of the epistle (ch. ii. ete.) to those of the later 
 part. 
 
556 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Ver. 1. Instead of tot bpiorov, Elz. has only ipiorov, Against ABCDE 
 K L &, 23, 44, 46, 48, al. pl., Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, al. mult——0o cvvavricac] 
 Lachm. and Alford, after A B C (corr.) D E K 8, 17, 117, al.: 6¢ cuvavrijoac, 
 Notwithstanding the strong support of authorities, manifest error, arising from the 
 reading together of the article and the initial letter of the participle—Ver. 4. 
 Instead of the Recepta @ kai dexatynv, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 read, after B D* 
 E* Vulg. (Amiatin. Toletan.) It. Copt. Basm. Syr., merely  dexatyv. Certainly 
 «at is not indispensable, and might be regarded as a later gloss from ver. 2. But 
 with quite as much probability it may be supposed that it was added by the 
 author himself, the words of ver. 2 being still present to his mind. It is there- 
 fore, since it nas in its favor the considerable attestation by A C D*** E** K L 
 &, by, as it appears, all the cursives, by the Vulgate (also Demidoy. and Harlej.), 
 Syr. Philonex. al., by Chrys. Theodoret, Damase. al., Aug. Bede, with Griesb. 
 Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, to be retained.—Ver. 6. 
 The article +é6v before ’AGpadu is deleted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, and 
 Alford, after B C D* 8* 23, 57, 109, al. In favor of the omission pleads the very 
 sparing use made of the article before proper names in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 the article as a rule being placed only where, as in xi. 17, the perspicuity of the 
 discourse imperatively demanded it.—Ver. 9. In place of the received Aevi we 
 have here, with Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 2, to write Aevic, after A (Aewc) B C* 
 N*X* (Aeverc). In the ed. vii. and viii. Tisch. writes: Aeveic.—Ver. 10. Elz.: 6 
 MedAycioedé. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, Alford, after B C* D* 8, 73, 118, al., Chrys.: 
 MedAytoedéx, The rejection of the article is to be approved on the same grounds 
 as in ver, 6.—Ver. 11. The Recepta. éx’ aith vevowovétyro (defended by 
 Reiche) has decisive witnesses against it. Instead of é7’ avrg is ém avTae 
 (approved by Grotius, placed on the inner margin by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. 
 Bleek, Tisch. Alford), required by A B C D* E* 8, 17, 31, 46, al., Cyril; instead 
 of vevouobétyto is vevomodérynras (already approved by Camerarius and Grotius, 
 adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford), required byA B C D* 8, 17, 47, 73, al., 
 Cyril—Ver. 13. zpooéoyyxev] Tisch. 1, after A C, 17, al.: mpooéoyxev, Com- 
 mended to notice by Griesb. also. Rightly, however, do Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 2, 
 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche (Commentar. crit. p. 56, note 9), prefer the 
 Recepta tpocéoyynkev. In favor of this pleads, besides the yet stronger attesta- 
 tion (BD EK L®, Oecum. al.), the paronomasia with peréoyyKev, consonant 
 with the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews.—Ver. 14. Elz.: oidév rept 
 iepwobtrnc. But A BC* D* E®, 17, 47, al., It. Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Arm, Cyr. 
 Chrys. (codd.) have: tepi tepéwv oddév. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Bleek, 
 Tisch. and Alford. epi lepwotrye ‘is a glossematic elucidation.—Ver. 16. Instead 
 of the Recepta capxixic, Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford have adopted 
 capkivye, after A B C* D* L.& (also H in the title), many min. and Fathers. 
 Rightly, capxivy¢ might easily be changed into capxcxy7e by transcribers, 
 
 
 
CHAP. vir. 1. 557 
 
 since capKiKé¢ is an adjective of very frequent recurrence in the N. T., cdpxivoc 
 a rare one.—Ver. 17. paptupeita] Elz.: waptvpei. Against preponderating 
 testimony (A B D* E* 8, 17, 31, al., Copt. Sahid. Basm. Slav. Cyr. Chrys. 
 Theophyl.)—Ver. 21. After aiéva Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Lachm. Bloom- 
 field, Reiche add once more: kata t7v TaEtv MeAyeoedéx. Deleted by Bleek, 
 Tisch. and Alford, after B C, 17, 80, Vulg. Sahid. Basm. Arm. Ambr. (?) Bede. 
 Rejected also by Delitzsch. But without sufficient ground. For the words are 
 found in A D E K L 8*** Tt. Syr. utr. Copt. al., with Chrys. Theodoret, al., and 
 the omission of them is to be explained by the fact that immediately after the 
 same (ver. 22) the discourse is continued afresh with xara; the eye of the tran- 
 seriber might thus easily wander from the first kaTd to the second «ata. Also 
 for 8* there was found in the twofold «kata the occasion for overlooking not only 
 kata tHv Tagwv MeAyioedéx, but in addition to this likewise ei¢ tov aidva—Ver. 
 22. rooovrov]. So Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield. But the weighty 
 authority of A BC D* &* Athan. (cod.) al. decides in favor of the form of the 
 word preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, tocovro,—Ver. 23. 
 Recepta: yeyovdoteg iepetc. So also Tisch. 2,7, and 8. As better attested, 
 however (A C D E, Cyr. [twice] Chrys. [ms.]), the order of words: ‘epei¢ 
 yeyovérec, is to be preferred, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, Delitzsch, and 
 Alford.—Ver. 26. Elz.: étpezev. More correctly, however, Griesb. Lachm. 
 Bleek, Scholz (?), Tisch. and Alford, after A B D E, Syr. utr. Arab. Erp. Euseb. : 
 
 Kal éEmpeTrer, 
 
 Vv. 1-10.! While the author now in reality passes over to the work of 
 developing the high-priesthood after the manner of Melchisedec, proper 
 to Christ, and consequently of illustrating upon every side the pre- 
 eminence of the same above the Levitical high-priesthood, he dwells first 
 of all upon the person of Melchisedec himself, in that, following the thread 
 of the Scripture narrative, he brings vividly before his readers the exalt- 
 edness of Melchisedec’s position, and draws their attention to a threefold 
 superiority of Melchisedec over the Levitical priests. [On Vv. 1-3, see 
 Note LXI., pages 577-579. ] 
 
 Vv. 1-3. [LXI a.] Elucidation of xara tiv ratw MeaAyioedéix apyreped¢ 
 yevouevoc cic Tov aiava, Vi. 20, by a delineation of the character of Melchis- 
 edec. [LXI 6.] Vv. 1-3 form a single proposition, in which péve: is the 
 tempus finitum. [LXI c-h.] The characterization of Melchisedec combines 
 in the first half (Baovrete Yadju... guépicev ’"ABpadu, ver. 2) the historic 
 traits which are afforded of him in Genesis (xiv. 18-20), while in the second 
 half (xpérov pév «.7.2.) the author himself completes the picture of 
 Melchisedec, in reasoning from that historic delineation.—GaciAedve Yarju] 
 king of Salem. By Salem is understood, on the part of the Targumists, 
 Josephus, Antig. 1.10.2, the majority of the Church Fathers, Grotius, 
 Drusius, Owen, Michaelis, Gesenius, von Bohlen, Winer, Realworterb. I. 
 2 Aufl. p. 95, Stuart, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Knobel, Bisping, 
 Delitzsch, Auberlen, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, and others, Jerusalem. On the 
 
 1¢. A. Auberlen, “ Melchisedek’s ewiges Leben und Priesterthum Hebr. 7” (Stud. u. Krit. 
 1857, H. 3, p. 453 ff.). 
 
558 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 other hand, Primasius, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Whitby, Cellarius, Reland, 
 Rosenmiiller, Bleek (see, however, at ver. 2), Tuch, Ewald, Alford, Maier, 
 and others think of the place Sa%eip, mentioned John iii. 28, situated 
 eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis. The latter was, as we learn from 
 Jerome (Ep. 126, ad Evagrium), the view already espoused in his day by 
 the “eruditissimi” among the Hebrews, in opposition to “Josephus et 
 nostri omnes,” as accordingly also it was thought that the ruins of the 
 palace of Melchisedec were still to be shown at the last-named place in 
 the time of Jerome. This YaA4eipu, mentioned John iii. 23, has, more- 
 over, been held by some recent expositors, as Bleek and Alford, to be 
 likewise identical with the 2a24u, Judith iv.4. More correct, however, 
 is the first-named view. For, besides the earlier name Jebus for Jerusa- 
 lem (Judg. xix. 10, al.), occurs also the early name Salem (Ps. Ixxvi. 3 [2]), 
 and the narrative in Genesis (xiv. 17 ff.) poimts unmistakeably to the 
 southern part of the land.’—ieped¢ tov Geod rod inpiorov] priest of God, the 
 Most High. In the monotheistic sense, as in Genesis, vid. ibid. ver. 22—< 
 ovvarthoag “ABpadp x.7.A.] who went to meet Abraham when he was returning 
 from the smiting of the kings (Gen. xiv. 12 ff.), and blessed him.—xai evaoyhoac 
 aitév] Gen. xiv. 19, 20. Wrongly is it alleged by Heinrichs that edocyeiv 
 denotes only: gratulari de victoria tam splendida. 
 
 Ver. 2. To whom also Abraham portioned out the tenth of all (sc. that he 
 had gained as booty; comp. é rv axpodiwiwrv, ver. 4).—rpérov pév Epynver- 
 éuevog Bacided¢ dixatocibvyc] he who first, interpreted (i.e. if one translates 
 his Hebrew name pay-372 into Greek), is King of Righteousness.2, The 
 author of the epistle, however, following more closely the sense of the 
 Hebrew words, renders the name by BaaiAei¢ dixavooivyc (instead of ren- 
 dering it BaciAed¢ dixatoc, as Josephus does), and thereby brings out more 
 clearly the part sustained by Melchisedec as a typé of Christ, inasmuch as 
 the latter is not only Himself righteous (comp. Zech. ix. 9; Jer. xxiii. 5), 
 but also the mediatorial author of righteousness for others. Comp. 1 Cor. 
 i. 80; Jer. xxiii. 6; Mal. iv. 2; Dan. ix. 24.—érevra d? kai Baoidede Largu, 6 
 éorw Baoiaede eiphyvync] and then also king of Salem, which is (denotes) king of 
 peace. Comp. with regard to Christ as our peace and peace-bringer, Eph. 
 ii. 14, 15, 17; Rom. v. 1; also Isa. ix.6, 7—0 éorw] corresponds to the 
 Epunvevouevoc of the previous clause. There is no reason for taking Salem, 
 with B6hme and Bleek, after the precedent given by Petrus Cunaeus, de 
 Rep. Hebraeorum, iii. 8, as not being the name of a place at all, but 
 Baoirevc Sadju together as forming the further name of the man, since the 
 author of the epistle might discover a typical reference to Christ not only 
 in the personal name of Melchisedec, but also in the name of the state 
 over which he ruled as king and prophet. The author, for the rest, 
 interprets the name of the place as though not bow (peaceful) but plow 
 
 1Comp. specially Knobel, Genesis, 2 Aufi., Bell. Jud. vi. 10: 0 8€ mp@tos xticas (‘ lepocd- 
 Leipz. 1860, p. 149 f. Avpa) Fv Xavavaiwy Suvacrys, © TH TaTpiw 
 
 2Comp. Josephus, Antiq. i. 10. 2: MeAxuce- yAdoon KAndeis Bactdeds Sixacos’ hy yap oy 
 séxns, onuatver 5€ rovtTo BaciAeds Sixatos.— TOLOUTOS. 
 
CHAP. Vil. “2,fa. 559 
 
 (peace) had been written in the Hebrew,—a mode of rendering in whicn 
 Philo had already preceded him.! 
 
 Ver. 3. ’Ardtwp, auftwp, ayeveardyntoc] without father, without mother, 
 without pedigree, i.e. of whom neither father, nor mother, nor pedigree 
 stands recorded in Holy Scripture. This is the usual interpretation of the 
 words, which has been the prevalent one in the church from early times 
 to the present. Less natural, and only in repute here and there, is the 
 explanation: who possessed neither father nor mother, etc., according to 
 which the sacred writer must have recognized in Melchisedec a higher, 
 superhuman being, who had only for a time assumed a human form. 
 The latter view was taken by Origen and Didymus, who would maintain 
 that Melchisedec is to be regarded as an angel; in like manner the unknown 
 authority in Jerome, ad EHvagr.; Hilary, Quaestt. in V. T. quaest. 109, and 
 the Egyptian Hieracas in Epiph. Haeres. 67, who saw in him an ensar- 
 cosis of the Holy Ghost; as also the Melchisedecites, a section of the 
 Theodotians, who described him as peydAyv twa divawv Ociav, surpassing 
 in exaltedness even Christ Himself, since Christ appeared after the like- 
 ness of Melchisedec ; finally, single individuals in the orthodox church, in 
 Epiphanius, Haer. 55.7; as also afterwards, P. Molinaeus, Vates, iv. 11 
 sq.; P. Cunaeus, l.c.; J. C. Hottinger, de Decimis Judaeorum, p. 15; 
 d’Outrein, Starck, and others, who supposed that in Melchisedec the Son of 
 God Himself had appeared in human form. This whole method of inter- 
 pretation has against it the fact that ayeveaAdéyyroc—for not ayévyroc is 
 placed—can be understood without violence only of the neglect to cite 
 the genealogical table of Melchisedec in the narrative of the Book of 
 Genesis [comp. ver. 6]; and a@ratwp, auAtwp must be taken con- 
 formably with the elucidatory dayeveadéynroc, thus are likewise to be ex- 
 plained merely of the father and mother being passed over unnamed in 
 the historic account, not of their actual non-existence. The characteris- 
 tics andtup, auytwop, dyeveadkoyyntoc, moreover, are to be referred— 
 SINCE adwomwpévoc dé 7H vid Tov Heod cannot yet be brought into corres- 
 pondence therewith—only to Melchisedec, without our being obliged to 
 seek for them a special point of comparison with Christ, as is done by 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Cornelius a Lapide, 
 Jac. Cappellus, Bisping, a/. (comp. also Kurtz ad loc.), in applying the 
 axatop to Christ’s humanity, the dyjrop to His divinity, and the ayevea- 
 Aéyntoc either likewise to His divinity or to His New Testament high 
 priesthood.2—By means of aratop, auAtop, ayeveadrdynrtoc, Melchise- 
 dec appears as presenting a contrast to the Levitical priests, since in the 
 case of these scrupulous attention was paid to the descent.—The expres- 
 sion ayeveaddynroc only here in all Greek literature.—ypjre apyiv juepov 
 pare Come tédog Exov] without beginning of days and without end of life, 
 
 1Comp. Legg. allegor. iii. 25, p. 75 (with é€oTiv ws eos’ Ex “ovo” yap yeyevyynTaL TOU Ta- 
 Mangey, I. p. 102 f.): kat MeAxtoedéx Baordéa Tpos’ amatwp de ws avOpwmos’ ex udvns yap ETEXON 
 TE THS Elpyvys—DaAnm TOVTO yap éepunveverar— KNTpOs, THs TapSévov dyus’ ayeveaddynTos ws 
 iepea EavTov TeTOLNKEV O eos. eos’ ov yap xpycer yeveadoytas o e€ ayevyyntov 
 8Comp. ¢. g. Theodoret: Auzjrwp wév yap  -yeyevvnuevos matpos. 
 
560 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 nainely, in hat nothing is related in Holy Scripture either of his birth or 
 his death. The statement is quite a general one. To limit it to the be- 
 ginning and end of the priesthood,’ is arbitrary. Nor is the meaning of 
 the words, that Melchisedec was not born in the ordinary human way, 
 and, something like Enoch and Elijah, was taken up to heaven without 
 experiencing death,? a sense which conflicts with the right apprehension 
 of the opening words of the verse.—agwpowpévog dé TO vip Tov Beoi] on the 
 contrary (therein) made entirely like unto the Son of God, namely, as type of 
 the same. The words do not belong to péver lepede sig 7d diqvexéc (Peshito, 
 Grotius, a/.). For with justice does Theodoret already observe: év yévro 
 th lepwobvy ov Medyioedix pepiuntar tov deonétyvy Xpiotév, aan 6 deonéryc 
 Xpioroc lepede ele Tov aidva Kata THY TaEw MeAyioedéx. They form, by means 
 of the closely combining dé, a more precise positive defining to the nega- 
 tive pujte apyiv quepov pate Cuno TéAo¢ Eyov.i—péver iepevo ei¢ TO duqveréc | 
 remains priest for ever, in that, as of his end of life so also of the cessation 
 of his priesthood, nothing is recorded. He remains so’ in the reality of 
 his office, but only as a figure and type of Christ. Against the view of 
 Auberlen (il. c. p. 497), that Melchisedec is termed an everlasting priest in 
 no other sense than as, according to the Apocalypse, all the blessed in 
 heaven are so, see the observations of Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 
 202 f., Remark. The subject, moreover, in yéver is naturally the Melchis- 
 edec of Genesis, not, as Wieseler contends (Schrr. d. Univ. zu Kiel aus. 
 d. J. 1860, VI. 1, p. 40): “the Melchisedec of the passage in the Psalms 
 just mentioned (vi. 20), or the true antitypal Melchisedec or Messiah.” 
 For it is not grammatically allowable, with Wieseler, to take the words 
 Baorrede Ladju.. . adwpovspevog dé TH vim Tov Yeov as an apposition merely 
 to 6 MeAyoedéx, and not to the whole expression oiro¢ 6 MeAyioedéx, and in 
 connection with oiroc 6 MeAyioedéx to rest the emphasis exclusively upon 
 ovroc.—el¢ Td duyveéc] of the same import as ei¢ Tov aidva, vi. 20. Comp. 
 x, 124: 
 
 Ver. 4. [On Vv. 4-10, see Note L-XII., pages 579, 580.] @ewpeire] is impera- 
 tive, whereby a strain is to be put on the attention for that which follows : 
 but behold, namely, inwardly, 7.e. consider—ryAixoc] how great, i.e. how 
 high and exalted.—oiroc @ kai dexaryv ’ABpady Edoxev «.7.A.] Resuming of 
 the historic notice already adduced at the beginning of ver. 2, in order 
 then further to argue from the same. By the choice and position of the 
 words, however, the author brings out the 772 ixo¢ in its truth and inner 
 justice. (Choice of the words axpo¥ivia and ratprapyne,—the latter 
 in place of the elsewhere more usual 6 ta74p in regard to Abraham,— 
 and effective placing of the characterizing title 6 ~atp:dpyn¢ at the close 
 of the proposition at a far remove from the name ’ASpady.)—kai dexaryv] 
 xai is not the merely copulative “also,” as ver. 2 (Hofmann), but is used 
 
 1Cameron, Seb. Schmidt, Limborch, Whit- brews,” in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, H. 2, p. 332 
 
 by, Kuinoel, Hofmann, al. ff.; Nickel in Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, Feb. p. 
 2Hunnius, Braun, Akersloot; comp. also 102 f.; Alford. 
 Bleek, p. 322 ff.; Nagel: “Onthe significance . %Chrysostom: ’Adwmotwpeévos de, dyoi, To 
 
 of Melchisedee in the Epistle to the He- vi@ TOD Feov" Kai TOV Hh OMoLOTHS ; “OTL Kat TOVTOU 
 
CHAP. vil. 4, 5. 561 
 
 as giving intensity. It gives intensity, however, not to the subject (so 
 Luther, Grotius, Owen, Carpzov: “Abraham himself also ”’),—for then o 
 kai ’ABpadu dexatyv éduxev must have been written,—but the predicate: to 
 whom Abraham gave even the tenth—axpobiria] composed of akpog and Gir, 
 in the N. T. a azag Aeyouevov, denotes the uppermost of the heap, the choice 
 or best thereof. The expression is most current with regard to the first- 
 fruits of the harvest presented to the Godhead ; not seldom, however, is it 
 used of the best, which was selected out of the spoils of war as an offering 
 consecrated to the Godhead. In our passage, too, axpodina denotes not 
 simply the spoils acquired by Abraham,’ but the choicest, most valuable 
 articles thereof. Theophylact: && tov Aagipov tov kpeitréver Kai Tiywtépwr. 
 Not that the meaning of the author is, that Abraham gave to Melchisedec 
 the tenth part of the most choice objects among the booty acquired, but 
 that the tithes which he presented to Melchisedec consisted of the choicest, 
 most excellent portions of the booty.—6é rarpidpync] he, the patriarch. The 
 sonorous name of honor rarpidpyyc, composed of ratpiad and apyq, desig- 
 nates Abraham as the father of the chosen race, and ancestor of the people 
 of Israel. Comp. Acts ii. 29, where David is distinguished by the same 
 title of honor, and Acts vii. 8,9, where the twelve sons of Jacob are so 
 distinguished. 
 
 Vv. 5-10. Unfolding of the ryAixoc obroce «.7.4., ver. 4,in that Mel- 
 chisedec is compared with the Levitical priests, and a threefold superior- 
 ity of the former over the latter is pointed out. 
 
 Vv. 5-7. First point of superiority. The Levitical priests, indeed, take 
 tithes of their brethren, although these brethren, in like manner as they, 
 have descended from Abraham : they have thus, it is true, a pre-eminence 
 above these; but they are inferior to Melchisedec, since this man took 
 tithes of Abraham himself, the common ancestor of the Jewish people, 
 and blessed him. 
 
 Ver. 5. Admission of the relatively privileged position of the Levitical 
 priests.—xai] the explanatory: and certainly.—oi pév x.r.A.] preparatory 
 to the adversative 6 dé «.7.4., ver. 6.—oi ék Tav vidv Aevi tv tepateiav 
 ZauBdavovrec] those of the sons (descendants) of Levi who obtain the office of 
 priest. For not all Levites, but only those of them who claimed lineage 
 from the house of Aaron, were entitled to enter upon the priesthood. 
 Comp. Ex. xxviii. 1 ff.; Num. iii. 10, 38, xvi., xviii. 1 ff, al. Mistaken is 
 the opinion of Delitzsch, Maier, and Moll (in coinciding with Hofmann), 
 that the é& in é Trav vidv Aevi is the causal éx of origin: “those who 
 receive the priesthood from the sons of Levi, 7. e. by virture of their 
 descent from Levi, in such wise that their person is not taken into 
 account as such, but only in so far as they belong to this lineage.” If 
 that had been intended, oi é« tay vidv Aevi dvtec kal did TovTO THY iepateiav 
 AauBavovrec must have been written.—évroAjy Eyovow arodexatovv Tov Aadyv 
 
 KGKELVOU TO TEAOS GYVOOUMEV Kal THY apXyV’ aAAG éx Tov oxVAwy Kai Aadvpwv ; Erasmus, Luther, 
 
 TovTOV péev Tapa TO MH yeypaddat, Exeivou de Vatablus, Calvin, Schlichting, B6hme, Kui- 
 
 mapa TO hy €ivar. noel, Stuart, Bloomfield, and the majority. 
 190 Chrysostom: ta Aadvpa ; Oecumenius: 
 
 36 
 
562 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Kata rov vouov] havea charge to tithe the people according to the law.'—kara 
 tov véuov] belongs not to rov Aadv,? against which even the non-repetition 
 of the article after Aaév decides; nor yet to azodexarovv,? but to évroagv 
 Eyovorv.—In the closing words, tovréotw rode adeAgode aitov, Kaimep k.T.A., 
 Bleek, after the example set by Bohme, erroneously finds the sense: 
 “that, although they are the posterity of Abraham, the lauded patriarch, 
 who are tithed by the Levitical priests, yet they are, after all, still the 
 brethren of the latter, 7. e. fellow-Israelites ; which cannot be so astonish- 
 ing as when Abraham himself paid the tithes to Melchisedec.” On the 
 contrary, the elucidation of tov Aadyv by rovréorw roi¢ adeAgoig aitav serves 
 to bring into more striking relief the singularity of the azodexarovv; since 
 elsewhere only the higher receives tithes from the lower, not the equal 
 from the equal (as here an Abrahamides from an Abrahamides), and this 
 singularity of the azodexarovv is then yet further manifested by kaizep 
 éEeAyAvbdrac éx THe dodboc ’ABpadu. The author can therefore only design, 
 by means of ver. 5, to characterize the priests as primi inter pares. This 
 superiority, however, in regard to their own fellow-Israelites, the author 
 concedes only in order immediately after, ver. 6, to oppose to the same 
 the inferiority in regard to Melchisedec.—étépyeotar éx tH¢ dopboc tivdc] So 
 the LX X. render the Hebrew ‘9 yon N83", Gen. xxxv. 11; 2 Chron. vi. 9. 
 
 Ver. 6. Notwithstanding this privileged position of the Levitical priests 
 (ver. 5), Melchisedec yet occupies a far higher position.—é dé] is not to be 
 taken alone, as by BOhme, Kuinoel, and Klee, and then to be supplemented 
 by ry iepateiav AaBov from ver. 5; but 6 dé uy yevearoyobtpevocg é& 
 avtov belongs together: Melchisedec, on the contrary, without (uj) his 
 Samily or descent being derived from them, received tithes of Abraham.—é& aitav] 
 refers neither to the Israelites, nor to Levi and Abraham,’ but to the vioi 
 Aevi, ver. 5.—The parallel. clause, cai rov éyovta tag érayyediac evAdynxer | 
 and blessed him who had the promises, serves yet further to make manifest 
 the dignity and exaltedness of Melchisedec. For, by the fact that 
 Abraham had received the divine promises, that his seed should be multi- 
 plied, and in him all nations of the earth should be blessed (Gen. xii. 2 f,, 
 xili. 14 f.), he had been already most highly favored of God. How high 
 -thus must that man stand, who imparts his blessing to one already so 
 highly favored, since truly—as is immediately expressly added, ver. 7— 
 
 1Comp. Num. xviii. 20-32; Deut. xiv. 22-29 . 
 Neh. x. 38, 39; de Wette, Lehrb. der hebr.-jiid. 
 
 Levites. Nevertheless, however the matter 
 
 Archdologie, 3 Aufl. p. 273 f.; Delitzsch, Tal- 
 mudische Studien, XIV. Justification of Heb. 
 vii. 5 (in Guericke’s Zeitschr. f. d. gesammte 
 luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1863, H. 1, p. 16 ff). The 
 justification consists of the attempted proof 
 that in the post-exilian age the tenth was no 
 longer levied in the first place by the Le- 
 vites,—who had been wont only afterwards to 
 render to the. priests the portion pertaining 
 to the same,—but the priests themselves had 
 entered upon the right of levying the tenth, 
 which had been originally assigned to the 
 
 may have stood in this respect, there was 
 hardly any need of a justification of the 
 words Heb. vii. 5, since no statement what- 
 ever as to the mode of receiving the tenths is 
 contained in the same; on the contrary, these 
 words are equally appropriate for indirect as 
 for direct levying of the tithes. 
 
 2Seb. Schmidt, Hammond, Starck, B6hme, 
 Hofmann. 
 
 3 Owen, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Ewald. 
 
 4Epiph. Haer. 67. 7; Cornelius a Lapide 
 Braun, Ernesti, Schulz. 
 
 5 Grotius. 
 
CHAP. VII. 6-9. 563 
 the dispenser of the blessing is ever more exalted than the recipient of 
 the blessing ! ! 
 
 Ver. 7 joined on by means of 0é, since the verse contains the major of 
 a syllogism. The minor is already furnished in the second half of ver. 6, 
 and the conclusion: “ therefore Melchisedec is more exalted than Abra- 
 ham,” is left to the readers themselves to supply.—The neuters +d é2ar- 
 tov and 76 xpeirrov serve for the generalization of the statement, inas- 
 much as the author has only persons in view. Comp. Winer, p. 167 [E. 
 T. 178].—The truth of the statement, however, is apparent, in that the 
 author is thinking of the blessing imparted in the name of God and by 
 virtue of the divine authority. For Melchisedec as the priest of God was 
 the representative of God, or one divinely commissioned, in the commu- 
 nicating of the blessings. 
 
 Ver. 8. Second point of superiority. The Levitical priests are mortal 
 men ; but of Melchisedec it is testified that he lives—By «ai dde pév, 
 “and here,” reference is made to the Levitical priests, by éxei dé, “but 
 there,” to Melchisedec, because the Levitical priesthood still continues to 
 exist to the time of our author, thus having something about it near and 
 present; the historic appearing of Melchisedec, on the other hand, falls 
 in the period of hoary antiquity.—dexarac] The plural, on account of the 
 plurality of tithes levied by the Levitical priests —dazo@vjcKovrec] as the 
 principal notion placed before av6pwr01.—azobvicKovtes avOpwro:] men who 
 die (irrevocably or successively), comp. ver. 23.—éxei d@ waprupobmevog bre 
 (| but there, one who has testimony that he lives, sc. dexétnv t2aBev. That by 
 reason of the coherence with that which precedes only Melchisedec can be 
 understood, and not? Christ, scarcely stands in need of mention. ¢%, as 
 opposition to azofvycKovrec, can be interpreted only absolutely, of the life 
 which is not interrupted by death. - That the author, in connection with 
 aptvpobvmevoc, had before his mind a testimony contained in the Holy 
 Scriptures of the Old Covenant, admits of no doubt. Whether, however, 
 
 ’- he derived the testimony of Melchisedec’s continued life from the silence 
 
 of Scripture as to Melchisedec’s death, or found in the declaration, Ps. ex. 
 4, a direct proof therefor, or, finally, combined the two facts together, and 
 deduced his conclusion from both in common, is a question hardly to be 
 decided.* 
 
 Vv. 9, 10. Third point of superiority. In Abraham, Levi the receiver of 
 the tithes has also already been tithed by Melchisedec.—The formula oc 
 émog eimeiv, of very common occurrence with classic writers, as likewise 
 frequently met with in Philo, is found in the N. T. only here. It denotes 
 either : to say it in one word (in short), or: so to say, i.e. in some sense. In 
 
 1Oecumenius: e&npe Tov ’ABpadm, iva mActov doret, Zeger, Whitby, Heinrichs, Bleek, 
 
 efapn Tov MeAxiceder. | 
 
 2 With Justinian, Jac. Cappellus, Heinsius, 
 and Pyle. 
 
 8The first supposition is entertained by 
 Calvin, Estius, Drusius, Piscator, Grotius, 
 Owen, Wolf, Bengel, Steiu, Bisping, Delitzsch, 
 Maier, Moll, and others; the second, by Theo- 
 
 Bloomfield, Alford, Conybeare, Kurtz, M’Caul, 
 Woerner, and others; the third, by Bohme, 
 Riehm, Lekrbegr. des Hebrderbr. pp. 201, 454, 
 and others. 
 
 4Theophylact; To 6€ ws Eos eimety 7 rovTO 
 ONMALVEL 0, TL Kai vy GUYTOMw EciTELY, H aYTi TON 
 ty’ oUTWS Ei. 
 
564 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 the former sense our passage is apprehended by Camerarius, Jac. Cappellus, 
 Er. Schmid, Owen (preferably), Elsner, Wolf, Bengel, Heumann ; in the 
 latter,—and this is here the more correct one,—the Vulgate, Faber Stapu- 
 lensis, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Schlichting, Grotius, Carpzov, Kypke, 
 Heinsius, B6hme, Kuinoel, Stuart, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, 
 Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hof- 
 mann, Woerner, and the majority. The author himself feels that the 
 thought he is on the point of expressing has something singular and 
 unusual about it. Thus he mitigates and limits the harshness thereof by 
 oc éroc eixetv, Whereby he indicates that the ensuing statement is, not- 
 withstanding its inner truth, not to be understood literally.—év ‘ABpaau]} 
 by Abraham, i.e. by the fact that Abraham gave the tenth. ’ABpadyu isa 
 genitive. Mistaken; Augustine (de Genes. ad lit. x.19): propter Abraham ; 
 Photius (in Oecumenius): dca tov dexatwSévta ’ABpadu gyor Tpdrov Tia Kai 
 6 év TH Gobi abTov ett Ov Aevi dedexdtwtar.—Acvic] As is shown by the parti- 
 ciple present in the addition 6 dexatac AauBdavwor, we have riot to think of the 
 mere individual personality of Levi, but of him in connection with his 
 posterity, thus of Levi as ancestor and representative of the Jewish 
 priests. 
 
 Ver. 10. Proof for the assertion ver. 9. When Abraham gave the tenth 
 to Melchisedec, he was as yet childless, and therefore at that time still 
 bore his descendants as in germ in himself. When, accordingly, by the 
 presentation of the tenth he acknowledged a superior rank of Melchisedec 
 over himself, he rendered homage to the latter not only in his own person, 
 but at the same time as the representative of his posterity, as yet incapa- 
 ble of independent action, because as yet unborn.—ér év rH dodbi Tov 
 matpoc eivac] to be as yet in the loins of the father, or to be yet unborn. The 
 expression is explained by the analogous é&épyeobae éx tHe dodboc Tuvéc, Ver. 
 5: by generation to proceed from one’s loins.—roi tatpéc] is not to be taken, 
 with Bleek, as a “universally recognized designation” of Abraham (i. e. 
 as father of the Jews and Christians). It stands in special relation to 
 Levi; thus: his father, wherein, of course, seeing Abraham was the great- 
 grandfather of Levi, zat#p is to be understood in the wider sense, or as 
 progenitor. . 
 
 . Vv. 11-17. The Levitical priesthood in general has, together with the 
 Mosaic law, lost its validity. [On Vv. 11-19, see Note LXIII., pages 580, 
 581.] 
 
 Ver. 11. From the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood to the priest- 
 hood of Melchisedec, just proved, it followed that the former was imper- 
 fect and incapable of leading to perfection. This fact is now presupposed 
 by the author as a self-evident consequence, and he proceeds at once to 
 demonstrate the truth thereof. [LXIII b-e.]—oiv] deduces the conclusion 
 from vy. 5-10, not from vi. 20 (de Wette, Bisping), whereby an interrup- 
 tion ensues in the continuity of the development begun by the author.— 
 et] with the indicative preterite (iv. 8, viii. 4), supposition of an impossible 
 case: if there were, if there existed ; in combination with dia: if it were 
 effected.—rereiworc] perfection, i.e. attainment of the highest goal of man- 
 
euAr. vir 10) 11; 565 
 
 kind in a moral and religious respect. There is included in it the obtain- 
 ing of the expiation of sins and the glory to come. Comp. ix. 9, x. 1, 14, 
 xi. 40.—6 dade yap im’ abrie vevopobérytac] for the people on the ground thereof 
 hath received the law. These words can be taken only as a parenthesis 
 (against Stein). vopodereiy Tivi signifies to give laws to one, to provide 
 one with a law (here the Mosaic law). The mode of transposing this 
 active construction into the passive 6 Aad vevoyobérytay, is quite the usual 
 one; comp. Winer, p. 244 f. [E. T. 261].—é7’ aitic] relates not to reAeiworc,) 
 but to rac Aeviringe lepwobvyc. ini, however, denotes: upon the ground or 
 condition of the existence of the Levitical priesthood, 7. e. the Levitical 
 priesthood is indissolubly conjoined with the Mosaic law which the people 
 has received; it forms a foundation pillar upon which the latter rests, so 
 that with the fall of the one the other also must fall (ver. 12). Errone- 
 ously,—because the statement thus arising would be too insignificant, and 
 because éxi in this sense is used only with verba dicendi,?—Schlichting and 
 Grotius [as also Whitby]: de sacerdotio Levitico legem accepit [an inter- 
 pretation already rejected by Junius and Piscator]; as likewise Bleek I.: 
 the people had received legal instruction concerning the Levitical priest- 
 hood.—But to what end the parenthesis? Its design is to indicate the 
 ground on which one might expect to attain to the reAeiwouc,—if the 
 Mosaic law were at all capable of leading thereto,—by the intervention of 
 the Levitical priesthood, since the Mosaic law is erected upon this very 
 Levitical priesthood as its basis.—ri¢ ére xpeia] sc. qv, OF av 7. The words 
 following ypeia are not to be blended together into one thought,* in such 
 wise that 2éyecba is governed immediately by xpeva, and again all the 
 rest (kata tyv rdéw Medyioedéx ETepov aviotacbat iepéa Kai ov Kata THY Tae 
 ’Aapdov) by Aéyecbar, The position of the words would then be contorted, 
 and one explicable on no justifying grounds. On the contrary, the infini- 
 tive clause kata tiv Taéwv MeAyioedéx étepov avicracba iepéa depends at once 
 upon the immediately preceding ti¢ ére ypeia; and to this first infinitive 
 clause the second kai ob kara thy Tdéw ’Aapov A€éyeobar forms an epexegetic 
 parallel clause: What need was there still then (or : would there then still have 
 been) that another priest should arise “ after the order of Melchisedec,” and 
 not be called (priest) after the order of Aaron 2—ér1] sc. after the Levitical 
 priesthood had long been instituted, and in general the Mosaic law pro- 
 mulgated.—érepov] in distinction from aA/ov, brings prominently forward 
 the dissimilarity of his nature and constitution as compared with that of 
 the Levitical priests—To «ai we have not to supplement the whole idea 
 érepov tepéa, but only iepéa.—od, however, is placed, not 7 as the infinitive 
 éyeoda might seem to require, because the negation extends to only a 
 part of the clause. 0, namely, is closely associated with kara Tay TagW 
 ‘Aapov, and forms with the same merely a more precise definition to the 
 ispéa which is to be supplied, so that the total expression kai (iepéa) ob 
 
 
 
 10, upon the supposition of the reading Charm. p. 62; Bernhardy, Syntaz, p. 248. 
 én’ airy, Vatablus, but undecided; Seb. 3 Faber Stapulensis, Luther, Baumgarten, 
 Schmidt, Starck, Rambach. Chr. Fr. Schmid. 
 
 2Comp. Gal. ili. 16; Heindorf, ad Plat. 
 
566 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Kata THv Taéw ’Aapov presents an Opposition to the foregoing total expres: 
 sion Kara tiv tagiv MeAyioedix érepov iepéa—Aéyeodac] namely, Ps. ex. 4. 
 That Aéyeodar is not to be taken in the sense of eligi (Kuinoel, Stein, al.) is 
 already shown by the Aéyera, ver. 13. 
 
 Ver. 12. In the parenthesis, ver. 11, the author has brought forward in 
 general the close connectedness of the Levitical priesthood with the 
 Mosaic law, and thereby already indicated that if the former is an imper- 
 fect and unsatisfying one, the same also is true of the latter; the 
 perishing of the one involves also the perishing of the other. This truth 
 the author now further specially urges, by means of a corroboration of 
 the parenthetical remark, ver. 11. So in recent times also Alford and 
 Woerner. Otherwise is the connection apprehended by Bleek, de Wette, 
 Bisping, Delitasch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 484), Maier, and 
 Moll. They refer yap to the main thought in ver. 11, and find in ver. 12 
 an indication of the reason “ why a change of the sacerdotal order would 
 not have ensued without an urgent cause, namely, because such change 
 would have involved also a change of the law in general.” But subject- 
 matter and form of expression in ver. 12 point back to the parenthesis, 
 ver. 11. For in both the author is speaking of the inseparable conjunc- 
 tion of the Levitical priesthood with the Mosaic law; and éz’ airic, ver. 
 11, is resumed by rie tepwobvyc, ver. 12; vevouodétyra, ver. 11, by véuov, 
 ver. 12.—peratidenévyc] denotes, like the wera deore immediately following, 
 certainly as to its verbal signification, only a transformation or change (not 
 specially, as Chrysostom, Piscator, Grotius, Bengel, Heinrichs, Stuart, and 
 others suppose, a transference of the priesthood to another tribe of the 
 Jewish people, or to a non-Aaronides.) As regards the thing intended, 
 however,—as ig manifest from the parallel adéryove, ver. 18,—an actual 
 rendering obsolete or abrogation is spoken of. The author thus still expresses 
 himself with delicacy of feeling —That, further, »éuo0¢ is to be limited, 
 neither? to the law of the priesthood, nor* to the ceremonial law, but is to be 
 interpreted of the Mosaic law in general, is self-evident. 
 
 Vv. 13, 14. First proof of ver. 12. [LXIII f.] Levitical priesthood and 
 - Mosaic law have lost their validity. For Christ, to whom the utterance 
 of God, Ps. ex. 4, refers, belongs in point of fact to another tribe, which, 
 according to Mosaic ordinance, has nothing to do with the administration 
 of the priesthood. 
 
 Ver. 13. ’Eq’ bv] With regard to whom. Comp. Mark ix. 12,13; Rom. 
 iv. 9.—2éyerac tavta] contains, like the Aéyec¥ar of ver. 11, a direct allusion 
 to the declaration of God, Ps. ex. 4. Wrongly Paulus: that which I have 
 said heretofore.—oviaje érépac peréoynxev] has part in another tribe (i.e. in a 
 tribe different from that of Levi), namely, as member thereof—aq’ 7] 
 descended from which, or belonging to the number of its members.—ovdeic 
 mpooéoynkev TO Ovovactnpiw] no one, namely, according to the ordinance of 
 the law, attends at the altar, i.e. performs the priestly functions. 
 
 1 With Beza, Pareus, Piscator, Grotius, Wit- — 2With Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Jac. 
 
 tich, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Zachariae, Whitby, Cappellus, Carpzoy, Kuinoel, Klee, and 
 Sehulz. others. 
 
CHAP. VII. 12-15. 567 
 
 Ver. 14. Further evidencing of ver. 13.—rpédydov yap, orc] for it ie 
 clearly apparent that. The ztpo in pédndov is not to be taken, with 
 Peirce (following Owen), temporally, according to which the sense would be, 
 that Christ’s descent from the tribe of Judah was made known beforehand, 
 i.e. before He had yet arisen upon earth,—with which, in the first place, 
 the perfect avarétradxev does not harmonize,—but contains the notion 
 of lying manifestly before the eyes. Theodoret: 1d mpédy20v we avavtippytov 
 réeue. apo serves, therefore, only for the strengthening of the simple 
 djaov. Comp. 1 Tim. vy. 24, 25.—éF "Ioida] out of Judah, i.e. from the 
 tribe of Judah (comp. Rev. v. 5; Gen. xlix.9, 10). With emphasis pre- 
 posed.—avaréradxev] has arisen or sprung forth. The figure which underlies 
 the verb is either that of a rising star (comp. Num. xxiv. 17; Mal. iv. 2; Isa. 
 lx. 1), or of a tender shoot coming up from the ground (Gen. xix. 25; Isa. 
 xliv. 4; Ezek. xvii. 6; comp. also avarod#, NS, with reference to the 
 Messiah, Jer. xxiii. 5; Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12).—<é kéipioc judv] Jesus Christ.— 
 ei¢ fv gvagv] in reference to which tribe.—repi iepéwv] sc. who should be 
 taken out of the same. 
 
 Vv. 15-17. Second proof of ver. 12. The abrogation of the Levitical 
 priesthood and the Mosaic law follows further from the fact that the new 
 priest who is promised is to bear resemblance to Melchisedec, whereby it 
 is made manifest that his characteristic peculiarity is one quite different 
 from that of the Levitical priests. 
 
 Ver. 15. Kai repicoérepov ére xatddnddv éotw] and the more still is it evident, 
 namely, that with the Levitical priesthood the whole Mosaic law, too, is 
 changed (and deprived of validity), ver. 12. Comp. also ver. 18. Not: 
 what difference there is between the Levitical and the N. T. priesthood ;? 
 nor yet that perfection is to be found, not in the Levitical priesthood, 
 but in the priesthood of Christ;? and just as little: that the priesthood 
 is changed? Quite mistakenly Ebrard: to karddyAév éorw we have to 
 supply from ver. 14 the clause ér é ’Iotda avaréradxev 6 Kbpioc judv: “ that 
 Jesus descended from Judah is first in itself an acknowledged fact (ver. 14); 
 this, however, is so much the more clear, since (ver. 15) it follows from 
 the Melchisidecian nature of His priesthood that He could not be born 
 xata véuov!” How then could it be inferred from the fact that Jesus could 
 not be born xara véuov, that He must have descended precisely “ from 
 Judah ” ?!—xarddyAov] a similar intensifying of the simple form, as previ- 
 ously zpédniov.—ei . . . aviorarac] if, as surely is the case, their arises.* ei 
 thus, as to the sense, equal to ére1d4.5—xard tiv duoidtrnta MeAyioedéx] as 
 the main idea placed first, and éuocérye an elucidation of the ré&e in 
 the passage of the Psalms.—The subject in the conditional clause is iepetc 
 
 1Chrysostom: 70 pécov tis iepwovvns éxaré- 4That. Stein would combine et and o¢ in 
 pas, TO Suadopor, Clarius, Zeger, Bisping. the sense: “It is quite clear to all that, if at 
 
 2 Jac. Cappellus, Bengel, Hofmann, Schrift- any time another priest after the manner of 
 bew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 551; Delitzsch. Melchisedee arises, he then,” ete., deserves 
 
 3Primasius, Justinian, Owen, Hammond, to be mentioned only as a curiosity. 
 Rambach, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Stuart, Klee, 5 Oecumenius, Theophylact. 
 
 Paulus. 
 
568 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 érepoc (if . . . another priest arises), not merely érepoc (Schulz: “if... 
 another is appointed as priest”), nor yet Jesus (if He ... arises as 
 another priest). 
 
 Ver. 16. [LXIII g, h.] Nearer indication as to what is implied by the 
 chararacteristic kata ti» duodtyta Medyioedéx, ver. 15, what peculiarity of 
 priesthood is expressed by the same.—éc] sc. lepedg érepoc, NOt: MeAyioedéx. 
 —ic ... yéyoverv] who... has become so (sc. priest).—ovb xara véuov évtodje 
 capkivyc «.7.A.] not according to the law of a fleshly command, but according 
 to the power of indestructible [or indissoluble] life. In connection with 
 véuoc, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Bbhme, Kuinoel, Tholuck, 
 Delitzsch, and others think of the Mosaic law ; but against this argues the 
 singular évroAge capkKivye, to take which, with the expositors mentioned, 
 in the sense of the plural (according to the Mosaic law, whose essence 
 consists in fleshly ordinances), or as a collective designation of the con- 
 stituent parts of the lawas 6 véuoc tév évroAdv, Eph. ii. 15, is arbitrary. 
 vépmoc is therefore to be taken, as Rom. vii. 21, 23, in the more general 
 sense: norm (rule, standard), and the évroA7 is the special precept or 
 ordinance which the Mosaic law contains regarding the Levitical priest- 
 hood.—It is called jleshly, however, according to Carpzov, BOhme, Stuart, 
 and others, because it is mutable and transitory; more correctly, never- 
 theless : because it lays stress only upon external, earthly things, which fall 
 a prey to transitoriness, and (comp. the contrast a/2a xara divauww x.t.A.) 
 appoints as priests only mortal men, of whom one after another is snatched 
 away by death.—xara divauw Cwme axatadirov] t.e. inasmuch as the power 
 of living for ever is inherent in Him. Comp. vv. 17, 24. Improperly do 
 Cameron, Dorscheus, Calov, al., refer it as well, or solely, to Christ’s power 
 of communicating intransitory life fo others. But wrongly, too, Hofmann 
 (Schriftbew. IL. }j 2 Aufl. p. 551 f.), Delitzsch, and Alford: the Cw axatadvroc 
 is to be limited to that life of Christ which began with His resurrection. 
 On the contrary, the Cw) dxardavroc is thought of as a property inherent 
 in the ieped¢e érepoc, without respect to relation of time.? 
 
 Ver. 17, Scripture proof for kata divayw Cope axatadbrov, ver. 16. This 
 Scripture proof the author finds in the ei¢ tov aiéva, Ps. ex. 4, upon which 
 words, therefore, the emphasis rests in ver. 17.—yaprupeirac yap] for he 
 (namely, the isped¢ érepoc, ver. 15, i.e. Christ) has the testimony. 
 is not to be taken impersonally: “it is witnessed ” (Bleek, Bisping, Cony- 
 beare, al.).—r:] recitative, as x. 8, xi. 18. 
 
 Vy. 18,19. [LXIII 7, 7.] Elucidation of that which is signified by this 
 proclamation in the psalm, of the arising of a new everlasting priest after 
 the manner of Melchisedec (ver. 17). By virtue of that proclamation of 
 God, the Mosaic institution of the priests, and with it the Mosaic law in 
 
 fapTupEeirat 
 
 Inde 
 
 1Schlichting: carnale (praeceptum) voca- 
 tur, quia totum ad carnem spectabat, car- 
 nisque rationem habebat. Partim enim ad 
 certam stirpem, nempe Aaronicam, sacerdo- 
 tii dignitatem adstrinxerat, partim mortali- 
 tuti pontificum, quae carnis propria est, con- 
 
 sulens, successionis jura descripserat. 
 enim factum est, ut unum alteri suecedere 
 juberet, quo, morientibus sacerdotibus, sa- 
 cerdotium tamen ipsum perpetuaretur, 
 
 2Comp. also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. 
 p. 458, Obs. 
 
CHAP. vil. 16-19. 569 
 
 general, is declared—and that with good reason—to be devoid of force; 
 and, on the other hand, a better hope is brought in.'—Vvy. 18, 19 contain 
 a single proposition, dividing itself into two halves by means of wév.. . 
 dé, for which yiverac forms the common verb, and in which ovdév yap 
 étedciwoerv 6 vduoc constitutes a parenthesis.” Others construe differently, 
 in taking each of the two verses as an independent statement in itself. 
 They then vary as regards the interpretation of érecaywy4, ver. 19, as this 
 is looked upon either as predicate or as subject. As predicate it is taken 
 by Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus (Version), Vatablus, Calvin, Hunnius, Jac. 
 Cappellus, Pyle, Ebrard, and others, in supplying éoriv or qv, and regard- 
 ing as subject thereto 6 véuoc. According to this, the sense would be: for 
 nothing has the law brought to perfection; but it is (or its meaning con- 
 sists in this, that it is) a bringing in of a better hope. But against this 
 argues the fact that, if érevcaywyy dé was intended to form the opposition 
 to the first half of ver. 19, the author could not possibly—after having 
 placed a verb (éredeiwoev) in the first half, consisting as it does only of a 
 few words—have continued in the second half otherwise than with a verb; 
 he must have written ée:odyee dé xpeittova éArida instead of éreioaywyy dé 
 x.t.2. Moreover, éré in érewaywyf would have remained without any 
 reference upon the supposition of this construction. As subject érewaywyn 
 is looked upon by Beza, Castellio, Pareus, Piscator, Schlichting, Owen, Seb. 
 Schmidt, Carpzov, Whitby, Michaelis, Semler, Ernesti, Valckenaer, Hein- 
 richs, Stuart, and others. The sense would then be; the law indeed 
 brought nothing to perfection ; but the bringing in of a better hope did lead 
 to perfection. Against this view, however, the consideration is decisive, 
 that in such case, inasmuch as the preceding véuo¢ has the article, érecoa- 
 ywyf also must have obtained the article—The statement of ver. 18 is to 
 be understood in special relation to the subject in question (not, as is 
 done by Schlichting, Heinrichs, and others, as a truth of universal im- 
 port). The article before tpoayotone évtoage is wanting, because the design 
 was to express the évroAf regarding. the Levitical priesthood as one which 
 had only the character of an évroar mT podyovoa.—avérnac| a declaring void 
 of force, abrogation. Comp. a¥vereiv Gal. ili. 15. The substantive only here 
 and ix. 26.—yivera‘] results, namely, in the declaration of God, Ps. cx. 4— 
 The évroa#, the command, denotes not the whole Mosaic law,’ but the 
 ordinance regarding the Levitical priesthood therein contained. Only 
 with ver. 19 does the author transfer to the whole that which he here 
 states concerning a part—The évr0/#, however, is termed tpoayovca 
 (comp. 1 Tim. i. 18, v. 24), because, as a constituent part of theO. T., it 
 preceded in point of time the institution of the New Covenant. Yet, at 
 
 
 
 1Theodoret: Tavetat, Pyatv, 0 vomos, émeroa- Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 592), Al- 
 yetau S€ H TOV KpELTTOVWY EATS, ford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann, 
 2So, rightly, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theo- Woerner, and the majority. 
 phylact, Primasius, Luther, Zeger, Camera- 3Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
 
 rius, Estius, Peiree, Bengel, M’Lean, Schulz, Theophylact, Primasius, Calvin, Grotius, 
 Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel. Tholuck, Hammond, Owen, M’Lean, B6hme, Kuinoel, 
 Bloomfield, Conybeare, Bisping, Delitzsch, Stuart, Klee, Bloomfield. 
 
570 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 the same time, there lies in the emphatically preposed participle, on 
 account of its reciprocal relation to érewaywyy, ver. 19. at least the addi- 
 tional indication delicately conveyed, that this évroA#, since just as a mere 
 precursor of something future it points beyond itself, naturally bears the 
 character of the merely temporary and consequently unsatisfactory —0é.a 7d 
 airig acvevic kai avugeréc] on account of its weakness and unprofitableness. 
 The évroA4 was weak, since it did not possess the strength to attain its ob- 
 ject, namely, the-reconciliation of men to God; but, because in such man- 
 ner it did not fulfill the end of its existence, it became for that very reason 
 something unprofitable and unserviceable. On acdevéc, comp. Rom. viii. 
 3; Gal. iv. 9.—oidév] is not to be limited by means of oidéva (Chrysostom, 
 Oecumenius, Theophylact, Schlichting, Grotius, Carpzov, Kuinoel, Bis- 
 ping), but, on the contrary, is to be left in the full universality of the neu- 
 ter. Completion in general, in whatever respect, the law was not in a 
 position to bring about.—ére:saywy4] adoubly composite term. Literally : 
 introduction upon or in addition to, i. e. the bringing in of something new in 
 addition to, or over and above, an object already present (here: in addi- 
 tion to the xpodyovoa évroaf, ver. 18). éri in érevoaywyf corresponds 
 therefore to the zpé in xpoayotanc.—xpeittovoc éAridoc] of a better hope, se. 
 than the zpoayovsa évt02#4 was in a position to afford.! Better, more excel- 
 _ lent, is the hope founded upon the newly instituted priesthood, in that this 
 hope is certain and infallible, thus in reality leads to the desired: goal.— 
 Ov ne éyyiouev tO Ge] by means of which we draw nigh unto God (Jas. iv. 8). 
 Comp. vi. 19: eicepyouévny ei¢ rd éodtepoy Tov KaTaTteTaopuatoc, and x. 19 ff. 
 In contrast with the character of the Old Covenant, since the people were 
 not permitted to enter the Most Holy Place, where the throne of Jehovah 
 was. Cf. 1x.,6 71. 
 
 Vv. 20-22. [On Vv. 20-28, see Note LXIV., pages 582, 583.] As one 
 element in the superiority of the everlasting priesthood after the manner 
 of Melchisedec, assigned to Christ, over the Levitical priesthood has been 
 already -implicitly brought forward, vv. 18, 19, namely, that the goal, for 
 the attainment of which the strength was lacking to the Levitical priest- 
 hood, is really attained by the everlasting priesthood. A second point of 
 superiority in the new order of things over the old follows in vv. 20-22. 
 Of less moment than the everlasting priesthood of Jesus must the Levitical 
 priesthood be; for the former was constituted by God by virtue of a 
 declaration upon oath, the latter without a declaration upon oath, Vv. 
 20-22 form again a single period, the protasis being contained in ka? xa6, 
 
 1 We have not to explain, with Schulz: “So 
 is then ... something better introduced, the 
 hope, by virtue of which,” ete. To the same 
 result as Schulz does Delitzsch also come, 
 when he observes: “It is not meant that the 
 law also afforded a hope, and that the one 
 introduced by the word of the psalm is only 
 by comparison better; but the xpeittwy éAmis, 
 which possesses that which is truly perfected 
 in the future, in the world beyond the grave, 
 
 into which its anchor has been sunk (vi. 19), 
 stands opposed to the évtoAy in the present 
 state of its unsatisfying praxis.” In the same 
 manner, lastly, Alford: “The contrast is be- 
 tween the mpoayovoa évroAy, weak and un- 
 profitable, and a better thing, viz. the €Amis, 
 which brings us neartoGod. This cpe(rroveg 
 TWos, TouTeaTLv eAmidos K.T.A., is expressed by 
 KpettTovos €Amidos.” 
 
CHAP. vil. 20-22. ay Al 
 
 doov vv ywpic¢ dpKwpooiac, tO which then kai rocovro x.7.2. ver. 22, corresponds 
 as the apodosis, while all that intervenes (oi yév yap, to the end of ver. 21) 
 is a parenthesis. [LXIV a.] Wrongly do Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, 
 Calvin (in the translation), Er. Schmid, and others join Kai xa boov ob Ywpic 
 épkwpociac, too, to the closing words of ver. 19: and, indeed, a hope which is 
 better, inasmuch as it is not brought in without an oath. So also Luther: 
 “and moreover, which is a great thing, not without oath ; ” while, with 
 not less violence, Lud. Cappellus, who, in enclosing vy. 18, 19 within a 
 parenthesis, and taking Kai Kaf boon ob ywpic épkwpooiac With ver. 17, gives as 
 the sense: “ Deus constituit Christum sacerdotem secundum ordinem Mel- 
 chisedec, et quidem non sine jurejurando.”—xa‘] coupling on a farther 
 link in the chain of enumeration, as VV. 8, 9, 28.—xai Ka? boov ov yopic 
 dpkwpociac] sc. iepedy éoTw yeyovoc ; and inasmuch (ix. 27) as He has become 
 priest not without a declaration upon oath, i.e. He has not become so without 
 God having sanctioned His appointment to be a priest by a declaration 
 upon oath (namely, by virtue of the oath, with which the declaration, Ps. 
 ex. 4, is introduced). Only this mode of supplementing is warranted by 
 the connection, as is shown partly by the of ev yap xupic dpxwpociac elotv 
 iepeic¢ yeyovoTes immediately following, partly by the circumstance that 
 the author is still engaged in the exposition of the Seripture statement, 
 yer. 17, this statement thus containing for him the gist of the matter; as, 
 accordingly, this declaration of Scripture is repeated anew, ver. 21, and 
 then likewise the evoiv iepecc yeyovérec recurs in the further member 
 of the thought, ver. 23 f. The explanation therefore of Seb. Schmidt, 
 Wolf, Heinrichs, Bohme, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Alford, Kurtz, and others is to 
 be rejected; when to xaf ocov ob yopi¢ épkwpociac they supplement from the 
 apodosis duafjxne Eyyvoc yéyovev; as also that of Storr, Schulz, Bleek, de 
 Wette, Tholuck, Bisping, Delitzsch, Moll, and Hofmann, when they sup- 
 ply roiro (se. érecoaywyn KpeltTovoc éAmidoc) ylveTar (yéyovev).—ol peév yap | 
 [LXIV 6, c.] namely, the Levitical priests.—xopic épkapociac] since nothing 
 is related in Scripture of an oath of God, when He destined Aaron and 
 his posterity to be priests.—eioiv yeyovérec] forms one idea: have become. 
 Wrongly, Paulus and Klee: are priests who have become so without an 
 oath. Bohme (and so also Hofmann): “sunt sacerdotes, sed sine jura- 
 mento (illi quidem singuli deinceps) facti »__which must have been ex- 
 pressed by eiciv iepeic yuopic dpKupooiag yeyovéTes. Still more widely mistaken 
 the view of Michaelis ad Peirce. : “ fuerunt, j.e. esse desierunt,”—which is 
 grammatically as well as logically impossible. The tempus periphrasticum 
 eioiv yeyorérec marks the fact already belonging to the past as still extend- 
 ing onwards into the present.—é 6é] namely, Christ.—pe épxwpociac] sc. 
 iepebe éotw yeyovac.—dia Tov Aéyovroe mpoc avTov] 2. e. in the sense of the author: 
 by God, not: by the psalmist (Rambach, Heinrichs), although certainly the 
 statement, Ps. cx. 4, that God hath sworn and will not repent of this oath, 
 forms nota constituent part of the words of God Himself, but a remark of 
 the psalmist, with which he introduces the words of God. Yet, when in the 
 psalm it is said that God has sworn, and of this oath He will not repent, 
 and then there is adduced as the subject-matter of this oath the declara- 
 
ye THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 tion : ov iepede «.7./., this is tantamount to saying that God has declared 
 by virtue of an irreversible oath: ot ispede «7.4. As, accordingly, the 
 psalmist is relating the words of God, so does he also relate the oath 
 which preceded them. 
 
 Ver. 22. The apodosis: Jesus has become the surety of a so much more ex- 
 cellent covenant, i.e. so much more excellent is the covenant of which Jesus 
 has become surety.—éyyvoc] in the N. T. only here. Comp. however, 2 
 Mace. x. 28; Ecclus. xxix. 15, 16.—Surety of a better covenant has Jesus 
 become, 7. e. in the person of Jesus pledge and guarantee is given that a 
 better covenant has been established by God. For Christ, the Son of 
 God, had become man in order to proclaim this covenant upon earth, had 
 sealed it by His sufferings and death, and had been mightily accredited 
 by His resurrection from the dead as a Founder of the Covenant who 
 had been sent by God.—incorrectly do Piscator, Owen, Calov, Wittich, 
 Braun, and others find the thought expressed that Christ became surety 
 to God for men, in that He vicariously took upon Himself the guilt which 
 they must have borne; while, just as erroneously, Limborch, Baumgarten, 
 Chr. Fr. Schmid, and others contend that a reciprocal suretyship, for God 
 with men and for men with God, ismeant. Each of these views has the con- 
 text against it; since there respect is had only to that which has been guar- 
 anteed to men by the new order of things. Comp. ver. 19: kpeitrovoc éAridoc, 
 Ov ae éyyiopev TH VEO; VV. 25, 26.—Tyoovc] with emphasis placed at the end. 
 
 Vy. 23-25. [LXIV d, e.] Third point of superiority of the priesthood of 
 Christ over the Levitical priesthood. The Levitical priests die one after the 
 other; Christ’s priesthood, on the other hand, is, since He ever lives, an 
 unchangeable and intransitory one. The author consequently lays special 
 stress upon that point of superiority to which already, ver. 16 f. (comp. 
 ver. 8), he had pointed. 
 
 Ver. 23. Kai] parallel to the «ai, ver. 20.—kai of pév rAciovéc iow tepei¢ 
 ysyovérec| and they on the one hand have as several (or as a plurality) become 
 priests, i.e. of Levitical priests there is a multiplicity. Attention is not 
 here called to the peculiarity that many priests. always existed contem- 
 poraneously the one with the other (so Erasmus, Paraphr., Braun, De- 
 litzsch), or that “the Levitical priesthood was not given to one, but to a 
 lineage”? (Hofmann). That which is meant is—as is evident from the 
 immediately following 61a 7d Aavatw KwAbecbar rapauévery, and from ver. 24— 
 the successive plurality, in that one dies after another, and consequently 
 the one succeeds the other. For the author in thus speaking has before 
 his mind the high priests, since it is just with these that Christ is placed in 
 parallel. Comp. ver. 26 ff., al—d.ia 1d Oavatrw KwAbecbar rupapévery| because 
 (wrongly de Wette: “by the fact that’) they are (wrongly de Wette and 
 Bisping : “ were’’) prevented by death from continuing —rapapéve] not: év 
 th iepwovvy.’ It denotes, as is clear from the corresponding é:a 1d pévew 
 avrov ei¢ Tov alava, ver. 24, to continue in life? 
 
 130 Oecumenius, who is followed by Gro- Hebrderbr. pp. 459, 437; Alford, Maier, Kurtz 
 
 tius, Seb. Schmidt, Storr, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Hofmann, Woerner, and others. 
 Bloomfield, Delitasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des 2Comp. also Phil, i. 25, and Meyer ad loc, 
 
CHAP. VII. 22-25. 573 
 
 Ver. 24. The other, on the other hand, because (not “by the fact that,” 
 de Wette, Bisping) He abides unto eternity, has His priesthood as an un- 
 changeable one.—pévew ei¢ tov aidva] must not be explained, with Estius, 
 Seb. Schmidt, and others, of abiding for ever as priest. For in this way 
 the declaration of ver. 24 becomes tautological. The expression denotes 
 the everlasting duration of life (comp. John xii. 34, xxi. 22, 23; 1 Cor. xv. 
 6; Phil. i. 25), is thus equivalent to the mdavrore (pv, ver. 25.—arapaBaroc] a 
 word belonging to later Greek (comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 313), save here, 
 foreign to the N. T., as also to the LXX. Erasmus, Schlichting, Bengel, 
 Schulz, B6hme, Stengel, Stuart, Ebrard, Hofmann, Conybeare, and the 
 majority, take it in the active signification: not passing over to another, 
 thus remaining with the same person, or unchanging. More correctly, how- 
 ever, because more consistently with the demonstrable usage of the 
 language (see instances in Wetstein and Bleek), does Bleek, after the pre- 
 cedent of Elsner, insist upon the passive signification : “that which may 
 not be overstepped, transgressed ; therefore: inviolable, unalterable, im- 
 mutable,” which then, it is true, includes likewise the notion of ‘ un- 
 changing.” 
 
 Ver. 25. "Oev] Wherefore, sc. because His priesthood is an everlasting 
 one.—xai] also, represents the statement, ver. 25, as being the natural 
 effect of the azapaBartov éyew tv iepwodvyv, ver. 24, as its cause.—ei¢ 76 
 mavtedéc] means: perfectly, completely, entirely (comp. Luke xiii. 11), and 
 combines with céfew in one idea. 
 Kal TeAgiav owTnpiay Tapéyev. 
 
 Theodoret : airov yap cdleww jude eipyrev 
 The meaning: in perpetuum, attached to the 
 word by the Peshito, the Vulgate, Chrysostom (0b xpdc 7d rapdv pévor, 
 onoiv, aAAad Kai Exel Ev TH weAAobon SoH), Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, 
 Calvin, Schlichting, Grotius, Heinrichs, Schulz, Stein, Stengel, and others, 
 in joining it either with céfew or with divata, is in accordance neither 
 with the etymology nor the usage (instances in Bleek), but arises only 
 from the connection, and is consequently to be rejected.—cdfew] save, 
 embraces the deliverance from the misery of sin and its consequences, 
 and, on the other hand, the communication of everlasting blessedness. 
 Too restricted, Hofmann: the answering of prayer, and deliverance out 
 of every assault.—rod¢ mpocepyouévove dv aitod TH Be@] those who through 
 Him, i.e. through faith in Him, draw near to God.—rdvrore Cav eic ro évrvy- 
 xavew ixép aitav] seeing that He evermore lives, to make intercession for them 
 (Rom. vill. 26, 27, 34), or to represent them (sc.in the presence of God). 
 More precise unfolding of the notion already lying in 6%«v.—Similarly 
 for the rest does Philo, too, ascribe to his Logos an intercession with God.? 
 
 Vv. 26-28. [LXIV f-i.] Fourth point of superiority of the priesthood of 
 
 1So0, as it would seem, already Theodoret 
 (obros Sé aBavatos wy els ETEpov OV TapaTéurTeL 
 THS Lepwovvns TO yépas), Oecumenius (adcado- 
 
 TOV KOTLOV TATPL, TapakANTw xpnoTOat TeAELOTATW 
 THY APETHY Via, TPOS TE AuVyOTiaY amapTHuaTwr 
 Kat xopnylav abOovwrdtwv ayabav.—Quis. rer. 
 
 xov, ateAevtTnTov), Theophylact (aécaxcorov, 
 ad.adoxor). 
 
 2Comp. Vit. Mos. iii. p. 673 C (with Mangey, 
 II. p. 155): "Avaykatov yap hv Tov iepwuevov To 
 
 div. haer. 42, p.509 B (with Mangey, I. p. 501): 
 ‘O & avtos ixetns ev eote TOD SvyTOV, Knpaivor- 
 TOS aél, Tpos TO abdapTor. 
 
574 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Christ over the Levitical priesthood, in the form of an establishing of ver. 25. 
 The Levitical priests are sinful men, who need daily to offer for their own 
 sins and the sins of the people; Christ is the sinless Son of God, who once 
 for all has offered up Himself as a sacrifice. 
 
 Ver. 26. Proof for the actual existence of a high priest who is able in a 
 perfect manner to procure salvation, since He ever liveth to represent in 
 the presence of God those who believe in Him (ver. 25), derived from the 
 meetness and adaptedness to our need of just such a high priest: for such a 
 high priest (as had just been described, ver. 25) also beseemed us. tovovtoc 
 begins no parenthesis, so that éovo¢ «.7.A. were only “the continuation of 
 a series begun with mévrore (év eic¢ ro évtvyxaveww bxép aitov” (Hofmann), 
 nor is “oloc 6 ’Iycove to be supplemented from ver. 22” (Woerner), nor 
 does it serve for the introducing or preparing the way for the following 
 predicates, éovo¢ «7.2. (Grotius, Tholuck, al.), but refers back to the char- 
 acterization, ver. 25; while, then, with 6éov¢ «7.4. a newly beginning 
 further description of this so constituted high priest, or a further unfolding 
 of the rowiroc, follows, in such wise that the éovo¢ «.7.4. thus attached is 
 best rendered by: He, since He is holy, etc., beseemed us.—xai] also, 7. e. 
 exactly. See Winer, p. 408 [E. T. 488].—éovoc] holy or pure. In regard to 
 the relation towards God.'—daxaxoc] free from xaxia, from craft and malice. 
 In regard to the relation towards men2—ayiavroc] unstained by any kind of 
 impurity. In regard to the relation towards Himself.t—xeyopiouévoc ard 
 Tov auapTwAav] separated from the sinners, t.e. not: different from them by 
 reason of His sinlessness,* but—as is evident from the member immedi- 
 ately following—withdrawn by His exaltation to heaven from all contact with 
 the sinners, so that He cannot be defiled by them. As the Levitical priests 
 in general, so must very specially the high priest preserve himself free 
 from defilement (Lev. xxi. 10 ff.); before the great,day of atonement he 
 must, according to the Talmud, spend seven days in the temple, apart 
 from his family, in order to be secured against defilement.’\—xai iynAdrevoe 
 TOY ovpavav yevduevoc] and (not “also” or “ even,” as Hofmann contends) 
 raised above the heavens, inasmuch, namely, as He deAgavbe rov¢ ovpavoic, 
 iv. 14. Comp. Eph. iv. 10: 6 dvaBac¢ irepdve ravtwv Tov obpavar. 
 
 Ver. 27. In the rpérepov irép tov Wiwy auaptidv, éxerta TOV Tov Aaov there 
 is an apparent allusion to the sacrifice of the high priest on the great day 
 of atonement (Ley. xvi.), comp. ix. 7. We are prevented, however, from 
 referring the words to this alone (perhaps to the including of the sin-offer- © 
 ing prescribed, Lev. iv. 3 ff.) by «a@’ #uépav, instead of which, as at ix. 
 25, x. 1, 3, Kaz’ éviavtév must have been placed. For xaW® juépav can 
 signify nothing else than “ daily ” or “day by day.” To foist upon it the 
 
 1 Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 10; Eph. iv. 24; 1 Tim. 8 Comp. Jas. i. 27; 1 Pet. i. 4. 
 li. 8; Tit. i.8 With the LXX. for the most 4So the Peshito, separatus a peccatis ; Vata- 
 part translation of WOM, e.g. Ps. iv. 4 (3), xvi. blus, Calvin, Cameron, Carpzoy, Owen, Bohme, 
 10 (Acts ii. 27, xiii. 35), xxx. 5 (4). .- Kuinoel, Stuart, Klee, Ebrard, Bloomfield, 
 2 Chrysostom: "Akakos ti éotiv ; ‘“Amdvypos, Kurtz, and others. 
 ovx UzrovAos" Kal OTL TOLOUTOS, GkoVE TOU TpOd?- 5See Tract. Joma, i.1. Comp. also Schott 
 
 Tov A€yovtos’ Ovde evpedy Soros ev TO oTOmaT.. gen, Horae Hebraicae, p. 963 f. 
 evre® “{sa. lili. 9). 
 
CHAP. vil. 26, 27. 575 
 
 signification : “ yearly ona definite day” (“kad juéoav dpiopévyy or tetay- 
 pévyv’’), with Schlichting (secundum diem, nempe statam ac definitam, 
 in anniversario illo videlicet sacrificio), Piscator, Starck, Peirce, Chr. Fr. 
 Schmid, M’Lean, Storr, and others; or to take it in the attenuated sense, 
 as equivalent to “saepissime, quoties res fert” (Grotius, Owen), or “ zoA- 
 Aang” (BOhme, Stein), or “dia zavtéc”’ (de Wette), or in the sense of “ one 
 day after another” (Ebrard, who supposes the author is overlooking a 
 succession of centuries, and so a succession of days present themselves to 
 his eye, in which the high priest again and again offers a sacrifice !), is 
 linguistically unwarranted. In like manner it is a mere subterfuge and 
 arbitrary misinterpreting of the words, when Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. 
 des Hebrierbr. p. 488), and Alford, concurring in the suggestion of Hof- 
 mann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 404 f., 2 Aufl.), seek to put into them the sense: 
 that Christ needeth not to do daily that which the high priests do once 
 every year, but which He—if He is to be a constant mediator of an all- 
 embracing expiation of sin—must needs do day by day. For all that is 
 expressed is the fact that Christ needs not to do daily that which the 
 Levitical high priests need to do daily.!. Nor does it avail anything that 
 Kurtz will take ca¥ juépay in conjunction only with otk éyec avdyxny, 
 since these words do not occupy an independent position alone, and only 
 acquire their more precise definition by that which follows. For that ca¥ 
 juépav has “nothing whatever to do with the @vaiac avadépey,” is a mere 
 assertion on the part of Kurtz; and his contention, that only the “daily 
 renewal and daily pressing necessity,” of the O. T. high priest on account 
 of his daily sinning, the necessity, “ere (on the great day of propitiation) 
 he could offer for the sin of the whole people, of first presenting a sacri- 
 fice for his own sins,” was to be brought into relief, is a violent perversion 
 of the words,—admitting as they do of no misapprehension,—from which 
 even the rpérepov, éxeira, expressive of a relation of parity, ought to have 
 kept him; in place of which, in order to bring out the subsidiary charac- 
 ter of the one half of the statement, xpd row with the infinitive, or zpiv 
 (xpiv 7), must have been written. We have therefore to conclude, with 
 Gerhard, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Wolf, Carpzov, Bleek, and Tholuck, 
 that the author had present to his mind, besides the principal sacrifice on 
 the great day of atonement, at the same time the ordinary daily sacrifice 
 of the Levitical priests (Ex. xxix. 38-42; Num. xxviii. 3-8), and by reason 
 of an inexact mode of expression blended the two together; to which he 
 might the more easily be led, in that, according to Josephus, the high 
 priest—not indeed always, but yet on the Sabbaths, new moons, and other 
 festivals (according to the Mishna tr. Tamith, vii.3: in general as often as 
 be was so minded)—went up with the other priests into the temple, and 
 took part in the sacrificial service.? To be compared also are the words 
 
 1 The unsatisfactory character of the above 1860, H. 4, p. 595). 
 exposition was afterwards acknowledged by 2Comp. Josephus, de Bello Judaico, v. 5.7: 
 Delitzsch himself, and the explanation re- ‘O dé apxtepeds avyjer wev adv avTOLS GAN’ OK ae, 
 tracted by him (in Rudelbach and Guericke’s tats 8 é€Bdouaor Kai voupynviats, Kat El TLs EOPTT 
 Zeitscnr.f. die gesammte luther. Theol. u. Kirche, TaTpLos H Tavyyupis Tavdnwos ayouern di’ eTOus 
 
576 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 of Philo, who, Quis rer. divin. haer. p. 505 A (with Mangey, I. p. 497), re- 
 marks that in the daily sacrifice the priests offered the oblation for them- 
 selves, but the lambs for the people,! and de Speciall. Legg. p. 797 E (with 
 Mangey, II. p. 321), equally as our passage, ascribes to the high priest the 
 offering of a daily sacrifice.” Recently also Delitzsch * has further drawn 
 attention to the fact that likewise, Jer. Chagiga, 1.4, and Bab. Pesachim, 
 57a, it is said of the high priest that he offers daily—rovro] namely, 76 ixép 
 tov vov Aaod duapti@v Ovoiav avagéperv. So rightly—as is even demanded by 
 ver. 28 (comp. iv. 15)—Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius, 
 Estius, Piscator, Clericus, Seb. Schmidt, Owen, Peirce, Carpzov, Whitby, 
 Storr, Heinrichs, Bohme, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Bloom- 
 field, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 463), Alford, 
 Kurtz, and others. Less suitably do Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, 
 Bengel, and Ebrard supplement 70 @voia¢ dvagépeww; while, altogether 
 wrongly, Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, and Hofmann (Schrijtbew. II. 
 1, 2 Aufl..pp. 405, 401 f.) refer back rovro to the whole proposition xpérepov 
 ... Aad. For in the application to Christ, to explain the duapria as the 
 “dolores, qui solent peccatorum poenae esse, et quas Christus occasione 
 etiam peccatorum humani generis toleravit, et a quibus liberatus est per 
 mortem ” (Grotius), or as “ Christi infirmitates et perpessiones ” (Schlicht- 
 ing, Hofmann, according to which latter in connection with éavrdv ave- 
 véyxac, besides Christ’s suffering of death, His prayer in Gethsemane (!) is 
 at the same time to be thought of ), becomes possible only on the arbitrary 
 supposition of a double sense to the preceding words, and is equally much 
 opposed to the context (ver. 28) as to the linguistic use of duapriaz.—egarat ] 
 once for all; comp. ix. 12, x. 10; Rom. vi. 10. Belongs to éroijcev, not to 
 avevéykac.—éavrov avevéyxac] in that He offered Himself. Christ is thus not 
 only the High Priest of the New Covenant, but also the victim offered. 
 Comp. viii. 8, ix. 12, 14, 25 f., x. 10, 12, 14; Eph. v. 2. 
 
 Ver. 28. Establishment: of rovro éxoincev égarak, ver. 27, by the definite 
 formulating of the statement of the fourth point of superiority of the New 
 Testament High Priest over the high priests of the Old Covenant,—a statement 
 for which the way has been prepared by vv. 26, 27. The law constitutes 
 
 ‘high priests men who are subject to weakness, and thus also to sin (comp. 
 y. 2, 3), on which account they have to offer, as for the people, so also for 
 themselves, and have ofttimes to repeat this sacrifice; the word of the 
 oath, on the other hand (comp. ver. 21), which ensued after the law,— 
 namely, only in the time of David,—and consequently annulled the law, 
 ordains as high priest the Son (see on i. 1), who is for ever perfected, 7. e. 
 without sin (iv. 15), and by His exaltation withdrawn from all human 
 aodéveca, however greatly He had part therein during His life on earth; 
 
 1’AAAG Kat Tas EvdeAexets Suolas Opas eis toa Ta Sixata Tos audiaBynTovGL KaTa TOUS VOUS, 
 Senpnnevas, hv Te Urép a’Tav avdyouaw oi lepeis EV XAS SE Kai dugias TEAOY Kad’ EKag- 
 dca THs oepidadews Kal THY UTEp TOU EtVoOUS TOV THV NMEpav. 
 Svolv apvayv, ovs avadepery dcetpyrat. 3 Talmudische Studien, XIII., in Rudelbach 
 2 OiTw Tod GvuTavTos edvoUs cUyyevns Kai ay- and Guericke’s Zeitschr. fiir die luther. Theol. 
 
 XLoTEVS KOLVOS O apxLEpE’s EOTL, TPUTAVEVWY LEV u. Kirche, 1860, H. 4, p. 593 f 
 
NOTES. 517 
 
 wherefore He needed not for Himself to present an expiatory sacrifice, 
 but only for the people, and, inasmuch as this fully accomplished its end, 
 He needed not to repeat the same.—Entirely misapprehending the rea- 
 soning of the author, Ebrard supposes that even the first half of the propo- 
 sition, ver. 28, is ikewise to be referred to Jesus. The author, he tells us, 
 presupposes as well known, that Christ has been as well dvdpuro¢ acvé- 
 vecav Exwov (according to chap. v.) as viog teteAewwpévog cic tov aldva (accord- 
 ing to chap. vil.), and is here recapitulating (!) the two. Thus, then, 6 
 vouog yap. . . aodévecay contains a concession (!) having reference to chap. 
 y., and the thought is: “the law (in so far as it has not (!) been annulled) 
 demands of all high priests (consequently (!) also of Jesus) that they be 
 avdpwro Eyovtec aodévercav; the sworn word of promise, however (given 
 after the law), proceeding far beyond and above the same, constitutes as 
 high priest the Son for ever perfected” (!). A misinterpreting of the 
 meaning, against which even the opposition of 6 véuoc . . . 6 Adyoc dé, as 
 a manifest parallel to of pay... 6 dé, ver. 20 f., ver. 23 f., ought to have 
 kept him.—rj¢ pera tov vduov] The author did not write 6 wera rov vdpor, 
 according to which the Vulgate and Luther translate, because he wished 
 to accentuate é6pkwpocia as the principal notion. 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 LXI. Vv. 1-3. 
 
 (a) Chap. vii. has an introductory passage (vv. 1-3), which sets forth the fact 
 that Melchisedec and Christ correspond in their priesthood to each other, and thenan 
 argument to prove the superiority of Christ’s priesthood to the Levitical, because 
 it is after the order of Melchisedec. This superiority is set forth, 1. as connected 
 with the matter of tithes, vv. 4-10; 2. as connected with the inability of the 
 Levitical system to accomplish the end proposed (reAeiwore), vv. 11--19; 3. as con- 
 nected with the appointment with an oath, vv. 20-22; 4. as connected with per. 
 manent life, vv. 28-25; 5. as connected with the completeness of the single 
 sacrifice, vv. 26-28. 
 
 (b) yap of ver. 1, evidently connects vy. 1-3 with vi. 20 b. The object of these 
 three verses, accordingly, is to set forth the fact that the priesthood of Christ and 
 that of Mel. are of the same order. For the accomplishment of this object, the 
 writer brings out with emphasis the great and fundamental point in which their 
 priesthood differs from the Levitical—the point in connection with which all the 
 other distinguishing peculiarities of the Melchisedec-Christ-priesthood naturally 
 arise or manifest themselves. He thus prepares the way for the most impressive 
 and effective presentation of the detailed argument which follows. 
 
 (c) From the connection of the verses with vi. 20 6, we might naturally have 
 expected the form of statement to be: For Jesus, the Son of God, was made like 
 to Mel., in respect to the permanent character of his priesthood. Instead of this, 
 we find the author beginning with Mel., as the subject ; and it is said of him, that, 
 being made like the Son of God, he abides a priest continually. This change of 
 form, however, was easily adopted by the writer, because of the fact that the name of 
 Mel. was the closing word of the preceding chapter. The meaning, with either 
 
 37 
 
578 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 form, must be essentially the same.—(d) With reference to the interpretation of 
 the passage, accordingly, it must be noticed, that the subject under discussion, in 
 this section of the Epistle, is the priesthood of Christ, and that the comparison of 
 Christ with Melchisedek relates only to this point. When it is said, therefore, 
 that Mel. was without father and mother, and that he had neither beginning nor end 
 of life, the meaning of the writer is not: that Melchisedek as a man differed from 
 all other men, having no descent from ancestors and existing always; but that, 
 in respect to his priestly office, he did not depend on the tracing of a genealogy, as 
 the Levitical priests did, but had his priesthood “ continually abiding.” There is in 
 ver. 3 a parallelism, each part of which consists of three elements,—the last of the 
 three explaining the force and meaning of the first two. Without father, without 
 mother, that is to say, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor 
 end of life, that is to say, abiding a priest continually. The last-mentioned 
 phrase, by the exigencies or accidents of the sentence, is put in a verbal form; 
 but, when the thought is carefully examined, it is evident that the writer had 
 in mind the iikeness of Mel. to Christ in the points just mentioned, and thus that, 
 if the sentence had been written in precise accordance with the leading idea, it 
 would have read wjre.... Eyov, pévon 68 ispedc etc. T. digv, Adwuowty TO vid 
 tov Geov.—(e) We may believe that the writer did not intend to make any formal 
 declaration respecting Melchisedek, for the purpose of explaining to his readers 
 who or what that O. T., personage was. Such a declaration was unnecessary and 
 was hardly to have been expected. But in his setting forth of the exalted 
 character of Christ’s priesthood, as compared with the priesthood known to the 
 Jewish system, he takes this remarkable case of a priest, who suddenly appears 
 on the scene, in the O. T. history, having his priestly office in its full privileges 
 and prerogatives, and disappears again as suddenly, still having it and still in 
 life—a priest who rests his claims on no tracing of his genealogical line, and who, 
 so far as the narrative goes, has no recorded beginning or ending of his official 
 life—and he makes him serve as a means of accomplishing the end which he has 
 in view. 
 
 (f) In the presentation of the case of Melchisedek, the writer gives the details 
 of the brief O. T. story, and afterwards moves, in the development of his thought, 
 in the sphere of these, and of the Psalm-passage already cited which refers to 
 him, just as he does in all the other parts of the Epistle where he quotes from the 
 O. T. These details however, do not—as the careful reader will notice—belong 
 to the leading thought of this passage (vv. 1-3). The verb to which Mel. is sub- 
 ject is wévec of ver. 3, and the important or essential words connected with the , 
 subject, in its relation to the verb, are those of the earlier part of ver. 3. The 
 words of vy. 1, 2 set forth only what is secondary, so far as the present sentence is 
 concerned, and what is to find its use and emphasis in the verses which follow 
 (4-10). The significance of the name of Melchisedek and of the place where he 
 was king is not alluded to afterwards, but it is probably brought out as giving a 
 certain additional fitness and force to the comparison between him and Jesus. 
 
 (gy) The view held by Alford and some other writers, that Melchisedek is here 
 declared to be a person differing from common men in a mysterious and wonder- 
 ful manner—not having been born in the ordinary human way, and not having 
 been removed from the world by death—rests on the assumption that the author of 
 the Epistle could not have used the case of Mel. as illustrative, without intending to 
 make some dogmatic statement respecting him, an assumption which is neither 
 
NOTES. 579 
 
 necessary nor capable of proof. This view is, also, exposed to three serious, if not 
 fatal objections :—1. that the author of the Epistle is so far from making any full 
 and clear affirmation on the subject, that even such writers themselves are com- 
 pelled to admit (as Alf. does) that, “when they come to inquire what high and 
 mysterious eminence is here allotted to Mel.,” they “have no data whereon to 
 decide” ; 2. that the O. T. gives, in the story in Genesis, not even the slightest 
 hint of any such mysterious eminence, and makesno allusion whatever to Melchisedek 
 elsewhere, except in the Psalm-passage cited in v. 6; 3. that we have no reason, 
 independently of what is supposed to be discovered in these verses, to believe that 
 any man since Adam has been actually without father or mother, beginning of 
 days or end of life, and, on the other hand, every reason to believe that no such 
 man kas existed. 
 
 (h) The phrase pare apyiv juepOv k.7.A. is, as Liinem. says, not to be limited to 
 the beginning and end of the priesthood (as Hefmann and some others hold), but 
 is to be taken as meaning, that nothing is related in Holy Scripture either of his 
 birth or death. But the reference of the whole sentence is to the priesthood, and 
 these words, by reason of this reference, are to be understood as indicating that 
 Mel. had an office which was independent of the record of birth and death, and 
 was, therefore, permanent by virtue of a life-force (comp. ver. 16), in contrast to 
 the Leyitical priests. 
 
 LXII. Vv. 4-10. 
 
 (a) The whole of this passage has reference to the matter of tithes, as con- 
 nected with the story of Melchisedek and Abraham. The subject is presented 
 in three points: 1. vv. 5-7; 2. ver. 8; 3. vv. 9, 10, as, also, set forth by Ltine- 
 mann, in his note. It is to be observed, however, with respect to the second 
 point, that the fact of death and life as bearing on the priesthood is not here 
 considered independently, as it is in vv. 23-25, but in relation to the taking of 
 tithes. 
 
 (6) As to the words and phrases of this passage, the following points may be 
 noticed. 1. The writer takes special pains to set forth the exaltation of Mel., as 
 illustrating that of Christ. This is evident from his mode of expression ; comp. 
 mndixoc, with the imperative G@swpeire calling attention to it; the placing of 
 6 maTpiapyn¢ at the end of the sentence (ver. 4), as showing that the head of the 
 Jewish race acknowledged the dignity of Mel. ; the manner in which the exaltation 
 of the Levitical priests above the rest of the descendants of Abr., is presented in 
 ver. 5, and in which they are then made inferior to Mel., in that the latter was 
 above Abr. himself; the adding of the fact of the blessing which Mel. pronounced, 
 as indicating elevated position.—2. There can be little doubt that Liinem. is 
 correct in his explanation of Sewpeite (ver. 4) as an imperative ; of kata Tov vduov 
 (ver 5) as qualifying évroAyy Eyovow; of é& avrav (ver. 6) as referring to the sons 
 of Levi; and of the connection of ver. 7 with ver. 6 by dé—ver. 7 being the 
 major premise of a syllogism and ver. 6 the minor, while the conclusion is left 
 to be supplied from the evident suggestion of the two verses.—3. With reference 
 to the question where the writer found the declaration alluded to in the words 
 paprroobuevoc bre CH (ver. 8)—whether in the silence of Gen. xiv. or in the words 
 of Ps. ex. 4, or in both—the fact that the expression is in a positive form; the 
 presence of the participle wapr., when compared with japrupeiras, followed by the 
 
580 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Ps., passage, in ver. 17; and the introduction of the verse from the Ps. in con: 
 nection with the allusion to the priesthood as by virtue of a life-force, vv. 16. 17, 
 favor the second supposition. If this view is correct, however, it does not invoive 
 the necessity of believing that Melchisedek never died—4. The statement that 
 Levi paid tithes to Mel., because he was in the loins of Abraham, who was his 
 great-grandfather, is suggestive as to the question of the propriety of interpreting 
 the popular language of the N. T. writers according to the ordinary rules and 
 usage of such language. 
 
 LXITI. Vv. 11-19. 
 
 (a) The superiority of Christ as priest after the Melchisedek-order is presented 
 in these verses (see note LXI a) as connected with the inability of the Levitical 
 system to accomplish the end proposed, namely, the perfecting of the worshipers. 
 The development of this subject is as follows:—1. If the Levitical priesthood 
 could have secured the end, no other priest of a different order, would have 
 arisen, vv. 11, 12; 2. Such a different priest, however, has arisen, as is shown (z) 
 by the fact, that our Lord came from a different tribe; namely, from that of Levi, 
 vv. 13, 14, and (y) by the fact, that the source of His priestly office and power is 
 different from that of the Levitical priestly office, vv. 15-17; 3. Accordingly the 
 old priesthood is set aside and a better one introduced. 
 
 (6) The first of these points (vv. 11, 12) is rendered more emphatic by the 
 suggestion, that, if the priesthood was to be changed, it would involve the change 
 of the entire legal system, since this institution was the central and fundamental 
 thing in that system. This explanation of ver. 12 and the parenthetical clause of 
 ver. 11 is objected to by Liinem. He holds that there are two co-ordinate 
 thoughts, which the writer designs to bring out—that the Levitical priesthood, 
 and also the Mosaic law, have lost their validity; Ver. 11, in its parenthesis, shows 
 the close connection of the priesthood and the law, and implies that, if the former 
 is imperfect and unsatisfying, the same is true of the latter; ver. 12, on the other 
 hand, is simply a corroboration of the parenthesis of ver. 11. But there is no in- 
 dication in the passage of any such co-ordination of the two thoughts. As the 
 priesthood is the one subject of this whole section of the epistle, and of this entire 
 chapter, so it is the one subject of this passage. The law comes in only in two 
 - places, here and in ver. 19; and, in both cases, in a parenthetical and secondary 
 clause. The emphasis is wholly on the points mentioned above—that, if the old 
 priesthood had been sufficient, there would have been no new and different one ; 
 that a new one has been established ; and that the provision establishing the old 
 one has been removed. The explanation given in this note, on the contrary, 
 satisfies all the demands of the passage and bears along the thought in the most 
 simple and natural way. 
 
 (c) Alf. renders et év oiv by the English if again. He and Bleek carry back 
 the thought to vi. 20 6. Liinem. connects immediately with vv. 5-10. As related 
 to the development of the main idea Alf. and Bleek are probably correct, but it 
 may be that the writer intended, in vv. 5 ff., to suggest the imperfection of the 
 Levitical priesthood, though of course, only subordinately, to the principal thought 
 of those verses.—(d) The insertion of the words 6 Aad¢ yap x.t.A. parenthetically, 
 in ver. 11, instead of placing them in their more natural position after that verse, 
 was undoubtedly for the purpose of carrying the additional force of the suggestion, 
 
NOTES. osl 
 
 which they contain, into the conclusion expressed in tic éte «7.4. Such an 
 arrangement of sentences is characteristic of Paul, and may be observed e. g. in 
 Rom. y. 15-17 as related to the preceding and following context.—(e) R. V. gives 
 law as a marginal rendering of vowov (ver. 12). This rendering is proved to be 
 incorrect, here, by the fact that the writer is speaking of the Levitical priesthood ; 
 by the fact that vevouwobérytac must refer to the Mosaic law ; and by the fact that 6 
 vouoc is used in ver.19. It wasthe vital relation between the Levitical priesthood and 
 the particular law to which it appertained, that was to be emphasized —( f) yag 
 of ver. 13 proves the truth of the negative implied in tig éte ypeia x.7.A. of ver. 
 11. In thought, though not grammatically, it may be regarded as covering both 
 ver. 13 and vy. 15, 16. yap of ver. 14, on the other hand, gives the proof of the 
 statement of ver. 13. Ver. 15 and ver. 13 are co-ordinate, not ver. 15 and ver. 
 14.—(g) The distinction between the Mel. priest and the Levit., which made 
 them to be of two “different orders,” is set forth in ver. 16. The latter was 
 appointed in accordance with, and by virtue of, the rule or provision of an earthly 
 temporary ordinance (kata vduov évtoAqje capKivyg) ; the former by virtue of the 
 power of his own indestructible life-force (kata divayev Cuyg axatadirov), The 
 words are suggested, on the one hand, by the provisions of the Mosaic law, and, on 
 the other, by the fact respecting the story of Melchisedek which is noted in ver. 3 
 (uate .... Cwec), and by the declaration of Ps. cx. 4. apxivyg has reference here 
 to what is external and passing away, rather than what is evil, or what is merely 
 physical. Zw7j¢ axatad, denotes, not endless life as a general idea, but the indis- 
 soluble life in Christ Himself—(h) The variation in the arrangement of the words 
 in the Ps.-passage, in the different places where it is cited, will be noticed by the 
 careful reader. The arrangement is in accordance with the emphasis desired in 
 each case. 
 
 (i) Vv. 18, 19, being introduced by yap, are grammatically, and in the 
 immediate connection of thought, united with vv. 15-17. They serve to show 
 that the argument of vy. 15, 16 may properly be urged, because the Psalm-passage 
 really involves what is said in vv. 18, 19. But, as related to the main idea of the 
 whole passage (vv. 11-19), they may be regarded as suggesting the conclusion of 
 the argument, or the summation of the thought (see (a) above): “There is a 
 disannulling,” ete.—(j) As to the words of these two verses, it is to be noticed: 
 1. that uév of ver. 18 and dé of ver. 19 are correlative; 2. that yivera is correctly 
 explained by Liinem.—if the grammatical connection only is considered—as mean- 
 ing results i.e. in the declaration of God, Ps. ex. 4; if the development of the 
 leading thought is considered, however, the meaning takes place may be suggested. 
 The translation of A. V. and R. V. there is may, possibly, be regarded as including 
 the two; 3. that évr0A7 refers to the ordinance respecting the Levitical priesthood, 
 and not to the whole law. This is evident from the use of évr0/7 in ver. 16, and 
 from the distinction made, both in this verse (évT04%7 and véuoc) and in vy. 11, 12, 
 between the institution of the priesthood and the law, as between a part and 
 the whole; 4. that the words dofevéc and avadeAée are to be determined in their 
 special force and application by the TeAeiwove of ver. 11; 5. that the parenthetical 
 clause (ovdév yap x.7.4.) reasons from the whole to the part—as the law made 
 nothing perfect, so the ordinance respecting the priesthood was weak, etc.; 6. 
 that the hope is “better” because sure to be realized; 7. that in the words 6? 7¢ 
 éyyifouev t@ beg there is a foreshadowing of a thought which has its development 
 in the next section (viii. 1—x. 18). 
 
582 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 ’ LXIV. Vv. 20-28. 
 
 (a) The explanation which Liinem. gives of the construction of vv. 20-22 is te 
 be adopted, as is also his view respecting the words to be supplied with xa écox 
 ov x. dpkwu. (namely, iepeb¢ éor~v yeyovic), The arguments which he presents 
 for the supply of these last-mentioned words, rather than Tovro referring to éevoay, 
 7.4. of ver. 19, or dtabyxyg éyyvog yéyover, are conclusive. These verses, how- 
 ever, are not to be regarded, (as he supposes), as having a sort of parallelism with 
 vv. 18, 19,—the former verses setting forth one element in the superiority of the 
 everlasting priesthood, vv. 15, 16, 17, and these latter verses setting forth a second 
 element. The parallelism of vv. 20-22 is with vv. 11-19 and vy. 4-10, and they 
 present a third point of superiority in the Mel. priesthood above the Levitical. 
 The view of Uiinem. is incorrect, because the object of vv. 15-17 is not to set 
 forth the everlasting priesthood of Christ after the order of Mel., but the fact that 
 it is by virtue of the life-foree in Himself (which is, indeed, indestructible), and 
 not of an ordinance of the law.—(b) The parenthetical passage, in its relation to 
 the development of the argument, is kindred to the similar passages in vy. 11, 19, 
 though there is a slight difference occasioned by the demands of the thought in 
 each case.—(c) The fact that here the words of the Psalm-passage: “The Lord 
 sware” are introduced, as they have not been before—the argument here requiring 
 them,—and the fact that in «peirrovog dvabjxng we have again a foreshadowing of 
 the idea specially brought out in the next chapters, will be remarked by the 
 attentive reader. 
 
 (d) In vv. 23-25 the fourth point in the writer’s presentation of Christ’s 
 superiority as Mel.-priest (not the third, as Liinem. holds, see (a) above) is set 
 forth. This fourth point is the everlasting and unchanging character of the priest- 
 hood.—(e) Of the words in these three verses it may be said :—1. that mtapapévew 
 may be understood either of continuing in life, or in the priesthood. Liine- 
 mann holds the former view. The parallelism of the clauses, however, favors the 
 latter: they are many in number, because death prevents their continuance in 
 office; he is one. permanent -priest, because he abides ever in life;—2. that 
 azapaBarov is probably dealt with in’the right manner by R. V. (comp. also 
 A. V.)—being rendered in the passive sense in the text, unchangeable, and in the 
 active in the margin, that doth not pass to another. The possibilities of the case are 
 such, that both meanings must be recognized ; but the probabilities favor, in some 
 degree, the passive sense. See Bleek Comm. on Heb. Ist. ed. Vol. II. pp. 396 f. 
 
 (f) Vv. 26-28 present the fifth point of the argument (see Note LXI a). 
 The main thought of these verses is that of the sinlessness of Christ, in contrast to 
 the infirmity of the Levitical priests, as making the sacrifice which He offers 
 sufficient and complete, while theirs needed to be constantly repeated. This pas- 
 sage, again, is introduced by ydp in a grammatical subordination to the verses 
 which immediately precede, but logically, and in the development of the argu- 
 ment, it evidently has an independent foree—(g) The distinction made by 
 Liinem. in the reference of écv0c and the two following adjectives—that they 
 point to Christ’s relation to God, to men, and to Himself—is not improbably 
 correct, but it. is doubtful whether it can be affirmed as certainly so.—(h) With 
 respect to Ka? juépav (ver. 27), the most satisfactory explanation may be this: 
 that the high priest, being the head of the priesthood, is viewed as fuifilling all 
 the requirements of the O. T. system, and that all the other offerings are looked 
 
NOTES. 583 
 
 upon as, in a sense, pointing to and finding their consummation in the great offer- 
 ing of the High-priest on the day of atonement.—(i) vidv of ver. 28 is translated 
 by R. V., and correctly, a Son. The word is used here as it is in i. 2, and, though 
 it refers to Christ, it does not, like 6 vide, designate Him as the Son of God, but 
 describes Him as in contrast to the O. T. high-priests. He was not one who held 
 an office merely as a man, but one who stood in the relation to God of a Son in 
 the highest sense; as, in i. 1f., He is set forth, by the use of the same word, in 
 contrast to the prophets. The peculiarity of the writer’s style (noticed already 
 +n connection with v. 5, and elsewhere) by which, in an artistic, rhetorical way, 
 he unites one part of his epistle with another in the forms of expression employed, 
 is again manifest in this place—(j) That the writer, as he draws near to the 
 closing section of his Epistle, should anticipate its thought and expressions is not 
 strange. It seems, even, to be a part of his plan to do so; comp. ii. 17 f. iv. 14 ff 
 
084 ‘THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Ver. 1. éni roic Aeyouévore] B: év roic Aeyouévorc, Explanatory gloss.—Ver., 
 2. Recepta: kui ovK avdpwroc¢, But cai is wanting in B D* E*8, 17, It. 
 Arabb. Euseb. Already rejected by Mill. Rightly deleted by Lachm. Bleek, 
 Tisch. Alford.—Ver. 4. Elz. Matth. Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, have et pév yap. 
 Defended also by Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebréerbr. p. 504, Obs.), and 
 Reiche. But yap cannot be referred back to ver. 3, and upon the referring of it 
 back to ver. 2 the addition, ver. 3, would become aimless and inexplicable. More 
 in keeping logically, and better attested (by A B D* 8, 17, 73, 80, 187, Vulg. It. 
 Copt., al.), is the reading: et wév ovv, already commended to attention by 
 Griesbach, and adopted by Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford, which 
 is accordingly to be preferred.—Instead of the Recepta TOv ieptwv TOV Tpoo- 
 gepévtwv (approved by Bloomfield, who, however, encloses the first T@v within 
 brackets, and Reiche), Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford have rightly adopted 
 merely TOv tTpoogdepé6vTwy, Preferred also by Delitzsch. tTOv iepéwr, to the 
 rejection of which already Grotius, Mill, and Griesbach were inclined, is an 
 elucidatory gloss. It is condemned by the decisive authority of A B D* E* 8, 17, 
 67** 73, 137, al.. Vulg. It. Copt. Aeth. Arm.—rév] before véuov in the Recepta 
 (recently contended for by Bloomfield and Delitzsch) is to be deleted, with Lachm. 
 Tisch. and Alford, after A B &* 17, 57, 80, al., Theodoret. The later addition 
 of the article is more easily to be explained than its omission— Ver. 5. Elz.: 
 xotnonc. But atl the uncial mss., many cursives, Orig. Chrys. Theodoret, 
 Damasc. Oecum. Theophyl. have 7 9:4o0e7¢, which also is found in LXX. Ex. 
 xxv. 40. Commended by Griesbach. Rightly adopted already in the edd. 
 Erasm. 1, Ald. Stephan. 1, 2, and recently by Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, Lachin. 
 Tisch. and Alford. Approved also by Delitzsch and Reiche.—Ver. 6. In place 
 of the Receptu vuvi 6é, Lachm. reads, but without sufficient authority (B D* 
 Ath.): viv dé The more euphonious vvvi dé is protected by A D** D*** EK 
 L&, min., and many Fathers.—Instead of the Receptu tétev xe (B D*** 8*** 
 min. Damasc. [once] Theophyl. [cod.]), there is found in the edd. Complut. 
 Plantin. Geney. the peculiarly Attic form : tetvuyyxe. Thisis supported by 47, 
 72, 73, 74, al., Athan. (thrice), Bas. Antioch. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Best 
 attested isthe form : 7 é7v yev (by A D* K L&*80, 116, 117, al., Athan. Oecum. 
 Theophylact), which is therefore rightly preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 
 and Alford.—Ver. 8. airoic] So Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, 
 Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, after B D*** E L &***, 
 likewise, as it seems, almost all min. Chrys. Damasc. al.—Lachm, and Tisch, 1 
 and 8 read avrotc, But the attestation of the latter (A D* K &* 17, 39, a/., 
 Theodoret) is not at all decisive, and the accusative,seeing it requires the conjoining 
 with peu@duevoc, opposed to the context ; see the exposition. —Ver. 10. 7 dcad7jxn] 
 Lachm.: 7 d:ad {Kn [ov], after ADE. ovis found, indeed,also with the LXX. in 
 most Mss. (but not in the Cod. Alex.) ; yet, nevertheless,since it forms a tautological 
 
CHAP. VIII. 1. 585 
 
 addition, and does not correspond to the Hebrew original ("377 Nt 3), it probably 
 arose only by a mechanical repetition from the preceding dca¥yKky wov.—Ver. 11, 
 Recepta: 7ov_tAnoiov, But the weighty authority of all uncial mss. (B: Tov 
 ToAeityv), most cursives, as well as that of Syr. utr. Arabb. Copt. Arm. It. al, 
 Chrys. (codd.) Theodoret, Damasc. Aug. requires the reading: tov woAiTn», 
 already presented by the edd. Complut. Stephan. 1, 2, al., and later approved by 
 Bengel and Wetstein, as also adopted by Griesbach, Matthaei, Lachm. Scholz, 
 Bleek, Tisch. Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche, and others—a7d pcxpodv] Elz, 
 Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: a76 pekpodv avtav, But airav 
 is wanting in A B D* E* (?) K 8, 17, 31, 61, 73, 80, al., Copt. Arm. It. Vulg., 
 with Cyr. Chrys. al. Already suspected by Griesbach. Rightly deleted by Lachm. 
 Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 1 and 8, and Alford.—Ver. 12. xai tov ayapti@v avTav 
 kai TOV avoui@v avTov] The concluding words: kai TOV avou“ldv avTar, have 
 been taken for a gloss by Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, and 8, and Alford (comp. already 
 Beza and Grotius) ; and in accordance with B 8* 17, 23, Vulg. Copt. Basm. Syr. 
 Arab. Erp. rejected. They are also declared suspected by Delitzsch. But in 
 favor of their retention (Lachm. Bloomfield, Tisch. 7, Reiche) decides partly the 
 preponderating authority of A D EK L &8*** al., partly the recurrence of the 
 same words on the repetition of the citation x. i7. The addition might 
 easily be overlooked on account of the homoioteleuton. 
 
 Vv.1-13. [On Vv. 1-6, see Note LXV., pages 595, 596.] Not merely, how- 
 ever, as regards His person is Christ highly exalted above the Levitical 
 priests ; the sanctuary, too,in which He fulfills the office of High Priest, 
 is highly exalted above the Levitical sanctuary. For Christ sustains His 
 high-priestly office in the heavenly tabernacle, erected by God Himself, 
 of which as the archetype the earthly tabernacle, in which the Levitical 
 priests fulfill their office, isa mere copy. So much the more excellent 
 is the priestly ministry of Christ, in proportion as the Covenant of 
 which He is the Mediator is a better covenant, because resting upon the 
 foundation of better promises. The character of this promised New Coy- 
 enant is a more inward, spiritual one; and by the promise of a New Cov- 
 enant the Old is declared to be outworn and no longer serviceable. 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. [LXV b-e.] Kepatav 6é] Now a main point is. K egadacov is 
 not accusative absolute (Bengel), nor yet the ordinary accusative with a 
 Aéyw tovro to be supplemented (Ebrard), but nominative, and apposition to 
 the whole ensuing proposition : towirov . . . avOpwroc, ver. 2. Comp. Rom. 
 vill. 3. Just as xe@aaaov dé are also the kindred formulas: 1d dé péysorov, 
 TO dé dewvétatov, 76 éxyaTov, Td TeAevtaiov, etc., very frequently prefixed to a 
 whole clause by way of apposition! The expression ce¢d/acov itself is 
 here understood by many expositors in the sense of “swm,;” according to 
 which the author would express the intention of immediately compre- 
 hending or recapitulating the substance of all his previous disquisition in 
 a single statement.? This signification, however, although linguistically 
 
 1See Kiihner, II. p. 146, Obs. 2. haee esto summa”), Carpzoy (“ut rem sums 
 
 2So Laurentius Valla (“in summam au- matim et uno verbo complectar”), Stengel, 
 tem”), Erasmus, Clarius, Vatablus, Zeger, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p, 405), Co< 
 Calvin, H. Stephanus, Grotius (“ post tot dicta nybeare, M’Caul, ete. 
 
586 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 justified, is here cnadmissible, since the author is passing over to some- 
 thing essentially new; a recapitulation of the previous argument accord- 
 ingly does not take place at all. But neither is the anarthrous «e¢aaAavov— 
 although in itself this is not inadmissible—to be taken as equivalent to ré 
 Kedadaov, as is done by Theophylact (iva eliza 1d péysotov Kai ovvextixdrepor), 
 Bleek (“the essential thing, to which all else is subordinated”), Ebrard 
 (“the keystone’), Bisping (“the core of all”), Stuart, Delitzsch, Riehm, 
 Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. pp. 464, 481; Alford, Maier, Ewald, and others. 
 For, besides the further main point in the superiority of the N.'T. High 
 Priest over the Levitical high priests, here to be mentioned (namely, His 
 ministering in a better sanctuary), the author has yet before his mind the 
 elucidation of a third leading distinction (that of the better sacrifice pre- 
 sented by Christ). Comp. ix. 9 ff.—émi roi¢ Aeyouévorc] cannot be referred 
 back specially? to that which has already been said. For therewith the 
 participle present Aeyowévorcg doesnot agree; eipyuévorce must have been 
 put instead of it. Nor, accordingly, can the sense be: “in addition to 
 that already treated of” (Calov, Wolf, Rambach, Peirce, Storr, Ebrard, 
 al.). On the contrary, é7é must be taken in the signification: “upon 
 the supposition of,” “in the case of,” as ix. 17 and frequently, and ézi 
 Toig Aeyouévorg has essentially the same meaning as the genitive tév Aeyo- 
 pévov. Thus: nowa main point in the case of those things we are speaking of 
 (or: in our argument) is the following. —With the utmost violence does Hof- 
 mann tear the words asunder,’ in that he will have kegaAauv dé separated 
 from ézi roi¢ Aeyouévowc, and to the latter would supplement apyvepetoww, and 
 renders ; “besides those who are called high priests, we have a High Priest 
 who has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty.” That, 
 moreover, the thought thus resulting would be a senseless one,—inasmuch 
 as it would then*follow that Christians have several sorts of high priests,— 
 has already been pointed out by Nickel. For how arbitrary it is when 
 Hofmann seeks further to twist the statement, gained with so much toil, 
 in the sense: “ that the Christians possess a High Priest, compared with 
 whom those who are so called have for them no significance,” hardly needs 
 to be observed.—rowirov] is a preparation for the following é¢ é«afoev «7.2. 
 Wrongly does Béhme refer it back to rowitroc, vii. 26, and Carpzov to bp7Aé- 
 repog TOY ovpavav yevouevoc in the same verse. The latter, moreover, with 
 an erroneous accentuation of the éyouev: “habemus omnino talem pontifi- 
 cem sc. inpyAdrepov Tov obpavor, quippe qui adeo consedit ad dextram Dei 
 év Toi¢ ovpavoic,” in connection with which the progress of the discourse is 
 lost sight of, and the fact remains unnoticed that the centre of gravity in 
 the statement, vv. 1, 2, is contained only in ver. 2.—dc éxaficev év deEia Tod 
 Opdvov Tig weyadwobvyc év Toic ovpavoic] who has sat down at the right hand of 
 the throne of the Majesty in heaven (Ps. ex.). Comp.i.3: &afioev év defi rig 
 ueyadwobvac év dbypndoic—The opinion of Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, 
 
 1As is assumed by Erasmus, Clarius, Zeger, 2 Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 406, and so still 
 
 Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Hammond, in his commentary, p. 302 f. 
 Carpzoy, Schulz, Stein, Stengel, Ebrard, Ew- 3In Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, Feb. p. 110. 
 
 ald, and many others. 
 
CHAP. VIII. 2. 587 
 
 Klee, Bleek, and Alford, that the author designed by é«d@ccev, too, to 
 indicate a point of superiority in Christ over the Levitical high priests,— 
 inasmuch as the latter, when they entered the Most Holy Place, instead 
 of sitting down were required to stand,—is far-fetched. There is nothing 
 in the context to lead to such a supposition. It is otherwise (on account 
 of the express opposition there met with éoryKev . . . éxaficev) chap. x. 11, 
 12. év roice obpavoic] belongs to éxafioev, not to THe peyaAwoivync (Bohme), 
 since otherwise the article would have been repeated; still less to the 
 opening words of ver. 2(Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 405 f.), since 
 in that case rv dyiwy tay év Toic odpavoic AecTovpyéc Would have been the only 
 natural expression, the rhythmical proportion of vy. 1, 2 would have been 
 destroyed, and the év twyAoic, 1. 3, parallel to the év roi¢ ovpavoic in our pass- 
 age, would have remained unnoticed as regards its coherence with that 
 which precedes. 
 
 Ver. 2. Declaration of the capacity in which Christ has sat down at the 
 right hand of God: as a sacrificing priest of the true sanctuary and taber- 
 nacle, which the Lord erected, nota man. Ver. 2 is to be joined without 
 any comma to ver. 1. For only the qualification of the éxafcoev x.7.4., ver. 
 1, which is first added by means of ver. 2,—not merely the fact of the 
 kafica in itself, since this had already been often mentioned in the epistle, 
 —contains the new main feature which the author aims at bringing into 
 prominence.—rov dyiwv] is not masculine’ but neuter ; it denotes, however, 
 neither the holy things,? nor that which is required for the priestly service,’ nor 
 “such holy things as stand in essential relation to the oxyv7 aan6aq” but 
 the sanctuary,® in which (or: in regard to which) the priestly service is fper- 
 formed. Comp. ix. 8,12, 24, 25, x. 19, xiii. 11.—Synonymous with rév 
 dyiwv is the r#¢ oxnvge, added by way of elucidation; and from the adject- 
 ive of the latter, 77¢ aA7OcvqHc, We have also to supply in thought the 
 corresponding adjective Trav a276cv dv (comp. ix. 24) to the foregoing trav 
 dyiwv. For even the earthly high priest was a tév dyiwv Aetoupydc ; only a 
 TOV dyiwy TOV GANnOLVav AevToupydc he was NOt.—Aecroupydc¢ ] Comp. Aectoupyeiv, 
 x. 11, and Aecroupyia, ver. 6, ix. 21; Phil. ii. 17; Luke i. 28. With the classic 
 writers, Aectovpyée denotes the bearer of any public office, or office of the 
 State. In the general sense of a “servant” it stands i.7; Rom. xiii. 6; 
 Phil. ii. 25. But already with the LXX. (Neh. x. 39; ef. Ecclus. vii. 30, al.) 
 it is spoken specially of him who discharges priestly service. In accord- 
 ance therewith it has here, too (comp. ver. 3), as well as Rom. xv. 16, the 
 signification: sacrificing priest. tic a2nOu7jc] The oxyvq is called true, not in 
 opposition to the false, but as the archetype ® existing in heaven in contrast 
 with the earthly image of the same (ver. 5), which latter, as is always the 
 
 1Oecumenius: apxvepevs Pye TOV HyLagpev- Béhme, Stuart, Bloomfield, Bisping, De- 
 
 wv map avTov avipwrwy’ nuav yap eat. ap- 
 xtcpevs, Primasius, Cajetan, Schulz, Paulus, 
 Stengel. 
 
 2 Luther, Hunnius, Balduin. 
 
 8Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Rambach, Ewald. 
 
 4 Kurtz. 
 
 6 According to Erasmus, Jac. Cappellus, 
 
 litasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 
 513; Alford, Maier, and others, specially: the 
 Most Holy Place. 
 6 Comp. Wisd. ix. 8: etmas oikoSounoar vaor 
 . Kal... SvoLacTpPLOV, MiMAMA EKHVIS aylas, 
 qv TponToimacas am’ apx7s- 
 
988 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 case with the copy in relation to the original, could be only something 
 imperfect. jv érnfev] Comp. Ex. xxxiii. 7.—é xipioc] is here God, as else- 
 where in our epistle only in the O. T. citations.—é kipioc, vik avOpwroc] 
 Comp. oxyvig ob yetpororgror, 1X. 11; ov yecponoinra aya, ix. 24. 
 
 Ver. 8. [LXV /.] Subsidiary remark in justification of the expression 
 Aecrovpyéc, ver. 2. The Aectoupyeiv, or the presenting of sacrifices, is just 
 something essential in the fulfillment of the office of every high priest; a 
 Aecroupyéc, or sacrificing priest, must thus Christ also be. By the statement, 
 ver. 3, the argument itself is not interrupted. For enclosing the verse 
 within a parenthesis, with Cameron, Stengel, and others, there exists there- 
 fore no reason.—yap] the explanatory namely. On zag yap .. . kabiorara, 
 comp. Vv. 1: wag yap apyrepede . . . Kadiotata Ta Tpog TOV Vedv, iva Tpoogéepy 
 dpa te kai Yuoiac. O8ev avayxaiov] sc. jv notéoriv.2 For the author knows. 
 only one single sacrificial act of Christ, an act performed once for all (not 
 one continually repeated), as is evident partly from the parallel passages, 
 Vil. 27, ix.12, 25, 28, x. 10, 12, 14, partly from the preterite tpocevé yxy in 
 our passage.—é yew tu Kal tovtov, 6 tpocevéyky] that also this (High Priest) 
 should have somewhat that He might offer up. By the ri the author under- 
 stands Christ’s own body, which He gave up to death as a propitiatory 
 sacrifice for the sinful world. The indefinite mode of expression by ri, 
 however, was chosen just because the reference to the sacrifice in this 
 place was only an incidental one, and that which was intended could the 
 less be misunderstood by the readers, in that immediately before, vii. 27, 
 it had been declared by means of éavrdv avevéyxac In What the sacrifice of 
 Christ consisted. 
 
 Vv. 4, 5. Return (oiv) from the subsidiary remark, ver. 8, to the main 
 thought in ver. 2 (rév dyiwy Kat tHe cK THE aANOLvAc, Hv «.t.A.), and 
 proof for the same. : 
 
 Ver. 4. A sacrificial priest Christ can only be, either in the earthly or 
 the heavenly sanctuary ; for a third, besides these two, there is not. The 
 author now proves, ver. 4, that He cannot be a priest in the earthly sanc- 
 tuary, whence it then follows of itself that He must be so in the heavenly 
 one.—ei 7] not: if He had been(Bohme, Kuinoel), but: if He were. To e 
 
 “pev obv qv éxi ye We have, moreover, neither * to supply pévov, nor * apytepetbe 
 or iepete. It signifies nothing more than: if He were now on earth, had 
 His dwelling-place upon earth.—oid’ av qv iepetc] He would not even be a 
 priest. Incorrectly Bleek, Bisping, and Ewald: He would not even be a 
 priest—not to say a high priest. For the augmenting oidé can refer only 
 to the whole proposition, not specially to iepeic, since otherwise ovd” ieped¢ 
 av 7v must have been written. ieee is therefore to be taken as a more 
 general expression for the more definite apyepete. Yet more erroneously 
 
 1Syriac, Beza, Piscator, Owen, Bengel, beqr. des Hebrderbr. p. 505; Alford, Maier, 
 Bleek, de Wette, Hofmann, Komm. p. 306; Moll, Ewald, M’Caul, al. 
 Woerner. 8 With Grotius, Wolf, and others. 
 2Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, Schlichting, 4 With Zeger, Bengel, Carpzov, Heinrichs, 
 Schulz, Bohme, Stuart, Kuinoel, Hofmann, © Béhme, and others. 
 Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 407; Riehm, Lehr- 
 
CHAP. VII. 3-5. 589 
 
 Primasius, Seb. Schmidt, Wolf, Rambach, Carpzov, and others: ‘“ He 
 would not be that unique, real, or true priest, that everlasting priest after 
 the manner of Melchisedec ”__which, without an addition, the words can- 
 not by any means signify.—The reason why Christ, if He were dwelling 
 upon earth, could not at all be a priest, is contained in the éyrav ...Ta 
 éapa. For on earth there are, of a truth, the legally appointed priests 
 already present, and with these Jesus, since He belonged not to the tribe 
 of Levi, but to the tribe of Judah (vii. 14), has nothing in common.— 
 bvrev Tov TpoogepsrvTwr KaTa vojov ra dapa] since assuredly there are present 
 (évrwv has the emphasis), sc. on earth, those who in accordance with law (i.e. 
 according to the norm of the Mosaic law) offer the gifts, namely the Levites, 
 among whom Christ could not be reckoned. évtwv and tpooge povtTov 
 designate that which is still existing at the time of our author. To take 
 the words as participles of the past (Peshito, Vulgate, Grotius,! Braun, and 
 others), is already forbidden by the present Aatpebovowy, ver. 5. 
 
 Ver. 5. The author at once attaches to the proof given, ver. 4,—that 
 Christ must be High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary,—the testimony of 
 Scripture that the earthly sanctuary, in which the Levitical priests officiate, 
 is a mere copy of the heavenly, thus only an imperfect sanctuary. 
 Schlichting: Vel rationem quandam diy. autor his verbis exprimit, cur 
 Christus, si in terris esset, sacerdos esse non posset, nempe quia sacerdotes 
 illi, qui in terris degentes offerunt, umbrae tantum serviunt coelestium ; 
 vel tantum a contrario illustrat id, quod de pontifice nostro dixerat, nempe 
 eum esse veri tabernaculi ministrum, legales vero pontifices umbrae tan- 
 tum et exemplari illius coelestis tabernaculi servire. Not to enclose 
 within a parenthesis (Griesbach, Schulz, Scholz, al.), since the same easily 
 joins on syntactically to ver. 4, and diagopwrépac, ver. 6, points back to its 
 subject-matter. oirvvec ] nimirum qui.— trodeiypate Kat oxi] a copy and 
 shadow. trodeiypate corresponds to the deydévta oor in the ensuing 
 citation, and denotes here (otherwise iv. 11) that which is shown only by 
 way of hints, or only in its general outlines (comp. ra brodelyparta, ix. 28), 
 has thus the notion of a merely imperfect sketch or copy. Yet more em- 
 phatically is the notion of imperfection brought out by means of kai oKeg. 
 For o«céd stands not merely opposed to the caua, as the unsubstantial to 
 the substantial? but also to the eixov, as the shadowy image melting into 
 obscurity, and only to be recognized in its exterior outlines to the likeness 
 distinctly struck off, containing light and color, and enabling one to 
 recognize the original3—arpetovow] is taken unnaturally by Calvin, 
 Pareus, Bengel, Peirce, Schulz, and others in the absolute sense: “ who 
 serve God in a copy and shadow.” The datives irodeiyyate Kat oKig TOV 
 
 1 This writer with the explanation cntirely 3Comp. Heb. x. 1: oKidy...0vK auTny THY 
 
 foreign to the subject: “ Erant, nempe quum cixéva tov mpaypatwy ; Achilles Tatius, i. p. 47 
 psalmus iste seriberetur.” (in Wetstein ad x. 1): otrw TédvnKev Kal THS 
 
 2Col. ii. 17; Josephus, de Bello Jud. ii. 2.5: cixévos 7 axa; Cicero, de Officiis, tii. 17: Sed 
 oxvav aitnoopevos Bactrcias, is "pmacev eavT@ nos veri juris germanaeque justitiae solidam 
 zo gaya; Philo, de confus. linguarum, p. 348; et expressam effigiem nullam tenemus; UD 
 with Mangey, I. p. 434. bra et imaginibus utimur. 
 
590 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 éxovpaviwv form the object of the verb (comp. xiii. 10): “who minister (as 
 priests) to that which is but a copy and shadow of the heavenly.”— 
 Aatpetvecv here, by virtue of the connection, entirely equivalent to Ae:toup- 
 yeiv; in general, however, of wider signification, and differing from 
 zecrovpyelv as the Hebrew 722 trom NW.—rév érovpaviwy] not “of the 
 heavenly things” (Luther), “of the heavenly relations and _ facts 
 of redemption” (Ebrard), “of the heavenly relations and divine 
 thoughts ” (Moll), “of the ideal possessions in general, belonging to the 
 kingdom of God” (Tholuck); but: of the heavenly sanctuary. Comp. the 
 citation immediately following, as also ver. 2 and ix. 28, 24.—ka¥ac xeypn- 
 patiotat Mwivogc| according to the response, or divine revelation, which Moses 
 received. The passive ypnyatifeoda in this sense only in the N. T. (xi. 7; 
 Matt. ii. 22; Acts x. 22, al.) and in Josephus (Antigq. iii. 8. 8, xi. 8. 4).— 
 ériredew] denotes here not the completion of that which is already begun. 
 What is meant is the execution of that which had previously only been 
 resolved on.—The citation is from Ex. xxv. 40. The yap, even as ¢7oiv, 
 belongs to the author of our epistle, on which account épa yap gyow is to 
 be written without placing a comma after yap.—oyaiv] sc. 6 ypyuatiopdc, the 
 divine response, or, since in Exodus (xl. 1) God is expressly named as the 
 speaker: 6 Jed¢ (Heinrichs, Bleek, Stengel, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, 
 Kurtz, al.), not 7 ypa¢4 (Bohme).—rdrra] is wanting with the LX X.—xara 
 tov torov] in accordance with the pattern (VI34), 7. e. corresponding to the 
 archetype presented to the contemplation of Moses in the manner of a 
 revelation, or by means of a vision. Comp. Acts vil. 44. Over-refined, 
 indeed, although linguistically not less admissible than the other, is the 
 interpretation of Faber Stapulensis, Rivetus, Schlichting, Grotius, Lim- 
 borch, Storr, Bleek, and Maier, that in connection with rizo¢ we have to 
 think of a mere copy of the archetype, so that the Levitical priests served 
 in priestly guise the copy of a°copy.—rév derySévta] LXX.: tov dedevypévor. 
 —v r¢ bper] upon the mount, namely Sinai. 
 
 , Ver.’6 repeats, in the form of an antithesis to vv. 4, 5, the main propo- 
 sition of the new section, that Christ accomplishes His priestly service in 
 the heavenly sanctuary (ver. 2); in the progress of the discourse, however, 
 advances an additional argument in favor of this main proposition: in 
 that the naturalness of the fact asserted 7s evidenced by the superiority of 
 that covenant which-has been brought in by Christ. As, therefore, the — 
 author (vii. 20-22) had deduced from the higher priestly rank of Christ 
 the more excellent nature of the covenant brought in by Him; so here, 
 conversely, from the better nature of the covenant established by Him, is 
 inferred the higher order of His priestly ministry. vvvi dé forms the 
 opposition to ei pév obv, ver. 4, while dcagopwrépac points back anti- 
 thetically to the contents of ver. 5.\—vvvi dé] not in the temporal, but in 
 the logical sense: but now.—d:adopwrépag Aeitovpyiac] inasmuch, namely, as 
 
 1 Theophylact : ’Exeivov Tov vonuatos npTyTar ylas’ TovTéoTLV, OVK EaTLVY a’TOU H AELTOUPyLa 
 TadTa, Tod Ei pév yap Hv emt yjs, OvK av Hv lepevs*-  ToLavTy, ola » TV emi ys apxLepewy GAA’ ovpa- 
 vuvi 6€ py wy, dyoiv, émt yns, aAAa Tov ovpavoy vLos, ATE TOTOV EXOVTA THS OiKELas TEAETHS TOP 
 
 €xwv lepateiov, Suahopwtépas eméruxXe AevToup- ovpavov. 
 
CHAP] VIlI.°G) 1. 591 
 
 the oxy, in which He fulfills His office, is the aay@ivq, Gv Exnkev 6 
 Kiplog, ovK avOpwroc (ver. 2)—On the comparative dcagopwrépac, 
 see at li. 4—xai after 6c renders distinctly apparent the inner corres- 
 pondence of the two principal members in the proposition, ver. 6.—yeoiry¢} 
 Mediator (ix. 15, xii. 24; Gal. tii. 19, 20; 1 Tim. ii.5; LXX. Job ix. 88), 
 inasmuch as He has proclaimed the New and better Covenant, and has 
 sealed the same by His death on the cross. [On Vy. 6 b-13, see Note 
 LXVL., page 596.]—jrc] which, as such. Introduction of the proof 
 that the covenant of which Christ is made the Mediator is a better one 
 (vii. 22), z.e. affords full satisfaction to the heart seeking salvation and 
 deliverance, which the Mosaic covenant was incapable of pacifying. 
 [LX VI a-c.] The proof for this superiority the author derives from the 
 fact that the New Covenant has been enacted upon the ground of (é7/ [ef. 
 vil. 11; Acts xiv. 3]) better promises, 7. e. promises more excellent with 
 regard to their subject-matter. The expression vevoyodétryrac is chosen 
 not in order to denote the similarity of nature in the two covenant- 
 foundings, but, after the analogy of the Pauline mode of expression, Rom. 
 lil. 27 (ix. 81), in order to oppose to the Mosaic law, hitherto in operation, 
 the New Covenant as in some sense a new law (comp. vouove pov, ver. 10) 
 now come into force.—xpeitroow érayyeAiac| What is meant is without doubt 
 the several factors in the contents of the passage from Jeremiah cited 
 immediately after—to wit, the promise of the forgiveness of sins (comp. 
 ver. 12), which the Old Covenant was not able to bring about (Rom. viii. 
 3; Gal. iii. 10 ff), in connection with the character of innerness of the 
 New Covenant in general (vv. 10, 11), as opposed to the externalism of the 
 Old.—The explaining of the kpeirrovec érayyedia, with Theodoret, Oecu- 
 menius, Theophylact, Primasius, Clarius, Bengel, Carpzov, Whitby, 
 M’Lean, Bisping, and others, of everlasting blessedness and the other eter- 
 nal blessings of Christianity, in opposition to the purely terrestrial and 
 temporal promises of Mosaism (the peaceful possession of the land of 
 Canaan, a long life upon earth, etc.), is to be rejected ; because—apart 
 from the contradiction in which this interpretation stands with the eluci- 
 dation given by the author himself by virtue of the ensuing citation from 
 Scripture—it is, as Bleek rightly observes, improbable that the author 
 should have referred the promises deposited in the Mosaic law to merely 
 earthly things, in place of referring them to the object of which he under- 
 stands the promise already imparted to Abraham—the bringing in of the 
 great salvation for the people of God in the person of Christ——The view, 
 too, that the érayyeAiae of the New Covenant are called xpeitrovec because 
 they are better guaranteed (Stengel and others), has the context against it. 
 
 Vv. 7-18. Evidence from Scripture that the New Covenant rests upon better 
 promises than the Old, and consequently is a better covenant than that. God 
 Himself has, by the fact of His having promised a new covenant, pro- 
 nounced the former one to be growing obsolete. 
 
 Ver. 7. [LXVI d.] Justification of the «peitrovo¢g and xkpeitroory, 
 ver. 6.—ei jv] if it were (vii. 11, viii. 4)—7 zpory éxeivy | sc. diadiKn. On 
 the superlative, quite in keeping with the linguistic usage of the Greek, see 
 
592 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. : 
 
 Winer, p. 229, [E. T. 244.] Obs. 1.—apeyrroc] faultless (Phil. ii. 15, iii. 6), 
 satisfactory, sufficient. Theodoret: 1d dueurroc avti tov Tedeia TéDErKe.—ovK 
 av devtépac éfyteito téxoc] place would not have been sought (sc. by God, in the 
 O. T., or in the passage of Scripture immediately adduced) for a second 
 (covenant) ; 7. e. it would not have been expressed by God Himself, that a 
 second covenant is to come in beside the first, and replace it. In this 
 general sense é{yteito tér0¢ is to be taken, and the form of expression in 
 the apodosis to be explained from a mingling of a twofold mode of con- 
 templation (oi« av devrépa éfyteito kai devtépag ovK qv av téroc: a second 
 would not be sought by God, nor would there be any place for a second). 
 No emphasis rests upon réo¢; on which account it is over-refining, when 
 Bleek finds in é{yreiro réro¢ the reference that to the New Covenant, 
 according to ver. 10, the place was assigned in the hearts of men, while 
 the Old was written upon tables of stone. 
 
 Ver. 8. Making good of the assertion, ver. 7, that the Old Covenant was 
 not free from fault, and God on that account made known His purpose 
 of establishing a New one. Since pweu@éuevocg manifestly corresponds 
 to the Gweurroc, ver. 7, and there the non-freedom from blame regards 
 the covenant itself, not the possessors thereof, it is more natural to com- 
 bine airoi¢ with Aéyer' than—what is certainly possible in a gram- 
 matical respect (see the Lexicons)—to join it to peyupdpuevoc.2—Aéyer] se. 6 
 §edc. Comp. the thrice-occurring 2éyec Kipio¢ in the following citation (vv. 
 8, 9, 10).—airoic Aéyer] He saith unto them, namely, the possessors of the 
 xpoty d.abyKn.—The citation beginning with idot, and extending to the 
 close of ver. 12, is from Jer. xxxi. (LX X. xxxviii.) 31-34, after the LXX., 
 with slight deviations.—Aéyer xbpioc] so in the LXX. of the Cod. Alex. The 
 Cod. Vatican. and others have ¢yoi xipioc.—In place of kai cvvteréow 
 éri tov olko® ’IlopayA kai éxi tov oixov ’Iotvda, it reads in the 
 LXX. : Kad Siafyoowat TE oixw "lopaya Kai TH. 0iKw ’Iobda. Perhaps a change 
 designedly made in order to characterize the New Covenant as a com- 
 pleted or perfect one. 
 
 Ver. 9. Ob Kata tHv SiabhKyv, Hv eroinoa Toic ratpdow abrir] negative 
 _ unfolding of the foregoing positive expression xaw4v (namely, a cove- 
 nant): not after the manner of the covenant ("135 9) which I made for 
 their fathers, i.e. one qualitatively different therefore, and that as being a 
 better one.—jv éxoigca] LXX.: jv diebéunv.—roig ratpdow aitov] in the ° 
 Hebrew DMAN-NN, with their fathers. The mere dative with éroinoa ex- 
 cludes the notion of reciprocity in the covenant-founding which has taken 
 place, and presents it purely as the work of the disposition made by 
 God.—év juépa éridaBouévov pov x.t.2.] in the day (at the time) when I 
 took hold of their hand, to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt 
 
 1Faber Stapulensis, Piscator, Schlichting, 2Peshito, Vulgate, Chrysostom, Oecume- 
 Grotius, Limborch, Peirce, Michaelis, Chr. nius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Er. 
 Fr. Schmid, Storr, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, Schmid, Bengel, Wolf, Carpzov, Heinrichs, 
 Stein, Bloomfield, Reiche, Comment. crit. p. Béhme, Stengel, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, 
 65 sq. ; Conybeare, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M’Caul, Maier, Hofmann, al. 
 and others. - 
 
CHAP. VIII. 8-10. 593 
 
 (aro yw oesind on} pm Bi), Amn unwieldy but not exactly 
 incorrect construction (see Winer, p. 531 [E. T. 571]), in place of which 
 Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryph. Jud. 11, in citing the same words of 
 Scripture, has chosen the less cumbrous év 7 éeAaBduyv. The note of 
 time characterizes the covenant as the Mosaic one—ér] for; not: 
 “because,” as protasis to xay® «.7.A. as the apodosis (Calvin, Bhme, Hof- 
 mann, al.).—«ayo] emphatic personal opposition to aizoi: and conse- 
 quently I also concerned not myself about them.—réyex xipioc] LXX. (Cod. 
 Alex. too): ¢yot Kiproc. 
 
 Ver. 10. Justification of the diabpxnv xawhy, ob Kata tiv dabjKny K.7.2., 
 vv. 8, 9, by a definite indication of the nature of the covenant to be insti- 
 tuted.—érr airy 4 diabgxn K.7.A.] for this (or the following) is the covenant 
 which I will institute for the house of Israel. atzn introduces with emphasis 
 the material characterization following with d:dovd¢ K.7.2.—oixo¢ "Iopaji] 
 here embraces the whole nation, while in ver. 8 it denoted one of the two 
 kingdoms into which it had been divided.—pera ra¢ juépac éxeivac] after 
 those days, i. e. after the days which must first have elapsed, before the 
 yuépac mentioned, ver. 8,—in which the New Covenant is to come into 
 existence,—begin to dawn.'—Aéyec xipuc} LXX.: gyoi Kipvoc—didoic] So 
 LXX. Cod. Alex., while Cod. Vatic. and other mss. of the LXX. have 
 didov¢ ddoo. In the Hebrew ‘AD}. didot¢ does not stand for décw (Vata- 
 blus, Schlichting, Bengel, and others). Just as little have we to supple- 
 ment it with déow (Heinrichs, Stengel, al.), or with eivé or écouae (Kuinoel, 
 Bloomfield), or dcadjoouae aitav (Delitzsch). Nor have we to join it to the 
 following éxvypayw (so BOhme, but undecidedly, and Paulus), in such wise 
 that we must render «ai before ézypdvo by “also.” It attaches itself 
 grammatically to the preceding d:adjooua. In order to obviate any 
 unevenness of construction, we may then place a colon after dcdvoav 
 aitov. The separation, however, of the xai éxiypayo from that which 
 precedes is not actually necessary, since instances of a transition from 
 the participle to the tempus finitum are elsewhere nothing strange. See 
 Winer, p. 533 [E. T. 573].—dé:dvoia] mind, i.e. soul, innermost part (2p). 
 Accentuation of the character of innerness in the New Covenant, as 
 opposed to the externalism of the Old. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 3.—xapdiac] either 
 accusative (Deut. iv. 18, v. 22, al.) or genitive (comp. Ex. xxxiv. 28; Num. 
 xvil. 2,3, al.). In favor of the latter pleads the singular in the Hebrew 
 original; in favor of the former, the reading of the Cod. Alex.: éni ra¢ 
 xapdiac. We cannot take into account, in favor of the accusative, the 
 greater conformity to the character of the Greek language, according to 
 which, on account of the plurality of persons (airév), one must also 
 speak of xapdia in the plural. For without regard to this distinction the 
 singular d:avocav has already been just placed, and in like manner the 
 singular t7¢ yerpdc is placed, ver. 9.—In place of éxi kapdiac aitev 
 émtypaww avtotc, the Cod. Alex. of the LXX. has: émypaypw avtoic ext 
 ta¢ kapdiag avtov, and the Cod. Vatic.: éxi xapdiac avtaév ypdipw aitove.—xai 
 
 i Wrongly Oecumenius: motas nuepas; tas THs e&ddov, év ais EAaBov Tov vomov. 
 
 38 
 
594 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Eoopat avroic eig Gedy x.7.2.] Comp. already Ex. vi.7; Lev. xxvi. 12, al.; 
 also 2 Cor. vi. 16.—The Hebraizing eivace eic¢ Q My) asi. 5. 
 
 Ver. 11. The consequence resulting from the didévac véyorg sig tHv 
 Sidvoiav avtov x.t.A., ver. 10. Comp. Joel iii. 1, 2; 1 John ii. 27.—xai ob pH 
 didazwow] and then they shall not instruct (Winer, p. 472 [E. T. 507]; Butt- 
 mann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 183 LE. T. 211]), as regards the 
 sense equivalent to: and then it will not be needful that they instruct each 
 other; the reason for which is stated immediately after, in the 7c ravreg¢ 
 eldjoovoiv pe «.t.A. On the intensifying ob «4, see Winer, p. 471 f. [E. 
 T. 505 f.J—rov rodirgy avtoi] his fellow-citizen. Soin the LXX., Cod. Vatic., 
 and most Mss., while Cod. Alex. has in the first member ror adeAgév, in the 
 second rv rAqoiov.—yvotr] in the Hebrew the plural : 3)I.—ixpov] With 
 the LXX. in most Codd.: puxpod avtdv.—ard puxpod éwe peydov aitov] 
 Young and old (Dd973-731 DIUPD"). Comp. Acts viii. 10; LXX. Jer. vi. 
 13; Jonah iii. 5; Gen. xix. 11, al. 
 
 Ver. 12. The inner ground of this communion with God and this 
 knowledge of Him.—é7] not: “that” (Michaelis, ad Peire.), but: for.— 
 iewe éoouar Taic adixiatc avtov] I will be gracious (N08) to their unrighteous- 
 ness, i. e. will forgive and forget the same.—a<adc«ia:] in the plural, in the N. 
 T. only here, but of frequent occurrence with the LXX. Designation of 
 the alienation from God in its single outbreaks and forms of manifesta- 
 tion.—xal tov duaptiav Kai Tov avouiov avtov] LXX. merely: kat tov duap- 
 riav avrav, in accordance with the Hebrew: WY~73i8 89 DONO, 
 
 Ver. 13. The author derives the result from the Scripture testimony, 
 vv. 8-12.—év 76 Aéyew awh] in that He (sc. God) saith : a new (covenant). 
 Comp. év 1 AéyeoBa, iii. 15, and éy 7r@ sbrordga, i. 8.—reradaiwxev THv 
 mpatnv| He hath made the first old (contrary to linguistic usage, Ebrard: 
 “relatively older”), i.e. has declared it to be out of date, out-worn, and 
 no longer serviceable —ra/aiv] a word belonging to a later period of the 
 Greek language, elsewhere ordinarily used inthe intransitive sense: “ to 
 grow old,” and generally in the middle voice (as a little below, and i. 11) ; 
 is found likewise in the transitive sense, “to make old,” in Lam. iii. 4; 
 Job ix. 5. To abolish or render obsolete the word itself does not signify ; 
 but rendering obsolete is the natural consequence of pronouncing out of 
 date or outworn. The author accordingly does not directly express notion 
 of abrogation by reraiaioxev in this place,—a sense, moreover, which, on 
 account of the following ra2%aotyevov, would here be inappropriate,—but 
 leaves the reader to divine it.—rd dé raAaoipevov Kai ynpdoKov éyyi¢ apavio- 
 uov] but that which is growing ancient and is becoming infirm with years, is 
 near to disappearing or perishing.—yypdoxew] ordinarily said of human 
 beings (to become enfeebled with age, senescere); then, however, also of 
 things, comp. e.g. Xenoph. Ages. xi. 14: 4 pév tov cdpuatog ioxic yypdoxer, 7 
 di the Wuyne poun .. . ayhpatéc éotw.—The author says sparingly : near to 
 disappearing (comp. xatapac éyyic, vi. 8), in that he takes his standpoint 
 at the time of the divine promises just quoted. But if God in the time 
 of Jeremiah already designated the Old Covenant as that which is nigh 
 
NOTES. 595 
 
 unto ruin, it was therein necessarily declared by implication, that now, 
 after so long a time is passed and the New Covenant has already been in 
 reality brought in, the Old Covenant, as to its essence (if not yet as to its 
 external manifestaiion), must have been already entirely abrogated, must 
 have entirely lost its force and validity. 
 
 Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 LXV. Vv. 1-6. 
 
 (a) The second section of the second leading division of the Epistle begins 
 with viii. 1. So far as its argument is concerned, it ends with x. 18; but, if 
 the hortatory passage belonging with it is included, as it should be, it does not 
 end until xii. 29. The superiority of Christ, as the instrumental agent employed 
 by God to carry on the N. T. system, to the instrumental agents (the Levitical 
 priests) employed to carry on the O. T. system, which is set forth in this section, 
 consists in the fact that He is the minister of a higher sanctuary which is con- 
 nected with a better covenant. There are two subordinate sections :—1. referring 
 to the higher sanctuary; 2. referring to the better covenant. These two subjects 
 are developed, in a more general way, in ch. viii. (1, vv. 1-6 a,; 2, vv. 6 6-13), 
 and in a more particular and detailed manner, in ch. ix. (1, vv. 1-14; 2, vv. 
 15-28). They are finally restated, in a summary form, in ch. x. (1-18). By the 
 fullness of his presentation of this subject, by the threefold repetition alluded to, 
 and by the fact that he places it at the end of his whole discussion, and makes all 
 which precedes move towards it, the author shows that this was, indeed, the 
 Kepadaiov emt ToI¢ AEyouéevolc, 
 
 (b) That xegddav (ver. 1) means chief point, not sum, is proved by the fact that 
 what the writer says in this verse cannot be separated from what he adds in ver. 
 2,and by the fact that what is contained in the two verses, or in the whole 
 passage (vv. 1-6), is not the sum of what he is saying in the whole epistle, but 
 only a principal matter in the development of the main subject. That xed, may 
 mean either a chief point (as Liinem.) or the chief point (as Bleek and others) 
 cannot be denied. The argument presented by Liinem. as establishing the former 
 meaning—that, in addition to the chief point mentioned in vv. 1, 2, there is 
 another (the better sacrifice) in ix. 9 ff_—is without any proper basis, for there is 
 no such second chief point. The point here alluded to is that which is suggested in 
 vv. 1-6—that Christ is the minister of a higher sanctuary connected with a better 
 covenant. The thought of the better sacrifice is only a subordinate one, which is 
 connected with the presentation of this principal thought. The writer sets forth 
 but one chief point. Whether he speaks of it as a, or the, chief point is uncertain, 
 but, in whichever way he presents it, it is the only one which he deems it neces- 
 sary to bring before the minds of his readers. The antecedent probability, under 
 the circumstances, would seem to be, that a writer of such a rhetorical character 
 would desire to give the emphasis here which belongs to the expression “ the chief 
 point.”—(c) éri has here the meaning upon, as resting upon—as the head, which 
 is a part of the body, rests upon the body, or as Alf. says “lying, as it were, by 
 and among.” Jn of R. V. is, in accordance with the English idiom and usage, a 
 satisfactory rendering.—(d) The close connection between the earlier and later 
 parts of the Epistle, already noticed in y. 5, is manifest again in the words 6c 
 
596 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 éxdOicev «.7.A,, as compared with i. 3—(e) That tv dyiwy (ver. 2) means the 
 sanctuary (R. V. text), and not the holy things (R. V. marg.), is indicated by the 
 connection of the word with oxyvjc, and by the fact that it is repeatedly used in 
 ch. ix. as referring to the sanctuary.—( f ) The course of the writer’s thought in vv. 
 3-6 a seems to be the following: As a high priest, He must hold the office in 
 connection with some sanctuary. The office, however, as related to the earthly 
 sanctuary, is already filled by others. He, therefore, belongs to the heavenly. 
 
 LXVI. Vv. 6 5-18. 
 
 (a) It will be noticed that, both in this chapter and the next, the writer closely 
 unites the sanctuary and the covenant. He does not present them as two inde- 
 pendent things in their relation to the subject in hand, but, by the form of his 
 sentence in ver. 6, and again in ix. 15, he shows that,as the minister of the higher 
 sanctuary, Christ is also, and as it were necessarily, the mediator of a better cove- 
 nant; ver. 6, diapopwrépag tétuxe Aectoupyiag bow Kai KpeitTOVOg K.T.A,;—ix. 15, Kai 
 dia TovTO Shere Kang pecityg éotiv.—(b) The “ better” character of the cove- 
 nant is here connected with the fact, that it is established as an institution or 
 system (“ enacted” R. V.) upon the foundation of better promises. The “ better” 
 character of the promises is indicated in the following verses, and the central 
 point of the thought is, that the end in view is to be accomplished—that which 
 the religious system aims at, namely TeAciworc, involving forgiveness of past sin 
 and conformity to the will of God, is to be certainly secured. See vii. 18, 19.—(c) 
 The argument to prove that the covenant and the promises are better, is similar 
 to that respecting the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood in vii. 11 ff— 
 namely, that, unless there had been imperfection, no new arrangement would have 
 been made, whereas such a new arrangement has been introduced. That the new 
 covenant is established is proved here by a citation from Jer. xxxi. 31-34, which 
 constitutes the central O. T. passage of this section, after the analogy of others in 
 other sections already noticed. To this argument there is added another, in ver. 13, 
 namely, that the fact that the covenant to be made is, according to the O. T. 
 passage, called new implies that the former one is old, and, like all things old, is 
 ready to pass away. 
 
 (d) With reference to the words of vv. 7-13 it may be remarked :—1. that 
 avrove in ver. 8 has a slight preponderance of external evidence as compared with 
 avroic, but the other reading and the construction of the sentence adopted by 
 Liinem., and placed by A. R. V. in the margin, should be recognized as possibly 
 correct—if indeed, they should not be preferred;+2. that the words émi rov 
 oixov with ovvreAéow, as contrasted with the ie dative toi¢ watpaow (ver. 9) 
 and 7® oixw ver. 10, may suggest the thought that the covenant is not merely 
 made with, but imposed or enjoined upon, the people by God (éveTeiAaro ix. 20).— 
 8. the description of what the new covenant will be or involye begins with 
 Siov¢e of ver. 10, which is thus equivalent to déow, in substance of thought ;— 
 4. that the same element of the legal system is here hinted at, which seems to lie 
 at the basis of Gal. iii, 20—the weakness connected with the necessity, for its sue- 
 cess, that men should perfectly fulfill the requirements of the law ;—5. év TO 
 aéyew corresponds with év 76 Aéyeobai of iii. 15, only that here the active is used, 
 because God is the subject of the following verb, while in iii. 15 the mere words 
 of the cited passage are thought of as setting forth a historical fact. 
 
CHAP, IX. 597 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Ver. 1. 7 tpéty] Elz.: 7 sporty oxnvy. But the addition oxyvA is condemned 
 as a gloss by the fact of its being wanting in all the uncial mss., in many cursives, 
 in Syr. utr. Basm. Aeth. Arm. It. Vulg., with Gregory Thaumaturgus, Cyril, Chrys. 
 Damasce. Theoph. Photius, al. On the ground, too, of internal evidence it is to be 
 rejected, since, on the one hand, the coherence with viii. 13, and through that 
 with viii. 7 ff, leads to dca@7K7 as the main idea to be supplemented ; and, on 
 the other hand, the expression 7 tpor7 oxyvj, ix. 1, would be made to denote 
 something quite different from that which the same expression denotes in ix. 2. 
 For, while in ver. 2 the outer division of the tabernacle is indicated thereby, in 
 ver. 1 only the first or Old Testament, earthly tabernacle, in opposition to the 
 New Testament, heavenly one, thus something entirely dissimilar, could be 
 intended by this expression—Ver. 2. After dprwy, B, Basmur. add kai 76 
 xXpvoovv GvutargHpcov, and in return omit the words ypvootv GuulcatHpLov 
 kai, ver. 4. Violent intentional transposition, with a view to the removal of the 
 archaeological difficulty.—Instead of a@yca, Lachm. writes d@yca ayiwy, after A 
 (ay:a* aywv) D* E, It. But aya ayiwv is a mere slip on the part of the copyist, 
 occasioned by ver. 3, and is to be rejected as devoid of sense.—Ver. 5. Xepovin] 
 A: XepovBeiu, B D*** (and so Lachm. Tisch. 7 and 8): XepouBeiv, D* 8: XepovPiv. 
 In the case of the LXX., too, the Mss. are wont equally to vary as regards the 
 final syllable of the word.—Instead of the Recepta 66£7¢, Griesb. and Scholz have 
 erroneously placed in the text t7¢ d6&y¢. The article has against it all the 
 uncial mss. and other witnesses.—Ver. 9. In place of the Recepta ka Ov (D*** 
 EK L, min. It. Copt. Sah. Basm. Syr. utr. Chrys. Theodoret, Theoph.), Lachm. 
 Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Delitzsch, Alford have rightly preferred the 
 reading kav’ 7#v, in accordance with A B D* 8, 17, 23* 27, al., Vulg. Slav. codd. 
 Damase. Oecum. (comment.). Already approved by Mill, Prolegg. p. 1046, and 
 placed by Griesb. upon the inner margin. The xa¥ 6v, as affording an easier 
 mode of appending to that which precedes, is a later correction of the more 
 difficult and ill-understood ka? 7v.—Ver. 10. The Recepta reads: kai dikace- 
 uace capkéc, But kai is wanting in A D* x* 6, 17, 27, 31, al., with Cyr. 
 (twice) in Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arm. al.; and in place of d:cka:ouacr, A B yx, ten 
 cursives, Cyril., and many versions have d¢xac@uata, while in D* It. Sahid. 
 there is found dccaiwua, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Alford have 
 therefore adopted d:kac@uara capkéc, which was already approved by Grotius, 
 Mill, Prolegg. p. 1355, and Bengel, and recommended by Griesb. Delitzsch and 
 Reiche likewise give it the preference. This reading is in reality to be regarded 
 as the original one. For it is more easily explicable that ditacauara should, on 
 account of the foregoing datives, be changed into dccacéuact, and joined on to 
 them by means of «ai, than that the kai dcxavéuaor, if it already existed, should, 
 on account of the closing word émvxeiueva, be converted into dicacauata,—Ver. 11. 
 In place of the Receptat Gv weAAévrov, Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read, after B D* 
 It. Syr. utr. (yet the Syr. Philonex. has the Recepta in the margin) Arab. petropol. 
 
598 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 and some codd. of Chrys: tév yevouévwv. Defended by Ebrard. But the 
 reading is not in keeping with the carefully chosen diction of our author, and its 
 sense: “ High Priest of the good things which have arisen,” does not commend 
 itself. It is manifestly a transcriber’s error, occasioned by the presence of the 
 foregoing Tapayevouevoc.—Ver, 12 etpauevoc] D* (E ?), 27, 44, 80, al., and some 
 Fathers: etpduevoc.—vVer. 13. Elz.: tabtpwv kai tpadywrv. With Lachm. 
 Bleek, Tisch. Alford, to be transposed into Tpadywv kai Tabpwr, in accordance 
 with the decisive authority of A B D E 8, Cyr. Theodoret, Bede, Syr. Copt. Basm. 
 It. Vulg. al.—Ver. 14, mveiuatog aiwviov] D* 8*** many cursives, Copt. Basm. 
 Slay. It. Vulg. al., Chrys. Cyr. Didym. (?) Damase..al.: mveipatog ayiov. Inter- 
 pretative gloss—In place of the Recepta cvveidyorv buav, Bengel, Knapp, 
 Lachm. Tisch. 1 and 2, Alford read more suitably, in accordance with A D* K, 
 44, 47, 67, al., Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. ms. al. Athan. Cyr. Chrys. (comment.) 
 Theodoret, Theoph.: cvveidyorv yuav. Recommended likewise by Griesb., 
 and already placed in the text in the Edd. Complut. Geney. Plant.—To 
 the mere Je@ Covre in the Recepta, Lachm., with A, 21* 31, 66 (in the 
 margin), Copt. Slav. Chrys. (comment.) Macar. Theoph., has added the words kai 
 aAyndtv@, These words are, however, to be deleted. They are a gloss from 1 
 Thess. i. 9.—Ver. 17. pjrore] D* S* and Isidor. Pelus. iv. 113 (... obrw yap 
 eupov Kai év TaAaoig avttypagorc): ay Té6Te.—Ver. 18. Instead of ov0’ in the 
 Recepta, we have, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, and 7, Delitzsch, Alford, to 
 write ov dé, in accordance with A C D E L, 4, 44, 52, Chrys. Theodoret, Oecum.— 
 9 TpaTn] D* E*It.: 7 tpoty dcadyxyn, Exegetical gloss—Ver. 19. Elz.; caTa 
 voyov, But the better attestation by A C D* L S*** 21, 47, 71, al., Copt. 
 Basm. Chrys. ms. Theodoret, Theoph. requires the reading preferred by Lachm. 
 Bleek, Tisch. 1, and Alford: kata tOv véuov,—In like manner is the article 
 T@v wanting in the Recepta before tpaywv to be added, with Lachm. Tisch. = 
 Alford, in Ges with the weighty authority of A C D E (D E, Aeth.: 
 Tpaywv Kai-TOv pocyov) N* 80, al. mult. It. Vulg. Theodoret, ms.—So, in ees a 
 the Recepta éppdvrice here and ver. 21, we have, with Lachm. Tisch. and 
 Alford, in accordance with all the uncials, to write épavtioev.—Ver. 24. The 
 order of the words followed by Lachm. in the stereotype edition, as well as 
 recently by Tisch. in the ed. vii. and viii.: elo7A0ev ayca, rests only upon the 
 testimony of A &, 37,118. In the larger edition of Lachm., therefore, this has 
 rightly given place to the Recepta ayca eio7Aev.—Better attested than the 
 Recepta 6 Xptordc is the mere Xprordé¢ (A C* D* ®&, al. (Cod. B in its original 
 form extends only to ovveidyow, ix. 14]), preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 
 8, and Alford.—Ver. 26. Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Bloom- 
 field, Delitzsch: viv dé Better Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, in accordance with | 
 ACL (?) 8,87, 39, 40, Orig. Chrys.: vuvi dé—duapriag] A &, 17,73. Lachm.: 
 TH¢ auapriacg, Against C D*** E K L, almost all the min. Orig. (once) al. 
 mult—Ver,. 28. obtw¢ cai] Elz. has only ovtwe. Against decisive witnesses (all 
 the uncial mss., most min., many translations and Fathers).—After e1¢ cwortnpiar, 
 Lachm. in the stereotype edition had added, with A, 31, 47, al., Syr. Philonex. 
 Slav. codd. Damase., the words dca tiotewe. Rightly, however, has he deleted 
 them in the larger edition. The addition is a complementary gloss, which has 
 against it the testimony of C D E K L 8&, many min. versions, and Fathers, ot 
 betrays its character as a gloss ‘by its changing position (Arm, 27, 31, 57, 61, al, 
 have it before el¢ owrTypiar). 
 
CHAP, Ix. 1, 599 
 
 Vv. 1-14. [On Vv. 1-14, see Note LXVII., pages 629-631.] The author 
 has in chap. vill insisted upon the fact, as a second main particular of the 
 superiority of Christ as a high priest over the Levitical high priests, that 
 the sanctuary in which He ministers is a more exceiient one, namely, the 
 heavenly sanctuary. He has made good this proposition by the considera- 
 tion that no place would be found for Christ, as regards priestly service, 
 in the earthly sanctuary ; and then has proceeded to show the natural- 
 ness of the fact that He accomplishes His ministry in the heavenly 
 sanctuary, by the proof that Heis the Mediator of a better covenant. This 
 train of thought is still pursued in the beginning of chap. ix., in that 
 attention is now finally called to the fact that in the arrangement of the 
 Mosaic sanctuary itself, and the order of the priestly service corresponding 
 thereto, there lies an indication on the part of God that Mosaism is not 
 itself the perfect religion, but only an institution preparatory thereto 
 (vv. 1-8). With this, however, is then connected, by means of one of 
 those sudden transitions of which the author is so fond, the reference to 
 the further truth, that, indeed, the Levitical sacrifices also, since they 
 belong to the domain of fleshly ordinance, are not able really to atone; 
 whereas the sacrifice presented by Christ, by means of His own blood, 
 possesses, by virtue of an eternal Spirit, everlasting power of atonement 
 (vv. 9-14), and thus athird main point in the high-priestly superiority of Christ 
 is introduced, the development of which occupies the author as far as x. 
 18. [LXVII a.] ; 
 
 Vy. 1-5. Description of the arrangement of the O. T. sanctuary as 
 regards its essential component parts. 
 
 Ver. 1. [LXVII b-e.] Eiyev pév ody nai 4 mpdry] sc. diadjxn. Against 
 the supplementing of ox7v7 (Cameron, Peirce, Whitby, Wetstein, Semler), 
 see the critical remark.—eiyev] had. éye is not written by the author, 
 although the cultus of the Old Covenant was still continuing at the time 
 when he wrote, not so much because—as is shown by ver. 2—it was his 
 intention to describe the primitive arrangement thereof (comp. viii. 5), 
 which is the opinion of Bbhme, Kuinoel, Stengel, and Tholuck, as, what 
 is more naturally suggested by the coherence with viii. 18, because the 
 Old Covenant had already been declared by God in the time of Jeremiah 
 to be feeble with age and nigh unto disappearing, and consequently now, 
 after the actual appearance of the promised New Covenant, has no longer 
 any valid claim to existence..—yév oiv] now truly. Admission that that 
 which the author is about to detail is indeed something relatively exalted. 
 The antithesis, by which again this admission is deprived of its value 
 and significance, is then introduced by ver. 6 (not first with ver. 11, as is 
 supposed by Piscator, Owen, Carpzov, Cramer, Stuart, Bloomfield, Bis- 
 ping, Maier, M’Caul, and others); yet in such wise that the material anti- 
 thesis itself is first contained in the statement, ver. 8, which is connected 
 syntactically only as a parenthetic clause.—xa/‘] also. Indication that with 
 
 1Chrysostom: waet EAeye, TOTE Elxe, VOY OVK  —-TOTE yap Elxe, Pyoiv. "NoTe vir, Ei Kal EaTHKEY, 
 exer’ Seixvuety 75 TOUTw a’THY ExKEXwpHKULaV’ OVK EaTLY- 
 
600 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 the Old Covenant the New is compared, and possessions of the former are 
 enumerated, which also (although, it is true, in a more perfect form) are 
 proper to the latter.—éccacdyara Aarpeiac| legal ordinances! in regard to 
 worship, i.e. regulations made by virtue of divine authority respecting 
 the cultus.—/arpeiac] is genitive. To take the expression as «accusative 
 (Cameron, Grotius, Hammond, al.), according to which d:cacépuara, Aatpeiac, 
 and 7d aywv xoouxdv Would as three members be made co-ordinate with 
 each other, is untenable; because the signification of d:caéuara in itself 
 would be too extensive to fit in with the further development of ver. 1, to 
 which the author himself at once passes over, from ver. 2 onwards. For 
 as the statement 76 te ayiov koowixédv receives its more full explication by 
 means of vv. 2-5, so does the discourse in vy. 6,7 return to the unfolding of 
 the twofold d:cacéuara Aatpeiac, blended as this is in a logical respect into a 
 unity of idea.—ré te dyvov Koopixdv] and the mundane sanctuary. Since, in 
 accordance with the «ai, possessions of the Old Covenant are to be men- 
 tioned, such as this has in common with the New,—while to the New Coven- 
 ant there pertains no mundane, earthly sanctuary ,—ré te ayvov koowexdy Must 
 be regarded as a concise mode of designation for kai ayy Ti, 76 KoouKdy, 
 “anda sanctuary, namely the mundane.” That such is the meaning of 
 the author, is indicated by the fact that the article is placed before this 
 second member, although it ought properly to have been inserted before 
 xoouixdv also. Yet the omission of the article in the case of adjectives 
 placed after their substantives is not a thing unknown among other 
 writers of the later period. See Bernhardy, Synt. p. 323; Winer, p. 126 
 [E. T. 183]. Forced is the explanation of Delitzsch, with the adherence 
 of Kurtz and Woeener, that xoouwcédv as an adjectival predicate is to be 
 taken in association with elyev: “the first covenant had likewise dccacouara 
 Zarpeiac, and its sanctuary as mundane, 7.e. a sanctuary of mundane 
 nature.” Had the author intended the readers to suppose such a con- 
 joining, he would also—equially as vii. 24, v. 14—have indicated the same 
 to them by the position of the words. He must, in order to be under- 
 stood, at least have written: siyev pwév oby Kai 4) mpary Sikacouata Aarpeiag 
 kooutkév te Td dyecov. Under an entire misapprehension, further, does 
 Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 408 f.,.2 Aufl.) suppose that 7é re dayiov 
 xoouixév is not to be taken as a second object attaching itself to the dicaiyara 
 Aatpeiac, but as a second subject joining itself on to 7 xpory,—a construc- 
 tion which, upon the presupposition of the Recepta 4 xporn oxy being 
 the correct reading, already Olearius adopted (comp. Wolf ad loc.), and 
 upon the same supposition also more recently M’Caul maintained, in 
 connection with which, however, 7é te dycov koonexdv would limp behind 
 in an intolerable manner, and would afford evidence of a negligence of 
 style, such as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews would least of all 
 have been guilty of—The view of Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Zeger, Carp- 
 zov, and others, that ayiov is to be taken not in the local sense (sanctuary), 
 but in the ethical sense (holiness, dy:éryc, sanctitas, mundities), is altogether 
 
 - 1Wrongly Stengel: ‘“ Means of justification.” 
 
CHAP. Ix. 2-5. 601 
 
 erroneous; since the expression chosen would be a remarkable one, the 
 immediate sequel does not point thereto, and the more exalted seat of the 
 cultus of the New Covenant forms the theme of the fresh train of thought 
 opened up with the beginning of chap. viili—Quite as much to be disap- 
 proved is the opinion of Wolf, who will have ayov to mean “vasa sacra 
 totumque apparatum Leviticum.”—xoopixde] means : belonging to the 
 world, worldly, mundanus. Comp. Tit. it. 12. The expression is equiva- 
 lent to ériyewc, and to it émovpavioc stands opposed, as in general 6 
 xkéovoc in the N.T. very frequently has its tacit contrast in 6 ovpavéc. 
 Td aylov Koopuxdv 18 consequently nothing else than 7 oxy, fv énygev 
 avdpuroc (comp. Vili. 2), Or 7 oKyv7 YELpoTo/yroc, touréoTl TavTHC THC KTiCEWC 
 (comp. ix. 11), or ra yeiporoinra aya (ix. 24), and a twofold idea is ex- 
 pressed in the adjective, first, that the sanctuary of the Old Covenant is 
 one existing in the terrestrial world, then, that it is accordingly something 
 only temporary and imperfect in its nature. Remote from the connec- 
 tion are the suppositions of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, and others : 
 that the Jewish sanctuary was called xocyixdv, because the access to the 
 same stood open to the xécuoc, 2. e. the Gentiles; a statement, moreover, 
 which possesses historic truth only with reference to a part thereof, the 
 court of the Gentiles (comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud. v.5, 2; Acts xxi. 28), 
 while here the sanctuary as a whole must be indicated ;—of Theodorus 
 Mopsuesten., Theodoret,! Grotius, Hammond, Wetstein, Bo6hme, Paulus, 
 and others: because the Jewish sanctuary symbolically represented the 
 universe; the holy place, earth; the most holy, heaven ; and the curtain 
 before the latter, the firmament;—of Kypke, because the sense is: toto 
 terrarum orbe celebratum (comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud. iv. 5. 2, where the 
 Jerusalem high priests, Ananus and Jesus, are represented as tic 
 Koouikne Bpyokeiac KaTapyovrTec, TpocKvvolmevol TE TOLS éx The olKovuévyc), Which, 
 however, could only be said with reference to the temple, not with refer- 
 ence to the tabernacle itself, of which the author is here specially think- 
 ing.—Entirely baseless, finally, is the opinion of Homberg, that xoopixdv is 
 to be apprehended in the sense of “adorned, well-ordered.” For only 
 Kéopuoc, KoountiKdc, and Kkoopuytéc¢ are used for the expression of this notion ; 
 never is koouixée put for it. See the Lexicons. 
 
 Vv. 2-5. Unfolding of the collective idea 16 ayiov xooutxdy, as regards its 
 several essential component parts. That the author has before his mind 
 the Jewish sanctuary in its original form, i.e. the Mosaic tabernacle, is 
 evident alike from the expression cx7v7, as from the use of the aorist 
 xareoxevéodn. That, however, he likewise thinks of this original disposition 
 as still preserved in the temple of his day, is manifest partly from the 
 present Aéyerac immediately following, partly from the proposition : tovtwy 
 J obtwe KaTeckevacpévov ... Eiciaciy, Ver. 6.—oKyvy yap Kateckevacdy 7 porn | 
 for a tent was prepared (set up), namely, the first or anterior one (the fore- 
 
 1THv oxynvny ovTws exadece, TUTOY EréxovTaV Gyta thy év TH yn ToActelay, Ta bE Aya TOV 
 ’ Xx Y n yn ’ 
 
 Trev KécMov TavTés. KatameTaguate yap peow ayiwy To TaY ovpava@v évdiaiTnua. ATO b€ 70 
 
 Seppetro SixH, Kai Ta ev avTAs eradeito ayia, xaTaméTagHa TOU OTEpEwuaTos EmANpOU THE 
 
 ca 8€ ayia Tov ayiwy. Kar euiperto 7a mev xpetav. 
 
602 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 tent). oxyv% stands first as the general notion, and only acquires its 
 nearer definition by the 7 spory afterwards brought in, without, how- 
 ever, our having, with Beza, Bloomfield, and others, to place a comma 
 after katecxevaody. That oxyvy 7 xpory is not to be combined immediately 
 in one, as expressing the signification: “the fore-part of the tent” (so 
 Valckenaer, who compares in ultimis aedibus, and the like ; also Delitzsch), 
 is shown—although such acceptation presents no grammatical difficulty— 
 by the corresponding oxy 4 Aeyouévy ayia ayiwv, ver. 3, whence it follows 
 that the author is regarding the two divisions of the tent separated by the 
 veil in front of the Most Holy Place as two tents.—zpéry] not temporal, 
 but local.—karteokevacd7] namely by Moses, at the behest of God (comp. vili. 
 5).—év 7 % Te Avyvia] se. éoriv (not wv, Alford, Kurtz, against which Aéyera 
 and ver. 6 are decisive): in which there is the candlestick (or lamp-stand). 
 Comp. Ex. xxv. 31-39, xxxvil. 17-24; Bahr, Symbolik des Mos. Cultus, Bd. 
 I., Heidelb. 1837, p. 412 ff. In the temple of Herod, too, there was, 
 according to Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5, vii. 5. 5, only one lamp-stand 
 in the Holy Place, while in the temple of Solomon there were ten of them 
 present; comp. 1 Kings vil. 49; 2 Chron. iv. 7.—kai 4 tparefa kai 7 
 mpod_ecie Tov aptwv] and the table and the setting forth of the bread (or loaves), 
 i.e. Wherein is found the table, and the sacred custom 1s observed of plac- 
 ing thereon the shew-bread. Comp. Winer, p. 590 [E. T. 636.] Wrongly 
 do Vatablus, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Bengel, Bloomfield, and 
 others explain 7 tpé3eoe tév aptwv as hypallage or antiptosis for oi aprox 
 tHe mpodécewc. Yet more unwarrantably do Valckenaer (and similarly 
 Heinrichs) maintain that 7 tpdrefa kai 4 tpdd_eow Tov aptwv is equivalent 
 to 7 tparela TOv aptwor tHe Tpodécewe. According to Tholuck, Delitzsch, 
 Alford, Maier, Kluge, and Moll, zpédeove is, like the Hebrew 12729, to be 
 taken concretely, strues panum. But zpéeoc never has the passive sig- 
 nification of strues. On the matter itself, comp. Ex. xxv. 23-30, xxvi. 35, 
 xxxvii. 10-16; Lev. xxiv. 5-9; Bahr, lc. p. 407 ff—#ric] se. oxmy 4 mporn. 
 Not conjoined with the mere #, because the fact alleged is something 
 which is familiar to the readers —éyia] Holy Place (wtp): So (as neuter 
 plur.), not, with Erasmus, Luther, Er. Schmid, Mill, Whitby, Heinrichs, 
 and others, ayia (as fem. sing.), have we to accentuate the word. It stands 
 opposed to the aya dyiwv, ver. 3, and denotes the Holy Place, or the outer 
 portion of the tabernacle, in opposition to the Most Holy Place, or the 
 more secluded, inner portion of the same. Likewise with the LXX. and 
 with Philo, the plural 7a aya in this sense is interchanged with the sin- 
 gular 70 dywv.—ayra, however, not ra aya, is placed, because the author 
 was less concerned about mentioning the definite name coined for the 
 expression thereof, than about bringing out the signification which this 
 name has. 
 
 Ver. 3. Merd] after or behind. Of local succession (Thucyd. vii. 58, a/.), 
 in the N. T. only here.—rd debrepov kataréracua] the second veil (292). For 
 before the Holy Place, too, there was a veil (JO2). On the former, comp. 
 Ex. xxvi. 31 ff—oxyvq] se. Kxateckevdcty.—ayia dyiwv] Most Holy Place. 
 
 
 
CHAP. Ix. 3, 4, 603 
 
 Periphrasis of the superlative (see Winer, p. 231 [E. T. 246]), and transla- 
 tion of wap wap: 
 
 Ver. 4. Ovucarjpiov] is either interpreted as altar of incense or as censer. 
 The latter, and indeed as a golden censer, which was employed by the high 
 priest on the great day of atonement, is thought of by Luther, Grotius, de 
 Dieu, Calov, Reland, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Wetstein, Carpzov, Whitby, 
 Schulz, Béhme, M’Lean, Stuart, Kuinoel, Stein, Bloomfield, Bisping, 
 Alford, M’Caul, and others, after the precedent of the Peshito, Vulgate 
 (turibulum), and Theophylact. The altar of incense, on the other hand 
 (wpa N31 or 3939 031), of which mention is made as a constituent 
 part in the Mosaic tabernacle, Ex. xxx. 1-10, xxxvil. 25-28, xl. 5, 26, as a 
 constituent part in the temple of Solomon, 1 Kings vii. 48, 2 Chron. iv. 19, 
 and as a constituent part in the Herodian temple (Josephus, de Bello Jud. 
 v. 5. 5), is understood in the case of the Latin translation in D E (altare), 
 as well as by Oecumenius (ad ver. 7), Calvin, Justinian, Piscator, Estius, 
 Cornelius a Lapide, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Gerhard, Broch- 
 mann, Mynster (Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 342 ff.), Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, 
 Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebriaerbr. p. 489 f., Obs.), Maier, 
 Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Conybeare, Hofmann, Woerner, and others. 
 Instances from the classical writers in favor of either reference, see in 
 Bleek, II. 2, p. 480 f. That a censer is intended may be urged from the 
 language of the LXX., since with them for the indication of the altar of 
 incense the expressions: 76 Juovactipiov Suucauatoc (Ex. xxx. 1,27; Lev. iv. 
 7), 76 SuovactHpiov Tov Gvuapatwv (1 Chron. vi. (vii.) 49, xxviil. 18; 2 Chron. 
 Xxvl. 16, 19), 7d BvovactHpiov 76 ypvoovy (Ex. xl. 5, 26, al.), +d Gvovacripuov 76 
 (6v) arévavre kupiov (Lev. xvi. 12, 18); and, where the altar intended is clear 
 from the context, merely 70 Svovaorjpiov (Lev. xvi. 20, al.), are regularly 
 employed, and only in unimportant mss. of the same Juucatipwv presents 
 itself in some few passages as a variation of reading. To this usage of the 
 LXX., however, is to be opposed the equally important fact of the usage 
 of Philo and Josephus, according to which, at their time, 76 Juucatfpiov Was 
 quite the ordinary appellation of the altar of incense.’ Of the altar of 
 incense, accordingly, the expression must be understood in our passage. 
 For the manner in which the ypvooiv SuucarApiov is mentioned, as a paral- 
 lel member to trav KeBwrdov tHe diadAKnc, Shows that the former must be an 
 object of equally great importance as the latter. But, since that is so, 
 something as non-essential as a golden censer cannot be meant, but only 
 the altar of incense, which formed an essential constituent part of the 
 tabernacle. Besides, there is nowhere any mention in the O. T. (not Lev. 
 xvi. 12 either) of a particular censer, which had been set apart for the 
 
 1Comp. Philo, Quis rerum divin. haeres. p. 
 511 sq. (with Mangey, I. p.504): tpr@y ovtwr ev 
 Tols aylo.s okevav, AvxVLas, TpaTEgyns, OuucaTy- 
 ptov; De vita Mos. p. 668 (II. p. 149): “Awa Sé 
 TOUTM edNMLOUPYELTO Kal GKEUN iepa, KLiBwTOs, 
 Auxvia, Tpamega, Ouucatyprov, Bwuds. ‘O pev 
 ovv Bwuos iSputo ev vraiOpw x.7.A.; Josephus, 
 
 de Bello Jud.v. 5.5: Kai 7o wév mpa@Tov MéEpos 
 
 . €lxevy €v avT@ Tpia Oavwagwrata Kat 
 mepiBonta mac avOpwrots Epya, AUXVLay, TpaTre- 
 Gav, Ovuratypiov; Antig. iii. 6. 8: metagu Se 
 avtis (THs Avxvias) Kal THS TpamEgns Evdov ... 
 Ovpratyprov, EvAwvov méev «.7.A, al. 
 
604 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 service on the great day of atonement. About the existence of such a 
 censer at the time of the Mosaic tabernacle, which the author after all has 
 mainly before his mind, nothing is known with certainty. Only from the 
 Mishna, tract. Joma, iv. 4,1 do we learn something about it. Moreover, 
 according to tract. Joma, v. 1, vii. 4, this censer was first fetched out of the 
 storehouse, carried by the high priest into the Most Holy Place, and upon 
 the completion of the service again carried forth therefrom ; even as it 
 would be a priori improbable in the highest degree that such instrument 
 should be kept within the Holy of Holies. For, according to Lev, xvi. 12, 
 13, the high priest was first to enter with incense into the Most Holy 
 Place, in order that through the cloud thereof the glory of God, enthroned 
 above the cover of the ark of the covenant, might become invisible to 
 him, to the end that he died not. And yet éyovoa compels us to think 
 of an abiding place of the Suuarjpiv ; to explain éyouca of the mere apper- 
 taining of the Guuwarypiov to the Most Holy Place as an object of use for 
 the latter, as is usually done by the one class of expositors,? is—inasmuch as 
 the author sharply separates from each other in his description the two 
 main divisions of the O. T. sanctuary, as well as the objects peculiar to 
 each of these divisions, by means of pera dé, ver 38, and thus éyovoa, ver. 4, 
 unmistakably corresponds to the év 7, ver. 2—altogether arbitrary. If, 
 then, we understand @ucargprov of the altar of incense, as we are compelled 
 to do, there arises the archaeological difficulty that this altar had its stand- 
 ing-place not in the Most Holy Place, as is here presupposed by the 
 author, but, on the contrary, in the Holy Place (Ex. xxx. 1 ff.). This point 
 of inconsistency with historic truth is to be admitted, and therefrom the 
 conclusion to be drawn, that the author did not himself live in the vicin- 
 ity of the Jewish safactuary, but had drawn his knowledge with regard to 
 the same only from the Scriptures of the O. T., whence the possibility of 
 an error is explicable. In favor of this possibility, Bleek rightly urges the 
 following considerations : first, that Ex. xxvi. 35 there are mentioned as 
 standing within the Holy Place only the table and the candlestick, butnot 
 the altar of incense also. Then, that where the’ standing place of this 
 altar is actually spoken of, the form of expression chosen certainly, by 
 reason of its indefiniteness, admitted of misconstruction. Finally, that in 
 the Mosaic law the altar of incense was brought into peculiar significance 
 in connection with the solemnity of the atonement, since on this day it 
 was sprinkled and cleansed by the high priest with the same blood which 
 the high priest had carried into the Most Holy Place (Ex. xxx. 10; Lev. 
 xvi. 18 f.).—ypvoovv] since the emphasis rests on it, is prefixed. The arti- 
 cle, however, is wanting, because the sense is: a golden altar, namely, the 
 
 10mnibus diebus reliquis suffitum facturus 
 de altari accepit in turibulo argenteo 
 vero die in aureo. ; 
 
 to VITO-IW MIND, 1 Kings vi. 22. 
 3So Ex. xxx. 6: Kat Oyoers alto amévavte 
 TOU KATATETATLATOS, TOU OYTOS Em THS KLBWTOU 
 
 rien eathole 
 
 2 But also by some advocates of the opposite 
 view, as Jac. Cappellus, Piseator, Owen, Myn- 
 ster, Ebrard, Delitasch, Conybeare, Riehm, 
 Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 490, Obs.; Maier, 
 Moll, Hofmann, and Woerner, with an appeal 
 
 Tov paptupiwv; ibid. xl. 5: Kat Onoers To Ovar- 
 aoTypiov TO xpvaour eis TO Oumtav evavTiov THS 
 KiBwrod; ver. 26: amévavTt TOU KaTaTEeTAgMa- 
 tos; Ley. iv. 7, Xvi. 12,18: ¢vavtiov or amévavte 
 Kuplov. 
 
CHAP. IX. 5. 605 
 
 atar of incense, in distinction from the brazen altar existing in the court, 
 namely, the altar of burnt-offering.—xai rv Ki Bwrdv rH Suabjxnc] and the ark 
 of the covenant; comp. Ex. xxy. 10ff., xxxvii. 1-9.—repixexadvupévyy ravro- 
 dev ypvoiv] overlaid on every side (within and without; comp. Ex. xxv. 11) 
 with gold (plating of fine gold). According to 1 Kings viii., the ark of the 
 covenant was also brought into the temple of Solomon. On the destruc- 
 tion of this temple by the Chaldeans it was lost, and the second temple 
 was without an ark.'—év 7 ordyvoc ypvoy éyovoa 7d wavva k.t.2.] wherein was a 
 golden pot with the manna, and Aaron’s rod which had budded, and the 
 tables of the covenant. év 4 does not refer back to oxyvj, ver. 8 (Ribera, 
 Justinian, Pyle, Peirce, and others),—for to the év 7, ver. 4, the izepdave 
 dé ait#c, ver. 5, forms an opposition,—but it refers to «:Bwrdc. On the 
 pot of manna, comp. Ex. xvi. 32-34; on Aaron’s rod, Num. xvii. 16-26 
 (1-11); on the tables of the covenant, Ex. xxv. 16; Deut. x.1,2. Accord- 
 ing to 1 Kings vii. 9, there was nothing more in the ark of the covenant, 
 at the time of its removal into the temple, than the two tables of the law; 
 and according to Ex. xvi. 83, Num. xvii. 25 (10), the two first-mentioned 
 objects were not to have their place within, but before the ark of the cove- 
 nant. The same opinion, however, which the author here expresses as to 
 the place of the preservation of the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, is 
 found likewise with later Rabbins, as with R. Levi Ben Gerson at 1 Kings 
 vii. 9 and at Num. xvii. 10, and Abarbanel at 1 Kings viii. 9. See Wet- 
 stein on our passage. 
 
 Ver. 5. The author turns from the objects to be found within the ark of 
 the covenant to that which is above the same—izepdvw 8 airic| se. Tic 
 KiBwrov.—XepovBiu| comp. Ex, xxv. 18 ff., xxxvii. 7 ff.; Winer, Bibl. Real- 
 worterb. I. 2 Aufl. p. 262 ff.; Bahr, Symbolik des Mos. Cultus, Bd. I. p. 311 
 ff. There existed two of them, of fine gold, one at each end of the cover 
 or lid of the ark of the covenant, upon which, with faces turned towards 
 each other, they looked down, and which they covered with their out- 
 spread wings. In the midst of the cherubim was the glory of God en- 
 throned (1 Sam. iv. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 2; 2 Kings xix. 15; Isa. xxxvii. 16), and 
 from this place God would speak to Moses (Ex. xxv. 22; comp. Num. vii. 
 89).—Xepovfiu is here treated as a neuter, as likewise generally with the . 
 LXX., with whom the masculine oi Xepov3. occurs but rarely (e.g. Ex. xxv. 
 20, xxxvii. 7). The neuter is not, however, to be explained by the suppo- 
 sition that tvebvara is to be supplied to it in thought (comp. Drusius on 
 our passage), but from the fact that the cherubim were regarded as Coa. 
 —The cherubim are called XepovBin déEnc. That may mean cherubim 
 of glory or brightness, to whom glory or brightness is proper (so Camera- 
 rius, Estius, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Stuart, Kuinoel, a/.), or the cheru- 
 bim which pertain to the divine glory, the N17) 33, i.e. who are the bearers 
 
 1Comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud. vy. 5. 5: Mosaic cherubim are described as goa metecva, 
 "Execto S5€ ovdév GAws EV aiTa, popdyy & ovdevi tov Um’ avOpirwv Eewpapevwv 
 aBatov 5€ kat axypaytov Kai adeatov qv macy, maparAyjo.a. Comp. also Ezek. x. 15: kat ta 
 aylov S€ ayvov exadecTo. XepovBiu Hoav TovTo Td Gwov, 6 idov x.7.A. Ibid. 
 
 2Comp. Josephus, Antig. iii. 6. 5, where the ver. 20. 
 
606 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 of the divine glory (so the majority). Grammatically the former is easier 
 (on account of the absence of the article before dégyc). But the latter is 
 to be preferred as yielding a more appropriate thought, and the omission 
 of the article is to be justified from the usage of the LXX. Ex. xl. 34; 1 
 Sam. iv. 22; Ezek. ix. 8, x. 18, al.—karaoxidfovra 7d idaoripiov] which over- 
 shadow the propitiatory (or mercy-seat). katackidfecv in the N. T. only 
 here. Comp. ovoxidlew, Ex. xxv. 20; oxeafew, Ex. xxxvii. 9; 1 Chron. 
 xxvill. 18. A more choice verb than repixadinrew, 1 Kings vill. 7. 16 iAa- 
 ot#pcov (132), the cover of the ark of the covenant, which on the 
 great day of atonement was sprinkled with the sacrificial blood for the 
 expiation of the sins of the people. Comp. Ley. xvi. 14 f.—zepi év] goes 
 back not merely to the cherubim (Ebrard, p. 294), but also to all the objects 
 before enumerated.—oix éorw] it concerns us not, or: is not the place, or: is 
 impossible. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 20. Of the same meaning as the more defi- 
 nite ov« &eorw. With Kurtz to supply réroc is inadmissible-—xard pépoc] 
 in detail. The author does not design to set forth the typical significance 
 of every single object enumerated ; the indication of the typical signifi- 
 cance of the two main divisions of the Jewish sanctuary is that which he 
 at present aims at, and to this task he now addresses himself in that 
 which immediately follows, comp. ver. 8. 
 
 Vy. 6,7. After the collective expression ro dyvov koouckdv, ver. 1, has 
 been analyzed into its single constituent parts, vv. 2-5, and a recapitula- 
 tory reference has been made to the total result of this given analysis by 
 means Of rottov ob toc KaTteckevacwévwr,—the opposition to wév, ver. 
 1, being formally introduced by dé, and then receiving its more precise 
 material defining by means of the statement, ver. 8, which is attached in 
 a grammatical respe@t as a subsidiary clause,—the discourse advances to 
 the development of the further general idea, which is placed in the fore- 
 front, ver. 1, but has hitherto remained unnoticed, the twofold expression 
 dikat@mata Aatpeiac.—F rom the present ceiciacirv, as from mpoodgéper, 
 ver. 7 (comp. also ver 8 f.), it follows that the Mosaic cultus was still con- 
 tinuing at the time when the author wrote. The participle perfect, xateo- 
 kevaouévov, however, denotes that-which is extending out of the past into 
 the present, and is still enduring in the present (see Winer, p. 254 [E. T. 
 270 f.]). The present hereby indicated can, of course, only be that in 
 which the author himself is living and writing. The endeavor to explain 
 it of a present into which the author only mentally places himself, is as 
 little warranted grammatically as is the asserting, with Hofmann, that the 
 present in which the discourse here moves is “not a past, nor actual, nor 
 something still continuing, but that set forth in the word of God, where 
 it is to be read how the sanctuary erected by Moses was constituted, and 
 what priests and high priests do in the same; ” or with Mangold (in Bleek’s 
 Hinleit. in das N. T. p. 617), to find the Scripture picture of the tabernacle 
 drawn in our passage as a “ purely ideal magnitude, which by no means 
 guarantees the actual continued existence of the temple worship.” For, 
 in order to render possible suppositions of this kind, the conjoining of the 
 presents with a participle aorist would have been indispensably necessary. 
 
CHAP, EX? 65°75 607 
 
 From the form of discourse chosen: tobtwr ottw¢g kateckevacpévar 
 (“in that these objects have been in such wise regulated’), in union with 
 the present tenses eiciacvv and zpoodgé per, it therefore follows of neces- 
 sity that tho author, although here entering only upon the presentation of 
 the typical significance of the two main divisions of the Mosaic sanctuary, 
 nevertheless thinks of these two main divisions, together with all that 
 appertains to them,—which he has just now enumerated,—as still pre- 
 served in being, thus also as still present in the Jewish temple of his day ; 
 by which supposition, it is true, he becomes involved in contradiction with 
 the historic reality, inasmuch as alike the ark of the covenant as the ves- 
 sel of manna and Aaron’s rod were wanting in the second temple. Vid. 
 supra ad ver. 4. With very little reflection does Riehm (Lehrbegr. des 
 Hebrierbr. p. 491, Obs.) object to this conclusion, that “ with just the same 
 right one might infer from the present in xiii. 11 that the author supposed , 
 the Israelites of his time to be still dwelling in a camp.” The passage 
 xiii. 11 has nothing whatever in common with ours, since it is here a ques- 
 tion of the combination of a participle perfect with verbs in the present. 
 That, too, which Delitzsch sets against it, that the robrwv oitw¢ KatecKevac- 
 pévov, pointing back to KatecxevdoOy, ver. 2, certainly shows that the author 
 has the Mosaic period before his mind, utterly collapses, inasmuch as the 
 participle perfect, and not the participle aorist, has been employed. Phrases, 
 however, like those met with in Delitzsch : that the author was writing for 
 just such readers as would not have given him credit for an ignorance 
 like this, are peremptory decisions, for which the result is already fixed 
 before the investigation, and consequently intimidations of the grammati- 
 cal conscience.—7 zpérn oxnvf] as ver. 2, the fore-tent or Holy Place.—é.a 
 ravréc| continually, i.e. day by day. Opposite drag tov éavrov, ver. 7.— 
 oi lepeic] Opposite pdvoc 6 apyeepebe, Ver. 7.—Tac Aarpeiac éritedovvtec] perform- 
 ing the religious actions. Daily, morning and evening, an offering of in 
 cense was presented, and daily were the lamps of the sacred candlestick 
 placed in readiness and kindled. Comp. Ex. xxx. 7 ft 
 
 Ver. 7. ‘Il devrépa] se. oxmvy, the Most Holy Place.—aza§ rov éviavTov } 
 once in the year, i.e. only on a single day of the year, namely, on the tenth 
 of the seventh month (Tisri), on the great solemnity of atonement. The 
 supposition that the high priest on this day more than once entered the 
 Most Holy Place is not excluded by the expression, and the disputed 
 question as toshow many times this took place has no bearing on our 
 passage. That the high priest was obliged to enter the Most Holy Place 
 at least twice on this day, follows from Ley. xvi. 12-16. That he entered 
 into it as many as four times is the teaching of the Talmud (tract. Joma, 
 v. 1, vii. 4) and Rabbins.—wévoe 6 apyiepeie] se. elceot.— poopéper] 18 not to 
 be explained, as by Caloy and others, of the sacrifices outside of the Most 
 Holy Place. For in this case we should have to expect the aorist. It is 
 employed of the blood of the victim before slain, which blood the high 
 priest carries into the Most Holy Place, and here in the Most Holy Place 
 presents to God (the Socinians, Grotius, Bleek).—irép éavrov Kai ro» ror 
 Aaos dvvonuatwr] for himself and the transgressions of the people. To make 
 
GOS THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 éavrov likewise depend upon dayvonuatev (for his own sins and those of 
 the peopie: Vulgate, Luther (?), Calvin, Piscator, Schlichting, Jac. Cap- 
 pellus, Grotius, Storr, Stuart, Paulus, and others), is, although the thought 
 is not thereby altered (comp. vii. 27), grammatically false ; because in that 
 case the article 76v could not have been wanting before éavroi.—ayvoy- 
 uitwr] see at v. 2, p. 
 
 Ver. 8. Now follows rerio ently as a subordinate thought) the main con- 
 sideration, with a view to which the author has been led more fully to 
 describe the dyiov xoopixdy and the dicacduara Aarpeiac of ver. 1.—rovto dn2onv- 
 Tog Tov mvetuatoc ayiov] the Holy Ghost indicating this very thing (follow- 
 ing).—rovro] has the emphasis, and acquires its development of contents 
 by means of pArw redavepioba . . . oraow—rov rvebuatoc dyiov] The 
 arrangement of the sanctuary and priesthood prescribed by God to Moses 
 is thought of by our author as carried into effect by Moses under the 
 assistance and guidance of the Holy Ghost; the idea expressed in that 
 arrangement might therefore very easily be represented as an indication 
 designed by the Holy Ghost.—yjro regavepictar tiv TOv dyiwy éddv, Ett THe 
 Tparne oxyvag éxovone oraow] that the way of the sanctuary is not yet manifested, 
 so long as the fore-tabernacle still exists—rév dyiov] is erroneously appre- 
 hended by the Peshito and Schulz cone also Zeger) as masculine. It is 
 neuter. Does not, however, as ver. 2, denote the Holy Place, but, as vv. 12, 
 24, 25, x. 19, xiii. 11 (comp. also 7d dyov, Lev. xvi. 16, 17, 20, al.), the Most 
 Holy Place, and that not the earthly one (Kurtz),—for that would be a 
 trifling statement; whereas surely roiro dydovvtoc tov mvetuatoc dyiov pre- 
 pares the way for a deeper truth, vid. infra,—but the heavenly reality, the 
 throne of the Godhead. —7 Tav.dyiwv 6d6c¢ signifies the way to the Most 
 Holy Place. Oe otdéozv further means: to have existence, to exist. 
 We have not, however, with Béhme, to import into it a secondary refer- 
 ence to firmness or legal validity, and 4 mpétn oxnvyA isnot the one first 
 in point of time, i.e. the earthly, Jewish sanctuary in opposition to the 
 heavenly (Hunnius, Seb. Schmidt, Carpzov, Semler, Baumgarten, Bloom- 
 field, al.), still less the tabernacle in opposition to the later temple (Peirce, 
 Sykes), but the fore-tabernacle or Holy Place, in opposition to the interior 
 tabernacle or Most Holy Place. The thought is: by the ordering that 
 the Most Holy Place, the presence-chamber and place of manifestation of 
 God, might not be entered, save on one single day of the year, and by the 
 high priest alone, while the daily Levitical service of the priests is accom- 
 plished in the Holy Place, and thus approach to the former debarred and 
 shut off by the latter, the Holy Ghost proclaims that so long as the Leviti- 
 cal priesthood, and consequently the Mosaic law in general,.continues, 
 the immediate access to God is not yet permitted; that thus, in order to 
 the bringing about and rendering possible of a full and direct communion 
 with God, the Old Testament covenant-religion must first fall, and the 
 more perfect one brought in by Christ (ver. 11) must take its place.’ 
 
 1Comp. Matt. x. 5: eis od0v €@vOv; Jer. ii. | Obs. 4; Winer, p. 176 [E. T. 187]. 
 18: tH 05 Aiymrov, al.; Kiihner, II. p. 176, 2Comp. Matt. xxvii. 51, as also Josephus, 
 
CHAP, TX; -S, 79; 608 
 
 Vv. 9, 10 are closely, indeed, connected grammatically with that 
 which precedes, but, logically regarded, introduce the third and last 
 main point of the disquisition on the high-priestly superiority of Christ 
 over the Levitical high priests. For after (1) it had been shown that 
 Christ, as regards His person, is exalted above the Levitical high priests 
 (iv. 14-vii. 28), and then afterwards (2) it was proved that likewise the 
 sanctuary in which He ministers surpasses in sublimity the Levitical 
 sanctuary (vill. 1-ix. 8), it is now further stated’ (3) that the sacrifice also 
 which He has offered is more excellent than the Levitical sacrifices 
 (ix. 9-x. 18). 
 
 Ver. 9. [LXVII f, g.] "Hric] is not synonymous with 7. It is employed 
 argumentatively, in that it presents the following declaration as a fact, 
 the truth of which is manifest—We have not, however, to take rec with 
 mapaory as a designation of the subject (Calvin, al.: which emblem was 
 only for the present time; Storr, a/.: which emblem was to continue only 
 to the present; Zeger, Semler, de Wette, al.: which emblem has refer- 
 ence to the present time). For the verb to be supplemented would not 
 be the mere copula; it would have a peculiar signification, and thus could 
 not be omitted. #7~¢ alone is consequently the subject, and rapafo0a4 the 
 predicate. Yet 7r¢ is not to be referred back to oraow (Chr. Fr. Schmid), 
 for the expression ordow does not occupy a sufficiently independent posi- 
 Sion in the preceding context to justify this; still less—what is thought 
 possible by Cramer—to rv tév dyiwv édév, by which the idea would be 
 rendered unmeaning. Nor have we to assume an attraction to rapaBoag, 
 in such wise that gre should stand in the sense of 672 (so Bengel, who 
 makes it point back to vv. 6-8; Maier, who makes it refer to vv. 7, 8; 
 Michaelis, who makes it refer to pA redavepdoba x.7.2., and others), or, 
 what amounts to the same thing, to supplement to the phrase #rci¢ 
 tapaBoAy, comprehended together as a subject, tapaBoAW éorcv as a pre- 
 dicate : which emblem (described vv. 6-8) is an emblem for the present 
 time.’ For, in the course of vv. 9, 10, respect is had just to the closing 
 words alone of ver. 8: éte tHe porn oxnvijg Exobonc otdow. The exclusively 
 right construction, therefore, is the referring back of #rie to tie mpdrne 
 oxnvyc, Ver. 8.—rapaBoAy ei¢ tov Kaipov Tov éveotyxéra] sc. éoTiv. TapaBoAR 
 in the Gospels very frequently a fictitious historic likeness. Here a like- 
 ness by means of a fact,an emblem. Not incorrectly, therefore, is it 
 explained, on the part of Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, by 
 rimoc.—eic] in reference to, as regards. Instead of ei¢ tov Kacpdv tov éveory- 
 xéra, consequently, the mere tov Kapod tov éveotnxédtog might have been 
 written.—é Kaipi¢ 6 éveatyxoc] the present time. The opposite thereto is 
 formed by the karpd¢ diophdcewc, ver. 10, by which the reader is referred to 
 the Christian epoch of time, the aidv pé2A0v (vi. 5; comp. also ii. 5). 6 
 kacpoc¢ 6 éveotnkac is therefore synonymous with the aidv oitoc else- 
 where, and indicates the pre-Christian period of time still extending 
 
 Antiq. iii. 3.7: tv S€ tpitnv potpay [THs oxynv7js] 1So Nickel in Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, Mara, 
 povw mepteypawe TS Oew Sia TO Kai TOV ovpa- p. 188 f. 
 yov avemiBatov civat avOpwrots. 
 
 39 
 
610 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 onward into the present.!. The term «avpéc, however, is chosen, instead 
 of the more general ypévoc, or aiey, because it is the thought of the 
 author that this period of time has already reached its turning-point, at 
 which it is to take its departure.—xa? 7] conformably to which, or in ac- 
 cordance with which, applies not to mapafory,? but to tij¢ mparne oxyvijc, as 
 the last preceding main notion ; stands thus parallel to jru.—pi dvvayevac 
 Kata ovveidjow Tedevaoar Tov AaTpevovta] is to be taken in close connection 
 with dapd te kai Ouoiac tpoodépovrac (against Bohme, who unwarrantably 
 presses the force of the plural dapa re kai Gvoiar)—xata ovveidyow] as 
 regards the consciousness, or as to the conscience (Theophylact: kata tov éow 
 arfpwrov), i.e. 80 that the reality of being led to perfection is inwardly 
 experienced, and the conscience in connection therewith feels itself satis- 
 fied.—rov Aarpebovta] him rendering the service (x. 2). Not specially the 
 priest is meant (Estius, Gerhard; comp. also Drusius), but in general, the 
 man doing homage to God by the offering of sacrifice, whether it be a priest 
 who offers for himself, or another who presents this offering through the 
 medium of the priest. [Matt. iv. 10; cf. 6 mpocepyduevoc, Heb. x. 1.] 
 
 Ver. 10. Mévov émi Bpdu. Kai rou. kai dad. Bantiopmoig dixaidpata ocapkog 
 x.7.A.] which, together with meats and drinks and divers washings, are only 
 fleshly ordinances, imposed until the time of reformation. Apposition to dapa 
 te Kai Ovoia, py Svvdpuevae x.T.A., Ver. 9.—pévov] belongs to dikaidyata capkéc, 
 but is placed in advance of this on account of the addition éxi Bpopaow 
 x.7.4.; and ixé expresses the accession to something already present 
 (Winer, p. 8676 [E. T. 393]), or the existence externally side by side.A— 
 Otherwise ‘is it explained by others, in that they take ~évov é7zi in close 
 combination, give to éré the signification “in reference to,” and place 
 both words still # relation to ver.9. They then regard pévoy ézi x.7.A. 
 either as. nearer definition to spoodépovrac (so, substantially, Vatablus, 
 Schlichting, and others), or as opposition to kara cvveidyow Tedeoa (80 
 Schulz, Ebrard, al.). But against the first supposition the material ground 
 is decisive, that the presentation of sacrifices in reality had reference by 
 no means exclusively to the expiation of offences against the ordinances 
 regulative of food and lustrations ; against the second, the linguistic ground 
 that 4A” éxi Bpduacw pévov x.7.2. must have been written instead of pévov 
 éxi Bpduaow x.7.A. Yet others take yévov éri x.7.A. in close conjunction 
 
 deny this,—and the former will understand 
 only an “imagined present,” into which the 
 author “only transposed himself;” the latter, 
 “that present in which the Holy Ghost pro- 
 phesied by means of that which was written 
 
 1Quite mistaken (as is already apparent 
 even from the opposition to catpos StopAacews, 
 ver. 10) is the opinion of Delitzsech, with whom 
 Alford concurs, that 6 Katpos 0 éveotnKws 
 denotes the present begun with the cacv7 
 
 5.a07«7n, the present of the New Testament 
 time, in which the parable has attained its 
 close. See, on the contrary, Riehm, Lehrbegr. 
 des Hebrderbr. ‘p. 494, Obs., and specially 
 Reiche, Commentar. Crit. p. 748q.—That, for 
 the rest, by 6 Kaupos 0 évertnxws only that 
 present in which the author lived and wrote 
 can be meant, needs not another ‘word of 
 explanation. When Kurtz and Hofmann 
 
 in the law,’—this is done only in the interest 
 of their wrong interpretations of ver. 6. 
 
 2O0ecumenius, Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, 
 Nickel, U.c., Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. 
 p. 495, Obs.; Alford, Woerner, al. 
 
 3Comp. e.g. Hom. Od. vii. 120: éyxvn én" 
 éyxvn ynpaoker, wHAov 8 eri wyAw; Thucyd 
 li. 101: bdaroaxduevos adeApny éavTov Swoes 
 Kat xpymata én’ avry. 
 
~*~ 
 
 CHAP) Ix. 1051 611 
 
 with rdv Aarpetovra, ver. 9. So perhaps already the Vulgate (perfectum 
 facere servientem solummodo in cibis), then Luther (“him that does 
 religious service only in meats and drink,” etc.), Estius, Corn. a Lapide, 
 Olearius, Semler, Ernesti, Ewald, Hofmann, and others. But the addi- 
 tional words would too greatly drag, the thought resulting would be 
 incommensurable with kara ovveidyow tedeoa, and the formula Aarpebew 
 éxé te in the sense indicated without example—The PBpépara kai 
 xéuata are interpreted by Peirce, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Heinrichs, 
 Maier, and others of the sacrificial meals ; by Bleek and de Wette, of the 
 partaking of the paschal supper in particular. But the mention of these 
 practices would be, here at any rate, something too special, and the words 
 xiii. 9 can furnish no standard for the interpretation of our passage. 
 More correctly, therefore, is it thought in general of the meats and drinks 
 permitted, as of those forbidden, in the Mosaic law. Comp. Col. ii. 16; 
 Rom. xiv. 17. With regard to drinks, there are in the Mosaic law pro- 
 hibitions only for special cases; comp. Num. vi. 3; Lev. x. 9, xi. 34. 
 Comp. however, also Matt. xxiii. 24; Rom. xiv. 21.—xai dvagdpore Bartiopoic] 
 Comp. Ex. xxix. 4; Lev. xi. 25, 28, 32, 40, xiv. 6-9, xv. 5 ff., xvi. 4, 24 ff.; 
 Num. vil. 7, xix. 17 ff., al—diaiéuata capkéc] ordinances of the flesh, 
 i.e. ordinances that relate to the flesh, and thus bear the impress of the 
 earthly and transitory.—yéype Karpov diopbdcewce érkeiueva] imposed (only) 
 until the time of reformation. The xarpd¢ diophdcewe is the epoch of the 
 promised New and more excellent Covenant (viii. 8 ff.), which has begun 
 with the appearing of Christ.—d:ép@woic] only here in the N. T.—éruxeiueva] 
 Oecumenius: Bdpoc yap qv pévov ta év TO vduw, Kabdc gacw ob anécTodo. 
 Comp. Acts xv. 10, 28. 
 
 Vv. 11, 12. [LXVII h-k.] Antithesis to vv. 9,10. What the religion of 
 the Mosaic covenant was unable to effect, that has been accomplished by Christ. 
 —rapayevouevog apxieped’¢ Tov weAAdvTwov ayabov| having appeared as High 
 Priest of the good things to come. The verb in the same sense as Matt. 
 iii. 1, 1 Macc. iv. 46; synonymous with dvictac#a, Heb. vii. 11, 15. 
 Strangely misapprehending the meaning, Ebrard: zapayevéuevoc is to be 
 looked upon as an “ adjectival attribute” to apyepetc, and the thought is, 
 “as a present High Priest,”’—an acceptation which is incompatible with 
 the participle of the aorist—High Priest of the good things to come 
 (comp. x. 1) is Christ called, inasmuch as these good things are the conse- 
 quence and result of His high-priestly activity. They are the blessings 
 of everlasting salvation, which the author, ver. 12, sums up in the expres- 
 sion aiwria Abtpworc; and they are called future, inasmuch as they are 
 proper to the aiay péAAwv (vi. 5), or the oixovuévy péAAovea (ii. 5), and the 
 full enjoyment of them will first come in at the consummation of the 
 kingdom of God, to be looked for with the return of Christ.—déia rj¢ pueiZovoe 
 kai tedevorépac oxnvac x.7.A.] through the greater and more perfect. taber- 
 nacle, which is not made with hands—that is to say, not of this world. 
 The words belong to eio7Afev cic ta ayia, Ver. 12, and dca is used in the 
 local sense: “ through ” (not instrumentally, as the da, ver. 12). To join 
 the words to that which precedes, and find in them an indication of that 
 
612 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 by means of which Christ became dapyepedie tov peaadvrov ayabav (Primasius, 
 Luther, Dorscheus, Schulz, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, pp. 409, 412 f., 2 
 Aufl..—which latter will accordingly also take the 6:4, ver. 12, in both 
 cases along with apyiepete tov perddvtwv ayafov; otherwise, however, in 
 the Comm. p. 3387,—Moll, and others), is erroneous, because by virtue of 
 ovdé, ver. 12, the existence of an already preceding link in the nearer 
 definition of cio7AGev cig ta Gya is presupposed.—But to interpret the 
 oxyv4 through which Christ has entered into the Most Holy Place as the 
 body of Christ, or His human nature, or as the holy life of Christ,? or as the 
 (militant) church upon earth, or, finally, as the world in general,‘ is incon- 
 sistent with the point of comparison suggested by the comparatives e/Covo¢ 
 and reAevorépac in accordance with the foregoing disquisition, in general 
 is opposed to the connection with vv. 1-10, and has against it the anti- 
 thesis in which ra ayia, ver. 12, stands to oxy4, ver. 11, as.also the addi- 
 tion ob rabtye tHe Kticew. The lower spaces of the heavens are intended 
 —corresponding to the zpory oxjv4 of the earthly sanctuary (vv. 2, 6, 8)— 
 as the preliminary stage of the heavenly Holy of Holies. Comp. iv. 14: 
 SteAndvbéra Tove ovpavovc¢.—eilovoc Kai tedecorépac] sc. than the Mosaic oxyv9. 
 —ov xetporogtov] Comp. Vili. 2: fv éxnzev 6 Kbptoc, ovk avOpwroc, Acts Vii. 
 48, xvii. 24; Mark xiv. 58; 2 Cor. v. 1—ov ratrne ric kticewc|] not belonging 
 to the earthly created world (the earth) lying before one’s eyes (rary). 
 Wrongly Erasmus, Luther, Clarius, Vatablus, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Wolf, 
 Bengel, Kuinoel, Friederich, /.c. p. 296, and others: not of this kind of 
 building, sc. the same as the earthly sanctuary; or: as earthly things in 
 general. 
 
 Ver. 12. Oidé] nor. Oidé is written by the author, misled by the fore- 
 going notes of negation : ov yelporomtov and ob rabty¢ THe KTicewc, Whereas, 
 properly, cai od ought to have been written, since that which is intro- 
 duced by. obdé is parallel, not to the negative expressions further charac- 
 terizing thie oxyv7, but to the preceding di4.—dv aipatoc tpaywv Kat pooxor] 
 by (by means of) blood of goats and calves, by which the entrance of the 
 earthly high priests into the Most Holy Place was made possible on the 
 great day of atonement. Comp. Lev. xvi. 14, 15.—é.a 6d? rod idiov aivaroc] 
 the Levitical high priest entered the Most Holy Place not merely by 
 means of the blood of animals, he entered at the same time with this 
 blood (ver. 7). The author, however, has respect, with reference to the 
 Levitical high priest also, only to the former notion, since only this, and 
 not at the same time the latter, was suitable for application to Christ 
 (Schlichting). If he had desired that the notion of the werd should also 
 be supplied in thought in our passage (Kurtz), he would have known how 
 
 150, on account of x. 20, Chrysostom, Theo- 
 doret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, 
 Clarius,-Calvin, Beza, Estius, Piseator, Jac. 
 Cappellus, Grotius, Hammond, Owen, Ben- 
 gel, Peirce, Sykes, Ernesti, Chr. Fr. Schmid, 
 Friederich, Symbolik. des Mos. Stiftshiitte, 
 Leipz. 1841, p. 296 ff., and others; also Hof- 
 Bann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 415, 2 Aufi., who, 
 
 however, will have us think of the glorified 
 human nature of Christ. 
 
 2 Ebrard. 
 
 3Cajetan, Corn. a Lapide, Calov, Wittich, 
 Braun, Wolf, Rambach, Michaelis, ad Pewra, 
 Cramer, Baumgarten. 
 
 4 Justinian, Carpsoy. 
 
CHAP, 1x. 12-14. 613 
 
 to express likewise this “somewhat gross material conception ” (Bleek 
 II.) —égdraz] once for all. Corresponds to the following aiwviav.—ei¢ ra 
 ayia] into the inner sanctuary of heaven.—aiwviav rvtpwow etpauevoc] having 
 obtained (by His sacrificial death) eternal redemption. Incorrectly do 
 Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, and Moll take eipayevoc as something 
 coinciding in point of time with ¢cio7A#ev. If it had been so intended, the 
 participle present would have been placed instead of etpdpevoc.—e bp io- 
 keoOac signifies: to find (for oneself), obtain. The Avtpwarce became 
 Christ’s peculiar possession, thus—since He Himself, as the Sinless One, 
 needed it not—to make it over to those who believe in Him.—This 
 Abt pwore is the ransoming, é.e. redemption from the guilt and punish- 
 ment of sin, and it is called aiwvia, eternal, or of indefeasible validity, in 
 opposition to the sacrifices of the O. T. priests, which had to be renewed 
 every year, since they were designed each for the [typical] expiation of 
 the sins of a single year—The feminine formation aiwvia in the N. T. 
 only here and 2 Thess. ii. 16. 
 
 Vy. 18, 14. Justification of aiwriav Abtpworw ebpauevoc, ver. 12, by an argu- 
 ment a minore ad majus. With the quantitative augmentation, however, 
 expressed by «i... éow padov, there is at the same time blended a 
 qualitative augmentation by means of xpdc tHv THe capKdc KadapétyTa and 
 tiv ovveidnow wu. k.7.A., in such wise that the two following thoughts are 
 enfolded the one in the other :—(1) Ifeven the blood of animals works 
 cleansing . | . how much more the blood of Christ? (2) If that effects 
 the purity of the flesh, this effects purity of conscience.—xai orédo¢ 
 dapdrewc] and ashes of an heifer. According to Num. xix., those who by 
 contact with a dead body had become defiled, must be sprinkled with a 
 mixture of water and the ashes of a spotless red heifer wholly consumed 
 by fire, of which the ashes were preserved in a clean place without the 
 camp (with the so-called 137), Num. xix. 9, 13, 20, 21; LXX.: idup 
 pavtiouov), in order to become clean again.—pavrifovoa Tove Kexorvwpuévoue | 
 sprinkling those who have been defiled. Free mode of expression for: with 
 which (ashes) those who have been defiled are sprinkled.—rov¢ kexowwnévore] 
 belongs, since pavri{ovsa most requires an express addition of the object, 
 to this verb,! not to dy:dfec,? which latter stands absolutely: works sanctifi- 
 cation.—xpo¢ tiv tHe capkdc Kadapéryta] to the (producing of the) purity of 
 the flesh. spéc, as v.14. Indication of the result. 
 
 Ver. 143 Incomparably more efficacious must the sacrifice of Christ be. 
 For—(1) Christ offered Himself, i.e. He gave up His own body to the death 
 of a sacrifice, while the Levitical high priest derives his material of sacri- 
 fice from a domain foreign to himself personally ; then: He offered Him- 
 self from a free resolve of will, while the Levitical high priest is placed 
 under the necessity of sacrificing, by the command of an external ordin- 
 ance, and the sacrificial victim whose blood he offers is an irrational ani- 
 
 1Erasmus, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, 3A. L. van der Boon Mesch, Specimen Her- 
 Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Maier, meneuticum in locum ad Hebr. ix. 14, Lugd 
 Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann, Woerner, al. Bat. 1819, 8vo. 
 
 2 Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Schulz, al. 
 
614 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 mal, which consequently knows nothing of the end to which it is applied. 
 The Levitical act of sacrifice is then an external one wrought in accord- 
 ance with ordinance, a sensuous one; Christ’s act of sacrifice, on the 
 other hand, one arising out of the disposition of the heart, thus a moral 
 one. From this it is already evident how it could be said (2) that Christ 
 offered Himself dca mvetuatoc aiwviov. The ethical belongs to the prov- 
 ince of the spirit. Christ accordingly offered Himself by virtue of spirit, 
 because His act of sacrifice was, in relation to God, an act of the highest 
 spiritual obedience (Phil. ii. 8), in relation to the human brethren an act 
 of the highest spiritual love (2 Cor. v. 14, 15). Ava rveipatog aiwvion, 
 however, by virtue of eternal spirit did Christ offer Himself, inasmuch as 
 the notion of the eternal belongs inseparably and essentially to the notion 
 of spirit, in opposition to capé, which has the notion of the transitory as 
 its essential presupposition. The adjective aiwviov is added in natural 
 correspondence with aiwviav Aizpwow, ver. 12. For only by virtue of 
 eternal spirit could a redemption which is to be eternal, or of ever- 
 enduring validity, be accomplished—The majority have interpreted 6:4 
 mvevmatoc aiwviov of the Holy Spirit; then thinking either, as Clarius, 
 Estius, Whitby, and others, of the third person in the divine trias, or as 
 Bleek, de Wette, and others, of the Spirit of God which dwelt in Christ in 
 all its fullness, and was the principle which animated Ilim at every 
 moment. But this application is too special. For, in accordance with 
 the force of the words and the connection of the thoughts, there can stand 
 as a tacit antithesis to the expression: did mvetuato¢g aiwviov, only the gen- 
 eral formula: d:d capkd¢ mpockaipov, whereby the mode of accomplishing 
 the Levitical acts gf sacrifice would be characterized. . Moreover, if the 
 Holy Spirit had been intended, the choice of the adjective aiwriov instead 
 of dyiov ‘must have appeared strange, because indistinct and liable 
 to being misunderstood; finally,-the absence of the article also is 
 best explained on the supposition that the formula is to be understood 
 generically. Too special, likewise, is the explanation of the words adopted 
 by Aretius, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Gomarus, Calov, Wolf, Peirce, M’Lean, 
 Bisping, and many others, in part coinciding with the second form of the 
 first main interpretation, according to which, by mvetyua aidvov, the divine 
 nature of Christ, or “the principle of the eternal Sonship of God indwelling 
 in Christ” (Kurtz), is designated. This view already finds its refutation 
 in the fact that zveiva has its opposite in odpf, and rvedua and odpf are 
 contrasted as spirit and body, not as divine and human. To be rejected 
 farther is the procedure of Faustus Socinus, Schlichting, Grotius, Lim- 
 borch, Carpzoy, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 525 ff.), Reuss, Kurtz, 
 Woerner, and others, in making the zvevua aidvov, as regards the thing ' 
 intended, equivalent to the divayuc Cue axaradbrov, vil. 16, whereby the 
 essentially ethical import of the expression in our passage is lost sight of; 
 
 1“Tauteur a voulu dire ici, par une tour- non sujette A la mort et par cela méme seule 
 nure nouyelle, justement ce qu'il a déja dit capable de nous assurer un bienfait durable 
 deux fois en d’autres termes (vii. 16,25). La et éternel aussi.” 
 nature de Christ lui assure une vie éternelle, 
 
CHAP. Ix. 14, 615 
 
 entirely false and arbitrary, however, is the interpretation of Déderlein 
 Storr, and Stuart, who refer rveiya aidvov to Christ’s state of glorification 
 after His exaltation ; of Nosselt (Opusc. ad interpret. sacr. scripturr. fascic. 
 I. ed. 2, p. 334),—as also van der Boon Mesch, l.c. p. 100,—who espouse 
 the opinion: “‘zveiua esse victimam, quam Christus se immolando Deo 
 obtulit, eamque aiwriay dici propterea, quod istius victimae vis ad homines 
 salvandos perpetua atque perennis futura sit;” of Michaelis, ad Peire., 
 who finds the sense, that Christ presented Himself not according to the 
 letter of the Mosaic law, but yet certainly according to its spirit; and of 
 Planck (Commentatt. a Rosenm. etc., edd. I. 1, p. 189), who even maintains 
 that the spirit of prophecy in the prophets of the Old Covenant is thought 
 of. Strangely also Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius, and others (comp. 
 already Chrysostom) : dia mvebuato¢g aiwviov stands in opposition to the fire, 
 by which the Levitical sacrifices were offered to God. Similarly Hofmann 
 (Schrifibew. II. 1, p. 420, 2 Aufl.), who is followed by Delitzsch and Riehm 
 (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 527, Obs.): “the spirit by which Christ offered 
 Himself is called an eternal spirit, in opposition to the fleeting spirit of the 
 animals which the O. T. high priest presented.” Of a “spirit ” of the ani- 
 mals the author (cf. iv. 12) can hardly have thought, inasmuch as, though 
 in the O. T. a rvedua is often ascribed to animals, this is understood only 
 in the lower sense of the wuy4. Needlessly, in the last place, does Reiske 
 conjecture dyvetuaroc instead of rvebuatoc.—did] denotes not the mere 
 impulse or impelling motive (Vatablus, Ribera, Estius, al.), nor yet the con- 
 dition or sphere (Stengel, Tholuck, a/.), but the higher power, by virtue of 
 which the offering was accomplished and made effective.—éavriv mpoofvey- 
 xev] is understood by Bleek, with whom Kurtz concurs, after the prece- 
 dent of Faustus Socinus, Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, and others, in 
 the sense that Christ offered to God, in the heavenly Holy of Holies, His blood 
 which was shed upon earth ; which, however, is violent on account of éa 
 Tvebuatoc aiwviov, since these words appertain to the whole relative clause, 
 and are not to be referred, with Bleek, as a nearer definition merely to 
 duwuov. The undergoing upon earth of the death of the cross is that which 
 is meant.—dpopnor] as a spotless sacrifice, yielding full satisfaction to God. 
 The Levitical victim must be dyzeuoc (O°), physically free from blemish. 
 Here duwuoc is used of the higher, ethical spotlessness, and has reference 
 to the sinlessness of character manifested by Christ during His earthly 
 life. Erroneously Bleek: the expression has respect to “the condition of 
 Christ after death and the resurrection, in which, raised above even the 
 infirmities to which as very man He was subject upon earth, He could in 
 particular no more fall a victim to death.”—;6 66] is to be taken along 
 with the whole relative clause, not merely with dueuov.—ard vexpdv Epyor] 
 forth from dead (legal) works, so that we free ourselves from them as from 
 something that is unfruitful and useless, rise above them. The notion of 
 the vexpa épya here the same as at vi. 1. 
 
 Vv. 15-28. [On Vv. 15-22, see Note LX VIII., pages 631, 632.] In order, 
 however, that Christ might become the mediator of the New Covenant, it was 
 matter of necessity that He should suffer death. This follows from the very 
 
616 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 notion of a dsad#xy, since the same is only ratified after the death of the 
 diadéuevoc has been proved; as accordingly the first or O. T. dcadjxn was 
 not inaugurated without blood. For the inauguration of the earthly 
 sanctuary the blood of slain animals sufficed; for the consecration of the 
 aeavenly sanctuary, on the other hand, there was need of a more excel- 
 lent sacrifice. This Christ has presented once for all in the end of the 
 world, by His sin-cancelling sacrificial death. [LX VIII a, b.] 
 
 Ver. 15. Kai dia rovto diadjxng Kage pecitng éoriv] and just for this cause 
 is He the Mediator of a New Covenant. [LX VIII ¢, d.] By means of «ai, ver. 
 15 attaches itself closely to the preceding context, and 61a roiro points 
 back to the main thought contained in vy. 9-14; just for this reason, that 
 the sacrifice of Christ accomplishes that which the Levitical sacrifices are 
 unable to accomplish; namely, that, presented by virtue of eternal spirit, 
 brings in an eternal redemption, these, on the other hand, as ordinances 
 of the flesh, are able to effect only purity of the flesh. Not specially to 7d 
 aia, ver. 14 (Sykes, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Maier), does 6:a@ rovro glance back. 
 For in this case 6c’ airé, or rather 6d tov aiparoc, would more naturally 
 have been written. Nor is dca rovro to be taken together with orwc, as a 
 mere preparation thereto (so Schlichting, Schulz, Bohme, Bleek, Stengel, 
 Ebrard, and many). For thereby ver. 15 would be torn from its connection 
 with that which precedes—Upon xacvq#e there does not rest an emphasis, 
 as is supposed by Bleek and Delitzsch. For otherwise the adjectives must 
 have been prefixed to the substantive. On the contrary, what is to be specially 
 emphasized is dca0Axy¢. For just the inner nexus of the N. T. dca 8 4x7, 
 with the redemptive death of Christ as its mediating cause, is to be brought 
 out; whereas the adjective «amc could be presupposed as familiar from 
 the disquisition viii. 8 ff, in that there the perfect covenant promised by 
 God was sufficiently characterized as a new one.—ézwc] in order that. False 
 the interpretation of Heinrichs: “unde sequitur.” The final clause ézw¢ 
 «.7.2.-is not designed to develop more nearly the 6: rovro; it depends upon 
 diadhKne Kaye peoitne éoriv, and indicates the goal to which, in accordance 
 with the decree of God, the d:aSfxy kay should lead, and at the same 
 time the way and means by which the attainment of this goal should be 
 accomplished.—favarov yevouévov] a death having ensued. The death of 
 Christ is that which is meant. The author, however, expresses himself 
 generically, because he has already in mind that which is to be observed, 
 vv. 16, 17.—Ei¢ drottitpwow tov éxi tH mpdty diadhKn TapaBdcewr] for re- 
 demption from the transgressions (or sins) committed under the first covenant 
 (or at the time of the first covenant). Note of design to @avdarov yevouévov, not 
 to AdBwow.—riv éixayyeriav] the promise, i.e. the promised blessing itself. 
 With rH érayyeAiav we have to combine t7¢ aiwviov KAnpovopmiag, as” 
 a declaration wherein the promised blessing consists (genitive of apposition). 
 By the separation of the two closely connected words, rv érayyediav is 
 brought out more emphatically, and. the discourse gains in point of 
 rhythm. Less suitably, although free from objection on linguistic 
 grounds, did the Peshito, Faber Stapulensis, Braun, Chr. Fr. Schmid, 
 Stein, Stengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Riehm ‘(Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. p. 594), 
 
Gn AP,’ 1x) 15;7%6: 617 
 
 Moll, Ewald, and others take tie aiwviov KAnpovouiag with of KeKAnpuévor: 
 those who are called to the eternal inheritance. —oi kxexAnuévor] Comp. 
 KAgoews érovpaviov pétoyou, ill. 1. The expression is here used absolutely, 
 and is not-to be referred exclusively to the Christians. For, according to 
 ver. 26 and xi. 39, 40, the power of the redemptive death of Christ extends 
 retroactively likewise to the generations of the past. And just for this 
 reason the participle perfect is written, and not the participle aorist. For 
 not to the historic act of the temporal vocation, but to the being called, as a 
 fact in the decree of God already completed and extending into the pres- 
 ent, is attention to be drawn. 
 
 Vv. 16,17. [LX VIII e.] Demonstration of the necessity of the @dvarov 
 yevéo¥ac by means of a truth of universal application. That Christ might 
 be able to become the Mediator of a new d:adjxy, His death was required. 
 For, to the validity of a dsadjx, it is essential that the death of the diavé- 
 uevoc be first proved. Since immediately before (ver. 15) and imme- 
 diately after (ver. 18 ff.) dvadjxy was employed in the sense of *‘ cove- 
 nant,’ elsewhere usual in our epistle, we might naturally, on account 
 of the conjunction of vv. 16, 17, by means of yap, with ver. 15, and 
 on account of évev, by which again ver. 18 is joined to vy. 15, 16, expect 
 this signification of the word to be found also in vy. 16, 17. This 
 has accordingly been insisted upon, here too, by Codurcus (Crit. sacrr. 
 t. VII. P. ii. p. 1067 sqq.), Seb. Schmidt, Peirce, Whitby [in com.], 
 Macknight, Michaelis, Sykes, Cramer, Paulus, and others, lastly also 
 by Ebrard. But it is altogether inadmissible. For if we take dcadijxn 
 as covenant, 6 dia¥éuevoc could only designate him who makes or insti- 
 tutes the covenant; to take 6 dia%éuevoc as the mediator of the covenant, 
 as is generally done in connection with that view, and to understand this 
 again of the sacrificial victims, by the offering of which the covenant was 
 sealed, is pure caprice. The thought, however, that for the validity of a 
 covenant-act the death of the author of the covenant must first ensue, 
 would be a perfectly irrational one. Irrational the more, inasmuch as, 
 vy. 16, 17, only an entirely general truth is contained, passing for a norm 
 in ordinary life. Ebrard finds expressed the thought: “ Where a sinful 
 man wishes to enter into a covenant with the holy God, the man must 
 first die, must first atone for his guilt by death (or he must present a sub- 
 stitutionary m7y).” But all these definings have been arbitrarily im- 
 ported. For vv. 16,17 nothing is said either about a “sinful man,” or 
 about a volition on his part, or about the “holy God,” or about an 
 “atoning for guilt,” or about a “substitutionary no.” From what has 
 been said, it follows that d:adfxy, vv. 16, 17, can be taken only in the 
 sense, likewise very frequently occurring with the Greek authors, of 
 “testament” or “ disposition by will.” It is true there arises therefrom a 
 logical inaccuracy,! owing to the fact that dia jx is used in these two 
 
 1For the author does not reason, as de ff.), in order to manifest the non-existence of 
 Wette supposes, from the mere “analogy of a a logical inaccuracy, in that, namely, in the 
 will or testament.”—The course, moreover, whole section, ver. 15 ff., he will have éca0nxq 
 pursued by Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 426 signify neither “ covenant” nor “testament,” 
 
618 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 verses in another sense than before, and the formal demonstrative force 
 of that which is advanced by the author—although the underlying 
 thoughts are in themselves perfectly just—is thereby sacrificed. It is, 
 however, to be observed that while for us, since we are obliged to employ 
 a twofold. expression for the reproducing of the diversity of sense, the 
 transition from the one notion to the other appears abruptly made, this 
 transition for the author, on the other hand, might be an imperceptible 
 one, inasmuch asin the Greek one and the same word included within 
 itself both significations. Thus, accordingly, it has happened that the 
 ancient Greek interpreters explain diadjxq, vv. 16, 17, expressly in the 
 sense of a testament or will, then at once pass over to the declaration con- 
 tained in ver. 18, without so much as noticing the logical inaccuracy 
 which presents itself. The sense consequently is: where a testament or 
 deed of bequest exists, there it is necessary, in order to give it validity (comp. 
 ioxier, ver. 17), that the death of the testator first be proved. The New Cove- 
 nant, therefore, which Christ has established between God and man by 
 His sacrificial death, the author here represents—in accordance with the 
 figure of the «Aypovouia, ver. 15—as a testamentary disposition on the part 
 of Christ, which, however, as such could only acquire validity, and put 
 the heirs in possession of the blessings bequeathed to them, by means of 
 the death of Christ—0@dvarov] emphatically preposed, while rot diade- 
 évov, upon which no emphasis falls, comes in at the end of the clause.— 
 gépecba| be declared or proved. Wrongly Grotius: the verb to be regarded 
 as equivalent to exspectari (“ est enim exspectatio onus quoddam ”); Wit- 
 tich : it denotes the being endured on the part of the relatives; Carpzov, 
 Chr. Fr. Schmid, Schulz, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Stengel, Hofmann (Schrift- 
 bew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 428), and others, that it denotes nothing more than 
 ensue or yiveoda, ver. 15. 
 
 Ver. 17. Confirmatory elucidation of ver. 16. The words of the verse 
 are-connected together as-parts of a single statement. We have no right 
 to break up the same, in such wise that dvabjxn yap émi vexpoic BeBaia is made 
 a parenthesis, and érei «7.2. joined to ver. 16 (Hofmann).—ézi vexpoic] in 
 the case of dead persons, t.e. only upon condition that the author of the dcabjxn 
 is dead, or has died.—efaia] firm or inviolable (comp. ii. 2), inasmuch, 
 namely, as, after the death of the testator has supervened, the abrogation 
 or alteration of the testament on his part is no longer possible.—yjrore] 
 never. [LXVIII f.] The making of pjrore equivalent to ure or nondum 
 (Vulgate, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Luther, Schlichting, B6hme) is 
 linguistically inadmissible. Oecumenius, Theophylact, Lud. de Dieu, 
 
 inaccuracy, in case it were present, an “inex- 
 eusable confusion ” (!), in taking not only at 
 
 but throughout the whole only “ disposal” 
 (Verfiigung), is, as also Delitzsech and Riehm 
 
 (Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. p. 598, Obs.) acknowl- 
 edge, an utter breakdown. See likewise the 
 observations of Nickel in Reuter’s Repertor. 
 1858, Marz, p. 194 f—Nor will it do, with 
 Kurtz, to set aside the logical inaccuracy, at 
 which he takes so great offence that he 
 thinks himself obliged to designate such 
 
 vy. 16, 17, but also in like manner at vv. 15, 
 18, the éca@yx«y in the special sense of “ estab- 
 lishing as heir.’ For the connection with 
 that which precedes (comp. vii. 22, viii. 6 ff, 
 ix. 1, 4) leads at vv. 15, 18 exclusively to the 
 idea of a covenant, 
 
CHAP, Ix. 17-19. 619 
 
 Heinsius, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Lachmann, Hofmann (Schriftbew. IT. 
 1, 2 Aufl. p. 429), Delitasch, and Ewald regard the word as an interrogative 
 particle, which does not alter the sense, and might appear the preferable 
 course, since, on the supposition of an assertory statement, the objective 
 obrore might have been expected in place of the subjective y#zore. Never- 
 theless, elsewhere too, with later authors, the placing of the subjective 
 negation is not at all rare after érei, when it introduces an objectively 
 valid reason. See Winer, p. 447 [E. T. 480]; Buttmann, Gramm. des 
 neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 304 LE. T. 353.].—ioyier] se. duabjxn, not 6 diabépevog 
 (Peirce). 
 
 Vv. 18-22. The first d:af/xy also was not inaugurated without blood, and 
 without the shedding of blood there is no remission under the Mosaic law. 
 
 Ver. 18. “OGev] [LX VIII g.] wherefore, sc. because, according to vv. 16, 
 17, a dvabfxn becomes valid only through the intervention of death. To 
 enclose vy. 16,-17 within a parenthesis, and refer back é#ev to ver. 15 
 (Zachariae, Morus, Storr, Heinrichs, Conybeare, Bisping), is arbitrary.— 
 ov6é] the augmenting ; not even.—? zpérn] the first, or Old Testament, se. 
 dvajxn. Erroneously do Wetstein and Koppe (in Heinrichs) supplement 
 oKyvh.—éykekaivioral] was inaugurated, i. e. introduced in a valid manner. 
 The verb occurs in the N. T. only here and x. 20. 
 
 Vv. 19, 20. Historic proof for the assertion, ver.18, with a free refer- 
 ence to Ex. xxiv. 3-8.—«ard rdv véuor] is taken vy Schlichting, Calov, Jac. 
 Cappellus, Seb. Schmidt, Bengel, Storr, Bhme, Bleek, Bisping, a/., along 
 With méone évrodge : “every precept according to the law, é.e. as it was con- 
 tained in the law.” So already the Vulgate: lecto enim omni mandato 
 legis. But against this construction the absence of the connecting article 
 and the strangeness of the preposition «a74. Rightly, therefore, have 
 Oecumenius, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, 
 Wittich, Braun, Schulz, Kuinoel, Klee, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, 
 Maier, Moll, Hofmann, and others referred kata 7dv véuov to Aadnfeionc. 
 Only we must not explain, as is ordinarily done, “in accordance with the 
 commandment received of God,” but the sense is: after, in accordance 
 with the law received of God, every precept had been proclaimed by 
 Moses to the whole people. The standard for the proclamation of the 
 évrodai was the véuoc, since it contained these évrodai.—rarti ro Aa@] Ex. 
 xxiv.3 stands only duyjoato r6 Aa@. But zavri resulted from the azexpin 
 8 mac 6 dade there immediately following—xai tov tpdywv] and of the 
 goats. Of goats slain in sacrifice the underlying narrative of Exodus says 
 nothing. Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Bengel, Bohme, and others 
 therefore suppose that the author had in view the burnt-offerings men- 
 tioned before the thank-offerings of oxen, Ex. xxiv. 5; inasmuch as, 
 according to Lev. i. 10 ff., iv. 28 ff.,ix. 2,3, Num. vi. 10, 11, vii. 27, rams 
 and he-goats, as well as other smaller animals, might be selected for burnt- 
 offerings. Nevertheless, it is also possible that, as conjectured by Bleek, 
 de Wette, and Bisping, there was present to the mind of the author that 
 sacrifice of bullocks and goats already referred to, vv. 12, 18, which the 
 high priest was to offer on the great day of atonement.—yera idarog Kal 
 
620 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 éolov Koxkwvov Kat boodrov] along with water and crimson wool and hyssop. With 
 regard to this also, nothing is stated in the corresponding passage of Exo- 
 dus. . But all three things are elsewhere mentioned in connection with 
 legally enjoined aspersions for purification. Comp. Num. xix. 6,17 f.; 
 Ley. xiv. 2 ff., 49 ff In accordance therewith, a mixture of fresh spring 
 water in some cases with the ashes of the red heifer, in others with the 
 blood of a slain bird, was prescribed in the case of aspersions which were 
 appointed for the cleansing of one defiled by contact with a corpse or by 
 leprosy. In like manner, according to the passages above referred to, 
 hyssop (28, comp. on this plant, Winer, Bibl. Realworterb. Bd. II. 2 Aufl. 
 p. 819 f.) and crimson wool. With the latter the hyssop stem was probably 
 bound round, and this served as a brush for sprinkling the blood. Comp. 
 this use of hyssop in Ex. xii. 22.—airé re 7d BiBdiov Kai ravta Tov adv épdv- 
 ticev] he sprinkled as well the book itself as also the whole people. 76 Bu8diov is 
 the BiBriov rij¢ dabhxnc, Ex, xxiv. 7. Of a sprinkling likewise of this book 
 of the covenant, nothing, however, is told us in Exodus. It has therefore 
 been proposed, by way of removing the difference, to make 70 (Bator still 
 dependent upon the preceding 2af6v.! But the «até following (:3Aiov ren- 
 ders this impossible. For the setting aside of this kai by pronouncing it 
 spurious (Colomesius, Valckenaer), or by the assumption of a pleonasm 
 (so ordinarily), is an act of violence ; while we are prevented from placing 
 it, with Bengel and Ewald, in correspondence with the xa/, ver. 21, as “et 
 ... et vero,’ or “non modo... vero etiam,’—apart from the clumsi- 
 ness of construction thus arising, and leaving out of consideration the 
 inconvenient d¢,—by the twice occurring of the verb épavticev, vv. 19 and 21. 
 —ravra tov Aabv] XX. ver. 8: AaBov dé Moioje 76 aiua-kateoxédace Tov Aaov. 
 —ipavticev] sc. for consecration and purification. 
 
 Ver. 20. Ex. xxiv. 8, LXX.: xai elrev' idod rd alua rhe diabhKne, He duébeTo 
 Kbploc rpoc buac mTEpt TavTav TOV Adywv TobTwY.—He éveteiAato mpodc buac 6 Bedc] 
 Bengel: “ praecepit mihi; ut perferrem ad vos.” 
 
 Ver. 21 adds to that mentioned vy. 19, 20, not a simultaneous fact, but 
 only something occurring later. For when the law was proclaimed by 
 Moses, and the people promised to observe the same, the tabernacle had 
 noi yet an existence. Ex. xl., where we have the account of the erection 
 and inauguration of the tabernacle, only an anointing of the tabernacle 
 and its vessels with oil is enjoined, not a sprinkling thereof with blood. 
 Comp. ibid. ver. 9. Similarly in Leviticus, a sprinkling indeed with blood 
 (viii. 15, 19, 24) is supposed in regard to the altar; in regard to the taber- 
 nacle and its furniture, on the other hand, only an anointing (viii. 10 ff). It 
 is possible, however, that Jewish tradition preserved more precise details. 
 At least mention is made by Josephus also (Antiq. ili. 8. 6) of an aspersion 
 of the tabernacle and its furnittire, on the part of Moses, with blood.— 
 
 1So, after the precedent of the Coptie and conspersisse dicitur, quia qui ex proxime 
 
 Armenian versions, Grotius, Wittich, Suren- astantibus conspersi fuerant, universi populi 
 hus, Cramer, Bengel,-Michaelis, Storr, Morus, personam hae in parte gesscre, ita ut totus 
 Ewald, and others. populus conspersus fuisse censeretur, 
 
 3Schlichting: Omnem autem populum 
 
CHAP. ‘Lx 20=23° 621 
 
 Erroneously, for the rest (on account of the aorist), do Owen, Seb. Schmidt, 
 Wittich, Cramer, and others find mentioned, ver. 21, in place of the one 
 act of Moses, a sprinkling enjoined by the law of Moses, and occurring at 
 different fixed periods, in connection with which the majority will have 
 the sprinkling which is made on the great Day of Atonement, Ley. xvi. 
 14 ff., to be meant.—xai . . . dé] but also. Luke ii. 85; John viii. 16, al.— 
 Ta oKein 7H¢ Aecrovpyiac] the vessels designed for sacred use. 
 
 Ver. 22. Confirmation of the special historic facts adduced vy. 19-21, by 
 the general rule, which throughout the whole domain of Mosaic law was 
 recognized as, with hardly any exception, of binding obligation.—cyedov] 
 almost, nearly (Acts xiii. 44, xix. 26), does not belong to év aiuarc (Bengel, 
 Bohme). Still less is it to be joined to xadapifera, as is done by Chrysos- 
 tom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and Primasius, who, in opposition to the 
 cohesion with that which precedes and follows, will find the thought 
 expressed that the purification accomplished in accordance with the law 
 is only a partial, bodily one, and thus only imperfect, since it is not able 
 to cancel sins. It belongs logically to tadvra. The author, however, does 
 not write Kat év aivate oyeddv ravta Kabapifera, but, on the contrary, pre- 
 fixes oyeddv to the whole clause, in order to imply that the limitation 
 contained in this expression extends to both members of the clause. The 
 sense is consequeatly: and one must almost say that all things are 
 according to the law purified with blood, and that without the shedding 
 of blood no remission takes place! As concerns the thought, Grotius in 
 his day aptly refers us to the saying of the Talmud (tract. Joma, fol. 5.1; 
 Menachoth, fol. 98. 2): D073 wx 793 8, non est expiatio nisi per sangui- 
 nem. The conceding, moreover, of the existence of single exceptions, by 
 virtue of oyeddv, finds its justification, as regards the first half of the 
 clause, in Ex. xix. 10; Lev. xv. 5 ff, 27, xvi. 26, 28, xx11.6; Num. xxx. 
 22-94; as regards the second half, in Lev. vy. 11-13.—zdvra] all universally 
 (men as well as things), which as Levitically impure has need of cleansing. 
 Wrongly Peirce and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 563): all the 
 furniture and utensils of the sanctuary.—«ara rdv véuov] in conformity with 
 the law, i.e.80 soon as the norm fixed by the Mosaic law is taken into 
 account. The addition «ara rdv véuov is likewise to be supplied in 
 thought to the second member of the clause.—aivatexyvoia] a word not 
 elsewhere met with in Greek literature. What is meant is not specially 
 the pouring out of the blood upon the altar,’ but in general, the blood-shedding 
 by the slaying of sacrificial animals.*—dgeouw] remission, sc. of the guilt 
 incurred. 
 
 Vv. 23-28. [On Vy. 23-28, see Note LXIX., pages 632-634.] If the 
 earthly sanctuary needed to be cleansed and consecrated by such things 
 as these, there was required of necessity for the dedication of the 
 heavenly sanctuary a more excellent sacrifice. This Christ has presented 
 
 1So, rightly, Bleek, Winer, p. 514 f. [E. T. Aufl. p. 435, al. 
 554]; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 500; 3 Bleek, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz, Hofmann, 
 Alford, Maier, Hofmann, and Woerner. Comm, p. 363. 
 
 2De Wette, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 
 
622 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 in the end of the world by means of His sin-cancelling sacrificial death ; 
 and at His return, which is now to be expected for the salvation of those 
 that hope in Him, no repetition of His sacrifice will be required. 
 
 Ver. 23. [LXIX a, b.] The first of the two statements dependent on 
 avayxn obv (ra pév . ... Kabapifecba) is deduced as a necessary conse- 
 quence from vy. 18-22, while then the second statement (aira dé x.7.A.) is 
 derived as a necessary postulate from the first, and in such manner a 
 return is effected to the necessity for the death of Christ, already shown 
 at vv. 16, 17, in order to set forth the same on a fresh side. The necessity 
 of the first-mentioned fact of ver. 23 is evident from the norm instanced, 
 which is of validity in the domain of the Mosaic law; the necessity of 
 that last mentioned, from the difference between the Christian and the 
 Judaic. The main thought, however, lies in the second half of the clause, 
 to which the first forms logically only the bridge—oiv] se. because blood 
 is so necessary a means for expiation and consecration.—davdyky oir] it is 
 then needful. To avaycn oiv we have to supplement éoriv, not, with Faber 
 Stapulensis, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, Kurtz, and others, 
 jv. For although the author has only one special fact in mind in connec- 
 tion with both members of the sentence, yet, as is shown by the plural 
 Guoiaic, he expresses himself universally ; because he is reasoning from the 
 inner necessity, as this is presupposed by the state of the matter itself— 
 Ta wév brodeiywata tov év Toig ovpavoig TovToe KabapiLerSar, avTa. dé K.T.A.] 
 [On some words in Vv. 28 ff., see LXIX g.] that the copy, indeed, of that 
 which is in heaven should be purified with these, but the heavenly place itself 
 with better sacrifices then these, i.e. for the characteristically Judaic the 
 means of expiation and consecration are necessarily determined in 
 accordance with fhe norm specified in the Mosaic law; but since Judaic 
 and Christian are distinguished from each other as the mere copy of the 
 heavenly place and the heavenly place itself, so of necessity must the 
 means of expiation and consecration in the Christian domain be a more 
 excellent one than in the Judaic—By 74a év roi¢ obpavoic and ra 
 étovpavia we have to understand neither the heavenly possessions,! nor 
 yet the Christian Church and its members.? Still less can these expres- 
 sions denote : “that which, where God is essentially present, brings with 
 it His relation to the Church, i. e. first, His dwelling with it,—namely, in 
 that the glorified human nature of Christ is the dwelling for the whole 
 fullness of the divine nature ; secondly, the human nature, in its consecra- 
 tion to God, in which Christ presents and offers it up to the Father; and 
 thirdly, the place where God’s wrath against human sin meets with expia- 
 tory satisfaction, by which it is averted,—thus Christ, who, as the propitia- 
 tion for our sins, stands between the Church and its God” (Hofmann; 
 Schriftbew. TI. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 486 ff. [ecomp. also Owen]). Rather is the 
 heavenly sanctuary specially meant thereby, as is evident from ver. 24. For 
 in ver. 24 the meaning of 4 ya issupposed to be already known from ver. 23; 
 
 1Seb. Schmidt, Wolf, Rambach, and 2Zeger, Estius, Corn. a Lapide, Caloy 
 others. Béhme, Stengel, al.; comp. also Tholuck. 
 
CHAP. 1X. 23: 623 
 inasmuch, namely, as dyca is there almost accentless, while all the emphasis 
 is laid upon the adjectives yecporoiyra, etc. In accordance with this, 
 too, is determined the meaning of-ta brodeiyuara Tov év Toi¢ ovpavoic 
 as the earthly sanctuary, inasmuch as it was the imperfect imitation or 
 copy of the former, as accordingly already, at viii. 5, the Levitical sanctu- 
 ary had been characterized as imédecyypa Kai cna tov éxovpaviov. The 
 plural ra trodeiyuara is placed, just because the author has already 
 before his mind, in ver. 23, the plural ra aya, ver. 24. Thus, then, the 
 first clause of ver. 23 has respect to the special fact already brought forward 
 at ver. 21, whereas the second clause receives its elucidation by means of 
 the special fact of which mention is made at ver. 24.—robroie] by such 
 things as these, i. e. by blood of slain animals, and similar means of purify- 
 ing, which belong to the earthly sanctuary ; to which general rubric, also, 
 the ashes of the red heifer mentioned at ver. 18, but not here coming under 
 consideration, belong. With marvellous inversion of the sense, Paulus: “to 
 be declared pure for these, i.e. the Israelites.” —xadapifecda:] is passive. 
 Arbitrarily is it taken asa middle by Heinrichs, who will have jac supple- 
 mented as object. Against this the tenor of the foregoing verse is in 
 itself decisive. The notion of being purified is not, it is true, applicable to 
 the second clause, aira dé ra éxovpdva «7.2. For the heavenly sanctuary 
 is removed from contact with the sinful world; it has no need, therefore, 
 of an expiation or purification. We are warranted, however, in supply- 
 ing in thought, without any hesitation, from. kafapifeota, a kindred verb 
 to the second member of the sentence, by the assuming of a zeugma. 
 But since now, in accordance with that which precedes, the «afaifeoa is 
 an idea which entirely subordinates itself to the idea of the éyxacvifew, ver. 
 18, the former having only the design of the latter, we shall best extract 
 from the notion of being purified, in the first clause, the notion of being 
 consecrated to the service of God, for the second clause, understanding this 
 consecration of the heavenly sanctuary of the opening up of the access 
 
 1 Otherwise, indeed, do Delitzsch, Riehm 
 (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 542 ff.), Alford, 
 
 pavia altogether, there was need of a taking 
 away of the action of human sin upon it, and 
 
 Moll, and Kurtz decide. According to De- 
 litzsch, the meaning of the author is: “The 
 supra-terrestrial Holy of Holies, i.e the un- 
 created eternal heaven of God, although un- 
 sullied light in itself, had need of a ca@apiceo- 
 @a, in so far as the light of love towards 
 mankind had there been, so to speak, out- 
 glowed and eclipsed by the fire of wrath at 
 that whick was sinful; and the heavenly 
 tabernacle, i. e. the place of His glorious self- 
 manifestation in love, a self-manifestation for 
 men and angels, had need ofa xa@apigecOar, in 
 so far as men had rendered this spot, from 
 the beginning designed for them, too, inac- 
 cessible on account of sin, and thus had first 
 to be transformed into the accessible place 
 ot manifestation of a God graciously disposed 
 towards men. As well with regard to 7a ayra 
 as with regard to thy oxnvyv, thus to 7a érov- 
 
 a taking away of the divine reaction against 
 sin, the wrath, or, what is the same thing, a 
 changing of the same into love.” [Similarly 
 also Whitby, M’Lean, and Stuart.]—Not less 
 far-fetched and forced upon the context is 
 that which Bleek, following the precedent 
 of Akersloot, regardsas probable. According 
 to this view, @o which Woerner assents, an 
 objective xa@apigec@a of the heavenly sanc- 
 tuary, after the analogy of the passages Luke 
 x. 18, John xii. 31, Acts xii. 7-9, was thought 
 of, “in accordance with which Satan with his 
 angels is, after the death and exaltation of the 
 Saviour, cast forth out of heayen, and thus 
 deprived of all influence which he might ex- 
 ert there as acenser of men in the presence 
 of God, or for the destruction of the blessed- 
 ness of the inhabitants of heaven.” 
 
624 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 to the same, effected through the blood of Christ (comp. x. 19, 20),— 
 Kpeittoow Auoiacc] The plural is chosen, although the author is thinking 
 exclusively of the death of Christ, on account of the universal form of 
 discourse, ver. 23, as a plural of the category (de Wette). False the inter- 
 pretation of Grotius and Stengel: in addition to the sacrificial death of 
 Christ, the sufferings of believers, together with their prayers and works of love 
 (xiii. 15, 16), are thought of; and in like manner Paulus: the sacrifices of 
 Jesus and all Christians for the good which pertains to duty ; but false, also, 
 the explanation of Beza: the fact is hinted at that the one sacrifice of Christ 
 is instead of many.—On rapa with the comparative, see at i. 4. 
 
 Ver. 24. [LXIX ¢.] Confirmatory justification of aita ra éxovpava, ver. 
 23, by the proof that in reality the heavenly sanctuary is that consecrated 
 by the sacrifice of Christ. Wrongly is it assumed by Delitzsch, that at 
 ver. 24 the indispensable requirement of better sacrifices for the heavenly 
 world is proved from the actual nature of the one rendered and presented 
 to God. For the argument passes over to the character of Christ’s sacri- 
 fice, as offered once for all, only at ver. 25.—ov yap ei¢ yewporoinra ayia 
 eionAbev Xpiordc¢] for Christ entered not into a holy place (i.e. most holy place, 
 see at ver. 8) made with hands (ver. 11).—ye:poroinra] as the main idea 
 emphatically preposed.—avritura rév adnfivov] a copy of the true (viii. 2), 
 real one. avritvra denotes neither the copy of a copy, as is supposed by 
 Bleek, after the precedent of Michaelis, ad Peirc., Cramer, Chr. Fr. Schmid, 
 upon the presupposition that the author already thought of the rizoc, viii. 
 5, as a mere copy of the original ; nor is it to be taken as equivalent to the 
 simple rizoc, as is done by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jac. Cappellus, 
 Schlichting, Grotius, Wolf, Carpzov, and others. What is meant is the 
 corresponding imtge, i.e. the copy or imitation, formed after the propor- 
 tions of the tizo¢c or pattern, which God had shown to Moses (comp. viii. 
 5). The ‘expression, therefore, is of essentially the same import as 
 brdderyua, Vill. 5, 1x. 23.—aA2’ sic abtov tov obpavéy] but into heaven itself, 
 into the heavenly Holy of Holies, where the throne of God itself exists, 
 in opposition to the earthly Most Holy Place, not to the heavenly fore- 
 tabernacle, ver. 11.—viv éudavicbjva tH Tpoodrw Tov Heov brép judov] now to 
 appear before the face of God on our behalf (as our advocate, and intent 
 upon our salvation, comp. vii. 25).—viv] now, after He has obtained His 
 abiding dwelling-place in heaven.—Before the face of God. In this 
 respect, too, a pointing to the exaltedness of Christ, the heavenly high 
 priest. For, according to Ex. xxxiii. 20, no man could continue to live 
 who had seen the face*of God; on which account also the earthly high 
 priest might not even enter the earthly Holy of Holies until this had first 
 been filled with the smoke of the altar of incense, and in this way the 
 typical presence of God there existing had been veiled from his glance. 
 Comp. Ley. xvi. 12, 13. 
 
 Vy. 25-28. Renewed (comp. vii. 27, 28, ix. 12) emphasizing of the mani- 
 festation once for all (and thus the full sufficiency) of the sacrifice of 
 Christ. [LXIX d.] 
 
 Ver. 25. Ovdé] nor yet, sc. eianAbev eic Tov ovpavdv.—rpoogépew éavrdv] denote 
 
CHAP; “Ex. 24-96. 625 
 
 not the presentation of Himself with His blood before God in the hea- 
 venly Holy of Holies,! but the offering of Himself as a sacrifice upon 
 earth. The sense is: Christ entered into the heavenly Holy of Holies, 
 not that He might presently leave it again, in order afresh to offer Him- 
 self as a sacrifice upon earth.—é apyepetc] the Levitical high priest—ra ayia] 
 the earthly Hely of Holies—év aivate addorpip] with blood not his own-— 
 adrorpiw] Opposition to éavrdv. 
 
 Ver. 26. [LXIX e, f.] Proof of the necessity that Christ’s sacrifice should 
 take place only once for all, from the non-reasonableness of the opposite. 
 For if the sacrifice of Christ sufficed not once for all for the cancelling of 
 sin, He must oftentimes in succession—because no generation of mankind, 
 so long as the world has endured, has been free from sin—have undergone 
 death since the beginning of the world. But now, seeing this is contrary 
 to reason, the matter stands in reality quite otherwise. From this reason- 
 ing it is evident that the author supposed an expiation of the sins of all 
 the earlier generations of mankind too, by virtue of the sacrificial death of 
 Christ. An erroneous statement of the connection of thought is given 
 by Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 441), Delitzsch, and Alford. See, on the 
 other hand, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. p. 552, Obs.—érei] since other- 
 wise, alioquin. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 10, vii. 14, al.—édex abrdv roArdnec mabeiv] it 
 were needful that He should often suffer—On édec without av, see Winer, 
 p. 266 [E. T. 283].—zxaeiv specially of the suffering of death, as xiii. 12. 
 —ard xataBorjc Kéouov] from the foundation or creation of the world onwards 
 (comp. iv. 8), 7.e. here: so long as there are men in the world—vvi dé] as 
 viii. 6, in the logical sense: but now. Opposition to éred x.7.2.—éri ovvre- 
 Asia tov aidver] in the end of the ages, periods of time. Antithesis to éxd 
 kataBoAne xéouov, and equivalent in signification to én’ éoydrov roy puepav 
 toprav, 1. 1. Comp. also év rq ovvtedela rod alévoc, Matt. xiii. 40, 49.—el¢ 
 abétnow duaptiacg dia THE Ovaiac abtov] for the canceling of sin by His sacrifice. 
 These words belong together. The conjoining of dia rH¢ Avoiac aitov with 
 tegavépwrat, which has been preferred by Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Carpzov, 
 Heinrichs, Schulz, Béhme, Tholuck, and others, is, in connection with 
 the right determination of the sense of the verb (vid. infra), harsh and 
 unnatural, and not at all justified by the alleged analogon: 6 é2@dv d¢ 
 vdaroc Kai aivatoc, 1 John vy. 6. Tholuck’s objection, however, that aéza£ 
 
 . . aidvev is antithetically opposed to the kar éavrév, ver. 25, and 
 megavépwrar dia THe Ovoiac to the eicépyerar év aiuate aAAoTpiv, does not apply, 
 inasmuch as the second clause of ver. 26 forms the antithesis to the first 
 clause of that verse, but not to ver. 25; on which account also ére?. .. Kéouou 
 is not, with Beza, Mill, Griesbach, Carpzov, Schulz, Bloomfield, and others, to 
 be enclosed within a parenthesis.—No emphasis for the rest falls upon the per- 
 sonal pronoun employed with @vsiac, in such wise that the sense would be: 
 by the sacrifice of Himself? It means simply: by His sacrifice (Bleek, de 
 
 1Boéhme, Bleek, Delitasch, Alford, Kurtz, lations, Piscator, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Lim- 
 and others; cemp. also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des boreh, Schulz, Heinrichs, Bohme, Stuart, 
 Hebrderbr. p. 474. Stengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Conybeare, and 
 
 2So Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, in their trans- others. 
 
 40 
 
626 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Wette), so that not airoi, but airoi is to be written. The contrast between 
 His own blood and the blood of other victims was already sufficiently 
 brought out afresh at ver. 25.—zedavépwra] He has been manifested, i. e. He 
 has appeared or come forth before the sight of men upon earth. Comp. 
 1 Pet. i..20; 1 John i..5, 8; also Col. ii.4; 1 John i. 28; 1. Pet. y. 4 
 {1 Tim. iii. 16]. To explain the expression of the appearing before God, 
 and to make it of like import with éugavobjva tO rpoodrw Tov Beov, ver. 
 24 (Jac. Cappellus, Heinrichs, Schulz, al.), is forbidden alike by the absence 
 of the, in that case indispensable, addition 76 6e6, as by the é« devrépou 
 ogdjoera, ver. 28, corresponding as it does to the zegavépwrar. 
 
 Vv. 27, 28. Further (xai) enforcement of the azag, ver. 26, by means of 
 an analogy. As death is appointed to men once for all, they, after 
 having once suffered death, do not need to die again, but after death 
 nothing more follows for them but the judgment; so also Christ has once 
 for all offered up Himself for the canceling of sin; at His return He will 
 not again have to offer Himself for the canceling of sin, but He will 
 return once again, only to put the believers in possession of the everlasting 
 salvation.—xaf’ éoov] inasmuch as [ef. vii. 20], is not entirely synonymous 
 with xadéc, which one might have expected on account of the following 
 ovtwe, and which Grotius and Braun conjecture to have been the original 
 reading; for, whereas xa¥éc would express the bare notion of comparison, 
 this contains at the same time an indication of cause. The indication of 
 cause, however, has reference merely to adra& axo¥aveiv, to which then the 
 anak rpocevexdeic, ver. 28, corresponds; but not likewise, as Kurtz main- 
 tains,) to the addition pera dé tovro xpiow, since to this an element of 
 dissimilarity is opposed at ver. 28. The sense is: inasmuch as men, 
 regarded generally, have only once to undergo death, so also Christ, since 
 He was herein entirely like unto His brethren, could not die more than 
 once.—aréxerrac] is appointed (in the decree of God). Comp. Col. i. 5; 
 2 Tim. iv. 8. The verb originally of that which has been laid aside, and 
 so lies ready for future use.—draf arovaveiv] to die a single time, or once for 
 all. Comp. Sophocles in Stobaeus, 11.120: Saveiv yap gix &eore role avtoiot 
 dic.—Calvin : Si quis objiciat, bis quosdam esse mortuos, ut Lazarum et 
 similes (comp. Heb. xi. 35), expedita est solutio, apostolum hic de ordinaria 
 hominum conditione disputare: quin etiam ab hoc ordine eximuntur, 
 quos subita commutatio-corruptione exuet (comp. Heb. xi. 5).—pera dé 
 Tovro Kpiow] sc. aréxerrat, NOt éoriv or éoraz. Whether, for the rest, the 
 kpiowe is thought of by the author as ensuing immediately after the death 
 of each individual (Jac. Cappellus, Kurtz, al.), or as a later act coinciding 
 only with the general resurrection of the dead (Bengel, Bleek, Tholuck, 
 Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, al.), the elastic werd rovro affords us no intima- 
 tion.—xpiow|] judgment, is to be taken quite generally. Wrongly is it 
 
 1 According to Kurtz, the resurrection and point of view of a judgment exercised on 
 ascension of Christ is then to be thought of as Him? And how could it be expected of the 
 the result of the xcpiov.s on Christ’s part. But reader, without further indication, that he 
 where is ever in the N.T. the resurrection should derive so sirange a conception from 
 and ascension cf Christ presented from the the words of vv. 28, 29? ; 
 
CHAP. Ix. 27, 28. 627 
 understood by Schulz (and so also B6hme) specially of the judgment unto 
 punishment or unto condemnation, in that he supposes—erroneously, 
 because at variance with the absolute roc av paroue—two different classes 
 of men (those to be punished and those to be blessed) to be opposed to 
 each other in vv. 27, 28. [Yet comp. John v. 24.] 
 
 Ver. 28. “Arai xpocevexfeic] once offered (by the suffering of death). 
 Chrysostom : m6 rivoc xpooevexieic ; vg éavtov dyAovore. Wrongly (comp. 
 éavtov, vv. 25, 14) Delitzsch: in connection with the passive zpocevexGeig we 
 have “ to think of the violence proceeding from the human and demoniac 
 power, which Christ endured, in order to become the zpoogopa for the pro- 
 pitiation of mankind;” Kurtz and Hofmann: id roi Geod is to be sup- 
 plemented, which, accordingly, is interpreted by Kurtz into the signifi- 
 cation of the “ sending of the Son into the world, in behoof of the vica- 
 rious atoning for sin by means of His sacrificial death;” by Hofmann: 
 into a “ being brought to that place where He was to be at the disposal of 
 Him who had ordained Him to be an expiatory sacrifice for sins.” The 
 words azaf zposevexOeic correspond to the azaé azofaveiv, ver. 27, and pooe- 
 veydeic forms a paronomasia with the following aveveyxeiv: borne as a sacri- 
 fice, that He might bear away, dargebracht, um fortzubringen [oblatus ut 
 auferret]. For aveveyxeiv denotes not the bearing up (and fastening) to 
 the cross,! or the substitutionary bearing? or the offering up of the sins, as it 
 were, as a sacrifice,? but the expiation of sins, conceived under the form 
 of the result immediately of necessity attaching itself thereto, 7. e. the put- 
 ting away of sins, in such wise that it takes up again the idea expressed by 
 el¢ abérnoww auaptiac, ver. 26, and becomes identical with agarpetv duapriac, x. 
 4. From a linguistic point of view this interpretation encounters no diffi- 
 culty (against Delitzsch and others), since the avd in aveveyxeiyv Was em- 
 ployed not otherwise than, e. g., very frequently the avd in avaipeiv. How 
 easily the notion of bearing in ¢épew could pass over into that of bearing 
 away or doing away with, is shown in the kindred verb Baordfew, which is 
 unquestionably used, Matt. viii. 17, John xx.15, in the sense of auferre.* 
 —roi2av} here too, as ii. 10 and often (see p. 122), lays stress only on the 
 notion of multitude or plurality, without regard to the question whether 
 this plurality constitutes the totality of mankind or not.—é« devtépov og67- 
 cera] shall appear the second time before the eyes of men, namely, at His 
 Parousia. According to Bleek, there arises a difficulty from the words, 
 if we explain rpoceveybeic of the death suffered upon earth, and not, with 
 him, of an action accomplished in heaven, only after the resurrection, in- 
 asmuch as in the former case Christ already appeared in a visible form the 
 
 1 Jac. Cappellus, Caloy, Wolf, Bengel, and 
 others, after 1 Pet. ii. 24, where, however, emi 
 to évAov is employed with it. 
 
 2 Augustine, de pecc. mer. i. 28; Estius, Seb. 
 Schmidt, Bohme, de Wette, Bloomfield, Bis- 
 ping, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des He- 
 braerbr. p. 544f.; Alford, Maier, Conybeare, 
 Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M’Caul, Hofmann, and 
 others, in accordance with the signification 
 
 of the verb, Isa. liii. 12, LX X.: avros auaptias 
 ToAA@y avyveyxke, an utterance which certainly 
 may have been before the mind of the author 
 at the time of his writing this passage. 
 
 3 Peshito, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theo- 
 phylact, Michaelis. 
 
 4Comp. also Galen, de compos. medicam. 2: 
 Wwpas Te Sepamevet kat UTwmia BagTager. 
 
628 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. > 
 
 second time after His resurrection. But such difficulty does not at all 
 present itself in connection with that application of zpoceveybeic either. 
 For ék devrépov op6goerac can only be understood of a second appearing in a 
 visible form upon earth; when, however, Christ after His resurrection 
 appeared again to His disciples, He had not yet left the earth; those 
 manifestations of the risen Christ before His ascension belonged conse- 
 quently to His first visible coming forth upon earth.—ywpi¢ dwapriac] forms 
 the opposition to cic 76 ToAA@v aveveyKeiv duaptiac, is therefore to be inter- 
 preted after the analogy of these words. (Erroneously Bleek, according 
 to whom ywpic duapriac forms the opposition to ei¢ aféryow duapriac dia THC 
 Buoiacg avtov repavépwras, ver. 26.) Christ has once offered Himself up for 
 the expiation of the sins of men; when He returns to earth the second 
 time, He will not once more have to do with the expiation of human sin, 
 but He will, apart from sin, or free from all relation to sin, appear to bring the 
 cwtnpia to the believers. Free from the guiltand punishment of sin, Christ 
 has already rendered His believers by means of His sacrificial death at 
 His first appearing upon earth. Positively, He will bless them with sal- 
 vation at His return. To combine yopic¢c auapriag with tote atexdexo- 
 pévog by means of an hyperbaton (so Faber Stapulensis and Grotius) is 
 grammatically impossible. The sense, however, cannot be either, as the 
 Irvingites will, that Christ Himself will be free from sin at His second 
 appearing, in opposition to the lust which they suppose to have attached 
 to Him during His first appearing ; for that Christ during this period too, 
 notwithstanding all the temptation to which He was subject, was free 
 from sin, the author certainly distinctly asserts at iv. 15. Incorrectly also 
 does Bleek! take ywpic auapriac as equivalent in signification to p7 obay¢ 
 duapriac, so that the sense would be: “at the return of Christ sin will no 
 longer be present, at least in the domain to which the operation of the 
 Redeemer will relate.” Even in a grammatical respect this application of 
 the words is inadmissible, since ywpic auaptiac must stand in relation to 
 the subject in o¢37oeraw, thus cannot be torn away from this reference by 
 being made equivalent to an independent participial clause. But also the 
 thought thence arising would be encumbered with difficulty, as Bleek 
 himself admits, by the addition of “at least,” etc., although Bleek has 
 sought to justify it. Additional misinterpretations of yopi¢ ayaptiac are 
 met with in other writers. Thus it is supposed to mean: without, again 
 vicariously laden with the sins of men, being made sin (2 Cor. v. 21) for 
 them,” whieh is already refuted by the erroneousness of explaining the 
 foregoing aveveyxetv of the vicarious bearing of sins; without the punish- 
 ment of sin ;* without the sufferings undertaken for sin;* sine corporis, 
 
 1 After the example of Theodore of Mopsu- 2 Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius, Akers- 
 estia (70 yap xwpis amaptias ToUTO A€yet, OTL MT] loot, Wolf, Carpzov, Chr. Fr. Sehmid, Hein- 
 Kpatovons €TL THS AmapTias oOUTW Kai richs, de Wette, Bloomfield, Bisping, De- 
 autos fw mavrTos avOpwrivov mabous obOncetar litasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 
 tore) and of Theodoret (ovKéTre THS amap- 545, Obs.; Alford, Maier, Moll, and others. 
 Tias KpaTovons, avTi TOV XWpav ovUKETL 3 Klee, al. 
 éxovoys KaTa Tov avOpwrwy THS amapTias). 4Tholuck. 
 
NOTES. 629 
 
 peccato obnoxii, mortalitate ;! sine sacrificio pro peccato;? not as a sw/- 
 ferer for the guilt of others, but as the holy judge of the guilt of others,’ 
 and so forth, all of which have the plain expression of the language 
 against them.—ei¢ owrypiav] belongs to o¢djoera, not, as it is true, upon the 
 retention of the spurious addition (see the critical remark) did ziorews, it 
 must be conjoined, to azexdeyouévore.t For toi¢ airov arexdexouévorg contains 
 a non-essential element of the statement, ver. 28; ei¢ cwrypiav, on the other 
 hand, an essential element of the same. ei¢ cwrypiav, namely, is the 
 positive nearer defining of the negative ywpi¢ duapriac, and forms conse- 
 quently, like the latter, an antithesis to ei¢ rd roAAdv aveveyKeiv dpapriac. 
 The whole clause, however, é« devtépov . . . ei¢ owrypiav, corresponds to the 
 second member of the clause, ver. 27: pera dé rovTo Kpiowg. 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 LXVII. Vv. 1-14. 
 
 (a) The subject of viii. 1-6 a is taken up anew and presented more in detail in 
 these verses. In the development of the thought, as here given, there are four 
 steps, as follows:—1l. (vv. 1-5). The old covenant had its arrangements for wor- 
 ship and its sanctuary. The old tabernacle had two parts, an outer one—the 
 holy place, and an inner one—the holy of holies, with furniture appropriate to 
 each. 2. (vv. 6, 7). This being the arrangement of the tabernacle, the rule 
 respecting it was, that to the outer part free admission was given to the priests, at 
 all times, but into the innermost part entrance was prohibited to all except the 
 high-priest, and to him it was allowed only once a year. 3. (vv. 8-10). This rule 
 was a divine indication that, so long as the old tabernacle, with its exclusion from 
 the holy of holies, i. e. from immediate access to God, continued, the more perfect 
 system was not yet reached. 4. (vv. 11-14). This more perfect system Christ 
 brings, when He passes through the veil and, entering the higher, i. e. the heavenly 
 sanctuary, as the heavenly high-priest opens the way for all His followers to the 
 immediate presence of God. 
 
 The view of Liinemann here—that, in ver. 9 ff., the writer, “by means of one 
 of those sudden transitions of which he is so fond,’ turns to a new topic, the 
 inability of the Levitical sacrifices “really to atone,” and thus introduces “ a third 
 main point in the high-priestly superiority of Christ,” is erroneous. That the 
 writer is fond of making such sudden transitions, may be doubted. Here, at least, 
 he does not make one in the way that Liinem. supposes. What is said of the 
 Levitical sacrifices is only incidental and subordinate to the progress of the 
 thought as set forth above, and neither here, nor in ch. viii., does the writer move 
 beyond the idea of Christ as superior to the Levitical priests because He is the 
 minister of a higher sanctuary connected with a better covenant. (See also Note 
 LXV b.) 
 
 (b) koopexdv of ver. lis added, as Liinem. remarks, not in the way of an inde- 
 pendent predication respecting the ayov, but rather as a passing suggestion of its 
 character as contrasted with the dyiov which is to be alluded to afterwards.— 
 
 1 Zeger. others. 
 2 Jac. Cappellus, Stuart, M’Caul, and many. 4So Primasius, Faber Stapulensis, Camera 
 3Ebrard, Delitzsch; similarly Stein and rius, Wolf, Klee, Paulus, Stein, 
 
630 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 (c) The several things which are mentioned in vy. 2-5 as connected with the two 
 parts of the tabernacle, are not specified for the purpose of giving a detailed 
 description of the arrangements. This is evident, both from the fact that the 
 object of the whole passage is inconsistent with such a purpose, and also from the 
 closing words of ver. 5. The writer simply wishes to present the fact, with 
 emphasis, that there was this division, with appropriate arrangements, preparatory 
 to the presentation of the rule of the old system, which he is about to mention, 
 and which is distinctively characteristic of it—one of its essential elements as a 
 religious system. This peculiarity in the writer’s purpose may fairly be considered, 
 in connection with the difficulties which his distribution of the things specified 
 occasions. So far as some of these difficulties are concerned, it may offer a 
 satisfactory explanation; as e.g., when he says that the Holy of Holies had 
 (éyovca) the golden altar or censer, it may suggest that the participle is used in a 
 looser sense than would be possible, if the purpose were to give a minute descrip- 
 tion. But with reference to the bearing of these verses on the question of the 
 Pauline anthorship, the fact of this peculiarity will hardly be sufficient to account 
 for his presenting the matter in this way—(d) The question whether the altar or 
 the censer is intended by @vucarjpiov (ver. 4), is one which cannot be answered with 
 confidence. R. V. places censer in the text, and altar of incense in the margin, 
 A. R. V. place the former in the margin and the latter in the text. The considera- 
 tions presented by Liinem. make it not improbable that A. R. V. is correct. But 
 we cannot properly go beyond this position, and exclude censer altogether—(e) In 
 vy. 2, 4, aya and ayia dyiwv being distinguished from each other, the former 
 means the Holy place, but everywhere else in the chapter ayia (vv. 8, 12, 24, 25) 
 means the Holiest place i.e. the immediate presence of God. In a similar 
 manner, the demands of the thought in different places change the sense of tpdry, 
 so that, while in ver. 1 it means first in time, in vv. 2,3, 8, it has the local sense. 
 Thus in ver. 8, the writer evidently means to say that, so long as the outer part of 
 the tabernacle continued—that is, so long as there was a veil shutting off the 
 inner part,—the way of access to God was not fully opened. 
 
 (f) Ver. 9 declares that the tpéry oxyv4 (ver. 8)—which involved, so long as 
 it continued, the existence of a separating veil—was a rapaBodd sic Tov Karp, 
 éveor., i.e. a figure or emblem of the Jewish system in its imperfection, with 
 reference to the «&pé¢ or period to which it belonged. ‘The Holy place, a 
 divided from the Holy of Holies, became in itself, to the mind which rightly 
 apprehended its meaning, a kind of parabolic representation of Judaism, and just 
 as the Holy place, as thus separated, must cease to exist and the Holiest place be 
 opened, in order to perfect communion with God, so the Jewish system must pass 
 away and open into something higher and better.—.rdv k. éveor., is best taken as 
 in contrast with Karpov Siophacewe—(g) ka? 7v.——Liinem. is probably correct in 
 referring 7 (like #ric) to mpdrye oxyvyc. It was in accordance with the arrange- 
 ment which thus shut out the presence of God by a veil, i. e. the existence of a 
 mpat, ox, that imperfect and temporary offerings were instituted. This reference 
 to gifts and sacrifices is not for the purpose of introducing a new thought, but only 
 of showing, more fully and emphatically, the imperfection of the religious system 
 which involved the outer part of the tabernacle and the separating veil. The 
 offerings are essentially connected with the approach of the worshiper to God, 
 with the perfecting which is the end in view, and hence with the work of the 
 high-priest as ministering in a sanctuary. The allusion to them, therefore, is a 
 
NOTES. 631 
 
 part of the presentation of Christ’s ministration as compared with the Levitical. 
 But the main thought is the same throughout the entire passage: that He is 
 superior because He is priest of a higher sanctuary. 
 
 (h) Vv. 11-14. The parallelism of dia rie pweifovoc... oxmvi¢ and 61a Tov idiow 
 aiuatoc, (comp. ver. 7, the high-priest goes in through the veil, not without 
 blood), indicates the correctness of the view that the sacrifices are mentioned as 
 entirely subordinate to the ministry in the sanctuary. The use of dd in the 
 second case, instead of with, is doubtless for rhetorical impression —(i) That dd of 
 ver. 11 has the local sense is shown by the correspondence with ver. 7, and by the 
 prominence of the local idea throughout all the preceding verses. That the 
 greater and more perfect tabernacle means the lower heavens, as Liinem. holds, is 
 suggested by the comparison with iy. 14: “passed through the heavens.’ The 
 objection made to this view, on the ground that the heavenly sanctuary has no 
 outer part, may be met, perhaps, by supposing that the writer conceives of Christ 
 as removing the veil by thus passing through the heavens, and that it was in this 
 way that the higher sanctuary became open to all, with immediate access to the 
 Divine presence. But the writer may, possibly, have no idea of an outer part 
 here, and may refer simply to a passing from the door of the sanctuary to the 
 place of offering, the throne of God—the lower, visible heavens being the door of 
 entrance.—(j ) evpduevoc is best understood, with Liinem., as antecedent to 
 eio7jAbev and as referring to Christ’s sacrifice of Himself. By making this sacrifice 
 He obtained a redemption which was eternal, and not for a time only, and then 
 He entered into the presence of God with this offering. Comp. vy. 24 ff. of this 
 chapter.—(k) aiwviov mvebuatoc (ver. 14) does not seem to refer to the Holy 
 Spirit, (1) because, as Liinem. says, the substitution of the adj..aiwy, for dyiov 
 would be indistinct and liable to be misunderstood—we may add, such a substitu- 
 tion would here be unnecessary ; (2) because the course of thought in the chapter 
 does not suggest the idea of the Holy Spirit; (3) because the contrast with the 
 Levitical sacrifices implies an act of Christ’s own spiritual nature, as distinguished 
 from the offering of a victim other than Himself. The absence of the article, also, 
 renders it improbable that the Holy Spirit is referred to, for, though the article 
 might be omitted with dyiov, we should not expect such an omission, in a passage 
 like this, with the adjective aiwviov. The reference must be, accordingly, to 
 Christ Himself. It was His own eternal spirit, through the action of which He 
 offered His sacrifice. That the writer of the epistle believed Christ to have a 
 divine (spiritual) nature, is not to be doubted. Whether he intended, however, to 
 express this thought, in this phrase, may be questioned. More probably, he is 
 moving in the sphere of thought which is suggested by the contrasts of the 
 chapter, and in which also, in the recapitulatory passage (x. 1 ff., comp. especially 
 vv. 5 ff), he evidently moves. 
 
 LXVIII. Vv. 15-22. 
 
 (a) In vv. 15-28 the thought of viii. 6 6-13 is developed more in detail :—As 
 minister of a higher sanctuary, Christ has connection also with a better covenant. 
 The close relation of the two thoughts is indicated by xa? dca rovro at the beginning 
 of ver. 15.—(6) The presentation of the subject is as follows:—1. The statement 
 of the fact, ver.15a. 2. In order to His becoming the mediator of the new covenant 
 —the divine covenant having a testamentary character—His death was necessary, 
 
632 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 vy. 15 6-17. 3. This necessity of a death was recognized in the Mosaic system, 
 vy. 18-22. 4. For the higher system—that connected with the new covenant 
 and the heavenly sanctuary—a nobler sacrifice was needed, and with this sacrifice 
 Christ entered as high-priest into the presence of God, vy. 23, 24. 5. The 
 offering which He has there made does not need to be repeated, vv. 25-28. It 
 will be noticed that here, as in the previous passages, the idea of the sacrifice is 
 subordinated to that of the offering in the sanctuary. 
 
 (¢) dca tovro refers to vv. 11-14, which present the idea of Christ as having 
 appeared as the minister of the higher sanctuary, and as accomplishing thereby, as 
 high-priest, the work of the higher system, reAeiwore—(d) The retroactive work- 
 ing of the death of Christ is here presented, as it is, in a way somewhat similar, in 
 Rom. iii. 25.—(e) The word d:a#jxy passes from its regular N. T. sense of covenant 
 into that of testament as the discourse moves from ver. 15 to vy. 16, 17, and returns 
 again to that of covenant in vy. 18 ff. Kay, in the Bible Comm., Angus, in Schafl’s 
 Pop. Comm., and one or two recent American writers have attempted to show 
 that the meaning testament is to be rejected, and covenant to be adopted in vv. 16, 
 17 ; following, in this point, the writers mentioned by Litinemann. The attempt 
 is unsuccessful, and the arguments presented by Liinem., Bleek, Alf., Moll, and 
 others against this view are conclusive. As Moll remarks, it is “convicted of 
 error at once by the utter falseness of the idea that in the formation of a covenant 
 the death of him who framed it is indispensable, as well as by the intolerable 
 harshness of any other mode of explaining 6 dvaféuevoc.” The fact that the 
 Divine covenant involves an inheritance (Aypovoyia) gives it a certain testa- 
 mentary character, which completely accounts for, and at the same time justifies, 
 the change in the shade of meaning from covenant to testament (testamentary 
 covenant). With this change, the clauses of vv. 16, 17 become sufficiently simple; 
 without it, hopeless difficulties arise—(f) p7rote is made an interrogative word by 
 R. V. text, a negative word by R. V. margin. A. R. V. places the negative in the 
 text, and the interrogative in the margin. That “ror is used in the later Greek 
 after émet as substantially like obzore, is shown by what Winer says in his N. T. 
 Gram., p. 480, and, if it can be thus used, the negative is somewhat more in harmony 
 with the simple and confident style of the argument than the interrogative—(q) 
 ovev—the inference is legitimate so far as the covenant is of a testamentary char- 
 acter, which is the view taken of it-here. The victims and blood of the O. T. system 
 were, like all things in that system, imperfect and symbolic, but all the arrange- 
 ments and ordinances, in this regard, followed in the line of the universal princi- 
 ple and necessity alluded to. This is- set forth, first, in the statement of what 
 Moses did ‘at the inauguration of the old covenant and afterwards (vv. 19-21), 
 and, secondly, in the setting forth of the general provision of the law (ver. 22). 
 
 
 
 LXIX. Vv. 23-28. 
 
 (a) Ver. 23 is introduced by ov and presents a twofold conclusion from what 
 precedes. In the progress of the thought, however, the connection would be more 
 naturally given, if the verse had read: If it was necessary that the copies, etc., or, 
 As, accordingly, it was necessary, etc., it was, as a natural consequence, necessary 
 that the higher sanctuary should be purified with better sacrifices.—(b) xaapit- 
 eolac need not be pressed, in its application to the heavenly tabernacle, into the 
 same meaning that it has as applied to the earthly one. Throughout the entire 
 
NOTES. 633 
 
 section, the writer uses words with reference alike to the earthly and heavenly, 
 which he trusts the intelligence of his readers to modify in their meaning, and to 
 interpret according to the demands of each case. Here the word is, probably, 
 carried over to the heavenly sanctuary, only as indicating that there must be a 
 better sacrifice before men can find free access to the immediate presence of God. 
 —(c) Ver. 24 suggests the thought: “and it is into this heavenly sanctuary that 
 Christ has entered.” The writer introduces the verse with the particle ydp, 
 which, as Liinem. says, confirms the aira ta érovp., by showing that it is, in 
 reality, the heavenly sanctuary that is consecrated by the sacrifice of Christ. 
 This, however, may be regarded as only the grammatical and more immediate or 
 minor connection of the thought In the main connection and progress, the 
 suggestion mentioned above gives the force of the verse, which forms a transition 
 from ver. 23 to ver. 25 ff. It is into the heavenly sanctuary that Christ entered, 
 taking with Him the offering of the nobler sacrifice. He did this once for all, 
 since the offering needed to be made only once.—(d) The nobler character of 
 the offering is presented, in vv. 25 ff., especially in the point that it did not need 
 to be repeated. Liinemann is clearly wrong in his interpretation of tpoogépew 
 (ver, 25) as referring to Christ’s offering Himself as a sacrifice on earth. This is 
 what is indicated by tafety of ver. 26. The whole course of thought in the 
 passage, which has reference to the high-priest in the sanctuary ; the eto7/Jev and 
 éugavicdjva of ver. 24; the eioépyerae.... év aiuate addorp.; the contrast with 
 raveiv:—all these things show that tpoogépecv denotes Christ’s presentation of 
 Himself with His blood before God in the heavenly Holy of Holies. The 
 sacrifice is, accordingly, as everywhere in this section of the epistle, subordinate to 
 the offering of the blood in the sanctuary. The high-priest’s ministry in the 
 presence of God is the subject constantly kept before the reader’s mind. 
 
 (e) That the offering does not need to be repeated is proved by two argu- 
 ments:—l. By the fact that, if there were such need, there would be a similar 
 necessity of a repeated sacrifice, as in the Levitical system—but that there is no such 
 necessity of ever-renewed sacrifices is indicated by the historical facts of the 
 case. He has not suffered oftentimes since the foundation of the world, but now, 
 at the consummation of the ages, He has been once manifested to put away sin by 
 His sacrifice. 2. By the analogy of the case of men. As they die but once, and 
 that which is appointed for them afterwards is not death, but judgment; so He 
 has died once for all, and what awaits Him in the future is another thing than 
 death—an appearance for the bringing of salvation to those who wait for Him. 
 
 (f) The development of the thought in these later verses is subordinated to 
 the statement of ver. 15 a, and serves to show how the covenant of which Jesus is 
 the Mediator is a better one than that connected with the O. T. law. The cove- 
 nant, is better, since it secures salvation. But that He, as High-Priest, is the me- 
 diator of the new covenant, only as He is the minister of the higher sanctuary, is 
 also shown by the development of these verses. 
 
 (g) As to particular words and phrases in vv. 23 ff, the following points may 
 be noticed:—1l. The writer uses words as descriptive of the old tabernacle in an 
 unusual sense, in some cases, as e. g. btode/yuata (ver. 23, comp. also viii. 5) in the 
 sense of copy, and not example or pattern, its original meaning (comp. tapaderyya) ; 
 avtitura of the earthly (ver. 24) and réizov (viii. 5) of the heavenly. The O. T. 
 things, according to the more natural mode of regarding them, are tivo; the 
 N. T. and heavenly things, the “»7/ruro. The conception of this writer, in these 
 
634 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 places, is not of types, in the ordinary sense, but of the heavenly pattern and the 
 earthly copy answering to it—2. étovpava (ver. 23) means the heavenly sanctu- 
 ary.—3. The emphatic position in the sentence which is given to ei¢ yerpor. ay., 
 and, by contrast, to ei¢ ait. ovpavév (ver. 24), indicates both the grammatical and 
 logical connection of this verse with ver. 23 and the following context. See (c) 
 above.—4. vuvi (ver. 26) is the logical, not the temporal adverb: as the case stands.— 
 5, ovvtedcia Tov aidvev (ver. 26):—comp. Matt. xx. 28, ovvrédeva Tov aldvoc ; 
 1 Cor. x. 11, ta TéAy Tov aidvev KaTHyTnKev ;—the, ending together of the ages.— 
 6. azaé, as used in this chapter, means once, apparently in the sense of once for all.— 
 7. ywpic dyapriac, apart from those relations to sin which He had when He 
 appeared the first time on earth and made atonement for it by His sacrifice 
 of Himself. 
 
CHAP. X. 635 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Ver. | reads in the Recepta: Exeav yap iywv 6 véuoc Tdv peAAdvtTwv ayadav, ovK 
 aUTHY Ti Eikdva TOV Tpay“atwr, Kat’ éviavTdv Tai¢ avTaic¢ OBuoiaic, Gc Tpoovépovow 
 ei¢ TO diyvenéc, ovdérote divaTae Toi¢ mpocepyouévovc TEAe@oa. Instead thereof, 
 Lachm. takes the words Z«vav . . . mpayuatwy as an independent clause, placing 
 a full stop after zpayudtwv, He then, in the stereotype edition, omits the relative 
 before zpoogépovorwv,—while in the larger edition he has again added the a¢ of 
 the Recepta before this verb,—places a comma after mpoodépovow, and writes 
 dbvavrac in place of dvvaraz, This punctuation and form of the text given by 
 Lachm. is in all essential respects to be unhesitatingly rejected. In connection 
 with the breaking off of the opening words of the verse into an independent state- 
 ment, éoriv must be supplemented to éyov. Such supplementing, however, would 
 be altogether opposed to the linguistic character of the Epistle to the Hebrews; 
 moreover, it would remain inexplicable, from the very brevity of the clause, how 
 the participle éy#v should come to be written for the finite tense éyev, which 
 naturally suggests itself. In addition to this, the joining to that which precedes 
 by means of yap would occasion a difficulty, and the clause following would become 
 an asyndeton. Besides, this following clause, in the absence of any connecting 
 relative, would not even comply with the laws of grammar. The relative before 
 mpoogépovowv is wanting in A, 2, 7* 17, 47, Syr. utr. Arm., and A** 31, Syr. Philo- 
 nex. then insert ai before ovdérore. Instead of the Recepta ac mpoodép. there is 
 found, however, in D* L (?), 73, 187, in an ancient fragment with Matthaei, which 
 Tisch., in the edit. vii. (comp. Pars I. p. exci.), has designated as N, with Theo- 
 doret, as well as in a Ms. of Chrysostom and in the Latin version of D E: al¢ 
 mpoodép., and the latter is preferred by Bleek, Tisch. and Alford. Yet the Recepta 
 ac, which is supported by C D*** E (?) K &, the majority of the cursives, and 
 many Fathers, is to be defended. Since the three words immediately preceding 
 end in acc, a¢ might easily also be changed into aic. The Recepta divaray, 
 finally, is attested by D (* and ***) E K L, very many cursives, Vulg. It. Copt. 
 al., Chrys. Theodoret (text), Oecum. (comm.) al., while the plural dévavrac 
 (preferred also by Tisch. 1, and already placed by Griesbach upon the inner mar- 
 gin) is presented by A C D** ®, about thirty cursives, Syr. al., Chrys. (codd.) 
 Theodoret (comm. ?), Damasc. Theophyl. al. But the plural is devoid of sense, 
 and can on that account be regarded only asa transcriber’s error, which was 
 occasioned by the foregoing plural zpoogépovow.—Ver. 2. "Exel obk av éxaicavto] 
 Elz.: éwei av éxaboavro, Against the decisive authority of all uncial mss., of 
 most cursives, vss. and Fathers.—The preference to the Recepta kexadapmuévove 
 is deserved by kexavdapiopuévove (approved by Grotius, Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, 
 Delitzsch, Alford), as better attested. In favor of kexatapiopuévove pleads not 
 only the testimony of D E K 8, 23** 87, 39, al., but also the form which in A G 
 has risen as a transcriber’s error from the same Kkekateptouévove, which latter 
 Lachm. has adopted.—Ver. 6. Recepta here and yer. 8: evdéxyoa¢. Better at- 
 
636 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 tested, however, here (by A C D* E, the early fragment in Matth. al.) and ver. 8 
 (by A D* [E?], al., Cyr. Theodoret) is the reading, chosen by Lachm. Tisch. and 
 Alford, as also approved by Delitasch: 7idé6xyoa¢.—Ver. 8. In place of the 
 Recepta Guciav kai rpoogoparv, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford rightly 
 read the plural: @vaiac¢ kai tpoogopdae, in accordance with A C D* &* 17, 23, 
 57, al., Vulg. It. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arab. Erp. Cyril. Already commended to at- 
 tention by Griesbach. The singular is a later change, with a view to its confor- 
 mation to ver. 5.—In like manner we have, with Lachm. and Tisch., to delete 76, 
 which the Recepta adds before véyov, as not being found in A C, &, 37, 46, 71, 73, 
 al., Sahid. Cyril, Chrys. Theodoret. The insertion of the article was more easily 
 possible than its rejection—Ver. 9. tov romjoa] Elz.: tov morgjoas, 6 Ode. 
 Against AC D E K 8* 17, 39, 46, al. mult. It. Copt. al., 6 @e6¢ is a complement- 
 ary addition from ver.7. Rightly deleted by Griesbach, Lachm., Scholz, Bleek, 
 de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche—Ver. 10. Instead of the mere dé in 
 the Recepta, Matthaei and Tisch. 2 and 7 read, after the precedent of the Edd. 
 Complutens. Erasm. Colin. Stephan.: of 6dvd4. Bloomfield places of within 
 brackets. But oi (se. #jysaovévoc) is wanting in A C D* E* 8, 31, 47, al., Chrys. Theo- 
 doret, and owes its origin to an error of the eye, in that the termination oévoz 
 in 7ylaouévor gave rise to the writing of éoév oi,—In place of Tov cémarog in 
 the Recepta, D* E, with their Latin translation, have toi aiuatoc. Mistaken 
 emendation, since Tov couaroc, ver. 10, was chosen in manifest correspondence to 
 the citation cdua dé Katyptiow pol, ver. 5.—Ijoov Xpiorov.] Elz.: tov "Iycod 
 Xpcorov, But the article has against it the testimony of all the uncials, many 
 cursives and Fathers, and is rightly rejected by Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, 
 Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford. — Ver. 11. Elz. Griesbach, Matthaei, 
 Scholz, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Reiche read: tac piv iepevc. Defended 
 also by Bohme, Tholuck, and Delitzsch. The preference, however, is deserved by 
 the reading: ta¢ wév apycepetc, which is furnished by A C, 31, 37, 46, al, 
 Syr. utr. (yet in the Philonex. with an asterisk) Basm. Aeth. Arm. Theodoret 
 (text), Cyril. Euthal. al., was already adopted in the Editt. Complut. Plantin. 
 Geney., and more recently has been restored by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, and 
 Alford. Ifthe ordinary Leyitical priests had been intended, oi iepei¢ would, as 
 is rightly cbserved by Bleek, have been written instead of ac iepetc, since each 
 single Levitical priest had by no means daily to offer sacrifice. Less unsuitable, 
 on the other hand, is the statement of the daily presentation of sacrifice in regard 
 to the high priest, since that which was true of the Levitical priests in general 
 could indeed be ascribed to the high priest as the head and representative of the 
 same. In any case we have here, at the close of the argument, and because of the 
 parallel with the person of Christ, to expect not so much the mention of the ordi- 
 nary Jewish priest, as the mention of the Jewish high priest. The reading: 7a¢ 
 pév Lepedve, is therefore to be looked upon as a later correction, made on account 
 of the following «af 7juépav, since this stood in apparent contradiction to 7a@¢ pév 
 apyvepevo—vVer., 12. oiroc dé] Elz. Matthaei, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: airi¢ 
 dé. But oito¢ dé (recommended by Griesbach; adopted by Lachm. Bleek, 
 Scholz, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford, Reiche ; approved also by Delitzsch) is demanded 
 by the preponderating authority of A C D* E &, 67** 80, 116, al., Syr. utr. Arr. 
 Copt. Basm. Aeth. Arm. It. Vulg. al., Chrys. Cyr. Damase. al.—Instead of the 
 Recepta: év de&+G, Lachm. had written in the stereotype edition: éx de&ca», 
 which, however, is only feebly attested by A, 31 (8* has é« deéa, which by 8***: 
 
CHAP. X. 637 
 
 was changed into év deéi@). Rightly, therefore, has Lachm. returned in his larger 
 edition to the Recepta.—Ver. 15. peta yap TO eipyxévar] Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 
 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Reiche: “eta yap td xpoe:pnkévar. Against decisive 
 witnesses (A C D E y, 17, 31, 47, al. m. Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Basm. Aeth. Tt. Vulg. 
 Chrys. Theoph. Ambrose, Sedul.). Already held suspected by Griesbach.—_Ver. 
 16. Elz. Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche: 
 int Tov dcavolor, after D** and *** E K L, most cursives and vss., Chrys. 
 Theodoret, al., Ambrose, al. On the other hand, A C D* x, 17, 31, 47, al., 
 Vulg. (Amiat. Harlej.* Tolet.) have: éxi tyv dcdvorav, Approved by Lachm. 
 Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, and probably the original reading —Ver. 17. Elz. Matthaei, 
 Scholz, Bloomfield: ~v7o06. More correctly, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, 
 Alford, after A C D* E 8* 17: uvnodhoouat, which Griesbach has placed upon 
 the inner margin. /v7o0@ was carried over from viii. 12—Ver. 22. Recepta: 
 éppavtiopévor. After A C D* N* Lachm. writes: pepavtcopévos, Tisch. and 
 Alford: pepavtcouévor.—Ver. 29. The words év » #jytdo87 are deleted by 
 Lachm. in the stereotype edition ; but are rightly, since they are omitted only by 
 A and Chrysostom, retained by him in the larger edition —Ver. 30. The addition 
 following avtarodoow in the Recepta : aéyer Kiproc, is rejected by Tisch. 1, 2, 
 and 8, after D* 8* 17, 23* 67** Vulg. It. Copt. Syr. Aeth. Arab. Erp. Ambr. 
 Bede, and is regarded by Mill (Prolegg. 496), Bengel, Griesbach, and others as 
 probably a gloss. Bloomfield encloses it within brackets. It is nevertheless pro- 
 tected by A D*** E K L 8*** etc. Syr. Philonex. al., and many Fathers. 
 Rightly, therefore, has it been received again by Tisch. into the edit. vii. Delitzsch, 
 Alford, and Reiche also have lately decided in favor of its genuineness.—The 
 Recepta kiprog Kpivet we have, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after A D E K 
 N* 31, 73, al, Vulg. It. Syr. utr. Aeth. Theodoret (semel), to transpose into Kpivet 
 ktiptoc, Bleek and Delitzsch read, after D E, 55, 71, Vulg. It. Theodoret (sem.) : 
 dre kpevei Koploc, Quite similarly, LXX. Deut. xxxii. 36; Ps. exxxv. 14— 
 Ver. 34. roic decuioc] Thus we have to read, with Griesbach, Lachm. Scholz, 
 Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, and others, after A D* [as Cod. B breaks 
 off at ix. 14, so also x. 24-xii. 15 is wanting in Cod. C] 47, 67** 73, al., Syr. utr. 
 Arab. Erpen. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Chrys. Antioch. Damase. Theodoret (comm.), 
 Oecum. (comm.) Pelag. Ambrose, al. From toi¢ decpioce arose, by a slip on 
 the part of the copyist, To“¢ decuoic, which is found with Origen, Exhort. ad 
 martyr. 44, and to which the vineulis eorwm of the Latin translation in D E corres- 
 ponds; while, then, tov desuoic was completed by means of a gloss into the 
 Recepta, still defended by Matthaei, Bloomfield, M’Caul, and Hofmann: tov¢ 
 deapoicg pov (D*** EK Ly, ete.), in that Paul was regarded as the author of 
 the epistle, and thus was found expressed an acknowledgment of the sympathy 
 manifested by the Palestinian Christians towards himself during his imprison- 
 ment.—In that which follows, the reading: éyerv éavroic, very strongly con- 
 firmed by D E K L, almost sixty cursives, Chrys. Theodoret, Isidor. iii. 225, 
 Damase. Theoph., already adopted into the Editt. Complut. Erasm. 1, Steph. 1 
 and 2, and later preferred by Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Tisch. 
 2 and 7, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, is to be held the original one, inasmuch as 
 from this reading the rise, as well of the Recepta : Eyerv év Eavtoicg (which, as 
 it would seem, rests only upon a few cursives), as also of the reading afforded by 
 A x, four cursives, the early fragment in Matthaei, Vulg. It. al., and followed by 
 Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8: éxeev Eavrows, is to be explained.—The addi- 
 
638 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 tion: év ovpavoic¢ after vtapsw in the Recepta is wanting in A D*x* 17, in 
 
 “ the early fragment with Matthaei in the text, in Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It., with Clem. Al. 
 Bed., and stands with Theodoret only after wévovcay. Elucidatory gloss, suspected 
 by Mill (Prolegg. 1208) and Griesbach, rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 
 Delitzsch, Alford—Ver. 35. Recepta: wicbarodociav weyadanv. With Lachm. 
 Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Alford, we have to transpose into weyaAnv probaro- 
 dociay, after A D Ey. the early fragment in Matthaei, 73, 116, al., Clem. Al. 
 Orig. Eus. It. Vulg. Copt. al—Ver. 38. The Recepta omits the ov, which is 
 found in most mss. of the LXX. after tiotewc. D* Syr. utr. Copt., the Latin 
 version in D KE, Eus. Theodoret (alic.), Cypr. Jerome have it after tiotewe. On 
 the other hand, it is found after dixavog in A yx, Arm. Vulg., in the early frag- 
 ment with Matthaei by the first hand, with Clem. Al. Eus. (alic.) Theodoret 
 (alic.), Proc. Sedul. Bed. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford have aaopted it at 
 this latter place, and probably the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews so read, 
 inasmuch as it is found with the LXX. at this place in Cod. A. 
 
 Vv. 1-4. [On Vv. 10-18, see Note LXX., pages 658-660.] Presentation in 
 a Clearer light of the necessity for Christ’s offering Himself only once for 
 the expiation of sins (ix. 25-28), by pointing to the ineffectiveness of the 
 expiatory sacrifices continually repeated within the domain of Judaism. 
 This constant repetition attests that sins are still ever present, as indeed 
 a canceling of sin by the blood of bullocks and of goats is impossible. 
 [LXX a.] 
 
 Ver. 1. [LXX 6 1, 2.] Establishment of the arat rpoceveybeic sig rd 
 ToAA@v aveveykeiv duapriac, 1x. 28, as being the main thought lying in ix. 
 25-28, by making good the opposite state of the case in the province of 
 the O. T. theocracy: “ For since the law contains only a shadow of the 
 future good things, not the actual likeness of the things, it is not able by 
 means of the same sacrifices every year, which are unceasingly offered, 
 ever to make perfect them that draw nigh.” The emphasis of the propo- 
 sition rests partly upon the characterization of the law as cxidv éyov 
 «.7.4,, partly upon xar’ éviavtov taic avtaic Moiac, ac mpoodépovow eic¢ 
 TO OLnvekéc. The author, however, cannot thereby mean, as the words 
 at first hearing might seem toimply, that the law, in case its contents were 
 no mere oxida tov peA2bvTwv ayabov, would in reality effect the teAeiwore by 
 means of its ever-repeated expiatory sacrifices. For, as is shown by vv. 2 
 and 3, the author already bases upon the very fact of the yearly repetition 
 of the Mosaic expiatory sacrifices the proof for their inadequacy. We must 
 therefore suppose that two independent. particulars of thought have been 
 blended together into a single statement. One can resolve the matter 
 either in such wise that oidérore dSivata teAeraoa is looked upon as the 
 common predicate for both particulars: the law is incapable of leading to 
 Tedeiworc, because it contains a mere oxida «.7.A.; and certainly it is inca- 
 pable, by means of its ever-repeated sacrifices, of leading to reAeiwoce. 
 Or in such wise that the second particular is thought of originally as an 
 inference from the first, from which the oidérore dtvara: x.7.2. 18 then pro- 
 gressively derived: because the law contains a mere oxida tov peAAdvTov - 
 
CHAP: x.) 1h, 2: 639 
 
 a)a06v, there is found in its domain an unceasing repetition of the same 
 expiatory sacrifices ; by this unceasing repetition, however, it is never able 
 to lead to perfection. The latter analysis is to be preferred, because by 
 means of it the opposition, required by the course of the argument, be- 
 tween the once offered and the ofttimes repeated expiatory sacrifice, 
 comes out clearly and definitely in all its severity; while the characteriza- 
 tion of the véuoc, on the other hand, as oxdv éyor x.7.4., is made only that 
 which here, in harmony with the context, it alone can be, 7.e. a mere 
 subsidiary factor in the argument.—oxdv] a shadow, which is unsubstan- 
 tiated, melts away into obscurity, and only enables us to recognize the 
 external outlines. Opposite to this is the eixav, the image or impress, 
 which sets before us the figure itself, sharply and clearly stamped forth. 
 See on vill. 5. Freely, but not incorrectly, does Luther translate: ‘the 
 very substance of the good things.” —rév peAAdvtwv ayabov] see at ix. 11.— 
 tav mpayuatwr] different from tov pueAAdvtwy ayadov only as respects the 
 more general form of expression.—xar’ évavrév] belongs neither to 
 ovdérote dbvata,! nor to d¢ mpoodépovow,? in which latter case the words 
 would have to be resolved by raic Outiaic, Gc Kar’ éviavtiv tag avTac Tpoopé- 
 povowv, or something similar. But kar’ évavrév is rather to be taken in 
 intimate combination with rai¢ avraic: with the same sacrifices every year. 
 The author forebore writing rtai¢ aitaicg Kar’ éviavtov Ovoiaic, in order that he 
 might accentuate each notion equally strongly. As, moreover, with kar’ 
 éviavtév in this place, so also elsewhere with adverbs which in point of mean- 
 ing may be compared with it, such as dei, toA2AdKc, etc., a transposing is noth- 
 ing rare. Comp. Winer, p. 514 f. [E. T. 553.]—raic airtaicg Guoiac] Those 
 meant are, as is required by kar’ évavtév (comp. also ver. 4) only the sacri- 
 Jices on the great day of atonement, not also the daily sacrifices of propitia- 
 tion (ver. 11), as B6hme, Stein, and others suppose.—zpoodépovor] se. the 
 Levitical high priests. Wrongly Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 
 446), who in general has entirely failed in his interpretation of the state- 
 ment:? the mpocepyduevor—eic rd dijvexéc] Note of time to rpoodépovow. 
 If we should seek, with Paulus, Lachmann, and Hofmann, /.c., to con- 
 join el¢ 7d divexéc With that which follows, the relative clause d¢ rpocdé- 
 povory would be deprived of all signification —rod¢ mpocepyouévovc] those 
 who approach God through the medium of the Levitical priests, thus 
 identical with rote Aatpebovrac, ver. 2, ix. 9. [LXX b3.] 
 
 Ver. 2. [LXX }b 4.] Proof for the kar’ éwavrdv taic abt. Ovo. ovdérore 
 dbvatat Tove Tpocepyouévove TeAe@oac In the form of a question: for otherwise 
 would not their presentation have ceased? because the worshipers, so soon as 
 
 1Ebrard, Delitzsch, Hofmann, Schriftbew. 
 II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 446; Alford. 
 
 2Calvin, Er. Schmid, Wolf, Heinrichs, 
 Bleek, de Wette, Bloomfield, and others. 
 
 8 Namely, in that he brings out as the sense 
 of the same, “the propitiatory sacrifice, 
 which is, as it were, offered by the law itself, 
 because offered at its direction and by the 
 high priest for the congregation,” is here 
 
 “convinced of its manifest incapacity for 
 effecting real and abiding purity of con- 
 science for the individuals. This conviction 
 is wrought by the fact that, notwithstanding 
 this sacrifice has been offered every year for 
 the whole congregation, the individuals still 
 continue throughout the year to offer sacri- 
 fices for themselves”! 
 
640 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 they have once been really purged from sin, have no more consciousness of sins, 
 and thus no more need of an expiatory sacrifice. In connection with the 
 Recepta érei av éraicavro, the sense itself would remain unchanged, only 
 the words would then have to be taken as an assertory statement (“for 
 their presentation would have come to an end, because,” etc.); by which, 
 however, the discourse would suffer in point of vivacity (observe also the 
 a2Aa, ver. 3, corresponding to the question of ver. 2). But the process is 
 not a natural one, when Beza, edd. 1 and 2, Wetstein, Matthaei, Stein, and 
 others (comp. already Theodoret) will have the proposition of ver. 2 
 regarded as an assertory statement, even with the retention of the ovx. 
 They then explain either (and thus ordinarily) : for otherwise their presenta- 
 tion would not have ceased, sc. by the coming in of the New Covenant,! or, 
 in that érei . . . tpoopepduevac is Closely attached to the main verb of ver. 
 1, and dia 76 pydeuiav x.7.A. is regarded as belonging to the whole proposi- 
 tion, vv. 1, 2: the law was not able by its sacrifices to lead to perfection, 
 since AGE presentation was an endless one; because those who are once 
 purified have no longer any consciousness of sins. So Wetstein, who, 
 however, will write—what in that case, no doubt, would be necessary and 
 Boueeey justified—oix dveratcavro instead of obk av éxatoarvto ( . 
 “quum non cessarent offerri. Ita quidem, ut haec verba, sublata free 
 tinctione majori, jungantur iis, quae praecedunt, deinde sequatur totius 
 sententiae confirmatio: quia sacrificantes,” etc.). But against the last- 
 mentioned mode of explanation it is decisive, that the relation of the 
 members of the sentence to each other would become obscure, and the 
 arrangement cumbrous; against the first-mentioned, the pre-supposition, 
 underlying the d¢ rpocdépovaw ei¢ Td dSinvexéc, Ver. 1, as well as the epistle in 
 general (ix. 9, al.), that the Jewish sacrificial eae was still in continuance 
 at the time of our author’s writing.—éraicavro mpoogepbuevar] sc. ai Ovoiar. 
 The construction of rateoda: with the participle is the ordinary one, in 
 classic as well as in Hellenistic Greek.2—roic¢ Aatpetiovrac] see at ix. 9. 
 Ver. 3. Contrast to rd pydemiavy Exew ett ovveidnow ayapTi@v Tov¢ AaTpeb- 
 ovrac.’ In such wise, however, that the offerers should have no more 
 consciousness of guilt, the matter does not stand; on the contrary, there 
 lies in the yearly repetition of the sacrifices the yearly reminder that sins 
 are still remaining, and have to be’ expiated.t—év airaic] sc. taic Avaiac.— 
 avéprnow] not: commemoratio, or commemoratio publica (Bengel and 
 
 1 Beza: alioqui non desiissent offerri; Mat- ver. 3, points back to the kindred ovveténour 
 
 thaei: non cessavissent, non sublata essent; apaptiay, ver. 2. 
 comp. Theodoret: Ata todro téAos éxeiva 4Comp. Philo, de Victim. p. 841 A (with Man- 
 AapuBaver, ws ov Svvapeva ovveidyow Kabapay gey, II. p. 244): Evnées yap tas Ovatas py 
 amropyvar. AjOnv auaptywatwv, ad’ Uropvyow avTav 
 2Comp. Eph. i. 16; Col. i.9; Acts v. 42, al. ; katackevacerv.—De plantat. No?, p. 229 B (I. p. 
 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 771; Winer, p. 323 f. 345) at... O@volac .. . VrouiuvygKovaa Tas 
 [E. T. 345]. éxaoTwv ayvolas Te kat Stauaptias.—Vit. Mos. 
 8 To join on the words of ver. 3 to those of iii. p. 669 E (II. p.151): Kat yap omore yiver@as 
 ver. 1, and then to look upon ver. 2asaparen- Soxovarv (sc. the Svoiac and evxai of the 
 
 thesis (Kurtz, Hofmann), is inadmissible, impious), ov Avow apapTnudroy GAN’ Vrouynosr 
 even—apart from the adda, of frequent use epyagovTat. 
 after a question—because avapvynots auapTior, 5 Vulgate, Calvin, Clarius, al. 
 
CHAP, 35-5: 641 
 
 others), so that we must think of the confession of sin’ which the high 
 priest made on the great day of atonement with regard to himself and 
 the whole people ;? but: reminding, recalling to memory. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 
 24, 25; Luke xxii. 19. 
 
 Ver. 4. Proof that it cannot be otherwise, drawn from the matter itself 
 which is under consideration. By a rudely sensuous means we cannot 
 attain to a nigh spiritual good. 
 
 Vv. 5-10. [LX X 6 6, 7.] Scripture proof, from Ps. xl. 7-9 [6-8], that 
 deliverance from sins is to be obtained, not by animal sacrifices, but only 
 by the fulfilling of the will of God. On the ground of this fulfillment of 
 God’s will by Christ are we Christians sanctified. 
 
 Ver. 5. Aw] Wherefore, i. e. in accordance with the impossibility declared 
 at ver. 4.—Aéyer] He saith. As subject thereto is naturally supplied Christ, 
 although He was not mentioned again since ix. 28. This determination 
 of the subject is already placed beyond doubt by the whole connection, 
 but not less by the pointing back of tov c@uato¢g “Inoot Xpiorov, ver. 10, to 
 soya dé Katyptiow pot, ver. 5. According to the view of our author, Christ 
 is speaking? in the person of the psalmist. The psalm itself, indeed, as is 
 almost universally acknowledged, refuses to admit of the Messianic interpre - 
 tation (comp. especially ver. 183 [12]). The present 2éye+, moreover, might 
 be placed, because the utterance is one extending into the present, 7. e. one 
 which may still be daily read in the Scripture.—eicepyoyevoc ei¢ tov xéopov] 
 at His coming into the world, i.e. on the eve of coming (see Winer, p. 249 
 [E. T. 265]) into the world # (sc. by His incarnation). This determining of 
 time is taken from the jx, ver.7. According to Bleek,® the author in 
 penning the words eisepyduevoc ei¢ tov xéouov was thinking “less of the 
 moment of the incarnation and birth than of the public coming forth upon 
 earth to the work assigned to Him by the Father, in connection with 
 which His entrance into the world first became manifested to the world 
 itself.” But in that case ciceAdov must have been written, and the formula 
 eloépyectat ei¢ Tov xéouov (John i. 9, vi. 14, xi. 27; Rom. v. 12; 1 Tim. i. 15, 
 al.) would lose its natural signifigation. The same applies against 
 Delitzsch, who, bringing in that which lies very remote, will have the 
 words explained: “incarnate, and having entered upon the years of 
 human self-determination, signified Isa. vii. 16,’—an exposition which is 
 not any the more rendered acceptable, when Delitzsch adds, with a view to 
 doing justice to the participle present: “we need not regard the eisépyecdac 
 ei¢ TOV Kéouov aS a point; we can also conceive of it as a line.”® For the 
 
 1Tract. Jom. iv. 2, iii. 8, vi. 2. 
 
 2Schlichting, Grotius, Braun, al. 
 
 3 Arbitrarily does Kurtz place in Aéye a 
 double sense, in that he will have it under- 
 stood on the part of the psalmist of a speak- 
 ing in words, on the part of Christ of a speaking 
 by deeds. 
 
 4Without reason do Delitzsch and Alford 
 object against this interpretation, that the 
 following g@®pza katypticw por is not in 
 
 4] 
 
 harmony therewith. See the exposition of 
 the words. 
 
 5 Who is preceded therein by Grotius, and 
 followed by de Wette,as more recently by 
 Maier and Beyschlag, die Christologie des 
 Neuen Testaments, Berl. 1866, p. 192. 
 
 ®So, in accord with Delitazsch, also Alford, 
 who observes: “It expresses, I believe, the 
 whole time during which the Lord, being 
 ripened in human resolution, was in intent 
 
§42 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 author cannot possibly have thought of Christ’s eicépyeodar sic tov Kéopor, 
 and His aéyew temporally therewith coinciding, as something constantly 
 repeated and only progressively developed.—raiav Kai rpoodopav oi 
 nvéAnoac| sacrifice and offering (bloody and unbloody sacrifices) Thou didst 
 not will. Kindred utterances in the O. T.: Ps. 1. 7-15, li. 18 ff. [16 ff]; 
 Isa. i. 11; Jer. vi. 20, vii. 21-23 ; Hos. vi. 6; Amos v. 21 ff.; 1 Sam. xv. 22. 
 That, however, the author founded his Scripture proof precisely upon Ps. 
 xl., was occasioned principally by the addition, very important for his 
 purpose: cdua dé Katyptiow pot, Which is found there.—oaua dé Katnpricw 
 por} [LXX 6 8.] but a body hast Thou prepared me, sc. in order to be 
 clothed with the same, and by the giving up of the same unto death to 
 fulfill Thy will. Comp. ver. 7. Thus, without doubt, the author found in 
 his copy of the LXX. But that the Hebrew words: 7) 2 DIN (the ears 
 hast Thou digged to me, 7. e. by revelation opened up religious knowledge 
 to me), were even originally rendered by the LXX. by céua 62 xatnpricw 
 jot, aS is contended by Jac. Cappellus, Wolf, Carpzov, Tholuck, Ebrard, 
 Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, and others, is a supposition hardly to be enter- 
 tained. Probably the LXX. rendered the Hebrew words by daria dé 
 Katnptiow jot, as they are still found in some ancient Mss. of that version, 
 and céua 6% Katypticw pou arose, not “from the translator being unable to 
 attach any satisfactory meaning to the words ‘the ears hast thou digged 
 to me,’ and therefore altering them with his own hand” (Kurtz); but 
 only from an accidental corruption of the text, in that %, the final letter 
 of the 734iyoa¢ immediately preceding, was wrongly carried over to the 
 following word, and instead of TI the letter M was erroneously read. 
 
 Ver. 6. In burnt-offerings and sin-offerings hadst Thou no pleasure— 
 LXX. Cod. Vatic.: dAokatraua . .. ovk yrnoac; Cod. Alex.: dAokavtéuata... 
 ov élAtnoac.—Kai mepi dyuaptiac] Oecumenius: tovréste mpoodopav epi 
 duaptiac. Elsewhere also occasionally (Lev. vii. 387; Num. viii. 8, al.) the 
 LXX. denote the sin-offering by the mere zepi duapriac, in that the addi- 
 tional notion of sacrifice is naturally yielded by the context. Stein’s ex- 
 pedient for avoiding all supplementing of the idea, in translating xai by 
 “also” (“Thou hast also no pleasure in offerings for sin”), is grammat- 
 ically inadmissible. —etdoxeiv] with the accusative also not rare elsewhere in 
 Hellenistic Greek. Comp. LXX..Gen. xxxiii. 10; Lev. xxvi. 34, 41; Ps. 
 li. 18, 21, al. Besides this in the Hellenistic eidoxeiv év (x. 38), with Greek 
 writers ebdoxeiv Tue. 
 
 Ver. 7. Tére eizov] then said I. In the sense of the writer of the epistle : 
 then, when Thou hadst prepared for me a body. In the sense of the com- 
 poser of the psalm: then, when such deeper knowledge was revealed to 
 me. Contrary to the usage of the language, Carpzov, Stein, and others 
 take rére as equivalent to ideo, propterea, while just as capriciously Hein- 
 richs makes it redundant as a particle of transition.—év kegarids BiBdiov yéy- 
 pantac repi éuov] is a parenthesis; so that tot morjoae depends not on 
 
 devoting Himself to the doing of His Father’s Tov matpos mov?’ was one of the opening 
 will: the time of which that youthful announcements.” 
 question, ‘ Wist ye not that I must be év rots 
 
CHAP. x. 6-9. 643 
 
 yéyparrat, as Paulus thinks, but upon 7«w: Lo, I come to do, O God, Thy 
 will. Comp. ver. 9. Otherwise truly with the LXX. (and in the Hebrew), 
 where tov rovwjoac is governed by the closing verb nBovagiynv, Which is 
 omitted in the Epistle to the Hebrews (rov roujoa: rd GéAnud cov, 6 Bede 
 ov, 7BovaySqv: to do Thy will, O God, is my delight)—éy cegadrids 
 BcBriov yéypantrar mepi évov isin the Hebrew differently connected 
 and applied. In the sense of our author: in the prophecies of the O. T. it 
 is written of me.—xegaric, little head, then the knob at the end of the 
 staff, around which the manuscript roll was wound in antiquity. Kke@aric¢ 
 BcBAiov consequently denotes the book-roll, volume. Elsewhere also the 
 LXX. translated the Hebrew map (volumen), with and without the addi- 
 tion of BiBriov, by Keparic. Comp. Ezek. ii. 9, iii. 1-3; Ezra vi. 2.—rd 
 JéAnua] in the sense of our author: the obedient presentation of the body 
 as a sacrifice for the redemption of mankind. 
 
 Vv. 8-10. Contrasting of the two main elements in the citation just 
 adduced, and emphasizing of the fact that the one element, upon which 
 God lays no stress, is represented by Judaism; the other, to which value is 
 attached in God’s sight, is represented by Christianity —arérepov] above, in 
 the opening words of the declaration.—Aéywr] sc. 6 Xproréc. The parti- 
 ciple present, in place of which Schlichting, Grotius, Bleek, de Wette 
 expect that of the aorist, is employed here, even as Aéyev, ver. 5, because 
 the utterance, as being recorded in Scripture, is one still enduring. Only 
 the author makes manifest, by the fact that he writes Aéyov, not eiév or 
 4éEac, that less importance is to be attached to the indication as to the 
 relation of time, in which the two statements are placed to each other, 
 than to the contrasting of these two statements themselves; thus: while 
 He saith above, etc., He has then said, ete.—ir:] recitative participle, as vii. 
 17, xi. 18.—voiag kai xpoodopac] The plural appropriately serves for the 
 generalization of the utterance.—airwee kata véuov mpoodéportar] as those 
 things which are presented by virtue of legal precept. Suggestive reference to 
 the imperfection and ineffectiveness of Judaism, since this makes salva- 
 tion dependent precisely upon those ordinances of external sacrifice which 
 God willed not, and in which He has no pleasure. The words are no 
 parenthetic clause, as is still maintained by Bleek and Kurtz, but an addi- 
 tion essential to the argument of the writer, which does not interrupt the 
 construction. They form the application, thus emphatically appended, of 
 the first half of the thought in the Scripture citation, to Judaism, to which 
 the parallel is formed in ver. 10 by the application of the second half to 
 Christianity.—airwwec] refers back to the whole of the preceding substantives. 
 
 Ver. 9. Tére eipyxev] are words of the author, and form the apodosis to 
 avérepov Aéywv, ver. 8. [LXX.b9.] Quite erroneously does Peirce, who, 
 with Chrysostom, Hom. xvii. and the Vulgate (tune dixi), instead of rére 
 elpyxev will read rére elxov, which, however, only arose from ver. 7, make 
 the apodosis begin first with dvapei 7d mpdtov.—r dre, however, not torepor, 
 which would more exactly accord with the avérepov, ver. 8, the author 
 wrote, because the rére eizoy of the citation was still fresh in his memory. 
 —avaipei 76 mpartov, iva Td devtepov athoy] he abolishes the first, or deprives it 
 
644 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 of validity, in order to establish the second as the norm in force (Rom. iii. 
 31). Parenthetic insertion, so that ver. 10 attaches itself closely to 7a 
 6éAnua, and is to be separated therefrom only by a comma. The paren- 
 thesis serves by way of exclamation to call attention to the importance of 
 the application to be given in ver. 10 to the idod jxo «7.2. Subject in 
 avapet is naturally here also Christ; not “the Spirit of God,” as Kurtz 
 arbitrarily supposes.—rd rparov] sc. 7d mpoopéperv Ovaiac Kat mpoodopac K.7.2. 
 —10 debrepov] sc. To roveiv Td OéAnua Tov Beov. Theodoret: xparov ele ray 
 TOV GAdyuv Ovoiav, Sevtepov dé THY AoyeKhv, Thy bn’ abTov TpooEvexHeicav. Wrongly 
 does Peirce take 7d xporov and 16 debrepov adjectivally, in supplementing 
 to each 70 GéAnua Oeov. With equally little warrant Carpzov: the dab 
 xporn and the diabpxy awh, or the iepwotvy Kata tiv taéEw ’Aapdv and the 
 iepwotvy Kata duoidtnTa MedAyioedéx, are meant; as also Stein: the O. T. and 
 the N. T. economy. 
 
 Ver. 10. ’Ev @ OeAguati] upon the ground of which will (more exactly : of 
 which fulfillment of His will), and in conditioning connection with that 
 will. What is meant is the will of God, of which the author has before 
 spoken.—7jy:aopévor éouév| we (Christians) have been sanctified (delivered from 
 sins). ayvdfeoAac correlative to the notions teAeoicba, ver. 1, and xafa- 
 pitecba, ver. 2.—By the mpoogopa tov cauatog Inoov Xprorowv cannot 
 be meant “ the self-presentation of Christ in the heavenly Holy of Holies ” 
 (Kurtz), but only (comp. ix. 28) Christ’s death upon the cross on earth. 
 For the indication of the former idea the expression tov céuatoc would be 
 altogether unsuitable. Comp. also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 
 475 f.—igaraz] belongs to yyacpévor éovév, not as Oecumenius, Theo- 
 phylact, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Stein, Bloomfield, Alford, 
 and others conjoin, to dia tye mpoodopac Tov GHpatoc "Inoov Xpictov, because 
 otherwise the article t7¢ must have been repeated. 
 
 Vy. 11-14. Renewed emphasizing of the main distinction between the 
 Jewish high priest and Christ. The former repeats day by day the same 
 sacrifices without being able to effect thereby the canceling of sin; Christ 
 has by His single sacrifice procured everlasting sanctification. This the 
 main thought of vv. 11-14. Into the same, however, there is at the same 
 time introduced a subordinate feature, by virtue of the opposition of the 
 éornkev and éxd@coev, by which likewise is manifest the pre-eminence 
 of Christ over the Levitical high priests. The Jewish high priests were 
 required to accomplish their ministration standing (comp. Deut. x. 8, xviii. 
 7; Judg. xx. 28, al.), were thus characterized as servants or inferiors 
 (comp. also Jas. 11. 3); whereas in Christ’s sitting down at the right hand 
 of God, His participation in the divine majesty and glory is proclaimed. 
 
 Ver. 11. Kai rac] cai is the explanatory: and indeed. It develops the 
 égarag, ver. 10, and belongs equally to ver. 12 as to ver. 11.—édpyeepeic] 
 comp. the critical remark.—xaf’ juépav] see at vil. 27. [LXX b10.J— 
 reptedeiv] stronger than dgapeiv, ver. 4. Literally: take away round about. 
 
 Ver. 12. Ovroc] comp. iil. 8.—eic 7d diyvexéc] belongs to éxa@ccev—With 
 that which precedes is it conjoined by Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, 
 Bengel, Bohme, Stein, Ewald, and others; whereby, howevei, the manifest 
 
CHAP. x; “10=15. 645 
 
 antithesis, which eic rd dinvexéce éxdbicev forms to éoTykev Kal’ juépav, ver. 
 11, is destroyed, and the symmetry of the proposition, ver. 12, is lost. 
 
 Ver. 13. Td Aorév] “henceforth, sc. from the time of His sitting down at 
 the right hand of God. What is meant is the time yet intervening before 
 the coming in of the Parousia. The taking of rd ovzév in the relative 
 sense: “as regards the rest, concerning the rest ” (Kurtz), is, on account 
 of the close coherence with éxdeyduevoc éwc, unnatural, for which reason 
 also the passages adduced by Kurtz as supposed parallels, Eph. vi. 10, 
 Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8, 1 Thess. iv. 1, 2 Thess. iii. 1, do not admit of comparison. 
 —The object of the waiting is expressed by our author in the language 
 of Ps. ex. 1—The éxdOtoev ... rd Aourdy éxdeyvopevog éwe... in- 
 volves for the rest the supposition that the destruction of the enemies of 
 Christ is to be looked for even before His Parousia. The author accord- 
 ingly manifests here, too, a certain diversity in his mode of viewing the 
 subject from that of the Apostle Paul, since the latter (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 
 22-28) anticipates the destruction of the anti-Christian powers only after 
 the time of Christ’s Parousia. [LXX 6 11,12.] The supposition, which 
 de Wette holds possible for the removal of this difference, that the author 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews “thought only of the triumph of the gospel 
 among the nations, even as Paul also expected the universal diffusion of 
 the gospel and the conversion of the Jews beforé the appearing of Christ,” 
 has little probability, considering the absolute and unqualified character 
 of the expression here chosen: of éy@poi abrov. 
 
 Ver. 14. Proof of the possibility of the eic rd dinvexte éxdPicev bv deEia Tov 
 Geov, ver. 12, from the needlessness for a fresh sacrifice, since Christ has 
 already, by the sacrifice once offered, brought in perfect sanctification for 
 His believers—The accentuation: ~.d yap 7 pocopa, merits the prefer- 
 ence to ya yap rpooopa, to which Bengel is inclined, and which has been 
 followed by Ewald, since by the former the words acquire an immediate 
 reference to Christ.—roie dysafouévouc] them that are sanctified, sc. as regards 
 the decree of God. The participle present is used substantively, as ii. 11, 
 without respect to time. ; 
 
 Vy. 15-18. That there is no need of any further expiatory sacrifice, the 
 Scripture also testifies. This Scripture proof the author derives from the 
 declaration, Jer. xxxi. 31-34, already adduced at viii. 8 ff., in that he here 
 briefly comprehends the same in its two main features. 
 
 Ver. 15. Mapropet 62 jyiv kat rd rvedpa 7d aytov] Moreover, also, the Holy 
 Ghost bears witness to us—rjyuiv] has reference to the Christians generally. 
 Without warrant is it limited by Raphel, Wolf, Baumgarten, and others 
 to the author of the epistle (“the Holy Ghost attests my statement ’’).— 
 70 mvevua 76 aywv] for it is the Holy Spirit of God who in the passage 
 indicated speaks by the prophet.—The subject in eipyxéva: is God, in that 
 the author makes his own the words Aéyer Kiproc following in ver. 16, 
 although they form an originally constituent part of the citation, in such 
 wise that pera yap rd eipyxéva.. . éxetvac forms the former member of the 
 proposition; and to this former member all the rest, from didov¢ véuov¢g “ov 
 to the end of ver. 17, is then opposed by the author as a concluding mem- 
 
646 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 ber, by means of Aéyer kipwoc. The supposition that the second, or con- 
 cluding, member of the citation begins only with ver. 17, and that thus 
 before this verse a éyex, an ir’ émiAéyer, a TOTE eipyKev, OF something of 
 the kind is to be supplemented,' is to be rejected,—aithough the main 
 consideration, about which the author is quite specially concerned, follows 
 only in ver. 17,—because it is opposed to the literary accuracy elsewhere 
 prevailing in the Epistle to the Hebrews. For the same reason, too, the 
 botepov Aéyer, Which several mss. (but only among those of late date) and 
 some translations add at the close of ver. 16, is to be regarded as a gloss. 
 
 Ver. 16. Instead of 7@ oixw ‘Iopaga, vill. 10, the author here places 
 mpoc avtove. Certainly not unintentionally. By means of the more 
 general rpd¢ avroic, the more definite reference to the natural descendants 
 of the patriarch as the recipients of the New Covenant receded into the 
 background.—d:dotc] attaches itself here also only to jv d:afycouac; here it 
 is true, with yet greater grammatical ruggedness than at viii. 10. | 
 
 Ver. 17. The «ai at the beginning of the verse is held by BGhme and 
 Kuinoel to be a further varticle of citation on the part of the author; 
 while Hofmann will have it translated by “also.” Better, however, 
 because more naturally and simply, is it taken as a constituent part of 
 the Scripture citation. 
 
 Ver. 18. Toirwv] is not a newer (BOhme: “ut, quicquid esset peccati, in 
 universum designaretur”), but feminine, inasmuch as it refers back to 
 auaptiav and avoudev, ver. 17.—oixérc] sc. éoriv, there expiatory sacrifice no 
 longer takes place, sc. because in connection with such a state it has become 
 unnecessary. 
 
 Ver. 19-xili. 25. The dogmatic investigations are at an end; on the 
 ground thereof the author now applies himself anew to exhortations to 
 the readers. These are at first of the same kind as those before addressed 
 to the readers, and are distinguished from the latter only by their greater 
 copiousness of detail, afterwards, however, assume a greater generality of 
 contents. These fre followed by the close of the epistle. 
 
 Vv. 19-25. [On Vv. 19 ff. see Note LX XI., pages 660-662.] The readers, in 
 possession’ of such an exalted High Priest, and of the blessings obtained 
 by Him, are with decision and constancy to persevere in the Christian 
 faith, to incite each other to love and good works, and not—as had become 
 a practice with some—to forsake the assemblies for Christian worship. 
 So much the more should they thus act, since the Parousia is near at 
 hand. Comp. on vv. 19-25 the similar exhortation iv. 14,16. [On Vv. 
 19-25, words and phrases, see Note LX XIT., page 662.] 
 
 Ver. 19. 0iv] Conclusion from the investigations made chap. v. onwards. 
 —édeAgot] iii. 1, 12, xiii. 22—rappyciar] not: freedom or authorization,? but : 
 jirm, joyful confidence.—ei¢ tiv eicodov tov ayiwv] in respect to entrance into 
 
 1Primasius, Clarius, Zeger, Schlichting, Reuss, Hofmann, and others. 
 Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Limboreh, Wolf, 2 Vatablus, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Ernesti 
 Carpzoy, Stuart, Heinrichs, Alford, Conybeare, Schulz, Bohme, Stengel, al. 
 
CHAP. x. 16-20. 647 
 
 the sanctuary, i.e. of entering into the sanctuary, or heavenly Holy of Holies 
 (rév dyiwv, of the same import as «ic ra aya, comp. ix. 8). Arbitrarily 
 would Heinrichs refer the words to the entering of Jesus, in that he 
 regards eic¢ tiv eicodov Tov ay. év TO ai. Ijoov as equivalent to ei¢ tH» 
 eicodov "Inoov év TH aivate avtov, which is impossible.— év 7@ aipare Tyoou | 
 upon the ground, or by virtue of the blood of Jesus. Belongs to the whole 
 proposition : éyovre¢ rappyciav tic THY eicodov TOV ayiwy, NOt merely to eicodov." 
 The passage, ix. 25, by no means pleads in favor of the latter mode of 
 apprehending it, since at ix. 25, but not in the present passage, év can be 
 understood in the material sense: “with;” the reference of the év aiyare 
 in the two places is an entirely different one. 
 
 Ver. 20. "Hy] sc. eioodov. Not as yet with 6d» (Carpzoy, Stuart, and 
 others) is jv to be combined as indication of object, in such wise that 
 merely mpécdatov kat Cooav would form the predicate; but still less is 
 rappyciav (Seb. Schmidt, Hammond, al.) to be supplemented to jv. For 
 against the former decides the order of the words, against the latter the 
 manifest correspondence in which ¢icodov, ver. 19, and édév, ver. 20, stand 
 to each other. The édéc, namely, characterized ver. 19 as to its goal (as 
 eicodoc tov dyiwv), is, ver. 20, further described with regard to its nature 
 and constitution (as ddd¢ tpécpatoc and (é0a).—iv évexaivioev juiv ddov 
 rpéosarov Kai Cooav] which He for us (in order that we may walk in it) has 
 consecrated (inaugurated, in that He Himself first passed through it) as a 
 new (newly-opened, hitherto inaccessible, comp. ix. 8; Theodoret: ¢ rére 
 mparov gaveicav) and living way. 7 péodaroe, originally: fresh slain ; then 
 in general: fresh, new, recens.’—{ aoa, however, that way or entrance is 
 called, not because it “ever remains, and needs not, like that into the 
 earthly sanctuary, to be consecrated every year by fresh blood” (Bleek, 
 after the precedent of Ernesti, Schulz, and others ; comp. also Chrysostom, 
 Oecumenius, and Theophylact), but because it is hving in its efficacy 
 (comp. 6 aproc 6 Cov, John vi. 51), in such wise that it leads to the goal of 
 everlasting life. The contrast is found in the inefficaciousness of the 
 entrance into the earthly holy of holies.—écé rot xatarerdopatoc, tovtéoti 
 rie capkde avtov] through the veil, that is to say, His flesh. As the high priest 
 must pass through the concealing veil, in order to come within the earthly 
 Holy of Holies, thus also the flesh of Christ formed a veil, which must 
 first be withdrawn or removed (comp. Matt. xxvii. 51; Mark xv. 38; Luke 
 xxiii. 45) ere the entrance into the heavenly Holy of Holies could be 
 rendered possible.—d:4] is to be taken locally,—wrongly is it understood by 
 Stein as instrumental—and is not to be combined with évexaivicev,> but is 
 to be attached to 6dév, as a nearer definition, standing upon a parallel 
 with zpéodarov xai Caoav, seeing that an otcav or ayoucav naturally suggests 
 itself by way of supplement.—r7c capxd¢ aitow] depends immediately upon 
 the preceding 64, not first, as Peirce and Carpzov maintain, upon a Tov 
 kataretdouatoc to be supplied. 
 
 lAkersloot, Storr, Schulz, BGhme, Klee, 3Bohme, Delitzsch, Hofmann, Schriftbeva 
 
 Paulus, Bleek, Bisping. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 253; Alford, Kluge. 
 See Lobeck, ad Phryr. p. 374 f. 
 
648 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Ver. 21 is still governed by éyovrec, ver. 19. As ra aya, ver. 19, was 
 chosen as a general designation instead of the special ra ay:a ayiwv, so 
 here (comp. v. 6, vii. 1, 3, al.) the general iepéa stands in the sense of 
 the special apyepéa, and péyayr is, as iv. 14, expression of the exaltedness 
 of this High Priest (against Stuart, Klee, Stein, Ewald, M’Caul, and others, 
 who take iepéa péyav together as a designation of the High Priest).—ézi 
 tov olkov Tov Oeov] over the house of God. Comp. iii.6. Theodoret, Oecu- 
 menius, Estius, Grotius, Calov, Tholuck, Stengél, Hofmann (Schriftbew. 
 II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 454), Maier, Kurtz, and others understand by these words, 
 in accordance with iii. 2, 6, the household of God, or the believers, by which, 
 however, the unity of the figure is needlessly destroyed. The allusion is 
 to heaven or the heavenly sanctuary, as the dwelling-place of God, over 
 which Christ rules as High Priest. 
 
 Ver. 22. pocepyéueba] let us then draw nigh, sc. to this ayia, ver. 19, and 
 this iepede péyac, ver. 21, or, what is, as regards the matter itself, not 
 different, to God; in such wise that mpocepyoueba is here, like robe mpocep- 
 youévouc, ver. 1, used absolutely, or else receives its supplementation from 
 the tov Geov immediately preceding. Comp. vii. 25, xi. 6; also iv. 16.— 
 per’ aanOivgc Kxapdiac] with true, i.e. sincere heart, so that we are really in 
 earnest about the xpocépyeobar.—év tAypodopia riotewc] in firm conviction of 
 faith, firm inner certainty of faith. Comp. vi. 11. Epexegesis of per’ 
 aAnOuwge Kapdiac, for the clearer defining of the contents thereof—éppavric- 
 uévoe Ta¢ Kapdiac ard ovvedhoews Tovnpac] inasmuch as our hearts have been 
 sprinkled from an evil conscience, so that we have been delivered from the 
 same (see Winer, p. 577 [E. T. p. 621]). Indication of the subjective 
 qualification for the mpooépyeca, while vv. 19-21 contain the objective 
 qualification for the same. What is meant, is the justification of Christians 
 through Christ’s bloody sacrificial death (ix. 14), after the analogy of the 
 sprinkling with blood, whereby the first Levitical priests were consecrated 
 and qualified to approach God. Comp. Ex. xxix. 21; Lev. viii. 30. 
 
 Ver. 23. The words: wat AeAovuévoe Td COma ddaTe Kabaps, are, by 
 the Peshito, by ,Primasius, Faber Stapulensis, Luther, Estius, Wolf, 
 Baumgarten, Storr, Kuinoel, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Bloomfield, Bisping, 
 Delitzsch, ‘Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 741, Obs.), Alford, Maier, 
 Kluge, and others, combined in one, and referred still to mpocepyepeba, ver. 
 22, as a second participial clause. Better, nevertheless, shall we conjoin «ai 
 with katéyouer; so that 2eMovpévor TO GOma date Kabaps becomes a 
 parenthetic clause, which specifies the subjective qualification to the 
 karéyew, exactly as éppavtionévor x.7.4., ver. 22, brought out the subjective 
 qualification to the rpocépyeo#a. In connection with the first-named 
 construction,? the rhythmical symmetry of the members, vv. 22, 28, would 
 
 iThat Delitzsech—who is followed therein 2A third mode of combining, followed by 
 by Alford—will have us understand, as the Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2,2 Aufl. p. 178 f.), 
 olxos tod Gcod in our passage at the same according to which éppavtiopevor is separated 
 time “the church” and “the heayen of glory,” —_ by a full stop from that which precedes, and 
 ean be looked upon only as an instance of is conjoined with caréxwmev, will—since there-_ 
 manifest error. by the harmonic clause-formation of the 
 
CHAP. X. 91-24, 649 
 
 be needlessly sacrificed, and katéywuev stand there too much torn from the 
 context. For the supposition that «ai might have been wanting before xaréy- 
 wuev, since a third verb (xaravoduev) follows at ver. 24, the placing of the 
 xai was thus necessary only before this last, is erroneous; inasmuch as 
 the author could hardly, from the very outset, comprehend ver. 24 in 
 thought with ver. 22, and ver. 23, on the contrary, only brings in later 
 that which is observed at ver. 24 as a new and independent exhortation, 
 while xpocepyoueba . . . kai xatéyouev stands together in the closest inner 
 relation (as a decided approaching to the communion with God opened 
 up by Christ, and a persevering maintenance of the same).—AcAouuévor rd 
 oaua idate kabape | inasmuch as our body has been washed with pure water [washed 
 as regards the body with pure water]. Reference to the sanctifying of Chris- 
 tians by Christian baptism. Comp. Eph. v. 26; Tit. iii.5. Analogon in the 
 Levitical domain the washings, Ex. xxix. 4, xxx. 19 ff., xl. 30 ff.; Lev. 
 xvi. 4. To find denoted in a merely figurative sense (to the exclusion of 
 baptism), with Calvin [Owen] and others, in accordance with Ezek. xxxvi. 
 25: the communication of the Holy Ghost ; or, with Limborch, Ebrard, and 
 others: the being cleansed from sins; or, with [Piscator and] Reuss: the 
 blood of Christ “Tl s’agit ici, comme dans toute cette partie de l’épitre, du 
 sang de Christ. C’est ce sang, qui nous lave mieux que l’eau des 
 Lévites”); or, with Schlichting: ‘Christi spiritus et doctrina, seu 
 spiritualis illa aqua, qua suos perfundit Christus, ipsius etiam sanguine 
 non excluso,” we are forbidden by the addition of rd céua, which implies 
 likewise the reminiscence of an outward act.—xafapo] that which is pure, 
 and in consequence thereof also makes pure.—karéyouev tiv duodoyiav THe 
 éAridog axdw7] let us hold fast the confession of hope as an unbending unswerr- 
 ing one.—karéyouev] inasmuch as the éuoroyia became at once, with bap- 
 tism, the possession of believers.—rijv éuodoyicv] may here be taken actively 
 (the confessing of the hope), but it may also be taken passively (the confes- 
 sion which has as its subject the Christian’s hope).—a«4:7] stronger than 
 BeBaiav, ili. 6, 14.—rotd¢ yap 6 érayyeiAdpueroc] for faithful (so that He keeps 
 that which He promises; comp.1 Cor. i. 9, x 18; 1 Thess. v. 24) is He who 
 has given the promises (namely, God). Ground of encouragement for the 
 KaTé yELv. 
 
 Vv. 24, 25. Progress from that which the Christian has to do with 
 regard to himself, to that which he has to do with regard to his 
 fellow-Christians.—«ai katavoduev adAAAovce] and let us-direct our view to each 
 other (comp. ili. 1), so that we may endeavor to emulate the good and 
 salutary which we discover in our neighbor, and, on the other hand, to 
 put away the bad and hurtful in ourselves and him. For limiting the 
 expression, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Michaelis, ad 
 Pierc., Bleek, and others, to the first-named particular, no reason exists; 
 since the positive ei¢ rapofvoudv x.7.2. is yet followed by the negative py? 
 éykataneimovtec K.T.A.—ei¢ mapokvouov aydrnc Kat Kadov épywv] that incitement 
 whole delicately-arranged period, vv. 19-23, niously commenced would be lacking in the 
 
 is rudely shattered—hardly meet with appropriate conclusion, the supposed new 
 approval on any side. The period soeupho- clause in the appropriate beginning. 
 
650 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 to love and good works may arise therefrom.—rapofvopuéc] Acts xv. 89; Deut. 
 xxix. 388; Jer. xxxii. 37, and elsewhere in the bad sense: irritation, i.e. 
 embittering. Here, however, as occasionally with the classic writers, the 
 verb is used! in the good sense.—aydazy] brotherly love, and xaia épya, 
 the single manifestations thereof. 
 
 Ver. 25. My éyxataieimovrec tiv éxiovvaywyny éavtdv, Kaba¢ ée€o¢ ticiv] while 
 not forsaking (ceasing to frequent), as is the custom with some, our own 
 assembly, and thereby, in connection with the already prevalent tendency 
 to apostasy from Christianity, setting a pernicious example.—rjv éxiovvayw- 
 yyv éavtov] is taken by Calvin, BOhme, Bleek, and others as designation 
 of the Christian congregation or Christian religious society itself. But in 
 this case the only. signification which could be attached without violence 
 to éyxaraieimecy would be that of apostasy from Christianity ; to under- 
 stand the expression, in that case, of the leaving to its fate of the Christian 
 church, sunk in poverty, peril, and distress, by the refusal of acts of 
 assistance (Bohme), or of the escape from the claims of the church to the 
 cherishing and tending of its members, by the neglecting of the common 
 religious assemblies (Bleek), would not be very natural. We are pre- 
 vented, however, from thinking of an actual apostasy from Christianity by 
 the addition cka%ac éFoc trvciv, according to which the éyxarateirew was 
 an oft-recurring act on the part of the same persons. tiv éxcovvaywyy 
 éavtav, therefore, is best explained as: the assembling of ourselves, in order 
 to be united together (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 1), 7.e. our own religious assem- 
 blies.—éavrov] has great emphasis; for otherwise the simple juév would 
 have been written. It has its tacit opposition in the alien, i.e. Jewish 
 religious assemblies, and contains the indication that the tuvée gave the 
 preference to the frequenting of the latter —a/Aa zapaxatodtvrec]-sc. éavtove 
 (comp. iii. 18) or a2A%20vc, which is easily supplemented from the fore- 
 going éavrov: but animating one another, namely, to the uninterrupted 
 frequenting of our own Christian assemblies. Quite unsuitably, Hofmann 
 (Schriftbew. II. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 879) would supply in thought to rapaxadoivrec, 
 as its subject: sv éxiovvaywyhv.—kai tooobtw paddov bsw BAérete éyyiLovoav 
 tiv juépav] and that so much the more, as ye see the day itself drawing nigh. 
 Reinforcing ground of obligation to the tapaxaieiv.—rérere] The transition 
 from the first to the second person plural augments the significance of 
 that which has been remarked, since the author can appeal to the verdict 
 of the readers themselves for the truth thereof—The juépa is the day xa” 
 éfoxqv, the day of the coming in of the Parousia of Christ, which the 
 author thinks of as quite near at hand (comp. ver. 37), and which the 
 readers themselves already saw drawing nigh in the agitations and com- 
 motions which preceded the Jewish war, such as had already begun to 
 appear. : 
 
 Vv. 26-31. [On Vv. 26-31, see Note LX XIIL., pages 662, 663.] In the 
 éykataheirew Thy éexiovvaywyjyv éavtdov, ver. 25, there was manifested a luke- 
 
 1Comp. Xen. Memor, iii. 3. 13: ’AAAG pny  dgov drdotinia, rep MaALOTA Tapokiver 
 
 evTe evpwvia TogovTov Siahepovow *APnvacor Tpos Ta KaAG Kai €vtipa; Thucyd. vi 
 Tav GAAwY, OUTE TwHaTwY meyebeEr Kal pwun, 88, al. 
 
CHAP. X. 25-27. 651 
 
 warmness in Christianity, which might lead to apostasy therefrom. In 
 warning notes, therefore, the author points out that the man who know- 
 ingly slights recognized Christian truth, and sins against it, will infallibly 
 be overtaken by the punitive judgment of God. To be compared vi. 4-8. 
 
 Ver. 26. ‘Exovsiwg yap duaptavévtev jov pera 70 AaBelw THv Exiyvwow THE 
 aAndeiac] For if we sin willfully (ie. against our better knowledge and 
 conscience) after having received the certain knowledge of the truth; so that 
 we become recreant to Christianity (comp. ver. 29), to which the éyxaraAciren 
 rv ériovvaywyyy éavtov forms the dangerous preliminary step. The éxovciuc 
 dpaptavovrec are the opposite of the ayvoowre Kai rAavepuevo, V. 2,' and 
 the participle present indicates the continuous or habitual character of the 
 action.—7 4274 0eca is the truth absolutely, as this has been revealed by 
 Christianity. The éxiyvooce of this absolute truth, however, embraces, 
 along with the recognition thereof by the understanding, also the having 
 become conscious of its bliss-giving effects in one’s own experience. Comp. 
 vi. 4, 5.—obkére rep) duaptidv aroAeirerar Suoia] there remains in relation to 
 sins, i.e. for the expiation thereof, no more sacrifice ; inasmuch namely, as 
 the sin-canceling sacrifice of Christ, the communion of which we then 
 renounce, is a sacrifice which takes place only once, is not further 
 repeated, while at the same time the Levitical sacrifices are unable to 
 effect the canceling of sins. Bengel: Fructus ex sacrificio Christi 
 semper patet non repudiantibus ; qui autem repudiant, non aliud habent. 
 
 Ver. 27. boBepa dé tig éxdoyy Kpicewc] sc. anodeimera: but there remains 
 indeed, etc. The drodecméuevov is of two kinds, something subjective 
 (goBepa . . . Kpicewc) and something objective (xupdc . . . brevavtiove).—doPBepa 
 éxdoyy Kpicewc] denotes not “a terrible banquet of judgment,” as Ewald 
 strangely translates it, nor is it any hypallage in the sense of éxdoy) Kpicews 
 goBepac, as Jac. Cappellus, Heinrichs, and Stengel suppose, and to which 
 the choice is left open by Wolf. The terribleness is transferred to the 
 subjective domain of the expectation. For one who has sinned against 
 better light and knowledge, even the expectation of the divine judgment 
 is something terrible—gofepa tic] an exceedingly terrible one. On the reg, 
 added with rhetorical emphasis to adjectives of quality or quantity, comp. 
 Kihner, II. p. 331; Winer, p. 160 [E. T. 170].—xpicic] is used here, too, 
 as ix. 27, quite without restriction, of the divine judgment in general. 
 That this will be a punitive judgment is not indicated by the word ; it 
 only follows from the connection—In the second member the emphasis 
 rests upon the preposed wvpé¢, on which account also the case of the 
 following participle conforms itself to this, not to ¢#A0c. We cannot, 
 
 1The assertion of Kurtz, that, if this re- 
 mark were true, the author would be express- 
 ing “a dogma in its consequences truly sub- 
 versive, and destructive of the whole Christian 
 soteriology,” inasmuch as it would “impera- 
 tively follow therefrom, that even under the 
 New Covenant only those who transgressed 
 from ignorance and error could find forgive- 
 ness with God for Christ’s sake, while all who 
 
 had been guilty of a conscious and intentional 
 sin must beyond hope of deliverance fall 
 victims to the judgment of everlasting dam- 
 nation,” is a precipitate one, since the special 
 limitation within which the expression 
 éxovgiws amaptavery Was used was naturally 
 afforded to the reader, quite apart from the 
 investigation already preceding at vi. 4 ff. 
 even from our section itself. 
 
652 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 therefore, with Luther and others, combine together supd¢ fyA0¢ in a 
 single notion (“ fiery zeal,” sc. of the divine wrath). The zip is personified, 
 and in such way a ¢7Ao¢, a fury, ascribed to the same. There was prob- 
 ably present to the mind of the author in connection with the last mem- 
 ber, LXX. Isa. xxvi. 11: CyAog Agperar Aadv araidevtov Kai viv rip Tove 
 irevavtioug éedeta.—rtor¢ irevavtiovc] the adversaries. The empiric usage of 
 the term forbids our attaching to it, with Braun and Paulus, on account 
 of the iz6, the notion of secret foes. See Meyer on Col. ii. 14, 4 Aufl. 
 p. 381. 
 
 Vv. 28, 29. That in reality the consequences of an éxovoiwe duapravew 
 peta TO AaBetv tiv éexiyvwow tH¢ aAywVeiac are so terrible as was asserted at 
 ver. 27, the author renders evident by a conclusion a minore ad majus. 
 Apostasy from the Mosaic law itself is punishable with death ; how much 
 greater thus must be the punishment of him who, by apostasy from 
 Christ, has treated with contumely the Son of God, of whose redeeming 
 benefits he has already had experience! With the conclusion in vv. 28, 29 
 we may compare, as regards the thoughts, ii. 2, 3, xii. 25; as regards the 
 form, however, the utterances just noticed differ from that before us, in 
 the respect that there the first member of the comparison appears as 2 
 hypothetical premiss, here as an independent statement.—averjoac tic 
 vouov Muiocéwe «.7.2.] He who has set at nought the Mosaic law, has in 
 opposition to his better knowledge and conscience violated or broken it, 
 dies, without any one compassionating him, wpon the deposition of two or three 
 witnesses. Although death was imposed as the punishment for many 
 single transgressions of the Mosaic law (Ex. xxi. 15 ff., xxxi.14; Ley. xvii. 
 14; Deut. xxii. 22 ff, al.), yet the author certainly has reference, as is 
 evident from the addition: émi duciv 7 tpiciv paprvow, and as is required 
 also by the parallel relation to ver. 29, quite specially to the ordinance, 
 Deut. xvii. 2-7 [cf also Num. xv. 80, 31], in conformity with which the 
 punishment of death was inflicted upon the man who, by idolatry, apos- 
 tatized from Jehovah. Comp. lec. ver. 6, LXX.: éxi duct paprvow 7% éxt 
 Tplot pdprvow aroSaveirar.—éri] as ix. 17: wpon condition that two or three 
 witnesses depose against him. 
 
 Ver. 29. Of how much more severe nintiatinand think ye, will he be counted 
 worthy, who, ete.—With doxeire the author leaves the decision to the 
 readers, inasmuch as on the question how this will be given, no doubt 
 whatever can prevail.—afwdjoera] sc. by God at the judgment.—ripopia 
 in the N. T. only here—é -xatatarjoac] who has trodden under foot, as 
 though it were a contemptible, useless thing. A strong expression. 
 Designation of the bold- contemning and insulting of Him who is never- 
 theless the Son of God, and with whom one has become personally 
 acquainted as the Redeemer.—r6 aiua ric Sad KC] the blood of the covenant, 
 ie. the blood which Christ shed for the sealing of the New Covenant for 
 the redemption of mankind. Comp. ix. 15 ff.—xorvév] either: as common, 
 ordinary blood, not distinguished in any respect from other blood,*? or— 
 
 1Peshito, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Cla- Stuart, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Bloomfield, 
 rius, Beza, Schlichting, Bengel, Schulz, Bisping, Delitzsc th, Alford, and others, 
 
CHAP. x. 28-30. . 653 
 
 what is better, because stronger, and on that account more in accord with 
 the other statements—as impure,' i.e. as the blood of a transgressor, which 
 Christ must be, if He was not the Son of God and the Redeemer.—év 4 
 jytdo6y] contrasting addition to xowdv yynoduevoc, and paronomasia: by 
 the communion with which he was nevertheless sanctified, or : the sanctifying 
 efficacy of which he has nevertheless felt in his own person.—kai rd rveiua rie 
 xapito¢ évuBpicac| and has done despite to the Spirit of Grace, sc. by scorn 
 and mockery of the wondrous unfolding of that Spirit’s power in the life 
 of the Christians. The compound form évBpifew tai or zi, found, apart 
 from the poets (Soph. Phil. 342), only with the later Greeks. In the N. T. 
 a drag Aeyduevov.—rd mveiua tHe xapitoc] the Holy Spirit, who is a gift of the 
 divine grace. 
 
 Ver. 30. The yeipovoc afwwfycetat tyuwpiac, ver. 29, is a matter for the most 
 serious consideration. This the declarations of God Himself in the Scrip- 
 tures prove.—oidayuev yap tov eixévra] for we know Him who hath spoken, i. e. 
 we know what it means when God makes predictions like those which 
 follow.—The first utterance is without doubt from Deut. xxxii. 35. It 
 deviates from the Hebrew original (Dd>w dpa 5), but still more from the 
 LXX. (év juépa éxduxhoewe dvrarodéow); on the other hand, it agrees to so 
 great an extent with Paul’s mode of citing the same in Rom. xii. 19, that 
 even the 2éyec xipioc, Which is wanting in Deuteronomy, is found in both 
 these places. This agreement arises, according to Bleek, de Wette, De- 
 litzsch, and Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 97 (comp. also BGhme), from a deriv- 
 ing of the citation from the Epistle to the Romans; while according to 
 Meyer (at Rom. xii. 19, 2d. 3d. and 4th ed.) the identical words: éy& dvra- 
 rodaow, are to be traced back to the paraphrase of Onkelos (Dow S181) 
 as the common source employed by Paul and the author of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews. Yet with much greater probability is the coincidence to be 
 explained by the supposition that the utterance, in the form adopted here 
 as with Paul, had become proverbial. This was also the later view of 
 Meyer (see Meyer on Rom. xii. 19, 5th ed. p. 551 f.).—The second utter- 
 ance: Kpivei KvpLocg TOV Aady avTov, attached by means of kai 7 dAuv 
 (i. 5, 11. 13), is found in like form, Deut. xxxii. 36 and Ps. exxxv. 14. This 
 kpivetv Tov Aady avrov has, in the mind of the author of the epistle, the 
 general signification of the holding of judgment upon His people, so that 
 the recreant members among the same will not be able to escape punish- 
 ment. Different is the sense of the original: He shall do justice for His 
 people. Delitzsch, it is true, who is followed therein by Maier, Kluge, Moll, 
 and Hofmann, will not acknowledge such diversity of the sense. But he 
 is able to remove such diversity only, in that—manifestly led thereto in 
 the interest of a mistaken harmonistic method—he foists upon the author 
 of the epistle the statement: “the Lord will do justice for His church, and 
 punish its betrayers and blasphemers;” a statement of which the first 
 half—as opposed to the grammatical meaning of «pivevv, as well as to the 
 
 i Vulgate, Luther, Grotius, Carpzoy, Mi- luck, Ebrard, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. 
 ehaelis, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Bohme, Tho- __p. 769; Maier, Moll, Kurtz, and others. 
 
654 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 connection with ver. 26, since this latter leads of necessity not to the idea 
 of rendering justice to any one, but exclusively to the idea of punitive 
 judgment—is only arbitrarily imported. 
 
 At ver. 31 the whole train of thought, vv. 26-30. is briefly summed up, 
 and_ with this the warning brought to a close. Fearful is it to fall into the 
 hands of the living God,i. e. to fall a victim to the divine punitive judgment. 
 Comp. Matt. x. 28; Luke xii. 4,5.—éuainrecy ei¢ yeipac kvpiov occurs 
 also with the LXX. 2 Sam. xxiv. 14,1 Chron. xxi. 13, Ecclus. ii. 18, but 
 is there used in the mild sense, in that it is opposed to falling into the 
 hands of men. Bengel: Bonum est incidere cum fide; temere terribile. 
 —6eov Cavroc] see at ill. 12. 
 
 Vv. 32-39. [On Vv. 32-39, see Note LXXIV., page 663.] There 
 follows after the warning an arousing. Mindful of the Christian manli- 
 ness which the readers had displayed in former days, they are not to lose 
 Christian joyfulness, but rather with patience to persevere in the Christian 
 life; for only quite a short time will now elapse before the return of 
 Christ and the coming in of the promised fullness of blessing. Comp. vi. 
 9 ff.1—Of the facts themselves, of which mention is made vy. 32-34, nothing 
 further is known from other sources. That the author, as Bleek, II. 2, p. 
 707, thinks possible, had before his mind ‘“‘the whole first period of the 
 Christian church at Jerusalem, in which the church still held firmly to- 
 gether, and particularly the persecutions which preceded and followed the 
 martyrdom of Stephen,” is hardly to be supposed. For only in a very 
 indirect way could praise be bestowed upon the recipients of the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews for their behavior under these afflictions, seeing they 
 formed a second generation of the Palestinian Christians, who, according 
 to xu. 4, had as yet been spared persecutions having a bloody termination. 
 
 Ver. 82. burichévrec] after ye were illumined, i.e. after ye had recognized 
 Christ as the Saviour of men, and ranked yourselves among His confes- 
 sors. Comp. vi. 4.—é6270~]| a word of the later Greek style, in the N. T., 
 however, a az7aé Aeyéuevov, combines with ta@yudtwv into a single idea: 
 contest of sufferings?—tropévew] to sustain, here with the subsidiary notion 
 of stedfastness ard unweariedness. : 
 
 Ver. 33:,Tovro pév . . . tovro dé] on the one hand . . . on the other ; partly 
 ... partly. A genuinely Greek formula (comp. Wetstein ad loc.). Inthe 
 N. T. only here.—rovro pév ovediopoic te kat OAinipeow Oeatpifduevor] in that, on the 
 one hand, by conditions of infamy (xi. 26, xiii. 13) and by tribulations, ye were 
 made a spectacle (were exposed publicly to reviling). ovecdcopoi (belong- 
 ing to the later period of the Greek language)* has reference to the a+ 
 saults upon honor and good name, @Aipecc to assaults upon the person 
 (the life) and outward possessions.—@earpifduevor] comp. 1 Cor. iv. 9: béarpov 
 
 1Theodoret: ’Eme:dy S€ tadta txava Fv 2Chrysostom: ovx amdds elrev addAnow 
 
 avToUS aviagat, OALywpiay aiviTTOMEVA Kal TOV Urewetvate, GAAa meTa TMpoadyKyns TOV TOAARYV. 
 Oclwy apédccay, Kepavvvot TOV Eipnucvwy To Kai ovx cime metpagmovs, aAAad addnow, orep 
 GVOTNpOY TH pYnLNH TOV dn KaTOpIwpevwr. €oTiv éykwutov Svo“a kai eraivwy peyloTwv. 
 Qviéevy yap otirws els mpodumtiav Sreyetper, ws %See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p, 512. 
 
 Sv olkelwy KaTOpYwLaTwY LYN). 
 
CHAP: x. 31-35. 655 
 
 tyernOnuev TH Kooum Kal ayyéAowe Kai dvOporoc. The verb only here and with 
 the Church Fathers.—rotro dé kocvwvol . . . yevnbévtec] and, on the other 
 hand, ye became associates (fellow-sufferers) . . . sc. by the administering 
 of consolation, and by efforts for the alleviation of their sufferings.  xovw- 
 wvoi yevnbévteg is elucidated by ovverabjoare, ver. 34, thus alludes equally 
 as the first half of the sentence to historic facts. Arbitrarily therefore 
 Ebrard : the expression indicates that the readers, “by the act of their 
 conversion, had become once for all associates in that community, of 
 which they knew that it thus fared, or was thus wont to fare with it.”— 
 Tov obta¢ avacrpegouévwv] of those who were in such condition (se. év OAibeow 
 kai ovecdioucic). Kypke, Storr, Bohme, Kuinoel, and others supplement the 
 oitw¢ from the roadjy afdyow imeueivate Tabyudtov, ver. 82: of those who thus 
 walked, 7, e. sustained with great stedfastness the contest of sufferings. In 
 favor of this interpretation the authority of the ordinary Biblical use of 
 avaorpégecha: may no doubt be urged. Since, however, roAAjv aOAnow bre- 
 peivate Tadnuatwr, ver. 32, is the general statement, which afterwards, ver. 
 33, separates into two special subdivisions by means of roiro wév . . . TovTo 
 6é, 80 obrw¢ in the second member can only refer back to the immediately 
 foregoing characterization in the first member. 
 
 Ver. 34. [LX XIV ¢, d.] Confirmatory elucidation of ver. 33, and that in 
 such form that kai . . . ovverafjoate corresponds to the latter half of ver. 
 33, and kai . . . mpocedéEacbe to the former half thereof—xai yap roic deopiorg 
 ovveratjoare] for ye had both compassion (iv. 15) on the prisoners, in that ye 
 bestowed upon them active sympathy.—x«ai rv aprayyy trav irapybvtev buev 
 x.7.A.] and also accepted (comp. x1. 35) with joy the plundering of your 
 goods, with joy, or willingly submitted to it. Wrongly Heinrichs, accord- 
 ing to whom zpoodéyeo#a: here expresses, at the same time, the idea of 
 “exspectare”’ and of “recipere,” so that we have to translate: “ye 
 looked for it.”—ywaokovrec Exe éavtoic xpeitrova irapEw kal pévovoav] indica- 
 tion of motive for kat riv dprayny K.7.2.: knowing that ye have for yourselves 
 (as your true possession) a better property (Acts ii. 45), and that an abiding 
 one, namely, the spiritual, everlasting blessings of Christianity, of which 
 no power of the earth can deprive you. Comp. Matt. vi. 20; Luke xii. 33. 
 
 Ver. 35. Exhortation deduced from vy. 32-34. The self-sacrificing zeal 
 for Christianity displayed in the past ought to animate the readers to a 
 joyful maintenance of the same likewise in the present, since of a truth 
 this very stedfastness in zeal leads to the longed-for goal.—arofdArev] here 
 not the involuntary losing (Jac. Cappellus, Lésner, and others), but the 
 voluntary casting from one, or letting fall away (comp. Mark x. 50), as 
 though it were a question only of a worthless, useless thing; yj a70342- 
 dev thus the same as karéyerv, ver. 23, iii. 6, 14, and xpareiv, iv. 14, vi. 18.— 
 THY Tappyoiav buov] your joyful confidence, sc. towards Christ as your Saviour. 
 The free, courageous confession of Christianity before the world, of which 
 Beza, Grotius, and others understand the expression, is only the consequence 
 of the tappyoia, which here, too, as ver. 19, iii. 6, iv. 16, denotes aframe of 
 the mind.—jr1¢] which of a truth. Introduction of a well-known, indisput- 
 able verity.—yeydAnv uicharodociav] great rewarding retribution (see at ii. 2), 
 
656 3 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 namely, the promised everlasting blessedness (ver. 36)—The present tye, 
 although the pcfarodocia is as yet something future, of the undoubted cer- 
 tainty of its containing in itself, or having as a consequence. 
 
 Ver. 36. Justification of the foregoing exhortation pq aroBadyre. It is 
 true the readers have already distinguished themselves by Christian man- 
 liness ; but what is needing to them in order to reach the goal is stedfast- 
 ness and perseverance, since they are beginning to grow lukewarm in 
 Christianity. tronovge is therefore, as the principal notion, emphati- 
 cally prefixed.—rd 6éAjua tov Yeor] that which God wills, or requires, i.e. in 
 accordance with the context: not merely the having become believers in 
 Christ, but also the stedfast continuance in faith unto the end. Theophylact: 
 VéAnua Beovd TO aypr Tédove brousivac. Against the connection Bleek: 76 
 éAnua Tou Seov is “ the sanctification of men by the sacrifice of the Son of 
 God” (vy. 7,9, 10), and consequently the roeiv thereof the willing submis- 
 sion to be sanctified by the Redeemer. Too general the acceptation of 
 Tholuck (similarly Stein and others): “the regulation [Normirung] of the 
 life in accordance with the divine will,” without further limitation, is that 
 which is meant.—rojoavrec] refers not to that which, according to ver. 32 
 ff., has already been accomplished by the readers (Bengel); nor does it 
 denote something simultaneous with the xouifeoda:, or rather without re- 
 gard to time therewith coinciding (Delitzsch, Alford); it is employed in a 
 strictly aoristic sense, and points on to the future, inasmuch as the 7 orjoaz 
 must already have become a completed fact, before the cowifecdar, as 
 yet belonging to the future, can be realized.—rjv éxayyediav] the promise, 
 i. e. that which is promised, the promised everlasting blessedness. 
 
 Vv. 37,88. Ground of encouragement to the izouovs, of which the 
 readers stood in need, expressed with a free application of the words of 
 Hab. ii. 8, 4, according to the LXX. Continuance is necessary for the 
 readers, and that continuance, indeed, only for a short time, since the re- 
 turn of Christ is to be looked for within a very short space of time, and 
 then to those who have persevered in the faith everlasting life will be the 
 portion conferred ; the apostates, on the other hand, shall be overtaken by 
 destruction —Tife words ére yap wixpdv bcov boov are not a constitu- 
 ent part-of the citation, but proceed from the author himself.—juxpdv bcov 
 éoov] is found Isa. xxvi. 20, and signifies literally : a little, how much, how 
 much! ‘i.e. a very, very little, or a very short time. wexpdv (John xiv. 19, 
 xvi. 16 ff.) is nominative-—not accusative to the question when, as is sup- 
 
 _posed by Bleek (but only in his larger Comm. ; otherwise in his later Vor- 
 lesungen, p. 417), Bisping, Alford, and Hofmann, as also Meyer on John 
 xiii. 833,—and nothing more than éoriy is to be sinelence to the same 
 (see Winer, p. 544) [E. T.585]. The reduplication of the écov, however, 
 serves for the significant strengthening of the notion.'—é ipyduevoc Her Kal 
 ov xpovel] and then He that cometh will come, and will not delay—LXX. l. ¢. 
 ver. 3: duéte éte bpacie ei¢ Karpov Kai avartenei cic Tépag Kai OUK ei¢ Kevdv" Eav boTEp- 
 
 1To be-compared Aristoph. Vesp. 213: ti  sdcov bcov ths xwpys. See Hermann, ad 
 
 OUK amrekoLLAdnLEY OGOV Ooov oriAnv; Arrian, Viger. 726. 
 Indic. xxix. 15: oAtyou S€ av’tav oreipovow 
 
CHAP. X. 36-38. . 657 
 
 hon, bTouewvov avTov, OTL Epyopmevoc Heer kat ov wy ypovion. In thesense 
 of the prophet, the discourse is of the certain fulfillment of the prophecy 
 regarding the overthrow of the Chaldees. The LXX., however, wrongly 
 translated the words, and as the épyéuevoc looked upon either God or the 
 Messiah, of whom also the later Jewish theologians interpreted the passage 
 (see Wetstein ad loc.). Of the Messiah the author of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews also understands the expression, and therefore adds the article 6 
 to épyouevoc. In like manneré épyéuevoc appears, Matt. xi. 3, Luke vii. 
 19,as a current appellation of the Messiah (based upon Dan. vii. 13; Zech. 
 ix. 9; Mal. iii. 1; Ps. xl. 8 [7], exvili. 26). Only in the instances mentioned 
 the first appearing of the Messiah upon earth is intended, whereas in our 
 passage (as also very frequently by épyeoda elsewhere in the N. T., e.g. 1 
 Cor. xi. 26; Actsi.11; Matt. xvi. 27,28; John xxi. 22, 23) the return of 
 Christ, as of the Messiah crucified upon earth and exalted to heaven, for 
 the consummation of the kingdom of God, is that which is referred to. 
 Arbitrarily Carpzov, Heinrichs, Bloomfield, Ebrard, and others: a coming 
 for the destruction of Jerusalem is here to be thought of. 
 
 Ver. 38. [LX-XIV e.] Continuation of the citation, yet so that the author 
 adduces the two clauses of Hab. ii. 4 in inverted order. For in the O. T. 
 passage the words read: éav brooreiAnrat, obk evdoxet 4 Wuxh pov év ait" 6 dé 
 Oixaloc éx TioTedc pov [6 dé dikatébc pov éx Tiotewc] CAoerar. The transposition 
 is intentional, in order to avoid the supplying of the subject 6 épyéuevo¢ to 
 brooreiAnrat.—o dé dixatég pov éx riotewe Choerac] my (of God, not of Christ : 
 Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebriterbr. p. 621, Obs.) righteous one (the devout man 
 belonging to me), however, shall live by faith. é« miotewc, namely, is, in 
 the sense of the author of the epistle, to be referred to Cjoera. To con- 
 join it here, too, as Rom. i. 17 and Gal. iii. 11, with dixaoc (So Baumgarten, 
 Schulz, BGhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Stengel, al.), is inadmissible, because, accord- 
 ing to the connection, the design is not to state by what any one becomes 
 dixacoc, but by what he will obtain the érayyedia, or, what is the same 
 thing, the (#7 aidévioc. The notion of the riorce here closely attaches 
 itself to the Hebrew 13138. The meaning, in harmony with the concep- 
 tion prevailing elsewhere in the Epistle to the Hebrews, divergent from 
 that of Paul, is the believing, faithfully enduring trust in God and His pro- 
 mises. The second member, cai éav trooreiAynrac x.7.A., has been mis- 
 understood by the LXX. In the Hebrew: 13 Wd MIWA m3) nan 
 behold, lifted up, not upright is his (sc. the Chaldean’s) soul in him.—éay 
 brootetAntat| if so be that he with faint heart draws back. Comp. Gal. ii. 
 12. Inthe application : if he becomes lukewarm in Christianity, and apos- 
 tatizes from the same. imooreiAnrac does not stand impersonally ; nor 
 have we, with Grotius, Maier, and others, to supply tic, or, with de Wette, 
 Winer, p. 487 [E. T. 523] (less decidedly, 5th ed. p. 427), and Buttmann, 
 p. 117 [E. T. 134], to supplement from the foregoing 4 diac the general 
 idea avbpwroc as subject. The subject is still the foregoing 6 dixaré¢ pov. 
 This is, moreover, placed beyond doubt, since dixavoc above is not to be 
 taken in the narrower Pauline sense, but in the general sense of the de- 
 vout man; he, however, who is in this sense dixasoc, ceases by the iroorés- 
 
 42 
 
658 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 aeodar to be a dikaoc.—7 wux# yov] wov has reference to God, not to Christ 
 (Oecumenius, as likewise, but with hesitation, Theophylact, as more re- 
 cently Riehm, /. ¢.), still less to the author of the epistle (Calvin: perinde 
 accipiendum est, ac si ex suo sensu apostolus proferret hane sententiam. 
 Neque enim i!li propositum fuit exacte recitare prophetae verba, sed dun- 
 taxat locum notare, ut ad propriorem intuitum invitaret lectores). 
 
 Ver. 39. The author expresses his confidence that the readers and him- 
 self belong not to the class of men who, because they draw back from 
 Christianity out of cowardly misgiving, fall a prey to destruction, but 
 rather to the class of those who do not grow weary in the Christian faith, 
 and therefore attain to life. This expression of confidence is in its essence 
 an admonition, and indeed a more urgent one than though the direct form 
 of exhortation had been chosen.—To éopvév Grotius, Wolf, Carpzov, 
 Heinrichs, and many others erroneously supplement réxva or vioi. For 
 eat, With the mere genitive, is a well-known genuinely Greek manner of 
 expressing a relation of pertaining to a thing,'—ei¢ atoAevav . . . eig TEpt- 
 roiyow Conc] Corroborative allusion to the result of the two opposite lines 
 of action—az7 6”Aeva is everlasting perdition, and repimoinorg Wuyge 
 (comp. 1 Thess. v.9; et¢ teperoinow cwrnpiac) gaining of the soul, i. e. ever- 
 lasting life and everlasting blessedness. Wrongly Ebrard: of the bodily de- 
 liverance from the judgment impending over Jerusalem, is the discourse 
 to be understood.—¥vy4c, moreover, belongs simply to meputoinow, not 
 already, as BOhme and Hofmann will have it, to a7éeav, since only zepi- 
 roi., not also a72., stood in need of an addition. 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 LXX. Vv. 1-18. 
 
 (a) These verses state, once more, in a recapitulatory or summary way, the 
 thoughts which have been already set forth in chs. viii. ix., (see Note LXV a). 
 The development of the passage is as follows:—1l. The legal system, with its 
 offerings, was unable to accomplish the end in view, ver. 1. This is proved, (x) 
 because; if the end had been accomplished and the conscience of the worshipers 
 had been purified, the offerings would have ceased, instead of being repeated con- 
 tinually, vv. 2, 3, and (y) because offerings, like those of the law, are, in their very 
 nature, inadequate to the actual removal of sin, ver. 4.—2. Christ, by His volun- 
 tary offering of Himself in obedience to God’s will, has accomplished and secured 
 the sanctification of His people, vv. 5-10.—3. Having thus offered Himself as a 
 sacrifice, He has taken His seat at the right hand of God—not presenting in the 
 heavenly sanctuary repeated offerings, like the Levitical priesthood, but the one * 
 offering once for all—and He there waits for the final and glorious consummation, 
 vv. 11-14—4. And all this is divinely indicated in the passage from the prophecy 
 of Jeremiah respecting the new covenant, which was ‘cited in the eighth chapter, 
 vy. 15-18. These eighteen verses, accordingly, bring out once more the superiority 
 ef Christ, as High-priest of a higher sanctuary, wv. 11 ff., in connection with the new 
 
 1See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 165; Kihner, II. p. 167. 
 
NOTES. 659 
 
 and better covenant, vv. 15 ff., to the Levitical priesthood as related to the system 
 to which they belonged, vv. 5 ff. comp. with vy. 2 ff. 
 
 (6) As to the individual words and phrases of this passage, the following points 
 may be noticed :—1. The connection of ver. 1 with what precedes by yap is by 
 way of proof of the main suggestion of ix. 24-28, that Christ needed to appear with 
 the one offering of His own blood. This was necessary because the law, ete.— 
 2. The law is presented as having the oxd, instead of the cixév, of the dyafa 
 uéAdovta, The ayata themselves are in heaven; the eixév, or exact representation 
 of them, is in the Gospel; the oxvd, or mere outline or foreshadowing, is found in 
 the Law-system.—3. Tisch. 8, Alf, A. R. V. agree with Liinem. in reading 
 dovara; R. V. Treg. W. & H. read divavta:, The remark of Tisch., that the 
 writer nowhere speaks of the priests as unable to make the worshipers perfect, 
 but only of the law or sacrifices (as in ver. 11), suggests a strong reason for beliey- 
 ing divara: to be the true reading; and when the peculiar break in the sequence 
 of the sentence is considered, as well as the ease with which an error of a 
 copyist might have introduced the plural, it must be regarded as probable that 
 the singular is what the author actually wrote-—4. That oi« of ver. 2 is to be 
 adopted as the correct text, is proved by the external evidence. That, if this text 
 is accepted, the sentence is interrogative, is hardly to be doubted ; for, in opposi- 
 tion to the other rendering: “otherwise their presentation would not have 
 ceased,” it may not only be urged that, inasmuch as the Levitical system was still 
 continuing at the date of the Epistle, it could not be alluded to as if it had 
 actually passed away (see Liinem.’s note), but also that the point of the author's ar- 
 gument, in this part of it, is that the sacrifices of that system which is able to accom- 
 plish its end will (not be ever repeated, but) cease —5. a424 of ver. 3 is equivalent to 
 whereas, on the other hand.—6. The second point in the development of the thought 
 is introduced (vv. 5 ff.) by an O. T. passage (Ps. xl. 6-8), in which the peculiarity 
 of the new system, in its contrast with the old, is set forth. Here, again, as so 
 frequently elsewhere, the writer takes pains to base his argument on the words of 
 the O. T.—7. There can be no doubt, as Liinem. says, that the selection of this 
 particular passage is due to the presence of the word o@a in it, as found in the 
 LXX.—a word which served the author’s purpose in a most satisfactory way, 
 see ver. 10.—8. As to the word céua, its origin in the LXX. may, perhaps, be 
 accounted for correctly by Liinem.’s supposition of a copyist’s error for t/a, or it 
 may have been due to the interpretation given by the Sept. translators to a 
 different text of the Hebrew, or, possibly, to a free expression on their part of what 
 they believed to be the meaning of the original—a mode of setting forth the idea 
 of willing obedience. Whatever may be the true explanation of this point, it will - 
 be observed by the careful reader, (x) that the use of the word which the writer 
 of the epistle makes is only secondary to the expression of his main thought— 
 that of obedience to the will of God; (y) that, in his repetition of the words of 
 the Psalm in ver. 7, he does not introduce caua; and (z) that, even when he does 
 mention it again, in ver. 10, it is only in a subordinate way, 01a Tov capuaroc, while 
 the #éAjua is the sphere in which the sanctification of Christians takes place.— 
 9. Aéywv and eipyxev of ver. 8 are to be explained as connected with the pro- 
 positional and permanent character of the sentence, which the writer desires to 
 give to it in his application to the subject in discussion. He explains by the use 
 of Aéywr, as in év TO. Aéyewy Viii. 13, and év 76 Aéyeobas, iii. 15.—10. Ka? Auépav 
 is to be explained asin vii. 27—the high-priest being at the head of the priest- 
 
660 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 hood, all that is done in the priestly service is spoken of as if done by him, 
 Where a distinction between him and the other priests is a matter of importance, 
 as in ix. 6, 7, it is clearly presented, but, in cases like the present, it is of no con- 
 sequence.—11. The supposed discrepancy between the statement of ver. 13 and 1 
 Cor. xv. 22-28 (see Liinem.’s note) has no real foundation in fact, for the thought, 
 both of this writer and of Paul, is that Christ is to hold His position as head of 
 the Messianic work and kingdom until all enemies shall have been subdued. 
 Paul expresses this by the word Paovdebew; this writer, by éxadicev év defi Tov 
 veov. The only difference between the two is, that this author does not refer to 
 the Parousia, which he has no occasion to mention. Paul makes the end follow 
 immediately after the Parousia and the resurrection which then takes place, (or, 
 to say the least, he may be understood in this way), and he makes physical death, 
 which ceases with the resurrection, the last enemy that is subdued.—12. It is 
 worthy of notice that, at the end of this section, ver. 13, as at its beginning, viii. 
 1, the author presents Christ as having sat down at the right hand of God— 
 recalling thus, with characteristic rhetorical art, the words of i. 3. 
 
 LXXI. Vv. 19 
 
 With the 19th verse the hortatory passage which belongs to the last section of 
 the argument, viii. 1—x. 18, is introduced. As in connection with each previous 
 section the general exhortation of the epistle is given, so here it is added once 
 more, and is based upon what has been stated in these last preceding chapters. 
 ovv of ver. 19, goes back in its force only to viii. 1, and not, as Liinem. says, to 
 v. 1. This hortatory passage extends as far as xii. 29. The view, therefore, 
 that there is here the beginning of a Practical section of the Epistle, which has 
 a parallelism with the whole Doctrinal section, after the manner of the Pauline 
 Epistles, and the view that from x. 19 to xiii. 25 we have a third main division 
 of the epistle (so Alf.) having reference to “ our duty in the interval of waiting 
 between the beginning and accomplishment of our salvation,” or a fifth division 
 (so Ebr.) “the laying hold of the N. T. salvation,” are erroneous and involve a 
 misconception of the author’s plan. 
 
 That this horéatory passage is connected with viii. 1—x. 18, as that which is 
 found ii. J—-4 is connected with i. 4-14, and iii. 1 with ii. 5-16, and, again, vi. 
 1-20 with vii. 1-28, is made evident by the fact that the language here employed 
 and the thought presented are wholly in the line of what has been set forth since 
 the beginning of the eighth chapter—see, for example, the expressions “to enter 
 into the holy place,” “the blood of Jesus,” “the way which he inaugurated for us, 
 a new and living way,” “through the veil, that is to say, his flesh,” “having our 
 hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.” That it extends to the end of the 
 twelfth chapter, is indicated (1) by the fact that, in the final and climactic passage 
 of that chapter (xii. 18-24), which contrasts the Christian and Mosaic systems, the ° 
 idea of Jesus as the mediator of the new covenant, and of the blood of sprinkling, 
 is given the position of greatest emphasis ; and (2) by the fact that there is a 
 steady and closely-connected development of thought throughout the entire 
 passage, according to which everything is subordinate to, and grows out of, the 
 direct exhortation x. 19-25. 
 
 The development of thought, x. 19—xii. 29 is as follows:—l1. The general 
 exhortation of the epistle is given (as founded upon the last section of the argu- 
 
NOTES. | 661 
 
 ment, viii. 1-x. 18) in a positive form—to stand fast, x. 19-25. 2. This exhorta- 
 tion, as thus given, is pressed upon the readers by two considerations: (x) the 
 danger and punishment which will follow in case they do not hold fast to their 
 confession, x. 26-31, and (y) the encouragement which they might derive from 
 calling to remembrance the stedfastness of their earlier Christian life, x. 32-34. 
 3. The exhortation is repeated, but now in a negative form—not to fall away, x. 39. 
 4. This exhortation is founded upon two reasons: (x) the necessity of stedfast 
 endurance, in order to the attainment of the reward, x. 36; and (y) the fact that 
 this endurance is demanded only for a brief period, before the end shall come, 
 x. 37. The immediate connection of all the verses with 19 ff, is clearly manifest. 
 With x. 38 begins a new thought, but yet evidently in the same line of subordina- 
 tion to 19 ff—5. The stedfast endurance, involved in holding fast and not falling 
 away, must be in the line of faith, x. 38, 39. This is proved by the statement of 
 what faith is, xi.1, and the citation of a long list of examples from the O. T. and 
 Jewish history, which show how the stedfastness of the ancient heroes had been 
 in the line of faith, and how those heroes had thereby gained their honorable 
 fame and reward, xi. 2-40.—6. In view of the fact that this multitude of witnesses 
 are, as it were, looking, as spectators in a race-course, upon us in our Christian 
 life, the exhortation to press on with stedfast endurance is again presented—and 
 now with a pointing to Jesus, as the head of the great company of the saints, xii. 
 1, 2—7. This repeated exhortation is, again—in its turn—based upon two 
 grounds :—(x) the fact that the readers have not yet been called to such sufferings, 
 in their course, as had come upon some of the O. T. heroes, and upon Jesus, xii. 
 3,4; and (y) the fact that, in calling His people to endure afflictions and trials 
 with stedfastness, God is dealing with them in love, as a father treats his children, 
 xii. 5-11.—8. In view of this, the readers are urged to remove all hindrances to 
 stedfast endurance, in the ease of all members of their church :—to lift up the 
 hands that hang down, etc., and make straight paths, that the lame may not be 
 turned out of the way, xii. 12, 13; to follow after peace and sanctification, xii. 14; 
 and to see to it that there be among them no one falling back from the grace of 
 God, no one who shall, as a root of bitterness, cause trouble and defilement, and no 
 one who shall sell his birth-right for nothing, as did Esau, xii. 15-17.—9. An 
 encouragement is given to hold fast the Christian confession, instead of falling 
 away, which is founded upon the nature of the new system—it is a system of hope 
 and love, not of terrors; of immediate and free access to God and communion 
 with Him; of spiritual and heavenly life; and a system which involves the 
 noblest sacrifice and a new and better covenant, xii. 18-24—10. In view of this 
 character of the Christian revelation, as thus presented in its contrast with the 
 Mosaic, and in its encouraging influence towards stedfastness, the writer closes 
 with the solemn warning to his readers not to turn away from it, lest they should 
 meet with sorer punishment than those who had rejected the Mosaic law, xii. 
 25-29. 
 
 The progress of the thought from the beginning of the passage to the end, 
 therefore, proves that it is all connected with x. 19 ff.; that it is, as it were, all 
 dependent on the odv of x. 19, and thus founded upon viii. 1—x. 18; and that it 
 is the hortatory addition to this last section of the epistle. The artistic character 
 of the plan which the author adopted is thus clearly seen, as it is traced from the 
 earliest to the latest chapter; and its fundamental difference from any plas 
 which Paul follows, in any of his epistles, is most conspicuous. 
 
662 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 LXXII. Vv. 19-25. 
 
 (a) obv of ver. 19 points back immediately to the recapitulatory passage, vv. 
 1-18, but more remotely to that which is only presented in a summary way in these 
 verses—namely to viii. 1—ix. 28.—(b) The view of Liinem., with respect to 7, that 
 it refers to cicodov, and with respect to aca, that it designates the way as living 
 in its efficacy, leading to the goal of everlasting life, and thus its contrast to the 
 inefficaciousness of the entrance into the earthly sanctuary, is to be adopted. 
 Christ “dedicated” (R. V.), or inaugurated this entrance way, by first passing 
 through it. He passed through it by dying—the veil of his flesh was rent at that 
 time and by that means, and the way was thus opened for free access to God.— 
 (c) That oixov rod Yeov refers to heaven, not to the church or to heaven and 
 the church on earth, is indicated by the manifest connection of all the other 
 words and phrases, in these verses, with the priesthood of Christ in the higher 
 sanctuary, and not, as in iii. 6, with His sonship and His presiding in the church. 
 —(d) On zAnpogopia comp. note LIX. g above.—(e) R. V., in the text, joins the 
 words: “and our body washed with pure water” (ver. 22) with the preceding 
 words, making them qualify the verb zpocepyoueta. In the margin, it unites 
 them with xatéyouev of ver. 28. A.R. VY. adopts the opposite course. The reasons 
 for believing that R. V. text gives the author’s thought correctly are: 1. that it 
 joins faith and baptism in the manner which is common in the N.T., making the 
 latter the outward symbol of the inward state; 2. that the other connection gives 
 to baptism an undue emphasis, placing the words referring to it before xatéyouev, 
 while, in both the preceding and following clauses, the corresponding participial or 
 defining words follow after the verb. Such an emphasis seems quite improbable, 
 and is certainly uncalled for, so far as any suggestion of the context is concerned ; 
 3. that the washing of baptism as symbolizing the inward cleansing has a close 
 relation in thought to worshiping God with a sincere heart, but no such relation 
 to holding fast our hope. The view of Liinemann with respect to this point is to 
 be rejected.—(f) Vv. 24, 25 add to what is said of the subjective condition of the 
 persons addressed an exhortation to incite one another. For this end, they were 
 not to forsake their Christian assemblies. Tapaxadovytec seems to be a general 
 word, not limited, as Liinem. takes it, to the animating one another to the unin- 
 terrupted frequenting of the Christian meetings.’ Rather, in the Christian meet- 
 ings, which they were not to forsake, they should animate one another to love and 
 the other Christian virtues—(g) That 77» 7juépav means, not the time of the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem, but the day of the Lord’s coming, is proved by the usage 
 of the N. T. writers. That the sentence is most naturally interpreted as implying 
 an expectation that that day would come soon, can hardly be questioned. That it 
 must be so interpreted, however, is, perhaps, not to be affirmed. 
 
 LXXIII. Vv. 26-81. 
 
 (a) The correspondence in thought between this passage and vi. 4 ff. is striking, 
 and each of the two may serve to explain the other. Comp. Note LVIII above. 
 1. There is the same indication here as in ch. vi., that the persons referred to are 
 those who had really entered the Christian life. 2. The turning away is here 
 more distinctly described as a voluntary thing. 3. The result mentioned is, not 
 
NOTES. 663 
 
 that it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, but that they will find 
 no other way of access opened—there remains no longer a sacrifice for sins. 4. 
 Stronger language is used here in describing the sin, than in ch. vi., but the 
 connection of this passage with the context and the light which the two passages 
 throw upon each other seem to imply that the expressions are intended to set forth 
 what apostasy actually is and involves, rather than any deadly or heaven-daring 
 opposition to Christ, such as the Pharisees exhibited when they said that He cast 
 out the demons through Beelzebub. 
 
 (6) The comparison with regard to penalty which is made in vy. 28 ff. and the 
 words of ver. 31 are strikingly similar to what is found in xii. 25 and 29. This 
 fact is, in itself, an indication that the entire passage x. 19—xii. 29 is intended by 
 the writer to develop one line of thought. 
 
 LXXIV. Vv. 32-39. 
 
 (a) In the grammatical connection and the progress of the thought from sen- 
 tence to sentence, dé (ver. 32) may be regarded as serving the same purpose as Jé 
 of vi. 9—that is, contrasting the hopeful element in the condition of the readers 
 with the hopeless state of those who have just been mentioned. There can be little 
 doubt, however, that in the main development of the thought, vv. 32-34 give a 
 ground for the exhortation to hold fast, or not to apostatize.—(b) The reference to 
 the past career of the reader-, in ch. vi., calls to mind their love and ministering to 
 the saints; here, it suggests persecutions and sufferings which they had endured. 
 But, in both cases alike, the words used imply a feeling on their part of sympathy 
 towards their fellow-believers.—(c) As to the first of the two principal text-variations, 
 in ver. 34, the critical editors and commentators are now generally agreed, that roi¢ 
 deauiolg is to be read, instead of toi¢ decuoic wov, The grounds for the acceptance 
 of deopiore are set forth by Liinem., in his textual note on this verse. It is not 
 improbable that this is the correct reading, but the Sin. MS. adds much to the 
 weight of the evidence on the other side. In view of this fact, and of the fact that, 
 while the connection of Paul’s name with the Epistle may have been a motive to 
 introduce the reading decpot¢ ov, it is possible, on the other hand, that the allusion 
 to prisoners in xiii. 3 occasioned the introduction of decpiovc, it seems questionable 
 whether the former reading can be so decisively set aside, without any recognition 
 of its claims, as it is by some writers and by R. V.(d) The second variation is be- 
 tween éavTov¢ and éavtoic ;—for év éavroic of T. R. has no sufficient claims to be 
 considered. éavtov¢ is adopted by Tisch. 8, Treg., W. & H., R. V. text, A. R.V. 
 marg., and others, and seems to have the greater external authority. éavtoic, how- 
 ever, is read by Griesb., Alf. A. R. V. text, R. V. marg., and others. If the accusa- 
 tive is accepted as the true reading, the explanation given of the meaning of the 
 clause by A. R. V. marg: “ye have your own selves for a better possession,” is to 
 be preferred to that of R. V. text: “ye yourselves have a better possession.” 
 Bleek, who adopts éavrodc, agrees with R. V. text. é obpavoic inserted by T.R., 
 with some authorities, after izapgwv is undoubtedly to be rejected. 
 
 (e) Ver. 38 is a part of the same citation with ver. 37, and ver. 39 expresses the 
 writer’s belief that his readers are not among those referred to in the passage as 
 drawing back. The verses are thus closely related to those which precede. But 
 evidently they form a connecting link with ch. xi., and in the development of the 
 main thought they hold the place mentioned in note LX XI. 
 
664 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 VER. 3. 7 éx datvouévor] Instead thereof there is read in the Peshito: ex 
 illis, quae non cernuntur; in the Vulgate: ex invisibilibus; in Lat. D E: ex non 
 apparentibus. These translations, however, are a mere interpretative gloss, from 
 which the actual existence of an early reading: é« uy @acvouévwr, cannot at 
 all be inferred.—The preference to the Recepta: 74 BAem6meva, is merited by 
 the reading 76 BAewoOuevov, commended to attention by Griesbach, adopted by 
 Lachm., Bleek, Tisch. and Alford, approved also by de Wette, Tholuck, Delitzsch, 
 and others. To be preferred partly on account of the better attestation by means 
 of A D* E* &, 17, It. Copt. Clem. Didym. Ath. Cyr. al., partly because a muta- 
 tion from the singular into the plural was more naturally suggested than the 
 opposite.—Ver. 4. Elz.: waptupovvtog Eri toi¢g dGporce avtow Tow Beodv, 
 Instead of this, A D* 8* 17 have: waptupovvtoc éxi roicg Sépore avrow 
 7 Ge@. Adopted by Lachm. But the thought: “in that Abel, in regard to 
 his offerings, gave testimony to God,” would be unintelligible, and, moreover, incor- 
 rectly and unhappily expressed. Besides, since aptupodvroc x.7.2. is the unmis- 
 takable nearer definition to éuaprup#iy, the context naturally points to God as the 
 subject in paprupovytoc. Beyond doubt, therefore, 7@ 4¢@ arose only from the 
 eye of the copyist wandering to the T@ @e6 at the beginning of the verse—In 
 place of the Recepta 2a/¢eitat, Griesbach (who, however, attaches equal value 
 to the Recepta), Bleek, Scholz, Tisch. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche rightly 
 read Aa/ci. In favor of this is decisive, on the one hand, the important author- 
 ity of A &, 17, 23, 31, 39, al. mult., Syr. utr. Arabb. Copt. Armen. Slay. rec. Vulg. 
 Clem. Orig. Athan. Nyss. Chrys. (in comment.) Epiphan. Austerius, Damase. 
 Chron. alex. Theodoret (in textu), Photius ms. Oecum. Theophyl., on the other 
 hand, the usus lo %. For neither in taking 4a/eitaz in the middle sense, 
 with Beza, Er. Schmid, Wolf, Carpzov, Baumgarten, nor yet in the passive: prae- 
 dicatur, laudatur, in omnium ore est, with Jos. Scaliger, Lud. de Dieu, Wetstein, 
 Heinrichs, Stengel, should we be warranted on linguistic grounds; quite apart 
 from the fact that, in the latter acceptation, the statentent would be a very trivial 
 one.---Ver. 5. Elz.: evpicxeto. Better attested, however (by A D E 8, 109, 
 -Epiphan.), is the form yipioxeto, which is found likewise in the LXX. Gen. v. 
 24, in the Cod. Alex. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford—In 
 place of the Recepta: tij¢ petabécews avtov, we have to write, with Lachm. 
 Bleek, Tisch. de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, and others, after A D* & 17, 67** 80, 
 Vulg. It. Copt., merely: t7¢ “etabécews, and in place of the received form 
 evn peotykévat, with Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and 7, Delitzsch, and Alford, the form 
 better attested (by A K L, 46, 71, 73, al., Theophyl.): evapectyxévat—yver. 8. 
 Elz.: kadaoviuevoc. But A D (E?) Vulg. It. Arm. Theodoret, Jer. Bed. have 6 
 kahdotuevoc. Approved by Mill. Rightly placed in the text by Lachm. and 
 Tisch. 1—The article 7¢év, inserted in the Recepta before t tov, we have, with 
 Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, and Alford, after A D* &*, to delete; and, after 
 
CHAP. XI. 665 
 
 A D* K, many min. Chrys. Damase. Theophyl., with Laehm. Tisch. 1, 2, and 7, 
 and Alford, to write éweAAev in place of the Recep }ueAdre—Ver. 9. Kat 
 rap@xyoev, which D* E, together with their Latin translation, furnish in place 
 of the Recepta: tioter rapykyoev, isa later corruption, inasmuch as in ver. 
 9a fresh evidence is given of the tiore of Abraham.—ei¢ y7v] Elz.: ei¢ trav 
 ya#v. But the article is wanting in A D** K L ®&, very many cursives, with 
 Damase. and Oecum. It is suspected by Griesbach, rightly rejected by Lachm. 
 Bleek, Tiseh. Alford.—Ver. 11. kai xapa xarpov jAckiag] Elz.: cai rapa kacpov 
 qacxiacg étekev, But étexev isa later gloss, which is condemned by A D* ®* 
 17, Vuig. It. Copt. Sah. Aeth. utr. Chrys. (codd.). It was already regarded as 
 spurious by Beza, Grotius, Mill (Prolegg. 1355), Bengel; and is rightly deleted by 
 Griesbach, Knapp, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others—Ver. 12. 
 In place of the Recepta éyevv76yeav, Lachm. Bleek, Delitzsch, and Alford read 
 éyevyGyoav, which, on account of the stronger attestation by A D* K, 109, 219* 
 al. (Vulg. It.: orti sunt), is to be preferred—oc¢ 7 duoc] So already the Editt. 
 Complut. and Steph. 2, then Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Lachm. Scholz, 
 Bleek, Tisch. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, and others. Elz.: ooei dupoc. 
 Against A D (* and ** and ***)! E K L y, 23,37, 46, 47, al. mult., Chrys. (codd.) 
 Damase. Oecum. Theophyl.--% apa 76 yeidoc] is wanting in D* E, in their 
 Latin translation, and in Aeth. utr. The origin of the omission is to be traced 
 back to a mere error in writing, to which the resemblance of sound of the closing 
 letters in ayuoc and yeiAoc gave occasion.—Ver. 13. In place of the Recepta “7 
 AaBdovrec, Lachm. reads “7 tpoodegauevor, But the Recepta is supported by 
 the considerable authority of D E K L &*** almost all the cursives, Theodoret, 
 and others; while the reading of Lachm., probably arising from ver. 35, has only 
 the testimony of A in its favor, and is devoid of meaning. For tpoodefamevor 
 could, in accordance with the usage prevailing elsewhere, only signify either the 
 subjective having expected (having awaited), or the subjective having admitted. But 
 neither of these meanings would be compatible with the statement of ver. 13, 
 which would be suitably expressed only if tpoodefauevoe could be explained of 
 the objective having received, what is never denoted by this verb. The reading 7 
 Koutoadmevor in &* some cursives (17, 23* 39, al.), and, with Chrys. (in comment.) 
 Damase. Theophyl. (adopted by Tisch. 8), was only called forth by the similar 
 turn x. 36, xi. 39.—idévrec] Elz.: idéute¢ kai wecodévrec, But the addition 
 kat mecodévrec has almost all the witnesses (also 8) against it. It is found in 
 only two or three cursives, and is an explanatory gloss to aovacduevor. Comp. 
 Chrysostom: ott Teretopévor Foav Tept avTav o¢ Kal aordoacda aitac; Occu- 
 menius: kai doracduevor revodévtec—Ver. 15. é£éByoav] Elz. Griesbach (who, 
 however, has placed é37cav on the inner margin), Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, 
 Bloomfield: ¢&72 ov. Against A D* E* &* 17, 73, 80, Athan. (ed. Bened.; edd. 
 al. : é&¢8A73y0av) Chron. alex. Damase.—Ver. 16. viv dé} Elz. Matt. Bloomfield: 
 vuvi dé Against decisive witnesses (A D E 8, 44, 48, al. perm., Athan. Chrys. 
 Theodoret, Oecum.).—Ver. 19. The Recepta éyeipecv has the support of D E K 
 L 8, almost all min. Orig. Chrys. Theodoret, Damase. al. ; Lachm. and Tisch. 1 
 read, after A (eyepe), 17, 71, Cyr. Chron. alex.: éyetpar—Elz.: dvvatéc; A 
 D**:; dtivarat, Adopted by Lachm. into the text—Ver. 20. In place of the 
 Recepta wioret, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, 7, Alford have adopted miote. Kai, 
 
 1 D* 31: Kadws 
 
666 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 after A D* 17, 23, 37, al., Vulg. It. Chrys. (but not in all mss. and editt.) Thec 
 doret, Damasc. Sedul. Bede. Rightly. «ai might appear superfluous, and on 
 that account was more likely to be omitted than added.—Ver. 23. Instead of the 
 Recepta dtatayua, Lachm, reads dé6yua, But this reading is founded only in a 
 conjectural manner upon A, inasmuch as all the letters of the word except the 6 
 have been torn away from the Codex. Apart from this, 6é6ya is found only in 
 one cursive MS. of the twelfth century (Cod. 34). It is probably a gloss from 
 Luke ii. 1.—At the close of ver. 28, D* E (as also their Latin translation, as well 
 as three codd. of the Vulgate) further add the words: mote eyac yevouevog pwvonc 
 aviAey TOV alyUTTLOV KaTaVvOwY THY TaLWwoLY TwY adeAdwy avTov, as to the spurious- 
 ness of which, although Zeger and Mill (Prolegg. 496) held them to be genuine, 
 no doubt can exist, even on account of the pyéyac yevduevoc, ver. 24. They are a 
 complementary addition in conformity to Acts vii. 23 ff_—Ver. 26. Tov Aiyirrov] 
 Elz.: Tov év Aiyorrty. Against DE K L ¥ (also against the later supple- 
 menter of B), 31, 44, 46, al plur., Syr. utr. Copt- al., Clem. Euseb. al. Rejected by 
 Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, 
 al. The tov év Atiyotrrov, adopted by Lachm., after A and some cursives (3, 
 71), owes its origin to an uncompleted correction—Ver. 28. Instead of the 
 Recepta 6400pevwv, A D E, Damase. have the more correct (dA¢8poc) form 6 e- 
 dpevwv, which is rightly preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2,7, and Alford. 
 —Ver. 29 Elz. has merely o¢ dca Enpac. But, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 
 Delitzsch, and Alford, we have to add y7c, after A D* E 8, 17, 31, 47, al., Chrys. 
 Theodoret (cod.) and probably all the versions. Since y7#¢ was no necessary 
 addition, it could easily get omitted—Ver. 30. Recepta: étece. But, after A D* 
 8, 17, 23, 31, al., Chrys. ms., éteoav (in favor of which, also, recov in 37, 
 and Chrys. ms., testifies) is to be looked upon as the original reading. Adopted 
 by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford. Approved by Delitzsch—vVer. 32. Elz.: 
 émctheiper yap we. With Lachm. Tisch. 7 and 8, and Alford, after A D* §, we 
 have to transpose into: éteAeiper we yap.—tn that which follows, the Recepta 
 reads: wept Tedeav Bapdk te kai Sapywpov cai "Llegdde, Aavid re nat 
 2ayov7jd.—Instead thereof, Lachm. reads (and so also Tisch. 1 and 8), as it also 
 stands in the Coder Sinaiticus: tepi Tede@v Bapak Lauper 'leddade Aaveid 
 Te Kai Lapovga, (On internal grounds neither of these forms of the text com- 
 mends itself. For, in the case of both, the persons here further mentioned would 
 have been enumerated, in contradiction with the mode of proceeding hitherto 
 observed, without regard to the chronology ; inasmuch as, historically, Barak was 
 to have beén mentioned before Gideon, Jephthah before Samson, Samuel before 
 David. And yet the regularity with which each time the second name designates 
 a person earlier in a chronological respect, points to an order of succession chosen 
 with design. Observe, further, that in the last member, Aavid te kai Lapovsa, 
 there is nowhere found a variation with regard to the particles. There can thus 
 hardly be room for doubt ‘that the foregoing names also were originally arranged 
 in groups of two. It appears, accordingly, the better course to retain the Recepla, 
 with the two modifications,—that, with D*, «ai Bapax is read in place of the 
 mere Bapdéx; and then, with A, 17, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Clem. Cyr. Al. Epiphan. 
 Ambr. Bede, the mere Lauper is read instead of te Kai Laywov., (The kaé 
 before "Iegdae is supported by D E K L, almost all cursives, Syr. al., Chrys. 
 Theodoret, Damase. al.) Thus arises the text: tepi Tededv cal. Bapan Yap- 
 Wov Kai "Ilegbde, Aavid te kai YSapovgA, and the sense is: “of Gideon as’ 
 
A 
 
 CHAP. XI. 1. 661 
 
 well as of Barak, of Samson not less than of Jephthah, of David even as of 
 Samuel.” In connection with this form of the text, the otherwise very strange 
 breach in the chronological order disappears, since the discourse advances histori- 
 cally with the addition of each new double member; while, in the double members 
 themselves, the mention of the later person before the earlier is justified by the 
 mention on each occasion of those who are in point of time contemporaries, as 
 also from the consideration of rhetorical eflect.—Ver. 34. After A D* 8, Lachm. 
 has adopted wayaipne (and so also Tisch. 7 and 8) instead of the Recepta 
 paxaipac, and, after A D* 8*; édvvazadyoay (so also Tisch. 8), in place of 
 the Recepta: évedvvawadyoav,—vVer. 35, yuvaixec] Lachm. has, after A D* &*: 
 yvvaikac, what, however, rests upon a mere error in transcribing, and is to be 
 rejected as meaningless—Ver. 37. “ayaipac] D* &, Lachm. Tisch. 7 and 8: 
 payaipne.—ver. 38. The Recepta év Epypmiacc is attested by DE K L, min. 
 Clem. Orig. (twice) Chrys. Theodoret, Damasce. al. Lachm. and Tisch. 7 and 8 
 read, with A &, 71, 73, 118, Orig. (once) Socrat: €7% épypuiacc, which, however, 
 can have arisen only from an error of the copyist—Ver. 39. Elz.: tT v émayye- 
 Aiav, <A, 80, Arab. Polygl. Lachm.: tag érayyediac. 
 
 Vv. 1-40.) The author defines the nature of the ziotsc which he requires 
 of the readers, and then presents to them in chronological succession 
 examples thereof from the days of old. 
 
 Ver. 1. [On ver. 1, see Note LXXV., page 694.] The definition. This 
 is no scholastic, exhaustive one, but brings out only that element as the 
 essence of the ziotic, with which the author was here alone concerned; 
 inasmuch as, according to x. 35 ff., just the inner certainty of conviction 
 with regard to the Christian hope, and the stedfast continuance in the 
 same dependent thereon, was that which was lacking to the readers. The 
 words: foriv 6& miotic éAmiCopévwov iréctaccc, are to be taken 
 together as asingle statement, and tpaypudadtov éreyyor ov Breromévov 
 forms an apposition to éArCouévav irdotacic: “ faith, however, is a firm 
 confidence in regard to that which is hoped for, a being convinced of 
 things which are invisible.” TIiotve is accordingly subject ; éArouévev 
 bréotacc, as Well as xpaypyatwv éheyyoc ov BAeTtouévwr, predicate; and éorw 
 (which, standing at the beginning, is to be accentuated as the verbum sub- 
 stantivum, see Kihner, I. p. 72) emphatically preposed copula, with the 
 design of attaching to the presupposition, expressed x. 39, of wiotie as a 
 quality present in the readers, the statement as to the nature and essence 
 of this miore. Quite similar is the use of éorw in the beginning of the 
 proposition, 1 Tim. vi. 6: gor dé ropicpuic péyac 4 evoéBeva peta avtapKeiac, 
 and Luke viii. 11: égorw 6% aity 4 rapaBor7. Grammatically admissible 
 indeed, but to be rejected—because in that case a thought would be 
 expressed which is not suggested by the connection, and, moreover, a 
 truth in regard to which no contradiction whatever was to be expected on 
 the part of the readers—is it when Béhme (as formerly also Winer, 
 Gramm., 3d and 4th Ed.; otherwise 5th Ed. p. 70, 6th Ed. p. 56, 7th Ed. p. 
 
 1P. J. L. Huét, De antiquissimorum Dei xi. memorantur, fide diversa eademque una 
 cultorum, quiin epistolae ad Hebraeos capite Lugd. Batay. 1824, 8, pp. 27-82, 
 
668 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 58 f. [E. T.59 f.]) will have éorw taken as a verb substantive, and iréerucce, 
 as likewise éAeyyoc, taken as apposition to wioric: “there is, however, a 
 faith, a confidence,” ete.—ziori¢] without an article, since the author will 
 define the notion of riore in general, not exclusively the notion of speci- 
 fically Christian faith—iréoraowe] is by many explained as “ reality” 
 (entity, Wesenheit), and placed on a par with oisia, substantia, essentia, and 
 the like, which, however, is already proved to be inadmissible from the fact 
 that the notion of “ reality ” cannot be immediately applied, but, in order 
 to become fitting, must first be changed into that of an “endowing with 
 reality,” in such wise that one can then make out the sense: faith clothes 
 things which are not yet at all present with a substance or real existence, 
 as though they were already present.’—But likewise izéoraove is not to 
 be interpreted either by “ fundamentum,”? nor by “placing before one.” 
 For neither of the two affords in itself, without further amplification, a 
 satisfactory, precise notion, quite apart from the fact that the last-men- 
 tioned signification can hardly be supported by the testimony of linguistic 
 usage.—The alone correct course is consequently,‘ to take imécraccic, as 
 at ili. 14 (vid. ad loc.) as inner confidence —éxGopévorv] gen. objecti: of that 
 (or: with regard to that) which is still hoped for, has not yet appeared in an 
 actual form. .The main emphasis in the predicate rests upon 22 7ifopévor, 
 as also upon the concluding words, corresponding in apposition thereto, 
 ov BAetopévwov.—rpaypator | belongs to ov BAerouévov. The conjoining 
 with éArfouévev (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Estius, Bbhme, Woerner, and 
 others) deprives the two halves of the proposition of their rhythmical 
 symmetry.—payydtuv iAeyyoc ob BAerouévwv] a being convinced (in mind or 
 heart) of things which are invisible, 7. e. a firm inner persuasion of the exist- 
 ence of unseen things, even as though they were manifest to one’s eyes. 
 éAeyyoce here expresses not the active notion of the convincing or assuring, 
 but, corresponding to the notion of the forementioned izécracie, indicates 
 the result of the é2€yyew (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 24), as Adyoc that produced by 
 the Aégyerv, rirro¢ that effected by the rizrew, etc. Tobe rejected as unsuit- 
 able are the explangtions: Proof, argumentum (Vulgate, Ambrose, Schlicht- 
 ing, Wolf, Heinrichs, and others); imdiciwum (Erasmus); demonstratio 
 
 
 
 1 This mode of interpretation was followed - 
 
 by Chrys., (é7e.d) yap Ta. €v €Amide avuméotata 
 éivar Soxei, ) miotis UmdcTacLY avTois yapic- 
 eta’ waddAov dé, ov xapigerar GAA’ avTo eat 
 ovoia avT@yv’ oiov  avagtacis ov mapayéyovev 
 ovdé eotiy ev UmooTageL, GAA’ 7 EATis Uhiatnaw 
 auth ev TH HmMETEpa Wux7), Theodoret (Seckvucw 
 as UpecT@Ta Ta pydérw yeyevnueva), Oecume~ 
 nius (miotts é€otiv avtn yn UTdaTaCts Kal OVGia 
 Tav cAmiopevwy mpaynatwy émerdy yap Ta ev 
 EAmio avuTéoTata €aTLY ws Téws LH TapdVTa, H 
 FloTls ovGlia Tis aVT@Y Kal } UTdCTaCLS yiveTat, 
 elvat avTa Kal Tapeivat TpoTOY TLVa TapacKev- 
 afovoa dia rou motevev eivar) Theophylact 
 (ovotwots TOY LyTw OYTwWY Kal UTOOTAGLS TOV MH 
 tudectwétwv), by the Vulgate (substantia), by 
 Ambrose, Augustine, Vatablus (rerum, quae 
 
 sperantur, essentia), H.Stephanus (illud, quod 
 facit, ut jam exstent, quae sperantur), Schlich- 
 ting, Bengel, Heinrichs, Bisping, and others. 
 
 2With Faber Stapulensis, Clarius, Schulz, 
 Stein, Stengel, Woerner, and others. 
 
 3 With Castellio (dicitur eorum, qua speran- 
 tur, subjectio, quod absentia nobis subjiciat ac 
 proponat, efficiatque ut praesentia esse vide- 
 antur, nec secus eis assentiamur, quam si 
 cerneremus) and Paulus. 
 
 4With Luther, Cameron, Grotius, Wolf, 
 Huét, Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Eb 
 rard, Bloomfield, Delitasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. 
 des Hebrdebr. p. 702, Alford, Maier, Moll, and 
 others. 
 
 5 Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr: des Hebrderbr, 
 p. 703; Moll, Hofmann. 
 
CHAP, Xi. 2,°3; 669 
 (Calvin, H. Stephanus, Jac. Cappellus, Bengel, Alford, al.) ; apprehensio 
 (Clarius); “a certain assurance, guarantee” (Stein), and many others. ov 
 BAewoueva, however, on account of the objective negation, combines 
 together into the unity of notion “ invisible,” and is a more general char- 
 acterization than éAriGéueva, While the latter is restricted to that which 
 is purely future, the former comprehends at the same time that which is 
 already present, and denotes in general the supra-sensuous and heavenly.} 
 
 Ver. 2. [On Vv. 2, 3, see Note LX XVL., pages 694,695.] Justification of 
 the characteristics mentioned, ver. 1, as those that are essential to the 
 faith. Just this quality of faith was it by which the Old Testament saints 
 were distinguished, and on that account became objects of the divine 
 satisfaction and the divine favor—év rairy] not equivalent to dca rabrne 
 (Luther, Vatablus, Calvin, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Bengel, 
 Bohme, and the majority ; comp. vv. 4, 39), or: ob eam (Wolf and others), 
 or touching faith, in point of faith (de Wette, Tholuck, Moll); but: in 
 possession of a faith so constituted (Winer, p. 362, [E. T., 387 Note 4], Bleek, 
 Bloomfield, Kurtz).—apropeiotar] to obtain a testimony, and that according 
 to the connection, a@ good, commendatory testimony, whether by words or 
 deeds ’.—oi mpeoBirepor] the ancients (Schulz: the early ancestors), i.e. the fore- 
 fathers under the Old Covenant; with the accessory idea of venerableness. 
 A like name of honor, as elsewhere (i. 1, al.) oi marépec. 
 
 Ver. 3. [LXXVI 6. ¢.] The author is on the point of proving out the 
 truth of ver. 2, in a series of historic instances from the Holy Scriptures 
 of the O. T., when the thought forces itself upon him that the very first 
 section of that sacred book of Scripture relates a fact of which the reality 
 can only be recognized by means of faith. He first of all, therefore, calls 
 attention to this fact, before proceeding, in ver. 4, to the designed enumer- 
 ation of those historic examples. Certainly not very aptly, since ver. 
 3 cannot, as ver. 4 ff, serve in proof of the assertion, ver. 2, 
 but, on the contrary, introduces into the examination something 
 heterogeneous in relation to ver. 4 ff. For ver. 3 shows only the ne- 
 cessity for mioree on our part in regard to a fact belonging to the past 
 and recorded in Scripture; ver. 4 ff. there are placed before our eyes as 
 models historic persons in whom the virtue of ziorc, so constituted as the 
 author demands it of his readers, was livingly present. This judgment, 
 that ver.3 forms a heterogeneous insertion, is pronounced, indeed, by 
 Delitzsch, to whom Kluge and Moll have acceded, an “unfair one.” But 
 the counter observation of Delitzsch: “the author had already at ver. 2, 
 in connection with oi zpeoBirepor, and particularly in connection with 
 éuaptupydyoav, the O. T. Scripture before his mind; so that the statement, 
 
 1 Calvin : Nobis vita aeterna promittitur, sed 
 mortuis; nobis sermo fit de beata resurrecti- 
 one, interea putredine sumus obvoluti; justi 
 pronuntiamur, et habitat in nobis peeccatum ; 
 audimus nos esse beatos, interea obruimur 
 infinitis miseriis; promittitur bonorum om- 
 nium afHuentia, prolixe vero esurimus et 
 sitimus; clamat Deus statim se nobis adfutu- 
 
 rum, sed videtur surdus esse ad clamores 
 nostros. Quid fieret, nisi spei inniteremur, 
 ac mens nostra praelucente Dei verbo ac 
 Spiritu per medias tenebras supra mundum 
 emergeret ? 
 
 2Oecumenius: ¢uaptupyonoav ird Oeov com 
 PEOTHKEVAL AUTY. 
 
670 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 although sounding thus personal, is equivalent to the proposition that the 
 O. T. Scripture concedes no recognition to any mode of life which lies not 
 within the province of faith,’ labors under the defect of logical deliques- 
 cence; it is a mere rationalizing of the words of ver. 2, simply and 
 clearly preposed as the theme for that which follows.—ziore:] Dat. instru- 
 mentalis: by virtue of faith—vooipuev] we discern. voeiv is the inner percep- 
 tion, accomplished by means of the voig. Comp. Rom. i. 20.—karypriodar] 
 has been prepared (comp. LXX. Ps. lxxiv. 16, lxxxix. 38). More expressive 
 than if reroujodac had been written. It represents the having been created 
 at the same time as a having been placed in a completed or perfect condition 
 [xili. 21].—rovic aidvac] the world; see at i.2—pjuate Seov] by the word (or 
 authoritative command) of God. Reference to the repeated: “ And God 
 said,’ Gen. i.1 The supposition of Bleek (comp. also Ewald, p. 123), that 
 the author here too thought of the word of God as a personified 
 property, has nothing in its favor, since the expression is sufficiently ex- 
 plained without it. Nor does the dv ov kai éroinoev tove aidvac, i. 2, compel 
 us to adopt this supposition. For above the special mode of mediately 
 effecting the creation of the world there indicated, stands the higher 
 authorship of God, to which the writer here points in general by the 
 expression pjuate Yeov.—eic TO py ek davouévov TO BAETduEvoy yeyovévar] NOt: 
 30 that, etc.” ei¢ +6 with the infinitive preserves here, too, its ordinary 
 telic signification, in that it introduces the purpose of God with regard to 
 [LXXVId.] The sense is: that in accord- 
 ance with the decree of God, the fact should be averted, that from gawéueva the 
 Bderéuevov should have sprung; consequently that the human race should 
 from the beginning be directed to the necessity for tiotcc.—p7] belongs 
 to the whole object-clause. [LXXVIe.] So rightly Beza, Piscator, Seb. 
 Schmidt, Er. Schmid, Bengel, Storr, Schulz, Huet, BGhme, Stuart, Bleek, 
 Stein, de Wette, Bloomfield, Bisping, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 
 58), Alford, Maier, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, M’Caul, and Hofmann; while the 
 Peshito, Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and 
 almost all later expositors, including also Stengel and Ebrard (Delitzsch is 
 undecided), comprehend uf with é gawouévor, and then interpret this 
 in the sense of ék yy gawouévov.s The latter, in favor of which the supposed 
 parallels which have been adduced prove nothing, is by reason of the posi- 
 tion_of the words (to say. nothing of the fact that ob must have been 
 written in place of “74; for neither 2 Cor. iv. 18, as Delitzsch supposes, nor 
 Rom. iv. 17, as Maier supposes, decides against this rule. See Meyer ad 
 loc.) a grammatical impossibility —ro Bierduevor] that which is seen, or the 
 outward, visible world. The singular represents the same as one complex 
 
 the pjuate Kkataptiver Tove aidvac. 
 
 1Comp. 2 Pet. iii.5; LXX. Ps. xxxiii. 6, 
 exlviii. 5. Philo de sacrif. Abel. et Cain. p. 
 140 D (with Mangey, I. p. 175): ‘O yap @e0s Ae- 
 you Gua eroler, wndev petasv audorv Ties. 
 
 2So still Béhme, Stuart, Bleek, de Wette, 
 Alford, Conybeare, Kurtz, Ewald, M’Caul, 
 Woerner, and the majority of recent exposi- 
 tors. 
 
 3Calvin alone forms an exception, who 
 would have é« blended together with datvo- 
 wévwv into a single word, and finds the sense : 
 “ut non apparentium fierent visa h. e. spec- 
 tacula,” in such wise that the “doctrina” 
 harmonizing with that of Rom. i. 20 should 
 result: “quod in hoe mundo conspicuam 
 habeamus Dei imaginem.” 
 
CHAP. XI. 4. 671 
 
 whole. 16 BAerduevov resumes under another form only the foregoing rov¢ 
 aiavac, Whereas the emphasis in the negative final clause rests upon the 
 éxk gacvouévwr, Which is on that account preposed.—¢avdueva] are things 
 which appear in outward manifestation, and are perceived by the senses. 
 The expression indicates the domain of the corporal, the material, and 
 there underlies it the conception that the universe did not spring forth by 
 the power of nature from earthly germs or substances, but was created by 
 the mere word of God’s omnipotence. In this is contained, it is true, the 
 conception of the creating of the world from nothing. [Cf. 2 Mace. vii. 
 28.] The opinion of Estius, Schlichting, Limborch, Michaelis, Baum- 
 garten, and others, that the author, with a reference to Gen. i. 2 (specially 
 after the translation of the LXX.: 7 68 y# qv adpatocg Kai akatackevacToc), 
 thought of a visible arising of the worlds out of the invisible chaos already 
 existing, has for its presupposition the erroneous transposal of the pj & 
 into é« wf, and fails to maintain itself in presence of the fact that the 
 yeyovévar éx gawopuévor, as antithesis to the foregoing katypriobar pjuate Feod, 
 must receive from this latter its nearer defining of signification. Quite 
 untenable is consequently also the opinion of Delitzsch, who, with the 
 assent of Kluge and Kurtz, supplements 441’ é« voyrév as opposition to 
 py ék dacvonévev, and in connection with the uy dawéueva—or if uA is com- 
 bined with the verb, in connection with the tacitly assumed opposite of 
 the gavéueva—imagines the author to have thought, in harmony with the 
 Philonian doctrine, of the divine ideas, out of which the world is supposed 
 to have sprung, in that they were called forth by means of the divine 
 word from their seclusion within the Godhead into the outer phenomenal 
 reality. See against this also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 59, Obs. 
 Ver. 4 [On Vv. 440, see Note LX XVII., pages 695, 696.] The example 
 of Abel. Comp. Gen. iv. 3 ff—IIiore:] belongs to the whole statement : 
 Tieiova . . . Sem. The conjoining of the same merely with zAeiova (Bisping) 
 has against it the analogy of the following instances, and would weaken 
 the force of the emphatically preposed iors. The dative, however, 
 indicates, as Rom. xi. 20 and frequently, the cause or occasion. See Winer, 
 p. 202 f. [E.T.216.] By reason of his faith (or because he had faith) Abel 
 offered to God a greater sacrifice than Cain ; i. e. the faith of Abel, which was 
 wanting to Cain, was the cause that in the estimation of God Abel’s 
 sacrifice had greater value than that of Cain.—zieiova Suoiav] a greater 
 sacrifice, namely, in a qualitative respect, thus a better, more excellent one. 
 Comp. iii. 3; Matt. vi. 25, xii. 41, 42, al. The quantitative acceptation 
 (Valla: plus hostiarwum; Erasmus, Clarius: copiosiorem hostiam ; Zeger : 
 abundantiorem] finds no point of support in the narrative of Genesis, and 
 would unsuitably accentuate a purely external feature.—zapa Kdiv] is by 
 Grotius and others made equivalent to apa tiv tov Kaiv, which is 
 admissible, it is true, but not at all necessary. On zapa after the com- 
 parative, see at i.4.—dv’ 7 Euaptupydy evar dixavoc] By it he obtained the 
 testimony that he was righteous.—dv 7c] sc. tistewc, not Yuvoiac (Cramer). 
 For the ziotvc is the main idea in the whole description, and 6’ je 
 zuaptupyon manifestly glances back at év ‘ratty éuaptupydyoav, ver. 2.— 
 
672 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 éuaptupy3y.]| [LXXVII a.] Of whom? Not of Christ, by virtue of the 
 declaration Matt. xxiii. 35 (Primasius, Faber Stapulensis, Justinian), but 
 of God ; as, accordingly, the author himself adds, more nearly defining 
 the éuaprupydy: paptrpoovtog ii roig Shporg abtod Tov Seor] in that, namely, 
 God gave testimony in respect of his offerings. What is meant is the 
 testimony given in the fact that God looked with satisfaction upon Abel 
 and his sacrifice (comp. LXX. Gen. iv. 4: kai éreidev 6 Bede én "A Ber 
 Kai éxt toi¢ daporg avrov), thus, in point of fact, recognized him as a dixacoc 
 (comp. Matt. xxiii. 85: " ABeA tov dixaiov, and 1 John iii. 12).—xai 6? abrije 
 arovavav éte Aadei] and by virtue of the same (namely: his faith, not: his 
 sacrifice) he yet speaks after his death—azo8avév] is a purely parenthetic 
 member: although he has died, and forms with rc 2aAe7 an oxymoron. 
 Hardly is it in accordance with the intention of the author to comprehend 
 in one adrobavev and dc’ airy. In addition to the ordinary one, this 
 explanation also is proposed by Oecumenius, in referring the pronoun 
 back to the 8veia by which the violent death of Abel was occasioned; it 
 is followed by Bengel, with the difference that he supplements 6’ aizijc 
 by riorewc, and will have dd taken in the sense of xara or év.—érc] is not 
 the temporal: still, adhuc} so that 2a2e7 would signify: he speaks to us 
 of himself and his faith or piety,? or: he summons posterity to the imita- 
 tion of his faith.? Rather is érz employed, as Rom. iii. 7 and frequently, 
 in the Jogical sense, and serves for the emphasizing of the contrast: “even 
 being dead,” or: “notwithstanding he is dead, he nevertheless speaks,” 
 while Aa/ez is to be regarded as the more vividly descriptive praesens 
 historicum (Winer, p. 250), [E. T. 266] and is to be referred to the thought 
 that the shed blood of Abel called to God for vengeance, and God, listen- 
 ing to this cry, was concerned about the slain Abel, as though he were 
 still living. For manifestly, as appears also from the parallel xii. 24, there 
 is an allusion in 2a/¢7 to the words, Gen. iv. 10: gwry aivatec Tov adeAdod 
 cov Boa mpbc pe EK THC Yyijc. 
 
 Vv. 5, 6. The example of Enoch. Comp. Gen. v. 21-24.—Tliore: ’ Evy 
 peterédy] By reasopof his faith Enoch was caught away; 7.e. even during his 
 lifetime was, like Elijah (2 Kings ii.), caught up to God in heaven.t—row 
 pa ietv Savarov] not consecutively [so that], de Wette, Bisping, al., but 
 indication of the design of God: ‘that he should not see or undergo death 
 (comp. Luke ii. 26).—xad oby yipioxero, didte perédnev avrov 6 Sedc] derived 
 verbally from the LXX. of Gen. v. 24, as given in the text of the Cod. 
 Alex.—rpd yap ... yiverar; ver. 6] It is related in the Scripture concern- 
 ing Enoch that he was acceptable to God. But this presupposes that he 
 had faith. For to obtain God’s approbation without the possession of 
 
 1Theodoret: wéxpe Tod mapovTos. 
 
 2 Theodoret: 70 dé ére AaAct avTi TOD aoiduos 
 EOTL EXPL TOD TapoVTOS Kat TOAVOPUAANTOS Kai 
 Tapa TavTwv evpywetTar Tov evoeBov ; Heinsius, 
 Bengel: loquitur de se et sui similibus con- 
 tra Cainos, al. 
 
 3Chrysostom : 6 yap mapa.v@v Tots addAots b- 
 Kalots eivat, Aadec ; Corneliusa Lapide, Valck- 
 
 enaer, Kuinoel, Paulus, Klee, Bloomfield, and 
 others. 
 
 *Comp. Ecclus, xliv. 16: ’Evax evnpéornce 
 KUPL® Kal mETETEOH UVTddeEryma LETAVOLas Taic yeE- 
 veats; ibid. xlix. 14: ov8é eis exriaOn vlos Evax 
 TOLOUTOS ETL THS YS; Kal yap avTos aveAnhOn aro 
 Ths yns; Joseph. Antig. 1.3. 4: avexwpnoe mpos 
 To Oecov. : 
 
CHAP Xl 5=7. 673 
 
 faith is impossible.'—rpo r7¢ petadécewe] [LXXVII b.] may be equally 
 well conjoined with peyapripyray,? or with ebapeotyxéva.? In the former 
 case the sense is: before mention is made in the Scripture of his rapture, 
 the testimony is borne to him in the same, that he pleased God.— 
 evapeotnkévat] By eimpéotyoev the LXX. translate the Hebrew yam: 
 DTNM-AN and he walked with God, 7.e. in communion with God, as His 
 most devout worshiper.—Ver. 6 is a truth of wholly universal application, 
 so that only éoriv is to be supplemented to ddivarov. With Er. Schmid, 
 Limborch, Wetstein, and Schulz, to regard the first hemistich of the verse : 
 Xopic dé Tiotewe adbvatov evapectqoal, AS a special statement respecting 
 Enoch, is grammatically inadmissible, since in that case Awpic dé riorewe 
 adivatov #v avTov evapectioa OY Xwpi¢ dé wictews adivatov avTov evapEoty- 
 kévae must have been written.—ebapecrjca] sc. 76 eG, naturally under- 
 stood from that which precedes and follows. The infin. aorist expresses, 
 as in the case of the immediately succeeding motevoa, the pure verbal 
 notion, without regard to the relation of time. See Kihner, IT. p. 80.— 
 6 mpooepxouevoc TO Yew] is he who approaches God, sc. to worship Him; 
 comp. vil. 25, x. 1. Wrongly; Luther, Calov, Wittich, Rambach, Schulz, 
 Ebrard (transl.): he who (as Enoch) will come (or is to come) to God.—ir« 
 éorw] that he is, or exists. Arbitrarily importing. Jac. Cappellus: “Series 
 sermonis suadet, ut suppleamus 6rz éoriv abrod dedc, i. e. qui accedit ad 
 Deum, credere debet eum esse suum Deum.” But also the complement- 
 ing the verb by: “that He exists as one to whom man can draw near 
 with confidence, as the truly living, personal, almighty, all-wise, all- 
 beneficent One” (Bleek), is an unjustifiable act of reading into the text. 
 The expression contains only the idea of existence.—kai] still dependent 
 upon 671.—wodarodéry¢] reconypenser, sc. for the piety manifested in the 
 éxcyteiv avtév (Rom. iii. 11; Acts xv. 17). 
 
 Ver. 7. The example of Noah. Comp. Gen. vi. 8 ff.—Ilicrev] is conjoined 
 by Schulz, Stengel, and others with ypyuaticdeic. But Xpnuatioteic forms 
 only a subsidiary element for the making up of the historic situation, 
 whereas that by which Noah proved himself a model of faith is specified 
 by evAaBnbeic Kaxeokebacev. riorer is therefore, as is also done by most, to be 
 combined with this last—ypyuatioteice rept tov Hndéxa BAeTouévwr] belongs 
 together (against Grotius and Hofmann, who unnaturally construe rep? rav 
 pndérxa Brew. With ebAaBySeic): instructed by an utterance of God concerning that 
 which was as yet invisible. The choice of the expression was conditioned by 
 the definition of ziorzc, laid down ver. 1, and the subjective negation wydéra 
 means: concerning the well-known (76,7) events, before these were yet to 
 be seen, or their occurrence was to be conjectured. By 7a pndérw Brerd- 
 eva, however, is meant not only the impending flood, but also, from the 
 use of the plural, the determined destruction of the whole corrupt race 
 ofmen. With strange inversion of the sense, even “ipsa «Bwré¢ constru- 
 
 1Chrysostom: mas 8 miorer bmeteTEeOn 0 ?Piscator, Owen, Huét, Bleek, de Wette 
 "Evwyx 5 OTe THs weTabecews H evapéaTnats aitia, Conybeare, Delitzsch, Kurtz, Hofmann, ai. 
 THs dé evapeatycews H Tatts. *Schlichting, Bengel, Maier, and others, 
 
 43 
 
674 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 enda ” is reckoned by Bohme as belonging to that “ qualem ante nunquam 
 vidisse Noachum facile credi potest.” For the ark was surely something 
 which was made by Noah himself at the command of God, whereas by ra 
 undéxw BAeroueva can be only meant that which, independent of human 
 activity, rested in the hands of divine omnipotence alone.—<i/afySeic] in 
 devout precaution, in that he reposed unconditional belief in the word of 
 God, and on that very account took the enjoined measure of preparation 
 in order to remain in safety under the impending destruction. Vatablus, 
 Cornelius a Lapide, Schulz, and others explain: in the fear of God. But 
 the roy vedv therein to be supplemented (comp. Ecclus. vii. 29; Prov. ii. 
 8, xxx. 5; Nah. i. 7) could hardly have been omitted.—v jc] refers not to 
 owrnpiar,' nor yet to xBwrdv,? but to riorev,3 as the foregoing main idea; and 
 kat THO... KAypovédmog is the second member of the relative clause, 
 not, however, as Bisping and Delitzsch think, parallel to the xateoxebacev.— 
 6 xécnoc] denotes the unbelieving sinful world of men. This Noah con- 
 demned (too weak the rendering of Heinrichs: put to shame) by his faith, 
 namely, by the act, in that he set forth the culpability of its conduct by 
 the contrast of his own conduct. Comp. xataxpivew, Matt. xii. 41, 42, Luke 
 xi. 81, 32, and x«pivew, Rom. i. 27.—kai tHe Kata riot dixawobvag éyéveto 
 KAnpovéuoc] [LX XVIIe, d.] Allusion to the fact that Noah is the first who 
 in the O. T. is expressly called p'"¥ or dixavoc (Gen. vi. 9).A—7 kara rioriv 
 dixaocivn] is the righteousness obtained in accordance with faith, or by the way 
 of faith. Since the notion of ziorc¢ is different with the author of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews from that of Paul, the righteousness of faith here 
 spoken of cannot, as is still done by BOhme, Bleek, Delitzsch, Alford, and 
 others, be regarded as identical with the righteousness of faith in the 
 Pauline sense. Yet Bleek is perfectly right in saying that the notion: 
 righteousness of faith, “here appears as one already formed, and is presup- 
 posed as one well known, a fact very easy to be explained from the rela- 
 tion in which the author of the epistle stood to Paul.” —xAypovéduor yiveodar] 
 denotes no more than to obtain as a possession. We have not, with Jus- 
 tinian, Bengel,,Huét, and many, to press the form of expression; as 
 though the dicaiocbvy were thought of as actual inheritance, which Noah 
 had received as coming down from the fathers, Abel, who in ver. 4 had 
 been called dixavoc, and Enoch. 
 
 Vv. 8-10. The example of Abraham. 
 
 Ver. 8. [LX XVII e.] A proof of believing confidence in God it was that 
 - Abraham at God’s command wandered forth without knowing whither. 
 Comp. Gen. xii. 1, 4; also Acts vii. 2, 3.—é kadobuevoc] is not: “he who is 
 called Abraham, whereas, namely, he formerly bore the name of Abram ” 
 
 1 Hunnius, Balduin, Pareus. tan, Wolf, Bengel, and almost all modern 
 2Chrysostom: édeéev avtods agiovs svTas expositors. 
 KoAdgews, of ye ovde Sia THS KaTacKEVTS ETw- 4Comp. Ezek. xiv. 14, 20; Ecclus. xliy. 17; 
 
 povigovro; Oecumenius, Theophylact, Faber 2 Pet. ii. 5. Philo also, de congressu quaerendae 
 
 Stapulensis, Calvin, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, eruditionis gratia, p. 437 B (with Mangey, I. p. 
 
 Grotius, Carpzov, Cramer, Michaelis, Bisping, 532), lays special stress upon this particular: 
 
 al. mpatos 5 obtos Sikatos ev-Tats tepais aveppyOn 
 3 Primasius, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Caje- —- ypagats. ’ 
 
CHAP; XT. 8=10; 675 
 
 (Theodoret, Clarius, Zeger, Bisping, Ewald, al.), which would be a very 
 tame addition. It signifies: “Abraham, who was thereto (sc. to the 
 éfeAeiv) called or summoned by God.” That this sense could have been 
 expressed only by kadotwevoc without the article (Bleek, Delitzsch, Reiche, 
 Comm. Crit. p. 108; Maier, Moll, Kurtz), can hardly be maintained. The 
 only difference between the two modes of expression is, that with the 
 article the xaAsio9a is merely stated as an historic fact ; without the article, 
 on the other hand, is at the same time represented as a cause of the iaxobew. 
 The participle present, moreover (not «Ay¥eic), is chosen in order to accen- 
 tuate the immediate sequence of the kadeioda: and the iaxobew.—eic rérov 
 év x.7.A.] namely, to Canaan.—zoi] inexactly used, instead of roi. Comp. 
 Winer, p. 439 [E. T, 471].—On the indicative Ep yer a1, see Winer, p. 279 f. 
 [E. T. 298]; Buttmann, p. 218 [E. T. 254]. 
 
 Ver. 9. A proof of a believing confidence in God was it further that Abra- 
 nam dwelt as a stranger in the land which was promised him asa possession. 
 —raporeiv] in classic Greek of dwelling beside or in the neighborhood ; in Hel- 
 lenistic, however, ordinarily as here : to dwell as astranger ina land, without 
 rights of citizenship or possession. Even in Genesis the sojourning of 
 Abraham and his sons in the promised land of Canaan is designated as a 
 tapoixeiv, and they themselves are characterized as réporxo: in the same ; 
 comp. Gen. xvii. 8, xx. 1, xxi. 23, 34, xxiii. 4, xxiv. 87, xxvi. 3, XXviil. 4, al. 
 —eic] receives into the idea of a permanent dwelling that of a previous 
 migration. Familiar breviloquence. See Winer, p. 386 [E. T. 414].—dc 
 addorpiav] Comp. Acts vil. 5, 6.—év oxyvaic Karouhoac] Theophylact: dep 
 Tav sévwv éoTi, TOV GAdotE sig dAAO pépoc peTaBarvdvtwv dia Td bey Exew te idcov. 
 Comp. Gen. xii. 8, xiii. 3, xviii. 1 ff., xxvi. 25, al.—pera "Ioadx kat Tax 
 «.t.4.] which Theophylact, Bengel, Béhme, Kuinoel, Tischendorf, and 
 others refer to rapgxycev, belongs, as is shown by the singular é&edéyero 
 with which the author continues at ver. 10, to «atovfoac.—Isaac and 
 Jacob, however, are called heirs with him of the same promise, because 
 the promise was given to Abraham not for himself alone, but at the 
 same time for his seed; comp. Gen. xiii. 15, xvii. 8. 
 
 Ver. 10. Inner motive for the ziore: rapsskyoev, ver. 9. His believing 
 expectation was directed not s6 much to earthly possession, as to the pos- 
 session of that which was higher and heavenly. His true home he 
 thought not to find upon earth, but only in heaven.—rjv rode Geyedioug 
 éxovoav 6A] the city which has the foundations, firm and enduring city. The © 
 opposite to the tents, which form only a temporary lodging, and may be 
 easily broken up and carried away. What is meant is not the earthly Jeru- 
 salem (Grotius, Clericus, Dindorf), to which the author, considering the 
 excessive attachment of his readers to the earthly city of God and the 
 earthly sanctuary, could only have alluded most unsuitably, but the arche- 
 type of the same : the heavenly city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, of which 
 the possession for the Christians also is as yet something future, since 
 they will obtain a dwelling therein only at the epoch of the consummation 
 of the Messianic kingdom. The idea of a heavenly Jerusalem was already 
 current among the Jews its descent to earth was expected on the arising of 
 
676 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 the Messiah.! From the Jews this conception passed over to the Christians, 
 in so far as that which the Jews expected at the first arising of the Messiah 
 was placed by the latter in the time of the return of Christ. Comp. further 
 vv. 18-16, xii. 22, xiii. 14; Gal. iv. 26; Rev. iii. 12, xxi. 2 ff. 10 ff.—je 
 rexvitne Kai dnuwovpydc 6 Gedc] of which the designer and artificer (creator) 
 is God. dnpcovpyéc in the N. T. only here, as in the O. T. only 2 Macc. 
 aval: 
 
 Vv. 11, 12. The example of Sarah. 
 
 Ver. 11. Kai airy appa] even Sarah herself, sc. although she had before 
 been unbelieving. At first, namely, when she had received the divine 
 promise that she should yet bear a son, she had, in consideration of her 
 great age, laughed thereat, and thus manifested unbelief; presently after- 
 wards, however, she was afraid, and denied her laughter, had thus passed 
 over from unbelief to belief. Comp. Gen. xviii. 12,15. Erroneously is 
 the enhancing xai avr# interpreted by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
 lact, Bengel, BGhme, Stein, Tholuck (the last-named, however, undecided): 
 even Sarah also, the wife, or: although she was only a woman; Kurtz: 
 “ Sarah herself and no other,” namely, not Hagar. Just as false the inter- 
 pretation of Schlichting, Schulz, and others: even Sarah herself, although 
 she was barren. To the last mode of supplementing points also the gloss 
 oreipa, OY oreipa otoa, OY 7 oTeipa, Which is found, with Theophylact, in 
 some cursives, translations (including Vulg.), and early editions. Quite 
 wrongly will Delitzsch, followed therein by Alford and Hofmann, have no 
 gradation whatever recognized in kai airy Zappa, in that he supposes kai 
 avth to serve only for extending a like statement to a second subject, and 
 consequently placing the first mother of the chosen race side by side with 
 the first father thereof. If the author had wished to express nothing 
 more, he would have written merely xa? Zappa. For airé¢ or ait is in 
 the N. T. never used in the nominative for the unaccented he or 
 she. See Winer, p. 141, Obs. [E. T. 150].—eic¢ karaBorgy onépparoc] 
 for the founding of a posterity. «ataBoarg is employed, therefore, in 
 the same sense,as in the expression xatafor7y Kéouov, iv. 8, ix. 26, and 
 onéppa, as- ver. 18, ii. 16, and frequently. The words cannot denote ; 
 she received power to conceive seed, as is interpreted by Chrysostom, Oecu- 
 menius, Theophylact (who, however, is undecided), the Peshito, Vulgate, 
 Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Er. Schmid, 
 Grotius, L. Bos, Wolf, Bengel, Carpzov, Schulz, Heinrichs, Huet, Stengel, 
 Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Kurtz, and others. For this must 
 have been expressed by cic irodoyiv (abAAnyuv) oxépyatoc.? Constrained 
 and unnatural, however, is also the explanation, first mentioned by Theo- 
 phylact, and subsequently adopted by Drusius, Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, 
 
 1See Schéttgen, de Hieros. coelesti, in his with which, however, more meaning must be 
 Hor. Hebr. p. 1205 ff.; Wetstein, NV. T. II. p. put into eis cataBoAyv omépuaros than can Lie 
 229 ff.: Ewald, Comm. in Apocal. pp. 11, 307. in the expression, and which has in other re- 
 2Michaelis and Storr would therefore, in spects much in the context against it. See 
 writing kat avr Zappa, refer the state- Bleek, II. 2, p. 767 f. 
 ment, ver. 11, still to Abraham, in connection 
 
CHAP xa MTs. 677 
 
 Heinsius, Wittich, Rambach, and others: she received power for the bring- 
 ing forth of seed.—kai rapa xarpov wckiac] and that contrary to the favorable 
 period of life, i.e. since the divayw AauBavew, on account of the youthful 
 freshness being already lost, was opposed to all probability. Incorrect, 
 because in that case the full signification of kxa:péc (opportunitas) is not 
 brought out, Delitzsch : “in contradiction with the time of life, namely, 
 the ninetieth year, in which she was.”—érel miordv iyfjoato tov émayyeldd- 
 uevov] comp. xX. 23. 
 
 Ver. 12. The wondrous result of the faith displayed by Sarah.—éyev46r- 
 cav] sc. through Sarah as mother and ancestress. yiveo@az, of being born, 
 usual also elsewhere in classic (Xen. Cyr. i. 2.1, al.) and Hellenistic Greek 
 (Rom. i. 3; Gal. iv. 4, al.).—ag’ évéc] from one, namely Abraham. Wrongly 
 does Carpzov apprehend évé¢ as a neuter, in that he will have it supple- 
 mented by orépuatog or aivaroc. Just as wrongly Zeger: “vel ab uno 
 Abrahae et Sarae corpore (juxta illud: Erunt duo in carne una).” !—xat 
 taita] and that too, and more than that. According to Winer, p. 153 [E. T. 
 162], equivalent to «ai rovro. But the plural is, no doubt, placed because 
 the author has in his mind, besides the vevexpwouévov eivac of Abraham, 
 also that remarked in ver. 11 with regard to Sarah (her former unbelief 
 and her advanced age).—vevexpwuévov] has reference to the dead power of 
 generation, as Rom. iv. 19.—Of one were born even as the stars of heaven in 
 regard to number, i.e. of one were descendants born innumerable in multi- 
 tude as the stars of heaven. A supplementing of éxyovo or avOpwra (so 
 still Bleek) is, moreover, unnecessary. The comparison of the multitude 
 of descendants to the stars of heaven, and the countless sand upon the 
 sea-shore, is based upon the use of the same figures in the words of the 
 promise given to Abraham; comp. Gen. xiii. 16, xv. 5, xxii. 17, xxvi. 4, 
 xxxil. 12; Ex. xxxii. 13; Deut. i. 10.—yeidoc] for shore occurs also with the 
 classics, and that in prose equally (Herod. ii. 94; Polyb. iii. 14. 6, and fre- 
 quently) as with the poets (Hom. J/. xii. 52). Comp. also Plin. xxxi. 2: 
 Herba in labris fontis virens; Caes. de bello Gall. vii. 72: ut ejus (fossae) 
 solum tantundem pateret, quantum summa labra distabant. 
 
 Vy. 13-16. General observations with regard to the forementioned 
 patriarchs. 
 
 Ver. 13. Kara riotw] [LX XVII f.] is ordinarily (by Bleek, too, in the 
 larger commentary) conjoined exclusively with azé#avov. According to 
 this, the dying comformably to faith, in distinction from the faith already 
 manifested during life, would become the main idea of the verse, and the 
 participial clauses would be made to contain the proof for the xara riotw 
 arofaveiv. The sense would be: “they died in faith (not in sight), since 
 they had not received the promises, but only saw them from afar,” ete. 
 (Bleek). Against this apprehension of the words, however, decides the 
 subjective negation “#4 before AaBévrec, instead of which (particularly in 
 the case of the opposition following with 4244, see Kiihner, IT. 408) the 
 
 1Comp. already Theodoret: ’Ad’ évds tod ovdx amaptnoducba’ Eaovtar yap, dyciv, oi Sve 
 ABpadu ei SE Kai audorepous Eva vojnoarmer, eis Gapka pilav. 
 
678 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 objective negation ov must have been placed. We have therefore, with 
 Schulz, Winer p. 376 [E. T. 403]), Moll, Bleek, Vorles. p. 434, Kurtz, 
 Ewald, to refer kara riotw to azxédavov in close comprehension of the 
 latter with the participles. The sense is: In accordance with faith these 
 ali died without having received the promises, but as those who, ete. ; 7. e3 
 it was comformable to the nature of faith that they, without having at- 
 tained to the possession of the promised blessings themselves, beheld them 
 only from afar and greeted them, and witnessed the confession that they 
 are strangers and pilgrims upon earth.—oiro: ravrec] is referred by Oecu- 
 menius, Theophylact, Primasius, Ribera, Justinian, Drusius, and Bloom- 
 field to all the before-mentioned persons, from Abel onwards, with the 
 single exception of Enoch. Nevertheless, as is evident from the contents 
 of the following verse, only those among them can have been thought of 
 to whom promises were given, thus Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob. 
 Comp. specially ver. 15.—y) AaBdvrec] see at vi. 15.—ra¢ érayyeAiac] in the 
 objective sense, as tiv éxayyediav, ix. 15.—rdppobev] belongs equally to 
 aoracayevor as tO iddvtec.—dordleoda] joyfully greet or welcome, as the 
 traveler the longed-for journey’s end. Comp. Virg. Aen. iii. 522 sqq.: 
 
 Quum procul obsecuros colles humilemque yidemus 
 Italiam. . . . Italiam laeto socii clamore salutant. 
 
 —kal édpuoroyhoavrec, bre Eévor Kai raperidnpuol stow éni tic yic| Reference to 
 the utterances of the patriarchs in the Book of Genesis, particularly xxiii. 
 4, where Abraham says to the children of Heth: répocxoc kai maperidyuoc 
 éyo eis we iuov, and xlvii. 9, where Jacob, in addressing Pharaoh, de- 
 scribes his own life in general as a pilgrimage: ai juépac tov érov THe Coe 
 foov, a¢ TapokO, éExatov TpidKxovta ery} 
 
 Ver. 14 ff. That the patriarchs are févor al raperidyuor, they have them: 
 selves confessed ; that they were so éx rye yc, the author has added by 
 way of more nearly defining. The legitimacy of this exposition of their 
 words he now proves (ver. 14 . . . érovpaviov, ver. 16). By those utter- 
 ances the patriarehs declare that they have not already a country, they 
 are only seeking it. If, now, they had set their hearts upon an earthly 
 country, they would certainly have had time and opportunity enough to 
 have returned to that which they had left, but this they did not; they 
 must thus have longed for a heavenly country.—éu@avifovew] Theodoret : 
 dnAovorv. Oecumenius and Theophylact: deccviovew.—érityreiv] ardently to 
 seek or desire something. 
 
 Ver. 15. Kai] and indeed.—pvyyovetew] is taken by the majority in the 
 intransitive sense: to be mindful (xiii. 7). More naturally, however, may 
 we understand it, with Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Moll, Kurtz, and others, 
 transitively : to make mention, sc. in the utterances to which the author has 
 
 1Comp. LXX. Ps. xxxix. 13, exix.19; 1 Pet. Ding. p. 331 © (I. p. 416): Aca rodro ot Kata 
 ii. 11; Philo, de Agricult. p. 196 E (with Man- Mwiojv copot mavtes eEiaayovTa TapoLKoUVTEs* 
 gey, I. p. 310): mapotxety ob Katoukeiy HAPomED" ai yap TovTwY Wuxal oTéAAOVTAL MEV aToLKiaF 
 7® yap OvtTe Taca méev WuxH cohov matpida wéev 6y mote tTHv && ovpavod. 
 ovpavov, gevnv Se ynv Edaxev; De Confus. 
 
CHAP. xi. 14-18. 679 
 
 respect. Comp. ver. 22; 1 Thess. i. 8.—elyov av] they would have had. The 
 imperfect of the continuing possibility. 
 
 Ver. 16. Nov dé] the logical: but now. Comp. vill. 6.—épéyeodai tivoc} 
 elsewhere in the N. T. only 1 Tim. iii. 1, vi. 10.—0:é6] wherefore, sc. on 
 account of their seeking after the heavenly country.—ted¢ émxadreiodac 
 aitov] Epexegesis to aitobc: God is not ashamed of them, namely, to be called 
 their God. Reference to Ex. ili. 6: kai citer" éyo eis 6 Ved¢ Tov maTpd¢ cov, 
 Vede ’ABpadp Kal Fede "Ioadx Kai Gedo "IaxHB. Comp. ibid. vv. 15, 16.—The 
 ovK émacoybvetac «.t.A, presupposes the idea of an intimate communion 
 of God with the patriarchs. Comp. also Matt. xxii. 31 f.; Mark xii. 26 f.; 
 Luke xx. 37 f. The fact instanced in proof of this communion is added 
 in the concluding words: jroivacev yap avtoig réAw] for He has prepared 
 for thema city. By the +éAcc¢ is again meant, as ver. 10, the heavenly 
 Jerusalem. jroiuwacev, however, may equally well signify: He has pre- 
 pared it for them, that they may one day possess the same as a dwelling (Schlich- 
 ting, Grotius, Owen, Caloy, Bohme, de Wette, Delitzsch, Hofmann), as: He 
 has already conferred it wpon them as a possession (so Braun and Bleek). 
 
 Vv. 17-19. The author returns once more specially to Abraham, in that 
 he further, by way of addition, dwells on the most distinguished act of 
 faith on the part of this patriarch, that he had not refused at God’s behest 
 to offer his only son asa sacrifice; comp. Gen. xxii. 1 ff—zpocevgvoxev] not: 
 ‘he was on the point of offering,” against which stands the perfect. It 
 can only signify: he offered (made an offering of). The author could thus 
 express himself, since the offering was really intended by Abraham, 
 although it afterwards came, it is true, to a bloodless issue. Comp. Jas. il. 
 Q1: ’ABpaauw . . . avevéynac "Ioaak tov vidv avtov emi Td YuvovacTHpiov.— 
 reppatouevoc] when he was tempted, i.e. was put to the test by God with 
 regard to his faith. Comp. Gen. xxii. 1. recpaféuevoc belongs still to 
 xpocevivoxev, not, as Hofmann quite unnaturally requires, to tpocégepev.— 
 kal Tov povoyery ...omépua, ver. 18] Unfolding of the greatness of the act. 
 It was (1) his only son whom he gave up, (2) the son whose life was neces- 
 sary, if the promises given to Abraham were to receive their fulfillment.— 
 kai] and of a truth.—rov povoyer7] No respect is had to Ishmael, since he 
 was not of equal birth, and stood outside of all relation to the divine 
 promises.-—pocégepev] here the imperfect; since the author now presents 
 to himself, as though he were a spectator, the act of the offering itself— 
 6 tac éxayyeAiac avadeEauevoc] he who had believingly embraced the promises. 
 With Schulz, Heinrichs, Bengel, Ebrard, Bisping, and others, to find indi- 
 cated by avadefduevoc the mere having received, contradicts the ordinary 
 use of the word, instead of which 4aBév must have been placed. 
 
 Ver. 18. Ipdc 6v] not: “of whom” (more accurately: “in relation to 
 whom,” comp. i. 7), in such wise that it should be referred to Isaac (Faber 
 Stapulensis, Luther, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Carpzov, 
 Michaelis, Chr. Fr. Schmid, and others), but: to whom, sc. Abraham.—ore 
 év "Ioadk KAndfoerai co orépua| In Isaac shall a seed be named (called) to 
 thee, i.e. through Isaac shall the posterity, whose forefather thou shalt be 
 called, be founded. The emphasis falls upon év ’Ioad«, and the citation 
 
680 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 is from Gen. xxi. 12. 671, however, which has there causal significance, 
 the author takes as a recitative. 
 
 Ver. 19 contains in its first half the motive ground of Abraham for such 
 believing action. Abraham trusted in the omnipotence of God, by virtue 
 of which he is able, even in presence of the actual sacrifice of Isaac, to 
 realize the promises given to him.—oyiodyevoc, ore «.7.2.] since he judged 
 that God is able to raise even from the dead. The proposition introduced 
 with 67e contains a universal truth. It is erroneous to supplement 
 aitév to éyeipew (Jac. Cappellus, Huét, Kuinoel, Stein, Bloomfield, al.), 
 yet more erroneous to supplement ozépua (Schulz, Stengel).—%ovdev x.7.2.] 
 Declaration of the divine reward for such believing action and such beliey- 
 ing confidence. 6ev means, as everywhere else in our epistle (ii. 17, iii. 
 1, vii. 25, viii. 3,.1x. 18): on which account, wherefore; xapaBorn, 
 [LX XVII g.] however, denotes, conformably to the well-known use of 
 rapaBarAsodac (Hom. Il. ix. 3822; Thue. ii. 44, al. See the lexicons), the 
 imperilling, and forms with the éxouzioaro an oxymoron. The sense is: 
 on which account he bore him away, even on the ground of (or: by means of) 
 the giving up. Abraham obtained Isaac as a reward, received him back 
 again as a possession, by the very act of setting his life at stake, giving up 
 to the death of a sacrifice. This is the simple and only correct sense of 
 the variously explained words.—With this exposition earlier interpreta- 
 tions agree in part, though by no means entirely, so far as 60ev and 
 éxowioato are concerned, but all different in regard to év rapafody. 
 Instead of the causal signification, “on which account,” Calvin, Castellio, 
 Beza, Schlichting, Grotius, Lamb. Bos, Alberti, Wolf, Michaelis, Schulz, 
 Huét, Bohme, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Kluge, 
 Moll, Ewald, Hofmann, and others have asserted for 63¢ev the local sig- 
 nification ‘“ whence, sc. from the dead.” In connection with this, L. Bos, 
 Alberti, Schulz, and Stengel [as also Whitby] understand éxoyuicaro of 
 the birth of Isaac; while Calvin, Bleek, and the majority rightly under- 
 stand it of the deliverance of Isaac’s life in consequence of the prevention 
 of the sacrifice. The former explain: whence he indeed had received 
 him, inasmuch as*Isaac’s parents at the time of his conception and birth 
 were virtually dead. The latter:-as he accordingly also received from the 
 dead. But against the first acceptation decides the fact that in such case, 
 because an event conceived of as possible in the future is placed in defi- 
 nite parallel with a past event, the pluperfect must necessarily have been 
 used in place of the aorist éxouioaro; and then, even apart from this, 
 since all the emphasis would-fall upon éxouicato, the order of the words 
 must have been otherwise, namely as follows: 6¥ev éy rapaBoAqH Kat 
 éxouioato avrév. But also the last-named interpretation is forbidden by 
 the order of the words. For «ai must, in connection, therewith, be 
 referred, as is also expressly required by Schlichting, Bohme, and others, 
 to the whole clause, whereas from its position it can only form a grada- 
 tion of év mapaBo2m; thus 68ev Kai abtov év rapaBorH éxouicato must have 
 been written.—Finally, as regards év cap $o0A%, the signification “in 
 similitudine,” or “in a resemblance,” is attached thereto by Theodore of | 
 
CHAP: XL 19, 681 
 Mopsuestia,' Calvin, Castellio, Beza, Schlichting, Grotius, Jac. Cappellus 
 (figurate), Scaliger, Er. Schmid, Wittich, Limborch, Zachariae, Dindorf, 
 Koppe (in Heinrichs), Huet, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Bloomfield, 
 Delitzsch, Maier, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M’Caul, Hofmann, 
 Woerner, and others. The sense is, according to Bleek: “as accord- 
 ingly he received him from thence in a resemblance; so that Isaac 
 was indeed not really delivered out of death, but yet his deliverance was 
 a kind of restoration from the dead, since Abraham already regarded him 
 as the prey of death.” But this “in a resemblance” is, strictly taken, 
 nothing else than “in a manner,” with which it is also exactly identified 
 by Stengel and others; for the expression, however, of the notion “in a 
 manner,” the author would hardly have chosen the altogether unusual, 
 and therefore unintelligible, formula é xapaZo2#; much more natural 
 would it have been for him to employ instead thereof, as at vii. 9, the 
 familiar o¢ éroc eixeiv. Moreover, since that addition could only be 
 designed to exert a softening effect upon the évev (sc. éx vexpov), it must 
 also have followed immediately after this word. The author would thus 
 have written 69ev, &¢ Exog eixeiv, aitov Kal éxouicato.— Yet more un- 
 tenable is the exposition akin to that just mentioned; as a type (Luther : 
 zum Vorbilde), sc. in regard to the resurrection in general (Hunnius, Balduin, 
 Michaelis, Bohme, al.), or specially in regard to the sacrificed and risen 
 Christ (Primasius, Erasmus, Clarius, Vatablus, Zeger, Calov, Carpzov, 
 Cramer, Ebrard, Bisping, Reuss), or in regard to both alike (Theodoret: 
 Toutéotiy a¢ év ovuBdAw Kal TiTw THE avacTdcewe—éVv aiTa dé mpoeypagn Kat 
 Tov owrypiov Tabovg 6 tixoc). For the express indication of that which was 
 typically represented by this event could not have been wanting —Equally 
 far wrong, because far-fetched and unnatural, is the supplementing of ov 
 to év rapafoam on the part of Bengel (“ Abraham . ipse factus est 
 parabola . . . Omnis enim posteritas celebrat fidem Abrahae, offerentis 
 unigenitum ”), and the explanation of Paulus: “against an equalization,” 
 7. é. in return for the ram presented as a substitute (comp. already Chrys- 
 ostom: tovréotw év brodeiyuatu’ év TH Kp gnow .. . O¢ év aiviyyate’ worTeEp 
 yap mapaor7 qv 6 Kpio¢ tov "Icadx).—To the interpretation of év rapaBoAy, 
 above regarded as correct, several expositors approach, to the extent of 
 likewise thinking that we must make the usage with regard to the verb 
 mapapaArecSa Our guide in determining the signification of zapafoA7. 
 They deviate, however, essentially from the above interpretation, in that 
 they take év rapaZorm adverbially, in the sense of rapa3d4uc¢ ; consequently 
 refer the expression, which above was equally referred to subject and 
 object, to the subject, and that without any advantage to the peculiarity of 
 thought.? 
 
 1TovTo A€yet, 6TL akoAovOws EtvXEV TH EavTOD 
 MOTEL” TH Yap avaotacer moTEVoas, Sia cUL- 
 Bodwyv Tiv@v amobavévta avtov éxouicato. To 
 yap €v moAAy Tov Bavatov mpocdoxia yevouevov 
 pydsév mabeiv, Tod adnbGs avaotncomevov cip- 
 Bodov jv, dcov Tod Oavatov mpds Bpaxd yevod- 
 
 pevos, avéotn pndev iro Tod Oavatov Tabuv* 
 70 youv ev mapaBoAy avti Tod ev cuuBdAots. 
 2So Camerarius, who, besides other possi- 
 bilities of apprehension, suggests also this: 
 in that he exposed himself to danger, namely, 
 that of losing his son; Loesner, Krebs, Heine 
 
682 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Ver. 20. The example of Isaac. Comp. Gen. xxvii—lTliore: wai] xai is 
 the more nearly defining: and in truth, and in sooth. A faith was mani- 
 fested in the imparting of the blessing, by the very circumstance that this 
 benediction extended with inner confidence to facts as yet belonging to 
 the future.1 Comp. Theodoret: 0b yap av rae oby dpwpévac EMuwxev evdoyiac, 
 el uy Toig Adyowe axoAovOgoew TO Epyov éxiorevoev.mrepi peAAdvTwr] Concerning 
 things as yet future, zi. e. concerning the future lot of his two sons, and the 
 pre-eminence of the younger son over the elder.—Jacob, the younger son, 
 is here first mentioned, since he was first blessed by Isaac, and was alto- 
 gether of greater significance for the history of the people. 
 
 Ver. 21. The conduct of Jacob, Gen. xlviii., analogous to the fact adduced 
 ver. 20. Here, too, the blessing related to the future, and in like manner 
 as ver. 20, to the pre eminence of the younger son (Ephraim) over the 
 elder (Manasseh).—azodvioxwv] when he was dying. Reference to Gen. 
 xlvil. 81: idob &@ arodvioKo.—Kai mpocexbvycev emi Td axpov THe paBdov 
 aitov] and he worshiped (bowing) upon the top of his staff, i.e. in that from 
 weakness he supported himself with his face resting upon the top of his 
 staff. Addition from LXX. Gen. xlvii. 81 (inexactly referred to this 
 place), for the bringing out of the solemn, devotional frame of Jacob 
 in uttering this benediction [the same spirit being breathed in xlix. 18]. 
 In the Hebrew the words read: NWBT wNI-Dy Dw INAV (7. e. accord- 
 ing to Tuch: “ and Israel leaned back upon the head of the bed; but, more 
 correctly, according to Knobel: “ and Israel bowed himself upon the head of 
 the couch, inasmuch as he had before, during his conversation with Joseph, 
 been sitting upright upon his couch (comp. xlviii. 2), but now leaned for- 
 ward to the upper end thereof, and blessed God for the granting of the 
 last wish ”). The LXX., however, read the vowels 109, and their trans- 
 lation was followed by our author in this passage as elsewhere. Strangely 
 does Hofmann perceive in the subordinate particular kai pooexivycev 
 «7.4, a “second thing” adduced as proving the faith of Jacob. The 
 first is, according to him, Jacob’s last testament, the second his departure 
 from life (!).—The supposition that +6 *Iwo4#¢ is to be supplemented to 
 Tpooekvvycer,? is, equally, with the view akin thereto, that airod is to be 
 referred to ’Iwo#¢, and éri ‘rd dkpov tHE PaBdov airod is to be 
 regarded as the object to tpocewtvycev to be rejected as untenable. 
 The first-named has against it the fact, that in that which precedes, the 
 discourse is not of Joseph himself, but of his sons; the latter, that the 
 
 richs: in summo discrimine, map’ édAmidsa, 
 tmapadoéws; Raphel: praeter spem praeterque 
 opinionem ; Tholueck: in bold venture. 
 
 1 How Delitazsch has been able so greatly to 
 misunderstand the above words as to read in 
 them the assertion, that mept pedAAdvtwr is to 
 be combined with zwepi cai instead of nvAdyn- 
 aev, I do not comprehend. 
 
 2So Chrysostom: rouvtégtt Kai yépwv oy 75 
 mpogekiver T@ “lwonh, THY TavTos TOU Aaov 
 mpogkirvyna SyA@v Thy ecomerny av’toa; Theo- 
 
 doret, Photius in Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
 and others. 
 
 3So the Vulgate: et adoravit fastigium 
 virgae ejus; Primasius: virgae ejus i. e. vir- 
 gae Jos.: Oecumenius: togodTor .. . emiarevae 
 TOLS EGOMEVOLS, OTL Kai mMpogEKUYHGE TH PaBdw, 
 Sox@v opav ta éooueva; Clarius, Bisping, 
 Reuss: “Jacob, after having received the 
 oath of Joseph, bowed (s’inclina) towards the 
 head of the latter’s staff, in tcken of submis- 
 sion, that is to say, in order solemnly to 
 
CHAP. XI. 20-23. 683 
 making of éxé re a note of object to rpockvveiv is opposed to all the usage 
 of the language. 
 
 Ver. 22. The example of Joseph. Comp. Gen. 1. 24, 25. Firm faith, that 
 the promise already given to Abraham (Gen. xv. 18-16) should be ful- 
 filled, was it that Joseph, when he was near to death, gave direction as to 
 that which should be done with his bones at the time of the accomplish- 
 ment of that promise.—redevrdv] the same as azodvyoxwv, ver. 21; the 
 choice of the expression was called forth by Gen. 1. 26: kai éredeirycev 
 "Iwofi¢.—repi] in connection with prvypovevecv, which as at ver. 15 signi- 
 fies to make mention, stands instead of the bare genitive, after the analogy 
 of pracda epi toc. See Kiihner, II. p. 186, Obs. 1—j é£odog tov vidy 
 "Iopay”] the (future) departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt.—épryyus- 
 vevoev kai . . . évereiAaro] Form of parallel arrangement ; while, as regards 
 the matter itself, the second member as an accessory point is subordinated 
 to the first member as the main point. 
 
 Vv. 23-29 the author passes over from the patriarchs to Moses, dwelling 
 upon aseries of facts in the history of the latter which bear a typical 
 character. First— 
 
 Ver. 23 he points to the faith manifested by the relatives of Moses at 
 the time of his birth. Comp. Ex. ii. 2. The special beauty of the new- 
 born child awakened in them the belief! that God had chosen him for 
 great things and would be able to preserve his life, and in this belief they 
 hid the child in opposition to the commandment of the Egyptian king. — 
 bro tov zatépwr] i.e. by his parents.2 Bengel understands zarépec of the 
 still living ancestors of Moses (“a patribus, id est a patre [Amram] et ab 
 avo . paterno, qui erat Kahath”’), and he is followed by Chr. Fr. 
 Schmid, BOhme (yet with wavering), and others; while Stein, who ex- 
 pressly rejects both explanations, wonderfully supposes “the mother,” 
 together with “a few concurring friends, who as it were took the place of 
 parents,” to be intended. In the Hebrew, Ex. ii. 2, the xpirrew is predi- 
 cated only of the mother; the LXX., however, with whom the author 
 agrees, have: éCKéeTacCaV avTd pRvac TpEIC.— 
 aoreiov] fair and graceful in form. Theophylact: dpaiov, 7% bwWee yapiev. In 
 the Hebrew stands 230 —«ai obx ego BHdnoav 7d didtayya TOV BacAéwc] might, 
 on account of the plural oi« édoBy79 car, be considered, together with 
 eldov, in Opposition to the passive éxpi7, as still dependent upon ééru. 
 But more logically exact is the taking of the words, as also is mostly done, 
 as a parallel to éxpi37. For much more natural does it appear that the 
 author wished to represent that «pizrew as an act from the accomplish- 
 ment of which fear did not deter, than that he should think of fearlessness 
 
 3 a <7 oe eee 
 tOdvTec d& avTd aoTeior, 
 
 acknowledge Joseph as head of the family. 
 The staff is the symbol of power;” and others. 
 
 1Kurtz is in a position to add further par- 
 ticulars on this point, inasmuch as he sup- 
 poses the “ presupposition” is to be derived 
 from the state of things narrated, “that a 
 special divine admonition spoke to the 
 parents out of the eyes of the child.” 
 
 2For this elsewhere unusual employment 
 of watépes, Wetstein aptly directs the reader 
 to Parthenius, EHrot. 10: Kvuavunmos ets ém- 
 Ovutav Acvkavyns €AOwv, Tapa ToY TaTépwy 
 aiTnoamevos avTny nyayeTo yuvaika, as well as 
 to the Latin patres, Stat. Theb. vi. 464: Incer- 
 tique patrum thalami. 
 
684 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 as the motive cause of that action.—rd didraypa tov Baovdéwe] the command 
 of Pharaoh, to drown all new-born male children of the Israelites. Comp. 
 Ex. 1. 22. 
 
 Vv. 24-26. Progress from the child Moses to the adult Moses. méyac 
 yévouevoc, namely, corresponds (comp. Ex. ii. 11) to the yevvydeic, ver. 
 23, and uwéyac is to be understood not of worldly power and honor 
 (Schulz, Bretschneider), but of being grown up.'—joviaaro RéyeoSar] refused 
 or disdained to be called.—S8vyatpéc] not ri¢ Svyarpéc is placed (as Ex. ii. 5 ff.), 
 since the author combines Svyarodc with @a0aé into one single (more 
 general) notion : of a Pharaoh’s daughter, i.e. of an Egyptian royal princess. 
 
 Ver. 25. Justificatory explanation of the jpvfoaro, ver. 24: in that he 
 preferred to suffer evil treatment with the people of God, in place of possessing a 
 temporary sinful enjoyment.—parAov aipsiodac 7] in Holy Scripture a drat 
 Aeyouevov; in profane literature, on the other hand, of very frequent occur- 
 rence. Instances in Wetstein—The compound cvykaxovyeiodac only 
 here; the simple form « axkovyeio 3 ac alone (ver. 87, xiii. 8) is found else- 
 where.—r@ Aa@ tov deov] see at iv. 9.—rpédcxapov ardAavow] an enjoyment 
 only temporary, of brief duration, se. of the earthly joys of life. Contrast 
 to the enjoyment of everlasting blessedness.—ayapriac] not genit. objecti 
 (Theophylact, Schlichting, Schulz, Stein, Stengel, al.), but genit. auct.: 
 Enjoyment, such as (the committing of) sin affords. By duaoria is 
 meant apostasy from God, by the abandoning of the communion with the 
 people of God. [LXXVII h.] 
 
 Ver. 26. Indication of cause for ver. 25, in such wise that Jyyodmevoc, 
 ver. 26, is subordinated to the paAdov éAduevos, ver. 25.—rdv dvediopdy Tov 
 Xpiotov] thereproach of Christ. That signifies not: the reproach for Christ's 
 sake, which he endured, namely, by virtue of the hope in the Messiah 
 (Castellio, Wolf, Carpzov, Béhme, Kuinoel, Bloomfield, and others). 
 For by the mere genitive this notion cannot be expressed. The sense is: 
 the reproach, as Christ bore it, inasmuch, namely, as the reproach, which 
 Moses took upon him to endure in fellowship with his oppressed people 
 at the hand of the Egyptians, was in its nature homogeneous with the 
 reproach which Christ afterwards had to endure at the hands of unbe- 
 lievers, to the extent that inthe one case as in the other the glory of God 
 and the advancement of His kingdom was the end and aim of the endur- 
 ing. - Comp. Tov oveWonov- avTov .dépovtec, Xill. 18, and ra radjuata rod 
 Xpiorov, 2 Cor. i.5; as also ra torepjuata Tov PAinpewv tov Xpiorov, Col. i 24.— 
 anéBherev yap ei¢ tiv jucarodociar] for he looked stedfastly to the bestowal of 
 the reward. The determining ground for his action.—a70BAézecv in the 
 N. T. only here.—} picdarodocia is the promised heavenly reward, the 
 everlasting salvation ; comp. vv. 39,40. Unsuitably does Grotius limit the 
 expression to the promised possession of the land of Canaan. 
 
 Ver. 27 [LX XII i.] is referred either to the flight of Moses to Midian 
 (Ex. ii. 15), or to the departure of the whole people out of Egypt2 Only 
 
 1Comp. viii. 11; LXX. Gen. xxxviii. 11, 14; 2The former supposition is favored by 
 Hom. Od. ii. 314, xviii. 217, xix. 532. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theo-: 
 
CHAP. xI. 24-27, 685 
 
 the opinion first mentioned is the correct one. Against it, indeed, the 
 objection appears to be not without weight, that Ex. ii. 14 a ¢oBndjva of 
 Moses is spoken of, whereas here, by means of py ¢oB7Seic «.7.2., the 
 opposite is asserted. But the contradiction is only an apparent one. For 
 in the account of Exodus a fear on the part of Moses is mentioned only in 
 the objective relation, whereas the fearlessness, which the author of our 
 epistle intends, belongs purely to the subjective domain. Moses was 
 alarmed that, contrary to his expectation, the slaying of the Egyptian had 
 already become known, and apprehended as a consequence being exposed 
 to the vengeance of the king, if the latter should obtain possession of him. 
 On this very account also he took steps for the saving of his life, in that 
 he withdrew by flight from the territory of Pharaoh. With this fact, 
 however, it was perfectly reconcilable that in the consciousness of being 
 chosen to be the deliverer of his people, and in the confidence in God, in 
 whose hand alone he stood, be felt himself inwardly, or in his frame of 
 mind, raised above all fear at the wrath of an earthly king. There is 
 therefore no need of the concession (de Wette), that the author of the 
 epistle, when he wrote down his 7) ¢0fSeic, did not remember the words 
 égoBHdn dé Moiojc, Ex. ii. 14. But just as little is it permissible, with 
 Delitzsch, to press the expression xaréAumev, chosen by the author, and 
 to assert that karadcweiv expresses the repairing hence without fear, 
 whereas ¢v yeiv would denote the repairing hence from fear. The author 
 might also have written without difference of signification—what is denied 
 by Delitasch—iore: édvyev cic yav Madiau, uy d0BnSeic Tov Suudv tod Bacz- 
 Aéwe.—The referring, on the other hand, of the statement, ver. 27, to the 
 leading forth of the whole people, is shown to be entirely inadmissible— 
 (1) from the consideration that, in the chronological order which the 
 author pursues in the enumeration of his models of faith, the departure of 
 Israel from Egypt could not have been mentioned before the fact on which 
 he dwells in ver. 28, but only after the same; (2) that to the departure 
 of the people out of Egypt the expression karéAurev (sc. Mwioge) Atyurtov 
 is unsuitable ; (8) finally, that according to Ex. xii. 31 that departure was 
 commanded by Pharaoh himself; in connection with the departure, 
 therefore, any fear whatever at the wrath of the king could not arise.—rév 
 yap adpatov o¢ dpav éxaptépyoer] for having the invisible (God) as it were before 
 his eyes, he was strong and courageous. tov adpatov oc dbpav belongs 
 together, and rév aéparov stands absolutely, without, what is thought 
 most probable by B6hme, as also Delitzsch and Hofmann, our having to 
 supplement BaoAéa to the same. Contrary to linguistic usage, Luther, 
 Bengel, Schulz, Paulus, Stengel (wavering), Ebrard combine rév adparov 
 
 phylact, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Hetnsius, Calvin, Piscator, Schlichting, Grotius, Owen, 
 Calmet, Bengel, Michaelis, Schulz, de Wette, Caloy, Braun, Baumgarten, Carpzcv, Rosen- 
 Stengel, Tholuck, Bouman (Chartae theolog muller, Heinrichs, Huét, Bohme, Stuart, Kui- 
 lib. II. Traj. ad Rhen. 1857, p. 157 sq.), De- noel, Paulus, Klee, Bleek, Stein, Bloomfield, 
 litazsch, Nickel (in Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, Ebrard, Bisping, Kurtz, Ilofmann, Woerner, 
 Marz, p. 207), Conybeare, Alford, Maier, Kluge, and others. 
 
 Moll, Ewald; the latter by Nicholas de Lyra, 
 
686 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 with éxaprépyoev: he held firmly to the invisible one as though seeing Him; 
 according to Ebrard, xaprepeiv riva signifies: “to comport oneself sted- 
 fastly in regard to some one” (!), and the expression of our passage is 
 supposed to acquire a pregnancy in the sense of rdv adparov tidy éxap- 
 répyoev (1). Kaptepeiv te can only denote: stedfastly to bear or undergo 
 something ; kaptepeiv teva, however, cannot be used in Greek. 
 
 Ver. 28. Comp. Ex. xii—Iliore:] in believing confidence, sc. in the word 
 of God, at whose command he acted, that the blood of the paschal lambs 
 would become the means of delivering the Israelities.—rezoinkev 10 rdoya]} 
 he ordained the Passover. In the perfect there lies the characterization of 
 the regulation then adopted as something still continuing in force even to 
 the present. With the notion of the meet ordering of the Passover blends 
 consequently the idea of the institution thereof; although it is true only 
 To waova, not likewise the addition kai rv rpédcyvow Tod aiparoc, is suitable 
 thereto.—xai ryv mpdcyvow Tov aivatoc] and the affusion of the blood. What 
 is intended is the sprinkling or anointing of the door-posts and lintels of 
 the Israelite houses with the blood of the slain paschal lambs, enjoined by 
 Moses at the command of God, Ex. xii. 7, 22 f—rpécyvore] in Holy Scrip- 
 ture only here.—iva jj 6 dAobpebuv ta mpwréroKa Biyy abtov] that the slayer 
 of the first-born might not touch them. By 6 6A0@pebwr, the destroyer, the 
 LXX. at Ex. xii. 23 have translated the Hebrew MMW, the destruction, 
 thinking in connection therewith of an angel of destruction sent forth by 
 God. Comp. 1 Chron. xxi. 12, 15 (ayyedo¢e kupiov éoAoApetwv); 2 Chron. 
 xxxll. 21; Keclus. xlvili. 21; 1 Cor. x. 10 (6 dtofpevtag).—rta mpwrdroxa] 
 Ex. xii. 12: rav rpwréroxov . . . ard avOpdrov &we Krhvove. Comp. ibid. ver. 
 29. We have to construe ra tporéroka With 6 ddoApevwr, not, as Klee, 
 Paulus, Ebrard, and Hofmann will, with 67, since the combination of 
 fyyavew with an accusative is not usual.—ai7év] namely the Israelites. This 
 reference of the air6v was self-evident from the connection, although the 
 Israelites are not previously mentioned. See Winer, p. 138 f. [E. T. 147]. 
 
 Ver. 29. Comp. Ex. xiv. 22 ff—TIlicre] Oecumenius: éziorevoay yap 
 SiaBhocobar Kai déByoav' tocovTov oidev 4 TioTi¢ Kal TA adbvata SvvaTa ToLEIV.— 
 déByoav| namely, the Israelites under Moses.—éc¢ dia Enpac yic] as through 
 dry, firm land. 'The less usual 6/a with the genitive, alternating with the 
 ordinary accusative in connection with d:aBaiverv, Was probably occasioned 
 by the reading of the LXX. Ex. xiv. 29 (oi dé viol "IopaiA éxopetOnoav ded 
 Enpac év péow tho Baddoonc).—co Teipav AaBdvtec of Alyimtiot KaterdAnoav] in 
 the essaying of which the Egyptians were drowned.—jec refers back to tiv 
 épvopav baAaccav, not, as BOhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Stengel, Bloomfield, 
 Delitzsch, Kurtz suppose, to &ypac¢ yye. For the former is the main 
 thought, of which the readers are reminded anew by «kareré3noav, whereas 
 og dia Enpac¢ contains only a subsidiary feature, attached by way of com- 
 parison.—z eipav AauPBavecyv tivéc stands here in the activesense. Other- 
 wise ver. 836—katamtivecdar, however (comp. Ex. xv. 4), is a more general 
 expression for the more definite xararovri{ecSa, which latter (katerov- 
 tiodyoav) is found also in our passage, in some cursives, as likewise with 
 Chrysostom and Theodoret. 
 
CHAP. XI. 30-32. 687 
 
 Ver. 80. The example of faith afforded by the Israelite people in con- 
 nection with the siege of Jericho, Josh. vi.—IIiore:] on the ground of faith, 
 which, namely, the people displayed. Wrongly Grotius, who supposes 
 risrec is to be construed with kuxAwdévra.—érecav] On the plural of the 
 verb with the neuter plur., see Winer, p. 479 [E. T. 514 f.].—nveauoderra] 
 after they (daily with the ark of the covenant, heralded by trumpet blast) 
 had been encircled (incorrectly Schulz, and others: beleaguered).—éni éxra 
 juépac] for seven days, seven days long. Comp. Winer, p. 381 [E. T. 408]. 
 
 Ver. 31. The example of the Gentile woman Rahab, Josh. i1., vi. 17, 22 ff. 
 Her conduct had proceeded from the recognition that the God of the 
 Israelities is a God in heaven and upon earth, and from the confidence 
 thereon based, that this God would lead them to victory. Comp. Josh. ii. 
 9 ff—'PaaB 7 mépvy] Comp. Jas. 1. 25; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. c. 12. The 
 epithet 7 ~épvz7 is to be left in its literal sense. To interpret it, with Jac. 
 Cappellus, Valckenaer, Heinrichs, and others, after the precedent of the 
 Chaldee paraphrase and the Arabian version, by the hostess, or, with Hof- 
 mann, the harlots’ hostess, or, with Braun and others, the heathen woman, 
 or finally, with Koppe (in Heinrichs) and others, the idolatress, is arbitrary. 
 The designation of Rahab as 7% zépvy is an historic characterization, in 
 accordance with Josh. ii. 2, vi. 17 ff, and without any ground of offence. 
 For it has already been rightly observed by Calvin : “hoc (epitheton) ad 
 anteactam vitam referri certum est; resipiscentiae enim testis est fides.” 
 Comp. further, Matt. xxi. 31, 32.—roic arevSjoacu] the inhabitants of 
 Jericho. They had shown themselves disobedient, because they had 
 resisted the people of God (Josh. vi. 1), although not to them either had 
 the mighty deeds of this God remained unknown (Josh. ii. 10).—defayévy 
 Tove KaTaoKérrovg per’ eiphryc] seeing she had received the spies with peace, t.e. 
 without practising acts of hostility towards them, to which she might have 
 been incited by reason of their nationality. 
 
 Vv. 82440. Onaccount of the multitude of models of faith which are 
 still to be found in the O. T., the author must abandon the attempt of 
 presenting them singly to the readers. He relinquishes, therefore, the 
 previous description in detail, and briefly sums up that to which he could 
 further call attention. He mentions first, at ver. 32, another series of heroes 
 of the faith; and then portrays in general rubrics their deeds of faith, and 
 that in such form that ver. 338 .. . dAdo, ver. 35, deeds of victorious faith are 
 brought into relief, and thence to the end of ver. 38 deeds of suffering faith. 
 
 Ver. 82. Kai ri ére Aéyw 5] And to what end do T still speak ? i.e. what 
 need is there yet, after that which has already been mentioned, of a further 
 description in detail? and what end can it serve, since, considering the 
 abundance of the historic material, an exhaustive presentation is surely 
 impossible ?—Aéyw] is indicative. See Winer, p. 267 [E. T. 284].—ér:Aeirew] 
 only here in the N. T.—érideiwer ye yap dujyobuevov 6 ypdvoc. repi Tededv 
 x.t.A.] for the time will not suffice me for relating of Gideon, etc! 6 ypévoc] 
 
 1Comp. Demosth. de Corona, ed. Reisk. p. mpodot@y ovouata; Julian. Orat. 1, p. 341 B: 
 324: emAciber we A€yovTa  HnMEepa Ta TaV emAciWwer me Takeivov Sunyovmevov Oo xpovos. 
 
588 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Oecumenius: 6 ypdvog 6 TH ExtoToAg, dyoiv, dpuddiog Kai olov 4 ovppetpia; 
 Theophylact: soto¢; #7 6 mag’ eipyta dé TovTO, O¢ oivybes iuiv Aéyev, breEp- 
 Borukog’ i 6 Th ExtoTOAH Cbupetpoc.—rept Tededv Kai Bapax x.7.A.] of Gideon, 
 as well as of Barak, etc. That here too, in connection with the correct 
 text, the regard to chronology is not lost sight of, see in the critical 
 remark.—On Gideon, comp. Judg. vi—vill.; on Barak, Judg. iv., v., on 
 Samson, Judg. xiii—xvi.; on Jephthah, Judg. xi. 1-xii.7—The last double 
 member is yet enlarged by the addition kai rév zpodyntdv to Yapovga, 
 because Samuel opened the series of the prophets; cf. Acts ili. 24. 
 
 Ver. 38. O07 did riotewe Katyywvricavto Baocideiac] who by virtue of faith 
 subdued kingdoms. The 61a riorewe with emphasis placed at the head 
 dominates the whole description following, so that it continues equally to 
 sound forth in connection with all the finite verbs as far as repijAov, ver. 
 37.—oi, however, connects in a lax manner that which follows with that 
 which precedes, in so far as, vy. 33, 34, respect is had, in part at least, to 
 yet other persons besides those mentioned ver. 32. As regards the sub- 
 ject-matter, therefore, there would have been more accurately written in 
 place of the mere o¢: “ who with others like-minded.”—kcatayovilecdar 
 further, in the N. T. a ama Aeyduevor, signifies to get the better of or over- 
 power. With Bohme to attach to the same the signification: “to acquire 
 by fighting” (“certamine sibi paraverunt regna; quod nostra lingua 
 succinctius ita dixeris: sie haben sich Herrscherwiirden erkampft”), is 
 opposed to the wsus loquendi.—The statement itself for the rest is true, as 
 of David, who vanquished the Philistines (2 Sam. v. 17-25, vii. 1, 
 xxi. 15 ff), Moabites, Syrians, Edomites (2 Sam. vill. 2 ff), and 
 Ammonites (2 Sam. x., xii. 26 ff.), so also of the four judges, mentioned 
 ver, 32, inasmuch as Gideon smote the Midianites (Judg. vii.), Barak the 
 Canaanites (Judg. iv.), Samson the Philistines (Judg. xiv. ff), Jephthah 
 the Ammonites (Judg. xi.).—eipydcavro Sixaocivyv] wrought righteousness 
 and justice, namely, for their subjects, in virtue of their quality as judges or 
 kings. Comp. roveiv Kpipa Kat dixacooivyv, 2 Sam. viii. 15; 1 Chron. xviii, 
 14; 2Chron. ix. Sal. Too generally Erasmus, Schlichting, Grotius, Schulz, 
 Stein, and others (comp. already Theodoret : roiro kowdv rOv dyiwv dxdvTwr) : 
 they did that which was morally good or pious.—érérexov érayyed1ov] obtained 
 promises, i.e. either: came into the possession of blessings which God had 
 promised them,! or: received words of promise on the part of God? Fither 
 interpretation is admissible. Yet in the first case, that no contradiction 
 with ver. 39 (comp. also ver. 18) may arise, only, what the absence of the 
 article before érayyeAav also permits, blessings and successes of earthly 
 nature could be meant. In the first case, one may think of Judg. vii. 7 
 and the like, while in the second case the words are specially to be 
 
 Parallel is also the Latin: deficit me dies, 1Piscator, Owen, Huét, BGhme, Stuart, de 
 tempus, e.g. Liv. xxviii. 41: Dies me deficiat, Wette, Delitzsech, Alford, Maier, Moll, Hof- 
 si... numerare velim; Cic. pro Rose. Amer. mann, Woerner, and the majority. 
 
 c. 32, init.; tempus, hercule, te citius, quam 2Chrysostom, Theodoret, Schlichting, Pri- 
 oratio deficeret. Further instances (also masius, [Whitby 2], Bleek, Ebrard, Kurtz, at 
 from Philo) see in Wetstein and Bleek. 
 
CHAP. XI. 33-30. 689 
 
 referred to the Messianic promises given to Dayid and the prophets.— 
 Eppasav otouata Aedvtwv] closed the jaws of lions. Comp. with regard to 
 Daniel, Dan. vi. 22 (1 Mace. ii. 60); with regard to Samson, Judg. xiv. 6; 
 with regard to David, 1 Sam. xvii. 34 ff. 
 
 Ver. 34, “EoBecav divayv rupdc] Quenched the violence of fire (fire’s 
 violence).! To be compared is the statement with regard to Shadrach, 
 Meshach, and Abednego, the three companions of Daniel, Dan. iii. Comp. 
 1 Mace. il. 59: ’Avaviac, ’ACapiac, MicanAa mioteboavtec éodOyoay éx oAoy6c.— 
 épvyov atéuata paxaipac] escaped the swordpoints ; e.g. David, comp. 1 Sam. 
 xvill. 11, xix. 10, 12, xxi. 10; Elijah, comp. 1 Kings xix.1 ff.; Elisha, comp. 
 2 Kings vi. 14 ff., 31 f£—évedvvanddycav axd dodeveiac] out of weakness were 
 made strong. These words Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and 
 Theophylact refer to the strengthening of the whole people by liberation from 
 the Babylonian captivity ; Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Schlichting, 
 Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Owen, Heinrichs, Huét, Béhme, Stuart, Stein, 
 Tholuck, Ebrard, and the majority, partly exclusively, partly, among 
 other things, to the recovery of Hezekiah (2 Kings xx.; Isa. XXXVIil.) ; 
 certainly more correct, however, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Bleek, 
 de Wette, Hofmann, to the reinvigoration of the weakened Samson (J udg. xvi. 
 28 ff.).—éyev79noav ioxupot év roAéuw] waxed valiant in battle. Theodoret 
 kal ot mpoppydévtec Kai oi Tov MatraViov raidec Iobdac Kai Tovady¢ kat Sip. 
 That the author was thinking of the Maccabees also, in particular, in 
 addition to the judges and David, is certainly very probable —rapeuBorac 
 fxdwwav addotpiov| Made armies of aliens flinch or give way. Theodoret: 7d 
 av7d dragspwc eipnKkev.—rape pu Body, as NIM, in the signification of army ; 
 likewise Judg. iv. 16, vii. 14; 1 Mace. v. 28, 45, and frequently. With the 
 Greeks this signification of the word is rare.2—«4ivecv, in the sense 
 indicated, is found in Holy Scripture only here. 
 
 Ver. 35. "EAaBov yuvaixec é€ avactdoewe rove vexpode aitov] Women received 
 back their dead (their sons) through resurrection. Those meant are the 
 widow of Sarepta (1 Kings xvii. 17 ff.), whose son was awakened out of 
 death by Elijah, and the Shunammite woman (2 Kings iv. 18 ff.), whose 
 son was raised by Elisha. Far-fetched is the supposition of Biesenthal (in 
 Guericke’s Zeitschr. f. die ges. luther. Theol. u. Kirche, 1866, H. 4, p. 616 ff.) : 
 reference is made to the tradition, preserved to us in the rabbinical and 
 talmudic literature, of the cessation of the dying away of the male popu- 
 lation in the wilderness on the 15th Ab.—Syntactically ver. 35 begins a 
 new proposition (against BGhme, who, as unnaturally as possible, makes 
 the statement éa3ov .. . airév still dependent on oi, ver. 33, and regards 
 yuvaixec aS apposition to oi)—With dAdoc dé, tothe close of ver. 38, the 
 discourse passes over to examples of a suffering faith, which remained still 
 unrewarded upon earth.—a/Aor 62 éryuravio8noav] Others, on the other hand, 
 were stretched on the rack. Allusion to the martyr-death of Eleazar (2 Mace. 
 vi. 18 ff), and of the seven Maccabean brothers, together with their 
 
 1Theophylact: ovx etme 5& EoBeoav mip adda 2Comp., however, Aelian, Var. Hist. xiv. 46: 
 Svvapyiv mupos, 6 Kai pecgov' éfamtomevov yap “Hrixa 6€ eer cvupitar, évtavOa oi mév Kvveg 
 OAws SUvauty TOD Kaley ovK elxe kat’ avtav. mpomydwvTes ETApaTTOY THY TapEeu“BoAnp. 
 
 44 
 
690 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 mother (2 Mace. vii.). tuuzavifeodac means: to be stretched out upon 
 the rivzavov (comp. 2 Mace. vi. 19, 28), an instrument of torture (prob- 
 ably wheel-shaped, Josephus, de Mace. c. 5, 9, 10: tpoyxéc),—to be stretched 
 out like the skin of a kettledrum, in order then to be tortured to death by 
 blows (comp. 2 Mace. vi. 30).—ob rpocdeZauevor] not accepting, i.e since the 
 expression, by reason of the objective negation oi, blends into a single 
 notion: disdaining.—riv axoditpwow] the deliverance, namely the earthly 
 one, which they could have gained by the renouncing of their faith. 
 Comp. 2 Mace. vi. 21 ff., vii. 27 f£—iva kpeitrovog avactacewe Tiywour] that they 
 might become partakers of a better resurrection. Motive for the contemning 
 of earthly deliverance. Comp. 2 Mace. vii. 9, 11, 14, 20, 28, 29, 36, as also 
 2 Mace. vi. 26. xpeitrovoc stands not in opposition to the resurrection 
 of the ungodly unto judgment, Dan. xii. 2,! neither does it form any anti- 
 thesis to é€ dvacrdcewe in the beginning of the verse,? which is too remote ; 
 but corresponds to the ao26Tpwow immediately preceding. A much higher 
 possession was the resurrection to the eternal, blessed life, than the tem- 
 poral deliverance from death ; which latter could be regarded, likewise, as 
 a sort of resurrection, but truly only as a lower and valueless one. 
 
 Ver. 36. Others endured mockings and scourges, yea, moreover, bonds and 
 prison. “E7vepos, in accordance with its verbal signification, introduces a 
 heterogeneous class of heroes of the faith, i. e. a particular species of the 
 ad4o1, mentioned as the genus ver. 35. As regards the subject itself, in- 
 deed, inexact, since, ver. 85, with dAdo d& éruuraviodnoar «.7.2.. reference was 
 made not merely to 2 Mace. vi., but—as the addition iva kpeitrovoc dvacrdcewc 
 Toxwow Clearly shows—at the same time to 2 Mace. vii.; the mention, how- 
 ever, of the scourging along with the mocking seems to admit of explana- 
 tion only from the author’s referring to 2 Mace. vi. 30 (uaortyobmevoc) and 
 vii. 1 (udorige Kai vevpaic aixefouévovc), as indeed the enduring of public 
 mockery is expressly mentioned (in addition tol Mace. ix. 26) at 2 Mace. 
 Vil. 7 (rov debtepov ayov éri Tov guraypdv), and again 2 Mace. vii. 10 (wera dé 
 TovTov 6 tpitoc éverraifero). On the other hand, however, it seems evident 
 that it was the intention of the writer at ver. 36 in reality to draw atten- 
 tion to a dissimilar class of men; from the fact, even apart from the choice 
 of the expression érepor, that in the case of the previous dAAoz dé érupravic- 
 Jyoav k.t.A. We are constrained to think of a death by martyrdom, while 
 at ver. 36 the enhancing érv dé forbids our thinking of the martyr’s death, 
 since, according to this, bonds and dungeon were a more severe trial than 
 mocking and scourging. We must therefore suppose that the author de- 
 signed further to refer to those, as forming a special category, who, with- 
 out suffering actual death, were exposed to other kinds of tortures and 
 miseries; that he still derived, however, the main colors for this new picture 
 
 1Oecumenius: kpe(rrovos ... ot Aotrot Tav yuvacev; Theophylact, who does not, 
 avOpwro y Mev yap avacTagis Tact KoLVy, however, decide; Bengel, Schulz, Boéhme, 
 GAN’ obtor avacrygovtat, dyaiv, cis Cwhv Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Stengel, Ebrard, 
 aiwviov, Kat ovToL eis KOAagLW aiwviov. Comp. Delitasch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 
 Theophylact. 617, Obs. ; Alford, Maier, Kurtz, and others. 
 £Chrysostom: ov rtova’tys, olas Ta madia 
 
CHAP. XI. 36, 37. : 691 
 from the historic figure which but just now had been present to his mind 
 in connection with the éryuraviodycav «.7.2.—The enhancing é7. dé is tobe 
 explained from the fact that éumatyywoi nai waorcyec denotes the more 
 transient suffering, in point of time more brief; decuoi kai gvaakh, on 
 the other hand, the longer enduring sufferings—reipav AauBavew] here in 
 the passive sense: to have experience of something. Otherwise ver. 29.— 
 deouav Kai puAaxyjc] Comp. 1 Mace, xiii. 12; 1 Kings xxii. 27; Jer. xxxvii., 
 XXXVIIL., al. 
 
 Ver. 37. ’EAvddodnoav] They were stoned. To be referred to Zechariah, 
 son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22; comp. Matt. xxiii. 35; Luke xi. 
 51), and probably also to Jeremiah, of whom at least later tradition reports 
 death by stoning.’ Less suitably do Oecumenius, Theophylact, Jac. Cap- 
 pellus, Grotius, and others think also of Naboth, 1 Kings xxi.—éxpiodyoar] 
 were sawn asunder. Death by sawing asunder (comp. 2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 
 Chron. xx. 3) was, according to early tradition, that suffered by Isaiah at 
 the hands of Manasseh, king of Judah.’—érepacdyjoav] were tempted. 
 [LXXVIIj.] This general statement has about it something strange and 
 inconvenient, inasmuch as it occurs in the midst of the mention of differ- 
 ent kinds of violent death. Some, therefore, have been in favor of en- 
 tirely deleting érecpactyoav, in doing which, however, we are not justified by 
 external evidence ;* while others have thought that éecpac@ycav is a cor- 
 ruption, in itself early, of the original text, which latter must be restored 
 by conjecture. It has been conjectured by Beza, edd. 8, 4,5, that we have 
 to read éxvpabyoav ; Gataker, Miscell. 44, Colomesius, Observ. 5, Moll, and 
 Hofmann: éxpfobjoav; Fr. Junius, Paraill. lib. iii., and Piscator: érvpacty- 
 cav; Sykes and Ebrard: érvpiotycav, they were burned Further, Luther 
 (transl.), Beza, edd.1 and 2, Knatchbull, Fischer, Proluss. de vitiis Levic. N. 
 T. p. 588; Ewald, p. 171, read érap6yoav (?), from reipw, they were pierced, 
 transfixed ; Wakefield, Silv. crit. 11. 62: érepadycav, from zepaw (?), they were 
 spitted, impaled ; Tanaq. Faber, Epp. crit. 11. 14, and J. M. Gesner in Carp- 
 20V: éxnpobnoav, they were mutilated ; Alberti: éoreipdcOyoav or éoreipadycar, 
 ‘rom. areipa (?), they were broken on the wheel ; Steph. le Moyne in Gronov. 
 
 (nt. Gr. vil. p. 801: éexpadnoar, they were sold. Others yet other conject- 
 ires; see Wetstein, Griesbach, and Scholz ad loc. Bleek, too, assumes an 
 error in the text, in that he holds a word which signifies “to be consumed, 
 
 
 
 *Comp. Tertull. Scorpiac.8; Hieronym. adv. sion in Erpen., also omits it,—in the Aethiopic 
 
 Jovinian. ii. 37; Pseudo-EBpiphan. (Opp. ii. p. 
 239), al. 
 
 2See Ascens. Jes. vat. vy. 11-14; Justin Martyr, 
 Dial. c. Tryph. 120; Tertull. de Patient. 14, 
 Scorpiac. 8; Origen, Epist. ad African. ; Lact- 
 ant, Institt. iv. 11, al.; Tr. Jevamoth, f. 49. 2; 
 Sanhedrin, f. 103. 2. 
 
 3Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Marloratus, 
 Grotius, Hammond, Whitby, Calmet, Storr, 
 Valekenaer, Schulz, BGhme, Kuinoel, Klee, 
 Delitzsch, Maier, al. 
 
 4It is wanting only.in some cursives, in the 
 Peshito,—whose daughter, the Arabian ver- 
 
 version, which also omits émpic6noav, with 
 Origen (once, as compared with four times), 
 Euseb. and Theophyl. 
 
 5 Reuss, too, regards érupic@yoav [as does 
 Conybeare érvpac@ycay] as the most likely 
 conjecture, but regards it, likewise, as pos- 
 sible: “que le éwe:pac@yoav dans le texte 
 vulgaire ne fat qu'une conjecture trés super- 
 flue, destinée 4 remplacer le mot émpic@noav 
 (ils furent sciés), parce que l’Ancien Testa- 
 ment ne fournit pas d’exemple de ce dernier 
 supplice.” 
 
692 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 to perish by fire,” as éxpjodyoay, which is found with Cyrill. Hieros., and in 
 Codd. 110, 111 for éxpiodyoav, or érvpiodyoav, or even one of the forms more 
 commonly employed for the expressing of this idea,—éverpjodyjoav and 
 évervpiodyoav,—to be the original reading, and then supposes the author 
 perhaps to have thought once more of martyrs under the tyranny of An- 
 tiochus Epiphanes, 2 Mace. vi. 11, vii. 4 f.; Dan. xi. 33, al. Similarly 
 Reiche, Commentar. Crit. p. 111 sqq., who leaves open the choice between 
 éxphodnoav and érvpodyoav.—lf éerecpadcdnoav is genuine, it must have 
 been added by the author for the sake of the paronomasia with ézpicdjcar, 
 and be referred to the enticements and temptations to escape a violent 
 death by means of apostasy (comp. e. g. 2 Mace. vii. 24).—év ¢6v@ wayaipac 
 arédavov] died by slaughter of the sword. Comp. 1 Kings xix. 10: rove zpo- 
 oyrac cov aréktewav év pougaia; Jer. XXVi. 23; Kai éxdtagev aitov év payaipa 
 (namely, the prophet Urijah). For the expression é ¢6vy uayaipac, 
 comp. LXX. Ex. xvii.18; Num. xxi. 24; Deut. xiii. 15, xx. 13.—repi7- 
 Jov ... tHe ye, Ver. 88, now further emphasizes the fact that the whole 
 life of the last-named class of the heroes of faith was one of want and dis- 
 tress.—repij7Adov év pnhwtaic, év aiyeiow dépuacw] refers specially to single 
 prophets. Comp. Zech. xiii. 4.2—zepijAdov] they went hither and thither, 
 without being in possession of a fixed dwelling-place. Theophylact: 76 dé 
 repijAVov Td dioKecSat avTov¢ dyAoi Kai dorateiv.— év] in, 7. e. clothed with.— 
 év pndwraic, év aiyeiow Séppacw] in sheep-skins, in goat fells. The latter, as 
 designation of a yet rougher clothing, is an ascent from the former, and 
 on that account placed last. 747%, the hide of smaller cattle in gen- 
 eral, and specially of sheep. A yyAor? is mentioned as the garment of 
 Elijah, which, on his being caught up to heaven, he left behind to Elisha, 
 1 Kings xix. 18, 19; 2 Kings vill. 18, 14.—iorepobpevor, FALBduevor, Kaxovyobpe- 
 vor] in want (sc. of that which is necessary for the sustenance of life), afflic- 
 tion, evil-treatment (comp. ver. 25). 
 
 Ver. 38. ‘Qv ovk qv aoc 6 kéopoc] Men, to possess whom the (corrupt) world 
 (ver. 7) was not worthy3—év] goes back to the subject in repijAdov, ver. 37. 
 In a forced manner Bohme (as also Kuinoel, Klee, and Stein): it points 
 to that which follofvs, and the sense is: oberravisse illos in desertis tales, 
 quibus vulgus hominum, ut esse soleat, pravum ac impium, haud dignum 
 fuerit, quocum illi eodem loco versarentur. Not less unnaturally does 
 Hofmann:look upon éy ob« Hv a&wo¢ 6 Kéouog as Only a following definition 
 
 1Comp. also Philo, ad Flace. p. 990 A (with 
 Mangey, II. p. 542): KateAvO@nodv tives (se. 
 Alexandrine Jews, by Flaccus) kat GavrTes 
 oi péev évempyoOnacay oi S€ dia peéons 
 KaTecvpyoay ayopas, Ews OAa Ta THMATA AVT@V 
 eSarrav7yOn. 
 
 2Also Clemens Romanus, ad Corinth. 17: 
 Mipynral yevwomeda Kakeivwy, oitives ev Séppaciv 
 aiyelo.s Kal MyNAWTals TEpLeTAaTHTAY, KnPYTOOV- 
 Tes Thy éAevotv TOU XpioTov’ A€youev Se HALav 
 kai ’EAtooator, éte 5€ kai “leGextyA Tovs mpo- 
 oyras. 
 
 8Theophylact: Ovx« éxete, Pyocv, eimeiv OTe 
 ajLapTwAoL OVTES TOLAUTA ETATKOV, AAAG TOLOUTOL, 
 olor Kai TOU KOGMOovV avTOD TiiwTEpoL ecivat. 
 
 Calvin: Quum ita profugi inter feras vaga- 
 
 bantur sancti prophetae, videri poterant in- 
 digni, quos terra sustineret. Qui fit enim, ut 
 inter homines locum non inveniant? Sed 
 apostolus in contrariam partem hoe retorquet, 
 nempe quod mundus illis non esset dignus. 
 Nam quocunque veniant servi Dei, ejus bene- 
 dictionem, quasi fragrantiam bcoi odoris, 
 secum afferunt. 
 
CHAP. XI. 38—40. 693 
 
 of subject to repijASov, in that he begins a new section of the discourse 
 with zeppAdov. To a yet greater extent, finally, has Carpzoy missed the 
 true interpretation, when, taking ov as a neuter, he supplies kaxov (borep7- 
 cewr, Aipewv), and gives as the sense: quorum indignus malorum erat 
 mundus. Id est: tam crudelibus affecti sunt suppliciis, ut illa mundo in- 
 digna sint; ut orbem terrarum non deceat, tam horrenda ac ¢oSeporara de 
 eo dici—*v épyuiae TAavepuevor K.t.2.] wandering in deserts and wpon moun- 
 tains, and in caves and the clefts [clifts] of the earth. Comp. 1 Kings xyviil. 
 AIS xi 4468.9. 13-01. Macewls 25,20) 2 Mace, x2 (,.Vie LL ox. 6: 
 
 Vy. 39, 40. General remark in closing.—Kai o770. ravtec] And these all. 
 Refers back to tie totality of the persons named, from ver. 4 (not merely, 
 as Schlichting, Hammond, and Storr suppose, to those mentioned from 
 GAroe dé, ver. 85).—paptupydévtes dua tHe Tiotewc] although by virtue of their 
 faith they received a (glorious) testimony (in Scripture).—ovK éxopioavto tiv 
 érayycriav] did not bear away the promise (wrongly Ebrard: the aorist stands 
 “pro plusquamperf.”), 7. e. attained not, so long as they lived, to the pos- 
 session of that which was promised, namely, the Messianic blessedness. 
 
 Ver. 40. [LX XVII &.] The ground for the obx éxouicavto tiv éxayyediav lay 
 in the decree of God, that those believers should not apart from us attain 
 to the consummation.—rovd Geod repi judv Kpeitrov te TpoBAepauévov] God 
 having, with regard to us, foreseen (pre-determined) something better.—rpo- 
 B2éxew] in the N. T. only here.—On account of the emphatically preposed 
 rept 74@v, Which forms the contrast to otro. mayrec, ver. 39, Kpeittév Te 
 cannot be placed absolutely : “Something better than would otherwise have 
 been our portion ” (Schlichting, Seb. Schmidt, Huét). With this thought, 
 moreover, iva nu) yopic Juav reAewSaow would not have been in keeping, 
 since, instead thereof, iva ody abroi¢ TehewIGuev must have been written. 
 The sense can only be: in regard to us something better than in regard to 
 them. In regard to us something better, inasmuch as when they lived the 
 appearing of the Redeemer as yet belonged to the distant future, and was 
 an object of longing desire (Matt. xiii. 16 f.; Luke x. 238 f.); but now 
 Christ has in reality appeared, has accomplised the redemption, and pres- 
 ently after a brief interval will return, to bring to full realization the Mes- 
 sianic kingdom with all its blessings of salvation. Comp. x. 25, 36 f—iva 
 uy xopic judv tedewaow] Declaration of the divine design: that they not 
 without us should attain to the consummation. Without us, 2. e. without our 
 having entered into the joint participation in the consummation, they 
 would have attained to the consummation, if Christ had already appeared 
 in their time, and so they had already attained during their lifetime to the 
 possession of the promised Messianic bliss. For then we should not have 
 been born at all; since, according to the declaration of the Lord (Matt. 
 xxii. 30; Mark xii. 25; Luke xx. 35 f.), in the consummated kingdom of 
 God a marrying and being given in marriage will no longer take place. 
 
694 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 Lax XV. Vink. 1. 
 
 (a) The definition of faith, which is given in this verse, is, as Liem. remarks, not 
 an exhaustive one, and it is, undoubtedly, not intended to be so. It sets forth only 
 that element or characteristic of faith which the subject under discussion suggests. 
 There is no evidence, therefore, in this verse, that the writer did not have the 
 same view of faith which Paul had. Indeed, Paul’s idea of faith was that of trust; 
 and this, in relation to the unseen and unrealized things of the future, is, and must 
 be, just what this author here says: conviction and assured confidence. Had Paul 
 discoursed upon the subject of this epistle and moved along the line of this writer's 
 general plan, he might well—not to say, must—have expressed himself in sub- 
 stantially the same way. The evidence against the Pauline authorship of the 
 epistle is not to be found in the Christian ideas which it presents, but in the style 
 and plan, the rhetorical character and modes of expression, the points, in a word, 
 which justify what Origen says—that the vojyata are the Apostle’s, but the 
 @paoie Kai oivb_eore belong to another. The author was a Pauline disciple, who 
 had no new system of thought, but who wrote his epistle by and for himself. He 
 was Apollos, rather than Paul. 
 
 (b) The two peculiarities of the things revealed by the N. T. system, as related 
 to stedfast perseverance, are that they are objects of hope (being uot yet realized), 
 and that they are unseen. Faith, as the thing demanded by the N.T. system, has 
 that which answers to each of these peculiarities :—it is i7éoraovc in the former 
 aspect, and éAeyyoc in the latter. The meaning of these two words is thus made 
 clear. inéaraoe is confidence (comp. ili. 14), and éeyxo¢ is conviction. That this is 
 the true interpretation is confirmed by the fact that, inasmuch as faith is subjective 
 to the mind, the things which are declared to be equivalent to or descriptive of it 
 must also be subjective. The rendering of éAeyyoc by A. R. V., « conviction (Liinem. : 
 a firm inner persuasion) is, accordingly, to be preferred to the renderings given by 
 R. V. text, the proving, and R. V. marg., the test. 
 
 LKXVI. ‘Vv. 2:3. 
 
 & . 
 
 (a) That the author’s design in the remaining verses of the chapter is to 
 illustrate the nature of faith, as thus defined, and as that in the sphere of which 
 the iroyovh, or stedfast endurance, is to be maintained to the end, is evident both 
 from the ydp of ver. 2 and the opening verses of ch. xii. The yép of ver. 2 covers in 
 its force the sentence which fills that verse. As the persons referred to in all the 
 ~ following verses, however, are included in the “ elders” who are mentioned in this 
 sentence, the force of this yap extends, in thought, to the end of the chapter.—(6) 
 It is noticeable that ver. 3 follows the general statement of ver.2. It would seem, 
 therefore, that the author must have intended, in some way, to bring this verse 
 within the historic review of the O. T., and to give it, in some sense, a parallelism 
 with the individual cases or records which follow. As de W. remarks: On open- 
 ing the book of examples (the O. T.) he did not find, indeed, an example of faith 
 at the very beginning—as he did afterwards in the record—but a proof of the 
 necessity of faith. For this or a kindred reason, we may believe that he intro- 
 duced this verse into his list of illustrations-—(c) The inaptness which Liinem. 
 finds in the insertion of this verse is not to be especially insisted upon, because— 
 
 = —— 
 
NOTES. 695 
 
 although the movement of faith here is not precisely in the line of that in the 
 following verses—the fact, that even with reference to the beginning of all earthly 
 things we can only have conviction of the unseen, lies directly in the course of prov- 
 ing the necessity of continuing in faith, which is the fundamental thought of the 
 entire passage in its relation to what precedes and follows.—(d) ei¢ 76 is taken by 
 Liinem. in the telic sense, and probably rightly. It does not appear to be so 
 clear, however, that elc 76 with the infinitive always, and necessarily, has this 
 sense, and not the ecbatic, as it does in the case of ue with the subjunctive. &¢ 
 suggests the end of motion, and this may convey the idea of the result, as well as of 
 the purpose.—(e) wh belongs, as Liinem. takes it, with the whole object-sentence. 
 “In all that we see with our sense, of re-creation and reproduction,” says Alford, 
 “+5 Brerduevov éx garvouévov yéyovev, The seed becomes the plant; the grub the 
 moth. But that which is above sight, viz., faith, leads us to apprehend, that this 
 has not been so in the first instance: that the visible world has not been made out 
 
 of apparent materials.” 
 
 LXXVII. Vv. 440. 
 
 In these verses the following points may be briefly noticed :—(a) éuaprupydn 
 (ver. 4). This verb seems here, and in the other cases where it is used in this 
 chapter, to refer to the testimony given or implied in the O. T—(b) The words 
 mpo TH¢ wetatécewc (ver. 5) may, indeed, be connected either with “eyaprvpyrac 
 or with evapeotyxévac. As it seems to be of no moment, however, to the author’s 
 purpose to state the time of the O. T. testimony, that Enoch was well-pleasing to 
 God—whether this testimony was given, in the record, before or after his transla- 
 tion ;—hut is of consequence, that his pleasing God, which involved faith, was the 
 cause of his translation, as shown by the O. T. declaration that the former 
 preceded the latter—the connection with evapeotyxévar is to be preferred. The 
 point of the author’s thought, in all cases, seems to be that the O. T. witness was 
 given and still remains, but not that it was given at one period or another in the 
 history of the person to whom reference is made.—(c) The reference of the phrase 
 dixavoobvyc Kata riotw to the thought suggested by the words of x. 38, which is 
 the starting-point of this chapter, can hardly be overlooked. The allusion to 
 Gen. vi. 9. where Noah is called righteous, is also probable. The similarity of 
 the expression to the Pauline 6x, é« ior., and yet the difference in respect to the 
 preposition, will not fail to be noticed by all careful readers. We must determine 
 the question as to the writer’s idea in the use of this phrase in view of these 
 points. It may be remarked, 1. that though it does not seem absolutely necessary 
 1o give to dxavoobvy here the Pauline sense—i.e. the condition of being declared 
 right by God as before His tribunal,—the suggestion of x. 38, as the author 
 employs the words of that verse, is, nevertheless, favorable to this sense ; 2. that 
 the contrast with the verb xaréxpivev, which is, to say the least, hinted at, favors 
 the same meaning; 3. that the striking similarity to the Pauline phrase is most 
 easily explained by giving 6x. this sense; and 4. that the use of «Ajpovouoc adds 
 some force to the previous considerations. We may say, therefore, either that the 
 writer’s idea coincides with that of Paul, or, if this be not certain, that it pre- 
 supposes’ the existence of the Pauline doctrine—(d) The fact that the author 
 uses Kata riot, and not é« miorewc, and the fact that he does not use the phrase 
 with reference to Abraham, are both to be accounted for in the same way. He is 
 not discussing the doctrine of justification, hut presenting circumstances in the 
 
696 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 history of O. T. saints which indicated their trust in God, through their confidence in 
 things hoped for or a conviction respecting things not seen. The prominent acts 
 of Abraham’s life evidencing his faith, rather than the statement that he was 
 justified by faith, were adapted to impress the thought of iovovf in the line of 
 faith on the minds of the readers.—(e) From the history of Abraham the four great 
 facts are selected, which were especially connected with the covenant and salva- 
 tion :—his obedience to the call of God, his sojourning in the land of promise, the 
 birth, and the sacrifice of Isaac. With the birth of Isaac, Sarah is mentioned, as 
 an additional illustration of faith. The presentation of the case of Abraham is so 
 truly Pauline in its suggestions, that the Pauline influence on the author’s think- 
 ing can scarcely fail to be noticed. But the turn of the discourse is all towards 
 his hope of the future and faith in the unseen, not towards his justification. —( i) 
 The explanation of kata vio (ver. 13) given by Liinem.,, is the correct one: 
 namely, that the words qualify, not azé¥avov only, but that verb in union with 
 the participles. The phrase seems, more probably, to mean in accordance with— 
 as equivalent to: in the line of faith they died, with a greeting of the promises 
 from afar, than as implying that their thus dying was (so Liinem.) conformable 
 to the nature of faith. The insertion of vy. 13-16 before ver. 17 is, not improb- — 
 ably, to be explained by the fact that, to the author’s mind, the beginning of the 
 development of the plan of salvation was at the deliverance of Isaac from death. 
 This was the starting-point of a new history, and, before turning to it, he sums up, 
 as it were, the heroic elements of the faith of the earliest saints. 
 
 (g) mapaBoay of ver. 19 is hardly to be explained, with Liinem., as connected 
 with tapafaAAecda, in the sense to expose to danger, because of the doubt as to 
 whether the noun ever has this sense in Greek usage previous to this writer’s 
 time, and certainly does not anywhere else in the N. T. It is, however, favored 
 by Grimm (Lex N. T.), and, if the meaning imperilling or giving up can be allowed, 
 the explanation of the «ai is more simple and easy than with any other meaning. 
 If we adopt the ordinary sense of the word, we may here understand it as 
 equivalent to figure, rather than parable. But it is more than o¢ éroc eimeiv.— 
 (h) The expressions tpécxaipov aréAavow apyaptiac (ver. 25) and Tov dvewWiopydv 
 tov Xpiorov are, apparently, used from the standpoint of the writer’s time and 
 thought—dyapria being connected with the idea of apostasy (Liinem.) and the 
 reproach of Christ being regarded as overflowing, as it were, upon the saints of 
 former ages; as, in Col. i. 24, His sufferings are ponesined of as passing over, in a 
 sense, to believers—(7) The reasons presented by Liinemann in favor of the sup- 
 position that in ver. 27 the writer refers to Exod. ii. 15, though not decisive, are 
 so strong as to lead to its adoption. —(j) The presence of the general word 
 érespacdyoav (ver. 37) in the midst of a series of special words, is in accordance 
 with what we find in similar lists in Paul’s writings (comp. Rom. i. 29 ff. Gal. 
 v. 22 f.), and is an evidence that the writer’s intention was not to classify with 
 care, but simply to give emphasis by multiplying words.—(k) Ver. 40. The 
 explanation of this verse is suggested by the following points:—l. The better 
 thing is contrasted with not receiving the promise—it would seem, therefore, 
 to be the fulfillment of the promise in the full N. T. revelation and salvation. 
 2. If they had received it, they would have been perfected without us. The 
 writer, accordingly, seems to conceive of the whole work as having been con- 
 summated and “the end of the world” as having come, in the -opposite case 
 supposed, before the time of the readers—so that they would not have lived. 
 
CHAP. XII. 697 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 VER. 2. Kexddixev] Elz.: éxaddcoev, But the perfect, adopted into the Editt. 
 Complut. Genev. Plant., as also by Bengel, Griesb. Matth. Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, 
 Tisch. Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche, and others, has the preponderant attestation of 
 all the uncials, most cursives, and many Fathers in its favor ; and is likewise pre- 
 ferable on internal grounds, since it represents the having sat down as a result 
 extending into the present time.—Ver. 3. In place of the Recepta ei¢ aitév or 
 ei¢ avrév, which has the support of D*** K L, almost all the cursives and 
 many Fathers, there is found ei¢ avtrove in R*** with Theodoret (rd ei¢ aitoig 
 avri row ei¢ éavrovc), and in Cod. 17; eic éavtobc, however, in &*, in the Peshito 
 (quantum sustinuerit a peccatoribus, qui fuerunt adyersarii sibi ipsis), in D* 1D 
 together with their Latin version (recogitate igitur, talem vos reportasse a pecca- 
 toribus in vobis adversitatem), and in some mss. of the Vulgate; while the Sahi- 
 dic and Armenian vss. entirely omit the words, and Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, 
 de Wette write ei¢ éaurév. The latter, which is attested by A and the Vulgate 
 (in semetipsum), indirectly also by D* E*, is to be held the original reading; the 
 plural, on the other hand, to be rejected as devoid of sense.—avrucatéotnte] In 
 place of this, Tisch. 2 writes, after L* 46, al., Chrys. ms. Theodoret, Theophyl. 
 ms.: dvrexatéotyte. This form of the word (see on the twofold augment, 
 Winer, p. 69 f. [E. T. 72]) must, it is true, be adopted upon strong attestation, 
 but is not in a position here to set aside the Recepta avtixatéatyre, where avrek, 
 has against it the preponderating testimony of A D E L**8, ete. Rightly, there- 
 fore, has Tisch. restored dvzvk. in the editt. vii. and viii—Ver. 5. Elz.: Yié ov. 
 D*, some seven cursives, as also the Latin translation in D KE, have only Yié. 
 Bleek has on that account suspected ov, and enclosed it within brackets. Exter- 
 nal authority, however, does not warrant our deleting the pronoun. The occasion 
 for its omission might be afforded by the occurrence of a similar initial letter in 
 the following word, or by the text of the LXX. in which it is wanting.—Ver. 7. 
 ei maideiav bropévere] Instead of this, Matth. Lachm. Tisch. 1, 7 and 8, Delitzsch, 
 Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebriierbr. p. 758), and Alford read ele mardeiav bmopé- 
 vere, and Griesbach has placed ei¢ upon the inner margin. In favor of ei¢ 
 pleads, it is true, the greatly preponderating authority of A D E (?) K L &, of 
 more than thirty cursives, Vulg. It. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Damase. Pro- 
 cop., while ©i is found only with Chrys. Theodoret, Theophyl. Slay. (?), and, as 
 it seems, in many cursives. Nevertheless ei¢ is inadmissible. For, whether eic¢ 
 macdeiav is taken still with Tapadé xerat, Or, as Hofmann will have it, with paoreyot, 
 —whereby, however, that which follows would become deformed,—or it be com- 
 bined with ‘rouévere, in any case taidela must be understood in the sense of 
 “education,” whereas of a certainty, alike from that which precedes as from that 
 which follows, the signification “chastisement” becomes a necessity.  Conse- 
 quently the Receptaei mardciav iromévere is to be looked upon as that writ- 
 ten by the author. The origin» lity and correctness of this reading (defended alsa 
 
698 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 by Reiche, p. 115 sqq.) becomes manifestly apparent from the fact that upon its 
 recognition vy. 7, 8, in accordance with the usual accuracy of diction prevailing 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrews, are in perfect mutual correspondence as type and 
 antitype, alike as regards the protasis as also the apodosis—In place of the 
 Recepta tig yap éotLv, we have, with Lachm. and Tisch., after A, 8* Vulg. 
 Sahid. Orig., to write merely: ti¢ yap.—Ver. 8. Elz.: vé9o0u éoré kai ody 
 vioi, With Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Delitzsch, Alford, we have to trans- 
 pose into: vdfoce kai ovy vioi éore, after A D* and D*** [in Cod. E all the 
 rest is wanting from 7avrTec, ver. 8, to tle close of the Epistle] 8, 17, 37, 80, al. 
 
 Vulg. It. Chrys. (codd.) and Latin Fathers.—Ver. 9. Elz.: ov oN panarov, 
 But A D* & (D* 8*** with the addition of 0é) have od rodd warror, Rightly 
 preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch, Alford—vVer. 15. In place of the received 
 dca TabTn¢, we have to adopt, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 2, and Alford, 
 after A, 17, 67** 80, 137, 238, Copt. ete., Clem. Chrys. (comment.): 6? airyec; 
 and in place of the Recepta ro440i, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after A &, 47, 
 Clem. Theodoret: 01 toAAo/, The article was lost sight of in the homoioteleuton 
 m=o4/0i1.—Ver. 16. Lachm. (and Tisch. 2 and 7, as well as Alford, have followed 
 him therein !) has placed in the text, from A C, the form of the word amédero; 
 but this, although not altogether unexampled (see Buttmann, Gramm. des neut. 
 Sprachgebr. p. 40 f. [E. T. 47]), is manifestly a corruption of the Recepta a7 édoro, 
 which is confirmed by the Cod. Sinait——On the other hand, the reading éavroi, 
 given by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, merits, on account of its more decided attesta- 
 tion by A C D** and D*** 8*, the preference over the Recepta aitovd or abrod. 
 —Ver. 18. Elz.: pyAagwpévy bper, oper, furnished by D K L, in like man- 
 ner, as it seems, by almost all cursives, Vulg. (ed. Clem.) Arab. polygl. Slav. 
 Athan. Theodoret, Damasc. Oecum., is wanting indeed in A C 8, 17, 47, in many 
 mss. of the Vulg., in Copt. Sahid. Syr. Arab. Erp. Aeth., with Chrys. (comment.), 
 Theophyl. Mart. pap. Bed., and was already suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 1071) as 
 a gloss, and then deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8, as likewise by Alford, is, 
 however, indispensable, and is naturally called for by the opposition 4AAa mpooeAn- 
 Avtate Xiav oper, ver. 22 (comp. also Tov dpove, ver. 20), as well as the confusion 
 of idea in a tip yAadouevov, Rightly, therefore, has Tisch. 2 and 7 placed dpec 
 again in the textg—xal (6¢~] Elz.: kai oxértw. Against A C D* 8* 17, 31, 39, 
 al. Suspected by Griesb. Rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 
 Delitzsch, Alford. oxé7 was introduced from the LXX. Deut. iv. 11, v. 22.— 
 Ver. 19.-In place of the Recepta spoote#7vat, Lachm. in the stereotype edition 
 had-adopted zpooOei vat,-after A. Rightly, however, has he retained the 
 Recepta in the larger Edicion, This reading is borne out by C D K L 8, by, as it 
 seems, all the cursives and many Fathers—Ver. 20. After A. 00BoAndjoeras, 
 Eiz. adds further: 7 Bodids catarogevHoerar, Against all uncials (A C D 
 K L M 8), most min., all translations, and many Fathers. The words, deleted by 
 Griesbach, Scholz, and all later editors, are a gloss from LXX. Ex. xix. 13.—Ver. 
 23. Elz.: év ovpavoic axoyeypaupévor, But the decisive testimony of A C 
 DLM 8, 37, al. m., Syr. Copt. Vulg. and many Fathers demands the transposi- 
 tion adopted by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others: amoye- 
 vpapumévar év ovpavoic—Ver, 24, Kpeitrov Aadovvte] Elz.: kpeittova Aadowvv- 
 rt. Against AC DK LM¥8&, most min. Syr. Arr. Copt. Sahid. Armen. Vulg. 
 al., and many Fathers.—Ver. 25. Elz.: fgvyov ror éri tHE yHo TapalTyoa- 
 wevol YpnuaTiCovra, TOAA® waddoyv, Instead of this, however, we have te 
 
CHAP XT el. 699 
 
 read, with Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. (who, however, in the edit. vii. has 
 given the preference to the verbum simplex é¢vyoyv, over the verbum composi- 
 tum égépvyov) Alford: éFépvyov eri yHo wapactyodpmevor Tov ypnmati- 
 Covra, ToAv wadAdor, in that éFéguyov (already approved by Grotius) is de- 
 manded by A C &* 57, 118, al. (Vulg. D, Lat. Slav. Epiph. in cant. cantic.: 
 effugerunt), Cyr. Chrys. Philo Carpas. Oecum.; the deleting of the article r#e¢ 
 before y7¢ (already omitted in the Editt. Erasm. Complut. Colin., afterwards also 
 by Bengel, Griesb. Matth. Scholz) is required by all the uncial mss. (including 
 &), most min., and very many Fathers; further, the placing of the article rév 
 only after tapa:tyoduevoe is required by A C D M®* Cyril. Damasc.; finally, 
 ToAb is required by A C D* 8, Sahid.—Ver. 26. Elz.: ceio. But A C MX, 6, at 
 al., Svr. Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Slav. Athan. Cyril. Cosm. Andr. Areth. have ceicw. 
 Approved by Grotius, recommended by Griesb., rightly adopted by Lachm. Scholz, 
 Bleek, Tisch. Alford, Reiche—Ver. 27. Recepta: TOv Gahevopévov THY meTa- 
 Jeorv. Better accredited, however (by A C &*), is Lachmann’s order of the 
 words: T7v TOV Gadevouévwv weTabeccy, which on that account is to be pre- 
 ferred. Bleek and Tisch. 1 have entirely rejected the article t7v. It is wanting, how- 
 ever, only in D* and M.—Ver. 28. The reading é youev, which Calvin, Mill (Pro- 
 legg. 750), Heinrichs, and others approve, and which Luther also followed in his 
 translation, is unsuitable, and insufficiently attested by K &, more than twenty min., 
 most mss. of the Vulg., Aeth. Cyr. Antioch.,while the reading é yoev rests upon the 
 testimony of AC DL M, ete., Copt. Syr. Aeth. al., Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. al., as 
 also ams. of the Vulg.—In that likewise which follows, the indicative Aatpetouer, 
 which Griesbach has placed on the inner margin, stands in point of external 
 attestation below the Recepta Aatpevwmuev, The former is found in K M 8, about 
 fifty min., with Athan., in mss. of Chrys., with Oecum. and Theophyl. On the 
 other hand, A C D L, very many min. and many Fathers have AaTpetwuev— 
 At the close of the verse the Recepta reads: eta aidoic kai evAaBeiag 
 instead of which, however, we have, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford, to 
 adopt the reading (recommended also by Griesb.): weTa evAaBeiac Kai déove, 
 after A C D* 8* 17, 71, 73, 80, 1387, Copt. Sahid. Slav. ed. (al.: pera déove Kai 
 evAaBeiac. WVulg.: cum metu et reverentia. D, Lat.: cum metu et verecundia). 
 
 Vv. 1-13. In possession of such a multitude of examples, and with the 
 eye uplifted to Jesus Himself, are the readers with stedfastness to main- 
 tain the conflict which lies before them, and to regard their sufferings as 
 a salutary chastisement on the part of that God who is full of fatherly love 
 towards them. 
 
 Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1, 2, see Note LXXVIIL., pages 722-724.] Conclusion 
 from the total contents of chap. xi—In the animating summons expressed 
 vv. 1, 2, the addition dv iropovjc, appended to the main verb rpéyouev, has 
 the principal stress; comp. x. 36, xi.1. Of the participial clauses, hows 
 ever, the first and third are of the same kind, and are distinguished in equal 
 degree from the second ; asaccordingly the former are introduced by par- 
 ticiples of the present, the latter by a participle of the aorist. The first and 
 third contain a ground of animation to the dv trouorae rpéyopuerv; by the 
 second, on the other hand, the historic preliminary condition to the de 
 brouovac tpéyev is stated. The euphonious rovyapoiy elsewhere in the 
 
700 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 N. T. only 1 Thess. iv. 8. [UX XVIII a.J—xai jueic} we also, namely, like 
 the saints of the Old Covenant described chap. xi.—rooovrov éyovtes mepe 
 Keimevov juiv védog paptipov] [LX XVIII b.] since we have so great a cloud of 
 witnesses around us, or: since so great a cloud of witnesses surrounds us. 
 éyovreg weptkeimevov is intimately connected together, and is a peri- 
 phrasis of the mere verbal notion, inasmuch as a genitive absolute : tocob- 
 Tov mepiKsyuévov juiv x.T.4., might have been employed instead. védoc isa 
 figurative designation (also of frequent occurrence with classical writers) 
 of a densely compact crowd.1—Those meant by the rocotrov védog 
 aptvpov are the persons mentioned chap. xi. [LX XVIII c.] When, 
 however, these are characterized as a cloud of witnesses, the author does 
 not intend to imply that these witnesses are present as spectators at the 
 contest to be maintained by the readers,? but represents them thereby as 
 persons who have borne testimony for the tiorv¢ which he demands of 
 his readers,’ and who consequently have become models for imitation to 
 the readers as regards this virtue. 
 
 To this signification of waprépwr points with necessity the whole reason- 
 ing immediately foregoing. For as 6? trouovic, xii. 1, attaches again the 
 discourse to trouova¢ yap éxete ypeiay x.7.A., X. 86, 80 also the contents of 
 chap. xi., which stand in close connection with the latter, are recapitulated 
 by the words: roootrov éyovtec Tepikeipevov nuiv védoe paptipwr. On account, 
 however, of this close connection of the first participial clause, xii. 1, with 
 chap. Xi., waptipwv cannot be otherwise interpreted than after the analogy 
 of the characterization there made: paprupySévtec 61a THE TioTEws, X1. 89; év 
 Tatty guaptupndnoav xi. 2; dv He éuaptrpyIn, Xi. 4; and peyapripyrar, xi. 5, in 
 that only the slight distinction is made, justified in a natural manner by 
 the varying form of designation, that while the persons named were 
 before represented as those to whom a laudatory testimony was given in 
 scripture on account of the ziste manifested by them, they now appear 
 as those who, by their conduct, have delivered a testimony in favor of 
 their virtue of xiorc, and consequently have become patterns of the same 
 for others. On acéount of this intimate coherence of the first participial 
 clause, xil..1, with chap. xi.,a more nearly-defining addition, ric micTewe 
 to paptipwr, was, moreover, superfluous. That, however, apripwv is in 
 reality employed with reference to the riorc¢ whieh the author demands 
 of his readers, is further shown by rie riotewc, xii. 2, from which it is 
 clearly apparent that the notion ziorc is still before the mind of the 
 
 1Theodoret: tAHO0s TocovTov, véhos pLmov- 2Hammond, Calmet, BOhme, Paulus, Klee, 
 pevov TH muKvdTyTe. Comp. Hom. Il. iv. 274: Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, 
 Ga. S& védos etmeto megav, al. Ewrip. Hec. 901 Bloomfield, Bisping, Hofmann. 
 f.: totov ’EAAdvwv vépos audi oe KpuTTet. 3The supposition of Delitasch, Riehm 
 Phoeniss. 1328 ff.: métep’ é€uavtov H mod (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 757), Alford, 
 orévw Saxpicas, nv mépé Exer véhos TooodTov, Maier, and Moll, that in waprvpwy, ver. 1, the 
 
 @ate SU ’Ayxépovtos iévar; Herod. vili. 109: idea of “spectators” blends with that of 
 védos tocodTov av@pwrwv. Similarly also is “witnesses to the faith,” bears its refutation 
 the Latin nubes employed. Comp. e. g. Liv. upon the face of it. For the combining of 
 
 35. 49: rex contra peditum equitumque that which is logically irreconcilable is not . 
 nabes jactat. exegesis. 
 
CHAP. XIie 1. 701 
 
 writer at ver. 2. It is therefore to be supposed that the discourse turns 
 round to the figure of the race—to which, indeed, repixeiuevov would 
 already be appropriate, but to which this participle is not at all of 
 necessity to be referred—only with éyxov arobéuevor «.7.A.—dyKov aro8émevor 
 navta] having put off every hindrance (opposed to the context, Bengel and 
 others: every kind of pride or arrogance ; Hofmann: all earthly care and 
 sorrow). The man contending in the race avoided, in order to keep his 
 body light, oppressive clothing and the like. In the application, the 
 clinging of the readers to external Judaism is certainly, in particular, 
 thought of as the hindrance. Yet the expression is quite general, and sin 
 in the strict sense of the term, which is immediately after quite specially 
 emphasized, is likewise included thereunder. For «ai is not, with 
 Grotius and others, to be taken explicatively, but further brings into relief, 
 in the form of a parallel classification, a definite species, taken, on account 
 of its special importance, out of the before-named genus.—Sin is termed 
 evrepiotatoc. [LXXVIII d.] This adjective exists only here in the 
 whole range of Greek literature. It is most naturally derived from the 
 middle voice: repiicracda:, to place oneself round, or encompass. The sense 
 is therefore: sin, which easily surrounds us and takes us captive. So the 
 majority. Others derived evrepictatoe from the active epiotyu, then 
 taking the word either in a passive or active sense. The explanation of 
 Ernesti (ad. Hesych. gloss. sacr. p. 140 sq.), that “as zepioratov denotes that 
 which is thronged about by people who come to admire it, and azepioraroe 
 is said of a man about whom others do not stand, thus, who is destitute of 
 friends ; so evrepioratog characterizes sin as rich in friends and patrons, as 
 generally esteemed and liked,” has against it the consideration that from 
 evtepioratoc, in this acceptation, the idea of that which is public and mani- 
 fest is inseparable; but this idea is out of keeping with the notion of sin, 
 which is just as often perpetrated in secret as in public. The interpreta- 
 tion: sin, which is easily to be gone round, encircled, or avoided,' would yield 
 an unsuitable thought, since it could not possibly be the design of the 
 author to represent the power of sin as small. The active explanation : 
 seductive or enticing,’ has against it the fact that all the other derivatives 
 from iornuw, such as oraréc, dotatoc, etc., have an intransitive or passive 
 signification. Others, again, in their explanations of eirepicratoc, follow 
 the significations of the substantive tepicracie: sin, which easily plunges us 
 into danger ;* which brings with it many hindrances ;* which has circum- 
 stantias (surroundings), whereby it commends itself and seduces us ; > quae bonis 
 utitur rebus circumstantibus, i.e. quae habet suisque affert bonam fortunam 
 atque voluptates (B6hme).—The duapria is sin in general; not specially : 
 
 1Chrysostom: Thy evKOAwWs Tepiotaciy 2 Carpzov, Schulz, Stein. 
 
 Suvamévnv mabety A€yer* waAAov SE TOVTO" padvov 
 yap, €av OéAwmev, wepryeveaOar [get the better 
 of | Ts amaprias; Pseudo-Athanasius, de para- 
 bol. Script. quaest. 133: evmepiotatov eine thy 
 apaptiav, émedav movimov oTaoLv ovK ExeL, 
 adAa TaXews TpémETAaL Kai KaTaAdveTar ; Clericus, 
 Morus, Ewald, p. 172. 
 
 3 Er. Schmid, Raphel, Bengel, Storr; comp. 
 already Theophylact: 7 &v nv evxdAws tis ets 
 TEPLOTATELS EuTinTer’ OVdEY yap OUTH KLWduUVadeES 
 @s apmaprtia. 
 
 4Kypke, Michaelis, Dindorf, Heinrichs, 
 Kuinoel, Bioomfield. 
 
 5 Hammond. 
 
702 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 the sin of apostasy from Christianity. On account of aobéugvo., the duaptia 
 is thought of as a burden which we bear within us as a propensity, or about 
 us as an encumbering garment.—tpixew ayava] to run a race.—d’ iroporgc] 
 Rom. viii. 25. 
 
 Ver. 2. Second factor in the encouragement. Not only the example of 
 the O. T. witnesses for the faith, but also the example of the Beginner and 
 Perfecter of the faith, Christ Himself, must animate us to a persevering 
 rpéxewv.—agopavrec] [LX XVIII e.] in that we look forth (for our encourage- 
 ment and for our ardent imitation). dgopav (as, immediately after, 
 reAecwthc) only here in the N. T.—eig tov tie riotewe apyyyov Kat redewryv 
 ‘Tyoow] [LX XVIII f.] to the Beginner and Perfecter of the faith, Jesus, i. e 
 to Jesus, who has begun or awakened in us the Christian faith, and carries 
 it on in us to perfection, or to the close (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theo- 
 phylact, Erasmus, and the majority), which last particular then naturally 
 includes the attaining of salvation. But it is going too far when one 
 finds—as Grotius, Bloomfield, and many others—in redewrjc the figure of 
 the SpaBevrjc, the judge or umpire of the games, who, on the completion 
 of the contest, awards the prize of victory; for the expression itself does 
 not warrant this special application. According to Bengel, Baumgarten, 
 Schulz, Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Bisping, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. z. 
 Darmst. Allg. Kirch.-Zeit. 1857, No. 29, p. 667), Nickel (Reuter’s Repertor. 
 March 1858, p. 208 f.), Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 326), Maier, 
 Moll, Kurtz,—comp. also Theodoret: Kara rd avéporwov auddbrepa rébeter, 
 —éb the Tiotewe apynyde Kai TeAewTye ’Iyootc has the sense: Jesus, who 
 
 in manifestation of the faith has preceded us by His example, and in the mani-- 
 
 festation of this faith has carried on the work unto perfection.’ But the virtue 
 of faith the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews could not possibly 
 predicate of Christ in like manner as he does of the Christians. From the 
 lofty conception he had of the person of the Redeemer, he must, like the 
 Apostle Paul, regard Him by whom the divine decrees of salvation were 
 to be realized, as object of the riot. More than this, reAecwr#¢ can be used 
 only transitively, not also intransitively. ap ynyoc Ti miotews stands, 
 therefore, in a sense quite analogous to that of the apynyi¢ tH oarnpiac, 
 ii. 10; and the exemplary characteristic in Jesus, to which the author 
 directs his readers, is not already expressed by His being designated as 
 apynyoe Kat TeAewthe tHe Tiotewe,—which, on the contrary, is only designed 
 to make us aware of the assistance which Christ affords the Christians in 
 the rpéyew,—but first és expressed by means of the following relative 
 clause.—avt? tHe mpoxeyuévne ait yapac] who for the (heavenly) joy lying 
 ready for Him, the obtaining of which should be the reward of His suffer- 
 
 1Comp. Herod. viii. 102; Dion. Hal. vii. 48; Tews TEeAELWTHS. The sense is supposed to 
 Eurip. Orest. 875. be: “Jesus is the Prince of faith: for upon 
 
 2Inconsistently does Delitzsch adhere to 
 this explanation (and similarly Alford and 
 Kluge),—in reference, indeed, to the notion 
 0 THS Tictews APXHYOs,—but rejects it in 
 reference to the notion, necessarily com- 
 bining in homogeneity therewith, 0 ts mic- 
 
 the path on which faith has to run, He has 
 gone first to open the way; He is faith’s Com- 
 pleter: for upon this path He leads us to the 
 goal.” That Jesus Himself reached the goal 
 upon this path, is then supposed to be an 
 unuttered intermediate thought (!). 
 
CHAP.; XIf, 2,3; 703 
 
 ings! avri, as ver. 16. For yapda, however, comp. Matt. xxv. 21. Com- 
 prehended under the zpoxejuévy ait@ yapa is also the joy over the com- 
 pleted work of redemption, with its blessings for mankind; yet it is 
 erroneous, with Theodoret (yapa dé tov cwripoc tov avOparwv 7 cwtnpia), to 
 limit it thereto. The sense is not: instead of the heavenly glory which He 
 already had as the premundane Logos, and which He might have retained, but 
 which He gave up by His incarnation” Nor is it: instead of the earthly free- 
 dom from. suffering, which, as the sinless One, He could have procured for 
 Himself ;? or: instead of the joys of the world, which Jesus, had He willed tt, 
 could have partaken of For the immediate concern of the author must 
 evidently be to point to the prize which Christ was to receive in return 
 for His sufferings, in order thereupon further to indicate that to the 
 readers likewise, upon their persevering in the conflict, the palm of 
 victory will not be wanting. A further consideration is, that also the 
 closing member of the verse, which is closely attached by means of ré to 
 that which precedes, has for its subject-matter still the thought of the 
 reward conferred upon Christ.—iréuewev oravpdv, aicyivyc Katadpovicac | 
 endured the cross, in that He contemned the infamy. For the death of the 
 cross was crudelissimum teterrimumque supplicium (Cic. Verr. 5. 64).—év 
 deEta Te Tov Apdvov Tov Aeod KexdOucev] and has sat down at the right hand of 
 the throne of God. [LXXVIII g.] Comp. i. 8, viii. 1, x. 12. 
 
 Ver.3. [On Vy. 3-11, see Note LX XIX., pages 724, 725.] Tap] is here, on 
 account of the imperative, the corroborative: Yea / [LX XIX a.] (comp. 
 Winer, p. 415 f.) [E. T. 446]; and dvadoyifecda:, in the N. T. a drag 
 Aeyéuevov, denotes the comparing or reflecting contemplation. Bengel: Com- 
 paratione instituta cogitate: Dominus tanta tulit; quanto magis servi 
 ferant aliquid ?—avrci20yia, however, denotes nothing else than contradic- 
 tion; and what is meant is, the contending against Christ’s divine Sonship 
 and Messianic dignity. [LX XIX 6.] The notion of opposition and ill- 
 usage in act, which is ordinarily assigned to it (still also by Bohme, Bleek, 
 de Wette, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, and Maier) along with 
 that of contradiction, this word never has. Even avrcidéyecv, to which 
 appeal is made, has nowhere the sense of a hostile resistance manifesting 
 itself in outward actions. See Meyer on Luke ii. 34; John xix. 12; 
 Rom. x. 21.—rovabryv] such, i.e. one so great, sc. that He was compelled 
 to undergo the ignominious death of the cross (ver. 2), in comparison with 
 which your sufferings are something insignificant.—iva pi Kduyre x.7.2.] 
 that ye may not grow weary, desponding in your souls. taic wuyaic 
 tuov is to be conjoined with éxAvépuevor,> not with kdyyre,® since other- 
 
 1So Primasius, Piscator, Schlichting, Gro- 
 tius, Bengel, Whitby, Schulz, Béhme, Stuart, 
 Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Ebrard, Delitzsch, 
 Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 357), Al- 
 ford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, Woerner, 
 and the majority. 
 
 2Peshito, Gregory Nazianz. in Oecum.: 3 
 efov pevery emt THs idias Soéns TE Kati OedTyTOS, 
 ov wovoy éavTov exévwoev axpt THs SovAou 
 opens, aAAa Kai oTavpoy vméemervev K.T.A.; 
 
 Beza, Nemethus, Heinrichs, Ewald. 
 3Chrysostom, Oecumenius, »Theophylact, 
 Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Caloy, al. 
 4Calvin, Wolf, Carpzov, Stein, Bisping, al. 
 5Beza, Er. Sehmid, Hammond, Kuinoel, 
 Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitasch, 
 Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, al. 
 6Luther, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, 
 Schulz, B6hme, and others. 
 
704 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 wise something of a dragging character would be imparted to the par- 
 ticiple. 
 
 Ver. 4 ff. [LX XIX c.] The sufferings which have come upon the 
 readers are only small, and a salutary chastisement at the hand of God— 
 Oirw péxpec aimatog K.7.A.] Not yet unto blood, i.e. to such extent that blood- 
 shed should result, that a martyr’s death! among you should be a necessity 
 (as such death had but just now been mentioned of the O. T. saints, chap. 
 xi., and of Christ Himself, xii. 2), have ye offered resistance in your contest 
 against sin. The author has, as x. 32 ff., only the present generation of 
 Palestinian Christians, to whom he is speaking, before his eyes. It is 
 otherwise at xill. 7.—rpod¢ tiv duapriav] belongs to davraywri{duevor (against 
 Bengel, who conjoins it with dvricaréoryre), and 4 dyapria stands not in 
 the sense of of duaptwdoi, ver. 8,’-—for there would exist no reason for the 
 avoiding of this concrete expression,*—but is the inner sin, conceived of 
 as a hostile power or person, which entices the man (visited with suffer- 
 ings and persecutions) to an apostasy from Christianity. Comp. azary 
 The auapriac, Wi. 18—In avrixatéotyte avtaywrviléuevor—both verbs in 
 the N. T. only here—the author has, what is wrongly denied by de Wette 
 and Maier (in like manner as Paul, 1 Cor. ix. 26), passed over from the 
 figure of the race to the kindred one of the combat with the fists. 
 
 Vv. 5, 6. Kai éxAéAnofe «.7.4.] [LX XIX d.] And have ye forgotten, etc.? 
 The words are most naturally to be taken‘ as a question. If we would, 
 as is usually done, take them as an assertory statement (“and ye have 
 forgotten ’’), the reproach contained in the same would come out more 
 strongly than is consonant with the mild character of the discourse in this 
 section. The verb éxAav@dvecas, as presently after 64cywp eiv, in the 
 N. T. only here.—rj¢ rapaxiajoewc| the consolation (or else: the animating 
 address).—jri¢ tiv d¢ vioig diaréyera] which, of a truth, speaks to you as to 
 sons. By virtue of #rv¢ (in place of which there is no sufficient ground 
 for writing, with Hofmann, 7 tic) the following consolatory utterance 
 (Yié . . . wapadéyerar), adduced from Prov. iii. 11, 12,—from which also 
 Philo, de congresstt quaer. erudit. gr. p. 449 D (with Mangey, I. p. 544 f,), 
 reasons in’ a similar manner,—is presupposed as one sufficiently familiar 
 
 1Wrongly'is it supposed by Holtzmann 
 (Stud-u. Krit. 1859, H. 2, p. 301; Ztscehr. f. wiss. 
 Theol. 1867, p. 4) that a reminder of a martyr- 
 dem not yet endured is remote from the con- 
 nection. The discourse is said to be of a re- 
 sistance mpos Thy auaptiay. Sin, in this con- 
 flict with the flesh, would not allow it to be 
 continued unto blood. For this very reason 
 it is necessary to resist sin péxpis almaros, 
 ever anew to reanimate the weary limbs for 
 the continuance of the conflict (xii. 12), In 
 the same manner, too, does Kurtz find only 
 a proverbial figurative expression for an 
 earnest, decided, and unsparing resistance to 
 the sinful desire in peéypis atmatos. But 
 though in German “bis auf’s Blut” (even to 
 blood) has proverbial figurative acceptance 
 
 in the sense of “to the very uttermost,” yet 
 assuredly neither aia nor yet sanguis is any- 
 where else employed in this proverbial sense. 
 2Carpzoyv, Heinrichs, Stuart, Ebrard, De- 
 litzsch, Maier, Kluge, Grimm in the Ztschr. 
 f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 43, al. 
 3 At least no one will recognize as apposite 
 
 ‘that which Ebrard adduces as such,—to wit, 
 
 that in ver. 3 “the whole (!) of mankind as 
 the sinners (the class of sinners) might be 
 opposed to Christ; whereas to the readers of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, who were them- 
 selves apaptwAoi, the enemies of Christianity 
 could not be opposed as the sinners.” 
 
 4With Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Grotius, 
 Braun, Jos. Hallet, Heinrichs, Bohme, Stuart,- 
 Lachmann, Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Ewald. 
 
CHAP. XII. 5—9. 7085 
 
 to the readers. By dcadéyera., however, the same is personified; 
 since dcatéyeotai tive denotes conversing with any one (here, as it were, 
 the answering in reply to the complaint breathed forth by the readers} 
 Yié wou] With the LXX. only: Yié—pq ddcyoper raideiac Kvpiov] despise not 
 chastening from the Lord, i.e. be thankful for it, when the Lord chastens 
 thee.—y7dé éxAbov in aitov éeyxouevoc] nor despond when thou art corrected 
 of Him (by means of sufferings which He imposes upon thee). 
 
 Ver. 6. Tladeier] him He chasteneth. So in the LXX. Cod. A, and fifteen 
 other mss. The remaining manuscripts of the LXX. have, what is 
 probably the original reading: éAéyyer—paortiyot dé ravta vidv bv rapa- 
 déxera] and scourges every son whom He receives (adopts as His). Accord- 
 ing to present punctuation, the words in Hebrew read: 37) “S-AN 3833, 
 and (He chastens) as a father the son in whom he delights. Instead of 
 383, the LXX., however, read 282, (to cause pain). 
 
 Vv. 7, 8. Application of the word of scripture to the readers.—Ei 
 raeiav drouévere] [LXXIX e.] If we endure chastening. The opposite of 
 this is formed by the ei d2 ywpic éore raideiac, ver. 8. The emphasis falls, 
 therefore, upon wacdeiav; and to explain iropévecv as a “stedfast” or 
 “persevering ” enduring? is inadmissible.—dé¢ vioic tuiv mpoodéperar 6 Oed¢] God 
 deals with you as with sons, treats you as sons. By as harsh a construction 
 as possible (comp. tyiv dc vioic, ver. 5), Ebrard will have éc taken as a 
 conjunction, and translates,—espousing the incorrect reading (see the 
 critical obs.) cic raideiav,—“ for your instruction endure manfully, even as 
 (or when, so long as) God offers Himself to you as to sons !”—For the genuine 
 Greek formula zpocgépec dai tive, which does not occur elsewhere in 
 the N. T., see examples in Wetstein.—ric yap vide k.7.2.] sc. éoriv: for what 
 son is there, t.e. where is there a son, whom the father chastens not? This 
 comprehending together of ric vide (Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Alford, 
 Maier, Kurtz, Ewald) is more natural than that one should regard ric 
 alone as the subject: who is indeed a son, whom, etc. (Delitzsch, Moll, and 
 others); or, with Béhme, as the predicate: of what kind is a son, 
 whom, ete. 
 
 Ver. 8. Ei dé ywpic éore xaideiac] If, on the other hand, ye are free from 
 chastisement (have been spared it).2—je uéroyou yeyévacow révtec] of which 
 all (sc. whom God—like the saints. of the O. T. enumerated chap. xi.—has 
 really acknowledged as His sons‘ have become partakers. That the relative 
 clause contains no statement of entirely universal import, applicable also 
 to the relation towards the earthly fathers (Camerarius, Beza, Limborch, 
 al.), but, on the contrary, one affecting exclusively the relation towards 
 God, is clear from the parallel with ver. 7,as well as from the perfect 
 yeyévactv.—v6sor] bastards, begotten out of wedlock, for whose weal or 
 woe their father is not wont to be greatly concerned. 
 
 Vv. 9, 10, a second argument follows. The readers must not become 
 disheartened at the sufferings imposed upon them. For not only is there 
 
 1 Theodoret, Erasm: Paraphr., Stein, Ebrard, 2Wrongly Theodoret: et roivuy Kai wdmets 
 Bloomfield, a’, Thy madetay exxAtvete, 
 
 45 
 
706 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 vo be seen, in the fact of their having to struggle with afflictions, the 
 manifestation that God treats them as His children; it is, moreover, the 
 heavenly Father who visits them with this chastening, and that for the very 
 reason that He has their own highest good in view.—eira] then, further, 
 deinde. Not to be taken as an interrogative particle, with Alberti, Raphel, 
 Heinrichs, and others. For otherwise the discourse would have proceeded 
 in the second half of the verse with «ai ov oad paA2ov, instead of the 
 mere ov roAv paddov. Ingeniously, but without constraining reason, does 
 Reiche (Commentar. crit. p. 121) conjecture «i te instead of eira, while 
 quite unsuitably Hofmann will comprehend ¢ira with the closing words 
 of ver. 8.—rov¢e tH¢ capKdo¢ tuav ratépac] fathers of our flesh, i.e. our bodily, 
 earthly fathers.—eiyouev madevtag Kai évetperdueda] we had as chasteners, 
 and heeded them, i.e. we gave heed when we had them as chasteners. 
 Inasmuch as the author is addressing grown-up persons, the imperfects 
 characterize the period of the bygone youth (we used to give heed). The 
 combining of évtpém eadar, however, with the accusative of the object is in 
 later Greek style the ordinary one. With the earlier authors the genitive 
 is used.—The absolute statement cita . .. évetperéueda takes the 
 place of a hypothetical premiss (comp. x. 28 f.; 1 Cor. vii. 18, 21, al.), and 
 the whole verse contains an argument a minore ad majus.—ov 702d padAov 
 broraynobueSa TO Katpl Tov Tvevudtwv Kai Choouev;] shall we not much rather 
 be in subjection to the Father of spirits, and (i.e. so that we in consequence 
 thereof) live? By 6 ratyp tov rvevudtor naturally God is meant. 
 With Hammond, to think of Christ, is forbidden by the connection (comp. 
 ver. 7). To the Father of spirits, ie. God, who is Father in regard to the 
 higher spiritual domain of life. That God, as the Creator of all things, is 
 the Final Cause also of the bodily life of man, is a fact not excluded by 
 the expression; only that which is the main thing as concerns God’s 
 fatherly relation is here emphasized. 6 rarjp tov rvevudtov does not desig- 
 nate God as Creator of the souls, in the sense of Creatianism as opposed 
 to Traducianism.! Nor as the One who makes provision for our souls.’ 
 Just as little is wbuata to be understood of the angels or the gifts of the 
 Spirit Itis possible there was present to the mind of the author the 
 characterization of God, LX X. Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16, as a Sede tov mvrev- 
 HaTwv Kal. Taon¢ capKdc.—Kai Choouev| Declaration of the result of this 
 obedience, in the form of a parallel arrangement. ¢7v of the enjoy- 
 ment of the everlasting life of bliss, as x. 88; Rom. viii. 18, and frequently. 
 Ver. 10. Justification of the road paAdrov, ver. 9, by presenting in relief 
 the diversity of character borne by the disciplinary correction of the 
 earthly fathers from that of the heavenly Father. The emphasis falls 
 upon xara 7d dokovv avroic andupon émi 7d oupugépor, while rpo¢ 
 
 1Calvin, Estius, Justinian, Beza, Jac. Cap- } TOV agwuatwv Svvapmewr. 
 pellus, Drusius, Carpzov, Delitzsch, Riehm, 4Theodoret: marépa mvevuatwv Tov mvevpa- 
 Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 678; Kurtz, al. TiKOvY TaTépa KEKAnKEY WS TOY TVEVMATLKOV 
 2Morus, Dindorf, Kuinoel, Béhme, and Xapiopatwv mnynv. Comp. Chrysostom, Oecu- 
 others. menius, and Theophylact. 
 
 8Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact: 
 
CHAP, xi, 10; 11. 707 
 
 dAiyag #uépac is an unaccentuated addition, which belongs equally to 
 both members of the sentence.! For if mpo¢ odiyac nuépac belonged only 
 to the first member, and served for the indication of a further particular 
 of diversity, an antithetic addition corresponding to the same could not 
 have been wanting in the second member. But to find such antithesis? 
 in ei¢ 7d petadaBeiv «.7.A., is Inadmissible, since these words are only an 
 epexegetical amplification of émi 1d ovugépov. Upo¢ ohiyag ymépag 
 [LXXIX /.] denotes, therefore, not the period of the earthly life, brief in 
 comparison with eternity,? in such wise that the thought would be 
 expressed, that the earthly fathers aimed in connection with the sadebew 
 at a benefit or gain merely in regard to the earthly lifetime ; God, on the 
 other hand, at a gain for eternity,—by which at any rate a false opposition 
 would arise, since the first half of the statement could not be at all con- 
 ceded as a universally valid truth. Rather do the words affirm that the 
 chastisement on the part of the natural fathers (and not less that on the 
 part of the heavenly Father) continued only a few days, lasted only during 
 a brief period. In a sense quite corresponding is spé¢ employed imme- 
 diately after, ver. 11, as well as 1 Cor. vii. 5; 2 Cor. vii. 8; 1 Thess. ii. 17, 
 and very frequently elsewhere.—xata 7d doxodv aidroic] according to their 
 judgment, which was not always an erroneous one.—The imperfect éxaidevov 
 stands there for the same reason as the imperfects, ver. 9.—é dé] sc. mpoc 
 Odiyac Huépac Tadever.—énl Td ovudépov | with a view to that which is salutary 
 (our infallible welfare).—eic 16 peradaBeiv tHe aytétyTo¢ avtov] in order that 
 we may be made partakers of His holiness, may become eyer more free from 
 sin, and in moral purity ever more like God Himself. 
 
 Ver. 11. The blessing of every chastening. Comp. Diog. Laert. v. 18 (cited 
 by Wetstein): r7¢ madeiac én (se. Aristotle) rag pév pilac elvar mixpac, yAvkeic 
 dé Tove Kaprove.—raca raideia] comprises the human and the divine chasten- 
 ing; yet the author in connection with the second clause (torepov dé k.7.2..) 
 has no doubt mainly the latter before his mind.—zpéi¢ pév 7d rapdv x.7.A.] 
 seems indeed for the present (so long as it continues) to be no object of joy, but 
 an object of grief; later, however (i.e. when it has been outlived), it yields to 
 those who have been exercised by it (comp. v. 14) the peace-fraught fruit of 
 righteousness.—doxei] characterizes the opinion of man; since the matter 
 is in reality very different.—d:catosivyc| [LX XIX g.] Genitive of apposition : 
 peaceful fruit, namely righteousness, i.e. moral purity and perfection. It 
 is called a peaceful fruit because its possession brings with it peace of soul. 
 dixacocbvvyc is not to be understood as a genitivus subjecti (Piscator, Owen, 
 Stuart, Heinrichs, Stein, and others): a@ peaceful fruit which is yielded by 
 
 1Riehm’s objection to this (Lehrbegr. des 
 Hebréerbr. p. 762, Obs.), that in such case kata 
 To Soxovy avtocs Must have been placed before 
 mpos oAcyas nuépas, is entirely without weight. 
 Just the preposing of mpds oAcyas méepas was, 
 if these words were to be referred to both 
 members of the sentence, the most appro- 
 priate order; because xata 70 doxody avrois 
 and émi To cuudépov then as contrasts stood 
 
 in so much the more immediate opposition 
 to each other in the two halves of the sen- 
 tence. 
 
 2 With Bengel, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, 
 Hofmann, and others. 
 
 3Calvin, Estius, Justinian, Cornelius a 
 Lapide, Schlichting, Limborch, Er. Schmid, 
 Bengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Bisping, Maier, 
 Kluge, al. 
 
708 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 righteousness ; for surely racdeia is mentioned as the subject producing the 
 KapTo¢ elpnveKoc. 
 
 Vv. 12,18. [On Vy. 12-17, see Note LX XX., pages 725, 726.] Animating 
 conclusion of the exhortation to stedfastness continued up to this point. 
 —0éw] Wherefore, sc. because the sufferings you have to undergo manifest 
 to you that ye are sons of God, and are salutary for you.—ra¢ rapexévac 
 xelpag Kai Ta TapaseAuuéva yovata avopbacare| make firm again the slackened 
 hands and the weary knees.\—avop$oir] literally, to make the crooked straight 
 again ; then in general to restore anything to its original right or perfect 
 condition. [Cf. Luke xiii. 18; Acts xv. 16.] 
 
 Ver. 18. Kai tpoyiic opbac roioate toic rociv tuav] and make straight 
 tracks with your feet, 7. e. advance with straight course upon the Christian 
 path of life you have once entered upon, without bending aside to the 
 right or to the left; that is to say, without mingling up that which is 
 Jewish with that which is Christian, or suffering yourselves to be enticed 
 to a relapse into Judaism. Incorrectly do Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm 
 (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 789), Alford, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, 
 M’Caul, Hofmann, and others explain toi¢ rociv ivov: for your feet. For, 
 apart from the fact that this interpretation destroys the harmony with the 
 figure employed at ver. 12, that of the rapewévac yeipec and mapareduuéva 
 yévara, the author cannot possibly intend to say that the readers them- 
 selves have first to prepare the way for themselves. The way has 
 already been prepared for them by Christ (x. 20), and it is now only a 
 question of their making advance upon the same in the right way. 
 [LXXX 6.]—For the expression, which accidentally forms a hexa- 
 meter? (see Winer, p. 595 [E. T. 641]), comp. LXX. Prov. iv. 26: 
 opbac Tpoxidce Tote: coi¢ Toci.—iva py TO Yworov éExtparh, tab Jé paAdov] that 
 not (even) that which is lame may turn aside from the way, but rather be 
 healed. 76 yodév denotes not the suffering member in an individual, but 
 within the larger community, thus the member of the Christian commu- 
 nion who is lame or halting, 7.e. who makes only a tottering progress in 
 Christianity, and falls away from the same if he does not gain a support 
 in the rest of the community advancing in a straight course [Gal. 11. 14]. 
 On 7d ywrsr, as. figurative- designation of the wavering between two 
 different bents of belief, comp. LXX.1 Kings xviii. 21: éwe rére ipeic 
 yoraveire éx’ apugotépate taic iyviac; how long do ye halt upon both knee-joints- 
 (sides), 7.e. do ye hesitate between the service of Jehovah and that of 
 Baal?—To the verb éxtpéxeocda:, Fr. Junius, Grotius, Wolf, Carpzov, 
 Heinrichs, and many others, finally Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Kurtz, 
 Ewald, on account of the opposition iadq 6% naAdov, assign the passive 
 signification : to be dislocated. But justified by the usage of the language 
 
 1Comp. LXX. Isa. xxxy. 3: toxvoate xetpes KUPLWTEpwv Ep@V, OTL GAOL TapELpmevoL Eliot TH 
 
 aveievat Kai yovata mapadcAvpéeva. Ecclus. ux ai wév yap xelpes evepyetas, ot dé modes 
 XXYV. 23: Yelpes Tapemevar Kal yovTa Tapa- kuvygews avpBodov. 
 
 AcAvweva. Comp. also Deut. xxxii. 36: elde yap 2Quite improbable is the supposition of 
 mapadcAumevous avTovs Kal . . . Tapetpéevous.— Ewald (pp. 139, 172), that the words consist of 
 
 Theophylact: Sexviwy amd metahopas tay a verse which “was derived from some one’ 
 
CHAP. XI 1-15: 709 
 
 ysee Wetstein at 1 Tim. i. 6) is the middle signification alone: bend aside 
 (from the way), turn aside. This signification is therefore to be maintained 
 here also, and ia¥@ dé waAdov continues in an abbreviated form the 
 figure employed, in that its meaning is: but rather through the animating 
 example given by the whole body, may be cured of his wavering; and briskly 
 advance with the rest. 
 
 Vv. 14-17. Ecxhortation to concord and to growth in holiness. 
 
 Ver. 14. Mera rdvtwv] with all, even the non-Christians. [LX XX c.] 
 Comp. Rom. xii.18. For limiting the taévrec¢, with Michaelis, Zachariae, 
 Storr, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Tholuck, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, 
 to the members of the Christian community, there exists no reason; and it 
 has against it the mode of expression, since we should then have expected 
 bet’ GAAGAwY.—xal Tov dyacudv] the general virtue, of which the endeavor 
 after concord is only a particular outflow. dycaouéc, namely, is here 
 sanctification or moral purification in general ; too restricted is the reference 
 of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Jac. Cappellus, 
 Bengel, Bloomfield, and others, who explain it as—what at 1 Thess. iv. 3 
 (see at that place) is certainly the correct explanation—the virtue of 
 chastity —rov kipiwov] By this expression some understand God (comp. 
 Matt. v. 8), others Christ (comp. ix. 28). A certain decision is impossible. 
 The beholding represents in an emblematic manner the idea of innermost 
 union, and the whole is a designation of the Messianic blessedness in the 
 consummated kingdom of God. 
 
 Vv. 15,16. Further amplification of diéxere tov dysacudv, ver. 14. That 
 endeavor after holiness is not only to be in active exercise in the case of 
 each one with regard to his own person; it is also, in equal degree, to be 
 watchful that the Christian brethren preserve themselves free from im- 
 morality.—The subject in éxcoxozovvrec consists, as in dcdxere, ver. 14, 
 with which the participle is conjoined, of all members of the congrega- 
 tion, not specially the presidents thereof (xiii. 17) or éxioxoroc (BOhme); 
 and éxcoxorecv signifies: to direct one’s view to a thing with close attention 
 or solicitude.—yy te votepav ard THE yapiToc Tov Heov] is no independent clause, 
 so that 7 would have to be supplemented! For the choice of the tempus 
 periphrasticum would be here unnatural and justified by nothing.2 The 
 words are a mere introducing of the subject, which is then further re- 
 sumed by uj tue pita «.7.2.,in such wise that évoy4q forms the common 
 predicate to both parts of the sentence introduced by yu4.2—pA tic borepov 
 x.7.2.] that no one, in that he remains far from the grace of God, i. e. in that 
 he turns the back upon the grace of God which was afforded him in 
 Christ, by immorality withdraws from it, and loses it (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10). The 
 unusual torepety axé tevoc is consequently by no means equivalent in 
 
 
 
 of the many Hellenistic poets (?), whose books deed added in thought, but then have this 
 
 were at that time greatly read even by Chris- explained not as a mere copula, but in the 
 tians.” sense: there being present. 
 
 1So the majority, as also BGhme, Tholuck, 3Heinrichs, Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, 
 Bloomfield, Ebrard, and Maier. Alford, Kurtz, Ewald. 
 
 *Hofmann will on that account have # in- 
 
710 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 signification to the ordinary iorepeiv revo. While the latter would repre- 
 sent the coming short of the possession of the divine grace absolutely, as 
 an objective result, the former includes the idea of voluntary activity or 
 of one’s own culpability. Comp. Ecclus. vii. 84: uy toréper: ard KAabvruv. 
 Analogously stands also the mere torepeiv, Num. ix. 7: pi obv borepfowper 
 TpooevéyKkat TO dapov Kupiw. Num. ix. 183: dvOpwroc, bc. . . LoTEphoy Tolqoat TO 
 Tagya.— yh Tic pila Tikpiag avw gvovoa évoxAH] that, I say, no root, (plant) of 
 bitterness (of which the fruit is bitterness)—7. e. a man! in whom, in conse- 
 quence of his unholy walk, the bitter fruit of everlasting perdition is 
 ripening—growing up (as in the case of a plant, of which the root was be- 
 fore covered with earth) cause trouble or disquiet (to the congregation). The 
 words are moulded after the LXX. of Deut. xxix. 18, according to the cor- 
 rupted text of the Cod. Alexandr. : pi tic éoriv év bpiv pica Teikpiac avw dvovoa 
 évoxah kai wexpia (distorted from the original text contained in the Cod. 
 Vatic.: ph te éoriv év byiv pita avo pvovoa év xorH Kai mixpia). That the read- 
 ing in the Cod. Alex. of the LXX. only arose from a regard to our passage 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Jos. Hallet, Wolf, Delitzsch, Hofmann, and 
 others) is not probable, since the author elsewhere in the O. T. citations 
 follows the form of text in the Cod. Alex—rixpiac] Chrysostom: ovk ele 
 TiKpa, aAAa TiKpiac’ THY udv yap TiKpav pitay ~oTL Kaprod¢ éveyKelv yAvkeic, THY 8 
 Tikpiag pilav... ovK éote moré yAvKdy éveyKeiv kaprév’ wavTa yap éoTe TuKpa, ovdev 
 Eyer 06, mavta riKpa, Tavta andy, Tavta picove Kai BdeAvypiacg yéuwovta.—évoyAeiv | 
 in the N. T. only here (and Luke vi. 18?).—xai dv airig wavbdow oi roAot] 
 and by it the many (the multitude orthe great mass) become defiled (namely, 
 by infection), z. e. likewise led astray into an unholy walk. Comp. Gal. 
 Vaid. 
 
 Ver. 16. My tic répvoc] se. évoxam (comp. ver. 15): that no fornicator 
 trouble you. Yet we may, with Grotius, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Alford, 
 Maier, Kurtz, and the majority, supplement merely 7: that no one be a for- 
 nicator. mépvoc is tobe taken in the natural sense, as xiii. 4. The taking 
 of it asa figurative designation of one who is unfaithful to Christ, in order 
 to hold unlawful intercourse with Judaism (Bohme, Tholuck, Ebrard, 
 Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 155, and others), is unsuitable, because 
 ver. 16 is nothing else but the continued amplification of the didKere tov 
 dylacuov, ver. 14.—# BéBnhoc &¢ ’Hoav] or a profane person (a man of unhal- 
 lowed, common mind, centred upon the earthly), as Esau. 6¢ Hoad 
 belongs only to Bé37A0c. It is not to be referred also to xépvoc¢ (so still De- 
 litzsch and Alford), since nothing is related in s¢ripture concerning a ropveia 
 of Esau (more, it is true, the later Rabbis have to tell us; see Wetstein at 
 our passage), and the elucidatory relative has respect only to Bé8yA0¢.—éec 
 «.7.2.] Comp. Gen. xxy. 33.—avri] indication of the price, as ver. 2.—ra 
 nputoréka] the birthright with its privileges. Classic writers employ for it 
 7 TpecBeia OY TO TpEcBEior. ; 
 
 Ver. 17. Warning reference to the pernicious result of Esau’s behavior. 
 Comp. Gen. xxvii.—iore] not imperative (Vulgate: scitote; Luther: wisset 
 
 1Comp. 1 Mace. i. 10: kai é&#AOev é& adrav piga amaptwrAds, ’Avtioxos ’Emupavys. 
 
CHAP, xIT, 16547, til 
 
 aber), but indicative, since to the readers as born Jews the fact itself was a 
 perfectly familiar one.—6r kai perémecra, Bédov KAypovouqoas tiv evdoyiav, amedo- 
 xeacty | that later also, when he wished to inherit (to receive as a possession) the 
 blessing, he was rejected. kai accentuates the aredoxiuacby, as the appropri- 
 ate natural consequence of the azédoro, ver. 16. 7 ev 20yia, however, is the 
 blessing absolutely, ¢. e. the more excellent blessing, which was appointed 
 to the first-born as the bearer of the promises given by God to Abraham 
 and his seed. To azedox:pacéy, finally, there is naturally supple- 
 mented: by Isaac, in consequence of the higher occasioning or leading of God. 
 —petavoiac yap Torov ovyx evpev, KaiTeEp wera dakpiwr éxlythoac ati] for he Sound 
 no room for change of mind, although he eagerly sought it with tears, i. e. for 
 Esau did not succeed in causing his father Isaac to change his mind, so 
 that the latter should recall the blessing erroneously bestowed upon the 
 younger brother Jacob, and confer it upon himself the elder son; in this 
 he succeeded not, though he besought it with tears. [LXXX d.] This ac- 
 ceptation of the words, which Beza,' H. Stephanus, Piscator, Jac. Cappellus, 
 Schlichting, Owen, Er. Schmid, Seb. Schmidt, Calmet, Wolf, Carpzov, Cra- 
 mer, Michaelis, Storr, Schulz, Bbhme, Klee, Paulus, Stengel, Tholuck, Eb- 
 rard, Bloomfield, Bisping, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmst. A. K.-Z. 
 1857, No. 29, p. 677), Nickel (Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, March, p. 210), Maier, 
 Moll, Kurtz, and others insist on, is most naturally suggested by the con- 
 text itself, yields a clear, correct thought, and best accords with the narra- 
 tive in Genesis. Comp. LXX. Gen. xxvii. 33: ebAdynoa abrov Kai 
 evioynmévoc éotar. Ver. 34: 'Eyévero dé, prika jKovoev "Hoad ra phuata Tow 
 Tarpoc aitov "Ioadk, aveBdyoe Gwriv meyaAny Kal TLKpar o¢é6dpa kai cimev" 
 evAdynaov Oy Kame Tatep. Ver. 35: Eire dé abro é2Odv 6 adeAgde cov peta 
 dédov éAaBe tiv evdAoyiav cov, (It was thus a question not of a blessing in 
 general,—that Esau also still received afterwards, comp. yer. 39 f.—but 
 about the definite blessing pertaining to the first-born.) Ver.38: Elme dé 
 "Hoav mpoc Tov marépa abtov" uy evdoyia pia oot éate TatEp’; ebAdynoov OF Kae TaTEp. 
 KaravuyxGévroc dé’ Ioaak (this addition, peculiar to the LXX., accentu- 
 ates afresh the fact that Isaac’s resolution remained inflexible, since he re- 
 garded the blessing already bestowed as irrevocable), ave Bonoe burg 
 "Hoav kai éxdavoev. Nor is that which Bleek, de Wette, and Delitzsch 
 have advanced against this mode of interpretation of great force. They 
 assert (1) that there is here nowhere any mention of Isaac, so that we can- 
 not think of him in connection with jeravoiac either. But a distinct allu- 
 sion to Isaac, though not an express mention of him, iscertainly contained 
 in that which precedes. Partly in rv eddoyiav, partly in aredoxipdody, there 
 is found a reference to him; since it was just he who had to bestow the 
 blessing, and afterwards under God’s disposing refused it to Esau. An 
 addition of rov zarpéc to weravoiac was therefore unnecessary. (2) That the 
 formula: “he found no place or room for a change in the mind of his fa- 
 ther,” in the sense: “he could not bring about such change in him,” 
 
 1Yet Beza, as likewise Er. Schmid and reason, abrjy to thy evAoyiav instead of pera- 
 Bisping, then refers back, without justifying votas. 
 
7 Ww THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 would be a very unnatural one. But why, pray, may not rérov peravoia, 
 ebpioxew equally well and naturally signify: “to gain room for a perdvoia to 
 unfold and assert itself,” as at Acts xxv. 16 rézov arodoyiag AapBaverv signi- 
 fies: “to obtain room for an arodoyia to unfold and maintain itself,” or 
 rérov didévat TH Opyh, Rom. xii. 19 (comp. Eph. iv. 27): “to give room to the 
 divine wrath to unfold itself and make itself felt”? (8) That the expres- 
 sion perdvove itself is unsuitable, inasmuch as “this word can surely only 
 denote an inner emotion of the mind, but not the bare outward recalling 
 of a measure or a verdict ” (Bleek), or, as de Wette expresses himself, “in 
 the N. T. is ordinarily employed of human penitence.” Nevertheless 
 there attaches likewise to the notion of the “change of mind,” as above 
 insisted on as its primary requisite, the notion of a proceeding in the 
 inner or spirit-life of the man; which, however, naturally does not exclude 
 the accessory notion that this inner process has also as its necessary con- 
 sequence an external action. If, further, vetdvora in the N. T. “ordinarily ” 
 serves for the designation of human penitence, this presents no difficulty 
 to the supposition of its having on one occasion preserved its original 
 verbal signification ;! specially in a passage where not an article of faith 
 is to be expressed, but simply an historic fact to be related. (4) That the 
 thought thus obtained would not accord with the object of the author and 
 the parallel vi.4-6 (de Wette). But the author’s object is no other than to 
 show, by the warning example of Esau, that the member also of the 
 Christian community who is 8é87A0¢ may for ever come short of the attain- 
 ment of salvation ; that, however, ver. 17 is to be explained in accordance 
 with the standard furnished by vi. 4-6, is an arbitrary presupposition. (5) 
 That this interpretation did not enter into the mind of the Fathers. But 
 this argument, added by Delitzsch, as it in like manner frequently recurs 
 with him, is an unscientific one. For to the Greek Fathers and their ex- 
 positions can only be applied that which was said of them long ago by 
 Joh. Gerhard (tom. I. of the Loci Theologici, chap. v. p. 30): “sint et habe- 
 antur lumina, non autem numina.”—Others? refer eravoiac to Esau him- 
 self, and then regard the words peravoiac yap térov ody eipev as a parenthe- 
 sis, and make avr#yv glance back to ra ebAoyiav. .The statement: peravoiag 
 yap térov ovy evper, is then understood either objectively: he found no place 
 for the repentance which he actually experienced, or subjectively: he found no 
 place in his heart for the feeling of repentance ; in the former sense, e. g. Cal- 
 vin: “nihil profecit vel consequutus est sera sua poenitentia, etsi cum 
 lacrymis quaereret benedictionem, quam sua culpa amiserat,” and Bleek : 
 “he found no longer any place for repentance, change of mind, inasmuch 
 as it was too late for that, and it could avail him nothing now, however 
 much he might regret it;” in the latter sense, e. g., Bengel: “ It could no 
 longer be awakened in Esau. Natura rei rectsabat.” But against the 
 
 1Comp. e.g. Josephus, de Bello Jud. i. 4.4: des Hebrderbr. p. 771), Ewald, Hofmann, 
 émicovy Thy seTaVvOLaY avTOvV Kai TOU TpOTOU Rénsch in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 
 To avupador. 1874, H. 1, p. 127 ff., and already tevés in 
 2As Theophylact, Calvin, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Oecumenius. 
 Schmid, Bleek, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. 
 
CHAP. XcIiy Woe We 
 
 first nodification of this rendering decides the thought which would thus 
 arise, false at least for the application of the statement, since in the Chris- 
 tian domain arepentance that is worthy of the name can never be too 
 late, never ineffectual (comp. Luke xxiii. 39-43); against the second, the 
 internal contradiction in which this interpretationis involved with the con- 
 cession Kairep pera daxpbov éxfytiaac avtqv, Since surely by this very fact the 
 actual presence of a repentance was manifested; against both, finally, the 
 harshness and unnaturalness of the grammatical construction, by which 
 the syntactical order is forced out of its simple connection. Others, finally, 
 as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Primasius, Luther, Grotius, Nemethus, de 
 Wette, Alford, Reuss, rightly indeed refer air#v back to weravoiac, but then 
 understand yetdavoia of Hsau’s change of mind. Luther: “for he found no 
 room for penitence, although he sought it with tears.” De Wette: “ For 
 repentance (penitence, amendment, 7. e. for the return tothe theocratic 
 union by the laying aside of his unhallowed, frivolous character) he found 
 no room, no place, no scope (é. e. there was not granted him, by the delay- 
 ing of the sentence of reprobation, the possibility of manifesting a more 
 worthy spirit, and of becoming reconciled to God), although he sought it 
 with tears.” But if one takes the statement with Luther subjectively, it 
 yields a harsh, repulsive, contradictory thought; if one takes it, with de 
 Wette, objectively, it would be incorrectly expressed, since in that case 
 avtév (se. réror) must of necessity have been written in place of airfp (se. 
 uetavorav). Moreover, for this whole mode of explanation the narrative in 
 Genesis affords no point of support. 
 
 Vy. 18-29. To the endeavor after sanctification the readers are bound, 
 by the constitution of that New Covenant to which they have come. 
 While the Old Covenant bore the character of the sensuous, earthly, and 
 that which awakens merely fear, the New Covenant has the character of 
 the spiritual, heavenly, brings into communion with God and all saints, 
 and confers reconciliation (vy. 18-24). Against apostasy, therefore, from 
 the New Covenant (by an immoral walk), are the readers to be on their 
 guard ; for their guilt and culpability would be thereby incomparably en- 
 hanced. Rather are they to be filled with thankfulness towards God for 
 the participation in the immovable kingdom of the New Covenant, and 
 with awe and reverence to serve Him (vv. 25-29). 
 
 On vv. 18-24, comp. G. Chr. Knapp in his Scripta varii argum., ed. 2, 
 Hal. Saxon. 1823, tom. I. pp. 231-270. [On Vv. 18-24 see Note LXXXI., 
 pages 726, 727.] 
 
 Ver. 18. Tap] [LX XXI a.] enforces, by a reason adduced, the exhorta- 
 tion to sanctification at ver. 14 ff., inasmuch as there is an underlying 
 reference to the fact that, according to Ex. xix. 10 f., 14 f.. the people of 
 Israel in their day, before they were permitted to approach Mount Sinai 
 in order to receive the law, had to sanctify themselves (Ex. xix. 10: 
 ayvioov avtovc; ver. 14: Kat jyiacev abtoic), to wash their clothes, and to 
 preserve themselves free from all defilement.—oi yap rpoceAnAtrSare] for ye 
 did not, se. when ye became Christians, draw near. [LXXXIb.] Comp. 
 Deut. iv. 11: xai rpoogAde_ere Kai éotyte brd Td bpoc.—YnAadwpévrw dbpec] to a 
 
 . 
 
714 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 mountain which is touched, i.e. felt, or laid hold of with hands. That which 
 isintended is Mount Sinai, the place of revelation of the Mosaic law, 
 mentioned also Gal. iv. 24, 25 as the representative of Judaism. As a 
 mountain, however, which is touched or felt with hands this mountain is 
 spoken of, in order thereby to express its character of externally percep- 
 tible, earthly, in opposition to the supra-sensuous, heavenly (éroupdvov, 
 ver. 22). The form ~7Aa¢omevov is not to be taken as synonymous with 
 yuragytov, that could be touched, as is still done by Knapp, Bohme, 
 Stuart, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Ebrard, Bisping, Kurtz, 
 Swald, and the majority of modern expositors. For the participle is in- 
 deed employed for the verbal adjective in the Hebrew, but never in the 
 Greek. Neither can pyAageouevov signify: “touched of God by lightning, 
 and therefore smoking” (Schéttgen, Kypke, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, 
 Storr, Heinrichs, and others; comp. Ex. xix. 18: 76 dpo¢ rd Ywa éxarvitero 
 vAov dia TO KataBEeBnxévar Er’ avTd Tov Beov év Tupi; Ps. Civ. 82: 6 dxtépevoe Tov 
 opéwv kai Karvifovrar), Since yyAagav signifies not the contact made with the 
 view to the producing of an effect, but only the touching or feeling (hand- 
 ling), which has as its design the testing of the quality or the presence of 
 an object. Comp. Luke xxiv. 39; 1 John i.1; Acts xvii. 27. Moreover, 
 the participle present is unsuitable to this explanation, instead of which a 
 participle of the past must have been chosen.—«ai kexavyéve’ rvpi] is under- 
 stood by Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Knapp, Paulus, Stuart, 
 Stengel, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. 114), Maier, 
 Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, al., as a new particular, co-ordinate with the yyia- 
 gwuévy oper: “and enkindled fire.” On account of the like nature of the 
 additions, kai yvdgy «.7.A., immediately following, this acceptation seems 
 in itself the more natural; but since, in the passages of the Pentateuch 
 which were before the mind of the writer in connection with this expres- 
 sion, there are found the words: xai rd dpo¢ éxaiero xupi (comp. Deut. iv. 11, 
 vy. 23, ix. 15), it is more probable that the author referred xexavuévo still to 
 dpe, and would have zvpé taken as dativus instrum. to xexavuévpy: and 
 which (mountain) was enkindled, or set on flame, with jfire—xai yvdeo Kad 
 (6¢@ Kai GvéA24] aed to gloom and darkness and tempest. Comp. Deut. iv. 
 11, v. 22: oxdroc, yvdgoc, BieAAa, 
 
 Ver. 19. Kai cdariyyoc iyo] and to the sound of trumpet. Comp. Ex. xix. 
 16: dwvy tHe odArcyyoc Hye wéya. Ibid. ver. 19, xx. 18.—xai dor7 pnuator | 
 and clang (piercing note) of words, which, namely, were spoken by God at 
 the publication of the law, Ex. xx., Deut. v."—7j¢ of akotoavrec x.1.2.] they 
 that heard which begged to be spared (ver. 25; Acts xxv. 11), that it should be 
 Jurther spoken to them (sc. on account of the terribleness of that already 
 heard)? Comp. Deut. v. 25: kai viv uy aroSdvonev .. . av rpoodaueda 
 queic akovoar THY dwryv Kvpiov Tov Beod yuav étc; Deut. xviil. 16; Ex. xx. 18, 
 
 1Comp. Deut. iv. 12: Kat éAaAnoe Kvptos renuerit audire Dei verba, sed deprecatus 
 M™pos Vas EK LEgOV TOV TUPOS hwVHY pyLaTar, est, ne Deum ipsum loquentem audire coge- 
 Hv des WKOVoaTE. retur. Persona enim Mosis interposita hor- 
 2Calvin: Caeterum quod dicit populum rorem nonnihil mitigabat. 
 excusasse, non ita debet accipi, quasi populus 
 
CHAP, xr 19221. 715 
 
 19.—jc] goes back to gorf, and is dependent not on Aédyov (Storr), but 
 upon akovcavrec.—yp4] after verbs of seeking to be excused, denying, warding 
 off, etc., quite ordinarily. See Kiihner, II. p. 410; Winer, p. 561 [E. T. 
 604].—airoic] looks back to the Israelites (oi axoicavrec), not to pnudror. 
 
 Vy. 20, 21 form a parenthesis, and yap adducesa reason for the thought 
 of the terribleness of the mode of revelation under the Old Covenant. The 
 words otk Egepov yap TO dtactehsAdmevov, however, contain no inde- 
 pendent statement, in such wise that 1d diaoreAAduevov should refer back to 
 that which is before mentioned (Oecumenius, Theophylact; comp. 
 Schlichting). For in that case «av Oypiov «.7.2. would stand without con- 
 nection. Rather are the words an introductory formula for the citation 
 immediately attached. 7d dcaoteAdéuevor, further, does not stand in 
 the sense of a middle: that which ordained, or the divine voice ordaining 
 (Storr, Schulz, Heinrichs, Delitzsch), which is constrained, but in a passive 
 sense: that which was ordained, the divine commandment. The sense is, 
 consequently : for they endured not the mandate, “Though only a beast 
 touch the mountain, it shall be stoned.”—The citation is freely reproduced 
 from Ex. xix. 12,13, in an abbreviated form, and one bringing out at 
 once the gist of the narrative. In Exodus the words read: kai agopieig tov 
 Aadv KiKAW, Aéywr" TpooéyeTe EavToig Tov avaBqvar Eig TO Spoc Kai Hiyew Te avTOv 
 mac 6 dwdpuevog tov bpove Gavatw Tehevtjoer. Ody awetae avdTov yelp’ év yap 
 Ato. AvGoBoAnShoetrar } Bodidc KatatoSevdyjoetar’ dv Te KTHvoc, édv Te dvOpwroc, 
 ov ChoeTa. 
 
 Ver. 21. Kai] is the ordinary conjunctive “and.” It belongs not to 
 oitw¢ doBepov qv Td gavTafduevov, in such wise that Mwio7e eimev x.7.A. “is 
 added by way of appendix, with an accentuation of the subject which 
 renders any connecting particle unnecessary ” (Hofmann), but to Mwicye 
 elmev, in such wisethat ottwc goBepov jv Td davtaléuevov formsan 
 exclamation, inserted parenthetically within the greater parenthesis : and— 
 so terrible was the appearing !—Moses said, I am sore afraid and tremble. 
 kai cannot be taken, with Jac. Cappellus, Carpzoy, Schulz, Knapp, 
 Béhme, Bloomfield, and others, for the enhancing “even.” For, from its 
 position, it can only serve for the connection of the clauses, while for the 
 indication of the sense alleged an additional «ai immediately before 
 Mwioge (or even an airée before the same) would have been required. Yet 
 the right feeling underlies this interpretation: that, regarded as a fact, 
 ver. 21 contains an ascending gradation from ver. 20, inasmuch as the 
 being seized with fear, which at ver. 20 was asserted of the people, is 
 now in like manner predicated of Moses, the leader of the people.—rd 
 gavrafouevov] equivalent to 7d dacvéuevor, the appearing, the visible cover- 
 ing in which the invisible God manifested Himself to the Israelites.'—The 
 verb gav7dflectac in the N. T. only here.—ixgoBde eiue kat Evtpouoc] In the 
 accounts of the promulgation of the law given in the Pentateuch, an 
 expression of this kind on the part of Moses is not met with. According 
 
 1Theodoret: davratéuevov Sé elmev, Ered) ovK avTov éwpwv Tov TaV dAwy Oedy GAAG TLVA 
 havtaciav THs Oetas emiaveias. 
 
716 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 to Zeger, Beza, Estius, Schlichting, Chr. Fr. Schmid [M’Lean, with hesita- 
 tion], Heinrichs, Stuart, Stein, and others, the author drew the same from 
 tradition ; according to Owen and Calov, he gained the knowledge even 
 from immediate inspiration; while Carpzov will not have an actual utter- 
 ance of Moses thought of at all, but, on the contrary, takes the formula: 
 “Moses dicit: horreo et tremo,” as of the same meaning with the bare 
 “ Moses horret et tremit;” and Calvin has recourse to the not less violent 
 expedient: “Mosem nomine populi sic loquutum, cujus mandata quasi 
 internuntius ad Deum referebat. Fuit igitur haec communis totius populi 
 querimonia; sed Moses inducitur, qui fuit veluti commune et omnium.” 
 Without doubt the words of LXX. Deut. ix. 19 [ef. ver. 15] were present to 
 the mind of the author, where in another connection Moses says: xa? 
 éxgoBd¢ eiuc. These words he then transferred, by virtue of an inexact 
 reminiscence, to the time of the promulgation of the law. 
 
 Vv. 22-24. Contrast to vv. 18,19. Positive characterization of the com- 
 munion into which the readers have entered by the reception of Chris- 
 tianity. The description, vv. 22-24, corresponds not in detail to the 
 particulars enumerated, vv. 18, 19 (against Bengel, who ingeniously con- 
 structs a sevenfold antithesis; as likewise against Delitzsch, Kluge, and 
 Ewald, who have followed the same); although we should be led to expect 
 this from the corresponding words of commencement, vv. 18, 22. More- 
 over, the succession of clauses contained in vy. 22-24 is no strictly logical 
 one, since at least kai mvetpacw dikaiwy TeTeAewpérov Would have been more 
 appropriately placed before than after kai kpity Oe ravTwr.—aA2a xpoce- 
 Anhvdate Liav bper Kai ToAEt Oeov COvroc, ‘Iepovoaanu érovpaviw] but drawn near 
 have ye to the mountain Zion and the city of the living God, namely, the heavenly 
 Jerusalem. The three substantive-appellations contain a single idea, in 
 that to the closely connected twofold expression : Svav dper kai wéAee Oeov 
 Cavroc, the following ‘Iepovoaaju éxovpaviy forms an explanatory apposi- 
 tion. As Mount Zion (in opposition to the Mount Sinai, ver. 18) the 
 heavenly Jerusalem is designated, because in the O. T. the Mount Zion is 
 very frequently described as the dwelling-place of God, and the place 
 whence the future salvation of the people is to be looked for. Comp. Ps. 
 xlviii. 3 [2], 1. 2, Ixxviii. 68, cx. 2, exxxii. 13 ff.; Isa. ii. 2, 3; Joel iii. 5 
 fii. 82]; Mic. iv. 1,2; Obad. 17, al. Likewise also is the heavenly Jeru- 
 salem called the city of the living God (comp. too in relation to the earthly 
 Jerusalem: 76Acc¢ éotiv tov peyddov BaoiAéwc, Matt. v. 35), not so much because 
 ‘the living and acting God is its architect (xi. 10), as because He has 
 His throne there.—xai pwpidow ayyéAov] [LX XXI c.] and to myriads of 
 angels, the servants, and as it were the court of God. kai puprdoey 
 ayyéiov belongs together, without, however, our having? to refer like- 
 wise tavyybper, ver. 23, to the same as an apposition. For such apposi- 
 
 1Beza, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Calov, lact, Erasmus, Luther, Clarius, Vatablus, 
 Braun, Kypke, Carpzoy, Cramer, Baumgarten, Calvin, Corn. a Lapide, Piscator, Grotius; 
 Storr, Dindorf, Tholuck, Kurtz, Hofmann, Tischendorf (ed. 2), Bloomfield, Conybeare, 
 and others. Ewald, and others. 
 
 2 With Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
 
CHAP. XII. 22, 23. 717 
 
 tion, consisting of a bare individual word, would be out of keeping with 
 the euphonious fullness of the whole description ; and, if this construction 
 had been intended, kai pupradwv ayyédwv ravyyiper Would have been 
 written. But just as little must we with others (also Bleek and de Wette) 
 take «ai pvpedory alone, as standing independently; whether, as Seb. 
 Schmidt, Wolf, Rambach, Griesbach, Knapp, Bohme, Kuinoel, Stengel, 
 Bisping, Maier, Moll, we regard as apposition thereto merely ayyéAov 
 ravnyiper, Or, aS Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Ernesti, Schulz, Lachmann, 
 Bleek, Tischendorf (ed. 1), Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des 
 Hebraerbr. p. 117), Alford, Kluge, Woerner, both the following members: 
 ayyéAwy wavyyvper Kal ExKAnoia TpwroToKwy aroyeypaupévwv év ovpavoic—in con- 
 nection with which latter supposition, however, the more nearly connect- 
 ing re «ai, of frequent use with the author (ii. 4, 11, iv. 12, al.), would 
 have been more naturally expected than the bare xai before éxkAyjoig. 
 For yvpidow is a very indefinite notion, which, where its reference is not 
 self-evident from the connection, requires a genitival addition; besides, 
 the accentuation of the idea of plurality alone would here be meaningless. 
 Further, the reasons advanced against our mode of explanation, that in 
 such case we ought, after the analogy of the following members, to expect 
 a kai before ravyyipec (Seb. Schmidt, Bleek, Ebrard); that tavyyipe and 
 that which follows would become in the highest degree dragging (Bleek) ; 
 that ravyyipec would be superfluous (de Wette),—are without weight. For 
 kai was omitted by reason of the euphonious cavyyiper Kai éxxAnoia, into 
 which a «ai placed also before tavyyipec would have introduced a discord- 
 ant note; the charge of dragging would have been justified, only if a kai 
 had really been added before zavyyiper; nor, again, is wavyytpec super- 
 fluous, since it contains a very significant notion, and one different from 
 that of éxkAnoia. 
 
 Ver. 28. Tavyyiper kat éxxanoia mpwtotékev, aroyeypampévov év ovpavoic] to 
 the festive assembly and congregation of the first-born, who are enrolled in 
 heaven. ravfyupic, in the N. T. a azaé Aeyouevov, designates the total gath- 
 ering under the form of conception of a being gathered together in festivity 
 and jubilant joy [cf. Joseph. Antt. v. 2,12]; whereas éxxAyoia characterizes 
 those assembled as bound together in inner unity. To be enrolled in heaven, 
 however, signifies to stand recorded upon the book of heaven’s citizens, 
 or to haye part in the rights and privileges of the heavenly citizens. From 
 the connection (poceAnAifate ‘Iepovoadnu éxovpaviy Kai prpidow ayyédwv) 
 beings must be intended, who already dwell in heaven, are actually in 
 possession of the civil rights and immunities of heaven, not those by 
 whom the enjoyment of the same is only to be looked for in the future. 
 Since, then, they are by means of tpwréroxox represented as those who in 
 point of time first (before others as yet) became sons of God, we have to 
 think most naturally, with Calvin, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Woerner, and 
 others, of the patriarchs and saints of the Old Covenant (comp. chap. xi.), 
 who, it is true only upon the condition of union with Christ (xi. 40), but 
 yet by reason of their filial relation to God, did, in a temporal respect 
 before the Christians, receive a dwelling-place and rights of citizenship in 
 
718 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 heaven. According to Nosselt, Storr, Kurtz, and others, we have to under- 
 stand by the zporéroxo still the angels before mentioned, as being the 
 earliest inhabitants of heaven; but for the designation of the angels, the 
 . characteristic azoyeypaupévoe év ovpavoig is unsuitable. The majority dis- 
 cover in zpwrdéroxo a reference to the Christians; and that either, as Pri- 
 masius and Grotius suppose, specially to the apostles—against which, how- 
 ever, stands cavyyipe: kai éxxAnota, which involves the idea of a great host; 
 or, as Schlichting, J. L. Mosheim (de ecclesia primogenitorum in coelo 
 adscriptorum, Helmst. 1733, 4to), Schulz, Bleek, Ebrard, and others, to the 
 Jirst believers from among the Jews and Gentiles, particularly the former, 
 quite apart from the question of their being now dead or still living ; or, 
 as Knapp, Béhme, Kuinoel, Tholuck, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des 
 Hebraerbr. p.117), Alford, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 147, 2 Aufl.), Moll, 
 and others, specially to the church which is still wpon earth, so that in con- 
 nection with mpwrdéroxo: we have to hold fast only to the particular fact of 
 the dignity, while we retain no reference to time; or, as de Wette and 
 Maier, specially to those who have fallen asleep in the faith of Christ, and 
 perhaps even were glorified by martyrdom; or finally, as Piscator, Owen, 
 Carpzoy, Stein, Stuart, Stengel, and others, to the members of the New 
 Covenant in general. But the thought of Christians in this place is a remote 
 one; since the mention of them, in harmony with the order of relating 
 now chosen, would more naturally take place only later, in connection 
 with the mention of Christ Himself, and not already here, between that 
 of the angels and God.—«ai kpity 626 ravtor] and to Him as Judge, who is 
 God over all. xavrov is usually construed with xp:ty. But from its posi- 
 tion it can depend only upon 6e6. dvrwy is masculine, and refers not 
 merely—as Knapp and Bleek suppose—to the fore-mentioned angels and 
 rpuréroxot. It stands absolutely; so that God, in delicate opposition to the 
 Jewish particularism, is characterized as in general the God of all. The 
 apparently unsuitable characterization of God in this connection (because 
 one containing nothing specially Christian), namely, as the Judge, is justi- 
 fied from the aifn of the writer, to warn the readers against laxity of 
 morals, and consequently against apostasy from Christianity (comp. vv. 
 25, 29).—kal rvebuaorv Suxalow tereAgwapévor] and to the spirits of the perfected 
 just ones. mvebmara: dedgnation of the departed spirits, as divested of 
 the body (comp. 1 Pet. iii. 19; Luke xxiv. 39; Acts vii. 59), inasmuch as 
 these only at the resurrection will be clothed with a new body. Most 
 probably the Christians fallen-asleep are those meant.’ Others? think of 
 the saints of the O.T. (chap. xi.); or, alike of the departed saints of the 
 O. T. and those of the New. The dixazor, however, are called rete Aevapévor 
 not in the sense of the “ perfect just ones” *—for which the expression 
 rédewr Would much more naturally have presented itself,—nor yet because 
 they have finished their life’s course and overcome the weaknesses and 
 
 1Grotius, Mosheim, Bengel, Sykes, Baum- 3As Knapp, Bohme, Tholuck, Bisping, De- 
 garten, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, and many. litzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr.. des Hebrderbr. p. 
 2As Corn. a Lapide, Schlichting, Wittich, 122), Alford, Moll, Kurtz. 
 Wolf, Schulz, Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Maier. 4Theophylact, Luther, Stengel, al. 
 
CHAP. XII. 24, 25. aig 
 
 imperfections of the earthly life,! but because they have already been 
 brought by Christ to the goal of consummation. Comp. ii. 10, x. 14, 
 xi. 40, 
 
 Ver. 24. Néac] characterizes the covenant as new in regard to the time 
 of its existence (foedus recens), whereas kacvy, vill. 8, 13, ix. 15, described 
 it as new in respect of its quality (foedus novum). Wrongly Béhme, Kui- 
 noel, and others (de Wette likewise wavers): véa¢ is here to be taken as 
 of the same import with kav7j¢—kai aiwate pavtiopov| Jesus’ atoning blood 
 is called blood of sprinkling, inasmuch as those who believe in Him, in 
 spirit sprinkled therewith, are cleansed from their sins and sanctified to 
 God. Comp. ix. 13 f., x. 22, xiii. 12—xpeirrov] isan adverb. Comp. 1 Cor. 
 vii. 88. Needlessly will Kurtz have it taken as a substantive adjective. 
 Better does the blood of Christ speak than Abel with his blood ; since the 
 latter calls for the divine vengeance, the former, on the other hand, for 
 God’s grace upon sinners.—zapa] See at i. 4—apa tov “ABeA] may be 
 looked upon as a well-known brachylogy for rapa 76 aiva tov “APed. 
 This is not, however, at all necessary, seeing that, at xi. 4 likewise, Abel 
 himself is represented as speaking after his death (by means of his blood 
 which was shed). 
 
 Ver. 25. [On Vv. 25-29, see Note LXXXII., page 727.] The author 
 has but just now, vy. 18-24, in order to enforce with reasoning his exhor- 
 tation to the dy:acudéc, ver. 14 ff., described, in a comparison of the Old 
 Covenant with the New, the exalted nature of the communion into which 
 the readers had entered by the reception of Christianity. As a conclusion 
 therefrom, he warns them against falling away again from Christianity 
 through laxity of morals (comp. also ver. 28 f.), in pointing out, similarly 
 as ii. 2 ff., x. 28 ff., that if the Israelites in old time incurred punishment 
 by disobedience to the O. T. revelation of God, an incomparably severer 
 judgment would overtake those Christians who should turn back again 
 from the N. T. revelation of God.—The simple 2ézere, without the addi- 
 tion of oiv, renders the warning so much the more powerful. Entirely 
 mistaken, Delitzsch: ody is not added, in order that one may not suppose 
 the warning to attach itself to ob yap mpoceAnaibate . . . adda rpoceAnAitate 
 ..., but, on the contrary, it should be manifest that the author thinks 
 of the One speaking, against the refusing of whom he warns, as in most 
 intimate connection with the speaking blood of the Mediator of the Cove- 
 nant which has just been mentioned. —(2érere py rapartionode Tov Aahovvra] 
 [LXXXII a.] take heed that ye do not beg off from Him that speaketh (to 
 you), that ye turn not away from Him and despise Him. 6 Aa46y is not 
 Christ (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Vatablus, Bbhme, Kuinoel, 
 Ebrard, Bloomfield, a/.), but that God who still continues to speak to the 
 readers by means of the Christian facts of salvation. For by tév Aadoivra 
 the same person must be designated, as subsequently by rév az’ ovpavér, 
 sc. xpnuaritovra. By the latter, however, can be meant, on account of the 
 ov referring back to it at ver. 26, and by reason of the érfyyeArac there 
 
 1Qalvin, Limborch, B6hme, Kuinoel, Kurtz, and others. 
 
720 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 occurring (comp. also ver. 29), only God. From this it follows, too, the: 
 by éxi ye 6 ypnuati~oy is meant, not Moses (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
 Carpzov, and others), but likewise God,' so that there is not an insisting 
 upon a diversity of persons in connection with the O. T. and the N. T. 
 revelation, and thence a difference of degree inferred ; but the diversity of 
 the mode of revelation is accentuated, and thereby the higher value of the 
 one revelation above the other on the one hand is marked, and on the 
 other the higher culpability of apostasy from the one than from the 
 other. To the Jews God spake upon the palpable earthly mountain 
 Sinai, choosing as His interpreter an earthly man, Moses; to the Chris- 
 tians, on the other hand, He speaks from heaven, in sending to them 
 His own Son from heaven as His interpreter.—oix« é€éévyov] did not 
 escape, did not evade the divine punishment. Comp. ii. 3. Wrongly 
 Delitzsch, even because the odd waddov jueic x.7.2. does not harmonize 
 therewith: were not able to withdraw, but were obliged to stand fast.— 
 éxl ype tov ypnuatifovra] the One speaking upon earth words of revela- 
 tion. Belongs together, in that é7i y7¢ was placed on account of the 
 Sere emphasis before the article. Similarly the postposing of iva, Gal. 
 
 . 10, and the like.—road paddov jyeic] sc. ok éxdevddueda.—aroorpégerdai 
 a to turn away from any one, reject his fellowship. 
 
 Ver. 26. Like as the author has stated the fact, ver. 25, as a sign of the 
 inferiority of Judaism to Christianity, that God in connection with the 
 former was One ézi yfe¢ ypypatifov, In connection with the latter, on the 
 other hand, One az ovpavev ypnuatifov, so does he now in like manner 
 urge, as a further proof of that inferiority, the circumstance that God then 
 only shook the earth, but now in accordance with the prophecy will shake 
 not only the earth, but at the same time also the heavens.—éodievoer] is to 
 be understood in the literal sense, not, with Estius and others, in the 
 figurative.—rére] then, sc. at the promulgation of the Mosaic law. Comp. 
 Ex. xix. 18 (where, however, the LXX., probably in reading D271 instead 
 
 of V7, translate: nal é&éory mac 6 Aadc o66dpa); Judg.v.4f.; Ps. Ixviii. 
 9 (Si) exive. 4 ard Tpoodrov Kupiov éoahevSyn 7 yij.—vov dé srchy ode ak déyov] 
 who now, on the other hand, has promised as follows. A‘constructio ad sensum, 
 since thé.words form the second member of the relative clause ; but, not- 
 withstanding that, a bound is suddenly made from the preceding subject 4 
 gwvy to the subject contained in the oi, namely, God Himself.—viv] now, 
 has certainly the sense: in regard to the present Christian period (more 
 -exactly: in regard to the epoch of the consummation of the divine king- 
 dom by the coming again of Christ). Grammatically, however, viv «.7.1. 
 has arisen from the contracting of two statements in one, and is to be 
 resolved, with Schlichting, into: nunc vero commoyebit non solum terram 
 sed etiam coelum, sicut promisit apud prophetam, dicens, ete.—érfyyeArar] 
 in the middle sense, as Rom. iv. 21. See Winer, p. 246 [E. T. 262].—The 
 citation is from Hag. ii. 6, but reproduced in a free and abbreviated form 
 (LXX.: ére arak éyo ceiow Tov ovpavoy Kai THY yHv Kai THY Vadaccay Kal THY 
 
 1 Ebrard will have us think of Christ as the second person of the Godhead! 
 
 ——— 
 
CHAP. XII. 26-28, . 721 
 
 Enpav).—étt drag] Faulty rendering of the LXX. instead of: yet a little 
 while. 
 
 Ver. 27. The author, arguing from the éu dragé of the prophetic word 
 of scripture just adduced, brings out as a second feature of the superiority 
 of Christianity, that it is abiding and intransitory—T0 dé ‘Er: aéxaé] The 
 expression, however, Yet once more, sc. and then not again. ére araé, 
 namely, is taken by the writer absolutely.—dyioi tiv tov carevouévor perd- 
 Yeowv] declares (points to) the changing of that which is being shaken, sc. the 
 earth and the (visible) heavens, inasmuch as it is a well-known matter (77) 
 that, at the epoch of the consummation of the kingdom of God, the pres- 
 ent earth and the present heavens will be transformed into a new earth 
 and new heavens (comp. Isa. Ixv. 17 ff., xvi. 22; 2 Pet. iii. 18; Rev. xxi. 
 1); the shaking, however, of the heavens and the earth predicted by the 
 prophet will be the only one, and consequently the last one, which will 
 take place at all.—dée remoujpévuv] because they are created, i.e. visible, 
 earthly, and transitory, things. The words draw attention to the constitu- 
 tion of the caAevdueva, thereby to make it appear as something natural 
 that these should undergo a change or transformation. They are not to 
 be taken together with the following iva; in connection with which con- 
 struction we have either the explanation : which namely has been made, to 
 the end that that which is immovable may remain,'—which, however, without 
 more precise indication, yields arbitrary variations of the meaning, but no 
 clear thought,—or : which was made indeed only for the purpose of awaiting 
 that which is immovable, and giving place to the same when this comes in2 
 Grammatically there is nothing to be alleged against this acceptation of 
 the words, although the expression yévew is not elsewhere employed by 
 the author in the sense of “to await anything ;” nor even against the 
 thought in itself can any objection be raised. But then it appears unsuit- 
 able to the connection; since upon this interpretation that which the 
 author will derive from the ér: a@zaz, namely, the coming in of that which 
 is eternal and intransitory, is brought out in much too subordinate a 
 form. iva is therefore to be taken as dependent on rjv rév catevouévov 
 wetavdeow, inasmuch as it adduces the higher design of God in the trans- 
 formation of the present earth and the present heavens: in order that there 
 may then abide (have a permanent existence) that which cannot be shaken, 
 sc. the eternal blessings of Christianity, into the full enjoyment of which 
 the Christian will enter so soon as a new earth and new heaven is formed, 
 and the kingdom of God attains to its consummation. 
 
 Ver. 28. Exhortation to be thankful to God, and to serve Him in an 
 acceptable manner.—A:é] infers from the concluding words of ver. 27: 
 Wherefore, because that which will have an everlasting existence is no 
 other than the kingdom of God, in which we Christians have obtained 
 part. The author himself expresses this thought in the participial clause 
 elucidatory of the 6:6, BaciAetav dodlevrov rapahauBavorrtec: since 
 
 1Grotius, Bengel, Tholuck, Delitasch, *Bauldry in Wolf, Storr, Bohme, Kuinoe}, 
 Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 130, Obs. ; Hofmann, ai. 
 Kluge, Moll, Woerner, al, 
 
 46 
 
422 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 the kingdom which we Christians obtain (which becomes the possession of 
 us Christians) is an immovable, intransitory one. The participle present 
 rapazauPavovtec, of that which is indeed future, but which with certainty 
 comes in. Erroneously do Calvin, transil., Schlichting, Limborch, Bengel, 
 and others understand the participial clause as a constituent part of the 
 exhortation: “let us receive the immovable kingdom, appropriate it to 
 ourselves by faith,’ which is already rendered impossible by the anar- 
 throus BaovAeiav in itself—éyopev yap] [LX XXII b.] let us cherish thankful- 
 ness, sc. towards God. Comp. Luke xvii.9. Wrongly Beza, Schlichting, 
 Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Carpzov, Bisping, and many others: let us 
 hold fast the grace. For in that case the article could not be wanting in 
 connection with yap, and instead of éyouev must stand karéyouev (comp. 
 iii. 6, 14, x. 23) or xparduev (comp. iv. 14).—d? 7¢ Aatpebopev evapéoto¢ TO 
 66] and by the same serve God in an acceptable manner. 76 6€6 belongs to 
 Aatpebopev.—eTa evAaBeiac Kai déovce] with reverential awe (in that we watch 
 against that which is displeasing to God) and fear. Amplification of the 
 evapioTwc. 
 
 Ver. 29. Warning justification of the wera evAaBeiac kai déove. The words 
 cannot, however, signify : for our God too (the God of Christians), even as 
 the God of the Old Covenant, is a consuming fire (so still Bleek, de Wette, 
 Tholuck, Bisping, and others). For to this end kai yap guar 6 bedc¢ 
 x.7.2. must have been written. Just as little may kai yap, with Delitzsch, 
 Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 60, Obs.), Alford, Moll, and Kurtz, be 
 weakened into the mere notion of “etenim.” For «ai is the enhancing 
 “more than this,” and belongs to the whole clause, in connection with 
 which it would be a matter of indifference (against Delitzsch) whether the 
 author should write kai yap 6 6ed¢ juov mip Katavadioxov OY Kai yap Tip 
 Katavadioxov 6 bed¢ juov, since in either case the main emphasis in con- 
 nection with the few words would fall upon zip katavadicxov. According 
 to the order of the words, and by reason of the intensive force of kai, the 
 sense can therefore only be: for our God is also a consuming fire, i.e. He 
 is not merely a God of grace, but likewise a God of punjtive righteousness. 
 A diversity, consequently, of the God of the Old Testament and the God 
 of the New, which would also have been an unsuitable notion, the author 
 does not by any means assert. Moreover, comp. LXX. Deut. iv. 24: 67 
 Kbptog oO Oed¢ cov Tip Katavadiokov éoTiv. 
 
 Nores By AMERICAN Eprror. 
 LAX VIEL ole: 
 
 (a) The twelfth chapter has, evidently, somewhat of the character of a final 
 appeal to the readers—as in the peroration of a rhetorical discourse. It is in con- 
 nection with this fact that the full-toned and euphonious particle tovyapovr is used 
 at the beginning, instead of 626, dia rovro, bev, which are found in other cases in 
 the epistle. Delitzsch says of this particle that it is “an earnest ergo, Tot affirming 
 the conditions of fact, yép founding upon them, and ov following thereupon.” 
 Grimm, Lex. N.T., calls it “particula cum quadam vi vel solemnitate concludentis.” 
 
NOTES. 725 
 
 In view of the record of these O. T. heroes, the exhortation to press on with sted- 
 fast endurance is presented anew.—(b) The two participles éyovre¢ and agopavtec, 
 as Liinem. says, stand in the same grammatical relation to the verb tpéyouev; but 
 the relation of avoéuevor is not the same. The last-named participle is circum- 
 stantial, or expresses a preliminary condition. The other two are causal. There 
 seems, however, to be a slight difference between them :—#yovrTe¢ setting forth the 
 ground of the exhortation, and thus being immediately united with tocyapotv, while 
 agopavrec, though, in one view of it, expressing a reason for tpéywvev, in another 
 view denotes the act which should accompany the running. Since we have so 
 great a cloud, etc., let us run, ete., with our eyes fixed upon Jesus, the great leader, 
 and with the inspiring influence which our contemplation of Him may give.—(c) 
 The suggestions of Liinem. make it probable, though not indeed certain, that 
 fLapTvpwv means witnesses to faith, and not witnesses of the rpéyerv of the readers. 
 But the latter idea is suggested by wepixeiuevov védoc, and there can be little doubt 
 that the writer had in mind a race-course, in the contests of which the combatants 
 were surrounded by a great company of spectators who had run the same race 
 themselves.—(d) kai before tv evrepiotatov ayapriav means and especially, i.e., it 
 singles out from the zara this one thing as the one which is especially a weight, 
 and which especially needs to be laid aside. The laying aside (aor. part.) must take 
 place before the race is begun. With respect to the word edrepiorarov, while it 
 must be admitted that the meaning is quite uncertain, it may be said that R. V. 
 has given the renderings which are worthy of notice, and has arranged them 
 according to their comparative probability—placing which doth so easily beset us in 
 the text, and in the margin, first, doth so closely eling to us, and, secondly, is admired 
 of many. dyuapria is to be understood, with Liinem., not of a particular sin, as e. g. 
 apostasy in the case of the original readers, or, if an application be made to 
 Christians of later times, of those sins to which they are especially prone, but sin 
 in general. The article marks sin as the easily besetting thing, and-not any one 
 kind of sin—(e) agopavrec is explained by Grimm: oculos ab aliis rebus aversos defigo. 
 It seems to be substantially equivalent to a70Bé7 (xi. 26), which Grimm ex- 
 plains by the same words. For the latter word, he adds attente intueor ; for this, 
 animum adverto. Alf. denies that there is any intimation of “looking of from 
 everything else unto,” and gives the meaning, as do A. V. and R. V., looking unto. 
 That there should be an attentive contemplation of Jesus is, undoubtedly, the 
 writer’s meaning.—(f) On apyyyéc, see Note XLVI d. The objection made by 
 Liinem. to the explanation of Bleek and the numerous other writers to whom he 
 refers: Jesus who in the manifestation of the faith has preceded us by His 
 example, and in the manifestation of this faith has carried on the work unto per- 
 fection (TeAe@ryc), can hardly be sustained. He thinks the author must have 
 regarded Jesus, as Paul did, as the object of faith, and therefore could not have 
 looked upon Him as an example of faith. But we must observe that it is not faith 
 in the peculiar aspect in which Paul conceives of it, that the writer is here dis- 
 cussing, but faith in the sense of that trust in God which is connected with con- 
 fidence in things hoped for but not yet realized, and which inspires to stedfast 
 endurance. Now the writer cv'dently suggests this hope of the future reward as 
 inspiring Jesus, in the latter part of this verse ; he evidently speaks of Jesus as 
 an example of stedfast endurance, in ver. 3; and in ch. ii. he apparently presents 
 Him as the one who, by being Himself perfected, becomes the leader of the children 
 of Gol to their glorified state. Liinem.’s objection that teAeco77¢ can be used only 
 
794 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 transitively seems, also, not to be decisive, because, as transitive, it may mean that 
 Jesus brings faith in His own case to perfection. The view of Bleek is, accordingly, 
 to be adopted, as being harmonious with the author’s thought both in this chapter 
 and ch. ii. the only two places where the word apyyyéc¢ is used.—(g) The return, 
 in this closing chapter, to the words, “and has sat down on the right hand of 
 God,” is striking as exhibiting the rhetorical carefulness of the writer, fitting his 
 discourse everywhere, so to speak, into itself. 
 
 LXXIX. Vv. 3-11. 
 
 (a) These verses contain reasons for yielding to the exhortation given in vy. 
 1,2. yap of ver. 3is not to be taken, with Liinem., as equivalent to yea, but in- 
 troduces a ground for the “running” agopavrec cic... . "Incovv, The mere fact 
 that the sentence beginning with yap has its verb in the imperative does not pre- 
 vent its sustaining this relation to what precedes—(b) R. V. and W. & H. read 
 etc éavrov¢ in the text (ver.3). A. R.V., Tisch., Treg., Alf., read ei¢ éavrév. 
 That éavtoi¢ has the majority of the oldest authorities in its favor can scarcely be 
 doubted, for not only those which directly support it, but those also which have 
 aitoi¢ may be counted. But the internal argument is strongly against it. 
 Liinem. says the plural is “devoid of sense,’ and other writers use similar 
 language. This, however, is too strong a statement, for the author may have 
 desired to express the thought that the action of the sinners referred to was 
 against their own well-being. Still it must be admitted, that such a thought 
 seems antecedently improbable here—it is not in the line of the context ;—while, 
 with éavrév, the sentence becomes just what might naturally be expected. When 
 it is considered, that the singular, either éavrév or avrév, has considerable external 
 testimony, (A P D*? E** K Land many cursives having one form or the other; also 
 some mss. of the Vulg.), and that the change from the singular to the plural is 
 one which might be made by a careless scribe, it seems not improbable, to say the 
 least, that we may rightly yield to the force of the internal argument. In his 
 note on Rom. v. 1, Tisch. says that éywuev cannot be rejected unless it is evidently 
 ineptum, Which it is not. It must be remembered, however, that in Rom. vy. 1, 
 the external evidence is much more decisive for éyuev, than it is here for the 
 plural—(c) Ver. 4 joins the case of Christ with that of some of the O. T. heroes, 
 and thus, in view of what both had experienced, urges upon the readers, as the 
 first ground of his exhortation, the fact that they had not yet been called to 
 endure such extreme trial. Ver. 4 unites itself closely, in this way, with yer. 3— 
 (d) ékAéAnote of ver. 5 is to be’taken interrogatively, not only for the reason sug- 
 gested by Liinem., Blk., Delitzsch, and others: that otherwise the reproach is too 
 strong for the mild character of the discourse in the section, but also because the 
 second ground for his exhortation is not given by the writer in a charge of for- 
 getfulness, but in a recalling to their minds of what they must acknowledge, so 
 soon as it is mentioned: that God’s chastisements are inflicted in love. The 
 verb ékAéAvove is, in relation to the main thought of the verses, quite secondary—: 
 “the discourse of God with sons” has the primary force. To give é«A4eA. the 
 affirmative sense makes it too prominent.—(e) There is a difficulty, as related to 
 the meaning, in each of the two text-readings, at the beginning of ver. 7. If & is 
 adopted, iouévere does not seem to be the appropriate verb; we should expect: 
 if ye are called to suffer, or if ye suffer, chastisement, ye are treated as sons ; 
 
NOTES. tao 
 
 whereas the words are: if ye patiently (stedfastly) endure. The treatment as 
 sons consists in God’s inflicting chastisement, not in our patient endurance under 
 it. On the other hand, if cic is adopted, taieiav must, as Liinem. says in his 
 textual note, have the sense of education, discipline, whereas in the remainder of 
 the passage it means simply chastisement. We are obliged, therefore, to give a, 
 different shade of meaning either to izouévere or to waideia from that which we 
 find in the context. Hence we must be guided altogether, apparently, by the external 
 evidence, which is strongly in favor of eic. That irouévere, with this text, is in- 
 dicative (R. V. text), rather than imperative (R. V. marg.), is indicated by the 
 fact that this is not a hortatory passage, but one that presents an argument for 
 obedience to an exhortation already given—(j) The connection of mpo¢ A‘yac 
 juépac (ver. 10) with the chastisement of both the earthly father and the heay- 
 enly, is to be accepted (with Liinem.)—the difference in the two cases being in the 
 kata TO dokovv avtoic and the éxi 7d ovudépov.—(y) Sixaoobvyc of ver. 11 is to be 
 understood—such are all the indications of the context, which points to the 
 development of character as the end in view—as meaning conformity to what is 
 right: moral perfection. The word has thus the ordinary N. T. sense, not the 
 Pauline or forensic. The fact that this is the meaning, and that such is the sug- 
 gestion of the passage, shows that the genitive here is that of apposition. The 
 fruit consists in righteousness. 
 
 LXXX. Vv. 12-17. 
 
 (a) The exhortations in these verses (see Note LX XI.) are subordinate to the 
 main one, and are to the end of removing hindrances, etc., so that all may press 
 on with stedfast endurance. These minor exhortations are, by 6: of ver. 12, 
 founded upon the next preceding verses.—(b) The objection made by Liinem. to 
 giving rol rooiv tuov the meaning for your fee-—that the way has been prepared for 
 them by Christ, and so they are not to make it, but only to walk in it—is worthy 
 of consideration. But it is not conclusive, for the figurative expression as a whole 
 may be used to denote the straight-forward walking, and not necessarily refer to 
 the path as independent of the walking. The simplest explanation, however, is 
 that of Liinem., with your feet. Alford says, favoring the other view, “If the 
 whole congregation, by their united and consistent walk, trod a plain and beaten 
 path for men’s feet, these lame ones, though halting, would be easily able to keep 
 in it.” Let us substitute in this sentence of Alford’s the words with your feet, and 
 his suggestion favors the view of Liinem., Bleek and others ;—and it is to be 
 remarked that the author of the Epistle says, not men’s feet, but your feet—(c) The 
 view of Liinem., that tavtwy of ver. 14 includes all, non-Christians as well as 
 Christians, is rendered improbable by the fact that the entire passage refers to 
 Christians and their stedfast endurance, and here particularly to their influence 
 upon one another.—(d) The considerations presented by Liinem. with respect to the 
 words petavoiac yap k.7.A, show that the rendering which he gives, and which is 
 adopted by A. R. V. text, is to be preferred. The fact that this explanation 
 corresponds with the history as given in the O. T., and that there is no indication 
 that Esau did not find any place of repentance—any opportunity of changing his 
 own mind,—and little, if indeed anything, in the Scriptures to show that any one, 
 except the man who commits the unpardonable sin, places himself beyond the 
 opportunity of repentance before the moment of death, is a strong, if not conclu- 
 sive, argument in favor of this rendering of the words. The view of Alford, that 
 
 
 
726 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Toro” petavoiag means a chance to repair the evil or remove the penalty by repent- 
 ance, involves as great a change in the meaning of eTdvola, as the reference of 
 the word to Isaac instead of Esau does in its ordinary subjective application, and 
 has no advantage in any other respect as compared with that of A. R. V. The 
 
 “two renderings which A. R. V. gives in the margin should, however, be recog- 
 nized; namely: rejected (for he found no place of repentance) though he sought it [the 
 blessing] diligently with tears (which is the rendering given by R. V.); and, rejected : 
 for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it, etc. (which is the explanation 
 given in A. V.). 
 
 LXXXI. Vv. 18-24. 
 
 (a) yap of ver. 18 connects these verses with the suggestion of the preceding 
 paragraph—namely, that they should remove all hindrances in the way of that 
 running with trouévy which had been urged uponthem. It will be noticed that 
 yap extends in its force over all these seven verses, but not beyond them, and that 
 the writer, in ver. 25, makes an abrupt turn in the thought, and without any 
 particle immediately connecting ver. 25 with ver. 24. The true relation of vv. 
 18-24 to the main thought of the chapter is that of a ground, in the way of 
 encouragement, for the exhortation of ver. 2. Vv. 25-29, on the other hand, 
 repeat, in emphatic closing words, the exhortation of x. 19 ff, (also found in ver. 
 2), which is, indeed, the one great exhortation of the epistle——on the negative 
 side—not to reject the new system and fall away by apostasy. This view of the 
 passage from ver. 18 to ver. 29 is supported by all the suggestions which the 
 passage itself and the whole progress of thought from x. 19 onward to this point 
 offer, and is much to be preferred to that of Liinemann. 
 
 (b) The contrast between the Christian revelation and the Mosaic which is here 
 presented, is that of what is terrible and forbidding and what is hopeful and 
 inspiring. The contrast is set forth in words and figurative representations which 
 are suggested by the O. T. record of the giving of the Mosaic law, and of the 
 earthly Jerusalem, etc. The pointing of all the words in the second part of the 
 contrast is, evidently, towards those of the 24th verse—Jesus the mediator, ete. 
 
 Through Him as mediator of the new covenant, and by means of His blood, it is 
 
 that we come to Mount Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem—and so to the company 
 of the perfected ones. The thought returns, at the end of the whole hortatory 
 passage belonging to this last sub-section of the epistle (viii. 1—x. 18), in a strik- 
 ing way, to the point from which it moved at the beginning, x. 19-22: “ Having 
 boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus.” The words are not 
 precisely the same, but Jesus and the new covenant are the great ideas at the 
 commencement and the close. The unity of this entire passage and its connection 
 with viii. 1—x. 18 are, thus, manifest throughout all its parts. 
 
 (c) The construction of pvpidow x.7.A, (ver. 22 f.) cannot be determined with 
 certainty. But, if we may regard pvpidow as independent of ayyéAor, and may 
 make the latter word depend on ravyyiper, the sentence moves on with the most 
 satisfactory explanation of all its parts, and with the grand rhetorical emphasis 
 and climax which we might expect of this author at the end of his discourse: 
 and to innumerable hosts, the festal assembly of angels and the congregation of 
 the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of ail, and to the 
 spirits of just men made perfect. If this is the correct understanding of the 
 words, the first-born enrolled in heaven are, most simply, taken as meaning the 
 
 OE 
 
NOTES. 727 
 
 church on earth; the spirits of the perfected righteous, as the church in heaven; 
 and God the judge, as standing between them and assigning the former, as they 
 pass to their reward, their place among the latter. It may be questioned, how- 
 ever, whether the writer had such a carefully adjusted plan in the formation of 
 his sentence, and whether he did not, on the other hand, allow himself to be 
 borne on by feeling, securing his object by means of the emphasis of repetition 
 (see xi. 33 ff). 
 
 LXXXII. Vv. 25-29. 
 
 (a) Aadoivra is not to be regarded as suggested simply by the Aadovvr: of ver. 
 24. On the other hand, it carries in itself the meaning of this verb as used 
 throughout the epistle, and is descriptive of God’s revelation, as in the first verse 
 of the first chapter. There can be no doubt that by r6v Aadovvra the writer 
 means God. He is represented here, as in i. 1, as the author of both of the two 
 revelations. He spoke on earth through Moses; He speaks from heaven through 
 Christ. The striking correspondence of this final exhortation with the first one of. 
 the epistle, ii. 1-4, cannot fail to be observed.—(b) yaprv of ver. 28 is to be under- 
 stood in the sense, not of grace, as R. V. text, but thankfulness, R. V. marg. This 
 is indicated both by the reasons mentioned by Liinem., and by the fact that— 
 while, on the one hand, grace is, in the N. T., viewed as the divine favor, so that 
 we may be exhorted to seek for it or rejoice in it, but cannot so naturally be ex- 
 horted to have it—on the other hand, the suggestion to serve God with thanks 
 for such a glorious revelation of such a better covenant, mingled with awe in 
 remembrance that He is a consuming fire to those who reject Him, is most 
 appropriate as following that which has been said in the preceding context. 
 
728 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Ver. 4. The preference over the Recepta topvoic dé is merited on account of 
 the better attestation (A D* D, Lat. M &, Vulg. Copt. Anton. Max. Bed.) by 
 mopvovcg yap. Commended to attention by Griesbach. Adopted by Lachm. 
 Bleek, Alford, and Tisch. 8.—Ver. 8. Elz.: y@éc. But A C* D* M ®& have 
 éxy0éc. Rightly admitted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford.—Ver. 9. 7 apadépeate ] 
 Elz.: “7 wepidépeobe, Against AC DM &, the later supplementer of B, the 
 preponderant majority of the cursives, Vulg. Copt. al., and very many Fathers. 
 Already rejected by Grotius, Bengel, and Wetstein, then by Griesbach, Matthaei, 
 Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Lachm., Tisch., Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, 
 Reiche, and others. Correction to accord with Eph. iv. 14.—Instead of the 
 Recepta wepitatyoavrec, A D* &* present Tepimarovrrec. Placed in the 
 text by Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8, and probably the original reading.—Ver. 10. 
 In place of the Recepta ov« Eyxovorv éFovaiary, Tisch. 2 and 7 reads only ob« 
 éyovocv, and already Mill (Prolegg. 1292) has condemned éfovciav as a gloss. 
 But éovsiay is lacking only in D* Gr. and Lat., in M and with Damascen., 
 whereas it is present in A C D** and*** K &, ete. (with Chrysostom before ob 
 éyovow). It was erroneously omitted by reason of its similarity in sound to the 
 foregoing ob« éyovow.—Ver. 11. Elz. Tisch. 8: To alia wept dpapriag ei¢ ta 
 aya. SOD KM 8,ete. Inplaceof this, Lachm.and Tisch. 1 write, after C* al, 
 Copt. Syr. al.: TO aiwa cic Ta Ayla TEpi duapriac. By means of its varying 
 position, however, 7ept duapriac betrays itself as a glossematic elucidation, see- 
 ing that it is entirely wanting in A, in Aeth., and with Chrysostom, and seeing, 
 moreover, that some cursive Mss. (14, 47) present in place of the singular the 
 plural wept duaptidv, Rightly therefore have Bleek, Tisch. 2 and 7, and 
 Alford deleted the addition.— Ver. 17. trép Tov puyov tuov w¢ Adyov arodacovrec 
 Instead of which La¢hm. in the stereotype ed. and Tisch. 1 chose the order: o¢ 
 Adyov arovdecortec brép TOV Wvyov buov, But the authority of A, Vulg. 
 Bede does not suffice for the transposing. Rightly therefore did Lachm. in the 
 larger ed., ‘and Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, return to the Recepta—Ver. 18. Elz.: wexoi- 
 Samev, Against the preponderating testimony of A C* D* D, Lat. (suademus) 
 M, 17, 67** 137, which demands the reading, commended by Griesb. and adopted 
 by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford: rec0éue0a, To the latter points also the Ja 
 yap ote KaAnv in the Cod. Sinait., since in this codex ore Kaj. has been placed 
 immediately before, only in consequence of a manifest oversight of the copyist.— 
 Ver. 21. To the Recepta év tavri épyy, instead of which the Cod. Sinait. pre- 
 sents only év mavti (adopted by Tisch. 8), had Lachmann in the stereotype ed. 
 further added: kat Ady, which he has yet rightly struck out again in the 
 larger edition. The addition kai 46y is found only in A, and once with Chry- 
 sostom, whereas it is twice wanting with the latter. It is a gloss from 2 Thess. ii. 
 17.—Instead of the mere wo/@v of the Recepta, Lachmann reads in the Edit. 
 Stereotypa: abvto¢ wordv; in the larger edition: avT@ movdv. But avrdg — 
 
CHAPS Kim dy 123 729 
 
 rests only upon 71 and D, Lat. (ipso faciente); the alleged testimony of C in 
 favor thereof is founded on an error of Wetstein. «iz, however, which has for 
 it the authority of A C* 8* and of Gregor. Nyssen., is a disturbing addition, and 
 manifestly arose only from a twofold writing of the airov immediately fore- 
 going.—Elz. Lachm. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Reiche, Tisch. 8: ei¢ rode aldvac 
 Tov aiover, But Tov aiover is wanting in C*** D, in many cursives, in Arab. 
 Armen., with Clem. Alex. and Theodoret. Suspected by Bengel and Griesbach ; 
 rightly rejected by Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 1, 2,7, and Alford. For it is more 
 probable that the simpler formula, occurring for the rest Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27, 
 would be enlarged into the ampler formula more usual in the case of doxologies, 
 than that the ampler would be abbreviated into the simpler one—Ver. 22. D* 
 46, 57, al., Vulg. Syr. Arm, have avéyeoUar. Adopted by Lachmann. But 
 the imperative avé yeo¥e, presented by the Recepia, is to be retained, as imparting 
 more animation to the discourse. This reading is protected by the preponderating 
 authority of A C D*** K M &, ete. Am., Copt. Aeth. al., Chrys. Theodoret (also 
 in the Commentary), al—Ver. 23. Elz.: 76v ade4¢6v. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 
 and 8, de Wette, Delitzsch: tov adeAgdv 7uav, The latter is to be preferred 
 on account of the stronger attestation by A C D* M ®8* 17, 31, 387, 39, al., all vss. 
 Kuthal. Maxim. Athan. 
 
 Vy. 1-25. Concluding exhortations partly of a general nature, partly 
 in special relation to the main purport of the epistle, and concluding 
 notices, followed by a twofold wish of blessing. [On Vy. 1-8, see Note 
 LXXXIII., pages 745, 746.] 
 
 Ver.1. [LXXXIII a, b.] Exhortation to enduring brotherly love.— 
 ‘H giAadedgia] The love of the brethren, i.e. love to the fellow-Christians.— 
 pevétw] abide, cease not. For, according to vi. 10, x. 33, the readers had 
 already exercised this virtue before, and were still exercising it. Yet in 
 their case, since they had become doubtful regarding the absolute truth 
 of Christianity, and in part already sought to withdraw from the outward 
 fellowship of Christians (x. 25), and, moreover, in particularistic prejudice 
 closed their hearts against a brotherly intercourse with the Gentile 
 Christians, the renewed inculeation of this virtue was of special importance. 
 
 Vv. 2,3. Summons to two particular forms of expression of the general 
 virtue, ver. 1. [LXXXIII c.] 
 
 Ver. 2. Exhortation to hospitality? Owing to the hatred of the Jews 
 towards the Christians, and the almost entire absence of public places of 
 entertainment, hospitality towards fellow-Christians on their journeys 
 became, for the Palestinians also, an urgent necessity.—dva taity¢e yap 
 éhatliv tivec Sevicavtec ayyé2ovc] Enforcement of the command uttered, by 
 calling attention to the high honor? which, by the exercise of this virtue, 
 accrued to single remote ancestors of the Jewish people; for by the mani- 
 
 
 
 1Comp. Rom. xii. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 9; 1 Pet. Anv evdatmovias Kai akapLoTyTos elvar pa Tept 
 
 1y22)3)2) Petia. 7 THY oikiav, év } KaTaxOnvar Kai Feviwy Aayxerv 
 2Comp. Rom. xii. 13; 1 Pet. iv.9; 1 Tim. iii. Umewervay ayyedor mpds avOpwmovs, tepal Kai 
 25) Tit. 1.8: Betar pvcers, VrodidKovor Kai Urapxo TOD Tpw- 
 3Comp. Philo, de Abrah. p. 366 (with Man- Tov @eov du’ dy ota mpecBevt@y baa av OeAjon 
 
 gey, II. p. 17 f.): “Ey 6 ov« of8a tive SiepBo- TO yever Hu@V mpoPcoTical, SuayyéAAEt. 
 
730 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 festation of hospitality some have unwittingly entertained angels. The 
 author was certainly, in connection with this statement, thinking specially 
 of Abraham and Lot (Gen. xviii. 19). We have, moreover, to compare 
 the declaration of the Lord, Matt. xxv. 44, 45, according to which he who 
 entertains one of His people, entertains the Lord Himself—The 4a ov, 
 written in accordance with genuine Greek praxis, but not occurring else- 
 where in the N. T., forms a paronomasia with érczavdavecdve. 
 
 Ver. 3. Exhortation to have a care for the prisoners and distressed — 
 Miurgckecde Tov deouiov] Be mindful (sc.in order to aid them with minister- 
 ing love) of the prisoners.—ac¢ ovvdedepuévor] as fellow-prisoners, i.e. with as 
 much devotion to them as though the captivity had fallen upon yourselves. 
 For the Christians are members of the same body ; as in the prosperity, so 
 also are they to share in the sufferings one of the other. Comp. 1 Cor. 
 xii. 26. Bo6hme (in like manner Heinrichs too) explains: “ quippe ejus 
 naturae et conditionis homines, qui ipsi quoque pro captivis sint, 
 nimirum in ecclesia pressa degentes.” Upon this interpretation, it is true, 
 the twofold &¢ retains its full significance ; but in order to represent the 
 readers as “in ecclesia pressa degentes,” an addition to ovvdedeuévox 
 could not have been dispensed with—rav kaxovyouuévwr] of those who suffer 
 evil treatment. tov kaxovyouuévwv is the genus, under which the foregoing 
 Tov deouiwy are ranged as a particular species.—é¢ kal avroi dvtec év coparc] 
 [LXXXIII d.] as sojourning yourselves in a body, thus likewise still sub- 
 jected to the earthly order of the world, and not secured against the like 
 ill-treatment. According to Calvin and others, the sense is: since ye indeed 
 are members of the same body (to wit, the church),—which, however, must 
 have been indicated by é¢ kai abtoi év TO cduate Tov Xpiotov dytec. Accord- 
 ing to Beza: as though in your own person ye were Kakovyovuevou,—a sense 
 which can only with violence be put upon the words. 
 
 Ver. 4. Exhortation to chastity in the narrower sense.— Tijwoc] held in 
 estimation, honorable, sc. éorw. [LX XXIILe.] Others supplement éoriv, So 
 already the Peshito (honoratum est connubium inter omnes), then Beza, 
 Grotius (apud ometes gentes moratas honos est conjugio), M’Caul, and 
 others. But against this stands the addition: kai 4 Koity apiavrtoc, since 
 the latter could not be asserted as a truth in point of fact. Rather might 
 the indicative rendering thereof be preserved by taking the clauses 
 descriptively : “Marriage honorable in all things,” etc., which then would 
 not be different in sense from the direct requirement that marriage should 
 be honorable. Nevertheless, this mode of interpretation too—recently 
 adopted by Delitzsch—could only be justified if it were followed by a 
 long series of similar statements; here, on the other hand, where impera- 
 tives are placed in close proximity before and after, it is unnatural.—dé 
 yauoc] marriage. In this sense the word occurs frequently with the 
 Greeks. In the N. T. it has everywhere else the signification : wedding, and 
 its celebration.—év raow] is neuter: in ull things. The majority take év 
 maow as masculine, There is then found expressed in it the precept, either, 
 as by Luther and others, that marriage should in the estimation of all be 
 
 held in honor, é.e. not desecrated by adultery; or, as by BOhme, Schulz, 
 
CHAP. xi. 3-6. (ol 
 
 and others, that it should not be despised or slighted by any unmarried 
 person (according to Hofmann, by any one, whether he live in wedlock, 
 or he think that he ought for his own part to decline it); or finally, as 
 by Calvin and many, that it is to be denied to no order of men (as later to 
 the Catholic priests). In the two last cases it is generally supposed that 
 the reference is to a definite party of those who, out of ascetic or other 
 interest, looked unfavorably upon the married life. But for all three 
 modes of explanation, tapa raowv would have been more suitably written 
 than év rao; and a preference for celibacy on the part of born Jews in 
 particular, to whom nevertheless the Epistle to the Hebrews is addressed, 
 is an unexplained presupposition, because one not in accordance with the 
 teaching of history. —«ai 7 Koiry ayiavtoc] and the marriage bed (against the 
 ordinary usus loquendi, Valckenaer and Schulz: the cohabitation) be unde- 
 filed—ropvove yap Kai poryoro kpwet 6 Oedc] for fornicators and adulterers 
 will God judge (condemn at the judgment of the world). Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 
 9f., al. The 6 @ed¢ placed at the close of the sentence is not without em- 
 phasis. It reminds that, though such sins of uncleanness remain for the 
 most part unpunished by earthly judges, the higher Judge will one day be 
 mindful of them. 
 
 Vv. 5, 6. Warning against covetousness; exhortation to contentedness. 
 — Ad@iAapyvpoc] free from greediness of money, from covetousness and avarice, 
 1 Tim. iii. 8. Comp. vi. 24 ff.—é rpéroc] se. éorw: let the mind and comport- 
 ment, the character, be.—apxovuevoe toig tapovow] sc. gore: be contented with 
 that which is present. ta xapévta here, as Xen. Sympos. iv. 42 (oi¢ yap 
 pahiota Ta TapévTa apkei, HKLoTa TOV GAAoTpiww dpéyovrar), and often with the 
 classic writers, of the earthly possession which one has.—airo¢ yap eipyxev] 
 for He Himself has said, namely, God, as He who is speaking in the 
 scripture; not Christ (Beza, BGhme, Klee).—ot yj ce avo ove ov wy oe 
 éyxataainw] I will in no wise fail thee, nor by any means forsake thee. To this 
 citation the most similar passages are Deut. xxxi. 6 (oire uy oe avqj, obte my 
 oe éyxatadiry), ibid. ver. 8 (ov« avjoer ce, ovdé wh oe éyxatadizy), and 1 Chron. 
 XXvili. 20 (ok avjoe: oe Kai ov py éyKatadizy); although, in these passages, 
 instead of the first person singular the third person is used. Less corre- 
 sponding in point of expression are Josh. i. 5 (oi« éyxataieipw ce ovd 
 brepdwouai oc), Gen. xxviii. 15 (ov pf oe éyxatadizw), and Isa. xli. 17 (ovK 
 éykatateipw avtobc). On the other hand, there is found a citation entirely 
 correspondent to ours in Philo, de Confus. Linguar. p. 344 C (ed. Mang. I. 
 p. 4380). It is possible that, as Bleek and de Wette suppose, the author 
 adopted the same immediately from Philo. It is, however, also possible 
 that the utterance, in the form in which we meet with it here and in 
 Philo, had become proverbial. According to Delitzsch and Kluge, the 
 utterance of Deut. xxxi. 6 assumed this form in the liturgic or homiletic 
 usage of the Hellenistic synagogue, in that reminiscences of other 
 similar O. T. passages blended with the original passage. [According to 
 Piscator, Owen, and Tischendorf, the reference is to Josh. i. 5.] 
 
 Ver. 6. "Gore Sapporvrac uae Aéyewv x.7.2.] 80 that we boldly say (namely, 
 in the words of Ps. exviii. 6): the Lord is my helper, and I will not fear ; 
 
ou THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 what can a man do to me?—ri romjoee wor avdIpwroc;] is an independent 
 direct question. Grammatically false is the construction of the Vulgate 
 (so also Jac. Cappellus and others), which takes the words as dependent 
 on ov ¢o0ByFyoouac: non timebo, quid faciat, mihi homo. 
 
 Ver. 7. Exhortation to a remembrance of the former teachers, and an 
 emulation of their faith—oi jyobuevec] the presidents and leaders of the con- 
 gregation. Comp. vv. 17, 24; where, however, those still living are in- 
 dicated, while here we have to think of those already fallen asleep. By 
 virtue of the characteristic oirsvec éAGAnoav bmiv Tov Adyov Tod Oeod 
 they appear as identical with the persons mentioned ii. 8, the immedi- 
 ate disciples of Christ, from whom the readers had received the gospel. 
 —ov] has reference equally to ri éxBaow rie avactpodye and ty rior, 
 —avavewpeiv] the prolonged, closely observing contemplation. Comp. 
 Acts xvii. 23.—riv éixBaow tig avactpoggce| [LX XXIII f.] not: the course or 
 path of development of their walk (Oecumenius, but without deciding, and 
 Lud. de Dieu)—which is opposed to linguistic usage; nor yet: the result 
 Jor others of their believing walk, inasmuch as many were thereby converted 
 to Christianity (Braun, Cramer)—which must have been more precisely 
 defined by means of additions; just as little: the result of their believing 
 walk for the jyotyevo themselves, as regards their rewarding in heaven 
 (Storr, Bloomfield, and others), for an ava¥ewpeiv of the latter, to which 
 the author is supposed to exhort, would not have been possible; but: 
 the outlet or end of their walk on earth [1 Cor. x. 18]. Comp. 77 é£odov, 
 Luke ix. 31, 2 Pet. i. 15, and ry ddéw, Acts xx. 29. That which is in- - 
 tended, seeing that in combination with the @ a¥ewpeiv thy ExBaouv 
 THO AvaoTpOoHS a wimetodar THY TioTLv 1s Spoken of, is beyond doubt 
 the martyr’s death, endured by the earlier leaders and presidents of the 
 Palestinian congregations, Stephen, James the elder, James the brother 
 of the Lord, and Peter, whereby they had manifested the strength and 
 immovable stedfastness of their faith. 
 
 Vy. 8-15. Exhortation to hold aloof from unchristian doctrines and 
 ritual observances 2 
 
 Ver. 8 [LX XXIII g.] is ordinarily comprehended in one with ver. 7. 
 Expositors then-find in the utterance either, as Bleek, Ebrard, Bisping, 
 and others, an adducing of the motive for the emulation of the faithful 
 leaders enjoined at ver. 7; or, as Zeger, Grotius, Schulz, Kurtz, and 
 others (comp. already Theophylact), the encouraging assurance that, as 
 to these leaders, so also to the readers, provided they only take the 
 faith of these leaders as a model for themselves, the gracious aid of Christ 
 —of which, however, there was no mention in ver. 7—will not be wanting ; 
 or finally, as Carpzoy,! the more precise information as to that in which 
 their faith had consisted. More correctly, however, on account of the 
 antithetic correspondence between 6 airéc, ver. 8, and rokiAaie Kai Eévaie, 
 ver. 9, are the words, ver. 8, taken as constituting the foundation and 
 
 1“Tmitamini vestrorum praefectorum fidem, nimirum hance: Jesus Christus heri, hodie 
 et semper 0 avros Deus est.” 
 
CHAP, xitI. 7 9, 733 
 
 preparation for the injunction of ver. 9. Jesus Christ is for ever the same; 
 the Christian therefore must give no place in his mind and heart to 
 doctrines which are opposed to Christ, His nature and His requirements. 
 —ixdic .. . onuepov ... et¢ Tov¢ aidvac.] [LXXXIITh.] Designation of 
 the past, present, and future; exhaustive unfolding of the notion ae, The 
 expression is rhetorical , éyé¢ is consequently not to be further ex- 
 pounded, in such wise that we must think of the time of the former teachers, 
 or of the time before the appearing of Christ, or to the whole time of the Old 
 Covenant,’ or even to the eternal pre-existence of Christ*—'Incotc Xprotéc 
 is the subject, and 6 avréc (sc. éoriv, not éo7w) the common predicate to 
 all three notes of time. Wrongly Paulus: “ Jesus is the God-anointed 
 One; yesterday and to-day is He altogether the same ”—which must have 
 read: ‘Iyjcovg 6 Xpioréc. But mistaken also the Vulgate, Oecumenius, 
 Luther, Vatablus, Zeger, Calvin, and others, in that they interpunctuate 
 after ojuepov: Jesus Christ yesterday and to-day ; the same also in eternity. 
 For that which is to be accentuated is not the eternity of Christ, as would be 
 the case by means of the éydé¢ kat ofuepov taken alone, but the eternal 
 unchangeableness of Christ. 
 
 Ver. 9. [On Vv. 9-15, see Note LXXXIV., pages 746, 747.] The ex- 
 hortation itself, for which preparation was made at ver. 8, now follows.— 
 AWayaic rorKidase kai Févace uy Tapagépecb: | By manifold and strange doctrines do 
 not be seduced, borne aside from the right path. As is shown by the connect- 
 ing of the two halves of the verse by the yép, expressive of the reason or 
 cause, the d:dayai rorkiaac xai Févar are related to the Bpénata men- 
 tioned immediately after as the genus to a species coming under particular 
 notice; and, as is manifest from ver. 10 ff., both belong to the specifically 
 Jewish domain. By didayai rocxirar cai Févaz, therefore, the ordinances 
 of the Mosaic Jaw in general are to be understood, the observance of 
 which was proclaimed among the readers as necessary to the attainment 
 of salvation, while then under Bpéuara a special group of the same is 
 mentioned. zovkiAac the same are called, because they consist in com- 
 mands and prohibitions of manifold kind; £éva:, however, because they 
 are opposed to the spirit of Christianity.—xaiov yap] for it is a fair thing, 
 i.e. praiseworthy and salutary.—ydpite BeBaovcba: tv Kapdiav] [LXXXIV 
 e1.] that by grace the heart be made stedfast, in it seek and find its support. 
 For no other thing than the grace of God is that which determines the 
 character of the New Covenant, as the law that of the Old, Rom. vi. 14, 
 al. Erroneously, therefore, Castellio and Bohme, yépire means by thanks- 
 giving or gratitude towards God ; yet more incorrectly Bisping and Maier: 
 by the Christian sacrificial food, the Holy Communion.—oi Bpdéuacw] not 
 -by meats. [UX XXIV b.] This is referred by the majority, lastly by B6hme, 
 Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. 
 p. 158), Alford, Moll, Ewald, and Hofmann, to the Levitical ordinances 
 
 1Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, Lim- 3 Calvin, Pareus, al. 
 borch, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Delitzsch, 4Ambrose, de Fide, y. 1. 25; Seb. Schmidt, 
 Maier, Kluge, Kurtz, Hofmann, Woerner, al. Nemethus, and others, 
 
 -2Bengel, Cramer, Stein. 
 
734 : THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 concerning pure and impure food. But only of the sacrificial meals can 
 ov Boduacw be understood. For rightly have Schlichting, Bleek, and 
 others called attention to the fact that (1) the expression, ver. 9, is more 
 applicable to the enjoyment of sacred meats than to the avoiding of un- 
 clean meats. Schlichting: Cor non reficitur cibis non comestis, sed com- 
 estis. Ciborum ergo usui, non abstinentiae, opponitur hic gratia; that (2) 
 it is said of the Christians, at ver. 10, in close conjunction with ver. 9, that 
 they possess an altar of which the servants of the Jewish sanctuary have 
 no right to eat; that, finally, (8) at the close of this series of thoughts, 
 ver. 15, the reference to the sacrifices is retained, inasmuch as there, in 
 opposition to the Levitical sacrifices, it is made incumbent on Christians 
 through Christ continually to offer sacrifices of praise unto God. Tho- 
 luck, it is true, objects to this reasoning: (1) that Bpduara may denote “ the 
 clean, legally permitted meats, with (the mention of) which is at the same 
 time implied the abstinence from the unclean.” But this expedient is 
 artificial and unnatural; since, if we had in reality to think of the Leviti- 
 cal precepts with regard to food, in the exact converse of that which 
 happens the avoiding of unclean meats would be the main idea brought 
 under consideration. (2) That the connection of ver. 10 with ver. 9 would 
 only apparently be lost, since one may warrantably assume the following 
 line of thought; “Do not suffer yourselves to be led astray by a variety 
 of doctrines alien to the pure truth—surely it is a fairer thing to assure 
 the conscience by grace than by meats, by means of which no true ap- 
 peasement is obtained; we Christians have an altar with such glorious 
 soul-nourishment, of which no priest may eat.” But this supposed 
 thought of ver. 10 would be highly illogical. For how does it follow from 
 the fact that Christians have an altar of most glorious soul-nourishment, 
 that no priest may partake of the same? Logically correct, certainly, 
 would be only the thought: for we Christians possess an altar with such 
 glorious soul-nourishment, that we have no need whatever of the Leviti- 
 cal ordinances regarding food. Then again, at ver. 10, nothing at all is 
 written about “ glorious soul-nourishment;” but, on the contrary, the de- 
 sign of this verse can only be to make good the incompatibility of the 
 Christian altar with the Jewish. «(8) That the exhortation to the spiritual 
 sacrifices, ver. 15, may be more. immediately referred back to ver. 10. 
 But ver. 10 stands to ver. 9, in which the theme of the investigation, vv. 
 8-15, is expressed, in the relation of subordination. The following oir, 
 ver. 15, may therefore serve for the introducing of the final result from 
 the whole preceding investigation. (4) Finally, that it cannot be perceived 
 how the participation in sacrificial meals could have been looked upon 
 
 as a means of justification. But the participation in the sacrificial meals 
 
 was certainly a public avouchment of participation in the sacrifices them- 
 selves. Comp. 1 Cor.x.18. Very easily, therefore, might the author be 
 led finally to take up this preference of his readers for the Jewish sacrifi- 
 cial cultus in this particular form of manifestation, which had hitherto 
 remained unnoticed in the epistle—The supports, too, which Delitzsch 
 has more recently sought to give to the referring of ov Bpduacw to ordis 
 
CHAP. xu. 10. 735 
 
 nances regarding clean and unclean meats, are weak. For that Bpaépara 
 is a word unheard of in the sacrificial thora, but familiar in the legislation 
 regarding food, and that Bpoua is used elsewhere in the N. T. of that 
 which is prohibited or permitted for eating, does not in any way fall under 
 consideration ; because our passage claims before everything to be intelli- 
 gible per se, nothing thus can be determinative of its meaning which is 
 opposed to its expression and connection. That, however, the author 
 cannot by didayai rorkida cai Eévae have meant the ordinances of the law in 
 general, because he has recognized their divine origin, and therefore could 
 not have indicated them with so little reverence, is a mere prepossession. 
 For the Apostle Paul, too, speaks of them, as is already shown by Gal. iv. 
 9f,v. 2, with no greater reverence. We are prevented from thinking, 
 with Delitzsch, of “erroneous doctrines invented in accordance with one’s 
 own will, though it may be attaching themselves to the O. T. law,” by the 
 relation in which didayai¢ rockiAare Kai Févare stands to Bpouacw, ver. 9, and 
 this again to 2 ob gayeiv vbx Eyovow éovciar ol TH OKNVH Aatpevovtec, ver. 10.— 
 Ev ol¢ OvK OdEAHOnCaY ol mepiratovvrec] [LX XXIV c 2.] from which those busied 
 therein have derived no profit, inasmuch, namely, as by such partaking of 
 the sacrifice they did not attain to true blessedness.—év oi¢ belongs to oi 
 mepirarovvrec, Since these words cannot stand alone, not to dgerpOyoar. 
 
 Ver. 10. Justification of ob Bpouacw, ver. 9, the emphasizing of the incom- 
 patibility of the Christian altar with that of Judaism. We possess an altar, of 
 which they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle, i. e. he who seeks in 
 the Jewish sacrificial meals, and consequently in the Jewish sacrificial 
 worship, a stay and support for his heart, thereby shuts himself out from 
 Christianity, for he makes himself a servant of the tabernacle; but he 
 who serves the tabernacle has no claim or title to the altar of Christians. 
 That the subject in éyouev is the Christian, is acknowledged on all sides. 
 But equally little ought it ever to have been disputed that by oi rq oKNVA 
 Aatpebd vtec persons must be denoted who are contrasted with the Chris- 
 tians. For, in accordance with the expression chosen, the author can only 
 mean to say that the Christians possess the right to eat of the altar; those 
 4 oKyvy Aatpebovrec, on the other hand, forego this right. Quite in a wrong 
 sense, therefore, have Schlichting, Schulz, Heinrichs, Wieseler (Schriften 
 der Univ. Kiel aus d. J. 1861, p. 42), Kurtz, and others, referred oi Th OKNVA 
 Aarpetovrec likewise to the Christians, in that they found expressed the 
 thought: for Christians there exists no other sacrifice than one of which ii is 
 not permitted them to eat. They then suppose to be intended by of rH oxnvj 
 Aatpebovrec either, as Schlichting, “omnes in universum Christiani,” or, as 
 Schulz, particular officers of the society, who conducted the Christian wor- 
 ship. But in the first case—apart from the fact that then, what would 
 alone be natural, #5 0% dayety oe Eyoury sovotav would have been written 
 
 
 
 'So also Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. 1, 2 Aufl. verse: “that we, whose only propitiatory 
 p. 457 ff.), who will have only the twofold fact sacrifice, and one for all alike, is Christ, have 
 to be accentuated at ver. 10: “that we are no other profit from our means of expiation, 
 priests,” and “that we possess a means of ex- than that we are reconciled.” (!) 
 piation,” and brings out as the sense of the 
 
736 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 instead of é& ob gayeivobx Exyovow éovoiav oi TH cKyv AaTpetovrec—the Chris- 
 tians would, as Bleek has already justly observed, have been designated 
 by a characteristic which could not possibly be predicated of them; in 
 the second, an anachronistic separation into clerics and laity would be im- 
 puted to the author, and the sense arising would be unsuitable, since the 
 proposition, that the warrant for eating of the Christian sacrifice is want- 
 ing, could not possibly hold good of the clergy alone, but must have its 
 application to Christians in general. By 7 oxyv% can thus be un- 
 derstood nothing other than the earthly, Jewish sanctuary, as opposed 
 to the adaydi_ and reAeorépa oxyv of Christians, viii. 2, ix. 11. The 
 Th oKnvy Aatpevovrec, [LXXXIV ce 3.] however, are not specially! the 
 Jewish priests (viii. 5), but the members of the Jewish covenant people 
 universally (ix. 9, x. 2).—The @voaorfpiov further is the altar, upon which 
 the sacrifice of the New Covenant, namely, the body of Christ (comp. ver, 
 12), has been presented. Not “ipse Christus”? or the @voia itself which 
 has been presented,’ nor yet the cultus (Grotius), can be denoted thereby. 
 But likewise the explaining of the table of the Supper, the tparefa xvpiov, 1 
 Cor. x. 21* is inadmissible. For then there would underlie our passage 
 the conception that the body of the Lord is offered in the Supper, Christ’s 
 sacrifice is thus one constantly repeated; but such conception is unbibli- 
 cal, and in particular is remote from the thought of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, in which the presentation of the sacrifice of Christ once for all, 
 and the all-sufficiency of this sacrifice by its one presentation, is frequently 
 urged with emphasis; comp. vii. 27, ix. 12, 25 ff., x. 10. Exclusively cor- 
 rect is it, accordingly, to understand by the altar® the spot on which the 
 Saviour offered Himself, 7. e. the cross of Christ. But to eat of this altar, 
 7. e. to partake of the sacrifice presented thereon, signifies: to attain to 
 the enjoyment of the spiritual blessings resulting from Christ’s sacrificial 
 death for believers; the same thing as is represented, John vi. 51 ff., as the 
 eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Christ. 
 
 On vv. 11-13, comp. Bahr in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, H. 4, p. 936 ff. 
 
 Vy. 11, 12. Proof,for ver. 10. The proof lies in the fact that Christ’s 
 sacrifice is one which has been presented without the camp, and conse- 
 quently has ‘been freed from all community with Judaism. Ver. 11 and 
 ver. 12 are,as a proof of ver. 10, closely connected, and only in ver. 12 
 lies the main factor, whereas ver. 11 is related to the same asa merely 
 preparatory and accessory thought (Bahr). For the bodies of those 
 animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest are 
 burned without the camp ; wherefore Jesus also, in order that He might 
 sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered without the gate. That 
 
 1As Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Riehm 
 (Lebrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 161), Alford and 
 others suppose. 
 
 2 Piscator, Owen, Wolf; comp. Calvin. 
 
 8Limboreh, Whitby, M’Lean, Heinrichs, 
 and others. 
 
 4With Corn. a Lapide, Chr. Fr. Sehmid, 
 Bohme, Bahr (Stud. u. Krit. 1849, H. 4, p. 938), 
 
 Ebrard, Bisping, Maier, and others (comp. 
 also Rickert, das Abendmahl. Sein Wesen und 
 seine Geschichte in der alten Kirche, Leipz. 
 1856, pp. 242-246, 
 
 6 With Thomas Aquinas, Estius, Jac, Cap- 
 pellus, Bengel, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, De- 
 litzsch, Riehm, /.c., Alford, Kluge, Moll, 
 Kurtz, Woerner, and others. 
 
CHAPS “xii, “UP=KS; 737 
 
 is to say: The N.T. sacrifice of the covenant is typically prefigured by the 
 great atoning sacrifice under the Old Covenant. Of the victims, however, 
 which were devoted to the latter, neither the high priest nor any other 
 member of the Jewish theocracy was permitted to eat anything. For of 
 those animals only the blood was taken, in order to be brought by the 
 high priest into the Most Holy Place as a propitiatory offering; the 
 bodies of those animals, on the other hand, were burned without the 
 camp or holy city (Lev. xvi. 27), wherein was contained the explanation 
 in an act (comp. Bihr, /. c.), that they were cast out from the theocratic 
 communion of Judaism. But thus, then, has Jesus also, in that He 
 entered with His sacrificial blood into the heavenly Holy of Holies, made 
 expiation for the sins of them that believe in Him; His sacrificial body, 
 however, has, since He was led out of the camp, or beyond the gate of 
 the holy city, in order to endure the infliction of death (comp. Lev. xxiv. 
 14; Num. xv. 35 f.; Deut. xvii. 5), declared by this act to be cast out from 
 the Jewish covenant-people. Eat of His sacrificial body, i.e. obtain part 
 in the blessing procured by His sacrifice, can therefore no one who is still 
 within the camp, 7. e. who still looks for salvation from the ordinances of 
 Judaism. Consequently he who will eat of the altar of Christ must 
 depart out of Judaism, and go forth unto Christ without the camp (ver. 
 18).—ra ayia] as ix. 8, 12, 24, 25, x. 19, the Most Holy Place—The tenses in 
 the present mark the practice as one still continuing.—rapeuZo0r4] Charac- 
 terization of the dwelling-place of the Jewish people at the time of the 
 lawgiving, while it was still journeying through the wilderness and had 
 tents forits habitation. The camp was the complex of the tents, enclosing 
 the totaity of the people together with the sanctuary. Thus there was 
 combined with the idea of locality the religious reference to the people as 
 one covenant-people, and “without the camp” became equivalent in 
 signification to “without the bounds of the Old Covenant.” But, since 
 afterwards the city of Jerusalem, with the temple in its midst, took the 
 place of the rapeuBory, the éFo tHe THANE standing in ver. 12, without 
 the gate, sc. of the city of Jerusalem, says in effect the same thing as é£wo 
 THC TapeuBorgc, VV. 11, 18.—é:6] wherefore, i. e. because the sacrificial death 
 of Jesus has been prefigured by the type mentioned, ver. 11.—idiov] oppo- 
 sition to the animal blood in the O, T. sacrifices of atonement.—rov adv] 
 see at li. 16, p. 182.—érafev] comp. ix. 26. 
 
 Ver. 13. [LX XXIV c¢ 4.] Deduction from wv. 10-12, in the form of a 
 summons: Let us then no longer seek salvation for ourselves within the 
 bounds of Judaism, but come forth from the camp of the Old Covenant 
 and betake ourselves to Christ, untroubled about the reproach which may 
 fall upon us on that account. Theodoret: &w tHe mapeuBoAne avti tov é€w 
 THC KaTa vouov yevdyeba Toduteiac. False, because opposed to all the con- 
 nection, is it when Chrysostom 1, Theophylact, Primasius, Erasmus, 
 Paraphr., Clarius, and others find in ver. 13 the exhortation to renounce 
 the world and its delights; or Chrysostom 2, Limborch, Heinrichs, Dindorf, 
 Kuinoel, Bloomfield: willingly to follow the Lord into sufferings and 
 death; or Schlichting, Grotius, Michaelis, Zachariae, Storr: willingly to 
 
 47 
 
738 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 submit to expulsion by the Jews from their towns and fellowship; or 
 Clericus: to forsake the city of Jerusalem on account of its impending 
 destruction (Matt. xxiv.).—roivy] as the commencement of a sentence 
 only rare, Comp. LXX. Isa. ili. 10, v. 18, xxvii. 4, xxxii. 23; Lobeck, ad 
 Phryn. p. 342 sq.—rov dvecdiouov avtov] See at xi. 26. 
 
 Ver. 14. [LX XXIV c¢ 5.] Ground of encouragement to the ¢épew rdv 
 dveiouov Tov Xpiorov, ver. 13.—éyouev] namely: we Christians. Not: we 
 men in general_—dde] here upon earth. FErroneously Heinrichs: in the 
 earthly Jerusalem.—riv péddrovoav] sc. réaw: the city to come, which, namely, 
 is an abiding one. Comp. xil. 22: ‘IepovoaAju éxovpdvioc, and xi. 10: # rove 
 Oeuedioug Exovoa TéAuc, He Texvitye Kai Snusovpydg 6 Oedc. Rightly, for the 
 rest, does Schlichting observe: Futuram autem civitatem hanc vocat, quia 
 nobis futura est. Nam Deo, Christo, angelis jam praesens est. 
 
 Ver. 15. Closing exhortation, through Christ, to offer to God sacrifices 
 of praise. Deduced from vv. 8-14.—A? airoi] is with great emphasis pre- 
 posed : through Hi (sc. Christ), but not through the intervention of the 
 Jewish sacrificial institution. Through Him, inasmuch as by the all- 
 sufficiency of His expiatory sacrifice once offered, He has qualified 
 believers so to do.—fvoiav aivécewc] a praise-offering (BVA NI), thus a 
 spiritual sacrifice, in opposition to the animal sacrifices of Judaism.—dé.a 
 mavréc| continually. For the blessings obtained through Christ are so 
 abundant and inexhaustible, that God can never be sufficiently praised 
 for them.—rovréorw xaprov yeidéwv duohoyobvtwy 7H ovéuate avtov] that is, 
 fruit of lips which praise His name. Elucidation of the meaning in @uciav 
 aivécewc, in order further to bring into special relief the purely spiritual 
 nature of this Christian thankoffering already indicated by those words. 
 The expression kaprov yeraéwv the author has derived from Hos. xiv. 
 3, LXX.: xal avraroddécouev Kaprov yedéwr yuov (in the Hebrew: mw) 
 wna’ O79, let us offer for oxen our own lips).\—The referring of airod to 
 Christ (so Sykes, who finds the sense: confessing ourselves publicly as the 
 disciples of Christ) is unnatural, seeing that God has been expressly men- 
 tioned only just before as the One to whom the Ovoia aivécewe is to be 
 presented. 
 
 Ver. 16. [On Vv. 16-21, see Note LX XXYV., pages 747, 748.] Exhorta- 
 tion to beneficence. By means of dé this verse attaches itself to the pre- 
 ceding, inasmuch as over against the Christianly devout mind which 
 expresses itself in words, is placed the Christianly devout mind which 
 manifests itself in deeds.—Tie dé ebrotag Kai Kowwviac py exidaavdavecde] 
 ([LXXXYV a.] Of well-doing, moreover (the substantive eizocia only here 
 in the N. T.; ed roeiv, Mark xiv. 7), and fellowship (i.e. communication 
 of earthly possession, comp. Rom. xv. 26; 2 Cor. ix. 18), be not forgetful 
 (ver. 2).—rovatrace yap Avoia¢g evapeoteitar 6 Oedc]: for in such sacrifices God 
 
 1 For the thought, comp. Vajikra R. 9. 27, in preces cessabunt, sed laudes non cessabunt. 
 Wetstein: R. Pinchas, R. Levi et R. Jocha- Philo, de Sacrificantibus, p. 849 E (with Mang. 
 nam ex ore R. Menachem Galilaei dixerunt : II. p. 253): thy apiotnyv avayovar buaiav, 
 Tempore futuro omnia sacrificia cessabunt, Upvots kal evyaptotiacs Tov EevEpyéTHY Kai TwTNpA 
 eacrificium vero laudis non cessabit. Omnes cov yepaipovtes. ; 
 
CHAP. x1tt. 14-18, 739 
 
 has pleasure.—rowtrac] refers back only to ebmouac Kat kowvoviac, not 
 likewise to ver. 15..—The formula eiapecroduat rive is elsewhere foreign 
 to the N. T. as to the LXX.; with later Greek writers, however, not 
 unusual. 
 
 Ver. 17. Exhortation to obedience to the presidents of the assembly. 
 [LXXXV b.] Comp.1 Thess. v. 12, 13.—tMei#eob_e roic Hyovpmévowg Duav Kal 
 imeixere] Obey your leaders, and yield to them. Bengel: Obedite in iis, quae 
 praecipiunt vobis tanquam salutaria; concedite, etiam ubi videntur plus- 
 culum postulare. The demand presupposes, for the rest, that the author 
 knew the #yotwevoc as men like-minded with himself, who had kept them- 
 selves free from the hankering after defection —airoi yap ayputvovow wbrép 
 Tov poxav vuov] for it is they who watch for your souls, for the salvation thereof. 
 —w¢ Adyov arodacovrec] as those who must give an account (of the same), se. to 
 God and the Lord at His return —iva] is the subsequently introduced note 
 of design to meifecbe kat breixere, On that account, however, it is not per- 
 mitted, with Grotius, Carpzov, and others, to enclose abroi yap... tuov 
 within a parenthesis; because the subject-matter of the clause of design 
 refers back to the subject-matter of the foregoing establishing clause.— 
 pera xapac] with joy, namely, over your docility.—rovr0] se. r5 aypurvew. Er- 
 roneously do Owen, Whitby, Michaelis, M’Lean, Heinrichs, Stuart, and 
 others supplement 7d Adyov arodidévar. For the latter takes place only in 
 the future, whereas the conjunctive of the present rovadouv points to that 
 which is already to be done in the present.—«a? pi orevacorrec | and without 
 sighing, sc. over your intractableness.—aAvoireréc] unprofitable, inasmuch as 
 it will bring you no gain, but, on the contrary, will call down upon you 
 the chastisement of God. A litotes—rovro] sc. 7d orevdtew. 
 
 Vv. 18, 19. Summons to the readers to intercession on behalf of the 
 author. Comp. 1 Thess. v. 25; 2 Thess. iii. 1; Rom. xv. 30; Eph. vi. 19; 
 Col. iv. 3.—repi juév] The plural has reference exclusively to the author 
 of the epistle. In addition to himself, to think of Timothy (Seb. Schmidt, 
 al.), or of the #yobuevo. spoken of ver. 17 (Carpzovy, Kluge), or of the fellow- 
 laborers in the gospel in the midst of the Gentile world, remote from the 
 Hebrew Christians (Delitzsch, comp. also Alford), or of the companions in 
 his vocation, with regard to whom it was to be made known that they 
 wished to be looked upon as joint-representatives of the subject-matter of 
 the epistle (Hofmann), is arbitrary. For—apart from the fact that no 
 mention has been made of Timothy until now, and that the presupposition 
 that the author wished himself to be numbered among the #yotuevor spoken 
 of in ver. 17 is a wholly baseless one—the singular, which in ver. 19 with- 
 out any qualification takes the place of the preceding plural, is in itself 
 decisive against this view. For, even if perchance at ver. 19 the person 
 of the writer had to be brought into special relief, out of a plurality of per- 
 sons indicated at ver. 18, a distinguishing éyé as addition to the simple 
 rapakad could not have been wanting.—reisuefa yap bru «.7.A] [LXXXV c.] 
 Jor we persuade ourselves, i.e. we suppose or take it to be so (comp. Acts 
 
 1 Theophylact, Schlichting, Bengel, Béhme, Kuinoel, Hofmann, Woerner. 
 
740 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 xxvi. 26), that’ we have a good conscience, since we endeavor in all things to 
 walk in a praiseworthy manner. Indication of the reason on the ground 
 of which the author believes he is entitled to claim an interest on the part 
 of the readers, manifesting itself in intercession on his behalf. But in the 
 fact that he regards such explanation as necessary, there is displayed the 
 consciousness that the Palestinian Christians took umbrage at him and his 
 Pauline character of teaching; to remove this umbrage is therefore the 
 object of the justificatory clause.—év raow] belongs to that which follows, 
 not still? to éyouev; and waovv is not masculine, but neuter. 
 
 Ver. 19. Tepisoorépwc] is on account of its position more naturally 
 referred to rapaxaté than‘ to rovjoar—iva tayiov aroxatactada ipiv] that I 
 may the sooner be restored to you, may be in a position to return to you. 
 There is to be inferred from these words, neither that the author, at the 
 time of the composition of the epistle, was a prisoner,®> nor yet that he 
 belonged, as member, to the congregation of those to whom he was 
 writing. The former not, because the notice, ver. 23: pe? ot, tav ta yiov 
 épxntat, dpouat duac, Shows beyond refutation that the writer at the time 
 of the composition of the epistle was able to dispose freely of his own per- 
 son. The latter not, because it is illogical to place the general notion of 
 a “being restored ” to a community upon a level with the special notion 
 of the “return of one who has been torn from his home.” Only two 
 things follow from the words, namely (1) from the réycov, that the 
 author was still prevented, in some way or other which had nothing to do 
 with his personal freedom, from quitting his temporary place of residence 
 so quickly as he could wish; (2) from aroxaracra@é, that he had 
 already, before this time, been personally present in the midst of his 
 readers. 
 
 Vv. 20, 21. A wish of blessing. [LXXXV d.] Chrysostom: IIpérov rap’ 
 avTav aithoac Tag evydc, TéTe Kal avTo¢ avToic EmebyeTar TavTa Ta Ayadd.—éd 
 Ode rH¢ elphvyc] A designation of God very usual with Paul also. Its im- 
 port may either be, as 1 Thess. v. 23 (see at that place): the God of salva- 
 tion, i. e. God, who bestows the Christian salvation; or, as Rom. xv. 38, 
 xvi. 20, Phil. iv. 9§2 Cor. xiii. 11: the God of peace, i.e. God, who produces 
 peace. In favor of the first acceptation, which is defended by Schlichting, 
 may be urged the tenor of the benediction itself. In favor of the latter 
 acceptation decides, however, the connection of thought with ver. 18 f. 
 
 1 Bengel, Bohme, Kuinoel, Klee, and others 
 take 67-—in reading the received wemocOa- 
 wmev yap, and then supposing this to be put 
 absolutely—as the causal “ for” or “ because,” 
 which, however, even supposing the correct- 
 ness of the Recepta, is forced and unnatural 
 Yet more unsuitable, however, is it when 
 Hofmann, even with the reading mevOdpue8a, 
 will have ore taken causally. The sense is 
 supposed to be: “if we believe that ye are 
 praying for us, this has its ground in the fact 
 that we have a good conscience.” But to 
 derive the more precise indication of con- 
 
 Kat ev 
 
 tents for the, dependent mev@due8a from that 
 which precedes, is altogether inadmissible. 
 
 2 As Oecumenius and Theophylact suppose, 
 
 8Chrysostom: otk év e@vixois movoy adda 
 vuiv; Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
 Luther, Er. Schmid, Tholuck, Hofmann, al. 
 
 4With Seb. Schmidt, Rambach, Bengel, 
 and Hofmann. 
 
 5Euthalius, Caloy, Braun, Bisping, and 
 others. 
 
 6R. Késtlin in the Theol. Jahrb. of Baur and 
 Zeller, 1853, H. 3, pp 423, 427, and 1854, H. 3, 
 pp. 369, 406. j 
 
CHAP. xii. 19, 20. 741 
 
 For, since the closing half of ver. 18 betrayed the presupposition that the 
 receivers of the epistle were biassed by prejudice against the person of 
 the writer, there lies indicated in the fact, that in the following wish of 
 blessing God is designated as the God who creates peace, the further idea, 
 that He will also make peace between the readers and the writer, 7. e. will 
 bring the Christian convictions of the readers into harmony with that of the 
 writer. So in substance Chrysostom (roiro elme da Td oracidlew avrovc. Ei 
 Toivuv 6 Fede eipiync Bede éore uy Sactacrdtere Tpd¢ 7juac), Oecumenius, Theophy- 
 lact, Jac. Cappellus, and others. Wrongly do Grotius, Béhme, de Wette, 
 Bisping, and others derive the appellation “the God of peace ” from the 
 supposition that reference is made to the contentions which prevailed 
 amongst the members of the congregation itself. For the assumption of 
 a state in which the congregation was rent by internal dissensions, is one 
 warranted neither by xii. 14 nor by anything else in the epistle—é davaya- 
 yav «.7.2.] Further characterizing of God as the God who, by the raising 
 of Christ from the dead, has sanctioned and attested the redeeming work 
 of the same.—é avayaydv éx vexpov]-He who has brought up from the dead, 
 i.e. who has raised from death. Wrongly do Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, 
 Maier, Kluge, and Kurtz suppose that in 6 dvayayév is contained at the 
 same time the exaltation into heaven. For, since 6 avayayév does not 
 stand absolutely, but has with it the addition é« vexpov, SO must that idea 
 also have been made evident by a special addition. There would thus 
 have been written 6 é vexpdv ele trpoc avayayév, or something similar. 
 Compare, too, Rom. x. 7, where in like manner, as is shown by ver. 9, by 
 the Xpiordv ék vexpov avayayety is denoted exclusively the resurrection of 
 Christ, and not likewise His ascension. —rov roiéva tov mpoBdtwv tov péyar | 
 the exalted (comp. iv. 14) Shepherd of the sheep. For the figure, comp. John 
 x. 11 ff; Matt. xxvi. 31; 1 Pet. ii. 25, v. 4 (6 apyuroiugv). According to 
 Theophylact, Bengel, Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, Kurtz, Hofmann, 
 and others, the author had in connection with this expression present to 
 his mind LXX. Isa. xiii. 10, where it is said in regard to Moses: rod 6 
 avaBuBaoac éx rie Sardoone Tov owuéva Tov TpoBdtwr,—a supposition which, con- 
 sidering the currency of the figure in the N. T., may certainly be dispensed 
 with.—év aivare Sead Hane aiwviov] [LXXXV d 1, 2] in virtue of the blood of an 
 everlasting covenant, i.e. in virtue of the shed blood of Christ, by which the 
 New Covenant was sealed; comp. ix. 15 ff., x. 29. Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
 Clarius, Calvin, Bengel, Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Kluge, Kurtz, Hof- 
 mann, Woerner, and others conjoin these words with 6 avayayov, but then 
 again differ from each other in the determining of the sense. According to 
 Bleek and Kurtz (similarly Bisping), the author intends to say: “God 
 brought up Christ from the dead in the blood of the everlasting covenant ; 
 in such wise that He took, as it were, the shed blood with Him, in that 
 He opened up to Himself by the same the entrance into the heavenly 
 sanctuary, and it retained continually its power for the sealing of an ever- 
 lasting covenant.” But this interpretation falls with the erroneous pre- 
 supposition that 6 davayayéy includes in itself likewise the idea of the ex- 
 altation to heaven. According to Oecumenius 2, Theophylact 2, and Cal- 
 
742 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 vin, év, on the other hand, stands as the equivalent in signification to obpv: 
 who has raised Christ from the dead with the blood of the everlasting covenant, 
 so that this blood retains everlasting virtue; while Clarius (comp. the first 
 interpretation in Oecumenius and Theophylact) understands the words as 
 though ei¢ 7d eivar 7d aia aitov jpiv ei¢ dvadqKnv aidviov had been written, and 
 Bengel, as likewise Hofmann, makes éy aiwar: the same as did 1d aiua (for 
 the blood’s sake). But all these acceptations are linguistically untenable. 
 Equally inadmissible is it to take év, in this combination, instrumentally 
 (Delitzsch, Kluge: “by means of, by the power of, by virtue of;” Alford: 
 “through the blood”). For if one insists on the strict signification of the 
 instrumental explanation, there arises a false thought, since the means 
 by the application of which the miraculous act of the resurrection 
 was accomplished is not the blood of Christ, but the omnipotence of God. 
 If, however, we mingle the notion of mediately effecting with that of the 
 meritorious cause, as is done by Delitzsch and Alford, inasmuch as the 
 former dilutes the “ kraft” (by virtue of) into “ virtute ac merito sanguinis 
 ipsius in morte effusi,” the latter the “through” into “in virtue of the 
 blood,” we come back to Bengel’s ungrammatical equalizing of év aipati 
 with dia 76 aiva. Another class of expositors combine év aiyare diabjxne 
 aiwviov with the uéyav immediately foregoing; either, as Sykes and Baum- 
 garten, in taking roy véyay as a notion per se; or, as Starck, Wolf, and 
 Heinrichs, prolonging in connection with it the idea of the shepherd. 
 Nevertheless, it is most natural! to regard év aiuate diadAxyn¢ aiwviov as in- 
 strumental nearer definition to the total idea rdv roméva tov rpoBatwv Tov 
 véyav ; in such wise that by the addition is indicated the means by which 
 Christ became the exalted Shepherd, with whom no other shepherd may 
 be placed upon a parallel. Comp. Acts xx. 28: mpooéyere . . « mavti TO 
 Touvin, &v @ bua TO mvevua Td aylov &eTo ExtoKérove, ToLpaivey THY EKKAN- 
 ciav Tov Kkupiov, Hv mepteTorfoato O1ad TOU aipartog Tov idiov.— 
 SiadhjKnc aiwviov] Comp. Jer. xxxii. 40, 1.5; Isa. lv. 3, Lxi. 8.? 
 
 Ver. 21. Karaprioa buac év ravti tpyo ayabo) [LX XXYV d 3.] cause that ye 
 become apriot, ready or perfect, in every good work. Oecumenius: tAnpdocat, 
 tedeoou. - That, for the rest, xarapricac is optative, and not, as Kurtz 
 strangely supposes, imperative aorist middle, is self-evident.—eic¢ 7d roujoac] 
 Statement of the design, not of the effect (Schlichting and others): that ye 
 may accomplish.—rd béAnua abrov] His will, i.e. that which is morally good 
 and salutary. There is certainly comprehended under the expression the 
 faithful continuance in Christianity.—rov év tyiv 1d evdpectov évorcov 
 aitod bia "Iyoov Xpiotov] [LXXXV d 4.] working in you (wrongly Bohme: 
 among you) that which is well-pleasing in His sight, through Christ Jesus. 
 Modal definition to xarapricar.—rd ebdpeotov évariov avtov] Comp. 2 Cor. v. 
 9; Rom. xii. 1, xiv. 18; Eph. v. 10; Phil. iv. 18 —dcd ’Inood Xpiorod] be- 
 
 1With Beza, Estius, Grotius, Limborch,  d:aO%jxcnv, as érépas peta TavTyy ovK écomerys™ 
 
 Schulz, Béhme, Kuinoel, Stuart, Stengel, iva yap py Tis YrOAGBy, Kai TavTny Sb’ aAAns 
 Ebrard, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebraerbr. p. Sra0yxns mavOjcecOat, cixdtws avTHS TO aT«Aev 
 601), Maier, Moll, and others. tTytov decker. : 
 
 2Theodoret: Aiwvov 52 thy Kawwnv KéxAnxe 
 
CHAP. Xi. 21-23. 743 
 
 longs neither to xataprica: (Bloomfield) nor to 16 ebdpectov évoriov avrov 
 (Grotius, Hammond, Michaelis, Storr, and others), but to roav.—@ 4 d6€a 
 eic tove aidvac] sc. iotw—7 déEa] the glory due to Him.—The doxology is 
 referred by Limborch, Wetstein, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Ernesti, 
 Delitzsch, Alford, Kluge, Woerner, and others, to God; and in favor of 
 this it may be urged that in the wish of blessing 6 @ed¢ forms the main 
 subject. More correctly, however, shall we refer it, partly on account of 
 the immediate joining of © to "Iycov Xporov, partly on account of the 
 design of the whole epistle, to warn the readers, who had become waver- 
 ing in their faith in Christ, against relapse into Judaism, with Calvin, Jac. 
 Cappellus, Grotius, Owen, Béhme, Stuart, Bleek, Stengel, Tholuck, Bis- 
 ping, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrierbr. p. 286), Maier, Moll, and the 
 majority, to Christ. [LXXXV d5.] 
 
 Ver. 22. [On Vv. 22-25, see Note LXXXVI., page 748.] Request for 
 friendly reception of the epistle—dvéyeobe tod Adyou tHe mapaKAgoewc] 
 [LXXXVI a.] bear with the word of the exhortation, grant it entrance with 
 you, close not your hearts against it. Mistakenly do the Vulgate, Stein, 
 and Kluge make rapdkAnoce here have the signification of “ consola- 
 tion.” Neither the verb avéyeofe nor the tenor of the epistle is in keeping 
 therewith.—é Adyoc tH¢ tapaxAgoews] Comp. Acts xiii. 15. Not merely the 
 admonitions scattered here and there in the epistle (Dindorf, Kuinoel) are 
 to be understood under this expression ; and just as little is merely chap. 
 xiii. (Semler), or the last specially hortatory sections, chap. x. 19=xiii. 
 (Grotius, Caloy, and others), thought of in connection therewith. Rather 
 is there intended by it, as also the following é7éorevAa proves, the epistle 
 in its full extent—xai yap 6a Bpayéwv iréoreda tuiv] Argument for the 
 reasonableness of the request on the ground of the brevity of the epistle: 
 for I have also (i.e. apart from the fact that, by reason of your perilous 
 wavering in the Christian faith, the admonishing of you was laid as a duty 
 upon my conscience), as you see, written to you only with brief words. 
 Theophylact: Tooavra eimév, buwc Bpayéa tava dnow, boov mpdc & émediuer 
 déye. Quite remote from the meaning is that sense which Kurtz would 
 put upon the words: the readers were also to take into account the fact that the 
 epistle has, owing to its brief compass, often assumed a harsher and severer form 
 of expression, than would be the case in connection with a more detailed anuplifica- 
 tion and a more careful limitation—6.a Bpayéwr] of the same import as d? 
 odiyov, 1 Pet. v. 12.—émioréAAew] in the signification “to write a letter,” 
 elsewhere in the N. T. only Acts xv. 20, xxi. 25. 
 
 Ver. 23. Communication of the intelligence that Timothy has been set 
 free, and the promise, if the arrival of Timothy is not long delayed, in 
 company with him to visit the readers.—yivéoxete] is imperative, not 
 indicative For, that the author would be obliged to communicate further 
 
 1Peshito, Vulgate, Faber Stapulensis, ner, and others. 
 Luther, Calvin, Beza, Junius, Owen, Bengel, “Vatablus, Nésselt, Opuse. I. p. 256; Morus, 
 Bohme, Stuart, Bleek, I. p.278; Stein, Ebrard, Schulz, Bleek ad loc., and EHinl. in d. N. T.,8 
 Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Kluge, Aufl. p. 583: de Wette, al. 
 Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, N’Caul, Hofmann, Woer- 
 
744 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, 
 
 details concerning the liberation of Timothy in the case that the readers 
 had not yet known of it, cannot be maintained ; while, on the other hand, 
 upon the supposition of the indicative, the whole notice would become 
 superfluous.—yivdoxere arodeAvuévov] [LX XXVI b, c.] know as one released, 
 i.e. know that he has been released. Comp. Winer, p. 324 [E. T. 346]. 
 Wrongly will Storr, Schleussner, Bretschneider, Paulus have y.véoxere 
 taken in the sense: hold in honor, or: receive with kindness, against which, 
 equally as against the interpretation of Schulz: “ye know the brother 
 Timothy, who has been set at liberty,” the non-repetition of the article rév 
 before the participle is in itself decisive-—aroAeAvuévor] is to be understood 
 of liberation from imprisonment. Of an imprisonment of Timothy noth- 
 ing is known to us, it is true, from other sources, but the possibility of the 
 same cannot be disputed. The suppositions, that azoZeAvuévoy signifies : 
 sent away to the Hebrews with our epistle (Theodoret, subscription of the 
 epistle in many cursives: éypd¢y ard "Iradiac did Tipodiov; Faber Stapu- 
 lensis, al.), or: sent away somewhither, and consequently absent from the 
 author (Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Carpzoy, Stuart, and others), 
 have the simple signification of the word against them.—édv rayiov épyyrac] 
 of he very speedily (earlier, sooner than I leave my present abode) comes to 
 me (incorrectly Grotius, Heinrichs, Stuart, al.: returns)—dpoua tpac] 
 Oecumenius : épyduevoc mpdc tyuac. 
 
 Ver. 24. Request for the delivering of salutations, together with the 
 conveying of salutations to the readers.—rdvrac¢ rod¢ yyovpévore tudv Kai 
 navtac Tove dyiovc] This designation of persons has about it something 
 surprising, since according to it the letter would have the appearance of 
 being addressed neither to the presidents of the assembly, nor to the 
 whole congregation, but to single members of the latter. Probably, how- 
 ever, the meaning of the author is only that those to whom the epistle is 
 delivered, for reading to the congregation, should greet as well all the 
 presidents as also all the other members of the congregation.—oi azé rij¢ 
 ‘Iradiac] [LXX XVI d.] is not to be explained from the absorption of one 
 local preposition ipto another ; in such wise that it should stand for oi év 
 Th "Iradia axd-tye "Iradiac, which is thought possible by Winer, p. 584 
 [E. T. 629].. It signifies: those from Italy, i.e. Christians who have come 
 out of Italy, and are now to be found in the surroundings of the writer. 
 The general expression : oi-amd tie "Iradiac, seems to point to a compact 
 number of persons already known to the readers. It is highly probable, 
 therefore, that those referred to are Christians who, on the occasion of the 
 Neronian persecution, had fled from Italy, and had settled down for the 
 time being at the place of the author’s present abode. The expression 
 shows, moreover, that the epistle was written outside of Italy. See p. 18. 
 
 Ver. 25. Concluding wish of blessing, entirely in accord with that of Tit. 
 iii. 15. 
 
 180 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theo- Schmid, Béhme, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, 
 phylact (all three, however, with hesitation), Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz, 
 
 then Beza, Grotius, Er. Schmid, Seb.Schmidt, | Ewald, M’Caul, Hofmann, and others. 
 Hammond, Wolf, Bengel, Sykes, Chr. Fr. 
 
NOTES. 745 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 LXXXIII. Vy. 1-8. 
 
 (a) Ch. xiii. contains eight exhortations, which are unconnected with the 
 development of the main thought of the epistle and also unconnected with each 
 other, as follows:—1. With reference to Christian brotherly love, including 
 hospitality and sympathy with those in bonds, vy. 1-3; 2. With reference to 
 chastity, ver. 4; 3. With reference to covetousness, vv. 5,6; 4. With reference to 
 imitating the deceased leaders of the Church, vv. 7, 8; 5. An exhortation not to 
 be led astray by Jewish doctrines and observances, vv. 9-15; 6. An exhortation to 
 beneficence, ver. 16; 7. An exhortation to obedience to the present leaders of the 
 Church, ver. 17; 8. An exhortation to prayer for the writer, vv. 18,19. These 
 exhortations are brief, and they are such as might be added by any writer at the 
 close of his letter or discourse, whatever was the plan of his work. They con- 
 stitute in no proper sense a practical section of the epistle. The very marked 
 difference between this chapter and the passage from x. 19 to xii. 29 will be 
 noticed by all students, and will tend, as they observe it, to convince them that 
 the last-mentioned passage is subordinate to viii. 1—x. 18.—(b) After these ex- 
 hortations, the author adds a prayer that the readers may be blessed of God, vv. 
 20, 21, and then, with a request that they would kindly receive the appeal and 
 admonition of his letter, ver. 22, an expression of his hope to visit them in com- 
 pany with Timothy at an early day, ver. 23, and brief salutations, ver. 24, he 
 closes the epistle with the Apostolic benediction, ver. 25. 
 
 (c) The special allusion to hospitality and sympathy for the distressed —making 
 these the prominent exhibitions of brotherly love which he would mention—is to 
 be accounted for in connection with the peculiar circumstances and needs of the 
 period in which the writer and readers were living. The prominence here given 
 to prisoners among the class of those who suffer evil may, perhaps, have some 
 weight as favoring the text-reading deoyioe in x. 34, as the original one. This 
 word in the present verse may possibly, however, have occasioned a change in x. 
 34 from deopoic to deopuiowe (see Note LXXIV c); but this is less probable —(d) 
 év oduare is correctly explained by Liinem., but whether it should be rendered, as 
 by him, in a body, or, as by R. V. and others, in the body, is uncertain. The two 
 English expressions, in such a case, may be nearly equivalent to each other.—(e) 
 That the verb to be supplied in ver. 4 is éorTw, not éori, is placed beyond any con- 
 siderable doubt by the hortatory character of the surrounding sentences and of 
 the entire chapter. év wdow is best taken as neuter; so Bleek, Alf., Moll, 
 Liinem., Delitzsch, de W., Kay, in Bib. Comm., and others. A. V., R. V., 
 Stuart, W. & Wilk., Hofm., Thol., and others regard waow as masculine. 
 
 (f) Respecting the word é@aow (ver. 7) Grimm (Lex. N. T.) says, “non est 
 sumpliciter finis vitae physicae, sed modus quo vitam bene actam absolverunt mente, quam 
 prodiderunt moriendo.” That the reference is to a death by martyrdom, though 
 probable, can hardly be affirmed, with Liinem., to be beyond doubt. The proba- 
 bility of this reference is indicated by the suggestion that itouov# is involved in 
 miotw, which arises from the use of the words in the previous chapters, and by 
 the suggestion that this trouov7 was carried to the extreme point in these per- 
 sons, which is connected with the fact that they are so prominently mentioned 
 as examples of faith. Comp. xi., xii. 4. “Contemplating the way in which 
 
746 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 (1. e. martyrdom) they end their holy manner of living, imitate their faith,” 
 (W. & Wilk). 
 
 (g) The connection of ver. 8 with vv. 9 ff. only, which is favored by Liinem., 
 on the ground of the antithetic correspondence of 6 avré¢ with sorkiAac Kar 
 gévaic, is not made necessary by this consideration. On the other hand, the 
 rhetorical force of the striking words of this verse, and the natural suggestion 
 of the ever-continuing sameness of Jesus in the reference to the faith and 
 perseverance of the leaders who had died, make the connection with ver. 7 more 
 probable. The readers should imitate the faith of those whose lives were already 
 finished, remembering the fact that “ Jesus Christ is yesterday and to day the 
 same; yea and for ever.’—(h) The explanation of éy@é¢ «,7.A. as a designation 
 of the past, present and future, which is given by Liinem., is to be preferred to 
 any of the other explanations to which he refers. The writer has in mind, no 
 doubt, the case of the deceased leaders, as he thinks of the past, and of those 
 whom he addresses, as he thinks of the present. But he uses a universal ex- 
 pression, which covers all time and may apply to past, present and future in any 
 age of the Church. 
 
 LXXXIV. Vv. 9-15. 
 
 (a) While the primary connection of ver. 8 is with ver. 7, the words of ver. 8 
 contain or suggest the idea of the ever-abiding sameness of the great Christian 
 truth. This suggestion naturally leads the writer to the exhortation: not to be 
 carried away to other doctrines—(b) The principal question of these verses relates 
 to the word Bpouacw of ver. 9. The view of Liinem., Blk., and others, that it 
 refers to the sacrificial meats, is favored by the fact, that the thought moves on in a 
 single line to the end of the passage, if this view is adopted, and that the compari- 
 son of the sacrifices of the two systems is in accordance with the suggestions of 
 the immediately preceding chapters. Moreover, this writer does not occupy 
 himself in the Epistle with the subject of clean and unclean meats, as Paul does, 
 but with the O. T. system as a whole, or in its central and vital parts, as a pre- 
 paratory and inferior system. On the other hand, there is a reference to Levitically 
 clean meats in ix. 10, where Spayaoz is used ; this meaning of the word will more 
 easily explain the ‘adjectives moikiAae and févai¢; and it is possible that the 
 writer may.intend to change the thought in ver. 10, as Alf. holds:—“ those 
 ancient distinctions are profitless ; one distinction remains: that our true meat 
 is not to be partaken of by those who adhere to those old distinctions: that 
 Christianity and Judaism are necessarily and totally distinct.” If the passage 
 is, as Liinemann claims, to be interpreted per se, the view which he takes has the 
 greater probability. 
 
 (c) With respect to particular words in this passage, the following points may 
 be noticed :—1. yapite (ver. 9) means grace, not thankfulness. The writer is here 
 speaking of what is fundamental to the Christian system.—2. ov« dgeA/fnoav 
 (ver. 9) is to be taken in a sense kindred to dvwpeAée vii. 18, if Bpduaow refers to 
 sacrificial meats, and so no argument for the other meaning of Spex. can be drawn 
 from the use of this verb. The writer regards the law in all its parts as 
 unprofitable. It made nothing perfect—3. Those who serve the tabernacle 
 (ver. 10) are primarily the Jewish priests, but here they are doubtless only 
 representatives of all who belong to the Jewish system.—4. éw ry¢ mapeuBodje . 
 
NOTES. 747 
 
 of ver. 13 means: outside of the Jewish system—the entire figure as applied to 
 Christ and His sacrifice being introduced for the purpose of suggesting this idea.— 
 5. ydp (ver. 14) gives a reason (additional to that which is indicated in the earlier 
 verses and pointed to by roivuv of ver. 13) for éepxeuea «,.7.A.—the reason being 
 this: that the readers, as Christians, are not connected with the earthly Jerusalem, 
 but with the heavenly. This explanation seems better than that of Liinem., who 
 makes yép introduce a ground of encouragement for the subordinate phrase ¢épovte¢ 
 Tov ovediouov avTov, 
 
 LXXXvV. Vv. 16-21. 
 
 (a) The preceding verses close with a renewed suggestion of the confession to 
 be made through Christ—that is, of holding fast to the Christian system in and 
 for themselves. Ver. 16 suggests that they are, as it were, to make the same con- 
 fession in their works as related to others. §vo/acc continues the thought, which is 
 presented in vy. 9-15, and serves to show that in those verses the writer has 
 throughout the idea of sacrifice—thus bearing upon the explanation of fpdayacu. 
 xowwvia here, evidently, refers to the imparting to others of what belongs to one’s 
 own possessions. It is the sharing or participation of one Christian with another, 
 which involves such communicating of good to the other. 
 
 (6) The placing of the exhortation to obedience to their present leaders so near 
 the end of the chapter, rather than in connection with the allusion to the leaders 
 who had died, is due, not improbably, to the fact that vy. 9-15 were suggested by 
 the thought of ver. 8, which was added to ver. 7, and, possibly, also to the fact of 
 a remembrance of these living leaders as he was about to refer to himself. 
 
 (c) The yap clause of ver. 18 may be only a modest expression of the writer’s 
 confidence in his own Christian character and life, which he might have given at 
 any time, or in any letter. But it may, quite probably, be intended to remove any 
 unkind feeling which the readers, or some portion of them, had on the ground of 
 his Pauline doctrine, and which, if set aside because of a conviction of his sin- 
 cerity, ete., so that they should pray for him, might give way to a readiness to 
 receive his letter and himself. «adc is better translated honorably (A. R. V.), 
 than honestly (R. V.). 
 
 (d) The prayer which he now makes, in his turn, for them, is one which 
 gathers into itself the great thoughts of the epistle—the eternal covenant, the 
 idea of the last section; Jesus the shepherd leading His people, the idea which is 
 suggested even in ch. ii., though not by the use of this word. The petition which 
 he offers is to the end that the God of peace will make them perfect—the end 
 which is secured only by the Christian system, through the new covenant and the 
 death and resurrection of Jesus.—1. év aiuvatc may be most simply explained as 
 belonging with avayaydv éx vexpov—the raising of Christ from the dead, viewed 
 as the final consummation of the plan of God for the salvation of men, was in the 
 sphere of the blood of the covenant. It was only as connected with this blood, 
 and this covenant, that it had this significance.—2. aiwviov diafjxyc, not the, but an 
 eternal covenant (as A. R. V.). The covenant is here spoken of only as having 
 this character—it was an eternal one.—3. kataprica: is not the same verb as 
 reheooa, but, if the karaprifew x.7.A., is accomplished for the Christian, he 
 becomes reredewwuévoc.—4, Toray év juiv (iptv) «.7.2.,in connection with Troujoat 
 «.7.A.—Comp. Phil. ii. 13—5. © (ver. 21) may refer to ’I. Xp.; but, as God is 
 
748 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 manifestly the subject of the sentence and the one to whom the prayer is 
 addressed, there can be little doubt that it should be understood as referring to 
 God. The argument which Liinem. gives for the reference to Christ loses its force 
 when we consider, that Christ is everywhere in the epistle presented as the in- 
 strumental agent in introducing and carrying forward God’s new revelation, and 
 that the writer is urging the readers everywhere not to abandon God’s later and 
 greater revelation for the earlier and preparatory one. 
 
 LXXXVI. Vv. 22-25. 
 
 (a) Tov Adyov tij¢ mapakAjoews.—These words, as Liinem. remarks, refer to the 
 epistle as a whole. They show that this epistle, like all those written by Paul, 
 was written for a practical end—the doctrinal part being always, in this sense, 
 subordinate to the practical. This writer makes this purpose manifest, in a strik- 
 ing way, by adding his one comprehensive tapdxdAyovc after every section of his 
 argument.—(b) yiwdoxere is probably, though not certainly, imperative—(c) The 
 probabilities, connected with the use of the two words in the N. T. and elsewhere, 
 favor giving to amoAeAvuévov the sense of released from imprisonment, and not 
 giving this meaning to aroxaracra#® (ver. 19). The argument derived from 
 these words either for or against the Pauline authorship of the epistle can hardly, 
 however, be considered a very strong one.—(d) oi avd rig "Iradiag is, to say the 
 least, somewhat more naturally explained as indicating that the writer was not 
 in Italy, at the time when the epistle was written. 
 
TOPICAL INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Abraham, promise of God to, 542-544 ; 
 553-555 ; gave tithes to Melchisedek, 
 558, 563, 564, 579; example of faith, 
 674, 675, 679-681. 
 
 Alexander, 85; mentioned elsewhere, 
 whether same or not, 80, 86; the 
 coppersmith, 270, 271. 
 
 Alexandria, in Egypt, as the place to 
 which the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 was directed, 370-376. 
 
 Ambrose, referred to or quoted, 226, 
 302, 342, 434, 510, 668, 733. 
 
 American Editor, Notes by. See Notes 
 by American Editor. 
 
 Angels, in New Testament, 131, 132; 
 “elect,” 174; as “Sons of God,” 401; 
 as contrasted with the Son of God, 
 406-409; superiority of Christ to, 
 426-432; 448-450; myriads of, 716, 
 717, 726. 
 
 Apollos, 320-322; thought, by Liine- 
 mann, to have been author of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, 364-367, 
 443, 447. 
 
 Apostasy, punishment of, 651, 652. 
 
 Apostles, Christ so called, 456, 457, 470. 
 
 Apostolic Constitutions, 106, 143, 170. 
 
 Appearing (é7¢avera) of the Lord, 194, 
 201, 212, 221, 261, 302, 303, 309. 
 
 Aquila and Priscilla, 273. 
 
 Ark of the Covenant, 605-607. 
 
 Artemas, 7, 12, 15, 320. 
 
 Assemblies of Christians for worship, 
 650. 
 
 Athenagoras, referred to or quoted, 117, 
 159, 319. 
 
 Augustine, referred to or quoted, 209, 
 342, 343, 433, 515, 627, 668. 
 
 B. 
 
 Baptism, 315-317, 324, 325; “ doctrine 
 of baptisms,” 528-530, 550; Chris- 
 tian baptism, 649. 
 
 Barnabas, supposed to have been author 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 351- 
 355 ; epistle of, 8352-354. 
 
 - Chrysostom, referred to or 
 
 
 
 Basil the Great, 339, 466. 
 
 Bishop. See Episcopus. 
 
 Blood, shedding of, needful to remission 
 of sin, 619-621. 
 
 C. 
 
 Cabbalists, in the Pastoral Epistles, 
 36, 37. 
 
 Caius, of Rome, 341. 
 
 Call, or calling (Ajovc), 211. 
 
 Carpus, 270. 
 
 Carthage, synod of, 343. 
 
 Charisma, 207, 208, 220. 
 Spirit. 
 
 Chastening, 705, 707. 
 
 “‘Child-bearing, the,” meaning of, 108, 
 113. 
 
 Christ Jesus. See Logos. Priesthood 
 of, 444, 445; High Priest, 493; quali- 
 fications of for high-priesthood, 501- 
 518, 519-522; “after the order of 
 Melchisedek,” 557-560; superiority 
 of to the Levitical priesthood, 561- 
 577, 582, 583; Mediator of the New 
 Covenant, 591, 596, 616. 
 
 See Holy 
 
 quoted, 4, 
 79, 82, 83, 84, 97, 100, 102, 108, 117, 
 118, 121, 125, 129, 131, 144, 145, 148, 
 149, 158, 164, 176, 184, 204, 227, 236, 
 238, 239, 249, 251, 268, 272, 281, 284, 
 287, 288, 297, 303, 313, 318, 339, 391, 
 403, 429, 433, 439, 443, 444, 468, 491, 
 515, 519, 534, 538, 559, 567, 574, 599, 
 609, 627, 641, 649, 654, 668, 672, 686, 
 690, 701, 703, 706, 709, 710, 716, 720, 
 737, 740, 741, 744. 
 
 Church organization, in the Pastoral 
 Epistles, 48-50; the Church as the 
 foundation, 286-238, 244. 
 
 Church, “pillar and ground,” meaning 
 of, 128, 136. 
 
 Circumcision, of the = Jewish Chris- 
 tians, 286. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, referred to or 
 quoted, 43, 44, 74, 104, 117, 187, 224, 
 234, 336, 345. 
 
 Clement of Rome, 25; meaning of répya, 
 or boundary, used by, 26-28; quoted, 
 
 749 
 
750 
 
 43, 49, 101, 340; supposed by some 
 to have written the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, 363, 364, 692. 
 
 Conscience, 289. 
 
 Covenant, or testament, 617, 618, 632. 
 
 Crescens, 269. 
 
 Cretes and Cretans, 6, 57; labors of 
 Paul in, visits of to, ete. 12-17; 
 Cretan poet quoted by Paul, 286, 287 ; 
 Church in Crete, 292; heretics in, 
 293. 
 
 Cyprian, 340. 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, 339. 
 
 D. 
 
 Deacons, 123-127, 135. 
 
 Deaconesses, 124, 125, 135, 305, 306. 
 
 Death of the Messiah or Christ, 435, 
 450, 509, 617, 618. 
 
 Death, meaning of, 212, 213; power of, 
 451, 452. 
 
 Demons (daria), warnings against by 
 Paul, 139, 140. 
 
 Devil, the, in the New Testament, 121, 
 122, 134, 135, 245, 441, 442. 
 
 E. 
 
 Elders. See Presbyters, and Presbytery. 
 
 Elect (éAexroi), i. e., believers, 230. 
 
 Ephesus, 12-17, 63-66, 270. 
 
 Epiphanius, 116, 117, 339, 559. 
 
 Episcopus (bishop), meaning of the | 
 term, 115, 133, 283, 292, 298. 
 
 Erastus, 18, 20, 274. 
 
 Esau, 710-713. 
 
 Essenes, 36, 37, 38, 56. 
 
 Eunice, Timothy’s mother, 1, 203, 207, 
 259. 
 
 Eusebius, referred toeor quoted, 4, 25, 
 43, 67, 250, 336-339, 
 
 Exegetical Literature, 331-334. 
 
 i F. 
 
 Fablas (60), 68, 88, 144, 288, 296. 
 
 Faith, the, 267. 
 
 Faith (z/or/c), in Epistle to the He- 
 brews, 347, 667, et Seqq. 
 
 - Families, directions to Titus respecting, 
 296-298. 
 
 Fatherhood of God, 439. 
 
 Felix, 31, 32. 
 
 Festus, 30-32. 
 
 First-born, Church of the, 717, 718, 
 726. 
 
 Foundation, the, i.e., the Church, 236— 
 238, 244. 
 
 TOPICAL INDEX. 
 
 G. 
 
 Genealogies (yeveadoyiar), meaning of, 
 40, 41, 68, 88, 319, 320. 
 
 Gnostics and Gnosticism, 38-42, 235, 
 236. 
 
 God (Geéc), as applied to Christ Jesus, 
 130, 136, 137, 302, 303, 807-811, 417- 
 420. 
 
 Good works, 318, 325. 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen, 339, 703. 
 
 Gregory of Nyssa, 129, 339, 403. 
 
 13 & 
 
 Hebrews, Epistle to the, exegetical 
 literature, ete., 329-334; Introduc- 
 tion, Section 1, as to the author, 
 whether Paul, 335-351; or Barna- 
 bas, 351-355; or Luke, 355-363; or 
 Clement, 363, 364; or Silvanus (Si- 
 las), 364; or Apollos, 364-367 ; Sec- 
 tion 2, persons addressed, 367-380; 
 Section 3, occasion, object, and con- 
 tents, 380-386; Section 4, time and 
 place of composition, 386, 387 ; Sec- 
 tion 5, form, and original language, 
 387,388; exegesis, Chap. I. 390-410; 
 Notes by American Editor, 410-420; 
 exegesis, Chap. If. 422-446; Notes 
 by American Editor, 446-453; exe- 
 gesis, Chap. III. 455-470; Notes by 
 American Editor, 470-474; exegesis, 
 Chap. IV. 477-495 ; Notes by Ameri- 
 can Editor, 495-499; exegesis, Chap. 
 V., 501-519; Notes by American 
 Editor, 519-523 ; exegesis, Chap. VL., 
 524-548; Notes by American Editor, 
 549-555; exegesis, Chap. VII. 557- 
 577; Notes by American Editor, 577— 
 583; exegesis, Chap. VIII. 585-595 ; 
 Notes by American Editor, 595, 596; 
 exegesis, Chap. IX. 599-629; Notes 
 by American Editor, 629-634; exe- 
 gesis, Chap. X. 638-658; Notes by 
 American Editor, 658-663; exegesis, 
 Chap. XI. 667-693 ; Notes by Ameri- 
 can Editor, 694-696 ; exegesis, chap. 
 XII. 699-722; Notes by American 
 Editor, 722-727; exegesis, Chap. 
 XIII. 729-744; Notes by American 
 -Editor, 745-748. 
 
 Hegesippus, 39, 43. 
 
 Heretics, warnings against in the Pas- 
 toral Epistles, 33-43, 186, 198; how 
 to deal with, 232, 293, 320. : 
 
 Hermas, 117. 
 
 Hermogenes and Phygellus, 216, 217. 
 
 High priest, Christ our, 456, 457, 492- 
 494, Seé Christ Jesus, 
 
PA 7 Kr 
 
 TOPICAL INDEX. 
 
 Hilary, 342, 559. 
 
 Holy Ghost, sin against, 536, 537, 550, 
 551. 
 
 Holy Spirit, source of prophecy, 138, 
 139; gift by to Timothy, 149, 150, 
 207, 208, 220; in connection with our 
 Lord’s sacrifice, 614. 
 
 Hospitality, exhortation to, 729, 745. 
 
 “ Husband of one wife,” probable mean- 
 ing of, 117, 118, 134. 
 
 Hymenaeus and Philetus, 35, 56, 85, 
 235. 
 
 I. 
 
 Ignatius, referred to or quoted, 438, 49, 
 52, 67, 159, 249, 442. 
 
 Incarnation of Christ, 800, 442, 452. 
 
 Inspiration. See Scripture. 
 
 Irenaeus, referred to or quoted, 48, 235, 
 250, 341. 
 
 Isaac, example of faith, 682. ; 
 
 Italy, they of, i.e., Christians, 744, 748. 
 
 J. 
 
 James, brother of the Lord, 386. 
 
 Jannes and Jambres, 250. 
 
 Jerome, referred to or quoted, 4, 30, 
 44, 125, 162, 167, 250, 289, 342, 559, 
 691. 
 
 Jerusalem, the heavenly, 716. 
 
 Jesus Christ. See Christ Jesus and 
 Logos. 
 
 Jewish Christians, and Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, 368-370. 
 
 Joseph, example of faith, 682, 683. 
 
 Josephus, referred to or quoted, 31, 103, 
 174, 373, 386, 423, 505, 558, 575, 589, 
 590, 603, 605, 608, 672, 712. 
 
 df udaizers, ‘in Pastoral Kpistles, 35-37. 
 
 Judgment («piwa), 121, 122, 135, 168. 
 
 Judgment (xpiovc), 176, 177, 626. 
 
 Justification, 317, 318, 324. 
 
 Justin Martyr, referred to or quoted, 
 43, 117 159, 194, 271, 691. 
 
 K. 
 Kingdom, heavenly, of the Lord, 273. 
 
 L. 
 
 Laodiceans, Epistle to, 371, 372. 
 
 Last days, the, 247, 258, 
 
 Law (védu00), 72-74, 89. 
 
 eee ee (avouia), 304. 
 
 “ Laying on of hands,” meaning of, 151, 
 156, 175, 182; in Epistle to the He- 
 brews, 530. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 751 
 
 Leontopolis, in Egypt, Jewish temple 
 in, 373. 
 
 Levitical priesthood, inferior to Christ’s, 
 561-577, 582, 583. 
 
 Life, source of, 213. 
 
 Linus, 275. 
 
 “Lion, mouth of the,” 272, 278. See 
 Nero. 
 
 Logos, the, 131; dignity of, 393-398; 
 world, created by, according to Philo, 
 395; incarnate, 398; first-born, 404; 
 as to life of on earth, 407-409; Phi- 
 lo’s view of, 489. 
 
 Lois, grandmother of Timothy, 1, 203, 
 207, 259, 
 
 Luke, 269; supposed to have been 
 author of Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 355-363. 
 
 Luther, on Epistle to the Hebrews, not 
 by Paul, 349, 350; thought it might 
 have been, and almost certainly was, 
 written by Apollos, 364. 
 
 M. 
 
 Macedonia, 10, 14, 63-66. 
 
 Marcion and Marcionites, 38-40, 44, 46. 
 
 Marcus and Jesus, 363. 
 
 Mark, 269, 270. 
 
 Mediator, Christ the, 98; of the New 
 
 Covenant, 591, 596, 616. 
 
 Mediators of Old Testament, 399. 
 
 Melchisedek, priest of God, king of Sa- 
 
 lem, 557-560, 578. See Abraham. 
 
 Messianic kingdom, 403, 693; period, 
 
 426, 427, 449, 464, 544. 
 
 Money, love of, 190, 731. 
 
 Morality, Christian, basis of, 800, 307. 
 
 Moses, 250; inferior to Christ, 455, 459, 
 460, 471, 590; example of faith, 683- 
 686. 
 
 Muratorian Canon, quoted, 28, 340. 
 
 Mystery of the faith, 123; of godliness, 
 129, 130. 
 
 Myths. See Fables. 
 
 
 
 N. 
 
 Nero, emperor, 25, 31, 32; perhaps 
 “the lion,” 272, 278. 
 
 New Covenant, 591, 713. See Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 New Testament, superior to the Old, 
 399, 400, 414, 415. 
 
 Nicopolis, in Epirus, 4, 14-17, 33, 320, 
 321. 
 
 North African Church, on Epistle to 
 the Hebrews, 339, 340. 
 
 Notes by American Editor, 86-92, 109- 
 113; 183-1387; 1538-156; 178-182; 
 
752 
 
 198-201; 218-222; 241-245; 258, 
 259; 275-278; 290-294; 305-811; 
 322-325; 410-420; 446-453; 470- 
 474; 495-499; 519-523; 549-555; 
 577-583; 595, 596; 629-634; 658- 
 663; 694-696; 722-727; 745-748. 
 
 O. 
 
 Obedience to authorities, 312, 313, 322, 
 323. 
 
 Onesiphorus, 20; Paul’s wish and prayer 
 for, 217, 222. 
 
 Onias, temple of, in Egypt, 373, 374, 
 375. 
 
 Origen, referred to or quoted, 29, 94, 
 95, 250, 336, 337, 345, 433 ; on author- 
 ship of Epistle to the Hebrews, 336, 
 337 ; on Melchisedek, 559, 691. 
 
 PP; 
 
 Palestine, Christians in, as those to 
 whom Epistle to the Hebrews was 
 addressed, 369, 376-380. 
 
 Pantaenus, 335, 336. 
 
 Parousia of the Lord, 194, 201, 215, 247, - 
 
 258, 275, 302, 466, 477, 541, 650, 657, 
 662. 
 
 Pastoral Epistles, Introduction to, 1-59 ; 
 section 1, Timothy and Titus, 1-5; 
 section 2, contents of, 5-9; section 3, 
 time and place of composition, 9-39 ; 
 section 4, heretics named in, 33-48 ; 
 section. 5, authenticity and genuine- 
 ness of, defended against German 
 rationalists, 43-59. - 
 
 Paul the Apostle, writes the Pastoral 
 Epistles, Introduction to, 1-59; dis- 
 cussion as to his missionary journeys, 
 ete., 1-5, 9-12; abode in Ephesus, 13, 
 14; imprisonment in Rome, 17; sec- 
 ond imprisonment, 24, 25, 30, 266; 
 
 visit to Spain, 26-29 ; places of writ-. 
 
 ing Epistles to Timothy, and Titus, 
 32; 33; warnings against’ heretics, 
 33, ete.; who these were, 33-43 ; first 
 Epistle to Timothy a sort of “ busi- 
 ness letter,” according to Huther, 55; 
 second Epistle paternal and loving, 
 58, 62, 205; Epistle to Titus, charac- 
 ter of, 57, 282; love of for Timothy, 
 205, 206; exhorts him to courage, 
 patience, trust, love, endurance, etc., 
 207-215, 224-232; advice of as to 
 dealing with heresy, 282; exhorts 
 Timothy to duty, 261-263; “ready 
 to be offered,’ 265-266; discussion as 
 to Paul’s authorship of the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, 335-351, 414, 415. 
 
 
 
 TOPICAL INDEX. 
 
 Pelagius, 145. 
 
 Perseverance of the saints, 551. 
 
 Philetus. See Hymenzus. 
 
 Philo, referred to or quoted, 143, 374, 
 395, 404, 435, 489, 492, 494, 515, 516, 
 5438, 545, 548, 559, 573, 576, 589, 603, 
 640, 670, 678, 692, 704, 729, 738. 
 
 Phygellus and Hermogenes, 216, 217. 
 
 Polycarp, 43, 190. 
 
 Pontius Pilate, 193, 200. 
 
 Poppaea and Nero, 31, 32. 
 
 Prayer for the dead, 217, 222. 
 
 Prayer for kings and others, 94-97, 110. 
 
 Presbyters, how to be treated by Timo- 
 thy, 171-175; two classes of, 181; 
 directions to Titus respecting, 283, 292. 
 
 Presbytery, at ordination of Timothy, 
 3, 150, 151, 156. Cf. p. 221, 222. 
 
 Prisca and Aquila, 273. 
 
 Prophecy, as to heresies and heretics, 
 138, 139, 153; in the case of Timothy, 
 150, 156. 
 
 Prophets, the, 292. 
 
 R. 
 
 ae es eternal through Christ, 
 
 13. 
 
 Regeneration, in baptism, 315-317, 324. 
 
 Rest (oaZfartioudc), 483, etc., 497, 498. 
 
 Resurrection, the, denied by heretics, 
 235, 236. 
 
 Riches, dangers of, 189-191, 195, 196, 
 
 199, 200. 
 
 Rome, church of, on Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, 340, 341. See Trent, coun- 
 cil of, 
 
 8. 
 
 Sacrifice of Christ, efficacy of, 613-615, 
 
 625, 644. 
 
 Salem, Melchisedek king of, 558. 
 
 Salvation and redemption, universality 
 of, 97, 98, 110, 147, 300, 324, 433, 434. 
 
 Sanctuary, in temple in Egypt, 372- 
 374; heavenly, 621-625, 632-634, 
 647. 
 
 Sarah, example of faith, 676, 677. 
 
 Satan, delivered to, meaning of the ex- 
 pression, 86, 92; under the influence 
 of, 170. 
 
 Saviour. See God. 
 
 Science (yvaovc), or knowledge, fa\se, 
 197, 201. 
 
 Scripture, inspiration of, 256, 257, 259. 
 
 Second Coming of the Lord. See 
 Parousia. 
 
 Seneca and the Apostle Paul, 350. 
 
 Silas (Silvanus), 2. 
 
 Silvanus, supposed to have written 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, 364. 
 
TOPICAL INDEX. 
 
 Slanderers (d:éGo%0v), 125, 247, 296. 
 
 Slaves and servants, how to be treated, 
 and how to behave, 184-186, 198, 299, 
 300, 306, 307. 
 
 Socinus, referred to, 444, 
 
 Son of God, as declared in Epistle to 
 the Hebrews. See Logos. 
 
 Spirit, the eternal, 614, 615, 631, 
 
 “Spirit in,” of Christ, 131. 
 
 Spirits, departed, 718. 
 
 Syrian Church, how Epistle to the 
 Hebrews esteemed by, 338. 
 
 T. 
 
 Tatian, 44, 45. 
 
 Temple of Solomon, 605; second tem- 
 ple, 605; temple at Jerusalem, and 
 in Egypt, 369. 
 
 Tertullian, referred to or quoted, 43, 52, 
 117, 235, 236, 339, 340, 352, 691. 
 
 Testament, New, in Christ’s death, 617, 
 618. 
 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, referred to or 
 quoted, 76, 117, 128, 248, 283, 339, 
 424, 601, 628. 
 
 Theodoret, referred to or quoted, 4, 10, 
 94, 98, 102, 118, 120, 123, 131, 176, 
 214, 227, 239, 257, 271, 287, 304, 313, 
 339, 433, 444, 459, 461, 466, 468, 508, 
 529, 534, 536, 559, 569, 571, 591, 601, 
 640, 647, 648, 649, 654, 668, 672, 677, 
 686, 700, 705, 706, 709, 715, 737, 740, 
 742, 744, 
 
 Therapeutae, 36. 
 
 Theophylact, referred to or quoted, 5, 
 83, 94, 102, 108, 118, 123, 125, 141, 
 185, 241, 247, 254, 286, 301, 315, 425, 
 429, 440, 443, 459, 466, 491, 510, 533, 
 535, 545, 546, 559, 561, 563, 569, 586, 
 590, 592, 601, 609, 627, 647, 649, 652, 
 668, 676, 683, 688, 692, 701, 706, 709, 
 716, 719, 737, 744. 
 
 Timothy, parentage and education of, 
 
 * 1; assistant of Paul, 1, 2; travels 
 with the Apostle, 3; ordained, 3; 
 mentioned in Epistle to the He- 
 brews, 3; first bishop of Ephesus, 8, 
 4; abused by de Wette, 51, 52, 58; 
 “youth” of, 51,52, 155; censured for 
 lack of zeal, etc., 208, 220; Paul’s 
 advice to, 232, 243-245; urged to 
 come to the Apostle, 274, 277, 
 
 Timothy, first Epistle to, 2, 5, 7, 9-12, 
 24, 33, 54-57; exegesis, Chap. I. 61- 
 
 86; Notes by American Editor, 86- 
 
 92 ; exegesis, Chap. IT. 94-109; Notes 
 
 by American Editor, 109-113; exe- 
 
 gesis, Chap. III. 115-133; Notes by 
 
 American Editor, 133-137; exegesis, 
 
 chap. IV. 138-152; Notes by Ameri- 
 
 753 
 
 can Editor, 153-156; exegesis, Chap. 
 V. 158-178; Notes by American Edi- 
 tor, 178-182; exegesis, Chap. VI. 184— 
 85 Notes by American Editor, 198- 
 201. 
 
 ‘Timothy, second Epistle to, 3, 5,7, 17- 
 
 21, 33, 34,58; exegesis, Chap. I. 203- 
 218; Notes by American Editor, 
 218-222; exegesis, Chap. II. 224— 
 241; Notes by American Editor, 
 241-245: exegesis, Chap. III. 246- 
 257; Notes by American Editor, 
 258, 259; exegesis, Chap. IV. 261- 
 275; Notes by American Editor, 
 275-278. 
 
 Titus, little known of his life, 4; ase 
 sisted Paul, 4; first bishop of Crete, 
 4,5; Paul’s Epistle to, 280, etc.; in- 
 structions to by the Apostle, 283, 
 284; date of Paul’s letter to, 292; 
 directions how to deal with members 
 of families, 296-208; course to be 
 pursued as to slaves, 299, 300. 
 
 Titus, Epistle of Paul to, £6, 7, Ade, 
 33, 34, 57 ; exegesis, Chap I. 280-290; 
 Notes by American Editor, 290-294 ; 
 exegesis, Chap. II. 296-305; Notes 
 by American Editor, 305-311; exe- 
 gesis, Chap. III. 312-322; Notes by 
 American Editor, 322-325. 
 
 “To-day” (o7juepor), i.e., eternity, 401, 
 402, 415; in Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 466, 473. 
 
 Trent, council of, on Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, 349. 
 
 Trophimus, 16-20, 274. 
 
 Tychicus, 12, 14-16, 270, 320, 321. 
 
 W. 
 
 Water drinkers and drinking, 176; 
 difficult topic to handle, 182. 
 
 Widows, institution of, 48; discussion 
 as to, 50, 51; “real” widows, 159- 
 162; other widows, 164-169; young 
 widows, 169-171; widows in general, 
 178-181. 
 
 Wine, Paul’s advice as to use of, 182. 
 
 Women, Christian, place, position, and 
 duties of, 105-109, 112, 113, 124; 
 some led astray by heretics, 249-250; 
 directions to Titus respecting, 296- 
 298, 305, 306. 
 
 ¥. 
 Young men, 297, 298, 306. 
 Z. 
 
 Zenas, the lawyer, 321, 322. 
 Zion, Mount, 716. 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 me 
 ‘he 7 et ‘= 
 
 Sete Vibe 
 2 ve ST ith 6 fe par 
 
 a ie yee as 
 Vee bh Pe ger 
 inte oh real st st 7 
 
 Le ake 
 
 lee re i. Ue 
 
 
 
 
 
 re a. teil Rit eb 
 ae ere 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ef a) A 2 2 Atl ‘o- : . ae 4 - ; 
 ia ry a ps a * 2 ent , : atin i faci ih. ee , 
 ni . ate 
 fy Fig a te. a Ry _ Pe ¥ fa pias ak I ae Pie vas 
 da a oe _ Se K ‘dak 4 5 F a4} Je ais wari Paty | sae aa A> 
 
 = 
 WNlsliet! aeteS ol vata) ny roe. F 
 
 re 
 * 
 OL 9) uae Ss, Pe Ga ‘e , Abs me A _ iehe i aos “ae 
 
 A re a) pea 8 ad 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 ie CR Ae eC vie 
 
 ‘= 7" ios Anes "a9 big es 2 a, Aa vane ate am? ri A To 
 
 '% Fi ae, = a - eo Sr bal 
 4 st 
 
 a hal?) a ee ee ee Or Pepe er ers ge pe 
 
 il as Re Aa ew i ee pih lt Ane. Ale el Diet eae 
 
 ; in oh 7 *. — i 
 ti a ad es on OE Seah, TH Tees, eet ss: ar 
 ste ae dee 0 tia rea MSP dD APRS Ts EY Bnd ie p 
 jae aa Ds i mp : od . LED, x, eel eee Lt, ia) os Pe 
 PME ce i ae es er Pn me ecm es, ee) 
 Sie : x * ett ary ? (ile 4 4 hy i) - ‘ae ae oe At va 
 OB ed hive. dey: Me beesey - eit , (b6 ae 
 : wt a or x Py a eee : ae re 
 Coe Caen te ne [ ibs oa ad eer at a 
 
 4 (lth , ph ae Bath ST eta ee ef ae ei. Bo fee ok ve 
 a ; TSG thas fe AU ite eee ne 
 
 . - * 7 j 
 : See a ; ; 
 a = ot ee oh. geen, 5) 6 Sb nie es re 
 . ¢ % Ay ar = aa - 
 1ie TT Feel ’ ‘ rr hk ree bh A hy Palas Ao i Oem hon 
 r : ULC e Thee wie ay ng Sal <(vhlih* Nhe Ee A ke oi 
 ; : : ve af fue i f Pat is 4 af it Syne wk he - 
 4 ~s 7 eS | Tyas! ,. gt : 
 ae a ay a vid + ay vr. ey a tee =e ~ - a heen ie se al 
 Pu . y a4 pe © i oe ie aie a 3 1 ; me ¢ ‘ Aes US oa 
 es OS 5 vile hes 7 . mh... 
 Fides TT inky mie ieee Te ee 
 one of ae ‘. Mi ee ie i ooo en pee aren : as a Eaton Pie ' 
 ‘ ahenalele eh es ieee te ye ae 15 Sawer te: . Ogee "ag ¥ 
 se ; a aly hy 
 rT i mt a J te Ne aol ch 28 ae id bv hoei Le : 
 ? » ‘FS f rh ¥ - ot é 
 > Ac Tee 2) tah Ht j ac2)'s i wis Weis oto beatae Gk “eva 
 me igh DOSE) Were ag a wie) , " Aa: ees a gies mails os we 
 ip! A Bl aist poo agua 
 © ut Me e : eh Py > is ae OPT ede t Wad Pere, fy, a = 
 ? gel vi ame elie aie Weer ee ae Ae 
 
 ¢ 
 , ae ry iets 16 Of OF hol kh x it Mega LO ee ny 
 ‘ e +, : 7 ~ 
 
 - 7 
 
 a 7 7 Onan ay ' - r " <" aia aa al pate ar ace 4 
 ae a ia? adalat eal 
 j angi oe teeaeelS tahoe PD 
 : fa 20E Watt pede ron? fe ane eee (We ea ie Jee 
 
 , 
 
 ak ieee ho) Se 
 - “> =e ey : ' ha ay 16 ig lit otal ww) 
 
 pd briny, Mocebs faelg 
 A Ass Prue, <<? fete } ae Serecd tac vat Wate 
 paar cae Reet ae ree 
 
 ~ 
 J - ’ 
 * . a ; ic 2 ae 
 md . a~ TT > 
 ° i+ 
 re i Ga 
 . a i _ p foe 
 , - iad ve 
 

 

 
 os Ligne 1 a Waa 
 sai Th ge ge yet ote : 
 Paty 
 
 ioe a. wd eee? at 
 e 
 eae Fi ot a ipdl or os bai 
 eet eas” +S. oe sad ee 
 : Tan eae i - 
 SOME tk? ange corha anes ¥, ay 
 7 ie > ? in 1! 
 » 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 oy hy $ ° a 
 . = aes a 
 ee 16 Ot Aan! See, alsciA ee 
 
 aig ee ee eat Terie i oe. 
 
 As oe Oy oF UU egy et Hes “ ‘Dies es aie £h oliorl :GM 
 
 a 
 
 oe ote! f as belek pe ea | - UD Rl Sa! 
 
 Serb celmp eat i “Wiel m9: ee wt ga Wi grit & iss 
 
 Lv). a © ire if@ eo ° f Je 4 es ee Bia ie 
 i el § b a a 
 ted fens Ly — i eT 68 Ab - ; a 0 yf rile Dal : } ia aS 
 x an t hears » + ; : bars 
 . ae Pee ie fab Ur) » #P ise rain. ne wales 
 
 Set q: 
 
 Pie ee ae ee nyse 
 
 =. i hk eee — re a ’ e hed (te MM 4 Tai phd des 
 a vey os or i» a7 i. af Par ' rs 
 - 4 = , } y : ewe. 4: 7h 
 Dien Des 7 si hae 
 or a Cpa vi hical oot. 4 + aay t ; Marya rh? ’ 
 ; a) i. 2 i= Sra Gy ie a | iis 
 OOF Ge Wie rey i ae S 4 
 Li dives, eT p= 
 
 ie), Some Cao Abt ns 4 Rate ee ee 
 112i eg re hay a oe weTEL | PL i ai re? tee R06 
 
 ' pers! oie i 
 = * ; i es ok Paid 7 
 - : 4 ray Pic 4 co Meh i, tg fl wee Aes in a 
 Geek rh) — dl prt ie ; i a * oy Sree. 
 fe im C ~~ i. = —¥ J : “ 
 = ar! i ie J yet te Pe - =? a + 
 Oe nets Woke cue sO er aes ad ae eee 
 a ee re J ery. y : + ~ r 
 Neate f . Sit EY Se so cagetd | ies ae 
 Ran ss a ee, ia ~ i at eta fre : i Mk ‘ 
 eet Dsl ane ath Pat Oe ere nee 
 ae oe is ee ae aad: OL Fe Ro ee ae 
 a ‘is es ite ii _— y 
 : : te ‘ _ ey? + el 2g at i wih > etek sil a. 
 ae @ os f dared cn ALY: Vike Baca Suk ml “ Tegra be ey 
 : ats hh { ei - a 
 fae ae eee a oe GL) 
 Tiel en, REO VW AieGd Teil Using ‘ ei spt ce wtp leet toe “—. 
 
 iw % MS hog) a Py id rey 
 ae, a ¥ aa _ id ay - iy - i 4) Big Bg aa 18h)! tiie hy Eee ark vi iy (ay 
 P ; wah LP tone mk Ob se 
 
 t 
 ey 
 qe) 
 "y 
 . 
 * 
 
 £08 30940 ner recis “ile ia ede 
 
 Mi 18 eters ale vod coiteaeete a 
 
 is ~ « / w a a CO NEA =, Mal tee me X 
 << Fie 5 dio Fi EA ag eS eg 
 
 de OE PG, a aD ecco ed ce as yaa : 
 
 esa . am (ie 8 vara ras A sinks Geel aht a 2 
 
 Je 
 
 - ; ote aba Pots) ail P ' ful J. foe ce) ye? a Lavine ir 
 ‘o i Pri PG MSE! ae z re Pl AOA. 
 7 iva 
 Y bf je «Tub opel Up Poe ha Li 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ad 
 
 ot 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 
Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ae cs 
 WW) + 
 
 ey : iat we 
 
 iar & 
 
 AY un Ke Nef