?' ^'.1

' ^'

'-'TJ-'i

/ ¦*««:"'«*.¦»?** f^smi^

, .'-^'<-.*'>3^«l
i ll .1 . I I . 1. T I » • '-'.
'¦>¦¦•.¦ .1 ^ '¦•' " ' ¦ ' *
'.:.i-*'-.. At^i'.'-- V"^ '\
:'¦{•:'• .'.•¦.*-.;:?'.v.iv ".-•..•¦'
¦¦'.,. ¦¦•.•,.. ¦?•.'.' .', '
.'".'.
¦*¦'-'' ¦'
I .If, ' ' ." ¦
¦'¦JiV..l.''"C.
';," i- i' w, '
• *A"''';- ¦¦: '¦
, lYs-.-f '¦¦:•. ' •
¦¦'.¦.'¦' .'••¦"¦ ¦
fi.'t'ii&K,:-:
\ r > n 
Trt(pi ifc
¦"^.^^'jJ
^

J n\> < // /< '{/ ( ' /

MlQ

tCLl/i^,

/S'J

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
HANDBOOK to
THE GEN"ERAL EPISTLES
of
JAMES, PETER, JOHN, AND JUDE.
BY
JOH. ED. HUTHER, Th.D.,
PA8T0B AT WITTBNroBDEN BEI SCHWBBtU.

TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD EDITION OF THE GERMAN
BT
EEV. PATON J. GLOAG, D.D., D. B. CROOM, M.A.,
AND EEV. CLARKE H. IRWIN, M.A.

WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE
AMERICAN EDITION
By TIMOTHY DWIGHT,
PBB8IDBNT Or TALE UNIVEBSITY.

NEW YORK:
FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS,
18 & 20 Astor Place.
1887.'

Copyright, 1887,
By funk & WAGNALLS.

Miy-50 v.\0

PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

The commentaries included within the present volume of Meyer's
Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book were prepared by his coadjutor.
Dr. J. E. Huther. The English translation was made from the
latest editions of the several commentaries which were published
before Dr. Huther's death. Since his death, a fourth edition of
the Commentary on the Epistle of James has appeared in Germany
(in 1882), with some additions by Dr. Willibald Beyschlag, who
has carefully revised the work. To this volume of Beyschlag,
some references have been made in the Additional Notes of the
American Editor. 'A fifth edition of the Commentary on the
Epistles of Peter and Jude has been prepared under the editor
ship of Ernst Kiihl, but has not as yet been received. That
Huther was the equal of Meyer in those qualities and gifts which
make the great exegete, will not be claimed by any competent
scholar ; but that he was a worthy associate in the work of which
Meyer wrote so large a portion, is proved by the ability with
which he discharged the duty assigned to bim, and by the favor
able reception which his commentaries have met with on the part
of all who have used them.
The Additional Notes of the American Editor have been
prepared in accordance with the same principles and purpose with
those which governed him in the preparation of the notes added
to the other volumes of Meyer's Commentary of which he has
had editorial care. They have been placed at the end of the
volume ; and the reader's attention is invited to them with the
hope, on the writer's part, that some help and some suggestions
of value may be found in them in connection with the study of
the several- epistles.

IV PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
It is scarcely necessary to remind the reader, that, in the
references to the N. T. Grammars of Winer and Buttmaun,
the numbers following the letters E. T. designate the pages
of the translations of those works by Professor J. Henry Thayer.
The letters A. V., R. V., and A. R. V., refer respectively to the
Authorized English Version of the New Testament, the Revised
Version, and the American Appendix to the latter.
In giving this last volume of Meyer's work, of which he has
had editorial charge, to the public, in this American edition, the
editor would dedicate his part of it, as he has done in the case
of each of the earlier volumes, to the students whom he has met
for so many years, and with so much pleasure, in the lecture-rooms
of the Divinity School of Yale University.
TIMOTHY DWIGHT.
New Haven, April 15, 1887.

[New Haven, Nov. 16, 1887. — The Notes of the American Editor of
this volume, and all his editorial work connected with it, were completed,
as the date of the Preface may indicate, in the spring of the present year.
By reason of unavoidable delays in the matter of printing, the publication
of the volume has been deferred until the autumn. In the mean time, the
fifth edition of Huther's Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude,
prepared by Kiihl, has appeared in Germany, and has been received in
this country. The work of Huther, so far- as the First Epistle of Peter
is concerned, has been thoroughly revised ; and, in many cases, changes
have been introduced, and different views from those of Huther expressed.
In the case of the other two Epistles, there is, in comparison, much less
of new matter calling for special notice. The American Editor has added
to his own Notes on First Peter a considerable number of statements giving
Kiihl' s views, which statements will be found enclosed in brackets. These
additions, which were all that under the circumstances could well be made,
will be sufflcient, it is hoped, to acquaint the reader in some measure with
!the new edition.]

AUTHOR'S PEEFACE TO THE COMMENTARY ON JAMES.

In the new revision of this Commentary, the following works
have been chiefly examined : H. Bouman, Comment, perpet. in, Jac.
Ep., ed. 1863, the exposition of the Epistle by Lange (second
edition, 1866) in Lange's Bibehverk, and the third edition of De
Wette's exposition edited by Briickner. Whilst in the first of
these works a deep and thorough examination of the thoughts
of the Epistle is wanting, the work of Lange is too defective in
exegetical carefulness, which alone can lead to sure results. In
order to comprehend the Epistle historically, Lange proceeds from
the most arbitrary hypotheses, which often mislead him into very
rash, and sometimes strange, explanations. It is to be regretted,
that, with all his spiritual feeling and acuteness, he has not been
able to put a proper bridle upon his imagination. The second
edition of De Wette's Handbook, containing the exposition of the
Epistles of Peter, Jude, and James, had been previously prepared
by Briickner. When, in the preface to the third edition, he says
that he has subjected this portion of the Handbook to a thorough
revision, and, as far as possible, has made the necessary additions
and corrections, this assertion is completely justified by the work.
Although the remarks of Briickner are condensed, yet they are
highly deserving of attention, being the result of a true exegetical
insight. It were to be wished that Briickner had been less tram
melled by " the duty to preserve the work of De Wette as much
as possible uncurtailed. " Of the recent examinations on the
relation of the Pauline view of justification to that of James, I
will only here mention the familiar dissertation of Hengstenberg :
"The Epistle of James," in Nos. 91-94 of the Evangelical Church
Magazine, 1866 ; arid the explanation of Jas. ii. 24-26, by Philippi,
in his Dogmatics, vol. i. pp. 297-315. Both, without assenting to
my explanation, agree with me in this, that there is no essential
difference between the doctrines of Paul and James. Hengstenberg
arrives at this result by supposing, on the assumption of a justifi
cation gradually developed, that James speaks of a different stage

Vl AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
of justification from that of Paul ; whilst Philippi attributes to
StKttiow, with James, anotlier meaning than that which it has with
Paul. I can approve neither of the one method nor of the other ;
not of the former, because by it the idea of justification is altered
in a most serious manner ; nor of the latter, because it is wanting
in linguistic correctness, and, moreover, thoughts are by it given
which are wholly unimportant. I will not here resume the contro
versy with Frank, to which I felt constrained in the publication
of the second edition ; only remarking, that, after a careful examin
ation, I have not been able to alter my earlier expressed view
of James's doctrine of justification, the less so as it had not its
origin from dogmatic prepossession, but was demanded by exegetical
conviction. Moreover, I am no less convinced than formerly, that,
in the deductions made by me, nothing is contained which contra
dicts the doctrine of the church regarding justification. — With
regard to the question whether the author of this Epistle, the
brother of the Lord, is or is not identical with the Apostle James,
I have not been able to change my earlier convictions. If, in
more recent times, the opposite view has been occasionally main
tained, this is either in the way of simple assertion, or on grounds
which proceed from unjustified suppositions. This present edition
will show that I have exercised as impartial a criticism as possible
with I'jegard to my own views, as well as with regard to the views
of others.The quotations from Eauch and Gunkel refer to their reviews
of this commentary published before the second edition ; the one
is found iu No. 20 of the Theol. Literaturhlatt of the Allgem.
Kirchenzeitung of the year 1858 ; and the other in the Oottingen
gel. Anz., parts 109-112 of the year 1859. I have occasionally
quoted Cremer's Biblischtheol. Wbrterhuch des neutest. Grdcitdt.
The more I know of the value of this work, the more I regret
that it does not answer to its title, inasmuch as those words are
only treated which the author considers to be the expressions of
spiritual, moral, and religious life. A distinction is here made
which can only with difficulty be maintained. I have quoted
Winer's Grammar, not only according to the sixth, but also
according to the seventh edition, edited by Liinemann.
I again close this preface with the hope that my labor may
help to make the truly apostolic spirit of the Epistle of James
more valued, and to render its ethical teaching more useful to
the Church.
WiTTENFORDEN, November, 1869.

AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE COMMENTARY ON PETER.

In revising -this Commentary on the Epistles of Peter for the
present fourth edition, the work which I had chiefly to consider
and subject to a careful examination was the Exposition of the
Epistles by Von Hofmann. This accordingly I did. Von Hofmann
often seeks to surmount the exegetical difficulties presented in the
epistles by a new exposition, and, of course, no exception can be
taken to this ; but it is to be regretted that the interpretations
are not unfrequently of so artificial a nature that they cannot
stand the test of an unprejudiced examination, and are conse
quently little calculated to promote the true understanding of the
text. As regards the origin of the vSecond Epistle, my renewed
investigations have produced no result other than that which I
had formerly obtained. I can only repeat what I said in the
preface to the third edition of this Commentary: "If I should
be blamed for giving, in this edition also, no decisive and final
answer to the question as to the origin of Second Peter, I will
say, at the outset, that it seems to me more correct to pronounce
a non liquet than to cut the knot by arbitrary assertions and acute
appearances of argument. ' '
Although this Commentary on the whole has preserved its former
cliaracter, yet it has been subjected to many changes in particulars,
which I hope may be regarded as improvements.
I would only add, that, in the critical remarks, it is principally
Tischendorf's Eecension that has been kept in view. Tisch. 7
refers to the editio septima critica minor, 1859 ; Tisch. 8, to his
editio octava major, 1869. Where the two editions agree in a
reading, Tisch. simply is put.
J. Ed. HUTHER.
WiTTENFOBDEN, May, 1877.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.

IITTEODUOTIO]Sr. SEC. 1.— JAMES.
The author of this Epistle designates himself in the inscription
'ld/c(j/3of, Qeoii Kal Kvpiov 'ItjooB XpcdToi (JoO/lof, and thus announces himself to
be, though not an apostle in the narrower sense of the term, yet a man
of apostolic dignity. From this, as well as from the attitude which he
takes up toward the circle of readers to whom he has directed his
Epistle (rail SuSexa (jyvXalg ralg iv rfi Siaanop^), it is evident that no other
James can be meant than he who, at an early period in the Acts of the
Apostles, appears as the head of the church at Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17,
XV. 13 fl., xxi. 18) ; whom Paul calls 6 udeXfdg tov Kvpiov (Gal. i. 19), and
reckons among the oTi/lojf (Gal. ii. 9), and whom Jude, the author of
the last Catholic Epistle, designates as his brother (Jude 1) ; the same
who in tradition 'received the name d dUacoc (Hegesippus in Eusebius,
Hisi. Eccl. ii. 23, iv. 22), who was regarded even by the Jews as an
dvTip dtnatoTaTog (Joseph., Antiq. xx. 3, 1), to whom a higher dignity than
that of the apostles is attributed in the Clementines, and who, according
to the narrative of Josephus, suSered martyrdom about the year 63 ;
according to that of Hegesippus (Euseb. ii. 23), not long before the
destruction of Jerusalem. i
As regards the question whether this James is to be considered as
identical with the Apostle James the son of Alphaeus, as is maintained
^ No certain decision can be come to on this tou, 'laKw^os ovotta. avroi Kai) rtras (erepous)
difference, especially aa the narrative of Hege- . . . irapeSwKc Aeuo-flijo-o/necovs, the genuineness
sippus (comp. Lange's .ffbmmeni., Einleiiung, of the bracketed words is at least doubtful;
p. 13 f.) bears unmistakable mytliical traces; Clericus, Larduer, Credner, assert their spur!.
and in the relation of Josephus ; Trapaywv et? ousness.
aiiTO (tov afie\i^bi' 'Iijo-ov, To,0 h.e-^ovii.ivov Xpio*.

2 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
in recent times by Lange, Bouman, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and others,
or as a different person, the data given in the N. T. are more favorable
to the idea of non-identity than to the opposite opinion. 1. When men
tion is made in the N. T. of the adeAtpoL of Jesus, they are represented
as a circle different from that of the apostles. Thus they are already
in John ii. 12 distinguished from the fiadvrak of Jesus; the same dis
tinction is also made after the choice of the twelve apostles (Matt. xii.
46 ; Mark iii. 21, 31 ; Luke viii. 19 ; John vii. 3), and in such a manner
that neither in these passages nor in those where the Jews mention
the brethren of Jesus (Matt. xiii. 55; Blark vi. 3)i is there the slightest
. indication that one or several of them belonged to the apostolic circle :
rather, their conduct toward Jesus is characterized as different from that
of the apostles; and, indeed, it is expressly said of them that they did
not believe on Him (John vii. 5). Also after the ascension of Christ,
when His brethren had become believers, and had attached themselves
to the apostles, they are expressly, and in the same simple manner as
before, distinguished from the Twelve (Acts i. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5). 2. In
no passage of the N. T. is it indicated that the adeMoi of the Lord were
not His brothers, in the usual meaning of the word, but His cousins;
and, on the other hand, James the son of Alphaeus is never reckoned
as a brother of Jesus, nor is there any trace of a relationship between
him and the Lord. Certainly the IMary mentioned in John xix. 25
()7 TOO KhjTTu) was the mother of the sons of Alphaeus (Matt, xxvii. 56;
Mark xv. 40), as 'AAifaiof and K:^uita( are only different forms of the same
name ('uSn) ; but from that passage it does not foUoW that this Mary
was a sister of the mother of Jesus (see Meyer in loe). 3. According
to the lists of the apostles, only one of the sons of Alphaeus, namely
James, was the apostle of the Lord. Although the Apostle Lebbaeus
(Matt. X. 3), whotn Mark calls Thaddaeus (Mark iii. 18), is the same
with 'loMac 'laKupov in Luke (Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13), yet he was iiol
a brother of James; for, on the one hand, if this were the case he
would have been called so by Matthew, who expressly places the brothers
among- the apostles together; and, on the other hand, dcSeA^of is not to
be supplied to the genitive 'laxiJiiov in Luke, — contrary to all analogy, —
1 According to the Reccptus, the names of in Mark they, however, read 'Itoo-ijros; yet
.the brothers of Jesus are James, Joses, Judas, liere also the Codex Sinaiticus has 'Icuo-Tjcf). It
and Simon. Instead of 'Iwtnjs in Matthew, remains doubtful which le the correct name.
Lachmann, and Tischendorf have adopted, ac- Comp. Meyer on the passage in Matthew.
cording to preponderating .authority, 'Iiu(r^(|i;

INTRODUCTION. 6
but vlog (see Introduction to Cornmentary on Jude, sec. 1). According to
Matt, xxvii. 26 and Mark.xv. 40, Alphaeus, besides James, had only one
other son, Joses. If the apostles Judas and Simon were also his sons,
his wife Mary in the above passages would have been , also called their
mother, especially as Joses was not an apostle. From all these data,
then, the brothers of the Lord, James, Judas, and Simon, are not to
be considered as identical with the apostles bearing the same names.
4. There are, however, two passages. Gal. i. 19 and 1 Cor. xv. 7, which
appear to lead to a different conclusion. In the first passage el firi
appears to indicate, as many interpreters assume, that Paul, by the
addition for the sake of historical exactness, remarks that besides the
Apostle Peter he saw also the Apostle James. But on this supposition
we cannot see why he should designate him yet more exactly as rbv
udeX^bD rov Kvpiov, since the other Apostle James was at that time dead.
The addition of this surname indicates a distinction of Ihis James from
the apostle. Now d iiii does certainly refer not only to oiin elSov (Fritzsche,
Ad Maith., p. 482; Neander, Winer), but to the whole preceding clause;
still, considering the position which James occupied, Paul might regard
him, and indeed was bound to regard him, as standing in suoh a close
relation to the real apostles that he might use ei iifj without including
him among them.i It is evident that Paul did not reckon James among
the original apostles, since in Gal. ii. he names him and Cephas and
John together, not as apostles, but as ol donovvreg elva't ti, ol Sokovvtsc: arvXai
elvac.^ — In the other passage, 1 Cor. xv. 7, the word irdaiv may be added
by Paul, with reference to James formerly named, in the sense: "after
wards Christ appeared to James, and then — not to him only, but — to
all the apostles," from which it would follow that James belonged to the

1 Meyer (in loe.) supposes that James is the o-ruAotg, has certainly been adduced ae au
here reckoned by Paul among the apostles in argument for the opposite opiuioo : but that
the wider sense of the term. But it is also Paul does not reckon those named as uTuAot
possible that the words ei ^77, k.t.\., are not to because they were apostles, is undeniable ; and
be understood as a limitation to the thought that only apostles could be considered as
before expressed, erepov Se, k.t.A., but as a o-ruAoi, is an unwarranted assumption. Bou-
remar^ added to it, by which Paul would lay man thinks that a mere private person could
stress upon the fact that besides Peter he has not attain to such an importance; but he over-
also seen James, the brother of the Lord, thus looks the fact that James, as the most promi-
the man who possessed not only an apostolic nent of the brothers of the Lord, who are
dignity, but to whom the opponents otf Paul named alongside of the apostles, was more
directly appealed. than a mere private person.
2 That James is reckoned by Paul among

4 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
apostles. But this reference is not ¦necessary, as ¦Kami> may as well be
added in order simply to give prominence to the fact that all the
apostles, without exception, had seen the Lord.i 5. All the other reasons
for the identity, which are taken from the N. T., as adduced by Lange,
are too subjective in character to be considered as conclusive : as, for
example, that Luke in Acts xii. 17 would have felt himself obliged
to notice that the James mentioned by him here, aud farther on, is not
the same with the James whom he had called an apostle in Acts i. 13 ; ^
that only an apostle could have written such an epistle, and have attained
to that consequence which James possessed in the Church ; ^ and that
it is improbable that, besides- the apostles James, Judas, and Simon,
there should be three of the brothers of Jesus bearing the same names. ^
The testimonies of the post-apostolic age are much too uncertain to
decide the controversy; for whilst Clemens Alexandrinus (Euseb., Hist.
Eccl., ii. 1 : 6vo 61 yryovaatv 'laKujBof dc b dlnaio^ . . . erepor; 6e 6 . . . napaTOfi^Odg)
and Jerome declare for the hypothesis of identity, the Apostolic Constitu
tions (ii. 5.5, vi. 12, 14; in the latter passage, after the enumeration of the
twelve apostles, there are yet named: 'luKuBd; ts 6 tov Kvplov udA<pdc Kal 'lepo-
ao?.vfiuv in-io/coTTOf Kal TlavTiOf 6 tuv iBvC'v HiSaoKaXoc') and Eusebius (commentary
on Isa. xvii. 5 in Montfaucon, Coll. Nova Patr., ii. p. 422 ; Hist. Eccl., i. 12,
vii. 19) definitely distinguish the brother of the Lord from the apostles.
The statement of Hegesippus (in Euseb., iv. 22), to which Credner appeals
1 otherwise Meyer (^?i /oc), who here also James to Jesus, and to James the son of
understands the expression dTrouToAot in the Alphaeus.
wider sense, which certainly receives a justifi- 3 The important position of James iu J^ru-
calion from the fact that the original apostles salem was not founded on the apostolate, as
had before been designated by Paul as ot that of&ce points rather to missionary activity
SwSeKa. than to au epiecoxaal superintendence of a
2 Against this it is to be affirmed, that Luke church.
might certainly assume such au acquaintance' « This similarity ceases to be remarkable
on the part of his readers with the circum- when we consider how frequently the same
stances, that in speaking of James in Jerusa- names are given to different persons in the
lem he did not deem it necessary to remark N. T. ; we have only to adduce the names
which James he meant. He even names Philip Mary, Simon, Joseph, Judas, etc. On the sup-
(vili.6) without saj'ing whether he was the position of the identity of these three apostles
apostle or tbe deacon. Bleek (Einl. in N. T., with the three brothers of Jesus, then in the
p. 54.i) explains the matter differently ; that, as passages Matt. xii. 46 (Mark iii. 31 ; Luke viii.
the Acts of the Apostles is not to be considered 19) and John vii. 3, 5, only one brother of the
an independent work of Luke, we may sup- Lord, Joses (or Joseph), could be referred to,
pose that he retained the simple designation particularly as sisters could not be included in
James as he found it in his document, without the idea of brothers, as Lange, it is true, thinks
making any remark on the relation of this is tho case in Acts i. 13, 14.

INTRODUCTION. 5
against, and Kern and Lange fo?-, the identity, is not in favor of it ; ^ also
the extract of Jerome from the Hebrew gospel cannot with certainty be
quoted for it (Hierou., De Vir. Illustrih.y chap, ii.) ; and still less the passage
in the Clementine Homilies, xi. 35, where the words rCi TisxOevtl udeXtpQ rov
Kvpiov fiov annexed to 'Ia/cGJ/?tj admit of the explanation that the designation
a6e2.(l>. t. Kvp. was his familiar surname. The opinions of the later Church
Fathers are evidently of no weight either for or against the identity.
On the assumption of identity, the word dSE7\.<p6g cannot be understood
in its usual sense. The opinion obtaining most favor since the time of
Jerome is that the so-called u6E?i(pot were the cousins of Jesus, namely, the
sons of the sister of His mother, who was also called Mary, and was the
wife of Clopas (= Alphaeus). This view is supported by the interpreta
tion of John xix. 25, according to which the words Mapta // tov KTiDird are
taken in apposition to the preceding ^ ddeA^^ rr^g fiv^poc avrov ; and so the
passage is explained by Theodoret : ude?[.({>dg rov Kvplov ehaTiEcro fiiv, ova tjv 6h
fpvaei . . . rov KXqku fikv 7}v vlog, rov de Kvpiov aveiptog' fii^ripa yap dxs rrjv adeX^Tjv
rfjg rov Kvplov fii^ripog. The correct interpretation of that passage removes all

1 The passage is : fueTo. to fiapTvp^a-aL 'laKw-
^ov TOV BiitaioVf til? Kai 6 /cvpio; tiri Tto auTtp ^oyca,
irdKiv 6 eK deiov avTOv ^Vfieojv 6 rov KKaiira,
KaOifTTaTaL €7rtcr/c ottos' ov irpoeQevTO TravTes ovra
aveipLov TOV KvpLov Se'UTepov. In this passage
the translation of aifTov, of irdXtv, and of
SevTepov ie doubtful. Kern and Lange refer
avTov to 6 Kuptoy, connect irdKLv directly with
6 eK Oeiov avTOv, and refer Sevrepov to dvei/d.bi'
Tou Kupiov. But auTou may, as Credner re
marks, also refer to 'laKwjSoi', and ¦rrd\i.v be
connected with Ka^itrraTat eTritrKOTTo?, and Sev
Tepov with ov npoiOevTo. IS avTov is referred
to 'laKu^or, then James is designated as the
real brother of Jesus, since in another pas
sage (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., iii. 22) Simeon the
son of Clopas is called by Hegesippus the son
of the uncle of Jesus ; if, on the other hand, it
is referred to 6 Kuptos, nothing is said regard
ing the relationship of James to Jesus : it thus
depends on the interpretation of •ndKx.v and
fieyrepoi'. It canuot be denied that itdkLv is
more naturally connected with KaSiaTaTai.
eTTto-KOTTos than with the words which immedi
ately follow, as in that case it would clearly
mean that Simeon became bishop a second

time; but Sevrepov may at least as well be con
nected with ov irpoe6evTo (in the sense : " whom
all appointed the second bishop ") as with
bvTa dve\f/. t. Kvpiou. — Thus, then, the explana
tion of Credner is not inferior to that of Kern
and Lange, but rather appears to be the more
probable, as Hegesippus elsewhere designates
James simply as the brother of the Lord, and
never indicates that he was an apostle; rather
in the words : SiaSexerat Se TTjV eKKAijcrtaf fj-CTa
TOiv diroaTo^uiV 6 ciSeAt^os tou KvpCov 'IaKto/3o9,
6 ovo/iacrBei^ vno rrdvTwv SLKaios . . . 'ETret
iroXAot 'laKwjSot eKaAoufTD, he seems at least to
¦distinguish him from the apostles. According
to Hegesippus, Clopas was a brother of Joseph
(Euseb., iii. 4), and thus Simeon as the son of
Clopas was dveyj/Los TOV Kvpiov. "Whether this
Is correct, must indeed remain uncertain; it
finds no support in the N. T., as there the sons
of Clopas (= Alphaeus) are only Jaraes and
Joses. From these remarks it follows how
unjustifiable is the assertion of Lange: "We
learn from Hegesippus that Jaraes the brothei*
of the Lord was a brother of Simeon, and that
both were the sous of Clopas."

6 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
ground for this opinion. Accordingly Lange (in Herzog's Real-Encyklo-
padie, and repeated in his Commentary, Introduction, p. 10), instead of this
view, has advanced the theory, that as Clopas, according to Hegesippus, was
a brother of Joseph, the so-called brethren of Jesus were properly His step-
cousins, but after the early death of Clopas were adopted by Joseph, and so
actually becaine the brothers of Jesus. But this opinion is destitute of
foundation ; for even although the narrative of Hegesippus is correct, yet
tradition is silent concerning the early death of Clopas and the adoption
of his children by Joseph, and as little " does history know that the sons of
Alphaeus formed one household with the mother of Jesus, and were promi
nent members of it," as Lange maintains. By the denial of identity, a6A<j)6Q
is to be understood in its proper sense. Thiersch {Krit. d. neu. test. Schriflen,
pp. 361, 430 ff.) adopts the opinion contained, according to his conjecture,
in the Gospel of the Hebrews, and already advanced by Origen (on Matt.
xiii.), that the brothers of Jesus were the children of Joseph by a former
marriage; but against this Wiesinger rightly insists on the fact that this
opinion of Origen "was by no means prevalent in his time." It owed its
origin apparently to a delicacy to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary, as
Thiersch confesses that " it is not to him a matter of indifference whether
the mother of the Lord remained uel -rrapeivoc." The evangelists, however,
have not this feeling, for otherwise Matthew aud Luke would not have said
of Mary : Itsks rbv vlbv avrfjg rov nparoroKov, which points to the birth of later
children not only as a possible, but as an actual fact. If it were otherwise,
there would be some indication in the N. T. that Joseph was a widower
when he married Mary, or that the a6i.'>[.ipol 'I riaov were not her children.
According to the N. T., the brothers of Jesus, to whom James belonged,
are the children of Mary born in wedlock with Joseph after the birth of
Jesus; as is correctly recognized by Herder, Credner, Meyer, de Wette,
Wiesinger, Stier, Bleek, and others.
In what the Evangelists relate of the brothers of Jesus, Jaraes is not
particularly distinguished. Accordingly we are not to consider his conduct
as different from that of the rest. Although closely related by birth to
Jesus, His brothers did not recognize His higher dignity, so that Jesus with
reference to them said ovx '"" npo<ji7iT7jg dn/iog, d /j.f/ kv r^ ¦narpl&i avrov, Kal kv ry
oiug, avTov (Matt. xiii. 56). Lange incorrectly infers from John ii. 12, where
the brothers of Jesus are first mentioned, that " even at the commencement
of the ministry of Jesus they were spiritually related (that is, by faith) to
the disciples ; " for at that time the brothers had not attached themselves
to the disciples, but went with them from Cana to Capernaum that they

INTRODUCTION. 7
might accompany Mary. At a later period we find them separated from
the disciples (see Mark iii. 21; Matt. xii. 46; Luke viii. 19) ;i they go
with Mary to the house where Jesus is, because, thinking that He was mad,
they wished to bring Him home with them, which was evidently no sign of
their faith, but rather of their unbelief.^ After the miracle of the loaves,
when the feast of tabernacles was at hand, they are with Jesus in Galilee ;
but that even at this period they did not believe on Him, is expressly
asserted by John (vii. 5). Only after the ascension do we find them as
disciples of the Lord in close fellowship with the apostles. We are not
informed when this dhange took place; but from the fact that Jesus on the
cross resigned His mother, as one forsaken, to the care of John, we may
conjecture that even then they did not believe. It is probable that our
Lord's appearance after His resurrection to James (1 Cor. xv. 5) decided
his belief, and that his conversion drew his brothers along with him, as may
be inferred from the force of his character. So Bleek, Einl. in d. N. T.,
p. 546. James at aa early period obtained in the church of Jerusalem such
a position that he appears as its head (about A.D. 44) ; yet this position is
not that of a bishop in distinction from presbyters, but he was one of the
presbyters (Acts xv. 22, 23), whose loftier dignity was not derived from
any special official authority, but only from his personality. In the confer
ence at Jerusalem (in the year 50, Acts xv.), James not only took an impor
tant part, but his voice gave the decision. We cannot call his advice, in
accordance with which the definite resolution was arrived at, a compromise;
for the question whether believers among the Gentiles were obliged to be
circumcised could only be affirmed or denied. Jaraes decided the question
in the negative; grounding his opinion not on his own experience, nor on
the communications of Paul and Barnabas, but on the divine act narrated
by Peter, wherein he recognized the commencement of the fulfilment of the
definite lo-yoi tuiv ¦Kpo^riruv. When he imposed upon the Gentile Christians
o.'RextaOaL tmb Tuv uKiayrniuTuv tlw eldu?MV Kal rrj^ TTopveiag xal tov ¦ttviktov Kal tov
alfiaTo;, he does so, not in the same sense as that in which the Judaizers im-
1 This event, according to the united testi- no longer in Nazareth, hut in Capernaum ; for
mony of the Synoptists, occurred after the in Mark vi. 3 the inhabitants of Nazareth say
choice of the Twelve; Mark makes it to fol- only of the sisters, but not of His mother and
low directly ,upon it. In i^eyoi/ yap, ver. 21, brothers, that they dwelt with them (comp,
Lange finds an " artifice " on the part of those also Matt. xiii. 55).
belonging to Jesus to rescue Him from the 2 Lange also, it is true, finds in the demand
death which threatened Him (!). — Meyer of the brothers a sign of unbelief, but of the
supplies to i^!)K6ov, "from Nazareth; " but it unbelief of an enthusiasm which had not yet.
is probable that the family at this time dwelt risen to self-sacrifice I

8 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
posed on them the observance of the law ; and when as a reason he appeals
to the reading of Moses every sabbath in the synagogues even of Gentile
cities, he intimates that he wished to draw the boundary to the freedom of
the Gentile Christians, within which they must keep themselves if it were
to be possible for the Jewish Christians to live in brotherly fellowship with
them. That James not only recognizes Gentile Christianity, but also the
u-Koarolri of Paul, is apparent from Gal. ii. 7 ff. ; yet it does not follow that
he entered entirely into Paul's views. According to Gal. ii. 12, the persons
there called rivig u-r^b 'laKwBov were oifended because Peter and the other Jews
did eat iierii rCiv idvuv. We are not told in the narrative of Paul that these
did not come directly from James, but only from Jerusalem; at least, that
they had not been sent by James, or that they had expressed themselves
more strongly than the views of James warranted. The influence which
they exerted on Peter, and even on Barnabas and the other Jewish Chris
tians at Antioch, would rather seem to indicate that their words were
regarded as those of James, who, when he declared himself against avveadisiv
fiera tuv tdvCiv,^ did not contradict his view expressed in the convention at
Jerusalem. It is clear from Acts xxi. 17-26 that James attached great im
portance to the point that every a-noaraaia of the Jews from Moses should be
avoided, and that the Gentile Christians should remain by that fourfold
uirexeodai ; he even demanded from Paul a proof that he had not ceased to
observe the law (rbv vofiov if>v%u.aBe.iii). From the fact that Paul complied with
this demand, it follows not only that he was not hostilely opposed to the
view of James, but that he respected it, and recognized in it nothing essen
tially opposed to his own principles. He could not have done so had James
insisted on the observance of the law in the same sense as did the Judaizing
Christians, against whom Paul so often and so decidedly contended. Ac
cording to James, the law was not a necessary means of justification along
with and in addition to faith, but the rule of life appointed by God to the
people of Israel, according to which believing Israel has to conform in the
free obedience of faith. Thus James was and continued to be in his faith in
Christ a true Jew, without, however, denying that Christianity was not only
the glorification of Judaism, but also that by it the blessing promised to
1 If Paul by TO. eOvri (G-al. ii. 12) means not otherwise Peter would have had no reason to
Gentiles, but, as is certainly the usual view, separate himself from them at their meals 
Gentile Christians, we must suppose, with Yet it is doubtful if we are justified in assum-
¦ Wieseler (Komm. ¦iiber d. Br. an d. Gal.), Ing this, as the presupposed fact is not in the
that the Gentile Christians at Antioch no least indicated by Paul.
longer kept the rules established at Jerusalem,

INTRODUCTION. 9
Israel was imparted to the Gentiles without their being subject to the law
of Israel.i The position of James toward the Mosaic law was accordingly
difierent from that of Paul. For, whilst the latter was conscious that in
Christ he was dead to the law (/x^ uv in^b vofiov, 1 Cor. ix. 20), so that he felt
himself at liberty to be uf 'lovdaioc to the Jews but (if uvofiog to the uvd/ioic,
though always evvo/wc: Xptarip, the former esteemed it to be a sacred duty
in Christ to observe the law which God had given to His people through
Moses.'' Iu this legal obedience James showed such a strict conscientious
ness, that even by the Jews he received the name of " the Just." And con
sidering this his peculiar character, it is not at all to be wondered at that
the Judaistic Christians leant chiefly on him, and that Judaistic tradition
imparted additional features to his portrait, by which he appeared as the
ideal of Jewish holiness. According to the description of Hegesippus
(Euseb., Hist. Eccl., ii. 23), he was by birth a Nazarite, he led an ascetic
life, he never anointed with oil nor used the bath, he never wore woollen
but linen clothes, he was permitted to enter into the sanctuary, and he
prayed constantly on his knees for the forgiveness of the people, and con
tinued in his devotions so long that his knees became hard as camels'.
This description may contain a few genuine traits, yet, as will be generally

> Weiss is wrong when he maintains (in the ii. 11 presupposes that it is only possible to
dissertation " James and Paul " in the Deutsche stand in the judgment inasmuch as that judg-
Ztschr. f. christi. Wissenschaft, 5th year, ment is merciful. It is to be observed that
1854, No. 51) that James was a stranger to the Weiss advances the same view of James in his
distinction between the fulfilment of the law Bibl. Theologie.
from a motive of duty and from the impulse ^ Paul and James before their conversion to
of a new principle, and that in this he was in Christ certainly occupied different positions
opposition to Paul ; that while, according to with regard to the law. The former regarded
the latter, the law leads to sin and death; ac- it — conformably to his Pharisaism —as the
cording to the view of James it produces means of procuring righteousness, and accord-
righteousness and deliverance from death ; and ingly in his strivings he experienced it as a
that he cherishes the idea, supposed by Weiss ^v/oq which weighed him down : James, on
to be contained in the O. T., that he only can the other hand, was certainly one of those
be declared righteous by God who is actually pious persons to whom, in the faith of the
perfectly righteous. In opposition to the first covenant which God made with His people,
two positions it is to be urged, that James ia the law, as the witness of this covenant, was
chap. ii. speaks not of the O. T. law as such, the word ot divine love, and therefore in it he
but of the N. T. vop-iK t^s eAev^epias ; and had found his joy and consolation (comp. Ps.
against the third position, that the O. T. ree cxix. 92, xix. 8-11). Paul found his peace,
ogaizes distinctly a. forgiveness of sins, as well when he recognized himself in Christ free from
as that James regards SiKniouo-Sai, e'J epywj. as the law; James, when he experienced in
a work of grace, since he does not deny the Christ strength to obey the law.
existence of sin among true believers, and in

10 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
admitted, it cannot be acquitted of "suspicious exaggeration" (Lange).
The statements of the Ebionites proceed farther; in the Clementines, James
is raised above all the apostles, and exalted to the episcopacy of all Chris
tendom; indeed, according to Epiphanius (Haeres., xxx. 16), his ascension
to heaven was a matter of narration ; and Epiphanius himself thinks that
he not only went yearly into the holy of holies, but that he also wore the
diadem of the high priest.
SEC. 2.— THE READERS OF THE EPISTLE.
The contents of the Epistle prove that it was addressed to Christians.
Not only does the author — who by the designation Kvpiov 'Irjoov Xptorov
(5oO/lof plainly announces himself to be a Christian — address his readers
throughout as his "brethren" (also as his "beloved brethren"), but in
several places he distinctly affirms that they stand with him on the same
ground of faith; in chap. i. 18 he says that God has begotten them
(vfidg) by the word of truth ; in chap. ii. 1 he reminds them of their
iziang rov Kvpiov 'I. Xpiarov rf/g (56^!?f; in chap. ii. 7 he speaks of the goodly
name (that is, the name of Jesus Christ) which was invoked upon them ;
in chap. v. 7 he exhorts them to patience, pointing out to them the
nearness of the coming of the Lord ; and iu chap. ii. 16 ff. he evidently
supposes that they had one and the same faith with himself. Add to
this, that if the author as a doiXog of Christ had written to non-Christians,
his Epistle could only have had the intention of leading them to faith
ill Christ ; but of such an intention there is not the slightest trace found
in the Epistle, so that Bouman is completely unjustified when he says:
vult haec esse epistola estque revera christianae religionis schola pro-
paedeutica. Certainly the designation of the readers, found in the
inscription of the Epistle as al dudcKa (pvlal al iv ry Siaanop^, appears at
variance with this view, as such a designation properly applies to Jews
dispersed among the Gentiles beyond the boundaries of Palestine. By
this name cannot be meant Christians in general (Hengstenberg), inas
much as they are the spiritual Israel (in contrast to 6 'InpaijX Kara aapKo
1 Cor. X. 18; comp. Gal. vi. 16), and still less the Gentile Christians
(Philippi), because it stamps the nationality too distinctly (much more
than the expression iKXeKrol ¦n-apemdri/ioi Siaairopag, 1 Pet. i. 1), particularly
as nothing is added pointing beyond the limits of nationality. The
apparent contradiction is solved by the consideration of the view of
James; according to which the Christians to whom he wrote not only

INTRODUCTION. 11
had not ceased to be Jews, but it was precisely those Jews who believed
iu the Messiah promised to them and manifested in Jesus who were the
true Jews, so that he regarded believing Israel as the true people of God,
on whom he could therefore without scruple confer the name al SMcKa
<pvXai,^ pointing to the fathers to whom the promises were made ; and,
besides, it is not to be forgotten that the sharp distinction between
Christianity springing up in Judaism, and Judaism called to Christianity,
did not at first arise, but was only gradually developed by subsequent
historical relations. Yet it is not — on account of the above adduced
reasons — to be inferred, as Bouman and Lange assume, that the Epistle
was not only written to the converted, but also to the unconverted
Jews.^ The destination of the Epistle to Jewish Christians follows from
chap. ii. 2, where the place of assembly of the congregations is called
avvayayri; from ii. 19, where monotheism is prominently brought for
ward; from V. 12, where swearing according to forms customary among
the Jews is forbidden; and from v. 14, where the custom of anointing
with oil is mentioned. But, besides, all the ethical faults which the
author reproves are of such a nature that they have their root in the
carnal Jewish disposition (Wiesinger, Schaff, Thiersch, and others).^ —
The indolent reliance, prevailing in the congregations, on a faith without
works, cannot be adduced as a feature opposed to the Jewish character;
for in its nature it is nothing else than the pharisaical confidence on the
superiority over all other nations, granted by God through the law to
the people of Israel. As the Jews thought that in their law they had
a guaranty for their salvation without the actual practice of the law
(comp. Rom. ii. 17 ff.), so these Christians trusted to their faith, though
defective in works. ^ That in later times the Jews also placed a false
1 The solution is unsatisfactory, that" James dresses them directly; as also the prophets
writes to the Jews with whom he has access often did iu their denunciations against the
as a servant of Jesus Christ, and on whom as enemies of Israel.
such he has influence." ^ When Briickner thinks that the descrip-
2 It is true that the author directly addresses tion of the readers as al 5u)8eKa (j>vKai does not
the rich, who were hostilely disposed to the require that they were merely Jewish Chris-
Christians; but it does not follow from this tians, but only that they who came over to
that the Epistle was in any proper sense di- them from the Gentiles must have submitted
reeled to them; it is rather to be explained to the ordinances of the Jewish national life,
from the liveliness with which he writes. The it is to be observed that circumcised Gentiles
author sees those who had exposed the read- were no longer regarded as Gentiles, but as
ers of his Epistle in a twofold manner to temp- Jews.
tation (B-eipao-jios) as present before him, and « " What James had in view is simply a
therefore for the sake of his readers he ad- Jewish orthodoxy which asserted itself among

12 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
confidence on their knowledge of God, Justin testifies when he says:
ol ?i€yovaiv, bn Kai) 6.p.apTij)Xol uat, Qeov de yiViJaKOvaiv, ov fif} Tioylarirai. avrolg
ajiaprlav (Dial., p. 370, ed. col.). — It is true, it is not prominently men
tioned in the Epistle, that the readers were solicitous about a scrupulous
observance of the rites of the Mosaic law; but a false estimate of an
external dprioKela was, according to i. 22 ff., not wanting among them,
with which also was united, as among the Jews, a fanatical zeal (bpyji).
— The condition of these Jewish-Christian congregations, as described
in the Epistle, was as follows : They were exposed to manifold tempta
tions (niLpaaiiolg ttockIXoic), whilst their members as poor (raTveivoi, -ktuxo'i)
by reason of their faith (chap. ii. 5, 6) were oppressed by the rich.
But they did not bear these persecutions with that patience which assures
the true Christian of the crown of life : on the contrary, these persecu
tions gave rise to an inward temptation, the blame of which, however,
they sought not in themselves, in their k-Kidv/iia, but iu God. Instead
of praying in faith for the wisdom which was lacking to them, they gave
way to doubt, which placed them in opposition to the principle of Chris
tian life. Whilst they considered their ra^Keivbrrig as a disgrace, they
looked with envy at the glitter of earthly glory, and preferred the friend
ship of the world to that of God; in consequence of which, even in their
religious assemblies, they flattered the rich, whilst they looked down
upon the poor. This worldly spirit, conducive to the friendship of the
world, was likewise the occasion of bitter strife among them, in which
they murmured against each other, and in passionate zeal contended with
violent words. These contentions were not "theological discussions"
(Reuss) or "doctrinal dissensions" (Schmid), for the Epistle points to
none of these ; but concerned practical life, especially the Christian's
demeanor in the world.i As the Jews imagined that it belonged to
them to be the ruling people of the world, to whom all the glory of the
world belonged, so also many in these congregations wished to possess,
even on the earth, in a worldly form, the glory promised to Christians;
and therefore they quarrelled with " the brethren of low degree," who, on
their part, were carried along in passionate wrath against those of a
the Jewish Christians in the form of a dead, and unphilosophical author as much opposed
unfruitful faith in God and the Messiah" as tbe supremacy of money and fine clothes' "
(Thiersch). since the kaKelv against which James contends
1 The observation of Reuss (§ 144) is mis- has nothing to do wilh " systems and philoso-
leading; "The supremacy of systems and phy."
philosophy of faith was to the simple.minded

INTRODUCTION. 13
proud disposition. In serving the world they certainly did not wish to
cease to be Christians; but they thought to be certain of justification
(diKomvaSaC) on account of their faith, although that faith was to them
something entirely external, which produced among them a fanatical zeal
(as the law among the Jews), but not that ¦work of faith which consisted,
on the one hand, in rr/pelv lavrbv anb rov koojiov, and, on the other, in the
practice of compassionate love. Yet all were not estranged in this
manner from the Christian life; there were still among them disciples
of the Lord who were and wished to be raizeivoi: yet worldliness was so
prevalent in the midst of them, that even they suffered from it. Hence
the admonitory and warning nature of the Epistle to all, yet so that it
is addressed chiefly sometimes to the one party and sometimes to the
other, and is in its tone now mild and now severe. All, however, are
addressed as adeTtipoc, except the rich, who are distinctly stated as those
who stand not inside, but outside, of the congregations to whom the
Epistle was addressed. These faults in the congregations were the occa
sion which induced James to compose his Epistle. The Epistle itself
is opposed to the opinion of Lange, that its occasion can only be under
stood when it is recognized that the Jewish Christians were infected by
the fanaticism of the Jews, in which the revolutionary impulse of inde
pendence and revenge was united with enthusiastic apocalyptic and
chiliastic hopes, and which was excited by the antagonism of the Gentile"
world to Judaism; in the Epistle, only in an arbitrary manner can
references and allusions to these "historical conditions" be maintained.
The churches to which the Epistle is addressed are, according to the
inscription, outside of Palestine, chiefly in Syria and the far East, whilst
in the AVest there were hardly any Jewish-Christian churches; yet it is
possible that the author also included, by the expression employed, the
churches in Palestine only. outside of Jerusalem (Guericke).
SEC. 3. — CONTENTS AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE.
The Epistle commences with a reference to the Treipaafwi which the
readers had to endure, exhorting them to esteem them as reasons for joy,
to prove their patience under them, to ask in faith for the wisdom which
was lacking to them, to which a warning against doubt is annexed. To
the rich the judgment of God is announced; whilst to the lowly, who
endure patiently, the crown of life is promised (i. 1-12). Directly upon
this follows the warning not to refer the internal temptations which arose

14 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
from their own lusts (e-mdv/iia) to God ; as from God, on the contrary,
cometh every good gift, especially the new birth by the word of truth
(i. 13-18). To this is annexed the exhortation to be swift to hear, slow
to speak, and slow to wrath. This exhortation forms tbe basis for the
following amplifications. The first, " swift to hear," is more precisely
defined : to receive with meekness the word which is able to save the
soul, in such a way as there shall be no failure in the doing of the word
by works of compassionate love, and by preserving one's self from the
world (i. 19-27). With special reference to the flattery of the rich and
the despising of the poor occurring in their assemblies, the sin of respect
of persons is brought before the readers, and pressed upon them : that
whosoever shall transgress the law in one point, he is guilty of all, and
that to the unmerciful a judgment without mercy will be meted out
(ii. 1-13) ; whereupon it is strongly affirmed that it is foolish to trust
to a faith which without works is in itself dead. Such a faith does not
profit ; for by works a man is justified, and not by faith only, as also
the examples of Abraham and Rahab show (ii. 14-26). — Without any
transition, an earnest warning follows against the vain desire of teaching,
which evidently refers to " slow to speak, slow to wrath." The warning
is founded on the difficulty, indeed the impossibility, of bridling the
tongue. Heavenly wisdom is then commended, in contrast to the wisdom
of this world, which is full of bitter envy (iii. 1-18). The author severely
reprimands his readers for their strifes arising from the love of the
world; and exhorts them to humble themselves before God, and not to
judge one another (iv. 1-12). He then turns to those who, in the pride
of possession, forget their dependence on God, points out to them the
fleeting nature of human life, subjoins a severe apostrophe against the
rich, to whom he announces the certain judgment of God (iv. 13-v. 6),
and, pointing to the Old-Testament examples,, exhorts his readers to a
persevering patience in love, as the coming of the Lord is at hand
(v. 7-11). After a short warning against idle swearing (v. 12), the
author gives advice as to how the sick are to behave themselves, exhort
ing them to mutual confession of sin, and, referring to the example of
Elias, to mutual intercession ; he then concludes the Epistle by stating
the blessing which arises from the conversion of a sinner (v. 13-20). i
i On the train of thought In the Epistle, i. 19 for the construction of the Epistle is cor-
see The Connection of the Epistle of James, rectly recognized; only the two members
by Pfeiffer, in Theol. Stud. a. Kritiken, 1850, Ppa&ii^ cts t6 Aa\^crat and ^paSii^ ets opy-riv are
Part I. In this dissertation the importance of too much separated from each other, aud ac-

INTRODUCTION. 15
This Epistle was not addressed to a single church, but to a circle of
churches (rjamely, to the Jewish-Christian churches outside of Palestine or
of Jerusalem), on which account, when received into the canon, it was
classed among the so-called EmffTo?-aif Ka6o?-iKaig, by which, however, nothing
is determined concerning its peculiar design. ^ For, even although the
seven catholic Epistles received this name with reference to the already
existing collection of the Pauline Epistles, yet the opinion of Kern (^Com
mentary, Introduction), that the collection of these epistles nnder that name
indicates an internal relationship with reference to the doctrine and tend
ency of Paul, is not justified. As an encyclical epistle, the Epistle of
James considers only congregational, but not personal, relations. With
regard to its contents, it is decidedly ethical, not dogmatic, and that not
merely because it treats only of the ethical faults in the congregations re
ferred to, but also because it contemplates Christianity only according to
its ethical side.^ It is peculiar to this Epistle, that the gospel — the word
of truth by which God effects the new birth, and of which it is said that it
is able to save the soul — is designated v6p,og. This voftog, more exactly
characterized as ri^eiog 6 rijc: e?,evdepiag, is certainly distinguished from the
O. T. vofiog, which only commands, without communicating the power of
free obedience; but, at the same time, in this very designation the convic
tion is expressed of the closest connection between Judaism and Christi
anity, whilst the same vofiog /SamAwcof, which forms the essence of the law in
the O. T. economy, is stated as the summary of this N. T. vo/wq. Taking
these two points together, it follows, according to the view of the author,
that, on the one hand, the Christian by means of manf, which is implanted
in his mind by the word of truth, has stepped into a new relation with God
(and in so far Christianity is a new creation) ; and, on the other hand, the
chief point of Christianity consists in this, that in it such a noiriatg is pos
sible, by which a man is /laKupiog, and may be assured of future aarripia (and
in so far Christianity is glorified .Judaism). Hence the author can ascribe
no importance to a iriarig which is without kpya, and hence it is natural to

cordingly the commencement of a third divis- 2 .Tohn are included is that they belonged to
lon of the Epistle is placed at iii. 13, where, the First Epistle, and were appended to it.
however, the reference to the opy-q In the pre- See also Herzog's Real-Enci/klopddie, article
ceding paragraph Is evident. " Katholische Briefe."
1 Concerning the name eiricTToXai KaSoXiicai, ' Also "the mystical element" (Briickner,
see Introductions to the N. T. The most Gunkel) is not wanting, as appears from i. 18;
probable opinion is, that icafloAiKds is synony- but this is only indicated in a passing manner,
mous with iyKvK\i.ot. The reason why 1 and without James further eutering upon

16 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
him to place all the importance on the ipya, that is, on the works which pro
ceed from faith ; yet he does this neither in the sense that man by his epya
is placed in this new relation to God, for it is only in this relation that he
can do these works, nor yet in the sense that by them he can merit aurripia
or &iKaiovceai in the judgment (iv ry Kplveadai), for James does not deny that
the believer continues a sinner, and that therefore he can only be acquitted
in judgment by the mercy of God. — The reticence on christological points
is another peculiarity of this Epistle. Yet there is not wanting in it a de
cidedly Christian impress. This is seen in two ways : First, ethical exhor
tations are enforced — though not, as is often the case iu other N. T.
Epistles, by a reference to the specific points of Christ's salvation — by a
reference both to the saving act of regeneration by the gospel, and to the
advent of the Lord, so that, as the foundation of the Christian ethical life
subjectively considered is monf, so objectively it is the redemption of God
in Christ. Secondly, the same dignity is attributed to Christ in this Epistle
as in the other writings of the N. T. This is seen from the fact that the
author calls himself a iovhig of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is
here to be observed, that God and Christ are placed in juxtaposition, and
that the same name is given to Christ as to God, namely Kvpiog, by which
He is placed on an equality with God, and specifically distinguished from
man. The circumstance that the author directly unites the divine judg
ment with the coming of the Lord, indeed designates the Lord Himself as
the Judge, also points to this higher dignity of Christ. See Dorner, Lehre
von der Person Christi, 2d ed., part i. p. 94 ff. ; Kem, Komment., p. 40;
Schmid, Bibl. Theol., part ii. § 57, 1. Nor are christological points wanting
in the Epistle; though the fact that they are more repressed than is the case
elsewhere in the N. T., and that specific acts of redemption, as the incarna
tion of Christ, His death. His resurrection, etc., are entirely omitted, forms
a peculiarity of this Epistle which distinguishes it from all the other writ
ings of the N. T. The view of the author is directed less to the past than
to the future, as this corresponds to his design, which aimed at the practical
bearing of Christianity; see i. 12, ii. 5, 14, iii. 1, v. 1, 7, 9. See, on the
contents of the Epistle, Weiss, £jW. Theol. des N. T., pp. 196-219.  It is
undeniable that there is a connection between this Epistle and Christ's Ser
mon on the Mount ; Kern calls it a counterpart of the same, and Schmid
(Bibl. Theol., ii. § 60) says that James had it for his model. Yet this is not
to be understood as if the Sermon on the Mount, as transmitted by Matthew,
was influential for the conception of this Epistle : it is not even proved that
the author was acquainted with that writing ; and not only do we find in

INTRODUCTION. 17
each of these two writings many references which are foreign to the other,
but also where they, coincide there is a difference of expression in the same
thoughts. The relationship consists rather in the fact that the ethical view
of Christianity, as seen in the Epistle, is in perfect accordance with the
thoughts expressed by Christ iu the Sermon on the Mount, as well as in
His other discourses, and which, before they were reduced to writing, were
in their original form vividly impressed on the Church by oral tradition.
Imbued with the moral spirit of Christianity announced in these words of
Jesus, the author of the Epistle regards Christianity chiefly as a moral life,
so that even the person of Christ, in a certain measure, steps into the back
ground; just as Christ Himself, where He treats of the ethical life, is com
paratively silent with reference to His own person. The parallel passages
from the Sermon on the Mount are the following : chap. i. 2, Matt. v. 10-12 ;
chap. i. 4 (Iva yre releioi). Matt. v. 48; chap. i. 5, v. 15 ff.. Matt. vii. 7 ff. ;
chap. i. 9,. Matt. v. 3; chap. i. 20, Matt. v. 22; chap. ii. 18, Matt. vi. 14,
15, V. 7; chap. ii. 14 ff.. Matt. vii. 21 ff.; chap. iii. 17, 18, Matt. v. 9; chap.
iv. 4, Matt. vi. 24 ; chap. iv. 10, Matt. v. 3, 4 ; chap. iv. 11, Matt. vii. 1 f. ;
chap. V. 2, Matt. vi. 19 ; chap. v. 10, Matt. v. 12 ; chap. v. 12, Matt. v. 33 ff.
There are also parallel passages from the other discourses of Jesus : chap. i.
14, Matt. XV. 19 ; chap. iv. 12, Matt. x. 28. Compare also the places where
the rich are denounced, with Luke vi. 24 ff. — But as these parallel passages
do not prove the use of the synoptical Gospels, so neither is a use of the
Pauline Epistles demonstrated. i The few places where the author coincides
with the First Epistle of Peter are to be explained from an acquaintance of
Peter with this Eiaistle. On the other hand, it is worthy of remark, that
not only is there frequent reference to the expressions and historical ex
amples of the O. T., but that the idea "of the contrast, running through
the spirit of Israel, between the externally fortunate but reprobate friend
ship of the world, and the externally suffering but blessed friendship of
God " (Reuss), pervades this Epistle. — Several passages are evidently
founded on corresponding passages in the Apocrypha of the O. T.
As, on the one hand, the Epistle is a letter of comfort and exhortation
for the believing brethren, so, on the other hand, it is a polemical writing ;
but its polemics are directed not against dogmatic errors, but ethical per
versions. Only one passage, chap. ii. 14-26, appears to combat a definite
doctrine, and that the doctrine of justification of the Apostle Paul. But

1 Incorrectly, Hengstenberg thinks that 11. 12, to Gal. iv. 5; aud chap. i. 22, to Eom.
chap. i. 2, 3, refers to liom. v. 3; chap. i. 26, 11.13.

18 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
whatever view may be taken of this, the polemics are here introduced for
the sake of ethical Christian life, namely, only with the object of showing
that Christians are not indolently to trust to a irlartg without works, but are
to prove a living faith by good works, so that the proposition ef ipyuv dmatovrai
uvdpunog, Kal ovk iK moreuf fiovov, is by no means employed to confute the Paul
ine principle, oi diKaioirac HvOpu-iroQ i£, ipyuv vofiov, eav fiy Sia mareug 'liiaov Xpiarov,
in the application in which Paul made the assertion. Here, then, as every
where, we see that the author is a man whose attention is entirely directed
to practical life, and who, both for himself and for others, has in view, as
the aim of all striving, a re'keuirrig which consists in the perfect agreement
of the life with the divine will, which the law in itself was incapable of pro
ducing, but which to the Christian is rendered possible, because God, accord
ing to His will, has by faith implanted His law as an inner principle of life,
and therefore is to be aimed at with all earnestness.
In recent times, the peculiar tendency of thi.s Epistle has often been des
ignated as that of a Jewish Christianity. It is true that there is not the
slightest trace of an agreement with the view expressed in Acts xv. 1 : idv /ifi
Trepiri/ivrjods rCi idei MuiVreuf ov Svvaade audr/vai ; neither is circumcision, nor the
ritual observances of the Mosaic law, anywhere mentioned ; but the suppo
sition of the unity of the Old and New Testament law which lies at the
foundation of the Epistle, as well as the peculiar importance assigned to
Tzoiriaig rov epyov, with the reticence on the christological points of salvation,
point certainly to a Jewish-Christian author, who occupies a different posi
tion to the law from that of the Apostle Paul. So far, there is nothing to
object to in this designation; only it must not be forgotten, that, apart from
the heretical forms into which Jewish Christianity degenerated, it might
assume, and did assume, special forms different from that presented in this
Epistle. If, in later Jewish-Christian literature, there are many traces of a
relationship with the tendency of this Epistle, yet there is to be recognized
in this fact not less the definite infiuenee of the person of the author than
its Jewish-Christian spirit.
As regards the style and form of expression, the language is not only fresh
and vivid, the immediate outflow of a deep and earnest spirit, but at the
same time sententious and rich in graphic -figure. Gnome follows after
gnome, and the discourse hastens from one similitude to another: so that
the diction often passes into the poetical, and in some parts is like that of
the O. T. prophets. We do not find logical connection, like that in St.
Paul ; but the thoughts arrange themselves in single groups, which are
strongly marked off from one another. We everywhere see that the author

INTRODUCTION. 19
has his object clearly in sight, and puts it forth with graphic concreteness.
" As mild language is suited to tender feeling, so strong feelings produce
strong language. Especially, the style acquires emphasis and majesty by
the climax of thoughts and words ever regularly and rhetorically arrived at,
and by the constantly occurring antithesis," Kern (Commentary, p. 37 f.). —
Also the mode of representation in the Epistle is peculiar : " The writer ever
goes at once in res medias, and with the first sentence which begins a sec
tion (usually au interrogative or imperative one) says out at once, fully
and entirely, that which he has in his heart; so that in almost every case
the first words of each section might serve as a title for it. The further
development of the thought, then, is regressive, explaining and grounding
the preceding sentence, and concludes with a comprehensive sentence, reca
pitulating that with which he began " (Wiesinger).
SEC. 4. — THE AUTHENTICITY OP THE EPISTLE.
According to the inscription, the Epistle is written by James, who styles
himself Sov%og of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ ; but this designation is
neither in favor of nor against the apostolate of the author. Still, it is evi
dent from the whole contents of the Epistle, addressed to the Jewish-Chris
tian churches of the Diaspora, that no other James is meant than "the
brother of the Lord," who is not identical with the Apostle James (see
sec. 1). Eusebius expresses himself uncertainly concerning its authen
ticity; he reckons it among the Antilegomena (Hist. Eccl., iii. 25), and
says of it : lareov iig voSeveiai fiiv, that not many of the ancients have men
tioned it, but that nevertheless it is publicly read in most of the churches
(Hist. Eccl., ii. 23). Of the ancient fathers, Origen is the first who ex
pressly cites it (tom. xix. In Joan. : ag ev ry (pepofdvy 'laKU/Sov emaroTiy uviyvu/iev);
in the Latin version of Rufinus, passages are often quoted from the Epistle
as the words of the Apostle James (ed. de la Rue, vol. ii., Horn, viii., In
Exod., p. 158: "sed et Apostolus Jacobus dicit," comp. pp. 139, 191,644,
671, 815). The Epistle is not mentioned in the writings of Clemens Alex-
andrinus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian; yet, according to Eusebius (Hist. Eccl.,
vi. 14), it was known and commented on by Clemens Alexandrinus. Diony
sius Alexandrinus expressly mentions it; and Jerome (Catalog., c. iii.) di
rectly calls James the Lord's brother, the author of the Epistle, yet with
the remark : quae et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur. It
is of special importance, that this Epistle is found in the old Sjriac ver
sion, the Peshito, in which are' wanting the four smaller Catholic Epistles

20 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
and the Apocalypse. Guericke (Einl., p. 442) with truth remarks, "that
this testimony is of the greater importance, as the country from which the
Peshito proceeded closely bordered on that from which the Epistle origi
nated, and as that testimony was also repeated and believed in by the Syriac
Church of the following age." The early existence of the Epistle appears
by many similarities to single passages in the earliest writings. The agree
ment which subsists between some passages of First Peter and this Epistle
is undeniable : compare 1 Pet. i. 6, 7, with Jas. i. 2, 3 ; 1 Pet. ii. 1 with Jas.
i. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 8 with Jas. v. 20; and 1 Pet. v. 5-9 with Jas. iv. 6, 7, 10.
(See author's Comm. on First Peter, Introd., sec. 2.) That Clemens Romanus,
in his Epist. ad Corinth., chaps. :^., xii., xvii., xxxviii., alludes to correspond
ing passages in this Epistle, is not so certain as Kern (in his Commentary),-
Guericke, Wiesinger, and others assume : for, that Clemens in chap. x.
adduces, ainong the pious men of the Old Testament, Abraham, referring to
Gen. XV. 6, is not surprising, also the words i (pi'Aog ¦npoaayopevdelg do not
prove an acquaintance with the Epistle, as Abraham was already so called
by Philo ; his offering of Isaac is indeed mentioned, but not as an epyov on
account of which he was justified. Siinilarly with reference to the mention
of Rahab, of whom it is said in chap. xii. : diii niariv Kal ^iXo^eviav eaudri 'Paul3,
ri Tropvjj, whereupon follows the history.^ Still less is the connection between
chap. xvii. and Jas. v. 10, 11. It seems more certain that Jas. iii. 13
lies at the foundation of the words in chap, xxxviii. : 6 aoipbg ivdeiKviaBu ryv
ao(j>iav a'vTov /xy ev Uyoig iM.' ev epyoig ayaSoig. Some similarities to the Epistle
likewise occur in Hermas : thus III. Sunil. 8 : nomen ejus negaverunt, quod
super eos erat invocatum (comp. Jas. ii. 7) ; yet here the discourse is not con
cerning the rich and an invective upon them. Further, the passages II.
Mand. xii. 5 : iuv ovv uvTiarf/g ab-bv (rbv biuSo'Aov), viKTiBeig (pev^erai (comp. Jas'.
IV. 7) ; and II. Mand. xii. 6 : (jioiSi/driri rbv Kvpiov, rbv ivviifievov auaai Kal a-rroHaai
(comp. Jas. iv. 12). Of greater importance than this coincidence in single
expressions, is the fact that, with Hermas, a view generally predominates
which agrees in many respects with that of the Epistle : Christianity is also
with hiin mostly considered in its ethical sense ; the christological points
step into the background ; the distinction of rich and poor is strongly em
phasized ; and in the exliortation to prayer, rtiarig is expressly insisted on
and SiTpvxia (II. Mand. 9) is warned against ; so that an acquaintance of the
author of this writing with the Epistle can scarcely be denied. Also the
• Even Guericke admits that this passage of 31 than of Jas. il. 25. But it is possible that
the example of Rahab, according to its actual Clemens had neither the one passage nor the
contents, is a reminiscence rather of Heb. xi. other in view.

INTRODUCTION. 21
Clementine Homilies, apart ftom their speculative contents, exhibit an
acquaintance with the tendency of this Epistle. Kern has collected a great
number of parallel passages, yet it 'cannot be denied that in individual cases
both the connection and the expression of thought are different. In Ire
naeus (Adv. Haer., iv. 16, 2) the union of the words : Abraham credidit Deo et
reputatum est illi ad justitiam, with those which directly follow : et amicus
Dei vocatus est, points to Jas. ii. 23; also, in Clemens Alex., Strom., vi. p.
698, ed. Sylb., a similarity to Jas. ii. 8 can scarcely be denied; whilst the
designation of Abraham in Tertullian (Adv. Judaeos, cap. 2) as amicus Dei
proves nothing. Cyrill of Jerusalem (Catech., iv. c. 33) reckons all tlie
seven Catholic Epistles among the canonical writings ; and since his time
the Epistle has been unhesitatingly reckoned an apostolic writing belonging
to the canon. 1
According to the above data, a certain dubiety undoubtedly prevailed in
tradition, which, however, proves nothing against the authenticity, as it is
easily accounted for from the peculiar nature of the Epistle. For, on the
one hand, James the Lord's brother had, it is true, obtained an apostolic
importance, so that Paul numbered him among the pillars of the church ;
yet he was not an apostle, and the more closely the Jewish-Christian
churches attached themselves to him, so the more estranged must he have
become to the other churches ; and, on the other hand, the Epistle was
directed only to the Jewish-Christian churches, and the more these, by hold
ing to the original type, distinguished and separated themselves from the
other churches, the more difficult must it have been to regard an epistle
directed to them as the common property of the Church, especially as it
appeared to contain a contradiction to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul.
These circumstances, as Thiersch (Krit., p. 359 f.) and Wiesinger have
rightly remarked, would hinder the universal recognition of the Epistle ;
but the more this was the case, so much the more valuable are those testi
monies of antiquity, although isolated, in favor of its genuineness.
Whilst, in the Middle Ages, the canonicity of the Epistle was not
questioned, in the sixteenth century objections to it of various kinds were
advanced. It is well known that Luther did not regard the Epistle as
apostolical. In his preface to it (1522) he thus expi-esses his opinion :
" In my opinion, it was some good pious man who got hold of and put
on paper some sayings of the disciples of the apostles, or perhaps
another has made notes from his preaching." In the preface to the
1 Only Theodorus Mopsuestius is said to Leontlus Bysantius {Contra Nest, et Eut., iii.
have rejected it, according to the statement of 14).

22 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
N. T. (1522) he calls the Epistle, compared with the best books of the
N. T. (which he names as the Gospel and First Epistle of John, the
Pauline Epistles, particularly the Romans, the Galatians, and the Ephe
sians, and First Peter), "a right strawy Epistle, for it has in it no true
evangelical character." In his sermons on the Epistles of Peter (1523),
Luther says that one may discern that the Epistle of James is "no
genuine apostolical epistle ; " and in his Kirchenpostille (delivered in the
summei's of 1527 and 1528), he again says that it " was neither written by
an apostle, nor has it the true apostolic ring, nor does it agree with the
pure doctrine " (Luther's Works, edited by Plochmann, vol. VIII. p. 268).
So also, in a sermon on the day of Epiphany, he says, " James and Jude,
many think, are not writings of the apostles." The reasons with which
Luther supports his depreciatory judgment of the Epistle, and which
he gives in his preface to it, are the following: (1) That it "proclaims
the righteousness of works, in fiat contradiction to Paul and all other
scripture ; " it is true " a gloss (or explanation) of such righteousness of
works may be found ; but that the Epistle adduces the saying of Moses
(Rom. iv. 3), which speaks only of Abraham's faith and not of his works,
in favor of works, cannot be defended." (2) That it "makes no mention
of the sufferings, the resurrection, and the Spirit of Christ.'' Besides, he
objects to the Epistle, that this James does nothing more than urge men
to the law and its works, and "confusedly passes from one subject to
another."^ Assuming that some passages are borrowed from First Peter,
and that chap. iv. 5 is from Gal. v. 17, he comes to the conclusion, that
as James was put to death by Herod before Peter, he could not be the
author of the Epistle, but that the real author must have lived long after
Peter and Paul.^ — With the opinion of Luther agree the Magdeburg

' Also in the Table-Talk (Plochmann's edi- Epistle of 1522, and in his preface to the N. T.
tion, vol. Ixii. p. 127) the same opinion is ex- of the same year; although in the later edi-
pressed : " Many have endeavored and labored tions of the N. T. the whole conclusion, in
to reconcile the Epistle of James with Paul. which he treats of the distinction between the
Philip Melanchthon refers to it in his Apology, books of the N. T., is omitted (see Plochmann,
but not with earnestness; for * faith justifies,* vol. Ixiii. p. 114).
and ' faith does not justify,' are plain contra- 2 This opinion of Luther, that the supposed
dictions. M'hoever can reconcile them, on him author is James the sou of Zebedee, is sur-
will I put on my cap {Barett), and allow him prising, as in the tradition of the Church of his
to call rae a fool." This saying, as well as the own and of the preceding time, not James the
expression in the Kirchenpostille, proves that son of Zebedee, but James the son of Alphaeus
Luther, even in his later years, continued firm was regarded as the author; yet in eome MSS.
to the opinion expressed in bis preface to the of the Peshito it is ascribed to the former.

INTRODUCTION. 23
Centuries, Hunnius, Althamer, and others; and also Wetstein.i On the
other hand, with evident reference to this opinion, Calviu defends the
Epistle. In his introduction to his commentary he says : Quia nullum
ejus (epistolae) repudiandae satis justam causam video, libenter eam sine
controversia amplector : he repudiates the assertion that the Epistle con
tradicts the Apostle Paul ; against the reason, quod parcior in praedi-
canda Christi gratia videtur, quam apostolo conveniat, he asserts : Non
est' ab omnibus exigendum, ut idem argumentum tractent ; and he then
gives his own judgment: Nihil continet Christi apostolo indignum ; mul-
tiplici vero doctrina scatet, cujus ¦utilitas ad omnes Christianae vitae
partes late patet. On the other hand, the Epistle did not remain unat-
tacked even in the Catholic Church ; not only Erasmus, but also Cajetan
(on account of the unapostolic salutation, chap. i. 1), expressed doubts
of its apostolic origin. But neither these doubts, nor the attacks of
Luther, deprived the Epistle of its ecclesiastical authority : on the con
trary, it was regarded in the Protestant not less than in the Catholic
Church, as the work of the Apostle James the younger, who was con
sidered as identical with "the Lord's brother." — Afterwards Faber
(Observatt. in Ep. Jac, Coburg, 1770), Bolten (Uebers. der neut. Briefe),
Schmidt [Einl. ins N. T.), and Bertholdt advanced the untenable opinion,
that the Epistle of James was originally written in Aramaic, and after
wards translated by another into Greek. De Wette, in his Introduction to
the New Testament, asserted that the composition of this Epistle by the
Lord's brother — whom he also regarded as the same with James the son
of Alphaeus — was doubtful. De Wette advances the following reasons
for his doubts : (1) That we cannot see what should have induced
James to write to all the Jewish Christians in the world; (2) that the
misplaced contradiction to Paul seems unworthy of James; (3) that, if
ii. 25 is to be regarded as a reference to Heb. xi. 31, this would betray
an author of a later day; and (4) lastly, that it is incomprehensible that
James should have attained to such a use of the Greek language. If
De Wette at a later period somewhat modified his opinion, still he
remained true to his doubts, which he did not deny even in his Exeget.
Handbuch. Against these reasons it is to be observed: 1. The occasion
' Wetstein*s opinion is as follows: Meam ram operibus juetificationera tribuit; denlque,
sententiam nemini obtrudara, tantum dicara, Jacobus ipsa ita conf undit omnia ac permiscet,
me epistolam Jacobi non existimare esse scrip- ut mihi vir bonus aliquis ac simplex fuisse
turn apostolicum, ob banc rationem : primo, videatur, qui arreptis quibusdam dictis discip-
quia directe contra Paulum et omnem scriptu- ulorum apostolieorum ea in chartam conjecerit.

24 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
of the writing is clearly to be recognized from the Epistle itself, namely,
the ethical faults in the churches referred to ; that only the Jewish Chris
tians in Palestine had separate churches for themselves, is an unfounded
assumption of De Wette. 2. The opinion of a contradiction to Paul is
destitute of all sure exegetical reasons ; see explanation of ii. 14 ff. 3. It
cannot be proved that the example of Rahab is taken from the Epistle
to the Hebrews. 4. It cannot be perceived why James should be less
skilled in the Greek language than must be assumed from this Epistle.
— When De Wette in his Exeget. Handbuch thinks that the author has
appropriated to himself from Paul (out of his Epistles) the free moral
spirit, but "ot his contemplative believing view, and that it is very doubt
ful whether he ever reached such a standpoint, it is to be observed that
such subjective suppositions form no sure basis for criticism. — Schleier
macher (in his Introduction to the N. T., edited by Wolde) judges of the
Epistle even more unfavorably than De Wette. He not only agrees with
Luther that the author "is confused," and is destitute "of the true
evangelical character," but he also objects that the transitions are " either
ornate and artificial, or awkward ; " that the artificial character of the
diction shows that the author was a stranger to the Greek language;
that much therein is bombast. Schleiermacher, indeed, acknowledges
that the Epistle is addressed to Jewish Christians; that possibly, in the
section ii. 14-26, "no reference to the Pauline theory lies at the founda
tion ; ¦' that, if the writing is to be placed in the canonical period of the
apostolic writings, it must be put at an early period, as there is no refer
ence to the relation between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians ; that
it indicates a view of Christianity out of which afterwards Ebionite
Christianity may have arisen. But on the other hand, in opposition to
these admissions, Schleiermacher thinks that if the Epistle belongs to the
early period, it could not have been addressed to churches outside of
Palestine; that we would expect it to have been written in Aramaic;
that, considering the idea of Christianity which predominates in it
'(namely, that it is the fullest development of monotheism), we can with
'difficulty imagine that "this James was the same person who was the
immediate disciple of Christ and the apostles, who afterwards became
bishop of Jerusalem, and was so earnest (?) for the diffusion of Chris-
¦.tianity among the Gentiles." — Finally, Schleiermacher arrives at the con
clusion that the Epistle is a later production and fabrication, i.e., not
•founded on fact, and not intended by its author for any particular circle
of readers. The explanation of the origin and composition of the

INTRODUCTION. 25
Epistle which he most favored was, that " some one wrote it in the name
of the Palestinian Apostle James, and collected reminiscences from his
discourses, not in the happiest manner, and in a language which was not
familiar to him." This criticism wants a sure ground to rest upon, as
much as the criticism of De Wette. — Also the recent Tiibingen school,
in conformity with their view of the development of Christianity, have
¦ denied the authenticity of the Epistle. They place its origin in the
period when the two antagonistic principles of Jewish Christianity and
Paulinism already began to be reconciled, in order to be united together
in Catholicism. Baur, both in his Paulus (p. 677 ff'.) and in his Christen-
thum der 3 ersten Jahrhunderte (p. 96 f.), has attempted to prove that the
Epistle belongs to a period when Jewish Christianity had already made
an important concession in relinquishing the necessity of circumcision to
Gentile Christianity, and that it proves itself to be a product of the
post-Pauline period, in that it opposes dimiovceai e^ epyav to the Pauline
Amaiovadai iK ¦Kiareug, but, on the other hand, does not deny the influence
of Paulinism; for, in accordance with the Pauline idea of making the
law an inward thing, "it not only speaks of the commandment of love
as a royal law, but also speaks of a law of liberty." — Schwegler (Das
nachapost. Zeitalter, vol. i. p. 413 ff.) has attempted to justify this view
of Baur by an examination of particulars. The following are the
reasons which he assigns for the composition of the Epistle in the post-
apostolic period: 1. Its' want of individuality; 2. The want of acquaint
ance of Christian antiquity with it, and its late recognition as a canon
ical writing; 3. The form of a mild Ebionitism which pervades it; 4.
The internal congregational relations presupposed; 5. Its acquaintance
with 'the Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Gospel
of the Hebrews. The Ebionitical character of the Epistle is proved,
(1) from the name of James attached to it ; (2) from the designation of
the readers as the SCideKa ipvAal, k.t.J.., by which not the Jewish-Christian
churches, but entire Christianity, is meant ; (3) from the retention of the
old Jewish name awayuyj; instead of tnKXriciia; (4) from the statement
of the Christian life as the fulfilling of the law, united with reticence upon
the doctrine of the person of Christ; (5) from the relation of the Epistle
to the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Clementine Homilies; (6) from the
use of the Apocrypha; (7) from the polemic against the Pauline doctrine
of justification ; and (8) lastly, from the antagonism to the Gentile Chris
tians, who under the name ¦kXovoioi are put in opposition to the Jewish
Christians, i.e., to the TrTuxotg. The conciliating tendency seeking an

26 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
adjustment of the antagonism is alleged to be manifest, (1) from the
antagonism of the rich and the poor being discussed with the design of
paving the way for an approximation of these parties by infiuencing the
former (the Gentile Christians, regarded as the rich) (!), and by bringing
about a change of sentiment in ¦ them (toward the Jewish Christians,
regarded as the poor) ; (2) from there being found in the Epistle a doc
trinal approximation to the Pauline ideas and principles, particularly in
the idea of the law as vouug klevBepiag, of Christianity as a new creation,
of ¦nlarig as "an internal and confident apprehension of the doctrine of
salvation," and even in the matter of justification itself ; whilst to the
Pauline doctrine is not plainly opposed the dmalumg e^ epyov, but the
diKaiuaig ff epyuv, olg r/ marig avvepyei, or the 6iKalciaig iK mareag, ij reTiEiavrai
diH TUV ipyuv ; and (3) from the fact that by the words : ai) marevetg, on b
6ebg dg ian • Ka'XCig ¦Koielg, the agreement of the Gentile-Christian and the
Jewish-Christian tendencies in this principal and fundamental doctrine
of Christianity is prominently brought forward. Schwegler has evidently
most carefully searched out and employed all those points which can in
any way be made to support his hypothesis; but it is perfectly clear that
many of the points adduced by him are pure fictions, and that from
others the most arbitrary inferences are drawn. The result is a view
which is manifestly self-contradictory. Whilst Schwegler adopts the
fancy that by the "rich" are meant the Gentile Christians, he subjoins
to this the inference that the Gentile-Christian cause (i.e., the cause of
the Trlovaioi) represents itself to the Ebionitic writer as " a proud conceit
of wisdom," as "loquacious controversy," as "the love of the world and
its lusts, covetousness, insolence, uncharitableness,'' as " a false and per
verted tendency," and that "to attack on all sides these tendencies in
their forms, disguises, and appearances, is the object of the Epistle;"
but in spite of this, he says at the conclusion of the inquiry, "Thus,
then, it is with a call to dp-iivTi that the author turns himself to the oppo
site Gentile-Christian faction ; such is the watchword and leading jyractical
thought of his Epistle." The most glaring internal contradiction of such
a criticism would not hinder us from placing the most arbitrary fiction
in the place of history.i Ritschl (D. Entst. der altkathol. Kirche, p. 150 ff.)
occupies a different position with reference to the Epistle from Schwegler.
» Reuss (§ 146, note) correctly observes : tury, and makes it grow from recent sources.
" The character of the Epistle given by the TU- That the TrAoiio-ioi are the Pauline Christians,
bingen criticism goes beyond every sure reason, is a postulate of this criticism for which there
when it places it far back into the second cen- is no proof. The numerous references to the

INTRODUCTION 27
He asserts expressly that the similarities and points of contact between
the Epistle and the Clementine Homilies are too vague to declare that, on
account of them, the Epistle must be regarded as post-apostolic, or that
a continuity of design in these writings can be discerned. He considers,
indeed, that the Epistle belongs to the Jewish-Christian tendency, partic
ularly on account of its polemic against the Pauline doctrine of justifi
cation ; but it is a matter of surprise to him, that there is in it no
reference to the principles according to which the intercourse of Jewish
with Gentile Christians was arranged (namely, the compliance of the
latter with the four prohibitions expressed in the decree of Jerusalem),
and also that the view of the Epistle is pervaded by au element essen
tially Pauline (namely, by the idea of the new birth ; but which is under
stood, in a manner entirely original, as an implantation of the law).
Thus Ritschl is constrained to confess that the Epistle, viewed on every
side, remains as a riddle in the development of the oldest Christianity.
This unsatisfactory result points to the incorrectness of his suppositions.
Ritschl does not only over-estimate the importance of the decree of Jeru
salem in the view of James (he likewise overlooks the fact that James,
in an Epistle addressed to Jewish Christians, had no occasion to refer to
the necessity of keeping to the articles of that decree) ; but he is also
wrong iu deriving the ideas of the law and regeneration, contained in
this Epistle, from Paul, — as if these ideas were not contained in Chris
tianity itself. Ritschl also, as Schwegler, maintains that chap ii. 14-26
is not designed to combat a perversion of Paul s doctrine , and in this
he is correct: but he assumes too hastily that .the polemic is directed
against Paul. Ritschl's judgment on the Epistle contains the correct
decision, that the reasons adduced by Schwegler do not contradict its
authenticity. Kern had already. In a treatise in the year 1835 (Tubinger
Zeitschr.), partially adduced the same arguments against the authenticity;
but -at a later period he regarded them as unsatisfactory, and asserted
this in his commentary in the year 1838, — of which fact Schwegler, who
often appeals to him, takes not the slightest notice. After a careful
review of the historical relations, Kern, in his commentary, says not only
that the Epistle bears internal evidence that it originated rather in the
apostolic age than in any other period, but also that he cannot but con
sider it as the production of him to whom it is ascribed in the inscrip-
Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, cause the extreme simplicity and originality of
the Gospel of the Hebrews, Hermas, Philo, this Epistle to be overlooked."
exist only in the Imagination of the critic, and

28 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
tion, — of James the Lords brother, who is called, along with Peter and
John, a pillar of the church, and under whose superintendence the church
of Jerusalem was placed. Kern arrived at this conclusion, even although
he regarded ii. 14-16 as a direct attack upon the Pauline doctrine of
justification. But this opinion is at variance with the authenticity of the
Epistle. For, how can it be supposed that James — after he had declared
himself on the side of Paul in the transaction at Jerusalem (Acts xv.),
or, if the narrative of Luke regarding that transaction cannot be reck
oned as true, after he had given to Paul the right hand of Koivuvla
(Gal ii. 9)1 — could have argued, not against an objectionable applica
tion of the doctrine of Paul, but against that doctrine itself? Add to
this, that such an attack, in a writing devoted to Jewish Christians, was
certainly not necessary in their case. It is true Kern thinks that "James
might consider it possible that his Epistle might come into the hands of
Gentile Christians, with whom the Jewish Christians were at variance
upon the doctrine:" but this is a mere arbitrary hypothesis; in the
Epistle there is not the slightest indication that the author, in ii. 14,
addresses others than those to whom he directed his Epistle. But if the
polemic of the Epistle is not directed against the Pauline doctrine of
justification, there are no reasons, either external or internal, which con
strain us to deny that James was the author, and to consider it as the
production of a later period. The late recognition of the Epistle, as has
already been remarked, is sufficiently explained from the position of the
author and his readers ; the want of personal references ; from the ency
clical fqrm of the Epistle; the frequent references to the Old Testament
and to examples there represented, as well as to the Apocrypha; from
the individuality of James, and, lastly, the facility in the use of the
Greek language from the acquaintance with the Hellenistic idiom which
prevailed in Palestine, The organization of the Church does not here
appear such as was only appropriate to a later period; if Paul, in his
first missionary journey, made it a point to establish the office of presby
ters in the then existing Gentile churches (Acts xiv. 23), and if, at a
still earlier period, suoh an office was formed at Jerusalem (Acts xi. 30),
its existence hi the Jewish-Christian churches, to which the Epistle is
directed, cannot certainly be regarded as any thing surprising; and the
> Meyer, in wco, with truth observes: "Ac agreement, zcithout any acknowledgment of
cording to the representation of vv. 7-9, the the principles of Paul, would have been as
apostles recognized the twofold divine call to little compatible with such a recognition as
apostleship ; but a merely external and forced with the apostolic character generally."

INTRODUCTION. 29
function which is here attributed to the presbyters entirely corresponds
to the relation in which they stood to individual members of the church.
The opinion that chap. ii. 15 refers to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and
chap. V. 12 to the Gospel of the Hebrews,^ is any thing but certain ; and
as little is a use of the Epistle to the Romans made out from chap. i. 2
(compared with Rom. v. 3), chap. i. 18 (compared with Rom. viii. 23),
chap. i. 21 (compared with Rom. xiii. 12), chap. i. 22 (compared with
Rom. ii. 13), chap. iv. 1 (compared with Rom. vii. 23), chap. iv. 4 (com
pared with Rom. viii. 7), chap. iv. 12 (compared with Rom. ii. 1), for
the agreement is found here only in single expressions, which would as
naturally present themselves to James as to Paul (comp. Bruckner in De
Wette's Commentary, p. 188 f.). It may certainly appear surprising, that
in the Epistle the permanent importance for the readers of the Mosaic
law, according to its ritual side, is not prominently brought forward,
especially as James was such a careful observer of it ; but this objection is
completely removed when we consider that no doubt of that importance
was supposed to exi-st among the readers. James here proceeds in the same
manner as Christ, who, although He Himself observed the law of His
nation, yet did not inculcate on His disciples so much the observance of
its separate ritual enactments, as point out to them the way by which the
law was observed in its innermost nature. Thus, then, there is no reason
in the Epistle to assign its origin to the post-apostolic age, or to ascribe
it, to another author than to him who is named in the superscription.
Reuss (sec. 146) with truth observes : " His official importance gave to James
the right to come forward as the common leader of all the Christians
of the circumcision ; and what we know or conjecture of his religious
disposition is strikingly in unison with the contents of this Epistle."
The authenticity of the Epistle, in spite of the supposition of a differ
ence between the doctrine of justification of James and that of Paul,
has in recent times been generally recognized. ^ Reuss, indeed, expresses
> In the Gospel of the Hebrews (see Clem- the authenticity of the Epistle is denied by K.
ent. Hom., iii. 65, xix. 2), the prohibition o/ Strobel. In the Zeitschr. f. d. luth. Theol. of
oaths is as follows: eo-rw vixuiv to vai va'i, Rudelbach and Guericke, 1857, part II. p. 365,
Kat TO ov ov' TO -yap Trepi<r<Tov TovTiav kx tov he says : " Let the Epistle of James be under-
TTovTipov eo-Ttv; thc second clause is in accord- stood as you please, it is ever in contradiction
ance with Matt. v. 37, the first with Luke v. 12. to the whole Sacred Scriptures of the Old and
But this only indicates a different form of New Testaments, and therefore cannot be
expression in the tradition, not the use of » reckoned of canonical authority; with its well-
written record. meaning but otherwise completely unknown
2 For the same reasons as those of Luther, author, identical with none of the names of the

30 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
himself very cautiously, that the genuineness of the Epistle is not raised
above all doubt because a definite ecclesiastical tradition does not exist;
however, he grants that nothing can be inferred from this against its
authenticity. Other critics and interpreters have, however, expressed
themselves more decidedly in favor of the authenticity of the Epistle,
agreeing with one another that the authorship is to be ascribed to James,
" the Lord's brother," who stood at the head of the Church of Jerusalem,
and only differing in this, whether he is identical ¦with (so Hottinger,
Schneckenburger, Theile, Guericke, Lange, Bouman, aud others) or differ
ent from the Apostle James (so Credner, Kern, Neander, Thiersch, Schaff,
Bruckner, AViesinger, Bleek, and others). — The integrity of the Epistle
in its separate portions has never been doubted: only Ranch (Wiener
and Engelhardt's Neues krit. Journal der theolog. Lit., 1827, vol. vi. part 3)
has thought that the conclusion, chap. v. 12-20, proceeds from another
author; but the reasons which he assigns for this have already been
refuted by Schneckenburger (Tiib. Zeitsch. f. Theol., 1829, part 3), Kern
(in his Kommentar), Hagenbach (Winer's Krit. Journ., vi. 395 ff.), and
Theile.
SEC. 5.— PLACE AND TIME OF WRITING.
The place of composition is not mentioned in the Epistle ; but from the
position which James occupied to the Church of Jerusalem, and from the
fact that he has addressed his Epistle to the churches in the Diaspora, it
cannot be doubted that this is .lerusalem. The supposition of Schwegler,
that the actual place of composition was Rome, requires no refutation. It
is more difficult to determine the time of composition. It is only certain
that it must have been before the destruction of Jerusalem; but it is a
matter of dispute whether it was written before or after the ever-memorable
labors of Paul among the Gentiles, or, more precisely, whether it was
written before or after the council at Jerusalem recorded in Acts xv.^ If
there is in the Epistle a reference to the Pauline doctrine of justification, —
N. T. persons, the capacity of teaching falls * Lange infers from the political circum-
short of his good intention." So also, in a stances which, according to his view, were the
review of this commentary (1st edition) in the occasion of this Epistle, that it was composed
same magazine, 1860, part I. p. 162 ff., Kahnis " at the latest period of the life of James, per.
(i). luth. Dogmatik, vol. i. pp. 533-536) agrees haps about the year 62." For one who calls in
with the opinion of Luther on the contents of question the supposition of Lange, this etate-
this Epistle, but does not express himself ou ment of time is destitute of all reason.
its authenticity.

INTRODUCTION. 31
whether the attack be directed against the doctrine itself, or a perversion
of it, — then it could only be written after that transaction; as Bleek,
among others, assumes. But on the other supposition, both opinions are
possible. Schneckenburger, Theile, Neander, Thiersch, Hofmann, Schaff,
suppose it to be composed before, and Schmid and W^iesinger after, the
council at Jerusalem. ^ — The former opinion is the more probable; for
after that time the Pauline proposition, that man is justified not i^ ipyuv,
but only iK ¦Kiareag, was not only generally known, but so powerfully moved
the spirits in Christendom, that it seems impossible to suppose that James
could have in perfect ingenuousness asserted his principle : i^ ipyav Sikoiovtoi
uvOpu-Kog, Kal ovk iK -rvlarsag uovov, without putting himself in a definite relation
to the doctrine of Paul, whether misunderstood or not. Wiesinger, for the
later composition of the Epistle, appeals " to the form of the Christian life
of the readers," whilst, on the one hand, they are treated "as those who
are mature in doctrine," and, on the other hand, " the faults censured in
their conduct are such as can only be understood on the supposition of a
lengthened continuance of Christianity among the readers." But, in op
position to this view, it is to be observed that a Christian church without
such maturity as is indicated in i. 3, ii. 5, iii. 1, iv. 1, can hardly be
imagined; and that in Jewish-Christian churches suoh faults as are here
represented in the Epistle would arise at an early period from the unsub
dued Jewish carnal disposition, especially as the transition to Christianity,
particularly among the Jews, might easily occur without any actual internal
transformation. The inquiry of Wiesinger: Where, outside of Palestine,
before the apostolic council, shall we look for the Jewish-Christian churches
which will satisfy the postulates of the Epistle? is of less importance, as
it cannot be proved that Wiesinger is correct in his undemonstrated
assertion, "that the Jewish-Christian church, precisely in the ten years
after that council, both inside and outside of Jerusalem, obtained a great
accession to their numbers." That during this period it extended its limits
is certainly to be granted, but it cannot be proved that at that period it first
gained such an extension that James could only then write to ralg dudeKa
<j>v?uug ralg iv ry diaairopq.. On AViesinger's view, that James was acquainted
with the Epistle to the Romans, but wrote ii. 14-26 without reference to
1 Briickner, indeed, denying the assigned James combats, comes to the conclusion that
polemics, but supposing that the formulae the Epistle indeed belongs to a comparatively
SiKaioGcrdat €« mo-Tews, 5tK. e^ ep-yiav, were first early period of the apostolic age, but is not to
brought into vogue by Paul, and then were used be transferred to the earliest period of apos-
of an earlier existing habit of thought, which tolic life.

32 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
the doctrine of Paul, James must bear the reproach of having at least acted
very inconsiderately in using the Pauline mode of expression known to him,
and iu enunciating propositions which in form expressed the opposite of
what Paul taught, with the design of saying something which had no
reference to Paulinism, which contained neither an antithesis against it
nor an agreement with it, and which was directed neither against Paul
himself nor against Paul misunderstood. If the reasons assigned by
Wiesinger for the later composition of the Epistle were convincing, — if,
particularly, an acquaintance of James with Paul's mode of thought and
expression, and especially of his doctrine of justification, followed from the
points of similarity to the Epistle to the Romans, or from chap. ii. 14-26,
— it would result from this, that James in his polemics had this in view,
and that thus AViesinger's denial of any reference to it is unjustifiable. If,
then, we are not to involve ourselves in contradiction, we must in this
denial maintain that the Epistle was composed before the apostolic council;
and to this view nothing in the Epistle stands opposed.

CHAP. I. 33

laKUjSov cirtcTToXij.
In several codd. the superscription is more fully expressed, whilst to £-rrwTo?i.i
the word KadoXm^ is added, and to ' IokuSov the words tov {vnoarb'kiv , also roii ayiov
ImoaTohyv, and in one rov a&e'h^oH 9eoO.

CHAPTER I.
Ver. 3. Instead of Eec. rb doKiftiov viiuv r^g iriareag, after A, B*, C, G, K, X,
etc., several vss. (Lachm., Tisch. 7), Buttm. reads, after B**, some min., etc.,
rb doKifuov v/iijv without r^g niareug. The addition, ryg mareug. It is true, is
suspicious, as it may be derived from 1 Pet. i. 7 (De Wette) ; but the testimonies
for its genuineness are too important to declare it spurious. Instead of dodiuov,
there is also the reading SoKifielov, and in three min. 6oki/j.ov. — Ver. 7. Instead
of 6 (ivdpa^Kog, Buttm. reads simply Ci.v6puT!og, a reading which Tisch. 7 leaves
entirely unnoticed. The same is also the case in respect of aSeTi^og, ver. 9 ; X has
the article in both places. — Ver. 11. B omits after TrpoauTrov the demonstrative
airoi;. Instead of -jvopeiaig, A, 40, 89, 98, ed. Colinaei, read nopiaig, a reading ou
which Theile rightly remarks: " Familiari librariis tov ei et t perimitationi
debetur ; " there is no word ¦nopia = tb-Kopia in the Greek language. Codex 30,
apud Mill., reads ev-niipiaig evidently as an interpretation. The conjecture,
ijiTTopiaig, which has been proposed by Hammond, Castalio, and Junius, is
arbitrary. — Ver. 12. Instead of uvr/p, A, some min. and vss. read Cwdpuirog; an
unnecessary change. After eTrriyyeiXaTo the Eec. has 6 Kvpiog, after G, K, etc.
(instead of whicli some min. and vss. read 6 Qeog-, C: Kiipiog), which, however,
after A, B, X, etc., is to be regarded as an insertion (Lachm., Tisch., De Wette,
Wiesinger ; on the other hand, Theile, Eeiche, Bouman, Lange, consider 6 Kvpiog
as the correct reading). — Ver. 13. X alone reads viro instead of uiro. The article
Toi before Qeoii is, according to almost all authorities, to be obliterated as
spurious. — Ver. 19. Instead of the Eec. uare, after G, K, several min. and vss.,
B, C (X: iara, corrected iare), several min., Vulg., and other vss. read iare- A:
tare Se; Lach. has adopted the reading Iare; Tisch. now (7) reads Hare. Whilst
Theile, Lange {iaie de), consider the reading tare as the original, De Wette,
Wiesinger, Eeiche, Bouman, have rejected it from internal reasons; as, how
ever, on a careful consideration (see exposition), no internal reasons exist against
its genuineness, and the external testimonies are for it, it merits the preference.
Instead of laru, Eec, after G, K, etc. (Tisch. 7), Lachm. reads eara M, after B, C,
X. Codex A has koI iaru (Lange). — Ver. 20. The Eec. ov Karepyu^rai (Tisch.),
after C*, G, K, et al. ; Lachm. has adopted ovk ipyii^erai, after A, B, C***, X, et
al. ; De Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman, consider the compound, and Lange the
simple verb, as the correct reading. On the distinction of these modes of
reading, see exposition. — Ver. 22. jiovov, which the Eec, after A, C, G, K, X,

34 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
many min., places before mpoarai, stands after it in B, some min., etc.; .so read
Ijachm. and- Tisch. It is possible that the reading of the most of the codd. is a
correction, because one united /zovov, according to its meaning, with w; still, the
Eec. must be regarded as the original reading from authorities. — Ver. 2.5. Oiroir,
which the Kec, after G, K, many min. and vss., has before oinc aKpoarijg (Tisch.
7), is wanting in A, B, C, X, etc. ; I^achm. has omitted it; it is difficult to consider
it genuine, for not only is the testimony of the most weighty authorities against
it, but also the addition from the following ovrog is not difficult to be explained
from the want of a connecting particle after ¦irapa/uelvag ; whilst De Wette
hesitates, Wiesinger, Bouman, Lange, are for its retention. — Ver. 26. After «
a be is found in C (Lachm.), which, however, appears to be inserted only for the
sake of a closer connection of the verse with the preceding. The words iv vulv
after ((Mi are to be obliterated, after A, B, C, X, with Tisch., Lachm., Eeiche, and
others. — Ver. 27. Tisch., after C**, G, K, etc., has omitted the article rS,
before 9eu; the weiglitiest authorities, A, B, C*, X, corrected, etc., however,
are in favor of its retention (Lachm.)
Ver. 1. Address and greeting. James calls himself a "servant of God,
and of the Lord Jesus Christ." Oecumenius, correctly: Qeov uev rov Trarpbg,
Kvp'ov be rov viov; some expositors have incorrectly taken Qeoii koi kvoiov to
gether as applied to '[ya. Xp. There is here no combination of the Old and
New Te.staments in this conjunction (against Lange). It is to be observed
that in the apostolic addresses our Lord's narae is always given in full:
'[yaovg Xpiarbg. — doOAof is here an official appellation, which, however, be
longs not only to the apostles, but to every possessor of an ecclesiastical office
received from the Lord ; comp. particularly Phil. i. 1 : navlog ml TiuoOeog,
6ov2.oi lyaoii Xpiarov, and Jude 1. In this name the consciousness is expressed
that the office is a service in which not our own will, nor the will of other
men, but only of God or of Christ, is to be fulfilled.^ — raig daSeKa ipvXalg ralg
iv ry biaanopa]. A designation of the people of Israel living outside of Pales
tine, and dispersed among the Gentiles. On. al SudeKa ^vlai it is to be ob
served, that although this appellation of the people of Israel after the exile
does not occur in the Apocrypha, yet the people who returned were still
regarded as the twelve tribes (1 Esdr. vii. 8, 9) ; as the people of the twelve
tribes are the covenant people, to whom the promises given to the patriarchs
refer : from which it is to be explained, that in the N. T. the number twelve
is particularly emphasized (Matt. xix. 28; Rev. vii. 4-8, xxi. 12), and that
James designates by this name the people to whom the promise was fulfilled.
On r^ biaa-Ropa, see Deut. xxx. 4; Neh. i. 9; Ps. cxlvii. 2; 2 Mace. i. 27
.(Jer. XV. 7); John vii. 35; Winer's Realworterbuch, article " Zerstreuung."
Whether this designation is to be understood in a literal or symbolical sense,
see Introduction, sec. 2. Lauren tins, Hornejus, Hottinger, Pott, Gebser,
Kern, Schneckenburger, Neander, Guericke, Schmid (Bibl. Theol.), Wie-
rsinger, and others correctly consider the Epistle as addressed to Jewish Chris-
¦tians ; only it is to be observed that with the early composition of the Epistle
1 Oecumenius : virep Trav fie KOa-filKOf aftoijua Tat noieltrdat, Kai \ey0VTe^ Ka'i eTTLa-TeWovTev
oi TOV Kvpiov aTTOcTToAot t6 SouAot eTvai XpioTou KaX fiiSao-KOfTE;.
KaWiiiTTi^opievoi, touto yfupio-fxa eavrCtv jSoi'Aoi'*

CHAP. I. 2. 35
these are not here to be considered as contrasted with the Gentile Christians.
Had the author been conscious of such a contrast, it would have been else
where indicated in the Epistle itself. — x'^P^^'"- ''c. '>isyet; see 1 Maco. x. 18,
25, XV. 16 ; 2 Mace. i. 1 ; and in the N. T., Acts xv. 23, xxiii. 26 (2 John 11).
It is to be observed that this very form of greeting, elsewhere not used in
the N. T. Epistles, occurs in the writing proceeding from James, Acts xv.
23 (Kern); the pure Greek form of greeting is more fully: xaipeiv kuX iiyiaiveiv
Kal ev ¦npinreiv, 2 Macc. ix. 19.
Vv. 2-12. Exhortation in reference to the endurance of temptations.
Ver. 2. .lames begins with the hortative words : itdaav jripav Tjyyaaad.e']
esteem it complete Joy. ¦naaa x^P", complete Joy = nothing but Joy. Luther :
"Esteem it pure joy." Many old expositors incorrectly explain Ttdaa =
fieyiary, summum, perfectum gaudium ; ^ it is more correct to resolve the
adjective here by the adverb ¦Kiivrug, oAuf (Carpzov), with which the explana
tion of Theile coincides : rem revera omnique ex parte lactam. The meaning
is : the ¦Keipaap.oi are to you a joy whiah is entire Joy, excluding all trouble.
See Hom., Od., xi. 507 : iruaav akTjBdriv fivti^aoiiai, i.e., "of Neoptolemus I will
declare to thee the whole truth " (i.e., nothing but the truth, which excludes
all falsehood). — x^pa, a metonymy = gaudendi materia, res laela ; see Luke
ii. 10. — It is not improbable that James by this exhortation to joy refers
to the xf-ip^i-v. in ver. 1 ; comp. vv. 5, 19 (Wiesinger). — The address a&t\ipoi
/xov (or adeXij>oi alone, iv. 11, v. 7, 9, 19 ; also ubeTiipoi fzov uya^nriToi, i. 16, 19, ii. 5),
which is James's constant form, expresses the consciousness of fellowship,
namely, the fellowship in nationality and belief (Paraeus), with the readers.^
— brav iTeipaa/iolg ¦Kepi-aicyre ¦rroiKi?Mg. vepm'i-KTtiv involvit (a) notionem adversi,
(b) notionem inviti atque inopinati (Theile) ; it is synonymous with iji-Ki-rrreiv
(see Luke x. 30 compared with ver. 36), but has a stronger meaning: to fall
into something, so that one is entirely surrounded by it ; thus iu the classics it is
particularly used of misfortune: av/aijiopaig, Plato, Leg., ix. 877 e; (y/xiaig Kal
ovelieai, Isocrates, i. 39. — By Tteipaapioi are commonly here understood the
dXi^eig which are prepared for Christians on account of their faith by an
unbelieving world (comp. Luke viii. 13: Kal iv Kaipu izeipaafiov iKpiaravrm.; in
connection with Matt. xiii. 21 : yevo/xcvrig BTd^tug y biuyiMv itil rbv Tioyov, eiidvg
aKavbaXiZerai) ; and undoubtedly James had these in view. Yet there is noth
ing in the context which necessitates us to such a limitation ; rather the
additional epithet ttoikiXoi justifies us to extend the idea, and to understand
by it all the relations of life which might induce the Christian to withdraw
from the faith, or to become wavering in it. When Lange explains ¦Keipaaixoi
specially of ".the allurements and threats by which the Gentiles on the one
side, and the fanatical Jews on the other, and also the Ebionites, who were
already in the field, sought to draw the readers to their side," he founds this
particular statement on his erroneous view of the tendency of the Epistle.
To refer the idea only to inward temptations (Pfeiffer), is the more erroneous,
as it is even questionable whether James had these in view at all. — Ou
' Winer (p. 101 [E. T., p. Ill]) explains however, does not suit the context.
Trao-a xapd as "all (full) joy." This would » Incorrectly, Semler; Hoc nomen praeci.
signify such a joy as wants nothing; which, pue de docioWftits intelligo.

36 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
nomaoig, see 2 Cor. vi. 4 ff., xi. 23 ff. The adjective does not allude to the
different sources from which the neipaauoi sprung, but is to be referred to
their manifold forms. In a far-fetched manner, Lange finds in noiKi?.oig,
according to its original meaning, "an allusion to the manifold-dazzling
glitter of colors of the Jewish- Christian and Jewish temptations, in which
they might even represent themselves as prophetic exhortations to zeal for
the glory of God." — Inasmuch as the Christian has to rejoice not only in the
ireipaafiotg, but on account of them, Oecumenius strikingly observes : ryv Kard.
Qeov Xvnriv Kal roiig -Trtipaafioijg rovTovg'Koi iTzaiveToi>g oibe Kal xipag uiiovg " 6eafibg yiip
ovroi eiaiv a/>payyg, Kal av^yaig uyairyg Kal Karavv^eag . . . ov ydp iariv iKrbg yv/.ivaaiav
ovre KoajUKuv ovre rCrv Karii Qebv areifuvuv u^iudyvai. With reference to joy in
ti7dTpeig, see Matt. v. 11, 12; Acts iv. 23 ff., v. 41; Rom. v. 3; also Ecclus.
ii. 1 ff. ; particularly comp. the parallel passage 1 Pet. i. 6.
Ver. 3. yivuGKovTegl. Whilst ye may know ("in tlie consciousness," De Wette).
The participle, when closely connected with the imperative, participates in
its meaning ; see author on 2 Tim. ii. 23 ; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 58 ; Col. iii. 24,
iv. 1 ; Heb. x. 34, and other passages. It is neither simply the imperative
(Luther, "and know ye"), nor simply a confirmation, so that it may be ren
dered by yivDOKere yap (Pott). — on rb doKiuiov i'fiuv (ryg -iviareug). rb doKi/jUov
(only here and in 1 Pet. i. 7) = to ioKi/ielov, is properly the means of proving:
quo quid _exploratiir (Pott) ; quo rei, quae sub examen vacatur, manifestatur sin-
cerilas eaque probatur onine id intrinseca cirtute possidere, quod extrinsecus specie
ac nomine prae se fert (Heisen) : thus = Kpnypiov ; so in Dionysius Halicar
nassus, Rhetor. 11 : iel 6e uauep Kavbva eivai Kal OTuBfiyv rivd Kal AoKi/iiov upiap-evov
¦Kpbg 0 ng ii7ToS7%eTTo)v dvvyaerai ryv Kplaiv Toieiadai ; yet generally to the idea of
proving is attached that of purification and verification. Theile = proha-
mentum; thus Herodian, ii. 10, 12: boKifuov 6e arparioiTuv Ku/iarog dX/l' ou rpvipy;
and the LXX., Prov. xxvii. 21 : Soki/jiov upyvplu koI xpvau -rtipuaig; comp. Pi'ov.
xvii. 3 ; Ps. xii. 7 ; Ecclus. ii. 5. Many expositors, as Semler, Pott, Hot
tinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Bouman, adhere to the import of means,
whether of proof or of purification and verification,^ whilst they understand
tliereby the above-mentioned ireipaa/ioi. In this case rb doKi/uov stands for
TOVTO rb boKifiiov (Pott) ; but the necessity of supplying rovro is decisive against
this interpretation ; besides, SokIuiov in 1 Pet. i. 7 cannot have that meaning.
In that passage doufiiov is = the verification effected by proof; see author in
loco: and thus it is probable that this import is also here to be retained
(Oecumenius = -6 KeKpijiivov, rb deboKi/iaapivov, rb Kadapbv); rb SoKifuov then is =
doKifiy in Rom. x. 4. The distinction, that in that passage ihKi/iy is desig
nated as the effect, but in this as the cause of iirouovy is not against this view,
for, as Tirinus well says : duae res saepe sibi invicem sunt causa.^ Most expos
itors, both ancient and modern, however, explain doKipiov here by exploratio,
' Theile : Calaraitates, quae natura sua vir- an erroneous idea that verification (to SeSoKi-
tutis ireipaap-oi, eara sub examen discrimenque ixafrQai) produces un-o/xoi-jj (so also Ranch iu
vocant, aeccdente deraum hominis strenua his Review) ; for the Christian always obtains
opera ejusdem virtutis fiunt SoKifxiof eam pur- more vn-o^of ^, in which only he can reach the
gantes, firmantes, commonstrantes. goal of perfection, not because he is tried but
2 Wiesinger incorrectly maintains: "It is because he stands the test and is thus verified.'

CHAP. I. 4. 37
probatio, proof in an active sense ; thus Didymus, Bede, Calvin, Laurentius,
Beza, Piscator, Paraeus, Serarius, Paes, Hornejus, Baumgarten, De Wette,
Kern, Wiesinger, Lange, etc. Then is valid what Bede says in reference to
Rom. V. 4 : Verborum differentia non sensuum in his sermonibus e.ise probatur
Apostolorum, since there eXiipig, here proof by «A<>if, is named as the cause
of v-KopLovy. Though there is nothing against this idea, this explanation is
wanting in linguistic accuracy. i The meaning is, in essentials, the same,
whether we read ryg ¦Klareag or not; for the 6oKi/iiov of Christians consists in
nothing else than that of their faith, by which they are Christians. — izlang
is here not used objectively =: id cui fides habetur, ipsa Jesu Christi doctrina
(Pott), but subjectively, assured confidence in the gospel, whose contents
are Jesus Christ, as the necessary foundation of Christian conduct. — Karep-
¦ydi^erai viro/iovyv]. Karepyh^eaBai is distinguished from ipya^eadai in that it ex
presses the actual accomplishment (Meyer on Rom. i. 27). — iiTrofiovy is faithful
endurance (fiiveiv) under (ivro) the temptations (ireepac/ioig). Baumgarten:
" enduring constancy ; " Theile : " steadfastness," perseverantia, quod majus est
quam patientia.^ The importance of viro/iovy for Christians is evident from
Matt. X. 22, xxiv. 13 ; comp. also Jas. v. 7 ff. On the connection of iirofwvfi
with i)i^7!ig, see Cremer under the words fXm'f and v^KOfiovy.
Ver. 4. The verification of faith effected by the neipaapoi produces ino/iovy,
and on this account temptations should be to the Christian an object of joy,
as it depends on them that i'no/iovy is of the right kind. This is indicated
in this verse." — y be ¦vnojiovy epyov r'e?\.eiov ixeru. The emphasis is not placed
on epyov, — that ¦iiKo/iovy has an epyov is understood of itself, — but on re'kewv
(Wiesinger). James wishes that the epyov of vno/xovy among Christians be
re^eiov, in order that they' may be re^eioi: as he, moreover, strongly empha
sizes ri'Aeiov eivat. In explaining the thought, De Wette confounds the
abstract (¦inrop.ovy) with the concrete (6 viioftevuv), and understands by epyov
tOxuw "the active virtue which the patient man must perfectly have." This
explanation of De Wette agrees in essentials with the explanations of Eras
mus, Calovius, Morus, Pott, Augusti, Gebser, Kern, Schneckenburger, accord
ing to which epyov riWeiov is distinguished from inofiovy, and the moral activity
which the Christian has to exercise with his im/iovy indicated. Thus Eras-

^ Cremer (see SoKifxiov) is hardly right when tatis aut utilitatis causa rerum arduarum ac
he maintained that "the means of proof are difScilium voluntaria ac diuturua perpessio;
not only, e.g., the touchstone itself, but also perseverantia est in ratione bene considerata
the trace of the metal left thereon, therefore stabilis et perpetua permansio. Schnecken-
t6 SoKip.iov Tij? Trio-Tews (Jas. i. 3) is the result burger strikingly observes ; Si submissionem
of the contact of n-io-Tts with neipacrfjioZi ; " for (to vtt6 . . .) urgeas, patientiam ac tolerantiam
we are to consider the ¦neipaap.oi not as a maloi-um, sin to ixiveiv, constantiam et firmi.
touchstone, but as a test by fire. However, tatem, perseverantiam ac calamitatum feren.
Cremer explained the whole idea correctly darum fortitudinem ab illecebris desciscendi
by " the veri^ation of faith." His remark Inconcussam hoc vocabulo habebis expressam.
on fioKiM-*? is to be noted : that in it we are not 8 Oecumenius rightly observes : o-Koiret ovk
to distinguish between the active and passive etire ttjc i/Trofiovijv opto-TiKwy, oti epyov reKeiov
signification ; that it has rather a reflex sense, e\et., aA\a n-poCTTa/cTtKais e^e'Tw* ou -ydp Trpoii-
either the having proved true or the proving irOKeifievrjv ipeT^yjv efay-yeAAet, aWa vvv eyyivo-
Irue. /-tecij*', w? XP^ yiveaBai vop-oderel.
2 Cicero, De Inv., ii. .54 : Patientia est hones-

38 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
mus : quemadmodum in mails tolerandis forlis est et alacris, ita in bonis operibus
exercendis sibi constet. Pott : perseoerantiae fructus sit perfectum virtutis stu-
dium. This interpretation is, however, incorrect ; it not only gives rise to
unjustifiable changes of meaning, as that of i-^o/iovy into d vnop.evuv, or of exiru
into irapexeru (Pott), or into Kpareiru (Schulthess), but gives also a thought
which with the following iva, k.t.T.., would be tautological. Most expositors
(even Briickner,^ in opposition to De Wette) refer epyov reTieiov to vnouovy
itself ; epyov — work, realization (Wiesinger) ; comp. 1 Thess. i. 3 : rb epyov ryg
¦n'lareug ; for the v-KO/iovy of the Christian is not only a suffering, but even more
a doing. This doing is to be releiov, that is, not only, as many interpreters
explain, enduring to the end,'^ but complete, and that not only in respect of its
internal condition, — so that it is wanting in no essential points of true vnouovy
— but also iu respect of its activity (Lange s), so that it in no way yields to
the neipaauolg, which yielding occurs when a man by the temptations is deter
mined to something which does not correspond with the principle of faith.
Bouman : Haec iinopovy consummatiim opus habet, quando ita se gerit, in quo
habitat, homo, ut universam per vitam et animum et linguam et pedes regat ac
moderetur. That virouovy in this manner has an epyov reTieiov, is necessary, in
order that Christians may be perfect and entire, which, as Christians, they
sliould be. This James indicates in the following words: iva yre rileioi Kai
oXoKlypoi. 'iva is not here iufSariKCig (which Baumgarten and Pott regard as
possible), but reTiiKug, in order that. De AVette aud Wiesinger incorrectly
refer it to the future judgment. — Ti'keioi and uXoKXypoi are synonymous terms:
riXeiog is properly " that which has attained its aim," i?j}K2.ypog " that which
is complete in all its parts, is entire." Both expressions are found in the
LXX. as the translation of D'pri (Gen. vi. 9; Ezek. xv. 5); besides this
verse, b?i.bK?iypog in the N. T. ouly occurs in 1 Thess. v. 25 (oAOKWypla, Acts
iii. 16).* It is true that both re'fi.eiog (in the LXX. and in the classics) and
bWoKlypoc (particularly in Philo, but not in the. LXX.) are used with special
reference to sacrifice; to which, however, there is here no allusion (against
Kern). Still more arbitrary is the interpretation of Storr: qui superiores e
certamine discedebant. — iv fiydevl Tieiivbuevoi]. The negative expression added
for strengthening the two positive expressions ; as in ver. 5 : dir?Mg Kal m
bvsiiitfivTog, and in ver. 6 : iv marei, jiybev diaKpivo/zevog. As regards the expres
sion itself, ev jj.ySevl is not to be taken, with De Wette, as a supplement to
Xembiievoi, as the supplement to this verb is always in the genitive; therefore
the expression has been correctly translated by Wiesinger and in this com
mentary, not by wanting nothing, but by wanting in nothing (which Lange
i "Nothing else can be meant than the per- epyov reXeiov specially: "the unreserved ac-
fect work of endurance, particularly as differ-' knowledgment of their Gentile-Christian breth-
ent stages of this are conceivable." ren, the open rupture with Jewish pride of
2 Luther; "Patience is to continue stead- faith and fanaticism."
fast to the end." Calvin : Haec vera erit pa- * A limitation of this idea to moral perfec-
tientia, quae iu finem usque durabit. Similarly tion is not required by the context. Lange has
Jerome, Serarius, Salmero, Estius, Gomarus, the following strange remark : " The Jew was
Piscator, Paraeus, Hornejus, Carpzov,, Semler, a symbolical KAijpo? of the household; as a
Hottinger, etc. Christian he was to become a real KAijpos, and
3 Lange here arbitrarily understands by thus oAokAtjpos."

CHAP. I. 5. 39
has overlooked). The question, however, occurs, can ?.eiiT6fievoi be explained
as = wanting ? This idea is not contained in the verb by itself, and therefore
can hardly be attributed to it when it stands absolutely, as here. It is there
fore safer to take Xeimadai in its usual meaning, and thus, with Lange, to ex
plain 'liembiievoi by coming short oJ', namely, short of the goal marked out to
the Christian. It is incorrect, with Pott, to say : tola loquehdi ratio ab iis qui
cursu . . . relinquuntur et separantur (so also Losner, Krebs, Storr, Augusti) ;
for although the verb in classical writers has often this reference, yet there is
here no mention of a relation to others, and accordingly the appeal to Poly
bius, p. 1202, ed. Gronov. : iv ry ¦Kpbg^Pufiaiovg evvoiif TrapH ttoAi) rudiXiiiov'kemdiievog,
does not suit. According to the meaning here given, lemo/xevoi forms a strong
contrast to reXeioi.
Ver. 5. el &e rig v/iuv ?ieiiTeTai aoipiag, is chiefiy connected with iv /lySevi
lembiifvoi. ei is not = quoniam, quandoquidem (Estius, Laurentius), but the
thought is hypothetical ; el t(c = bang ; see Wahl on the word d. — \el-nerai
aofiag is to be explained as Kredvuv Xeiipdelg Kal qiiAuv, in Pindar i. 2, 11, " with
out wealth and friends,'' properly, "left behind of, or falling short of;"
accordingly, without wisdom. Usually the meaning wanting, lacking, is given
to We'i'Kop.ai, which, however, is not linguistically justified. James by oo^ia, as
Wiesinger correctly observes, does not mean " an arbitrary part of Christian
perfection," but the essential foundation of Christian conduct, to a'lnov tov
Te?i£iov ep)ov (Oecumenius) ; for aoifia is here the living insight, rooted in the
iriang, i.e., the insight compelling to action in what is the Christian's duty,
both il) whole and iu its particular parts, especially in the ¦jreipap/xoig (ver. 2)
(comp;- the praise of wisdom in the Proverbs of Solomon, in the Wisdom of
Solomon, and in the Book of Ecclesiasticus). Wisdom can only be giveu
by God (Kvpiog dibuai aoipiav kuI airo tt/joowttow avrov yvCiaig Kal avveaig, Prov. ii. 6),
and as a divine x'^pti'ua it has an impress definitely distinguishing it from
the wisdom of the world; see chap. iii. 15, 17. ^ The connection does not
constrain us, with Bouman and others, to conceive the idea of aot;iia only in
reference to the ¦neipacpoi (ver. 2), and to understand by it only the doctrine
concerning the Christian conduct in the ¦neipaapoig, expressed in ver. 2,^ or
that conduct itself. The idea of aotpla is rather to be understood in its
completeness (Theile, De Wette, Kern, Wiesinger). The reason why James
here mentions it is because it was especially necessary to the Christian in
his -Keipaapiolg ; Briickner : " James thinks here of wisdom (in itself of a more
general acceptation), inasmuch as it is necessary rightly to estimate and
rightly to resist the trial, in order that it might not be converted into an
internal temptation, instead of being the path to perfection."^ — aireiru ndpH,
K.r.X: the same construction iu Matt. xx. 20; Acts iii. 2; 1 John v. 15. —
1 The Etymologicum magnum thus gives est, petite a Domino, ut vos Spiritu suo illu-
the distinction between tro^ia and yi'aio-ts: miuet.
Yi/wots p-ev eo-Tt to eiSevai to. oi'Ta* o-o(^ta Se zeal ""^ Lange, Indeed, defends the explanation of
TO TCL ocra yivvtcTKeiv, Ka't to ra yvuiaTa n-paT- Calvin, but he interprets the idea of o-ot^ia dif-
Tei;/. ferently from Calvin, defining it as " the right
2 Calvin : Sapientiae nomen ad circumstan- perception of the signs of the times, and of the
tlam praestantis loci restringo, acsl diceret : christological fulfilment of the theocracy in the
si baec doctrina iugeuii vestri captu altior church as well as iu the faith of individuals."

40 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
TOV SiSovTog Qeov, instead of rov Qeov tov Sibovrog, as Codex A reads. By the
selected order of the words here, not only is the idea of giving emphatically
placed near to the request, but also the participle almost becomes au attribu
tive adjective ; God is indicated as the Giver absolutely. Accordingly —
as Baumgarten, Gebser, and others, correctly remark — no definite object as
ryv aoipiav (Bouman) is to be supplied. — Traaiv and tiw/luf are added as a more
detailed statement ; rolg airoiaiv is, from the context, to be supplied to Trdatv
(Calvin, Estius, Piscator, Laurentius, etc.) ; or, better still, olg biSuai. The
adverb dTrAiif, only here in the N. T. , is either to be understood as an ethical
additional statement of iibbvai = iv (mUryri (Rom. xii. 8) (so Pott, Hottinger,
Kern, Theile, Bouman, uncertainly Wiesinger), or = simply, without further
ceremony (so De Wette). ^ In the latter case it is prominently brought for
ward that God in the giving had only this in view. It is incorrectly ren
dered benigne (Bede, Vorstius, and others), affluenter (Erasmus, Grotius, and
others), or as equivalent to awrbnug, Kuddna^ (Hesychius). By /ly oveiSiCovrog
— as Kai shows — unTiug is not more closely defined, but a new point in the
mode of the divine giving is added, and so that He does not reproach him to
whom He gives, does not abuse him. uveidi(eiv is generally taken in the more
special sense of upbraiding (Luther : " and upbraideth no man ") ; for which
the expression in Demosthenes is appealed to : rb rdg Iblag evepyeaiag muuiu-
vyoKeiv Kal \eyeiv fimpov 6elv bfioibv ian rui bveidi(eiv ; still more surely does Plu
tarch, De Aud., 33, speak for this meaning: Traua bveidiCppjivy xdpig iiraxdyg Kal
axapig; also in Ecclus. xviii. 18, xx. 15, xii. 22, the word appears to have
this more special reference.^ Still, there is no proof that Jaraes did not take
it in its more general sense. Semler : non tantum significat molestam commemo-
rationem beneficiorem, sed etiam qualemcunque reprehensionem (so also Schnecken
burger, De Wette). ^ It is incorrect to explain bveiSi^eiv as equivalent to
aliquem ignominose cum repulsa dimittere (Morus, Zachariae, Carpzov, Storr,
Augusti, Stolz, Hottinger) ; the refusal of a petitioner may be considered as
a Karaiaxvveiv of the same, but bveibiCeiv never occurs in this sense, not even in
Ecclus. XX. 15. The reason why James subjoins the particular statement
uTTTuJg, K.r.Ti,., is by it to encourage to aireiv (Zwinglius: ut mentes alliciat, ut ad
hunc unum in omni necessitate adcurrant) ; perhaps also with " a side glance
to the rich" (ver. 10, chap. v. 9 ff.), who do not give uwXug, and when they
do give, give only dveidi^ovreg (Wiesinger). — kuI bodyaerai aiiru, impersonal:
"it shall be given him ; " namely, what he asks; here, wisdom. It is erro
neous directly to supply ^ aoipia to bnehaerai as the subject (Lange), because
James here evidently wishes to emphasize the relation of the giving to the

' Both of these explanations come essen- 8 Eustathius : oi^etSt'^eti' ov judfoc to evepye-
tially to the same thing, for " he that giveth tria; ava<l>epeiv tois evepyeTrip.evOK . . . iAAd
with simplicity will simply give; it wifi be a Kal iTrAois ii.oo-T<i nva itn'i i-trip.op.'tia Aeyeiv.
pure, unmingled giving, witliout any admix- The assertion of Lange Is unfounded, that
ture" (Stier). Lange, without reasoo, main- James, according to this exposition, would
tains that in this commentary an-Aw? will refer utter an untenable sentiment, " because God,
not to the giving, but to the gift. notwithstanding those who ask, often indicts
2 In this sense exprobare is used in Latin, injuries on men." Lange has not considered
e.g., Cicero, De Amic. . Odiosum sane genus that the passage treats only of asking.
hominum otficia exprobanlium.

CHAP. L 6. 41
asking, and accordingly the object is suppressed ; comp. on this thought
particularly 1 Kings iii. 9-12 (2 Chron. i. 10-12).
Ver. 6. A more particular statement how prayer must be made : aireira
be ev ¦Kiaret. With aireiru the aireiru in ver. 5 is resumed; be indicates the
carrying-out of the thought. — The prayer, if it is to be heard, must be a
evx^ ryg TTiareug, chap. v. 15 (comp. Ecclus. vii. 10: fiy b?.iywpvxvarig iv ry npo-
aevxy aov). — ev ¦Kiarei: that is, in the confident assurance of being heard; on
what this is founded, is not here expressed. The explanation of Calvin :
"fides est quae Dei promissionihus freta nos impetrandi, quod petimus, certos
reddit " (similarly Baumgarten), expresses what is in itself true, but is not
here indicated by James. Some ancient commentators incorrectly supply to
¦Kiarei as a more definite statement 'lyaov Xpiarov. — The object of the prayer
(namely, ryv aoipiav) is not here named, where only the necessary condition of
prayer is treated of. The remarks made by many expositors on the manner
in which the Christian should ask for external good things are here inappro
priate. — /lybev biaKpivbfievoc expresses the same idea as iv iriarei, only iu a
negative form ; fiydev is here, as frequently, adverbial = on no account, nulla
ratione. diaKpiveatiai is, according to N. T. usage, to doubt; compare, besides,
Acts X. 20, xi. 12 ; particularly Matt. xxi. 21 : iuv exriT^ Ttianv, koI p.y dioKpidyre ;
Rom. iv. 20: ov dieapiOy ry diriarig; Rom. iv. 23; it is not = umareiv (Luke
xxiv. 21), or direiBeiv (John iii. 36), but includes in it the essential character
of dmana; while ¦jriarig says "Yes" and umaiia "No," biaKpiveadai is the con
junction of "Yes" and "No," but so that "No" has the preponderance; it
is that internal wavering which leans not to niang, but to d-maria.^ — The fol
lowing words, 6 ydp diaKpivbp.evog, k r.A., are annexed to the preceding buiKpivo-
uevog, more clearly explaining it (in figurative language) with reference to
the exhortation aireiru, k.t./I. ; but the reason of this exhortation is given
in ver. 7. The first ydp, accordingly, has the meaning of namely, whereas
the second has that ol for. According to this interpretation, the relation
of the thoughts expressed in vv. 6 and 7 is more correctly recognized than
when we say that the first ydp assigns the reason why we should pray noth
ing doubting, but that this thought is only brought to a conclusion in ver. 7
(Wiesinger, and so in the earlier edition of this commentary, where it is
said that the sentence taken together would read : 6 yap 6iaKpivdp.evog, eoiKug
KAvbavt . . . ny oieada, dn ly/iiierai n, k.t.A.). Lange incorrectly supposes that
' The deep-lying ground of it is pride, and "Fieri quidem non potest in (hac) carnis in-
80 far Theophylact is right iu saying 6ta«pt. firmitate, quin variis tentationibus agitemur,
v6p.evos Se b p.e6' itnepo^ta^ airCiv, l>^pLo-Ti]? quae sunt veluti machinae ad labefactandam
bwoAo-yovfiecw?, 6 BtaKpivop^evo^ ; whereas Oecu- nostram fiduciam : ita nemo reperietur, qui non
menius, in the words Ae-yajx/ iv aeavri^, 'oti n-ujs sensu carnis suae vacillet ac Irepidet. Sed
Svvap^ai aiTfiaai Tt TTapa ToO Kvpiov Kai AajSeii/, oportet ejusmodi tentationes fide tandem supe-
rip.apTriKtti^ Toaavra ei? auToi', brings out a point rari, quemadmodum arbor, quae firmas radices
which belongs not to UaKpiveaBai, but to a yet jecit, quatltur quidem veuti impulsu, sed non
weak faith. Comp. with this passage Hermas revellitur, quin potius suo loco stabilis manet."
ii 9: " telle a te dubitationem et nihil omnino — Whilst the SiaKpiv6p.evo<i, according lo the
dubites petens aliquid a Deo." As weak faith proper meaning of the term, will not believe,
is to be distinguished from BiaKpiveaOai, so it is the longing of the tried to be confirmed
also is the doubt, of which the believer is con- in the faith.
Bcious as a trial. Calvin strikingly remarks :

42 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
the first ydp has a more limited meaning, whilst it declares the dia.Kpiv6/.ievog as
incapable of praying aright ; whereas the second ydp refers in a wider sense
to the unbelieving condition of the man to God, and therefore is to be ren
dered by also. — eowe. Only here in the N. T. aud in ver. 23. — /cAiduv BaTida-
cyg. Only here in the N. T. aud in Luke viii. 24 (kXv6. tov vbarog) ; usually
Kiiua. The verb KAvbuvi^eaBai occurs in Eph. iv. 14 ; Isa. Ivii. 20, LXX. The
point of comparison is contained in the subjoined words : dvefii^ouevip Kal /)iitiCo-
fiivu. The verb uve/ii^eaBai is entirely an uvra^ Xey., occurring nowhere else,
equivalent to dveuovoBai, found in classical language (see Hegesippus 6 : aAof
yveuuuevyg) = agitated, i.e., agitated by the wind. The verb fjmi^eiv (only
here in N. T.) is also elsewhere used to denote the agitation or excitement
of water -by the wind.^ Heisen incorrectly explains pi-Kit^eaBai as equivalent
to calefieri et accendi ; the word never has this meaning, although used of the
kindling of fire.^ The two expressions (which Lange incorrectly denies)
are synonymous, and are placed together only for the sake of strengthening
the idea. The opinion that uveuili- refers to agitation coming from without,
and (5(7nf. to agitation coming from within (Bengel), is without foundation ;
also the assertion that the former word denotes the cause, and the latter the
effect (Theile, Wiesinger), is not entirely correct, as dveu'iCeoBai itself expresses
the effect. — By this image the mind of the doubter is characterized as un
steady and wavering, to whicli a calm aud sure rest is wanting. ^ Comp.
Isa. Ivii. 20, 21, LXX. ; oi de ddiKoi KTivbuviaByoovrai Kal dva-navGaoBai ov dvvyoovrai,
OVK ean xaipuv (0' '?') roic datJeaiv.^
Ver. 7. ^ly ydp nitadu. On yap, see ver. 6 ; it is neither the simple par
ticle of transition (Pott), nor equivalent to ergo (Calvin), nor is it to be
explained, with Winer (E. T. 558), according to its derivation from ye and
upa, hy thus indeed, but is the reason forthe exhortation in ver. 6; hence,
for. — The warning : fif/ oliaBu, supposes the fancy of the doubter, that he
will receive something from God in answer to prayer ; similarly Matt. iii. 9 :
nn bo^yre. — 6 dvdpunog iKelvog refers back to b biMKpivofievog. Although not in
iKclvog (in itself), yet in the whole mod,e of expression, there is something
disparaging. — By Xr/wperai,^ instead of doByaerai (ver. 5), is not intended to
be indicated, that the fault of not being heard lies not with God but with

1 See Dio Chrysostom, xxxiii. p. 368 B- German verbs scA!«npcn, ftewe^en, is thus en-
fiij^os aararov xaKov kol 6a\a(Tayi ^avd' 'op.oioi^, tirely equivalent to avep-t^eLv.
vtt' avep.ov pnri^eTai ; Philo, De Mundo : TTpos 3 " A doubtful petitioner offers not to God
avepov ptTTi^eTai ro vSwp, a Steady hand or heart, so that God cannot de-
2 Theile correctly rejects this explanation, posit iu it bis gift" (Stiei).
saying: " Hoc, quamquam undae spumantes * Lange supposes that James has used these
ventis revera incalescunt Latinisque etiam expressions with a conscious reference to the
ebullire aestusque dicuntur, longius tamen O. T. symbols, according to which tbe sea is
petitum est." — The verb pin-i^eiK comes either "the emblem of the national hfe, agitated
from piTTts = (1) follis (a bellows) ; fiabellum, hithpr and thither in pathological sympathies,"
having' the raeanmg both of kmdling (the fire) whilst in his time " these waves of the sea"
and of fanning (for the sake of cooling) ; or had already begun to roar.
from piTTTJ = vibration, which is also used of ^ The form k-fip^erai, for which MS. au-
wind; thus ptn-Tj Bopeao, II., XV. 171; pi-nai thorities decide, is not classical Greek; the
avepviv, Sophocles, Ant. 1.37 ; also piTr^ = storm, Ionic form is \ap^opat.
Pind. P. IX. 49. The origmal import of the

CHAP. I. 8. 43
man : rather, he receives not, because God gives not. — ri naturally refers to
what the doubter asks ; thus scil. alrov/iivuv. The definite object (wisdom)
above spoken of is not here meant ; for the particular thought is founded
on a general declaration. By Kvpiog Christ is not to be understood, but, as
in chap. iv. 10, v. 4, 10, according to O. T. usage, God. — The designation
of God as the Lord naturally suggested itself to James, because he was
here speaking of the power of God manifested in giving or not giving : it is
not, as Lange thinks, chosen in order to characterize God as " Jehovah the
living covenant-God, who has now fully manifested Himself in Christ."
Ver. 8 contains neither the subject to Tiy/if erai (Baumgarten), nor is it
to be understood as an exclamation — vae homini inconstanti (Pott). Many
expositors consider dvyp biipvxog as the subject and dKardararog the predicate, .
wanting the copula (Luther : " a doubter is unstable ; " so Calvin, Schneck
enburger, De Wette, Lange, and others) ; but according to this construction ,
the idea b'lipvxog falls too much into the background, and also the train of
thought would be too unconnected. It is better to take both dvyp biipvxog .
and dKardararog, k.t.X, ^s in apposition to 6 dvBpu'Kog iKelvog. , It is true that
the character of the doubter has already been given in ver. 6 by loMe, k.t.X.,
but, on the one hand, only figuratively, and, on the other haud, without
giving prominence to his ethical character, which James now introduces in
order strongly to confirm the thought expressed in ver. 7 ; which exposition
is far from being "a feeble tautology" (Lange). Less stress is to be put
on the want of the article (Schneckenburger, De Wette), as it would be
here hardly suitable. Correctly Winer, p. 497 [E. T. 534] : ".he, a double-
minded man ; " so also Wiesinger, Bruckner, Bouman, and others. Only
according to this construction is'the full meaning given to the idea biipvxog.
The word is not to be taken merely as another expression for biaKpivbfievog
(Luther, Beza, Grotius, Cremer, and others ; Luther directly renders it " a
doubter"), but it characterizes the inward nature of the doubter. Accord
ing to the mode in which, biaufiarog, bmupbiog, b'ly'kuaaog, and similar words are
formed, biipvxog (which occurs neither iu the classics nor in the LXX. and
the Apocrypha, but besides here only in chap. iv. 8, and the Church Fathers)
properly denotes having trvo souls: it thus describes the doubter as a man
who has, as it were, two souls contending against each other, one of which
is turned to God, and one of which is turned away from God (thus to the
world) ; who, accordingly, will be at the same time ip'i'Xog tov Qeov and ^'ilog
TOV Koafiov, although ipiXia roil Koapm) is IxBpa rov Qeov (chap. iv. 6).^ This
double-mindedness (or, what is the same thing, division of soul) expresses
the wavering to and fro, between Tr'tarig and dmaria generally, so particularly
1 Oecumenius limits the idea too specifically i. 189; and frequently, SiavBixa 0vphv exeiv,
to a care divided about the present and the Hesiod, 0., 13; if/vxv avappotrros, Phaed., 93
future: Si^pvxov dvSpa rbv aveTiepeiarov, rbv c. (.opp. ipvx'r) bpovorjTlKrj, P\. Besp. viii. 554),
ao-r-ripiKTov Myei, Tox ^Te irpos Ta p.e\\ovTa ^^^_ j^ ^^^ Hebrew, Jjl 2^2, so in 1 Chron.
Tra-yc'ttfS, P'rjre Trpos Ta irdpovra ao-t^aAus ijSpair- , .'"' .>" ''
pivov, iAAi T^Se «a«e:,Te iyopevov KaX nepi^e- ^"- 33. where n"?! aVX'?^ is equivalent to
pofj-evov, Kal ttotc ^.e^ T<jiv /jl^Wovtiov, ttotb Se D/K^ 33 73i ver. 38; that expression lias au-
Tuiv irapovTOiv dvTey6u,evov, In the classics, re- .t ¦ - t. ¦¦ *>
'^ -^ '^ ,. .^^ ' , other meaning in Pa. xii. 3.
lated ideas are Stdpotxa ixepfiepi^uv, Horn., II.,

44 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.

(Wiesinger) nor as the result (Lange), but as the characteristic nature, of
SiaKplvtadai. — The word dvyp is here as in Matt. vii. 24 ; Ps. xxxii. 2, LXX.
Lange thinks that James used it because the dangers of which he warns
them are more especially the dangers which threaten the men ainong the
Jews. — As a second apposition James adds: dKardararog iv ivaaulg ralg bboig
avrov ; for, where there is a want of unity in the internal life, it is also want
ing in the external conduct. The biipvxog, being actuated sometimes by one
impulse and sometimes by another, is unsteady and inconstant in his inten
tions and actions (ev ralg bboig avrov ; comp. Ps. xci. 11; Jer. xvi. 17; Prov.
iii. 6, etc.) ; he walks not on one path, but, as it is said in Ecclus. ii. 12:
iiriffalvei eirl biio rp'iffovg.^ The word dKardararog is found only again ill chap.
iii. 8 and in the LXX. Isa. liv. 11, as the translation of 1.J?.Ci ; the substan
tive uKaruaraaia occurs in chap. iii. 16, besides in Luke and in the Epistles to
the Corinthians. — The reason why the doubter is not heard is accordingly
the disunion in which he is with himself, both in his internal and in his
external life ; God gives the heavenly gift of wisdom, which according to
its nature is dyvy, only to him who iv <!Ay ry ipvx^ (Matt. xxii. 37), has given
to God an undivided disposition.
Vv. 9, 10. James subjoins to the idea that the doubter should not think
that he should receive any thing, the exhortation to the lowly brother ; bi
non solum apponendo, sed opponendo gravius hortatur (Theile). At first view
the natural sense is, with De Wette, Wiesinger, and most expositors, to take
6 udeMbg as the general idea, which is specified by 6 ra-rreivbg and b ¦n'kovaiog.
According to this view, ra-aeivbg is not equivalent to ra-Keivbg rfj Kapbia, JNIatt.
xi. 29, but, in opposition to ¦nlovaiog, must be taken in its proper sense:
affl'ictus, particularly poor ; on the other hand, 6 TrTiovaiog is the earthly rich,
equivalent to opulentus, fortunatu.s, affluens rebus externis. The exaltation
(rb v\pog), in which the brother of low degree is to glory, can naturally only
be the heavenly dignity which the Christian by his faith in Christ possesses,
and whose future completion is guaranteed to him by the promise of the
Lord ; and, corresponding to this, by raTreivuaig is to be understood the low
liness, which "belongs to the rich man as a Christian through Christ"
(Wiesinger), which is essentially the same with his exaltation. There is
nothing against this idea in itself ; the same oxymoron would be contained
in the expression, were we to say, according to 1 Cor. vii. 22 : " the bovTiog
rejoices in his ilevBepia, and the i'KeiiBepog in his bovle'ia." But the context is
against this explanation, not ouly because the distinction of Christians into
rich and poor would be here introduced quite unexpectedly; but also be
cause vv. 2 and 12 show that the connection of the ideas in this section
^ Therefore it is called, Constitut. Ap., vii. ipsi contingunt, sua culpa sorte varia conflic.
11 : py} yivov Siij/vxoi ev wpoaevxTi ei eo-Tat, fj oil ; tatur," and bSo<; =fortuna ,* also Heisen at least
and Clemens Romanus : TaAaiVwpot oi 5ii/(uxoi, includes this idea; "omnia vitae consilia ac
ot Sto-Ta^orTes Trjv ijjvx'iiv; comp. Ecclus. 1. 28 : facta quiu et fata." This certainly is a possi-
JU.TJ TvpoaeKQyp; avrw (Kupiai) eK KapSia biaaj]. ble explanation in itself, but it does not suit
2 Schneckenburger incorrectly explains the context. The meaning attached to tho
a7roKaTao-TaTo9 here of the fate of the doubttr: word by Lange, f* seditious disturber," cannot
"parum constantiae experitur in omnibus, quae be proved to be correct by iii. 16.

CHAP. I. 9, 10. 45
is the reference to the ireipaa/ioi which Christians have to endure. Several
expositors have assumed this reference in the idea raireivbg; thus, among
moderns, Theile, whilst to the explanation of Morus : carens fortunis externis
omninoque calamitosus, he adds : ireipaa/iup ¦Kepmeauv, ver. 2 ; dtbiuyijievog eveKtv
biKaioaivyg, Matt. v. 10; ndaxuv bid' bucaioavvyg, 1 Pet. iii. 14 ; but by this the
simple contrast between raireivbg and wXoixjiof is destroyed ; for then 6 ¦nhmaiog
must be taken as tlie rich Christian who had not suffered persecution, which
would be evidently meaningless. If, on the other hand, the rich man who
shares the lot of persecution with the poor is to be understood (as Laurentius
explains it : dives, sc. frater, qui ipse erat una cum paupere fratre in disper-
sione, direptionem bonorum suorum propter Christi evangelium passus , similarly
Erasmus, Hornejus, and others), such a reference is not to be found in the
idea raireivog in itself; if one puts it into the idea ra-neivuaig, so that by this is
to be understood the suffering condition of persecution in which the 7r;iouo(of
is placed, or by which he is threatened (Gebser: "he rejoices in his lowli
ness, into which he may be brought by persecution "), then there is no reason
to find in ra-Keivbg the idea of poverty expressed. Thus, then, in th'is view the
train of thought, referring it to ¦Kcipaauoi, becomes indistinct and confused ;
and yet this reference is required by the context. But also what directly
follows is against the idea of considering the ¦KTiovaiog as well as the ra-Treivbg
as a Christian (dbe?i.<jibg) ; for, apart from the fact that such a rich man
would require no such pressing intimation of the perishableness of riches
as is contained in the following clauses, it is carefully to be observed that in
the words bn . . . TrapeTievaerai, and in ver. 11 : ohru Kal, k.t.Tl., the subject is
6 ¦7r')iovaiog and not 6 ¦rv^oirog, as that explanation would render necessary;
Winer : dives non habet, quo glorietur, nisi db humilitate sua, nam divitiae mox
periturae sunt ; so also De Wette, Theile, Wiesinger, and others. This
change of the subject is evidently unjustifiable. James says, not of riches,
but of the rich man, TrapeTievaerai, fiapavByaerai, which evidently is only valid
of the rich man who forms a contrast to raneiibg ev Xpiarij 'lyaov. Briickner,
in order to avoid the change ot subject, explains it of " the rich man accord
ing to his external relations;" but this reference is not only arbitrarily
introduced, but it weakens the train of thought. That such a bad sense
should be given by the author to the idea 6 Trlovmog, is evident both from
chap. ii. 6, 7, where he represents the ¦rrloiiaioi as the persecutors of the Chris
tians, and from chap. v. 1-6, where they are threatened with condemnation;
besides, the word is elsewhere used in the Sacred Scriptures in a bad sense ;
comp. Luke vi. 24-26 ; Isa. liii. 9, where "^^WV, is parallel with D'J^'if/l ; Ecclus.
xiii. 3 : vAoiaiog ydiKyae . . . nruxbg yb'iKyrai; xvii. 18: ri Koivuvyaei T^Kog ajjivu;
ovrug diiapru'?ubg ¦npbg evaeBy . . . r'lg eipyvy irXovaiip irpbg irivyra. If d ¦Kh)vaiog
stands in relation of contrast to 6 d^elijibg b raneivbg, then the Christian con
dition cannot be understood by Tarreivuaig, or scarcely with Bouman : animi,
nihil sibi arroganlis, modeslia ; but only the destruction described in the fol
lowing words : on, k.t.W., into which the rich man on -account of his pride
has fallen ; comp. Luke vi.' 24-26.^ The verb to be supplied is neither
1 According to Lange, the expressions b prophetico-syrabollcal sense, so that the first
Taireivb^ and o ttAovo-lo; are to be taken in a " designates the Jewish Christian and the J^w

46 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
aiaxvviaBu (Oecumenius, Estius, and others) nor raneivoiiaBu, but KavxdaBu
(comp. Winer, p. 548 [E. T. 622 f ]). This certainly does not appear
suitable, but the expression of James has its peculiar pointedness in this,
that the rairelvuoig, to which the rich man is devoted, is indicated as the only
o'oject of his boasting.^ To this irony (if it be called so) — which already
the author of the commentary on the Lamentations in Jerome's works, and
after him Lyra, Thomas, Beza, and others, have recognized in our passage —
less objection is to be taken, as this was so natural to the deeply moral spirit
of James, in opposition to the haughty self-confidence of the rich man
opposed to the lowly Christian. — For a more, exact explanation of these
two verses, the following remarks may suffice. The connection of ver. 9
with the preceding is as follows : Let the brother of low degree glory amirf
his temptations in his exaltation (Gunkel). The idea KavxdaBai is neither
exhausted by laetari, dyaTJudaBai, 1 Pet. i. 6, Matt. v. 12 (Gebser), nor by
commemorare, praedicare (Carpzov); it indicates rather glorying, proceeding
from the confident assurance of superiority ; Theile : notio gloriandi involvit
notas, 1 gaudendi, 2 confidentiae, 3 externe expressi. — 6 dSe'Xipbg, according to
the above explanation, refers only to b ra^Keivog, not to o ¦Klovaiog, which rather
forms the contrast set over against that idea. By o raneivdg is not indicated
a kind of dbeyupoi, but is the characteristic mark of true Christians. It is
incorrect to take raireivbg here as entirely equivalent to Trruxog ; it goes beyond
the idea of ¦KrCixog, indicating the Christian according to his entire lowly
condition in the world, which also is not inapplicable to him who is perhaps
rich in worldly wealth, especially as these riches have no true value for him.
Comp. moreover, 1 Cor. i. 26 : oii 7ro/l?.oi bvvarot, oii to'UoI evyeveig. Taneivbg is
the Christian, in so far as he is despised and persecuted by the world
(rera-reivuuevog Kal Karyaxviifievog, Ps. Ixxiv. 21 ; comp. 1 Cor. i. 27), is inwardly
distressed (iv iravrl B'^i/ioiievog, e^uBev /taxai, iauBev <po3oi, 2 Cor. vii. 5), and
walks in humility before God ; the opposite of all this is comprehended in
¦ir^ovmog. On vipog, Theile rightly remarks : sublimitas . . . non solum Jam
praesens sed etiam adhuc futura cogiiari potest = Zuy ilia, quae in coelis perfi-
cienda in terris Jam est. Incorrectly, De Wette understands by this " present
exaltation; " as little also does Ji/toc indicate only "the steadfast courage bf
the Christian " (.\ugusti) ; and still less is it equivalent to divitiae, as Pott
thinks, who finds only the thought here expressed : 6 raireivbg dives sibi vide
atur. — By iv is not to be understood the condition in which (Schnecken
burger), but, according to the prevailing linguistic usage of the N. T., the
object upon which, the glorying is to take place ; comp. Rom. v. 3. — The
words on ug dvBog xoprov ¦!rape\evaerai announce wherein the ra^jreivuaig of the
rich consists. As regards the construction, it forms one simple sentence.

absolutely in their low oppressed theocratic people iu a briUiant light, inasmuch as he is
condition as contrasted with the heathen world not only rich in the consciousness of Ms Jew-
and the secular power, or 'still more exactly ish prerogatives, but also in chiliastic and vis-
the theocrat, inasmuch as he deeply feels ionary expectation," etc. This interpretation
his condition ; " the second, " again, designates requires no refutation.
the Jew and the Jewish Christian, inasmuch ' A similar connection is found in Phil. ill.
as he sees the hopeless situation of the Jewish 19 : ^ 6d^a ev rjj aiaxvvj] avrav.

CHAP. L 11. 47
Baumgarten incorrectly construes irapeTievaerai with b K>^ovaiog, and considers
bn i>g uvBog xbprov, sc. ian, as a parenthesis, by which an epigrammatic sharp
ness is conveyed to the preceding sentence. The figure, which is further
drawn out in ver. 11, is of frequent occurrence in the O. T., whilst with the
quickly fading grass and its flower is not only man generally (comp. Job
xiv. 2 : uairep dvBog dvByaav i^i'Keaev ; Ps. ciii. 15 : dvBpunog uael s;op™r . . . uael
avBog rob dypov oiirug i^avByaei ; Isa. xl. 6, 7 : Trtioa adp^ x<'P''''K, i^o,l ¦Kdaa bb^a dvBpu-
¦Kuv i>g avBog xop'^ov ¦ i^ypuvBy b X°P'>'OC i^al rb dvBog i^eneae ; comp. 1 Pet. i. 24), but
also specially, as here the ungodly • (comp. Ps. xxxvii. 2 : dael xoprog rax^b uko-
^ypavByaovrai, Kal uael Tidxava ;i;Ao??f Ta,-t;t) aTron-Eoowrai ; see also Ps. xc. 6), com
pared. — uvBog is here, not as in Isa. xi. 1, LXX. translation of 'IX.J = germen,
surculus (Hottinger), but the flower: however, the combination l"in yii is
not found in Hebrew; in Isa. xl. 7 it is 'iT\p^ yV- UapepxeaSai, in the
meaning of destruction, often occurs in the N. T. (so also in the Hebrew
"l^i'); also in the classics : Soph., Trach. 69: rbv ¦jrapeXBbvr' uporov.
Ver. 11. A further expansion of the image. The aorists dvereiXe, i^ypave,
etc., do not precisely stand for the present (Grotius, Piscator, Hottinger, and
others), but represent the occurrence in a concrete manner as a fact which
has taken place, by which the description gains in vividness (comp. Isa.
xl. 7), which is still more vividly portrayed by the simple succession of finite
verbs. See Winer, p. 248 [E. T. 277] and p. 417 [E. T. 470] ; A. Butt
maun, p. 175 [E. T. 202]. It is only conf using to convert dverede . . . ily-
pave into dvareiAag or idv uvariMri . . . l^ypave. — By the word Kavauv is often,
in the LXX. (comp., besides, Ezek. xvii. 10, xix. 12; Hos. xiii. 15; Jer.
xviii. 17; Jon. iv. 8; where dve/nog or irvev/ia is added, particularly Job
xxvii. 21 ; Hos. xii. 1), meant the hot east wind (O'lp), which, blowing over
the steppes of Arabia, is very dry and scorching to vegetation (see Winer's
Reallexicon: word. Wind); here, however, as in Isa. xlix. 10 (^7^ closely
united with 12'?^), Ecclus. xviii. 16 (comp. also Ecclus. xliii. 3, where it is
said of the sun : kuI ivavriov Kavp-arog airov rig viroarriaeTai), Matt. XX. 12, Luke
xii. 55, it has the meaning "heal, burning " (against Grotius, Pott, Hottinger,
Kern, Schneckenburger, AV'iner, Wahl, Lange, Bouman, and others), as the
parching effect is attributed not to the Kavauv, as something different from
the sun, but to the sun itself.^ It is arbitrary to explain it as if it were
written : 'yyepBy ydp, uua rd dvarel'Xai rbv y\iov, 6 Kavauv ; as Gebser says : " the
burning wind rising with the sun is the image." Laurentius incorrectly
understands by the sun " Christ," and by the rising of the sun " the day of
the Lord; " thus the whole is an image of the judgment destroying the rich,
yet so that the individual parts are to be retained in their appropriate mean
ing.^ — Kol e^ypave, k.t.X The same expressions iu Isa. xl. 7. — iKmirreiv, i.e.,
' Lange observes: "This is not here the tation is not forthwith imperilled," forms a
inpage of the ungodly, but is to be understood valid reason agaiust this explanation (against
as a historical figure with reference to the de- Lange).
cay of the 0. T. glory ! " ^ That " with the sun of a finished revela-
2 Neither the article before Kava-oivt, nor tion was developing the hot wind of the law,
the observation that, "with the rising of the which scorched the glory of Israel" (Lange),
siin and the development of its heat the vego- is a remark which is here the more inappro-

48 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
not simply the withering (Isa. xxviii. 1, 4, LXX.), but the actual falling-off
of the flower, is a consequence of the blighting of the plant. — y ev-Kpeireia,
the opposite of dirpimia, is used in the classics chiefly of external appearance;
in the N. T. it is an utt. Xey. — rb irpbaunov = 0^i2, Ps. civ. 30; comp. Luke
xii. 56 ; Matt. xvi. 3 : species externa, avrov refers, not as the first avrov, to
rbv xop'^'ovi but to rd dvBog, on which the emphasis rests (comp. ver. 10, De
Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman). i — ovru, thus quickly, thus entirely (Wiesinger);
Kai is not purely superfluous (Wiesinger), but, referring back to the image,
heightens the comparison. — 6 TrAoioiof . . . fiapavByaerai. It is to be observed
that here also b irlovatog, and not 6 KfLovrog, is the subject. pxipaiveaBai, in the
N. T. an cm. ley., is found in the LXX. as the translation of 2'?^, Job xv. 30;
in the same meaning in the Wisdom of Solomon ii. 8. The figurative ex
pression is explained by what goes before. — 'ev ralg -nopeiaig avrov ; not " on
his journeys" (Laurentius, Piscator, Herder), also hot "on his journeyings
of fortune " (Lange) ; but = iv raig odoig avrov, ver. 8 (comp. Prov. ii. 8, LXX.).
The prominent idea is that the rich man, overtaken by judgment, perishes
in the midst of his doings and pursuits, as the flower in the midst of its blos
soming faileth a victim to the scorching heat of the sun. Luther's transla
tion: "in his possession," is explained from the false reading Tropiaig. See
critical notes.
Ver. 12. Whilst the rich man is condemned in the judgment, the dSelifibg
6 ra-Keivbg, who suffers the neipaa/xbv proceeding from the rich man, is blessed.
This blessedness forms the conclusion of the series of thought begun at
ver. 2. To iJ.aKupiog dvyp (see Ps. i. 1, and frequently in O. T.), not earu but
lari is to be supplied. No special emphasis is to be put on dvyp ; comp. vv.
8, 20 ; incorrectly Thomas : Beatus vir, non mollis vel effoeminatus, sed vir :
and not less incorrectly Lange, who explains dvyp here as he does in ver. 8.
— bg vTiop.evei wetpaofibv is not = og ¦Keipaap.o'ig Trepmiirrei Or of ireipaa/ibv Ttdaxei (Hot
tinger) ; comp. ver. 3; it is the man who does not succumb to the tempta
tions which he has to endure. Laurentius: aliud est ferre crucem, aliud
perferre. To supply brav ¦n-epiwiari (Wiesinger) is unnecessary. — The follow
ing sentence beginning with on adduces the reason of the iiaKapiap.bg : for
being approved, he will receive -the crown 'of life. By doKifiog yevojievog is given
not so much the condition as the cause, why he that endureth temptation
will receive the crown of life ; the being approved is the consequence of
iiTOfiiveiv ¦neipaapbv. — boKi/iog is not, with Krebs, Losner, Augusti, Pott, and
others, to be referred as a figurative expression to the trial preceding the
contests of athletes ; but if a conscious figurative reference is to be assumed
at all (which De Wette, Briickner, and "Wiesinger not without reason con
sider as doubtful), it is to be referred to the purification of metals by fire
(Hornejus, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Theile, and others).^ In rbv oreipavov
priate, as according to it the sun and the hot flower has fallen from It, is still to lose its
wind are indicated as two different powers beauty?
opposed to each other. s Lange asserts that this figurative refer-
1 Lange, on the other hand, observes " that ence Is so far incorrect, as " that figure pre-
a fallen flower is still to lose its beauty " can- supposes the idea of refining, which, although
not be imagined; but is it then to be imagined contained in the trial or proof, is not identical
that the grass when it is withered, aud the with it; " but the identity is not maintained.

CHAP. I. 13. 49
ryg Z'jyg ("not the crown which is peculiar to eternal life, i.e., which is im
parted to it," Gunkel), rf/g i;uyg is not the genitive of possession (Lange), but
of apposition : ^uy, i.e., the eternal blessed life, is itself the crown of glory
with which he that. endures is adorned; comp. Rev. ii. 10; 1 Pet. v. 4; 2
Tim. iv. 8. It is at least doubtful if there is here any allusion to the reward
of the victor in the Greek games, — which is maintained by Zwingli,
Michaelis, Hensler, Pott, De Wette, Wiesinger, and others, and contested
by Semler, Augusti, Schneckenburger, Hottinger, Theile, Bruckner, and
others, — as even among the Jews, without any reference to a contest, a
crown or diadem is regarded as the symbol of peculiar honor ; comp. besides
Ps. xxi. 4 (Briickner), especially Wisdom of Solomon v. 16, 17 : b'lKaioi e'lg rbv
aiuva (uai . . . 'ky^bvrai rb Baa'iXeiov ryg evirpe'Keiag Kal rb btabypia rov KoXXovg eK xeipbg
Kvpiov. With Paul, on the other hand, such an allusion frequently occurs.
The certainty of receiving this crown of glory is founded on the divine
promise : bv i-Kyyyel'karo (b Kvpiog) roig dyaixCiaiv airbv. If 6 Kvpiog is the correct
reading, we are to understand not Christ (Baumgarten, Schneckenburger),
but God (Gebser, Theile, Wiesinger). — The expression rolg dyanuaiv ainbv
(comp. Ps. xcvii. 10, cxlv. 20; Rom. viii. 28, etc.) intimates that inouiveiv
¦TeipaaiMv is a proof and testimony of love to God, and is accordingly a proof
how careful .lames was to designate love as the essence of true faith (so
also Lange); therefore the repetition of the same addition in chap. ii. 5.
On the whole passage, comp. particularly 2 Tim. iv. 8.
Ver. 13. To 6; inofiivei veipaa/.ibv Jumes opposes bg ¦jzeipd^erai ; ^ whilst the
former gains fui?, the end to which the latter approaches is Bavarog (ver. 15).
— First James disclaims a vain justification of the latter, and then describes
the process of -rreipd^eaBai. The vain justification is introduced with the
direct words of the ¦Keipatfip.evog : on dirb Qeov ireipdCofmi, and then disclaimed
by the expression: 6 Qebg direipaarbg ian kwiuv, k.t.'K. — By the direct transition
from the preceding to this verse, it is supposed that by the ireipaCpiievog spoken
about, in contrast to of vnouevei neipaa/xov (ver. 12), is to be understood the
person who does not endure the temptation, and consequently is not proved
by it, but who succumbs under it, whilst he suffers himself to be enticed to
falling away — to sin. Pott: qui tentatione vincitur, ad peccandum vincilur ,
Theile : agit Jacobus de turpi tentatione per tristem (tentalionem) ; so also Ols-
hausen, Schneckenburger, Kern, and others. This connection is denied by
others; thus Calvin says: de alio tentationes genere disserit; and Wiesinger in
the strongest manner : " This appears as the design of the apostle : to distin
guish as much as possible those ¦Kcipaajiovg and this ¦rreipd^eaBui, to place the
latter as totally different from the former." But the close connection with
the preceding constrains us to the opinion that James has considered both
in reference to each other, the ireipaa/ioi occasioning- the ¦neipd^eadai which takes
place when emBvpla is excited by it.^ It is arbitrary to take the verb ¦Keipd-
1 'When Lange meets this with the ques- 2 it is to be observed that .Tames designates
tion, " How could any one endure the temp- the trials, on which he thinks in oTai. ireipaa--
lation without having first been tempted? "he pol^ ireptn-ecnjTe, ver. 3, as Treipaapoi. It may
only shows that he does not understand the be said that they are not this in themselves, but
explanation here giveu. only in so far as the Christian is yet a sinner,

50 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
l^eaBai in the clause : fiydelg ¦jreipa^ofievog, in another sense than in the following
clause : dirb Bfoi neipdilo/jiai, as Hottinger asserts : hic verbum Keipd(eaBai bis dici
tur sensu d'lversi; priori loco simpliciter : ad versa pati; posteriori: mails sollici-
tari ad defectionem (similarly Grotius, Semler; also Lange); for, according
to this interpretation, the excuse, on, K.r.X., would not correspond to the
supposition contained in iiyielg ¦KeipaCpp.evog. In justification of this view,
Matt. viii. 30 cannot be appealed to, where the same word (veKpov) is used
in the same sentence in different meanings, namely, in a proper and figura
tive meaning, as here the relation is entirely different. — Some expositors
(Pott, Schneckenburger, and others), without reason, paraphrase 'Aeyeru by
" cogitet, sibi persuadeat." Since the icords which immediately follow are
introduced in the direct form, it is better to retain the usual meaning of
Aeyeiv, by which it is in itself evident that the external speaking presupposes
an internal, on which it is here natural to think. — James makes the iteipalfi-
pievog thus briefly express the excuse by which he would justify himself : on
d-irb Qeov ¦ireipui^ofiai, by which he transfers the guilt from himself to God.' on
is the form of quotation frequently occurring in the N. T., except with Paul.
dirb Qeov is emphatically placed first, d-jro is not equivalent to vko ; the former
points to the more distant, the latter to the nearest cause, though by later
writers (im with passive verbs is sometimes used as equivalent to viro. Here,
however, the usual signification of uwb is to be retained, for the retpai;bu.evog,
introduced as directly speaking, would certainly not stigmatize God as the
direct tempter (comp. Matt. iv. 1). See Winer, p. 332 [E. T. 371]. James
does not with these words refer to any particular doctrine of religion and
philosophy, perhaps to the doctrine of the Pharisees and Essenes on ei/iapiievy
(Bull, Ittig, Schneckenburger, and others), or the doctrine of Simon Magus
(Calovius), but only considers generally the peculiar bias of the natural man
to charge God somehow with the blame of neipdl^aBai, recognizable in the
answer of Adam to the question of God.^ — James grounds the rejection of
the idea contained in, fiybelg . . . Iieyeru that the ireipd^eaBai proceeds from God,
by a sentence comprising two members : d ydp Qebg . . . ovdiva. The word
dire'ipaarog, an una^'Xey. in the N. T., has in classical Greek — in which, how
ever, the form, direiparog {direipyrog) almost always occurs — either the passive
meaning untempted, — that is, -what is not tempted or proved, — or the active

and can thus be enticed by them into sin; fanaticism against tbe Gentiles, particularly
when this happens, then the Treipa^eadat, of their separation from the Gentile Christiahs,
which Jaraes here speaks, takes place. Stier : as an affair of God (for his glory) I
"That there is a necessity for our all being 2 Many expressions in Greek authors show
tested and approved through trial, springs from how natural this is to man; comp. /i. r. 86:
our sin; the tempting element in our trial, the eyia 6* ouk aiTtds eipi dAAi Zev^, Kat polpa;
evil in it, springs therefore from that and not Plaut., Aulul., Iv. 10, 7 : Deus impulsor mihi
from God." fuit; Terent., Eunuch., v. 2, 86: Quid, si hoo
1 He might find a justification of this in the voluit quispiam Deus? — Such an excuse sug-
fact that Treipaapoi actually spring from God. gested itself to the Jews the more as it ap-
See Meyer on Matt. vi. 13, and on 1 Cor. i. 13. peared justified by the language of the O. T.
Lange introduces inappropriate matter, main- Comp. Exod. xx. 16. On the contrary, Philo
taining in favor of the concrete relations sup- (Quod, deter, pot., m D) remarks: ov us eviot
-posed by hira, that the Jews and Judaliting rtvv dae^oiv, rbv Qe'ov alnov rHiv KaKihv iftritTt
'Christians with this word would justify their Muiir^t. Still more fully in Schneckenburger.

CHAP. I. 14. 51
meaning : he who has made no trial, equivalent to inexperienced. Some
expositors take the word in the second meaning ; thus Schulthess : in Deum.
nulla malorum experientia ; De Wette, Bruckner, and others.^ But, on ac
count of the close connection with netpd^eiv, the word has here, as most expos
itors assume, an ethical meaning. Yet it is incorrect to explain it actively,
with Luther (God is not a tempter to evil; Vulgate: intentator), because
this clause would then be tautological with the following. It is rather to
be taken passively : untempted of evil, by which the idea passes from tentatus
to that oi tentabilis ; Winer, p. 175 [E. T. 194]. By the Church Fathers
God is often named simply 6 dneipaarog; so Ignat. Ad. Philipp. : ri izeipd^eig rbv
drreipacrov ; Photius, Contra Manich. , iv. p. 225 : ireipd^eiv imxeipyaaai rbv direi-
paarov. By this predicate the holiness of God, which is raised above all
temptation to evil, is indicated, and is the motive likewise to the following
thought.^ — KaKuv is not masculine, but neuter; not misery (Oecumenius),'
but evil.' -— vFipdi^ei be airbg ovbeva expresses the consequence of the preceding
and the pointed contrast to dirb Qeoi neipd^opai. ¦Keipd^ei is placed first for the
sake of emphasis. By airdg, which most interpreters pass over, is brought
forward not God's action in contrast to "being tempted" (Theile: ipse quo
que non tentai idem ille Deus, qui tentari nequit ; Wiesinger : " He, self-active ; "
so also Lange), but shows that the ireipd^eiv indeed takes place, but from
another cause (7 i&a imBvuia) than from God. The meaning of the whole
verse is as follows : Let no man, when he is tempted (inwardly enticed) to
evil, say, From God I am tempted : for God suffers no temptation ; but (be)
as to the temptation. He (God) tempteth no man : but every man is tempted,
etc.^ As regards the apparent contradiction of this with other passages of
the Holy Sci'iptures, where the sins of men are referred to God as their reason
(Gen. xxii. 1 ; Deut. viii. 2, etc.), Calvin correctly remarks : Quum Scriplura
excoecationem vel obdurationem cordis tribuit Deo, neque illi initium assignat,
neque J'acit mali auctorem, ut culpam sustinere debeat. In his autem duobus
solum .Jacobus insistit.
Ver. 14. That " ireipd^eaBai proceeds not from God," is the thought of
ver. 13. Whence conies it, then ? The answer is giveu in this verse :
1 Buttmann, p. 148 [E. T. 170], contests this because God does not suffer himself to be
meaning, which rather belongs to the word tempted.
oTreipos. But passages, as Hom. I/, ad Ven. ^ Inapposite uniting of various explana.
V. 133 : aSvTjTTiv p' ayayiav Kai aTTeiprjTt\v </>iA6- tious by Theile and Morus : dTretp. KaK. dicitur,
TTjTos; Theognis, 772 : n-oAAol dirci'pijTot So^av partim quoniam nullae -miseriae possunt eve-
exovff* dva0a)i', show that oLTreipaToff actually has nlre Deo, partim quoniam per eas non potest
that meaning. inclinari ad peccandum, ad cupiditatem ali-
2 Lange maintains, in reference to the in- quam exercendam; Deus igitur est expers
terpretation given above, that in this common- miseriae omnis atque etiam peccati vel pravae
tary aireip. KaK. is explained as equivalent to cupiditatis, et quia est, neque tentatur a mails
" God has no experience of evil," and that it ipse, neque alium tentat.
i@ said that the passive construction; "not * The passage in Ecclus. xv. 11, 12, 20, is
tempted," "not teraptable," is against gram. especially to be compared; piri elnj]? bn Stdt
matical usage and the connection I In a very Kvpiov airearrjv, p^rj elirjj^; 'ort avTos pe ejr\dvr]-
Btrange manner he thinks It is here designed <rev. Ovk evereiKaTo oufievt atre^elv (cal o-itK
to strengthen the warning : Let no man say ; e5a)«ev aveo-ii* ovSev'i apaprdveiv. See also 1
for this saying, like all fanaticism, was a Cor. x. 13.
tempting God, and therefore vaiu and impious,

52 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
" Every man is tempted when he is drawn out and allured by his own lust." The
words iirb ryg IS. emBvpiag belong not to mipdi^erai (Theile, Wiesinger), but to
i^eWK6p.evog Kal beXeaCppeMg (Luther, Baumgarten, Semler, Knapp, Grashof,
Hottinger, De Wette, BrUckner, Lange, and others), as otherwise these ideas
would drag too much, and would receive their closer reference only by sup
plying something, as vv:' avryg (Wiesinger). James will describe iceipd^eaBai
according to its process ; he therefore places the idea first, and then gives in
what follows how it occurs : consequently the construction rreipdt^erai . . . e^e^Ko-
fievog requires not to be altered into neipalibpevog . . . 'e^e'AKverai (Schnecken
burger). — neipaCpiievog, as is evident from what goes before, is to be supplied
to eKaarog ; it corresponds to ovdeva, ver. 13. The attribute Ibiag is emphatic,
expressing the contrast to airbg in ver. 13. It is brought prominently forward
because eiiiBvp.ta has its ground not iu God, but belongs to man. — By emBvp-iu
is not denoted " innocent sensuousness," but it occurs here, as everywhere in
the N. T. (except where its specific object is named, as in Luke xxii. 15 ;
Phil. 1. 23 ; 1 Thess. ii. 17), even without the addition of Kany, aapKiKy, or
some similar adjectives, in sensu malo ; yet it is not to be understood as origi
nal sin: "the sinful tendency, the same as Paul calls d/iapria in Rom. vii. 7"
(Hofmann, Schriftbew., i. p. 469 ; Wiesinger) ; rather emBv/ila here is the
same as in Rom. vii. 7, namely, lust for the forbidden action springing from
original sin (which Paul designates as the d/iapria which x>^pk vbuou is " veKpd,"
but by the commandment revives, and ndaav iTxiBvp.'iav Karepyd^erai). So, also,
Briickner. 1 — James does not here speak of the origin and development of
sin in general, but he wishes to mention, in contrast to dirb Qeob -rreipd^ouai, by
what sinful man is tempted to the definite act of sin, so that he had no occa
sion to refer to original sin. — With regard to the form of expression. Pott
correctly says : imdvpia, diiapria et Bdvarog personarum vim habent ; imaginem
meretricis suppeditant voces avUaPeiv, r'lKreiv, diroKveiv, nee non et i^e^Keiv atque
deTied^eiv. The two words i^eTixeiv and be'ked^eiv sind verba e re venatoria et pisca-
toria in rem amatoriam et inde in nostrum tropum translata (Schneckenburger) ;
this at least is valid of beTi^u^eiv. The meaning : protrahere in I'lttus (Pott, and
also De "Wette), does not here lie at the root of the idea e^elKeiv (feaf lery. in
N. T.), for then it would require to be placed after deledl^eiv (as also Wieseler,
Briickner, and Lange observe). Schulthess more correctly explains it : eli-
cere bestias ex tuto ubi latent in locum hamis retibu^que expositum; but it is
probable that James had not the original figure so definitely before his eyes.
Many interpreters (Menochius, Grotius, Laurentius, Pott, Hottinger, Baum-
1 According to Hofmann's explanation, the individual encounters externally, over agamst
form of expression of James would be diamet- which the lust belonging to him is objectively
rically opposed to that of Paul; for what Paul placed," and to determine the same more defl.
calls iipapria, James would call eTrt^u^ia; and nitely as the totality of those " glittering, varie.
what Paul calls eTnevpia, James wonld call gated, visionary expectations which seductively
dpapria'. And how objectionable is it to say, met both the Jews and the Jewish Christians,
with "Wiesinger: eiriBvpia, when stirred up, which had sprung from the matter of the chili-
produces those emdvpia^ fiapKoi in Gal. V. 16, astic, world-lusting, spiritual pride." James
24, that eiridvpelv and that e-niSvpia in Rom. does not here speak of ejnBvpia as attacking
vli. 7, 8. It is also incorrect, with Lange, to an individual from outside, but only of .that
understand by ISia eiiiQ. " original sin itself in which is within him.
Us concrete activity," or " the folly which the

CHAP. I. 15. 53
garten, Theile, and others) supply a bono to i^elK. and ad malum to (Ss/lt-uf.,
or something similar ; yet incorrectly, as the idea is rather that imBvpia as a
harlot entices man, that is, his will, to herself; the cf in e^i'AK. is thus to be
explained, that man, enticed by the allurements of ImBvpia, is enticed to for
sake his former position (as the place where he remained hitherto concealed) ;
Schneckenburger: Statu quasi suo et loco se extrahi et dimoveri ipse patitur. It
is incorrect to explain i^e^Kew as equivalent to irpoae'XKeiv, or as an intensified
form instead of elKeiv.''- The being taken captive by iiziBvpia is indicated by
beXeai;bfievog.^ beXed^eivi in the N. T. used here only and in 2 Pet. ii. 2, 14, 18,
is also, among classical writers, used figuratively only in sensu malo.'
Ver. 15. Continuing the image used in ver. 14, James iu this verse de
scribes what is the fruit which proceeds from Seledi^eadai iirb ryg ibtag iiTiBv/j.iag :
Lust having conceived (i.e., become pregnant) bringeth forth sin, and sin when
it is completed bringeth forth death. The object of this representation is not
to give a doctrine of sin, — its origin and its end, — but by indicating the
fruit of iveipdi^eaBai, to demonstrate that it is not from God. By eira the result
of neipd^eaBai, namely rUrei dfiapriav, is indicated as directly following upon
it ; avl'kapovaa forms the transition to it, which occurs by iviBv/i'ia taking the
will of man captive ; it, as it were, becomes pregnant, so that it bears sin. —
cvVw-Bovaa rUrei corresponds to the Hebrew 17.J?1 tnjll, which is uniformly
in the LXX. translated 'b-^ av7Cf.a!iovaa ereKe (Gen. iv. 5, 17, xxx. 17, and other
¦passages). By dpapria without the article, the fruit of imBv/zia, according to
its quality, is indicated in an entirely general manner. Sin born by lust
again can-ies in itself its own fruit (Kvypa), which, having come to comple
tion (uiTorelsaBelaa), IS brought forth out of itself (diroKvet). According to
De Wette, by dpapria in the first clause is to be understood "the resolution
or internal act," but in the second clause (7 d/zapria unoreTieaBelaa), " sin accom
plished in the external act," thus acts of sin. This, however, is incorrect, as
— (1) by y be dfiapria the d/xapria already mentioned is again taken up, and
therefore must have the same meaning; and (2) dirore?ielv dpapriav cannot
mean " sin accomplished." * Wiesinger, with regard to riKiei dpapriav, correctly
observes: "dp.apria is sin, but whether the internal or external act is not
stated;" yet diroreTieaBelaa added in the following clause shows that James
considered upapria as something gradually developed, for dirorelieiv is not
equivalent to rUreiv (so that diroreTieaBelaa would be = rexBelaa, Baumgarten :
"sin brought or produced into the world in such a manner"), but completed:
1 See Athenaeus, i. 3, c. 8: fita rr/v bpiXiav pression dTroTeAeZf cn-tdvjittaF in Plato, Gorg.,T^.
TOUS epaaTas Trpoo-eAiciio-atrdat, Ael., .fl^. j4n., vi. 503 D, and TeAeii/ Tijv eTTl6vpiav,a.B there eTTt-
31 : iiirb T^s rjbovrfq eAKOiuefo?. dvpia and apapria are not similar, but different
' Lange : " To draw off and to allure : Ger- ideas. 'When 'Wiesinger, against the explana.
man, Ablocken and Anlocken ; the man is tion of De Wette, says that o-uAAa^oOo-a indi-
first drawn out from his inward self-control cates that "the will consents to the demand
and fortress, and then attracted (drawn to) by of the desire, which is the resolution or inter-
the allurements of the harlot." nal act," it is, ou the contrary, to be observed
8 Comp. particularly, Plato, Tim., Ixix. 6: that these two are by no means identical, as
yjSopTj peyiaTbyv KaKiav Se\eap; F\ut., De Ser. the resolution is an act of the will, and thus is
Jfum. Vind. : rb yAv/eu t^s eiridvpia? viairep actually sin, whilst by o-uAAo/SoOaa is indicated
SeAeap e^e'Aiceiv (ivflpwirovs). a point preceding TiKTeic dpapriav.
« De Wette incorrectly appeals to the ex-

54 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
thus y dp. aKOT. = " sin which has attained to its complete development." It is not
entirely corresponding to the idea of James, when Calvin (with whom most
recent critics — Kern, Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger, and others —
agree) explains it as " the entire sinful life " (non unum aliquod opus perpe-
tratum, sed cursus peccandi completus, vita impia et scelerala). As James
considers apapria itself personified, it is diroreTieaBelaa when it has grown to
suoh fulness of power that it rules man's whole life. According to this idea,
it is indeed correct when several interpreters explain dirorel. by adulta ; thus
Bouman : Peccatum, quum ad adultam pervenit aetatem ; yet, linguistically,
this explanation is not to be justified, as dnore'XelaBai is not equivalent to ado-
lescere. The explanation given in the earlier edition of this commentary,
that by dpapria is meant the act of sin, is erroneous, because such a limita
tion of the general idea is not indicated ; on this account it is not correct to
think on iiriBvpia and dpapria as a single definite lust and sin. — Briickner
considers the addition of diznreT^aBelaa is made only " in order that dpapria,
which was at first represented as a child, might again be represented as a
mother." This, however, is incorrect : the origin and growth (or, more cor
rectly, the completion) of sin by no means occur " in reality together at one
moment ; " sin bears death, which it carried in itself at the first, only when
it is not interrupted in its development by a higher life-power, but has
attained to its complete form. — By Bdvarog, by which James indicates the
fruit of completed sin according to its nature, is to be understood, not only
temporary A%iiQ\ (Pott: Homines peccando mortales factos esse omnes consentiunt
N. T. scriptores), but, as the opposite of the ^uy which God has promised,
and will give to them who love Him, eternal death ; see Rom. vi. 23 : rd
uipoivia ryg dpapriag, Bdvarog • rb be xap'-'^P-a Qeov, (uy aiuviog. If, therefore, noth
ing but Bdvarog is the end to which mipd^eaBai conducts, this cannot possibly
have its reason in God, who works ^uy, and therefore it is absurd to say dirb
Qeoi neipu^ouai (ver. 13). — The expression diroKvei (only here and in ver. 18
in the N. T.) is distinguished from rinrei only in this, that it indicates more
definitely that dpapria from the beginning is pregnant with Bdvarog. By the
explanation : meretur mortem (Bede, Laurentius, and others), a relation is
introduced foreign to the context. On the mode of writing dnoKvel and
diTOKiei, pe Winer, p. 80 (E. T. 88) ; Schirlitz, p. 184 f .
Ver. 16 introduces the statement which follows as one particularly im
portant. Not only the exhortation ; py irXavdaBe, but also the added address :
dbe'Xifoi pov dyanyioi, shows how important this observation appeared to the
author. A new line of thought, unconnected with the preceding, does not
indeed begin with this verse ; py nXavuaBe must not therefore be considered,
with Hornejus, Gebser, and others, only as the concluding formula to what
goes before. Theile correctly observes : Ubi antecedentia respicit, nunquam
finit cohortationem, sed ita interpositum est, ut continuet ac firmet, nunc illus-
Irando, nunc cavendo. The same formula is found in 1 Cor, vi. 9, xv. 33 ;
Gal. vi. 7 (similarly 1 John iii. 7) ; in all those places it precedes a thought
certain to the Christian conscience, by which a preceding expression is con
firmed in opposition to a false opinion : this is also the case here. Grotius
inserts au entirely foreign reference when he says, hoc vult ; ne putate vestrum

CHAP. I. 17. 55
studium sufficere sine precibus ; see Luke xviii. 1. There is here no reference
whatever to prayer.
Ver. 17. The sentiment in this verse, introduced by ver. 16, is designed
for the complete rejection of dirb Qeoi ireipdlfipai ; the good comes from God,
therefore ireipd^eaBui cannot come from God. The idea of the good is indi
cated by two synonymous expressions : bbau; dyaBy and bupypa rileiov. By
bbaig, which has here not an active, as in Phil. iv. 5 (Bouman, Lange), but
a passive signification (as frequently in classical Greek and in the Apoc
rypha), and by bupypa, the same thing is indicated — in contrast to 'ib'ia iiri-
Bvpla, ver. 14 — as something given and presented, which thus proceeds not
from man himself. By bupypa reT^eiov the idea already contained in bbaig dyaBy
is heightened, bupypa more definitely indicating the gift {boaig) as a, free present
(which Gunkel incorrectly denies ; see Rom. v. 16, where bupyua is parallel
with xiipiapa), and -eAaov the idea of the good (dyaBy) as morally perfect.^ It
is arbitrary to refer the two expressions to different gifts, and by Sooig to
understand the gifts of the kingdom of nature or of the present life, and by
bupyjia those of the kingdom of grace or of the future life. Also dyaBy is not,
with Didymus, to be restricted to the idea of the useful. Several interpret
ers (Raphelius, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Bengel, Augusti, Pott, Hottinger, and
others) put au exclusive force on wuf, as if it were = non nisi, "nothing but ; "
but the thought is weakened thereby. James designs to say not only — in
contrast to the derivation of ireipdlieaBai from God — that only good (thus not
evil) gifts come from Him, but likewise that good gifts all come only from
God (thus from none else) (Stier) ; irdg is accordingly to be taken in its
usual meaning; but dyaBy and re?.eiov are to be emphasized. Schnecken
burger arbitrarily explains it as if James had written : irdaa bdaig Kal tov
bupypa dvuBev Karajialvov reXeiov ian? — ivuBev =^ ovpdvoBev (Acts xiv. 17, xxvi.
13; Ik rob ovpavov, John vi. 32, 33), is put first for the sake of emphasis. —
ian Karajialvov are not, with Wolf, Bengel, Kern, Bouman, and others, to be
separated, so that 'tan is to be joined to dvuBev, and Karapalvov is added as an
epexegesis ; but to be united, and are put instead of Karai3alvei, only that by
the participle the quality of the verbal idea is more brought out ; see chap.
iii. 15; so also Wiesinger and A. Buttmann, p. 266 (E. T. 310); Winer,
p. 311 (E. T. 350), and Schirlitz, p. 317, on the other hand, regard the ex
pression as entirely equivalent to KaruHalvti. — The expression Kara0alvov is
explained from avuBev. The explanation of Laurentius : non cadens, sed
descendens, quia ordinarie bona sua dona dat, is far-fetched. — dirb rov narpbg
TUV (puruv, an epexegesis to the preceding. By ru (pura is to be understood
neither spiritual light, whether knowledge (Hornejus), or joy (Michaelis), or
goodness, wisdom (Wolf: Omnis perfectio, bonitas, sapientia et prosperitas),
or something similar, nor the spirits of light (Schol. ap..Matt.: yroi tuv
' Whilst De Wette finds the emphasis only Christianity;" and by Soa-. ay. "every thing
in the adjectives, Theile correctly remarks: Et which sei-ved to prepare this completed gift,
substantiva et adjectiva differunt ita, ut poste- especially in the old covenant."
riuspriore sit defiuitius ideoque majus. So also ^ On the accidental hexameter which the
Wiesinger and Briickner. Lange by Svip. tcA. words Traaa . . , TeKeiov foi'm, see Winer, p.
understands "the gift of God completed ia 664 (E. T. 798).

66 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
dyyeTiiKuv Avvdpeuv • y ruv ireipunapevuv dvBpunuv ; Lange : " The whole series of
organs of revelation from Abraham to Christ, as the representatives of all
good spirits"). Nor is there here any allusion to the Urim and Thummim
of the high priest (Heisen) ; but by it are meant, as almost all modern
expositors recognize, the heavenly bodies (see LXX. Ps. cxxxv. (cxxxvi.) 7;
Jer. iv. 23) = ipuarypeg, LXX., Gen. i. 14. God is designated as the iraryp of
these, because He is their Creator and Preserver. This designation, for
which Job xxxviii. 28 cannot be appealed to, is surprising, as it is without
analogy either in the O. or N. T. (otherwise with profane writers and Philo).
It has, however, its ground in this, that James considers the light of the
heavenly bodies as a reflection of the essential light of God. Since God is
the Father of light, the symbol of the holy ones (Wiesinger), so He Himself
must be light, and thus nothing dark (consequently not ireipdi^eaBai), but
rather only all that is light, can proceed from Hiin. As the Father of lights,
God, however, outshines these : their light is changing ; His, on the contrary,
is without change. The following words: loith whom there is no variation nor
shadow (in consequence) oJ' change, express this idea; i.e., whilst with the
stars a itapaXXayy or rpoiryg uiroaKiaapa occurs, there is nothing similar to this
with God. I According to Grotius, with whom various expositors agree,
these expressions are termini technici of astronomy. But, in opposition to
this, it is to be observed that irapa7'Aayy never occurs as an astronomical term
(see Gebser in loco), and the astronomical signification of rpoiry = solstitium,
solstice (rpoiral Bepivai and x^'psp'^oi ; comp. Wisd. vii. 18 : rpoiruv aA^aydg), is
not here suitable, as the sun is not mentioned specially, nor is an dirooKlaapa
effected by the solstice. James here uses not the language of astronomy,
but that of ordinary life (Wiesinger). — irapaXXayy is to be understood quite
generally, variation. James adds to this general idea, in order to bring
prominently forward that the essential light of God is not, as is the case
with the stars, obscured by any thing, the more definite idea rpoiryg uiroaKiaapa.
diroaKiaapa has not an active (De Wette: "casting a shadow"), but a passive
signification, being shaded (so Briickner) ; and rpoiryg assigns the reason (diro
aKiaapa quae oritur e rpoiry, Schneckenburger) : thus the shadowing of the
stars, which is effected by the'ir changeable position : '¦' for that James has
founded his idea in a change in the stars themselves, is not probable.^
Luther's tran.slation : "the change of light and darkness" (similarly, Stolz:
"changing obscuration "), is only justified if it were said rpon-^ dirooKidauarog.
Deviating entirely from the above explanation, the Greek interpreters take

' Flatt (Spicil. observatt. ad ep. Jacobi) : which James has in view is, according to
Auctor siderum nitidorum ipsis etiam nitidior Lange, that God " makes no revolution with
et nitoris, nulMs unquam tenebris interrupti, the Old Testament which would cast a night-
majori constantia fulgens. Similarly it is s.iid shadow on the New, nor does he suffer the
of Wisdom : eo-Ti ydp aiirrj evirpeireinepa TjAiou, New Testament to cast a night-shadow on the
Kat virep irauav darptav Qeaiv, <f)a)Ti uvyKpLvopevft Old " !
evpi'o-KCTai Trporepa, Wisdom of Solomon, vii. 29. 8 Without reason, Baumgarten, Schnecken-
2 Incorrectly, Lange explains the expres- burger, and others assume that James here
sion, " of the obscuration of the earth effected alludes to the astrological superstitions of the
by the diurnal phenomenal revolution of the Jews.
sun, moon, and stare." And the proper idea

CHAP. 1. 18. 57
diroaKiaapa = ixvog ; Oecumenius : dvrl roi • oibe pixpK virovoiag rivbg iiro^oly ;
Suidas : dvrl roi • uMoiijaeug koi perapoTiyg Ixvog • Kal bpoiupa (pavraaiag ; and
following them several recent writers ; Morus : ne tantillum mutationes ;
Rosenmiiller: no shadow of change; so Hensler and others. But in this
signification diroaKiaapa never elsewhere occurs ; also the here essential idea of
obscuration (Bengel : diroaKiaapa, opponitur luminibus) would be lost. — The
form ivL (besides here in the N. T., in 1 Cor. vi. 5; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11)
is not, with Buttmann, ii. 375; Winer, p. 74 (E. T. 80); Schirlitz, 171, and
others, to be taken as a peculiar form of i-v, but is the abbreviation of evean
(A. Buttmann, p. 64 [E. T. 72]); comp. 1 Cor. vi. 5: oi/c evi ev vplv aofog
ov6e eig (see Meyer in loco), evi, however, is not, with Pott, to be explained
as precisely equivalent with iariv, yet the meaning of the preposition ev is so
weakened, as the verb could be construed with any other preposition, as here
with the preposition irapd, which here, as frequently in the N. T. , stands for
"what spiritually belongs to another, is in another's possession." ^
Ver. 18. Most interpreters subordinate the thought contained in this
verse to the preceding, regarding it either as an example (Laurentius : loqui
tur Ap. in his verbis de generatione spirituali ut sit quasi exemplum aliquod
istorum donoi-um spiritualium, quae sunt desuper) or as a confirmation and a
proof (thus Gebser, Kern, Wiesinger, Bouman ; also Lange) : '^ on the con
trary, according to Theile and De Wette,^ its relation is that of co-ordination.
But in both explanations the peculiar significance which this verse has in
the context is mistaken. It is to be recognized as a principal thought, not
only because the succeeding exhortations flow from it, but also because the
preceding development only comes to its close in it ; whilst only in fiovhjBeig
direKvyaev yudg is not only the assertion dirb Qeoi ireipd^ouai completely refuted,
but also all the earlier-mentioned assertions have their sure foundation. It
is accordingly not a confirmation of ver. 17, but rather a special inference
from the general idea of that verse. — l3ovAy8elg direKvyaev ypdg'] . The verb itself
testifies that here the discourse is of the new birth, and not of natural birth,
for diroKveiv is synonymous with yevvQv ; but the man yeyevvypevog iK Qeov (1
John iii. 9 ; see also 1 Pet. i. 23) is not man in himself, but man born again.
Unsatisfactorily Pott explains diroKveiv = facere, efficere, since by this the
specific idea of the verb, that the foundation of the life of him who is born
again lies in God, and that he is Be'iag ipvaeug Koivuvog (2 Pet. i. 4), is lost. -:-
ymg ; not us as men, nor us as Jewish Christians, but us as Christians. — The
verse emphatically commences with i3ovT.yBeig, by which is expressed not a
contrast to the merit of human works (Bede : non nostris, sed beneficio suae
voluntatis; similarly Calvin, Hornejus, Grotius, etc.), nor to "the Jewish
claims of righteousness " (Lange), but it is designed prominently to bring
forward the thought that the new birth rests on the divine will, — the work
is that which God has peculiarly willed. But if this be the case, how can
1 Demosthenes, ZlfiCo)"., p. 318, 13; eii'oSi/ = Theile: Deus, luminum pater, etiam
eo-Tt Kcii irap' e^ot T19 epneipia roiavr-rj. parens est generationis nostrae. De Wette ;
2 Lange strangely designates the new birth In place of all gpod gifts, the gracious gift of
as the effect of the Sutprjpa TeAetoi' which came the Christian salvation is likewise mentioned
down from heaven. as a proof that God can be no tempter.

68 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
ireipa^eaBai proceed from Him ? Without sufiicient reason, Bengel, Kern,
Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, and others. put the additional idea of love ia
^ovT.yBeig.'^ — 'koyu dlyBe'iagl. The instrument of diroKvyaai is, the Aoyof uT^yBeiag,
that is, the gospel,^ which is so called because "d'kyBeia in its entire reality
is inherent in it " (Harless on Eph. i. 13). The words : eig rb eivai ypdg dirapxvv
Tiva rCnt avrov Kriapdruv, express the aim of this new birth, by which is not
indicated what Christians, as those who are born of God, ought to become,
but what they are, according to the intention of God.^ By nva added to
dirapxvv the mode of expression is indicated as figurative; for, as Calvin
correctly remarks, nva similitudinis est nota, nos quodammodo esse primitias
(so also Gebser, Hottinger, Kern, Wiesinger, and others). Also Bengel
recognizes this, but he puts therein a false reference, observing: quaedam
habet iviodestiam, nam primitiae proprie et absolute est Christus. Still more
incorrect is it, with Lange, to explain nva, that James considered the angels
of God as a different kind of first-fruits of creation. Laurentius correctly
says : dirapxv allusio est ad ritum legalem in Vetum Testamentum de consecra-
t'lone primogenitorum, frugum, jumentorum et hominum (so also Calvin,
Hoi'nejus, Wiesinger, and others ; unsatisfactorily De Wette: "chosen and
holy"). The word has here, as everywhere in the O. T., and predominantly
among the classics, a religious signification, namely, " the first-fruits dedicated
to God ; " so that James by this expression indicates Christians, as a fruit
dedicated to the service of God. But ypdg emphatically repeated shows that
James does not here state the nature of Christians generally, but what the
position is which he and those Christians occupy who, according to Rom.
viii. 23, possess ryv dirapxyv roi irvevparog (see Meyer in loco). They are a
kind of first-fruits of God's creatures, because they, as being born of God,
are dedicated to God first among all His creatures. The glorification, which
is destined for the whole world, was first imparted to Christians then living.*
In the N. T. dnapxy is sometimes so used that the religious signification steps
into the background (thus in 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23; Rom. viii. 23, xvi. 5; 1 Cor.
xvi. 15; otherwise in Rom. xi. 16 and Rev. xiv. 5); and accordingly sev
eral expositors explain the expression of James as equivalent to ol irpuroi ruv
1 Bengel : voluntate amantissima. Schneck- order to indicate that the Jews should become
enburger ; non merum volendi actum sed be- -^^'hat Christians already are." This is purely
nignam et benigua voluntate ortam volitionera arbitrary, as such a distinction is not indicated
exprimit. The view of Oecumenius is e-vi- in the very slightest degree.
dently entirely perverted ; to ^ouA>)0e't9 etTrei., « It is, however, also possible that James by
e-TTirTTopi^viV tovs aUTO^dTtiJS viroarrivai Tofie to iipon; has had in view, not the distinction be-
irdv ATjpoCvTas. tween the then-existing aud the later Chris-
2 If the want of the article should constrain tians, but only the distinction between Chris-
U3 to translate \6yos dArjfletas, " a word of tians and the other creatures, since Christians
truth," that is, a -word whose nature is truth of all ages form the dirapxh toji. KTiapdrtav,
(see Meyer on 2 Cor. vi. 7), yet by this word until the commencement of the world's glori-
of truth here the gospel can only be under- fication. Lange with truth brings forward the
stood; but it is more probable that the article idea that if Christians are dnapxri, they are
is omitted because Aoyos aAij^etas, as an idea sureties for the future glorification of the
definite in itself, did not require the article to world; but that the first believers of Israel in
designate it. their unity are sureties for the future conver-
s According to Lange's supposition, "this sion of the nation, is an introduced idea which
teleological mode of expression is chosen in is not indicated by James.

CHAP. I. 19. 59
KTiapuruv airoi. But against this is, on the one hand, the added nva, and on
the other hand, the existing necessity of conceiving as added to Knauuruv an
attribute, as veuv or ku'ivuv, since the expression rd Kriapara Qeoi is not taken
by itself, those who are born again, but generally, the creatures of God. It
is still more arbitrary to take dirapxy as equivalent to irpuroi, in the sense
of Tipiuraroi (Oecumenius ; Morus : omnium creaturarum carissimi et dignis-
simi; the favorites among His creatures), and then to refer the verse to
the dignity of man generally, as the scholiast explains : ryv bpupivyv kt'ioiv
ipyaiv, yg ripiurepov rbv dvBpuirov Ibei^ev.^ By airov (Lachmann and Buttmann,
avroi ; Tischendorf, iairov), emphatically added, the creatures are indicated
as God's property.
Ver. 19. To ver. 18 is annexed at first the exhortation to hear, and then
in ver. 22 the more extended exhortation, not only to be hearers, but also
doers of the word. By the reading uare, the connection with the preceding
is evidently expressed, uare being with the following imperative, as in 1 Cor.
iii. 21 ; Phil. ii. 12 = itaque, therefore. This reading is, however, suspicious,
as not only predominant authorities declare for the reading tare, but also lore
might be easily changed into uare, in order to mark the thoughts in this
verse as an inference from ver. 18. It is true the be after earu, conjoined
with this reading (in B and C), appears to be harsh ; but it may be ex
plained from this, that the sentence earu . . . raxvg eig rb daovaai, k.t.X, is intro
duced as being almost a proverbial expression.. The reading of A: eare be
, . . Kal earu, appears to be a correction, in order to unite this verse more
closely with the preceding, iare may be either indicative (comp. Heb. xii.
17 ; usually oiSart) or imperative ; it is at all events to be referred, not to what
goes before,^ but to what follows, as otherwise roiro, or something similar,
by which it would be referred back to ver. 18, would require to be added.
Semler explains it as an indicative, paraphrasing it : non ignorcdis istud
carmen; Ecclus. v. 11: yivov raxvg iv dKpodaei aov, k.tX. As, however, the
sentence in question is here expressed in different words, so it is not to be
assumed that James would here refer to that passage in Ecclesiasticus. It
is thus better to consider lore as an imperative, as it then corresponds to
pi) irXavuaBe (ver. 16), and serves strongly to impress the following sentence
on the readers, in favor of which also is the address dbe?4oi pov dyairyroi
added here as well as there ; see also chap ii. 5 : diwiaare, db. p. dy. — The
sentence is entirely general : let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow
to wrath. Whilst Laurentius and others consider this as a sententia generalis,
which stands in no internal connection with the preceding, but is pressed
upon the readers in its entire generality,. most interpreters supply to d/coS-
aai, from the preceding context, rbv Ibyov d2,yBeiag; thus Estius, Gataker,
Goraar, Piscator, Hornejus, Baumgarten, Rosenmiiller, Pott, Hottinger,
Gebser, De Wette, Wiesinger, and others ; but this is arbitrary, particularly
as TOf dvBpuirog points to the universality of the sentence. However, the
' Thus Schulthess : Divino rationis et bra- ' De Wette explains it : " Ye know this,
tionis munere, cujus ex tot animantium gene- namely, that he has regenerated us ; " but this,
rlbus atque naturis homo solus est particeps, as he himself confesses, gives a wholly unsat-
principatum dignitatis ei datum cernimus. isfaotory sense.

60 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
intention of James is not to inculcate it on his readers in its general sense,
but he wishes rather that they, as Christians, should apply it to their Chris
tian conduct ; so that for them dKoiaai certainly refers to Uyog ri/g uT.yBeiag
(Heisen, Schneckenburger,^ Theile). ¦ipuv is therefore not to be supplied to
¦n-dg dvBpuirog, still we may say with Semler : pertinet ad Christianos, quatenus
sunt Christiani ; but the expression is, as part of the general sentence, like
wise to be retained in its general meaning; but what holds good of all men,
in a peculiar manner holds good of Christians. — The ideas raxvg and iSpaSvg,
in the N. T. only here (in Luke xxiv. 25, Bpabvg has a different ineaning),
form a direct contrast.^ By 0paSvg eig dpyyv added to the second clause, James
announces what kind of speaking he means, namely, speaking cf bpyyg.^ But
from ver. 20 it is evident that by opyy — which, as Cremer correctly remarks,
denotes not the passive affection, but active displeasure directed toward any
one — is to be understood sinful and passionate zeal. l3paSvg is to be taken
in both clauses in the same sense, which — as is often the case with expres
sions in figurative language — goes beyond the literal and direct idea of the
word, as Hornejus correctly explains it in reference to the second clause : ita
Jubet tardos ad iram esse, ut ab eo nos prorsus retrahat. Several expositors
refer both clauses, others at least the second chiefly or alone, to the conduct
toward God, with or without an express reference to ver. 13.* But this is
inooiTCct ; the bpyy to which James alludes is rather carnal zeal, which will
censure its neighbor, whose fruit is not eipyvy, but uKaraaraala (chap. iii. 16).
The warning is addressed to those Christians who misuse the gospel (the
/loyof dlyBeiag) as the Pharisees did the law, not for their own sanctification,
but for the gratification of their censoriousness and quarrelsome temper;
see chap. iii. Although James with this exhortation has specially in view
the conduct of Christians in their assemblies, yet 'Xa'Xyaai must not be re
stricted to the idea of mere teaching (Bede, Hornejus, Hottinger, De Wette,
Briickner, and others). TuAyaai is a more comprehensive term than biSdaKeiv
which is included in it.
Ver. 20 gives the reason of the exhortation (ipabvg eig bpyyv : For the wrath
of man works not the righteousness of God. The preponderance of authorities
* Schneckenburger : quamvis de sensu dubi- passion to which one is led from eagerness iu
tari nequeat, nempe de addiscendo Adycf, d\rj- speaking by warmth, he evidently understands
fletas caveas tamen vocem banc Xoyov putes this as something to be entirely rejected. Ac-
grammatice subandiendam ; sed Jacobus regu. cording to Bouman, the anger here is meant to
lam istam generalum ... ita hic subnectit, which one is inflamed by the AaAeii/ of aiiotAer.
ut eam ad rem christianam imprimis valere ¦* On (SpaS. ets to AaA., Bengel remarks; ut
moneat. nil loquatur contra Deum, nee sinistre de Deo;
2 As in Philo, De conf. ling., p. 327 B : /Spa- and on opyrj : ira sive impatientla erga Deum,
6i;9 wtf)eA77t7at, Taxus ^Aai/fat (sec ZJ/o (?., 32). iracundla erga proximum. Gebser explains
3 The circumstance is in favor of this close op-yij = anger, displeasure at God on account of
connection of these two last clauses, that if the persecutions. Calvin also has this refer-
AaAJjffai is here taken in a wider sense (as ence in view when he says: certe nemo unquam
Gunkel thinks), then a different signification bonus erit Dei discipulus nisi qui silendo eum
must be given to 3paSuy in the two clauses, as audiat; . . . non enim Deus nisi sedato animo
bpy-q here, as the following verse shows, must audiri potest, as is evident from the note :
be taken in a bad sense. Lange thinks that (Jacobus) vult proterviam nostram corripere,
James does not absolutely reject opyij ; but ne . . . intempestive obstrepamus Deo.
whilst he understauds by opy^ eagerness of

CHAP. L 20. 61
decides against the reading xarepyd^erai, and in favor of ipyd^erai. From the
fact that biKaioavvyv is twice in the N. T., namely Acts x. 35 and Heb. xi. 33,
joined with the simple verb, it does not follow that ipyu(erai is a later correc
tion (against De Wette, Wiesinger), especially as KarepydCeaBai is also found
united with abstract substantives, as in Rom. i. 27 with ryv daxripoavvyv, in
Rom. ii. 9 with rb KaKov, and in Rom. vii. 18 with rd koUv. With the read
ing ipydl^erai, — and also with Karepyd^erai, when this latter, as is frequently
the case (see especially Rom. ii. 9, 10), is synonymous with the former, —
diKaioavvy is equivalent to rb b'maiov, as is frequently the case in the O. and
N. T. ; see Acts x. 35 above referred to, and the frequently occurring phrase :
rroieiv ryv SiKaioavvyv, Gen. xviii. 19 ; Isa. Ivi. 1 ; Matt. vi. 1 ; 1 John ii. 29, iii.
7, 10; Rev. xxii. 11. Qeni is added in contrast to dvbpbg for the sake of a
more exact statement, so that diKaioavvy Qeov is the righteousness willed by God ^
(similar to rb SUaiov evuiriov rov Qeov, Acts iv. 19 ; Luther : " The wrath of
man works not that which is right before God") ; so Beza, Hornejus, Wolf,
Bengel, De Wette, Bouman, and others, correctly explain it. The opposite
of Smaioavvyv Qeov ipyd^eadai is dpapriav ipyu^eaBai, chap. ii. 9 (comp. Matt.
vii. 1: ipyaC ryv dvopiav; 1 Macc. ix. 23 : tpya^. ryv dbiuav ; also comp. Rom.
ii. 10: ipya^. rb dyaBbv, Gal. vi. 10). James was the more constrained to
give prominence to this idea, as bpyy itself and the words flowing from it
were considered by the pharisaical disposition of Christians, against whom
this warning is directed, and of whom it was said : f^Aov Qtoi exovaiv, dXK ou
/car' eiriyvuait, Rom. X. 2, as something that was pleasing to God. With the
reading Karepydi^erai this verb may also be equivalent to effect, to bring
about (as ver. 3). Gebser, Grashof, and others understand, in accordance
with this view, by diKOMavvy Qeovi "the condition of justification before
God ; " but, on the one hand, an unsuitable thought is expressed by this,
and, on the other hand, a mode of expressing the idea biKaioavvy roi Qeoi,
peculiar to Paul, is without ceremony ascribed to James. But as little is it
to be justified when Wiesinger, following Hofmann (Schriftbew. i., ed. 1,
p. 548 f.), finds expressed in the words of James, that "one by wrathful
zeal effects not on others the biK. Qeoi, i.e., that state of righteousness in
which God begets men by His word of truth." ^ Though dwaioavvy Qeoi can
denote the righteousness wrought by God, yet this idea is here unsuitable,
since no man could entertain the opinion that his wrath could do what
can only be effected by God. Also in this case James would only emphasize
an impossibility of bpyy, whereas he was required to bring prominently for
ward its rejection ; moreover, on others is inserted into the text.^ The same
1 It is true the expression SiKaioir-uvri ©eoG thought, in the explanation given in the first
occurs not elsewhere in this sense; but this can edition. When he defines the distinction in
be the less an objection to it, as the relation in the use of the idea SiKaioirvvtj ©eou, in Rom. i.
which the genitive ©eov is placed to SiKatoirvvij 17 and here, to consist in this, that Paul speaks
is not entirely opposed to the genitive of rela- of justification, James of regeneration, the
tion, as is evident if we designate the Sik. 0. untenableness of his explanation is the more
as that SiKaioavvTi which is actually so accord- evident, for tiiat 6py^ produces regeneration
ing to the determination of God. could occur to no one.
2 In the second edition (p. 628), Hofmann s Contrary to the biblical use of language,
has indeed altered the words, but not the Oecumenius explains the expression SiKaioavvy

62 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
reasons are also decisive against the explanation of Briickner (" the wrath
of man works not the righteousness which God accomplishes — this generali^f
stated both in respect to the dvyp and in respect to others on whom one
strives to work "), in which a twofold reference is arbitrarily assumed.
Bruckner correctly rejects the explanation of Lange, that James speaks
against "the delusion of wrath, which imagines to administer and accom
plish in the world the righteou.sness of God especially against unbelievers,"
because there is no reference to this in the context; it is, moreover, linguis
tically unmaintainable, as ipyd^eaBai does not mean " to administer and
accomplish." — dvbpbg stands here as in vv. 8 and 12; it forms a contrast
neither to the child (Thomas : ira fortis et deliberate non dicit pueri, qui cito
transit), nor to the woman (Bengel: sexus virilis maxime iram alit), nor to
dvBpuirog, ver. 19 (Lange).
Ver. 21. James infers (6i6) from the thought in ver. 20 the exhortation
h> irpavryri be^aaBe rbv epipvrov "Xbyov, with evident reference to direKvyaev ypdg Uyu
dlyBeiag (ver. 18). He places before this exhortation the participial clause:
diroBipevot . . . KaKiag ; laying aside all filthiness and abundance of wickedness,
i.e., all filthy and abundantly prevalent wickedness. The word fivirapia (dir. ley.
in the N. T.) is here figurative (synonymous with uKaBapaia in Rom. vi. 19
and other places), as pvirapbg and pvirapevu, Rev. xxii. 11 (fmirapbg occui's in its
literal sense in chap. ii. 2 : (tvirog in 1 Pet. iii. 21). Several interpreters (Cal
vin, Rosenmiiller, Baumgarten, Hornejus, Bouman, Lange, and others) take
it here as standing alone, equivalent to moral uncleanness (see 2 Cor. vii. 1 :
irdg poXvapbg aapKbg Kal irvevparog), either generally "every immoral disposition,''
or specifically as avaritia (Storr), or scortatio (Laurentius), or vilia intempe-
rantiae, gulae et lasciviae (Heisen), or "filth in a religious theocratical sense"
(Lange) ; but it is better to join fn)irapiav with Kaxiag (Theile, De Wette,
Wiesinger, and others), so that the ethical judgment of the author on the
Kaua is thereby expressed (comp. Acts xv. 20; Rev. xvii. 4), equivalent to
¦jTuaav KaKiav (yvirapdv, or less exactly (iviraivovaav rbv dvBpuirov (Schol. on Matt.) ;
only the idea is more strongly brought forward by the substantive than by
the adjective. The word irepiaaeia, united to fivirapiav by the copulative koI
(not, as Schneckenburger thinks, exegetical ; in the cited passages, John i. 16
and 1 Cor. iii. 5, the position of Kai is entirely different), foreign to classical
Greek, has in the N. T. the signification abundance ; properly, "abundance
flowing over the measure," which Lange incorrectly renders " outflow, com
munication of life;" see Rom. v. 17; 2 Cor. viii. 2, x. 15. Nevertheless,
the word has been here taken in a meaning corresponding to pvirapia, and
has been explained as = irepiaaapa excrementum (Beza, Piscator, Erasmus,
Schmid, and others), or also growth (Losner, Pott, Hottinger, Kern, Schnecken
burger, De Wette). But both meanings are arbitrary. The defenders of
the second explanation indeed appeal to the passage in Philo, De Vict. Off.
as equivalent to e^ts ev tpvxfi Kar' a^iav eKatTTt^ probatur. — Several commentators (also Kern)
<iirove(i>)Tiic^. Pott, wholly arbitrarily, refers to this verse cite Ecclus. 1. 21 : ov Sw-rjirerai,
the verse to the teachers of the Christian reli- 6u/xbs aSiKosfiiKatwfl^i'at; but incorrectly, since
gian, paraphrasing it: Iratus nequit docere fitKatueTji/at has an entirely different meaning
religionem christianum prout fas est Deoque from Karepyd^eaBai. SiKaiotrvvyv ©eov.

CHAP. L 21. 63
p. 854 B : irepiriuveaBe , . . rag irepirriig fvaetg (fortasse iuipvaeig, De Wette) rov
yyepoviKov ; but from this passage it does not follow that irepiaaeia can
be explained de ramis in vite vel arbore abundantibus falceque resecandis
(Losner). It is equally unjustifiable when Kuttner, Michaelis, Augusti,
Gebser, Bouman, and others explain irepiaaeia Kadag as " Kada surviving from
earlier times," and thus take irepiaaeia as synonymous with irepiaaevua (Mark
viii. 8). Against all these arbitrary views, Theile, Wiesinger, Briickner, cor
rectly retain the word in the same sense which it has elsewhere in the N. T.,
so that irepiaaeia Kauag is the abundance of KOKla, i.e., the abundantly existing
Kada ; only iv ipXv is hardly to be supplied as if James had only his readers
specially in view (Theile: quod lectoribus peculiare erat). — Kaxia is not here
synonymous with irovypia (1 Cor. v. 8) = vitiosilas (Semler, Theile, and others),
but according to the context, in contrast with iv irpavryri, as in Eph. iv. 31,
Col. iii. 8, Tit. iii. 3, 1 Pet. ii. 1, a more special idea, namely, the hostile
disposition toward our neighbor which we call malignity (Cremer : malevo
lence, as social faultiness). Wiesinger inaccurately takes it as equivalent
to bpyy, as that is only one cf the proofs of «a/cia ; incorrectly, Rosenmiiller =
morositas.^ On diroBipevoi, comp. Eph. iv. 25; 1 Pet. ii. 1; Heb. xii. 1.^
The participle precedes as a subordinate thought to bi^aoBe, because in con
sequence of man's sinful nature room only can be made for the good by the
rejection of the bad. Also, where similar sentences are co-ordinate, the ex
hortation to dworiBeaBai precedes; comp. Rom. xiii. 12, Eph. iv. 22, 23, and
also the exhortation of Christ: peravoeirs Kal iriarevere, Mark i. 15. — In the
positive exhortation : iv irpavryri be^aaBe rbv epiPvrov ?.byov], iv upavryn emphati
cally precedes, in contrast to the Kada from which fiows opyy. npavryg
(= irpabryg) denotes a loving, gentle disposition toward our neighbor ; comp.
1 Cor. iv. 21, 2 Tim. ii. 25, Tit. iii. 2, and other passages ; the opposite is
opyMryg (Rape's Gr. Wbrterb.) ; incorrectly, Calvin : Hoc verbo significat mo-
destiam et facilitatem mentis ad discendum compositae. iv irpavryn does not
therefore mean docili animo (Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Hottinger), nor " with a
modest disposition, which recognizes the good deeds of Christianity " (Geb
ser). Also ev irp. de^aaBe is not a pregnant construction, as if the sense were:
monet . . . illo "kbyu duce npavryra exerceant (Schneckenburger) ; but James
exhorts to the reception of the word iv irpavryri, in contrast to those who hear
the word in order to use it as a weapon of hatred (condemning others). —
di^aaBe (opp. to 'Kalyaai, ver. 19) corresponds to wcoiaai, but expresses
more than that, namely, " the inner reception, the taking hold of it with
the heart;'' comp. 1 Thess. i. 6. The object belonging to it: rbv Myov
Ipfvrov, can only be the same as what was called the ?.byog dTiyBelag in
1 Meyer's translation : malice (Rom. i. 29), ' To the assertion of Lange, that diroSepevoi
malicious disposition (Col. iii. 8), would also is not to be rendered putting off, because the
not be entirely suitable, but too special. How reference is not figuratively to the putting ofl
Luther has understood the idea, cannot be of filthy garments, but remou-in^,* the passages
determined from his translation wickedness Eora. xiii. 12 (an-oeiujweda . . . evSv(ru}peda) and
(Bosheit) ; since he thus constantly renders Eph. iv. 22, 24, and the etymology of the word,
Kaxia, it may be taken in a general or in a are opposed.
special sense ; the word " badness " (Schlechtig-
keit) does not occur with him.

64 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
ver. 18 (Wiesinger); it is neither "the reason innate in man,"i nor the
so-called inner light of the mystics, nor the gospel "in its subjective
form of life " (Lange). The verb bexeaBai is opposed to these explana
tions. James designates the gospel a }u>yov epijwrov, inasmuch as it was
no longer strange to the hearts of his readers as Christians; also be
cause it was not merely transmitted (Hottinger: epijmiog = traditus), but
implanted.^ The verb beiaaBe does not confiict with this, as the word
by which the new birth is effected among Christians is to them ever
proclaimed anew, and must by them be ever received anew, in order that
the new life may be preserved and increased in them. It is therefore not
necessary, agaiust the use of language, to change the idea: verbum quod
implantalum or insertum est, into verbum quod implantatur or inseritur, or to
assume here a prolepsis, as is undoubtedly the case in 1 Cor. i. 8, Phil. iii. 21
(see Meyer in loco), and 1 Thess. iii. 13 (Liinemann in loco), and with Calvin
to explain it : ita suscipite ut vere inseratur (similarly Semler, De Wette,^ and
others). The mode in which the adjective is united with the substantive is
opposed to a prolepsis, which would be only imaginable were it said : rbv
?Myov epipvrov raig KapSiaig ipijv, or something similar. — For the strengthening
of the exhortation expressed, James -annexes to rbv epipvrov Tubyov the clause
rbv bvvdpevov auaai rug ipvxdg vpuv, by which, on the one hand, the value of the
/loj-of is prominently brought forward, and, on the other hand, is indicated
what result ought to arise from the hearing of the word. By the verb bvvd-
fievov, not the freedom of the human will (Serrarius: quod potest salvare, ut
arbitrii libertas indicetur), but the power of the word, is emphasized ; it is, as
Paul says, bivapig Qeoi eig aurypiav irdvri ru iriarevovn (Rom. i. 16). But if it
has this power, man must receive it, and that in a right manner, so that
it may prove its efficacy in him and save his soul. It is to be observed
that James says this of his readers, whom he had previously designated as
born again (ver. 18). Thus, according to James, Christians by the new
birth do not as yet possess aurypia (the future salvation), but its obtainment
is conditioned by their conduct. — Instead of rdg ipvxdg vp/jv, James might
simply have written vpdg, but Schneckenburger correctly warns : Cave pro
mera sumas circumscriptione personalis; animi enim proprie res agitur ; see
chap. V. 20.
Ver. 22. The exhortations given in ver. 19 form the starting-point for
what follows. The next section, to the end of chap, ii., is attached to the
I Oecumenius ; tov SiaKpiriKov toO jSeAWoi'os of truth, that it may grow in you by that new
Kal TOU x«ipo*'05' '^'^^* ° ""^ AoytKol ecrpev Kai birth.' " But opposed to this, it is to be ob-
\ey6pe9a; see Constit. Apost,, viii. 12: vopov sei-ved that the word is not implanted by the
SeSwKas ep^vrov, second birth, but that the second birth is the
2 Lange incorrectly explains the ev vplv to fruit of the implanted word. In conclusion
be supplied to ep<l}vTov " in and among you," De Wette remarks : " It must be taken rather
referring it to *he Jewish Christians and the as a reference to the whole of Christendom
Jews. than to individuals : the word Implanted iu us
s De Wette expresses himself doubtfully: Christians." But the individual is onlv a
" Either the adjective is used proleptieally, or, member of the Church by having the word of
which I prefer, it is the word implanted by the God implanted in hira. Briickner has given
second birth; but by this also, on accouut of the correct explanation.
Se^aoOe, a prolepsis occurs, ' receive the word

CHAP. I. 23. 65
thought raxig eig rb aKoiaat, which is continued in be^aaBe rbv epijivrov TJbyav.
The word must be so heard and received that it produces a corresponding
activity. James first expresses this thought briefly and definitely : " Be ye
doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." The
verb yiveaBe is neither intended to express the successionem perpetuam horum
exercitiorum (Semler), nor to indicate that hitherto the readers had not been
iroiyral ?^yov ; this indication is contained in the whole exhortation, but not
in the verb, which is to be translated not by become, but by be ; comp. chap.
iii. 1; Matt. vi. 16, x. 16, xxiv. 44; John xx. 27; Rom. xii. 16.^ The par
ticle be. unites this verse with the preceding as its completion. The readers
ought to be iroiyral yioyov, namely, of the ?^yog ipdmrog (ver. 21), or of the ?.byog
dlyBeiag (ver. 18), the gospel, inasmuch as it requires a definite Christian con
duct, and on this account in ver. 25 is expressly called a vbpog. On ¦Koiyrai,
comp. Jas. iv. 11 ; 1 Macc. ii. 67 ; Rom. ii. 13 (John vii. 19 : rroielv rbv vbpov);
in the classical language, 4 iroiyiyg vbpov is the lawgiver. Theile correctly
observes : Substantiva plus sonant quam participia ; the substantive expresses
the enduring relation. — In the reading pij dKpoaral pbvov, pbvov is closely united
with dKpoaral : not such who are only hearers. The word dicpoaryg, in classical
Greek " an attentive hearer," occurs in the N. T. only here and in Rom.
ii. 13, but both times without that additional meaning. On the thought,
comp. besides Rom. ii. 13 (where the same contrast is expressed). Matt.
vii. 21 ff. ; Luke xi. 28 ; John xiii. 17. — irapaloyi^bpevoi belongs to the sub
ject contained in yiv»aBe (De Wette, Wiesinger), deceiving your own selves,
and not as a more exact definition of dKpoaral, " hearers who deceive them
selves " (Stolz, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Lange). The import of the word
(besides here in the N. T. only in Col. ii. 4, in the 0. T. Gen. xxix. 25,
LXX. ; synonymous expressions are found in ver. 26 ; Gal. vi. 3 ; 1 John
i. 8) is to draw false inferences, to deceive by sophistical reasoning. The warn
ing is directed against such who deceive themselves by sophisms on the
utility of mere hearing.
Ver. 23. This exhortation is confirmed by a comparison. Therefore : on,
which is not superfluous (Pott). This verse expresses the similitude ; ver. 24
the tertium comparationis. A hearer, who is not a doer, is to be compared to
a man who contemplates his bodily form in a glass. Hornejus, Rosenmiiller,
Semler, Pott, and others attach to the word Karavoelv the additional meaning
of a transitory observation, against the etymology and the linguistic use
of the word (comp. Luke xii. 24, 37; Acts vii. 31, 32, xi. 6). The point of
transitoriness, or, more correctly, of transitory contemplation, is contained
not in the verb, but in the situation, which in ver. 24 is prominently brought
forward by koI direlr/lvBev. On the rhetorical usage of again resuming the
foregoing subject (which is here expressed by el ng, k.t.X) by oirof, see
Winer, p. 144 (E. T., 160) ; A. Buttmann, p. 262 (E. T., 347) ; on iome,
1 Meyer certainly explains the Imperative usage, to consider yivov as equivalent to ItrSi,
yivov, yiveaee, uniformly by " become thou," is explained from the fact that the Christian
" become ye ; " but this meaning is frequently must yet ever more become that which he as a
retained in a manner more or less forced; Christian ia.
comp. especially John xx. 27. The N. T.

66 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
see ver. 6 ; dvSpi, as in ver. 8, and frequently with James. ^ — rb irpbauirov ryg
yeveaeug airov. By irpbauirov is here meant not the whole form (Baumgarten,
Hensler, Pott, Schneckenburger), but the face. By T^f yeveaeug is " more
plainly indicated the sphere of mere material perception, from which the
comparison is taken, as distinguished from the ethical sphere of dKpodaBai "
(Wiesinger). yeveaig denotes not so much the natural Ufe as the natural
birth, so that the phrase is to be interpreted : the countenance ivhich one pos
sesses by his natural birth. See Eustathius in Od., ix. p. 663, 25.^ — Whether
atiToC belongs to the whole idea, or only to the genitive, is uncertain. Winer,
p. 212, leaves it undecided; Wiesinger is for the first rendering; but the
union here (as well as in Col. i. 13) with the genitive appears to be more
natural. Ver. 24. With this verse begins the explanation of the image given in
ver. 25 (therefore ydp), whilst Karavoelv rb irpbauirov t. yev. aiirov is again
resumed by Karevbyaev eavrov. By direlylvBev the point of the mere transitori
ness of the contemplation in the glass only before presupposed is brought
forward, and by imMBero the result of such a contemplation is added, by
which the points of application, which James employs, are brought out.
The emphasis lies on dire?,.y?LvBev and evBeug iire7MBero. The form of represen
tation is here the same as in ver. 11. It is not a particular instance which
may occur (Wiesinger), but a general statement which is here introduced in
the form of a single incident, as the contemplating one's self in the glass is
always only a temporary and not a permanent state. » The hearing of the
word answers to Karavoelv ; the averting of the mind from what is heard, to
diripxeaBai ; and the being unconcerned about what is heard, by which the
realization of the word in the life is prevented, to evBiug eirilavBdveaBat. James
can only think on man according to his ethical condition in relation to the
demands of the divine will, as corresponding to irpbauirov r. y. or iavrbv in
the application. It is true that he does not definitely state this ; but from
this it does not follow that James, overlooking all other considerations, has
had only in view generally the contents of the word, because the comparison
of the word with a glass, which gives to him who looks in it to see his own
image, would be without meaning.^ On the use of the perfect (direXylvBev)
between the aorists, see Winer, p. 243 f. (E. T., 278). — On birolog yv, Wie
singer correctly remarks, "namely, in the glass."
Ver. 25 does not give the simple application of the image, but rather
describes, with reference to the foregoing image, the right hearer, and says
of him that he is pandpiog iv ry iroiyaei avroi. In this description the three
> The remark of Paes, approved of by Lange, pravity of the natural man" is chiefiy to be
is curious: viri obiter tantum solent specula thought on; but this is not entirely suitable,
intueri, muliebre autem est, curiose se ad as James addresses Christians who as such are
speculum componere. no longer natural raen. In a wholly arbitrary
2 Lange argues against this explanation, manner is the reference inserted by some in
whilst, mingling in a most confused mauner Karevoijaev to 'spots which disfigure the face.
the image employed with the thing itself, he 'Wolf : de tralatitia speculi inspectione loquitur
explains n-pdo-uTToi' as " the image of the inner Apostolus; talis vero efficit, ut maculas non
man's appearance according to his sinful con- perspiclas atque adeo de iis abstergendls non
¦ ditlon." cogites ; similarly Pott and others.
3 According to most interpreters, " the de-

CHAP. I. 25. 67
points named in ver. 24 are carefully observed : irapaKvipag eig, k.t.X, answers
to Karevbyaev {iv iabirrpu), irapapeivag tO direlylvBev, and ovk dKpoaryg iirikyapovyg
to iireXuBero. The sentence consists of a simple combination of subject and
predicate; yevbpevog is not to be resolved into the finite verb yiverai (Pott).
The predicate commences, after the subject is summed up, in otrrof with
puKaptog. — This is also the case with the textus receptus, where a ovrog is put
' before ovk dKpoaryg ; for, since with this reading the first ovrog is simply re
sumed by the second ovrog (before paKupiog), equivalent to hic, inquam, the
words OVK dKpoaryg . . . epyov only serve to give a more exact designation of
the subject, irapaKvipag ... (cat irapapeivag being thus more clearly defined.
Thus these words begin not the apodosis or principal sentence, as if James
would here, in contrast to ver. 24, show that the right hearing and appropria
tion leads to the doing, (and thereby) to the blessedness of doing (against
Wiesinger). Were this his object, he would have been obliged to put the
finite verb instead of the participle yevbpevog, and a koI after epyov. The
subject is accordingly : but whosoever looks into the perfect law of liberty and
eontinueth therein, being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man.
— The aorist participles are explained from the close connection of this
verse with the preceding, where the same tense was used. There is no copu
lative Kai before the participial clause ovk dKpoaryg, k.t.X, because the doing of
the law is the necessary consequence of the continued looking into it, and it
would otherwise have the appearance as if irapaKvirreiv and rrapapeveiv could
take place without iroielv following. i The verb irapaKvirreiv (properly, bending
one's self near an object in order to view it more exactly, Luke xxiv. 12 ; John
XX. 5, 11 ; 1 Pet. i. 12; Ecclus. xi'v. 23, xxi. 23) refers back, indeed, to Kara
voelv, but is a stronger idea. James has fittingly chosen this verb as verbum
ad imaginem speculi humi aut mensae impositi adaptatum (Schneckenburger ; see
also Theile, Wiesinger). Luther inaccurately translates it: looketh through.
As the accent is on irapa, the verb irapapeivag is used afterwards. By eig is
expressed. not only the direction to something, but the intensity of the look
into the inner nature of the law. irapapeivag (not eontinueth therein, as Luther
translates it, but thereat) is added to irapaKvipag, — without the article, because
the two points are to be considered as most closely connected, — indicating
the continued consideration of the vbuog, from which action necessarily
follows. Schneckenburger incorrectly gives to the verb napapeveiv here
(appealing to Acts xiv. 22 ; Gal. iii. 10 ; Heb. viii. 9) the meaning to
" observe the law; " but the subject treated of here is not the observance, but
" the appropriation which leads to action " (Wiesinger), or " the remaining
in the yielding of one's self to the object by contemplating it " (Lange). By
vbpog releiog b ryg ilevBeplag '¦' is meant neither the O. T. law, nor lex naturalis
(Schulthess), but Ibyog okyBtlag (ver. 18), thus the gospel, inasmuch as it
1 Lange agrees in essentials with this ex- doing of which James speaks, however neces-
planation, but he thinks that by it " the full sarily the latter results from the former.
energy of the idea is not preserved ; " it should - Kern Incorrectly maintains that this ex-
rather have been said that " the irapaKvi/ias and pression is formed according to the Pauline
irapapeiva<i, as such, is irotijTT]? epyov yevo- phraseology : v6po<; Toi) uvevparo'; tijs i'wjjs ev
mevos ;" but the looking in and continuing ^-e Xp. 'Iyjo-oG, Rom. viii. 2; fd/ios t^s irtaTews,
evidently in themselves not identical wilh the Eom. iii. 27; i/dnot- XpiirTov, Gal. vl. 2; as if

68 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
places before the Christian — by reason of redemption — the rule of his life.
This evangelical vdpog, indeed, resembles the O. T. vbpog in expressing no other
will of God, but differs from it in that it only is the vbpxig ryg ilevdepiag, the
vbpog releiog. It not only confronts man as enjoining, but, resting on the love
of God, it creates the new life from which joyful obedience springs forth
voluntarily and unconstrained; it gives ilevBepla, which the O. T. vdpog was
not able to give, and thus proves itself as the perfect law in contrast to
the imperfect law of the Old Covenant. It is true that even in the O. T. the
sweetness of the law was subject of praise (Ps. xix. 8-11), but the life-
giving power belonged to the law only in an imperfect manner, because the
covenant on which it rested was as yet only one of promise and not of fulfil
ment. It is accordingly incorrect to explain the additional attribute as if
James considered the O. T. law, according to the Pauline manner, as a t;vybg
bovleiag (Gal. v. 1), for of this there is no trace. * Many expositors under
stand by vbpog releiog, k.t.X, the gospel, as the joyful message of salvation, or
the doctrina evangelii, or simply gratia evangelii, namely, in contrast to the
0. T. economy; which, however, corresponds neither to the language of James
nor to his mode of contemplation. — In the additional participial sentence,
the ideas dKpoaryg iirilyapovyg and Troiyryg epyov are opposed to each other.
dKpoaryg imlyapovyg (the word, foreign to classical Greek, is in the N. T. a
UTT. ley. ; it is found in Ecclus. xi. 27 ; among classical writers ; eiri?^yapy,
imlyapoavvy) is = u/cp. eirilrjauuv, a hearer to whom forgetfulness belongs. To
Troiyryg, epyov is attached in order to make still more prominent the idea of
activity, which indeed is already contained in iroiyryg. The singular does not
properly stand for the plural (Grotius : effector eorum operum, quae evangelica
lex exigit), but " is designed to import that it here results in something, in
the doing of work" (Wiesinger). Those ideas, which appear not to corre
spond, yet form a true antithesis, since the law is inoperative on the forgetful
hearer, but incites him who is an attentive hearer to a corresponding activity
of life. James says of him who is thus described : he (ovrog) is blessed in his
deed, irolyaig in N. T. air. ley., in Ecclus. xix. 20 : iroiyaig vbuov. The prepo
sition iv is not to be exchanged with bid, for by iv the internal connection of
doing and blessedness is marked ; Bruckner : " the blessing innate in such
doing is meant." earai is therefore not to be referred to the future life; but
it is by it announced what is even here directly connected with the irolyaig ;
James, however, certainly considered this paKapibryg as permanent. The
thought here expressed refers to the last words of ver. 21, completing them,
showing that the loyog has the effect there stated (auaai rag ipvxag) in him
who so embraces it that it leads him to irolyaig.^
James must have borrowed the designation of ex promissione gratuita ; " but this is a caution
what was to him the cardinal point of Christian foreign to the context. Lange inappropriately
life from another, and could not himeelf on- intermingles ideas when he reckons to this
ginate it. ttoi'tio-is particularly confession, and thinks that
' It is to be obseivcd that even in the so- James above all things Indicated that the Jews
called apostolic council at Jerusalem James should confess Christ, and that the Jewish
did not, as Peter, call the law a fuyds. Christians should fully acknowledge their
2 Laurentius adds to the last words of the Christian brethren from the Gentiles.
verse: "Sc. non ex merito ipsius operis, sed

CHAP. I. 26, 27. 69
Ver. 26. 'Whilst James — in contrast to the hearers who fail in proof by
works — will describe the true BpyoKela (ver. 27), he first refers to the false
BpyoKela of those who — slothful in action — are raxeig eig rb lalf/aai (ver. 19).
If any one thinks to serve God, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his heart, his
worship is vain. — el ng boKei}. doKci here denotes (as in Matt. vi. 7, xxiv. 44 ;
1 Cor. iii. 18; otherwise in 1 Cor. vii. 40) ih& false opinion which one has of
something ; it is not = videtur (Calvin, Gataker, Theile, and others) ; Luther
correctly translates : " if any one imagines." — BpyaKog eivai]. BpyoKog, which
elsewhere occurs neither in the N. T. nor in the classics (the substantive be
sides here and in ver. 27, in the N. T. in Col. ii. 18 and Acts xxvi. 5), is not
equivalent to evaejUeia, inasmuch as it refers to external worship, the manifes
tation of evae/ieia, without, however, having in itself the secondary idea of
mere externality. Incorrectly Theile = religiosus singulatim cujus nimia,
nimis externa est religio, superstitiosus. In an arbitrary manner Schnecken
burger infers from the adjectives KaBapu Kal dpiavrog (ver. 27) that it is here
said of dpyoKela, quam in accurata lustrationem observatione conslantem puta-
bant Judaei ac Judaeochristiani,^ of which there is no trace in the whole
Epistle. The following words : py xalivayuyuv r^v yXHaaav avrov, indicate in
what the Bpyaxe'ia of the readers consisted. It is incorrect, with Rosenmiiller,
Theile, and others, to supply exempli causa, and, as most interpreters do, to
resolve the participle by although ; James will blame those who reckon zeal
in speaking as a sign of dpyoKe'ia.^ The verb x^Xvayayelv, in the N. T. only
in James, is also found in classical language only in the later classics ; comp.
the expression in Plato, De Legg. ii. : u;t;a?.n'ov KeKrypevoi rb arbpa. — By the
seoond participial sentence: uXld diraruv Kapblav avrov, James expresses his
judgment — already indicated by the expression py xalivayuyuv — on the
opinion of serving God by laleiv iv bpyy. Pott correctly : sc. eo quod nimiam
docendi licentiam et linguae extemperantiam pro vera BpyaKeig. habet. The
clause belongs not to the apodosis (Schneckenburger), but, as in form so in
meaning, is closely connected with the preceding participle. The expres
sion diraruv Kapblav avrov corresponds to irapaloyi^eaBai eavrov (ver. 22), but is
a stronger form, although it does not indicate only the consequence resulting
from zeal (Lange)." Erasmus incorrectly explains diraig.v by sinere aberrare.
The apodosis, which emphatically begins with rovrov, declares that such a
BpyoKeia is not only without fruit (Baumgarten), but without actual contents,
is thus foolish and vain, corresponding to the thought : bpy^ biKaioaivyv Qeoi
oil {Kar)epydZerai (ver. 20).
Ver. 27. To BpyoKeia pdraiog is opposed BpyoKcia Kadapd Kal dpiavrog irapd ru
1 SomeCatholicinterpreters, Salmero, Paes, appropriate antithesis to this verse. BrUckner
and others, refer the expression to the observ- explains it : " Whosoever seeks worship in
ance of the so-called consilia Christi, partlcu- striving by teaching to work on others; " here
larly to voluntary circumcision for the sake of the participle is correctly resolved, but the full
the kingdom of heaven. meaning is not given to the verb. Correctly,
2 Rauch also thinks that "the participles Lange: "Those who, by their fanatical zeal,
must certainly be resolved by although ; " but wanted to make good their pretensions of being
by this explanation all indication is wanting the true soldiers of God."
of that on which those blamed by James rest 3 Comp. Test. Napht., III. p. 665 : pri o-n-ov-
BprjaKeia ; also what follows (ver. 27) , where Sa^eTe . , , ev Adyoiy Kevoi^ d-^rar^v rdv \pvxd^
the nature of true dpjfirKeCa is given, forms uo itplbv.

70 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Oci']. KaBapbg and dpiavrog are synonymous expressions (Pott, Theile, and
others) ; the second word does not add any new idea to the first. Some
expositors (Baumgarten, Bengel, Knapp, Wiesinger) arbitrarily refer the
first word to what is internal, and the second to what is external. The
second word dpiavrog (which occurs only here and in Pleb. vii. 26, xiii. 4 ; 1
Pet. i. 4), corresponding to its connection with piaivu, pidapa, brings more
vividly forward purity as a being free from that by which the holy is defiled.
The purity of true BpyoKeia is, by the words irapd rip Qeu, K.r.X, marked as
absolute, irapd, in the Judgment of, equivalent to ivuiriov, as in 1 Pet. ii. 20 ;
comp. Winer, p. 352 (E. T., 395) ; Schirlitz, p. 340. That by this "the
attitude of a servant before the face of the commanding lord " (Lange) is
indicated, is a pure fiction. To tu ©eu is emphatically added koI irarpi, by
which the relation of God, which the author has chiefly in view, is expressed :
that of love. God, by reason of His love, can only esteem that worship as
pure which is the expression of love. The contents of pure worship is given
in the following infinitive clauses, according to its positive and negative side ;
still James evidently does not intend to give an exhaustive definition, but
he merely brings forward — in reference to the wants of his readers — two
chief points. Hermas, I. 2, Mand. 8, gives a description of these two sides
of worehip, comprehending as much as possible all particulars. The first
point is : tJie visiting of the widows and the fatherless in their affiiction, as a
manifestation of compassionate love. If it is said that the particular here
stands for the universal (the species pro genere, Hottinger, Theile, and
others); yet it is to be observed that elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures com
passion is adduced as the most direct proof of love. The verb imaKiirreaBai
here, as in Matt. xxv. 36, 43, Jer. xxiii. 2, Zech. xi. 16, Ecclus. vii. 35,
refers to the visiting of the suffering, in order to help them. By the expla
nation: "to be careful of them" (Lange), the view of a concrete instance
is introduced; opipavoi are placed first, in close connection with irarpi,^ as God
ill Ps. Ixviii. 6 is expressly called 6 irarrjp ruv opipavuv ; see also Ecclus. iv. 10 :
yivov bpipavoig dig iraryp. — The words iv ry Bliipei avrHv are not an idle addition,
but mark the condition in which the orphans and widows are found, to show
the necessity and object of imaKiirreaBai. — In the second infinitive clause,
which is added with rhetorical emphasis, dawberug,^ to the first, damlov stands
first as the chief idea. The same expression is in 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Pet- iii.
14 (iu its proper sense, 1 Pet. i. 19). The addition dnb roi Koapov, more ex
actly defining dam'lov rypelv, is neither dependent merely on rypelv (Ps. xii.
8, cxli. 9) nor merely on damlov, but on the combined idea. The sense is :
to preserve himself from the world (aTro = iK, John xvii. 15 ; comp. also the
form npoaexetv dnb, Matt. xvi. 12), so that he is not polluted by it (so also
Lange). By Koapog not merely earthly things, so far as they tempt to sin

^ The combination op^avol Kal x^pai is found etc., as keeping one's self unspotted from the
only here in the N. T. ; it often occurs in the world, being in contradiction with the peculiar
O. T. and Apocrypha, where sometimes bp^avoi charms of the world.- Lange observes : " The
and sometimes x^pat are named first. two clauses are not simply co-ordinate, but
' The asyndeton is thus explained, that the second is the reverse side or sequence of
James considered the visiting of the orphans, the flrst, its pure antithesis."

CHAP. I. 27. 71
(Schneckenburger), nor merely sinful lusts (Hottinger), nor bypubyg Kal avpipe-
rbg oxlog, b Kurd rdg imdvpiag^ryg dirdryg avrov ipBeipbpevog (Oecumenius ; according
to Laurentius and others, the homines mundani atque impii), are to be under
stood ; but the idea Koapog comprehends all these together ; it denotes the
whole earthly creation, so far as it is cut off from fellowship with God and
stands under the dominion of dpxuv roi Koapov (1 John v. 19), thus especially
the men who serve it in and with their sinful lusts ; but, also, all earthly
possessions by which sinful lust is excited, and to which it not only conforms
itself, but converts them into the instruments of its activity. — Christians
by means of their divine .birth, effected by the word of truth (ver. 18), are
indeed taken out of the Kbapog, they are no longer members of it; but on
the other hand, both by the sin which is still in them (chap. iii. 2), and by
their external intercourse, they stand in connection with the world, on which
account they have to preserve themselves from its contaminating infiuenee.
This preservation, as it is a work of God (John xvii. 15), so it is likewise a
work of man (1 Tim. v. 22), and therefore a task which believers must
continually strive to perform.

72 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.

CHAPTER II.
Ver. 2. The genuineness of the article r^v before avvayuyyv (Kec, after A,
G, K, K, corr. Tisch.) is, since B, C, K, pr. omit it (Lach.), at least doubtful.
— Ver. 3. Instead of the Eec. koj. imiSliipyre, after A, G, X, several vss.,
Oecumenius, Bede (Lach.), Tisch. has, after B, C, K, etc., adopted imBliipyre
be; which reading is the original, cannot be determined. The avru of the Eec.
(after G, K) is already rightly omitted by Griesb. ; A, B, C, X, etc., do not have it;
it was inserted for the completion of the expression (against Eeiche). In the
second clause of the verse, the Eec, after C**, G, K, X, reads aryBi iKet y kuBov
ubs; in A, C*, ube is wanting (Lach., Tisch.); B reads aryBi y KdBov iKel. The
latter reading is recommended by the sharper contrast of aryBi to the preceding
KuSov; but it is also possible that in this lies the reason of its origin; if iKcl
belongs to arf/Bi, ube after kuBov could be easily inserted, partly from the pre
ceding KaBov ube Kalug, partly to introduce the antithesis to eKei; but, on the
other hand, the original ube might also be omitted as superfluous (on account of
the following iirb rb iiroir.). Nothing can with certainty be decided. Forthe
addition of pov before ruv irobuv, adopted by Lach., only A and the Vulg. chiefly
speak. Almost all other authorities are against it. — Ver. 4. According to the
Eec, this verse commences with Kal oi bieKp'iByre (thus G, K, etc., Tisch. 7); in
A, B**, C, X, many min. and vss., Kai is wanting (Lach., Tisch. 2); ov is also
wanting in the original text of B. The omission of Kai may, indeed, be more
easily explained than its insertion, on account of which Eeiche and Bouman
consider it as genuine ; but the most important authorities are against it; the
.reading in B is to be considered as a correction (Buttmann). — Ver. 5. roi
Koapav (rovrov) is a reading evidently explanatory (against Eeiche, Bouman),
instead of ru Koapu, whose genuineness is, moreover, attested by A*, B, C*, K;
the same also with the reading iv ru Koapu. — Ver. 10. Instead of the reading
rypyaei . . . irraiaet, attested almost only by G, K, the conjunctives rypyay . . .
irralarj are to be read, with Lach. and Tisch. (against Eeiche and Bouman). —
Ver. 11. The Eec. el be ov poixevaeig, ipovevaeig di, found only in K, several min.,
Theoph., Tiscli., and Lach. read the present poixeveig, ipoveveig; thus A, C, S;
according to Tisch., also B; but, according to Buttm., B has poixeieig, ipovevaeig.
Eeiche and Bouman retain the Eec. as the original reading. — Ver. 13. The
Eec dvtleug (after G, etc.) is, after A, B, K, N, very many min., Oecumenius,
to be changed with the certainly entirely unusual form dveleog (Lach., Buttm.,
Tisch.). In the mode of writing this word, there is, however, great variation,
the forms dvyleog, dvileog, dveileog, dvyleug, dvyliog occurring in different MSS.
It is surprising that uo MS. has the classical form dvylei)g or dvelerig. According
to the Eec, KaroKavxdrai is connected with the preceding by Kal, which, however,
is found only in min. A, some min, etc., have, instead of it, after KaroK., the
particle be (Lach., ed. min.), which, however, appears only to have been inserted
to avoid the asyndeton. There are many variations of KaraKavxdrat. A has

CHAP. II. 1. 73
KaraxavxdoBu, C** KaraKavxaaBe, readings which owe their origin to the difficulty
of the thought. — Instead of ileog (after KaruKavxarai), Ree, after A, B (ed. Mai),
X, etc. (Lach., Tisch., Buttm.), C, G, K, and B (apud Bentley), and many min.,
have the form ileov, a nominative form which occurs, indeed, in the classics,
but not in the N. T. — Ver. 14. Instead of the Eec. rl rb brpelog, attested by
A, C**, G, K, N, almost all min., Theoph., Oecumenius, Lach. has adopted tj
bipelog, after B, C. On the distinction, see exposition. Whether, after the Eec,
we are to read, with Tisch., leyy ng, or, with Lach., ng Myy, cannot with
certainty be decided; B, G, K, X, attest the former. A, C, the latter reading;
yet the latter appears to be a correction. — Ver. 15. After idv, the particle 6i is
omitted in B, X; since its later insertion is not easy to be explained, the Eec.
is to be retained as the correct reading. After lenrbuevoi, Lach. (after A, G,
etc.) reads <!miv, which, however, is a later addition. — Ver. 16. Also here Lach.,
after B, C**, has omitted the article rb before bipelog. — Ver. 17. Instead of the
Eec. ipya ixy, exy epya is to be read, with Griesb., Lach., Tisch., etc., after
almost all authorities. — Ver. 18. The Eec. ck ruv ipyuv is attested by too few
authorities (G, K, some min.) to be considered as genuine; Griesb. has conse
quently correctly adopted xi^pk riJv ipy., attested by A, B, C, X, etc. Almost all
recent critics and interpreters, also Bouman, retain X'^pi( as the original reading;
Eeiche and Philippi certainly judge otherwise. With the' reading eK falls also
the pronoun aov after epyuv, which Lach. and Tisch. have correctly omitted; it
is wanting in A, B, X, several min., vss., etc., whilst C, G, K, etc., have it. Also
after ryv iriariv, Tisch. (after B, C, X, etc.) has rightly omitted the pronoun pov
(A, G, K, Lach.); it appears to be added in order to bring more prominently
forward the contrast to the first ryv ir'ianv aov. — Ver. 19. The Eec. is b Qebg eig
ian; so G. In the most important MSS., however, eig stands first; so in A, B,
C, X; in favor of this reading is also the line of thought; yet the difference is
found that ianv in A, X, precedes (Lach.), and in B, C, follows, 6 Qeog (Tisch.);
which reading is the original cannot be decided, yet the former appears to be a
correction. B omits 6 before Qebg. — Ver. 20. Instead of the Eec. veKpd, after
A, C**, G, K, X, several min., vss., Theoph., Oecumenius, Lach. and Tisch.
have adopted cipyy, after B, C*, etc., which is preferred by Wiesinger, Bruckner,
Lange; whereas Eeiclie and Bouman prefer the Eec. It is possible, that, in
order to avoid the frequent repetition of veKpd (see vv. 17, 26), the word iipyy =
uepyy, as corresponding to x<^pk 'ruv ipyuv, was substituted; but it is also possible
that the reference to that verse occasioned the displacement of apyy; it is
difficult to arrive at a sure decision. — Ver. 24. The particle ro'ivw after bpare
is already correctly omitted by Griesbach, being wanting in A, B, C, X, etc. —
Ver. 25. Instead of dyyilovg, C, G, etc., have naraaKbirovg, which, however, is
evidently borrowed from Heb. xi. 31.
Ver. 1. In close connection with the thought contained in chap. i. 27,
that true worship consists in the exhibition of compassionate love, James
proceeds to reprove a practice of his readers, consisting in a partial respect
to the rich and a depreciation of the poor, which formed the most glaring
contrast to that love. — After the impressive address ddelfoi pov, he first
expresses the exhortation with Reference to that conduct, that their faith
should not be combined with a partial respect of persons. Schneckenburger
regards the clause as interrogative, remarking : interrogationis formam sensus
gravitas flagitat et contextus (so also Kern) ; incorrectly, for although the

74 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
interrogation with py may not always require a negative answer, yet it is
ouly used \^-hen the interrogator, with every inclination to regard something
as true, yet can scarcely believe that it is actually the case ; comp. Winer,
p. 453 f. (E. T., 510 f.) ; Schirlitz, p. 366. This is inadmissible here, as the
fact mentioned in what follows, the irpoauirolyipia of the readers, was un
doubtedly true, py . . exere is thus imperative, as i. 16, iii. 1. — The
plural irpoauiro?^yipiaig is used because the author thinks on individual con
crete instances in which the general fault manifested itself ; ^ comp. Col.
iii. 22 ; 2 Pet. iii. 12. For the explanation of irpoauirolyipia (only here and
in Rom. ii. 11; Eph. vi. 9; Col. iii. 35), foreign to classical Greek, see
Matt. xxii. 16; Luke xx. 21; Gal. ii. 6 (see Meyer in loe); from the O. T.,
Lev. xix. 15; Deut. i. 17, and other places (the verb irpoauirolyirreu, Jas.
ii. 9; the adjective. Acts x. 34). The phrase iv irpoauwolyipiaig Ixeiv r, manv
is not, with Pott, to be explained according to such expressions as exeiv nva
iv bpyy, iv alriaig, exeiv iv emyvuaei (Rom. i. 28), for James intends not to re
proach his readers that they have a partial faith, or that they convert faith
into the object of partiality, but that they hold not themselves in their faith
free from irpoauirolyipia. Also exeiv does not stand for Karixeiv, whether in the
meaning prohibere or detinere (Grotius : detinere velut captivam et ineffic'icacem) ;
but ixeiv iv expresses the relation of internal connection thus : Have not your
faith, so that it is as it icere enclosed in irpoauirolyipiaig, i.e., combined with it.
Thus was it with the readers, who in their very religious assemblies made a
distinction of persons according to their external relations. — De Wette's
opinion is incorrect, that irioriv exeiv here is to be understood of "the man
agement of the concerns of faith." — Faith is more exactly described as
y ir'iang roi Kvp'iov yuuv 'lyaoi Xpiarov ryg bb^yg]. Most expositors^ take roi
Kvpiov as a genitive of object, and make ryg bb^yg, as a second genitive
(besides ypuv), dependent on Kvp'iou ; thus : " the faith in our Lord of glory,
Jesus Christ." Neither the appellation of Christ as the Lord of glory
(comp. 1 Cor. ii. 8; Ps. xxix. 3: 6 Qebg ryg bd^yg), nor the dependence of
two genitives (ypijv aud r^f bb^yg) on one substantive [Kvpiov), see Winer, p. 172
(E. T., 191), has any thing against it; yet this construction cannot be held -
to be correct, because the name '\yaoi Xpiaroi, which follows roi Kvp'iov ypuv,
so entirely completes the idea that a second genitive can no longer depend
on Kvpiov; if James had intended such a combination, he would have written
either ryv vianv 'lya. Xpiaroi, rov Kvpiov ypuv ryg bb^yg, or r. tt. rob Kvpiov ypuv ryg
6bl;yg, 'lya. Xpiaroi.^ ' It is evidently an entire mistake to construct ryg bb^yg
with Trpoauiro'Ayipiaig, whether it be taken as — opin'io (Calvin : dum opum vel
bonorum opin'io noslros oculos perstringit, Veritas supprimitur) or = gloria (Hei
sen : quod honorem attinet). Some expositors make ryg bbiyg depend on
Xpiarov ; thus Laurentius, who explains it the Christus gloriae — gloriosus ;
^ Ilornejua: " Multiplex illud malum in vita see Phil. ii. 10; Rom. ix. 21; and Winer, p.
est." 172 _(E. T., 238) ; but, in that case, the inter-
2 Particularly Schneckenburger, Kern, De vening word is never in apposition with the
Wette, Bruckner, Wiesinger. preceding idea, with which it is completely
8 The genitive, indeed, not unfrequently is concluded.
separated from the word which governs it;

CHAP. II. 2, 3. 75
so also Bouman ; also Lange : " the Messiah exalted in His glory above
Judaistic expectations." Decisive against this construction are — (1) the
close connection of 'lyaoi and Xpiarov, as, when those two names are so di
rectly united as here, Xpiaroi is purely nomen proprium ; (2) the N. T. mode
of expression does not admit of a more exact statement of being after Xpiarov
by a genitive dependent on it ; also in this case the article tou before Xpiaroi
would not be wanting. In this commentary hitherto (former editions), T^f
bbSyg was explained as a genitive of the object dependent on ryv iriariv, and
rov Kvpiov yp. 'I. Xp. as the genitive of the subject, in the sense : " faith iu the
glory springing from our Lord Jesus Christy — founded on Hira," namely,
ryv pellovaav bb^av diroKalvipByvai eig i]pdg, Rom. viii. 18. This construction,
although grammatically possible, is unmistakably harsh. It seems simpler,
with Bengel, to regard ryg bb^yg as in apposition with 'lyaov Xp. ; still the idea
bb^yg is too indefinite. .The passages cited by Bengel, Luke ii. 32, Eph. i. 17,
1 Pet. iv. 14, Isa. xl. 5, are of another kind, and cannot be adduced in justifi
cation of that explanation. Perhaps it is most correct to unite ryg bb^yg as a
genitive of quality, not with Xpiaroi only, but with the whole expression roi
Kvp. yp. 'lya. Xp., by which (56|a is indicated as the quality of our Lord Jesus
Christ which belongs to Him, the exalted One. Similar expressions are
6 o'lKovbpog (Luke xvi. 8), 6 Kpir-yg (Luke xviii. 6), ryg dbmag. At all events,
T^f db^yg is added in order to mark the contrast between the irpoauiroli/ipia
paid to passing riches and the faith in Jesus Christ.
Vv. 2, 3. In these verses the conduct of the readers, which occasioned
the exhortation of James (ver. 1), is described ; hence the confirming ydp.
Both verses together form the protasis, on which ver. 4 follows as the apo
dosis ; whilst they in form appear by their connection with bi: (according to
the Ree. by koI) as co-ordinate sentences, in thought ver. 2 is subordinate
to ver. 3 ; ver. 2 assigning the circumstances under which the conduct de
scribed in ver. 3 occurred. — Hammond, Homberg, Baumgarten, Michaelis,
and Herder assign even ver. 4 to the protasis; but incorrectly, as in that
case the conjunctive would be required in that verse as in vv. 2', 3. As
regards the matter itself, the fault is not directed against the rulers of the
congregation, — the presbyters and deacons (Grotius, Pott, Schulthess, Hot
tinger), — but, as the address dbelfoi pov (ver. 1) shows, it is entirely general.
It was' not the custom in the time of James for the deacons to point out
places to those who entered their assemblies (Constit. Apost., ii. 56, 58). —
The instance^ (idv) which James states is, as regards the matter, not a hypo
thetical assumption, but a fact ; and certainly not to be regarded as a soli
tary instance which only once took place, but as something which often
occurred, that even in their religious assemblies the rich were treated with
distinction,. and the poor with disdain. It is not surprising that James in
the description employed the aorist, since he generally uses that tense to
represent that which is habitually repeated as a single fact which has taken
place ; see chap. i. 11, 24. — The words eig ryv avvayuyyv vpuv show that it
is an entrance into the religious assemblies of the congregation that is here
spoken of. It cannot be inferred from the usual signification of the word
avvayayy, that a Jewish synagogue is here meant (Semler, Schueckenburger,

76 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Bouman) ; opposed to this is vpuv ; besides, the Christians would certainly
not have the right to show seats to those who entered into such a place of
worship ; but, on the other hand, by avvayuyy here is not to be understood
the religious assembly (De Wette). The whole description, both eiaelBy and
the pointing out of seats, shows that awayuyi; denotes the place where the
Christian congregation assembled for worship.^ That .lames calls this by
the word which was appropriate for Jewish places of worship, cannot be
regarded in his mouth as any thing surprising. Hammond, Baumgarten,
Storr, Herder, and others most arbitrarily understand by avvayuyy the judi
cial assemblies of the congregation and their elders. According to Lange,
the name of the Jewish place of worship is here a symbol "of the religious
fellowship of the entire Jewish Christian dispersion ; " this opinion is not
less unjustifiable than the view connected with it, that "a literal under
standing of what follows cannot be thought of." — The rich man is here
described as dvyp xpvaobaKrvliog ev eaByri lapirpa, and the poor man as irroxbg 'ev
fivirapa iaBr/n, the difference between them being represented to the eye in
their clothing. — xpvaobaKrvliog'], a purely urr. ley. = xpvaoxeip (Lucian, In Tim. :
irbpipvpoi Kal xpvaoxeipeg irepiepxovrdi ; In Nigrin. : ruv baKrvliuv irlf/Bog ixuv) . On
lapirpbg, used of clothes, see, on the one hand, Luke xxiii. 11 (comp. with
Matt, xxvii. 28), and, on the other hand. Rev. xv. 6. Raphelius : Nullum
cerium colorem declarat, sed splendidum, clarum, nitidum seu rubrum seu album
sit, seu alius generis. The counterpart of the iaByg lapirpa is the iaB. fyvirapd of
the poor man. — pvirapbg] in its proper meaning only here in N. T. ; in Zech.
iii. 3, 4, it is also used of garments. Are Christians or non-Christians meant
by these incomers ? Most expositors consider them to be Christians only,
whether they belonged to the congregation or came there as ^evot (guests).
But the following reasons decide against this view : 1. They are distin
guished by James from the brethren addressed, and are not indicated as
brethren, which yet, particularly in reference to the poor (ver. 5), would
readily have suggested itself as a strong confirmation of their fault. 2. In
vv. 6, 7, the rich are evidently opposed to Christians (ipuv, ipdg, iip' vpdg), and
reprimanded for their conduct towards Christians (not merely toward the
poor), which, if rich Christians had been guilty of it, would certainly have
been indicated as an offence against their Christian calling. That those
who were not Christians might and did come into the Christian religious
assemblies, is a well-known fact; see 1 Cor. xiv. 22, 23. The view of Weiss,^
that the rich man was not a Christian, but that the poor man was a Chris
tian, is supported by no feature in the description ; in that case Jaraes would
certainly have indicated the dissimilarity of relation ; then " must ver. 5 ff.
bring it forward as the gravest offence, that the brother chosen by God is
slighted for the sake of the rich who were not Christians " (Wiesinger). ^
^ The word o-uravwyTj occurs in the N. T. in indeed, in a general sense; see Wahl, Qlav.
both meanings; usually it designates the reli- Apocryph., trwayioy-fi.
gious place of meeting of the Jews ; but that 2 Deutsch. Zeitschrift f. christi. Wissensch.,
it also denotes the assembly. Acts xiii. 43 etc., 1854, No. 51.
shows; see also Rev. il. 9. In the Apocrypha s Lange considers the mode of expression
of the O.T., it has only the last moaning, and, symbolical: by the rich man is meant the

CHAP. II. 3, 4. 77
Ver. 8 describes the conduct of the church toward the two incomers.
Many ancient expositors understand this as a figurative representation of
the preference which was generally given in the congregation to the rich ;
this is arbitrary. The whole description points rather to something which
James has actually in view ; but in reprimanding this, he condemns par
tiality generally, which certainly showed itself in many other ways. By
the descriptive words imffleip^yre . . . rf/v lapirpdv, which precede eliryie (in
reference to the poor there is only eliryre), is indicated in a lively manner
the admiring look at the external glitter ; imi31eneiv, emphatice sumendum est
(Pott); the rich man is characteristically described as 6 ipopCw ryv iaB. r. lapirpdv;
the splendid garment is that which attracts the eye, the character of the
man is entirely overlooked ; (popeiv, a secondary form of ^ipetv, is also in Matt.
xi. 8 used of garments; by the article before lapirpdv this idea is strength
ened as the chief idea. — The contrast is sharply expressed in the different
address to the one and to the other ; already they are distinguished from
one another hy ai . . . av, and then kuBov and aryBi, ube and iKel, Kalug and
imb rb iiroirbdibv pov, are opposed. The form KdBov (instead of Kddyao) is foreign
to classical Greek; see Winer, p. 75 (E. T., 81). — Kalibg refers to comfort
(Wiesinger) ; it is not = honor'ifice (Wahl) ; and still less is it to be resolved
into " Be so good as " (Storr). A place is pointed out to the rich man,
where he can be comfortably seated ; whilst to the poor man it is said. Stand
there. The second clause, separated from the first by y, is not a special
address, but the two clauses form one saying, whilst after y a thought is to
be supplied, as " If thou wilt rather sit ; " by the addition of these words the
depreciation of the poor is yet more strongly marked. — iirb rb viroirobiov]
means not under, but below, my footstool (Wiesinger), by which the floor is
pointed out as the fitting place for the poor to sit (Bouman). "The expres
sion involves contempt : as it were, under one's feet. Not on the footstool "
(Lange). The word viroirobiov (not unicum, as Wiesinger asserts) belongs
only to the later classics. Often in N. T., and also in LXX.
Ver. 4 forms the apodosis to vv. 2 and 3, and rebukes what is blamable
in the conduct described. Expositors greatly differ in the explanation of
this verse, according as they explain the verb SieKplByri, and understand oi as
a pure negation, or as an interrogative particle. It is best to take dieKp'iByre,
in form indeed passive, in meaning as the aorist middle, as in Matt. xxi. 21,
Mark xi. 23, Rom. iv. 20, and to give to the verb here the same meaning
which it has constantly in the usage of the N. T. ; so that it denotes the
doubt, which consists in the assertion of thoughts at variance with faith ; see
on chap. i. 6. But then the sentence must be taken as interrogative : Did you
not then doubt among yourselves f i.e., Have ye not fallen into a contradiction
with your faith (ver. 1), according to which external glory and riches are
nothing, whilst ye by your conduct have attached a value to them ? To this
question the second is added, to which the preceding ov is also to be referred :

Jewish Christian, who, as wearing a gold ring, ing to Hengstenberg, the meaning is precisely
boasts of his covenant rights; and by the poor the reverse. Both opinions are unjustified.
man is meant the Gentile Christian. Accord-

78 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
and became ye not Cihws) Judges of evil thoughts ? This second question indicates
the direct consequence of biaKp'iveaBai. James calls them Kpiral, because in
their conduct they expressed their judgment on the rich and poor. The
genitive bia7.oyinpuv irovypuv is not the genitive of object, ^ but of quality.
bialoyiapol is here, as predominantly in the N. T., in malam partem (see espe
cially Luke V. 21, 22), thoughts of doubt and unbelief; the bad meaning is
here heightened by irovypuv.
Other explanations are as follow: —
(1) biaKpiveaBai = separare : then the sentence is interrogative ; iviavrolg = iv
dllyloig (Gebser, Schulthess, Semler, Erasmus Schmid, etc.); the verb being
either passive: "Nonne inter vos ipsos estis discreti ac separati?" or middle:
" Nonne vos discernitis inter vos ipsos ? " "Do you not separate, divide your
selves among yourselves ? " (Lange).
(2) biaKplveaSai = discrimen facere. (a) The -verb active — (a) Interrogative :
"Nonne discrimen fecistis apud vos ipsos?" (Laurentius, Grotius, Wolf, Hot
tinger, Knapp). In this explanation, iv iavrotg = iv dllyloig; Schneckenburger,
however, explains iv iavrolg = in animis vestris ; but then the meaning discri
men facere would pass into an act of the judgment " statuere." (/3) Negative :
" Then partly ye would not have distinguished (according to a sound .judgment)
among yourselves, and partly also ye would have judged after an evil manner of
thinking (thus an error of the understanding and of the heart" (Grashof).—*
(b) The verb passive: "Dupliciter peccatis, primo: inter vos ipsos non estis
discriminati h. e. cessat piorum et impiorum differentia" (Oeder).
(3) biaHpiveadai — judicare. (a) The verb aciiue — (a) Interrogative: "Nonne
judicastis, deliberastis ipsi?" "Are ye not yourselves persuaded how wrong
tliis is?" (Augusti). (/?) Negative: "Non discrevistis justa dubitatione, con-
siderantia et aestimatione, quid tribuendum esset pauperi potius vel certe non
minus, quam diviti " (Bengel). Luther combines this rendering with that under
2: "And ye do not well consider, but ye become judges, and make an evil
distinction." Here also comes in the explanation of Oecumenius: rb bioKpirmbv
vpuv bieipBeipaie, pybepiav av^yryaiv iroiyaavreg irorepov npyriov . . . dll' ovrog,
dbiaKpirug, Kal iv irpoauirolyipig. rbv pev inpyaare . . , rbv bi 'ynpdaare. — (6) The
verb passive — (a) interrogative: "Nonne vos in conscientiis dijudicati h. e.
convicti estis ? " Paraeus; so also Bouman: "Nonne igitur in vestris ipsorum
jam judicati estis animis ? " (/3) Negative: "Et dijudicati inter vos ipsos non
estis ut judicastis secundum prava ratiocinia vestra" (Heisen). Differently
Oajetanus: " Haec faciendo non estis judicati in vestibus et divitiis et pauper-
tate; " laying the chief stress on iv iavrolg.
(4) biaKp'iveaBai = dubitare, to entertain doubts, (a) Interrogative: "Et
non dubitastis apud vosmet ipsos ? et facti estis iniqui judices ? " " Should you
not yourselves have entertained doubts ? Should you actually have passed evil-
minded judgments?" (Theile). (6) Negative: " Non dubitastis apud animum,
ne subiit quidem haec cogitatio, id factum forte malum esse, certo apud vos
statuistis id jure ac bene fieri."
All these explanations are untenable, because they proceed upon a mean
ing of biaKpiveaBai foreign .to the usage of the N. T. Besides, several require
1 Eisner: " Iniquas istas cogitationes appro- larum cogitationnm i. e. dlvitum, foris splen-
baslis; Bengel; "Judices approbatores, ma- dentium, sed malls cogitatlonibus sentientium."

CHAP. II. 5. 79
arbitrary completions, and many do not correspond to the context. Briick
ner, De Wette, and Wiesinger have also here correctly maintained the
meaning to doubt. De Wette : " Have you not then become doubtful iu
your faith ? " Wiesinger : " Have you not forsaken the law of faith, which
recognizes only one true riches? " With the reading of B (omitting oi) the
thought is the same ; the interrogative (oii), however, serves for the height
ening of the thought, the readers themselves being thereby charged to pro
nounce the judgment. The kuI of the Receptus stands as in Mark x. 26,
Luke X. 29, 1 Cor. v. 2, with the question suddenly introduced. Or, since
in the N. T. no other passage is found where Kal is placed before a question
forming the apodosis of a protasis beginning with idv (on 2 Cor. ii. 2, see
Me.yer), it is to be explained from the fact that one would make ver. 4 a part
of the protasis ; see above.
Ver. 5. With this verse the proof of the reprehensibleness of the conduct
found fault with commences : James showing that the conduct toward the
poor is in contradiction with the mercy of God directed to the poor, and that
the conduct toward the rich is in contradiction with their conduct toward
Christians. The impressive exhortation to attention precedes dKovaare with
the address dbelipol pov dyairyroi; see chap. i. 16, 19. The proof itself (as in
ver. 4) is expressed in a lively manner in the form of a question : Has not
God chosen those who are the poor ofthe world (i.e., accounted as such) to he
rich in faith, and heirs' ofthe kingdom which He has promised to them that love
Him f — The verb i^ele^aro is to be retained in its usual acceptation, in that
which it has in 1 Cor. i. 27. Wiesinger, without sufficient reason, will
understand it here as equivalent to " God has so highly honored the poor ; "
and Lange incorrectly maintains that " the word here rather signifies calling
with reference to ethical good behavior to the divine revelation.'' — The cor
rect reading : rovg irruxaig ru Koapu, is to be explained in the same manner as
the expressions darelog ru Qeu, Acts vii. 20, and bvvard ru Qeu, 2 Cor. x. 4 (see
Meyer on these passages, and Winer, p. 190 (E. T. , 201) ; Al. Buttmann,
p. 156 [E. T., 179]). The world esteems those as poor who possess no
visible earthly riches. Wiesinger prefers to explain the dative as the dative
of reference, thus "poor in respect of the world;'' yet the former explana
tion, which also Bruckner and Lange adopt,' in which b Qebg and ru xba/xu
form a sharp contrast, is more appropriate, and more in correspondence
with the meaning of the word Kbapog with James. In the Receptus, nruxovg
rav Koapov, the genitive is to be understood as in the expression rd pupd roi
Kbapov, etc., 1 Cor. i. 27; see Meyer in loco. — nlovaiovg iv ir'iarei] is liot in
apposition with ToOf irruxoig (Luther, Baumgarten, Semler, Hottinger, Geb
ser, Bouraan, Lange, and others),^ but the corapletion of i^eHlaro, stating to
what God has chosen the poor (Beza, Wolf, Morus, Knapp, Storr, Schnecken
burger, Kern, Theile, De Wette, Wiesinger, and others) ; see 2 Cor. iii. 6. —
By iv irlarei, as in the expression irlovaiog ev iUei, Eph. ii. 4 (see 1 Cor. i. 5;
1 If wKovaCovf is taken as In apposition, then contained in the oxymorura is entirely blunted ;
here riches in faith forms the reason of the it is also arbitrary to separate the two ideas
choice ; but by this the keenness of the thought ir^ouo-iou! and K\ypov6povi united by Kai.

80 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
2 Cor. ix. 11 ; 1 Tim. vi. 18), the object is not stated wherein they are rich
(Luther: "who are rich in the faith"), but the sphere within which riches
is imparted to them ; similarly Wiesinger explains it: "rich in their position
as believers." James wished primarily to mark the contrast that the poor
are appointed to be rich, namely, so far as they are believers ; the context
gives the more exact statement of their riches : riches in the possessions of
the heavenly kingdom is meant; this the following clause indicates. — Cal
vin: non qui fidei magnitudine abundant, sed quos Deus variis Spiritus sui donis
locupletavit, quae fide percipimus.^ — The expression ij (laailela occurs also else
where, without the addition of roi Qeoi or similar terms, as a designation of
the kingdom of God ; e.g.. Matt. xiii. 38. No stress rests on the article ryg
(= eKeivyg), as the relative yg referred to it. The relative clause serves not
for a more definite stateraent of the idea (iaaile'ia, as if by it this jSaailela was
to be distinguished from another, but the statement i^el. . . . Klypovbpovg r.
jSaaileiag is confirmed, as a kingdom founded on the promise of God. — From
the expressions Klypovbpog and 'eiryyyeilaro of the relative clause, it is evident
that James considered here puaile'ia as the future perfected kingdom of God,
not "the joint participation in the vloBeaia of the Jews" (Lange). On ^f
inyyye'ilaro, K.r.X, see the remark on i. 12. The addition of this clause shows
that with James faith and love to God are raost closely connected. — James
puts Toif irnJxovg, to whom oi irlovaioi are opposed, as the object of i^ele^aro.
He accordingly (the article is not to be overlooked) divides men into these
two classes, the poor and the rich, and designates, not the latter, but the
former, as those whom God has chosen and appointed to be rich in faith,^
namely, to be heirs of the kingdom ; not as if all the poor received the
ulypovopia, but his meaning is that those whom God has chosen belong to
this class, whereas those belonging to the class of the rich had not been
chosen. James did not require to point out the truth of this statement:
the Christians to whom he wrote were a living testimony of it, for they all
belonged to that class ; and although some among them were nlovauii, yet,
on the one hand, what Christ says in Matt. xix. 23-26 holds good, and, on
the other hand, 1 Cor. i. 26-28 is to be compared. — With this divine choice
the conduct of his readers stood in direct contradiction when they treated a
poor man — thus one who belonged to the class of those chosen by God —
contemptuously, and that on account of his poverty. What directly follows
expresses this contradiction.
Ver. 6. vpelg be], contrast to Qeog. — rinpuaare], contrast to e^ele^aro. The
aorist is used with reference to the case stated in vv. 2, 3, which is certainly
of a general character (Wiesinger). ^ — rbv irruxbv, not = pauperetn illum,
1 Kern : ev iriarei indicates that It is faith of the divine choice. The same view lies at
itself which makes the Christian inwardly the foundation of what Paul in 1 Cor. 1. 30 (see
rich. Meyer in loco) and elsewhere often expresses.
2 It is to be observed that 'e^eXi^aro does 3 According to Lange, the aorist is used to
not here refer only to wAovcriovj, as if itiVtis point to " the historical tact in which Judalz.
were to be considered as the condition on which ing Jewish Christians have already taken part
the nrvixoi were chosen to be rich, but to tha with the Jews, namely, the dishonoring of the
combined expression jrAoucriovs ev iriarei, so Geutile Christians."
that also ttio-tis is to be considered as an effect

CHAP. II. T. 81
but, to be understood generally, the jjoor man as such. That we are here
specially to think on the Christian poor, is an incorrect supposition. — With
ovx ol Klovaioi] James turns to the rich as the class opposed to the poor, in
order to point out from another side than he had already done the reprehen
sibleness of the conduct denounced. Already from this opposition it is inti
mated that not the Christian rich, but the rich generally, — not exactly only
"the rich Gentiles or the Romans" (Hengstenberg), — are meant. This is
also evident from what is said of them, and by which their conduct is desig
nated as hostile to Christians (vpuv) who belong to the poor.i Kara&vvaareveiv]
only here and in Acts x. 38, frequently in the LXX. and Apocrypha (see
particularly Wisd. of Sol. ii. 20), me^ns "to use power against any to his
hurt." Related ideas are KaraKvpteieiv and KareiovaidZeiv, Matt. xx. 25. This
exercise of power against the Christians might take place in various ways ;
what follows : koI airol elKovaiv ipdg eig Kpirypia, mentions one chief mode. —
Kat avroi] emphatically put first — even they (Theile). — elKeiv] indicates the
violence of the conduct (so in the classics). The courts of judgment (Kpirypta,
as in 1 Cor. vi. 2, 4) may be both Gentile and Jewish ; certainly not Chris
tian. It is arbitrary, and not corresponding to the expression elKeiv, to think
here on a process quibus pauperes propter ijebita injudiciis vexabant (Hor
nejus; also De Wette and others). — Since James so strongly contrasts avroi
and iudg. the former cannot possibly be regarded as a part of the latter.
Ver. 7. The description of the conduct of the rich is still continued;
they not only do violence to Christians, but they even revile the holy name
of Christ. Do they not (even) blaspheme that fair name which has been called
upon you ? The pronoun avrol is put here as in ver. 6 : incorrectly, Theile =
hi potissimum. — The expression rb bvopa imKalelrai im nva] is borrowed from
the O. T., where it often occurs, and in tbe sense that one becomes the
property of him whose name is called upon him ; -particularly it is said of
Israel that the name of God was called upon them.^ Accordingly, by the
name which is called upon Christians is not meant the Christian name
(Hensler: nomen fratrum et sororum), also not the name irroxoi, but the
name of Him only to whom they as Christians belong — the name of Christ
(De Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman, Lange, and others) ; from which, however,
it does not follow (as Wiesinger correctly observes) that James here alludes
to the name Xpiariavoi. — By the addition of the attribute Kalbv the shame-
fulness of fSluaipype'iv is still more strongly marked. — In support of the
hypothesis that the rich are Christians, many expositors (also Bruckner and
Wiesinger) here arbitrarily explain ISlaaipypetv of indirect blasphemy, i.e., of
such as takes place not by words, but by works ; but piaaipypeiv is never thus
used in the Holy Scriptures ; not one of the passages which Wiesinger cites
proves that for which he adduces them ; piaai^pe'iv always denotes blasphemy
by word.' — This word also proves that the rich who are not Christians are
• If James had the Christian rich in view, the dative is put) ; 2 Chron. vii. 14 ; .Ter. xiv. 9,
he certainly would not have omitted to point xv. 16; Amos ix. 12; see also Q-en. xlviii. 16;
to the contrast between their conduct to the Isa. iv. 1.
poor and their Christian calling. s Were it here asserted that the blasphem-
2 See Deut. xxviii. 10 (where instead of eni ing of the name of God or of Christ was

82 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
here meant (thus also Lange, who, however, will understand particularly
the Judaists) ; which is also evident, because Jaraes otherwise Would rather
have written rb eirmlyBiv l<p' ovrovg instead of to iiriKl. if vpug. — By the thought
in this verse Jaraes indicates that Christians, by showing partiality to the
rich, not only acted foolishly, but were guilty of a violation of the respect
due to the name of Christ.
Vv. 8, 9. With these verses James meets the attempt which his readers
might perhaps make to justify their conduct toward the rich with the law of
love; whilst he, granting to them that the fulfilment of that law is some
thing excellent, designates trpoauirolyirrelv directly as a transgression of the
law. This explanation, which among ancient expositors, particularly Cal
vin, Cornelius a Lapide, Laurentius, Hornejus, and among the moderns Hot
tinger, Theile, Wiesinger, have recognized as the correct one, is justified both
by the particle pivroi and by the phrase Kalug iroieire. — pevroi has in the N. T.,
where besides the Gospel of John it only elsewhere occurs in 2 Tim. ii. 19
and .Inde 8, always the meaning yet, nevertheless ; but this ineaning is not
;here suitable, as ver. 8 contains no contrast to what goes before. ' It is
itherefore to be retained in its original classical meaning, assuredly, certainly,
.and points out that James grants something to his readers, having, however,
in view the contrast which he expresses in the following el be, k.t.X^ This
is also indicated by the expression Kalug iroielre (see ver. 19), which is evi
dently too feeble for an earnest enforcement of the law of love. Wiesinger
correctly observes that the hypothetical dilemma carries in itself unmistak
ably an ironical character. ^ James calls the law dyarryaeig, K.r.X, which is
cited from Lev. xix. 18, vbpov liaailmbv, because it is the most excellent of all
laws, ceterarum legum quasi regina (Knapp; so also Theile, Wiesinger, De
W^ette, Bouman, and others), inasmuch as all other laws are contained in
it; see Rora. xiii. 8-10; Gal. v. 14 (1 Tim. i. 5; Matt. xxii. 39). It is far
fetched to explain the attribute iiaaiXKbv, because it was given by God the
great King (Raphelius, Wetsteiu, Wolf, Baumgarten), or by Christ (Grotius),
or because it applies to kings (Michaelis), or quia reges facit (Thomas ;
Lange combines all these explanations); also Calvin's remark is to be re
jected as too artificial : regia lex dicitur, ut via kf.gia, plana scilicet, recta et
aequabilis, qui sinuosis diverticulis vel ambagibus tacite opponitur. — vbpog is here
(see also ver. 9), as in Jer. xxxi. 33 (Heb. viii. 10, x. 16), used of a single
commandment, instead of ivroly (which Lange wrongly denies). The expres-
occasioned by the wicked works of -Jews or up or expressed ; it is arbitrary to explain it as
Christians, this would be indicated not hy the equivalent to ** on the contrary."
active verb, but by the passive with Sid; see 2 Some Interpreters explain fiei-Toi here,
Rora. ii. 24; Tit. il. 5; 2 Pet. li. 2; Isa. Iii. 5. contrary to linguistic usage, as equivalent to
Moreover, even then blasphemy (namely, of igitur.
the Gentiles) could only be expressed by words. 3 When De 'Wette, against this explanation,
I Bruckner finds the contrast in love being says : " How could those blamed appeal to
the reverse of partiality; but (jji/toi does not this law for their partiality? " It is to be ob-
simply express the opposite, but the adversa- served that they seek thereby to justify only
tive meaning of the particle in the N. T. is their conduct to the rich, by which certalu-
of this nature, that It only occurs when the ly they leave their conduct to the poor un.
sharp contrast to an *' although " is to be filled justified.

CHAP. II. 10. 83
sion relelv vbpov is found only here and in Rom. ii. 27 ; it is a stronger ex
pression than rypelv vbpov (ver. 10). — Kurd rijv ypaipyv] is not to be combined
with 0aailiKbv, nor is the mode of relelv thereby stated, but it is the simple
formula of citation.
Ver. 9 is in sharp contrast to ver. 8, calling the conduct of his readers, in
opposition to their pretext, by its true name, and designating it directly
as sin. The verb irpoauirolyirrelv is a complete dir. ley. ; James uses this word
with reference to the exhortation in ver. 1. On dpapriav ipyd^eaBai, see Matt.
vii. 23 ; Acts x. 35 ; Heb. xi. 33. Theile : gravius fere est quam dpapriav iroielv,
dpaprdveiv. For the sake of heightening this judgment, James adds the par
ticipial sentence ileyxbpevoi, K.r.X: being convicted by the law as transgressors.
If the ifpoauirolyirroivreg appealed to a law, it is precisely the law by which
they are convinced as transgressors, so that they are without excuse. By
iirb rov vbpov is meant not a single coraraandment, neither the above-men
tioned law of love, nor specially a commandment forbidding respect of per
sons, as Deut. xvi. 19 (Lange), biit the law generally; so also irapa^drai is
general : not as transgressors of one commandment, but of the law generally.
Ver. 10. Confirmation of the last expressed thought : For whosoever kept
the whole law, and yet sinned in one (commandment), he is guilty of all (com
mandments). The conjunctives rypyay, irraiay, certified by authorities, are
not to be considered as an error of the scribe (as Winer, 5th ed., p. 356, was
inclined to assume) ; but the particle dv is here, as frequently as in the N. T.,
contrary to classical usage in hypothetical sentences, oraitted when bang
stands, because " the universality was already suiEciently indicated by the
pronoun " (Buttmann, p. 197 [E. T., 229]). i dvBpuiru is not, with Schulthess,
to be supplied to ev evi, but vbp'^', with Theile, De Wette, Wiesinger, Lange,
and others, "from the preceding collective idea vbpog." The following irdvruv
forbids us, with Schneckenburger and Kern, to understand ivi as neuter. It
is in entire conformity with the character of the thought as a general sen
tence to take ivl quite generally, and not, with Theophylact, Oecumenius
(rovro irepl dyuiryg eipyKe), Schol. Matthaei, p. 188 (ivivl irraiaeiv iarl,rb pf/ reletav
ixeiv dydiryv), and some recent critics (Semler : in hanc unam et primam), to
refer it to a definite commandment, particularly to that of love.^ By this
general sentence James seeks to confirm the thought that respect of persons
includes in itself the transgression of the whole law, although it appears to
be directed only against a single coramandment. — The word irraieiv is found
in the N. T. only in a figurative sense ; the construction with iv is only in
this -place ; in chap. iii. 2 the reference of iv is different. By yiyovev irdvruv
(sc. vbpuv) ivoxog, James declares the transgressor of one commandment to
be guilty of the transgression of all. — ivoxog] is here, as in 1 Cor. xi. 27,
used with the genitive of the thing against which one sins, in the guilt of
' Winer, p. 275 (E. T., 308), explains the w/iofe law, is a case which cannot be imagined.
omission of av, because in the writer's concep- " Still more arbitrarily, Grotius, Morus,
tion the case is altogether definite; but then Stolz, and Jaspar limit the general expres-
the future indicative would be put; also the sions evi and iravrfav to such commandment,
case here stated, namely, that one may trans- to the transgression of which the punishment
gress one commandment and yet keep the of death is assigned.

84 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
which one is thus involved.^ The same thought is also found in the rab
binical writings.^
Ver. 11. The truth of the above thought is founded on the fact that all
commandments proceed from one lawgiver. — o ydp e'liruv py poixevayg, elirev
Kal • py ipovevayg]. Baumgarten finds the reason why James adduces these two
commandments, py poixeiayg and py ipovevayg, in this, because " the transgres
sion of these two was punished with death ; " Wiesinger, on the other hand,
because " poixeveiv was never laid to the charge of the readers, whereas pr)
ipovevayg had the command of love as its essence ; " and Lange, because " to
the Israelite the prohibition of adultery was likewise the prohibition of apos
tasy to heathenism, and the prohibition of murder was likewise that of
uncharitableness towards our neighbor." But the reason is rather because
these two commandraents are the first of those which refer to our duties to
our neighbor (thus Bruckner). That py poixeiayg precedes the other, has its
reason in ancient tradition ; see on both points Mark x. 19 ; Luke xviii. 20 ;
Rora. xiii. 9 (see Meyer in loe.) ; Philo, De Decal., xii. 24, 32. With the
words that follow : ei be ov poixeveig, K.r.l., James draws the inference from
the preceding. The negative ov after el with the indicative is not surprising
in the N. T. usage, the less so as here only a part of the conditional sentence
is denied; see Winer, p. 423 ff. (E. T., 479); Al. Buttmann, p. 296 ff. (E. T.,
346 f.).3 With the apodosis yeyovag irapa^dryg vbpov, J&m&s refers to ver. 9;
consequently not ci'o;i;of, as in ver. 10, but rrapa^dryg is put. — The reason of
the judgment here expressed is contained in 6 e'tiruv . . . elire Koi. Since the
law is the expression of the will of Him who gave it, the transgression of a
single portion is disobedience to the one will, and consequently a transgres
sion of the whole law.' James might, indeed, have confirmed the idea by
the internal connection of all commands, and by pointing out that the trans
gression of one coraraandment reveals a want which makes the fulfilment of
the other commandments impossible ; ^ but as he does not do so, these con
siderations are not to be arbitrarily introduced into his words.

' The punishment with evoxo<: is usually in ately so appended with an adversative particle
the genitive, with Matt. xxvi. 66, Mark iii. 29, that the entire emphasis falls upon this second
xiv. 46 ; yet also in the dative, Matt. v. 21. In part " (E. T., 346). It is indeed said iu Thuc.
classical language, the thing agaiust which one 1. 32 : ei (iij perd. KaKiav, Sd^iji Se paXKov dpapria
sins is with evoxo^ only in the dative, whilst . . . evavria roKpibpev', but here the relation
the crime itself of which the man Is guilty, as is different, as the contrast 6dJ>i5, x.t.a., could
well as the punishment which he has to suffer, be left out without injury to the thought, which
is added in the genitive. is evidently not the case with James.
' e.g., Cod. Talm. Schabbath, fol. Ixx. 2; < Bengel: unus est, qui totam legem tulit;
R. Johanan : Quodsi facial omnia, unum vero cujus voluntatem qui una in re violant, totam
omittat, oraniura est singulorum reus; see violant.
Wolf. Koster {Stud. u. Krit., 1862, 1) to this e Augustine, in his Epistle to Jerome on
passage cites the corresponding expression of this passage (.Opera Hieronym., Prancf., iv.
Livy (.Hist., xxxiv. 3) referring to the law- p. 154 ff.), says: Unde fiet omnium reus, si in
giver: unara toUendo legem celerae infirman- uno offendat, qui totam legem servaverit? An
tur. forte quia plenitude legis charitas est, qua Deus
' According to Buttmann, the negative oi proximusquediligltur, in quibus praeceptischa-
here, even according to classic usage, is the ritatis lota lex pendet et prophetae, merito fit
more necessary, '* when to the negative predi- reus omnium, qui contra illam fecit, in qua
cate another, still in the protasis, is immedi- pendent omnia ? Nemo autem peccat, nisi

CHAP. II. 12, 13. 85
Ver. 12. To what has hitherto been said, '.,he general exhortation is an
nexed : So speak ye, and so do, as they, that shall be Judged by the law of liberty.
A new section does not here begin, as Wetstein, Semler, and others assume ;
but with this and the following verse the course of thought commenced at
ver. 1 is concluded; not until ver. 14 does the thought take a new turn.
The connection with what has gone before is to be thus explained, that
ver. 13 evidently points to the respect of persons with regard to the poor,
and refers to chap. i. 27. — ovrug] "is not to be referred to what precedes,
but to the following ug, thus: so as is necessary for those who," etc. ; thus
in former editions. But by this explanation the thought is too abruptly
introduced ; therefore it would be more correct to refer ovrug to what pre
cedes (ovrug, i.e., according to the rule stated in ver. 10 f ., Briickner), and
to take ug not as an explication, but as "a confirmation" (Lange). — James
takes up not only the doing (iroielre), but also the speaking (lalelre), to
which not only the conduct of his readers, specified in ver. 2 ff., but their
sinful volubility of tongue, generally led ; see i. 19, iii. 1-12. The repetition
of oiiru serves for the heightening of the thought ; bid here is the same as in
Rom. ii. 12 ; see also John xii. 48, v. 45 ; correctly, Wiesinger : " the law
is a means because a measure ; " incorrectly, Kern : vi ac Jure leges. The
vbpog ilevBepiag is also here not the gospel, as the publication of the grace of
God, or the Christian religion (Semler, Pott, Gebser), also not specially the
vbpog jSaailiKog mentioned in ver. 7 as a single command, but it is the same
as is mentioned in chap. i. 25.^ The demand which James here expresses
is that Christian's, as such, who shall be judged by the vdpog ilevBepiag, must
regulate by it the whole course of their lives. From what has directly gone
before, one might infer that James wishes particularly to warn against the
pretext combated in ver. 10, but ver. 13 shows that he has rather in view
the want of compassionate love, forming the heart and pulse of the vbpog
ilevBepiag, which was renounced by his readers in their dnpd^eiv rbv irruxbv
(ver. 6).
Ver. 13 refers back to chap. i. 27, and concludes the section, appending
to bid vbpov il. KplveaBai a closer definition : for the Judgment is unmerciful
against those who exercise no mercy ; mercy rejoices against Judgment. — That
which in the judgment -passes sentence on Christians, who shall be judged
biA vbpov ilevBepiag, is thus mercy. Against the unmerciful the judgment will
be unmerciful. On the form dveleog, see critical notes ; in Rom. i. 31 it is
dveleypuv; thus also in LXX., Prov. v. 9, xi. 17. Luther incorrectly trans
lates it : " it will pass an unmerciful judgment ; " dveleog is not an attribute,
adversus illam faciendo. — Ticinus thus well commandment;" but the point of equal obli-
expresses the unity of the law : lex lota est gallon is not here brought forward by Jaraes.
quasi una vestis, quae tola violatur, si vel unam * Kern: "Jaraes, by the expression Sta v.
ex ea partem demus; quasi harmonia, quae eA., reminds them that the f 0^09 for Christians
tola corrumpitur, si vel unica vox dissonet ; aud is indeed according lo form a new one, being
Gataker: quasi catena aurea, quae lota rupta converted into a willing impulse, but that' it
est, si unicum nexura abrumpaa. What Gun- does not on this account cease, according to
kel says is indeed correct : " The solidarity its nature, to be the rule of moral action, and
consists in this, that God has given wilh the thus also of judgment."
equal obligation the one as well as the other

86 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
but a predicate. — Many expositors incorrectly explain ileog = dydiry ; the
former is a species of the latter, although James puts the chief stress upon it;
see chap. i. 27. — The concluding sentence is subjoined davvbirug ; see chap.
iii. 2, iv. 12. "Asyndeton dicti pondus auget." In the verb KaraKavxdrat (only
here and in chap. iii. 14 and Rom. xi. 18), Kara, on which the genitive Kpiaeug
depends, expresses the opposite tendency. Kpiaig according to its nature
threatens to condemn the sinner (thus the believing Christian does not cease
to be a sinner), but mercy has the joyful confidence (Kavxdrai) that it will
overcome the threatening power -of judgment.^ — By a conversion of the
abstract idea ileog into the concrete, "the merciful man," the peculiar im
press is taken from the expression, and a lax interpretation is introduced.
On the sentiment, see Matt. v. 7; Prov. xvii. 5; Tob. iv. 7-11. Several
expositors (Calvin, Cappellus, Wolf, Laurentius, Baumgarten, Bengel) incor
rectly supply the genitive Qeoi to ileog, by which a thought is introduced
entirely foreign to the context.
Ver. 14. After James, proceeding from the exhortation to receive the
word (rbv . . . Ibyov rbv bvvdpevov auaai rug ipvxdg) in meekness, had enforced
the necessity not only to be hearers but also doers of the same, and with
reference to the respect of persons practised by the readers had designated
the exercise of compassionate love as true BpyoKela, he now, in close connec
tion with the preceding, opposes the opinion that irlang which has no works
(xuplg epyuv) can save (auaai). The section from ver. 14 to ver. 26 treats of
this ; for the correct understanding of which it is to be held fast that James
considers niang as the necessary ground of aurypia, which is evident from
chap. i. 18-21, but of course that niang which is not without works. In com
bating the above delusion, Jaraes adopts his characteristic raode of first stat
ing in clear and well-defined language the fundamental thought on which
all the rest depends, and he does so by the introduction of brief interrogar
tive sentences which reject that false opinion. He commences with the
words ri rb dipelog; see ver. 16 and 1 Cor. xv. 32. The article is not super
fluous : What is tlie use which arises from it, if, etc. ; without the article
(according to B and C) it means : What kind of use is it = what use is it?
thus frequently with the classics. With regard to the construction with
idv, see Matt. xvi. 26 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 3. The following words : idv manv leyy
ng ixeiv, show that James had in view one who trusts for aurypia, because he
has faith, although works are wanting to him. Many expositors place the
emphasis on leyy, as if it was thereby indicated that this assertion was a
mere pretext, the person introduced as speaking not in reality possessing
faith. Gataker: emphasis hic est in voce tuc'e.js'di; intelligit istos fidem quidem
Jactare, non tamen habere; similarly Vorstius, Piscator, Wolf, Baumgarten,
Pott, Gebser, Hottinger, Kern, Wiesinger, Stier, Lange, Philippi (GlaubensL, i.
p. 298 ff.); also De Wette translates Hyy by "pretends." This is incorrect,
for the sequel does not give the lie to this leyeiv, but, on the contrary, it is
1 The explanation of Wiesinger, that James assured of grace beforehand, and glories in it,"
intends to say " that mercy has nothing to fear, is not entirely suitable, inasmuch as an objec.
rather that she confounds the terrors of the live idea (KpiVi?) is thus converted into a sub-
judgment by her confidence with which she is jective (the terrors of the judgment).

CHAP. II. 14. 87
granted that the man may have faith without having works. Besides,
it is self-evident that James did not require to say that a faith, which one
has not, cannot save him. That it is not simply said idv iriariv ng exv, is
explained from James's lively mode of represe.ntation, by which he intro
duces his opponent as appealing to- his mang.'^ It is also incorrect to em
phasize the want of the article before iriariv (Schneckenburger: recte articulo
caret = to have faith, quum revera non habeat ryv iriariv, ver. 1; ita omissio
articuli Jam quodammodo scriptoris judicium est). The article is here wanting,
as is often the case in the N. T. where the word expresses something definite
in itself (thus Bruckner), particularly when it is to be brought forward
according to its quality. Also manv must not be precisely explained as =
NUDA notitia, or hardly = nuda professio ; for those whom James combats
could not possibly think that they by their faith possessed only the so-called
theoretical faith, but rather they considered it the whole and complete faith.
Also this faith was not defective in point of confidence, which Lange should
not have denied, for they thought to be saved thereby ; although this was
not true confidence, but an empty reliance on Christ ; ^ they indeed believed,
but they did not receive Christ in themselves as a principle of a new
life; the object of their faith remained to them purely external, and thus
they wanted those works which spring from living faith. ^ — epya be py ixy\.
ipya is here indeed entirely general, but according to the context those works
are meant which are proofs of living faith, by which the vbpog ilevBepiag is
fulfilled on the ground of iriang. — After exy a simple comma (Gebser) is not
to be put, but a note of interrogation ; the verse contains two questions, the
second interrogative sentence py biivarui, K.r.X, confirming the judgment con
tained in the first, that it profits nothing to have faith without works.
Some expositors incorrectly put a special emphasis on the article before
marig (Bede : fides illa, quam vos habere dicitis; or, that faith which has no
works; so also Lange). The article here has not vim pronominis demonstrativi,
but is used because there is a resumption of the previous idea (iriang) ; see
chap. i. 3 and iv. 15. It is also incorrect to supply out of what goes before
the more precise definition of faith : quae non habetur revera sed dicitur tantum
modo el jactatur (Theile), or to supply ubvy (Pott), or to understand by ¦jr'iang
here bare notitia. Recourse has been had to these explanations, because it
was thought that James otherwise denied to faith its saving power, which
is not to be assumed. But the force of airbv has been overlooked. If this
pronoun be taken into consideration, it is evident that James does not affirm
generally that faith cannot save, but that it cannot save him whose faith,

1 Xey-f} Is the more appropriate, as a faith supposed righteousness, i.e., on their good
without works, as James indicates iu ver. 18, works; for James entirely denies good works
is something which cannot be proved, of which to them, and never indicates that they appealed
he who possesses it can only give information to their supposed good conduct.
by !i.eyeiv. ' For the view here rejected, an appeal is
2 It was otherwise with them than with incorrectly made lo ver. 19, as those thought
those Christiaus who indeed considered tho to have in their faith the guaranty of tbeir
teaching of the gospel as true, and did not o-wTTjpta, whilst their faith only produced <ppiiT-
doubt to be saved, but who rested their hopes ueiv to the demons.
not on Chi-ist as the object of faith, but on their

OS THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
on which he trusts, is destitute of works ; for airbv refers back to the subject
ng, that is, to the person whom James has introduced as speaking. — aCJaai],
as in i. 21, is used here of the attainment of future salvation ; the expression
is explained from the fact that eternal condemnation belongs to sinful man
as such, and thus requires a deliverance in order to be saved. The idea
aurypia generally signifies in the N. T. the future salvation ; see besides other
passages, particularly 1 Thess. v. 8, where aurypia is designated as the object
of elirig. Certainly the present state of salvation of Christians may also
be called aurypia, but it is evident from the connection with what precedes
that James has not that in view, but the complete salvation (against
Lange). Vv. 15, 16. James illustrates the idea that faith is dependent for its
proof on works, otherwise if these are wanting it is dead and profits noth
ing, by an example of compassion, which also, if without the corresponding
works, is dead and can profit nothing. The representation of this simili
tude has the same form as the description of the case mentioned in vv. 2 and
3 : first, the statement of the circumstances, and .then of the conduct. The
particle be (Lachmann, Tischendorf) is not merely transitional (metoiasis,
Wiesinger), but is to be explained from the fact that in this verse the argu
ment against the opponent brought forward commences (Schneckenburger,
De Wette). — Those requiring help are by the name dbelipbg y dbel^fy charac
terized as members of the Christian community, in order to bring out more
strongly the obligation to active assistance. — By the words yvpvol . . . rpoifyg
their destitute condition is described. There is no need to interpret yvpvbg
by male vestitus (Laurentius, Wolf, Baumgarten, Gebser, Hottinger, Schneck
enburger, De Wette, Theile, Wiesinger) ; it is rather nudus, naked, but is
certainly also so used when there is no absolute nakedness, but when the
clothing can hardly be considered as clothing. On leiirbpevoi, see chap. i. 4, 5.
— i^ypepog] in the N. T. dir. ley., is neither = diurnus (Morus: quod in unum
diem sufficit) nor = hodiernus (Hottinger) ; but ^ iipyuepog rpotpy is = ly kuB'
ypepav uvayKoia rpoipr/ (Pott, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Wiesinger).
Ver. 16 describes the conduct towards those requiring help. — ng i^ ipiJv]
is to be taken generally, and is not, with Grotius, to be liraited to those qiu
fidem credilis sufficere ad salutem. — The address : iirdyere iv eipyvy] expresses
a friendly wish at departure; similar to iropeveaBe iv eipyvy, Acts xvi. 36;
Judg. xviii. 6. iirdyeiv eig eipyvyv (Mark V. 34 ; Luke vii. 50, and other
places) is somewhat different, where eipyvy and iirdyeiv are not yet conceived
as united. — With Bep/mlveaBe with reference to yvpvol, warming by clothing
is specially to be thought of (see Job xxxi. 30; Hag. i. 6) ; but it is inac
curate to explain the verb itself as equivalent to vestiri (Laurentius, Baum
garten, Pott, Bengel, Gebser, Hottinger, Theile). — Beppa'iveaBe and xoprd^eaBe
are not imperatives of the passive, and to be taken in an optative sense
(Hottinger: utinam aliquis beneficens vobis vestimenta largiatur ; similarly,
Grotius, Morus, Theile), but imperatives of the middle: Warm yourselves,
satisfy yourselves ; only thus does the contrast appear pointed and definite ;
that they are not properly to be considered as commanding, but as exhort
ing, is of itself evident. The plural uy bCire be is explained from i^ vpOv rd

CHAP. II. 17, 18. 89
iirtrydeia {dir. ley.) = ro dvayKata ; ^ the things necessary for the support of the
body, namely, clothing aud food. The question ri rb bipelog; brings forward
that such a sympathy which is x^pk ipyuv profits nothing, has no efficacy ;
to this neither egentihus (Hottinger) nor dicentibus (Gomar, Baumgarten,
Semler) is to be supplied.
Ver. 17. Application of the similitude. The verse forms one sentence,
of which y iriang is the subject, and veKpd iariv is the predicate ; neither after
iriang (Pott) nor after ipya (Michaelis) is a colon to be put. After exy the
idea continually (Baumgarten) is not to be supplied, iriang has here the same
meaning as in ver. 14. — From the fact that James calls faith dead if it has
not works, it is evident that by these works is not meant something which
must be added to faith, but something which grows out of faith ; the epya
here treated of are works of faith, in which are the germs of faith. vcKpa is
here not to be explained by operibus destituta, but — inanima, equivalent to a
dead body ; ^ correctly, De Wette : "dead, that is, without the power of life;
thus not primarily to be referred to its effects, but to be understood as its
internal nature ; " however, Jaraes thus designates a faith without works
to prove that it ou bivarai auaai and oibev uipelelrai. — The more precise state
ment KaB' iavryv has been variously understood. Grotius considers it as
simply pleonastic ; some critics separate it from veKpd and take Kard =
against (Moller = kuB' iavryc, i.e., sibimet ipsi repugnat; Augusti: contra semet
ipsam); others unite it with marig (Kimpp= fides sola; Baumgarten: "in
so far as faith is alone "). But koB' iavryg belongs evidently, as its position
shows, to veKpd (De Wette, Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, Lange). It is thus
emphatically stated that a faith without works is not only dead in reference
to something else, but dead in reference to itself. It serves for the intensifi
cation of the idea veKpd, yet not so that by it the existence of a m one .without
works was denied (against Schneckenburger).
Ver. 18. The words dll' ipel ng, with which this verse begins, apparently
introduce an objection, as in 1 Cor. xv. 35 ; by which under Tif a certain
one is to be considered as an opponent of the thought above expressed, who
with av addresses James, and by Kuyu denotes himself. But against this
explanation the sentiment itself is opposed ; for as James reproaches those
against whom he argues, that they have indeed faith but not works, he could
not possibly put into the mouth of his opponent, that the same had works,
but he (James) had faith. The opinion of Pott, that av . . . Kuyu = dllog kuI
ti/i;iof, cannot be justified (so also Bouman : hic . . . ille). By that explana
tion it would require to be said ; av ipya ixeig, Kdyib iriariv ixu, namely, in the
sense : If thou place all stress on works, / am not the less entitled to place
all stress on faith. Kern attempts to remove the difficulty by taking the first

1 Gloss.: Ta n-pbs rpoipijv appoSia; Suidas ; between Catholic and Protestant interpreters;
a^op^ai 619 TOI* jStov ; Bee Herod., ii. 174; Thuc, whilst Lorinus says : '* mortuum corpus verum
il. 23; Cicero, Qff'. i. 8; " necessaria vitae prae- corpus est, ut sine operibus et charitate fides,"
aidia." Laurentius remarks : *' sicut homo mortnus
2 The comparison of faith without works to non est verus homo, ita nee fides mortua vera
a dead body is found among the old interpreters fides."
in such a manner that it formed a controversy

90 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
sentence : ai manv ixeig, as a hypothetical protasis, and the second, on the
other hand, Kuyu epya exu, as the apodosis, and explains it : " If thou hast
faith, so have I also works, because, as thou sayest, faith and works cannot
be separated." But to this explanation is opposed not only the fact that
James has not, in what has gone before, properly expressed the inseparable-
ness of faith and works, but has only presupposed it; but also that the oppo
nent should appeal to works, whilst Jaraes considers hiin as a person who
has no works. ^ With these difficulties it is not to be wondered at that
almost all expositors have decided for the view that dll' ipel ng is not here
to be taken as the form of an objection, and that by ng not an opponent of
James is meant, but a " vir sapiens et intelligens," to whom Jaraes assigns the
part of carrying on the argument iu his stead against his opponent. Wie
singer: "all' ipel ng cannot here be possibly taken, as in 1 Cor. xv. 35,
Rora. ix. 19, as an objection, for, as av manv ixeig already shows, the person
introduced as speaking is on the side of James, and like him combats faith
without works." Accordingly, with ai the same opponent is addressed
whom James had hitherto in view, and with Kdyu the person called ng desig
nates hiraself as agreeing with James. But against this explanation there
are many objections. 1. It cannot be denied that the words dll' ipel ng have
most decidedly the character of an objection. 2. If they are not so under
stood, then dll' is not only an interruption, but inexplicable ; Hottinger,
indeed, maintains : dlld hic non adversativiim esse per se patet ; but who will
agree with hira in this ? De Wette assuraes that by dlld here is expressed
not primarily the contrast with what imraediately precedes, but with the
error already combated. Wiesinger has, however, correctly rejected this
opinion, which is the less to be justified "as the error has not yet been per
se expressed." dl^ld must at all events be referred to what directly precedes.
According to Schneckenburger, it refers ad negationem, quam notitio veKpbg
involvit, quasi dictum foret: ista fides non est fides, sed dicat aliquis ; but that
mang, if it has not works, is not marig at al], is so little the opinion of James
that he asoi'ibes a mareieiv to the devils (ver. 19) ; vcKpd is here arbitrarily
explained as = nidla, and not less arbitrarily is it observed on irianv ixeig :
" interlocutor ad hom'inis errorem descendens fidem, quam profitetur, eum habere
SUMIT," since .Tames does not the least indicate that the words av irianv exeig
are to be understood in the sense: "I will even assume that thou hast faith."
The opinion of several critics, that dlld is here (= quin etiam) "a correction
of the preceding judgment, heightening it" (Wiesinger), and indicates "that
the opinion that a faith without works is dead is here surpassed " (Gunkel),
is of no avail, as the opinion contained in this verse on faith without works
is evidently not, as Briickner falsely thinks, stronger than that which is
expressed in ver. 17 with veKpd ianv.^ Accordingly, all attempts at the

1 The explanation of Knapp, that the first is correctly relinquished by himself, as it is too
words are interrogative: "tune quia ipse fide artificial to be considered as correct.
cares, propterea eam contemnis? " and to = Wiesinger observes :" The person intro-
which the answer is then given : " iramo vero duced as speaking not only confirms what was
plus habeo, quam quantum tu et habes et pos- said before, but goes beyond it ; not only that
tulas, fidem videlicet cum factis conjunctam," such a faith is dead, but that it cannot even

CHAP. II. 18. 91
explanation of dlld do not attain their object, i 3. With this explanation it
is entirely uncertain how far the speech of ng extends, and where James
again resumes ; aud accordingly the greatest uncertainty here occurs among
expositors. 4. Lastly, it cannot be perceived why James should express
his own opinion in the person of another who is designated by the entirely
indefinite term ng. Wiesinger and most expositors do not touch on this
point at all. Baumgarten thinks that James speaks here in the words of a
stranger, in order the better and the more freely to convey the notion of
erroneousuess in severer terras. But this is a pure fiction ; that James did
not shrink from expressing himself freely and strongly, the whole Epistle is
a proof.^ These objections are too important to permit us in spite of them
to rest on the above explanation. But, on the other hand, the difficulties
which arise if dlX ipel ng is taken as a form of objection appear to be invin
cible. They are only so, however, when it is assumed that the person intro
duced with av as speaking means James, and with Kdyu himself. But this
assumption is by no means necessary. Since James introduces ng as speak
ing, so both words av and Kdyu can be understood as well from the stand
point of James as from that of the speaker ; that is to say, that with ai the
opponent with whom James argues, and against whom he asserts that mang
without works is dead, is meant, and with iyu James himself. The meaning,
then, is as follows: But some might say in answer to what I have just
stated, defending thee,^ thou (who hast not the works) hast faith, and I, on
the other hand (who affirm that faith without works is dead), have works;''
my one-sided insisting on works is no more right than thy one-sided insist
ing on faith. By this explanation, which has nothing linguistically against
it, not only is the nature of dll' ipel ng preserved, but it expresses a thought
entirely suited to the context, whilst the following words give the answer by
which this objection is decidedly repelled. This answer is in form not
directed to the person introduced as speaking, but to the opponent with
whom only James has properly to do, and whom he in his lively style 'can
prove its existence without works ; it is noth- iaratlon, but falsely to the erroneous opinion
ing." But wilh these last words Wiesinger of Tt? (ver. 14) .
inserts a thought into the words which they ^ The view of Slier, that by the speaker a
by no means contain, tbe same thought which, Pharisaical Jew is lo be understood, who takes
according to Schneckenburger, is contained in occasion from the inoperative faith of Chris-
veKpd ean. tians to mock the Christian faith in general,
1 T-he pointing d\\, epel ti?, av K.T.X has been rightly rejected by Wiesinger. If
(Schulthess, Gebser, Rauch), does in no way Jaraes had meant by Tts a Jew, he would have
remove the difficulty, and has also this agaiust called him such.
it, that the closely-united formula dW epel Tt? * This is a form of expression which fre-
is thus disunited. quently occurs. Thus, if one speaks with
2 Lange thinks to remove the difficulty by Charles, and says to him : Henry says thou
ascribing to the words •' a grand prophetical hast found the book which I have lost. Brlick.
character," whilst by rt? is meant "the Gen- ner, indeed, thinks that this example is not
tile-Christian world," which has proved " by appropriate, but he. does not give bis reasons
its works of faith that it has had the true faith, for saying so. Lange calls the explanation
whereasEbionism, with its want of consistency here given artificial, but he does not say in
in Christian works of love, has proved that its ' what its artificial character consists. The ob
orthodoxy was not a living faith." But, apart jections which Lange brings against it are
from the arbitrariness of this interpretation, founded on his having read erroneously de-
aAAa is by it referred not to the preceding dec- fending Aims^^/ instead of defending thee.

92 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
now the more directly address, as the objection made was the expression of
his soul. The meaning of this answer is as follows : Hast thou actually,
as that person says, faith, — if this is to be of use it must manifest itself,
but this without works is impossible ; thou canst not even show thy faith
without works : as for myself, who have works, these are a proof that faith
is not wanting, for without faith I could do no works. On bel^ov, Schnecken
burger correctly remarks : vide ne verbo tr'ibuas significalionem exhibendi et
MANIFESTANDI (PER VITAM), scd rctine jirimam et simplicem co.mprobari quasi
ante Judicem. — ttjv irianv aov is said because the opponent ascribed faith to
himself (ver. 14); thus "the faith which thou sayest thou hast" (Wiesinger).
— With the reading of the Ree, iK i. epyuv (instead of x<^pk ruv ipyuv), the
words are to be taken as ironical (so also Lange), as the supposition is that
works are wanting to hira. — With these words not faith generally, but liv
ing faith which saves, is denied to the opponent; if the sarae is not proved
by works, it is dead. — In what Jaraes says of himself, epya are the wo"ks
which proceed from faith, as these could not otherwise authenticate it. It
is to be observed that in the first clause ryv irianv, and in the second iK ruv
ipyuv, stand first, because these ideas are the points on which the whole
turns. Ver. 19. James shows, in the faith of demons, with whom it produces
trembling, how little faith without works effects salvation. With av mareveig,
which is not, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, to be taken as a question, it
is granted to the opponent that he possesses faith. From the fact that what
is specifically Christian is not named as the object of faith, it is not to be
inferred, with Calvin, that in this entire section not the Christian faith (de
fide) is spoken of, but only de vulgari Dei notitia. Expositors correctly
assume that this one article of faith is only adduced as an exaraple. The
selection of precisely this article on the unity of God is not to be explained
because " the Jewish Christians were particularly proud of it, so that it
kept thera back from fully surrendering themselves to the Christian faith "
(Lange), but because it distinguished revealed religion from all heathenism.
However much the position of the individual words vary (see critical notes),
yet the unity of God appears in all as the chief idea ; comp. particularly,
Deut. vi. 4 ; Neh. ix. 6 ; Isa. xliv. 6, xiv. 6; Matt, xxiii. 9 ; JMark xii. 29, 32 ;
Rom. iii. 30; 1 Cor. viii. 4, 6; and, in this Epistle, chap. iv. 12. In Her
mas, i. 2, Mand. 1, it is said : irpurov irdvruv irlarevaov, on eig iariv b Qebg. — De
Wette, with whom Philippi coincides, thinks that by the construction with
on the faith which the opponent has is characterized as merely theoretical;
but it is, on the other hand, to be observed, that a construction with eig or iv
here, where the unity of God is to be adduced, could hardly have been used
(so also Briickner). — Jaraes grants, by the words Kalijg iroielg, that this faith
is something in itself entirely good (see ver. 8). Several expositors, as
Calvin, Semler, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger, Bouman,
find in the expression a trace of irony, which others, as Laurentius, Baum
garten, Grotius, Pott, Gebser, De Wette, deny. Though not in the state
ment by itself, yet in the whole expression there is something ironical
(Lange, BrUckner), which, in the combination of marevovaiv koi ippiaaovaiv (as

CHAP. n. 20, 21. 93
Wieseler remarks), rises to sarcasm. This sarcasm is, moreover, to be
recognized in demons being placed in opposition to the opponent. — Kai
before rd baipdvia is not to be explained by dlld Kai (Pott), or atqiii (Theile);
by the insertion of a contrary reference the peculiar severity of the expres
sion is only weakened. That James, in his reference to the unity of God,
mentions the demons, is in accordance with the view that the heathen divin
ities are demons; comp. LXX. Deut. xxxii. 17; Ps. xcv. 5, cv. 37; 1 Cor.
X. 20; and iSIeyer in loco: As these are the occasion of polytheism, so they
are hostilely opposed to the one God ; but, in their usurped lordship over
the heathen world, they tremble before the one God, who will again rescue
the world and Judge them. It is wholly arbitrary to take tu baipbvia = dae-
moniaci (Wetstein), or to think on the demons in the possessed (Semler,
Gebser, -Schneckenburger). Pott incorrectly paraphrases the kuI between
iriarevovaiv and ipp'iaaovai by koI bpug ; the simple copulative meaning of the
word need not here be altered, ippiaaeiv, an dir. ley., is used particularly of
the hair standing on end (Job iv. 15), and is therefore a stronger expression
than beboiKivai and rpipeiv.
Ver. 20 introduces the following proof from Scripture, that faith without
works is dead, and accordingly cannot have iiKaioiaSai as its consequence.
The question Biletg be yvuvat expresses the confident assurance of victory over
the opponent; the address c5 avBpuire Keve, deep indignation at him. Kevbg
does not here indicate intellectual defect (Baumgarten = stupid, incapable
of thinking ; Pott = short-sighted), but the want of true intrinsic worth, in
opposition to the imaginary wealth which the opponent fancies he possesses
in his dead faith. The word is only here used in the N. T. of persons.
The u, placed first, which is frequently used in reproof, — see Matt. xvii. 17;
Luke xxiv. 25; Rom. ix. 20 (Winer, p. 165 [E. T., 183]), — intensifies the
censure. The thought is essentially the same whether veKpd or dpyi; is read.
— apyog], equivalent to idle, vain, that which profits and effects nothing,^ is
also used of a capital sum which lies idle, and therefore bears no interest,
thus is a dead capital. Not because dpyy "deserves the preference with a
view to the sense " (Wiesinger), but only because it is difficult to consider
it as a gloss, is it to be considered - — against the authorities which testify
for veKpa (see critical note) — as the original reading. — As X"pk tuv ipyuv
stands here instead of idv pf/ ipya ixv (ver. 17), the article ij is not to be
supplied before x"Pk (against Beza, Baumgarten, and others).
Ver. 21. The testimony to which James first appeals is what happened
to Abraham. The reference to Abraham is completely explained from his
historical importance, and which is also indicated by 6 irarijp ypuv. — ypuv]
because both James and his readers belonged to the nation of Israel sprung
from Abraham. By the question with ov the thought is characterized as
such to which all — thus all the opponents — must assent : Was not Abraham
our father Justified by works ? The participial sentence which follows declares
what works procured for him justification : when he offered Isaac his son upon
> It is inaccurate to take dpyot as equivalent the conduct of the subject. They are united
to a/capn-o! (Frank : unproductive) ; as this in- together not as identical, but only as related,
dicates the condition, that, on the contrary, ideas, in 2 Pet. 1.8.

94 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
the altar'? — The reference to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul, and especially
to his declaration in Rom. iv. 1 ff., has misled expositors into many arbitrary
explanations of this verse, and particularly of the word ibmaiuBy- In order
to have a sure foundation for interpretation, two things are to be examined,
. — (1) the context, and (2) the linguistic usage. (1) As regards the context,
the question treated in this whole section is. How the Christian is saved ; i
comp. the question in ver. 14 : py bivarai y iriang auaai airbv ; and the connec
tion of that section with the preceding, where the discourse is about the
divine judgment (ver. 12: KplveaBai; ver. 13: y Kpiaig). As James appeals
to Abraham for his assertion that faith without works cannot save, it is evi
dent that by ibiKaiuBy he cannot mean soraething which happened to Abrar
hara from himself, but only soraething which happened to him from God;
so that the meaning cannot be " Abraham justified himself by his works,"
but only that "God justified him on the ground of his works." ^ (2) As
regards the linguistic usage, biKaiaiv corresponds to the Hebrew p''12fn,
which, as a. Judicial term, has the meaning : to declare one p''^V by an acquittal
from guilt, and is opposed to J'.'!?'"in (LXX. : KarayivuaKeiv, KarabiKut^eiv) = to
declare one V^") by a sentence of condemnation; comp. Exod. xxiii. 7; Deut.
xxv. 1; 1 Kings viii. 32; 2 Chron. vi. 23; Prov. xvii. 15; Isa. v. 23, 1. 8,
liii. 11; in the Apocrypha, comp. Ecclus. x. 29, xiii. 22, xxiii. 11, xxxiv. 5,
xlii. 2. biKoiovv has also the sarae meaning in the N. T., where, especially
(besides the passages treating of the Pauline doctrine of justification).
Matt. xii. 37, Rora. ii. 13, Luke xviii. 14 are to be compared. This
judicial meaning of the word is here to be retained. It is true, as Smaiovv
(similarly the English word "to justify") occurs not only in the judicial
sense, but, also raore generally, as also P'lY'^i in the sense "set forth as
righteous "2 (comp. Matt. xi. 19; Luke vii. 29; Rom. iii. 4; 1 Tim. iii. 16),
the passage has been explained: " Abrahara has been proved righteous," or,
" has proved himself righteous " (so already Calvin, aud, in recent times,
Philippi). But this explanation is unsuitable, since, according to this view,
justification did not happen to Abraham from God (as must be conceived
according to the context), but from his works ; thus it was Abraham who
1 Philippi erroneously maintains that the s This is the prevailing meaning of p'^Sn,
question here treated is to prove that faith which is differently modified according to'the
has to manifest Itself by works if it is to be different circumstances to which it is referred.
regarded as true faith. But James designates It is chiefly used of a judicial sentence, whether
the faith of his opponents as veKpd, not merely of God or of a human judge, by which one is
because it has no works, but because it can- declared p'lV ; yet it also occurs in another
not effect the av^r-qpia which they expected reference, namely, of every agency which
from it. causes one to appear as righteous, whether
2 Correctly, Wiesinger : " In eSt/caitiidTj the that agency is exercised by the person in ques-
passive sense is decidedly to be retained, and, tion or by others. The N. T. 6iKaiovv corre-
indeed, a Deo . . .; not of the human judg- sponds to this usage. Strictly taken, it is
ment is the discourse here and in ver. 23, but accordingly not correct to translate Sticatouv
of the divine; as it treats of the proposition in by " proved to be righteous," or " approved to
ver. 14, that only an active faith can save." be righteous," as the ideas proving and ap-
This is the more to be maintained, as the proving, according to their proper and strict
tihought, that faith has to justify itself before meaning, are not contained in it. Comp., bow
men as living. Is so void of importance that ever, the excellent treatment of the word in
James could not lay such stress upou it. Cremer's dictionary.

CHAP. II. 21. 95
justified himself by his works, i.e., proved hiraself to be righteous.' If we
hold fast to the judicial meaning, then it is to be observed that, in the con
ception of the word, neither any thing about the disposition of him who is the
object of the declaration of righteousness, nor about the ground of Justification
(whether it rests in the judge or in the conduct of him who is justified), is
indicated. For this reason the explanation of Wiesinger : a Deo Justus
agnitus, is incorrect, as the idea of a ratifying recognition of the already exist
ing condition is not contained in the word. As little is it to be vindicated
when Hofmann thinks that bmaioiaBai here imports: "to become a bUaiog,
inasmuch as he then answered to the will of God relating to him ; " for, on
the one hand, by this a meaning (namely, being made a righteous person)
is ascribed to the word which it has not ; and, on the other hand, no one
can make himself a righteous person by his works, but only can prove him
self to be such. 2 James says nothing else than that Abraham was declared
righteous (by God) i^ ipyuv. By if Ipyuv the reason is specified, on Abraham's
part, on account of which a declaration of righteousness was granted to him.
By these works are to be understood not all the works which Abrahara has
done, nor his whole pious life, but, as the clause dveviyKag 'laadK, k.t.X, shows,
the actual offering of his son Isaac on the altar. The plural i^ epyuv is used
because the category, at first entirely general, is specified which here comes
into consideration. It may appear surprising that James here should em
phasize precisely that offering as the reason of the declaration of righteous
ness, since in the O. T. narrative (Gen. xxii.) a bmaiovaBai of Abraham is not
mentioned. What James has in view is not "the judgment of God there;
Gen. xxii. 12 comp. with ver. 16 ff." (Wiesinger) ; for in these words, which,
moreover, only serve as an introduction to the declaration which follows,
nothing is addressed to Abraham, but only it is testified of him that God in
his action has recognized his fear of God. Not in this, but only in what
God addresses to him on account of it, because He has recognized him as a
God-fearing man, can James have found the declaration of Abraham's right-

1 Philippi explains the words : Abraham rather expressed by the active with the reflex
was justified before men by works, as a Justi- pronoun; comp. Luke x. 29, xvi. 15.
^ed man before God by faith. But here there 2 The following explanations are also incor-
are evidently introduced into the idea SiKaiovtr- rect: "he was loved aa a righteous man"
9ai a series of more precise statements which (Grotius) ; " he was made a partaker of the
are not contained in it. The explanation of favor of God and of all the blessings springing
Briickner is simpler, who considers eSiKauiOy from it" (Theile) ; " his justiflcatiou was rati-
to indicate: "that moral righteousness which fled by man" (Baumgarten). The translation :
displays itself ou the ground of the activity of "he was pardoned " (Pott) , is inaccurate, be-
falth ;" but also this Interpretation is not to be cause the idea of pardon always supposes a
considered correct for the reasons above stated. crime, which St/catovi' does not. Also the ex-
Theunsuitablenessof this and similar interpre- planation of Lange is arbitrary: SiKaioiv, in
tations is particularly evident from ver. 24. It the N. T. deeper sense, denotes that " God
is also to be observed, that in these explana- declares righteousness in the theocratical fo-
tions the passive is converted into the middle rum be,fore the theocratical congregation con-
Toice. In the 0. T., It is true, the hlthpael of ceived as permanent ; " for how can the precise
pis is translated in the LXX. by the preterite stateraent be contained in the simple verbal
passive of SiKatoiJi' (see Gen. xliv. 18) ; but In idea, before whom the declaration of righteous-
the N. T. the passive of this verb never occurs ness was made?
In this meaning: the middle import Is here

96 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
eousness. This is the bestowal of the promise (vv. 16-18) by which it is
expressly said, " because thou hast done this thing " (ver. 16), and " because
thou hast obeyed my voice " (ver. 18) ; by which is definitely brought for
ward that the promise was granted on account of his obedience — that is,
on account of his works. What importance, with regard to the promise, the
obedience of Abraham had in the eyes of God, is clearly brought out from
Gen. xxvi. 5, where God ratifies this same promise with Isaac in these
words : " Because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my
commandments, my statutes, and my laws;" and not less is it to be observed
when it is said iu Ecclus. xliv. 20 : of owerypyaev vbuov vipiarov . . . kuI ev irei-
paapu eipedy iriarbg ¦ bid roiro 'ev dpKip iaryoev avru, k.t.X It is true that the same
promise was made to Abraham at an earlier period, and that before he had
done any thing (Gen. xii. 2, 3) ; but the difference is, that after the offering
of his son it was imparted to him as an inalienable blessing on account of this
action, and that at the cloze of his theocratic historical life. In this James
could rightly recognize a formal declaration of Abraham's righteousness on
the part of God. — On the construction idwaiuBy Ik, comp. Matt. xii. 37: en
ruv layuv aov biKaMByay, where the Ibyoi are reckoned as that on the ground of
which acquittal (or condemnation) takes place. — The words : dveviyKag . . .
iirl rb Bvaiaariipiov] are not, with Luther, to be translated : " when he had sacri
ficed his son upon the altar ; " for dvaipipeiv joined with im, with the accu
sative, is not to sacrifice, but to bring as a sacrifice to the altar (comp. 1 Pet.
ii. 24) ; it is therefore incorrect to supply the idea will (Estius : cum obtulisset
= offere voluisset). Hottinger falsely explains iirl r. Bva. = before the altar.
To the narae 'laadK is emphatically added rim vlbv avroi ; comp. Gen. xxii. 16.
Ver. 22. The direct inference from the preceding. Since the necessity
oi faith to the attainment of salvation was not contested by those with whom
Jaraes disputed, but only the necessity of works ; and since James (ver. 21)
had adduced the example of Abraham to prove that only a faith which is
not dpyy and X"Pk ruv Ipyuv profits : in this verse it can only be intended to
represent how important to Abraham were his works, but not how important
to hira was his faith. This thought is thus clearly and evidently expressed
in the second hemistich : kuI Ik tuv Ipyuv, k.t.X On the other hand, the first
hemistich : bn y mang avvypyet rolg ipyoig avrov, has been generally understood
by expositors as if the necessity oi faith was intended to be brought forward.
In this meaning Bengel says : duo commata, quorum in priore, .n illud, fides,
in altero operibus cum accentu pronunciaveris, sententia liquido percipitur, qua
exprimitur, quid utravis pars alteri conferat. According to this, James would
have expressed in the first hemistich, that faith was not wanting to Abra
ham, that rather it was this from which his works sprung, that accordingly
Abraham was justified tf ipyuv, because they were works oi faith. The same
explanation is given by Erasmus, Tremellus, Beza, Baumgarten, Gebser,
Pott, Kern, and others ; also by Hofmann and Wiesinger. But the context
is against it, as this thought does not follow as a consequence from ver. 21.
Those expositors have accordingly understood the passage more correctly
who find in the words in question the meaning that the iriang of Abraham
was not dead but operative ; Estius : operosa fuit, non otiosa, non mortua (so

CHAP. II. 23. 97
Calvin, Laurentius, Hornejus, and others), although their interpretation
is inaccurate in particulars. — avvypyei]. If avvepyelv is taken in its strictly
literal sense : " to be a awepybg, to labor or to work along with " (1 Cor. xvi.
16; 2 Cor. vi. 1), and is translated: "faith wrought with his works," the
idea of James (according to the usage of the word avvepyelv in this meaning)
would be, that whilst works wrought, faith participated in their work.'
But this thought does not correspond with the context, and is, moreover,
not in itself to be vindicated, since faith and works are not two principles
working along with one another. — Kern, with whom De Wette coincides,
takes rolg epyoig as the dative of reference, and explains it: "faith wrought
to his works, i.e., was the operative principle for the production of works.''
This gives, indeed, a suitable enough thought, but linguistic usage is against
the explanation ; besides, it is not the case that " aw has only a vague refer
ence, or, to speak more correctly, no reference at all" (Hofmann). On this
account other interpreters, as Hofmann, Wiesinger, Bruckner, also Philippi,
correctly take avvepyelv here in the meaning of: to help (Rom. viii. 28; 1
Macc xii. 1). The support which faith gave to works is to be found in
this, that as it operates to their production, so also to their accomplishment
in correspondence with the will of God.^ By this explanation a special
emphasis is placed on the expression avvypyei, it being thereby brought
prominently forward that the faith of Abraham was not dpybg (d-epybg), but
exercised an activity, namely, the activity mentioned as helpful to works.
Against Lange's explanation : " faith manifested itself operatively at one
with the works," besides not being linguistically justified, Bruckner rightly
remarks that here the discourse is not concerning a co-operation of these
twb points. — The second hemistich is not in antithesis with the first, but
constitutes its complement; whilst the faith of Abraham aided his works,
faith itself received by works its completion. — ireleiuBy] is by many inter
preters understood as declarative ; Gomarus : fides est causa, opera effectus ;
causa autem non perficitur a suo effectu, sed perfecta declaratuh, ut fructus
boni arborem bonam non efficiunt, sed indicant. The same explanation
is adopted by Calvin, Laurentius, Baumgarten, Gebser, Bengel, Philippi,^
and others. Also Wiesinger indicates the same meaning with the remark :
"faith could not be proved complete if it were not already so in itself, for
the complete work presupposes the complete faith ; " but releioiaBai does not
• In the flrst edition of this commentary it ^ The explanation of Hofmann (with whom
is said : " Faith was the avvepyo^ of his works Wiesinger and BrUckner coincide) : " that his
— that is, it operated not by itself, but with action would not have been what is represented
his works. James will here make prominent in an act of willing obedience, unless faith hud
that with Abraham both were combined, the assisted to its performance," has this against
emphasis, however, according to the context, it, that the principal thought would not there-
being placed on tois epvot?." This explanation, by be expressed, but must be added. Philippi,
which has found favor with von Oettingen and correctly : Abraham's faith was no inert faith.
Ranch, is, however, not tenable, as, on the one but was helpful to his works, namely, to their
haud, linguistic usage is against it, and on the production and accomplishment; i.e., it as-
other hand, it was not insisted on by James sisted him to the performance of good works.
that the faith of Abrahara wrought not alone, ^ Philippi incorrectly appeals for this
but that it was uo inactive (inoperative) meaning to 1 John ii. 6, and to iaeaOe in
faith. Lfl^e vl. 36.

98 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
signify to be proved, but to be completed.'^ Certainly the meaning of James
cannot be, that faith hitherto incomplete was completed by works, as some
thing which was externally added to faith, since faith is the impulse to the
works ; but as little is it his meaning, that faith is already complete (rileiog)
before works, and is by works only proved or demonstrated to be so ; but
faith and works are in his view so closely connected, that faith only -when
it produces works or by works (i^ ipyuv) becomes ever more completely that
which it should be according to its nature and destination, and in so far
only by works attains to its completion ; for as the power of love grows and
is corapleted by the practice of works of love, so does faith grow and is com
pleted by the practice of works in which it manifests itself.^ Thus was
Abraham's faith only completed when he stood the severest test, and brought
his son as an offering upon the altar.s
Ver. 23. Since what was said of Abraham in the preceding appears to
conflict with the Scripture, Gen. xv. 6, James was obliged to solve this appar
ent contradiction; therefore he adds to what he has said: and (thus) the
scripture was fulfilled which says. But Abraham believed God, and it tvas reck
oned to him for righteousness ; and he was called a friend of God. Most
expositors (also von Oettingen) explain irlypoiv by comprohare, confirmed,
and find here the thought expressed, that by Abrahara being justified ef
ipyuv, the scripture: "that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteous
ness," received its confirmation. But in this explanation of the word irlypoiv
there is an arbitrary weakening of the idea, irlypoiv signifies neither in the
N. T. nor in classical usage: "to confirm" but always "to fulfil" (see
Cremer) ; with regard to a saying, the realization of the thought expressed
in it by an action following is indicated by irlypoiv, whether that saying be
in the form of a prediction or not. This meaning of the verb is also here
to be recognized, and indeed so much the more as James uses the formula

^ Also Hofmann's explanation ; " The reXet. strength than that of the body, for this decays
wcrts of his faith consisted not in this, that it and is consumed; bnt this spiritual strength,
attained from incompleteness to completeness, the more one uses and exercises it, the stronger
but in this, that by the action, in which it it becomes; it decays when one does not exer-
proved itself, it attained to its complete forma- else it." See also the appropriate remarks
tion — to its historical accomplishment," can- of Hengstenberg iJBvang. A7rc/ien«., 1866, p.
not be reckoned as appropriate, because TeAet- 1124 ff.).
oOo-flai never means " to be completely formed,'* s When it is objected against this explana-
if by this expression a becoming complete is tion, that faith must already have been perfect
not intended. Lange agrees with the above in order to produce the perfect work, it is to
remark, only he Introduces soraething strange be observed, that it is in the nature of living
when he says : " Abraham by his faith-offering faith always to be becoming stronger. In and
attained typically and ideally the reXctwo-ts, with the production of works, and thus to per-
which the Jewish Christians were to attain by feet itself in its nature more and more. Briick-
the full proof of Christian brotherly love out ner, indeed, grants that the practice of works,
of faith, and which with them all Israel was to has a strengthening reflex eflScacy on faith,
attain." but observes that by this cannot be meant that
2 Luther (in his introduction to First Peter, faith was not before already sufficient to jus-
published by Irmischer, vol. Ixx. p. 223 f.) says tlfy Abraham. But to this It is to be observed,
of the fruits o£ faith : " Although they belong that James does not derive the justiflcatlon
to our neighbor, that he may be profited there. (meant by him) of Abraham from his faith
by, yet the fruit is not external — faith becomes preceding works, but from his faith made per-
atronger thei'eby. It is an entirely different feet by works.

CHAP. IL 23. 99
with which not only in the N". T. but also in the O. T. (1 Kings ii. 27;
2 Chron. xxxvi. 22 ; 1 Macc. ii. 55) generally the fulfilraent of a proper pre
diction, and always the real proof of an earlier spoken thought, is expressed.
— The scripture which was fulfilled is Gen. xv. 6, where it is said not only
that Abrahara believed Jehovah, but that He (Jehovah) reckoned it to him
for righteousness. James (as also Paul in Rora. iv. 3; Gal. iii. 6; see also
1 Maco. ii. 52) cites the passage according to the LXX., where the passive
iloylaBy is used instead of the active n^'^H' ; whilst he only deviates frora the
Greek text in this, that he (as also Paul in Rom. iv. 3) uses eiriaievaev be
instead of Kai iiriarevaev ; it is to be observed that in the corresponding pas
sage, Ps. cvi. 31, the passive ^E'nj?! is also in the Hebrew. — Instead of the
expression used in these passages, the form : njri' 'JST nplS ^7 n^HJI, is also
found in the 0. T. Deut. xxiv. 13 and vi. 25 (where the LXX. incorrectly
translate np"JX by ileypuavvy). The contrary of this is indicated by "the
expression : n77p 17 2pr\r\, Prov. xxvii. 14. — All these expressions import
a judgment which God pronounces to Himself on a definite conduct of man,
by which He either reckons it for righteousness or for a curse ; with Abra
ham it was his faith on account of which God declared him a righteous per
son. — But in what does James see the fulfilment of this scripture, that
testifies this judgment of God on believing Abraham ? Evidently in what
he had already said, naipely, that Abraham e§ epyuv ibuaiuBy, and which he
indicates by what follows : kuI filng Qeoi iKlyBy ; for these words — since they
belong not to the scripture — are co-ordinate not with koI HoyiaBy, but with
KoX iirlypuBy, K.r.l. It is true God regarded Abraham as His filog (ipilog Qeoi
is not, as Hofmann and Philippi think, God's friend who loved God, but
God's friend whom God loved ^) the instant he reckoned his faith to him for
righteousness; but he was called so at a later period, namely, only at the
time that he was declared righteous by God on account of his icorks. The
expressions HoyiaBy avru eig SiKaioavvyv and 'ebiKaiuBy are not regarded by James
as equivalent, but according to his representation the former was imparted
to Abraham purely on account of his faith (iiriarevaev), but the latter only
when his faith was completed by works, thus on account of his works (i^
epyuv), so that thereby that scripture was fulfilled. It is true this scripture
is abstractly no promise ; but as it notifies facts which point to later actions
in which they received their full accomplishment, James might consider it
as a word of promise which was fulfilled by the occurrence of these later
actions. '¦= — The appellation of Abraham as a ^aof Qeoi is not indeed found
in the LXX.; but in 2 Chron. xx. 7, Jehoshaphat calls him in his prayer
;j3ns (LXX. : b iiyairypevog aov), and in Isa. xii. 8 God Hiraself calls hira '3nx
(LXX. ; bv iiydiryaa) ; comp. also Ges. Asar.,v. 11: bid 'k\3padp rbv yyairypevov
iirb aoi ; also it was not unusual for the .lews to call him ipilog Qeoi ; to Gen.
xviii. 17, the LXX. have added to dirb 'AjBpadp the words roi iraidog pov, for
'Lange comprehends both; but at all events, obedience, and the divine reckoning of his
according to the context, the reference given faith for righteousness points lo the declara-
aboveis to be recognized as tbe prevailing one. tion of righteousness imparted to him by Qod
2 Namely : the faith with which Abraham at a later period after proof of his obedience.
received the promise of God points to the later

100 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
which Philo puts roC filxm pov. It is evident from what has preceded, that
we cannot, with Grotius, Hornejus, Pott, and others, explain iKlyBy = factus
est, fuit.
Remark. — When De Wette explains irlypoiv by realized, this is so far inap
propriate, as irlypoiv does not directly refer to the fact itself, but to the saying
of scripture, and as neither of mareveiv of Abraham, nor of HoyiaBy airu eig Sik.,
can it be said that it "was something not yet wholly real, but the full realiza
tion of which occurred only at a later period." For although both point to a
later period, yet there was in them something which had actually taken place,
as Lange correctly adduces. Hofmann also gave an incorrect reference to the
word, explaining it: "In the offering of Isaac it was proved that God had
rightly estimated the faith of Abraham when He counted it for righteousness;"
for, on the one hand, there was no need of a proof that God had rightly esti
mated something, of which there is no indication in James, and, on the other
hand, irlypoiv has not the meaning of confirming or proving.^ In opposition to
the explanation of Philippi: "the scriptural expression concerning Abraham's
justification by faith was, because His justification by faith is in itself a thing
invisible as it were, an unfulfilled prophecy, until it became visible through
proof by works," it is, apart from the unjustifiable insertion of ^' as it were''
to be observed that Abraham's act of obedience, happening at a later period,
conflrmed indeed his faith (thus that iiriarevaev ru Ot-u), but not the righteous
ness adjudged to him on account of his faith (that HoyiaBy aviip eig 6ik.), and
accordingly iirlypuBy would be suitable only for the first half of the scriptural
expression. It is peculiar that, according to the explanation of Philippi, the
same meaning: "to be proved," is in essence ascribed to the three words —
bmaiovaBai, releioiaBai, irlypovaBai.
Ver. 24. An inference universally valid from the adduced example of
Abraham: "Ye see that by works a man is Justified (declared righteous), and
not by faith alone." — bpdre] is not imperative (Erasmus, Grotius), but indic
ative; Griesbach, Sohott, Schulthess, incorrectly understand the sentence as a
question, which it is as little as in ver. 22. — i^ ipyuv] is eraphaticaUy placed
first, because the chief stress is upon it. — biKaiovrai] has the sarae meaning
as in ver. 21. James thus infers from the foregoing that the declaration
of man's righteousness proceeds e-f ipyuv, and, with special reference to his
opponents, he adds: ovk Ik mareug pbvov.^ The chief emphasis is on pbvov;
for as little as James in ver. 14 has not said that faith cannot save (auaat),
so little will he here say that a man is not justified ck mareug (rather iriang is
> Also in Briickner's explanation: "Both cannot jwom a man before men to be a believer,
the fact that Abraham believed God, and that and justified by faith; " but this thought is in
his faith was reckoned to him by God for fact so self-evident, that .Tames would not have
righteousness, was conflrmed and proved in thought it necessary to state it as a consequence
the offering of Isaac, leading to this that Abra- from the history of Abraham. The idea op-
ham e^ epyuiv eSiKauiOri," the idea TT\r}povv re- posed to e| Ip-yioj. should not be ex iriareio!, but
ceivee not its right meaning. Lange has here must be e« \6yiav (comp. Xeyj), ver. 14) ; more-
in essentials adopted the correct meaning. over, the simple ^t/taiovTat ivBpawo'; cannot
2 Philippi, according to his explanation of possibly denote : " a man is justifled as a be-
e&iKaiu)9r), ver. 21, must flud here the thought liever whom God, on account of his faith, has
expressed, that " faith alone without works justifled."

CHAP. II. 25 101
to him the presupposition, without which the attainment of salvation cannot
be conceived, as without it the epya, i| uv biKaioirai dvBpuirog are impossible);
but that the faith which justifies must not be x"Pk i<^v ipyuv. pbvov is there
fore not to be united with ovk (Theile : appositionis lege explenda est oratio: non
solum fide, sed etiam operibus . . . nempe cum fide conjungendis), but with
iriareug (Theophylact, Grotius, Knapp, Hottinger, Wiesinger, and others) ;
comp. 1 Cor. xii. 31; 2 Cor. xi. 23; Gal. i. 23; Phil. i. 26. The declara
tion of righteousness, which James intends, is not that by which the believer
on accouut of his faith receives the forgiveness of his sins, but, as is evident
from the connection of the whole section, that which occurs to the believer,
who has proved his living faith by his works, at the judgment (iv tj) Kplaei,
iv Tip KplveaBai), and by which he receives aurypia (ver. 14). When Jaraes,
in reference to this, appeals to what happened to Abrahara, there is nothing
unsuitable, for why should not that which God has done in a definite instance
be regarded as a type and testimony of what He shall do at the future judg
ment? Moreover, this is completely appropriate, since to Abrahara, by the
address to hira after the offering of Isaac, the promise which was before
made to his faith, was rendered unchangeably firm at the close of his theocratic
life. ^The present diKaioirai is explained, because the thought was to be ex
pressed as a universal sentence. ^
Ver. 25. To the example of Abraham, that of Rahab is added : But was
not in like manner Rahab the harlot Justified by works ? The form of the sen
tence is the same as in ver. 21. — bpoiug be Kai] does not signify " even so " (as
Frommann explains it in the Stud. u. Krit., 1833, p. 97), but by bpoiug the
similarity of what Rahab became a partaker with what happened to Abraham
is brought forward, whilst by 6i the diversity of the relation is indicated.
This diversity is noted by the addition y iropvy. Rahab, namely, was a
iropvy; nevertheless, on account of the works which she did (namely, her
works of faith), she was declared righteous. Thus, by the addition of this
example, the truth that a man is justified e| ipyuv is yet further confirmed.^

1 See remarks by the author in the April Judgment is not indicated, since it is sufficiently
rmmber ot the Erlang. Zeitschrift fur Protest. indicated by the whole context; see remarks
Frank, in his reply (in the same, p. 220), com on ver. 14.
bating the reference of StuixiovTat to the final ^ Bede assigns as a reason why Rahab is
judgment, says " If there was in the life of here adduced as an example • " ne quis obji-
Abrahara a justification by works, which may ceret Abrahamum ejusqne fidem excelsiorem
be considered as the type aud testiraony of the esse, quam et quivis christianus imitatione eam
final acquittal, so there occurs also in the life of adsequi possit." Grotius thinks . " Abraharai
Christians such acts of justification by works, exemplum Hebraeis ad Christum conversis
that they may also be regarded as a testimony sufficere debebat, sed quia etiam alienigenis
and type of their future justification before the scribit, adjunxit exemplum feminae extraneae"
judgment-seat of God." To this it is to be (similarly Hofmann) ; and Schneckenburger
replied, that such an act of justification is here observes; " novum additur exemplum e sexu
treated of by which the accounting of his faith muliebri sumlum " All these meanings are,
for righteousness already imparted to the be- however, arbitrary, as there is no indication of
liever comes to its termination, as was here them in the words before us. This holds also
the case with Abraham. But this act, as con- good against Lange, according to whose opin-
cerna Christian believers, occurs not in their ion Kahab Is here to be considered " as a rep.
earthly life, but only at the judgment. Philippi resentailve of the Gentile Christians in their
also incorrectly says that the reference to the works of faith."

102 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
The article y is not, as some expositors think, demonstrative illa ; and iropvy
means neither mulier cibaria vendens, nor caupona vel hospita (Lyranus, Gro
tius), nor idololatra (RosenmuUer). — vnoSeiapevy roig dyye7iovg, k.t.X]. This
participial sentence mentions the ipya on account of which Rahab was jus
tified. The correctne-iS of the assertion, that Rahab was justified on account
of her works, consists in this : that, according to the narrative contained in
Josh. ii. and vi., life was on account of them granted to her, she was formally
delivered from that punishment which befell Jericho; see Josh. vi. 24.
Thus James could with right appeal for the truth of what was said in ver.
24 to this fact, since also the future declaration of righteousness will be an
acquittal from punishment. — In Heb. xi. 31 the deliverance of Rahab is
ascribed to her mang, but so that her action is likewise mentioned as the
demonstration of it. Theile explains virobe^apevy — clam excepit ; but Wie
singer correctly observes : " The secondary meaning claini is not contained in
the word, but in the circumstances ; " see Luke x. 38, xix. 6 ; Acts xvii. 7.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews the simple verb fiei,apivy is used, and "Ca&dyye-
loi'- are there more exactly designated as KardoKoiroi. iKiidlleiv is not simply
emittere (Schneckenburger), but has the secondary meaning of force = thrust
out, comp. Luke viii. 54; John ii. 15; Acts ix. 40. It denotes the pressing
haste with which she urged the messengers to go out of the house, irepgi odu],
i.e., by another way than from that by which they entered the house, namely,
bid ryg Bvpibog, Josh. ii. 15. For the local dative, see Winer, p. 196 (E. T., 219).
Ver. 26 is added as a reason (ydp), priraarily indeed, to what directly
goes before (c? epyuv ibwaiuBy), but thereby likewise to the universal senti
ment contained in ver. 24. James here repeats the sarae judgment which
he has already expressed (ver. 17) on iriang xuplg ruv ipyuv ; yet heightens it
by the comparison with aupa X"Pk irvevuarog : for as the body without the spirit
is dead, so also faith without icorks is dead. — rb aupa xuplg irvevuarog]. By aCipa
is to be understood the human body, and by irvevpa the vital principle ani
mating it, by which it lives; whether James has contemplated irvevua
definitely as the intellectual spirit of man (as "the principle of the morally
determined and God-derived life peculiar to man "), or generally as the
breath of Hfe proceeding from God (see Gen. vi. 17, LXX. : irdaa adpi iv y
earl irvevpa f(jf/f ; Rev. xi. 11, xiii. 15), remains uncertain. With the body
without the spirit, which is veKpbg, James compares (oiiruf is not " the sign of
assurance = even so certainly," Baumgarten) faith without works (the article
ruv denotes works as those which belong to mang, its corresponding works),
which is also veKpbg. This comparison appears so far incongruous, as the
relation of epya to iriang does not correspond with that of irvevpa to the aupa,
since epya are the fruit, and not the source, of mang.'' Therefore some inter
preters have by epya understood not works themselves, but love (Theile), or
" the innermost life of faith in its outwardly operative and visible manifes
tation" (Frank); but such an exchange of ideas is not to be justified. Al-
> Lange strangely supposes that James has 2 Lange denies the apparent incongruity,
chosen this expression " in allusion to the fact because " the spirit also, iu virtue of its actu-
that the Gentiles of his time were ready to re- allty, effects the higher visibiflty of the body " !
ceive the messengers of the gospel.'*

CHAP. II. 26. 103
ready some of the older expositors, as Goraar, Piscator, Laurentius, Wolf,
and others, and recently Philippi (Theile is undecided), explain irvevpa —
breath. This, however, is even linguistically objectionable, as irvevpa in the
N. T. occurs in the meaning of breath proceeding out of the mouth only in
2 Thess. ii. 8, a passage in accordance with the O. T. ; but also in sense this
explanation is not justified, for although " the breath is the proof of the
existence of life in the body" (Philippi), yet the ideas breath and works
have too great disparity between them to be parallelized with each other.
It is more natural, with De Wette, Kern, Hofmann, Wiesinger, and Weiss,
to assume that James intends not to compare the single members with each
other (aupa with iriang, and irvevpa with epyoig), but to make prominent that
a faith which is xi-ipk ruv epyuv, is thereby proved to be like to the body, in
which the irveiua, the source of life, is wanting — which is tlius only a dead
body. With this sentence, in which the idea expressed in ver. 17 is strongly
confirmed, James closes this section, as from this it is self-evident that faith
without works cannot effect justification for man, and consequently not
aurypia, and therefore profits nothing (ver. 14).
1. The doctrine of James in this section is, according to expression, in oppo
sition with that of the Apostle Paul (James: 'ei Ipyuv biKaiovrai dvBpuirog /cat ovk
iK iriareug pbvov; Paul, Gal. ii. 16: ov biKaiovrai dvBpuirog i^ ipyuv vbpov, idv py bid
iriareug; James asks: 'Afipadp oiK i^ ipyuv ibwaluBy ; Paul, in Eom. iv. 2, says:
ei 'k3padp cf ipyuv ibiKaiuBy, ixn KavxVfJ^", uKl' ov irpbg rbv Qebv). It is asked
whether also the sentiment of the one contradicts that of the other. Until the
time of Luther, the conviction prevailed that the two agreed in thought. This
is maintained in recent times by Neander, Thiersch, Hofmann, Wiesinger,
Lange, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and others. Luther, on the contrary, was of
opinion that the doctrine of James decidedly contradicted that of Paul; and
the same view has been expressed in recent times by De Wette, Kern, Baur,
Schwegler, and others, also Rauch. There is a middle view, that there is indeed
a diversity of doctrine between Paul and James, but that this does not exclude
a higher unity; thus Schmid, Weizsacker (Renter's Repert., Oct. 1855), Lechler,
and others. — Already Theophylact, Oecumenius, Bede, have, for the sake of
harmonizing the difference, asserted that the ipya of James are different from
those of which Paul speaks; Paul intends opera legis (Oecumenius: rd Kaid vbpov
aaiijianapuv Kal irepiropyg Kal ruv lomuv dyviapuv) ; James, on the contrary, opera
jZdei (Oecumenius: ipya tu irianv jieliaiovvra). This is indeed true. Paul has to
do with Judaizing opponents who maintained the necessity of circumcision, and
consequently of all legal works; but James, with such Christians who trusted
to simple iriang, and thought that this would secure their salvation, although
destitute of corresponding works. Paul had thus to prove that ipya rov vbpov
were not necessary ; James, that ipya ryg iriareug were nece.isary. Nevertheless,
this recognition of the different relations does not suffice to an actual harmoniz
ing of the difference; for it has with truth been maintained that, according to
¦the doctrinal system of Paul, a justifying efficacy is denied not only to works
of law, but also to works of faith, since these last do not precede hixt follow jus
tification. — Accordingly a different ineaning of the term iriang has been adopted,
and it has been maintained that by it'iang xuplg epyuv James luiderstands only
bare speculation (Oecumenius: ? uirly avyKordBeaig), the friyida et nuda notitia.

104 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
or indeed even the falsa professio fidei. This is certainly not entirely suitable,
though Paul does not know by name a iriang veicpd. But although it were cor
rect, yet the recognition of this distinction does not suffice to reconcile the
difference; for Wieseler is decidedly right when, against Schmid, Olshausen,
Neander, and others, he remarks, that it is one thing to say, To be justified by
faith which is proved by works, and another thing. To be justified by works in
which faith is proved. Already by Calvin, Calovius, Gerhard, and others, and
in recent times particularly by Hofmann, Wiesinger, Bruckner, Lange, Philippi,
and others, the wished-for reconciliation has been attempted to be brought
about, by ascribing a different meaning to the word diKaioioBai in James from
what it has in Paul; that James speaks not de actu, but de statu justijicationis.
But either thereby a meaning is assigned to the word which it never has, or
there results from it in James an idea inappropriate to the connection; see
exposition of the verses in question. Hengstenberg (Brief des Jakobus, in the
Evang. Kirchenz., 1866, No. 91-94) correctly maintains that SmaiovaBai has with
Paul and James the same meaning, but when he attempts to prove the agree
ment of the two modes of expression by the supposition that, as there are dif
ferent stages of faith, so there are different stages of justification, and that
James speaks of a more perfect justification than Paul in the passages in ques
tion, this cannot be admitted, since it contradicts the nature of divine justifica
tion to conceive it as advancing from an imperfect to a more and more perfect
stage. Even the justification at the last judgment is in itself not more perfect
than that by which.God in this life absolves the believer from his sins; the dis
tinction consisting only in this, that by the former he obtains salvation as a
present blessing, and that in all its fulness, which by the latter was conferred
on him as a blessing yet future.^
The exposition given in the above pages has shown that the idea of the word
diKawvaBat with James is none other than what it is with Paul, but that by it
James has in view the justification that places believers at the last judgment in
the full enjoyment of salvation, whereas Paul denotes by it the justification that
puts believers already in this world in a gracious relation toward God. Only
on this supposition does James say what he designs to say; for if biKaiovaBai (so
also au^eiv, ver. 14) refers to the judgment of God still in the future for believers,
the proof that it has epya for its essential condition effectually hits the opponent
who thought to be able to obtain aurypia by an inoperative faith. — That the
doctrine of James so understood is in agreement with that of Paul, follows from
the following remarks: — (1) James here evidently says nothing against the
Pauline doctrine of justification, since his i^ ipyuv does not refer to being placed
in a new relation to God, of which there is no mention. The inquiry, by what
this is conditioned, is not discussed by James in his Epistle at all; yet it is to
be observed that to him the foundation of the Christian life is iriang, and that
he designates the new birth (chap. i. 18) as a work of God, which only takes

1 It is incorrect when Hengstenberg says : 1868, Part IT.) has not been able to approve of
" If by faith is understood genuine living faith, this assertion of Hengstenberg. It is also no
and by works genuine works proceeding from less incorrect when Hengstenberg, in spite of e^
faith, justification by faith and justification by epyv^v . . . ovk ck n-to-Tea,? povov, ver. 24, thinks
works can be taught without contradiction ; " that " in .James also faith alone is represented
since the justification of which Paul speaks is as justifying," since James does uot give the
the reason and not the consequence of works narae of justification to God's act of grace
of faith : on which account even Rlggenbach which is effectual in man only through faith.
(" On Justification," etc., in the Stud. u. Krit.,

CHAP. II. 105
place through the will of God, and indeed so that God implants the word of truth
in man. That James in this asserts something which is not in contradiction, but
in agreement with Paul's doctrine of justification, requires no proof. (2) The
doctrine of Paul concerning the future judgment of believers does not conflict
with what James says of biKaioioBai, although he does not use that expression in
reference to it (except in Eom. ii. 13). It is to be observed, that Paul very defl-
nitely distinguishes the justifying act of God, by which the forgiveness of sins is
adjudged to the believer for the sake of Christ, from the judicial act of God by
which aurypia will either be adjudged or denied to the justified. Justification (so
called by Paul) is conditioned oil the part of man only by iriang; the future au
rypia will only be adjudged to him in whom iriang has proved itself to be a work
ing principle. As, on the one hand, it is incorrect to affirm that, according to
Paul, he only is justifled by mang with whom it does not remain inactive ; so,
on the other hand, it is incorrect to think that according to him no reference is
taken of ipya in the judgment of God.i Wiesinger, in proof that Paul denies
the justifying (the word taken in his sense) efficacy of an inoperative faith,
adduces the passages, Rom. viii. 4, 13, xiii. 8-10; 1 Cor. vi. 7-11, 13; Gal. v. 6,
19-21; Eph. ii. 8-10; Col. i. 10; Tit. ii. 14; but it is, on the contrary, to be ob
served that in none of these passages (except Eph. ii. 8, in the words iare aeaua-
pevoi bid ryg iriareug) is the discourse of being justified (biKaioiaBai, in the sense of
Paul). All these passages, however, prove that Paul makes the attainment
of aurypia, or the .future inheritance of the kingdom of God, conditioned on the
epyoig of the justified. It is to be observed that in Gal. v. 6, iriang bi.' dydr.yg
ivepyovpevy does not (as is almost universally assumed) refer to biKoioiaBat, but to
direKbixeaBai iliriba biKaioavvyg, thus to the hope of those who are aeauapevoi did ryg
¦iriareug. Further, in 1 Cor. vi. 11, the Christians, to whom Paul says direlov-
aaaBe, yyidaByre, ibacaiuByre,^ are exhorted to consider that the dSiKoi shall not
inherit the ^aaileia Qeoi ; also, in Gal. v. 25, it is indicated that the l^yv irveipari,
which is peculiar to believers, must also be a aroixelv irveipari; and lastly, Paul,
in 2 Cor. v. 10, says expressly that we all (that is, Christians who as such are
bmaiuBevreg) must appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, iva Kopiayrai eKaarog
rd bid roi auparog irpbg a iirpa^ev, eire dyaBbv, elre KUKbv. From these passages,
which might be greatly multiplied, it is not to be denied that Paul, as he defi
nitely excludes every co-operation of human works in justification,^ so he no
• By this it is not intended to be denied that neither with Paul nor in any other passage of
Paul often combines the two acts as one act of the N. T.
divine salvation, and also that he frequently re- ^ Even with the recognition of this undeni-
fers the final salvation (not less than jnstifica- able fact, Paul's doctrine of justification by
tion) purely lo the ^racc of God. The problem faith is not always understood in strict pre-
is rather this, that, on the one hand, the final cision. This is particularly the case when it is
salvation is represented as a pure act of God's said, that according to Paul faith justifles, so
grace, but, on the other hand, the flnal judg- far as it is a principle of new life; whereas it
ment ie as definitely represented as an act is rather the case that, according to him, /aii/t
carried into effect Kara ra epya; as by Paul, is a principle of new life, because il justifies.
so in the Scriptures generally. The solution Only when this is misundersiood can it be said,
of this problem, however, belongs not to our on the supposition that Paul and James under-
present subject. Bland by inKaiovv the same divine act, that be-
2 By T]yidaiT\Te and eSi/taioifliiTe a change of tween thera there is no fundamental but only
man's disposition is not in itse)f designated, an unessential contrast. See remarks of the
but the change of his relation to God effected author in the Url. Zeitschr., April number,
by God. Meyer in loco incorrectly gives to 1862, p. 214 f., where amoi^g other things it is
the word St/toiovireat a meaning (namely, "to said: "The reason of justification is not the
be made righteous ") which it has elsewhere ethical nature of faith, but solely and entirely

106 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
less definitely represents the future salvation as conditioned by the practice
of epya ryg iriareug (see Hengstenberg, Evangel. Kirchenztg., 1866, p. 1119 ff.).^
But if this is the case, then in reference to this point there occurs a difference
between Paul and James, not in thought, but only in expression ; namely, Paul
denotes by the word bwaiovv that declaration of righteousness or acquittal by
God, by which the believer is placed in a new filial relation to God; whilst
James means that declaration of righteousness or acquittal by God, by which
he who is born again as a child of God receives the aurypia imparted at the judg
ment: but with both biKoioiv means " to declare righteous," "to acquit," but
not "to prove one rigliteous," or "to convert him into a righteous man." So,
also, in what both say concerning Abraham, there is no difference in sentiment;
the only difference is that HoyiaBy avru eig biKoioavvyv and ebwaiuBy are considered
by James as two points, whilst Paul considers the second to be equivalent to the
flrst. 2. If from what has been said it follows that the doctrine of James is not
in contradiction with that of Paul, then every reason for the opinion that James
wrote his Epistle with reference to Paul falls to the ground. The employment
of the same expressions by both is indeed surprising, but it is to be observed
that these expressions have their origin neither in Paul nor in James, but
already occur in the O. T. Paul uses the expressions bmaiovaBai, SiKoioavvy,
biKoiuaig, chiefly in a relation foreign to the O. T., to which, however, he was
led by the words HoyiaBy eig bmaioaivyv. James, on the contrary, uses them not
in the application peculiar to Paul, but in the manner in which they are used
in the 0. T. Also the reference to Abraham by James is not to be explained
on the ground that Paul confirms his doctrine of justiflcatlon by what happened
to Abraham; for, since James designed to appeal for his assertion to an O. T.
type, it was entirely natural that his glance should first fall on Abraham ; also
the distinction is to be observed, that James used Abraham only as an example,
whereas Paul, as Schleiermacher correctly observes, " referred to him his entire
peculiar system of doctrine, whilst he would trace back to him the special cove
nant of the people with God." — From all this it follows that James neither
designed an attack upon the Pauline doctrine itself, for in this case he would
have been obliged to demonstrate the necessity of epya vbpov, nor also an attack
upon a misunderstanding of it, for then he would have been obliged to show
that his readers could only regard themselves as biKaiuBevreg, when their faith
was to them an impulse to the practice of good works ;^ rather the Pauline doc
trine was unknown to him, since otherwise he would necessarily have conformed
to Paul's mode of representation. By this likewise the opinion is confirmed,
that the composition of the Epistle belongs not to the later, but to the earlier
apostolic times; see on this Sec. 4 of the Introduction, and the treatise of Weiss
mentioned above; also his B'lbl. Theol. p. 124 f.
the merit of Christ, or Christ Hiraself with is contradicted by the word of Christ, Matt.
whom faith, that is, faith in Christ, places us xii. 37.
in connection. We are not justified for the - How the deductions of James are to be
saAeof faith, but i/tro»^/i faith (Sta TTjy TTio-Tews) directed against a misunderstanding of the
for the sake of Christ: thus it holds good for Pauline doctrine, if ^iKaiovaQai has with him
the justification which is by faith alone, that the meaning of " to be proved," is in fact not
every i-eference to works is entirely excluded." to be understood, so much the less as the justi-
1 The objection of Philippi, that the declara- fying power of faith assuredly does not depend
tion of righteousness in the judgment takes on its being proved by works before men.
place not eK ri^v ep-yi*)!., but only Kard rd epya,

CHAP. III. 107

CHAPTER III.
Ver. 3. Instead of the Ree. iboi, found only in some min., Griesbach has,
after 0, many min., etc., adopted ibe; however, ei 6e is to be read, with Lachm.,
Tisch., Wiesinger, De Wette, and others, after A, B, G, K, x, many min., vss., etc.
Not only does the preponderating weight of authorities testify for this, but also
its difficulty. — Instead of irpbg rb ire'iBeaBai, Lachm. and Tisch. (approved by De
Wette, Wiesinger, not by Bouman) have adopted cif rb tt. (so B, C, S). — Lachm.
has retained the Eec. airoig yplv, after B, G, K, K, etc. ; Tisch., on the contrary,
reads yplv airoig, after A, C. — Ver. 4. Instead of oKlypuv dvepuv (A, G, etc.),
Lachm. and Tisch. read dvepuv oKlypuv, after B, C, K, X, which, according to au
thorities, is to be considered as the correct reading. — Ver. 5. Lachm. and Tisch.
7 read peydla avxel (A, C*) instead of the Eec. peyalavxel (Tisch. 2); attested
by B, C * *, G, K, X, almost all min. — Whether we are to read, with the Eec. ,
bllyai) irip, or, with Lachm. and Tisch., ijlaKOv irvp, cannot with certainty be
decided by authorities, since A*, C*, G, K, etc., are in favor of the former, and
A**, B, C, X, of the latter reading. The latter reading, however, merits the
preference, as it is not to be understood how bllyov, suitable for the thought,
should be exchanged forthe difficult reading ylUov; without sufiicient reason,
Kern, Theile, Wiesinger, Bouman,^ would retain the reading of the Ree. —
Ver. 6. Before the second y. y?.uaaa the Ree, after several min., etc., has ovrug,
which already Griesbach considered suspicious, and, after A, B, C, K, X, etc.,
is according to Lachm. and Tisch. to be erased; it was evidently inserted in
order to lighten the difficult construction; also De Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman,
and others consider it spurious; Eeiche decides otherwise. — After yeveaeug, X
only has ypuv, which is evidently an interpretation. — There is great variation
with regard to the sequence of the words bivarai dvBpiJiruv bapdaai (thus the Eec.
after G; retained by Tisch.); B, C, etc., read bapdaai divarai dvBpuiruv (Lachm.),
and A, K, X, etc., read bivarai bapdaai dvBpuiruv. It is evidently indifferent for
the sense. — Instead of the Eec. dKardaxerov after C, G, K, etc., probably should
be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., aKaruararov, after A, B, X, etc. (approved by
Wiesinger and Lange, rejected by Eeiche and Bouman). — Ver. 9. The Eec. rbv
Qebv after G, K, etc., is to be changed for the better attested reading rbv Kvpiov,
after A, B, C, X, etc., Lachm., Tisch. : the alteration is easily accounted for.^ —
Ver. 12. According to the Eec. the last clause begins with oiiTuf, after C**, G,
K, X, some min. and vss., which already Griesbach considered suspicious; it is,
according to the testimony of A, B, C, to be erased as an insertion. — The words
which follow in the Eec. (after G, K, etc.) are oubep'ia iryyy dlvKbv koi ylvKi iroif/aai
1 Bouman thinks that ^Aekov arose from the 2 Bouman erroneously thinks that ®e6v was
following ^AtxTji.; but it is more correct to as- changed for Kvpiov in order that a mention of
sume that even on this account it was changed Christ might once take place.
for the easily understood o^iyov.

108 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
vSup. This reading, whose spuriousness was already recognized by Griesbach,
is, as a correction for the sake of explanation, to be changed for aire dlvKbv ylvKi
iroiyaai vbup; attested by A, B, C, etc., and adopted by Griesbach, Lachm.,
Tisch. , and others. X reads avSe. — Ver. 13. Whether after iv iplv a comma is
to be placed, with Lachm. and Buttm., or, with Tisch. and the Eec, a note of
interrogation, see the explanation of the verse. — Ver. 14. Instead of iv ry Kapbif,
X has the plural iv ralg Kapblaig. — In the same MS. T^f dlyBeiag instead of after
ipevbeaBe stands after KaraKavxaaBe. — Ver. 16. After iKel, x has inserted Kai. —
Ver. 17. The Kal of the Eec. between dbiuKpirog and dwiroKpirog is, according to
A, B, C, X, etc., to be erased as an insertion; so also in ver. 18 the article ryg
before biKaioaivyg, according to A, B, C, G, K, X, etc.
With chap. iii. Jaraes passes to the treatment of a new theme, to which
the conduct of the Christians, to whom this Epistle was directed, likewise
gave occasion. It is that which was already indicated by jipabvg eig rb Ixilyaat
in chap. i. 17, and by prj xalivayuyuv ylijoaav airoi in chap. i. 26. The more
unfruitful faith was in works corresponding to it (especially the works of
compassionate love), the more did " the loquacious teaching and ruling of
others " (Wiesinger) prevail. Words had taken the place of works. This
section, which is closely united with the preceding, treats of this; yet
without " any hidden indication contained in it that it was the doctrine
of faith which was an object of controversy" (De Wette); for in the
whole Epistle there is not the slightest indication of controversies in
the churches in question. The fault refers to the sarae with which Paul
in Rom. ii. 17 fi!. blames the Jews, only that with these Christians iriang,
which was to them soraething entirely external, took the place of vdpog. The
moral relation was essentially the same. The warning (as in chap. ii. 1)
stands first, and the reason assigned for it follows : " Be not in great numiers
teachers, my brethren, considering that we will receive a heavier Judgment." Cal
vin, Piscator, Laurentius, Baumgarten, and others arbitrarily refer this warn
ing to the unauthorized judging and condemning of each other; by this
explanation the idea SibdoKaloi does not receive its proper meaning. On the
other hand, we are not to think of persons rushing into the proper munus
docendi (Bede, Semler, Pott, Gebser, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, and
others), but on the free teaching in the congregation which was not yet
joined to a particular office, but appertained to every one who felt himself
called to it. — irollx>l belongs not to yiveaBe (iroMol yiyveaBai = multiplicari.
Gen. vi. 1 ; Schneckenburger), but is either the subject (De Wette, Wie
singer, Bouman) or forms the predicate united with dibdoKaljoi. In the first
case, however, yiviaBuaav would more naturally stand instead of yiveaBe ; also
from the second construction a more important thought arises ; therefore it
is to be explained : " Be not many teachers," that is : " Be not a multitude
of teachers " (Lange). It is inaccurate to explain irollol = irdvieg (Grotius) ;
it is false to explain it = nimii in docendo (Baumgarten : " be not excessive,
vigorous judges "). The verb yiveaBe has here the sarae meaning as in chap.
i. 22 — With eibbreg, k.t.X, Jaraes points to the reason of lU^ . . . yiveaBe; yet
eibbreg being closely joined to the imperative is itself hortatory : considering.
In the phrase Kpipa lapjidveiv, Kplpa has in the N. T. usage undoubtedly the

CHAP. IIL 2. 109
meaning condemnation ; comp. Matt, xxiii. 13 (Mark xii. 40; Luke xx. 47);
Rom. xiii. 2 ; but also elsewhere the word occurs in the N. T. almost
entirely in this meaning, which Lange incorrectly denies (see Cremer).
Because James includes himself, niany expositors have been induced to take
Kpipa here as vox media (so also Lange), but it is tb be considered that James
does not use this expression as if the sentence of condemnation could not be
removed (see chap. ii. 13) ; only this is evident to him, that the severer
(peliov) the condemnation, so much the more difficult is it to be delivered
from its execution. The comparative pel^ov (not =: too great. Pott) is ex
plained from a comparison with others who are not teachers.
Ver. 2. The reason (ydp) of the preceding ; yet not so much of the warn
ing: py . . . yiveaBe (Schneckenburger), — this is conditioned hy eibbreg, k.t.X,
— as rather pf the thought peKov Kplpa lyipbpeBa; namely, so that the first
clause refers only to Kplpa li/ipopeBa, and only that which follows to the idea
pel^ov; whilst in the expression ei ng, k.t.X, the idea is contained, that as ov
irraieiv iv Myu conditions releioryg, sinful man is thus not in a position to
bridle the tongue. Briickner incorrectly considers the clause et ng, k.t.7<,.,
as the explanatory reason of the directly preceding sentence : " we all offend
frequently, /or whosoever offends not in word, he only preserves himself from
iroXld irraieiv." — The words irolld irralouev diravreg are to be taken in their
widest sense (Wiesinger, Briickner) ; by diravreg (a stronger form than m'lvreg)
neither the btbdoKaloi simply are meant, nor is it == plerique (Grotius), aud
irraieiv points not expressly to errores, qui docentibus obvenire possint (Grotius),
or to " speech which is used in teaching " (De Wette),- but it comprehends
all and every moral error of whatever kind it may be.^ — irolld is adverbial,
as in Matt. ix. 14. — To this first thought that which follows is annexed
davvberug. — el ng; See chap. i. 5, 23, 26 — bang. — iv loyu is not to be limited
to teaching proper (Pott = iv bibaaKalia), but is equivalent to iv rip lalyaai,
chap. i. 19 ; iv denotes the sphere within which the ov irraieiv occurs ; other
wise in chap. ii. 10. On ob after ei, see on chap. ii. 11. — To oirof rileiog
dvyp, ian is to be supplied; oiTOf is emphatic; what ioDows dvvarbg, k.t.X, is
in apposition to rei. dvyp ; the word dvyp is used here as in chap. i. 8. — The
meaning is : Whosoever offends (sins) not in speech, and thus is able to
bridle his tongue, proves himself thereby to be a perfect man who is able
to rule also the whole body, that is, all the other members, so that it is subject
to his will. James here places the body in opposition to the man " as a rela
tive independent power which offers moral resistance to the will of the Ego "
(W'^iesinger), which it is his task to bridle. The Kapbia, indeed, is the fountain
of evil deeds (Matt. xv. 19), but the lust which is rooted therein has so thor
oughly appropriated the members of man, and as it were fixed its dwelling in
them (Rom. vii. 23), that they appear as lusting subjects, and may be repre
sented as such in lively concrete language. By such explanations as blov rd
aupa, equivalent to " the whole connection of the actions and changes of
man " (Baumgarten), or = reliquae peccandi illecebrae (Pott), or ¦= tola vita
1 Biiickner correctly asserts, against De that in what follows ev Ad-yt[> irraieiv is partlc-
"Wette, that the subject in an-avTey has experl- ularly brought forward, requires for irraieiv
enced an extension, and that the circumstance here a more universal meaning

110 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
(Schneckenburger), the idea lying at the foundation does not receive its full
meaning. Even the remark of De Wette, that rb aupa denotes " not only all
organs proper, but even the affections," is not to be retained ; on which ac
count Briickner adds : "the latter only in so far as they are expressed by the
former." The explanation of Lange is also arbitrary, that the body here
denotes the organ and symbol of all other modes of human action, with the
exception of speech. Laurentius rightly observes: nihil obstat, quo minus per
- totum corpus intelligamus caetera corporis nostri membra: manus, pedes, etc.
Vv. 3, 4. Two comparisons by which the thought el ng iv Idyu, k.t.X, is
illustrated and confirmed. It is incorrect when it is assumed that " James,
with vv. 3 and 4, will primarily explain and establish by examples the im
portance, maintained in ver. 2, of power over a little thing, as the tongue,
for the government of the whole " (Wiesinger), and that the tertium compara
tionis is " a little thing does much " (Gunkel) ; for neither in ver. 2 is the
smallness of the tongue mentioned, nor in ver. 3 is the smallness of the bridle
brought forward. The examples adduced, which are closely attached to the
preceding, are rather designed to prove how by the mastery of the tongue that
of the whole body is possible ; it is, James will say, even as one rules the
horse by the guidance of the bridle, and the ship by the guidance of the helm.
Only in the second image does the smallness of that by which the steersman
rules the great ship appear to James as something important, so that he
dwells upon this point in what follows (so also Lange).
Ver. 3. But if we put bridles in the mouths of horses, we turn also their whole
body. Tlie clause kuI blov, k.t.X, forms the apodosis to the protasis beginning
with ei (Pott, Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange, Bouman). Many expositors in
correctly attach this clause to the protasis, whereby Theile regards ver. 5 as
the apodosis belonging to it, whilst others supply a thought as the apodosis ;
according to De Wette, this thought is, that "the tongue is not so easily
tamed as a horse," which is wholly unsuitable.^ — The particle bi is not,
with Theile, to be explained as closely connecting this verse to the follow
ing,'' for here and in ver. 4 nothing else than a contrast to ver. 2 is to be
expressed; it is rather used here even as in chap. ii. 15, simply distinguish
ing the case adduced for comparison from that for the sake of which it is
introduced (Wiesinger). By riJv iiriruv standing first, the view is at once
directed to the object by which the sentiment expressed is to be illustrated
(comp. ver. 4). The genitive depends not on roig xalivovg (Theile, Lange,
and others), but on ra aropara (Oecumenius, Hornejus, Pott, Gebser; Bou
man wavers), for on this word the emphasis rests, roig xalivovg points back
to x^^tvayuyr/aai, ver. 2, by which apparently this image was suggested to
Jaraes. — On the phrase : eig rd aropara jSulleiv, corap. in Aelian : xalivbv iiriru
ip,idlleiv. — The words e'lg rb ireiBeaBai yplv ahrovg are for the purpose of ac-

1 Bede supplies : " quanto amplius decet, nt « Theile says i " Ita a difficultate linguam
nobis Ipsis frenum oontlnenUac in ora mitta- moderandi trausitua fit ad necessitatem: iu
raus; " Lorinus: "ai hoc in equis contlngit, memoriam vocatur, exigua saepe esse, quibus
simile quid oportet circa linguam procurarl;" ingentia moveantur non solum in bonam (vv.
Hottinger: "eodem modo qui linguam coer- 3, 4), sed maxime etiam in malam partem."
cere potest, toll corpori facile moderabitur."

CHAP. III. i, 5. Ill
centuating the governing of the horse by the bridle put into its raouth.
The apodosis kuI blov rb aupa, k.t.X, corresponds to xi^livayuyriaai kuI blov rb
aupa, ver. 2. — perdyeiv, in the N. T. only here and in ver. 4, is = circum-
agere. The tertium comparationis lies in eig TiU arbuara ; for, as Bengel correctly
remarks : in ore lingua est, and ov irraieiv iv loyu, is identical with the bridling
of the tongue in the mouth.
Ver. 4. The second comparison is emphatically indicated by Mojj. kuiis
either also or even so. Wiesinger prefers the second meaning, which cer
tainly gives to the thought a peculiar emphasis. The participles bvra . . .
'elavvbpeva are to be resolved by although. Both participial sentences bring
forward the difficulty of guiding the ship, in order to cause the power of the
small helm to be recognized. It is possible that in the second clause : koI
. . . ilavvbpeva, there is an allusion to the lusts moving man (Bede : venti
validi . . . ipsi appetitus sunt mentium), or "to tha temptations (ireipaapoi) of
the world, coming from without" (Lange). — oKlypbg is also used of the
wind in Prov. xxvii. 16 (so also Aelian, De Animal, v. 13, ix. 14; Dio Chry
sostom, iii. p. 44 C). — The verb peruyerai united with rd irlola is the same as
in ver. 3. The words virb ilaxiarov irybaliov mention by what this guidance
takes place. On virb, see chap. i. 14. By the addition of ilaxiarov a new
point is introduced which is retained in what follows. The superlative is
for the purpose of bringing raore strongly forward the smallness of the
irybdXov in contrast to the great ship (ry'liKaira '>vra). The counterpart is
the little tongue (ver. 5). — The addition : whithersoever the desire ofthe steers
man willeth, is not superfiuous ; it expresses — in opposition to iirb dvipuv ilav
vbpeva — the free mastery of him who steers the ship, which he exercises over
it by means of the helm, and corresponds to eig rb ireiBeaBai, K.r.X, ver. 3. —
birov (instead of bnoi, which does not occur in the IST. T.) is found also in the
classics united with verbs of motion, particularly with riBevai, but also with
ISaiveiv.^ By bppy is not to be understood the external irapulse, or " the press
ure which the steersman exercises " (Erasmus, Semler, Augusti, Stolz, Pott,
Theile, Wiesinger), also not " the course of the navigator kept in action by
the helm " (Lange) ; by both of these interpretations a meaning is imposed
upon the word foreign to it. It rather indicates, as in Acts xiv. 5 (see Meier
in loco), ihe eager will, the desire of something;^ thus Bede, Calvin, Grotius,
Bauragarten, Gebser, De Wette, and others. — The participle b evBvvuv indi
cates- hira who sits at the helm and directs the ship; it is thus not = 6
evBwryp (Grotius, Pott, Schneckenburger). Luther correctly translates it
according to its ineaning : " whither he wills who governs it." ^
Ver. 5. Application of the comparison, particularly of the second illus
tration, |U«p6v pointing back to ilaxiaiov. — peyalavxelv, ¦which expresses the
contrast to piKpbv, is not = peydla Ipyd^eaBai (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Cal
vin, Laurentius, Pott, Bouman, and others), for the idea of doing is precisely
not contained in the word, but it denotes proud conduct iu word and be
havior, which has for supposition the performance of great things, and is
1 Sophocles, Trach. 40 : /ceivoj oirou ^e^riKev. ' For corresponding passages from the claa-
2 InPlato, PA«. p.35D,ltisusedassynony- slcs, see iu Wetstein, Gebser, Theile; partlc-
mous with eiiidvpia. ularly Aristotle, Quaest. Median. 11. 6.

112 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
always used in a bad sense. This certainly does not appear to suit oirug, as
in the preceding the discourse is not about talking, on which account Lange
prefers the reading peydla avxel ; but also this expression = " boasteth great
things," does not exclude, but includes, that secondary meaning, for why
would not Jaraes otherwise have written simply peydla iroiel ? But ovrug is
so far not unsuitable, as the performance of great things — as they are spok^i
of in the foregoing — forms the reason of the boasting of the tongue. On a
mere inanis Jactalio it is not natural here to think. This first clause already
points to what follows, where the destructive power of the tongue is described.
This description begins with a figure: "What afire kindles what a forest."
In justification of the reading yl'iKov (instead of bllyov), De Wette (with
whom Briickner agrees), translating yl'mov irvp: "what a great fire," observes,
" that the burning of the forest is contemplated in its whole extent." But
the verb dvdirrei, as Wiesinger correctly observes, is opposed to this explana
tion ; also this clause forms the transition from the foregoing to what fol
lows, and therefore must still'contain the reference to piKpbv, which certainly
is afterwards laid aside. This does not, however, constrain us to the rejec
tion of the reading yllKov (against Wiesinger and Bouraan), since this word,
which indeed chiefly emphasizes greatness, can also be used to give promi
nence to smallness ; see Pape. The older expositors, according to its mean
ing, correctly explained the quantus of the Vulgate by quantulus; thus
Cajetan., Paes, and others; the sarae explanation by Lange. If BrUckner
thinks that it is not appropriate to take yliKov here in this signification,
owing to the following yliKyv, it is on the contrary, to be observed that pre
cisely the opposition of the sarae word in a different signification is entirely
in accordance with the liveliness of the sentiment. — On the uso of yXKog in
the interrogative explanatory sense, see A. Buttmann, p. 217 (E. T., 253).
Erasmus, Laurentius, Grotius, Baumgarten, Augusti, explain the word iily
by materia, lignorum congeries, as it has in Ecclus. xxviii. 10 the significa
tion oifuel; but the image is evidently much niore lively aud graphic when
vlyis retained in its usual meaning: /ore.'S^.i
Ver. 6. Application of the image : Also the tongue is a fire, the world of
unrighteousness; the tongue sets itself among our members, as that which defileth
the whole body and kindleth the wheel (of life) revolving from birth, and is kindled
of hell. As a (little) fire setteth a forest in conflagration, so also the tongue
kindleth the whole life of man. Such is the destructive power of the tongue,
that whosoever knows how to bridle it may with truth be called a perfect
man (ver. 2). — Several interpreters divide the first clause: koI y yluaaa
irvp, 6 Koapoa ryg dbiKlag, into two corresponding parts, supplying the idea vly
to 6 Koapog ryg dbmiag ; thus Morus : igni respondet lingua, materiae seu silvae
respondet mundus improbus. Manifestly wholly arbitrary ; rather the words
6 Kbapog ryg dbiKtag form an apposition to 7 yluaaa, by which the power of the
tongue similar to destructive fire is explained. Koapog has here the same
meaning as in LXX., Prov. xvii. 6 : o^lof Kbapog tUv xpvpuruv; ^ thus the mul-
1 Correaponding descriptions in Homer, II. Stobaeus It is said : " Parva facula cacumen
xl. 155. Pindar, Py<A. iii. 66; see also Ecclus. Idae inceudi potest."
xl. 32. Philo, De Migr. Abrah. 407 A. In 2 It ia to be observed that the LXX. often

CHAP. III. 6. 113
titude comprehending the individual : consequently 6 Koapog ryg dbmiag is the
fulness of unrighteousness. The tongue is so called because, as the organ of
dpyy, it includes a fulness (not exactly the sum total) of unrighteousness
which from it pervades the other members (blm> rb aupa). Calvin correctly,
according to the sense : acsi vocaret mare vel abyssum (Luther, inaccurately :
" a world full of wickedness "). This is the explanation of most expositors.
Bouman correctly explains the definite article : famosus iste mundus iniqui-
tatis. The following are other explanations: (1) Oecumenius takes Koapog
= ornament, and explains : y yluaaa Koapei ryv dbmlav bid ryg ruv (yyrbpuv eiylurrov
beivbryrog ; similarly Wetstein, Semler, Eisner, Rosenmiiller, Storr, Lange '
(Wahl is doubtful). But Koapog never signifies in an active sense that which
puts an ornament on another, but always the ornament itself, that where
with a person adorns himself (or another). (2) Bretschneider likewise
takes the word as equivalent to ornament, but supplies ug, and explains : ut
ornatus (mulierum) inhonestus sc. inquinat mentes, sic lingua deprehenditur inter
corporis membra id quod totum corpus inquinat ; yet evidently more arbitrarily
than the foregoing explanation. (3) Theile retains the usual meaning of
the word world, and explains : lingua (est ignis), mundus (vero est) improbitatis,
i.e , improbitate plenus, nimirum ob illam ipsam linguae vim; but apart from
the inadmissible supplements rendered necessary, and the harshness con
tained in this combination of the genitive, this explanation is to be rejected,
because by it the words would contain an assertion on the nature of the
world, instead of on the nature of the tongue. (4) Estius, indeed, is right
in his comprehension of the idea, but he arbitrarily understands it as causa
tive : quia (lingua) peccata omnigena parit ; so also Herder : " the mainspring
and the cause of all unrighteousness." Gebser introduces something foreign
into the explanation, taking Koapog = the wicked world. Clericus, Hammond,
Eichhorn, Kuinoel, and Hottinger, without any sufficient reason, think that
the words are to be expunged from the text as spurious. — Whilst almost all
expositors refer b Koapog ryg aSmlag to what precedes (to which, according to
the reading of the Ree. which has ovrug before the following 7 yluaaa, it
necessarily belongs), Tisch. has put a point after irvp but not after dbmiag;^
and Neander translates : " As a world full of unrighteousness, the tongue is
among our members ; " so also Lange construes it. But this construction
is not only difficult, but isolates too much the first thought y yluaaa irip,
which only has a correct meaning when it is closely connected with what
follows. — The new clause accordingly begins with }) yluaaa, and KaB'iararai
has its necessary supplement in what follows: y amloiaa, k.t.X — KaBiararai
can neither here nor in chap. iv. 4 mean it stands : the perfect only has this
meaning, but not the present; it means: it sets itself, it appears (Wiesinger).

translate the Hebrew X3V by Koapo^ ; see Gen. culture, because it Is that which sophistically,
il. 1; Deut. iv. 19, xvii.V; Isa. xxiv. 21, xl. 26. etc., gives to unrighteousness its woridly . . .
> Lange, indeed, grants that Koapot is not and even splendid form." But Is uot the idea
an active idea, but he yet thinks that we must so explained taken in an active sense?
return to the original signification of the word, 2 Lachmann and Buttraann have, by leaving
and he then explains it: "the tongue ia the out the punctuation, left the pointing to the
form of the world, worldliness, or worldly expositor.

114 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Also the explanations are false: "it is so placed" (Pott); collocata est (Beza,
Piscator, Schneckenburger) ; " it becomes (such) " (De AVette, appealing to
Rom. V. 19), and " it rules " (Lange, appealing to Heb. viii. 3). Theile arbi
trarily completes the idea: haud raro. The words which follow mention
how the tongue appears among the members — as that wliich defileth the whole
body. The idea am'Aoiv, to which certainly nip is uot suited, is suggested by
the apposition 6 Kbapog ryg dbmiag. Only with the following participle does
James carry on the image of fire ; it is artificial to assume in amlovv a refer
ence to it. Bengel : maculans, ut ignis per fumum ; comp. on this passage
Eccles. V. 5. Neither the double Kai (for how often the several Kai succeed each
other iu a simple copulative sense !) nor the omission of the article before
the two participles (comp. chap. iv. 11, 14) proves that the participles which
follow Kal iployi^ovaa and Kal ^loyitppevy are subordinated to airiXoiaa (Wie
singer). This construction could only be considered as correct if the two
participles analyzed the idea amloiaa bl. r. aupa into its individual parts or
confirmed it; but neither of these is the case here; they rather add to this
idea two new points. The object rbv rpoxbv ryg yeveaeug, belonging to floyi-
(ovaa, has found very different explanations. The word rpo.Yof, according to
its etymology, denotes soraething running, and, although used of other rota
tory orbs, as particularly of the potter's wheel, it is especially used as a
designation of a ivheel, 1 Kings vii. 30 ff. ; Ezek. i. 15, 19, 20. The word
yiveaig can here be only in the same sense as in chap. i. 23 ; the compound
idea: the wheel of birth, i.e., "the wheel revolving from birth," is a figurative
designation of human life.^ Thus Gebser in particular correctly explains
it : " the wheel which is set in motion from our birth, i.e., a poetical descrip
tion of life ; " so also Briickner and Bouman. The explanations of Oecu
menius,^ Calvin, Laurentius, Hornejus, Pott, Neander, amount to the same
thing. Also Estius, Grotius, Carpzov, Michaelis, understand life, only de
riving this idea in a different manner. They explain rpoxbg (for which
Grotius would read Tpd:t;of) — cursus, yiveaig = natura, and cursus naturae —
vita ; by this explanation, however, the figurative nature of the expression
suffers. Wiesinger (with whom Rauch agrees), deviating frora this expla
nation, prefers to understand by it the whole body (blov rb aupa], rpoxbg de
noting either the wheel (by which, then, rpo.Yof r. yev. would be the revolving
wheel of existence, of life, namely, of that to which the tongue belongs), or
(which Wiesinger prefers) the circumference (thus Tpo;i;. .-. yev. would be the
circumference of being, i.e., the circumference belonging to the tongue from
birth, native to it). But, on the one hand, it is not to be supposed that
James, after using the ordinary expression blov rb aupa, should express the
same thing figuratively without the least indication of the identity of mean
ing; and, on the other hand, it is opposed to the first interpretation that the
body is not to be represented as a wheel, and to the second that rpoxbg is taken
in a sense which it never has, for it never means the circumference, but at
the most the round border which encloses something. Other expositors go
beyond the restriction of the expression to the life of the individual, —
I Comp. Anacreon, Od. iv. 7: rpo-xoi dppa- » rpoxds" o /3tos loj cts' eavTov afeAiTTdjue-
709 yap Ota jSioTos Tpe;^et Kv\iaBeii. vo^.

CHAP. III. 6. 115
which is evidently required by the foregoing blov rb aupa, — either, with
Wolf, appealing to the Hebrew nnVin '74SJ, explaining it : indesinens sub-
BESSio HOMIN0M aliorum post alios nascentium (thus Lambert, Bos, Alberti,
Augusti, Staudlin),^ or taking rpoxbg = KVKlog, yeveaig = Krlaig, and accordingly
rpox. T. yeveaeug = " the circle of creation ; " thus De Wette, and among the
earlier interpreters Beza (in the edition of 1565), Crusius, Coccejus. All
these ideas are foreign to the context. If the first explanation drags some
thing " foreign " into it, the second bears besides " a monstrous character "
(Wiesinger). Still less is the explanation of Lange to be justified: "the
wheel of the development of life, primarily of the Jewish nation, and then
further of all mankind," since yiveaig never denotes development of life.
The following are other explanations which are refuted by their arbitrariness
and rarity: (1) that of Semler, who explains it ordo generandi, according to
the expression occurring in Plutarch: irorapbv ryg yeveaeug 'evbelexug; (2) that of
Bengel: "rota sive sphaera superior est ipsa natura humana rationalis; gehenna
vero est pars profundior cor; lingua in medio ex inferioribus inflammatur et
superiora inflammat;" (8) that of Meyer (Observatt. ad Ep. Jacobi), who
takes the expression = sanguinis orbis seu circulato ; lastly, (4) that of Kypke,
who assumes that the rota poenalis is figuratively meant, cujus radiis illigar
bantur rei, and that accordingly floyl^eiv rbv rpox. t. yeviaeug means : augere
vitae hujus cruciatus.
The verb flayi^eiv is in the N. T. dir. ley. ; in the LXX. it is found in
Exod. ix. 24; Num. xxi. 14; Ps. xcvii. 3, and other places. The figurative
expression, which refers back to ¦Kvp, indicates the fatal effect which the
tongue, from which the pollution of the whole body proceeds, exercises on
the life of man, whilst it pervades the same by its passionate heat. James
so presents it, that being 0 Kbapog ryg dbmiag, and thus concentrating in itself
(or in word) a fulness of unrighteousness, it forms, as it were, the axle
round which the wheel of life moves, and by which it is set on fire. Morus
incorrectly understands floyil^eiv "de damnis, quae lingua dat;" but the dis
course is not concerning the injury which man suffers, but concerning his
moral conduct ; still less corresponding is the explanation of Michaelis, ac
cording to which iployi^eiv — to inflanie, and that in the words of Jaraes the
thought is contained : " lingua saepe alii excitantur, ut insano studio mala ingre-
diantur." The representation that the tongue .defiles the whole body and
sets the life on fire is, as Wiesinger correctly remarks, not to be justified by
the remark that all sins have their foundation in the sins of the tongue, but
rests on the observation that bpyy, before it manifests itself in other ways,
first and foremost appears in word, and thus the tohgue is its most direct
organ.^ The second participial sentence states whence the tongTie receives
t Already the Syriac version translates : destructive power of the tongue, yet never as-
"incendlt proventus generationura nostrarum, serts this. The restriction to 'opyrj is justified
quae currunt sicut rotae." by the Epistle itself. See 1. 19, 20, 28, il. 9, 10,
2 The view that James considered the tongue 13 (the opposite ev irpaiinjrt irot^tas) , 14, etc.
as the source of all sin is erroneous, since he. According to this, in this edition the text in
however prominently he brings forward the some places has been rectified.

116 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
this destructive power (iploy'i^eiv), by which also the idea that it is Kbapog ryg
dbmiag finds its justification. The participle iployi^opivy is to be retained in
the sense of the present; it has neither the meaning of the perfect, as if the
tongue had been only once set on fire by yeivva, nor is it, with Grotius, Mill,
Benson, Semler, Storr, Rosenmiiller, to be taken as future, and to be referred
to future punishment. The expression yeivva, except in the Synoptics, is
only found here ; in Matt. v. 22, xviii. 9, Mark ix. 47, it is used for a more
exact description of the genitive roi irvpbg. The thought that the tongue is
set on fire of hell is not to be explained away either by ex inferno being para
phrased by Theile by igne diabolico, and this by igne foedissimo ac funestissimo ;
or by being explained with Morus : tantus est ille ignis, ut ex geennae igne
VIDEATUR esse incensus. James means that as imBvpla (or more precisely
opyy), whose most direct organ is the tongue, has its origin from the devil, it
is thus from hell (see ver. 15). Also in the O. T. the injurious effects of
the tongue are described; see Ps. Iii. 4, cxx. 3, 4, Prov. xvi. 27, and other
passages (Ecclus. v. 13 ff., xxviii. 11 ff.) ; yet in all these passages the dis
course is only on the evil which is inflicted by it on others, or on the punish
ment which befalls the man who misuses it. This peculiar thought of James
has its counterpart in no passage of the 0. T.
Vv. 7, 8. In these verses the untamable power of the tongue is adduced.
The particle yap here indicates neither simply the transition (Pott), nor is it
to be referred to peyalavxel (Wiesinger), separated from it by w. 5, 6, nor
only to the last thought, floyitfipevy, K.r.l. (Lange) ; but it is used as a logical
particle, whilst the truth expressed in these verses substantiates the judg
ment contained in vv. 5, 6. The relation of these two verses to each other
is, that ver. 8 contains the principal thought, and ver. 7, on the other haud,
a thought subordinate to it, which is only added in order to make that
thought more emphatic. The meaning is : Whereas man tames all animals,
yet he cannot tarae tbe tongue. By ipiaig is to be understood not the genus
(Augusti, Gebser, Bretschneider, Schneckenburger), but the qualitas natu
ralis, and in such a manner that James has in view not the relation of the
individual man to the individual beast, but the relation of human nature to
animal nature in general, however this may differ in the different kinds of
animals. The totality of beasts is expressed by four classes, which are
arranged in pairs, namely, quadrupeds and birds, creeping beasts and fishes. —
Bypia are not " beasts generally " (Pott), nor specially " wild beasts " (Eras
mus, Vatablus, Piscator, Baumgarten, Theile, Bouman). — rd epirerd are
neither terrestrial animals generally (Pott, Hottinger), nor only serpents
(Luther, Calvin, Grotius, and others), but it is used here in the same mean
ing as in Gen. i. 24, 25 (LXX. ipirerd, as the translation of 2'D'i.); see Acts
X. 12; Rom. i. 23. — ivdlia (dir. ley.) denotes either fish simply, or likewise
all worms living in the water ; Luther incorrectly translates it "sea wonders,"
and Stier "sea monsters." There is here the same classification as in Gen.
ix. 2 in the LXX. (which may have been before the mind of James). ^ The
dominion of human nature over the brute creation is expressed by the verb
1 Ta Qripia T^? 7^9, ra irereivd roO ovpavov, Ta Kivovp^eva eir'i t^s 7^5, oi 'ixQvet.% t^s fiaAao-tnjs.

CHAP. III. 8, 9, 10. 117
iapd^eiv (i.e., SO to subdue, that what is subdued submits to the will of the
subduer), because it supposes the subjection of something resisting (see
Mark v. 4). That James only thought on wild animals does not follow from
this. The perfect bebupaarai is added to the present bapd(erai in order to
represent the present taming as that which had already taken place in the
past. It is incorrect to resolve bapdl^erai into bapd^eaBai bivarai (Hottinger,
Schneckenburger), for it treats not only of the possibility, but of the actu
ality. — ry ipiaei r. dvBp. is not the dat. commodi, but the dative used with
the passive, instead of the construction with iirb. ipvaig has the same
meaning as before; accordingly not ingenii solertia (Hornejus, Hottinger,
Schneckenburger) .
Ver. 8. The chief thought is marked by be, as a contrast to the foregoing.
With ryv yXuaaav is meant not the tongue of others (Estius, Grotius, Horne
jus, Baumgarten), but one's own tongue (according to Lange, both are indi
cated, the last primarily). The remark of Bengel is also unsuitable: nemo
alius, v'lx ipse quisque. The words ovbelg bivarai avBpdmuv daud^eiv (or more
correctly, after B, C : ovSelg bapdaai bivarai dvBpunuv, because the accent is on
bapdaai) are to be understood in all their sharpness; the weakening comple
tion of the Schol. in Matthaei : evKolug bylaby kuI dvev irbvov, is false. By this
thought, what was said in ver. 2 now receives its full light. The moral
earnestness of the author urges him at the close to the exclamation : dKard-
ararov kokov, k.t.1. ; hence the independent form of this addition (see Winer,
p. 471 [E. T., 532]). By dKardararov (unsteady, restless, see chap. i. 8) the
unrest of the passions is indicated, not simply with reference to what fol
lows, unsteadfastness (De Wette).* This reading is to be preferred to that of
the Ree. uKardaxerov (not to be tamed), " because it adds a new idea after
obbetg dapdaat 6vv. dvBp." (Wiesinger). — The image of the poisonous serpent
lies at the foundation of the second exclamation : peari) ioi Bavaryipbpov ; comp.
Ps. cxl. 4.
Vv. 9, 10, are closely connected with the foregoing ; but not as if " the
unsteadfastness of the tongue is further described " (De Wette), nor as if
the duplicity of the tongue is added as a new point (Lange), but for the
purpose of prominently showing how the tongue, althougTi it praises God,
yet proves itself to be an dKardararov KdKov, pear?) roi Bavar. It is to be ob
served that this expression, as the first person plural shows, refers to Chris
tians among whom the evlayelv rhv Kvpiov occurs. James dofes not hesitate to
include hiraself, knowing that naturally he was entirely the sarae as others.^
James first places beside each other, by a simple copulative conjunction, the
two contradictory acts which man performs by the tongue, namely, the evlo-
yeiv rbv Kvpiov and the KarapdaBai roig dvBpunovg. The preposition iv is instru
mental, as in Luke xxii. 29 and elsewhere. By the repetition of iv avr-y in
1 Comp. Hermas, Past. ii. Ufand. 2 : novripov the representative of his people in the name of
irvevpa eariv rj KaTa\aMa, icai iicaTacrTaTov 5ai- the guilty people." But both suppositions are
poviov. equally impossible; the context contradicts the
2 Lange finds a diffloulty in James includ- flrsi, and the fact that Jaraes could have no
ing himself, " which is to be solved either by reason to consider himself as the representa-
taking the second clause as a question expres- tive of the Jewish people contradicts the
sive of surprise, or by hearing James speak as second.

118 THE EPISTLE OP JAMES.
the second clause, the antithesis is yet more strongly marked, evlayelv and
KarapdaBai are correlate expressions, since the former, as the translation of
the Hebrew '^11, has properly the meaning " to bless ; " in reference to God,
as here, it means laudibus celebrare, to praise; comp. Ps. cxlv. 21, and other
passages. — The combination of rbv Kvpiov koI naripa (instead of the Reo. rov
Qebv K. n.) as a designation of God (for by Kvpiog is not here to be understood
Christ) is unusual ; corap. chap. i. 27. This twofold name designates God
on the side of His power and on the side of His love (comp. Matt. xi. 25).
— In the second clause the important description : roig koB' bpoiuaiv Qeoi yeyo-
vbrag, is annexed to roig dvBpunovg, by which the contradiction of the action
described still more pointedly appears. The thought and expression agree
with Gen. i. 26. Also, according to this, sinful man is still a being created
after the image of God. Were the expression merely to be referted to what
man originally was, but which he has ceased to be, the point of James's say
ing would be broken. Bengel correctly observes : remanet nobilitas indele-
viLis. Benson, Pott, Gebser, and Semler arbitrarily restrict the contents of
this verse to the conduct of those who set themselves up as teachers. *
Ver. 10. First a repetition of the saying in brief expressive combination,
by which the accent is placed on avroi. With the words ov xpv ravra ovrug
yiveaBai, James adds the condemnation of the conduct described. — The im
personal verb xph is in the N. T. aw. ley. ; the usual word is bei, from which
it does not differ in meaning. — raira o'iiTug]. The union of these two words
serves for the sharpening of the idea ; raira designates the contents ; oinug,
the form of the action ; incorrectly, Bengel : raira bona ; ovru adjunctis mails.
Ver. 11. Illustration of the uimaturalness of the conduct mentioned by
an image taken from nature : Does the fountain from the same hole send forth
the sweet and the biHer? — y nyyif]. The article is not here for the sake of
liveliness (Schneckenburger: articulus fontem quasi ante oculos p'lngit), but is
used because nyyy is generically considered. — iK ryg avryg bnyg]. bny, the hol
low, Heb. xi. 38, Exod. xxxiii. 22, Obad. ver. 3, is here the hole from which
the water of the fountain streams forth, y nyyy refers to man ; y bny, to the
mouth. The chief accent is on airyg, which points back to iK roi airov arbpa-
Tog, ver. 10. — (ipveiv, an an. ley., properly to .sprout forth, then to overflow,
is here used transitively, to cause to flow forth. — rb ylvKi and rb niKpbv indi
cate, indeed, the two different kinds of water, yet linguistically rb vbup is not
to be supplied ; the former refers to evlayelv, and the latter to KarapdaBai.
With this verse Jaraes says only that happens not in nature, which occurs
in the case of man, out of whose mouth proceed blessing and cursing. The
following verse first expresses the impossibility.
Ver. 12. This verse shows, by examples taken from nature, that from
one principle opposite things cannot be produced, but that any cause can
only bring forth that which corresponds to its nature. Semler incorrectly
paraphrases the first question : py bvvarai avKy Halag noiyaat : an fieri potest, ut
1 Semler's view is very strange: "hi inter pression chiefly to Christians, and specially
pnblicas Dei laudes, etiam exsecrationes et to Jewish Christians, "in whom tbe likeness
tristia omnia praeibant in Romanis!" It is of God, that is, the actuality aud visibility Of
equally a mistake when Lange refers the ex- the image, has re-appeared."

CHAP. III. 13. 119
ficus, cujus est DULCis natura, producat amaeas oleas; for that here the con
trast of sweet and bitter (which only the last clause of the verse resumes) is
not designed to be expressed, is evident from what immediately follows : y
dpnelog aiKa, where James would otherwise have mentioned the olive instead
of the vine. The idea is, rather, that nothing can bring forth that which is
not corresponding to its nature.* Consequently the opinion of De Wette,
that here thistles (according to Matt. vii. 16), or something similar, instead
of dpnelog, would be more appropriate, is incorrect. — To the question follows
as its conclusion the negative clause : ovre uIvkov ylvKi noiyaai vbup, which is
so construed as if the former sentence, not only in meaning, but also in form,
was a negative one ; aire (X : oibe) and the omission of bvvarai are thus to be
explained.- — d^^vKbv is the subject,- and ylvKi iiSup the object; notyaai is used
in the same signification as before ; thus : Nor can bitter bring forth sweet
water. The opposite ideas dlvKov and ylvKV ave emphatically placed beside
each other. James hereby indicates, that if from one mouth the bitter
(namely, the Kordpa) and also the sweet (namely, the ev?Myla) proceed, this is
not only morally reprehensible, to which ver. 10 points, but is something
impossible : accordingly, the person who curses man, who is made after the
image of God, cannot also bless (praise) God, and that thus, if the mouth
yet express both, the evloye'iv can only be mere seeming and hypocrisy
(Lange).* Ver. 13. With this verse apparently begins a new section, which, how
ever, stands in close connection with the warning in ver. 1, whilst the true
wisdom is here contrasted with the false wisdom of which the readers boasted,
and by which they considered themselves qualified to teach. Also here in
the words, rig aoipbg Kal imarypuv iv vplv, the chief point is again placed at the
beginning. These words are usually understood as a direct question (Tisch
endorf and Winer, p. 152 [E. T., 169]) ; on the other hand, Lachmann
has only placed a corama after vplv, which is approved by Al. Buttmann
(p. 217 [E. T., 252]) ; an inversio structurae then here takes place ; whilst
"the direct interrogative form, owing to the construction which follows,
passed naturally over into the meaning of the kindred relative clause."
Certainly in the N. T. the direct question is frequently used instead of the
indirect, indeed instead of the relative pronoun ; also in the usual meaning
" the disruption of the clauses, as well as the asyndetic transition to bei^dru
without any subject," is surprising. But, on the other hand, the discourse
i Comp.Arn3.n,Epikt.n.20: ttw? yap Suva- d^vKov (ifSojp) is considered as the fountain
Taidpjre\o^ pi}dpTTe\LKiaq KLveiadaidW eXa'iKia^, which cannot bring forth yAvjcu liSwp, and ac-
Tj eAat'a n-aXtv jttij eKa'iKta^ dAV d^TreAiKois; dp-ri- cordingly points to the bitter disposition, from
XavovtdStavorirov; comp. also Plut., i>e Tranq. which only that which ia bitter (namely, the
.4n. p. 472 E. bitter Kardpa), but not that which is sweet
2 Buttmann (p. 316 [E. T., 367]), following (namely, the euAovta), can proceed. Lange
Lachmann, praef. p. xliv., assumes a corrup- correctly observes, " that the multiplying of ex-
tion of tbe passage. amplee has the effect of illustrating the general
8 Gunkel incorrectly thinks that ver. 12 application of the law of life here laid down;"
only discloses the unnaturalness of the con- but he strangely supposes that " the individual
duct denounced in ver. 10, for jttij Kvvarai evi- examples have a syrabolieal meaning;" the
dently expresses impossibility. It is also to be fig-tree, tho symbol of a luxurious natural life ;
observed, that in the last clause of ver. 12 the olives, the symbols of spiritual life, etc.

120 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
by the direct question evidently gains in liveliness, as it is, raoreover, peculiar
to the diction of James ; see, however, Ecclus. vi. 34, to which Schnecken
burger appeals in support of the incorrect opinion that ng is here the indefi
nite pronoun. — aoipbg koI iniaiypuv]. The same combination of these two
words is found in Deut. i. 13, iv. 6, LXX., as the translation of the Hebrew
jUJl D^n; corap. also Hos. xiv. 9. If James here considered these two
synonymous ideas as different, aoipbg is to be referred to the general, and
imarypuv to the particular. Wiesinger refers the former to the intelligence,
and the latter to the practical insight into the correct judgment of any given
case ; others differently. — That whosoever is actually wise is to show it by
action, is the chief thought of the following sentence. The construction of
dei^dru with 'eK and the object following on it, reminds us of chap. ii. 18 :
de'i^u 'eK TUV epyuv pov ryv niariv, but the relation is not entirely the same. In
that passage mang is the invisible, which is to manifest itself as the visible
by ipya ; but here both y Koly dvaarpoipy and rd epya airoi are visible ; the for
mer is the general, the latter is the particular, which as individual special
manifestations proceed frora it. The verb belxwui means here, as there, not
to prove pr demonstrate, but to show. The addition iv npairyn — which is to
be connected neither with rd ipya airov nor with T^f /co/l^f dvaarpoipyg, forming
one idea, but belongs to bei^dru, more exactly defined by ek T^f . . . avroi —
has the principal accent, as npairyg aofiag, i.e., the meekness springing frora
wisdom, and therefore peculiar to it (opposite of bpyy), is the necessary con
dition under which the showing forth of works out of a good conversation
alone is possible. The raode in which the individual ideas of the sentence
are united together is certainly somewhat surprising, but it is explainable
from the fact that James placed together all the points which occurred to
him as briefly as possible. James might have put ryv aofiav airoi as the
object belonging to bei^dru; but instead of this he puts rd ipya avroi, in con
formity with the importance which works have to him, in which as faith
(ii. 10) so also wisdom manifests itself. He then makes the idea aofia to
follow in the adverbial addition iv npairyn aoipiag. The sentence might also
be divided by a point after dvaarpoipyg ; then the first clause would mean : let
him show it out of a good conversation ; and the second clause might either be
taken as an addition dependent on bei^dru (so Neander : " works performed
in meekness suitable to wisdom "), or a verb would have to be supplied.
However, the detachment of the second clause decides against this construc
tion, ug aoifoi is not, with Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger, to be sup
plied to airoi, as the reference to wisdom is contained in the additional
clause ; but also avroi must not be referred to ao^of (his works, that is, of
the wise man), but it refers to the subject contained in dei^dru (thus Lange
and Briickner). The whole idea npairyg aoipiag is neither to be resolved into
npaela aofia (Beza, Grotius, Baumgarten, Semler, Gebser, Hottinger, Schneck
enburger), nor into npairyg aoipy _(^a\xxe\it\v,&), but to be explained: "the
meekness which is proper to wisdom, and proceeds from it" (Wiesinger), or
"in which aofia evidences itself" (Lange).* With the emphasis on npairyg
1 Luther inaccurately translates the passage : " who shows with his good conversation his
works in meekness and wisdom."

CHAP. III. 14, 15. 121
James passes on to 3paSvg eig bpyyv (chap. i. 29), of which what follows is a
further explication.
Ver. 14. As meekness belongs to wisdom, so he who has in his heart
Qjlog niKpag and ipiBela boasts of wisdom without any right. As this was the
case with his readers, James now directly addresses them : ti Se . . . exere].
To Cyhig, zeal, — which is here, as frequently, used in a bad sense, — is added
the adjective mKpbg for the sake of strengthening it, perhaps with reference
to vv. 11 and 12 (Grotius, Pott, Gebser). — ipiBeia has in the N. T. the
meaning controversial spirit, or, more definitely, partisanship ; comp. Rom.
ii. 8; 2 Cor. xii. 20 (see Meyer on both passages); Gal. v. 20; Phil. i. 17,
ii. 3 ; in 2 Cor. xii. 20 and Gal. v. 20, i^yloi and Bvpoi are united together as
plurals  iv ry Kapd'iif vpCw], in contrast with the word of his readers, boast
ing of their wisdom. — In the apodosis : py KaraKavxaaBe koI ipevbeaBe Kard ryg
ulyBe'iag, neither the first nor the second verb is to be converted into a parti
ciple ; certainly Kara in the first verb refers to Kara ryg dlyB., and so far already
contains the idea of lying, but James designed prominently to bring forward
this, and therefore he adds koI ipeiSeade to KaraKavxaaBe. On KaroKavxdaBe, comp,
chap. ii. 13 (see Winer, p. 417 [E. T., 470, note 3]). In KaruKovxdaBe the
reference is to others, in ipeibeaBe to one's own conscience (Lange). In order
to avoid the tautology in ipevbeaBe and Kara r. dlyBeiag, Wiesinger understands
by dlyBeia " truth in an objective Christian sense — the Christian truth, by
the possession of which they fancied themselves aoipoi." * 'But, on the con
trary, it is to be considered that that which, logically considered, appears as
mere tautology, receives another import, when not only the understanding
but also the disposition is recognized as a factor of the construction ; so it is
here.^ Ver. 15. The character of the aoipia from which bitter zeal and partisan
ship proceed. — oiw ianv airy y aoipia]. avry is not to be separated froni y aoipia,
but forms along with it the subject. Luther incorrectly translates : " for
this is not the wisdom,'" etc. By avry y aofia is meant that wisdom by which
man has !;ylov nmpbv in his heart, or that from which it springs ; the predi
cate to it is: OVK ianv dvuBev Karepxopevy. — ovk ianv emphatically precedes,
and the participle takes the place of an adjective (De Wette, Wiesinger,
Winer, p. 313 [E. T., 350]). Gebser, Pott, Schneckenburger, incorrectly
explain ianv Karepxopivy = Karepxerai. On the idea dvuBev Kurepx., comp. chap.
i. 17. — As an ungodly wisdom it is characterized by three adjectives which
form a climax: inlyeiog, ipvxiKy, baipoviubyg. — inlyeiog expresses the sharpest
contrast to dvuBev Karepxopevy, that wisdom being designated as such which
belongs not to heaven, but to earth. That it is sinful ("taking root in a
whole life of sin," Kern, Wiesinger) is not yet expressed. .lames calls it
ipvxmy, inasmuch as it belongs not to the nveipa, but, in contrast to it, to the
earthly life of the soul ; see Meyer on 1 Cor. ii. 14, and author's explanation
of Jude 19. These two first ideas are abstractly not of an ethical character,
but they become so by being considered in contrast to the heavenly and the
' According to Lange, the theocratic truth » Compare, moreover, Isocrates, De Pace,
is to be understood which the Jewish zealots p. 165: Stai/zevSeo-dat t^? dkqQeia^.
professed to protect.

122 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
spiritual. It is otherwise with the third idea : baipoviijbyg. This word (un.
ley.) = devilish, betokens both the origin aud the nature, and is to be taken
not iu a figurative, but in its literal sense; comp. ver. 6, chap. iv. 7; incor
rectly, Hottinger: impuro genio magis quam homine d'lgna.^
Ver. 16. Reason of the judgment expressed in ver. 15. With the intro
ductory words: bnov ydp Qjlog Kol ipiBela, JibVaes jpoints back to ver. 14; with
the following words: iKel, k.t.X, he names the fruit of i^ylog and ipiBela; these
are dKaraaraala and ndv ipavlov npdypa; dKaraaraala is uproar, disorder.^ An
uproarious, disorderly nature proceeds not frora God : ov ydp ianv dKaraaraaiag
0 Qebg, dll' elpyvyg, 1 Cor. xiv. 33. — To this special idea, which is particularly
brought forward on account of the condition of those to whom James writes,
the general idea : every evil deed, is added, in order to lay stress on -the fact
that zeal and partisanship bring along with them the corruption of the whole
moral life. Of a wisdom which effects this, that must naturally hold good
which is said of it in ver. 15. — The supposition of Kern,* to which De Wette
assents, that the here presupposed controversies between Jewish and Gentile
Christians are alluded to, is properly rejected by Briickner.
Ver. 17. The character of the true wisdom, which (in contrast to ver. 15)
is designated as ti dvuBev aoipia]. Comp. with this expression, Prov. ii. 6 ; Wisd.
of Sol. vii. 25, 26 ; Philo, De Profug., p. 571 : aofia dvuBev bpiSpyBelaa ds-' oipavoi;
De Nom. Mut. : oipuviog aofia. — npurov pev dyvy ianv]. By npCirov piv this char
acteristic is distinguished from the rest, which are introduced by ineira, be
cause it belongs to its nature, "designates its internal quality" (Kern). It
is dyvy, i.e., KaBapu Kal dpvnapbg, pybevbg ruv aapKiKuv dvrexopevy (Oecumenius);
thus free from all impurity. Lange explains dyvy by consecrated, incorrectly
according to N. T. usage ; even in the classics, the reference to the gods suf
ficiently often steps into the background. — In the series of characteristics
following after ineira, which describe cofia according to its man'ifestat'ions
(Kern), the first three are named which indicate the contrasts to Qlxig and
ipiBeia: etpyvmy, peaceful (comp. eipyvonoibg. Matt. v. 9): imemyg, fair, mild;
see on 1 Tim. iii. 3 (not = yielding) : evneiByg, dn. ley. (opposite dneidyg. Tit.
iii. 5): easy to persuade, that is, pliant, not contending in party strife. —
Then follows peari/ iliovg kuI Kapnuv dyaBuv, by which it is described as rich
in active love : iliovg is particularly mentioned, because compassion is the
most direct proof of love; comp. chap. i. 27, ii. 13; Kapnuv dyaBuv forms
the contrast to ttuv ipavlxiv npdypa. — The series closes with two words — united
by similarity of sound — dSiuKpirog, dvvnbKpirog, which express the contrast to
every thing of an uncertain and hypocritical nature. dbiuKpirog is differently
explained according to the different meanings of the root biaKpiveaBai : Luther
renders it impartial ; Lorinus, Hornejus, Grotius ("sine partilione, nempe ini-
' The explanation of Hornejus contains and refers eirt-y. to "the chiliastic claims to the
arbitrary elalements : " terrena, quia avarillae dominion of the earth." Without any justifi-
dedita est, quae operibus terrenis inhiat; ani- cation, Schwegler finds here an allusion to the
mails, quia ad animi lubidines accommodatur; wisdom of the Gnostics.
daemoniaca, quod ambitioni et superbiae ser- 2 Comp. Prov. xxvi. 28 ; ardpa. iareyov Trotei
vit, quae propria diaboli vitia sunt;" and dKaraaraaias.
equally eo that of Lange, who finds here char- 3 Tiib. Zeitschr., 1835, ii. 59.
acterized " Judaistic and Ebionite zealotiem,"

CHAP. IIL 18. 123
qua "), Baumgarten, Estius, Schulthess, Hottinger, Kern, Schneckenburger,
Lange ("not separatistic, not sectarian"), and others understand it in the
same sense ; Beza explains it by " quae non discernit homines ; " similarly
Gebser undivided, that is, those who have the true wisdom do not separate
¦from each other ; the explanation of .Pott : pacificus, agrees with this ; the
Vulgate, on the other hand, renders it non Judicans ; and Semler: nee temere
Judicans de aliis Christianis, qui suo more vivunt. It is best to start from the
meaning of biaKpiveaBai as it occurs in the N. T., to doubt, and accordingly,
with De Wette and Wiesinger, to take dbtdKpirog = expers omnis cujus'cunque
ambiguitatis et dubitationis (similarly Wetstein = non duplex).'^ dwnbKpirog is
unhypocritical, upright; see Rom. xii. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 6. — These two charac
teristics are also added with special reference to the state of things among
the readers. On ddioKptrog, see chap. i. 6-8, ii. 4; on dwnbKpirog, chap. i. 22,
26, ii. 1. — All the characteristics are attributed to true wisdom from the
effects which it produces amqng those who are partakers of it ; since it makes
them pure, peaceable, etc. ; the virtues of which it is the source belong to it.
Ver. 18. As in ver. 16 the fruit of Q/log, and thus of false wisdom on
which it is founded, is named, so in this verse is the fruit of true wisdom,
which is eipyvmi]. — Kapnbg bmaioavvyg . . . aneiperai is a pregnant expression
for : the seed, which yields the fruit of righteousness, is sown (Wiesinger, Bon-
man, Lange). bmaioavvy is not justification (Gebser, Schneckenburger), but
righteousness or uprightness. The genitive is that of apposition, and announces
wherein the Kapnbg consists. This Kapnbg bmaionivyg forms the antithesis to
oKaraaraaia Kal ndv tpailav npdypa, ver. 16. bmaioavvy is by various expositors
incorrectly referred to the future life. — aneiperai is to be retained in its
literal meaning, from which there is no reason to depart, when the preg
nant form of the expression is kept in view. Bruckner converts the idea
without justification into that of dispersing, i.e., of profuse spending; Pott
falsely explains ane'iperai by del aneipeaBai. The sower is not to be considered
as God (BrUckner), for from the whole context the discourse is not concern
ing the conduct of God, but of the Christian. The addition iv eipyvy is not
to be combined with Kapnbg biKaioaivyg (Rauch) or with bmaioavvyg (Kern :
righteousness before God, which manifests itself in peace with God) as one
idea, but it belongs to the verb, and announces the condition by which only
the seed sown yields the fruits of righteousness ; it is in antithesis to Q]log
Kal epiBeia, ver. 16. — De Wette incorrectly takes Iv eipyvy = eig eipyvyv, in hope
of peace. — rolg noioiaiv eipyvyv (= eipyvonoiolg. Matt. v. 9) is either the dativus
actionis (Wiesinger, De Wette, formerly in this commentary ; Lange uncer
tainly) announcing who are the sowers, or dativus commodi (Bruckner, Bou
man) announcing for whose use the Kapnbg 6ik. is sown ; in the latter case the
noioivreg eipyvyv are likewise to be considered as sowers (De Wette considers
it possible that the dativus commodi may by its importance have supplanted
• The same signlflcation Is also adopted by conflicting doubts. James's meaning is hardly
Neander, when he says, having man In view : to be described in one word. The notion of
"James requires inner unity of soul, assured impartiality or simplicity is moat in accordance
conviction, so that the soul be not driven to with it."
and fro by extraneous considerations, and by

124 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
inb TUV, K.r.X). The latter explanation is more corresponding to the context,
as it is already indicated in iv eipyvy aneiperai that the sowing can only be by
such as are in possession of aofia elpyvmy, and it was particularly brought
forward that the righteousness springing from the seed is only imparted to
those who make peace. Accordingly, the meaning of the sententious expres
sion is : that the seed of righteousness sown in peace yields righteousness
only to the peaceable. This explanation agrees in essentials with that of
Wiesinger and Bouman, also of Lange, who, however, blends with it some
thing foreign to it, and thinks on the future harvest of righteousness. De
viating from this, De Wette renders it: "The fruit (conduct, moral action)
of righteousness is in hope of peace, as the seed of the heavenly harvest sown
by them who practise peace." Briickner: "The fruit (the produce) of right
eousness is in peace dispersed (namely, by God) for them who practise
peace." Kern : " That which springs up for the peaceable as the fruit of
their sowing, that is, of their peaceful conduct, is righteousness before God,
which manifests itseK in peace with God."

CHAP. IV. 125

CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 1. Before p&xai, nbBev is to be repeated, after A, B, C, S, etc. (Lachm.,
Tisch.). — Ver. 2. After Kal nolepelre, oi/c ixere is to be read, according to almost
all testimonies (A, B, G, K, etc.) ; only a few min. insert be (the reading of Ree. ) ;
several others (C, X, etc.) read koI ovk exere; recommended by Griesbach, guar
anteed by Reiche; the insertion of the particle is explained from endeavoring
more closely to connect the following with what goes before. — Ver. 4. Instead
of the Ree. poixol koI poixalibeg, after G, K, etc., A, B, several vss., Bede, have
only poixalibeg (Lachm., Tisch.) ; X, pr., read only poixalibeg, but corrected poixol
Kal poixaX Theile, Lange, Briickner (also Reiche) correctly consider the simple
feminine as the original reading; otherwise De Wette, Bouman, and others. —
Tisch. 7 remarks: 'Hoco identidem considerato non possum quin teneam etiam-
num lectionemjam in ed. anni I84I a me defensam ; " see on this the exposition.
X has a rovrov after Koapav, and instead of the genitive toO Qeoi the dative ru Qeip.
— Ver. 5. On the pointing of this verse, see exposition. — Instead of the Ree.
KoriAcyaev, after G, K, all min., vss., Theophylact, Oecumenius, Bede (Tisch.),
Lachm. has, after A, B, X, etc., adopted Kan^Kiaev. — Ver. 7. A, B, X, very
many min., etc., have, after dvriaryre, the particle be (Lachm.), which is want
ing in G, K, many min., etc. (Ree, Tisch.); probably the bi was omitted to give
to the sentence an independent form; so also Lange; Bouman otherwise: "be
fulciendae orationis caitssa inculcatum est." — Ver. 10. The article toO is to be
omitted before Kvplov, according to the testimony of A, B, K, X, etc. — Ver. 11.
Instead of koI Kpivuv, Ree. after G, K (Reiche, Bouman), etc., is, with Lachm.
and Tisch., to be read y Kpivuv, according to the testimony of A, B, several min.,
vss., etc. — Ver. 12. After A, B, X, many min., almost all vss., the words koI
Kpiryg are, with Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., etc., to be added to b vopoBeryg; they
are wanting in the Ree. (after G, K, etc. ) ; so also, according to the testimony
of almost all authorities, the particle be is to be added after av. — Instead of the
Ree. Of Kplveig, after G, K, etc. (Bouman), b Kpivuv is, with Lachm. and Tisch.,
to be read, after A, B, X, several min.; also recommended by Griesbach; and
instead of the Bee. rbv irepov, likewise with the same editors, rbv nlyaiov is to be
read, after A, B, X, etc. —Ver. 13. The Elz. ed. reads aypepov y avpiov (thus in
B, X, Lachm.); but A, G, K, very many min., etc., have the reading adopted
by Tisch. : ayp. Kal aipiov, which must be considered genuine, as ^ appears to be
a correction for the sake of simplification. — The Ree. (ed. Steph. ) has the con
junctives nopevauueBa, noiyaupev, iunopevaupeBa, Kepbyaapev, after G, K, several
min., etc. In A the two first verbs are in the conjunctive; in X, only the first
verb, the others in the indicative; B, very many min., Vulg., and other vss.,
have only the indicative ; so Lachm. and Tisch. The conjuctive appears to be
a correction. — eva, following eviavrbv, is omitted by Lachm. ; the omission is,
however, too slightly attested by B, X, Vulg., etc., and, besides, is easily ex
plained as the statement of time here expressed by Iva appeared unsuitable. —
Ver; 14. Before r^f aipwv Tisch. reads, after G, K, X, the article to (Ree);

126 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Lachm., after A, rd; Buttmann, after B, has omitted the article; he has also
omitted the words ydp and y after noia, according to his statement after B (which
Tisch. has not remarked), so that his reading is: oinveg ovk imaraoBe ryg avpiov
noia ^uy ipuv; see exposition. — After drpig Lachm., according to A, Vulg., has
omitted the particle yap; it is, liowever, probably genuine, and only removed
from the text as interrupting the sense. — Instead of the Ree. iariv (after G, etc.),
which is defended by Reiche and Bouman, Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly
adopted iare; attested by A, B, K, very many min.; the change into iariv is
easily explained. In X the words drplg yap iare are entirely wanting. — The
Ree. ineira be is a correction of the more difficult ineira kuI, attested by A, B, K,
X, etc.; G has ineira bi Kai. — Ver. 15. Buttmann reads Bely instead of Belyay,
against the testimony of all authorities. — The indicative (yaopev . . . noiyaopev
(Lachm., Tisch., after A, B, X, etc.) is to be preferred to the Ree. t^aupev . . .
noiyaupev (after G, K, etc.), not only according to authorities, but on account of
the thought (Wiesinger, Lange). In some MSS. and vss. Qjaupev . . . noiyaopev
is found; this reading is incorrectly defended by Fritzsche (Leipz. Lit. Z., and
Winer and Engelhardt's Neues Krit. Journ., V., 1826), Theile, Reiche, Bou
man, and others; Winer, p. 256 (E. T., 357), prefers to read both times the
conjunctive; see exposition. — Ver. 16. Instead of KavxdaBe, x alone has /caTa-
/(ai',i:aofe. — Instead of the form dTui^oveiaig (B**, K, Lachm., Tisch., 2, Buttm.),
Tisch. 7 has adopted the form dlaCoviatg (A, B*, G).
Ver. 1. The section beginning with this verse is in close connection with
what goes before, pointing to the internal reason of the disorders in the con
gregations referred to. The sudden transition is to be observed from the
sentiment directly before expressed, that righteousness prospers only in
peace, to the impressive question : nbBev ndlepoi, K.r.X, an answer to which
follows in a second question " appealing to the conscience of the readers "
(Wiesinger). — nblepoi . . udxai]. Synonymous terms, only to be distin
guished by the first denoting the general condition, and by the second the
single phenomena (Wiesinger, Lange, Bouman : nblepog = vehementior dimi-
catio, udxy = minus aperta concertatio) ; correctly, Laurentius : non loquitur
apostolus de bellis et caedibus, sed de mutuis dissidiis, litibiis, Jurgiis et contentioni-
bus. Several expositors, as Pott, Schulthess, Schneckenburger, arbitrarily
limit these nblepoi to contentions between teachers ; according to De Wette
and Wiesinger, contentions concerning meum and tuum are to be understood;
but in what follows the object is not stated, but the cause of the contentions
and dissen.sions among the readers.* — The repetition of nbBev is explained
from the liveliness of the emotion with which James speaks. —™ vplv, among
you. — The demonstrative oir/c ivreiBev emphatically points to what follows ;
Bouraan : graphica rei significatae est informatio, qua primum intento tanquam
digito monstrantur, deinde diserte nominantur ai ybovai; Michaelis incorrectly
assuraes this as a separate question = oi>/c iK roi Kbapov rovrov, John xviii. 36.
By iK ruv ybovuv vpuv the internal reason of these dissensions is disclosed.
iibovai is here by metonymj = iniBvplat; they are lusts directed to earthly
riches; not "a life of sensual indulgence as realized lusts" (Lange). —rciv
1 According to Lange, James has in view Samaritans) and of the Jewish Christians
all the hostile dissensions of the Jewlah people (Nazarenea, Ebionites, etc.) .
(Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenea, Alexandrians,

CHAP. IV. 2. 127
arparevopevuv iv roig peleaiv vpuv]. The lusts have their seat — as it were, their
encampment (Wiesinger) — in the members (see on chap. iii. 2) ; i they, how
ever, do not rest there, but according to their nature wage war (arparevovrai).
Estius (with whom Bouman agrees) incorrectly explains it : cupiditates, tan
quam milites, membris vestris, ut armis utuntur ad opera peccati, by which iv is
falsely understood. Calovius, Baumgarten, and De Wette, after 1 Pet. ii. 11
and Rom. vii. 23, supply Kara ryg ipvxr/g or roi vobg; but if James had raeant
the fight of the lusts against the soul or the reason, he would have more
plainly expressed it. Gebser, Schneckenburger, Lange, and others (Briick
ner comprehends both) understand it of the strife of the desires against each
other ; but this is evidently a foreign thought. According to Wiesinger,
" the strife arises and is carried on because the iniBvuelv has as its opponent
an oiK exeiv . . . ov dvvaaBai imrvxelv, against which it contends." But it is
better to refer the arpareveaBat to every thing which hinders the gratification
of the desires. As in what follows eniBvpelre refers to ai ybovai, aud ipoveiere
Kal (.ylovre to the idea arpareveaBat, James appears chiefly to have intended the
opposing strivings of others against which the ybovai contend. From this
internal war arose the nbleuoi koI puxai."^
Ver. 2 describes in a lively manner the origin of these external strifes.
The stages are iniBvpelre . . . ipovevere Kal ^ylovre . . . pdxeaSe Kal nolepelre ; the -
second succeeds the first because it is without result, ahd the third the second
for the same reason. — iniBvpelre here in a bad sense referring to rCyv ybovHv,
ver. 1. It is evident that the object to be thought on is worldly possessions ;
James does not mention the object, because he only required to express "the
covetous impulse" (De Wette). It is unsatisfactory to think only on the
desires of individuals. James rather describes the conduct of the churches
to whom he writes ; these, discontented with their low position in the world,
longed after earthly power to which, as the church of God, they thought they
had a claim. This striving made them consider persecution as a reproach ;
on the contrary, James exhorts them to count it as a joy (chap. i. 2). This
also produced among them that respect of persons toward the rich of the
world, for which James blames them. This was also the source of internal
division ; the affluent in the church despising the poor instead of imparting
to them of their wealth, and only striving after an increase of their riches;
whilst the poor grudged the rich their possessions, and accused them of
being the children of the world. Thus in these churches occurred the same
strife which prevailed among the Jews, and was the source of factions among
them. — By kuI oiK ixere, the uselessness of iniBvpelv is expressed, and also the
motive to ipoveveiv Kal Ijjloiv is assigned ; it is unnecessary here, with Gebser,
Hottinger, De Wette, to explain exeiv = to receive ; it rather means : to have,
to possess. The meaning is: From the desire follows not the possession,
namely, of what is desired. — (povevere koI iylmire]. As here the external
1 Incorrectly, Laurentius: "Per membra ' Comp. Vl&to, Phaedr. xv. : Ka'i ydp iroAe-
hic intellige non tantum externa membra, sed /xous koX ardaei^ koI pdxas oiSev dAAo irap^x^t
et internos animi affectus." Still more strangely 1) r'o aiapa Kal at tovtov eiridvpiai ; consult also
Lange explains toi pi\ri as " the members of Cicero, De Fin. Bon. i. 13.
individuals and the members of the people."

128 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
action is not yet described, but the internal disposition, ipoveveiv cannot here
be taken in its literal meaning, as Winer (p. 417 [E. T., 470]), Lange, Bou
man, think. Many expositors, as Carpzov, Pott, Morus, Augusti, Gebser,
Schneckenburger, and others, explain it adverbially : " even to murder and
killing ; " but the position of the words contradicts this explanation ; if the
idea (yloire was to be strengthened by ipovevere, it must be placed first.
other expositors, as Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Hornejus, Laurentius,
Benson, Schulthess, Hottinger, and others, solve the difiiculty by the conjec
tural reading ipBovelre; but this reading has not the slightest support in au
thorities. Nothing remains, as Wiesinger correctly remarks, except to explain
ipoveveiv here, with Estius, Calovius, also De Wette (who, however, wavers),
according to 1 John iii. 15, of internal hatred,^ and " to justify this word by
the boldness of the expression prevailing in this passage; comp. nblepoi koI
pdxai, arpareveaBat, poixoi (more correctly poixalibeg)," Wiesinger. It is true that
then an anti-climax would seem to occur ; but this is only in appearance,
as in point of fact Cvlovv (hostile zeal already ready to break out in word
and action) presupposes internal ipoveveiv.^ — Kal ov bivaaBe imrvxelv, naraeij ,
that for which you hate and envy. The consequences of this are nbleuoi,
therefore James closes with pdxeaBe Kal nolepelre, in which likewise the answer
to the question nbBev nbleuoi, nbBev pdxai is contained (Wiesinger). With ovk
ixere, which does not stand in the sarae relation to pdxeaBe, k.t.X, as Kal oi bvv.
imrvxelv does to ipov. k. ^yl,^ James resumes the foregoing ovk ixere and oi bi
vaaBe imrvxelv, in order to assign the reason of this " not having," etc. ; the
reason is bid ib py aireladai vpdg, thus the want of prayer.* That prayer for
earthly things is heard, is not an opinion peculiar to James, but a divine
promise ; in which only this is to be observed, that the prayer must be no
KUKug alrelaBai; see the following verse.
Ver. 3. Jaraes apparently again resumes the last expression, whilst he
now grants alrelre to his readers; but as he designates this their asking as
KaKiJg alrelaBai, he does not consider it as an actual prayer, so that the fore
going declaration is nevertheless true. It is therefore inaccurate to resolve
alTelre into "or even if you ask."^ — On the interchange of middle and active
^ Slier in his exposition remarks ; " James reaches almost the climax of arbitrariness. He
means hatred, but he speaks of killing and here assumes a fourfold gradation — (1) desir.
murdering, namely, in a spiritual sense, in ing; (2) murdering and envying; (3) fighting
order lo designate hatred as an attack on one's and warring; (4) asking and not receiving;
neighbor;" his translation; "ye smite" (in- and corresponding to these — (1) not having;
stead of Luther's; "ye hate"), is not, how- (2) not receiving ; (3) an increased not having;
ever, justified by this. (4) an increased not receiving. The first stage
2 The explanation of Oecumenius is peculiar, denotes Judaism full of chiliaatlo worldly-
but not to be justified ; itioveveiv tt>r]a't tou? ti}v mindedness up to the time of the N. T. • the
eavrOiv ^vxvv dTTOKTivviivra? raU ToKpijpaU rav- second, the attitude of the Jews toward the
rais eirixeipweai, Si ds Kal l> np'os TTiv eiaefieiav Christiana; the third, the Jewiah war; and
ovTois iroKepos. the fourth, Judaiam after the destruction of
5 Accordingly, not a comma is to be put Jerusalem.
after iroAe^ieiTc, but a full stop; thus Tischen- « Semler very strangely paraphrases it;
dorf and Lachmann. Stier Incorrectly explains " scio, quoadam vel publicis precibus (et exse-
It; "it thus remains at the close as at the cratlonlbus, ill. 9) eam in rem parcere, mala
beginning. Ye have not." omnia precari imperatori et maglstratul Eo-
* In this passage the exposition of Lange mano."

CHAP. IV. i. 129
forms, see Winer, p. 229 (E. T., 256.) The middle form naturally sug
gested itself in ver. 2, prayer for others being not the point under consider
ation ; but in the next clause, as James wished to lay stress on the active
side — of prayer in antithesis to lapjidveiv — he used the active form. '^Ego
tistical praying for one's self" (Lange) is incorrectly understood by the
middle. — koi o'v laujSdvere emphasizes the uselessness of their asking, the rea
son of which is assigned by the following : 6i6n KUKug airelaBe. KUKug finds its
explanation in the following Iva ; your prayer is therefore evil, because it has
no other object than banav^v iv raig ybovaZg. Incorrectly, Gebser : " for your
prayer must implore only for true heavenly blessings." The discourse is
here rather of the temporal condition ; this, James observes, continues with
you a poor and depressed one, because ye ask for a better one only in order to
be able to indulge your lusts. — danav^v, to expend, spend (Mark v. 26) ; here,
in a bad sense, to squander, to lavish. Suidas : lapnpug (r/v koI anaBg-v ; the
object to the transitive verb is "that for which you pray." iv raig ybovalg
vpuv, not ivith, but in, your lusts. Wahl incorrectly explains Sanavfv iv =
sumtum ponere in al'iqua re, i.e., riBevai rdxpvparaev rivi; this meaning com
bines banavav with e'lg. The sense is not " for the gratification of your lusts "
(Baumgarten), but governed by your lusts.
Ver. 4. poixalibeg. The Ree. poixol koI poixalibeg has not only the most
important authorities against it, but is also easily explained, because the
term was taken in its literal sense, which is expressly done by Augusti, Jach-
maiin, and Winer. The context, however, proves that the literal meaning
is not here to be retained. If the idea is used in a figurative sense, ac
cording to the view which prevails in Ps. Ixxiii. 27 (Isa. Ivii. 3 ff. ; Ezek.
xxiii. 27), Hos. ii. 2, 4, and other passages of the O. T. (comp. also Matt.
xii. 39, xvi. 4; as also 2 Cor. xi. 2; Rev. ii. 22), and as the context requires,
then every reason for a distinction of sex ceases. Theile, Lange, Bruckner,
have therefore correctly declared for the reading poixalibeg. Theile's opin
ion : non minus recte singuli homines icorta dicuntur, quam totum genus atque
universa aliqua gens scortum, is so far inappropriate, as the expression poixa
libeg used "of individuals in the Church of God is certainly singular" (Wie
seler) ; it is here to be referred not to individuals, but to the churches to
whom James writes (not "the Jewish factions into which Judaism was
sundered," Lange) ; so also Bruckner. These, according to the conduct
described by James, had fallen away from God, and therefore James, full
of moral indignation, addresses them with these certainly severe words. —
oiK oibare, 6ri points the readers to their own conduct. — -y ipilia roi Koapov.
By Koapng expositors understand either worldly goods (Pott, Gebser, Hot
tinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Wiesinger) or worldly desires (Didymus,
Laurentius), or both of these together (De Wette, Stier) ; and by y filia roi
Koapov, the inclination of the heart diverted toward worldly things. But it
is more correct to take Kbapog in the same sense as in chap. i. 27 (see explana
tion of that passage), and to understand y ipil'ia roi Kbapov of reciprocal friend
ship; yet so that active conduct toward the world here predominates. The
Christian who aims at worldly glory conforms himself (contrary to the ad
monition in Rom. xii. 2) to the world, attaching himself to its pursuits, and

130 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
is thus inclined to it with his heart, his endeavor at the same time being to
be esteemed and not despised by the world. The explanation of Piscator :
amicitia cum impiis, is in essentials correct. The term ipilia (dn. ley. in N. T.)
does not suit the usual explanation. ^ — exBpa roi Qeoi expresses as ipilla roi
Kbauov a reciprocal relation ; yet here also the active reference predominates,
on account of which most expositors explain it directly by IxBpa eig Qebv (Rora.
viii. 7), although Pott gives also the explanation : ad ejusmodi agendi rationem
nos abripit, quae Deo displicet, nosque privat amore divino. Lachraaiin, follow
ing the translation of the Vulgate : inimica, has adopted the reading ixBpd,
by which, however, the peculiar force which consists in the opposition of
the two substantives is removed. — From the judgment here expressed con
cerning the ipilia rov Kbapov, James infers the sentiment that follows : ovv,
therefore. — of dv ovv jlovlyBy, k.t.1. By the usual explanation of ipilia r. Koapov,
and of the corresponding filog roi Koapov, i3ovlyBy is at all events disconcerting.
Whilst some expositors urge that by it designed and conscious intention is
designated (Baumgarten), and others oppose it to the actual deed,^ and find
the idea expressed that even the s'lmple inclination to the love of the world
(De Wette : " whosoever has perchance willed to love the world ") effects
ixBpa roi Qeov,^ Schneckenburger, on the contrary, says: verbi BovlyBy cave
premas vim. With each of these explanations the expression retains some
thing strange, which also is not removed by distinguishing, with Lange, the
"formal" and the "material intention," and understanding /3ot);i)7e^ only of
the latter. But it is different as soon as Kbapog is considered not as an aggi-e-
gate of things but of persons, since then ipiXia, as above remarked, consists in
a reciprocity. The meaning is : Whosoever, although a Christian, giving
himself up to the pursuits of the world, will live in friendship with it, and
ithus will not be despised but esteemed and loved by it, has directed to it his
¦wish (flovlyefi),^ — /ie (thereby) is constituted an enemy of God ; ixBpbg roi Qeoi
;is likewise used in the sense of reciprocal relation, although here the passive
imeaning predominates. — KaBiararai has here the sarae meaning as in chap.
iii. 6 (so also Lange) ; it is generally rendered incorrectly = ian; inaccurately
by Theile = fit, sistitur ; by Schneckenburger = stands there as ; by Bouman
= constiluitur divino in Judicio.
Vv. 5, 6. The views of expositors differ widely in the interpretation of
.these verses. At first sight the words following leyei appear to be a quota
tion from the O. T. which James has in view. That of the older, and some
•of the more recent, expositors assume this to be the case, although they differ
from each other, some combining npbg iptibvov directly with liyei, but others
» According to Lange, the friendship with » SImllariy also Wiesinger; "James brings
the world consisted " in the chiliastic desire of uuder the same judgment not only the decided
the enjoymeul of a worldly glory which was and expressed love to the world, but even the
only colored with hierarchical piety." inclination to step into auch a relation to the
2 LaurentiuB states this opposition in the world."
moat definite terms ; " non si tantum est Inimi- ^ In essentials Estius correctly says ; " Ter-
cus Bei, qui est ipso opere amicus mundi, sed ribills valde sententia adversus eos qui suas
etiam Ille, qui cum non poaait, vult tamen . . . actlonea et studia componuut ad gratiam hu
et sic voluntate implet, quod ipso opere non mauam. Hoc enim vere eat esse amicum hujua
potest." seculi."

CHAP. IV. 5, 6. 131
including it in the quotation. Against this explanation, however, is the
circumstance that the words supposed to be here quoted nowhere occur in
the O. T. Such a passage has accordingly been sought for, where a similar
thought is expressed, but almost every expositor has fixed upon a different
passage. Many expositors seek to remove the difiiculty by supposing that
James does not here quote any single definite passage, but only a sentiment
contained in the O. T. generally, or in several of its expressions. Opposed
to this idea, however, is, first, the uncertainty whether James will confirm
by it the statement contained in what precedes or in what follows; and
secondly, the formula of quotation pointing to a definite passage, particu
larly as liyei is not = lalel. But, moreover, the clause pei^ova bi blbuaiv xbpiv
is against the view here indicated, since these words cannot be reckoned as
part of the quotation, because James only afterwards quotes the O. T. pas
sage from which they are derived ; but, also, they cannot be considered as a
statement of James not belonging to the quotation, because be closely con
nects them to what directly precedes.
Remark. — The various O. T. passages which have been conjectured are as
follows: Gen. iv. 7 (Rauch); Gen. vi. 3, 5 (Grotius); Gen. viii. 21 (Beza, Ernest
Schmid); Num. xi. 29 (Witsius); Ps, xxxvii. 1 and Ixxiii. 3 (Lange); Ps. cxix.
20 ff. (Clericus); Prov. xxi. 10 (Michaelis); Song of Solomon viii. 6 (Coccejus);
from the Apo'cryphal Wisdom of Solomon vi. 12 (Wetstein), and others. Ben
son supposes that James has in view the N. T. passage. Matt. vi. 24; Staudlin,
that he has in view that passage and also Gal. v. 17; Storr, the latter passage
only; and Bengel, 1 Pet. ii. 1 ff. Semler thinks that the passage is here cited
from the " Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs ; " and Gahler, that the wor(Js are
borrowed from a lost prophetical book. In recent times, Engelhardt (Remarks
on Jas. iv. 5, 6, in the Ztschr. f. d. Luth. Theol., by Delitzsch and Guericke,
1869, Part II.) has expressetl the opinion that Isa. Ixiii. 8-11, Ps. cxxxii. 12, 13,
and Hos. i. 2, 15, form the groundwork of these words of James. Wolf, Hein-
sius, and Zachariae refer the words to the thoughts contained in what follows;
Theile, De Wette, Briickner (also first edition of this commentary), to the
thoughts contained in what precedes, — that the friendship of the world is
enmity with God.
If the words npbg ipBbvov imnoBei, K.rX, do not form the quotation belong
ing to y ypafy liyei, it is to be assumed that James here already had in view
the scripture adduced after bvb liyet in ver. 6, but that he did not yet state it,
because the sentiment expressed in those words obtruded itself upon him in
confirmation of ov Kevijg (Wiesinger). npbg ipBovov cannot, as Gebser and
others suppose, be united with liyei ; for if one takes it to be equivalent to
de invidia or contra invidiam, there is this against it, that in what goes before
there is no mention of envy ; or if it is taken adverbially, then it appears as
an appendage dragging after oi Kcvug, which would be added the more unsuit
ably, because, as De Wette correctly remarks, it cannot be perceived what
meaning can be attached to the assurance that the scripture does not speak
enviously. Most expositors rightly refer it to imnoBel, which, without the
addition, would be too bare ; it is added to this idea as an adverbial and
more exact statement = ere an envious, Jealous manner, ior the sake of strength
ening it. It is linguistically incorrect to explain npbg ipBbvov ininoBelv = iniBvpeiv

132 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Kara ipBbvov, Gal. V. 17 (thus Luther : " the spirit lusteth against envy ; "
Bengel, Stier; also Lange : "the spirit longeth over against and in opposition
to envy "), since npbg, although it may be used in a hostile relation (Luke
xxiii. 12 ; Acts vi. 1), yet does not in iteeZ/ express a hostile reference. The
explanation of many ancient and some recent expositors (Bede, Calvin, Beza,
Grotius, Hottinger, Gabler, Bouman, and others), taking npbg ipBovov = ad
invidiam, is also unsuitable ; for, on the one hand, inmoBelv is not = piroclivem
esse, and, on the other hand, it is contradicted by the connection in which
there is not the slightest allusion to envy. With the correct explanation of
TTp^f IpBovov, rb nveipa o KaruKyaev (KaripKiaev) iv ipiv is either subjective, " the
Spirit of God," or objective, "the spirit of man." In the first case imnoBel
has no object. De Wette, Bruckner (so also Schneckenburger and some of
the other expositors) supply ypdg as the object. Engelhardt, on the contrary,
will supply no object, thinking " the supposed translation of the verb S<3p is
conclusive against au object; " but KJp requires an object no less than inmo
Belv, as it is, as well as the other, a relative (not an absolute) verb. By this
interpretation iv yplv is to be understood of Christians, in whom the Holy
Spirit (according to Engelhardt : " by the covenant of baptism ") has taken
up Plis abode. In the second case, the subject is not expressed. Wiesinger
supplies 6 Qebg. There is no difficulty in this completion, the less so as the
preceding y ypaipy, which, in connection with Hyei, is personified (corap. Gal.
iii. 8, npoibnvaa -y ypaipy), points to God, with whom it is, as it were, identified.
This second explanation would deserve the preference before the first, as it
is not apparent why Jaraes here, instead of simply God, should name the
Holy Spirit, whom he has not elsewhere mentioned in his whole Epistle, and
because the specification of an object belonging to imnoBel, which is essen
tially required for the thought, can scarcely be wanting. Certainly, in this
second interpretation, 5 KaruKyaev ev yplv added to irvevpa is difficult, not so
much on account of the formation of the expression, as because this addition
appears to be a very unimportant remark. But it is otherwise with the
reading Kanlmaev, as then the relative clause marks " the right of propriety
as the ground of explanation of envious love" (Wiesinger). According to
this view, the passage is to be explained: Or think you that the scripture says
in vain — (rather God) enviously desires the spirit which He has made to dwell in
us, but He gives the greater grace — tvherefore it says, etc. — It is yet to be
remarked that boKelv has the same meaning as in chap. i. 26 ; Kevug, that is,
without contents, corresponding to the truth ; corap. Kevoi loyoi, Eph. v. 6
(Plato, Lach. 1966). The adverbial import of Trpdf ipBbvov is justified by the
usage of the Greek language ; see Rape's Wbrterb. : the word npbg ; Winer,
,p. 378 (E. T., 425); Buttmann, p. 292 f. (E. T.,340). The verb inmoBelv is
also elsewhere in the N. T. construed with the accusative. The idea that
God cherishes an "envious and loving longing" (Wiesinger) after the spirit
of man, corresponds to the circle of ideas in the O. T., from which also the
preceding poixalibeg is to be explained.
Remark. — The principal objections of Engelhardt — that the two members
of the 5th and 6th verses are not in congruity, and that the scripture adduced in

CHAP. IV. 6. 133
ver. 6 does not prove the thought expressed in ver. 4 — are solved by the obser
vation that the friendship of the worid, in which man opposes himself to the
will of God, is pride, and that those to whom God gives grace are none other
than the humble, who disdain to be the arrogant friends of the world. It is
erroneous when Engelhardt denies that an emphasis rests on oi Kevug, so that
the grammatical construction forbids to make the idea npbg ipBovov, K.r.X, inter
vene as a contrast to Kevijg; the asyndeton form is, besides, wholly suitable to
James's mode of expression; moreover, Engelhardt on his part finds himself
constrained to supply a transitionary thought before pe'itjova be blbuaiv. That
James does not quote the scripture intended by him directly after the first liyei,
but defers it because he wished to emphasize that it was not vain and empty,
may well surprise us, but it is to be explained from the liveliness peculiar to
James. Moreover, in Rom. xi. 2-4, although not in the same, yet in a similar
manner, the passage quoted is separated from the form of quotation : rl liyei y
ypaipy, and in such a manner that the formula itself is taken up again by an dlld,
referring to the intervening remark, before the intended passage. When Engel
hardt thinks that the words in consideration are to be recognized as the quota
tion, because they are words which do not elsewhere occur in. James, apart frora
thi^ being any thing but conclusive, it is, on the contrary, to be observed that
irvevpa understood of the human spirit already occurs in chap. ii. 26, and that the
words npbg ipBbvov inmoBelv do not occur in the passages of the O. T. which James,
according to Engelhardt's opinion, had in view.
Ver. 6. The words pei^ova be blbuaiv xapiv are explained from the fact that
James already had in his view the passage of the O. T., afterwards quoted,
from which these words are taken. The subject is the same as in the former
sentence. The comparative does not express the comparison with the bless
ings which the world gives (Bede: majorem gratiam dat quam amicitia mundi;
thus also Tirinus, Gebser, Pott, Winer, Schneckenburger, Kern), or after
which those : invidi atque arrogantes, quos reprehendit, Jas. v. 2-4 (Bouman),
longed for ; also it does not indicate " the greater measure of the comforting
and satisfying Spirit as related to the longing Spirit " (Lange : " but he
gives grace greater than the longing"), but " /idfova suggests a comparison
with a case in which there is no npbg ipBbvov ininoB." (Wiesinger, so also De
Wette) ; incorrectly Bengel : eo majorem, quo longius recesseris ab invidia. —
dib = therefore, because it is so (De Wette). y ypaipii is to be supplied to leyei.
Kern incorrectly takes l.iyet impersonally : it is said. The passage is Prov.
iii. 34, and is verbally quoted according to the LXX., except that here, as
also in 1 Pet. v. 5, 6 Qebg is put instead of Kvpiog. The vnepyipavoi are those
who, whilst they in striving after high things (ru iipyld ippovoivreg. Bora. xii.
16) will be the friends of the world, are not ready to bear the reproach of
Christ. That these are ixBpol roi Qeoi, the scripture confirms by dvnrdaaerai.
— Opposed to these are the raneivo'i, that is, the lowly, those who rolg raneivoig
avvanaybpevot, Rom. xii. 16, seek not the friendship of the world, but humbly
bear the cross of Christ. That these are ipiloi roi Qeoi the Scripture confirms
by blbuaiv xupiv.^ Comp. Ecclus. iii. 19, 20.
1 The difficulty of the passage has induced plain the words from Stb \iyei to xapiv as a
some expositors to have recourse to arbitrary gloas from 1 Pet. v. 6. Hottinger (with whom
emendations; thus Erasmus and Grotius ex- Eeiche agrees), on the contrary, is inclined to

134 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Ver. 7. From the sentiment expressed in the preceding, James infers
(ovv) several exhortations expressive pf the duty of humility. — inordyyre ovv
TU Qeu]. The exhortation is addressed to the vnepyipavoi : because God dvn
rdaaerai them, they are to vnordaaeiv to God. In Schneckeuburger's explana
tion : plena ohedientia vos Deo committite, ut sitis Sovloi Qeoi, ohedientia is in
correctly eraphasized. Calvin's is better : subjectio ista, quam commendat,
HUMILITATIS est ; neque enim generaliter hortatur, ut pareamus Deo, sed requirit
SDBMissiONEM.i — dvriaryre be ru biaBblu]. This exhortation is closely joined
to the preceding; submission to God means resistance to the devil. This
requirement was so much the more appropriate, as the readers wished to be
the friends of the Koapog, whose dpxuv is the devil. — koX ipei^erai df vpZiv].
Comp. Hermas, i. 2, Mand. 12 (ed. Hefele, p. 380) : bivarai b bidj3olog nalalaai,
Karanalalaai be ov bivarai. idv ovv dvriaryg airu, vmyBelg <pev^erai dnb aov Kuryaxvp-
pevog. Calvin : Quamvis continuos insultus repetat, semper tamen exclusus disce-
dit. — KoX after the imperative commencing the apodosis ; so also in Matt.
vii. 7 and frequently. 1 Pet. v. 5-9 is to be compared with this passage,
where upon the quotation of the sarae O. T. passage follow exhortations to
humility before God, and to resistance to the devil.
Ver. 8. In contrast to the last exhortation and promise is the exhorta
tion eyylaare ru Qeij, united in a similar manner with a promise. Whilst the
devil is to be kept at a distance by resistance, we are to draw nigh to God.
" iyyl^eiv is not to be limited to prayer, but is to be understood generally of
man's turning to God " (Wiesinger). Corap. on iyyl(eiv, Isa. xxix. 13 ; Heb.
vii. 19. — Kol iyyiel ipiv, corresponding to the preceding ipei^erai df vpuv. Sim
ilar expressions in 2 Chron. xv. 2; Isa. Ivii. 15; Zech. i. 3. — But in order
to draw nigh to God, conversion from the former nature is necessary ; there
fore KaBaploare xelpag . . . dyvlaare Kapblag. The cleansing of the hands consists
in withdrawing them from evil and in employing thera in good works ; the
sanctification of the heart, in contending with impure desires, and in the cul
tivation of a holy disposition. The external and the internal raust corre
spond ; corap. Ps. xxiv. 4 : dBuog xepal Kal KaBapbg r-y Kapdiif. Pott erroneously
supposes the first expression to be a symbolical designation of perdvoia, and
denies its reference to the externa vitae integritas (Carpzov). The reason
why Jaraes names the hands is not only because they are the principal organa
operandi, but also because that he, with iyylieiv ru QeiJ, does not think exclu
sively on prayer ; see 1 Tira. ii. 8. On dyvlaare Kapblag, comp. 1 Pet. i. 22 ;
1 John iii. 3. — dpaprulol . . . blipvxoi]. This address, designating the present
condition of the addressed, shows the necessity of perdvoia; dpaprulol, because
instead of God. who chose them for His possession, they serve the lusts
erase the words from pei^ova to Aeyei, and to here Semler'a remarks on this passage ; " Ja-
insert a Se between, o and 0e69. Also Liicke, cobus, Paulus, Petrus, Judas, uno quasi ore id
according to Gebser, considered those words a conflrmant, opus esse, ut Romanis et sic Deo
kind of gloss and error llbrarii to i| ypait>'ri Ae-yji se subjiclant " (in which Lange finds no fault
and Tois rair. SiS., ver. 6, and that the context were 11 only said ; "ut Deo et sic Romanis ") ;
ie to be thus construed: npbi ij,06vov . . . iv and afterwards; "rep SmpdAu, qui per ,rvevpa
vplv ^ SoKelre oti Kevioi ri yp. Aeyei: 6 Oeos itiOovov vos suscltat adversus magistratum
virepT)(f)avoi!, ic.T.A. Eomauum; " similarly also, of course, Lange.
1 Ou account of Its strangeness, we give

CHAP. IV. 9, 10. 135
(ildovaXg, ver. 1) of the Koapog, corresponding to poixalibeg, ver. 4 ; biipvxoi, be
cause they would at the same time be Christians. De Wette's explanation
is too weak: ye undecided (between God and the world); Schneckeuburger's
remark : hic sensu latiore sumendum quam, i. 8, is incorrect, for biaKpiveaBai
there has its reason in the Christian giving his heart to the world instead of
to God; see T'est. Aser., iii. p. 691: ol binpbaunoi ov Qeu dlld ralg iniBvp'iaig airuv
bovlevovai. — Calvin correctly remarks : non duo hominum genera designat, sed
eosdem vocat peccatores et duplices animo.^
Ver. 9. The perdvoia required in ver. 8 does not take place without grief
and mourning for guilt. The consciousness of the latter is the road to the
former ; therefore the summons now to this mourning : raXainupyaare kuI nev-
Byaare Kal Klaiaare. The repetition of Kai is an expression of emotion ; ralai-
nupelv, in the N. T. utt. ley. (the adjective in Rora. vii. 24; Rev. iii. 17; the
substantive in chap. v. 1 ; Rom. iii. 16), literally, to suffer external hardships,
as in Mic. ii. 4, is here used of the internal condition : to feel unhappy,
wretched, as the adjective in Rom. vii. 27. Estius, Gagnejus, Grotius, erro
neously refer it to bodily castigations : ajfligite vosmet ipsos Jejuniis et aliis
corporis oKlypayuyiaig (Gtotius) ; similarly Hottinger : sensum miseriae Claris
iNDiciis PRODITE ; falscly also Beza : reprehendit dvalyyalav in adversis. —
nevByaare Kal Klaiaare, the same combination in Neh. viii. 9 ; 2 Sam. xix. 1 ;
and in the N. T., Mark xvi. 10; Luke vi. 25; Rev. xviii. 15, 19; wail and
weep. Grotius incorrectly explains nevByaare = lugubrem habitum induite,
saccum et cilicia ; there is not the slightest indication that James had in view
the external signs of mourning in dress and the like. If the foregoing exhor
tations point to a change of the lusts and joy of worldly life into godly
mourning (ryv Kara Qebv linyv, 2 Cor. vii. 10), this is still more definitely
expressed in what follows, by which James passes from the outward mani
festation (yilug . . . nivBog) to the internal , state (xapd . . . Karyipeia). — kotti-
ipeta UTT. ley. (the adj., Wisd. of Sol. xvii. 4), literally, the casting-down of the
eyes, here indicates internal shame. ^ Compare with this the picture of the
publican in Luke xviii. 13.
Ver. 10. Conclusion — carrying with it an O. T. coloring — of the ex
hortation, in which what has hitherto been said is summed up. — raneivuByre
ivumov Kvpiov], raneivuByre in reference to raneivoig, k.t.X, ver. 6. . — Kvpluv, i.e.,
Qeoi (comp. ver. 7), not Xpiaroi (Grotius). — ivumov not = inb (1 Pet. v. 6:
raneivuByre inb ryv . . . x^lpu roi Qeoi), but expresses that the self-abasement
is to take place in consciousness of the presence of God, who gives grace
only to the humble. ^ — Kal iipuaei vpdg is to be referred both to the present
concealed and to the future manifested glory of the humble Christian
(comp. chap. i. 9). The contrasted ideas raneivoiv and vipoiv often occur;
see in the O. T., Job v. 11; Ezek. xxi. 26; in the N. T., Matt, xxiii. 12;
Luke xiv. 11; 1 Pet. v. 6, and other places.
1 Kern: As James considers man in refer- ^ In Plutarch, Them. 9, it is used synony-
ence to the divine grace as the receiver, so, on mously with SvaQvpia.
the other hand, he takes into account the free 3 Comp. Ecclus. ii. 17 : ot <i>o^ovpevoi K-upiov
self-activity of man as the condition by which . . . evianiov aiirov raireiviuaovai Tas i//vxas
a relation of unity of man with God takes avrOiv.
place.

136 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Ver. 11. Without any indication of a connection with the preceding,
Jaraes passes to a new exhortation, which, however, is so far closely attached
to the preceding, inasmuch as humiliation before God carries with itself
huraility toward our brethren. From the fact that this exhortation, although
decidedly earnest, has yet undeniably a milder character than the former,
and that James uses here the address dbelipol, whereas before it was poixalibeg,
dpaprulol, biipvxoi,^ it is to be inferred that James now addresses, at least
primarily, those who by the worldly ways of others felt induced to do those
things against which he here exhorts them. — py Kuralal^lre dlli/luv], Kara-
laleiv only here and in 1 Pet. ii. 12, iii. 16 (the substantive in 2 Cor. xii. 30;
the adjective in Rom. i. 30 ; 1 Pet. ii.' 1), to speak in a hostile manner against
one; Luther, " to slander." dllyluv, against each other. Estius, Semler, Pott,
Gebser, Hottinger, incorrectly restrict the exhortation to teachers.^ — b Kara-
lalMiv, K.r.X, assigns the reason of the exhortation. The two ideas Karalaluv
and Kpivuv are indeed closely connected, but are not equivalent, since Kara-
lalelv presupposes Kpiveiv ; they are here indicated as distinct ideas by ^. —
By the addition dbelipoi not only is the reprehensibleness of Karalalelv empha
sized (Schneckenburger : jam hoc vocabulo, quantum peccatur KaralaXalg,
submonet), but also the reason is given for the sentiraent here expressed
Karalalei vbpov. By airoi) added to rbv dbelipbv this is brought out more
strongly, whilst also the brotherly union is more distinctly marked than
by the simple dbelipoi ; incorrectly Bengel : fraterna aequalitas laeditur obtrec-
tando ; sed magis Judicando. — Karalalei vbpov kuI Kpivei vbpov]. By vbpog the
same law is here meant as in chap. i. 25, ii. 9, etc. ; the law of Christian
life which according to its contents is none other than the law of love, to
which dbelipoi and rbv dbelipbv airov already point. By reviling and con
demning one's brother, the law of love itself is reviled and condemned,
whilst it is thereby disclaimed as not lawfully existing, and, as may be
added, its tendency to save and not to destroy is condemned (Lange).
The explanation of De Wette, that there is here a kind of play of words,
in which is contained only the idea of contempt and disregard of the law,
is unsatisfactory .3 Grotius, Bauragarten, Hottinger, quite erroneously under-
Btand by vbpog the Christian doctrine, and find therein expressed the senti
ment, that whosoever imposes upon his neighbor arbitrary commandments
designates the Christian doctrine as defective, and in so far sets himself up
as its judge. ^ — With the following words: ei be vbpov Kpiveig, K.r.X, the fur-
1 Lange incorrectly observes that there is thereby upon the law of God, as if it were not
no reason to see here a transition from one sufflcient; for he acts as if he supposed it
class to another. But it is not here maintained necessary to come to the help of the law."
that James has in view a sharply exclusive dis- ¦> Lange, in accordauce with his view, sup-
tinction of different classes of his readers. poses the refereoce to be to the Jewish cere-
2 Wiesinger correctly says that we are not monial law, although he does not explain vopo^
here to think of a contest between Jewish and as equivalent to doctrine. Also Bouman thinks
Gentile Christiaus; Lange incorrectly asserts that James has here in view I'he judicia de
that the primary reference here is to the in- aliena conscientia ; bnt Jamea does uot indi-
ternal divisions of Judai am. cate that among his readers disputes took place
" The opinion of Stier is mistaken ; "Who- de sabbati veneratione, de licito vel illicito
ever improperly and officiously notes and deals ciborum M.si(, etc. Augustine here arbitrarily
with the sins of other men, throws blame assumes an attack upon the e«K«te CAnsKans.

CHAP. IV. 12. 137
ther consequence is added : but if thou Judgest the law, thou art not a doer of
the law, but a Judge. — The particle Se serves to carry on the thought : oiK el
noiyryg vbpov, i.e., thou thereby departest from the attitude which becomes
thee; for the law is given to man that he might do it, but whosoever thinks
he has right against the law, cannot be a doer of it, and consequently
assumes a position which does not belong to him (Wiesinger), which posi
tion is, as the sequel says, dll.d Kpiryg. Baumgarten, Gebser, Neander, Wie
singer, Lange, and others supply the genitive vbpov to Kpiryg ; incorrectly, for
(1) this would make this sentence and the one preceding it tautological;
(2) it dilutes the idea Kpirijg in its contrast to noiyirjg vbpov ; and (3) the
sequel which is added to this idea Kpiryg, adverts not to the judging of
the law, but to the judging of the man. The meaning is: Whosoever
judges the law constitutes hiraself a judge, giving a law according to
which he judges or pronounces sentence upon his neighbor. But this is
not the province of man. The following verse tells the reason why it
is not so.
Ver. 12. One is the lawgiver and Judge, (namely) He who can rescue (save)
and destroy. The chief accents lies on eig, in opposition to men who presume
to be judges. — 6 vopoBiryg Kal Kpiryg]. The idea vopoBeryg is here introduced,
because the judging belongs only to Him who has given the law, and is
adduced against those who by judging their neighbor act as lawgivers,
whereas their duty is to obey the given law.^ — 6 Svvdpevog auaai koi dnoleaai
serves for a more precise statement of the subject eig (so also Briickner,
Lange, Bouman) ; it mentions who this One is, and in suoh a manner that
it is also announced why He, and He only, can be vopoBeryg Kal Kpiryg.
Schneckenburger correctly observes : b bwdpevog . . . articulus appositionis
signum, ad subjectum eig pertinentis grammatice ; but incorrectly adds: ita
autem ut, quoad sensum, melius in propriam resolvatur sententiam. Not only
grammatically, but also according to the sense, 6 bwdpevog, etc., is to be
most closely united to eig ; therefore also Luther's translation : " there is one
Lawgiver who is able to save and to condemn,'' is incorrect.^ — b bwdpevog
is not, with Schneckenburger, to be resolved into tj i'^ean, but is to be retained
in its literal raeaning. Bengel correctly reraarks: nostrum non est Judicare;
praesertim cum exequi non possimus. — On acjaai, see chap. ii. 14 ; on dno-

Correctly, Laurentius : "Is qui detrahit prox- ^ Most expositors, in the interpretation of
imo, detrahit legi, quia lex prohibet oranem this passage, have failed in precision, being
detractionem, sed et judicat idem legem, quia satisfied with giving only ite general raeaning.
hoc ipso quod contra prohibitionem legis They appear for the most part to regard 6 Swd-
detrahit, judicat quasi, legem non recte pro- pevos, k. t. A., as an attribute of 6 vopodenj^
hibuisse." (the Ree. omits Kai KpiTiis) ; thus De Wette
* The explanation of Morus is false ; " legis- tranalatea it : " One is the lawgiver and judge,
later et judex eat una eademque pereona ; " and who is able to save and to destroy." Wiesinger
Theile infers from tliis something entirely for- gives here only a paraphraae which is wanting
eign ; " unus est legislator . . . idem utriusque in definiteness ; " .Judging us and our brethren
legis auctor; et severioris raosalcae et liberali- belongs to Him alone (namely, to Him who as
oris christianae . . . isque etiam judex . . . et lawgiver is not nnder, but above the law), and
legitimus et idoneus, idque et utriusque legis He proves His exclusive right by Hia power to
et eorum qui alterutram sequuntur;" of all save and to destroy, with which he confirms
which there is here no mention. His judicial sentence."

138 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
liaai, particularly Matt. x. 28. — av Se rig el expresses the insignificance of
man, in contrast to b bwdpevog, K.r.l. (Schneckenburger), thus : " Thou who
hast no power to save and to destroy;" comp. Matt. x. 28. — The same
question in Rom. xiv. 4, ix. 20. i — 6 Kpivuv]. Schneckenburger : " thou, appos.
ad pron. av ; qui articuli hanc vim nescierunt, loco participii posuerunt bg
Kpiveig.'' — rbv nlyaiov, without the personal pronoun, as in JMark xii. 33;
Rora. xiii. 10, xv. 2. The Ree. rbv erepov perhaps arose frora Rora. ii. 1.
Ver. 13. The apostrophe commencing with this verse, and continued
until chap. v. 6, has a character plainly distinguished from other portions
of the Epistle — (1) by dye viv repeated; (2) those addressed are neither
directly designated as dbelipoi, as is elsewhere the case with James (with the
single exception of chap. iv. 1 ff.), nor are yet characterized as members of
the Christian Church ; (3) only their forgetfulness of God is described, and
their judgment is announced, without any call being added to desist from
their practice and be converted ; so that this apostrophe contains not the
slightest exhortation to repentance, as is the case with those addressed in
ver. 8 as dpaprulol and biipvxoi. All this is a sufficient proof that James has
in view, as Oecumenius, Bede, Semler, Pott, Hottinger, and others have cor
rectly remarked (differently Gebser, Schneckenburger, De Wette, Wiesinger;
Theile considers that Jewish Christians and Jews are here addressed), not so
much the members of the church, as rather the rich (oi nloiaioi, chap. v. 1),
of whom it is already said in chap. ii. 6, 7, that they oppress the Christians
and blaspheme the name of Christ, and who are already, in chap. i. 10,
opposed to " the brother of low degree." The severe language against them
in an epistle directed to Christians is sufficiently explained from the fact
that with many among them, as follows from ver. 1 ff., the sarae forgetful
ness of God had gained ground. Also the first section (vv. 13-17) is of
such a nature that the fault therein expressed affected many of the readers
not less than the arrogant Jews.^ In this section, those addressed are at
first characterized only according to their presumptuous security in their
striving after earthly gain. — dye viv]. dye, occurring in the N". T. only here
and in chap. v. 1, is a summons, which also, with classical writers, is joined
with the plural (Winer, p. 458 [E. T., 516]). — viv serves not only for
strengthening (De Wette, Wiesinger), but likewise for connection with
what goes before. As in what follows there is no summons to do any
thing, some expositors suppose that dye vvv is designed only to excite atten
tion ; Grotius : Jam ego ad vos ; so also Pott, Theile : age, audite vos.
Others supply a thought ; thus Schulthess : nijg noielre, or pfi Kalug noielre,
and the like. De Wette thinks that the summons to lay aside the fault
is indirectly contained in the reproof. Wiesinger suggests ver. 16 as the
' Yet is the av here to be understood comma after et, but not in those other
in definite antithesis to another, namely passages.
to God, on which account also Si is added. 2 Lange agrees with this in essentials, afiirm-
It has therefore a more independent mean- ing that this section was principally addressed
ing than in the passages adduced from to the Jews; whereby he certainly proceeds
the Epistle to the Romans. In this there from the erroneous supposition that the Epistle
is reason for the editors Lachmann, was directed to the Jews generally by the hands
Tischendorf, and Buttmann here placing a of the Jewish Christians.

CHAP. IV. 13. 139
material for the designed imperative clause. It is more correct to assume
that James has already here in view the imperative clause in chap. v. 1, —
Klaiaare . . . inl ralg ralainupiaig vpav, K.r.X, — placed after dye vvv again re
sumed ; thus Gebser, Hottinger, Schneckenburger ; similarly Lange, accord
ing to whom dye vvv "refers to the announcement of the judgment, which
comes out quite clear in chap. v. 1, but is here darkly and menacingly
alluded to." — ol leyovreg]. Ye who say. liyeiv is to be retained in its usual
signification; corap. chap. ii. 14. Theile, without reason, explains it: qui
non solum cogitare soletis sed etiam dicere audetis. — aypepov kuI avpiov an
nounces the precise duration of the intended journey — not t«/ien it should
commence, but how long it should endure. With this explanation there is
no difficulty in Kai ; otherwise y (as the Ree. reads) must stand. In kuI there
lies a greater confidence (Theile), as according to it a definite plan is fixed
upon also for the morrow. According to Wiesinger, different instances are
here taken together, as in 2 Cor. xiii. 1 (so already Bengel : unus dicit hodie,
idem aliusve eras, ut commodum est) ; according to this, kuI would have to
be explained : " and relatively " (see Meyer on that passage) ; but the in
definiteness contained therein does not suit the certainty with which these
people speak. Lange's meaning is unjustified: "that aipiov is used for the
undefined future subsequent to to-day." — nopevabpeBa]. The indicative t«e
shall Journey expresses the certain confidence more strongly than the con
junctive let us Journey; see critical remarks. — e'lg ryvbe ryv nb7av]. Luther:
into this and that city. This explanation is also in Winer, ed. 6, p. 146
(E. T., ed. 7, 162), who adduces for it ryvbe ryv ypepav in Plutarch, Symp. i.
6. 1; but Al. Buttmann (p. 90 [E. T., 103]), on the other hand, correctly
asserts that the pronoun in that passage, as everywhere among Greek
authors, has its full deraonstrative meaning, and that therefore it must be
understood in James in the same sense; thus Schirlitz (p. 222) observes
that the pronoun is here used beiKimiJg; see also Luneraann's remark in
Winer, ed. 7, p. 153 (E. T., 162); still it is not to be explained, with
Schneckenburger: in hanc urbem, quae in conspectu quasi sita est : but, with
Theile : certa fingitur, quae vero verie eligi potest. Those introduced as
speaking mean each time a definite city ; but as this differs with different
persons, Jaraes could only indicate it in an indefinite mauner, and he does
so by the pronoun by which each time a definite city is pointed to ; thus into
the city which the traveller had chosen as his aira. By nopt-ieoBai eig r. noX is
indicated not merely the going into the city, but also the journey to the city in
which they would remain. — koi noiyaopev, K.r.l.]. We will spend there a year ;
noie'iv with a designation of time, as in Acts xv. 33, xx. 3, and other places ;
in the O. T., Prov. xiii. 23; see also Nicarch., Ep'igr. 35 (Jacobs' ed.) : 'ev
ravry nenoiyKU noliv xpovov. Luther incorrectly translates it: "and will con
tinue there a year ¦."'^ ior iviavrbv eva is not the accusative of duration, but
the proper objective accusative. The reading iva fittingly expresses the
confidence with which those introduced as speaking measure out their time
> Stier, correctly : "will spend there a year." that the time in question is busily employed,"
The opinion of Lange, that " iroielv along wilh is contradicted by 2 Cor. xi. 25.
a definition of time may likewise have indicated

140 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
beforehand, but not "their restless and unsteady conduct" (Lange). — koI
epnopevabpeBa Kal Kepbyaapev]. Bengel : Kal frequens ; polysyndeton exprimit lihi-
dinem animi securi. — ipnopeveaBai = to traffic ; the final aim is designated
by Ktpdyaopev. That aim is worldly gain, which, in carnal security, is recog
nized as certain, to be realized, so that it cannot fail. Kern correctly re
marks : " Traffic is introduced only by way of example, as characterizing
man's doings with reference to the earthly life as contrasted with the life
in God. "1
Ver. 14. James opposes to carnal security the uncertainty of the future
and the transitoriness of life. — o'inveg = ut qui ; correctly Wiesinger : " Ye
who are of such a character that," etc. — ovk iniaraoBe rb (rd) ryg avpiov indi
cates the ignorance of what the next day will bring forth ; comp. Prov. iii. 28,
xxvii. 1 : py Kuvxu rd eig avpiov, ov ydp yivuoKeig ri ri^erai y imovaa : thus whether
life will still last. What follows shows that James had this chiefiy in view.
— no'ia ydp y fu^ ipC>v ;]. ydp gives an explanation of ovk iniaraaBe. — nota, as in
1 Pet. ii. 20, how constituted f with the subsidiary meaning of nothing-ness.
By the reading adopted by Buttmann : o'inveg ovk iniaraaBe ryg avpiov noia ^uy
ipuv, the genitive r^f avpiov is dependent on noia l^uy ; thus, " Ye know not
how your life of to-morrow is circumstanced." This idea is evidently
feebler than the usual reading, for it is supposed that they yet live on
the following day, which according to the other reading is denoted as doubt
ful. — drplg ydp iare, K.r.l.]. ydp refers to the idea lying at the foundation of
the preceding question, that life is entirely nothing. — druig (in the N. T.
only here and in Acts ii. 19, in an O. T. quotation), literally breath ; thus in
Wisd. of Sol. vii. 25, synonymous with dnb/tpoia, has in the O. T. aud the
Apocrypha chiefly the meaning of smoke; thus Gen. xix. 28: drplg Kap'ivov;
so also Ecclus. xxii. 24 ; Ezek. viii. 11 : drplg roi Bvptdparog; Ecclus. xxiv. 15 :
liiSdvov drpig; see also Joel iii. 3; Ecclus. xliii. 4; in the classics it also
occurs in the meaning of vapor. According to biblical usage, it is here to
be taken in the first meaning (smoke) ; thus Lange ; Luther translates it by
vapor; De Wette and Wiesinger, by steam. — iare is stronger than the Ree.
ian ; not only their life, but also they themselves are designated as a smoke ;
as in chap. i. 10 it is also said of the nloiaiog, that he shall fade away as
the flower of the grass. — By ^ npbg bliyov . . . dipavi^opivy, the nature of the
smoke is stated. — npbg bliyov = for a little time ; bliyov is neuter. — kuI is to
be explained : as it appears, so it also afterwards vanishes. In the corre
sponding passages. Job viii. 9, Ps. cii. 12, cxliv. 4, the transitoriness of life
is represented not under the image of drpk (Wiesinger), but of a shadow;
differently in Ps. cii. 4.
Ver. 15. After the reason has been given in ver. 14 why it was wrong to
speak as in ver. 13, this verse tells us how we ought to speak. — ai^ri ioi leyeiv
vpdg is closely connected with oi leyovreg, ver. 13, so that ver. 14 forms a paren
thesis : Ye who say. To-day, etc., instead of saying, idv b Kipiog, K.r.l. — Accord
ing to the reading (yaopev kuI noiyaopev (instead of the Ree. ^ijaupev koI noiyaupev)
1 Lange indeed asaents to this ; but he thinks trait of the diabolically excited worldliness of
that the apostle, with a prophet's glance, evi- his people, as it afterwards became more and
dently describes beforehand the fundamental more developed.

CHAP. IV. 16. 141
it is most natural to refer koI t^aopev not to the protasis (as Tischendorf
punctuates it), but to the apodosis (Lachmann and Buttmann ; so also Wie
singer and Lange) ; for, first, it is gramraatically more correct ^ to make only
the conjunctive Belyay dependent on idv, and to take the two indicatives
together; and, secondly, from this construction the striking thought results,
that not only the doing, but also the life, as the condition of the doing, is
dependent on the will of God : it is accordingly to be translated : If the Lord
will, we shall both live and do this or that. Correctly, Wiesinger: "It appears
to be more suitable to the sense to t.ake idv i k. Bel. as a single condition, and
not to complete it by a second." On the other hand, most expositors retain
the reading of the Ree, but they construe it differently. De Wette refers kuI
Cyaupev to the protasis, and takes the second koI as belonging to the apodosis:
"If the Lord will and we live, we shall," etc. ; so also Erasmus, Luther,
Calvin, Hornejus, Pott, and in general most expositors (also Winer, see
critical remarks ; on the contrary, Al. Buttmann, p. 311 (E. T., 362), prefers
the indicative). Schneckenburger, indeed, refers kuI C^aupev to the protasis,
but he connects it more closely with idv Belyay : si Deo placet ut vivamus turn
faciemus (similarly Grotius and Hottinger), which, however, cannot be lin
guistically justified. Bornemann (in Winer and Engelhardt's N. Krit.
Journ., vi., 1827) commences the apodosis with kuI l^aupev, and explains it:
" Let us seek our sustenance." — Winer correctly observes that this explana
tion (which Bruckner erroneously ascribes to this commentary) lacks sim
plicity, and is not supported by biblical usage.^ Bouman and others (see
critical notes) refer i;yaupev naturally to the protasis, and noiyaopev to the
apodosis. The meaning which this reading, unsupported by authorities,
gives, appears to be suitable, but yet is not correct, for it would be more
correct to have said : idv ^/aupev kuI 6 Kvpiog Belyay. — The indicative is to be
preferred to the conjunctive in the apodosis, as a reciprocal call to definite
action corresponds less with the context than the resolution to do something.
Ver. 16 expresses the conduct of those addressed in contrast to ver. 15 ;
and in such a manner that the judgment upon that conduct is also expressed.
— viv bi, here, as frequently, where the reality in opposition to what is set
before a person is emphasized; see 1 Cor. v. 11, xiv. 6. — KavxdaBe iv raig dla-
tfive'iaig ipuv. By ulaCpveia is to be understood the arrogant self-reliance on
the duration of earthly prosperity ; see explanation of 1 John ii. 16. De
Wette inaccurately explains it by bragging; Theile, by arroganter facta,
dicta ; Schneckenburger, by pertness ; WieMnger, by " those arrogant expres
sions affecting complete independence;" Lange, by "vain and arrogant
self-exaltation ; " and others differently. The plural is used, because such
haughtiness manifests itself differently under different circumstances. — iv,
here used differently than in chap. i. 9 : the dlaC,oveiai are not the object but
the reason of the boasting, that from which it proceeds (against Wiesinger),
» The indicative future after eav is only be assumed, James only intending to say that
found with absolute certainty in Luke xix. 40. we should always resolve never to speak decld-
8ee Al. Buttmann, p. 192 (E. T., 222). edly, he has in later editions correctly re'iin-
8 The opinion which Winer, in ed. 6, p. 331 f. quiahed.
has expressed, that perhaps no apodosis is to

142 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
and KavxdaBai is designated frora the standpoint of Jaraes : that haughty and
presuraptuous language in ver. 13; comp. Prov. xxvii. 1. — With the fol
lowing words : ndaa Kavxrioig, K.r.X, James definitely expresses his reproba
tion. — roiavry]. Not every boasting in itself (chap. i. 9), but every boasting
which proceeds frora dlaCpvela, which is founded in it, and connected with it,
is wicked. Ver. 17. With the general sentence : Whosoever knoweth io do good and
doeth it not, to him it is sin, Jaraes concludes what he has hitherto said. — ovv
is used in the sense of conclusion, but indicates that the concluding thought
is the result of what has gone before. — Kuldv noielv belong together, depend
ent on eibbri ; not " whosoever knows the good that is to be done," which
would be to take noielv as an epexegetical infinitive. Wiesinger correctly
remarks: " koImv is not the idea of good, in which case the article would be
put, but that which is fair, in contrast to an action which in its moral nature
is novypbv.'' That the discourse is concerning a sin of omission as such, to
which this sentence is commonly referred (Bengel, Jachmann, and others),
is rightly contested by De Wette and Wiesinger.^ — dpapria airu iariv. De
Wette: "In the sense of reckoning; John xv. 22; Luke xii. 47 f." (so
already Estius, also Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, and others). — airu is here
put, as frequently in the N. T., especially after the participle ; corap. Matt.
v. 40; see Al. Buttraann, p. 125 (E. T., 143). With regard to the connec
tion in which this sentence stands with the preceding, most expositors
understand it as enforcing that to which James has formerly exhorted his
readers, and refer eldbn to the knowledge which they have now received by
the word of James. But against this is the objection, that if this expression
be referred to all the previous exhortations (Estius : Jam de omnibus satis vos
admonui, vobis bene nota sunt), this would not be its proper place, because
later on more exhortations follow ; but if it is only referred to the last
remark (Grotius : moniti estis a me, ignorantiam non potestis obtendere, si quid
posthac tale dixeritis, gravior erit culpa ; so also Pott, Theile, De Wette, Wie
singer), we cannot see why James should have added such a remark to this
exhortation, as it would be equally suitable to any other. It is accordingly
better to refer eibbn to the already existing knowledge of the subject just
treated of ; namely, the uncertainty of human life is something so raanifest,
that those who notwithstanding talk in their presumption as if it did not
exist, as if their life were not dependent on God, contrary to their own
knowledge, do not that which is seemly, but that which is unseemly, and
therefore this is so much the more sin unto them.^
' " Since Ka\6v is the autitheais of irovripov, planation, maintains that the word refers to
and not some positive good as beneficence, the the better knowledge of the readers, of evan-
defect of which is not novripov, as De "Wette gelical behavior in general, the definite con-
correctly remarks, pri rroiovvn does not merely nection of thought, in which here the general
signify a sin of omission, but the omission of sentence is placed, ia not properly considered
KaKov ia necessarily a doing of nov-qpov." by him.
2 When Lange, iu arguing agninst this ex-

CHAP. V. 143

CHAPTER V.
Ver. 4. Instead of eiaelylvBaaiv the form eiaelylvBav is, -with Tisch. and
Lachm., to be preferred (on this form see Ph. Buttm., Ausfuhrl. Gr. Gr., § 87, 8,
Note 5, and Winer, p. 70 f. [E. T., 93]). —Ver. 5. The ug of the Ree. (after
G, K, etc.) before ev ypepg, is, according to the testimonies of A, B, X, to be
regarded as an explanatory addition, and, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be left
out; so also Wiesinger, Lange, Briickner; Reiche and Bouman, however, judge
otherwise. — Ver. 7. The Ree. after the second lug has the particle dv (so in }<
and many min.). Tisch. has omitted it, as, according to his statement, it is not
found in A, B, G, K, etc. ; Lachm. has retained it (according to Tischendorf's
note: ex errore); so also Buttmann, who adduces no authority for its omission.
Already Griesbach regarded Uv as suspicious. Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted
ierbv; it is in A, G, K, etc., but is wanting in B, X, etc.; its addition is easily
explained, particularly as in the LXX. it is never wanting with npCiipog koI
oipipog. — Ver. 9. The address dbelipoi, in A, B, etc. (Lachm. Tisch.), stands
before, in G, X, etc. (Ree), after kut dllyluv; in K, etc., it is entirely wanting.
Instead of KoraKpiByre the simple verb KpiByre is, with Griesbach, Scholz, Lachm.,
Tisch., to be read, according to almost all authorities; so also the article b
before Kpiryg (which in the Ree. is wanting, against almost all authorities) is
to be adopted. — Ver. 10. The address according to the Ree. is dbelfol pov
(G, K, X, etc.); in A, B, etc., pov is wanting (Lachm. Tisch.); its correct posi
tion is after latere, not after KuKonaBeiag. — Instead of KUKonaBeiag, X alone reads
KaloKayaBiag. — Before tu bvbpari, B, N, etc., have the preposition iv (Lachm.):
a correction apparently for the sake of simplification. — X alone omits tu. — '
Ver. 11. It is diflficult to decide whether we are to read, with the Ree. and Tisch.,
inopevovrag (G, K, etc.), or, with Lachm. and Wiesinger, inopelvavrag (A, B, S,
etc.); yet the reading of the Ree. appears to have arisen from an endeavor to
generalize the reference of the idea : Bouman certainly judges otherwise. —
The Ree. eibere, after B* (teste Majo), K, X, etc., Oecumenius (Lachm.), is as
a correction to be changed for the more difficult reading ibere, attested by A,
B, G, etc. (Tisch.). — After ianv the Ree. has b Kvpmg, according to A, B (in B,
however, the article is wanting), X, several min., vss., etc. (Lachm.); Griesbach
regarded it as suspicious, and Tisch. has omitted it, after C, K, many min., etc. ;
the omission can easily be explained frora the fact that Kvpiov directly precedes
(so also Lange; Bouman wavers). —Ver. 12. The reading eig inbKpiaiv (Ed.
Steph., after G, K, etc.) has probably arisen from the original inb Kplaiv, these
two words being taken as one, and then a preposition placed before them. —
Ver 14. The airbv after dleiipavreg is wanting in B; It was omitted as being
self-evident. — Lachm. and Tisch. have, after A and some min., left out the
article roi before Kvpiov; yet G, K, X, many min., etc., attest its genuineness; in
B also Kvplov is wanting; nevertheless Buttmann has received it, but without
the article. — Ver. 16. The reading of the Kec. is i^o/wloyetaBs dllyloig rd

144 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
napanruuara, Kal evxeaBe, K.r.l. (Tisch.); instead of which A, B read i^opoloyelaBe
ovv dllyloig rdg dpapriag Kal npoaevxeaBe, K.r.X (Lachm.); for ovv also K, X, several
min., Vulg., etc., testify: accordingly ovv is to be considered as genuine; yet
precisely this ovv might mislead one to find in this verse an extension of the
thought going before, and on this account to change the new expressions
with the preceding, and thus, instead of napanrupara, to put again dpapriag,
and instead of evxeaBe, for which also_ X testifies, to put again npoaevxeaBe,
whereas the opposite change cannot be well explained. — Ver. 18. The Ree.
verbv ibuKev is found in B, G, K, almost all min., etc. (Tisch.); A, on the con
trary, has ibuKev verbv (Lachm.); so also X, but with rbv before verbv. It is
possible that this change was occasioned by the following il3?MaTyaev rbv Kupnbv.
— Ver. 19. Tisch. has omitted the pronoun |Uou after dbelipoi, yet the most
iinportant authorities. A, B, K, X, etc., attest its genuineness. — X alone has,
instead of the simple r^f dlyBeiag, the combination r^f bboi lyg dlyBeiag. — Ver. 20.
The reading yivuoKere in B is occasioned by the address dbelipoi. Instead of the
Ree. ipvxvv, after G, K, many min. (Tisch.), Lachm., and Buttm. have adopted
ipvxyv airov. This airov is found in A, X, some rain., vss., etc. B has it, prob
ably by an error of the scribe, not after ipvxyv, but after Bavdrov. — B has as
subscription 'la/cu/3oi); A, 'luKuiSov iniaroly; others differently.
Ver. 1. That here the same persons are meant as in chap. iv. 13, and
not others, has already been observed on that passage : by dye viv, the dye viv
of that passage is again resumed.' — oi nloiaioi]. See chap. i. 10, ii. 6, 7; the
expression is not to be taken in a symbolical, but in its literal, meaning
(against Lange). — Klaiaare 'oljolifyvreg, k.t.A.]. Klaiaare is not here to be
understood, as in chap. iv. 9, of the tears of repentance (Estius, Hornejus,
Laurentius, De Wette, and others), for there is no intimation of a call to
repentance. Correctly, Calvin : falluntur qui Jacobum hic exhortari ad poeni
tentiam divites putant; mihi simplex magis denuntiatio Judicii Dei videtur, qua
eos terrere voluit absque spe veniae.^ James already sees the judgment coming
upon the rich, therefore the call KlMvaare; that for which they should weep
are the ralainuplai which threatened them.* — The imperative is not here used
instead of the future (Semler: stilo prophetico imperat, ut rem certissimam
demonstret, flebitis ; Schneckenburger : aoristus imperativi rem mox certoque
eventuram designat), but is to be retained in its full force. The imperative
expresses not what they will do, but what they shall even now do, because
their ralainupiai are nigh. The union of the imperative Klaiaare with the
participle blolv^ovreg is not an imitation of the frequent combination of
the finite verb with the infinite absolute of the same verb in the Hebrew
' Whilst De Wette, Wiesinger, and others Calvin, but only in words; for " the design of
understand by the rich here addreaaed Chris- James, as in the case of the propheta of the
tians, Stier has correctly recognized that auch O. T., ia certainly nothing else than that of
are here addressed " who are outside of the moving them by suoh a threat if possible yet
ChristianChurch," namely, those already men- to turn." If James has this design in these
tioned in chap. ii. 6, 7, who practise violence words, he has certainly not indicated it.
on you, the confessors of the Lord of glory. 3 That James by this intends the end of
His remark is also striking ; " To them James the Roman Empire (Hengstenberg), is proved
predicts as a prophet, and entirely in the style neither from the Epistle of Peter, nor from
of the old propheta, the impending judgment." Rev. xviii., nor from any other indications in
2 Wiesinger indeed concedes the point to this Epistle.

CHAP. V. 2. 145
(Schneckenburger), since here two different verbs are united together (De
Wette, Wiesinger) ; also blolilieiv has not the sarae meaning as Klaleiv, but,
as expressive of a more vehement affection, is added for the sake of strength.
blolv^eiv frequently in the O. T., Isa. xiii. 6, xiv. 31, xv. 3 (blolv^ere perd
KlavBpoi), and in other places, and indeed chiefly used in reference to the
impending divine judgment (Isa. xiii. 6: blolvl^ere, iyyig ydp ypepa Kvpiov).-
Calvin : est quidem et suus poenitenliae luctus, sed qui mixtus consolatione, non
ad ululatum usque procedit. — inl ralg ralamupiaig ipi:tv]. For your miseries, i.e.,
the miseries destined for you, namely, the miseries of the judgment; see ver. 3:
iv iaxdraig ypepaig; ver. 7: i/ napovaia roi Kvpiov. Thomas Aquinas, Grotius,
Mill, Benson, Michaelis, Stier, Lange, Bouman, refer this to the then im
pending destruction of Jerusalem ; they are so far right, as the destruction
of Jerusalem and the last judgraent had not as yet been distinguished in
representation ; ^ but it is incorrect to refer it to the Judgment itself, rather
than to the miseries which ivill precede the advent of Christ; or, with Hottinger,
to find here only a description of the inconstancy of prosperity. — ralg inepxo-
pivaig, not sc. vplv (Luther : your misery which will come upon you ; so also
De Wette, Lange, and others), but the impending, already threatening miseries;
comp. Eph. ii. 7.
Ver. 2. Description of the judgment destroying all riches : 6 nlovrog ipuv
aiaynev. In a prophetical manner the future is described as having already
taken place (Hottinger, Schneckenburger, De Wette, Wiesinger, Bouman,
and others). By nlovrog is not here — as Estius, Raphelius, Wolf, Semler,
Gebser, Bouman, on account of aiaynev think — to be understood such things
(fruit, etc.) as undergo literal rottenness, but is to be understood generally;
and aeayne as a figurative expression denotes generally the destruction to
which riches are abandoned. The explanation of Calvin is incorrect : Mo
immensa divitum rapacitas perstringitur, dum supprimunt, quicquid undecunque
possunt ad se trahere, ut inutiliter in area computrescat (similarly Hornejus,
Laurentius, Grotius, Bengel, Theile ^) ; Jaraes " does not here intend to give
the natural result of covetousness, and thus the reason of the judgraent, but
the effect of the judgment breaking forth " (Wiesinger). * James describes
the reason from ver. 4 and onwards. — The verb aynu, to cause to rot, in the
passive and second perfect to corrupt, is in the N T. dn-. ley., but often
occurs in the LXX.; comp. Job xxxiii. 21, xl. 7; as here in a general sense
(= ipBeipenBai) it is found in Ecclus. xiv. 19. — Kal rd Iparia ipuv, k.t.1. The
general idea nloirog is here and in what follows specialized. — ayrbjipurog,

1 Wiesinger; "Thequestion whether James jam facta sunt eorumque, quae pro justa Dei
thought on the destruction of Jerusalem, or on retributione adhuc flent."
the advent of Messiah', is an anachronism ; for ' In agreeraent with his explanation of
to him both of these events occur together." ttAovo-ioi, Lange understands also ttAovto? in
* Theile, who takes the preterite in its literal a symbolical sense, namely, the externalized
sense, thus explains the passage; "divitiae a Judaistic righteouaneas — "connected, of
vobis coacervatae perierunt nulla vestra ali- course, with worldly prosperity." His aaser-
orumque utilitate . . . atque ideo vos coram tion is also incorrect, that here not the last
judice perdent. Ita causa additur istarum cala- judgment, but "the natural immanent judg-
mitatum perferendl, gravi oppositione eorum ments of sinners " are meant.
quae per absurda et Impia Ipsorum avaritia

146 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
moth-eaten, in the N. T. un. ley., does not occur in the classics, but in Job
xiii. 20, LXX.: uanep ipdriov ayrbj3purav; corap. Isa. li. 8. oKulyKo^purog in
Acts xii. 23 is sirailarly forraed.
Ver. 3. Continuation of the description of the judgment : b xpvabg ipuv
Kal 6 upyvpog, a further specification of riches. Kariurai, in the N. T. dw. ley.
•(Ecclus. xii. 10), equivalent to the simple verb, only in a stronger significa
tion. Correctly, Hornejus: loquitur populariter, nam aurum proprie aeruginem
non contrahit; so in the Epistle of Jeremiah 11, where it is said of gold and
silver images : ov biaauC,ovrai dnb ioi ; see also in the same, ver. 23. With too
minute accuracy, Bretschneider justifies the use of the verb here, that we are
to think on gold and silver vessels which are alloyed with copper (similarly
Bouraan). It is no less incorrect, with Pott, to weaken the idea Kar'iurai,
that it is to be understood only of am'isso ami et argenti splendore, de mutato
auri colore ex flavo in viridem ; against this is b log directly following. Wie
singer thinks that because Kariurai is here used figuratively, it is a matter of
indifference that rust does not affect gold; but the ideas must suit each
other in the figurative expression. The verb is rather here to be justified
by the fact that since rust settles on metals generally, James in his vivid
.concrete description did not scrupulously take into consideration the differ-
.ence of metals, which, however, is not to be reckoned, with De Wette, as a
"poetical exaggeration."' — koI b Ibg airuv (naraely, rov xpvaoi Kal rov dpyvpov),
.eig papripiov vplv earai. Most expositors agree with the explanation of Oecu-
Hienius : Karapaprvpyaei vpuv, iliyxuv rb dperdborov ipuv ; accordingly, " The rust
-which has collected on your unused gold and silver will testify to your hard
ness, and that to your injury = Kar' ipuv." But since the preceding Kariurai
.describes the judgraent overtaking earthly glory, log can only be understood
•with reference to it ; correctly, Wiesinger : " the rust is a witness of their
.own destruction ; in the destruction of their treasures they see depicted
:their(Own."^ Augusti superficially explains it: "will convince you that all
irichesare transitory." After their riches are destroyed, the judgment seizes
iupon themselves ; therefore Kal ipdyerai rdg adpKog ipuv. The subject is 6 ibg,
"the corroding rust seizes also them, and will eat their flesh " (Wiesinger).
The figurative expression, although bold and peculiar, is not unsuitable,
since (of is .considered as an effect of judgment, ipdyerai is not the present
i(Schneckenburger), but in the LXX. and N. T. the ordinary futm-e for
¦ eberai; see Buttmann, Ausf. Gr. Sprach., § 114 (E. T., 58), under iaBlu;
Winer, p. 82 (E. T., 89). The object rdg adpKag ipuv belonging to ipdyerai is
.neither -=ai^af (Baumgarten), nor yet in itself indicates "bloated bodies"
>(Augusti, Pott : corpora lautis cibis bene pasta) ; also Schneckenburger lays
too much stress on the expression, explaining it : emphatice, quum ejusmodi
homines nihil sint nisi adp^. According to usage, ai adpKeg denotes the fieshy
parts of the body, therefore the plural is also used with reference to one indi-
' Lange strangely thinks that it is here in- as for the glory of Israel to be as corrupted
tended to bring out the unnatural fact that the as the glory of other nations corrupts, which
princes of Israel are become rebellious and may be compared to base metals."
companions of thieves: "It is as unnatural ^ Stier incorrectly understands by rust " the
tor gold and ailver to be eaten up with rust, guilt of sin which cleaves to mammon."

CHAP. V. i. 147
vidual ; comp. 2 Kings ix. 36 : Karaipdyovrai oi Kvveg rdg adpKog '\ei;dpel ; further.
Lev. xxvi. 29 ; Judith xvi. 17 ; Rev. xix. 18, 21 ; in definite distinction from
bones, Mic. iii. 2, 3. It is to be remarked that in almost all these passages
the same verb is united with the noun.i The context shows that what is
spoken of is not " the consuming of the body by care and want " (Erasmus,
Seraler, Jaspar, Morus, Hottinger, Bouman), but the punishment of the
divine judgment (Calvin, Grotius, Pott, Schneckenburger, De Wette, Wie-'
singer, and others). The words ug nip may be united either with what goes
before or with what follows. Most expositors prefer the first combination ;
yet already A, the Syriac version (where ug is wanting), and Oecumenius in
his commentary put a stop after vpuv. Grotius, Knapp, and Wiesinger, con
sidering this construction as correct, accordingly explain it : tanquam ignem
opes istas congessetis ; Wiesinger states as a reason for this, that without the
union with dig nip the -words iByaavpiaare, k.t.X, give too feeble a meaning.
But this is not the case, since the chief stress rests on iv Iaxdraig ypipatg (so
also Lange); also James could not well reckon riches as a fire of judgment.
Besides, in the O. T. the judgment is frequently represented as a devouring
consuming fire, which was sufficient to suggest to James to add ug nip to
(pdyerai.^ The sentiment is : After the judgment has overtaken the wealth of
the rich, it will attack themselves. Kern gives the sentiment in an unsatis
factory manner : " The destruction of that which was every thing to the rich
will punish him with torturing sorrow, as if fire devoured his fiesh." That
the ralainuplai already draw near is said in ver. 1, and James by the words
iByaavpiaare iv icxciratg yuipaig indicates that the judgment is close at hand, so
that this time is the Zas( rfa!/s directly preceding the judgment; accordingly,
the heaping-up of treasure appears as something so much the more wicked.
Estius, Calvin, Laurentius, and others incorrectly supply to the verb the word
bpyyv in accordance with Rom. ii. 5 (comp. Prov. i. 18). The object to be
supplied to Byaavpl^eiv, which is often used absolutely (comp. Luke xii. 21 ;
2 Cor. xii. 14 ; Ps. xxxviii. 7), is contained in the verb itself, and also follows
from what has preceded. The preposition iv is not used instead of eig, and
eaxarat ypipat are not the last days of life (Wolf : accumulavistis divitias extremae
vitae parti provisuri; Morus: cumulastis opes sub finem vitae vestrae), but the
last times which precede the advent of Christ (ver. 7), not merely the final
national judgment (Lange). Jachmann most erroneously takes the sentence
as interrogative : Have ye collected your (spiritual) treasures on the day (i.e.,
for the day) of judgment, in order to exhibit them ?
Ver. 4. Description of the sins of the rich to the end" of ver. 6, by reason

> Although o-apKe? in itself indicates only ^ gee Ps. xxi. 10, LXX. : Karaf^a-ycTat auTous
fiesh according to its separate parts, yet the n-vp; laa. x. 16, 17, xxx. 27 (^ op-yrj tou 0vjuou is
expression is here chosen in order to name irvp eSerai); Ezek. xv. 7; Amoe v. 6. Pott;
in a concrete manner that which is carefully "Aerugo describitur, quasi Invadat membra dl-
nourished by the rich. According to Lange, vitum, eaque quasi, ut metallura, arrodat atque
ai adpKei are " the externals of religious, civil, consumat et quidem . . . <i>5 irvp, tanquam
and' individual life ; " and the thought of James fiamma membra quasi circumlabens carnem-
is that " the rotten fixity described as rust in que lento dolore depascens."
Its last stage transforms itself in the fire of a
revolutionary movement " I

148 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
of which they become liable to the judgment. The first sin mentioned is
their injustice toward those who work for them. — iboi, an interjection often
occurring in the N. T. to draw attention to the object in question. — ruv
ipyaruv, emphatically put first ; comp. the proverb : d^iog b ipydryg roi piaBoi
airov (1 Tim. v. IS). riJv dpyadvruv (dpdv = Bepl^eiv, in the N. T. dyr. ley.) rdg
Xupag vpuv; x"pa = fields, as in Luke xii. 16; John iv. 35. — In the following
words, expositors conjoin df vpuv with dnearepypivog ; ^ whilst they either
explain dnb — inb, or, as Wiesinger, retaining the distinction of the prepo
sitions, observes, that "not the direct origin, but the proceeding of the act
of robbery frora them, is indicated" (comp. Winer, p. 332 (E. T., 464); Al.
Buttmann, p. 280 [E. T., 326]). But it would be more suitable to join
df vpuv to Kpd^ei (so also Lange) ; the kept-back hire crieth from the place
where it is.^ The chief stress is put on 6 dnearepypivog; the same kind of
conjunction as in chap. iv. 14. The injury of our neighbor, by diminished
payment or withholding of the wages due to him, was expressly forbidden
in the law.^ — Kpii(ei. Calvin: vindictam quasi alto clamors exposcit; comp.
Gen. iv. 10. — In the following words it is stated that the cry has been heard
by God.^ By the designation of God as Kvp'tov aaSauB, His power as the Lord
of the heaven]37 hosts is emphasized ; the reference occurring in the O. T.
likewise to the earthly hosts is here evidently not admissible (against Lange);
it is the transference of the Hebrew niX3S nirT, often occurring in the LXX.,
particularly in Isaiah ; in other places the LXX. have Kvpiog navroKpdrup,
2 Sam. V. 10, vii. 27, or Kvpiog rdw bwdpeuv, Ps. xxiv. 10. — Jaraes, in his
graphic style, instead of the general word " laborer," mentions specially the
reapers, not on account of their multitude (De Wette), but because their
laborious work in the sweat of their brow most strongly represents the work
which is worthy of wages. Thus Calvin not incorrectly observes : quid est
indignius quam eos, qui panem ex suo labore nobis suppeditant, inedia et fame
conficere? It is raore remote to explain it thus: "because selfish hard-
heartedness is here most sharply stated, when even the joy of the harvest
does not induce them to give to the poor their hardly-earned portion "
(Briickner).^ Ver. 5. A second sin of the rich, naraely, their luxurious and gluttonous
life, which forms a sharp contrast to the toilsome life of the laborers. —
erpvipyaare . . . ianaralyaare, synonymous terms : rpvipuv, in the N. T. utt. ley.,
in the LXX., Neh. ix. 25; Isa. Ixvi. 11 (Isa. Ivii. 4). anaTalg.v, only here

* diroarepem, to keep back. Plato, Gorg. * Comp. on this expression, particularly
619c.; eo also LXX. Mai. iii. 5; Ecclus. xxxiv. Ps. xviii. 7; Isa. v. 9; ijnovo-Sij eii Ti Sira
27. Kvpiov aa^aiod TauTa; besides Gen. xviii. 21,
2 Comp. Gen. iv. 10: ipiovii alparo^ . . . xix. 13; Exod. ii. 23 f., ill. 9, xxii. 22 f.; 2 Sam.
^od . . . eK T)jy y?!^; Exod. ii. 23; dvefii] jj jSoij xxii. 7, and other passages.
auTwv Trpos tov @eov diro toiv epybiv. c Here also Lange comes in with his sym-
s Comp. Lev. xix. 13; Deut. xxiv. 14; Jer. bolical interpretation, understanding by the
xxii. 13; particularly also Mai. iii. 6; eaopai harvest " the time when the theocratic seed of
pdpTvi T(ix"5 eirl . . . Toiij iiroo-Tepovi'Ta! God in Israel has ripened unto the harvest
pia9hv pta9wTov ; comp. also Job xxxi. 38, of God," and by the reapers " the apostles
39; Tob. iv. U; Ecclus. xxxiv. 27 (edx'"" and flrst Christians."
a'lpa 6 dnoarepiav piadiav piaQiov).

CHAP. V. 5. 149
and in 1 Tim. v. 6; in the LXX., Ezek. xvi. 49; Amos vi. 4, and other
places. Hottinger thus states the distinction between them : rpvipq.v delicia-
rum est et exquisitae voluptatis; anaraluvduxuriae atque prodigal'itatis ; comp.
the description of the rich man in Luke xvi._ 19. I'hese and the following
verbs are in the aorist, not " because the conduct of the rich is described as
viewed frora the day of judgment" (first edition of this commentary; simi
larly also Wiesinger), for " this does not suit the present uvriTdaaerai" (Gunkel),
but because James will mark the present conduct as a constant occurrence.
The addition 'enl ryg yyg forms a sharp contrast to the preceding e'lg id ura
Kvpiou aaffauB. Whilst the Lord in heaven hears the complaints of the unjustly
oppressed, the rich on earth enjoy their lusts, undisturbed by the wrath of
God, which shall be revealed frora heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men (Rom. i. 18). — iBpeipare rdg Kapblag ipiJv does not
add a new idea to the preceding, but' brings forward the fact that the rich
in their luxurious living find the satisfaction of the desires of their heart.
Luther's translation : " Ye have pastured your heart," does not sufficiently
correspond to the idea rpiipeiv ; something bad is evidently denoted by it.
Since rpiipeiv is literally " to make firm, thick," it is best here to render it by
"to satiate.'' Other expositors translate it by "to fatten;" Lange, by "to
make fat." rug Kopbiag is equivalent neither to rd aupara ipuv nor to vpug;
comp. Acts xiv. 17, aud Meyer on that passage ; i Winer, p. 141 (E. T., 156).
'ev ypipq. afayyg corresponds to the preceding iv 'eaxaraig ypepaig. These last
times are designated by James with reference to the rich as ypipa aipayyg, the
day of slaughter, because the sentence of death, which they have incurred,
will be directly executed upon them at the approach of the napovaia of Christ
(comp. ver. 7) and the judgment ; so also Wiesinger, Bruckner, Lange, only
the latter arbitrarily understands by the day of slaughter, the day of Israel's
judgment, comprehending the time from the death of Christ to the destruc
tion of Jerusalem. This designation of the day of judgment is also found
in the O. T., particularly Jer. xii. 3, LXX. . dyviaov airoig eig ypepav aipayyg
airCiv ; xxv. 34. By the reading ug before iv ypipg. af a comparison occurs,
namely, with the beasts who are to be slaughtered, so that Pott after ug
directly supplies Bpeppara. De Wette explains it : " Ye have pastured your
hearts as in the day of slaughter; i.e., according to the comparison with
beasts, who on the day on which they are to be slaughtered feed carelessly
and devour greedily;" so also Bouman. But the idea "carelessly and
greedily " is introduced ; also the comparison is unsuitable, since beasts on
the day of slaughter do not eat more greedily than on other days. Other
expositors, as Wolf, Augusti, Hottinger, and others, take iv as equivalent to
eig; Hottinger: corpora vestra aluistis, tanquam pecora, quae saginari solent ad
mactationem ; but this change of prepositions is arbitrary. Several expos
itors, as Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Laurentius, Bengel, and others, understand
by ypipa aipayyg the day of sacrifice ; Calvin: addit similitudinem, sicut, etc.,
quia solebant in sacrificiis solemnibus liberalius vesci quam pro quotidiano more ;

1 Meyer; "The heart is filled with food, the pleasant feeling of satisfaction, is in the
inasmuch as the sensation of being filled, heart."

150 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
the meaning then is : tola vita vestra est quasi perpetuum epulum ac festum con
tinuum (Laurentius) ; but that expression never elsewhere occui-s in this
signification. Had James thought on the sacrificial feast or the like, he
would have expressed it more definitely; besides, by this explanation the
reference to the judgment is entirely wanting, and only the luxurious life is
described; but this contradicts the character of the whole section, for if
James, froin ver. 4 onwards, assigns the reason of ralainuplai, he does this
not without an earnest pointing to the judgment and its nearness.
Ver. 6. The third sin, the persecution of the Just, by which the ungodliness
of their disposition is most strongly indicated. By blKatog is not meant Christ
(Oecumenius,! Bede, Grotius, Lange), for, on the one hand, there is nothing
iu the context to indicate this, and, on the other hand, the present dvnrdaaerai
is opposed to it ; also, if this were the case, the perfect must be put instead of
the aorist, as here only one deed is mentioned, not, as before, a repetition
of deeds. Wiesinger, in au unsatisfactory manner, explains rbv 6'iKaiov by the
innocent. Not merely the unjust conduct of the nloiaioi founded on covet
ousness is here intended to be described, but the reason of persecution is
implied in the expression rbv biKaiov itself; comp. Wisd. of Sol. ii. 12-20;
as also 1 John iii. 12. The singular is to be taken collectively, and the
expression absolutely, as in ver. 16. Several expositors assume that the verbs
Karebmdaare, iipovevaare, are not meant in their literal sense; but evidently
without reason. Karebmdaare shows that here primarily judges are meant ;
yet the accusers, if these are to be distinguished frora them, are not to be
considered as excluded, since their accusation points to nothing else than to
a sentence of condemnation. ^ The asyndeton sharpens the climax, which
is contained in the addition of the second verb to the flrst. Bouman directs
attention to the paronomasia between Karebmdaare and 6'iKaiov. — ovk dvnrdaaerai
opposes the calm patience of the just to the violence of the wicked : he doth
not resist (comp. Acts xviii. 6; Rom. xiii. 4; Jas. iv. 6). Schneckenburger:
oiK dvriT. sine copula et pronomine ponderose additur. The present is explained
from the fact that in what goes before not a single instance, but the con
tinued conduct of the rich is described, and opposed to this is placed the
similarly continued conduct of the b'lKaioi. Lange, by the reference of rbv
d'lKaiov to Christ, misinterprets the force of the present, arbitrarily attributing
to the verb the meaning: "He stands no longer in your way; He does not
stop you (in the way of death) ; He suffers you to fill up your measure." —
It is unnecessary to supply in thought of or ydp ; also ovk dvnrdaaerai is not to
be converted into ou bvvarai dvnrdaaeaBai (Pott). For the correct construction
1 Oecumenius, indeed, says; dvavTippi^riaq ttjv e/x/Si'wo-tr; but he maintains without reason
TO, ec^ov. T. SiK., eTri rov Xpio-rli. dvatjteperai; that the death of the just is not to be considered
but he thinks that James likewise understands as the direct design of the irAou^ioi, but only as
by this; tou^ aAAous roi/^ rd o^ota Trapa rdiv the result of their Oppressions. Also De Wette
'lovSaiuiv iraeovras; and he closes with the thinks that tbe killing is not to be uuderstood
remark ; io-oi; Se Kal irpotPririKuts to irepi eavToi- literally, but of extreme violence, deprivation
vnepipaLvei Traflos. Of liberty, and the like. This interpretation
' Wiesinger correctly observes that ijioveveiv is, however, occasioned by the assumptiou
is here not to be explained according to Ecclus. that the rich are Christians.
xxxi. 21 ; tpovevi/31' i'ov ttAtjctlov 6 dipaipovpevo^

CHAP. V. 7. 151
there is no reason, with Bentley, for conjecturing A Kvpiog instead of oi, or,
with Benson, to take the sentence as interrogative, and to supply 6 Kvpiog.
The object of the addition of the clause is not so much the more strongly tc
mark the violent conduct of the rich, as rather by implication to point to the
proximity of the vengeance of God, who interests Himself in the suffering
just, as is definitely asserted in the previous verses. With this verse are to
be compared, besides the already cited passage in Wisd. of Sol. ii. 12-20,
particularly Amos ii. 6, 7, v. 12 (/caTaTraroii^rff dlKaiov), viii. 4, which testify
for the correctness of the explanation here given.
Ver. 7. Exhortation to the brethren to' patient waiting, on to ver. 11. —
puKpoBvpyaare oiv], puKpoBvuelv; literally, to be long-suffering to those who do
an injury; opposed to b^vSvpelv; see Meyer on Col. i. 11. On its distinction
from inopeveiv, see on 2 Tim. iii. 11; here the ineaning appears to run into
that of inopeveiv; comp. the following puKpoBvpCw and ver. 8; but it is here
well put, in order to exclude the feeling of disquieting doubt; comp. Heb.
vi. 12, 15. — ovv refers to the preceding sentiment (also to that indicated in
OVK dvnrdaaerai ipiv), that the judgment is near (De Wette, Wiesinger).! —
dbelipoi, contrast to the nloiaioi. — Patience is to endure iug ryg napovaiag roi
Kvpiov. On iug as a preposition, see Winer, p. 418 (E. T., 470). As regards
the meaning which lug here has, Schneckenburger correctly observes : non
tempus tantum sed rem quoque ind'icat, qua y Bllipig poKpoBvpug ioleranda lollatur.
By napovaia roi Kvpiov, according to constant Christian usage, is to be under
stood the advent of Christ (Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange, Bouman), not the
coming of God (Augusti, Theile, De Wette) ; although James by Kvpiog
chiefly designates God, yet he also uses this name for Christ, chap. ii. 1. —
The exhortation is strengthened by the reference to the patient waiting of
the husbandman (the same figure in Ecclus. vi. 19). As he waits (iKbexerai)
for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with reference to it, until
it has received the early and latter rain, so should the Christian patiently
wait for the precious fruit of his labor, for which he hopes. The Kapnbg is
designated as ripiog, because it is its preciousness which occasions the puKpo-
Bvpla. By paKpoBvpuv in' avru, iKbixerai is more definitely stated, since that
verb does not necessarily include in itself the idea here intended. On in'
airu = in reference to the Kapnbg, comp. Luke xviii. 7. — 6 yeupybg is not the
subject of liiffy (Luther), but o Kapnbg (Stier). — The question whether we
are here to read lug with or without dv (see critical remarks) cannot be an
swered frora the usage of the N. T. ; see Matt. x. 11, and, on the other hand,
Luke xii. 59. According to Tischendorf, the authorities are decisive for the
omission of dv. See Al. Buttmann, p. 198 f. (E. T., 230 f.).^ — (verbv) npui-
pov Kal bipipov, the auturanal and spring rains; see Deut. xi. 14; Jer. v. 26;
Joel ii. 23; Zech. x. 1 : not "the morning and the evening rain" (Luther);
see Winer's Realwbrterb. under '¦'Witterung."^
1 Schneckenburger correctly observes ; " ad ^ it je peculiar that in the parallel sentences,
judici divini propinqultatem respicit; " but the Exod. xv. 16; ,Jer. xxiii. 20, at first cws stands
remark is erroneous ; " neque eara infitias, si and then ew? dv.
quis pariter versui 6 hunc jungat, ita ut exem- ' In a peculiar manner Oecumenius allegor-
plo TTj?|ua»fpo5up.ta? ad eandem animi lenitatem izing says; npta'Cpo'; veros, rf ev ve6rT}Tt /lera
usque servandam excitentur." SaKpvmv perdvoia- oifrt^o;, ri ev rfi -yiipj.

152 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Ver. 8. Resumption and completion of the exhortation. The kuI after
puKpoBvpyaare is explained from the reference to 6 yeupybg. — By the asynde
ton addition arypi^are rdg Kapblag vpuv, the conduct which is the condition of
puKpoBvfiia is emphasized. Not weak, but strong hearts are able to cherish
paKpoBvuiav ; on this expression, corap. 1 Thess. iii. 13 ; 1 Pet. v. 10. The
strengthening is indeed, on the one hand, an affair of God ; but, on the other
hand, it depends on the man hiraself, just like every thing else that is
obtained by the man surrendering himself to the love of God working in
him. — on 'y napovaia, k.t.X]. Calvin : Ne quis objiceret, nimium differri libera-
tionis tempus, occurrit dicens, prope instare Dominum, vel (quod idem est) ejus
adventum appropinquasse. — On the expression, comp. especially 1 Pet. iv. 7.
Ver. 9. To the preceding exhortation a new one is added: py arevd^ere,
ubel^fol, Kar' dllyluv, since with impatience in affliction a sinful irritability of
the sufferers toward each other is easily conjoined, arevd^eiv Kara is to be
understood neither of invidia alienis bonis ingemiscente (Grotius), nor of impati
entla mutuis lamentationibus augenda ; it rather denotes the gemitus accusatorius
(Estius, Calvin, and others), without, however, necessarily supposing a pro-
vocatio ultionis divinae malorumque imprecatio (Theile, and similarly Calvin,
Morus, Gebser, Hottinger, Lange, and others) united with it. Augusti in
correctly renders it : " Give no occasion to one another for sighing." — From
Kar' d'Alyluv it does not follow that the nloiaioi (ver. 1 ff.) belong to the
Christian Church (against De Wette and Wiesinger) ; the reference here is
rather to the conduct of Christians toward each other under the oppressions
to which they were exposed by the nloiaioi.^ — Since arevdt^eiv Kara involves
the judging of our brother, and is opposed to that love of which Paul says :
paKpoBvpel, xpV'^reverai, . . . ov nupo^vverai, ov loyiCerai rb kokov . . . ndvra inopivei,
James adds the admonition 'Iva py KpiBi/re (comp. Matt. vii. 1), and then, for
the purpose of strengthening the warning, points to the nearness of the
Judge. The Kpiryg is none other than the Lord, whose napovaia is at hand.
As His nearness should comfort Christians in their distress, so it should
likewise restrain them frora the renunciation of love to one another (corap.
chap. ii. 13). Incorrectly Theile: non tam, qui impat'ienlius ferentes certo
puniat (quamquam nee hoc abesse potest), quam: qui vos ulciscalur, ut igitur ne
opus quidem sit ista tam periculosa impatientia (so also De Wette) ; for 6 Kpiryg
evidently points back to iva py KpiByre.^ — On npo ruv Bvpuv earyKev, i.e., he
stands already before the door, on the point of entering, see Matt. xxiv. 33 ;
Mark xiii. 29 (Acts v. 23).
Vv. 10, 11. Old Testaraent examples adduced for the sake of strengthen
ing the exhortation to patience. — inbbeiypa IdjSere]. vnobeiypa (instead of the
classical napdbeiypa) here, as frequently in the N. T. and LXX., an example,
' Hornejus ; " Quos ad manifestas et gravis- trum tamen offensas multo leviores non facile
eimas improborum injurias fortiter ferendas ferant."
incltarat, eos nunc hortatur, ut etiam in mi- 2 Wiesinger, indeed, recognizes that the
noribus illis offensls, quae inter plos ipsos statement is added as a warning; but yet he
saepe subnaacuntur, vel condonandia vel dis- thinks that the chief idea is ; " Ye may with
simulandis promtl sint. Contlngit enim, ut qui perfect calmness leave the judgment to Him "
hostium et improborum maxiraas saepe con- (so also Lange) .
tumellas et injurias aequo auimo tolerant, fra-

CHAP. V. 11. 163
a pattern, in sense equivalent to inbypappov, 1 Pet. ii. 21; rvnog, 2 Thess.
111. 9 (eig rb pipelaBai). — T?/f KUKonaBeiag Kal ryg puKpoBvpiag]. KOKondBeia, in the
N. T. u;r. ley., is not synonymous with puKpoBvpla = vexationum patientia (Hot
tinger), but denotes suffering, affliction, synonymous with ^vpipopai, 'Thuc.
vii. 77; in 2 Macc. ii. 26, 27, it is used in a somewhat attenuated sense.
Schneckenburger arbitrarily combines it with the following words into one
idea =: ryg iv KUKonaBe'iif puKpoBvplag ; by this combination the point of KUKond-
Beia is weakened. On the sentiment, see Matt. v. 12. — By the relative
clause OL eldlyaav (cv) rip bvbpait Kvplov, belonging to Toif npoipyrag, is indicated
that the prophets, as servants of God, stand opposed to the world, even as
believing Christians do. The dative tu bvbpan (see critical remark) is not
to be explained, with Meyer (see on Matt. vii. 22), " by means of the name,
i.e., that the name of tbe Lord satisfied their religious consciousness and was
the object of their confession ; " but, as is commonly understood = iv ru
bvbpan Kvpiov (Wiesinger : Jussu et autoritate ; De Wette : " by virtue of the
name ") ; this is evident from the fact that the Hebrew niil] Dp2 IST is
translated iu the LXX. not only by iv (ru) bv. Kvplov (Dan. ix. 6) or by inl
ru bv. (Jer. xx. 9), but also by laleiv ru bvbpan Kvpiov (Jer. xliv. 16). ^
Ver. 11 assigns a new reason for the exhortation : Behold, we count happy
them who endure ; the puKopl^eiv of them is founded on the consciousness that
God does not leave them unrewarded (Matt. v. 12), which is clearly mani
fested in the life of Job, on which account James, in conclusion, refers to
him. By the reading roig inopivovrag the idea is to be taken quite generally ;
whereas by the better attested reading roig inopelvavrag it is to be liraited to
sufferers of the past tirae ; the latter is more in conformity with the context
(Wiesinger). The "restricted reference "to rovg npoipyrag (Grotius, Baum
garten, Pott, Hottinger, Theile) is not to be justified. — rijv vnopovyv 'Id/S
yKovaareJ. vnopovy is not = perpessio (Storr), but the patience which Job dis
played both in his afflictions, and in his replies to the contradictions of his
friends; Tob. ii. 12-15 (Vulg. ; the text in the Greek ed., Tisch. reads dif
ferently) refers to the same example; also in Ezek. xiv. 14, 20, Job is
mentioned as a righteous man along with Noah and Daniel. — yKovaare may
refer specially to the reading in the synagogue, but may be understood
generally. — kuI rb rilog Kvplov is, according to the connection given above,
to be referred to and explained of the issue in which the sufferings of Job
terminated: finem, quem a Domino habuit; so that Kvp'iov is the genit. subj. or
causae (2 Cor. xi. 26); thus most expositors explain it. Others, as Augustin,
Bede, Lyra, Estius, Thomas, Parens, Wetstein, Lange, assume that by rilog
Kvp'iov the death of Christ is to be understood. Against this is not only the
concluding clause, but also the context, which points to the end to which
the pious sufferer is brought by the mercy of God, and on account of
which he is accounted happy; apart altogether from the improbability
1 Also in union with other verbs the LXX. were not decisive, yet it would be most natural
translate ?K'S sometimes by the simple dative ; to explain the dative tw ovopan = through the
thus Exod. xxxiii. 19, xxxiv. 5 : KaKelv rii oi-d- name, by which the name of the Lord would
fiaTi; Jer. xii. 16; bpvveiv ri 'ov. fiou; see also be conceived as tho objective power by which
Isa. xii. 25, xliii. 7, xiv. 4. — Though this usage the prophets were induced to speak.

154 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
that James should connect the exaraple of Christ immediately with that
of Job.i — With the reading eibere this can only be understood of "indirect
seeing, namely, of clear perception by hearing" (De Wette). The better
attested reading, however, is ibere, and it can only be regarded as an over
sight that AViesinger translates this Ibere by "audiendo cognovistis,'' as it is
not the indicative, but the imperative. The imperative is here certainly sur
prising, and was on that account changed into the indicate. Tischendorf has
connected Ibere with what goes before, and then it is to be explained : Ye
have heard of the patience of Job, look also at the end which the Lord gave. The
connection with what follows would, however, be more suitable : Ye have
heard of the patience of Joh and the end which the Lord gave ; see (i.e., recognize
from this) that the Lord is no'Avanlayxvog and okrippuv. Such an imperative,
introduced davvberug, is not foreign to the style of James ; comp. chap. i. 16,
19. With the Receptus, and also with the union of ibere with rb rilog Kvpiov,.
on is not a particle of proof =for (De Wette, Wiesinger, Lange), since in
the preceding words no thought is expressed which would be confirmed by
this clause ; ^ but an objective particle that : a twofold object is joined to the
verb, the second definitely bringing forward the point indicated in the first ;
arbitrarily Theile translates it and certainly. — The subject to ianv is at all
events b Kvpiog, which, according to the most important authorities, is to be
retained as genuine. — nolianlayxvog is a complete d;r. ley. " coined after the
Hebrew 01 lOT} " (Wiesinger), which the LXX. translate nolveleog, see
Exod. xxxiv. 6, etc.; in Eph. iv. 32, 1 Pet. iii. 8, is the related expression
evanlayxvog. — oiKrippuv, in the N. T. only here and in Luke vi. 36 (comp.
Col. iii. 12 : anldyxva o'lKrippov), frequently in O. T. ; comp. with this pas
sage, particularly Exod. xxxiv. 6; Ps. ciii. 8; and Ecclus. ii. 7 ff. — The
reference to the mercy of God was to impress the readers, in their suffer
ings, with the hope that the reward of their patience would not fail them,
and to encourage them to steadfast endurance.
Ver. 12. The warning contained in this verse against swearing is in no
other connection with the preceding than what lay in the conduct of the
readers. The Epistle of James was occasioned by manifold faults in the
churches, and therefore he could not conclude without referring to the incon
siderate swearing prevalent among them. It is as little indicated that he
refers to the warning against abuse of the tongue (chap. iii. ; Hornejus)
as that this swearing arose from impatience, against which the preceding
verses are directed (against Gataker, Wiesinger). How important this
warning was to the author, the words npb ndvruv be show, by which it is indi
cated that it, of all other exhortations, is to be specially taken to heart.
James assigns the reason of this in the words iva py inb Kpiaiv neayre. — The
warning pr) bpviere is more exactly stated in the words pyre rbv ovpavov, pyre
1 In a raost unsatisfactory manner Lange ^ in a peculiar but highly arbitrary manner,
seeks to justify this, by observing that James Lange refers oTt to what directly precedes,
" did thus connect the example of Abraham uniting it with to teAo? Kvpiov in the sense
with that of Rahab." It is evidently inap- that it ia thereby specified what Christ was
propriate to place together Job as " the great able to effect iu entering upon His suffer-
sufferer of the Old Testament," with Christ ings.
ae " the great sufferer of the New Testament."

CHAP. V. 12. 155
r^iT yyv, pyre dllov nva opKov. It is to be noticed that swearing hy the name of
God is not mentioned. This is not, as Rauch along with others maintains,
to be considered as included in the last member of the clause, but James
with pyre dllov rivd bpKov has in view only similar formulae as the above, of
which several are mentioned in Matt. v. 35, 36. Had Jaraes intended to
forbid swearing by the name of God, he would raost certainly have expressly
raentioned it ; for not only is it comraanded in the O. T. law, in contra
distinction to other oaths (Deut. vi. 13, x. 20 ; Ps. Ixiii. 12), but also in the
prophets it is announced as a token of the future turning of men to God
(Isa Ixv. 16 ; Jer. xii. 16, xxiii. 7, 8). The omission of this oath shows that
James in this warning has in view only the abuse, common among the Jews
generally and also among his readers, of introducing in the common every
day affairs of life, instead of the simple yea or nay, such asseverations as
those here mentioned; so that we are not justified in deducing from his
words an absolute prohibition of swearing in general,^ as has been done by
many expositors of our Epistle, and especially by Oecumenius, Bede, Eras
mus, Gebser, Hottinger, Theile, De Wette, Neander (comp. also Meyer on
Matt. V. 33 ff.); whereas Calvin, Estius, Hornejus, Laurentius, Grotius,
Pott, Baumgarten, Michaelis, Storr, Morus, Schneckenburger, Kern, Wie
singer, Bouraan, Lange,^ and others, refer James's prohibition to light and
trifiing oaths. The use of oaths by heaven, etc., arises, on the one hand,
from forgetting that every oath, in its deeper significance, is a swearing by
God ; and, on the other hand, frora a depreciation of the simple word, thus
from a frivolity which is in direct contrast to the earnestness of the Chris
tian disposition. The construction of bpvveiv with the accusative rbv oipavbv,
etc., is in accordance with classical usage, whereas the construction with iv
and fif (in Matt.) is according to Hebraistic usage. — To the prohibition
James opposes the command with the words ijru be ipuv rb vai vol Kal rb ov cv,
which do not express a new exhortation (Schneckenburger), but the con
trast to bpvveiv rbv oipavbv, etc. Most expositors (Theophylact, Oecumenius,
Zwingli, Calvin, Hornejus, Grotius, Bengel, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Kern,
Stier, and others) find here a- command to truthfulness expressed ; but incor
rectly, as in the foregoing pf/ bpviere a reference to the contrast between truth
and falsehood is not in question at all. De Wette correctly explains it:
" let your yea be (a simple) yea, and your nay (a siraple) nay " (so also
1 Kauch says : " One should give honor to ideal requirement is expressed calculated for
the truth, and freely and without prejudice entirely different circumatances than those
recognize that according to the clear words of which were in reality, for there can be no
the text here, as in Matt. v. 34 ff., a general doubt that James demands for his requlre-
and unconditional prohibition of all oaths is ment complete practice under the actual and
expressed." To this it is replied that honor not the ideal circumstances of his readers."
is given to the truth when one is not taken by ' Lange by this understanda more exactly :
appearance, but seeks without prejudice to " conspiracy, which is a swearing accompanied
comprehend the actual meaning. In oppo- by hypothetical imprecations or the giving of
sition to the view that Christ by the prohibi- a pledge." Moreover, his view of the design
tion of oaths, in Matt. v. 33 ff., has in view of the Epistle misled him to find the reason of
tlie ideal condition of the church, Wiesinger this prohibition in Jewish zeal to enter into
with justice .observes ; " It can no longer be conspiracies.
said, in reference to our passage, that only an

156 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Estius, Piscator, Hottinger, Neander, Wiesinger, and others; comp. Al.
Buttmann, p. 142 [E. T., 163]). ^ Not the sentiment itself, but its form
only is different from Matt. v. 37 (see Tholuck and Meyer in loco). — The
form yru (1 Cor. xvi. 22; Ps. civ. 31, LXX.) instead of earu is found in
classical Greek only once in Plato, Rep., ii. p. 361 (see Buttmann, Ausfuhrl.
Gr., § 108, Remark 15 (E. T., 49); Winer, p. 73 [E. T., 79]). — iva py inb
Kplaiv niayre assigns the reason why one should not swear, but should be
satisfied with the siraple yea or nay. According to its meaning, the expres
sion is equivalent to 'iva py KpiBf/re, ver. 9. There is nothing strange in ninreiv
inb. Corap. 2 Sam. xxii. 39 ; Ps. xviii. 39. By Kpiaig is to be understood
Judicium condemnatorium. The swearing forbidden by James subjects to
the judgraent, because it is founded on and in every instance promotes
frivolity. Ver. 13. If one among you suffers, let him pray; if one is of good courage,
let him sing psalms. This exhortation stands in no assignable connection
with what goes before. The sufferings to which ver. 7 ff. refer are those of
persecution ; but KaKonaBeiv has here an entirely general meaning. On ac
count of the following eiBvpel, many expositors (Beza, Semler, Rosenmiiller,
Hottinger) incorrectly explain KOKonuBelv = " to be dejected " (Vulgate : tris-
tatur quis). It rather means to be unfortunate, to suffer, in which aegritudo
animi is certainly to be considered as included. Pott incorrectly takes it as
equivalent to the following daBevelv, which is only a particular kind of KUKona-
Belv. — npoaeixecBai denotes prayer generally ; there is no reason to limit it here
to petition. — ipdlleiv, literally, to touch, used particularly of stringed instru
ments ; in the LXX. the translation of p.^ and 1£?T = to sing psalms ; comp.
particularly 1 Cor. xiv. 15. Both joy and sorrow should be the occasion of
prayer to the Christian. The form of the sentence is the same as in 1 Cor.
vii. 18, 27. Meyer : " The protases do not convey a question, being in the
rhetorically emphatic form of the hypothetical indicative ; " see Winer, p. 152
(E. T., 169), p. 255 (E. T., 285), p. 478 (E. T., 541). ^
Ver. 14. From the general KUKonaBelv a particular instance, that of sick
ness, is selected. daBevelv — aegrotare, as iu Matt. x. 8, Luke iv. 40, and
many other passages ; the opposite : vyialveiv. — By daBevel ng James hardly
means any sick person, but only such a person who under the burden of
bodily suffering also suffers spiritually, being thereby tempted in his faith.
The sick man is to call to himself the presbyters of the congregation, jrpoi;-
KaleadaBu, in the middle expresses only the reference to himself; not that the
call is by others, which is here taken for granted. — ToOf npeaSvrepovg ryg iKKly-
a'lag, the presbyters ofthe congregation, namely, to which the sick man belongs.
It is arbitrary to explain roig npeajivripovg as unum ex presbyteris (Estius, Ham
mond, Laurentius, Wolf); the whole body is meant (Wiesinger), as the article
shows ; not some of its members, as Theile considers possible. The follow-
• Lange wouldunitethetwopointstogether; Al. Buttmann, p. 195 (E. T., 226), rightly de-
and he is so far not in the wrong, as James dares this to be unnecessary, but has in his
presupposes truthfulness. edition of the N. T. adopted the same punctu-
2 Lachmann has after the sentence contain- ation.
ing the hypothesis put a mark of interrogation.

CHAP. V. 15. 157
ing words : koi npoaev^daBuaav, K.r.l., express the object for which the pres
byters are to come ; they are to pray over him, anointing hira in the name
of the Lord. The prayer is the chief point, "as also ver. 15 teaches: ii eix^
,. mareug, K.r.l." (Wiesinger); the anointing is the act accompanying the
prayer, in' airbv is generally inaccurately explained as equivalent to pro eo,
pro salute ejus ; inl with the accusative expresses figuratively the reference
to soraething, similarly as the German iiber with the accusative; thus Klaleiv
inl nva, Luke xxiii. 28. How far the author thought on a local reference,
he who prayeth bending over the sick, or stretchhig forth his hands over
him, cannot be determined; see Acts xix. 13. — With the prayer is to be
conjoined the anointing of the sick, for what purpose James does not state.
According to Mark vi. 13, the disciples in their miracles of healing applied
it, when at the command of Jesus they traversed the Jewish land; but the
reason of their doing so is not given, nor at a later period is there any men
tion of it in the miracles of the apostles. * Probably James mentions the
anointing with oil only in conformity with the general custom of employing
oil for the refreshing, strengthening, and healing of the body,^ since he
refers the miracle not to the anointing, but to the prayer, and, presupposing
its use, directs that the presbyters should unite prayer with it, and that they
should perform it ev ru bvbpari (roi) Kvpiov, that is, in a believing and trustful
mention of the name of Christ (less probably of God). That iv ru bv. Kvp.
cannot mean Jussu et auctoritate Christi is evident, because there is no express
command of Christ to employ it. Gebser incorrectly unites this particular
with npoaev^i'iaBuaav ; Schneckenburger with both verbs ; it belongs only to
dleiipavreg (De Wette, Wiesinger). The question why the presbyters should
do this is not to be answered, with Schneckenburger : quia rb xupiapa iapdruv
(1 Cor. xii. 9) cum iis communicatum erat; ior, on the one hand, it is an arbi
trary supposition that the presbyters possessed that xupiapa, and, on the other
hand, there is here no mention of it; incorrectly also Pott: quia uti omnino
prudentissimi eligebantur, sic forte etiam artis medicae peritissimi erant. Bengel
has given the true explanation : qui dum orant, non multo minus est, quam si
tola oraret ecclesia ; and Neander : " the presbyters as organs acting in the
name of the church." ^
Ver. 15 mentions the result of the prayer conjoined with the anointing.
— Kat y eixij ryg nlareug]. That the prayer of the presbyters must proceed
from faith was not asserted in the preceding, but was evidently presupposed ;
it is now directly characterized as such, ryg nlareug is gen. subj. : the prayer
which faith offers ; inaccurately Schneckenburger : preces fide plenae. niang
1 Meyer in loco considera this anointing, ae ' It is well known that the Catholic Church,
also the application of spittle on the part of besides Mark vl. 13, specially appeals to this
Jesus Himself, as a conductor of the super- passage in support of the sacrament of extreme
natural healing power, analogous to the laying- unction. Chemnitz, In his JExamen Cone. Trid.,
on of hands. But in this the distinction la too haa already thoroughly shown with what In-
little observed, that according to general eus- correctness they have done so. Even Cajetan
tom oil, but not spittle, and the laying-on of and Baronlus doubt whether James here treats
hands, was applied to the sick. of that sacrament, as he does not apeak of the
= See Herzog's iJeai-.Btci/ci. on Oel,Oelung, sick unto death, but of the atck generally. See
Salbe. Herzog's Beal-Encycl. on the word Oelung.

158 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
is used here in the same signification as in chap. i. 16 ; it is sure confidence
in the Lord, in reference to the case in question. Grotius, Gomarus, Schneck
enburger, Theile, and others define the prayer more closely, as that of the
presbyters and ofthe sick man. On the other hand, Wiesinger refers y evxv
T. K. to npocev^doBuaav, accordingly the intercession of the presbyters ; so also
De Wette. This is correct ; it is, however, to be observed that James has
certainly supposed as self-evident the prayer of the sick man who called the
elders. The following words : aCiaei rbv Kdpvovra, state the effect of the prayer
of the presbyters. — rbv Kdpvovra takes up again daBevel ng. Kdpveiv, in the
N. T. except here only in Heb. xii. 3 in a figurative sense, has even with
classical writers very commonly the meaning to be sick. — auaei, equivalent
to will recover. This meaning is required by reference to rbv Kdpvovra, and to
the context generally ; the word occurs in the same signification in Matt.
ix. 22; Mark v. 23; John xi. 12, and elsewhere. — By the following clause:
Kol iyepel avruv b Kipiog, what is' said is more exactly specified ; the prayer of
faith effects aul^eiv, by which the Lord (apparently Christ) on its account
helps; iyeipeiv, to raise up from the sick-bed, see Mark i. 31, etc.; not "to raise
up from sickness" (Lange; "to cause him to recover," De Wette); the word
never occurs in this meaning in the N. T. — A particular case is added to
the general, kuv dpapriag ij nenoiyKug]. Kdv is not, as is done by most expos
itors, but against linguistic usage,i to be resolved by and if, but by even if
(so also Lange). By the sins here meant are such as formed the special
reason of the sickness. Accordingly, the meaning is : even if he has drawn
his sickness upon himself by special sins (unsatisfactorily, Lange: "if his
sickness has become by thera very severe"). By y nenoiJjKug the effect of
the sins is represented as existing. — The apodosis dipeByaerai airu expresses
that even in this case the healing will not fail. The forgiveness of sins is
here meant, which is confirmed by the removal of the special punishment
produced by the particular sins. The explanation of Hammond is evidently
entirely erroneous : non tam a Deo, quam a Presbyteris, qui aegroto peccata
ipsis confitenti . . . absolutionem dare tenentur. As regards the construction
of the sentence, kuv nenoiyKug may be joined to what goes before, and dipeByaerai
considered as an asyndeton addition : and the Lord will raise him up, even if
he has committed sins . . . (fqr) it ivill be forgiven him. But the usual con
struction, according to which dipeByaerai is simply the apodosis to kuv, K.r.l., is
to be preferred on account of the close connection of ideas ; thus : even if he
hath committed sins, it will be forgiven him ; by which the idea is included in
dipeByaerai airij, that he will be healed of his sickness. — rb nenoiyKivat is to be
supplied frora the preceding to dipeByaerai (Bengel, Theile, Wiesinger). — The
promise (auaei . . . iyepel) so positively expressed by James is founded on
his confidence in the Lord, who hears believing intercession, so that it is not
in vain. It is certainly surprising that James gives this assurance without
any restriction. Although we cannot say, with Hottinger : si certus et con
stans taliuni precum fuisset eventus, nemo unquam mortuus esset, since the nature
1 In no passage of the N. T., except per- where the meaning though, even. The N. T.
haps Luke xlii. 9, is the Kai in Kdv the simple usage la here in conformity with the classical;
copula uniting two sentences, but it has every- see Pape ou the word Kdv.

CHAP. V. 16. 159
of the condition, on which Jaraes makes the event dependent, is not consid
ered ; on the one hand, it is self-evident that true niang includes the humble
nlyv ovx "f E}"^ C^'^'J u^^' "f "v (Matt. xxvi. 39) ; and, on the other hand, it is
to be observed that although James here evidently speaks of bodily sickness
and its cure, yet he uses such expressions as point beyond the sphere of the
corporeal to the spiritual, so that even when the result corresponds not to
the expectation in reference to the bodily sickness, yet the prayer of faith
does not remain unanswered in the higher sense.^
Ver. 16 annexes a new thought to what has been said, which is, however,
as the strongly attested oiv shows, in close connection. From the special
order James infers a general injunction, in which the intervening thought is
to be conceived that the sick man confessed his sins to the presbyters for
the purpose of their intercession ; Christians generally are to practise the
same duty of confession toward each other. It is incorrect, with Chrysos
tom (De Sacerd., i., iii.) and several ancient and other expositors, to refer
the injunction contained in this verse to the above-mentioned relation of the
presbyters and the sick to each other, and accordingly to paraphrase it, with
Pott : vpelg daBevoivreg i^opoloyrlaBe rolg npeajivrepoig rd napanrupara ipuv Kal vpelg
npeajlvrepoi evxeaBe inep ruv doBevovvruv ; for by this not only is violence done
to the language, but also an intolerable tautology arises, dllyloig can only
be referred to the relation of individual believers to each other, so that
Cajetan correctly says : nee hic est sermo de confessione sacramentali. Some
expositors incorrectly restrict the general expression napanrupara to such sins
which one commits against another ; Wolf : de illis tantum peccatis sermo est,
quae alter in alterum commisit, quorumque veniam ab altero poscit ; Bengel :
aegrotus et quisquis offend'it, Jubetur confiteri; offensus orare. The passage
treats not of human, but of the d'lvine forgiveness; and thus of sins not as
offences against our neighbor, but as violations of the law of God.^ — kcH
eixeaBe inep dllyluv]. To i^opolbyyaig, intercession for one another is to be
conjoined ; indeed, the former takes place in order that the latter may fol
low. The contents of the prayer is naturally the divine forgiveness, but the
aim to be attained thereby is oTruf 'laByre. The word IdaBai is in the N. T.
used both literally and figuratively (Heb. xii. 13 ; 1 Pet. ii. 24). After the
example of several expositors (Hottinger, De Wette, Wiesinger), the first
ineaning has hitherto in this commentary been ascribed to laBrire, on account
of the connection of this verse with what goes before ; but since among dXly-
loig are certainly to be understood not only the sick, and James indicates by
nothing that his injunction refers only to them, it is more correct to take
laByre here, in its proper reference to napanrupara, in a figurative sense
(Estius, Carpzov, Grotius, Gebser, and others); whether James likewise
thought on a bodily healing taking place in the cases occurring (Sohnecken-
» It must be designated aa arbitrary -when Let these pray with and for hira, and anoint
Lange understands this passage also as aym- him with the oil of the Spirit; such a course,
bolical, and thus interprets it ; " If any man wherever taken, will surely restore him, and
as a Christian has been hurt, or become sick his transgressions will be forgiven him."
in his Christianity, let him seek healing from z Lange primarily understanda by this " the
the presbyters, the kernel of the congregation. sins of the Judaizing disposition."

160 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
burger, Kern), must remain undetermined. — It is to be remarked, that the
prayer of the presbyters does not exclude the comraon intercession of
the raembers of the church, and that the efficacy attributed to the latter is
not less than that attributed to the former. — noli laxiei deyaig dmaiov ivepyov
pevy is added by James for the purpose of strengthening the above exhorta
tion ; the asyndeton connection is with him not remarkable. The stress is
on noli laxvei, consequently it stands first, bmamg, equivalent to the Hebrew
P'1¥, is, according to the Christian view of James, he who in faith performs
the works of vdpog ilevBepiag. — With regard to ivepyovpevy, expositors have
introduced much that is arbitrary. Most take the participle as an adjective
belonging to diyaig, and then attempt to explain the expression biyaig ivepyov-
pivy. Oecumenius leaves the word itself unexplained, but he lays stress on
the point that the prayer of the righteous is only then effectual when he,
for whom it is offered, ovpnpdrry bid KUKuaeug nvevparmyg with the suppliant.
Michaelis explains it : preces agitante Spiritu sancto effusae ; Carpzov : fiiyaig
did nlareug ivepyovpevy; Gebser understands prayer in which the suppliant
himself works for the accomplishment of his wish ; similarly Calvin : tunc
vere in actu est oratio, quum succurrere contendimus iis, qui laborant. Accord
ing to the usual explanation, ivepyovpevy is assumed to be synonymous with
ivepyyg Or ivepybg (iKrevyg, Luke xxii. 44; Acts xii. 5), " strenuus," "intentus,"
"earnest," etc., and this qualification of the prayer of the righteous man is
attached to noli iaxvei as its condition ; Luther : " if it is earnest " (so Wie
singer, and similarly Erasmus, Beza, Gataker, Hornejus, Grotius, AVolf,
Baumgarten, Hottinger, Schneckenburger, Theile, Bouman, and others).
This explanation, however, has not only, as Wiesinger confesses, N. T.
usage against it, but this qualification cannot be taken as the condition
of noli iaxvei, but is rather the statement of the characteristic nature of
the prayer of the righteous man. It would be more correct to adhere
to the verbal meaning of the participle (so Pott, whose paraphrases, how
ever : noli iaxvei [bivarai] ivepyeiv, or : noli iaxvei Kal ivepyei biyaig, are arbi
trary), and to explain it : the prayer of the rigliteous man availeth much,
whilst it ivorks (not: "if it applies itself to working," De Wette), i.e., in
its working. That it does work, is assumed ; that, besides working, it noli
iaxvei, which James brings forward and confirms by the following example
of Elias.i Vv. 17, 18. James, wishing to show in the example of Elias the power
of prayer, observes beforehand on the objection that, owing to his peculiar
greatness (see Ecclus. xlviii. 1-15), the exaraple of Elias was inapplicable
to ordinary men, that 'EAiaf dvBpunog iyv bpomnaBf/g yplv. — dvBpunog is not here
pleonastic (Schneckenburger), but denotes the point on which James insists,
which is still more strengthened by bpoionaBfig yplv. This idea contains no
reference to the sufferings which Elias had to endure (Laurentius, Schneck
enburger, Bouman), but signifies only of like disposition and nature ; see
Meyer on Acts xiv. 15; comp. also Wisd. of Sol. viii. 3, and Grimm on
4 Macc. xii. 13. Lange inappropriately explains it "similarly conditioned."
1 Lange translates: "which la inwardly effectual (working)," and thinks that ivepyelir6ai.
expresses a passive-active working.

CHAP. V. 17, 18. 161
Gebser assuraes a contrast to biKuiog, strangely explaining it : " having the
same sentiments and passions as we ; James inferred how much more will
the prayer of a bma'iuv avail." — The history, to which James refers, is con
tained in 1 Kings xvii. 1, xviii. 1, 41 ff. The account of James differs in
two points from the O. T. narrative ; first, the point on account of which
James appeals to Elias, namely his twofold prayer, is not mentioned; aud,
secondly, it is stated that it began to rain in the third year. Both in 1 Kings
xvii. 1 and in xviii. 41, Elias only announces what will take place; in the
first passage, that, it will not rain these years, and in the second passage,
that it will soon rain. Neither in what Elias says of himself in 1 Kings
xvii. 1 : VJ3'7 'ma;? ni?/X, nor in what is related in 1 Kings xviii. 41, is it
stated that Elias offered up such a prayer as James mentions ; for although
in ver. 42 Elias is represented as praying, yet it is not hinted that the
rain took place in consequence of his prayer, since rather the promise of rain
(ver. 1) preceded the prayer. Yet those statements, and particularly the
word of Elias in 1 Kings xvii. 2 : '1.3"I 'S^-DX '3, are to be considered as
the foundation of the statement of James, whether he followed a tradition
(see Ecclus. xlviii. 2, 3) or a view peculiar to himself. — With regard to
the second deviation, the same statement concerning the duration of the
drought is found in Luke iv. 25 (see Meyer in loco), and in the Jalkut Schi-
moni on 1 Kings xvi., where it is said: Anno xiii. Achabi fames regnabit in
Samaria per tres annos et dimidium anni. It is certainly correct, as Benson
remarks, that if the rain, according to the word of Elias, was stayed at the
beginning of the rainy season, and it again began to rain in the third year
at the end of the summer season, the drought would continue in all three
and a half years; but according to the stateraent of James, the drought
began with the prayer of Elias, and continued from that three and a half
years. Accordingly, Wiesinger is wrong in finding in the remark of Benson
a sufficient reconciliation of the difference. ^ — npoaevxy npoayi^aro, the same
construction as Bavdru dnoBavelaBt, Gen. ii. 17, LXX., as the Greek rendering
of the Hebrew union of the infinite absolute with the finite tense, which the
LXX. usually express by the union of the participle with the finite tense
(see Winer, p. 317 f. [E. T., 355]). This addition of the substantive serves
to bring out the verbal idea (De Wette), not to denote that the prayer of
Elias was earnest (Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, Lange), but that nothing
else than /u'sjorayer produced the long drought. — rov py (Spe^ai, the genitive of
design after npoayi^aro, because the contents of the prayer agreed with its
object. This construction corresponds to the frequent use of 'Iva with verbs
of asking in the N. T.; see Winer, p. 292 (E. T.,^2Q).—lipixetv is here
used, as in the later classics, impersonally ; otherwise in Matt. v. 45 ; Gen.
1 It is otherwise with regard to Luke iv. it had not rained. According to Lange, the
25, where the siraple duration of time during reconciliation consists in this, that in 1 Kings
which it would not rain is stated. James has xviii. only the duration of the real famine is
erred in making the prayer of Elias mentioned stated, which did not begin until one year
by him precede this whole period; whereas after the announcement of the drought; but
what is mentioned in 1 Kings xvii. 1, is that it there is no indication of this statement.
commenced after the summer during which

162 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
ii. 5, xix. 24. Baumgarten incorrectly supplies 6 Qebg as the subject. — koI
OVK, K.r.X, the result of the prayer. Schneckenburger: quis non sentit pondus
dictionis roi pi) (Spi^at, Kal oiK i/Spe^ev; comp. Gen. i. '3, fiat lux, et facta est lux.
— inl ryg yyg, not on the land, i.e., Palestine (Grotius, Wolf, Baumgarten,
Stolz, Lange, and others), but on ihe earth (Luther); corap. Luke iv. 25
(Gen. vii. 12).
Ver. 18. The second prayer of Elias, and its result. — b oipavbg ierbv ibuKev,
a popular form of expression; comp. Acts xiv. 17. . — koI y yy, K.r.X, contains
not a further description, but added to mark raore strongly the effect of the '
prayer : heaven and earth acted according to the prayer of Elias. — ifl'Aaryaev,
properly an intransitive verb; so in Matt. xiii. 26; Mark iv. 27; Heb. ix. 4.
The first aorist here, as frequently in the later classics, in a transitive signi
fication; corap. Gen. i. 11, LXX. With respect to the forra, see Winer,
p. 77 (E. T., S4). — rbv Kapnbv avryg; Schneckenburger: fruges suas, i.e., quas
ferre solet.
Vv. 19, 20. To the exhortation to mutual confession and intercession is
annexed " the reference to an important matter — the reclaiming of an erring-
soul" (Wiesinger). Ver. 19 forms the supposition; this is expressed in
two co-ordinate sentences, of which the first is subordinate in thought to the
second: "if any convert one who has erred from the truth." — nlavyBy, the
passive aorist here, as frequently in the signification of the middle. — dnb ryg
dlyBeiag. "\A'ith this is meant not a single practical aberration, but an alien
ation frora the Christian principle of life, an inward apostasy from the loyog
dlyBeiag by which the Christian is begotten (Jas. i. 18), disclosing itself in a
sinful course of life (so also Wiesinger, Briickner, Lange i). — nal imarpeipy,
sc. inl ryv dlyBeiav; comp. Luke i. 16, 17.
Ver. 20 forms the apodosis. — yivuaKiru]. The ng raentioned in the second
half of the preceding verse is the subject — the converter and not the con
verted. The reraarkableness of the repetition of the subject after bn disap
pears, when it is considered that the idea to be taken to heart is expressed
as a sentence which is universally valid.^ Calvin rightly draws attention to
the fact that the tendency of the verse is to excite zeal for the conversion
of the erring. — The word dpaprulov is to be retained in its general significa/-
tion, and not to be referred siraply to rbv nlavyBivra dnb ryg dlyBeiag ; it denotes
the genus to which he that errs frora the truth belongs as species. — ek jrAuinyf
bbov airov, not = ea; errorh vita (Schulthess); correctly, Luther: "from the
error of his way." nldvy states the nature of the way on which the dpaprulbg
walks, and forms the contrast to dlyBeia. — auaei ipvxyv [airov] ck Bavdrov, i.e.,
he will save a (his) soul from the death to which otherwise it ivould have fallen a
prey. The future is here used because James " has in view the final result
Bf such a saving deed" (Wiesinger). On ipvxyv, corap. chap. i. 21; on' the
1 Arbitrarily, Lange defines the aberration ence to tbe subject of yivoiaKeri^, but expresses
-more precisely " as an aberration into Juda- the general idea that every one who converts a
istic and chiliastic doings and fanatical and sinner performs a great -work ; it is the general
seditious lusts." statement, under which he who is designated
' Wiesinger; "6 eiritrTpei(/a! is not to be by -yii-iuo-TtsTu subordinates his doing."
taken as equivalent to he who, iu strict refer-

CHAP. V. 20. 163
reading of the Receptus Estius remarks : absolute posita emphasin habet. But
probably t/rux^v airoti is the correct reading. Bdvarog, eternal destruction, as
in chap. i. 15. Lange strangely explains it as " the moral dissolution of the
ontological Ufe eternally self-generating itself." — /cai Kalvipei nlyBog dpapnuv
is to be understood not of the sins of the converter, who by his good work
obtains forgiveness, whether on the part of God (Zacharias, Ep. i.. Ad Boni-
fac. ; Bede, Erasmus, Bouraan, and others) or on the part of raan (Augusti :
" his own offences will not be remembered "), but of the sins of the converted
(so most expositors). The words are an echo of Prov. x. 12 (comp. 1 Pet.
iv. 8), although it is doubtful if James had this passage actually in view ;
especially Kalvnreiv here does not, as a strict translation of the Hebrew nD3,
— see Neh. iii. 36 (LXX., ed. Tisch. iv. 6); Ps. xxxii. 1, Ixxxv. 3, —
signify to forgive, but the figurative expression is used by James in the sense
that the sins of the converted are by the converter covered or concealed from
the eyes of God, i.e., their forgiveness is effected. By nlyBog dpapnuv are
meant not the sins which the dpaprulbg would otherwise commit (Jaspar :
peccata adhuc patranda), and which were now prevented by his conversion
(Pott: multa futura impediet), but the multitude of sins which he committed
before his conversion. i Lange thinks : " this restriction misapprehends the
progressive nature of guilt ; " but how could sins which have not been com
mitted be forgiven ? ^ That the mention here is not of human, but of divine
forgiveness, the close connection of the idea with the pre. ,ding aCiaei ipvxyv
IK Bavdrov shows. Correctly, Wiesinger : " Kalvipei car. on further the
auaei ipvxyv, and states the ground of this salvation.
1 De Wette takes objection to the strong provided it be not arbitrarily weakened (so
expression ttAij^o?, as he thinks that tbe refer- also Briickner).
ence here is only to aberration, and not to a ^ *'lii order to give prominence to the noble
vicious life; and on this account he will con- historical import of the Epistle, which has been
sider, along with this, the sins of those who only too much missed and neglected," Lange
stand in reciprocal action with him who has maintains that James here, at the conclusion,
erred, and were or might have been injured invitesthebelievingpart of his people to engage
and led astray by him; but without reason; in intercession . — d in "the work of salvation,
especially ttA^Sos a/iapTioJv correspouds en- that many individuals may be saved frora death,
tirely to the idea uKavrjdrjvai. dwb ttjs dKi}6eias, and a multitude of sins might be atoned for."

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE PETER.

INTRODUCTION.
SEC. 1. — The APOSTLE PETER.
The apostle's real name was 'Zlpuv (according to another pronunciation
^vueuv. Acts XV. 14 ; 2 Pet. i. 1). A native of Bethsaida on the Sea, of
Galilee (John i. 45), he dwelt afterwards in Capernaum (Luke iv. 31, 38),
where he was married (cf . 1 Cor. ix. 5), and where his mother-in-law lived.
In the tradition, his wife is called at one time Concordia, at another Per
petua, and is said (Clem. Alex., Strom. 7) to have suffered martyrdom
before him. Along with his father Jonas (Matt. xvi. 17; called 'ludvvyg
also, John i. 43, xxi. 15) and his brother Andrew, he was by occupation a
fisherman on the Sea of Galilee. When the Baptist began his ministry
at the Jordan, the two brothers resorted to him. On John's testimony
Andrew, and through his instrumentality Peter, attached themselves to .
Jesus, who gave to the latter the name full of promise, Cephas. From
that time forth Peter, and along with him Andrew, remained a disciple of
Christ. After he had accompanied Jesus — as there is no reason to doubt
— on the journeys recorded by John, chaps, ii. 2-iv. 43, we find him, it is
true, again engaged in his earthly calling ; but from this there is no reason
for concluding that he had forsaken Jesus, who Himself was then living in
Capernaum, Matt. iv. 13, 18. At that time he received his call to enter
on the service of Christ. On the occasion of the miraculous draught of
fishes he was impressed powerfully, and as he never before had been, by
the revelation of his Master's glory ; to his words : i^elBe dn' ipoi, the reply
is given : dnb rni vvv dvBpunovg iai) ^uypuv.^ Received afterwards into the
t That Luke (v. 1 ff.) and Matthew (iv. noiiqaia i/pds aAtcts dvOpiairm', agree in sense
18 ff.) relate the same fact, admits of no with those in Luke addressed specially to
doubt; not only are the scenes and the per- Peter. Neither is there any inward differ-
sons identical, but the words iu Matthew, ence (cf. Meyer on Luke v. 1 ff.), for the
165

166 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
number of the apostles, he forthwith gained a prominent place among them.
Not only was he one of the three who stood in most trusted fellowship with
Jesus, but on hiraself pronouncing in his own name and in that of his fel
lows the decisive confession : ai el b Xpiarbg, b vlbg roi Qeoi (cf . John vi. 67 ff.),
Jesus confirmed the name formerly given to him, and added the promise :
inl rairy ry nerpa o'ljioboayau pov ryv iKKlyclav . . . Kal duau aoi rdg Kletg ryg fiaai-
leiag ruv ovpavuv. Thus a primacy was lent to him which is in harmony
with the word of Christ later on : arypi^ov rovg dbelipoig aov (Luke xxii. 32),
and the charge of the Risen One: jSboKe id dpvia pov (John xxi. 15-17).
And for such a calling Peter was peculiarly fitted, by the energy prompting
to decisive action, which formed an essential feature of his character;
though not until his natural man had been purified and sanctified by the
Spirit of the Lord. Fov, on the one hand, his resolute character betrayed
him more than once into vaingloriousness, self-will, and unthinking zeal;
and, on the other, he was wanting in the patience and even firmness which
might have been expected from him who was surnamed the Rock. Whilst,
too, he pressed on swiftly to the end he had in view, as if to take it by
storm, confronted with danger he was seized of a sudden with faint-hearted-
ness ; his nature was suited more to quick action than to patient suffering.
As proofs of this may be taken his walking on the sea and his sudden fear
(Matt. xiv. 28-31), his rebuke of Christ (Matt. xvi. 22), his question as to
the sufficient measure of forgiveness (Matt, xviii. 21), his inquiring what
reward they, the disciples, would have, in that they had forsaken all for
Christ's sake (Matt. xix. 27). In still more marked lines does the picture
of his distinctive character stand out in the background of Christ's passion,
when he first in vain self-confidence promises to the Lord that he would
never forsake him, but would go with Him even unto death, and then on
the Mount of Olives is unable to watch with Him ; he wishes, thereupon, to
save his Master with the sword, and follows Him even to the court of the
high priest, but in sudden cowardice denies Him before the men-servants
and maids, and as quickly, feeling the whole weight of his guilt, leaves the
judgraent-hall in tears. On account of these unquestionably serious vacil
lations in feeling and conduct, he nevertheless cannot be accused of inde
cision of character. If he showed hiraself weak on particular occasions,
"point" of Matthew's narrative is not the is related in v. 8 does not prove that previous
mere injunction and promise, as in Luke's to this Peter had had no experience of mlra-
it is not the " miracle of the draught of cles, since that which produced the irapres-
fiahes," but the call to become fiahers of men. sion on Peter — related by Luke  was not
Nor does Luke contradict himself, for what necessarily the yirst miracle he witnessed.

INTRODUCTION. 167
this was the result partly of his sanguine temperament, in which action
instantaneously followed on excited feeling, and partly of his great self-
confidence, into which he was betrayed by the consciousness of his own
strength. The denial of Christ led to his inward purification ; all the more
that after His resurrection Christ revealed Himself to Peter first among the
apostles. And so to the thrice-repeated question of the Lord, if he loved
Hira more than the others, he returned the answer, humble yet full of faith :
"Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee."
After the ascension of Christ, Peter appears standing at the head of the
apostles, for it is at his advice that their number is again increased to twelve.
After the descent of the Spirit, however, he becomes in reality the Rock, as
Christ had ordained him; henceforth the direction and furtherance of the
church rest chiefly in his hand. It was his sermon — the first apostolic
serraon — by means of which, on the Day of Pentecost, three thousand were
added to the church of God ; and if afterwards he labored at first in connec
tion with John, it was yet himself who was the real actor (Acts iii. 1, 4 ff.,
11 ff.). He healed the lame man, addressed the people, and on both
apostles being brought before the ecclesiastical authorities, it was he who
was the speaker. He had to execute judgment on Ananias and Sapphira
(Acts V. 1-10) ; and when the whole of the apostles were summoned to
appear before the Sanhedrim, it is he, too, who in the name of all testifies
for Christ. Again, in Samaria, whither he went along with John to con
tinue the work begun by Philip, John appears beside him only as an accom
panying fellow-worker. — During the time that the churches had rest after
the conversion of Paul, Peter journeyed throughout the districts of Palestine
bordering on the Mediterranean Sea; in Lydda he healed Aeneas (Acts
ix. 32 ff.), and raised up Tabitha in Joppa (ix. 36 fl.). — In accordance
with the position assigned to him by Christ, he was permitted by God to
bring into the church the first-fruits of heathenism ; for although Paul was
destined to be the Apostle of the Gentiles, it was still Peter who should
first preach the gospel to the heathen, and administer the ordinance of bap
tism, that thus also he might retain the primacy, and be the Rock of the
Church. — During the persecution raised shortly before his death by Herod
Agrippa I., Peter was cast into prison. After his miraculous release he
quitted Jerusalem ^ for a time, but later on again returned thither. The
1 We are not told where Peter went; Acts founded the Christian Church, has, without
xii. 17 only says ; enopevOi) els 'erepov r6nov. sufficient warrant, been accepted by Thiersch
The statement of several Fathers, that Peter (Die Kirche im apost. Zeitalter, p. 96 ff.).
then betook himself to Home, and there This ie decidedly opposed not only by the

168 ¦ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
last circumstance which the Acts of the Apostles relates of him is his justi
fication of Paul at the so-called convention of apostles in Jerusalem.
The labors of Paul among the heathen, and the reception of believing
Gentiles into the Christian Church, occasioned the first division amongst the
Christians. What position did Peter then take up? ' After what he himself
had witnessed at the conversion of Cornelius, he could not make coramon
cause with the Judaistically-minded Christians ; in the proceedings at Jeru
salem, too, he placed himself decidedly on the side of Paul, and spoke
against the subjugation of the heathen to the law. It was then, on Peter
formally recognizing the grace given by the Lord to Paul, that an agree
ment was come to, that Paul and Barnabas should labor among the Gentiles,
whilst he himself, along with John and James, should devote themselves to
the Jews (Gal. ii. 9) — the field of missionary enterprise being in this way
divided among them. — In thus limiting his activity to the Jewish people,
Peter detracted in no way from his primacy ; for this, which had never in
any sense been absolute, remained intact, as is evident from the circum
stance that Paul took especial care to assure himself of Peter's consent, and
acknowledged his foremost position among the apostles (cf. Gal. ii. 7, 8).
That Peter, with all his recognition of Paul's principles, was wholly unfit
to undertake the direction of missions to the Gentiles, is proved by his con
duct at Antioch, for which he was called to account by Paul. He was not
wanting, it is true, in a right perception of the relation in which the gospel
stood to the law, so that without any misgivings he entered into complete
fellowship with the Gentile Christians; i still, as regarded his own conduct,
this perception was not vivid enough to preserve him frora the hypocrisy
which drew forth Paul's rebuke (Gal. ii. 12). For, when "certain came"
to Antioch " from James," Peter withdrew himself from them, fearing those
of the circumcision, doubtless because he did not wish to appear in the light
Epistle to the Eomans, but also by the in- Peter should have gone to Eome with the
definite expression employed here. Ewald intention of there, as in Samaria, opposing
also (.Geschichte des Volkes Israel, VI. p. Simon; cf. Hofmann, p. 203 ff.
618 ff.) thinks " that the old legend as to i As in Gal. il. 2, 8, 9, 15, tA eOvr, means not
Peter's sojourn in Eome during the reign of GenUle Christians, but Gentiles, Paul seems,
Claudius, and hia meeting here with Simon by the expression in ver. 12, metA tSv eSviv
the magician, was not altogether without avv-fiaeiev, to have meant heathens also. But
foundation," but that the Christian Church even if they were only Gentile Christians with
in Eome had then already been eatabliahed. whom Peter ate, it is not their Christianity,
— But It -is not credible, either that if Peter but their Gentile nationality and customs, as
had visited the church in Eome, Paul should distinguishing them from the Jews, which
not have made the slightest allusion to the Paul has here in his eye.
fact -in .his JSjilatle to the Romans, or that

INTRODUCTION. 169
of a transgressor of the law. How dangerous his example was, became evi
dent even then ; and it is clear further that the Jewish Christians hostilely
disposed to the heathen converts were only too ready to appeal to the ex
ample of Peter in their opposition to Paul. From this, however, it raust
not be concluded that there was any want of harmony in principle between
Paul and Peter, and that by the be^idg ebuKuv ipol koI BapvdjSgi Koivuviag is to be
understood a mere " temporary truce," which they had concluded with each
other in a purely external manner, and whilst holding fast their internal
differences.^ As to where and with what result Peter worked after Paul commenced
his labors, all precise and reliable information is wanting; from 1 Cor. ix. 5
it follows only that he made missionary journeys to various regions. If by
Babylon (chap. v. 13) that city itself and not Rome is to be understood, he
must have been at the time our epistle was written in Babylon, whence by
means of this letter he extended his influence to the churches of Asia Minor,
which, in part at least, had been founded by Paul.
The account which the Fathers give of the life of the apostle is pervaded
by many mythical traits. The more important his position, the more natural
it was for a one-sided Judaeo-Christianity, as well as for the Catholic Church,
to draw by invention, intentional or unintentional, the picture of the apos
tle's labors in their own interests. Without any sifting of the legendary
elements, Hieronymus describes the subsequent life of Peter in the follow
ing manner : " Simon Petrus princeps apostolorum post episcopatum Antiochensis
ecclesiae et praedicationem dispersionis eorum, qui de circumcisione crediderant,
in Ponto, Galatia, Cappadocia, A ¦iia et Bithynia secundo Claudii imperatoris
anno ad expugnandum Simonum Magum, Romam pergit, ibique viginti quinque
1 The Tiibingen school confessedly con- than was really permissible frora his dogmatic
siders the flrst apostles, and Peter in par- standpoint. The fact, on the contrary, was
ticular, to have been narrow Judaists, and that his mode of life was stricter than was
accordingly ascribes to them precisely those consistent with his principles, for which rea-
views which Paul so decidedly combats in son .Paul accused him of vTroTcpto-ts. It is
those of his epistles which are undoubtedly more than singular that Pfleiderer should so
genuine. Though compelled to admit that entirely overlook the dishonor thus brought
it was not the flrst apostles themselves who upon Paul by maintaining that the flrst apos-
oppoaed Paul and his gospel at Corinth and ties preached a different gospel from that
elsewhere, Pfleiderer (Der Judaismus, p. 299), which he taught. For how could Paul, with.
nevertheless, maintains that they supported out grossly violating his own conscience, ac-
thoae who did ao. He explains Peter's con- cept the Se(id Koivmvia^ oftered him by Jamea,
duct in Antioch (p. 296) in this way, that Peter, and John, if his dvdeepa earm (Gal. i.
the apostle, in order to please the heathen 7, 8) was applicable to each of them as the
Christians, adopted there a mode of life freer preacher of a erepov eiiayyeKiov ?

170 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
annis cathedram sacerdotalem tenuit, usque ad ultimum annum Neronis, id est,
decimum quartum. A quo et affixus cruci martyrio coronatus est, capite ad terram
verso et in sublime pedibus elevatis, asserens se indignum, qui sic crucifigeretur ut
dominus suus. Sepultus Romae in Vaticano Juxta viam triumphalem totius orbis
veneratione celebratur" (De Scriptor. Eccl., cap. i., De Petro).
In this narrative the following particulars are mythical : (1) The epis
copate of Peter in the church at Antioch ; the saying, too, of Eusebius
(Chronicum ad Annum, iii.), that Peter founded the church at Antioch, must
be considered apocryphal, as contradicting Acts xi. 19-22. (2) His personal
activity in the regions of Asia Minor ; this is doubtless mentioned already
by Origen as probable ; ^ but it must be regarded simply as an inference
from 1 Pet. i. 1, as even Windischmann (Vindiciae Pet., § 112 f.) admits.
(3) His journey to Rome for the purpose of combating Simon Magus ^
This story is based on a passage in Justin's Apologia Maj., c. 26, which
speaks of a statue in Rome with the following inscription : 2IMnNI AEH
SAPKTfl, which, however, has been discovered to be the dedication not to
that Simon, but to the Sabine god Semo Sanctus. (4) The twenty-five
years' residence of Peter in Rome (cf. on this Wieseler's Chronol. des Apos-
tol. Zeitalters, p. 571 ff'.). Perhaps also (5) the peculiar manner of his cruci
fixion, which has been recorded by Origen already (in Euseb., H. E., iii. 1 :
dveriKolon'iaBy Kara Keipalyg) ; the motive given for it by Hieronymus must cer
tainly be looked upon as an arbitrary addition. As indisputable fact, there
remains, in the first instance, only the martyrdom of the apostle, which is
corroborated by the unanimous testimony of antiquity, and especially by
John xxi. 19 ; " the residence in Rome appears raore open to doubt, still the
reasons which can be urged against it are not sufiicient to prove the purely
legendary character of the tradition. Although Clemens Rom. (Ep. ad.
' Euseb., B. E., ifl. 1 ; IleTpos iv Tlivri^, 8 The explanation given in this verse of
K.T.A., KeK-fjpvxevai rois iv Siaanop^ *IouSatot9 the prophecy contained in ver. 18 is indis-
io^"'". putably correct. Mayerhoff is wrong iu call-
2 The stories about Peter and Simon M. ing it in question (Einl. in d. Petr. Schri/ten,
in tbe Clementine Romilies are mere legend- p. 87) by applying Christ's words to Peter,
ary formations. Even Ewald'a opinion, that not to the martyrdom he was about to suffer,
Peter, after his release, went to Eome for but to the apostle himself, aa deaUned to be
a short time, in order there to oppose Simon the leader of the church : " He explains to
M. ; that, on his return to Jerusalem, he had Peter the necessity of a ministry of this kind,
visited the districts in the north-east, and by pointing out to him that active support
there founded the churches to which he later of the needy is a duty imposed by love to
addressed this epistle, - is too destitute of Christ." Meyer gives the right explanation
secure historical foundation to be regarded of thla paaeage. Cf. in loe.
as correct.

INTRODUCTION. 171
Corinth., c. 5) does not say that Peter suffered martyrdom in Rome, yet
Dionysius .of Corinth (Euseb., H. E., ii. 25), Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., iii. 1),
Tertullian (Contra Marc, iv. 5, and De Praescript. adv. Haeret., c. 36), and
Origen (Euseb , H. E., iii. 1) do; and so early as by the presbyter Cajus
mention is made of the rponaia of the two apostles Peter and Paul. Doubt
less these testimonies are mixed up with many inexact and inaccurate par
ticulars ; but this does not justify doubt as to the truth of the circumstance
to which Ignatius seems to refer in the words : oix ug Ilerpog Kal Uavlog biarda-
aopai (Ep. ad Rom., c. 4). It is less certain that Peter, was in Rome at the
same tirade with Paul ; nor, as Wieseler wrongly asserts, are all the witnesses
of the second century who speak of the martyrdom of Peter in Rome guar
anties for it. For, with the exception of the author of the Praedicatio Pauli,
whose testiraony is uncertain, not one of these witnesses speaks of a raeeting
and a conjoint labor of the two apostles in Rome, although all relate that
both of them in Rome had a part in founding the church, and that they
suffered martyrdom there. Even the circumstance mentioned by Dionysius
of Corinth (Euseb., H. E., ii. 25) : ipaprvpyaav Kard rbv airbv Kaipbv,^ does not
prove that at any previous time they had lived together ; for this expression
allows, as Wieseler himself grants, the possibility of a period of time — pro
vided it be not too long — having elapsed between the deaths of the two
apostles. " What remains, then, as the kernel of ecclesiastical tradition is
this : that towards the end of his life Peter came to Rorae, that he there
labored for the propagation of the gospel, and that he suffered raartyrdom
under Nero" (Wiesinger; cf. also Bleek, Introd. to N. T., p. 563 ff. [E. T.,
ii. 157 ff.]). As, then, the Epistle of Peter is addressed to Pauline churches
(i.e., those churches which were either founded by Paul himself, or had
sprung from such as had been so founded), and as Peter could hardly feel
himself called upon during Paul's lifetime to interfere with the latter's field
of missionary operations, it is not at all improbable that he suffered martyr
dom later than Paul. This is supported by the circumstance that after
Paul's death, and then only, was the fitting time for him to labor in Rome.
Had Peter been there earlier, some trace surely of his presence would have
> The words of Dionysius, koX yap dpipia period in Corinth, » party calling itself by
Kai eis r'riv riperepav KopivBov ^vrevaavrei ypas Peter's narae. A legend such as this could
efiiSa^av, op.oiias Se Kai eis rrjv 'IraXiav opdae originate all the more easily from the en.
6t6a^avT£s epa'pTvp-qaav Kara r'ov avrov Kaipdv, deavor to bring the two apostles as near as
admit, on the whole, of but a doubtful infer- possible to each other; the Kara rbv avr'ov
ence, the more so that what is said here of Kaipdv may also have arisen from that endea-
Peter's labor in Corinth appears to have arisen vor.
only from the fact that there was, at an early

172 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
been found in Paul's epistles written from Rome. If, then, Paul suffered
martyrdora at the earliest in the year 64, the death of Peter must have taken
place in the time between 65-67 A.D.^
SEC. 2. — CONTENTS, AIM, AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE."
The contents of the epistle are in the order of thought as follows : First
of all, thanksgiving to God for the hope of the eternal inheritance in heaven,
of which the Christians had been made partakers, of which they can with
joy be certain, although for a time here they have to suffer tribulation, and
of which the glory is so great that the prophets diligently searched after it,
and the angels desired to behold it. This is followed by a series of exhor
tations, which may be divided into three classes. The first class (i. 13-ii. 10)
is linked on to the thought of the glory promised to the Christians, and has
sanctification in general as its object. Foremost and as a starting-point
stands the suraraons to a full hope of the future gi-ace (releiug Hniaare);
then follows the exhortation to a holy walk (dyioi yevyByre) in the fear of
God the impartial Judge, based on a conscious knowledge of the redemption
wrought by the blood of Christ (i. 14-21) ; then, to a pure and unfeigned
love of the brethren (dllylovg dyanyaare), as becarae those who were born of
incorruptible seed (i. 15-25) ; and lastly, laying aside all KUKia, to desire the
pure milk, and firmly cleaving to Christ, as living stones to build themselves
1 According to Ewald, Peter suffered mar- less, be raised to this -view, that the Epistle
tyrdom before Paul;, that ia to say, during to the Hebrews should be included among
the persecutions of the Christiana by Nero, theae, whilst Second and Third John should
A.D. 64, whilst Paul, having been releaaed be excluded from them. But the addition
from his Eoman captivity, was in Spain. of the former to the Pauline Epistles is
2 The epistle is one of those termed already explained by its having been believed to
by Origen, the seven eirto-ToAat Kado^iKai; for be by Paul; and the inclusion of the latter
the meaning ot the designation, cf. Introd. among the catholic epistles, by the circum-
to the N. T., and Herzog's Encyclopddie, stance that having, in later times only, come
VII. p. 497 ff. The most probable view is to be regarded as canonical, they were added
this : that, when the Pauline Epistles were on to the much more important First Epistle
classified together as a whole, the other epis. of John. Hofmann's opinion, " that the
ties of the N". T. canon were united together seven epistles have the above designation
under the title of catholic epistles, because because they are writings neither arising from
they were not addressed to. individual churches nor pertaining to any personal relation of the
or particular persona, but as circular letters writer to those whom he addresses," is con-
to Christendom generally, or to a somewhat tradicted by the term itself, since the expres-
extenslve system of churches, just as Origen sion Ka9oAiKds contains not the slightest allu-
termed the apostolic epistle. Acts xv. 22, an sion to a relation subsisting between the
eTTio-ToAij icaSoAcK^. The objection may, doubt- writer and those to whom he writes.

INTRODUCTION. 173
up more and raore to the spiritual house, in accordance with their calling as
Christians (rb loymbv abolov ydla eninoByaare • ... (if luBoi ^iiwreg o'lKobopelaBe),
ii. 1-10. — The second series of exhortations (ii. 11-iv. 6), which are of a
special nature, is in connection with the position of the Christians ui the
world (napoKnlL) ug napoiKOvg Kal napenibypovg ' . . . ryv dvaarooipyv ipuv iv rolg
iBveaiv cjoi'Tff, VV. 11, 12), and has reference — (1) To the relation to civil
authorities (ii. 13-17) ; (2) To the particular relations of domestic life :
(a) exhortation to the slaves (oi oUerai vnoraaabpevoi . . , rolg beanbraig, 18-25)
to obedience towards their masters in patient endurance, even of unjust suf
fering, based on a reference to the sufferings of Christ ; (b) exhortation to
the women to be subject unto their husbands, and to a holy walk, with
reference to the godly women of the O. T., especially Sarah, iii. 1-6 ; (c)
exhortation to the men to a discreet treatment of their wives ; (3) To the
relation to the world persecuting the church ; after a short exhortation to
unity and love (ver. 8), the apostle exhorts not to return evil for evil
(vv. 9-14) ; with meekness to give a reason for their own hope (ver. 15),
and in the midst of suffering to give proof of faithful submission to the
divine will (vv. 16, 17). These exhortations are based dn a reference to
Christ, who through suffering entered into His glory (vv. 18-22), and -who
by His death appeals to believers not to continue their former life, but to
lead a new one, even though they should be reviled for it. Lastly, the
apostle reminds his readers of the future judgraent of Christ (iv. 1-6). —
The third class of exhortations (iv. 7-v. 9) has special reference to life in
the church, and is connected with the thought of the nearness of the end
of all things (iv. 7). The several particulars to which prominence is given
are: soberness unto prayer (ver. 7), ardent love towards each other (ver. 8),
hospitality (ver. 9), a faithful administration of spiritual gifts for the gen
eral good (vv. 10, 11), joyful bearing of the sufferings of Christ (vv. 12-19).
Hereupon follows an exhortation to the elders to guide the church in a right
manner, reference being made to the reward which awaits thera (v. 1-4) j
then a command to the younger tQ submit themselves to the elder (ver. 5) ;
on this, admonitions- to all to a humble behavior towards each other, and
to humiliation before God (vv. 6, 7) ; lastly, a summons to watchfulness
against the temptations of the Devil (vv. 8, 9). — The epistle concludes with
the benediction and a doxology (vv. 10, 11), an observation on this epistle
itself (ver. 12), and sundry commissions (vv. 13, 14).
The aim of this epistle is stated by the apostle himself (v. 12) in the
words : iypaipa napuKalSiv Kal impaprvpuv ravryv elvai dlyBy xupiv roO Qeaii, e'lg yv
iaryKare. Accordingly he proposed a napuKuluv and an impaprvpuv, both in

174 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
close connection with each other, as the immediate juxtaposition of the
ideas shows. The occasion of them lay in this, that the readers, as profess
ing Christians, had to endure severe afflictions through the slanders of the
heathen. In view of the dangers lying therein, the apostle was careful, on
the one hand, to exhort thera to patience, by directing their minds to the
future Klypovopia, as also to the continuance in holiness, and to a conduct
towards each other and towards the heathen such as would lead the latter
to see how groundless their slanders were ; and, on the other hand, that his
exhortation might not be without a firm basis, to assure them that a state of
suffering was the true divine state of grace. Accordingly the epistle bears
neither a polemical nor a doctrinal, but an entirely hortatory character. No
doubt dogmatic ideas are interwoven in some passages ; these, however, are
never treated doctrinaUy, but are always made subservient to the purpose of
exhortation. Remark. — Schott regards this epistle as, in the first instance, a letter of
consolation, in which the readers are calmed and comforted, on the one hand,
with respect " to the accusations of the heathen, that they, as matter of
principle, denied a moral basis to social life;" aud, oa the other, as regards
their fears, lest the fact of God's permitting persecutions should be a proof to
them that they were without the "complete moral certainty of their salvation
in Christ." In opposition to this, it is to be remarked that Peter uses napuKalelv
only in the sense of "to exliort," and that even if the apostle, in the treatment
of his subject, does introduce some words of comfort, the whole epistle cannot,
on that account, be styled a letter of consolation, the less so that these very
words are always made subservient to purposes of exhortation; cf. Weiss, Die
petrln. Frage, p. 631 f. — Several interpreters assume from inipaprvpijv, K.r.X,
that Peter composed his hortatory epistles with the intention also of formally
confirming the preaching of the gospel aforetime addressed to his readers.
Wiesinger says : "Peter, in his epistle to Pauline churches, has impressed the
seal of his testimony on the gospel as preached by Paul." Weiss, while
questioning this, in that he does not consider the church to have been Pauline,
nevertheless asserts that "the apostle wished, by his Sipostolic testimony, to
confirm the preaching already delivered to the readers," and for this reason
precisely, " that it had not yet been proclaimed to them by an apostle." But,
although in i. 12, 25, we have it attested that the true gospel is preached unto
them, and, in v. 12, that thus they are made partakers of the very grace of God,
still this testimony is not made in such a form as to warrant the conclusion that
tne Apostle Peter considered it necessary to confirm, by his apostolic authority,
the preaching hy which the readers had been converted; nor does it imply
that the readers had begun to doubt of its truth, because it had come to them

INTRODUCTION. 175
— directly or indirectly — from Paul, or even from one who was no apostle.
The double testimony is rather to be explained simply thus : The apostle was
desirous of preserving his readers from the danger to which they were exposed,
by the trials that had befallen them, of entertaining doubts as to their state of
grace, and of confirming them in tlie confident trust in the grace of which they
had been made partakers, apart altogether from the person by whom the gospel
had been preached to them. — Hofmann, while justly recognizing the hortatory
character of the epistle, thinks that Peter's intention in it was "to secure the
fruits of Paul's labors in a way possible only to the Apostle of the Circum
cision." But in the epistle there is not the smallest hint of any such intention,
nor is there any mention made of a difference between the Apostle of the
Gentiles and the Apostle of the Circumcision. Besides, if such were his
intention, it is impossible to understand how Peter could have written a
hortatory epistle of such length. This same objection may be urged against
Bleek's idea that the sole occasion of the epistle was the journey of Silvanus to
Asia Minor. — Pfleiderer (as above, p. 419) correctly gives the design of the
letter thus: "An exhortation to patience and perseverance under severe perse
cution from without, as also to a blameless life, by means of which the Christian
Church might avoid every occasion for a justifiable persecution." — On Schweg
ler' s hypothesis, that the letter was written with the design of effecting a
compromise between the followers of Paul and those of Peter, see § 4, Introd.
Ewald' s view, that this circular letter was composed chiefly with the design "of
teaching the true relation to all heathen, and heathen rulers," is refuted by the
contents themselves, which go far beyond this.

The peculiar character of the epistle is due as much to the individuality
of its author as to its own hortatory tendency ; but not to this, that its
author preached a Christianity different from that of the other apostles,
that is to say, a narrow Jewish Christianity. The Christianity of Peter, in
its subjective as in its objective side, is the same as that of Paul and John.
As regards the objective side, there are no conceptions of the person of Christ
here expressed lower than in the other books of the N. T. Weiss, who
draws a distinction between the historical and the speculative methods of
viewing the person of Christ in the N. T., is no doubt of opinion that only
the former of these is to be found here, and that therefore Peter's concep
tion is, in this respect, only a preliminary step to those of Paul and John.
But although Peter does, not speak of the pre-existence of Christ in so many
words, yet the significance which, according to him, Christ had for the reali
zation of the eternal purposes of God toward humanity (i. 2, 3, 7, 8, 10-12,
18-20, ii. 4-10, 21-25, iii. 18-iv. 6, iv. 13, 14, v. 4, 10), goes to prove that

176 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
he did not regard Christ " as a mere man," distinguished from other men
only in that " He was anointed by God at His baptism with the Holy Spirit,
and thus equipped for the office of Messiah." Besides, however, there are
not wanting hints which point to a higher conception than this. If Christ
be not called vlbg rov Qeoi, God is spoken of directly as naryp rov Kvpiov 'lyaov
Xpiaroi (chap. i. 3, 2) ; and the name Kvpiog, which Peter, according to the
O. T. usage, frequently applies to God, is by him attributed without any
explanation to Christ also. Again, if the Trinity, to which reference is
made in chap. i. 2, be ouly the economical Trinity, still in it Christ is placed
in such a relation to God "as could absolutely never, and especially never in
the domain of Old-Testament faith, be applied to a mere human instrument "
(Jul. Kbstlin). Still further, in chap. i. 20, npoeyvuapevov npb KuraPolyg Koapov,
where even Weiss is forced to find an idea expressed beyond any that can
be explained on the " historic principle," though it be true that here it is
not — as Schumann (Die Lehre v. d. Person Christi, p. 449) assumes — the
real, but only, in the first instance, the ideal pre-existence that is affirmed,
yet this very ideal pre-existence undeniably points beyond the simple hu
manity of Christ. It is, too, a mere makeshift for Weiss to assert that the
idea was formed in Peter's mind, from the circumstance only, that Christ
had already been predicted by the prophets, for npb Karaiiolyg Koapov plainly
goes far beyond this. And lastly, even if AVeiss's interpretation oi rb . . .
nvevpa Xpiarov, chap. i. 11 (see Comment., in loe), were admissible, it would
also follow, from the very fact that Peter spoke of the working of God's
Spirit in the prophets, according to its indwelling in Christ, that he had a
conception of Christ's nature higher than any Weiss would allow him to
have had.
Peter's estimate also of the work of Christ, as of His person, is in no way
different from that of the other apostles. For hira, too, it is the death and
resurrection of Christ which lays the foundation of man's salvation, the
communication of the Spirit of the glorified Christ by which that salvation
is appropriated by man, and the second coming of Christ by which it is
completed. No doubt AVeiss thinks that Peter attributes to the blood of
«
Christ a redemptive, but not an expiatory, power, and that certainly the idea
of sacrifice is foreign to hira, if that of substitution be not ; but this opinion
can be justified only by a misconception of the particular points in the
passages in question (i. IS, 19, ii. 24, iii. 18).
With respect to the subjective side of Christianity, Peter has in reference
to it also no peculiar teaching. According to him, it is again faith which is
made the condition of a participation in the salvation of Christ; cf. i. 5, 7,

INTRODUCTION. 177
8, 9, 21, ii. 7 (iv. 13), v. 9. True, the niang of Peter is not characterized as
specifically Christian by any adjunct such as eig Xpiarbv; but that none other
than a faith on Christ can be meant is evident, partly from the reference to
the redeeming death of Christ which pervades the whole epistle, and partly
from the circumstance, that when God is spoken of as the object of faith
(i. 21), the phrase : rbv iyeipavra airbv (Xpiarbv) eK veKpuv Kal bb^av airrcj bbvra
(comp. Eom. iv. 24), is added to Qebv by way of nearer definition. It can
with no justification be asserted that faith according to Peter is, on the one
hand, only the trust in God based on the miracle of the resurrection, and on
the other simply the recognition of the Messianic dignity of Christ, and that
accordingly he does not, like Paul, make reference to the atonement accom
plished by the blood of Christ. For, precisely because Peter regards the
death of Christ as the ground of salvation, it is plainly impossible that he
should think of this faith by which redemption is obtained, without reference
to the death of Christ and its effects. Weiss, though he admits that this
faith, according to the view taken of it not merely by Paul and John, but
also by Peter, introduces into real community of life with Christ, does so
only under this restriction, that Peter's conception is based entirely on the
utterances of Christ, and has not as yet been worked into didactic shape ;
as if the living faith were not necessarily conscious of comraunity of life
with Christ, and as if the matter contained in an epistle written with the
view of imparting instruction must of necessity be brought into didactic
form. If, according to Peter, the life of faith be, from its earliest comraence-
ment, a life of obedience, there is taught in this nothing different from what
Paul more than once affirms (Rora. vi. 17, xv. 18, xvi. 19, 20 ; 2 Cor. x. 15) ;
but that Peter " makes the idea of obedience so prominent, that faith as the
fundamental condition of the possession of salvation retires completely into
the background" (Weiss), is an unfounded assertion. — Since, then, the
epistle is written with the design napoKulelv the Christians, who were endur
ing affliction ior their faith's sake, the reference to a future and complete
salvation — Klypovopia, aurypia, bb^a, xapig ^uyg — forms, along with the exhor
tation to a pious Christian walk of life, a chief feature in it, and it is there
fore quite natura] that the ilnig should appear as the centre of its apostolic
napuKlyaig (chap. i. 3, 13, 21, iii. 5, 9, 15, iv. 13, v. 1, 4, 10). But although
it is peculiar to Peter to gaze on the future completion of salvation with a
hope that stretched away beyond the present possession of it, yet we must
not on that account seek to draw a distinction between hira as the apostle of
hope, and Paul as the apostle of faith , and still less, with Weiss, attribute to
him a different conception of doctrine in that, whilst according to Paul hope

178 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
is only a single constituent of faith, Peter saw in faith only " the preliminary
step to hope."
Remakk. — Whilst Weiss considers the doctrinal conception in the epistle
as a preliminary step to Paulinism, Pfleiderer, on the other hand, characterizes
it as "a Paulinism popularized, and thereby rendered weak and insipid." In
reference to this, the following remarks must be made: (1) Pfleiderer indeed
admits that the emphasis laid on the death of Christ as the means of our
redemption is a genuinely Pauline feature; at the same time, however, he is of
opinion that the death of Christ must be taken here as referring not, as with
Paul, to the expiation of the guilt of sin, but only to the removal of a life of
sin, and that its redemptory effects can only be considered as morally communi
cated, in order that it may, as a powerful example, bring about the resolution to
an obedient imitation of Christ. But this is clearly incorrect, for it is apparent,
from an unprejudiced perusal of the passages in question, that redemption from
the guilt of sin is viewed as the primary effect of Christ's death, thougli there
is undoubtedly also reference to its final aim in delivering from the power of sin.
How can redemption from a life of sin be conceived of without the forgiveness
of sin ? The very expression pavnapbg aiparog 'I. X. (i. 2) is a proof that our
author regarded the forgiveness of sin as the effect of the blood of Christ. The
idea that man must earn pardon for himself by his own obedient following of
Christ is totally foreign to this epistle. (2) If Pfleiderer asserts that here we
have faith presented in an aspect different from that of Paul, inasmuch as its
object is not Christ, the historical Redeemer from sin, but Christ, the glorified
One, it must be urged, in reply, that Christian faith, in the nature of it, has
reference at once to the abased and to the exalted Christ, — to the former
because He is exalted, to the latter in that He was made low, — and, that, in
this passage also, between Paul and the writer of this epistle there was no
difference, and could be none. (3) In opposition to Pfieiderer's assertion, that
obedience also has, for each of the two, a different import, inasmuch as, while
Paul considers moral obedience to be the fruit of faith, the author of this epistle
looks on morality as a particular element of faith itself, it raust be remarked,
that, if obedience be the fruit of faith, it must, in germ, be contained in faith,
that is, be an element of faith. (4) With respect to the nveipa, Pfleiderer
admits that it is for both, in every way, the life-principle of Christianity; only
he finds it worthy of notice, that, in this epistle, the communication of the
Spirit is not made to stand in any way connected with baptism. But it is clearly
a quite unjustifiable demand, that this relation should flnd expression in the
single passage in which reference is made to baptism. —No doubt it cannot be
denied that the several particulars of Christian faith, knowledge, and life have
received from Paul a fuller development, and, as a consequence, a clearer
definition, than in our epistle; but this can be accounted for as much by the

INTRODUCTION. 179
individuality of the two apostles as by the purely hortatory character of this
epistle, and is no evidence of the correctness of Pfleiderer' s view. — Hofmann
justly remarks: "The epistle contains nothing by which its author can be
recognized as the advocate of an . . . insipid Paulinism, and nothing either
which betrays his dependence on Pauline forms of thought."
The peculiar character of the epistle, by which it is distinguished from
the writings of Paul and John, has its origin uot in any doctrinal difference,
but on the one hand in the individuality of its author, and on the other
in its own practical design. Peter does not mean to teach, he is anxious
rather to exhort in accordance with his practical mind,i as far removed from
the dialectic bent of Paul as from the intuitive of John. — The epistle bears
further a characteristic impress in the O. T. modes of thought and expres
sion peculiar to it.^ In none of the writings of the N. T. do we find, com
paratively speaking, so numerous quotations from and references to the
O. T. (comp. chap. i. 16, 24, 25, ii. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 22-24, iii. 10-12, 13, 14,
iv. 8, 17, 18, V. 5, 7). 'But more than this, the author lives and moves so
much in O. T. conceptions, that he expresses his thoughts by preference in
O. T. language. When he wishes to set forth the dignity of the Christian
Church, or to make reference to the future salvation of believers, or to exhort
to a walk becoming Christians, he does so for the most part in the manner
peculiar to the O. T. Even when he speaks of the death of Christ as the
ground of salvation, it is in O. T. language that he lays stress on its signifi
cance. And all this without so much as hinting at the specific difference
between the O. and N. T. So that all the ideas, more especially, which are
in Paul rooted in the clear consciousness of the difference between the two
economies : bmaiovaBai Ik ryg nlareug, vluBeala, the relation of affection between
God and Christians as His children,^ etc., occupy here an entirely subor
dinate position. Nevertheless, the tone of the whole epistle is decidedly
Christian, not only in that it is inspired by that Spirit to which Christ
referred when He said to James and John : " Know ye not what spirit ye
' strangely enough, Hofmann takes offence ception, but the manner of expression, that
at what is here aaid, although he himself is that of the O. T.; but is not expression
describes " Peter's mind as one which directly determined by conception ?
apprehended the duty of the moment, as the ' This, too, Hofmann questions, assigning
moment presented it, and set about fulfllling as his reason ch. i. 17; but the expression
it by word and deed without circumlocution Father Is applied to God in the O. T. also
or hesitation," — proof evidently of a practical (Isa. 1x111. 16; Jer. xxxi. 9) , without the rela-
niimj. tion of child being conceived in the aarae way
2 According to Hofmann, it is not the con- aa it is by Paul.

180 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
are of V " but because there is to be found in it no trace of Mosaic legality,
or of the national narrowness peculiar to the Jewish people. The Christian
church is a yevog iKleKrbv just in that it is Christian, and not in any way
because the greater part of it belongs to the nation of Israel, " into which
the others have only been ingrafted." The Mosaic law is not so much as
mentioned, nor does the expression vbpog once occur. No doubt it is strongly
insisted upon that Christians should live a holy life ; but the obligation is
deduced not from any law, but from the fact that they are redeemed from
their paraia dvaarpoipy by the rlpCov alpa of Christ, and are born again of seed
incorruptible, while, as the means through which they are to procure their
sanctification, the nveipa is mentioned, not the legal letter (a ypuppa). From
this it follows that the name " Apostle of the Circumcision " (Weiss), given
to Peter, is inappropriate, if it be understood in a sense different from that
in Gal. ii. 7, 8, It can nowhere be proved from his epistle that circumcision
had for Peter any significance whatever for the Christian life. Rather is
he penetrated by 0. T. ideas only in so far as they obtain their true fulfil
raent in Christianity, and no allusion whatever is made to those of them
which had already found their realization in Christ. — Further, the epistle
bears a peculiar character from the traces in it which prove the author to
have been an eye-witness and an ear-witness of Christ. Not only does the
apostle style himself pdprvg ruv roi Xpiaroi iraBypdruv, but the way in which he
discourses of the sufferings and glory of Christ is a proof that he speaks
from a personal experience, the power of which he himself had directly felt.
Nor this alone.' Oftentimes in his expressions the very words he had heard
from Christ are re-echoed, and hence the many points of accord, especially
with the discourses of Christ as these are contained in the synoptic Gospels ;
cf. chap. i. 4 with Matt. xxv. 34; i. 8 with John xx. 23; i. 10 ff. with Luke
X. 24; i. 13 with Luke xii. 35; ii. 12 with Matt. v. 10; ii. 17 with Matt.
xxii. 21 ; iii. 13-15 with Matt. x. 28; and v. 10, 11, iv. 13, 14, with Matt. v.
12; V. 3 with Matt. xx. 25, 26 ; v. 6 with Matt, xxiii. 12.i
Lastly, the epistle shows an unmistakable kinship with various writings
of the N. T. Did this consist merely in the occurrence here and there of
single cognate thoughts, conceptions, or expressions, there would still be no

1 Hofmann, indeed, disputes that there is iSoKTes dyandre shows clearly enough that it
here any allusion to the words of Christ; he is written by one who has seen the Lord."
admits, however, that it is possible that " the Hofmann ia wrong in denying that the words
expreaaion used by our Lord, Matt. v. 16, was pdprvg ri^v to5 Xpi<7ToC ,rae^pdr•^v, v. 1, bear
present to the mind of the apostle when the meaning here presupposed. See Hofmann
writing 11. 12;" and he says; "The ov ovk in loe.

INTRODUCTION. 181
proof of interdependence. In the whole of the N. T. writings there is con
tained a gospel substantially one and the sarae, and there must have prevailed
in the intercourse of believers with one another — every allowance being-
made for diversity in the individual — a common mode of thought and ex
pression, which had its origin chiefly in the writings of the O. T. But the
affinity which is apparent between the Epistle of Peter and several of the
Epistles of Paul and the Epistle of Jaraes, goes far beyond this. Among
Paul's writings there are several passages in the Epistles to the Romans and
Ephesians to which Peter's epistle stands in a relation of dependence.
Almost all the thoughts in Rom. xii. and xiii. are to be found repeated in
the Epistle of Peter, — only here they are scattered throughout the whole
letter ; and not detached thoughts alone, but whole trains of thought, in
which there is a similarity of expression even in what is of secondary mo
ment; cf. from Eom- xii., ver. 1 with 1 Pet. ii. 5, ver. 2 with i. 14, vv. 3-8
with iv. 10, ver. 9 with i. 22, ver. 10 with ii. 17, ver. 13 with iv. 9, more
especially vv. 14-19 with iii. 8-12 ; and from chap, xiii., vv. 1-7 with ii.
13, 14 (see on this Weiss, p. 406 ff.). But echoes of other passages in
Romans are to be found : cf . Pet. i. 21 with Rom. iv. 24 ; Pet. ii. 24 with
Rom. vi. 18 ; Pet. iii. 22 with Rora. viii. 34 ; Pet. iv. 1, 2, with Rom. vi. 7
(here it is not the clauses only which correspond : b naSiiv, k.t.X, and 6 dno-
Bavuv, K.r.X, but the subsequent thought of Peter : eig rb pyKeri dvBpiinuv, k.t.X,
answers to the previous idea of Paul: roi pyKen bovleieiv, k.t.X); Pet. v. 1
with Rom. viii. 18 ; particularly striking is the agreement between Pet. ii. 6
and Rom. ix. 33 (x. 11). — The kinship between the Epistle of Peter and
that to the Ephesians is based not on single passages only, but at the sarae
time on the composition of the two writings. If our epistle be in super
scription and introduction similar to the epistles of Paul, it bears a peculiar
resemblance to that to the Ephesians, inasmuch as the thanks expressed in
the latter have reference not to the particular circunistances of a special
church, but to the comraon salvation of which the Christians had been made
partakers ; the formula of thanksgiving, too, is in both literally the same :
evloyyrb'g 6 Qebg, K.r.l. (thus 2 Cor.). The contents, too, of the epistles pre
sent many points of similarity both in the general exhortations to a walk in
love towards each other, humility, and meekness, and a renunciation of their
former heathenish life in fleshly passions and lusts, and in the special exhor
tations with respect to domestic relations; further, in the summons to resist
the devil ; and lastly, in the concluding wish of peace. The following par
ticular passages may be compared with each other : Pet. i. 1 (iKleKrolg . . .
Kara npoyvuaiv Qeoi . . . iv dyiaapu nvevparog) and Eph. i. 4 (i^el^^aro ypdg . . .

182 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
npb KarafSolyg Koapov, elvai yp. dylovg) ; Pet. i. 5 and Eph. i. 19 ; Pet. i. 14 and
Eph. ii. 3; Pet. i. 18 and Eph. iv. 17; Pet. ii. 4, 5, and Eph. ii. 20-22; Pet.
ii. 18 and Eph. vi. 5; Pet. iii. 1 and Eph. v. 22; Pet. iii. 18 (npoadyeiv) and
Eph. ii. 18, iii. 12 (npoaayuyy); Pet. iii. 22 and Eph. i. 20, 21; Pet. v. 8, 9,
and Eph. vi. 10 ff. It is also worthy of special remark, that in both epistles
the goal of the Christian is indicated by the word Klypovopia, and that in both
the angel world is represented as standing in a relation to Christ's work of
redemption; cf. Pet. i. 12 and Eph. iii. 10; Peter seems to make reference
also to Eph. iv. 8-10.
The similarity between particular passages of Peter's epistle and Paul's
other epistles is not of such a nature as to warrant the conclusion that there
is a dependence of the former on the latter. If, e.g.. Pet. iii. 2, etc., and
1 Tim. ii. 9 treat of the ornaments of women, and the order in which the
particular objects are brought forward be in both cases the same, this may
doubtless be a merely accidental circumstance. Besides, the nomenclature
varies. — Ou the other hand, the agreement between particular passages in
the epistles of James and Peter is of such a kind that it cannot be regarded
as accidental ; see Pet. i. 6, 7, and Jas. i. 2, 3 (comp. dyallidaBe and x^P"-^
yyyaaaBe ; IvnyBevreg iv nomiloig neipaapoig and 'brav neipaapolg ntpiniayre noiKiloig,
and in both passages the identical -d boKipiov vpuv ryg mareug) ; further. Pet.
ii. 1 and Jas. i. 21 (there : dnuBepevoi ndaav kukIuv ; here : dnoBepevoi ndaav fivna-
piav Kal nepiaaeiav KUKiag ; there : rb loymbv dbolov ydla ininoByaare ; here, the not
very dissimilar thought : be^aaBe rbv ipifvrov loyov ; there, the aim : iva ev airip
ai^yBr/re eig aurypiav ; here, the similar thought in the participial clause : rbv
dvvdpevov aiJaai rdg ipvxag ipuv) ; lastly. Pet. v. 5-9 and Jas. iv. 6, 7, 10, where
in both passages there is the same quotation from the O. T., then the exhor
tation to humble submission to God, and thereon the summons to withstand
the devil; besides this, Pet. v. 6 is almost identical with Jas. iv. lO.i
The dependence of Peter's epistle on the writings already mentioned,
whilst it is acknowledged by almost all interpreters (in recent times more
especially by Wiesinger, Schott, and Hofmann ; in like manner, too, by
Ewald, Reuss, Bleek ; Guericke's opinion is doubtful), is denied by Mayer
hoff, Ranch, and Bruckner. Bruckner, while admitting that there still
remains the general impression of so many echoes, which always seems to
point back to the dependence of Peter's epistles, is nevertheless of opinion
» Although several of the citations from Peter's epistle are not dependent on them
the epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, (cf. Hofmann, p. 206 ff.), yet, as is fully
and frora that of James, might lead to the recognized by Hofmann, that in no way alters
supposition that the passages in question in the matter itself.

INTRODUCTION. 183
that the similarity can be explained simply frora the circumstance that cog
nate ideas in the minds of the apostles called for cognate terms, especially
if there be taken into account the power of primitive Christian tradition on
early Christian style, and the prevalent raodes of expression which had arisen
out of conceptions formed under the influence of the Old Covenant. This
result, however, he obtains in the following way : He resolves the similar
thoughts into their several elements ; and having directed .special attention
to these, he lays particular stress on the differences he discovers. This
process of separation is of necessity misleading, and if it be not employed,
the similarity is so great that there can be no doubt as to the dependence
of the one composition on the other. Weiss has deraonstrated this at full
length with respect to the relation between the Epistle of Peter and those to
the Romans (chaps, xii. and xiii.) and Ephesians. He is wrong, however,
when he says that the dependence is on the side of Paul, and not on that of
Peter. With regard to Rom. xii. and xiii., it must be remembered — (1)
That it is entirely improbable that Paul should, quite contrary to his usual
custom, have been at the trouble to collect the thoughts here arranged from
an epistle where they occur in a quite different connection ; whilst there is in
itself nothing improbable in the supposition, — if he were acquainted with
the Epistle to the Romans, and more especially the above chapters, — that
Peter wrote under the influence ot Paul's expression in the different passages
of his epistle, where the course of his own thoughts suggested to him the
same ideas. (2) That the views of Weiss necessarily lead to a depreciation
of the literary capability of Paul. Weiss himself says that Paul's depend
ence on Peter caused him to place in chap. xii. Q,l , bioKovla, in the narrower
sense, which is " evidently Jarring," between the three spiritual gifts ; to
introduce in ver. 11, "without any purpose," the exhortation r-y 'elnibi xaipovreg;
to put the thought in ver. 15 in the wrong place ; and in ver. 16 to interpo
late the idea quite inappropriately.* As to the Epistle to the Ephesians, it
must be remarked — (1) That no foreign influence can be recognized in it,
when compared with the other Pauline epistles. Its dissimilarity is to be
explained frora its own individual tendency as a circular letter. (2) That
the special peculiarities by which this epistle is distinguished from the other

1 Since Weiss himself uses the expressions in Der Petrin. tehrbegriff), we must obeerve,
above quoted, the accusation that he detracts in reply, that general possibilities do not issue
from Paul's independence is certainly not in much, more especially when concrete clr-
without juatificatlon. If he complain that cumstances prevent that being regarded as a
even in this commentary regard is not paid reality which is in itself posaible.
to " the general considerations " (pp. 403-406

184 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
letters of Paul, even from that to the Colossians, have nothing whatsoever
in common with the Epistle of Peter. In addition to this, let it be noted
that the independence of Paul, which is apparent in every one of his epistles,
stands in sharpest contradiction with the assumption that the apostle was
indebted to those passages in Peter's epistle ; whilst, on the other hand, the
leaning which Peter had to the O. T. aud to the words of Christ, shows that
to allow his mode of expression to be shaped by the influence of another
was in no way opposed to the peculiar character of his mind, but entirely in
harmony with it, as part of a nature "easily determined, receptive, and
peculiarly open to personal impressions" (Schott).
Remakk. — Weiss, in his essay entitled Die Petrinische Frage, written for
the purpose of defending his views on the dependence of the epistles to the
Romans and Ephesians against objections raised to them, substantially repeats
what he had formerly said, and hardly adduces any thing new. In denying that
there subsists any relation of dependence between Rom. vi. 7 and Pet. iv. 12,
and between Rom. vi. 2, 18, and Pet. ii. 24, Weiss overlooks the fact that the
resemblance rests not alone on the two expressions b dnoBavuv and 6 naBHv aapKi,
and that his interpretation of raif dpapriaig dnoyevbpevoi is an erroneous one. A
more minute examination of the several clauses of chaps, xii. and xiii. of Romans
can result merely in the conclusion that it is not in itself impossible that this
epistle was conceived under the influence of Peter's letter. But the priority of
the latter is not thereby proved. The hortatory design of this epistle explains
why it is that Peter has confined himself to these two chapters, and why in his
composition are to be found none " of the developments of Christian doctrinal
conceptions peculiar to Paul." Besides, it must be noted that although Peter
says nothing of the relation of the vbpog and the epya roi vbpov, he is completely
at one with Paul in the fundamental conception that sinful man can obtain
salvation only through faith in Christ. — With respect to the affinity between
the Epistle of Peter and that to the Ephesians, Weiss himself admits that
"evidence for the originality of the Petrine passages can be adduced with still
less strictness from a comparison of details." Weiss wrongly affirms that the
Epistle to the Ephesians is related to that of Peter precisely in those very
points which distinguish it from the rest of Paul's writings. For the peculiar
and distinctive character of the Epistle to the Ephesians does not consist only
in that it is a circular letter (an assertion which, however, is decidedly denied
by many critics, and particularly by Meyer; see his commentary, Einl., §1),
and that its commencement is of an import more general than that of the other
Pauline epistles, but more especially in the whole diction, which, in the rich
fulness of its expression, bears an impress different from the rest of the
apostle's writings. That this peculiarity, however, cannot, be traced to a

INTRODUCTION. 185
knowledge, on the apostle's part, of Peter's epistle, needs not to be proved.
When Weiss finds it a characteristic of the Epistle to the Ephesians, that its
" ethical exhortation culminates in advices for the several stations of life," he
must have forgotten that exactly the same is the case with the Epistle to the
Colossians, which plainly was not written under the influence of Peter's epistle.
The dependence of this epistle on Paul and James is not, as Schott
assumes, to be attributed to Peter's intention to show the agreement of his
doctrine with that of these two men. For it is precisely their doctrinal
peculiarities which are not echoed in the related passages ; and altogether a
doctrinal intent is nowhere discernible. It must therefore be assumed that
Peter, from his familiarity with these epistles, was so penetrated by their
prevailing modes of thought and expression, and the connection of their
ideas, that recollections of these, although not unconsciously, still involun-
tarily,! became interwoven with his style. Such reminiscences, too, would
press themselves upon his mind the more readily in the case of the Epistle
to the Ephesians, that it was addressed to the same churches in Asia Minor
which Peter felt himself urged to confirm and strengthen in their state of
grace. 2
With all this dependence, however, the epistle has still its peculiar im
press different from that of the epistles of Paul and James. Although it
abounds in conceptions which are common to all the apostles, there are yet
to be found in it not only particular expressions and terms, but also many
ideas, which are foreign to the other writings of the N. T. Thus it is dis
tinctive of this epistle, that the work of salvation is characterized as some
thing after which the prophets searched, and into which the angels desired
to look (i. 10-12); that the Christians are called ndpowoi kuI napenibypoi
(ii. 11) ; that the exhortation to a holy walk is based on this, that thereby
1 Schott's opinion is far-fetched, that Peter's 2 Hofmann goes too far in maintaining that
continual references to "the Pauline epistles Peter " purposely " connected his epistle with
arose from his tender anxiety lest he should that to the Ephesians, making the opening
add to " the disquiet and apprehension of hie passages of the former thus similar to those
readers by giving any direct expression to of the latter, " in order, that, from the com-
his apostolic individuality, unknown as it was menceroent, his heathen readers must perceive
to them." He thinks, that, for this reason, hia intention, and recognize the harmony sub-
Peter had, "without mentioning hia intention, sistlng between that which was wi-itteu by
unnoticed, and, as it were, by chance, here the Apostle of the Circumcision and that
and there, sometimes more distinctly, and formerly penned by the Apostle of tbe Hea-
sometimes less so, allowed hia readers to then." This assertion arises frora the mis
hear -the well-known voice of their real taken views which Hofmann haa formed as
pastor." to the design of the epistle.

186 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
the heathen would recognize the groundlessness of their accusations (ii. 12,
iii. 16) ; and that the endurance of wrong is termed a xupK- Further, pe
culiar to this epistle are : the exhibition of Christ's sufferings as a type of
their own sufferings for the faith's sake (ii. 21 ff.) ; the idea that Christ has
preached to the spirits in prison (iii. 19, iv. 6) ; the consolation drawn from
the similarity of the affliction of the Christian brethren (v. 9) ; Sarah, in
her subjection to Abraham, held up to women as an exaraple (iii. 6) ; the
comparison drawn between baptism and the flood, and the designation of
the former as aweibyaeug uyaByg inepurypa (iii. 21) ; the thought that the suf
ferings of Christ form the beginning of judgment (iv. 12) ; the exhortation
to the elders (v. 1-3) ; the term dpxmoipyv as (v. 4) applied to Christ, etc.
It cannot justly be urged against this epistle, that it is wanting in logical
development of thought. Since the epistle bears a hortatory character,
there is nothing to excite surprise when the author makes a transition
from more general to more special precepts, and again from more special
to more general, and when he, as the spirit moves him, builds now one
exhortation, now another, on this or on that fact of redemption, finding
here again occasion for fresh admonitions. But that with all this there is
no want of a definite train of thought, is proved by the above suramary
of contents. The style does not abound in aphorisms, like that of the dis
courses of Jesus and the Epistle of James, but is distinguished by thoughts
connected by means of participles, relative pronouns, copulative particles, as
in the Pauline epistles. A peculiarity, too, is to be found in the frequent
condensation of several conceptions into a substantival or adjectival idea by
means of the definite article (chap. i. 3, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, etc.) ; further,
the frequent use of the particle ug (chap. i. 14, 19, ii. 1, 5, 16, iv. 10, 11, 15,
16, V. 3) ; lastly, the construction of the participle, both with an imperative
either preceding (i. 13, 14, 22, ii. 1, 4, 16) or following it (i. 18, 23, ii. 1, 2,
5, 7), as also its employraent in an absolute and independent way, without
being joined to a particular finite verb (ii. 18, iii. 1, 7, 9, 16, iv. 8).
Whilst De Wette looks on the epistle as hardly worthy of an apostle,
others praise, and rightly too, the freshness and vividness of its style,^ its
"richness in Christian doctrine," and the "noble artlessness which feels
itself satisfied and blessed in the simple and believing reception, aud calm
and quiet possession, of the facts of a divinely given salvation " (Schott).
1 G-rotius : " Habet haec epistola to aipo. alacritas Petrini sermouis lectorem suavissime
Spov, conveniens ingenlo principis aposto- retiuens,"
lorum." Bengel: "Mlrabilis eat gravitas et

INTRODUCTION. 187
SEC. 3. — THE READERS OF THE EPISTLE; THE TIME AND
PLACE OF ITS COMPOSITION.
Whilst the epistle itself gives no precise information as to who the
readers addressed are, its superscription shows them to have been Christians
in Asia Minor, more especially those in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia
(by which terra proconsular Asia is to be understood), and Bithynia; that
is to say, the Christians in regions where Paul and his corapanions, accord
ing to his epistles and the Acts of the Apostles, had first preached the gospel
and founded the Christian Church. — In ancient times the prevalent view
was that the epistle was addressed to Jewish Christians. This opinion was
entertained by Eusebius, Didymus, Epiphanius, Hieronymus, Oecumenius,
Theophylactus ; and among more recent authors, by Erasmus, Calvin, Gro
tius, Bengel, Augusti, Hug, Bertholdt, Pott, and others. Several inter
preters, like Wolf, Gerhard, Jachmann, etc., have modified this view, in so
far that tbey hold the epistle to have been written principally (principaliter)
no doubt for Jewish Christians, but in a certain sense (quodammodo) for
Gentile Christians also (fidei interna ac loci externa unitate illis conjunctos).
This is the position taken up by Weiss. He assumes that the majority of
church-members were Jewish Christians, and that these were regarded by
Peter as the real body of the congregations ; for this reason, and not think
ing of the admixture of heathen which had everywhere taken place, the
apostle addresses the Jewish Christians only. Weiss's view is very closely
bound up with his opinion, that the churches in question had already been
founded before the missionary journey of Paul to Asia Minor, by Jews of
that region who had been converted at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost
or subsequently to it. This assertion, however, is not only without any
foundation whatsoever in history, but is opposed to all that is told us of
the Apostle Paul's labors in Asia Minor, in his epistles and in the Acts of the
Apostles, inasrauch as there is in neither the smallest hint that when he
commenced his work there, a Christian church was in existence anywhere in
that laud. It is surely inconceivable that Paul should have pursued his
missionary work in that region without in any way taking notice of the
church already established there, and all the more so if that church had by
that time risen to such importance as to draw on itself the persecuting hate
of the heathen. — The proofs adduced by Weiss, that the epistle was addressed
to Jewish-Christian churches, are as follow: 1. The designation of the
readers in the superscription of the letter; 2. The style of expression so
strongly based on the O. T. ; 3. The occurrence of several passages, namely,

188 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
chaps, i. 14, 18, ii. 9, 10, iii. 6, iv. 3, which point apparently to Gentile but
in reality to Jewish Christians as readers. The first proof falls to the ground
when the expression iKleKrol napenibypoi biaanopdg Uovtov, k.t.X, is correctly
understood (see Comment, to i. 1). With regard to the, second proof, how
ever, it raust be noted that the references to the O. T. were for Gentile
Christiaus (who of course cannot be conceived of without some acquaintance
with the O. T.) not less intelligible than for Jewish Christians. Paul
himself makes frequent enough allusion to the O. T. in his epistles addressed
to Gentile Christians (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. i 19, 31, ii. 9, 16, iii. 19, 20, etc.).i —
With respect to the third proof, the previous condition of the readers in the
passages quoted is not in appearance only, but as a matter of fact, charac
terized as heathenish, and that not positively simply, but negatively also.
For in these verses there is not the faintest intimation that the readers
before their conversion had stood, as Israelites, in the covenant relation to
God to which Paul invariably makes reference when he speaks to Jews
or of them. The whole character of the epistle speaks not against, but
much more in favor of, the assumption that the churches here addressed, at
least the larger part of them, were composed not of Jewish but of Gentile
Christians. In favor, too, of this view, is the circumstance that these same
churches are represented as suffering persecution, not at the hands of the
Jews, but of the heathen ; which goes to show that the latter did not regard
these Christians merely as a sect within Judaism, as would naturally have
been the case had they been formerly Jews, or for the most part Jews. The
persecuting zeal of the heathen was directed against it only when Chris
tianity began to draw its professors no longer from Judaism chiefly, but
from heathendom ; and it was not Jewish but Gentile Christian churches
which were the objects of detestation. Justly, then, did Augustine (Contra
Faustum, xii. 89) already, and Cassiodorus (De Instil. D'lv. Lit., ii. p. 516),
later on, Luther and Wetstein, and in recent times Steiger, De Wette,
' Weiss wrongly tries (Die Petrin. Frage, the formula of quotation are of such a kind
p. 623) to neutralize the evidential value of as to have been intelligible to the Christians
this remark, by saying " that it does not touch aa snch, irrespective of whether they formerly
the very pith of hia argument, which consists had been heathens or Jews ; nor do they by
in this, that Peter expressly quotes the O. T., any means "presuppose so intimate a knowl-
as Paul does, only in 1. 16, il. 6." For, on edge of the O. T. as is conceivable only in
the one hand, Paul, too, employs O. T. ex.- those who had formerly been Jews." With
pressions and phrases without adding yey^an- regard to their acquaintance with the O. T.,
rai pr the like, e.g., in the passage above cf. Meyer on Rom. vii. 1, where Paul speaks
quoted, 1 Cor. il. 16. On the other hai-.d, the of the Christiana, without exception, as yiviuo--
O. T. expressions employed by Peter without Kovrea vopov.

INTRODUCTION. 189
Briickner, Mayerhoff', Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann, as also Neander, Gue
ricke, Reuss, Lechler, Schaff, Jul. Kdstlin, Bleek, and others, pronounce in
favor of the opinion that the churches in question must be held to have
been composed of Gentile Christians. The hypothesis of Benson, Michaelis,
Credner, and some others, that this epistle is designed for suoh Gentile
Christians as had before their conversion to Christianity been " proselytes
of the gate," is evidently a purely arbitrary one.
As to their condition, we gather from the epistle for the most part only,
that the churches were at that time exposed to many persecutions at the
hands of the heathen, which, however, consisted more in contumelies and
revilings than in actual ill-treatment. That these manifold persecutions
were instituted by the state, cannot, with Hug, Mayerhoff, and Neander, be
concluded from the expressions dnoloy'ia and KUKonoibg in iii. 15, 16. Schott's
conjecture, that they were connected with those which arose under Nero, is
refuted on the one hand by their character as described in the epistle, and
on the other by the testimony of history, which confines the Neronic perse
cution solely to Rome. A too gloomy picture of the moral condition of the
readers must not be drawn from the exhortations given to them relative to
the persecutions, although it is not incredible that the shortcomings brought
here and there to light by the persecutions may have induced the apostle to
compose this epistle ; open blame is nevertheless not expressed. Nor is
there any thing to indicate that the church was disturbed by heretical tend
encies, or opposing parties of Jewish and Gentile Christians. — The notion
that Peter was personally acquainted with his readers, is opposed as much
by the want of any personal relations on his part to his readers, as by the
distinction he makes between himself and .those who had proclaimed the
gospel to them.
Only one passage (v. 13) has reference to the place where the epistle was
composed. From the circumstance that Peter sends greetings from the
church (not from his wife) in Babylon, it may correctly be inferred that
dm-ing the composition of the epistle he was in that city. But whether by
Babylon is to be understood the Babylon properly so called, on the banks of
the Euphrates, or Rome rather, the capital of the world, is a question by
no means settled as yet (cf. on this the remarks on the passage). It is not
at all improbable in itself that Peter was for a time in Babylon proper, and
labored there as an apostle, the less so that from of old, in that very city,
there were large Jewish communities, which stood in intimate connection
with Jerusalem.
In order to settle more precisely the time of the composition, it must be

190 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
observed principally : (1) That the epistle is directed to Pauline churches ;
(2) That it presupposes the acquaintance of its author with the Epistle to
the Ephesians. If these two points, above proved to be correct, are estab
lished, the epistle can neither, as Weiss assumes, have been composed at
the beginning of Paul's third missionary journey, nor, as Bruckner con
jectures, at the end of it; its origin raust be relegated, rather, to a later
date. Assuming that the Epistle to the Ephesians was written by Paul
during his captivity at Rome, Wieseler would place the coraposition of
our epistle in the latter part of that captivity. But the following facts
militate against this : on the one hand, that the persecutions of the Chris
tians in the provinces of Asia Minor, which occasioned this letter of Peter,
are raentioned neither in the Epistle to the Ephesians nor in that to the
Colossians ; and, on the other, that in the forraer there' is no reference to
those false teachers whose appearance these epistles presuppose. Peter,
too, if he had coraposed his epistle at that time, would certainly not have
left the imprisonment of Paul unnoticed, the more especially that he was
writing to a Pauline church. The letter can have been composed, then,
only after the two-years' imprisonment of Paul in Rome. Ewald and
Hofmann are of opinion that it was written immediately after his release
from captivity. But it is more than improbable that an epistle addressed
to a Pauline church was coraposed when Paul was still alive and engaged
in work. If such had been the case, Peter would certainly not have oraitted
to specify the relation in which he stood to Paul, and the motive which
induced him to write to a Pauline church, since by so doing he was evi
dently encroaching by his apostolic labors on the missionary territory of
Paul.i Accordingly, it must be assumed that the epistle was not written
until after Paul had been removed by raartyrdom frora the field of apos
tolic labor, and withal at a tirae when this fact had become known to the
churches, otherwise Peter could not have passed it over in silence. We
must agree, then, with those critics who place the coraposition of the
epistle in the closing years of Peter's lifetime, at the earliest in the year 66
(as Reuss, Bleek, Wiesinger, Schott). If Peter died under Nero, that is,
about the year 67 A.D., the period which extends from the Neronic perse
cution of the Christians and the death of Paul — especially as he suffered
martyrdom soon after the conflagration m Rome, 64 A.D. — to the time
1 Hofmann's remark is singular: That those Peter would only have been guilty of an
only were guilty of an interference who at- encroachment if he had aimed at forming a
tempted to turn away from Paul the Gentile- number of Qentile.Christian churches.
Christian churches founded by him, and that

INTRODUCTION. 191
when this epistle was composed, is long enough to allow of it seeming
natural that Peter in his epistle should leave those two events unnoticed.^
All that we learn from the epistle as to the circumstances in which the
churches in question were placed, and, in particular, respecting the perse
cutions to which they were exposed, is in harmony with this date. For
although the Christiaus had to suffer persecution even during the time of
Paul's missionary labors (cf. 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14 ; 2 Thess. i. 4, etc.), yet
this was by no means so generally the case — a statement Hofmann unjustly
calls in question — as our epistle seems to presuppose, but took place for
the most part then only when the heathen were instigated by the Jews
(Acts xvii. 5, xviii. 12), or by particular individuals to whose interests
Christianity was opposed (cf. Acts xvi. 16 ff., xix. 23 ff.). And albeit
Tacitus records that the Christians, even so early as the burning of Rome,
were the odium humani generis and per flagitia invisi, they could have begun
to be so only after Christianity had shown itself a power capable of advancing
on heathendom and convulsing it. This it became only in consequence
of Paul's missionary labor ; and Weiss is not justified in taking advantage of
the fact to support his views as to the early date of composition. On the
other hand, the epistle shows that, at the tirae of its origin, the hostility of
the Gentiles towards Christianity had not risen to such a height that the
heathen authorities sought to suppress that religion as a religio nova fraught
with danger to the state, but had confined itself as yet to slanders and the
like, to which the heathen population were incited for the reasons given
in chap. iv. All this, in like manner, harmonizes with the date above
mentioned. Weiss concludes that the epistle belongs to a tirae considerably
earlier, from the following circumstances : " that these sufferings were for
^ The opposite view (Hofmann's), that the nected hia own; and that he took Mark, who
epistle was written between the autumn of was with him when he composed his epistle,
the year 63 and that of 64, le baaed on assump- away with him from Ephesus, " because that
tions, the correctness of which cannot be of all the Jewish converts who, without be-
proved. Hofmann supposes, that, immedi- longing to the company of the Apostle of
ately after Paul's release, Peter undertook the Gentiles, were preaching Christ in Rome
the journey from Jei-usalem to Rome, passing at the time of Paul's Imprisonment, he was,
through Asia Minor by way of Ephesus, perhaps, the only one whose conduct towards
withal " In order that he might restrain those Peter was influenced by love instead of by
whose enmity towards Paul threatened to Jealousy and enmity ;" that, Immediately upon
produce a dissension which would have been his arrival at Rome, he wrote his epistle. All
specially injurious to the church of the world's these suppositions are purely fictions, nor
capital;" further, that during this journey can the slightest trace of them be found In
he became acquainted with the Epistle to the the Epistle of Peter.
Ephesians, with which he " purposely " con-

192 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
the Christians still something new, at which they wondered ; " and " that
to the heathen it was a thing novel and strange that the Christians should
renounce their vicious life ; " and from this also, that " the apostle still
expresses the naive (!) hope that the heathen, on becoming better acquainted
with the holy walk of the Christians, would cease from their enmity, as
having arisen from ignorance.'' The conclusion, however, is unwarranted,
the more so that, on the views above expressed as to the origin of the
churches of Asia Minor and the date of the epistle's composition, the time
during which the churches had existed was even shorter than on the theoiy
supported by Weiss ; according to the latter, they had already been in
existence for about twenty years ; according to the former, for only about
fifteen. Under these circumstances, which he has oraitted to take into
account, Weiss can naturally draw nothing favorable to his own opinions
from the expression occurring in chap. ii. 2 : dpnyevvyra (Speipy. The men
tion, too, of the veurepoi, in contrast to the npeaftvTepoi (chap. v. 5), is not
evidence that the epistle was composed at an earlier date, for there is no
proof that suoh veurepoi were no longer to be found in the churches of
Asia Minor, say, ten years after the time mentioned by Weiss. But the
chief reason which Weiss adduces as proof that the churches in question
were not Gentile-Christian, but Judaeo-Christian comraunities which had
already been in existence before the apostolic career of Paul, and that
Peter's epistle had been written before the literary labors of the former
had commenced, is his own affirmation, that the doctrinal system of Peter's
epistle "is preparatory to that of Paul." This assertion, in itself erroneous
and opposed to the real state of the case (cf . more particularly Jul. Kostlin,
E'lnheit und Mannigfaltigkeit in d. neutest. Lehre, in the Jahrb. fur deutsche
Theologie, 1858), can be brought as evidence of the early composition of
the epistle the less that it in no way admits of proof that Paul became
acquainted with the opinions of Peter by means only of this epistle, and
that Peter afterwards renounced his own system for that of Paul. From
the presence of Silvanus and Mark with Peter at the time he coraposed this
epistle, nothing with any exactitude can be concluded, since the former is
mentioned in Acts xviii. 5 as the companion of Paul ; the latter, although
he was in Rome (Col. iv. 10) during Paul's first imprisonment, and during
the second (2 Tim. iv. 11) in Asia Minor, may have been with Peter at any
other time.

INTRODUCTION. 193

SEC. 4. — AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE.
The epistle is one of the writings of the N. T., the authenticity of which
is most clearly established from antiquity. Although in the works of the
Apostolic Fathers, Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, and Ignatius, there are no
formal citations from the epistle, but only echoes of it, the direct reference
of which cannot with certainty be established, still, on the other hand, it is
undeniable, not only that it is mentioned in the so-called Second Epistle of
Peter, but that Polycarp also quotes verbatim several passages from it, thus
justifying the remark of Eusebius (H. E., iv. 14), that Polycarp had already
made use of it; we have it likewise on the testimony of Eusebius, that
Papias did the same in his work, loyiuv KvpiuKuv t^yyyaeig. Irenaeus, Tertul
lian, Clemens Alex., Origen, Cyprian, quote passages from the epistle with
direct reference to it by name, and that without the smallest hint that
there had ever a doubt been entertained as to its genuineness. It is found
also in the older Peschito, which contains only the three catholic epistles.
Eusebius justly, then, numbers it with the Homologuraena. In the so-called
Muratorian Canon our epistle is doubtless not definitely quoted, but the
passage to which reference is made is not of such a nature that it can be
used to impugn the authenticity of the epistle.^ The words of Leontlus of
1 The passage runs thus: "Epistola aane would not allow to be read in the Church."
Judae et auperacrjpti Johannls duas in ca- — Dietlein's conjecture and explanation ia still
tholica habentur. Et sapientia ab amicis Salo simpler (2>ie .ffaiA. .Srze/e, Th. I. p. 47). Ac-
monis in honorem ipsius scripta. Apocalypsis cording to it, instead of Apocalypsis, there
etiam Johannls et Petri tantum reclpimus, should be Apocalypses, and the passage
quara quidem ex nostris legi in ecclesia would be translated : " Furthermore, of
nolunt." — Hug, who looks upon the whole Apocalypses we accept only those of John
document aa a translation from the Greek, and Peter, which (latter) some amongst us
puts a full atop after Johannls, and connects would not allow to be read in the church."
the words Apocalypsis etiam Johannls with — Thiersch's change of tantum into unam
what precedes ; he regards tantum as a epistolam, and of the words quam quidem
misunderstood translation of povriv, and quam into alteram quidam, is rather too bold.
quidem (or quidam) = rrs irape{ rive;. Gue- According to Hofmann, the epistle is not
ricke agrees with Hug, only with this differ. alluded to in the Fragment; he, like Hug,
ence, that, instead of ijs irapef rives, he con- accepts an original Greek document, and
siders ijv rive; to be the original text. — takes the flrst half of the passage to say of
Wieseler likewise unites the first words with the Epistle of Jude, and of the two, as stated
the preceding passage, and then reads quem in the superscription, by John (consequently
quidam, so that the sense is : " Of Peter also the first Is not included, for it has no super-
we accept as much (as of John, who was scription), that they are valued in the Church
previously mentioned, i.e., two epistles. and as utterances of wisdom written by friends
an Apocalypse), which some amongat us of Solomon (i.e., Chrlat) to his honor; in

194 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
Byzantium do not prove that Theodoret of Mopsuestia disbelieved in its
genuineness (Contr. Nestor, et Eutych., iii. 14), on which Theodorus: " ob
quam causam, ut arbitror, ipsam epistolam Jacobi et alias deinceps aliorum
catholicos abrogat et antiquat." The fact, however, that the Paulicians,
according to the testimony of Petrus Siculus (Hist. Manich., p. 17), rejected
it, plainly does not affect the question.
In more recent times, Cludius (Uransichten des Christenthums) was the
first to deny the epistle's genuineness — on grounds, however, entirely insuf
ficient, the weightiest of them being, that in thought and expression it bears
a too great similarity to the Pauline epistles ever to have been composed by
Peter. This is what brought Eichhorn to the hypothesis that the epistle
was written by some one who had for a long time been connected with Paul,
and had consequently adopted his current ideas and phrases. But as this
cannot be applicable to Peter, and yet as all worth must not be denied to
ecclesiastical tradition, Eichhorn goes farther, and concludes that Peter
supplied the material, but that Mark worked it up into the epistle before
us.i Bertholdt, while justly rejecting this hypothesis, has defended the
opinion hinted at already by Hieronymus, and more definitely expressed by
Baronius, that the epistle was uot originally written in Greek (but in Ara
maic; according to Baronius, in Hebrew), and translated by an interpreter
(Baronius holds by Mark, Bertholdt by Silvanus) into Greek. But this
hypothesis is not less arbitrary than that of Eichhorn ; for, on the one hand,
it is an assertion incapable of proof that Peter could not have been familiar
with the Greek language ; and, on the other, as rauch the entire diction of the
epistle as the harmony with the corresponding passages in the epistles of Paul
and Jaraes, and the whole matter of quotation from the O. T., are evidence
against any other than a Greek original. De Wette speaks with some vacil
lation as to the genuineness.^ He recognizes, indeed, the weight of the
external testimony, and thinks it would be hazardous in the face of it to
the second part of the passage he understands the tradition of the Church, from the earliest
the writer to say : We so far accept the times, unanimously pronounces Peter to be
revelations both of .John and Peter, as. Indeed, the author, still thinks that there is much
eome of us will not allow them to be read in the epistle (more especially its dependence
in tbe Church. on the Pauline epistles already mentioned,
^ Ewald's assertion is no less arbitrary, without any understanding of the system of
that Peter, not being able to speak and write Paul) which appears strange as coming from
Greek fluently, employed Silvanus to write Peter. He himself, however, attempts to
the epistle. refute his own objections, though without
2 Reuaa, too (Gesch. d. heil. Schri/ten being able to make up his mind to aoknowl-
If. T), while, no doubt, recognizing that edge decidedly the authenticity of the epistle.

INTRODUCTION. 1 95
condemn the epistle as spurious ; yet still he is of opinion that its character
is evidence rather against than for its genuineness, — especially on account
of its want of distinctive features, and the reminiscences of the epistles
already repeatedly mentioned. In reply, it must be urged that the epistle
is in no wise wanting in individual impress, and that the writings referred
to, if Peter had read and become farailiar with them, might have left such
an impression on him that echoes of thera should be discernible without this
in any way interfering with a free and independent development of thought,
or standing in contradiction to the personal and apostolic character of the
composition. That the Tubingen school should hold this epistle to be spu
rious, was of course to be expected frora its views respecting the apostolic
and post-apostolic age.^ The reasons which Schwegler urges against the
genuineness are the following: (1) The want of any definite external
occasion, and the general character of its contents and aira. — But such a
want is not apparent, and the general character is to be explained, partly by
the fact that the apostle was personally unacquainted with the members
of the church, and partly by the designation of the epistle as a circular
letter. (2) The want of any literary or theological character bearing the
impress of individuality. — It has, however, been shown in § 2, that in the
epistle there is no want of individuality; but that this must necessarily
be as sharply defined as in Paul and John, is an unwarrantable demand.
(3) The want of any inner connection of thought. — But the tendency of
the epistle is opposed to any such " firm, definite progression of thought "
as Schwegler demands, and as is to be found in the Pauline epistles. (4) It
was impossible that Peter, while laboring in the far East at a tirae and in a
region destitute of any raeans of literary communication, could have had in
his hand the later epistles of Paul — supposing these to be genuine — so
short a time after their composition. — But in Peter's epistle there are
no echoes of the latest of Paul's epistles. It cannot be denied that between
the composition of this epistle and that to the Ephesians, a period of time
elapsed suflficiently long to allow of the possibility of Peter's having become
acquainted with the latter; nor will it be disputed that even before his resi
dence in Babylon Peter might have known it. (5) The impossibility — on
the assumption of its having been composed in Babylon — of harmonizing
the Neronic persecution, presupposed in the epistle, with the martyrdom of
Peter in Rome during that persecution. —But the supposition that the per-
1 Pfieiderer's opinion, that the Apostle insipid Paulinism peculiar to later tlmea (see
Peter was in favor of a Judaic Chi-istianlty, on thla §2, p. 16 f.), must necessarily lead
whilst the epistle expresses a feeble and him to deny the authenticity also.

196 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
secution here referred to was the Neronic finds no support in the epistle ;
nor is it by any means a necessary assumption for " the friends of the con
servative school of historians, and a positive criticism," that the persecution
referred to be the Neronic. — For his theory that the epistle was written in
post-apostolic times, and withal under Trajan, Schwegler chiefly depends
(here Pfleiderer agrees with hira) on this, that the persecution presupposed
in the epistle is not the Neronic, but the Trajanic ; and for the truth of his
assertion he brings the following proofs : (1) The calm, unimpassioned
tone of the epistle, as contrasted with the impression which the Neronic
persecution made upon the Christians. (2) Under Nero the Christians were
persecuted, inasmuch as they were accused of participation in fire-raising,
that is to say, on account of a definite crirae ; but at the time of this letter
they suffered persecution as Christians (ug xP'onavoi), on whom suspicion
was sought to be thrown on account of their general behavior (ug KOKonoio'i).
(3) It is incapable of proof, and incredible, that the Neronic persecution
extended beyond Rome. (4) The epistle takes for granted investigations,
with regular trial and under legal forms ; whilst the Neronic persecution
was a tumultuary act of popular law. (5) The position of Christianity in
Asia Minor, presupposed in the epistle, corresponds with the description
of it given in Pliny's letter to Trajan. — Of all these, however, this one
point alone must be conceded, that the persecution referred to cannot be
regarded as due directly to the burning of Rome — all the other assertions
being based simply on arbitrary assumptions or on false interpretations.'
It is also entirely out of place for Schwegler to understand the formula of
salutation (v. 12) symbolically, so as to find in it the expression of the later
church tradition " as to the presence of Peter in Rome, along with his
eppevevryg Mark,'' and to assert that v. 2 points to an ecclesiastico-political
constitution (!) which had overspread the whole of Christendom, and to the

1 In opposition to Schwegler, it must be the people, have had to endure persecution
remarked: (1) The pasaionless tone would in the provinces as well. (4) No mention
remain equally admirable in the Trajanic is made in onr epistle of any judicial perse-
persecution .is under that of Nero; any other cution of the Christians according to legal
style would have been hardly becoming an form. (6) The description given in Pliny's
apostle. (2) From the flrst, and not under letter does not prove that the perseculion
Trajan alone, the Christians had to suffer raentioned here was that uuder Trajan; in
from the very fact of their being Christians. the latter, the Christians were punished for-
(3) Although the persecution of Nero, i.e., mally with death; whilst there ia nothing
tbe one which he hiraself instiluted, did in our epistle to show that such took place in
not extend beyond Rorae, still, in his day, the former.
tbe Christians might, through the hatred of

INTRODUCTION. 197
sway of hierarchical tendencies (!) which had already forced their way into
it. Schwegler sees the real design of the epistle expressed in the passage
V. 12, according to which "it is simply the attempt on the part of one of
Paul's followers to reconcile the two opposing schools of Peter and Paul,
by putting into the raouth of Peter, as testimony to the orthodoxy of his
fellow-apostle Paul, a somewhat Petrine-colored presentation of the Pauline
system." Schwegler seeks to establish this hypothesis, which even Pfleiderer
calls in question, thus : that, on the one hand, in the epistle are to be found
" almost all the chief conceptions and fundamental ideas " of Paul ; on the
other, the latter's doctrine of justiflcatlon is wanting, and thoughts, views,
and expressions occur which are peculiar to Petrinism. It is not to be
denied that Schwegler, in carrying out his idea, has sought out every point
which could in any way be used in its favor ; his labor, however, has been
in vain — the untenableness of the hypothesis being too apparent. For if
the raaintenance of the churches in the gospel preached to thera be a matter
obviously near to the apostle's heart, yet in its whole coraposition there is no
justification for the assertion that the epistle has for its aim a conciliatory
design which is nowhere apparent in it. How strange that the matter of
chief moraent should be, not the exhortations of which the epistle is com
posed, but soraething entirely different — nowhere expressed in it, not even
in ver. 5 ! How can a Paulinism be conceived of from which the very pith
is wanting, the doctrine of justification by faith, with its characteristic
terminology: bmaioaivy and bmaioiaBail Precisely the absence of this doc
trine, and the other points which Schwegler brings forward as evidence of a
Petrine coloring, show that the epistle cannot have been composed by one
who belonged to the school of Paul, but raust be the production of Peter, or
of one of his disciples. ' Lastly, opposed to Schwegler's hypothesis as to the
post-apostolic origin of the epistle, is the circurastance that it is hardly con
ceivable how a forger should have atterapted to paliii off on definitely formed
churches, some fifty years after his death, a letter professing to have been
written by Peter, in which they are comforted in their present affliction ;
and that he should have been so successful, that the fraud was detected by
no one in the churches (comp. against Schwegler, in particular Briickner,
Introd., § 5a). — Although the characteristic traits which Krummacher
1 Namely, the great stress laid on KaXd flclal services; the conception of Christians
epya, on ayaflr) dvaarpoip-i], OU dyairrf{\). On as the true Messianic people; the introduction
dyaBomielv, On eATTi's, aa a dogmatic funda- into the new covenant of the idea of the
mental idea synonymous with jtio-tw ; the O. T. priesthood; the expresaion Sioairopa in
symbolizing of the Jewiah temple and aacri- the superscription.

198 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
(Evangel. Kirchenzeitung, 1829, No. 49), and after him Guericke, brings as
proof of the genuineness, namely, " the manner of exhortation, so human and
evangelical, so strong and gentle ; the urgent directions to steadfastness of
faith in lowliness and patience, with reference to the example and the glory
of Christ ; the urgent appeal to more watchfulness and sobriety, the higher
their calling as believers ; the repeated summonses to humility ; the way in
which the general aim is kept in view; the clearness, precision, and em
phatic character of the style," — these charactei-istic features, although in
themselves they do not prove Peter to have been the author of the epistle,
still show that it breathes an apostolic spirit such as is not peculiar to post-
apostolic writings, and that in its inward structure there is nothing to justify
a doubt as to its genuineness.

CHAP. I. 199

Tlerpov eirtoToA.-^ a .
Instead of this superscription, which A, C, X have, B reads Tlerpov a'; in
some min., it is Tlerpov KaBolmy npury imaroly, and, in G, iniaroly koBoImkij a' roi
dyiov Kal navevipypov dnoarblav Uerpov.

CHAPTER I.
Ver. 6. Ei beov iart]. Tisch. omits iari; it is wanting also in B, X, Clem., etc. ;
Lachm. has retained it; the most of the codd. (A, C, K, L, P, etc.) read it,
indeed ; but it is more easy to explain how it was afterwards added than how it
was left out later. — IvnyBevreg]. The reading IvnyBevrag, in L, X, and several
min., is probably only an error in copying. — Ver. 7. nolvnpbrepov, adopted by
Griesb. already, instead of noli ripiurepov in K, etc. Instead of ripyv koI bb^av
(Ree, according to K, L, P, etc.), Lachm. and Tisch. read bb^av Kal npyv, which
is supported by A, B, C, X, many min., several vss., etc. — Ver. 8. e'lboreg],
Ree, after A, K, L, P, etc., Copt., Clem., Theoph., etc.; Lachm. and Tisch.,
following B, C, X, 27, etc., Syr., Aeth., etc., read ibbvreg; as both readings give
a fitting sense, and as both are attested by high authorities, it cannot with
certainty be decided which is the original. Briickner and Hofmann are in favor
of ibbvreg, Schott of eibbreg, Wiesinger uncertain. — Ver. 9. After nlareug, Tisch.
7, following B, several min., Clem., Aeth., etc., omits ipuv, attested though it
be by most of the authorities (A, C, K, L, P, X, al., etc.) ; Tisch. 8 has retained.
Although it may be superfluous for the meaning, yet its omission is not justifled.
— Vv. 10, 11. Instead of i^ypeivyaav and ipevvdivreg, Tisch., following A, B, has
adopted i^ypaivyaav, and, after B*, ipavvuvreg. — Ver. 11. B omits Xpiarov, which
must be regarded as a correction. — Ver. 12. Instead of the Received yplv de
(K, al., Copt., etc.), Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., have rightly adopted the
reading ipiv bi, attested by A, B, C, L, P, X, al., Vulg., etc iv nvevpan dyiu].
Ree, after C, K, L, P, X, etc., Copt., Theoph., etc. (Tisch. 8); Lachm. and
Tisch. 7 omit iv, after A, B, al., Slav., Vulg., Cypr., Didym., etc. Possibly iv
was interpolated on account of the usage prevalent elsewhere in the N. T. —
Ver. 16. Tisch. 7 reads, after yiypanrai: 'on uyioi eaeaBe, bn; on the other hand,
Tisch. 8 omits bn before dyioi, and has, after iaeaBe: dibn. With the preponder
ance of authorities, Hytoi eaeaBe, on is to be read ; almost B alone is in favor of
on before uyioi; and, for diori, only X. — yiveaBe]. Ree, after K, P, etc. Lachm.
and Tisch. rightly read iaeaBe after A, B, C, X, al., Vulg., Clem., Syr.; yiveaBe'
1 Buttmann has retained the Ree. ffplv Se oU rather than & . . . itpZv would be expected
after B as he asserts. De Wette holds the after iiplv; Briickner justly gives preference
Ree. to be the original reading, it being natural to the opposing testimony.
that the apostle should include himself, and

200 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
is a correction after the preceding yevyByre. In the LXX. , iaeaBe stands. — In A,
B*, X, Clem., Cyr., elpi is wanting after ayiog; Lachm. and Tisch. have justly
omitted it. — Ver. 20. Lachm. and Tisch. rightly read, instead of in' iaxaruv
(Ree, after K, L, P, etc.), in' 'eaxarov (A, B, C, X, al, Copt., Syr., utr., ete).
— Instead of vpdg, A and several min. have yudg, which, however, must be
considered as a correction. —Ver. 21. niarevovrag']. Ree, according to C, K,
L, P, X, etc., several vss., Theoph., Oec. ; still the reading maruvg might be
preferred as the more difficult, with Lachm. and Tisch., after A, B, especially
as marbg eig does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. ; Wiesinger and Schott also
consider niarovg the original reading, whilst Hofmann gives the preference to
the Ree — Ver. 22. The Ree has the words did nveiparog after dlyBeiag, following
K, L, P, Theoph., etc., which Griesb. already considers suspicious; Lachm. and
Tisch. have justly omitted them, following A, B, C, X, many min., etc. — Lachm.
and Tisch. read iK Kapblag (A, B, Vulg.); the Ree is m KaBapdg Kapblag (C, K, L,
P, X, al., nearly all the vss., etc. ) ; KaBapdg is certainly very suspicious, since its
addition is more easily explained than its omission; cf. 1 Tim. i. 5; 2 Tim. ii. 22;
on the other hand, however, see Rom. vi. 17. Hofmann assumes that KaBapdg
is omitted only by mistake. — Ver. 23. The words eig rbv aiuva, following in the
Ree after pivovrog, which, in A, B, C, X, and other authorities, are wanting,
were justly omitted already by Griesb. — Ver. 24. Lachm. omits ug before xoprog,
after A, several rain., Syr., etc. Most of the witnesses are in favor of ug, the
omission of which is to be regarded as a correction after the text of the LXX.
— (Sofa airyg, after A, B, O, K, L, P, etc., instead of the Ree, to be found almost
only in min., Ree : bb^a dvBpunov. In X, pr. m., is to be found the reading, ii bb^a
avroi. After rb dvBog, the Ree has airoi, retained by Tisch. 7, after C, K, L, P,
etc., Vulg., Copt. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have omitted it after A, B, X, etc.; it
is certainly suspicious, since it may have been interpolated as an explanation;
on the other hand, its omission may be a correction after Isa. xl. 7, LXX.
Vv. 1, 2. The superscription, while corresponding in fundamental plan
with those of the Pauline epistles, has nevertheless a peculiar character of
its own. — IlETpof]. As Paul in his epistles calls hiraself not by his original
narae lailog, so Peter designates hiraself not by his original name 'Zipuv, but
by that given him by Christ, which " may be regarded as his apostolic, his
official, name" (Schott); otherwise in 2 Pet.: 'Lvpeiiv Uirpog. — An addition
such as bid Belyparog Qeoi, or the like, of which Paul oftentimes, though not
always, makes use in the superscriptions of his epistles, was unnecessary
for Peter. — Peter designates his readers by the words : iKleKrolg napembypoig
biaanopdg Ubvrov, k.t.X; he calls the Christians to whom he writes — for that
his epistle is addressed to Christians cannot be doubted — " elect strangers ;"
and withal, those who belong to the biaanopd throughout Pontus, etc. iKleKrol
the Christians are named, inasmuch as God had chosen thera to be His own,
in order that they might be raade partakers of the Klypovopia (ver. 4) reserved
for them in heaven; cf. chap. ii. 9: ipeig yevog iKleKrbv. — napenibypog is he
who dwells in a land of which he is not a native (where his home is not) ;
in the LXX. it is given as the rendering of Dt^)!^, Gen. xxiii. 4; Ps xxxix.
12 (iu other passages 3i2/'in is translated by ndpomog; cf. Exod. xii. 45; Lev.
xxii. 10, xxv. 23, 47, etc.); in the Apocrypha napenibypog does not occur; in
the N. T., besides in this passage, it is to be found in chap. ii. 11 ; Heb. xi

CHAP. I. 1, 2. 201
13. — If account be taken of vv. 4, 17 (6 ryg napomiag ipuv xp^vog), and par
ticularly of chap. ii. 11, it cannot be doubted that Peter styled his readers
napenibypoi, because during their present life upon earth they, as Christians,
were not in their true home, which is the Klypovopia . . . rerypypevy iv ovpavolg.
The expression is understood in this sense by the more modern writers, in
particular by Steiger, Bruckner, Wiesinger, Weiss, Luthardt (Renter's Re-
pertor., 1855, Nov.), Schott, Hofmann, etc.i It is incorrect to refer the
word here to an earthly home, that is, Palestine, as is done by De Wette,
and in like manner by Weizsacker (in Renter's Rejiert., 1858, No. 3).^
Remark. — In the O. T., 3i2'in occurs in its strict signification in Gen.
xxiii. 4; Exod. xii. 45; Lev. xxii. 10, xxv. 47 (LXX., ndpomog). In Lev. xxv. 23,
the Israelites are called D'3E^ini D'"),J in a peculiar connection; God says that
such they are with Him ('"IHi?, cf. Gen. xxiii. 4), in that the land wherein they
should dwell belongs to Him. The same idea is to be found in Ps. xxxix. 12,
where the Psalmist bases his request for hearing on this, that he is "^i and
2T0\F\ with God C^l^V), as were his fathers; for although in vv. 5-7 the short
ness of human life is made specially prominent, yet there is nothing to
show, that, in ver. 12, there is any reference to this. On the other hand, in
1 Chron. xxix. (xxx.) 15, David, in prayer to God, speaks of himself and his
people as D'")J and D"32/in, because they have no abiding rest on earth ('J'!?; 7X3
ni.pp I'XI I'lXn-b;?); here it is not the preposition ^Hi', but "J3?, which is
used. In the passage Ps. cxix. 19, the relation in which the Psalmist speaks
of himself as a stranger is not expressed |'l^ii3, ver. 54; he calls his earthly life
'¦lUD, as Jacob in Gen. xlvii. 9, which points evidently enough to the circum
stance that the Israelites were not without the consciousness that their real home
lay beyond this earthly life; cf. on this, Heb. xi. 13, 14, and Delitzsch in loe.
Whilst the expression cKleKroig napembypoig — wherein not eiMKrolg (Hof
mann) but napembrjpoig is the substantival idea — is applicable to all Chris
tians, the following words : biaanopdg Ubvrov, K.r.l., specify those Christians to
whora the epistle is addressed (cf. the superscriptions of the Pauline epistles).
— biaanopd, strictly an abstract idea, denotes, according to Jewish usage :
" Israel living- scattered among the heathen," — that is, it is a complex of
concrete ideas, 2 Macc. i. 27; John vii. 35; cf. Meyer 'in loe; Winer, Bibl.
1 It is inexact to interpret TrapeniSi^poi sim- as he is aware of the inheritance reserved for
ply by '^pilgrims of earth ; " Steinmeyer, ou him in heaven; thla knowledge the unbeliever
the other hand (Disquisitio in Ep. Petr. I. cannot have, and accordingly he cannot feel
prooemium), rightly observes: "Quum man. himself a stranger on earth." It is not the
sio iu terra aempiterna permittatur nemini, in knowing and feeling, but the really being,
universos oranes vox quadaret, nee in eos solos, which is of consequence.
qui per evangelium vocati sunt;" but when 2 jt is still raore erroneous to suppose, as
Steinmeyer adds ; "Quare censemur, irapeTriS. Reuss does (Gesch. der h. Schriften N. T.,
. . . siguiflcare ... in mundo viventes, cujus § 147, note), that Ihe readers are hero termed
esse desierint, cui ipsi sint perosi," he thus napeiriS., " because they are looked upon aa
gives an improper application to the word, the D"1J proselytes, i.e., Israelites according to
more so that the conception Koapo^, iu an faith, not according lo the form of worship."
ethical sense, is foreign 10 the Epistle of Peter. This view, however, Is opposed to the usus
Weiss weakens tne idea by saying; "The loquendi, since 7rapen-i5»j/xot nowhere denotes
Chdstian is in so far a stranger on the earth proselytes.

202 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
Realworterb., see under "Zerstreuung." ^ The question is now: Is the word
to be taken as applying only to the Jewish nation ? From of old the ques
tion has, by many interpreters, been answered in the affirmative (Didymus,
Oecumenius, Eusebius, Calvin, Beza, De Wette, Weiss, etc.), aud therefrom
the conclusion has been drawn that the readers of the epistle were Jewish
Christians.'' But the character of the epistle is opposed to this view (cf.
Introd., § 3). Since the Apostle Peter regarded Christians as the true Israel,
of which the Israel of ttie O. T. was ouly the type (ii. 9), there is nothing to
prevent the expression being applied, as many interpreters holdj^to the Chris
tians, and withal to those who dwelt outside of Canaan. No doubt this land
had not for the N. T. Church the sarae significance which it possessed for
that of the 0. T., still it was the scene of Christ's labors, and in Jerusalem
was the mother church of all Christendom.'' Some interpreters, like Aretius,
Schott, Hofmann, leave entirely out of view the local reference of the word,
and take it as applying to the whole of Christendom ecclesia dispersa in toto
orbe, in so far as the latter represents " a concrete corporeal centre around
which the members of the church were locally united," and "has its point
of union in that Christ who is seated at the right hand of God" (Schott).*
Against this, however, it must be urged that Peter, if he had wished the
word biaanopd to have been understood in a sense so entirely different from
the established usage, would in some way or other have indicated this. — It
is entirely erroneous to suppose * that in the expression used by Peter the
readers are designated as heathen Christians, or even ' as aforetime proselytes.
The one correct interpretation is, that in the superscription those readers
only are described as " Christians, who constituted the people of God living,
scattered throughout the regions mentioned, who, in consequence of their
election, had becoine strangers in the world, but who had their inheritance
and horae in heaven, whither they were journeying" (Wiesinger). The
reason why Peter employed this term with reference to his readers lies in
the design of the epistle ; he speaks of them as iKlenroi, in order that in their
present condition of suffering he might assure them of their state of grace
t The LXX. translate HI J (as a collective Kara irvevpa, that he looks upon the converted
noun), Deut. xxx. 4, Neh. i. 9, by Staanopd, heathen as the branches ingrafted into Israel,
and as Inexactly and even incorrectly T)}?'\U that he was ever anxious to keep up the con-
Jer. xxxiv. 17; DIID, Jer.xv. 7; '7X"lE?'''T1?j, nection between the heathen Christian churches
Isa. xlix. 6. * ' " T . . - : ^^^ ^^^ mother church lu Jerusalem, aud that
2 Taken in this way, the genit. Siaanopd, ^^_ distinctly terms the Church triumphant
must be interpreted as genit. partit., thus : the ^ '"^ "i^liovaaXijp.
members of the Siaairopd who have become ' Schott, however, grants that " Peter con.
Christians (eKAe(cToi:T(tpe7riSij^ioO. Weiszacker siders Jerusalem and the mother church in
IS altogether mistaken (Renter's Repert., 1S5S, Jerusalem typically as the ideal centre for all
No. 3) in his opiuion that the reference is to believers uuder the New Covenant."
" the Christians who, in as far as they dwell "^ With Augustine (Contra Faustum, xxii.
among the dispersed Jewish communities, are S9), Procopius (In Jes., xv. 20), Cassiodorus
members of the Diaspora." (De instil, div. litt., ii. p. 516), Luther, Gual-
3 Bruckner, Wiesinger, Wieseler too; Rett- ther, and others, and, among more recent
berg in Ersch-Gruber, see under "Petrus," authors, Steiger.
and others. ' With Credner (Einl., p. 638), Neudecker
* It is worthy of note that Paul also con- (Einl., p. 677).
eiders the Chriatlan Church to be the Israel

CHAP. I. 1, 2. 203
as napenibypoi, that they might know that they belonged to the home of
believers in heaven. But it is at least open to doubt whether in biaanopdg
there is any reference to the present want of direct union around Christ
(Sohott). — Uovtov, Talariag, k.t.1. The provinces of Asia Minor are named
chiefly in a westerly direction, Galatia westward from Pontus, then the
enumeration continues with Cappadocia lying south from Galatia, that is to •
say, in the east, and goes frora thence westward towards Asia, after which
Bithynia is mentioned, the eastern boundary of the northern part of Asia
Minor. So that Bengel is not so far wrong (as opposed to Wiesinger) when
he says : Quinque provinicas nominal eo ordine, quo occurrebant scribenti ex
oriente. If in Asia, besides Caria, Lydia, and Mysia, Phrygia also (Ptolem.,
V. 2) be included, and in Galatia the lands of Pamphylia, Pisidia, and a part
of Lycaonia, — which, however, is improbable, — the provinces mentioned
by Peter will embrace almost the whole of Asia Minor. — In the N.T.
there is no mention of the founding of the Christian churches in Pontus,
Cappadocia, and Bithynia. — Ver. 2. Kard npoyvuaiv, k.t.1. The three ad
juncts, beginning with different prepositions, are not to be taken with
dnbarolog, as Cyrillus (De recta fide), Oeoumen., Kahnis (Lehre c. Abendm ,
p. 65), and others think, but with iKleKrolg napembyuoig, pointing out as they
do the origin, the raeans, and the end of the condition in which the readers
as iKAeKTol napenibyuoi were. It is further incorrect to limit, as is prevalently
done, their reference simply to the terra iKleKrolg,'^ and to find in thera a more
particular definition of the method of the divine election. Steinmeyer, in
violation of the grammatical construction, gives a different reference to each
of the three adjuncts joining kotu npbyv. with iKleKrolg, iv dyiaapu with napem-
6-yuoig, and eig inuK. with dyiaapu. But inasrauch as the ideas 'eKleKrolg napemby
uoig stand in closest connection, the two. prepositions kutu and iv raust apply
equally to them. Kard states that the iKleKrol napen'ibyuoi are such in virtue of
the npbyvucig Qeoi; Kara denotes "the origin, and gives the pattern according
to which" (so, too, Wiesinger). npbyvuaig is translated generally by the
commentators as predestination ; ^ this is no doubt inexact, still it must be
observed, that in the N. T. npbyvuaig stands always in such a connection as
to show that it expresses an idea akin to that of predestination, but without
the idea of knowing or of taking cognizance being lost. It is the perceiving
of God by raeans of which the object is determined, as that which He per
ceives it to be. Cf. Meyer on Rora. viii. 29: "It is God's being aware in
His plan, in virtue of which, before the subjects are destined by Him to sal-

^ Hofmann supports this application as of the condition in which the readers were, is
against that to n-apeTriSvjjUot?, " because the opposed to a connection with eK\eKToZi. Cf.
state of being, a stranger, even though taken 1 Cor. i. 1, where Sia BekripaToi stands con-
spiritually, is not a condition to which' the nected with kA^jto? dnoaroXoi 'Itjct. Xp., aud
prepositional determinations are suited." Hof- not with KAyjros; see 2 Cor. i. 1.
mann does not state the ground of this asser- ' Lyranus, praedestiuatio; Eraamus, prae-
tion; as the'idea of being a stranger is identical finitio; Beza, antegressum decretum s. pro-
with that of being a Christian, theae are very poaitum Dei ; Luther, the foreseeing of God ;
well adapted to ejcAe/cToi! napeniSripois. The Gerhard, irpoOean juxta quam facta eat eleo.
mere circumatance that the question here is tlo ; de Wette, (SovAij or irpoopiapoi,
not one of a nearer definition of election, but

204 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
vation, He knows who are to be so destined by Him." Tt is incorrect, there
fore, to understand the word as denoting simply foreknowledge ; ^ this leads
to a Pelagianizing interpretation, and is met by Augustine's phrase : eUgeu'
(los facit Deus, non invenit. Estius translates npnyvDoic at once hy praedilectio :
other interpreters, as Bengel, Wiesinger, Schott, would include the idea of
love, at least, in that of foreknowledge ; but although it must be granted
that the -npoyvuaiQ of God here spoken of cannot be conceived of without His
love, it must not be overlooked that the idea of love is not made prominent.^
Hofmann says: *'• irpoyvDaLQ is — precognition; here, therefore, a work of God
the Father, which consists in this, that He makes beforehand those whom
He has chosen, objects of a knowledge, as the akin and homogeueoas are
known, that is, of an approving knowledge." — narpdc is added to OtoO; the
apostle has already in his mind the following 7rvEvuaro(: and 'lijaov Xfjiarovy iu
order thereby to emphasize more definitely the threefold basis of election.
Bengel: Mysterium Trinitatis et oeconomia salutis nostrae innuitur hoc versu. —
Iv ayiaofiC) irvevfiaToc. It seems simplest and most natural to interpret, with
Luther and most others, "through the sanctifying of ihe Spirit" — that is,
taking dytaauog actively, and h as denoting the instrumentality. The only
diffiulty in the way is, that dytaafLogj a word foreign to classical Greek, and
occurring but seldom in the Apocrypha, has constantly the neutral signifi
cation, "sanctification; "2 cf. Meyer on Rom. vi. 19. Now, since the word,
as far as the form is concerned, admits of both meanings,^ it is certainly
permissible to assume that here — deviating from the general usus loquendi
— it may have an active signification, as perhaps also in 2 Thess. ii. 13. If
1 The word has not this eigmfication in the to. If it be here taken in an active sense, and
N. T. ; it has it, however, in the Book of i'/:Aa)i' be the objective genitive, the subject is
Judith, ix. 6 and xi. 19. — The verb Trpoyiyvtaa-- wanting; but if vfj.(ov be the subjective geni-
K^Lv has the meaning of simple foreknowledge tive, then it ie the object which is wanting.
in Acts xxvi. 5 and 2 Pet. iii. 17 (so, too, Book Liinemann's iuterpretation accordingly : •' that
ot Wisd. vi. 13, viii. 8, xviii. 6) ; the sense is you sanctify yourselves.," is unwarranted.
different in Rom. viii. 29, xi. 2, and 1 Pet. avtatr/xo? can only be artiticially interpreted by
i. 20. *' sanctifying " in the passages quoted. A
2 Schott's assertion, that *^ ytyvuta-Keiv is striking example of this is Hofmann's inter-
ahoays a cognizance of this kind, since he who pretation of 1 Thess. iv. 4. Only in 2 These.
is cognizant gives himself up in his inmost ii. 13, where the expreBsion, as here, is: ev
nature to the object in question, so as again to aytacrjuw TrfevjuaTos, does the active meaning
take it up into his being and to appropriate it eeem to correspond better than the neuter with
to himself," — further, that "the perceiving the thought. There is no foundation whatever
of God creates its own objects, and conse- for the opinion of Cremer, cf. s. t., that —
quently is a Trpo'yty;'ulo-«eti'," and that accord- whilst in the Apocrypha the word never has
ingly neither death nor siu can be the objects an active signification, but is either " sanc-
of God's foreknowledge, — contradicts itself tuary" (thus also in the LXX. Ezek. xiv. -i
by the clearest statements of Scripture: cf. and Amos ii. 11) or "sanctity" — it is in the
Deut. ix. 24, xxxi. 27', Matt. xxii. 18; Luke N. T. for the most part •' sanctifying." —
xvi. 15; John v. 42; 1 Cor. iii. 20, etc. Schott very justly calls in question the active
s Cf. Rom. vi. 19, where it is contrasted signification of the word; but when, not con-
with dyo^tta; 1 Cor. i. 30, where it is connected tent with the rendering "sanctification," he
with SixaiocTui'y), 1 Tim. ii. 15 with aYaTTTj, and interprets: "the condition of holiness being
1 Thess. iv. 4 with ti/xt? ; 1 Thess. iv. 7, whei-e increasingly realized," he confuses the concep-
it stands iu antithesis to dKa^apo-ta; and Heb. tion by references which are simply imported.
xii. 14, where, like slprivf\v (cf. 1 Tim. vi. 11 : * Cf. Buttmann, .^u^'tiA?'/. griech. Sprachl.
Sttofce ^iKaiodvvqv) ^ it depends on StaJKeTe; in §119,20.
1 Thess. iv. 3 also it has the meaning referred

CHAP. I. 1, 2. 205
the preposition iv be taken as equal to " through," there results an appro
priate progression of thought from origin (kutu) to means (iv), and further
to end (eig). If, however, the usage establish a hard and fast rule, the inter
pretation must be: "the holiness wrought by the (Holy) Spirit," so that the
genitive as gen. auct. has a signification similar to that in the expression
bmaioavvy Qeoi ; '¦ in this interpretation iv may equally have an instrumental
force. No doubt, many interpreters deny that iv can here be equal to bid,
since the election is not accomplished by means of the Holy Spirit. But
this ground gives way if the three nearer definitions refer not to the election,
— as a divine activity, — and so not to the iKleinolg alone, but to the state
into which the readers had been introduced by the choice of God, that is, to
the iKleKrolg napembypoig. It is incorrect to attribute to iv here a final signifi
cation ; Beza : ad sancti fie ationem ; De Wette : eig rb elvai iv dyiaapu ; the con
ception of purpose begins only with the subsequent e'lg. — The explanation,
that 'ev dy. nu. points out the sphere (or the limitations) within which the
readers are c/ca. napen. (formerly supported in this comraentary), is wanting
in the necessary clearness of thought. — eig vnaKoyv koI (lavriapbv aiparog 'lyaov
Xp. Tbe third adjunct to iKl. napen'ib., giving' the end towards which this
condition is directed. The preposition eig is not to be connected with dyiaapbg
(De Wette, Steinraeyer) ; for although such a construction be grammatically
possible, the reference to the Trinity goes to show that these words raust
be taken as a third adjunct, co-ordinate with the two preceding clauses.
Besides, if there were two parts only, the conjunction koI would hardly be
wanting. vnaKoy is to be construed neither with 'Xynoi Xpiaroi, whether taken
as a subjective genitive (Beza: designatur nostrae sanctificationis subjectum,
nempe Christus Jesus qui patri fuit obediens ad mortem, where eig is arbitrarily
rendered by did), nor, with Hofmann and Schott, as an objective genitive :
" obedience towards Christ " (for then this genitive would stand in a relation
other than to aiparog),^ nor with aiparog. vnuKoy must be taken here abso
lutely, as in ver. 14; cf. Rom. vi. 16. With regard to the meaning of
iiruKoy, many interpreters understand by it faith in Christ ; so Luther, Ger
hard, Vorstius, Heidegger, Bengel, Wiesinger, Hofmann, etc. : others, on
the contrary, take it to signify " moral obedience ; " so Pott, De Wette,
Schott, etc. Many of the former, however, insist that by it a faith is meant
"which of itself includes a conduct corresponding to it " (Hofmann), whilst
by the latter it is emphasized that that moral obedience is meant which
1 The idea of holiness is here by no raeans to5, might at the same time be objective geni-
inappropriate, since the readers would uot be tive to ifiraKOTJ. In opposition to this, we
ekAckto'l iTapeTTLSi}poi if they had not become observe (1) that it is self-contradictory to say
dyioL through the Holy Spirit. It is this aytov that pacT. a'iparo? forms one conception, and
elvat. which is here expressed by dyiaapos. that 'Ijjo-oO Xp. is dependent on aiparog ; and
Also .in 2 Thess. ii. 13, there is no urgent (2) that it is gramraatically inadmissible to
reason for departing from this signiticatiou of take the same genitive as being at once sub-
the word. Hofmann erroneously appeals to jective and objective genitive. — This much
2 Macc. xiv. 36 ; cf. Cremer, ». V. only is correct, that the nearer definition,
2 Hofmann thinks that since pavrnTphi alp.a- which must be supplied to viraKoyi, has, in
Tos forms one conception, and viraKoy can be sense, to be borrowed frora the subsequent
accompanied by an objective genitive, 'lyaov genitive 'lij<roO Xp.
XpiaToO, being the subjective genitive to aipa-

206 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
springs from faith, so that both interpretations are substantially in accord.
It may then be said that vnaKoy is the life of man conformed in faith and
walk to the will of the Lord, which the iKleKrol napenibypoi as such must
realize ; so that there is no reason why the idea should be limited towards
the one side or the other; cf. 1 John iii. 23. The second particular: kuI
pavTiapbv aipaiog 'lyaov Xpiaroi, is closely linked on to inuKoy. Some commen
tators have held that the O. T. type on which this expression is based was
the paschal lamb.i Others think that the ceremonial of the great day of
atonement is raeant.^ Wrongly, however; for although in both cases blood
was eraployed, neither the blood of the paschal lamb nor that of the offering
of atonement was used to sprinkle the people. With the former the posts
were tinged ; with the latter the sacred vessels were sprinkled. Steinmeyer
is wrong in tracing the expression to the sprinkling with water (Lev. xix.)
of him who had been defiled through contact with a corpse, from the fact
that the LXX. have bavnapbg only in this passage. For, apart from the arti-
ficialness of the ex2:ilanation which Steinmeyer^ thus feels himself compelled
to adopt, the reference to the water of sprinkling is inapt, since raention is
made here of a sprinklii g of blood, and not of water. A sprinkling of the
people with blood took place only on the occasion of the sacrifice of the cove
nant.^ The O. T. tj-pe on which the expression is founded is no other than
the making of the covenant related in Exod. xxiv. 8, to which even Gerhard
had made reference, and as, in more recent times, has been acknowledged
by BrUckner, Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott. This is clear from Heb. ix. 19
(la^Hv rb alpa idiv pbaxuv . . . ndvra rbv labv ifipdvriae) and xii. 24, where aipa
pavriapoi, i.e., "the blood by means of the sprinkling of which the ratifica
tion of the covenant took place," is connected with the imraediately preced
ing Kat biaByKyg veag peairyg. Accordingly, by fiavriapbg aiparog 'lya. Xp. is to be
understood the ratification of the covenant relation grounded on the death
of Christ, with those thereto ordained; the reference here, however, being
not to the comraenceraent, but to the continuance of that relation. For by

1 Thus Beda: "aspersi sanguine Christi the blood of Christ, qua in mortis salvatoris
potestatem Satanae vitant, sicut Israel per nostri communionem trahamur.
agni sanguinem Aegypti dominatum declina- 4 When Wiesinger remarks : "But in Heb.
vlt; Aretius, etc. ^^ 22, ippavriapevoi T-as KapSias djrb avveiS.
2 Thus Pott, Augusti, Steiger, Ueteri, „o„,pa; is based on the typical sacrifice of the
^*'*^' greatday of atonement, although eppavriapevoi
3 Since Steinmeyer, from the fact that tbe jg transferred here to persons, and dud points
LXX. translate the Hebrew m; 'D (which is j,, ^ cleansing and freeing from the conscious.
not, in his view, equal to " water of puriflca- ness of guilt," we cannot iu this agree with
tion," but to "water of impurity") by iiSwp him; nor do either Liinemann or Delitzsch
poi/Tio-fioi, concludes that povTicrno! does not see here any reference to the great sacrifice of
simply mean aspereio, but ea aspersio, cujus atonement. The former explains the expres-
ratio, causa, effectus verbis fTIJ 'D descripta sion "on the analogy of the sprinkling with
sunt, — that is, since that water was tanquam blood by which the first Levitical priests were
mortis instar, quum in ipsius mortis commu- consecrated;" while the latter quotes by way
nionera ita redigeret immundos, ut reduceren- of explanation the passage Heb. xii. 24, where
tur inde iu munditiem vitae, ejusmodi aspersio he terms the alpa pavnapov the antitype of the
quae in naturam sparsae aquae trahit, atque blood with which Moses sprinkled the people
virtute ipsius sparsos penitus imbuit, he ex- at the institution and consecration of the cove-
plains pavTiap. a'tp. "I. Xp. as a sprinkling with nant.

CHAP. I. 3-12. 207
this expression the apostle does not intend to remind his readers of the end
God had in view in their election, but to set before them what the purpose
of their election is, which, like the inoKoy, should therefore be realized in
them as the elect strangers. They are then iKleKrol napenibypoi, in order that
they may constantly render obedience to Christ, and in Him constantly pos
sess the forgiveness of sins.* — The kuI standing between vnaKoyv and pavnapov
is taken by Steinmeyer as an explicative ; he explains : " in obedientiam, atque
in eam praesertim, ut aspergamini sanguine Christi h. e. ut vos in mortis Jesu
Christi communionem Iraki patiamini." Incorrectly: "inasmuch as the active
idea of obedience can never be explained by the passive being sprinkled "
(Wiesinger) ; and the introduction of the idea pati is arbitrary. — It is
further to be observed that the readers are, by the expression last used :
(lavT. aiparog 'lyaov Xpiarov, here for the first time characterized directly as
Christians, all the previous designations having been equally applicable to
the children of Israel; a circumstance which shows clearly enough that Peter
regards the Christian Church as the true Israel, and that without making
it in any way dependent on national connection. — As regards the lexicol
ogy, it must be remarked that in classical Greek pavnapbg never occurs, and
pavrl^eiv Only in later writers : the usual word is paiveiv, e.g., Euripides, Iphig.
in Aul., 1589: yg aipari jSupbv paiver' dpbyv ryg Qeoi; in the LXX. both verbal
forms : pavnapbg, only in Num. xix., in a somewhat inexact translation,
however. — xupig vplv kuI eipyvy nlyBvvBe'iy. The distinction between xopii and
e'lpyvy is thus drawn by Gerhard: "pax a gratia distinguitur tanquam fructus
et EFFECTUS a sua causa." In harmony with this, xupig is regarded by the
interpreters for the most part as " the subjective in God " (Meyer on Kom.
i. 7) ; but Paul's use of dnb and the subsequent nlySvvBely show that by xapig
in forms of greeting, is to be understood the gifts which flow from it (the
manifestation of grace), eipyvy specifies this gift more closely accbrding to
its nature (see on 1 Tim. i. 2).^ nlyBwBeiyl. Luther: "ye have peace and
grace, but not yet to the full ; " on the salutation form in the N. T., besides
here only in 2 Pet. i. 2 and Jude 2; in O. T. in Dan. iii'. 31, LXX.: eipyvy
iplv nlyBvvBe'iy.^
Vv. 3-12. Praise to God for the grace of which the Christians had been
made the partakers. The prominence which the apostle gives to dvayevvg.v
eig ilniba (uaav, as also his designation of them as iKleKrol napenibypoi, is occa
sioned by the present state of suffering in which his readers were, and above
which he is desirous of raising them.
1 Hofmann is accordingly wrong in main- ' When Schott, in order to preserve the
taining that " what is here meant has taken objectiveness of e'lprjvq, erroneously under-
place once for all for the readers, and Is not stands it to mean "the state of matters which
continually lo be done." Nor does this alto- to those who are in it occasions inwardly no
gether accord with his own interpretation, want or unrest, and externally no harm or dls-
when he says, " the readers are chosen to turbance," it must be urged in opposition that
become obedient to Christ, and partakers of the Inwardness of a possession does not in any
His propitiation for sin." The Christian, on way affect its objectiveness.
being received into communion with Christ, has » Cf . Schoettgen : florae Ilehr. et Talm., on
been sprinkled with Ills blood, but still he this passage.
requires a continual cleansing, and this, he re
ceives, if he walk in the light; cf. 1 John 1. 7. '

208 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
Ver. 3. evloyyrbg b Qebg Kal naryp rov Kvp. yp. 'I. Xpiaroi. The same formula
occurs in 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 3. — evloyyrbg, not: "worthy of praise," but:
"praised ; " in the LXX. the translation of 13^1 ; in the N. T. the word
eiloyyrbg used only with reference to God. ely and not iariv is probably to
be supplied, as is done by most commentators, cf. Meyer on Eph. i. 1;
Winer, p. 545 (E. T., 586) (Schott; Buttm., p. 120 [E. T., 137]), at least
from the fact that in the doxologies introduced by means of relatives, iariv
is to be found (cf. Rom. i. 25; also 1 Pet. iv. 11), it cannot be concluded
that the indicative is to be supplied in an ascription of praise quite differ
ently constructed, cf. LXX. Job i. 21. The adjunct koI narf/p, k.t.1., to 6 Qebg
is explainable as a natural expression of the Christian consciousness. It is
possible " that the whole formula of doxology has its origin in the liturgical
usage, so to speak, in the primitive Christian Church" (Weiss, p. 401). —
6 Kara rb noli avroi ileog dvayevvyaag ypdg. The participial clause states the
reason why God is to be praised, noli gives prominence to the riches of
the divine mercy, Eph. ii. .4 : nloiaiog uv iv ileet. Kara is used here in the same
sense as in ver. 2. dvayevvyaag has its nearer definition in the subsequent
fif ilniba l^uaav. De Wette joins these intimately connected ideas in a some
what too loose way, when he thus interprets : " who hath awakened us to
repentance and faith, and thereby at the same time to a hope.'' Similarly
Wiesinger, who takes dvayevvyaag as a self-contained idea, and connects eig
iln'iba with it, in this sense, " that in the idea of regeneration this particular
determination of it is brought into prominence, that it is a new birth to
living hope, i.e., as born again we have attained unto a lively hope; " thus
Schott. This view, however, refutes itself, because it necessitates unjustifi
able supplements. More in harmony with the expression is Bruckner's
interpretation, according to which e'lg denotes the aim of the new birth
(" the hope is conceived of as the aim of him by whom the readers have
been begotten again ; " thus Morus, already : Deus nos in melius mutavit, cur f
ut sperare possimus). But if the attainment of aurypia be conceived as the
aim and end of the new birth, the hopes directed to it cannot be so, all
the less that this hope forms an essential element of the new life itself. The
verb dvayevvdv is here taken not as an absolute, but as a relative, idea, its
supplement lying in eig 'ein. f. (so also Steinraeyer, Weiss, Hofmann). The
'elnlg ^uaa is then to be thought of as the life into which the mercy of God
has raised or begotten the believer from the death of hopelessness (Eph.
ii. 12 : iv ru Koipu 'tKeivu xuplg Xpiarov . . . ilnlda py exovreg) ; the connection is
the same as in Gal. iv. 24, where the siraple yevvg.v is also construed with
eig.'- This view is justified, not only by the close connection of eig with the
idea dvayewfv, but also by the corresponding adj. ^uaav. In this there is no
> Against this interpretation Schott urges: tation their former condition maybe consid-
that dvayevvdv does not mean " to awaken," ered as a hopeless one, and can undoubtedly
that "a death of despair" is not alluded to, be regarded as a death; aud (3) it cannot be
that neither eKirit nor eAirls iuaa denotes " a denied that hope is life. In opposition to
life of hope." These reasons are insignificant, Schott's assertion, that dvayevvdv is every-
for (1) the expression "awakened" is not where a self-contained idea, it is to be noted
employed in order to give the full meaning of that the word occurs in the N. T. only here
di'ctyei/roi'; (2) even ou the opposite interpre- and in ver. 23.

CHAP. I. 4. 209
weakening of the idea dvayevvgiv (in opposition to AViesinger), for ilnig need
not be conceived as representing one single side of the Christian Hfe, but
under it may be understood the whole Christian life in its relation to the
future aurypia. It is incorrect to take ilnig here in the objective sense, as :
object of hope; Aretius: res, quae spei subjectae sunt, h. e. vita aeterna;
Bengel : haereditas coelestis , so also Hottinger, Hensler, etc. It is used
rather in the subjective sense to denote the inward condition of life. — The
expression ^uaa has been variously translated by the commentators; thus
Beza explains it as : perennis; Aretius: solida; Piscator: vivifica; Gualther:
spes viva certitudinem salutis significat; Heidegger: ^uaa: quia et fructus vitae
edit, et spes vitae est et permanet ; quia non languida, infirma est, sed nappj/alav
et nenolByaiv habet et perpetua simul semperque exhilarans est, neque unquam
intermoritur, sed semper renovatur et refocillatur ; in the first edition of
this comraentary; "the hope of the Christian is pervaded by life, carry
ing with it in undying power the certainty of fulfilment (Rom. v. 5),
and making the heart joyful and happy ; " it " has life in itself, and gives
life, and at the same tirae has life as its object" (De Wette). Taken
strictly, fuora characterizes the hope as one which has life in itself, and is
therefore operative. All else may as a matter of fact be connected with it,
but is not contained in the word itself (Weiss, p. 92) ; more especially, too,
the idea that it has the certainty of its own realization (Hofmann) ; cf. i.
23: li'iyog ^uv; ii. 4, 5: llBog ^uv. Gerhard incorrectly interprets ilnig hj fides,
sice ^ fiducialis meriti Christi apprehensio quae est regenerationis nostrae causa
formalis. For apart from the fact that Peter is not here speaking of regen
eration at all, iln'ig and n'larig are in themselves separate ideas, which cannot
be arbitrarily substituted for one another. It is erroneous also, with Luther,
Calvin, and others, to resolve ilnig ^uaa into ilnig Zuyg ; (una denotes not the
end, but the nature of the hope. — &' dvaardaeug 'lya. Xpiarov Ik vsKpCiv is not
to be joined with i;uaav,^ but with dvayevvyaag, more nearly defined by eig . . .
(uaav ; ^ for ^uaav does not define a particular kind of hope, but only gives
special prominence to an element already contained in the idea ilnig. The
resurrection of Christ is the means by which God has begotten us again to
the living hope. It is the fact which forms the living ground of Christian
hope. Wiesinger joins 6i' uvaar. somewhat too loosely with avay., explaining
as he does : " He hath begotten us again, and thus in virtue oi the resurrec
tion of Jesus Christ hath aided us to living hope." — As fuoaf corresponds to
the term dvayevvyaag, so does dvdaraaig in tho raost exact manner to both
of these ideas. By the resurrection of Christ the believer also is risen to
life. It must be remarked, the prepositions Kara, iv, eig, ver. 2, are used
to correspond with Kard, eig, did ; cf . ver. 5, the use of the prepositions : 'ev,
bid, eig.
Ver. 4. eig Klypovoplav, co-ordinate with the conception ilmba ; it is never-
> Oecum., Luth., Bengel, Lorinus, Steiger, apply it, iQ accordance with their interpreta-
De Wette, Hofmann. tion of dvay. ets eKiriSa, 6t' dvaaraaeu^, both
2 Calvin, Gerhard, Knapp, Weiss, p. 299, to regeneration and the hope therewith cou-
Schott, BrUckner. Schott and BrUckner, while nected, which, however, they term "a single
accepting the construction above indicated, homogeneous fact."

210 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
theless not dependent on it, but on dvayevvyaag, although it denotes the
objective blessing to which the ilnig has regard. It is added by way of
apposition, in order to describe more nearly the substance of the hope with
respect to its aim. — Klypovopia means, no doubt, in the O.' and N. T. (Matt.
xxi. 38; Luke xii. 13) sometimes inheritance; but more frequently it has
the signification of possession. In the O. T. it often serves to denote the
land of Canaan and its separate parts, promised and apportioned to the peo
ple of Israel (Deut. xii. 9 ; Lara. v. 2 ; Josh. xiii. 14, and other passages) :
y yy, yv Kvpiog b Qebg aov i'lbual not ev Klypu, Deut. xxiv. ^, or yv . . . bibual aoi
Klrjpovopf/aai. In the N. T., and so here also, by the term is to be under
stood the completed jSaailela rov Qeov with all its possessions, as the antitype
of the land of Canaan (cf. in particular, Heb. ix. 15). As this use of the
word is not based on the signification "inheritance," it cannot be main
tained, with Wiesinger (Schott agreeing with him), that Klypovopia stands
here with reference to dvayevvyaag, "to designate that of which the Chris
tians as children of God have expectations." ^ The following words : dipBaprov
Kal dplavTov Kal dpdpavrov, state the gloriousness of the Klypovopia.^ dipBaprog
(cf. chap. iii. 4), opposite of ij,Baprbg (ver. 18 equal to dno?Mpevog, ver. 7), cf.
ver. 23; Rom. i. 23; 1 Cor. ix. 25, xv. 53, 54; "not subject to the ipBopd."
dpiavrog (Jas. i. 27; Heb. vii, 26), "undefiled, undefilable." dpdpavrog utt.
ley. (dpapdvnvog is similar, chap. v. 4), "unfading;" in the last expression
prominence is given to the imperishable beauty of the Klypovopia. Steinmeyer's
opinion is incorrect, that dpiavrog has nearly the sarae raeaning as nolvnpog
and rlpwg, ver. 19. — It is not to be assuraed that Peter alludes to the char
acter "of the earthly Klypovopia (Weiss, p. 74) of the people of Israel,"
especially as there is nothing in the expressions dpdpavrog and dijiBaprog which
can without artificial straining adrait of suoh a reference.^ — rerypypivyv ev
nipavoig eig vpdg']. The apostle, having up to this time spoken generally, makes
a transition, and addresses his readers directly: dvayevv. ypdg; he thereby
assures them that that Klypovopia is a possession intended and reserved for
them. For the conception here expressed, cf. especially Col. i. 5, and
Meyer in toe. The perf. rerypypevyv (Luth., inexactly: "which is kept")
stands here with reference to the nearness of the time when their Klypovopia
will be allotted to believers ; ver. 5 : irolpyv dnoKalvifiByvai.^
Ver. 5. As the basis of the thought: rerypypevyv . . . eig vpdg, the apostle
subjoins to vpdg the additional roig iv bvvdpei ifpovpovpivovg . , , eig aurypiav, by
' No doubt Rom. \-iii. 17 might be appealed itself or its enemies (Jer. ii. 7; Lev. xviii. 28;
to in support of this interpretation, yet it Num. xxxv. 34; Ezek. xxxvi. 17; Ps. Ixxix. 1,
would be unwarrantable to maintain that the where the LXX. has piaiveiv) ; and in dpdpav-
idea there expressed belongs also lo Peter. It to? to the scorching of the country Dy the
must also be obsei-ved that even Paul, where simoom. Weiss thinks that <;<()8apT05 may
he makes nee of the term K\ripovopia, never allude to the ijiOeipeiv Tiji> yijv, Isa. xxiv. 3;
alludes to that Idea, —a circumstance which still he himself does not consider this proba-
has its reason in the current usage of the word. ble.
2 Calvin, inaccurately : " tria epiiheta quae * Hofmann, in disputing this by saying that
sequuntur ad gratiae Dei amplificationem the perf. partic. is not explained by the near-
posita sunt." ness of the time when the believers will be lu
¦' In dpiavrog, Weiss sees an allusion to the possession of the inheritance, calls in question
pollution of Judaia by the people ot Israel au assertion which is nowhere here made.

CHAP. I. 5. 211
which is expressed not the condition on which the readers might hope for
the heavenly Klypovopia, but the reason why they possess expectations of it.
The chief emphasis lies not on iv Svvdpei Qeoi (Sohott), but on ijipovpovpevovg
. . . eig aurypiav, inasrauch as the forraer expression serves only to define the
^pavpelaBai more precisely. Gerhard incorrectly makes the accusative depend
on dvayevvyaag. The prep, iv (as distinguished frora the following bid) points
out the divaptg Qeov as the causa efficiens (Gerhard), so that Luther's : "out of
God's power " is in sense correct ; the ippovpelaBai is based on the bvv. Qeoi.
Steinmeyer wrongly explains, referring to Gal. iii. 23, the bivapig Qeoi as the
ijipovpd within which the Christians as believers (bid nlareug equal to niarevovregl)
are kept, velut sub vetere T. lex carcerum instar exstitit, in quibus ol inb vbpov
bvreg custodiebantur. To assume an antithesis between the bvv. Qeoi and the
law in explanation of this passage, is entirely unjustifiable. By bvv. Qeoi is
not to be understood, with De Wette and Weiss (p. 189), the Holy Spirit;
He is never in any passage of the N. T. (not even in Luke i. 35) designated
by these words. The means by which the power of God effects the preserva
tion is the niang,''- the ultimate origin of which, nevertheless, is also the gra
cious will of God. — On ippovpovpivovg, Vorstius rightly remarks : notatur tails
custodia, quae praesidium habet adjunctum.^ The word by which the apostle
even here makes reference to the subsequent iv noiKlloig neipaapolg, ver. 6, has
its nearer definition in the following eig aurypiav irolpyv dnoKalvijiByvai, which
by Calvin (haec duo membra appositive lego, ut posterius sit prioris expositio, rem
unam duobus modis exprimit), Steiger, and others is joined to dvayevvyaag as a
co-ordinate adjunct to eig Klypovoplav. It is preferable to connect thera with
ippovpoupevovg ; the more so that Klypovopia, "with its predicates, so fnlly char
acterizes the object of hope, that eig aurypiav, k.t.X, would add nothing
further" (Wiesinger). The introduction of i/idf, too, is decidedly opposed
to the former construction. There is nothing to support the connection
with nlareug, in which aurypia would be regarded as the object of faith. Ac
cording to the cori-ect construction, the verbal conception is more nearly
defined by the addition of the origin, raeans, and end, cf . w. 2, 3.^ The
word aurypia is here — as the conjoined iroipy dnoKalv^Byvai shows — a, positive
conception; namely: the salvation effected and completed by Christ, not
simply a negative idea, "deliverance from dnuleia" (Weiss, p. 79). It does

1 TTio-Tts implies the entire and full Christian aptly says : " haereditas servata est; haeredes
faith; not simply confidence in Qod (Weiss), custodiuntur, neque illa his, neque hi deerunt
nor the mere " confident assurance of the sal- illi."
vation which is ready to be revealed " (Hof- ' Schott justly calls attention to the relation
mann); these are single elements which it of ijipovpovpevov^ to reTrtpijpevrjv : "If the re-
includcs, but which do not exhaust the idea. serving of the inheritance for Christiaus is not
According to Schott, the apostle has omitted to be fruitless, it must be accompanied by a
the article, in order to emphasize the fact that . . . preserving of them on earth for that
he means " that faith which, as to its inmost inheritance." He states the difference between
nature, is not dependent on sight" (I). the two expressions thus: "As regards the
2 Aretius rightly observes : " militare est inheritance, it is only necessary that its exist-
vocabulum •l>povpa: praesidium. Fli igitur, euce should not cease. Christians, on the other
dum sunt in periculis, sciant totidem eis di- hand, must be guarded and preserved from
vinitue parata esse praesidia: millia mlllium Influences endangering their state of salva-
custodiunt eos. Finis est salus." Bengel also tion."

212 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
not follow from the circumstance that Klypovouia and aurypia are synonymous
terms, that the former is "only the negative side of the completed salvation."
— The verb dnoKolvipByvai is here, as elsewhere, used to denote the disclosure
of what is already in existence (with God, iv ovpavolg, ver. 4), but as yet
hidden, eroipog is here, like pilluv often, joined with the inf. pass, (see Gal.
iii. 23. On the use of the inf. aor. in this connection, see Winer, p. 311 f.
[E. T., 332]) ; pilluv, nevertheless, has a less strong force. The future salva
tion lies ready to be revealed, that is to say : iv Kuipu iaxiiru, by which is
denoted the time when the world's history will be closed (not " the relatively
last; Bengel: In comparatione temporum V. T. ; but absolutely the last time
iv dnoKalvipei '1. Xp., ver. 7." Wiesinger). ^ When this tirae will be, the
apostle does not say; but his whole raanner of expression indicates that in
hope it floated before his vision as one near at hand ; cf . chap. iv. 7.
Ver. 6. iv li dyallidaBe']. The verb expresses the liveliness of the Christian
joy, equivalent to exult; it is stronger than xu'peiv, with which it is some
times connected (chap. iv. 13; Matt. v. 12; Rev. xix. 7).^ — iv ili refers
either to the preceding thought, that the salvation is ready to be revealed,'
or to Kaipip iaxdrip.^ In the first construction dyall. — in forra as in meaning
— is praesens, and denotes the present joy of the Christians over their future
salvation (cv li: over which, cf. chap. iv. 4).^ In the second construction a
double interpretation is possible, inasmuch as iv u may denote either the
object or the time of the joy ; in the first case the sense is : the Kuipbg iaxarog
is for you an object of joy, because in it the salvation will be revealed ; in
the second case the sense is : in that last time ye shall rejoice (so Wiesinger
and Hofmann) ; here the object of joy is doubtless not named, but it may
be easily supplied, and the want of it therefore cannot be urged against this
view (as opposed to Bruckner). The last of these different views deserves
the preference, both on account of the subsequent bliyov dpn . . . IvnyBivreg,
which forms a distinct antithesis to dyallidaBe, and of the idea peculiar to
the epistle, that in the present tirae the Christian has to sufi^er rather than
to exult, and only in the future can he expect the full joy; — and the preva
lent manner of conjunction, too, precisely in this section of the epistle, by
which what follows is linked directly on to the word imraediately preceding,
cf. vv. 5, 8, 10, shows that iv li applies to Kaipip iaxdnp. In this combination,
however, it is more natural to take iv in the same sense as in that which it

> Schott unjustifiably supposes that the Jachmann, De Wette, Bruckner, Steinmeyer,
want of the article indicates that " the aionipia Schott ; similarly Gerhard, who, however, ap-
would take place at a time which, from this plies it to all that precedes : dvayevvriaa^, etc.
very fact, must be regarded as the last." « Oecum., Erasmus, Luther, Wiesinger, etc.
2 Steinmeyer, whilst combating the opinion e BrUckner explains ev <} as above stated,
that i-j/aAA. has a stronger force than xa'pei", but he understauds iYoAAioo-Se in a future
correctly describes the oyaMiao-is as " affectio sense, " of that which shall most surely come
fervidior animi hilaris," but xi-pd unwarrant- to pass;" this interpretation is undoubtedly
ably as "perpetua illa cordis laetitia, quae inappropriate, inasmuch as the present assur-
heque auger! queat neque imminui." ance of the future salvation, stated in ver. 5,
a Calvin : " Articulus in quo refert totum may now indeed be an object of rejoicing, but
illud complexum de spe salutis in coelo reposi- will not be so then, when that future salvation
tae ; " so also Estius, G-rotius, Calov, Steiger, itself is attained.

CHAP. I. 6. 213
has before Kaiplj, rather than in another. ^ — Doubtless the present dyallidaBe
will then have a future force ; but this occasions no difficulty, there being
nothing uncommon in such a use of the present (cf. also Winer, p. 249
[E. T., 265 f.]). — The present tense strongly emphasizes the certainty of
the future joy, rays of which fall even on the present life.^ — bliyov dpn].
bliyov not of measure (Steiger), but of time, chap. v. 10, where it forras the
antithesis to aluviog ; , cf . Rev. xvii. 10 ; dpn denotes present time. The
juxtaposition of the two words is explainable by the apostle's hope that
the Kaipbg iaxarog would soon begin. — ei beov iari, not an affirmative (Bengel),
but a hypothetical parenthesis : si res ita feral : if it must be so, that is,
according to divine decree ; cf. chap. iii. 17.'' — ?ivnyBivTeg iv nomiloig neipaapolg].
The aorist with dpn has reference to tha future joy : " after that ye have now
for a short time been raade sorrowful." "It signifies the inward sadness, in
consequence of outward experiences" (Wiesinger). — Particula iv non solum
est xpoviKy, sed etiam ainoloyiKy (Gerhard). Both meanings pass over into
each other, so that iv is not to be interpreted as synonymous with bid. —
neipaauol are the events by which the faith of the Christian is proved or also
tempted ; here, specially the persecutions which he is called upon to endure
at the hands of the unbelieving world: cf. Jas. i. 2; Acts xx. 19. By the
addition of the adjective, the manifold nature of their different kinds is
pointed out.
Eemakk. — When Schott, in opposition to the interpretation here given,
maintains the purely present force of dyall. on the ground that " it must be
the apostle's object to commend, by way of exhortation, the readers for their
present state of mind," it is to be remarked, (1) That tlie apostle here gives
utterance to no exhortation; and (2) That the apostle might perfectly well direct
his readers to the certainty of the future joy, in order to strengthen them for
the patient endurance of their present condition of suffering. It is perfectly
arbitrary to assert with Schott, that, by apn, the present trials, as transitory, are
contrasted with the present joy, as enduring, as also to maintain, " that, by the
aorist IvnyBevreg, the suffering is reduced to the idea of au ever-changing variety
of individual momentary incidents, which, in virtue of the uniform joy, may
always lie behind the Christian surniounted " ( ! ). Schott insists again, without
reason, that ei deov [eari^ cannot be taken as referring to the divine decree, in
that it is "impossible to make the accomplished concrete fact of the IvnyByvai
hypothetical with respect to the will of God;" for it is not clear why Peter
should not characterize the IvnyByvai ev noiK. neipaapolg as something hypothetical

' Schott's assertion, that, as a rule, dyaXk. > Incorrectly Steinmeyer: "Qui per pere-
is connected by ev with its object, is erroneous. grinationis spatium, quaradiu necessarium est.
In the N. T. the passage, John v. 36, at the contristati estis." The older Protestant com-
most, can be quoted in support of this con- mentators, more especially, sometimes employ
struction; whilst In Luke x. 21, e;' accompa- this passage to combat the arbitrary seeking
nies the simple indication of time. In Luke after suffering; thus Luther says: "It Is not
i.'47, txyaAA. Is construed with eni c. dat. ; John to be our own works which we choose, but we
viii. 66, with iva. must await what God lays upon us and sends,
" It is altogether inappropriate to interpret eo that we go and follow, therefore thou mayest
dyaWidaQe, with Augustine, as an imperative, not thyself run after them."
the exhortations begin only in ver. 13,

214 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
here, where he does not as yet enter more particularly into the concrete facts.
Nor can it be assumed that el biov (iari) is added in order to remind the readers
that the nomOM neipaapol should, in reality, occasion no sadness, the less so that
thus the intimately connected IvnyBevreg 'ev noiK. neipaapolg are torn asunder.
Ver. 7. iva states the aira of the IvnyByvai iv . . . neipaapolg, in order to
console the readers with respect to it, "that the approvedness of your faith may
be found more precious than (that) of gold, which perisheth, yet it is tried by fire,
to (your) praise, and glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ." —
boKluiov here, as in Jas. i. 3 (cf. in loco), equal to doKipy, the approvedness as
the' result of the trial (Rom. v. 3, 4; 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13; PhiL ii. 22). i
The strict signification "medium of proof" is inappropriate, inasmuch as the
aim of the IvnyByvai iv neipaapolg cannot be stated as the glorification of these
neipaapol, but as only that of faith in its approvedness (in opposition to Stein
meyer). Unsuitable, too, is the interpretation "trial" (Bruckner, Wiesinger),
rb boKipiov ryg nlareug being taken for y niang boKipaQipivy, inasmuch as it is not
the trial of the faith, but the faith being tried that is to be compared with
the gold. This substitution of ideas is not justifiable, inasmuch as the
process applied to an object cannot be put for the object itself to which it is
applied. Only if boKipiov denote a quality of faith, can a substitution of this
kind take place, boxipiov must be taken as "approvedness," and by ap
provedness of faith, the " approved," or rather "the faith approving itself. "^
Eemaek. — What Schott had forraerly alleged with respect to dodpiov is
repeated by Hofmann, only by him it is carried further. By a highly artificial
interpretation of Ps. xii. 7, LXX., and by the application of the rule established
by him, " that the neuter of the adjective does uot stand in the place of an
abstract attributive, but expresses the condition of something as a concrete
reality, and, in conjunction with a genitive, denotes the object thereby named
in this its condition," Hofmann makes out that it is here affirmed that " at the
revelation of Christ, it will be foimd that the faith of the readers has been
subjected to purification, and is, in consequence, free from dross." This whole
interpretation is a pure matter of tancy ; for boKiuiov — a circumstance which
both Schott and Hofmann have left unnoticed — is not an adjective, but a real
substantive, for boKipelov. — Cremer explains : " 6ok. is not the touchstone only, in
and for itself, but the trace left behind on it by the metal; therefore rb 6ok. ryg
' SoKiprj in the N. T. has either an active or standing In opposition to xi^vaiov (SoKipa^ope-
a passive signification ; in the former it means vov), does not presuppose the purification of
" the trial which leads to approvedness," as In the-^old to have already taken place, and that,
2 Cor. viii. 2; in the latter, "the approvedness consequently, the irians SoKipaiopev-ii only can
effected by trial," as lu the passages quoted ; be considered ae compared with xpvaiov Sokl-
. or, better still, "a distinction must be drawn" ^a^o^ievoi^. But against this it must be ob-
between a present and a perfect force, in that served that SoKipiov has only the signification
SoKiniij has a reflexive sense; either, then, the of "means of proof," not of trial; and (3)
havingapproved jtself,ortheapprovingitself," That in the above interpretation it Is not the
Cremer, s.v. already approved faith, but that faith which is
2 Briickner raises the following objections being approved, or approving itself in tiibula-
to this 'interpretation: (1) That SoKi/iioi/ can tioUj which is contrasted with gold which is
linguistically only be understood as means' of being tried.
proof, trial; and (2) That the part, pres., ;,

CHAP. L 7. 215
mareug is that which results from the contact of niang with neipaapolg, that by
which faith is recognized as genuine, equal to the proof of faith." But, in
opposition to this, it must be remarked that fire, and not touchstone, is here
conceived as the means of testing.
— nolvnpbrepov, k.t.X, is hy most interpreters closely connected with
eipeBy; by others, again (Wolf, Pott, Steinmeyer, Wiesinger, Hofmann), sep
arated from it, and considered as in apposition to rb bodpiov vu. r. mar. The
following facts, however, are decisive against the latter construction: (1)
That — as Wiesinger admits — this appositional clause expresses "some
thing understood of itself." (2) That the intention here is not to make an
observation on faith, but to state what is the design of sorrow, namely, that
the faith which is approving itself may be found to be one nolvnpog. (3)
That thus eipeBy would be deprived of any nearer definition, in that the sub
sequent eig has reference not to eipedy alone, but to the whole idea expressed.
Yet it cannot well dispense with a nearer definition (in opposition to Hof
mann). — The genitive xpvaiov is, as almost all the interpreters take it, to be
joined in sense directly with the comparative: "than the gold," ao that the
boKipiov of the faith is compared with the gold. Some commentators, like
Beza, Grotius, Vorstius, Steinraeyer, Hofmann, assurae an ellipsis (cf. Winer,
p. 230 [E. T., 235]), supplying before xpvaiov the \^'ords y rb boKipiov. In
opposition it may be urged, however, not precisely "that this is cumbrous"
(Bruckner), but that the point of comparison is not properly the approval
6f faith, but the faith in the act of approving itself. Whilst comparing the
faith with the gold, the apostle places the former above the latter ; the reason
of this he states in the attribute roi dnollvpivov connected with xpvaiov, by
which reference is made to the imperishable nature of faith. To this first
attribute he subjoins the second : did nvpbg be boKipaiopivov, in order to name
here also the medium of proving, to which the neipaapol, with respect to faith,
correspond. Accordingly Wiesinger and Steinraeyer are wrong in asserting
that in the interpretation here given the attribute roi dnollvpivov is inappro
priate. — dnollvpevog : ipBaprbg, cf. vv. 18, 23; also John vi. 27. For the posi
tion of the adjective with art. after an anarthrous subst., see Winer, p. 131 f.
(E. T., 139). — did nvpbg be doKipaljope-oav. The particle be seeras to place this
second adjunct in antithesis to the first (dnollvpivov) (thus De Wette:
"which is perishable, and yet is proved by fire;" so also Hofraann). But
opposed to this view is the circurastance that the trial and purification of
what is perishable is by no raeans anything to occasion surprise ; it is there
fore more correct to find the purpose of the adjunct in this, that by it the
idea of the boKipdCeaBai is brought prominently forward. Vorstius reraarks
to the point : aurum igni committitur non ad iteritum, sed ad gloriam, sic fides
cruci ad gloriam subjicitur. — For this comparison, see Job xxiii. 10 ; Prov.
xvii. 3 ; Zech. xiii. 9. — eipeBy eig inaivov Kal do^av Kal npyv]. The verb eipeByvai,
"to be found to be," is more significant than e'lvai (cf. Winer, p. 572'f. [E. T.,
616J), and has reference to the judicial investigation on the last day of judg
ment. The words following form an adjunct to the whole preceding thought :
tva . . . eipeBy. Beza, rightly : hic agitur de ipsorum electorum laude, etc. ; thus ;

216 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
'' to your praise, glory, and honor." Schott quite arbitrarily interprets enaivog
as in itself : " the judicial recognition " (as opposed to this, cf . Phil. i. 11,
iv. 8) ; ripy : " the moral estimation of the person arising therefrom " (as
opposed to this, cf. 1 Pet. iii. 7), and db^a: "the form of glory" (as opposed
to this, cf. Gal. i. 5; Phil. i. 11). Steinmeyer incorrectly apphes the words
not to the persons, but to their faith, bb^a and ripy in the N. T. stand fre
quently together ; in connection with ETrawof, here only. The juxtaposition
of these synonymous expressions serves to give prominence to the one
idea of honorable recognition common to them all. Standing as bb^a does
between enaivog and ripy, it cannot signify " the allotment of the possession
of glory" (AViesinger), but it is "glory, praise." — iv dnoKalvipei 'lyaoi Xpiarov;
not through, but at, the revelation of Jesus Christ, that is, on the day of
His return, which is at once the dnoKdlvil>ig bmawKpialag rav Qeoi (Rom. ii. 5)
and the dnoKulvipig ruv viuv rov Qeoi (Rom. viii. 19).
Ver. 8. The longing of the believers is directed to the dnoKulvipig 'lya.
Xpiarov, He being the object of their love and joy. This thought is subjoined
to what precedes in two relative clauses, in order that thereby the apostle
may advert to the glory of the future salvation.- — bv ovk eibbreg dyandre,
" ivhom, although ye Icnotv Him not (that is, according to the flesh, or in His
earthly personality), ye love." The object of eibbreg is easily supplied from
07', according to the usage in Greek. The reading ibovreg expresses substan
tially the same thought. — Since dydny, properly speaking, presupposes per
sonal acquaintance, the clause oiK eibbreg is significantly added, in order to
set forth prominently that the relation to Christ is a higher than any based
on a knowledge after the flesh. — In the clause following — co-ordinate with
this — the thought is carried further, the apostle's glance being again di
rected to the future appearance of Christ. — eig ov upri uy cpuvreg marevovreg be
dyalljuaBe. As regards the construction, e'lg bv can hardly be taken with dyal-
IjuaBe, the participles bpuvreg and marevovreg thus standing absolutely (Fron-
miiller), but, as most interpreters are agreed, must be construed with
niareiovreg. The more precise determination of the thought raust depend on
whether dyoKhdaBe is, with De Wette, Bruckner, Winer, Steinraeyer, Weiss,
Schott, to be taken as referring to present, or, with Wiesinger and Hofraann,
to future joy. In the first case, dyaXlidaBe is joined in the closest manner
with marevovreg, and dpn only with py bpuvreg (De Wette : " and in Him,
though now seeing Him not, yet believing ye exult"); in the second, eig bv
. . . niareiovreg di is to be taken as the condition of the dyalXiuoBe, and dpn
to be joined with marevovreg (Wiesinger : " on whom for the present believ
ing, — although without seeing, — ye exult "). In support of the first view,
it may be advanced, that thus dyallidaBe corresponds more exactly to dyandre,
and that pf/ bpuvreg forras a raore natural antithesis to dyallidaBe than to
marevovreg ; for the second, that it is precisely one of the peculiarities char
acteristic of this epistle, that it sets forth the present condition of believers
as one chiefly of suffering, which only at the dnoKdlvipig of the Lord will be
changed into one of joy; that the more precise definition: xapd dveKlalyru
Kal bebo£,aapevy, as also the Subsequent Kopi^bpevoi, have reference to the future ;
that the dpn seems to involve the thought : " now ye see Him not, but then ye

CHAP. I. 9. 217
see Him, and shall rejoice in beholding Hira ; " and lastly, that the apostle,
iv. 13, expressly ascribes the dyalXidaBai to the future. On these grounds the
second view is preferable to the first. The present dyallidaBe need excite
the less surprise, that the future joy is one not only surely pledged to the
Christian, but which its certainty makes already present. It may, indeed,
be supposed that dyallidaBe must be conceived as in the same relation to
time with dyandre; yet, according to tbe sense, it is not the dyalluiaBai, but
the mareieiv, which forms the second characteristic of the Christian life
annexed to dyandv. It is not, however, the case, that on account of the
present marevovreg, dyall,.. also must be taken with a present signification
(Schott), since love and faith are the present ground of the joy beginning
indeed now, but perfected only in the future. The particle of time dpn
applies not only to py bpuvreg, but likewise to marevovreg be; the sense of py
douvreg marevovreg bi is not this, that although they now do not see, yet still
believe — the not seeing and the believing do uot form an antithesis, they
belong to each other ; but this, that the Christians do not indeed see, but
believe. On the distinction between ovk eibbreg and py bpuvreg, see Winer,
p. 452 (E. T., 485). — Xapd dveKlalynp koI bedo^aapevy serves to intensify
dya7,.liuaBe. uveKldlyrog, a?:, ley., " unspeakable," is either " what cannot be
expressed in words" (thus dldlyrog, Rom. viii. 26), or "what cannot be ex
hausted by words." 1 bebo^aauivy, according to Weiss, means: "the joy
which already bears within it the glory, in which the future glory comes
into play even in the Christian's earthly life;" sirailarly, Steinmeyer:
" hominis fidelis laetitia Jam exstat bebo^aapevy, quoniam dbiav ejus futuram prae-
sentem habet ac sentit ; " but on this interpretation relations are introduced
which in and for itself the word does not possess, bebo^aapevog means simply
" glorified ; " xapd debo^aau. is accordingly the joy which has attained unto
perfected glory; but "the imperfect joy of the Christian here (Wiesinger,
Hofmann), and not the joy of the world, which as of sense and transitory is
a joy-fj; drmia " (Fronmiiller), is to be regarded as its antithesis ; so that this
expression also seems to show that dyallidaBe is to be understood of the
future exultation.
Ver. 9. KopiZopevoi rb rilog, k.t.1., gives the reason of that joy; the parti
ciple links itself siraply on to dyallidaBe, "inasmuch as ye obtain," etc., and
supplies confirmation that what is here spoken of is not present but future
joy. It is arbitrary to interpret, with De Wette and Bruckner : " inasmuch
as ye are destined to obtain ; " or with Steiger : " inasmuch as even now in
foretaste ye obtain." Joined with the future present dyallmaBe, the participle
must also be in the present.^ Cf. with this passage, more especially chap.
^ Steinmeyer gives an unjustifiable applica- already In the assurance of faith)." Schott:
tion to the word, by saying: " Meminerimus " Since ye are about to, or on the way to, jn^Aef
tCiv woiKihiav neipaapSiv. Si quidem plurlraae in(\) Uke a harvest the end of your faith."
illae tentationes totidem laetitiae causas affe- Schott is clearly wrong when he asserts that if
rVinX.,s\ntidii\iio-TixapdeoderaBenav.dveK\d\-i)ro^ the apostle had had the future joy In his mind,
exstat, quo ireipaapoi nequeunt enumerarl." he must have written Koptadpevoi on account
2 Winer, in the 5th ed. (p. 403), gives the of the SeSo^aapevji, " because the attaining of
same interpretation as De Wette; in the 6th the end of salvation, which is still in the act
(p. 306) and the 7th (p. 330 [E. T., 361 f.]), on of being accomplished, could not be placed
the other hand : " as receiving (they are that parallel with the final glorification which has

218 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
V. 4. — KopiCeiv : " obtain " (cf. chap. v. 4), is in the N. T. frequently used of
the obtaining of what will be assigned to man at the last judgraent; 2 Pet.
ii. 13; 2 Cor. v. 10; Eph. vi. 8; Col. iii. 25. Steinmeyer incorrectly ex
plains the word : secum portare. — rb rilog, not " the reward " = piaBbg (Beza,
Vorstius, etc.), neither is it "the reward of victory" (Hofmann); > but it is
the end of faith, that to which it is directed ; see Cremer, s. v. — ryg nlareug
ipuv refers back to marevovreg, ver. 8. — aurypiav ipvxuv. The salvation is
indeed one already present ; but here is meant the Christians' completed
salvation, of which they shall be partakers, iv Koipu iaxuru (ver. 5). — On
Ipvxuv, Bengel reraarks: anima praecipue salvatur: corpus in resurrectione
participat; cf. Jas. i. 21; John xii. 25; Luke xxi. 19.
Vv. 10-12. The design of this pjaragraph is not to prove the truth of the
apostolic doctrine by its agreement with that of the prophets (Gerhard), but
to bring prominently forward the glory of the aurypia before spoken of, by
presenting it as the object of prophetic search. Calvin : " salut'is hujus
pretium inde commendat, quod in eam toto studio intente fuerunt jyrophetae."
Wiesinger also ; in such a way, however, that he holds the real tendency to
be this, that the readers should recognize themselves as " those favored ones
who, by the preaching of the gospel, had been raade partakers of the salva
tion foretold in the O. T." Schott thinks that here the position of the
Christians is corapared very favorably with that of the prophets, since
the latter had to cling to a bare word referring to an indefinite time; the
former, on the other hand, have in their possession of salvation the pledge
of a blessed future — indeed, in a certain sense even possess it. — But how
much is here introduced !
Ver. 10. nepl yg aurypiag i^eCyryaav kuI i^ypeivyaav npoipyrai]. The aurypia,
to which the search of the prophets was directed, is, as the connection : nepl
yg our., shows, the previously mentioned aurypia ipvxuv, which is the relog of
faith. Wiesinger and Schott extend the idea so as to include within it the
present salvation. This is correct thus far, that the future salvation is only
the corapletion of the present ; but it is precisely to the completion that the
apostle's glance is directed. De Wette is wrong in understanding by aurypia
" the work of salvation." — Both verbs express the earnest search, i^epewfv
is in the N, T. im. ley. (LXX., 1 Sam. xxiii. 23 : k/SU ; 1 Chron. xix. 3 : ipn).
The prefixed e/c serves to intensify the idea, without hinting that the prophets
selected the right time /rom among different periods (Steiger) ; see the other
passages in the N. T. where the verb iK^yrelv occurs. The aim of their
search is more precisely defined in ver. 11. Luther's translation is inexact:
" after vih'ich salvation;" nepi raeans rather: in respect to, with regard to. —
Calvin justly remarks : quum dicit prophetas sciscitatos esse et sedulo inquisivisse,
hoc ad eorum scripta aut doclrinam non pertinet, sed ad privatum desiderium
quo quisque aestuavit. A distinction is here drawn between the individual,
activity put forth on the basis of the revelation of which they had been
already taken place," since there is nothing i The expression Kopi^eiv indeed shows that
unreasonable in the idea that the joy of the Peter pictured to himself the reKoi of faith as
Christians is glorified when they receive the a trophy, but not that teAos literally means
end of their salvation. " trophy."

CHAP. I. 11. 219
made partakers, and that revelation itself (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann). '
To npoipyrai is Subjoined the nearer definition : ol nepl ryg eig ipdg xuptrog npo-
(jiyrevaavreg, by which some prophets are not distinguished from others, as
Hofmann thinks, but all are characterized according to their function. ^ — ^
eig ipdg xuptg, either frora the prophets' standpoint : " destined for you " (De
Wette, Briickner), or from that of the apostles : " the grace of which ye
have been made partakers " (Wiesinger, Schott). The first is the prefer
able view, xi^pte is not to be taken as identical with aurypia (as opposed to
Wiesinger), but the difference in expression points to a distinction in idea.
xupig denotes both the present and the future, aurypia only the future. Hof
mann attaches particular importance to the fact that ipdg and not ypdg is here
used ; assuming that by ipdg the readers must be understood to be heathen
Christians. This is, however, incorrect, since Peter nowhere in his epistle
makes a distinction between heathen and Jewish Christians; by ipdg the
readers are addressed not as heathen Christians, but as Christians in general;
cf . also vv. 3, 4 : dvayevvyaag ypdg . . . rerypypivovg eig vpdg.
Ver. 11 stands in close grammatical connection with the preceding, ipev-
vuvreg being conjoined with the verba finita of ver. 10 ; what follows states
the object of the ipevvdv. — eig riva y nolov Kaipbv']. r'lvu refers to the time itself,
nolov to its character.^ Steinmeyer (appealing without justification to Rora.
iv. 13) explains y incorrectly: vel potius; vel, ut reclius d'lcam. — 'ebylm, not
"referred to" (Luth.; or significaret, Vulg.), hut "revealed," as Heb. ix. 8,
xii. 17, etc. Vorstius supplies : gratiam illam exstiturain, de qua et ipsi vatici-
'nabantur; this is incorrect. eig . . . Kaipbv is conjoined rather directly —
though not as its real object, but as a secondary determination — with ibylov.
An object is not to be supplied (neither ravra nor riiv x'lpiv ravryv, Steiger),
as ibylov is in intimate union with the participle npouaprvpopevov (De Wette,
Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott), by which " at once the act of by?,ovv and its
object are exactly determined" (De Wette). — rb iv airoig nveipa Xpiaroi].
By this the revealing subject is mentioned: the prophets ouly expressed
what the Spirit within them communicated to them ; " the rb iv avrolg is to
be talcen as a special act of ibylov " (Wiesinger), cf . besides. Matt. xxii. 43
and 2 Pet. i. 21.^ — This Spirit is characterized as the rd nvevpa rov Xpiaroi,
not in that it bears witness of Christ (Bengel: Spiritus Christi: testans de
Christo ; thus also Grotius, Augustine, Jachmann), for Xpiaroi is the sub-
' Steinmeyer denies this distinction, and ^ Bengel: "in quod vel quale tempus; guod
says, interpreting riva ij nolov Kaipov, ver. 11, innuit tempus per se, quasi dicas aeram suis
by " de sola Inde indole temporis : " " neminem numeris notatam : quale dicit tempus ex event-
latebit, eos saepenumero de crescente piorum Ibus variis noscendura."
hominum desiderio nee non de aucta Impro- * Hofmann Is indeed not mistaken in saying
horum protervitate verba f ecisse ; . . . ecce ra that to ec aurois irv. Xp. Is a designation of
aypela toO pikkovro^ Kaipoii, quae indagata the Spirit working prophetic knowledge in the
praedlcarunt." According to this, eK^rireZv and prophets, and not of a constant indwelling of
i^epevvSv would be indagata praedicare ( ! ) . it, — only it must be observed that the expres-
* Bengel : " Articulus hic praetermissus sion here employed says nothing as to how
grandem facit orationem, nam audltorem a or In what manner the Spirit dwelt in the
determinata Indivlduorura consideratlone ad prophets.
ipsum genus spectandum traducit; sic ver. 12;
angell."

220 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
jective and not the objective genitive, but because it is the Spirit " which
Christ has aud gives " (Wiesinger) ; see Rom. viii. 8. The expression is to
be explained from the apostle's conviction of the pre-existence of Christ, and
is here used in reference strictly to the npopaprvpbpevov rd eig Xpiarbv naBypara,
K.T.X, directly conjoined with it. Barnabas, chap. v. : prophetae ab ipso
habentes donum in 'ilium prophetarunt.
Remark. — By far the greater number of the interpreters rightly see, in the
term here applied to the Spirit, a testimony to the real pre-existence of Christ.
Not so De Wette, who finds in it merely the expression of the view "that the
work of redemption is the same in both the O. and N. T., and that the Spirit of
God at work in the former is identical with the Spirit of Christ;" and Weiss
(pp. 247-249), who explains the name thus: That the Spirit which was at work
in the prophets was the same as "that wliich Christ received at His baptism,
and since then has possessed;" similarly Schmid also {Bibl. Theol, p. 163),
" the Spirit of God, which, in after time, worked in the person of Christ."
Weiss seeks to prove, indeed, that "Clirist had, in the pire-existent Messianic
Spirit, an ideal, or, in a certain sense, a real pre-existence;" but, in this way,
reflex ideas are attributed to the apostles, which certainly lay far from their
mind. Besides, Weiss himself admits, that, in 1 Cor. x. 4, 9, reference is made
to the pre-existent Christ; but it cannot be concluded, from Acts ii. 36, that
Peter did not believe it. Schott, too, in his fnterpretation, does not abstain
from introducing many results of modern thought, when he designates rb nv. Xp.
here as the Spirit "of the Mediator continually approaching the consummation
of salvation ( ! ), but as yet supernaturally concealed in God." Steinmeyer does
not touch the question of the pre-existence of Christ; he finds an adequate
explanation of the expression in the remark of Bengel, although he takes
Xpiaroi as a subject, gen.
— npopaprvpbpevov]. This verb compos, occurs nowhere else in the N. T.,
and in none of the classical writers ; the simplex means properly : " to call
to witness; " then, "to swear to, to attest; " npopapripeaBai is therefore: "to
attest beforehand."^ — The object of ibylov . . . npopapr. is rd eig Xpiarbv naBy/iara
Kat rdg perd ravra bo^ag]. On this Luther remarks, that it can be understood
of both kinds of suffering, of those which Christ Himself bore, as well as of
those which we endure. The majority of interpreters conceive the reference
to be to the former: Oecumenius, Theophyl., Erasraus, Grotius, Aretius,
Piscator (cf. Luke xxiv. 26), Vorstius, Hensler, Stolz, Hottinger, Knapp,
Steiger, De Wette, Bruckner, Steinmeyer, Wiesinger, Weiss, Luthardt,
Schott, Fronmiiller, Hofmann, etc.; but not so Calvin: non tractat Petr.
quod Christo sit proprium, sed de universali ecclesiae statu disserit ; Bolten and
Clericus explain it of the sufferings of the Christians ; the same position is
taken up in the first edition of this commentary. Since the main tendency
1 Schott justly remarks that 6r|AoCi/ and when he asserts that this identification takes
irpopapTvpeaOai are not Identical with Trpo^ri- place in the above interpretation. — Nor is
Teveiv, but that they denote the " action of the Schott warranted in supposing that in npopap.
Spirit," by means of which " He communicated the apostle emphatically shows that the man-
to the prophets the prophecies after which they ner of communication "was a revelation In
were to inquire." But he Is evidently mistaken the form of speech, and not an inward vision."

CHAP. I. 12. 221
of the paragraph, vv. 10-12, is to give special prominence to the glorious
nature of the believers' aurypia, the latter view is favored by the connection
of thought. But, on the other hand, there is nothing opposed to the assump
tion, that the apostle here mentions the facts on which the aurypia is founded,
as the substance of the testimony of the Spirit of God in the prophets. The
expression rd eig Xpiarbv naBypara too, which must be interpreted on the anal
ogy of ryg eig vpdg xupiTog, goes to show that by it are to be understood the
sufferings which icere ordained or appointed to Christ (Wiesinger). — On
the plural rdg . . . bb^ag, Bengel says: Plurale: gloria resurrectionis, gloria
ascensionis, gloria judicii extremi et regni coelestis ; thus also Grotius, De
Wette, Steiger, Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott. But it might be more correct
to explain the plural in this way, that as the one suffering of Christ compre
hends in it a plurality of sufferings, so doe's His bd^a a plurality of glories.
Hofmann : " by naBypara is to be understood the manifold afflictions in which
the one suffering of Christ consisted, while the manifold glorifyings which
go to niake up His glory are included under bb^ai."'- Besides, it must be
noted that the suffering of Christ is always designated by the plural naBy
para (with the exception of Heb. ii. 9, where we have: rb ndBypa rov Bavdrov),
but His glory always by the singular bb^a. — As the naBypara and bb^ai of
Christ are the object of ibylov npopaprvpbpevov, so by Kaipbg, to which the
ipevvdv of the prophets was directed, the time is referred to when this salva
tion would actually be accomplished. For this reason, then, i^ypevvyaav, ver.
10, cannot again be repeated in ipevvuvreg (Wiesinger, Schott), as if the eig
riva . . . Kaipov referred directly to the appearance of the aurypia ; the apostle's
thought is rather this, that in their search as to the time of the sufferings,
etc., of Christ, the prophets had before their eyes, as that with respect to
which they sought to obtain knowledge, the aurypia of which believers were
to be made partakers.
Eemakk. — Definite corroboration of the ideas here expressed is to be found
in the Book of Daniel, chap. xii. 4, 9, 10, 13. The fundamental presupposition
is that the "¦when" of the fulfilment was unknown to the prophets; according
to ver. 12, all that was revealed to them was that it would take place only in the
times to come. De Wette asserts too much when he says that searching as to
the time cannot be predicated of the genuine prophets of ancient Judaism,
but of Daniel only, who pondered over the seventy years of Jeremiah. But
although the words of Daniel may have given occasion for the apostle's state
ment, still that statement is not incapable of justification. If the apostles
searched as to the time when the promises of Christ would receive accomplish
ment, why should it not be presupposed that similarly the prophets, too,
inquired into that which the nveipa Xpiaroi testified beforehand to them, more
especially as to the Kaipbg of its fulfilment ?
Ver. 12. o'lg uneKokvipBy is linked on by way of explanation to ipevvuvreg:
"to whom it was revealed," i.e., "in that it was revealed to them." This is
• Hofmann's opinion, that Peter had chiefly 15, arises from the fact that he applies iipdi
in his mind the passages in Isa. xlix. 6, 7, liii. specially to the Gentiles.

222 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
to be taken neither as an antithesis to the searching, nor as the result of it,
but as an element accompanying — and stimulating — it ; see Wiesinger
and Schott in loe. — on ovx iavrolg vplv (yplv) be biyKbvovv avrd]. on is not
causal here (Luther: "for;" so also Luthardt and Hofmann). Opposed
to this is the circumstance that if bn, k.t.X, be taken as a parenthesis, and
the d vvv dvyyyely, k.t.X, following be joined with dneKaliipBy (Hofmann), this
sentence is strangely broken up ; if, on the other hand, a viv, K.r.l., be united
with what immediately precedes (Luther), dneKaliipBy is plainly much too
bald. Nor can it be denied that on naturally connects itself with dneKalvipBy,
and a viv is joined with diyKovow avrd. on states, then, not the reason, but
the contents of what was revealed to the prophets.^ — biuKovelv, both in the
N. T. and in the classics, is frequently a transitive verb joined with the
accusative, and that in such a way that the accusative denotes either
the result of the biuKoveiv, or the thing to which the service is directed
(iv. 10). Here, where aird is the accusative dependent on biyKbvovv, the
latter is the case ; for that which is announced to the Christians is not
the result of the prophets' ministrations, but that to which they were
directed. That " they did their part in bringing to pass by their rainistra^
tion the salvation which is now preached " (AViesinger, and Schott also), is
a thought m no way hinted at here, and in which "did their part" is a purely
arbitrary addition. The ministration of the prophets consisted not in the
bringing to pass of the salvation, but in the proclaiming of that which was
revealed to them {Briickner) ; and this is what is conveyed by avrd. — They
exercised this ministration, oix, 6tc., "not for iheir, rather for your (our) bene
fit," i.e., in such a way that its application was to you (us), not to themselves.
— On <5e after the negation, as distinguished from d'lld, cf. Winer, p. 411
(E. T., 442 f.).2 The difference in the reading iplv or ijpiv does not essen
tially affect the meaning, since by iplv, though the readers of the epistle are
indeed addressed in the first instance, all the rest of the Christians are natur
ally thought of as included. Still, the idea expressed in the iplv or yplv be
is not without difficulty. Taken strictly, the oi);i: iavroig alone was known to
the prophets — and along with this likewise, that it was for others, i.e., for
those who lived at the time of its fulfilment. But as these others are the
Christians, the apostle directly opposes ip.lv 6e to oi.); iavrolg — that is, inserts

* Luthardt interprets : " for there the object trare jussi erant. But is on. then not still
was a future one, from which the veil had to airioKoyiKio^? Aud ou what ground should
be removed by single acts of God; here. It is a an inversion so very harsh be adopted?
present one, which accordingly the messengers 2 Schott's singular assertion, that " ou . . .
simply proclaim, in the power of the now ever Se does not cancel eaurots simply, and put ifpiv
present Spirit of God; " how much Is im- in its place, but that Se adds only something
ported here! Steinmeyer admits that ort Is new to the preceding which remains stand-
not to be taken aiTioAoyLKoi?, but denies at the ing " (in spite of the ou!). Is based on a mis-
same time that it states the argumentum tijs conception of what is said by Hartung,
airo«aAui//eu:s ; he assumes an Inversiqn, which Partikellehre, 1. 171, to which Schott appeals.
is to be resolved thus; ois direKakvipBri (sc. "Others than those addressed are not ex-
TaCra, namely ra nad. k. Sd|at Xp.) oiix eavrol^, eluded ; the latter only are indicated as those
aAA' OTt vplv StriKovovv auTa, and then Inter- for whom the prophecy was intended;" thus
prets : h. e. quibus manifestata sunt, non In Hofmann, too, Incorrectly.
ipsorum commodum, sed quia nobis ea minis-

CHAP. I. 12. 223
the definite for the indefinite. —Wiesinger, Schott, Bi-iickner, join avrd closely
with the a which follows : " the same as that which now is proclaimed to
you;" this is, however, incorrect, aird is nowhere in the N. T. construed
thus with a relative to which it is antecedent ; it applies rather to what has
been formerly raentioned; here, therefore, doubtless to that of which the
nveipa Xpiaroi testified beforehand to the prophets, and what they prophesied
of the x"-pt(, of which the readers had been raade partakers. It is less fitting
to lirait the reference to the rd eig Xpiarbv naBypara, a, k.t.X, being joined to it
in a somewhat loose way. — It is entirely arbitrary for Hofraann to assert that
"Peter does not speak of any prophecies in general, but of the written records
in which were contained the prediction of the prophets, who had foretold
the extension of grace to the Gentile world," — there is nothing here to lead
to the supposition that the apostle makes any reference to written records, —
and predictions with regard to the heathen. — By means of the following
a viv dvyyyely, k.t.X, the apostle insists that what the prophets foretold is
that which is now proclaimed to the readers ; vvv emphasizes the present, in
which the facts of salvation are proclaimed as having already taken place,
a-s contradistinguished from the time when they were predicted as future. —
bid ruv evayyeliaapivuv ipdg {iv) nvevpan dyiu]. For the construction of the
verb evayyeli^eaBai, c. acc, cf. Gal. i. 9; Winer, p. 209 (E. T., 223).— If
the reading : iv nv. be adopted, the Holy Spirit is conceived of as the power,
as it were, encompassing and swaying them ; if the other reading, as the
moving and impelling cause. Like prophecy (ver. 11), the preaching of
the gospel proceeds from the illumination and irapulse of the Holy Spirit. —
dnoaralivn d?r' ovpavov refers to the events of Pentecost ; since then the Holy
Spirit has His abode and is at work in the church.^ Though the sarae Spirit
'was already in the prophets, ver. 11, He had not yet at that tirae been sent
from heaven. Who the individuals were who had preached the gospel to the
readers, Peter does not say. No doubt the form of the apostle's expression
does not compel us to think of him as excluded from the ruv evayyeX ; yet it
is very probable that Peter, had he intended to include hiraself, would some
how have given this to be understood. — eig d iniBvpoiaiv dyyeXoi napuKvipai].
The relative a clearly goes back to d viv dvyyyily. It is arbitrary to under
stand (with Schott) by that which the angels desired to see, "the nature
and origin of the moral transformation wrought by the proclamation of the
gospel ; " or, with Hofmann, to give it this reference, " that Christ has died,
and been glorified in such a way that now He can and should be preached
to the heathen as having died and been glorified for them ; " it includes
not only the naBypara and bo^ai of Christ (Wiesinger), but the whole contents
of the message of salvation (Bruckner), which, as it is a testimony to the
facts of redemption, is also a preaching of the aurypia founded on them.

' Weiss's assertion (Die Petrin. Frage, not said here that the evayyeXiadpevoi iipd^
above mentioned, p. 642), that, "if there be belonged to those who received the Holy Spirit
here an allusion to the outpouring ot the Spirit at Pentecost, but only that they preached iu
on the day of Pentecost, Paul could uot have that Spirit, which was sent from heaven at
belonged to those who had preached the gospel Pentecost; and this applies to Paul no less
to the readers," is without foundation, as it is than to the other apostles, etc.

224 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
which is iroipy dnoKolvipByvai iv Kuipu iaxiiru (ver. 5), and which the believers
will obtain (ver. 9).i — eniBvpoiai must not be taken as an aorist,^ for the
question is not as to what the angels did at the time of the prophets, but as
to what they are now doing. That after which they long is the napuKvipai eig
aird. On the inf. aor. after iniBvpovaiv, see Winer, p. 810 f. (E. T., 331). —
napaKvnreiv, properly, " to bend to the side so as to examine a thing," means
when joined with eig not only "to look towards," but "to look into any
thing," and that in order to obtain a raore accurate knowledge of the object
in question. 3 The napd of the verb indicates that the angels stand outside
the work of redemption, inasmuch as it is not for them, but for man
(cf. Heb. ii. 16). The addition of this clause brings prominently forward the
idea, not that the work of salvation is a mystery, — concealed even from
the angels, — but that that which has been proclaimed to the readers is
soraething so glorious that even the angels had a wish and a longing to see
what was its fashion, and what the course of its developraent (cf. Eph. iii.
10). Nor is it implied in iniBvpoiat that "the angels cannot attain .to a
knowledge of the economy of salvation" (Schott). It is more than
doubtful whether there be here any reference to Exod. xxv. 20, as several
interpreters assume.^
The first group of exhortations extends frora ver. 13 to the end of
the chapter. — Ver. 13. First exhortation, which forms the basis of those
which follow. The relolug iln'i^eiv is the foundation upon which the whole
moral-religious life of the Christian must be raised. — bib dva^uadpevoi rdg
oaipvag ryg biavoiag ipiiv']. bib does not refer back to any single thought in
what precedes, certainly not to the glory of the aurypia touched upon in vv.
10 ff. (Calvin : ex magnitudine et excellentia gratiae deducit exhortationem),
still less to the thought expressed vv. 5-9: "that the Christian goes through"
trial towards a glorious destiny " (De Wette), but to the whole of the fore
going lines of thought (Schott), which, however, have their point of con
vergence in this, that unto the Christian begotten again e'lg iln'iba Cuaav, the
aurypia is appointed as the rilog ryg nlareug (similarly Bruckner). — dva^uad-
pevoi rdg baipvag, a figurative expression taken from the runners (and others)
who tucked up their dress, so as to prosecute their work with less hinderance.
dva^uvvvpi, un. ley. (Prov. xxxi. 17; LXX., ed. Van Ess, xxix. 17), means to
tuck up ; Luther, incorrectly : " therefore so gird yourselves " (thus Wie
singer also translates, although he justly says: "The figure taken from the
tucking up of a long undergarment denotes preparedness for something,"

> The Vulg. translates ei? d by " in quem " as Pape ateo interprets napaKvnreiv, " to stand
(I.e., in Spiritum sanctum). beside a thing, and to bend down so as to see
2 Irenaeus, C. Haer. iv. 67; Oecumenius: it more distinctly;" cf. further, Ecclus. xxi.
biv t'i\v yvi^iaiv Kai eK^aaiv Kai aiiTOi ot dyyeKoi 23 (xiv. 23), and In the N. T. besides, Jas. I.
eireOva-iiaav. 25, also Johu XX. 11 (Luke xxiv. 12; John
3 Although Hofmann may not be wrong In xx. 5).
asserting that irapnittiirTeii' is used also to de- ' Beza : " alludit Ap. ad duos Illos Cheru-
note a cursory glance at any thing (cf. Dem. bim opercula Arcae insistentes, conversis in
iv. 24, in Pape, 5.!!.), yet, in connection with Ipsam arcam oculis." Piscator: "videtur
eit, It Is chiefly employed in cases where a resplcere ad Cherubim super arcam foederis,
more accurate knowledge is implied; precisely tanquam ad typum."

CHAP. I. 13. 225
etc.) ; cf. the passages, Luke xii. 35 and Eph. vi. 14 (in both passages, how
ever, nepiC,uvvvpi). The figure is the more appropriate, that the Christian is
a napenibypog, on his way to the future Klypovopia. The figurative rdg baipia^
finds its own explanation in the epexegetical genitive ryg biavoiag vpuv.
Aretius interprets incorrectly: lumbi mentis, i.e., ipsa recta ratio renati hominis
recte judicans de negotio pietatis; biuvoia means here, as in Col. i. 21, the
"disposition of mind." The meaning of the phrase applies not only to
deliverance from evil desires,^ but to all and every needful preparation
of spirit for the fulfllling of the exhortations following; " it is the figure of
spiritual preparedness and activity " (De Wette). The aorist participle
points to this spiritual preparedness as the preliminary condition of iln'iC,eiv
(Schott). — vyipovreg]. Cf. chap. iv. 7, v. 8 (1 Thess. v. 6, 8; 2 Tim. iv. 5).
Calvin, correctly : non temperantiam solum in cibo et potu commendat, sed spiri
tualem potius sobrietatem, quum sensus omnes nostras continemus, ne se hujus
mundi illecebris inebrient ; similarly raost interpreters. Otherwise, however,
W5iss (p. 95 f.), who supposes an antithesis between dva^uadptvoi and vyipovreg,
inasmuch as the former is opposed " to want of courage and apathy," the
latter to " unnatural overstraining and excitement,'' and " unhealthy exalta/-
tion." But no such antithetical relation is (as little as there is in chap. v. 8
and 1 Thess. v. 6, 8, between ypyyopelv and vypeiv) here anywhere hinted at,
nor is there any thing in the whole epistle to lead us to suppose that Peter
considered it necessary " to warn his hearers against the extravagant enthu
siasm of a Messianic glory." Rather in vyipovreg is prominence given to an
important element in the dvai^uaaaBai, without which a releiug ilnl(eiv cannot
exist, namely, the clearness and soberness of mind with which the goal of
hope, and the way leading thither, is kept in view. — releiug Hniaare inl ryv
ipepopivyv, k.t.X]. releiug, utt. ley., belongs not to vyipovreg (Oecumenius, Ben
son, Semler, Mayerhoff, Hofmann), but to Hmaare;'^ it shows emphatically
that the hope should be perfect, undivided, unchangeable (" without doubt
or faint-heartedness, with full surrender of soul " (De Wette) ; Wiesinger
adds further: "excluding all ungodly substance and worldly desire, and
including the pfi avaxypar., ver. 14;" and Schott: "with reference also to
the moral conduct of earnest sanctification "). Weiss (p. 93) finds the
releibryg of hope in this, that it does not allow itself to be overcome by suffer
ing — but of suffering there is here no mention. Erasmus, Grotius, Bengel,
take it unsatisfactorily, only ratione temporis, i.e., " ad finem usque." — iln'iC,eiv,
frequently with eig, iv, ini, c. dat., is construed with inl cura accus. only
here and in 1 Tim. v. 5; it raeans "to place his hope on something." The
object connected with it by means ot ini is not the proper object of hope ;
the latter stands in the accusative, or is expressed by a verb, either iu the
infin. or with on; but it is that from which the fulfilment of hope is ex
pected.' If, as here, ini be construed with the accusative, the disposition
1 Gerhard : " Quarumvis passionum et cu- ening of this expression by TeAei<u5 is entirely
pidltatum carnallura refrenatio praescribltur." appropriate, whilst vrjijiovres requires no such
2 The reasons which Hofmann brings, for- support. The position of the word, too, is in
ward for the combination of TeKeiia^ with favor of the connection with eKrriaa-re.
vrjit>ovre^ are not by any means conclusive; for 3 The expression " to hope for something,"
as the chief accent lies on eKniaaTe, a strength- confldently to expect it, may lead to the sup-

226 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
of mind with respect to the object is expressed; whilst if it be taken with
the dative, the object is presented to us as the basis of hope, that on which
it is founded. — inl ryv ipepopevyv vplv xapiv iv dnoKalvipei 'lya. Xpiaroi]. Several
commentators interpret so that the sense runs: "place your hope on the
grace which has been shown you by the revelation of Jesus Christ;" thus
Erasmus, Luther, Calov, Bengel, Gerhard, Steiger, etc. ; according to this,
ipepopevyv is the dvTlarpoipov of Kopi(eoBai (i.e., "which has been already offered
or communicated to you"), xo-p'S, "the forgiveness of sins effected by Christ,"
and dnoKdlvipig 'lyaov Xpiaroi, "the revelation of Christ which has already
taken place." In the more exact definition of the term dnoKulvipig, these
interpreters again diverge frora one another ; whilst Luther, Calov, Steiger,
and others hold it to be "the revelation which has taken place in the gos
pel;" Bengel, etc., on the other hand, understand it of "the incarnation of
Christ." Erasmus gives both : sentit de mysterio evangelii divulgato per quod
Christus innotuit, seu de adventu Christi. Steiger, in support of the first view,
appeals to Luke ii. 32 ; Rom. xvi. 25 ; Gal. i. 16 ; Eph. i. 17 ; 2 Cor. xii. 1 ;
Eph. iii. 3; but all these passages do not furnish the proof desired. In no
passage is the revelation of the gospel called the dnoKdlvipig 'lyaoi Xpiaroi.
But the other view is opposed by the N. T. usus loquendi, according to which
dnoK. always denotes the future coming of Christ only. It must also be held
to be unwarrantable to interpret iv drroK. 'lya. Xp. here in a different sense
from that given shortly before in ver. 7 (and chap. iv. 13). — Not less
opposed to the former interpretation is the present participle ipepopevyv, since
the present may not arbitrarily be taken in the sense of the preterite, but
must be looked upoii as a realization of the future. Steiger is no doubt
right in holding that y ipep. ip. xupig "does not speak of the object of hoping,
but the ground on which hope is built.'' But from this it does not follow
that by the phrase "something already accomplished" must be understood,
for why should the Christian not be able to set his hopes of'salvation on the
grace which in the future will be offered to him at and with the return of
Christ? Piscator incorrectly explains xupig '¦ coelestis felicitas et gloria, quam
Deus nobis ex gratia daturus est. Aretius, again, is right : benevolentia Dei,
qua nos amplectitur in filio: the grace of God from which the Christian has
to expect the coelestis felicitas. — With ipepopevyv, ci. Heb. ix. 16. ipipeiv : " to
bring, to present " (not " to bring- nearer," Schott), points here to the free grace
of God. That is, then : "place your hope on the grace which will be brought to
you at (in and with) the revelation (the second coming) of Christ." It is rightly
interpreted by Oecumenius, Calvin (who errs in this only, that he takes iv
for eig, i.e., usque ad adventum Christi), 'Beza, Grotius, Estius, Semler, Pott,
De Wette, etc.
position that this meaning is expressed by taches importance to whether ei? is followed
eKiri^eiv eiri Tto In the N. T. this Is usually by a person or a thing, asserting that in the
rendered by dncKSexeaBai. Even in the con- latter case tbe thing is the object; for It Is
struction with ets the thing accompanying It is quite as possible to set one's hope on a thing
not the object of hope, cf. John v. 45; 2 Cor. as on a person. Cremer rightly quotes this
1. 10; only in Ecclus. ii. 9 Is the object of passage as one of those in which eKniieiv has
iKiTi^eiv construed with ety (eKniaare eis dya9d the meaning of " setting one's hope on some-
icat eis evippoavvr]v) . Hofmann wrongly at- thing."

CHAP. I. 14. 227
Eemaek. — The more recent interpreters take up different positions with
respect to the view here presented. Wiesinger, Briickner, Schott, Fronmiiller,
Hofmann, agree with the interpretation of dnoKdlvipig, but are opposed to that
of 'elmC,eiv 'enl. Weiss and Zockler {De vi ac notione voc. ilnig in N. T., 1856,
p. 15 fl.), on the other hand, are against the latter, but in favor of the former.
— As regards elnlC, Zockler: Ea est vis praepositionis ini c. acc. constructae,
ut finem designet s. localem s. temporalem s. causalem, in quem tendat actus
verbi. Qui tamen finis s. terminus sperandi ita discernendus e.it a simplici
OBJECTO sperandi, ut hoc significet rem, quam sibi obtingere spieret subjectum,
finis vero ille simid auctor sit, e quo pendeat vel satisfacere votis sperantis, vel
deesse ; ^ in support of which he justly quotes, in addition to this verse, 1 Tim.
V. 5 (to which Wiesinger appeals without any justification), and a not inconsid
erable number of passages from the LXX. ; cf. Weiss also (p. .36 f.). De Wette
interprets 'elniQ.iv correctly, but thinks, that, inasmuch as the aurypia is con
ceived as a xuPK, it is at once the ground and the object of the hope. With this
Bruckner agrees, finding, "in this intermingling, a part of the peculiarity of
the thought;" whilst, on the other hand, Weiss sees in it only a makeshift
conveying no clear idea at all. With regard to the term dnoKdlvipig, Weiss
explains it as: manifestatio Christi, quae fit in verbo evangelii Jn hac vita
(Gerhard). But this interpretation is decidedly opposed to the N. T. usage; in
no passage is the revelation of which, by the gospel, we become partakers
described as an dnoKdlvipig 'lyaoi Xpiaroi, although dnoKalinreiv is used of the
different Icinds of revealing. The reference to the gospel is an evident importa
tion. Weiss raises two objections to the correct view — (1) " It is, as a matter
of fact, impossible that the Christian should set his hope on the grace that is to
be brought at the revelation of Christ." But why should this be impossible ?
How often does it happen that the individual bases his liope for the fulfilraent
of his wish on an event as yet future, but which he is' assured will happen!
(2) " That the second coming of Christ is not a revelation of grace at all, but of
just judgraent." But the latter in no way excludes the former; and how could
the Christian contemplate the second coming of Christ with calm, yes, even
with joy, if there were no grace ?
Ver. 14. Second exhortation (extending to ver. 21). — ug reKva inuKoyg
does not belong to what precedes (Hofmann), but serves to introduce the
new exhortation.^ — ag does not here introduce a comparison (as ii. 2, 5,
iii. 7), but marks the essential quality of the subject. Lorinus correctly
remarks on ii. 14 : constat hujusmodi particulas saepe nihil minuere, sed rei
veritatem magis exprimere; it corresponds to our "as," i.e., as becomes you
who should be rcKva vnaicoyg. — inuKoy is used here as absolutely as in ver. 2,
and has the same signification as there. The spirit which pervades the life
of believers is the spirit of obedience, and therefore they should be reKva
inuKoyg. According to the analogy of similar compounds in the N. T., as
riKva ipurbg, Eph. v. 8 ; its opposite, reKva Kardpag, 2 Pet. ii. 14 ; reKva ryg bpyijg,
' This interpretation is correct. The only by the correspondence which exists between
point under dispute Is " simul." rcKva yTranoijs and the subsequent exhorta-
2 Hofmann connects not only these words, tions; and, on the other hand, by iAAa, ver.
but the subsequent participial clause also : p'ri 15, which is in antithesis to /jfj avaxripa-riCd-
avax-npiiriiopevoi, K. r. A., with what precedes. Mei-ot, and therefore not to be separated from
This, however, is opposed, on the one hand, it, as though it commenced a new paragraph.

228 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
Eph. ii. 3; particularly viol ryg dneiBeiag, Eph. ii. 2, — the expression reKva
vnaKoyg may be explained so as that riKva shall denote only the relation in
which the persons in question stand to the idea of the accompanying geni
tive ; cf. Winer, p. 223 f. (E. T., 238) ; Buttmann, p. 141 ; Meyer on Eph.
ii. 2 (thus Grotius, Jachmann, etc. ; Fronmiiller too). De Wette, Bruckner,
Schott, Weiss, too, most probably, p. 172, take riKva as the " children of
God," and inuKoyg as the genitive of character (as Luke xvi. 8 : 6 oiKovopog ryg
dbiKiag; xviii. 6: b Kpiryg ryg dbiKiag). But as it is in ver. 17 that mention
is first made of the sonship relation of the Christian, it remains at least
doubtful whether the apostle had in this expression that relation in view ;
at any rate the emphasis here lies not on reKva, but on inoKoyg. — p^ avaxypa.ri-
i;6pevoi\. py occurs here on account of the imperative cast of the whole sen
tence. Neither yevyByre (Bengel) nor any other similar word is to be supplied
to the part., inasmuch as it does not correspond to the dyioi yevyByre, but to
the Kard rbv Kaleaavra vpug uyiov (Wiesinger) ; there is here no " departure
from the construction" (De Wette). The word cvaxnpi'riieaBai, occurring in
the N. T. only here and in Rom. xii. 2, and nowhere but in later Greek,
means: "to form his axypa like that of another ;" ' it has reference uot to the
outward conduct merely, but to the whole outward and inward conformation
of life, as the connection with the following words shows : ralg npbrepov iv ry
dyvoiq ipuv iniBvpiaig. The iniBvulai, i.e., the sinful desires (not " the satisfied
lusts, or a life of pleasure," as De Wette understands), which formerly held
sway in them, are the axypa, according to which they are not to fashion
themselves in their new life.^ Luther's translation is inexact : " take not
up your former position, when ye in your ignorance lived according to your
lu.sts." The IniBvpiai are more precisely characterized as formerly belonging
to them 'ev dyvoia; 'ev specifies not raerely the time (Calvin : tempus ignorant'iae
vocat, antequam in fidem Christi vocati essent), but likewise the origin (Wie
singer). dyvoia is used here as in Acts xvii. 30, Eph. iv. 18, ignorance in
divine things, and is to be understood, if not exactly of idolatry, at least of
heathenism, which is far from the knowledge of the living God and of His
will. Paul, in Rom. i. 18 ff., shows how the obscuring of the consciousness
of God is the source of moral corruption.
Eemaek. — In answer to Weiss, who can see in this passage no proof that
the readers were Gentile Christians, Wiesinger justly remarks, Schott and
Bruckner agreeing with him: "The dyvoia of which the Jews (Acts iii. 17;
Eom. X. 3) are accused, or which Paul attributes to himself, 1 Tim. i. 13 (the
same applies to Luke xxiii. 34; John viii. 19), is of quite a different kind; not
' When, in objection to this, Hofmann urges = Schott terms this interpretation " In-
that avaxripariieaSai should here be Inter- exact; " for " it is not the lusts themselves, but
preted not according to Rom. xii. 2, but on the the mode of life which is essentially charac
principle of tbe expression, avax. Tois Xeyope- terized by these lusts, according to which they
foi?, — "so to conduct one's self as to give are not to fashion themselves ; " but does then
adequate expression to the words used," — he eirteuniat mean " the mode of life "? Besides,
does not consider that in this verse the verb Schott himself says that the thought is not
has the same force as in Kom. xii. 2, for It altogether correctly expressed.
means, " to conform your a\ripa to that v."hlch
your words express."

CHAP. I. 15, 16. 229
an ayvoia of the moral demands of the law, but the misapprehension of the
purpose of salvation manifesting itself also through the law." If Weiss, on
the other hand, insists {Die Petr. Frage, p. 624) that the invectives of Christ
most plainly teach how, in the Jewish conception of the law, at that time its
deeper moral demands were misapprehended; it must, as opposed to him, be
observed that Christ's attack was specially directed against the Pharisaic con
ception of it, and can in no way be applied tb the people of Israel as such.
Paul, in describing them, expressly allows to the Jews, Eom. ii. 17 ff., the
yivuoKeiv rb Bely pa; and an dyvoia, in the absolute sense here implied, is nowhere
cast up to them. — The O. T. distinction between "sins of weakness (njJtV3,
LXX.: Kar dyvoiav, iv dyvoia) and insolent sins of disobedience" (nm TS)
(Weiss, p. 175) does not apply here.
Vv. 15, 16. dlld Kara rbv Kaleaavra ipdg uyiov]. Steiger: "this positive
instruction, instead of forming a participial clause of its own, like the pre
ceding (negative), is in animated discourse at once merged into the principal
clause ; " there is, accordingly, nothing to be supplied ; still Oecumenius
explains, in sense, correctly : dlld viv yoiv, liyei, ru Kaliaavn avaxripan^opevoi,
dyiu bvri, k.t.X — dyiov is here a substantive, to which the participle koI. is
added as nearer definition (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 1), and that by way of strengthen
ing the exhortation ("as ye are bound to do, since He hath called you").
The behavior of those called raust correspond with the nature of Him who
has called them. Schott rightly remarks that the Kalelv must here be taken
as " an effectual calling," by which the readers are delivered from their state
of estrangement frora God, and introduced into one of fellowship with Him.
Kal airol uyioi 'ev nday dvaarpoijiy yevyByre']. Kal airoi forras the antithesis to rbv
dyiov; Schott, incorrectly: "as against what God has, on His part, by His
calling, done to you and made you." — iv nday dvaarpoipy, not: in (your) luhole
(De Wette), but in (your) every walk.' — yevyByre denotes not the becoming,
but the being ; Luther, correctly : " like Him . . . 6e ye also holy.^ " — Ver. 16.
bibn yiypanrai], dtbn, i.e., bid rovro on, "for this reason because," indicates the
reason for the preceding exhortation, and uot siraply for the use of the word
ayiov (De Wette). The apostle goes- back to the command given to Israel, as
to the reason why the Christians, called as they were by the God of holiness,
should be holy in their every walk. The holiness of God laid Israel under
the obligation to be holy, since God had chosen them to be His people ; the
same is the case, as Peter suggests by KalJaavra vpdg, with the N. T.
church of believers, the true Israel, on whora, though doubtless in a form
adapted to thera, for this reason the commandments of the O. C. are still
binding. Schott justly observes that the passage quoted by Peter is not
1 For it must be observed that in the case of " Wiesinger asks why? The reasons are,
a collective expression, nds is accompanied by (1) because both In the LXX. and Apocrypha
the article when the totality is conceived of as of the O. T., as also in the N. T., instead of
forming one whole; the article is wanting the imper. of elvat, which is but rarely used,
when it is considered as coraposed of many ; there is very generally the impcr. aorist of
e. g., wdi o Aad? means "the whole people," yiyvopai, in the LXX. translation of Tl'll, VH
but Tras Aao!, " ali people ; " when not " every (cf. specially Ps. Ixix. 26); (2) because the
people," in which case the collective- expres- exhortation "be holy " Is more suited to the
sion is the special idea. condition of Christians than " become holy."

230 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
meant to establish the duty of holiness in itself, but to show that the fact of
belonging to God involves as a matter of duty the necessity of a holy walk.
The expression, which the apostle quotes, occurs more than once in the book
of Leviticus, xi. 44, xix. 2, xx. 7, 26.
Ver. 17. From here to the end of the verse the preceding exhortation is
continued; the connection is shown by the copula Kai. — koI ei naripa 'enwa-
lelaBe, corresponding to the ug reKva vnaKoyg, ver. 14. ei is here : "particula
non conditionalis, sed assertiva, non dubitantis, sed rem notam praesupponentis"
(Calvin). The form of the sentence is, however, hypothetical; the sense
is : "if you act thus and thus, as ye are indeed now doing." By this forra the
language is made more impressive than it would have been by a simple
causative particle. — iniKuluaBai, as medium, means, to "call upon" (for the
meaning " to name," as Wiesinger, De Wette, Briickner take it, is supported
in the classics only by a doubtful passage in Dio Cass. Ixxvii. 7). naripa is
the accusative of more precise definition (thus Hofmann also) ; Luther :
"since ye call on Him the (i.e., as, ug) Father." The sense is: "if ye look
on Hira as Father who, etc., and ye acknowledge yourselves as His children." i
It is to be noticed that the iniKalelcBe corresponds to thp Kaliaavra, v. 15;
God has called believers, — and they answer with the call to Hira, in which
they name Hira Father. This mutual relationship lays the Christians under
obligations to be holy as He is holy.'-' — rbv dnpoaurrolynrug Kpivovra rb iKuarov
ipyov, a circumlocution for God full of significance, instead of the siraple
rbv Qebv, correispouding to the dyiov, ver. 15. — dnpoaunolynrug, a dn. ley.,
forraed on the noun npoaunolynryg (Acts x. 34), which is composed of npbau-irov
and lappdveiv; see Meyer on Gal. ii. 6. — The present Kpivovra indicates that
irapartial judgment is a characteristic function of God. The apostle men
tions rb ipyov as that according to which the judgment of God is determined;
in this connection the plural is generally found (Rora. ii. 6); by the singular
the whole conduct of man (outwardly and inwardly) is conceived as a work
of his life. — iKuarov, not without emphasis. It implies that the Christian
also — a son of God though he be — will, like all others, be judged accord
ing to his work ; it is arbitrary to limit the application of the general term
iiidarov to Christians only (Schott) ; there is no thought here of the distinc
tion between Jew and Gentile (Bengel). — The term judge, as applied to
God, stands in a pecuhar contrast to naripa. The Christian, while conscious
of the love of God shed abroad iu his heart (Rora. v. 5), raust still never
forget that God judges the evil, that His love is a Jwly love, and that sonship
involves obligation of obedience towards a just God. — cv ipiiSip rbv . . . dvaa-
rpdipyre, corresponding to the dyioi iv nday dvaarpoipy yevyByre, ver. 15; the feel
ing which harmonizes with the thought of the impartial judge is the ipbl3og;
thus Peter places ipbfiog first by way of emphasis. ipbjSog is here, indeed, not
the slavish fear which cannot co-exist with love (see 1 John iv. 18), no more
' It Is possible, and as Gerhard and Weiss in the preceding verses; but here it is not
(p. 172) think probable, that Peter here alludes considered as established by God, but as real-
to the Lord's Pi-ayer. Ized iu practice by the readers, i.e., as sub-
2 Schott rightly remarks that eirt/taAeierSat jectlvely -known and acknowledged by them.
is based on the same common relationship as

CHAP. I. 18. 231
is it the reverence which an inferior feels for a superior (Grotius, Bolten, etc.);
but it is the holy awe of a judge who condemns the evil; the opposite of
thoughtless security. Calvin: timor securitati opponitur; cf. chap. ii. 17;
2 Cor. vii. 1; .Phil. ii. 12. i — rbv ryg napoiKiag ipuv xpbvov specifies the dura
tion of the walk iv ipbiiip ; napoiKia : "the sojourn in a foreign country ;" in its
strict sense. Acts xiii. 17 (Ezra viii. 34, LXX.) ; here applied to the earthly
life of the Christian, inasmuch as their Klypovopia is in heaven, ver. 1. This
expression serves to give point to the exhortation expressed, hinting as it
does at the possibility of coming short of the home ; cf. chap. ii. 11.
Ver. 18. The apostle strengthens his exhortation by reminding his
readers of the redemption wrought out for them by the death of Christ. It
is an assumption too far-fetched to suppose that this verse serves to show
" the causal connection between the protasis and the apodosis of ver. 17 "
(Schott). — eibbreg, not "since ye know," but "considering," "refiecting;"
Gerhard: expendentes; cf. 2 Tim. ii. 23 and my commentary on the passage.
— bn oil]. The negation is placed foremost in order the more to give promi
nence to the position. — ipBaprolg, dpyvpiip y xpvaiu]. ipBaprotg is not an adjective
here (Luther: "with perishable silver and gold"), but a substantive: "with
perishable things;" see Winer, p. 491 (E. T., 527). — Benson thinks that by
dpyvpiu ij xpvaiu the apostle alludes to the custom of paying money as a sign
of reconciliation, according to Exod. xxx. 12-16; Num. iii. 44-51, xviii. 16;
this is possible, but not probable. — HvrpuByre is here used in its strict signi
fication of, to ransora, or redeem by a Ivrpov (cf. Matt. xx. 28), as in Tit.
ii. 14, whilst in Luke xxiv. 21 this definite application is lost sight of;
with the thought, cf. 1 Cor. vi. 20. The ransom is stated in the follow
ing verse. —e/c ryg paraiag vpuv dvaarpoipyg]. Cf. ver. 14. pdraiog, "empty,
without real contents," does not occur in an ethical sense in the classics;
LXX. Isa. xxxii. 6 translation of ])^ is not to be limited specially to the
idolatry of the heathen (Carpzov, Benson, etc.), still less to the ceremonial
service of the Jews (Grotius). ^ — narponapaSbrov belongs to the whole idea
preceding: paralag ipuv dvaarpoipyg (see Winer, p. 489 [E. T., 525J). Aretius
explains it by innata nobis natura; but this is not appropriate to dvaarpoipyg;
correctly, Erasmus : quam ex Patrum traditione acceperatis ; Steiger : " by
upbringing, instruction, and example" (thus also De Wette-Bruckner,
Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott). This attribute emphatically shows that the
paraia dvaarpoipy is peculiar, not to the individual only, but to the whole race,
and has been from the earliest times, and consequently is so completely

' Weiss (p. 170) thinks that the passage, as the consciousness of liability to err, but
Kom. viii. 15, proves Paul's fundamental views afterwards more precisely defines the expres-
of Christian life to have been different from sion as that fear which Is anxious that nothing
those of Peter; this opinion, however, is suf- should happen which might cause God, as the
ficiently contradicted by Weiss himself, who righteous judge, to refuse the inheritance to
admits that In 2 Cor. vii. 1, " Paul mentions him who hopes to attain it.
the fear of God as a peculiar mark of the * Although paraia dvaarpoijjrj narpoirapd-
Christian's life, and that he often speaks of a Soto; does not necessarily apply to the heathen
fear of Christ." — Schott insists, in the first (Schott), yet the expression more aptly charac-
place, that i^o'^os be understood absolutely terizes their mode of life than the Jewish.
(without special reference to God as the judge)

232 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
master of the individual that he cannot free hiraself frora it. — There is
here no "special reference to Judaeo-Christian readers " (Weiss, p. 181).
Ver. 19. dlla npiu uipari]. npiu forras the antithesis to ipBaprolg, in so far
as the perishable is destitute of true worth. — aipan refers not only to the
death, but to the bloody death, of Christ; cf. Heb. ix. 22. — ug . . . dpvov
dpupov Kal damlov Xpiarov]. ug . . . damlov is in antecedent apposition to
Xpiaroi (Wiesinger, De Wette-Briickner), as in chap. ii. 7, where likewise
ejf I'laBevearepu OKevei is in similar apposition to ru yvvaiKelu (sc. oKeiei). It is
incorrect to supply, with Steiger, Schott, and others, "a'lpan" before dpvov,
taking X.piaToi either as an explanatory adjunct (Steiger), or connecting it
directly with alpan (Schott, Hofmann). — ug is also here not merely com
parative, as, among others, Schott and Hofmann hold, maintaining that " by
dpvoi only an actual larab is raeant," but it eraphasizes that Christ is a blarae-
less and spotless larab (Gerhard, De Wette-Briickner). i — d|Uf of is, as Briick
ner also assuraes, to be understood of a sacrificial lamb. This is clear both
from the connection — since the ransora by the alpa of Christ (Lev. xvii. 11)
is here in question — and frora the atti'ibutes dpupxig and danilog, of which
the forraer is used in the O. T. expressly to denote the faultlessness of
animals taken for sacrifice (D'PJJl, LXX. : dpupng), — to this class lambs also
belonged. The precise designation, a lamb, was probably suggested to Peter
by Isa. liii. 7 (cf. chap. ii. 22 ff.); from this it must not, however, be inferred,
with Weiss (p. 227 ff.) and Schott, that there is nowhere here any reference
to the idea of sacrifice. For although the passage in Isaiah compares the
servant of God to a lamb simply on account of the patience he exhibited in
the midst of his sufferings, still it is based so wholly on the idea of sacrifice,
and the sufferings of Christ are so expressly presented as propitiatory, that
it is easily explainable how, with this passage applied to Him, Christ could
have been thought of precisely as a sacrificial lamb. Doubtless it is not
Peter's intention to give special prominence to the fact that Christ is the
sacrificial lamb designated by Isaiah's prophecy; for in that case the definite
article would not have been wanting (cf. John i. 29, and Meyer in loe); but
alluding to the above passage, Peter styles Him generally a lamb, — which,
however, he conceives as a sacrificial lamb. There is no direct allusion
(Wiesinger) here to the paschal lamb (De Wette-Brtickner, Schott) ; the
want of the article forbids it. Hofmann, though he has justly recognized
this, still firraly holds by the reference to the paschal lamb; only in thus
far, however, that he terms the slaying of it " the occurrence " which " was
here present to the apostle's inind."^ But the fact that the blood of this

• If iL; be taken as instituting a comparison, aipan. The apostle wonld in some way have
there then arises the singular thought, that the indicated it by prefixing at least a simple
blood of Christ is as precious as that of a lamb at^art to dpvov.
without blemish. Hofmann, indeed, avoids ^ Hofmann says : " The meaning ie not
this conclusion by supplying to iis not npia that the same was done to Christ as to the
atjuart, but atjaart Ouly, and observes that the paschal larab, but the recollection of the pas-
shedding of blood alone (not the shedding of chai larab explains only how Peter came to
precious blood) Is compared to the slaying of compare the shedding of Christ's blood with
a spotless lamb ; but there is not the slightest the shedding of the blood of a spotless lamb."
justification for thus separating npia from — As to whether the paschal larab should be

CHAP. I. 20. 238
lamb did not serve to ransom Israel out of Egypt, but to preserve them from
the destroying angel, is opposed to any such allusion. Further, it raust not
be left unnoticed that in the N. T. the paschal larab is always styled rb ndaxa ;
and in the passage treating of it in Exod. xii. in the LXX., the expression
npb^arav only, and never dpvbg, is eraployed. — The adjunct: ug . . . dani'lmi,
serves to specify particularly the blood of Christ as sacrificial, and not merely
to give a nearer definition of its preciousness (the ripiov), inasmuch as, "ac
cording to Petrine conceptions, it is precisely the innocence (denoted here
by the two attributes) and the patience (conveyed by dpvbg) which give to the
suffering its npy" (as opposed to Weiss, p. 281 f.). The preciousness of
the blood lies in this, that it is the blood of Christ ; its redemptive power
in this, that He shed it as a sacrificial lamb without blemish and fault.'- — With
duupog, ci. in addition to Lev. xxii. 18 ff., especially Heb. ix. 14. — -damlog
is not to be found in the LXX., and in the N. T. only metaphorically ; the
two expressions here conjoined are a reproduction of the N^ ma-'73 D'njl
^3~i^.'i?! , Lev. xxii. 18 ff. (Wiesinger). All the commentators construe
Xpiaroi with what precedes, Hofmann only excepted, who separates it there-
frora, and connects it with what follows, taking Xpiaroi npoeyvuapevov, k.t.X, as
an absolute genitive (i.e., "in that . . . Christ . . . was foreordained," etc ).
But this construction does not specify by whose blood the rederaption was
accoraplished, nor does it give a clear logical connection between the thought
of the participial and that of the principal clause.
Eemaek. — It must be observed, that whilst the power of propitiation, i.e.,
of blotting out sin, is attributed to the blood of the sacrifice. Lev. xvi. 11, the
blood of Christ is here specified as the means by which we are redeemed from
the paraia dvaarpoipy. Prom this, it must not be concluded, with Weiss (p. 279),
that the blood of Christ is not regarded here as the blood of offering, inasmuch
" as the sacrifice can have an expiatory, but not a redemptory, worth ; " for the
two are in no way opposed to each other. The expiation is nothing different
from the redemption, i.e., ransom from the guilt by the blood freely shed. The
redemption, however, which is here spoken of, though, doubtless, not identical
with expiation, is yet a necessary condition of it, — a circumstance which
Pfleiderer also fails to observe, when he says that the passage has reference
only "tq the putting away of a life of sin, to moral improvement, not to
expiation of the guilt of sin."
Ver. 20. npoeyvuapivov uiv is indeed not siraply and at once praeordinatus
(Beza), but the foreknowledge of God is, with respect to the salvation He
was to bring about, essentially a providing ; cf . ver. 2 : npbyvuaig. In regard
to Christ it was provided (npoeyvuapevov refers not directly to dpvov, but to
considered as a sacrificial Iamb (Keil on Gen. Saint." This Is, however, erroneous, since
xll.) or not, is a matter of dispute, which this blood has power to redeem only, because
cannot be decided here. Christ shed it as a sacrifice for propitiation.
1 Schott, In opposition, to this, asserts : But it is not clear why this blood should not
" This blood can redeem because it Is that of even have its full worth from the fact that it Is
the divine Mediator (Xptcrros), but it is valu- the blood of the Mediator.
able in that it is the blood of an innocent

234 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
Xpiaroi) that He should appear (ifiavepuBivrog be) as a sacrificial lamb to
redeem the world by His blood. The passage does not say that Christ
would have appeared even though sin had never entered. — npb Kara^olyg
Kbapov, a frequent designation of antemundane eternity, John xvii. 24; Eph.
i. 4. This nearer definition specifies the sending of Christ as having origi
nated in the eternal counsels of God, in order thus to give point to the
exhortation contained in ver. 17. — ipavepuBevrog be here of the first appearing
of Christ, which in this passage is represented as an emerging from the
obscurity in which He was (chap. v. 4, of His second coming) ; it is incor
rect to refer ipavepuBevrog to the obscurity of the divine counsels (as formerly
in this commentary), since ipavepuBe-vrog applies as rauch as npoeyvuapevov to
the person of Christ. Between the npbyvuaig and the ipavipuaig lies the npo-
ipyreia, ver. 10. Rightly interpreted, ipavepuBevrog testifies to the pre-existence
of Christ. 1 The sequence of the aorist participle on the participle npoeyvua
pivov is to be explained from this, that by ipavepuBevrog an historical fact is
mentioned. — in' iaxurov tuv xpovuv]. iaxaruv: a substantival use of it, "at the
end ofthe times." This eaxarov of the times is here conceived as the whole
period extending from the first appearance of Christ to His second coming;
in like manner Heb. i. 1; otherwi.se 2 Pet. iii. 3, where by iaxarov is meant
the time as yet future, immediately preceding the second coming of Christ;
in like manner 1 Pet. i. 5.^ — Note the antithesis : npb Karal3. «.. and in' iaxurov
r. xp- : beginning and end united in Christ. — bi' ipdg refers in the first in
stance to the readers, but embraces at the same tirae all iKleKrol. Believers
are the aim of all God's schemes of salvation ; what an appeal to them to
walk iv ipojiu rbv ryg napoiKiag xpovov I There is as little here to indicate any
reference to the heathen (Hofmann) as there was in eig vpdg, ver. 10.
Ver. 21. roig di' airov (i.e., Xpiarov) niarevovrag (or niarovg) eig Qebv]. rovg I
the same clausal connection as in vv. 4 and 5. — The construction mareveiv
eig is very frequent in the N. T., especially in John; Christ is for the most
part named as the object; God, as here, iu John xii. 44, xiv. 1. — This
adjunct, by giving prominence to the fact that the readers are brought to
faith in God by Christ, confirms the thought previously expressed bi vpdg.^
Nor should it ever have been denied that by it the readers may be recog
nized as having been heathens forraerly. — rbv iyeipavra airbv iK veKpuv Kal bb^av
avTu bbvTa,'^ not subjoined aimlessly as an accidental predicate applied by the
apostle to God ; but, closely linked on to Qebv, the words serve to describe
' Schmid rightly says {Bibl. Theol., II. p. sake is actually justified In this, that they
165) : " Trpoe-)/i/a)cr^efou does not deny the have faith in God through Him."
actual pre-existence, because Xpto-roC Includes « Weiss (p. 243) lays stress on Sovra in
a designation which is not yet realized in the order to prove the low plane of Peter's con-
actual pre-existence, but will be so only in ception of the person of Christ; yet Christ
virtue of the ipavepiuBrivai." also says, in the Gospel of John, that God had
' It is Indeed correct that, as Schott says, given hira ^ajij, Kpiaig, e(ovaia iraoijs aapKoi,
the end of the times is so, through the mani- So^a, etc. Paul, too, asserts that God exalted
festation of Christ; but It is an arbitrary Christ, and gifted Him (exapiaaro) with the
assertion to say that en-i serves to give more ' ovopa r'o il?rep wdv ovopa; there is a similar
prominence and precision to this thought. passage, too, in Hebrews, that God has ap-
' Hofmann : " The assertion that Christ pointed or made Him KAijpdf ofios ndvTmv.
was foreordained aud made manifest for their

CHAP. I. 22. 235
Qebv more nearly as the object of the Christian faith. The conviction that
God has raised and glorified Christ the Crucified belongs essentially to the
Christian faith in God ; with the first half of this clause, cf . Rom. iv. 24,
viii. 11 ; 2 Cor. iv. 14 ; Gal. i. 1 ; with the second, John xvii. 5, 22 ; and
with the whole thought, Eph. i. 20; Acts ii. 32 f. This adjunct, defining
Qeov more nearly, is not meant to declare " how far Christ by His revelation
has produced faith in God" (Wiesinger), — the whole structure of the clause
is opposed to this,— but what is the faith to which through Christ the
readers have attained. — uare, not 'iva (Oecumenius, Luther : " in order
that ; " thus also the Syr., Vulg., Beza, etc.), nor is it itaque, as if a " bei " or
a "xPv" were to be supplied to elvai (Aretitis) ; but "so that," it denotes the
fruit which faith in God, who raised up Christ from the dead, has brought
forth in the readers, which supplies the confirmation that Christ has ap
peared for their sake {bi airoig). — ryv nianv ipuv Kal ilniba elvai eig Qebv]. Most
interpreters translate: "so that your faith and your hope are directed to
God;" Weiss, on the other hand (p. 43), Briickner, Sohott, Fronmiiller,
Hofraann, take it : " so that your faith is at the same time hope toward
God." The position of the words seems to favor this last translation, since
the genitive ipuv stands between the two substantives, whilst otherwise
either vpijv ryv manv koI ilniba (or rijv ipuv mar.), (cf. Rom. i. 20; Phil. i. 25;
1 Thess. ii. 12), or ryv n. k. iln. ipuv (cf. Phil. i. 20; 1 Thess. iii. 7), would
have been expected; — but this is not decisive, inasmuch as in Eph. iii. 5
ro(f dyioig dnoarbloig avroi kuI npoipyraig occurs. On the other hand, the con
nection of thought gives the preference to the latter view ; for, in the former
case, not only is it noticeable that "the result is exactly the sarae as that
denoted by roig maroig" (Weiss), but in it ilniba seems to be nothing more
than an accidental appendage, whilst in reality it is the point aimed at in
the whole deduction ; that is to say, the truth and livingness of faith (in the
resurrection and glorification of Christ) are manifested in this, that it is also
a hope; cf. vv. 3, 6, 9, 13. ^ Schott is wrong in thinking that eig Qebv has
reference not only to ilniba, but at the sarae time to t^k nlanv; for though
by niang here only mang eig Qebv can be understood, yet it is gramraatically
impossible to connect the final eig Qebv, which is closely linked on to ilniba,
likewise with ryv nlanv ipuv. — The object of hope is specified in the words
rbv iyeipavra avrbv, k.t.X; it is the resurrection and attainment of the bb^a
which is given to Christ; cf. Rom. viii. 11, 17.
Ver. 22. From ver. 22 to ver. 25 the third exhortation,^ and its subject
is love one of another. Gerhard incorrectly joins this verse with verse 17,
and regards vv. 18-21 as a parenthesis. — rag ipvxHg iipuv yyvubreg]. The par-
1 Weiss Is wrong In saying that, according sequent Idea; yet it raust be observed that in
to Peter's view, faith is but the preparatory the N. T. the first combination is more fre-
step to hope, since It rather includes the latter. quent than the second, and that lu the latter
2 Hofraann, without any sufiicient reason, case etSdres Is always accompanied by a par-
supposes the third exhortation to begin with tide, by which it is marked as the firet word
ver. 18, although the amplifications contained of a subsequent set of phrases; Hofmann
in vv. 18-21 serve eminently to inculcate the altogether overlooks this. Here undoubtedly
preceding exhortation. The expression e'lSorei; Kai would have been prefixed to ctfitJTes.
can be joined either with a preceding or a sub-

236 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
ticiple does not here express the accomplished act as the basis of the exhor
tation, as if it were : " after that ye, or since ye, have purified " (Bengel,
Wiesinger), but it stands closely linked on to the imperative, and denotes
the duty which must ever be fulfilled (hence the perf.) if the dyandv is to
be realized (De Wette-Briickner, Schott, Fronmiiller) ; ' Luther, inexactly :
"make chaste . . . and," etc. — dyv'ifyiv, a religious idea denoting in the first
instance the outward, aud afterwards the inward consecration and sanctify
ing also (cf. John xi. 55; Acts xxi. 24, 26, xxiv. 18); in pa.ssages too, as
here, where it expresses moral cleansing from all impurity (here more espe
cially from selfishness), it does not lose its religious significance ; cf . Jas.
iv. 8; 1 John iii. 3.^ — 'tv Ty inuKoy ryg dlyBe'iag]. y dlyBtia is the truth re
vealed and expressed in the gospel in all its fulness.^ — inuKoy, not "faith"
(Wiesinger), but "obedience." The genitive is not the gen. subj.. "the
obedience which the truth begets," but the gen. obj.: "obedience to the
truth." This vnoKoy, however, consists in believing what the truth proclaims,
and in performing what it requires (thus Weiss also). — The preposition iv
exhibits vnuKoy as the element in which the Christian must move in order
to procure the sanctification of his soul. — If the reading bid nveiparog be
adopted, the nveipa is not the human spirit, but the Spirit of God ; Luther,
incorrectly : that the apostle here raeans to observe that the word of God
raust not only be heard and read, but be laid hold of with the heart. — e'lg ipila-
belipiav dvvnuKpiTov does not belong to the dyanyaare following, either as denot
ing the terminus of love, and the sense being: diligite vos in fraternam caritatem,
i.e., in unum corpus fraternae caritatis ; or as bid (Oecumenius), and thus point
ing out the " agency by which ; " nor, finally, is it ecbatic : ita ut omnibus
manifesium fiat, vos esse inv'icem fratres (Gerhard); — but it is to be taken in
conjunction with yyviKbreg, and specifies the aira towards which the d-yvl^eiv
is to be directed. Sanctification towards love, by the putting away of all
selfishness, must ever precede love itself. — ipilabelipla, love of the brethren
peculiar to Christians: cf. 2 Pet. i. 7; Rora. xii. 9, 10; 1 Thess. iv. 9. —
With uvvnbKpiTog, cf. 1 John iii. 18, where true unfeigned love is described. —
iK {KaBapdg) Kapbiag is not to be joined with what precedes, — it being thus a
somewhat cumbrous adjunct, — but with what follows, setting forth iu relief
an essential element of love ; with the expression iK Kapblag, cf. Rom. vi. 17 ;
Matt, xviii. 35 (dnb ruv KnpbiCiv ipuv) ; on the Ree. m KaBapdg Kapblag, see 1 Tim.

' Hofmann declares himself opposed to both tirely unnoticed. He states that the original
of these interpretations, or rather he seeks to meaniug of the word dyvo? " Is that purity of
unite thera after a fashion, by assuming that miod -which regards one thing only as the
the participial clause partakes of the irapera- foundation aud aira of all practical life, — the
tive tone of the principal clause. He likewise truly moral." Cremer, too, thinks that
characterizes personal purification, presup- although originally it had the religions sense
posed by that love which is ever and anon '* to dedicate," it Is (Johu xl. 55, Acts xxi. 24,
manifested, as that which should have been 26, xxiv. 18, excepted) as a term, techn. foreign
accoraplished once for all (ae if It were possU)le to the N". T., and Is here only equal to "to
to command that soraething should have taken purify," " to cleanse " (without the secondary
place) ; he then adds that he who has not yet meaning " to dedicate ").
dedicated his soul to brotherly love must do 3 Calvin's llraltatlon of the idea is arbitrary :
80 still (!). "veritatem accipit pro regula, quam nobis
2 Schott leaves this religious reference en- Dominus in evangelic praescribit."

CHAP. L 23. 237
1. 5.1 — dllrilovg ayairyaare iKrevug]. dyandv is not to be limited, as Wiesinger
proposes, " to the manifestation of love in act ; " the passages, chap. iv. 8,
1 John iii. 18, do not justify this limitation.— j/crCToif, "with strained ener
gies ; " it denotes here " the persevering intensity of lore " (in like manner,
Weiss, p. 336; Fronmiiller, Hofmann); Luther translates "ardently;"
Schott without any reason asserts that in all the N. T. passages the word is
used only in the temporal sense of duration, and therefore is so to be taken
here; Luke xxii. 24, Acts xii. 5, xxvi. 7, 1 Pet. iv. 8, are evidence not /or,
but against, Schott's assertion. The chief emphasis lies not on dyanyaare,
but on iK {KaBapdg) Kapb'iag and iKrevug.
Ver. 23. dvayeyevvypivoi gives the ground of the preceding exhortation,
by referring to the regeneration from incorruptible seed already accora
plished, which, as it alone renders the dyang.v iKrevug possible, also demands
it. Luther: "as those who are born afresh;" cf. 1 John iv. 7, v. 1. This
regeneration is described, as to the origin of it, by the words which follow,
and withal in such a way that here, as in ver. 18, the position is strengthened
by placing the negation first. — oiK iK anopdg ipBapryg, dlld dipBdprov]. anopd,
strictly, "the sowing, the begetting," is not here used with this active force
(Aretius: satio incorrupta h. e. regeneratio ad vitam aeternam. Fronmiiller:
"the energizing principle of the Holy Spirit"), but it is "seed," because, as
De Wette says, the epithet suggests the idea of a substance. By anopd ipBapry
is to be understood not the semen frugum, hut the semen humanum (De Wette,
Wiesinger, Weiss, Schott, Hofraann); cf. John i. 13. — The question arises,
in what relation do iK anopdg dipBuprov and bid Ibyov stand to one another?
The direct connection of the figurative expression (anopd) with the literal
(loyog), and the correspondence which evidently exists between dipBaprov aud
(i.ivTog K. pivovrog, do not allow of the two ideas being considered as different,
nor of anopd being taken to denote the " Holy Spirit " (De Wette-Briickner).
On the other haud, the difference of the prepositions points to a distinction
to vihich, frora the fact that anopd is a figurative, libyog a real appellative
(Gerhard, Weiss, Schott),^ justice has not yet been done. The use of the
two prepositions is to be understood by supposing a different relation of
the same thing (of the loyog) to the regeneration ; in iJ we have its point
of departure, and not merely its "originating cause" (Hofmann) ;' we have
1 This participial clause joins itself natur- appearance similar to that which Hofraann
ally with what precedes, and is not, with understands as occurring here.
Hofmann, to be taken with what follows 2 -Weiss is of opinion that, as an explana-
(chap. li. 1) ; dnoGepevoi, as o5f shows, begins tion of the raetaphor, Sid only can be eraployed
a new sentence. The connection proposed by with Adyos, not c'k, which belongs exclusively
Hofraann would give rise to a very clumsy to the figure. This is, however, incorrect;
phraseology. Were it true that regeneration Sid would doubtless not have been suited to
has nothing to do with brotherly love, then of a-iropd, but ek might very well have been used
course neither has It any thing to do with the with A670U (cf. John ili. 5), indeed, must have
laying aside of those lusts which are opposed been so If tbe \6yos Itself were regarded as
to love, spoken of In chap. II. 1. Hofmann anopd. The two prepositions express, each of
says, indeed, that chap. ii. 1 describes the thera, a different relation.
contraries of an-Adrij? (childlike sirapliclty), s Also In the passages quoted by Hofraann,
not of ii>i\aSe\^ia; but Is uot the opposite of John I. 13, Iii. 5; Matt. I. 18, — eK indicates
the one the opposite of the other also? The more than a mere causal action.
construction in Rom. xiii. 11 ff. is only in

238 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
the word of God looked upon as the principle implanted in man working
newness of life (b loyog ipipvrog, Jas. i. 21) ; bid, on the other hand, points to
the outward instrumentality by which the new life is effected. — bid Ibyov
(il'VTog Qeov Kal pivovrog refers back to ver. 22 : iv ry irraKoy ryg dlyB. ; the Chris
tian is laid under obligation to continued sanctification 'tv in. r. dX, inasmuch
as he has been begotten again to newness of being, by the word of God, i.e.,
the word of truth. — Ibyog Qeoi is every word of divine revelation; here
especially the word which, originating in God, proclaims Christ, i.e., the
gospel. Schwenkfeld erroneously understands by it the Johannine Logos,
which, indeed, even Didymus had considered possible. — On the construc
tion of the adj. ^uvrog and pivovrog, Calvin says : possumus legere tam sermonem
viventem Dei, quam Dei viventis ; he hiraself prefers the second combination;
thus also Vulg., Oecura., Beza, Hensler, Jachmann, etc. Most interpreters
give preference, and with justice, to the fir.tt, for which are decisive both the
contents of the following verses, in which the emphasis is laid, not on
the abiding nature of God, but of the word of God, and the position of the
words — otherwise ^vrog, on account of the subsequent kuI pivovrog, must
have stood after Qeov. The superaddition of pivovrog arises frora the circum
stance that this attribute is deduced from the previous one, and is brought
in so as to prepare the way for the passage of Scripture (ver. 25 : pivei) (De
Wette). 1 The characteristics specified by these attributes are applicable to
the word of God, not in its forra, but in its inner sub.stance. It is living in
essence as in effect; and it is enduring, not only in that its results are
eternal, but because itself never perishes. If the subjoined eig rbv aiuva be
spurious, then without it the peveiv must not be liraited to the present life.^
Vv. 24, 25. Quotation frora Isa. xl. 6, 8, slightly altered frora the LXX.
in order to confirm the eternal endurance of the word by a passage from the
Old Testament." — bibn, as in ver. 16; the passage here quoted not only
confirms the idea pivovrog, but it gives the reason why the new birth has
taken place through the living and abiding word of God (so, too, Hofm.).
The reason is this, that it may be a birth into life that passes not away. —
ndaa adpi, i.e., ndg dvBpunog; CARO fragilitatem naturae indicat (Aretius); not
" all creature existence," embracing both stones and plants, etc. (Sohott),
for of a plant it cannot be said that it is dig xoprog. — ijg xoprog is to be found

J Hofmann strangely enough explains the truth which the voice contained. Just as,
position of ©eoS by assuming it to be placed when I put to my lips a cup which contains
as an apposition between the two predicates to wine, I drink the wine, although I thrust not
which it serves as basis; he accordingly thinks the cup down my throat. Thus it is with the
tbe words should be written thus: Std Adyou , word which the voice utters; It drops into
iiiivTos, Beov, Ka:i pevovro^ ('.). the heart, and becomes ll\1ng, although the
2 The word, as the revelation of the Spirit, voice lemains outside and passes away. There-
is eternal, although changeable, according to fore it is indeed a divine power, it Is God
Its forra; to the word also applies what Paul Hiraself."
says (1 Cor. xv. 54) : " this corruptible shall s The context In no way indicates that the
put on Incorruption, and this mortal shall put apostle had particularly desired to make cm-
on iramortality." Luther admirably says: phatic "that natural nationalities, with all
"The word Is an eternal, divine power. For their glory, form but a tie for these earthly
although voice and speech pass away, the periods of time" (Schott).
kernel remains, I.e., the understanding, the

CHAP. I. 2.5. 239
neither in the Hebrew text nor in the LXX. — kuI ndaa bb^a airijg; instead of
aiiT^f, the LXX. have ai^flpun-oD ; in Hebrew, TlOD. Incorrectly, Vorstius : Ap.
nomine carnis ei gloriae ejus intelligit praecipue legem Mosis et doctrinas hominum ;
Calvin, again rightly: omne id quod in rebus humanis magnificum dicitur. —
i^ypdvBy b ;\;6prof, k.t.X, gives the point of comparison, that wherein the adp^
and its bb^a resemble the x°pi'og and its dvBog; but it does not emphatically
assert that "the relation of the fiesh to its glory in point of nothingness is
quite the same as that of the grass in its bloom" (Schott). — kuI rb dvBog
airoi iHneae]. airoi, if it be the true reading, is an addition made by Peter,
for it is to be found neither in the LXX. nor in the Hebrew text. By the
preterites 'e^ypdvBy and e^eneae the transitoriness is raore strongly raarked;
cf. Jas. i. 11, V. 2. — Ver. 25. Instead of Kvpiov, the LXX. have roi Qeoi ypuv,
^yiyif. Kvpiov can hardly have been written on purpose by Peter "because
he had in his mind Christ's word" (Luthardt). Jaraes refers to the sarae
passage here cited by Peter, without, however, quoting it verbatim. — In the'
following words the apostle raakes the application : roiro be ianv]. rovro is
not used "substantively, as the predicate of the sentence, equal to that
is, namely, eternally abiding word of God is, the word of God preached
among you" (Schott); but it refers back siraply to the preceding to pypa Kvplov,
and is equivalent to, "this word, of which it is said that it remaineth for
ever, is the word which has been preached among you." — rb pypa rb eiayye-
liaBiv]. Periphrasis for the gospel. In the O. T. it denotes the word of
promise, here the gospel. Peter identifies them with each other, as indeed
in their inmost nature they are one, containing the one eternal purpose of
God for the redemption of the world, distinguished only according to dif
ferent degrees of development. — eig ipdg, i.e., iplv; in the expression here
used, however, the reference to the hearers comes more distinctly into promi
nence (cf. 1 Thess. ii. 9, and Lilneraann in loe). — In the last words Peter
has spoken of the gospel preached to the churches to which he writes, as the
word of God, by which his readers are begotten again of the incorruptible
seed of divine life, so that as such, in obedience to the truth thus coramu-
nicated to them, they must sanctify themselves to unfeigned love of the
brethren.

240 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.

CHAPTER II.
Ver. 1. Instead of inoKpiaeig, B reads inbKpiaiv; correction after the pre
ceding bblav, with which it is in signification closely linked on. In like manner
the reading ndaav Kuralaliav, X (pr. m.), for ndaag Karalallag, is to be taken as
an alteration. In A, sorae vss., ndaag is wanting before Karalallag ; it could
easily have fallen aside, inasmuch as the two preceding words are without
adjectives. — Ver. 2. After ai^yByre, most codd. (A, B, C, K, P, X, al.), etc.,
read: e'lg aurypiav (accepted by Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch.). The adjunct
is wanting in the Ree. (after L, and several min.); it may be omitted, inasmuch
as an adjunct of this kind is not necessary to the words, iv airu av^yByre.
Ver. 3. The Ree. elnep, after C, K, L, P, al., Vulg. {si tamen), is retained by
Tisch. 7; on the other hand, Tisch. 8 and Lachm. have adopted the simple ei.
This is supported by A, B, N (m. pr. C has corrected elnep), Cyr., Clem. The
Ree. seems to have made the alteration for the sake of the sense. — Ver. 5.
Instead of o'lKobope'iaBe (Tisch. 7), A**, C, N, several min., Vulg., Cyr. read inoiKO-
bopelaBe (Tisch. 8), which, however, seems to be a correction after Eph. ii. 20. —
Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read the prep, eig between oUog nvevaariKog and iepdrevpa
dyiov, after A, B, C, N, 5, al., several vss., and K, V. The common reading is
supported by K, L, P, many min., Vulg., other versions, Clem., etc.; Tisch. 7
has retained it; De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche, have in like manner
declared themselves in favor of the Ree. ; De Wette speaks of the interpolation
of eig, "as facilitating a transition, otherwise abrupt, to another conception;"
on the other hand, Briickner and Hofmann prefer the other reading, which is
attested by weightier witnesses. The eig may be omitted, inasmuch as the
thought might seem inappropriate that an ohog should be built up to an
iepdrevpa. — ru before Qeu is doubtful ; for it, are L, P, etc. ; against. A, B, C,
K, al. Lachm. and Tisch. have doubtless correctly omitted it. — Ver. 6. bibri,
with Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., etc., according to almost all the authorities,
instead of tire Ree. bib kuI, which is to be found only in min. and in Orig. —
iv ry ypaipy]. Eec, after K, L, P, several rain., etc.; Tisch. reads, after A, B,
X, 38, 73, iv ypnipy ; Lachm. has adopted 7 ypaipy, which is found in C, several
min., Vulg., Hier., Aug. This last reading seems, however, to be only a correc
tion, in order to avoid the diflBculty which lies in connecting the verb ntpiixei
with iv (ry] ypaipy. — Instead of in airu, x (pr. m.) has in' avrov, which is not
supported by other witnesses. — Ver. 7. Instead of the dneiBoiaiv of the Kec,
after A, K, L, P, etc. (Tisch. 7, Lachm., Buttm.), Tisch. 8, after B, C, X, al.,
has adopted dniarovaiv. Perhaps the Ree. is a correction after ver. 8. — llBov],
Ree, after C**, K, L, P, X (pr. m.). al., Thph. — Retained by Tisch. ; in its
stead Lachm. has liBog ; this reading is found in A, B, C*, several min., Oec.
Since in Greek it is by no means uncommon that the substantive is often put

CHAP. II. 241
in the same case as the relative which it precedes, llBov need occasion no sur
prise ; as, in addition to this, liBov is found in the LXX., llBog seems to have
been the original reading, which became changed into liBov, following the LXX.
and the common usage in Greek. — The words llBog . . . yuviag koi are wanting
in the Syr. ver.; Grotius, Mill, Semler, Hottinger, therefore consider them
spurious, for which, nevertheless, sufficient justification is wanting. —Ver. 11.
dnixeaBai]. Eec, after B, K, X, several min., vss., and K, V; retained by Lachm.
and Tisch., whilst A, C, L, P, several min., read dnixeaBe, which Buttm. has
adopted ; see on this the commentary ; Lachm. adds vpUg, after the Vulg., as
Tisch. remarks, "ex errore de C."— Ver. 12. Instead of inonrevaavreg, Ree,
after A, K, L, P, al., inonrevovreg must be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., after
B, C, X, al., Thph., Oec; on account of the bo^dauaw following, the present
could easily have been changed into the aorist. — Ver. 13. inordyyre oiv]. Lachm.
and Tisch. 8 omit oiv, after A, B, C, X, al., Didy., Cassiod. ; oiv (Tisch. 7) is sup
ported only by K, L, P, many min., etc. ; it is possible that oiv was interpolated
in order to obtain a firmer connection of thought. In Cod. X (pr. m. ) dvBpun'ivy
is wanting, but is supported by almost all witnesses. — Ver. 14. The Ree, fol
lowing C and several min., retains piv after iKd'iKyaiv, which had been rightly
rejected already by Griesbach. — Ver. 18. X has after beanbraig the pron. vpuv. —
Ver. 19. —Different adjuncts to xapig are found in different codd., as Qeoi, Qeu,
napd Qeu, napd ru Qeip, which have been all interpolated later, in order to define
the idea more precisely. — Several min. and C have, instead of avve'ibyaiv Qeoi :
avveibyaiv dyaByv ; In A* both readings are combined : avve'ibyaiv Qeov dyaBiyv. —
Ver. 20. The Ree. has tovto X'i-P'-S ; this reading Tisch. 8 has retained, as he
asserts, following B, C, K, L, P, x, etc.; on the other hand, Lachm., Buttm.,
Tisch. 7, read touto ydp xupig, after A. According to Buttm., this reading is
found also in B (X ?). — Ver. 21. The codices vary between the Kec. (ed. Elzev. )
inep ipuv, iplv, which is found in A, B, C, X, several min., Oec, Amb., etc.
(Lachm., Tisch. 8) ; iinip ¦ypuv,vplvm'K,'L,V,a\., Slav., Vulg., Cyr., etc. (Scholz,
Tisch. 7, Reiche), and inep ypuv, yplv, in several min., etc. (Kec). Tisch.
remarks : Nil probdbilius quam yplv vplv in ca^ussa fuisse, cur bis ab aliis vplv ab
aliis yplv scriberetur. Quod tola oratio ad lectores incitandos instituta est, id
emendatori magis ipiv quam yulv commendabat. According to almost all the
authorities, vplv is the original reading ; it is possible that, in accordance with
it, ypuv was changed into ipHv ; it is also possible that the application of Xp.
inaBev to the readers alone seemed inappropriate to the copyist, and that he
changed vpCiv into ypijv. Wiesinger, Schott, and Hofm. hold >ipuv, and Bruckner
ipHv, to be the original reading ; the weightiest authorities decide for ipuv. —
X reads dniSavev instead of inaBev, supported by general testimony, and in ver.
23, iloibbpei (pr. m.) instead of dvrelotbbpei. — Ver. 24. The avrov after pijlum
{Eec.) is supported only by L, P, X (pr. m.), 40, al., Thph., Oec, whilst A, B, C,
K, have It not ; Lachm. has accordingly omitted it, whilst Tisch., bn the other
hand,, has retained it. Although airoi is in itself the more difficult, still, on
account of the preponderating evidence against it, it can hardly be regarded as the
original reading ; its addition can be explained also partly from the endeavor to
form this relative clause as similarly as possible to the preceding bg . . . airbg,
partly from the circumstance that it is to be found in Isa. liii. 5, LXX. ; although
Tisch. says : ov . . . airov emendatori deberi incredibile est ; nee magis credi-
bile airoi ex LXX. inlatum esse servato inepte ov. Wiesinger, Bruckner, Schott,
Hofm., hold avrov to be original. — Ver. 25. nlavupeva] Ree, after C, K, L, P,
etc., Thph., Oec; on the other hand, Lachm. and Tisch., following A, B, X,

242 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
etc., Toi., Harl., Fulg., have adopted nlavdipevoi, which is probably the original
reading ; the change into nlavupeva was very natural, on account of the npbjiaTa
immediately preceding.
Vv. 1, 2. dnoBepevoi ovv . . . ininoByaare]. The admonition which com
mences here stands, as ovv shows, in close conioection with what precedes.
In ver. 22 the apostle had exhorted to unfeigned love one of another, which
love he shows to be conditioned by dyvi(eiv iv r-y inuKoy ryg d'AyBeiag, and
grounded on dvayeyevvypevov eivai; from this deducing the anor'iBeoBai ndaav
KUKiav, K.r.l., he now exhorts inmoBelv rb loyiKbv ydla. The apostle's intention,
explaining at once the connection of this with the foregoing admonition, and
the relation in which the thought of the participial clause dnoBepevoi stands
to that of the imperative ininoByaare, is that the Christians should show
themselves reKva vrraKoyg (i. 14), not each for himself, but united together,
an oUog nvevparmbg (ver. 5), yevog iKleKrbv, k.t.X (ver. 9). Schott acknowledges
this reference (unjustifiably denied by Hofmann) to the unity of the church;
it explains why the apostle mentions those sins only which stand in direct
antagonism to the ipilabelipia dwnbKpirog (i. 22). The participle dnoBipevoi
stands to ininoByaare in the same relation as dvatiuadpevoi to Hniaare in chap.
i. 13; it is therefore not equal to postquam deposuistis, but expresses the
continued purification of the Christian; corap. Eph. iv. 22; Heb. xii. 1;
.specially also Col. iii. 8; and for the whole passage, Jas. i. 21. — ndaav
KUKiav, K.r.l.]. Calvin : non est Integra omnium enumeratio quae ileponi a nobis
oportet, sed cum de veteri homine disputant Apostoli, quaedam vitia praeponunt
in exemplum, quibus illius ingenium designant. kokIu means here, as in Col.
iii. 8, not generally, " wickedness," but specially " malice,'' nocendi cupiditas
(Hemming). Trdtrav denotes the whole compass of the idea: "every kind of
malice." The same is implied by the plural form in the words following
vnoKplaeig, etc. ; in ndaag Karalallag both are combined. The same and simi
lar ideas to those here expressed are to be found conjoined elsewhere in the
N. T. ; comp. Rom. i. 29, 30. " The admonitions which follow are in essen
tial connection with this comprehensive exhortation ; comp. chap. ii. 22 ff. ;
especially chaps, iii. 8 ff., iv. 8 ff., v. 2 ff." (Wiesinger). For the force of
the separate terms, comp. lexicon. i — Karalalia occurs only here and in 2
Cor. xii. 20; in the classics the verb is to be found, never the subst. —
Ver. 2. ug dpnyevvyra dpiipy is not to be connected with dnoBepevoi, but with
what follows. It does not mark the childlike nature of the Christians, but,
in view of the goal of manhood yet afar off, is meant (referring to i. 23 :
dvayeyevvypivoi) to designate the readers as those who had but recently been
born again. 2 In Bengel's interpretation : denotatur prima aetas ecclesiae
N. T., a false reference is given to the expression. The particle ug is here
also not used with a comparative force only; comp. chap. i. 14. — rb
loymbv dbolov ydla ijrinoByaare]. ydla is not here contrasted with (3pupa, as in
1 Augustin: "malitia macule delectatur ' Tt must be observed that the expression
alieno; invidia bono cruclatur alieno; dolus was used by the Jews also to designate the
duplicat cor; adulatio duplicat linguam; de- proselytes; corroborating passages in Wet-
trectatio vulnerat famam." stein in loe.

CHAP. II. 1, 2. 243
1 Cor. iii. 2, or with areped rpoipy, as in Heb. v. 12 ; but it denotes' the word
of God, in that it by, its indwelling strength nourishes the soul of man.
The terra ydla, as applied by the apostle, is to be explained simply frora
the reference to dpnyevvyra Bpiijiy (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann). This view
results quite naturally frora the comparison with chap. i. 22, 28. If Peter
had intended to convey any other meaning, he would have indicated it so as
to have been understood. ' — loyiKov does not state an attribute of evangelical
doctrine : " rational ; " Gualther : quod tradit rationem vere credendi et vivendi,
noi even in the sense that this (with Smaleius in Calov.) might be inferred:
nihi'. credendum esse quod ratione adversetur ; but it is added in order to mark
the figurative nature of the expression ydla (to which it stands related simi
larly as in chap. i. 13 : ryg buiv. iu. to rdf baipiag), so that by it this milk is
characterized as a spiritual nourishment. Luther: "spiritual, what is drawn
in by the soul, what the heart must seek ; " thus, too, Wiesinger, Schott,
Bruckner, Fronmiiller, Hofmann. It has here the same signification as in
Rom. xii. 1, where it does not mean "rational" as contrasted with what is
external (De Wette). The interpretation on which loymbv ydla is taken
as equal to ydla roi loyov, lac verbale, is opposed to the usus loquendi (it is
supported by Beza, Gerhard, Calov., Hornejus, Bengel, Wolf, and others).
Nor less so is the suggestion of Weiss (p. 187), that by "loymbv is to be
understood that which proceeds from the loyog (i.e.. Word) ; " thus ydla
loyiKov would be the verbal milk of doctrine. ^ • The second adjective : ddolcv
(utt. ley.), strictly " without guile," then "pure, unadulterated," is not raeant
to give prominence to the idea that the Christians should strive to obtain
the pure gospel, unadulterated by heretical doctrines of man, but it specifies
purity as a quality belonging to the gospel (Wiesinger, Schott). ^ It is,
besides, applicable, strictly speaking, not to the figurative ydla, but only
to the word of God thereby denoted (Schott).* — ininoByaare expresses a
strong, lively desire, Phil. ii. 26. Wolf : Ap. alludit ad infantes, quos sponte
sua et impetu quodam naturall in lac maternum ferri constat. The conjecture
of Grotius : ininorlC/ere, is quite unnecessary. — iva 'ev avru ai^yByre]. iva, not
iKlSariKug, but relmug; it states the purpose of the ininoByaare. iv is more sig
nificant than bid, equivalent to " in its power." The verb ai^yByre, used in
connection with dpnyevv. jlpeipy, denotes the ever further development and
strengthening of the new life. Although the aim which the apostle has in
1 Calvin understands yd\a to mean : " vitae God is Christ Himself, who is preached and
ratio quae novam genlturam sapiat;" Hera- revealed in the word."
ming : " consent^nea slraplici infantiae vivendi 2 Besides, how does this agree with Weiss's
ratio;" Cornelius a Lapide : "syrabolum can- opinion, that ydKa means Christ Hiraself?
doris, sinceritatis et benevolentiae." All these The verbal Christ 1 1
Interpretations are contradicted by the fact ' Wolf : " lac aSoXov ideo appellarl puto, ut
that vaAot is not a condition of life, but means indicetur, operam dandam esse, ne illud tra-
of nourishment. It is altogether arbitrary to ditionlbus humanis per KaTrijAcuofra! toi/ Adyoi',
explain viAa to be the Lord's Supper (IJstius, 2 Cor. Ii. 17, corruptum hanriatur."
Turrianus, Salmeron), or as meaning Christ * Hofraann rightly obseiwes : "What tends
as the Incarnate Logos (Clemens Al. in Pae- to the Christian's growth raay be compared
dag., i. c. 6; Augustin In Tract, ill., In 1 Ep. to the pure milk which makes tfie child to
John) ; Weiss, too, is mistaken, when he says : thrive at its mother's breast, and therefore It
" The nourishment of the new-born child of is termed to Aovikoi' dSohov ydKa."

244 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
view in his exhortation is to mark the destination of Christians to be an
olKog nvevparmbg, still it is incorrect to affirm that ai^yByre has reference, not
to the growth of the individual, but (with Schott) only to the transforming
of the church as such, " to the conception of a building which is being-
carried up higher and higher to its completion." Apart from the fact that
a'v^dveaBai plainly refers back to dpny. (Spiipy, and is not equivalent to "to be
built up," it must be remarked that the church can become what it should
be, ouly by individual members growing up each of thera ever more and
more to the dvijp releiog. — eig aurypiav, omitted in the Ree, states the final
aim of all Christian growth. Schott's explanation, that hy aurypia "the
final glorious transfiguration of the churcli " is meant, is only a consequence
of his erroneous and one-sided reference of the apostle's exhortation to the
church as such.
Ver. 3. fi {elnep) iyeiaaaBe, on, k.t.X]. Based on the Old Testament pas
sage, Ps. xxxiv. 9 : yevaaaBe Kal ibere, bn ;tp??(7r6f 6 Kipiog ; the words Kal Ibere are
omitted, not being suitable to the figure ydla. — ei is here, as in ver. 17,
hypothetical indeed: "if," but it does not express a doubt; thus Gerhard
correctly explains elnep : non est dubitantis, sed siipponentis, quod factum sit.
Comp. Rom. viii. 9; 2 Thess. i. 8. — yeiopai is used here of inward experi
ence, comp. Heb. vi. 4, 5 ; it alludes to the fignrative ydla, inasmuch as the
Christian tastes, as it were, of the kindness of the Lord in the spiritual milk
tendered to him. The apostle takes for granted that the Christians had
already made inward experience of the goodness of their Lord (Kipiog; in
the Psalms, God ; here, Clirist), not merely in the instruction which preceded
baptism, or in baptism itself (Lorinus), or cum fidem evangelii susceperunt
(Hornejus), but generally during their life as Christians ; as the new-born
child, not once only, but ever anew, refreshes itself on the nourishment
offered by a mother's love. With such experience, it is natural that be
lievers should ever afresh be eager for the spiritual nourishment, in the
imparting of which the xpv<^'''oryg of the Lord is manifested : nam gustus
provocat appetitum (Lorinus).^ — on, not equal to quam (Grotius), but "that."
— Xpyarbg, "kind, gracious," not exactly suavis (Grotius: ut a gustu sumta
translatio melius procedat) ; in this sense it would be more applicable to yiila
than to Kipiog. — Several interpreters assurae that in xpv^rbg Peter plays upon
the word Xpiarbg ; but this is more than improbable.
Vv. 4, 5. The structure of this new exhortation is similar to that of the
previous sentence, to which it belongs in thought, externally (bv) as inter
nally, inasmuch as the imperative (o'lKobopelaBe) is preceded by a participle
(npoaepxbpevoi), and an adjunct introduced by ug, defining the subject more
nearly. — Starting from 6 Kvpwg the apostle says : npbg ov npoaepxbpevoi]. npoaep-
XeaSai (elsewhere in the N. T. always construed with the dative) denotes the
going spiritually to the Lord; the Christian does indeed already live in
1 Schott insists "that the apostle is not here Nothing In the context Indicates that that in
anxious about the readers' desire iu general which the xpijo-tottjs of the Lord Is manifested
for the word, but that such desire should be Is " those rare moments of heavenly Joy in
corabined with the purpose of finally attaining which this life is a foretaste of eternal glory "
salvation." Bnt is there anywhere a desire (Schott).
after the word of God without such intent?

CHAP. II. 4, 5. 245
union with Christ, but this does not exclude the necessity of becoming
united ever more completely with Hinj (thus also Hofmann). i Luther,
incorrectly : " to whom ye have come," as if it were the part, praet. ; Hor
nejus well puts it : non 'actum inchoatum, sed continuatum designat. — I'lBov C,uvra,
in apposition to bv; it is not necessary to supply ug (Wolf). What follows
shows that the apostle had in his mind the stone mentioned in the prophecies,
Ps. cxviii. 22 and Isa. xxviii. 16 (cf. Matt. xxi. 42 ; Acts iv. 11 ; Rom. ix. 33).
The want of the article points to the fact that the apostle was more con
cerned to lay stress on the attribute expressed in llBog (dv, than to draw
attention to the fact that in these passages of the 0. T. Christ is the prom
ised llBog. In using this terra, Peter had already in view the subsequent
o'lKobopelaBe. The church is the temple of God, the individual Christians are
the stones from which it is built; but Christ is the foundation-stone on
which it rests. In order that the church may become ever raore completed
as a teraple, it is necessary that the Christians should unite themselves ever
more closely with Christ. The apostle enlarges on this thought with refer
ence to those predictions, — The explanatory adjective is added, as in ver. 2,
to the figurative XBov ; and by it, on the one hand, the expression is marked
as figurative, ne quis tropum nesciret (Bullinger) ; and, on the other, the
nature peculiar to this stone is indicated. Qjvra is to be taken here as in John
vi . 51 and similar passages. Flacius, correctly : dicitur Christus lapis vivus,
non tamen passive, quod in semet vitam habeat, sed etiam active, quia nos mortuos
vivificat.^ — ino dvBpunuv piv dnodedoKipaapivov, a nearer definition, according
to Ps. cxviii. 22 What is there said specially of the builders, is here
applied generally to mankind, in order that a perfect antithesis may be
obtained to the napd be Oeu. The want of the article rCiv does not warrant
a toning-down of the interpretation to mean "by men," i.e., by some or by
many raen (Hofraann). The thought is general and comprehensive; the
article is wanting in order to emphasize the character of those by whora
Christ is rejected, as compared with God (Schott). Believers are here
regarded "as an exception" (Steiger). — Trapd di Qeu iKleKrbv, ivnpov, after
Isa. xxviii. 16 ; Peter has, however, selected two attributes only ; that is to
say, he passes over the characteristics of the stone itself, and its relation
to the building, giving prominence only to its value in the sight of God"
(Steiger). Both adjects, form the antithesis to dnobeboK.; iKleKrdg is neither
equal to eximius (Hemming) nor to npoeyvuapivog (Steiger) ; but "elect," i.e.,
1 The single passage, 1 Macc. ii. 16, by no reference to the conception of the saxum
means proves that rrpoaepxeadai npoi has In vivum as Opposed to broken stones (VIrg.,
Itself a stronger force than npoaepx. cum dat. Aen., I. 171; Ovid., Metam., xiv. 741). Inap-
(as against Hofmann). According to Schott, propriate is Schott's opinion, "that ^ivv indi-
by rrpoaepx. Is meant; "not the Individual cates that by the self-unfolding (!) of His
Christian's deepening experience of comrau- divinely human life, Christ causes the church
nity of life with Christ, but only the conduct to grow up from Hiraself the foundation
of the believer, by which, as a member of the stone." Hofraann would erroneously exclude
church, he gives hiraself up to the Lord as the second of the above-mentioned Ideas from
present in His church, in fact to the church the M9ov iiovra, although It is clearly Indicated
itself" 1 by the very fact that, through connection with
2 De Wette (as opposed to Clericus and the stone, Christians themselves become living
Steiger) is right in refusing to see here any stones.

246 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
chosen as the object of love; cf. 1 Tim. v. 21. — napd Qeu, not a Deo (Vulg.),
but iviJniov roi Qeoi, coram Deo, Deo judice, "with God." Worthy of note is
the "antagonism between the human judgment and the divine " (Wiesinger),
the former given effect to in the crucifixion, the latter in the glorification of
Christ. — Ver. 5. /cat airol ug llBoi l^Civreg oUobopelaBe]. Kal airoi places the
Christians side by side with Christ (Wiesinger inappropriately takes airol as
also applying to the verb oiKobop.). As He is a living stone, so are they also
living stones, i.e., through Hira. The explanation : cum lapidibus comparan-
tur hom'mes, qui, quoniam vivant, vivi lapides nominantur (Carpzov, Morus), is
inadequate. Further, <jf I'lBoi (uvreg states the qualities which the readers
already possessed, not those which they were to obtain only through the
o'lKobope'iaBai (Schott) ; that unto which they should be built is stated in what
follows. — oiKoboue'iaBe is, according to the structure of the sentence, not in
dicative i but imperative. 2 The objection that the verses following are
declarative, may be quite as well used for the imperative force of that which
precedes them.^ If vv. 4, 5, serve as the basis of the foregoing exhortation,
this turn of the thought would also be expressed. Several interpreters (as
Luther and Steiger) incorrectly regard the verbal form as middle; it is
passive; "be ye built up,'' i.e., "let yourself be built up," i.e., by Christ, as
the foregoing npbg ov npoaepxbpevoi shows. Corresponding with the reading
inomobope'iaBe super illum, i.e., Christum, is generally understood ; an unneces
sary supplement ; the thought is: that (not on ichtch) the Christians should
let themselves be built up, to that, naraely, which the following words state.
— oiKog nvevpariKog etg iepdrevpa ct^toi']. In the Ree. without eig the two concep
tions are co-ordinate, both stating the end of the olKodouelaBar. "to the spiritual
house, to the holy pr'iesthood ; " but if the reading oIk. nv. eig iepdr. dy. he adopted,
then "iepdr. dy. is the further result of the being built up. to the spiritual
house" (Briickner). Hofmann holds that oixog nv. is in apposition to the
subject contained in oiKobopelaBe, and that e'lg 'iepdrevpa uy. alone is directly
dependent on okobopelaBe ; the former view is, however, more expressive,
inasrauch as it prominently shows that the Christians should be built up to
a spiritual house. o'lKog nv. contains the expression of the passive, iepdr. dy.,
on the other hand, that of the active relation of the church to God (Wie
singer, Schott, Bruckner). The dissimilarity of the two ideas seeras to be
opposed to the reading eig, since an oiKog cannot be transformed into a iepd
revpa ; but this difficulty disappears if it be considered that the house here
spoken of is built of living stones. It is clearly not the case that eig serves
only to facilitate an otherwise abrupt transition to a new idea (De Wette,
AViesinger). — oUog raeans, in the first instance, "house," and not "teraple;"
nor does the attribute nvevpariKog mark it as a teraple. We raust either hold
1 Hornejus, Bengel, Gerhard, etc.; more necessarily be Indicative in form, "because
recently, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann. the words subjoined to xpvaroi; 6 Kvpio^ must
3 Be2a, Aretius, Hottinger, Steiger, De state that to which tbe goodness of Christ
Wette-Briickner, Luthardt, Schott, etc. brings them," he does so without reason, for
3 The structure of the clause is In favor of the clause may also state that to which they
the Imperative, inasmuch as it is thus brought should allow the goodness of Christ to lead
Into conformity with the iraperative preceding. them.
When Ilofmann asserts that the sentence raust

CHAP. II. 4, 5. 247
by the conception "house" (Luthardt, Hofraann), ^ or assurae that by the
house Peter thought of the temple. The latter view deserves the preference
on account of the close connection with what follows : comp. the passages
1 Cor. iii. 16, 17; 2 Cor. vi. 16; 1 Pet. iv. 17 . — nvevuarmog is the house
raised frora " living stones," in contradistinction to the teraple built frora
dead ones, inasmuch as their life is rooted in the Spirit of God, and bears
His nature on it.^ — Iepdrevpa is here not the " office of priest " (2 Macc. ii. 17),
but the "priesthood " (comp. Gerhard: coetus s. collegium sacerdotum); comp.
ver. 9; Exod. xix. 6; "not instead of lepelg dyioi, but including the essential
idea of a community" (De Wette). It has unjustly been maintained that
if the reading eig he adopted, iepdrevpa must be understood of the priestly
office, dyiov subjoined to Iepdrevpa does not mark a characteristic of the
iepdrevpa of the New as distinguishing it from that of the Old Testament,
but one which belongs essentially to the Iepdrevpa (of course " as ordained by
God," Hofraann) as such, .ilere, too, there lies in the connection of thought
a special eraphasis on dyiov, inasmuch as without sanctification the priestly
calling cannot be truly fulfilled. — dveviyKai ¦nvevpariKdg Bvaiag is closely con
joined both in form (see Winer, p. 298 f. [E. T., 317]) and purport with
what precedes, pointing out as it does the function of the iepdrevpa. This
consists, as under the Old Covenant, in offering sacrifice. The word dva
ipipeiv, which is never used by Paul, has not indeed in the classics, but in
the LXX., in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in the Epistle of Jaraes, the
meaning " to sacrifice; " strictly speaking, " to bring the offering to the altar."
— The Bvalai which the N. T. priesthood, i.e., the Christian Church in all
its members, has to offer, are called nvevparmal, because they have their origin
in the nveipa, and bear on thera its nature and essence.' Cf . with this, Rom.
xii. 1; Heb. xiii. 15, 16. — einpoabeKrovg rip QeiJ]. einpbcbeKrog (Rom. xv. 16),
equivalent to eidpearog (Rom. xii. 1, xiv. 18; Phil. iv. 18, and other pas
sages). — bid 'lyaoi Xpiaroi belongs not to oUodopelaBe (Beda), but either to
evnpoab. r. Qeip (Luther : per Christum fit, ut et mea opera a Deo aestimentur,
quad alias non culmo digna haberei; Bengel, Steiger, Wiesinger, Hofraann,
etc.), or to dveveyKui (Grotius, Aretius, De Wette, Weiss, etc.).* No doubt
Heb. xiii. 15 might be appealed to in support of the latter construction ;
but in favor of the former are, (1) That the dveviyKai as a priestly function
stands in such close connection with Iepdrevpa uy., that it seems out of place
I Luthardt : " oiko? is not equal to va6i ; generalis nostri oblatio, neque enim offerre
nor in the context is a temple alluded to, for quicquam possumus Deo, donee illi nos ipsos
the emphasis lies on nvevpariKo';. oIko? is In sacrificium obtuierlmus, quod fit nostri
chosen because oi o'lKoSopeiaBe : be ye built as abnegatlone; sequuntur postea preces et gra-
a spiritual house ! To this Is joined, ' to an tiarum actiones, eleeraosynae et omnia pietatis
holy priesthood.' " exercitla."
'2 Schott finds the antithesis therein, that in * Briickner and Schott think it is correct to
the O. T. temple " the indwelling of God was connect {ti 'I. Xp. not with ofere-)//<ot only, but
confined to the holy of holies, and visible to with the entire thought; but It is self-under-
theeye"(?); whilst, on the contrary. In the stood that In the first combination, not the
Christian Church there Is " a real and direct mere dvaipepeiv, but the dvail>epeiv nvevpariKdg
indwelling of Q-od." Bvaiag, k.t.A., raust be considered as effected
' Calvin says in what they consist : " Inter by Christ.
hostias spirituales primum locum obtinet

248 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
to suppose a mediura (Sid 'Ir/ir. Xp.) in addition ; and (2) With dveviyKai nvevu.
Bvaiag the idea is substantially completed, einpoab. being a mere adjunct, to
which therefore bid 'I. Xp. also belongs.
Remark. — In this description of the Christians' calling, the apostle's flrst
object is not to state the difference between the church of the Old and that of
the New Covenant, but to show distinctly that in the latter there is and should
have been fulfilled what had aforetime indeed been promised to the former, but
had appeared in her only in a typical and unsatisfactory way. The points of
difference are distinctly set forth. Israel had a house of God ; the Christian
Church is called to be itself that house of God. That house was built of inani
mate stones, this of living stones ; it is a spiritual house. Israel was to be a
holy priesthood, but it was so only in the particular priesthood introduced into
the church ; the Christian Church is called to be a Iepdrevpa dyiov in this sense,
that each individual in it is called upon to perform the office of priest. The
sacrifices which the priests in Israel had to offer were beasts and the like ; those
of the Christians are, on the other hand, spiritual sacrifices, through Christ,
well-pleasing to God. — The idea of a universal priesthood, here expressed, is
opposed not only to the catholic doctrine of a particular priesthood, but to all
teaching with regard to the ofiice of the administration of word and sacrament
which in any way ascribes to its possessors an importance in the church, resting
on divine mandate, and necessary for the commvmication of salvation (i.e.,
priestly importance).
Ver. 6 gives the ground for the exhortation contained in vv. 4, 5, by a
quotation of the passage, Isa. xxviii. 16, to which reference was already
made in ver. 4. — bibn]. cf . i. 24. — nepiixei ev ry ypaipy : an uncommon con
struction, yet not without parallel; see Joseph., Antt., xi. 7 : ^oilopai yiveaBai
ndvra, KuBiig iv avry (i.e., imarolf/) nepiexei; indeed, nepiixeiv is more than once
used to denote the contents of a writing, see Acts xxiii. 25; Joseph., Antt.,
xi. 9 : Kai y piv iniaroly ravra nepielxev. Either ^ nepiox?i (or 6 rbnog) must, with
Wahl, be supplied here as subject ; or, better, nepiexei must be taken imper
sonally as equal to continetur ; ci. Winer, p. 237 [E. T., 252]; Buttmann,
p. 126 [E. T., 144]. — The words of the passage in the O. T. (Isa. xxviii.
16) are quoted neither literally from the LXX. nor exactly according to the
Hebrew text. In the LXX. it is : iboi, iyij epjidllu eig rd BepeXa Stwp (instead
of which we have here, exactly as in Rom. ix. 33 : iboi, rlBypi iv I,iuv) luBov
nolvrely (this adject, here omitted) iKleKrbv uKpoyuvialov (these two words
here transposed) ivnpov eig rd Bepilia airyg (the last two words e'lg . . , airyg
here left out) kuI b mareiuv (iu' avru added) ov py KaraiaxwBy (Rom. ix. 33 :
Kal nag b niareiuv in' airiJ ov KaraiaxvvBynerai) . Whatever may be understood
by the stone in Zion, whether the theocracy, or the temple, or the house of
David, or the promise given to David, 2 Sam. vii. 12, 16 (Hofraann), this
passage, which certainly has a Messianic character, — inasmuch as the
thought expressed in it should find, and has found, its fulfilraent in Christ,
— is not here only, but by Paul and the Rabbis (see Vitringa, Ad. Jes., I.
p. 217), taken to refer directly to the Messiah, who also, according to Delitzsch
(cf. 'in loe), is directly raeant by the stone (" this stone is the true seed of

CHAP. II. 7. 249
David, manifested in Christ"). Luther, following Oecumenius and Theo
phylactus, assumes that Christ is called llBog dKpoyuv. because He has united
Jew and Gentile together, and out of both collected the one church ; this
Calvin, not entirely without reason, calls a subtilius ph'ilosophan. In the
words : kuI d niareiuv, K.r.X, niareiuv corresponds to npoaepxbpevoi, ver. 4. oii p^
KaraiaxwBy does not refer to the glory which consists for the believer in this,
"that he, as a liBoa fiiv, will form part of the o'lKog nv." (Wiesinger), but to
"the final glory of salvation which is the aim of the present mareieiv"
(Schott); cf. ver. 2: eig aurypiav.'^
Ver. 7. vp'iv oiv y npy rolg niareiovaiv]. Conclusion, with special reference to
the readers, iplv, drawn from ver. 6 (oiv), and in the first instance from the
second half of the O. T. quotation, for rolg niareiovaiv evidently stands related
to b niareiuv in' airu, hence the definite article. On the position of TO(f mar.,
cf. Winer, p. 511 [E. T., 549] ; only, with Winer, it must not be interpreted :
" as believers, i.e. t/ ye are believers," but, "j/e who are believers." — From
the fact that y npy echoes i-vnuov, it must not be concluded that y npy here
is the worth which the stone possesses, and that the meaning is : " the worth
which the stone has, it has for you who believe " (Wiesinger). The clause
would then have read, perhaps : iplv oiv b liBog ian i] ripri, or the like, y npy
stands rather in antithesis to KuraiaxwByvai, and takes up positively what had
been expressed negatively in the verse immediately preceding. Gerhard :
vobis, qui per fidem tanquam lapides vivi super eum aedificamini, est honor coram
Deo (so, too, De Wette-Briickner, Weiss, Schott) ; iplv, sc. ian : " yours there
fore is the honor ; " the article is not without significance here ; the honor,
namely, which in that-word is awarded to believers (Steiger). — rolg niarei
ovaiv : an explanatory, adjunct placed by way of emphasis at the end. —
dneiBoiai [dniarovaiv] bi : antithesis to rolg niareiovaiv ; dneiBelv denotes not only
the simple not believing, but the resistance against belief ; thus also dmaroiaiv
here, if it be the true reading. Bengel wrongly explains the dative by :
quod attinet; it is the dat. incommodi (Steiger, De Wette, etc.). The words:
llBog (llBov) . . . yuviag, are borrowed literally from Ps. cxviii. 22, after the
LXX. What is fatal for unbelievers in the fact that the stone is become
the corner-stone (Keip. yuv. equals liB. uKpoy.) is stated in the following words,
which are taken from Isa. viii. 14 : n'dDr? llsS? ^j} I?? /-^ ^n ^ manner
similar, though not quite identical, these passages of the O. T. are woyen
together by Paul in Rom. ix. 33. The words do not denote the subjective
conduct of the unbelievers (according to Luther, the occasion of stumbling
or offence which they find in the preaching of the cross), but the objective
destruction which they bring upon themselves by their unbelief (Steiger,
De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmiiller); cf. Luke xx. 17, 18,
where the corner-stone is also characterized as a stone of destruction ior
unbelievers. It is therefore without any foundation that Hofmann asserts
"the thought that, to the disobedient, Christ is become the corner-stone
1 Hofmann Is wrong in asserting that It Is as the corner-stone, must not be understood,
here said " that oi (xij Karaiaxvve-i) is meant to with Gerhard and Steiger, as one on which
call back to mind the ek aiorripiav In ver. 2." one stumbles and falls. This is not contained
2 Schott rightly observes that itetjioATi yaviai, in the Idea, corner-stone, In itself.

250 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
seems impossible," if dneiBovaiv be taken as the dat. incommodi. So that it
is in no way necessary to accept a construction so uncommon as that adopted
by Hofraann, who considers the two clauses : iplv . . . olKobouoivreg to be,
with an omitted Uv, in apposition to the following ovrog, looking on y npy as
a kind of personal designation of the stone, and separating the three follow
ing expressions : eig Keip. yuv., liB. npoKbpp., and nirpa OKUvb. in such a way as
to refer the first to believers, and the other two to unbelievers, although no
such division is anywhere hinted at.
Ver. 8. 01 npooKonrovai links itself on to dneiBoiai, k.t.X : " that is, to those
ivho," etc., not to what foUows, as if eiai were to be supplied: "they who
stumble are those who are," etc. — npooKonreiv has here the same meaning
as that contained in the last words, but the turn of the thought is different ;
there, it is shown what Christ is become to the unbelievers, naraely, the
ground Df their destruction ; here, on the contrary, that they are really
overtaken by this destruction; Lorinus explains npooKonrovai incorrectly:
verbo offenduniur et scandalizantur, id blasphemant et male de illo loquuntur. —
Ttj liiyu dneiBoivreg]. It is better to connect ru Ibyu with dneiBovvreg than with
npoaiibnTovai (either : " who at the word are offended," or : " who by the word
suffer hurt"). For, on the one hand, the leading idea npoaK. would be
weakened by its connection with loyu ; and, on the other, the nearer defini
tion requisite is supplied of itself from what precedes; it would, too, be
inappropriate " that loyog should ot a sudden take the place of Christ, who
in ver. 7 is, as liBog, the object of npooK." (Briickner). Wolf: qui impingunt,
nempe: in lapidem ilium angularem, verbo non credentes: quo ipso et offensio
ipsa et ejus causa indicatur. — eig 6 koi ireByaav]. eig b not equal to iip' li, "on
account of which ; " nor is it equal to Etc bv (sc. Ibyov or liBov) ; Luther :
" on which they are placed ; " or, sirailarly, Bolten : " they stumble at that, on
which they should have been laid " (he makes eig b refer to the oraitted object
of npooK.), but it points rather to the end of ireByaav.' — riBypi is here, as
frequently in the N. T., " to appoint, constituere" (cf. 1 Thess. v. 9). It is
clear frora the connection of this verse with the preceding, that e'lg b does not
go back to ver. 5 (Gerhard: in hoc positi sunt, videlicet, ut ipsi quoque in hunc
lapidem fide aedificarentur). It raay be referred either to dneiBelv (Calvin,
Beza, Piscator, and others) or to npooKonrew and dneiBelv (Estius, Pott, De
AVette, Usteri, Hofmann, Wiesinger,^ etc.), or, more correctly, to npooKonreiv
' The application to the 'Word or to Christ to bring this with it; " Wiesinger, by asserting
occurs already in the older coraraentators; that " the passage here speaks of the action of
thus Beda says . "in hoc positi sunt, I. e., per God as a raatter of history, not of His eternal
naturara facti sunt homines, ut credant Deo et decrees." But what justifies any such soften-
ejus voluntati obtempereut; " and Nicol. de ing down? While Hofmann, in the flrst
Lyra, applying it specially to the Jews: "illis edition of his Schriftbeioeis, I., p. 210, says
data fuit lex, ut disponerentur ad Christum precisely, " that God has ordained them to
Becunduraquoddicltur Gal. iii. lex paedagogus this, that they should not become obedient
noster fuit In Christo; et ipsi pro majore to His word, but should stumble at it and fall
parte reraanserunt increduli." over it;" In the second edition, I., p. 237, it
2 Different interpreters seek In various ways appears that tbe meaning ouly Is, "that the
to soften the harshness of the Idea here pre- evil which befalls them io the very tact of
sented. Thus Estius, by explaining ereSriaav their not believing. Is ordained by God to
only of the permission of God; Pott, by those who do not obey His message of salva-
paraphrasing the idea thus : " their lot seemed tion, as a punishment of their disposition of

CHAP. II. 9. 251
(Grotius, Hammond, Benson, Hensler, Steiger, Weiss), since on the latter
(not on dneiBe'iv) the chief emphasis of the thought lies, and eig b, k.t.X,
applies to that which is predicated of the subject, that is, of the dneiBoivreg,
but not to the characteristic according to which the subject is designated.
The npooKbnreiv it is to which they, the dneiBovvreg, were already appointed,
and withal on account of their unbelief, as appears frora the ru Ibyip dneiB.
This interpretation alone is in harmony with the connection of thought, for
it is simply the marevovreg and dneiBoivreg, together with the blessing and
curse which they respectively obtain, that are here contrasted, without
any reference being raade to the precise ground of faith and unbelief.^ —
Following the construction of ver. 7 adopted by hira, Hofmann takes oi
npoaKommiaiv not as an adjunct referring to what precedes, but as protasis to
the subsequent e'lg b, which, according to him, contains the apodosis expressed
in the form of an exclamation. This interpretation falls with that of ver. 7.
Besides, it gives rise to a construction entirely abnormal, and of which there
is no other example in the N. T., either as regards the relative pronoun,^ or
the method here resorted to, of counecting apodosis with protasis. The
words are added by the apostle in order to show that the being put to shame
of unbelievers, takes place according to divine determination and direction.
Oecumenius ^ is not justified by the context in laying special stress on the
personal guilt of unbelief ; or Aretius, in answering the question : quis autem
illos sic posuit f by non Deus certe, sed Satan tales posuit.
Ver. 9. vpelg bi]. The apostle returns again to his readers, contrasting
them with the unbelievers (not " with the people of Israel," as Weiss thinks)
he had j ust spoken of. The nature of believers, as such, is described by the
same predicates which were originally applied to the O. T. church of God
(cf. Exod. xix. 5, 6), but have found their accomplishment only in that of
the N. T. Schott justly remarks that "what in ver. 5 had been expressed
in the form of an exhortation, is here predicated of the Christians as an
mind." Schott agrees with this view. But in ' Vorstius, correctly.: " Increduli sunt deslg-
it the Idea of eTe9i}aav in relation to aTretffovi'- nati vel constituti ad hoc, ut poenam sive
T€s is arbitrarily weakened; since Schott ex- exitiura sibi accersant sua incredulitate."
pressly says that unbelievers, by their own 2 Hofmann, indeed, appeals to Matt. xxvi.
state of mind, "appoint themselves to un- 60; but the interpretation of this passage is so
belief," he can look ou unbelief only in so far doubtful that it cannot be relied upon; cf. the
as the result of a divine decree, that God has various interpretations in Meyer on this
determined faith to be impossible with a carnal passage; In Winer, p. 157 (B. T., 167); in
disposition. But a limitation of this kind Is Buttmann, p. 217.
here all tbe more inappropriate, that Peter in ^ Ovx w? dn'o tou ®eov et? toOto dipiapiape.
the passage makes no allusion to the dispoai- fot?, elprirai- ovSepia ydp airia aTrt^Aetas n-api
tion which lies at the foundation of unbelief. rov n-ai^Tas dvBpiitnov^ SeAofTos aaOrivaL Ppa^eve-
Hofmann, in his commentary, says : " it Is the rat* iAAct Tots eavroi? aKevyj KartjpnKoaiv opyrp;
word which is preached to thera that they Kai Ij dneiBeia eirrjKoKovdriae, Ka'i ets 171/ napea-
refuse to obey; but, by the very fact of their Kevaaav eavrov^ rd^tv ereBijaav. Thus also
doing so, they sturable at Christ and fall over Didymus: "ad non credendura a semetipsis
Him, as over a stone ttat lies In the way. sunt positi ; " and Hornejus : " constituti ad
Both are one and the same thing, named from impingendum et non credendura ideo dicuntur,
different sides; the one tirae from what they quia cura credere serraoni Dei noUent, sed
do, the other from what is done to thera." ultro eura repellerent, deserti a Deo sunt et
Yet these are two different things; the one ipsius permlsslone traditi ut non crederent et
the cause, the other the effect. impingereut."

252 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
already present condition." — yivog iKleKrbv, after Isa. xliii. 20 (""^"n^ "S;?,
LXX. : yivog pov rb iKleKrbv) ; cf . also Deut. vii. 6 ff. ; Isa. xliii. 10, xliv. 1, 2,
xiv. 4, etc. This first designation sets forth that the Christians, in virtue
of God's love, have been elected to be a people which no longer belongs to
this world; cf. chap. i. 1. — flaailewv 'iepdrevpa, after Exod. xix. 6, LXX. (in
Hebrew D'jn^ ^^7'?'?, " a kingdom of priests ") ; most interpreters take it
as simple combination of the two ideas: "kings and priests." Still, it is
more correct to regard iepdrevpa as the principal idea (cf. ver. 3), and ^aai-
leuiv as a more precise definition: "a royal priesthood." Several commen
tators explain : " a priesthood possessing a royal character," inasmuch as it
not only offers up sacrifices (ver. 5), but exercises sway (over the world) ;
cf. Rev. i. 6, V. 10 (Wiesinger). AV^eiss (p. 125), on the other hand: "a
priesthood serving Jehovah the King, just as we speak of the royal house
hold." Since all the other predicates express the belonging to God, the
second explanation deserves the preference, only it must be modified so far
as to include in jiaall. not only the relation of service, but that also of belong
ing to and participation in the glory of the King founded thereon. Schott is
not justified in assuming that Peter did not intend to convey the force of
the Greek, but that of the Hebrew expression, D'jn^ nj^DD, namely : " a
kingdom which consists of priests." It is inadequate to understand, with
Hofmann, by the term : " a priesthood of princely honors," or j3aa'ileiav as
equal to, magnificus, splendidus (Aretius, Hottinger, etc.), or to find in it the
expression of the highest freedom ^ (subject only to God) (De Wette). —
eBvog uyiov in like manner after Exod. xix. 6, LXX. (Sl'np 'IJ). — Xadf eig
nepinolyaiv]. Corresponding passages in the O. T. are Deut. vii. 6 (H Sjp D^),
Mai. iii. 17 (nbjp), and especially Isa. xliii. 21, LXX. : labv pov ov nepienoiy-
cdpyv rdg dperdg pov biyyelaBai ('"'SQ] '^^t!"? '? '''^IV' ''~D^). The words fol
lowing show that the apostle had this last passage chiefly in his mind : still
it must be noted that this idea is contained already in Exod. xix. 5 {laAg
nepioiaiog). nepinolyaig is strictly the acquiring (Heb. x. 39) ; here, what is
acquired, possession ; neither destinatus (Vorstius) nor positus (Calovius) is to
be supplied to eig, they would not correspond with the sense ; eig is here to be
explained frora Mai. iii. 17, LXX. : iaovrai pot . . . eig nepinoiyaiv ; on elvai eig,
cf. Winer, p. 173 (E. T., 183 f.) ; in sense it is equivalent to labg nepioiaiog,
Tit. ii. 14. Schott attributes to this expression an eschatological reference,
explaining: "a people destined for appropriation, for acquisition ; " this is
incorrect, for, understood thus, it would fall out of all analogy with the other
expressions. The apostle does not here state to what the Christian Church
is destined, but what she already is ; " her coraplete liberation from all cosmic
powers is not," as BrUckner justly remarks, " an acquiring on God's side, but
only the final rederaption of those whom He already possesses." Schott's
assertion, that in the N. T. nepinolyaig has always an eschatological reference,
is opposed by Eph. i. 14; cf. Meyer in loe. — Although a difference of idea
1 Clemens Al. Interprets : " regale, quoniam fit orationibus et doctrinis, quibus adqulruntur
ad regnum vocati suraus et suraus Christi animae, quae afferuntur Deo."
sacerdotium autem propter oblationem quae

CHAP. II. 9. 253
founded on the etymologies of yivog, IBvog, labg is not to be pressed ; * yet it
must be observed that by these expressions, as also by iepdrevpa. Christians
are spoken of as a community united together in itself, and although diverse
as to natural descent, they, as belonging to God (and all the names employed
by the apostle point to this), form one people, from the fact that God has
joined them to Himself. — bnug rdg dperdg e^ayye'tlyre roi, k.t.X], bnug connects
itself, after Isa. xliii. 21, in the first instance with what imraediately goes
before, in such a way, however, that the preceding ideas point towards it as
their end. — rdg dperdg ; thus the LXX. translate nbrUjl in the above-men
tioned passage (in general, in the LXX., apET^ occurs only as the translation
of lin, Hab. iii. 3, Zech. vi. 13 ; dperai as the translation of n7nj^, Isa.
xlii. 8, 12, xliii. 21, and of ^1 /Hri, Isa. Ixiii. 7) ; accordingly the Alexan
drine translators understand by "lin and nbno in the passages in question,
not the "glory or praise" of God, but the object of the glory, that is, the
excellence or the glorious attributes of God. Peter took the word, in this
meaning of it, from them.^ — i^ayyeilyre]. Cf. Isa. xlii. 12, LXX. . Tdf dperdg
airov tv ralg vyaoig dnayyelovai ; iiayyilleiv ; strictly, iis qui foris sunt nunciare
quae intus fiunt (Xen., Anab., ii. 4, 21), is employed for the most part without
this definite application ; in the LXX. the translation of 1?P; in the N. T.
in this passage only ; it is possible that Peter thought of the word here in
its original force (Bengel, Wiesinger). — roi iK oKbrovg vpdg Kaliaavrog, i.e.,
Qeoi, not Xpiaroi'; Kalelv is almost uniforpily attributed to God. — OKorovg, not
equivalent to miseria (Wahl), but is used to designate the whole unhappy
condition of sin and lying in which the natural and unregenerate man is
(cf . Col. i. 13) ; here employed, no doubt, with special reference to the former
heathenism of the readers. — eig rb Bavpaarbv airov ipijg]. To render ipug by
cognitio melior (Wahl), is arbitrarily to weaken the force of the word; it
is rather the complete opposite of oKurog, and denotes the absolutely holy
and blessed nature — as oiitoO shows — of God. The Christian is translated
from darkness to the light of God, so that he participates in this light, and
is illumined by it.^ Schott incorrectly understands by oKorog: "heathen
' Steiger draws the following distinction : ^ jt is arbitrary to understand the word to
"yefos is the race, people of like descent; mean only this or that attribute of God; nor
eOvos, a people of like custoras; Aads, people raust the raeaning, as is done by Gerhard, be
as the raass," Schott thinks that e9vot in- liraited to the "virtutes Dei, quae in opere
eludes within it a reference to the Intellectual gratuitae voeationis et in toto negotio salutis
and raoral characteristics of the people, and nostrae relucent." Schott's interpretation is
that Aao! points to its being gathered together Ungulstically incorrect : oi dperai equal to
under one Lord. In this urging of distinc- to peyaKela r. @. (Acts ii. 11), "the great
tions — which are not even correctly drawn — deeds of God." Cornelius a Lapide entirely
is to be found the reason why Schott ex- misses the point in explaining: "virtutes,
changes the Greek expression ^aaiK. 'iepdrevpa quas Christus in nobis operator, humilitatem,
for the Hebrew, because 'iepdrevpa is not caritatem," etc.; and Salmeron: "virtutes
analogous to the other three designations, Christi, quas in diebus carnis suae exhibuit."
whilst paai\eia Is so, as a national commu- ' Wiesinger disputes this interpretation,
nity. — Peter certainly, in selecting these ex- holding that what is meant Is "that light
pressions, did not reflect on the original which has appeared to the world in Christ ; "
distinction of the ideas, but made use of them but is not this light the light of God ? — Cer-
slmply as they were presented to hira in the tainly <)>il! is here not 1. q. Xpto-Toi. According
Q rj, to De Wette, avTov designates the light as the

254 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
humanity left to itself," and by rd . . . airov ipug: "the church; " the church
lives in God's light, but it is not the light of God. — kuIMv is here applied,
as it is by Paul, to the effectual, successful calling of God. — Bavpaarbv (cf.
Matt. xxi. 42) denotes the inconceivable glory of the rpug Qeov.
Ver. 10. A reference to Hos. ii. 25, linking itself on to the end of the
preceding verse, in which the former and present conditions of the readers
are contrasted. This difference the verse emphasizes by means of a simple
antithesis. The passage in Hosea runs: 'B;?-^'''? '^IP^] ^^^1 ^''"^5; 'J^Dnil
nJlS~'BJ?, LXX. : dyanyau ryv ovk yyanypevyv Kal ipii tu ov laf) pov • lM.bg pov el ai
(the Cod. Alex, and the Ed. Aldina have at the commencement the addi
tional words: ileyau rrjv oiK yleypevyv). — oi nori ov labg]. Grotius, Steiger,
Weiss, incorrectly supply : Qeov. liaog is here used absolutely (Bengel : ne
populus quidem, nedum Dei populus). ov belongs not to yre to be supplied,
but is closely connected with labg, equivalent to "no-people." In like man
ner OVK yleypivoi as equal to " not-obtained mercy." " The meaning is not that
they once were not what they now are, but that they were the opposite of
it" (Wiesinger). But ov . . . labg is a people who, in their separation from
God, are without that unity of life in which alone they can be considered by
Him as a people; or, more siraply, who do not serve God who is the true
King- of every people ; cf . Deut. xxxii. 21, and Keil in loe. De Wette is
hardly satisfactory : " they were not a people, inasmuch as they were with
out the principle of all true nationality, the real knowledge of God," etc. ;
now they are a people, even a people of God, inasrauch as they not only serve
God, but are received also by God into community of life with Himself. —
oi oiK ijl^ypevoi, vvv be ileyBivreg]. The part. perf. denotes their former and
ended condition. Standing as it does here not as a verb, but as a substan
tive, like oil . . . labg, it cannot be taken as a plusquam-perf. part, (in oppo
sition to Hofraann). The aorist part, points, on the other hand, to the fact
of pardon having been extended : " once not in possession of mercy, but now
having become partakers of it " (Winer, p. 322 '- [E. T.*, 343]).

work of God, and consequently a different assume that they In their Judaism had been
thing from the ttu? which He Is Hiraself. idolaters, which is absolutely Impossible, or at
^ In tbe original passage these words apply least Peter must then have said why they,
to Israel; but frora this it does not follow that who as Israelites were the people of God,
Peter writes to Jewish Christians. For if could not in their former state be regarded as
Paul — as he clearly does — applies the passage such. Accordingly, -ou Aad? Is here in no way
(Rom. ix. 25) to the calling of the heathen, applicable to Israel, but only to the heathen;
then Peter surely, with equal right, could use and It Is not (as Weiss maintains, p. 119)
it with reference to tbe heathen converts. purely arbitrary to apply the passage, in oppo-
They had been, iu its full sense, that which eltion to its original sense, to heathen Chris-
God says to Israel, 'BJJ-x'7; and they had tians. Whilst Briickner says only that the
become that to which He would again raake words cannot serve to prove the readers to
Israel, Eis people. It must be obseiwed, •"^'^^ been Jews forraerly, Wiesinger rightly
however, that God in that passage addresses *nd raost decidedly denies the possibility of
Israel as 'BJ7~K7i only because It had for- applying them to Jewish converts; so, too,
saken Him and given itself up to the worship Schott. — Weiss's assertion Is by no means
of Baal, and consequently Incurred punish- justified by his insisting (Die Petr. Frage,
ment. Apart frora this, Israel had always P- ^^^^ "¦"' nothing tenable has been brought
remained the people of God. — If only Jewish forward against It.
converts were meant here, then Peter would

CHAP. II. 11, 12. 255
Vv. 11, 12. A new exhortation : the central thought is expressed in the
beginning of ver. 12. The apostle, after describing its peculiarly lofty
dignity, considers the Christian Church in its relation to the non-Christian
world, and shows how believers raust prove theraselves blameless before it
by right conduct in the different relations of human life. The condition
necessary for this is stated in ver. 11. — 'Ayanyroi]. This form of address
expresses the affectionate, impressive earnestness of the following exhorta
tion. — napuKulu (sc. ipdg) ug napomovg Kal napenibypovg]. Cf. Ps. xxxix. 13,
LXX. — ug, as in i. 14. — ndpomog, cf. i. 17, in its strict sense ; Acts vii. 6, 29,
equal to inquilinus, he who dwells in a town (or land) where he has no civil
rights ; cf . Luke xxiv. 18. In Eph. ii. 19 it stands as synonymous with
ievog, of the relation of the heathen to the kingdom of God. — napenibypog,
cf. i. 1. The home of the believer is heaven, on earth he is a stranger.
Calvin : sic eos appellat, non quia a patria exularent, ac dissipati essent in diver
sis regionibus, sed quia filii Dei, ubicunque terrarum agant, mundi sunt hospites ;
cf . Heb. xi. 13-15. A distinction between the two words is not to be pressed
here ; the same idea is expressed by two words, in order to emphasize it the
raore strongly. Luther inexactly translates napenibypoi by "pilgrims." —
Even if dnixeaBai be the true reading, the words ug napomovg, k.t.X, must be
connected with napoKulM (as opposed to De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger), for
they show in what character Peter now regarded his readers (Hofmann) '
in relation to the following exhortations, and have reference not simply to
the admonition dnixeaBai; as Weiss also (p. 45) rightly reraarks. Probably,
however, dnixeaBe is the original reading, and was changed into the infinitive
in order to make the connection with napuKalu more close. dnixeaBai pre
sents the negative aspect of sanctification, as chap. ii. 1: dnoBiuevoi. — ruv
aapKiKuv iniBvpiuv. similar expressions in Gal. v. 10; Eph. ii. 3; 2 Pet. ii. 18.
The iniBvuiai are aapKmai, because they have their seat in the adp^. Wiesinger
improperly says that " the lusts which manifest themselves outwardly " are
here meant, for all eniBvpiai tend to, and do, raanifest theraselves outwardly,
if there be no dnixeaBai. Schott assumes, without reason, that the iniBvulai
are here considered " as something outside of the Christian community, and
manifesting itself only in the surrounding heathen population ; " they are
indeed peculiar to the unbelieving world ; but the Christian, too, has them
still in his oapf, though he can and should prevent thera from having a deter
mining power over him, inasmuch as in the world over which they rule he is
a ndpomog Kal napenlbripog.^ This sequence of thought lies plainly indicated in
the close connection of the exhortation with what precedes (as opposed
to Hofmann). — ainveg arpareioviai Kard ryg ipvxijg is not a definition of the
aapKiKal, but as ainveg, equal to " as those which," shows, explains the nature
of the iniBvpiai aapKiKul, thus giving the reason of the exhortation. — arpareieiv

1 In the former exhortations Peter had trae affectus, ad quos natura ferlmur et
regarded them as reKva iinaKorj^, as such who duclmur." This goes too far, as It would
call on God as Father, as regenerate. demand the destruction not alone of the
2 Calvin Interprets : " carnis deslderia In- striving against the Spirit, natural to man in
telliglt, non tantum crassos et cum pecudibus his sinful condition, but of the entire life of
communes appetitus, sed omnes animae nos- the soul. Cf. Gal. v. 17.

256 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
is not "to lay siege to" (Steiger), but "to war," "fight against," as in Jas.
iv. 1 (Rom. vii. 23: uvnarpareveaBai). — ipvxv has here its usual meaning; it
is neither vita et salus animae (Hornejus, Grotius), nor ratio (Pott: libidines,
quae nos impellunt ad peragenda ea, quae rationi contraria sunt) ; nor does it
mean: "the new man" (Gerhard: totus homo novus ac interior, quatenus est
per Spiritum s. renovatus), nor: the soul, "in so far as it is penetrated by
the Holy Spirit" (Steiger), nor: "life as determined by the new Ego"
(Schott) ; but it is here siraply, in contradistinction to aupa, the spiritual
substance of man of which Peter says that it raust be sanctified (chap. i. 22),
and its aurypia is the end of faith (chap. i. 9) ; thus also De Wette-Briickner,
AViesinger, Hofraann, Fronmiiller. In the natural man the fvxy is under
the power of the iniBvplai oapKmal (which according to Jas. iv. 1 have their
dwelling iv rolg peleaiv; ci. also Rom. vii. 23) ; in hira who is regenerate, it
is delivered frorn thera, yet the iniBvplai seek to bring it again into subjec
tion, so that it raay fail of its aurypia; — in this consists the arpareieaBai Kara
ryg ipvxyg- — Ver. 12. ryv dvaarpofyv ipuv (chap. i. 15, 17) iv rolg eBveaiv exovreg
Kalijv]. 'ev rolg iBv. : " araong the Gentiles ; " for the churches to whora Peter
wrote were in Gentile lands. — exovreg Ka7<.rjv ; Luther, inexactly : " lead a
good raode of life ; " Kolyv is a predicate : " having your mode of life good (as
one good);" cf. chap. iv. S. — exovreg (antithesis to dnixeaBe, ver. 11) is not
here put for the imperative, but is a participle subordinate to the finite verb;
if dnixeaBai be read, there is here, as in Eph. iv. 2, Col. iii. 16, an irregularity
in the construction by which the idea contained in the participle is signifi
cantly made prominent. — iva iv Ct Karalalovaiv, k.t.X, "that in the matter in
which they revile you as evil-doers they may, on the ground of the good works they
themselves have beheld, glorify God," i.e., in order that the matter which was
made the ground of their evil speaking, may by your good works become to
them the ground of giving glory to God. — iva states the purpose ; not for
uare; iv li is not iv u xpovu, as in Mark ii. 19 (Pott, Hensler), for the Karalalelv
and the bo^d^eiv cannot be simultaneous ; nor is it pro eo quod (Beza), such a
construction has no grammatical justification; but ev specifies here, as in
verb, affect., the occasioning object (cf. chap. iv. 4), and the relative refers
to a deraonstrative to be supplied, which stands in the same relation to bo^d-
t,uai as 'ev li to Kuralaloiaiv. It is not then rovro, but iv roiru, which is to be
supplied (Steiger, De Wette, Wiesinger, Hofraann). If roiro were to be sup
plied it would be dependent on inonrevaavreg; but such a construction is
opposed by the circumstance that it is not this participle, but bo^diuai, which
forms the antithesis to Karalalovai. The participle is interposed here abso
lutely (as in Eph. iii. 4 : dvayivdaKovreg), and iK tuv koIuv ipyuv is connected
with bo^dl^uai, the sense being: "on account of your good works." Steiger
specifies the koIu ipya as that which occasions the KaTalal.elv, — and later the
oo^dieiv rbv Qebv, — but the subsequent iK ruv kuImv epyuv does not agree with
this ; De Wette gives : " the whole tenor of life ; " the connection with what
precedes might suggest the dnixeaBai tCiv aapK. iniBvpiCiv ; ' but it is simpler,
> So formerly in this commentary, with the heathen ; for It Is precisely this abstinence
observation : " Of this dnexeaOai Peter says which gives the Christian life its pecuhar
(chap. Iv. 3, 4), that it seemed strange to the character, aud distinguishes it from that ot

CHAP. II. 11, 12. 257
with Ilofmann, to understand by it generally the Christian profession. —
With KaKonoiiu, ei. ver. 14, iv. 15; John xviii. 30. Bruckner, Wiesinger,
Weiss (p. 367), justly reject the opinion of Hug, Neander, etc., that KUKonoidg
here, iu harmony with the passage in Suetonius, Vit. Ner., c. 16 : Christiani
genus hominum superstitionis novae et malificae, is equivalent to "state
criminal." In the raouth of a heathen the word would signify a criminal,
though not exactly a vicious man ; one who had been guilty of such crimes
as theft, murder, and the like (cf . iv. 15), which are punished by the state '¦
(cf. ver. 14). — iK rCiv kuIajv ipyuv]. The koIu ipya, in the practice of which
the dvaarpoipy Kaly of the Christians consists, are here presented as the motive
by which, when they see them, the heathen are to be induced to substitute
the glorifying of God for their evil speaking ; as the Christians too, on their
part, are often exhorted to holiness of life, that thus they may overcome the
opposition of the Gentiles ; cf . chap. iii. 2. Hofmann incorrectly interprets
iK r. Kal. ipyuv inonreiovreg : "if the heathen judge of your Christianity by
your good works;" ior inonreveiv does not mean "to judge of." With 'ckt.
KaX ipyuv . . . bo^dauai r. Qebv, comp. Christ's words. Matt. v. 16, which, as
Weiss not without reason assumes, may have here been present to the
apostle's mind. — inonreiovreg "goes back in thought to the Ka7M ipya, in
harmony with the linguistic parallel in iii. 2 and the gramraatical parallel
in Eph. iii. 4" (De Wette). It raakes no essential difference in the sense,
whether the present or, with the Ree, the aorist be read (see critical reraarks).
The word occurs only here and in iii. 2, where it is used with the accusative
of the object (for the subst. enbnryg, see 2 Pet. i. 16). It expresses the idea
of seeing with one's own eyes, more strongly than tha simple bpdv. There is
no reference here to the use of the word as applied to those who were initi
ated into the third grade of the Eleusinian mysteries. — iv ypipa imcKonyg].
InioKony is in the LXX. a translation of iT!Jp3, the visitation of God, whether
it be to bless (Job x. 12) or to chastise (Isa. x. 3) ; ypipa intoKonyg is there
fore the time when God gives salvation, or the tirae when He punishes, be it
in the general sense (Beda: dies extremi judicii), or more specially with refer
ence either to the Christians or the heathen. — The connection of thought
seeras to point decisively to that time as raeant when the KaralMloivreg shall
be brought to repentance and faith, that is, to " the gracious visitation of
the heathen " (Steiger) ; as 6 Kaipbg ryg inioKonyg aov, Luke xix. 44, is used
with regard to the Jews. This interpretation is to be found already in the
Fatfiers and in many later commentators, as Nicol. de Lyra, Erasm., Hem-

the heathen. It becarae the ground of evil KaKijv, and the reference to it in eK r. KaA.
report for this reason, that iraraoral motives epytov."
were supposed to be concealed behind It; and * Schott's assumption, "that it was the
this was all the more natural that the Christian burning of Rome that first increased the uni-
had necessarily to place himself in opposition versal hatred and aversion of the Christians to
to many of the ordinances of heathen life, and u special accusation of criminal and Immoral
that from a Gentile point of view his obedience principles," is unwarranted. He atterapts to
to the will of God raust have appeared a justify It only by charging Tacitus with an
violation of the law. This prejudice could error in the account he gives of tbe accusations
not be better overcorae than by the practice brought by Nero against the Christiaus.
of good works; hence, Tr]v dvaarp. ijp, . . .

258 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
ming, Vorstius, Beza, Steiger, De Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann, etc. On the
other hand, Oecumenius, AVolf, Bengel, etc., apply the inioKony not to God,
but understand by it the i^iraaig of the Christians at the hands of the heathen.
But for this there'is absolutely no ground. Luther's interpretation, "when
it shall be brought to light," is wrong ; it is equivalent to that of Gerhard :
simplicissime accipitur de visitatione illa divina, qua Deus piorum, innocentiam
variis modis in lucem producit. — Akin to this is the view held by sorae of the
scholastics, that inioKony is to be understood of the trial of the Christians by
affliction ; see Lorinus in loe.
Remark. — At variance with tbis explanation is tbat given by Schott, who
interprets the passage in this way: " In order that the heathen may glorify God
in the day of judgment, from this that (by the fact that) they slander you as
evil-doers in consequence of your good works, of which they are witnesses."
The idea that the undeserved calumnies pf the heathen serve at last to the
glorification of God, is in itself right and appropriate as a basis for the exhorta
tion given in the context. The resolution, too, of iv ifi into iv roiru, on, has
grammatically nothing against it ; Meyer even allows it to be possible in Rom.
ii. 1 ; cf. Heb. ii. 18, where Liinemann has recourse to a like construction,
though with a somewhat inadequate explanation. Still, more than one objec
tion may be urged against this interpretation : (1) A reference is given to
bo^dl^eiv different from what is contained in Karalalelv, inasmuch as it is taken,
as in 1 Cor. vi. 20, in the sense of "by action;" (2) bo^d^eiv must be thought
of as something which the heathen bring about "without knowing or willing"
it, whereas the apostle does not let fall a hint of any such nearer definition ;
(8) bo^d^eiv can only in a. loose sense be conceived of as an act of the heathen ;
it is simply the result of what they do (of their Kuralale'iv) ; and (4) In com
paring these words with those of Christ (Matt. v. 16) : bnug ibuaiv vpuv rd Kald
ipya Kal bo^uauai rbv naripa ipuv rbv iv rolg ovpavolg, the thought cannot be got rid
of that Peter had this passage here in his mind. Schott's objection, that
'• bo^d^etv rbv Qebv is a strange and, specially here, a doubly inappropriate
expression for conversion to Christianity, whilst the connection of the verb
thus taken with i-f , as equal to ' in consequence of,' is a hard and inelegant
construction," amounts to very little, since in the acceptation of the passage
which he calls in question the verb is by no means made to bear any such
meaning. Vv. 13, 14. The apostle now goes on to name the different relatione of
life, ordained of God, in which the Christian should show his holy walk.
First of all, an exhortation to obey those in authority. — inordyyre : the aor.
pass, is used here, as it often is, with a middle, not a passive — as Wiesinger
thinks — force. It is not : " be made subject," but " make yourselves subject "
(cf. raneivdiByre, chap v. 6).' The more liable liberty in Christ was to be
misunderstood by the heathen, and even to be abused by the Christians
themselves, the more important it was that the latter should have inculcated
* Winer Is wrong In attributing (p. 246 36, but Is right in ascribing it to napeSoBrire,
[E. T., 261]) a passive signification to this Eom. vi. 17.
TaireiviadyTe, as also to irpoaeKKidij, In Acts v.

CHAP. II. 13, 14. 259
upon them as one of their principal duties this inordaaeaBai (ver. 18, chap.
iii. 1) in all circumstances of life. — nday dvBpunivy Krlaei : Kriaig is here, in
accordance with the signification peculiar to the verb Krl^eiv : " to establish,
to set up," the ordinance, or institution (" an ordinance resting on a particular
arrangeraent," Hofraann). In connection with the attribute dvBpunivy, this
expression seeras to denote an ordinance or institution established by men
(so most expositors, and forraerly in this coramentary). But it raust be
noted that Kri^eiv (and its derivatives) are never applied to huraan, but only
to divine agency ; besides, the demand that they should submit theraselves
to every huraan ordinance would be asking too much. It is therefore
preferable to understand, with Hofraann, by the term, an ordinance (of God)
applying to human relations ("regulating the social life of inan").i By
the subsequent eire . . . eire, the expression is referred in the first instance
to the magistracy ; but this does not justify the interpretation of it as equal
directly to " authority," or even persons in authority (Gerhard : concretive
et personaliter : homines, qui magistratum gerunt) . That Peter's exposition of
the idea had direct reference to persons in authority, is to be explained from
the circurastance that the institution possessed reality only in the existence
of those individuals.'-' At variance with this view is De Wette's (following
Erasraus, Estius, Pott) interpretation of the expression : " to -every huraan
creature, i.e., to all men." Not only, however, the singular circumlocution :
Kr'iaig dvBpunivy for dvBpunog (for which De Wette wrongly quotes Mark xvi.
15, and Col. i. 23), but the very idea that Christians should be subject to
all men, — and in support of it no appeal can be made either to chap. v. 5,
or to the following exhortation: ndvrag npyaare, — is decisive against this
view.^ The fact that Peter places the general term ndaa Kriaig first, is
explained most naturally in this way : that it was his intention to speak
not of the magistracy merely, but also of the other institutions of huraan
life. — The motive for the submission here demanded is given by bid Kipiov,
i.e., Xpiarov (not Qebv, as Schott thinks), which must be taken to mean :
" because such is the will of the Lord," or, with Hofmann : " out of consid
eration due to Christ, to whom the opposite would bring dishonor." The
latter, however, is the less likely interpretation. Still less natural is it to
say, with Wiesinger, that this adjunct points to the Belov in ordinances under
which human life is passed. Incorrectly Huss : propter imitationem Dei, i.e.,
Christi. — In the enumeration which follows, the apostle is guided by the
historical conditions of his time. It must be remarked that inordaaeaBai is

^ This view avoids the certainly arbitrary _ ** BrUckner endeavors, Indeed, to defend
interpretation given, for example, by Flavlus, De Wette's interpretation: yet he decides to
who applies the expression specially to life understand the expression In question as
connected with the state. He says ; " dicitur " every ordinance o.f human civil society,"
humana ordlnatio ideo quia politlae mundi and solves the difiiculty presented by the
non sunt speciall verbo Dei forraatae, ut vera adjective dvQpvinivri (corap. with Rora. xiil.,1)
religio, sed raagis ab horainibus ipsomraque by remarking that "the ordinances of national
industria ordlnatae." life which have been developed historically
2 It is arbitrary to regard Kriaig (with and by huraan raeans possess a divine eleraont
Luther, Osiander, etc.) as meaniug the laws lo thera."
given by the magistrates.

260 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
inculcated not only with regard to the institutions of the state, but to the
persons in whom these are embodied, and this quite unconditionally. Even
in cases where obedience, according to the principle laid down in Acts iv.
19, is to be refused, the duty of the inordaaeaBai must not be infringed upon.
— eire jSaailel]. jiaailevg is here the name given to the Roman emperor; cf.
Joseph., De Bello Jud., v. 13, § 6. Bengel : Caesari, erant enim provinciae
romanae, in quas mittebat Petrus. — - ug vnepexovn : ug here also assigns the
reason ; inepixeiv expresses, as in Rom. xiii. 1, simply the idea of sovereign
power; non est comparatio cum aliis magistratibus (Calvin). In the Roman
Empire the emperor was not merely the highest ruler, but properly speaking
the only one, all the other authorities being simply the organs through
which he exercised his sway. — Ver. 14. elre yyepbaiv]. yyepoveg praesides pro-
vinciarum, qui a Caesare mittebantur in provincias (Gerh.). — ug di airov, etc. :
di airov does not, as Gerh., Aretius, and others take it, refer to nipiov, but to
ffaailel. The yyeu., although inepixovreg too, are so not in the same absolute
sense as the jjaaileig. They are so in relation to their subordinates, but not
to the 0aailevg. — e'lg 'eKb'iKyaiv KOKonoiiJv, inaivov be dyaBonoiuv is joined gram
matically to nepnopevoig, not to inepixovn also (Hofm., Schott) ; yet, from the
fact that the yyepoveg are sent by the jiaoileig eig 'eKb'iKyaiv, k.t.X, it is implied
that the latter, too, has an ofiice with respect to iKiVmyaig, k.t,!.'^ — Oecumenius
arbitrarily narrows the thought when he says : efafe koI airbg b Uirpog riai kuI
no'ioig dpxovaiv inordaaeaBai bet, on rolg rb blKUiov iKbiKOvaiv. The apostle insists
rather, without reserve, on submission to the yye/wveg, because (not if) they are
sent by the emperor to administer justice. ^^ — eKbUyaig, here, as often, "pun
ishment;" enaivog, not precisely "reward," but "laudatory recognition." —
dyaBonoiog is to be found only in later authors, in N. T. uir. ley. The subs.
occurs chap. iv. 19.
Ver. 15. on gives the ground of the exhortation: inordyyre, k.t.X — ovrug
iariv rb Belypa rov Qeoi: with ovrug; cf. Winer, p. 434 (E. T., 465), Buttm.,
p. 115 (E. T., 131) : "of such a nature is the will of God." Schott gives the
sense correctly : " In this wise is it with the will of God." The position of
the words is opposed to a connection of o rug with dyaBonoioivrag (Wiesinger,
Hofmann). — dyaBonoioivrag ; sc, vpug; dyaBonoielv, in Mark iii. 4; Acts xiv.
17, the word has reference to deeds of benevolence. Here, on the other
hand, it is used in a general sense : to do good, with special reference to the
fulfilment of the duties towards those in authority. — ipipovv ryv ruv uippbvuv
dvBpunuv dyvualav; ipipoiv (cf. 1 Tim. v. 18) here in the cognate sense of to put
io silence, Wiesinger ; " the dyvuola is here conceived of as speaking ; cf . v. 12 :
Karalaloiai ip. ug KUKonoiuv." — dyvuaia (except here, only in 1 Cor. xv. 34) is
the self-caused lack of any comprehension of the Christian life. Because

1 Hofmann is consequently wrong in assert- founded on, the moral purpose for which that
ing that in this connection " the duty of sub- Is done."
mission to him who makes over the exercise = Calvin very aptly puts It : " Objici possit;
of his power to others is derived from and reges et alios magistratus saepe sua potentia
based alone on his possession of tbat power, abuti ; respondeo, tyrannos et similes non
whilst submission to those to whora that facere suo abusu, quia maneat semper firma
power has been entrusted originated in, and is Dei ordlnatio."

CHAP. II. 16, 17. 261
they are without this, they in their foolishness (hence dippbvuv dvBpunuv)
imagine that its characteristic is not dyaBonoielv, but KOKonoielv. Beda incor
rectly limits ol dippoveg dvBpunoi to those persons in authority ; but the refer
ence is rather quite general to the Karalalovvreg, ver. 12.
Ver. 16. ug ilevBepoi is not, as Lachra., Jachmann, Steiger, Fronrauller
think, to be joined with what follows (ver. 11),' but with a preceding
thought; either with dyaBonoioivrag (Beda, Luther, Calvin, Wiesinger,
Hofm.), or with inordyyre (Chrys., Oecum., Gerhard, Bengel, De Wette,
Schott, etc.). The latter of these connections deserves the preference, not
because in the former a change of construction would take place, but because
the special point to be brought out here was, that the freedom of the Chris
tians was to be manifested in submission to (heathen) authorities. What
follows shows this, inasrauch as those Christians who had not attained unto
true freedom might easily be led to justify their opposition to those in
power on the ground of the liberty which belonged to thera in Christ, ug
ileiBepoi states the position which the Christians are to take up inwardly
towards the authorities ; tlieir subjection is not that of dovloi, since they
recognize them as a divine ordinance for the attainment of moral ends.^ —
Kal py ug enmdlvppa ixovreg ryg KUKiag ryv elevBep'iav]. Kai is epexegetical : " and
that," since what follows defines the idea ileiBepoi first negatively and then
positively. — ug belongs not to inmdlvppa, but to ixovreg: "and that not as
those who have." — inmdlvppa is the more remote, ryv elevBeplav the proxiraate,
object of ixovreg: "who have the ilevBepia as the inmdlvppa r, kuk," — 'enmdlvppa,
dn. ley. ; for its original raeaning, cf . Exod. xxvi. 14, LXX. ; here used
metaphorically (cf. Kypke, in loe). The sense is: "not as those to whom
their freedom serves as a covering for their KUKia " (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 19 ; Gal.
V. 13), i.e., who seek to conceal their wickedness by boasting of their
Christian freedom. This is the exact reverse of the Pharisaism of those
who seek to conceal the wickedness of the heart by an outward conformity
to the law. — all' ug doiloi Qeoi expresses positively the nature of the truly
free. True liberty consists in the bovleia Qeoi (Rom. vi. 16, ff.) ; it refers
back to the ri Belypa roi Qeoi, and further still to bid Kipiov.
Ver. 17. Four hortatory clauses suggested to Peter by the term dyaBonoi
oivrag; in the last he returns, by way of conclusion, to the principal theme.
In the first three there is a climax.' — ndvrag npyaare: ndvrag raust not, with
1 Hofraann justly says : "We cannot think munitles " (Schott), is warranted neither by
of joining ver. 16 with ver. 17, for Its contenta what precedes nor by any thing the clauses
would not suit TTtii'Ta? TtjLtiJo-ttTe, — even should theraselves contain. — Hofraann, who denies
it be connected with this only (Fronmiiller), the climax, deterraines the relation of the four
which is quite impossible, — not to speak of maxiras to each other in a highly artificial
Trjv ctSeAf^oTTjTa or Tot/ &eov ipo^elade," manner. He holds that the second sentence
2 It ie not probable that Peter here refers, is in antithesis to the first, and the fourth to
as Weiss (p. 349) thinks, to the words of the third ; that the first ie akin to the fourth,
Christ (Matt. xvii. 27), since tbey apply to and the second to the third; that In the first
circurastances altogether different from those stress is laid on iravra^, whilst in the second,
mentioned here; see Meyer in loe, on the other hand, it lies not on dSeKipoTrjra,
8 To distribute these four exhortations over but on dyairdre, and that In the first antithesis
"the two provinces of life, the natural and liis ihe ,fir8t meraber that is emphatic, in the
civil, and the spiritual and ecclesiastical com- second it Is the last.

262 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
Bengel, be liraited to those quibus honos debetur, Rom. xiii. 7,^ nor to those
who belong to the same state (Schott); it expresses totality without any
exception. — npdv is not equivalent to inordaaeaBai (De Wette) ; but neither
is it equal to civiiiter tractare (Bengel) ; the former is too strong, the latter
too weak ; it is the opposite, positively stated, of Kuraippoveiv, and raeans : to
recognize the worth (npy) which any one possesses, and to act on the recog
nition (Bruckner, Weiss, Wiesinger, Schott). This exhortation is all the
more important for the Christian, that his consciousness of his own dignity
can easily betray him into a depreciation of others. It refers to the nuy
which is due to man as man, and not first in respect of any particular
position he raay hold.^ — rijv dbelipbryra dyandre], dbeliipbryg, also in chap. v. 9,
corresponding to our "brotherhood," i.e., the totality of the Christian breth
ren, cf. iepdrevpa, VV.5, 9. The apparent contradiction of Matt. v. 44, here
presented, where love to eneraies is also enjoined, is to be explained on the
following principle : that the dj-dTr?? is differently conditioned, according as
it has difierent objects. In perfect harraony with its inmost nature, it can
exist only between Christians, for only among them is there comraunity of
life in God; cf. chap. i. 22. Pott interprets dyandv here superficially by
"entertain good-will to." — rbv Qebv ipojSeiaBe: cf. chap..i. 17 ; a coraraand not
only of the Old, but of the New Testaraent, inasrauch as a lowly awe before
the holy God is an essential feature of the filial relation to God. — rbv
tiaailea riudTe]. Reiteration of the command (ver. 13) as a conclusion to the
whole passage; cf. Prov. xxiv. 21, ipOj}oi rbv Qebv, vie, koi ijaailia. — ripare has
here the sarae meaning as previously : " show to the king the respect which
pertains to him as king; " what that is, the apostle has explained in ver. 13.
Hornejus^ incorrectly thinks that in the conjunction of the last two com
mands, he can here discover an indication of the limits by which obedience
to the king is bounded. — The difference in the tenses of the imperative, in
the first exhortation the imperat. aor., in the three others the iraperat. pres.,
is to be regarded as accidental, rather than as in any way arising frora the
substance of the coraraand.^
Ver. 18. An exhortation to the slaves, extending from this verse to the
end of the chapter. — ol olKerai']. ohiryg, properly speaking, "a domestic," a
milder expression for boilog. It is improbable that Peter eraployed this
term in order to include the freedmeu who had reraained in the raaster's
house (Steiger). — oi oIk. is vocative ; nor is chap. i. 3 (as Steiger thinks)
opposed to this. — inoraaabpevoi]. It is quite arbitrary to supply 'yre (Oecu
menius, etc ), or to assert that the participle is used here instead of tbe
imperative. The participle j-ather shows that the exhortation is conceived
1 In like manner, Hornejus : " non de ora- sit, nerape ut Dei interim timeri nihil deroge-
nlbus absolute loquitur, quasi omnes homines tur.
etiara pessirai houorandi sint, sed de iis, quibus * Hofraann's view is purely arbitrary :
honor propter potestatera quam habent, com- " that In the foremost clause tbe aorist is put
petit." because, in the first place, and chiefly, it is
required to honor all ; and after this, that the
Christian should love his brethren in Christ."
Nor can it be at all supported by Winer's
3 Explicat Petr. quomodo Caesari parendum remarks, p. 294 (E. T., 314) .

2 Flacius : " uniculque suum locum et debita
officia exhibete."

CHAP. II. 19. 263
of as dependent on a thought already expressed ; not on ver. 17 (De Wette),
but on ver. 13, which vv. 11 and 12 serve to introduce ; vnordyyre . . . Kipiov,
the institution of the household implied in the relation of servant to master,
is comprehended in the general terra ndaa dvBpun, Kriaig. — iv navrl ifibffu],
IpbjSog (vid. i. 17) is stronger than reverentia; it denotes the shrinking from
transgressing the master s will, based on the consciousness of subjection ;
cf . Eph. vi. 5.1 Doubtless this shrinking is in the case of the Christian based
on the fear of God ;. but the word ipbiSog does not directly mean such fear, as
Weiss (p. 169) holds and seeks to prove, especially from the circurastance
that Peter in chap. iii. 6, 14, conderans the fear of man, forgetting, however,
that this fear too may be of different kinds ; cf . in loco. — navn is intensive.
ndg ipb^og is every kind of fear ; a fear wanting in nothing that goes to make
up true fear. — rolg beanbraig], Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 1 ; Tit. ii. 9, equals rolg Kvpioig,
Eph. vi. 5 ; Col. iii. 22. — ov pbvov rolg dyaBolg koi imemeaiv, dlld Kal roig OKoliolg].
The raoral conduct of the servant, which consists in inordaaeaBai towards the
master, must remain unchanged, whatever the character of the latter may
be; the chief emphasis, however, rests here on dlld kuI roig ok. — dyaBoi here
is equal to " kind ; " for ememyg, oi. 1 Tim. iii. 3 ; it does not mean " yield
ing" (FronraUller), but, properly speaking, one who "acts with propriety,"
then "gentle." — oKoliog, literally "crooked," "bent," the opposite of straight,
denotes metaphorically the perverse disposition ; Phil. ii. 15, synonyraous
with biearpappivog ; in Prov. xxviii. 18, b cKoliaig obo'ig nopevbpevog forms the
antithesis to b-nopevbpevog bmalug (cf. Luke iii. 5). It has the same force in
the classics (Athen., xv. p. 695; okoIiu ippovelv, opp. to evBia ippovelv). It de
notes, therefore, such masters as conduct themselves, not in a right, but in a
perverse manner, towards their servants — are hard and unjust to them;
Luther's " capricious " is inexact.'-'
Ver. 19. TOVTO ydp xiipig, ei]. The ground of the exhortation, rotiro refers
to the clause beginning with ei. — xupt; has not the special raeaning "grace "
here, as if it were to be explained, either with the older coraraentators,
gratiam concilians; or as if by it were to be understood "the gift of grace"
(Steiger : " it is to be regarded as grace, if one can suffer for the sake of
God ; " so, too, Schott), or " the condition of grace " (Wiesinger : " in the
inopeveiv is manifested the actual condition of grace ") ; for this expression
is not parallel with Kliog, ver. 12: and how can a suraraons be issued in a
manner so direct, to the performance of a duty, by representing it either as
a gift of grace or a proof of a state of grace ? Besides, Wiesinger alters the
term "grace" into "sign of grace." — Some commentators, on account of
ver. 20, explain xupig as synonymous with Kleog, but without any linguistic
justification.^ In profane Greek, xupig denotes either the charm or the
loveliness, or also the favor which one person has for another (to which are
linked on the meanings, expressions of good- will and thanks). Both senses
1 Thus, too, In substance, Schott; "Fear in cumstances, but is not to be concluded from
general, as it is determined by the circum- the adject. o-KoAttS? (as opposed to Schott).,
stances here mentioned." ' *" Thus already Oecumenius (Calvin; "Idem
8 That Peter made special reference to valet noraen gratiae quod laudis; qui patienter
heathen masters, lies In the nature of the cir- ferunt injurias, il laude dignl sunt)."

264 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
are to be found in the Scriptures. ^ If the first signification be adopted, the
enduring of the adversity of which Peter here speaks is characterized as
something lovely ; and so Cremer (see under xmg, P- 576) seeras to take
it. But it is more natural to hold by the second sense, and to explain "this
is favor," as equal to " this causes favor." Several interpreters explain xripig as
equal directly to " delight," substituting for the substantive the adjective
"well-pleasing," and supplying napd ru QeiJ frora ver. 20. Thus Gerhard:
hoc est Deo gratum et acceptum; De Wette: "Favor with God, i.e., well-
pleasing before God ; " so, too, Hofmann. But both of these are open to
objection. Hofraann no doubt gives as the ground of his supplement :
" that the slave who lived up to the apostle's injunction has to look for the
approval of none.'' This is, however, surely an unjustifiable assertion. It
is not clear why Peter did not add the words supplied if he had them in his
mind ; xupti and Kliog in ver. 20 are therefore — in consideration of vv. 12
and 15 — to be taken quite generally. The following clause indicates a
good behavior, by which the Kuralalua of the heathen is to be put to silence.
el dia avve'ibyaiv Qeov vnoipepei, K.r.X], ei refers back to rovro; bid avve'ibyaiv Qeoi
is placed first by way of emphasis, aweibyaig Qeoi is neither " God's knowl
edge of us " (Morus ; quia Deus con.icius est tuarum miseriarum ; similarly
Fronrauller; "on account of the knowledge shared by God, since God
knows all "), nor is it " conscientiousness before God " (Stolz) ; but Qeov is
the object, genit. (cf. 1 Cor. viii. 7; Heb. x. 2), therefore the raeaning is:
the (duty-compelling) consciousness ot God.^ A metonymy does not require
to be assuraed (Grotius • per metonymiam objecti dicitur conscientia ejus, quod
quis Deo debet). Steiger introduces what is foreign to it when he extends
the idea so as to include the conscious knowledge of the divine recompense.
In bid avveid. Qeoi is expressed substantially the sarae thought as in dig Qeoi
bovloi, ver. 16, and did r. Kvptov, ver. 13 ; did ryv avveibyaiv without Qeoi is to be
found in Rom. xiii. 5. — inopepei ng linag], inoipepeiv : " to bear the burden put
on one ; " the opposite of succumbing under a burden, cf . 1 Cor. x. 13 ; 2
Tira. iii. 11 ; nevertheless, the apostle seems here to have in mind more the
antithesis to being provoked to anger and stubbornness (Hofmann). — Iwnai,
here, outward afflictions. — ndaxuv dbiKug, "whilst (not although) he suffers
wrong (from the master, i.e., undeserved on the part of the slave)." — It is
not suffering itself, but patient endurance in the midst of undeserved suffering,
and that bid avveibyaiv Qeoi, which Peter calls a xaptg- — This thought, general
in itself, is here applied to the relation of servant to master.
Ver. 20. nolov ydp Kliog], Gerhard : interrogatio respondet h. I. negationi;
this interrogation brings out the nothingness, or at least the little value, of
the object in question; cf. Jas. iv. 14; Luke vi. 32. — KUog, not sc. ivCmiov
roi Qeov (Pott), but quite generally, for the thought "refers back to the point
of view, stated in vv. 12-15, from which this exhortation is given " (Wie-
1 xdpii has the first meaning (Ps. xiv. 3; etc.). Ct. besides, Cremer and Wahl: Clavis
Prov. I. 9, X. 32, etc.; also Ecclus. vii. 19, etc.; libr. V. T. apocryphi.
in the N. T., Luke Iv. 22; Col. iv. 6, etc.). 2 Calov: "quia conscius est. Id Deum velie
The second signification (Prov. xxii. 1, etc.; et Deo gratura esse." So, too, De Wette,
In the N. T., Luke i. 30, ii. 62; Acts Ii. 47, Schott, etc.

CHAP. II. 21. 265
singer). — el apaprdvovreg koI Kolaipi^bpevoi irropeveiTe]. The two participles
stand in the closest connection with each other, so that dpaprdveiv is to be
conceived as the cause of the Kolaipl^eaBai. Luther's translation is accordingly
correct : " if ye suffer punishment on account of your evil deeds ; " the only
fault to be found with this is, that it weakens the force of the idea inopiveiv.
— inopiveiv is synonymous with inoipepeiv; the sense is: "it is no glory to
show patience in the suffering of deserved punishment." The view of De
Wette, that Peter referred only " to the reluctant, dull endurance of a crim
inal who cannot escape his punishment," misses the apostle's meaning, and
is correctly rejected by BrUckner and Wiesinger. Steiger remarks justly:
" that, when any one endures patiently deserved punishment, he is only
performing a duty binding on hira by every law of right and authority."
inopevelre is in the future with reference to the standpoint of the exhorta
tion (Wiesinger). — KolaipiCeiv: apud LXX. non occurrit, in N. T. generaliter
pro plagis ac percussionibus. Matt. xxvi. 67 ; 1 Cor. iv. 11 ; 2 Cor. xii. 7
(Gerh.); the strict signification is "to give blows with the fist, or slaps
on the ear." Bengel: poena servorum eaque subita. — ill' el dyaBonoioivreg ical
ndaxovreg inopevelre]. The interpretation of Erasraus : si quum beneficiatis
et TAMEN affligamini, suffertis, is incorrect, for between dyaBon. and ndax.
there exists the same relationship as between apaprdvovreg and KolaipiL.bpevoi;'^
Luther, correctly: "if ye suffer on account of good-doing;" cf. iii. 17. —
TOVTO ydp xupig napa Qeu before these words — ydp is the correct reading — the
apodosis taken out of noiov Kliog, " this is true praise,'' must be added to
what precedes, and these words forra the basis of an arguraent in which
roiiTo refers to ei dyaBonoioivreg , , , inopevelre. The meaning is : because this
in God's sight is a xupig (not equal to "in the judgment of God," cf. Luke ii.
52), therefore it is a Kliog.
Ver. 21 gives the ground of the exhortation to bear undeserved suffering
patiently, by a reference to the sufferings of Christ. — eig roiro ydp iKlyByre].
e.lg TOVTO refers to el dyaBonoioivreg . . . inopevelre. Many interpreters incor
rectly raake it apply only to suffering as such ; but, as Hemming rightly
remarks: omnes pii vocati sunt, ut patienter injuriam ferant. — The construc
tion with eig occurs frequently; cf. Col. iii. 15; 2 Thess. ii. 14. — In har
mony with the connection, oi o'lKirai is to be thought of as the subject to
iKlyByre ; accordingly it is the .slaves in the flrst instance, not the Christians
in general, who are addressed (as in chap. iii. 9, 14, 17): but as this KlyByvat
applies to them not as slaves but as believers, it holds true at the same time
of all Christians. — bn koI Xpiarbg inaBev inep ipuv], bn : such suffering is
part of a Christian's calling, /or Christ also suffered: InaBev ia here the em
phatic word ; and with it Kai also must be joined (which Fronmiiller errone
ously interprets by "even"). Wiesinger incorrectly takes kuI with inaBev
1 Nor Is this relation sufficiently perceived which the slave suffers Is not caused by his
by Schott In his explanation : " If they show actions," Hofraann has failed to observe (1)
patience under ill-treatment which accompa- that the context does not render the idea of
nies good conduct." In urging against the servants' work only necessary; (2) that tbe
interpretation given, that "If dyaBoiroieiv well-doing of the Christian was not always In
apply to the labor of servants, then, that harmony with heathen views (cf. chap. iv. 4).

266 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
inep ipCiv in this sense, that, as Christ suffered for us, " so we should endure
affiiction for Him, for His sake, and for His honor and glory in the world,"
thus introducing a thought foreign to the context. The obligation to suffer
under which we who are Christ's people are laid, from the very fact that
Christ also suffered, is for us all the greater that the sufferings of Christ
were inep ypijv (not dvB' ypdv, but " for our advantage "), and therefore such
as enable us to follow the exaraple which He has left us in His sufferings.
Inasmuch as ineo ipuv implies that Christ suffered not for His own sins, but
for ours, we are no doubt justified in recognizing these sufferings as unde
served, but not in concluding, with Hofmann, that iiTrep ipCjv is meant to
mark only the undeservedness of Christ's sufferings. — iplv inoXpndvuv ino-
ypappbv]. vnoXpndvu, dn. ley. Another form of inolelnu (used of the leaving
behind at death, Judith viii. 7). Bengel: in abitu ad patrem, inoypappbg
(dn. ley.) : specimen, quod imitentur, ut pictores novitiis exemplaria dant, ad quae
inter pingendum respiciant: equivalent in sense to inbbeiypa, John xiii. 15
(rvnog; 2 Thess. iii. 9). It is not Christ's life in general that is here pre
sented by way of example, but the patience which He showed in the midst
of undeserved sufferings.^ The participle is connected with inaBev in. ip. as
giving the nearer definition of the latter: He thus suffered, as in doing
so to leave you an example, withal to the end that, etc.^ — ha inaKolovByayre
rolg txveaiv aiToO]. Sicut prior metaphora a pictoribus et scriptoribus, ita haec
posterior petita est a viae duce (Gerhard); with inuKoX cf. 1 Tim. v. 10, 24.
— ixvog, besides here, in Rom. iv. 12 (aroixelv rolg Ixveai) and 2 Cor. xii. 18
(nepmarelv rolg ixveai),
Ver. 22. The first feature in the exemplary nature of Christ's sufferings:
His innocence. — After Isa. liii. 9, LXX. : dvoplav ovk inolyae, oibe bblov iv rip
arbpari avroi (Cod. Alex., oube eipiBy bbl/jg iv rip ar, avroi), Gerhard : nee verbo
nee facto unquam peccavit. The second half of the sentence expresses truth
in speech. With Sblog, ci. chap. ii. 1 ; John i. 48. For the difference be
tween eipioKeaBai and elvai, cf. Winer, p. 572 (E. T., 616).
Ver. 23. The second feature : the patience of Christ in His sufferings.
A reference, however shght, to Isa. liii. 7, cannot but be recognized. — of
loibopoipevog ovk dvreloibopei, ndaxuv ovk yneil.ei]. De Wette and Wiesinger
rightly draw attention to the climax between loibop. and ndaxuv, dvreloib. and
ynellei; lotbopla omnis generis injuriae verbales ; naBypara omnis generis injuriae
reales (Gerhard). — dvnloib. dn. ley.; ci. dvnperpiu, Luke vi. 38. — yneilei is
here used of threat of vengeful recompense. The announceraents of divine
judgraent on unbelievers, to which Christ raore than once gave expression,
are of a different nature, and cannot be considered as an dneilelv, in the
sense in which that word is here used. Corap. with this passage the exhor-
' Wherever Scripture presents Christ as an only In place of an Infinitive clause, as after
example, it does so almost always with refer- et-ToAij (John xiii. 34), /SovAij (Acts xxvii. 42),"
ence to His self-abasement In suffering and inasmuch as " iinoypappo^ is no more than a
death (Phil. il. 6; John xlii. 16, xv. 12; 1 John direction to do likewise." But this interpre-
111. 16; Heb. xll. 2), Only in 1 John ii. 6 is tation of iinoypappoi is erroneous, aud there-
Christ presented as an example in the more fore 'iva inaKoKoverja-iiTe cannot be resolved
general sense. into an iuflultlve clause,
2 Hofmann wrongly asserts that " 'iva stands

CHAP. II. 24. 267
tation of the apostle, chap. iii. 9. — napebibov Se ru Kpivovn bmalug]. napebibov
not in a reflexive sense: "He committed Himself" (Winer, p. 549 [E. T.,
590] ; De Wette),i neither is causam suam (Gerhard, etc.) nor Kplaiv (from
Kpivovn) to be supplied; the supplement is rather loibopovaBai and ndcxeiv
(Wiesinger, Schott). Luther's translation is good: "He left it to Ilim."^
— Didymus arbitrarily understands napebibov of Christ's prayer for His
eneraies ; ^ the meaning is rather, that Christ left it to the God who judges
justly, to determine what should be the consequences of the injustice done
to Him on those who wrought it. That His desire was only that they should
be punished, is not contained in napebibov (sirailarly Hofraann). Conse
quently the reference formerly raade in this coraraentary to Jer. xi. 20,
XX. 12, as illustrative of the passage, is erroneous. With ru bmalug Kpivovn,
cf. chap. i. 17: rirv dnpoaunolynrug Kpivovra, "a direct designation of God,
whose just judgment is the outcome of His being" (Wiesinger).
Ver. 24. A further expansion of the inep ipuv, ver. 21. — 6g rdg dpapriag
ypCiv airbg dvyveyKev, k,t,1, . " Who himself bore our sins on His hody to the tree,"
— bg, the third relative clause, though a climax too, cannot fail to be recog
nized here : He suffered innocently, — patiently (not requiting evil for evil),
— vicariously, for us, still it must not be asserted that this third clause
predicates any thing of Christ in which He can be an example for us
(Hofmann); the thought here expressed itself contradicts this assertion. —
The phraseology of this verse arose from a reference to the passage in Isa.
liii., and the actual fulfllment of the prophecy herein contained. The
words of that chapter which were chiefly present to the mind of the apostle
are those of ver. 12, LXX., kuI airbg dpapriag nolliliv dvyveyKe (^^}) ; cf. also
ver. 11: koI rdg dpapriag airuv airbg dvolaei (739^), and ver. 4: ovrog r. dpapriag
ilpCyv ipipei (^^^). The. Hebrew NB'l with the accus. of the idea of sin,
therefore "to bear sin," is equivalent to, "to suffer the punishment for sin,"
either one's own or that of another. Now, as dvyveyKe is in the above-quoted
passage a translation of H^J, its meaning is : " He suffered the punishment
forthe sins of many."* — This suffering of punishment is, in the case of
> In Mark iv. 29, too, to which De Wette above given; cf. Lev. xix. 17, xx. 19, xxiv. 15;
appeals, napaSiSovai has no reflexive force; Num. v. 31, xiv. 34; Ezek. iv. 5, xiv. 10, xvi.
see Meyer on this passage. 68, xxltl. 35, etc. (Lara. v. 7, 730): generally,
= The Vulg. strangely translates, "tradebat Indeed, the LXX. translate this Ktyj by
judicanti se injuste ; " according to which Kap^dveiv,'biiia.\BO'by Kopiieiv and dno^ipeiv;
Lorinus interprets: "tradidit se Christus in the passage quoted, Isa. liii. 4, by ((>epeti/ ; In
sponte pi-opriaque voluntate tura Judaeis, tum Num. xiv. 33, as in Isa. liii. 12, by dvaiftepeiv.
Pilato ad mortem oblatus." Cyprian (Z»e 5omo This proves how unwarranted Hofmann
Patientiae) and Paullnue (,Ep, 2) quotes the (Schriftbeweis, IL, 1, p. 465, 2d ed.) Is in
passage as it stands in the Vulg. Augustin saying, " that in view of the Greek translation
CTract. in John xxi.) and Fulgentius (Ad of jja. liii. 11, 12, It Is arbitrary to assume
Trasimarch., lib. I.), on the other hand, have [jjat dvaipipeiv means simply ' to carry.' " Of
juste, course every one knows that In and of Itself
a From the fact that Christ's prayer Is not dva^ipeiv does not mean "to carry;" but
mentioned here, De Wette unwarrantably con- from ujig jt does not follow that the LXX. did
eludes that It was unknown to the writer of ^^^ ugg it in this sense In the phrase above
the epistle. alluded to, the more so that they attribute to
< It admits of no doubt that Xfe'J In con- the word no raeaning opposed to its classical
nection with XI3n or |i;> has the meaning usage; cf. Thuc. 111. 18, kivSvvovi dva^ip.;

268 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
the Servant of God, of such a nature that by it those whose the sin is, and
for whom He endures the punishment, become free from that punishment ;
it is therefore a vicarious suffering.! Since, then, Peter plainly had this
passage in his mind, the thought here expressed can be no other than this :
that Christ in our stead has suffered the punishment we have merited
through our sins, and so has borne our sins. But with this the subsequent
inl rb ^ilov, which means not " on the tree," but " on to the tree," does not
seem to harmonize. Consequently it has been proposed to take dvaipipeiv in
the sense which it has in the phrase : dvaipipeiv n inl rb Bvaiaarypiav (cf. Jas.
ii. 21 ; Lev. xiv. 20 ; 2 Chron. xxxv. 16 ; Bar. i. 10 ; 1 Macc. iv. 53) ; cf .
ver. 5, where rb ^ilov would be conceived as the altar.^ But against this
interpretation, besides the fact that dvaipep. is thus here taken in a sense
different frora that which it has in Isa. liii., there are the following objec
tions : (1) That in no other passage of the N. T. is the cross of Christ
represented as the altar on which He is offered ; ' (2) That neither in the
O. T. nor in the N. T. is sin anywhere spoken of as the offering which is
brought up to the altar.* inl to ^ilov raight be explained by assuming a
pregnant construction, as in the Versio Syr., which runs : bajulavit omnia
peccata nostra eaque sustulit in corpore suo ad crucem,^ that is : " bearing our
sins He ascended the cross," But the assumption of such a construction is
not necessary, since dvaipipeiv can quite well be taken to mean " carrying up,"
without depriving the word of the signification which it has in the passage
in Isaiah, since " carrying up" implies "carrying." In no other way did
Pol. i. 30, ^Oovovi Kat Sta^oAd? dvaipep,, see * If dvaipepeiv be here taken as equivalent to
Pape, s.v. dvaiiiepto, and Delitzsch, Comment. " to offer sacrifice," as in Heb. vii. 27, not only
B. Mr. an die Hebr., p. 442. — Doubtless KOT would the thought — which Delitzsch (p. 440)
ti^-nS (Lev. i. 17) ie said of the priests bear- terras a corrupt one — arise, " per semet ipsum
ing away sin (making atonement), but there i™"<>l«"' P^^-^'* nostra," but em to f.Ao,.
Tv-s^ . 1 . v.t... I, .J - Til . , would then have to be interpreted, "ore the
the LXX. translate HtSl by dipaipeiv. Plainly „ _ ., .. . „¦ ,.c \^ ., ¦
. .f.. ., -r r J cross." Luther : "who Hiraself offered lu
there can here be no allusion to the raeaning ^^„,fl„^ „„ ^i„^ „„ gi^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ j^.^^„ _
" '¦° '°''S'^« i"n-" Here, too, Schott admits what Is said above,
' Weiss is Inaccurate when he asserts tut seeks to destroy its force as a proof, by
{p. 265) that the passages, Lev. xix. 17; Num. clairaing for dvaipipeiv the sense, " to present
xiv. 33; Lara. v. 7; Ezek. xviii. 19, 20, allude or bring up in offering," at the sarae tirae
to a vicarious suffering. These passages. In- supplying -as It seems -as the object of
deed, speak of a bearing of the punishment offerina, the body of Christ, which the ex-
which the sins of others have caused ; but this pression of the apostle in no way justifles.
Is suffering with, not Instead of, others, with- t Schott brings the baseless accusation
out those who have done the sin being freed against the circumlocution of the Syr. transla-
frora its punishraent. tlo^^ „ ^^^^ i„ jt p,<.^„^„ ,, to be taken differ-
2 G-erhard : " Crux Christi fuit subllrae illud ently in the first clause frora the second ; " in
altare, in quod Christus se ipsum in sacrificium the former, as equivalent to " the punishment
oblaturue aeeendit, sicut V. TestaraeutI sacri- of our sin ; " in the latter, as " the sin Itself; "
ficia altari imponebantur. for peccata has the same raeaning in both
8 Schott, whilst adraitting the above, asserts raembers, although the bearing of the sins
" that It will hardly be contradicted that in all consists In the sufl'ering of the punishment for
the passages which speak of Christ's death on them. Corap. Nura. xiv. 33, where In the ex-
the cross as a sacrifice, the cross must be pre- pression dvoiaovai Tijf iropveiav ipS,v,tiie word
supposed to be that which served as altar." nopveia has by no means the raeaning " pun-
This is decidedly to be contradicted, the raore ishment for fornication," although <ii/iiij)epet>/
BO that the aulraal sacrificed suffered death Trji/ Tropi/eiov raeans as ranch as " to suffer the
not upon, but before, the altar. punishraent for fornication."

CHAP. II. 24. 269
Christ bear our sins up on to the cross than by suffering the punishment for
our sins in the crucifixion, and thereby delivering us from the punishment.
The apostle lays special stress on the idea of substitution here contained,
by the addition of airdg, which, as in Isa. liii. 11, stands by way of emphasis
next to ypijv ; but by iv ru aupari airov — not " in," ' but " on His body " —
we are reminded that His body it was on which the punishment was accom
plished, inasmuch as it was nailed to the cross, and died thereon. It is
quite possible that this adjunct, as Wiesinger assumes, is meant at the same
time to serve the purpose of expressing the greatness of that love which
moved Christ to give His body to the death for our sins ; but that there is
in it any special reference to the sacramental words of the Lord (Weiss,
p. 273), is a conjecture which has nothing to support it. The addition of
inl rb ^ilov is explained by the fact itself, since it is precisely Christ's death
on the cross that has redeemed us from the guilt and power of our sins.
Peter also uses the expression rb ^vlov to denote the cross, in his sermons,
Acts V. 30, X. 39. It had its origin in the Old- Testament phraseology yH,
rendered ^vlov'hj LXX., denoting the pole on which the bodies of executed
criminals were sometiraes suspended; cf. Deut. xxi. 22, 23; Josh. x. 26.
Certainly in this way attention is drawn to the sharae of the punishment
which Christ suffered; but it is at least doubtful, since there is no reference
to it in any way, whether Peter, like Paul in Gal. iii. 13, used the expression
with regard to the curse pronounced in Deut. xxi. 22 (as Weiss, p. 267,
emphatically denies, and Schott as emphatically asserts). Bengel is entirely
mistaken in thinking, that by the adjunct inl rb ^ilov the apostle alludes to
the punishment of slaves (ligno, cruce, furca, plecti soliti erant servi).

Remark 1. — The interpretation of many of the commentators is wanting
in the necessary precision, inasmuch as the two senses, which dvaipipeiv has in
the different phrases, dvaipipeiv rug dpapriag and dvaipipeiv ri inl r, Bvaiaaryptov,
are mixed up with each other. Vitringa ( Vix uno verbo ipipaatg vocis dvaipipeiv
expximi potest. Nota ferre et qffere. Primo dicere voluit Petrus, Christum
portasse peccata nostra, in quantum illa 'ipsi erant imposita. Secundo ita
tulisse peccata nostra, ut ea secum obtulerit in altari), while drawing, indeed, a
distinction between the two meanings, thinks that Peter had both of them in
his mind, which of course is impossible. — Hofmann explains dvaipipeiv . . . inl
rb ^vlav on the analogy of the phrase, dvaipipeiv n 'enl rb Bvaiaaryptov, without,
however, understanding the cross as the altar ; the meaning then would be :
"He lifted up His body on to the cross, thereby bearing up thither our sins,
that is to say, atoning for our sins." Although Hofmann admits that Peter
had in his mind the passage in Isaiah, he nevertheless denies that dvyveyKe has
here the sarae meaning as there. In his Schriftbeweis, 1st ed., he gives a
similar interpretation, only that there he says: "He took up our sins with
Him, and so took them away from us." He, however, justly adds that dvaipipeiv
has the same meaning here as in Heb. ix. 28. Wiesinger has adopted this
interpretation, as also, in substance, Delitzsch, Hebraerbrief, p. 442 f. In the
2d edition of the Schriftbeweis, Hofmann has withdrawn this explanation ; but,
1 So, too, Schott, who interprets ev Ttj aiip-an as equal to " in His earthly bodily iife " { !).

270 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
on the other hand, he erroneously asserts that dvaipipeiv here is "tbe dvaipipeiv
of Heb. vii. 27." — Schott justly combats Hofmann's view, that the sufferings of
Christ for our sins consisted essentially only in what befell Him as the result
of our sins, and maintains, in opposition to it, the substitution of Christ. His
own interpretation, however, of our passage is equally inadmissible, since he
attributes to dvaipipeiv the meaning, " to bring up or present in offering," yet
adding to the idea of " offering " an object other than dpapriag, which stands
with dvyveyKev, thus giving to the one word two quite different references.
Schott makes aupa Xpiaroi the object of " offering," taking it out of the supple
mentary clause, iv ru aupan avroi ; but this he is the less justified in doing, that
he explains these words by " in His earthly corporeal life." — This is not the
place to enter fully into Schott's conception of the propitiation wrought by
Christ's death on the cross. Though it contains many ijoints worthy of notice,
it is of much too artificial a nature ever to be considered a just representation
of the views of the apostle. — Luthardt interprets : " He bore His body away
from the earth up to God. No doubt it was not an altar to which Christ
brought His body up ; but the peculiarity lies precisely in this, that His body
should at the same time hang on the accursed tree." " Away from the earth to
God," is evidently an addition ; and had Peter wished to emphasize the cross
as the accursed tree, he would have added ryg Kurapdg,'
Remark 2. — This interpretation agrees substantially with that given by
De Wette-Briickner and Weiss ; yet De Wette's reference to Col. ii. 14 is
inappropriate, inasmuch as that passage has a character entirely different, both
in thought and expression, from the one here under consideration. Weiss is
wanting in accuracy when he says that " Christ ascended the cross, and there
bore the punishment of our sins," since already in the sufferings which preceded
the crucifixion, the bearing of our sins took i^lace. — Nor can it be conceded to
these commentators, that the idea of sacrifice was absent from the conception
of the apostle. Its existence is erroneously disputed also in Isa. liii., in spite of
the DB'N, ver. 10. No doubt prominence is given, in tlie first instance, to the
idea of substitution ; but Weiss ought not to have denied that this thought is
connected in the mind of the prophet, as in that of the apostle, with the idea of
sacrifice, especially as he himself says that the idea of substitution is that upon
which the sin-offering is based (Lev. xvii. 11). And was there any other sub
stitutionary bearing of sin than in the sacrifice? It must not, however, be
concluded that each word in the expression, and especially inl rb §ilov, must
have a particular reference to the idea of sacrifice.

'iva ralg dpapriaig dnoyevbpevoi], Oecumenius: dnoyevbpevoi • dvrl tov, dnoBa-
vbvreg; cf. Rora. vi. 2, 11 (Gal. ii. 19). Bengel's rendering: yiveaBai nvbg
fieri alicujus dicitur servus, dnb dicit sej unctionem ; Germ, "to become with
out," which Weiss (p. 284) supports, is inappropriate here, since dnoyiyveaBai
in this sense is construed with the genitive. For the dative, see Winer,
p. 398 (E. T., 427 f.). ralg dpapriaig corresponds to the foregoing rdg dpapriag
ypuv. The use of the aor. part, shows that the being dead unto sin is the
« Pfleiderer (p. 422) Is entirely unwarranted life," and " that by this removal is meant, that
in maintaining the sense to be : " That Christ, we free our moral life and conduct from
by His death on the cross, took away, removed sin " ( I).
our sins, so that tbey no longer surround our

CHAP. II. 25. 271
condition into which we are introduced by the fact that Christ rtzf dpapriag
ypuv airdg dvyveyKev, K.r.l, The actions of the Christians should correspond
with this condition ; this the apostle expresses by iva , , , ry bmaioaivy ^yaupev ;
cf. Rom. vi. — bmaioavvy means here not "justification or righteousness, as a
condition of hira whose sins are forgiven," but it is the opposite of dpapria,
" righteousness which consists in obedience towards God and in the fulfilling
of His will." The clause, introduced here by the final particle Iva (as in
i. 18), does not give the primary aim of Christ's substitutionary death,
that, naraely, of reconciliation ; but further the design, that of raaking free
frora the power of sin. Weiss (p. 285) is wrong in thinking that Peter
" did not here conceive the rederaption as already completed in principle by
the blood of Christ," but " accomplished in a purely physiological way, by the
impression produced by the preaching of His death and the incitement to
imitation which ^ it gave." Thus Pfleiderer also. The refutation of this
is to be found in what follows. — oi rip pdiluni (avroi) idByre]. Isa. liii. 5,
LXX. : return to the direct form of address : puluip is, properly speaking,
marks left by scourging (Sir. xxviii. 17, nlyyy pdanyog noiel pulunag) ; there
fore, taken strictly, the expression has reference to the fiagellation of Christ
only; but here it stands as a pars pro toto (Steiger) to denote the whole of
Christ's sufferings, of which His death was the culminating point. — By
IdByre the apostle declares, that, through the suffering of Christ (of course
by the instrumentality of faith), the Christians are translated from the sick
ness of a sinful nafure into the health of a life of righteousness.
Ver. 25. yrs ydp ug npbffara n?Mvupevoi]. This explanatory clause (ydp)
points back, as the continuance in it of the direct address (idByre . . . yre)
shows, in the first instance, to the statement immediately preceding oi ru
pivluni IdByre, but at the same tirae also to the thought 'iva . . , ry dmaioaivi)
(yaupev, to which that assertion is subservient. For the foregoing figure a
new one is substituted, after Isa. liii. 6 : LXX. ndvreg ug npd0ara inXavyByuev;
if nlavupevoi be the correct reading, then frora it the nearer definition of
npoQara is to be stipplied, the sheep are to be thought of as those which have
no shepherd (Matt. ix. 36 : ijael npbiiara prj ixovra noipeva ; corap. Num. xxvii.
17; 1 Kings xxii. 17). — Forthe figure describing the state of man sepa
rated in his sin frora God, corap. Matt, xviii. 12, 13 ; Luke xv. 4 ff. — all'
inearpdrpyre viv], inearpdipyre is, in harmony with the uniform usage of Scrip
ture, to be taken not in a passive (AViesinger, Schott), but in a raiddle sense :
"ye have turned yourselves." ^ Luther translates: "but ye are now turned."
The word imarpiipeiv means to turn one's self away from (dno, iK), towards
1 In his lehrbuch der Bibl. Theol. (p. 172), is not here what they did, but what in Christ
Weiss only says : " It follows frora 11. 24, that was iraparted to thera," has all tbe less weight,
the being released from sin is certainly a con- that conversion, though the personal act of the
sequence, but only the indirect consequence, Christian, raust still be regarded as effected by
of the death of Christ. Because it has released Christ. Hofmann maintains, without the
us frora the guilt of our former sins, the fur- slightest right to do so, that in this passage
ther consequence will be, that henceforward the chief emphasis lies on the readers' own
we will renounce those sins which He vica- act, though at the same tirae he correctly
riously expiated." understands eirstrTpiii()i)Te in a middle sense.
2 Schott's connter-remark : "The question

272 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
something (inl, npbg, eig), (sometimes equal to : to turn round) ; but it is not
implied in the word itself, that the individual has formerly been in that place
towards which he has now turned round, and whither he is going (therefore,
in Gal. iv. 9, ndliv is expressly added). Weiss (p. 122) is therefore wrong
when from this very word he tries to prove that by noipyv God, and not
Christ, is to be understood, although the terra sometiraes includes in it the
secondary idea of "back; " cf. 2 Pet. ii. 21, 22. — inl rbv noipeva koI in'ioKonov
ruv Ipvxuv ipuv]. Cf. especially Ezek. xxxiv. 11, 12, 16, LXX. : iyu iK^yryau
rd npo^ard pov Kal imOKeipopai avrd, ijanep ^yrel b noipyv rb nolpviov airoi . . , rb
nlavupevov drroarpiipu ; besides, with noiurp>, Ps. xxiii. 1 ; Isa. xl. 11. From
the fact that in these passages God is spoken of as the shepherd, it raust not
be concluded, with Weiss, that noipyv kuI imoKonog refers not to Christ, but to
God. For not only has God, calling Hiraself a shepherd, promised a shep
herd (Ezek. xxxiv. 24, LXX. : dvaaryau in' airoig noipiva eva , , . rbv boilov pov
Aav'ib, xxxvii. 24), but Christ, too, speaks of Himself as the good Shepherd;
and Peter hiraself, in chap. v. 4, calls Hira dpxmoipyv. In comparison with
these passages, chap v. 2 is plainly of no account. All interpreters — ex
cept Weiss — rightly understand the expressions here used as applying to
Christ. The designation inlaiconog would all the more naturally occur to the
apostle, as it was, like noipyv, the name of the presidents of the churches
who were, so to speak, the representatives of the One Shepherd and Bishop,
the Head of the whole Church. — ruv ipvxHv ipuv belongs, as the omission of
the article before inioKonov shows, to both words ; with the expression,
cf. chap. i. 9, 22.

CHAP. III. 273

CHAPTER III.
Ver. 1. ai yvvaiKsg]. Ree, after C, K, L, P, etc. (Tisch. 7) ; Lachm. and
Tisch. 8 omit al, after A, B ; ai omitted perhaps in order to mark the vocative.
— Almost all authorities (as also X), even Griesb., along with Lachm. and Tisch.,
support the reading KepbyByaovrai, instead of KepbyByouvrai. The future conjunct.,
occurring only in later writers (see Winer, p. 72 [E. T., 89]), is to be found only
, in min. ; it is put here because of iva ; superfluously, however, as tva in the N. T.
is often construed cum. ind., John xvii. 2 ; Rev. xxii. 14. — Ver. 3. ipnloKyg
rpixuv Kal nepiBiaeug]. Lachm. substitutes ipnlnKyg y nepiBeaeug, in C. — The most
important authorities, however, support the usual reading (Tisch.) — Ver. 4.
npifiog Kal yavxiov]. Ree, after A, C, L, K, P, K, most min., Clem., Thph., etc.
— Lachm. : yavx'iov Kal npgieog, in B, Vulg., Copt., etc. Instead of npgieog, Tisch.
reads npaeug, cf. A. Buttmann, p. 23. — Ver. 5. Millius, without sufficient reason,
regards the words, ai ilni^ovoai inl rbv Qebv, as spurious, because they are not in
the vss. Aethiop. — However, according to A, B, C, etc., and Lachm. and Tisch.,
eig should probably be read for ini. The article rbv, which is found almost only in
min., must be deleted (Lachm., Tisch.), so that the original text probably runs:
ai ilmQyvaai eig Qebv. X reads ai iln. inl rbv Qebv, after the word iavdg. — Ver. 6.
inyKovae], Lachm. : inyKovev is insufficiently attested by B, Vulg. — Ver. 7. The
Ree. avyKlypovbpoig (Tisch.) is found in several min. (3, 7, 8, etc.), in Vulg., Syr.,
Aeth., Arm., Arr., in Thph., Oec., Aug., etc.; it is doubtful if in B.^ In K we
find at first hand, myKlypovdpovg, and, as correction, avyKlypovbpoig (according to
Buttm.). In A, C, K, L, P, many min., several versions, and Hier., on the
other hand, we flnd the nominative, avyKlypovbpoi (Lachm.). The opinion of
critics as to which is the original reading, is much divided ; almost all com
mentators prefer the Ree. ; so, too, Reiche ; whilst Hofm. holds an opposite
view. According to the handwriting, the nominative appears clearly to be the
better-attested reading ; but for this, see the commentary on the verse. — A, C**,
N, several min., Hier., add the adjective nom'tlyg' to x"-Pt''''K, which is probably
taken from chap. iv. 10, but which Hofm. nevertheless considers genuine. —
Instead of Ree. iKKonreaBai, after C**, K, L, several min., and Theoph. (Tisch.
7), Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read, after A, B, X, etc., iyKonreaBat (Tisch. 8, ivK,),
which Hofmann also considers the original reading. Both readings occur in
Oec. It cannot be decided with certainty. Buttm., following B, has accepted
the dative ralg npoaevxalg, in place of the accus. rdg npoaevxig. Grammatically
no objection can be raised (" so that no hinderance be given to your prayers ") ;
but as this reading is only found in B, it can hardly be considered the original
1 Birch has given as the reading of B : ing of B. On the other hand, In his Eecensus
avyKkfipovdpoi, but has been accused of error lectt.. Cod. t<, he gives avyKKypovopoi^ as the
by MajUB. Buttmann, In his edition, reads reading adopted by him.
avyKK-qpovopoi, and gives this also as the read-

274 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
one. — Ver. 8. ransivb^poveg]. After A, B, C, N, etc., Syr., Erp., etc.; accepted
even by Griesb. and Scholz, instead of the ipilbippoveg of K, and several min. In
some Cod. both words are placed side by side, which may, according to Hofmann,
be taken as the original reading. — Ver 9. According to almost all authorities,
A, B, C, K, S, al., Syr., utr. Copt., etc., as also Lachm. and Tisch., eibbreg
should be deleted. — Ver. 10. The Ree. gives the pronoun ahroi after yluaaav
(K, L, P, X, etc.) ; in A, B, C, and several min., it is wanting here, as also after
xelly ; Lachm. and Tisch. have accordingly omitted it in both passages. —
Ver. 11. After IkkIivutu, several Codd., A, B, C*, have the particle 6i (Lachm.,
Tisch. 7), which in the Ree. is wanting after C**, K, L, P, X, etc. (Tisch. 8).
The omission seems to be a correction. — Ver. 12. ol bipBalpoi], The article is
wanting in A, B, C*, K, L, P, N, etc., omitted by Scholz, Lachm., Tisch.;
Griesb., too, regards oi as doubtful. In the original passage (Ps. xxxiv. 16,
LXX., it is wanting. — Ver. 13. ^ylurai]. After A, B, C, K, al. (Lachm., Tisch.
8), instead of the Ree., pipyrat in K, L, P, several min., Oec. (Tisch.). pipyral
appears to be a correction. toS ayaBov having been taken as raasc, and ^ylaral
not being suitable thei'eto, pipyrai, following such passages as Eph. v. 1, 1 Thess.
i. 6, very naturally presented itself ; De Wette, Wiesinger, Reiche, Hofmann,
prefer uipyrai ; Briickner and Schott, t^ylurai. Instead of idv , . . yivyaBe, B
reads: ei . . yivoiaBe, as Buttm. notes, without, however, receiving it into the
text. — Ver. 14. Instead of all' el, in A and several min. : ei 6e, — pybe rapaxByre,
omitted in B, L, 43, but yet received into the text by Buttm. — Ver. 15. rbv
Qebv], Ree, after K, L, P, several rain., Thph., Oec. Instead of this, Lachm.
and Tisch. read rbv Xpiarbv (considered by Griesb. to be probably the genuine
reading) ; attested by A, B, C, X, 7, al., Syr., utr. Copt., etc., Clem., Fulgent.
The alteration to rbv Qebv is explained by Isa. viii. 13. — After eroipoi, the Ree.
adds bi ; according to Tisch. 's statement, it stands in A, K, etc., but not in
B, C, X, etc. ; Buttm. affirms that it is also to be found in B ; Tisch. 7 has
retained it ; Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have not. — In place of airovvn, x has the
correction : dnairovvn. — A, B, C, X, 5, al., Copt., Syr., etc., have alia before
ufTu, which Lachm. and Tisch. have justly accepted ; it may be considered as
the original, not only from the testimony of the authorities (it is wanting only
in K, L, P, sorae min., and vei'sions, in Oec, Beda), but also as being the more
difficult reading. — Ver. 16. The reading which is best attested by the authori
ties is : ef ^ Karalaloiai ipCyv dig KaKonoiCm, as" in A, C, K, X, etc. Instead of the
indicative, Eec. has the conjunctive : Karalalijaiv, B, on the other hand, simply
has KaralalelaBe, which Tisch. has accepted ; he is, however, hardly justified in
doing so, as it is too insufficiently attested, and appears rather to be a correction
for the purpose of making the passage less difficult (cf. Schott and Hofmana).
— Ver. 17. ei Biloi], Justly accepted even by Griesb., instead of the Ree. ei
Bilei, — Ver. 18. ypCrv, following upon dpapriijv, in C**, al., Syr., Arr., etc., has
been accepted by Lachm. in his small edition ; it appears to have been inserted
in consideration' of tva ipdg npoaaydyy r. Q. — Instead of the Ree. inaBe, in B, K,
L, P, pl., Thph., Oec, Aug. (Tisch. 7), A, C, X, 5, al., Cypr., Didym., several
versions (Lachm., Tisch. 8) have dniBave ; De Wette-Briickner explain dneBave
to be a gloss, after Rom. v. 6, vi. 10 ; Heb. iv. 27 ; to this Wiesinger agrees ; it
is, however, possible that inaBev arose from chap. ii. 21, as Hofm. also thinks.
According to Tisch., the reading of the Codd., A, C*, G, before the verb, is :
inep Ijpuv vel iinip vpuv ; X has inep ijpuv ; but whether this addition be genuine,
cannot with certainty be decided ; it may equally well have been left out as
superfluous, as added in order to give prominence to the pecuhar significance of

CHAP. III. 1. 275
the death of Christ. — Instead of ypdg (A, C, K, L, al., pl., several versions, etc.,
Lachm., Tisch. 8), B and several min. have ipdg (Tisch. 7) ; insufficiently
attested. In the original handwriting, X has neither ypdg nor ipdg ; in the
correction, vpug. In B, ru Oeu, after npoaayd-yy, is wanting, for which reason
Buttm. has omitted it. — nveipan]. Accepted even by Griesb., instead of Ree
ru nveipan, — Ver. 20. dneie3exero\. Undoubtedly the correct rendering, instead
of the awaf i^ebixero, which is hardly supported by any authority. Tisch.
remarks : videtur ex conjectura Erasmi fiuxisse, qui sic edidit inde ab ed. 2. —
oliyai]. Ree, after C, K, L, P, many min., Thph., Oec. (Griesb., Scholz) ;
Lachm. and Tisch., on the other hand, following A, B, X, al., Vulg., Orig.,' etc.,
have accepted dliyoi. bllyai seems to be a correction, because of the subsequent
ipvxai. — Ver. 21. o]. Rightly accepted by Griesb., instead of the reading if in
the ed. Elz. — In K, many min., Thph., etc., the opening words — evidently as
a correction for the sake of simplification — are thus transposed : o dvrirvnov -vvv
ipdg au(ei, — Instead ot the yudg in the Ree (C, K, L, Copt., etc., Tliph., Oec),
Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted ipdg (A, B, P, X, several vss., and Fathers) ;
doubtless rightly, as the change to ipdg can be explained on the principle that
the more general ypdg seemed betteV suited to the context. Reiche prefers ypdg.
— Ver. 22. According to almost all authorities, the article roi stands before
Qeoi (Ree, Lachm., Tisch. 7) ; Tisch. 8, however, following B and X, has
dropped it.
Ver. 1. From here to ver. 6, an exhortation to wives. — bpoiug not
simply particula transeundi (Pott) ; on account of the subsequent inoraa-
aouevai it stands related rather to the exhortation contained in what pre
cedes; the participle here as in chap. ii. 18. — ai yvvalKeg. Form of address,
like ot oiKerai (as opposed to Steiger) ; vid., ipuv, ver. 2 ; ruv yvvamuv (instead
of iuuv) is used here, not becg,use the thought is a general one (De Wette,
Wiesinger), nor " because Peter means to say that the heathen men should
be won over by their own wives " (Schott), but because the apostle wishes
clearly to point out how the wives too raay be able to advance the kingdom
of God. The words are addressed generally to all Christian wives, though,
as the sequel shows, with special reference to those who have unbelieving
husbands. — inoraaabpevai rolg Ib'ioig dvdpdaiv], idioig is used here, not by way
of contradistinction (Glossa interl, . suis viris, non adulteris, or according to
Calvin : ut Ap. castitatis uxores admoneal avocetque a suspectis obsequiis virorum
aliorum; so, too, Fronmiiller), but only to express the idea of belonging
together, more strongly than the simple pronoun ; cf . also Winer, p. 145 f .
(E. T., 153 f.). — With the thought here expressed, cf. Eph. v. 22-24; Col.
iii. 18; 1 Tim. ii. 9. It is self-evident, — although many interpreters have
discussed the question at considerable length, — that the subjection of the
wife to the husband is of quite a different kind from that of the slave to
the master. The apostle, however, does not go into the subject further, but
contents himself with simply emphasizing that point.^ — Iva Kal el rtveg
aneiBoiai rip Ibyip], Kal el, i.e., "even then when," supposes not only a possible,
> For similar remarks of the ancients, see cant : iyaeyt yvvalKo; ianv, !> t^iKoaTpdry, pri
in Steiger; that of the humorist Phileraon (in Kpeirrov elvai r' avSp'o^, dW in^Koov.
a Fragment, ver. 123) is particularly signifl-

276 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
but a particularly unfavorable case; that is to say, when men who are
joined to Christian wives oppose the loyog, even then may such be gained
over by the Christian walk of their wives ; '- rtveg must be conceived as
referring to heathen men with Christian wives. — With tu Ibyip, cf. chap.
ii. 8. — The expression dneiBelv denotes here, as in chap. ii. 7, not a siraple
negation only (Pott : ad religionem christianam nondum accessisse), but an
opposition to. — bid ryg ruv yvvaiKiJv dvaarpoipyg: iavrCiv must be supplied to
ywamuv; it is not wives in general who are here meant, but only the wives
of heathen husbands. — dvaarpofy ; quite generally : the Christian walk of
women, with special reference, however, to their relation to their husbands ;
it is precisely obedience that most easily wins the heart. — dvev Ibyov : Huss,
incorrectly : sine verbo praedicationis publicae (so, too, Fronmiiller) ; the
words are used here to emphasize more strongly bid ryg . . . dvaorpoipr/g, and
must be held to refer to the conduct of wives (De Wette, Wiesinger).
Schott wrongly unites dvev Ibyov with the preceding ryg . . , dvaarpoipyg into
one idea ; Peter could never have meant j;o say that the walk of women
should be a silent one. The apostle's thought is this : If the husbands
oppose the Word, the wives should all the more diligently seek to preserve
a Christian walk, in order by it to win over their husbands, even without
words, i.e., " without preaching and exhortation on their part " (De Wette).
Oecumenius incorrectly refers these words to the conduct of husbands in
the sense : cessanti omni verbo et contradiclione. — KepbyByaovrai : that is to
say, for the faith, and by it for the kingdom of God ; cf . 1 Cor. ix. 19 ff. ;
so, too, Schott indeed, who, however, unjustifiably thinks that the apostle's
meaning is, that the preservation of the marriage relation is the primary object
which is to be attained by the good behavior of the wives. On the indie.
with Iva, cf. Winer, p. 269 ff. (E. T., 287 ff.).
Ver. 2. inonreiaavreg t^v iv ipbjiu dyvyv dvaarpoipyv ipCrv: for eTTOTrr., cf.
chap ii. 12. The participial clause here serves as a further explanation of
the preceding did, K.r.l, — dyvbg: "chaste," in the full extent of the word, not
only in contradistinction to nopveia proper, but to whatsoever violates the
moral relation of the subjection of the wife to her husband. This dyveia is
determined by iv ^bpu (not equal to, in timore Dei conservato: Glossa interl,;
Grotius too, Bengel, Jachmann, Weiss, FronmiiUer, etc., understand by
ipb!3og here the " fear of God "), as connected in the closest possible way
with the shrinking from every violation of duty towards the husband ; ^
cf. chap. ii. 18.
Ver. 3. uv iaru]. The genitive uv does not depend on a Koapog to be
supplied from the predicate 6 e^uBev . . . Konpog (De Wette, Wiesinger,
1 Hofmann raaintains that If the protasis bo to clearly still reraains, though In fact it has
thus understood, the apodosis is not suited to no existence if only the idea dneiBovai receive
it, " inasrauch as no other case could be sup- the precision It is entitled to.
posed iu which the husband could be won, = Schott unwarrantably maintains that in
without words, by the conduct of his wife, this interpretation it Is not ti>'ao-Tpo(fi^ which Is
than that of his being disobedient to the more precisely defined by the homogeneous
Word," and that the difiiculty can only be adjectival expression ev c/>d/3iji i.yvri, but a^fii
removed if et Tt.veq be Interpreted as equal to dvaarp, by ev ipo^ia.
oiTtfes. But the difiiculty Hofraann alludes

CHAP. III. 4. 277
Schott, Hofmann) ; such a construction, arbitrary in itself, is here entirely
inadmissible on account of the remoteness of the predicate, frora which the
idea wanting is to be taken. The genitive is rather ruled by iaru, e'lvai nvog
expresses, as usual, the relation of belonging to ; the sense is therefore :
' whose business let it be," i.e., who have to occupy themselves with.^ — oix
b eiuBev, k,t,X As often in our epistle, the negative preceding the positive.
— 6 i^uBev is closely joined together with Kbapog. The genitives which stand
between, and are dependent on Koapog, serve to determine the idea raore
precisely , their position immediately after b i^uBev is explained from the
intention of the writer to lay special eraphasis on thera, since it belongs to
women to take pleasure in adorning themselves in this wise. The whole
expression is to be interpreted thus: "outward adornment wrought by the
plaiting of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel." — 'epnloKy,
dn ley (in the passage specially to be compared with this, 1 Tim. ii. 9,
rlJyuaro is used), not " the plaits," but " the plaiting ; " it is an active idea,
like nepiBeatg and ivbvaig; "these verbalia describe the vain occupation of
worldly women" (Wies.); xpix^tu are golden ornaments generally. — The
last two members of the clause, united by y, are connected with the first
by Kal. because they have reference to things which are put on the body.
Ver. 4. As antithesis to what precedes, dll' b eauBev Kbapog would have
been expected ; instead of this, however, the author at once states in what
that adornment does consist. — 6 Kpvnrbg ryg KapS'iag dvBpunog does not mean
the virtutes christ. quas Spir. s. per regenerationem in homine operatur (Gerhard ;
so, too, Wiesinger and Fronmiiller), for here there is no mention either of the
Holy Ghost or of regeneration. It denotes simply the inner man, in contra
distinction to the outward man (so, too, De Wette, Briickner, Weiss, Schott,
Hofmann); Kpvnrbg, antithesis to i^uBev, ver. 3; cf. beau dvBp., Rom. vii. 22;
Eph. iii. 16; b lauSev, sc. dvBp., 2 Cor. iv. 16; cf., too, such expressions as:
rd Kpvnrd ryg Kupbiag, 1 Cor. xiv. 25, and rd Kpvnrd riiv dvBp., Rom. ii. 16. The
apostle selected the expression Kpvnrbg as a contrast to the conspicuous adorn
ment formerly spoken of. ryg Kapbiag is not gen. qualitatis (Schott) ; Kapbia
itself denotes no quality; it is the genitive of apposition subjoined, in that
Kapbia is the seat of the feeling and the disposition. — iv rii dipBdpnp]. rt>
dipBaprov, substantive (like ipBaprd, chap. i. 18), " the imperishable " (incorrectly,
Hofmann: iv ru dipBdpru, sc. Kbapxp), in contrast to the perishable ornaments
above mentioned. The prepos. iv points out the sphere in which the inner
hidden man should move. If dv b Koapog earu be supplied after dlld, tlien
" iv is to be joined with it, so as to show in what, and with what, this their
inward hidden raan should be their ornament " (Schott; so, too, Hofmann).
— rot; npifiog Kal yavxiov nvevparog, a more exact definition of the dipBaprov; it

I When Hofmann would advance against reply that it is not 6 Kpvirr'o<; . . . dv9pviiro<; In
this construction, that the afiirraative subject itself, but 6 kpvtttO? . . . dv9pvi-iro<: ev t<P
(ver 4) is not suitable to it, " since it may be dipddprto, k. t. A., which is to he taken as that
said of the hidden man of the heart, that it which should be characteristic of women ; as
should be the woman's adornment, but not Hofraann also in hfs expositions says ; " The
that it should be her business, for she herself adornraent of woraen Is not Indicated by the
is that hidden man," it must be observed in siraple, but by the oorapound expression."

278 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
denotes not the nv, dyiov of God, but the spirit of man. The meek and quiet
spirit (here eraphasized with special reference to inoraaabpevoi, ver. 1) is that
"imperishable," in which the hidden life of woman should exist and move.^
6 ianv ivumov roi Qeov no'lvrelig], b does not apply to the whole (Grotius),
nor to ru dipBapru (Bengel, Pott, Steiger, Schott), since it is self-evident that
the dipBaprov is in God's eyes noXvreleg. It is to be taken with the immedi
ately preceding ¦nvevparog (De Wette, Wiesinger). Such a nvei/ia is, in the
judgment of God (1 Tim. ii. 3), nolvrelig (Mark xiv. 3 ; 1 Tira. ii. 9), whilst
outward adornment, worthless to the divine mind, possesses a value only in
the eyes of men.^
Vv. 5, 6. ovru ydp, ground for the exhortation : uv earu, etc., by the ex
ample of the saintly women of the O. T. ovru refers back to what precedes.
— nori Kal ui dyiai yvvalKeg]. nori, i.e., ill the time of the Old Covenant. —
uyiai : because they belonged to the chosen people of God (Schott), and their
life was sanctified and consecrated to God in faith. — ai ilniljorvaai eig {enl)
Qeov]. Cf. 1 Tim. V. 5. This nearer definition is subjoined not only be
cause hope in God, i.e., in the fulfilraent of His promises, was the character
istic mark of the piety of these holy women, rooted as it was in faith, but
specially " to explain why it did not, and could not, occur to them, ever to
delight in empty show" (Hofmann). •¦= — With iKbapovv iavrdg, cf. 1 Tim. ii. 9.
— inoraaabpevoi .rolg dvbpdaiv is linked on to iKoapovv iavrdg, showing wherein
lay the proof that they had adorned themselves with the meek and quiet
spirit. There is but one (De Wette) characteristic indeed here mentioned ;
but, according to the connection, it is the chief manifestation of that spirit.
It is incorrect to resolve (as was formerly done in the comraentary) the par
ticiple into : "from this fact, that." — Ver. 6. ug 'Zdppa vnyKovae np 'Aj3padp]. A
simple comparison of the contents of the two passages is a sufficient refuta
tion of De Wette's supposition that, in the words before us, there is a refer
ence to Heb. xi. 11. — ug: particula allegandi exemplum: Bengel. Sarah is
mentioned, because, as the wife of Abraham and ancestress of the people
of Israel, she had especial significance iu the history of redemption.* —

^ The two expressions, irpaus and litruxto?, or there be eome other good reason for adorn-
must not be sharply distinguished; npa-iryi ing herself, then she is right to do so." Calvin,
stands contrasted specially with op-yr; (Jas. I. too, rightly observes : " Non quemvis cultum
20, 21^ or ir\Kos (Jas. ili. 13, 14), synonyraous reprehendere voluit Petrus, sed morbum vani-
wlth eiTieiKeia (2 Cor. x. 1), paKpoBvpia (Col. tatis, quo raulleres laborant."
iii. 12), virofiori) (1 Tira. vi. 11), etc.; It ia s According to Schott, this addition is raeant
peculiar to hira who does not allow hiraself to express that " the coraplete developraent of
to be provoked to wrath, iiavxia is related to the Christian Church, to which they belonged,
dKaraaraala ; a ijavxio! Is he who is peaceable was only as yet an object of hope ; " but this
and does not care for noisy life. Bengel inter- Introduces a reference which the words do uot
prets mansuetus (n-paus), " qui uon turbat;" contain.
<ranyMiMits(;i<7uxtos), "qui turbasaliorura fert * Schott applies w to that which directly
placide;" the contrary would be raore correct. precedes, in this sense: that " the conduct of
2 Luther: "A woman should be thus dis- the holy women was regulated ouly according
posed as not to care for adornment. Else to the standard of Saiah." Hofmann thus :
when people turn their minds to adornment, that Sarah "Is mentioned as a shining example
they never give it up; that is tbeir way and of the conduct of holy women." Both are
their nature; therefore a Christian woman wrong, since neither is alluded to by <li5.
should despise it. But if her husband wish it.

CHAP. IIL 5, 6. 279
inyKovae refers not merely to the single case which the apostle had particu
larly before his mind, but denotes the habitual behavior of Sarah towards
Abraham : the aor. is used here as in Gal. iv. 8 (De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott).
— Kipiov airbv Kaloiaa]. She showed herself submissive to the will of Abra
ham in this, that she called him Kipiog. The allusion is here to Gen. xviii. 12
(cf. also 1 Sara. i. 8, LXX.). — yg iyevyByre riKva], Lorinus: non successione
generis, sed imitatione fidei ; Pott incorrectly explains the aorist by the future
(iaeaBe); the translation, too, of the Vulg., estis, is inexact; Luther is right:
"whose daughters ye are become." As Paul calls the believing heathen, on
account of their faith, children of Abraham, so Peter here styles the women
who had become Christians, children of Sarah. — dyaBonoioiaai does not be
long to vnoraaabpevai, as if ug lappa . . . reKva were a parenthesis (Bengel,
Ernesti, etc.), but to iyevyByre, not, however, as stating how they become
(Weiss, p. 110 i.)' or "have become" children of Sarah (to the first interpre
tation the aorist iyevyByre is opposed, to the latter the pres. partic), but as
showing the mark by which they proved themselves children of Sarah. It
may be resolved into "since," or "that is to say if," etc. It is grammati
cally incorrect to see in dyaBonoioiaai the result of yg iyevyByre riKva, and to
explain : " in this way have they become the children of Sarah, that they are
now in accordance therewith dyaBonoioiaai and py ipopoipevat" (Schott). By
dyaBonoielv is to be understood here not specially benevolence (Oecum.) ; ^
the word denotes rather the whole moral activity of Christian life in its
fullest extent, although here, as the connection shows, with particular refer- '
ence to the marriage relation. — koI py ipoffovpevai pybepiav nrbyaiv], nrbyaig
equals ipbdog (Pollux, v. 122 : avaroly, Bbpv/Sog, rapaxy), in the N. T. dn. /.ty.
(Luke xxi. 9, xxxvii. 9, the verb nroyBivreg is connected with epipoffoi yevbpei/'oi);
it denotes not the object causing fear, but the fear itself which is felt;
and it can be looked on either objectively as a power threatening raan, or
laying hold of hira (as, Prov. iii. 25, LXX.: kuI oi ipoSyByay nrbyaiv inelBoiaav;
1 Macc. iii. 25: y irrbyaig imninrei inl rd eBvy; the synonyraous terms ipbl3og,
rpbpog, are used also in a like raanner), or taken in a sense purely subjective.
Most commentators understand nrbyaig here in the first of these senses, only
they do not take the conception strictly by itself, but identify it with that
which causes fear ; in the flrst edition of this commentary, the second mean
ing is attributed to nrbyaig: <po!3elaBai nrbyaiv equal to ipojieioBai ipb^ov: "to
experience fear " (Mark iv. 41 ; Luke ii. 9 ; cf. Winer, p. 210 f. [E. T., 223]);
but this explanation is opposed by the fact "that in such a connection the
substantive must be taken not in idea only, but in form also from the verb "
(Bruckner). The idea here is quite as universal as in dyaBon. ; and accord
ingly it must be conceived as the fear generally which the enmity of the
1 It must be held, with "Wiesinger, Brlick- so In a right manner, and as they now had
ner, and Schott, in opposition to "Weiss and become. It does not follow frora John viii. 39
FronraUller, that it Is raore natural to take (as Weiss thinks) that an allusion of this kind
these words as applying to G-entlle-Chiistlan was unnecessary.
rather than to Jewish-Christian readers. For * MeTot toO eiiKoapov (cat Trpeiroi'TOs Xpia-
inasmuch as the latter, before their conversion, riavol^ Kdapov Ka't eXeripova^ avrcis elvai n-apat-
were already riKva t^s ^dppa^, sorae allusion vei, pySev vn.oPKeiropeva^ rbv dnb TWC dvSpiav
must have been made to their not having been avrSiv Sid rovro eKkoyiapov.

280 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
unbelieving world occasions to believers; still, according to the connection,
the apostle had doubtless in his mind more particularly the conduct of
heathen men towards their Christian wives. — Luther's translation is in
exact: "if ye . . . are not so fearful." The rendering of Stephanus is
incorrect, s. v., nrbyaig: jubentur mulieris offic'ium facere etiam, cum nullus
eas metus constringit, i.e., sponte et ultra.
Ver. 7. oi dvbpeg bpoiug]. bpoiug, with the participle following, refers back,
as in ver. 1, to vnordyyre nday dvBp. Krlaei, with which the exhortation begins
(Hofmann) ; though there is no inoraaabpevoi (cf. ii. 18, iii. 1), there lies
something corresponding to it in the fact that the wife on her part possesses
a npy to be acknowledged by the husband. Pott erroneously renders bpoiug
by vicissim, " on the other hand ; " nor is it, as De Wette thinks probable,
to be expanded: "in like manner, ye men also, hear my exhortation." —
avvoiKoivreg]. avvomelv {arr. ley.) is not a euphemismus de tori conjugalis consue
tudine (Hieronym., Contra Jovian., lib. 1. c. 4; Augustin., In Ps. cxlvi., etc.);
the reference is rather to life together at home. — Kara yvuaiv]. As yvuaig is
here anarthrous, it is wrong to understand yvuaig as referring directly to
" Christian recognition of the relation of wife to husband " (Briickner,
Schott); Kara yvuaiv is rather an adverbial expression, in which yvuaig is to
be understood generally, as Wiesinger correctly remarks: "according to recog
nition, i.e., so that home life must be regulated by knowledge and under
standing" (so also Hofmann). Similar adverbial expressions, formed by a
conjunction of nurd with an anarthrous subst., occur frequently both in clas
sical and N. T. Greek. It is evident from the context that Kard yvuaiv has
here special reference to the marriage relation ; but from this it does not
follow that the interpretation, "in a judicious, discerning manner," or Lu
ther's "with reason," is incorrect (in opposition to Briickner and Schott).
De Wette is completely mistaken in rendering yvuaig by "that knowledge
of men and self, in fact, that inward discernment, which is the condition of
all moderation," as is Bengel also directly by moderatio.^ — ug daBevearepip
CKevei ru yvvameia is erroneously connected by Luther and others with dnovi-
povreg; it belongs, however, to avvomoivreg, which requires a nearer definition.
— The word oKeiog is used to designate the wife in 1 Thess. iv. 4 (see Liine
mann in loe.) with reference to the husband; the same ineaning, though
with various applications, is here attributed to it by raany interpreters.^
But this view is incorrect, for ru yvvaiKeiu, sc OKevei, is subjoined by way of
explanation, and the coraparative daB. shows that the husband also is thought
of as OKeiog. oKiiog raust be taken here in its specific meaning of a utensil
(or instrument) serving a particular purpose, and is accordingly to be under
stood as specially applicable to man, in so far as the latter is used by God

* Oecuraenlus understands this exhortation niKpOn; rStv Kara rrjv o'lKiav avriav et? raptelav
in connection with ver. 6, as having a special TrapaKareQerttiv.
application to the household: ot dvSpe^ ... 2 Beza: "Est feraina vas, I. e., comes et
avvoiKovvreq- rovreanv : oxa6r\aiv Xap^dvovre^ adjutrix viro ad fideliter corara Deo transl-
TJj? TOU 6-fjKeo^ Koviponiro^ koX tou euTrapa(|(o'pov geodara vltara adjuncta." Bengel : " Denotat
ef TTtio-t, Kot et? piKpo^vxiav eifo\ia9ov, paKpoQv- hoc sexura et totura Ingeulum temperament-
(Uot yiveaOe Trpb? auTas, pi] Koyov aTratToufTes umque foemiueum."

CHAP. III. 7. 281
for the accomplishment of His will (cf. Acts ix. 15). It is inaccurate, nor
can it be justified by Rom. ix. 21 ff., to take the word in the general sense
of "creation " (so Wiesinger, and formerly in this commentary). Hofmann
understands oKevog here as referring both to the husband and the wife, inas
much as "in a life united in marriage, one part is destined to be and to
accomplish something for the other;" but the reference to this mutual
relation is purely arbitrary.^ — daBevearipip]. Bengel: Comparativus, etiam
vir habet infirmitatem ; in like manner Steiger : " the less weak is called upon
to assist the more weak" (thus also Fronmiiller). This view is, however,
incorrect; it is the husband rather as the stronger. TOeiof — there is no refer
ence made here to his weakness — who is here contrasted with the wife as
the weaker (De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann). And, because be is
such a OKeiog, it is demanded of him that he live with his wife Kara yvuaiv ; ug
here also states the reason : because the wife is a ok. dadeveviarepov, it is ac
cordingly incumbent on the man to behave towards her Kara yvuaiv. Schott
erroneously sees in Kara yvuaiv the determining reason why the man should
treat her as a ok. daB. ; but this can the less be maintained, that k. yv. cannot
signify " because he recognizes her as such," but states the manner of the
avvomelv. — daBevearipu OKeiei stands in apposition to rip yvvamelu, SC. OKevei, and
is put first by way of emphasis. — yvvamelog, an. ley,, Lev. xviii. 22; Deut.
xxii. 5, LXX.; Esth. ii. 11, 17. — dnovipovreg npyv, "in that ye show honor
(respect) to them ; " dnovipeiv in the N. T. dn, ley. — The participle is not co
ordinate with the foregoing (avvomoivreg), but subordinate to it, since it brings
prominently forward one of the chief ways in which the preceding exhorta
tion may be carried into effect. The thought here must not be arbitrarily
limited to any special relation (e. g., to that of raaintenance or of continence,
etc.). The husband should, in every relation, show the respect due to his
wife. — ug Kal avyKlypovbpoig {-oi) x^pf'og (uyg serves as ground of the exhorta
tion; if the reading be cvyKlypovduoig, the reference is to tlie wives; if
avyKlypovbpoi, to the husbands (in opposition to Pott, who somewhat singu
larly interprets as equal to eiai ydp ovyKlypovdpoi, sc. al yvvalKeg). The dative
is more in harmony with the structure of the sentence and the thought, and
therefore is to be preferred to the nom. supported by the authorities;
although the nom. may be defended on the ground that husbands, as avyKl,
of their wives, should in turn regard the latter as their avyKl. But since
this last is really the point of importance, it can hardly be assumed that the
apostle would only have hinted at it, without openly giving expression to
it.^ — Kal avyKlypovbpoig, De Wette-Briickner explain, "as (those who) also
1 Schott arbitrarily asserts that the creature base his exhortation to the men to honor their
is here termed o-Keuos, "as a vessel which is wives, by reminding them (the men) that they
destined to receive into itself, as its real con- are called to Inherit the x^pt? ^w^s along with
tents, the realization of the divine will." their wives?" Reiche says: "scilicet quia
Even though a vessel containing something absurdum ( !) esset, sic arguraentarl." Briick-
can be termed a o-keuo?, it does not follow that ner raaintains that meaning to be " altogether
(Dceuo? must be understood as meaning this inappropriate and foreign to the purpose of
and nothing else. the address." These assertions, however, can
2 In the second edition of this Coramentary by no means be accepted, since the conscious-
it was said : " "Why should not the apostle ness of being a fellow-heir of salvation with

282 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
(like yourselves) (are) fellow-heirs (one with another)." The reference here
attributed to am — simply on account of Kai — is inappropriate, since it is a
thought entirely foreign to the context, that the wives are heirs with each
other. If the reading avyKlypovbpoig be adopted, aw applies to the husbands,
equivalent to " with you ; " kuI may stand with reference to the foregoing
daBevearipu, adding a second particular to it (Schott) ; or it may also serve
simply to intensify cvv, since, strictly speaking, it is redundant.^ If, how
ever, avyKlypovbpoi be read, kuI is to be taken in the latter way, and is not to
be explained thus : " by dnovipovreg something further is enjoined, which
goes beyond the . . . Kard yvuaiv " (Hofraann) ; for avvomoivreg Kard -yvuaiv
stands iraperatively, whilst avyiclypovbpoi does not say what the husbands
should be, but what they are. With the idea nlypovopoi, cf. chap. i. 4 ; the
expression avyKlyp., Kom. viii. 17; Eph. iii. 6; Heb. xi. 9. — x^-ptrog fww].'
t^uyg states in what the xupK, of which they are and will be Klypovbpoi, consists.
It is erroneous to resolve the expression into x"-ptQ i^aa (Erasraus) or xaptg
^uonoioiaa (Grotius). Hofraann, assuming avyKlypovbpoi noiKl?i.yg 3;aptrof (uyg to
be the true reading, gives an interpretation different from the above : " as
such who, with their wives, share a life of manifold grace, i.e., of those
divine favors which are experienced in coramon in every marriage by be
lievers and unbelievers." In this way, however, justice is done to neither
of the ideas, nor is it pointed out what the favors in married life referred
to are.^ — eig rb py iyKonreaBai (Rec. eKKonreaBai)' rdg npoaevxiig ipHv]. iyKonreiv,
strictly, incidere, then intercidere, from which arises the further meaning
impedire ; ^ 'tKKonreiv, pr. excidere, whence stirpitus delere ; ^ the idea of the
latter word is stronger than that of the former, but the thought in both
readings remains substantially the same, since both expressions denote the
ceasing of prayer. Wiesinger incorrectly understands the meaning of
the term iyKorrr. to be : " prayer in the mean tirae there still is, but the way
is closed to it.'' In like manner De Wette, following Bretschneider: ne
viam praecludatis precibus vestris, reraarks : " Prayer is by sin hindered from
mounting up to the throne of God ; " and such is in substance Hofmann's
view. 5 This idea would, however, have been more definitely expressed.
any one may very well lead to a recognition of thinking that, since the same idea is expressed
the npr/ which he possesses. Nor is there by (cat and aw, one of the two raust be
any thing iraprobable in the circumstance redundant, and that " strictly " is only raeant
itself, that the apostle, whilst basing the ex- to show that Kai Is in so far not purely re-
hortation o-vvoiKelv xara yvOiatv on the position dundani, that it sei-ves to strengthen the idea
of the -R'omen, should ground the dnovipeiv expressed by aw.
Tiprjv on tbe position of the men. — Schott ^ There Is no warrant for the opinion that
passes too lightly over the whole question. the apostle's exhortation must apply also to
' On the redundance of Kat In comparisons, such busbands as have unbelieving wives,
see "Winer, p. 390 (E. T., 548) ; but this use of since a case so special might well have been
it cannot be appealed to, since tl,? here is not a passed over. If the apostle had wished to
coraparative particle. "Wiesinger thinks that raake reference to this, he would in some way
aw perhaps contains the reference to a com- have alluded to it; cf. ver. 1 ff.
raunlty to which man aud wife equally belong; 3 Hes. epnoSi^eiv, SiaxiaXveiv.
but what this was, would have been indicated « Cf. Job xix. 10, LXX. : e^eKoipe Se aairep
by the context, as Eph. ili. 6; such, however, SevSpov ttjc eATrtSa pov.
Is not the case here. To the expression ^ jn this Interpretation the reference to the
" strictly," Reiche adds a ?, without ever coming of prayer to God is a simple importa-

CHAP. III. 8. 283
The apostle does not say that the power and the hearing of prayer are hin
dered, but that the prayer itself is (this also in opposition to Reiche). In
harmony with the connection of this last clause, by ruf npoaevxdg ipuv is to be
understood either the joint prayer of married persons (Weiss, p. 352),i or the
prayers which those here addressed ofEer up, as the husbands of their wives
(or, further, as heads of households). Depreciation of the wife, in spite of
union with respect to the Klypovopia, necessarily excludes prayer frora married
life.^ Schott: "Where the husband does not recognize that the union of
natural life in marriage is also union in the state of grace, there can natur
ally be no expression of the spiritual and Christian fellowship of marriage,
no prayer in common."
Ver. 8. Exhortafions of a general character follow, without regard to the
various conditions of men, yet in connection with chap. ii. 11 ff. They deal
with the relations of the Christians towards each other, and towards those
who are inimically disposed to thera. — rb be rilog, here adverbially : "finally,
lastly;" in the classics rilxig be occurs frequently.^ — ndvreg, emphatically, in
contrast to what preceded : slaves and masters, husbands and wives. — iare
or some such word is usually supplied here ; it is more correct, however, to
consider the following adjectives, etc., as standing in a dependence similar
to that of the participles formerly ; only that the apostle has in his mind,
instead of the particular inordyyre, K.r.X, in ii. 13, the more general exhorta
tion to obedience toward God. — bpbippoveg, in the N. T. dn. ley. (Theognis, 81,
bpbippova Bvpbv ixovreg) ; frequently t6 airb ippovelv, Rom. xii. 16, xv. 5; 2 Cor.
xiii. 11; Phil. ii. 2; similar expressions, 1 Cor. i. 10; Eph. iv. 3; Phil.
iii. 16; Luther: "like-minded." — avpnaBelg, "sympathizing," in N. T. dn. ley.;
the verb, Heb. iv. 15, x. 34; for the explanation, comp. Rom. xii. 15. Oecu
menius explains : avpndBeia ¦ 6 npbg rovg KUKug nuaxovrag ug Kal iip' iavrolg iXeog ;
where, however, it is incorrect to limit the application to suffering only.
Bengel : bpbipp. : mente, avpnaBelg : affectu in rebus secundis et adversis. — ipjid-
belipoi, "brotherly," Luther; also d;r. ley.; the substantive occurs in chap. i. 22.
— evanlayxvoi to be found, besides here, in Eph. iv. 32, "compassionate;" in
classical Greek : qui robustis est visceribus, as in Hippocr., p. 89 C ; and figura
tively equal to eiKdpbiog, dvbpe'iog ; in the sense of compassionate it does not
occur in the classics. — raneivb^poveg]. dn. 'key. : the raneivoippocivy (humility) as

tion. Hofmann adds to the Interpretation, Interpretation of o-ufotKoOf Te? ; Nicol. de Lyra
that " the sighs of the wife bar the road to the says more correctly : " cura vir et uxor non
husband's prayers, by accusing him to G-od sunt bene Concordes, minus possunt orationi
before his prayer, thus rendered worthless, vacare." The Scholion in Matthaei, p. 199, is
reaches Him." But this is a thought alto- inadequate : 6 yip irepi t))!- olKiav flopv^os rHv
gether foreign to the context. Kard ®e'ov epyuv epnoSiov.
1 Although in ver. 7 it is the husbands who » Pott explains erroneously, by appeal to
are addressed, still, as the verse treats of their 1 Tira. I. 6 : " Pro Kard Se rb te'Aos sumraa
behavior towards their wives, v/taix can well cohortationum meamra jara eo redIt " (in like
apply to both. manner Erasmus, Grotius, "Wolf, Steiger, etc.) .
' Hieronymus, Oecumenius, etc., apply the Oecumenius marks the transition very well
words, according to 1 Cor. vii. 3, " ad honorem thus: Tt xP*) 'iSioKoyelaOai ; an-Xws irdai ipi\pi'
jmpertiendum uxoribus a viris, qui sit absti- toSto yip Te'Aot nal Trpos tovto 6 aK6no<i iipop^
nentia a congressu, ut orationi vacare possint " t^? aoirypia^.
(Lorinus), which Is connected with the false

284 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
well before God (Acts xx. 19) as towards our neighbor (chap. v. 5, Phil.
ii. 3, where it is joined with anldyxva o'lKnppoi) ; here, with the latter refer
ence. — Calvin : humilitas praecipuum conservandae amicitiae vinculum. Hof
mann justly questions whether " iirordaaopai, the leading idea of the series
of exhortations which here coraes to a close, is, as it were, echoed in ranet-
vbipp." (AViesinger). For a panegyric on humility, see Lorinus in loe. In
the classics raneivbippuv means "mean-spirited and faint-hearted." The word
ipiUippoveg (spurious here) is explained by Gerhard: qui student facere ea quae
alteri arnica sunt et grata. The first three expressions show the loving rela
tion in which Christians stand to each other; the last two (or three), the
conduct of Christians towards all without distinction (Hofmann).
Ver. 9. Behavior towards the hostile world, py dnobiSbvreg KOKbv dvrl
KOKoi]. The same phrase occurs, Rom. xii. 17; 1 Thess. v. 15: corap. Matt.
V. 43 ff. — ij loiboplav dvrl loiboplag : corap. chap. ii. 23.^ — roivavriov be eiloyoiv-
reg, i.e., in return for KUKbv and lotbopla; eiloyelv in the N. T., when used of
man, is equal to bona apprecari, opposed to KarapdaBai ; ci. Matt. v. 44 ; Luke
vi. 28; Rom. xii. 14; 1 Cor. iv. 12; Jas. iii. 9. Taken in this sense
(Wiesinger, Bruckner, Hofraann ),^ it expresses siraply the opposite of the
preceding loibop'iav dvrl loiboplag. It is more in harmony with the context,
however, to understand it as referring equally to KUKdv dvrl KUKoi ; in which
case it will have a wider sense, and be equivalent to "wishing well and
showing kindness by word and deed" (Fronmiiller). This is supported by
the subsequent eiloylav ; nor does the N. T. usage stand in the way, in so
far as in 2 Cor. ix. 5, 6, at least, evloyia denotes something accomplished by
human action, though Hofmann strangely seeks to lessen its force by under
standing it of "a personal greeting." — bn eig roiro cKlyByre: comp. chap.
ii. 21. -^ 'iva eiloylav Klypovopyayre.] From chap. ii. 21 it is natural to take
eig rovro as referring to what precedes (eiloyoivreg) (Oecumenius, Grotius,
Calvin, Steiger, De Wette-Briickner, Fronmiiller, Reiche, Hofmann, etc.) ;
in which case iva would belong either to eiloyoivreg, on . . . 'eKlyByre thus
forming a parenthesis, or to iKlyByre. But in the first case the close con
nection of the clauses is broken, whilst in the second the somewhat inade
quate idea arises, that we are called upon to bless, in order that we ourselves
may obtain a blessing. It is therefore better to take eig roiro with the
subsequent iva (Luther, Beza, Bengel, Wiesinger, Sohott, etc.) ; comp.
chap. iv. 6 ; John xviii. 37 ; Rom. xiv. 9. The consciousness that we, as
Christians, are called to obtain a blessing, should be an iucitement to us
to bring blessing to others ; the more so, that otherwise we shall fall short
of the blessing to which we are called. On eilnylav Bengel rightly remarks :
benedictionem aeternam, cujus primitias jam nunc pii habent. If eibbreg before
bn he the correct reading, it must be taken as in chap. i. 18.
1 Nicol.de Lyra: "Non reddentes malura or whether any operation through the word is
pro malo in factis injuriosis, nee maledlctam to be understood, for he renders evXoyelv by
pro raaledlcta in verbis contentiosls." " to bestow good in word." If the forraer be
2 Schott no doubt insists that the blessing iraplied, then' It Is wrong to say " that God's
of man is accoraplished in word only and not blessing is In truth accorapanied by deeds, but
In deed; but he does not say whether it means man's raust stop short at the word." If the
a wish expressed in prayer (bona apprecari), second, then raan's blessing is also in deed.

CHAP. III. 10-12. 285
Vv. 10-12. -Quoted from Ps. xxxiv. 13-17, LXX., and strengthening
the foregoing exhortations by a reference to the divine judgment. In the
original the first clause forms an interrogation, to which the following
clauses, in the second person iraperative, give the answer. — b ydp Biluv ^uyv
dyandv, Kal Ideiv ypipag dyaBdg]. The translation of the LXX., an inexact
reproduction of the Hebrew, ^ runs : rig ianv dvBpunog 6 Biluv Qjijv, dyandv
Tjpepag dyaBdg; Peter's deviation frora it by the conjunction of eiluv dyandv is
striking. — Biluv is not used adverbially here, equivalent to " fain ; " but
neither must another conception be substituted for dyandv ; De Wette : " he
who will s^ott'^love for life" (i.e., a yearning desire after it). The idea
"show," besides being an arbitrary introduction, is inappropriate, inasmuch
as it is love of life itself, and not the showing of it, that is here in question.
Wiesinger is more happy : " He who is really in earnest as to the love of
life." Biluv is then to be explained on the principle that love of ^uy, no
less than the possession of it, is conditioned by a certain course of conduct
on the part of man. Bengel, appealing to Eccles. ii. 17, interprets still
better: qui vult ita vivere, ut ipsum non taedeat vitae; i.e., who will have life so
that he can love it ; so, too, Schott ; similarly Hofmann, only that the latter
unnecessarily understands dyandv to mean simply "to enjoy a thing." — kuI
idelv ypipag dyaBdg : with idelv ill this connection, comp. Luke ii. 26 ; Heb.
xi. 5 ; John iii. 3. — The passage in the Psalms has evidently reference to
earthly happiness ; according to De Wette, on the other hand, the apostle
had the future and eternal life in view here; this, however, is not the case,
for in the passage before us the reference is likewise to the present life
(Wiesinger, Schott, and Bruckner), only it must be observed that for the
believer happiness in this life consists in something different from that of
the man of the world; to the former, days of suffering also may be ypipat
dyaBal. If this be correct, ydp cannot refer to the thought immediately pre
ceding, but only "to the whole exhortation, vv. 8, 9" (Wiesinger, Schott).
— navadru, K.r.l,]. The LXX., keeping to the Hebrew original, here and in
what follows preserve the second person. — naieiv, "lo cause to cease, to hold
back;" in classical Greek never joined with dno; the subsequent genitive
TOU py lalyaai stands in conformity with the use of the "verb among the
Greeks; corap. Winer, p. 305 (E. T., 325 f.). — KUKbv has a wider range
than bbljog; there is no ground for limiting the application of the term here
simply to words of reprimand (De Wette). With dbliog, comp. chap. ii. 1, 22.
— Ver. 11. iKKlivdru 6e, K,r,l.]. iKKliveiv dnb; comp. Rom. xvi. 17. The
same thought in the sarae words, Ps. xxxvii. 27; comp. further, Isa. i. 16,
17; Rom. xii. 9. — <5e, if it be genuine, serves to bring into prominence the
t In the original Hebrew the passage is : — (Ps. cxviii. 20), qnidnl velle, quod est verbura
D^^n VSnn U'^S^n^^D generale, amare? Innuit duplicatio non solum

.3113 n'lxiS D-D' anx

vehementlam desiderii amorisve, sed infirmi
tatem quoque carnis revocantis sublnde vol-
2 Similarly already the Glossa interl.: " qui untatem, ne ita vellt acriter et asslduo." But
vult ostendere, se dllectlonera habere." — In Ps. cxviii. ("Vulg., " conouplvit anima mea
Lorinus thinks that the combination of the desiderare justlflcaliones tuas") the oounec-
two words serves to intensify the idea . " si tion is different from here,
recte dicitur quia concuplscere, desiderare

286 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
new idea, distinct from the preceding. — ^yryadru, K.r.l. : bidiKeiv (comp.
1 Tim. vi. 11, etc.), stronger than (yrelv (comp. Matt. vi. 33; Col. iii. 1). —
The first half contains the general thought, the second eraphasizes one more
special. Although the exhortations of the apostle refer more particularly
to the conduct of Christians towards their persecutors, yet they are not
confined to this, but go beyond it (in opposition to Schott). — Ver. 12. on
bipBalpol Kvpiov, K.r.l.]. on is inserted by the apostle in order to mark more
precisely the connection of thought. The exhortations are founded on a
reference to the manner of God's dealings. On the first hemistich Bengel
remarks : inde vitam habent et dies bonos. The apostle omits the words roi
i^oloBpevaai Ik yyg rb pvypbavvov airuv in the Psalra, added to npbaunov . . . kuku
(not because, as De Wette thinks, he considered them too strong), and thus
deprives the last member of the verse of a nearer definitioii. Calvin,
Grotius, Beza, De Wette, accordingly take the irri of this meraber in a
sense different frora that which it has in the first, naraely, as conveying the
idea of " punishraent," equivalent to " against ; " this, however, is arbitrary.
Hensler, Augusti, and Steiger find in all three members the expression of
" attentive observation " only ; but this view — itself, according to the
thought, inadequate — is opposed by the particle de, which indicates rather
a contrast, and is not to be translated, with Hensler, by "but also." If,
now, the antithesis be not contained in ini, it can be sought for only in
npbaunov, which, though in itself doubtless a vox media (corap. Nura. vi. 25,
26 ; Ps. iv. 7), is nevertheless in this passage of the Psalms to be thought
of as one full of wrath, and, as such, was present to the mind of the apostle.
Strictly speaking, indeed, this should have been expressed; but 'not neces
sarily so, since the antithesis between this and the preceding meraber of
the verse makes it sufficiently apparent. A similar interpretation is given
by Wiesinger, Bruckner, and Schott.
Ver. 13 serves further to emphasize the exhortation to well-doing, and
at the same time introduces the following paragraph, in which Peter calls
upon the Christians to suffer persecutions patiently. — Kai unites what
follows with what precedes. A new reason, the truth of which is attested
by the thought contained in ver. 12, is added in ver. 13 to the argument
advanced for the preceding exhortation of ver. 12. The sense is r Do good,
for to the good God is gracious, with the wicked He is angry ; and those
who do good, for this very reason none can harm. — rig b kokuouv ipdg: an
impressive and passionate question (stronger than a simple negative), in
which must be noted the form 4 kukuouv, sc. iari instead of KUKuaei, as also
the sharp contrast between Kcmoiv and the subsequent dyaBov. " Do harra,"
as a rendering of kukovv (Wiesinger, De Wette), is too weak. The word is
used for the most part of ill-treatment (Acts vii. 6, 19, xii. 1, xviii. 10), and
denotes here, with reference to the preceding KUKd, such evil-doing as is
really harmful for hira who suffers it. It is possible that the apostle had
in his raind Isa. 1. 9, LXX. : 'iboi Kvpiog Kipiog ^oySyaei pot, rig KUKuaei pe. The
interrogative forra expresses the sure confidence of the apostle, that to
those who do good, no one either will or can do harm. Steiger's interpre
tation is too pointless : " and indeed who theu will seek to do you harm, as

CHAP. III. 14. 287
you imagine, if you really," etc. ; i for the reservation must be added that
every proverb has this peculiarity, that it is not without exception (Benson),
or that the stateraent in the oratio popularis must not be taken too strictly.
The strong and consoling expression of an unshaken faith is thus reduced
to a somewhat empty comraonplace.^ — idv rov dyaBoi ^ylural yivyaBe]. rov
d.yaBov was taken by some of the older interpreters (Lorin., Aret., etc.) to
be the genitive masc, probably on account of the article (as distinguished
from the anarthrous dyaBov, ver. 11). Weiss also thinks that by it Christ
perhaps may be understood. Most commentators, however, correctly regard
it as the neuter; comp. ver. 11. The article is put, inasmuch as in this
term all the single virtues, formerly mentioned, are included ; it stands
first by way of emphasis. — ^ylurai ; comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 12 ; Tit. ii. 14. If
the reading pipyrai be adopted, its connection with the neuter is somewhat
singular, still the verb pipelaBai does occur with names of things; comp.
Heb. xiii. 7 ; 3 John 11.
Ver. 14. dll' ei kuI ndaxoire]. dlld expresses the antithesis to the nega
tion contained in the preceding question : "but even though you should suffer;"
cf. Winer, p. 275 (E. T., 367) ; a species of restriction which, however, is
not intended to weaken the force of the foregoing thought. No doubt the
possibility of suffering is admitted, yet in such a way that the Christian is
considered blessed on account of that suffering, ndaxeiv is not identical
with KUKoiaBai, but, as Bengel rightly remarks, levius verbum quam KanovaBai.
Every Christian has a ndaxeiv, but he need never fear a KUKoiaBai.^ — bid
bmaioavvyv recalls Matt. v. 10. dmaioaivy is here (cf. chap. ii. 24) synony
mous with rb dyaBbv and y dyaBy iv Xpiaru dvaarpoipy, ver. 16. — paKupioi: sc.
iari. Even suffering itself contributes to your blessedness. — rbv be fbjlov,
K.r.l.]. These and the words which begin the following verse are "a free
use " (Schott) of the passage, Isa. viii. 12, 13, LXX. : rbv be ipbjiov airov (i.e.,
ToO laov) oi py ipo^yByre, nvbi p^ rapaxByre' Kipiov airbv dytiiaare. The thought
here is pot quite the sarae, the sense of the Old- Testament passage being :
do not share the terror of the people, and do not be moved by what alarms
them. If ipbjiog be here taken objectively, then ipojJog airuv is " the fear ema-
1 Gualther's paraphrase is not lees insipid : ^ These words also are wrongly explained
" Quis est, scilicet tara Irapudens et Iniquus, by Schott, since he takes aAA" as quickly deny-
qul vos alfllgat, si beneHcentiae sitis aemula- Ing the previous stateraent, and introducing a
tores? " "Wiesinger's interpretation also is new turn of thought, separates et Kat from
inappropriate : " If ye follow my exhortations, each other, and connects Kat with n-ticrxotTe in
it Is to be hoped," etc. — The words do not the sense of "even." For the flrst, Schott
hint that "the trials which the readers had appeals to Hartung's /"arti^cH., IL, p. 37; for
endured were not altogether undeserved on the second, to Hartung, I., p. 140, note ; but
their part " ("Wiesinger) . without any right to do eo. For, as to the
3 Schott's Interpretation, according to which former, he overlooks that aAA' here follows
KaKovf is " to make evil-doers In the judgment on a sentence negative in meaning; and as to
of God," is altogether wide of the mark. the latter, that Kat has here a position, in
Although KaKovv, — corresponding to the He- which a separation of it from et could not for
brew JT'iJ'Til, — as applied to a judge, may a moraent be thought of. The apostle would
mean, " to coiidemn," or properly, " to declare have expressed the idea; "If for righteous-
a person a KaKds," it does not follow therefrom ness' sake you should have to experience (not
that It may also have the meaning of "causing only not happiness and blessing, but) even
God to declare a person a KaKo^." suffering," by «t Bta SiKaioavvyv Ka'i irdaxmre.

288 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
nating from them," or " the fear which they excite " (De Wette, Briickner) ;
cf . Ps. xci. 5 : oi ipofiyByay dnb ipbl3ov vvKrepivoi ; ci. also in this chapter ver. 6.
If, on the other hand, it be taken in a subjective sense, then airuv is equal
to "of them," therefore: "do not fear with the fear of them, i.e., do not be
afraid of thera" (Schott and Hofraann also). In both cases the meaning
is substantially the same. Wiesinger is inaccurate when he takes ipbjSog
subjectively, and interprets airuv as De Wette does.
Ver. 15. Kipiov be rbv Xpiarbv]. Kiptov, in Isaiah equivalent to rbv Qebv; a
substitution of this kind is frequently found in the N. T., where reference
is made to passages in the O. T., and can be easily explained on the prin
ciple that a consciousness distinctively Christian was asserting itself; "Kvpiov
is placed first, as antithesis to airuv" (Wiesinger). Schott denies that Kvpiov
stands in apposition to rbv Xpiarov, holding that Kvpiov is to be taken rather
as a predicate of the object, equivalent to "as Lord;" for this reason, that
Kvpiog stands here without the article, and that the simple conjunction of
Kvpwg and Xpiarbg does not occur. But against the first objection the expres
sion Kvpiog b Qebg raay be urged, and against the second the verse Luke ii. 11.
It is more natural, and at the same time more in harmony with the passage
in the O. T., to connect Kvptog directly with rbv Xpiarbv : " but . . . the Lord,
the Messiah." — dyidaare,in antithesis to ipofiyByre and rapaxByre; "hold, i.e.,
honor, fear as holy" (De Wette); the sanctifying comprehends within it the
fear of God ; cf. Isa. viii. 18, xxix. 23 ; it thus forms the contrast to the fear
of man ; where the former is, the latter must give way. — iv ralg Kapblaig vpuv
added by the apostle in order to mark the inward nature of the dyid^eiv. —
iroipoi]. Whether (5e' be the original reading or not, this clause is undoubt
edly intimately connected in thought with that which precedes it. Without
be this being ready is conceived as a proof of the dyid(;eiv Xp. ; with be the
thought is this, that the dyui^eiv Xp., k.t.X, which banishes all fear of man,
should not exclude the dnoloyla before men (De Wette, Wiesinger). Hof
mann takes the particle here as equal to " rather ; " but against this is the
fact that here Kipiov . . . ipuv would have to be taken as a simple paren
thesis, inasrauch as de would refer only to what precedes, and a second
antithesis would then be added to the already antithetical Kvpiov be, k.t.X —
del npbg dnoloylav navrl rip, k.t.X], iroipog npbg, ci. Tit. iii. 1. — "The injunc
tion exempts neither time (iiel) nor person (navrl) " (Steiger). — To limit its
application to a judicial examination is arbitrary, and militates against
navrl, — dnoloyla not equal to satisfactio (Vulg.), but here rather quaevis
responsio, qua ratio fidei (more correctly spei) nostrae redditur (Vorstius ; Phil.
i. 7, 16 ; Acts xxvi. 2). — navrl rip airoivri, k.t.X], The dative depending on
dnoloylav, ci, 1 Cor. ix. 3 ; for aireu with double accusative, cf . Winer, p.
212 f. (E. T., 227). Ibyov alrelv, "to demand account of," only here, cf. chap.
iv. 5; Rom. xiv. 12. — nepl rf/g iv iplv ilnldog], nepi: as to its nature and
ground. — elnlg not equivalent to niang (Calvin : spes Mc per synecdochen pro
fide capitur), but the hope of the Christian looking, on the ground of faith,
into the future salvation. ^ — dlld perd npairyrog koI ^o^ov]. If dlld be the
' That this " account " had special reference dom of Christ was of this world, is nowhere
to the removal of the suspicion that the king- aUuded to in the context (De "Wette, Schott).

CHAP. III. 16. 289
true reading, as there can hardly be any doubt it is, it will serve to make
more sharply prominent the way and manner in which the dnoloyla should
be conducted; De Wette: "as it were: but remember." — perd, to be con
nected not with iroipoi, but with dnoloylav ; npairyrog opposed to passionate
zeal, ipb^ov is to be applied directly neither to God (Aretius : reverentia et
timor Dei; thus Weiss also, p. 169), nor to men before whom testimony is to
be borne (according to some, the civil authorities) ; but it denotes the being
afraid — based, of course, on the fear of God — of every unseemly kind
of dnoloyla, and stands especially opposed to all arrogant self-confidence
(Wiesinger). Ver. 16. avvel&yniv ixovreg dyaByv]. These words are taken by several
interpreters (Bengel, Steiger, De Wette, etc.) with dytdaare, ver. 14, as co
ordinate with eroipoi ; Wiesinger construes them with iroipoi, as subordinate
to it. The latter is to be preferred, for cvve'ib. ix. denotes " the point essen
tially important, to being ever prepared to give an answer in a right man
ner" (Wiesinger). But it is better still to assume that it — like perd npairy-
Tof— belongs in a loose way to aTO?LO).t'av, equivalent to "with good conscience,"
i.e., in that your walk does not give the lie to your confession.^ Calvin says
correctly: quia parum auctoritatis habet sermo absque vita. — iva ev ip, k.t.X],
The construction is here the same as in chap. ii. 12 ; see the exposition of
this passage, where, too, Schott's interpretation of iv li, equal to " in this,
that," is considered. The conjunctive of the Rec. Karalnluaiv would repre
sent the case as possible, equal to " in which they may possibly slander you." —
'iva, as a final particle, refers to the whole preceding thought, especially to
avveid. ix. uyaByv. — KaraiaxvvBuaiv]. Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 14: "that they may be
put to shame," i.e., since their slanders are openly proved to be lies. — oi iny-
pedCpvreg, k.t.X]. The subject stands, by way of eraphasis, at the end of the
sentence, inyped^eiv, " to revile," Matt. v. 44 ; Luke vi. 28. Hensler distin
guishes, without any grpund, the inyped^ovreg from the /caraAo^oDi'Tef, as differ
ent persons ; the former he considers to be the accusers of the Christians,
who bring the slanders of others before the judge. — ipuv rijv dyaBbv iv Xpiaru
dvaarpoipyv, i.e., "the good life which you lead in Christ (i.e., as Christians)."
Ver. 17. Kpeirrov ydp], ydp gives the ground of the exhortation contained
in avve'ib. ex. ay. ; the explanation of this Kpeirrirv is contained in chap. ii. 19 ff.
— dyaBonounivrag . . . ndaxeiv]. The connection between these two ideas is
the same as that between dyaBonoioivreg Kal ndaxovreg, chap. ii. 20, the parti
ciples giving not simply the special circumstances, as Hofmann asserts, but
the reason of the suffering ; this Schott denies as regards the first meraber :
uyaBoiroioivrag.^ — The parenthetical clause: ei Beloi rb Bilypa roi Qeoi, belongs
And Schott is hardly justified in giving the to be replied, that the dnoXoyia Itself is pre-
apostle's exhortations special application " to cisely the thiug for which they are to be ready.
the divinely ordained ordinances of natural It Is evidently arbitrary " to supplement an
social life.". Imperative (which?) to aAAa, and to connect
1 Hofmann says, " that it should not be aweiSriaiv exovreg ay. with It."
joined with aTroAoyia, for the meaning is, that ^ it must, indeed, be noted that those suf.
they should' do that whereunto they must be ferings which the believers, as such, have to
pi-epared with eagerness, and a good conscience endure frora the unbelieving world, overtake
which they should biiug to it." To this It is them because of their ayadon-oteri'; Christiana

290 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF FETEE.
to ndaxeiv; the optative denotes the possibility: "if such should be the will of
God." — On the pleonasm: Biloi rb Bilypa, see Winer, p. 562 (E. T., 604).
The thought here is not quite the same as that of chap. ii. 20. There, chief
stress is laid on ipopiveiv, to which no special prominence is here given.
But, as in the forraer case the exhortation is enforced by reference to Christ,
i.e., to His sufferings, so is it here also, in the following paragraph on to the
end of the chapter, only that in this passage the typical character of His
sufferings is less emphasized, whilst the exaltation which followed them is
brought specially forward.
Ver. 18. First, raention of the death of Christ by way of giving the
reason. — otj koI Xpiarbg una^ nepl dpapnuv inaBe {dneBnve)]. on is connected
with the idea immediately preceding, and gives the ground of the Kpeirrov; kuI
Xpiarbg (as in chap. ii. 21) places the sufferings which the Christians have to
bear, as dyaBonovaivreg, side by side with the sufferings of Christ, nepl dpapnuv,
so that Kai must be taken as referring not to inaBe (dniBave) only (as is done
by most commentators, among them De Wette), but, as the position of the
words (nepl dpapr. before inaBe) clearly shows, to nepl dpapnuv inaBe (dniBave)
(Wiesinger, Briickner, Schott). Hofraann's application of it to the whole
"statement here with respect to Christ" is open to objection, from the fact
that in what follows there are elements introduced which go too far beyond
the comparison here instituted. Christ's sufferings were on account of sin,
and such also should be the sufferings of the Christians.' This does not
preclude the possibility of His sufferings having had a significance different
from what theirs can have. This peculiar significance of Christ's sufferings
is marked by biKaiog inep dblKuv, or, as Schott holds, by dna^. dna^ gives
prominence to the fact that in relation to His subsequent life (BavaroBelg . , ,
^uonoiyBelg) Christ's suffering took place but once, as in Heb. ix. 27, 28 (Hof
mann : " once it took place that He died the death He did die, and what
followed thereon forms, as what is enduring, a contrast to what passed over
but once ") ; doubtless not without implying the secondary idea, that the
sufferings of Christians take place only once also, and come to an end with
this life.^ — nepl dpapnuv, which states yet raore indefinitely the purpose of
who, though confessing Christ, at the sarae perfectlonera sacrificii et ut doceat Christum
time live entirely like the children of the non amplius passioni fore obnoxiura." — Ac-
world, are well liked by the world. cording to Pott, it is also raeant to express the
^ The subsequent StKato? proves that the contrast to the frequent repetition of the O. T.
sins for which Christ suffered were not His sacrifices, — an application entirely foreign to
own sins ; thus also the believer's sufferings the context. According to Schott, oiraf iudl-
should not arise out of his own sins, he should cates that Christ suffered once for all, so that
not suffer asa KaKoirotwf, butas an ayaSoTrotwf. any further suffering of the same kind Is
Rejecting this application, Hofmann finds the neither necessary nor possible. This is no
point of comparison in this, " that we should doubt correct; but It does not follow that
let the sins which those who do us wrong Peter — whose words combine the typical and
comrait, be to us the cause of sufferings to specifleally peculiar signiflcance of the suffer-
us" (?). ings of Christ — should not have had In his
' Oecumenius finds in aira| an allusion to mind the application of airaf to believers, as
TO TOU rradovTO^ Spaarrfpiov n KoX Svvarov, or abOVe Stated. It Is with drra^ as with Trept
to the brevity also of the sufferings. Gerhard a^apTtwt- ; it is Impossible for believers to
unites all three elements by saying: "ut suffer nep'i aftapTtuf in the same sense that
ostendat (Ap.) passionis Christi brevitatem et Christ suffered irepi dpapniiv.

CHAP. IIL 18. 291
Christ's sufferings, "on account of sin,'' finds a more precise definition in
what follows. — blKuiog inep ddiKuv, " as the just for the unjust ; " comp. Rora.
V. 6 : inip, equivalent to in commodum, is not in itself, indeed, equal to dvrl ;
but the contrast here drawn between dUatog and dbmuv suggests that in the
general relation, the more special one of substitution is iraplied (Weiss, p.
261) ; corap. chap. ii. 21. The omission of the article is due to the fact that
the apostle holds it of importance to mark the character of the one as of the
other. — 'iva ypdg npoaaydyy ru Qeu gives the purpose of inaBev {dniBave), which
latter is more closely defined by that which immediately precedes and fol
lows ; npoadyeiv does not mean " to sacrifice " (Luther, Vulg. : ut nos offerret
Deo), neither "to reconcile;" but "to bring to," i.e., "to bring into communion
with God," which goes still beyond the idea of reconciliation ; the latter pre
supposes Christ's death for us ; the forraer, the life of Him who died for us.
Weiss maintains, without sufficient reason (p. 260), that the word here points
to the idea of the Christian's priesthood (chap. ii. 5). The verb occurs here
only; the substantive npoaayuyy, Rom. v. 2; Eph. ii. 18, iii. 12. ' — BavaruBeig
piv aapKi, ^uonoiyBelg be Trvevpari]. This adjunct does not belong to inaBev (De
Wette), but to npoaaydyy (Wiesinger) ; it is subjoined, in order to show
prominently how the npoadyeiv can take place through Christ; the chief
stress is laid on the second meraber. According to Schott, both participles
are to be considered as "an exposition of dna^; " this assuraption is contra
dicted, on the one hand, by the distance between thera and the latter word;
and, on the other, that they must necessarily be attached to a verb. — The
antithesis between the two members of this sentence is strongly marked by
pev . , , ii. The datives aapKi, nveipan, state with reference to what the
verbal conceptions BavaruBeig, ^uonoiyBeig, hold good ; " they serve to mark
the sphere to which the general predicate is to be thought of as restricted "
(Winer) ; comp. 1 Cor. vii. 34 : dyia koI aupan koi nveipan ; Col. ii. 5 ; ry aapKi
dneipi, rip nvevpan aiv i/dv eipt. Schott explains — somewhat ambiguously —
the datives " as general more precise adverbial definitions," which state
" what is of deterrainative importance in both facts," and " the nature of the
actqal condition produced by thera.'' — nveipan is by sorae understood instru
mentally; incorrectly, for aapd cannot be taken thus; the two members of
the clause correspond so exactly in form, that the dative in the one could not
be explained differently frora the dative in the other, as Wiesinger, Weiss,
von Zezschwitz, Bruckner, Schott, and FronraUller justly acknowledge. — aapKl
, , , ¦nveipan ; this antithesis occurs frequently in the N. T. ; with reference to
the person of Christ, besides in this passage, in Rom. i. 3 : Kara odp/ta . . .
Kard nveiiua dyiuaivyg, and 1 Tim. iii. 16 : iv aapKl . . , iv irveipari (cf. also
chap. iv. 6). — The antithesis of the two conceptions proves it to be erro
neous to as.sign to the one term a sphere different from that of the other,
and to suppose adpi to mean the body of Christ, and nveipa the Spirit of God.
Antithesis dare ostendil quod dicatur in alia quidem sui parte aut vitae ratione
1 It Is certainly very doubtful whether the manner In which we endure undesei-ved suf-
purpose also of the death of Christ, here ferings, to bring those by whom we are
stated, " admits of application to us," iu that wronged to bethink themselves, and to lead
"it should likewise be our object, by the them to a knowledge of Christ" (Hofmann).

292 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
mortificatus, in alia autem vivificatus (^Flacius). It raust be observed that
both are here used as general conceptions (Hofraann), without a pronoun to
mark thera as designations applicable only to Christ ; for which reason aup^
cannot relate exclusively to the human, and Tti^ei'/ia to the divine nature of
Christ. 1 As general conceptions (that is, as applicable not to Christ alone,
but to human nature generally), odpl and nveipa must, however, not be iden
tified with aupa and ipvx?!.'^ For aap; is that side of human nature in virtue
of which man belongs to the earth, is therefore an earthly creature, and
accordingly perishable like every thing earthly ; and rrvevpa, on the other
hand, is that side of his nature by which he belongs to a supernatural sphere
of existence, is not a mere creature of earth, and is accordingly destined also
to an iraperishable existence.^ — Wiesinger (with whom Zezschwitz agrees)
deviates from this interpretation thus far only, that he understands nveipa,
not as belonging to the nature of man, "but as that principle of union with
God which is bestowed upon man at regeneration." This deviation may
arise from the reluctance to attribute a nvevpa to man as such (also in his
sinful condition) ; as, however, according to Peter, the souls of the departed
are nvevpara (ver. 19), it is thus presupposed that an unregenerate man also
possesses a nvevpa during his earthly existence. It must also be observed
that otipf and nveipa are here not ethical antitheses, but are contrasted with
each other as natural distinctions. — BavaruBeig . . . ^uonoiyBelg], Bavarbu in
correctly interpreted by Wahl here, as in other passages of the N. T., by
capitis damno, morti addico ; for although it may sometimes occur in this
sense in the classics, still in the N. T. it means only to kill. By BavaruBeig
aapKi, then, the apostle says of Christ, that He was put to death in His
earthly human nature (which He along with all the rest of mankind pos
sessed),* i.e., at the hand of man by the crucifixion. — ^uonoiiu does not
1 Accordingly, interpretations like those of siders Christ as, on the one hand, a true man
Calviu are incorrect: "caro hic pro externo in body and soul, liable to all suffering . . .;
horalne capitur, spiritus pro divina potentia, and, on the other hand, in so far as He was
qua Christus victor a morte emersit; Beza: anointed by the Holy Ghost."
"n-i/ev^aTt, i.e., per divinitatem in Ipso corpo- 2 o-ap^ and aiopa are proved to be two dls-
raliter habitantem, equal to es Swdpeia^ Beov," tinct conceptions by the fact that, after the
2 Cor. xiii. 4; Oecumenius: 0ai/aTt<j9eis pev r^ resurrection, man will have a trujuta, but no
<^v<T€t T^? aapKos, Tovrean TJj dvOpmnivy, dvaa- adp^. The difference between nvevpa and
Tas fie tt) Swdpei Trj-; deorrjTO^. It Is equally ^vxij is clear, from passages such as Matt. vi.
Incorrect, with "Weiss (p. 262) , to understand 25. If in other passages irvevpa be used as
adpl as meaning " the human nature of Christ " synonyraous with >pvx-^ (comp., e. g., John xii.
(instead of which he uo doubt also says: " the 27 with John xiii. 21), this is explained by the
earthly human nature of Christ "), and nveipa two-sidedness of the human soul.
as hieaning " the pre-existent divine irvevpa s To "Weiss's reraark, that Peter terras that
coraraunicated at baptlsra to the man Jesus" side of human nature by which man is ren-
(which, as Weiss maintains, constitutes, ac- dered capable of religious life i(/ux^, It must be
cording to Peter, the divine nature of Christ). replied that the \pvx-ii possesses snch capacity
Weiss, for the sole purpose of representing for this very reason, that even under the power
the apostle's doctrinal conception as still in of the adp^ it has never ceased to be spiritual.
a very undeveloped state, imputes to Peter a In place of irvevpan, ipvxi would not be at all
view of the person of Christ which — as he appropriate here. In the first place, because
himself says — is possessed of "a duality ipvxij forras no antithesis to adp^, and then
which soraewhat endangers the unity of His because the Idea of what Is celestial, peculiar
person." Nor has Wichelhaus hit the true to irt-eSma, would not find expression In It.
explanation when he says: "Peter here con- * Schott is wrong iu maintaining that the au.

CHAP. III. 18. 293
mean "to preserve alive," as several commentators explain, e.g., Bellarmin
(De Christo, lib. iv. cap. 1.3), Hottinger, Steiger, and Giider, — this idea, in
the Old as in the New Testament, being expressed by i;uoyovelv and other
words (see Zezschwitz on this passage) ; but " to make alive " (De Wette,
Wiesinger, Weiss, Zezschwitz, Schott, Kbhler,' Ilofmann, and others) ; it
often applies to the raising-up of the dead ; cf . John v. 21 ; Rom. iv. 17 ;
1 Cor. XV. 22, etc. In this sense alone does ZuonoiyBelg answer the preceding
BavaruBeig. Bengel : vivificat'io ex antitheto ad mortificationem resolvi debet.
The latter idea assumes the anterior condition to have been one of death,
whilst the former — in contradiction to Bavar. — would presuppose one of life.
Christ then, according to the apostle, entered into the actual state of death,
that is, in so far as the adpi pertained to Him, so that His life in the flesh
carae to an end;^ but from death He was brought back again to life, that
is, was raised up, as far as the nveiua pertained to Him, so that the new life
was purely pneuraatical. But the new life began by His re-uniting Himself
as nvevpa to His aijpa, so that thus this aupa itself became pneuraatical.^ —
According to Bengel, with whora'Schraid (Bibl. Theol.), Lechler, and Fron
miiller agree (comp. also Hahn, Neutest. Theol., i. 440), ^uonoiyBeig does not
refer to the resurrection of Christ, but to His deliverance from the weakness
of the flesh, eilected by His death, and, based upon this, his transition to a
higher life (which was followed by the resurrection).* Against this, how
ever, is to be observed: (1) That the going of His nveipa to the Father,
connected with His death (Luke xxiii 46), is, as little as His ascension,
spoken of in Scripture as " a becoming quickened ; " (2) That as in BavaruBeig
the whole raan Christ is raeant, the same raust be the case in C.uonoiyBeig; and
(3) That this view is based on what follows, which, however, if rightly
mterpreted, by no means renders it necessary. Buddeus is therefore en
tirely right when he says : vivificatio animae corporisque conjunctionem denotat.^
tithesls to what Is here said should be, "that ever: "As it was the Christ living in the
Christ was quickened according to His glorified flesh who, by being put to death, ceased to be
human nature; "the antithesis to " earthly," any longer in that bodily life In which from
however, is not " glorified," but " celestial." His birth He had existed, so His quickening
1 " Zur Lehre von Christi Hollenfahrt," in of that which was dead is a restoration of a
the Zeitschrift fiir luth. Theol u. Kirche, "iiy spiritual nature to a bodily life."
Delitzsch and G-uericke, 1864, H. 4. * Bengel ; " Simul atque per mortifica-
2 Schott substantially agrees with this Inter- tlonera Involucro infirraltatis In carne solutus
pretatipn, but thinks that the above expression erat, statim vitae solvl nesciae virtus modis
does not say decidedly enough that " this was novis et raultis expedltissirals sese exserere
an entire cessation of His life." However, coeplt. Hanc vivificationem necessario celerl-
this "entire " Is saying too much, since aapxi ter subsecuta ost excitatio corporis ex morte
evidently points to a liraitation. et resurrectio e sepulcro." — Schrald: "'Ihe
3 Hofraann says, not quite accurately 7rfeO|Ua is a principle which He possessed iu a
(Schriftbeweis, II. 1, p. 473): "The antlthe- special manner, . . . this, in consequence of
sis davar., k. t. A., denotes the end of life In death. Is set free from the trammels of sens-
the flesh, and the commencement of life In the uous bodily nature, it now enters upou Its
spirit." For spiritual life -was iu Christ during full rights, and develoi* in Its fulness that
His life in the flesh, and after It, before His ^loij which -u'as in Hira."
resurrection. At His death He coraraitted * Schottexplains, indeed, ^a)07rotTj9ei?rigbtly
His nvevpa to His Father; It was therefore in in itself, but he objects to the Identification of
Hira before, and continued to live after His ^woTroiTjtrt? with dvdaraaig, and thinks that the
death. — Hofmann remarks correctly, how- former is the fundamental condition of

294 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
Ver. 19. With this verse a new paragraph — extending to ver. 22
inclusive — begins, closely connected by iv u (i. e., nveipan) with what
precedes, and in which reference is raade to the glory of Him who was
quickened according to the Spirit. It raay appear singular that in this
passage Peter should raake raention of those who were unbelieving in the
days of Noah, and of baptism as the antitype of the water of the deluge ;
but this may be explained from the circumstance that he looks on the
deluge as a type of the approaching judgment. It raust be observed, that
it is not so rauch the condemnation of the unbelieving, as the salvation of
believers, that the apostle has here in his mind. — 'ev u koI, k.t.1.: "in which
(spirit) He also went and preached unto the spirits in prison (to them), which
sometime ivere unbelieving when," etc. The close connection of these words
with what immediately precedes — by ef li, sc. nveipan ^iavovs the view that
iKypv^e refers to an act of Christ which, as the (uonoiyBelg nveipan, He
performed after His death, and that with reference to the spirits iv ipvlaufi
of the unbelievers who had perished in the deluge. This is the view of
the oldest Fathers of the Greek aud Latin Church, as also of the greater
number of later and modern theologians. Augustin, however, opposed it,
and considered 'eKypviev as referring to a preaching by Christ 'ev nveipan long
before His incarnation, in the days of Noah, to the people of that gen
eration, upon which the judgment of the deluge carae because of their
unbelief.i This view, after being adopted by several theologians of the
Middle Ages, became prevalent in the Reformed Church. In recent times,
it has been defended more especially by Schweizer, Wichelhaus, Besser, and
Hofmann. The chief arguments which those who maintain it advance in
opposition to that first mentioned, are the following: (1) The idea that
Christ preaqhed to the spirits ev ipvluKy would be an isolated one occurring
nowhere else in Scripture; and, further, preaching such as this, if conceived
as judicial, would have been entirely useless, whilst, looked on as a procla
mation of salvation, it would stand in contradiction to the uniform teaching
of Scripture regarding the state of man after death. To this, however, it
must be replied, that isolated ideas are to be found expressed here and there
in Scripture, and that the reconciliation of the idea of a salvation oifered
to the spirits iv itivlaKy with the other doctrines of Scripture, can at most be
termed a problem difficult of solution; nor must it be forgotten that the
eschatological doctrines comprehend within them very many problems.
(2) This view does not correspond with the tendency of the entire passage
from ver. 17 to ver. 22, and therefore does not fit into the train of thought.
But this assertion is to the point only if those who make it have themselves
correctly understood the tendency of the passage, which in this instance
the latter, which Is the " side of the resur- taken place through Noah, Schweizer raost
rection concealed and as yet hidden in the decidedly disputes this, and is of the opinion
depths" (':'). But where does the apostle that It was addressed to Noah himself as well
make any allusion to any such distinction as to his contemporaries. In support of this,
between two sides iu the resurrection of he very rightly appeals to the fact that Noah
Christ? is not here — as 2 Pet. ii. 5 — terraed a Kripv^.
> It must be observed that whilst Hofraann But he does not say by whom this preaching
considers the preaching of Christ as having must be considered to have taken place.

CHAP. III. 19. 295
tliey have not done. (8) It cannot be understood how Peter comes so
suddenly to speak of the spirits in prison. But, in reply, it may be urged,
with at least equal justification, that it is not easy to understand how Peter
comes so suddenly to speak of an act of Christ before His incaruiation.
(4) The want of the article before dneiByoaai compels us to translate this
participle not : " which sometime were unbelieving,'' but : " when they
sometime were unbelieving." This, however, is not the case, since the
participle, added with adjectival force to a substantive, is often enough
joined to the latter without an article. If Peter had put the words nopevBelg
iKypv^e before rolg . . . nveipaai, no difficulty would have presented itself in
the translation under dispute (" the sometime unbelieving spirits in prison ").
The translation to which preference is given is grammatically untenable.* —
Finally, appeal has been made to the fact that kuI is placed after iv i^, indeed
even to iv li itself ; but a correct explanation offers no justification for so
doing. Besides the close connection of the relative clause with that
immediately preceding, the following points favor the interpretation
attacked: (1) The correspondence of the nveipan to be supplied to ivii,
with the subsequent nveipaaiv; (2) nopevBelg, which must be taken in the
sarae sense as the nopevBelg in ver. 22 ; (3) The fact that ttot^ does not stand
with iKypv^e, but in ver. 20 with dneiByaaaiv, which shows that the dneiBelv
took place previous to the Kypiaaeiv ; and, lastly, (4) The circumstance that
had Peter closed his sentence with iKypv^ev, it could have occurred to no one
that Peter was here speaking of a preaching of Christ which took place in a
time long gone by. — ei^ <j is not equivalent to bid (alnoXoymug with reference
to inaBe, Theophylact) ; but whilst li refers back to nveipan, iv li states in
what condition Clirist accomplished that which is mentioned in what
follows, — He accomplished it not iv aapKi (for after the cdp^ He was put
to death), but 'ev nveipan (for after the nveipa He was raade alive), iv
stands here in a position similar to that which it holds in Kom. viii. 8,
where, however, adpi and nvevpa form an ethical antithesis, which here is
not the case. Hofraann wrongly attributes to iv here an "instrumental
force " equivalent to "by means of;" he is induced to do so solely by his
explanation of the nveipan to be supplied. Although it is evident that
nveipan here must be taken in no sense different from that of the foregoing
irveipari, Hofmann nevertheless holds it to be identical with the nveipa Xpiaroi
mentioned in chap. i. 11, while he himself says that the nveipan subjoined
to ^uonoiyBeig cannot be understood of the Holy Ghost.^ — Peter says, then,

1 Hofmann, Indeed, says that since the ex- between nvevpa as a terra used to deslgnatp
presslou is not Tot? an-etd^o-ao-t, the translation the precise nature of Christ, and irveUpa as the
shouldnotbe; " those spirits in durance, which third Person In the Trinity, is the result of
soraetime were disobedient;" but he grants that confusion of ideas by which "In the
that, frora a gramraatical point of view, it Spirit " and " as a Spirit " are understood to
remains doubtful " whether n-oTe signifies the mean the sarae thing. But it raust be replied
past as related to the time of Christ's preach- that rather Is the identification of two different
Ing, or the past as regards the present of the Ideas, contained In his Interpretation, the result
writer." of the confusion of ideas, leading hira as It
2 Hofraann says that tbe accusation raade does to hide the difference by defining n-veO^a
against hira, that he effaces tbe distinction as " the Spirit of Christ's life.'*

296 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
that Christ, in the Spirit according to which He was made alive, preached
to the spirits iv ipvluKy, which cannot be understood to mean any thing else
than that He did it as a nveipa (in His pneuraatical condition). Fronmiiller
erroneously interprets : " in the existence-form of a spirit separated from
the body ; " for the quickened Christ lives not as a siraple spirit, but is in
possession of a glorified spiritual body. — /cat rolg iv ipvloKy nvevpaai nopevBelg
iKTipv^ev]. By TU , , . nvevpara are to be understood, neither angels (Heb.
i. 14)1 jjQj. "men living upon the earth" (as Wichelhaus explains), but the
souls of men already dead, as in Heb. xii. 23, which in Rev. vi. 9, xx. 4,
Wisd.' iii. 1, are called ipvxa'i. iv ipvluKy designates not only the place, but
denotes also the condition in which the nvevpara are. Hofmann wrongly —
because in opposition to the uniform usage in the N. T. — denies all local
reference to the expression, and would therefore translate iv ipvlxiKy by " in
durance." The meaning is, that the nveipara were in prison as prisoners. ^
The expression occurs in the N. T. with the article and without it, and its
more precise force here is clear from the passages. Rev. xx. 7 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4 ;
Jude 6. It does not denote generally the kingdom of the dead (Lactant.
Inst., I. 7, c. 21 : omnes [animae] in una communique custodia detinentur), but
that part of it which serves as abode for the souls of the ungodly until the
day of judgment.^ The dative depends, indeed, on iKypv^ev, not on nopevBelg;
but the addition of the latter word gives prominence to the fact that Christ
went to those spirits, and preached to them in that place where they were.
Hofmann is not altogether wrong when, in support of his own view of the
passage, he says : " the operation of the spirit of Christ, by which Noah
was raade the organ of His proclamation, might be termed a 'going and
preaching' on the part of Christ" (comp. especially the passage, Eph.
ii. 17: ilBijv eiijyyeliaaro; see Meyer m Zoc, to which Hofmann might have
appealed). But that nopevBelg cannot be so taken here, is shown by the
nopevBelg in ver. 22, with which it must be identical in sense.* iKypv^e is
the same verb as that so often used in the N. T. of the preaching (not the
teaching) of Christ and His apostles. Usually it is accompanied by an
object (to evayyeliov, ryv (iaailetav roi Qeoi, Xpiarbv, or the like) ; but it is
frequently, as here, used absolutely, cf . Matt. xi. 1 ; Mark i. 38, etc. — It
cannot be concluded, with Zezschwitz, from the connection of this relative
clause with (uonotyBelg nvevpan, that ^uonoiyaiv illam spiritualem quasi funda
mentum fuisse concionis idemque argumentum ; nor does the word itself disclose

^ Baur (Tiib. Theol, Jahrb. 1856, H. 2, p. evtrejSwv (i/fv^eiy) ev Kpeirrovi nov ^ttiptp jttei'etv,
215) understands It to raean the a-yyeAot dpap. Tas S' dSiKovq Kai rrovrjpov'; ev xetpoct TOC T^9
T^o-acTes, 2 Pet. ii. 4, who, according to Gen. Kpiaeio^ evSexopiva^ xP^vov.
vi. 1 ff., had fallen previous to the deluge. * Luthardt so thoroughly recognizes the
This Interpretation is sufficiently contradicted vis of this iropevOeis, that he says he should
by ver. 20. interpret the passage as Hofraann does, If the
2 The interpretation of "Wichelhaus — who iropevSei^ did not prevent hira frora doing so.
by circuralocutlon explains Ta iv t/jvA. nvevpara Besides, It is certain that the coraing of the
as equal to oi direiBoOvrei TTjpoufiefot, iftpovpov- Holy Spirit is al the same time a coming of
pevoi ets rjpipav rov KaraKkvapov — is alto- Christ; but it must not be overlooked that In
gether erroneous. the N. T. it Is nowhere Indicated as being a
3 Justin (Vial c. Tryph., c. 5) : Tas pev rvtv coraing of Christ ef nvevpan.

CHAP. III. 20. 297
either the contents or the purpose of that preaching; but since Christ is
called the Kypv^ag without the addition of any more precise qualification,
it must be concluded that the contents and design of this Kypvypa are in
harmony with the nypvypa of Christ elsewhere. It is accordingly arbitrary,
and in contradiction to Christ's significance for the work of redemption,
to assume that this preaching consisted in the proclamation of the coming
judgment (Flacius, Calov., Buddeus, Hollaz, Wolf, Aretius, Zezschwitz,
Schott, etc.), and was a praedicatio damnatoria.^ Wiesinger justly asks:
" This concio damnatoria — what does it mean in general, what here espe
cially?" — It is unjustifiable to deny, with some commentators, that the
apostle regarded this nopevBelg iKypv^e as an actual reality.^ — /cat, following
iv i2; must not be explained, as Schweizer does, in this way, that Peter,
wishing to hold up Christ to his readers as a pattern of how they should
conduct theraselves under suffering, adduces two examples, vv. 19 ff.. His
death on the cross, and His preaching • the whole structure of the clauses,
as well as their contents, contradicts this. Nor can it be explained, as
Hofraann assuraes, " frora the antithesis between us whora Christ wished
to bring to God, and those who as spirits are in durance." This would
hold good only if, in ver. 18, it were affirmed that Christ did the same to us
as to those spirits, that is, preached to ns. It is likewise incorrect to take
Kai as equivalent to " even " (Wiesinger, Fronrauller) ; for a distinction
between these spirits and others is nowhere hinted at. kuI is put rather in
order to show prominently that what is said in this verse coincides with the
^uonoiyBelg nveipan of ver. 18. Zezschwitz : ut notio, quae in enunciatione iv iji
latet (fwoTT. nveipan) urgeatur.
Ver. 20. The words which begin this verse, dneiByaaalv nore, characterize
the spirits who are in prison according to. their former conduct. The parti
ciple must not, with Wiesinger, be resolved into " although, notwithstand
ing the fact that they had been disobedient ; " an adversative relation of this
^ Hollaz : " Fuit praedicatio Christi In In- 2 Thus Picus-Mirandola says : " Christus
ferno non evangelica, quae horainibus tantura non veractter et quantura ad realem praesen-
in regno gratiae annunciatur, sed legalis tlam descendit ad inferos, sed solura quoad
elenchthica, terribilis eaque tura verbalis, qua effectum." Cf.,too, J. R. Lavater, i>ei>esc€7is«
Ipsos aeterna suppllcia proraerltos esse con- Christi ad Inf., \ih. J., c. 9. — Many interpret-
vincit, tura realis, qua imraauem terrorera lis ers unwarrantably weaken at least e/e^pu^e, in
incussit." This interpretation, which has its so far as to make it synonymous with "showed
origin in dogmatic views, Zezschwitz seeks to Hiraself," or, at any rate, they say that the
found on exegesis by characterizing the idea preaching of Christ was potius realiter, quam
of judgment as the leading conception of the verbaliter. This the author of the article,
whole passage, to which, however, the context "Die Hcillenfahrt Christi," in the Erlanger
gives no warrant, and also by maintaining that Zeitschrift fi'ir Protest., 1856, should not have
ptherwise Peter would have used the word sanctioned. Schott is not free frora this arbi-
eiiayyeXi^eiv , or a corapound of dyyeKKeiv. It trary raethod of interpretation. In that he char-
is certainly correct when Schott and Kohler acterizes K-rjpvaaeiv "as a bearing witness to
say that Kijpvaaeiv is not in itself equal to one's self, not only In word, but also in deed,"
evayyeXit^etf ; but it does not follow that It and calls "this bearing witness to and show-
may not be applied to a raessage of salvation. Ing forth of Hiraself by Christ in the glory
It must be reraembered that Christ's aim, even of His mediatorial iierson," a concio damna-
as a preacher of judgment, ever was the ac- toria,
complishment of salvation, as he declared Luke
xix. 10; John xii. 47.

298 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
kind must have been more plainly expressed ^ — According to the uniform
usage of the N. T., the word dneiBelv has here also the meaning of unbelief
involving resistance; cf. chap. ii. 7, 8, iii. 1, iv. 17. The translation: "to
be disobedient," is too inexact, for the word forms the antithesis to mareveiv.
— ore dne^ebixero, K.r.X, serves not only to specify the tirae when these spirits
were unbelieving, but also to mark the guilt of the dneiBelv, — drreKbixeaBai,
according to N. T. usage, equivalent to "patient waiting," is here used abso
lutely, as in Rom. viii. 25 (comp. iKbexeaBai, Heb. x. 13 ; thus Schott also).
The narrative itself shows the object to which this waiting of God's long-
suffering was directed. Its duration is not to be limited to the seven days
mentioned in Gen. vii. 4 (De Wette), for this is in keeping neither with the
dne^ebexero y . . . paKpoBvpia, nor the subsequent KaraaKeva^ofievyg ki^utov, but
embraces the whole period of one hundred and twenty years mentioned in
Gen. vi. 3. — The time specified by eire, k.t.X, is still more precisely defined
in the subsequent ei^ ypepaig Nue and the KaraoKevafypevyg kij3utov ; in such a
way, however, that these adjuncts contain a reference to the exhortation to
repentance then given, for Noah was not, like the others, au unbeliever, but
a believer, and the preparation of the ark gave unmistakable testimony to
the approaching judgment. — " lajiurdg without the article, the expression
used by the LXX. for 'i^'^^i^, equal to ark, area ; comp. Matt. xxiv. 38 ; Luke
xvii. 27; Heb. xi. 7" (Wiesinger).
Remark 1. — Some of the interpreters who do not apply this passage to
the descensus ad inferos, as Luther (in his Auslegung der Ep, Petri, 1523 (the
Socinians, Vorstius, Amelius, Grotius, etc., explain iKypv^e as referring to
the preaching of the apostles, assuming tliat the unbelievers in the time of
Noah are mentioned only as types of the unbelievers in apostolic times, rd ei;
ipvluKfi nveipara they understand to mean the heathen alone, or those along with
the Jews. Amelius: nveip, hic in genere denotant homines, quemadmodum
paulo post Ipvxai- iv ipvluKy: in captivitate erant tum Judaei, sub jugo legis
existentes, tum quoque gentiles, sub potestate diaboli jacentes. Illos omnes
Christus liberavit ; praedicationem verbi sui ad ipsos mittens et continuans et
Apostolos divina virtute instruens.
Eemaek 2. — Even interpreters who apply this passage to the descensus ad
inferos, and understand iKypv^e of the preaching of salvation,^ are guilty of much
arbitrariness, and especially in designating more precisely those to whom the
preaching is addressed. Several of the Fathers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippo
lytus ; many of the Scholastics ; further, Zwingli, Calvin (in his Comment.),
1 Hofraan has now justly given up hia coraraentators, Athanaalus, Ambrosius, Eras-
former explanation: "without being obe- raus, Calvin (in his /m8«., lib. II., 2, c. 16, § 9),
dient." Walther's interpretation is evidently understand Christ's preaching as at once a
entirely arbitrary : " to the spirits. I.e., the praedicatio salvifica and praed, damnatoria.
devils and the daraned in general, particularly Calvin, however, does hold by the Idea of
to those daraned who," etc. But neither is KTjpvaa-eiv, when he says : " Contextus vim
there a warrant for inserting olov (Bengel : raortis (Christi) inde araplilicat, quod ad mor.
" subaudi oToi/, I.e., exempli gratia, in diebus tuos usque penetraverit, dum plae animae ejus
Noe; subjicitur geneil species maxime inslg- visitatlonis, quam solllclte exspectaverant,
nis"). praesenti aspectu sunt potltae; contra reprobis
2 It must further be remarked, that several clarius patuit, se excludi ab omni salute."

CHAP. III. 20. 299
and others hold those to have been the pious, especially the pious of the O. T.^
— Marcion thinks the Kypvypa was addressed to those who, though in the
O. T. termed ungodly, were actually better than the O. T. believers. — Clemens
Al. supposes the diKaioi Kara ipiloaoiplav, who, however, were still without faith
and in the trammels of idolatry. — Several commentators assume that not all
unbelievers in the days of Noah are meant, but those only who, at first indeed
unbelieving, had still repented at the last moment when the flood came upon
them ; this is the view of Suarez, Estius, Bellarmin, Luther {Zu der Erkl&rung
der Genesis, 1536, und zu Hosea IV. 2, v. J. 1545), ^ Peter Martyr, etc. Bengel
says : Probabile est, nonnuUos ex tanta multitudine, venienle jAuvia, resipuisse ;
eumque non credidissent, dum expectaret Deus, postea, cum . . . poena ingrue-
ret, credere coepisse, quibus postea Christus eorumque simillbiis se praeconem
gratiae praestiterit. Wiesinger agrees with this interpretation, at least in so
far that he assumes that the moral condition of the individual (at the time of
the flood) was not in every case the same, but extremely varied ; although,
on the other hand, he finds fault with it on the ground " that, in contradiction
to the context, it limits the iKypv^e only to a part." Schott remarks, as against
Wiesinger, " that although some may in respect of moral condition have differed
from the majority, or still have repented in the last moment, yet these were not
among the spirits in durance who listened to Christ's preaching."
Remark 3. — The view commonly accepted is that this preaching by Christ
took place before His resurrection, whilst His body lay in the grave. Many
even of the older dogmatists of the Lutheran Church, however, hold it to have
been accomplished after His quickening, that is, in the time between this and
His going forth from the grave. Quenstedt says : Christus BedvBpunog totaque
adeo persona {non igitur secundum anim'am tantumnec secundum corpus tan
tum) post redunitionem animae ac corporis ad istud damnatorum nov descendit ;
he fixes the time wlien this happened : illud momentum, quod intercessit inter
Quono'iyaiv et dvdaraaiv Christi stride ita dictam. Hollaz : distinguendum inter
resurrectionem externam et internam ; illa est egressio e sepulcro et exterior
coram hominibus manifestatio ; haec est ipsa vivificatio ; so, too, Hutter, Baier,
Buddeus, etc. In like manner, Schott : " In the new spiritual life which in
that mysterious hour of midnight He had put on, and before appearing with it
on the upper world by His resurrection. He descended." — The verse does not
indeed say that the eKypv^e belongs to this very moment, but it does certainly
. point to the preaching having taken place after Christ's restoration to life, as
De Wette, Briickner, Wiesinger, Zezschwitz, have rightly acknowledged ; for
referring as iv ti does to the nveipan connected with C,uonoiyBeig, it is arbitrary to
find in nopevBelg eKypv^e mention made of an act of Christ which took place after
the BavaruBeig indeed, but yet before the (;uonoiyBelg. As, then, both expressions
apply to Christ in His entire person, consisting of body and soul, what follows

' Calvin's exposition Is singular : he inter- titudlne paene obruti fuerunt. Exemplum
prets ipv^aKri as equal to specula vel ipse excu- vero ex tota vetustate prae aliis illustre dellglt,
bandi actus ; to ev i^vA. nv. equals " the spirits nempe eum dlluvio submersus fuit mundus."
of those who were on the watch-tower," I.e., lie removes the scruple, that the dative aTret-
in the expectation of salvation, or also in $^aaai is not In harmony with this explana-
anxietas expectationis Christi, and then con- tiou, by observing that the apostles sometimes
tinues : "Postquam (Ap.) dixit, Christi se employ one case in room of another.
raortuis manifestasse, mox addit: quum In- 2 On Luther's vacillation In Interpreting this
creduli fuissent olira, quo significat nihil passage, see Kohler as above, and Schweizer
uocuisse Sanctis Patribus quod impiorum mul- as above, p. 7.

300 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
must not be conceived as an activity which He exercised in His spirit only
and whilst separated from His body. In addition to this, if according to His
intention His preaching was to be indeed a preaching of salvation, it must have
had for its substance the work of redemption, completed only in the resurrec
tion. Weiss (p. 232) objects that nveipa is not equal to aiJpa nvevparmbv, and
this is undoubtedly true ; but it cannot prove any thing against the view that
Christ as the Risen One, that is, in His glorified body, preached to the spirits in
prison, inasmuch as in this body the Lord is no longer iv aapd, but entirely iv
nvevpan. — Thus the passage says nothing as to Christ's existence between His
death and resurrection. If Acts ii. 31 presuppose the going of the dead Christ
into Hades, the common dwelling-place of departed souls, this descensus ad
inferos must not be identified with the one here mentioned, as also Wiesinger,
Bruckner, and Schott rightly observe ; so that by drawing this distinction the
disputed question, too, whether Christ descended into Hades, quoad animam, or
quoad animam et corpus, finds its correct solution. It must further be added,
that this passage gives no support whatever either to the doctrine of the Form.
concordlae, that in Hades Christ "overcame the devil, destroyed the power of
hell, and despoiled the devil of his might," or to that ot the Catholic Chm-ch
of the limbus Patrum and purgatory.
Connected with the words KaraaKeva^opivyg kiButov are the thoughts which
follow, in which stress is laid not so much on the judgment which overtook
unbelievers in the flood, as on the deliverance of the few: eig yv bliyoi. — bieaCt-
Byaav bi vbarog]. The preposition bid is to be explained not as equal to e/c
(Acts xxviii. 4: ov buiauBivra iK ryg Baldaayg), nor as if it were iv [in medio
aquarum), nor equivalent to non obstante aqua (Gerhard), nor even as a prepo
sition of tirae (eo tempore, quo aquae inundaverant) ; but is to be taken either
locally or instrumentally. bi 'vbarog is then either " through the water," or
equivalent to "by means of water." The forraer view (Bengel, Steiger, De
Wette, Bruckner, Wiesinger, forraerly Hofraann also) seeras to be confirmed
by the verbum compos. dieauByaav. But diaaij^eiv, both in the LXX. and in
the N. T. (cf. Matt. xiv. 36; Luke vii. 3, etc.), is often used as a strength
ened forra of adiCeiv, without the peculiar force of bid being pressed. And
thus it must be taken here, inasmuch as it contradicts the historical narra
tive in Genesis, to say that Noah and his family were saved by passing
through the water, bid has accordingly here an iustruraental force, so that
bi vbarog indicates water as the mediura through which the Noahites were
delivered.! And this interpretation is alone in harmony with the context,
inasmuch as the apostle in what follows gives special prominence to the fact
that the N. T. deliverance is likewise effected by means of water. If water
was the means of deliverance to Noah and those with him, "in so far as it
bore those hidden within the ark, and thus preserved them from destruction,
comp. Gen. vii. 17, 18" (WeLss, p. 313; thus also Wolf, Pott, Jachmann,
Schott), this implies recourse to a pregnant construction, inasmuch as the
' AViesinger has expressed himself in favor bines both interpretations: "In which few
of the first version, but then remarks- "The souls sought shelter, and were saved through
writei- conceives the water at the same time as the water and by it; " this is evidently alto-
the saving element." Fronmiiller, too, Cora- gether unwarrantable.

CHAP. III. 21. . 301
apostle unites the two thoughts in one : " thpj were saved hy going into the
ark,'" and " they were saved di vdarog. " Hofmann seeks to avoid the assurap
tion of a pregnancy by explaining ibup here as the water " which began to
overflow the earth," and which compelled Noah to enter with those belong
ing to hira into the ark, in support of which he appeals to Gen. vii. 11, 13.
But although these passages state that both the entering into the ark and
the beginning of the deluge took place on the same day, still the latter event
is not indicated as the motive of the former. According to the narrative in
Genesis, it was the command of God which moved the Noahites to enter the
ark, and as soon as they had done so, and God had closed the ark, the deluge
commenced; cf. Gen. vii. 1, 18, 17. — Further, on Hofmann's interpretation
water can be regarded only in a very loose sense as the medium of deliver
ance ; nor wonld it be in keeping with the subsequent parallelism. It nmst
be noted that vbarog is anarthrous, and although by the terra no other water
can be understood than that of the flood, yet Peter's object, here is not to
show that the same water which destroyed some served as the means of de
liverance for others, but raerely to state that the deliverance of Noah and
those with hini was effected by loater, in order that this water then may be
recognized as the type of the saving water of baptism (comp. Schott). —
dliyoi, roir' ianv oktij ipvxai]. roir' ianv, K.r.X, justifies the use of the expres
sion bliyoi; so much stress is laid on this particular, very probably in order
to point out, on the one hand, the great number of those who perished, and
on the other, the proporticn to be looked for at the final judgment.
Ver. 21. 6 Kal vudg {r/udg) dvr'irvnov vvv aiii^ei jiunnapa]. o does not apply to
the thought expressed in the previous verse, as Gerhard, who adopts the
reading ci, explains : isti conservationi tanquam typo spiritualis conservationis
baptismus velut dvrirvnov respondet (in like manner Beza, Hornejus, Morus,
Hottinger, Hensler, etc.), but it refers back to vbarog, and, withal, so that by
it water generally is to be understood, and not that particular water through
the medium of wliich the Noahites were saved ; water saved them, and it is
water by which you too are saved. The general term receives a more pre
cise definition in the adjectival dvrirvnov, by means of which the water which
now saves is contrasted as antitype ^ with the water which .'^aved Noah and
those with him. What this antitypical water is, is stated by the subjoined
Hdnnaua, which as an apposition must be explained in the sense : " as bap
tism" (comp. Winer, p. 491 [E. T., 528 J). Differently, Hofmann; he would
take the apposition in the sense of " a baptism namely ; " he says, " in the
explanatory apposition the apostle substitutes the term 'baptism' for 'water,'
without, by the anarthrous 3dnnapa, directly indicating Christian baptism.
What kind of baptism he means is stated by the apposition, subjoined to
0dnrtapa." On this it must be remarked, that Qdnriapa would certainly con
vey to the readers only the idea of a definite Christian baptisra, and that the
apposition following is not fitted to mark the terra baptisra, indefinite in
itself, as the specifically Christian baptism, but only to point out in what
way baptism possesses in itself the saving power attributed to it. — Without
2 Raphelius : " tiJitos res aliud quid prae- avrirvnoi has another meaning iu Heb. ii. 24,
figurans, dvrirvnoi res Illa praefigurata," where the rviroi is the dliyBivov.

302 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
any cogent reason, Steiger interprets pdnnapa as equivalent to " baptismal
water." The direct conjunction which takes place here ceases to occasion
surprise, if it be considered that the typical character of the deluge, as re
gards baptism, consists not only in the sameness of the elements, but in the
similarity of the relation of the water to those saved. If di vbarog be rendered
" through the water," an incongTuity will arise, disturbing to the parallelism,
and which attempts have been raade to overcome by supplying intermediate
ideas. According to De Wette, the antitypical character of baptism consists
in this : " that in it the flesh must jierish and, as it were, be judged; whilst, at
the same time, through faith in the resurrection of Christ, pure spiritual life
is attained, and the believer saved." By these and such like supplements,
which the apostle himself in no way suggests, elements are introduced
foreign to his conception. * — The present auCei is put here neither instead
of the preterite nor the future ; it denotes rather the effect which, frora the
moment of its .accomplishment, baptisra produces on the persons who submit
to it. The latter resemble the Noahites whilst by means of water they were
being preserved in the ark from destruction (dndileia). — The antithesis which
exists between ipdg and the preceding bliyoi, indicates that the proportion
saved by baptism to the unbelieving is but small, dliyoi has accordingly a
typical significance. It is raore doubtful whether the same is the case with
the ark; Oecumenius already saw in it the Church, whilst others regard it
as a symbol of Jesus Christ.^ — oi aapKbg dnoBeaig jivnov, dllxi]. Apposition to
pdnnapa, which, however, does not state the nature of baptisra generally, but
only in what sense it effects au^eiv. This is stated first negatively, in order
thereby to mark more distinctly the standpoint. Almost all commentators
take aapKcg as a genitive depending on /linov, and preceding it only for the
sake of eraphasis. Bengel, on the other hand, joins it — as genit. subj. —
directly with dnoBeaig: " carni adscribitur deposit'io sordium ; ideo non dicitur:
depositio sordium carnis" The sense would then be: baptism does not con
sist in this, "that the fiesh lays aside its uncleanness." This explanation,
corresponding as it does to the position of the words, is well suited to the
idea dnoBeaig, which does not necessarily presuppose the activity of the sub
ject, but can be used when the subject is, strictly speaking, passive ; comp,
2 Pet. i. 14, the ouly other passage in which the word occurs in the N. T.
Hofmann is accordingly mistaken in asserting that " the laying aside of
uncleanness cannot be regarded as an act of the flesh.'' — An antithetical
allusion to the Jewish washings can hardly be here assuraed (cf. Justin M.,
Dial. c. Tryph., p. 331: ri ydp bipelog iKe'ivov roi Banr'iaparog (the Jewish wash-
1 Schott, indeed, justly reraarks " that the destroyed mankind frora the earth, so that
antitypical nature of baptism, and therefore frora out of it only a small number, belonging
the typical nature of that to which baptisra to the church of believers, were saved;" that
corresponds as antitype, consists precisely in Is, " it was a judgraent of extirpation in such
what Is asserted of both, naraely, in their a way that It was the means of effecting a
saving power and effect." He thinks, how- salvation."
ever, " that the antitypical nature of the water ^ Thus Heraraing: "Quemadmodum aqua
applies to what was essentially peculiar to the per se non salvavit Noe, sed mediante area,
great flood." What this is he explains by Ita aqua baptismi per se non salvat, sed medi-
saylng that " the flood was a judgment which ante area, h. e. Christo Jesu."

CHAP. III. 21. 303
''^S)> 0 ^^ adpKa Kal povov rb aupa ipai&pbvei ; panriaByre rrjv ijivxyv).^ — dlld avvei-
iyaeug dyoByg inepurypa eig Qebv]. The positive, as contrasted with the negative
character of baptism, avveibyaeug dyaSyg can be either the subjective or the
objective gen.^ inepurijpa, a an. ley. in the N. T. (in the O. T, only once,
LXX., Dan. iv. 14, as a translation of i^Pi^lV), is used in classical Greek
only in the sense of "question." Holding by this meaning, commentators
have explained it as (1) the question concerning a good conscience addressed
to God " (thus Wiesinger, who, however, prefers the translation " inquiry "
to " question "), or (2) " the question of a good conscience directed to God "
(Gerhard, Steiger, Besser). The first of these renderings is not in har
mony with the nature of baptism, inasmuch as the person to be baptized
already knows how the good conscience is to be obtained. Frora the second
there results only an incomplete idea, necessitating arbitrary supplements. '
Now, as inepurav, which doubtless means only "to ask a question," is used also
of such questions as would obtain something from the person asked (Matt.
svi. 1; Ps. cxxxvii. 3, LXX.), the meaning has been assigned to inepdrypa:
"the inquiring desire," "the inquiring request." Some coraraentators here take
avv.dy, as a subj. gen., and interpret; "the request of a good conscience ad
dressed to God" (thus Bengel, with whom Schmid, Bibl. Theol. des N. T.,
p. 199, agrees : saloat nos rogatio bonae conscientiae, i.e., rogatio, qua nos Deum
compellamus cum bona conscientia, peccatis remissis et depositis) ; * but this also
gives rise to an incomplete idea, inasmuch as the contents of the request are
not stated. On this rendering of inepurypa, it is better to regard the gen. as
an object, gen., thus: "the request addressed to God for a good conscience:"
Lutz, Lechler, Weiss, Weizsacker (Renter's Repert., 1858, II. 3), Ilofmann,
Schott; Wiesinger, too, is inclined to agree.' But to this also objections
> Augustin's opinion (Contr, Faust., e. 12 ' Gerhard: "Quomodo deus erga baptlza.
et 13), with which Beda and others agree, is tum affectus sit," etc.; Steiger: "For the
quite inappropriate. It is, that the apostle salvation of which he who receives baptisra
here alludes to tbe baptisra of the heretics. would be assured;" Besser; "Ait thou not
Calvin's assertion, too, that this negative ap- my father' Am I not thy child? " The In
pbsltlon emphasizes the fact that baptisra, aa terpretation given In the Erlanger Zeitschrift,
an outward form, is of no use, Introduces a 1856, p. 293 ff., Is evidently altogether erro-
forelgn idea into the words of the apostle. neous : " The proof of tbe good conscience
2 This Is denied, indeed, by several com- attained In baptism is the enepiiirripa et? ©.,
mentators, specially by Hofmann and Schott, I.e., the question, Ara I uot saved by ray bap-
because a good conscience does 'not precede, tisra from the judgment on an unbelieving
but Is the fruit of, baptism. But this assertion world ? " Apart from all else, the matter here
presupposes the identification of the good con- treated of is not a question which Is only put
science with that conscience which by Christ after baptism, since baptism Itself is designated
is reconciled with God, and is released from as the enepiiirripa,
the feeling of guilt. For this, however, the * To this interpretation of Bengel, Hof-
N. T. phraseology gives no warrant. Accord- mann rightly objects " that eirepuirripa cannot
ing to it, aweiS7iat<; dyad-rj rather means "the well mean something which presupposes the
consciousness of pure Intentions," or " the con- reception of baptism;" but if the "peccatis
sclousness of sincerely willing that which Is remissis et deposltis " be not looked upon as
good" (Heb. xiii. 18, xaMiv avveiSr/aiv e'^o^e", belonging to the Idea of a good conscience,
ef iracrt KaAu? 9i\ovTe'; dvaarpeipeaSai; cf. also Hofmann's objection loses Its validity.
1 Pet. Iii. 16; Acts xxill. 1; 1 Tim. I. 6, 19, ill. » The same view Is to be found already in
9). If baptism Is really to bring a blessing to Seb. Schmldlus, only that he regards enep. as
the person baptized, he must surely desire It meaning the petitio addressed to God by bim
with a good conscience. who baptizes, and aw. i-). as the gift which

304 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
wliich cannot be overlooked arise : (1) Although the reception of baptism
be founded on the desire for a reconciled conscience, yet it does not follow
that baptisra itself can be described as the expression of this desire; (2)
Taken thus, the proper ineaning of inepiirypa is entirely lost sight of; the
word is used in a sense in which it occurs nowhere else, — a proceeding
which is all the more open to question, that the apostle had certainly other
words at his command wherewith to give the idea of request; (3) The object
which the recipient of baptism requests, namely, "the reconciled conscience,"
is inadequately expressed by aweibyaig dyaBy, for here no stress is laid on the
essential element, —the forgiveness of sin; lastly, (4) In this interpretation
e'lg Qebv is only of secondary importance, whilst the passages, chap. i. 21 and
iii. 18, show that the chief emphasis lies on eig Qeov.'^ — Even from early
times interpreters have attempted to explain inepdirypa in this passage, not
according to common but according to juristic usage, taking it as equal to
avpipuvov, stipulatio mutua, contract (Luther: "covenant"), referring at the
same time to the act of question and answer, which took place at baptism :
dnordaay rip ^aravd; dnordaaopai' avvrdaay rip Xpiarip ; awrdaaopai' abrenuntias?
abrenuntio; credis? credo (Tertull., Lib. de Resurr. Carn. : anima non lavatione,
sed responsione sancitur). Aretius interprets: Deus in baptismo nobis promittit,
quod velit nos filiorum loco habere propter Christum; contra nos promittimus, nos
serio victuros pie; haec est mutua stipulatio; this interpretation, however, is
erroneous, as even in legal phraseology inepurypa does not mean a " recip
rocal " contract. De Wette's is likewise wrong : " by metonymy, because
questions were addressed to the individual who took the vow, InepurdaBai
acquired the raeaning promittere, spondere, and inepurypa that of sponsio ; "
for inepurypa is not derived from inepuruaBai, bnt frora inepurav, and therefore
never had or could have had the signification, "solemn pledge.'' Further,
it has been uot unjustly remarked, in opposition to this view, according to
which aw. dy. is considered as an object, gen., that it would have been better
to have spoken of dvaarpoipy dyaBy as that which has to be vov?ed.^ Bruckner
has substantially corrected De Wette by pointing out that in the language
of the Byzantine lawyers inepurav is used in the sense, "to conclude a treaty,
a contract, stipulari," taking aw. dy. as a subject, gen. But his exposition
suffers from an uncertain wavering, for he too declares inepdirypa to be
synonyraous with " treaty," indeed with " vow," which is certainly not the
case. The facts are these : a contract was concluded in the form of ques-
he Implores for the person baptized ; evidently tion of baptism Its application lo cleansing ia
this Is entirely arbitrary. In no way alluded to. — The explanation given
1 Hofmann, in support of the InteiTretatlon in 'Weissagung und Erfiillung, II. p. 234,
here called in question, appeals to the circum- " the happiness of a good conscience asked of
stance, " that the petition for the cleansing of God," he passes over in silence in his Schrift-
tbe conscience from past sins forms the only beweis, II. 2. — The Interpretation given by
suitable antithesis to the putting away of filth Winer in the 5th ed.of his Or. ; "The inquiry
contracted outwardly." But it must be re- of a good conscience after God, i.e., the turn-
marked in opposition, that, however suitable Ing to God, the seeking Hira," does not occur
this antithesis raay appear in itself, it does not in the subsequent editions, nor is there any
follow tbat the apostle had It in his raind In justification for it.
the way here stated. It Is rather Iraprobable ^ Estius, Beza, Grotius, Seraler, Pott, Hens-
that he had, since lu this positive nearer deflni- ler, etc., interpret similarly to De Wette.

CHAP. III. 22. 305
tion and answer : spondesne ? spondeo (comp. Puchta, Curs, der Institut., v. 3,
p. 97) ; by the question, on the one side, the agreement was proposed ; by
the reply, on the other, it was concluded, inepurypa is, then, this question by
which the conclusion of a contract began, not then the contract itself, and
still less the pledge which was taken rather by him who replied. The ques
tioner bound himself by his question to accept that which he who gave the
reply promised. If, then, the designation of baptism as avveibyaeug dy. inepu
rypa eig Qebv is to be explained from legal procedure, it can only be spoken of
as such, inasmuch as the person baptized, by the reception of baptisra, enters
into a relation — as it were, of contract — with God, in which he submits in
faith to God's promise of salvation. Nor can it be denied that this is really
in harraony with the nature of baptism, more especially if it be considered
that in the legal proceedings, connected with the conclusion of a contract,
the respondent pronounced his spondeo in the expectation that the interro
gator would fulfil the conditions previously stipulated, to which he had
pledged himself. This explains the expression avveibyaeug dyaByg, which
points to the circumstance that the recipient of baptism, in submitting to it,
has the honest purpose faithfully to fulfil the conditions under which the
divine assent is given. This interpretation is distinguished from those
above mentioned by its concrete precision. No doubt inepurypa in this
juristic sense is to be found only in writings of a later date; but since
this forra of concluding a contract belonged to an earlier time, it may be
assumed that the word had previously been in use thus in legal phraseology.^
The adjunct: di dvaardaeug 'lyaoi Xpiarou, by referring back to C,uonoiyBelg be
nveipan, brings the apostle again to his former train of thought. The words
are not appended in a loose way to inepurypa for the purpose of stating how
this is effected, as (Jrotius, Pott, Hensler, Zezschwitz, Hofmann, Schott, and
others assume ; '¦' they are rather conjoined with the verb of the clause au^ei,
inasmuch as they state that through which the pdnnapa exercises its saving
effect (De Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss). The former construction is the less
justifiable, that it is more natural to unite the concluding adjunct with the
leading idea than with the secondary thought which specifies the nature of
baptism. It is still less appropriate to connect the words directly with avvei-
byaeugdy. (as against Fronmiiller).
Ver. 22. bg 'eariv 'ev be^id roi Qeoi]. This brings to a close the whole train
of thought with reference to Christ, from ver. 18 and onwards, inasmuch as
to His sufferings, death, resurrection, and going to the spirits in prison, there

1 After the explanation here given, it is evi- eirept^jTijo-ot fit' avTou rbv Kvpiov, has been ap-
dently incorrect when Hofraann says that pealed to in favor of this construction ; erro-
" eireputnipa could only be the question ad- neously, since fit' auToO applies to a person.
dressed by him who closes an agreement, to Between It, therefore, and fit' dvaardaeug no
the person who is to consent to It." The very parallel can be drawn. — According to Hof-
opposite is the case. The question is not ad- mann, fita states that which the person bap-
dressed from the forraer to the latter, but frora tized appeals to in support of bis desire for
the latter to the forraer; that is, theu, not the remission of sin. The passages, however,
from God to the person baptized, but from which he quotes (1 Cor. 1. 10 and Rom. xii. 1)
the person baptized to God. by no raeans prove that the prep^ Sid has this
2 1 Kings xxii. 7 : eTt ets eariv dvyp ets rb signification.

306 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
is now added, His sitting down at the right hand of God. This expression,
which points out the present condition of the glorified Redeemer, occurs
likewise in Rom. viii. 34, Col. viii. 1, and in other passages of the N. T. —
nopevBelg eig oipavbv corresponds to nopevBelg, ver. 19. — iirorayivruv . . . bwdpeuv,
added in order to give prominence to the unlimited sway of Christ (Eph. i.
21, 22; Col. ii. 10; 1 Cor. xv. 27; Heb. ii. 8), extending even over all
heavenly powers, whatever their name or ofiice. — The expressions i^ovalai
and bvviifieig are — with the exception of this passage — used only by Paul as
names of angels (with bwdpeig, cf. Ps. ciii. 21, clxviii. 2, LXX.); and in the
same sequence, dyyeloi is not here the general terra to which i^ovaiai aud
bwdpeig (kuI . . . Kai equivalent to cum . . . tum) are subordinate, but the
three conceptions are co-ordinate, and connected by the repeated copula.
This is shown by Rom. viii. 38, where, instead of i^avaiai, the name dpxal is
used. For the various naraes, corap. Meyer on Eph. i. 21 ; Col. i. 16. —
inoray. expresses, not enforced, but voluntary subjection.
With regard to the relation of this whole passage to what precedes, on koI
Xpiarbg . . . InaBev shows that in the first instance confirmation is given to
the thought that it is better to suffer for well than for evil doing, by refer
ence to the sufferings of Christ, similarly as is done in chap. ii. 21. But as
the last-mentioned passage passes beyond the limits of the typical, — that
is, first by the addition of vnep ipuv to inaBev, and then by the statements
of ver. 24, — the same takes place here. There, reference is made to the
redeeming death of the abased Christ ; here, to the living work of the glori
fied Christ. The chief separate points have already been stated. The
allusion of baptism appears indeed to be a digression, yet it belongs essen
tially to the train of thought; for fater that mention had been made of
Christ's work araong the spirits in prison in His exalted condition, it was
necessary to call attention likewise to His redeeming work on earth, the
effects of which are coraraunicated through baptism. That Peter speaks of
this mediura (not that of the word, etc.), is explained by his reference to the
deluge as the type of the approaching judgraent, and to the water by which
Noah and those with him were saved, and which appeared as a r-inog of
baptism. 1
* Since that which Is stated in this para- mann's assertion to the contrary, be described
graph does not keep within the limits of the as a digression.
typical, it may very well, in spite of Hof-

CHAP. IV. 307

CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 1. inep ypdv]. Rec. after A, K, L, P, K (corr. ; after m. pr., dnoBavbvrog
inep ypuv), al., is wanting in B, C, several min., Sahid, Vulg., Aug., Fulgent.,
etc. ; omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. Perhaps it is inserted in order to complete
the idea ; Reiche considers inep ijpuv to be the original reading ; so, too, Hofm.
" The Rec. has ei; aapKi before nenavrai, after K, several min., etc. In A, B, C, L,
K, etc., etc., the preposition is wanting. Even Griesb. recommends its omis
sion ; Lachm. and Tisch. omit iv. Buttm. has retained ev, as, according to his
statement, it occurs in B. Wiesinger inclines to explain the reading aapd from
what precedes ; Eeiche, on the other hand, explains iv oapKi from what foUows.
The authorities, as well as the idea itself, decide for the omission of iv. —
Ver. 3. yplv], Rec after C, K, L, P, al., Oec, Hier., can hardly be genuine ; it
is wanting in A, B, al., Syr., utr.; omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. Steiger's
remark, that " it is pleasing to us to observe how the apostle does not think
higher of his own former conduct than of that of the others," does not prove
the genuineness of yplv. The reading iplv, too, in X and several min., must be
regarded as a correction ; it lay to hand to insert a dative in order to complete
the sentence. — Following K, L, P, several min., etc., the Rec has roi piov after
Xpbvog, which is wanting in A, B, C, K, etc., etc. Tittmann brackets it, Lachm.
and Tisch. rightly omit it. —Bovlyua], After A, B, C, K, etc. Clem., Theoph.
(Lachm., Tisch.), instead of the Rec. Bilyua, which occurs only in K, L, P,
several min., Oec. — The aorist KarepydaaaBai is attested only by K, L, P, Oec;
it is accordingly better to read the perfect with Lachm. and Tisch., KareipydaBai,
after A, B, C, K, al., Clem. The change could easily have taken place from the
fact that the aorist form of the word is the prevailing one in the N. T. (e.g.,
Eom. vii. 8 ; 1 Cor. v. 3 ; 2 Cor. vii. 11, etc.). — Ver. 5. Instead of ru erolpug
ixovn Kplvai, Buttm. reads, ™ Iroipug Kpivovn, a reading which is attested only
by B. — Ver. 7. eig rdg npoaevxdg]. The article rdg is very suspicious ; Lachra.
has omitted it ; Tisch. has now again adopted it, with the remark : articulus
non intellecta ea quam habet vi omittendus videbatur. It is wanting in A, B,
ti, and several min., and seems to be inserted here following chap. iii. 7. —
Ver. 8. npb ndvruv 6e], The omission of (!e in A, B, 13, Arm., Toi., etc., is a
correction in order to connect the participle clause directly with the preceding
verbb. fin. — ^ dydny], Eec. after several min. and Theoph. — y, however, is
spurious, after A, B, K, L, P, X, etc. Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted the
article ; Griesb. regards it as at least suspicious. — /cra;i.ii7rT£i]. After A, B, K, al.,
Copt., Arm., etc., Clem. Rom., Syr., etc. (Lachm., Tisch., much recommended
by Griesb. ) ; instead of the Rec. Kuliipei, after L, P, S, which is easily explained
from Jas. v. 20. — Ver. 9. yoyyva/iCiv], Rec, after K, L, P, Oec; on the other
hand. A, B, N", al., m., Syr., Arm., Vulg., Cyr., etc., are in favor of the singular,
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. : yoyyvapov. The plural from Phil. ii. 14. —Ver. 13.

308 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
KoBb], Instead of the Rec. KoBug, rightly accepted by Griesb., after almost all
authorities. — Ver. 14. rb ryg botyg]. Scholz and Lachm. add koI bwdpeug, which
occurs in A, P, X {ryg bvv,), several rain., etc. In B, K, L, many min., and
Fathers, the adjunct is wanting ; Tisch., too, has oraitted it. It may quite as
well have been omitted later as superfluous, as added by way of strengthening.
— dvanaverai]. Instead of this, A and several rain, have inovanaierai, after Luke
X. 6 ; some other authorities read dvaninavrai, after 2 Cor. vii. 13. — The genuine
ness of tlie words, Kara uev airoig Blaaipyuenai, Kurd bi vudg bo^dl^enu, is at least
doubtful ; It IS supported by K, L, P, etc., Harl., Toi., etc., Thph., Oec, Cypr.;
whilst it is opposed by A, B, X, al., Syr., Aeth., Copt., etc, Tert., Arabr., Beda
(Lachm. and Tisch.). Whilst De Wette and Wiesinger declare the adjunct to
be suspicious, and Schott looks upon it as spurious, Hofm. considers it genuine,
because, in his opinion, without it the proper connection of ver. lf> with what
precedes would be wanting. — Ver. 15. Instead of dllorpioeniaKonog, Lachm.,
following B, writes dllorpiemanonog ; on it Tisch. observes, videtur elegantiae
causa ejection o, — Ver. 16. ev ru bvouan rovru is the reading of A, B, X, al.,
Syr., utr., Erp., Copt., etc., Cypr., Ephr., Oec (Lachm., Tisch.). Tliere is less
evidence for the Rec. iv ru pipei rovru, which occurs in K, L, P, etc., and probably
arose out of 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3. — Ver. 17. Instead of yuuv. A**, al., Aeth.,
Slav., Thph., etc., read ipuv. — Ver. 19. ug marij unary], Rec. according to K,
L, P, almost all min., several vss., and Fathers (Tisch. 7). Lachm. and Tisch.
8 have omitted ug, after A, B, X, several min., Copt., Aeth., Arm., Vulg., Athan.
It is difficult to decide which is the correct reading ; ug may liave been inserted,
following Peter's habitual mode of expression; on the other hand, it may have
been omitted in order to raake niaru Kriary purely terminative. — airuv, after
A, G, K, X, etc., etc., is to be preferred to eavruv. — Instead of dyaBonoiia, which
occurs in B, K, L, P, X, pl., al., Theoph., Oec, and is accepted by Tisch.,
Lachm., after A, al., Vulg., etc., reads tbe plural dyaBonoiiaig.
Ver. 1. Xpiarov ovv naBbvrog {inep ypijv) aapKi]. In these Words the
apostle returns to chap. iii. 18, in order to subjoin the following exhortar
tion. — aapKi is not "in the flesh" (Luther), but, "according to the flesh;"
comp. iii. 18. This is made prominent because the believer's sufferings,
too, under persecutions, touch the flesh only ; comp. Matt. x. 28. naBbvrog
is not to be limited to the suffering of Christ before His death, but com
prehends the latter also. It is, however, incorrect to understand, with
Hofmann, naBbvrog at once as identical with dioBavbvrog, and in connection
with aapKl to explain : " that Christ by His life in the flesh submitted for
our sake to a suffering which befell Him — that for our sake He allowed
His life in the flesh to come to an end" (!). — kuI vpelg ryv airyv ivvoiav
bnllaaaBe]. koi with reference to Christ: "ye also:" the disciple must be
like the master. It lies to hand to translate ivvoia (besides here, only in
Heb. iv. 12) as equivalent here to " disposition of mind " (De Wette ;
"\^'eiss, p. 288) ; but iwoia means always " thought, consideration " (Wiesinger,
Schott). 1 There is here also no reference to the mind of Christ in His
sufferings. ryv airyv evvoiav refers back to the ndaxeiv aapd of Christ
1 Reiche erroneously appeals In support of passages In Prov. v. 2, xxlli. 19, LXX., and
this raeaning, '* disposition of mind," to the Wisd. ii. 14.

CHAP. IV. 1. 309
Himself, so that the sense is, that since Christ suffered according to the
flesh, they too should not refuse the thought of like Hira suffering according
to (or on) the flesh, on gives the ground of the exhortation. Hofraann,
Wiesinger, and Schott take 6n as explaining ryv air. iwoiav. Incorrectly ;
for the nenavrai dpapriag will not admit of an application to Christ, inas
much as the expression does not presuppose generally a forraer " relation to
sin," but former sinning itself. — The verb bnli^eaBai, in the N. T. dn. ley.,
is in classical writers often construed with the accusative. (Soph. Electro,
V. 991: Bpdaog onX^aBai) ; while applied to every kind of equipment, e.g.,
of ships, it here refers to the Christian's calling as one of conflict. — on 6
naBuv ev aapd ninavrai dpapriag]. In Luther's translation: "for he who
suffers on the fiesh, he ceaseth from sin," the present is incorrectly substi
tuted for the preterite tense : iv aapd; correctly : "on the flesh." Hofmann's
rendering is wrong: "in the flesh," which, compared with the iv aapKl
preceding, would imply "that whilst Christ's life in the flesh ended with
His suffering, o.ur sufferings took place with continued life in the flesh " (!).
The reading- uap/ct, "according to the flesh," conveys the same idea; cf.
Winer, 384 (E. T., 412). — ninavrai dpapriag]. The raid, naiopai is in the
classics frequently joined" with the genitive.' In this way nenavrai here is
explained by raost interpreters aa equivalent to : " he has ceased frora sin,
that is, he has given up sinning." The word may also be taken as the perf.
pass, according to the construction naieiv nvd nvog, equivalent to : " to cause
one to give up, to desist from a thing." ninavrai dpapriag would then mean :
" he has been brought to cease from sin, to sin no more " (Schott : " brought
away from sinful conduct"). Hofmann erroneously asserts that "naieiv
nvd dpapriag would in a quite general way mean: action suoh as brings it
about that the individual is ended with sin ; " that is to say, in the sense
that his relation to sin is at an end.^ For the genitive with naieiv denotes
always a condition or an activity of him who is the object of naieiv. — It
makes no essential difference in the thought, whether naieiv be taken here
as a middle (Weiss) or as a passive (De Wette, Wiesinger). The idea:
"through Christ immunitatem nactus sum," is expressed here neither in the
one case nor in the other (Weisinger). — The clause here has the form of a
general statement, the raeaning of which is, that by suffering as to the fiesh
a ceasing of sin is effected. ^ This idea, in many respects a true one, raay
according to the connection be defined thus : he who suffered on account of
sin, that is, on account of his opposition to sin, has in such wise broken
with sin that it has no more power over him (Weiss). It is incorrect, with
several of the earlier commentators, as also Schott, to understand naBuv in
• e.g., II. vii. 290 : navaiipeBa paxri^ '> ° Genuinely catholic is the remark of Lori-
Ilerod. i. it : rriq pdxi}^ enavaavro ; Herodian. nus on iren. dpapria?: " Peccatorura nomine
vii. 10, 16 : rr]<; re opyij? o fi^jttog cTravtraTo. absolute poslto gravia Intelliguntur, quae vo-
2 Thus, too, Sohott: "He who has expe- camus mortalia ; nam desinere atque quiescere
rienoed the iraBelv aapKi Is delivered from his a levibus et venlalibus, exiraium privilegiura
forraer relation to sin." But Schott adralts est, praeterque Deiparara deflnire non possu-
that "a release from sin must be thought of, mus, an alii ulll concessum."
In so far as sin determined the conduct and
m.ade it sinful."

310 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
a spiritual sense, either of the being dead with Christ in baptism, according
to Rom. vi. 7 (Sohott), or of the putting to death of the old man (Gerhard),'
Calvin. 2 Opposed to such an interpretation is the subjoined aapd, by which
this naBuv here is expressly marked as identical with the naBuv used wit'n
reference to Christ; aud the apostle in no way hints that that naBCiv is
employed in a spiritual sense. It is evidently entirely a mistake to
understand by b naBuv Christ, as Fronmiiller does, — mTr. dpapr. being thus
in no way appropriate (doubtless Jachmann explains: "because Christ
hath removed sin for Himself, that is, hath shown that it is possible to be
without sin " [!]) ; nor is it less so to assume, finally, with Steiger, that
here "the apostle unites together the different persons, the head and the
merabers in their unity," so that the clause would contain the double idea:
"Christ suffering as to the body made us free from sin," and "we, by
participating through faith in the sufferings of Christ, die unto sin."
Hofmann, too, unjustifiably gives the clause the double reference — to
Christ and to the Christian; to Christ, "in as far as He by His bodily
death was finished with sin, which He took upon Himself for the purpose
of atoning for it;" to the Christian, "in so far as he is spiritually dead
whilst still alive in the body, and so is translated into a life in which he
goes free frora the guilt and slavery of sin." In these interpretations
thoughts are supplied to which the context makes no allu.sion."^
Ver. 2. e'lg rb pyKiri, K.r.l.]. The words may be connected either with
the exhortation bnllaaaBe or with nenavrai dpapriag. De Wette, Briickner,
Wiesinger, Schott, and Hofra. justly prefer the former connection, inas
much as the infinitival clause expressive of a purpose stands related more
naturally to the iraperative, than to a subordinate clause containing a
general stateraent (otherwise Zezschwitz and the forraer exposition iu this
comraentary). Still it is incorrect to connect e'lg here with bnlit;eaBai, as in
the common phrase: bnlit^eaBai e'lg rb pdxeaBai (Sohott). Had the apostle
meant this, he could not have separated by a parenthesis words which so
directly belong to each other ; eig can only add the nearer definition of the
aim to which bnld;. is directed. — dvBpunuv iniBvplaig, dlld Belypari Qeov].
The datives are to be explained either as ry bmawaivy C,yv, chap ii. 24
(Briickner, Wiesinger), or they express the pattern according to which
(Hofm.) ; as in Acts xv. 1 ; Gal. v. 16, 25, etc.^ The latter view is to be
preferred on account of the idea rbv . , , Piuaai xpovov. " dvBpiJnuv and Qeoi
are antitheses, as are also the manifold lusts of men, and the one uniform
will of God " (Wiesinger). The notion that by iniBvpiai are t® be under
stood the lusts, not of the readers, but of those only by whom they were
surrounded (Schott, Hofm.), raust be rejected as arbitrary. — rbv inlloinov
iv aapd piuaai xp<>vov]. With ev aapK'i, comp. 2 Cor. x. 3; Gal. ii. 20; Phil.
' " Qui carnem cum concupiscentiis suis in spurious, because of the difficulty and Indls-
Christo et cura Christo crucifigit, ille peccare tinctness of the thought.
deslnit." 4 Gerh. ; " Praeclpit ut norraara vitae nos-
2 " Passlo in carne significat nostri abnega- trae statuamus non hominura voluntatem, sed
tlonera." Dei voluntatem."
3 Eeiche regards the entire sentence as

CHAP. IV. 3. 311
i. 22, 24. (Tfipf expresses as little here as in ver. 1, an ethical conception;
it denotes the earthly huraan nature to which the raortal body belongs. —
The verb Bioiv is dn, ley, in the N. T. The form ptCiaui is to be found in
the Attic writers, but it is less comraon than the 2d aor. : piuvai. — inilotnog,
in like manner, an, ley. : " the remaining time in the flesh ; " an idea similar
to 6 rijg napoidag XP"""!, chap. i. 17. With the whole thought, comp. Rom.
xii. 2.
Ver. 3. A fuller explanation is now given of the thought expressed in
the previous verse, that the Christians should no longer live after the lusts
of men, but according to the will of God;' hence yap — dpKerog: Matt-
vi. 34, X. 25 ; correctly Wiesinger : " the expression is here a peluaig "
Gerhard : in eo quod ait " sufficit " est quidam asterismus sive liptotes, qua
mitigat Ap. exprobrationis asperitatem. Schott introduces a foreign applica
tion when he explains : " in it you have enough to repent of and to make
amends for." The construction as in Isocrates (in Panegyr.): 'mavbg ydp b
napelylvBdig XP^^OS, i'" 't> ri ruv beivdv oi yeyove ; COmp. UavovaBu, Ezek. xliv. 6,
xiv. 9. ian siraply is to be supplied; not, with Steiger, "should be.'' —
6 nape?%ylvBijg xp^^H points back to pyKiri; in contrast to rbv inilomov , , .
xpovov. — TO Baily ua ruv iBvdv KareipyaoBai]. The infinitive is, in free con
struction, dependent on dpKerbg, as it also stands with dpKel ; cf. Winer, p. 298 f.
[E. T., 318 t.j. The inf. perf. is Selected "to designate the former life of
sin, which has once for all been brought to a close" (Schott). — n'.w iBvuv is
not evidence that the epistle was addressed to aforetime Jews. When Jach
mann says: "the apostle could never say of the heathen, that they lived
according to the will of the heathen," it must be observed, that if the readers
were formerly heathen, the Boilypa rHv iBvuv was undoubtedly their own pov-
lypu, but that iBviJv is explained by the fact that they were now heathen no
longer (as opposed to AVeiss). — nenopevpevovg raust be referred to ipdg, to be
supplied in thought to KareipydaBai If the right reading be yplv after dpKerbg
ydp, Peter would include himself, and ypdg would have to be supplied. The
Vulg. is indefinite : his qui amhulaverunt. Beza's view is inappropriate, that
Peter refers here not only to the readers of the epistle (whom he considers
to have been Jewish Christians), but also to their ancestors, i.e., the forraer
ten tribes of Israel. With nopeieaBai iv, cf. Luke i. 6; 2 Pet. ii. 10. — aoeJl-
yeiaig, "excesses of every k'lnd," embracing specially unchastity; cf. Rom. xiii.
13; 2 Cor. xii. 21; Gal. v. 19; 3 Macc ii. 26, etc. ; Buddeus considers it to
mean nothing else than obscoenitas et stuprorum flagitiosa consuetudo ; Lucian
has the expression: daelyiarepoi ruv bvuv. — iniBvplatg in the plural denotes
fleshly lusts iu themselves; although not limited to sensual desires only,
it yet includes these chiefly. — o'lvo^lvyiaig]. an, ley. in the N. T. ; the verb
oivoiplvye'iv, LXX., Deut. xxi. 20, Heb. X3D ; Luther : " intoxication ; " better,
"drunkenness."^ — Kupoig, besides here, only in Rom. xiii. 13, Gal. v. 21,
where, as here with nbroig, it is joined with piBat : commissationes, properly :
" carousals ; " oi. Pape, s. v. — nbroig\. dn. l£y. ; chiefly applied to social drinking
1 Andronicus Rhodus, lib. Trepi 7ra0(of, p. 6: Philo (P. M., 1, §22) calls oifo^Auyta an
otpo^Au^ta ecTTtj' eiridvpia olvov drrKiiaros. ajr^ypoiro? eiridvpia.

312 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
at the banquet.' — koI dBepirotg e'lSulolarpe'iaig designates heathen idolatrous
practices specially. dBipirog, in the N. T. occurring, besides in this passage,
only in Acts x. 28, gives marked prominence to that in the nature of eldul.
which is antagonistic to the divine law. Bengel : quibus sanctissimum Dei
jus violatur.^ This description is only applicable to suoh persons as were
formerly heathen, not to the Jews ; to the latter only in the days before the
Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. Weiss (p. 113), in opposition to this,
wrongly appeals to Rom. ii 17 ff. ; for the reproach there made against the
Jews bears an impress entirely different from the description here given ;
nor is the iepoavlelv in that passage identical with the practice of idolatry.
It is altogether arbitrary to take the expression e'liulolarpe'iai here in a wider
sense, so as to exclude from it idolatry proper , and it is further opposed by
the expression dBeplroig.
Ver. 4 ev u ievlZovrai]. Many interpreters apply 'ev iL directly to the
thought contained in the following clause : py avvrpexbvruv . . . dvdxvaiv ;
Pott: tv roiru de Jevtf., on pfj awrpixere; incorrectly, ev li is connected rather
with what precedes. Still, it can hardly be right to explain, that as the per
fects KareipyaaBai and nenopevpivovg point to the fact that they no longer live
as they had lived, this was the matter of wonderment (De Wette, Wiesinger,
Sohott,^ and in this commentary). It is more natural to take it thus — iv iL
equivalent to "on the ground of this" (that is, because ye have thus lived),
and the absolute genitive following as equal to "inasrauch as ye run not
with them," so that the sense is: "on account of this, that ye thus walked in
times past, your countrymen think it strange when ye do so no longer"
(Hofm.) ; with iv li, corap. John xvi. 30 and Meyer in loe. The genitive
absolute assigns, as it frequently does, the occasioning cause (Winer, p. 195
[E T., 207J). The word ^evl^eaBai (in its coramon meaning, equivalent to
" to be a guest ; " thus it is used frequently in the N. T.) here means: "to
be amazed," "to feel astonishment;" comp. ver. 12; Acts xvii. 20.^ — py avv
rpexbvruv ipuv]. " py refers the raatter to the amazement of the heathen."
awrpixeiv, Mark vi. 33 and Acts iii. 11 : to run together, confluere ; here, "to
run in corapany with any one." — e'lg ryv avryv ryg dauriag dvdxvaiv states the
aira of the avvrp. With dauria, corap. Eph. v. 18; Tit. i. 6 : "lewd and disso
lute conduct." The word dvdxvaig is to be found in Aelian, De An., xvi. 15,
used synonyraously with inUlvaig, and Script, Grace. Ap. Luper. in Harpocr.
with inipKlvaig; it means, accordingly, "the overflowing." This sense is to
be kept hold of, and rpexeiv eig dauriag to be explained of the haste with which
dissoluteness is allowed to break forth and to overflow. According to Hofm.,

* Appian, S. C, I., p. 700 : 6 fie SepTuiptos that etfiojAoAaTpet'a could only be terraed d9epi-
. . . Tti TToAXoL ^1^ eiri rpvipijs, yvvai^i Kai Kiiipoi? Tos when practised by the Jews, not when by
(cat jTOTots trxoAa^ojc. the heathen.
3 Schott unjustifiably maintains that the s it is true that " a surprise calling forth
eifiwXoAaTpet'at are termed (tflefAtTot not In thera- displeasure" (Schott) is raeant; but this does
selves, but on account of the iraraoral, volup- not lie iu the word itself.
tuous cereraonies connected with thera. The * The object, to ^evi^eaSai is either in the
adject, is added because they form an anti- dative, as ver. 12 (Polyb. iii. 68. 9 ; i^evi^ovro
thesis, in the strictest sense, to God's holy tw t\ avp^e^T\Kb? e'lvai napd rrfv npoaSoKiav),
prerogative. It is unwarrantable to assert or is subjoiued by raeans of Sid n or eirt rivt.

CHAP. IV. 5, 6. 313
it denotes the doings of those who are in haste to pour out from them their
indwelling lasciviousness, so that it overflows -and spreads in all directions.
From the explanation of Strabo, iii. p. 206 A : liyovrai dvaxiatig ai n'lypoipevai
ry BaX'irry Koilabeg iv nlyppvplai, it is unjustifiable to derive the meaning " sen-
tina, mire" (second edition of this commentary), or "flood" (third edition),
or "stream" (Sohott). ^ — (3^a(j(^);;iiot)vTe5 characterizes their amazement more
nearly as one which prorapts them to speak evil of those whose conduct
causes them astonishment (not " Christianity,'' as Hofraann thinks). Sohott
justly remarks that "it is not the being struck with amazement in itself
which is, strictly speaking, of significance here, but that definite form of it
expressed by piaaipypovvreg, placed last for the sake of eraphasis."
Ver. 5 points to the judgment which awaits the evil-speaking heathen :
Oi dnobuaovai loyov]. dnob. Ibyov (Matt. xii. 38 ; Heb. xiii. 17 ; Acts xix. 40).
Antithesis to aire'iv Ibyov, chap. iii. 15. — ru iroipug ixovn, " that is, the Sav
iour risen, and seated at the right hand, chap. iii. 22," De Wette. — The
expression : iroipug ixeiv, " to be ready," with the exception of here, only in
Acts xxi. 13; 2 Cor. xii. 14. — Kplvat ^uvrag kuI veKpoig]. As often in the
N. T., of the last judgment, which by ^Tot'iU. ex. is pointed out as near at
hand ; comp. ver. 7. i^uvrag koI veKpoig does uot denote some dead and sorae
alive, but the aggregate of all, whether they be living or already dead when
the day of judgment comes; comp. Acts x. 42; 2 Tira. iv. l.'^ It is erro
neous to understand by the quick and the dead the Christians only (Wichel
haus, Sohott), or those who speak evil only. Peter, by naming Him to
whom the evil-speakers shall render an account, the Judge of the quick and
the dead, implies thereby that they are not to remain unpunished, whether
they die before the day of judgment or not. And this as a testiraony to the
justice of God, should serve to comfort the Christians under the calumnies
which they had to endure, and exhort thera not to be led aside by them to a
denial of their Christian walk. It must further be observed, that this pas
sage adds the last to those elements of the glory of the exalted Saviour men
tioned at the close of the last chapter, namely, the office of judge which He
will execute at the end of the days.
Ver. 6. This verse, which has been explained in very diverse ways,' is
meant, as the ydp following upon e'lg roiro shows, to give the ground or the
explanation of a statement going before. The question is : Which state
ment is it ? The sound of the words serves to suggest that in veKpoig we have

t Hesych. and Suidas interpret dvdipvai? adhuc in carne Illa Adami; ^noriwos in Chris-
also by p\aKet.a, e«Av(rts ; thus Gerhard ; to."
"virium exolutio, raollities;" according to ^ Lorinus enumerates twelve different in
De Wette it raeans ^ro/MSto, wantonness ; but terpretations ; nor does that complete the
It is better to keep to the above signification. nuraber. Many coraraentators are uncertain,
2 Gerhard : " Vivos, quos judex veniens and confess that they do not understand the
reperiet vivos, mortuos, quos ex sepulcris in true raeaning of the verse; thus also, Luther,
vitam revocabit." Several coraraentators erro- who even thinks It possible that the text has
neously understand the words Civvra? Kai been corrupted. Reiche, too, is Inclined to
veKpov! in a figurative sense; Joh. Huss: regard the passage as a gloss added by a later
" vivos in gratia ad beatlludiuera, mortuos in hand.
culpa ad damnationera ; " Bened. Arias : " vivos

314 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
a resuraption of the veKpoig iraraediately preceding, and that what is said in
this verse is to be regarded as the ground of the thought that judgment will
be pronounced, not only upon the living, but upon the dead also. This assurap
tion seeras to be corroborated by the koI before veKpoig. The fact — to which
Peter appeals — on which this thought is based is expressed in eiayyeliaBy.
But it is precisely this idea, that the gospel was preached to tlie dead, —
to all the dead, — which has induced the iuterpreters to deviate-from the
explanation lying most naturally to hand. It is entirely unjustifiable, with
Zezschwitz (thus Alethaeus already, and Starkius in Wolf), to connect the
verse with vv. 1 and 2, regard vv. 3-5 as a digression,. and understand under
veKpoig the Christians who are already dead when the day of judgraent arrives.
ydp certainly must refer back to ver. 5 ; according to Schott, it applies to
the whole homogeneous stateraent of ver. 5 ; according to Bengel, to ru
iroipug ixovn; in their opinion, likewise, veKpoig is to be understood of Chris
tians already dead. This determination of the expression, however, is
arbitrary, as no mention is made in ver. 5 of the Christians.^ It lies more
to hand to take the veKpoig as meaning the evil-speakers mentioned in ver. 5.
On this interpretation, the apostle tells the Christians who were being evil
spoken, of, not to forget that those caluraniators who died before the judg
ment would not on that account escape punishment. Still it is difficult to
see why the apostle should give such special prominence to this, — more
especially with the further remark, that the gospel was preached unto thera,
tva . . . (uai, K.r.X Wiesinger justly reraarks: "that the author should so
expressly accept the assumption of their death, does not well agree with the
erolpug exeiv, and notwith the subsequent ndvruv bi rb relog yyyme." — Hof
mann, whilst correctly recognizing that by veKpoig the apostle here does not
denote Christians only, or unbelievers only, gives a closer definition of the
term by applying it to those of the dead to whora, during their lifetime,
the gospel had been preached. At the same time, however, he assumes that
the thought here expressed "serves to confirm or explain the whole state
raent that the slanderers, without exception, whether living or dead, raust
render account to the Lord." But, on the one hand, the apostle in no
way alludes to the liraitation of the idea here too supposed ; and, on the
other, it is incorrect to understand by (uvrag kuI veKpoig, ver. 5, the calumni
ators only. If all arbitrariness is to be avoided, then vE^potf raust here be
taken in the same wide sense as veKpoig in ver. 5. Any limitation of the
general idea is without justification, — indicated, as such is, neither by
the want of the article before veKpoig,^ nor by the circumstance that the slan
derers are the subject in ver. 5. Accordingly, it cannot be denied that the
apostle gives expression to the thought that the gospel has been preached
to all who are dead at the time when the last judgment arrives. With the

1 "It is evidently still farther-fetched to un- go to prove that the expression veKpoi, when
stand i/cKpots as meaning the believers of tbe applied to alt the dead, has not necessarily the
O. T., as is done by several of the earlier com- article prefixed to It. Elsewhere, too, veKpoi
mentators, — Bullinger, Aretius, etc. has uo article: cf. Luke xvi. 30; Acts x. 42;
2 The phrases, iyeipeiv, eyeipea9at, dvaari}- Hom. xIv. 9.
vai eK veKpivv (see Winer, p. 117 [E. T. 163J),

CHAP. IV. 6. 315
view of chap. iii. 19, 20, which is in harmony with the words, this thought
need occasion no stumbling. In that passage, it is true, the iKypv^ev applies
only to the spirits of those who perished in the flood. But they alone are
mentioned there, not because the Kypvypa was addressed exclusively to them,
but because the apostle recognized in the deluge the type of baptisra. ^ Ac
cordingly, though there be a close connection of thought internally between
what is here said and chap. iii. 19, 20, it is nevertheless erroneous, with
Steiger, Konig, Giider, Wiesinger, Weiss, p. 228 f., to take eiyyyeliaBy as
applying only to those there named. — eiyyyeliaBy is put here impersonally :
" the gospel was proclaimed , " neither 6 Xpiarbg nor y dibaxy roi Xpiaroi (Bengel,
Grotius, Pott, etc.), nor any thing similar, is to be supplied.
eig rovro , , . ha (comp. chap. iii. 9, John xviii. 37, and other passages)
points to the design of the fact stated in eiyyyeliaBy ; on this the chief accent
of the sentence lies. The apostle bases the thought, that the Lord stands
ready to judge the dead also, not alone on the circumstance that the gospel
has been preached to thera too, but that it has been preached for the purpose
which he states in what follows. This purpose is expressed in tbe sentence
consisting of two merabers : iva KpiBi^aiv pev Kara dvBpunovg aapdi. Cuaiv bi Kara
Qtbv nveipan. According to the graramatical structure, KpiBCiaiv and l^uaiv are
co-ordinate with each other, and both are equally dependent on 'iva. In
sense iva applies, however, only to Qvaiv, inasmuch as the first member must
be regarded as a parenthesis. The construction here is similar to that which
is frequently to be found in classical writers in clauses oonneoted by pev . . .
bi.''' This conjunction, as Hartung ' reraarks, discloses the contrast. The
aorist KpiBuaiv shows the judgment to be one which, at the commencement of
the last judgment, is by their very death executed upon those who are then
dead, and this quite independently of whether the gospel was preached to
them before or after death. It is accordingly erroneous to understand this
judgment (KpiBuaiv) to mean the judgment of repentance (Gerhard), or that
of the flood (De Wette); it is the judgment of death, as nearly all expositors
have rightly acknowledged. Hofmann, with only an appearance of right
ness, asserts that the expression of the apostle can be appropriately applied
only to those who did not suffer this judgment of death till after the gospel
liq,d been preached to them. The apostle could express hiraself thus as
regards those also with whom this was not the case, all the more readily
that they were not set free from the condition of death immediately on hear
ing the gospel preached, nor then even, when they had received it in faith.
Accordingly, the interpretation is: "in order that they, aftei- the flesh, indeed,
judged by death, may live according to the spirit" (Wiesinger). The antithesis
aapd . . . nveipan is here in the same sense as in chap. iii. 18. Glider's
opinion, that adp^ here denotes the sinful bias wliich the dead possess, is
unwarranted; nowhere in Scripture is adp^ attributed to the already de-
t Erroneous Is tbe opinion of several com- 2 gee Matthiae, Ausf. Gi^iech. Gr., 2d cd.,
mentators (Pott, Jachmann, Konig, Grimm in p. 1262.
Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1835), that these * Lehre v. d. Partikl., Part II., p. 406.
only are named by way of exaraple because
they were specially ungodly.

316 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
parted. — Kara dvBpiJnovg means neither "by men,'' nor "according to the
judgment of men;" but "according to the manner of men, as is peculiar lo
them." — The second meraber, ftjcrt (!e Kara Qebv nveipan, corresponds as to
form entirely with the first clause, only that here the verb is present,
because it mentions the future condition aimed at. Qv is antithetical to Kpi-
Br/vai, and denotes the eternal life which in the judgment is awarded to those
who in faith have received the gospel. It is more nearl}' defined by Kara Qeov,
which (corresponding to the Kard dvBpdinovg) can ouly mean, "according to the
manner of God, as corresponds with the character of God."''- — This final clause
states the purpose which this evayyellieaBai should serve ; whether, and in
how far, the object is attained, is not said.
Ver. 7. Here begins the third series of exhortations, which has special
reference to life in the church, and is linked on to the thought of the near
ness of the end of all things (see Introd., § 2). — ndvruv bi rb relog yyymev],
be marks clearly the transition to another train of thought. It is accordingly
incorrect to connect the clause with what precedes (Hofmann). ndvruv rd
rilog, equ'd) to "the end of all things," I'efers back to the foregoing iroipug
ixovn Kplvai; with the judgraent coraes the relog, ndvruv, placed first by
way of emphasis, is not raasc. (Hensler : " the end of all raen ") but neut. ; ^
corap. 2 Pet. iii. 10, 11; with relog, Matt. xxiv. 6, 14. — yyyme], Comp.
Rom. xiii. 12; Jas. v. 8; Phil. iv. 5. That the apostle, without fixing the
tirae or the hour of it, looked upon the advent of Christ and the end of
the world, — in its condition hitherto, — therewith connected, as near at
hand, raust be simply admitted.^ — auippovyaare ovv kuI vjjipare]. The first
exhortation, grounded (oiv) on the thought of the nearness of the end of the
world, auijip. ; Vulg. : estate prhdentes ; iu this sense the word is not in
use in the N. T. ; it raeans rather teraperateness of spirit, i.e., the govern
ing omrtittm immoderatorum affecluum; with the passage comp. 1 Tira. ii. 9;
Tit. ii. 6,* in contrast to the licentiousness of the heathen described in ver. 2
(Wiesinger). — vyfare]. Vulg.: fi^i/a;e, inexactly ; v^peiv has here the same
meaning as in chap. i. 13. It is not enough to understand both expressions
of abstinence from sensual indulgence. — eig (rdg) npoaevxdg, not in orationibus
(Vulg.), for eig states the aim of the auoo. and vyoeiv, but "unto prayer," that
is, so that you may always be in the right frame of raind for prayer. If rdg
be genuine, it is to be explained on the supposition that the apostle took the
prayers of Christians for granted, — A mind excited by passions and lusts
' Hofraann interprets KaTa ©etif insorreciiy ij TeAos ijyyiKevai rivv ndvnav n-poi^TjTwy- TOUTO
by " because of God," to which he adds tbe 5e dKi^Oel Ko^iv, o Xpta-Tos. rj navrmv ydp TcAeto-
more precise definition, " since it Is God who tt)?, 'auT()s eo-Ttf. The second is evidently
gives tbis life, so that II is therefore consti- false.
tuted accordingly." — Jachmann's view Is very ^ According to Schott, 7jy7tKe raeans as
singular; he holds that KciTa 0e6f raeans " with rauch as: "not ouly is there iiotbing more
reference to their divine part; " nor, he thinks, between the Christian's present state of salva-
should this occasion surprise, for, as the sen- tion aud the end, but the former Is itself
euous nature of man is in biblical language already the cud, i.e., the beginning of the
persomlied by i dyBpunroi, eo too his Invisible, end."
divine nature raight be personified by 6 ©ed?. * Ilemming: " amippoavvrj, equal to, aftect-
* OecumeuiuB gives two interpi etatious : uum et voluntatis harmonia."
TO TeAoS" ctfTt TOV, i] avpnk-fipiaai<;, tj crufTeAeta*

CHAP. IV. 8. 317
cannot pray. The plural points to repeated prayer (Schott). Schott, with
out any warrant, would understand by it the prayers of the Church only. 
The fact that both ideas are synonyracfus, forbids any separation, with De
Wette and Hofmann, of auippovyaure from vyipare, and the coujoining of eig r.
npoaevxdg with the latter term only.
Ver. 8. npb ndvruv di]; cf. Jas. V. 12. — T^v eig iavroig (i.e., dllylovg) dyd
iryv eKTevf/ ixovreg. The second exliortation. The participle shows that this
and the first exhortation belong closely together. Luther translates inex
actly: "have ... a burning love." Love one to another, as the charac
teristic sign (John xiii. 35) of Christians, is presupposed ; the apostle's
exhortation is directed to this, that the love should be iKrevyg.^ — For iKrevyg,
cf. chap. i. 22. There is nothing to show that the apostle gave expression
to this exhortation with special reference to the circumstance "that in the
case of his readers brotherly love was united with danger and persecution "
(Schott). — on {y) (ij-uTT); Kulinrei nlyBog dpapnuv]. A proverbial saying after
Prov. X. 12 : H^qx n^DO D'^'M-Ss h^) Q"J-ip •\¦^js^ T\'».)W (the second half is
incorrectly translated by the LXX., Trdvraf be roig py ipilovemoivrug Kulinrei {iul'ia) :
"Love covereth (maketh a covering over) all sins." The sense of the words
is evident from the first half of the verse; whilst hatred stirs up strife and
contention (by bringing the sins of others to the light of day), love, with
forgiving gentleness, covers the sins of others (and thus works concord).^ —
In its original meaning, accordingly, the proverb has reference to what love
does as regards the sins of others ; love in its essential nature is forgiveness,
aud that not of some, but of many sins; 1 Cor. xiii. 5, 7 ; Matt, xviii. 21, 22.
In this sense Estius, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Steiger, AViesinger,
Weiss (p. 337 f.), Schott, Fronrauller, etc., have rightly interpreted the
passage, which then, serving as the basis of the preceding exhortation,^ is
intended to set forth the blessed influence of love on life in the church.
Hofraann unjustly denies this (Beza: caritatem mutuam commendat ex eo, quod
innumerahilia peccata veluti sepeliat, ac proinde pads ac concordlae sitfautrix et
conservalr'ix. Wiesinger: "Only by the forgiving, reconciling influence of
love, can the destructive power of sin be kept away from church life ").
Steiger (with whom Weiss and Fronmiiller agree) explains : " the apostle
recommends the Christians to extend the limits of brotherly love and lo
strengthen themselves in it, because true love covers a multitude of sins ; " but
this is not to the point, inasmuch as the covering of many sins is peculiar
to the dyiiny itself, and constitutes the reason why it should be iKrevyg. Sev
eral expositors (Grotius, etc.) understand the words to have the same mean
ing here as in Jas. v. 20 (see Comment., in loe), that is, that love iu effecting
t Bengel: "Araor jam praesupponitur, ut rd dSiK-^para (cf. Prov. xvii. 9)." But though
elt vehemens, praecipitur." It may be questioned whether Peter quoted
2 As opposed to the view tbat Peter had directly from it, there can be uo doubt, as
this passage lu his raind, De Wette asserts, even Briickner, Wiesinger, and Weiss admit,
that in " that case the apostle raust have that the proverbial phrase arose out of that
translated from the Hebrew the passage Incor- passage.
rectly rendered by the LXX. This, however, ' Hottinger: "oti indlcare videtur (better,
is In Itself Improbable, as he would theu have indicat) Incitamentum aliquod, quo chris-
written irdaa<i Tas dpapriag, or rather, ndvra tiauls amor iste commcudatur."

318 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
the sinner's conversion, procures the divine forgiveness for his many sins ;
but, on the one hand, "the apostle does not here regard his readers as erring
brethren, of whom it might be the duty of some to convert the others "
(Wiesinger) ; and, on the other, " there is here not the slightest indication
that the expression is not to be understood directly of the covering of sins
as such, but of reclaiming labors " (Weiss). — Oecumenius already (a piv ydp
eig rbv nlyaiov ileog, rbv Qebv yplv ileuv noiel), and after him many Catholic
expositors (Salmeron, Cornelius a Lapide, Lorinus, etc.), and several Protes
tants also (the latter sometimes, whilst distinctly defending the Protestant
principle against Catholic applications of the passage), ^ understand the
maxim of the blessing which love brings to him who puts it into practice.
But if Peter had wished to express a thought similar to that uttered by
Christ, Matt. vi. 14, 15, he would assuredly not have made use of words such
as these, which in the nature of them bear not upon personal sins, but on
those of others. 2
Ver. 9. In this and the following verses two manifestations of love are
brought prominently forward, in which its ministering nature is revealed.
First: ipab^evoi eig d?Aylovg]. Cf. Rom. xii. 13; Heb. xiii. 2; 3 John 5;
1 Tim. iii. 2, etc. The chief emphasis lies on the words which serve more
closely to define the stateraent : dvev yoyyva/toi, " without murmuring," i.e.,
murmuring at the trouble caused by the hospitality shown to brethren.
The same thing is said in a more general way, Phil. ii. 14 : ndvra noielre xupk
yoyyvapuv Kal bialoyiapuv ; cf. 2 Cor. ix. 7 : py iK linyg, y it, dvdyKyg.
Ver. 10. Second manifestation of love. It is presnpposed that each one
has received a xapf^pu : 'iKaarog KuBiig elaBe xapiapa]. KaBug, not equal to bg, but
pro ratione qua, prouti (Wahl), "according as." — xuptapa, as in Rora. xii. 6;
1 Cor. xii. 4, 28; not an ofiice in the church. Every man should, according
to the kind of gift he has received (not according to the measure of it,
iv rovru ru perpip, iv ip ilape, vel ut Paulus: ug b Qebg ipipiae pirpov xupiaudruv,
Rom. xii. 3; Pott: "still less can KuBug be referred to the raanner of re
ceiving ; " Lorinus : sicut geati8 accepimus, ita gratis demus), administer
it for his brethren, e'lg iavroig, i.e., for their benefit, and therefore for that
of the entire community. diuKoveiv (a transitive verb, as in chap. i. 12):
vocula emphatica ; innuit Ap. quod propter dona illa nemo se debeat supra

^Vorstius: "Intelligit Ap. caritatem In light of that love which penetrates all; that Is,
causa esse, ut non tantum proximi nostri pec- in that this love produces mutual reconciliation
cata huraaniter tegaraus, verura etiara ut Deus audiraproveraent." On this Briickner reraarks,
nobis ex pacto gratulto nostra peccata condo- that what Is true here Is the thought that
net, non quod propter meritum seu dignitatem reclprocalness is a characteristic not of love
caritatis id fiat, sed quia caritas erga fratres only, but of all her actions, i.e., " He whose
conditio est, sine qua Deus nobis Ignoscere love covers the sins of others, sees in like raan-
non vult." ner his own sins covered by the love of others."
2 De Wette gives a peculiar corabinatlon of But this raakes " tbe Interpretation only raore
tbe various Interpretations: "As the love artificial, and removes it still farther frora the
which is required of us is a common love, so siraple phraseology of our passage" (WeissJ.
the writer refers to the common sins still — Cleraens Al. and Bernhard of Clairvaux
defacing the whole of Christian social life, but (Sermo 23 in Cant.) understand dydrr-ii to
which, as single blemishes (!), are overshone, mean the love of Christ (!).
and made pardonable in God's eye, by the

CHAP. IV. 11. 319
alios efferre, aut dominium in alios affectare, sed aliorum ministrum sese sponte
constituere (Gerhard)  ug kuIoI oIkovopoi nomllyg x'lpirog GeoD]. With tic, cf.
chap. i. 14: as is peculiar to the Kulolg ohovbpoig, which, from their vocation.
Christians should be. With o'lKovbpot, cf. 1 Cor. iv. 1 ; Tit. i. 7. According
to De Wette and Weiss, there is here an allusion to the parable of the talents.
Matt. xxv. 14. — Kalbg, expression of irreproachable excellence ; see 1 Tim.
iv. 6 ; 2 Tim. ii. 3. The Lord of the Christians, as the olKovbuoi, is God ; the
goods which He intrusts to their stewardship are His nom'ily xapig ; xuptg is
here the sura of all that has fallen to the share of believers through the grace
of God ; the individual manifestations of it are the x'up'iapara, the homoge
neous character of which is marked by the singular, and their variety by
noidly here subjoined with reference to the preceding KaBug . . , xupiapa.
Ver. 11. Species duas generi subjicit (Vorstius). From the general term
xapiapa, Peter selects two special functions for greater prominence. — el ng
lalel], laleiv is here the preaching in the church, which includes the Trpo-
ipyreveiv, bibdoKeiv, and napuKalelv, mentioned in Rom. xii. 6-8. Pott is inexact
in paraphrasing et ng lalel by el ng ixei rb xuptapa roi laleiv (so, too, Schott:
"if any one have the gift and vocation to speak"), for laleiv is not the gift,
but the exercise of it. It is arbitrary to limit the application of the term
to tho official duties of the elders (Hemming : si quis docendi munus in ecclesia
sustinet), for in the assemblies every one who possessed the necessary xuptapa
was at liberty to speak. — dig Ibyia Qeoi]. laleiru a lalel must be supplied ;
or, better still, with Wiesinger: laloivreg; cf. iKaarog . . , biuKovovvreg above;
loyia — as in classical Greek, chiefly of oracular responses — is applied in
the 'N. T. only to the utterances or revelations of God, either to those
in the O. T., as in Acts vii. 38, Rora. iii. 2, or those in the N. T., as Heb.
V. 12. The idea, prophecies, is too narrow. This exhortation presup
poses that whoever speaks in the congregation gives utterance, not to
his own thoughts, but to the revelations of God; and it deraands that he
should do so in a manner (ug) conformable to them. — ei rig biuKOvel]. bioKovelv
must not be understood as applying to the official work of the appointed
deacons only ; it embraces quaevis ministeria in ecclesia ab docendi officio dis
tincta (Gerhard; so, too, Wiesinger, who here cites Rom. xii. 8 and 1 Cor.
xii. 28), but it refers specially to the care of the poor, the sick, and the
strangers, either official, or according to the free-will of individual members
of the church. — ug i^ iaxvog, K,r,l,, sc, biuKoveiru, or better biuKovovvreg : "so
ministering, as of," etc. Here, too, it is presumed that the person ministering
is not wanting in that strength which God supplies, and the exhortation is,
that he should exercise his ability in a way corresponding with the fact that
he received the strength necessary thereto frora God, and not as " of himself
possessing it." xopvy^i", besides in this passage, occurs only in 2 Cor. ix. 10.
(inixopyyelv is to be met with frequently, e.g., 2 Pet. i. 5). — iva, as stating
their purpose, refers back to the exhortations in vv. 10 aud 11, with special
reference to the determinative clauses introduced hy ug, — iv ndaiv, "in all
things'' (Wiesinger), i.e., "in the practice of all the gifts, the exercise of
' Calvin ; " Quia quicquid habemus ad ministrandum virtutis solus Ipse nobis suggerit."

320 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
which was connected with matters relating to the churches " (Schott) ; not
equivalent to ev ndaiv iBveaiv (Oec), or "in you all" (De Wette: "as His
true instruments"); cf. 1 Tim. iii. 11.- — bo^d^yrai b Qebg, "in order that God
may be glorified," i.e., that He obtain the praise, since it will be evident from
your conduct that you as His o'lKovbpoi have received (KaBug ilape) all things
(rd Ibyia, ryv iaxiv) from Him. — bid 'lyaoi Xpiaroi belongs to bo^d^yrai, and
points out that not the ability only, for the laleiv and diuKovelv, is communi
cated to the Christian through the agency of Christ,^ but that all actual
employment of it is effected by Christ. It is mistaken, with Hofmann, —
who is not justified in appealing to Rom. xvi. 27 and Heb. xiii. 21 in sup
port of his assertion, — to connect bid '1. Xp. with the following relative
clause. Suoh a view is opposed not only to the natural construction, but to
the thought, since God did not receive His bb^a and His Kpdrog first through
Christ. — As a close, the doxology, u, may be referred either to Qebg (Oecu
menius, Calvin, Bengel, De Wette, Briickner, Wiesinger, AVeiss, Schott, •
Hofmann) or to 'I. Xpiaroi (Grotius, Calov, Steiger). The first is the correct
application, since 6 Qeog is the subject of the clause and y bb^a points back to
do^al^yrai. Comp. chap. v. 11. The doxology states the reason of the 'iva
bo^dtiyrui b Qebg (Sohott); because God is (ianv) the glory and the power,
therefore the endeavors of the church should be directed to bring about a
lively acknowledgment of this, to the praise of God. — Identical with this
is the doxology. Rev. i. 6 (cf. also Rev. v. 13).
Ver. 12. Exhortation with reference to the sufferings under persecution.
dyanyro'i]. See chap. il. 11. — py lev/feoSe]. Cf. ver. 4; Xicol. de Lyra
translates incorrectly : nolite a fide alienari : Luther, correctly : " let it not
astonish you." — ry iv iplv nvpuaei]. The construction cum dat. occurs also
in classical Greek ; nvpuaig, besides in this passage, to be found only in
Rev. xviii. 9, 18, where it is equal to incendium. The LXX. translate '\'\i
aud even ina by nvpbu; the substantive, Prov. xxvii. 21, is an inexact
translation of "H3 in the sense of "refining furnace;" Oec, correctly;
nvpuaiv rdg Bliipeig e'lnHv, iveipyvev ug bid doKipaaiav indyovrai airoig airai. The
word, however, does not in itself contain the reference to purification ; this is
introduced only in what follows. ^ — ev iplv]. "Among, tcith you ; " not equal
to " affecting sorae in your midst " (De Wette), but " the readers are regarded
as a totality, and the nip. as present in the midst of tliem" (Wiesinger). —
The definite purpose of the nvpuaig is brought out in the subsequent words :
npbg neipaapbv iplv yivopivy. neipaapbg here means the trial with intent to
purify (elsewhere it has also the secondary signification of designed
temptation to sin) ; cf. chap. i. 7. — dig ^evov iplv avppalvovrog]. ^evov points
back to prj ^evifeoSe. Luther : " as though some strange thing happened unto
you ; " i.e., soraething strange to your destination, unsuited to it.^
Ver. 13. dlld . . . x"-ip^'''e]- Antithesis to |ev(feo9e; non tantum mlrari
1 Gualther; " Coufert crucem Igni, nos of salvation. This the context In no way jus-
auro." tifies. What causes astonishraent Is rather tbe
2 Schott here again supposes tbat In conse- fact that the church belonging to the glorified
quence of persecutions tbe leaders had becorae Christ Is exposed to the obloquy of the
perplexed as to the moral truth of Ihelr state world.

CHAP. IV. 14. 321
vetat Petrus, sed gaudere etiam jubet (Calvin) ; the measure of the joy is
indicated by KuBb Koivuvetre rolg roi Xpiarov naBypaai. — KaBb, not equivalent to
"that," nor to quando (Pott), but to quatenus, in quantum: cf. Rom. viii. 26,
2 Cor. viii. 12. — rd roi Xpiaroi naBypara is inexactly interpreted by Vorstius
as afflictiones Christi membris destinatae, nempe quas pii propter justitiam et
evangelium Christi sustinent ; they rather raean the sufferings which Christ
Hiraself has endured. Of these the believers are partakers (koivuvovoiv
avrolg), for the world shows the same enmity to them as to Christ, since it is
He who is hated in thera ; cf. ray coraraentary to Col. i. 24, and Meyer to
2 Cor. i. 5, 7 (so, too, Wiesinger, Weiss, p. 293 f ., Sohott). Steiger i is
wrong in thinking of the inward suffering endured by the Christian, whilst,
by the power of Christ's death, he dies unto sin. — The object to be supplied
in thought to xulpere is the nvpuaig previously mentioned by the apostle. —
ivd Kai states the design of xuipeiv : the Christians are to rejoice now, in
order that they may also (kuI lays stress on the future in relation to the
present) rejoice ev ry dnoKaliipei, etc. ; for this future joy is conditioned, by
that of the present, as the future partaking of the do^a of Christ by the
present sharing of His naByuaoi.^ Schott unreasonably opposes, as " gram
matical pedantry,'' the application of tva to the preceding ;i;aip£re, for he re
marks : " it is the sufferings themselves which hold out to us the future joy."
But he omits to consider that the Koivuveiv rolg r. Xp, naB, holds out future
happiness to hira only who finds his joy in it. Schott incorrectly appeals, in
support of his construction, to John xi. 15. — It is not correct to explain,
with Gerhard, etc., iva, iKparmug, — ev r-y dnoKaliipei, k,t,1,], not "because of,"
but " at " (Luther : " at the time of ") the revelation ; cf . chap. i. 17. The
expression dnoKi'il, ryg bd^yg Xpiarov (with which compare Matt. xxv. 31) is to-
be foHud only here. By it the apostle indicates that he who is now a
partaker of the sufferings of Christ, and rejoices in them (Col. iii. 4),
will one day be partaker of His glory, and in it rejoice everlastingly.
dyalliupevoi is added to a:wre by way of giving additional force to the idea
(chap. i. 8; Matt. v. 12).=
Ver. 14. In order to strengthen the exhortation : uy ^eviZeaBe . . . dlld
Xalpere, Peter adds the assurance : el bvei/ii^eaBe, K.r.l. ; cf. chap. iii. 14 and
Matt. V. 11. — Pott, without any reason, explains el by Kainep. — iv bvbpan
Xpiarov]. The explanation, propter confessionem Christi (De Wette), is inac
curate, for ovo^a is not confessio ; the meaning is the same as that in Mark
ix. 41: ev bvbpari, on Xpiarov iari, thus: '^because ye bear the name ofChrist,
and therefore belong to Him." Schott: "for the sake of your Christian name
and Christian profession;" Steiger: "as servants of Christ."; — padipioi, sc.
1 " The Koivavelv r. naB. consists In the diate thought, that participation In the suffer-
inward fellowship of the sufferings of Christ, ings of Christ is the necessary mark of the true
in the participation in that strength which disciples. But this is to give a rauch too super-
arises frora the justifying confidence in their ficial conception of the relation; and could
value, and which causes us even to die unto Peter have thought It possible to be a disciple
gin." without community of iife?
2 Weiss (p. 291 ff.), while denying that » "Quia prius illud (gaudium) cum dolore
Peter has the Pauline idea of community of et tristitia ralxtum est, secundura cum exsulta-
llfe with Christ, supplements, as an iuterme- tlone conjunglt " (Calvin).

322 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
etTTE. — on rb ryg bb^yg {koI dwupeug) Kal rb roi Otofi Trveviua]. bb^a: glory m its
highest sense, heavenly, divine glory.i According to Greek usage, rb ryg bb^yg
may be a circumlocution for y bo^a ; ^ but this form of expression does not
occur elsewhere in the N. T. (Winer, p. 104 [E. T., 109]) ; nor is it easy to
understand why the apostle should not simply have written y db^a. Accord
ingly, it is preferable to take rb with the subsequent nveipa, and to assume
an additional nvevpa (as is done by the greater number of coraraentators, De
Wette, also Briickner, 'NMesinger, Schott) ; the Spirit of glory is, then, the
sarae as that which is also the Spirit of God (koi rb rov Qeoi nv. subjoined
epexegetically). But in consideration of bveibi^eaBe, He is stjled the Spirit
of do^a, i.e., to whom db^a belongs (Calvin : qui gloriam secum perpetua con
junctam habet; cf. Eph. i. 17), and who therefore also bestows it. rb rov
Qeoi is added in order to show that this Spirit of bb^a is none other than the
Spirit of God Himself. It must be allowed, that, on this interpretation,
there is an inexactness of expression, Kai being evidently out of place. ^ —
Hofmann proposes, therefore, to supply to rb not nveipa, but ovopa, from what
precedes. But if Peter had had this thought in his mind, he would certainly
have given definite expression to it ; and it is self-evident, too, that on him
who is reproached ev bvbpan Xpiaroi, as a bearer of it, that name rests. — iip'
vpdg dvanaierai, after Isa. xi. 2, where the same expression is used of the
nveipa r. Qeoi (in like maimer inavanaveaBai, Num. xi. 25 ; 2 .Kings ii. 15,
LXX. ; of eipyvy, Luke x. 6). The accus. iip' ipdg is to be explained as with
ipeivev, John i. 32 ; Wahl : demissus in vos requiescit in vobis ; it points to the
living operation of the Spirit on those upon whom He rests. The thought
contained in these words gives the reason (bn) of what has been said : not,
however, the logical reason ; * but the actual reason, that is, inasmuch as
this resting of the Spirit of bo^a, on those who are reproached ev bvbp. Xpiaroi,
is a sealing of their eternal bb^a. It is inappropriate to insert, with Calvin,
a nih'ilom'inus, SO that the sense would be : in spite of that reproach, the
Spirit of God still dwells in you ; the more so that the reproach of unbe
lievers was called forth by the very fact that the life of the Christians was
deterrained by the Spirit which rested upon them. — In the additional
clause found iu the Rec, and connected with what goes before : Kara pev
airoig Blaoipypelrai, Kara be ipug (Sojtiferat, the subject can hardly be nveipa Geoii
taken from the explanatory clause imraediately preceding, but is more prob
ably ovopa Xpiaroi from the previous clause, and on which the principal stress
is laid. Schott wrongly thinks that this addition interrupts the connection
of thought; but Hofmann is equally in error in holding the opposite opin
ion, that it is of necessity demanded by the ydp, ver. 15 ; for ydp may be
equally well applied to the idea that the Spirit of God rests on those who
1 Bengel erroneously understands So^a pro * Aretius : " ci-ux, quara bonus fert pro
concretOt&od that, ita ut sit appellatio Christi, Chvisto, indicat, qaod Spir. Dei in illo quies-
adding: "innuitur, Splritura Christi eundem cat;" similarly, too, Hofmauu ; "they should
esse Spiiltura Dei Patiis." consider themselves happy that they are re-
2 See Matth., Ausf. Gr. Gram., 2d ed., § 284. preached for bearing the name of Christ; every
5 Cf . Plato, Hep., viii. 565 : irept rb ev 'ApKa- such reproach reminds them of what, by bear-
Sia TO Tc5 Atbs tepof; cf. Winer, p. 125 (if. T., ing it, they are."
132).

CHAP. IV. 15, 16. 323
are reproached iv ivbpan Xpiarov, as to this, that the name of Christ is glori
fied KaB' ipug. Since the rendering of Kard by " with " (as formerly in this
commentary), or by "on the part of" (Hofmann), cannot be supported,' the
meaning " with regard to " (De Wette) must be maintained. The interpre
tation will then be : " by their . . . your conduct," or " according to their . . .
your opinion."
Ver. 15. With reference to the assumption contained in what precedes
— whether expressed in the clause vl bveibli^eaBe . . . dvanaierai, or in the
doubtful adjunct /ca-'^ de ipdg, bo^di,erai — the apostle by way of explanation
adds the following warning : prj ydp ng vpjjv naaxiro ug ipoveig, K,r,l.], The
particle ydp does not here assign a reason, it gives an explanation : " that is
to say,"'' "that is, let none of you suffer as a murderer;" dig ipavevg, i.e.,
becadse he is a murderer. The two special conceptions, ipoveig and Klinryg,
are followed by the more general KOKonoidg, in order that every other kind of
crime may be therein included. These three conceptions belong very closely
to eaih other, for which reason dig is not repeated. On the other hand, the
fourth conception, dllorpioeniaKonog, is, by the prefixed ug, distinguished from
the others as entirely independent. Etymologically, this word denotes one
who jlssumes to himself an oversight of other people's affairs with which he
has nothing to do. The consciousness of a higher dignity could easily
betray the Christian into such a presumption, which raust make him all the
more odious to strangers. Oecumenius takes the word as equivalent to 6 rd
dllbrpia nepiepyatfipevog ; Calvin, Beza, etc., to alieni cupidus, appetens; Pott,
to "a disturber of the public peace." But all these interpretations are not
in harmony with the etymology of the word.
Ver. 16. Antithesis to the foregoing. — ei ie ug Xpianavdg (sc. rig ndaxei)
pii a'laxwioBu']. The name Xpiariavbg, besides here, is to be found only m
Acts xi. 26, where its origin is mentioned (cf. Meyer, in loe), and Acts
xxvi. 28. — (if Xp., i.e., because of his being a Christian, synonymous with
iv ovdpart Xpiaroi, ver. 14. Calvin : non iam nomen quam causam respicit. —
pi) aiaxwiaBu: "let him not consider it a disgrace;" cf. Rom. i. 16; 2 Tim. i.
8, 12. — bo^a^Tu be rbv Qebv; cf. Acts v. 41. ^ — iv ru bvbpari roirip goes back to
ndaxeiv ug Xpianavdg ; De Wette regards it as synonymous with the reading :
iv ru pepet roiru, 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3: "in this matter," "in this respect;"^
bvopa can, however, be retained in its strict sense (Wiesinger), in which case
it will mean the name 'Xpianavbg; 'ev will then designate this name as- the
reason of the (5o|afetv (see Winer, p. 362 [E. T., 387]). Hofraann, who gives
> Although Hofmann appeals for this sig- hortatus sit fldeles et simul per occaslonera eos
niflcation to chap. iv. 6, still, in interpreting raonere, ut juste et Innoxie vivant, ne justas
that passage, he himself takes Kara in a sense sibi poenas aroessant propria culpa." — Eras.
other than it is supposed to have here. — Pott mus rightly remarks : " non enira cruciatus
uses the circumlocution Kara ttjv yviapyv avriav martyrera facit, sed causa."
for Kara avToiis, whilst he explains itaTi Se ' Bengel, Poterat Petr., antlthetl vl., dicere :
u»as by "quod autem ad vos attinet," i.e., honorl sibi ducat, sed honorem Deo reslg-
" vestra autem agendi ratione," although Kara nandum esse docet.
must have the same raeaning in both clauses. * Schott Interprets pepot artificially, as
2 Calvin ; " Particula causalls hic super- " that piece of life apportioned to Christians
vacua non est, quum velit Ap. causam reddere, which consists in suffering."
cur tantum ad societatem passionum Christi

324 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
the preference to the reading ev ru pepet rovru, "in this respect," refers the
word to what follows, thus attributing to (5o|aferu an application different
from that of py aiaxwiaBu. When, then, he states that the cause for praise
arises frora this circumstance, that the Christian's sufferings are appointed
by God, he is introducing a thought in no way alluded to, and still less ex
pressed, by the apostle.
Ver. 17. The apostle's exhortation, py aiaxwiaBu, dolaferu di, is based on
a reference to the judgment which threatens the unbelieving. The connec
tion of thought is the same here as in vv. 4 and 5. — Calvin, differently :
Nam haec necessitas totam Dei ecclesiam manet, ut — Dei manu castigetur : tanto
igitur aequiori animo ferendae sunt pro Christo persequutiones. But in this, as
in the following verse, the chief stress is laid not so much on the first as on
the second half. It is purely arbitrary for Pott to assert that on is super
fiuous. — bn b Kaipbg roi dp^aoBai rb Kpipa]. Luther's translation, "it is time,"
is inexact. The article before Kaipog must not be overlooked ; thus, "for it
is the time ofthe beginning ofthe judgment, that is, in which the /udgment is be
ginning ; " eoTt is to be supplied ; the genitive is directly dependent on b Kaipbg
(cf. Luke 1. 57), and not "on Kaipbg taken out of the subject, b Kaipbg" (Hof
raann). By Kpipa IS to be understood the definite judgraent (rb), that is, the
final judgment, which Peter, however, here thinks of, not in its last decisive
act, but in its gradual developraent. It begins with the Christians (Matt.
xxiv. 9 ff.) in the refining fire of afiliction, ver. 12, and is corapleted in the
sentence of conderanation pronounced on the unbelieving world at the ad
vent of Christ. In opposition to the apostle's raanner of expressing himself,
Hofmann maintains that reference is here made only to the judgment of the
unbelieving world, the beginning of which Peter recognized in the fact that
God permitted it to persecute the Christians, to do unto them that which
makes itself ripe for judgment (!). — dnb roi oikov roi Qeoi]. and is here preg
nant: the judgment takes place first in the oik, roi Qeoi : thence it proceeds
further on; with the construction dpxeaBai dnb, cf. Acts i. 22, viii. 35, x. 37.'
— oiKog rov Qeov is the church of believers; 1 Tim. iii. 15 (chap. ii. 5, o'mog
nvevparmbg) . — ei be npurov dip' ypuv]. By these words the apostle passes over
to the chief thought of the verse. Either rb Kplpa dpxerai may be supplied,
and npurov regarded as a pleonasm intensifying the idea dpxerai; or it may
be assumed with De Wette, that the expression arose from a mingling of
the two thoughts, ei be dip' ypuv rb Kplpa dpxerai and el be npurov ypelg KpivbpeBa.
The first is more probable ; npCirov presented itself to the apostle, because
he wished to lay stress on the fact that the Christians had to suffer ouly
the beginning of the judgment, not its close. ^ — dip' ypuv corresponds with the
preceding o'ik. r. Qeoi. The sense is : If God does not exempt us, the mem
bers of His house (His family), from judgment, but permits it to take its
' Schott thinks that Peter really intended 2 Schott's interpretation, that TrpiToi' should
to write; " for the tirae is corae that the judg- ' be taken as a substantive (equal to " a first"),
raent of the world raust begin, but its begin- and that a general verb, expressive of what
ning must be at the house of God." But why takes place, should be supplied out of dp^aadai
then did Peter not write as he. Intended? (aTrd being at the same tirae zeugraatically
Schott introduces an idea into the second repeated), contradicts itself by Its artificial.
clause which Peter has In no way expressed. ness.

CHAP. IV. 18, 19. 325
beginning at us, how should the unbelievers be exempted ? (cf. Luke
xxiii. 31.) — rl ro rilog riJv, K.r.X, sc. iarai. — rb rilog, not "the reward," but
the final term, the end, to which the dneiBoivreg ry eiayy. (i.e., those who in
hostility oppose the gospel of God) are going. Schott explains rb rilog (anti
thetically to npurov) as the final judgment itself, and the genitive ruv dnei-
Boivruv as a concise, nearer definition (" the part of the judgment which falls
to the lot of the unbelievers"). But as little as npurov means initiatory
judgment, so little does rb rilog final judgment. — On the interrogative form
of the clause, Gerhard rightly reraarks: exaggeratio est in interrogatione ; cf.
Luke xxiii. 31. The echo ' in this verse of passages of the Old Testaraent,
like Jer. xxv. 29, xlix. 12, Ezek. ix. 6, can the less fail to be recognized,
that the words which follow are borrowed from the Old Testament.
Ver. 18. Strengthening of the foregoing thought by quotation of the
O. T. passage, Prov. xi. 31, after the LXX., whose translation, however, is
inexact (cf. Delitzsch, in loe). — 6 ilKuiog "is he who stands in a right rela
tion to God" (Schott), that is, the believer who belongs to the ot«. r. Qeoi;
b daeSyg Kal dpaprulbg, the nnbeliever (6 dneiBuv rip r, Q. eiayy.). pblig aii^erai is
not, with Gerhard, to be referred to the fact that for the pious non nisi per
multas tribulationes ingressus in regnum coeleste pateat, but that it is difiicult
(pbXg, scarcely, with great difficulty) to stand in the judgment (ver. 17), and
to attain aurypia. — nov ipavelrai, "where will he appear f" that is, he will not
stand, but will be annihilated. The same thought as in Ps. i. 5.
Ver. 19. The exhortation contained in this verse is closely connected
with vv. 17 and 18, in such a way, however, "that it brings to a close the
whole section which treats of suffering for the sake of Christ " (Hofmann) ;
Hornejus : clausula est qua totam exhortationem obs'ignat. — diare, as in Rom.
vii. 4, and often elsewhere, with a finite verb following (Winer, p. 282 f.
[E. T., 301]) "therefore." — koI does not belong to oi ndaxovreg, equivalent to
" those also who suffer," with reference to those who do not suffer (Wie
singer, Hofmann), for there is no allusion in the context to any distinction
between those who suffer because of their Christian profession and those
who have not so to suffer,^ but it is united with ioare, and applies to the
verb, " and just for this reason " (cf . Winer, p. 408 [E. T., 438]). Incorrectly,
Bengel : kuI concessive cum participio i. q. el Kal ndaxoire. — ot ndaxovreg, namely,
the believers. — Kard rh Bilypa roi Qeoi ; that is, npbg neipaapbv, ver. 12. Wie
singer : " looking back to ver. 17, inasmuch as they as Christians are over
taken by the judgment God pronounces on His house." Besser incorrectly
takes it as referring to their subjective behavior under suffering. — ug maru
Kriary napariBiaBuaav, K.r.l.]. Gerhard : ug exprimit causam, propter quam, hi
qui patiuntur animas suas apud Deum deponere debeant, nimirum quia est earum
creator et fidelis custos. If ug be the correct reading, then from the foregoing
Toi Qeov an airip must be supplied, to which ug niaru Kriary applies. — Kriaryg
is not possessor (Calvin), but the creator; b Kriaag, Rom. i. 25. It is used
1 Calvin : " Hanc sententiam ex trita et per- 2 Schott explains Kai by the contrast be-
petua Scrlpturae doctrina sumpsit Petrus; tween "the individual sufferers" and "the
idque mihi probabilius est, quam quod alii church;" but nothing in the context alludes
putant, certum aliquem locum notari." to this.

326 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER,
here in its strict sense, and not with reference to the new creation (Steiger,
Schott, connect both together) ; cf . Acts iv. 24 ff. : " this prayer is an actual
example of what is here demanded" (Weiss, p. 190). In the N. T. Kriaryg
is an. ley., in the O. T. it occurs frequently; Jud. ix. 12; 2 Macc. i. 24.
marbg : Oecumenius, equivalent to, daipalyg kuI diptv&yg Kara rdg inayyeliag airoi,
Kat oiK idaei ypdg neipaaByvai inep b bwdpeBa; cf. 1 Cor. X. 13. — With naparlBeaBai,
of. Acts xiv. 23, XX. 32: "to commit io the pirotection of any one." — iv dyaBo
noiia]. dyaBonoiia, uir. ley. ; the adjec, chap. ii. 14. This addition shows that
the confident surrender to God is to be joined, not with careless indolence,
but with the active practice of good. Oecumenius erroneously paraphrases
the word by raneivoippoaivy.

CHAP. V. 327

CHAPTER V.
Ver. 1. A, B, several min., read ovv after npeapvripovg (Lachm.); K, L, P,
etc., Copt., Thph., etc., on the other liand, roig (Rec, Tisch. 7); K has both,
i.e., oiv roig. This reading, accepted by Tisch. 8, is perhaps the original one;
oiv may have been omitted, because the subsequent exhortation does not appear
to be a conclusion from what goes before. — Ver. 2. imoKonoivreg is wanting
only in B, X, 27, 29, Hier., etc.; it is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 7, and
omitted by Tisch. 8. — After eKovalug, A, P, N, several min., vss., etc., Lachm.
and Tisch. 8 have: Kara Qebv, The words are wanting in the Rec. after B, K,
L, etc., Dec, etc.; Tisch. 7 had omitted them; they are probably a later addi
tion, in order to complete the idea. — uySi alaxpoKepbug], Rec, after B, K, P, K,
etc., Vulg., Copt., Thph., Beda (Lachm., Tisch. 8); Tisch. 7 reads, instead of
pybi, py, after A, L, 68, al., Syr., etc., Oec. ; this, however, appears to be a mere
alteration on accoimt of the preceding py and the subsequent uybi. — Ver. 3.
Following B, Buttmann has omitted the entire third verse; but as all authori
ties retain it, it cannot be regarded as spurious. — Ver. 5. inoraoaopevoi]. Rec,
according to K, L, P, etc., Thph., Oec; is omitted in A, B, N, 13, etc, several
vss., etc. Lachm. and Tisch. are probably right in omitting it, as it appears to
be a, correction introduced in order to make the sense plainer, perhaps after
Eph. V. 21. Wiesinger and Schott are against the Rec. ; Reiche is in favor of it.
— Instead of 6 Qebg, Buttm. has, following B, adopted Qebg (without article). —
Ver. 6. iv Kuipip]. In A, and the most of the vss., imaKonyg follows here;
adopted by Lachm., erroneously, however, as it is a later addition after cliap.
ii. 12. — ^'er. 8. Following the most numerous and best authorities, Griesb.
already has justly erased the on of the Rec. before 6 dvribmog. — riva Karaniy].
Rec, after A, al., Vulg., Syr., Cyr., etc (Tisch. 7); in its place K, L, P, N, al.,
mult., Cop., etc., read nvd Kuranielv (Lachm.: nvd; Tisch. 8: riva); B has the
inf. only, without nva. The commentators (as also Reiche) prefer the Rec. ; it
appears, too, to be the more natural reading; but that very fact makes it sus
picious. The reading of B is evidently a correction, as nva seems to be inap
propriate. — Ver. 9. B, X, have the art. ru before Kbapu (Tisch. 8); in the Rec.
it is omitted, after A, K, L, P, etc. (Tisch. 7). —Ver. 10. ypdg], Rec, accord
ing to K, several min., Vulg., Syr., etc.; in place of it, the most important
authorities. A, B, L, P, X, very many rain., and several vss., support ipdg, which
is accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., and rightly declared to be genuine by De
Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche. The Codd., A, K, L, P, have the name 'Ivaoi
after Xpiarij (Rec, Lachm., Tisch. 7); in B, X, there is only Xpiarip (Tisch. 8).
The Rec. runs: Kurapriaat vudg, arypt^ai, aBevuaai, Bepeliuaai. Although these
optatives convey an appropriate idea, still there is too little evidence for their
genuineness; in the three last verbs, the optative occurs only in min., several
vss., Thph., aud Dec; in the first verb it is found also in K, L, P. As, how-

328 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
ever, the future Karaprlaei, etc, occurs in almost all authorities, it is to be pre
ferred. Erasmus reads Kurapriaai, and then arepi^ei. In similar passages of the
IT. T., the optat. is mostly used (thus, undisputedly, in Rom. xv. 13; Heb. xiii'.
21; 1 Thess. v. 23, etc), and this explains how, in employing the future, a
change could have been made to the optative; cf. 2 Cor. ix. 10; Phil. iv. 19.
There is less force in the reason given for the use of the indicative, viz., that it
is better suited to the subsequent doxology (Bengel), in opposition to which De
Wette rightly refers to Heb. xiii. 21. — The pronoun ipdg is wanting in the A,
B, X, etc., and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch.; its genuineness is at least
doubtful ; not less so is that of BepeXuaet, which, however, Tisch. has retained,
following K, L, P, X, etc., whilst it is omitted in A, B, Vulg., etc. (Lachm.).
— Ver. 11. ij (5o|a Kai does not occur in A, B, 23, Aeth., Vulg.; oraitted by
Lachm. and Tisch.; perhaps a later addition, after chap. iv. 11. — rdv a'luvuv is
erased by Tisch. 7, after B, 36, 99, Copt., Arm., but retained by Lachm. and
Tisch. 8, who follow A, K, L, P, X, the majority of min., several vss., etc. — '
Ver. 12. Lachm. omits the article tov before niaroi, appealing to B. Tisch.,
however, remarlis on this: errabat circa B. Tiie omission, for which certainly
there is too little warrant, may be explained by the transcriber having construed
vplv with niarov. According to Tisch., however, it is not certain whether B has
the article or not; according to Buttm., it does not occur in B. — Instead of iary
Kare (Rec. ), Laclim. and Tisch. 8, after A, B, X, many min., etc., read aryre. This
reading would seem to be favored by the fact that it is the more difficult one,
and tliat the Rec. may have arisen out of Rom. v. 2; but the idea itself decides
in favor of iaryKare, which is retained by Tisch. 7, following K, L, P, etc.,
Theoph., Oec. — The reading iv r} (instead of e'lg yv) in A is evidently a correc
tion for tlie sake of simplicity. — Ver. 14. Instead of Xpiaru 'lyaoi (in Eec, K,
L, P, X, al., pier., Vulg., Copt., etc., Thph., Oec), Lachm. aud Tisch. have
adopted Xpiaru only (A, B, etc., Syr., Aeth., etc.). Tlie final dpyv (Rec, in G,
K, X, etc.) is likewise wanting in A, B, etc., and is tlierefore omitted by Lachm.
and Tisch. — The subsequent addition of '\yaoi and iipyv is undoubtedly more
easy of explanation than the subsequent omission of it.
Ver. 1. New exhortations in the first place to the .npeaBvrepot and the
veurepoi as far as ver. 5; then to all, without distinction, vv. 5-9. — npeapv
ripovg oiv roig ev iplv napuKalu]. npeapirepoi are the presidents of the congre
gations. The narae is eraployed here probably not without reference to age
("the elders") (see ver. 5), though this is disputed by Hofmann, who, how
ever, fails to give any reason for so doing. The article is wanting " because
npeaB. is considered as definite of itself " (Wiesinger), and not " because Peter
had not a more accurate knowledge of the constitution of the churches"
(Schott). If the reading ovv be adopted, these and the following exhorta
tions connect themselves, as conclusions drawn from it, with the preceding
conception dyaBonoiia, for the passages 1 Thess. iv. 1 and Matt. vii. 15 do not
prove that oiv expresses " only the continuance of the exhortation " (Hof
mann). The reading ev iplv, without roig, is opposed by the want of the
article before npeapvripovg. — o ovpnpeaBvrepog koI, K.r.l,]. Peter adds these
designations of himself, in order thus to give the more weight to his napct-
Kalelv. He calls himself avpnpeapirepog because of his office. What the
elders were for the individual congregations, that were the apostles for the

CHAP. V. 2. 329
whole church, since they had the superintendence of the entire system of
congregations.' By this name Peter, in humble love,^ places himself ou an
equal footing with the elders proper. 3 It is less natural to assurae, with
Hofraann, that in thus speaking of himself Peter "would emphasize the
share he had in responsibility for the weal and woe of the congregations."
— Kal udprvg ruv roi Xpiarov naBypdruv]. By Tti rov Xpiaroi naBypara must not
be understood the sufferings which the apostle had to undergo iu following
Christ, but those which Christ Himself endured ; cf. chap. iv. 13. Yet
Peter calls himself a pdprvg, not only because he was an eye-witness of them
(cf. Acts X. 39),^ but also because he proclaimed those sufferings which he
himself had seen * (cf. Acts i. 8, 22, xiii. 31). This he did, in the first place,
by his words, but at the same time also by his sufferings (a fact which Hof
mann should not have denied), in which he was a Koivuvbg ruv rov Xp, naBypdruv
(chap. iv. 13) (Wiesinger, Schott). What follows seems also to refer to
this.^ — De Wette thinks that whilst by " avpnpeaB ," Peter puts hiraself on
an equality with the elders, he by the second designation places himself
above theni. But if this had been his intention, he would hardly have
included both under the one article ; the elders, too, were equally called
to be udprvpeg ruv Xp, naB, , although Peter, as an eye-witness, . occupied " a
special position" (Bruckner). — o koI ryg uellovayg . . Koivuvbg]. Several
of the older commentators incorrectly supply tou Xpiaroi to bbiyg ; it is not
merely the glory of Christ which is meant, but tjie bb^a, which, at the reve
lation of that glory, shall be revealed in all those who are His; cf. Rom.
viii. 18 ; Col. iii. 4 ; 1 John iii 2. ^ Koivuvog means simply the participation
in that glory. Although it is not equivalent to avyKoivuvbg (Phil. i. 7), still
the apostle has in his soul the consciousness of being a fellow-sharer with
those to whom be is speaking. — The particle /cat, " also," unites the two
ideas : paprig rijv . . , naByudruv aud Koivuvbg ryg . , bu^yg together ; because
the apostle is the former, he will also be the latter. Yet this does not com
pel the adoption, with Hofraann, of the reading 6 (equal to bi u, " where
fore ") instead of o. Although pdprvg, which is closely connected with
avpnpeaSvrepog, has no article, it does not follow that Koivuvog can have none
either. The N. T. usage is opposed to the interpretation of 6 by bi 6,
Gal. ii. 10; cf. Meyer, in loe. ; ci. also Winer, p. 135 (E. T , 142).
Ver. 2. noiudvare rb iv iplv no'ipvtov rov Qeoi]. The work of directing the
church is often in the N. and O. T. represented by the figure of pasturing
(cf. Acts XX. 28; John xxi. 16; Jer. xxiii. 1-4; Ezek. xxxiv. 2 ff-), and
the church by that of a flock (Luke xii. 32). roi Qeoi is added here very
significantly. By it the flock is designated as belonging, not to the elders
' Hofmann " The apostles were the over- * Aretius : " oculatus testis, qui praecipuis
seers of the universal church of Christ ; each of ejus aerumnis interful."
them, therefore, iu so far shared In the admin- » u cannot be denied, that, in accordance
istratlou of all the single congregations, inas- with its almost uniform usage In the N. T., the
much as these were in the universal church." word paprv^ possesses this secondary meaning
2 Gualter; "nota humllitatera Petri qui (as opposed to Hof raaim).
minlmc JUS primatus in se cognovit." o Wiesinger: "The antithesis 6 Kai rij?
s Bengel : " hortatio rautua inter aequales jtteAA. ojtok. So^tj? Kotctoyo? presupposes the
et collegas imprimis valet." icoti'dji/eii' tois t. Xp. iraO."

330 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
who tend it, but to God as His peculiar property. Luther takes a too nar
row view of the idea of tending; he limits it to the preaching of the gospel.
It applies rather to all and every thing that is done by the elders, for the
welfare of the individual as well as for that of the entire congregation, rb
iv iplv must not be separated from noipviov, as if it were equal to quantum in
vobis est (cf. Rom. i. 15), i.e., intendite omnes nervos (Calvin) ; it rather forms
one idea with noipviov. The greater number of coraraentators understand iv
in a local sense, either in vestris regionibus (Pott), or " w'lth you, within your
reach " (Luther in the commentary, Hensler, De Wette, Besser, Schott,'
etc.). Since ev ialv, as a more precise local definition, stands somewhat
significantly, and "the churches only are the place where the elders are, and
not vice versa " (Hofmann), ev iplv must, according to the analogy of KelaBai
iv nvi, be interpreted " that which is committed to you " (Luther's translation,
Bengel, Steiger), or "that which is placed under your care (hand)." iv iplv
then serves to give point to the exhortation. — imoKonoivreg, ci. the critical
notes. It must be observed, that inioKon. is here placed in conjunction with
noipavare, as in chap. ii. 25 : noipyv and imoKonog. This participle, with the
adverbs belonging to it, states what should be the character of the noipaiveiv.^
The verb (which, except here, occurs only in Heb. xii. 15), equivalent to
" to give heed," denotes the labors of the elders in caring for the congrega
tion, but with the implied meaning of oversight. The still closer definition
follows in three adjuncts, each of which consists of a negative and a positive
meraber. 3 — dvayKaarCig (an expression foreign to Greek usage, and occurring
only here, which Hofmann erroneously denies) and iKovaiug (this adverb
occurs in the N. T., besides in this passage, only in Heb. x. 26 ; the adjec
tive in Philem 14) are opposed to each other, in such a way that the former
characterizes the work as undertaken from outward motives only, the latter
as frora inward The same antithesis occurs in Philem. 14 : Kara dvdyKyv
Kard iKovaiov (sirailarly the antithesis of ukuv and iKuv, 1 Cor. ix. 17) ;
with iKovaiug, cf. Exod xxxvi. 2. The position, etc., must be regarded as
the outwardly inciting or compelling motive.'' — According to the Rec,
iKovaiug is yet further strengthened by Kard Qebv (cf . chap. iv. 6 ; 2 Cor. vii.
9, 10), equal to Kard rb Bclyua roi Qeov. — aicxpoKepbCjg (the adverb occurs here
ouly, the adjective 1 Tim iii. 8; Tit. i. 7; Tit. i. 11: aiaxpoi Kipbovg xb-piv) ;
"the apostle places the impure motive side by side with the unwillingness
' Schott's opinion, that In ev vplv this an- eiriaKonoiJvre^, they, with this participle, are
tiihesis to ToiJ Beov is expressed, "that the connected with wot/idfeTe.
church, belonging to heaven, is yet at present ^ The thought Is aptly given by Calvin :
in the bodily and visible vicinity of the elders, " Dura Pastores ad officiura hortari vult, trIa
and surrounded by them," raust be rejected aa potlssiraura vitia notat, quae pluriraura obesse
purely arbitrary — Gerhard's iuterpretation : solent, pigrltlam scilicet, lucri captaudi cupldi-
"qui vobiscum est, videlicet cura quo unura tatem et liceutiain doralnaudi; prirao vitIo
corpus, una ecclesia estis," brings out an Idea opponit alacrltatera aut voluntarium studium,
which Is in no way indicated by the apostle. secuudo liberalem affectum tertio raodera-
2 It Is doubtless correct that the adverbs do tionera ac raodestiam."
not simply define more nearly the term enia- * Beugel is incorrect; "id valet et in sus-
KOTrovvTe<;, In and for Itself considered, but It is cipiendo et iu gerendo munere ; " to the former
wrong to raake thera co-ordinate with this idea there Is In this case no allusion.
(as against Hofraann) ; closely joined with

CHAP. V. 3, 4. 331
of dvuyK." (Wiesinger)., — npodipug (in the N. T. the adverb occurs here only;
more frequently the adjective and substantive) as antithesis to aiaxpoKepbug :
" out of love io the thing itself; " Luther : " from the bottom of the heart." '
Ver. 3. pyS' ug KaroKvpieuovreg ruv Klypuv, i.e., "not as those, who," etc.
With KaroKvp. ci. for meaning and expression Matt. xx. 25-28 ; 2 Cor. i. 24 ;
it is not equal to Kvpteveiv (Steiger), but the prefixed Kara intensifies the idea
of Kvpieieiv : " to exercise a sway, by which violence is offered to those who
are under it."^ — Klypog, properly speaking, the lot, then that wliich is appor
tioned by lot, then, generally, that which is allotted or assigned to any one,
whether it be an office, a possession, or any thing else. Here it is the con
gregation (rb noipviov) that is to be understood ; not as though Klypog in itself
meant the congregation, but the churches are thus designated, because they
are assigned to the elders as a possession, in which to exercise their official
duties. The plural is put, because different elders filled offices in different
congregations (Calov, Steiger, De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.). Cora-
pare the passage in Acts xvii. 4, where it is said of those converted by Paul
and Silas, npoaeKXypuByaav ru 'n.avlu Kal ru SiXn. It is incorrect to supply roi
Oeou, as is done by Beza, etc., and to derive the expression from the O. T.,
where the congregation of Israel is termed the Klypog (H^nj) of God, Deut.
ix. 29, LXX. But it is equally incorrect when Hofmann applies KuruKvpiei-
ovreg, not to the npeapirepoi, but to others, and, taking dig as instituting a com
parison, understands Klypoi to signify "the estates belonging to some one
himself," translating accordingly: "not as those who exercise rule over
estates belonging to themselves " The apostle's idea thus would be, " the
elders are not to treat the church as an object over which they exercise right
of possession, and do with as they please.'' — How should the apostle have
thought of bringing forward a comparison so far fetched ? — and how arbi
trary it appears to interpret ug differently in this passage from iu chap. i. 14,
ii. 2, 5, 11, 12, 13, etc. , to allow the article t<jv to take the place of the pos
sessive pronoun, and to attribute a ineaning to Klypoi which it often has in
profane Greek, but never either in the O. or in the N. T. I^ dlld rinoi yivb-
pevoi roi noipviov]. The antithesis here is a different one from that iu the
passage qvioted from Matt. The elders, as the leaders of the church, neces
sarily possess a kind of Kvpioryg over it ; but they are not to exercise this in
a manner opposed to the character of Christian life iu the church (which
would be a KoroKvpieieiv), but by being examples to the congregations, shin
ing before them in every Christian virtue (1 Tim. iv. 12 ; Tit. ii. 7) ; cf .
2 Thess. iii. 9 ; Phil. iii. 17.
Ver. 4. Assurance of the future reward for the faithful fulfilment of
the exhortation just given. — koI simply connects the result with the
"Hofmann: "With a joyous devotion, » The opinion of Oecuraenlus: K\^pov rb
which excludes all secondary considerations, iep'ov avarrtpa KaKel, iaanep Kai vijv r)pet<: (i.e.,
to the work which has to be done." the priesthood), which many Catholic cora-
2 Thus Hofmana interpret*, correctly. He mentators have followed, requires no refuta.
is mistoken, however, in maintaining that KaTu tion; and as little does that of Dodwell,
here does not imply an hostile antithesis, since who understands KKripoi to mean church
a violent rule Is one by which he who is ruled property.
over is injured in his rights.

332 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
exhortation (cf. Winer, p. 406 [E. T., 436 f.]), and is not to be taken
a'lnoloymug for Iva. — ipavepuBivrog roi dpxmoipivog]. With ipavep. cf. Col. iii. 4;
1 Johu ii. 28; Christ is here terraed dpxmoipyv {un, ley., chap. ii. 25 : 6 noipyv;
Heb. xiii. 20 : 6 7rot|U^v 6 peydg) as He " to whom the elders, with the flock
they tend, are subject" (Hofraann). — KopielaBe (cf. chap. i. 9) rbv dpapdvrivov
rijg db^yg ariipavov]. The greater number of commentators consider duapdvnvog
as equal to dpdpavrog in chap. i. 4 ; but the direct derivation of the word
frora papalveaBai is hardly to be justified. It comes rather frora the
substantive dpdpavrog, and therefore means, as Beza explains : ex amaranto
videlicet, cujus floris (inquit Plinius) summa natura in nomine est, sic appetlato
quoniam non marcescit. Accordingly the figure present to the mind of the
apostle was an amaranthine wreath ; thus also Schott.' It is at least
uncertain whether ariipavog here (as frequently in the writings of Paul) is
thought of as a ivreath of victory (thus the greater nuraber of coraraentators),
since among the Jews, also, wreaths of fiowers and leaves were in use as
tokens of honor and rejoicing (cf. Winer's Bibl. Realworterbuch, s.v. Kranze).
— ryg bbiyg is the genitive of apposition ; cf . 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; Jas. i. 12 ; Rev.
ii. 10 : the bb^a is the unfading crown which they shall obtain.
Ver. 5. buoiug; cf. chap. iii. 1, 7; here also bpoiug is not a mere particle
of transition (Pott). The exhortation to huraility expressed in this verse
corresponds to those addressed to the elders, wherein they are admonished
to submit theraselves to the duties of their office with huraility, and without
seeking their own advantage. — veCirepoi inordyyre npeapvripoig]. Who are
these veurepoi ? Certainly not the whole of the members of the congregation
(in contrast to the elders), as Beda, Estius, Pott, Wiesinger, etc., assume,
but neither tbe younger merabers generally, nor such of them as were
employed in many ministrations . suitable neither for the elders nor the
deacons. The first assumption (Luther, Calvin, Aretius, Gerhard, etc.) is
opposed by the circumstance that npeaPvripoig here seems to have the same
official signification as above in ver. 1 ff. If this be so, then it is plainly
inconsistent to take the expression veurepoi as specifying only a particular
time of life. The second (Weiss, p. 344 ff., Schott, Briickner), founded
chiefly on Acts v. 6, 10, is contradicted by the fact that there is no historical
testimony for the existence of an office such as it takes for granted. If
veu-repoi indicate only a particular tirae of life, then the like may be said of
the accompanying npeaPvripoig. The difficulty which arises from the sarae
name being eraployed first as an official title, and then to denote a particular
age, is solved, in a measure at least, by supposing, that, since the word
contained both references, the apostle might, as he proceeded in his
exhortation, lose sight of the one in the other.^ The special exhortation-
is followed by the general : Trtivref bi dlliiloig]. If inoraaabpevoi is to be

1 Perhaps, however, Hofmann may be right ofBce, but veiarepoi a time of life (De Wette),
when he supposes that dpapdvrivov stands in Is opposed by the circumstance that "it re-
the sarae relation to dpdpavroi as dKriBivov to mains incomprehensible why the exhortation,
aATj07)s and uytetvog tc vytij?, and that accord- which is surely raeant to apply to the whole
ingly the word should be written a/iapafTtFoy. church, should be addressed to the younger
2 The view that irpea^vrepoiv indicates an members only " (Hofmann) .

CHAP. V. 6. 333
erased after dllriloig, the words may then be taken either with what precedes
(Lach., Gr. Ausg., Buttraann, Hofraann) or with what follows. In the first
case, there is something fragmentary in the structure of the clause, while
the second, adopted by almost all commentators (formerly also in this
commentary), is opposed by the dative dllyloig, which is too easily passed
over with the remark that it is the dative of reference, equivalent to " for
each other," or "with reference to each other." All the passages which
Winer (p. 202 [E. T., 215]) brings forward to prove that the dative is used
of every thing with reference to which any thing takes place are of a differ
ent nature, ndvreg denotes the whole of the members of the .church, without
distinction. — ryv raneivoippoaivyv iyKopBuaacBe]. In interpreting the word
iyKoppuaaaBe, coraraentators have not unfrequently, but erroneously, started
frora the meaning of the substantive iyKopPuua,'^ understanding (certainly
without justification) it to signify " a beautiful dress," aud rendering :
" adorn yourselves with humility ; " thus Calvin, etc. ; or else, whilst
correctly explaining the word as the apron worn by slaves, they find in
the verb itself the reference to humility in behavior ; thus Grotius,
Hornejus, Steiger, De AVette, etc.^ — Rather, however, must that sense
of the verb be retained which is to be had by deriving it from Kbp3og, " a
band ; " to tie on, or fasten any thing by means of a Koppog, i e., " a band."
Since, now, it is used for the raost part of the fastening of a garraent, it lies
to hand to take the expression here as having the sarae sense with ivbitaBai
(cf . Col. iii. 12), yet so that the idea of raaking fa,st is more strongly brought
out in the former than in the latter : " to clothe one's self firraly, wrap one's self
round with raneivoipp. ; " Bengel : induite vos et involvite, ut amictus humilitatis
nulla vi vobis detrahi possit (thus also Wiesinger, Schott). Other interpreters
hold by the one or the other meaning only, i.e., either by that of clothing
(Oecumenius : iveilyaaaBe Kal nepiBdlleoBe), or that of making fast (Luther :
" hold fast by humility ; " Erasraus: humilitatem vobis fixam habete). Similar
exhortations to humility towards one another : Eph. iv. 2 ; Phil. ii. 3 ;
Rora. xii. 16. The exhortation is strengthened by the quotation of the Old-
Testament passage, Prov. iii. 34, after the LXX., where, however, Kipiog
stands instead of 6 9edf. The same quotation is to be found in Jas. iv. 6,
where, as here, there is first of all the injunction to submit to God, and then
that to resist the devil ; cf. also Luke i. 51.
Ver. 6. Conclusion drawn from the Old-Testament passage, raneivuByre
oiv inb, K.r.l.i], see Jas. iv. 6 ; not "become humble," as Wiesinger interprets,
on account of the passive (for if the meaning must be passive, in accordance
with the forra, it ought to be, " b'e made humble "), but, in a middle sense,
1 Steph., s, V. eyKop^out: illigo, involvo; from that of the substantive). He says that
Hesych : enim e-y/<o)iP"jSeis exponit SeSeis et the verb of itself has that sense, since he who
e-y/ce/co^jStoTat alfert pro evei\yrai. — 'EyKd/x- prepared himself for the duties of a servant
^tdjLta vestlmenti genus est; scribit enim Poll. girded himself with a garment fastened by
4, 119, rfi Se rCiv Sov\iav e^iopiSi npoaKeladai means of a band. This conclusion would be
Kat 'ipariSiov TL \evK6v, quod eyKdp^iapa o. established If eyKop^ow were used only of the
eiri^Kripa nomlnari. putting on of a slave's aprou, which, however,
2 Hofmann holds by this reference (although Is uot the case,
he does not derive the meaning of the verb

334 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
"humble yourselves." Ver. 7 shows that this self-humbling here refers to the
lowly and submissive bearing of afflictions (otherwise in Luke ±iv. 11). —
ryv Kparaiav x"pa]. Old-Testament expression denoting the power of God
which rules and judges all ; cf. Deut. iii. 24, LXX.; it does not refer here
to the laying-on of afflictions only (De Wette), but to the being exalted
out of them (so, too, Bruckner) ; cf. Luke i. 51 : inolyae Kpdrog iv Ppaxiovt
airoi • bieoKbpniaev inepyipdvovg . . . Kal vipuae raneivoig. The purpose of this
subordination, 'Iva ipdg iipuay, is the glory which follows upon the sufferings ;
iva is not put cKParmug (Pott), but relmijg. — 'ev Kaipu]. Matt. xxiv. 45 :
" tempore statuto ; " Erasmus : ut vos extollat, cum erit opportunum, cum
judicabit id vobis expedire vel in hoc saeculo, vel in die judicii; this last is
here the principal point of view.
Ver. 7 is closely connected with ver. 6 ; hence the participle. The idea
and expression are taken from Ps. Iv. 22, LXX. (inlf>piipov enl Kvpiov ryv
pepipvuv aov kui airog ae biaBp(ipei), although somewhat altered ; ndaav ryv
pepipvav ipuv :'^ " your whole care;" the singular unites all individual cares
together into one uniform whole. Hofmann, without reason, assuraes, that,
in this passage, pipipva does not mean care itself, but the object which causes
care. The context shows that the care specially raeant here is that which is
occasioned by the sufferings; cf. Matt. vi. 25 ; Phil. iv. 6. — on airu, K,r,l,],
"for He careth for you ; " the sarae construction of the verb with nepl occurs
frequently in the O.T., e.g., John x. 13 ; eTr' airbv, on airij), " are intentionally
brought together " (Wiesinger).
Ver. 8. vyipare (chap. iv. 7), ypyyopyaare, cf. 1 Thess. v. 6; placed in jux
taposition by asyndeton "in nervous conciseness, in virtue of which on, too,
is omitted before 6 dvnbmog" (Wiesinger). Temperance and watchfulness
are specially necessary, in order to remain faithful amid all the temptations
of suffering. The reason is given in what follows. — b dvridiKog ipHv bidpolog],
Hensler's explanation : " slandering opponents," requires no refutation. —
biuPolog is a substantive, in explanatory apposition to 6 dvrlb, ipuv, which
latter is used, in this passage only, to designate the devil (corresponding to
the Hebrew jIJE;, which, however, the LXX. always translate by bidpolog).
The word denotes strictly an opponent in a court of justice; but it occurs also
in a general sense as "adversary." Schott would retain the original appli
cation, after Zech. iii. 1 ff., Bev. xii. 10, in that "the devil will, as it were,
compel God to declare in condemnatory judgment that the Christians have
forfeited salvation;" but there is no allusion to the divine judgraent here,
the Karaniveiv is rather indicated as the aim of the devil. — ug liuv upvbpevog].'^
upieoBai peculiariter dicitur irrl lipu Klaibvruv Ukuv, y lebvruv,y kvvuv (Hesych.),
of. Ps. civ. 21. — nepinarei (Job i. 7, ii. 2) l^yrijv riva Koranly]. nepmarelv and
iyruv belong strictly to each other, so that the comparison with the lion
applies to both (Steiger). The efforts of the devil are directed against
Christians, who, as such, do not belong to him ; as long as they reraain
t Gerhard : •• pipipva significat curam 2 Augustin (Sermo 46, De Divers., c. II.) :
Bollicitam et dublam, quae mentem in " Christus leo propter fortitudinem, diabolus
partes dlvisas velut divldit, a uteptjeti' rbv propter ferltatem ; ille leo ad vinceudum, iste
voiiv." leo ad uocendura."

CHAP. V. 9. 335
faithful to their Christian calling, he can do them no harm (1 John v. 18),
therefore he is on the lookout whom (according to the reading: riva Karaniy)
he may devour, or if he may devour any one (according to the reading : nvd
Karanielv), hy alluring to unfaithfulne.ss.' — Karaniveiv, "devour,'' denotes cora
plete destruction. Chrysostora (Homil. 22, Ad Popul, Antioch.) : circuit
quaerens, non quem mordeat vel frangat, sed quem devoret,
Ver. 9. Cl dvriaryre arepeoi ry niarei, cf . Jas. iv. 7 ; Eph. vi. 11 ff. t^ niarei
does not belong to dvriaryre (Bengel), but to arepeoi; not as the dat. instrum.
(Beza, Hensler), but as the dative of nearer definition : " firm in the faith ; "
cf. Acts xvi. 5 ; Col. ii. 7 ; cf. Winer, p. 202 (E. T., 215). It is only a firm
faith that can resist the devil. — eibbreg rd aird rim naBypdruv . . . enirtlelaBai].
Almost all interpreters assume that the construction here is that of the accus.
c. inf. Hofmann, nevertheless, denies this, remarking that in the N. T. eiboreg
(in the sense of "knowing") never takes the accus. c. inf., but always the
particle on, and that when elbiireg is followed by the accus. c. inf., it signifies
"to understand how to do a thing." ^ If this be correct, imrelelaBai must
have an active raeaning, rd aird ruv naB. be the accusative after it, and the
dative ry . . . dbel/pbryn be dependent on rd aird. Explaining imrelelaBai on
the analogy of the phrase rd rov yvpug imrelelaBai (Xen., Mem., iv. 8, 8), and
seeing in rd avid the idea of measure expressed, Hofmann translates, "know
ing how to pay for your Christianity the same tribute of affliction as your
brethren in the world." This explanation cannot be accepted without hesi
tation. For, on the one hand, from the fact that in other parts of the N. T.
eibbreg does not take the accus. c. inf., it cannot be concluded that here it
does not do so either, the more especially that the construction of the accus.
c. inf. occurs comparatively rarely in the N. T. ; and, on the other hand,
the phrase, rd . . . ruv naB. dnoreX, is not analogous with the expression, rd
rov yypug intreX, since in the former there is no conception corresponding to roi
yypug. Hofraann inserts, indeed, as such, the idea of the Christian calling;
but it is purely imported, and nowhere hinted at in the text. Accordingly,
imrelelaBai — grammatically considered — can have a passive signification;
not, indeed, equivalent to "are completed" (Thuc. vii. 2; Phil. i. 6, and
other passages), for this idea would not be suitable here, but rather, "are
being accomplished.* This idea is, in truth, not very appropriate either; it
seeras to be more fitting to take the verb in a middle sense, as equivalent
to " are accomplishing themselves ; " and to translate, " knowing (or, better,
rather : considering) that the same sufferings are accomplishing theraselves
in the brethren." This rendering is to be preferred to all others. The
Vulg. translates imrel, hy fieri: Luther, by "befall." both are too inexact
renderings of the sense.* In the explanation above given, rd aird is used as
a substantive, as frequently happens with the neuter of adjectives (Winer,
1 Hofraann Irrelevantly reraarks, that s Thus Herod., I. 61, In connection with Td
t^ijTetv, followed by an Interrogative, raeans, to iniraaadpeva; Thuc. i. 138: eTrtTeAeo-at a
consider a thing ; the word above is evidently un-etrxeTo.
stronger than that. * The translation of Wichelhaus, " to be
2 Cf. the passages quoted by Hofmann ; laid upon," Is entirely unjustifiable.
Matt. vH. U; Luke xl. 13, xll. 36; Jas. iv. 17;
Phil. iv. 12; 1 Tim. iii. 5; 2 Pet. Ii. 9.

336 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
p. 220 1 [E. T., 234]), and is put here to emphasize the sameness of the
sufferings (thus De Wette, Wiesinger) ; ry , , , dbelipbryn is to be taken as
the raore remote object; on no condition can the dative be understood
as equivalent to ino in passives. With the idea dibelipbryn, cf. chap. ii. 17. —
The addition, ev koouu, alludes to the reason of the afflictions (Steiger).
Wiesinger justly remarks: "in the world, the dominion of the Evil One,
tlie Christian can and dare expect nothing else." Possibly it may contain
at the same time a reference to the dbelipbryg, which the Lord has already
taken to Himself e/t roi Kbapov. The thought that the brethren have to bear
the same afflictions, serves to give strength in resisting the devil, since the
consciousness of bearing similar afflictions in comraon with all Christian
brethren encourages to patient eudurance.
Vv. 10, 11. Proraise of blessing, and doxology. — ti Je Geoc, placed byway
of emphasis at the beginning. That which has gone before has told the
readers what they should do; in contrast to this (i5e), the apostle now says
what God will do (Schott) ; with the expression : Qebg ndayg xiipirog, cf. 2 Cor.
i. 3: 9eo£ ndayg napaK?^yaeug. God as the author of all grace; xupiC conceived
as a possession. Like the whole promise of blessing, this very designation
of God serves to comfort and strengthen the readers in their afflictions. —
0 Kuleaag vpdg, K.r.X, cf. 1 Thess. ii. 12 (2 Thess. ii. 14); that is, to partici
pation in His (God's) own bb^a. The participation is here thought of as
future, although for believing Christians it is even now present in its begin
ning (2 Pet. i. 4). In this calling there is already contained the pledge of
the promises that follow : Karaprlaei, K.r.l. — ev Xpiaru belongs to Kaliaag, more
nearly defined by vudg etg, etc. (De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott), not to bb^uv
(Hofmann). God possesses the glory not first in Christ, as Hofraann says,
but He has had it frora all eternity, although in Christ it is first revealed.
Gerhard interprets incorrectly: propter meritum Christi. iv is by several
interpreters inaccurately taken as equivalent to bid; but though ev denote
instrumentality, this is of a raore inward nature than that expressed by did.
The sense is : by God having brought you into union with Christ (thus also
De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott). The connection of ev Xp. with bhy. naBbvrog
following (Glossa interl. . sicut membra in illo patientes .' Nicol. de Lyra) has
nothing to comraend it. — bliyov naBovrag]. bl'iyov, as in chap. i. 6: "a little
while.'" — naBovrag is to be joined with Kaliaag, K.r.l. (Steiger, De Wette,
Wiesinger), but in such a way that in sense it does not apply so much to
Kaliaag, as to the obtaining of the bb^a of God, since the aorist must not arbi
trarily be interpreted as a present. Hofmann rightly observes : " Peter sub
joins this aorist participle as if it had been preceded by e'lg rb bo^d^eaBai." ^
Lachmann and Tischendorf (ora. vpdg after Karaprlaei) have connected these
words with what follows, as also the Vulg. translates : modicum passos ipse
perficiet (so also Wichelhaus). Many, particularly ainong the older com
mentators, even retaining the ipdg, have adopted this construction; Luther:
' Hofmann erroneously appeals to Har- as he looks from the present, in so far as It
tung's Gr., II. p. 238, In support of the Inter- already contains their completion, back on the
pretation " the same measure of suffering." present of actual reality, the sufferings appear
2 .Schott's explauatlou, that " to the apostle as past," is inappropriate.

CHAP. V. 12-14. 337
" The same will make you, that suffer a little while, fully prepared," etc.
Opposed to this, however, is as much the fact that the Kuiapnl^eiv does not
take place after the afflictions only, but during them, as that the present afflic
tion and the future glory belong closely together; cf. ver. 1. — If, as is highly
probable, the ipdg after Karaprlaei be spurious) it must be supplied out of the
vpdg that precedes. — airbg is placed emphatically: the God . . . , who hath
called you. He will, etc., the same God; the calling already contains the
guaranty for the Karaprt^eiv, K.r.l, — Karaprlaei, K,r.l ], Kurapri^eiv, Luke vi. 40 ;
1 Cor. i. 10 ; Heb. xiii. 21 ; Luther rightly -translates : "fully prepare ; "
Bengel: ne remaneat in vobis defectus. — arypl(eiv, 2 Thess. ii. 17, iii. 3, and
other passages. Bengel : ne quid vos labef octet. — aBevoiv, un. ley. Bengel :
ut superetis vim omnem adversam. — Bepelioiv (see the critical notes) ; in its
proper sense. Matt. vii. 25 ; Luke vi. 48 ; figuratively : Eph. iii. 18 (reBepeliu-
pivoi synonymous with iji/ii^upivoi); Col. i. 23 (synonymous with ibpaloi). —
The future expresses the sure expectation that, as the apostle wishes, God
will perfect, etc., the believers. — If Karapriaai he read, this form raust not be
taken as the infinitive (Pott), but as the optative.' — The heaping-up of
expressions connected by asyndeton is rhetorical, and arises frora the natural
impulse of an agitated heart to find full expression for its feelings. — Ver. 11.
The same doxology as in chap. iv. 11. It sets the seal on the hope just
expressed. Vv. 12-14. Concluding remarks ; first, ver. 12, as to the letter itself • —
bid Itlovavoi . . . iypaipa]. There is no reason to doubt that this Silvanus is
the well-known companion of the Apostle Paul. Whilst in the Acts he is
named "Silas," Paul, like Peter, calls him "Silvanus." lie was sent from
the convention of apostles, along with Paul, Barnabas, and Judas Barsabas,
as bearers of the epistle to Antioch. After this he accompanied Paul on his
second missionary journey. He is not mentioned afterwards, nor is it
known at what time he came to Peter, bid . . . iypaipa does not designate
Silvanus either as the translator or the writer of the epistle, but simply as
the bearer of it. did has here the same sense as in the subscriptions of the
Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians, etc. ; it is synonymous with bid
Xeipbg, Acts XV. 23. — " It is evident that the choice of Silas for this (media
tory) mission was a particularly happy one, as he had been Paul's companion
in forraer times, and had assisted him in founding the greater part of the
churches here addressed" (Wieseler). — iplv roi niarov dielipoi]. iplv can be
joined either with the following iypaipa, or with niarov ab. If the latter com
bination be adopted (it is more simple if roH be erased as spurious, but is
also possible if rov be retained ; equivalent to " who is the faithful brother
unto you"), the apposition indicates that an intimate relation subsisted be
tween Silvanus and the churches to which Peter writes. The connection
with iypaipa, however, is the more natural one, iplv being inserted between,
as in Gal. vi. 11. — b marbg dbelipbg is the name given to Silvanus, because
generally he had proved faithful in the performance of every service for the
church of Christ. There is no reason why the expression should be referred
1 Erasmus, by first reading Karapriaai and subsequent words as substantives : " perficiet
then tTTijpiJet, etc., understands this and the fultura confirmatioue, fundatione."

338 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
specially to his relation to the churches of Asia Minor only (as formerly in
this commentary), or particularly to that in which he stood to Peter (Hof
mann). Still, it is not improbable that Peter, by this designation, alludes
to the confidence he has, that he will also prove faithful in the service which
is now required of him. — The following words, ug loyl^opai, may be applied
either to the opinion just expressed on Silvanus (Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott,
Wichelhaus), or to the subsequent 6i bliyuv Iypaipa (Steiger, Hofmann). It
is hardly possible to come to a definite conclusion. At any rate, loyi^opai
does not express an uncertain conjecture; cf. Rom. iii. 28, viii. 18; Heb.
xi. 19. In the first case, by the confirmation which it contains of the opin
ion just uttered, it serves to strengthen the confidence of the churches in
Silvanus; in the second, the apostle indicates that, considering the impor
tance of his subject and the yearning of his heart, he looks on his letter as
a short one.' This last appears the more probable. — ii bXiyuv, equal to bid
Ppaxiuv, Heb. xiii. 22: "in few words;" cf. Thucyd., iv. 95. — iypaipa refers
to this epistle, which the apostle is on the point of closing, and not, as Eras
mus, Grotius, etc., altogether unwarrantably assume, to a former one which
has been lost;^ cf. Philem. 19, 21. — napoKaluv kuI impaprvpuv]. Although
by these two words the apostle indicates two distinct subjects, still these are
not to be separated in such a way as to be applicable to different parts of
the epistle (De Wette, BrUckner) ; ^ but the napdKlyatg and the enipapripyaig
are throughout the whole letter closely bound up together. As the contents
of the enipaprvpelv are stated, but not those of the napuKolelv, the chief stress
is laid on the former, the latter (napuKaluv) being placed first, in order
thereby to give prominence to the character of the inipapripyatg. Contrary
to its common usage, De Wette interprets imuaprvpuv : in addition to, i.e.,
testifying in addition to the exhortation, inipaprvpelv simply means: to bear
witness to any thing (opp. dvnpaprvpeiv, see Pape and Cremer, «. u. , in the
N. T. an. lery.; impapripeaBai occurs in the LXX. and in the Apocr., but not
enipaprvpelv) ; Bengel is therefore wrong in interpreting : testimonium jam per
Paulum et Silam audierant pridem : Petrus insuper testatur ; so, too, is
Hofmann in saying that in inipaprvpelv it is presupposed that the readers
themselves already know and believe what Peter testifies. — rairyv elvat dlyBy
Xdpiv roi Qeoi]. Contents of the inipapripyatg: "that this is the true grace of

' Hofmann's opinion Is purely arbitrary, 2 Iq this Interpretation, to5 Koyi^opai is
"that since the individual churches received applied to the writing of the former epistle.
the epistle, intended as it was for so wide a Erasmus: "per Silvanura . . . qui nondubito,,
circle, only in a transcription of a transcrip- quin epistolara bona fide reddiderit." Slmi-
tion, and bad again to send it on, a modest re- larly. Pott : " antehac et, si recte raemini (' if
mark, that he bad not made bis letter too long I remember aright I ') per Silv. epistolara vobis
in order to venture to ask them to take this scripsi." Differently, Wetstein : " Scripsi, ut
trouble, was not inappropriate." Nothing ipse sentloet apud me, omnibus rite perpeusis,
alludes to the taking of any such trouble. — statno, Ita etiara alios hortor, ut idera mecum
FronmUller's view is also Incorrect. He thinks profiteantur ¦ doctrlnam Christi esse veram."
that 0)5 Ao-yti". should be taken with Sia SiAov. ' " The first stat«ment of the contents of
eyp.. In tbe sense of, "I count upon your the epistle applies to chap. i. 13-v. 9 ; the sec-
receiving this epistie by Silvanus," — for ond, to i. 3-12; and one or two passages in the
there Is no question here of the receiving hortatory portion, as i. 18-20, 25, ii. 9 f ., ill. 18,
of it. iv. 12 f."

CHAP. V. 13. 339
God;"^ ravryv does not refer to that of which the apostle has written, but
its more precise definition follows in the subsequent relative clause. Peter
accordingly sets forth, in conclusion, that his epistle testifies to the readers
that that grace in which they already stood is the true grace, from which,
therefore, they should not depart (cf. with this, chap. i. 12, 25, ii. 10, 25).
No doubt this was the x^P't which had been brought to them by means of
the preaching of Paul, but it does not follow that the purpose of Peter's
inipapripyatg was to set, for the readers, the seal on that preaching. It is not
the preaching which is here in question, but the x&pig in whiph the readers
stood, quite apart from the person through whose instrumentality it was
brought to them. Had Peter intended to bear a testiraony to Paul, he would
surely have done so in clear terms ; nor does any thing in the epistle allude
to an uncertainty on the part of the readers as to whether Paul had preached
the true gospel to them. x^P'i is not doctrina evangelii (Gerhard); but neither
is it "the state of grace " (De Wette), for with this the adjunct rov Qeov would
not harmonize. But it denotes the objective divine grace, into the sphere of
which the readers have entered by means of faith ; cf . Rom. v. 2. — dlyBij
stands here as the leading conception, not with any polemical reference to
an erroneous doctrine (for there is no trace of any such polemic in the
epistle), but is intended by the apostle to mark in itself the truth and reality
of this xupig, in order that the readers may not be induced by the persecu
tions to abandon it. — eig yv iaryKare: for this construction, cf. Winer, p.
386 f. (E. T., 414 f .). If the reading aryre be adopted, this adjunct expresses
the exhortation to continue in that grace. Here, however, the nearer defi
nition necessary to ravryv is wanting ; for as the inipaprvpyatg is not some
thing added on to the epistle {iypaipa), rairyv xiipiv cannot be ihe grace of
which I have written to you.
Ver. 13. Salutation. — The notion that y . . . aweKleKry denotes the
apostle's wife (Bengel, Mayerhoff, Jachmann, etc.) finds no support from
1 Cor. ix. 5 ; it is contradicted by the ev BaPvluvi ^ inserted between. By
far the greater number of commentators rightly consider it to mean : " the
church in Babylon" (x has the word iKKXyalgi after BaPvlCwt; Oec. and Vulg.,
ecclesia). According to Hofmann, iKKlyaia is not to be supplied to aweKleKry,
" but the churches to which the apostle writes are, as such, iKl.eKrai, and the
church from which he sends greetings is, as such, a aweKleKry, as she from
whom the Apostle John sends salutations is an dbelip^ iKleKry" (2 John 13).
But in John's Epistle, ver. 1, Kvpla, and ver. 13, dbelipy, are put along with
iKlcKTy; accordingly, it does not follow that aweKleKry, without the addi
tional idea iKKlyaia, would of itself mean a church. The am refers to the
churches to which Peter sends the salutation of the former, cf. chap. i. 1.*
1 Hofmann lays stress on the want of the 2 According to several commentators,
article before x°-Pii', ^'^d therefore Interprets : o-vvejcA., though not meaning definitely Peter's
" that It is real grace of God, that that is In wife, yet refers to some other excellent woraan
truth grace from God, wherein they have come of the church. Wolf even thinks it may be
to stand;" but if Peter had meant this, he understood as a proper name.
would not have written dKrjdri, bald^rjSias. In a It la far-fetched when Schott says that ^
this interpretation also the rule of assimilation aweK\. i} ev Ba^. is not written here, but ^ ev
is wrongly applied. Baj8, avveKK., because the very fact of her be-

340 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
According to Eusebius (H. E., c. 15), Papias already was of opinion that
the name Babylon is here used figuratively, and that by it Rome is to be
understood. The sarae view is adopted by Cleraens Alex., Hieronymus,
Oecumenius, Beda, Luther, and by most of the Catholic interpreters ; ' in
more recent times, by Thiersch, Ewald, Hofmann, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.
The principal reasons brought forward in support of this view are —
(1) The tradition of the primitive Church, which speaks of the apostle's
stay in Rome, but makes no mention of his having lived in Babylon ; (2)
The designation of Rome as Babylon in Revelation, chap. xiv. 8, xviii.
2, 10; (3) The banishment of the Jews from Babylon in the time of the
Emperor Claudius, according to Joseph., Ant., i. 18, c. 12. But these
reasons are not conclusive, for — (1) The tradition has preserved altogether
very imperfect and uncertain notices of the apostles ; (2) In -Revelation
this designation is very naturally explained from the reference to. O.-T.
prophecy; (3) The account of Josephus does not lead us to understand
that all the Jews were banished from Babylon and its vicinity (see
Mayerhoff, p. 128 ff., and Wieseler, p. 557 f.).^ Although De Wette's
rejoinder, that "the allegorical designation is unnatural in a letter, espe
cially in the salutation," may be going too far, still it is iraprobable that
Peter, in siraply conveying a greeting, would have raade use of an allegorical
narae of a place, without ever hinting that the designation was not to be
taken literally. This could admit of explanation only if, at the time the
epistle was written, it had been customary among the Christians to speak
of Rome as Babylon ; and that it was so, we have no evidence. Accordingly,
Erasmus, Calvin, Gerhard, Neander, De Wette-Briickner, Wieseler, Weiss,
Bleek, Reuss, Fronmiiller, etc., have justly declared themselves opposed to
the allegorical interpretation. The view that by Babylon is meant the
Babylon in Egypt mentioned by Strabo, i. 17 (Pearson, Calov, Vitringa,
Wolf), has nothing to commend it, the less so that this Babylon was simply
a military garrison. ^ — kuI MdpKog b vidg pov]. The correct interpretation of
vlbg pov is given already by Oecumenius : Mup/cov vlbv, Kard nveipa Kulel, dll' oi
Kara adpka. It is undoubtedly the well-known companion of Paul who is
meant. Since, according to Acts, Peter was acquainted with his mother,
it is probable that Mark was converted to Christianity by Peter, The
idea that Peter here speaks of a son of his own after the flesh, named
Mark (Bengel, Hottinger, Jachmann, etc.), could receive support only if
ovveKXeKrfj were used to designate the apostle's wife.
ing in Babylon (I.e., Eome) makes the church erable how Peter had come to know the two
a avveK\eKr-n, i.e., the real associate of the Pauline Epistles to the Romans and Ephe-
churcheswho read' the epistle; namely, in as sians," If he wrote his epistle In Babylon.
far as thus reference is made to a like condi- But the composition of the epistle in Koine is
tion of suffering. not by any means proved by so uncertain au
1 Lorinus remarks : " Omnes quot quot lege- assertion.
rlra interpretes catholici romanara intelligunt ^ jt \s clearly quite arbitrary when sorae
ecclesiara." Calviu says of this Interpretation : scholars, like Capellus, Spanheim, and Sem-
" hoc coraraentura Paplstae libenter arripiunt, ler, understand Babylon here as a name for
ut videatur Petrus romanae ecclesiae prae- Jerusalem, or even for the house where the
fuisse." apostles were assembled on the day of Pente-
2 Hofmann maintains that it is "Indiscov- cost.

CHAP. V. 14. 341
Ver. 14. uandaaaBe dllylovg iv ipilypan oyuTT)??]. Paul uses a similar
expression, Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 26.
The members of the church are by turns to greet one another (not each
other in Peter's name) with the kiss of charity, thus testifying to their
brotherly love for each other (see Meyer on 1 Cor. xvi. 26). Instead of
the Pauline : iv dyiu rptX, there is here : ev ipiX dydnyg, " loith the kiss of love,"
i.e., the kiss, which is the type and expression of Christian brotherly love.
— The final benediction is likewise similar to those in the epistles of Paul ;
only that in these xiipt; stands in the place of eipiivy (Eph. vi. 23, 24, both
occur; cf. too, 3 John 15). By the addition of rolg iv Xp., the Trdvref are
designated according to their nature as such, who live in union with Christ,
and to whom, therefore, the benediction here pronounced belongs.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE PETER.

INTRODUCTION.
SEC. 1. — OCCASION, CONTENTS, AND CHARACTER OF THE
EPISTLE.
The epistle on its own testimony professes to have been written by the
Apostle Peter (chap. i. 1, 14, 16-18, iii. 1, 15), subsequent to his first epistle
(chap. iii. 1 ; comp. also i. 16), and addressed to the same churches. Its
occasion and aim are stated in chap. iii. 17, 18. The author is in anxiety
as to the false teachers who were about to appear, — he nevertheless pictures
them as actually present, — and therefore he wishes to warn his readers
against them, that they might not be led astray, and exhorts them to grow
in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
The false teachers against whom the epistle is directed are the Libertines
(chap, ii.), and the deniers of the parousia of Christ, and the destruction of
the world connected therewith (chap. iii.). It is commonly assumed that
in chap. iii. the persons meant are the same as those described in chap. ii.
But an identity of this kind is nowhere suggested ; indeed, the way and the
terms in which the ipnalKrat are introduced in chap. iii. seem rather to indi
cate that by the latter — although mention is also made of their sensual life
(Kard rdg ibiag airuv iniBvpiag nopevbpevoi) — different individuals are intended
from those portrayed in chap. ii. (Weiss). — De Wette's opinion, that the
author had in his eye " vicious persons " simply, and not " false teachers,"
is erroneous, it being abundantly evident from vv. 18, 19, that the persons
described in chap. ii. based their actions on a definite principle ; moreover,
they are expressly termed ipevMibiiaiealoi, ver. 1. It is also equally erroneous
to take them to be Gnostics, properly so called, or more particularly, with
Grotius, followers of Carpocrates. Bertholdt calls them Sadducee Chris
tians, but this term is wanting in the necessary precision. Cf. my lutro-
duction to Jude's Epistle. 343

344 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
The epistle falls into two principal divisions, each consisting of two
parts. In the first part of the first division (chap. i. 1-11), the author
reminds the Christians of the blessings, more especially the inayyilpara, of
which by the power of God they had been made partakers, linking on to
this the exhortation to give abundant proof of the virtues which are the
fruits of faith, — those especially in which he that is wanting is like unto
one blind, and he only who possesses can enter into the eternal kingdom of
Christ. — In the second part (chap. i. 12-21), the author, as the Apostle
Peter, mentions first, what had induced him to give the exhortation at this
particular time, and then refers his readers to the certainty of Christ's
advent, confirmed as it was both by the divine words which himself had
heard at the Saviour's transfiguration and by the prophecies of the Old
Covenant. — In the first part of the second division (chap, ii.), the author
portrays the immoral character of the Libertines. He begins by announ
cing their coming, future as yet ; calls them deniers of the Lord who would
seduce many, but would not escape punishment (vv. 1-3) ; then he proves
the certainty of their punishment by the examples of the fallen angels, those
who perished in the Flood, aud the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, not for
getting, however, in the last two cases to call to remembrance Noah and
Lot, just men both, and therefrom to draw the conclusion as to the right
eousness of God (vv. 4-9). In vv. 10-22 follows the more minute descrip
tion of the sensual character of the false teachers. — The author commences
the last part of this division by stating the design of this second epistle, and
then goes on to mention the scoffers who would walk after their own lusts,
and would deny the advent of the Lord (chap. iii. 1-4) ; this he follows up
by a refutation of the arguments on which the denial is based, foretelling
the coming destruction of the world by fire, and representing the apparent
delay of the judgment as an act of divine patience (vv. 5-10) ; and to this
he subjoins the exhortation to a holy walk in expectation of the new heaven
and the new earth ('W. 11-13). — The epistle concludes with the mention
of the Apostle Paul's epistles, coupled with the warning against wresting
the difficult passages contained in them. Finally, the author gives forth
exhortations by way of caution, in which he makes apparent the design of
the epistle ; on this follows the doxology.
The fundamental idea which runs through the whole epistle is that of
the in'iyvuaig Xpiaroi, which consists essentially in the acknowledgment of the
bivapig Kal napovaia of Christ. Advancement in this iniyvuaig, as the ground
and aira of the exercise of all Christian virtue, is the prominent feature of
every exhortation. Hence the ripia inayyilpara are designated as that by

INTRODUCTION. 345
which Kosvuvia with the divine nature is effected, and which must move the
Christian to show all zeal in supplying the Christian virtues. The author
is therefore at pains to prove the certain fulfilment of those promises, and
to refute the sceptical doubts of the false teachers.
As regards its structure, the epistle has encountered much adverse criti
cism frora the opponents of its authenticity. Mayerhoff reproaches it, more
especially, with a clumsy and illogical development ; but it cannot fail to be
observed that -there is a clear and firm line of thought, by which all particu
lars are joined together and form a well-arranged whole (cf. Bruckner, Einl.,
§ 1 a; Hofmann, p. 121 ff.). The thoughts which form the commencement
of the epistle prepare the way for the warnings against the false teachers,
and have as their aim the concluding exhortations which point back to the
heresy. The prominence given to the thought that rd npbg ^uyv koI eiaiPeiav
are bestowed upon us (i. 3), and the exhortation to furnish the Christian
virtues (i. 5-11), are all aimed at the false teachers, who wonld indulge in
daelye'iaig, and by whom the bibg rijg dlyBeiag would be brought into disrepute
(ii. 2) ; whilst the emphasis laid on the inayyilpara (i. 4), as also the refer
ence to the incidents of the transfiguration as a proof of the dvvapig koI
napovaia of Christ (i. 16-18), point to the prophetic announcement of the
coming of the ipnalKrai who would deny the advent of the Saviour (iii. 3 ff.).
Still, it is surprising that the whole of the second chapter may be omitted
without the connection of thought being in any way injured thereby. For
inasmuch as the scoffers are characterized as men who walk Kara rdg Ibiag
airuv iniBvuiag, the moral exhortations introduced in i. 3, 4, and to which
iii. 12 has retrospect, may be applicable to them also; and although ii 1 is
closely connected with i. 19-21 by the words: iyivovro bi koI ipevbonpoipyrai iv
TU laij), yet pvyaByvai ruv npoeip-ypivuv pypdruv inb riJv dyiuv npoipyruv (iii 2) can
equally be joined with them. It may accordingly be conjectured that
chap. ii. was afterwards added, either by the writer himself, or by some
later hand ; but, again, opposed to such a supposition is the circumstance
that chap. ii. in no way disturbs the unity of the whole.
Besides several echoes of the Pauline Epistles and the First Epistle of
Peter, this letter, as is well known, presents in the second chapter, and in
one or two passages of the first and third, a striking resemblance to the
Epistle of Jude, which cannot possibly be considered accidental. Rather
must one of these epistles be regarded as the original, of which the author
of the other made use. In former times the prevalent view was, that the
Second Epistle of Peter was the original (thus Luther, Wolf, Semler, StoiT,
Pott, etc.) ; but afterwards the opposite opinion obtained most favor (thus

346 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
already Herder, Hug, Eichhorn, Credner, Neander, Mayerhoff, De Wette,
Guericke) ; and in more recent times it has been supported by Reuss, Bleek,
Arnaud, Wiesinger, Bruckner, Weiss, and F. Philippi, — that is to say, not
only by opponents of the authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter, but by
defenders of it also (Wiesinger, Briickner, Weiss). A different judgment,
however, is passed by Thiersch, Dietlein, Stier, Luthardt, Schott, Steinfass,
Fronmiiller, Hofmann. Appeal is made chiefly to this circumstance, that at
the time when the Epistle of Jude was composed, the false teachers were
already present, while in Second Peter their appearance is looked upon as
future, and is the subject of prophecy. But this, as Weiss has shown, is an
argument only in appearance, and is in no way capable of proof. That the
passages Jude 17 and 18 have no reference to 2 Pet. ii. 1-3 and iii. 2, 3, is
plain from this, that had Jude seen in the appearance of the Libertines the
fulfilment of the prediction contained in Second Peter, he would have styled
them, not ipnaiKrai, K,r.l., but rather ipevbobibdaKaloi. For in Second Peter it
is not the Libertines described in chap. ii. that are called ipnalKrai, but the
deniers of the paracusia spoken of in chap, iii., whom Jude does not even
mention. Nor is it easy to see why Jude, if in vv. 17 and 18 he really had
in his mind the prophecy given by Peter, should not have directly said so,
but should rather have spoken of the actual word of the actual Peter as rd
j>ypara rd npoeipypeva inb ruv dnooroluv roi Kvpiov. In favor of the view that
the Second Epistle of Peter is dependent on the Epistle of Jude, is the
latter's entirely individual manner of thought and diction, which bears
the distinct impress of originality;' whilst in Second Peter, on the other
hand, there is apparent the endeavor to tone down the expression by simpli
fication, addition, or omission. Further, the circumstance that the more
the expression in Peter's second epistle coincides with that of Jude, the
more does what is otherwise peculiar to the epistle tend to disappear.^
And, finally, the absence of any tenable reason which might have induced
1 Herder: "See what a thoroughly powerful greater intellectual originality and pithl-
epistle, hke a fire.whecl running back into ness "
itself ; take now that of Peter, what lutroduc- 2 This Weiss brings very decidedly for-
tion he raakes, how he tones down, omits, con- ward : " It plainly appears, that wherever in
firms," etc.; "Jude has always the most the parallel passages it strikingly coincides
precise and the strongest expression." Even with that of Jude, the expression is to be
Schott grants, in opposition to Bletleiu, " that found nowhere else in Second Peter; but
. the Epistle of Jude bears the Impress of much wherever It deviates from that of Jude, or
greater literary originality on the part of tbe becomes entirely independent, it is at once in
writer than that of Second Peter; " aud that surprising conformity with the form of ex-
"it must be allowed to possess a by far pression in this or the First Epistle of Peter."

INTRODUCTION. 347
Jude to collect together separate passages from a larger apostolic writing, in
order to compose therefrom a new epistle, which, seeing that the former
was already iu existence, must have had the less significance that it omits
from the delineation important particulars which are contained in Second
Peter.' In discussing the question as to which Is the original epistle, two points
must be remembered: (1) " That in neither have we a slavish dependence or a
mere copy, but that the correspondence of the one with the other is carried out
with literary freedom and license " (Weiss) ; and (2) The circumstance that this
question is not identical with that as to the authenticity of the Second Epistle
of Peter; Wiesinger, Weiss, Briickner, defend its authenticity, although they
question its priority. — The reasons which Schott adduces for the priority of
the Epistle of Jude are simple assertions, which a closer examination by no
raeans justifies, inasmuch as they are either plainly arbitrary, or presuppose
artificial interpretations and pure inventions. Steinfass thinks,- strangely
enough, that to accept the originality of Jude's Epistle is somewhat hazardous
for that composition itself, and not only for Second Peter, inasmuch as on the
assumption he takes the repeated reference to the pseudo-Enoch to be an
offence, many examples a redundancy, much conciseness restraint, and the
whole arrangement pretty much confusion. Fronmiiller bases his argument for
the priority of Second Peter specially on this, that it Is inconceivable that
Peter, the prince of the apostles, should have borrowed expressions, figures, and
examples from one who was plainly less gifted than himself. Hofmann would
completely settle the whole question by asserting that Peter composed his
second epistle soon after his first; that is to say, before the destruction of
Jerusalem, while Jude wrote after (ver. 5!) that event. But when, neverthe
less quite superfluously, he by way of proof goes into particulars, he, on the
one hand, bases his arguments on many unjustifiable assertions: as, for exam
ple, that Peter exhorts to a holy walk, but Jude to the aggressive maintenance
of the Christian faith, or that Jude was dealing only with some unworthy
members of the church in the present, whilst Peter had in view teachers who
were to arise in the future; and, on the other hand, the proofs he adduces have
also to be supported by erroneous interpretations, and judgments purely sub
jective. — If now, following the course of thought in the Epistle of Jude, we
consider the individual passages in their relation to what is similar to them In
1 When Luthardt thinks to explain this by fact that the latter epistle treats equally at
observing " that Jude could certainly assume length of the false teachers, and that conse-
that his readers were acquainted with Second quently Jude might have left his entire letter
Peter, in which enough had already been said unwritten.
as to the napovaia," he entirely overlooks the

348 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
Second Peter, these results are obtained: In the opening of his epistle, Jude
introduces his opponents without any bias as rivig dvBpunoi, without even hint
ing that they are those whose appearance Peter had before predicted. The first
description of them by ryv ioi Qeoi ypiiv x<tptra perariBivreg eig daelyeiav is
peculiar to Jude. It is in no way probable that the expression dailyeia is taken
from the passage 2 Pet. ii. 2. The following beanbryv upvovpevot is found in
Peter also, but to whom it originally belongs cannot be concluded from the
nearer definitions connected therewith. The fact that the particular features
by which Jude characterizes his opponents are to be found m 2 Pet. ii. 1-3,
others being here added, however, and with a less original turn of expression,
tends to show rather that the Epistle of Jude had exercised an influence on
that of Peter than vice versa (Wiesinger). In the one epistle as in the other,
the examples of divine judgment follow the first and special description of the
adversaries. Vet these are not in both the same, and in Peter's epistle, in
the second and third cases, there is added to the mention of the punishment of
the ungodly a reference to the deliverance of the just, more especially of Koah
and Lot. The order in which the examples of judgraent are brought forward is,
in Peter's composition, chronological, and in so far eminently natural; still the
selection of the first is striking, since in Gen. vi. 2 ff. there is no mention made
of a punishment of the angels. Now, as' there is nothing in the connection of
thought here which could have determined Peter to bring forward this example,
he must have been moved to do so by something external to it, that is, by the
influence which tlie Epistle of Jude had upon him. The order of examples of
judgment in Jude is of so singular a nature, that so far from showing even the
faintest trace of a dependence on Peter, it is rather on the assumption of any
such quite incomprehensible. How could it ever have occurred to Jude, sup
posing be drew from Second Peter, to place the case ot the unbelieving Israel
ites first, and to omit that of the Flood ? Jude's manner of presentation is based
on a conception so entirely original, that it cannot possibly have been suggested
to him by that in Second Peter. It is diflBcult to see what could have moved
Jude to avoid the two-sided character of Peter's examples, if it really lay before
him: it was equally well suited to his purpose. Noticeable, also, is the latter's
prevailing tendency to generalization. The last two examples adduced by Jude
have reference to a quite definite sin, the iKnopveieiv koI dnipxeaBat bn'iau aapKbg
irepag; Peter, on the other hand, deals only with the general distinction between
godly and ungodly ; and whilst Jude characterizes the conduct of the angels as
it lay to his hand in the tradition, or in the Book of Enoch itself, Peter con
tents himself with the more general dpapryadvruv, and avoids all distinct refer
ence to that tradition. But whence had he, then, the oeioalg l^bipov, K.r.X, if he
did not write under the influence of Jude's epistle ? After the examples of
judgment, there follows, in both epistles, the description of the Libertines,
according to their sensual walk, and their despising and defamation of the

INTRODUCTION. 349
supernatural powers. Amidst mucb that is similar, there are, nevertheless,
many points of disagreement, so that, in general, it may be open to dispute in
which epistle the more original expression prevails. This is, however, not the
case as regards the difference between Jude 9 and 2 Pet. ii. 11, for instead of
Jude's concrete description according to apocryphal tradition, we have again in
Peter, as in the mention of the angels formerly, an entirely general expression,
which, however, must refer to something special. It has indeed been asserted
(Schott, Hofmann) that Peter's expression finds its explanation in Zech. iii. 1:
but if the apostle had this verse in view, he would have made more distinct
reference to it; nor, again, could any reason be assigned wliy Jude should have
alluded, not to the fact recorded in that passage, but to one entirely apocryphal.
This also speaks decidedly in favor of the priority of Jude's epistle. Dietlein
asserts with regard to Jude 10, as compared with 2 Pet. ii. 12, " that the
higher degree of pure elaboration proves Jude to have been the reviser; " but
this is unjustifiable, as even Steinfass admits. Wiesinger and Briickner rightly
say, that here also, in the whole mode of expression, the priority of Jude's
epistle is recognizable. — In Jude the woe follows, breaking in upon the text,
and as the basis of it, the comparison of the Libertines with Cain, Balaam, and
Korah. To this is added a more minute description of them in a series of
figurative expressions, coupled with Enoch's prophecy of judgment. In the
Epistle of Peter, subjoined to ipBaprjaoviai, ver. 12, is the reference to the reward
of the d6ida of the Libertines, and on tliis a description of the dbiKia itself, —
the false teachers being then at the end classed along with Balaam. It is only
after this that several figurative designations follow, which are based on their
propagandist doings. The grouping Is accordingly different in each of the
epistles; and otherwise, with much that is coincident in detail, there are many
divergences. The train of thought is in both epistles equally suited to the
subject-matter, only it is somewhat strange that Jude, if he had the Epistle
of Peter before him, should ever have thought of interrupting the connection of
ideas here existing between vv. 12 and 13 by a woe. This paragraph clearly
shows that the dependence of the one author on the other is not to be looked
upon as of such a nature that the later changed, and arranged with designed
elaboration, the writings of the earlier, but only, that in the description of the
same object, the raanner of presentation of the latter had wrought with mani
fold determination upon that of the former. The divergences which here occur
are more easily explained on the assumption that the Epistle of Jude, and not
that of Peter, was the earlier. Were it otherwise, it would certainly be diffi
cult to understand how Jude left unnoticed not only the characteristic bipdalpoig
ixovreg pearoig poixalidog, but also the repeatedly recurring deled^ovTeg, and the
references generally to the propagandist designs. With regard to this differ
ence, that Jude speaks of Cain, Balaam, and Korah, whilst Peter mentions
Balaam only, it is more natural to suppose that Peter, leaving the other two

350 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
unnoticed, refers simply to Balaam because the latter appeared to him a par
ticularly fitting type of the Libertines (on account of their nleove^la, to which
special prominence is given, and to which the pioBoi of Jude alludes ; whilst in
the case of the others there is no such distinctive trait), than to assume that
Jude added the two other illustrations to that of Balaam which he had before
him in the Epistle of Peter. The priority of Jude's epistle may be recognized
in this also, that the somewhat striking expression piaBoi is, in the composition
of Peter, supplemented by the explanatory, bg piaBbv dbidag yydnyaev. Highly
characteristic, too, is the relation of the two clauses Jude 12a and Pet. ii. 136,
especially in their corresponding expressions: anillibeg in Jude, and anlloi Kal
iiCipoi in Peter, and iv ralg dydnaig ipuv there, and ev ralg dndraig airuv here. In
spite of the different expressions, the influence of the one on the other is
unmistakable; and it is equally plain that it was not Jude who wfote under
the influence of Peter, but Peter under that of Jude. For, what could have
induced Jude to substitute for the clear expression of Peter the uncommon
anildbeg, — which, besides, has a different meaning, — and to change the much
more general idea dndraig into the special conception aydnaig ? Wbatever may
be thought of Weiss' opinion, that Peter allowed himself to be guided simply
by the sound of the words, we must certainly agree with him when he says that
" Schott's attempt to save the originality of Peter's epistle rests on the entirely
untenable assumption that the Petrine passage has reference to the love-
feasts." — His omission of the passage frora Enoch, quoted by Jude, can be
easily enough explained, inasrauch as it was Peter's predominating desire to
allow what was apocryphal to recede, especially when by doing so no essential
thought was omitted, and in chap. ii. 1, 2, distinct enough reference had been
already made to the future judgment. But it is difficult to see what possible
reason Jude could have had for inserting the passage from the Apocrypha in
addition to what he found in Peter. — In what follows, each epistle goes its own
way, and there are to be found but few traces of any influence of either on the
other. Those few are as follows: (1) The Kara rdg eniBvplag avrwv nopevbuevoi in
Jude 16, 17, and Pet. iii. 3, and the ipnalKrai closely connected herewith. With
regard to this last expression, it is more than improbable that Jude borrowed it
from Peter's epistle, it being there applied to the deniers of the parousia, whom
Jude does not even mention. Peter, on the other hand, might easily have
adopted this designation from the Epistle of Jude as very applicable to those
who called the advent in question, the more so that he had already spoken of
the Libertines as ipeviobibdaKalioi, Thus, too, is explained the addition from
Jude's epistle of Kara rdg . . , nopevdpevoi, which otherwise, as applied by Peter
to a special heresy, is somewhat surprising. (2) The term vnipoyKa, Jude 16
and Pet. ii. 18; Jude employs it without any nearer definition, but Peter in
relation to 'elevBep'iav inayyilleaBai, This, too, speaks for the priority of Jude's
composition; for it is not conceivable that Jude, in adopting the expression.

INTRODUCTION. 351
would have left unnoticed its nearer definition presented by Peter; whilst, on
the other hand, the latter might easily have borrowed it from Jude's epistle, as
well suited to the end he had in view. — The result, then, of an unbiassed
comparison can be no other than this, that the Second Epistle of Peter was
composed under the influence of what Jude had written, and not vice versa.
This has been proved by Briickner, Wiesinger, and Weiss in their investi
gations, which have in part been conducted with more attention to particular
detail.
SEC. 2.— THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE.
Eusebius (H. E. , ii. 23, iii. 5) rightly includes this epistle among the
Antilegomena, its genuineness having been called in question by many.
Origen already expressly says (Eusebius, H. E., vi. 23) : nerpof . . . piav
emarolyv bpoloyovpivyv Karaleloinev ¦ iaru be Kal bevrepav, dprpipdUsrai ydp. In
spite of this verdict, Origen — only, however, in the writings which we
possess in Latin translation — treats it as a genuine composition of the
apostle, citing it several times; see Homil. in Josuam vii., Homil. iv. in
Levitic, Homil. viii. in Numer., and Comment, in Ep. ad Romanes viii. 7.
— If in his Comment, in Ev. Johannls he speak only of the First Epistle of
Peter as catholic, saying, with reference to 1 Pet. iii. 18-20: nepl ryg iv
ipvluKy nopeiag perd nvevparog napd rip Tlerpu iv ry KaBolmy iniaroly, it can at most
be concluded from this, only that he refused to apply that name to the
second epistle, perhaps because it had not found general acceptation, but
not that he himself had any doubts as to its genuineness. — Origen's
contemporary, too, Firmilianus of Caesarea, seems to have known the
epistle, and to have regarded it as genuine; for when, in his Epistle to
Cyprian (Epp. Cypr., ep. 75), he says that Peter and Paul have condemned
the heretics in suis epistolis, this seems, as far as Peter is concerned, to be
applicable to his second epistle only, as in the first there is no mention of any
such persons. — It cannot be definitely asserted that Clemens Alexandrinus
commented on this epistle in his Hypotyposes. According to Eusebius
(H. E., vi. 14) : cv 6i ralg inorvnCiaeai ^welovra elnelv, ndayg ryg IvbiaByKOV ypaipyg
imrerpypivag nenoiyrat Styyyaeig- prj 6i Tag dvnleyopivag napelBuv ttjv 'loida leyu Kai
rdg loinug entarolag- ryv re Bapvdpa Kal rijv Tlerpov leyopivyv dnoKalvipfv Kat ttjv npbg
'Eppaiovg be emarolyv, k.t.X, Clement commented on the whole of the N. T.
writings, the Antilegomena included, and therefore Second Peter, which
Eusebius designates as an imarolii dvnley. To this, however, the remark of
Cassiodorus is opposed (JOe Instil. Div. Script., c. 8): in epistolis canonicis
Clemens AL, i.e., in ep. Petri prima, Joannis prima et secunda et Jacobi (or

352 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
rather Judae) quaedam attico sermone declaravit, etc. — Cum de reliquis
epistolis canonicis magna nos cogitatio fatigaret, subito nobis codex Didymi . . .
concessus est, etc. But as Cassiodorus expressly says in the Praefatio:
ferunt itaque scripturas divinas V. et N. Testamenti ab ipso principio usque ad
finem graeco sermone declarasse Clementem Alex., it may be concluded from
this that he did not possess a complete copy of the Hypotyposes, but one
only iu which several epistles of the N. T., and among these Second Peter,
were wanting. Whilst Briickner says that the remark of Cassiodorus is
no certain refutation of the statement made by Eusebius, Weiss declares
hiraself convinced that the epistle was not coraraented on by Clement. —
Neither in the writings of Tertullian nor of Cyprian is there to be found
any trace of an acquaintance with the epistle, though both of them know
and quote First Peter. — The epistle does not stand in the older Peshito, nor
is it mentioned in the Muratorian Canon. Previous to Cleraens Al. it is
sought for in vain in the apostolic and in the older Church Fathers. As to
whether in these writers certain echoes of the epistle are to be found which
point to an acquaintance with it, Guericke, even, expresses hiraself very
doubtfully : " The allusions, in the case of some of the apostolic Fathers,
are not quite certain ; but, on the other hand, Justin M., Irenaeus, and
Theophilus, do really appear to have made unmistakable reference to it."
Thiersch (p. 362, D. A . Schr.) denies still more decidedly a reference in the
earlier Church Fathers to this epistle. "The two thoughts only," says
Thiersch, "'that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,' and that
'the end of the world will come as a conflagration,' had at a very early
period obtained general diffusion throughout the Church ; " but he himself
shows that these two ideas did not necessarily originate in this epistle.
Most of tlie recent critics agree with Thiersch. Entirely opposed to this,
however, is the judgraent of Dietlein ; he fancies he finds, not only in the
three Fathers already mentioned, but in Polycarp, Ignatius, Clemens
Romanus, Barnabas, and Hermes, not in some few passages merely, but
"scattered in large numbers throughout the writings of each of them,"
indisputable references to our epistle. In his endeavor to discover these,
however, Dietlein has failed to observe that the writers of ecclesiastical
antiquity all drew ' from the sarae store of conceptions, expressions, and
1 Even with regard to Philo, Dietlein says, expressions, only the use they raake of these is
"The coincidence between Philo and the N.T. very different." —This remark is very just;
and primitive ecclesiastical writers Is by no but why does not Dietlein apply what he says
raeans always fortuitous. — Both draw abun- as to Philo to the relation between the priml-
dantly from the same storehouse of views and tive Christian writers and those of the N. T. ?

INTRODUCTION. 353
phrases, and that a correspondence must necessarily take place, without the
dependence of any one upon another following therefrom. By far the most
of the passages in those apostolic Fathers to which Dietlein appeals attest
only a community of conception and expression, but not a dependence on
Second Peter, the less so that the harmony consists almost only in accidental
phrases and the like, and not in such ideas as are peculiarly characteristic
of our epistle ; nor has Dietlein been able to show a single sentence in
which there is an exact verbal agreement.
In the Epistle of Barnabas, the words, chap, xv., ii ypepa nap' airu (tbat is,
Kvp'iu) x'tlia. iry, doubtless call up 2 Pet. iii. 8; but the thought to which they
give expression is there entirely different from that here. Besides, it must be
particularly observed — to this Thiersch calls attention — that the conception
of the days of the Messiah as a Sabbath of a thousand years is found in the
Mischnah, Tractat. Sanhedrin, 976, in connection with Ps. xc. 4; as, also, that
the authenticity of the Epistle of Barnabas is by no means so certain as Dietlein
presupposes. — All the other passages in this epistle to which Dietlein appeaHs
(especially in chaps, i. and ii., in the salutation and the conclusion of the
epistle) show points of similarity only, which by no means prove the existence
of deflnite references.^ — So, too, with the passages from the Epistle of Clemens
Romanus (chap. vii. init., comp. with 2 Pet. i. 12 and iii. 9; chap, viii., comp.
with 2 Pet. iii. 9, 16, 17; chap, ix., comp. with 2 Pet. i. 17, etc. ; chap. xi. with
2 Pet. ii. 6, 7, etc.), and from that of Polycarp (chap, iii., comp. with 2 Pet. iii.
15, 16; chap. vi. flu., and vii. init., with 2 Pet. iii. 2, etc.).^ Had Polycarp
Is it because the application is In no way dif- honestarum Dei aequitatum abundantlam
ferent ? But, according to his own account, sciens esse in vobis " have a very feeble simi-
the material which the former drew directly larity to rd peytara iiplv /cai ripia eirayye\para
frora the latter was often applied in a very SeSiaprirai, 2 Pet. i. 4, especially as the connec-
diverse manner; and though the difference tion of thought is of quite another kind.
here be not so great ae in the above case, it is ' Dietlein finds specially in Clement a mass
only natural it should be so, if the different of references to Second Peter; but It is here
circumstances be considered. precisely that the way in which he strains the
' When Barnabas, In the Introduction to his most natural phrases and expressions becomes
epistle, thus states the purpose of it : iva perd apparent. There is no foundation for the
T^s mareto^ TeAetaj' exiire Kai rrjv ^I'wa't^, this assertions that the expression ei* toJ avT^ ecTjuei'
so entirely corresponds with the contents of aKappan (which the words xa'i b avro^ ripiv
the epistle that he certainly cannot have raade dyivv e-niKeirai follow) had its origin, by asso-
Secoud Peter his guide,; that he raakes use of elation of ideas (!), in the e<p' 'oaov eijLti ev rovna
the verb anovSd^eiv is all the less objectiona- np aKrtvupan of Peter ; that Clement was
ble, that the word is a very common one. The stimulated by Peter to write the reraarks in
enuraeration of the virtues (chap. 11.) is en- chap. vii. and xi. ; that when he wished to
tirely different from that which occurs in account for the very special reverence in which
2 Pet. i. 5-8, and the words " magnarum et Paul was held, he. In doing so, did not act

354 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
really been acquainted with Second Peter, and had he wished to refer to it, it is
impossible to understand why he does not quote even one sentence from it
literally, as he certainly does from First Peter. — Still less than that of the
above-mentioned Fathers is the dependence of Ignatius on Second Peter capable
of proof, even in a single passage. — As regards Justin Martyr, the earlier
critics have traced back the expression in the Dialog, cum Tryph. , c. 89 (p. 308,
Morelli's edition) : avvyKopev ydp rb elpypivov, on ypipa Kvpiov dig xUta iry, eig rovro
avvdyeiv, to 2 Pet. iii. 8 as their original source ; but the words here have the
same meaning as in tlie Epistle of Barnabas, and, besides, differ still more
markedly from those of Second Peter. — Indeed, Justin himself seems to hint
that the words are not taken from an apostolic writing, for he cites them as a
saying not unknown to Trypho, whilst he expressly mentions the book of the
N. T., from which a quotation immediately following is taken: kuI ineira (i.e.,
"and then," i.e., "and further") 'luuwi^f . . . iv dnoKalvipei . . . npoeipr/revae. —
Subsequently, indeed, Justin designates the false teachers as ipevdobibdoKaloi (a
word which occurs, no doubt, in the N. T. only in Second Peter), and that,
similarly as in 2 Pet. ii. 1, in connection with the false prophets among the
Jews; but this need occasion no surprise, since in after times the name was not
uncommon, and the application of it must have suggested itself at once to him
in conversation with a Jew. — Nor in Hermas either is there any quotation,
properly so called, from Second Peter. Still, appeal has been made to various
expressions (in Vis. iii. 7, iv. 3) which no doubt may be traced back to that
epistle; and yet more is this the case in Vis. vii. Whilst, however, Wiesinger
admits the dependence on Second Peter, and Briickner is inclined to agree with
him, Weiss remarks, that in the Greek text, now brought to light, the supposed
references in Hermas lose every semblance of similarity. On the other hand,
Hofmann maintains that in Sim. vi. c. 2 ff., the peculiar connection of rpvipy
with unary, etc., as also the singular calculation, for how long a time pain would
follow one day of luxurious living, can only be explained by a reference to
Second Peter; and, further, that the vision of the seven virtues {Sim. iii. c. 8)
could have had 2 Pet. i. 5-7 as a pattern. Both of these assertions are very
questionable. — In Theophilus (Ad Autol.) it is two passages principally that
recall our epistle; in the one it is said of the prophets (1. II. c. 11, ed. Wolfii,
Harab. , 1724): oi de rov Qeoi dvBpunoi nvevparoipbpot nvevparog dyiov kuI npoipyrai
yevbpevoi in' airoi roi Qeoi ipnvevaBivreg Kol aoipioBevreg iyivovro BeoblbuKroi Kal davoi

without reference to 2 Pet. iii. 15! By what does so, as also to his controversy with the
right are expressions such as viraKo-rj, perdvoia, heretics who denied the dvdaraaig. Tet here,
SiKaioa-vvri, raireivoippoawy, etc., Stamped as too, it is presupposed that similarities are due
peculiarly Petrine ? — Dietlein attaches special entirely to direct reference ; and, raoreover, no
Importance, both to the fact tbat Polycarp account whatever is taken of the relation in
raentions Paul, and to the manner In which he which Polycarp stood to Clement.

INTRODUCTION. 355
Kal blKoioi; in the other (1. II. c. 1) with reference to the Logos: y bidra^ig rov
GeoC rovro ianv b loyog airov ipaivuv uanep Ivxvog tv o'lKypan ovvexopivu. The simi
larity of the former passage with 2 Pet. i. 21, and of the latter with 2 Pet. i. 18,
is indisputable; but that the one had its origin in the other remains certainly
doubtful, the points of difference being not less marked than those of agree
ment. The conception formed of the prophets is in both cases the same, no
doubt, but it was also the view generally prevalent, and is found even in Philo;
cf. tbe exposition of 2 Pet. i. 21; the manner of expression, too, is not a little
different. As regards the other passages, it must be observed that there is
agreement neither in the figure employed {iv oiKypan awexopivu instead of iv
a'vxpvpu rbnip), nor with respect to the object spoken of. — In Irenaeus the thought
that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years is again found, and that in
two passages {Adv. Haeres., v. 23 and 28), but in neither of them is it hinted
that the words are taken from an apostolic writing. If it had not its origin in
some collection of proverbs then in circulation, it is very probable that Irenaeus
borrowed it from Justin, since he too uses the expression: iiiJiepa Kvpiov (not napd
Kvplu), — Dietlein, indeed, thinks that instances of reference on Irenaeus' part
to Second Peter may be richly accumulated, the more the finding of them is
made an object of study (!). But Irenaeus nowhere mentions the epistle, nor
does he anywhere make a quotation from it, — a circumstance more surprising
in his case than in that of Polycarp, if he really knew the epistle, and considered
it to be an apostolic writing. Cf. Briickner, Einl,, § 4.

The result of an unbiassed examination is, that in Ignatius there are to
be found no references to Second Peter; in Clemens Rom., Barnabas, and
Polycarp, none in any way probable ; in Justin Martyr, Hermas, and The
ophilus, none certain ; and, further, that Irenaeus cannot be looked upon as
a guaranty for the existence and authority of the epistle in the Church. If,
then, the apostolic Fathers had already raade use of this composition, more
especially in the manner in which Dietlein holds that they did, it would be
impossible to explain not only how the doubts, spoken of by Origen, arose,
but also the circurastance that the epistle is mentioned neither by Tertullian
nor by Cyprian. Dietlein's assertion, that the older Fathers, of the Church,
in making more frequent reference to the Pauline Epistles than to the
Petrine, did, in doing so, but follow the hints which Peter himself gave in
chap. iii. 15, 16, explains nothing: for, on the one hand, no such hint is
contained in that passage ; and, on the other, the first epistle must have
shared the same fate as the second, which is not the case. — Thiersch, as
already remarked, whilst admitting that it cannot be proved that any of the
early Church Fathers made reference to Second Peter, at the same time

356 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
allows that none of the reasons which explain the subordinate position held
by the Antilegoraena as compared with the Homologoumena, are applicable
to this epistle. He is therefore driven to account for the fact that this
epistle was not included among the subjects of regular anagnosis, by saying
that this was due to the fear lest a too-early disclosure — as made in his
words of thunder (?) — of the evil, in its whole scope, would have had the
effect of hastening on the outbreak of it, raore especially at a time when all
minds were being stirred to their very depths, as was the case when the
canon of the Homologoumena was fixed. But this reason is in itself very
iraprobable, for there could certainly have been no better weapon against
the advancing evil than the word of an apostle, and especially of Peter.
Thus, too, the reflection is cast upon Peter, that he was here wanting in true
apostolic wisdom, inasmuch as he composed an epistle which could have no
other than a disturbing influence. And what, then, is to be said of Jude,
who made into a special epistle the sharpest passages, and those likely to
exercise that influence raost strongly !
The circurastance that the epistle is not mentioned by the earliest Fathers
of the Church remains all the raore surprising, when it is considered how
important the poleraic it contains against errors of the worst kind raust
have raade it appear to them. Wiesinger thinks that the exception taken
to it by Hieronymus on linguistic grounds (see below), as well as the dog
matic objections raised to it, would be less likely to recoraraend for use an
epistle so special in its contents. But opposed to this is — (1) That if the
churches to whom it is addressed did receive it from Peter, they would
hardly have compared it in the matter of style with the first epistle ; (2)
That it affords no ground for dogmatic objection ; (3) That the special
character of its contents is precisely of such a nature as to promote its use,
rather than to be an obstacle in the way of it. Weiss justly maintains that
the question, how it can be explained that there are no certain traces of the
epistle in the second century, is as yet unsolved, in that what has been urged
in the way of solution by the defenders of the genuineness, is in a great
measure arbitrary and insufficient.
After the tirae of Eusebius, the epistle was generally treated as canonical;
yet Gregory of Nazianzum already says (Carm. 33, ver. 35) : kuBoIikuv ima-
roluv rivig pev inrd ipaaiv, oi be rpelg pbvag xpij^at bixeaBai ; and Hieronymus {S. de
Script. Eccl., c. 1), who hiraself holds the genuineness of the epistle, remarks
that its Petrine origin is denied by most, and withal propter styli cum priore
dissonantiam. — Although it was not in the Peschito, Ephraem Syrus made
no doubt as to its genuineness ; meantime, and notwithstanding, doubt long

INTRODUCTION. 357
maintained itself in the Syrian Church, as may be seen from the words of
Cosmas Indicopleustes (Christ. Topographia, lib. vi.): napd 'Zipoig bi el py al
rpelg pbvai al npoyeypa-ppevai oix eiploKovrat, 'laKupov nal Ilerpov Kal 'ludvvov • al dUai
ydp aire Keivrai nap' airoig.
In the Middle Ages all doubts were silenced, but at the time of the Refor
mation they immediately revived, Erasmus already said that, juxta sensum
humanum he did not believe that the epistle was the coraposition of Peter ;
and Calvin is of opinion that there are several probabiles conjecturae, from
which it can be concluded that the epistle is the work rather of some one
other than Peter. — The older Lutheran dogmatists are not inclined to insist
positively on its genuineness, on the ground that the church does not possess
the power, quod possit ex falsis scriptis facere vera, ex veris falsa, ex dubiis et
incertis facere certa, canonica et legitima (Chemnitz, Ex. Cone. Trid., ed. 1615,
Francof., p. 87 ff.). Although the later writers on dogmatics gradually
obliterate, more and more, the distinction between homologouraena and
antilegoraena, and our epistle in ecclesiastical use is treated increasingly as
a canonical writing, yet doubt did not wholly disappear. Indeed, since
Semler it has grown to such an extent that Schwegler (D. Nachapost. Zeitalt.,
Bd. 1, p. 491) feels warranted in saying: "From Calvin, Grotius, Scaliger,
and Salmasius, to Seraler, Neander, Credner, and De Wette, the voices of
all corapetent authorities have united in doubting and rejecting it." — This
is, however, saying too much, for there has never been any want of corape
tent authorities to defend its genuineness. Still, the general voice had cer
tainly become always more unfavorable to the epistle, — till in recent times
new defenders of its authenticity appeared.^ Many critics hold that genuine
and spurious parts may be distinguished in the epistle ; thus Berthold in his
Einl. X,. N. T., and C. Ullmann in his work, Der 2 Brief Petri krilisch
untersucht, Heidelb., 1821. The forraer regards the second chapter as spu
rious, the latter the third also. The first of these two views is refuted by
the fact that not the second chapter alone, but likewise several passages of
the third, bear a similarity to Jude's epistle ; and against that of Ullmann are

' As defenders of Its authenticity may be A. L. 0. Heydenrelch {Ein Wort mr 'Fer-
specially named, Nitzsche (Up. Petri posterior theidigutig der , Aechtheit des 2 Br. Petri,
auctori suo imprimis contra Grotium vindi- Herborn, 1837), Guericke (who in his .Beto-clsre
cata, Lips., 1785), C. C. Flatt (Genuina secun- had expressed doubts as to tbe authenticity) ;
due ep. Petri origo denuo defenditur, Tub., besides these Pott, Augusti, Hug, etc.; and In
1806), J. C. W. Dahl (.De Authentia ep. Petri most recent times, Thiersch, Stier, Dietlein,
poster, et Judae, Rost., 1807), F. Windisch- Hofraann, Luthardt, Wiesinger, Schott, Weiss,
mann CFi-ndiciae Petrinae, Ratisb., 1836), Steinfass ; Briickner is not quite decided.

358 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
the circumstances that the first chapter has by no means the character of a
completed whole, while, as § 2 proves, there is a firm line of thought running
through the epistle, and binding into a unity its several parts, from begin
ning to end.
In discussing the question of the authenticity of our epistle, it will be
necessary to consider its relation to First Peter. If this latter be held to
be spurious, there is of course no need of any further investigation ; for,
appealing as the second does to the first, it must share its fate. But since
First Peter must be regarded as genuine, a comparison of it with our epistle
is of the highest importance.
The doubts as to the authenticity of the second epistle, which result
from a comparison of the two writings with each other, are founded not on
a dissonantia styli only (Hieron.), but also on a diversity (although not a
contradiction) in the mode of conception. No doubt those who call the
authenticity in question have not unfrequently gone too far in the produc
tion of alleged differences, but that such do exist cannot be denied. Of
these the following are the most important: The prominent feature in
both epistles is, indeed, the parousia of Christ, but the manner in which it is
spoken of is in each different : in the first epistle, the prevailing conception
is the ilitig; in the second, on the other hand, it is the in'iyvuaig, — the former
expression not occurring in the second epistle, nor the latter iu the first.
In the first epistle, the day of the second advent is looked upon as iramineut:
in the second, mention is indeed raade of a sudden, but not of the near
arrival of that day ; rather is it expressly indicated as possible that it would
not come till farther on in the future. In the first epistle, the chief stress is
laid on the glorification of believers which shall accorapany the return of
Christ ; in the second epistle, prominence is principally given to the catas
trophe which shall overtake the whole creation in connection with the
advent, that is, to the destruction of the old world by fire, to give place to
the new heaven and the new earth. In addition to this, the advent is in the
first epistle designated by the word dnoKdlvipig, and in the second by napovaia.
The existence of this difference cannot, as opposed to Hofmann too, be
called in question. Even if, as Wiesinger strongly urges, the passage iii. 14, 15,
Indicate that the parousia will be the glorification of believers, still the form
under which this is represented as taking place is different from that of the
first epistle. When Schott asserts that "the second epistle in no way, and
least of all ' expressly,' alleges the possibility of a later realization of the parou
sia," the statement loses its justification in presence of verse 8. Weiss's
objection, that by iniyvuaig is not to be understood a " theoretical knowledge

INTRODUCTION. 359
perfecting the Christian life," is out of place here, for iniyvuaig and 'elnig are
certainly different ideas; and even if Weiss be correct in saying that the expec
tation of the near parousia is not abandoned in the second epistle, the differ
ence in question would not be removed.
Whilst iu the first epistle the saving truths of the death and resurrection
of Christ form the basis of the ilnig and of the Christian's moral life, in the
second epistle these are nowhere mentioned. Nor in the latter epistle is
there any trace to be found of the ideas peculiar to the former (of. Intro
duction to the epistle). And, on the other hand, the conceptions character
istic of this epistle, as the view expressed in chap. i. 19 ; further, the idea
of the Koivuvia with the divine nature secured by means of the inayyilpara,
and the belief that the world was framed by God, and would perish again
by fire, — are nowhere hinted at in the first epistle.
These remarks, too, maintain their full force against the objections taken to
thera; forthe question here is not as to how these differences (not contradic
tions) are to be explained, on the assumption of an identity of authorship, but
as to the fact, which cannot be called in question, that they actually do exist.
Is it beside the question for Schott, in reply to the remark that in the second
epistle the death and resurrection of Christ are not mentioned, to adduce a
mass of citations from it for the purpose of showing, what is no doubt true, that
the person of Christ is very decidedly brought forward as the guaranty of a
completed salvation, and the efficient origin of a holy walk; and all the raore
that, in proportion as the person of Christ is insisted upon, the stranger does it
seem that an apostle like Peter should pass over those facts in silence ?
As regards the style and mode of expression in both epistles, it should not
be left unnoticed that Peter's literary character, as seen in his first epistle,
is not, like that of Paul or John, so sharply defined and original that each
of his productions reveals its authorship. And just as little raust it be for
gotten, that the first epistle in raany passages recalls the epistles of Paul,
that the second is, to no inconsiderable extent, dependent on Jude, and that
consequently the peculiar character of Peter's style is difiicult to deterraine,
the more so that his writings are only of small extent.^ Still many lin-
1 In opposition to what is said above, Schott from Eph. II. 19 ; dnoipvyovre'; . . , ip9opd?,
maintains not only that the Epistle of Jude is i. 4, frora Rora. viii. 20 ff. ; and the passage i.
dependent on Second Peter, but also that 12 ff. from Rora. xv. 14, etc. The epistle, fur-
Second Peter contains echoes of the Pauline ther. Is supposed to show a special dependence
Epistles. He thinlis that tcrort/Ao?, i. 1, arose on the Pastoral Epistles, I. 3-11 being only au

360 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
guistic differences are to be found, which even in Hieronymus' time
attracted attention, and which cannot be overlooked. It is not to be denied
that the freshness of expression of the first epistle, and its richness in com
binations of thought, are here wanting. Whilst in the first epistle one
thought follows directly upon another in lively succession, the connection
in the second epistle is not unfrequently effected by means of conjunctions
which point back to what precedes, or by a formal resumption of what had
previously been said; cf. chap. i. 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, iii. 7, 10, 12. And whilst,
too, in the first epistle there is a richness and variety in the use of prepo
sitions expressive of manifold relationships, a conspicuous uniforraity in this
respect prevails throughout the second epistle. Many peculiarities which
are characteristic of the diction of the first epistle (cf . Introd. to first epistle,
§ 2), are foreign to the second. In the use also of several single expressions
there is an established difference : Kipiog, when used without more precise
definition, is in the second epistle a designation of God, cf. chap. ii. 9 (11),
iii. 8, 9, 10; in the first epistie, on the other hand, except in quotations from
the O. T., it is used of Christ, cf. chap. ii. 3, 13. In the first epistle the
name Xpiarbg, when not joined with 'lyaovg, is frequently treated as a proper
name, cf. i. 11, 19, ii. 21, iii. 16, 18, iv. 1, 13, 14, v. 1; in the second epistle,
on the other hand, Xpiarbg never occurs except in connection with 'lyaoig.
And these divergences are all the more fitted to excite surprise, if, as Hof
mann assuraes, the second epistle was written very soon after thS first.
1. The objection raised against the last reraark, that the combination of
Xpiarbg with 'lyaovg occurs also in the first epistle (Weisinger, Schott, Briickner),
is without force, since this is not, and never could have been, denied. And it
signifies equally little that, as Hofmann shows, in the second epistle (with the
adaptation of Tit. li. 12-14, etc. Schott attaches proof of a special reference to any of those
particular importance to this, that leading and epistles. As regards the individual leading
fundamental Ideas in the epistle are employed and fundamental ideas of the Pastoral Epistles
in the same prominent raanner only here and and of Second Peter, adduced by Schott, atrepijs
in the Pastoral Epistles, as e-iiae^eia, evae^-fjs, (dae^eia) is to be found equally In the Epistle
dae^TJs, atttrrip, aui^eiv, piaivbi with its family, to tbe Romans; abirrjp occurs in other N. T.
eiriyvuaf;, ^Kaaipitpeiv, enayyeWopai; a de- writings; croi^eLr is not used In Second Peter,
pendence, too, on the Epistie to the Hebrews and as little is piaivia ; e-rriyvviaLq and ^Kaatpij-
he considers hardly less evident. — All these peiv are terms which are to be found often
assertions, however, are unwarranted. As a enough in the N. T. ; en-a-j'-j'eAAoiU.cLi in 2 Pet.
raatter of course, there are ideas expressed In Ii. 19, has not the meaning which it has in First
Second Peter which correspond to those con- TIraothy ; the terras evtre/Sij?, eiiae^eia atone,
tained in other epistles ; but this arises from are almost tbe only ones which are peculiar to
the oneness of the Christian faith, aud is no these epistles.

INTRODUCTION. 361
exception of i. 1 ) 'lya. Xpiarbg also is never to be found alone, but always in
connection with 6 Kvpiog ypCrv, etc., since it cannot be denied that Xpiarbg is used
by itseff — often in the first, but never in the second epistle. — Of still less con
sequence are the remarks of Hofmann as to the use of Kipiog. When Schott
asserts that Xptarbg, with or without the article, wherever it stands in the first
epistle, denotes the Mediator as such, but that in the second epistle there is
nothing to lead to the mention of the Mediator, it must be remarked in reply,
that in the second epistle Christ is designated as the Mediator distinctly enough
by the name auryp.
2. Besides the differences here mentioned, Mayerlioff brings forward many
others. In doing so, however, he has gone much too far. Thus, he lays stress
on the fact that in the first epistle the exhortations are commenced concisely
with the imperative ; in the second, qn the other hand, with a circumlocutory
expression, e.g., i. 12, 13, 15, iii. 1, 2, 8. But in the first epistle, the latter
manner of beginning could not occur, inasmuch as the apostle does not there
remind his readers of what they had formerly heard from him, as he does in
the second epistle; nor, in the second epistle, is the imperative without circum
locution by any means wanting. Further, Mayerhoff speaks of it as peculiar
to the second epistle, that iv is inserted with a substantive, as in chap. i. 4; yet
the same takes place in the first epistle. Of many of the phenomena which are
supposed to be peculiar to the first epistle, Mayerhoff himself admits that they
are to be found also in the second, only less frequently. To the assertion that in
the two epistles the conception of the Christian religion is not the same, it must
be replied, that the various expressions denote the different sides of the Christian
life. As against Mayerhoff, cf. the discussions of Schott, Briickner, Weiss.
No doubt their diversity in thought may be traced to a difference in the
tendency of the two epistles, nor is the diction either of the second by any
raeans unjustifiable;^ yet it does appear strange that, if Peter wrote this
letter from the situation on which the second epistle is based, he should
have done so in such a manner that it would present so many diversities
in character from that of the first epistle. Nevertheless, there are between
the two writings raany points of coincidence which cannot be overlooked.
In both attention is directed chiefly to the parousia oi Christ, and to
preparation for it by a holy walk. In both the readers are expressly
shown that to be Christians, as they were, is to be in the right and true
state of salvation, and they are exhorted at once to give proof of it by a
1 It is only these two points, here distinctly the different characters of the two epistles, to
expressed, which Hofmann brings forward in the view that both are the productions of the
order to remove all objections, arising from same author.

362 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
holy behavior, and to confirm theraselves in it. Both epistles, further, have
this in common, that they are strongly dependent on the O. T. (on this see
Schott and Weiss). In the mode of expression, also, there are to be found
many points of coincidence. Thus it may be noted that in i. 4 the ideas
Kalelv and apery are connected together in a manner which, though not
identical with 1 Pet. ii. 9, is yet similar to it ; that as in 1 Pet. i. 19, the
adjectives dpupog and danil.og stand together, so in 2 Pet. iii. 14, danilog and
dpupyrog are conjoined, with which also the expression, ii. 13 : anlloi nal pupoi,
corresponds ; that the word dnoBeaig is to be found only in these two epistles.
It is also worthy of remark that the introductions and the conclusions in
both the epistles show an unmistakable likeness. The commencement
points, in the case of each, to the future kingdom of God; 1 Pet. i. 4:
eig Klypovoplav; 2 Pet. i. 11: eig ryv aluviav Baaile'iav 'lya. Xpiarov; and as at
the close of First Peter the purpose of the letter is stated by the napuKoluv,
K.r.X, V. 12, so in Second Peter the design of the coraposition is given by
ipvldaaeaBe . . . av^dvere, where the ipvldcaeaBe . . . 'iva py iKniayre rov ibiov
arypiypoi corresponds in a particular manner with the aryp'i£,ai and the
inipaprvpijv, rairyv elvai dlyBy xuptv roi Qeoi, eig yv iaryKare, in First Peter.
Like the opponents of the authenticity in bringing forward differences, its
defenders have not unfrequently overstepped all bounds in the production of
supposed points of coincidence. Of this Schott has been especially guilty. He
goes so far as to say that even 2 Pet. i. 1 " is an armory from which all doubts
concerning the Petrine origin of the second epistle are repelled," and every
where, wherever in thought or conception any resemblance between the two
epistles is to be seen, he seeks to show that the second makes reference to the
first, without in any way distinguishing what in conception is Christian and
common from what is characteristic and peculiar; and Bruckner has accordingly
justly protested against many of the arguments advanced by Schott. But even
Weiss often goes too far, as when, with reference to the doctrine of redemption,
he maintains that the ideas of calling and of election in 2 Peter (i. 10) seem to
be synonymous as in 1 Peter, whilst the fact is, that no such corabinatlon
occurs in tlie latter epistle; when he compares the KOivuvia Be'iag ipiaeug (2 Pet. i. 4)
with the thought that the calling is the motive to become like unto him who
calls, after I Pet. i. 15; when he thinks that tlie Beia dvvapig of Christ, which
gives all that is necessary for the new life, corresponds with the divine bivapig,
which preserves unto salvation (1 Pet. i. 5) ; further, when he lays stress on the
fact that in both epistles, the biKaioaivy constitutes the central point of Chris
tian moral life, whilst elsewhere also in the New Testament the essence of such
life is often enough expressed by StKaioaivy ; when he considers that the falling

INTRODUCTION. 363
a prey to ipBopd (2 Pet. i. 4, ii. 12, 19) recalls the antithesis between ipBaprbv and
dipBaprov in the first epistle; when he states that in the second epistle (i. 7) the
tpiluibelipla forms the chmax of the Christian virtues in harmony with I Pet. i. 22,
since there it is not ipilabelipla, but uj-utt)? which is spoken of as the climax, and
ipiladelipla is also made prominent elsewhere in the N. T. With regard to the
doctrinal phraseology, Weiss, in the first instance, adduces a number of points
of divergence, and then lays stress on the fact that many, and in part striking,
points of agreement are to be found. But here, again, Weiss goes too far; the
most of the substantives, adjectives, and verbs which he brings forward as
significant of the agreement of the two epistles, being in current use in N. T.
language. As regards substantives, with the exception of apery, the term yvuaig
(1 Pet. iii. 7 and 2 Pet. i. 5) only can be adduced as of importance, for ripii and
(56|a occur elsewhere together; in like manner riKva, in a metaphorical sense, is
to be found elsewhere; it is plainly incorrect to say that bivapig in 2 Pet. ii. 11
is used of angels as in 1 Pet. iii. 22; in the latter passage it denotes the angels
themselves, but not so in the former. How the adjectives adduced by Weiss
should ev.er have a special significance, it is not easy to see, used as they often
enough are elsewhere. The same is the case with most of the verbs; dvaarpi-
ipeaBai iv and ai^dveiv iv at most can be brought forward as of importance in this
connection. And in referring to kindred expressions, Weiss again goes too far.
The following at most are to be noted here as worthy of attention : labnpog in
the second, and nolinpog in the flrst ; dBeapog there, dBepirog here ; the already
mentioned damlog kuI dpupyrog in the flrst, and aanilog koI dpupog in the second,
but hardly uKaranaiarovg dpapriag and ninavrai dpapriag.

In spite of all points of accord, real and asserted, the verdict of Weiss
comes only to this, that if these be taken into account, there will be an
inclination to see in the divergences no hinderance to an identity of author
ship ; that the points of agreeraent are more than those of divergence ; and
that the old complaint as to the complete difference of style was founded
on very great exaggeration. Similar, though more moderate, is the judg
ment of Bruckner. Schott, however, expressly admits that the outward
form of the second epistle as a whole shows, at first sight even, quite other
features from those of the first epistle. The question as to how the
undeniable difference in thought aud expression is to be explained, has
been variously answered. On the assumption of the authenticity of the
epistle, it will not do to explain the difficulty by supposing that Peter wrote
" iu advanced old age, and when at the very gate of death " (Guericke), for
the period between the composition of the first and the second epistles can
have been, coraparatively speaking, only a brief one, at most four years —

364 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
a tirae certainly too short to account for the difference. Hieronymus tries
to make the dissimilarity of style intelligible by assuming that Peter made
use of different interpreters for each of his epistles. But this hypothesis
of the use of interpreters is without any valid reason, and, besides, is
inadequate to the end it is raeant to serve. It is certainly more correct to
find the ground of the diversity in the different tendencies of the two
epistles. The purpose of the first is to lay down to the readers their true
course of conduct in the midst of the persecutions they had to suffer ; that
of the second, on the other hand, is to protect them against the heresies of
the Libertines which threatened them.' These different tendencies must
naturally lend to each of the epistles its own peculiar character. Yet even
Schott admits that this alone is insuificient for the solution of the problem.
Schott thinks it can be solved only in this way: that Peter in his fii'st
epistle, " for the sake of his readers — to whora he was unknown — and in
his own interest, of set purpose kept his individuality assiduously in the
background, and sought with the utmost possible fidelity all through the
epistle to write in a manner to which the Gentile Christians and the Pauline
churches were accustomed. For this reason he elaborated his first epistle
with special care, even as to forra ; but after he had entered into near
personal relations with his readers, he had not the same occasion as in the
first epistle to keep his own individuality out of sight.'' This manner of
answering the question under discussion, which AVeiss justly calls "hyper-
artificial," needs certainly no refutation. As, then, the difficulty is not to
be removed either by separating, with Weiss, the two epistles by an interval
of raore than ten years, — for the assumption that the first epistle was
written before the letters of the Apostle Paul to the churches of Asia
Minor, is an untenable hypothesis, — it must be admitted, with Briickner
and Weiss, on the supposition of the authenticity, that there is presented
here a problem which has not yet been satisfactorily solved. And the
difficulty is increased if it be considered that in the two epistles quite
different conditions of the churches are presupposed; for, whilst in the
first there is no trace of any dread of heretical trouble, there is wanting

* Hofmann thinks tbat the different tenden- exposed, or who already had appeared in their
cles of the two epistles are erroneously stated midst." Both assertions are false. To what
here. He holds tbat the first epistle contains Is said above must be added only, that the two
" nothing as to what are usually termed perse- epistles, relating as they do to different cir-
cutions of Christians," and that in the second cumstances, point to the exhortation to lead
epistle there is "no warning against teachers " an holy and godly life."
of false doctrine, to whom the readers were

INTRODUCTION. 365
in the second all reference to persecutions to which the readers were
exposed, — a circumstance which is not to be passed over so lightly as
Hofmann does.
The shorter tbe time between the composition of the two epistles, the more
surprising is this phenomenon; the longer, the easier is it of explanation. For
Weiss, who assumes an interval of over ten years, there is here hardly any diffi
culty, more especially as he thinks that Peter, after the composition of the iirst
epistle, was personally present in the churches, and in that case did not need to
mention the persecutions which had induced him to compose his first letter.
Briickner reserves for himself a way of escape from the difficulty caused by this
and other surprising phenomena, by holding that as to the close of Peter's life the
received tradition may be wrong. Schott, on the other hand, attaches no impor
tance to these divergences, although in his opinion the first epistle was written
in the year 65, and the second in the year 66. For he assumes, on the one hand,
that when Peter wrote his second epistle the persecutions were past; and, on the
other, that even in the first there are references to errors already present, which
Peter, "from his tender and fine feeling of the delicate relation in which he
stood to a Pauline church as yet in reality unknown to him," did not wish
expressly to censure. Both assumptions are erroneous; for the persecutions
which were the occasion of the first epistle are there clearly characterized as
persecutions which, after they had arisen, continued (see Introd. to Ep. 1) ; and
as regards the heresies supposed to have been in existence when the first epistle
was composed, Weiss justly remarks: " There is nothing to be discovered in it,
either of the connection with the heresy combated in the second epistle, which
Bruckner artificially brings out, nor of its clearly marked features, which Schott
professes to have found." It is not in any way to be inferred from the First
Epistle of Peter, as Schott asserts, " that it shows a greater spread and inward
intensity of the evil combated in the Epistle to Timothy," or that 1 Pet. iv. 2-4
attests that " a comparatively large section of the readers was prepared, by a
liberal concession to immorality in social life, to gain undisturbed security for
themselves as professing Christians;" or that in iii. 18 ff., iv. 5, 6, 17, 18, it is
hinted "that the spiritualistic explaining away of the resurrection of the flesh
led the readers to deny also a flnal judicial decision connected with the return
of Christ in the body." Schott, in what he here says, is moving, hot on the
ground of true exegesis, but in the region of the most arbitrary flction.
The less success has attended all efforts to overcome the difficulties
which, on the assumption of the authenticity, lie in the relation of the two
epistles to each other, the more justifiable does doubt as to the authenticity
appear. It has, no doubt, been asserted that a falsarius would have
followed the flrst epistle so closely as to have avoided these differences;

366 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
but it is equally conceivable that a pseudonymous author could have
written under the influence of Peter's epistle indeed, yet still in his own
peculiar style, and without being anxiously careful lest the origin of his
coraposition should thus be betrayed. On this assuraption the existence
both of sirailarity and divergence is explained. Several considerations
have been urged against the authenticity of the epistle : —
1. The intention of the author to make himself known as the Apostle
Peter. To this it may be replied, that, looked at from the situation in which
the epistle was written, and which it presupposes (i. 13, 14), this so-called
intention is neither unnatural, nor need it excite surprise- If Peter,
conscious of his approaching death, felt hiraself impelled to write a last
word to the churches with which he had before this become connected,
rerainding thera of his former preaching, and warning them against doubts
as to the second coming of Christ, it was certainly not out of place for him
to mention himself, his relation to the churches, and raore especially that
event in his own life by which the glory of Christ was revealed to him in a
manner so special. 2. The remark the author makes on the epistles of
Paul and the other Scriptures. In itself, the fact is not strange that the
epistle bears testimony to an acquaintance with the epistles of Paul, for
that sorae of the latter were known to Peter is evident from the first
epistle ; nor do the words (chap. iii. 16) imply that the author possessed
a formally completed collection of them. But the expression: dig kuI rug
lotndg ypaipdg, is certainly striking. For although it is arbitrary to under
stand by it the whole of the other books of the New Testament, yet the
expression must have reference to writings which were already in general
use in the churches. It is at least open to question whether this could have
been said, in Peter's time, of writings of the New Testament. Several
interpreters (Luthardt, Wiesinger) understand by the terra the oldest
writings; on this point see the exposition. 3. The use made of the Epistle
of Jude. It is certainly going too far to brand this as a plagiarism
(Reuss) ; nor can it be said that to make use of another's work was in
itself unworthy of an apostle. Still, it is surprising that an apostle should
have incorporated in his epistle, as to the substance of it, a non-apostolic
letter.! De Wette's accusations are, however, unjust : that in Second Peter
1 Weiss takes a too low estlraate of the use from tbis intentional connection, an exprea-
raade of Jude's epistle when he says : " Sec- sion may involuntarily here and there have
ond Peter Intentionally seeks .support iu the presented itself to the author's pen from an
highly realistic and vivid description given by epistle so important, and which he had proba-
Jude of his opponents; and that, even apart bly just read."

INTRODUCTION. 367
the simple expression of Jude is partly changed by rhetorical and artificial
circuralocutlon, partly disfigured and singularly superseded, and that a
vacillating line of thought takes the place of one firm and definite. The
circumlocutions and additions of Second Peter do not bear on them the
character of artificialness. If alterations in the latter composition are to
be found (cf. Jude 12, with 2 Pet. ii. 13; Jude 12, 18, with 2 Pet. ii. 17),
these cannot be said to be distortions (or, according to Schwegler, confusion
and misunderstanding); and if the original course of ideas be not firraly
maintained owing to the introduction of new relations (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 5, 7-9),
and a transposition be resorted to (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 13-17, comp. with Jude
11-13), yet the firmness of the line of thought does not in any way suffer
thereby. Incorrect, too, is De Wette's assertion, that " the heretics combated
in Second Peter are raere nonentities, and a spurious copy of the seducers
in Jude ; '' as also that of Schwegler, that they are characterized not after
life, not frora direct knowledge of thera, but according to the vague repre
sentation of tradition. Not, however, without weight is the circumstance
on which De Wette lays stress, that the false teachers are represented at
one tirae as about to appear in the future, at another as already present.
Wiesinger rejects the view, that while in ii. 1-3 the future seducers are
meant, ver. 10 ff. has reference to those already present; and assumes that
the future iaovrai applies only to the relation of these seducers to -the readers,
and their work among thern. Weiss combats this assuraption, and in oppo
sition to it defends that rejected by Wiesinger. If it be conceivable that
the Libertines already present are " the beginning of the end," and there
fore not yet the ipevbobibdaKaloi, ver. 1, still it must not fail to be observed
that in the epistle itself no single word definitely points to any suoh distinc
tion. Even less satisfactory is it to say, with Dietlein, that the first germs'
of opposition were already in existence ; or, with Luthardt and Schott, to
hold that if the author speaks of the false teachers as already present, he
does so only in appearance, arising from the circumstance that he passes
frora the prediction to the description of them. It may perhaps be most
correct to assurae that the author, in the first instance, quotes the prophetic
word in and for itself simply ; and that he afterwards, in the description of
the Libertines already in existence, hints that the predictions had begun to
be fulfilled. Briickner seems to hold a similar opinion ; only he unites this
view with that of Wiesinger, and thus deprives it of its necessary clearness.
— If the authenticity be rejected, the difficulty seems to disappear. It would
then lie to hand to explain the vacillation by saying, that the author thought
to combat the heresies of his time, with better result, by representing them

368 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
as already predicted by Peter, and by allowing himself, in the description of
them, to be guided by a composition in which they were treated as actually
in existence. But it can hardly be conceived that the author should fail to
perceive how incongruous his conduct was. — Worthy of remark, further,
is the endeavor of the author to obliterate all apocryphal traces to be found
in Jude.! The total omission of these would have argued nothing agaiust
the Petrine authorship ; but it is only the words of Epoch (Jude 14, 15) that
are left out. The passage relating to the angels : rovg py rypyanvrag . . . o'my-
rypwv, is — inasrauch as the case of the angels raust not be omitted — changed
into the more general : dryyilMv dpapryadvruv, whilst the punishment that
befell them is given in almost the same words. The reference to the apoc
ryphal narrative of the contest between the Archangel Michael and the DevU
is likewise not wholly destroyed, but only effaced, — a raore general term
being employed, which, however, causes the thought itself to lose its clear
ness and precision. 2
4. The heretical denial of the second advent of Christ, and of the final
judgment of the world connected therewith. Although, already in Paul's
lifetime, many errors in the teaching as to the last things — as, for example,
the denial of the resurrection — had begun to grow up, there is nothing
in the other writings of the New Testament to show that the parousia of
Christ was called in question ; yet the denial of it is so naturally con
nected with that of the resurrection, that it could quite easily have found
expression even while Peter was yet alive. On the other hand, it cannot
be questioned that the reasons assigned by the false teachers (2 Pet. iii. 4)
are such as seem to belong rather to a time later than that of the
Apostle Peter, although the words by no means imply that the parousia
had for many generations already been looked for in vain (Schwegler).
And, further, there are the facts that the so-called Second Epistle of
Clemens Romanus combats the same heresy, — although in an advanced
1 Schwegler sees in this also a proof that for it in the connection of thought In this
the epistle was not written until the end of the epistle, and that the change in the two verses,
second century, inasrauch as the dislike to 4 and 11, does not show a desire to efface what
quote apocryphal writings was still foreign is apocryphal ; that Peter only generalized the
even to an Irenaeus, a Clement, or an Origen. special fact mentioned by Jude, ver. 9, pre-
If importance raust be attached to this, the supposing at the same time an acquaintance on
epistle plainly cannot have been written till the part of his readers with the apocryphal
after the time of Origen, which Is impossible. incident referred to. But does not such a
2 Wiesinger and BrUckner think that presupposition contain what must appear un-
Enoch's prediction of judgment was omitted suited to an apostle ?
only because there was no appropriate place

INTRODUCTION. 369
state of development, — and that one similar, at least, is mentioned in the
Epistle of Polycarp.
5. The view expressed in this epistle as to the origin and the destruction
of the world. The opinion of Mayerhoff and Neander, that this view " is
in harmony neither with the practical, simple mind of Peter, nor with the
N. T. development of doctrine," reaches certainly too far; it can only be
said that it does not find expression elsewhere in the New Testaraent. Yet
the conception that the world arose into being out of the water by the word
of God, points back to the history of creation in Genesis ; and that of its
destruction by fire, though not indeed expressed, has nevertheless the way
prepared for it in passages of the O. T., such as Isa. xvi. 15, Dan. vii. 9 sq.
(cf. 1 Cor. iii. 13 ; 2 Thess. i. 8), so that a more precise developraent of it
by Peter is not inconceivable. In opposition to the appeal to the passage
in the Clementine Homilies, xi. 24: loyiaapevog on rd ndvra rb vbup noiel, k.t.X',
BrUckner remarks that it must not be overlooked that in Clement it is water,
aud in Peter God's word, to which precedence is given.
When Credner thinks to prove the spuriousness of the epistle by saying that
an apostle would never have made reference to one of the mythical additions in
the Gospels like the narrative of Christ's transfiguration; and Keuss, by assert
ing that " the apparent aim of the epistle is to defend the teaching as to the
last things, according to the Judaeo-Christian conception of it, and that as
much against unbelief as against a spiritualizing interpretation,'' — their views
must be simply rejected. Not less unjustifiable is it, however, for Bleek to base
his verdict of rejection on the circumstance that in i. 18 the mount of transfig
uration is called rd bpog rb uyiov, inasmuch as the place is not even mentioned in
the Gospels, or more nearly described.
If the numerous difiiculties and doubts above mentioned do not render
the authenticity of the epistle absolutely impossible, many of them are yet
of such a nature that the spuriousness of the epistle appears to be hardly
less probable than its genuineness, especially as the only positive evidence
for the latter is the statement of the author himself, that he is the Apostle
Peter. On the other hand, many reasons seem to speak against its pseudo-
nyraity. Guericke insists that the passages characteristic of the epistle are,
" living, spiritual, and truly apostolic ; " but, apart from the circumstance
that, e.g., the want of any reference to the essential facts of salvation does
seem strange in the case of the Apostle Peter, this in no way excludes the
possibility of a non-apostolic origin. He further says that it is not apparent
what purpose a falsarius could have had in writing ; but this is refuted by

370 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
the epistle itself, which clearly enough states its design. Further, it has
been remarked that the epistle, if it be written under a false name, is a
palpable fraud, and to this its own moral character is opposed. But, in
reply to this, the fact may be brought forward that men of earnest moral
character have often thought more effectually to combat heresy by assuming
a pseudonyme. Thiersch asserts that it was in the period which followed the
labors of Paul, and preceded those of J^ohn, that that Libertinism made its
appearance in the Pauline churches ; but from this it does not follow that
the heresy did not maintain itself for a considerable time, so that after Jude
had already combated it in his epistle, a later attack on it would have been
no longer timely.
Weiss, too, has attempted to prove the hypothesis of a pseudonyme unten
able. He urges, in the first instance, that it is afilicted with an evil contra
diction; for the author appears to play his role at one time cleverly, at
another very awkwardly, inasmuch as, with all his endeavors to make him
self pass for the apostle, he sometimes forgets his part, and thus betrays his
pseudonymity ; and, whilst the connection with Jude is raade in full har
mony with his design, it is carried out in direct opposition to it. Weiss in
his remarks has oraitted to observe, that, like raany of the opponents of the
authenticity too, he attributes to the author various intentions, which the
words of the epistle in no way entitle him to do.! Again, Weiss seeks to
show that, on the assumption of a pseudonymous author, there is no uniform
purpose discoverable in the epistle. But as far as its purpose is concerned,
it is irrelevant whether the epistle was composed by the apostle or not. If
the three passages in the epistle — the polemic against the Libertines de
scribed according to the Epistle of Jude, that against the deniers of the
parousia, and the recommendation of Paul's writings — form a united whole,
it is not clear how they should do so less if they had an author other than
Peter. Finally, Weiss seeks to show that no suitable time can be adduced
for the composition of the epistle if it be pseudonymous. But this difficulty
is not less than that which arises in specifying the time in the life of Peter
when he wrote the epistle ; and if it be difiicult to show how a pseudony-

^ The author is supposed to have forgotten tial reasons, omitted to name the class of read-
his part, from this circurastance, that whilst ers whora he addressed. The sarae holds good
iu the beginning of It he does not name a with regard to the assertion that he intention-
special class of readers, in order thus to hide ally chose the prophetic forra, ii. 1 ff. and iii.
ihe interpolation of bis epistle, he Indirectly 3, in order that this epistle might contain the
mentions them in iii. 1. But there Is no proof prophecy to which Jude In ver. 17 refers.
that the author intentionally, and for pruden-

INTRODUCTION. 371
mous composition could have found acceptation in the church, it is not less
hard to explain how a genuine composition of the Apostle Peter could have
remained for so long a time unused in the service of the church. If, then,
the grounds for and against the authenticity are thus evenly balanced, there
is here presented a problem which is not yet solved, and which perhaps can
not be solved, so that the guardedness with which Bruckner, Wiesinger also,
and even Weiss, with all his inclination to regard the epistle as genuine,
express themselves on the question, deserves only acknowledgment.
If the epistle be not genuine, the question arises by whom, when, and
where it was written. — Mayerhoff seeks to show that it was composed by a
Jewish Christian in Alexandria in the middle of the second century. That
the author was a Jewish and not a Gentile Christian, the whole character of
the epistle shows; but that he lived in Alexandria, cannot be concluded
from the reasons brought forward by Mayerhoff.^ The date, too, to which
he assigns the composition of the epistle, is certainly too late, inasmuch as
the description of the heretics contains no reference to Gnostic views prop
erly so called. It would be more appropriate to look upon it as a production
of the first century. — Schwegler considers Rome to have been the place,
and the end of the second century, at the earliest, the time of the epistle's
composition. In Rome, he thinks, endeavors were made, by carrying out a
Petrinism and a Paulinism, to realize the idea of the Catholic Church. In
Rorae, therefore, it was that — like so many other writings which have
reference to these two schools — this epistle was composed. Its object — an
entirely conciliatory one — is this, as is 'evident frora chap. iii. 15, 16, and
i. 14, 16 ff., "to bring about from the standpoint of Petrinism a final and
permanent peace between the opposing views of the followers of Peter
and those of Paul." In confirmation of this, Schwegler asserts that the
peculiarities of the Petrine system are apparent throughout the epistle,
whilst that which is specifically Pauline entirely recedes. But if a doubt
arise even here as to how a so decided follower of Peter — who, according to
1 These reasons are: (1) The standpoint of the latter was composed In Alexandria Is at
yvSiai^, and the speculation as to how the least very doubtful. (3) The coincidence be-
world originated, and how it will be destroyed. tween this epistle and the so-called Second
But the yvioaii spoken of in our epistle Is Epistle of Clement of Rorae, in opposing the
entirely different from the vvwtns of Alexan same heretical tendency; but, as there is no
drine-Jewish speculation; and that the view proof that the quotation occurring in this epis-
here expressed as to the beginning — unjustly tie was taken from the evayyiKiov Kar A.iyvn-
called a speculation — of the world, had ita rfous, it is also doubtful whether this fragment
origin precisely in Egypt, is not proved. (2) had its origin In Egypt.
The use made of the Epistle of Jude; but that

372

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.

the view of Schwegler, must as such have necessarily stood in opposition
to him — could have been the eulogist of Paul, it must excite most legiti
mate astonishment to see what are the reasons he brings forward in support
of his view.i The evidence, too, which he leads for the late date of compo
sition, possesses no value. ^ The chief point, the so-called conciliatory tend
ency of the epistle, is a pure hypothesis, which has no support in the epistle
itself; for neither in the passages quoted by him, nor in any others, are the
differences between Petrinism and Paulinism touched upon, much less ad
justed or surmounted. No doubt Paul is spoken of in terms of praise ; but,
according to the connection of the passage, only for the purpose of warning
the churches to which the epistle is addressed, lest they should be led astray
by the heretics, who wrested and changed many statements of the apostle
for their own purposes. ^

^ These reasons are : the employment of
expressions peculiar to Judaeo-Christian modes
of thought: evce/Seia, ayiai avatTTpo^aij apcr-q,
ayia. cvToA^, K.T.K. (but almost all these ex
pressions are to be found in the N. T. writ
ings, which, according to Schwegler, favor
Paulinism) ; the high place given to the X070S
Trpo^T/TLKos (ae if Paul had set little value on
it) ; the countenance given to angelological
mysticism (which he thinks is proved by chap.
il. 10, 11!); the demand for a tradition as a
standard in the interpretation of Scripture
(said to be contained iu chap. 1.20!); 67500s
KT^pv^ 6tKaioo-i/;'T79, as applied to Noah; and
the reference to the Gospel of the Hebrews
(in support of which chap. i. 17 is quoted).
2 Thus, when, among other things, Schweg
ler brings forward as a reason for this, the
writer's acquantance with such N. T. Scrip
tures as he supposes to have been composed

only after the middle of the second century,
i.e., the Pastoral Epistles, the Gospels of John
and of Mark. He concludes that the author
was acquainted with the Pastoral Epistles
from the fact that some expressions occur only
in these, and in the epistles of Peter; as also
with the Gospel of John, by asserting that
the writer, in chap. i. 14, had the passage,
John xxi., 18, 19, in his mind; and, finally,
with the Gospel of Mark, by supposing that
chap. i. 12-15 contains allusions to that gos-
pel(!). 3 Heydenreich rightly observes: "For that
(conciliatory) purpose, the little which chap.
iii. says in passing of Paul would not have
sufficed ; if the writer had been chiefly anxious
to show such a union, he would have adapted
the construction and contents of the whole
epistle to the conciliatory design."

CHAP. I. 373

Jlirpov i^Tna^ToXrj /S'.
According to A and B, the Inscriptio is simply: Ilerpov P'.
CHAPTER I.
Ver. 1. 'Svpeuv]. B, several min., and vss. read, according to the usual form,
^ipCiv (Lachm.), which is evidently an alteration. — Ver. 3. After A, X, etc.,
Tisch. 8 reads, rd ndvra, instead of the Eec. ndvra, according to almost all
authorities (Lachm., Tisch. 7). — (5i« bb^yg koI dperyg]. A, C, P, N, many min.,
Copt., Arm., Vulg., etc., read, ib'ia bb^y koI apery, which Griesb. thinks probable;
accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., approved of by the modern commentators and
Eeiche; the Rec. in B (Buttm. has, however, put a ? to B), K, L, al., Thph.,
Oec, appears to be a correction. — Ver. 4. The Eec. is: Td piyiara yplv kuI ri/ua;
this occurs only in some min., however much the position of the single words
varies in the different Codd., etc. Buttmann has, following B: tu rlpia k. piy.
yulv; Lachm. and Tisch. V, following C, read: rd piy tara Kal r'lpia yplv; so, too,
A, only instead of vplv, iplv. Tisch. 8, following K, L, S, and many min., has
accepted rd ripia ypuv Kal piyiara. It cannot be determined which reading is the
original one. — iv Kbapip], Rec, according to C, K, several mm., Thph., Oec.
(Tisch. 7) ; on the other hand. A, B, L, K, etc., attest iv rip Kbapu (Lachm., Tisch.
8). — Ver. 5. airb roiro be], Eec, sufficiently corroborated by B, C*, K, L, P,
al., pl., Syr., Oec. — In C**, X, several min., Thph., there is airb Se roiro.
Lachm., according to A, reads avrol be, which can only be considered a cor
rection. Tischendorf has rightly retained the Rec. Schott arbitrarily supposes
that the original reading might be : Kal airol roiro ii. — Ver. 8. Instead of
indpxovra, which is attested by almost all authorities, Lachm., according to A,
Vulg., etc., has accepted napbvra, which probably arose from the subsequent
nupean, — Ver. 9. dpapnuv], Rec, according to B, C, L, P, al., Thph., Oec.
(Lachm.); in its place, Griesb., Scholz, Tisch., etc., according to A, K, K, al.,
Damasc, have dpaprypdruv, which most likely is the original reading; the alter
ation is easily explained by Heb. i. 3, as well as by ipdprypa, being in the N. T.
of rarer occurrence. — Ver. 10. anovbdaare pepalav ipuv rfjv Klyatv Kal iKloyijv
nptelaBai]. Eec, according to B, C, K, L, P, al., pl., Theoph., Oec, etc.
(Tisch.); in A, X, several min., and many vss., the words Iva Sid ruv kuIuv vpuv
Ipyuv are inserted between anovbdaare and Pepalav (evidently a later explanatory
addition), in which the inf. is changed into temp, flnit., notelaBe {Lachm,; in
the small ed., notyaBe). — Ver. 12. oi/c dpel^yau]. Rec, after K, L, al., Thph.,
Oec. (Griesb., Scholz); on the other hand. A, B, C, P, X, al., Copt., Sahid.,
Vulg., etc., are in favor of pellyau, which is justly accepted by Lachm. and

374 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. '
Tisch., approved of by De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger, and Schott, whilst
Eeiche prefers oi»c (i/icA^ffu, ut modestius et urbanius. — According to the testi
mony of B, C, K, L, X, al., pl., several vss., etc., ael vpug (Griesb., Scholz,
Tisch.) should be put in place of the Eec. ipUg del, following A, Vulg., etc.
(Lachm.). — Ver. 17. Tisch. 7 reads, after B: o v'lbg pov b dyanyrbg pov ovrog ianv,
and remarks, with reference to the Eec. obrbg ianv b vidg pov b dyanyrbg (after A,
C, K, L, X, etc., Lachm.): at ita locis parall. omnib. quorum nullo oir. iar,
postponitur neque Graec. ullus testis pov repetit. Tisch. 8 has accepted the
Rec. — Ver. 18. According to B, C*, etc., Tisch. 7 reads: iv rip dyiu dpet; but the
Eec, iv rip bpei rip dyiu (Tisch. 8), is too strongly supported by A, C***, K, L, P,
X, al., Vulg., ever to be regarded as spurious. — Ver. 21. According to B, C, K,
P, al., Copt., etc., Tisch. 7 has nore after npoipyrela, and Tisch. 8, following A,
L, X, etc., nore before npoipyrela; this order of words is the more natural, but for
that very reason can hardly be considered the original one. — The Rec. oi dyioi
Qeov occurs only in several min., some vss., Oec, Vulg. — A has dyioi roi Qeov
(Lachm.); K, L, X, al., dyioi Qeoi (Griesb., Scholz). Tisch. has adopted in its
place, unb Qeov, according to B, al., Syr., Copt.; Wiesinger, Schott, and Stein
fass prefer this reading; Bruckner, too, inclines to it; no doubt it was the one
which was most likely to give rise to alterations; still, it is too little supported
by B, etc. Eeiche considers Hyioi Qeoi to be the original reading.

Vv. 1, 2 'Zvueivv Xlerpog]. The form most in harmony with the Semitic
language : Ivpeuv, as a name of Peter, is to be found, besides here, ofily in
Acts XV. 14 ; otherwise, cf . Luke li. 25, iii. 30 ; Rev. vii. 7 ; Acts xiii. 1.
From the addition of the name itself, as little as from its form, can any
thing be concluded as to the genuineness (in opposition to Dietlein, Schott,
Steinfass) or the non genuineness of the epistle. The two names Slpuv
Uirpog are directly conjoined also in Matt. xvi. 16 ; Luke v. 8, etc. ; else
where, too, the apostle is called lluuv 6 leybpevog Uirpog. The addition of
Ivpeiiv serves to mark the author as a Jewish Christian. ^ — Soilog koI dnbarolog
'1. Xp., cf. Rom. i. 1; Tit. i. 1 (Phil. i. 1). Soilog expresses the more gen
eral, dnbarolog the more special oflBcial relation ; cf . Meyer on Rom. i. 1 ;
Schott unjustly denies that boilog has reference to the official relation. Ac
cording to De Wette, the author has here combined 1 Pet. i. 1 and Jude 1.
— rolg iabripov yplv laxoiai nianv] . inbnpog is inexactly translated in the Vul
gate by coaequaliter ; it is not equivalent to laog (Acts xi. 17: lay Suped), but
means, "having equal honor or worth." De Wette's interpretation is as incor
rect : " to those who have obtained the same right to participate in faith
with us." The use of the words npy, npau, in Peter's epistle, does not prove
that the expression has here reference specially to the divine privileges of
the kingdom (Dietlein). By this word the author gives it to be understood,
that the faith of those to whom he writes, has the same worth as that of
those whom he designates by yplv; both have received one and the same
faith (as to its objective contents) (Bruckner, Besser, Wiesinger); Hornejus:

' Bengel, assuming the authenticity of the con.ditionis prietlaae, antequam cognomen
epistle, observes not inaptly that Peter adds nactus erat."
^vpeiijv, " extremo tempore admooens se ipsum

CHAP. I. 1, 2. 375
dicitur fides aeque pretiosa, non quod omnium credentium aeque magna sit, sed
quod per fidem illam eadem mysteria et eadem beneficia divina nobis proponantur.
— The connection shows that by yplv all Christians (De Wette) cannot be
understood ; the word must only refer either to Peter (Pott), or to the
apostles (Bengel, Wolf, BrUckner, Steinfass, Fronmiiller), or to the Jewish
Christians generally (Nic. de Lyra, Dietlein, Besser, Wiesinger, Schott,
Hofra.); the last is the correct application (cf. Acts xi. 17, xv. 9-11).
Wiesinger: "That the faith of the apostles should have a different value
from that of those who through their preaching had become believers, is an
idea totally foreign to the apostolic age." — Ixixoiai points out that faith is a
gift of grace. Huss : sicut sors non respicit personam, ita nee divina electio
acceptatrix est personarum (cf. Acts i. 17). — On the breviloquence of the
expression, cf. Winer, p. 579 (E. T., 623). — 'ev biKaioavvy roi Qeoi, k.t.X].
Luther translates : " in the righteousness, which our God gives , " thus
SiKuioavvy would here mean that gift of God's grace which is the result of
faith, whether it is to be understood of the state of justification (Schott), or
the Christians' manner of life conformed to the commandments of God
(Briickner). If this view be adopted, however, SiKutoaivy cannot be con
nected with nlanv, for though iv may be regarded as equal simply to cum, or
be taken in the sense of, being furnished with (thus Briickner, formerly),
it would always denote that niang is contained in biKaioavvy, which certainly
does not correspond with the relation in which the two stand to each other;
faith is not bestowed on the Christian in righteousness, but righteousness in
faith. Hofmann joins iv bm. directly with manv, and understands by Sikuui-
avvy here ; " the righteousness which makes Christ our Saviour ; that in
which the world has the propitiation for its sins.'' This interpretation
assumes that Qeov is predicate to 'lyaoi Xpiaroi (see below) ; besides, it is
opposed by the circumstance that the context makes no allusion to any such
nearer definition of the idea, whilst it is arbitrary to render manv iv Sik :
" that faith which trv..sts in the righteousness of Jesus Christ." Schott, Stein
fass, and now, too, Bruckner, connect Sik. with iabnpov ; the position of the
words, however, is opposed to this, for were iv Sik. the closer definition of
iabnpov, it must have been placed directly beside it. Besides, g, somewhat
obscure thought results from this combination. The simple addition of
iv SiK. does not assert that the faith of the one has equal value with the faith
of the other in this, that in both cases it effects a StKaioaivy. StKaioaivy is
here not a gift, but an attribute of God, or a characteristic of His dealings.
Still, the expression must not be taken as equivalent either to " kindness "
(Eman. a Sa., Pott), or to "faithfulness," as regards the promises given by
Him (Beza, Piscator, Grotius) ; for although StKaioaivy may sometimes come
near to the above meanings, it is never identical ^ with them ; cf . Meyer on
1 De Wette thinks that the author, in ap- love by which He undertook the work of sal-
proxiraation to the Pauline views, may perhaps vation. But Sik. means neither grace nor love ;
have understood the righteousness of God as and, besides, it is a^together arbitrary to give
bringing in righteousness, — or salvation, — or the expressi on a different meaningwith respect
as redemptive righteousness, otherwise termed to Christ from that which il has when applied
^?'«ce,* aud the righteousness of Christ, as that to God.

376 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
Rom. iii. 25. Still less warrant is there for Dietlein's view, that righteous
ness is here " as a kingdom, the totality of the divine action and revelation
in contrast to this world full of sin and of uncompensated evil." Wiesinger
(and thus also Fronmiiller) understand by StKaioaivy, "the righteousness of
God and Christ, which has manifested itself in the propitiation for the sins
of the world ; " iu opposition to which Bruckner correctly remarks, that
Christ's work of atonement is not an act of His righteousness ; further,
" the righteousness of God which demands the death of the sinner " (Fron
miiller), may be considered as causing the death of Christ, but not as pro
ducing faith. SiKoioaivy, iu harmony with iabnpov, is rather that righteousness
of God — opposed to every kind of npoaonuliyipia — according to which He
bestows the same faith on all, without respect of persons (cf. Acts x. 34 f.).
iv is in meaniug akin to Sid, but it brings out more distinctly than it, in what
the obtaining of the niang iaor. is grounded. The author's thought is accord
ingly this : " in His righteousness, which makes no distinction between the
one and the other, God has bestowed on you the same like precious faith as
on us."i — T0!j Bfoi) yp. Kal aurf/pog 'I. Xp.]. Many interpreters (Beza, Hem
ming, Gerhard, and more recently Schott and Hofmann) take rov Qeoi yp.
and aurypog as a double attribute of 'lyaov Xp. Others (Wiesinger, Bruckner,
Fronmiiller, Steinfass) separate the two expressions, and understand roi Qeoi
iipuv of God the Father ; and rightly so, although in the similar combination,
ver. 11, iii. 18, there be but one subject. For Qebg differs from Kipiog in this,
that it is never conjoined with Xpiarbg as a direct attribute, whilst Kvpiog is
very often thus employed, as in the very next verse ; see my commentary
to Tit. ii. 13. There need be no hesitation in taking the article which
stands before Qeoii with aurypog also, as a secor d subject, — a statement which
Schott and Hofmann have wrongly called in question ; cf . (Winer, p. 124
[E. T., 130]) Buttmann, p. 84 ff. (E. T., 97, 100). Dietlein, in his inter
pretation, adopts a middle course : " of our God and Saviour ; and when I
speak of God the Saviour, I mean the Saviour Jesus Christ." But only this
much is correct here, that the close conjunction points to the oneness of God
and Christ of which the author was assured. — Ver. 2. xupii . . ¦ nlyBwBely,
as in 1 Pet. i. 2. In this passage iv imyvuaei roi Qeov k. 'lyaov roi KVp'iov ypuv
is added. Here, too, iv is not cum, but states in what the increase of grace
has its origin, and by what it is effected (De Wette). This is the knowledge
of God and Jesus, our Lord ; cf . on this John xvii. 3 ; 2 Pet. ii. 20. Cal
vin : Dei et Christi agnitionem simul connectit, quia rite non potest, nisi in Christo,
Deus agnosci. Although the in'iyvuaig here spoken of includes in it acknowl
edgment, yet it is erroneous to distinguish between in'iyvuaig and yvuaig, by
holding the former to be equivalent to acknowledgment ; cf. the further dis
cussions on the term iniyvuaig in Wiesinger and Schott, which, however,
especially in the case of the latter, are not without the mixing-up of thoughts
foreign to the idea. It is wrong to interpret iv by eig ; Aretius : ut colant
Deum, quemadmodum sese patefecit in Scripturis et ut coli vult. According to

1 Hofmann most unwarrantably maintains that, in this interpretation, ev is taken " in a sense
which cannot be justified."

CHAP. I. 3. 377
Dietlein, the thought intended to be expressed is that "grace and peace
grow and increase from within the soul, outwards, and in thus growing they
became ever more and more knowledge of the revealed God" (!).
Ver. 8. The first paragraph, extending as far as ver. 11, contains exhor
tations. The first of these is expressed in vv. 5-7, and to it vv. 3 and 4
serve as an introduction. — ug]. Lachmann connects ug directly with what
precedes, and puts a full stop after ipBopdg at the end of ver. 4 ; thus also
Vulg., Beza, Erasmus, Hornejus, Grotius. This combination, however, is
against the analogy of the N. T. epistles, in which the superscription closes
with the benediction (in the Epistle to the Galatians alone a relative clause
is subjoined, ending, however, with a doxology that marks the conclusion),
and is also opposed to the contents of vv. 3, 4, which serve as the basis for
ver. 5 (Wiesinger). Gerhard and others consider ug as equivalent to KuBiig
(which Gerhard explains by 'enel, i.e., "postquam" vel "siquidem"), and
supply ovrug to ver. 5 ; arbitrarily : ug belongs much more to the genitive
absolute (not pleonastically. Pott). The objective reason expressed in this
phrase for the exhortation contained in ver. 5 is by ug characterized as a
subjective motive ; Winer : " convinced (considering) that the divine power,"
etc. ; Dietlein : " in the consciousness that ; " so, too, De Wette, and the
more recent commentators generally; the construction in 1 Cor. iv. 18,
2 Cor. V. 20, is.similar; cf. Matthia, Ausf. Gr., 1825, § 568, p. 1120.— ndvra
. . . SeSupypivyg], The Vulg. incorrectly : quomodo omnia vobis divinae virtutis
sunt, quae ad vitam et pietatem, donata est (another reading is : sunt) ; and
Luther : " since every thing of His divine power, that pertains unto life and
godliness, is given us ; " SeSupypivyg is here not passive, but middle (of. Gen.
xxx. 20, LXX. ; Mark xv. 45), and ryg B, Svvdpeug does not depend on ndvra,
but is the subject (thus all modern commentators). — According to the
position of the words, airoi refers back to 'lya, r, Kvpiov ypuv (Calvin, Schott,
Steinfass), and not to Qeoi;^ if it be applied to Qeov (De Wette-Briickner,
Wiesinger), then Beiag (which occurs here only and in ver. 4 ; Acts xvii. 29,
rb Belov, as subst.) is pleonastic. Dietlein and Fronmiiller refer airoi to God
and Jesus, which linguistically cannot be justified.'' — rd npbg (ufjv kuI evaipeiav].
The f(j^ Kal eiaiPeia are not spoken of as the object, but rd npbg iurjv, K.r.l. For
the attainment of the former is conditioned by the Christian's conduct ; but
in order that it may be put within his reach, every thing is granted him
which is serviceable to ^uy and eiaipeia (cf. Luke xix. 42 : rd npbg eipyvyv aov).
The difference between the two ideas is in itself clear; i;uy, "blessedness,"
indicates the condition: eiaipeia, "godliness" (except in Acts iii. 12, occur
ring only in the Pastoral Epistles and Second Peter), the conduct. Grotius
incorrectly interprets l^uij as equivalent to vita altekius seculi, and eiaipeia
as pietas in hoc seculo. Both together they form the antithesis to ^ iv Koapip

1 Hofmann, indeed, applies it also to Christ, by the fact, that otherwise this whole argument
but by passing over ver. 2 to ver. 1, where, as would contain no reference to Him ; the appli-
already observed, he considers that it is not cation to both contains the correct idea, that
God and Christ, but Christ alone, who is re- the gift imparted by Jesus is the gift of God
ferred to. the Father.
3 The application to Jesus is also supported

378 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
iv iniBvpiif ipBopd. ndvra is by way of emphasis placed first, in order to show
distinctly that every thing, which is in any way serviceable to fu^ and eiaip.,
has been given us by the divine power of the Lord. Hofmann is wrong in
defining this ndvra as faith, hope, and charity, for this triad does not pertain
npbg evaiPeiav, but is the eiaiPeia itself. — bid ryg eniyvuaeug rov Kaliaavrog ypdg
states the medium through which the gift is communicated to us ; with
iniyvuaig, cf. ver. 2. God is here designated as b Kaliaag ypdg, since it is only
by the knowledge of the God who calls us that the ndvra rd np. C, k.t.X, are
appropriated by us, — the calling being the actual proof of His love to us.
The subject to Kalelv is not Christ (Vorstius, Jachmann, Schott, etc.), but
God (Aretius, Hemming, De Wette, Hofmann, etc.), as almost always in the
N. T.' Of course Kalelv does not mean the mere outward, but the inward,
effectual calling. — iS:a Sb^y kuI dpery], <56Ja denotes the being, uper^ the ac
tivity ; Bengel : ad gloriam referuntur attributa Dei naturalia, ad virtutem
ea, quae dicuntur moralia : intime unum sunt utraque. It is arbitrary to under
stand Sbia as meaning: "that side the nature of the Almighty One that
liveth, which is directed outwards," and by dpery : " the holy loving-kindness
of God " (as opposed to Hofmann). — The nature of God represented as the
instrumentality, as in Gal. i. 15: Kaliaag Sid ryg xuptrog airoi; cf., too, Rom.
vi. 4. A wrong application is given to the words, if they be taken as refer
ring to the miracles of Christ. It must be observed that this iniyvuaig itself,
too, is to be looked upon as wrought by Christ in us.
Ver. 4 must not, as a simple intervening clause, be. enclosed in paren
theses ; for although ver. 5 is the principal clause standing related to the
participial clause in ver. 3, still the latter is determined, in the thought of
it, by ver. 4. — bi liv]. uv does not refer to the immediately preceding iSig
Sb^y K. dpery (Dietlein, Wiesinger, Briickner, this comment.), for it cannot be
said that Christ has given us the inayyilpara through the Sb^a k. apery of His
Father, but to ndvra rd npbg, K.r.l, (Hofmann). Beza inaccurately interprets
Si uv by ex eo quod. — rd ripia yplv Kal piyiara inayyilpara]. indyyelpa, besides
here, occurs only in chap. iii. 13, where it is used in connection with the
new heaven and new earth in the future. By it is to be under.stood, not
the promises of the prophets of the O. C. fulfilled in Christ for us, nor those
things promised us of which we are made partakers in Christ (Hornejus :
bona et beneficia omnia, quae Deus per Christum offert et exhibet omnibus, qui in
ipsum credunt; Wiesinger, Schott); but, according to ver. 12 ff., chap. iii. 4,
ix. 13, the prophecies of the napovaia of Christ and the future consummation
of His kingdom, as contained in the gospel (Briickner). ^ Dietlein is wrong
' De Wette (with whom Briickner agrees) cf. Matt. ix. 13; Mark li. 17; on the other
is accordingly wrong in supposing that tou hand, it is certain that 6 KaKeaai; is never ap-
KaKeaavro'i rip. stands in place of the simple plied to Christ, but always to God.
pron. aiirov, and is inserted because, by this 2 Schott's assertion, that ewayyeKpara, ac-
circumlocution of the active subject, the cording to the form of the word, must mean
address gains in matter and range. — Schott's "promised things," Is opposed by chap. iii.
remarks, in which he attempts to justifj' his 13 ; but why the promises as such should not,
assertion that tou KaKeaavro^ applies to Christ, as Wiesinger supposes, be the means of effect-
are only in so far correct, that Ka\eiv might ing the Koivuivia Oeia^ ipvaeta^, it is difficult to
indeed be understood of an activity of Christ; understand.

CHAP. I. i. 379
in saying that inayyilpara are not only promises of what is future, but
announcements of what is present and eternal. He goes still farther astray
when he substitutes for this idea the different one : " the granting of favors
which proclaim themselves." The word inayyilletv (except in 1 Tim. ii. 10,
vi. 21) has constantly in the N. T. the meaning " to promise," never simply
"to proclaim." These promises are called "precious," not because they are
"no mere empty words" (Schott), but because they promise that which is
of the greatest value (Hofmann). The dative yplv from its position should
be connected more probably with ripia than with SeSijpyrai. — bebupyrai is here
also not passive (Dietlein), but middle (all modern interpreters). Gualther
erroneously explains it: donatae, i.e., impletae sunt. What is here referred
to is the communication, not the fulfilment, of the promises, which are a free
gift of divine grace. — The subject to bebijp. is not 6 Kaliaag (as formerly in
this commentary), but the same as that to the foregoing SeSupypivyg, — Iva bid
roiruv], Calvin, De Wette-Briickner, Hofmann, understand roiruv to refer
to rd npbg (uyv, k.t.X, as the leading thought; this construction Wiesinger
justly calls "a distortion of the structure, justifiable only if all other refer
ences were impossible." Incorrect also is the application to Sb^y koI apery
(Bengel). From its position it can apply only to inayyilpara (Dietlein, Wie
singer, Schott), and not in like manner to Sb^y kuI dpery (Fronmiiller). bid
has here its proper signification, not equal to "because of them" (Jachmann),
nor to " incited by them ; " as elsewhere the gospel is spoken of as the ob
jective means through which the divine life is communicated, so here the
inayyeXuara, which, according to the conception of Second Peter, form the
essential element of the gospel. — yivyaBe Beiag koivuvoI ipiaeug, not " that ye
may become partakers," but "that ye might be," etc. (Wiesinger). The aorist
shows that the author does not look upon the Koivuv'ia, which for the Chris
tian is aimed at in the bestowal of the promises, as something entirely future
(Vorstius : quorum vi tandem divinae naturae in illa beata immortalitate vos quo
que participes efiiciemini), but as something of which he should even now be
partaker.! The thought that man is intended to be partaker of the divine
nature, or to be transfigured into the divine being, — which is accomplished
in him through faith in the promises, — is, though in other terms, often
enough expressed in the N. T. (Heb. xii. 10 ; 1 Pet. i. 23 ; John i. 12, 13,
and many other passages). Hemming justly remarks : vocat hic divinam
naturam id quod divina praesentia efficit in nobis, i.e., conformitatem nostri cum
Deo, seu imaginem Dei, quae in nobis reformatur per divinam praesentiam in
nobis. When Hofmann urges the expression ipvatg against this view, because
a distinction must be drawn between the ipiaig of man and the personal life
of man, the former remaining even in hira who is regenerate always the
same, until this aiJpa is changed from a aiJpa ipvxiKbv to a aUpa nvevpariKbv, he
fails to observe that it is not the human, but the divine ipiaig that is here
spoken of, and in God there can be no difference made between natural and
1 Hornejus: " incipit ea in hac vita per magis illic erlmus per adspectum et si hic per
gratiam, sed perflcietur in altera pev gloriam; gratiam Id adiplscimur, quanto magis illic
Bi enim jam hic in lata imbecillitate divinae per gloriam, ubi Deus ipse erit omnia in
naturae consortes sumus per tidem, quanto omnibus."

380 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
personal life. The expression ipiaig is here quite inappropriately pressed by
Hofmann. As opposed to the mystic " deification," it must be remarked,
with the older interpreters, that the expression ipiaig conveys the thought,
not so much of the substantia, as rather of the qualitas. Grotius' interpreta
tion dilutes the idea : ut fieretis imitatores divinae bonitatis. The second per
son (yivyaBe) serves to appropriate to the readers in particular that which
belongs to all Christians (yu'iv).^ — dnnipvybvreg ryg iv {ru) Kbapu iv iniBvpif
ipBopug]. These words do not express the condition on which the Christian
becomes partaker of the divine nature, but the negative element which is
most intimately connected with the positive aim. Accordingly, the trans
lation is incorrect : " if you escape " (Luther, Bruckner) ; dnoipvybvreg is to be
translated " escaping, eluding ; " the aor. part, is put because the verb is
closely conjoined with the preceding aorist yivyaBe. It is to be resolved into :
" in order that ye might be partakers of the divine nature, in that ye escape
the ipBopd."^ With ipBopd, ci. chap. ii. 12, and especially Rom. viii. 21; Gal.
vi. 8 (see Meyer on the last passage). By it is to be understood not siraply
perishableness, but more generally corruption. The term ipBopd is here more
nearly defined as y iv ru Koapu ipBopd, i e., the corruption which dwells in the
(unredeemed) world, and to which all thereto belonging is a prey. The
further more precise definition : iv iniBvpigi, states that this ipBopd has its origin
in the evil lust, opposed to what is divine, which has its sway in the world
(1 John ii. 16, 17). — dnoip., here c. gen. ; chap. ii. 18, 20, cum accus. constr.
— The sequence of thought in vv. 3, 4, is : Christ hath granted us every
thing that is serviceable to salvation and holiness, and that by the knowl
edge of God who hath called us by His glory ; through it he has given us
the most glorious promises, the design of which is the communication of the
divine life.
Vv. 5, 6. Kal airb rovro bi]. Kal . . . Si, equivalent to "but also," "and
also;" cf. Winer, p. 412 f. (E. T., 443); Buttmann, p. 312 (E. T., 864).
Kai adds something new to what goes before; Se brings out that what is
added is to be distinguished from what precedes.^ — Neither nepi nor Kara

1 Hofmann arbitrarily objects to this inter- nature, therefore ye have left the kingdom
pretation, that a change of persons could not of the worldly nature." — By transferring
take place in a clause expressive of a design ; yivriaOe to the future, Schott gives an er-
ratber does it simply depend on the will of the roneous (linguistically) interpretation of an-o.
writer, where he wishes it to take place. ipvydvres as future also : " Ye shall become
When the writer of a letter wishes to state the partakers of the divine nature, as such who
purpose of any thing which has been Iraparted have {shall have) precisely thus escaped
to all, should he not In particular apply it to tijs . . . ipOopdi."
those to whom he addresses his letter ? — s Hofmann, without any reason, ascribes
Augusti strangely presses the change of per- two different meanings to Kai . . . Se, by say-
sons by applying ijplv to the Jews, yevrjaOe to ing, that "«at . . . 6e is either equal to *but
the heathen converts, and understanding Oeia now,' or else to ' but also; ' in the first case
<^ii<7ts of the divine descent of the Jews. Kal adds something further, which Se points
2 Bengel : " haec fuga non tam ut officium out to be aometbing different, and must be
nostrum, quara ut beneficiura divinum, com- added to what precedes by way of explana-
munionera cum Deo comitans, h. l.ponltur." tion; in the second case 5e adds something dif.
Dietlein : '* dnoip. contains no demand and ferent, and Kat Intimates that it is added on to
condition, but only the other side of the fact : what precedes, which cannot do without it."
Ye have entered the kingdom of the divine Kai . . . Se has in itself always the same sig-

CHAP. I. 5, 6. 381
nor npbg is to be supplied to airb roiro, which stands here absolutely, equivar
lent to bi avrb rovro: "for this very reason," cf. Winer, p. 134 f. (E. T., 142),
and refers back to the thought contained in ug jruKra . . . bebupypivyg, and
further developed in the clauses following : " since ye have been made par
takers of all that, therefore," etc. Grotius : Deus fecit quod suum est, vos
quoque quod vestrum est faciete. Dietlein takes airb rovro as a simple accusa
tive dependent on imxopyaare (thus also Steinfass) ; but this combination,
which would make roiro refer to the subsequent iv ry n. ip. rijv dperyv, or to
T. dperyv alone, is opposed by the airb beside it, which looks back to what
has gone before. Nor does Dietlein fail to see this, for he explains : " the
announcements given are now to be produced in the forra of Christian
virtues ; " this, however, results in a " straining " (Briickner) of the thought.
— As regards the connection of clauses, the apodosis belonging to ver. 3
begins with ver. 5, not, however, in quite regular construction. Hofmann,
on the other hand, holds that the apodosis conveying the exhortations begins
already with iva in ver. 4. He looks upon Iva as depending on inixopyyyaare,
and considers that the two participial clauses, dnoipvybvreg, k.t.X, and kuI . , .
napeiaeveyKuvreg, are to be closely connected with each other, and both to
gether joined with the imperative ; accordingly he translates : " Considering
that His divine power hath given us all that is serviceable to life and godli
ness ... ye should, in order thereby to become partakers of the divine
nature, having escaped the corruption in the world occasioned by lust, but for
that very reason giving all diligence, supply virtue in and with your faith."
But opposed to this view is : (1) The intolerable cumbrousness of the con
struction ; (2) The circumstance that although a dependent clause may
precede the clause on which it depends, this may take place only when the
clearness of the style does not thereby suffer, i.e., when the periods are so con
structed that the dependent clause cannot, by any rule of language, be taken
with a preceding clause, — but this is plainly not the case here; (3) The
aorist yivyaBe, instead of which the present would have been written ; and
finally, (4) The impossibility of here applying bid roiruv to any thing that
goes before. This becomes the more obvious if the preceding secondary
clause be considered as standing after the imperatival clause inixopyyyaare
. , , dydnyv, — anovb^v ndaav napeiaeviynavreg, ci. Jude 3 : ndaav an, noiovuevog
(Jos., Arch. XX. 9. 2: elaipipeiv anovSyv), napd points out that believers on
their side (De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott) should contribute their part,
namely, the anovSy, to what has here been given them. That napd has not
here the implied idea of secresy, is self-evident; but it is also unjustifiable
when Hofmann asserts that napeiaipepeiv anovSyv means "the application of
diligence, which endeavors after something already given in a different man
ner." — inixopyyyaare iv ry niarei ipijv ryv dperyv]. fm:);opjjyriv, either " contrib
ute," i.e., your contribution to the work of salvation (De Wette), or more
probably, according to the use of the word elsewhere in the N. T. (2 Cor.
ix. 10; Gal. iii. 5; cf. also 1 Pet. iv. 11), "to supply" (Briickner, Wiesinger,

nification ; Se only emphasizes the new element ent one frora what goes before, or altogether
added by Kai, whether this be merely a differ- antithetical to it.

382 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
Hofmann) ; it is here placed as correlative to the term SeSupyrcu, ver. 4, and
denotes "the gift which the believer gives in return for the gift of God"
(Wiesinger, although the meaning of the word does not quite justify him in
doing so, adds: "or more accurately, bywhich he again presents to God his
own gift in the fruit it has produced"). Dietlein's interpretation is erro
neous: "to perform in dance." This meaning the word never has. Even
xopyyelv sometimes means " to lead a dance," but not " to perform any thing
in dance." The original meaning of inixop, is: "to contribute to the ex
penses of a xopos-" Schott's assertion is arbitrary, "that inixopyyelv signifies
a supplying of what is due to one in virtue of an official or honorary posi
tion." — Pott incorrectly explains the preposition iv by Sid; De Wette inade
quately by " in, with, of that which is already present, and to which something
else should be added." The sense is: "since you have niang, let it not be
wanting in dpery." It is not meant, that to the niang, as something different
from it, dpery should be added ; but dperij belongs to niang, and for this reason
the Christian must put it into practice. The same relation is preserved in
the members which follow. i mang is presupposed as the origin (Oecume
nius : Bepelmg ruv dyaBuv Kal Kpynig) of all Christian virtues, and in the first
instance of the dpery, by which Oecumenius understands rd ipya ; Gerhard :
generale nomen omnium operum et actionum bonarum ; Calvin : honesta et bene
composita vita; it is best explained by strenuus animae tonus ac vigor (Bengel):
"mural efficiency" (De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.).^ — iv Si ry dpery ryv
yvuaiv]. y yvuaig is not here ^ ruv roi Qeoi dnoKpvipuv pvarypluv eiSyaig (Oecum.),
nor is it " the knowledge of God which the Christians possess " (Dietl.) ;
but as the matter in hand here is the practical proof of the Christian temper,
it nmst be understood as denoting the perception of that which the Christian
as such has to do in all relations of life, and of how he has to do it (Besser,
Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann; Briickner, in agreement with this: " discre
tion ").2 — Ver 6 The three virtues here named are: the iyKpdreia, the
vnopovy, and the eiaiPeia. — iyKpdreia, besides here, in Acts xxiv. 25 and Gal.
vi. 22 (Tit. i. 8: iyKparyg; 1 Cor. vii. 9, ix. 25: iyKparevopai), denotes the
control of one's own desires ; rb pybevi dnoaipeaBai ndBei (Oecumenius) ; cf . on
Tit. i. 8.* Compare this with the passage in Jes. Sir., xviii. 30, where under
thQ superscription iyKpdreia ipvxyg there is the maxim : bniau rCiv iniBvuiuv aov
py nopeiov, nal dnb rCrv ipi^euv aov Kuliov. — vnopovy is enduring patience in all
temptations. Besser aptly recalls the proverb ; abstine, sustine. — With
1 Steinfass remarks: "ci* conceives the present employed ; still that expression does
accusatives as involute accusatives, and as not altogether coincide with yvdais, which
elements of the previous datives;" this cer- Luther understands as meaning that " circum-
tainly is correct, but must be supplemented spectness" which knows how to maintain tfie
thus far, that the element of the preceding right moderation in all things.
conception, expressed by the accusative, stands * Hofmann unwarrantably disputes this in-
forth as a special grace, and thus becomes, as terpretation by saying that eyKp, is " that
it were, the complement of it. quality by which a person denies himself all
2 Hofmann : *' that disposition which shows that is unprofitable; " for the denying one's self
itself in the doing of what is right and good." that which is unprofitable, for which there is
3 Besser is undoubtedly right in trying to no desire, surely gives no proof whatever of
prove that Luther's "modesty" has another eyKpdreia.
signification than that in which the word is at

CHAP. I. 7. 383
eiaeSeia, comp. ver. 3; Dietlein, without sufficient justification, explains it
here as "the godly awe and respect in the personal, domestic relations of
life." If eiaipeia do not apply only to our relation to God (e.g., Dio Cass.,
xlviii. 5 : Sid ryv npbg rbv dbelipbv evaipeiav), the other object pf it must in this
case be definitely stated.
Ver. 7 adds 0ilabelipia and dyaTT)? to the virtues already named. These
are to be distinguished thus, that the former applies specially to the Chris
tian brethren, the latter to all — without distinction; 1 Thess. iii. 12: ij dydny
eig dllylovg Kal eig ndvrag (Gal. vi. 10); with ipilabelipla, cf. 1 Pet. i. 22. While
the apostle calls the love which is extended to all dj-un-;?, he gives it to be
understood that what he means is not the purely natural well-wishing, but
Christian love springing from the Christian spirit. Dietlein, without suf
ficient reason, thinks that ^ilabel^la is only the opposite of that which is
forbidden in the eighth and ninth commandments, whilst the dydny is the
complete antithesis to what is forbidden in the tenth commandment In
this way the conception ipilabelip'ia is unjustifiably disregarded, — a proceed
ing to which the language of Scripture gives the less sanction, that where
love in all its depth and truth is spoken of, the word ^ileiv is not unfre
quently used; cf. John v. 20, xvi 27, etc. — Although the different virtues
here are not arranged according to definite logical order, yet the way in
which they here belong to each other is not to be mistaken. Each of the
virtues to be shown forth forms the complement of that which precedes, and
thus gives rise to a firmly-linked chain ot thought, dper-ri supplies the com
plement of niang, for faith without virtue is wanting in moral character, and
is in itself dead ; that of dpery is yvuaig, for the realizing of the moral volition
is conditioned by comprehension of that which is needful iu each separate
case ; that of yvuaig is iyKpareia, for self-control must not be wanting to voli
tion and comprehension ; that of iyKpdreia is inopovy, for there are outward
as well as inward temptations to be withstood ; that of vnouovy is eiaeBeia, for
only in trustful love to God has the inopovy firm support; that of eiaiPeia the
ipilabel^ipia, for " he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can
he love God whom he has not seen ? " (1 John iv. 20) ; that of ipilabelipia the
dyuny, for without the latter the former would degenerate into poor narrow-
heartedness. Thus, in that the one virtue is the complement of the other,
the latter produces the former of itself as its natural outcome; Bengel:
praesens quisque gradus subsequentem parit etfacilem reddit, subsequens priorem
temperat ac perficit.^
1 According to Dietlein, tbe three first the Creed, and the third grace of that triad.
graces, including mans, correspond to the Certainly there is here a good deal that coin-
first table of the law, the three first petitions cides, but this by no means warrants a consist.
of the Lord's Prayer, the first article of the ent parallelism of all the individual points,
Creed, and lo faith in the Pauline tiiad; the which can only gain an appearance of correct-
three following graces, to the first half of ness by an arbitrary narrowing or extending
the second table of the law, the fourth petition of the ideas and their applications. — It is
in the Lord's Prayer, the second article of the worthy of remark, that the series begins with
Creed, and the second grace In the Pauline niarm and ends with dydnri ; in that, then, ver.
triad , the two last graces, to the second half of 11 points to the future, eATri? is added, so that
the second table of the law, the three last poti- the well-known triad la here alluded to
tions of the Lord's Prayer, the third article of (Schott).

384 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
Ver. 8. Reason for the foregoing exhortation. — raira, i.e., the virtues
above mentioned. — ydp iplv indpxovra kuI nleovd^ovra]. For indpxeiv C. dat.,
cf . Acts iii. 6 ; nliovd^ovra intensifies the idea indpxovra ; for nleovd^eiv, ci. my
commentary to 1 Tim. i. 14 ; it means either "to be present in abundance,"
strictly, to exceed the measure (abundare), or " to become more, to increase
(crescere)." Here the first of these two meanings seems to deserve the pref
erence ; though uot so in the judgment of Bruckner, Wiesinger, Schott,
Steinfass, Ilofmann. The participles may be resolved into "in that"
"since" (Dietlein), or "if" (Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott); the latter is to
be preferred, inasmuch as this verse refers back to the exhortation ver. 5,
and in " ver. 9 the opposite is assumed as possible " (Briickner) ; thus : "for
if the.te virtues exist in you, and that in rich measure;" Luther in his transla
tion has combined the two translations. — oiK dpyoig oiSi dKdpnovg KaBlaryaiv].
iudg is to be supplied. Hornejus : liroryg est, cum ait : non inertes neque in-
fructuosos pro operosos et fructuosos ; Dietlein : " the oiK and oibi belong to
the adjectives, not to Kadiaryaiv." — For dpyog, cf. 1 Tim. v. 13; Tit. i. 12;
OVK ipybg, equivalent to " active . " dmpnog cannot mean only " without fruit,"
but "barren" also; cf. Eph. v. 11 (as against Schott). — KuBiaryai: the
present is not put here for the future (Hornejus). According to Dietlein,
Wiesinger,. and Schott, (ca8(or?;u( should mean, "to cause to appear, to ex
hibit," so that the sense would be: "he who possesses these virtues, he
thereby appears as bringing forth fruit with regard to the 'eniyv. roi Kvpiov 'I.
Xp.," by which is meant that his knowledge manifests itself as an active one.
This is, however, incorrect; for (1) A meaning is thereby attributed to KuBla-
ryui which it never has, either in the classics or in the N. T. (not even in
Jas. iii. 6, iv. 4, and Rom v. 19) ; it means "to set up," but not to set forth,
to exhibit, to manifest, etc. (2) It gives a meaning to £('c such as that word
has nowhere else, since the object with which it is to be taken is always to
be thought of as the end, and that even in the more loose connection in
which eig is equal to " with regard, with respect to." (3) It is a somewhat
idle, because a self-evident reflection, that if knowledge produce the above-
named virtues, it thereby manifests itself as a knowledge that is not inactive.*
It is also inaccurate to translate vv'ith Luther : " where such is present in
abundance in you, it will let you be neither idle nor unfruitful in the knowl
edge," etc., for eig is not equal to iv. The verb KuBlarypi denotes, in connec
tion with an adjective, reddere, to make into, to set one up as ; cf. Pape,
s.v. ; and the preposition eig expresses the direction, so that the thought is:
those virtues make you (or, more exactly, place you as) active and fruitful
with regard to knowledge, i.e., by them you are advanced with regard to
knowledge; cf. Col. i. 10: iv navrl epyu dyuBu Kupnoipopoivreg Kal ai^avbuevoi eic
ryv iniyvuaiv rov Qeoi (of. Meyer, in loe.) ; De Wette: "The author considers
all these virtues only as steps to the knowledge of Jesus Christ; and this
knowledge he regards not merely as theoretical, but as one to be obtained
' This third reason also contradicts Hof- neither inactive nor unfruitful, he makes this
mann's interpretation, which he expresses aiming the rule of all his actions, but so th.it
thus: ** The believer poBsesses the knowledge they should be its work, its fruit."
of Christ. If then, in aiming at it, he be

CHAP. I. 9. 385
practically, a living into Him, and, at the same time, perfect;" thus, too,
Briickner, Fronmiiller, Steinfass.
Ver. 9 gives in negative form an explanation of the preceding verses. —
(i5 ydp py ndpean raira, antithesis to raira . . . nleovdCflvra, ver. 8. The posses
sion of these graces furthers knowledge, for he who does not possess them is
rviplbg, that is, in so far as he is, and remains, without the true knowledge
of Jesus Christ, py is explained thus, that the idea which lies at the basis
is : "he who is so constituted, that he is without these virtues " (Hofmann),
or so that he must be judged as being.without them.i — rv^lbg ean, pvuniit^uv].
pvundiieiv (utt. ley.) means, to be a piu^, i.e., one short-sighted : '-= accordingly
pvundCuv serves more nearly to define the term rviplbg as one who can see only
what is near, not what is far oft'. Schott correctly explains pvund^uv by
"weak-sighted." The older commentators, following Oecumenius, for the
most part take pvund^eiv as synonymous with rvipldrreiv ; thus Calvin, Hor
nejus, etc. ; but the identification in ineaning of these two terms cannot be
justified, whilst it gives rise to an intolerable tautology. The translation
of the Vulgate : manu tentans (similarly, Erasmus : manu viam tentans ;
Luther: "and gropes with the hand;" Calvin: manu palpans), has arisen
probably from the gloss, ipj/laipuv, perhaps with reference to Deut. xxviii.
28, 29 ; Isa. lix. 10. Wolf interprets the word, after Bochart (Hierozoic
1. 1. c. 4), by Kuupveiv oculos claudere;" but pvund^eiv is not derived from
pieiv rdg idnag, but from ii'vuip. A piuip, however, is not one who arbitrarily
closes his eyes, but one who, from inability to see far enough, is obliged to
blink with his eyes, in order to see a distant object. The same applies
to Dietlein, who translates : " one who closes his eyes," by which he con
ceives a voluntary closing of the eyes, precisely that which is opposed to the
meaning of the word. If, then, pvund^uv mean a short-sighted person, the
question arises : What is that near at hand which he sees, and that far off
which he does not see ? The first expression is generally understood as ap
plying to earthly, and the second to heavenly things. Hofmann, on the other
hand, explains : " he sees only what is present to him : that he is a member
of the Christian Church ; but how he has become so, that lies outside his
horizon." Here, however, the first thought is purely imported, and the
second has only an apparent justification in the clause which follows. —
lydyv lu3uv]. dTT. ley, equal to oblitus ; Vulgate: oblirionem accipiens; cf.
vnbpvyaiv lapidv, 2 Tim. i. 5 (cf . Joseph., Ant, ii. vi. 9 ; Wetstein, Losner,
Krebs, in loe); taken strictly, the translation is- "having received the lyBy."
Hofmann justly remarks : that this aoristic clause is not only co-ordinate
with the preceding, but is added to it by way of explanation. He is wrong,
however, when he thinks that it is intended to elucidate pvundt,uv. By it
the author refers not to the consequences (Steinfass, and formerly here), but

1- Schott unwarrantably maintains, on the aiv oi yepiavre? tois pvomd^ovaiv ra ydp eyyiiii
interpretation of ver. 8 here adopted, that the ^ij iipdivre^ rd n6ppoi9ev ^\enovaiv.
translation raust be, " he becomes blind." * Tu(^A6s pvoiird^tov is dicitur, qui ideo
2 Aristotle interprets sec. 31; pviarrdiov- caecus est, quia sponte claudit oculos, ut ne
tc? ; oi 6K yeveTYj^ Ta pev ev^us ^Xenovres, Ta 5e videat.
e$ diroardaeiMS ovx opwi/Tcs" evavna Se irdaxov.

386 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
rather to the reason of the blindness, or, more strictly, short-sightedness,
which manifests itself in the want of the Christian graces. Dietlein arbi
trarily emphasizes this forgetting as a voluntary act. This is justified neither
by the expression itself nor by the connection of thought. — roi KoBapiapoi
ruv nalai airov dpaprypdruv, " the (accomplished) cleansing froin the former
sins ; " not as Winer formerly, in the fifth edition, p. 214, conjectured : " the
purification, i.e., the removal of sins ; " cf. Heb. i. 3. As ndlai shows, KuBap.
does not here mean a continuous (to be obtained by repentance perhaps,
etc.), but a completed process. Not, however, the (ideal) KaBapiapbg of sins
for the whole world of sinners, accomplished through Christ's death on the
cross; — avrov is opposed to this; but the cleansing, i.e., forgiveness, pro
cured by the individual in baptism (thus to Bruckner, Schott, Hofmann ;
Wiesinger less aptly applies it to the calling), so that ndlai denotes the time
preceding baptism; cf. 1 Cor. vi. 11.
Ver. 10. Resumption of the exhortation. — Sib uCillov]. Sib is usually
taken as referring to the truth expressed in vv. 8, 9, and udllov interpreted
as equal to "all the more." The meaning is, then: that this truth should
still more incite to zeal (thus Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.). Dietlein,
on the other hand, takes pdllov as " ushering in an antithesis," equal to
"rather;" thus also Hofmann. The former supplies the thought: "instead
of following a virtueless endeavor after a so-called iniyvuaig," for which,
however, in the context there is no warrant. The latter more correctly
applies it to what immediately precedes, in this sense, " the readers should
do the opposite of that which Peter calls a forgetting that they have received
the pardon of sin."* That the particle pdllov frequently expresses an an
tithesis, cannot be denied ; cf. 1 Cor. v. 2 : but as little can it be questioned
that it may serve to express intensification ; cf . IMeyer ou 2 Cor. vii. 7. In
this way both interpretations are possible. Still that which is usually given
appears to be preferable, inasmuch as it seems more natural to apply the
very significant thought of this verse to vv. 8, 9, than only to the subordi
nate idea immediately preceding. — dSelipol makes the exhortation more
urgent. — anovbdaare . . noielaBai]. The exhortation here points back to
ver. 5 : anovbyv n. napeiaeveyK. The relations of Klyatg and iKloyy are thus
stated by Gerhard : vocatio, qua in tempore ad regnum gratiae vocati estis ;
ELECTIO, qua ab aeterno ad regnum gloriae electi estis; in like manner Wie
singer, Fronmiiller, etc. ; cf. Liinemann also on 1 Thess. i. 4. But iKluyy
can also denote the election effected by the Klyaig, i.e., the separation of
those who are called from the world, and the translation of them into the
kingdom of God. And this latter view is supported not only by the position
in which the two ideas stand to each other, but by the connection of thought
(Grotius, Briickner, Schott, Hofmann) ; ^ for the summons pePaiav rroieloBai
can apply only to something which has been realiter accomplished in man,
^ Hofraann interprets Std in harraony with 2 Grotius ; " date operara, ut et vocatio
his conception of ver. 2 ; " for this reason, quae vobis contigit per evangeliura et electio
because he only, who is possessed of the afore- eara secuta, qua facti estis Dei populus, ratae
named graces, is capable of putting his knowl- sint."
-edge into practice."

CHAP. I. 11, 12. 387
not to the decree of God in itself unchangeable and eternal. For this reason
Calvin feels himself compelled unwarrantably to paraphrase anovb. Pep. . . .
noielaBai by : studete ut re ipsa testatum fiat, vos non frustra vocatos esse, imo
electos.^ — For Pepa'iav, cf. Heb. iii. 6, 14. The making sure takes place
then, when the Christians, by a conduct such as is directed in vv. 5, 8, do
their part to remain the called and elected people ; the opposite of this is
expressed in ver. 9. — The reading: iva bid rCm kuIuv ipijv epyuv pep., k.t.X,
reproduces the thought in substance correctly. — ravra ydp noioivreg]. raira
refers not to the foregoing virtues, as Hofmann thinks, but to that which
immediately (precedes; "the plural shows that the apostle considered this
making sure a very many-sided act" (Dietlein). — oi py nraiayre nore]. nraleiv
means in Jas. ii. 10, iii. 2, "to offend" (Vulg. : non peccabit'is) ; here as in
Rom. xi. 11, "to forfeit salvation;" thus also Hofmann. It is unjustifiable
to combine the two ideas (De Wette : "to fall, and so to fail of salvation ").
The double negation oir py, and the nori placed at the end, strengthen the
statement. Ver. 11. ovru ydp]. Resumption of the raira noioivreg ; Dietlein's inter
pretation is erroneous : " precisely when ye in all huraility renounce every
arrogant striving after distinction ; " for there is no reference here to any
such striving. — nlovalug inixopyyyByaerai ipiv y elaobog eig, K.r.l.]. The con
junction of elaobog and nlovaiug inixopyyyByaerai is surprising. It is incorrect
to attribute to rr?,Aivoiug a meaning different from that which it always has
(thus Grotius: promptissimo Dei affectu; Augusti; "iu more than one way").
It is, however, also erroneous to make n'lova, imxop. apply not to elaobog itself,
but to the condition which is entered upon after the elaobog, "the higher
degree of blessedness" (De Wette). ^ emxop. represents the entrance into the
eternal kingdom of Christ as a gift ; nljyva'iug as a gift abundantly, in so far
as that entrance is not in any way rendered difiicult, or even hindered; the
opposite is the ublig, 1 Pet. iv. 18. Schott is not quite accurate in applying
n'Aovaiug to the "secure certainty oi the entrance." Wiesinger adopts both
the interpretation of Gerhard : divites er'it'is 'in pnaemi'is coelestibus, and that of
Bengel : ut quasi cum triumpho intrare possitis. Dietlein here inaptly brings
in with imxopyy. "the conception of a chorus in solemn procession." It is
to be noted that as inixopyyyaare, ver. 5, points back to Sebupyrai in ver. 4, so
does this inixopyyTfiyaerai here to inixopyyyaare. The Christian's gift in return
must correspond with the gift of God, and the return-gift of God again with
that of the Christian.
Ver. 12. Sid, not " therefore, because the ivhole duty consists precisely in
the not forgetting " (Dietlein), for no expression was given to any such
thought here, but " because to hira alone, ^ who iu the supplying of virtues

1 Besser tools wrong: " the apostle exhorts the way that is tieated of, but merely the ad-
in these words, that what is stable with God, mission (or, more correctly, the entrance) to it.
be also stable with us." " Hofmann takes exception to this " only ; "
2 Steinfass; "This passage treats of the wrongly, foralthougb the apostle merely says,
way, of the admission to it, and not of the '* that he who would live up to his exhortations
blessedness which awaits the believer at the would undoubtedly find au entrance open to
end of it." He is right, ouly that It Is not even the everlasting kingdom of Christ," utill that

388 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
reaches an ever more complete knowledge of Christ, is an entrance into the
everlasting kingdom of Christ ministered. — pellyau]. The same form else
where only iu Matt. xxiv. 6 ; De Wette interprets it here : " I will ever have
a care ; " Sohott translates : " I will always be in the position ; " but there
is nothing which renders necessary here a translation different frora that in
the other passage. Hofmann justly says that it is a circumlocution for the
future of inouipvyaKeiv, as in Matt, for dKovetv, and that del must be joined
with pel'lyau. — Luther, following the Rec. oiK dpelyau: "therefore I will
not cease." — nepl roiruv, i.e., of all that which has been already mentioned.
It is not to be limited to any one thing ; and therefore not, with De Wette,
to " the kingdom of God and its future ; " nor, with Wiesinger, to " the
manifestation of faith in its fruits;" and still less can roiruv he understood,
with Hofmann, of the virtues mentioned in vv. 5-7. In this verse the author
promises his readers that he will del, i.e., at every time, as the opportunity
presented itself (Hofraann in all probability incorrectly : " when I address
you "), remind them of this. By what raeans, is not said ; but that he does
not refer to this epistle, is shown by the so strongly expressed future. — Kainep
eibbrag], Calvin : Vos quidem, inquit, probe tenelis, quaenam sit evangelii Veritas,
neque vos quasi fiuctuanles confirmo, sed in re tanta monitiones nunquam sint
supervacuae: quare nunquam molestae esse, debent. Simili excusatione utitur
Paulus ad Rom., xv. 14. Cf . also 1 John ii. 21 ; Jude 5. — koI iarypiypevovg
ivry napoiari dlyBeia, "and made firm, i.e., are firm in," etc.; not "although ye
are supported, i.e., have won a firm position by standing on the present
truth" (Dietlein). iv ry nap, dlyB, is the complement of laryp,, and states
not the means by which, but the object in which, tlie readers have become
firm. — napoiay stands here in the same sense as roi napbvrog (that is, eiayyeliov)
eig i/idf. Col. i. 6.^ De Wette, with not quite strict accuracy, interprets napoiay
as equal to napaboBeiay, Jude 3. Vorstius, Bengel, etc., incorrectly take it as
referring to the fulfilment in the gospel of the Old-Testament promises; and
Schott, instead of to truth in an objective sense, "to the relation of fellow
ship with God, in which they stood as Christians."
Vv. 13, 14. SIkuiov be yyoipai], " I consider il right and reasonable" (Diet
lein : " as a duty ") ; cf. Phil. i. 7 ; ver. 14 states the reason. — lip' baov eipl 'ev
rovru ru aKTjvupari]. OKyvupa, like oKyvog, 2 Cor. V. 1, " the tabernacle," a figura
tive designation of the human body ; cf . Wisd. ix. 15 : rb yeCibeg oKyvog,
There can hardly be here any direct reference to the nomadic life in tents
(Hornejus). — bieyeipeiv ipdg iv inopvyaei, "to stir you up by reminding you, i.e.,
to encourage you." The sarae combination takes place in chap. iii. 1; bieye'i-
peiv is to be found elsewhere only in the Gospels, and there in its strict
signification. — iv inopvyaei points back to irropipvyoKeiv in ver. 12, which, in
the aim of it, bieyeipeiv serves to define more nearly. In De Wette's opinion,
these words are written with special reference to the advent of Christ ; but
there is nothing to indicate any such limitation of them. It cannot, with

is as much as to say that he who does not do so ^ Steinfass says ; " Theantithesis to napovarj
will uot find that entrance; consequently the is Peter's absence;" it is hardly probable that
" only " is understood of itself. the writer thought of this antithesis.

CHAP. I. 16. 389
Dietlein, be concluded that this letter is linked on to the First Epistle of
Peter, frora the circurastance that in 1 Pet. v. 8, 9, ypy-^opyaare is to be found
followed by arepeoi. — Ver. 14. eibug, "since I know," gives the reason for
the SiKuiov yyoipai, ver. 13. — oti raxivri ianv i) dnbSeaig roi OKyvuparog pov]. The
expression dnoBeaig is to be explained by "a mingling of the figure of a
garraent and that of a tent " (De Wette). — raxivy is taken by most commen
tators (as also by Wiesinger and Bruckner) to mean "soon." Accordingly
some (De Wette, Fronmiiller, and others) think that in the subsequent
words the writer does not refer to the prediction of Christ contained in John
xxi. 18 ff., but to a later revelation vouchsafed to Peter (such as is men
tioned by Hegesippus, De Excid. Jerosolym., iii. 2, and by Ambrose, Ep. 33) ;
but Bengel already translated raxivy ianv correctly by repent'ina est . observ
ing: Praesens, qui diu aegrotant, possunt alios adhuc pascere. Crux ill Petro
non erat permissura. Ideo prius agit, quod agendum erat.^ In chap. ii. 1 also,
raxivbg means "sudden, swift" (Vulg., velox), not "soon." Peter says here
that he will end his life by a sudden (i.e., violent) death; so too Steinfass,
Schott, Hofmann ; the adjective ra\ivy states, not the time, but the manner
of the dnbBeaig. Accordingly the assumption of a later revelation has no
foundation in this passage. ^ — The particle «u; after kuBuc, for the most part
left unnoticed, shows that the words koBIjc, k.t,!., are added in confirmation
of Peter's certainty as to his sudden death, equivalent to "even as indeed.'
With eSyluaev, cf. 1 Pet. i. 11.
Ver. 15. anovbiau bi Kal, "but I will, moreover, also zealously take care,
that, " KUI connects this sentence with ver. 13; it belongs to anovSaau, not to
what follows. — tKaarore]. an. ley. , " on every occasion," quotiescunque usus
venerit (Bengel); it belongs to ixe.v, k.t.X, and must not be connected with
anovbdau, — exeiv ipdg , , . noieioBai]. The construction of anov6dC,eiv ^''ith the
accus. cum inf. only here; ixeiv with the infinitive means, "to be able." —
ryv pvypyv noielaBai, here only, " to call np the memory (recollection) of this,"
that is, in you: similarly uveiav noielaBai (Roni. i. 9; Eph. i. 16, etc.). —
roiruv as in ver. 12. Dietlein, altogether arbitrarily, understands it of the
memory of the history of Christ as He appeared in the flesh. — Peter prom
ises to his readers, that as it was his intention in ver. 12 to remind thera of
the truths stated in vv. 3-11, he would also endeavor that after his death
they should always be able to remember them. By what means he would
do this, is in this passage as little stated as in the pellyau . . . ipdg inopipvy-
oKciv, ver. 12. The reference here is not to the first and second epistles ; ^
this in like raanner is opposed by the future anovbdau. The words Si kuI
following on anovbdau seem to imply that the author would do something
^ Besser ; " The Lord had communicated to 3 Dietlein ; " Peter finds it necessary, in the
him that a quick and sudden puttmg-off of the first place, to stir up their remembrance during
tabernacle of the body awaited hira." his lifetime, and secondly, to secure it for the
2 Even If raxivri meant *' soon," it would time after his death; he wishes to provide for
not be necessary to understand this here; for the latter also, at all times, i.e., be will not stop
as John xxi. 18 expressly says, orav Se yepdaif}^, short at the epistle he has already written, but
Peter could, if writing this epistle in his old will make use of the present opportunity for
age, appeal to those words of Christ as cor- writing a second."
roborating his expectation of a speedy death.

390 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
else besides the inouiuvyoKeiv, whereby his readers after his death would be
put in a position to remember what he had now written to them. This
additional something may, however, be regarded as the exeiv ipdg , . . ryv
rovruv pvyuyv noieiaBai itself in relation to ipdg irrouipvyoKeiv; that is to say, the
latter states what he, the former what they, should do. It is most probable
that the author in pe'>tlyau inopipvyoKeiv and anovbiiau expresses his intention
of continuing for the future also to write to his readers as time and oppor
tunity presented themselves. It is entirely arbitrary to take the promise as
referring to copies of his letters (De Wette), or to the coraposition of the
Gospel of j\Iark, which is supposed to have been done under Peter's super
intendence (Michaelis, Pott, Fronmiiller, etc.), or to the appointing of faithful
teachers, cf. 2 Tim. ii. 2.
Ver. 16. ov ydp neaoitnapevoig pvBoig i^aiiolovBijaavreg]. ydp showS that this
verse, in which allusion is made to the erroneous teachers, gives the reason
for the anovbdau. The connection of thought is perfectly plain, so soon as it
is observed that all that has gone before has been said in clo.se relation to
the "promises" (ver. 4). — aeaoqnauivoig piBoig, Luther inexactly: "clever
fables;" aoipiQeiv means in 2 Tim. iii. 15, "to make wise;" this meaning
is inappropriate here; in the classics it occurs in the sense, "to contrive
cleverly;" thus Aristophanes, iVu 7;. 543: del Kntvdg ibeag aoipi(ouai; accordingly
aeao0, pvBoi are "cleverly contrived fables : " Pott: fnbiilae ad decipiendos homi
num animos artificiosae excogilalne atque exnrnatae ," ^ cf. chap. i. 3, nlaarol Ibjoi,
The interpretation of Aretius is, on the other hand, incorrect: falmlae falsa m
habentes snpiehtiae et veritatis speciem. The expression pvBoi is to be found in
the N. T. only here and in the Pastoral Epistles. As the author makes no
special allusion of the kind, it is at least doubtful if he refers to any definite
myths ; either those of the heathen with reference to the appearances of the
gods upon earth (Oecumenius, Estius, Bengel, etc.), or to those of the Gnos
tics as to the emanation of the aeons (Dietlein), or to the Gnostic myth of
the Sophia (Baur), or to the apocryphal legends of the birth and childhood
of Christ, especially iu the Ev. Infantiae Jesu (Jachmann), or to false myths
as to Christ embellished in the spirit of the Jewish iMessianic beliefs (Semler),
or "apocryphal, didactic, and historical traditions, as these were appended by
a later Judaism to the histories of the O. T., especially to the most ancient "
(Schott, similarly Steinfass), or to the practice of heathen lawgivers, who,
according to Josephus, appropriated to themselves the fables of popular
belief, borrowing from them their accounts of the gods (Hofmann). The
words' express, indeed, an antithesis, but this is of an entirely general kind;
either in order to bring out that the apostolic preachers are not like those
1 Dietlein thinks that the expression aeao- employed so as to contain the secondary mean-
(piapevot^ contains a double reproach, i.e., not ing of cleverness (see Pape, s.v.) ; consequently
only by the termination i^eiv, out also in as far Hofraann is wrong iu rendering o-eoo^to-^ecos
as the word a-o<f)ta means what is bad; however, siraply by "conceived," asserting that the
the termination i^eiv is by no means always word raeans nothing else. Cf. with our pass-
used in a bad sense, nor does aoiPia in itself age, Josephus, Antiq., prooem. 4 : oi pev dAAot
mean what is bad, except only in connection vopoBerai toi? /luflots e^aKo\ov9riaavTes rdiv
with TOU KocT^ou TOUTOU (1 Cor. i. 20), dvOpinnivTf dv9pialTLVivv dpaprT}pdriov eiq tous Beovi; np Aoyy
(1 Cor. ii. 13), etc. Besides, aoitti^eiv is mostly rr}v aiaxwijv pereQ-qaav, K.r.k.

CHAP. L 16. 391
others who seek the support of myths, — perhaps with special reference to
the false teachers alluded to in chaps, ii. and iii., — or, what is less probable,
in order to meet the reproaches of these teachers (Wiesinger), and the
contrast serves to give the more prominence to the positive statement. —
e^aKolovByaavreg]. The verb, besides here, only in chap. ii. 2 and 15. The
preposition e^ does not precisely indicate the error (Bengel), but only the
going forth from a particular point; in common usage, however, this second
ary meaning often entirely recedes ; cf. the passage below, quoted from
Josephus, Ant., prooem. § 4. By this negative statement the author denies
not only that his message was based on myths, but that in it he followed a
communication received frora others (Schott). — iyvup'iaapev vplv rrjv roi Kvp.
yp. 'I. Xp. Sivapiv k. napavaiav]. Several interpreters understand this of the
First Epistle of Peter ; in which case the plural is surprising, for the author
had already spoken of himself in the singular. Hofmann's objection to this
view is, that although in his former epistle Peter refers to the power and
coming of Christ, he did not first make it known to the readers. But the
passages 1 Cor. xv. 1 and Gal. i. 11 show that yvup't^eiv may also be used of
a proclamation, the substance of which had already been communicated
to those to whom it was made. Many commentators take the words as
referring to the whole preaching of the apostles, understanding ipiv, not of
the readers specially, but of the Gentile Christians generally; thus Wie
singer, and more decidedly Hofmann. It must be observed, however, in
opposition to this, that yevyBevreg and the subsequent ypelg yKoiaapev must
refer to the same subject as iyvupiaapev. The most probable explanation is,
that the author, remembering that he was not the only witness of the trans
figuration, passed from the singular to the plural, and in so doing made use
of iplv in its extended sense. — napovaia is not here the nativitas Christi, His
human birth (Vatablus, Erasmus, Hornejus, Pott, Jachmann, etc.), nor
" His presence during the time He appeared on earth " (Schmid) ; but, in
harmony both with the N. T. usage (chap. iii. 4 ; Matt. xxiv. 3, 27 ; 1 Cor.
XV. 23 ; 1 Thess. ii. 19, etc.) and the connection of thought (vv. 4, 17, iii. 4):
the return of Christ to judgment (Estius, Semler, Knapp, Dietlein, De Wette-
Briickner, Hofmann, and the more modern interpreters generally).^ bivapig,
however, denotes the fulness of might of the glorified Lord, as it will be
more especially revealed in His napovaia. It is not correct to combine both
ideas into one, and with Hornejus to explain, poiens adventus; or with
Bengel, majestas praesentissima. — dll'inbnrat . . . peyaleidryTog]. An antithesis,
affirmatively stated, to what goes before, inbnryg, un, ley, (1 Pet. ii. 12,
iii. 2 : inonreiu), is the term, techn. for him who had reached the highest
degree of initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries. Keeping to this, Bengel
here interprets, ad intima arcana admissi; De Wette, too, thinks that the
expression has here the secondary meaning of being initiated, of intimacy.
It is no doubt chosen purposely with reference to the fact that the peyaleibryg
of Christ, which Peter and the other two disciples beheld, was a mystery

1 Fronmiiller only interprets : " His ap. along with His expected appearance in
pearing with miraculous powers in the flesh, glory."

392 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
hidden from the others. Grotius, Pott, and others take it as synonymous
with airbnryg, Luke i. 2. The connection demands that inbnrai yevyBevreg
should be referred to the fact of the transfiguration (ver. 17). Hofmann is
wrong in supposing that Peter here thought of the appearance of the risen
One and His ascension. The assertion is refuted not only by the close con
nection in which ver. 17 stands to this verse, but by the word peyaleibryg,
which in no sense is expressive only of "greatness." As the forni in which
Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after His resurrection was the same
as that in which they had seen Him before it, they were not then in any
way inbnrai of his peyaleibryg ; nor is there the slightest hint that there is
here allusion to any fact other than that mentioned in the following verse.
— ryg iKeivov peyaleibryrog, that is, the glory in which at His transfiguration
Christ showed Himself to the three disciples. Incorrectly, Calvin : eXemplum
unum prae aliis eligit memorabile, in quo Christus coelesti gloria ornatus con-
spicuam divinae magnificentiae speciem tribus discipulis praebuit. The apostle
rather regards the transfiguration glory of Christ as the type — and there
fore the proof — of the glory of Christ at His napovaia.
Ver. 17. IxipHv ydp . . . bb^av]. ydp, " that is ; " explanation of the imme
diately preceding : inbnrai yevyBevreg. The x^articiple does not require any
such supplement as yv or irvyxave, nor is it put instead of the finite verb.
For the principal thought is, not that Christ was transfigured, but that Peter
was a witness of this transfiguration, which was typical of the bivauig koX
napovaia of Christ. The finite verb belonging to the participle la3uv is
wanting. Its absence is most naturally accounted for by supposing that
the addition of (puvyg ivexSeiayg, k.t.X, caused the author to forget to notice
that he had not written ila3e ydp. How after writing laBuv he intended to
proceed, cannot be definitely said ; what is wanting, however, must be sup
plied from that which goes before, not from what follows. Winer, p. 330
(E. T., 351), incorrectly supplies the necessary complement from ver. 18,
since he says that Peter should have continued i/pdg elxe ravryv rijv ipuvyv aKoi-
cavrag, or ill a similar manner. But it is still more arbitrary to borrow the
supplement from ver. 19 (as is done by Dietlein and Schott). — napd Beov
narpbg], naryp is applied here to God in His relation to Christ, with refer
ence to the subsequent b vlbg uov. — n/iyv kuI bb^av]. "Honor and glory," as
in Rora. ii. 7, 10 ; bb^a denotes not the brightness of Christ's body at the
transfiguration (Hornejus, Gerhard, etc. ; Steinfass would understand both
expressions of the shining figure of Christ). Hofmann is unwarranted in
finding in lapCiv, k.t.X, a confirmation of his opinion that it is the resurrec
tion and ascension that are here referred to, inasmuch as God first conferred
honor and glory upon Christ, by raising Him from the dead and exalting
Him. To this it may be said that by every act of God which testified to
His glory, Christ received np^ kol bb^a, i.e., "honor and praise." — fuvyg
ivexBelayg airu roiuaSe states through what Christ received " honor and praise : "
the expression ipuvfi ipeperul nvi, here only ; Luke ix. 35, 36, ipuvij ylyverai ; so
also Mark i. 11 ; Luke iii. 22 (cf. John xii. 28, 30) ; avrii, the dative of direc
tion, not "in honorem ejus" (Pott). — inb ryg peyalxinpenoig bb^yg], inb is
neither equivalent to "accompanied by" (Wahl), nor to "from . . . out of"

CHAP. I. 18, 19. 393
(Winer, fifth edition, p. 442 f.) : the preposition, even where in local rela
tions it inclines to these significations, always maintains firmly its original
meaning, "under;" here, as generally in passives, it ¦signifies "by;" thus,
too, Winer, sixth edition, p. 330, seventh, 346 (E. T., 368): "when this
voice was borne to Him by the sublime Majesty." y peyaljonpenyg (un-. ley,)
bb^a means neither heaven nor the bright cloud (Matt. xvii. 5) ; ^ it is rather
a designation of God Himself (Gerhard, De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger,
Fronmiiller, Hofmann) ; similarly as, in Matt. xxvi. 64, God is caPed by
the abstract expression y Svvapig. With p.eyalonpenyg, cf. Deut. xxxiii. 26,
LXX. — oirbg ianv b vibg pov b dyanyrbg]. So in Matthew; only with the
addition airoi uKoiere, and instead of eig bv: "iv li," In Mark ix. 7 and Luke
ix. 35 (where, instead of ayanyrdg, there is " iKleleypivog "), the words fie i>v
iyu eiSoKyaa are entirely wanting. The reading adopted by Tisch. 7 : b vlbg
pov b dyanyrbg pov oirbg ian, corresponds to none of the accounts iu the Gos
pels ; cf. with it the O. T. quotation from Isa. xlii. 1 in Matthew (chap.
xii. 18) : b nalg pov ... 4 ayanyrdg pov, eig bv eiSbKyaev y ipvxv pov. — The con
struction of eiSoKeiv with e'lg does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. ; there is
no warrant for the assertion that eig points " to the historical development
of the plan of salvation" (1) (Dietlein).
Ver. 18. Kol rairyv . . , ivexBe'iaav; the author is anxious to show promi
nently that he has been an ear-witness of that divine voice, as well as an
eye-witness of the peyaXeibryg of Christ. — ii ovpavov ivexB. is added byway
of emphasis, in order to lay stress on the fact that Christ received that
testimony directly from heaven. — iv ri, bpei ru dyiu], Frora the epithet
ru dyiu it must not, with Grotius, be concluded that the reference here is
to the hill on which the temple stood, and that what is alluded to is not
the transfiguration, but the incident recorded in John xii. 28. Without
any reason, De Wette asserts that that epithet (instead of which Matt.
xvii. 1 has iipylov) betrays a view of the case more highly colored with
the belief in miracles than that of the apostles, and belonging to a later
period ; Calvin already gives the correct interpretation : montem sanctum
appellat, qua ratione terra sancta dicitur, in qua Mosi Deus apparuit; quo
cunque enim accedit Dominum, ut est fans omnis sanctitatis, praesentiae suae
adore omnia sanctificat , Dietlein : " the ' in the holy ' is added, not to desig
nate the mountain, but in order to distinguish it on account of this event; "
so, too, Briickner and the modern commentators generally.
Ver. 19. Kol l;fojifv PePaibrepov rbv npoipyriKbv loyov, "and vie have as one more
stable (surer) the word of prophecy." The second testimony for the glory of
Christ in His second coming is "the word of prophecy." This Luther under
stands to mean the " gospel ; " Griesbach : " New Testament prophecies ; "
Erasmus ; "the heavenly testimony raentioned in ver. 18." But the connec
tion with what follows shows that it is the Old-Testament promises which
are here meant. On the singular Bengel rightly says : Mosis, Esaiae et

' Schott, indeed, interprets vTrii correctly, the manifestation which God gave of Him-
but yet thinks that t^s peyaK. S6ir]i raeans the self" ( !).
cloud; " not Indeed the cloud in itself, but as

394 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
omnium prophetarum sermones unum sermonem sibi undequaque con-stantem fa
ciunt ; non jam singularia dicta Petrus profert, Sed univer.%um eorum testimonium
complectitur ; only that here reference is made specially to the proraise with
regard to the Svvapig koI napovaia of Christ. — The expression npoipyriKog,
besides here, only in Rora. xvi. 26 : ypaipal npoipyriKui. — The article rbv marks
this as a definite prophecy, well known to the readers. With regard to it
the author says : ixopev iSepatbrepov; for the force of pipaiog, cf. especially Rom.
iv. 16 ; Heb. ii. 2, 9, 17 ; 2 Cor. i. 6. Pepaibrepov is neither to be connected
directly with the object, nor is the comparative to be taken as synonymous
with the positive or with the superlative. Luther, trebly inaccurate : " we
have a stable prophetic word." — How then is the coraparative to be ex
plained? Oecumenius says, by the relation in which the fulfilment stands
to the promise, in this sense, that the truth of the latter is confirmed by the
former, and that accordingly the prophetic word has now become more sure
and stable than it was formerly (thus, too, Fronmiiller). But the proraise
here in question still awaits its fulfilment. De Wette's view is more suit
able. According to it, the comparative is put with reference to the event
mentioned in vv. 17, 18, so that the thought would be, "and the prophetic
word is more stable to us (now) from the fact that we saw and heard that "
(thus, too, Schmidt, IL, p. 213, Bruckner, Dietlein, Schott )i Wiesinger
combines this view with that of Oecumenius. There are objections to this
view; De Wette himself raises them: (1) That any more precise allusion to
this sense by a viv or an iK roirov is wanting ; (2) That in what follows, the
thought stated is neither held fast nor developed. These, however, are
easily removed, when it is considered that there is no intention here of. giving
prominence to the point of time, and that in what follows the reference is
precisely to the prophetic word confirmed by the above-mentioned fact; cf.
Bruckner. It is incorrect to take the comparative here as implying that the
word of prophecy is placed higher than something else, for this could only
be that event mentioned in vv. 16, 17.^ But the very stress laid on it and
on the inbnrai yevyBivreg ryg iKeivov peyaleibryrog, is opposed to this view. How
inappropriate would it be, if in comparison with it the word of prophecy
should be brought prominently forward as more stable and sure ! The
nominative to ixopev is not the apostles generally (against Hofmann), hardly
either can it be Peter and his readers; but, as the close connection of this
verse with what precedes shows, the subject to ixopev is no other than that
to ijKoiaapev. The author does not, indeed, here appeal to any of Christ's
own prophecies of His second coming. But this is to be explained, not by
assuming that these were unknown to him, nor because " the rapid succes
sion of the advent on the destruction of Jerusalem, foretold in them, had
not taken place " (De Wette), but simply because the writer's aim here was
to point to the testimonies regarding Christ and what related to Him (and
1 Hofmann, too, interprets thus, only that 2 Steinfass, Indeed, thinks that the /xufloi are
he looks upon the fact, by which the word of referred to; Gerhard has already proved the
prophecy is raade " more sure," not as being incorrectness of this assumption.
Christ's transfiguration, with the divine testi-
' mony, but His resurrection and ascension.

CHAP. I. 19. 395
thus not to those of Christ Himself) (thus, too, Briickner). — iJ KalCig noielre
nooaixovreg, "whereunto to take heed, ye do well," as Heb. ii. 1 : "to give heed
to soraething with a believing heart." The searching into the word of
prophecy is only the consequence of this. The sarae construction of kuX
noielv cum part.. Acts x. 33; Phil. iv. 14; 3 John 6.'— -uf lixvu ipaivovn 'ev
aixuypip rbnu]. The comparative particle dig points to the nature and signifi
cance of the Uyog npoip. ; it is in the sphere of spiritual life, the same as a
Ivxvog in the outward world of sense. — ipaivovn, not qui lucebat (Bengel) ; it
is rather the present, an attribute of lixvu. aixpvpbg {af. ley.), literally,
"parched, dry," then "dirty, dingy" (opposed to lapnpog, Arist., De Colorib.).^
It is used with the latter meaning here, aixpvpbg rbnog has indeed been
explained as a desert, or a " place overrun with wild scraggy wood " (Hof
mann) ; but this would make sense only if the idea of darkness or night
were added in thought (as by Steinfass), for which, however, there is still
no warrant. — iug oi ijpipa btavyday]. iug oi (generally construed with uv),
c. conj. aorist, expresses the duration of the act until the arrival of a future
event which is looked upon as possible; that is, "until the day breaks," etc.,
not " until the day shall have dawned " (De Wette), cf. Matt. x. 11, 23, 39 ff.
Some commentators (Bengel, etc., Schott, too, and Hofmann) join iug oi
with ipolvovn; incorrectly; it belongs rather to npoaiT^vreg, which in the con
text has the accent. Taken with ipaivovn it would be a somewhat superfluous
adjunct, if it be not at the same time applied, according to the thought, to
7rpoCTE;t:oi;rfc, as is done by Dietlein, though without any linguistic justifica
tion. — Siavyiil^eiv, air. le-/., used frequently in the classics of the break of day,
when the light shines through the darkness; Polyb. iii. 104; dpa ru biavyd^ew.
— Kal ipuaipbpog dvareily]. ipuaipbpog, ott. ley., is not meant to designate the sun
(Hesychius, Knapp, etc.), but the morning star ; raany interpreters (Besser,
etc.) incorrectly understand by it Christ. The adjunct kuI ipuaipbpog dvareily
serves only further to complete the picture — that of the morning which
precedes the full day. — iv ralg Kupbiaig ipuv belongs not to npoaexovreg (Schott),
far removed from it, to which it would form a soraewhat dragging supple
ment ; nor is it to be taken with the subsequent roiro npurov yivuoKO'vreg (Hof
mann). For, on the one hand, the observation that the reference here is to
a heart knowledge, would have a raeaning only if yiviioKovreg contained an
exhortation to suoh knowledge ; and, on the other, the position of the words
is opposed to this connection. Consequently ev ralg KapSiaig can be joined
only with the clause immediately preceding lug oh, k.t.X (De Wette-Briickner,
Wiesinger, Fronmiiller). As to the reference of the figure, commentators
are much divided among themselves. De \Vette understands aixpvpi'? rbrrog
of " the time previous to Christianity, which still continues for those who
were not in the faith, and to whom the readers belonged." But opposed to
1 Joseph., Ant., xl. 6, 12: ol? {ypdppaai original meaning of "dry," is antithetical to
'Ky4.vov) iroi^uaTe KaASs pit npoaixovrei. an>i^ov; " is contradicted by the passage itself
2 Hofmann's entirely unwarranted asser- to which he appeals, and which runs thus :
tion, " It is in vain to appeal to the fact, that Troiet 6^ Siaipopdv Ka't to Kapirp'ov rj anK^ov elvai
In Aristotle dvxpi\pd? occurs as antithesis to r'ii piyvvpevov ^ Toui^avTiov avxpijpov Kal
\apnpds ; the antithesis to \apnp6v there is dKapnis (Arist. ; Trepi xpvipdritiv ; Becker, H,
a\apnes ; on the other hand, aixpripot, in Us 793) ; and how should c7tiA;3os mean " wet " ?

396 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
this is the fact that in vv. 1, 12, the author speaks of his readers as believing
Christians. Gerhard (with whom Briickner forraerly concurred) takes the
reference to be to the former condition of the readers, when as yet they did
not believe. Against this, however, is the present li KalCig noielre npoaex.
The only adequate meaning to attach to rbnog aixp. is, the world in its
present condition (Wiesinger, Briickner, in the third edition of De Wette's
Commentary). The world is the dark place which is illumined only by the
light of the divine (more precisely, the prophetic) word ; therefore the Chris
tians do well to give heed to this word, since otherwise they would be in
darkness. In taking exception to this view, Hofraann says that it is " a
mistake to identify the place where the light shines with that where those
are for whom it is lit up." In his view the meaning should be, that to
him who looks into the final future, to which the prophetic word points,
this word will perform a service similar to that of a light in a pathless
region at night, — this service, namely, "that the believer does not stand
helplessly before the future, which lies before us like a confusion which is
enveloped in night." But against this explanation it must be urged, that
the figure employed by Peter would be appropriate only if the place in which
the lixvog shines were compared with that in which the believers are, and
that the reference to ftie uncertain future is purely imported. — The words
iug ov, K.r.X, show that for the believer another condition of matters will
commence. The time when the day dawns in the hearts of the Christians,
and the morning star arises, and when consequently they can do without
the light, has been variously determined. According to Dorner, it is " a
time within the development of the Christian life in the individual ; that
time, namely, when what is matter of history shall become living knowl
edge, influencing entirely the whole life."^ But such a separation of the
development of the Christian life of his readers into two periods can the less
be assumed here, that the author would thus accuse them of still possessing
a purely outward Christianity, and it can hardly be supposed that he should
have considered the word of prophecy as unnecessary for the advanced Chris
tian. Early commentators already correctly applied the words to the parousia.
It is erroneous, however, to understand them of that event itself, for with the
advent the morning passes into the perfect day. The point of time which
Peter has in view is that immediately preceding the second coming, the time
when the aypelov of the Son of man appears (Matt. xxiv. 30), when believers
are to lift up their heads because their dnolirpuaig draweth nigh (Luke xxi.
28), when accordingly the morning star which ushers in the day shall arise
in their hearts ; similarly, Wiesinger and Bruckner.^
Ver. 20. toOto npurov yivuaKovreg], roiro refers not to any thing said
before, but to the clause following: on, k,t.1, ; cf. chap. iii. 3. — npurov, i.q.,
^ Lehre v. d. Pers. Christi, 2d ed. part I., the question reraains, what that morning is
p. 104. to which they refer. Schott, indeed, passes
2 The difficulty of this verse is not dirain- lightly over this difficulty by saying : " It is
ished by the connection of the words ev r. left to the reader to transfer this metaphor
KapS. ijp. with npoaex., and of ew? o5 rj rjpepa, correctly to the dawu of the future day of per-
K.T.A., with i)>aii/o»Ti (Schott), since, if these feet consummation."
words eios oi) are not to be almost meaningleae,

CHAP. I. 20. 397
npurov ndvruv, 1 Tim. ii. 1 ; erroneously, Bengel : prius quam ego dico, anglice':
"before that." — yivuaKOvreg: "whilst ye recognize, bring yourselves to the
conscious knowledge that " (De Wette) ; cf . Jas. i. 3 ; Heb. x. 34. With
out any warrant Pott supplies be, and takes the participle as equivalent to
" Sel yivuoKeiv vudg ; " the participle, as such, is rather to be joined closely
to Kal. noieire npoaex. By roiro np. yiv. the author directs the attention of his
readers to the point to which they in their npoaixtiv (ver. 19) should pay
special attention ; what that is, the words following say : on ndaa npoipyrela
. . . yiverai; ndaa ... oil is a Hebraism for oiSepia, cf. Rora. iii. 20; 1 Cor.
i. 29, etc. npoipyre'ia ypaipyg is undoubtedly to be understood of the prediction
of the Old Testament, either the prophecy contained in Scripture, or that to
which the Scripture gives expression. For the construction of yiverai c. gen.,
cf. Winer, p. 184 (E. T., 195 f.) ; Buttm., p. 142 (E. T., 163) ; according to
Buttmann, the genitive definition of the thing with e'lvai or yiveaBai frequently
denotes a permanent attribute ; thus here : prophecy is of such a kind that
it, etc. ; the more precise definition depends on the meaning of the words
Ibiag imliaeug. Instead of iniliaeug, GrotiuS would read enyliaeug, and Hein-
sius, eneleiaeug ; so that the sense would be, the npoipyreia non est res proprii
impetus s. inst'inctus -. but these changes have been justly rejected by Wolf
already as arbitrary. Not less unwarranted is.it to understand, with Ham
mond, in'ilvaig originally de emissione cursorum e carceribus, deducing there
from the thought : that the prophets non a se, sed a Deo missi currerent , or,
with Clericus, de solutione oris , or, with Lakemacher, to derive imlvaig frora
emlevBu {inipxopai), instead oi from enilveiv, thus obtaining the idea: that
prophecy is not accessus propr'ie aut talis, ipiae virtute quadam mentis humanae
propria et naturall proveniat el ad hominem quasi accedat (cf. Wolf, in loe).
The notion that imlvaig is equal to dissolutio ' has been refuted already by
Wolf. — inilvaig means solution, explanation, interpretation ; thus Mark
iv. 34, imlveiv; Gen. xl. 8, Aquila, imlvopevog (^r\2), in'ilvaig (pini3) ; Gen.
xii. 12, LXX., according to some codd., rd ivvnvia ypijv, dvbpl Kara rb ivinviov
airoi inilvaei; Phil, De Vita ConlempL, p. 901 A. — Almost all expositors
understand imlvaig as the interpretation of the npoipyreia made aforetime;
but iSiag, however, has been variously applied : (1) It has been taken to refer
to the npoipyreia itself ; Werenfels (cf . Wolf) : npoipye'ia oiK exei ryv iavryg eni-
Ivaiv, that is, oi/c iml'uei iavryv; thus also Wahl, Dietlein, Bruckner. The
positive idea here to be supplied is : but " the interpretation is to be looked
for only from God" (Briickner; Dietlein arbitrarily finds the further idea
contained here, that prophecy must not be treated as allegory). (2) To the
prophets themselves; Oecumenius; ySeaav {ol npoipyrai) pev nal avvieaav rbv Kara-
nepnbpevov airoig npoipyriKbv libyov, oi iiivroi Kai rijv inilvaiv airov inoioivro (simi
larly, Knapp, De Wette) ; and the thought to be supplied here is : the
interpretation is then not an easy, but a difficult, matter (De Wette: "the
author makes this remark in order to excuse the difficulty of the interpreta
tion, and to take away the pretext for unbelief or scoffing"). (3) To the
1 Hardt: "omnis promissio non est dissolutionis eed indissolubllls, iramutabilis," etc.;
similarly Storr, Opp. IL 391 ff.

398 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
readers or to man generally. This is the view most generally adopted ; it
is that of Beda, Erasmus, Luther, Aretius, Gerhard, Pott, Steiger, Schmid,
Besser, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann, etc. ; and the positive thought to be
supplied is: ouly the Holy Spirit can expound the prediction (Luther: "act
accordingly, and do not think that j'ou can interpret Scripture according to
your own reason or cunning ; Peter has forbidden it ; you are not to inter
pret; the Holy Spirit must interpret, or it must remain uninterpreted "). But
opposed to all these interpretations is ; (1) The necessity of supplying the
positive thought which really contains the point of the remark, but to which
the apostle does not give expression ; (2) The connection of thought, accord
ing to which ver. 20 is subjoined as a confirmation of the li KuXlig noielre npoai-
Xovreg. If the thought here expressed were intended to give a caution with
respect to the npoaexeiv, or to form, as Wiesinger says, a condition preliminary
and necessary to it, this must in some way have been referred to. Besides,
it must be noted that elvai or yiveaBai, c. gen., implies a relation of depend
ence, and in such a way that the genitive denotes that on which soraething
else depends.^ Now, it may, indeed, be said that the "understanding" of
prophecy, but not that prophecy itself, depends on the interpretation of it.
The rendering, "prophecy is not a matter of private interpretation " (or even,
"it does not permit of private interpretation,'' Hofmann), takes too little
account of the force of the genitive.^ For these reasons inilvaig must neces
sarily be understood rather of an " interpretation " on which the npoipyreia is
based, on which it depends. But this is the explanation of the problematic
future itself, or of the figure under which it presented itself to the prophets
(thus, too, Gerlach and Fronmiiller). ^ The passage above cited makes the
matter clear. Gen. xl. 8: the words in which Joseph predicted to the pris
oners what lay before thera, form the npoipyreia; this presupposes an in'ilvaig,
interpretation, of the dream by Joseph, aud of this Joseph says that it be
longs to God. Thus, too, he speaks to Pharaoh : " the interpretation is not
in me," Gen. xii. 15, 16 ; cf. Dan. chap. ii. — The thought accordingly is this:
No prophecy of Scripture arises out of, or depends on, private (of him who
utters the prophecy) interpretation of the future. Taken thus, the verse
stands in close and correct connection both with what precedes, for it states

^ Certainly, also, the above construction can individual intellect; " but the objection to this
merely express the relation of belonging to, as is tbe same as that to the second counter reason
in Heb. xii. 11; but in that passage the ideas above. If the author wished the touto . . .
ffatSeia and ;tapas(Au7rT)?) standiii an altogether ' yivtvaKovres -to be understood in the sense of
different relation to each other, from that in guarding against, he would at least have
which Tipo<pi)Tei.a here stands to eiriXvais. added a Se. — It is not easy to understand why
2 Hofmann's remark is indeed very apodic- the author, if he had wished to express the
tic, that " the first of these counter reasons is thought which his words are supposed to con-
null, and that accordingly the second is so too, tain, did not write, oti en-iAua-t? npoipi]reias ou
because rovro irpdirov yivtoaKovTe^ raeans a per- yiverai e^ dvdpidTTivv, or something similar.
ception, which raust be combined with the ^ Bengel's interpretation is similar ; " eni-
attending to the word of prophecy, . . . but a Aucrts dicitur interpretatio, qua ipsi prophetae
perception, the substance of which could only res antea plane clausas apeiiiere mortalibus,"
be expressed negatively, because raeant only only that here no definite distinction is drawn
10 guard the prophecy against an interpreta- between npoip. and emKvais.
tion brought about by the couclutfions of the

CHAP. I. 21. 399
why the Iby. npoip. is pipaiog whereunto it is right io take heed, as unto a light in
a dark place (namely, because it is based on no human interpretation) ; and
at the same time with what follows, which serves to explain and confirm the
thought (inasmuch as it more precisely defines the idea, and by the positive
statement confirms the negation).' Briickner incorrectly, therefore, objects
to this interpretation, that although it may be in harraony with ver. 21, it
cannot with propriety be connected with ver. 19 ; and if Briickner and Wie
singer further urge against it that it arbitrarily supplies the object of inilvaig,
it must be replied, that object is rather supplied of itself out of the connec
tion with npoipyreia. The present yiverai alone seems to be inappropriate, but
this may be explained by supposing that the thought is conceived iu the
form of a general statement; this Bruckner has recognized, whilst AViesinger
leaves it unnoticed. ^
Ver. 21. oil jdp Belripan dvBpdinov]. These words correspond with the pre
ceding 'iS'iag inil. oi yiverai; " not from or by the will of a man ; " cf. Jer. xxiii.
26, LXX. : iug nori iarni . . . iv ru npoipyreieiv airoig rd Belypara ryg Kapblag airuv.
— yvixBy nori npoipyreia]. Vulg. : allata est , the verb as in vv. 17, 18 (cf. also
2 John 10). De Wette's translation: "is delivered or uttered," is inexact,
inasmuch as the idea of a set discourse is not directly contained in the verb.
Steinfass's interpretation of npoip. is wrong from a linguistic point of view :
" gift of prophecy." — nore belongs closely to the negative oh, equal to "never."
The sense of the clause is, " the cause in which npo^yreia has its origin is not
the freewill of man, determining itself thereto." — uAA' inb nvevparog dyiov
ipepbpevoi, k.t.1.]. The form of this, which does not exactly correspond with
that of the preceding clause, serves to bring into greater prominence the
passivity of the prophets. — ipepbpevoi: "borne along" (as by the wind, e.g.,
the ship was driven. Acts xxvii. 15, 17). The impelling power is the nveipa
dyiov. Joseph., Ant., iv. 6, 5, says of Balaam : np Beiu nveiuan . . . KiKivypivog ;
ci. the expressions in the classics: BeoipopelaBai, Beoipbpyrog.^ — eldlyaav]. Hor
nejus : intellige tam voce, quam scripto. " Men it was who spoke ; but their
speaking had the active reason of its origin, and its starting-point, in God "
(Schott). — dnb Qeoi dvBpunoi], In this expression, considered to be genuine,
dnb Qeov denotes the starting-point of the speaking : " men spoke from God."
The prophets are thus significantly called simply dvBpunoi, in reference to the
dvBpunov going before. They were but men ; prophets they became only by
the nvevpa Qeov.* The Rec. iiyioi Qeoi dvBpunoi is only a circumlocution for

> On the other hand, in the usual way of is, however, contradicted by the single ex-
understanding this passage, ver. 21 is raost pression ndaa,
inappropriately connected with ver. 20, since ^ Macrob. i. 23: "feruntur divino spiritu,
no explanation is given of the idea that the non suo arbitratu, sed quo Deus propellit"
interpretation of the prophecy, because it ie Calvin correctly reraarks; *-' impulses fuisse
not the work of man, can only be expected dicit, non quod menti alienati fuerint (quaiem
frora the Holy Spirit. in suis prophetis evBovaiaapov fingunt gen-
2 Steinfass thinks that the author refers to tiles), sed quia nihil a se ipsis ausi fuerint, tan-
Daniel, chap, xii., and that eni\vai<: means the turn obedient«r sequuti sunt Spiritum ducem."
answer given in ver. 12 to Daniel's question in ^ Into this verse also Dietlein inserts rauch
vet. 8, by which the indefinite statement of that is foreign, by saying in explanation of it:
time is definitely fixed. This singular opinion " not only are man and God placed iu antithe-

400 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
prophets, who are called dyioi dvBp. because they were in the service of
God, inasmuch as they were the instruments of His nveipa dyiov, cf. 1 Tim.
vi. 11.
sis to each other, but over against the designs prophets only because that which He teaches
of mau and the unreal world of human poeeeeses historical reality, or else will do so
thoughts and conceptions ( !) stands the Spirit in time."
of God, which eo powerfully takes hold of the

CHAP. II. 401

CHAPTER II.
Ver. 2. daelyeiaig, according to almost all authorities, instead of the Rec.
dnuleiaig, which only occurs in some min. — Ver. 4. aeipalg]. Rec, after K, L,
P, etc. (Tisch. 7) ; A, B, C. X (Lachm., Tisch. 8), have aeipoig, where it is uncer
tain whether this is to be regarded as an uncommon form for aeipalg (perhaps by
mistake), or another form for the more usual aipolg (Pape: " aipbg, written also
aeipbg: a pit, specially for preserving corn"). The lect. is peculiar in A and N:
aeipolg (bipoig, in which aetpolg is evidently an adjective, equal to "hot." Com
mentators take no notice of these various readings; Reiche rejects thera; so,
too, Hofmann, who says siraply that the reading aipoig has no claim to atten
tion. — In place of the Rec. rerypypivovg (in several min., Thph., Oec. ), Griesb.,
Tittm., Tisch. (Reiche), have accepted rypovpivovg, after B, C*, K, L, P. —
Lachmann reads : KolaQopevovg rypelv (A, C**, X, etc., Syr., Erp., Copt., Vulg.,
etc.); this appears, however, to be taken from ver. 9; Tisch.: jluxit e v. 9.
— Ver. 6. The word Karaarpoipy is wanting in B, C*, 27, al., Copt. — Ver. 8. b
SlKuiog]. Lachm. omits b, after B, without sufficient reason. — Ver. 9. Tisch. 7
reads: neipaapov (Rec, according to almost all authorities); on the other hand,
Tisch. 8 has neipaapuv, after X, corr., and several min. Tischendorf's observa
tion on neipaapoi: quod multo magis iisu venit, does not justify the reading
accepted by him in ed. 8. — Ver. 11. napd Kvpiu]. Eec, after B, C, K, L, P, X,
etc., Thph., Oec. (Tisch. 8). — Lachm. and Tisch. 7 are hardly correct in omit
ting it; it is wanting in A, al., Syr., Erp., Vulg., etc. — Ver. 12. Instead of
yeyevvyuiva (Rec, after A*, B, C, P, al., m., etc., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch. 7),
A**, K, L, X, al., read: yeyevypiva (Tisch. 8). Whilst the Rec. has ipvaiKd before
yey. (K, L, al., pl., Oec), Lachm. and Tisch. have placed it after yey. (A, B, C,
P, X, al. ), and rightly; the transposition is easily explained by assuming that it
was thought necessary to connect yeyewypiva directly with the eig aluaiv belong
ing to it. Mill, without reason, regards yeyew. as a scholion, which has come
into the text by way of explanation of ipvatKd. Dietlien considers the Rec. to be
the original reading. — KaraipBa'pyaovrai]. Rec, after C**, K, L, etc., Thph., Oec.
(Griesb., Scholz) ; on the other hand, A, B, C, P, X (pr. m.), 7, al., Aeth., Arm.,,
Syr., etc., support kuI ipBapyaovrai (Lachm. and Tisch.). This reading is to be
preferred: /tai gives peculiar point to the idea; since this was overlooked, and
Kai only regarded as being in the way, it might easily have been changed into
Kara. — Ver. 13. dndraig], Rec, after A*, C, K, L, P, X, al., Copt., etc., Thph.,
Oec. (Griesb., Scholz, Tisch.). In its place. A**, B, Syr., Arr., Vulg., Ephr.,
etc, have uyaJToif; approved of by Erasmus, Luther, Camerarius, Grotius, etc.;
adopted into the text by Lachm.; though hardly justly, for in one passage
(either here or Jude 12), andraig, as De Wette also thinks, is probably the origi
nal reading; if so, then rather here than in Jude, all the more that ipuv (in
Jude) may be adapted to dydnatg, but not so much airuv; B has dydnaig in both
passages; C, on the other hand, dndratg, which is explained by the one having

402 THE SECOND EPISTLE OP PETER.
stood originally in the one passage, and the other in the other. Eisner, Wolf,
AVetstein, Bengel, De AA'ette, and the modem commentators generally, are in
favor of dndraig in this passage; so, too, Reiche. — Ver. 14.' The reading poixaliag
in A, X, several min., Copt., Vulg., etc., instead of poixallSog, can only be
looked upon as a correction forthe sake of simplification. — dKaranavarovg], Rec,
after C, K, L, P, X, etc (Griesb., Scholz, Tisch.); instead of which Lachmann
reads aKaranuarovg, following A, B, a word which does not occur elsewhere, and
which Reiche accordingly declares to be an error in transcription; Buttmann,
p. 57, thinks it is not unlikely that the original reading was Karandarovg, i.e.,
"polluted, defiled," that then, by mistake, an a, perhaps taken from the previ
ous Kui, had been added, out of which dKaran.aiarovg arose. The reading occur
ring in several min., dKaranaiarov, gives indeed an appropriate meaning, but
cannot be regarded as original. — nleove^lag, the reading attested by A, B, C, K,
L, P, X, etc. (Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch.), instead of the Rec. nleove^laig,
which is a mere correction. — Ver. 1.5. Tisch. 7 reads Karalinovreg; Rec, after
B***, C, K, L, P ; Tisch. 8, on the contrary, has Karaleinovreg, following A, B*,
X, etc. — Griesb. already has rightly omitted the article ryv before eiBelav ; it is
opposed by almost all authorities. — Ver. 17. Instead of the Eec. veipilai (L, etc.,
Thph., Oec), Griesb. correctly has admitted bplxlai into the text, following A,
B, C, X, etc.; so, too, Scholz, Tisch., Lachm. On the other hand, Dietlein,
though without sufficient reason, considers the Rec, which is evidently taken
from Jude 10, to be original ; so, too, Reiche. — e'lg aiuva, according to A, C, L,
P, etc, Thph., Oec. — Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it (following B, X); it
seems to have been added from Jude 13; Eeiche, however, regards it as original.
— Ver. 18. The prepos. iv before daely. in the ed. Elz. occurs in a few min.,
Theoph., Oec, only. — bldyug, accepted by Griesb. already, in place of the Eec.
ovrug, according to the testimony of A, B, al., Syr., utr., Copt., etc., Aug., Hier. ;
so, too, by Scholz, Lachm., Tisch. — dno^evyovrag, after A, B, C, X, many min.,
Syr., Arm., Vulg., etc. (Lachm., Tisch.), instead of the Eec. dno^ybvrag,
according to K, L, P, etc. Eeiche seeks to prove the originality of the Rec.
from Internal reasons, but these are insufficient; he prefers also avTug to bliyug.
— Vei. 19. Tisch. 7 has roiru kuI (Rec, according to A, C, K, L, P, etc.); on
the other hand, Tisch. 8 has roiru, and omits Kal, following B, etc. ; the greater
number ot authorities are in favor of the Eec. — Ver. 20. A, C, L, P, X, etc.,
read ypuv after Kvpim (Lachm., Tisch. 8); the Eec. omits iipCiv, according to B, K
(Tisch. 7). — Ver. 21. 'emarpiipai]. Eec, according to K, L, al., Thph., Oec.
(Griesb., Scholz, Tisch. 7, De AVette, etc.); B, C, P, etc., read inoarpiipai (Tisch.
8) ; A, X, on the other hand, has e'lg rd bniau dvuKdpipai dno. This latter reading
is probably only an explanatory gloss; but wh'ether iniarp. or vnoarp. be the
original reading or not, it is difficult to decide with certainty; since the verb has
not here the simple meaning of " turning back," but of " turning back again to
what has gone before," a meaning in no way peculiar to the expression iniarpeipeiv
itself, without any nearer definition, it lies to hand to look upon inoarpiipai as a
correction. Lachm, has adopted eig rd bniau inoarpiipai dnb; but no codex has
this reading. — Ver. 22. In A, B, X (pr. m.), Sahid. (Lachm., Tisch.), Si is
wanting; it is probably added in order to connect ver. 22 more closely with ver.
21. —In the place of Kiliapa (A, K, L, P, X, etc, Lachm.), B, C*, 29 (Tisch.),
have the form kv'mouov.
Ver. 1. Prom here onwards, a description of the false teachers, who
were to arise in the church, and a warning against them. — iyivovro Se kuI

CHAP. II. 1. 403
fevSonpoipyrai]. Si : antithesis to what goes befo.re. Kai : " also," tha't is,
besides the true prophets mentioned in chap. i. 21. The expression, ipevSo-
npoipyryg, already in the O. T. LXX., e.g., Jer. vi. 13, frequently in the
X. T., not after the analogy of ipevbolbyog: "one who prophesies falsely,"
but "one ivho falsely gives himself out for a prophet," on the analogy of ipevbd-
Seltipog, Ipevbanbarolog. — iv ru lau, i.e., among the people of Israel. These
words are in form a principal clause, but in thought a secondary clause :
as there were false prophets in Israel, so will there be also among you,
etc. ^ (if Kal , , , IpevbobibdaKaloi]. iaovrai designates the ipevbobibdaKaloi as such,
who would arise only in the future. They are afterwards pictured as
actually present; see on this, the Introd., § 2, p. 281. The expression
ipevbobiS. is in the N. T. un. ?..ey, ; AA''iesinger and Briickner interpret : " such
as teach lies ; " Dietlein and Fronmiiller : " such as lyingly pretend to he
teachers." The analogy of ipevSonpoip., with which it is here contrasted, raakes
the last the preferable intei'pretation (thus, too, Hofmann). Both result in
the same sense (Schott) ; what the ipevbonpoipyrai were in the 0. T., the ipevbo
bibdaKaloi are in the X. T. — oinveg, equivalent to quippe qui, "such as." —
napeiad^ovai ; cf. Jude 4: "to introduce by the side of," with the secondary idea
of secrecy.^ — aipeaeig dnulelag], aipiaeig, according to N. T. usage, "party-
divisions," cf. 1 Cor. xi. 19 (synonyraous with axlapara) ; Gal. v. 20 (synony
mous with bixoaraaiai) ; also Tit. iii. 10, which have their origin in false
doctrine; thus Briickner, AViesinger, Schott, etc.; Hofmann, too, says that
the word is to be taken in no sense different from that which it has else
where in the X. T. , but then interprets it as equivalent to "particular
systems of opinion," thus attributing to it a meaning which it has nowhere
else. Others take aipeaig here to mean " false doctrine, heresy " (Bengel,
De AVette, Fronmiiller). This interpretation is better suited to the connec
tion, and especially to the verb napeiadyeiv. In the X. T., doubtless, the
word has not this meaning, yet Ignatius already uses it with this force.
dnulelag (which is not to be resolved into the adject. " destructive ") desig
nates the heresies as those which lead to dnuleia ; cf . vv. 2, 3. — koI rbv dyopd^
aavra . . . dnuletav], A\'^iner (fifth edition, p. 399 f.) translates, "since they
also, denying the Lord, draw upon themselves swift destruction ; " but the
connection of kuI with endyovreg, so far removed from it by rbv dyopdaavra,
K.T.X, cannot be justified. Fronmiiller connects the member of the clause
beginning with Kai not with the relative clause oinveg, but with iaovrai ipevbo-
SiSdoKaloi. This construction was formerly supported m this commentary,
with the remark, however, that a particular species of false doctrine was not,
as Fronmiiller assuraes, indicated here, but that the participial clause raore
nearly defined the ipevbobibdaKaloi, Kai being here put in the sense of " and
withal : " this construction, however, is any thing but natural. The kui must
undoubtedly be connected with the clause immediately preceding, though
not as a simple copula, but in the sense of " also ; " thus De Wette and AVie-

1 Hofmann is wrong in asserting that in with this secondary meaning, and without it
classical Greek napeiadyeiv has not the second- (see Pape, s.v.).
ary meaning of secrecy; the verb occurs both

404 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
singer,! taking koI as an intensification, equivalent to "even:" "whilst they
deny even the Lord who bought them." On the other hand, Hofmann does
not admit any such intensification, and takes kuI as equivalent to "also," in
the sense of addition, and interprets: "with their particular systems they
break up the unity of the church, which, however, they do not do without
at the same time denying the Lord." But, on this interpretation, it is not
clear why the author did not put the finite verb instead of the partic. dpvoi-
pevoi; the thought, too, that they break up the unity of the church, is simply
imported. The participle shows that this clause is meant to serve as an
explanation or a more precise definition of what goes before. De AVette's
view, accordingly, is to be preferred to that of Hofmann ; it is, however, also
possible that Schott is right in assuming an irregularity of the construction,
in that the author, led astray by the participle dpvovpevoi, wrote the participle
indyovreg instead of the finite verb ind!;ovat ; in which case kuI must be taken
as a simple copula. — The participle indyovreg is connected in a loose fashion
with what precedes, in the sense, " by which they," etc. The ipevbobibdaKaloi
are more precisely characterized as rbv dyopdaavra airoig beanbryv dpvovpevoi;
dpvovpevoi, cf. Jude 4; Bengel, correctly: doctrina et operibus. By beanbryv
Christ is here meant ; the author speaks of Hira thus, in order to lay stress
on the fact that they deny that Christ is the Lord ; dyopdaavra airoig is added
by way of eraphasis: they deny the Lord who "bought" them, i.e., procured
them for Himself by paying the purchase price. This does not only serve
to emphasize more strongly what is reprehensible in the dpvelcBai, but points
out also that they deny the act to which allusion is made, and by which He
has become' their Lord. AA'ith dyopdl^tiv, cf. 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23; Rev. v. 9;
the blood of Christ raust be thought of as the purchase price. — indyovreg
iavroig raxivyv dniileiav]. With 'endy. iavrolg, cf. ver. 5, as also Acts V. 28.
iavrolg indicates that they prepare an dnuleia not only for others (aipiaeig dno-
lelag), but for themselves. — AA^ith raxivyv, see chap. i. 14, not a speedy dniAeia;
Hornejus, correctly: inopinatam et inexspectatam ; the destruction will come
over them suddenly, and before they are aware of it (Schott, Fronmiiller,
Hofmann). Ver. 2. Kal nol?.ol i^aKolovByaovaiv]. The activity of these ipevSoSiSdoKaloi
would not be without result; cf. 2 Tim. ii. 17. AA'ith i^uKoX ci. chap. i. 16.
— airOv ralg daelyeiaig, i.e., their dailyeiai will serve as a rule to many, so that
they give theraselves up to them ; cf . Jude 4. The connection of erroneous
doctrine with sensual excesses is shown in vv. 18, 19. — bi ovg . . . piaaipypy-
Byaerai]. Si oig, not " by whora " (A^ulg., per quas), but "on account of whom ; "
they (either the ^evSobibdaKaloi, or those led astray by them, or both) by their
dailyeiai give those who are not Christians occasion for plaaipyp'ia against the
bbdg ryg dlyBeiag ; cf . 1 Tim. vi. 1 ; Rom. ii. 24. y bbbg ryg dlyBeiag (Barnab.
cv. . via veritatis), a designation of Christianity or of the Christian religion
(cf. on the expression bbbg, Acts ix. 2, xix. 9, 23, xxii. 4, xxiv. 14, xvi. 17,
1 Winer (6th ed., p. 314 [E. T., 441], 7th ed., endyovreg is annexed to the clause oTrtves . . .
p.329J says: " Both participles, ape. and eiray., dpvovpevoi;" he does not state how Kai is to
are connected with napeiad^ouaiv ; they are not, be understood.
however, co-ordinate with each other, but

CHAP. II. 3, 4. 405
xviii. 25), in so far as it is the form of life in harmony with divine truth
(not leading to the truth).
Ver. 3. Kal ev nleoveiiif, i.e., as it were, encompassed by covetousness, living
in it, governed by it ; it is incorrect to translate iv by bid. nluarolg Ibyoic]. utt.
lery,, i.e., "with deceitfully invented words," '^ which are not in accordance with
truth; incorrectly, Hofraann : " artfully contrived doctrines." — ipdg ipnopei-
aovrai, "they will seek gain of you;" Gerhard: qiiaestum ex vobis facient, ad
quaestum suum vobis abutentur; thus, too, AA'iesinger, Schott, De AA'^ette-
Briickner; cf. also AA'iner, p. 209 (E. T., 223); this meaning of the verb
c. aoc. in classical Greek is sufficiently assured. ^ The nlaarol Ibyoi are not,
as Hofmann supposes, "to be thought of as the merchandise which they
bring to the market, in order to be repaid for suoh instruction," but as the
means ¦ by which they carry on the ipnoptieaBai. Steinfass translates ipno-
peieaBai as equivalent to " to buy," and ipllg as the direct object of purchase ;
thus Pott too : vos sectae suae conciliare conantur. It is undeniable that the
object traded in may stand in the accusative (cf. Prov. iii. 14, LXX.), but
the context here is opposed to this, partly on account of the iv nleovefigi,
partly because this thought is already contained in the preceding verse.
Fronmiiller incorrectly renders the word by "to deceive." — By deceitful
words as to Christian freedom, etc., they sought tp delude others, and, in
accordance with their covetous desires, to make gain of them; cf. vv. 13, 14,
and Jude 16. — olg rb Kpipa iKnalai ovk dpyei]. olg: dat. incommodi ; refers to
the subj. in ipnopeiaovrai. rb Kplpa is the judgment of God ordering the
dnuleia. eKnalai is not to be combined with rb Kplpa into one idea, equal to
Kpljia iKnalai avrolg npoyerypappevov ; ci. Jude 4 (Pott, De Wette) ; such a mode
of combination is to be found nowhere in the X. T. It belongs rather to
OVK dpyel. There is not, as De AVette insists, any contradiction involved in
this connection, especially as oi/c dpyel is a positive idea; strictly, "is not
inactive, does not tarry;" the idea of haste is not implied in it (De Wette).
iKnalai sets forth prominently that for a long time the judgment has, as it
were, been approaching, that is, ever since it was given and pronounced;
it is living, and will come in due time. It is possible that iKnalai refers to
the judgments mentioned in ver. 4, forraerly put into execution (Dietlein,
Scott, Wiesinger), which, however, Hofmann disputes. — kuI y dnuleia airuv
(ver. 1) oil vvaruiei]. ward^eiv, strictly, " to nod ; " then, to slumber (only else
where in Matt. xxv. 5 ; there, however, in its literal meaning), is used in the
classics in a figurative sense; Plato, De Repub., iii. 405 C : pySev SeiaBai ward-
iovTog SiKuaroi. Steinfass, inexactly, "to become sleepy."
Ver. 4. From here to ver. 6, three examples of divine judgment ; cf .
Jude 5 ff. — First example: the fallen angels, Jude 6. — ei ydp]. The apo
dosis is wanting; Gerhard supplies: oib' iKeivoig ipelaerai. In thought, if not

* Plato, Apol. Socrat. : nXdrreiv Adyov? ; evenopevero ri)v XrjBrjV rdv SiKaarSiv. J. Chry-
Artemidor., i. 23: nKdaaeiv SoKei . . . dyaQ'ov BOStom : ri\v neviav toC nkrtaiov epnopevea&ai.
prjropai . . . Sid TO pit ofTa (u9 ovra SeiKvveiv The translation of the Vulg. is inexact; **de
Tas rexva<; ravra^. vobis negotiabuntur; " as also that of Luther :
2 Cf. Athenag., xiii. 569: 'Xanaala eveno- " they will trade with you."
pevero irK-riQy ywaiKiiiv. Philo in Ftacc, p. 984 ;

406 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
in forra, the latter half of ver. 9 constitutes the apodosis (AA'iner, 529 f.
(E. T., 569), De AA'ette-Briickner, AViesinger, and the raore modern writers
generally). The irregularity of the construction is explained by the fact
that the third example is dwelt on at much length. — 6 Qebg dyyeluv dpapry
advruv oiK iipelaaro]. The nature of the sin is not stated ; otherwise in Jude.^
AA'hat sin the apostle refers to, is only faintly hinted at by the circumstance
that the example of the flood immediately follows. It is less likely (against
Wiesinger) that ver. 20 contains any reference to it, for in that verse other
sins are conjoined with the dn'iau aapKbg . . . nopeieaBai. — dlld aeipalg (oipov .
rypovpivovg, " but (when he) having cast (them) down into Tartarus, hath delivered
them over to the chains of darkness, as being reserved unto the judgment." aeipalg
Zbipov is mostly taken in connection with raprapCiaug (sc. btSepevovg) (De AA^ette :
"but cast them down into hell with chains of darkness"); but, since the
added i;bipou shows that the oeipul are designated as fetters, which belong to
the darkness of Tartarus (not "fetters which consist iu darkness" (Schott),
nor "fetters by which they were banished into darkness," as Hofmann ex
plains), the enchaining could only have taken place there, and therefore
(with Calov, Pott, Steinfass, Hofmann, AVahl, s.v., napabibupi) it is preferable
to connect the words with napibuKev (as opposed to De AA'ette, Briickner,
Dietlein, AA''iesinger, etc.).^ — Instead of aeipalg (biiov, Jude has beauo'ig d'lSloig;
^b0og is not Tartarus itself, but the darkness of Tartarus ; the word is to be
found only here and in Jude. — raprapoiv does not mean larlaro adjudicare
(Crusius, Hypomn., I., p. 154), but "to remove into Tartarus" (cf. Homer, //.,
viii. 13 : y piv eluv biil'u etg rdprapov Ijepbevra). The expression rdprapog occurs
nowhere else either in the X. T. or LXX. It is not equal to dSyg, which is
the general terra for the dwelling-place of the dead. Xor does the author
use it as synonymous with yeewa, for that is " the place of final punishment,
the hell-fire" (Fronmiiller) but it is u.sed to designate "the place of prelimi
nary custody." — napeSuKcv here, as often, used with the iraplied idea of pun
ishraent, — e'lg Kplaiv rypovpivovg]. Kpiaig is the final judgment (Kpiaig peydlyg
ripepag)-; " as those ivho are reserved for the judgment ;" Luther, inexactly ; "in
order to reserve them." — On the reading, napeSuKev eig Kplaiv Kola(opevovg rypelv,
the infin. rypelv is dependent on napeS., and KolaC states, not "the purpose for
which, but the condition in which, they are reserved for judgment; the A'^ulg.
therefore translates inexactly : tradidit cruciandos, in judicium reservari. Diet
lein, in opposition to all reliable authorities, insists on reading, rerypypivovg,
which, raoreover, he incorrectly paraphrases, " as those who once should have
been kept ; " it must rather be, " as those who (until now) have been kept."
Ver. 5. Second example : the flood. This is peculiar to the author of
this epistle; cf. the corresponding section in Jude. koI dpxalov Koapov ovk
i^e'iaaro]. The clausal formation is the same as that in ver. 4. Subaudienda

1 Fronmiiller is wrong in asserting that the becomes more drastic if the act of casting into
apostasy of Satan is meant here; it cannot be Tartarusbecompletedonly by the binding with
doubted that the sin meant here is the same aa chains," this supports the construction to
that of which Jude speaks, and it is not that which he objects. Schott translates, altogether
apostasy; see my Comment, on .Tude. unwarrantably ; " hiithaa /listened them down
2 When BrUckner says ; " the expression into the depths with chains of darkness."

CHAP. II. 5. 407
est particula: el (Gerhard). The words which follow on this tell in what
the OVK iipelaa-ro consisted : KaroKlvapov, k.t.X ; there is no mention here of a
''destruction" (Schott) of the world. — dpx- Kbapog, i.e., mundus antedilu-
vianus. — dll' . . . iipilaie^. The thought of the deliverance of the righteous
is connected with that of the destruction of the ungodly ; cf . ver. 7. — bySoov
belongs not to KypvKa,^ but directly to NCie ; Luther, correctly : Xoah with
seven others ; cL Winer, p. 234 ,(E. T., 249) ; Buttmann, p. 26 (E. T., p. 30).
There is nothing to show that the number eight has a mystical ineaning
here (Dietlein).^ The mention of it naturally arose from the recollection
of the event ; at the same time, however, it marks the small number of the
saved contrasted with that of those who perished (Bengel, Schott, etc.).
Besides, Xoah and those with him, as also Lot afterwards, are taken by the
author as types of the eiaeBeig (ver. 9), on whom the judgment of God will
not come — Smaioaivyg KypvKo is added as the reason of God's preservation
(eipilaie) (thus, too, AViesinger). By SiKaioavvy is to be understood here, not
the condition of being justified (Wiesinger), but a believing and godly bear
ing towards God ; otherwise in Heb. xi. 7. — KaroKlvapov]. Matt, xxiv 38,
39: Gen. v. 17, LXX. Heb. '7130: the verb KaraKlvi;eiv, chap. iii. 6. —
KOOUU daeSCiv, antithesis to SiKotoaivyg kijovku; the world is thus named, inas
much as it had become the dwelling-place of ungodly humanity. — ind§ag:
ou this form of the aorist, see Buttmann, Ausf. Gr., § 114, s.v. dyu.
Remark. — AVith regard to its position, Dietlein insists that this verse is
intimately connected with ver. 4, so that " the judgment of imprisonment on
the angels must be considered as one and the same event with the Xoachic
flood ; " that the judgment on the dpxalog Kbapog, vv. 4, 5, must be distinguished
from the judgment of God within the second world (ver. 6) ; and that the latter
only, not the former, must be regarded as the example, strictly so called ; thus,
too, Schott. But the whole structure and mode of expression of this section are
opposed to any such division; for (1) The clauses are simply co-ordinate (as
ver. .5 is joined to ver. 4, so is ver. 6 to ver. 5, merely by koI); (2) The dpxaiog
Koauog is mentioned only here, not in ver. 4; (3) What is stated in ver. 6 is not
brought prominently forward as an event taking place in the new world; (4) In
the idea of the Koopog daeiHuv, the angels cannot be included, since the flood came
on the ungodly men only; and it is arbitrary and strange to assume that the
flood buried mankind " in the depths, and those spirits which in sin had taken
up their abode with them " (Schott). It is arbitrary to regard the judgment on
Sodom as the only proper example, since no other position is given to the judg
ments mentioned in vv. 4, 5, than to that in ver. 6. The chief reason for the
division lies in ver. 9, which consists of two members, due, however, to the two
foregoing examples. From the fact that only one of the members applies to
ver. 4, it does not follow that there no special example can be intended ; the less
so that the leading idea is not "the deliverance of the righteous," but "the
confinement of the ungodly." Equally little is proved by the repetition of the
I Heinsius, Lightfoot, and Schwegler in his of the eight, and saw in the church saved from
Nachapost. Zeitalter,!. p. iu; of., as opposed the flood a holy eight, making a final close
to him, nilgenfeld, Clement., p. 185. to the old world."
2 •* Peter looked upon Noah aa the bearer

408 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
verb oiK, iipelaaro, which serves rather to mark off the dpxalog Koauog from
the a-yyeX dpapr,, not to unite them into one idea. Even Briickner has rejected
the view of Dietlein and Schott. Hofmann, too, while questioning it, ap
proaches it very closely when he says, "The judgment of the flood was also a
judgment upon those spirits which had become involved in the sin and in the
fate of the race of men then living."
Ver. 6. Third example : The overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah ; cf.
Jude 7. — This verse also is still dependent on ei. Schott, without any ade
quate reason, asserts that the author " has even here forgotten the construc
tion of his expression in the protasis with ei." — noleig loSbpuv kuI Toubfidag].
The gen. as apposition. — reippuaag]. Suidas : equivalent to iunpiiaag, ano-
Siiaag: "by burning them to ashes, by reducing them to ashes." — KaraarpoiPy Kari-
Kpivev, not equal to eversione s. subcersione damnavit, i e., unditus evertendo
punivit (Gerhard, Dietlein, Schott), but Kuraarpoipy is the dative of reference;
see Buttraann, p. 144; cf. kutukp Bavdru, Matt. xx. 18; Pott, correctly: in
cineres redigens damnavit ad. everswnem : thus also AA'^ahl, De AVette, AVie
singer, Steinfass, Fronmiiller, Hofmann ; only it must be here remarked
that KaruKp'iveiv includes within it the punishment, the putting into execution
of the judgment of condemnation — which Hofmann, without reason, denies,
cf. Rom. Vlii. 3. — It is incorrect to connect Karaarpoipy with reippuaag (Ben
gel). — Karaarpoipy, in the X. T. besides here, only in 2 Tim. ii. 14; there,
however, in a figurative sense ; the sarae word occurs in the narrative of the
destruction of the cities of the plain. Gen. xix. 29, LXX. — inbSeiyua peX
Idvruv daeSelv reBeiKug]. Jude 7, with inbSeiypa, not equal to "example," but
to "type," cf. Jas. v. 10; Heb. iv. 11, etc The perf. rtBeiKug corresponds
with the npoKeivrai, Jude 7 ; Hofmann, correctly : " God has made them, as
the perf. shows, a lasting type of those who ever afterwards should live a
godless life." i
Ver. 7. Contrast to the divine justice in punishing, which is not to be
found in Jude. AA'iesinger : " The expansion of the thought, introduced
by the mention antithetically of Xoah, ver. 5, gains, by the co-ordination
(koi) of the deliverance of Lot, independent value, and prepares the way for
the double inference, ver. 9 " — Kai has not here an adversative force (Jach
mann), but is simply the copulative particle. — SIkoiov Aut]. SiKoiog here like
Smaioaivy, ver. 5. — Karanovoipevov, besides here, in Acts vii. 24 (2 Macc.
viii. 2, where, however, it is doubtful whether the reading should be Kara
novoipevov or Koranaroipevov); Pott, Schol. Sop>h. in Trach'in., v. 328, verba:
dll' elev ubivoiaa exponit per Kuranovovpivy. — inb ryg , . i^piaaro]. inb belongs
not to i/)/ivaaro, but to Kuranov. ; ci. AA'iner, p. 346 (E. T., 369) ; — with ly iv
daely. dvaarpoipy, cf. 1 Pet. i, 17. — dBiapuv, besides here only iu chap. iii. 17;
homines nefarii, qui nee jus nee fas curant (Gerhard).
Ver. 8. Explanation of the Karanovoipevov, — pUppari ydp kuI dKOy is to be
joined neither with biKuiog (A'ulg. . adspectu et auditu Justus erat), nor with
iyKuroiKuv (Gerhard), but with the finite verb; it was by seeing and hearing
1 Hofmann attaches particular iraporlance was effected by water was followed by an
te the circumstance, that the judgment which other, which was effected by fire.

CHAP. II. 9, 10. 409
that Lot's soul suffered, and is added in order more strongly to emphasize
Lot's painful position among the ungodly. — ipvxyv Smalav dvbpoig ipyoig ipaad-
vi^ev, "he vexed his righteous soul by the ungodly ivorks," i.e., his soul, because
it was righteous, felt vexation at the evil which he was obliged to see and
hear. " iSaadvit^ev serves to show that the pain at the sight of the sinful lives
arose out of personal activity, out of inclination of the soul to the good, out
of positive opposition to the evil " (Dietlein). The earlier interpreters have
for the most part missed the correct idea ; Calvin, Hornejus, Pott, De AVette,
and the modern commentators generally, having interpreted correctly. ^
Ver. 9. This verse in thought, though not in form, constitutes the apo
dosis to the preceding clauses beginning with el. The thought, however, is
expressed in a more extended and general- manner ; the special application
follows in ver. 10. — oiSe]. Knowledge is conceived at the same time as a
divine power. — Kvpiog, i.e., God, ver. 4. — eiaepelg, like Xoah and Lot. — kx
neipaauoi pieaBai, ci. 1 Pet. i. 6. — ddiKovg Si, like the fallen angels, etc. — eig
yuepav Kpiaeug KolaCppevoug rypelv']. Kola^, is not used here with a future force :
cruciandos (Bengel. Calvin, AViner, who, in his fifth edition, p. 405, resolves
the clause thus : dSiK, rypel {diare) KoldCetv, and others) but it must be taken as
a real present ; it refers to the punishment which they suffer even before the
last judgment unto which they are kept (rype'iv) ; ci. on ver, 4. Thus also
Wiesinger, Schott, Bruckner
Ver. 10. Compare Jude 8. — pdliara Si in close connection to what imme
diately precedes. The author passes from the general, to those against
whom this epistle is specially directed. Dietlein introduces a foreign refer
ence when he says, " The apostle means the false teachers in contrast to such
ungodly persons as did not base their ungodliness on theoretically developed
error." — As in Jude, the false teachers are characterized in two respects.
AA'^hilst in w. 1-3 they are spoken of as yet to appear, they are here described
as already present. — roig bniau . . . nopevopivovg ; ci. besides Jude 8 also 7,
and the commentary on the passage. — aapKog stands here without iripag, and
must therefore be taken more generally. Buttmann (p. 160) wrongly trans
lates adpi here by " lusts." — iv iniBvplif piaapcri)]. piaapoi is not to be resolved
into an adjec. : cupiditas foeda, impura (AVahl) ; ^ but it is the objective geni
tive, and states that to which the eniBvp'ta is directed (De Wette-Bruckner,
Wiesinger, Schott, etc.). — piuapbg, an. Aey., equivalent to pollutio. Accord
ing to Schott, puiapbg is here used subjectively, " what to themselves is dis
honoring to the human body, that they make the object of their wild lust."
— Kal Kvpioryrog Karaippovoivreg, cf. Jude 8, and the exposition. — rolpyra'i].
The author drops the construction hitherto adopted, and begins a new
clause ; the word is a Un. Xry. equal to " insolent, daring ; " Luther : " Ihiirs-
1 Cf. Xenophon, Hist. Graec, I. 4, p. 407 : as an attributive genitive, he interprets more
wo-t' ei/Lous Kal riiv TuiTTojiierwi', vopipmv Se closely thus ; *' a lust which brings defilement
ovrmv dvBpiiiniav, dSiipovriaai Ta? ipvxd<;, iSoi'Tas with' It, since it pollutes not only him who
rriv dae^eiav; Only it must be observed that gratifies it, but him 'also on whom it is grati-
Lot was vexed at the godlessness in itself, not fied ; " but in this interpretation the two ex-
because he personally had to suffer by it. pressions, "impure lust" and "lust which
2 Hofmann also renders the idea by "im- pollutes," are erroneously taken as identical.
pure desire, filthy lust," which, taking piaapoi

410 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
tig" (i.e., bold, from the root tarr ; in old High German, gaturstig).^ — avBd-
<5£(f,.to be found, besides here, only in Tit: i. 7. — Most modern expositors
understand the two words substantively ; but as aiBdSyg is strictly an ajdject.,
it can here also be taken as such ; thus Schott. It is improbable that they
form a passionate exclamation (Schott). They may be either connected in
a loose way as subject with oi rpepovo., or they may be regarded as au ante
cedent apposition to the subject of rpipovai (Hofmann). — Sb^ag oi rpepovat
piaaipypovvreg]. For Sb^ag see Jude 8. The particip. stands here as in chap.
i. 19. Vulg., strangely : sectas non metuunt (introducere, facere) blasphemantes.
Ver. 11. Compare Jude 9 AVhat Jude says specially of the archangel
Michael is here more generally aflirmed of angels. In this its generality the
thought is hardly intelligible; the necessaiy light is obtained only by com
paring it with Jude (De AVette). If the priority of this epistle be assumed,
the thought here expressed must have reference to Zech. iii. 2 (thus Schott,
Steinfass, Hofmann), — iinov cannot stand here as assigning the reason, as it
sometimes does in the classics, since it refers back not to rolpyral, but to
So^ag ov, k.t.X ; but neither is it equal to " whilst even, since even ; " this use.
can nowhere be established. It is meant rather to indicate the similarity of
the relationship (with respect to the So^ai).^ The adversative relationship
lies not in the particle, but iu the thought. — dyyeloi, according to the parallel
passage, not evil, but good, angels. — iaxvi koI Swdpei pel^oveg bvreg]. The com
parative expresses the relation in which they stand either to the rolpyral or
to the So^ai. The latter reference deserves the preference, since — aud to
this Hofmann has called attention, Schriftbew. I., p. 460 — it is understood
of itself that angels are more powerful than men (AViesinger, Schott, Stein
fass) . — oi ipepovai . . Kplaiv] . oefeiv Kplaiv (Jude : inupipeiv Kplaiv) does not
mean "to endure a judgment" (Luth.), but "to pronounce a judgment." —
Plaafypbv, With an eye to piaaipypovvreg — Kar' avrCiv; not adversum se (A''ulg.),
but airCiv goes back to bb^ag (Calviu, Beza, Hornejus, Wolf, De AA^ette, and
all the more modern interpreters, with the exception of Fronmiiller), by
which are to be understood here — as in Jude • — the diabolical powers. The
opposite interpretation, according to which the meaning should be that the
wicked angels are not able to bear the judgment of God on their blasphemy
(luther, Fronmiiller, etc.), is opposed not only to the language (pldaipypog
Kpiaig equal to Kplaig plaaipyplag) but to the context. — napd Kvpiip]. These
words, the genuineness of which is doubtful, may not be explained with
Bengel ; apud Dominum . . ¦reventi, abstinent judicio : for, as Hofmann
justly remarks, napd kvp. " belongs to that which is denied, and does not
explain why that does not happen which is denied.'' "The conception is,
that angels appear before God, and, before His throne, tell what evil spirits
are doing in the world." Cf. AViner, p. 369 (E. T., 395).
A''er. 12. Compare Jude 10. With all their similarity the two passages
are nevertheless very different. The characteristics are still further de-
^ Cf. Pischon, Erkldr. der hauptsdchl. ver- such as . " some laugh where othera weep; "
alteten deutschen 'Worter in der Luth. Bibelii- thus here, these rail where the angels oy ipepov-
bers., Berl., 1844, p. 7. aiv, K.r.h. It must not be interpreted, with
2 It corresponds to " where " in passages Hofmann, as equal to Kaff vtv.

CHAP. II. 12. 411
scribed in Jude 10, but here the punishment is promised to these men. —
ovroi be, antithesis to dyyeloi ; the predicate belonging to it is tpBapyaovrai. — dig
dloya f(ja . . . ipBopdv]. Parenthetical thought in close relation to ipBapyaovrai;
Grotins : ita peribunt illi, sicut pereunt muta animantia. — yeyevvypeva ipvaixd can
hardly be translated "born as sensuous beings to," etc. (AViesinger, and
formerly in this commentary). fvaiKd is meant rather to bring out that the
irrational animals are, according to their natural constitution, born to ulijaig.
Hofmann takes ipuatKa as a second attribute added to yeyevvypeva by asynde
ton, equal to "by nature deterrained to dluaig," etc. But the only objection
to this is that yeyewypiva alone cannot well be considered as a special attri
bute. As regards the sense, it makes no difference whether ipvaiKu be placed
before (Rec.) or after yeyew. — eig uImoiv kuI ipBopdv]. According to Luther, a
twofold rendering is possible : " First, those who take and strangle ; second,
who are to be taken, strangled, and slaughtered ; " the latter is the only cor
rect interpretation. The general interpretation is, "for taking and destroy
ing ; " Schott on the other hand translates, " for taking and consuming ; "
and Hofmann, in like manner, who holds that both are active ideas, "that
they may be taken and consumed." This interpretation of ipBopd, however, is
arbitrary, and all the more unwarranted, that in the subsequent iv ry ipBopg.
airuv, ipSopa cannot have this special meaning. According to N. T. usage,
what is meant by ipBopd here is the destruction to which the beasts are des
tined ; cf. Col. ii. 22. — iv olg dyvoovaiv plaaipypoivreg . . ipBapijaovrai]. With
regard to the construction, cf. Winer, p. 583 (E. T., 628). According to
the usual interpretation, iv oig is dependent on piaaipypovvreg, and is to be
resolved into iv ravroig, d dyvoavaip, piacip. (Winer decides in favor of this ;
so, too, Wiesinger, and Buttmann, p. 128 [E. T., 146]). But i-v oig may
also be dependent on dyvoaiaiv, and be resolved, raira, 'tv olg d-yvooiaiv, plaaipy-
uovvrec. There is no other instance to be found of the construction Plaaipypeiv
iv, although piaaipypeiv eig occurs frequently. Buttmann accordingly says
that by iv here (not the object strictly speaking, but) " rather the sphere is
denoted, within which the evil-speaking takes place;" nor is the combina
tion of dyvoelv with iv common, "yet it is not without example in later writ
ings." ^ That dyvoelv, in the sense of it, may be joined with iv, is shown by
the German expression, " to be ignorant in a matter.'' Besides, in both
constructions the sense is substantially the same. According to the connec
tion with what precedes (ver. 10) and Jude 8 and 10, the bb^ai are to be
understood as that which was unknown to them, and to which their slanders
had reference. On account of this irrational evil-speaking, that will happen
to them which is expressed in the words, iv ry ipBop^ airdiv koI rpBapyaovrai.
ipeopd has been understood here to mean moral corruption ; thus De Wette-
Briickner, Steinfass, Fronmiiller; erroneously, however, for the word must
have the same meaning in this passage as it had formerly ; then, in this
case, airdiv does not refer to the Libertines, but to the fua before mentioned,
and Kai is to be explained from the comparison with these. They (the Lib
ertines) whose irrational slander of that of which they are ignorant, makes
1 It is to be found in Test. XII. patr. in Fabricius cod. pseudepigr. V. T.,^. 717.

412 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
them like unto the irrational brutes, will also suifer ipBopd, like the latter,
who by nature are destined thereto. Entirely different frora this, however,
is the interpretation give.n by Hofmann. He resolves iv oig into iv rovroig a,
and takes iv rovroig with ipBapyaovrai; that which, without knowing it, they
speak evil of, is, according to hira, the things of sense ; he understands iv ry
IpBopd airuv to be iu more definite and explanatory apposition to iv roiroig,
and IpBopd actively, equivalent to " abuse " In his view, then, the idea ^ere
expressed is that the Libertines by abusing, after their lusts, the things of
sense, believing them to have nothing in common with God, fall a prey to
destruction. The objections to this interpretation are, first, that iv olg is not
applied to any of the verba near it, but to the remote ipBapyaovrai ; secondly,
that a meaniug is attributed to the second ipBopd different from that of tbe
first, — the one is taken as equivalent to "consumption," the other to
" abuse,'" ^ — and that neither of these significations belongs in any way
to the word ; thirdly, that the reference to the things of sense is in no way
alluded to in the context ; fourthly, that iv ry ipBopd cannot possibly be in
apposition to iv rovroig; and lastly, that, on this interpretation, we should
have had dyvoovvreg Plaaipijpovot instead of dyvoovaiv plaaipypoivreg.^
Ver. 18. Kopurvpevoi piaBbv dSiKiag is subjoined by way of explanation to
what precedes.^ — Cf. 1 Pet. i. 9. — ¦ piaBbv dbiKiag not equivalent to piaBbv dbiKov
(AVolf), but "the reward for unrighteousness.'' — ybovyv yyoipevoi]. This and
the following participles, as far as the end of ver. 14, are connected with
what precedes, as descriptive of the dSiKia ; it is less probable that, as Hof
mann assumes, a new period begins with ybovyv yyoiuevoi and ends with
ver. 16. The three kinds of dSiKia here spoken of are: 1, luxurious living;
2, fornication; 3, covetousness. De AVette: "they who count it pleasure." —
ryv iv ypipg. rpvipyv]. ev ypepa is by Oecumenius interpreted as equal to koB'
yuipav, but this is not in accordance with the usage. Several interpreters
(Benson, Morus, Fronrauller, Hofmann) take ypipa here as in contrast to the
night. This, however, is inappropriate, for it is not easy to see why they
should not regard the rpvipy in the night as a pleasure. Gerhard is better:
per ryv ypepav intelligitur praesentis vitae tempus , Luther, " temporal luxurious
living" (De AA^ette-Briickner, AA'iesinger, Sohott). It stands by way of con
trast to the future, to which the f ut. Kopioipevoi refers. — aniloi koI pCiuoi is

^ Schott agrees with Hofmann in regard to Kopiovpevoi to be the original, because the
the application to things of sense, and to the more difficult one. Tisch. 8, on the other
interpretation of the meaning of the first 09opa, hand, says: " dSiKov pevoi, si aptum sensum
but differs from him in other points. He states praebere judicabitur, omnino praeferendum
the idea contained in the verse thus: "Asirra- erit." Nescio an "decepti circa ptaQ'ov aSt-
tional beasts, which . . made to be taken Kiaq " verti liceat. Hofraann interprets the
and consumed . . . corae to destruction, so accus. /At<r06F as an accus. of apposition, cf.
these people shall perish; since they rail at 2 Cor. vl. 13, aud then translates- "evil hap-
those raatters which they do uot comprehend, pens to them as the reward of evil;" but
they themselves shall perish in and with the though dSiKelv occurs in this wider significa-
destruction of those things against which they tion, as in Luke x. 19, and often in Revelation,
rail." This interpretation is quite as unwar- Btill dSiKia never does — Buttraann has ac-
rantable as that of Hofmann. cepted, not dSiKovpevoi, as in B, but Kopiovpe-
2 Hofmann considers the reading d6ifcov/iie- rot.
voi^hnl little attested, however — instead of

CHAP. II. 14. 413
either to be connected with what follows: "who as an. koi pujwi riot" (De
AVette-Bruckner, AA''iesinger), or they are independent expressions of dis
pleasure, like rolpyral aiBdbeig formerly in ver. 10, and Kardpag reKva afterwards
(Schott, Fronmiiller) subjoined to what precedes by way of apposition (Hof
mann); the latter is-most in harmony with the animated forra of address.
Instead of anlloi, Jude has aniliibeg; anlloi (less commonly anlloi) is equivalent
to " spots of dirt," cf . Eph. v. 27. — uuuoi : an. ley., commonly " blame, shame ; "
here "blemishes.'' ' — 'evrpvipCiv-eg iv raig dndraig airCiv]. ivrpvipCyvreg points back
to rpvipyv, and may not therefore be taken, with Hofmann, in the weakened
meaning of, "to take delight in any thing," which it probably has in Isa.
Iv. 2, LXX. ; it is not to be connected with the following iplv in the sense
of : illudere, ludibrio habere, but means, as it coraraonly does, " to riot ; " ipuv
belongs to awevuxoi pevoi, — iv ralg dndraig airuv is explained from vv. 3 and
14 ; they practised deceit in this way, that they succeeded in procuring
earthly advantage to themselves, by praising their vain wisdom (AViesinger,
Fronmiiller) ; since ivrpvipgiv denotes the actual rioting, iv ralg dndraig airuv
cannot state the object of their ivrpvipdv, that is, " the lies with which they
practise deceit " (Hofmann ; or, according to Schott : " their deceiving ap
pearance of wisdom "). The opinion of AVolf and others, that dnurai raeans
the love-feasts, inasmuch as they — in opposition to their real nature — are
abused by these individuals to their own profit, requires no refutation. -
avvevuxoiuevoi iulv is subordinate to what precedes. They rioted in their
deceits, that is to say, by enjoying themselves at the feasts of those among
whom they had obtained an entrance by deceit. — Luther's translation is
mistaken : " they make a show of your (vpHv instead of airuv) alms (incorrect
interpretation of dydnaig), they revel with what is yours " (instead of " with
you ").
Ver. 14 has no parallel in Jude. — Description of the sensual lust of the
eye of the false teachers. — iupBalpoig exovreg uearovg poixallbog]. The adulter
ous lust is depicted in their eyes ; in the expression, pearovg poixa'llSog, the lust
after the poixallg, revealing itself in the eyes, is designated as a being filled
of the eye with it, since they look at nothing else but this. The interpretar
tiou of Hornejus is not to the point : quasi dicat, tam libidinosos eos esse, ut in
ipsorum oculis quasi adulterae habitent, seu ut adulteras semper in oculis ferant.
— Hofmann explains pearbg nvog by reference to Plato, Sympos. 194 B, here
equivalent to " to be entirely engrossed, pre-occupied with something." — It is
wrong to suppose (as Dietlein does) that it is here in any way stated that a
female member of the house, into which they had forced themselves, had
already fallen a victim to their seduction. Calvin even ^ had connected this
verse closely with the preceding, as Schott and Hofmann do ; but it is not
easy to understand why the persons here described should have had adulter-

' Hofmann arbitrarily deftnee these expres- - Calvin : " Isti vos ac coetum vestrum
sions more precisely as " spots which defile the foedis maculls aspergunt : nam dum epulantur
purity of the church, blemishes which attach vobiscum, siraul luxuriantur in suis erroribus,
to her, to her shame; " they are rather spoken aniores raeretricios et perditam incoutiuentiam
of thus, because both defilement and shame oculis gestuque exprimunt."
cleave to them.

414 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
OUS desires only at the feasts. — koI uKaranaiarovg dpapriag, " not satiated, un
satisfied in sin," i.e., eyes, in which is reflected the restless desire after ever
fresh sin ; in dpapria the reference is chiefly to sensual sins. — Seled^ovreg,
ver. 18, and Jas. i. 14 : " lo allure, to entice ; " quasi pisces hamo captare (Beza).
— i^Xi^i uaryp'iKTovg\. darypiKTog (chap. iii. 16), not "wanton" (Luther), but
in fide et pietatis studio nondum satis fundatus et formatus (Gerhard). — This
idea is doubtless connected more closely with what precedes than with what
follows (Ilofmann), so that the sen.se is: they entice them, .so as to satisfy
their fleshly lusts on them. — KupSiav . , . exovreg]. Third vice : ^ covetous
ness. The construction of the verb yeyvpvaapivyv, c. gen., occurs also in the
classics :^ " a heart practised in covetousness . " Calvin is quite unwarranted
in interpreting nleove^ia here by cupiditates , ci. ver. 3. — Kardpag tIkvu, ci,
Eph. ii. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 3; "men, who have incurred the curse;" an expres
sion of profoundest displeasure ; similar to anlloi kol pupoi, ver. 13. It is
doubtful whether it is to be connected with the preceding or with the subse
quent passage; the first combination is preferable, because in it the language
is more passionate. In the other case the construction, from ver, 10 med.
onwards, might be taken thus, rolpyral avBdbeig, as introducing the section
down to rpvipyv, ver. 13 ; anlloi koI uupoi that from there to ixovreg, ver. 14 ;
and Kardpag riKva that as far as napaippoviav, ver. 16.
Vv. 15, 16. Comparison with Balaam; cf. Jude 11. The comparisons
with Cain and Korah are wanting here. — Karalinovreg eiBeiav bbbv, k.t.Xj with
eiB. bb., ct. Acts xiii. 16; the words connect themselves closely with inlavy-
Byaav, to which then the subsequent participial clause is added by way of a
more precise definition With i^uKolovB., ci. chap. i. 16, ii. 2. The con
junction of this verb with r-y bbip is explained by the circumstance that bbbg
is here taken in a figurative sense : manner of life, conduct. — The form
Booop, Heb. ¦'ii'3, arises from a peculiar pronunciation of y ; Grotius is
wrong in regarding the word as the corrupted name of the country, n"Jin3,
Xum. xxii. 5. Several commentators, Krebs, Vitringa, AVolf, Grotius, etc.,
assume that there is here an allusion to the counsel which Balaam gave to
the Midianites to the corrupting of the Israelites (Xum. xxxi. 16 ; Rev.
ii. 14) (so, too, Dietlein) ; but, according to ver. 16, the reference is rather
to the intended cursing of the people of Israel, to which certainly Balaam,
for the sake of reward, was inclined ; hence, og piaBbv dSuiiag (see ver. 13)
yydnyaev. Although such inclination on his part is not definitely mentioned
in Xum. xxii. 1-20, still, judging from the narrative of the ass, it is to be
presupposed ; cf., too, Deut, xxiii. 5. Corroboration from the rabbinical
writings, see Wetstein. — Ver. 16. Hey^tv Se iaxev ISlag napavopiag, "but he
received (suffered) rebuke (blame) for his trespass;" his napavop'ia (not
equivalent to vesania (Vulg.), but synonymous with dStua) consisted in this,
' Hofmann erroneously says that this states If 'o^9a\p. IxorTet be closely connected with
" not a third, but a second characteristic of the preceding passage.
their nature, the avaritia, along with the luxu- ^ Philostratus, 2, 16 : BaXdrryis ovnia yevuft-
ria ;" for in the firet half of this verse they are vaapevoi; 3, 1: N^o-Topa n-oAejaoi' TroXXui'
accused of something which is identical neither -yeyu/Au. ; 10, 1 : aoipiag fjSy yeyvpvaapevov.
with luxuria nor with avaritia, and this even

CHAP. II. 17, 18. 415
that he was willing, for the sake of the reward, if God permitted it, to curse
Israel, and for this reason went to Balak. iSlug stands here in place of the
pers. pron. avroi. Dietlein presses ISlag, by translating, " belonging to him,"
and adds by way of explanation: "to him who must be looked upon as the
prototype of the false prophets." Wiesinger, on the other hand, sees the sig
nificance of iblag in this, that "he who was a prophet to others, had to suffer
rebuke of an ass for his own napavop." But neither the one nor the other is
alluded to in the context. — That which follows states in what the eley^tg
consisted. — inoC,iyiov, properly : a beast that bears a yoke, here as in Matt.
xxi. 5, designation of the ass. — dipomov, in contrast to human speaking. —
h dvBpiinov ipuvy ipBeyidpevov does not state fhe reason of the iKdlvae, but em
phasizes the miraculous nature of the occurrence {dipuvov . . . ipuvy). — iKulvae
ryi roi nporpyrov napaippoviav]. Schott understands Balaam's napaippov'ia to be
his striking of the ass ; Wiesinger : " his folly, in setting himself against the
angel ; " but it is more correct to understand by it the aforenamed napavopia,
which the angel opposed. Hofmann rightly observes : " The signification of
the verb does not imply that it is left undone, but simply that opposition is
offered to what is done or is intended to be done; cf. 1 Thess. ii. 16." i
The word napaippovia, "folly," utt. ley. (the verb in 2 Cor. xi. 23), uniisual in
the classics also, instead of which napaippoaivy or napaippbvyaig ; see AA'iner,
p. 90 (E. T., 95). — Totj npoipyrov (cf. Xum. xxiv. 4) stands in emphatic
antithesis to ino^iyiov dipuvov.
Ver. 17. Description of the teachers of false doctrine from another point
of view, in as far as by making a false show of freedom they seduce others
tc immorality. Fkst, a double comparison, of which the second only occurs
in Jude 12. — ovtoI elai nyyal ¦ dvvSpoi]. The point of comparison lies in the
deceptiveness of a nyyy, which is without water ; it awakens an expectation
which it does not fulfil (as a contrast, of. Prov. x. 11 ; Isa. Iviii. 11). — nyyy
here (which Hofmann wrongly disputes) raeans, as in John iv. 6 : a spring,
well ; f antes enim proprie sic dicti non carent aqua (Gerhard). — kuI bptxlai inb
lallanog ilawdpevcu]. bpixlij properly mist, here clouds of mist, as the plural
already goes to prove, as well as the fact that it is not the mist, but the misty
clouds, which must be regarded as foretelling rain. — lallaip, according to
Aristotle (Lib. De Mundo), equal to nvevpa P'lauyv Kal eilmipevov KdruBev dvu;
Mark iv. 37. The point of comparison is the same here as in the previous
figure, only that by inb lall. dlaw, their want of consistency (not " their pun
ishment ") is more pointedly referred to.^ — olg^ , . , rerypyrai, so, too, in Jude
13; it connects itself with ovroi, not with bplxlai, as Plofmann maintains, for
how can this relative clause express "the dissolving of vapor into nothing "?
Ver. 18. Cf. Jude 16. — inipoyKa ydp paraioryrog ipBeyybpevoi]. The ydp
does not serve to explain the figurative words, ver. 17 (as formerly in this
1 Formerly In this commentary, eKuiKvaev men raay be, still for the Christian community
was explained thus: that although Balaam's 11 has the effect of a storm which cleanses it; "
Trapai^povia was not exactly prevented by the for their conduct is not compared to a storm,
ass, still, by the conduct of the latter, a begin- but to clouds of mist; nor is reference raade
ning was made to prevent it. to their effect on the Church, but to that of the
2 Wiesinger inappropriately remarks : storm on the clouds of mist.
" However empty in Itself the conduct of these

41G THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
coramentary), for, as Hofmann justly says, " the description of their conduct
contained in this verse goes far beyond those figurative statements as to
their nature." It raust be referred either, with AViesinger, to the judgment
expressed in ver. 17, — olg , , . reryp, being included, — or, as is done by
Hofmann, to the relative clause only ; the former is probably the more cor
rect view.i — inepoyKog, "swelling; " in the classics used also of style, parai-
bryg gives the nature of the swelling, high-sounding speeches (" the proud
words,'' Luther); Luther, aptly: "since there is nothing behind them."
The word ipBeyybpevoi (besides in Acts iv. 18, to be found only here and in
ver. 16) is here the more appropriate that it is. used chiefly of loud speaking.
— Seledl,ovaiv]. Cf. ver. 14. — 'ev imdvpiaig aapKbg daelyeiaig]. iv is commonly
taken as equivalent to Sid, and dae'ly. as an apposition to iniB. : " through the
lusts of the flesh, through debauchery " (De Wette, Briickner, Wiesinger,
probably Schott too) ; but thus there is a felt want of a Kai, or of a second ev,
and the imSvpiai oi the seducers, too, are not to be considered as the means
of allurement. Hofraann explains : " by means of fleshly lusts, which they
awaken in them, through acts of wantonness, the enjoyment of which they
hold out to them ; " but here relations are introduced to which the text
makes no allusion. It is therefore better to take iv iniBvpiaig a. as designat
ing the condition of the seducers, and daelye'iaig as the dat. lustrum.: "in
the lusts of the flesh (i.e., taken in them, governed by them) they allure by
voluptuousness those who," etc. ; Steinfass, correctly : " it is part of their
iniB. aapK. that they seek to allure the members of the church ; " he is wrong,
however, when he explains the daelye'iaig as that to which they allure them.
Luther translates wrongly : " through lasciviousness to fleshly lust ; " iv ini-
Bvuiaig is not equal to eig iniBvpiag. — roig bliyug dnoipevyovrag], bliyug, arr, Xfy.,
is hardly to be found elsewhere. It expresses both time and measure, and
corresponds to the English, "hardly, just" (thus also Schott). Wiesinger
and Hofmann understand it only of measure, equivalent to " little ; " Hof
mann understands it of space: "they are a little way escaped from those
who walk in error." The pres. of the verb shows that they are, as it were,
still in the act of flight frora their former condition, and are not yet firmly
established in the new ; cf. ver. 14: ipvxdg daryp'iKrovg. — rovg iv nlavri dvaarpeipo-
pivovg not an adjunct co-ordinate with what goes before ; Luther : " and now
walk in error; " but the accus. is dependent on dnoipeiyovrag, and oi iv nldvy
iivaarpeipbpevoi are those from whom the persons who are being seduced have
separated theraselves, those who are not Christians, especially the heathen,
who lead a life iv 7r)^ui'j) (AViesinger, Schott, Briickner, Fronmiiller, Hofmann);
Steinfass incorrectly understands by the expression the ipevbobiSuaKal.ot.
\er, 19. ilevBepiav avrolg inayyelldpevoi]. Explanation of the iniooyKU par,
IpBeyybpevoi; the high speeches have as their contents the praise of liberty. —
inayyelldpevoi ; they assure, promise, those who submit to their guidance that
they will conduct them to true liberty. — airol bovloi indpxovreg ryg ipBopdg].
A sharp antithesis to ilevB. inayyelX : " though they themselves are slaves of

1 Bengel: "Puteus et nubes a'quam poUi- lumina ecclesiae; sed hi putei, hae nubes nil
centur; sic illi praegrandia jactant, quasi praebent ; praegrandia illa sunt vanitatis."

CHAP. II. 20. 417
ipBopd." By IpBopd moral corruption is generally understood, but elsewhere
in the X. T. the word never has this meaning; it should rather be taken in
the same sense as that which it has in ver. 12. In Rom. viii. 21 it denotes
the opposite of So^a, which Hofraann wrongly denies. Schott erroneously
takes it to mean "the things of sense; " but these, though they be given up
to IpBopd, yet cannot be directly defined as ipBopd itself.^ The chief emphasis
lies on bovloi. The general statement, li ydp nf yrryrai, roiro Kal bebovlurai,
serves to show that the term is applied to them not without justification.
The verb f/rrdaBai (with the exception of in this passage and in ver. 20, to be
found only in 2 Cor. xii. 13) is in classical Greek often used as a passive
and construed with inb, and, in harmony with its meaning, frequently with
the genitive, and sometimes also with the dative. The latter is the case
here: "to whom anyone succumbs." The dat. with bebovlurai expresses the
relation of belonging to : to him he is made the slave, i.e., whose slave he is.
Schott arbitrarily asserts that yrryrai with the dat. brings out that the being
overcome "is voluntary and desired on principle."
Ver. 20 gives an explanation (yap, equal to : namely) of the statement
contained in ver. 19, that those there described are the bovloi ryg ipBopdg, after
that the general remark : J . . . SeSoilurai has been applied to them. Almost
all interpreters hold that in this verse the same persons are the subjects as
in ver. 19 ; so that the dnoipvydvreg refers to those with the description of
whom the author has throughout the whole chapter been engaged. Bengel,
Fronrauller, Hofraann, are of a different opinion. They assume that dnoipv
ybvreg refers to, those who are led astray, and that the latter accordingly,
and not the seducers, are to be regarded as the subject of the clause.
In favor of this view may be urged the term dnoipvybvreg, which seems
to refer back to the dnoipevyovrag in ver. 18. But, on the one hand, it is
certainly unnatural to consider those to be the subjects here who are the
objects in ver. 18, especially as ver. 19 has the same subject as ver. 18;
and, on the other, it would be more than surprising if the apostle did not,
from here onwards, continue the description of those of whom the whole
chapter speaks, but should, all of a sudden, treat of entirely different
persons, — and this without in any way hinting at the transition from
the one to the other; in addition to this, there is the circumstance that
yrruvrai corresponds much too directly with yrryrai. — ei ydp]. The reality,
as frequently, expressed hypothetically. Without any reason, Grotius
would read "oi ydp" instead of el ydp. — dnoipvybvreg]. The participle is
not to- be resolved by "although," but by "after that." — tu ptdapara roi
Kbapov]. rd pidapara, a forra occurring only here; ver. 10: piaapdg, — roi
Kbapov, here in an ethical sense, as composed of those who walk (ver. 18)
ev nldvy, Or, with AViesinger : '-' as the dominion over which sin rules," " the
defilements which belong to the world," Without sufficient reason, Hofniann
takes rd ptdapara r, k. in a personal sense, and thinks that it means, in the
first instance, " those individuals who are the aboraination and blemishes of
' Hofmann, appealing to 1 Cor. xv. 60, un- itself proves that the abstract idea is put in
derstands itidopd here also as meaning " the place of the concrete, which is not the case
corruptible ; " but in that passage the context here.

418 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
the non-Christian world, and that ¦rovroig Si refers to the Christians whom
Peter designates as the an'iloi n.. pupoi of the church." But nothing in the
context hints at this, and it is arbitrary to understand by roiroig other pida-
para than those designated by that word itself. — iv imyvuaei roi Kvplov . .
Xpiaroi, i.e., by their having come to the knowledge of Christ. — roiroig (i.e.,
pidapaai) be ndliv ipnluKCvreg yrruvrai]. epnlaKevreg is valde emphaticum ; ipnle-
KeaBai enim dicuntur, qui tric'is et laqueis implicantur (Gerhard). The particle
bi places in antithesis either the two participles, dnoipvybvreg and ndliv ipnla-
Kevreg, or the first participle and the finite verb yrrCivrai ; the former construc
tion is to be preferred as the more correct. — yiyovev airoig . . . ruv npiiruv].
The sarae words are to be found in Matt. xii. 45; Luke xi. 26 ; * tu npura:
the former condition, in which they were before their conversion ; rd laxara:
their subsequent condition, into which they have come after their falling away,
i.e., the condition of complete slavery to the ipBopd, from which there is no
hope of redemption : with the thought, of. Heb. x. 26, 27.
Ver. 21. Kpeirrov ydp yv airoig]. The same use of the imperf. where we
should eraploy the conjunct., Mark xiv. 21 : koIDv tjv airu ; ci. on the constr.
AViner, p. 265 (E. T., 282). — py ineyvuKivai ryv bSbv ryg biKaioaivyg]. 'y bbbg ryg
SiKuioa. is not "the way to virtue," or "the way of salvation- which leads to
the moral condition of righteousness " (Sohott), but a designation of Chris
tianity in so far as a godly righteous life belongs to it; of. ver. 2,^ — ij
iniyvoiaiv]. The dat. instead of the accus., dependent on airoig; by an
attraction not uncommon in Greek — 'emarpiipai is to be taken here in the
sense of "to turn back to the former things, " cf. ver. 22, as in Mark xiii. 16;
Luke xvii. 31, where it is connected with eig rd bniau ; in Luke viii. 55, never
theless, it is used in the same sense without adjunct; see critical remarks. —
« ryg . . . evro/J/g]. With napaboBeiayg airoig, of. Jude .3. — y dyia Ivroly is
the law of the Christian life, of. 1 Tim. vi. 14; here mentioned because the
passage treats of the moral corruption of the false teachers.
Ver. 22. The two proverbial expressions which form the close bring out
how contemptible is the conduct just described. — avupiPyKe airoig, "it has
happened to them," "has befallen them." — rb ryg dlyBoig napoi/iiag]. The same
construction. Matt. xxi. 21 : to ryg avKyg-, napoip'ia denotes a figurative speech
or raode of expression generally. dlyBovg is added in order to bring out that
the proverb has here too proved true; the author eraploys the singular
napoipiag, because the two proverbs following have one and the same mean
ing. — Kiuv iniarpiipag . . , i^epaua]. The verse of the O. T., Prov. xxvi. 11,
LXX., runs : dianep Kiuv brav inelBy inl rbv eavroi iperov piayrbg yevyrai, ovrug
dippuv ry iavrov KUKig dvaarpiipag inl ryv iavrov dpapriav; in spite of the similarity,
it is yet doubtful whether the writer had this passage in his eye ; probably
he took this napoiuia, like that which follows, — which can be traced to no
written source, — from popular tradition. — iniarpiipag is not to be taken as
> There is a similar passage in Past. Herm. ^ In Steinfass's observation : " By the Sik-
iii. 9 ; " quidam tamen ex iis maculaverunt se, atoo-uinj? of the 65bi^ SiKaioaw-^^, righteousness
et projecti sunt de genere justorum et iterum is understood as being not the end, but the
redieruut ad statum prietinum, atque etiam wayfarer," tbe first is right, but the second
deteriores quam prius evaserunt." wrong.

CHAP. IL 22. 419
a verb fin., but the predicate is, after the manner of proverbial expression,
joined without the copula to the noun (Winer, p. 331 [E. T., 353 f.]): "a
dog that has returned to its i^epafia " (utt. ley. : " what has been vomited "). —
vg lovaapevy . . . poppbpov]. 'eniarpiipaaa may be supplied from what precedes,
but thus this second napoipla would lose its independence ; breviloquence is
natural to proverbs (Winer, p. 547 [E. T., 588]) ; eig, according to the sense,
points sufficiently to a verb of motion to be supplied : " a sow that has bathed
itself, to the Kiliapa poppdpov." ^ — Kvlwpa (utt. ley.), equal to Kvllarpa: the place
for wallowing. The genit. popBbpov (utt. Xey.) shows the nature of the Kiliapa
where the swine wallow; the other reading, Kvliapbv, indicates the act of
wallowing. — Similar passages are to be found in the Rabbis. Cf . Pott
in loe. ^ Steinfass interprets erroneously : " A sow that was bathed, in order the better to wallow in
the mire."

420 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.

CHAPTER III.

Ver. 2. Instead of the Eec. ypuv, the reading, according to almost all
authorities (Lachm., Tisch.), should be, ipuv. — Ver. 3. In place of in' eaxarov
in K, L, P, etc, Syr., utr., Oec, etc. (Griesb., Scholz), A, B, C**, X, al., Sahid.,
Chrys., etc., read: iaxiiruv (Lachm., Tisch.); the Rec. is probably a correction
after Heb. i. 1 ; cf . also Jude 18. — iv ipnaiyuovy has been rightly adopted into
the text by Griesb., Scholz, etc. ; it is attested by A, B, C, P, X, 27, etc, Syr.,
utr., Arr., etc. Its omission (in K, L, etc., Reo.) is easily explained by its hav
ing seemed superfluous on account of the subsequent ipnalKrai. — Tisoh. has
placed airuv before iniBvp'iag, following A, X, several min., Oec ; however, B, C,
K, L, P, al., m., Theoph., etc, are in favor of placing it after iniB. (Griesb.,
Scholz, Lachm.). — Ver. 7. Instead of the Rec ¦ru airu Ibyu, after A, Vulg.,
Copt., etc. (Lachm., Buttm., Tisch. 8), C, L, X, al., perm., Syr., utr., etc., read:
rip avroi Ibyu (Griesb., Scholz, Tisch. 7). According to Buttm., the reading in
B is uncertain. On internal grounds it is difficult to decide which is the origi
nal reading; Hofmann, however, declares the reading airu to be absurd. — Ver.
9. Kvpiog, instead of tbe Eec. A Kvpiog; the most important authorities omit the
article. — e^ig yudg], Rec, K, L, etc. ; instead of yudg. A, B, C, X, etc., have iuCig;
and instead of eig. A, X, etc., read Sid, Tisch. 7 has adopted e'lg iudg, and
Lachm. and Tisch. 8, Si iifdg;, the reading eig vpdg is best attested. Reiclie con
siders that of the Rec. to be the original reading: ob testlum majorem numerum
(?) et quia hic modestius et convenientius erat, se ipsum includere ; the most of
the modern commentators prefer eig iudg; Hofm., however, holds the Rec. to
be the original reading. Semler looks upon all the three readings as mere inter-
pretamenta. — Ver. 10. In B, C, Cyr., the article is wanting before yaioa,
Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it. — After Klinryg the Eec. has iv vvkti (after
C, K, L, etc), already justly omitted by Griesb. as a later supplement from
1 Thess. V. 2 (so, too, Tisch.). — Before oipavoi the Eec, after A, B, C (Lachm.,
Tisch. 7), has the article oi; in K, L, x, it is wanting (Tisch. 8). — Iu place of
IvByaovrui, Eec, after A, K, L (Tisch. 7), Lachm. and Tisoh. 8 have adopted
the sing. IvByaerai, following B, C, X; perhaps it is a correction according to the
common usage. — Instead of the Eec. KaraKuyaerai in A, L, etc., B, K, P, etc.,
read eipeByaerai; Lachm. and Tisch. have retained the Eec ; the latter observes
(8) : dubium non est, quin evpeByaerai edere jubeamur, at hoc vix ac ne vix quidem
potest sanum esse; oix sive ovKeri si praepositum esset, non haerendum esset.
The greater nuraber of commentators have left unnoticed the reading evpeByaerai;
not so Hofmann ; Buttm. reads : a iv airy ipya eipeByaerai ; but d instead of ra
occurs in no codex. Cod. C reads dgiavioByaovrai. See further in the exposi
tion. — Ver. 11. rovruv oiv], Rec, after A, K, L, X, etc., Vulg., Thph., Oec.
(Lachm., Tisch. 8) ; in its place B has rourui' ovrug, and 0 rovruv Se ovrug; Tisch.
7 had accepted the version of B. — Ver. 12. Instead of ryKerai, Lachm., following
C, Vulg., etc., reads: ruKyaerai; probably a correction, because of the preceding

CHAP. III. 1, 2. 421
future. — Ver. 13. yijv Katvyv]. Rec, according to B, C, K, L, P, etc. (Lachm.,
Tisoh. 7); in its place Tisch. 8 reads koiv^v yyv, according to A, X; this appears
to be a correction, after the preceding Kaivoig . , , ovpavoig, — Kara rb indyyelua],
Rec, according to B, C, K, L, P (Tisch. 7); instead of Kara, A, etc., read Kai;
and in place of indyyelpa, A, X, etc., have: inayyilpara; Lachm. has adopted Kal
ra inayyilpara; and Tisoh. 8: Kara --d inayyilpara, — Ver. 15. According to A,
B, C, K, P, X, etc., instead of the Reo. airij boBelaav (L, etc.), the reading should
be, as in Lachm. and Tisch. : SoBelaav airu, — Ver. 16. After ndaaig, Tisoh. 8,
following K, L, P, X, reads the article ralg; Tisch. 7 and Lachm. omit ralg, after
A, B, C, al. — In place of the Rec. iv alg (Tisch. 8), after A, B, X, Lachm. and
Tisch. 7 read: iv oig; on this see the commentary. — Lachm. has retained the
dpyv, which closes the epistle, according to A, C, K, L, P, x, al. ; Tisch., follow
ing B, has omitted it, remarking: solet omnino a testibus plerisque addi ad
finem epistolarum; ter tantum (Rom., Gal., Jud.) non satis auctoritatis est, ut
omittatur dpyv. Pauci addunt dpyv S Joh.
Ver. 1. Not the commencement of a new epistle (Grotius), but of a new
section, directed against the deniers of the advent of Christ. — rairyv ySy , . ,
iniarolyv], "This epistle I write to you, as already the second." Pott:
airy yby Sevripa iariv iniaroly, yv ypdipu vplv, Fronmiiller incorrectly explains
ySyh^: "now being near my death." The epistle first written is the so-
called First Epistle of Peter. — iv alg applies both to this and the First
Epistle of Peter (Winer, p. 134 [E. T., 142]). The prepos. iv does not
stand herein place of Ad (Gerhard), but refers to the contents. — bieyeipu
, , , bidvoiav, for the phrase ; bieyeipeiv iv inouvyaei, cf . chap. i. 13. — ipuv
belongs to Smvoiav. — eiluKpivy, oi. Phil. i. 10.
Ver. 2. Cf. Jude 17 ; in Jude mention is not made of the apostles, but
only of the prophets. — pvyaByvai]. Infin. of purpose : " in order that ye may
remember," equivalent to eig rb pvyaByvai (Vorstius). — rCni npoeipypivuv pypdruv
vnb ruv dyiuv npoipyriiv]. This applies evidently to the Old Testament proph
ets ; and with especial reference to the prophecies which relate to the
napovaia of Christ (cf. ver. 4 and chap. i. 19).' The Vulg. wrongly trans
lates : ut memores sitis eorum quae praedixi verborum a Sanctis prophetis (or
sanctorum prophetarum). — koI ryg ruv dnoarbluv iuuv ivrolyg roi Kvplov Kal
aurypog]. On the commonly accepted reading i/puv, a double interpretation
has been given ; some, making iipuv depend on ivrolyg, for the most part
regard ruv dnoarbluv as in apposition to ijpiM, thus : " of our, the apostles',
command " (Luther : " the commandraent of us, who are the apostles of the
Lord ; " thus, too, Calvin, Hornejus, AVolf, Pott, Dietlein, etc.) ; whilst
Bengel more correctly takes ypuv as in apposition to dnoarblMv ; as in Acts
X. 41: pdprvai . . . yplv; for otherwise ypCm must have stood before dnoarb
luv ; cf. also 1 Cor. i. 18. Others, again, hold that ijpCiv is dependent on
dnoarbluv; thus De Wette: "the commandment of our apostles of the Lord,
i.e., of the apostles who have preached to us, and are sent from the Lord."

> Of course rd npoeipripeva pTJpara does not not require to Insist upon it; the raore bo that
mean " what has been said before," but " the the contrary is not asserted in the comraen
words aforetime spoken," aud Hofmauu did taries against which his arguraent is directed.

422 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
But against this interpretation is the circumstance, that, whilst he elsewhere
in the epistle designates himself as an apostle, the author of the epistle
would thus make a distinction between himself and the apostles.' On the
true reading, ipHv, the gen. roi Kvpiov does not, as was for the most part
formerly assumed, depend on dnoarbluv, but on ivrolyg (Bruckner, Wiesinger,
Schott, Steinfass) ; either in the sense : " the commandment ... of the
Lord of the apostles, i.e., the commandraent of the Lord, which the apostles
have proclaimed ; " or " roi Kvplov is added by way of supplement to ivroX,"
and the expression is to be left as it stands originally: "your command of
the apostles, of the Lord, i.e., which the Lord has given" (Bruckner; thus also^
Wiesinger, Schott) ; the latter is to be preferred. Xo doubt the parallel
passage in Jude runs : inb rCiv dnoarbluv rov kvp'iov iipuv ; but the whole epistle,
and especially this passage of it, shows that the author of our epistle, even
if he had Jude's composition before hira, in no way bound hiraself slavishly
to individual expressions in it. According to Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass,
by the UTT. ii,u., Paul and his fellow-laborers are raeant; this, too, is more
probable than that the apostle included himself among them. — By ivroly is
here, as little as in chap. ii. 21, to be understood the gospel, or the Christian
religion (or, as Dietlein thinks, "the announcement, i.e., the historical
proclamation, of those predictions of the prophets, partly fulfilled, partly
yet unfulfilled, which was intrusted to the apostles ") ; but ivroly means
here, as it always does, the coraraandment ; according to De AA''ette : " the
commandment to guard against the false teachers," after 1 Tim. iv. 1 ff.
But it is more appropriate, and more in harmony with the connection of
thought, to understand by it the command to lead a Christian life, in expec
tation of the second coming of Christ (W'iesinger, Schott, Bruckner) ; cf.
chap. ii. 22, i. 5 ff., iii. 12.
Ver. 3. roiro npijrov yivuaKovreg; cf. chap. i. 20. — yivuoKovreg refers in
loose construction (instead of an accus.) to the subject contained in pvyaByvai.
— bn ileiaovrai, K.r.l.]. Cf. Jude 18.^ — iv ipnaiypovy gives sharp prominence
to the conduct of the i'pnalKrai. The word is a urr. ley. ; Heb. xi. 36 : lunaiy-
ubg; with the constr. IpxeaSai Iv, cf. 1 Cor. iv. 21. — Kard rdg . . . nopevbpevoi;
Jude 18 and 16 ; Ibiag is added so as to strengthen the pronoun airuv.
Ver. 4. The scoffing words of the ipnalKrai. — Kal liyovreg • noi ianv y inay-
yelia ryg napovaiag airoi]. The question noi ianv expresses the negation;
"quasi dicunt: nusquam est, evanuit; denique vana est et mendax ; '' cf. 1 Pet.
iv. 18. The same form of speech with noi ianv: Ps. xlii. 4, Ixxix. 10; Mai.
ii. 17; Luke viii. 25. — airoi, i.e., Christi, cujus nomen ex re ipsa satis poterat
intelligi (Grotius): Gerhard assumes that the scoffers did not mention the
name of Christ per i^ovBeviapov ; thus also AA''iesinger, Hofraann. According
to the connection (ver. 2), the inayyelia meant is that of the O. T. (cf. chap.

' De 'Wette thinks, indeed, that here the ' Hofmann unwarrantably assumes that by
non-apostolic writer has Involuntarily betrayed that, of which the writer would have his read-
himself; but, as Stier justly observes, it can ers to be specially mindful, he does not mean
indeed hardly be supposed that the writer only the contents of the sentence depending
should have " so grossly failed to keep up the directly on yiviaaKovrei, but still raore than
part " which he bad distinctly assumed. that.

CHAP. III. 4. 423
i. 19 ff.'). In what follows we have the thesis of the scoffers in opposition
to the ina-yyelia, and the basis of it. The thesis is: ndvra oviug Siapevei utt'
dpxyg KTiaeug ; its basis is indicated by the words : dip' yg (sc. ypepag) ol naripeg
eKoipyByaav, On the assumption that the dip' yg oi nar. i.Kotp., as used by the
scoffers, means the period marking off the commencement of the Siaptvei, and
that utt' dpx. Kr. serves only as a more precise definition of it (Briickner,
Schott), then by ol naripeg must be understood "the ancestors, the first
generations of the human race." But on this view, df ijg, K.r.X, is an
entirely superfluous determination (AViesinger), nor would there thus be any
indication of the ground on which the scoffers based their thesis ; if, how
ever, this be contained in dip' yg, K.r 1., the reference in oi naripeg can be only
eit'ner to the fathers of the Jewish people, to whom the inayyelia was given,
cf. Heb. i. 1 (AA^esinger), or those of the generation to which the scoffers
belong (De Wette, Thiersch, Fronmiiller, Hofmann). Now, since the fall
ing asleep of the fathers of Israel, before its fulfilment, could not well be
brought as a proof that the promise was of none effect, inasmuch as it
referred to a time beyond that in which they lived (cf. 1 Pet. i. 10 ff.),
preference must be given to the second view. AVeisinger, indeed, says that
the time of the composition of the epistle does not agree with this ; but as
the tarrying of the napovaia had already been the occasion of wonder in the
church, and Christianity, when this letter was composed, had now been in
existence for at least thirty-five years, it is quite possible that even at that
time those who held Libertine views could have supported their denial of the
parousia by the fact that the expectation cherished by the early Christians
had remained unrealized, thus calling forth the prophecy here made. At
any rate, it is a point not to be overlooked, that the words here used are
represented as to be spoken at a time then still in the future. V^er. 8, which
otherwise would stand totally unconnected with ver. 4, also favors this view.^
The connection of the two members of the verse is certainly a loose one,
since on none of the interpretations does dip' ^f, K.r.X, stand in close connec
tion with Siapivet. The thought which has been somewhat inadequately
expressed is : Since the fathers fell asleep, nothing has changed, — the
promise has not been fulfilled, — a proof that every thing remains as it has
been since the creation. AVith iKoipyByaav, ci. 1 Cor. vii. 39, xv. 6, and other
passages. — ovrug does not require any supplement properly so called: " the
scoffers point, as it were, with the finger to the (sacred) status quo of the
world " (Steinfass). — Siapivet does not mean "has remained," nor is it " will
1 This Hofmann disputes, saying : " By the ^ Dietlein's interpretation is altogether
promise is not to be understood the Old Testa- wrong. According to it, ot narepe^ means :
ment promise, nor by the future the future of " One generation after another always stand-
Christ, since those who speak thus are mem- ing in the relation of fathers to the race suc-
bers of the Christian church ; but with respect ceeding it." Peculiar, but certainly quite
to the Old Testaraent prophecy, they speak of unjustifiable, is the opinion of Steinfass, that
Jehovah's coming, and, with respect to Christ's the scoffers, with reference to the promise con-
prophecy, of His own coming, tj enayye\ia tained in the Book of Enoch, understood oi
tt}? n-apovcria? TOU Kvpiou might comprehend the narepe'; to mean "the prophetical, or more
one aa well as the other ; " the context, how- definitely, the eschatological patriarchs, begin-
ever, is in favor of the interpretation which ning with Enoch, and extending down to
Hofmann disputes. Daniel."

424 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
remain," but the present expresses the continuous, uniform duration; Sia
strengthens the idea peveiv. — utt' dpxyg Krlaeug : " since creation took its
beginning." Ver. 5 Refutation of the assertion : ndvra oiru biapevei, by the adducing
the fact of the flood.' lavBavei ydp . . . Belovrag; ydp is not equivalent to Si,
but designates the thought which follows as the reason for their scoffing:
"Thus they speak because;" cf. AViner, p. 423 [E. T., 453]. — Toiro belongs
either to J.ai'euwi or to Bi?Mvrag; in the first case it refers to what follows:
on, K.r.l. ; in which case Belovrag will mean : " willingly, on purpose " (Briick
ner; AViesinger, Fronrauller, Hofmann; cf. AViner, p. ¦^'30 [E. T., 467];
-Buttmann, p. 322. Luther: "but they wilfully will not know"); in the
second case roiiro refers to the contents of the preceding statement, and Bel^iv
means " to assert;" "for, whilst they assert this, ii is hidden from them that"
(Dietlein, Schott). The position both of roiro separated from on by Belovrag,
and of Be?Mvrag separated by roiiro from lxivBavet,iayovs the second construc
tion ; that Be'Aeiv can be used in the sense of " to assert," is clear from
Herodian, v. 3, 11 . eUbva rt yliov iivipyaarov elvai Belovat ; the word marks the
assertion as one based on self-willed arbitrariness, and as without any cer
tain foundation. — on oipavoi yaav iKnalai; ol oipavoi, the plural according to
the coramon usage, — eKna>Mi; cf. chap. ii. 3, not, "of old, formerly," but,
"from of old," i.e., yam inde a primo rerum omnium initio (Gerhard). — yaav
belongs in the first instance to oipavoi ; yet the subsequent yy is to be taken
as applying to it also — kuI yy i^ vbarog Kal bi iSarog cvvearuaa]. avvearuaa
expresses the idea of originating out of a combination ; awiaiypi is often
employed thus by the Greeks in tbe intransitive tenses, though the reference
contained in aw sometimes disappears almost entirely. The prepositions if
and bid must not be regarded as synonymous ; i^ refers to the substance, bia
to the means. A, twofold significance is thus attributed to the water in the
formation of the earth, which is also in harraony with the ISIosaio account
of the creation, where the original substance is distinctly spoken of as vbup,
and in the formation of the earth, water is mentioned as the instrumental
element (Briickner). There is, accordingly, no foundation for the assertion
of De Wette, that the author conceived the origin of the world, according
to Indo-Egyptian cosmogony, as a species of chemical product of water.
]\Iany interpreters, as Bengel, AA^iesiuger, Schott, Fronmiiller, Hofmann, as
also AA'iner, p. 390 [E. T., 419], explain ef iSaiog by saying that the earth
arose out of the water "in which it lay buried." But this interpretation is
refuted by the raeaning of the verbal idea avvearCiaa, which belongs to ii
vbarog ; thus, too, an element would be introduced which would be of only
secondary importance. ^ Although avvearuaa belongs grammatically only to
^ Schott disputes this, and maintains that means of a flood, and consequently was not an
the scoffei-B appealed to the fact of the flood in absolute annihilation, but ouly a change of
support of their opiuion, "iu as far as it did form; but how much here must be read be-
not form a definite close of the earthly devel tween the lines, and to which no allusion is
opment of the world, by an annihilation of the made.
world," and that now what the writer wished 2 The interpretation of Hornejus shows to
to bring forward against it was why tbat judg- what eccentricities commentators sometimes
ment of destruction was executed simply by have recourse : " dicitur autem terra consistere

CHAP. III. 6, 7. 425
yy, yet in thought it has been applied to oipavoi also ; thus Briickner, AVies
inger, Schott, and in this commentary. This reference may be justified thus
far, that oipavoi is understood of the second day's work of creation, the visi
ble heavens; but it is necessary only if Koapog (ver. 6) is to be taken as
meaning the heavens and the earth. De Wette arbitrarily refers the prepo
sition e{ only to the earth, and Sid to the heavens ; the latter in the sense of,
" through the water, between the water.'' ru roi Qeoi loyu draws emphatic
attention to the fact that the active cause of the creation of the world was
the AVord of God; to this rip roi Qeoi lliyu, the tu airov loyu, ver. 7, corre
sponds. Ver. 6. bi uv, K.r.l.]. The question is. To what has uv retrospect? The
answer depends on the meaning attached to 6 rbre Kbapog. To appearance
this phrase must be regarded as identical with oipavoi kuI yy, vv. 5 and 7
(vv. 10, 13) ; and in support of this view, appeal may be made also to the
rbre as distinguished from viv, ver. 7. On this interpretation, accepted by
most expositors (as also in this commentary), bi uv can refer only either to
ii vbarog and ru roi Qeoi loyu (Gerhard, Bruckner, Besser, AA''iesinger, in this
comraentary also), or to vbarog alone (Calvin, Pott, etc.),' — the plural being
explained from the circumstance that the water was formerly spoken of both
as substance and as medium, The objection to this explanation, however,
is that in the account of the flood there is nothing to show that it caused the
destruction both of the heaven and of the earth, and that the earth only, but
not the heaven, was submerged ; Hofraann accordingly understands by o rbre
Koapog, "the world of living creatures," as Oecumenius already had done:
to dnulero py npbg ndvra rbv Koapov dKuvareov, dlld npbg pbva rd Cua. On this view
(where vvv only, ver. 6, seems tc cause difficulty) uv refers to oipavoi Kal yy
(Oecumenius, Beza, Wolf, Hornejus, Fronmiiller, Steinfass, Hofmann). ^
Ver. 7. Oi be oipavoi kui y yy]. The vvv, which applies also to y yy, cannot,
if by (5 tote Kbapog is to be understood the world of living beings, be taken as
an antithesis to tote, but it refers simply to the present continuance of
heaven and earth. — tu avru [airoi] Ibyip points back rip roi Qeov loyu, ver. 5 ;
if the reading airoi he adopted, this adjunct gives expression to the thought
that, like as the originating of the heavens and the earth was dependent on
the AVord of God, so also is their preservation to annihilation by fire. If,
however, aiiru be the true reading, the idea seems to be implied that the
reservation of the heavens and the earth unto judgment is based already on
the words of creation.' Though this idea be .surprising, it can certainly not,

e^ vSaro^, i.e., eKToy iJ8aro<; 8GU irpoy iiSara, extra whilst the former world was " ex aqua et per
aquam s. ad aquas; Si ijSaros,i.e,, perd e. ev aquam constituta," this constitutlo perished by
p^^atf iISaTos cum aqua ». in media aqua." — the flood, eo that therefore the Koo-jaos that now
The opinion of Steinfass, too, that " aweariaaa is, is no longer " ex aqua et per aquam,' ' but
is to be limited to the creation and existence of " all ter constitutus."
human beings, animals, and vegetables," finds 2 Beda likewise applies Sjv to heaven and
uo Justification in the words of the epistle. earth, but interprets (evidently erroneously)
1 "With this reference Burnet (Archaeol. Sia thus, that these are not the causa, but the
P/iilos., p. 467) agrees, yet he incorrectly ex- objeotum perditionis; i.e., 6i Siv as equivalent
plains Si wf by " eam ob causam," or " propter to in quibus partibus acre et terra.
illam (aquam) ; " for he strangely assumes that 8 Dietlein ; ;' The senee is this, that the same

426 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
with Hofmann, be said to be paradoxical. It is, however-, also possible that
airu is only meant to show that the word by which this keeping of the
heavens and the earth takes place, is the Word of God equally with that by
which they were created. — reSyaavpiapivoi e'lal ; " are stored up," like a treas
ure, which is kept against a particular time, cf. Rom. ii. 5. Dietlein is of
opinion that in the word the idea of use raust be kept hold of ; he defines it
thus : " that heaven and earth are to serve as the material for punishment, in
such a manner, however, that they at the same time perish themselves ; " but
this is justified neither by the reference (Rom. ii. 5), nOr by the context. —
nvoi rypovpevoi, K.r.l.]. " In thai they are reserved for the fire against the day,"
etc. ; nvpl is more appropriately joined with rypoiuevoi (Bruckner, Fron
miiller) than with reByaavpiapivoi eiai (AViesinger, Schott, Hofraann) ; this
last term does not require the adjunct, since in itself it corresponds to the
yaav . . . avvearCiaa, and it is only in the second member of the sentence that
mention can be made of the future destruction by fire; otherwise, too,
¦rypoiuevoi would be somewhat superfluous. The thought alluded to in nvpl
rynoipevoi is further developed in ver. 10. Nowhere in the O. T. or X. T. is
this idea so definitely expressed as here ; yet from this it does not follow
that it is to be traced to Greek, more particularly to the Stoic philosophy, or
to Oriental mythology. The O. T. makes frequent reference to a future
change in the present condition of the world (" Heaven and earth shall pass
away," Ps. ii. 26, 27), in connection with the appearance of God to judgraent ;
cf. Isa. xxxiv. 4, Ii. 6 ; especially Isa. Ixvi., where, in ver. 22, a new heaven
aud a new earth is expressly spoken of ; thus, too. Job xiv. 12. Equally is
it more than once set forth that God will come to judgraent in the destroy
ing fire, Isa. Ixvi. 15, Dan. vii. 9, 10, etc. ; how easily, then, frora passages
such as these could the conception which finds expression here arise,' the
more especially that it was promised that the world would never again be
destroyed by a flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire
appeared to be a type of the future judgment of the world. — Conceptions'
as to the world's destruction similar to those in the O. T. are to be found in
the X. T., Matt. v. 18 (24, 29), Heb. xii. 27; of fire accompanying the judg
ment, 1 Cor. iii. 13, 2 Thess. i. 8 ; of the new heaven and the new earth.
Rev. xxi. 1. — eig ypepav . . . dvBpunuv]. The final end against which
heaven and earth remain reserved for fire ; dnuleia : the opposite of aurypia,
cf. Phil. i. 28 (chap. ii. 3). — Dietlein erroneously understands rCiv daepCiv
dvBpunuv as a designation of the whole of mankind, in that, with the excep
tion of the converted, they are ungodly. To any such exception there is here
no reference : the phrase has reference rather to the ungodly in contrast to
the godly.
Ver. 8 refers to the reason given in df ^f, ver. 4, on which the scoffers
based their assertion ; it points out that the delay, also, of the parousia is no
proof that it will not take place. — iv Se rovro ; " this one thing," as a specially
Aoyo? which created the world assigned also opposition that the passages lea. Ixvi. 15 ff., to
to the post-Noachic world its time and its gether with Mai iii. 1-3, iv. 1, are " the corn-
judgment." plete statements of that event," surely no
^ When Schott denies this, and asserts in judicious expositor will agree with him.

CHAP. IIL 9. 427
important point. — py lavBaviru ipdg ; " let it not be hid from you ; " said
with reference to ver. 5. — on pia ypipa, k.t.1. ; a thought that echoes Ps. xc.
4. The words lay stress on the difference between the divine and the human
reckoning of time. It does not designate God as being absolutely without
limitations of time (cui nihil est praeteritum, nihil futurum, sed omnia prae
sentia ; Aretius), for it is not the nature of God that is here in question,
but God's reckoning of time which He created along with the world, and the
words only bring out that it is different from that of man.' For this pur
pose the words of the Psalms were not sufficient : xHtu iry h> iipBalpoig aov ug
il ypipa y ixBig ; and, therefore, on the basis of them, the author constructs a
verse consisting of two members. — napd Kvpiov; "with God," 'i.e., in God's
way of looking at things. Since, then, time has a different value in God's
eyes from that which it has in the eyes of men, the tarrying hitherto of the
judgment, although it had been predicted as at hand, is no proof that
the judgment will not actually corae. ^
Ver. 9. Explanation of the seeming delay in the fulfilment of the prom
ise. — oi PpaSivei Kipiog ryg enayyel'iag]. The genitive does not depend on
Kipiog (Steinfass), but on the verb, which here is not intransitive, as if nepl
(Hornejus), or iveKu (Pott), or some such word were to be supplied, but
transitive ; although elsewhere it governs the accusative (Isa. xlvi. 13, LXX. :
ryv aurypiav ryv nap' ipoi oi ppabwij), it can, in the idea of it, be likewise con
strued with the genitive.' — Ppabvvei means not simply, "differre, to put oft',"
for the author admits a delay, but it contains in it the idea of tardiness
(Gen. xliii. 10), which even holds out the prospect of a non-fulfilment;
Gerhard : discrimen est inter tardare et differre ; is demum tardat, qui ultra
debitum tempus, quod agendum est, differt. Cf. with this passage, Hab. ii. 3
(Heb. X. 37) and Ecclus. xxxii. 22 (in Luther's translation, xxxv. 22), LXX. :
Kal b Kvpiog oi prj PpaSvvy, oiSe prj paKpoBvpyaet. — Kvpiog here, as in ver. 8, is God,
not Christ, as Schott vainly tries to prove. — ug rivig ppaSiryra yyoivrai ; " as
some consider il tardiness ; " that is, that, contrary to expectation, the promise
has not yet been fulfilled ; Grotius ; " et propterea ipsam quoque rem promissam
in dubium trahunl." riveg denotes not the scoffers, but merabers of the
church weak in the faith. — dlld pvKpoBvpel eig ipdg]. poKpoBvpeiv c. inl:
Matt, xviii. 26, 29; Luke xviii. 7, etc. ; c. npbg: 1 Thess. v. 14; c. eig only
here: " with reference to you." — eig ipdg; not: "towards mankind called of
free grace " (Dietlein), nor towards the heathen (Schott), but in ipdg the
readers are addressed to whom the epistle is written, the more general ref-
1 Hofmann is consequently equally incor- onwards may be taken, such as in a thousand
rect when he says that the passage in the years could hardly have been expected; and
Psalra asserts that " for Q-od time is no tirae," then again, if retarded by the will of God, the
but here that " for Him it is neither short nor march of developraent will, for a thousand
long." years, hardly move faster than otherwise it
2 The following thoughts are not expressed would have done in a single day " (Thiersch,
here, although they may be inferred from p. 107).
what is said : "In one single day of judgment J* To combine t^? enayyeMas with tbe sub-
God can punish the sin of centuries, and can sequent tits rtce? ^paSvryra yyoOvrai, so as to
adjust that great inequality which, by eo long make the genitive dependent on /3pa6iJTi)Tci
a duration, has been introduced into eternity " (Hofmann), produces a very clumsy aud arti-
(Dletleln) ; aud "iu one day a mighty step ficial constructiou.

428 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
erence to the others being understood as a matter of course. The reason of
the non-fulfilraent hitherto lies in the long-suffering love of God ; the
nearer definition lies in the words which follow. — py povlbpevog]. The par
ticiple in an explanatory sense : " in that he is not willing." ' — rivug dnoliaBai;
rtvdg, namely, such as still lead a sensual life. — dlld ndvrag eig perdvoiav X'^PV-
aai; X'^P^l" here similarly as in Matt. xv. Vl,^"but come to repentance," or,
perhaps more correctly, "enter into repentance;" not as Dietlein thinks :
" take the decisive step to repentance ; " Calvin would, quite incorrectly,
take x'upEii' either as equivalent to recipere, so that Kvpiog would be the sub
ject, or as an intrans. verb equal to colligi, aggregari. — With the thought,
cf. 1 Tim. ii. 4; Ezek. xviii. 23, xxxiii. 11. ^
Ver. 10. 'yiti be {ij) ypepa Kvp'iov ug Klsnryg], y^ei be stands first by way of
emphasis, in contrast to what precedes : " but come will the day of the Lord."
These words express the certainty of the coming of the day of judgment,
and (if Klenryg its unexpected suddenness ; cf . 1 Thess. v. 2 (Matt. xxiv. 43) :
ryg roi Qeov ypipag, ver. 12, shows that Kvpiov is here also equivalent to Qeov
(not to Xpiaroi; Schott). — iv -f (o'l) oipavoi fioii^Sbv napeleiaovrai]. This rela
tive clause states " the event of that day, which makes it essentially what
it is" (Schott). ^oi^ySbv, UTT. ley., equivalent to perd (lo'ilfiv, is best taken in
the sense peculiar to the word : " with rushing swiftness " (AViesinger, Schott,
Hofraann; Pape, s.u.) ; Oecumenius understands it of the crackling of the
destroying fire ; De AVette, on the other hand, of the crash of the falling
together. With napeleiaovrai, ci. Matt. xxiv. 35, v. 18 ; Luke xvi. 17 ; Rev.
xxi. 1. As to how the heavens shall pass away, see ver. 12. — 0T0(;t:"a Si
Kuvaovpeva IvBtiaovrai]. aroixe'ia cannot refer to the so-called four elements,
" inasmuch as the dissolving of fire by means of fire is unthinkable " (Briick
ner), and it is arbitrary to lirait the idea to three (Hornejus), or to two
(Estius) elements; as now the position of the words shows that the expres
sion has reference neither to the earth afterwards named, nor to the world
as made up of heaven and earth (Pott : elementa totius mundi tam coeli quam
terrae ; thus, too, Briickner : " the primary substances of which the world,
as an organism, is composed ; " similarly, AA'iesinger, Schott), it must be
understood of the constituent elements of the heavens, corresponding to the
expression : at bwdpeig ruv oipavdiv, Isa. xxxiv. 4 ; Matt. xxiv. 29 (cf . Meyer,
in loe). This view is justifled by the circumstance that in the preceding
Oi oipavoi . . . napelueiaovrai no mention has as yet been made of the destruc
tion of heaven and earth by fire. At variance with this view, Hofmann

1 According to Dietlein, ^ouXecrflaL expresses Calvin remarks: "sed hic quaeri potest: si
a " determination of the will; " QeKeiv, " will- neminem Deus perire vult, cur tam multi
ing as a self-determination;" this is incorrect, pereunt? Respondeo, non de arcano Dei con-
fiov\eadai rather means willing, arising with silio hic fieri mentiouera, quo destinati sunt
and frora conscious reflection; ^eAetf, on the reprobi in suum exitum: sed tantum de vo-
other hand, is willing in general, arising also luntate, quae nobis in evangelio patefit. Omni-
f rom direct inclination. bus enim promiscue manum illic porrigit Deus,
2 Aescliyl. Pers., v. 385: eis vaw; cf. Wahl, eed eos tantura apprehendit, ut ad se ducat,
s.v. quos ante conditura mundum elegit;" Beza,
** In order to deprive this passage of all Piscator, etc., also apply this passage to the
force against the doctrine of predestination, electi only.

CHAP. III. 11, 12. 429
understands the expression aroixela here as a designation of the stars, arbi
trarily asserting that aroixela " cannot be only original component parts, but
must also be prominent points which dominate that by which they are
surrounded," — appealing to Justin {Apolog., ii. c. 5, and Dial. c. Tr., c. 23),
who speaks of the stars as aroixela oipdvia. To this view it may be objected,
that the author could not picture to himself a burning of the stars, which
appeared to him as fiery bodies ; neither do any of the corresponding
passages of Scripture allude to this. — The verb KavaoiaBai only here and in
ver. 12, " to burn ; " in the classics, " to suffer from heat ; " the participle
expresses the reason of the IvByaovrat: "will be dissolved by the burning."
lieiv, in the sense of "to destroy, to bring to nothing," Eph. ii. 14; 1 John
iii. 8, — very appropriate here if aroixela be the original elements. — kuI yy kuI
TU iv airy ipya KaroKaiiaerai], ra ipya axe neither the wicked works of man
(after 1 Cor. iii. 15), nor his works in general (Rosenmiiller, Steinfass, Hof
mann); the reference maybe either to the opera naturae et artis (Bengel,
Dietlein: "the manifold forms which appear on the earth's surface, in con
trast to the earth as a whole ; " thus also Bruckner, AViesinger, Schott, Fron
miiller) ; or the expression may be synonymous with that which frequently
occurs in the O. T. : ^ yy kuI rb nlypuua a'uryg, that is to say, the creations of
God which belong to the earth, as they are related in the history of creation,
cf. Rev. X. 6. Hofmann wrongly urges against this view, that on it rd iv
airy Would be sufficient ; for even though this be true, it does not follow that
the addition of the word ipya would prove that it is " the works of men "
that are here meant. AA''ith reference to the reading eipeByaerai, instead of
the Rec. KaruKayaerai (see critical remarks), Hofmann regards it as original,
and considers the words kuI rd . . eipeByaerai as an interrogative clause sub
joined to the preceding affirmative clause. Of course an interrogative clause
may be subjoined to an affirmative ; but when Hofraann, in support of his
interpretation, appeals to 1 Cor. v. 2, he fails to observe that the relation
between the statement and the question there is entirely different from that
which is supposed to exist here.
Vv. 11, 12. rovruv oiv ndvruv Ivopevuv]. roiruv ndvruv refers to all the
things before mentioned, and not only, as Hofmann thinks, to the immedi
ately p'receding ipya. As regards the reading ovrug, instead of the Rec. oiv,
it is indeed not supported by the preponderance of authorities ; it deserves,
however, the preference because it (equivalent to "as has before been stated")
is more significant than the reading oiv. The present Ivopivuv is explained
by AViner, p. 321 (E. T., 342) : "since all this is in its nature destined to
dissolution ; the lot of dissolution is, as it were, already inherent in those
things" (thus also Dietlein, De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger) ; but it is more
correct to find expressed in the present the certainty of the event, which is,
no doubt, as yet future (similarly, Schott), especially as the passing away
of all things, as it is formerly described, is in consequence not of their
nature, but of the will of God as Judge. Hofmann denies, indeed, any
reference to the future, remarking : the present participial clause brings out
that this is the fate of the subject ; but this fate is one which is realized
only in the future. — noranoig bei, k.t.X], As regards its arrangement, this

430 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
period, as far as the end of ver. 12, is divided by many into two portions, of
which the first closes either with ipdg (Pott, Meyer in his translation) or
with eiaepe'iaig (Griesbach, Fronmiiller), and forms a question to which
the second half supplies the answer. But opposed to this construction is the
word noranoig, which in the N. T. is never used as indirect interrogation,
but always in exclamation. Consequently the whole forms one clause,
which has a hortative sense (so, too, Hofmann),' and before which may be
supplied, for the sake of clearness, "consider therefore." The sense is:
" since all that passes away, consider what raanner of persons you ought to
be ; " Gerhard : quam pie, quam prudenter vos oportet conservari ; yet TroroTros-
(in classical writers generally nobanbg) is not equivalent to quantus (Bret
schneider, De Wette-Briickner), but to qualis. — 'ev dyiaig dvaarpoipalg Kal eiae-
Pelaig]. The plural marks the holy behavior and the piety in their different
tendencies and forms of manifestation. These words may be taken either
with what precedes (so most commentators) or with what follows (thus
Steinfass) ; the latter is to be preferred, since the force of noranoig would
only be weakened by this adjunct. — npoaboKuvrag kui aneiSovrag ryv napavaiav
ryg rov Qeoi ypipag ; not " SO that," but " since ye . . . in holy walk . . . look
for." — Most of the earlier interpreters arbitrarily supply fjf to aneiSovrag;
Vulg.: exspectantes et properantes in adventum ; Luther: " hasten to the day."
Others attribute to the word the meaning, " to expect with longing," but
this force it never has ; in the passages quoted in support of it the word
rather means, "to prosecute any thing with zeal," e.g., Pind., Isthm., v. 22:
aneibeiv dperdv; Isa. xvi. 5, LXX.: an. SiKaioaivyv ; but then the object is
always something which is effected by the action of the anevbovrog ; the origi
nal signification of hastening, hurrying, is to be kept hold of here. That
by which this hastening is to be accomplished is to be gathered from ver. 11,
namely, by a holy walk and piety. The context nowhere hints that it is
to be accomplished only by prayer ^ (Hofmann, following Bengel). — The
expression, ryv napavaiav ryg roi Qeov ypepag, occurs nowhere else ; with y r.
Qeoi yp., cf. ver. 10 and Tit. ii. 13 ; to napova'iav Steinfass arbitrarily supplies
"roi Xpiarov." — bi yv oipavoi, k.t.X]. A resumption of what is said in ver. 10.
— bi yv maybe referred either to ryv napavaiav (Steinfass, Hofmann) or to
ryg r. Q. ypipag ; in both cases the sense remains substantially the same. It
is to be taken neither as equivalent to per (like Sid, c. gen.), nor in a tem
poral sense (Luther : " in which ") ; but it denotes here, as it always does,
the occasioning cause, equal to "on account of " (Briickner, Wiesinger, Schott);
cf. Winer, p. 373 [E. T., 400]). Dietlein translates correctly, but arbitra
rily explains the phrase by "in whose honor as it were." — nvpov pevoi, ci.
Eph. vi. 16 ; Dietlein falsely : " in that they will burn ; " the part, is present,
not future. — ryKerai; De AVette: " lyKerai must not be taken strictly as

* Hofmann, however, does not urge the interpretation : " They hasten the coming of
N. T. usage of iroTaTrou? in favor of this con- the day, in that by repentance and holiness
struction, but " the want of purpose and cold- they accomplish the work of salvation, and
ness of dividing the thought into question and render the paKpoOvpia, ver. 9, unnecessary; "
answer." and "Wiesinger further adds : " and positively
2 De Wette gives eubstantially the correct bring it on by their prayers " (Rev. xxii. 17).

CHAP. III. 13, 14. 431
meaning lo be melted, as if aroix. were to be conceived of as a solid mass ; it
can be regarded as synonymous with lieaBai.'' The reference to Isa. xxxiv. 4,
LXX. : Kal raKyaovrai ndaai al Svvdpeig ruv oipavuv (cf. Micah i. 4), cannot fail
to be recognized.' Gerhard : cum tota mundi machina, coelum, terra et omnia
quae sunt in ea sint aliquando peritura, ideo ab inordinata mundi dilectione cor
nostrum abstrahentes coelestium bonorum desiderio et amore flagremus.
Ver. 13. Kuivoig Se ovpavoig kuI yyv Kuivyv]. This verse, which does not
depend on Si yv (Dietlein), but is joined in an independent manner to what
goes before, forms the antithesis to the thought last expressed, and serves to
strengthen the exhortation contained in vv. 11, 12. — By Kuipuig , , , Kotvyv
the heaven and the earth of the future are distinguished as to thefr character
frora those of the present, and prominence is given to their glorified condi
tion ; cf . 2 Cor. v. 17. — The same idea of a new heaven and a new earth is
expressed in Rev. xxi. 1. — Kard rb indyyelpa airoi, cf. Isa. Ixv. 17, Ixvi. 22.
— airoi), i.e"., Qeov; the O. T. promise, principally at least, is meant, npoabo-
Kupev, which looks back to npoaboKiJvrag, ver. 12, significantly designates the
new heaven and the new earth as the aira of the certain hope of believers. —
tv olg SiKuioavvy KaroiKet], A similar thought is contained in Isa. Ixv. 25; cf.
also Rev. xxi. 3-27. Erasmus incorrectly refers iv oig to the subject con
tained in npoaSoKupev ; it plainly goes back to Kaivoig oip. k. yyv kuiv. StKaioaivy,
not equivalent to gloria ei felicitas coelestis, utpote verae justitiae praemium
(Vorstius), but the vera justitia itself, i.e., the holy conduct, completely in
harmony with the divine will, of those who belong to the new heaven and
the new earth. ^ Hofmann widens the idea too much, when he says that
" StKaioaivy is to be uuderstood not as applying only to the right conduct of
men, but in the sense of integrity of nature generally."
Ver. 14. bib, dyanyrol, ravra npoaSoKuvreg]. The participle does not give
the explanation of the bib : " wherefore, because we expect this " (AA'iesinger,
Schott), but the waiting for it belongs to the exhortation (Dietlein, Briick
ner, Steinfass). — anovbdaare damlMi , , . 'ev eipyvy; damloi, cf. 1 Pet. i. 19:
dpCipyroi, besides here only in Phil. ii. 15, " unblamable '' (Deut. xxxii. 5 :
reKva pupyra) ; reverse of the false teachers : an'iloi kuI pCipoi, chap. ii. 13. —
avrCi ; not equal to in' airov, nor is it the dat. coram. (Schott) ; and as little :
" with reference to hira" (Hofiriann) ; but: "according io His (i.e., God's)
judgment." — eipeByvai refers not to the future time of the judgment, but to
the present time of the expectation. — ev eipyvy]. This adjunct does not

1 Although this passage does not finally ceptions are to be found; chap. xc. 17: "and
settle the dispute, whether an entire destruc- the former heavens, they shall pass away and
tion, an annihilation, or only a transformation be dissolved, and new heavens will appear; "
of the state of the world is to be looked for, chap, liv., 4, 5 : "In that day will I cause mine
whether the world is to be destroyed by fire, elect to dwell in their midst, and I will change
quoad substa-Atiam suam, or quoad qualitates the heavens," etc.; "I will also change the
siias, still it gives more support to the second earth," etc. ; 1.5: "the earth shall rejoice, the
than tho first idea, since, in spite of the strong righteous shall dwell therein, and the elect
expressions which the writer raalies use of, it shall go and walk therein ; " x. 17 : " The earth
Is not decidedly stated that the world will be shall be purified frora all corruption, from all
dissolved into nothing. crirae, from all punishment, and from all suf-
2 lu the Book of Enoch, also, similar con- fering."

432 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
belong to npoaSoKUvreg, as Beza considers probable, but to eipeByvai damlot,
K.r.l. ; it gives the life-element, in which the Christian must move (so, too,
BrUckner); cf. Ephes. i. 4: ev iiyuny; 1 Thess. iii. 13: 'ev dytuaivy, if he
would be found an damlog: eipyvy is here not "concord" (Pott, Augusti),
nor is it " the good conscience," but peace, in the full meaning of the word;
the addition is explained from ver. 15. Dietlein incorrectly takes iv eipyvy
as the object to be supplied to daniloi kuI dpupyroi, which are here used not
as relative, but as absolute adjectives ; at the same tirae, too, he liraits eipiivy,
in the conception of it, to " peace of the church, especially to peace in rela
tion to the church authorities." Not less erroneous is it to regard, with
Steinfass,'"^v eipyvy as the opposite " of all division between the Jewish and
the Gentile eleraents." The interpretation of De Wette : " to your peace,"
equivalent to eig eipyvyv (Beza : vestro bono, clementem illum videlicet ac pacifi-
cum experturi), cannot be justified on linguistic grounds.
Vv. 15, 16. Kal rijv rov Kvp'iov yuuv puKpoBvplav]. See ver. 9: "the long-
suffering of our Lord, which consists iu this, that He still keeps back the last
judgraent." It is open to question whether 6 Kipiog yuuv means God (De
Wette, Dietlein, Fronmiiller), or Christ (Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass) ;
what goes before favors the former (vv. 14, 12, 10, 9, 8), the N. T. usage
the latter ; in both cases the sense is substantially the same. — aurypiav
yyelaBt ; antithesis to Bpabvryra yyoivrai, ver. 9 : " the paKpoBvuia of the Lord
account for salvation," i.e., as something which has your salvation as its aim;
that is, by your raaking such use of the time of grace, that the fruit of it is
the aurypia. — KoBug Kal b dyanyrog iipuv iiSel/pbg Uailog, k.t.X]. The reference
here to Paul is evidently meant to emphasize the exhortation given ; it is,
however, more particularly occasioned by the circumstance that many per
sons had been guilty of wresting the apostle's words, and against this the
apostle wishes to warn his readers. — 6 dyanyrbg, k.t.X, designates Paul not
only as a friend, or a fellow-Christian, but as one with whom Peter feels
himself raost intiraately connected in official relationship. Hofraann, on the
other hand, presses the plural ypiiv, and thinks that by it the apostle, with a
view to his Gentile readers, would unite the Jewish-Christians with himself,
so as to show that the apostle of the Gentiles was a beloved brother to them
as well as to him. The adjunct, Kard ryv boBelaav airip aoipiav, acknowledges
the wisdom which has been granted to him, of which also the utterances
which the apostle especially has in his eye are the outcome. — iypaipev iplv].
AA'hich epistle or epistles are meant ? According to Oecumenius, Lorinus,
Grotius, etc., as also Dietlein and Besser, it is the Epistle to the Romans, on
accouut of chap. ix. 22 (yveyKev iv nollf/ iiuKpoBvpia) and chap. ii. 4; accord
ing to Jachmann, the Epistle to the Corinthians (chiefly on account of 1 Ep. i.
7-9), in consideration of the words, Kara , . , aoipiav ; according to Estius,
Bengel, Hornejus, Gerhard, etc., the Epistle to the Hebrews, on account of ix.
26 ff., X. 25, 37. These different opinions assume that KuBiig applies only to
the last thought expressed in this verse. But there is no reason for any
such limitation, since this exhortation is joined in the closest manner possi
ble to that which precedes it in ver. 14. AA'iesinger rightly rejects the sup
position that KuBitg iypaipe refers still farther back, namely, to the whole

CHAP. III. 16. 433
section relating to the parousia (De Wette, with whom Bruckner agrees, and
Schott). — Since the document to which the author alludes is, by iypaipev
vplv, indicated as one addressed to the same circle of readers as Second Peter,
the reference here cannot be to the above-named epistles, nor yet to the
Epistle to the Thessalonians (De Wette), but only to the Epistle to the
Ephesians (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann : to this Steinfass adds the First
Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to the Colossians ; Fronrauller, the last-
named epistle and that to the Romans). In support of this may be urged
the character of this epistle as a circular letter, and the echoes of it to be
found in First Peter. It must also be observed, that although the precise
thought expressed in the beginning of this verse is not to be found in that
epistle, yet the epistle itself is certainly rich in ethical exhortations with
reference to the Christian's hope of salvation.' It is plainly entirely arbi
trary to assurae, with Pott and Morus, that the apostle here refers to an
epistle which we do not now possess.
Ver. 16. ug Kal iv ndaaig [ralg] iniarolaig ; sc. iypaipev. By this adjunct the
epistle of Paul, referred to in iypaipev iulv, is definitely distinguished from
his other epistles ; but what is true of the former is asserted also of the
latter, i.e., that they contain the same exhortations, a statement, however,
which is more precisely limited by laluv iv airalg nepl roiruv. The difference
in the reading, that is, whether the article is to be put with ndaaig or not,
is of trifling importance for the meaning, since' it is unwarranted to suppose
that nuaatg ralg marks the epistles of Paul as forming a formally completed
collection (Wiesinger), — the article only showing that the epistles of Paul
were already known as such. — lalMiv iv airalg nepl roiruv]. lalHv is not for
iv alg lalel (Pott), but it means : " when in them (i.e., in his epistles) he speaks
of these things. — nepl roiruv can only have the same reference as KaBug, ver.
15 ; that is, then, not strictly to the teaching as to the parousia as such,
but chiefly "to the exhortation given in ver. 14 f." (AA''iesinger), and what
is connected with it. — The remark in what follows alludes to that which
occasioned the mention of Paul's epistles. — iv olg or alg ian bvavbyru nva].
It can hardly be decided which is the true reading, oig or alg. Schott thinks
that for the sense it is immaterial, since, if alg be read, the nvd must be
limited to the passages where Paul happens to speak nepl roiruv ; and if ev olg
the reference can be to those things or questions not generally, but only in
the way in which they are discussed by Paul. Reiche holds a different
view; in his opinion, iv olg refers to those things in themselves, iv alg to the
epistles generally; this can, however, hardly be correct, for it is scarcely
conceivable that the author should let fall a remark closely conjoined with
what had gone before, which departs so entirely from the connection of
thought. Besides, iv oig deserves the preference not only on account of the
• Schott must be considered mistaken in the completion of salvation, has given the pe-
appealing to this, that "it is precisely the culiar significance to the present time, to lead
Epistle to the Ephesians, ii. 11-iii. 12, which into the church the heathen worid, which will
contains the most exact development of the be the subject of the future corapletion of sal-
idea expressed here in ver. 9 and ver. 15, that vation; " of all this absolutely nothing is here
the divine direction of history, with a view to said.

434 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
external authorities, but because of the following : ug rdg lotndg ypaipdg (Wie
singer, Bruckner, Reiche, Hofmann ; Schott otherwise), nvd is generally
regarded as the subject, and Svdvbyra as the predicate belonging to it ; the
position of the words, however, decides that Svav, nvd must be taken together
as subject (Schott, Hofmann). By Svavbyra raust not be understood, with
Schott, " the things which in themselves are opposed to the human mind,"
but the expressions iu which Paul speaks of them ; Steinfass correctly :
" nvd are words, not objects ; " for to the things the verb arpeploiaiv is not
suited. AVhat the apostle meant can only be gathered from the connection ;
consequently, the reference here cannot be to utterances of the Apostle Paul
with respect to the parousia itself (Schott), and therefore not to any state
ments of his, such as are to be found in 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff. ; 1 Cor. xv. 12-58.
Still less does the connection appear to justify the assumption that "the
Pauline doctrine of freedom " (AViesinger) is meant. Since, however, Paul's
statements with regard to Christian freedom stand in close relation to the
final completion of salvation, and the idea of it forms such a characteristic
feature of Paul's teaching, which could only too easily be distorted by mis
understanding, it is certainly possible, indeed it is probable, that the author
had it chiefly in mind in using this somewhat indefinite expression.' — u ol
dpuBelg Kal darypiKToi arpepioiaiv; dpaByg, ut. ley., according to De Wette,
equivalent to " unteachable, with the implied idea of stubbornness and of
unbelief." This is incorrect. dpaByg means only "ignorant;" no doubt
the secondary idea given by De AVette may be connected with this (as in the
passages quoted, Joseph., Antiq., i. 4, 1, and iii. 14, 4), but here it is not to
be presupposed, since the idea iwrypiKrog connected with dpaByg, although
denying strength of faith, does not deny faith itself ; with darypiKroi, cf.
chap. ii. 14. Most interpreters assurae that the reference here is to the
seducers, the Libertines and deniers of the parousia forraerly raentioned;
but as a designation of thera, the expressions are too weak ; chap. ii. 14, too,
is opposed to this (Sohott). — arpePloiv, ut. ley., strictly : " to turn with the
arpipiy." Here it means : "to distort the words," i.e., to give them a sense
other than they actually have ; equivalent to biaarpiipeiv (cf. Chrysostom on
2 Cor. X. 8 : ovroi npbg rdg o'lKeiag biearpeipav rd fiypara ivvolag) ; the word is to
be found in another figurative sense in 2 Sam. xxii. 27, LXX. — ug koI rdg
lotndg ypaipdg]. This addition is soraewhat surprising, not only because' all
more precise statement of the ypaipal referred to is wanting, but because by
it arpepiovv, which formerly had reference only to the Svavbyrd tjvu in the
epistles of Paul, is here extended to entire writings ; for, to interpret ypa^al
by "passages of Scripture " (De AVette), is arbitrary. — It is very improba
ble that the reference is to the O. T. Scriptures (AViesinger, Schott, Stein
fass), since the author would certainly have defined them more nearly as
1 According to Hofraann, it is passages than that which takes place in regeneration
such as Eph. il. 5 f ., Col. ii. 12, that are meant, is to be looked for. — This doctrine, combined
"for with these and similar statements, the with the other, that the world of sense has
teaching of a Hymenaeus and a Phi Ictus could nothing related to God; would produce that
be corabined, —that the resurrection was al- justification of immorality predicted iu chap.
ready past, aud that no other resurrection ii."

CHAP. IIL 17, 18. 435
such ' (Bruckner) ; probably, then, other writings are meant, which, at the
time of the composition of this epistle, served, like the epistles of Paul, for
the instruction and edification of the Christian churches; it is possible,
therefore, that these included other writings of the N. T. ; but that they
were only such, cannot be proved. That the words presuppose a collection
of N. T. writings, properly so called, is without any reason asserted by De
Wette (Briickner). — npbg ryv ib'iav airHv dniJleiav]. iSlav serves to intensify
aifiiv : to their own destruction (cf. chap. ii. 1). The wresting of Scripture
has this consequence, inasmuch as they make use of the distorted expres
sions, in order to harden themselves in their fleshly lust.
Vv. 17, 18. Concluding exhortation and doxology. — ipelg ovv]. Conclu
sion from what goes before. — npoyivuaKovreg ; since ye know it beforehand;
i.e., that such false teachers as have been described will corae ; not " that
the advent of Christ will take place," nor " that the consequences of the
arpepioiv will be the dni>l.eia" (Schott). — ipvldaaeaBe, iva py]. Since ipvlda
aeaBe is nowhere else construed with tva uy, ival k.t.X, is not to be taken as an
objective clause, but as one expressive of purpose ; " consequently, special
emphasis lies on ipvluaaeaBe " (Schott). — ry rCiv dBiapuv nldvy avvanaxBivreg].
The uBeapoi (ai. chap. ii. 7) are the aforementioned ipnalKrai and Libertines.
— nldvy is not "seduction" (Dietlein: "leading astray of others"), for the
word never has this meaning (not even in Eph. iv. 14) ; nor would the aw
in the verb agree with this, but, as in chap, ii.! 18 : " moral-religious error ; "
with avvanaxBivreg, " carried away along with,'! cf . Gal. ii. 13, and Meyer on
Rom. xii. 16. — iKniayre rov ISiov arypiypoi]. With iKnlnreiv, cf. Gal. v. 4, and
Meyer in loe. — arypiypbg, ujr. ^ley., is the firm position which any one pos
sesses (not " the fortress : " Luther) ; here, therefore, the firra position which
the readers as believing Christians take up ; cf . i. 12 ; antithesis to the dpa-
Beig Kal darypiKTot, ver. 16. Dietlein explains the word quite arbitrarily of
the "remaining at peace in the church." — Ver. 18. aiidvere be]. Antithesis
to the iKniayre ; the remaining in the firm position can take place only where
the aiidveiv is not lacking. Calvin : " ad profectum etiam hortatur, quia haec
unica est perseverandi ratio, si assidue progredimur." Plofmann incorrectly
connects this imperative with ipvldaaeaBe, to which it is supposed to be related
as a further addition ; this view is opposed by Si. — iv xuptrt koI yvuaei roi
Kvpiov, K.r.X, does not state " the means and the origin of the growing "
(Schott), but that in which they should grow or increase ; ai^dvetv, without
any nearer definition, would be too bald in presence of the tva pii . . . iKni
ayre, k.t.X AVith regard to the two ideas, xuptg and yvuaig, Aretius says:
"illud ad conversationem inter homines refero, quae gratiosa esse debet; hoc vero
ad Dei cultum, qui consistit in cognitione Christi ; " this explanation is wrong ;
Xiipt^ can be only either the grace of God, so that the sense of the exhorta
tion would be, that they should se.ek to acquire the grace of God in ever
richer measure (Hornejus, etc.) ; or — and this is preferable — the state of

1 Although in other parts of the N. T. at Scriptures are here referred to; it would be
ypaipai always means the 0. T. Scriptures, different were \oind'; not added.
still the addition of komai proves that other

436 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
grace of the Christians (aecording to Calvin, etc. : the sum of the divine
gifts of grace). — The yvdiaig is here specially mentioned, because the author
regarded it as the living origin of all Christian activity. — The genitive, toO
Kvpiov, K.r.X, is taken by De Wette, Briickner agreeing with him, with refer
ence to x"-P^S as the subjective, with reference to yvdiaig as the objective
genitive ; in like manner Hofmann. This twofold reference of the same
genitive is inconceivable ; ' if it belong to both ideas, it can only be the gen.
auctoris (Dietlein, Steinfass) ; but since it is more natural to explain it in
connection with yvuaig as gen. objec, xuptc must be taken as an independent
conception. — Finally, the doxology, applied to Christ ; Hemming : " testi
monium de divinitate Christi, nam cum tribuit Christo aeternam gloriam, ipsum
verum Deum absque omni dubio agnoscit. — The expression e'lg ypipav a'luvog, is
to be found only here ; Bengel takes ypipa in contrast to the night : aeternilas
est dies, sine nocte, merus et perpetuus ; this is hardly correct ; most interpret
ers explain the expression as equivalent to tempus aeternum, synonymous
with e'lg rbv aiuva, 1 Pet. i. 25, or with eig rovg alCwag, Rom. xvi. 27; this is
too inexact; fipipa alCivog is the day on which eternity, as contrasted with
time, begins, which, however, at the same time, is eternity itself. — dpyv ;
cf. Jude 25.
' Hofmann, Indeed, appeals to Rom. xv. 4; Tit. ii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 2; but these passages do
not prove what they are raeant to prove.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN.

INTRODUCTION.
SEC. 1. — CONTENTS AND DESIGN OF THE EPISTLE.
1. Leading Ideas. — The entire development of the argument of the
Epistle is based upou the single fundamental conviction of the antagonism
subsisting between the "world" and "believers." Whilst the former are
under the power and dominion of the devil, the latter are in felloivship with
God. Those who belong to the world are the children of ihe devil, the others
are the children of God. The objective basis of believers' life-fellowship
with God is the mission of the Son of God, originating in His love, for
the reconciliation of the world, or the incarnation of the Son of God (the
Eternal Life which was with God from eternity), and His self-sacrifice unto
death ; its subjective basis is faith in this fact of the divine love. Whoso
ever believes in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, belongs no more to the
world, but has been born of divine seed, a child of God. The Christian
must therefore, above all things, be on his guard against the false doctrine
which, making a distinction between Jesus and the Son of God (or Christ),
denies the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh, — and, consequently,
the fact of the revelation of divine love, — and thereby abolishes the ground
of the life-fellowship with God. — In the communion which the believer,
anointed with the Holy Ghost, enjoys with God in Christ, he possesses not
only true knowledge, but also righteousness. Whilst the world is dominated
by darkness, and those who belong to it know not whither they go, believers
walk in the light. Enlightened by the Holy Ghost, they know God in the
truth of His being, and are able to distinguish between truth and false
hood. At the same time their life is in sharpest contrast to sin. The
latter is so opposed to their nature, that, as those who are born of God,
they do not, nay, can not sin, but, on the contrary, in harmony with the
pattern of Christ, do righteousness; whereas those who belong to the world,
437

438 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
as children of the devil, comrait sin, which is the principle of their life.
It is true the Christian is conscious that he also still has sin; but inas
much as he does not deny, but, on the contrary, confesses it openly, the
blood of Christ cleanses him ; and, further, in the consciousness that Christ,
the Righteous One, is his Paraclete with the Father, he also purifies himself,
as Christ is pure. — The essence of the believer's righteousness is love to
God, which manifests itself in obedience to His commandments, the sum of
which is love to the brethren. — Whilst the world, following the example
of Cain, who hated and slew his brother on account of his righteous life,
hates the children of God, and iu the spirit of hatred incurs the guilt of
murder, the believer, imitating the pattern of Christ, feels himself bound,
not in word only, but in deed as well, to love his brother, and to give his
life for him if necessary. In love like this he possesses evidence of his
divine adoption, and therein eternal life. AVhilst the world continues in
death, he has passed out of death into life ; and in this new life he is free
from fear and full of joyful confidence. He knows that his prayers are
heard of God, and looks forward with confidence to the day of judgment,
when he shall not be put to shame, but shall be like God, inasmuch as
he shall see Hira as He is. — The period still continues during which the
world manifests its antagonism to the believer, who is also tempted by
the devil; but in his faith, which is the victory over the world, he has
vanquished these eneraies, and the devil can accomplish nothing against
him. Moreover, the world has already begun to vanish; it is the last
time, as the appearance of Antichrist clearly proves ; soon Christ shall
appear, and with Him the perfecting of His own.
2. Line of Argument. — At the outset we have an introduction, in which
the apostle announces the appearing of that Eternal Life which was with
the Father to be the theme of his apostolic message ; and indicates the
perfecting of his readers' joy, in their communion with the Father and
with His Son Jesus Christ, as the end aimed at in his Epistle (chap. i.
1-4). The letter itself he begins with the thought that God is Light (i. 5),
from which he infers that if a man asserts that he has fellowship with
God, whilst walking in darkness, it is a lie (i. 6) ; and, on the other hand,
that the fellowship of Christians with each other, and purification through
the blood of Christ, are conditioned by a walk in the light (i. 7). In
connection with the purification mentioned, he urges that whosoever claims
to be without sin deceives himself, and makes God a liar, whereas in case
of an honest confession of sin God manifests His faithfulness and justice
by forgiving the sin and cleansing from it (i. 8-10) ; and with this con-

INTRODUCTION. 439
sclousness, in case he sin, the Christian may comfort himself, since he
has Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the propitiation for the sins of
the whole world, as his Paraclete with the Father (ii. 1, 2). In ver. 3 the
apostle returns again to the starting-point in his argument, by showing
that (just as fellowship with God can only be enjoyed whilst walking in
the light) the knowledge of God can only exist in obedience to His com
mandments, and the being in Him in following after Christ (ii. 3-6).
The coraraand involved in this for the readers, says the apostle, is the
old one which they had heard from the beginning, and which he now once
more impresses on them because the darkness is already beginning to
vanish. He then describes (ii. 7, 8) walking in the light as walking in
brotherly love, whereas the man who hates his brother is in darkness (ii.
9-11) ; and turns directly to his readers, whom he addresses as true Chris
tians who have obtained forgiveness, known the Father, and conquered
the evil one (ii. 12-14), in order to warn them against love of the world
and seduction by false teachers. The exhortation : " love not the world,"
he bases on a reference to the incompatibility of love of the world with
love of God, and on the passing away of the world and its lust (ii. 15-17).
The necessity for this exhortation the apostle discovers in the fact that it
is the last time, as the appearance of the antichrists shows (ii. 18). The
line of thought thus passes on to the consideration of these antichrists.
The apostle mentions, first of all, their relation to the Christian Church.
" They have," he says, " gone out from us, but they were not of us ; " and
he then describes them, after the interjectory remark that his readers, as
the anointed of the Holy One, know the truth, as those who deny that
Jesus is the Christ (i.e., as deniers of the identity of Jesus and Christ),
whereby they deny the Father as well as the Son (ii. 19-23). After an
exhortation to his readers to abide by what they had heard from the
beginning, whereby they should continue in the Son and in the Father,
and enjoy everlasting life, he expresses his confidence towards them that
the unction they had received remains in them, that therefore they
require no human teacher; and exhorts them to abide in Christ in order
that they may not be put to shame at His coming (ii. 24-28).
In like manner as the apostle, in chap. i. 5, inferred from the light-
nature of God that only the person who walks in light can have fellowship
with Him, so now he argues from the righteousness of God, that only the
person who practises righteousness is born of Hira (ii. 29). But since
Christians are the children of God, and as such entertain the hope of
one day being like Hira, therefore this hope is, as it were, an incentive

440 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
to them to purify themselves even as Christ is pure, and consequently to
avoid sin, which is disobedience to the law ; and this is all the more since
Christ has appeared for the very purpose of taking away sin, and is Him
self free frora it. Frora the sinlessness of Christ it follows that whoso
ever is in Him does not sin ; but, on the contrary, whosoever sinneth hath
not truly known Him (iii. 1-6). The apostle, having pointed out that he
alone is righteous according to the pattern of Christ who doeth righteous
ness (iii. 7), sharply contrasts those who commit sin, as children of the
devil, with those who are born of God, and therefore cannot sin, because
the divine seed remaineth in them (iii. 8-10) ; and then indicates, as the
righteousness which the children of God practise, that brotherly love which
he describes as the theme of the message which Christians had heard
frora the beginning (iii. 10, 11). Warningly does the apostle point to
the world, which, following the type of Cain, hates the children of God,
and is in death ; whereas the believer shows by love that he has passed
from death unto life (iii. 12-15). The pattern of Christian love is Christ;
as He gave His life for us, so also must the Christian give his life for
the brethren ; nor may he content himself with a mere apparent love, but
must love in deed and in truth (iii. 16-18). Love like this bears its own
blessing with it; he who practises it knows that he is of the truth, and,
whilst he overcomes thereby the accusation of his own heart, he has con
fidence towards God in the consciousness that God hears his prayers
because he keeps the commandments of God (iii. 19-22). AA'ith the fore
going the apostle then immediately connects the idea that God's com
mandment embraces a twofold element : viz., (1) that we believe on the
name of His Son Jesus Christ ; and (2) that we love one another (iii.
23) ; and then proceeds, after remarking that whosoever obeys the com
mandments of God stands in communion with Him (he in God, and God
in him), and is conscious of this fellowship through the Spirit given him
of God (iii. 24), to a further reference to the false teachers, which he
commences with the warning : " Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits
whether they are of God." He gives the characteristic mark of the
Spirit that is of God, and also of the spirit of Antichrist, assures the
believers of victory over false teachers, and presents the difference between
them and the true apostolic teachers : " They are of the world, wherefore
they speak of the world, and the world hears them ; we are of God ; who
soever knoweth God heareth us " (iv. 1-6). — AA'ithout introducing any
ideas to mark the transition thereto, the apostle now utters the exhorta
tion : " Let us love one another," which he establishes by saying that love

INTRODUCTION. 441
is of God, or — as he also says — that God is love. God has proved His
love by sending His Son to be a propitiation for our sins ; but if God
has loved us so much, we ought also to love one another. When we do
this, then God is in us, and lets us know that He is by His Spirit (iv.
7-13). Having pointed out that the manifestation of the love of God is
the substance of apostolic testimony, and faith therein the condition of
fellowship with God, the apostle once more utters the thought that God
is love, in order to urge that comraunion with Him can consist only in
love, and that this love manifests itself as perfect by our having confi
dence on the day of judgment, since love drives out all fear (iv. 16-18).
But if the love of God compels us to love Him in return, we must re
member that we really love God only in case we love the brethren; for
the man who does not love the person whom he sees, cannot possibly love
God whom he does not see (iv. 19-21). That the believer loves the breth
ren, the apostle then infers from the fact that he is born of God; for if,
as such, he loves God who has begotten himself, he must also necessarily
love those who are begotten of God, i.e., his own brethren (v. 1) ; and he
is conscious of this love in that he loves God and keeps His command
ments. After remarking that love to God consists in keeping His com
mandments, and that God's commandments are not hard to the believer,
because being born of God he conquers the world by faith (v. 3-5), the
apostle proceeds to refer to the divine evidence of the belief that Jesus is
the Son of God. He describes the latter as having come by water and
blood, and in proof of this appeals to the testiraony of the Spirit. This
testimony is all the stronger inasmuch as it is a threefold one, viz., that
of the Spirit, the water, and the blood. If human evidence is accepted,
much more ought the witness of God to be received. To the believer,
however, this witness is not merely an external, but also, at the same time,
an inward thing; viz., the eternal life which has been given him in the
Son of God (v. 6-12). As already previously, so also here again, the apos
tle sets forth, as a main element in the believer's eternal life, his confi
dence that God hears his prayers, and couples with this the exhortation
to make intercession for the brother who may chance to sin. At the sarae
time, however, he distinguishes between the case of the raan who sins
unto death and the man who does not, and explains that his precept
anent intercession only refers to those who do not sin unto death (v. 13-17).
— In bringing his Epistle to a close, the apostle once more announces,
in three propositions, its leading thoughts, viz., that he who is born of
God does not commit sin ; that they, the Christians, are born of God,

442 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
whilst the world, on the other hand, belongs to the evil one ; and that
they have received, through the Son of God, the faculty to recognize Him
that is true as the substance of their Christian consciousness. After the
remark, that being in Christ we are in Him that is true, and that He is
the Son of God and eternal life, the Epistle closes with the exhortation:
"Little children, keep yourselves from idols."
Concerning the various theories as to the construction of the Epistle,
compare especially Erdmann, Primae Joannis ep. argumentum, etc., I. 1855 ;
Lucke's Kommentar, § 4, 3d ed. 1856 ; and Luthardt's Programm : de primae
Jo. ep. compositione, 1860. Pre-Reformation commentators hardly troubled
themselves about the construction of the Epistle at all. After the Refor
mation, the theory which first prevailed was that a systematic, logically
arranged sequence of ideas of any kind is entirely absent from the work
(Calvin : sparsim docendo et exhortando varius est). After the time of
Matth. Flaccius, some expositors assumed that it was made up of a num
ber of isolated aphorisms, only loosely jointed together, and in which
various subjects were discussed ; though others (Calvin, Hunnius), notwith
standing, labored to show a close sequence of ideas in accordance with a
dogmatic plan. The most ingenious attempt of this kind was that made
by Bengel, who, basing his argument upon the passage in v. 7 {Receptus),
traced the construction of the Epistle to the dogma of the Trinity; a
view adopted also by Sander. The right point of view frora which to
gain an insight into the structure of the Epistle was first discovered by
Joach. Operinus in his work, Johannh ap. paraenesis ad primos christianos
de constanter tenenda communione cum patre ac filio ejus Jesu Christi, etc.,
Gottingen, 1741, in which he shows that the purpose which John himself
has arinounced in the preface is the same by which he was led in the
composition of the Epistle throughout. Nearly all modern expositors,
with the exception of a few of the earlier ones, have followed in the
path opened up for them by Operinus. But with regard to the coupling
of the ideas, unanimity has not been attained.
Whilst Lucke, in dividing the argument into eight groups of ideas,
approaches at least the aphoristic method, the other modern commenta
tors have labored to prove a more stringent arrangement of the thoughts
conveyed in the book. It is plain, however, on closer study of the work,
that none of these attempts has really succeeded. The Epistle has indeed
been divided into different sections, and to each section a separate super
scription been given, expressive of the main idea which informs the entire
argument of that particular portion ; but, on the one hand, the same ideas

INTRODUCTION. 443
are found repeating themselves in the various sections, and, on the other,
the leading thought suggested for a particular section does not invariably
so inform that portion, that it raight serve as the point of departure for
studying its details. In the first edition of this coramentary it is asserted,
— following the view of De Wette, — that the Epistle from chap. i. ver. 5
till chap. v. ver. 17, may be divided into three groups of ideas, distin
guishable from each other by the fact that at the outset of each, as it were,
a chord is struck which, more or less, gives tone to the melody throughout
the entire part which it marks. As keynotes for the three sections sug
gested, the three truths are indicated: 1st, God is light, i. 5; 2d, Christ
(or God) is righteous, ii. 28; and 3d, God is love. But that these key
notes actually sound throughout the whole of the parts they are respec
tively supposed to lead, is not and cannot be proved.
Reiviark. — That the theories respecting the argument suggested by other
commentators, ancient as well as modern, are insufficient, has been shown by
Luthardt in the work already quoted; the same remark, however, applies also to
the construction which he himself — following in the lead of Hofmann (Schrift
bew. 2d ed. II. 2, p. 353 ff.) — has proposed, and which divides the Epistle into the
following five parts: i. 5-ii. 11; ii. 12-27; ii. 28-iii. 24a; iii. 246-iv. 21; v. 1-21.
For, when he thus defines the contents of the third part: Salutis futurae spes
Christiana quantum afferat ad vitam sancte agendam, exponitur, it is manifestly
inappropriate, since the apostle throughout the entire section only refers to the
Christian hope in ii. 2, from which it is plain that this is not the informing
main idea of it. Again, when he represents the fourth part as treating of the
Holy Ghost, his view is indeed so far correct, that, especially in the beginning,
the discourse does turn upon the Spirit of God; but from iv. 7 onwards the
development of the argument proceeds independently, without any reference to
the Spirit, and only in ver. 13 — and even then merely in passing — is there any
mention of Him made whatever. Much more decidedly does the apostle refer
to Him in v. 6 ff., which passage, however, according to Luthardt, belongs not
to the fourth, but to the fifth part, in which the subject treated of is faith.
But even this definition is doubtful, since faith is discussed not only in v. 1 ff.,
but also, and very distinctly, long previously, in iii. 23 and iv. 13-16. Braune
hardly atterapts a disposition of the Epistle at all. It Is true he divides it into
four parts: namely. Introduction, i. 1-4; flrst main division, 1. 5-ii. 28; second
main division, ii. 29-v. 11; conclusion, v. 12-21. He also suggests leading chief
topics for the two main divisions (viz., for the flrst, God is light; for the second,
AVhosoever is born of the righteous God doeth righteousness). But he only
indicates as leading main topics the ideas which the apostle expresses in i. 5 and
ii. 29, that is, at the beginning of the passages which Braune has marked as the

444 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
chief sections, without showing how these thoughts inform the various groups
of ideas which follow them. He contents himself with pointing out the simple
sequence of the ideas as they follow each other in the development of the
argument. In order to understand the construction of the Epistle, the following
three points are especially to be observed : 1st, The apostle's object is to
preserve the readers in the fellowship of God, that their joy may be perfect.
2d, That the apostle, in order to achieve his end, unfolds especially the
ideas that fellowship with God is only possible in the case of one whose
life, rooted in faith in Jesus Christ, and harmonizing in holiness with the
nature of God, is in love ; and that the Christian is not only bound to such
a life, but also in virtue of his divine birth (which has placed him in a
relation of absolute antagonism to the world, which is iK roi novypov) is
impelled by an inward necessity to lead it. 3d, That the apostle develops
these ideas under the conviction that the antichristian lie is present in the
world, aud also that the second advent of Christ is rapidly approaching.
Keeping these elements in view, it depends upon the identification of the
various points in the unfolding of the argument in the Epistle when
the latter takes such a turn that a new feature raay be said to enter and
to inform the discourse which follows. Nearly all commentators are
agreed, and rightly, that the verses from chap. i. ver. 5 to chap. ii. ver. 11
form one self-contained group of ideas. The informing and ruling idea of
this passage, however, is not a distinct and specific doctrinal proposition,
intended to be explained in its several parts, but rather the antithesis to
that indifferentism which ignores the antagonism between fellowship with
God and a life in sin, in opposition to which the apostle urges that only the
raan who walks in light — or who keeps the divine commandments and
loves his brother — is in communion with God, and knows Him. The close
relation in which these propositions stand to each other is shown also
outwardly by the phrases: idv einupev, k.t.1., chap. i. 6, 8, 10, and bliyuv,
K.r.X, ii. 4, 6, 8, which are only found here, and is proved by the fact that
ii. 10, 11, manifestly refers backwards to i. 5, 6. — The argument takes a new
turn, as raost coraraentators also have noticed, with ii. 12, in which the apos
tle, after reminding his readers of their happy experiences in salvation, and
indicating these as the ground of his writing to them, in direct exhortation
warns them against the love of the world. AA''ith this warning is coupled
the reference to the antichrists which has impelled the apostle to exhort
his readers to abide by what tbey had heard from the beginning, because
thus alone can they abide in the Son and in the Father, and enjoy ever-

INTRODUCTION. 445
lasting life, so that they may not be put to shame on the day of judgment.
The last turn in the argument shows how closely the apostle has kept in
view, throughout this exhortation, the intention of the entire Epistle (i. 4).
Moreover, the fact that the dvrixpiarot — as the apostle himself asserts
subsequently — are 'eKroi koouov, justifies our joining together in one whole
the warning reference to the antichrists, and that against the love of the
world. — In the foregoing the apostle has indeed shown that if Christians
are to glory in their communion with God, they raust walk in the light
(that is, in obedience towards God, and in love towards the brethren),
abstain from fellowship with the world, and faithfully abide by the AVord
of God ; but he has not yet shown how they stand, in accordance with their
nature, in antagonism to sin, and therefore also to the w6rld. To this proof
he proceeds in ii. 29, from which onwards he explains in detail how
Christians as such are born of God, and therefore the children of God,
who necessarily sanctify themselves in the hope of the future glory, do
righteousness, and abstain from sin, nay, cannot sin, because the divine
seed remains in them ; whilst, on the other hand, those who commit sin,
aud therefore belong to the world, are the children of the devil. This
explanation the apostle gives from ii. 29-iii. 10, where, with the words kuI
bg uy dyanuv, k.t.X, he begins to discourse about brotherly love. But that
a new section, properly speaking, does not open herewith, notwithstanding
that the conception of the divine birth recedes into the background,
appears not only frora the nature of the connection with the foregoing, but
also from the fact that the apostle at the outset holds fast to the contrast
which he had so sharply defined at the close of the preceding — directing
the attention of his readers to Cain, who was Ik tou novypoi, as the repre
sentative of the world. The immediate transition from the conception of
the biKaioavvy to that of the dyiiny cannot excite surprise if we consider that
to the mind of the apostle the latter was not something added to the
former, but is the bmaioaivy itself in its practical manifestation. The
propositions which treat of love, and in which the line of argument is so
plainly defined by the intention of the work, hang so closely together down
to ver. 22, that, although one new element after another is introduced, still
it is impossible to make a new section until, in ver. 23, to the conception of
brotherly love there is added that of faith in the name of Jesus Christ
the Son of God. This, however, dare all the less be overlooked, since in the
whole discussion hitherto the element of faith, so weighty for the purpose
of the work, has nowhere been exhaustively considered, nor even the word
mareieiv been once introduced. It is true the apostle seems immediately

446 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
afterwards to pass on to something else, since in iv. 1-6 he discourses of
the difference between the antichristian spirit and the Spirit of God, and
in iv. 7-21 of the love of the brethren ; nevertheless, on closer examination
it is manifest that in these sections the reference to faith is maintained
throughout. In the section iv. 1-6, namely, the bpoloyelv 'lyaoiv Xpiarov,
k.t.X, is given as the characteristic of the Spirit of God. This bpoloyelv,
however, is nothing else than the belief eig rb bvopa r. vlov Qeov 'I. Xpiaroi,
expressing itself in words. That the apostle, while he would exhort his
readers to hold fast their faith, first of all calls on them to try the spirits,
need not surprise us when we think of the danger threatened to believers
by the false teachers that had arisen. It raay appear more strange that in
ver. 7, with the exhortation dyanupev dllylovg, there is a transition to a
train of thought that treats of love ; but it is to be observed, not only that
in iii. 23, dyandpev dllylovg is closely connected with mareiaupev, k.t.X, but
also that the further statements about love serve exactly to explain its
connection with faith. The thought of the apostle is this : He only lives in
God who loves God ; God can only be loved because He is love ; God has
revealed Himself as love by the sending of His Son to be a propitiation for
sin, therefore love to God is conditioned by faith in this act of the divine love.
But while the believing Christian, who as such is born of God, now loves
God, his love extends also to his brethren who, as he is, are born of God.
In the development of these ideas, not only do the preceding statements of
the apostle about brotherly love obtain their special confirmation, but
the necessity of faith for fellowship with God is also set forth, so that the
apostle in what follows, after referring to the world-overcoming power of
faith, can proceed to treat of the divine evidences for faith, and emphasize
the fact that the believer has eternal life, and therein possesses najyjiyaia npbg
rbv Oeuu. The ideas from iii. 23 to v. 17 are so grouped into a whole, as
indeed may be perceived in them, that v. 13 (ol niareiovreg eig rb bvopa ioi viov
roi Qeov) plainly refers backwards to iii. 23, in addition to which it is to be
observed that the concluding thought here bears the same reference to the
purpose stated in i. 4 as the concluding thought of the preceding group.
From this explanation it is clear, that if we lay aside the preface, i 1-4,
and the conclusion, v. 18-21, three points are to be noticed in the Epistle,
at which the development of ideas takes such a direction that a newly
introduced point of view dominates what follows, and that the Epistle
therefore divides itself into four leading sections, namely, i. 5-ii. 11 ; ii.
12-28; ii. 29-iii. 22 ; and iii. 2.3-v. 17. In order to fulfil in his readers the
purpose of his writing, the apostle in the first section attacks the moral

INTRODUCTION. 447
indifference which endangers them ; in the second he warns them of love of
the world and of antichrist; in the third he shows that only a righteous
life of brotherly love corresponds to the nature of the Christian ; and in the
fourth he points them to faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as that
which is testified by God to be the basis of Christian life.'
3. Motive. — Frora chap. ii. 18 ff. and iv. 1 ff. it is to be understood that
the appearance of the false teachers, spoken of by him as dvrixpiarot, fur
nished the special motive for the production of this Epistle. These are
neither different false teachers (according to Storr, Sabians and Docetans ;
according to Sander, Ebionites and Docetans), nor even " true Jews as
deniers of the Messiahship of Jesus " (LbfHer, Disert. hist. exeg. Joannis Ep.
I. gnosticos impugnari negans, 1784, and Commt. theol., ed. Velthusen, vol. I.),
nor " practical false teachers, proceeding from heathenism " (Baumgarten-
Crusius), nor " such men as partly had suffered shipwreck of their faith,
and partly did not practise worthily the Christian belief in their lives"
(Bleek) ; but Docetans, and indeed such Docetans as denied the identity
of Jesus and Christ, and so adhered to that false doctrine which Irenaeus
ascribes to Cerinthus in the words: Cerinthus . . . subjecit, Jesum . . .
fuisse . . . Joseph et Mariae filium . . . post baptismum descendisse in eum
. . . Christum, . . . in fine autem revolasse iterum Christum de Jesu. Not
only the passages named, but also v. 5, 6, i. 3, iii. 23, iv. 15, point to this
forra of Docetism only (so also Braune). AA'ithout foundation is the view
of several commentators (Sander, Liicke, Ewald, also Thiersch, Hilgenfeld,
who, however, is not definitely decided, and others), that the polemical
purpose of the apostle was equally, or even alone, directed against the
stricter Docetism which ascribed to Christ only an apparent body, on behalf
of which appeal is erroneously made to 1 John i. 1, iv. 2 ; 2 John 7. —
That the former Docetans had a distinct antinomian direction, or in their
darkness of knowledge in regard to duty felt themselves elevated to a moral
course of life (Hilgenfeld, Thiersch, Guericke, Ewald, etc.), cannot be
inferred frora the moral exhortations of the apostle (comp.- Bruckner) ; it
is rauch rather to be observed, that nowhere in these exhortations does the
apostle refer to the antichristians, and that where he does mention them
he nowhere characterizes them as Antinomians.^
^ "We may also unite the first and second points to the joy of which the Christian par-
sections more closely in one whole; for the takes in fellowship with God.
former contains the premises for the warning 2 jq opposition to the view that the passage,
uttered in the latter. In the threefold division iii. 4, bears evidence for the Antinomianism of
which then arises, the conclusion of each part the false doctrine, Neander ( Gesch. d. Pjians-

448 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
According to Liicke and Erdmann, the Epistle was occasioned not only
by the appearance of the antichristians, but also by the critical state of the
churches to which it is addressed (which Erdmann describes as a state of
moral depravity). But although some of it, especially the antithetical
import of the section, i. 5-ii. 11, indicates that in the case of many
indifference to holiness of life was not wanting, yet nowhere do we find
any blame expressed in regard to the moral condition of the churches on
the whole. The apostle does not exhort his readers to return to the moral
earnestness originally displayed by the Christians, but to perseverance in
that which they are and have.
SEC. 2. — FORM AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE.
1. The Form. — While the mass of ancient writers regarded this com
position as a letter, Heidegger first speaks of it in his Enchiridion bibl.,
1681, p. 986, as, brevis quaedam christianae doctrinae epitome et evangelii a
Joanne scripti succinclum quoddam enchiridion. Similarly Michaelis judges,
who understands it as a " treatise,'' and indeed as the second part of the
Gospel; so also Berger (Versuch einer moralischen Einl. ins. N. T.) and
Storr (Ueber den Zweck der Evangel. Gesch. u. Br'iefe Jo/ianwi's), only that
the former speaks of it as the practical, the latter as the polemical part of
the Gospel. Even Bengel (Gnomon, 2d ed.) thinks it is to be called rather
a libellus than a letter; his reason is, that a letter ad absentes mitlitur,
Joannes autem apud eos, quibus scribebat, eodem tempore fuisse videtur. Reuss
(Die Gesch. der heil. Schriften N. T., p. 217) expresses himself similarly,
when he would prefer to call it " a homiletical essay, at the most a pastoral,
the readers of which are present," rather than an epistle. But, in oppo
sition to these views, the work proves itself by the form of its contents to
be a real epistle. The author shows himself throughout in the most
lively interchange of thought with his readers ; and even though not
infrequently the objective development of thought predominates, as is
peculiar to a treatise, — which, however, is found no less in other Epistles
of the N. T., — yet the language always returns involuntarily to the form
of an address, in which is specially to be observed " the oft-recurring dis
tinctive epistolary formula: raira ypdipopev, or jpdipu, or even iypaipa vplv —
in contrast particularly with the formula in the more general historical
ung der Kirche durch d. Ap., p. 377) rightly gresseth the law committeth sin, for trans-
remarks, that the apostle against Antinomians gression of the law is siu."
would have had to say : " Whosoever trans-

INTRODUCTION. 449
writing, the Fourth Gospel : raira yiypanrai without iplv, xx. 31 ; corap.
xix. 35 and xxi. 24" (Liicke). Diisterdieck rightly remarks that "the
epistolary nature expresses itself in the whole import and progress of the
work," inasmuch as in it "there dominates that easy naturalness and
freedom in the composition and presentation, which corresponds with the
immediate practical interest and with the practical purpose of an epistle"
(comp. Bleek, Einl. in d. N. T., p. 589, and Braune, Einl., § 5). — The
absence of a blessing or a doxology at the close occurs also in the Epistle of
James, and there is nothing strange in it ; but it is rather striking that the
epistolary introduction is also wanting to the work, as the author neither
mentions himself, nor the readers to whom he is writing ; in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, however, such an introduction is also omitted. AVe must
explain this want in this way, that, on the one hand, the apostle pre
supposed that the readers would recognize him as the author of the Epistle
without his naming himself in it, and, on the other, that he did not intend
it for a single church, or for a limited circle of churches.' The description
of this work as a second part of the Gospel is so much the more arbitrary,
as each of those works forms in itself a completed whole. — The view of
some critics and commentators (Augusti, who calls the Epistle a summary
of the Gospel ; Hug, Frommann in the Studien und Kritiken, 1840, Heft 4 ;
Thiersch in Versuch zur Herstellung des hist. Stdpktes., p. 78, and Die Kirche
im aposiol. Zeitalter, p. 266 ; Ebrard in Kritik der evangel. Geschichte, p. 148,
and in his Commentary), that the Epistle is a companion-work of the Gospel,
is opposed by the contents of the Epistle, which follow an individual aim,
as well as by the complete absence of a distinctly indicated reference to
the written Gospel.'' In opposition to Reuss, according to whose view the
' In opposition to Ebrard, who, admitting repeated eypaipa In the latter, to the writing
the epistolary character of the work, thinks of the Gospel. That this is without adequate
that this want may be easily explained if the ground, comp. the commentary on these; but
epistle " had no individual aim in itself, but even if this reference were correct, yet the
depended on something else," inasmuch as description of the Epistle as a " sort of dedica-
" by its form it bears the nature of a sort of tory epistle" would still remain unjustified,
preface, or of an epistola dedicatoria," it is to for its purpose is clearly quite other than to
be remarked that the Epistle, from its whole dedicate the Gospel to its readers. We would
character, cannot be at all compared to &pref- then have to call every epistle, In which refer-
ace, and that in an epistola dedicatoria this ence is made to another work, a dedicatory
want would be Just as striking as in any other epistle. Even the designation " companion-
epistle, work " is unsatisfactory, because it does not at
2 Ebrard derives tbe proof for his opinion all appropriately state the true character of
from 1. 1-4 and from ii. 12-14, referring dnay- the Epistle in accordance with its actual con-
yiKKopev in the former passage, and the thrice- tents.

450 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Epistle "was destined to bring home to the readers of the Gospel the
practical side of the Gnosis there laid down," it is to be observed that
neither is the practical side wanting in the Gospel, nor the Gnosis in the
Epistle. 2. The Character. — The same peculiarity of conception, development
of thought, and form of expression, which characterize the Gospel of John,
penetrate the Epistle also, and distinguish it from all other Epistles of
the N. T. There dominate in it the same spiritual tendency, and the
same preference for the concrete and abstract ideas : o yv, k.t.X, ipug, (uy, (ui)
aliiviog, ilaapbg; noielv ryv dpapriav, n. ryv dvopiav, n. ryv SiKuioaivyv; e'lvai iK ryg
dlyBeiag, etc.; the sarae combination of antitheses: ipug . . . OKorla; dlijBeia
. . . ipevbog; dyandv , . , piaelv; y dydny rov narpbg . . . y dy. rov Koopov; noielv
ryv SiKaioaivyv , , , n, ryv dpapriav; to riKva roi Qeoi . . . rd r. roi SiaBoXov; rb
nvevpa ryg ulyBe'iag , , , r, nv. ryg nldvyg; dpapria oi npbg Bdvarov . . . dpapria
npbg Bdvarov; (uy , , , Bdvarog, etc. ; the same continuation of the thought by
the resumption of an idea that has preceded, and the accompanying and
correspondingly unusual application of the relative pronoun ; the same
juxtaposition of the positive and negative expression of a thought. Both
works, as Ebrard brings out, bear the same impress, not only in style and
construction, but also in the sphere of ideas, and in the dogmatic views ;
comp. also Ewald, Die Joh. Schriften, I. p. 429 ff. — With regard to the
Epistle especially, here, in contrast to the dialectical development of
thought which is characteristic of the Pauline Epistles particularly, the
individual propositions follow one another in gnomon fashion,' and
unitedly form groups of ideas, which are sometimes strung together without
any mark of the transition.^ Even the proof of an idea takes place in the
simplest manner by reference to a truth self-evident to the Christian
consciousness. By the peculiar manner of connection of the ideas arises
the appearance of rather frequent repetition of the same thoughts ; but on
closer observation it is evident that even where the negative expression
follows the positive, or vice versa, generally both expressions do not say
the same thing, but that in the second a new element is taken up, a new

1 Comp. on this, Ewald, D. Joh. Schri/ten, nection." But it might be more appropriate
I. p. 441. to perceive it in this, that the apostle by single
2 Diisterdieck iinds the peculiarity of the leading thoughts strikes as it were chords,
manner of development and statement of which he allows to sound for a while in the
thought iu the Epistle in this, "that the ideas thoughts deduced for them, until a new chord
move, combine, and circle round certain lead- results, which leads to a new strain.
lug propositions as points of support and con-

INTRODUCTION. 451
direction is prepared for. Characteristic is the simplicity and plainness
of statement. Whether the apostle states divine truths by themselves,
whether he discourses in exhortation or in warning to his readers, his
language always retains the same calmness and precision. He nowhere
shows a disposition excited by passion. Everywhere the stillness of a
heart reposing in happy peace is mirrored, and having this he is sure that
the simple utterance of the truth is enough to procure for his discourse an
entrance into the minds of his readers. At the s^rae time, a firm, manly
tone pervades the Epistle, in contrast with every weak fanaticism of
sentiment, which is so little characteristic of the apostle, that he, along with
the internal character of life, constantly urges that the reality of it is
proved by action. It is also worthy of notice, that, on the one hand, he
speaks to his readers as a father to his children, but, on the other hand,
does not ignore the fact that they are no longer minors, to whom he has
some new information to give, but are quite like himself, and are, like
himself, in possession of all the truth which he utters, of all the life which
he is anxious, not to produce in them for the first time, but only to main
tain in them. Against the reproach that the Epistle bears " the clearest
traces of the feebleness of old age" (S. G. Lange), or that — as Baur says
— " it is wanting in the fresh color of direct life," that " the tenderness and
fervor of John's manner of conception and representation have relaxed far
too much into a tone of childlike feebleness, which loses itself in indefi
niteness, falls into continual repetitions, and is lacking in logical force,"
it must be maintained that the Epistle bears the impress of directness,
freshness, definiteness, and vigorous clearness in no 'degree less than the
Gospel of John.' SEC. 3. — GENUINENESS.
According to the testimony of antiquity, the Epistle was written by the
Apostle John, which is confirmed by the Epistle itself, in so far as that the
author, in the whole tone in which he speaks to his readers, and in particular
expressions (i. 1, iii. 5, iv. 14), may be recognized as an apostle, and that
the agreement with the Gospel of John favors the conclusion that both
I Hilgenfeld rightly states, in opposition to ianity;" "that the fresh, vivid, attractive
Baur, that the Epistle belongs to the most character of the Epistle, consists exactly in
beautiful writings of the N. T., that it is this, that it conducts us with suoh a predilee-
specially rich and original "exactly in what lion into the inner experience of genuine
relates to the subjective, inner life of Christ- Christian life."

452

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.

works proceed from the same author. Eusebius {H. E.y iii. 24, 25) rightly
reckons it among the Homologouraena ; and Hieronymus {De viris illustr.,
c. 9), says : ab universis ecclesiasiicis eruditis viris probatur. — In the writings
of the Apostolic Fathers, it is true, the Epistle is not considered in a
definite way ; but the passage found in Polycarp, cap. vii. : tto^ yap 6f av fii}
ofioloyy *lrioovv Xptarbv kv capKi kToilvQevatj avrlxptaTog koriv, etc., may be recog
nized as a "natural use of 1 John iv. 2, 3" (Diisterdieck), by deduction from
particular resemblances to some expression or other of the Epistle j ^ and
Eusebius {H. E., iii. 39) states of Papias : KexpvT<^t ^' o avrbg fiaprvplatc and
Trig 'loavvov nporepag h'KtaToTifig koI ttjc liirpov bp-oiug. — By the Fathers of the
church : Tertullian {Adv, Prax., c. 15 ; Scorp., c. 12 ; Adv. Marc, iii. 8 ; de
Praescript., c. 33 ; De Carne Christi, c. 24), Irenaeus {Adv. Haeret., iii. 16),
Clemens Alex. (Strom., 1. ii. c 15, 1. iii. c. 4, 5, 6; Paedag., iii. 11, 12, etc.),
Origen (in Euseb., H. E., vi. 25), Cyprian (De Orat. Dom. and Ep. 25),
passages are frequently quoted from it, often with explicit mention of the
apostle. Dionysius Alex, uses it, along with the Gospel, to prove the
spuriousness of the Apocalypse ; the Peshito and the Muratorian Fragment ^

* In the Ep. ad Diognet. several expresBions
appear, which point back to John's raode of
thought; BO cap. vi. : Xpto-rtavoi ev Kocjaw
oLKoGcrir, OVK ciitI Se e/c ToO Kocrju-ovj cap. vii. :
6 . . . 0eb5 . . . T7]v a\ri6^iav Kat tov \6yov
TOV a.'yiov Kal arreptvoTjTOv avBpiairoi^ cviSpucre;
cap. xi. : oSto$ 6 dTr' ap')(^^; as also iu the
/Shepherd of ffermast lib. li. mand. 9 :
iriCTTeuei r<Z 0ea>. oTt Treii'Ta ra atT^/xara aov,
$. a'lTJjy Aiji/ffl (comp. 1 John iii. 23, iv, 15) ;
lib. ii. mand. 12: evKoAwy auras (i.e.» Ta?
evToKa^ TOV Qfeov) ^uAafei?, Kal ovk to'Oi'Tat
a-Kk-qpai (comp. 1 John v. 3).
2 By the words: "epistola sane Jude et
superscriptio [superscripti ; or, according
to Laurent, Neutest. Studien., pp. 201, 205:
Hupemeriptae = ' provided with superscrip-
tiouB'] Joannis duas [duae] in catholica
habentur," are not meant, as Braune sup
poses, the first and second, but the second
and third Epistles. When, however, it is
previously written : " Quid ergo mirum, si
Johannes tam constanter singula etiam in
epistolis suis proferat dicens in semet ipso;
quae vidimus oculis nostris et auribuB audi
vimus et manus nostrae palpaverunt, haec

scripsimus," this is a clear evidence for the
coraposition of the First Epistle hy the
Apostle John. The reviewer of the first
edition of this coraraentary, in the Theol.
Literaturhlatt zur allg. Kirchenztg. ^ 1855,
No. 92, thinks, indeed, that in the words:
"quarti evangeliorum Joannis ex discipulis,"
the Presbyter John is indicated aa the author
of the Gospel, because it is not said ex
apostolis; but that the author of the Frag
ment indicates by the expression discipuli
such disciples of Jesus as were not apostles,
can neither be proved by the fact that Papias
(in Euseb., H. E.y iii. 39) calls the Presbyter
John a disciple (jaaflijrvjj) of Jesus, nor by the
fact that afterwards " ex apostolis " is added
to characterize Andrew. If the author of the
Fragment had regarded as the author of
the Gospel, not the Apostle, but the Presbyter
John, he would certainly have expressed this
definitely. The expression ex discipulis
presented itself to hira here so much the
more naturally, as he had immediately before
spoken of Luke, and said of him ¦ " Dominum
nee ipse vidit in came." — Rightly, therefore,
LUcke, Dusterdieck, Ebrard, and others

INTRODUCTION. 453
also testify to its genuineness. That the Alogi rejected it, as Epiphanius
conjectures, and that Marcion did not admit it into his canon, is of no
importance; just as little is the highly obscure account of Cosmas in his
Topogr. Christ., 1. vii., according to which some maintain that all the catholic
epistles were composed, not by apostles, but by presbyters; and the remark
of Leontlus Byz. [Contra Nestor, et Eutychian, iii. 14) in regard to Theodore
of Mopsv. : Epistolarh Jacobi et alias deinceps aliorum catholicas abrogat et
antiquat: comp. on this Lucke's Comment. Introd., § 8, 4, p. 135 if., .3d ed.
— The genuineness continued unchallenged until flrst Jos. Scaliger came
forward with the assertion: tres epistolae Joannis non sunt apostoli Joannis ;
since then it has been variously disputed. Sam. J. Lange, indeed, recognized
the unanimous testimony of antiquity as too significant to permit of denial
of the apostolic authorship of the Epistle, but he, nevertheless, regarded it
as a writing not worthy of the apostle ; Claudius (Uransichten des Christenth.,
p. 52 ff.) went further, explaining it as the performance of a Jewish
Christian, which was revised by a Gnostic. Bretschneider (in his Proba-
biUen) and Paulus ascribe it to the Presbyter John, while they, however, at
the same time, maintained the identity of the author of the Epistle and the
author of the Gospel; Horst (Museum fur Religionswissensch. Henke, 1803,
vol. i.) declared himself against this. — The later Tubingen school cannot,
in consequence of their conception of the development of Christianity,
regard either the Gospel or the Epistle as the work of the apostle ; the
admission of the genuineness of one of these writings would overthrow their
whole historical construction. Since, therefore, the adherents of this school
are agreed in denying the genuineness of both writings, they, nevertheless,
explain in different ways the relation of them to one another. K. R.
Kostlin (Lehrbegr. des Ev., etc) and W. Georgii (Ueber die eschatolog.
'Vorstellungen der N. T. Schriflsteller ; Theol. Jahrb., Tubingen, 1845) ascribe
both writings (even the second and third Epistles) to the same author.
After Zeller, who, in his " Beitragen zur Einl. in die Apokahjpse " (in the
Theol. Jahrb., Tubing. , 1842) presupposed the identity of the author in his
review of Kbstlin's writings (Theol. Jahrb., 1845), and K. Planck ('^Juden-
ihum und Urchristenth." in the Theol. Jahrb., 1847) had intimated the opposite
view, the former position was strongly defended by Baur (Die Joh. Briefe,
in the Theol. Jahrb., 1848, 3), and by Hilgenfeld (Das Evang. u. die Briefe
Joh., 1849, and "D. Joh. Briefe'' in the Tub. theol. Jahrb , 1855, part iv.);

(comp. also Meyer in hia Comment, on regarded the Murat. Fragm. as evidence for
Gospel of John, and Laurent as above) have the apostolic oi-igin of the Epistie.

454 THE FIKST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
but with this difference, that the former explains the Epistle as the copy, the
latter as the pattern of the Gospel.
For the non-identity of the authors, it is specially advanced, that, in the
Gospel, a " more ideal and internal," in the Epistle, on the other hand, " a
more material and external," mode of thought dominates. This difference
is to be chiefly recognized in the eschatological ideas. While the author of
the Epistle expects a visible " material " (!) parousia of Christ, the Evangelist
is held to know only of a " re-appearance of Christ in the spirit of His
disciples," and of a merely "present" judgment, because for him "the future
has already become the present." How incorrect, however, this assertion is,
is proved by passages such as Gospel of John v. 28, 29, vi. 39, 40, 44, 54, in
which, distinctly enough, a future day of resurrection of the dead, and of
judgment by Christ, is spoken of (comp. Weiss, p. 179 ff.) ; and, as in this
the Gospel is quite in agreement with the Epistle, so, on the other hand, the
Epistle expresses, no less distinctly than the Gospel, the idea of a resurrec
tion, already accomplished in belief, of Christians from the dead.i The
fundamental conceptions, therefore, are the same in both writings ; the only
difference is that in the Epistle the thought is expressed that the taxury d>pa
is already, — but in the Gospel there was plainly no room for the expression
of this thought. — For that difference between the material and the ideal
conception, Baur appeals, moreover, to 1 John v. 6, comp. with Gospel xix.
34, and Hilgenfeld (1849) to 1 John i. 5, 7. Baur asserts, that in place of
the ideal import which the two symbols, blood and water, have in the
Gospel, the sacramental appears in the Epistle. This assertion, however,
is based on a false interpretation of both of those passages, since neither
has the circumstance recorded in the Gospel, xix. 34, the meaning " that
death (of which the blood is the symbol) is the necessary preliminary
condition under which alone the Spirit (of which the water is the symbol [!])
can be communicated to the believer ; " nor is 1 John v. 6 to be directly
interpreted of the coming of Christ in or through the two sacraments,
baptism and the Lord's Supper. Besides, it is rather strange to call the
conception of water and blood as the two sacraments, a material one. —
1 In the article of Hilgenfeld quoted above, of these views is at all exclusive of the other;
he thinlcs that " there is undeniably a different it is only to be remembered that the future
representation of the last day, when the judgment for those who here already have
author of the Epistle exhorts his readers so to passed from death Into life, who here already
deport themtjelves that they may meet the possess the <,itiT) aiwrto? (1 John v. 13), is such
judgment day without shame, and when, on that for them it is not a judgment iu that
the other hand, the Evangelist excludes sense in which it is a judgraent for the
believers from the judgment;" but neither wicked.

INTRODUCTION. 455
Hilgenfeld thinks that when in 1 John i. 5, 7, it is said of God that He is
(pug, nay, that He is 'ev tu ipuri, a representation is expressed which " has too
much the ideas of matter and of space in it for the Evangelist to have any
connection with it," since he uses ipug only as predicate of the Logos. But
from the application which is made in the Epistle of the thought there
expressed, it is clear that the writer of the Epistle, in the idea fug, did not
think less of any thing than of something " pertaining to matter and space."
That alleged difference, therefore, does not exist ; the groundless pretence
of it proves neither the hypothesis of Baur, that the Epistle is the per
formance of an imitator of the Gospel, nor that of Hilgenfeld, that it
belongs to an earlier stage of development than the latter. Nevertheless,
according to Baur, we may recognize the imitative hand not only in the
character of the whole epistle (see on this Sec. 2), but in the passages
i. 1-4 and v. 6-9; according to Hilgenfeld (1849), the earlier stage of
development may be perceived in the O. T. conception expressed in the
Epistle, and in its views of the Logos and of the Holy Spirit. In regard
to the passage i. 1-4, Baur says : " In all the features, in which the author
himself would give us a picture of his personality, the premeditated most
anxious concern cannot be mistaken, to be regarded as one person with
the Evangelist ; " but that those verses are only to serve " to give a picture
of the personality of the author," is a groundless supposition of Baur. In
the other passage (v. 6-9, comp. with John viii. 16 ff.) Baur sees nothing
but a mere playing on words, "for the paprvpia roi eeov has the same
subject as the paprvpla ruv dvBpunuv, and the latter differs from the former
only in this, that the three — spirit, water, and blood — are counted as
three, and it therefore consists of nothing else than the numerical relation
of those three to one another, which again is immediately annulled when
it is said that it is God that bears witness in tho.se three." But this entire
conclusion is purely fanciful ; for, on the one hand, the paprvpia ruv dvBpunuv
is not at all spoken of, in regard to its subject, as identical with the paprvpia
roi Qeov ; and, on the other hand, in the mention of the former paprvpia,
the numerical relation is not alluded to by a single syllable. — Hilgenfeld
asserts that the epistle stands in a more intimate relationship to the O. T.
law than the Gospel does. The proof of this is supposed to lie in the
passages 1 John iii. 4 and ii. 7, 8 ; but with_ regard to the first passage,
the idea dvopia in no way hints at the Mosaic law ; and besides, if " the
author attached a higher importance to the Mosaic vdpog than the Evangel
ist, he would somewhere state its signification ; this, however, he is so far
from doing, that the idea vdpog never appears in his work at all. With

456 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
regard to the second passage, Hilgenfeld, indeed, admits that d-n' apxvg
refers to the transition to Christianity, but thinks that "this old com
mandment of love is not set forth as it is in the Gospel, as an absolutely
new one which first receives its rule through the love of the Saviour to
His people ; " but, apart from the explanation of that passage itself, the
immediately preceding verse, and, moreover, what is written in iii. 16 and
iv. 7 ff. about love, shows how unfounded is the assertion of Hilgenfeld.
It is not any thing better with the remark of Hilgenfeld (1849), that "the
greatest probability is in favor of the statement that the idea of the
personal Logos is still foreign to the Epistle, whilst it is distinctly expressed
in the Gospel ; " this Hilgenfeld infers from this, that for description of
what is loftier in Christ the expression 6 loyog is not used in the Epistle.i
But even if in the expression 6 loyog ryg Zuyg the idea lb-yog had the meaning
of " doctrine," yet the supposition of Hilgenfeld would still be unjustified,
since it cannot be denied that y ^uy {y Cuy aiuviog), whereby the superhuman
that appeared in Christ is indicated, is considered by the writer of the
Epistle as hypostatic nature, nor that the vidg roi Qeoi is identical with
Him who in the Gospel is called 6 liiyog. Nay, the whole Epistle in the
most unmistakable manner presupposes the hj'postatic nature of the
Son of God. — That, flnally, the writer of the Epistle ascribed no per
sonality to the Holy Spirit, can neither be proved by this, that he does
not call Him 6 napdalyrog, nor by this, that He indicates Him by the
expression xpiopa ; the words rb nveipd ian rb paprvpovv especially, 1 John v.
6 comp. with John xv. 26, presuppose His personality. ^ — For proof of
the non-identity, Baur finally appeals to this, that the "representation
of Christ as the napimlyrog, i.e., the interceding High Priest, accords
more with the sphere of ideas of the Epistle to the Hebrews than with
that of the Gospel ; that thereby intervening thoughts are inserted into
John's view of the relation of Jesus to those who believe on Him, which
lay far from the horizon of the Evangelist." But if Baur were right in
this assertion, then there would exist not only a difference between the
Epistle and the Gospel, but a difference between the Epistle and itself,
since, apart from those representations, quite the same view of the relation

2 In the article of 1855 this is merely no- xpliriia. and trnepv-oL. Along with this he
ticed," without the former inference being admits, however, that the Gospel, ia the
drawn from it. expression a AAo? TrapaKAijTo? shows au agree-
2 In the article of 1855, Hilgenfeld finds the ment with the Epistle, in which Christ is
difference only in this, that in the Epistle spoken of as napdnKi/iTo^.
the Holy Spirit is not called TropaKATjTos, but

INTRODUCTION. 457
of Jesus to believers dominates in the Epistle as in the Gospel ; with
regard,, however, to those representations, they are not peculiar to the
Epistle to the Hebrews only, but are a common property of the apostles,
as they are expressed in the Epistle to the Romans (comp. chap. iii. 25
and viii. 34) with no less distinctness than in the former.
The reasons adduced by Baur and Hilgenfeld are therefore unable to
shake the conviction of combined antiquity, that both writings come from
one and the same author. That each of the works — along with all unity
of conception and of expression — has its own peculiarities, is naturally
caused both by the difference of their object, and by the living activity of
the Spirit from whora they both proceeded. It is also to be observed,
that in the Gospel it is chiefly the Master, in the Epistle the disciple, that
speaks, — a fact to which the Tubingen critics can certainly attach no
importance. There is, however, the further question as to the character
of the reasons which are said to be opposed to the genuineness of the
Epistle, and to prove that the author of it could not be the Apostle John.
When S. G. Lange says that on account of "its lack of all individual
references, its slavish imitation of the Gospel, the too great generality of
the thoughts, the traces of the feebleness of old age, the non-reference to
the destruction of Jerusalem," he only reluctantly regards the Epistle as
the work of an apostle; these reasons are of such arbitrarily subjective
character as to require no refutation. Of greater importance, indeed, is
the frequently-expressed assertion, that the Epistle refers to circumstances
which first belong to a time later than that of the apostles. As such
Bretschneider regarded the doctrine of the Logos and the Docetism con
tended against in the Epistle ; but " without the previous existence and
assurance of a canonical doctrine of the Logos, the patristic doctrine
from Justin on would be almost inexplicable" (Liicke), and that Docetism
— to which the Jewish as well as the heathen speculation must be added,
when, without giving itself up, it amalgamated with Christianity — first
belonged to the post-apostolic age, is historically an unjustifiable assertion.
— After Planck (in the article already quoted) advanced the view that
the author of the Epistle moves in the Montanist sphere of thought, as he
"seeks to transform the external Jewish-Christian mode of conception
into the deeper, more internal mode of John," Baur developed it further.
He explains the Epistle directly as a writing belonging to Montanism. His
proofs of this are : (1) the thought that the fellowship of Christians is
sinless, holy ; (2) the mention of the xplf/^u ; and (3) the distinction between
venial and mortal sins. But how weak are these reasons ! If the Mon-

458 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
tanists considered themselves as the Spirituales, in contrast to the rest of
the Christians, who in their eyes were Psychici, this is plainly something
very different from the representation of the Epistle that believing Chris
tians — in contrast to the unholy world — form a holy fellowship. If
the Epistle says that Christians possess the holy xP'^t^^y there lies therein
nothing but an allusion to the custom, first mentioned by Tertullian, of
anointing candidates for baptism with holy oil. And if in 1 John v. 16 the
dpapria npbg Bdvarov is distinguished from the dpapria oi npbg Bdvarov, this
distinction is of a very different character from the Montanist distinction
between venial and mortal sins. Baur, indeed, maintains that in the
Epistle the same sins are called mortal sins, as in Tertullian ; but while
Tertullian represents as mortal sins, homicidium, idololatria, fraus, negatio,
blasphetnia, moechia et fornicatio, et si qua alia violatio templi Dei, Baur
arbitrarily selects only three of these, namely idolatry, murder, adultery or
fornication, which are alleged to be spoken of in the Epistle as mortal sins.
To idolatry, namely, not only chap. v. 21, but also chap. iii. 4, is alleged
to refer ; to murder,, chap. iii. 15 ; ^ and to nopveia, which is nowhere
mentioned in the Epistle itself, the superscription that appears in Augustin
(corrupted from Trpdf napBevovg) : ad Parthos. — The hypothesis so feebly
established (comp. Lucke's incisive refutation in the 3d ed. of his com
ment.), of the Montanism of the writer of the Epistle, found in Hilgenfeld
an opponent in the Tubingen school itself. In opposition to it,^ Hilgenfeld
has attempted to show that not only the false doctrine of the antichristians
who are contended against in the Epistle, but also many of the views of
the author himself, would go to prove that the appearance of the Epistle
is to be fixed at the time immediately preceding that in which Gnosticism
was at its prime. As Gnostic elements in the system of the epistle,
Hilgenfeld specifies the idea of the anippa (iii. 9), the thought that we
^ Baur himself admits that with regard to aut verecundia aut necessitate mentiri. In
these two points the author does not mean negotiis, iu officiis, in quaestu, in victu, in
"the outward action," but "altogether the visu, in auditu quanta tentamur, ut si nulla sit
inner character of the moral seutimenl; " but venia istorum, nemini salus corapetat," etc.
if that be the case, then it is clear that his ' Hilgenfeld urges especially that it is im
position is not in Montanism, but outside it, possible to conceive that a Montanist author
since in Montanism it is precisely actions, and would not have known to begin with the idea
indeed particular, definite actions, that are of the Paraclete; and also that the idea of
referred to in that distinction of sins. Ter- 'special mortal sins already occurs in the
tullian (De Pudicit., c. 19) : " Cui non accidit, XlepioSoi Tlerpov (Reo. iv. 36), which belong to
aut irasci inique et ultra soils occasum, aut et the pre-Montanist pseudo-Clemcntiue liter-
manum immittere, aut facile maledicere, aut ature.
temere jurare, aut fidem pact! destruere.

INTRODUCTION. 459
should not fear, but only love God (iv. 18, 19), and the idea of the xptcf^u
(ii. 20) ; but these ideas are so essential to the Christian consciousness,
that it cannot at all be thought of without them. At, the most, the
expressions anippa and xptnpa might seem strange, but the former so
naturally suggested itself in connection with the idea of being born of
God, and of God's being in him who is born of Him,^ and the latter from
the antithesis of the Christian to the dvr'ixpiarog, — especially with the O. T.
type of anointing, — that a derivation of them from Gnostic fancies is
entirely unjustified ; quite apart from the fact that these ideas play quite
another part in the Gnostic systems from that which they fulfil in this
Epistle. Even if it be conceded to Hilgenfeld, further, that the false
doctrine contended against is Gnostic, yet it cannot be admitted that
Gnosticism also, as regards its beginnings, belongs flrst to the post-apostolic
time. Hilgenfeld rightly says that the features alluded to by the author of
the Epistle do not mark a completely definite Gnostic system ; but wrongly,
that therefore the doctrine of Cerinthus must not be thought of, because
this represents a form of Gnosis as yet quite incomplete. The whole
character of the polemic of the writer of the Epistle shows, however, that
he has to do with a system of Gnosticism which, in comparison with the
systems of the second century, had a form still incomplete. For there is
only one point which he brings forward, namely Docetism, and indeed that
form of it which consists of the distinction of the Son of God from the
man Jesus, and therefore the same as was propounded by Cerinthus ; comp.
Dorner, Lehre von der Person Christi, I. p. 314 ff. — That this Docetism was
associated with an antinomian sentiment "which set itself far above all the
moral laws of life," by no means follows, as has already been remarked in
Sec. 2, from the polemic of the Epistle. — Against the assertion of Baur,
that even the form of the polemic is decisive against the genuineness of the
1 In his article of 1855, Hilgenfeld attaches the irnepv-a which is peculiar to them by
the chief importance to the idea of the o-Trep/ia, nature, cannot sin — how does this accord
and tries to deduce from 1 John v. 1, that with the soteriology which is so clearly ex-
according to the representation of the author pressed in the Epistle, and according to which
of the Epistle, "being born of God is to be Christ is the iXao-jubs n-ept Twf a/j-apriajv rjfi.Siv,
regarded as the presupposition of Christian and the blood of Christ cleanses us aTrb ndtrri^
faith," and therefore that the anepfjia is, a/xaprta?? — In this article also Hilgenfeld
according to him, "the metaphysical ground derives the "repeated assurance that God is
of existence " from which faith proceeds. love," from the influence of Gnosticism on
But if the distinction between the rcKva toD the author, without any regard to the close
&eov and the reKva rov StajSoAov has, according connection with the fundamental essential
to the author, » metaphysical ground lying truth ot Christianity in which this is brought
beyond faith, and if the former, by virtue of forward by the author.

460 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Epistle, since " nothing further is said than just that the false teachers of
Docetism are antichristians," it is to be observed that the main force of the
apostle's polemic throughout does not consist in negation, but in the positive
presentment of the truth, in the light of which the antagonistic doctrine is
manifested as a lie (see on this the excellent exposition of Thiersch, 'Versuch,
etc., p. 255).
The spuriousness of the Epistle (as also of the Gospel, and of John's
two other Epistles) also follows, according to Hilgenfeld (article of 1855),
from the relation of these writings to the Apocalypse. While, namely, he
presupposes the genuineness of the latter, he maintains that " the contrast
between it and the Epistles must not be ignored," and that "the latter
occupy a middle place between the two most extreme contrasts of the
Apocalypse and the Gospel." The contrast is seen, according to him, first, in
the language (in the Epistles not indeed an Attic, but an easy and versatile
Greek style ; in the Apocalypse, on the other hand, a strongly Hebraizing
impress) ; and, second, in the sphere of thought, although he recognizes
"between the spheres of thought on both sides very essential points of
contact." But against these instances it is to be observed — 1. That the
composition of the Apocalypse by the Apostle John is by no means so surely
established as Hilgenfeld assumes, and is certainly not to be proved by
stating that it is the product of a still judaistically-narrowed mode of
conception ; 2. That in the explanation of the Hebrew-colored style of the
Apocalypse, attention is to be paid to the fact that it stands in close
connection with O. T. prophecy; 3. That the appearance of the contrast,
alleged by Hilgenfeld, between the spheres of thought on both sides, dis
appears when with the necessary critical impartiality they are taken hold of
with consideration of the entire individual elements which constitute them.^
1 Hilgenfeld proceeds uncritically in his lo that according to which it appears as the
demonstration of the contrast between the forgiveness of sins ; when he supposes a eon-
spheres of thought, inasmuch as he not only trast between the representation of the Apoca-
adduces, as antithetical, ideas which are not lyptic judgment and the idea of the spiritual
so, but also ascribes to one or the other victory of the Christian over the devil and the
writing views which are not contained in it. world, accomplished by means of morality
The former is, for example, the case when he and faith. He does the latter when, for
thinks that the idea of an angry God, as is example, he says that the Apocalypse con-
peculiar to the Apocalypse, and the idea of siders "the political woi'ld-power of the
a God who ie love, as we find it expressed in Roman Empire " aa Antichrist, whereas the
the Epistle, contradict oue another; or when name oLvrixpitrro^ Is never once mentioned in
he asserts that the conception of the Divine the Apocalypse; or when he ascribes to the
justice, according to which it is shown as the Epistle the idea of a metaphysical antagonism
punishment of the wicked, is in contradiction between the children of God aud the children

INTRODUCTION. 461
As the internal tests, which have been asserted to be opposed to the
genuineness of the Epistle, do not prove the alleged spuriousness; as tha
Epistle much rather bears on the face of it quite the impress of an apostolic
writing ; as it also — as even Hilgenfeld admits — " belongs to the writings
of the N. T., the genuineness of which was never disputed in the ancient
Church, and the chain of witnesses who have made use of it begins as far
back as Papias," — the composition of it by the Apostle John is as surely
established as it can ever be.
SEC. 4. — THE READERS; TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION.
1. The Readers. — Augustin says in his Quaest. Evang., ii. 39, when he
is quoting the passage 1 John iii. 2 : scriptum est a Joanne in Epistola ad
Parthos ; this more particular determination of the Epistle is also found
(only however, in the Benedictine edition of Augustin's works) in tlie
superscription of his treatises on the Epistle ; and similarly in Possidius,
in his Indiculus operum S. Augustini, as he introduces those treatises with
the words, De Ep. Joannis ad Parthos sermones decem. The same statement,
it is true, frequently appears later ; thus in the work of Vigilius Tapsensis
(end of the fifth century), published under the name of Idacius Clarus,
Contra 'Varimadiim Arianum; in Cassiodorus, De Institut. D'lvin. Script., c. 14,
who, however, refers the words ad Parthos to all the three Epistles ; in Col.
62 of Griesb., and in several lat. codd. (see Guericke, Gesammlgesch. des
N. T., 1854, p. 486, note 2) ; but the whole Greek Church, and similarly
the Latin Church before Augustin, knows nothing of it.^ It is therefore
of no importance even for the determination of the original readers of the
Epistle (against Grotius) ; nay, it cannot even be said that in it was retained
an old tradition in regard to the determination of the Epistle or the activity
of the devil, which is found in the Gnostics. — the First Epistle of John are too strongly
For the rest, it must not be denied that the attested, both by their whole character and
difference in character between the Apocalypse by the external evidences, as writings of the
aud tbe other writings of John is considerable Apostle John, to allow their genuineness lo
enough to allow the view, that it does not be denied on account of the Apocalypse.
proceed from the same author, to appear not » Against this fact the strange remark of
unjustified. While that difference, on the oue Bede in the Prologus super septem epistolas
Bide, is often not sufficiently estimated, oa the canonicas (printed in Care's Script. Eccles.
other side, with the object of bringing it more nist. Liter.) ¦ "Multi seriptorum ecclesiasti-
clearly out, the mistake is not infrequently eorum, in quibus est S. Athanasius, primam
made, of not keeping strictly enough within ejus (i.e., Joannis) epistolam scriptam ad
the truth. But, as raay hold good of the Parthos esse lestantur," cannot of course
origiu of the Apocalypse also, the Gospel and be regarded as of any weight.

462 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
of John (Baumgarten-Crusius), and still less that it " refers to its designa
tion for Farther and Central Asia, as formerly Persian lands " (Guericke
as above, p. 487). It might no doubt be possible that Augustin thereby
expressed his own conjecture (Michaelis), but theu he would hardly have
proceeded with the Epistle under this designation without further remark.
Perhaps a mistake is at the bottom of it. Some critics assume a corruption
of the reading in Augustin. Serrarius conjectures as the original reading:
ad Pathmios ; Wetstein : ad sparsos ; Semler : adpertius. Most explain the
words as originating in a Greek expression; quite arbitrarily, Paulus
(Heidelb. Jahrb., 1832, p. 1071) thinks that they might have arisen through
misunderstanding of a probable inscription npbg ndvrag ; it is more natural
to have recourse, with most critics, to the Greek word napBivog, and to
regard ad Parthos as originating in npbg napBivovg. Whiston considers npbg
napBevovg as the description of the yet uncorrupted, virgin condition of the
churches of John ; according to Hug's view, the inscription of some
manuscripts of the Second Epistle, npbg ndpBovg (i.e., npbg napBevovg'), was
transferred to the First Epistle, because that designation was regarded as
unsuitable to the Second Epistle, Gieseler (Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch., 4th
ed., vol. i., Pt. 1, p. 139, note 1), with whom Liicke (3d ed., p. 52 f.) agrees,
supposes that the inscription of the First and of the Second Epistle was :
iniaroDi 'ludvvov rov napBivov; this is certainly not found in any codex of the
Epistle, but the inscription of the Apocalypse in Cod. Guelpherit. (30 of
Griesb.) runs thus: roi dyiov . . . dnoardlov Kal eia-yyeliarov napBivov ijyanyuivov
iniaryBlov '\udvvov Beoloyov. The simplest supposition might be that Augustin
misunderstood the remark of Clemens Alex. (Opp., ed. Potter., Fragm.
1011) that the Second Epistle was written Trpdf napBevovg (ad virgines) —
(see Introd. to Second and Third Epistle, Sec. 1), — and then by mistake
referred it to the. First Epistle. — But whatever be the origin of this ad
Parthos, it can be of no value as an historical evidence for the original place
of destination of the Epistle. As John, according to the unquestionable
accounts of antiquity, after the death of the Apostle Paul, took up his place
in Asia Minor ; and as in Asia Minor, as the Epistle to the Colossians
testifies, heretical tendencies of Gnostic character already appeared at an
early date, — it is to be assuraed, with raost critics, that the Epistle was
originally directed to the churches of Asia Minor; not to one of them
(according to Hug, to that of Ephesus), but as iniaroly iynvKlmy (Oec.) to
several (perhaps to " John's Ephesian circle of churches," Liicke), perhaps
to all of those to which the personal activity of the apostle extended, for
the Epistle would otherwise certainly touch at individual circumstances of

INTRODUCTION. 463
the single church.^ It is clearly quite arbitrary to regard as its place
of destination, with Benson, Palestine, or, with Lightfoot, Corinth.
2. The Place of Composition. — This is just as little stated in the
Epistle as the place of destination ; the prevailing opinion, that John wrote
it in Ephesus, has at least nothing against it. Hug and Ebrard, who
regard it — though without tenable reason ^ — as a companion work of the
Gospel, suppose that it was written with the latter in Patmos; but even
though the statement is found in some of the later Fathers, that the Gospel
was written in Patmos, the more ancient tradition names Ephesus as its
place of composition ; comp. Meyer's Comment, on the Gospel, 3d ed., p. 39.
— Hug appeals also to 2 John 12 and 13, 3 John 13 : unwarrantably, how
ever, for a want of writing materials is here in no way hinted at.
3. The Time of Composition. — That tha Epistle belongs not to the
earlier, but to the later apostolic time, i.e., the time after the departure of
the Apostle Paul, is not to be disputed. The whole tone in which it is
written leaves us in no mistake as to the advanced age of the writer ;
moreover, the somewhat prolonged existence of the Christian churches to
which it is addressed is brought out pretty clearly ; and there is the
additional fact that the antagonism between Jewish and Gentile Christi
anity is no longer the subject, and that the Docetism therein opposed points
also to the later time. With this corresponds the tradition, according to
which it was written by John during his sojourn in Ephesus. As, however,
the tradition states indeed the end (Iren., Haer., iii. 3, 4, in Euseb. iv. 14:
'ludvvov 6i napapeivavrog avrolg pexpi roi Tpa'iavov xpovuv), but not the beginning
of this sojourn, the time of composition of the Epistle is only indefinitely
fixed by it. This much only seems to be indisputable, that John first
settled in Ephesus after the death of the Apostle Paul, in order from there
to direct the churches of Asia Minor, especially those in the proconsulate ;
against which, the view that he remained in that city until the destruction
of Jerusalem (Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, VII. p. 202 ff.) lacks any
certain ground. The composition of the Epistle befo7-e the destruction of
Jerusalem, Grotius, Hammond, and Diisterdieck infer from chap. ii. 18;
Ziegler, Fritzsche, and others, from the circumstance that that event, so
important for Christianity, is not mentioned in the Epistle. But ii. 18
refers, indeed, to the nearness of the parousia of Christ, not, however, to
1 Hilgenfeld thinks that the Epistle was even If the apostie mentions no specific limit
addressed to the whole of orthodox Christen. of his sphere of readers, suoh a limit is
dom. In so far as 11 did not beloug to the nevertheless Indicated in the warning refer-
Immediate sphere of the apostles labors; but ence to the Docetan heresy.

464 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the fall of Jerusalem ; that even later the time reaching to the parousia of
Christ was considered as the " last time," is shown by the passage in Ignat.
Ep. ad Ephes. c. xi. : iaxaroi naipol loinbv a'laxvvBupev, ipoByBupev ryv puKpoBvplav
roi GeoC, iva py yplv eig leplpa yevyrai. And that the destruction of Jerusalem
is not raentioned, raight be explained in this way, that when the Epistle was
written a considerable time might have already elapsed since that event,
Most commentators place the composition in the time after the destruction
of Jerusalem, especially because, as they think, the state of the churches
brought out in the Epistle was such as was appropriate only to the end
of the apostolic age. But even this conclusion is at least not quite sure,
since even already Paul in his later Epistles had to take notice of moral
indifferentism, nay, Antinomianism and Gnostic error; ' and the disturbing
influence of the Judaistically-inclined Christians on the Gentile-Christian
churches must be regarded as already overcorae by the labors of the Apostle
Paul, inasmuch as even Paul himself does not corabat it in his later Epistles
in the way in which he had done in the earlier ones. — Thiersch appeals,
in favor of a comparatively late appearance of the Epistle, to this, that
according to chap. ii. 19, "the separation of the heretics from the Christian
community was already accomplished," though they still, according to the
Epistle of Jude, revelled at the Agapae ; but on the one hand, it is to be
observed that from the former passage it is not clear how far a formal
separation was at that time already carried out (the church-forming activity
of the heretics belongs flrst to the second century) ; and, on the other
hand, it is at least uncertain whether John and Jude had to do with
heretics of the same kind, for the one class are depicted as Antinomians,
the other as Docetans. — Ebrard fixes as the tirae of composition the year
95 aer. Dion. His reasons for this are : the Epistle was written at the same
time as the Gospel, as its dedicatory epistle ; the Gospel was composed at
Patmos; John was at Patmos in the 15th year of Domitian. But these
. premises lack any certain foundation. — By most critics it is considered
that the Epistle was written later than the Gospel, and that the latter was
written after the destruction of Jerusalem. As regards the flrst part,
appeal is made in its favor especially to this, that in the Epistle reference
is sometimes made to the Gospel. This, however, is not the case; there is
(as Bleek, as above, also remarks) in the whole Epistle not a single passage
1 Still It cannot remain unobserved, that the end of the apostolic age; and that tbe
the heretics, against whom Paul directs his heretical error which tho Ignatian Epistles
polemic, are never accused of Docetism ; that contend against was of specially Docetan
Cerinthus probably appeared only towards character.

INTRODUCTION. 465
which assuraes the written Gospel as known''- (Guericke). It would seem
on the face of it more probable that John, induced by the false teachers,
first wrote the Epistle to warn and exhort the churches intrusted to him,
and then wrote the Gospel for entire Christendom, as " a consecrated record
of the historical foundation of salvation " (Thiersch), than that he flrst
wrote the latter and then the former. ^ Some of the very passages by which
it is thought the dependence of the Epistle upon the Gospel can be proved
seem to tell in favor of this. The passage, 1 John i. 1-4, appears, when
compared with Gospel i. 1 ff., to be not the later, but the earlier one, since
the apostle in the former is still striving to give to the idea the suitable
expression, whereas in the latter he has already found it. None the less,
compared with the expression 6 loyog oapf iyivero, is the expression 'lyaoig
Xpiarbg iv aapxl ilylvBug the more indeflnite, and therefore no doubt the
earlier. Besides, the affinity of the two works permits the conjecture that
the dates of their composition do not lie far from one another (corap. Bleek,
p. 590; differently Briickner), especially as this appears not ouly in their
peculiar character, but also in the form, to such an extent that not ouly
do they both begin with a prooeraiura containing the same ideas, but even
the thoughts expressed at the close completely correspond with each other :
Gospel of John xx. 31 : raira 6i yiypanrai, iva niareiayre, bn 'lyaovg ianv 6
Xpiarbg, 6 vidg roi GtoC, nal iva niareiovreg t^uyv exvre iv ru ovdpart airov, and
1 John V. 13 : raira iypaipa iplv, tva e'ldyre, on ^uyv aluvtov ixere oi marevovreg eig
rb ovopa roi vlov roi Beoi. — As regards the second point, no exact proof can
indeed be drawn from the Gospel itself in favor of its composition after
the destruction of Jerusalem ; ^ but, on the other hand, there lies in this no
ground to contradict the old tradition, that John wrote it in his mora
advanced age. It is also not improbable that it was not already circulated
in the lifetime of the apostle ; at least, it is more natural to suppose that the

1 Reuss (as above, p. 218) rightly says : applied to the relation of the Gospel and tha
" For us the Epistle requires the Gospel as a Epistle of John.
commentary ; but ae it once had this in the ' From the use of ^v in the passages of the
oral instruction of its author it is not thereby Gospel of John xi. 18, xviii. 1, xix. 41, nothing
proved that it is the later." can be inferred, as it is entirely explained " by
2 What Thiersch (,'Fersuch f. d. Eritik, the context of historical narrative;" on the
p. 79) says generally : " As a general rule, the other hand, however, the etrri, John v. 2, does
proposition may be proved to be historically not prove that Jerusalem was not yet destroyed
true, that the writings of momentary design, at the time when John wrote tliis, for John la
to which most of the Epistles belong, appeared his account of the past event might represent to
earlier, and tho writings of permanent design, himself that which no longer existed as still
especially the Gospels, later," — may also be existing (comp. Ebrard, Comment, p. 40 ff.).

466 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
21st chapter was added to it immediately on its appearance than later,
when it had already become a possession of the Christian churches. * In
that case, John composed the Gospel as a legacy for the age after his death ;
hence, however, it would result as to the Epistle, that it also was written only
in the advanced age of the apostle, although before the Gospel. True, the
apostle nowhere says that his readers have heard the gospel //'om him, though
he often speaks of their acquaintance with it, nor is there any passage
from which it could be proved that he himself already labored among them
in person; but from this the conclusion cannot be drawn, that "John
composed the Epistle when he took up his place in Asia Minor after the
death of the Apostle Paul, and indeed in order, by means of it as a pastoral
Epistle, to introduce his labors there " (1st ed. of this comment.) ; for, on
the one hand, such a purpose of the Epistle is nowhere hinted at; and, on
the other hand, that circumstance might arise from this, that the Epistle
was not exclusively destined for those churches in which the apostle had
already labored by oral preaching, but was equally for others which he had
not yet visited. On impartial consideration of all points, it appears probable
that the Epistle of John was written in the last quarter of the apostolic age.
1 Ewald (Gesch. Israels, vii. p. 217 ff.) circulated earlier than it, immediately after
thinks that the Gospel was written about tbe its composition. For this, however, there is
year 80, but was iirst circulated later, shortly quite as little certain proof as there is for the
before the death of John, with the supple- opinion that both the Gospel and the Epistle
mentary chap. xxi. added by him ; and that of John were composed ouly at the special
the First Epistle was writteu later than the urgency of his friends.
Gospel, though independently of it, but was

CHAP. I. 467

luidvvov i-TTUTToX-t] a'.
In A, B, the superscription runs: 'ludvvov (B: -avov) a; in other codd.,
iniaroly 'ludvvov npCiry. The Kec. is 'ludvvov roi dnoardlov iniaroly KaBoliKfi
npury.
CHAPTER I.
Ver. 1. Instead of iupoKupev, Tisch. 7 has, both here and hereafter, and iii. 6,
iv. 20, accepted the form iop. ; on this form, see Ph. Buttmann, Ausf. griech.
Gramm., 1819, §84, Anm. 11, note; Al. Buttmann (p. 56) says: "The form
iooana, it is true, is often presented by the MSS., but has not, up to the present,
been received by the editors." — Ver. 2. Cod. B has, before iupanapev, the
relative b, perhaps, through mistake, from vv. 1 and 3; even Buttm. has not
accepted it. — Ver. 3. dnayyillouev ipiv]. Kec, according to G, K, and several
others, Copt, and others, Oec, Aug., Beda (Tisch.); according to A, B, C,
however, with Lachm. , a icai is to be inserted after dnayyellopev, — it seems to
have been omitted as superfluous on account of the following iva Kal vpelg; in
Thph., it reads: koi 'dnayyellopev ipiv; so also X, in which it reads: dxyK. kuI
iupuK. Kol dnayyellopev. — Ver. 4. Instead of ypdfopev yplv (Rec, Tisch., Lachm.,
ed. maj.). A*, B, S read ypufopev ypelg (Lachm., ed. min., Buttm.); Liicke, De
Wette, Ewald, and Reiche consider this reading as unsuitable ; differently
Briickner; the change of ype'ig to vplv can, at any rate, be more easily explained
than that of iplv to ypelg. — ^ s;ap" vpuv]. Kec, according to A, C, K, several
others, Copt., etc. (Tisch.); Lachm., following B, G, S, and others, reads ypuv;
hardly correct. — Ver. 5. kuI ianv avry, according to B, C, G, K, X, and others,
Syr., Thph., Oec. (Tisch.), instead of the Kec, kuI airy ianv, according to A,
Vulg. (Lach.). The Rec. is an alteration of the original reading; comp. ii. 25,
iii. 11. — dyyelia], so Lachm. and Tisch. (approved of by Reiche and most modern
commentators), following almost the entire number of authorities. A, B, G, K,
by far the most of the others (Thph. in Comm. Oec), instead of the Rec,
inayyelia, which only a few codices support ; perhaps C ; according to Lachra. , C
has dyyella; according to Tisch., inayyelia. Paulus considers dyyella as an
explanatory gloss from iii. 11; so De Wette; but, on the contrary, inayyelia is a
correction of dyyella, which, otherwise, does not appear in the N. T., except in
iii. 11, where, however, the same correction is found. The original reading of
K is dnayyeliag; later it corrects this to dyyella; others have corrected it to uj-ain;
ryg inayyeliag. Socin thinks that inayyelia should be read. — Ver. 7. Instead of
dllyluv. A* (?), Toi., some lat. codices, Aeth., Clem., Didym., Tert. read airov,
which is plainly a correction, as dllyluv does not seem conformable to the train
of thought; see the comment, on this passage. After 'l)?ffoi), the Rec, following
A, G, K, and others, Vulg., etc., has Xpiaroi, which is wanting in B, C, S;

468 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it; Reiche would have it retained; the addition
is easily explained, comp. v. 3. — Ver. 8. Instead of ovk ianv iv yplv (Rec, after
B, G, N, Vulg., etc.), Lachm. and Tisch., following A, C, K, and others, read
iv yplv oiK ianv ; perhaps the former is a correction, after ver. 10. — Ver. 9.
Instead of KuBapiay is found, in A, h., some min. (perhaps also in C**), KoBap'wet,
which, however, has too little evidence to be regarded as genuine.
Vv. 1-4. Introduction of the Epistle : Statement of the subject of the
apostolic proclamation and of the aira of this writing. The construction
of the periods is not carried out conformably to rule. The relative clauses
beginning with & forra the object of a verbal idea, which is just as littie
directly expressed as the subject which belongs to it ; nay, raore, with nepl
the period that was begun breaks off, and with koi y l^uy (which refers back
to the preceding ryg Cuyg) begins a new period consisting of two principal
members. In the new sentence, ver. 3, the object, expressed in relative
form, is placed before the finite verb, which contains in itself the subject.
The parts of the sentence in ver. 1, beginning with 6, are co-ordinate with
each other ; it is grammatically impossible to take the first part as subject,
and the following parts as the predicate of it.i As far as regards the sense,
it is unsuitable to find in ifyldipyaav the verb which governs the preceding
objective clauses (Paulus: "that which was, etc., which we have seen, our
hands also have touched "). The governing verb cannot be contained in
ver. 2 either, for the verbs of this verse have their object near them in ryv
t^uyv ryv aiuviov. As o iupdnapev k, dKyKoapev, ver. 3, shows itself to be the
resumption of the objective clauses of ver. 1, — only in more abridged form,
— it is to be assumed that dnayyellopev, ver. 3, is the verb which was before
the apostle's mind from the very beginning, from the immediate addition of
which he was, however, prevented by feeling himself constrained to define
the object raore precisely by the appositional addition nepl roi loyov ryg (uyg.
As he was then induced by ryg Cuyg to the parenthetical continuation in
ver. 2, he made the finite verb follow after he had first resumed the object.
Ver. 1. 5 yv utt' upOTc]- This thought, indefinite in itself, is more fully
explained by the following relative clauses to this extent, that " that which
was from the beginning " is identical with that which was the subject of
perception by the apostle's senses. But from the appositional adjunct nepl,
K.r.l., and the parenthetical sentence, ver. 2, it follows that John understands
by it the loyog ryg iuyg or the (,uy, and more exactly the ^uy y aiuviog, which
was with the Father and was manifested. That the apostle, however, does
not thereby mean a mere abstraction, but a real personality, is clear, first
frora 6 dKyKoapev, k.t.I,, and ifavepijBVi and then especially from the comparison
with the prooemium of the Gospel of John, with which what is said here is
in such conformity that it cannot be doubted that by 6 j^v an' dpxyg the same
subject is meant as is there spoken of as 6 loyog. The neuter form does
not entitle us to understand by o yv, k.t.1., with the Greek commentators
Theophylact, Oecumenius, and the Scholiasts, the " pvarypiov of God ; "
1 Cappellus : " Quod erat ab initio hoo ipsum est, quod audivimus," etc.

CHAP. I. 1. 469
namely, bn Qebg itpavepuBy iv aapKi, or even, with Grotius, the " res a Deo
destinatae." Nor does De Wette's interpretation, "that which appeared in
Christ, which was from eternity, the eternal divine life," correspond with
the representation of the apostle, according to which the ^uij not only was
manifested in Christ, but is Christ Himself. By far the greatest number of
commentators interpret 6 i/v dn' dpxyg correctly of the personal Christ. The
reason why John did not write 6g (comp. chap. ii. 13 : rdv utt' ipxvOt but o,
cannot, with several commentators (Erdmann, Liicke, Ebrard i), be found
in this, that John means not only the person in itself, but, at the same time,
its whole history, all that it did and experienced, for yv avr' dpxyg (synonymous
with iv dpxy ^v. Gospel of John i. 1) is decisive as to the historical
manifestation of Christ. Nor is it, with Dusterdieck, to be found in this,
" because only this forra (the neuter) is wide and flexible enough to bear, at
the same time, the two conceptions of the one . . . object, the conception
of the pre-mundane existence and that of the historical manifestation," for
then each of the four o's would have to embrace in itself both these ideas,
which, hojpever, is not the case. But neither is it, with Hofmann (Schrift
beweis, ed. 2, I. p. 112), this : " because John just wants to describe only the
subject of the apostolic proclamation as suck ; " for this is not the order,
that John first describes the subject of the apostolic proclamation orily
generally, and " then " defines it more particularly, but b yv dn' dpxyg is itself
the raore particular defiriition of the subject of the proclamation. Nor,
finally, is it, with Weiss, this, that the apostle does not here mean the Son
of God Himself, but " that which constituted the eternal being of the Son,"
namely, life; for, on the one hand, nothing here points to a distinction of
the Son and His being, and, on the other hand, it is not the being of the
Son which the apostle heard, saw, handled, but the Son Himself. The
neuter is rather to be explained in this way, that, to the apostle, Christ is
" the life " itself ; but this idea in itself is an abstract (or general) idea ^
^ Liicke gives this explanation of the apx^? has plainly in his view the Logos not
neuter: that John, '• seeking to express briefly in, but be/ore, its historical manifestation. —
the idea of the Gospel, combines in this idea When Erdmann appeals. In favor of John's
the person of Christ, as the incarnate Logos, reference of the neuter to persons, to the
with His whole history and work." — Erdmann passages, Gospel of John iii. 6, vi. 39, xvii. 2,
first remarks : " Forma neutrius generis gene- 1 John iv. 4, it is, on the other hand, to be
rails notio e contextis atque Joannis diceodi observed that in all these passages the neuter
ratione facile definienda, ad personam Christi serves to combine the single individuals into a
aperte referenda significatur, nee solum vis et whole that embraees the entirety of them,
ampiitudo sententiae apte notatur, sed etiam which permits of no application to the use of
illo 6 quater repetito orationis sublimitati o here.
concinnitas additur;" and then continues* 2 Ebrard rejects this explanation as quite
" Praeterea meminerimus, non solum Christi erroneous, and as being in contradiction with
personam per se spectatam hic designari, the acceptation of the verse otherwise. The
verum etiam omnia, quae per vitam humanam rashness of this judgraent is clearly evident
ab eo perfecta et profecta, acta, dicta, etc., frora the question which he adds ; " Where
A670V in eo apparuisse comprobant. ^ With would there be even the shadow of a gram-
this the opinion of Ebrard agrees, that 6 shows matical reference of o to ^oj,)??" for a
that the person was not to be proclaimed qua gramraatical reference is not and could not
person, not as an abstraction, but in its his- be' asserted. — Bertbeau's objection (Liicke,
torical manifestation. Against this, however, Comment., ed. 3, p. 206 f.), that "we would
it is a valid objection, that John in o ^v an' still have to regard the neuter form aa a

470 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
True, the apostle could have written even og instead of the neuter ; but as
Christ has Ilis peculiar importance just in this, that He is the Life itself
(not merely a living individual), — comp. Gospel of John xiv. 6, — and as
John begins his Epistle filled with this conception, it was more natural for
him to write here b than bg.^ By yv uir' dpxyg, John describes Christ as Hini
who, although at a particular tirae He was the object of perception by sense,
has been from all eternity ; the imperfect j?v, however, does not express the
pre-mundane, eternal existence, but is explained in this way, that John
speaks historically, looking backwards from the point of time at which
Christ had becoine the object of sensuous perception. — dn-' dpxyg has
frequently in the N. T. its more particular determination along with it, as
in Mark xiii. 19, 2 Pet. iii. 4 : ryg Krlaeug, or it is easily discovered from the
context, as in Acts xxvi. 4. In the passage 2 Thess. ii. 10, dn' dpxyg
corresponds to the expression used in Eph. i. 4 : npb Karaj3o?^ijg Koapov, and is
identical with the German von Ewigkeit her (from all eternity), for which
elsewhere is said: dno ruv aluvuv (Eph. iii. 0), or similar words. Here it is
explained by the following yrig 'yv npbg rbv naripa. This existence of Christ
with the Father precedes not merely His appearance in the flesh, but also
the creation of the world, for according to John i. 2, the world was made by
Hiin; dpxv is therefore not the raoraent of the beginning of the world, as it
is frequently interpreted, but what preceded it (comp. ^lej'er on Gospel of
John i. 1) ; Christ was before the world was, and is therefore not first from
the beginning of the world, as Christ Himself in John xvii. 5 speaks of a
(ioja which He had with the Father npb roi rov Koauov e'lvai.^ The apostle
sa3's here dn' apxyg, because he is looking back frora the time when Christ by
His incarnation became the object of sensuous perception (similarly Ebrard).
It is incorrect either to change the idea of e'lvui djr' dpxyg into that of exist
ence in the pre-determined plan,^ by which the words are strained, or to
interpret dpxy here of the beginning of the public activity of Christ in the
flesh (Semler, Paulus, and others), by which the connection with ver. 2 is
ignored.- — b dKyKoapev, k.t.I.]. By the four sentences the apostle expresses
the thought that that which was from the beginning was the subject of his
own perception ; the main purpose of thera is not " to put forward that
which is to be proclaimed about Christ as absolutely certain and self-
experienced (Ebrard), but to bring out and to establish the identity o£ that
wliich was frora the beginning with that which was manifested in the flesh,
wliile he has at the same time in his view the Docetan heresy afterwards

general comprehensive expression which re- ^ That the Ao-yo? before the creatiou of the
teiH both to tliat to which the apostle ascribes world was immanent in God, but by the ac-
a primeval existence and to that which be haa complishment of the act of creation hypo-
heard with his eai-e," etc., is not tenable, for it statically proceeded from God (see Meyer ou
rests on the unproved assumption that 6 Aoyo? Gospel of John i. Ij, is an idea nowhere
T. C. is not identical with that which the apostle hinted at in Scripture.
regarded as the object of the aKovnv, k.t.A. 3 Grotius : " Eae res, quae apostoli sensibus
1 It is unsuitable to explain the o, with suis percepere, fuerunt a Deo destinatae jam
Braune, in this way, that the apostle, "iu ab ipso mundi primordio."
^iew of the mysterious sublimity, . . . wrote
iu a flight and feeling of indefiniteness."

CHAP. I. 1. 471
mentioned by him.^ By the 5 with which these sentences begin, nothing
else, therefore, is meant than by the 6 of the first sentence, namely, Christ
Himself (Briickner, Braune) ; and here the peculiar paradox is to be
noticed, which lies in this, that the general (i) H^uy) is represented by the
apostle as soraething perceived by his senses. It is erroneous to understand
by each of these 6's something different; thus by the first (with dKyKoapev),
perhaps the testimony which was expressed by God Himself (Grotius), or
by the law and the prophets (Oecumenius), or by John the Baptist (Nicolas
de Lyra), or even the words which Christ uttered (Ebrard) ; by the second 6
(with iupoKopev), the miracles of Christ (Ebrard) ; by the third o (with
iBeandpeBa), tot et tanta miracula (Grotius), or even "the divine glory of Christ "
(Ebrard) ; and by the b which is to be supplied with iipylMifiyaav, the resur
rection-body of Christ (Ebrard), or, still more arbitrarily, the panes multi-
plicatos, Lazarum, etc. (Grotius) ; all these supplementary ideas, which
have originated in the incorrect assuraption that John refers here to "the
various sides of Christ's appearance in the flesh," and which can easily be
confounded with others, are utterly unjustified, since they are in no way
hinted at in the context. John does not mean here to say that he has
experienced this or that in Christ, but that he has heard, seen, looked upon,
and handled Christ Himself. In the succession of the four verbs there lies
an unmistakable gradation (a Lapide ; gradatim crescit oratio) ; from dKyKoa
pev to iupi'iKupev a climax occurs, in so far as we are more certainly and
immediately convinced of the reality of an appearance of sense by sight than
by hearing; the addition of the words roig bipBalpolg ypuv is not, as Lorinus
already remarks, a nepiaaoloy'ia or parroloyla, but there is in them " plainly an
aiming at emphasis, as, to see with one's own eyes" (Winer, p. 564 [E. T.,
607]). The third verb iBeaadpeBa must not here be taken — with Bede and
Ebrard — in the sense of spiritual beholding, by which it is removed from
the sphere to which the other verbs belong; it is rather of similar significa
tion with iupdKopev — in this respect, that, equally with the latter, it indi
cates the seeing with the bodily eyes. The difference does not, however, lie
in this, that BedaBai = perd Baiparog kui Bdpjiovg dpdv (Oecumenius, a Lapide,
Hornejus, etc.), or ~ attente cum gaudio et admiratione conspicere (Black-
well), by which significations are put into the word which are foreign to it
in itself, but in this, that it has in it the suggestion of intention.^ It is to be
remarked that IBeaai'ipeBa is closely connected with the following koI al x^lp^C
ijpuv iipyldijiyaav ; for 6 is not repeated here, and both verbs are in the aorist,
so that they thus go to forra a sort of contrast to the two preceding clauses;
whilst uKovetv and ipfv express rather the involuntary perception, BedaBai and

' Erdmann: "Jam ettam clarum fit, cur experientia fundatam ab insolentia illorum
tam diserte . . . testem oculatum et auritum vindicet."
se Bignificare studeat, scilicet primum ut veri- ^ This force LUoke brings out correctly :
tatem et certitudinem verbi aeternl in Chiislo " Where the expressions are used as con-
manifestati sensibu°que humanis perceptl ad- trasted, op/^v signifies altogether the objective
versus coutrariam pseudodoctorum doctrlnam seeing, but 6eaa6ai the designed, continued
. . . confirmet, deinde ut sui praeconii apos- beholding."
tolici fidem et auctoritatem in ipsa sensuum

472 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
fylaipeiv express acts of voluntary design, — the former the purposed behold
ing, the latter the purposed touching of the object in order to convince
one's self of its reality and of its nature. As both these parts of the clause
remind us of the words of the risen Christ: ijiyla^yaare pe koI ibere (Luke
xxiv. 39), it is not improbable that John had in his mind the beholding and
touching of the Risen One, only it raust be manitained at the same time
that Christ was one and the same to him before and after His resurrection.
In this view, the transition from the perfect to the aorist is naturally
explained in this way, that the apostle in the last verbs refers to single
definite acts.' The plural dKyKoapev, k.t.I., is not plur. majestaticus, but is
used because John, although he speaks of himself as subject, still at the
same time embraces in his consciousness the other apostles as having had
the same experience as himself. — nepl rov loyov ryg ^uyg is not dependent on
any of the preceding verbs ; ^ it is also inadmissible to explain nepl here,
with Bruckner, in the sense in which it is used in 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 12, namely,
in order to mark the transition to something new; not only the .sense, but
also the position of nepl, prohibits this signification ; it is an additional clause
in apposition to the preceding descriptions of the object, by which it is
stated to what S yv utt' upx^i, 3 dKyKoapev refers. The expression b loyog ryg
iuyg may be in itself a description of the Gospel (so it is taken by Grotius,
Semler, Frommann, Ewald, De Wette, Briickner, Dusterdieck, etc.), and rfjg
^uyg either gen. obj. (1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. v. 19), or gen. qualitatis (Phil. ii.
16 ; Gospel of John vi. 68) ; but this acceptation is refuted, flrst, by the
preposition nepi, instead of which the simple accusative would have had to
be put, for John proclaimed not about the gospel, but the gospel itself
(dnayyillopev, ver. 3) ; then by the close connection of this additional clause
with the preceding objective clauses; and, finally by the analogy with the
prooemium of the Gospel of John (ver. 1 : ^i; dpxy ^v b loyog ; ver. 4 : 'ev airu
t;uj) yv). These reasons, which are opposed to that explanation, are in favor
of the explanation of Hornejus : hic non denotatur sermo s. verbum evangelii,
sed Christus, which is also that of most commentators. The opinion of
Dusterdieck, that " as John (according to ver. 2) considered the Logos itself
as 7 (uy, y (uy aiuviog, the loyog in the composition b loyog ryg (uyg cannot again
be the personal Logos," is overthrown by this, that ryg (uyg in itself is not
the name of a person, but of a thing, just as in Gospel of John i. 4, (ui; in
t Diisterdieck rightly reraarks that the John there emphasize the former and here
change of the tenses does not here originate the latter, If this were not to be explained by the
in an indefiniteness. His view, however, distinction which we have stated?
" that the transition frora the perfect to the ^ S. G. Lange construes irepl with the first
aorist is to be explained In this way, that sentence : '6 ¥iv a-rr' apx^?> so that the sense
the nearer the apostle's discourse comes lo that results to him, explaining an-' apxrts =
the deflnite historical force of iixxfepueri, the " from the beginning of His ministry," and
more it takes the historical forra," is unten- elvai = ^^ fieri, to happen," is; "that which
able, for aKaveiv and 'op^v stand to etfiavepioQiri happened from the beginning in conuectiou
in no other relation thau QeaciQai and \p-f}\a4>eZi>. with our Lord, the Word of life"! — Not less
BrUckner opposes the view indicated above, extraordinary ie the explanation of Paulus:
being of opinion that the perfect emphasizes " what in general was thus in regard to the
"the certain effect," the aorist, on the other Logos; what we, in regard to Him, heard,
hand, " the historical event; " but why would saw, etc., that also. In regard to Him, these

CHAP. I. 1. 473
the clause iv airu (ur) >]v, and rb ipug r. dvBp. in the clause kuI y (uy yv rb (pug r.
diiBp. Even b loyoc is the name of a thing; not, indeed, that we should
understand by it, flrst, " the word, which was preached by the apostles,"
and then, because this has Christ as its subject, " Christ Himself," as
Hofmann (Schriftbew., ed. 2, I. p. 109 ff.) thinks, for the subject of a word
cannot be called the 'Word (comp. Meyer on Gospel of John i. 1) ^ but b
loyog signifies, in the province of religious thought, /car' lioxyv, the Word by
which God expressed Himself 'ev dpxy- Though John of course knows that
this Word is the personal Christ, yet in this expression in itself the idea of
personality is not yet brought out. This being the case, we will have to
understand the compound phrase, 6 'loyog ryg (uyg, first of all as the name of a
thing :^ so that John in this description, which in itself does not express
the idea of personality, does not mean to say that that which was from the
beginning, and which he has heard, etc., is the person that bears the name
0 loyog r^c CuWi but only defines more particularly the object, previously
stated indefinitely, in so far that it is the Word of life, i.e., the Word which
has life in it (whose nature consists in this, that it is life), and is the source
of all life (Braune) ; comp. John vi. 35, viii. 12. In agreement with this,
Weiss says (p. 35) that 6 loyog is here, as in the prologue of the Gospel, a
description of the nature of the Son of God; but the assertion is incorrect,
that the genitive ryg (fjyg describes the Word as " the Word belonging to life,
necessary for life," in favor of which he appeals incorrectly to the ex
pressions uprog ryg (uyg (John vi. 35, 48) and pyuara (uyg aiuviov (John vi. 68).
This explanation is refuted by this, that with it y (uy, ver. 2, must be taken
in a different reference from that which ryg (uyg has here.' — The personality
of this Word, which has already been indicated by 5 oKyKdapev, k.t.1., is still
raore definitely expressed in ver. 2 by the twofold eipavepuBy, in which S
iupuKupev Kal dKyKoapev of ver. 3 finds its explanation. That in the expression
A loyog ryg (uyg the emphasis lies on ryg (uyg, is clear from this, that in ver. 2

hands of ours have touched," namely, " the very beginning, is the Word in which life Is,
huraan body which here contained Him as or the Word of Life.
the Logos come down from above." 2 Even Hofraann has rightly recognized
^ The identification of the Ideas: KTqpvyv.a this, although only from his inadmissible in.
(= Adyos) and 6 KTjpvo-o-dfiei'os, by which, terpretation of the idea 6 Adyo? : " Aa 6 Ad-yos
without enlargement, the former could be put is the word of the apostolic proclamation,
where the latter is meant, is rightly opposed 6 Aoyos ry^ iwrj^ is also not meant to be
by Luthardt (Das £v. Joh., p. 284 ff.) ; and the proper narae of a personal being, but the
what Hofmann, in the 2d ed. of his Schrift- description of a thing, which requires the
beweis, brings forward for his defence, does genltival attributive rijy ^wijff in order to be
not refute the statements of Luthardt. But described according to Its peculiar essence."
even the explanation of Luthardt, that Christ s This incongruity is concealed by Weiss iu
is called the Word because He " is the Word this way, that he takes ^w^ = " knowledge of
which God has spoken to the world, because Qod ; " but it is not thereby removed, for
He is Ihe final and last word of alt earlier Weiss uuderstands by ^w^s here " owr kuowi-
words of God to the world," cannot be justi- edge of God," but by rj ^lu^ in ver. 2, on the
lied, because, on the one hand, Jn the simple other hand, the knowledge of God which the
expression Adyo? nothing Is less indicated than Logos has. — It is arbitrary for Ewald to
that He is the final word, and, on the other explain Adyos by " subject," and, accordingly,
hand, it raust be acknowledged that Christ, ntpi tou Ady, t^? ^wv}? by "in regard to the
not raerely from His incarnation, but from the subject of life."

474 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN
it is not b Idyog, but jj (uy, that is the subject. The construction with nepl
is thus explained, that the apostle does uot thereby mean to speak of the
object of his proclamation, which he has already stated in o yv dTr' dpxyg, k.t.I.,
but only desires to add a more particular description of it, for which reason
also it is not to be regarded as dependent on dnayyellopev. Braune incor
rectly takes it as " a new dependent clause parallel in its matter to the
succession of relative clauses, which along with the latter comes to an end
in dnayyellopev.'' Ebrard groundlessly finds in this construction the sug
gestion, tiiat John considers as the object of his proclamation, not Christ
"as an abstract single conception ' (!), but "his concrete historical experi
ences of Christ."
Ver. 2. Without bringing to an end the thought begun in ver. 1, from
the exact continuation of which he has already digressed in nepl roi loyov r. (.,
the apostle in this verse expresses the double thought, that the life was
manifested, and that this eternal life which was with the Father and
was manifested, has been seen and is declared by hira ; so that in this, both
0 yv utt' dpxyg and o uKyKoauev, how the former, namely, could have been the
subject of sensuous perception, flnd their more particular determination.
This whole verse is of course parenthetical ; but that it is not regarded by
John as mere parenthesis (contrary to Dusterdieck) is clear, partly from the
connecting kuI, and partly from this, that in ver. 3 it is not 5 yv utt' dpxf/it but
only 0 uKyiibapev, k.t.1., that is resumed, while the former is fully dealt with
in this verse. — kui is not put for yup, but is copulative, " not rfisjunctive,
but conjunctive' (Liicke); the thought with which it is connected is that
which lies in fi yv djr' dpxyg, that the life, before it became subject of percep
tion, was, as it is afterwards put, npbg rbv naripa.''- — 7 (urj itpavepuBy]. Instead
of a relative, the noun is repeated, as is peculiar to the diction of John ;
y (uy instead of 6 loyog ryg (uyg, because the emphasis, as has been already
remarked, is on (uy, is analogous to Gospel of John i. 4, where also, after it
is said of the loyog, 'ev airu (uy yv, it is not 6 Ijoyoc, but y (uy, that is the subject
of the following sentence. ^ It is plainly incorrect to understand by (u-y the
doctrina tie felicitate nova = evangelium (Semler), or, with others, 'Cr\% fel'ic'itas
of believers; but neither is S. G. Lange's explanation, according to which
(ur = " auctor vitae, the Life-giver," sufficient, for Christ is so designated
not merely according to the operation that proceeds fi'ora Him, but, at the
same time, according to the peculiarity of His nature. ^ — iipavepuBy. In

' Ebrard wrongly conceives the logical commentators. Frommann mentions as such:
relation thus, that by /cat the thought that is " the truth, perfection, or the living and happy
latent in the preceding verse, '*tbat Christ character of being;" Kostlin: " the raighti-
was of eternal being, but became incarnate ness, blessedness, and endlessness of being."
and was manifested," is coyfi7'med. If we keep to the scriptural mode of concep-
2 Groundlessly Bauragarten-Crusins asserts tion, the chief elements appear to be "con-
that ^wij " has here more inner, spiritual mean- sclousness, activity, and happiness;" true
ing than in Gospel i. 14;" this is to mistake activity is only where consciousness is, and
the meaning which the word has in that happiness is activity which is not disturbed or
passage. hindered by any opposition. — Weiss wrongly
s Tbe chief elements which are contained infers from John xvii. 3, that by ^ujtj is to be
in the idea imi) are differently stated by the understood only the knowledge of God, and

CHAP. I. 2. 475
what way the ipavipuaig took place, is taught in chap. iv. 2 and John i. 14.
In this way, that the life which was in itself hidden appeared in the flesh or
became flesh, did it becoine perceptible by sense, subject of the dKoitiv, ipuv,
K.r.l, Ebrard rightly remarks : " The aup? yiyveaBai indicates the objective
event of the incarnation as such ; the ifavepuByvai, the result of it for our
faculty of perception." — koI iupdKapev Kal,K,r,l.]. The object that belongs
to the verbs is ryv (uyv rijv ati>viov ; according to De Wette, Briickner, and
Dusterdieck, this object is only attracted to dnayyillopev, and the object is to
he supplied to both of the first verbs from what precedes ((uy) ; but the two
ideas pnprupoiuev and dnayy. are thereby unduly separated from each other ;
there is more in favor of supplying only an airyv with eupiiKupev (1st ed. of
this comm., "Myrberg), by which the idea of this verb is significantly brought
out: "the life was manifested, and we have seen it; " but as in the context
even this construction is not indicated, it is better, with most commentators,
to connect ryv (uyv r. aluv. also with iupimapev. — By iupdKapev the apostle
brings out that the eternal Life which was made manifest and perceptible
was seen by himself ; the verb uap-vpnvuev, which signifies the utterance of
that which one has personally seen or experienced (comp. Gospel of John
xix. 35; also 1 John i. 34, iii. 32),^ is directly connected with this, and
thereupon first follows the more general idea dnayyillopev ; Baumgarten-
Crusius incorrectly refers paprvpoiuev specially to iipavepuBy, and dnayyillopev
to iupdKapev, with the assertion that "the former two have more objective,
the latter more subjective ineaning." ^ By ipiv, dnayyillouev is put in refer
ence to the readers of the Epistle ; hence it does not follow, however, that
it is to be understood only of the writing of this Epistle, and is therefore
simply resumed by raira yodipouev in ver. 4 ; but the former is the more general
¦ idea, in which the more special one of the writing of the Epistle is embraced ;
the ypuipeiv is a particular kind of the dnayyelleiv.^ Ebrard incorrectly sepa
rates the two by referring dnayyellopev to the written Gospel of John, and
yndipopev to this Epistle. — ryv (uyv rfjv aiCiviov']. The noun is here put for the
pronoun airyv, not only in accordance with John's usual raode of expression,
but because the idea of (uy was to be more particularly defined by a'luviog.
Baumgarten-Crusius erroneously explains y (ufj y aiuviog by "bestowing
higher, unending life ; " rather the (uy, which Christ is, is marked by aiuviog
as such as yv dn' dpxyg, or, still more comprehensively, as such as, though by

it is erroneous for him to maintain that tj ^wtj i.e., testes Dei tura voce, tum vita, turn pas-
does not here signify Christ Hiraself, but " His si07ie, morte et martyrio."
peculiar knowledge of God," which He pos- 2 Myrberg's explanation also: " /noprupia
sessed even before His <^a>/6p(«j(ns. The relative est espertae veritatis simplex confessio, qua
clause TJTiy fjv jrpo9 rbv narepa, which is con- homo sibi ipsi potius, quam aliis consulat :
nected with r'riv ^at'Tjv rrjv aiMvtov, is opposed aTTay-yeAta annuntiatio veritatis cognitae, qua
to this interpretation; inasmuch as it shows aliis potius, quara sibi ipsi provideie studeat,"
that here rj ^tuij i} aiojvios, aud ju^t as much ij is without gramm.atical justification.
^uirj, is to be considered as the same subject » Bengel's interpretation: " Testimonium,
which John in the prooemium of the Gospel genus; species duae: unnujitiatio et scriptio,'
calls 6 Ad-yo?, and of which he says there that annuntiatio poult fundamentum, scriptio su
it l)V npo<; rov ®eov. pcraedificat," is inadmissible.
1 Incorrectly, « Lapide . " Quasi raartyres,

476 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the incarnation it entered into time, is in itself nevertheless without meas
ure of time, eternal (Bruckner ; similarly Braune). It is true, the idea (uij
a'luvwg has elsewhere in the N. T. admittedly another signification, but this
does not justify the explanation of Calvin: ubi secundo repetit: annuntiamus
vitam aeternam, non dubito quin de effectu loquatur, nempe quod annuntiet : bene
ficio Christi partam nobis esse vitam. De AVette's explanation also, that y (uy
ij aiuviog is an idea " which hovers in the middle between the eternal true
life which is to be appropriated by believers (John xvii. 3), and life in
Christ, so that the first is to be considered in closest connection with
dnayyillopev, but the second in reference to the reflexive yng yv," can so much
the less be held correct as the simple and clear thought of the apostle is
thereby rendered complicated and obscure. Of that which the believer
possesses in Christ there is here no mention at all, but only of Christ Him
self ; and, besides, that ij (uij y aluv. is to the Apostle John not merely a
subjective, but also an objective conception, is proved by chap. v. 11. —
TjTig yv']. yng is more significant than the simple y, inasmuch as it raakes the
twofold relative clause as containing a confirmation of tbe preceding state-
rnent : iupdKapev, k.t.1., t^v (uyv ryv aiuviov.^ — The imperfect ijv also does not
here indicate the intemporal existence, but is used in reference to iipavepuBy :
ere the (urj appeared, it was with the Father. — Trpdg rbv naripa ; corap. Gos
pel of John i. 1 : npbg rbv Qeov. The preposition npog is often combined with
the accusative in the N. T. in the sense of "with ; " comp. Watt. xiii. 56,
xxvi. 55 ; but npog with the accusative differs from npog with the dative in
this, that it describes being with one another not as a mere being beside one
another, but as a living connection, a being in intercourse with one another
(so also Braune) ; but we put too much into it, if we find the relationship
of love directly expressed by npog.^ John does not raean to bring out that the-
(uTj (Christ) was connected with the Father in love, but that Christ already
was, before He appeared (iipavepuBy) ; before He was iv ru Koapu with men.
He was therefore in heaven with God, and, indeed, in lively union with
-God as he afterwards entered into a lively communion with men. Quite
erroneously, Socin, Grotius, and others understand the expression of the

t The statement of Ebrard is Inapposite, aiiiv,, not merely in simply relative manner,
that by tjtl? the subjeet-raatter of the relative but in such a way that the extension of the
clause is elated as an already (frora ver. 1) predicate contains at the same time an explau-
known and at the same time acknowledged atory and confirmatory reference;" but it is
element of the substantive idea on which the difficult to admit that by virtue of ^rts the itai
relative clause depends. The right view seems etpavepthdr) ijv.lv iu its close connection with
to lie at the base of the explanation of Sander : ^v np, t. nar. is raarked as the connecting link
"1 declare unto you eternal Ufe, even ae such which unites to o V air' ap^. the accessory
as," etc. ; at least, it is not touched at by the elements 6 dK-qnoav-ev, k.t.A.
remark of Ebrard In opposition : "The mean- - Besser: "The Word was with God, re-
ing of John is plainly this, that the i. aitt)!/. Is lated to the Father in filial love." Still less
really and in itself one which was with the justifiable is Ebrard's explanation: "The^iuij
Father and was raanlfested lo us, and is by no was a life flowing forth indeed from the bosom
means represented as such merely fn the of the Father, but immediately returning to it,
proclamation of it." Diisterdieck rightly floating m the inner circulation of the life of
says: "By iJTts the twofold extension of the God"C!).
predicate is connected with the subject ij i. ij

CHAP. I. 3. 477
concealment of the (u^ a'ldiv. in the decree of God. From the fact that John
here calls God in His relation to Christ nar-yp, it follows that the sonship of
Christ to God is to be regarded not as first begun with His incarnation, but
as pre-mundane. — kcH iipavepuBy yplv is not a mere repetition of what has been
already said, but in yplv a new element is added, by which iupdKapev and o
uK-yKoapev, k.t.1., ver. 1, find their explanation.
Ver. 3. In the opening words of this verse, 6 . . . uKyKoapev, the object
expressed in ver. 1 is resumed, and the governing verb, which was there
already in the apostle's view, is added. The drift of this verse does not,
however, lie in this, but rather in the final clause : tva, k.t.1. While John
first meant to state what was the subject of his proclamation, namely, that
it was that which was from the beginning and was perceived by his senses,
— which he then more particularly defined in ver. 2, — he now wants to
state the purpose of this proclamation of that subject. In this lies the
reason why the object is resumed in abridged form, namely, in the form
which the immediately preceding words (kuI iipavepuBy ypJv) suggested. The
0 yv (in-' dpxyg, and similarly the 6 iBeaadpeBa, was not to be resumed ; the
former, because it has been fully dealt with in what follows it ; the latter,
because it was not here in the purpose of the apostle once more to bring out
the reality of the sensuous appearance of Him who was from the beginning.
That iupdKapev is placed before dnyKoapev, in which no artificial parallelism is
to be sought for (against Ebrard), resulted naturally frora the interweaving
of iupdKapev into ver. 2 (De Wette). — ditayyillopev kuI vplv; with dnayyil
lopev, comp. ver. 2. — kui (see the critical remarks) distinguishes the readers
either from others to whom the apostle had declared the same thing
(Spener, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Myrberg,
Braune, etc.), or from John (along with the other apostles). Lorinus: vos
qui nimirum non audistis, nee vidistis, nee manibus vestris contrectastis verbum
vitae ; so also Zwingli, Bullinger, Ebrard. The latter interpretation would
be preferable, if the fallowing kuI before ipelg, to which the same reference
is to be attributed, did not thereby become pleonastic. — 'iva kui ipelg Koivwvtav
exyre peB' ijpxjv]. Many commentators, as Socin, Bengel, Russmeyer, Spener,
and others, supply with Koivuvlav as enlargement : " with God and Christ ; "
without adequate ground ; the enlargement of the idea Koivuv'ia is peB' ijpuv
(Baumgarten-Crusius, Dusterdieck, Braune), whereby, however, John does
not mean " the apostles and other Christians " (De Wette), but himself,
although including the other apostles, who have also seen and heard the
Word of Life. This '(cowuw'a is self-evidently the fellowship of spirit in
faith and love, which was brought about by the apostolic preaching. — ixeiv
is neither to be explained, with a Lapide, by pergere et in ea (koivuvIo) prof-
cere et confirmari, nor, with Fritzsche, by " to acquire ; " the word is rather to
be retained in the signification peculiar to it ; the apostle simply indicates
the having fellowship as the aim of the apostolic proclamation, quite apart
from the question as to how the hearers of this are related to that.. — koI y
Koivuvia be y yperepa, k.t.I,]. By ij Koivuvla y yperipa most commentators under
stand " the fellowship which the apostles and the believing hearers of their
proclamation have with one another," and, according as j or iari is supplied,

478 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
have thus defined the thought of the verse, that the apostle states of this
mutual fellowship that it either should be or is a fellowship with the Father
and the Son. But as this view necessitates a scarcely justifiable enlarge
ment of the idea Koivuvia (y Koivuvla ij yperipa jJ [or ean'] noivuvia perd ,¦. narp.,
K.r.l.),^ the explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius, who resolves y koiv. ij ijueripa
into ijuelg ixopev Koivuvlav perd r, narp., deserves the preference (so also Ewald,
Braune) ; taking this explanation, the Koivuv'ia meant here is not identical
with that mentioned before, inasmuch as the distinction is marked both by
the difference of the subject, ipelg and ypelg (which is contained in yperipa),
and that of the object, peB' ypuv and perd roi warpog. According to this accep
tation, the apostle here brings out that he (along with the rest of the apos
tles) has fellowship with tbe Father and with the Son, and, no doubt, in
order to intimate by this that his readers, if they have fellowship with him,
are thereby received with hira into that fellowship. It is at all events
incorrect, with Augustin, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Ebrard, etc., to supply ;/
with this sentence. In opposition to it are: (1) the .structure of the sen
tence, for if it were dependent on Iva, the verb could not be omitted;'^ and
(2) the tliought, for as the apostles are already in fellowship with the
Father and with the Son, it cannot be the aira of their dnayyel'ia to elevate
the fellowship which exists between thein, and those who accept their word,
into fellowship with the Father and with the Son. Therefore it is iari that
must be supplied, as Erasmus, a Lapide, Vatablus, Hornejus, De Wette,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Dusterdieck, Myrberg, Ewald, Braune, etc-, have
rightly recognized. The conjunction kuI . . . be, which is pretty often found
in the N. T., is used when the idea which is connected with a preceding one
is at the same time to be contrasted with it ; "the introduction of something
new is thereby intimated " (Pape, see on Kal . , , 6i). Whether it be the
connection or the contrast which is to be the more emphasized, this particle
is never used to resume au idea with the view to a further expression of it.
This usage therefore also proves that by y koiv. tj yperipa it is not the previ
ously mentioned Koivuvla peB' ijpuv, but another fellowship, nameljr, the fel
lowship of the ijpelg, i e., of John and the other apostles (not with one another,
but) with the Father and with the Son, that is meaut.^ God is here called

1 This enlargement is involuntarily raade stronger is the ellipsis in Rom. iv. 16) ; thus
by the coraraentators — although they do not even with Paul, who so frequently expresses
mention it; thus by LUcke, when he explains; only the outliiics of the thought, the sub-
" that ye may have fellowship with us: but junctlve of the substantive verb is almost never
(not with us ouly, but — ye know) our fellow- omitted; how much less can it. be held as
ship with o:ie another is also t/iat with the oraitted iu a construction of periods otherwise
Father and wilh the Son;" similarly by quite conformable to rule, in the second part
Diisterdieck; Ebrard also says: "It is the of the dependent clause I
purpose of John in his aTrayyeKia, thut his s For the usage of Kat . . 6e, comp.
readers may cntei- into fellowship with the JIatt. xvi. 18 ; Mark iv. 36 ; Luke ii. 35 ;
disciples, and that this fellowship maj' have Acts iii. 24, xxii. '29; Heb. ix. 21; and in
its life-principle in the felloicsliip with the Gospel of John vi. 51, viii. 16, 17, xv. 27.
Father and with tbe Son." Liicke wrongly says that the particle is used
- The omission of eo-Tt very often occurs; for the more exact definition, expansion, and
on the other hand, 17 is vei'y seldom omitted in strengthening of a preceding thought, and that
the N. T., only in 1 Cor. viii. 11 and 13 (still there is contained in 11 an " ai the same time "

CHAP. I. 4, 5. 479
naryp in relation to rov viov airoi. — The full description of Christ as roi vloi
airoi -iyaoi Xpiaroi serves to bring out the identity of that which was from
the beginning with Him who became man.
Ver. 4. After stating the subject and aim of his apostolic proclamation,
the apostle intimates specially the aim of this Epistle. — koI raira ypdipopev
iplv. By Kol, ypdipopev is made co-ordinate with dnayyillopev, the particular
with the general, not the composition of the Epistle with that of the Gospel
(Ebrard). raiia refers neither merely to what precedes (Russmeyer, Sander),
nor merely to what immediately follows (Socin), but to the whole Epistle
(Liicke, De Wette, Diisterdieck). With ypdipopev ipiv, comp. ii. 1, 12, v. 13.
The plural is used because John as an apostle writes in the consciousness
that his written word is in full agreement with the preaching of all the
apostles ; all the apostles, as it were, speak through him to the readers of
the Epistle. — 'iva Ij xupd vpuv ?} nenlypupivy. Comp. with this John xv. 11,
xvii. 13. The aim of the Epistle is the nlypuaig of joy which it, as apostolic
testimony to the salvation founded on the ^avipuaig of the (uy aiuviog (ver. 2),
was to produce in its readers. De Wette groundlessly thinks that the effect,
namely, the perfected Christian frame of mind, is here put for the cause,
namely. Christian perfection. It is rather very especially the perfect xwd
(not merely "the joy of conflict and victory," Ebrard) that is the goal to
which the apostle would lead his readers by this Epistle. With the reading
ijpCm it is the xapu of the apostles — first of all of John — that is the goal,
and no doubt the joy which for thera consists in this, that their word
produces fruit in their hearers. ^ Incorrectly Ebrard : " If ypuv is right, then
the apostle resumes the mutual yperipa : that our (common) joy may be
full ; " for, on the one hand, yperipa is not mutual (embracing the apostles
and the readers), and, on the other, ypuv would have to be referred to the
ypelg that is contained in ypdipopev, but not to the more remote yperipa.
Ver. 5-chap. ii. 11.
After the apostle has indicated the fulness of joy, which is in the
fellowship with the Father and with the Son, as the aim of his Epistle, he
brings out in what follows, frora the point of view that God is ipug (ver. 5),
in opposition to moral indifferentism, the condition under which alone that
fellow.ship can exist.
Ver. 5. This verse contains no inference from what precedes (kui is
not = igitur, Beza), but the thought that lays the foundation for what
follows. — ianv airy y dyyelia, '' and this is the message;" ianv is here put —

or " not only . . . but also." It must also be of such a restriction (not so much ... as
held as erroneous when Diisterdieck says: rather), whodoes uotfeel that, if John wanted
"John has just spoken of a 'fellowship to express this thought, he would have had to
with us;' now he wants to expand this idea write not iifxerepa, but v[j.eTepa, or rather'
further; therefore he continues: 'and our auT») 5e Koivuivia?
fellowship ' — the new explanatory thought, i Theophyl. : rjixStv yap iiv.iv Koiviavovvnav
however, forms a certain autithesis to what n\eliTri\v exop-ev rrjv xapai* ripiiov, ^v rot? Sepiir-
was previously said : but our fellowship is not Tats 6 xatptdf triropeus ev ry tou MttrSoiJ aTToKri)pei
so much the fellowship with us as rather that ^pajSeuVei, xaipdi'Toji/ Kat toutiov ort rUtv noviuv
with the Father and with the Son." — Apart aurwi/ ctiroAauouo-t.
from the fact that Kai . . . U has not the force

480 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN
contrary to its usual position, comp. ii. 25, iii. 11, 23, iv. 3, etc. — before
airy "in order to mark the reality of the message" (Braune) ; airy here —
as elsewhere also — refers to what follows : on b Qebg, K,r,'A., by which the
subject-matter of the raessage is stated. Calvin incorrectly, following
the reading inayyelia : promissio, quam vobis afferimus, hoc secum trahit, vel hanc
conditionem habet annexam. — The word dyyella only here and iii. 11 (where,
however, it is also not unopposed) ; frequently in the LXX., 2 Sam. iv. 4;
Prov. xii. 26, xxv. 26, xxvi. 16 ; Isa. xxviii. 9 ; Jer. xlviii. 34. The reading
inayyel'ia is more difiicult with the meaning "promise;" yet this may be
justified in so far as every N. T. proclamation carries with it a promise. i
De 'Wette prefers this reading, but takes inayyelia, following the example of
Oecumenius, a Lapide, Beza, Hornejus, etc., — contrary to the constant usus
loquendi of the N. T., — in the signification: "announcement" (Lange:
' teaching"). — yv uKyKoapev an' airov, "from Him, fhat is, Christ." Instead
of liiro, it is more usual to have napd, comp. John viii. 26, 40, xv. 15 ; Acts
X. 22, xxviii. 22; 2 Tim. ii. 2. — airdg in the Epistle, not always (Paulus,
Baumgarten-Crusius) indeed, but mostly, refers to God, while iKelvog refers
always to Christ ; here it refers backwards to roi v'loi airoi 'I. Xp. in ver. 3 ;
Diisterdieck : " From Him, Christ, the Son of God manifested in the flesh
(ver. 3), whom the apostle himself has heard (ver. 1 ff.), has he received
the message about the Father.'' In favor of the correctness of this
explanation is also the following : bn 6 Qedg.^ — ical dvayyillopev iplv"].
dvayyilleiv is synonymous with dnayyelleiv, vv. 2 and 3, only that in dva the
idea " again ' is contained ; Erasmus : quod filius annuntiavit a patre, hoc
apostolus acceptum a filio renunciat.^ This dvayyillopev refers back with
peculiar subtleness to the preceding dyyella, and thus testifies to the
correctness of that reading (Dusterdieck). The subject is, as in vv. 2 and 3,
John and the rest of the apostles. To reduce their proclamation to the
word which they heard from Christ Himself serves to confirm its truth ;
comp. the combination of dKoieiv and dnayyelleiv in ver. 3. Ebrard wrongly
interprets this dvayyellopev also of the proclamation of John which occurred
in his Gospel, to which this Epistle is related as the concentrating develop
ment.^ — on 6 Qebg ipug imi]. ipug is inappropriately translated by Luther:
" a light ; " the article weakens the thought ; God is light, i.e., God's nature
is light = absolute holiness and truth (comp. chap. iv. 8 ; Gospel of John

' Spener : " Promise ; inasmuch as, in what cording to which, on account of the conjunctio
follows, a proraise is really involved. God is inter Deum et Christum (which Socinus,
not only a light in Himself, but to believers moreover, holds not as a conjunctio essentiae.
He is also their light. And that is the prom- but only as a conjunctio voluntatis et rerum
ise." aliarwm omnium), by avrov ie here to be
2 The use of this pronoun even where the understood equally God and Christ.
reference is obscure ia caused by this, that 3 Bengel :" Quae in ore Christi fuit avyeAia,
John does not think of the Father without eam apostoli avayyekXovtn ; nam ayye\iav ab
the Son, or the Son without the Father; the ipso acceptam redduut et propagant."
thought therefore remains essentially the same, * According to Ewald, Johu is here quoting
whether we refer it in the first instance to the a definite utterance of Christ; possibly, but
Father or to the Son; notwithstanding, how- not necessarily.
ever, the view of Socinus is unjustifiable, ac-

CHAP. I. 6. 481
iv. 24). 1 For the signification of the symbolical expression "light," corap.
especially Jas. i. 13, 17. — As God is ipug in absolute sense, so also all light
outside of Him is the radiation of His nature, as all love flows forth frora
Hira whose nature is dydny ; comp. chap. iv. 7 fl. — kuI OKorla iv avru oiK eariv
oiSepla]. The thought contained in the foregoing is emphasized by the
negation of its opposite, which is here expressed in the strongest manner by
OVK . . . oidepia, in accordance with John's diction (comp. chap. ii. 4, 18,
etc.). — oKor'ia : antithesis of ipug : siu and falsehood ; the same antithesis is
frequently in the N. T. ; comp. Rom. xiii. 12 ; Eph. v. 8 ff. ; 1 Thess. v.
4, 5. In opposition to the general prevalent explanation given here, Weiss
thus explains the sense of this verse : " God is light, i.e.. He has become
visible, capable of being known, namely, in Christ, who certainly proclaims
this truth ; there is no more any darkness in God at all, i e., no part of His
nature remains any longer dark and unknown ; He has (in Christ) become
completely revealed." This interpretation, to which Weiss is led by the
erroneous supposition that the idea ipCig has, in the N. T., no ethical
reference,^ is refuted both by the form of expression, which exhibits ipug
(just as uyuTr;?, chap. iv. 8) as a description of the nature of God, and also
by the train of thought, in so far as the truth expressed here forms the
starting-point for all the following ampliflcations — which bear on the ethical
relationship of Christians. Besides, the apostle would have insufiiciently
expressed the thought, as he would have left out the essential 'ev Xpiarij,
which Weiss unjustifiably inserts. John rightly puts the truth that God is
light, as the chief subject-matter of the dyyelia of Christ, at the top of his
development ; for it forms the essential basis of Christianity, both in its
objective and in its subjective subsistence ; in it there lies, as well as
judgment in regard to sin, so also salvation from sin by the incarnation and
death of Christ, as well as necessity of repentance and faith, so also the
moral exercise of the Christian life.
Ver. 6. Inference from ver. 5. He alone has fellowship with God, who
does not walk in darkness. — idv e'mupev]. The same form of speech (idv) is
repeated from verse to verse (only with the exception of ii. 2) until chap.
ii. 3 ; then appears the participle with the deflnite article : 6 leyuv, ii. 4, vi.
9; b dyanuv, ii. 10; b ptauv, ii. 11. — The use of the hypothetical particles,
especially of idv, is also found very often in the Gospel.^ On the first person
• The fulness of the references contained in knowledge and not to the ethical state, is so
these words, Lorinus states in the following much the more untenable, as Weiss himself
manner : " Deus lux est, quia clarissime se describes this knowledge as " the true knowl-
ipsum percipit, omniaque in se ipso, utpote edge of God, i.e., such that the entire spiritual
prima et ipsissima Veritas; quia summe bonus, life of man is absorbed in it, so that he is
ac summa et ipsissima bonitas; fidelis absque henceforth completely in God," or " in which
ullainiquitate, Justus et rectus, quia fons om- the object of cognition is received into the
nis lucis in aliis i. e. veritatis atque virtutis, whole spiritual life of man in such a way that
non solum illustrans mentem, docensque quid it becomes a force, inspiring and determining,
agendum sit, verum etiam operans in nobis, ut or ruling, the latter iu its totality." But even
agamus et sic radiis suis liberans mentem ab such a cognition must certainly be regarded as
iguorantiae tenebris, purgaus a pravitate an ethical act.
voluntatem.'' ^ eav is used — as "Winer says, p. 273 (E. T.,
2 The assertion that </>w5 refers only to 291) — with the idea of an objective posslbUIty,,

482 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
plural , Lorin us says : suam quoque in hac hypothesi personam conjugit, ut len ius
ac facilius agat ; better Liicke: "By the communicative and hypothetical
form, the language gains, on the one haud, in refining delicacy, and, on the
other, in more general reference and force ; " unsatisfactorily Ebrard : " The
flrst person plural serves only to express the general 'we.'" — on Koivuvlav
exouev per' airoi. See ver. 3. Fellowship with God forms the innermost
essence of all true Christian life. — koI 'ev rip oKorei nepinarupev. Comp. Gospel
of John viii. 12. iv ru OKorei neptnarelv is not raerely " not to know whither
we are going" (Luther), but to live in darkness, i.e., in sin, as our eleraent.
According to Weiss, who denies to the oKorog, as well as to the contrasted
Ipug, an ethical reference, it is = " to walk in the unenlightened state ; " but
is not this just the very state in which the life is ruled by sin ? — Bengel, for
more particular definition, rightly adds : aclione interna et externa, quoque nos
vertimus ; such a walking in darkness is all life whose principle is not the
love of God.^ — ipevSopeBa kuI oi noiovptv ryv dlyBeiav; for, ng KOivuvia ipurl npbg
OKorog; (2 Cor. vi. 14). fevbdpeBa expresses the moral objectionableness of
such a contradiction between the deed and the word. — The negative clause
is not a raere repetition of the same thought, but introduces along with it a
new idea : TpevSopeBa refers to einupev ; ov noioipev r, dl, refers back to iv r. ok,
nepinarupev ; for noielv ryv dl. is not merely = dlyBeieu (Eph. iv. 15), but
signifies the practice of dlyBeia in word and deed ; comp. John iii. 21, where
it is contrasted with ipavla npdaaeiv, and is used expressly of epya. In the
common interpretation, according to which it is = agere candide, sincere
(Cyprian, Theodorus, Socinus, Grotius, etc.), ryv dlyBeiav does not receive its
due force ; by the article the idea is specified in its complete generality and
objectivity : " the true," i.e., that which corresponds to the nature and will of
God (BrUckner, Braune), although it must be admitted that the general idea
is here used with special reference to the desirable conformity between word
and deed ; emphasis is thereby given to the fact that in the case mentioned
in 'edv, K.r.l., the alleged Koivuvla with God is practically denied. In De
Wette's explanation : " to do that which corresponds to the nature of Chris
tian fellowship," a meaning is given to the expression which is neither
indicated in the word nor in the train of thought.
Ver. 7. This verse does not raerely repeat in its antithetical form the
preceding thought, but contains also — as is peculiar to John's lively fertility
of ideas — an expansion of it. — idv Si iv ru ipurl nepinarupev is contrasted
not only with the preceding (idv) iv ru OKorei nepinarupev, but also with idv
einupev, on koiv. ix. per' airoi (so also Ebrard), thus : "if we do not raerely say
that we have fellowship with God, and yet at the same time walk in dark-
i.e., when the particular event is to be repre- o.f men, to the exclusion of the inner activity
sented simply as objectively possible, and the of life, is an unfounded assertion of Ebrard.
speaker does not want to express his subjective The commentators rightly point out that this
view of it (whether he considers it probable, -nepmarelv ev uKorei is diiferent from " the
desirable, etc. ). Arer(i«mno;i(?«iiir (Ebrard) failing and falling, through over-haste and
is not contained in it. weakness, in temptation and in conflict "
2 That in TreptTraTeti' there is a reference to (Gerlach) ; " it does not mean : still to have
the outward manner of life, is self-evident, but darkness in us" (Spener).
that it only signifies this, as visible by the eyes

CHAP. I. 7. 483
ness, but if we really walk iv ru ipurl.'' — iv ru ipurl nepmarelv is not "to strive
after likeness to God" (Liicke), but so to walk that the light (by which,
however, we are not, with Weiss, to understand only knowledge) is the
element in which our light moves ; this, however, is a life which does not
consist in striving after likeness to God, but which has this already as its
own, or which is an ixeiv Koivuvlav per' avrov with Him who is light. This
unity between walking in the light, and fellowship with God, is even more
clearly brought out by the following words : ug airdg ianv iv ru ipur'i]. ug,
because it is the same element in which the true Christian walks, and in
which God " lives and works " (Dusterdieck, Bruckner), inasmuch as the
Christian has become Be'iag Koivuvbg ipiaeug (2 Pet. i. 4). — airog refers back to
avroi, ver. 6, and is put for Qeog. The idea " that God is in the light," is the
same as this, " that God is light , " that which is the nature of God is also
the element of His life ; the expression used here is occasioned by the
preceding iv ru ipurl nepmarelv. Ebrard incorrectly explains : " God has
chosen for His habitation the spheres of the sinless, holy, and pure life
of the angels and those made perfect; " there is not the slightest hint at
such a conception in the context. As Weiss denies to the expression ipug
an ethical reference, and explains iv ru ipurl nepmarelv = " to walk in a
state of right knowledge," the clause i)g airdg ianv iv ru ipurl necessarily
causes him a difiiculty which he can only solve by the supposition " that an
idea similar to that in 1 Tira. vi. 16 was before the apostle's mind, and
that he institutes a parallel between the walk of the Christian in the
light of true knowledge, and the dwelling of God in the brightness of His
glory," in which it is plainly ignored that the second iv ru ipurl must neces
sarily have the same meaning as the first iv ru ipurl. — ian is contrasted with
nepinarupev ; the former is peculiar to God, the latter to men ; the former
(being) to Him who is eternal, the latter (walking) to him who is temporal.
— Koivuvlav ixopev per' dXlyluv]. Several commentators wrongly deviate from
the statement of the apostle, by interpreting as if " per airov " were used in
stead of per' dllyluv, as indeed the reading of some is (see the critical notes) ;
or by understanding, quite unsuitably, dllyluv of God and raen ; so Calvin :
quod dicit, societatem esse nobis mutuam, non simpliciter ad homines refertur, sed
Deum in una parte, nos autem in altera ; the sarae interpretation in Augustin,
Beza, Socinus, Hornejus, Lange, Spener, Russmeyer, Ewald, etc. De Wette,
it is true, interprets dllyluv correctly, but supplies " perd roi Qeoi," thus : " we
have fellowship one with another, namely, with God." Against this explana
tion are : first, that then John would not have mentioned the very leading
thought; and, secondly, that a tautological idea results from it (Liicke), for
a nepmarelv ev ru ipuri is only possible through the Koivuv'ia perd roi Qeoi, nay,
even is the necessary proof of it. The subject here is much rather the
fellowship of Christians with one another (Bede, Lyranus, Grotius, Wolf,
Bengel, Semler, Lucke, Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander, Sander, Diisterdieck,
Ebrard, Braune, Bruckner, etc.), and indeed quite generally; not, as Bengel
considers, so that the apostle and his readers (nos et vos) would be regarded
as the two parts bound together. The brotherly fellowship of Christians
with one another iv dydrnj presupposes therefore the walking in light, or in

484 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
fellowship with God, of which it is the necessary consequence. — M''ith such
a walk a second eleraent is, however, united, naraely, koI rb alpa 'lyaoi roi vlov
avrov KaBapl(ei ypdg dnb ndayg dpapriag. — rb aipa 'lyaoi is not a metonymical
expression for "the consideration of His death" (Socinus, Episcopi us, Gro
tius, etc.),i but the blood which Jesus (thus spoken of here as incarnate)
shed as an offering at his death ; or, the bloody sacrificial death of the Lord
(Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Braune). ^ — roi viov airoi is " not merely added as a
name of honor," but also not " to indicate the close connection between the
cause of God and Christ,'' as Baumgarten-Crusius says, bnt in order to bring
out the identity of the crucified One with the Son of God (so also the incar
nation of the Son of God) ; compare chap. v. 6 ; at the same tirae, however,
there lies in it an indication how the blood of Jesus can have the effect
which the apostle attributes to it (so also Ebrard). — KaBapi(ei ypdg dnb ndayg
dpapriag may mean either the cleansing from guilt, i.e., the forgiveness of
sins (Bede, Socinus, a Lapide, Calov, Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Erdmann,
Weiss, etc.), or cleansing from sin itself, its eradication (Liicke, Frommann,
Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Myrberg, Braune, Ewald, etc.), or, finally, both to
gether (Spener, Hornejus, Bengel, De Wette, Briickner). According to
ver. 9, where dipiivai rdg dpapriag and KaBapl(eiv dnb ndayg ddiKiag are placed
together, and thus distinguished from one another, the second view must be
regarded as the correct one,' as indeed the context also demands ; for, as
the fact that even the believer has still continually sin is in opposition to the
exhortation to nepmarelv iv ru ipurl, the apostle had to point out that sin
is ever disappearing more and more, and how, so that the walk which is
troubled by it may still be considered as a walk in light, and that in spite of
sin, there may exist a fellowship with God, who is light. As nepmarelv iv ru
Ipurl is given as the condition (not as the means, which the blood of Christ
is) of KaBap'i(ea6ai, and as the subject here therefore is not the change, wrought
by the blood of Christ, of man from a child of darkness into a child of
light, but the growing transformation of him who has already becorae a
child of light, the present KaBap'i(et is not to be turned into the preterite, but
is to be retained as the present; Spener: "He purifies us ever more and
more until the final perfect purity." Comp. Gospel of John xv. 2.^ — dnb

1 That the operation of the blood of Jesus be observed that in Scripture the ms expiandi
on us is to be regarded as conditioned by only is by no means ascribed to the blood of
faith, is evident; but there is no justification Christ; comp. 1 Pet. i. 18. In opposition to
in this for paraphrasing rb ai^a by " faith in the assertion of Weiss, that " we cannot
the blood." imagine how the blood of Christ should effect
2 It is unjustifiable for Myrberg to say: a deliverance from sin," it may be stated
" Quum hic sanguis nominatur, de toto opere that a forgiveness of sin which produces no
Christi Mediatoris, immo de toto Christo Deum deliverance from sin, is no true forgiveness;
nobis et uos Deo reconciliaute ac opus divinum comp. Tit. 11. 14. Forgiveness is here to be
in nobis operante cogitare debemus." associated with the thought only in so far as
2 Against Erdmauu's assertion: "Quum it is the necessary presupposition of that
notio aijLtaTog J. Christi in s. scriptis aeque ac deliverance.
mors ejus semper vim expiandi habeat atque * In what this purifying efficacy of the
idem quod tAacr^os significet (11. 2), etiam h. 1. aljaa 'Itjo-ou is founded, John does uot here
explatio ab apostolo designatur, qua sola fieri say; but from the fact that m ver. 9 the dt^t'evat
potest, ut peccata nobis condonentur," it is to ras ap-apria^ is put before the Kadapi^eiv, and

CHAP. I. 8. 485
nuayg dpapriag, "from every sin ; " sins are regarded as the single dark spots
which still continually trouble the Christian's walk in light. The Kai which
connects the two parts of the subordinate clause is explained by Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Beza, Lange, Semler, etc. = nam. Sander recognizes the
grammatical incorrectness of this interpretation, but is of opinion that the
second clause is to be taken as causal as the basis and condition of the first ;
but even this is arbitrary. According to De Wette, " kui connects directly
with the idea of fellowship the progressive and highest perfection of it ; "
but this view is founded on the incorrect assumption that the subject of the
first clause is fellowship with God. Ebrard thinks that John in these two
clauses together expresses the idea of Koivuvla with God, while he "analyzes
it forthwith into its two elements : the fellowship of believers with one
another, and the fellowship and participation in the divine vital power ; ''
but it is in the first place incorrect to describe the Koivuvia per' dlly'luv as an
element of the Koivuvla perd rov Qeoi, and in the second place the purifying
efficacy of the blood of Jesus can much less be regarded as an eleraent of it;
besides, Ebrard has clearly been induced to add the word " participation,"
through the perception that the idea of fellowship is quite unsuitable to the
second clause. While the Koivuvla perd tov Qeoi is manifestly pre-supposed
before the neptnaretv iv ru ipuri, these two clauses express rather the "double
fruit of our walk in light, of our living fellowship with God, who is light "
(Diisterdieck) ; but when John puts Koivuvla per' dllyluv first, he thereby
indicates that it is the sphere within which the purifying power of the blood
of Christ operates on each individual (Briickner, Braune). Besides, it may
be observed that the second clause is intended to point out the progressive
growth of Christian life, and cannot therefore suitably precede the first
clause. Ver. 8. Purification from sin presupposes the existence of sin even in
believers; the denial of this is self-deception. — idv einupev; as in ver. 6;
thereby is meant not merely " the speech of the heart " (Spener), but the
actual expression and assertion. — in dpapriav oiK ixopev]. The view of
Grotius,^ that this refers to sinning before conversion, and that dpapria there
fore means the guilt of sin, is rightly rejected by Liicke, Sander, etc. — The
question, especially of earlier commentators, whether dpapria is here original
sin (or sinfulness, as Weiss still thinks) or actual sin (pecc. actuale), desire
(concupiscentia) or deed, is solved by the fact that the idea is considered
quite generally by the apostle (so also Braune) — only, of course, with the
Christ in chap. ii. 2 is described as tXao-jtos, it procured." — When Frommann says, "The
follows, that according to John the purifying power that purifies from sin does not exactly
power is associated with the blood of Christ in lie in the blood of Christ itself, but in the
so far as it is the blood of atonement. Ebrard love of God, of which Christ in His bloody
Improperly separates the two elements from death is the most speaking token, and of the
one another, ascribing to the death of Christ existence of which He supplies the most
" the power of purifying our hearts from sin, unquestionable evidence," this is clearly an
because in Christ's death sin is condemned ; '* inadmissible twisting of the apostle's words.
and, on the other hand, " the power of making * " Habere peccatum, non est : nunc in pec-
atonement and obtaining forgiveness, because cato esse, sed ob peccatum reum posse fieri."
in Christ's death the debt was paid and mercy

486 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
exception of the sin spoken of in chap. v. 16. The first person plural ixopev
is to be noticed in so far as the having sin is thereby represented as some
thing that is true of all Christians. The expression apaprlav exeiv describes
in a quite general way the taint of sin ; only of the absolutely pure, in whom
no trace of sin exists, is it true that he dpapriav oiK ixet ; the relation of this
dpapnav exeiv to nepmarelv iv tu OKorei (ver. 6), in which the will of man serves
sin (or in which sin is the dominating principle of life), is therefore not that
of contrast (say in this way, that dpapriav ixeiv is a being tainted with sin,
where no act of will takes place),^ but is to be defined thus, that the latter
(nepmarelv iv ru aKorei) is a particular species of dpapr'iav ixeiv. Even though
as Christians, who are born of God, we have no longer sin in the sense that
nepm. iv ru oKorei is true of US, nevertheless we do uot yet cease to have sin;
if we deny this, if we maintain that we have no sin at all, then what John
says in the following words is the case with us. iavroig nlavupev; not =
" we are mistaken," which nlavupeBa would mean ; ^ but, as Sander explains,
" we mislead ourselves, take ourselves astray from salvation (or better, from
truth) ; " by that assertion, which is a lie (not an unconscious mistake), the
Christian (for the apostle is not here speaking of non-Christians) deceives
himself about the truth, for which he leaves no room in hiraself. Braune
rightly observes that iavrbv nlavdv emphasizes the self-activity, which the
middle with its passive form leaves in the background. — koI y dlyBeia iv yplv
nvK ianv is not a mere repetition of iavroig nlavupev, but adds to this another
new element. — ij dlyBeia, as in ver. 6, is neither = studium veri (Grotius),
nor = castior cognitio (Semler), nor even = uprightness, or truthfulness
(Liicke in his 2d ed.), or, as De Wette explains, "the veracity of self-
knowledge and self-examination ; "5 but truth in its objective character
(Liicke in his 1st ed., Baumgarten-Crusius, Diisterdieck, Bruckner, Braune).
Baumgarten-Crusius rightly says : " dlyBeia does not need to be taken in a
subjective sense, the subjective lies in ovk ianv iv yplv." The expressions
used here : iavr. nlavupev and ij dl. ovk. eanv 'ev ijplv, are not milder (Sander)
than the corresponding expressions in ver. 6 : ipevdopeBa and oi noioipev ryv
dlyBeiav, but stronger (Ebrard), since in iavr. nl. the self-injury, and in ij
dlyB, OVK ianv iv yplv the negation of possession of the truth, are more sharply
marked. Ver. 9. Not a mere antithesis of the previous verse, but an expansion of
the thought ; " there follows as conclusion not merely this, that we are then
true, but the incomparably greater and surprisingly glorious thought that
God then proves Himself actually towards us as the True, as the niarhg kuI
* Even Ebrard does not correctly state the mislead one's self,' " this is not at all to the
relation of the two expressions to one another, point, since it is not said that nKavairQai has
when he says that "in e^eiv apuaprCav man is always the meaning "to be mistaken," but
not in ap-apria, but afiapria is in man," for that the German "sich irren" [Engl, "to be
plainly he also who is in ap.aprta has this in mistaken"] is expressed in Greek not by
himself. nkavav eavrov, but by nkavatrBal.
2 When Ebrard, in opposition to this, re- ^ Ewald's explanation is also unsatisfactory:
marks that it cannot be asserted "that the "Truth about this relation of things, and
middle nkavaaSai means ' to be mistaken,' therefore easily about every other also."
and nkavav cavToi', on the other haud, ' to

CHAP. I. 9. 487
diKOiog " (Ebrard) . — 'edv opoloyupev rdg dpapriag iipuv"]. bpoloyelv does not mean
to recognize (Socinus : confiteri significat interiorem ac profundam suorum
peccatorum agnitionem),'- but to confess ; of course it is manifest that the
confession is not here spoken of as a purely outward act ; still, at the same
time, it is not sufficient to regard it merely as " an inward tact, which is
founded on the whole internal tendency of the raind " (Neander) ; it
is rather the real (even if not always vocal) expression of sins recognized
within and confessed to one's self ; here also it is the word in which the inner
life has to operate.^ — What are to be confessed are ai dpapriai ypCrv, i.e., the
sins of Christians, which are the particular manifestations of dpapriav ixeiv
(so also Braune) ; therefore the plural.^ — Ebrard righ,tly calls attention to
the fact that John here mentions, as the subject of the confession, not the
abstract dpapriav ixeiv, but rdg dpapriag, i.e., the definite, concrete, single sins
committed ; " the mere confession in the abstract that we have sin would
not have truth without the acknowledgment of the concrete particular sins,
but would shrivel up into a raere phrase." — nia-iog ian Kal dlKuiog^. It is true
God is both in Himself, He does not become so only when we confess our
sins ; but this confession is the condition on which He actually proves
Himself to us as n'larog Kal SiKOMg.* These two epithets are indeed not of the
same signification, but still, as their combination proves, of cognate meaning.
God is called niardg, inasmuch as He, as the promise-maker, also fulfils what
He has promised, Heb. x. 23 : niardg b inayyeildpevog ; Heb. xi. 11 ; especially
as He accomplishes in believers the promise of blessing, which lies for them
in the fact of their call, by conducting thera through manifestation of Hia
grace to the goal of their calling (according to Ewald, "inasmuch as He
keeps His promise already repeatedly given in the 0. T."), 1 Cor. i. 9: marbg
0 Qeog, bi' oi iKlyByre eig Koivuvlav roi vlov avroi ; X. 13 ; 2 Cor. i. 18-21 ; 1 Thess.
V. 24 : marbg d naluv ipdg, bg kuI noiyaei ; 2 Thess. iii. 3. marbg has this raeaning
here also, as results from the following Iva, k.t.I. Ebrard incorrectly calls
the reference of the faithfulness of God here to His promises and prophecies
an introduction of foreign ideas, and says " the subject here is faithfulness
to the nature of truth and light, akin to His own nature, and which prevails
in us, inasmuch as we confess our sins." — God is described as iiKauig in the
N. T., inasmuch as He, for the realization of His kingdom of grace, gives

1 Similarly Baumgarten - Crusius saj's : fit Deo admittunt ; Catholici etiam specialem
"ov.okoyeiv is not exactly to confess, but to requiruut. Respondeo: Johannem utramque
recognize, perceive, become conscious of, as exigere, generalem pro peccatis levibus,
opposed lo the einelv jtiTj exeiv aixapriav; " but specialem pro grambus.
it is just to einelv that oii.o\oyeiv is exactly ^ Even here Socinus, Grotius (Si fatemur
opposed only when it is taken in its natural nos in gravibus peccatis vixisse ante notitiam
signification. evangelii), and others understand atiapriai of
2 It is quite clear that confession to God is sins before conversion.
meant; when, however, Braune adds: "and * Semler's interpretation is not satisfactory:
indeed a confession so fervent and deep that it " Logice intelligendum est; nee enim in Deo
becomes public and regulated by the church," jam demum oritur nova ratio tanti praedicati,
he introduces an element which nothing here sed in his christianis succrescit nova cognitio
suggests. In genuine Catholic fashion a tante rei." The subject is not our perception,
Lapide says : " Quam confessionem exigit but the actual manifestation of God.
Johannes? Haeretici solam geueralem quae

488 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
to every one — without npoaunoly-ipla — what is due to him, according to the
righteous judgment of God, in proportion to the position which he occupies
toward God (or toward the kingdom of God), God being in this regarded as
the Judge. The idea of the righteousness of God and that of His judicial
activity are very closely connected ; God is 6 dUawg Kpiryg, 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; He
judges iv StKaioaivy, Acts xvii. 31 (Rev. xix. 11), or Smaiug, 1 Pet. ii. 23; His
Kpiaig is a Kpiaig diKala, 2 Thess. i. 5. The relation of the SiKaioaivy of God to
His judicial activity is found throughout in the N. T., even where the
former is the subject without the latter being expressly mentioned with it.
As the manifestation of the SiKuia Kpiaig of God consists in the righteous
distribution of punishment and of blessing, it follows that SiKuioavvy is
referred to not only where both of these are mentioned together (as in
2 Thess. i. 5 seq.), but also where only one of the two is spoken of. God
punishes as the S'lKuiog, but He blesses also as the S'lKaiog, no doubt in view of
the realization of His kingdom, which depends upon the good obtaining the
complete victory over the evil. Towards him who walks iv ru oKorei, God
shows Himself SiKaiog in that He KaruKpivei him ; towards him who walks 'ev
ru ipurl, by ever more and more removing frora him every thing that hinders
his perfect Koivuvia perd roi Qeoi (namely, both his consciousness of guilt, and
the dSiKia which still clings to him), and by finally permitting him to inherit
the perfect happiness which is prepared for those who love God (comp.
2 Tim. iv. 8). Here God is called SUatog, inasmuch as His purpose is
directed to allotting to those who, walking in light, confess their sins, that
which is suitable for them, namely, the blessing mentioned in the following
tva, K.r.l. The meaning of dUaiog is rightly stated by Baumgarten-Crusius,
Diisterdieck, Briickner, and Braune ; ^ on the other hand, it is incorrect to
refer SUaiog here to the punitive activity (Drusius : Justus, quia vere punivit
peccata nostra in filio suo), but also to explain it = bonis, lenis, aequus
(Grotius, Lange, Carpzov, etc.), for S'lKomg never has this meaning in the
N. T. ; it is here of cognate meaning with niardg,^ because the allotment of
blessing bestowed in accordance with the diKuioaivy of God has been promised
by Him, and is accomplished according to His promise ; yet it raust not
therefore be regarded as synonyraous with it (Hornejus : = in promissis
servandis integer). Following Rom. iii. 26, some coraraentators have here
interpreted it = Sikumv ; but this is so much the more unjustifiable, as that
very passage by the juxtaposition of the two ideas proves their different
meaning.' According to the Roman-Catholic view, mcrog refers to the

1 Ewald's explanation is unsatisfactory: irvvij, on account of the contrast with aBiieia,
according to which God is here called just, generally by " justice ; " but the former refer-
because He "knows well and considers that ence appears both in /xij izSlko? 6 ©eos 6 eTrt(^e'pa)i'
He alone is the Creator, whilst we are His rrjv bpyriv, and also in ver. 6 ttus Kpivel 6 ©eos
creation exposed to error and siu, and acts r'ov koitiiov.
according to this just consideration." s Not less inexact is it for Ebrard to say :
2 In the passage Rom. iii. 3-5, Trta-rts and " God manifests Himself towards us as the
SiKatoo-uvTj are also used as cognate ideas, but SUaios, inasrauch as He is not only just, but
even here in such a way that SiKaioirvvT) has also makes just," since Siicaiovv does not mean
not lost its reference to the judicial activity of " to make just." His assertion is also inap-
God; Meyer on this passage explains 6t«ato- propriate, that here and in Rom. 1. 17 to ill. 26,

CHAP. I. 9. 489
peccata mortalia, SiKatog to the peccata venialia.^ — iva uipy yplv rdg dpapriag]. tva,
not = "so that" (Castellio : ita Justus, ut condonet), has here (as in other
passages of the N. T.) not retained strictly its idea of purpose (hence not :
" in order that "), but it states what is the aim of the divine faithfulness
and justice to attain which these qualities operate on men ; Luther therefore
translates correctly: "that." De Wette's explanation, with which Braune
agrees, " in the divine faithfulness lies the law or the will of forgiving sins,''
is unsatisfactory, inasmuch as dipiivai, k.t.1., is not merely the will, but the
operation of the divine faithfulness and justice. — rdg dpapriag refers back to
bpoloyupev rdg duapriag, thus : " the sins confessed by us." The remission, i.e.,
the forgiveness, of sins is therefore, by virtue of the faithfulness of God, the
first result of the confession ; the second, John describes by the words : koI
KuBaplay^ ypdg dnb ndayg dSudag. Here the first thought is not repeated
epexegetically (Semler), or only in figurative manner (Lange) ; but the
words express the same thing as the corresponding words of the 7th verse,
with which the 8th and 9th verses are in closest connection (Diisterdieck,
Braune ; Briickner does not explain himself definitely) ; Ka8apl(eiv has here
the same meaning as there, and dSiKla (not = poena peccati, Socinus) is
synonyraous with dpapna ; they are two different naraes for the same thing ;
comp. chap. v. 17. ^ The order in which the two clauses that express the
redemptive operations of God are connected together (Myrberg : ordo
verborum ponit remissionem ante abrogationem), points to the fact that
purification takes place by means of forgiveness. — The context is quite
decisive in favor of regarding as the subject of marbg ian, k.t.I., not Xpusrog,
but (with Liicke, De Wette, Diisterdieck, Braune, etc.) 6 Qeog ; for even
though in ver. 7 the KaBapl(eiv is described as the operation of the alpa 'lyaoi
Xpiaroi, and in chap. ii. 2, 'I. Xp. is the subject, yet in this section o Qebg is
the principal subject; ver. 5, 6 Qeog; ver. 6, airog; even in ver. 7, roi' viov
" the justice of God appears as the source in the best attested Rec, iva is followed both
Hira from which His saving, sin-forgiving, and by the subjunctive first, and then by the in-
sin-overcoming action flows." This source is dicative ; but not to the passage John vi. 40,
rather God's aydnitj manifesting itself as xapts cited by Ebrard, where the indicative is not
towards the guilt of men ; there is a reference regarded as dependent on ti'a. On tf a with
to that in chap. ill. 24 of the passage in the indicative, corap. A. Buttmann's Gt-am-m.,
Romans, but here the source of the salvation p. 202 [E. T., 234]. Winer, p. 271 ff. [E. T.,
is not mentioned. — The interpretation of 289 f.].
Calov : " Justa est haec peccatorum remisslo s while Weiss also interprets both ex-
et ex justitia debita, sed Christo non nobis," pressions of the forgiveness of sins, he tries
and that of Sander: "The Lord is just, inaa- to repel the reproach of tautology by saying:
much as He remits the sin of the sinner who "If siu committed is regarded as a stain, it is
appeals to the ransom paid in the blood of quite correct that God forgives us the sin, and
Christ, because it would be unjust to demand thus purifies us from all unrighteousness, since
the payment twice," introduce references into by the very fact that God forgives it, sin hae
this passage which are foreign to it. ceased to exist before Him, and at the sarae
1 Suarez : "Fidelis est Deus, cum condonat time also to stain us ; " true though this may
poenitentibus peccata mortalia; Justus, cum be, however, it cannot serve to refute that
justis condonat venialia, quia, sc. justi per objection, for as rcadapt^eti/ in this sense is not
opera (I) poeniteutiae, charitatis, etc., me- the result of a(|>tei'at, but the former consists
rentur de condigno hanc condonationem." in the latter, both clauses express only one
2 The Rec. KaQapiirei corresponds to the and the sarae thought.
passage Luke xxii. 30, where, according to

490 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
airoi; the blood of Christ, therefore, is regarded as the means by which
God produces purification from sins. To hold, with Sander, that God and
Christ together form the subject,^ is quite as inappropriate here as in ver. 5
to understand by airov both together. Though, with John, God and Jesus
Christ approach very close to a unity, yet they are always distinguished by
him, and never represented as one subject.
Ver. 10. Not a repetition, but " a strengthening of ver. 8 " (Baumgarten-
Crusius). As ver. 8 is connected with the end of ver. 7, so is this verse
with ver. 9. — idv einupev as in ver. 8. — on oix ypuprrjKapev is substantially
synonymous with bn dpapr. ovk ixopev, only distinguished from it in this way
that the forraer describes an activity, the latter a state (so also Braune) ;
the expression used here is called forth by the plural rug dpapriag and the
idea y ddiKia (ver. 9), by which the sinful character is more definitely
specified as an activity than by dpapria in ver. 7. The perfect does not
prove that ypapryKopev is meant of sins before conversion (Socinus, Russmeyer,
Paulus, etc.) ; the subject here, as in all the verses before, is the sinning of
Christians ; for to deny former sin could not occur to a Christian.^ The
perfect is explained both by John's usus loquendi, according to which an
action lasting up to the present is often represented in this tense, and also
by the fact that the confession every time refers to sins previously committed.
— tpevaryv noioipev airov corresponds to iavroig nlavupev ; it brings out that the
Christian by the denial of his sin accuses God (airbv, i.e., rbv Qebv) of lying.
In noielv there lies, as Diisterdieck remarks, a certain reproachful bitterness ;
comp. John v. 18, viii. 53, x. 33, xix. 7, 12. This thought presupposes the
declaration of God that even the Christian sins, which ver. 9, niardg ian,
K.r.l., also suggests ; for if God has promised Christians forgiveness of their
sins on condition of their confessing them, the above declaration is thereby
made on God's side. — kuI 6 loyog airoi (i.e., too Qeov) oiK eanv iv yplv^. o 7Myog,
corresponding to the thought y dlyBeia in ver. 8, refers directly to the
preceding ipeiaryv, k.t.I. Lucke explains it correctly : " the revelation of
God, especially the gospel of Jesus Christ " (so also Briickner, Dusterdieck,
Braune) ; to understand by it (with Oecumenius, Grotius, De Wette, etc.)
especially the O. T., is forbidden by the train of thought, for the subject
here is not the sinfulness of man in general, but the dpaprdveiv of Christians.'

* In favor of conjoining Christ as the it is offered as a sacrifice tw @ew. Moreover, it
subject, Sander adduces the fact that just in is not meant by this that forgiveness and
the following chapter Christ is called St/catos; cleansing could not be ascribed to Christ quite
but in this he overlooks altogether the differ- as much as to God, only it does not follow
ent meauings which the word has in the two from this that 6 Xpto-rds is the subject here.
passages ; f or iu the verse before us StKato? is ^ Therefore it is also not correct to refer
used of a relation to men, but in chap. ii. 1 of yip-aprriK. to present and past, as Hornejus
the relation of Christ to the divine will; and explains: " Si dixerimus nos non tantum pee-
when Sander further says that in Heb. ix. 14 catura nunc non habere, sed nee peccatores
it is precisely stated of Christ that He purges unquam fuisse."
the consciences, this is incorrect, since to ai^a 3 This has been more or lees overlooked by
TOU Xpto-Tov is the subject there just as here in the commentators (even by Diisterdieck and
ver. 7; and there even more expressly than Ebrard), although it is also important for the
here God is specified as the author of the understanding of chap. ii. 1, 2. But John may
purification, for the at^a r. Xp. purges because with justice assume that the word of God

CHAP. I. 10, 491
Ebrard interprets 6 loyog r. 9. as the " self-proclamation of the nature of
God, which has taken place both in the verbal revelations of the O. and
N. T. and in the revelations of deeds," so that even the loyog of Gospel of
John i. 1 is to be regarded as included ; but from the fact that the elements
mentioned here are very closely connected, it does not follow that that idea
has here, or anywhere else, this extensive signification. The words ovk ianv
iv yplv are erroneously explained by Baumgarten-Crusius : " we have given it
up, or, also, we are not qualified or fit for it ; " it means rather : " it is not
vividly imprinted in our hearts " (Spener) ; it has remained external to us,
inwardly unknown.
denies the absolute sinlessness of Christians, napaKKrum is an essential element for be-
since — apart from the fact that even the lievers, which presupposes their having and
O. T. does not depict the SiKatot as perfectly doing sin.
holy — in every evangelical announcement the

492 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.

CHAPTER II.
Ver. 2. Lachm., according to A, B, Vulg., has put ian before 'ilaapdg.
Instead of pbvov, B has pbvuv, which, no doubt, is only to be regarded as a
mistake. — Ver. 3. The original reading of X is ipvld^upev, instead of rypupev;
but it was afterwards corrected. — Ver. 4. A, B, K, al,, Clem., Thph., etc.
(Lachm., min., Tisch. 7), read on after liyuv; it is wanting in C, G, K, al,
(Tisch. 2); Lachm., maj., has on in brackets. It is possible that 'on was, in
later times, omitted as an interruption. Ki has, with y dlijBeta, the addition: roi
Qeoi, — Ver. 6. ovrug beford nepmarelv (Rec. following C, K, K, al. pl., Copt,
• etc., Thph., etc., Tisch.) is uncertain; A, B, al., Vulg. (Lachm.), omit it; per
haps it was inserted to emphasize more strongly KuBug, etc. — Ver. 7. dyanyrol,
accepted by Griesb., on overwhelming authority, instead of the Rec, dSelipol
(G, K, etc.). — The addition dn' dpxyg, after ijKoiaare (Rec, after G, K, etc.),
already regarded as doubtful by Griesb., is with Justice deleted by Lachm. and
Tisch. (after A, B, C, X, al.); it was added from the preceding; Reiche, it is
true, thinks otherwise. — Ver. 8. ev iplv]. Rec The reading tv yplv, recom
mended by Griesb., has in A too feeble evidence. — Ver. 10. Instead of iv airu
oiK eanv (Rec, after B, G, K, al., Tisch.), A, C, N, al., have ou/c ianv iv airu
(Lachm.). — Ver. 13. Instead of the Rec. ypdipa iplv naiSla (K, al), we must
read, in accordance with A, B, C, G, K, many min., vss., and Fathers: iypaipa
iplv natSla (Lachm., Tisch.; also recommended by Griesb.); see, further, on this
passage. Instead ot rbv novypbv, a erroneously reads r b novypov. — Ver. 14.
Instead of rbv un' dpxyg, B reads r 6 utt" dpxyg, plainly following chap. i. 1 ; this,
however, is not accepted by Buttm. ; in B the addition roi Qeov is wanting after
b loyog. — Ver. 15. Instead of roi narpbg (Rec, after B, G, K, K, al., Vulg., Syr.,
utr., etc., Oec, Thph., etc.). A, C, al., read Qeoi; which reading is the correct
one, cannot be decided, as an intentional change of the one to the other cannot
be proved. Ebrard considers Qeov as original, but without adequate grounds.
Lachm. and Tisch. have retained the Rec. — Ver. 17. Although Griesb. approves
of the omission of airoi) after intBvpla (following A), it must nevertheless be con
sidered genuine. The difficulty of it easily explains why it would be left out.
In some of the Latin Fathers there is found at the close of the verse the addi
tion: quo modo et Deus manet in aeternum, which Bengel, without reason, is
disposed to regard as genuine. — Ver. 18. The article before dvr'ixpiarog is at
least doubtful; Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it: it is wanting in B, C, S*. —
Ver. 19. Instead of i^ylBov the more unusual form iiylBav is probably, with
Lachm. and Tisch. (after A, B, C), to be regarded as genuine. X, however,
has i^fjlBov. — The generally prevailing reading: dll' ovk yaav tf ypuv, has been
changed by Buttm. into dll' ovk tf ypuv yaav, according to his own statement,
following B; Tisch. has not noticed this reading. In the following clause
Tisch. reads: el ydp ii ypuv ijaav, after B, C, at.; Lachm., on the other hand.

CHAP. II. 1. 493
has retained the Rec. : ei ydp ijaav i( ypuv, after A, G, K, H, al. pl., Vulg., etc.
It is remarkable that even Buttm. — against the evidence of B — has the Rec.
It cannot be decided wliich reading is the correct one. — Ver. 20. Buttm. omits
KOI before oldare, according to B; the ndvreg, instead of irduTa presented (accord
ing to the statement of Tisch. maj. ) by B, has not, however, been accepted by
Buttm. — Ver. 23. Tlie words b bpoloyuv . . . ixei are wanting (after G, K, etc.,
Oec.) in the Bee. Calvin, Milius, Wolf, etc., do not consider thein genuine; but
they are sufficiently attested by A, B, C, K, etc., etc.,. and with justice admitted
into the text by Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., and Tisch. — Ver. 24. The Rec. aiv
after vpelg is with justice deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following A, B, C, S,
al, Vulg., etc. — El' ru narpiy Rec. after A, C, G, K, al., Syr., utr., Sahid., al.,
Thph., Oec. (Tisch.). Lachm. has omitted iv (after B, Vulg., etc.). The omis
sion of the preposition is perhaps explained by the fact that it appeared super
fluous. N reads iv ru narpl kuI iv ru viu. — Instead of yKoiaare, S has both times
the unusual reading oKyKoare. — Ver. 25. Instead of ijplv, Lachm. in his small
edition, following B, has accepted vplv (Buttm. ) ; in the larger edition, however,
yulv is rightly found, which is defended by almost all the authorities. — Ver. 27.
On. the form ilddare, received by Tisch. 7, following B*, comp. Ph. Buttmann's
Compel. Gram., § 96, note 9, and Winer, p. 68, VIL, p. 7L— Instead of iv vplv
pivei is to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., which Griesb. previously recom
mended: pevei ev iplv (after A, B, C, X, several vss., etc.). Buttm., following
B, has accepted, instead of all' ug, the reading dllu, which probably arose
through a correction. Instead of the Rec. rb airb xpl"!'-"- (A, B, G, K, etc.,
Thph., Oec, Hier.), retained by Lachm., with the approval of Bengel, Liicke.
Briickner, rb airoi xp'^l-ta has been accepted by Tisch. , following C, 4, 5, 7, al. ,
which is approved of by Reiche and Braune ; S has also airoi, but instead of
XOlapa, "nveipa;" see the comm. — Instead of SiSdaKei ipdg, Lachm. in his
large edition reads SiS. ijudg ; probably a misprint, as it is not noticed either by
him or Tisch. as a special reading. — pevelre], Rec. after G, K, al. (Tisch.);
Lachm. has received instead of it the reading pivere, recommended by Griesb.,
following A, B, C, a, al. The overwhelming evidence of the authorities is in
favor of this reading, which probably was changed at a later date in accordance
with ver. 24; Reiche, however, has decided in favor of the Rec; Diisterdieck,
Ewald, Braune, and now Briickner also, justly prefer pivere. — Ver. 28. The
words at the beginning: kuI viv . . . iv airu, are wanting in X. — Instead of
Iva biai (Rec. after G, K, al., Thph., Dec, Tisch.) we must read, with Lachm.,
following A, B, C, }5, al., Copt., Sahid.: iva idv. Instead of lx"l-t^ (Rec. after
A, G, K, etc., Oec), Lachm. and Tisch., following B, C, al, Thph., read
axupev. K* has axupev; x^ has lx<Jpev. The words &n' avroi are read by X not
before but after napovaia airoi, — Ver. 29. The Rec. bn nag (Lachm., Tisch. 2)
is found in B, G, K, several min., vss., and Fathers; A, C, K, al,, Vulg., read
on Kal ndg (Tisch. 7); if Ka't, on which Tisch. (ed. maj.) observes, cujus addendi
nulla causa erat ; ex Johannis vero usu est, be genuine, it serves "to bring out
the agreement of the conclusion with the premise" (Ebrard).
Vv. 1 and 2 are most closely connected with what imraediately precedes,
and further determine and conclude it.
Ver. 1. The apostle had considered, in chap. 1. 7, the blood of Christ, in
i. 9 the faithfulness and justice of God — and both in reference to the
forgiveness and purification of believers ; now he comfortingly points to

494 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Christ as the Paraclete, whereby the previous thought now obtains its
necessary complement. First, however, he mentions the object of his
previous statement. — TeKvla pov']. Similarly chap. iii. 18; without pov,
ii. 12, 28, iii. 7. John chooses this form of address: tum propter aetatem
suam, tum propter paternam curam et affectum (Hornejus). In regard to the
verbal form, Lorinus rightly says : diminutiva nomina teneri ac blandientis sunt
amoris signa. The Apostle Paul, in Gal. iv. 19, uses the same form ot
address, with special reference to the spiritual fatherhood in which he stood
toward his readers. — raira ypdipu iplv]. ravra is referred by Bengel to what
follows, by Grotius to what follows and what precedes, by most coraraentators
(Liicke, Baumgarten-Crusius, De AVette, Sander, Dusterdieck, Braune),
correctly, to the latter only ; it refers, however, not merely to the truth
expressed in ver. 6, nor merely to the " exhortation to self-knowledge and
penitence'" (De Wette) which is contained in the preceding, nor raerely to
the stateraent about forgiveness and cleansing ; but to the " whole in its
vivid harraony " (Dusterdieck, so also Braune). ^ — iva uv dpupryre. Statement
of the object for which the apostle wrote what precedes ; the direction which
Calvin gives it : ne quis putet eum peccandi licentiam dare, quum de misericordia
Dei concionatur, which is also found in Augustin, Bede, Calov, Bengel,
Hornejus, Diisterdieck, Ewald, etc., is incorrect, since the sternness of the
apostle against sin has already been sharply and definitely expressed, and
the context, in which the subject previously was the forgiveness of sin,
would not permit such a supposition to arise at all.^ — kuI idv ng dpdpry.
Kal is neither = "however" (Baumgarten-Crusius), nor = .sed (Vulg.); it
connects as simple copula a new thought with the preceding one. By idv
the possibility of sinning is admitted ; Calvin incorrectly explains it :
conditionalis particula "si quis " debet in causalem resolvi; nam fieri non potest
quin peccemus. Whether it is possible for the Christian not to sin, John
does not say. Under the influence of the new spirit of life which is
communicated to the believer, he cannot sin ; but, at the same time, in his
internal and external mechanism there lies for him the possibility of sinning
— and it is this which the apostle has in view. Socinus perverts the idea of
the apostle when he interprets : si quis peccat, i.e., post Christum agnitum et
professionem nominis ipsius adhuc in peccatis manet, necdum resipuit, etc. ; for.

* Ebrard refers ravra to the two sentences into practical precepts the problem mentioned
1. 6, 7, and 8-10, in which these thoughts, in- above is really not solved; (2) that the ideas
volving an apparent contradiction, are con- expressed in i. 6, 7, and in 1. 8-10, do not stand
tained, — (1) " That we must by no raeans to one another iu the relation of co-ordination,
walk in darkness," and (2) " that we must but the idea of i. 8-10 is subordinated to that
confess that we have, and that we commit of i. 6, 7; (3) that it is herewith presupposed
sin," and thinks that this apparent contra. that the apostle should have written" xat tea
diction is solved by 11. 1, in this way, that in etS^re, ort, edv rt? a^taprjj, napdK\r}rov exofiev,
contrast to those theoretical statements these which, however, is incorrect, as the advocate-
two practical conclusions from them are here offlce of Christ is not raeutioued in the pre-
giveu, namely, (1) " that we are not to sin;" ceding.
(2) "that when we have sinned we are to ^ Socinus incorrectly renders ap.apTaveiv =
reflect that in Christ we have an Advocate." manere in peccatis ; Loffler even more so
But against this it is lo be observed, (1) that = "to reraain unbaptized."
by such a changing of theoretical statements

CHAP. II. 1. 495
on the one hand, the true Christian may indeed sin, but cannot remain in
his sins ; and, on the other hand, Christ is not the napuKlyrog for him who
remains in his sins. Besser correctly: "If any man sin — notwith wilful
doing of sin, but in spite of the will in his mind, which says no to sin." —
napdKlyrov ixopev npbg rbv naripa. From the first pers. plur. it follows that the
preceding ng is used quite generally ; the apostle is speaking communicatively,
and does not wish himself to be considered excluded.^ It is unnecessary for
the connection of this sentence to supply " let him know that,'' or " let him
comfort himself with the thought that," or any similar expression ; for it is
precisely through the dpaprdveiv of believers, that Christ is induced to be
their Paraclete. The verb ixeiv indicates that Christ belongs to believers.^
— The word napdKlyrog has both a general and a special forensic meaning;
in the former, in which it is = "assister," or "helper," it is used in Gospel
of John xiv. 16, 28, xv. 26, xvi. 7, where the Holy Ghost is so called because
by His witness He leads the disciples into all truth ; see Meyer on John
xiv. 16 ; ' here, on the other hand, it is used in its forensic raeaning
= " advocatus, patronus causae,'' or even more special = " intercessor,'' and
is in close connection with the'follqwing ilaapog, and refers back to the
dipiivai and KaBapl(eiv of chap. i. 9 ; so that in Christ the typical action of
the high priest interceding for the people has reached its complete fulfilment.
The idea of the apostle therefore is — as almost all commentators recognize *
— the sarae as is expressed in Rora. viii. 34 (bg kuI ivrvyxdvei inep ypuv), in
Heb. ix. 24 (eiaylBev 6 Xpiarbg . . . eig . . . rbv oipavbv, -vvv ipipaviaByvai rip
npoaunu roi Qeoi inip ypuv), and in Heb. vii. 25.* — npbg rbv naripa. npog in
the same sense as chap. i. 2. — God is called naryp, because the napdidyrog is the
Son of God, and we also (believing Christians) have become through Him
TCKva roi Qeov, chap. iii. 1, 2. — 'lyaoiv Xpiarbv S'ikuiov. Christ is the Paraclete,
not as the Logos, but as the incarnate Logos, who has shed His alpa (chap. i. 7)
for the atonement, — and indeed inasmuch as He is S'lKuiog ; SlKutog is here
also neither = lenis et bonus (Grotius), nor = Sikuiuv (see Wolf on this

1 Augustin : "ffabemus dixit, non habetis ; as in John xiv. 16 it is expressly put : a A A o i^
maluit se ponere in numero peccatorum, ut napaK\rtrov, by which Christ signifies that He
habeat advocatum Christum, quam ponere se Himself is the proper TrapaKArjTos, and the
pro Christo advocate et inveniri inter damnan- Holy Ghost His substitute.
dos superbos." — Socinus thinks that the * Ebrard, who here gives the same explana
apostle speaks in the first person, " non quod tion, explains the expression iu the Gospel of
revera ipse esset unus ex illis, qui adhuc pec- John = " Comforter," 6s napanakei (more cor-
carent, sed ut melius Indicet, id quod aflirmat rectly TrapaKaAetrat, mid.), according to the
pertinere ad oranes, quibus evangeliura an- Hebrew DH^D, LXX. Job xvi. 2; but in this
nunciatum est; " clearly erroneous. Grotius passage it is not 7rapditAT)T0!, but TrapuKA^Tus,
arbitrarily: "Habet ille advocatum, sed ec- that is used; Hofmann's explanation is also
clesia habet, quae pro lapse precatur. Preces incorrect (Schriftbew., H. 2, p. 15 ff.) =
autem ecclesiae Christus more advocati Deo "Teacher" (comp. Meyer and Hengstenberg
patri coramendat." on John xiv. 16).
2 Besser: " He has made Himself ours, has ^ This idea is not, as it raight appear, iu
given our faith au eternally valid clalra on contradiction with John xvi. 26; for even iu
Him." this statement a lasting intercession by Christ
8 In the fact that in the Gospel of John the is indicated, since Christ ascribes the hearing
Holy Ghost, but here Christ, is called napaxKi)- of prayer in His narae to Himself (xiv. 13) as
Tof, there is so much the less a contradiction, well as to the Father.

496 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
passage) ; but neither is it = fidelis atque verax, quatenus id praestat quod
promisit, se scil'icet suis adfuturum (Socinus) ; according to the usus loquendi,
SlKaiog could be understood of (judicial) justice (Bede : Justus advocatus,
injustas causas non suscipit), but then the adjective would have had to be put
with napdKlyrov ; Ebrard incorrectly explains it = StKuwg kui SiKatuv ; but this
explanation is so much the raore unwarrantable, as SiKowiv is the very
business of the napdKlyrog ; by the epithet S'lKoiog, Christ is held up before the
dpaprdvovai as one who by His nature is fitted to be the Paraclete of sinners,
i.e., as one who perfectly satisfies the will of God ; who is "just and
stainless, and without sin'' (Luther). "Only as the Holy One, in whom
the holy ideal of raanhood is seen realized, can He intercede for sinners with
the heavenly Father " (Neander).
Eejiaek. — How Christ executes His office of Advocate with the Father,
John does not say; a dogmatic exposition of it is not in place here, still it is
important to mark the chief elements which are the result of the apostle's
statement. These are the following: 1. The Paraclete is Jesus, the glorified
Redeemer, who is with the Father ; therefore neither His divine nature alone,
nor His human nature alone, but the Lord in His divine-human personality.
2. The presupposition is the reconciliation of men with God by His blood.
3. His advocacy has reference to believers, who still sin amid their walking in
light; and, 4. It is a real activity in which He intercedes for His people (that
God may manifest in their forgiveness and sanctification His faithfulness and
justice) with God, as His (and their) Father. If these points are observed, on
the one hand, there is found in the apostolic statement no ground for a materi
alistic conception, which Calvin opposes in the following words : obiter notan-
dum est, nimis crasse errare eos, qui patris genibus Cliristum advolvunt, ut pro
nobis oret. Tollendae sunt eiusmodi cogitationes, quae coelesti Christi gloriae
derogant ; but neither, on the other hand, is there any justification for doing
away with the idea, as not a few commentators have been guilty of. Even Bede
has not kept himself free from it, when he says that the advocacy consists in
this, that Christ presents Himself as man to God, and prays for us non voce, sed
miseratione, and therefore considers the intercessio, not as an actio realis, but
only as an actio interpretativa. But the idea is even more done away with,
when the intercession is viewed only as the permanent effect of the redemptive
work accomplished by Christ in the giving up of His life to the death, which is
no doubt the opinion of Baumgarten-Crusius when he says: "The apostles
certainly did not think of a special oral intercession, but of an intercession by
deed, in His work." > Liicke rightly says: "The meaning of this form of
representation is no other than this, that Jesus Christ also in His Sd^a with the
Father continues His work of reconciliation. If Christ were not the eternal
Paraclete for us with God, His saving and reconciling work would be limited to
His earthly life merely, and in so far could not be regarded as eternal and com
plete;" but it is not to the point when he further puts it: " Without the eter-
• Similarly Kostlin (p. 61) : " Christ is the Frommann also (p. 472 ff.) finds in the state.
eternal n-apafcAijTo? ; He does not, however, ment of the apostle only a symbolical forra of
pray the Father, but the sense of His office of expression, by which the continuation of tho
Advocate is siraply this, that for His sake the atoning work of Christ iu His state of exalta-
Father also loves those who believe on Him." tion is indicated.

CHAP. n. 2. 497
nally active saving and reconciling spirit of Christ, without the nveipa Xpiaroi,
Christ would not be a perfect, a living Christ;" for John is not here speaking
of the -nveipa of Christ, but of the personal Christ Himself. The explanation of
De Wette, that the advocacy of Christ is the combination of the idea of the
glorified and of the suffering Messiah, is also unsatisfactory, becauses it changes
the objective reality into a subjective representation. Neander rightly says:
"When Christ is described as the Advocate, this is not to be understood as if
only the effects of the work once accomplished by Him w^re transferred to
Himself. — John considers the hving Christ as personally operating in His work,
as operating in His glorified position with His Father, with the same holy love
with which He accomplished His work on earth as a mediation for sinful man.
It is by Him iu His divine-human personality that the connection between man,
saved and reconciled to God by Him, and God as the Father, is always brought
about." Comp. also Meyer on Rom. viii. 34, and Braune in the fundamental
dogmatic ideas of the passage.
Ver. 2. Kal airog = et ipse, idemque ille ; Kai is here also the simple copula,
and is not to be resolved either into quia (a Lapide) or nam. — airog refers
back to '\ya, Xpiarbv diKaiov, and the epithet SiKatov is not to be lost sight of
here ; Paulus, contrary to the context, refers airbg to God. — ilaauog ean].
The word ilaaudg, which is used besides in the N. T. only in chap. iv. 10,
and here also indeed in combination with nepl ruv du yuuv, may, according to
Ezek. xliv. 27 (= fixan), mean the sin-offering (Liicke, 3d ed.), but is here
to be taken in the sense of D"133, Lev. xxv. 9, Num. v. 8, and no doubt in
this way, that Christ is called the 'ilaaudg, inasmuch as He has expiated by
His alua the guilt of sin. This reference to the sacrificial blood of Christ,
it is true, is not demanded by the idea Ilaapog tn itself,^ but certainly is
demanded by the context, as the apostle can only ascribe to the blood of
Christ, in chap. i. 7, the cleansing power of which he is there speaking,
because he knows that reconciliation is based on it.
Remark. — In classical Greek lldaKsaBai (as middle) is = ileuv noieiv; but in
Scripture it never appears in this active signification, in which God would not
be the object; but in all the passages where the Septuagint makes use of this
word, whether it is as the translation of 133 (Ps. Ixv. 4, Ixxviii. 38, Ixxix. 9),
or of oSp (Ps. xxiv. 11; 2 Kings v. 18), or of Dnj (Exod. xxxii. 14), God is the
subject, and sin, or sinful man, is the object; in Heb. ii. 17, Christ is the sub
ject, and the object also is rdg dpapriag. The case is almost exactly similar with
iiildaKeoBai, which does not appear in the N. T. at all, but in the O. T., on
the other hand, is used as the translation of "^33 much more frequently than the
simple form; it is only where this verb is used of the relation between men,
1 In the Septuagint not only does iAatT/ad; pure exercise of compassion on account of
appear as the translation of the Hebrew sinful faults," is not justifiable, because, in
nn'So (Fs. cxxix. 4; Dan. Ix. 9), but lAatr. the flrst place, God is not the subject, and
Keieai'uB.\m used = to be merciful, to forgive secondly, the iAao-^dt of Christ is not the
(Ps. Ixv. 4, Ixxviii. 38, Ixxix. 9), - quite with- forgiveness itself, but is that which procures
out reference to an offering. — The explanation forgiveness.
of Paulus, however! "He (i.e., God) Is the

498 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
namely. Gen. xxxii. 21 and Prov. xvi. 14, that the classical usus loquendi is
preserved; but elsewhere with i^ildoKeaBai, whether the subject be God (as in
Ezek. xvi. 63) or man, especially the priest, the object is either man (Lev. iv. 20,
V. 26, vi. 7, xvi. 6, 11, 16, 17, 24, 30, 33; Ezek. xiv. 17) or sin (Exod. xxxii. .30;
both together. Lev. v. 18, Num. vi. 11), or even holiness defiled by sin (the
most holy place. Lev. xvi. 16; the altar, Lev. xvi. 18, xxvii. 33, Ezek. xhii. 22);
only in Zech. vii. 2 is found iSildaiaaBai tov Kvpiov, where, however, the Hebrew
text has niri" ¦J3*riX nnn?. llaapbg, therefore, in Scripture does not denote
the reconciliation of God, either with Himself or with men, and hence not
placatio (or, as Myrberg interprets: propitiatio) Dei, but the justification or
reconciliation of the sinner with God, because it is never stated in the N. T.
that God is reconciled, but rather that we are reconciled to God.^
Grotius, S. G Lange, and others take ilaau.bg = llaaryp; of course that
abstract form denotes the personal Christ, but by this change into the con
crete the expression of the apostle loses its peculiar character; "the abstract
is more comprehensive, more intensive, comp 1 Cor. i. 30" (Briickner); it
gives it to be understood " that Christ is not the propitiator through any
thing outside Himself, but through Himself " (Lucke, 2d ed.), and that
there is no propitiation except through Him.^ — The relation of ilaapog to
the preceding napdKlyrov may be variously regarded ; either napdKlyrog is the
higher idea, in which ilaapog is contained, Bede : advocatum habemus apud
Patrem qui interpellat pro nobis et propitium eum ac placatum peccatis nostris
reddit . or, conversely, 'ilaapog is the higher idea, to which the advocacy is
subordinated, as De Wette thus says " ilaapog does not raerely refer to the
sacrificial death of Jesus, but, as the raore general idea, includes the inter
cession as the progressive reconciliation' (so also Rickli, Frommann); or,
lastly, both ideas are co-ordinate with one another, Christ being the Ilaauog
in regard to His blood which was shed, and the napuKlyrog, on the other
hand, in regard to His present activity with the Father for those who are
reconciled to God through His blood. Against the first view is the sentence
beginning with kuI airdg, by which Ilaapog is marked as an idea which is not
already contained in the idea napdidyrog, but is distinct frora it ; against the
1 Comp. Delitzsch in his Commentary on disturbed relationship by an expiation to be
tke Epistle to the Hebrews, on chap ii. 17, performed; only it is inexact to assert that
p. 94 ff. But it is to be noticed that Delitzsch, the idea tAao-fio; in i^se// contains the idea of
while he states correctly the Biblical raode of punishment, since tAda-Kea-0at does not include
representation, bases his opening discussion this idea either in classical or iu Biblical usage,
on the idea of the " self reconciliation of the and e^ikouaneaQai, though mostly indeed used
Godhead with itself," au idea which is not in the O. T. in reference to a sacrifice by
contained in Scripture. — It is observed by which sin is covered, is also used without this
several commentators that iAcurittd!, as dis- reference (comp. Ecclus. ill. 28).
tinguished from KaroAAayij = <* Versohnung " ^ The case is the same wilh the expression
(reconciliation), is to be translated by tAao-jad? as with other abstractions by which
"-SnAwMn^" or" Fej'suAwwnfir" (both=Engl. Christ Is described, as ^w^, 63ds, ayiatrp.oi;,
expiation, atonement. It is true, 'Versohnung k.t.A, Who does not feel that by these words
and VersiXJinung are properly one and the soraething much more comprehensive is ex-
same word, but in the usage of the language pressed than in the concrete forms : 6 ^aioiroiwi',
the distinction haa certainly been fixed that 6 oSij-ywi', 6 dyta^tov, k.t.A. ?
the latter word denotes the restoration of the

CHAP. II. 2. 499
second view it is decisive that the propitiation, which Christ is described as,
has reference to all sins, but his intercession, on the other hand, has refer
ence only to the sins of the believers who belong to Him. There remains,
accordingly, only the third view as the only correct one (so also Braune).
The relationship is this, that the intercession of the glorified Christ has as
its presupposition the 'ilaapog wrought out in His death,i yet the sentence
Kal airog is not merely added, ut causa reddatur, cur Christus sit advocatus noster
(Hornejus, and similarly Beza, Lorinus, Sander, etc.), for its independence
is thereby taken away ; the thought contained in it not merely serves for the
explanation or confirmation of the preceding, but it is also full of raeaning
in itself, as it brings out the relation of Christ to the whole world of sinners.
nepl nuv dpaprujv ijpuv]. nepl expresses the reference quite generally: "in
regard to ; " it may here be observed that i^tldoKeaBai in the LXX. is usually
construed with nepi, after the Hebrew iP 133. The idea of substitution is
not suggested in nepl. — With ruv dpapr, ypuv, comTp. chap. i. 9 ; it is not
merely the sins of Christians (ypuv, i.e., fidelium; Bengel) before their con
version that are meant, but also those which are committed by them in their
Christian life; comp. chap. i. 7. Ebrard's opinion, that these words are
added to llaapbg merely as a preparation for the following additional
thought, is inadmissible ; they rather suggest themselves to the apostle —
and without regard to what follows — inasrauch as it is only by virtue of
them that the idea obtains complete expresision. — oi nepl ruv yperipuv Si
povov, dlld Kal nepl 'olov roi Koapov]. Expansion of the thought, in reference
to the preceding nepl r, du. ypuv, in order to mark the universality of the
propitiation. It is incorrect to understand by ijpeig the Jews, and by Koapog
the Gentiles (Oecum., Cyril, Hornejus, Seraler, Rickli, etc.) ; ype'ig are rather
believers, and Koapog is the whole of unbelieving mankind; so Spener,
Paulus, De Wette, Liicke, Sander, Neander, Dusterd., Braune, etc. —
Baumgarten-Crusius agrees with this interpretation, only he understands by
Koapog not mankind together (extensive), but successively (protensive) ; but
this distinction is unsuitable. It would be preferable to say that John was
thinking directly of the Koapog as it existed in his time, without, however,
limiting the idea to it. The interpretation of Augustin and of Bede, by
which Koapog is — " ecclesia electorum per totum mundum dispersa," is clearly
quite arbitrary. The propitiatory sacrifice was offered for the ivhole world,
for th& whole of fallen mankind ; if all do not obtain the blessing of it, the
cause of that does not lie in a want ot efficacia in it; Diisterdieck therefore
rightly says : " The propitiation is of judicial nature ; according to this, the
propitiation for the whole world has its real efficacia for the whole world:
to the believing it brings life; to the unbelieving, death." Calvin quite
improperly asserts : sub omnibus reprobos non comprehendit, sed eos designat,
qui simul credituri erant et qui per varias mundi plagas dispersi erant (similarly
1 KSstlin incorrectly says (p. 180): "Chnst itself:" for neither does irapaicA. describe the
is irapdKAijTos, while he is lAao-iuds, I.e., high high-priesthood of Christ, according to its
priest, and at the same time sacrifice, a high full comprehension, nor does tAao-/t6s mean
priest who offers himself; and tAao-jitd?, while "sacrifice."
He is irapdKAijTos, i.e., a sacrifice which offers

500 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Beza) ; against this the statement of Bengel is sufflcient : quam late peccatum,
tam late propitiatio. The expressly added blov places the matter beyond all
doubt. — With regard to the genitive nepl bl. rov Koapov, Winer says (p. 536
[E. T., 577]) : "instead of this, either nepl ruv blov r. n., or, instead of the
first words, nepl ypCiv might have been written ; similarly Heb. ix. 7 ; " many
commentators, on the other hand, supply ruv directly, as Grotius, Semler,
Wilke (Hermeneutik, II. p. 145), De Wette, Dusterdieck; as the Vulg. ren
ders : "pro totius mundi," and Luther : "fUr der ganzen "Welt." On behalf of
this, appeal is made to passages such as John v. 36, ^ Matt. v. 20; but the
construction which appears in these passages is the well-known comparatio
compendiaria, which does not occur here, as there is no comparison here at
all ; an oratio variola is therefore to be accepted, which was the more natural
to the apostle, as the idea Koapog includes in itself that of sin.^
Vv. 3-11. Further antithetical statement of the believers' walk in light;
it is described as rypelv rdg ivroldg Qeoi (vv. 3-6) ; this then is further defined
as a nepmarelv KaBUg iKelvog nepiendryae (ver. 6). and dyandv rbv dSelipdv is empha
sized as being the essence of this walk (vv. 7-11).
Ver. 3. Semler would make a new section begin here : " after the foun
dation of salvation has been spoken of, there follows the exhortation to
preserving the salvation ; " incorrectly ; ver. 3 is closely connected with
chap. i. 5, 6, and states in what the Christian's walk in light consists ; there
fore also it begins simply with kuI. — iv rovru yivuaKopev]. iv roiru refers to the
following idv ; the object is stated by on ; the same combination is found in
the Gospel of John xiii. 35 ; similarly in chap. iv. 13, where, however, the
particle on is used instead of idv, and chap. v. 2, where brav is used. A
Lapide wrongly weakens the force of yivi>aKopev ; non certo et demonstrative,
sed probabiliter et conjecturaliter ; it is rather the anxiety of the apostle to
bring out that the Christian has a sure and certain consciousness of the
nature of the Christian life. This certainty is confirmed to him by unmis
takable facts, in which the truth of his knowledge attests itself. — on iyvu-
Kupev avrov], airbv seeras to refer to the last-raentioned subject in ver. 2,
therefore to Christ; so it is explained by Oecumenius, Erasmus, Grotius,
Calov, Spener, Bengel, Semler, Johannsen, Sander, Myrberg, Erdmann, etc. :
but the deeper train of thoug'nt is opposed to this ; John is not continuing the
idea of ver. 2, but is going back to the fundamental thought of the whole
section : " He who has fellowship with God walks in the light; " the principal
subject is God, and to it, therefore, avrov is to be referred ; so Calvin, Beza,
Lucke, Bauragarten-Crusius, Ewald, De Wette, Bruckner, Ebrard, Diister
dieck, Braune, etc' — On iyvuimpev, which is not, with Lange and Carpzov,

1 This passage is cited by Ebrard further, not happened for the sake of the evil which
in order to prove his assertion : " This abbre- attaches to the Kdo-|tto!, for this is true of
viation for rrept rijiv oAou TOO Koo-juov needs no Christians also (contrary to Huther)," he
explanation" (!). thereby shows that he has not correctly un-
2 When Braune, who has accepted the ex- derstood the above remark.
planation which is here given of the verse as a ^ The reason brought forward by Ebrard :
whole and in detail, says in reference to the "11 lies also in tbe idea of the comwiaadmenis,
oratio variata which occurs here; "it has that they are mentioned as commandments of

CHAP. II. 4. 501
to be interpreted = "love," the commentators rightly remark that it is not
a mere external, purely theoretical knowledge that is to be uuderstood by
it; ^ it is the living knowledge that is meant, i.e., a knowledge in which the
subject (God) is really received into the inner life, and thought and action
are determined by it,^ so that eyvtoKivai is necessarily connected with the
Koivcdvlav Exeiv /iet' avrov (chap. i. 6) ; still it is inexact to render on tyvuKafiev
avTov, with Oecumenius, directly by on m'veKpudTjfiev aiiru, or, with Clarius, by
societatem habemus cum eo. By eyvuKa/nEv the element of consciousness in the
fellowship, and with this its internal and spiritual side, is brought out. —
edv rug hroTJig avrov rTipufiev"]. The expression r. kvrol. rrjpElv^ describes the
obedience resulting from the internal faithful keeping of the command
ments : ^ it is incorrect, with Braune, so to press the idea Tripeiv here, in its
distinction from notelv, that merely " attention to the commandments " is to
be understood by it ; it rather includes in itself the actual obedience. This
obedience is not here regarded as the means of the knowledge of God, but as
the proof of it; rightly Oecumenius : 6ia ruv epyuv ^ rekeia dEdeiKwrat uyunrj'j
only he should have said " yvuaig " instead of uyuny. Between both of those
there is the same relationship as between fellowship with God and walking
in light ; for as the former is related to the knowledge of God, so is the
latter related to the observance of the divine commandments, which is
the concrete embodiment of iv ru (purt neptnaretv.
Ver. 4. Inference from ver. 3, expressing the antithetical side. — 6 2.eyuVf
K.r.l., is used in the same sense as eav elnufiev, chap. i. 6. Without reason,
Braune considers that " in the singular there lies a progress in the develop-

the Father aud not of the Son," is not valid ; as the idea of knowledge is not kept pure in
comp. Gospel of John xiv. 15, 21, 23, xv. 10. it from confusion with other ideas; but when
Ebrard, on the other hand, rightly points to Weiss says that iu John only *• the knowledge
ver. 6, where £KeLvo<; (Christ) is distinguished that rests on immediate contemplation is to be
from avToq. From this verse it also follows thought of," and observes that "it lies in the
that John, in this section, is considering Chiist nature of the case, that in this intuition and
not as having given commandments, but as contemplation the object is received into the
having walked accordiug to the command- entire spiritual being of a mau as a — nay, as
ments of God. the determining power," he not only agrees
1 Lorinus: "Cognoscere cum quadam volun- with the explanation given above, but defines
tatis propendeutis approbatione." — A Lapide: the idea in such a way as not to deviate so we^T/
" Cognitione non tantum speculativa, sed et far from the commentators whom he opposes
practica, quae cura amore et affectu conjuncta as his polemic would lead one to suppose.
est, ac in opus derivatur." — Spener; "This is 3 It is to be noticed, that to describe the
not a mere knowing (1 Cor. viii. 1), such as Christian commandments John never uses
may exist without love, but a knowledge which ydjaos (which by him is only used in reference
comes into the heart and fulfils His will with to the Mosaic law), but generally ivroKai
tiTiBt." — De Wette :" Knowledge of the heart, (ouly now and then \6yoq Qeov or Xpto-roO) ;
not of the mind, wherewith activity is also and as verb, T-qpelv, never iroLelv (except in
assumed." — Liicke: "The knowledge of God Rev. xxii. 14). — Tn the writings of Paul,
in the highest sense; not, however, in so far Trjpeiv erroAjjr appears ouly in 1 Tira. vi. 14,
as it is identical with the love of God, but only and besides in the N. T. in Matt. xix. 17 (chap.
in so far as it really impels men practically to xxviii. 20: rr}peiv iravTa oo-a lvsTet\6.iJ.T]v vp.Lv),
fulfilment of the divine commands, and thus * The paraphrase of Semler may be given
reveals itself in growing love to the God who here merely for its curiosity : " Si (nos Apos-
is known as the Light.'* toli) retiuemua et magnifacimus hanc ejus
2 Weiss not unjustly contends against the doctrlnam: Deum esse pariter omnium geu-
curreiit view of yiviavK^tv in John, in so far tium,"

502 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
ment of the thought." The statement that iyvuKu is used "with manifest
regard to the Gnostics " (Ebrard), is not to be accepted ; 6 l.iyuv is rather to
be taken in a quite general sense, comp. ver. 6, at the same time referring
to the appearance of such a moral indifferentism among the churches, airov,
as in ver. 3 = Qeov. — tpeiaryg iari = ipevSerai, chap. i. 6 ; but in such a way
that the idea is more sharply brought out by it (Braune). — koI iv roiru, k.t.1.,
as in chap. i. 8. — From the connection between the knowledge of God,
and the observance of His commandments, it follows that he who boasts
of the former, but is wanting in the latter, has not the truth in him, but
is a liar.
Ver. 5. In this verse the apostle confirms the idea of ver. 3, in the form
of an antithesis to ver. 4, and with the introduction of a new element. —
bg S' dv rypy airoi (i.e., Oeoi) rbv loyov]. The particle Si, which refers not to
ver. 3 (Liicke), but to the words kuI rdg ivroldg airoi py rypuv, ver. 4, shows
that this verse stands in the same relationship to ver. 4 as chap. i. 7 to ver.
6 ; " rypy is with emphasis put flrst, and similarly airoi before rbv loyov "
(Braune). — airoi bUyyog is synonymous with ai ivrolal airoi, \v. 3 and 4:
" the essence of the divine commandments ; " a Lapide : Dicit verbum ejus in
singulari, quia praecipue respicit legem caritatis ; haec enim caeteras omnes in se
comprehendit. — The predicate does not run, ovrog eyvuKev avrov, but dlyBug hi
roiru ij dydny rov Qeoi rereleiurai, whereby " a new side of the thought comes
into view" (Ebrard). — dlyBug, "in truth," opposed to appearance and mere
pretence ; it is emphatically put first, as in John viii. 31, with reference to
the preceding 7 dlyBeia (De Wette) ; and serves to bring out not a quality of
the rereleiurai (Ebrard), but the actuality of the iv roiru . . . rereleiurai (so
also Briickner). — iv roiru y a).un-); roi Qeoi rereleiurai]. y dydny r. Qeoi is not
here, as in chap. iv. 9, " the love of God to us " (Flacius, Calovius, Bengel,
Spener, Russmeyer, Sander, Lange, etc.), nor, "the love commanded by
God " (Episcopius), nor, " the relationship of mutual love between God and
man " (Ebrard : " the mutua amicitia et conjunctio between God and the Chris
tian ") ; 1 but " love to God," as in chap. ii. 15, iii. 17, iv. 12, v. 3 (Bede,
Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Lorinus, Hornejus, Paulus, De Wette-
Briickner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke, Dusterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg,
Braune, etc.) . This interpretation is required by the context ; for " the love
of God" appears here in place of the "knowledge of God," vv. 3 aud 4.
As in the latter, so in the former also, consists fellowship with God. Both,
love and knowledge, are so inseparably connected, and are so essentially one
in their principle and nature, that the one is the condition of the other.^ —
The idea rereleiurai is not to be weakened, as in Beza : rel^eioiv hoc in loco non
declarat perfecte aliquid consummare, sed mendacio et simulationi opponitur, ut
hoc plane sit, quod dicimus : mettre en execution ; but it is to be taken in its
1 Similarly Beaser ; " ' T/ie love of God in us ' plicity nor a mutual relationship is expressed
usually embraces both God's love to us, by ia the phrase ^ ay. tou ©ecu.
which, aud our love to God, in which, we live. ^ Grotius, it is ti-ue, is not wrong when he
This is the case in this passage also." This says: "Amor praesupponit cognitionem;"
interpretation can be just as little grararaati- but it is just as correct to say: "Cognitio
cally justified as that of Ebrard ; neither a du- praesupponit amorem."

CHAP. II. 6. 503
constant meaning: "has been perfected," as in chap. iv. 12, 17, 18.i The
objection, that nevertheless no Christian can boast of perfect love to God,
does not justify an arbitrary change of meaning. The absolute idea rypelv
avroi rbv loyov demands for its counterpart an idea quite as absolute (so also
Briickner).'^ Where the word of God is perfectly fulfilled, there love to God
is perfect ; in perfect obedience, perfect love is shown. That the Christian
has not attained this perfection at any moment of his life, but is ever only
in a state of progress towards it, is no doubt true ; but John is not here con
sidering that aspect (so also Braune). ^ — ev roiru ytvuoKopev]. iv roiru refers
neither to the thought contained in ver. 6 (Socinus, Ewald), nor to ^ d-ydny
. . . rerel., but to the keeping of the commandments (so also Diisterdieck,
Ebrard, Briickner, Braune). Obedience is the evidence for the knowledge
that we are iv airu. — on iv airu iapev]. The expression signifies the inward
fellowship of life (differently Acts xvii. 28) ; it combines the preceding iv
roiru . , , rerel. and the former iyvuKupev airbv, and is identical with Koivuvlav
ixopev per' airoi (chap. i. 6), which it defines in its internal character. The
knowledge and love of God is being in God (so also Briickner).^ — Grotius,
who understands avru of Christ, enfeeblingly explains : Christi ingenii dis
cipuli sumus.
Ver. 6 gives the more particular definition of what the rypelv of God's
commandments, and therefore the Christian's walk in light, consists in. —
b liyuv, as in ver. 4 ; here, however, with the infinitive construction. — iv
airu piveiv]. iv airu does not refer to Christ (Augustin, Hornejus, Wolf,
Lange, Neander, etc.), but to God. — piveiv instead of elvai, ver. 5. Both
expressions are synonymous, it is true, but not identical (Beza) ; in pevetv
the unchangeableness of the being is brought out. Bengel : Synonyma cum
gradatione : ilium nosse, in illo e.ise, in illo manere. Frommann (p. 187) : " The
being and abiding in God signifies one and the same fellowship with God.
The latter describes it merely as something constant, lasting, which accessory
notion is not contained in the former expression." — bipeilei (comp. chap.
iii. 16, iv. 11, "is in duty bound") refers back to 6 liyuv; it is not meant to
be indicated here what is demanded in regard to the piveiv iv Qeu, but what
^ Even Bengers interpretation :" Perfectum modo quisque pro gratiae sibi datae mensura
regimen nactus et perfecte cognitus est (viz., ad hanc perfectionem aspiret," and in tbat of
amor Dei erga hominem)," does not corre- Socinus: "Est autem perfectio ista caritatis
spond to the idea of the word. in Deum et ohedientia praeceptorum ejus ita
2 Ebrard, it is true, wants the idea rere- intelligenda, ut non omnino requiratur, ne ei
Aei'wTat to be retained unweakened, but finds quicquam deesse possit, sed tantum ut ejus-
himself compelled by bis interpretation of modi sit, qua Deus pro sua ingenti erga nos
il ay. T. %. to agree with Beza's explanation, bonitate contentus esse voluit," limitations are
because " in the case of a relationship its per- introduced which are foreign to the apostle's
fection is nothing else than its conclusion." train of thought.
Ebrard's opinion, that if ^ ay. r. 0. = " love * In substantial agreement with this Weiss
to God," John must have written reXeia eativ says : " In vv. 3 and 4 it was stated that in the
instead of TeTcAetwTat, is — besides being con- keeping of God's commandments we recognize
trary to John's usus loquendi — without that we have known God. If, therefore, there
foundation. is a continuous train of thought here, the
' In Calvin's explanation : " Si quis objiciat, being in God must only be a new expression
neminem uoquam fuisse repertum, qui Deum for the knowing of God, or must be directly
ita perfecte diligeret, respondeo : sufficere, given along with it,"

504 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
is the duty of him who says that he abides in God — if he does not want to
be a liar, in whom the truth is not, ver. 4. — KaBug iKelvog nepiendryae, kuI airdg
[ovrug] nepmarelv. By these words Christ is placed as a pattern before
Christians, i.e., in regard to His whole walk (which is elsewhere done in the
N. T. only in regard to His self-abasement and to His conduct in suffering ;
see this commentary on 1 Pet. ii. 21) ; of what sort this was, John does not
here say ; from the connection with what precedes, however, it is clear that
the apostle points to Him in so far as He kept the commandments of God,
and therefore walked in the light. ^ This reference to Christ as an example
is frequently found in the same form (KoBivg iKtlvog) in our Epistle ; so iii. 3, 7,
iv. 17; comp. also John xiii. 15, xv. 10, and passim. — nepmarelv describes
not merely the disposition, but the action resulting from it. In the fact that
John brings just this out (comp. especially chap. iii. 17, 18), it is evident
how far his mysticism is removed from mere fanaticism. — On ovrug, see the
critical notes.
Vv. 7-11. A more particular statement of the nature and import of
rypelv rdg ivroldg airoi or of nepmarelv KuBug iKelvog nepiendryae.
Ver. 7. dyanyrol. Such a form of address does not necessarily indicate
the commencement of a new section, but is also used when the subject of the
discourse is intended to be brought home to the hearers or readers ; this is
the case here. — ovk ivrolyv Katvyv ypuipu ipiv certainly does not mean : " I do
not write to you of a new commandment ; " neither, however : " I write (set)
before you '' (Baumgarten-Crusius) ; for ypdipeiv has not this signification ; it
simply means to write ; when connected with an object, as here, it is =: to
communicate or announce any thing by writing ; comp. chap. i. 4. The
subject of his writing, the apostle calls an 'evroly. It is arbitrary to take
the word here in a different meaning from that which it always has ; thus
Kickli : " the whole revelation of divine truth as it has been brought to us
in Jesus Christ "^ (similarly Flacius, Calovius, etc.); and Ebrard: "the
announcement, that God is light, chap. i. 5; " ivroly means " commandment; "
this idea must not be confounded with any other. Most of the commentators
(Augustin, Bede, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Baumgarten-
Crusius, De Wette-Briickner, Neander, Sander, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ewald,
etc.) understand by it, according to vv. 9-11, the commandment of brotherly
love ; others, on the other hand (Socinus, Episcopius, Calovius, Schott,
Liicke, Fritzsche, Frommann, etc.), according to ver. 6, the commandment
of following Christ. These two views seem to be opposed to one another,
but they really are so ouly if we assume that John here wants to emphasize
a single special commandment — in distinction from other commandments.
1 Semler paraphrases : " Si quis gloriatur, regarded as a unity — called ei/roAj}, but not
se suamque doctrlnam semper convenisse cum the truth which contains them in itself. It is
doctrina illa Christi, is sane debet etiam in true, the demand of faith in the message of
humanae vitae modo non Judaismum prae- salvation may be described as evroKyj, but not
ferre"(!). the message of salvation itself ; here, however,
2 Ebrard wrongly maintains that ei'ToX^ ia the context forbids us to take the expression
" a truth including directly in itself practical in that sense (as Weiss), since neither in what
requirements." Only the practical require- precedes nor in what immediately follows is
ments contained in a truth can be — when there a demand for faith expressed.

CHAP. II. 7. 505
This supposition, however, is erroneous ; the command to keep the
commandments (or the word) of God after the example of Christ, or to
walk in the light, is no other than the command to love one's brother.
From chap. i. 5 on, John is speaking not of different commandments, but of
the one general commandment of the Christian life which results from the
truth that God is light. It is to this commandment that reference is made
when John, in order to bring it home to his readers, says : oi/c ivrolfjv Katvyv
ypdipu iplv, so that by ivroli] he does not indicate a commandment which he
then for the first tirae is about to mention, but the commandment which
he has already spoken of in what precedes (only not merely in ver. 6), but
defines more particularly in what follows, namely, in regard to its concrete
import.i Of this commandment John says, that it is not an ivroly Kaivy ; ^
in what sense he means this, the following words state : dll' ivrolyv nalaidv,
yv eixere dn' dpxyg ; it is not new, but old, inasmuch as his readers did not first
receive it through this writing, but already had it, and indeed iot' dpxyg, i.e.,
from the very beginning of their Christian life ; comp. chap. iii. 11 ;
2 John 5, 6; and, for the expression dn' dpxyg, ver. 24 (Calvin, Beza, Socinus,
Episcopius, Piscator, Hornejus, Lange, Rickli, Liicke, De Wette-Briickner,
Sander, Neander, Besser, Dusterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ewald, Braune,
etc.). The imperfect eixere, instead of which we should expect the present,
either refers back to the time befoi-e John had come to his readers, or
is to be explained : " which ye hitherto already had." The latter is the
more probable. Some commentators weaken this interpretation, which is
demanded by the context, and hold that John calls the commandment
(namely, " the commandment of love ") an old one, because it was already
given by Moses ; thus Flacius, Clarius, etc. ; the Greek commentators even
go beyond that, and refer it at once to this, that it was written from the
very beginning in the heart of man ; ^ the latter Baumgarten-Crusius
maintains, and says : " here, therefore, the ethics of Christianity are
represented as the eternal law of reason," in which he explains utt' dpxyg
" from the beginning of the history of man,'' and regards " ye as men " as
^ This view is in accordance with that of 2 Certainly what John here says reminds
Diisterdieck, who rightly remarks; "The us of the statement of Christ in John xiii. 34;
solution of the problem lies in this, that the nor can it be denied that John was here
holy command to walk as Christ walked, fully thinking of that, as well as in the passage
and essentially resolves itself into the com- 2 John 5 ; but from this it does not follow that
mand of brotherly love ; " it is also accepted ovk ivro\. leaiv. ypaipm vvilv does not refer to
by Braune. The objection of Briickner, that what precedes, but only to what coraes after
brotherly love ia only a principal element, (ver. 9).
and not the complete fulfilment of following 3 Iu the scholia of Matthaei it is thus put :
Christ, can only be regarded as valid if et ij.ev 'lovSaioi^ ravra ypaiftei, eiKoritf;, riji' jrep'i
brotherly love is not viewed in its full, com- aydmji £1'toAtji' ov Kaivrjv elvai ^rjtrl. iraKai yap
plete character ; comp. John xiii. 34, and also auriji' Sia rSiv npo^-rjriav eirijyyet'AaTO. Et Se ovk
the statement of the Apostle Paul : n\ripiap.a 'lovSatoi ^nav, tt^n-OT' o5v evrohr) waAattx . , .
v6p.ov 7) ayoTTTj, Rom. xiii. 10. — The instances efrrivi] Karara^<l}ViTiKa<; evvoiav ^i\iKri SidBeiri^,
adduced by Ebrard against the reference to Trtii/Te? -yap <^i!o-ei iqv.epa Ka'i koivijiviko. ^ma ovre^
brotherly love can only have any force if the aya-irSnTi tous TiKriulov. — Oecumenius and
commandment which prescribes this is dis- Theophylact combine the two together, hold-
tinguished, as a apecial one, from the com- ing that the Epistle was addressed to Jewish
mand to walk in light. and Gentile Christians.

506 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the subject of eixere. — ij 'evroly ij nalaid eanv b loyog bv rjKoiaare. This addition
serves for a more particular definition of the preceding ; y nalaid is repeated
in order to accentuate this idea more strongly. By eixere it was only stated
that the readers were in possession of the commandment ; now the apostle
defines it more particularly in this respect, that it is the word (not "the
chief substance of the word," De Wette) which they had heard (comp.
ver. 24, iii. 11, iv. 3), which, therefore, was proclaimed unto them (comp.
chap. i. 2, 3), namely, by the apostolic preaching. The clause is therefore
not to be taken, as Baumgarten-Crusius holds, as a correction of ypdipu : " not
by him was it first given ; it is from the beginning of Christianity, the loyog,
bv ijKovaare, namely, from Christ ; " for ijKoiaare does not refer directly to
ypdipu (Bengel), but to eixere.^ On the addition a;r' dpxyg (Rec.) after yiioiaare,
which Ewald regards as genuine, see the critical notes.
Ver. 8. nahv ivrolyv Katvyv, K.r.l.]. Almost all commentators hold that
the ivroly Kaivy is the same ivroly as was the subject of ver. 7 ; differently
Ebrard, who explains as follows : " With ver. 7 begins a new section which
continues to ver. 29, in which the leading thought is the position of the
readers to the light as one which was already shining; by ivr. nalaid is
meant the clause, chap. i. 5 : 6 Qebg ipug ian ; by ivr. Kuivy, on the other hand,
the following clause : y OKoria napdyerat Kat rb ipug rb dlyBivbv ySy ipaivei ; ^ the
relative clause o ianv dlyBig, k.t.I., belongs, by apposition, to the foUowing
sentence: on ij oKoria, k.t.I., and states to what extent the essential true
light has already begun to shine, namely, the fact that the light already
shines has a double sphere in which it is likyBig, i.e., actually realized,
first in Clirist, but then also 'ev iplv, i.e., in the Ephesian readers them
selves, and equally in all true Christians." This explanation is, however,
incorrect ; for (1) the truth i/ okot'iu napdyerai, k.t.1., can just as little be
called an ivroly as the sentence 6 Qebg ipug ian (see on ver. 7) ; (2) the rela
tive clause, if it was to be a preceding apposition to y cKorla, k.t.I,, would
have had to come after bn; according to the structure of the verse, o must
necessarily be connected with what precedes ; (3) it is a false idea, that that
which the clause on ij okotIu expresses was actually realized in Christ ; the
incorrectness of this idea is concealed in Ebrard's interpretation in this way,
no doubt, that he gives to iv airu a different relation from that which he
gives iv vplv, and changes the present napdyerai into the perfect.' Nor is the
' Wolf assumes a peculiar antithesis be- ' The same view is found in Castellio,
tween the two sentences : " Ratio fortasaia Socinus, and Bengel. The latter remarks on
aliqua reddi possit, cur exeiv et outoveiv a-ir' ei/roAijf Koivriv: "Praeceptum novum, quod
apxri^ sibi invicera subjungantur. Prius enim nobis nunc primum in hac epistola acribitur; "
ad illos spectaverit, qui ex Judaeis ad Christum aud on ort : " Quod hoc est illud praeceptum,"
conversi erant; illi enim jam ante praeceptum to which he then very strangely adds : " amor
hoc de amore muluo ex lege Mosis et pro- fratris, ex luce."
phetis cognitum habebant; posterius respiciet 3 Ebrard says: "The eternally existing
ex-Gentiles, qui idem inter prima evangeli- light is one which has already appeared €i'
cae doctrinae praecepta acceperant; " this auTw, in ao far aa in Christ the light objectiv-
amounts, partly, if not altogether, to what the ized has arisen for the world and has overcome
Greek coraraentators adduce for explanation the darkness, and ev i/fxlv in so far as also
of the expression TraAaia. The arbitrariness of subjectively to the readers the light of the
such au antithesis is self-evideut. gospel has arisen, and they also subjectively

CHAP. II. 8.

507

opinion that we are to understand by kvr. nal. the commandment of walking
in light, and by hr. KaivT), on the other hand, that of brotherly love (ver. 9),
tenable, because these commandments, according to their import, are not
two distinct commandments, but one and the same commandment. Still
more unjustifiable is the assumption of S. Schmid, that in ver. 7 the funda
mental law of Christianity, namely, justification by faith, but hei'e the com
mandment of Christian sanctification, is meant ; and that of Weiss, that by
hroTiTi, ver. 7, is to be understood the evangelical message of salvation, but
here the commandment of love. The apostle, having in view here the same
commandment as in ver. 7, says : " Again a new commandment I write unto you,
which thing is true in Him and in you : because the darkness is past, and ihe
true light now shineth." The relative clause o Ianv, K.r.l., serves not merely to
establish the statement that the commandment is a 7iew one (Socinus, Fla
cius, Morus, Hornejus, De Wette-Briickner, Liicke, ed. 2 and 3, ed. 1 of this
commentary, Erdmann, etc.) ; ^ but the apostle thereby describes the com
mandment, yet not in a material way, so that 5 would be referred to the
substance of it (Oecumenius, Luther, Baumgarten-Crusius, Semler, From
mann, Diisterdieck, etc.),^ but only in 2i formal way, as that which is actually
fulfilled in Christ and in his readers ; as the commandment in ver. 7 was
also only defined in a formal way by t^i; eixere an' apxfig' — 6 eanv . , . ev vfilv is

have been drawn from darkness unto light."
By ev vfi.Lv he means, therefore, the readers, in
whom, i.e., in whose souls, the transition from
darliness to light has taken place; by ev
a-uTMt however, not Christ, in whom, but the
world, for which that has happened objectively,
inasmuch as Christ entered as the light into
the darkness of the world. Quite a different
meaning, therefore, is here assigned to ev aurw
from that which is given to iv vp.lvi as the dif
ference in the relation from the antithesis of
" objective " and " subjective " clearly shows.
— It is not merely the change of the present
•napdyerai into the perfect that is the cause of
this treatment, for it appears elsewhere in the
comraentary, — thus on p. 148 : " that which is
true in Christ and in you, that the darkness
is pasW^ etc.; p. 150: "similar to the new
announceraeot, that the darkness is past," etc. ;
p. 155 : " It is the truth, that the darkness i8
past ; " against which, on the other haud,
Trapayerat is £orrectly explained ou p. 159 :
" tbe darkness Is passing by, is in a state of
passing away, of disappearing."
1 For if 6 kfTTLv, K.T.\., is, according to the
intention of the apostle, to be referred to
the idea of the newness of the commandment,
he would — first, have given this idea a raore
independent form than he has given it as a
simple attribute of the object ivToKiqv depend
ing on ypatftio; and, secondly, not have given
the confirraation of the stateraent (that the
coraraandment ia a new one) in a sentence
which does not so much show the truth of

this idea as merely state the sphere in which
that statement is true; to which may be
added, that the idea so resulting is itself so
indistinct, that it requires, in order to be un
derstood, au explanatory circumlocution, such
as ; *' that the commandraent is a new one has
its truth in Chiist, inasmuch as it did not exist
before Hira," etc. (ed. 1 of this coram.). Be
sides, a.n emphasis unwarranted by the context
is placed on the idea of the newness of the
commandment, especially if it is thought that
the following oti again serves to establish the
thought expressed iu the confirmatory clause
(Liicke, Be Wette, BrUckner).
2 Diisterdieck, it is true, approves of
Kaapp's paraphrase, which agrees with the
above explanation: irdKiv (ws) evroKriv KaLv.
yp. vpXv TOUTO o e{TTiv d\7f9e<!, k.t.A. ; but, with
the idea of a consiructio ad sensum, refers 6 to
the preceding evToA.iji', eo tbat this forras the
object of ypd^iot which by the relative clause
obtains its raore particular definition. In
opposition lo this construction, De Wette has
rightly observed that it has graramatical dijfe-
culty. When Diisterdieck, in reply to Lucke's
objection, that with that interpretation it
would need to run ») ea-riv aAijfljj?, says that
it is not the ei'ToA.^ itself as such, but ita
substance in Christ, etc., that has been fulfilled,
Ebrard's observation is a sufficient answer :
*' That which is required in the evroKri ia
nothing else than just the evro\-n itself; the
requirement itself is fulfilled in Christ when
its substance is fulfilled lu Ilim."

608 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the object belonging to ypdipu, and ivrolyv Katvyv is to be taken as the accusative
of more particular deiinition ; this construction of it is found in Ewald, only
he explains iv airu incorrectly by " in the last-mentioned (in ver. 7) word of
God ; " most recently it has been accepted by Braune with the interpretation
here giveu. The sense accordingly is : that which is already true, i.e., ful
filled, iu Christ and in you, namely, the rypelv rdg ivroldg roi Qeoi (comp. John
XV. 10, where Christ says of Himself, iyij rdg evroldg roi narpbg pov rerypyKa),
I write unto you as a new commandment. ^ With this view it is self-evident
that the apostle calls the old commandment a new one only in so far as he
writes it anew to thein. It is true, a different reference has usually been
given to Kaivy, by understanding it either of the constant endurance of the
commandment of love,^ or to indicate that this commandment first entered
into the world along with Christianity — whether emphasis was put more
upon the substance of it (Liicke, De Wette, ed. 1 of this comm.), or upon
the mere time of it (Diisterdieck) ; ' but these constructions, not being indi
cated in the context, .are purely forced. — On ndliv, Erasmus says : et con-
trarietatem declarat et iterationem ; hic autem non repetitionis sed conlrarietatis
est declaratio; with this interpretation almost all commentators agree,
referring ndliv to the idea ivr. Kaivyv; but an antithetical construction is
foreign to the word; it is = "again, once more," is to be connected with
ypiupu, and is explained by the fact that the readers have already heard the
commandment, nay, even are already fulfilling it. Liicke and De Wette
connect it directly with the verb, but in such a way that even they give to
it an antithetical reference.* — 'eariv dlyBig]. iilyByg signifies here the actual
reality, as in Acts xii. 9 (see Meyer on this passage). — bv airu]. 'ev is to be
retained in its special meaning, not = " respectu, in reference to," nor is it
used " of the subject in which something true is to be recognized as true
(ver. 3) " (De Wette), for there is no mention here of any knowledge. That
by airdg here not God (Jachmann), but Christ is to be understood, is shown
1 That John places before his readers anew the substance of the commandment, as Diister-
as a commandment that which already has dieck does. But nothing in the context indi-
been fulfilled iu them, is clearly not more cates this 7iew substance, and it is therefore
strange than that he declares to them truths of very differently defined by the commentators.
which he himself says that they know them * LUcke does so when he says : " In ver. 8,
already (comp. ver. 21). BrUckner admits John continues correctingly thus: Again a
that the construction here advocated is simple new commandment I write unto you." (In
and clear, but groundlessly thinks that *' the the edition of 1851, LUcke agrees with the
strangeness of this form of speech" is not usual acceptation: "Again — in contrast — a
mitigated by the reference to ver. 21. new commandment I write unto you;" see
2 Calvin: " Novum dicit, quod Deus quoti- ed. 3, p. 249, note 1.) — De "Wette does not
die suggerendo veluti renovat; Joannes negat expressly give his opiuion about naKiv; but
ejusmodi esse doctrlnam de fratribus dili- when he thinks that John should properly
gendis, quae tempore obsolescat: sed perpetuo have written: *' again a new commandment I
vigere." call it," aud when he theu paraphrases it:
3 On the basis of the right view of ttTT* ap:^i)5, "The commandment of love is an old and
ver. 7, we find the nature of the newness of long-known one to you ; but (as it is altogether
the commandment indicated just in this; this, revealed as a new one by Christ) for you who
however, is only the case if the temporal partake in the newness of life it is in an
reference is retained in its purity. This especial manner a new one," the antithetical
Dusterdieck indeed insists on ; but this relation reference is clearly brought out by him also.
has only force if we regard at the same time

CHAP. II. 8. 509
¦ by the context. Socinus incorrectly explains iv avru = per se ac simpliciter.
On the point that yplv is not to be read, see the critical notes. Grotius
unjustifiably understands by yplv the apostles. — Neander has a wrong
conception of the relation of tv airu and iv iplv when he explains : " it takes
place in reference to Christ and in reference to the church, therefore in
reference to their mutual relationship to one another.'' — on y oKorla, k.t.1.].
on is not used declaratively, nor in such a way as to be dependent on dlyBig
("it is true that the darkness," etc.), or on ivrolyv (Castellio, Socinus, Beng
el, Ebrard), — to both these views the structure of the verse is opposed, —
but causally ; this is rightly perceived by most of the commentators ; but it
is incorrect when they connect it with the immediately preceding b 'eanv
dlyBig, K.t.1., for the double-membered clause, on y oKorla . . . ipaivei, being a
confirmatory clause, does not stand in a corresponding relationship to the
thought, b ianv dl, . . . iplv, which it is intended to confirm. ^ By bn, k.t.1.,
the apostle rather states the reason why he writes to them as a new com
mandment that which is true in Christ and in them (Diisterdieck, Braune) ;
this reason is the already commenced disappearance of darkness, and shining
of the true light. The contrasted words ^ oKorla and rb ipug rb dlyBivdv ave to be
taken in an ethical sense (Braune) ; ^ the former idea signifies the darkness
which consists in error and sin, as it exists outside the fellowship with God ;
the latter, the light which consists in truth and holiness, as it proceeds from
Christ, who Himself is the true light. It is incorrect to understand here by
Td 0o)f rb dl., Christ Himself (Bengel, Erdmann), as the contrast with y oKorla
shows. dlyBivbg is an expression which is almost confined to the writings of

• With this connection of the thoughts, the rightly establishes the proposition that the
double-raembered clause 'on ij uKorla , . . whole sentence a\-rjB. , , . u^ic is to l>e
Ipaivei must confirm both iirriv oA. ev avr^ and regarded as confirmed by the whole sentence
also eanv aA. ev vij.iv. Now, when Liicke on ^ o-ic, . . . ipaivei; but when he then, in
makes the apostie to say, as a proof that the interpretation, says : '* Already the darkness
commandment to walk in light shows itself In is dispelled by the true light, which shines in
Christ and in his readers as a new one : *' Not truth in Christ and in His believers (in so far,
only in Christ Himself (er aurcu) has the true namely, as brotherly love attained its most
light appeared, but it has also shed itself perfect manifestation in the walk of Christ,
abroad, dispelling the darkness in the minds aud is exercised by believers also)," it is only
of his readers {iv vii.iv), and is shining in the secontZ part of the confirmatory clause that
them," he attributes the thought really ex- is referred by him to ^i' auTtj) Kai ev vv.iv, but
pressed by the apostle (q anoria . , . ^aiveii not tbe first part; and this indeed is quite
only \Q iv itplv ; wliile lo er avrq!, on the other natural, since in Christ a disappearance of
band, he attributes an idea which the apostle darkness ia not imaginable.
has not expressed. — Briickner says : " The ev ^ It was to be expected that Weiss here also
avTu refers to Jcal to ^ds, k,v.K., the er vjiiir denies to the Ideas uKoria and </>uis the ethical
rather to i nKoria, k.t.A. ; " but this reference meaning, and wants to be understood by the
of the one member of the confirmatory clause former only error, by the latter only the
to the one element of the thought to be knowledge of God. Weiss himself, however,
confirmed must be regarded as unjustified, views them both so that they are of ethical —
although BrUckner thinks "it can easily be and not merely theoretical — character ; and,
imagined that the apostle in the one part of moreover, as he admits that with the former
the confirmation had in view rather the latter, error sin, and with the latter knowledge
and in the other rather the former part of the holiness, is necessarily connected, it is so
clause to be confirmed," for such a different rauch the more arbitrary to allege that John,
reference is in no way hinted at ; besides, ijfiij in the use of these ideas, utterly ignored this
is here altogether left out of view. Diisterdieck necessary connection.

510 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
John ; outside them it is only found in Luke xvi. 11, 1 Thess. i. 9, and three
times in the Epistle to the Hebrews ; it describes the light of which the
apostle is speaking as the eternal, essential light, of which the earthly light
is merely the transitory reflection ; see especially Neander on this passage.
— napdyerai is translated by the Vulgate as perfect: quoniam tenebrae transi-
erunt; similarly by Luther: "the darkness is past;" and Calvin directly
says : Praesens tempus loco Praeteriti. This, however, is arbitrary ; the
present is to be retained as such; it is used in the same sense as in 1 Cor.
vii. 31 : napdyei (see Meyer on this passage), so that we must interpret : " the
OKoria is in the state of passing away.'' It is unnecessary to take napdyerai,
with Bengel, with whom Sander and Besser agree, as passive (Bengel: non
dicit napdyei transit, sed napdyerai traducitur, commutatur, ita ut tandem
ahsorbeatur) ; it is more natural to regard it as the middle form with intran
sitive meaning. With the meaning "is in the state of passing," corresponds
the particle ^di? with ipalvei, which is not = " now " (Luther), but by which
the moment is described in which the darkness is retreating before the light,
at which therefore neither has the darkness already completely disappeared,
nor is the light completely dominant. Most of the commentators, both the
older and more recent (Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette-Bruckner, Liicke,
Sander, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Ebrard), take this as referring to Christian
ity in general, in so far as by it, as the true light, the old darkness is
being ever raore and more overcome ; but by the word ijdy the apostle shows
that in these words he is looking forward to a future time at which that
victory will have been completely won, and which he regards as close at hand
(so also Braune). The moment in which he writes this is in his eyes,
therefore, no other than that which immediately precedes the second coming
of Christ, and which He Himself in ver. 18 calls the iaxdry &pa,^ in which it
is of the greater importance for Christians, by keeping the commandment,
to show themselves as children of the light. The same train of thought
essentially occurs here as afterwards in vv. 15-18; compare also the Pauline
ij vv^ npoiKoipev, ij de ijpipa yyyme, Rom. xiii. 12,
Vv. 9-11. Further definition of the life of light as life in love. — Ver. 9.
b liyuv; the same form as in ver. 4, to which the structure of the whole
verse is very similar, iv ru ipurl elvat stands in close relation to what imme
diately precedes ; although he alone is in the light who lives in fellowship
with Christ, and belongs to the Church of Christ, yet rb ipug describes neither
Christ Himself (Spener, etc) nor "the church as the sphere within which
the light has operated as illuminating power" (Ebrard). Chap. i. 6, 7,
may be compared. — In contrast with kuI rbv dSelipbv airoi piauv is ver. 10, 4
dyanuv dd. airov, in which the apostle states the substance of the rypelv rbv
loyov roi Qeov after the example of Christ. As ipug and oKorla, so piaelv r, aS,
and dyandv r. dS. exclude each other; they are tendencies diametrically
' Eictll: "John says this of the time in truth, is already shining; . . . already the
which they are living, and in which the great great morning is dawning for mankind. When
work of the Lord had had a wonderful, rapid the Lord shall return, then shall be the perfect
progress of development. The true Light, the day of God. Towards this manifestation all
Lord in His perfect manifestation of divine believers walk."

CHAP. II. 9-n. 511
opposed to one another ; human action belongs either to the one or to the
other; that which does not belong to the sphere of the one, falls into that of
the other; Bengel: ubi non est amor, odium est: cor non est vacuum. Here
also John speaks absolutely, without taking into consideration the imperfect
state of the Christian, as is seen in the hesitations between love and hatred.
— rbv ddelipdv Grotius interprets: sive Judaeum, sive aliegenam ; fratres omnes
in Adamo sumus; similarly Calov, J. Lange, etc. ; by far the greatest num
ber of commentators understand thereby fellow-Christians. Apart from its
exact meaning and the wider meaning = brethren of the same nation (Acts
xxiii. 1 ; Heb. vii. 5), dbelipbg is used in the N. T. generally, in Acts and in
the Pauline Epistles always, to denote Christians; but in many passages it
is also = 0 nlya'iov or 6 irepog; thus in Matt. v. 22 ff., vii. 3 ff., xviii. 35;
Luke vi. 41 If. ; Jas. iv. 11, 12 (in Matt. v. 47 it describes our friendly
neighbor). In the Gospel of John it is only used iu the sense of relation
ship, except in chap. xx. 17, where Christ calls His paByral " ol ddelifiol pov,"
and 'in chap. xxi. 23, where oi dd. is a name of Christians. If, therefore,
according to the usus loquendi of the N. T., b dSelipdg may certainly be = o
nlyaiov, yet in the Epistles of John, according to chap. iii. 11 (comp. Gospel
of John xiii. 34, xv. 12; besides, especially with iii. 16, comp. Gospel of
John XV. 13 ; there inep ruv d6elipuv rdg ^vxug riBivai ; here inip ruv ipilav
avroi), and according to chap. v. 1 (where the utS. is specifically called a
yeyevvypevog iK rov Qeoi), we must understand by it the Christian brother ; so
that John, therefore, is speaking, not of the general love towards men, but
of the special relationship of Christians to one anotlier ; comp. the distinc
tion in 2 Pet. i. 7; Gal. vi. 10. — lug dpn; "until now," refers back to ^(Sj;,
ver. 9 ; the meaning is : although the darkness is already shining, such a
one is nevertheless still (adhuc) in darkness; on this peculiarly N. T.
expression, see Winer, p. 439 (E. T., 470) ; A. Buttmann, p. 275 (E. T.,
320) ; there is no reason for supplying, "even if he were a long time a
Christian" (Ewald). With the iv r. ok. ianv is contrasted (ver. 10), ev ru
Ipurl pevei; see on this ver. 6.^ That the "exercise of brotherly love is
itself a means of strengthening the new life " (Ebrard), is not contained in
the idea pivei. Even if the idea of ver. 10 — in relation to that of the 9th
verse — is brought out more distinctly by pivet, this is much more done by the
words Kal OKdvdalov iv avru oiK eanv. oKdvdalov appears in the N. T. only in
the ethical signification = "offence," i.e., that which entices and tempts to
sin; in the case of iv airu, the preposition iv is generally either left unno
ticed by the commentators (Grotius says, appealing to Ps. cxix : est meto-
nymia et iv abundat. Sensus : ille non impingit), or changed in meaning; De
Wette : " in his case (for him) there is no stumbling ; comp. John xi. 9 &.;"
similarly Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander, etc. ; Liicke even says : " iv airu
can here only signify the outer circle of life," because " the oKdvdala for the
• Kostlin Incorrectly finds the reason why the apostle is not speaking hero at all ; but the
he who loves bis brother remains in the light, truth of his stateraent lies rather in this, that
in this, "that the Christian life of the Indl- love and light are essentially connected with
vidual requires for its own existence the one another.
support of ail others." Of such a support

512 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Christian lie in the world, and not in him ; ' with him Sander agrees. For
such changes there is no ground, since, in the usage of the word, the figure
(the snare, or rather the wood that falls in the snare) has quite given place
to the thing ; and it is therefore unnecessary to say, with Dusterdieck, that
" in the expression Iv airu the thing itself penetra.tes into the otherwise
figurative form of speech ; " the offence may be outside a man, but it may
be in him also ; comp. Matt. v. 29, 30. The preposition iv is here to be
retained in its proper meaning (Dusterdieck, Ewald, Braune). The sense
is : In him who loves his brother, and thus remains in the light, there is
nothing which entices him to sin. Sorne commentators refer oKuvdalov to
the temptation of others to sinning ; so Vatablus : nemini offendiculo est ;
Johannsen : "he gives no offence; " Ebrard: "there is nothing in them by
which they would give offence to the brethren," etc. ; but in the context
there is no reference to the infiuenee which the Christian exercises upon
others, and if John had had this relationship in his mind, he would certainly
have expressed it ; ^ this is decisive also against Braune, who would retain
both references. Paulus quite unwarrantably refers 'ev aird) to rb ipug : " in
that light nothing is a stumbling-block." — The beginning of the 11th verse
repeats, in a form antithetical to ver. 10, that which was said in ver. 9 ; but
with further continuation of the iv ry oKorigi iariv. — The first subordinate
clause runs, kuI iv ry aKor'ia nepinarei. The difference of the two clauses does
not consist in this, that the representation passes over from the less figura
tive (earl) to the more figurative (nepmarcl) (Liicke) ; for, on the one hand,
nepirarelv is SO often used of the ethical relationship of man, that it is
scarcely any longer found as a figurative expression ; and, on the other haud,
the connection by kui shows that there is a difference of idea between the
two expressions ; this has been correctly thus described by Grotius : priori
membra affectus (or better, habitus, Sander), altero actus denotatur (similarly
De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Braune). Both the being (the condition)
and the doing (the result) of the unloving one belong to darkness ; comp.
Gal. V. 25. The second subordinate clause, kuI oiK olSe noi indyei, is closely
connected with nepinarei; nov, properly a particle of rest, is in the N. T.
frequently connected with verbs of motion ; comp. John vii. 35, xx. 2, 13 ;
Heb. xi. 8 ; in the Gospel of John especially, as here, with indyeiv; see John
iii. 8, viii. 14, etc. ; in John xii. 35 it runs exactly as here: 6 nepmaruv iv ry
OKorla oiK olik noi indyei. The translation " where he is going," is false, for
indyeiv is uot " to go," but " to go to." To the unloving one, the goal whither
he is going on his dark way, and therefore the direction of his way, is
unknown. By this goal it is not exactly the final goal, i.e., condemnation
(Cyprian : it nescius in gehennam, ignarus et caecus praecipitatur in poenam),
that is to be thought of, for the subject according to the context is not
punishment ; but by the figurative expression the apostle wants to bring out
that the unloving one, not knowing whither, follows the impulse of hia own

' When Ebrard finds no obstacle in the flnd no obstacle in the thought that there is
thought that he who loves his brother does not nothing in him which becomes au offence to
by any act give offence to others, be should himself.

CHAP. II. 12-14. 513
selfish desire : he does not know what he is doing, and whither it tends. As
a confirmation of this last idea, the apostle further adds : on ij oKoria irvipluae
Toig bipBalpovg airov; rviplovv docs not mean "to darken," but " /o make blind,
io blind ; " this idea is to be retained, and is not, with Liicke and others, to
be enfeebled by an interpolated tamquam, as (" in the darkness they are as
if blind"), by which the clause loses its meaning; the apostle wants to
bring out, that, inasmuch as the unloving one walks in the darkness, the
sight of his eyes is taken from him by this darkness, so that he does
not know, etc. He who lives in sin is blinded by sin, and therefore does not
know whither his sin is leading him ; comp. John xii. 40 and 2 Cor. iv. 4.
Vv. 12-14. After the apostle has depicted the Christian life in its essen
tial features, he passes on to exhortation. To this these verses form the
introduction, in which the apostle assures his readers that their Christianity
is the ground of his writing. The motive of this, which explains also the
form of expression, is the earnest longing which inspires the apostle, that
his readers may take home to themselveg the following exhortation. — The
apostle addresses them under four different names : rsKvla and naidla, naripeg,
veav'ioKoi. By the two latter names they are distinguished according to the
two corresponding degrees of age ; ^ in the case of naripeg the proper mean
ing is not to be strictly retained, but in contrast to veavloKoi it is = yipovreg
or npeaSirepoi, the members of the church who are already in advanced age ;
thus Erasmus, Calvin, Socinus, Morus, Carpzov, Lange, Paulus, De Wette-
Briickner, Liicke, Dusterdieck, Braune, etc. — The veaviaKot are the younger
members of the church ; Calvin : tamelsi diminutivo utitur, non tamen dubium
est, quin sermonem ad omnes dirigat,qui sunt in aetatis flore et statu. The view
of Augustine is to be rejected, that under the three names the same persons
are addressed whom the apostle only designates differently iri different
aspects : fil'ioli, quia baptismo neonati sunt ; patres, quia Christum patrem et
antiquum dierum agnoscunt ; adolescentes, quia fortes sunt et validi. So also
is the opinion that the apostle has in view, not the difference in age, but the
difference in the degTee, or even in the length of existence, of Christian life ;
a Lapide : triplici hoc aetatis gradu triplicem Christianorum in virtute gradum et
quasi aetatum repraesentat ; pueri enim repraesentant incipientes et neophytos;
juvenes repraesentant profcientes ; senes perfectos ; similarly Clemens, Oecu
menius, further Gagneius, Cajetanus, Russmeyer, Grotius,'* etc. Some
commentators (as Erasmus, Socinus, J. Lange, Myrberg) also refer the two
expressions, rcKvia (ver. 12) and naidia (ver. 13), to the difference of age, and
understand by thera children, in the proper sense of the word; but more
prevalent is the view that this is true of naidla only, and that rsKvia, on the
other hand, is to be regarded as a form of address to all Christians ; Calvin ;
haec (namely, ver. 12) adhuc generalis est sententia, mox speciales sententias
accomodabit singulis aetatibus ; similarly Luther, Beza, Calov, Wolf, Bauni-
1 That "the distinction between church classes, quaedlscrlralnanon secundum aetatem,
leaders and church members appears In the sed secundum gradus dlversos ejus profectus,
distinction between old and young" (Hilgen- qui in Christo est, intelligi debent," cf. 1 Cor.
feld), is iu no way suggested. xiii. 11, 12; Heb. v. 13; Eph. iv. 13, U.
2 Grotius : " Partitur Christianos in trea

514 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
garten-Crusius, Sander, Neander, Besser, Ebrard, etc. With the first view
there arises a wrong succession, namely, children, fathers, young men;
instead of, children, young men, fathers, or, fathers, young men, children;
and, moreover, since rcKvia is in the Epistle frequently the form of address
to all readers, and not only with but also without pxm (see on ver. 1), so it
is to be taken here also. Equally, however, by nai&a the apostle addresses
all readers ; as Liicke, De Wette-Brtickner, Diisterdieck, Gerlach, Erdmann,
Ewald, Braune, rightly interpret. If we read before naiSla, with the Recep
tus, ypdipu iplv, there certainly results, if naidla is taken as alluding to chil
dren, a more accurate succession : fathers, young inen, children ; but (1)
according to almost all authorities we must read, not ypdipu, but eypatpa, and
the former reading can only be explained in this way, that nauVia was under
stood in its proper sense, and it was thought that this clause must be brought
into the closest connection with the preceding ; (2) then in the repetition of
the same succession in ver. 14 one member of it is wanting, as the children
are not mentioned again ; and (3) in ver. 18 naidla is used as a form of
address in reference to all readers; comp. John xxi. 5. Against the two
last reasons it might indeed be alleged, with Bengel, Sander, and Besser,
that from ver. 14 to ver. 17 is still intended for the veavioKoig, and that then
in ver. 18 the address to the children comes in, and that the sequel as far as
ver. 27 refers to them. But against this construction is : (1) the dissimi
larity in the form of the sentences that thereby results ; (2) the absence of
an exhortation addressed to the fathers ; (3) the unsuitable reference of the
warning against false teachers specially to the children, with the additional
remark, olSare ndvra, ver. 20, and oi xP"av ixere, iva rig diSdoK-y iudg, even though
the warning against false teachers in chap. iv. 1 ff. is referred without dis
tinction to all readers ; and, finally (4), the close connection of ver. 17 and
rer. 18 : 6 Koapog napdyerai (comp. ver. 8 : ij aKorla napdyerai), and iaxdry upa
earl. — According to the true construction of the sentences, they fall into
two groups; in each group first all Christians, and then specially the older
and the younger members of the church, are addressed ; ' the correctness of
this construction is shown also by this, that in reference to naripeg, and
equally to veavloKoi, in both groups the same thing is expressed, but iu refer
ence to all there are different statements. The arbitrary conjecture of
Calvin (with whom Wall agrees), that both the clauses of ver. 14 are
spurious, and interpolated temere by ignorant readers, requires no refutation.
— The interchange of ypd^u with the aorist iypaipa is peculiar, and is not to
be explained by saying that Ipyaipa points to another writing of the apostle,
whether it be the Gospel (Storr, Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schott, Ebrard,
Hofmann, Schriftbew., II. 2, § 336 ; Braune),^ or even an earlier Epistle

1 Even Ebrard regards the second triad as would have expressed this distinctly; 2. That
beginning with iraiSta, although he understauds thereby the train of thought of the Epistle is
by it childreu iu age; there is a glaring incon- unduly interrupted, since the assertion of the
sistency in this construction. reason why he had written the Gospel is here
2 To this view the following reasons are introduced without any connecting link; 8.
opposed: 1. That if the apostle in eypaif/a That then the emphasis contained in the three-
had another writing iu view than in ypd^io, he fold repetition of eypaifia remains inexplicablei

CHAP. II. 12-14. 515
(Michaelis) ; both expressions rather refer, as most of the commentators
have recognized, to this Epistle; not, however, to the same tiling, as some
commentators suppose; thus Bengel, who regards the two expressions as
synonymous, explains : verbo scribendi ex praesenti in praeterito transposito
innuit commonitionem fi-rmissimam, which cannot be grammatically justified ;i
and Diisterdieck, who thinks that the " different import of the present and
of the aorist can only be sought for in the representation of the writing
itself; that both times the apostle means the whole Epistle lying before
him ; that by ypdipu he represents himself in the immediately present act of
writing, and by ipya-ijia, on the other hand, his readers, who have received
the completed Epistle : " opposed to this, however, is the fact that such a
change of the mere form of representation would certainly be rather trifling.
The iypaipa must be referred to something else than the preceding ypdipu ;
yet it is not, with Neander and Erdmann,^ to be referred to that which is
expressed in the clauses beginning with ypaipu; for, on the one hand, the
clauses beginning with iypaipa have not the form of confirmation, and, on
the other hand, there is no real cause apparent for the addition of such a
confirmation; it seems more appropriate when Rickli thinks that ypdipu
refers to what follows, and iypaipa to what precedes ; ^ but opposed to this is
the fact that iypaipa would then stand more naturally before ypdipu. The
correct view has been taken by De Wette, Bruckner, and Ewald, who refer
iypaipa to what was already written, and ypdipu to the immediate act of
writing, and hence to the Epistle in general; taking this view, it is quite in
order for John to write ypiupu first, and that he then refers specially by iypaipa
to what has been already written is explained in this way, that this contains
the principal gTounds for the following exhortations and amplifications.* —
In each part a clause beginning with on follows the address ; this b-Fi is not

whereas it is perfectly justifiable if the refer- ** Pertinet hoc (eypa\pa) neque ad superiorem
ence to something wiitteu in this Epistle is epistolara, neque ad quidquam in hac ep. supra
intended to stimulate the readers more ear- dictum, sed ad ea, quae modo verbo ypdil)ia
nestly to attend to the following exhortation. notatasunt." Sirailarly Paulus, who compares
The view of Ebrard, that " while the Epistle with this the expression : *• His majesty decrees
plainly could only be understood by grown and has decreed."
people," the Gospel "is even for children 3 LUcke, following Rickli, thought that with
(iraiSia) enjoyable and pleasing food," scarcely the first part (on ontteojvrai, k.t.A.) corresponded
any one will indorse; although even Braune the section 11. 15-17 In what follows, and i. 5-7
passes this over in silence. in what precedes; with the second part (oti
1 When Buttmann (p. 172 [E. T., 198]) eyvaiKare, k.t.A.), in the former ii. 18-27, and
thinks that the change of tense is entirely in the latter i. 8-ii. 2 ; and with the third part
occasioned by the need for variation in a sixfold (oTt veviK-^Kare, k.t.K), in the forraer ii. 28-
repetition of the verb, it may be observed ili. 22, and in the latter ii. 3-11; but he
against this, that then ver. 14a would be afterwards gave up this artificial, cruciform
nothing but a repetition of ver. 13a. construction of the clauses, and explained the
* Neander explains; "As John had said: ypai^tu with eypai/Za as belonging to the rhetoric
* I write unto you,' so now he resumes con- of the author. See 3d ed. p. 265, note.
firmingly what has just been written, and * It is only if the signification of the section
says; 'I have written untoyou, 'as if hewould chap. i. 5-li. 11 for the essentially hortatory
say ; It is agreed. This that I am now writing Epistle is ignored, that it can be said, with
to you, I have now written, it is settled, I have Ebrard and Braune, that with this view the
nothing else to say to you, this you must antithesis of ypajpia and eypaipa becomes a mere
always allow to be said to you," Erdmann : repetition, or play upon words.

516 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
objective or declarative = "that" (Socinus, Lange, Russmeyer, Bengel,
Paulus, Johannsen, Neander, Hilgenfeld, etc.), but causal, "because" (Cal
vin, Beza, Baumgarten-Crusius, Liicke, De Wette-Brtickner, Gerlach, Diis
terdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard,^ etc.). The apostle does not want to say what
he is writing, but why he is writing to them ; comp. especially ver. 20, also
vv. 21, 27, iii. 5, 14, 15, v. 18-20. The particular Christian experiences of
his readers form the fundamental presuppositions of the Epistle ; it is not
any thing neio that the apostle declares unto them, but he reminds them of
what they knoV, so that they may take it more seriously to heart. — The
flrst thing that the apostle, addressing all, reminds them of is : on dipiuvrai
vplv ai dpapriai did rb bvopa airoi. The forgiveness of sins is the basis of all
Christian life ; therefore this is put first. — On the form used here, the
perfect passive dipiuvrai, see Buttmann, Ausf. gr. Gr., § 97, Anmerk. 3, and
§ 108, note 1; and Winer, p. 77 (E. T., 80). The Vulgate and Luther
incorrectly translated it as if it were the present : " are forgiven " (similarly
Rickli and others ; Paulus strangely interprets, deriving it from df idu =
dip' luvrai, dimiltuntur). — Std with the accusative is not = "through" (this
meaning, as is well known, it has only with the genitive, comp. Acts x. 43 :
dipeaiv dpapnuv laleiv bid rov bvbparog airoi), but = "for the sake of; " airoi =
Xpiaroi, not = Qeoi (Socinus, Paulus). According to most of the commen
tators, Sid r. bv, airoi refers to the objective ground of the forgiveness of sins,
and rb bvopa avroi signifies Christ Himself ; thus Dusterdieck : " Cljrist who
is what His name signifies;"^ but this is contrary to the Biblical u.sus lo
quendi; if by dm Christ is referred to as the author of salvation, the prepo
sition is always construed with the genitive ; by did rb bvopa airoi, therefore,
it is the subjective ground of forgiveness that is stated (De Wette-Briickner,
Braune), in this sense : because His name is in you, i.e., because ye believe
on His name (comp. ver. 23 ; mareveiv ru bvopari 'lyaov Xpiaroi). The name
is therefore not regarded as empty, but as the form which includes the
contents and reveals them; so that the subjective ground embraces in itself
the objective. — In the second group it is said, in regard to the readers of
the Epistle there called naidla; yp. iplv ... on iyvuKare rbv naripa. By 6 narijp
we are not to understand, with Hornejus, Christ, inasmuch as believers per
fdem in nomen ejus renati sunt, for such a designation of Christ has the
constant usus loquendi of Scripture against it, but God ; for the name 6 naryp
is used here without any more particular definition, with clear reference to
naiSla, and so God is here so called, not merely on account of His relation
ship to Christ, but equally on account of His relationship to those who, by
1 Luther varies curiously in his translation : ^ Similarly Sander : " God forgives our sins
in ver. 12 he translates otc " that," in ver. 13 for the sake of the offering which Christ made;
" for," and in ver. 14 again " that." Sander both of these — the person aud work of Christ
thinks tbat in w. 14 and 18 oti is used — are His narae, for the sake of which we
causatively, but that in ver. 12 both " because " receive forgiveness." Besser; •' for the sake
and " that " are contained in oti. Erdraann of all that Christ is, from the manger to the
takes OTt in the first three sentences o6^eciiue/y, throne." Ewald: " because Christ is and is
but he leaves it undecided whether in the last called Christ."
three sentences it is to be taken objectively or
causally.

CHAP. II. 12-14. 517
faith in Christ, have obtained the forgiveness of their sins, and are thereby
placed in the relationship of children to God. From this it is clear also how
exactly on dipiuvrai ipiv ai dpapriai and on iyvuKare rbv naripa correspond
with one another. But in the fact that John ascribes to the believers both
of these, he testifies to them that they are in possession of the fulness of
divine peace and of divine truth. — In regard to the naripeg, the apostle
brings out the same thing in both groups, vv. 13 and 14 : 5n iyvmare rbv dn'
dpxijg. If the forgiveness of sins and the knowledge of God are common to
all, the knowledge of Him who is utt' dpxyg is specially appropriate to the
older members of the church. When some commentators, as a Lapide,
Grotius (novistis Deum, qui Senex dierum; Dan. vii. 9, xiii. 22), and others,
understand by 6 dn' dpxyg God, they ignore the deeper connection which
exists between the particular ideas ; 6 utt' dpxyg is Christ, but not so called
because He is the author of Christianity,^ but because He is from all
eternity ; aw' dpxijg is used in the same sense as in chap. i. 1. John brings
out by this designation of Christ the truth that Christ is subject of their
knowledge in the quality of His being herein mentioned; it is therefore
incorrect to understand eyvuKure of the personal knowledge of Him who was
manifest in the flesh (Bengel, Schoettgen, etc.) ; the word has rather the
same meaning as in ver. 3.^ John ascribes this knowledge to the fathers,
because he might with justice assume that they had not contented them
selves with a superficial knowledge of Christ in His appearance according
to the sense, but had looked more deeply into the eternal nature of the
Lord. — In regard to the young men, it is said in both groups : on veviKyKare
rbv novypov; not as if the same were not true also of the older members of
the church, but John attributes this eminently to the young men, because
they, in accordance with their age, had just recently obtained this victory,
and their <;are therefore must be specially this, not to lose again what had
been lately won. That 6 novypbg is the devil (comp. Matt. xiii. 19, 38, 39;
Eph. vi. 16; 1 John iii. 12, v. 18, 19), the commentators have rightly
recognized.* Carpzov suitably says : Viris fortibus et robustis tribuitur supra
fortissimum et robustissimum victoria. In the second group some further sub
ordinate clauses precede that word, which state the conditions under which
the young men have attained their victory: on laxvpol iare; iaxvpo'i, '^strong
in spirit," with special reference to the fight, comp. Heb. xi. 34 ; Luke xi.
21 ; Matt. xii. 29 (Dusterdieck) ; here also bn is " because,'' not " that," thus :
"because ye are strong," not "that ye are to be strong" (Paulus). — This
conquering power of the young raen is not their "own moral strength"
(Baumgarten-Crusius), but the effect of the Word of God; therefore John

1 Socinus : " Novi foederis et evangelii the statement of a certain formula about the
patefacti primum initium;" Semler: "Qui person of Christ."
inde ab initio auctor fuit hujus melioris ^ Even Semler admits this, but then ob-
religionis." serves ; •' Est usitata Judaeorura descriptio,
2 Neander ; " A knowledge of Christ as the quae gravium peccatorum et flagitiorum ma-
One who is from the beginning, which results gistrum diabolum designat, quam descrip-
from the deeper communion with the person- tionem non opus est nt Chrlstiaui retineant,
ality of Christ. This is something else than quum nou sint ex Judaeis."

518 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
adds : kui b loyog roi Qeoi iv iplv pivei, and only then brings in koI vevmyKare,
K.r.l. — The individual sentences are simply placed side by side in order to
let each of them appear the more strongly in its own meaning. The train
of thought, however, is this, that their strength has its ground in the Word
of God, which is permanent in them (pivet), and that it is in this power that
they have attained the victory. i This relation is correctly stated by Gro
tius, who explains the first kuI by quia, the second by ob id. — b loyog roi Qeov
is not = Christ, but the word proceeding from God, i.e., the Gospel, of
which the personal Christ is no doubt the substance.
Vv. 15-17. A warning against love of the world, which is directed
neither specially to the children (Oecumenius : inroyrai ydp del rd naidia nepl
rb ipaivbpevov ybi), nor specially to the young men (Bengel, Semler, Besser),
but to all (Bede : omnibus haec generaliter ecclesiae fliis scribit).
Ver. 15. py dyandre rbv Koauov]. The meaning of dyandv depends on that
of the idea Koapog. — Koapog is with John eminently an ethical conception ~
mankind, fallen away from God, and of hostile disposition towards Him,
together with all that it lives for and has made its own; comp. on Jas. i. 27,
iv. 4 (similarly Gerlach, Besser, Dusterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune). ^
The explanations that deviate from this are divided into three leading
classes : (1) Those in which Koapog is regarded as a total number of men
indeed, but in a limited way; either = "the heathen world" (Lange), or,
more indefinitely, ¦ " the mass of common men " (Oecumenius : 6 avpiperdg
bxlog, bg oi ryv rov narpbg exei dyiinyv 'ev iavru ; Calovius : hom'mes dediti rebus
hujus mundi), or "the greater part of men" (Grotius: humanum genus, _
secundum partem majorem, quae in mails actionibus versatur) ; Storr limits the
idea here "to that part of the world which the antichristians coBstituted."
(2) Those which understand Koapog not of the human world itself, but of
the evil dwelling in it ; so says the Scholiast : Koapov ryv KoapiKyv ipilybovlav koI
bidxvaiv leyei, yg eariv dpxuv d didBolog ; Luther: "the world, i.e., godlessness
itself, through which a man has not the right use of the creatures ; " to this
class belong also the explanations of Calvin, Morus, S. Schmid, Semler;'
but in this abstract sense the word never appears elsewhere ; and besides,
taking this view, difiiculties appear in the sequel which can only be

1 Weiss groundlessly finds in what is said koo-^o? (ii.2) the whole huraan race, as needing
above an incorrect expression, and thinks that salvation, is to be understood.
oot. Vae abiding , -^iii Vne being oi the Word of 3 Calvin: "Mundi nomine intellige, quic-
God in them is the ground of their strength ; quid ad praesentem vitam spectat, nbi separa-
for to the Apostle John the being is really tur a regno Dei et spe vitae aeternae. Ita in
this only when it is a firm and abiding ex- se coraprehendit omne genus corruptelae et
istence. malorum omnium abyssum." Morus explains
2 It might not be incorrect to suppose that k6o-/xo9 by : " malum morale ; " S. Schmid by ;
John, when he here and afterwards in his " corrnptio peccarainosa ; " Semler by : " vul-
Epistle places the koo-^iao? in sharp contrast gata consuetudo hominum, res corporeas uuice
with believers, specially understands the sum- appetentium." Here raay be enumerated also
total of those who, as the light has come into the interpretation of Erdraann ; "Totus com-
the world, love the darkness rather than light plexus et ambitus mali, quatenus hoc uon so-
(Gospel of John iii. 13), and therefore not lum toti generi humano, verum etiam propter
unsaved humanity as suoh, but those of raan- hominura a Deo defectionem omnibus rebus
kind who resist salvation, while by oAos 6 humanis totique rerura naturae inhaeret."

CHAP. IL 13. 519
overcome by arbitrary interpretations. (3) Those explanations in which
Koapog is regarded as the total of perishable (actual) things ; these things
being regarded as purely physical, there lies in the idea Koapog, in and by
itself, no ethical meaning, but this appears only through the dyandv which
is connected with it ; the Koapog as a creature of God is in itself good and
irreproachable, but the love to the Kbapog, through which man centres his
affections on it, and makes it the single aim of his activity, is to be blamed,
because amid all association with earthly things it is not they, but God,
that must be loved; thus there results for the command, py dyandre rbv
Koapov, certainly an appropriate idea ; but what follows in vv. 18 and 17 has
induced almost all commentators who accept this view to give, nevertheless,
to the idea Koapog itself, more or less distinctly, an ethical reference ; thus
Liicke indeed says: "6 Koapog is, as the sum total of the temporal and
sensuous, in contrast (!) to the nveipa, alwa3's only the objective sphere of
evil, i.e., to which it tends as ethical direction and disposition," but
immediately afterwards he explains the same idea " as the sum total of all
sensuous appearances, which excite the desire of the senses ; " still more
definitely De Wette says : " the sum total of that which attracts des'ire, the
temporal, sensuous, earthly — regarded in contrast with God." But this
connection of the ethical reference with the idea of actual things is itself
rather unsuitable : not in the things, but in man himself, lies the cause of
the seductive charm which things exercise upon him; besides, it is not
possible to retain this conception of the word without modification to the
end of the 17th verse. i It is true some commentators ^ distinctly say that
John here makes a sort of play upon the word ; but such an assuraption
does too much violence to the clearness and certainty of the thought for us
to approve of it. The right view, therefore, is to take 6 Kbapog here in the
same sense that the word prevailingly has throughout John's works, so that
it signifies the world lying iv ru novypu. This xoapog, thi^ is the meaniug
of the apostle's warning, is not to be the object of the dydny of believers.
From this it follows that dyandv here means neither " to love too much,"

1 Thus Liicke finds himself compelled in ates from the explanation which he had given
the case of n-ai/ iv tw kouv-i? to make an ab- of ver. 15 ; in the latter he regards 6 koo-^oj as
straction of the things themselves, and to " the world and earthly things," but in the
understand thereby their ethical reference; former as "the predominating tendency of
and here results the certainly unjustifiable the soul to the world, the growing worldliness
thought that this ethical reference of things of tho soul, which blends itself with the
has its origin in the things themselves (eK tou world."
Koo-jtou). Still more decidedly De Wette says 2 Thus a Lapide says (after he has assigned
that in the words eK tou kohvlov eari, ver. 16, to the word three meanings, namely (1) " ho-
" 6 Koap-os is not regarded as the sum total of mines mundani, in his proprie est concupiscen-
earthly things, but as the sensuous life alien- tia;" (2) "orbis sublunaris, in hoc mundo
ated from God, or as the sum total of worldly proprie et formaliter non est concupiscentia;
men who enjoy this." Soraewhat differently, sed in eo est concupiscentia materialis, i.e.,
Briickner : " that the sum total of earthly evil, objectum concupiscibile ; " (3) " ipsa mundana
of the Koo-MO!, is here regarded rather of real vita vel concupiscentia in genere ") ; " omnibus
things, is clear from the subordinate clause hisce modis mundus hic accipi potest et
/i.Tj6e tA ev riZ k. ; in ver. 16, the personal aspect Johannes nunc ad unum, nunc ad alterum res-
prevails." Neander, on ver. 16, equally devi- picit; ^wdti enim in voce mundus."

520 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
nor " to love with unhallowed sense," but love in the strictest sense of the
word, consisting in a life of inner fellowship. ^ — uySe rd iv ru Koapu], As
Koapog is an ethical idea, natural objects as such cannot be meant by ri iv
r, K., but only these in so far as they are taken by the ungodly world into
its service ; or, better, the apparently good things which the world pursues,
or with which it delights itself, and which therefore belong to it, as riches,
honor, power, human wisdom, and such like. Ebrard erroneously under
stands thereby "the different kinds of sinful impulse, thought, and action,
e.g., avarice, ambition, sensuality, and such like," for either of these is
plainly a love (although a false, unholy love) which cannot itself again be
regarded as the object of love. — idv ng dyana rbv Koapov, oiK ianv, K,r.l.].
By this sentence the apostle confirms the previous exhortation, expressing
the incongruity of love to the Kbapog with the ayuTr;? roi narpbg ; Bede : Unum
cor duos tam sibi adversarios amores non capit. By uj-aTn? roi narpbg is to be
understood neither the love of God to us (Luther IL, Calovius), nor the
charitas quam Pater praescribit (Socinus) ; but, as by far the most of
commentators (Bede, Beza, Grotius, Vatablus, Spener, etc., and all the
modern commentators, even Ebrard, despite his erroneous interpretation
of ver. 5), interpret, love to God.^ — If narpbg is the correct reading, then
the name Father is here to be explained from the filial relationship of
Christians to God, and points to their duty not to love the world, but God.
— Between the two sorts of liydTn? there is the same exclusive contrast as
between the Qeu bovleieiv and papuvf bovleieiv, Matt. vi. 24. Compare also
Jas. iv. 4 : y ipilia roi Koapov, exBpa roi Qeoi iariv.
Ver. 16. Confirmation of the preceding thought that love to the world
is inconsistent with love to God. — otj ttuv rb iv rip Koapu]. Bede incorrectly
explains the neuter here (as it certainly does appear elsewhere in John) as
masculine : omnes mundi d'lleclores non habent nisi concupiscentiam ; most com
mentators regard the expression as identical with the foregoing rd iv ru Koapip;
even Diisterdieck, who, in reference to the following y iniBvpla, k.t.1., thinks
that a " change occurs from the representation of the objects of the love of
the world to the subjective desire itself, and its actual manifestations.''
But even apart from the fact that the assuraption of such a change in the
form is only a makeshift, the expression of the apostle himself is opposed to
this ; for had he not meant by ttuv rb iv r. k. something else than by rd iv ru k.,
he would have put the neuter plural here also. Besides, it must not be over
looked why the following, y IniBvpia, k.t.1., could not be the apposition stating
the sense of ndv r. iv r. k. (Frommann, p 209).^ Accordingly, the apostle
means by this expression, all that forms the contents, i.e., the substance of
the Koapog ; its inner life, which animates it (Braune) : in what this consists.

1 Liicke groundlessly thinks the idea of 3 According to Ebrard, ndv r'o ev r. k, is a
love must necessarily be weakened to that resuraption of toi ev r, k.; as, however, he
of " mere longing for," if by koo-jllos the understands by it various kinds of conduct,
huraan world is understood. etc., that idea is rightly interpreted by him.
2 A combination of both interpretations : Myrberg agrees with the interpretation given
" Amor patris erga suos et filialis erga pa- above.
trem" (Bengel), is clearly unjustifiable.

CHAP. II. 16. 521
the following words state, ij ini6vpla ryg aapKbg, k.t.1,]. Although the ideas
iniBvpia and dlaQavela in themselves denote a subjective disposition of man,
yet several commentators think that here not this, but the objective things
are meant, to which that subjective disposition is directed (Bengel, Russ
meyer, Lange, Ewald), or that the otherwise subjective idea disappears into
the objective (De Wette), or at least that both the subjective and the objec
tive are to be thought of together (Lorinus, Bruckner). But with the cor
rect conception of the ideas Koapog aud n-ui' to iv ru Kbapu there is no apparent
reason for such an arbitrary explanation, by which violence is done to the
•words of the apostle. — y iniBvula ryg aapKog]. The genitive is here not
the genitive of the object, but, as is the case with iniBvp'ia ^ always in the
N. T. (except 2 Pet. ii. 10 ; on Eph. iv. 22 comp. Meyer on this passage),
the genitive of the subject, hence not "the desire directed towards the flesh,"
but "the desire which the flesh, i.e., the corrupted sensual nature of man,
cherishes, or which is peculiar to the flesh ; " comp. Gal. v. 17, y adp( iniBvpel.
— Ebrard interprets, describing the genitive as that " of quality and refer
ence," for which he wrongly appeals to Eph. iv. 22, 2 Pet. ii. 10 : " the
desire which occurs in the sphere of the flesh ; " the apostle scarcely con
ceived the idea so indefinitely. The idea raay be taken in a broader or in
a narrower sense; the first view in Liicke ("fleshly, sensuous desire in gen
eral, in contrast to nveipan nepmarelv and uyeaBai ; comp. Eph. ii. 3 ; 1 Pet.
ii. 11"), De Wette, Neander, Diisterdieck; in the second, the desire of sen
suality and drunkenness is specially understood; Augustine: desiderium
earum rerum, quae pertinent ad carnem., sicut cibus et concubitus et caetera hujus
modi; similarly Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Besser, etc. ; Briick
ner limits the idea to " the lust of the flesh in the narrower sense ; " Gerlach
specially to every sort of pursuit of enjoyment;^ and Ebrard to '¦'sexual
enjoyments."' The right explanation can be found only on the considera
tion of the following expression. — kuI y iniBvpia ruv bipBalpuv, i.e., "the
desire that is inherent in the eyes, that is peculiar to them ; " the expression is
explained in this way, that the desire of seeing something is attributed to
the sense of sight itself.^ This idea also is understood in a broader and
in a narrower sense. As Liioke calls the eyes, " as it were, the principal
gates of sensual desire for the external world," he identifies this idea with
the preceding one; De Wette does the same, interpreting it (in objective
aspect): "what the eyes see, and by what sensual desire is excited." The
connection by kuI, however, which is further followed by a second Kai, shows
that the two ideas are to be definitely distinguished. Accordingly, most
1 It is arbitrary for Ebrard to say : en-t^ujiLia » This explanation results for Ebrard from
is here — as In John viii. 44 ; Rom. vii. 8; Gal. the fact that he takes irdp^ here = o-d>^a, and
v. 16, etc. — "that which one lusts after," then describes the idea "^ejiswa^" as ideutical
which indeed he again cancels by translating with "sexual" (!).
the word by " lust." ' ¦" Ebrard strangely thinks that in this view
2 Even Bengel takes the expression (while, the genitive b^9a\p.iov is regarded as objective
however, he understands it of the objective genitive = " the desire for eyes, i.e., for enjoy-
things) in a narrower sense : " Ea quibus pas- ment of the eyes."
cuntur sensus, qui appellantur fruitivi : gustus
et tactus."

522 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
coraraentators justly regard iniB. ruv bipBalpivv as the description of a special
sort of iniBvp'iu ; thus (against De Wette) BrUckner in subjective and objec
tive view, " the lust of the eyes, and, at the same time, that in which, as
sensuous and earthly, the eyes delight." Two different interpretations are
found with a moi-e exact definition. Very many commentators, as Luther,
Socinus, Grotius, Hornejus, Estius, Lorinus, Wolf, Clarius, Paulus, Semler,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Gerlach, etc.,i hold, though with some modifications,
the expression to be substantially synonymous with nleove^la, avaritia. On
behalf of this interpretation, appeal is made principally to several passages
of the O. T., and especially to Eccles. iv. 8, v. 10; Prov. xxiii. 5, xxvii. 20;
but erroneously, for even thrfugh the eye of the covetous or avaricious man
looks with pleasure on his treasures, and eagerly looks out for new ones, still
the possession or acquirement of wealth is to him the chief thing ; the striv
ing for it, however, is not expressed by the phrase iniBvpia ruv i^Salpuv.
Still less justifiable is the explanation of Ebrard, who partly agrees with
those commentators, but regards the idea of "avarice" as too nairow; and,
with an appeal to passages such as Ps. xvii. 11, liv. 9, xci. 8, xcii. 12 ; Prov.
vi. 17, etc., maintains that by y iniB. r. b<pB. is meant "the whole sphere of
the desires of selfishness, envy, and avarice, of hatred and revenge (!)."
Other commentators, on the contrary, retain the reference to the pleasure
of mere sight, but limit this too much to dramatic performances, etc. ; thus
Augustine : omnis curios'iias in spectaculis, in theatris ; similarly, Neander and
others. Such a limitation, however, is arbitrary ; accordingly, others refer
the expression to other objects of sight ; ^ but it is more correct to take the
reference to these things in a qiiite general way, and, with Spener, to inter
pret "all sinful desire by which we seek delight in the seeing itself" (so
also Braune) ; besides, it is to be observed that ij iniBvula r, bipB, is not the
desire for wealth, etc., which is excited by the sight (Rickli and others),'
but the desire of seeing unseemly things, and the sinful pleasure which the
sight of them affords.^ Thus, this idea is quite exclusive of the iniBvpia ryg
aapiwg ; if the latter is taken quite generally, then the lust of the eyes is a
particular species of it, which the apostle specially mentions in order to meet
the idea that the desire of seeing any thing, can have nothing sinful iu it.
But, having regard to the simple juxtaposition of the ideas by koI, it is more
correct to suppose that John conceived the iniB. ryg aapKog not in that general
sense, but in the particular sense of the "lust for wealth and immoderate
enjoyment,'.' so that the two ideas stand to one another in the relation not
of subordination, but of co-ordinatiou, both being subordinate to the general
idea of 'eniBvp'ia, — koI y dla^oveia toi ji'iav], dlatfive'ia is usually translated by
1 Sander also explains it of avarice, but fostered by the sight." Diisterdieck under-
would not exclude the curiositas in spectacu- stands by it specially covetousness and avarice ;
lis, etc. ; regarding this, however, as merely but at the same time observes that every sort
collateral. of desire raay be excited by the eye.
2 Thus Calvin: "Tam libidinosos conspec- * Bengel extends the idea beyond the limit
tus coraprehendit, quam vanitatem, quae in which lies in the expression itself, when he
pompis et inani splendore vagatur." explains: *'Ea, quibus tenentur sensus in-
3 Rickli interprets ;" the low, sensual style vestigativi: oculus, sive visus, anditus et
of thought, in so far as this is excited and olfactus."

CHAP. II. 16. 523
superbia, ambit'io (Socinus : amhitio in honoribus quaerendis ac sectandis), and
by similar words, and thereby is understood ambition, together with the
pride and haughty contempt for others which are frequently associated with
it;l thus Cyril interprets (Homil. Pasch,, xxvii.): dla^ovelav r, 8. ipyal tuv
d^iupdruv vnepoxyv koi rb ijppivov vipog Kard ye npyv Kal bb^av. Thereby, however,
its peculiar meaning is not assigned to the word. In the N. T. dla^oveia
only appears in Jas. iv. 16 (in the plural) ; the adjective dld^uv in Rom.
i. 30 and 2 Tim. iii. 2, iu close connection with inepyipavog, from which, how
ever, it does not follow that the idea of ambition, thirst for glory, etc., is
contained in it, but only that the dl^C, is related to vnepyipavia; in James is
meant thereby — according to the context — the haughtiness which overlooks
the uncertainty of earthly happiness, and ostentatiously relies on its permanence.
In the same sense = ostentatious pride in the possession, whether real or pre
tended, of earthly good things, such as happiness, power, knowledge, etc., the
word appears also in the Apocrypha of the O. T. ; comp. Wisd. v. 8, xvii. 7;
2 Macc. ix. 8, xv. 6. In classical Greek dla^ovela has almost always the col
lateral meaning of the unreality of proud ostentation,^ which has obtained in
Hellenistic usage only in so far that the idea here also always refers to some
thing by its very nature worthless and trifling, and in this way certainly in
cludes a delusion or unreality. This meaning is to be retained here also, as
is rightly done by Liicke, Sander, Besser, Braune ; ^ for examples in the Scrip
tures, comp. 1 Chron. xxii. 1 ff. ; Eccles. ii. 1 ff. ; Ezek. xxviii. 16, 17;
Dan. iv. 27 ; Rev. xvii. 4, xviii. 7, etc. The genitive roi 0'iov serves for the
more particular definition of the idea; ^log signifies in the N. T. either
"temporal Ufe" (1 Tim. ii. 2; 1 Pet. iv. 3, Rec), or raore commonly "the
support of life, the means " (chap. iii. 17 ; Mark xii. 44 ; Luke viii. 43, xv.
12, 30, xxi. 4); it never has the meaning "conduct of life" (Ebrard).
Following Polyb., Hist., vi. 576: y nepl roig 0'iovg dlaCpvela Kal nolvreleia, it is
appropriate to take jllog here in the second meaning, and the genitive as
objective genitive (so Liicke) ; as, however, aapKog aud bipBalpuv are subjective
genitives, it is much more correct to take plov also as subjective genitive,
and accordingly to interpret " the dla^oveia peculiar to the fSlog ; " in the
expression ybovai roi (iiau, Luke viii. 14, roi 0'iou may also be the objective
genitive, thus : " the pleasures which refer to the (Slog, the temporal good ; "
but more probably it is the subjective genitive here also, especially if it be
connected with the preceding ideas (see Meyer on this passage), thus, " the
pleasures peculiar to the present life."*
1- Calvin : " Fastus aut superbia, cui con- etc. ; a definite distinction between this idea
juncta est amhitio, jactantia, aliorum contemp. and eTTiQvv.ia is requisite. — Augustine not in
tus, coecus amor sui, praeceps confidentia." accurately describes the dKd^tav thus ; " jactare
2 Theophr., Charact. 23: npoairoi-ijtrii n^ se vult lu honoribus, magnus sibi videtur, sive
dyaOiiiv oiiK ovrbiv irp'o^ 56^av; -piaio, Phaedr.: de divitiis, sive de aliqua potentia." Ebrard
efts Trpoo-TTOtijTtKi) ayadou rj dyaOiav riitv M wrongly denies that according to Hellenistic
vnapxovroiv ; antithesis of e-ipmveia. usage the element of pride is contained in the
3 With this view Neander, Gerlach, and idea dKa^oveia; neither in classical nor in
Diisterdieck substantially agree also; yet'their Uellenistic usage has the word the meaning
paraphrases do not keep i>reci8ely enough " luxury," which he maintains for it.
within the definite limits ofi the extent of the * The commentators for the raost part
idea, as they include ostentation, ambition, express themselves somewhat vaguely. De

524 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Kemask. — It has almost become traditional to find the modes of appearance
of the evil fully stated in this threefold form, corresponding to the triplicity
which appears in the Greek writers, as in Pythag. Cl'inias : ipilydovia piv iv ralg
d-nolaiaeai ralg did auparog, nleove^ia be iv ru Kepdaivetv, ^ilodo^la de iv ru KaBvnepixetv
TUV iauv re Kal bpuluv; for other expressions, see Wetstein. ^ This threefold form,
it has been thought, is found both in the fall, and again in the temptation of
Christ; thus Bede, following Augustine, says: Per haec tria tantum cupiditas
humana tentatur ; per haec tria Adam tentatus est et victus ; per haec tentatus
est Christus et vicit ; while a Lapide finds expressed in it even the contrast with
the three Persons in the divine Trinity.^ — Bengel opposes this view, and makes
such a distinction between the iniB. rijg aapKog and the iniB, i, bipB,, that he refers
the former to the sensus fruitivi, the latter to the sensus investigativi, but says
of the dla^ovela r, j3, ; arrogantia vitae est, quae cupiditatem foras educit et
longius in mundum diffundit, ut homo velit quam plurimvs esse in victu, cultu,
etc.; and then observes: no)i concidunt cum his tribus tria vitia cardinalia:
voluptas, avaritia, superbia ; sed tamen in his continentur. By the last clause
Bengel shows, however, " that there is a trace of that scheme to be found even
in him" (Diisterdieck). — Liicke has more decidedly expressed himself against
it, inasmuch as he finds in that threefold form only "the three chief points
of worldly lust" (according to the first edition, only "as examples") ; and,
moreover, the points "in which it proceeds from the sensual desire to the
climax of the dla^oveia." But Lucke's own interpretation of the particular
ideas is opposed to such a progress, as he makes the first two ideas to coincide
in regard to their substance, and thus no progress takes place from the one
IniBvpia to the other, nor is it, besides, in any way hinted at by the apostle. —
Liicke rightly contends that particular leading vices are the subject here ; not
individual vices, but the leading forms (Liicke) ;' or, as Briickner says, the
leading tendencies of worldly sense are stated by the apostle in that threefold
form. But in what relation do these stand to one another ? According to
Diisterdieck, the intBvpla ryg aapKog forms the superior idea, to which the two
other ideas, as mutually co-ordinate, are in subordination: " The first-mentioned
lust of the flesh, the most comprehensive and thorough description of the love
of the world (ver. 1.5), embraces both the lust of the eyes and the pride of life."
This is incorrect. For, on the one hand, the uyuTri? to the Koapog is not to be
identified with the imBvpla ryg oapKog, as the latter rather describes the inner
nature of the Koapog; the apostle warns against that love, because in the Koapog

"Wette explains : " the enjoyment, combined to his fellow-men, and finally, his relation to
with pride of (earthly) life (not : of the good them and complication with them, is, as resting
things of life) ; " Braune says that the genitive on a false interpretation of the particular ideas,
is to be taken as subjective genitive, and then just as little to be justified.
interprets ; " the genitive t. piov signifies the 2 The counterpart of these three forms of
side on which ostentatious pride usually the sinful life is, accordiug to a Lapide, the
appears;" Ewald translates; "swindling in ihvee primariae virtutes : continentia, chari-
raoney," which is not only indefinite, but even tas, humilitas, which coincide very exactly
unjustifiable. with the three monastic vows of chastity,
1 Ebrard justly denies that a division of sin poverty, and obedience.
as such is to be sought for here; but his own 3 When Liicke calls those three not raerely
view, that in that threefbid forra there is given the leading forms, but also the principles and
a distribution of worldly conduct in its entire sources of the worldly sense, this is not
extent, and m this way, that first the relation correct ; for the worldly sense does not spring
of raan to his own bodily and sensual nature from the eiridvp-ia, k.t.A., but i/ie latter is the
is expressed, then the egotistical opposition living motion of tfie former.

CHAP. II. 17. 525
the iniBvpia which is not of God dominates; the thought that is to be supplied
is this, that love to the /f6<7|U0f necessarily implies an entrance into its nature;
and, on the other hand, the apostle's form of expression is utterly opposed to
such a subordination ; the two first-mentioned forms of worldly sense are by the
same appellation eniBvpla closely connected with each other, and distinguished
from the third, which is not called iniBvpia, but dla^ovela;^ it is unsuitable,
however, to regard the latter as imBvpla ; intBvpla is the desire directed to the
attainment of any good — the lust for something (not exactly the lust or delight
in any thing), but the dlaiovela is a definite behavior in regard to the good
which one possesses. The worldly man stands in a double relationship to the
perishable good things; on the one hand, he aspires after them, whether he
wants to possess and enjoy them or to delight himself with looking at them; on
the other hand, he fancies himself great in them when he has them as his own.
— That the whole sphere of sinful life is not here surveyed, Luther has noticed
when he says : " The following three things are not of the Father, viz. :
(1) hatred of tlie brethren ; (2) the three idols of the world ; (3) false and
seductive teaching." — Sander also brings out the same trichotomy of sinful
corruption, appealing for it to chap. ii. 2-12, where the subject is the first, to
w. 15-17, where it is the second, and to ver. 19 ff., where it is the third. The
apostle certainly mentions these different modes of the appearance of sin; but
that the organism of the Epistle rests on this, is an assertion that goes too far.
The following words, ovk ianv iK rov narpbg, k.t.I., express the anti-divine
character of the worldly nature of the imBvpla, k.t.1. — naryp, as in ver. 15 ;
Koapog here quite in the same sense as before. — elvai ix is, according to
Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette, not the description of the origin,
but only of the connection and similarity ; by this view, however, the depth
of John's conception is ignored ; the expression rather embraces both, but
the second only as the result of the first (so also Ebrard) ; comp. John
viii. 44. — By the addition of dll' Ik roi Koapov iari the antagonism between
God and the world, as the source of the ungodly disposition, is brought out
with peculiar distinctness.
Ver. 17 adds a new element to the preceding, whereby the exhortation
of ver. 15 is strengthened and confirmed. — kuI b Koapog napdyerai is frequently
taken by commentators, with an appeal to 1 Cor. vii. 31, as an expression
of the transitoriness of the world ; either the present being changed into the
future (Bede : mundus transibit, quum in die Judicii per ignem in meliorem
mutabitur figuram, ut sit coelum novum et terra nova), or the peculiar nature of
the world being regarded as described in it (Oecumenius : tu Koapmd iniBvpy-
para oiK ixet rb pivov re Kai iarug, dlld napdyerai) ; Diisterdieck combines both ;
the apostle, according to him, expresses a truth "which holds good with ever
present meaning, and which will thereby show itself some time in fact " (so
also Ebrard and Braune). But ver. 8 and the following iax&ry Upa iariv
make it more than probable that the apostle here also uses napdyerai in the
consciousness of the approaching second advent of Christ and the judgment
1 Frommann (p. 270 ff.) justly remarks that desire, and the a\aioveia the action, which in
the two leading forms are the en-i9u/u.ia and the attainment of the object desired has already
the dAafoi/cta; that the eTnSvpia signifies the found its satisfaction.

526 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
on the Koapog which is connected with it, thus, "the world is in the state of dis
appearing;" in 1 Cor. vii. 31, napdyet rb axypa roi Koapov rovrov is said with
the same feeling. — koI y iniBvpia airoi]. With the world passes away also
the iniBvpia which dwells in it; whereby the apostle briefly refers to the
threefold forra previously naraed : airoi is not genitive of the object (Liicke,
Neander, Sander, Besser), but of the subject (Diisterdieck, Braune); though
there is raention previously of an dyandv rbv Koapov, yet there is none of an
imBvpla directed towards the Koapog ; the contrary view rests on an erroneous
interpretation of Koapog. — b Se noiuv rb Bilypa rov Qeoi, antithesis to 6 Koapog,
which in its iniBvpia does not do the will of God. It is true, " 6 naryp " is
previously put as antithesis to the Koapog, but it does not follow from this
that the antithesis here is not to be taken as fully corresponding, and "ini-
BvpCrv " to be taken out of iniBvpia (LUcke) ; the appearance of this arises
only from the fact that Koapog is taken as something concrete. The expres
sion used by the apostle is synonymous with b dyanuv rbv Qebv ; for the doing
of the divine will is the effect of love to Him. — pivei eig rbv aiuva, antithesis
of napdyerai ; the expression signifies, as frequently, eternal, infinite endur
ance, comp. John vi. 51, 58, viii. 35, etc. That John regarded this abiding
forever as the eternally happy life in the fellowship of God, is certain, but is
not contained in the expression. ^ To the Koapog is assigned Bdvarog, to the
children of God (uij aidivrng.
Vv. 18-27. Warning against the antichrists, whose presence shows that
the last hour has come. Description of them, and exhortation to believers
to continue in that which they have heard from the beginning, combined
with the testimony that they have known the truth. — This section stands
in closest connection with the preceding one ; for, in the first place, the pre
ceding exhortation is occasioned by the thought that it is iaxdry iipa, as is
evidenced by the appearance of the dvr'ixpiarot; and, in the second place, the
uvr'ixpiarai, of whom the apostle treats here, are, as it is put in chap. iv. 5,
VK rov Koapov.
Ver. 18. The appearance of the dvrixpiarot shows that the last hour has
come. — naiSla; not an address to the children (see on vv. 12-14), but to all
readers.^ — iaxdry dipa 'ear'i]. iaxdry Upa may be the whole Christian era from
the incarnation of Christ to His second advent. In the O. T. prophecy the
appearance of the Messiah was promised ^^^^T} JTIH^'S (Isa. ii. 2 ; Hos. iii.
5; Mic. iv. 1, LXX.: iv ralg eaxaraig ypipatg; comp. also Acts ii. 16).
Hence arose among the Jews the distinction of the two eras : njn dVij; (a'lijv
oirog) and K3n D7l;> (a'ii>v pilluv), the former the time up to the appearance
of the Messiah, the latter embracing the Messianic time itself. — In the
N. T. are found, partly the former idea that Christ has appeared in the last
' Ebrard arbitrarily explains that by aiiiv will be permitted to see the victory of Christ's
is to be uuderstood " the seen which will kingdom."
begin with the visible establishment in glory ' For the contrary, Ebrard appeals to the
of Christ's kingdom on earth," and that 6 peculiarly childUke character of this section;
-iroiHiv ... ets T. aiuiva therefore raeans : " he but plainly this bears no other character than
who does the will of God shall remain till the thewAo/eEpistle, of which Ebrard himself says
establishment of the kingdom of Christ — he that it could only be understood by adults.

CHAP. II. 18. 527
time (Heb. i. 1 ; 1 Pet. i. 20), partly also the distinction of these two periods,
but in this way, that the altiv oirog does not close with thefrst appearance of
Christ, but only with his parousia, which coincides with the avvreleta rov
a'luvog; comp. Mark x. 30; Luke xx. 34, 35; Eph. i. 21. — Inasrauch as the
period which begins with the birth of Christ is now the last preceding
the avvrileia, it may be described by the expression iaxdr:y Upa, as Calvin says :
ultimum tempus, in quo sic complentur omnia, ut nihil supersil praeter ultimam
Christi revelationem. This view is the customary one with the older com
mentators ; Semler agrees with it, but the context is opposed to it ; on the
one hand, it results from, vv. 8 and 17 that the apostle is writing with a
presentiment of the parousia of Christ ; and, on the other hand, the conclu
sion of this verse : bBev, k.t.1., shows that the apostle cannot here mean the
whole period extending from the first appearance of Christ to His second
coming, but only a distinct time in it, namely, the time immediately pre
ceding its termination ; in favor of this also is the usus loquendi of the IST. T. ;
comp. 2 Tim. iii. 1; Jas. v. 3; 1 Pet. i. 5; 2 Pet. iii. 3; along with which
it is to be observed, that, especially in the Gospel of John, the day of judg
ment is called ij ijpipa iaxdry. Liicke, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ger
lach, Erdmann, Myrberg, Ebrard, etc., have therefore rightly interpreted the
expression as a description of this time. The hesitation to admit that
the apostle was mistaken in his expectation of the nearness of the advent,
has given rise to many a false interpretation. Socinus and Grotius think
that iaxdry ijpaia the time immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem ;
this view approximates to that of Diisterdieck, according to which the last
time before the commencement of the Kpiaig is meant, which had its begin
ning at the destruction of Jerusalem. But the scruple is not overcome by
this, for chap. ii. 28 shows that John regarded the napovaia of the Lord as
near, and uot as distant, just as the other apostles, and especially also Paul,
according to 1 Thess. iv. 15, in view of which even Dusterdieck finds him
self compelled to admit this; Besser urges the want of the article, and
translates "a last time," i.e., the time before a special revelation of the
judicial glory of Christ, in which the last hour before the universal final
judgment is prefigured; but it is well known that the article is often want
ing just with ideas which are definite in theraselves ; to which it may be
added that the idea of such a succession of different epochs, which are to
be regarded as special revelations of the judicial power of Christ, is nowhere
found expressed in the N. T.^ Oecumenius regarded it as likely that iaxdry
here is used — xetplary ; this explanation is found in Schoettgen (tempora
periculosa, pessima et abjectissima), Carpzov, and others (similarly Paulus :
it is a late, i.e., dark, and ever growing worse, time) ; whereas the distinc
tion between these ideas is perfectly clear from 2 Tim. iii. 1 : iv iaxaraig
' Braune, who speaks of Calvin's view and even a historical reference to the parousia of
that of Besser as " worthy of notice," expresses Christ, as the- beginning of the second era
himself somewhat vaguely when he says: of the world, but no chronological reference
"The expression eirxdrit iiipa is to be taken to the date of the commencement of this
prophetically,eBohatologically, and hasavalue parousia." Clearly a quite arbitrary asser-
connected wilh the history of the kingdom, tion.

528 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
ypepaig ivaryaovrai Kaipol xalenol.^ The result of an impartial exegesis there
fore remains, that, as the other apostles, John also expected that the advent
of the Lord would soon take place.^ It was only when the first generation
of believers was already dead, without that expectation having been ful
filled, that in the consciousness of Christians the period till the coming of
the Lord extended to an indefinitely distant limit, without, however, extin
guishing the hope of His speedy advent ; comp. 2 Pet. iii. 4 ff. ; but that later
still, the time which began with the appearance of false teachers was
regarded as the last, is proved by Ignatius, Ep. ad Eph., c. xi. — kuI KoBiig
rjKoiaare, k.t.I,]. With the observation that it is the last time, the apostle
connects the other, that in accordance with what his readers have heard,
that the dvrlxptarog would come, many dvr'ixptaroi have already come. Bengel
supplies before KaBug, " et ita est," and after kui, "adeo" (et ita est, sicut
audistis, nempe antichristum venire : atque adeo jam multi, etc.); these supple
ments are, however, unnecessary, for the kui before viv is not the simple
copula, but serves to mark the appearance of the dvrixpiarot as a fact corre
sponding to the KaBug yKovnare, k,t.1. : " as ye have heard, etc., so, accordingly,
many dvr'ixptaroi are. even now actually appearing."^ KaBUg ijKoiaare, namely, by
the apostolic declaration which had been communicated to his readers
(comp. vv. 7, 24) either by John, or even earlier, by Paul especially, accord
ing to Semler by Jewish teachers, who were spreading false rumors of the
end of the world (!). on (b) dvr'ixpiarog ipxerat Kal, k.t.1.]. The present epxerai
is put for the future ; it marks what is still future as a certainly occurring
event. Ebrard incorrectly translates ipxerai by " is to come ; " even in the
passages cited by him, chap. iv. 3; Matt. xi. 3; Gospel of John xvi. 13;
Rev. i. 8 (why not i. 4?), ipxeaBai does not express simply the idea of the
future; besides, Ebrard interprets correctly: "will one day appear.'' — The
prophecy that before Christ comes (hence before His parousia) Antichrist
wiU come, accordingly formed a part of the apostolic preaching, although it
1 Peculiar, but artificial, is Bengel's inter. the course of history, it cannot be any reproach
pretation, which, raoreover, rests on the false on thera if they cherished the hope that the
opinion that the childreu are here specially longed-for coming of the Lord would soon
addressed; "ultima, non respectu omnium occur, especially as they formed ont of this
mundi temporura sed in antitheto puerulorum hope no peculiar doctrine, and did not venture
ad patres et ad juvenes. Tres omnino horae to determine the time and the hour. The
erant, quarum una post aliam et inchoavit, et certainly extravagant assertion of Ebrard,
conjunctim contlnuato cursu ad finem se incli- that it would have been contrary to the order
uavlt. Patrura itemque juveuura hora statira of God's economy of revelation, if John, at
absoluta fuit. Hinc puerulls Johannes dicit ; the time when he wrote his Epistle, had not
ultima hora est. Hac ultima hora nos etiam- expected the second advent of Christ in the
uum viviraus omnes." near future, rests entirely on Ebrard's views
2 In opposition to the " prejudice " that the of the Apocalypse, from the visions of which,
apostles regarded the advent as so near, Sander according to him, it could only be clear to the
thinks that they could not possibly have im- apostle for the first time that the epxoi^ai of
aglned that " all the great changes, transforma- the Gospel of John xxi. 22 is to be understood
tions, and developments," to which 2 Thess. of the coming of the Lord in a vision.
iii. 3, Rom. xi. 25, 26, Luke xxi. 24-26, allude, » Diisterdieck : " With the expectation oti o
could be accomplished within a generation. dvnxp. epx., founded on the apostolic teaching,
But could not Important events take place corresponds the fact already begun: ivnxp.
within a comparatively short period? As it iro^Aot YeYovao-ti'."
was not the busiuess of the apostles to foresee

CHAP. II. 18. 529
is not contained in the last discourses of Christ that have been handed down
to us, for the TpevSonpoipyrat and the ipevdoxpiaroi, whose appearance Christ
foretells, are not to be identified with the dvrixptarog. — According to the
view which has prevailed from antiquity, the dvrixpiarog and the noWlol dvri
xpiarot are to be distinguished in this way, that the latter are only the
npbSpopoi of the forraer, in which for the first time the antichristian spirit
which already animates them will be revealed in his full perfection and
energy. Bengel, deviating from this, takes the expression dvrixpiarog as a
collective idea : ubi Joh. antichristum, vel spiritum antichristi, vel deceptorem et
antichristum dicit, sub singulari numero, omnes mendaces et veritatis inimicos
innuit, Antichristus pro antichristianismo, sive doctrina, et multitudine hominum
Christo contraria dicitur; with this interpretation, Lange, Baumgarten-Cru
sius, Besser, and Myrberg agree. But neither here nor in iv. 1 ff. does John
say that antichrist has already come ; here he merely indicates the fact that
no'Moi dvrixptaroi yeybvaaiv as corresponding to the announcement of the com
ing of antichrist, and in the other passage it is merely stated that many ipev&o-
npoipTjrai are gone out into the world, and that the nvevpa of antichrist is
already in the world. In the passage 2 John 7, " it is true that the explana
tory clause oirog ianv b nldvog kuI b dvrixpiarog refers so directly to the preced
ing nollol nldvoi," that it appears that " the identity is thereby indicated "
(1st ed.) ; but this direct connection may, no doubt, be explained in this
way, that he who speaks through the many is, accordiug to John, no other
than the one antichrist ; and even though John " neither describes the dvrl-
xpiaroi as the npdSpopoi, nor the dvrixpiarog as the one in whom the principle
that animates them is concentrated in highest potency," it is to be remem
bered that John is speaking of the antichrist here, not in doctrinal aspect,
but only in order to show by the heretics, whom he calls dvrlxpiaroi, that the
nveipa of antichrist is already iv ru Koapip.^ The name dvrixptarog is not found
in the Scriptures outside of the First and Second Epistles of John ; only in
the later ecclesiastical literature does it appear frequently. — That the pre
fixed dvn does not express the substitutionary reference (as in dvnidaaileig) ,
but the reference of antagonism, is with justice now commonly recognized ;
but the prevailing translation, " enemy of Christ," is grammatically inaccu
rate, as in substantive compounds formed with uvn (in the antagonistic sense),
the substantive is an object which by dvn is described as standing in opposi
tion to an object of the same kind. Thus, an dvTiiptl.baoipog is not an
"opponent of philosophy" (Ebrard), or of philosophers, but a philosopher
who is opposed to other philosophers, a hostile philosopher; comp. dvn-
paXT/Tyg, dvnnalatoryg, avrinolig, dvTi/)f)yatg, dvTi(>l)0ia, k.t.1.^ Accordingly, 4 dvri-
* Weiss Justly maintains, against From- ^ From this it is clear that the rule laid
mann and Reuss, according to whom John down by LUcke, that " the word compounded
has spiritualized or confused the dogma of with dvn is the object of the opposition," can
antichrist, that he in no way denies the reality by no means hold good for all compounds with
of the antichrist, although Weiss thinks that ivn, inasmuch as the examples adduced by
John regards the prophecy of the antichrist as LUcke — avnppiov anpov, dvn^6peios, dvr-iiKio?,
fulfilled in this, that the spirit of antichrist has avriGvpoi; — are not substantives; and, in the
come into the world, and in the false teachers Is second place, dvn does not express in them
denying the fundamentals of Christian truth. the idea of hostile antagonism.

530 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Xpiarog does not mean generally, the enemy of Christ, but the " opposition
Christ," i.e., that enemy of Christ who, under the false pretence of being the
real Christ, seeks to destroy the work of Christ.^ Almost all coraraentators
have correctly supposed that Jolm understands by this enemy the same as
Paul speaks of in 2 Thess. ii. 3 ; the features which appear in the descrip
tion of the Apostle Paul and in the statements of John correspond too
closely to permit of this being doubted ; according to both, his appearance
in the Church is preceded by a falling away (John says in ver. ID, of the
antichrists : i^ yuuv i^f/lBov ; Paul in ver. 3 speaks of an dnoaraala connected
with his dnoKdlvipig) ; both ascribe to him a God-opposing, wicked nature
(Paul calls him b dvBpunog T^f dpapriag, b dvopog ; John puts the -nveipa roi dvn-
Xplarov in antithesis to the rrvevpa roi Qeoi, and says of the antichrists who
are animated by the former, that they are iK roi Koapov) ; both characterize
him as a liar, who seeks to establish the lie against the truth ; according to
both, he appears in the last time before the parousia of Christ. Even the
names correspond with each other; for, even though the name uvrlxpiarag
contains an important feature which is not expressed in the name 6 dvrwel-
pevog, yet this very feature comes out so distinctly in the Pauline description,
that it is clear how suitable John's appellation of that enemy is; when,
naraely, Paul describes him as the dvBpunog ryg dpapriag, and afterwards says
of him that he dnodeUwai iavrov, on iari Qeog, this points to the fact that he
will represent himself as the incarnate God, and this is just what is indicated
in the name dvrixptarog.
Eemaek. — On the various views of the antichrist, see Lunemann on
2 Thess. ii. 1-12, p. 204 ff., and Diisterdieck on this passage. — The Greek
Fathers regard the antichrist usually as a man who, as an instrument of the
Devil, imitates the true Christ, comp. Hippolyt., De Consummat Mundi, c. vi.
14, c. xlviii. ; Cyril, Catech. xv. ; yet there is also found the incorrect view that he
is the incarnate Devil himself (comp. Theodoret, Epit. Div. Decret., c. xxiii., and
Comment, in Dan., ii. ; Hippolyt. c. xxii. ). — Like the parousia of Christ, so the
appearance of antichrist also belongs still to the future : of antichrists, as they
had appeared in the time of John, there has never since been any lack; but the
antichrist has not yet come, and it was equally arbitrary for Grotius to regard
Barkochba, or others Mohammed, or Luther the Pope, or Catholics Luther, and
so on, as antichrist. — Not merely rationalistic writers, but also Liicke, De
Wette, Neander, and others, distinguish form and idea in John's representation
of the future appearance of the antichrist. As the fundamental idea, they
regard the thought, that, equally with the development of Christianity, the evil
will gradually increase more and more in its contest against Christ, until at last,
when it has attained its highest summit, it will be completely conquered by the
power of Christ. As the form, they regard the representation that this highest
energy of the evil will finally appear iu one single person. For such a
* While BrUckner agrees with the explana- tence " does not He in the word Itself, but
tion given here, it is opposed by Braune; but certainly in the fact, since there is only one
he does not pay attention to the gramraatical Christ; it Is different in the case of the word
vindication. Besides, it Is to be observed that avnipiKoiroipos.
the more particular definition of " false pre-

CHAP. IL 19. 531
distinction it is difficult, however, to show any justification, as Scripture itself
gives no suggestion of it; it is therefore rightly rejected by Dusterdieck, Braune,
Briickner. In the words kuI vvv avrixpiaroi nollol yeybvaaiv, the apostle mentions the
fact in which the expectation, bn b dvrixpiarog Ipxerai, is beginning to be real
ized. The dvrixptaroi are the heretics who accept the lie described in ver. 22;
but they bear that name because the nveipa roi dvnxplarov animates them,
and thus the antichrist himself is already revealing himself in them, yeyb
vaaiv is not = coeperunt esse (Brasmus), but "they have become," i.e., they
are already in existence. By means of the subordinate clause bBev yivuoKo-
pev, K.T.1. , the connection between the two first parts of the verse is to be
recognized. Ver. 19. Relation of the avrixptarot to the Christian Church. — i^ ijpuv
iiylBav, dll' ovk yaav i^ ypuv]. On the form of the second aorist with a, see
Winer, p. 71 (E. T., 73). — By ypuv we are not to understand the Jews
(Grotius, Eichhorn, Rickli), nor the apostles (S. Schmid, Spener, Besser,
and others), but Christians in general, as the Church of Christ.^ i^ylBav is
taken by several commentators = prodierunt (Vulgate, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Erdmann, and others), finding the idea of origin expressed in it: this is
incorrect ; the following pepevyKeiaav shows that it is rather to be taken in
the sense of secessio (so Augustine, Bede, Erasmus ; and among the modems,
Liicke, Dusterdieck, Ebrard, Braune, and othei's). By the emphatic posi
tion of ff ijuuv it is brought out that the antichrists were previously peB' ypuv,
and belonged therefore to the Christian Church. How far this separation
had been formally accomplished, John does not say ; but it is contained ill
iiylBay that they had taken up an antagonistic position, not merely to the
apostolic doctrine (Beza : ad mutationem non loci sed doctrinae pertinet), but
to those who by their faithful observance of the unadulterated gospel proved
themselves to be the children of God (as also Braune). — all' oiK 'yaav ef
ijpuv]. all' expresses the contrast to the preceding thought : although they
went out from us (and therefore were connected with us), yet they were not
of us. elvai iK expresses connection in the most coraplete reality, thus : they
were not of us, viz., in such a way that they would have really belonged to
us, as common members of one body, in which one soul lives ; in contrast
to which the elvat perd contained in the following pepevyKeiaav dv peB' ypuv
expresses the outward fellowship as distinguished from the former idea.
Even here ck does not depart from its original meaning (see on ver. 16), for
he only truly belongs to the Church of the Lord who in regard to his inner
life has proceeded from it, i.e., from the Spirit ruling in it.^ The imperfect
1 Ebrard' finds himself compelled by bis ethical relationship of those men who went
Interpretation of TraiSia not to include in rtp-eU out from tho bosom of Christian fellowship,
those addressed, but to say "the apostle puts and fell away from it, is indicated by the
himself and the Church in contrast to the different meaning in which the sarae phrase e$
little ones whom he addresses." ^jaur appears, on the one hand, with i^riKBav,
2 Dusterdieck : " That those antichrists left with which p.efi.evTJii., k.t.A., is to be combined;
the fellowship of the believers, follows from and, on the other hand, in the expressions ovk
liep-evyK. dv p.ed' rjpMv; but the original. Inner, ^aav ef ^juwi' and el ydp ^crav ef i)p..

532 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
yaav embraces the whole previous period during, which the antichristians
were connected with the believers, and does not merely refer to the time
immediately preceding their separation (Episcopius, Socinus). ^ — That they
were not ef ypuv, John proves by the words, el ydp yaav ef ijpuv, pepevyKeiaav uv
peB' ypi'.rv. The dvr'ixptaroi belonged therefore to the Christians for a while ;
they were pef airuv, although not if airuv, for in this case they would also
have remained per" airuv. Here, too, John proceeds on the idea that the
piveiv is the evidence of the eivai. On the pluperfect without the augment,
see Winer, p. 70 (E. T., 72). — all' tva ipavepuBuaiv, k.t.1,]. dlld refers
back to i^ylBav, or to the thought, ov pepevyKuai peB' ijpuv, "but they have
not remained with us." Less simply Diisterdieck interprets : " they have not
remained with us, but (dlld) they have been separated from us, in order
that." Such a double supplement is not necessary, for dlld is not neces
sarily the antithesis of a negation. — By iva, k,t,1,, it is not the result
(Paulus), but the purpose, that is stated, — the purpose, namely, of their
separation or not remaining, which was willed by God ; the purpose is that
it might be manifest that they are not if ypuv. The connection of ipavepu
Buaiv with the following bn oiK eiai ndvreg if ypuv is not quite regular; So
cinus construes ou and ndvreg together: non omnes = nulli, i.e., nemo ex illis
est ex nostro numero: this is incorrect; oi ndvreg is not = nulli, but = nonnulli.
De Wette rightly supposes the conjunction of two thoughts, viz., (1) ha
ipavepuBy, on ovk eiai ndvreg if ypuv ; and (2) iva ipavepuBuaiv, on oiK e'lalv if ypuv,
only De Wette should have put the second thought first, for John's imme
diate intention was, as the plural ipavepuBuaiv shows, to speak only of the
avrlxpiaToi, but then he extends his idea so as to introduce the new subject
ndvreg ; the sense is : it was to be made manifest in the dvrixptaroi that they
were not — and therefore that all who were peB' ypuv were not — if ypCiv (so
also Braune).^ — For the work of the Christian Church it is necessary that
it shall be manifest who really belongs to it, and who does not ; this Kplatg is
the purpose for the sake of which God has so arranged it that those dvr'i-
Xpiaroi should go out : comp. with the idea in 1 Cor. xi. 19.
Eemaek. — In the words, el ijaav if ypuv, pepevyKeiaav dv peB' ijpuv, this
thought is contained: He who really belongs to the Church never leaves it; he
who leaves it shows thereby that he did not really belong to it. This confidence
of the apostle in the preserving love of the Lord, and in the faithfulness of
those whom He has saved, seems to be opposed to the idea brought out in
Heb. vi. 4 ff., that even those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of
the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, etc., may fall
away. But, as constantly in his Epistle, so here also John speaks absolutely,
without taking into view the state of gradual development, from which, however,
it does not follow that he does not recognize it. The one circumstance that he
exhorts believers as such to abide in Christ, shows that he would not deny the
1 Myrberg interprets; "Sed (egressi sunt) de nobis," cannot serve to, establish the idea
ut manifesti redderentur ; nam non omnes ipavepiadiainv. According to Hilgenfeld, ndvreg
sunt de nobis;" but incorrectly, for (1) is to be referred only to the autichrists :" that
ipavepajeitnTiv requires a raore particular defi- they all were not of us;" but this is refuted
nition; and (2) the idea; "non omnes sunt by the position of ndvres.

CHAP. II. 20, 21. 533
possibility of their falling away; only it is — justly — certain to him that he
who does not abide had not yet with his whole heart entered into the fellowship
of the Lord, but even though touched by His love, and exhibiting the trace of
love towards Him, had nevertheless not broken completely with the world.
Ebrard thinks that the apostle means only, that temptation by this particular
lie (namely, by Gnosticism) is only possible with those who in their inner being
were previously strangers to Christianity; but even though John here speaks of
particular antichrists, yet the general thought is at the basis of the words ei
ijaav uttered in reference to them ; otherwise the apostle would have definitely
pointed out the difference of these apostates from others to whom the word has
no reference. — Augustine, Calvin, Beza, etc., find in the words a confirmation
of their doctrine of predestination, but only by Inserting in them ideas which
are foreign to them, since the subject here is neither a donum perseverantiae
nor a distinction of the vocati and electi.
Vv. 20, 21. Testimony that the believers, to whom the apostle writes,
know the truth. — kuI ipelg xptnpa exere]. The apostle writes this neither as
a caplatio benevolentiae (Lange), nor as a justification of the brevity of his
writing on the foregoing subject (a Lapide), nor for the purpose of quieting
his readers, " who at the appearance of so many antichrists might possibly
be alarmed for the safety of their own faith " (Liicke), but in order to make
the warning contained in his words in reference to the antichristian lie the
raore forcible; see on ver. 12. — Most commentators take Kai here as particula
adversativa (so even De AVette; more cautiously, Liicke: "the logical rela
tionship of this verse to ver. 19 is that of an antithesis, therefore kuI becomes
logically adversative ") ; the incorrectness of this view is recognized indeed
by Diisterdieck and Ebrard, yet they maintain the antithetical reference of
this verse to the preceding one ; and of course in itself there is nothing
against the supposition of a connection of adversative ideas by the simple
copula; but that an adversative relationship occurs here is very much to be
doubted, for the apostle did not now need to say to his readers that they,
as such as have the xp'tapa, were in opposition to the antichrists, and, besides,
in the sequel that idea is not further followed up.^ It is more suitable to
the context, to connect the flrst part of this verse closely with the second,
and in this two-claused sentence to find the presupposition stated for what
is said in the following verse (so also Briickner). — xpiapa appears in the
N. T. only here and in ver. 27 ; according to Greek usus loquendi, it is
the anointing oil; as in the O. T., for example, Exod. xxix. 7, xxx. 31. "In
the O. T. the holy anointing oil is constantly the type of the Holy Spirit,
both where anointing appears as a figurative action (besides the passages
quoted, in 1 Sam. x. 1 ff., xvi. 13, 14) as well as where it appears in figura-
1 By this, however, it is not meant that the suitable when the predicates exactly corre-
apostle, when he turns to his readers with spond with one another (e.g., they have to
vp.eU, does not contrast them at all with the TTvevv.a rov dvrixpiirrov, and ye have to nvevpa
antichrists, but only that he does not do it in ©eoS) ; but even then, usually 6e is used
this sense, that he wishes thereby to empha- (corap. Matt. v. 21, 22, and many other
size a contrast between them. Had the apostle passages), or no particle at all (comp. John
intended this, he would certainly not have iii. 31, etc.).
used Kai, for in such antitheses Kal is only

534 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
tive language (Ps. xiv. 8; Isa. Ixi. 1). But that which in the O. T. is
presented in type and shadow, in the N. T. has appeared in truth and sub
stance " (Besser) ; xpl^f-a is therefore a symbolical expression for the Holy
Spirit, as xpi^tv, moreover, is frequently used of the gift of the Holy Spirit ;
comp. Acts iv. 27, x. 38; 2 Cor. i. 21. With this most of the commen
tators agree, only that xp'^l^a is usually incoiTectly explained as the act
" unctio, anointing,'' and this is then taken as a description of the IToIy
Spirit; so by Augustine, and even by De Wette, Ewald, Sander, and Erd
mann. It is erroneous to understand xpf^P-a of the "true tradition about
Christ, vividly transmitted, proceeding from the apostles" (Kdstlin, p. 24-3),
or of the working of the Holy Spirit (Didymus : charitas, quae diffunditur in
cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum ; Socinus : divinum benefcium cognoscendi
ipsas res divinas, quatenus homini est opus ; Emanuel Sa : christianismus), or of
the act in which the Spirit is given to Christiaus, thus of baptism (Ewald)
or of confirmation. Oecumenius wrongly finds here (ildiSere did rov iSanrlapa-
rog rb xplapa rb lepbv, Kal did roirov rb eig ndaav ryv dlyBeiav bdyyovv ipdg Belov nveipa)
an allusion to the old custom of anointing the candidate for baptism ; this
custom does not beloug to the apostolic age, but was probably first intro
duced by this passage, as Bengel has observed. i It is, on the whole, less
likely that John was here thinking of the communication of the Spirit by
means of baptism, as is usually supposed, than that he was thinking of that
by means of the preaching of the gospel (Diisterdieck), as in the whole
context there is nothing to suggest the former.^ That John uses just the
word xpl^P-"- is not without meaning; as iu the O. T. not only kings, but also
priests and (sometimes) prophets were anointed, he reminds believers thereby
"of their high honor, calling, ofiice, and glory" (Sander).^ If it be the case
that there is also an allusion in it to the name of the Antichrist (Bengel,
Diisterdieck), then the apostle wanted to bring out that believers in posses
sion of the xpiapa are enabled to fully know the antichristian feiSog in its con
tradiction to the dlyBeia; see ver. 21. — exere dnb roi dyiov]. For exere, in

1 As Bengel thinks that this whole section tur doctoribus ; and the latter understands by
is addressed to the children, he. says; "Eam it the instruction which tbe churches of Asia
unctionem spiritualem habent tA naiSia Minor received about Antichrist through the
pueruli; namque cum baptismo, quem susce- Apocalypse.
perunt, conjunctum erat donum Spiritus o., ^ Neander; "That which in the Old Cove-
cujus, significandi causa ex hoc ipso loco nant was connected only with individuals to
deinceps usu receptum esse videtur, ut oleo whora in some way the guidance of God's
corpora baptizatoium ungerentur." — How in people was intrusted, with individuals who
modern times this passage is misused as a thereby were singled out frora the mass of the
proof of tbe post-apostolic origin of the rest of the people, this uuder the New Cove-
Epistle, see the Introduction, sec. 3. nant is connected with the people of God in
2 As quite arbitrary interpretations, we general. . . . There are therefore no longer
may further mention here that of Semler and among the people of Gbd any such distinctions
tbat of J. J. Hess (Flatt's and Susskind's as there were in the Old Covenant between
Magaz., vol. xiv.) ; the former, on the false kings, prophets, priests, and people. . . .
assuraption that the Epistle is addressed They are one kingly priestly race, whose
especially to the presbyters also, explains nobility aud high destination all share; all
xplirp-a by: legitima auctoritas docendi, and are prophets by virtue of that common en-
adds: xfi'TV-"- est idem ac xdpiirp-a illud, cujus lightenment by the Holy Spirit."
auctor spiritus s., qui per apostolos imperti-

CHAP. II. 21. 535
ver. 27, ildpere is put; the possession rests upon a reception, and this,
indeed, dnb roi dyiov ; b dyiog is — following the correct interpretation of xplf^d-^
— not the Holy Spirit (Didymus, Lorinus, Semler), but either God (Rickli,
Besser, Neander : " dno indicates the source ; " which, however, is not always
the case), — comp. John xiv. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 19: toU dyiov nvevparog, ov ixere
dnb Qeoi, — or more probably, as most coraraentators think, Christ ; comp.
John XV. 26 : 6 napuKlyrog, bv eyd) nepipu iplv napd roi narpbg; and John vi. 69,
where Christ (according to the overwhelming authorities) is called b dyiog rov
Qeoi ; in favor of which is the fact that John, iu ver. 29, calls Christ biKaiog,
and in chap. iii. 3, dyvog (comp. also Acts iii. 14; Rev. iii. 7). — That the
bestower of the xplopa is called by John b dytog (whether it be God or Christ)
arises from this, that the anointing with the Spirit is an act of making holy,
i.e., of separation from the world ; but he only can make holy who himself is
holy. — Kal oibare ndvra]. Bengel, according to the sense, explains koI cor
rectly by il inde ; the possession of the xpl'^H^ is the reason of the eibivai
ndvra. — TrtiiTQ is not masculine (Syrus: omnes; Bede: discernitis inter probos
et improbos), but neuter. Calvin rightly says : omnia, non universaliter capi,
sed ad praesentis Joci circumstantiam restringi debet : still it must not be
restricted merely to those things (quae sunt) necessaria agnoscendis anti-.
christis et cavendis illorum insidiis (Bengel), but it embraces along with these
ryv dl-yBetav in general (ver. 21) ; comp. John xiv. 26, xvi. 13 ; ndaav ryv dly
Beiav. In the possession of the whole truth Christians are also enabled to
distinguish lies and truth.*
Ver. 21. OVK iypaipa ipiv does not refer to the whole epistle (Beza), but to
that which is said of the antichrists; corap. ver. 26. ^ — .bn oiK oUare ryv dly
Beiav, K.r.l,]. bn = because (comp. vv. 12-14) ; the apostle does not want to
teach the anointed Christians for the first time the truth which was revealed
in Christ, but he is writing to them because they know it; a Lapide : non ut
haec VOS doceam, sed ut dodos confirmem. — koI bn ndv ipevbog, K.r.l.]. This bn
is not co-ordinate with the preceding one, but is dependent on oibare. Luther,
correctly according to the sense : " but ye know it, and know that," etc. —
ndv Ipevbog, quite generally, though with special reference to the antichristian
doctrine ; feibog : " not merely error, but lie " (De Wette) — the absolute
antithesis of dlyBeia ; Lange quite arbitrarily thinks that the abstract is here
put forthe concrete: "that no false teacher can be a genuine Christian."
It is incorrect to take ndv ... ou as a Hebraism = oidiv; ou belongs rather to
the predicate. — iK rijg dlyBeiag oiK ean]. iK here also indicates the source, and
does not express merely the connection (De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius).
Because the lie is not of the truth, so also it has no connection with it ;
Lorinus : ex vero non nisi verum sequitur, et verum vero consonat. Whence
the lie, which is not iic ryg dlyBeiag, originates, Christ says in John viii. 44 :
The truth is from God, who is Himself the truth ; the lie from the Devil,
who is not in the truth.
1 The genuinely Catholic interpretation of quae pertinent ad doctrinae christianae veri-
Estius is worthy of notice : " Habetis episco- tatem.
pos et presbyteros, quorum cura ac studio 2 Ebrard refers this eypaxpa also arbitrarily
vestrae ecclesiae satis insiructae sunt m iis, to the Gospel of John.

536 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Vv. 22, 23. The existence of the antichrists and their relationship to the
Christian Church having been previously stated, there follows now the more
particular definition of the antichristian lie. — rig ianv b ipeiaryg. The inter
rogative forra, with which John addresses his readers who know the truth,
is explained by the vividness of the feeling with which the apostle is
writing ; similarly in chap. v. 5. He passes fi'om the abstract (ndv ipeiSog)
directly to the concrete (ipeiaryg). The definite article 6 -ipeiaryg (Luther
incorrectly : a liar) brings out the idea in clearer distinctness : the liar kot'
t^oxyv, i.e., he in whom the lie appears in concrete personality (so also
Braune), identical with 6 dvrixptarog, which is denied by Jachmann through
mistake of John's idea. The thought is weakened by the supposition that
the apostle is speaking here comparatively (Grotius : quis potest major esse
impostor ?) . Nor is Bengel's interpretation satisfactory : qui est illius men-
dacii imposturaeque reus? with which Dusterdieck agrees, when he para^
phrases : " What sort of a lie I mean, ye know very well. Who are the
liars ? Are they not those who deny, etc. ? " The apostle certainly has
the particular lie of the antichrists of his time in view, but this he regards
as the one chief and fundamental lie "in which all ipev6og is comprised"
(Liicke). The explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius is plainly quite errone
ous: "what else is a false doctrine than, etc. ?" nor is that of Ebrard less
so, as he finds in this catechetical (!) question intended for children this
meaning: "on whose side is the lie?" with which he then supplies the
corresponding question : " and on whose side is the truth? " — el py b dpvoi-
^evof]. el py, often after a negation, may also stand after a question, as in
this a negation is contained ; comp. Luke xvii. 18; Rom. xi. 15 ; 1 Cor. ii.
11; 2 Cor. ii. 2; 1 John v. 5 ; it corresponds to the German "als nur"
(English: "but only," "except"), and limits the general thought to a par
ticular one ; the sense accordingly is : No other is the liar but he who, etc.
According to Ebrard, ei py must here only have the meaning of " than,"
because the question here is, which ofthe two dogmatical tendencies (!) belongs
to the lie ; that the apostle here has in view two parties, namely, the anti
christs and the believing Christians, and asks which of them is in possession
of the truth, is a pure fiction, for which there is not the slightest evidence in
the text, bn 'lyaoig ovk ianv b Xptarbg]. On the construction of the negative
idea dpvelaSai with the following ovk, by which the negation is more strongly
emphasized, see Kiihner, II. p. 410. — The lie of the antichrist consists in
the denial that Jesus is b Xpiarbg, i.e., in the denial of the identity of Jesus
and Christ, whereby is meant, according to ver. 19 and chap. iv. 3, not the
Jewish unbelief, that Jesus is not the promised Messiah, but the Gnostic
heresy of the distinction betiueen Jesus and Christ, which forms the sharpest
contradiction to the apostle's doctrine that Jesus is the loyog mpf yevbpei'og.
It is erroneous to find here a reference to two different kinds of heresy ; on
the one hand, the denial of the divine, on the other, the denial of the human,
nature of Jesus ; * for John speaks only of one lie. — oirbg ianv b dvr'ixpiarog].
1 So Tertullian ((fe Praescript. c. 33) : non putarent Jesum esse Filium Dei ; illud
"Joh. in ep. eos maxirae antichristos vocat, Marcion, hoc Ebion vindicavit." Similarly
qui Christum negareut iu carne venisse et qui Besser: "That Jesus was not the Christ, the

CHAP. II. 23. 587
oirog refers back to 6 dpvovpevog : the liar who denies the identity of Jesus
and Christ, he is the antichrist. It is natural to take d feiaryg and 6 dvnxp.
here in a general signification, and to find therein a justification for Bengel's
conception of John's idea of antichrist ; but as the lie of the antichrists pro
ceeds from the nvevpa rov dvnxplarov, it may be ascribed to the antichrist
himself; the individual antichrists are the mouth by which he speaks. — b
dpvovpevog rbv naripa Kal rbv viov is not to be connected with oirog, so that the
sense would be : this one, who denies the Father and the Son, is the anti
christ ; but as a clause of more particular definition subordinate to b dvri
xpiarog. " John hereby adds a new element which states the full unhappy
consequence of that antichristian lie " (Diisterdieck ; similarly Braune). The
apostle wants to bring out here that the denial that Jesus is 6 Xpiarbg is in
its very essence a denial of the Father and of the Son. He who denies the
identity of Jesus aud Christ directly denies the Son, for the Son is no other
than 'lyaoig b Xpiarbg (neither au a;on named Christ that did not become
man, nor Jesus who is not Christ, or, according to John i. 14, the Logos) ; *
but he who denies the Son denies also the Father, aud not merely inasmuch
as Son and Father are logically interchangeable ideas, but because the nature
of the Father is only manifested in the Son, and all true knowledge of the
Father is conditioned by the knowledge of the Son, so that the God of those
who deny the Son is not the true God, but a false image of their own
thoughts, an eibulov.^
Ver. 23. Confirmation of the last stated thought in two clauses which
express the same idea, only in different form.' — ndg 6 dpvovpevog rbv vlbv, oidi
rbv naripa exei]. upvelaBai rbv vlov is in meaning synonymous with dpvelaBai, bn
'lyaovg ovk ianv b Xpiarbg. The assertion that John here confounds with the
idea of Christ that of the Son, i.e., of the eternal Logos (De Wette and
others), is erroneous; it is not Christ apart from Jesus that he regards as
the Son, but Christ in his identity with Jesus (Diisterdieck, Briickner). —
Instead of saying in the second part of the first clause kuI dpvelrai, corre
sponding to the first part, John says, oibe . . . ixet, which has a wider
import, for ixeiv is to be taken emphatically := " to possess in living fellow
ship " (Dusterdieck) ; the explanation of Beza is insufiicient : nee patrem esse

Christ not Jesus. Either the Word that was to interpret the thought of the apostle, is quite
from the beginning was separated from this natural. But even others have got a more
Jesus, or the flesh was denied to tbe eternal or less indistinct view of it by putting, as
Word." Comp. Introd. sec. 3. Dusterdieck rightly says, " the Ideas of John
1 Weiss correctly brings ont the distinction too directly into dogmatic forras (and, indeed,
between the ideas Xpiuro? and vioy, when he into those defined by the Church);" or by
observes that 6 Xpto-To? is a historical concep- ignoring the realism of the apostle, and re-
tion to the apostle, and that it is enough for garding what he considered in an objectively
him that that proposition of tho false teachers real way as a mere element of the subjective
denies the Messiahship of Christ, frora which consideration; or, finally, by bringing out
all belief in Him must take its starting-point, one-sided references instead of giving the
in order to arrive at the recognition that Jesus ideas the due force of their entire compre-
is the Son of God, and thus in the Son to hension.
recognize the Father. * Braune, rightly: "Here is the progress
2 That such commentators as proceed on frora the denying to the having, and frora the
rationalistic assumptions have not been able particular (6 ipevanis) to the general (n-as)."

538 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
credit (better, a Lapide : habere in mente et fide, in ore et confessione) ; the
thought of the apostle is utterly eliminated when, with Socinus, Episcopius,
Grotius, exeiv r. naripa is explained by " to know the will of God ; " errone
ously Storr also : "to him is the Father not gracious." — In the following
words : b bpoloyuv, K.r.l., which are wanting in the Recepta (see the critical
notes), bpoloyelv forms the antithesis of dpvelaBai ; it means a confession which
is the expression of faith (Matt. x. 32; Rom. x. 10). In regard to the
construction, Ebrard rightly remarks : " That rbv vlbv is dependent on bpolo
yuv, and not along with koI rbv naripa (as in 2 John 9) on ixet (in which case
ipoloyuv would be used absolutely), clearly results from the preceding words,
to which these form the antithesis."
Vv. 24, 25. Exhortation to the faithful keeping of the gospel. Ver.
24. ipelg]. By the Recepta, ipelg oiv, the correct relationship of this verse
is taken away; it is not a conclusion from what immediately precedes
(Diisterdieck, Braune), but with the emphasized ipelg it is put in contrast
with what is said of the false teachers; Theophylact: 'eKelvoi piv oiv ovrug-
ipelg be dnep ijKoiaare dn' dpxyg ipvlurrere nap' iavrolg. — In regard to the construc
tion : vpelg b ijKoiaare uV dpxyg, iv iplv peviru, Beza aud Socinus, it is either an
attraction (ipelg b tjk. for 5 ipelg ijKoia., so also Bengel : antitheton est in prono
mine , ideo adhibetur trajectio ; De Wette: "ipelg is properly no doubt the
subject of the relative clause placed first ; " Jachmann)i or an ellipsis (vpelg
= quod ad vos attinet) ; Paulus and Ebrard regard vpelg as the pure vocative;
but it is more correct to admit an anacolouthon which has its natural origin
in this, that the apostle's thought iu opposition to the false teachers was
first directed to his readers, but equally also to the word which they had
heard from the beginning ; accordingly the apostle begins with ipelg, but
does not follow it up by pivere iv or a similar expression, but by 6 ijKoiaare,
K.r.l., as a new subject; comp. Winer, p. 534 (E. T., 574) ; Buttmann, p. 325
(E. T., 380). The same anacolouthon in ver. 27.^ With b 'yKoiaare dn' dpxyg,
comp. ver. 7 ; thereby, of course, the whole gospel is meant, but here specially
the fundamental doctrine of it, — that Jesus is the Christ. — iv iplv]. Theo
phylact interprets iv by napd ; Luther : " among ; " but the preposition must
be retained iu its proper meaning ; for upon that it depends that what was
heard " abides iu the soul as soraething that determines the life " (Neauder;
comp. John xv. 7), because only then does that take place which the apostle
expresses in the sequel. — koI ip.elg . . pevelre^. The koI before the conclud
ing clause brings out more clearly its corresponding relationship to the pre
ceding clause ; here it is so much the more significant, as in both clauses the
same verbal idea pevetv is used : If the Word remain iu you, ye also will
remain in the Son, etc.^ That our remaining in the Son is the immediate
^ The idea of an attraction is erroneous, 3 DUsterdieck : " By icai before iipeU John
because " ifpel^, if attracted to the relative specifies the promised consequence which will
clause, would be too strongly eraphasized in correspond to the condition which is stated,
this position " (Winer). while at the same time he brings out the nice
2 Myrberg's reply, that vp.eU is rather to be point which is contained in the significant
regarded as nominative absolute, is met by the interchange of ev vp.lv peivy and vp.ei<i ev r<p
fact that the use of the nominative absolute is uiw . . , p.eveire."
precisely an anacolouthon.

CHAP. II. 25. 539
result of the '[Vord remaining in us, is explained by the fact that " the words
of Christ substantially contain nothing else than a self-revelation or explana
tion of His person aud His appearing, and similarly the evangelical proc
lamation of the apostles is only the copy of this preaching of Christ Himself "
(Weiss), iv ru v'lu is put first, because fellowship with the Father is con
ditioned by fellowship with the Son.
Ver. 25. Kai airy iariv ij inayyelia, k,t,1,] airy may be referred either to
what precedes, or to the concluding words of this verse : ryv ^uyv ryv aiuviov.
In the first case the meaning is : and this remaining is what He has prom"
ised, namely, eternal life. Gagnejus : "Manere in filio et patre promissio est,
quam nobis pollicitus est orans pro nobis patrem Dominus Joh. xvii. 20. Bene
ergo ait de hoc Johannes: haec est promissio, quam pollicitus est nobis, quae
quidem est vita aeterna ; vita enim aeterna est manere in Deo eoque frui hic per
gratiam, in future per gloriam ; " ryv Qjyv ryv aiuviov then forms an apposition ,
by which that very remaining is described as happiness ; this view in Oecu
menius, and ainong modern commentators in Sander, Besser, Weiss. In
the second case the thought is, " and eternal life is the promise which He
has given us ; " taking this view, a new thought, it is true, enters with
ver. 25, and it requires something to be supplied to connect it with the pre
ceding, perhaps what a Lapide gives : si in ipso maneamus (Spener : that is
the promise if we remain in the Word, and consequently in the Father and
the Son) ; but nevertheless it is, in accordance with the analogy of John's
mode of expression, to be preferred ; comp. chap. i. 5, v. 14 ; similarly also
chap. iii. 23, v. 11; iu the last two passages the connection with what pre
cedes appears clearly enough by both being connected with the same idea,
whereas here there is no previous mention of the inayyelia ; but even here
the connection is not to be mistaken, because the fu^ aiuviog is directily con
nected with the peveiv iv ru vlu, K.r.l. This second iuterpretation in a Lapide,
Grotius, Lorinus, Russmeyer, Spener, Liicke, De Wette, DUsterdieck, Erd
mann, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune, and others. — kui is not used here a'lnolo-
yiKug (Oecumenius), but is the simple copula. — y inayyelia: "the promise."
Liicke unnecessarily conjectures that instead of this perhaps dnayy elia is
probably to be read, or that inayyelia has here the meaning, "proclama
tion," for neither is it the case that the idea of the promise refers only to the
distant future life, nor, according to John, that Christ does not bestow any
promise.^ — airdg is Christ, who in this whole passage forms the centre round
which all the statements of the apostle move. — On the accusative ryv l^uyv,
which has occurred through the attraction of the verb in the relative clause,
comp. Winer, p. 583 (E. T., 628) ; Buttmann, p. 68 (E. T., 78).
Vv. 26, 27. Conclusion of the section on the antichrists.

1 From this passage it is clear that with plainly transcending the idea of knowledge;
John iui'ii aiui/io; and the knowledge of God but if axn-i\ is directly connected with r'i\v i. r.
are not by any means, as Weiss thinks, iden- aiwi/., then the abiding in the Son and the
ticai ideas; for if John here, according to the Father is considered as the condition of the
view of Weiss, describes the abiding in the Son ^ojij; it is impossible, however, for it to be
and in the Father as the iu>'-q aliivio<;, he then the condition of knowledge, for it rather
mentions what this consists in, as something presupposes the latter.

640 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Ver. 26. raira refers to all that the apostle has written about the anti
christs frora ver. 18 down. In calling them here ol nlavuvreg ipdg, he gives
it to be understood that their efforts were directed to seduce the Church
from the truth of the gospel to their lie ; that their purpose had actual effect
(Braune) is not indicated by the verb. — Ver. 27. In the first part of this
verse the apostle testifies to his readers that they do not need any teacher,
in which he goes back to what he had already expressed in vv. 20, 21. —
Kal vpelg]. Kai is here used just as in ver. 20. — On the anacolouthon, see on
ver. 24. — ro xpl'^pu b ildjSere dn" aiiToij]. rb xplapa is, with Braune, to be
regarded as the accusative, for the juxtaposition of two nominatives could
not be explained ; the apostle probably had an ixere in his mind, instead of
which, however, he then wrote pivet iv iplv; airoi, i.e., Xpiaroi; so the con
text demands; airbg, ver. 25. Herein lies a proof that roi dyiov in ver. 20 is
to be understood of Christ. — iv iulv pivei]. The indicative, instead of which
the imperative is used in ver. 24, expresses the certain confidence of the
apostle. — Kal oi xpeiav ixere]. This sentence, which hj kuI is made co-ordi
nate with the preceding, stands to it in the relation of conclusion; meaning:
since, as is not to be doubted, the Spirit is in you — aud abiding — you do
not need ; Bengel describes tliis relation correctly by et ideo. — iva ng StSdoKy
ipdg]. 'Iva is used here, as not unfrequently in the N. T., in an enfeebled
signification ; only in an artificial way could the original force of purpose of
this particle be here retained ; while this force sometimes passes over into
that of object, this is still further weakened, so that the clause beginning
with 'iva is the object which completes the idea of the verb; so it is here;
comp. especially Heb. v. 12: xp^iav ix^^ "* btbdoKew ipug ; in other passages
xp. ix^tv is used even with the simple infinitive. Matt. iii. 14, xiv. 16 ; 1 Thess.
i. 8, iv. 9; with, tva as here, John xvi. 30.' — Several commentators suppose
here a reference to the false teachers, so that in the words of the apostle
there lies a warning against those who wish to impose themselves on the
Church as teachers ; so a Lapide, Spener (rig — " who may make pretence
of a new revelation "), Sander, Gerlach, Besser, and others. But it is more
appropriate (according to ver. 21) to refer the apostle's word to a teaching
proceeding from himself or other apostolic teachers ; so Hornejus, De Wette-
Briickner, Liicke, Dusterdieck, Braune, etc. — only we must not restrict the
generally expressed thought merely to instruction about the false teachers,
even though it is intended with special reference to that.'^ Believers need
no human teacher in order that the divine truth may be made known to
them. They have received, with the word which was declared unto them
(o fjKovaav), the xpl^U"; which leads them eig ndaav ryv dlyBeiav ; therefore the
apostle frequently in this epistle emphasizes the fact that he does not want
' At the most it may be said that Iva is 2 Liicke paraphrases the passage: "The
used with the verb xpetae exeiv, because that reason why I do not write any more about the
of which oue is in need may be regarded as false teachers, is that I assume that that holy
the object of his need; on the other hand, it is unction of the Spirit remains in you; and if
unsuitable when Braune says ; " the teaching that is so, you do not need that any oue shall
is here regarded as the object and purpose for instruct you further on the subject."
the sake of the position of him who is to be
taught."

CHAP. II. 26. 641
to instruct them, but is writing to them what they already know (olSare ndvra,
ver. 20). John thereby assumes believing readers, in whose hearts that
which they have heard from the beginning is preserved true and uncor
rupted. Nothing new therefore can be proclaimed to the believers, but only
that which they already possess in faith may be brought to a clearer con-
.sciousness.' — all' ug rb airb xplapa, K.r.l.], In this second part of the verse
the first question is about the construction. Liicke, Ewald, De Wette,
Neander, Dusterdieck, Braune (and previously Oecumenius and Theophylact)
think that the whole to the end of the verse forms one period, in which the
premise dll' ug , , , bibdaKei is resumed by the words koI KuBdig idida^ev iulv, and
has its conclusion in pevelre (or pivere) iv airu, and in which the words kuI
dlyBig . . , ipeidog contain a parenthetical adjunct. The difficulty that in
the resumed premise kuI is put instead of dlld, KaBug, instead of ug, and the
aorist idiba^ev instead of the present diSdoKei, can certainly be easily got over
by the fact that the apostle wanted not simply to repeat the thought, but at
the same time to bring out a new phase of the subject; but the additional
nepl ndvruv, which does not stand in any relationship whatever to the conclu
sion pevelre (pivere), is decidedly opposed to this construction; to this is
added that d?.ld indicates that the apostle wants to express a contrast to the
oi xpelav exere, K.r.l., that is, a clause in which the teaching of the xplapa is
described as such as removes the need of any other (human) teacher ; finally,
that the subordinate clause kuI oiK ian ipeidog conjoined with dlyBig ian raises
this thought above the level of a mere parenthetical adjunct, and stamps it
as a leading thought. For these reasons it is preferable, with Luther, Cal
vin, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Bruckner, Besser, and in general most of
the commentators, to divide the whole into two parts, and to regard kuI dlyB.
ian , , , Ipevbog as the conclusion of the first part; Luther: "but as the
anointing teaches you all things, it is true, and is no lie ; and," etc.^ — ibg
refers not so much to the form and fashion, as to the substance of the teach
ing. — rb airb xplapa], rb aird is not IDEM semper, non aliud atque aliud, sed
sibi constans et idem apud sanctos omnes (Bengel; so also Erdmann), but Just
the same xpiopa, namely b ildjSere. Still the reading avroi might be preferable,
for it seems unnecessary to emphasize the fact that the xplopa is the same
that they have received, and no other. — nepl ndvruv is used in the same sense
as ni'ivra, ver. 20. — kuI dlyBig ion, K.r.l.]. Kdi before the conclusion, as in
ver. 24 : "then it is also true," etc. ; it brings out prominently the idea dlyBig;
ulyBeg is referred to rb xp'opa by Liicke, De Wette, Bruckner, Diisterdieck,
Ebrard, Ewald, Braune, and others ; but the substantive ipeiSog is opposed to
this connection, for it cannot be referred to rb xplopa, inasmuch as it is con-
1 Several commentators rightly remark here, gives a " laxe and legere form of speech,"
that in the statement of the apostle there Is no but he thinks that there is " nothing strange "
foundation for the error of the " enthusiasts," In this, because the apostle is speaking to
inasmuch as John does not separate the children in quite childlike language. But
teaching of the xpi<rn<i and the apostolic what child's understanding would be capable
word from one another, but places them in of supplying with the words; "but as the
the closest connection. same nnointing teacheth you of all things,"
2 Ebrard makes <us dependent upon eypaxfia, the thought : " sc. I have said to you "?
ver. 26 ; it is true he himself admits that this

542 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
sidered by John as a person (bibdaKei), and must neither be arbitrarily ex
plained, with Beza, by ipevSeg, nor, with Braune, be separated from olyBig
(" and there is no lie in it ") ; Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Neander,
Besser, Erdraann, and others, have therefore rightly referred dlyBig, K.r.l,, to
that which the xpl<^t^u teaches. Because this is true, and is no feidog, there
fore believers do not need any teacher besides, but they may rely entirely
upon the teaching of the xplapa. To this thought the apostle further adds a
new one, in which he goes back to the end of ver. 24. — koI KaBug]. KaBug, as
distinct from ug, means "in proportion as." — idlda^ev ipdg, namely, dn dpxyg.
— pivere {peveire) ev uiTu]. The Recepta pevelre is taken by Socinus, a Lapide,
Lorinus, Semler, and others, in the sense of the imperative; others retain
the future meaning, as in ver. 24 ; thus Beza says : mihi videtur omnino ser
vanda Futuri propria significatio ut est optime sperantis ; as the apostle thereby
expresses his good confidence, the future accordingly has the vim consolandi
(Bengel). The correct reading, however, is pivere, which, corresponding to
the preceding pivet aud ixere, is not imperative (Ewald, Braune), but indic
ative (Briickner), and as such it expresses the firm conviction of the apostle
that they, according to the constant instruction of the xplapa, abide iv airu,
i.e., in Christ (Erasmus, erroneously: = iv ru xpi°t^an, and Baumgarten-
Crusius: "in the teaching which the ;fpia^a communicates to them"). In
favor of this view is also the exhortation of ver. 28 herewith connected.'
Ver. 28 concludes the section beginning at ver. 18, but serves at the same
tirae as an introduction to the following section. — koX viv cannot, it is true,
be explained, with Paulus, by " even now already," but neither can it -be
explained, with raost of the coraraentators, exactly by igitur, or a similar
word ; here it rather introduces, as it frequently does, the following exhor
tation as a deduction from the present circumstances. Incorrectly, Ebrard :
"And now (namely, after I have spoken to the naibiotg) I turn to you"
(namely, to the whole Church) : a supplement of that kind cannot be jus
tified from the passages quoted by Ebrard ; John xvii. 3 ; Acts x. 5, xxii. 16.
— reKvla, as in ver. 1. — pivere iv airip, quite the same thought as in ver. 27.
Rickli's view is incorrect, that in ver. 27 it is " the abiding iu the confession
that Jesus is the Christ, but here another abiding, namely, the abiding in
righteousness," that is meant. — Iva iav ipavepuBy]. idv is distinguished from
brav (Recepta) in this way, that it describes not the tirae, but only the actu
ality of the manifestation of Christ. The ipavipuaig of Christ is His parousia
occurring at the end of the iaxbry upa ; comp. Col. iii. 4. By the same word
the first appearance of Christ on earth is also elsewhere described ; see chap.
iii. 5, 8. ixupev (axCipev) nab^yalav]. The comraunicative form of expression
indicates that John tacitly includes himself also under the exhortation :
pivere iv airij.^ — nafifiyaia; the confidence of the believer at the day of judg-

1 Myrberg on ver. 28 : " Sperantis verba ^ Sander introduces here a foreign reference.
Ilia sunt, quae paullo ante leguntur; haec when he thinks that John includes himself as
adhortantis, quod novum quoddam initium if he would also have to be ashamed if on that
dicendi indicat." day his children, whom he begot through the

CHAP. II. 29. 543
ment; chap. iv. 17. — koI py alaxwBupev dn' airoi]. Elsewhere also nafipyala
and a'laxvveaBai are contrasted with one another; so Prov. xiii. 5: datiSyg
aiaxvverat koI oix Hci nafifiyalav ; comp. also Phil. i. 20. a'laxvvBupev is either
used in the passive sense, in which case the original meaning " to be
shamed" passes over into this, "to be put to shame" (see Meyer on Phil.
i. 20) ; then dnb (which is not = inb) describes Christ as the one from whom
this alaxiveaBat comes, namely, by means of His judgment of condemnation ;
or it is used in the middle sense : " to be ashamed," in which case dnb is not
= coram (Luther, Ewald), but = "away from," thus, "to draw back from
Him with shame ; " so Calvin, Beza, Episcopius, De Wette, Liicke (who
adduces Sir. xxi. 22 : avBpunog be nolvneipog aiaxvvByaerai dnb npoaunov), Diister
dieck, Ebrard. 1 The second view deserves the preference, on account of the
corresponding contrast with ixeiv nttf)fiyaiav. — iv ry napovaia airov expresses
definitely the reference already implied in ipavepuBy : " at His (Christ's) com
ing;" napovaia, in John only here, frequently appears in this sense in the
N. T. : comp. Matt. xxiv. 3, xxvii. 37, 39 ; 1 Cor. xv. 23 ; 1 Thess. ii. 19,
and elsewhere.
Ver. 29. With this verse the third section begins, which continues to
chap. iii. 22, and consists of two groups : (1) ver. 29-iii. 10a, and (2) iii.
106-22. — After the apostle has warned them against the love of the Koapog,
and against the false teachers (who are i/c rov Kbapov), he shows the obliga
tion of Christians to biKuioaivy, in which they reveal themselves as rixva Qeoi,
in contrast to the riKva 6ialid?iOv.
Ver. 29. The apostle now goes on to indicate how it is consistent with
the natiire of Christians, as those that are born of God, to do righteousness.
— idv eiSijre]. Here also the apostle directs hiraself to his readers' own con
sciousness, as he does not want to teach them any thing new, but only to
state what they already know for their more earnest consideration. — on
blKatbg ian. The present ian is not used, either here or in iii. 5, iv. 17, for
ijv (Storr). It is doubtful whether the subject is Christ (a Lapide, Lorinus,
Bengel, Rickli, Frommann, Myrberg, first edition of this commentary, etc.)
or God (Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander, Gerlach, Kostlin, De Wette, DUster
dieck, Erdmann, Ebrard, Braune, Weiss, and others). In favor of the
former is the fact that previously, not only in ver. 25 by airbg, and ver. 27
by iv airu, but also in ver. 28 by ipavepuBy, aw' airoi, and iv ry napovaiif airoi,
Christ is clearly meant ; for the latter, that in the following if airoi) yeyiwyrai
the pronoun refers back to the subject of d'lKawg iart, and the idea yevvdaBai 'eK
Xpiarov never appears in the writing, and, moreover, John, in what follows.

gospel, should come short. Similarly a La- tobe retained: "For we shall not drawback
pide: "Ne pndefiamus utrique, sc. tam vos, and tremble, but we shall be rejected and cast
si a doctrina Christi aberretis, quam nos out." but the meaning above stated, and
Apostoli et Pastores, quod vos in ea non accepted also by Braune, does not suit the
conservaverimuB." Lorinus: "Conjunglt passive idea; besides, the correspondence
seipsum discipulis, spe de illorum gloria ad- with the Idea exeiv irappTjcriai' demands the
gaudens." middle signlflcation of the word.
> Braune thinks that the passive meaning Is

644 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
calls Christians riKva Qeov, and in ver. 9 makes use of the expression yeyevvy-
pivog Ik roi Qeoi (comp. iv. 7, v. 1, 4, 18). From the predicate dlKoidg nothing
can be inferred, as this attribute is assigned by John both to God (i. 9) and
Christ (ii. 1). As, with John's peculiar blending of the Father and the
Son (or of God and Christ), it would not be easy to explain how he can pass
from the oue to the other without specially indicating it, it appears more
safe, in accordance with the constant mode of conception and expression in
the Epistle, to supply as the subject of S'lKuiog ian God, than Christ. It is inap
propriate, with Storr, Liicke, and others, to reter biKaiog to Christ, and if avroi,
on the other hand, to God, because the thought of the apostle would thereby
lose its peculiar force (Beugel : Justus justum gignit).^ — The statement that
God is b'lKaiog corresponds with the statement that He is ^ug (chap. i. 5) ; it
does not follow from ver. 28 that by dlKoiog here the justitia judicialis is to
be understood ; Erdmann : quum noielv -ryv SiKaioavvyv ad blKatbg 'ean referendum
sit, hoc justitiam Dei sensu judiciali significare nequit, sed absolutam ejus sancti-
taiem. — yivuoKere is here not to be regarded as the indicative (Beza, Bengel,
Semler, Dusterdieck, Myrberg, Ewald, and others), but, as its position
between pivere (ver. 27) and Ibere (chap. iii. 1) shows, as the imperative:
"then know, i.e., observe and refiect," with Vulgate, Grotius, Russmeyer,
Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette, Liicke, Erdmeyer, Ebrard, Braune, and
others. — on ndg . . . yeyevvyrai]. The same relationship in which, accord
ing to chap. i. 6, Koivuvtav exeiv perd Qeov and nepmarelv iK ru ipuri stand to one
another, exists between yeyewyaBai Ik roi Qeov and noielv rrjv biKaio
avvy v (so also Braune), inasmuch as the latter is the practical proof of the
former, so that every one who practises righteousness — but no one else
(Bengel : omnis et solus) — is born of God. That when Episcopius describes
the nasci ex Deo, not as the condition, but as the result, of the exercitii jus
titiae, he perverts the thought of the apostle, needs no proof. The right
interpretation in Bengel, Neander, Besser, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg,
Ebrard, Briickner, Braune, Weiss. '^ By r^i; diKaioavvyv it is plainly righteous
ness, in the full extent of the idea, that is described ; with the expression
noielv ryv SiKaioavvyv, compare the synonymous idea noielv -rrjv dlyBeiav (chap.
i. 6) ; similarly in Hebrew i^RlV '^"Wi Gen. xviii. 19 ; Isa. Ivi. 1 ; Ps.
xiv. 15; in the N. T. comp. Matt. vi. 1. On noielv an eraphasis is placed
which raust not be overlooked; comp. chap. iii. 18; for now is the truth of
the experience and of the word first proved in deed. — In if airoi yey., we must

1 Sander would leave the question unde- says ; " We might have properly expected bn
elded ; still he correctly states the alternative : n-as 6 yeyevvripevos ef aiiToG, iroiei Ti^v fiifcaio-
"If fiiKatos must be referred to Christ, so also irvvriv; but John would appear to have the
must ef avrov. But if the latter cannot be, if purpose of exciting in bis readers the eon-
ef auTou can only be referred to God, then sclousness of sonship to God in Christ, there-
SiKaio? must also be referred to God." fore he states the reversed relation," — this is
2 The thought that only he who is born of erroneous, since it is rather noteiv rriv fiiKaio-
God can practise righteousness, is not exactly irvvriv that has the chief emphasis; In his 1st
expressed here by John, but it is suggested in ed. LUcke correctly stated the thought of the
the preceding iras. When LUcke in his 2d ed. apostle.

CHAP. II. 29.

545

retain ^ in its proper meaning ; explanations which weaken it, such as that
of Socinus, del similem esse, or of Rosenmiiller, amari a deo, are of course to
be rejected (Braune) ; the relation of the perfect yeyiwrirat to the present
TroiCiv is to be observed.!

> The definition of Weiss : " The being
born of God is the act by which the known
nature of God, and therewith God Himself,
who indeed is received into our entire spiritual
life as the object of that intuitive knowledge,
operates determlningly, mouldingly, regener-
atingly, upon our spiritual and moral being,"
is in various aspects unsuitable; for (1) It is
¦not BO much the act of God as rather the
activity of man, his knowledge, which is rep
resented as causing the being born of God;
(2) it is erroneous to describe the hirth as
producing, since the birth is the result of the

generating activity; (3) it Is no doubt true
that the birth Is brought about by knowledge,
for it is only by producing in man the knowl
edge of His nature that God produces in
him the new birth; but, on the other hand, it
is just as true that the knowledge of God is
conditioned by the being born of God : only
he who is born of God knows God; there are
two grades of the knowledge to be distin
guished, namely, the knowledge as condition,
and knowledge as result, of being born of
God.

546 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.

CHAPTER III.
Ver. 1. Instead of SeSuKev, A, G, read the aorist eSoKcv; the Rec. is, however,
sufficiently attested by the majority of authorities. — The reading ipiv in B is
not even accepted by Buttm., rightly; for it no doubt owes its existence merely
to the connection with the second pers. iSere, — After KlyBCipev is found in A, B,
C, X, many min. and vss., in Thph., Aug., Bede, the addition Kal iapiv; the
Vulg. and other Latin vss. have: et simus; Oecum. in his comm.: iSuKsv yplv
riKva airov yeviaBat re Kal KlyByvat, and Thph. in his comm. : yeviaBai re Kal
loyiaBrjvat, According to these authorities, the addition must be regarded as
genuine (Lachm., Diisterd., Ewald, Briickner); Tisch. (following G, K, many
min., Copt., etc.) has not accepted it; many critics (thus even Eeiche) explain
it as a gloss ; this it certainly may be — taken from ver. 2 ; but the overwhelming
weight of authorities is in favor of its genuineness. Diisterdieck thinks that
the omission originated in a false explanation of KlyBupev. — Instead of ypUg,
N has vpHg. — Ver. 2. After oiSapev the Rec. has Si {G, K, etc, Syr., Copt., etc.,
Thph., Dec, etc.), which, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A, B, C, K, several
min., etc., is to be deleted; its insertion is easily explained by the apparent
antithesis to the preceding. — Ver. 4. The Rec. y dpapria is certified by all the
authorities ; Lachm. omits 7, but, as Tisch. observes, sine teste, for even B, to
which Lachm. appeals, reads 7 dpapria. After ianv, x (sol.) reads Kal, which,
scarcely genuine, serves to connect more closely the two ideas dpapria and dvopia.
— Ver. 5. Instead of oiSare, N (sol.) reads oiSapev, which makes no essential
difference in the thought. — rdg dpapriag ypuv, Rec, following C, G, K, S, etc.,
Syr., etc., Thph., Oec, Bede (De Wette) ; Lachm. and Tisch. omit ypuv, following
A, B, etc., Copt., Theh., etc., Tert., Aug., etc. The genuineness of ypuv is
certainly doubtful ; perhaps it was omitted at a later date, to generalize the
idea rug dpapriag; Reiche regards it as genuine. — Ver. 6. With the reading
ibpuKev in Tisch. 7, comp. chap. i. 1. — Ver. 1. Instead of the Rec reKvla (in B,
G, K, X, etc., vss., min., Thph., Oec, Tert., etc., Lachm.), Tisch. has accepted
naiSla, after A, C, etc., Copt., etc.; it is difficult to decide; it is possible that
reKv'ia is a correction for naiS'ia, a form of address unusual in the Epistle. That
naiSla, as Ebrard thinks, is a correction, because in the section beginning with
the address naiSia (chap. ii. 18) the conclusion is nepl ruv nlavuvruv (ver. 25), and
here the same verb [pySelg nlavdru ipdg) follows the address, has little probability
in its favor. — Ver. 10. Lachm. in his larger ed. has instead of the Rec. no tuv
StKaioaivyv, which he had retained in his smaller ed., the reading tu"
SiKatog, attested by no cod., but only by the Vulg., some other vss., and
several Fathers (Or., Tert., Cyp., etc.); clearly without adequate reason. —
The Codd. A, C, K, etc., have before Suiamaivyv the article ryv, probably inserted
in correspondence with ver. "7 and chap. ii. 29. — Ver. 11. Instead of the Rec.
dyyella, C, X, etc., some vss. read 'enayyelia ; probably in accordance with
chap. ii. 25 ; De Wette considers it the original reading, just as chap. i. 5 ;

CHAP. III. 547
scarcely correct. — Ver. 13. S has, before py Bavpa^ere, " koI," clearly added for
the purpose of closer connection. — dSelipoi, according to A, B, C, X, 27, etc.,
Vulg., etc, Aug., Oros., etc; recommended by Griesb., accepted by Lachm.,
Tisch. ; the Rec. adds pov, after G, K, etc. — Ver. 14. After roig dSelipovg x reads
ypuv, probably a later addition to complete the thought. — dyanuv rbv dbelipbv,
Rec, following C, G, K, Thph., Oecum. ; rbv ddelipdv is, however, a later addition ;
it is not found in A, B, X, etc, Vulg., etc., Aug., etc. ; justly omitted by Lachm.
and Tisch.; its insertion is easily explained; Reiche, however, is of a different
opinion. — Ver. 15. Instead of airov, as Lachm. and Tisch., or airoi, as
most of the editors read, B has i avroi, — iv airu (or better, iv airu, Tisch.),
Rec. , after B, G, K, etc. , Thph. , Oec. — Lachm. has accepted iv iavru, the reading
of A, C, X, etc — Ver. 16. Instead oi riB ivai (Rec, according to G, K, etc., Oec.)
we must read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following the overwhelming evidence of
A, B, C, X, etc., the aorist Belvai. — Ver. 18. After reKvia the Rec. (following G,
K, etc) has pmi, the genuineness of which, however, is justly doubted by Griesb.
— The article ry before yluaa-y, which is omitted by the Rec. , is with certainty
attested by almost all authorities ; it is wanting, however, in X. — Before ipyip
the Rec. has omitted ev, ouly on the evidence of K ; almost all the authorities
attest its genuineness ; as the co-ordinate ideas are without iv, it was natural
to omit the preposition with Ipyu also. — Ver. 19. Before iv roiru the Rec,
following C, G, K, X, most min., vss., etc., reads koi, which is also accepted by
Tisch. Lachm. has omitted it ; it is wanting in A, B, etc., Vulg., Copt., etc.;
it is, however, probably genuine ; omitted because it seemed unsuitable for the
connection. — Instead of yivuoKopev, Rec, following G, K, etc., Vulg., etc.
(Tisch.), A, B, C, X, etc.,i several vss., etc., read yvuabueBa (Lachm.) ; as the
latter is the more difficult reading, and besides has the most important
authorities in its favor, it is to be regarded as genuine, with Ewald, Briickner,
Braune, contrary to the opinion of Liicke, De Wette, Reiche ; Bengel and De
Wette think that the following neiaopev has led to the change of the present to
the future ; but it is just as likely that the indicative is a correction of the
copyists, in accordance with the frequently-occurring formula iv roiru yivuoKopev,
iL .3, iii. 24, iv. 2, v. 2 (Erdmann). — rdg Kapbiag ypuv. Rec, following A* *,
C, G, K, X, almost all min., several vss., Thph., Oecum., Bede; retained by
Tisch. and Lachm. (in his larger ed.); in the small ed. Lachm. has ryv KupSiav
TjpCrv, after A*, B, Syr., etc ; the plural was apparently altered to the singular in
accordance with ver. 20. — Ver. 20. Instead of ort idv, Lachm. and Buttm. read:
0 rt idv; sefe on this the explanation of the verse. — The bn before pel^uv, which
Lachm. had omitted in his small ed. (following A, etc., Vulg., etc., Oec, etc.),
he has again rightly accepted in the larger ed. The change of it to in, which
Henr. Stephanus would read, is arbitrary. — Ver. 21. The genuineness of ypuv
(Rec) after y KapSla is uncertain; it is found in C, G, K, X, etc. (Tisch), but
is wanting in A, B, etc., Vulg., etc (Lachm.). — The ypCiv after Karaytvuany is
wanting in B and C ; it is, however, hardly spurious, as it is indispensable for
the sense. Instead of ix"P^v, attested by almost all the authorities, B has
ix^t, originating in a false reference to KopSla. — Ver. 22. Instead of S idv, B
reads o uv. — Instead of the active form airupev, there is found in X the middle
form airupeBa. — In opposition to the Rec. nap' airoi {G, K, etc.), im' airuv
deserves the preference, according to the authorities (A, B, C, X, etc., Lachm.,
' LUcke, whora Sander copies, says that C does not testify in favor of yvucopeBa, but according
to Tischendorf it certainly does.

548 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Tisch.). — The reading rypupev in X instead of rypoipev is no doubt only a clerical
error. — Ver. 23. mareiaupev, Rec, following B, G, IC, al. pl., Oec, Tisch. ; the
reading of A, C, X, etc., Thph., on the other hand, is niareiupev; recommended
by Griesb., accepted by Lachm., probably a change in accordance with the
following present dyanupev ; so Reiche thinks. — After ivrolyv, yplv is wanting
in <^, K, etc (omitted by Tisch.). The most important authorities attest the
genuineness of yplv ; Reiche, however, regards it as a later edition. — Ver. 24.
In X the Kal is wanting before tv toutip; in the same cod. ai iSuKsv yplv is found
instead of the Rec. ov yplv iSuKev.
Ver. 1. From the i^ airoi yeyiwyrai (chap. ii. 29) the apostle goes on to
the thought that he and his readers are children of God, whence he deduces
the necessity that exists for them of noielv ryv StKaioaivyv. First, however, he
points his readers to the love of God, through which they have become chil
dren of God, inviting them to the consideration of it by Ibere. — noranyv dydnyv
SiSuKev yplv b narijp, what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us. noranbg
(later form for nobanbg, properly = from whence?) in the N. T., never in the
direct question, is strictly, it is true, not = quantus, but = qualis (comp. Luke
i. 29; 2 Pet. iii. 11), but is frequently used as an expression of admiration
at any thing especially wonderful (comp. Matt. viii. 27 ; Mark xiii. 1 ; Luke
vii. 39), so that the meaning of qualis passes over into that of quantum; and
so it is to be taken here also. — dyuTriyv SiSbvai only here; StSbvat is more
significant than ivSeiKvivai or a similar expression ; it means, " to give, to be
stow." God has made His love our property (so also Braune). It is quite
incorrect to take SiSbvai = dest'inare, and, weakening the thought, clydTriji' as
metonymous for "\o-ve-token" (Grotius), or for effectum charitatis (Socinus). '
The reference which Calvin finds in the word, when he says : quod dicit
DATAM esse caritatem, significat: hoc MERA.E esse liberal'itatis, quod nos Deus pro
filiis habet, is not indicated by John. — On yplv a Lapide remarks : indignis,
inimicis, peccatoribus. — The name 6 naryp points to the following riKva Qeoi.
— iva reKva Qeoi KlyBupev]. Paulus, De Wette, Liioke, etc., retain 'iva in its
original meaning; "the greatness of the divine love," says Liicke, "lies in
the sending of the Son '' (chap. iv. 10). This thought is correct in itseU;
but the apostle is not here thinking of the sending Christ; it is therefore
arbitrary to supply it; here there is in his mind only the fact that we — as
believers — are called the children of God: "This is the proof and the result
of love " (Spener) , tva is accordingly used here in modified signification,
synonymous with 'ev roiru, bn, only that by Iva the riKva Q. KlyB. is more defi
nitely described as the purpose (not, however, as the object of an act distin
guished from it) of the love of the Father ; Ebrard unsuitably gives the
meaning by the explanation nor. dy. SeSuKev ijp, b narijp ev ru jSovleaBai 'iva, k.t.I.,
* A Lapide interprets ayaTTTji' in the Catholic Dei nominamur et sumus." — Very appropri-
interest; i.e., "charitatem tum activara (actum ately Luther, in his Scliolia: "usus est
amoris Del quo nos mire amat), tum passivam Joannes singulari verborum pondere: non
nobisque a Deo communicatam et infusam. dicit, dedisse nobis Deura donum aliquod, sed
Videte quantam charitatem . . . nobis . . . ipsam cai-itatem et fontem omnium bonorum,
praestitit et exhibuit Deus, cum . . . charita- cor ipsum," etc.
tem creatam nobis dedit et infudit, qua tilii

CHAP. III. 1. 549
inasmuch as the love of God is bestowed on us, not in His will, but in the
act which is the outcome of it. — KalelaBai is erroneously explained by
Baumgarten-Crusius =: i^ovalav ixeiv yeviaBat, John i. 12, so that the sense
would be: "that we have the right to dare to call ourselves God's children "
(Neander); it is very common to take KalelaBai = eivai, Augustin: hic
non est discrimen inter did et esse ; this is so far correct as the name, which is
here spoken of, inanis esse titulus non potest (Calvin), for: "where God gives
a name. He always gives the nature itself along with it " (Besser) ; the elvai
is included in the Kale'iaBai; yet the very fact of being called is significant,
for it is only in the name that the being is revealed, and it is through that
giving of a name that the separation of believers from the world is actually
accomplished. Iva . . KlyBupev is usually translated, "that we should be
called." Ewald adds, "at the day of judgment," but it is not the future,
but the present, that is here spoken of; KlyBupev is therefore not to be taken
as the subj. fut., but as the subj. aor. : "that we were named, and therefore
are called." Braune would explain the apostle's expression in this way, that
being children of God is " a work only gradually accomplished, an opera
tion;" incorrectly, for "being the children of God" is certainly "a simply
stated fact ; " comp. the kuI iapiv and ver. 2. Instead of riKva airov, John
says T. Qeoi, because he wants to state the full name itself. The view of
Baumgarten-Crusius has less in its favor, that the apostle contrasted naryp
and Qeoi in order to indicate: "He bestowed it on us lovingly, that we should
be connected with the Godhead,, inasmuch as the fornler describes the divine
will, the latter the divine nature." — kuI iapiv, which according to the mar
jority of authorities is scarcely a mere gloss (see the critical 'notes), says
John in an independent form, not depending on tva (the Vulgate errone
ously = .nmus),^ in order still more specially to bring out the element of
being, which was certainly contained already in KlyBupev. — Not in order to
comfort believers in regard to the persecutions which they have to suffer
from the world (De Wette, Liicke, etc.), but to specify the contrast in which
believers as riKva Qeoi stand to the world, and the greatness of the love of
the Father who has given them that name, the apostle continues : Sid rovro b
Koapog oi yivuoKet ijpdg]. Std rovro refers back to the preceding thought (Beng
el, De Wette, Bruckner, Braune) ; thus : therefore, because we are children
of God ; the following on then serves to confirm the reason why the world
does not know us as children of God. It is true, Std roiro might be also
directly referred to bn (Baumgarten-Crusius, also perhaps Liicke, Ewald) ;

^ Ebrard thinks that eTpiv may be depend- about the actual present state of his readers,
ent upou 'iva, not certainly according to Butt- confirmiug the preceding. If ea-pev is re-
maun's, but according to John's grammar; garded as dependent on U-a, we are compelled
Incorrectly, for the present indicative after to weaken tbe idea KKifjdiop,ev, for Ebrard's
'iva is not surely attested in John even by a supposition that in K\r}$Cipev is contained the
single passage, whilst it is unmistakably in relationship of Q-od to us, or the element of
Paul, 1 Cor. iv. 6, and Gal. Iv. 17 (corap. in " being reconciled," and in ea-fiiv, on the other
addition, Al. Buttmann, p. 202, note [E. T., hand, " our relationship to God, or the element
234]); it therefore appears most probable that of the conversion and renewal of our nature,"
Kai eapev is added by John, not indeed as a lacks any tenable ground.
triumphant exclamation, but as au utterance

550 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
but with this reference the sentence would come in too disconnectedly. —
With b Koapog comp. chap. ii. 15. — oi yivuoKei means, " does not know us," i.e.,
our inner nature, which we as riKva Qeoi possess, is to the world something
incomprehensible; to it, alienated from God, what is godly is strange and
inconceivable : compare John xiv. 17. Many commentators unnecessarily
deviate from this proper meaning of the word; thus Grotius, who inter
prets it = non agnoscit pro suis ; Semler = nos rejicit, reprobat ; Baumgarten-
Crusius = /i«T« ("therefore the world cannot endure us, because it cannot
endure Him — God"). — bn oiK iyvu airbv, "for it did not know Him" (namely,
God or the Father). S. Schmid erroneously explains iyvu by credere in Deum ;
Episcopius, hj jussa Dei ohservare; John's idea of knowledge is to be retained,
as in the case of ytvuoKei, so also in iyvu (Dusterdieck, Ebrard, Braune).
Ver. 2. After emphatic resumption of iapiv, the apostle indicates the
yet concealed glory of the riKva Qeoi. He begins with the address dya
nyrol, which occurs to him here the more readily as he feels himself most
closely connected with his readers in the common fellowship with God (so
also DUsterdieck). — viv riKva Qeoi iapivl. viv is used in reference to the
future (ovKu) ; it is here a particle of time, not == " now, in consequence of
that decree " (De Wette) ; a contrast with what immediately precedes (Liicke:
" amidst all mistake on the part of the world, we are nevertheless really now
the children of God ; " so also Diisterdieck and Braune) is not suggested
by it. Hereby the present glory of the believing Christian is described ; i
before the apostle mentions the future glory, he observes that this is yet
concealed: koI ovnu iipavepdiBy ri iabpeBa]. ipavepoiaBai may, as Ebrard
remarks, mean " to be actually revealed," or, " for the knowledge to be re
vealed ; " most commentators rightly take the word here in the first mean
ing ; it is true, Ebrard maintains that this explanation is grammatically
impossible, because ipavepbu, as governing a question, can only have the
meaning of theoretical revelation ; but this assertion is unfounded, for in
the N. T. usus loquendi (nay, even in the classics) the interrogative rig, some
times rl, confessedly appears where, according to the rule, the relative should
properly be used ; comp. Winer, p. 158 f . (E. T., 168), Al. Buttmann, p. 216
(E. T., 250 f.); and especially if the thought involves an assumed question,
as is the case here.^ That ipavepoiaBai cannot here be understood of the theo
retical revelation, is clear — (1) from the fact that no yplv is put with it,
which Ebrard arbitrarily inserts when he interprets, " it has not yet been
revealed to us, no information about it has yet been communicated to us;"
(2) from the fact that the apostle himself immediately afterwards says what
1 De Wette incorrectly remarks on ea-pev: times at the least very remote, thus with
"by destiny, by faith and aspiration or idea;" SoQrjirerat, Matt. x. 19, and with eroipairov,
John rather signifies by eirmei' the actual Luke xvii. 8, where Buttmann finds himself
reality. compelled to supply a connecting verb. Be-
2 Acts xiii. 25 is especially to be compared. sides, a similarity with the verba sentiendi is
Accordiug to Buttmaun, the interrogative is not to be denied to the verb ifiavepoviTSat, even
used for the relative only after predicates if it does not describe the theoretical revela-
which have a certain similarity with the verba tion, for the coming out of concealment in-
sentiendi, etc., thus especially after Ixeiv eludes the becoming visible.
(Mark viii. 1, 2) ; yet this similarity is some-

CHAP. III. 2. 551
Christians will be in the future; (3) from the fact that a confession of
present ignorance is at variance with the natural connection ; from the fact
that with this view a very artificial thought results for the following words,
oiSapev, k.t.1, ; see below. — By ovnu iipavepijBy, k.t.I., the apostle accordingly
states that the future condition of those who at present are riKva Qeoi is still
concealed, has not yet come to light (comp. Col. iii. 3; Rom. viii. 18). ^
This future state is, it is true, something different from the present, yet it
is not absolutely new, but is that " which is latent and established in the
present" (Diisterdieck, Braune). — otdapev on idv ipavepuBy, k.t.1.], Bj' oiSa/iev
the apostle expresses his own and his readers' consciousness of that which,
as riKva Qeoi, they will be in the future. — With ipavepuBy we must supply
ri iadpeBa, the meaning is the same as it previously has ; so it is correctly
explained by Didymus, Augustine, Socinus, Grotius, Paulus, Baumgarten-
Crusius, De Wette, Semler, Liicke, Diisterdieck, Erdmann, Braune, etc. As
Ebrard similarly supplies n iabpeBa, but understands ipavepuBy here also of the
knowledge, there results from him this thought : "we know rather that when
it shall be made known to us, we shall even already be like Him," in which
" the emphasis is made to rest on the contemporaneousness of the theoretical
IpavepoiaBai -with the actual bpowt eaeaBai;" but in this interpretation, which
suffers from unjustifiable supplements, a reference is brought out as the
chief element of the thought which is in no way indicated, and is foreign to
the context. — Some critics supply with ipavepuBy as subject Xptarbg, as in
chap, ii. 28, so Syrus, Calvin, Beza, Hornejus, Calov, Semler, etc. (Myrberg
at least thinks that this is not omnino improhabile) ; this is, however, erro
neous, as in this ipavepuBy what immediately precedes is clearly resumed. It
is self-evident that this revelation will take place iv ry napovaigi Xpiaroi; comp.
ii. 28. — bpoiot airu iabpeBa]. airu, i.e., Deo, cujus sumus filii (Bengel); the
idea remains, indeed, essentially the same if airu is taken = Xpiaru (Storr),
but the context decides in favor of the first explanation. The apostle says :
we shall be to God bpomi, not laot, because likeness to God will not be uncon
ditioned, but conditioned by the nature of the creature, as a creature ; in so
far bpomg may be translated by "like," only this idea has something indefinite
in it, and therefore Sander not unjustly says that "thereby the point of the
thought is lost." As John himself does not more particularly define this
future bpotbryg of man with God, the commentator must not arbitrarily restrict
the general idea on the one side or the other, as, for instance, by the refer
ence to the "light-nature of God" (Ebrard), or the StKaioaivy Qeoi (Dusterdieck),
or the do^o; OEoti (De Wette).^ — bn bipdpeBa airbv, xaBug iart]. This sen
tence states the logical ground of the foregoing ; Calvin, correctly : ratio haec
ab effectu sumta est, non a causa ; so that the sense is : " because we shall see

> Ebrard groundlessly asserts that this view ' Baumgarten-Crusius and others quote on
amounts to a tautology: "our future state is this passage 2 Pet. 1. 4; koiviovo'i ti); Beia^
still future;" for according to It the apostle iPvireio^; this is (as BrUckner also remarks)
rather expresses the thought that the future unsuitable, for In this expression the author
condition of the TenKn 0eou will be distin- of that Epistle does not say what the Christian
guished frora the present; in which, plainly, will be one day, but what he already is; it
there is not tbe slightest tautology contained. therefore corresponds rather to the reKva ®eov.

552 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Him as He is, we therefore know that we shall be like Him '' (Rickli ; so
also Socinus, S. Schmidt, Erdmann, Myrberg, etc.). It is a different thought
in 2 Cor. iii. 18, according to which Bengel explains : ex aspectu, similitudo
(similarly Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., iv. 38, says : bpaaig Qeov nepinoiyruiy dipBapaiag),
according to which the sense is: "the beholding is the cause of the likeness"
(Spener ; similarly Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette, Neander, Kbstlin, Diist
erdieck, Ebrard, Braune, Weiss, etc.). But John does not here want to
explain whence the 0|«o(oi' elvat ru Qeu comes to the believer, but on what the
oiSapev is based. The certain hope of the Christian is that he shall see
God. In that hope there lies for hira the certainty that he will one day be
like God ; for God can only be seen by him who is like Him.^ When Rickli
remarks on bipdpeBa: "not a bodily vision of Him who is Spirit; it is the
spiritual beholding, the knowledge of God in His infinite divine nature "
(similarly Frommann, p. 217), or when others interpret this bpdv simply by
" to know aright," and similarly, this is contrary to the sense of the apostle ;
for as the word itself indeed shows, an actual seeing is meant. For man in
his earthly body, God is certainly invisible ; but it is different with the glori
fied man in his aupa nvevpariKov (1 Cor. xv. 44); he will not merely know
(the believer has knowledge already here), but see God; and, moreover, no
longer Si' iaonrpov iv a'lviypan, but npbaunov npbg npbaunov, 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
Compare, on the seeing of God, Matt. v. 8 ; 2 Cor. v. 7 ; Rev. xxii. 4. — By
KaBug ian the entire reality of the nature of God : " as He is, not merely in a
copy, etc., but in Himself and in His nature. His perfect majesty and glory"
(Spener), is described.^ The relation of the single parts of this verse is
usually regarded by the commentators as adversative ; certainly viv and
oinu form an antithesis, but the connecting kuI shows that the apostle con
sidered the first two thoughts less in their antithesis to one another than in
their co-ordination, inasmuch as it occurred to him to emphasize them both
equally : both that believers are now really riKva Qeov, and also that a glory
as yet concealed — namely, likeness to God — awaits them. Between the
third and fourth parts also, a sort of antithesis occurs (hence the Recepta Si),
but here also the apostle is not anxious to bring out this contrast, but rather
to add to the negatively-expressed thought, for its confirmation, the positive
substance of Christian consciousness ; comp. De Wette-Briickner, Braune.
Ver. 3 shows the moral effect of the Christian hope ; not the condition
with which the fulfilment of it is connected, as Liicke thinks. The same
' To DUsterdieck's question. Why then did observes that the emphasis is laid on nad^i
not the apostle writ* : 6i//6jaeda avToi/, 'on ojuoioi etrnv ; but it is incorrect for him to place this
auTw eaopeQa'^ it is a valid reply : because he in contrast with His manifestation in the Son ;
did not want to represent the beholding of God, for God has not revealed Himself in Christ
but likeness to God, as the purpose of the otherwise than KaQut^ eo-Tt. — As a curiosity
divine love. The justification of the rejected the explanation of Oertel may be given here:
explanation by 2 Cor. ill. 18 Is inappropriate, " One day after several centuries, mankind,
because John describes the future condition which now belongs too much to the spirit of
of the children of God, not as a becoming barbarism, will become more glorified, more
like, but as a being like {errop-eBa). ennobled, and more happy, aud thus attain to
2 Calvin : " Deus nunc se nobis conspici- the perfect knowledge of the plan of God and
endum offert, non qualis est, sed quaiem the purpose of Jesus."
modulus noster eum capit." Weiss rightly

CHAP. III. 4. 553
combination of ideas, only in the form of exhortation, occurs in 2 Cor. vi.
18 and vii. 1 ; 2 Pet. iii. 13, 14. — ndg b ixuv rijv iln'iba rairyv in' airds, namely,
the hope of one day being like God.i " In the case of nag b ix. we can, as
in ii. 29, bring out the converse in the meaning of the apostle : every one
. . . and only such" (Dusterdieck). The phrase ixeiv iln'iSa 'enl '^ith dative
only here ; Acts xxiv. 15 : ex. iln. eig Qebv ; but ilml^eiv ini with dative : Rom.
XV. 12 and 1 Tim. vi. 17. — airu, i.e., Qeu], God is regarded as the basis
on which the hope is founded. The idea of maintaining (Spener) is not
contained in Ixeiv. — dyvi^ei iavrbv KaBug, k.t.I,]. dyviCeiv (comp. on 1 Pet.
i. 22), not "to keep one's self pure" (k Mons, Bengel,' Russmeyer, etc.), but
" to purify one's self, i.e., to make one's self free of every thing that is unholy ; "
in Jas. iv. 8 it is used synonymously with KaBap'i^eiv. This self-purification
necessarily follows from the Christian's hope, because the object of this is
to be like God, and therefore also to be holy. — In reference to the opinion
that this purification is described as an act of man, Augustine says : videte
quemadmodum non abstulit liberum arbitrium, ut diceret: castificat sernetipsum.
Quis nos castificat nisi Deus f Sed Deus te nolentem non castificat. Castificas
te, non de te ; sed de illo, qui venit, ut habitet in te. The active impulse of this
iyvi^eiv iavrbv does not lie in the natural liberum arbitrium of man, but in
the hope, which the salvation work of God presupposes in man. — This
purification takes place after the pattern (KaBug) of Christ (iKelvog, ver. 4),
who is dyvbg, i.e., "pure frora every sinful stain." The want of harmony
which exists in the juxtaposition of the dyv'i^eiv iavrov of the Christian and
the ayvov elvai of Christ, must not induce us to take KaBug here otherwise
than in ver. 7, ii. 6, iv. 17, namely = quandoquidem, so that this clause
would add a second motive for the dyv'i(eiv iavrbv, as Ebrard thinks ; the
sense rather is, that the purity of Christ is the pattern for Christians,
which the Christian by self-purification strives to copy in his life also. —
iari : " the dyvbryg is a quality inherent in Christ " (Lucke) ; ' the present
is not put for the preterite, but signifies the unbroken permanent state ;
chap. ii. 29.
Ver. 4. The believer is so much the more bound to holiness, as all sin
is dvopia. — ndg b noiav, k,t,1,, corresponding to the beginning of ver. 3, ndg
b ixuv, K.r.l. The apostle is anxious to emphasize the truth of the thought
as being without exception, noielv rr/v dpapriav, as the antithesis of
noteiv rijv StKaioaivyv, chap. ii. 29, is contrasted with dyvl^eiv iavrbv, ver. 3 ; as
the apostle " wants to contrast with the positive sentence, ver. 3, its negative
counterpart," " he begins with the antithesis of that idea which formed the
predicate in ver. 3, and makes it the subject" (Ebrard). The definite
article shows that the idea, according to its complete extent, is intended
as definite, as forming the concrete antithesis to i/ StKaioaivy ; ^ both the
* Ebrard groundlessly would understand ver. 9 It is put dpapriav noielv, and then, as
by e^TTts the treasure which is the object of synonymous with it, simply dpaprdveiv;
the hope. nevertheless, it is to be noticed that " the
2 Braune, however, rightly observes that fuller Idea noielv rriv An. at the beginning
too strong an emphasis is not to be laid here. Includes and deterraines the others, noielv dp.
either upon the article or on iroielv ; for in aud dpaprdveiv" (Ebrard).

554 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
interpretation of Socinus: "to remain in sin," and that of Baumgarten-
Crusius : " to receive sin into one's self, to let it exist in one's self," are alike
arbitrary ; even the very common definition : " to sin knowingly and
wilfully," is out of place here, as the subject here is not the way in which
sin is done, but the actual doing of sin itself. According to Briickner,*
by noteiv ryv dpapriav " an actual moral tendency of life " is indicated ; this
explanation is apparently justified by vv. 6, 8, 9, but even in these passages
the apostle's meaning goes beyond the restricted idea of " tendency of life,"
inasmuch as he certainly has sinning in view. — kuI rijv dpapriav noiel]. "kui
accentuates the idea that the very doing of dpapria is as such equally the
doing of dvopia " (Dusterdieck) ; by dvopia we are to understand, according
to the constant usus loquendi, never the mere non-possession of the law
(differently dvopog, 1 Cor. ix. 21), but always the violation of the law,
namely, of the divine law, of the divine order according to which man
should regulate his life, — laivlessness (LUcke). ^ The sense therefore is: he
who practises sin (in whatever way it may be) thereby raakes himself guilty
of the violation of divine order, he acts contrary to the Belypa nm Qeoi, chap.
ii. 17. According to Ebrard, rijv dvopiav noielv expresses the antithesis of
exeiv ryv iln'iSa ravTyv, ver. 3; but it is more correct to perceive in that
sentence — instead of a conclusion — the introduction of a new element,
by which the sharp contrast with rijv StKaioaivyv (ii. 29) is indicated. — The
following words, koI y dpapria iariv y dvopia, are added, partly to confirm the
previous thought, partly to mark emphatically the identity of dpapria and
dvopia which is expressed in it. The apostle does not want to give an exact
definition of the idea dpapria (contrary to Sander), but to indicate its nature
from the side "on which its absolute antagonism to any fellowship with
God appears most unrestrictedly" (BrUckner). The apostle could not more
sharply express the antithesis between the character of the believer, who is
a rcKvov Qeov, and will be bpoiog Qeu, and the dpapria, than by showing dpapria
to be dvopia, whereby he most distinctly opposes the moral indifferentism
against which the first section of the Epistle is also directed. Violence is
done to the thought, both by limiting the idea dpapria to a particular kind
of sin (a Lapide : loquitur proprie de peccato perfecta, puta mortifero), and by
making dvopia the subject and dpapria the predicate ; ^ so also by mixing up
references which are foreign to the context.^ The Kai by which the two
^ Briickner rightly rejects the interpreta- this construction there is, besides, the fact
tion of De Wette : " dpapria appears to be that oiuapTta would have to be taken in a
the broader idea, dvopia the narrower, more different sense here from that in which it is
definite and stronger, including particular previously used, namely, as Kdstlin says :
offences, vices, etc." "The flrst time dpapria means sinful action;
2 dvopia is distinguished from dSiKia (1. 9, the second time, guilt in the sight of God."
v. 17) in this way, that the former idea is * This is the case, for example, in Hilgen-
contrasted with abstract right (SUrj), the feld's explanation: "Not every one who
latter with the concrete form of right (rd^o?) deviates from the ceremonial laws, but only
(BrUckner). the sinner, falls under the category of dvo.
' Kostlin (p. 246) appeals In behalf of this pia ; " not less in the remark of Calvin : " the
construction to John 1. 1 : /cat ©eoy Tfv 6 \6yoi, sum of the thought is that the life of those
assuming that ical dpapria, K.r.k., Is to be who give themselves to sin is hateful to 6od,
read ; see, however, the critical notes. Against and cannot be tolerated by God."

CHAP. III. 5. 555
sentences are connected with one another, Bengel translates and explains
by: immo (so also BrUckner by "nay"), with the remark: non solum
conjuncta est notio peccati et iniquitatis, sed eadem ; this is incorrect, for even
the first sentence expresses, not a mere connection, but identity. The
apostle could have written instead of kuI the confirmatory particle bn, or
the like, but by means of kuI the thought of the second clause obtains a
more independent position (so also Braune).
Ver. 5 contains a new proof of the incompatibility of the Christian life
with sin; this exists in Christ, to whose example the apostle has already
pointed in ver. 3. Of Christ, John states two things, while he appeals to
the consciousness of his readers (oiSnre; the same is the case with the
reading of x : olSapev) — (1) that His manifestation (iipavepuBy, an expression
which refers to the previously unrevealed existence of Christ in heaven)
had this purpose : tva rdg dpapriag dpy ; and (2) that He is without sin. —
T&g dpapriag aipeiv may, of course, mean in itself "to bear our sins," i.e., as
the atoning sacrifice, in order thereby to procure their forgiveness, but here
it means " to take away, to remove our sins ; " for even although the Hebrew
expression [IJ?^ SE'J signifies both, yet the LXX. translates this in the second
sense only by alpeiv, but in the first sense by ipipetv (comp. Meyer on John i.
29, and my commentary on 1 Pet. ii. 24) ; moreover, alpetv with John
constantly means " to take away ; " corap. xi. 48, xv. 2, xvii. 15, xix. 31, 38 ;
and the context is also decisive in favor of this meaning, for even though
in the thought that Christ bore our sins, inasmuch as He suffered for them,
there lies a mighty impulse to avoid sins, yet the antagonism of the Christian
life to sin appears more directly and more strongly if the taking away of sins
is described as the pui-pose of the manifestation of Christ. Kdstlin (p. 180)
rightly says : " The expression signifies, to take away the sins themselves, but
not their guilt or their punishment, for it is added : kui dp. hi airu oiK ianv,
and in ver. 8 : Ipya roi Sta^blov." This interpretation in Calvin, Luther,
Russmeyer, Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Neauder, Frommann (p. 449),
Dusterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune, etc., contrary to which Lucke,
De Wette, Erdmann, etc., explain alpetv — "to bear;" LUcke : "the object
of the manifestation of Christ is the bearing of sins as a holy offering in
His death ; " while others, as Bede (" tollit et dimittendo quae facta sunt et
adjuvando ne fiant et perducendo ad vitam, ubi fieri omnino non possint"),
Socinus, a Lapide, Spener, Sander, Besser (also Lucke in his 1st ed.),*
combine both meanings. Weiss, it is true, interprets alpetv correctly, but
thinks that the plural dpapriag "can only signify actually existing sins"
which Christ takes away, " inasmuch as His blood cleanses us from their
guilt ; " but in the whole context the subject is not the guilt of sins, but the
sins theraselves. The plural, however, by no means renders that interpre
tation compulsory. — The pronoun ypMv after rdg dpapriag (see the critical

1 " Aipeii" T. an. ypMv corresponds to the the ideal sense by the act of forgiving sin, and
KaBapiieiv dno iracn)? dp., 1. 7, and signifies also in the real sense by the act of sanctifying
the whole extent of the redemptive activity of the saved."
Christ, His office of taking away sin, both in

556 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
notes) is regarded by Lucke and De Wette as genuine ; Lucke : " because
John would otherwise have written ryv dpapriav ; " De Wette: "because its
omission appears to be occasioned by the interpretation of alpetv = to
remove ; " DUsterdieck remarks against ypHv, that in the whole section vv.
4-10 there is no direct application expressed ; from internal grounds it cannot
be decided, inasmuch as rug dpapr. ypuv can be taken quite as generally as the
simple rdg dpapriag. In regard to the plural rdg dpapriag, DUsterdieck rightly
says that " thereby the form of representation is made so much the more
vivid, as the whole mass of all individual sins is taken into view." It is to
be observed, that John does not regard Christ, according to the Pelagian
mode of thought, only as the motive for the free self-determination of man,
but as the active living cause of sanctification determining the will of
man. It is His crucifixion especially from which proceeds, not only the
forgiveness of sins, but also (in and with this) the new life, in which
the believer purifies himself (dyvi^ei), even as He is pure (dyvbg). — The
second thing which John states of Christ is: koI dpapr'ia iv avru oiK ian.
The meaning of these words is not that in those who are in Christ there is
no sin (Calvin, Paulus), but that Christ Himself is without sin ; com. ver.
3, ii. 29. This clause is not meant to confirm the preceding one (a Lapide :
ideo Christus potens fuit tollere peccatum, quia carebat omni peccato, imo potes
tate peccandi: so also Oecumenius, Lorinus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander,
Neander) ; but it is co-ordinate with it (LUcke, De Wette-Bruckner,
DUsterdieck, Braune), in order to serve as a basis for the following state
ment. — The present earl is not used instead of the preterite (Grotius), nor
is it to be explained in this way, with Winer (p. 251 [B. T., 267]), that
"the sinlessness of Jesus is considered as still present in faith;" but it
rather denotes, as in ver. 3, the character of Christ in its eternal existence.
Ver. 6. ndg 6 ev airCi (i.e., Xpiaru) pivuv refers back to the exhortation in
ii. 27 ; pevetv, not merely = inesse, expresses close fellowship. — oix dpaprdvei],
John hereby states the abiding in Christ and sinning as irreconcilable oppo
sites ; still it is not his meaning, that the believing Christian does not sin
any more at all, or that he who still sins is not in Christ, for in i. 8-10,
ii. 1, 2, iii. 3, he clearly enough expresses that sin still clings to the Chris
tian, and that he therefore needs constantly both the forgiving and saving
grace of God, and the intercession of Christ, as well as self-purification.
The solution of the apparent contradiction must not be sought by giving
the word dpaprdveiv here a meaning different from what it has elsewhere
(e g. = persistere in peccato ; or with Capellus = sceleratum esse, or = to com
mit peccata mortalia) ; nor even by appealing to the apostle's ideal mode of
conception (De Wette, DUsterdieck; substantially also Weiss and BrUck
ner),* for " John has here to do with real cases, and wants to indicate to us
the marks by which it may be known whether a man loves the Lord or hot,
whether he is a child of God or of the wicked one " (Sander), as is clear

I When Weiss (and BrUckner agreeing with and ought to be," the expression of the apostle
him) says " that John here represents the is explained by him also from its idealism.
Christian life as accordiug to its nature it Is

CHAP. III. 6. 557
from ipavepd ean, ver. 10 ; but only in the fact that the Christian, who is a
riKvov OeoS, bears the contradiction in himself that he, on the one hand, it is
true, still actually sins, but, on the other hand, is also actually free frora
sin — so free from it that he cannot sin (ver. 9); he has actually broken
with sin, so that in his most inner nature he is in the most decided opposi
tion to it ; yet at the same time he finds it in himself, and indeed in such a
way that he still actually sins (chap. i. 10), but inasmuch as he confesses it,
and experiences the forgiving and saving love of the faithful God towards
him (chap. i. 9), and with all earnestness practises the dyvi^eiv iavrbv, it ever
loses more and more its power over him, and thus it results that it is no
longer sin, but opposition to it (as something foreign to his nature), that
determines his conduct of life; and hence the apostle may with perfect justice
say, that he who abides in Christ does not sin (so also Braune),* which is
quite the same as when Paul says : el ng iv Xpiaru, Kaivy Kriaig • rd dpxala na- .
pfjlBev, iSoi, yeyove Kaivd rd ndvra (2 Cor. V. 17). — The antithesis expressed
in the first clause is even more sharply brought out in the second, inasmuch
as John does not say nuf A apaprdvuv . . . oi pivet iv airu, but ovx iupuKev
airbv, oiSe iyvuKev airbv. — ndg b dpaprdvuv is every one who leads a life
in dpapria, and therefore has not come out of the Koapog into the number of
God's children; 2 such an one, says John, hath not seen neither known airbv,
i.e., Christ. LUcke takes the perfects iupaaev and lyvuKev in present signifi
cation, the former in the meaning of " the present possession of the experi
ence," the latter in the meaning of " the present possession of previously
obtained knowledge ; " but this is not rendered necessary by the context,
and hence the perfects are to, be retained as such, although it must be ad
mitted that Johu is considering the result as one that continues into the
present. The meaning of the two verbs in their relation to one another is
very differently explained ; according to some commentators, iupuKev signifies
something inferior (Semler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Lucke in his first edition),
according to others, something superior (Socinus, Neander, Frommann,
p. 223), to iyvuKcv, With the former view, oiSi is taken as = " and still less ; "
with the latter, as =: " and not as much as." Both are incorrect, for. a dif
ference of degree is in no way suggested. Yet the two expressions are not to
be regarded as synonymous, so that iyvuKe would only be added to bring out
the spiritual meaning of iupuKev (Dusterdieck) ; for, although oiSi can neither
be necessarily "disjunctive" (LUcke, first edition) nor "conjunctive" (Lucke,
•Besser appropriately says .¦ "Everyone Christian were something divided in itself ; but
who abides in Christ, to whom He once be- it is more correct when he says. "Etsi infir-
longs, does not sin, but says 'No' to sin, mitate labitur, peccato tamen non consentit,
which belongs to the old man, and resists its quia potius gemendo iuctatur.
alien power. A Christian does not do sin, but 2 Ebrard says this explanation is opposed
he suffers it. His will, his Christian ego, is to the context, because " even frora ver. 4 the
not at one with sin. Hatred of sin is the subject is such as are Christians, but are lack-
common raark of the children of God; love ing in holiness, and it is only in ver. 6 tbat it
of sin, the common property of the children' is stated how far such Christians canuot be
of the Devil. Augustine's explanation: "in regarded as truly regenerate;" but (1) do not
quantum in Christo manet, in tantum non the Mreregenerate Christians still belong to the
peccat," is unsatisfactory, because it would koct^o^? and (2) does not that explanation
thereby appear as if the inner iife of the refer precisely to the close of the Cth verse?

558 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
second edition), yet the forra of the clauses shows, inasmuch as the object is
put along with each verb, that oiSe here has a stronger emphasis, and that
John wanted to express by the two verbs two distinct ideas. In order to
determine these, the original signification of the words must be retained.
bpgiv signifies neither "the mere historical knowledge of Christ" (LUcke),
nor the perseverantia communionis cum Christo (Erdmann), and yivuoKeiv sig
nifies neither "the experience of the heart," nor even "love;" but even here
bpfv means to see, and yivtvoKeiv io know : but the seeing of Christ takes place
when the immediate consciousness of the glory of Christ has dawned upon
us, so that the eye of our soul beholds Him as He is in the totality of His
nature ; the knowing of Him when by means of inquiring consideration the
right understanding of Him has come to us, so that we are clearly conscious
not only of His nature, but also of His relation to us.*
Ver. 7. While the apostle would reduce the specified antithesis to the
last cause, and thereby bring it out in all its sharpness, he begins the new
train of thought, connected, however, with the preceding, after the impres
sive address reKvia (or naiSla), with the warning directed against moral indif
ferentism : pySeIg nlavdru ipug, which, as DUsterdieck rightly observes, is not
necessarily founded on a polemic against false teachers (Antinomians, for
instance); comp. chap. i. 8. — b noiuv ryv SiKaioaivyv, SiKaibg ian KaBi^g, k.t.1,,
with noieiv ryv Sik., comp. chap. ii. 29. From the connection with the fore
going we would expect as predicate either idipuKev airbv, k.t.1. (ver. 6), or
iv airip uivet (ver. 5) ; but it is pepuliar to John to introduce new thoughts
and references in antithetical sentences. By the subordinate clause KoBiJg
iKelvog (i.e., Xpiarbg) SiKaiog ian, he puts the idea SiKatog in direct reference to
Christ, so that the thought of this verse includes in it this, that only he who
practises SiKutoaivy has known Christ and abides in Him ; for he only can be
exactly KuBiJg Xptarbg (i.e., in a way corresponding to the pattern of Christ),
who stands in a real fellowship of life with Him. It is incorrect, both to
interpret, with Baumgarten-Crusius : " he who is righteous follows the ex
ample of Christ," and also to take SiKaiog = "justified," and to define the
meaning of the verse thus: "only he who has been justified by Christ does
righteousness." 2 — There is this difference between the two ideas: noielv t^v
1 With this interpretation that of Sander, or known Christ. When Erdraann defines
who interprets euapaKev of " spiritual intuition eyvtoKev as the " cognitio Christi, quae et in-
or beholding," and eyvmKev of the " knowledge tuitu et intellectu non solum personae Christi
obtained more by refiection along the lines of verum etiam totius ejus operis indolem com-
dialeetic and inquiry," as well as that of Myr- plectitur," this is in so far unsuitable, as the
berg, according to which the forraer signifies intuitu belongs precisely to the eiupaKev. Very
the "iramediata perceptio Christi spirituali unsatisfactory is Ebrard's explanation, that
modo horaini se manifestantis," the latter the op^v is " the seeing of Christ as the tight,
" perdurans cognitio atque intelligentia," are yiviinrneiv the loving knowledge." The differ-
in substantial agreement. Braune, it is true, ence between opav and Yii/oio-Keiv appears also
assents to this view; but he erroneously thus in this, that in the former the operating
defines the thought of the apostle: "Every activity is represented rather on the side of
oue who sins, and inasmuch as he sins, is one the object, which presents itself to the eye
in whom the seeing and knowing of Christ is of the soul; in the latter, rather on the side of
a thing of the past, but does not continue and the subject, which this verb makes the subject
operate into the present;" for John plainly of consideration.
says of him who sins that he has not seen 2 Xs there is no reference here at all to

CHAP. III. 8. 559
3iK. and SIkuiov elvat, that the first signifies the action, the second the state.
The reality of the latter is proved in the former. He who does not do right
eousness shows thereby that he is not righteous.*
Ver. 8. 6 notuv rijv dpapriav forras the diametrical opposite of b noiuv rrjv
StKaioaivyv, inasmuch as it signifies the man whose life is a service of sin,
"who lives in sin as his element" (Sander). While the former belongs to
Christ, and is a riKvov Qeoi, the latter is en roii Sta(3blov ; Ik does not
signify here either merely connection (De Wette), or similarity (Paulus), or
imitation (Semler), but, as the expression riKvov roi Sta^blav (ver. 10) shows,
origin (so also Ebrard) : the life that animates the sinner emanates frora
the Devil ; "not as if the Devil created him, but that he introduced the evil
into him" (Russmeyer). The apostle confirms the truth of this statement
by the following words : on uTr' dpxyg b Sidjlolog dpaprdvei. The words utt' dpxyg
are put first, because the chief emphasis rests on them, inasmuch as those
who commit sin are ck roi SiaiSblov, not because he sins, but because it is he
who sinneth an' dpxyg. From this expression it must not, with Frommann
and Hilgenfeld, be inferred that John was considering the Devil as an origin
ally evil being, — in dualistic fashion (comp. Kdstlin, p. 127, and Weiss,
p. 132 ff.), — for John is not here speaking of the being, but of the action of
the Devil. In order not to accuse John of the Manichaean dualism, the
attempt has been made to define dn' dpxyg more particularly, either by refer
ring it to the creation of the world (Calvin, S. G. Lange ; also Hofmann,
Schriftbew., second edition, I. 429- "since the beginning of the world;" or,
"from the beginning of history, in the course of which the sin of men has
begun ") ; or, to res humanae (Semler) ; or, to the time of the Devil's fall
(Bengel : ex quo diabolus est diabolus) : but all these supplements are purely
arbitrary. Many modern commentators take the expression in reference to
the sin of man, and find this idea expressed in it, that " the Devil is related
to all the sins of men as the first and seductive originator " (Nitzsch, Syst. '
der christlichen Lehre, sixth edition, p. 244 f.); thus LUcke, Dusterdieck,
Ebrard, Weiss, Braune, and previously in this commentary: but this
thought, while it no doubt lies in the preceding « roi SiajiOlov and in the
following riKvov roi SiajSdlov, and hence in the thesis to be established, does
not lie in this confirmatory clause, apart from the fact that in dir' dpxyg
dpaprdvei no reference is indicated to the sin of man. It is otherwise in
John viii. 44, where the more particular definition of the relation of the
Devil to men is supplied with uir' dpxng from the context ("since he has put
himself in connection with men ") : here, on the contrary, John does not
say "what the Devil is to men, but what is his relationship to God" (Hof
mann as above) ; but as he describes his relationship by uir' dpxK dpaprdvei,
justification, there is no ground whatever for i Braune rightly proves, against Roman
the assertion of a Lapide, that the thought of Catholics and Rationalists, that " the predicate
this verse forms a contradiction to the Prot- is not flrst attained after what is expressed in
estant doctrine of justification by faith. — The the subjective clause has taken place," and
interpretation of Lorinus, that 6 notiav rr\v Sm. that rather " the predicate is immanent in the
is = "qui habet in se justitiam, i.e., opus subject."
gratiae, videlicet virtutem infusam," is also
plainly erroneous.

560 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
as a sinning which has continued from the beginning, this can only mean
that the Devil's first action was sin, and that he has remained and remains.
in that action. Likewise in the interpretation which Bruckner gives of
dn' upxtKi "i.e., so long as there is sin," dn' dpxyg does not receive its full
force.* — The present dpaprdvei describes the sinning of the Devil as uninter
ruptedly continuous.- — eig roiro iipavepuBy, k.t.I.]. As vv. 6, 7, refer to the
second part of ver. 5, these words refer to the first part of that verse : they
not only express the antithesis between Christ and the Devil, but they bring
out the fact that the appearance of Christ has for its object the destruction
of the ipya TOV Siaffblov, i.e., of the dpapriai which are wrought by him (not
"the reward of sin," Calov, Spener; nor "the agency that seduces to sin,"
De Wette). lieiv is used here as in John ii. 19 (similarly 2 Pet. iii. 10-12),
in the meaning of " to destroy ; " less naturally some commentators (a La
pide, Lorinus, Spener, Besser, etc.) maintain the meaning "to undo," sins
being regarded as the snares of the Devil.
Ver. 9. Antithesis of the preceding verse ; yet what was there the sub
ject is here — in its opposite — the predicate, and what was there the
predicate is here the subject. — ndg b yeyevvypevog iK roi Qeoi]. Antithesis to
him who is iK roi Siaffdlov (ver. 8) ; " by iriif the general signification of the
clause is indicated " (Braune) ; dpapriav oi noiel is used in the same sense as
oix AuapTuvei, ver. 6. To be born of God and to commit sin are mutually
exclusive contraries ; for b Qebg ipug ian, kuI OKoria iv avru oiK ianv oiSepla, chap.
i. 5; comp. also chap. ii. 29; the child is of the same nature with him of
whom he is born. For confirmation of the thought, John adds : on anippa
avroi iv avru pevei. Both the deeper context and the expression itself are
opposed to the interpretation of these words, according to which anippa is
explained = riKvov, and ev airu = iv Qeu (Bengel, Lange, Sander, Steinhofer);
for if the apostle meant to say that "a child of God remains in God,"
he would certainly not have exchanged the word riKvov, which so naturally
would suggest itself just here, for another word, unusual in ihis sense.
By anippa Qeov is rather to be understood the divine element of which
the new man is produced ^ (comp. Gospel of John i. 13), and which, as the
essence of his being, keeps him from sin. According. to many commenta
tors (Clemens AL, Augustine, Bede, Luther (1),' Spener, Grotius, Besser,
Weiss, Ewald, etc.), this is the word of God, in favor of which appeal is
made not only to the parable of the sower (Matt, xiii.), but also to 1 Pet.
i. 23 aud Jas. i. 18. But that parable can here so much the less be adduced,

1 The idea that the Devil, before he sinned, 2 Frommann (p. 170) incorrectly interprets
was for a time without sin, is nowhere ex- inreppa of the divine light originally dwelling
pressed in Scripture; neither in John viii. 44 In man, by which he is distinguished from the
nor in the 'deutero-canonical passages Jude 6 rest of creation; for the subject here is not
and 2 Pet. ii. 4 (see my comm. on these pas- men as such, but the reuva rov ©eou.
sages). — The view of Frommann, that .John's 3 in his second edition Luther says: "He
statements do not justify the representation of calls the cause of our change a seed, not a full
a personal existence of the Devil, that " he ie ear of corn, but what is cast into the ground,
nothing further than the world-spirit that and raust flrst die there; frora thence there
tempts man, considered in concrete person- now results, true repentance, so that it is ae-
ality," is to be rejected as arbitrary. cordingly said : he cannot siu."

CHAP. III. 9. 561
as in it the reference is to the seed of plants; but here, as the allusion to
the idea yeyemypivog shows, "the comparison is made to the seed of human
birth, as in John i. 13 " (Neander) ; and in the two other passages the word
is not represented so much as the seed, but as the means of producing the
new life.* It is scarcely to be doubted that the apostle was here thinking
of the Holy Spirit; the only question is, whether he means the Spirit
Himself, the nveipa ayvov in His divine personality (so Beza: s'lc vocatur
Spiritus sanctus, quod ejus virtute tanquam ex sem'ine quodam novi homines
efficiamur ; DUsterdieck and Myrberg ; also, perhaps, LUcke and De Wette),
or the Spirit infused by Him into the heart of man, the germ of life com
municated to his nature (Hornejus: nativitatis novae indoles-, Semler: nova
quaedam et sanctior natura; so also Ebrard, Braune, and others). The
figurativ^e expression is more in favor of the second view than of the first,
only this germ of life must not, on the one hand, be regarded as something
separate from the Holy Spirit Himself,^ nor, on the other hand, as love
(a Lapide, Lorinus), for this is the life which has proceeded frora the
a-eppa, but not the anippa itself. — The thought that he who is born of God
does not commit sin is still further emphasized by the words Kal oi Sivarai
dpaprdveiv, whereby, of course, not the physical, but no doubt the moral,
impossibility of sinning is described ; both ideas, dpaprdveiv as well as oi
Sivarai, are to be retained in their proper meaning, and not to be arbitrarily
perverted ; dpaprdveiv raust here, just as little as in ver. 6, be restricted to
mortal sins (a Lapide, Gagnejus), or to "sinning in the way in which they
who are of the Devil sin" (Besser), or "to sinning knowingly and wilfully"
(Ebrard), or even raerely to the violatio charitatis (Augustine, Bede) ; but
just as little is the pointedness and definiteness of oi Sivarai to be weakened
and to be explained = aegre, difficulter potest, or similarly,' for the apostle
here wants to bring out the absolute antagonism which exists in general
between being born of God and committing sin (so also Braune) ; comp.
on ver. 6. With regard to the question as to the relationship of the thought
expressed here to Heb. vi. 4 ff., corap. the remark on chap, ii, 19. — As in
the case of the first thought of this verse, so here to this second one a
confirmatory clause is added, naraely: bn iK roi Qeoi yeyiwyrai; it is true,
the idea of the subject seems to be here repeated (similarly John iii. 31 :
b uv Ik ryg yyg, eK ryg yyg ian), but here iK roi Qeoi is put first, whereas in the
subject it follows yeyevvypevog, by which that idea is strongly accentuated ;
Bengel : priora verba : ex Deo, majorem habent in pronunciando accentum, quod
ubi observatur, patet, non idem per idem probari, collate initio verso. The sense
therefore is : Because he is born of God (comp. chap. i. 5), he who is born
of God, i.e., the believer, cannot sin.
1 Weiss appeals to chap.il. 14; bnt from as the irKeC^ia t. 8.; but then adds: "and,
the fact that John there says: 6 ^dyo? toO indeed, in this way, that the principle of life
©eoC ev ipiv pevei, it does not follow that which operates on man is at the same time
anippa is here = 6 Aoyo! t. ©.; so much the regarded as the germ of life planted in man."
less as there is no reference there to being » Grotius explains : " res de qua agitur
born of God. It is raore appropriate in con- aliena est ab ejusmodi ingenlo , " Paulus •
nection with anippa to refer to chap. 11. 27. " not absolutely impossible, but : his whole
z BrUckner inversely flrst interprets tr-ireppa spirituality and habit ( !) are opposed to it."

562 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Ver. 10a concludes the development of the thought with the sharp
antithesis of the children of God and the children of the Devil. — iv roirip
is by most commentators justly referred to the preceding, inasmuch as in
ver. 9 the characteristic sign of the riKva rov Qeoi, and in ver. 8 that of the
riKva roi Siajiblav, are stated. Some commentators, however (a Lapide,
Grotius, S. Schmidt, Spener, Episcopius, Ebrard, etc.), refer it to what
follows ; but as in this only the one part of the antithesis is resumed, this
reference is found to necessitate an arbitrary supplement. The explanation
of a Lapide is clearly quite erroneous : hae sunt duae tesserae et quasi duo
symbola filiorum et militum Dei, sc. justitia et caritas. — ipavepd ian]. The elvat
iK roi Qeoi, and equally the elvat iK Toi Sia^blov, are in their principle internal,
and therefore concealed: it is by the different noielv that the different
nature is disclosed; comp. Matt. vii. 16.- — The expression, rd riKva roi
SiaSdlov, nowhere else in the N. T. except in Acts xiii. 10: v'lbg Siaiiolov, is
easily explained from ver. 8; comp also John viii. 44. Sander supposes a
distinction between these and the children of wrath, Eph. ii. 3; while the
latter name signifies all who are not born again, the former ouly signifies
those among them " who despise the grace offered to them in Christ, and
wantonly set themselves against it.'' This is, however, incorrect, as the
whole conduct of men falls under the contrast of dpaprdveiv and oi;i; dpaprdveiv,
so the distinction of riKva roi Ofoii and riKva roi SiaUdlov, that is based on
it, equally embraces the whole of humanity (see also Braune). Socinus
accordingly with justice says ; Ex Apostoli verbis satis aperte colligi potest,
quod inter filios Dei et filios Diaboli nulli sint homines medii.
Vv. lOi-22. This section treats on brotherly love as the substance of
SiKutoaivy, and is therefore most closely connected with the foregoing ; it is
the commandment of Christ (ver. 11), instead of which hatred reigns in the
world (vv. 12, 13) ; with love, life is connected; with hatred, death (vv. 14,
15); in Christ we possess the ideal and example of love (ver. 16). True
love consists not in word, but in deed (vv. 17, 18) ; it produces firm confi
dence towards God, and obtains an answer to prayer (vy. 19-22)
Ver. lOS. Transition to the section on brotherly love. — ndg b py noiuv
StKaioaivyv refers to ver. 7, and further to chap. ii. 29; the meaning of noteiv
SiKumaivyv is here the same as there ; only that the idea StKaioaivy is indicated
by the article as definite and restricted ; comp. ver. 8 : ryv dpapriav ; ver. 9 .
dpapriav. — ovk eanv Ik roi Qeoi = oiK ianv riKvov roi Qeoi. — Kal b prj
dyanCiv rbv dSel^bv airoi]. Calvin correctly says: hoc memhrum vice
expositionis additum est. The ay(i7n7 is not a part of the StKaioaivy (Bengel,
Spener, Lange, Neander, Gerlach), still less something different from the
Smaioaivy, which must be connected with it (Rickli), or even forms an antith
esis to it (Socinus) ; * but it is the essence and nature of the SiKuioavvy (so
also Braune),^ or rather the SiKamavvy itself in reference to the brethren ;
' While Socinus uuderstands by SiKaioirvvyjv may be true of love to God only, but not of
n-otetv " juste vivere ex praescriptlone Mosaicae love to the brethren; but Christian brotherly
legis et ipsius humanae rationis," he explains love is, according to John, certainly identical
dydTTrj as the transcendent Christian virtue of with love to God, for the Christian loves his
sacriflce for the brethren brother as one who is born of God.
1 Ebrard and Myrberg object to this, that it

CHAP. III. 11, 12. 563
comp. Rom. xiii. 8-10; Gal. v. 14; Col. iii. 14; 1 Tim. i. 5; John xiv. 15.
Besser : " brotherly love is the essence of all righteous lifp ; " it is related to
StKaioaivy just as to the nepmarelv KaBug 'eKelvog nepiendryae, chap. ii. 6. Ebrard
erroneously tries to prove from the airoi which is added, that dSelipog = b
nlyaiov, Luke x. 36, and is therefore used differently from ii. 9, 10, 11, iv.
20, 21, for that John in this relative sentence passes on to the love of
Christians towards one another is quite clear from ver. 11 ; the airoi only
shows that, though in the foregoing the antithesis between the regenerate
and the unregenerate is quite generally stated, this is for the special con
sideration of Christians. It is incomprehensible that the view, according
to which John in this section speaks of Christian brotherly love (i.e., the
love of Christians towards one another), is in antagonism with Matt. v. 44 ;
1 Cor. iv. 12 (according to Ebrard). The co-ordinating koI is epexegetical
= " namely ; " it is unnecessary to supply oi/c ianv iK r, Q,
Ver. 11. on confirms the thought expressed in the foregoing, that he
who does not love his brother is not of God. — airy iariv y dyyelia], avry
refers to the following 'iva, with a retrospective allusion to dyanuv r. dS, airoi.
The word dyyelia = " message," is here to be taken in the meaning of " com
mission," " commandment," With the reading inayyelia, com-p. i. 5. By the
words ?v ... dir" dpxyg, which do not refer to the Old- Testament period
(Grotius: etiam sub lege), or to "the beginning of history" (Ebrard), the
commandment of brotherly love is characterized as the dyyelia \\:hioh is
^ necessarily connected with the preaching of the gospel ; comp. chap. ii. 7.
— 'iva, K.r.l,, states, not the purpose for which the dyyella is given, but the
import of it, as frequently with words of wishing, commanding, etc. ; comp.
Buttm., p. 203 ff.* The dyanupev uXkijliavg shows that the apostle is in this
section treating of the love of Christians towards one another ; it is self-evi
dent that the Christian has to fulfil the general commandment of love, even
to those who are not Christians. Yet John does not here enter on that, as
it would be inappropriate, for he has here to do with the ethical antithesis
between Christians as children of God and those who are opposed to them
as. children of the Devil ; it is only on the ground of this antithesis that it
can be said py dyandre rbv Koapov, ii. 15.
Ver. 12. The converse of Christian brotherly love is the hatred of the
world, which has its example in Cain. — oi KuBdg Kd'iv, K.r.l.]. Contrary to
the opinion of Grotius, with which LUcke agrees, that before KaBug we must
supply "oiK upev iK rov novypoi" dependent on tva, De Wette has shown the
clumsiness of speech that would result with this construction ; it is unjusti
fiable, however, on the side of the thought also, for it is impossible that
John would say that to Christians the commandment has been given from
the beginning, not to be f/c rov novypov. Most commentators supply after ov
the thought " we should be disposed,'' and after Kd'iv the relative of. Thus
there certainly results a good sense ; but if the apostle had thought thus, he
1 Braune would have the idea of purpose tained as a task in the gift of the message," he
retained ; but in his interpretation : "it is not quite overlooks the fact that if ica = in order
merely the substance of a commandraent that that (and only thus is the original idea of
is treated of, but a commandment which is con- purpose retained) , it cannot refer to auTTj.

564 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
would also have expressed himself thus ; at least he would not have left out
the bg. De Wette rightly finds here "an inexact comparison of contrast, as
John vi. 58, only still more difficult to supply, and just on that account not
to be supplied," i.e., by a definitely formulated sentence (so also Braune).
Christians are (and therefore should also show themselves as) the opposite
of Cain; they are 'eK roi Qeoi, Cain was iK roi novypoi; roi novypoi is not neuter,
but masculine; 6 novypbg = b Sid^olsg; comp. especially Matt. xiii. 38.* — kuI
eaipa^ev rbv dSelxpbv airov]. This murder of his brother is the evidence that
Cain was iK roi novypoi. The verb aipd^etv (besides here, only in the Apoca
lypse), strictly used of slaughter, indicates the violence of the action ; ^ the
diabolical character of it is brought out by the following : kuI xuptv rivog, K.r.X ;
the form of the sentence in question and answer serves to bring out emphat
ically the thought contained in it, that the hatred of Cain towards his brother
was founded in his hatred towards the good, i.e., that which is of God, for
it is just in this that the hatred of the world towards believing Christians is
also founded.' The correspondence between iK rov novypoi and rd ipya airov
novypu, which J. Lange and DUsterdieck have already noticed, is to be
observed. Ver. 13. If Cain is the type of the world, it is not to be wondered at
that the children of God are hated by it; accordingly the apostle says, //^
Bavpuliere, K.r.l. ; conip. ver. 1 ; not exactly to comfort his readers about it,
but rather to bring out the antithesis clearly ; Neander : " it must not sur
prise Christians if they are hated by the world ; this is to them the stamp.
of the divine life, in the possession of which they form the contrast to the
world." — The particle el expresses here neither a doubt nor even merely
possibility; for, that the world hates the children of God, is not merely pos
sible, but in the nature of the case necessary ; it is ouly the forra of the
sentence, and not the thought of it, that is hypothetical ; » comp. John
XV. 18, also Mark xv. 44.
1 The strange rabbinical view of the devil- hand of a godless man, or as a sacriflce which
ish nature of Cain in Zohar on Gen. iv. 1: Cain offered to his god, the Devil."
"RabbiEleazardixit: Cum projecisset serpens ^ That Cain slew his brother because his
ille immunditiera suam in Evam eaque illam own works were evil aud his brother's right-
Buscepisset, remque cum Adam habuisset, sous, does not seem to correspond to the
peperit duos filios, unum ex latere illo im- Mosaic narrative, for Td epya are not the offer-
mundo et unum ex latere Adami; fuitque ing, but the works in general (Spener: "the
Cain similis imagine superiorura h. e. Angelo- whole raanner of life ") ; but there is no real
rura et Abel imagine inferiorum h. c. homi- contradiction, for the narrative in Genesis
num, ac propterea diverse fuerunt viae istius- does not exclude the idea that tbe piety of
ab illius viis. Equidem Cain fuit filius spiritus Abel had already excited in Cain hatred
imraundi, qui est serpens raalus; Abel vero towards his brother, and that, when God
fuit filius Adarai; et propterea quod Cain despised his offering, but had respect unto
venit de parte Angeli mortis, ,ideo iuterfecit his brother's, this hatred went so far that he
fratrem suum." became guilty of murder. Cain with his
2 From the fact that aipd^eiv is used in the hatred, and Abel in his suffering on accouut
Revelation of " slaying in a holy service, as of his StKaioavvq, serve the apostle as proto-
the martyrs are slain, even though by tbe types of the world and of the children of
godless " (which is never quite appropriate, God. On the similar view in Philo and in
comp. Rev. vi. 4), it cannot be concluded that the Clementine Homilies, see Liicke ou this
John here used the expression in order "to passage.
mark the death of Abel as a martyrdom by the * Ebrard explains ei incorrectly : " when-

CHAP. III. 14, 13. 565
Ver. 14. The contrast of love .and hatred is at the same time one of life
and death. — ypelg oiSapev]. ypelg forms the antithesis of b Koapog. Though
the world hate us and persecute us to death, as Cain killed his brother, we
know, etc. — bn pera^ejiyKapev iK roi Bavdrov eig ryv C,uyv]. Comp. Gospel of
John V. 24 ; the perfect shows that the subject is a present and not merely
a future state ; moreover, the apostle does not say that the Christian has
received the title to eternal life (Grotius : juri ad rem saepe datur nomen rei
ipsius), but that the believer has already passed from death into life, and
therefore no longer is in a state of death, but in life. By ^uy is to be under
stood not merely the knowledge of God (Weiss), but holy life in truth and
righteousness ; by Bdvarog, not merely the want of the knowledge of God
(Weiss), but unholy life in lying and sin. The natural man is fallen in
lies and unrighteousness, and hence wretched iv Bavdru: by the salvation of
Christ he enters from this state into the other, the essence of which is happi
ness in truth and righteousness.* That the Christian, as such, is in a state
of t^uij, he knows from the fact that he loves the brethren ; brotherly love is
the sign of the Quy; therefore the apostle continues: on dyanupev roig dSelipoig.
— on refers, as most commentators rightly interpret, to oiSapev and not to
pera^eByKupev (Baumgarten-Crusius, Kostlin) ; the relation between l^uy and
dydny is, namely, not this, that the latter is the originating cause of the
former (Lyra: opera ex caritate facta sunt meritoria), but both are one in their
cause, and are only distinguished in this way, that Qvy is the state, dyuTr)? the
acl'ion of the believer : out of the happy life, love grows, aud love again pro
duces happiness ; therefore John says : 6 py dyanuv (sc. rbv d6e7i.ipdv, see the
critical notes) pivet iv ru Bavdru, by which the identity of not loving and of
abiding in death is directly brought out.^ — It is not without a purpose that
the apostle contents himself here, where he has only to do with the simple
antithesis to the preceding, with the negative idea, py dyang,v, with which
the 'ev ru Bavdru pivei also corresponds ; it is only in the following verse that
the negation reaches the form of a positive antithesis. — pivet expresses here
also the firm, sure being (so also Myrberg) ; it is therefore used neither
merely in reference to the past, nor merely in reference to the future.
Ver. 15. ndg b piauv, instead of the preceding pij dyanuv ; not loving, and
hating, are oue and the same thing : " for pure indifference is not possible to
the living human soul. — dvBpunoKrbvog earl]. This word (except only in John
viii. 44, used of the Devil) does not signify the murderer of the soul, whether
ever the case occurs," for the hatred which is 2 Besser : " Where hatred is, there is death;
here spoken of is not a frequently occurring where love is, there is life; nay, love itself is
case, but a necessary relationship. Braune life." Weiss erroneously maintains that here,
unintelligibly says : " by et John signifies that " instead of the strict converse in the form of
his readers as a whole or as individuals have a progressive parallelism, just that is men-
after all at present no hatred to endure." tioned which is the result of the non-transition
1 By this expression ¦ JLteTa^eJ3^Ka^e^', K.T.A., from death to life, naraely, the abiding in
the apostle describes Christians as having death," for John did not need to say actually
been, previously to their believing, ev rw 6avd- that he who has not passed from death to life
T(«j, hence also not yet TeKc a rov Qeoii ; contrary is in death.
to the assertion of Hilgenfeld, that the author = Wrongly, Nicol. de Lyra : " Odisse pejus
of the Epistle shared the Gnostic view of the quam non diligere."
original metaphysical difference in men.

566 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
one's own or one's brother's, but the murderer in the strict sense. Every
one who hates his brother is a murderer, not merely inasmuch as hatred
sometimes leads to murder, but because by his nature he is inclined to the
destruction of his brother, and if he does not attain this object is only hin
dered from it by other opposing forces. As in the moral life it is not the
outward act in itself, but the intention, that is of consequence, every one
who lives in hatred towards his brother must by the moral consciousness
(or by God, Drusius, Hornejus) be regarded as a murderer; comp. Matt.
V. 21 ff., 27, 28. — Hence it is clear that the real thought of the apostle is
missed when piaelv is here liraited to the odium perf ectum (Home^ws), Baum
garten-Crusius erroneously denies that dvBpunoKrbvog refers to Cain, ver. 12 ;
this reference is clearly patent. — kuI oiSare], De Wette: "whence? from
the Christian consciousness in general." — on ndg dvBpunoKrbvog, K,r,l.]. He
who takes his brother's life can not and must not retain life himself, his life
decays in death ; that is the order appointed by God ; comp. Gen ix. 6
Accordingly he who in his heart murders his brother, cannot be in possession
of the life which dwells in the heart, i.e., of "eternal life." By i^uij a'luvwg
we are to understand the same thing as in ver. 14 was described by the
simple word Qvy ; and ixet is to be retained as the actual present : errone
ously, a Lapide: non habebit gloriam vitae. — The adjective pivovaav Lucke,
with whom Sander agrees, appealing to the parable of the unmerciful ser
vant, explains by the fact that John is speaking to Christians who already
had some part in eternal life. But the expression ndg b piauv shows that
John is here speaking quite generally, and, indeed, in order to confirm the
preceding thought, 6 py dyanuv pevei iv rtj Bavdrip.; it must therefore be the con
dition of those who form the Kbapog (to whom also the mere nominal Chris
tians belong), of those accordingly who have no part in the Quy aiuviog, that
is stated. By pivovaav is therefore not suggested the loss of a previously
possessed good ; just as little as in the corresponding passage, Gospel of
John V. 38 : rbv loyov airoi oiK exere iv iplv pivovra, where also the meaning
is not that those addressed have previously had the word of God, for this is
distinctly denied in ver. 37. The pivovaav is rather explained by the fact
that he alone really has the Qufj aiuviog in whom it abides (comp. chap, ii 19) ;
piveiv expresses here also, according to John's usus loquendi, the idea of being
in a strengthened degree, aud may accordingly be used quite apart from any
reference to the previous state; pivovaav is to be connected with ev avru; he
has not the life abiding, i.e., surely and firmly existing, in him.*
Vv. 16-18. Description of true love.
1 It is incorrect to say, with Braune : " by derer ; " such a case John would not and could
pivovirav the existence of eternal life from not at all assume. Very strange is Ebrard's
baptisra, etc., is indicated," since in the con- interpretation- " supjDosin;/ that the murderer
text there is no reference whatever to baptism, had at the time the ^mij a'mvtos iu him (which,
instruction, etc., and the advantage resulting however, according to ver. 9, is not possible in
therefrom. Weiss artificially explains : " John the full ( !) sense), yet this would not remain
supposes the case of a person ha-ving eternal in him, he would again fall away from the ^lari
life, and now goes so far as to say that even (which just for this reason could not be genu-
Buch an one may not have it permanently at ine) ," as -well as his assertion that ^uiif aluiv.
least, but may be in the condition of losing it is here used without the article, because John
if by hating his brother he becomes a mur- could not ascribe to bim who is not a true

CHAP. III. 16. 567
Ver 16. Whilst he who belongs to the world hates his brother and is
therefore an dvepunoKrbvog, Christians, on the contrary, are by the example
of Christ to lay down their life for their brethren. — iv roiru refers to the
following oT(. — iyvuKapev ryv dydnyv, "ice have known the love, i.e., the character
or the nature of the love " (Bengel, De Wette, Bauragarten-Crusius, LUcke,
Sander); sorae coraraentators (Carpzov, Paulus, etc.) erroneously supply
with T^i- dydnyv as a more particular definition, roi Xpiaroi ; others (Grotius,
Spener, etc.), roi Qeoi, In Christ's self-devotion to death, love itself became
concrete. Without adequate reason Ebrard supplies with iv roinp an oiaav,
so that Et- rovru forms the predicate of ryv dydnyv; thus, "we have known love
as consisting in this ; " and iyvuKopev is only used as an accessory. — bn iKelvog,
i e., Christ; comp. ver. 7, chap. ii. 6. "He, says the apostle, without men
tioning him by name, for He is to every believer the well-known " (Rickli). —
The phrase, ryv ipvxyv riBivat, besides here and frequently in the Gospel of
John, never appears elsewhere either in the N. T. or in the classics. Meyer
on John x. 11 explains it by the "representation of the sacrificial death as a
ransom paid : to lay down, to pay ; according to the classical usage of riBivat,
according to which it is used of payment;" Hengstenberg (on the same
passage) explains it by Isa. Iiii. 10 ; but it is unsuitable to supply the idea
"ransom" or "an offering for sin," for the riBivai ryv ipvxvv is not rnerely
ascribed to Christ, but is also made the duty of Christians ; besides, in that
case inip could not be wanting, as is the case in the Gospel of John x. 17, 18.
The derivation of it from the Hebrew '\^'^ 2'?^ wp (Ebrard) is equally
unsuitable, because "here the '^p^ is essential" (Meyer). Accordiug to
Johu xiii. 4, riBypi may in this phrase also be interpreted = deponere (so
most commentators), which is so much the raore appropriate as in John x.
'iva ndliv Idjiu airijv is conjoined with riBypi ryv ipvxyv pov, just as in chap.
xiii. 12 it runs, koI elajlev rd Ipdna airov; "comp. animam ponere iu Propert.
II 10, 43, and anirriam deponere in Corn. Nep., 'Vita Hannib. I. 3" (BrUckner).
Perhaps rlByp.i. might also be taken in the meaniug of " to give up " (II.
xxiii. 704 : delvai eig peaaov, nBivai eig rb koivov, in Pape see r'lBypi). — inep r/poiv
is, "for our good," i.e., to save us from destruction ; for the idea, comp. chap.
ii. 2. — Kal -ypelg, K.r.l., comp. chap. ii. 6. By this the climax is stated (John
XV. 13) ; but even every self-denying sacrifice for our brethren belongs to the
TiBivai ryv ipvxyv, to which we are bound by the example of Christ by virtue
of our fellowship with Him. — The reading Belvai is just as conformable to
the N. T. usus loquendi as the Rec. riBivai, for bipelleiv is sometimes connected
with the pres. inf., and sometimes with the aor. inf. For the idea, comp.
Rom. xvi. 4.*
child of God "the eternal life," but "eternal bly " limit the duty of loving sacrifice of life
iife," i.e., powers of the future world. Comp. to the relationship of the regenerate to one
against this, v. 13. another." But (1) the idea of Christian
1 The thought of this verse is, according to brotherly love is very far from being a vague
Ebrard, the surest proof that John in this idea; (2) when Christians are exhorted so to
section is not treating of the "general and love one another as to lay down their lives for
vague i\) idea of brotherly love," but of "the one another, that is not a limitation of the
relation of the rexva ©eou to those who are not coramandment of love ; (3) those who are not
reKva ©eoO," because the apostle canuot possi- riKva 0eou, and are therefore riKva toiJ Suv.

568 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Ver. 17. As the apostle wants to bring out that love must show itself by
action, he turns his attention to the most direct evidence of it, namely, com
passion towards the needy brother. " By the adversative connection (Se)
with ver. 16, John marks the progress from the greater, which is justly
demanded, to the less, the non-performance of which seems, therefore, a
grosser transgression of the rule just stated" (DUsterdieck). According to
Ebrard, the Si is meant to express the opposition to the delusion " that love
can only show itself in great actions and sacrifices ; " but there is no sugges
tion in the context of any thing like this. — t6i^ i3iov roi iicapov : " the life of
the world," i.e., that which serves to support the earthly, worldly life; comp.
Luke viii. 43, xv. 12, xxi. 4.* The expression forms here a significant con
trast to Quy aiuviog (ver. 15). — Beippelv, stronger than bpdv, strictly "to be a
spectator," hence = to look at ; " it expresses the active beholding " (Ebrard,
similarly Myrberg: oculis immotis). — With xp^lav exeiv, comp. Mark ii. 25;
Eph. iv. 28. — The expression, Kleieiv rd anldyxva, is found only here; ru
anlayxva as a translation of Q'nni .appears both in the LXX. as well as often
in the N. T. = KopSia ; " to close the heart," is as much as " to forbid to com
passion towards the needy brother entrance into one's heart; " the additional
dn' air ofl is used in pregnant sense = "turning away from him" (Lucke,
De Wette, DUsterdieck). The first two clauses might have had (not, as
Baumgarten-Crusius says, "must have had") the form of subordinate
clauses ; but by the fact that the form of principal c'auses is given to theni,
the statement gains in vividness. The conclusion, which according to the
sense is negative, appears as a question with nug (comp. chap. iv. 20), where
by the negation is emphatically brought out. y dydny roi Qeoi is love to God,
not the love of God to us (Calov). ^ Here also piveiv has the meaning
noticed on ver. 15 (Myrberg) ; incorrectly, Lucke : " as Johu is speaking of
the probable absence of the previously-existing Christian life, it is put pivei
and not iari." The apostle does not want to say that the pitiless person
loses again his love to God, but that it never is really in him at all. Piti
lessness cannot be combined with love to God ; the reason of this John states
in chap. iv. 20.
Ver. 18. True love proves itself by deed. The exhortation contained
in this verse is, on the one hand, a deduction frora the foregoing (especially
from vv. 16 and 17) ; but, on the other hand, it forms the basis of the
further development. — reKvla]. Impressive address before the exhortation.
— /i^ d-junupev loyu pySi ry yluaay, i.e., "let US not SO love that the proof of
our love is the outward word or the tongue ; " pySe ry yluaay is epexegetically
added, in order to mark the externality of the love indicated by ?Myu dyandv,
inasmuch as it points out that by Ao^of here only the outward word is meant ;

PoAov, John cannot possibly call afieA^oi with- i Comp. the Greek proverb: jStoc ^iov fieo-
out any further statement; (4) the whole pevo<; ovk ean 3to?.
section is an explication of ayan-i/iei'aAAijAov?, ^ Ebrard explains ^ a-yan-rj r. Qeov: "the
ver. 11 ; but by aAA^Aovs cannot be understood love which in its essential being took substan-
the childreu of God and the children of the tial form after Christ and iu Christ's loving
Devil in their relation to one another; comp. deed"(!).
besides, iv. 2-11.

CHAP. III. 19, 20. 569
it is erroneous to regard yluaaa as a climax in so far as " one may love with
words (without deeds), but in such a way that the words are nevertheless
really and sincerely meant " (Ebrard), for John would not in the very least
consider as truly and sincerely meant words of love which remain without
corresponding deed. The article serves " to vivify the expression " (LUcke) :
the tongue as the particular member for expression of the word. It is
unnecessary, nay, "contrary to the text" (DUsterdieck), with Beza, Lange,
Sander, etc., to supply " //ofov " with dyanupev, k.t.I,; for dyandv Ibyu, k.t.1.,
in itself expresses the mere apparent love. — dll' iv ipyu koI dlyBe'ia]. Instead
of the Rec. ipyu, we must read tv ipyu. According to De Wette, the two
readings are synonymous ; according to LUcke, iv ipyu „.. dl. has more of
"adverbial nature" thau ipyu kui dlyBelg.; "in ru loyu the apostle is con
sidering more the way in which love expresses itself, in iv ipyu tt, dl, he is
considering more the form and fashion of it." The preposition suggested
itself to the apostle because the work, as being the realization of love,
stands in an inner relationship to it, " is the element in which love moves "
(DUsterdieck).* Ibyog and ipyov are frequently in the N. T. connected with
one another ; so Luke xxiv. 19, Acts vii. 22, and many other passages ; in
order to bring out the insufficiency of loyog in 1 Cor. iv. 19, 20, 1 Thess. i. 5,
Sivapig is contrasted with it. By kui dlyBeiq. the apostle does not mean to
add a second eleraent of love, but to characterize the dyanqv iv ipyu as the
true love (so also Myrberg) ; a love which does not show itself iv ipyu is
only an apparent love.^ The relationship of (iv) dlyBeif to iv ipya is just
the same as that of ry yluaay to loyu. The two words of each clause express
together one idea, and these two ideas are contrasted with one another, so
that it is not to be asked whether Idyu corresponds with ipyu, and yluaa-i}
with dlyBeia, or yluaay with ipyu, and loyu with dlyBe'ii} (against DUsterdieck
and Braune). With the thought of this verse compare especially Jas. ii. 15,
16; only here the thought is more comprehensive than there. ^
Vv. 19, 20. Blessed result of true love. — Kal iv roiru]. kui : simple
copula. — iv roiru does not refer here, as in chap. ii. 3, iii. 16, 24, iv. 2, to
the following thought, but to the foregoing dyanav iv ipyu k. dl. The future
yvuabpeBa, which, according to the authorities, is to be read instead of
yivuoKopev (see the critical notes), "is used as in John vii. 17, viii. 31, 32,
xiii. 35, where the subject is the possibility of an event which may with
justice be expected" (Braune) : it is the more natural here, as the form of
thought is the cohortative ; the sense is : If we love iv ipyu kuI dlyBelgi, we
shall thereby know that, etc. — on iK ryg dlyBeiag iapiv : weakening and partly
erroneous explanations of the phrase : he ryg dl. e'lvai, are those of Socinus :
vere talem esse ut quis se esse profiletur ; of Grotius: congruere evangelio, of
1 Braune : " It is to be observed that the npoerKwelv ev nvevpan as true worship in
first pair iu the dative only states the means contrast to every apparent worship.
by which love operates; the preposition ev 3 Wolf quotes the corresponding stateraent
states the element in which it moves." of Picke, ^)io<A,chap.v. : "Omnisdilectio,quae
2 Comp. John iv. 24, where also " Ka'i d\r}- dependet a verbo, verbo cessante, ipsa quoque
Beta " is added to ev nvevpan, not to bring out cessat : at quae non dependet a verbo, nuu-
a second element of true worship (contrary to quam cessat." — In Theognis 979 it is put thus :
Meyer on this passage), but to describe the py pov dvrip etr] yKMatry ipiKo^, dK^d Kat epyia.

570 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Semler: dlyBeveiv iv dydTry; of Baumgarten-Crusius: "to be as we ought to
be ; " of De Wette : " to belong to the truth ; to live in it." Bengel, on the
other hand, rightly interprets the preposition e/c of the principium or ortus ;
so also Lucke, DUsterdieck, Braune, etc. ; comp. John xviii. 37, and Meyer
on this passage. The truth is the source of life in love. It is indeed in its
deepest nature God himself ; but Ik roi Qeoi must not be put instead of k
ryg dlyBeiag, for the apostle here, with reference to the preceding dlyBeia,
arrives at the idea of truth. Love iv dlyBeia is the evidence of being born
iK rijg dlyBeiag. — Kal ipnpoaBev airov neiaopev rug Kapblag ypuv]. This
sentence is not governed by bn, but it is independently connected wdth the
preceding, either depending or not depending on iv roiru ; if the former is
the case, "we must take iv roiru combined with neiaopev somewhat differently
than when connected with yivuoKopev (yvuabpeBa) ; with the latter it would be
more therein, with the former more thereby " (LUcke ; so also Braune) ; if
the latter be the case, the thought : iv roiru yvuabpeBa bn, k.t.I., serves as the
presupposition of the following ipnpoaBev airov, k.t.1., in this sense : if we truly
love our brethren, we shall therein know, etc., and thus (in this consciousness
of being of the ti'uth) we shall assure our hearts, etc.* The idea that with
Kat ipnpoaBev an entirely new thought appears, which stands in no intimate
connection with the preceding (Ebrard), is contradicted by the kuI, which
closely connects the two thoughts with one another. What, then, is the
meaning of neiaouev rdg KupSlag ypuv? Plainly neiaopev expresses a truth
which we (the subject contained iu ne'iaopev) impress upon our hearts, so
that they are thereby determined to something, which presupposes at least
a relative contrast between ms and our hearts. The verb nelBetv means either
to persuade a person to something, so that he thinks or acts as we wish, or to
convince him of something so that he agrees with our opinion. Some ancient
commentators have interpreted in accordance with the first signification :
suadebimus corda nostra, ut studeant proficere in melius ; the more particular
definition which is added is here clearly quite arbitrary; it is not much
better -with the explanation of Fritzsche (Comment, III. de nonnullis
Pauli ad Gal, ep. locis) ; animos nostras fleclemus, nempe ad amorem vita
factisque ostendendum, or even with the more recent one : anim. n. fiectemus
sc. ut veram Christi doclrinam tueamur (see Erdmann, p. 129 ff.).^ It is very
common to explain nelBeiv here by placare, to calm, to compose; this, it is
true, is in so far inaccurate as nelBeiv has not this meaning in itself, but
certainly the verb is sometimes used in such a connection that the purpose
of the persuasion is the calming of anger or of a similar passion ; ^ hence
1 Liicke : " Even if it be unadvisable to con- have the assurance that we are of the truth)
nect Kal epnpoaBev avrov, K.T.A., directly with we shall, etc."
ev TouTw, so that it appears better, with Lach- ^ This interpretation is based on the erro-
mann and the old coraraentators, to put a neous view that etvai ex t^s aA7)0€ta? Is = ?jerani
coraraa after etrpev, every one must at least doctrlnam tenere ; the former interpretation
admit the connection in the direct succession is contradicted by the fact that if we already
of tbe sentences. But then it must also be know from our love to the brethren that we
permitted to take the logical connection thus : are of the tmth, we do not need for the first
In this (vv. 16-18) do we know that we are ot time to move our hearts to love.
the truth. And thus (if we in living love ^ in favor of this we may appeal to the

CHAP. III. 19, 20. 571
the original meaning of the word passes into the above. This may be the
case here also, for the following KarayivuoKy shows that the apostle regards
our heart as affected with a passion directed against us ; then the following
on, ver. 20 (at least the second, for the first may also be the pronoun o n),
is the causal particle = "because, since." Taking this view, the sense is:
In the consciousness that we are of the truth, we shall silence the accusation which
our heart makes against us, because God is greater than our heart. — If, on
the other hand, we take nelBeiv in the meaning of to convince, bn (at least the
second) is = "that;" and the sentence peiQuv iariv b Qebg ryg Kapblag ypuv is
the object belonging to neiaopev ; so that the sense is : If our heart accuses
us, we shall bring it to the conviction that God is greater than it. — The words
ipirpoaBev airoi, i.e., Toii Qeoi, do not point to the "future judgment" (Liicke,
De Wette), but to the representation of God in the devotion of the soul,
which is peculiar to the Christian. By putting thera first, it is brought out
that the neiaopev only occurs in this representation of God (Diisterdieck,
Ewald, BrUckner, Braune). — Ver. 20. By far the most of the commenta
tors take the on with which this verse begins as the particle, either =
"because" or "that," and explain the second on as epanalepsis of the first.
The supposition of the epanalepsis of a particle has, considered in itself,
nothing against it, although it very seldom appears in the N. T., but it is
only suitable if on is the objective particle (comp. Eph. ii. 11, 12);* from
this it follows, that, if nelBopev has the meaning " to calm," the first on is not
to be regarded as the particle. Sander, it is true, translates : " we can calm
our heart, that — God is greater," etc., but this has ouly sense if before
"that" is supplied "with this," or "inasmuch as we reflect; " such a sup
plement, however, is arbitrary. Several commentators (Hoogewen, Bengel,
Morus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald) regard the first bn as the pronoun, as
also Lachmann (in his large edition) reads o n idv. DUsterdieck erroneously
asserts (as even Bertheau in the third edition of Lucke's Commentary, p. 339,
Ebrard, and now even BrUckner and Braune, have acknowledged) that
this form is never found in the 1^. T. It is true that in Col. iii. 23 it is
probably not o, n idv, but o edv that is to be read, although D***, E, J, K,
have the former; but in Acts iii. 23 Tisch. reads yng idv (so also i(), and in
Col. iii. 17, according to the overwhelming authorities, it is not o n dv, but 6
TI idv, that must be read (which is admitted by Lachm., Tisch., and Buttm.),
and similarly iu Gal. v. 10, not bang uv, but bang idv (also accepted by Lachm.,
passages cited by LUcke, Matt, xxviii. 14; the context makes it necessary to assume the
Joseph., Arch. vi. 5, 6 (Sarauel), vntuxvetTai epanalepsis here even for the causal particle;
Kai irapoKaAeVeii' tov Qeov auyvvtlivai nep't rov. sirailarly Braune, although without even
Tbiv avTois, Kai neiireiv, and the passage in showing the grammatical justification in any
Plutarch, where to an-oAoijuijv, et py ae npia. way. Besides, in this construction it is quite
prjaaipriv,, the reply runs : dnoXoip-ffv, ei p-ij ae overlooked that if the intermediate clause eav
neiaai-qt, although 'neideiv has not in them Karaytv<JiiaK-(i, K.r.K., is connected with the
exactly the meaning of "to calm." preceding, the first oti comes in disturbingly;
1 LUcke himself admits that the passages aud if it is connected with the following, the
adduced by him iu favor of the epanalepsis second oti does so. As in accordance with
" have only value for those who take oti both the thought only the former connection can
times not as causal particle, but as conjunc- be the correct one, it is incomprehensible how
tion, belonging to rretaopev ; " but thinks that John should have here interrupted it by oti.

672 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Tisch. 7, and Buttm.); moreover, there is nothing syntactically against
reading here b, n idv, for KarayiviJaKeiv is frequently construed with the
accusative of the thing. Ebrard, however, thinks that this view is "im
probable,'" nay, "absolutely impossible:" " improbable," because in ver. 22,
6 edv is used (but in the first edition of this commentary it was shown that 6
edv is by no means the constant form with John, but that in the Gospel, ii.
5, xiv. 13, XV. 16, 6, n dv also appears,* and that the sudden change of forms
is found elsewhere also in the N. T., as in Matt. v. 19, first bg idv and after
wards bg S'dv is used, and in Matt. xvi. 19, in some codd. (Lachra.), first
6 dv, and then 5 idv is read) ; " absolutely irapossible," " on account of the
mutual relationship of the two conditional clauses, ver. 20 and ver. 21."
Certainly the edv in ver. 21 seems to form a sharp antithesis to the idv in ver.
20 ; but it must not be unnoticed, that, similar though the two clauses are to
one another, they nevertheless have not the pure form of antithesis, inas
much as in ver. 21 there is no antithetical particle, in the clauses the suc
cession of the particular words is different, and the first conditional clause
only forms an inserted intermediate clause.^ In favor of the explanation :
" before Him shall we calm our heart, whatever it may accuse us of, because," etc.
(or convince . . . that, etc.), is the fact that uot only is the idea KaTayivuaKy
thereby more closely connected with neiaopev, but also the certainly strange
epanalepsis of the on is avoided.^ — The verb KaTuyivuaKeiv, according to
LUcke, does not signify condemnation, but only accusation : in the inner
life of the heart, however, the two are not distinctly separated from one
another, but the accusation of conscience rather includes the condemnation ;
the special KardKpiaig is certainly the work of God.^ The object of the
KarayivuaKeiv of the heart is variously defined by the commentators ; some
understanding by it, with reference to the preceding thought, the "want of
love," others more generally the sinfulness which still adheres to believers
even with all the consciousness of loving the brethren (chap. i. 8). The
decision as to which is the correct interpretation depends on the explanation
1 $< has in chap. il. 5 ; odv; xiv. 13: '6 ndv; epanalepsis of oti as objective particle raay
XV. 16 : o Ti idv, be doubted ; for as the thought edv Karaytviiiaicy
2 If it was the apostle's intention to contrast does not form the presupposition for pei^otv
sharply two different cases, he could do this e'o'Tli', k.t.A., but for neiaopev, it is unsuitable
more definitely if he consti-ucted the first to place it in the objective clause dependent
period thus: edc KaTay. ripi;>v i] KapSta, ep- on neiaopev, instead of connecting it with
TrpotT^ei" aiirov neiaopev r, k., oti pei^tiiv, k.t.A., neiaopev,
and the second; edv B'e pri Karay.ripCiv ij Kap- * Dusterdieck, with whom also Braune
Sia. From the fact that he did not do so, it agrees, appropriately reraarks that Karayi-
may be concluded that such a sharp contrast viiianeiv occupies a raiddle place between
was not in his purpose. KaTTjvopeir, along with which an dnoKoyelv
3 That tbe supposition of an epanalepsis further occurs, and KaraKptveiv, which in
fer the causal particle is iraproper, has been eludes the judicial decree of punishment;
already noticed above; and for the passage comp. Deut. xxv. 1, 2. — Dusterdieck suitably
before us it is further clear from the fact that quotes on this passage Sir. xiv. 2, corap. xix.
if OTt is the causal particle, the clause ^ei'^wv 5, and Test. Gad. 5; J. A. Fabricius, Cod.
effTix/, K.T.A., forras, according to the thought, pseudep.-p". T., p. 681. — naraytviaaKetv means,
the conclusion of edv Karaytviitaie-p, as plainly to pronounce against a person that he is
appears in Liicke when he explains: "Then, guilty; Karanpivetv, on the other haud, to
if . , . our conscience accuses us, God is pronounce the merited punishment on a per-
greater thau our heart," etc. — But even the son.

CHAP. III. 19, 20. 573
of the following sentence : bn pelQuv iariv b Qebg ryg Kap Slag ypiJv Kal
yivCioKei ndvra. — The old controversy is, whether God is called greater
than our heart as forgiving or as judging: the former is the view of Thomas
Angl., Luther, Bengel, Morus, Russmeyer, Spener, Noesselt, Steinh(^er,
Rickli, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Besser, Dusterdieck, Erdmann, Myr
berg, Ewald, BrUckner, Braune, etc. ; the latter is the view of Calvin, Beza,
Socinus, Grotius, a Lapide, Castalio, Hornejus, Estius, Calovius, Semler,
LUcke, Neander, Gerlach, De Wette, Ebrard, etc. — If neiBeiv is =: " to calm,"
then peiQuv must refer to the forgiving love of God. LUcke, indeed, gives
the following explanation: "after John has said that only if we are, in
active brotherly love, conscious that we are of the truth, shall we calm our
hearts in the j udgment, he adds : for if the contrary is the case, if our con
science accuses us of the want of genuine love, then God is greater than
our heart, and before His holiness and omniscience there is no calm for the
accusing conscience." But the assuraption of such a declaratio e contrario,
which is in no way hinted at, is only an artificial expedient for reconciling
contraries. pe'iQfjv can only be referred to God as judging, if ne'iBetv has the
meaning " to persuade." As Ebrard regards this as the right view, and
would begin " a perfectly independent new sentence " with kuI ipnpoaBev airov,
he states the meaning as follows : " In the sight of God we shall convince
our hearts of this, that if (even) our heart (so prone to self-deception and
self-excuse, and therefore small) accuses us (namely, of not practising love),
God, the all-knowing, is greater than our heart, and we shall therefore so
much the less be able to stand before Hira." This interpretation is contra
dicted, in the first place, by the fact that it separates the second part of the
nineteenth verse from the first, nay, even places it in antithesis to it,* where
as such an independence is not only not suggested as belonging to it, but is
refuted by the connecting /cai ; and, in the second place, by the fact that
the thought is in itself inadmissible. According to the representation of the
apostle, we and our heart are regarded as contrasted with one another,
inasmuch as our heart brings a condemning accusation against us, which
plainly refers to the fact that we by our sins have made ourselves liable to
the judgraent of God ; it is not we therefore that hold out to our heart, but our
heart that holds out to us, the judgraent of God ; how, then, shall we after
this bring our heart to the conviction that God will condemn us, nay, will
condemn us even more than our heart does already ? From this it follows
that — whatever be the meaning of nelBeiv — pelQuv canuot refer to the judicial
activity of God. As God is called pe'iQuv in comparison with our heart that
condemns us, the comparison expresses an opposition. Erdmann: Notioni
cordis condemnantis magnitudo Dei comparatur et opponitur, the heart, inas
much as it condemns us, is like the " hostis, qui nos aggreditur, sed Deus pelQuv
h. e. forlior est, ut hostem illum devincere possit" (comp. iv. 4). As this
greatness of God, which surpasses the heart, proves itself in this, that in
those who are iK ryg dlyBeiag it overcomes the accusations of the heart, those

• The conviction, namely, that we cannot stand before God, plainly forms an antithesis to the
conviction that we are of the truth.

574 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
commentators are right who assign to this verse a comforting tendency, and
therefore refer peiQuv to the forgiving love. No doubt, it is objected that
the thought of God's omniscience (yivcjoKei ndvra) * is not able to comfort the
man whom conscience accuses ; but this can only hold good in reference to
those who are not yet iK ryg dlyBeiag, and not in reference to those of whom
John is here speaking, namely, those who in their sincere love to the breth
ren have the evidence that they are iK rfjg dlyBeiag.^ If this is the right
interpretation, then it is clear that KarayivuaKeiv does not refer to the want
of love, but to sin in general, from which even the riKvov rov Qeoi is not yet
free (i. 8 ff) ; and this is also indicated by the apostle's very form of
expression, if neiaopev is directly connected with KarayivuaKei, and if, accord
ingly, o, n idv is to be read (see above), in which case on peiQuv ian, k.t,!.,
states the objective ground of the nelBeiv : " because God is greater than our
heart, we therefore (in the consciousness that we are of the truth) shall calm
our hearts before God, however much our heart may accuse us.'' This interpre
tation deserves the preference before that according to which neiaopev is =
" to convince," and on pelQuv, k.t,1., the object governed by it; because not
only does the purpose of the verse thereby appear more clearly, but it is
not easy to perceive how the conviction of the greatness of God which
overcomes the heart should result from the consciousness on iK ryg dlyBeiag
iapiv.^ — lt is further to be observed that De Wette makes the first on as
causal particle dependent on neiaopev (= to calm), the second, on the other
haud, on KarayivuaKy : " for, if our heart accuses us because God is greater
than our heart. He also knows all things; " but this construction is opposed
not only by the fact that the kuI is more naturally taken as copula (Baum
garten-Crusius), but also by the fact that the thought that our heart condemns
us because God is greater than our heart, is incorrect.' — Without adequate
* Several commentators find In the words the seed of tmth, of which we have been
Kat ytviiiaKet ndvra the explanation of the idea born, is not concealed."
pei^oiv : so Oecumenius, Augustine, Bede, So- ^ Ewald construes correctly, but in his ex.
cinus, a Lapide, Lorinus, Hornejus, Paulus, planation : " If we earnestly seek in His sight
De Wette, etc.; even Ebrard says that God is whether we really love ... we shall be able,
called peiitov, " because He caunot be de even if we must sometimes accuse ourselves
ceived," but its position gives no justification before God, nevertheless by the penitent (?)
for that; we can at the raost eay that the acknowledgment of the truth, to convince our
apostle by those words brings specially out conscience that we are raen and God is God,
one eleraent which is included in pei^iav. tbat we may therefore sometimes fail and
2 Luther rightly says: "Though our con- must be adraonished by Hira," — he introduces
science makes us despondent, and represents references into the thought which are not
God to us as angry, yet God is greater than contained in it.
our heart. Conscience is a single drop, but * Briickner, it is true, defends De Wette's
the reconciled God is a sea full of comfort. interpretation, but he substantially pei-verts
. . . When conscience punishes and conderans il; for whilst De Wette refers the whole verse
a raan, he becomes alarmed; but against this to the accusation of God (therein agreeing
darkness of the heart it is said: God knows with Liicke) , BrUckner takes the oti ytvioaKei
all things. Conscience is always in fear, and irofTa in comforting sense; but it iben be-
closes its eyes; but God is deeper and higher comes still more untenable, for it is plainly
than thy heart, and more exactly searches the unjustifiable to refer the omniscience of God
innermost parts of it." — Besser : " Our heart in the subordinate clause to condemnation (for
knows sorae things, and decides against us; both explain pei'^wr by r " looking more deeply,
God knows all things, and does not decide examining all the recesses of tbe heart"), but
against us, but for us, because before His eyes in the principal clause to forgiveness.

CHAP. III. 21, 22. 575
ground, Erdmann thinks that KapSla, in ver. 19, is used in a wider sense than
in ver. 20 (" vertimus ne'iaopev rdg KapS'iag : nobis ipsis persuadebimus "), because
there the plural, and here the singular, is used ; this change of the number
has no influence on the raeaning of the word, but the apostle speaks of the
KapS'ia as the object of neiBeiv, and as the subject of KarayivuaKeiv, inasmuch
as the heart is the seat or the union of the affections ; the Greek commen
tators explain KupSia here as synonyraous with avve'tSyaig.
Ver. 21. In this verse the apostle states the case of our heart not accus
ing (or conderaning) us. We can understand it thus, that what he pre
viously observed has happened, naraely, that, in the consciousness that we
are of the truth, we have induced our heart to refrain from its accusation
against us. Then this thought does not stand to the preceding one in the
relation of antithesis (as if in this verse a different case was contrasted with
the case stated in ver. 20), but in that of continuation ; * but it is more
correct to suppose that the apostle is here speaking of a relation.ship which
is different from that indicated in ver. 20, and that he is not regarding the
question whether the non-condemnation has never taken place at all, or lias
been only brought about by persuasion. That two sentences may stand to
one another in the relation of antithesis, even without the antithetical par
ticle, is proved by chap. i. 8 and 9. — nafr^aiav ixopev npbg rbv Qebv states
what occurs when the case exists which is mentioned by idv ; it is erroneous
to explain na/t/iyaiav ixopev = neiaopev rdg KapSiag ypuv ; the same expression in
chap. ii. 28 and iv. 17, and construed with npbg, chap. v. 14 ; the same con
struction in Rom. v. 1 : eipyvyv ix. npbg rbv Qebv. As the calming of the heart,
so also confidence toward God, which is the subject here, is based on the
fact that God is greater than* our heart, and knows all things.
Ver. 22. By kui the following is closely connected with the preceding,
inasmuch as it states what further happens when, in consequence of non-
condemnation on the part of the heart, the nafi/>yala npbg rbv Qebv exists; it is
not merely the consciousness of the hearing of our prayers, but it is this
hearing itself. — 6 idv a'lrupev is to be taken quite generally, and must not be
spoiled by arbitrary limitations ; the necessary limitation lies, on the one
hand, in the subject itself : the child of God asks for nothing which is con
trary to his Father's will, comp. v. 14; and, on the other hand, in the
naf)f)ya'ia with which he prays; comp. Matt. xxi. 22; the contrary in Jas.
i. 6, 7. — lap^dvopev an' airov, i.e., roi Qeoi. The present is not used instead
of the future (Grotius) ; the subject is here not something future, but what
constantly occurs in the life of believers. Augustine suitably says : Charitas
ipsa gemit, charitas ipsa orat, contra hanc aures claudere non novit, qui illam dedit.
bn rdg ivroldg avroi, k.t.Il.]. bn is connected with the imraediately preceding
lapiSdvopev, and states the ground of God's manifestation of love in the hear-
1 The objection of Ebrard to this interpre- Is retained in its own proper raeaning. Con-
tation, that idv cannot serve the purpose of trary to Brauue's opinion, that with tbis Inter-
Introduclng a deduction from a premise which pretation not (iij, but /xr|KeTi, would have to be
is presupposed as already having actually oc- used, it is to be observed that it was not
curred, is inappropriate; for edi' is not in this necessary to bring out the element which is
view at all taken as "If, then, therefore," but contained In prinin.

576 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
ing of prayer; this ground, which, however, is not to be regarded as the
causa meritoria, is the childlike obedience of him who prays, wherein God
recognizes him as His child ; the idea of obedience is expressed in two mu
tually co-ordinate sentences (similar to the Hebrew parallelism) : rdg ivroldg
airoi and ru dpeard ivumov airov are synonymous ; * by noielv the obedience is
specified as active; the second clause indicates that it consists, not iu a
slavish subjection to the commandment, but in a childlike fulfilment of that
which is pleasing to God. I« John viii. 29, dpearbv is construed with the
dative; only in Acts vi. 2, xii. 3 is the word besides found; similar is the
expression diibSeKrov ivumov roi Qeoi (1 Tim. v. 4).
Ver. 23. With this verse, which — as the statement of the substance ot
God's commandments — is most closely connected with the preceding, begins
a new leading section, indeed the last in the Epistle, inasmuch as in Iva
niarevauuev ru bvopari, K.r.l., a new element of the development of ideas
appears, by which the sequel is not merely " prepared for " (Ebrard), but is
dominated. — kuI is not explicative, but simply copulative. — airy refers
to the following 'iva, which here also does not merely state the purpose
(Braune), but the substance. — y ivroly airoi]. The singular is used, because
the manifold commandments in their inner nature forra one unity : this is
especially true of the two commandments of faith and love, here mentioned.
From the fact that faith is described as an ivroly, it must not be inferred that
it is not a work of God in man, but it certainly follows that neither can it be
accomplished without the self-activity of man. — The phrase mareieiv ru bvo
pari roi v'loi, K.r.l., Only appears here; in chap. v. 13 the preposition eig is
used instead of the dative ; so also in John i. 12, ii. 23, iii. 18, etc. ; by the
dative the bvopa of Christ is indicated as the object of devoted, believing
trust ; 2 "to believe on the narae of Christ," is, however, identical with " to
believe on Christ," inasmuch as in the name the nature of Him who is
spoken of is expressed; comp. Meyer on John i. 12. Grotius, quite errone
ously : propter Christum sive Christo auctore Deo credere. — While faith is the
fundamental condition of the Christian life, brotherly love is the active proof
of the living character of the faith ; the two things cannot be separated from
one another ; hence it follows here, kuI dyanupev dlXyhavg,^ which as the effect
is distinguished from mareveiv as the cause; /cai is therefore copulative and
not epexegetical (as Frommann thinks, p. 591). — The subordinate clause,
KaBUg eSuKev ivrolyv yplv, is best referred to dyanupev dllylovg, inasmuch as it is
1 Meyer actually thinks that by dpeard are trust of the words or of the person to which
meant the so-callod consilia evangelica, by the Trto-Teueii' refers; in the phrase: mareveLV
which ordinary Christians are not bound, but t(j> ovdpart *I. Xp., the ethical meaning of the
which are voluntarily undertaken by Christians verbis so much the more to be recognized, as
¦who are specially holy ! the denial of it necessitates also a weakening
2 Weiss has been at pains to show that of the idea ovopa.
ntarevetv in John does not include the element 3 Frommann (p. 200) wrongly concludes
of trust; in this, however, he is wrong, be- frora this passage and iv. 7, 19, in which the
cause even where the element of conviction obligation to love is expressed, that being
prevails in the use of the word, this raust not born of God is conditioned by love, as the
be identified with the theoretical belief, which free act of raan, " by which He keeps His
is a raere act of the understauding, but it independent personality aud freedom towards
Includes as an essential element the immediate God "( i), nay, even Is produced by it ip. 205).

CHAP. III. 24. 577
not God (Estius, Bengel, Sander) but Christ that is to be regarded as the
subject ; by KuBiig (" in proportion as ") the quality of love is indicated : it
must correspond to the commandment of Christ; Myrberg : Non modo aman-
dum est, sed etiam vere et recte amandum.
Ver. 24. After the apostle has mentioned the substance of the divine
commandment, he describes the keeping of it as the condition of fellowship
with God, and states the mark whereby the Christian knows that God is in
him. — Kol is the siraple copula, not = itaque; rdg ivroldg avroi is a resump
tion of the y ivroly airoi of ver. 23 ; the plural is used because the command
ment is described as containing two elements ; airov = roi Qeoi, not Xpiarov
(Sander, Neander, Besser). — iv airu pivet, K,r,l.], The mention of fellow
ship with God, which consists in this, that we abide in God and God abides
in us,i is explained by the purpose of the Epistle. — kui iv roiru ytvivoKopev}.
iv roiru is referred by Liicke and Ebrard to the preceding, namely to rypelv
rdg ivroldg airoi ; but thus there results a superfluous thought, for with the
connection which according to the apostle exists between the keeping of
God's commandments and God's abiding in us, and which he has ex
pressed in the first half of the verse, it is plainly superfluous to say once
more that we know the latter by the former ; it is, besides, contradicted by
the following iK rov nveiparog, which has induced Liicke to assume a combi
nation of two trains of thought and an ambiguity of iv rovru,^ and Ebrard
arbitrarily to supply with ek ,-. nveiparog the words " we know ; " Dusterdieck,
De Wette, Erdmann, Braune, etc., refer iv roiru to ck roi nveiparog, so that
according to the apostle it is from the nveipa which is given to us that we
know that God is in us if we keep His commandments; corap. iv. 12, 13,
where the same connection of ideas occurs. The change of the prepositions
iv and e/c is certainly strange, but does not render this interpretation " impos
sible " (Ebrard) ; for, on the one hand, the form, " iv roiru yivuoKopev," is too
familiar to the apostle not to have suggested itself to him here ; and, on the
other hand, by iK the -rrveipa is indicated as the source from which that yivu-
oKeiv flows; besides, the construction with Ik appears also in chap. iv. 6. —
By nvevpa is here to be understood, just as by xplapa in chap. ii. 20, " the
Holy Ghost," who lives and works in the believer, but not, with Socinus,
the disposition or the love produced by Hira ; or, with De Wette, " first of
all, the true knowledge and doctrine of the person of Jesus.'' With this
verse the apostle makes the transition to the following section, in which, with
reference to the false teachers, the distinction is made between the nveipa
roi eeoi) and the nveipa which is not iK rov Qeoi,
' When Weiss defines the abiding or being this act by means of His revelation in Christ,
of God in him who keeps His commandments, which must be accepted into knowledge.
in this way, that God who is known, or the ^ The two thoughts -which Liicke considers
knowledge of God, is the determining principle as corabined here are : (1) that we in the keep-
of his spiritual life, this seeras " to weaken ing of God's coraraandraents know that we are
the powerful realisra of John's conception ; " in fellowship with Hira, and (2) that the rrjpetv
yet Weiss guards hiraself against this when Tas evroKds is nothing else than the expression
he says that he does not in any way diminish and operation of the Divine Spirit. — It is
the divine causality in the act of regeneration, plainly quite mistaken for Paulus to regard ck
but only means thereby that God accomplishes rov nvevparog as the subject belonging to pivet.

578 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.

CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 2. Instead of the Rec. yivuaKere, found in K, several min., vss., and
Fathers have yivuaKerat; in N*: yivuoKopev (Xi: ytvCjoKere); the Eec. is to be
regarded as genuine. — The reading in B : ilylvBivai, instead of the Eec. ilylv-
Bbra, is a correction. — Ver. 3. Instead of the Eec. bpoloyel 'lyaoiv Xpiarbv iv aapKt
ilylvBbra (K, etc., and G, though with the article rbv prefixed). A, B, etc., have
the simple rbv 'lyaoiv (Lachm., Tisch.). This is probably the original reading
(Briickner), and is confirmed by the preceding (contrary to Eeiche, etc.). S
reads: 'lyaoiv Kipiov iv a. ilylvBbra. — According to Socrates, vii. chap. 32, o liei
is found in old manuscripts instead of b pij bpoloyel ; the same reading in Iren.
iii. 18: qui sq-lyit Jesum Christum ; similarly the Vulg. (Lucif. : destruit) ani
in Fulg. — Tertullian also prefers this reading, though in connection with the
common one; Adv. Marc, y. 16: negantes Christum in came venisse . . . liic
antichristus est; the same connection in Tychonius and Augustine : qui solvit
Jesum et negat in carne venisse. Semler's view is a strange one, that 6 Ivet has
arisen oculorum vitio ; the reading is probably to be explained by the polemic
against the Gnostics (Grotius, Liicke, De Wette), in favor of which is the Scho
lion in Matthaei, p. 225 : npouSevaav ydp airoi (roi dvnxplarov) ai aipiaeig, uv xapaxre-
piariKbv rb bid ipevSonpoipyruv Kal nvevpdruv lieiv rbv 'lyaoiv iv ru py bpoloyelv airbv
iv aapK. ilylvBivai. — The reading in i<: on (b rt) uKyKbapev, instead of o nKyKbare,
is singular. — Ver. 6. In his small edition Lachm., after A, Vulg., etc., reads
iv rovru instead of iK roirov; in his large edition he has accepted the latter
reading. — Ver. 7. To dyanuv is wrongly added in A, rcij' Qebv. — Ver. 8. In
stead of iyvu, N* has iyvuKev; in the original text of K the whole sentence, bpy
dy. . . . Qebv, is wanting. — Ver. 9. N has Qupev for ^aupev. — Ver. 10. To y
dyunn is added in N: rov Qeov, plainly a correction. For ijyanijaapev, B has
yyanyiiapev (Buttm.). — For dniareilev, X has dniaraljiev, — Ver. 12. The order
of words varies: the Eec. is r ereleiupivy iariv iv yplv, following G, K,
etc. (Tisch.); A, etc., Vulg., etc., have iv y/uv before rereletupivy (Lachm.);
B aud X: 'ev ^^iv between rerel. and iariv (Buttm.). — Ver. 15. B reads bg idv
instead of bg dv, and 'lyaovg Xpiarbg instead of the simple 'lyaovg. — Ver. 16.
At the end of the verse B, G, K, K, etc., several vss , etc., read pivei (brack
eted by Lachm.); in A, etc., Vulg., several Fathers, pivei is wanting (Tisch.);
according to the authorities it is to be regarded as genuine, being probably
omitted to correspond with the end of the 15th verse (Eeiche). — Ver. 17. X
has after peB' ijpuv the further words iv yplv, and instead of 'eapev the future
iabpeBa. — Ver. 19. The Eec. ypelg dyanupev airbv, on airbg is found in G, K,
etc.; in A is found ijpelg ovv dyanupev, on b Qebg (Lachm.): in B ypelg dyanu
pev, bn avrbg (Tisch.); N has ijp. dy. rbv Qeov, bn a'urbg. The airbg after bn is
sufficiently attested by the authorities ; the airbv after dyanupev, on the other
hand, appears to be a later addition, added for explanation of the thought.
Eeiche, however, regards it as genuine; Liicke thinks that if dyanupev is with-

CHAP. IV. 1. 679
out an object, 6 Qeog is necessary; this, however, according to John's usus
loquendi, is not the case. — Ver. 20. X omits the on. In reference to the
reading ibpoKev in Tisch. 7, see on chap. i. 1. — Instead of the Eec. (Tisch.)
nug, X, B, -etc., Theb., etc., read oi (Lachm.). The interrogative is, however,
more expressive than the negative.
Vv. 1-6. Resumption of the warning against the false teachers; corap.
chap. ii. 18 ff. The connecting link is forraed by iK roi nveiparog, chap. iii. 24;
the object is to distinguish between the nvevpa which is of God and the
nvevpa which is not of God (vv. 2, 3), between the iri'. ryg dlyBeiag and the nv,
ryg rrldvyg. The distinguishing mark is the confession ; the former confesses,
the latter denies, Jesus ; the former is mightier than the latter ; therefore the
believers have overcome the ipevSonpoipyrag ; the words of the former spring
iK rov Koapov, and are pleasing to the Kbapog ; the words of the latter are
accepted by him who is e/c Toi Qeoi.
Ver. 1. The apostle first exhorts them not to believe navrl nveipan. The
idea rrveipa is in closest connection with ipevSonpoipyrai. The true prophets
spoke, as we read in 2 Pet. i. 21, inb nveiparog dyiov ipepbpevoi ; the source of
the revelations which they proclaim (npbipypi) is the nveipa dyiuv or nv. roi
GfoS, by which is meant not an affection of their mind, but the power of
God, distinct from their own personality, animating and determining them
(Svvapig iip'iarov, synonymous with nvevpa dyiov, Luke i. 35). This nvevpa
speaks through the prophet, penetrating into his nveipa and communicatrng
to hira the truth to be revealed ; thus the -nveipa of the prophet himself be
comes a nveipa iK rov Qeoi. As every prophet has his own -nveipa, there exists,
though the nveipa dyiov is a single being, a plurality of prophetic spirits.
The same relationship holds good, on the other hand, in the case of the false
prophets. These also are under the influence of a spirit, namely, of the
nvevpa which iK rov Qeoi oiK ean, of the nvevpa ryg nldvyg ; this similarly is a
single being, but inasmuch as with its lie it penetrates the mievpara of the
false prophets and makes them like itself, it is true of the nvevpa of every
individual prophet that it is not of God, not a nveipa ryg dlyBeiag, but a nvevpa
ryg TrAovTyf. As John speaks here of a plurality of spirits (navrl nvevpan, rd
nvevpara), we are to understand by nvevpa in this passage not the higher
spirit different from the human spirit, but this spirit itself, penetrated,
however, and filled with the former i (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 32, and Meyer on
this passage). This spirit, however, may be spoken of, not merely in plu
rality, but also in unity, that is, in collective sense ; for on each of the two
sides all nveipara, being animated by one and the same spirit, — whether the
divine or that which is against God, — are of one nature, and so forra together
one unity. It is incorrect to understand by nveipa here, by metonymy,
1 DUsterdieck considers the expression as pretation the plural would be used in a very
describing " the superhuman principle animat- figurative signification. Braune, correctly ;
ing the man who prophesies," and explains the " The question is not about a dual, but about
plural in this way, that "those different prin- a plural; we raust therefore understand ttie
ciples reveal themselves differently in their spirits of men, to whom tlie Spirit bears
different instruments;" but with this inter- witness."

580 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
" the prophets " theraselves (= laloivreg iv nvevpan, Liicke, De Wette,
Calvin : pro eo, qui spiritus dono se praed'itum esse jactat ad oheundum prophetae
munus; so also Erdmann, Myrberg, etc.), or "their inspiration" (Socinus,
Paulus), or even " the teaching of the prophet, his inspired word " (Lorinus,
Cyril, Didymus, etc.). — dlld SoKipdQere rd nvevpara]. The appearance of the
ipevSonpoiUjTai, i.e., such teachers as, moved by the ungodly spirit, proclaimed
instead of the truth the antichristian lie, under the pretext of speaking by
divine inspiration, necessitated in the Christian Church a trial of the spirits
(a SidKptaig of them, 1 Cor. xii. 10, xiv. 29) ; comp. 1 Thess. v. 20, 21 ; in
order to know el Ik roi Qeoi eanv, i.e. (if c/c is to be retained in its exact
meaning), if they originate in and proceed from God. — This trial is to be
exercised by all (comp. Rom. xii. 2; Eph. v. 10; 1 Cor. x. 15, xi. 13), for
" alloquitur (apostolus) non modo totum ecclesiae corpus, sed etiam singtjlos
fideles " (Calvin) ; against which Lorinus arbitrarily says : non omnium est
probare ; unum oportet in ecclesia summum judicem qiiaestionum de fide mori-
husque ; is est sine dubio Pontifex Maximus. — The necessity of the trial John
establishes by the words bn noXkol ipevbonpoipyrai, K.r.l. These -iptvSonpoipyrai
are the same as in chap. ii. 18 are called uvrlxpiarot ; comp. vv. 2, 3. The
name ipevSonpoipyrai indicates that the teachers proclaimed their doctrine, not
as the result of human speculation, but as a revelation communicated to
them by the -imevpa of God. The expression, i^elyliBaaiv eig rbv Koapov, does
not merely signify their public appearance (Socinus : existere et publice munus
aliquod aggredi; Grotius: apparere populo), nor is " i^ o'ikuv airuv to be
mentally supplied" (Ebrard), but it is to be explained by the fact that the
prophets, as such, were sent (comp. John xvii. 18), and therefore go out from
Him who sends them. It is He, however, that sends thera, who through
His nveipa makes thera prophets. The idea of i^ipxeaBai is accordingly
different here from what it is in chap. ii. 19 (contrary to Lorinus, Spener,
etc.); a going out of the false prophets from the Churcli of the Lord is not
here alluded to. With e'lg rbv Kbapov, compare John vi. 14, x. 36.
Ver. 2. Statement of the token by which the miipa roi Ofoii is to be
recognized. — iv roiru refers to the following sentence: ndv nveipa, k.t.1. —
yivuaKere is imperative, comp. mareiere, SoKipuQere, ver. 1. — nuv nveipa b bpo
loyel 'lyaoiv Xpiarbv iv aapKl 'elylvBbra]. It is arbitrary not only to
change the participle ilylvBbra into the infinitive ilylvBivai, but also to change
iv into eig (so Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Sander) ; by iv aapKt the flesh, i.e.,
the earthly human nature, is stated as the form of being in which Christ
appeared. The form of the object is explained by the polemic against Do
cetism; it is to be translated either: "Jesus Christ as come in the flesh" (Liicke,
De Wette, Diisterdieck, Ebrard, etc.); or, "Jesus, as Christ come in the
flesh; " the last interpretation has this advantage, that it not only brings out
more clearly the reference to the Cerinthian Docetism,^ but it makes it more

1 In the first iuterpretation the antithesis subject so described, which contains in it the
to the Cerinthian Docetism lies not merely in idea Xpiaroi, is more particularly defined as
the corabinatlon of 'Iriaovv Xptarov as one having come in the flesh.
narae (Ebrard), but also in this, that this

CHAP. IV. 3. 581
easy to explain how the apostle in ver. 3 can designate the object simply by
Tbv 'lyaoiv. It might, however, be still more suitable to take 'lyaoiv . . . ily
lvBbra as one object =: " the Jesus Christ who came in the flesh," so that in this
expression the individual elements on which John here relied in opposition
to Docetism have been gathered into one; so perhaps Braune, when he says:
" the form is that of a substantive objective sentence," and " in Iv a. il. it is
not a predicate, but an attributive clause, that is added." That the apostle
has in view not only the Cerinthian, but also the later Docetism, which
attributed to the Saviour only a seeming body, cannot be proved from the
forra of expression used here. The commentators who deny the reference
of the apostle to Docetism find themselves driven to artificial explanations;
thus Socinus, who expands the participle by quamvis, and Grotius, according
to whom iv aapd refers to the status humilis in which Christ appeared, in con
trast to the regia pompa in which the Jews expected the Messiah. ^ To exact
unbelievers there can here be no reference, as, according to chap. ii. 2, the
false prophets had previously belonged to the Church itself.^ That John
brings out as the token of the Spirit, that is, of God, just the confession of
this particular truth, has its ground in the circumstances that have been
mentioned; while it is also so very much the fundamental truth, that, as
Lucke on chap. ii. 22 with justice says, " every ipeiSog is contained in this, and
amounts to this, the denial of that truth in any sense."*
Ver. 3. In the reading, b py bpoloyel rbv 'lyoiv, the article (which is not,
with Liicke, to be deleted) must not be overlooked, for it indicates Jesus
as the historical person who is Christ. The false teachers did not confess
Jesus when they ascribed the work of healing, not to Jesus, but to the Aeon
Christ. The particle py indicates the contradiction of the true confession,
whilst oil would only express the simple negation. At the words /cat rovro
ian 10 rov dvnxpioTov, almost all commentators (even BrUckner and
Braune) supply with rb the word nveipa; but Valla (with whora Zegerus
agrees) interprets : et hic est antichristi spiritus, vel potius : et hoc est anti
christi i. e. proprium antichristi , if this latter interpretation be correct, then
rovro refers to py bpoloyelv, and rb roi dvnxplarov is " the antichristian nature."
As it is not easy to see why John should have left out nvevpa, this interpreta-

1 Socinus : " Qui confitetur Jesum Christum 2 Comp. with this passage Polycarp, Ep. ad
i. e. eura pro suo servatore ac domino et deni- Philipp. : Tras ydp os dv pri bpo^oyfi 'lr}aovv
que vero Christo habet, quamvis -is in carne Xptarov ev aapKt e\ri\vd6ra, dvrixptard^ ian
venerit h. e. homo fuerit, non modo mortalis, Kal &s pr] 6/ioAovn ro paprvptov toG trTaupoC e«
sed iufinitis malls obnoxius." Without any rov SiajSdAou eo-Ti.
ground, Baumgarten-Crusius asserts ; " If any ^ Augustine peculiarly turns this sentence
force were to be assigned to the predicate, against the Donatists, whora he reproaches
' come in the flesh,' the infinitive would have with a denial of their love, on account of their
been used." — Briickner thinks that if in separation from the Catholic Church, when
ver. 3 the shorter reading (without the appo- he says that John speaks here of a denial
sition) be the correct one, the reference to of Christ not merely by word, but also by
Docetism is here uncertain and unnecessary; deed: "Quisquis non habet charitatem negat
but the uncertain expression is plainly to be Christum in carne venisse;" so Bede; "Ipse
interpreted in accordance with the more cer- est Spiritus Dei, qui dicit Jesum Christum in
tain, and not, contrariwise, the latter in ac- carne venisse, qui dicit non Ungua, sed factis,
cordance with the forraer. non sonando, sed amando."

582 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
tion is to be preferred to the usual one (so also Myrberg ; Ewald similarly
interprets: "the work of antichrist;" the same form of expression in Matt.
xxi. 21 ; 1 Cor. x. 24 ; 2 Pet. ii. 22 ; Jas. iv. 14).^ — 8 diiyKoare bn ipxerat ; com
pare chap. ii. 18. Stephanus, groundlessly, would read " bv " instead of 6 ; the
relative does not refer to dvnxplarov, but to ro r, dvnxp. — koI vav iv rip Koapu iariv
ySy, i.e., in the false prophets; comp. ver. 1. John does not say here that
antichrist, but only that the antichristian nature (or the spirit of antichrist),
is already in the world ; ySy is doubtless added, not merely to intensify the
vvv, but to point to the future time of the appearing of antichrist, which is
already being prepared for. According to Ebrard, the last sentence depends
on 0 ; this, however, is not likely, as 6 is the accusative ; it is rather connected,
as an independent sentence, with the preceding one.
Ver. 4. After the apostle has characterized the twofold ¦nveipa, he directs
the attention of his readers to the relationship in which they stand to the
false prophets. — ipelg e/c roi Qeoi iare]. A contrast to those who are ix roi
Koapov; believers are of God, because the nveipa which animates them is the
rrvevpa roi Qeoi, — Kal veviKijKare airoig], airoig is not = antichristum et mundum
(Erasmus), but roig ipevSo-irpoipyrag, in whom the antichristian nature dwells.
— veviKTjKare is to be retained as perfect; comp. chap. ii. 13. Calvin inaccu
rately interprets : in media pugna jam extra per'iculum sunt, quia futuri sunt
superiores. John could say to his readers, vevixyKure, not only inasmuch as in
them was mighty the strength of Him who had said, Bapaelre, iyd vevUyKa rbv
Koapov, and inasmuch as they in Him were sure of ultimate success (Ne
ander, Diisterdieck), but also inasmuch as their opponents with their seduc
tive arts must have been put to shame by their faithfulness, and must have
been repulsed by them (Ebrard, Braune). The cause of this victory, however,
did not and does not lie in the human power of believers, but in the fact on
pelQi.iv iariv b iv iplv ij b iv ru Koopu. — b iv iplv, i.e., b Qebg (according to Gro
tius, Erdmann, and others : 6 Xpiarbg) ; as the believer is of God, God reraains
in him as the soul of his life ; b iv rip Koapu, i.e., b 6id0olog, " whose children
the antichrists are " (LUcke). Instead of the more particular 'ev airoig, John
uses the more general 'ev ru Koapu, in order thereby to signify that they,
although they were for a while in the Church, belong nevertheless to the
Kuapog, which the following words expressively bring out.
Ver. 5. In chap. ii. 19, John had said of the false teachers, ovk e'lalv if ypuv ;
now he states from what source they spring; this is the Koapog; the anti
christian nature in them belonged to the world, quatenus Satanas est ejus prin
ceps (Calvin). The manifestation of life corresponds with the source of it;
because they are of the world, Sid roiro Ik roi Kbapov laloiat; iK r. Koapov
laleiv means: to speak that which the Koapog supplies, to take the burden
of their speech from the Kbapog, ex mundi vita ac sensu sermones suos promere
(Bengel). This is not ideutical with e/c r^g yyg laleiv (John iii. 31), for y yy
is not an ethical idea like b Kbapog. — Kal b Koapog airuv uKovei]. The false
^ Braune thinks that in these passages it ever, that the substantive idea to tou dvnxp.
was of iraportance to form a substantive is here also raore significant than a mere
conception, but that here the siraple genitive genitive connected with eanv.
would have beeu suflacient; it is plaiu, how-

CHAP. IV. 6. 583
prophets had gone out from the Church into the world, to which they in
wardly belonged, and proclaimed to it a wisdom which originated in it ;
therefore the world heard them, i.e., gave to their words applause and assent,
TU ydp bpolu rb bpoiov npoarpexei (Oecumenius) ; in contrast to which, believers
were hated and persecuted by the world.
Ver. 6. ijpetg]. Antithesis of airoi, ver. 5; either specially John and the
other apostles (Storr, Diisterdieck, Bruckner, Braune, etc.) as the true
teachers, or believers generally (Calvin, Spener, Lucke, De Wette, etc.) ; in
favor of the former interpretation is the fact that believers are addressed
in this section in the second person, together with the following dKoiei iipuv,
as also the antithesis to ipevbonpoipyrai indicates teachers. — With ck roi Qeov
lauev we are to supply, according to ver. 5, the thought, Sid roiro Ik roi Qeov
laloiuev ; the following words, b yivuoKuv rbv Qebv uKoiei ypuv, contain the proof
of the thought just expressed. — b yiv. -rbv Qeov forms the antithesis of b Kbapog,
and is synonymous with bg ianv Ik t, Qeoi, for it is only he who is a child of God
that possesses the true knowledge of God. According to LUcke and others,
the apostle means by this, those to whom. belongs the "general iK roi Qeoi
t'lvai, i.e., the divine impress and instinct, which is the condition of childhood
of God in Christ;" but the expression itself is opposed to this, for the knowl
edge of God is necessarily conditioned by faith in Christ. — In the second
clause. Of OVK ianv , . , oiK li/c. ypuv, bg , . . Qeoi forms the antithesis to b yivu-
OKuv r, Qebv. This is the antithesis between " world " and " church of the
children of God." — In the concluding clause, ix roirov . . .ryg nlavyg, it is to
the immediately preceding thought that e/c roirov refers. According to the
usual view, with which Dusterdieck agrees, the sense of this passage is : He
who hears the apostles shows thereby that the nveipa ryg dlyBeiag is in him; he
who, on the contrary, does not hear them, shows that the nv, ryg nldvyg is in
him; it is in his relation to the apostolic teaching that anyone shows of what
spirit he is the child.^ But, according to the train of thought in this section,
it is not the spirit of the hearers, but that of the teachers, that is the subject
(so also Myrberg and Braune) ; the sense therefore is : That the nvevpa ryg
nldvyg prevails in the false prophets, may be known by this, that the world
hears them ; that in us, on the contrary, the nveipa ryg d'lyBelag dwells, may
be perceived by this, that those who know God, i.e., the children of God, hear
us. The nv, ryg dlyBeiag cannot be in him whom the world hears, nor can
the -nv. ryg nldvyg he in him whom the children of God hear ; Braune : " the
nv. ryg nldvyg is certainly in hira whom the world hears, and the nv. ryg dly
Beiag in him whom the children of God hear.'' — rb nveipa rjjg dlyBeiag; comp.
John xiv. 17, xv. 26, xvi. 13 ; a description of the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as
He not only produces a knowledge of the truth, but " makes the truth His
very nature" ( Weiss). ^ rb nv, ryg nldvyg, the spirit that emanates from the

1 Luther ; " If we hear God's true messen- with that of John x. 3-6, where Christ appeals
gers, that is a plain token of true religion; if, for a proof that He is the Good Shepherd, to
however, we despise and mock them, that is a the fact that the sheep know and hear his
plain token of error." voice, whilst they do not know the voice of
2 The thought of tills passage corresponds , the stranger, and flee frora it.

584 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Devil, which seduces men to falsehood and error : comp. chap. i. 8 ; 1 Thess.
ii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 1.
Vv. 7-21. After the apostle, induced by the appearance of the anti
christian nature, has characterized the spirit of truth and the spirit of- error,
he passes on directly to a detailed account of the elements of faith and love
alluded to in chap. iii. 23.
Vv. 7, 8. Exhortation to mutual love, and the establishing of this. —
The address dyanyrol emphatically introduces the command : dyanupev. — The
object dllylovg shows that here also it is not human love in general, but
Christian brotherly love, that is the subject. Mutual love is the holiest
calling of Christians who are riKva roi Qeoi, for y (iyciirT? e/c tou Qeoi ian,^ i.e.,
love proceeds from God. Calovius: originem habet a Deo. Unsatisfactory
is the explanation of Grotius : Deo maxime placet bonitas. ij ayuTr/; is used
without a determining object, because it is love in its full extent that is
meant. — kuI ndg b dyanuv iK roi Qeoi yeyiwyrai, K.r.l,]. Inference from what
immediately precedes. If love is of God, then he who lives in love must
also be born of God and know Him. The relation ol dyandv and e/c roi Qeov
yeyewfjoBui is not to be defined thus, that the former is the condition of the
latter (De Wette), but thus, that the former is to be regarded as the criterion
of the latter ; to be born of God does not follow frora love, but love follows
frora being born of God. The sarae relationship exists also between dyangv
and yivuoKeiv rbv Qeov ; ^ what sort of a knowledge of God is meant, however,
is seen from the close connection of ytvuoKei with e/c roi Qeoi yeyiwyrai. —
Ver. 8. From the foregoing it follows further : b prj dyanuv oiK iyvu rbv Qebv;
oiK iyvu, i.e., "has not known." The reason is: bn b Qebg i/yuTnj iariv. — By
this thought the preceding ij dydny eK roi Geoii iari receives its full compre
hension. — cij-uTT)? is without the article, because it is considered as a general
definition of the nature of God; so ver. 16, corap. i. 5: <5 Qebg ipug iari.
" Love is not so rauch a quality which God has, as rather the all-embracing
total of what He is" (Besser). Luther: Deus nihil est quam mera caritas;
Grotius, tamely : plenus est dilectione,
Ver. 9. The manifestation of the love of God is the sending of His Son.
— iv roiru refers to the following on, — iipavepuBy y (iyuTn/ rov Qeoi iv ijplv],
iipavepuBy expresses the objective fact, not the subjective knowledge; the
apostle does not mean that the love of God is known by us through the
sending of His Son (comp. ver. 16), but that it has by that means corae

1 Neander; " The apostle does not here lay brings with it the knowledge of God." This
down a coraraandment of love; he does not is incorrect, since ytvu^aicei rbv ©e6^' stands iu
want to impress on believers new motives for the same relationship to d-yan-iin' as ex tov Qeov
love, but to convince thera, that, as sure as they yeyiwrirat does, even though it is in itself true
are God's children, this fact raust be mani- also that only he who hiraself loves cau really
f ested by mutual love. — As proof he adduces know God, who is love. For the correct
that love is of God, and therefore every one explanation, see Liicke, Braune, Weiss, it
who loves is born of God." has already been observed, however, that the
2 It was previously stated in this cora- last-named does not correctly state the eonnec-
raentary; "John does not here say that love tion between being born of God and the
flows from the knowledge of God, but that knowledge of God, as he makes the latter
love, because it is of divine nature, necessarily the condition of the former.

CHAP. IV. 9. 585
forth from its concealment, has manifested itself in act. iv yplv is therefore
neither " in " nor " among " us ; neither must it be explained = eig ypdg; iv is
here, as in ver. 16 and John ix. 3 = "to ; " either connected with iipavepuBy
or with ij dj-dTTi? r. Q. ; hence, either " it has been manifested to us " (DUster
dieck, Bruckner, Braune, etc.), or, "the love of God to us" (Ewald) has
been manifested. With the first interpretation the sentence : bn . , , eig
rbv Koapov, makes a difiiculty which has been overlooked by the commenta
tors ; 1 with regard to the second, the article y is wanting before iv yplv ;
but a direct connection of an attributive clause with a substantive, without
a connecting article, is very often found in the N. T., and is therefore not
" ungrammatical " (as DUsterdieck thinks) ; the idea is here, then, the sarae
as that which John in ver. 16 expresses by: y uj-uTn; yv ixei b Qebg iv yplv.^
The difference between eig ypdg and iv yplv is this, that the former indicates
only the tendency towards the goal, the latter the abiding at the goal. By
ijplv we are to understand not mankind in general, but believers in partic
ular, so also ver. 10 in the case of ijpelg, k.t.I. — In the following sentence:
on rbv vlbv avroi , . . tva Qyaupev Si' airoi, the special emphasis rests ou the last
words, for the love which God has towards us is manifested in the fact that
He sent His Son into the world for this purpose, that we might live through
Him, i.e., become partakers through Him of the life of blessedness. It is
especially in its purpose that the sending of His Son is the manifestation of
God's love to us. The more particular description of the Son of God as
b povoyevyg, which is frequently found in the Gospel of John, appears only
here in his Epistles. In Luke (vii. 12, viii. 42, ix. 38) and in the Epistle
to the Hebrews (xi. 17), povoyevyg denotes the only child of his parents. So
the expression is used by John also to denote Christ as the only Son of God,
"besides whom His Father has none." This predicate is suitable to Him,
inasmuch as He is the loyog who is 'ev dpxy, npbg rbv Qeov, Qeog. Lorinus arbi
trarily explains povo-^evyg = dyanyrbg; comp. Meyer ou Jolm i. 14. Calvin
rightly reraarks: "quod unigenitum appellat, ad auxesin valet." How great
the love of God, in that He sent His only begotten Son in order that we
might live! Baumgarten-Crusius: '¦'¦ povoyevyg anA Qyaopev are the principal
words : the most glorious . . . for our salvation 1 "

1 Even Ebrard has not perceived the diffl- connection there is in ei* rjptv " soraething
culty. It lies in this, that by on, k.t.A., superfluous and unsuitable." This is so far
something is meutioned which happened for frora being the case, that it is just in this that
us, but not which happened to us; diiferently the apostle arrives at the consideration of the
in John ix. 3. Briickner thinks that the dlffi- relationship between God and the believer.
culty is removed by the fact that "in the pur- True, the love of God relates to the ivhole
pose of the sending of Christ there also lies world, John ill. 16: riydrrriaev 6 Qeb^ r'ov koc
something which happened io us; " incorrectly, jnoi^, and to all, without exception. He has
since even if the purpose of that is our life given, by sending His Son, the possibility of
(tva i-ri&opev), yet it cannot be said that the not being lost, but obtaining eternal life, but
love shown in the sending of Christ has mani- the loving purpose of God is accomplished
fested itself to us; the result is then that only in them that believe; the unbelieving
i^avepw6ri is taken = " has operated," iiud that remain iv 'opyy roir Qeov ; hence the love of God
an emphasis is laid on ev ripiv which it does to the world is more narrowly limited thau His
not receive from the context. love to believers, who are Ilis rinva.
2 LUcke incorrectly observes that with tbis

586 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Ver. 10. ti; roiiTo iariv y dyam;, i.e., "herein consists love," love is in its
nature of this kind. Oecumenius, inaccurately : iv roiru, SeUvvrai, bn ij/oTn;
iariv b Qeog; for iari is not = SelKvvrai; nor is toO Qeoi to be supplied with
ij uyuTr?? (with Lucke, De Wette, Bruckner, etc.), but the expression means
love in general, as in ver. 7 in the words : y dj-cin-); 'eK roi Qeov iari (Dusterdieck,
Ebrard, Braune). — oixbri ypelg yyanyaapev rbv Qebv, ul7„' 'on, k,t,1,]. Grotius
and Lange arbitrarily render oix bn here — 'on oix- Several commentators
take the first part as, according to its sense, a subordinate clause =: ypuv prj
u-yanyadvruv- Meyer : " Herein consists love, in that, although we had not
previously loved God, He nevertheless loved us;"' this, however, is incor
rect; as Johu in ver. 7 has said that love is e/c roi Qeoi, so here also he would
emphasize the fact that love has its origin not iu man, but in God ; it is
originally in God, and not first called forth iu Hira by the love of men; the
latter is rather first the outcome of the divine love ; ^ the words ovx on
therefore serve to specify love as something divine, not, however, as Dus
terdieck (who otherwise interprets correctly) thinks, to emphasize the fact
that " the love of God to us is entirely undeserved ; " this is a thought
which is only to be derived frora the statement of the apostle (Braune). —
ypelg ani airdg are emphatically contrasted with one another. — koI dniareile
rbv viov avroi, k,t.1., states the actual proof of airbg yydnyaev yiidg; here also
the special emphasis rests, not on dniareile, but on ilaapbv, K.r.l., which
corresponds to the 'iva Qyaupev of ver. 9, inasmuch as it states the basis of
the Quy; with 'ilaapbv, comp. chap. ii. 2. The aorists yyanyaapev, yydnyae,
dniareilev, are to be retained as historical tenses (De VVette) ; by the perfect
dniaralKev, ver. 9, the sending of Christ is merely stated, whereas the aorist
employed here narratively depicts the loving act of God in the sending of
His Son (Lucke).
Ver. 11. Conclusion from vv. 9 and 10, giving the motive for the exhor
tation ill ver. 7. — The love of God (previously described : ovrug) to us obliges
us, believers, to love one another. The obligatory force lies not merely in
the example given by God's act of love, but also in this, that we by means
of it have become the children of God, and as such love as He loves (Lucke).
At the same time, however, the correspondence between ypdg and dllylovg is
to be observed ; the Christian, namely, as a child of God, feels himself bound
to love his brother because he knows that God loves him, and him whom God
loves God's child cannot hate.
Ver. 12. The blessing of brotherly love is perfect fellowship with God.
— Qebv oiSelg rrunore reBiarai; comp. ver. 20 -and Gospel of John i. 18. In
opposition to Rickli's view, that these words were spoken iu polemic refer
ence to the false teachers who pretended to see God, i.e., to know Him fuUy,

i Similarly a Lapide : " Hic caritatem Dei give a different meaning to the oti in each
ponderat et exaggerat ex eo, quod Deus nulla case: "not as if . . . but in the fact that;"
dilectione, nullo obsequio nostro provocatus, but oTt has the same meaning both times, as
imo raultis injuriis et sceleribus nostris offen- the sense is: "this is not the nature of the
sus, prior dilexit nos." love that. ?ye were the first to love, but that
2 With this interpretation it is not at all God was the flrst to love."
necessary, as Bauragarten-Crusius thinks, to

CHAP. IV. 12. 587
Lucke rightly asserts that in that case the apostle would have more definitely
expressed the polemic element ; reBiarai does not here at all denote spiritual
seeing or knowledge (Hornejus, Neander, Sander, Erdmann), but seeing in
the strict sense of the word (De Wette, Dusterdieck, Braune). John, how
ever, does not here emphasize this invisibility of God (in which He is infi
nitely exalted above man; comp. 1 Tim. vi. 16) in order to suggest that we
can reciprocate the love of God, not directly, but only through love to our
visible brethren (Lucke, Ebrard; similarly Hornejus, Lange, etc.), but in
order thereby to emphasize still more the following : 6 Qebg iv yplv pivet, K.r.l.,
as the Scholiast in Matthiae indicates by paraphrasing, 6 doparog Qebg kuI dvi-
ipiK-og Sid -i-ijg eig dllylovg dydrzyg iv ijplv pivei ; a Lapide correctly interprets : licet
eum non videamus, tamen, si proximum diligamus, ipse invisibilis erit nobis prae-
sentissimus (so also De Wette, Dusterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Braune).
The ffcjTTOTE which is added shows that reBiarai is regarded as the simple per
fect, and does not " include past and present " (LUcke) ; nevertheless with
the thought, " no one has seen God at any time," the further thought, " no
one can see Him," is tacitly combined. That the apostle had in view the
passage Exod. xxxiii. 20 (Sander), is the more improbable, as both thought
aud expression are different. In reference to the appearances of God which
the O. T. in Gen. xii. 7, xvii. 1, aud elsewhere, relates, Spener rightly
remarks : " All such was not the seeing of the Divine Being Himself, but of
an assumed form in which His being manifested itself." — iuv dyanupev ally-
lavg, o Qebg iv ijplv pivei]. In these words the blessing of brotherly love is
stated : With brotherly love fellowship with God is associated, because, in
deed, love is of God. The explanation of several commentators, " if we love
one another, then it may thereby be known that God is in us," weakens the
thought of the apostle. ' God's dwelling in us is certainly not meant to be
represented here as a result or fruit of our love to one another (as Fi-om-
mann, p. 109, interprets) ; aud just as little is it the converse relation ; but
it is the inseparable co-dependence of the two elements, which mutually
condition each other (so also Braune). — koI y dydny airoi rereletupivy iariv iv
ypiv]. ij dj-uTri? airoi is not here " the love which God has to us " (Calovius,
Spener, Russmeyer, Sander, Erdmann, etc.), for the idea rereleiupivy ianv
does not agree with this (comp. ver. 18), but the love which the believer has;
airoi may, however, be either the objective genitive (so most commentators)
or the subjective genitivp ; but in the latter case we must not interpret, with
Socinus: ea dileclio, quam ipse Deus nobis praescripsit," nor, as Calvin thinks
probable : " caritas, quam Deus nobis inspirat," but " the love which is inherent
.in God " (which is His nature and i^ airoi) ; this, however, considered as
dwelling in believers (iv yplv) as the soul of their life (so also Bruckner and

' Weiss insists on this interpretation, be- God's dwelling in us, etc , that is the subject
cause "it is raeant to be shown how we have here; (2) the conjunction ear shows that the
in brotherly love the visible evidence of an subordinate clause states the condition under
existence of God v/ho i& la Gimaelf invisible ;" which -what is stated in the principal clause
Incorrectly, for (1) Christians need no visible takes place; (3) the supplement of a -yiKoiffKoiiey
proof of the existence of the invisible God, Is purely arbitrary.
and, beside8,'it is not the existence of God, but

588 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Braune). This explanation, in which no object which would restrict the
general idea of love has to be supplied (comp. vv. 7, 8, 16, 18), deserves
the preference, because the specific love to God is first mentioned in ver. 19.
Quite unjustifiably Ebrard asserts that y dy, airoi denotes " the mutual loving
relationship between God and us; comp. ii. 5."
Ver. 13. The token of our fellowship with God (iv airu pevopev corre
sponds to the preceding y dj-dtn? airoi . , , iv yplv) is on ck tov nveiparog
airoi SiSuKev ijplv; comp. iii. 24. The expression, e/c tov nveiparog (instead
of rb nveipa), is explained by the fact that the nvevpa of God is the entire
fulness of the life of God operating in believers, of which his share is given
to each individual. The expression is not to be connected with the Sialpeaig
tuv xaptapdruv, of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor. xii. 4, 11. Compare Acts ii. 17;
in reference to Christ it is said : oii/c Ik pirpov SiSuat rb nvevpa, Gospel of John
iii. 84. Against the view that by nveipa here "love " or a similar quality is
to be understood, Spener says: "it is the Spirit Himself, and not His gifts
only, that we receive."' — bn does not mean "if" (Baumgarten-Crusius),
for John supposes that his readers are believers, and as such are certainly
partakers of the Spirit.
Vv. 14, 15. That love brings with it fellowship with God, is caused by
the fact that God is love, and love springs from God. But God's love was
made manifest by the sending of His Son, and this is testified by the apostles,
who themselves have seen Him. The last thought which ver. 14 expresses
serves as an introduction to the thought that follows in ver. 15, in which the
believing confession (and therefore faith) is described as the condition of
fellowship with God, and hence also of true love. — itai ijueig]- By ype'ig John
means here himself and his fellow-apostles; comp. ver. 6. — reBedpeSa kuI
paprvpaipev, comp. chap. i. 1, 2. reBeupeBa expresses the direct seeing (Gos
pel of John i. 14), not knowledge through the medium of others. The
apostles saw that the Father sent the Sou, inasmuch as they saw the Son
Himself — and not after the flesh merely, but also as the povoyevyg napd narpbg.
With TiBedpeBa corresponds the closely-connected idea paprvpaipev, which
presupposes one's own direct experience ; comp. Gospel of John i. 34. — The
subject of this testimony is, bn b naryp dniaralKe rbv vlbv aurijpa roi Koapov, comp.
vv. 9, 10; aurypa r. k, states the purpose of the sending, which does not refer
to particular elect ones, but to the whole number of sinners (comp. chap. ii. 2
and Gospel of John iii. 16). — Ver. 15. With bpoloyyay, comp. ver. 2. The
subject of the confession is bn 'lyaoig eanv b vibg roi Qeoi ; this is precisely
what the antichrists deny ; corap. vv. 2 and 3. — Weiss erroneously inter
prets : " Whosoever abides iu this confession, in him it is seen that God is in
him; " the words "in him it is seen " are a mere interpolation.
Ver. 16- The beginning of this verse, kuI ypelg, is indeed of the same im
port as the beginning of ver. 14; but y/ielg here does not merely mean the
' Weiss incorrectly uses this passage as a here does not specify the personality of the
proof that, whilst Jesus considered the Holy Spirit, yet it is in no way contradictory to it.
Ghnst as a personal being, John had not yet Besides, Weiss himself admits that the passage
perfectly taken hold of this conception; for to rrvevpd ianv ij dA^deta (chap. v. 6), points
even if it be admitted that the expression used to the personality of the Spirit.

CHAP. IV. 17. 589
apostles (Myrberg), for otherwise iv yplv also would have to be referred to
them, and a contrast, here inappropriate, would be drawn between the
apostles and the readers, but it is used in its more general sense (as raost
commentators take it), which is also indicated by the connection of this
verse with the preceding one. — With iyvuKapev kuI neniareiKapev, corap. John
vi. 69. As the object of faith must have been previously made known to us,
and hence made the subject of knowledge before we can take hold of it in
faith, and as, on the other hand, it is ouly through faith that knowledge
becomes the determining principle of our life, and these two elements mu
tually condition each other continually in the Christian life, knowledge,
therefore, can be put before faith, as here, and faith can also be put before
knowledge, as in John vi. QQ.^ — ryv dydnyv, yv exei b Qebg iv yplv is not, with
Wilke (Hermeneutik des N. T , II. 64), to be interpreted: "the love which
God has in us, i.e., as a love dwelling in us," or, with Ebrard : " God's love
which He has kindled in us, by means of which, as by His own nature. He
works in us," for the verbs iyvuKopev and neniareiKapev show that the subject
here is not soraething subjective, and therefore not our love (which only in
so far as it is the outcome of the divine love is described as the love which
God has in us), but something objective, and therefore the love of God, which
has manifested itself in the sending of His Son for the propitiation for our
sins, ev is used here just as in ver. 9. The following words, d Qebg dydiri?
iari, K,r.l,, which are closely connected with what iraraediately precedes,
forra the keystone of the foregoing, inasmuch as the particular ideas of the
previous context are all embraced in them. — On o Qebg dy, iari, see ver. 8.
— Kal b pivuv, K.r.l,, IS the inference from the thought that God is love, in
this way, namely, that all true love springs from Hira. The idea of love
here is not to be restricted to brotherly love (ver. 12, idv dyanuuev dllylovg),
but (as also Dusterdieck, Braune, aud Weiss remark)^ is to be understood
quite generally.^ The idea of fellowship with God is here expressed just as
in ver. 15. If John makes it at one time dependent on knowledge, and at
another dependent on love, this is explained by the fact that to hira both
knowledge and love are the radiations of that faith by means of which the
new birth operates.
Ver. 17. After the apostle has said in ver. 16, that he that dwelleth in
love (and therefore no one else) has fellowship with God, he now indicates
wherein love shows itself as perfected ; the thought of this, verse is aocord-

' Lflcke : " True faith Is, according to .John, dependent on love, but love on being in Qod."
intelligent and experienced ; true knowledge * Ebrard introduces a reference foreign to
is a believiug knowledge. Both together form , the passage when he includes in /levetv iv rji
the coraplete Christian conviction, sb that John, dydrry also the " dwelling in the love of God to
when he wants to express this very strongly, us, in faith in God's love;" Erdmann also
puts thera both together, in which case it is incorrectly interprets : ** n^ pevetv iv r^ dydirji
indifferent whether the one or the other comes eadem animi nostri ad caritatem Del reiatio
first.^' Comp. also Neander on this passage, denotatur, quae verbis e-yi'tii/ca/xef Kat jreiritrTeu-
and Kostlin, Der Lehrbegr, des Ev., etc., pp. xapev slgniflcatur." Had the apostle meant
63, 215 ff. this, he would have added to dydn-(i, as a raere
2 Weiss further erroneously observes that particular definition, rov Qeov, Comp. Gospel
"here also being in God is uot to be made of John xv. 10.

590 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
ingly connected with the preceding : 6 pivuv iv ry dydny. — iv roiru rereleiurai
ij dydny peB' ypuv]. Several commentators, Luther, Calvin, Spener, Grotius,
Hornejus, Calovius, Semler, Sander, Besser, Ewald, etc., understand by i;
dyun-); " the love of God to us," interpreting peB' yp&v — eig ypdg, and rereleiurai
as referring to the perfect manifestation of the love of God. Grotius: hic
est summus gradus detectionis Dei erga nos.^ This interpretation, however,
has the context against it, for in ver. 16 : b pivuv iv ry dj/uTrj?, as well as in
ver. 18: 6 ipofSog oiK ianv iv ry dydny, by dydny is meant the love of man, the
love that dwells in us; comp. also ver. 12. Here also, therefore, dydn-j? must
be understood of this love, with Estius, Socinus, Lange, Lucke, De AVette,
Neander, Gerlach, Dusterdieck, Braune, etc. ; rereleiurai is used in the same
sense as rereletupivy ianv, ver. 12; comp. also ver. 18: y releia dydTnj. — It is
not the object of the love that is described by /leB' ijpuv, for perd is not = eig,
but it means " in ; " ^ it either belongs to the verb : " therein is love made
perfect in us " (LUcke, De Wette, DUsterdieck, Braune, etc. ; Erdmann, who
explains perd — iv), or to dyd/n? : "the love which exists (prevails) in us is,"
etc. With the first construction, the addition appears rather superfluous ;
besides, its position would then be more natural before y dydny. The
underlying idea is that the love which has come frora God (for all the love
is EK rov Qeoi) has made its abode with believers. Here, also, y dydTr/? is used
without more particular definition, as in ver. 16, and is therefore not to be
limited to a specific object (so also De Wette, DUsterdieck, Braune); it is
therefore neither merely "love to the brethren" (Socinus, LUcke, ^ etc.), nor
merely "love to God" (Lange, Erdmann); Baumgarten-Crusius not incor
rectly explains the idea by "the sentiment of love," only it must not be
forgotten that true love is not merely sentiment, but action also; comp. chap.
iii. 18. — iv roiru does not refer to the preceding, nor to dwelling in love,
nor to fellowship with God, but to what follows ; not, however, to on, as
Beza,^ Grotius, etc., assuming an attraction, think, but to Iva na/r^yaiav ixupev

* Sander : " That it is made perfect must is purely arbitrary, for even thongh perd is
only mean : this love of God which was mani- frequently used to denote a reciprocal action
fested in the sending of His Son is manifested (see Winer, p. 336; VII. p. 352 ff.), yet tbis
in its raight and glory in this, that, as over- reference is here unsuitable, for it is not God
coraing every thiug, it brings us so far that and we, but love and we, tbat are placed to-
we," etc. — Calovius : " Perficitur dilectio Dei gether. Moreover, to supply toG Qeov with ri
iu nobis, non ratione sui, sic enim absolute dydrrrj is at the best only defensible if in peB'
perfecta est, sed ratione nostri, non quoad ripiov the subject to which the love refers is
existentiam, sed quoad experientiara." stated; but this is grammatically impossible.
2 Hence ^ ay. pe6' iipujv is neither = ii ay. If, as Ebrard thinks, i] dydrrri denotes not love,
(tou ©eoil) eis rjpds, nor = rj dydrrri ir)piov) ets but the lo-ve-relatiouship, then TJ dydrrri peO*
dWrjKovs, as Liicke in his 1st ed. interprets riptov may only mean " the loving-relationship
(" our love among ourselves, i.e., our mutual that exists araong us ; " this idea, however, as
love ") ; still less justifiable is the interpreta- Ebrard with justice says, does not suit the
tiou of Rickli ; " the rautual love between God context.
and the believer;" for John never includes ^ According to Bertheau's note in the 3d ed.
God and men in iipeU. When Ebrard, admit- of LUcke's Commentary (p. 364) , Liicke has,
ting this, nevertheless accepts the interpreta- however, in the edition of 1851, interpreted ri
tion of Rickli as far as the sense is concerned, aydffT; : " brotherly love combined with love to
explaining " the love of God with us " by " the God."
love which exists between God and us," this * Beza's interpretation runs : " Charitas

CHAP. IV. 17. 591
fl' r-y ypepif ryg Kpiaeug. From ver. 18 it is clear that the chief aim of the
apostle is to emphasize the fact that perfect love (y rtleia dydin/, ver. 18) is
free from fear, or that he who is perfect in love (rereleiupevog iv ry dydnrj)
experiences no fear, but has confident boldness (rralibya'ia). The thought of
this verse is no other than this, that love has its perfection in the fact that it
fills us with such nafipyala ; the clause beginning with ha therefore contains
the leading thought, to which the following bn is subordinated. It is true,
the combination iv roiru , . . Iva (instead of bn, vv. 9, 10, and frequently)
is strange, but it is quite John's custom to use the particle of purpose, 'iva,
not seldora as objective particle; the same combination is found in the
Gospel of John xv. 8 (Meyer, indeed, differently on this passage) ; comp.
chap. iii. 10, 23 : avry ... iva (Gospel of John xvii. 3) ; by Iva, nafi/>yaiav
ixeiv is indicated as the goal, not " which God has in view in the perfecting
of love in us " (Braune), but which the dyuTr;? in its perfection attains
(DUsterdieck). With nap/iyaiav l;fEiv, comp. chap. ii. 28.' — The ijpipa ryg
Kpiaeug is the day brav ipavepuBy 'lyaoig Xptarbg, ii. 28. The preposition is
not to be interpreted = eig, and ixupev is not to be taken as a future (Ewald :
"that we shall have"); the difficulty that any thing future (behavior on the
judgment-day) should be taken as the evidence of perfect love in the present
(TEr£?.fi(j7-a( is not to be taken as future complete, but as perfect : " has been
made perfect," or " has becoine perfect " = " is perfected "), is removed if
we take it that in iv the najifiyaia, which the believer will have at the
judgment-day, and which he already has when he thinks of the judgment,
is included, which could the more easily occur in John, as in his view the
judgment-day did not lie in far-off distance, but was already conceived as
begun (chap. ii. 18). The future napfiyala is to him in his love already
present; similarly De Wette, Sander, Besser." — The following words: on
KuBdrg . . , roiru, serve to establish the foregoing thought. By iKelvog we are
not to understand, with Augustine, Bede, Estius, Lyranus, Castalio, etc.,
God, but, with most commentators, Christ, who is also suggested by the
idea : y ypipa ryg Kpiaeug. — The comparison (KaBug) does not refer to eivai iv
adimpletur in nobis per hoc quod qualis ille boldness and stand firm." It ia to be observed
est, tales et nos simus in hoc mundo, ut fidu- also, that such Hebrew and Greek words as
ciam habeamus in die judicii." contain the idea of joy, Luther never trans-
1 In Luther's version, n-appijo-ia Is here, as lates by that word ("boldness"), but by
elsewhere frequently, translated by Freudig. " joyous," " joy."
keit ; this is not a word derived from freude ' Braune, though he explains correctly the
(joy), but the old German word freidikett particular thought, denies that these two ele-
(from freidic, fraidig) = haughtiness, bold- ments are here to be regarded as combined;
ness, confidence (comp. Vilmar's Pastoral- but without eutering into the dilflculty which
theol. Blatter, 1861, vols. i. and ii. p. 110 ff.) ; lies in the expression. Ebrard states the
in the older editions it is written sometiraes meaning of the words incorrectly thus : " In
freydickeyt (Wiltenb. ed. 1526), sometimes the fact that the will of God, that we should
fre-ydigkeit (Niirnberg ed. 1624), but in 1637 have boldness in the day of judgraent, is in-
(in a Strasburg ed.) freudlgkeit. In what ternally revealed to us, and manifests itself as
sense Luther understood the word, is clearly a power (of confldence) in us (even now), the
seen from a sermon on 1 John iv. 16-21 (see loving relationship of God with us is shown
Piochman's ed., xix. 383), in which he says: to be perfect." How raany elements foreign
" he means that faith should thus show Itself, to tho context are here iutroduced !
BO that when the last day coraes, you may have

592 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
TU Koapu roiru, so that the sense would be : " as Christ is in this world, so
are we also in this world," for (1) Christ is no longer in this world (comp.
Gospel of John xvii. 11), and (2) in the fact that we are in this world lies
no reason for nap^ya'ia at the day of judgment. By KoBivg . . . kui it is rather
the similarity of character that is brought out, as in ii. 16, where KaBug does
not refer to the idea of nepmarelv in itself, but to the character of the walk,
so that it is to be interpreted : " as the character of Christ is, so is our
character also ; " in the second clause ovrug is to be supplied, as in 1 Cor.
viii. 2 ; Eph. iv. 17, 21. What sort of character is meant, must be inferred
from the context; it is entirely arbitrary to find the similarity in the
temptation (Rickli) or in the sufferings of Christ (Grotius), or in the fact
that Christ was in the world but not of it (Sander), for there is no such
reference in the context. But it is also inadmissible to regard as the more
particular definitioii of KuBdrg the StKaioaivy (Diisterdieck), or the sonship of
God (Lucke : " as Christ is the Son of God, so are we also children of God "),
for neither do these ideas appear in the context. We are rather to go back
to b pivuv iv ry dydny, and accordingly to refer KuBug to love (so Lorinus :
"reddit nos charitas Christo similes et conformes imagini filii Dei:" Bengel,
De Wette, Ewald, Myrberg, Braune, etc.),' so that the sense is: "if we live
in love, then we do not fear the judgment of Christ, because then we are
like Him, and He therefore cannot condemn us."'' The present iari is to
be retained as a present, and not to be turned into the preterite (Oecume
nius : ug iKelvog yv iv ru Koapu dpupog Kal KaBapdg). Love is the eternal nature
of Christ, comp. iii. 7: KaBiJg iKelvog SiKuibg ianv. In the concluding words:
iv TU Kbapu roiru, which belong, not to ian, but only to eapev, it is brought
out that we are still in the earthly world (Kbapog oirog is not an ethical
idea), whereas Christ has already ascended from it into heaven.

1 The reference of /tafluis to love is the only namely, in the Church, which is His body."
one demanded by the context, so that it is not Ebrard regards the second conjecture as the
suitable to regard love only as a single element more correct, and in accordance with it thus
in the likeness of believers to Christ which is states the sense ; " We look forward to the
here spoken of, as is the case with Liicke, for judgraent with boldness, for, as He (in His
instance. Erdraann lays the chief emphasis Church) is still persecuted by the wicked
not so rauch on love as on fellowship with world (even at the present day), so are we
God, which exists in love; but by /caflus . . . also in this world (as larabs among wolves) "
eo-Tt it is not a relationship, but a quality, that (!). Ebrard groundlessly maintains, against
is indicated. the explanation given in the text, " that with
2 Ebrard in his interpretation arrives at no it an ovriii<; could not be omitted, nay, that even
definite result; as, on bis supposition thai the tbis would not suffice, but that it v/ould have
centre of the tertii comparationis lies in the to read; oti otos eKeirds eo-Tt, toioCtoi Kai
words ev Tw «6(T/ta, TouTw, the present eo-Tt is t]peU iapev, and that even then the passage re-
objectionable to him, he would prefer to con- raains obscure enough; " and " that with this
jecture "ouTtos" instead of eo-Tt; but "as a acceptation, iv r. k. r. almost appears quite
faithful attentio.n to the requirements of Bibli- superfluous and foreign." Against the state-
cal exegesis would scarcely permit such a con- meut that " our confidence iu view of tbe
jecture," he thinks that nothing else remains judgraent could uot possibly be founded on
but either to suppose that eo-Tt (in the sense of our likeness to Christ, but ouly on the love of
an historical present) " is added as an indiffer- God as manifested in Christ," it is a decisive
ent, colorless word," or to refer /cadus eK. answer that John in other passages as well
eo-Tii' to the fact that Christ even now " still makes the rrappriala dependent-upon our char-
exists in the wicked world to a certain extent, acter : comp. fl. 28, iii. 21.

CHAP. IV. 18. 593
Ver. 18 serves to establish the preceding thought, that love has its per
fection in na^fiyala, — ipb^og oiK eanv iv ry dydny]. The thought is quite general
in its character : " where love is, there is no fear " (Ebrard) ; ipbj3og is there
fore not specially the fear of God, and by dydjn? we are not to understand
specially love to God, but at the same tirae this general thought is certainly
expressed here in reference to the relationship to God. It is quite erroneous
to explain dydny here, with Calviu, Calovius, Flacius, Spener, etc., as "the
love of God to us; "^ but it is also incorrect, with Lucke and others, to
understand by it, specially, brotherly love.'' — The preposition iv is not =
with (a Mons : ne se trouve avec la charite) ; Luther, correctly : " Fear is not
in love ; " i.e., it is not an element in love, it is something utterly foreign to
it, which only exists outside it. By the following words, all' y releia dydny
e^u Ballet rbv ipbjSov, the preceding thought is confirmed and expanded : love
not only has no fear in it, but it does not even endure it; where it enters,
there must fear completely vanish. Beza inadequately paraphrases the:
adjective rele'ia by sincera, opposita simulationi; it is not love in its first
beginnings, love which is still feeble, but love in its perfection, that com
pletely casts out fear. The reason why love does not suffer fear to be along
with it is, on b obiSog Kolaaiv e;cet. The word Kolaaig (besides here, only
in Matt. xxv. 46 ; comp. Wisd. xi. 14, xvi. 2, 24, xix. 4) has always the
meaning of "punishment" (also LXX., Ezek. xiv. 3, 4, 7, xviii. 30, xliv. 32,
as incorrect translation of /WJlp) ; if we adhere to this meaning, that ex
pression can only mean : fear has punishment, in which case that which it has
to expect is regarded as inherent in it, just as on the other hand it could be
said : y dydTri? ixei Quyv aluvtov (this being considered as future happiness, as
in Matt. xxv. 46) ; this idea has nothing against it, for fear, as rooted
in unbelief, is in itself deserving of punishment, and therein lies the reason
(bn) why perfect love casteth out fear.' Several commentators, however, ex
plain Kolaaig by " pain," thinking that " here causa is put pro effectu " (Ebrard),
or, in more correspondence with the thought, by "pain of punishraent"
(Besser, Braune, so also previously in this coramentary) ; similarly Lucke
explains Kolaaig = " consciousness of punishment." The thought that then
results is indeed right in itself, for " certainly this having of Kolaaig does
actually show itself in the consciousness or the pain of the expectation of
punishment " (Bruckner) ; but such a change in the meaning of the idea
Kolaaig cannot be grammatically justified. The following sentence, 6 Si ipoiSoi-
pevog oi reTeleiurat iv ry dydny, which is not connected with the subordinate
1 Calovius interprets: "Charitas divina, heart in which it dwells before it (love) ob-
guae apprehensa per fidem, omnem servilem tains its entrance. If dyan-Yj and »i)6j3os were
timorem expellit," whereby a reference for- meant to have different references, the apostle
eign to the context is plainly introduced. would certainly have indicated this.
' For justification of this interpretation s It is unnecessary to take the abstract (o
LUcke refers to the words efto ^aAAet Tbi* t^djSoi/, (^6)3os) for the concrete (d ^o^oi/juei'os), as De
and remarks: "it cannot be said of the love Wette and Diisterdieck do; De Wette incor-
of God in its perfection, that it casts out fear of rectly interprets e^et by "receives," and
God, for it has not got any." But John does Baumgarten-Crusius by " keeps, tenet, thinks
not say that love casts out fear out of itself; of . . . punishraent" (so that the sense is:
the idea rather is, it drives fear out of the " Fear knows nothing of mercy, of love").

594 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
clause bn b tpb^og, K,r,l,, but with the preceding principal clause, does not
contain a conclusion from this (cSe is not = oiv), but (as Braune also thinks)
expresses the sarae thought in negative form (hence the connection by c!e) ;
ouly with this difference, that what was there expressed in an objective way,
here receives a subjective aspect. It needs no proof, that the apostle has in
view in this verse uo other fear than that of which Paul says, Rora. viii. 15,
oiK ilddere nveipa Sovlelag ndliv eig ipbdov, and therefore not the childlike
awe of God arising from the consciousness of God's glory, which forms an
essential eleraent of love to God.i The conjectures of Grotius, instead of
Kolaaiv: Kolmiaiv (i.e., mutilationem ; so that the sense is "metus amorem mutilat
atque infringit, aut prohibet, ne se exserat"), and instead of ipojSoipevog: Kolovbpe-
vog (" qui mutilatur aut impeditur in dilectione, is in ea perfectus non est ") ; and
that of Lamb. Bos : instead of Kblaaiv, Kulvaiv, are not merely useless, but
even rob the thought of the apostle of its peculiar force.
Ver. 19. yuelg dyanupev]. According to this reading (omit airbv), dyandv
is here to be taken in the sarae comprehensive way as dydny in ver. 16 (Dus
terdieck, Myrberg,'' Ebrard), and must not be restricted to "brotherly love "
(Lucke). — dyanupev, in analogy with dyanupev in ver. 7, and with bipeilouev,
ver. 11, is taken by Hornejus, Grotius, Lorinus, Lange, Lucke, De Wette-
Bruckner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander, Besser, DUsterdieck, Myrberg, etc.,
as imperative subjunctive ; but it might be more correct to regard this verse,
just as ver. 17, as an expression of the actual character of true Christians,
with whom, in ver. 20, by idv nf einr/ the false Christian is contrasted, and
therefore to take dyanupev, with Beza, Socinus, Spener, Bengel, Rickli,
Xeander, Ebrard, Hofmann (Schriftbew,, II. 2, p. 338), Braune, etc., as in
dicative, in favor of which is also the prefixed ypelg. — The reason of ypelg
dyanupev is stated in oT( airbg npurog yydnyaev ijpdg, in which the chief emphasis
rests on npurog ; comp. vv. 9, 10.
Ver. 20-chap. v. 1. Proof of the necessary co-existence of love to God
and love to the brethren. The absence of the latter is evidence of" the
absence of the former ; where love to God is, brotherly love also cannot be
wanting. Ver. 20. This verse divides itself into two parts, the second part confirm
ing the thought of the first. — 'edv ng einy]. The same form of thought as in
chap. i. 6 ff. — bn dyanu rbv Qebv]. bn is used, as frequently, at the commence
ment of the direct oration. — koi rdv dbelipbv airoi piay] . With piay corresponds
the subsequent 6 pij dyanuv, comp. chap. iii. 14, 15. Spener : " not only with
actual hatred towards him, but even not loving him in perfect truth."
To hate is the positive expression for "not to love" (so also Braune). —
* That the fear which the apostle means has legis, donee veniat charitas." — The different
its necessary place also in the development of steps are thus stated by Bengel : " Varius
the spiritual life, Augustine strikingly ex- hominura status: sine timore et amore; cum
presses thus: " Timor quasi locum praeparat timore sine amore ; cum timore et amore; sine
charitati. Si autem nullus timor, non est qua timore cura amore."
intret charitas. Timor Del sic vulnerat quo- ^ Myrberg reraarks : " Totum genus amoris
modo medici ferramentum. Timor medica- hic proponitur; sed ubi totum genus araoiis
raentura, charitas sanitas. Tiraor servus est nuncupatur, ibi mens ante omnia fertur ad
charitatis. Timor est custos et paedagogus considerationem amoris erga Deum."

CHAP. IV. 21. 595
feiaryg iariv ; see chap. i. 6. The truth that he who hates (or, does not love)
his brother, also does not love God, the apostle confirms by the contrast be
tween bv iupoKe and bv ovx iupoKev, in which the visibility of the brother
is contrasted with the invisibility of God. The perfect indicates the perma
nent state ; comp. ver. 12, Gospel of John i. 18. LUcke : iupuKsvai = " to
have before one's eyes;" a Lapide: " vidit et assidue videt." Socinus incor
rectly lays a certain emphasis on the preterite when he says : quandoquidem
satis est ad amorem per cognitionem alicujus erga illum excitandum, quod quis
ipsum aliquando viderit ; nee necesse est, ut etiam nunc illum videat. The prem
ise for the conclusion of the apostle is, that the visible — as the object
directly presented to the sight — is more easily loved than the invisible.
Even the natural man turns with love to the visible, i whereas love to God,
as the Unseen, requires an elevation of the heart of which only the saved
are capable. Hence brotherly love is the easier, love to God is the more
difiicult. In him who rejects the former, the latter has certainly no place.
The truth that love to God is the condition of Christian brotherly love, is
not in contradiction with this; for that love, as the glorification of natural
love-, has its necessary basis in the natural inclination which we have to our
visible brother, who is like us. It is therefore unnecessary to attach any
importance to elements which the apostle here leaves quite untouched, as is
the case with Calvin (with whora Sander, Ebrard, etc., agree) when he says :
Apostolus hic pro confesso sumit, Deum se nobis in hominibus offerre, qui insculp-
tam gerunt EJUS imaginem ; Joannes nil aliud voluit, quamfallacem esse jaclan-
tiam, si quis Deum se amare dicat, et ejus imagineM, quae ante oculos est, negli-
gat ; ^ and with De Wette in his interpretation : " the brother is the visible
erapiric object of love ; whereas God, the ideal invisible object, can really be
loved only in him." By the interrogative nug Sivarai dyangv (corap. chap.
iii. 17), and by placing the object rbv Qeov first, the expression gains in
vivacity and point. — nug Sivarai must not be taken : " how can he attain to
that y " but " how can we suppose that he loves ? " (Baumgarten-Crusius).
Bengel : sermo modalis : impossibile est, ut talis sit amans Dei, in praesenti.
Ver. 21. Alterum argumentum cur amare proximum (or, more correctly,
fratrem) debeamus: quia Deus id praecepit (Grotius). — /cai, not = and yet
(Paulus) ; for this verse does not contain an antithesis, but an expansion, of
the preceding thought. — rairyv rijv ivrolyv, K.r.l.]. Lange interprets ivroly
here by " teaching ; " and Grotius paraphrases b dyanuv rbv Qeov by qui a Deo
1 Oecumenius: eipe\KvanKov ydp opao-ts than a person whom I have not seen at all," is
dydrrriv. Homejus : " Sicut oranis cognitio overthrown by the fact that the apostle does
nostra comrauniter a sensu incipit, ita araor not here make the slightest reference to the
quoque, unde facilius et prius amatur, quod conduct of persons standing in visible opposi-
facilius et proraptius cognoscltur." Similarly tion to us, by whora the natural feeling of love
Luther, Calovius, etc. Compare also the towards our equals is destroyed and turned
statement of Gregory (Jlomil. XI. in Evang.) ; into hate. As the apostle is contrasting the
"Oculi sunt in amore duces;" and Philo i^Ad elements of visibility and invisibility, it is so
Decalog.') : dp-l\\avov evaePelaBat rov ddparov much the more arbitrary to introduce here a
VTTO rmv ets tous e/A^arets Kat eyyiit; daefiovvriav. reference to the imago Dei, as this is not some-
2 The objection of Ebrard, that "it is not thing visible, but something invisible, — the
easier to love a person who stands visibly be- object, not of sight, but of faith.
fore me, and has, for instance, injured me,

596 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
pro amante ipsius haheri vult; both false and unnecessary; for although
brotherly love is the natural fruit and activity of love to God, yet at the
same time the practice of it is the habitual task which he who loves God
has to perform, as one appointed hira by God. It is doubtful whether we
are to understand by airoi God (Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette, DUster
dieck, etc.) or Christ ; that in the latter case eKeivov must be read, is unfounded;
because rbv Qebv follows, the second view seems to be the more correct; but
as in the context there is no reference here at all to Christ, it might be safer
to understand by avroi God. — By 'iva referring back to rairyv, it is here, as
frequently after verbs of wishing and commanding, not so much the pur
pose as the purport of the commandment (the realization of which is cer
tainly the aim and object of the commandment) that is stated, which Braune
here also incorrectly disputes.

CHAP. V. 597

CHAPTER V.
Ver. 1. Lachm. has bracketed the Kai before rbv yeyewypivov, because it is
wanting in B, some min., Vulg., Hil., etc. Instead of rdv yeyewypivov, K reads
rb yey. as it runs in ver. 4. — Ver. 2. Instead of rypupev, Eec. in A, G, K, N, etc.,
Lachm. and Tisch. read noiupev, according to B, several min., Vulg., Syr.,
Thph., etc. The authorities, 'however, decide in favor of rypupev, even A; in
which the following words : avry ydp . . . rypupev, are wanting, perhaps through
a mistake. Still it remains likely that rypupev has been inserted as John's usual
expression (with ivroldg) instead of noiupev. — Ver. 5. Instead of the Rec. rig
ianv (A, G, al., pl., Vulg., etc., Lachm., Tisch.), is found in B, K, several min.,
etc.: rig ianv Si; r/f Si ianv; in X the Si is inserted, perhaps for closer connec
tion of the clauses. — Ver. 6. Instead of aiparog, nveiparog is found in some
min., etc. ; in A, g, some min., etc., is found the addition : koX nveiparog; others
read ¦meiuarog kuI aiparog, and aiparog Kal nvevparog is also found; nveiparog
is evidently a later addition. — The Rec. has before Xptarbg the article b; it is
wanting in A, G, S ( K : XpiJTdf 'lyaovg) and, according to the statement of Tisch.
7, in B; according to Tisch. 2, it is found in B (namely, e silentio collatorum);
Buttmann has retained it, as well as Lachmann and Tisch. 2; Tisch. 7 has,
however, rejected it. — Instead of povov, B reads pbvu; a correction right
according to the sense. — xal rij) alpan]. According to A, B, G, and many
others, Sjrr., Copt, (with Lachm. and Tisch.), koI iv ru alp, is probably to be
substituted. Other variations, as nveipan instead of alpan, etc., do not call for
observation; the reading bn Xptarbg instead of bn rb nveipa need only be
mentioned, which, because it is found in the Vulgate, is the basis of several old
interpretations, although it is supported by scarcely any other authorities. —
Ver. 7. Before rpelg, n has the article oi; but in this it is alone. — The words
that follow OJ paprvpovvreg in the Rec: iv rip oipavd), b narijp, b loyog Kal
rb dyiov nvevpa Kal ovroi ol rpelg iv eiai. (Yev. 8) Kai rpelg eiaiv
ol paprvpovvreg iv ry yy, are rejected by Griesb., Lachm., Tisch, etc., and
are considered spurious by almost all modern commentators (except Sander,
Besser, Mayer). — They are wanting in all the Oreek Codices, except in 173**
(of the 16th cent.), 34, and 162; in the two latter, however, which also belong
only to the 16th cent. , the words koI oi rpelg rb ev eiaiv, and the articles b, b, rb,
are omitted. They are wanting, further, in almost all the versions. With
regard to the Latin Codices, they are only found in these after the 8th cent.;
the Codex Amiatinus (circa 541), Harleianus (of the 7th cent.), and others do
not contain them; the Codex Demidovianus has transposed them, thus: quia
tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et tres unum
sunt. M tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in coelo, pater, verbum, et spiritus.
— Of the Oreek Fathers not a single one mentions thera, although reference to
them would have been very convenient in the Arian controversies; just as little

598 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
is there any reference to them in raost of the older Latin Fathers, as Hilary,
Lucifer, Ambrose, Faustinus, Jerome, Augustine, etc. An allusion to them has
incorrectly been believed to exist in Tertullian in the passages: c. Prax., 25,
and. De Pudicit, 21; on the other hand, Cyprian (De Unitate Ecclesiae) seems to
refer to them in the words: Dicit Dominus: Ego et Pater unum sumus; et
iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est : Et tres unum sunt.
The passage in Phoebadius (4th cent.). Contra Arianos, c. 45, refers rather to
Tertullian than to John;' and in Eucherius (5th cent.), Lib. Formularum, c. II,
they are only found in interpolated handwriting. They are first certainly quoted
by Vigilius (towards the end of the 5th cent.) in the books written under the
name of Idacius, Contra Varimadum, by Fulgentius, Cassiodorus (of the 6th
cent.), and in many later ones since the 9th cent. — The peculiar quotation in
Cyprian finds its explanation in the symbolical interpretation of the words rb
nvevpa, rb vSup, and rb alpa of the Trinity, which is also found in the Schol. in
Matthaei: ol rpelg Si elnev dpaevmug, bn avulSola raira ryg rpii'vSog; and in the
Schol. : rovriari rb nveipa rb dyiov kuI b naryp Kal airbg iavroi (and on ev eiaiv ; rov-
rian pia Bebryg, eig Qebg), and which Facundus (6th cent.) has rightly recognized
when he says, Pro Defens. Trium Capit,, 1. i. c. 3: tres sunt qui testimonium
dant {in terra ?) ; Spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt . , . quod
Joannis apostoli testimonium Cyprianus . . . de Patre, Filio et Spiritu s.
intelligit.^ — As at first the three persons of the Trinity were substituted for the
former words, as was the case with Cyprian, the idea arose afterwards that they
were named by the apostle in addition to them, and some Fathers then quoted
the passage as it had taken shape in accordance with this idea. — The weight of
the evidence against the genuineness of the disputed words is so strong, that it
is opposed to the fundamsntal principles of a sound and unprejudiced criticism
to regard them as genuine. — In the 16th cent, the words are found in most of
the Latin translations, as well as in some of the German translations which
were made in accordance with the Vulgate. With regard to the editions of the
Greek text, the Complutensian (1504-1514), following the Vulgate, accepted
them; on the other hand, Erasmus in his earliest editions rejected them, as
well as Aldus Manutius in the Venetian edition (1518) ; in his translation of
1521, and in the 3d edition of 1522, Erasmus, however, accepted them, adducing
Cod. 34; Stephanus and Beza did the same; "the Rec. sanctioned the claim of
this reading" (Braune). Luther never admitted them into his translation.'
They are first found in the translations which appeared in Switzerland without
Luther's name; thus in the Ziirich edition of Froschover, 1529; the edition of
1 The passages in Tertullian mn thus : the ' Ebrard, indeed, also holds these words to
frst: "Ceterum de meo sumet, inquit, sicut be spurious, but thinks it probable that they
ipse de Pat^-is. Ita connexus Patris in Filio et existed in the MSS. which were available to
Filii in Paraclete, tres eMcit cohaerentes al- Cyprian ; this, however, is the less to be iu-
terura ex altero : qui tres unum sunt, non ferred from the fact that Vigilius had the
unus, quomodo dictum est. Ego et Pater unura passage in his N. T., since be quotes it in a
sumus, ad substantiae unitatem, non ad nu- corrupt sense.
merl singularitatera ; " the second : " Et eccle- 3 it is strange that the words are found
sia proprie et principaliter Ipse est Spiritus, in explained in Luther's second commentary ou
quo est trinitas unius divinitatis. Pater et the Epistle ("Walch) without the slightest
Filius et Spiritus Sanctus.'* The passage in reference to their spuriousness, whilst in
Phoebadius : " Sic alius a Filio Spiritus, sicut Luther's first commentary they are distinctly
alius a Patre Filius. Sic tertia in Spiritu, ut specified as spurious. This is no doubt ex-
in Filio secunda Persona ; unus tamen Deus plained by the fact that he based his second
omnia, quia tres unum sunt." edition on the later text of Erasmus.

CHAP. V. 599
1531 also has them, but with the omission of " in earth," and in small print;
in that of 1533 they are printed in ordinary letters, whilst they are bracketed
in later editions of 1540, 1545, 1549.1 The Basel edition of Bryllinger, 1552, has
them without brackets; the Ziirich edition of Gessner, 1555, on the other hand,
has them bracketed. — With regard to the editions published in Frankfort-on-
the-Main, these words, according to the usual statement, are first found in
the edition of 1593; this, however, is incorrect, for they previously occur in the
quarto edition of 1582, though they are wanting in the octavo of Feyerabendt,
1582.2 Among the editions printed in fVittenberg, the quarto edition of Zach.
Lehmaim, 1596, is probably the first that admitted the words; but again they
are wanting in many later editions; the last which does not contain them is the
quarto of 1620, which was published by Zach. Schurer at Joh. Richter's. — In
the 17th cent, their genuineness was defended — certainly on insufficient and
false grounds. After Richard Simon had declared himself against them, they
were opposed in the I8th cent., especially by Thomas Emlyn (I7I5), Clarke
(1738), Wetstein, Michaelis, Semler, Hezel, Griesbach, Matthaei. Bengel, on
the contrary, defended them, but with the arbitrary assumption that the text
originally ran: " on rpelg eiaiv oi paprvpovvreg iv r-y yy' rb nveipa, K,r,l,, eig rb iv
eiaiv, Ver. 8. koI rpelg eiaiv ol uaprvpoivreg iv ru ovpavu, b naryp, b Ibyog Kal rb
dyiov nveipa koI oiroi ol rpelg iv eiaiv," Compare especially Bengel, Apparat.
Criticus ; Griesbach, Diatribe in loe. 1 Johann. v. 7, 8, as appendix of the 2d
part of his edition; Semler in his Hist. u. krit. Sammlungen iiber die Sog.
Beioeisstellen in d. Dogm. St., I.; Rickli in his notes on this passage; Knittel,
Neue Kritiken iiber 1 Joh. v. 7, 8. — Ver. 9. Instead of yv, according to G, K,
etc., Thph., Cecum., A, B, X, etc., Vulg., etc., Cyr., read on, which is recom
mended by Griesbach and accepted by Lachm. and Tisch. : yv seems t'o have
arisen from ver. 10; Reiche, however, holds yv to be the original. — Ver. 10.
ixet ryv paprvplav], Rec, according to B, G, K, X, very many min., and vss.,
Thph., etc. (Tisch.); Lachm. (following A, Vulg.) adds roi Qeoi, which, how
ever, seems to be an explanatory gloSs. — Instead of iavru, Tisch. reads airu,
following A, G, K; only a clerical variation, tu Qeu, Rec, after B, G, K, K,
Syr., etc., Thph. (Tisch.). Against this A and the Vulg. have ru viu (Lachm.).
This reading has arisen from the idea that this negative sentence must exactly
correspond to the preceding: o niareiuv eig rbv vlbv rov Qeoi. — Ver. 13. The Rec.
runs: vplv rolg marevovaiv eig rb bvopa roi vloi roi Qeoi, tva eiSyre bn Qui^v
exere aluvtov Kal 'tva niarevyre eig r b bvopa roi vloi roi Qeoi. In A, B, X, etc.,
Vulg., Copt., Theb., etc., Cassiod., Bede, the addition rolg marevovaiv . . . rov Qeov,
is wanting after iplv; instead of the concluding kuI iva, K.r.l., the reading in A,
etc., almost all the vss., Cassiod., Bede, is: ol niareiovreg eig rb bv., K,r,l,; in B,
1 According to Rickli, these brackets were (published by John Feyerabendt) ; but this
flrst omitted in 1697; Ebrard, on the other statement is incorrect. According to a written
hand, says that they were already oraitted in communication from Professor Dr. Keil, who
the edition of 1561 which was in his posses- has compared the edition in the Leipzig
sion. University Library, the passage referred to
2 For thes^ and the following notices I runs : " And it is the Spirit tbat bears witness
have to thank my friend Dr. Klose of Ham- that the Spirit is truth. For there are three
burg, who has personally examined these that bear record on earth, the Spirit and the
editions in the Hamburg Library. According water and the blood, and these three are one.
to Panzer (.Hist, de Bibeliibers,, p. 492 ff.) and If we receive the witness of men," etc. The
MBnckeburg {Beitr. e. Feststellung, etc., p. folio edition of Weyg. Haneu, 1574, also does
152) , the words are said to occur as early as in not contain the words.
the Frankfurt edition of 1574, edited by Reffeler

600 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
however, rolg niareiovaiv; so also N*; in X|, however, ol marevovreg. — Griesb.,
Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., have accepted the reading as it is in A, Buttmann as it
is in B. Even if the comraon reading is to be justifled according to the sense
(De Wette, Sander, Reiche), yet its correctness does not therefore follow, as it
has too little support from external authorities, and as Iva niareiyre seems to
owe its origin to the passage. Gospel of John xx. 31. The reading of B might,
however, be preferable to the reading of A, since the former is not only the
more difficult, but by it thfe origin of the Rec. can be more easily explained; so
also Bruckner; Braune prefers the reading of A, "as difficilior," but the addi
tion is more easily connected with ixere than with the preceding iplv, — It is
doubtful whether aiuviov had its original position before or after ixere; the
former is attested by G, K, X, several min., Thph., Oec; the latter by A, B,
etc., Vulg., etc. (Lachm., Tisch.). — Ver. 14. Instead of bn idv n, Lachm.,
following A, reads : 6, n dv, which, however, has too little support. — Ver. 15.
Lachmanu's reading, Kal uv, instead of kuI idv, has too little evidence in B. A
omits entirely the words Kal , . . ijpuv; .so also X*; Ni reads kuI idv ISopev, K.r.l.
— 0 dv]. Rec, according to A, K, etc., Oec. (Lachm.); instead of which B, G,
N, and many others, Thph., have 5 idv (Tisch.). The reading- in X*, on idv
ixupev, is merely a mistake. — Instead of nap' airoi (A, G, K, and several others),
B, X, read ti-r' airoi (Lachm., Tisch.). — Ver. 16. Instead ot ISy, Rec, according
to A, B, G, K, N, etc., Clem., Thph., Oec, Lachmann, has accepted the reading
elSy, presented only by the Vulg. and Latin Fathers. X* has alryaeig koI Suaeig
instead of the third person. — Ver. 18. Instead of bll', Tisch. and Buttm.,
following B, read dlld. The reading airov in A*, B, instead of iavrbv, is only a
clerical variation of the word. — Ver. 20. Kal oiSapev], Rec, according to A,
several rain., etc. (Lachm., Buttm.); K, X, etc. (according to Tisch., also B;
contrary to which Buttm. states that koI oiS, is found in B) have oiSapev Si
(Tisch.); G reads merely oiSapev, — Tisch. 7, following A, B* G, K, etc., reads
yivuoKopev, whilst the Rec, according tq B**, K, etc., is yivuoKupev (Tisch. 2,
Lachm., Buttm.); the latter is probably a correction. — To rbv dlyBivbv, A,
several rain., vss., and Fathers add Qebv, which, though approved of by Lucke,
De Wette, Reiche, is with justice not accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., since it
may easily be recognized to be an interpolation. K* has rb dlyB.; Xi, however,
rbv. — ij Qui] aiuviog]. According to A, B, X, many min., etc., the article y, which
is only supported by a few rain., is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted,
inasmuch as it is either Qu^ aiuviog, or y Quy ij aiuviog, or y aiijviog Quy (John xvii.
3), that always appears iu John, but never y Qu^ aiuviog. The grounds which
Frommann (p. 91 ff.) adduces for the retention of the article are not adequate.
— Ver. 21. Instead of iavroig (Rec, according to A, K, etc, Tisch.), B, G, X*
(Xl : iavroig) read iavrd (Lachm.); this is probably a correction with reference to
reKvla, Ver. 1 shows that the believer, as born of God, necessarily loves his
brother. The two elements of the Christian life, faith and lovp, are repre
sented in their real unity. — ndg b niareiuv bn 'lyaoig eanv b Xpiarbg
refers back to chap. iv. 15 ; comp. ii. 22, iv. 2 ; instead of 6 Xpiarbg, the
apostle in ver. 5 puts b vlbg roi Qeoi ; comp. iii. 23, from which, however, it
does not follow that 6 Xpiarog and 6 vlbg rov Qeov are to the apostle exactly
identical ideas, but certainly that he only is Christ to him, who is also Son
of God. That John says here b Xpiarbg, is occasioned by the antithesis to

CHAP. V. 2. 601
the false teachers; comp. on this Weiss, p. 155 ff. Grotius erroneously
explains: qui credere .se ostendil: it is not the manifestation of faith, but
faith itself, that is the subject. — e/c roi Qeoi yeyiwyrai; for faith is not a
human, but a divine work in us.^ This first sentence forms the premise
from which the apostle draws his conclusion. He does not specially
emphasize the self-evident intermediate thought: ndg b yeyevvypevog eK rov
Qeov dyanq. rbv Qebv, but presupposing it,^ he Says: kuI ndg b dyanuv rbv
yevvy aavra, dyana Kal rbv yeyewypivov i^ airoi)]. b yeyew, i^ airoi
is not "Christ" (Augustine, Hilarius, a Lapide, etc.), but "the believer."
Calvin, correctly : Sub numero singulari omnes fideles Ap, designat. Est
autem argumentum ex communi naturae ordine sumptum. By the last thought
Calvin rightly indicates why the apostle here says "rbv yewyaavra"
instead of rbv Qebv, and "rbv yeyewypivov i^ airoi" instead of rbv
dbelipbv. — dyan^ is not subjunctive "let him love," but indicative "he
loves ; " John is here expressing not an exhortation, but a fact.
Ver. 2 states how love to the " children of God " is to be recognized.
The sign of it is: brav rbv Qebv dyanupev Kal rdg ivroldg avrov
rypupev {noiupev). The difiiculty, that whereas elsewhere the keeping of
the commandments or brotherly love is mentioned as the evidence of love
to God (or of knowing God), comp. ii. 3, iv. 20, 21, here the converse
relationship is represented, so that, as De Wette says, "the apostle here
makes the cause (love to God) the toke'n of the effect (love to the breth
ren)," cannot be solved by the arbitrary assumption of an attraction, which
Oecumenius supposes when he interprets, Selypa r^f eig Qebv dydnyg rijv eig rbv
dSelipbv (ij-aTTj^v rlBerai, and which Grotius distinctly expresses when he para^
phrases: iv roirip yivuoKopev bn rbv Qebv dyanupev, brav dyanupev rd reKva airoi
Kal rdg ivroldg airoi rypupev ; nor even with De Wette by the view " that rdg
evroldg airoi rypupev is the principal clause, and rbv Qebv dyanupev only the
anticipated confirraation of it, so that the one result of love to God is put
for a token of the other:" but the explanation lies in this, that these two
elements, " love to God " and " love to the brethren as children of God," in
reality mutually prove one another.' By the addition of the words, kuI rdg
ivroldg airov rypupev, it is brought out that love to God necessarily shows
itself in the obedient keeping of His commandments. This obedience,
rooted iu love to God, is equally with the former the token of true brotherly
love, because the commandments of God include the duties which we owe
> The relationship between being bom of 2 That this thought is presupposed by
God and faith is not to be expressed thus, John, which Ebrard and Braune erroneously
that first the latter and then the former deny, is proved by the fact that John does
follows; but neither is it first the former and not say here, 6 eK tou ©eou Yeyei'rTj^ei'os, but
then the latter, but being born of God hap- Instead of it, 6 dyanuv rov yevvriaavra,
pens in this way, that God works faith in ' He who loves God has therein an evidence
raan. "The new birth is," as it -runs in the that he loves the brethren also — as riKva toB
Mecklenburg Catechism, "the working and ©eoO, because brotherly love is the «ece«»on/
gift of faith." The mareveiv, which begins result of love to Qod; but it is also quite as
with the gift of niartf, is therefore the result, true that he who loves the brethren has
and hence also the token, of being born of therein an evidence of love to God, because
God, as the iroieiv r-iiv Sticatoavvriv (chap. ii. 29) the latter is the necessarj/ cause of tha
and the dyanfv (ehap. iii. 7). former.

602 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
to the brethren. He therefore who regards it as incumbent on him to fulfil
God's coraraandraents, possesses therein the evidence that he loves his
brethren, the riKva roi Qeov, that his love to them is not mere appearance,
but reality : similarly Liicke, Sander, Bauragarten-Crusius, Ewald, Diister
dieck, Braune, interpret; Calvin, on the other hand, gives the thought an
erroneous direction when he says : " nunc docet, recte et ordine amari homines,
quum Deus priores obtinet ; vult sic mutuam coli inter nos caritatem, ut Deus
praeferatur," — It is further to be observed, that the first dyanupev is neither
subjunctive nor used instead of the future (Carpzov, Lange), but is simple
indicative; and that brav is not =; quamdiu (Carpzov, Lange), but con
ditional particle, as iuv, chap. ii. 3.
Ver. 3 refers to the last two ideas, which were simply mentioned co-
ordinatively, and expresses their unity: airy ydp ianv ij cij-iiTn? Tofi Qeoi], airy
is explained by the following iva, — iariv is to be kept in its proper meaning,
though tva follows ; the paraphrase : " it brings this with it, it includes
the endeavor " (De Wette), weakens the thought ; 'iva states the import of the
dyuny r, Qeov, to the realization of which it is directed. Quite incorrectly
Grotius takes y dydny metonymically for : ostensio dilectionis. — koi al ivrolal
avrov ^apelat OVK e'lalv is connected with the preceding as a new idea; 0ape'iai
= "heavy, as an oppressive burden ; " ^ comp. Luke xi. 46 : ipoprla Sva^uaraKra,
and Matt. xi. 30 : Bopriov ilaippbv. It is grammatically incorrect to explain
Papelai: "difficult to fulfil" (Ebrard). The idea is, indeed, expressed
absolutely, but from the confirmation that follows in ver. 4 it is evident
that the apostle meant it in special reference to those who are born of God.
Ver. 4. Confirmation of the preceding thought. — ndv rb yeyewypivov ix
roi Qeoi]. The neuter is used here as in Gospel of John iii. 6, vi. 37, xvii.
2; it serves "to bring out the general category;" see Meyer on John iii. 6;
comp. Winer, p. 180; according to the sense = ndvreg ol, K.r.l., it is not the
disposition, but persons, that are meant. Quite erroneous is the remark of
Bauragarten-Crusius: "the yeyew. Ik r, Q, has here only an external signifi
cation: whatever has the position of God's children." — viku rbv Kbapov, for
pelQuv eariv b iv airoig, y b iv rd) Koapu, chap. iv. 4. — viko is the siraple present;
in the confiict between the Kbapog and him who is born of God, the latter
is constantly gaining the victory. Baumgarten-Crusius unsatisfactorily ex
plains viK&v by " to keep one's self innocent ; " this does not exhaust the idea
of victory ; that is not obtained when we take our stand against the enemy,
but only when the enemy is overcome. The completion of the victory in
its full sense certainly only takes place with the second coming of Christ. —
Rickli and De Wette explain Kbapog by "love of the world and of self:"
better Liicke, Calvin, Sander, Dusterdieck, Briickner, etc., "all that strives

1 Spener: " We are to understand the after His own image, cannot be grievous to
heaviness of a burden that is so oppressive the latter; if, however, they are so, that is
that one cannot bear it, that is, painful." because raan has departed from his original
Calo\ius : " Dicit ea non esse gravia, quia non relationship to God; to the believer they are
aggravant, aut instar molis onerosae praeraunt not grievous, because as the child of God he
renatura." The coraraandraents of God, as has gone back to the original relationship of
tjie deraands of His love on man, who is made love to God.

CHAP. V. 5, 6. 603
against the wil] of God within and without man ; " but even this is too
abstract. It is the kingdom of the wicked one, which, under its prince the
Devil, striving against the kingdom of God, seeks to tempt the believer to
unbelief and disobedience to the divine commands. — As the apostle wants
to show how he that is born of God overcomes the world, he continues : kuI
airy iariv y vlKy y viKyaaaa rbv Koapov y niang ypuv. The pronoun
airy refers to ij niang ypCrv, which in its import is no other than the mang, bn
'lyaovg iariv b vibg roi Qeoi, ver. 5. The expression is peculiar, inasmuch as
faith is described as the viKy itself, and the viKglv is ascribed to it. Lorinus
rightly remarks : victoria proprie non vincit, sed comparatur pugnando, sed
energiam continet ea formula, denotans in quo sita sit vincendi ratio, unde
victoria porta.''- The aorist vmyaaaa is not to be turned into the present
(a Lapide, Lorinus, Grotius, etc.) ; even though the victory is a continuous
one, in which every believer is constantly taking part, the aorist neverthe
less indicates that faith from the beginning overcame the world. The
explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius : " it is already victory won that ye
have become believers " (similarly Neander), is incorrect ; it is not here
intended to commend faith as the result of a fight, but as that which fights,
and which has won the victory; hence the active ij vtKyaaaa (so also Braune).
Ver. 5. Confirraation of the preceding thought by au appeal to the expe
rience of the readers (Liicke). — rig ianv d vikuv, K.r.l.]. The same form of
speech as in chap. ii. 22. The thought is: " Credens omnis et solus vincit"
(Bengel). With bn 'lyaoig iariv, k.t.1., comp. ver. 1, chap. ii. 22, iii. 23. — The
believer is victorious because he is born of God; vv. 1 and 4 (Diisterdieck).
Vv. 6-12. That Jesus is the Son of God, is confirmed by divine testimony.
Ver. 6. In order to arrive at an understanding of this verse we must first
of all look at the expression, ipxeaBai Si iSarog koI aiparog. The question, what
is to be understood by iSup and alpa, has been answered in very different
ways. The explanations worthy of notice are these : 1. That the apostle
means thereby the blood and water which flowed from Christ's side on the
cross, John xix. 34 ; this explanation is found in Augustine, Vatablus, and
many of the old commentators ; but some of them consider that the apostle
here mentions this water and blood as the proof of the actual occurrence of
the death of Christ, others that he uses them as symbols of baptism and the
Lord's Supper. 2. That by vSup and alpa are to be understood the sacra
ments appointed by Christ ; this is the explanation of Wolf (who, however,
understands an allusion to the incident recorded in John xix. 34), S. Schmid,
Carpzovius, Baur, Sander, Besser, and others.'' 3. That by iSup John means
1 Ebrard opposes this explanation with the understand the phrase of baptism merely. . . .
arbitrary statement that >i i/i/ci; " Is the action Christ comes not by water only, but by water
which conquers the world " ( II. which is mixed with blood, that is, by baptisra,
2 To this class belongs also Luther's inter- which is colored with blood." So also in the
pretation (in the 1st ed. of Walch), which, interpretation of the following verse . "If you
however, differs in this, that according to it are baptized with water, the blood of Christ
water and blood together constitute the sacra- is sprinkled by the Word. If you are bap-
ment of baptism; ho says: "Most common- tized In blood, you are at the same time
tators consider both sacraments; . . . I do washed by the Holy Spirit through the Word."
not object, indeed, to this explanation, but I In his 2d ed., on the other hand, Luther under-

604 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the baptism of Christ by John the Baptist, and by aipa the atoning death
which He suffered. This is the, explanation of Tertullian, Theophylact,
Cappellus, Heumann, Semler, Storr, Lange, Bauragarten-Crusius, Hilgen
feld, Neander, Ewald,"^ Bruckner, Liicke (third edition, Introduction, p. 160;
comp. Bertheau's note on this passage, p. 381), Erdraann, Myrberg, Weiss,
Braune, etc. Not a few commentators, however, divide the explanation,
understanding iSup of the baptism appointed by Christ, and alpa of His own
death ; so Hornejus, Knapp, Liicke (in the commentary on this passage ; also
in the third edition. Introduction, p. 110; differently. Introduction, p. 160),
De Wette, Rickli, Gerlach, Frommann (p. 596), Diisterdieck, etc.- — By
many commentators (as Bede, a Lapide, Russmeyer, Spener, Bengel, etc.)
different interpretations are connected together in one or the other of these
ways.' To these interpretations may be added others, the arbitrariness of which is
evident at the first glance. To this class the following belong: 1. That by Mop
and aipa John denotes the two elements of the physical life of Jesus; this is the
view of Schulthess. Wetstein adds even the following nveipa, and says that
the apostle wants to prove that Christ was a verus homo, who was formed ex
spiritu, sanguine et aqua sive humore.^ 2. That by both words, or at least by
iSup, the ethical nature of Christ is indicated; thus Grotius interprets St' vSarog
= per vitam purissimam, quae per aquam signijicari solet. Socinus uuder
stands by vSup: ipsa doctrina pura cum vitae puritate conjuncta. 3. That in
vbup and aipa it is not so much the baptism and death of Christ themselves that
are to be thought of, as rather the testimonies that were given in connection
with them ; in vSup the testimony of the divine voice in the baptism (Wahl) ; in
aipa either the testimony of the good centurion (Stroth), or the events that
followed the death of Jesus, namely. His resurrection and ascension (Wahl,
stands water and blood, with reference to differing from the water of baptism, which
John xix. 34, of the two sacraments : " This John also performed ; " then on p. 470 he
brief summary has been kept in the Church, asserts that vSivp is not the baptism which
that out of the side of Jesus the two sacra- Jesus received, but that which He introduced,
raeuts flowed." hence it denotes that which Jesus had in
1 Ewald understands by them, however, not common with the Baptist ; and in ii. 2, p. 221,
merely the baptism and the death, but by iiSup he desci-ibes iiSup precisely aa " the baptism
the baptisra, " with every thing special which with water originated by John." But how
besides occurred in His case," and by alpa strange it is to say, nevertheless, that the bap-
" the bloody death on the cross, with every tism which Jesus introduced is the baptism of
thing still more wonderful that was connected water originated by John I
with it." 3 Ijengel : ^* Aqua dicit baptismum, quem
2 To this class Ebrard also belongs, but he primum adralnistravit Johannes; ideo In aqua
differs from the other commentators in this baptizare missus, ut Jesus manifestaretur tan-
respect, that he understands by vhmp Christian quara Filius Dei. Porro baptismus etiam per
baptism indeed, but " not the entire sacrament disclpulos Jesu administratus est. Sanguis
of baptism (consisting of symbol aud thing est utique sanguis — Jesu Christi, qui effusus
signified), but only the symbol in the sacra- in passione, in coena dominica bibitur." Ter.
ment;" hence, only that side of Christian tullian says: "Venerat per aquam et san-
baptism in which it is Identical with the bap. guinem, sicut Joh. scripsil, ut aqua tlngeretur,
tisraofjohn. Clearly an unjustifiable division sanguine glorificaretur. Proinde ut nos aqua
of the sacrament I The same view is no doubt f aceret vocatos, sanguUie electos, hos duos
that of Hofmann, who says (.Schriftbew., IL baptismos de vulnere perfossi laterls emislt."
1, p. 76) : " aljLta is, in contrast with uSujp, tbe * Similarly Paulus In reference to alpa;
blood shed by Jesus for the remission of sins, v&iup he understands of the baptism of John.

CHAP. V. 6. 605
Ziegler, Lange), or even the testimony of God in John xii. 28 (Oecumenius). i
4. That in these two expressions we are to consider the operations brought into
exercise by Christ; in vSup, regeneratio et fides (Clemens AL), or purgatio
(Cameron); in aipa, cognitio (Clemens Ah), or expiatio (Cameron), or redemptio
(Bullinger). To this class belongs also Calvin's explanation: ego existimo
Joannem hicfructum et effectum exprimere ejus rei, quam in historia evangelica
narrat. Christi latus sanguinis et aquae fons erat, ut scirent fldeles, veram
munditiem' (cujus figurae erant veteres baptismi) in eo sibi constare : ut scirent
etiam eompletum, quod omnes sanguinis aspersiones olim promiserant. 5. That
those expressions and nveipa are descriptive of the threefold redemptive ofiice
of Christ: that vbup (= coelestis doctrini, Bullinger) represents Him as prophet,
aipa as priest, and nveipa as king. Here may be added the strange explanation
of iSup as the tears which Jesus shed on various occasions, and of alpa as the
blood which He shed at His circumcision. Again, some of the old commenta
tors understood by alpa the blood of the martyrs.
It is at all events incorrect to permit ourselves, in the interpretation of
vbup and aljui, to be led by the question as to the nature of their testimony
(Sander : " It must be maintained as the chief difficulty in the passage before
us, what are the three witnesses on earth "), for that is not the subject in this
verse, in which the nveipa only is mentioned as bearing witness.^ By the
words oirof ianv, k.t.1., the apostle simply states who Jesus the Son of God
is. — With regard to the expression 6 ilBuv Si', k.t.I,, most commentators
interpret as if it were "oirog ipxerai," or, "oirbg ianv ipxbpevog.'' Others, it is
true, have not overlooked the aorist, but they interpret it as if it expressed
something present ; thus Sander = " has come and comes," against which
Bengel rightly says, non dicit: b ipxbpevog in Praesenti, sed b ilBuv Aoristo
tempore, Praeteriti vim hahenti.- It is true, it is further correct when, in oppo
sition to De Wette, who takes ilBC)v as synonymous with ilylvBug, chap. iv. 2,
Briickner objects that by the aorist as a purely historic tense nothing con
tinuous or permanent is expressed ; but even then the expression does not
obtain complete justice. It is to be observed that John did not write "ylBe,''
or " 'eariv ilBuv," but iariv b llBuv. By the participle with the definite article,
it is not a verbal, but a nominal, and, if it is not in apposition to a preceding
substantive (as in John i. 18, 29, iii. 13, vi. 44, and passim), a substantive
idea that is expressed ; comp. John i. 15, 33, iii. 31, 36, and many other
passages. It therefore does not mean "this came," or "this is one who
came," but " this is he that came ; " by this predicate it is not merely stated

^ Oecumenius ; Sia rov vfiaTos, rovTianv, ev bear witness," and then " it is only through
TU 5i' iiSaroi fiarrrtapart i^e^dvdrf v'tbi ©eov 6 the rrvevpa that both of them, which in tliem-
'Irfffov^ 6ta T^s TOU iraTpoff paprvpia^' Std 8e rov selves give no testimony, likewise becorae wit-
aiparoi' 'on peKKbiv aravpovaBai e\eye, So^aaov nesses'* — has in his discussion of the mean-
pe ail rrdrep, Kai r]ve)^9n i) iPiovrj, Kat iSo^aaa, lug of vSitjp and alpa all along regarded them
Kat rrd^iv So^daw Sia Se ToD nvevparog, 'on w; as " witnesses " for the Messiahship of Jesus.
©eos dviarrt €k veKpdv. Briickner also, in his interpretation of the
2 This is usually too little noticed by com- ideas vStap and alpa, has all along included the
mentators. Even Liicke — who remarks on the element of testimony, whereby the clearness
following words, Ka't to rrvevpa, K.T.\., that " it of his statement is only too rauch diminished.
was not said of the water and blood that they

606 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
what the subject which is here spoken of (namely, oirog) has done, but the
subject is thereby characterized as the particular person to whora this predi
cate is suitable as a specific characteristic ; according to the analogy of John
i. 33 (oirbg ianv b jianriQuv 'ev nveipan dyiu), iii. 13 (b iK roi oipavoi Kora^dg),
and other passages, the expression therefore serves to state something char
acteristic of the Messianic office of Christ. If this is taken into considera
tion, the incorrectness of Augustine's interpretation (see above) follows ;
for even if the flowing of the blood and water from the side of Jesus was
intended by John not so much as a proof of the actual occurrence of Christ's
death (Liioke), but as a wonder proving the Messiahship of Jesus (Meyer on
John xix. 34), yet this would be only a very subordinate proof, which by
no means states a characteristic sign of the Messiah as such. — In the life
of Jesus there are two points which correspond with the expressions vSup
and alpa, namely. His baptism at the beginning of His Messianic work, and
His bloody death at the end of it ; by His baptism Jesus entered on His medi
atorial work ; it formed the initiatio (Erdraann, Myrberg) of it, but this did
not take place only by means of what happened at the baptisra, but by the
act of baptisra itself ; by His death he eifected the atoneraent itself, inasrauch
as by His blood he blotted out the guilt of the sinful world, for 3:up£c aiparsKxv-
a'lag oi yiverai dipeaig (Heb. ix. 22). John may with justice therefore describe
Christ as the Mediator by calling Him the one who came Si' vSarog koI aiparog.^
Against the view that vbup and alpa are to be understood of the sacraments
instituted by Christ, is not only the circumstance that these are only the
means for the appropriation of the atonement effected by Him, whereas the
subject here is the accomplishment ofthe atonement itself, but also the use of
the aorist elBuv, instead of which, in that case, the present would have to be
used, and also the expression alpa, which by itself alone never in the N. T.
signifies the Lord's Supper; even in 1 Cor. xii. 13 inorlaByoav is not an
allusion to the Lord's Supper, but to the communication of the Spirit in bap
tism. In opposition to the idea that aipa indeed signifies the death which
Christ suffered, but that vSup does not denote the baptism which He received,
but the baptism which He instituted, are (1) that the close connection of
the two words (without repetition of Sid before aiparog) is only suitable if the
ideas correspond with one another, which is not the case if by Si' vSarog we
understand an institution of Christ, but by aiparog, on the other hand, the
blood shed by Christ ; '' (2) that the simple expression vSup is little suited for
a description of Christian baptism ; " (3) that as the institution of baptism

1 That "Jesus in both cases proved His Christian baptisra is something at present ex-
obedience to His Father's will, and that His isting, but the blood which Christ shed is ouly
obedience proved Him to be the Son of (3-od, regarded as such by John. It is no better
the holy and innocent One" (Braune), are with the interpretation of Hofmann, who at
ideas which John here iu no way suggests. one tirae describes aXp.a as " the blood of
2 This inconsistency is only apparently Christ shed for remission," and at another
removed by DUsterdieck's observation that time as " the sprinkling of blood wliich Christ
" John regards the blood of the Lord shed at bestows."
His death as something which has a substan- s it is indeed just this very fact that dis-
tial existence;" for even if this be correct, yet tinguishes Christian baptisra frora that of
there remains the difference that the water of Johu, that the former iu its nature is not vSiap

CHAP. V. 6. 607
took place after the death of Christ, and necessarily presupposes it, John, if
he had understood by iSup Christian baptism, would certainly have put iSarog
not before, but after, aiparog. Hilgenfeld and Neander have rightly shown
that if ipxeaBai St' aiparog signifies something pertaining to the Messiah per
sonally, the same must be the case with ipxeaBai Si' iSarog. The connection
must be the same in both expressions. If by aipa is meant the death which
Christ underwent, then by iSup cau therefore only be meant the baptism
which He likewise underwent.
The objection of Knapp (with whom Liicke and Sander agree), that ilBiiv Si'
iSarog in this sense is much more appropriately said of Johu the Baptist than of
Christ, is untenable, for that expression may at least just as well be used of him
who allowed himself to be baptized as of him who baptized; Erdmann: sane id
non alius momenti, ac si quis objiceret, ipxeaBai Si' aiparog non -posse did de
Christi sanguine et morte, sed potius de iis, qui cruentain mortem ei paraverint.
There is just as little in the objection of Liicke, that Christ allowed Himself to
be baptized, not in order to purify Himself, but to fulfil all righteousness ; since
two ideas are here placed in antagonism to one anotber, which are by no means
mutually exclusive, as Jesus underwent the baptism of purification just for the
very purpose of fulfilling all righteousness.
With regard to the expression ilBdiv Std, Std is not to be separated from
ilBuv, so that o ilBuv in itself would denote " the Saviour who came," and Si',
K.r.l., would state " in what way Jesus is the Saviour who came " (Hofmann,
in the Schriftbeio., second edition, p. 469) ; for that Christ is called 6 ipxbpevog
(Matt. xi. 4 ; Luke vii. 19, 20) does not confirm, but contradicts, this inter
pretation ; besides, John does not here want to bring out how Jesus is the
Messiah, but that He is so. The preposition Sid has been differently
explained : usually it is here taken simply in the sense of accompaniment,
which, however, is unjustifiable; in this commentary, with reference to
Heb. ix. 12 (where it is indicated by did that the high priest entered into
the holy place by means of the blood which he had with him), the idea of
instrumentality is combined with that of accompaniment, inasmuch as
Jesus operated as mediator by means of iSup koI alpa ; similarly Briickner
explains SUi as a preposition of instrumentality, namely, in the pEissive
sense, as " by which he was proved ; " Sid, however, is here connected
neither with an idea of operation nor of verification, but with ilBuv.
Weiss takes the preposition in this way, that iSup k. aipa are thereby
" introduced as historical elements of the life of Christ, through which His
career passed, " but it might be more suitable to interpret Si iS., k.t.1., in
this way, that thereby the elements are brought out by which the ilMuv was
specially characterized; just as in 2 Cor. v. 7, by Sid mareug the feature is
mentioned by which our present nepmarelv is characterized ; corap. also Rom.
viii. 24 : Si' vnopovyg dneKSexbpeBa, and Heb. xii. 1 ; Braune simply abides by
as the latter is, as John the Baptist himself, was described by him as 6 ^arrniuv iv nved-
marking his difference from Christ, said : iyia pan dyiu (John i. 33).
^anrtiixi ev vSan (John i. 26), whereas Jesus

608 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the idea of instrumentality, without further explaining himself on the
subject. The question, whether oirog refers to 'lyaoig or to b vibg roi Qeoi, is
to be answered in this way, that it refers to the whole idea : 'lyaoig b vlbg ruv
Qeov ; Jesus, the Son of God, is the subject of Christian faith ; it is He who
came by water and blood. In favor of this reference is the addition 'lyaoig
b Xpiarbg, which, as 'lyaovg shows, is not an explanatory apposition of the
predicate (" He who came by water and blood," i.e., Christ), but is in
apposition to the subject ovrog, which is more, particularly defined by the
predicate ; the preceding 'lyaoig b vlbg roi Qeov is thereby resumed, but in this
way, that in consequence of 6 il£ijv, k.t.1., the idea 6 v'lbg roi Qeoi is changed
into b Xpiarog. — The import of the preceding lies, as cannot be doubted,
simply in the statement which is therein contained; Ebrard, indeed, thinks
that the apostle wants thereby to express " that in the loving and merciful
act of the devotion of Jesus to death lies the power by which He has
overcome the world;" but although in the preceding the victory over the
world is ascribed to the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, yet it is not to
be inferred from this that it is Christ's victory over the world that is the
subject here, as John does not make the most remote suggestion of that. —
By the words: oi/c iv ru vSari pbvov dll' iv ru iSan Kal ru alpan,
the apostle brings out with special emphasis the fact that Jesus did not
come by water ouly, but by both water and blood ; as the latter two, in their
combination, are contrasted with the former one, the principal emphasis
plainly falls on the blood, as that by which the Mediatoi' as such has
operated. This emphasis is not intended for the purpose of indicating the
difference between Jesus and John the Baptist (Liicke, De Wette, Diister
dieck, Ebrard) ; for, on the one hand, it is self-evident to Christians that
Jesus would not be the mediator if He had not acted differently from John ;
and, on the other hand, the feature which distinguishes Jesus from John in
regard to baptism is this, that the latter baptized with water, but the former
baptizes with the Holy Ghost.^ The addition has a poleraic import (not
against " disciples of John," Ewald, but) against the Docetans, who in a
certain sense indeed taught that Christ came Si' vSarog, but denied that He
came Si' aiparog, inasmuch as, according to their heresy, Christ united
Himself with Jesus at His baptisra, but separated from Hira again before
His death (Erdraann, Myrberg, Weiss, Braune) ; indeed, it is only by the
reference to these heretics, against whom the apostle frequently directs a
polemic in the Epistle, that the whole section from ver. 6 to ver. 12 can be
explained. — With regard to grammar, it is to be observed that pavov is not
connected with oi, but with iSan, and therefore there cau be no kui after
dUd, which is not observed by A. Buttmann (p. 317 [E. T., 369 f.]). The

1 Erdmann has rightly pointed out that the subordinate clause, in the former of a baptism
view, according to which ilSwp is uuderstood which was not merely a baptisra of water, but
of the baptisra instituted by Christ, is opposed also of the Spirit, but in the latter of a baptism
to the Idea that the addition refers to John the which is only a baptisra of water; but that
Baptist; this antagonisra can only be reraoved would be an interpretation which condemns
if we explain the idea vSiap in the principal itself.
clause differently from its meaning in this

CHAP. V. 6. 609
preposition iv simply expresses the idea of accompaniment without bringing
out the accessory notion which lies in Sid; corap. Heb. ix. 12 and 25. — The
definite article before iSari and alpan is explained by the fact that both have
been already mentioned. Bengel, correctly : Articulus habet vim relativam. —
KoX rb -nveipa ianv rb paprvpoiv]. Just as in regard to vSup and alpa, so in
regard to nveipa, the views of commentators vary very much. The following
opinions are to be rejected as utterly arbitrary: (1) that it denotes the
psychical element, which, with aipa and iSup as the physical elements, con
stituted the human nature of Christ (Wetstein) ; (2) that it is the spirit
which Christ at His death committed into His Father's hands (Augustine,
etc.); (3) that it means "the teaching of Jesus" (Carpzovius); (4) that
rb ¦nveipa is — b rrvevpariKbg, whereby John means himself (Ziegler, Stroth).
By rb rrvevpa can only be understood either the Holy Ghost Himself or the
spiritual life produced by Him in believers.* Against the latter view there
are, however, two reasons, — (1) that Tb nveipa never has this meaning
without a more particular definition indicating it; and (2) that the rb
uaprvpoiv, which is added, here defines the nvevpa as soraething specifically
different from the subjective life of man. We must therefore understand by
it the objective Spirit of God, yet not, however, inasmuch as He descended
on Christ at His baptisra, and testified to Him as the Messiah, nor inasrauch
as He was in Christ as the divine power which raanlfested itself in His
miracles,^ but (as most commentators correctly interpret) the Holy Ghost,
whom Christ sent to His disciples at Pentecost, and who is the permanent
possession of His Church. The predicate iari rb paprvpoiv is not put for
paprvpel or for iari paprvpoiv ; here also the article must not be overlooked ;
Tb paprvpoiv is a nominal idea, and, moreover, not adjectival, but substantive:
"the Spirit is the witness" (Liicke). The office of witnessing belongs
essentially to the Holy Ghost; comp. Jphn xv. 26.' — As the apostle con
tinues : on rb nveipd ianv fj dlyBeia, he seems thereby to state the object of
uaprvpelv;'^ but this view is opposed to the whole context, according to
which the apostle does not want to bring out that the Spirit is truth, but
"that Jesus the Son of God is the Christ." Therefore on here must, with
Gerhard, Calovius, and most modern commentators (De Wette, Liicke,
* Sander is very uncertain in his explana- with the act of overcoming the world," is
tion of TO rrvevpa ; first he explains it by " the simply to be rejected.
conversion of man accoraplished by the com- * In connection with this view, Luther takes
munication of the Holy G-host," but then he to nvevpa in a different sense from that in the
puts instead of tbis, without further explana- principal sentence, namely, as " the word
tion : " those who are born of the Spirit " ( I). which has saved us by baptism and by blood,"
^ (rrotius understauds by to nvevpa even and of which the .Spirit bears witness tliat it ¦
tbe miracles themselves : " admiranda ejus proceeds frora the Spirit of truth, and is the
opera a virtute divina manifeste proceden- truth itself ; Besser distinguishes to ttv. in the
tia." principal clause frora the nv. in the subordinate
8 The assertion of Ebrard, that John in clause, in that he understands by the former
these words shows " how and how far our " the Spirit bearing witness to the heart of
faith in Christ, in consequence of the fact that believers," and by the latter " the Spirit dorai-
Christ bears in Himself the power that over- nating in the sacraraents and in the word."
comes the world, is itself an overcoming Ebrard interprets ; " the Spirit evidences itself
power," and that paprvpetv therefore "raust . . . by its power;" clearly the words " by Us
denote an act which is in substance ideutical power " are a pure importation.

610 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Dusterdieck, Erdmann, Myrberg, Braune), be taken as causal particle, so
that the subordinate clause serves to strengthen the preceding thought. It
is because the Spirit is the truth, that the Spirit is the witness in the fullest
sense of the word. — To interpret i) dlyBeia = dlyBig (Grotius) is to weaken
the thought ; by the definite article the idea dlyBeia is indicated in its full
concrete vividness ; comp. John xiv. 6, where Christ calls Himself y dlyBeia.
Weiss calls attention to the way in which this designation proves the person
ality of the Spirit, inasrauch as "the truth is the nature of God Himself
made manifest." — The object which is to be supplied with rb paprvtmiv can
be no other than the thought which John has pre viou.sly expressed in the
first half of the verse.
Ver. 7. By means of the witness of the Spirit, water and blood also
attain to the position of witnesses. As such John now adduces them in
connection with the Spirit, in order by the weight of this threefold witness
to confirm the truth that the Son of God, who is identical with Jesus, is
the Messiah. — The bn which begins the verse means neither "jam vero "
(Grotius, Calov.), nor "hence'' (Meyer), nor "consequently" (Baumgarten-
Crusius), but "for.'' This connection with the foregoing is explained by
the fact that the truth of the testimony of the Holy Ghost (who is the truth
itself) is strengthened by the circumstance that it is not He alone that bears
witness, but that with Him the water and the blood bear witness also, as
the two elements by means of which the atonement took place (similarly
Liicke). 1 De Wette unnecessarily supplies : " and, humanly considered; the
witness is also tru6,yo7'." Paulus connects ver. 9, as consequent, with this
verse as antecedent: "because there are three, etc., then, if, etc., the
witness of God is much greater.' This construction, which is contrary to
the style of John, is the more to be rejected as an erroneous idea arises
from it. — rpelg eiaiv ol paprvpoivreg]. The masculine is used because the
three that are mentioned are regarded as concrete witnesses (Liicke, etc.),
but not because they are " types of men representing these three " (Bengel),^
or symbols ofthe Trinity (as they are interpreted in the Scholion of Mat
thaei, p. 138, mentioned in the critical notes). It is uncertain whether
John brings out this triplicity of witnesses with reference to the well-known
legal rule, Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15, Matt, xviii. 16, etc., as several commenta
tors suppose. It is not to be deduced from the present, that vSup and alpa
are things still at present existing, and hence the sacraments; for by means
of the witness of the Spirit the whole redemptive life of Christ is perma
nently present, so that the baptisra and death of Jesus — although belonging
to the past — prove Him constantly to be the Messiah who makes atone
ment for the world (so also Braune). The participle ol paprvpoivreg,
» " In ver. 6 it was said tbat the witnessing ' Tropum . . . Ap. adhlbet . . . ut hoo dicat ;
Spirit is the truth, and hence it is implied that, tria sunt genera hominum, qui ministerio
to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Spirit testandi in terra fuuguntur: (1) illud . . .
unites with the water and blood, as the testi- genus testlum, quod praeconlo evangelii vacat;
raouy of the truth. As Johu now assuraes this (2) illud gen. test., quod baptisraura adminls-
conclusion from ver. 6, he adds, passing on to trat, ut Johannes baptista et caeteri; (3) illud
another subordinate confirmatory proof : for," gen. test.; quod passionem et mortem Domini
etc. spectavit et celebrat.

CHAP. y. 7. 611
instead of the substantive oi puprvpeg, etiiphasizes more strongly the activity
of the witnessing. — rb nveiua kuI rb vSup Kal rb alpa]. All these three
expressions have here, of course, the same meaning as previously.* — kuI
oi rpelg eig rb iv elaiv]. Luther, inaccurately : " and these three are one ; " rb iv
is the one specific object of the witness; "the three are directed to this one,''
namely, in their thus unanimous witness. Storr, inaccurately : " they serve
one cause, they promote one and the same object, namely, the object
previously mentioned (v. 1, 5)."
Eemaek. — According to the Rec. , after oi paprvpovvreg appear the words Iv
ru oipavu . . . ol paprvpovvreg iv ry yy (see the critical notes). Luther says in
reference to them : " It appears as if this verse was inserted by the orthodox
against the Arians, which, however, cannot suitably be done, because both here
and there he speaks not of witnesses in heaven, but of witnesses on earth."
With this most modern commentators agree, with the exception of Besser and
Sander. It is true, that, if we consider the contents of the ivhole Epistle, the
idea of the three witnesses in heaven may be brought into connection with
something or other that appears in the Epistle; but it does not follow from this
that that idea has here a suitable, or even a necessary, place. This plainly is
not the case, so much the more, as neither in what follows, nor in what imme
diately precedes, with which ver. 7 is closely connected by bn, is there the
slightest reference to such a witness of the Trinity. There are clear and intelli
gible grounds in the foregoing for adducing the three witnesses nveipa, vSup,
aipa, but not for adducing the three witnesses 6 naryp, 6 loyog, rb nveiua dyiuv;
this trinity appears quite unprepared for; but the sequel is also opposed to it,
for it makes it unintelligible what witness is meant by the paprvpia roi Qeoi,
ver. 9, whether that of the three in heaven, or that of the three on earth. — To
this it may be added that these two different classes of witnesses appear together
quite unconnected; it is said, indeed, that these three witnesses agree in one,
but not in what relationship the two threes stand to one another. — Besides,
however, the idea in itself is utterly obscure ; for what are we to understand by
a witness in heaven? Bengel, it is true (with whom Sander agrees), says:
"non fertur testimonium in coelo, sed in terra: qui autem testantur, sunt in
terra, sunt in coelo ; i.e,, illi sunt naturae terrestris et humanae, hi autem
naturae divinae et gloriosae." How untenable, however, this is, is shown, on
the one hand, in the fact that iv ru oipavu does not belong to eiaiv, but rather to
paprvpoivreg, and the text therefore does not speak of being, but of bearing
witness, in heaven ; and, on the other hand, in the fact that according to it the
* Weiss erroneously refers the witness of blood of Christ, i.e., His atoning death, . . .
the baptism here to that which was given at not, however, the blood of Christ alone, but
the baptism of Christ, and the witness of the also the power of the blood of the testimony,
death to that which was given at the outflow- which is shed from time to time by His disci-
Ing of His blood. — Itisnotby what happened pies for the sake of confessing Jesus." To
in connection with them, but .in themselves, this Ebrard further adds : " we may say that
that iJfiiop and alpa are the fiapTupoiJi'Tes. — \a the water of baptism I3 embodied the con-
According to Ebrard, iiSojp here " is the bap- fession which by its firrauees overcomes tbe
tism of water instituted by Christ, as an ex- lie, and in the blood of testimony that love
ternal institution, ... as the representation of which by patience overcomes the power of the
every means of grace to be administered by flesh." This interpretation needs no refuta.
men, above all in its connection with the tion.
preaching of the word ; " and alpa is " the

612 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
nveipa which is connected with vbup and aipa must be regarded as something
earthly and human. — There is further the un-Johannean character of the
diction, as by John 6 Oeoc and 6 A 6 y of, and similarly 6 Trar^p and b utof, are
certainly conjoined, but never b narijp and 6 Ibyog, Sander avails himself of
tbe assuraption, which is certainly very easy, of a una^ leybpevov; but this is here
unwarrantable, for those ideas are so frequently occurring in John, and that
mode of conjunction is not accidental, but is grounded on the nature of the
case. We see that the interpolator wrote Ibyog, because this suggested itselt to
him as a genuine Johannean expression, without reflecting that its connection
with TTQT^p is un-Johannean. Finally, the koI ovroi oi rpelg ev e'lai is also strange.
Bengel interprets : unum sunt essentia, notitia, voluntate, atque adeo consensu
testimonii, Bengel with justice puts the essentiality first, for it is just this that
is denoted by the expression; but just this is unsuitable here, where the
subject rather is the unity of the witness.
Ver. 9 brings out the greatness of the witness of God, and our obligation
to accept it. The two clauses which are here connected with one another
do not perfectly correspond in form ; for in the antecedent clause the idea
that corresponds to the peiQuv of the consequent clause is not expressed, nor
in the consequent clause the idea that corresponds to the lapffdvopev of the
antecedent. The sentence, if completed, would run : If we receive the wit
ness of men because it is of some value, much more must we receive the
witness of God, as it has a much greater value (comp. A. Buttm., p. 338).
The sentence contains a conclusion ex minore ad majus. The conjunction ei,
as frequently, is not dubitative. — Briickner justly says, in opposition to
Baur: "The witness of men is only alluded to on the side of its judicial
value ; there is not assumed to be in it an import which would be equal to
that of the witness of God by water and blood and spirit." * — y paprvpia rov
Qeov is here used quite generally ; the more particular definition is only given
by the sequel (so also Dusterdieck). — on airy iariv y paprvpia rov Qeoi]. With
bn it seems necessary to supply a thought to which it refers ; Liicke supplies
the thought : " if we accept the witness of God, we must believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God;" DUsterdieck, with whom Braune agrees: "a
witness of God now really exists, namely this . . . ; " but such a supplement
is not necessary if we suppose that the clause beginning with bn is intended
to give the reason of the contrast of the human and of the divine witness
which here appears, in this sense : " I say, y paprvpia rov Qeoi, for . . . " — In
the reading, ot; (instead of yv) pepapripyKe nepl roi vioi airoi, which
is attested by the best manuscripts, this second bn may be taken as causal
particle, in which case airy would be referred to the witness spoken of in
vv. 6 and 7, in this sense: "for this is the witness of God, since He has
testified (it) of Plis Son ; " but the want of an avrbg before pepapripyKe is an
obstacle to this view ; it is therefore better to interpret bn by " that," and to
refer a/vry to this sentence which begins with on (Liicke, Erdmann, Diister
dieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Ewald, Briickner, Braune), so that the sense is:
1 It is quite erroneous for Storr to understand by the witness of men specially the witness of
John the Baptist.

CHAP. V. 10, 11. 613
for this is (therein consists) the witness of God, that He has testified of His
Son. By this witness we are to understand no other than that which was
spoken of in the preceding, namely, the objective witness of the Spirit, not
the internal witness, of which the apostle does not speak until afterwards
(contrary to Dusterdieck), but still less, as Ebrard interprets, the witness
in John i. 33. — With the reading yv, avry must be referred back to the pre
ceding ; the sense then is : " for that (vv. 6 and 7) is the witness of God
which He has testified of His Son."* — The perfect pepapripyKe is here to be
taken in the same way as John frequently uses the perfect, namely, in this
way, that the witness which God has given is to be regarded as permanently
remaining. Ver. 10. God's testiraony of His Son has for its object faith in the Son
of God. Hence, "He that believeth on the Son hath the witness in himself." —
T^v paprvplav, i.e., the witness of God which was previously spoken of; ixet iv
iavru, i.e., the witness is no longer merely external to him, but by virtue of
his faith he has it in (not as Luther translates, " with ") himself ; the external
has becorae internal to him. This thought forms the transition to that con
tained in ver. 11. The believer, namely, has the objective witness in hiraself,
inasmuch as he experiences in his soul the power of the truth attested by
God; yet ryv paprvplav must not here be understood — as in ver. 11 — of this
operation itself (contrary to Dusterdieck). In the interpretation, " he ac
cepts the witness," — for which, corresponding to the ixet, it should at least
be put, "he has accepted it," — the preposition iv does not receive due justice.
— In the following negative sentence, by which the thought expressed is
strengthened and extended, we miist supply with tu Qeu (instead of which
TU viu is not to be read), "ru pepaprvpyKori." — ipevaryv nenoiyKev airbv, see chap.
i. 10. In his unbelief, the witness of God is regarded by him as a lie, and
God, who has given it, therefore as a liar. — This thought is confirmed by
the following words : "for he believeth not (has not become a believer) in the
record which God has given (as a permanent record) of His Son." — With the
participle mareiuv, which describes a general class (not a single particular
individual), py is used ; but with the finite verb neniarevKev it is oi, because
thereby the mareieiv of those that belong to that class is exactly and directly
denied (comp. chap. ii. 4, iii. 10, 14, iv. 8).''
Ver. 11 states in what way that witness of God shows itself as internal
to the believer ; to hira who, by believing, has the objective witness of God
in himself, it is no longer purely objective, but he experiences it in himself
as a divine power, or as the Qu^ aiuviog which God has given him.^ Hence
1 Liicke erroneously thinks that with the deranation operating in the mind of the judge;
reading riv there results only an imperfect differently Winer, p. 441 ff. [E. T., 474]. The
sense, when he says, "the witness of God, distinction lies in this, that by iI/cvo-ttji' Tren-oiij-
which He has testified, consists — in what?" Kev auToi' it is an act of the subject, but by
This appearance of incompleteness disappears, Kiuptrai the action of the judge (i.e., of G-od),
however, as soon as arirrj is referred to the that is indicated.
preceding. * According to Braune, by oti the import
2 It is different in Johu iii. 18, where on ofthe record is meant to be stated; but then
prt nerriarevKev follows 6 pri ntarevtav, but as John would be speaking of a different record
the reason for rjSrj KeKptrat, and where, there- frora that which he mentioned before.
fore, it is considered as the reason of the con-

614 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the apostle says: "And this is the record, bn Quyv aluvtov eSuKev yplv b
Qebg." With ijplv, rolg neniarevKoaiv is to be mentally supplied. — Quy aiuviog
is not " the hope of eternal life " (Bede : dedit nobis vitam aeternam, sed adhuc
in terra peregrinanlihus in spe, quam daturus est in coelis ad se pervenientibus
IN re), but it is this itself, the divine life, of which the believer is even here
a partaker ; what the believer hopes for, that he has already. — Qu^ aluvtov,
as the principal idea, is put first. — iSuKev means, "he gave;" it is not = pro
misit (Socinus), nor does it express merely the firmitatem et certitudinem promissi-
onis divinae (a Lapide). — Myrberg incorrectly finds the import of the paprvpia
of God stated in bn, K.r.l., which is in opposition to the context. The second
part of the verse, kuI avry y Quy iv ru viu avrov ianv, which is not dependent on
bn (Baumgarten-Crusius), but forms a co-ordinate principal clause, gives a
further explanation in regard to Quy aiuviog. Several commentators find this
thought expressed in these words, that we possess the Qu^ aluv. in the Son, i.e.,
in fellowship with the Son : but this the words do not say ; they rather state
where the Qurj aluv., which God gave to believers, had its original place,
namely, in the Son; comp. John i. 4. Frommann (p. 405): "the eternal
life of which the Christian is by faith a partaker is one with the life that
dwells in Christ" (so also Diisterdieck, etc.). Braune incorrectly separates
airy from y Quy, as he puts iar'iv between them in the thought, and refers avry
to the idea atdiviog : " and this . . . namely, aiuvu)g ... is the life," etc.
Ver. 12 states the inference from the immediately preceding thought.
If the Quy is originally in the Son, then he who has the Son has with him
also the Quy, With 6 exuv rbv vlbv, comp. chap. ii. 23. Changing and
weakening the sense, Grotius puts for rbv vlbv: verba illa quae Pater Filio
mandavit ; even ixet ryv Quiyv he erroneously explains by jus certum ad vitam
aeternam. Whilst John in the first clause says simply rbv vlbv, in the second
he adds rov Qeoi ; on this Bengel remarks : habet versus duo cola ; in priore
non additur Dei, nam fideles norunt Filium; in altero additur, ut demum sciant
fideles, quanti sit, non habere.
Ver. 13. Many commentators (Lorinus, Spener, Bengel, Rickli, Baum
garten-Crusius, Liicke, Sander, DUsterdieck, Braune) make the conclusion
of the Epistle begin with this verse ("a sort of concluding section," Ebrard),
referring raira to the whole Epistle. This, however, is incorrect. That
this verse also belongs to the last leading section beginning at iii. 23, is
shown not only by the idea Quyv aiuviov, which refers to what immediately
precedes, but also by the idea mareieiv eig rb bvopa roi vioi rov Qeoi, which refers
back to iii. 23 ; besides, it is to be observed that the following sentences,
vv. 14 and 15, correspond to the thought with which the preceding leading
section ended ; comp. iii. 21, 22. Accordingly, raira is not to be referred to
the whole Epistle, but to the last section, vv. 6-12 (BrUckner), which reaches
its climax in the thought, b ixuv rbv vlbv ixet ryv Quyv ; comp. ii. 1, 21, 26. In
the words iva e'lSyre, bn Quiyv exere a'ldiviov, John states the object for which he
wrote that which is contained in the foregoing. The certainty of the life
which is bestowed on him is so much the more necessary to the Christian's
mind, as this is sometimes hidden from him in the struggles of life — the
life is there, but at times like a hidden treasure. That the possession of

CHAP. V. 16. 615
this life, however, is conditioned by faith, the apostle brings out especially
by an additional clause, which indeed runs differently in the different codices
(see the critical remarks), but in its different forms expresses essentially the
same thought ; according to the probable reading, it is connected with vplv ;
according to A, however, with E;t;fTE. The second clause in the Eec, koI iva
niareiyre eig rb bvopa roi vloi roi Qeoi, indicates as the second object the adher
ence to faith ; with the phrase, mareveiv eig rb bvopa, corap. chap. iii. 23.
Ver 14, as the preliminary kuI shows, is not the beginning of a new sec
tion (contrary to De Wette) ; but the thought expressed here is in close
connection with the foregoing, inasmuch as the naji^ala is au essential ele
ment of the Quy aiuvtog, As in chap. iii. 21, 22, so here also, na^pyala is the
confidence which the believer experiences in the certainty that his prayer is
heard. — airy iariv ,'/ na/)/niaia does not mean, " hence arises also a happy
spirit" (Ziegler), but "herein consists the confidence" (De Wette). — yv ixopev
npbg airbv]. airbv does not refer to the Son, but to God ; though God is not
previously mentioned as the subject, yet He is nevertheless considered as
the principal subject, as the One who gives life through the Son. — bn].
Lucke (with whom Ebrard agrees, with the incorrect remark that bn does not
depend on avry, but dimply on nafi/ryaia) supplies before bn : " that we have
the confidence; " but the concise thought of the apostle is thereby weakened,
and besides the nafipya'ia is itself this confidence (DUsterdieck). — idv n a'lru-
peBa Kard rb Belypa airoi]. By raeans of Kard r. Bil. airoi, i.e., roi Qeoi, prayer
is more particularly defined as to its substance and character. — uKoiet ypivv].
In chap. iii. 22 it is put instead of this, lap^dvopev dir' airoi. — dKoieiv includes
the idea of granting, which, however, is not brought definitely out imtil the
following verse.
Ver. 15. Kal idv oiSapev. By the indicative after idv (see on this, Winer,
p. 277 [E. T., 295]; Al. Buttraann, p. 191 ff. [E. T., 223]) this knowledge
is emphasized as something undoubtedly belonging to the believer ; differ
ently ver. 16 : 'edv T(f iSy. — bn dKoiei -ypxvv, b 'edv {uv) a'irup.eBa]. Resumption of
what was previously stated. — olSapev, bn, K.r.l.]. In the certainty that God
hears us lies also the certainty, bn ixopev rd a'lrypara a yryKopev utt' (nap') airov.
— ixopev is neither =; lapjidvopev, nor is the present put for the future (Grotius);
the present is rather to be kept in its proper meaning ; the believer always
has that for which he has asked God (Knrd rb Bilypa avrov) ; he has God, and
in Hira all things. — rd airypara are the res petitae (Lorinus). — dn' airoi
frora its position is not to be connected with ixopev, but with rjryKopev ; corap.
Matt XX. 20 ; Acts iii. 2 ; differently chap. iii. 22 : lapffdvopev dir' airoi.
Ver. 16. The apostle applies the general thought expressed in ver. 15 to
a particular case, naraely, to a prayer for one's brother when one sees him
committing sin. — idv ng iSy rbv dSelipbv airoi]. By idv with the subjunctive
the possibility is simply stated. By dSelipbg we are to understand, according
to the usus loquendi of the Epistle, not the neighbor in general (Calovius),
but the Christian brother (airoi), not exactly the "regenerate" (DUsterdieck);
Ebrard, erroneously: "first of all, merabers of the Christian Church, yet
without excluding those who are not Christians." — dpaprdvovra dpapnuv pij
npbg Bdvarov]. The phrase dpaprdveiv dpapriav is stronger and more ex-

616 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
pressive than noteiv dpapriav. — The sort of dpapria is more particularly
defined by the addition py npbg Bdvarov. The negative py (instead of which
oi is used in ver. 17) is explained by the fact that the idea is regarded ag
dependent on idv ng ISy (comp. Winer, p. 442 [E. T., 475]). The apostle
distinguishes between the dpapria oi npbg Bdvarov and the dpapria
¦npbg Bdvarov, What sin is to be understood by the latter? The idea
niD7 NHn, LXX. : dpapria Bavaryipbpog, is found already in the 0. T., Num.
xviii. 22, whence the Rabbis distinguish between nn'o"? nson and nV nXBH
nri'D^ (Schoettgen, Hor. Hebr.) ; in accordance with this, as Schoettgen
also interprets, the dpapria npbg Bdvarov would be that sin to which the Mosaic
law assigned the punishment of death, as idolatry, adultery, etc. : but even
if that Old-Testament definition is the basis of John's expression, yet it does
not follow that he used the idea in the same sense ; Bdvarog may here, as dis
tinguished from Qu!j {kui Suaet airip Quyv), not mean bodily death. For this
reason alone, therefore, the explanation of Morus and S. G. Lange is to be
rejected, according to which that sort of sin is meant which is punished by
the authorities wdth death or with other severe punishments (!), even apart
frora the fact that it makes the prayer of the Christian dependent on the
penal decrees of civil law. But the opinion of Zachariae, Michaelis, and
Linder (in the Zeitschrift fur d. luth. Theol. of Rudelbach and Guericke,
vol. iv., 1862), that here, as in Jas. v. 14 ff., it is those who are in bod'dy
sickness that are spoken of, and that such sin is meant as God punishes with
deadly sickness or sudden death, is for the sarae reason unfounded.* — If
Bdvarog is not bodily death, then by npbg Bdvarov the period to which the sin
lasts cannot either be meant. — With reference to the ecclesiastical disci
pline exercised in the Church, the older Catholic theologians especially
understood by the dp. np. Buv„ without further comment, all those sins which
were punished by the punishment of excommunication. But even if the
Churcli had always punished in that way the sin which John here has in
view, yet that expression could not be explained by that practice. — As
Bdvarog is not bodily death, it is only spiritual death or damnation that can be
meant by it; dp, npbg Bdvarov is therefore the sin which leads to damnation.
But what sin is this? It is much too general to regard every grievous trans
gression as such. As Christ Hiraself refuses forgiveness absolutely only to
one sin, the commentators who assent to the above view find themselves
driven to an arbitrary weakening of Trpdf Bdvarov ; so Ambrosius (L'lh. de
Poenit.), when he says: quodvis peccatum gravissimum, quod Vix remittitur,
and still more strangely, a Lapide : peccatum quodvis gravissimum, quod . . .
juxta legem communem per gratiam, quam Deus ordinarie dare solet, est quasi
immedicabile, incorrigibile et insanabile. It is more correct, indeed, to regard
^ Linder, it is true, remarks against this xi. 30. The appeal to Jas. v. 14 ff. is so much
that a new section begins with ver. 13, but the more inappropriate, as John here In no
even in tbat verse ^ta»j is used in the spiritual way suggests that he is speaking of those who
sense. The above view is also opposed by the are in bodily sickness. It is therefore quite
fact that it assumes in John the opinion that arbitrary for Linder to iuterpret Ka't Siaaet
deadly sickness or sudden death is always di. aiiTw ^vi-ijv : " God will grant to him pardon
vine punishraent for a special sin, which can aiid recovery."
neither be justified by Acts v. nor by 1 Cor.

CHAP. V. 16. 617
it as sin which is not repented of, and to find the characteristic of the dp. rrp.
Bdv. in the impenitence of the sinner who will give heed to no exhortation
(Grotius, Socinus, etc.) ; but even this cannot be the feature which John
here has specially in view, because at the time of the commitment of a sin
it cannot be decided whether it will be repented of or not. John must mean
a dpapria, which in itself is characterized as a ipaprla npbg Bdvarov. Many com
mentators accordingly fix the meaning of it on a single particular sin ; thus
Tertullian, who understands by it, moechia post baptismum commissa; Bede,
who, following the precedent of Augustine,* understands by it the peccatum
invidentiae, quo quis invidet fratri gratiam, virtutem et salutem , but then we do
not see why John did not specifically and definitely mention this particular
sin. We might therefore agree with those who take dpapria here as the
description of a state, as Bengel, who thus interprets : talis status, in quo
fides et amor et spes, in summa, vita nova exstincta est; but this is opposed by
the apostle's mode of expression, which plainly refers to a sinful deed, and
not to a state. Though, on the one hand, a single sin cannot be meant
(Calvin; non est partialis lapsus, nee praecepti unius transgressio) , yet we must
only think of a whole species of sins, or better, of such sinning as is charac
terized not by the object with which it is connected, but by the disposition
frora which it proceeds. For the further definition it is to be observed, as
LUcke with justice points out, that it can " only be a class of sins of Chris
tians, and not of those who are not Christians," that is spoken of, and that
" the distinction between the sin unto death, and sin that is not unto death,
raust be capable of being known." It is true, every sin can be called a
dpapria npbg Bdvarov, inasmuch as it tends in the direction of Bdvarog, but every
sin does not infallibly lead to Bdvarog : so long as along with the dpapria there
still exists an ixeiv rbv vlbv (vv. 11 and 12), the sinning Christian is still in
fellowship with the alpa 'lyaoi Xpiarov which cleanses hira dnb ndayg dpapriag
(chap i. 7) ; and so long as he has a napiiKlyrog npbg rbv naripa, namely, Jesus
Christ the righteous (chap. ii. 1), sin does not deprive him of the Quy alCivtog,
and is not therefore dpapria npbg Bdvarov ; this it only is when it involves
an actual falling away frora Christ ; De Wette and LUcke therefore rightly
say that the sin unto death is the siu by which the Christian falls back
again from the Christian's Quij into the Bdvarog (comp. also Hofmann,
Schriftbew., II. 2, p. 340), only it is not exactly the falling away itself that is
to be understood, for this is an internal act which, as such, is invisible,^ but
rather the sinful conduct by which the internal loss of life with Christ
externally operates and reveals itself (so also Braune).^ It is incorrect of
1 Augustine (De Serm. Dei in Monte Matt., idea by " fidem, quae per dilectionem operatur,
lib. 1. c. 22, § 73) says ¦ " Peccatum fratris ad deserere usque ad mortem."
mortem puto esse, cum post agnitionera Dei 2 This also contradicts Ebrard's interpreta-
per gratiam. . . . Jesu Christi quisque oppug- tiou, according to which the ajLt. rrp. 9dv. is
nat fraternitatem et adversus ipsam gratiam " the act of inward rejection ; " although
. . . invidentiae facibus agitatur." Yet Angus- Ebrard is correct when he says : " irpb? Qdv. is
tine is not consistent iu his interpretation; in that sort of sinning which has resulted in a
the Retractations he adds further: " si in hac corruption of the soul, from which the return
perversitate finierit vitam;" in his work, De to irt'o-Ti? and ^0)1718 no longer possible to hira."
Corrept. et Gratia, a. 12, § 35, he explains tho s Several commentators, as Caldn, Beza,

618 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Dusterdieck (and similarly Ebrard) to understand by the sin unto death the
antichristian denial that Jesus is the Christ; for if John had meant this, he
would have expressed it definitely, so much the more as in the Epistle he is
carrying on a polemic against that antichristianity. Just as little has Myr
berg arrived at the correct explanation when on ianv dpapr'ia npbg Bdvarov he
remarks : varia genera peccatorum, quae mortem in sensu loci nostri adferant,
vide enumerata, Gal. v. 18-21 ; for although Paul says : bn rd rotaira npdaaovreg
j3aaile'iav Qeoi oi Klypovopyaovaiv, yet it does not follow frora this that no return
is possible frora such sins. — In the face of the apostle's words the possibility
of knowing the dpaprdveiv npbg Bdv, caunot be denied, yet it is difficult to dis
tinguish amongst the particular concrete manifestations : but, on the one
hand, the Christian mind which is fitted for the Kplatg will not decide with
out scrupulous examination ; and, on the other hand, John hiraself shows
by the py that the decision can at any time be only a subjective one. The
meaning of the sentence accordingly is : If any man see his brother sin in
such a way that the sin which he commits does not involve absolute renun
ciation of Christ, and therefore does not necessarily bring condemnation
with it, he shall pray for him.* — a'lryau is not to be understood of the united
prayer of the Church as such (so Neander; Ewald also says; "Christian prayer,
especially in the consecrated bosom of the Church "), but of every prayer of
one for another. The future is not exactly used instead of the imperative :
it rather expresses the certainty that, in the case stated, the Christian will
pray, but in this there is certainly involved the injunction actually to doit.
The substance of the prayer is indicated by the following — koI Sivaei airu
Quyv denotes the result of the prayer ; very many, perhaps most coraraen
tators (Socinus, a Lapide, Lorinus, Grotius, Spener, LUcke, Sander, Erdmann,
etc.), supply with Sivaei as subject 6 Qeog or 6 airoipevog (so also Winer, p. 487
[E. T., 523]; Al Buttm., p. 116 [E. T., 116, notel]); a similar change of
subject occurs in Acts viii. 6 : but considering the close connection of airyaet
and Suaei, along with which the- similarity of the verbal form is also to be
noticed, it is preferable, with Jerome, Sander, De Wette-Briickner,^ Baura
garten-Crusius, Frommann (p. 674), Dusterdieck, Myrberg, Braune, etc., to
assunie the sarae subject with Suaei as with airyaet ; then the sense is : he that
prays gives the Quy, inasmuch as God grants hira his prayer. The idea finds
its explanation iu the fact that every sin brings with it a weakening of the
Calovius, Heuraann, Sander, etc., identify this against this explanation, that " the decision
sin with the sin against the Holy Ghost in whether a sin is a dp, rrp, 9, or not is objectivel-y
Matt. xii. 31 ff. ; certainly the dpapria raeant made by God Himself , and must be cognizable
here is not imaginable without a ^Kaa^ripia in some outward manifestation," we may reply
TOV iTKeuVaTos ; and the ^Kaaipripia T. TTv. has that even the occurrence of bodily death can-
9dvaro<; as its reward: but the ideas do not not be regarded as a certain proof; for even
quite coincide, for (1) the p\aa4ir}pta r. nv. though God sometimes ordains it as a punish-
may occur even on the part of non-Christians, ment of the sinner, yet it occurs also when it
but it is the sin of the Christian that is spoken is not to be concluded that there is special
of here; and (2) the former is completed in guilt.
words (e'lrretv Kara rov rrveiiparo^ r. a-/.), but ^ Briickner seeras, however, to he doubtful,
the dp. rrp, Qdv. can only consist in further as he reraarks: "if there were only an auTos,
action. or a similar indication I "
1 When Linder (as above quoted) remarks

CHAP. V. 17. 619
Quy ; in order that he that sins may not remain in this want, he requires a new
infusion of life, and this is procured for him by the prayer of his believing
brother. In addition to this, of course, the confession of his sin, with trust in
the cleansing power of the blood of Christ (comp. chap. i. 7), is necessary on
his part ; but it is just in this that the blessing of the prayer consists, that he
receives as the result of it the needful inclination for this.* — rolg dpaprdvovat
prj npbg Bdvarov] apposition to air^; the plural serves only for generalization
(De Wette, Winer, etc.); Bornemann (Bibl, Studien der sachs. Geistlichen, I.
p. 71 ; and Alex. Buttm., p. 156 [E. T., 179]) erroneously explains roig dpap
rdvovai as the dative commodi, referring airu to the person that prays himself.
By the following words, ianv dpapria npbg Bdvarov, the apostle brings out that
there is really a siu unto death, with which he connects the observation, ob
nepl iKe'ivyg leyu iva ipuryay. Most commentators find in this a prohibition,
even though mildly expressed, of prayer in reference to the sin unto death ;
but this is not contained here, as Grotius, Hornejus, Besser, Myrberg, Ebrard,
Bruckner, etc., rightly observe; for the negative oi does not belong to ipu
ryay, but to liyu ; if the negative was to be referred to the former, it would
have had to be py. The sense is : My injunction does not mean (oi Uyu)
that a man is to offer prayer (iva ipuryar/) in reference to (nepi) the sin npbg
Bdvarov.^ — The words do not express more than this, although it is admitted
that in the emphasizing of oi Uyu a warning is indicated (similarly Braune):
John does not want to make a duty of a prayer, to which the certain assur
ance of being granted is wanting ; he therefore adds this limitation to his
exhortation to prayer (so also Besser) : a formal prohibition would only be
appropriate if the dpaprdveiv np, Bdv, were always cognizable as such. It is
observable that John does not say here airyay, but ipurrjay; ipurdv (lit. "to
ask"), is a milder idea than alrelv (lit. "to demand"); the apostle warns
against the ipurglv, and, of course, much more against the more urgent alrelv.^
Ver. 17. To guard against indifference to transgressions occurring in
the Christian's life, the apostle continues: ndaa dSmla dpapria iari. — dSiKia is
not synonyraous with dvopia, chap. iii. 4 ; for whilst dvopia there serves to
strengthen the idea dpapria, the idea d^ida is here more particularly defined
and strengthened by dpapria; dSuila, naraely, is the character of every offence
against that which is right, "every breach of duty" (Meyer). Though, on
the one hand, every such transgression is sin ; yet, on the other hand, it
must be maintained that every sin does not lead to death ; hence koI ianv
dpapr'ia oi npbg Bdvarov: Kai is not adversative, but serves to emphasize the

* It is to weaken the thought of the apostle eluded in the united prayer of the Church for
if, with Rickli, we find the blessing of the sinners in general, so that he raay not be con-
prayer only iu this, tiiat he who prays is him- firmed in his sin aud be led to a false trust io
self led thereby to a right relation toward his the prayer of others ; " but John in no way
brother. According to the apostle's view, the indicates that he is speaking only of Church
prayer rather brings blessing directly to the prayer.
brother, for as James (v. 16) says: no\v 'laxdei » Braune unsuitably says that "aireiv im-
Seriavi fiiKaiov ivepyovpevr]. plies conversation ; epoir^v, on the other hand,
2 As Neander thinks tliat it is only Church equalization of him who prays with hira whom
prayer that is spoken of hero, he interprets : he addresses."
" one who sins Trpos flax'aTot' is not to be in-

620 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN,
thought. — ov npbg Bdvarov does not belong to ianv (Luther : " some sin is not
to death "), but to duaprla : " there is sin not unto death,"
Ver. 18, it is true, is closely connected with the foregoing, but at the
same tirae forms the commencement of the conclusion of the Epistle, which
is indicated as such by the successive thrice-repeated olSapev (Ebrard), and
iu which the apostle describes the position of believers in brief vigorous
strokes. — As in vv. 16 and 17 it was admitted that even in Christians iibuda,
and hence dpapria, still exists, the apostle finds himself compelled to repeat,
confirmingly, what was said in chap. iii. 6-10, as a truth known to Chris
tians (olSapev, in which there does not lie " an appeal to the fact that he has
already said it," Ebrard), in order that it may be thoroughly impressed on
thera that all sin is in the sharpest antagonisra to their essential principle
of life. — oiSapev, bn ndg yeyewypivog Ik roi Qeoi, ovx buaprdvei]. This appears
to be in contradiction with what is previously adraitted; John does not
solve the contradiction ; many commentators seek to do so by supplying
npbg Bdvarov as a more particular definition of oix iiuaprdvei, or by interpreting
it of remaining in sin : both are, however, arbitrary ; the solution lies rather
in the fact that the apostle wants siraply to emphasize the antagonism
between being born of God, and sinning. Though sin is still found in the
life of the believer, who as such is yeyewypivog iK roi Qeoi, yet it is neverthe
less foreign to him, opposed to his nature, and in the strength of his faith
he is ever becoming more and more free from it.* — all' b yewyBelg Ik roi
Qeov rypel iavrbv]. This second clause is not dependent on bn, but is to be
regarded as au independent sentence (Dusterdieck, Braune). Bengel
erroneously states the difference between the form b yewyBelg and the
preceding b yeyewypivog thus: Praeteritum grandius quiddam sonal, quam
aoristus : non modo qui magnum in regeneratione gradum assecutus, sed quilibet,
qui regenitus est, servat se , it is rather the same distinction that occurs here
as that by which these two verbal forras are generally distinguished; 6
yewyBelg is : " he who was born," regarded as an historical fact. — In 1 Tim.
V. 22, ayvov, and in Jas. i. 27, damljov, are put with rypel iavrbv as more
particular definition. It is, however, unnecessary to supply suoh a predicate
(De Wette) ; rypel iavrbv denotes the self-preservation of the believer in his
proper character (so also Braune) ; ^ the more particular definition results
from the following : koI b novypbg oix anrerai airoi is the result of the rypel
iavrbv ; Ebrard, incorrectly : " Satan dare not touch him ; God does not
permit it ; " the present simply expresses the fact, but this, according to
the context, is the case, because the Devil is prevented frora unreaBai by the
Type'iv iavrbv of him who is born of God. With 6 novypbg, comp. chap. i. 13.
By drrreaBai we are to understand touching in order to do harm ; Ps. cv. 15,
LXX. (see Raphelii, ^ranoi. ex Polyhio). Compare Jas. iv. 7: ipev^erat dip'

1 It needs no proof, that the thought of the 2 n ig less suitable to explain rrtpelv eauTov
apostle is perverted by the explanation of De here, withEbrard=TT)pero-0at, "tobeonguard,
Wette ; " the apostle expresses his confidence to take care; " for, in the first place, it is op-
that the occurrence of the siu unto death, and posed to the usus loquendi of the N. T. to as-
of sin in general, cannot often ( !) take place in sign this meaning to the word; and, secondly,
the Christian Church." it is not expressive enough for the context.

CHAP. V. 19, 20. 621
ipiJv. It is true the believer is still tempted by the Devil (comp. 1 Pet. v.
8, etc.), just aS sinful desires still arise in him; but being in his most inner
nature redeemed from the fellowship of sin, he suffers from these tempta
tions no injury to the life that has cpme to hira from God: in the navonlia
roi GEot) he is protected against all the peBoSelai rov SialSblov (Eph. vi.
11 ff.).* Ver. 19 marks the antithesis between believers as being born of God,
and the Kbapog, as belonging in its whole extent (blog) to the novypbg ; and
this is done by the apostle vindicating for himself and his readers — who
are united with him iu faith — the e'lvui iK rov Qeoi, — iK roi Qeov 'eapev finds
its explanation in the preceding: b yewyBelg iK roi Qeoi. Socinus, incorrectly:
a Deo pendemus. — kuI b Koapog blog, K,r,l,, probably as an independent
sentence, not depending on bn (DUsterdieck). kuI is not = Si; it is just the
connecting kuI that brings out the antithesis which exists between the two
parts of the verse, still more clearly than if this had been done by an
adversative particle. 6 Kbapog is here used in the ethical meaning of the
word, which is peculiar to John. — iv ru novypu Kelrai], ru novypu is not
neuter (Socinus, Episcopius, Rickli, Erdraann), but masculine, as is clear
both from 6 novypbg in ver. 18, as also from the antithesis to b Qebg. — By the
preceding ek t. Qeov and Luther's translation of Isa. xlvi. 3, some commen
tators have been led erroneously to refer the expression iv . . . Kelrai to the
relation of the child to its mother (Spener: "as a child in its mother's
womb ") ; by fo it is expressed that the Koapog is, as it were, surrounded by
the Devil, i.e., is quite in his power ; velrai, stronger than 'eari, indicates, if
not, as LUcke thinks, the permanent, yet certainly the passive state (so also
Braune), and hence the complete domination of the Devil, which is in
the most pronounced contrast with the preceding: koI b novypbg oix uitrerai
airoi. Ver. 20. In conclusion, the apostle indicates whence the elvat h ru Qeu
(the result of the e'lvai eK roi Qeoi) has come to him and his readers ; and he
does this by expressing it through olSapev as the substance of their Christian.
consciousness. — olSapev Si, bn b vibg roi Qeoi ijKei]. The conditioning cause
of the former is the coming of the Son of God. — The particle Si is here
used to indicate the antithesis to the immediately preceding thought ;
Bruckner has with justice decided in favor of this reading (contrary to kuI
olSapev; see the critical notes). — yKei is not — adest (Bengel), but "has
come;" the reference is to the incarnation of the Son of God. — kuI
SiSuKev ijplv Stdvotav, tva y ivuoKopev rbv dlyBivbv]. Still dependent
on OTi. — The subject of SiSuKev is not b Qebg (Bengel), but 4 vibg roi Qeoi, as
the close connection of this clause with that immediately preceding clearly
shows; rbv dlyBivbv, on the other hand, is not a description of the Son
(Bengel), but of God. — By Sidvoia we are not to understand, with Lucke
and De Wette, " knowledge,'' or even " insight," but the capability of knowl
edge (Dusterdieck, Ebrard), yet in its living activity, hence " the faculty of
r Calviu : " Utut malignus renatura ad pec- qnoniara renatus scuto fidei raunitus ea repellit
catum Bolicltet, tela tamen illius irrita cadunt, et diabolo per fidem resistit."

622 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
knowing."'^ — By tva yivuOKopev, k.t.1,, it is neither the purpose, "in order
that," nor even the result, "so that," that is stated, but the object to which
the Sidvoia is directed, and which it attains. We can ouly regard iva as the
particle of purpose, if we unj ustifiably understand by Sidvoia " the spiritual
disposition" (contrary to Braune). — The idea yivuaKetv is here used with
the same force as in chap. ii. 4, 5, where it is similarly connected with iv
airu eivat. By rbv dlyBivbv God is described, in distinction from all idols,
especially from the idol which the false teachers made of God, as the true
God. Calvin : Verum Deum intelligit, non veracem, sed eum qui re vera Deus
est, ut eum ab idolis omnibus discernat ; comp. John xvii. 3^ (similarly Lucke,
De Wette, Neander, Erdraann, DUsterdieck, Myrberg, Ebrard, Braune, etc.).
He is the true God, who has sent His Son into the world ; the coming of
Christ has not been ineffectual, but has produced in believers the knowledge
of God, — a knowledge which is one with being in God. Therefore the
apostle continues : koI iapiv iv ru dlyBivip. These words are not dependent
on 'on (Vulg. : et simus), but form au independent sentence. The iv ru
dlySivu refers back to rbv dlyBivbv ; considering the close connection of the two
sentences, it must be the same subject, naraely God, that is meant by the same
word (BrUckner, Braune) ; it is arbitrary to understand by rbv dlyBivbv God,
and by ru dlyBivu, on the other hand, Christ, and it is, moreover, forbidden
by the context, in accordance with which the kuI iapiv iv tC> dlyBivu states the
consequence of the preceding, naraely of the fact that the Son of God has
come and has given to us the capability of knowing the true God.^ There
fore also the following words, iv rSi viu airoi 'lyaoi Xpiarip, are not to be
taken as apposition to iv ru dl. (Weiss), against which even the airoii
testifies, for then it would have to be referred, not to ru dlyBivu, but beyond
it to rbv dlyBivbv. The additional clause shows in what the eivai iv ru ulyBivu
has its ground and stability (BrUckner, Braune) : iv is not = per, but
indicates, as generally in the formula tv 'lya. Xpiaru, the relationship of
intimate fellowship : the believer is in God, inasmuch as he is in Christ. —
Before the last warning, connected with this (ver. 21), the apostle expres
sively concludes with the stateraent : oirbg ianv b dlyBivbg Qebg Kal Qurj aiuviog.
As is well known, views have differed frora old times about the meaning of
ovrog. A^liile the Arians understand ovrog of God, the orthodox refer it to
the immediately preceding ev ru viu 'I. Xp., and use this passage as a proof
of the divinity of the Son. This interpretation remained the prevailing
one in the Church, even after Erasmus had remarked: "hic est verus Deus"
referri potest ad Deum verum Patrem qui praecessit; and against this the
Socinians, and then Grotius, Wetstein, the English Anti-trinitarians, and
1 It is quite arbitrary, with Semler, to in- tained io the idea here, that would be the case
terpret the idea Stdvota ~ perdvota Kat ntarn, in John xvii. 3 also.
Paulus lays a special emphasis on Sia : "think- ^ This explanation is so much the more jus-
ing through (out) in contrast to a vague tiflable, as it is to be expected from John, that
acceptance and thoughtless belief" ( !). at the close of his Epistle he would express iu
2 Bauragarten-Crusius thinks that dKyB, brief language the highest thing that cau be
meaue more here than in John xvii. 3, namely, said of the iife of the believer, and this is the
" he who gives a satisfaction, in quo uno ac- elvat iv n^ ©ecp (roJ dKriOiviZ),
quiescendum est ; " but if this were really con-

CHAP. V. 20. 623
the German Rationalists followed the opposite view. It is not to be denied,
that on both sides the different dograatic interests did not remain without
infiuenee on the interpretation, until in more recent times a raore unbiassed
consideration has led the way. Araong the latest commentators, Rickli,
Lucke, De Wette, Neander, Gerlach, Froraraann, Dusterdieck, Erdraann,
Myrberg, even BrUckner and Braune (who, however, leave room for doubt),
sirailarly Hofmann (Schriftbew., second edition, I., p. 146), Winer (p. 148
[E. T., 157]), aud Al. Buttraann (p. 91 [E. T., 104]), have decided in
favor of the reference to God; Sander, Besser, Ebrard, Weiss, etc., for the
reference to the Son. The dispute cannot be settled on graramatical lines,
for ovrog can be referred both to rbv dlyBivbv * and also to ru viu. The addition
Kal Quy aiuviog, seems to support the latter reference ; for Christ, in the Gospel
of John, calls Himself precisely ij Quij, and also in the beginning of this
Epistle it is the Son of God that is to be understood by y Quy and y Quij ij
aiuviog. The former reference, on the other hand, is supported by the
expression : b dlyBivbg Qebg ; for, in the first place, it is more natural to
understand here the same subject as is previously designated by b dlyBivbg,
than any other; and, in the second place, the Father and the Son, God and
Jesus Christ, are always so definitely distinguished throughout the whole
Epistle, that it would be strange if, at the close of it, and, moreover, just
after both subjects have been similarly distinguished immediately before,
Christ — without further explanation, too — should be described as 6 dlyBtvbg
Qeog, especially as this designation is never ascribed to the Son in the
writings of John, definitely though the divinity of the Son is taught in
them. 2 To this it may be added, that, after Johu has brought out as
the peculiar characteristic of the Christian's life, of which he partakes in the
Son of God, the elvai iv ru dlyBivu, the clause in question has its right
meaning only if it states who that dlyBivbg is, namely that he is the dXyBtvbg
Qebg Kal Quij aluvuig. Now, though elsewhere it is only Christ that is called
exactly y Quy, yet He has the Quy — according to His own words, John v. 26
— only from the Father, who originally has the life in Himself (b narijp ixet
Quiyv iv iavru), and may therefore be called Qui) aliMiog no less than the Son.
Besides, it is to be observed that fu^ a iuv. is here used without the article,
so that the expression comes under the same category as the expressions :
b Qebg ian ipiig (i. 5), dydny (iv. 16), nvevpa (Gospel of John iv. 24). — The
objection that " it would be a feeble repetition, after the Father had twice
been called b dlyBivbg, again to say: this is the dlyBivbg Qebg" (Ebrard,

' It lies in the very nature of the case, that appeal can be made to John i. 1, xx. 28, and
o!to! may refer to the principal subject, nay, the passages in the Apocalypse in which the
that this is the reference most suitable to the predicate iAij^irds is ascribed to Christ. —How
word : comp. 1 John il. 22; 2 John 7; Acts iv. little care is sometiraes exercised in the proof
U, vii. 19. Calvin's rule, which Sander re- of the truth that what is stated by John of
peats, is erroneous : " Pron. deraonstr. oStos Jesus Christ really proclaims Him as the true
ordinarie, nisi evidenter textus aliud requirat, God, is shown, amongst others, by Schuize, in
immediate antecedens nomen respicit ac de- the way in which he appeals on behalf of this
monstrat. " to John xvii. 23 and xiv. 20; since it would
' It is only through a superficial considera- follow from this, that even the disciples of
tion, that, for the refutation of this assertion, Jesus could be described as the'true God.

624 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
similarly Weiss; also Schuize, Menschensohn, etc., p. 263),* is the less valid,
as the apostle has already in view the warning of ver. 21, and by iv ru vii>
avroi 'I. Xp., it is indicated that He alone is the true God, with whom we are
in fellowship in Christ : it is only the Father of Jesus Christ that is the
true God. — The connection of the words, koI Quy aiuvtog, as a second
predicate, with oi'TOf, has appeared a difficulty to many commentators.
Socinus wanted to take oirog = rovro, with reference to the whole preceding
thought, and then he paraphrases roiro by iv roiru and interprets : in eo, quod
diximus, est ille verus Deus et vita aeterna ; nam quatenus quis habet et cognoscit
Christi Patrem et ipsum Christum, habet et illum verum Deum et aeternam vitam ;
similarly Ewald, when he paraphrases: "this, both these things together,
that we know and that we are all this, this is the true God and eternal life."
The arbitrariness of this explanation is self-evident. Others, as Clarke,
Benson, LUcke (in his first edition), supply before Quy aiuv. an airy iariv out
of oirbg ianv, referring uvry either to b vibg or to the idea eivai iv ru dlyB.
Lucke has rightly withdrawn this explanation in his second edition, as
unwarrantable, and correctly says : " kuI Quij aiuv, can certainly not be gram
matically connected directly with oirog." LUcke, however, thinks that there
is an ellipsis in the expression, and that it is to be interpreted : " this . . . the
true God is eternal life, which can either be understood of the fact that God
is the cause and source of eternal life, or thus: His fellowship is eternal life."
But why could not John have described by Quy aiuv. the substantial character
of the divine nature ? If God has Qui/ in Hiraself (John v. 26), naraely the
Quij which He has given to the Son, aud which believers possess through
the Son (John v. 24), then God in His very nature is Quy, and Qu^ aiuviog too.
As John mentions this as the characteristic of God's nature, there certainly
lies in this the indication that God is the source of life for us.
Ver. 21. If believers have come to the true God through Christ, they
have to take care that they do not lose this eternal and highest good by
giving themselves up to any vain idol. In this train of thought John
closes his Epistle with the short exhortation, so impressive, however, in its
brevity : reKvla ipvld^ere iavroig dnb ruv eiSuluv. In the address reKvia we may
see the depth of the feeling with which John utters these concluding words.
— eiSu'la are properly images ,¦ this signification is retained here by many
coraraentators (Tertullian, Oecuraenius, Lyranus, Lorinus, Salmeron, Lucke,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Erdmann, Dusterdieck, etc.), whilst some of them,
however, extend the idea to that of "false, heathen gods; " others, again,
refer the expression to the arbitrary self-made representations of God which
the false teachers had, — thus Bede, Rickli, Sander, Thiersch (Versuch zur
Herstellung, p. 241), etc. ; others combine both views, and understand by
e'lSula here all sorts of images which men arbitrarily make for themselves of
God (Ebrard, Braune). If the warning is not to be regarded as a detached
appendix, foreign to the contents of the Epistle, we cannot rest satisfied
* Briickner and Braune also consider the is here added to dKrjBivo^, and the idea ^wi)
"tautology" at least aa soraething not quite aiwvto? is directly connected with the idea o
out of the question ; but a real tautology Is d\y$tvQ^ 0€ds.
here so far frora being the case, that " ©eos "

CHAP. V. 21. 625
¦with the first interpretation. As the apostle, just in the antithesis to the
false teachers, who belong to the Koapog, has so decidedly referred to
the ulyBivbg Qebg, he certainly has in view in this warning, if not altogether,
yet principally, the untrue mental images of those teachers.* It is only if
so taken, that the warning to keep themselves from idols forms the appro
priate conclusion of the whole Epistle.
• That the apostle here also means the res able, as the foregoing coutaius no reference to
mundariae; inasmuch as mau is attached to them.
them (Myrberg) , is so much the more improb-

THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF THE
APOSTLE JOHN.

INTRODUCTION. SEC. 1. — GENUINENESS.
The testimony of the ancient Church is not very certain. The' first
mention of the Second Epistle is found in Clemens Alex, and Irenaeus.
The former calls the First Epistle the greater (Strom, ii. 15, ed. Potter), and
says in the Adumhrat. .- secunda Joannis epistola, quae ad virgines scripta est,
simplicissima est; scripta vero est ad quondam Bahyloniam Electam nomine.
Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., i. 163) quotes the passage 2 John 11, with the words :
'ludvvyg, b roi Kvpiov paByryg, inireive rijv KuraSlKyv airuv, pySe xaipeiv airoig iip' ypuv
liyeaBai jSovlyBe'ig ' b ydp l.iyuv avrolg, ipyai, xaipeiv, K.r.l. ; he further adduces
(iii. 16, 8) the passage 2 John 7, 8, but by mistake, as a passage of the First
Epistle. From this it follows, that at the time of these Fathers the Second
Epistle was not merely known in the Church, but was also received
as an Epistle of the Apostle John. If the reraark of Eusebius (H. E., vi. 14),
that Clemens Alex, commented on all the Catholic Epistles, be correct, then
the Third Epistle was known to him also; according to the statement of
Cassiodorus, however (comp. my Commentary on Second Peter, Introd., § 2,
p. 291 ff.), this is at least uncertain. — Origen likewise knew several
Epistles of John ; for in the Eighth Homily on Joshua he says, addit et
Joannes tuba canere per epistolas suas : yet he did not express hiraself
quite certainly about the apostolic origin of the Second and Third Epistles,
as is seen from his words in Euseb. (//. E., vi. 25) : 'ludvvyg , . . Kuralilotne
Si Kal iniarolijv ndvv bliyuv arlxuv • iaru Se kuI Sevripav Kal rp'iryv. inei oi ndvreg
ipaal yvyaiavg elvat rairag ; that the canonicity of these Epistles was doubted, is
not contained in these words. — His disciple Dionysius Alex., in his polemic
against the genuineness of the Apocalypse, according to Eusebius (H. E.,
iii. 25), appealed not only to the First, but also to the Second and Third
627

628 THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.
Epistles of John. His words are : b Se eiayyeliaryg oiSi ryg KuBoliKyg npoiypaipev
iavroi rb bvopa . . ., dll' oiSe iv ry Sevripgi ipepopivy 'ludvvov Kal rplry . , ,, b 'ludvvyg
bvopaarl npbKeirai. According to Ebrard, in the word ^epopivy a doubt is
meant to be expressed as to the apostolic authorship of the two Epistles:
this, however, is erroneous ; ipepopivy is only added because the Epistles were
accepted as apostolic, without bearing the name of the Apostle John, as even
Eusebius (H. E., iii. 25) calls the First Epistle ryv ipepopivyv 'ludvvov nporipav,
although he was convinced of its composition by the apostle (Dusterdieck) ;
and, besides, how could Dionysius have appealed to those two Epistles if he
had doubted their apostolic origin ? — The Epistles are nowhere mentioned
by Tertullian and Cyprian ; but that the Second Epistle at least was known
in the North African Church at the tirae of the latter as a canonical writing,
is clear frora the fact that, at a synod held at Carthage on the subject
of the baptism of heretics, the bishop Aurelius appealed to the passage
2 John 10. — The Peshito originally contained of the Catholic Epistles only
the Epistle of James, First Peter, aud First John ; the Syrian Ephraem,
on the other hand, quotes the Second and Third of John as well as the rest
of the Catholic Epistles. — The testimony of the Muratorian Fragment is
not quite certain ; after a passage is quoted in it from the First Epistle, it
is stated, after the mention of some spurious writings : epistola sane Jude et
superscriptio Joannis duas in catholica habentur, and then, ut (or et) sapientia
ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta. It is possible that by dua^
(duae) the First and Second Epistles are meant; yet it is more probable
that he understood by it the Second and Third Epistles (DUsterdieck,
Ebrard, Braune : comp. also Laurentius, Neutest. Studien, p. 205). From
the following words : ut (or et) sapientia, etc., it is not to be inferred, with
Dusterdieck, that the author regarded the two Epistles as spurious. — Euse
bius {H. E., iii. 25) says : rd>v S' dvnleyopevuv . . . y bvopaQopivy Sevripa koI rpiry
'ludvvov, elre roi eiayyeltaroi rvyxuvovcat, elre rov iripov bpuvipov iKelvu; he there
fore reckoned them among the first class of the Antilegomenoi (comp.
Guericke, p. 606 ff.), and thereby proves that their canonical authority was
not uncontested; but by the addition elre, K.r.l,, by which he does not want
to confirm the doubt as to their canonicity, he expresses the uncertainty
whether the Epistles were composed by John or by another of the same
name, namely, the Presbyter John. In the Antioch school they were re
fused acceptance; Theodosius Mops, is said to have rejected them on the
testimony of Leontlus Byz. ; Theodoret does not mention them ; and in
the Homily on Matt. xxi. 23, ascribed to Chrysostom, it is said, ryv Sevripav
Kal rpiryv oi naripeg dnoKUVovlQavai. For the rest, after the time of Eusebius

INTRODUCTION. 629
their canonicity was undisputed ; but that doubts still obtained in regard to
their apostolic origin, is proved by Jerome, who, in his Catal. Script. Eccl.,
chap. 9, s.v. Papias, says: scripsit Joannes et unam epistolam, quae ab universis
ecclesiasiicis et eruditis viris probatur , reliquae autem duae, quarum principium
Senior . . . Joannis Pkesbyteri asseruntur ; and in chap. 18 calls this
view an opinio, quam a plerisque retulimus traditam. The, generally speaking,
infrequent quotation of these Epistles, as well as the hesitation in the decision
as to their canonicity and apostolicity, are easily explained, partly by their
character, partly by the designation of the author (4 npeaSvrepog) which is pre
fixed. From the fact, however, that the oldest authorities, Cleraens Alex, and
Irenaeus, quite unhesitatingly cite thern, at least the Second Epistle, as writ
ings of the Apostle John, it may be concluded that in the most ancient tradi
tion they were regarded as apostolical Epistles, and that it was only at a later
date that they were ascribed by raany, perhaps only on account of the super
scription, to the Presbyter John, whom Papias (Euseb. iii. 39) calls a uaByryg
rov Kvplov, but definitely distinguishes from the Apostle John, In the Middle
Ages the authorship of the Apostle John was not disputed. Erasmus first
again regarded the Presbyter John as the author of the Epistles; the same
view was afterwards expressed and defended by Grotius, J. D. Beck (Observ.
Crit.-Exeget, Specim. I.), Fritzsche (" Bemerkk. iiber die Br. Joh.," in Henke's
Museum fiir Religionswissenschaft, iii. part 1), Ammon (Leben Jesu, i. p. 45 ff.),
and others. Almost all modern commentators and critics (Lucke, De Wette,
BrUckner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dusterdieck, Ewald,* Bleek, Braune), on the
other hand, have with more or less confidence decided in favor of their apos
tolic authorship; against which Ebrard again ascribes thera to the Presbyter
John. It is extraordinary, that the same reasons are alleged for both views;
namely, (1) the character of the style, (2) the self-designation of the author
by 6 npea0irepog, and (3) the connection with Diotrephes. (1) As far as
the style is concerned, the Second Epistle has unmistakably a pronounced
Johannean impress. This is less the case with the Third Epistle ; yet even
this, which at any rate has the same author as the Second Epistle, bears in
itself, in particular expressions and ideas, traces of the sarae peculiarity
(comp. LUcke, Braune, DUsterdieck). According to Ebrard, the correspond
ences are to be explained by " allusions and certain reminiscences," while the
peculiar style of the author of the two Epistles appears in the section
' According to Ewald's idea (Oesch. Isr., only these two have been accidentally pre-
vii. 219) , John in Ephesus, in answer to urgent served. Comp. also Ewald's ^oA. Schriften,
demands, wrote several letters to particular p. 505.
churches and persons, of which, however,

630 THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.
VV. 5-10 of the Third Epistle, and this deviates altogether frora that of the
Apostle John. But that the elsewhere well-known diction of John is not
refiected in this section, may be very well explained by the fact that he is
treating of quite special circumstances, and that, too, only in hints, and with
the greatest possible brevity ; but that in 2 John 5, 12, and 3 John 11, there
is " an intentional allusion to particular dicta of the First Epistle," and that
in 2 John 6, 7, 9, such dicta " are almost exactly quoted," are assertions
which cannot be proved, as the agreements may just as well, at least, have
their origin in the identity of the author. (2) As, according to the distinct
testiraony of Papias (in Euseb., //. E., iii. 99), the existence of a presbyter
named John, who was a paByryg of the Lord, cannot be doubted, it is natural
to regard him as the author of the Epistle, who calls himself b npeaSvrepog.
But as Papias designates this John as 6 npeaSirepog merely to distinguish
him from the previously mentioned (Apostle) John, it cannot be inferred
from his words that "6 npeaSvrepog" was in itself a name denoting the non-
apostolic John. If this was not the case, how then could this John venture
to call himself kot' i^oxyv "b npeaSirepog"? Ebrard thinks that, as the two
Johns lived in Ephesus, the non-apostolic John was in his intimate circle
called " the Presbyter " in distinction from the Apostle, and that " it is easily
intelligible from this how the Presbyter John would, in his confidential
private circles, use this designation as a stamped coin ; " but, besides,
Ebrard appeals to the fact that the small filial churches in the neighbor
hood of the city, the single members of the presbytery established in the
mother church, and hence those small churches which had gathered round
the Kyria and Caius and Diotrephes, had been handed over to the care of
of the Presbyter John, "so that according to his official position he was Hhe
Presbyter' to these churches." Ebrard thus gives two explanations, of
which, however, only one could be valid ; * moreover, both explanations are
based on uncertain assumptions. — Lucke and DUsterdieck (similarly BrUck
ner and Braune) with justice show that the name, 6 npeaSvrepog, would not
have been suitable for the Presbyter John without the addition of his proper
name. But how does the case stand in this respect with the Apostle John ?
Oecumenius says : yroi bn yepaibg uv ySy iyparpe rairag, ij Kal in'ioKonov kuImv iavrbv
Sid roi npeaSvripov ; the former view, which is defended by Piscator, Lange,
Carpzovius, Sander, Bleek, etc., has the form of the word against it ; if John
wanted to describe himself as " the old man," it is not conceivable why he
' For, if John used the name because it was to whom he was wilting; and if he did it for
a coin once stamped for him, then he did not the latter cause, theu plainly he did not do it
use it to describe hie special position to those for the former.

INTRODUCTION. 631
did not write 6 yipuv, b npeaSvryg, or similarly, especially as b npeaSvrepog was
already in use as an official name ; even apart frora the fact that the desig
nation would only vaguely state who the author was, the expression must
certainly be taken, with Baumgarten-Crusius, Lucke, Dusterdieck, Braune,
as an official name. For this purpose it was quite suitable to the Apostle
John, as he was connected with the churches in question not merely as
an apostle, but had entered into a special (episcopal) relationship towards
them. He undertook the same position towards them as, immediately after
the apostolic age, the bishop occupied towards the churches subordinate to
him. Hence John might have called himself 6 inloKonog, but he could not, as
in his time both expressions denoted the same position ; though in later
times, when in the ecclesiastical organization bishops and presbyters were
definitely distinguished from one another, the former were still frequently
described by the name ol npeaSirepoi.'^ — (3) In the Third Epistle there is
reference to a relationship of Diotrephes to the author of the Epistle, which,
if this was the Apostle John, must certainly be regarded as strange. It
seems more easy of explanation if, as Ebrard thinks, the author was an
Ephesian presbyter to whose oversight the churches, in which Caius and
Diotrephes were prominent members, had been intrusted ; but in the first
place this supposition lacks historical foundation, and, secondly, a still
greater degree of violence would belong to the case if Diotrephes " prated
with malicious words " against a man who was not only a member of the
Ephesian presbytery, but also had to exercise an oversight over those
churches, apd who as an immediate paByryg roi Kvplov certainly enjoyed great
respect. If Diotrephes was capable of that, then his ambition — which in
deed may lead to the most extreme steps — might have induced him to
despise even the dignity of an apostle. Besides, the particular circum
stances are, much too unknown by us for it to be justifiable for us on their
account to deny the Apostle John the authorship of the Epistle. — The
assertion that the prohibition contained in 2 John 10, 11, contradicts the
loving disposition of the Apostle John, is with justice rejected by Ebrard,
and that, too, with the suitable remark, " the love of the Apostle John was
that sort of love which does not want to please, but to save souls; and hence
he meets the lie not with careless connivance, but with firm confession of
the truth and other discipline."
' When Ebrard says that npeaSvrepog can- fore follow tbat an apostle raight not assurae
not have been a title of the apostles, he is eo to particular churches such a position as would
far right, as an apostle, as such, was not des- make this name suitable to him.
ignated by tbat name; but It does uot there-

632 THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.
Baur (in the work quoted above) regards these two Epistles, as he does
the First Epistle, as wi-itings of Montanist origin. He proceeds from the
fact that they both have one author, and thais the second was written to
the church to which Caius (to whom the Third Epistle is directed) belonged,
and is no other than the Epistle mentioned in 3 John 9 : in this church,
Baur further says, a schism had taken place ; the one part, with Diotrephes
at their head, had refused ecclesiastical fellowship to the church to which
the author of the Epistle belonged ; the other part, on the contrary, were in
agreement with this church; and that, although the cause of that schism
is not evident from the Epistles themselves, it is nevertheless clear that it is
conformable to a time at which there had already occurred between several
churches too lively differences about questions of the highest interest for
the Christian mind. From these premises Baur concludes that the Second
Epistle "was written to the Montanistically disposed section of the Roman
Church ; " and that Diotrephes is the symbolic description of the bishop of
Rome, not indeed, as Schwegler (Montanismus, p. 284) supposed, of Victor
(for Irenaeus and Clemens Alex, already knew both Epistles), but of an
earlier bishop, perhaps Soter, or Anicet, or Eleutheros. Baur in this proof
lays a special weight upon the partisanship of the writer of the Epistle,
which had gone so far that he describes the followers of Diotrephes just as
heathen (3 John 7) (!). Baur finds the main support of his view in the
passage of Clemens Al. cited above: Secunda Joannis ep., quae ad virgines
scripta est, simplicissima est. Scripta vero est ad quondam Bahyloniam
Electam nomine, significat autem electionem ecclesia sanctae; he holds that
in these words Clemens refers the name ''EKleKry to the idea of the Church,
inasrauch as the predicate of holiness is appropriate to it ; that this quite
corresponds to the idea of the Montanists, whose first demand of the Ec
clesia was that she should be, as the " sponsa Christi," vera, pudica, sancta ;
that the name Babylonia is to be allegorically uuderstood of the city of
Rome (as in 1 Pet. v. 13), where there were divided opinions in regard to
Montanism. It does not require to be pointed out, how very much arbitrary
and extraordinary modes of interpretation are heaped up in this statement.
Quite apart from this, Baur's assertion places Clemens in the most wonderful
contradiction with himself : on the one hand, Clemens exactly specifies the
Second Epistle as written by the Apostle John ; and ou the other hand, —
though in an obscure way, — he is said to have stated that it was of Mon
tanist origin. And then, what could have induced a Montanist to invent
epistles under the pretended name of the apostle, which do not contain
any thing of Montanist character at all ? Did he want to put the authority

INTRODUCTION. 633
of John in the scale against the bishop of Rome ? But the Epistle could
not in any way have been used for that purpose, as it must have been clear
to any one that John could not have written against Soter (or Anicet, or
Eleutheros). The Montanists, however, have taken so little advantage of
these Epistles for their interests, that the Montanist Tertullian never once
mentions them! — Hilgenfeld assigns the appearance of the Second and
Third Epistles, as that of the First Epistle, to the post-apostolic age: yet he
does not seek their explanation in the interest of the author on behalf of
Montanism, but he thinks that the Second Epistle is an " excommunicatory
writing," by which, in the form of the epistles which the Christian churches
interchanged, an " official apostolic condemnation " was meant to be uttered
against the fellowship with the Gnostic false teachers ; and that the Third
Epistle is an imarolii avarariKy which originated in the church of John, and
had the object of vindicating for that church the right to the circulation
of such commendatory epistles, which the strict Jewish Christians would
allow only to their patron James, as the author had known " the usefulness
of such a regular passport " in the storms of Gnosticism. These hypoth
eses, according to which the circumstances hinted at in the Third Epistle
are a pure invention, can, however, only be regarded as make-shifts to
explain, as well as is possible, the origin of the two Epistles, which Hil
genfeld, for the same reasons as those for which he denies the genuineness
of the First Epistle, thinks it is impossible to regard as memorials of the
apostolic age.
SEC. 2. — CONTENTS AND DESIGN OF THE EPISTLES; TIME
AND PLACE OF THEIR COMPOSITION.
The Second Epistle begins with the inscription, which, after mentioning
the writer and the receiver of the Epistle, contains the greeting of bene
diction. It is addressed, according to the most probable explanation of
the word Kvpia (see the commentary on ver. 1), to a Christian church, to
which the author expresses his joy that its members are walking in truth,
with which he connects an exhortation to mutual love, which he confirms
by a reference to the appearance of false teachers whe deny that Jesus
is the Christ, come in the flesh. After he has mentioned the abiding in
the doctrine of Christ as the condition of fellowship with God, he forbids the
brotherly reception of the opponents of this doctrine, because thereby we
would make ourselves guilty of fellowship with their evil deeds. The
conclusion of the Epistle contains a justification of its shortness, and the

634 THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.
delivery of the greeting from the church in which the apostle is. — The
design of the Epistle accordingly lies in the danger which threatened the
church through the false teachers, and of which the author wanted to
warn the church in few words before he could come to it himself.
The Third Epistle also begins with an inscription, in which Caius (see
on ver. 1) is mentioned as the receiver of it. After the wish that Caius
may have prosperity, the apostle expresses his joy that he — according to
the testimony of some brethren — is walking in the truth, and praises him
especially on account of his active display of love towards strange brethren,
whom he then recommends to his further care, because they went forth for
Christ's sake, and it is a duty to receive such. — Then he mentions the
arbitrary procedure of Diotrephes, who withheld frora the church a letter
written to it by him, made evil speeches against him, and opposed the
reception of the brethren ; in connection with which the author expresses
his intention to come and bring him to account. After an exhortation
not to follow that which is evil, but that which is good, the apostle gives
Demetrius (the probable bearer of this Epistle) a good testimonial, justifles
himself for the shortness of his writing, and, after a short benediction,
concludes by giving the greeting of friends and sending greeting to friends.
The design of the Epistle accordingly was furnished by an incident which
had occurred in the church of Caius. Some strange missionary brethren,
who had found a friendly reception from Caius, had come to the apostle.
The latter had written on their behalf to the church to which Diotrephes
also belonged ; but Diotrephes, with insolent expressions against the apostle,
had opposed the reception of those brethren, and had even cast out of the
church those who did not agree with him. This Epistle is now meant to
serve the purpose of conflrming Caius in the continuation of his manifes
tations of love, as well as of intimating to him the near arrival of the
apostle. — Ewald's ideas, that both Epistles were addressed to one and
the same church, that Diotrephes had specially interested himself in the
false teachers, and that the Third Epistle was written to Caius from fear
lest the Second Epistle might have been withheld from the Church by
Diotrephes, are to be regarded as mere conjectures, which cannot be proved
from the contents of the two Epistles.
The Place and Time of their Composition are unknown in the case of both
Epistles ; yet it is not unlikely that 2 John 12 and 3 John 14 refer to a
tour (perhaps one and the same) of inspection (especially as Eusebius,
H. E., iii. 24, describes such a tour of inspection made by John from
Ephesus), aud that the Epistles were written in Ephesus. — As in the

INTRODUCTION. 635
Second Epistle the same false teachers are referred to that are spoken of
in the First Epistle, it is probable that the places at which these two
Epistles were composed are not far remote from one another.* — The
remark of Eichhorn, that in the Second Epistle a more vigorous spirit is
displayed than iu the First, is no less incorrect than the idea that the
" rigorous " (!) prohibition in 2 John 10, 11, indicates the still youthful old
age of the apostle.
' According to Ebrard, the Second Epistle the similarities are the result of a backward
appeared at a later date than the First ; the reference, is only certain if the two Episties
proof of this he finds in the fact that the proceed from different authors.
former refers back to the latter. But that

636 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.

lojawov ima-ToXt] Sevrepa.
The superscription is shortest in B and K : ludvvov S. ; in some codd. KaBoliKy
is added to iniaroly; in some Toti Em aryBoig coraes after 'ludvvov; in G it runs:
roi dyiov dnoarblov 'ludvvov roi Beoloyov. In the Elz. ed., the superscription
runs : 'ludvvov roi dnoarblov imaroly KuBoliKy Sevripa ; the Rec. is iniaroly 'ludvvov
Sevripa. Ver. 1. Kal oiK iyu]. Eec. The reading ovk iyir Si in A, 73, Syr., Thph.,
owes its origin to the desire to mark the antithesis more sharply (Diisterdieck);
Ebrard regards the Kec. as a correction, made in order to raake the Second and
the First Epistles conformable in style. Scarcely credible. G reads: kuI oiK iyu
Si, — Ver. 2. The reading in A, ivoiKo i a av, instead oi pivovaav, is too feebly
attested for us to regard it, with Ebrard, as the correct one; it has probably
arisen in order to avoid tbe tautology which pivovaav appears to form with the
following. — Ver. 3. The Elz. ed. reads iar at peB' ipuv, which is attested by
B, G, N, etc., several versions, etc. It is possible that ijpuv arose from the
immediately preceding (so Braune), but just as likely tbat ijpuv was changed to
iuuv, because the former did not seem appropriate for the greeting; the weight
of authorities is in favor of yuuv, — Instead of napd, x* reads dnb (sob). —
Before 'lyaoi Xp,, the Rec. has Jivptov, which is found in G, K, X. In A, B,
etc., Kvpiov is wanting (Lachm., Tisch.); Bengel, Bruckner, Sander, are in favor
of the genuineness of Kvp'iav; yet the later insertion of it seeras more probable
than the omission. — The avrov of K between roi vioi and roi narpbg must be
regarded as a clerical error. — Ver. 4. N (sol.) has instead of ildSopev the third
person, i'AaSov, — B omits toS before narpbg, — Ver. 5. Instead of the Eec. ypiupu,
we must read ypdipuv, according to A, B, G, K, X, etc. — Lachm. has Kuivyv
before ypdipuv, which is not adequately attested by A, X, Vulg. — Ver. 6. In the
second part, the succession of the words varies; in G, N, most of the min., etc.,
airy 'eariv y ivroly (Eec.) is found; in A, B, K, etc., on the other hand, airy y
'evroly ianv (Lachm., Tisch.); it is possible that the Eec. has been formed in
accordance with the preceding avry iariv y dydny. It is to be noticed that S has
before avry a kuI, and after evroly an avroi, and also that in the same cod. tva
is found before KuBdig, so that an epanalepsis occurs here. — Instead of nepmaryre,
N reads nepirraryayre, — Ver. 7. The raost probable reading is i^ylBov, according
to A {i^ylBav, Tisch.), B, N (Lachm.); the Eec. e'laylBov, according to G, K,
etc., is a correction; comp. 1 John ii. 19, iv. 1, and 3 John 7. — Ver. 8. The
Eec, according to G, K, has dnoliaupev . , , eipyaadpeBa . , , dnoldSopev.
Cod. A, and K read: dnoliayre (s*, dnolyaBe) . , , elpydaaaBe . . , dnoldSyre;
this reading, accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., is regarded as the original reading
by Liicke, De Wette, Reiche. Cod. B reads: d7ro;iE(7i7TE (according to Bentley's
collation; Griesb. gives dnoliayrai, which is also given by Tisch., bracketed,
however) . . . eipyaadpeBa , , , «7ro/l(i(3ETe ; De Wette regards this reading as a

VERSE 1. 637
combination of the reading of A with the Eec. ; Diisterdieck, Briickner, Braune
(also the 2d ed. of this comm. ) regard tbe reading in B as the original. It is
certainly the one by which the origin of the various readings can be easily
explained; yet the circumstance that it is almost only found in B (Reiche: lectio
codicis B in nullis aliis subsidiis inventa est, nisi quod Syr, p. in m, et Sahid.
ejus sensum expressit) must render it doubtful. Of the two others, that of A
and 8, at any rate, deserve the preference. Bengel would arbitrarily read:
dnoliayre , , , elpydaaaBe , , . dnoldSopev, which is only found in Cod. 34. —
Ver. 9. napaSaivuv]. Eec, according to G, K, etc, Syr., Thph., Oec. (Eeiche).
Lachm. and Tisch. read instead of it, npodyuv, which is attested by A, B, X,
etc., and the readings praecedit and procedit in several codd. of the Vulg.
(against which, in the printed Vulg. and Lucif., is recedit). The opinion of
Matthaei and Lucke, that npodyuv arose out of the paraphrase which appears in
the scholia: andyuv iavrov, which also occurs in Oecumenius, is unfounded;
this explanation rather points to npodyuv as the original reading. — The Eec.
(according to 6, K, etc., several vss., Thph., Oec.) has, both after the first and
after the second 'ev ry SiSaxy, the addition roi Xpiaroi; Lachm. and Tisch.
have the addition only after the first; so in A, B, a, several min., Vulg., etc;
this is to be regarded as the correct reading. — It is doubtful whether nwi' or
naripa coraes first in the following sentence; the Eec, retained by Lachm., is:
rbv naripa Kal rbv vlbv; this is found in B, G,K, K, etc., several vss., Thph.,
Oec. ; Tisch., on the other hand, following A and several vss., has accepted rbv
vibv Kal rbv naripa; but this appears to be a change effected on account of
iv ry SiS. roi Xpiarov. — Ver. 11. 6 ydp liyuv], Eec, according to G, K, almost
all min., Thph., Oec. (Tisch. 2); instead of it Tisch. 7 (similarly Lachm.),
according to A, B, K, reads b liyuv ydp, which, as unusual, might be prefer
able. Tisch. 7 remarks: ydp tertio loco positum fere ubique a plerisque testibus
in secundum locum translatum. — Tisch. has omitted ydp after airu, although
it is wanting only in K, several rain., and Oec. — Ver. 12. K* has e;(;(j; K,, how
ever, £j;<ji'. — Instead of ilnlQu ydp, Eec (Lachm.), according to A, some
min. and vss., Tisch., following B, G, K, X, many min., etc., reads: dlld
elniQu; this reading is the original one; the context might easily lead to the
change of dlld into ydp. — yeviaBai]. This reading, recommended by Gries
bach, has been accepted also by Lachm. and Tisch. The Eec. elBelv (according
to G, K, etc.) is a correction. Instead of arbpa np. ar., s* reads: orb pan npbg
arbpa.— y xapd ypuv]. Eec, according to G, K, «, etc., Tisch. ; instead of it,
Lachra., following A, B, etc., Vulg., etc., reads: v x^P"- ^'^^r ^f"^ perhaps is
preferable; the preceding ijpdg raight easily lead to the change into ypuv.—
Instead of fi nenlypupivy, Rec, according to A, G, K, all rain., etc. (Tisch.),
the reading of B, K, Vulg., is nenlyp. ?) (Lachra. ).— The Eec, following G, K,
etc., adds for conclusion dpyv, a later addition. —In various codd^, a subscrip
tion is found which runs most briefly in A, B, S, thus: 'ludvvov S. The Cod.
62 adds the words npbg TldpBovg (comp. on 1 John).
Vv. 1-3. Superscription of the Epistle.
Ver. 1. 0 npeaSvrepog]. The definite article restricts the general idea
npeaSvrepog to a particular person, to whom this epithet is specially appro
priate. That this is most probably the Apostle John, see Introduction,
sec. 1. The reflection on his age may have led the apostle to write, not
6 inlOKonog, but b npeaSirepog. — iKleKr-y Kvpigi kui rolg reKVoif airyg]. The inter-

638 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
pretation of these words has from the earliest times been very diverse,
according as either iKleKry or Kvpia has been regarded as a proper noun, or
both words have been considered as appellatives. The first opinion (Lyranus,
a Lapide, Lorinus, Cappellus, Grotius, Wetstein, etc.) has been with justice
given up by modern commentators ; it is clearly enough opposed not only by
the mode of its conjunction with Kvpia, but also by ver. 13. The second view,
according to which Kvpia is the proper noun, is found as early as in Athana
sius, and afterwards in Bengel, Carpzovius, Heumann, Krigel (Commentatio de
Kvpla Johannis, Lips , 1758), Paulus, Lucke, De Wette, BrUckner, Guericke,
DUsterdieck, Ebrard, Braune, etc. That Kupja appeared as a feminine proper
name, is not to be doubted ; see Grutteri, Inscriptt. p. 1127, num. xi. ; comp.
Heuraann : Poecile de Cyria Johannis : but if this view be taken, not only is
the adjective iKleKry strange, as it never is assigned to any individual in the
N. T. as a single predicate except in Rom. xvi. 13 (where, however, iv Kvp'iu
is put along with it), but also its connection with the proper noun, instead
of Kvpiqi ry iKleKry: comp. 3 John 1; Phil. i. 1, 2; Rom. xvi. LUcke, it is
true, refers to 1 Pet. i. 1 : 'cKleKrolg napemSypoig ; but here the case is different,
as napeniSypoig is not a proper noun, as even BrUckner admits, though he
nevertheless falls back on a "familiar carelessness" in this case.* The
third interpretation is found in Luther ("the elect woman"), Hornejus,
Wolf, Rittmeier (Diatriba, de electa' domina, Helmst., 1706), Bauragarten-
Crusius, Sander, etc. According to Epictetus, chap. 62 : ai yvvalKeg e-iBig dnb
reaaapeaKalSsKa iruv inb ruv dvSpuv Kvp'iai Kaloivrai, women might certainly be
called Kvplai ; but this was plainly only a polite address, corresponding not to
the German Frau (woman), but to the German Herrin (lady). It hardly
corresponds with the apostolic dignity of the author, however, to describe
the receiver of the Epistle in the superscription by this narae of a conven
tional politeness.^ But the opinion of Knauer (Stud. u. Krit., 1833, Part 2,
p. 452 ff.), that by iKl^Krij Kvp'ia is to be understood Mary, the mother of
Jesus, lacks any tenable foundation (see LUcke on this passage). — Already
at an early date Kvpia was taken as a symbolic description of the Christian
Church ; so Jerome (Ep, xi. ad Ageruchiam) and the Scholiast I. (iKlsKryv
Kvp'iav liyei ryv iv nvi rbnu iKKlyaiav), and later Calovius, Whiston, Michaelis,
Augusti, Hofmann (in his 'Weissagung u. Erfiillung, II. p. 321, and in his
Schriftbew., I. p. 226 ff.), Hilgenfeld (1855), Ewald, etc. It is true the
word does not elsewhere appear in this signification ; but according to its
connection with Him who is b Kipiog, the Church may certainly be called
Kvp'ia in its relationship to the individual members. ^ Both the contents of
1 According to Ewald, it is " foolish to Kvpia. That Frau originally corresponded to
think " that " the apostle is here writing to an the eiipression nvpla, is certain, — tho word is
individual woman." even yet frequently used in this sense, —but
2 Against the distinction between the ex. it does not therefore follow that the Greek
pressions Frau and I/err-in, Braune adduces Kvpta becarae so much weakened in usage as
the etymology of the former word (Frau, the German word Frau.
feminine of fro = fferr) ; this is quite irrele- a Hofmann recalls the description of the
vant here, however, as it is not the German, Church in the Apocalypse as the vvpiPy and
but the Ch-eek, expressions, that are in ques- the ywrj. When Ebrard objects -to this, that
lion; it is the distinctiou between yvvri and the Church in contrast with the "Lord" is

VERSE 1. 639
the Epistle, which is lacking in the slightest individual reference to a single
person, and the way in which John speaks to the receivers of the Epistle
and passes judgment on them (comp. what follows in this verse ; further,
vv. 4, 5, 8, 10) ; and, finally, the way in which the sister and her children
are mentioned,* — are no less opposed to the opinion that the Epistle was
written to one particular woman, than they are in favor of the opinion that
it was directed to a Christian church : only Kvpia must not be regarded as
the name of honor of any one particular church (according to Serrarius of
the Corinthian church, or according to Augusti of that of Jerusalem) ; it is
rather a name suitable for every church, by which, therefore, that church
could also be described to which the Epistle is directly addressed.^ — kuI
rolg riKvoig airyg]. If Kvpia is a description of the church, the tekvc are
her individual members.' The representation of the Church as a mother,
and of her members as her children, occurs elsewhere also; comp. Gal.
iv. 26. — ovg iy& dyanu iv dlyBeia]. If we take Kvpia as a proper noun, then
ovg indicates that by riKvoig only sons are to be understood ; but why then
does not the apostle write koI rolg violg avrygl If the riKva are the members
of the church, however, then ovg is used here exactly as reKv'ta pov, ovg in Gal.
iv. 9 ; comp. also Matt, xxviii. 19 : tu iBvy . . . airoig. Suitable though the
masculine is to denote all church-members, it would be just as unsuitable to
denote members of one family, if this consisted not merely of sons, but —
as Braune here supposes — of daughters also, iyu is used emphatically, '
inasmuch as the apostle wants to bring out his intimate relationship to the
members of the Church. — iv dlyBeia in its connection with dyanu is not = iv
Ty dlyBe'ia, as if the (Christian) truth were thereby indicated as the element
in which love has its existence (Bengel, Dusterdieck) ; but it is used adverb
ially, not, however, to emphasize the sincerity of the love, but, as the word
itself states, the truth of the love (Ebrard : " I love thee with that love which
is a love in truth ; " similarly Lucke : " it is the real Christian love that is
meant;" and Braune). — kuI oiK iyH pbvag, dlld ndvreg]. All who have
known the truth share with the apostle love to the riKva of the Kvpia. This
addition also goes to show that Kvpla is not a proper noun ; for, how could
the children of an individual woman be regarded as an object of the love of
all believers? Bengel, with whom DUsterdieck agrees, remarks indeed on
this, communio sanctorum: but the apostle's mode of expression presupposes
not " the lady," but the obedient handmaid, it however, " had in view the whole of orthodox
must be remerabered that she is here spoken Christendom" (Hilgenfeld), is just as little
of not in regard to her subordinate relation- appropriate to this Epistle as to the First. —
ship to Christ, but in regard to her superior Braune's considerations are of little impor-
rclationsbip to her individual members. tance : the name of the church raight be
> De "Wette also says : " The way in which omitted, because the bearer of the Epistle
her sister and her sister's children are raen- knew to what church ho had to take it;
tioned is favorable to the idea that a single iKKexrri is by no raeans unsuitable with icvpta
Christian church is meant." = iKKKr^aia, according to ^ iv ¦Rafivhavt awe-
2 That the Epistle is directly addressed to a KkeKri (by which the church is certainly to be
particular church, is evident from ver. 12 ; the understood) ; it has not been asserted that the
want ot references to individual circumstances relationship of the mother in Gal. iv. 26 haa
may perhaps be explained by the fact that it been given to a single church.
also had an encyclical design : that the author,

640 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
an actual knowledge about one another. Several commentators accordingly
have recourse to a weakening of the idea ndvreg,'^ which, however, is arbi
trary. — dlijBeui is the divine truth, of which the believer becomes a partaker
in Christ. The emphasis of dlijBeia both here and in ver. 2 is caused by
the antithesis to the nldivoi (ver. 7). The bracketing of the words kuI ovk
. . . ttJv iilyBeiav, " spoils the clearness of the connection, and is also logically
not quite correct, because ver. 2 refers not only to iyu, but also to ndvreg "
(LUcke). Ver. 2 states the cause of the love. — Sid r^v dlyBeiav rijv pivovaav
Iv ijplv]. The idea piveiv signifies here, as in the First Epistle, firm, sure
existence. — In yulv the apostle includes the loving and the loved (so also
Braune) . — The dyandv iv niy Bel fia based on the possession of the dlyBew,.
— Carpzovius incorrectly connects these words with ver. 3. — By the addi
tion, Kal peB' ypuv iarai eig rbv aiuva, the imperishable endurance of fellowship
with the truth is declared (Dusterdieck, Braune), aud it is not merely the
wish for it that is expressed (LUcke, Ebrard). By perd (as distinguished
from il) the objectivity of the truth is indicated (Brauue). The irregularity
of the construction, inasmuch as the finite verb is used instead of a participle
(comp. A. Buttraann, p. 327 [E. T., 382]; Winer, p. 533 [E. T., 578]),
serves to give prorainence to the idea.
Ver. 3. The forraula of greeting. It agrees substantially with that
which is found in raost of the N. T. Epistles; the prefixed iarai peB' ypuv
(ipuv), however, is peculiar; the future indicates the wish as a certain
expectation, which is based on the immediately preceding statement (DUster
dieck). If we take the reading ijpCrv (see the critical notes), the apostle
includes himself along with the readers of the Epistle, which indeed does
not elsewhere occur in the salutatory formulae; perd="\\ith." — ;tap(f,
ileog , eipyvy , just as in 1 and 2 Tim. and Tit. 1.4.^ — Trapu Qeov narpbg].
Instead of napa, dno is elsewhere regularly used in this connection, as N reads
here also ; on the difference of the two prepositions, see Winer, p. 342 (E. T.,
364 f.). — To Oeoii narpbg, ijpuv is always added by Paul, except in the Pastoral
Epistles. God is here called iraryp, first of all in His relation to Christ, but
also with the consciousness that iu Christ He is the Father of believers also.
— Kal napd 'lya, Xp, roi vioi roi narpbg, similarly in the other Epistles
of the N. T., only that here the sonship of Christ is specially indicated; the
repetition of the preposition brings out the independence of the Son along
with the Father. — The last addition, iv dlyBeia kuI dydny, is peculiar to John;
the dl, aud dydny are the two vital elements (Baumgarten-Crusius : funda-
r Hornejus; "Omnes fideles, nou quidem 2 The explanation of these words given on
qui in toto orbe tura temporis erant, sed qui 1 Tim. i. 2 is regarded as unsatisfactory by
in illis partibus et siraul Doraiuam illam et DUsterdieck, although it is in substantial
iiberos ejus norant." — Liicke: "rrdvre^, K.r.K,, agreement with his own, only that it is not
i.e., all Christians (perhaps of this place?) expressly stated that xapts means "grace,"
who know the Kyria and her children;" eXtos " mercy," and eip^vij " peace," — which
Braune agrees with this explanation, but is surely self-evident, — but only the relation
would regard " as Included, even those who of the three ideas to one another, which is
would later become acquainted with her" — often erroneously interpreted, is pointed out.
which is clearly unsuitable.

VERSES i, 5, 6. 641
mental features) of the believer, in which the divine manifestations of grace,
mercy, and peace have to work (Dusterdieck) : " the words contain an indi
cation of the contents of the whole Epistle " (Ebrard) ; a Lapide erroneously
supplies : ut perseveretis vel ut crescatis. Grotius wrongly defines the relation
ship when he says : per cognitionem veri et dilectionem mutuam, nam per haec
in nos Dei beneficia provocamus, conservamus, augemus , in the first place, iv is
not = per ; and, in the second place, our conduct is not the cause of the
divine xuptc, K.r.l,, but the relationship is the converse.
Ver. 4. The Epistle begins with the assurance of joy at the conduct of
those to whom it is addressed. The preface to raost of the Pauline Epistles
is similar. This verse refers back to the preceding ej- dlyBeig ; ver. 5, on the
other hand, to iv dydny, — ixapyv llav; not, "I have greatly rejoiced"
(Luther); the aorist is to be kept in its own meaning. The apostle is speak
ing historically of the time at which he had the experience which he states
in the following words. — on eipyKa eK ruv riKvuv aov nepinaroivrag
iv dlyBeia'\, i-K ruv riKv. is not = rS riKva aov; it is indicated by the e/c
that John could not boast the nepmarelv iv dl, of all,* but not that " he had
not become acquainted with all " (DUsterdieck). Braune's observation is
erroneous, that, " as the article is wanting with nepinaroivrag, it is not indi
cated that the other children were not walking iv dl." With neptnaretv iv,
comp. John viii. 12 ; 1 John i. 6, 7 ; 3 John 3, 4, and several other passages.
— eipyKa indicates a previous meeting with the children of the Kvp'ia — and
hence a previous sojourn of the apostle in the church to which he is writing ;
incorrectly, Sander : " I have found as the result of my examination ; " the
preterite ixapyv does not suit this interpretation. — If Kvpia be a proper
noun, it reraains uncertain where the apostle met with her children. Lucke,
on account of ver. 12, considers it unlikely that the apostle had been in
the faraily; "he seeras to have met the riKva somewhere else without the
mother " (so also Braune). Not only this uncertainty, but also the circura
stance that John does not express himself further about the children who
are not walking in the truth, indicates that he is not speaking of a faraily,
but of a church, which is erroneously disputed by Braune. — KaB£>g ivrolyv
ildSopev], KaBug (which is not to be taken here, with Ebrard, argumenta
tively = " because indeed ") does not more particularly define the nepmarelv
in itself, as if iv dlyBelgi were only added adverbially for confirmation = " who
-in truth walk as," etc.; but KaBug refers to the nepmarelv iv dlyB., and dlyBeia
is Christian truth, as in ver. 3; thus, "ivho are walking in the truth, according
as we received commandment " (DUsterdieck). By this, however, we are not
to understand one particular commandraent, but the obligation which is
contained in the Christian faith to walk in the truth, napd rov narpbg,
see ver. 3 ; the intervention of the Son is iraplied.
Vv. 5, 6. Kal vvv ipuru ae]. viv is used here, not temporally, but
logically. DUsterdieck refers it to the iraraediately preceding subordinate
clause, KuBUg, k,t,1, ; Ebrard, on the other hand, to the idea eipyKa, K.r.l, ; but

1 Ebrard, appropidately : " It is a delicate which he has to express in a mere limitation
way tn which the presbyter covers the blame of praise."

642 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
it is more correctly referred to ixapyv, k,t.1, ; the joy which the apostle felt is
the cause of his present request (so also BrUckner and Braune). John says
ipuru instead of the usual napuKulu, as the request is suitable to the church,
as a Kvpia. — ovx "f ivrolyv ypdipuv aoi Katvyv, k,t.1^. Comp. 1 John
ii. 7. — tva dyanupev dllylovg, dependent on ipuru, comp. John xvii. 15, not
on ivrolijv ixopev (Baumgarten-Crusius), "for this is used in a subordinate
clause merely, and ipuriv would be without connection and without object "
(BrUckner). Iva states here also not merely the purpose, but the substance
of the request (contrary to Braune). — Ver. 6. koI airy . . . iva]. The same
construction, 1 John v. 3. The apostle is not distinguishing the command
ment of love from the other commandments (De Wette), but is describing
the walking according to the commandments of God as the substance and
essence of love ; with justice, for, in the first place, only that love is moral —
or, more particularly. Christian — in its character, which is founded on obe
dience toward God, and therefore " consists in the fulfilment of the com
mandments of God that regulate our relationship to our neighbor " (Ebrard) ;
and, in the second place, the aim of all the divine commandments is nothing
else than love. BrUckner, Braune, and others here interpret y dyun-)? incor
rectly of " Christian love siraply," including also the love of God and Christ ;
the close connection of this sentence with the preceding one (ij dydny clearly
refers back to iva dyanupev d?,lylovg) compels US to understand ij dyany of
Christian brotherly love. The thought last expressed is specially erapha
sized by the following words. According to the reading, avry ij ivroly ian,
we must translate: " T/us commandment is (consists in this), as ye have heard
from the beginning (no other than this), that ye should walk 'cv airy." — y ivroly
resumes the preceding rug ivroldg airoi : the transition from the plural to the
singular is not difficult ; comp. 1 John iii. 22, 23. — Iva states the substance
of the commandment, and iv airy refers to uydTn? (De Wette-BrUckner, LUcke,
DUsterdieck, Ebrard, Braune), and not to ivrolSj (Sander) ; for this would
not only give an inadmissible tautology, but would also be contrary to John's
mode of expression, in which the phrase nepmarelv iv ry ivroly does not appear.
— By the intervening clause KuBUg yKoiaare, " a subordinate definition of the
ivroly " (Lucke, De Wette) is not given, but it is observed that the readers
have heard frora the beginning what is the substance of the divine com
mandment ; the apostle thereby refers back to what was said in ver. 5 (so
also DUsterdieck, Ebrard, Bruckner, Braune). The circle that results from
this interpretation only serves to bring clearly out the identity of brotherly
love and obedience toward God.*
Ver. 7. In this verse the apostle addresses himself to the warning against
the false teachers, whom he first more particularly characterizes. The on,
with which the verse begins, indicates that the foregoing exhortation to
1 Kostlin incorrectly interprets (p. 218): firmation in the context. — Ebrard unjustifiably
" The old commandment, that we should love asserts that the obscurity ot the expression in
one another, raeans nothing else than that we this verse is to be explained by the fact that
should abide in what He has comraanded us to the apostle intentionally alludes to sorae pas-
believe." That ivroKij here denotes the com- sages ot the ]?irst Epistle, with which he
mand to believe (1 John iii. 23), finds no con- assumes the Kyria to be farailiar.

VERSE 8. 643
mutual love has its origin in the fear of their being disturbed by the influ
ence of the false teachers ; but it is not to be inferred from this that bn is
grammatically dependent on ipuru ae. It would be grammatically possible
also to regard this verse as the premise on which ver. 8 is based (Grotius,
Carpzovius), but such a construction is at variance with the peculiarity of
John's diction. — oti nollol nldvot]. The expression nldvoi does not else
where appear in John; comp. on the other hand. Matt, xxvii. 63; 2 Cor.
vi. 8 ; 1 Tim. iv. 1 ; instead of it in 1 John ii. 26 : oi nlavuvreg ipdg. — With
this passage maybe compared 1 John ii. 18 ff., iv. 1. — i^ylBov [e'laijlBov]
eig rbv Kbapov does not denote separation frora the church; Kbapog does
not here forra the antithesis of the iKKlyaia roi Qeov ; the sense is rather the
same here as in John iv. 1. The difference between el ay IB. and i^ylB. is
only this, that by the latter expression the point of departure is more defi
nitely indicated. — oi pij bpoloyoivreg, k.t.1., comp. 1 John iv. 2, 3; on
the N. T. usage of the article before the participle after nollol, comp. Buttm.,
p. 254 (E. T., 296) ; p^ bpoloyelv — dpvelaBai, The py is not to be ex
plained, with Winer (p. 450 [E. T., 483]), by the fact that the participle
refers to a representative class (— quicumque non profitentur), but it is used
just as in 1 John iv. 3: b pij bpoloyel; see on this passage. — 'lyaoiv Xpiarbv
ipxbpevov iv aapKi is to be taken just as the words 1 John iv. 2, that run
almost exactly similarly. The present participle ipxbpevov, instead of which
ilylrjBora is used there, expresses the idea in itself — apart from the idea of
time ; comp. John vi. 14. Bengel, incorrectly, qui veniehat, with an appeal
to 3 John 3, for in this passage ipxopivuv and paprvpovvruv, by their close
connection with ixapyv, are distinctly indicated as imperfect participles ; such
a connection does not exist here, nor are we to interpret, with Baumgarten-
Crusius, " He who was to come." Still raore incorrectly Oecuraenius takes it
as future participle, referring it to the second coraing of Christ. — oirbg
eanv b nldvog Kal b dvrixpiarog]. oirog reiershac'k to oi py bpoloyoivreg,
K.r.l, By o nldtog the apostle resumes the preceding nldvoi; hy b dvri
xptarog he adds jp, new characteristic. — The definite article indicates these
ideas as familiar' to the readers ; the antichrist of whora they have heard,
corap. I John ii. 18. — The singular is here used in collective signification
(LUcke) ; the many are the antichrist, inasmuch as the same nveipa rijg
ff^wr/f is in all ; comp. further, the remarks on 1 John ii. 18.
Ver. 8. The warning against the deceivers. — /JA^ttete iavroig, ^'¦tdke heed
to yourselves;" iSXetcw with the refl. pron. besides here only in Mark xiii. 9.
— The construction tva after Sle^t^tv only in 1 Cor. xvi. 10 besides; by 'iva it
is not the purpose (" take heed to yourselves, sc, of them, so that "), but the
immediate object of their foresight that is stated (contrary to De Wette,
Braune, and A. Buttm., p. 209).* — Iva, k,t.1,]. Whatever may be the correct
reading, the thought remains essentially the same : the apostle warns his
• Braune here adduces various passages of nected is absolute or relative (requiring sup-
the N. T. in order to vindicate for the particle plement), and he has not reflected that if the
¦tva the meaning of purpose (" so that ") ; but clause beginning with iVa forms the supple-
he has not paid attention to the distinction ment of the preceding verbal idea, 'iva cannot
whether the verbal idea with which li/a is con- be = " so that."

644 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
readers not to let themselves be deprived, by the false teachers, of the
blessing of wliich they became partakers through the evangelistic work.
With the reading eipyaadptBa those who have worked are John and his asso
ciates ; that iv iplv, or a similar phrase, must be put along with it for more
particular definition (LUcke), is unfounded, as this more particular definition
lies in the context itself, with the reading elpydaaaBe, on the other haud, it
is the work of the receivers of the Epistle themselves that is meant, who
should just as little come short of the attainment of the blessing as the
former. — The object of ipydQeaBai, indicated by a, is not exactly the piaBbg,
which is also spoken of, but the work directly effected by the labor, the
result or the fruit of it. Fruit had been obtained in the church by means
of the work (fruit of knowledge, love, etc.); it was of importance that they
should not again be deprived of this fruit; this is expressed by u^ dnolc-
ayre: their loss may also, however, be considered as a loss to those who had
worked araong thera by the preaching of the gospel, so that, as far as
the sense is concerned, the Rec. dnoliaupev is perhaps justifiable; but the
reading dno'/Uayrai, "that they (u) may not be lost," also gives good sense,
so that no cause exists for regarding it, with Lucke, as a mere clerical error.
— If, however, that which was directly obtained by the work be lost again,
then the future reward (ptaBbg) promised to Christians also disappears;
therefore the apostle antithetically adds: dlld piadbv nlypy dnoldSv'^.
With the reading dnoldpupev we might be disposed to understand by the
reward the heavenly gift which the apostle himself had to expect on account
of his work; but he could not be deprived of this by the conduct of those
araong whom he had labored, as it depends not on the result, but on the
faithfulness of the work ; by /iiadbg, therefore, must certainly be understood
the reward which those to whora John is writing have to expect; for this,
however, the reading dnoldSvre is plainly raore suitable than dnoldSupev
(so also BrUckner). — ptaBbv nlypy is not = uiaBbv nblvv (Carpzovius), but
"full reward;" by nlypy it is not meant that if they did not exhibit faith
fulness they would receive only an imperfect reward, nor even that up to
the present they had only received a part of the reward (Grotius, Aretius,
Ebrard), but that the reward which, if. they exhibit faithfulness, they shall
obtain, is a quite full reward, in which there is nothing lacking (DUsterdieck,
Bruckner). Ver. 9 brings out clearly the importance of abiding in the truth. — mj- 6
npodyuv Kal pij uevuv]. npodyeiv and piveiv form a natural antithesis; npodyeiv in
the neuter sense, " to advance farther," signifies here, in reference to SiSaxy,
" to advance beyond the limits of tlie (Christian) doctrine," and contains an
ironical allusion to the pretensions of the false teachers to have advanced
to a higher degree of knowledge.* The Rec. napaSaivuv means : "to pass by
anything;" we must supply along with it either rijv SiSaxyv (accoxAin^ to
the analogy of napaSa'iveiv ryv ivrolijv, Matt. xv. 3), or dnb {iK) rijg StSaxyg;
comp. Acts i. 25 : dnooro'lyg dip' (Rec. i^) yg napiSrj 'loiSag. It is clearly

1 When Braune rejects this with the re- not cousider iu what connection the above was
mark-. " there is a bitter truth in. fact," he did said.

VERSE 10. 645
unwarrantable to supply the idea ivroly out of ver. 7. — kuI pij pivuv iv
ry SiSaxy rov Xpiaroi; comp. John viii. 31: uiveiv iv ru Ibyu ni ipu;
2 Tim. iii. 14. — roi Xpiarov is not the objective (Sander, Ebrard, etc.),
but the subjective genitive (DUsterdieck, Ewald, Braune) ; the doctrine
which, proceeding from Christ, was proclaimed by the apostles. — Qebv oiK
ixet ; corap. 1 John ii. 23. The doctrine of Christ is the truth ; he who has
not the truth has not God ;¦ for in its deepest source the truth is the living
God Himself. Weiss (p. 29) unsatisfactorily interprets ixeiv of the raere
"possession in knowledge," in place of which, on p. 77, however, he says,
"the possession effected by means of the contemplative knowledge of
Christ," as if the latter were identical with the former. By the following
sentence the same thought is expressed positively, and is completed by
rbv vibv, which isthe cause of changing Qebg to naryp.^
Ver. 10. Warning against fellowship with false teachers, el ng ipxerai
npbg ijidg]. The more particular definition of the tic is contained in the
following : Kal , . , ipipei. The particle el is used here because " the case is
put as if actual" (Winer). The- author assuraes the ipxeaBai as really
occurring, and in reference to it gives the command : py lapSdveve ; if he had
regarded the coming as a thing which might only possibly occur, he would
have put 'edv; hence it is unsuitable to say that el ng is un-Johannean
(Ebrard), " for it cannot be un-Johannean to assurae a case as a reality '
(Braune). — /cat rairyv ryv SiSaxijv oi ipipei]. r, r, <i«5., namely, the SiS, roi
Xpiaroi. The phrase ipipeiv r. SiS. only here in the N. T. ; comp. the
classical uiBov, dyyellyv ipipetv nvi. — On oi after ei, see Al. Buttm., p. 299
(E. T., 348). Grotius rightly says: non de iis qui alieni semper fuerunt ab
ecclesia (1 Cor. v. 10), sed de iis qui volunt fratres haheri el doclrinam evertunt.
It is only with this interpretation that the prohibitiou of the apostle can be
correctly understood. — pij lapddvere avrbv eig oUlav is to be understood of the
hospitable reception into our house, which is to be accorded to the brethren
as such ; the apostle therefore -forbids the brotherly reception of such as
bring not the doctrine of Christ, but another doctrine opposed to it, and are,
accordingly, assiduous in asserting the latter. The limitation of the pro
hibition to the relationship of ipilo^evla (Rom. xii. 13; Heb. xiii. 2) finds no
support in the words of the apostle. Now such a Kplatg was so much the
more necessary, the more the false teachers sought to abuse the Christian
hospitality, in order to gain for themselves access to the churches ; corap.
2 Tira. iii. 6. — koI xaipeiv airu prj liyere]. It is arbitrary to limit this prohi
bition, with Clemens Alex., to the salutalio, quae fiebat, postquam surgebatur
ah oratione solemni velut gaudii et pacts indicium ; as well as to interpret it in
that degree of generality which a Lapide gives it when he says : vetat hic
Joh. omne colloquium, omne consortium, omne commercium cum haereticis ; just
as little is it to be interpreted, with Vitringa {De Synag. vet., p. 759), of the
excommunication proper. This prohibition is in closest connection with

^ According to Ebrard, this verse is a quo- tions, the existence of which can otherwise be
tation of the passage 1 John ii. 23. But that explained only by arbitrary coujectures In au
this is not so is shown by the manifold devia- artificial way.

646 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
the preceding, and sirailarly refers to el ng ipxerai npbg ipug, K,r,l, ; it is
meant to strengthen the former ; not merely the hospitable reception into
the house, but also the friendly greeting of the false teacher, if he comes
as a Christian brother, is not to take place '¦ (comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew,,
ii. 2, p. 339). The word xulpeiv, as a formula of salutation, appears
frequently both in the classics and also in the N. T., especially in Epistles;
see Wahl on this word.
Ver. 11. Confirmation of the preceding prohibition. — b liyuv ydp airu
xaipeiv]. The apostle mentions only this one thing, because what he says
about it is self-evident in regard to the rest also. — Koivuvel rolg ipyoig airob
rolg novypolg, i.e., inasmuch as the xaipeiv Izyeiv is not merely an outward
display of politeness, but an expression of an intimate relation of fellow
ship. — By rd ipya rd novypd we are to understand, of course, the false
doctrine, but, at the sarae tirae, along with this the whole evil character of
the false teachers, which was very closely connected with their doctrine. ^
Ver. 12. Justification of the shortness of the Epistle. — nollH ixuv iplv
ypdipeiv, says the apostle, conscious as he was of having only given a few
brief hints of that which was agitating his mind. — ovk eSovlyByv Sid xuprov
Kal pilavog]. From the idea ypdipeiv the more general idea of communication
is to be supplied. — xupryg "is the Egyptian paper (papyrus), and probably
the finer augustau sort, which served for letters (Hug, Einl., i. 106);"
De Wette. — pi'Aav, besides here, only in 3 John 13; 2 Cor. iii. 3. The
following words : dlld 'elniQu, state the reason of oi/c iSovlijByv ; by u;Uu the
reason is expressed iu the form of an antithesis. — yeviaBat npbg ipdg]. In
the phrase: yiyveaBai npbg, the ideas of motion, and of rest, are both
included; comp. yiyv, eig. Acts xxi. 17, xxv. 15; the construction with npbg;
1 Cor. xvi. 10 ; comp. John x. 35 ; Acts x. 13, etc. — koI arbpa npbg arbm
lalyaai]. An imitation of the Hebrew n?"7K np, Nura. xii. 8; comp.
npbaunov npbg npbaunov, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. Similar combinations in the classics
also; Xen., Mem,, ii. 6, 32, arbpa npbg arbpa is used of a kiss. — tva y xupH,
K,r,l, ; comp. 1 John i. 4. With the reading Ijpuv (see the critical notes)
mutual joy is meant; comp. Rom. i. 11, 12.
Ver. 13. Presentation of the greeting from the children of the Kvpla's
sister. If Kvpia were a proper noun, we would have to suppose that the
1 Ebrard contradicts himeelf when, in op- vieio, then perhaps impossible, that man even
position to the interpretation given here, he in /lis errors still remains man, and an ob-
first maintains that xo-i-petv \iyetv here is the ject o.f esteem and /oversee in it impatience."
" quite gre7i<?ra/ idea of the greeting ot conuew- — Difficult thongh it may be under present
tionat politeness," and Sittei-wstrda iaterpi-etB: circurastances, considering the developraent
" He who greets such a false teacher, i.e., which doctrine has taken, iu many particular
keeps up personal acquaintance and conven- cases rightly to apply «vbat Is here said by
tional intercourse with him." John, yet it must still be regarded as a valid
2 De Wette's reraark, justly rejected by maxim, not only thatfthe Christian should
BrUckner, is utterly erroneous ; " This probi- remain conscious of tbe antithesis between
bition finds its justification in poleraic zeal, anti-Christianity and f)hristlanity, but also
and the necessity for defence against what that he should not deny this consciousness in
seeraed fatal to the maintenance of the Church. his conduct towards bis neighbor. — Besser
We, with the sure foundation of the Christian unjustifiably seeks to make use of the expres-
Church, and in accordance with the higher sion of the apostle as a weapon against union.

VERSE 13. 647
sister had either already died, or was not with her children near the apostle,
as he would otherwise certainly have mentioned her. — Such uncertain
hypotheses are removed by the correct explanation of Kvpla ; now it is self-
evident that the dtSE^l^^ is the church from which John wrote this Epistle,
— and the rixva, therefore, are its individual members ; on -ryg iKlvKryg, comp.
ver. 1.

648 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN.

'loidwov i-ma-ToXri rpirtf. f
The superscription runs in B, N: 'ludvvov y; in C: 'Iu. iniaroly y; in G:
iniaroly rp'ny roi dyiov dnoarblov 'ludvvov; in the Elzev. ed. : 'ludvvov rov dnoarblov
imaroly KuBoliKy rpiry.
Ver. 3. X omits ydp. — Ver. 4. In some min. is found, plainly as a correction,
rairyg instead of roiruv. — Instead of ixi^, B {teste Myo) has ixi')'" (not men
tioned by Buttm.), and instead of x"pav, B, 7, 35, Vulg., etc., read x''P'-'''', Buttm.
has retained the Rec — Instead of the Rec. iv dlyBe'ig. (according to C**, G, K,
X, Thph., Oec), A, B, C*, etc., read iv ry dl., which Lachm. and Tisch. have
accepted; the omission of the article is explained by the preceding iv dl., ver. 3.
— Ver. 5. ipyday]. Rec, according to B, C, 6, K, S, all the rain., Thph., Oec.
(Tisch.), Lachra., following A, Vulg. {operaris), has accepted ipyuQy, which,
however, appears to be only an alteration on account of the present noie'ig, —
Instead of kuI eig roig ^evovg (Rec, according to G, K, etc.), Kal roiro ^evovg
must be read, with A, B, C, X, etc., most of.the versions, Lachra., and Tisch. —
Ver. 6. Ewald arbitrarily conjectures: oig ipapripyaa. — The reading of C,
noiyaag nponipipeig, is clearly a correction. — Ver. 7. After bvbuarog the
Elzev. ed., following several min. and some vss., has airoi, which is found in
none of the greater MSS. (nor, according to Tisch. 7, in B). Buttm. has
accepted this airoi, and that, too, as the reading of B ; Tisch. 2 also ascribes it
to this codex, but with the reraark: e sil. collat. Reiche says: Lachra.: falso
codicem B pro C avroi citat. Codicem B airov non habere nunc e Maji atque
Kuenii et Cobeti edit, constat. — On the reading i^ylBav (Lachm., Tisch. 7),
comp. 2 John 7. — Instead of iBvdiv, Rec, according to G, K, etc., Lachm. and
Tisch. have with justice accepted iBviKCw, which is the reading of A, B, C, K,
and many others; Eeiche, however, regards iBvuv as the original reading. —
— Ver. 8. dnolapSuveiv]. Eec, following C**, G, K, etc Instead of it A, B,
C*, N, etc., read inolapSdveiv, which Lachm. and Tisch. have accepted, and in
favor of which Eeiche also declares himself. Both words are, in the significa
tion in which they are here used, "jt. leydpeva; the overwhelming authorities are
in favor of inol, — Instead of ry dlyBelg, K* reads r-y iKKlyaig, clearly a correc
tion. — Ver. 9. After iypaipa. A, B, C, K (Lachm., Tisch.), read ri. The Eec.
is only supported by G, K, some min., etc.* Two min., 29, 66**, have uv n;
and .sorae others av without n; the Vulg. : scripsissam forsitan. These readings
have arisen from an erroneous interpretation of the thought. — Ver. 10. Instead
of Sovlopivovg is found in C, several rain., Vulg.: iniSexopivovg; a correc-
1 Reiche incorrectly says :" Lectiones variae reads eypaipa^ (Reiche), has not been ob-
a rec. discedentes singulae non satis testatae served either by Tischendorf 7 or by Butt-
sunt;" whereas the overwhelming evidences mann. Should it be the case, it must be
decide iu favor of ti being original. That B regarded merely as a clerical error.

VERSES 1, 2. 649
tion. In N, the preposition iK is wanting before ryg iKKlyaiag, — Ver. 11. The Si
between A and KUKonoiCiv (Eec.) is, according to almost all the authorities, to be
deleted; it was interpolated to mark the antithesis. — Ver. 12. In Cod. C, to
the words ryg dlyBeiag, ryg iKKlyaiag Kai is further prefixed. In A the reading
is uncertain; according to the statement of Tisch., A* probably reads iKKly
aiag instead of ulyBeiag; Lachm. states the reading thus: " d'Ay . , , Biag corr.
A, . . . Btag pr. A." — oMqte]. Rec, according to G, K, etc., several vss., Thph.,
Oec. (Tisch.). In A, B, C, X, Vulg., etc, on the other hand, is found o'lSag,
which Griesb. recommended, and Lachm. accepted. — If the overwhelming
evidences were not for olSag, we might regard it as a correction, as olSare
seemed objectionable in an Epistle addressed to one person. — Ver. 13. Instead
of ypdipeiv (Eec, according to G, K, etc., Oec), the reading of A, B, C, S, etc.,
almost all versions, Thph.: ypdipat aot, accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., is to be
preferred. — The reading in A, oiK iSovlyByv, instead ot ov Bilu, has origi
nated in 2 John 12. — Though the Rec. (according to 6, K, etc., Thph., Oec.)
has ypdrpai at the close of the verse. A, B, C, S, etc., here read ypdipeiv, which is
justly accepted by Lachm. and Tisch. The pronoun am is jput after the verb in
A, etc., Vulg., etc. (Lachm.); most of the authorities, however, decide in favor
ot its position before the verb (Tisch.). — Ver. 14. Instead of the Rec. iSeiv ae
(G, K, X, several versions, etc.), ae iSeiv is probably to be read, with A, B, C,
etc. (Lachm., Tisch.). — Ver. 15. Instead of oi iplloi, A has ol dSelipol;
clearly a correction. — X, sol., has danaaai for dandQov. — Only a few codd.
(G, some min., etc.) have at the close the word dpyv, — The subscription runs
in A, B, X, ludi'i'ow y; in G, imaroly y rov ayiov dnoarblov 'ludvvov; in other
codd., still more prolix.
Ver. 1. Superscription. On 6 npeaSvrepog, see the Introd., sec. 1.
With regard to the person of Caius, nothing particular is known ; that he is
identical with one of two (or three) Caiuses who are mentioned as friends
and helpers of the Apostle Paul (comp. Acts xix. 29, xx. 4 ; 1 Cor. i. 14 ;
and Rom. xvi. 23), is at least improbable.* It is also uncertain whether
he is the same person as the Caius who, according to the Constitt. Apostol.,
vii. 46, is said to have been appointed by John as bishop in Pergamos (Mill.,
Whiston). That he was presbyter of the Church (Kdstlin), does not follow
from ver. 8. The apostle expresses his love to Caius in the epithet ru dya^
nyrCi ; how sincere it was, is shown by the fact that he not only adds : bv iy£>
dyanili iv dlyBelg (comp. with this 2 John 1), but also addresses hira three
times in the Epistle by dyanyri. On iv dl. Oecumenius here well observes :
iv dlyBelg dyana b Kara Kvpiov dyanuv ivStaBerip dydny.
Ver. J. Instead of with the usual formula of greeting, the Epistle begins
with a wish for the welfare of Caius. — nepl ndvruv]. ndvruv is not mascu
line (Paulus- "on account of all, i.e., for the good of all"), but neuter.
Several commentators, Beza, Castellio, Wahl, LUcke (first edition), Ewald,
Dusterdieck, etc., interpret ttep^ ndvTuv = npb TraK ruv here, and connect it
1 Liicke thinks that if he was one ot these, however, regards it as probable that he was
he would only be the Gains of Derbe (Acts the same as the Caius mentioned in 1 Cor. i.
XX. 4) ; yet he states no reason tor this opin- 14, whom he distinguishes as the Corinthian
ion, but merely refers to Wolf's Curae ; Wolf, Caius from the Caius ot Derbe.

650 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN.
with evxopai; but usus loquendi and thought are opposed to this. Although
nepi in some passages in Homer indicates precedence, yet this signification is
utterly foreign to the LXX. and the N. T. ; besides, it is not to be supposed
that the apostle would have so specially emphasized the wish referring to
the external circurastances of life ; nepl ndvruv, with raost of the commen
tators (even LUcke, second edition), is rather to be connected with ae eio-
SoiaBai (though not with vyialveiv) in its usual signification, "in regard to
all things." In reply to the objection which has been made out of the posi
tion of the words, LUcke with justice remarks : " it is put first with rhetor
ical emphasis, corresponding to y fvxij, which is compared with it, at the
end." — evxopai, it is true, means also "to pray" (Jas. v. 15), but usually,
" to wish," so here also ; that with John it was an evxeaBat npbg rbv Qebv, is
self-evident. — ae eioSovoBai Kal vyiaiveiv]. tiioSoioBai, besides here, is
only found in Rom. i. 10 and 1 Cor. xvi. 2 ; in both passages it means, " to
he fortunate " (see Meyer on Rom. i. 10); similarly it signifies here also pros
perity ; comp. the detailed account of the usage of the word in the classics
and in the LXX. by LUcke and Dusterdieck on this passage. — The apostle
wishes that it may go well and happily with Caius in all external circum
stances ; that it is just these he has in view in ndvruv, is clear from the con
trasted \pvxy. By means of iyialveiv (= "to he in health," comp. Luke v. 31,
vii. 10, and other passages) one element of the general svoSoiaBai is brought
specially out. It is not to be inferred from the wish which is expressed, that
Caius had been ill (DUsterdieck). — KaBiJg eioSoirai aov ij rpvxij]. By the pros
perity of the soul of Caius, to which the external welfare was to correspond,
it is not the natural condition, as the sequel shows, but the Christian state
of salvation, that is to be understood.
Ver. 3. Confirmation of the foregoing statement. — ixapyv ydp llav, see
on 2 John 4. When and why the apostle felt such a joy, is stated in the two
following participial sentences, of which, however, as far as the sense is con
cerned, the first is subordinate to the second ; a Mons : lorsque les freres qui
sont venus ont rendu te'moignage. — paprvpetv, with the dative of the thing,
"to testify of any thing;" comp. vv. 6, 12; John iii. 26, v. 33, xviii. 37. —
By aov ry dlyBe'ig it is not the truth in the objective sense (Calovius: Veritas
evangelii) in so far as Caius had received it, but the truth in the subjective
sense, that is to be understood (so also Lucke, DUsterdieck, Braune, etc.):
the inner Christian life, which is born of the truth, is itself truth ; some
commentators incorrectly limit the idea to a single element of it; e.g.,
Lorinus to liberalitas. — The addition, KuBoig ai ev dlyBelg nepinarelg (corap.
2 John 4), serves as an explanation of the preceding : " naraely hoV thou,"
etc. In the fact that the brethren testified that Caius was walking in the
truth, they bore a testimony to the truth that was in hira. The sentence is
not " a direct sentence " (Bauragarten-Crusius : " as thou indeed art living
in accordauce with the truth") by which "John adds his testiraony to that
of the brethren (Besser) in order to confirra it" (Ebrard), but "an indirect
sentence " (BrUckner) dependent on paprvpoivruv, on which a special emphasis
is laid, as also the uKoiu in ver. 4 shows (so also Dusterdieck, Braune). ai
is emphatically used iu contrast to those who do not walk ev dlyBelg.

VERSES 5, 6. 651
Ver. 4 serves as confirmation of ixdpyv llav. — peiQbrepav]. Grotius: est
ad intendendam significalionem comparativus e comparativo factus; similar
formations occur in the classical language of poets and later writers ; see
Winer, p. 67 [E. T., 69]; in the N. T., comp. Eph. iii. 8. — roiruv oiK ixu
Xapdv iva, K.r.l. — " / have not a greater Joy than this, tliat ; " roiruv is not used
for rairyg, but " as an indefinite word is to be connected with the raore
definite Iva " (LUcke) ; sorae commentators incorrectly supply " y " before
iva. John XV. 13 is to be compared with this passage ; only that rairyg is
used there, but it does not refer, however, to something preceding, but finds
its explanation iu the following jva.* — rd epd riicva, not " all Christians;"
but neither merely the converts of John, but the members of the churches
which were uuder the special fatherly direction of the apostle (so also
Brauue). Vv. 5, 6. Praise of Caius for his ^ila^evla, induced by that which he ex
hibited towards the brethren (ver. 3). — marbv noielg b idv, k.t.1.]. By niarov
the conduct (noielg) of Caius, which he had shown towards the brethren,
is described as faithful, i.e., corresponding to the Christian profession.
Ebrard's view, that marbv noulv is = the classical marbv ( = nianv) noielaBai
in the sense of "to give a pledge of faithfulness, a guaranty," cannot be
gramraatically justified. By idv (= uv) the idea is generalized : "every thing
whatever." — eig rovg dSelipoig Kal roiro ^evoug]. With the construction ipydQeaBai
eig, comp. Matt. xxvi. 10. By koI roiro it is brought out that the dSeltpoi to
whom Caius is showing his love are ^ivot; even with the reading kuI eig roig
^ivovg the thought remains the same : kuI, namely, is epexegetically used =
" and that too ; " as the ^ivoi were Christians, they cannot be distinguished
from the dSelipoi. Liicke takes kuI in a specializing sense, "and particularly
or especially ; " but it is not brotherly love in general, but just the ipilo^evia,
that is the subject here. That is to say, the apostle in this praise has
specially in view what Caius had done to the brethren who had come to
hira (the Ap. : ver. 3), and who are also spoken of in vv. 6 and 7 ; these,
however, were ^ivoi.^ — Ver. 6. ol ipapripyauv aov rg dydny ivumov ixKlyalag].
That ot " dissociates the concrete representation of some from the generic
representation of ^ivoi " (De Wette), is incorrect : it rather refers directly to
the previously mentioned strange brethren. By ivumov iKKlyaiag we are not
to think of the church to which Caius belonged, but of that in which John
was sojourning. — ovg KulCig noiyaetg, k.t.1.]. The sarae brethren that had
corae from Caius to John wanted to return thither again, in order from
thence to continue their missionary journey (ver. 7). John now reoora-
mends them to the loving care of Caius. — oiif are not others (De Wette),

1 In opposition to Meyer, who says on the to the demonstrative pronoun, to state the
passage cited, "the usual view, according to meaning of the latter.
which ci/a is taken as the explanation of TavTi)!, ^ The present iroieri is not opposed to this
does not corresijond to the idea of purpose view, as it would seem to be; it is explained
which is contained in iva," it may be observed by the fact that the apostle regards the single,
that in the usus loquendi of the N. T., ii-a has special case, as an evidence of the ^iKo^evia of
by no means retained the idea of purpose iu Caius iu general.
its distinctness, aud often serves, in reference

652 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN.
but the same as were spoken of in the preceding sentence. The combina
tion of the future noiyaeig and the aorist participle nponipxpag is strange, as
the two verbs do not denote two different actions, but the Kuldg noielv
consists in the nponipneiv; it is different in Mark xiii. 13, Acts xxiv. 25,
Rom. XV. 28, where two different actions are placed in connection with one
another, and the aorist participle is used in the sense of the fut. exacli (see
Winer, p. 321 [E. T., 342]). This has not been properly noticed by the
commentators. The explanation of DUsterdieck : " The aorist form is to
be explained by the fact that the good deed will consist in this, that Caius
will have worthily brought the brethren forward," does not solve the diffi
culty, as the good deed consists in the bringing them forward itself. The
apostle may have used the aorist, however, in the feeling that "the action of
Caius is only completed when he has accomplished the equipment and escort
of the brethren " (Braune). The same connection is found in Eurip., Orest.,
1210 ff. : evrvxvoopev . . . iliivreg, which Matthiae (Auif. Gramm., second
edition, p. 1087) translates, "if we are so fortunate as to take;"* in
accordance with which we may translate here also, " thou shalt act worthily
to accompany them." Luther, incorrectly, "thou hast done well that thou
hast sent them on their journey;" in the revised edition, 1867, correctly,
"thou shalt do well if thou sendest them on their journey." Ebrard
arbitrarily conjectures, inoiyaag. — It is quite evident from the connection
with the sequel, that by Kallvg noiyaeig John wants to encourage Caius to the
nponipneiv. The reading noiyaag nponeprpeig means : " whom thou, after thou
hast treated them well, shalt bring forward on their journey." With Kalug
noielv, comp. Acts x. 13, Phil. iv. 14; with nponipneiv = "to fit out for a
journey," Rom. xv. 24, 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 16, Tit. iii. 13. — d^luc roi Qeoi (corap.
1 Thess. ii. 12 ; Col. i. 10) does not belong to kuI. noiyaetg, but to nponiprpag
= "as worthy of God, with all care and love" (Lucke).
Ver. 7. Confirmation of the exhortation that has been uttered: the
brethren deserve such help, for, etc. inip ydp roi bvbparog e^r/lBav]. With
the Rec. reading, bvbparog airoi, avroi refers back to roi Qeov ; but this avroi
is to be regarded as an interpolation ; to bvoua (without airoi) is neither
"the Christian doctrine or religion," nor "the narae of the brethren"
(Paulus: "because they were called missionaries"), but "the name of
Christ" (LUcke, De Wette, Bauragarten-Crusius, Sander, Braune, etc.), as
in Acts V. 41 (according to the correct reading) ; comp. also Jas. ii. 7, and
Ignatii ep. ad Ephes., cap. 3 and 7. — inip is here used in the same sense as
in Rom. i. 6, and i^ipxeaBai as in Acts xv. 40 (LUcke, De Wette, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Sander, Braune, etc.) ; so that the sense is : for the sake of the
name of Christ, i.e., for the spread of it, they went forth (as missionaries).
Several commentators (Beza, Schmidius, Bengel, Carpzovius, Wolf) connect
i^ylBav with dnb rCyv 'eBviKuv \e8vuv] in the sense: expulsi sunt a paganis: but
this idea is arbitrarily imported into i^ylBav ; ^ besides, the connection with
^ The whole passage in Euripides runs : — 2 Qrotins, indeed, correctly connects drr'o
rj^ei S' ei; otKov^ Epjnioi'?7 Tiros xpofou; r.eOv. with >.ap^dvovres, but interprets c^vjA-
io^ rd\Ka y' etrrat;, etrrep evrvxnaopev, Bov: " a Judaea ejecti sunt per Judaeos in-
KaKKtaB , tAorTey anvpvov avoatov SoKui. credulos; " the erroneous idea that the apostle

VERSES 8, 9, 10. 653
dnb T. iBv. is unsuitable, because then the words pySiv lapSdvovreg reraain too
indefinite. The assertion of Wolf, that lapS'iveiv is not construed with dnb,
is refuted by Matt. xvii. 25. By the addition, pySev lapSuvovreg dnb ruv
idviKuv, the necessity of assisting these brethren is brought out. The present
participle is either used in the imperfect sense (ver. 3), or — as is more
probable — it is used in order to indicate the pySev lapSdvetv dnb r. iBv. as the
maxim of these missionaries (so also Dusterdieck and Braune). It is very
usual to regard this, maxim as the same as that which Paul took for his, and
of which he speaks in passages like 1 Cor. ix. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ff., xii. 16 ff. ;
1 Thess. ii. 9 ff. ; but dnb ruv iBviKuv (= iBvuv, comp. Matt. vi. 7, xviii. 17)
does not suit this : the maxim of Paul was not to make the care for his
support an obligation on the churches araong which he labored, but here it
is heathen that are spoken of. It was by these that these missionary brethren
would not allow theraselves to be assisted, because they did not want to
build up Christ's work by the wealth of the heathen, but trusted to Chris
tians that in Christian love they would provide for them what was needful.*
Ver. 8 indicates "the highest point of view for Christian ipilo^eviu"
(Lucke). — ypelg oiv]. ijpelg emphatically forips the antithesis to ol IBvikoI;
as they take nothing from the Gentiles, we Christians are bound to take an
interest in them ; bipeilopev inolapSuveiv roig roioirovg], inolapSa'''^tv is just
as little used in the N. T., in the sense of hospitable reception (Oec.
i7ro(i^;tEa9ai) as the dTroXo/i/JavEtv that is found in the Rec. In the classics
it appears (but not dnolapSdveiv) both in this meaning and in the modified
signification, " to support " (so in Strabo : oi evnopoi rovg ivSeetg vnolapSdvovai) ;
so it is to be taken here also, and in connection with it the play upon words,
between lapSuvovreg and iitto . . . lapSaveiv, must not be overlooked. — iva
avvepyot yivupeBa ry dl.yBeig]. Confirmation of bipeilopev. The dative ry dlyB.
is not dependent on aw; Vulg., ut cooperatores simus veritatis; Luther, "so
that we may be helpers of the truth " (so Grotius, Bengel, Besser, etc.); but
it is the dative of reference, and aw refers back to roiif roioirovg (BrUckner,
Dusterdieck, Ebrard, Braune) : " so that we may be their fellow-workers for
the truth ; " comp. 2 Cor. viii. 23, Col. iv. 11, where instead of the dative
the preposition eig is used.
Vv. 9, 10. Notice of Diotrephes. — lyparpd rt ry eKKlyaig], The n, which
according to the authorities is probably genuine, does not serve, as LUcke
rightly remarks, to intensify = "something important," but rather to weaken
= "something, a little." — The reading, iypaipa av (Vulg. : scripsissem forsitan),
has originated in the idea that the apostle would not write an epistle, of the
unsuccessfulness of which he was previously convinced. The church to
which the apostle wrote is not that from which the brethren (ver. 7) went
forth (Bengel, Besser), but that to which Caius belonged. The opinion
that this writing is the so-called First Epistle of John (Wolf, Storr, etc.) is
just as untenable as the view that it is the Second Epistle of John (Ewald,

considered the Jews as the antithesis of the > Ewald unsuitably deduces this maxim
Gentiles has clearly led him to this arbitrary from the command of Christ, Matt. k. 8-10.
interpretation.

654 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Besser, etc.), for the contents of these two have nothing in comraon with
the circumstances which are here alluded to. This writing must, according
to the context in which it is mentioned, have treated of the reception or
support of the missionary brethren. If it was only such a short occasional
writing, it is easily intelligible how it may have been lost; besides, however,
it is natural to suppose that it was withheld from the church by Diotrephes.
— d7,l' b ipilonpuTevuv airuv Aiorpeip^g ovk emSixerai ypdg]. In these words the
apostle expresses the experience which he had had of Diotrephes. It may
be assumed that the apostle wrote to the church of Diotrephes in regard to
the reception of the missionary brethren, and that the bearers of the epistle
reported to him the conduct of Diotrephes, which he now tells to Caius.
As to the more particular circumstances of Diotrephes, nothing further is
known. From what John says about him, it cannot be inferred either that
he was presbyter, or that he was deacon of the church ; yet the contrary con
clusion cannot either be drawn. When Grotius represents him as an oppo
nent of the Jewish Christians, and others, on the contrary, regard him as a
false teacher of Jewish or Gnostic views, these are unfounded conjectures;
if either the one or the other were the case, John would certainly have indi
cated it. John only accuses hira of one thing, namely, the ipi/'Mnpureieiv,irom
which his unchristian conduct resulted, ipilonpureveiv is a utt. ley.; yet
in the later Greek writers ipilonpurog and ipilonpurela appear. The scholion
in Matthiae rightly explains b ipilonpurevuv by b iipapndQuv rd npurela; he
ambitiously arrogated to himself the highest authority in the church, which
made hiraself an opponent of the apostle. By what means he was able to
obtain validity for this assumption, we do not know ; perhaps by assembling
the church in his house. — airoi refers to iKKlyalg, as a collective idea. —
oiiK iniSixeaSat ijpdg], imSexeaSai, in the N. T. only here and in ver. 10,
means "to receive;" it is incorrect to change ypdg into "our epistles or
exhortations " (Grotius, LUcke, De Wette, etc.). In the fact that Diotrephes
rejected the coraraunication of the apostle, and refused to receive the brethren
recommended in it, he justly obtained rejection for himself (so also Braune).
It is unnecessary, therefore, to ascribe to iniSixeaBai here the modified mean
ing, " to accept, to let pass," in which it appears in the classics. Ver. 10.
Sid rovro, idv ilBu, inopvijou, k.t.I,]. Though, in the absence of John,
Diotrephes resisted his authority, yet John hoped by his presence to obtain
for it its due weight, and therefore he had resolved to come himself to that
church, and personally to oppose the intrigues of Diotrephes. — With inopvyau,
which is here used with the secondary signification of blame, it is not neces
sary to supply airbv ; although Diotrephes is meant, yet Johu did not write
aiiTov, because he had in view at the same tirae all those who adhered to him
(so Braune, correctly); comp. 2 Tim. ii. 14. In what the ipya of Diotrephes,
to which the apostle intends the vnopipvyoKeiv to refer, consisted, the follow
ing participial clauses state.* — Ixryog novypolg iplvapuv ypdg], iplvapelv (in the

1 Ewald strangely overlooks the following on this painful incident ; he breaks off ab
words when, after translating the preceding ruptly, to turn back to the good, exclaiming,
words, he says ; "But the author cannot dwell Beloved I " etc.

VERSE 11. 655
N. T. a dn, Ttey, ; the adj. ipliapog, 1 Tim. v. 13) — nugari; Oecuraenius para
phrases it by loiSopelv, KaKoloyelv. this, however, does not express the idea of
the chatter that says nothing, which is contained in fAvapelv. The verb, in
itself intransitive, is here construed with the accusative (as BpiapSeiu, Col.
ii. 15; paByrevu, Matt, xxviii. 19), thus, "Ae prates against us slanderously
with wicked words.'' — kuI py dpKoipevog inl roiroig]. Diotreishes did not con
tent himself with iplvapelv against the apostle alone (dpKelcBai is only here
used in construction with ini ; elsewhere the dative is found ; Luke iii. 14 ;
Heb. xiii. 5, and other passages); he injured the brethren also. — aire airbg
iniSexerai roig dSelipoig Kal, k.t.I,]. With aire the following koI corresponds;
airbg is contrasted with roig Sovlopivovg. — There is no reason to take imbi-
xeoBat here in a different sense from that of ver. 9, although it takes a dif
ferent bearing towards different persons, one way in regard to the apostle,
another way in regard to the dSelipoi, who are here mentioned, and who are
to be regarded as ^evot ; they are the sarae as were spoken of previously
(ver. 7, etc.). — With roig Sovlopivovg we are to understand imSixeaBai
airovg (C reads just iniSexopivovg instead of Sovl.); there were therefore sorae
persons in the church who were ready to receive the strangers, in opposition
to Diotrephes ; but Diotrephes did not permit it, nay, he opposed them with
all force. — kuI eK ryg iKKlyaiag iKSallei]. It is not roig dSelipoig, hnt
Toig Sovlopivovg, that is the object. — cKSulleiv iK rijg iKKlyaiag signifies
expulsion from the church, as the object is not roig di'ielipoig, but raig Sovlo
pivovg ; the expression is arbitrarily weakened if we understand by it merely
that " Diotrephes no longer admitted those who opposed him to the meetings
of the church which he held in his house " (Braune). The common opinion
is, that Diotrephes had actually already expelled some persons from "the
church, whether irregularly by means of faction, or with arrogant violence,
or whether by intrigues he had brought about resolutions of the church to
that effect ; but it is also possible that the apostle describes as an act of
Diotrephes what he in his pride had threatened to do, so that the expression
then is one of keen irony. — If arbitrary hypotheses are not admitted, we
must regard as the cause of the behavior of Diotrephes only his vanity —
which showed itself in his ipihonpurevetv. By the way in which a part of the
church (especially Caius) had interested itself in the strangers, and had been
mentioned in John's communications on the subject, Diotrephes, in his vanity,
had probably felt offended, and this had excited his anger, which led him to
the conduct which John rebukes in such simple but severe words.
Ver. 11. From the special case the apostle deduces an exhortation of
general import. — pij pipoi rb kukov, dllH rb dyaBbv]. On pipelaBai, comp. espe
cially Heb. xiii. 7. — The expressions, rb kukov and rb dyaBov, can so much
the less be regarded as un-Johannean (De Wette), as in John v. 29 the cor
responding antithesis, rd dyaBd and ru ^aila, is found, and in John xviii. 23
the neuter singular rb kokov. The additiona.1 sentence, 6 dyaBonoiuv . , , rbv
Qebv, expresses the same thought that frequently appears in the First Epistle
of John, especially in chap. iii. 6. — The ideas, dyaBonoielv and KOKonoielv, are
to be taken quite generally, and must not be limited to the special virtue of
benevolence (a Lapide, Lorinus, Grotius, Paulus) ; comp. 1 Pet. ii. 14, 15, 20,

65p THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN.
iii. 6, 17. — The corresponding expressions, ek roi 6 eov elvat and iupa-
Kivai rbv Qebv, are used also in the First Epistle of John; but why the
Johannean oi/c iyvu rbv Qebv (1 John iv. 8), should be more conformable to
the style of John than the equally Johannean oix iupuKe rbv Qebv (1 John
iii. 6), as Lucke and De Wette think, is not quite perceptible.
Ver. 12. As the apostle, by py pipoi rb kukov, has warned Caius against
imitation of Diotrephes, so he now puts Demetrius before him as an example
for imitation — corresponding to dllH rb dyaBov. Who this Demetrius was,
however, and where he had his abode, is not stated. Ebrard thinks that he
had been one of the S"vlbpevoi (ver. 10) in the church of Diotrephes, and had
perhaps been excommunicated by him; but in that case Caius must have
known him, so that he did not require this strong testimony of the apostle
in his favor ; the view that he was the bearer of the Epistle (DUsterdieck,
LUcke, etc.) is more probable. — pepaprvpyrai refers — in accordance with
John's usage of the perfect — not merely to a past, but also to a present
record. paprvpelaBai frequently appears in the same absolute way as here,
especially in the Acts; comp. chap. vi. 3, x. 22, and passim. — ndvruv is not
to be extended to the heathen, with Oecumenius and Theophylact, but refers
to the church to which Deraetrius belonged; Ebrard incorrectly understands
by it "the brethren," vv. 10, 7, 5; the apostle would have distinctly men
tioned them, and besides, the ndvruv, which is clearly used emphatically,
would be unsuitable in reference to them. — kuI in' airyg ryg dlyBeiag].
Whilst the coraraentators are agreed in this, that the truth is here personi
fied, they deviate widely from one another in their more particular definition
of the idea ; most of thera understand by it the life of Deraetrius as that
which testifies for him, whether they interpret dlyBeia = reality (Hornejus :
ipsa rei Veritas; Grotius: res ipsae) or as the life itself, in so far as it is a
testimony to his virtue (Beausobre : c^est a dire, que sa conduite est un temoin
reel de sa vertu). This, however, is incorrect, as both the expression itself
(airij y dlyBeia) and also its position (between niivreg and ypelg) indicate that
the apostle meant by y dlyBeia something objectively contrasted with Deme
trius. Dusterdieck (with whom Braune agrees) has rightly perceived this ;
but as he at the same time retains the reference to the life, he finds the
testimony of the objective Christian truth in the fact that it gives command
ments to raan, and that, inasmuch as Demetrius fulfils them, it is by these
coraraandments that the truth bears a good testimony to him. But apart
from the fact that this introduction of the commandments cannot be justi
fied, the whole interpretation has something too artificial to permit of its
being regarded as correct. The hypothetical interpretation of LUcke : " if
the infallible Christian truth, comp. ver. 3, itself were asked, it would give
him a good testimony " (similarly Schlichting), does not suit the positive
pepapripyrai. It is too far-fetched, with Baumgarten-Crusius, to regard the
result of the Christian activity of Demetrius as the testimony of the truth
to him. A simple, clear idea would be brought out if, with Sander, we
could regard it as " a special testimony which John had received through
the Holy Ghost in reference to Demetrius ; " but there is no justification for
this. The correct way will be to interpret V7r' airyg ryg dlyBeiag iu close con-

VERSES 13, 14, 15. 657
nection with vnb ndvruv, and to conclude that the apostle adds the former in
order to bring out the fact that the good report of all has its origin not
merely in their huraan judgment, but in the testimony of the dlyBeia which
dwells in them (so also BrUckner) ; and that the expression airy y dlyBeia is
not merely a personification, but is a description of the Holy Ghost (comp.
1 John v. 6 : rd nvev/id ianv ij dlyBeia). The opinion that airy 'y dlyBeia, in
contrast with ndvreg, cannot be the truth that produces their testimony, and
that testifies for Demetrius (Ebrard,* Braune), is refuted by John xv. 26, 27,
as here, in a quite similar way, the testimony of the Spirit of truth is con
joined with the testimony of the disciples, the latter being produced and
confirmed by the former. — To the testimony of all, the apostle further
specially adds his own: kui ijpeig Se paprvpaipev]. By kuI . . . Si a stronger
emphasis is laid on ypelg. — With kuI oiSag, k.t.1., corap. John xix. 35, xxi. 24.
— By the reading, oiSare, Caius and his friends are addressed together.
Vv. 13, 14. The same thoughts as in 2 John 12 ; even the expression is
little different ; this agreement is most naturally explained by the contem
poraneousness of the two Epistles. — nolld tlxov ypdfai]. "T would have many
things to write to thee, but . . . ; " as in Acts xxv. 22; corap. Winer, p. 265
(E. T., 282) ; A. Buttmann, p. 187 (E. T., 216 f.) (De Wette) ; an dv is not
oraitted. Dusterdieck and Ebrard translate : " I had much to write," unsuit
ably, because the apostle is not speaking of the past, but of the present. —
Instead of paper (Second John), it is the Kulapog, " the writing-reed," that is
mentioned as the writing material along with the ink. — On ilnlQu Si, k.t.1.,
see idv ilBu, ver. 10.
Ver. 15. eipijvy not]. The blessing at the end of the Fir.st Epistle of
Peter runs similarly; comp. besides. Gal. vi. 16; Eph. vi. 23; 2 Thess.
iii. 16 (also Rom. xv. 33; 2 Cor. xiiL 11; 1 Thess. v. 23; Heb. xiii. 20).—
dandQovrai ae oi ipiloi, k.t.1.]. It is in harmony with the character of the
Epistle, as a private communication, that John does not send greetings from
the whole church, but from the special friends of Caius, and so also commis
sions him with greetings only to his (the apostle's) ipiloi. The latter was the
more natural, as indeed a part of the church was at enmity with John. —
On Kar' bvopa, comp. John x. 3 ; it belongs to dandQov, and is — bvopaarl (see
Meyer on this passage) ; the personal relationship is thereby emphasized, as
Caius is to greet every oue of the friends specially (by name).
¦ Ebrard's view, that we are here " to eon- ( 1) in the fact that tor the sake of the d\rjeeta
sider the truth os a power and might showing he endured serious ill-treatment or suffering,"
itself ia the life of Demetrius; the truth which is clearly affected, apart from other defects,
mightily showed itself in him in those days in by arbitrary importatious.
the relations with Diotrephes, without doubt

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.

INTRODUCTION.
SEC. 1.— AUTHOR AND READERS OF TIIE EPISTLE.
The author to his name Jude subjoins the particular designations:
'lyaoi Xpiarov Soilog and dSelipbg Si 'IokuSov. The first of these designations is
no evidence against his apostleship, as Arnaud correctly observes (see
Phil. i. 1 ; Philem. 1) ; but the second is, inasmuch as it is not credible
that an apostle, in order to make hiraself known, should have named
himself according to his relationship to another, whether that other be an
apostle or not. It is true, in order to prove the identity of the author of
this Epistle with the Apostle Jude, whom Matthew (x. 3) names AeSSulog
(Rec. adds : o iniKlyBelg QaSSalog), and Mark (iii. 18) QuSSalog, the fact has
been appealed to that Luke (Acts i. 13; Luke vi. 16) calls him 'loiSag
'luKuSov; but it is arbitrary to supply to 'IukuSov, dSelxpbg, instead of the
usual supplement vlog; see Meyer on Luke vi. 16. It is to be observed,
against Winer (Bibl. Realw., under the word Judas), who will supply diSelipbg,
because in Matt. x. 3 and Mark iii. 18, Lebbaeus is directly united by koI
with James as an apostolic pair, that this is properly only the case in the
first passage ; but in that very passage, where a brotherly relationship exists,
as with Peter and Andrew, and with John and James, this is expressly
stated; whilst Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew, Simon and
Judas Iscariot, are united together by koI, without any assertion that these
pairs so united are brothers. The very mode and manner, then, in which
James the son of Alphaeus, and Jude, are placed together in the apostolic
lists, proves that they were not brothers. — Further, if it be possible that
an apostle could refer to the apostles generally, as is done in this Epistle
(vv. 17, 18), yet that mode of expression is more natural in the mouth of
one who was not an apostle than in the mouth of an apostle. — Jude does
not more definitely state who this James was, whom he calls his brother.
\ 659

660 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
But doubtless he was that Jaraes who, frora au early period, stood at the
head of the church in Jerusalem. — Since, then, from preponderating
proofs (see Introduction, section 1, to coramentary on the Epistle of James),
it is to be assumed that this James, who was called the brother of the Lord,
is not identical with the Apostle James the son of Alpheus,* it is also not
to be doubted that Jude is not a brother of the latter, but of the former,
and, consequently, likewise a brother of Jesus. That, nevertheless, he does
not call himself the brother of Jesus, cannot appear strange, since the
bodily relationship to the Lord must retire before the spiritual relationship,
which he expresses by the appellation 'Irjoov Xpiaroi Soilog; it is the same
reason which induced James in his Epistle not to designate himself as a
brother of the Lord. — W^e possess only very uncertain notices of the
personal history and labors of Jude (for an account of them, see Arnaud),
which are the less to be considered as historical, since they are not only
frequently contradictory, but also in them the author of the Epistle and the
Apostle Jude are confounded together.
The readers, for whom this Epistle was primarily intended, are described
only in the most general terms, and neither their locality nor their condition
is definitely stated. There is uo indication that the Epistle was written
only to Jewish Christians. Arnaud, indeed, with truth remarks: "Jude
expounds his proofs in a manner peculiar to the Jews. From the beginning
to the end he uses their mode of speech and their manner of expressing an
idea ; he employs images and comparisons, makes allusions, and uses myths,
1 Thiersch (Herst. des. Hist. Standp., etc., Schott raaintains that " it is opposed to the
p. 430 f .) rightly observes : " If ever a critical spirit of the N. T. history of salvation, that an
view concerning historical persons was arti- actual brother of the Lord should attain to
ficial and unnatural, assuredly that is which such a high position in the church, as James
regards t/ie brothers oft/te Lord as the cousins obtained as chief of the church of Jerusalem; "
of Jesus, the sons ot Clopas and a Mary, a aud when he declares that *' it is a historical
sister ot the mother of Christ. Herder's argu- necessity that the actual brothers of Jesus
ment against this view is so obvious and should retire into the background." The other
striking, that it is alraost unintelligible how proofs by which Schott, who considers the
such ari hypothesis, which does violence to a so-called " brothers of Jesus " as his actual
series ot passages, should even down to our brothers, will attempt to prove that the Jamea
times be raaintained by critics." — If , on the and Jude here mentioned belong not to them
contrary, Dietlein ("Review of Arnaud's Re- but to the aposties, are uot here, but in the
aearchea," etAi.,mihe Allg. Repert. von Heuter, commentary to the Epistle of James, dis-
August, 1851) maintains the idea of the Mes- cussed; so also with regard to the view of
sianic family, iu order to reckon among the Hofmann, who likewise regards the author
dSeKifiol^, besides the cousins, also tbe uncle, ot this Epistle and his brother James as the
etc., of Jesus, history is thereby subordinated Apostles Jude and James.
lo hypothesis. The sarae is the case -when

INTRODUCTION. 661
traditions, and examples, which were familiar to them." But all this might
have its reason in the individuality of the writer, without being conditioned
by a regard to the readers. Most expositors assume that the readers
resided in Asia Minor ; on the contrary, Schmidt, Credner, Augusti, Arnaud,
and Wiesinger are of opinion that they are to be sought for in Palestine.
The question cannot with certainty be decided.
SEC. 2. — OBJECTS AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. TIME
AND PLACE OF ITS COMPOSITION.
The Object of the Epistle is the confirmation of the readers in the gospel
published to them by the apostles, in opposition to certain intruders, who,
abusing the liberty of the gospel, gave themselves up to immoral excesses, '
and even to blaspheming the divine majesty. De Wette, Schwegler,
Arnaud, Reuss, Bleek, BrUckner, and Hofmann consider them to be only
vicious men. On the contrary, Dorner (Enlwicklungsgesch. der Lehre von
der Person Christi, Thl. i., p. 104) observes: "The opponents of Jude are
not only corrupt in practice, but also heretical teachers." They are not
indeed described as actual false teachers ; but yet from vv. 4, 8, 18, 19, we
can hardly think otherwise than that their libertinism was conjoined with
dogmatic (perhaps Gnostic) errors ; on which account also BrUckner states
that " they had points which bordered on the dogmatic ; " and Hofmann
says that "they screened their immoral conduct by blasphemous assump
tions." Weiss (Petrin. Frage ii., in Stud. u. Krit., 1866, H. 2) calls them
"Libertines on principle."* That they attached themselves to a particular
definite Gnostic system, for example, that of the Carpocratians (Clemens
Alexandrinus), cannot be proved. Their tendency appears to have been
related to the error of the Nicolaitanes and the Balaamites (Rev. ii.) ;
(Thiersch, Wiesinger, Schott). Jude opposes to them simply the apostolic
gospel, without particularly characterizing the points of their contradiction
to it. It is peculiar to this Epistle, that passages occur in it which appear to
be taken from the apocryphal Book of Enoch, or, if this should not be the
case, at least to have arisen from an apocryphal tradition of Enoch ; as
the quotation contained in w. 14, 15 ; the statement about the sin of the
» See also Ritschl, Abhandl. Hb. die im Sr. retained only abstractly their principle that
des Judas Oharakterisirten Antinomisten in graca establlsheB freedom to practise iramor.
d. Stud. u. Krit., 1861, part I. p. 103 ff. The ality, has been justly rejected by Wiesinger
opinion of Eitschl, that these heretics had as unwarrantable.

662 THE EPISTLE OP JUDE.
angels and their punishment, ver. 6 ; the description of the false teachers,
ver. 8 ; also the reference (ver. 9) to the apocryphal tradition of the contest
of Michael with the Devil is peculiar.* This admixture of apocryphal
traits can, on an unprejudiced consideration, only serve to strengthen the
conviction that the Epistle does not proceed from an apostle.
The Train of Thought is as follows : After the address, in which the
readers are only generally characterized as Christians, the author states
that he esteemed it necessary to exhort them to continue in the faith
delivered to them (ver. 3), and that because of certain intruders, whom he
designates as lascivious men and deniers of Jesus Christ, whose condem
nation was certain (ver. 4). That this conderanation will come upon them,
he confirms by three examples : that of the people delivered frora Egypt,
that of the fallen angels, and that of the cities of Sodora and Goraorrha
(vv. 5-7). These intruders are then described by two characteristics, namely,
as defilers of the flesh and as despisers and blasphemers of heavenly
dignities ; the greatness of their sin is brought prominently forward by
comparison with the conduct of Michael in his contelst with the Devil, and
a woe is denounced upon them as those who walk in the way of Cain,
Balaam, and Korah (vv. 8-11). In the following verses (vv. 12, 13) the
author proceeds with his description, adducing their debauchery at the
Agapae, and representing in various figurative expressions their vain and
impudent conduct, by which he is reminded of the judgment which awaits
them, quoting for this purpose a saying of Enoch as a prophecy which
holds good of them (vv. 14, 15). To this succeed some additional
characteristics of those erroneous teachers, to which an exhortation to the
readers is added to be mindful of the words of the apostles who have
prophesied of the appearance of such mockers (vv. 16-18). After Jude,
with another glance at his opponents, has exhorted his readers to keep
themselves by faith and prayer in the love of God, and to wait for the
mercy of Christ (vv. 19-21), he gives a short direction how to behave
toward those who have been already perverted (vv. 22, 23). A doxology
forms the conclusion of the Epistle (vv. 24, 25).
The Epistle contains no other data for the determination of the time of
its composition than the description of the heretics and the exhortation to
attend to the preaching of the apostles ; but from these it may be inferred .
1 Hofraann disputes this, maintaining that Acts vii. 22 f., xiii. 21; Gal. iv. 28; Heb. xi.
in Jude there occurs only an interpretation or 37 ; 2 Tira. iii. 8 ; although he grants that more
expansion of what is stated in Scripture, and is signified iu Jude than in these passages.
which is as justified as that which occurs in

INTRODUCTION. 663
that it belongs not to the earlier, but, as most expositors assume,* to the later
apostolic age ; although " there is no necessity, with Reuss, to assign it to
the extreme limits of the apostolic literature" (BrUckner). Although in
the Pastoral Epistles the immoral life of the heretics there attacked is
censured, yet libertinism does not appear to have attained to the same
stage of development as with the opponents of Jude; and Jude would
hardly have appealed to the preaching of the apostles as a thing of the
past, if the apostles were yet at the height of their apostolic activity.
Bertholdt, Guericke, Stier, Arnaud, and others think, from the fact that
there is no mention of the judgraent of God on Jerusalem, that it is to be
inferred that the Epistle was written before the destruction of that city,
since Jude would certainly not have omitted this most fearful and most
significant judgment, if it had already taken place, particularly as he
mentions almost all the raost noted exaraples of divine judgraents. But
this conclusion is very uncertain, especially as the hypothesis on which it
is founded is incorrect. Jude takes at random only some of many examples,
and -indeed such — at least this is evidently the case with the judgment on
the angels, and with that on Sodom and Gomorrha — as refer to a definite
kind of sin, which is not applicable to the judgment on Jerusalem.. He
mentions neither the deluge nor the first destruction of Jerusalem. From
the relation which exists between this Epistle and the apocryphal Book of
Enoch, nothing certain regarding the period of composition can be inferred,
particularly as the opinion concerning that relation is by no means settled ;
for whilst early critics assert the origin of this book, at least in its original
condition, to pre-Christian times, and assume later interpolations, as Lucke
(Einleiiung in die Offh. Joh., etc.), Ewald, Weizsacker (Unter suchungen iiber
die evangel. Geschichte), Kostlin (Tilbing. theol. Jahrbb., 1856),. especially
Dillmann (Das Buch Henoch iibersetzt und erkldrt, 1853), and others ; Hof
mann and Ferd. Philippi (in his book. Das Buch Henoch, sein Zeitalter, etc.,
1868) attempt to prove that it belongs to the Christian age, and was
composed by a Jewish Christian ; the reasons, however, adduced by them
are not sufficient to cause us to regard the result of their examination as
well founded.
Mayerhoff (Einl. in die Petrin. Schriften, p. 195) supposes the place of
composition to be Egypt, because Clemens Alexandrinus first quotes it,
1 The reasons by which Schott endeavors year 80, aie too uncertain to enable us to draw
to prove that the Epistle was written at the this couclusiou with certainty.
end of the year 70, or the beginning ol tho

664 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
because the images employed in ver. 12 refer to a country which bordered
on the sea, and was frequently exposed to draught by the east and south
winds, and because the Book of Enoch was first used in Egypt. But
Schwegler has correctly rejected these reasons as insufficient.

SEC. 3. — AUTHENTICITY OP THE EPISTLE.
Eusebius reckons this Epistle, as indeed all the Catholic Epistles except
First John and First Peter, among the Antilegoraena. The earliest Fathers
who mention it are Tertullian (De Habit. Mul., c. 3) and Clemens Alexan
drinus (Strom., iii. p. 431, Paedag., iii. 8, p. 239, ed. Sylb.), who has also
commented on it. Origen often quotes it, and distinguishes it by special
praise ; Comm. on Matt., xiii. 55 : 'loiSag iypaipev iniarolyv, bliydanxov pev, nenly-
pupivyv Si TUV ryg oipavlov xuptrog ijif/oipivuv loyuv. He, however, indicates that
its genuineness is doubted by many. Jerome also mentions these doubts,
saying that many rejected it on account of the quotation from the apocry
phal Book of Enoch ; he hiraself, however, considered it as genuine. It is
wanting in the Peshito (but not in the MS. in the Bodleian Library at Ox
ford; see Guericke, Einl., p. 42); but, on the other hand, it is mentioned in
the Muratorian Canon. Since the fourth century it has been generally
acknowledged as a genuine canonical writing. As the author does not call
himself an apostle, criticism in more recent times was more inclined to con
sider it authentic than some other writings of the N. T. Even De Wette
observes, that there is no reason why Jude should not be the author of this
Epistle ; neither its use of the Book of Enoch, nor its probable acquaintance
with the Epistle to the Romans, nor its harsh style though betraying a
familiarity with the Greek language, is opposed to this. — Schwegler
judges otherwise. He infers from vv. 17, 18, that the Epistle belongs to
the post-apostolic times, although in point of doctrine its character is veiy
simple and undeveloped. He thinks that the forger chose the name of
Jude the brother of James, in order to indicate the community of principle
with this latter person. In opposition to this it is to be observed, that, had
the Epistle been written in the interests of Jewish Christianity against
Pauline, we should surely have found indications of this ; and a forger
would hardly have attributed his writing to Jude, a person othenvise so
entirely unknown. The above-mentioned verses by no means point to a
posz-apostolic age, since they rather suppose that the readers have heard the
preaching of the apostles. The fact that we find no definite references to

INTRODUCTION. 665
this Epistle among the early Fathers, and that its genuineness at a later
period was not wholly undoubted, is easily accounted for, partly from its
special tendency (particularly from doctrine being so little referred to),
partly from the apocryphal traits with which it is pervaded, and partly from
the fact that the author did not belong to the apostles.

666 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.

lovSa IrrKTToXiq.
Instead of this superscription (in A, C, K), there is found in B only 'loiSa,
Ver. 1. Instead of 'Ij/it. Xp. (Rec, after A, B, L, X, etc., several vss., etc.,
Lachm., Tisch. 8), Tisch. 7 had adopted Xpiaroi 'lyaov, after K, P, etc., without
sufficient justification. — yyiaapivoig]. Rec, after K, L, P, etc.; instead of this,
ijyanypivoig, in A, B, X, 5, al., Syr., utr., Erp., Copt., etc., Orig., Eph., is
adopted by Lachra. and Tisch. It is true that there are exegetical difficulties
connected with the latter reading, but it is too strongly defended by authorities
to be on that account considered spurious. Reiche, Schott, Hofraann, have
declared for it, Wiesinger against it; Bruckner is undecided. — Ver. 3. rijg Koivyg
aurypiag], Rec, after K, L, P, al. ; Tisch. 7 has retained this reading; Lachm.
and Tisch. 8, on the contrary, read Kotvrjg ypuv aurypiag, for which A, B, C, X, 5,
al., Syr., Erp., Sahid., Theoph,, Lucif., testify. The weight of authorities is
in favor of this latter reading; it is possible that ypuv -was omitted in order to
give to the idea a universal character. — Ver. 4. Instead of the usual form w'",
Lachra. and Tisch., after A, B, read xbptra, which occurs in classical writers
only araong the poets (see Buttmann, Ausf. gr. Sprachl., § 44. Anm. 1) [E. T.,
13]. — rbv pbvov beanbryv Kal Kvpiov ijpuv 'I, Xp,, with Griesbach, Scholz, Tittmann,
Lachm., Tisch., after the testimonies of A, B, C, X, 10, Lect. 1, 3, Erp., Copt.,
Sahid., etc., Eph., Didym., Chrys. — The Rec. has after beanbryv the word Qebv
(in K, L, P, etc, Syr., utr., Thph.), which, however, is a later addition, the
more definitely to distinguish beanbryv from Kipwv ijpuv. In later MSS. many
other variations are found, naraely, Qebv kuI beanbryv rbv Kip. yp, 'I. Xp., or beanb
ryv Kal Qebv rbv Kip. yp. 'I. Xp., or Qebv beanbryv Kal Kip. yp, 'I. Xp. — Ver. 5. After
FiSorag, the Rec. has ipdg; Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted it; it is wanting in
A, B, C**, several min., etc, but is found in K, L, X, etc. It may have been
omitted on account of the preceding ipdg, — tovto ,( Rec, after K, L, etc.)
appears to be an explanatory correction instead of the original ndvra, for which
A, B, C**, X, etc, Vulg., etc, testify; also Reiche considers ndvra as the
original reading. X has dna^ after Kvpiog, so also several versions, yet after bn
Kipiog, Two reasons co-operated for this displacement: (I) because oTraf did not
appear to suit e'lSbrag, and (2) because the following rb Sevrepov appeared to
require a word corresponding with auaag, Tisch. on this observes: quae quidem
lectio omnino praeferenda esset alteri, nisi iticredib'ile esset dna^ locum post
eiSbrag a quopiam correctors nactum esse. Reiche remarks: loco, quem vulgo
occupat, testium auctoritate servari debet. — The Rec. b Kipiog is found in K, L,
most min., some vss., and Fathers; Tisch. 7 has retained it; Tisch. 8 reads,
after C*, X, Kvpiog without the article. A, B, several min., etc., have 'lyaovg
instead of Kvpiog (on this Tisch. 8 remarks: articulum om. et A, B, et reliqui qui
'lyaoig praebent); Lachm. and Buttm. have adopted b 'lyaovg; C** and Lucif.

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 667
read b Qebg, The reading 'lyaoig (instead of Kvpiog) is indeed very strange, but
might for this reason be changed into the other readings. — Ver. 6. Instead of
TE after d-yyilovg (Tisch.), A, some min., etc., have Si. Lachm. has Si in the
text-edition ; but, on the other hand, in the larger edition he has rightly again
adopted te. — Ver. 7. rovroig rpbnov], Refe., after K, L, etc. ; a correction instead
of npbnov roiroig (Lachra., Tisch.) iii A, B, C, X, many min., etc. —Ver. 9. In
stead of b Si Wx, b dpxdyyelog, bre, Lachm., against the testimony of A, C, K,
L, X, etc, has adopted, after B, ore Mix. b dpx. rbre. — Ver. 12. A, B, 13, al.,
m., edd., Syr., utr. (Copt.?), etc., read after oiroi elaiv the relative ol, which
Griesbach considers as probably genuine, and Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly
adopted into the text;* the omission must be considered as an explanatory
correction. — dydnaig; instead of which A, C, and some min., read dndraig; a
correction after 2 Pet. ii. IB. — ipuv]. Lachm. has in the small edition airCiv,
after A, etc, but in the larger edition the Rec. ipCrv, which is sufiiciently
attested by B, C, K, L, X, etc ; the reading airuv, which Stier without reason
considers as original, is explained from 1 Pet. ii. 13. — Instead of inb dvipuv, x
reads navrl dviuu; an evident correction. — napaipepbpevai is already by Griesb.,
Scholz, etc., after almost all authorities, rightly adopted into the text instead of
the Rec. nepupepbuevai. ¦ — Ver. 13. dypia Kvpara is in X instead *of Kipara dypia,
which is attested by all authorities. — Buttmann has, after B, adopted irAav^TEf
instead of nlavyrat, and Qoipog instead of b Qpipog; as the other authorities, so also
X testifies for the reading of the Rec. — eig aiuva; after A, B, C, X, etc., instead
of the Rec. eig rbv aiuva, — Ver. 14. Instead of the form npoeipyrevae, attested by
almost all authorities, Tisch. has, after B*, adopted inpoipyrevae. — dyiaig pvpidatv,
after A, B, K, L, etc , instead of the Rec. pvpidaiv dyiaig in C ; in X the reading
is pvpidatv dyiuv dyyeluv, — Ver. 15. iley^at, after A, B, C, K, L, X, etc., instead
of the Rec. i^eltiy^ai, — After daeSelg, the Rec has airuv, found in K, L, some
min., vss., and Fathers; retained by Tischendorf, ^ and defended by Reiche; on
the other hand, it is wanting in A, B, C (Lachm.); its spuriousness is scarcely
to be doubted. — dasSeiag airuv is wanting in X; aaeSelag In C; the omission is
easily explained. — Tisch. 8 inserts after ruv oKlypuv the word Ibyuv, after C, X,
and many min. ; it is wanting in most authorities (Tisch. 7) ; it appears to have
been added from a regard to the preceding tuv ipyuv, — Ver. 18. After eleyov
iplv, Tisch. 7, after A, C, K, L, etc., has on (Rec); Tisch. 8 has omitted it after
B, L*, X ; so also Lachm. in his larger edition, but hardly correctly. — Instead
ofthe Rec. iv iaxuru xpovu (K, L, P, sorae min., and Oecumenius), which is an
explanatory correction, Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly adopted in' iaxurov rov
xpovov; the article roi is found in A, X, al., etc.; its omission is easily explained,
because iaxurov was taken for an adjective. — iaovrai]. Whilst Lachm. in his
¦ small edition instead of it reads ilevaovrat, he has in the large edition rightly
adopted the reading of the Rec. The reading ileiaovrai (in A, C**, etc.) is a
correction after 2 Pet. iii. X has prima manu iaovrat; on the other hand, cor
rected ileiaovrai. — Ver. 19. After dnoSmpiQovreg, the Rec. has iavrolg (C, Vulg.,
Aug.); an evident correction. — Ver. 20. Instead of the Rec. ry dyiur. ipuv nia
rei 'enoiKoSopoivTeg iavroig (K, L, P, al., pl., Syr., etc.), Lachm. and Tisch. read

' Reiche incorrectly observes that Buttraann as the original.
has not adopted oi, and has adduced B as a = Tisch. 8 has it likewise In the text, al-
witness for the reading of the Reo. On ac though he says in the notes: "omislmus cum
count of the diflBculty which the article pre- A, B, C, X," etc.
sents, Reiche considers the reading of the Rec.

668 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
inoiKoSopovvreg iavr. rij dy. ip. n. (A, B, C, X, al., several vss., etc.). — Vv. 22, 23.
The readings are here very various. The Rec. has kui ovg pev ileetre SiaKpivbpevoi-
oOf Se iK ipbSu aiJQeTe, iv roi nvpbg dpndQovreg. This reading is found In K, L, P
(only Toti before Trvpof is omitted); A reads koI ovg pev iliyxere SiuKpivopivovg, ovg
Si auQere iK nvpbg dpndQovreg, ovg Si ilselre iv ipbSu; Lachm. and Tisch. have
adopted this reading, only that instead of ileetre they read, with B, iledre. —
B deviates in this, that in ver. 22 it reads not 'tliyxere, but eAeute (so also X) ; in
ver. 23 it omits the first ovg Si, and instead of ileelre has the form il.edre; C agrees
on the whole with A, yet C** has in ver. 22 iledre, as B, and in ver. 23 the
words oiif ^E ileetre are wanting in C. The reading of A is held as the original
by Bruckner, Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche, because the other readings can be most
easily explained from it; Hofmann, on the contrary, prefers the reading in X,
which is found also in B, only with the inadvertent omission of the words ovg Si
after SiuKpivopivovg; whilst De Wette thinks that the original reading is preserved
in C. The reading in B probably lies at the foundation of the reading in K, L,
P; the twofold 'eledre was naturally objectionable, and therefore the words ovg Si
iledre were left out, SiuKpivopivovg changed into the nominative, and iv ipbSu
placed before auQere. For further observations, see the exposition. — Ver. 24.
Instead of vpug (ed. Elz.; A, C, L, X, al., perm., several vss., Theoph., etc.,
Lachm., Tisch. 8), Tisch. 7 had, after K, P, al., etc., hardly correctly adopted
airoig; A has ypdg. — Ver. 25. luovu Qeu is correctly adopted by Griesbach, after
A, B, C, X, 6, al., Syr., etc., instead of the Rec. povip aoipu Qeu; aoipu is evidently
borrowed from Rom. xvi. 27, and is without reason defended by Reiche. — Sid
'lyaoi Xpiaroi Kvplov ypuv is likewise adopted by Griesbach (after A, B, etc.),
whilst the words are wanting in the Rec. — The Rec. between So^a and peyalo-
cvvy has Kai after K, L, P, etc., which is correctly omitted by recent critics; on
the other hand, the words npb navrbg roi a'luvog, wanting in the Rec, are attested
by alraost all authorities. — The subscription of the Epistle is in B: 'loiSa; in
C : 'loiSa imaroli) KaBoltKij ; and in A : 'loiSa iniaroly.
Vv. 1, 2. The superscription is in form similar to that of the Epistles of
Paul and Peter: 'loiSag 'lyaoi Xpiaroi Soilog, K.r.l.]. Soilog, as its position and
Rom. i. 1, Phil. i. 1, Jas. i. 1 (see also Tit. i. 1), show, denotes not the gen
eral service of believers to Christ (Schott), but the special service of those
appointed to the gospel ministry. The more definite statement of office is
here wanting, as the author is not the Apostle Jude (see Introd., sec. 1),
so that his position in the Christian Church is to be regarded as similar to
that which a Barnabas, an Apollos, and others occupied, who, without being
apostles in the narrower sense of the term, yet exercised a ministry similar
to the apostolic. — With the first appellation the second dSel^bg 'IukuSov is
connected by Si (see Tit. i. 1), which, although not precisely a contrast
(Schott), yet marks a distinction. This appellation serves not only to indi
cate who this Jude is (Arnaud), but likewise to justify his writing. Jude
does not call himself " the brother of the Lord," because his bodily relation
to Christ stepped behind his spiritual, perhaps also because that surname
already specially belonged to James. — rolg iv Qeu narpl ijyanypivoig [yyiaapivoig]
Kal, K.T.1.]. According to the reading yyiaapivoig, iv expresses not the mere
instrument of holiness, but holiness as consisting in fellowship with God.
The participle is either substantive, co-ordinate to the following 'Irjam 'Xpiaru

VERSES 1, 2. 669
rtrypypevoig Klyrolg, or adjective, which is more probable on account of the
similar participial form, rerypypivoig. — According to the reading ijyanypivotg,
ev Qeu narpl may denote the sphere within which the readers are yyanypivoi,
namely, by the writer. Against the opinion of De Wette, "that in this
objective designation the subjectivity of the author cannot be mixed,"
Col. i. 2 might be appealed to, where Paul names the readers of his
Epistle aSelipo'i, that is, the brethren of himself and Timotheus (see also
2 John 1 and 3 John 1); but in relation to what follows: koI 'lya, Xp, rerypy
pivoig, this view is correct. — In the Vulgate, rolg iv Qeu narpl is taken as an
idea by itself : his qui sunt in Deo Patre, etc. ; and theu to this idea the two
attributes are added: ijyanypivoig and 'lya. Xp, reryp, Klyrolg. Apart from its
harshness, not only is it opposed to this construction, that by it the paral
lelism (incorrectly denied by Schott) of the two members of the clause —
which is strongly indicated both by the form of the sentence and also by
ev ru narpl in reference to the following 'lyaoi Xpiaru — is destroyed, but also
ijyanyuivotg would then be without any proximate statement. The same is
also the case when it is assumed, with Rampf and Schott, that the parti
ciples ijyanypivoig and 'L X. rerypypivoig are equally subordinate to iv Qeu narpl,
and explained as expressing " the living ground on which the called possess
that which is expressed in the two participles " (Schott). The supplying of
inb Qeoi or Trapa Geu, necessary for this view, is at all events arbitrary ; more
over, the juxtaposition of roif ev Qeu narpl 'lya. Xpiaru rerypypivoig is extremely
harsh. — It is incorrect to take iv as equivalent to inb (Hensler) ; ev is rather
to be retained in its proper signification, in which it is entirely suitable to
the idea dyandaBai, as the love which proceeds from any person dwells in
him, the Klyrol as they are loved by God so are they loved in God. Hofmann
incorrectly explains it : " who have been accepted in love by God ; " for
dyangv never has this meaning, not ev.en in the passages cited by Hofmann :
1 Thess. i. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 13; Col. iii. 12. — God is called narpl in His rela
tion to Christ, not to men: see Phil. ii. 11; Gal. i. 1; and Meyer on the
latter passage. — koI 'lyaoi Xpiaru Terypypivoig Kl'yrolg]. The dative 'lya, XpittTijt
is not dependent on an iv to be supplied from iv Qeu narpl (Luther : preserved
in Jesus Christ). Hofmann indeed appeals for this supplement to KUhner,
Gr., II. p. 477 ; but incorrectly, as this is rendered impossible by yyanypivoig
intervening. What KUhner says, could only be the case were it written iv
Qeu narpl Kal 'lyaoi Xpiaru yyartypivoig. Also 'lyaoi Xpiaru is not the causative
dative with the passive, instead of vnb with the genitive, but the dative com
modi: for Christ (Bengel, De Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, and others). The
participle rerypypivoig is used neither instead of the present participle, as
Grotius thinks, nor is it here to be understood of the act completed before
God (De Wette, Wiesinger); but it simply denotes that which has taken
place up to the time when the Epistle was written : thus, " to the called,
who have been kept for Christ ; " namely, in order to belong to Him in tirae
and in eternity (so also Schott).* The idea reryp. is completely explained
' Arnauld incorrectly explains it: "aux qui ont 6t6 appel^s a J. Chr. par la predication
appei^s gardes par J. Chr., c'est-i-dire : a ceux de rfevangile et que J. Chr. garde fideles."

670 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
from the falling away from Christ which had taken place among so many ;
see ver. 4; comp. also John xvii. 11; 1 Pet. i. 5. — Although iv Qeip narpi
cannot be grammatically connected with rerypypivoig, and although it pri
marily belongs to yyanypivoi^, yet it indicates by whom the preservation has
taken place; Hornejus: quos Deus Pater . . Christo . . . donavit et asservavit
hue usque, ne ab impostoribus seducerenlur et perirent. — Klyrolg, a designation
in the Pauline sense of those who have not only heard the gospel, but have
embraced it by faith ; see Meyer on 1 Cor. i. 24. Ver. 2. Ileog, k.t.I.]. The
word ileog is used in the formula of salutation only here and in the Pastoral
Epistles. The addition kuI dyuTn? is peculiar to Jude. The relation of the
three terms is thus to be understood : eAeoj- is the demeanor of God toward
the Klyrol; eipyvy their condition founded upon it; and dyuTri; their demeanor
proceeding from it as the effect of God's grace. Accordingly dydny is used
here as in Eph. vi. 23 (see Meyer in loco) ; only here the love is to be limited
neither specially to the brethren (Grotius), nor to God (Calov, Wiesinger).
Still d)'d7n7 may also be the love of God to the Klyrolg ; comp. ver. 21 and
2 Cor. xiii. 13 (14) (so Hornejus, Grotius, Bengel, De Wette-Bruckner,
Schott, and others). No gi-ound of decision can be derived from nlyBwBely.
With the reading yyanypivoig the second explanation merits the preference,
although the position of this expression afler eipyvy is somewhat strange.
On nlyBwBely, see 1 Pet. i. 2 ; this form is apparently derived from Dan.
iii. 31.
Vv. 3, 4. Statement of the reason which determined Jude to write this
Epistle: comp. on this 2 Pet. i. 12 f., iii. 1 f. — dyanyro'i, found at the begin
ning of an Epistle only here and in 3 .lohn 2. — ndaav anovSyv noioipevog, k.t.1.].
Giving all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, I felt constrained
to write io you, exhorting you to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.
Pricaeus, Lachmann, Buttmann, put a comma after the first and after the
second iplv, so that nepl . . . aurypiag is connected with dvayKyv iaxov, and
napuKaluv, etc., is Separated from ypdipat. Most expositors, on the contrary,
as Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, De Wette, Wiesinger, etc., connect nepl aurypiag
with the preceding ypdipeiv, and unite napuKuXuv with ypdipat. Not only the
position of the words, but also the train of thought, decides for this latter
arrangement ; for since, according to ver. 4, the dvdyKy, inducing the author
to write this Epistle, consisted in the appearance of wicked men, so if is
evidently more suitable to connect ypdtpai with napuKaluv inayuvlQeaBai, having
special reference to it, than with the general idea nepl rijg Koivrjg auryp'iag, par
ticularly as the contents of the Epistle are any thing but a treatise concern
ing the comraon salvation.* The preceding participial clause states in what
condition Jude was when the dvdyKyv ixeiv came upon him ; the anovSy to
write already existed when the entrance of certain ungodly men constrained
him not to write generally nepl ryg Koivyg auryp'iag, but to compose such a
1 The translation of the Vulg.: "omnem his larger edition of the N. T., punctuated it
solicitudinem faciens scribendi vobis de com- ae he has done in the Greek text; in other
muni vestra salute necesse habui scribere vobis editions of the Vulgate, on the contrary, the
depraecans supercertari," etc., may also be other punctuation is found.
punctuated iu both ways. Lachmann has, in

VERSE 3. 671
hortative epistle as the present. Some expositors incorrectly think that the
dvdyKy had its reason in the anovSy (Erasmus: tantum mihi studium fuit, ut non
potuerim non scribere vobis) ; others, that to the anovSy the dvdyKy supervened
as a new point; so Hornejus: cum summum mihi esset studium scribendi ad vos
aliquid de communi nostrum omnium salute, etiam necessitas insuper scribendi
imposita fuit, quae autem illa sit, statim addit (so also Calvin and others).
De Wette (with whom BrUckner agrees) considers that Jude by the first
clause expresses that " he had been engaged on the composition of a longer
and more comprehensive Epistle (the loss of which we have to lament),
when he was for the time called away from that work in order to write the
present Epistle ; " but the expression ndaav anovSyv noioipevog does not neces
sarily involve actual writing.* — anovSyv noielaBai is only found here in the
N. T. (2 Pet. i. 5 : anovSyv ndaav napeiaibipeiv ; prologue to Ecclus. : npoaipipeiv
Tivd anovSyv) ; the meaning is, to be eagerly solicitous about something ; it may
refer both to mental activity and to external action ; here the former is the
case. Luther's translation, "after I purposed," is too fiat; Meyer's is
better: "since it lies pressingly upon my heart." — ndaav serves, as fre
quently, for the strengthening of the idea. — The participle noioipevog, in
connection with the aorists iaxov ypdfai, is to be taken as the imperfect
participle. Stier incorrectly translates : " when engaged in it I would take
diligence." It expresses the activity which took place, when the action
expressed by the finite verb occurred, and therefore must not be resolved,
with Haenlein, into the perfect or pluperfect. — nepl ryg Koivyg ypuv aurypiag
states on what Jude intended to write. On Koivyg, comp. Tit. i. 4 ; 2 Pet. i. 1.
There is no reason to refer the idea, with Semler, to the Jews and Gentiles,
as the object common to both. — aurypia, not the doctrine of salvation (Jach
mann), but the salvation itself, acquired by Christ for the world, and applied
to believers. The explanation of Beza: de iis quae ad nostram omnium
salutem pertinent, deviates from strict precision, as aurypia itself is indi
cated by Jude as the object of writing. Schott incorrectly explains aurypia,
state of salvation, possession of salvation. — dvdyKyv iaxov]. Comp. Luke xiv. 10,
xxiii. 17; 1 Cor. vii. 37. The explanation of Grotius is inaccurate: nihil
potius habui, quod scriberem, quam ut, etc. The translation of Luther is too
flat : " I considered it necessary ; " for in dvdyKyv ixeiv is contained the idea
of an objective necessity founded on duty, circumstances, etc. (De Wette,
Wiesinger, Schott). The meaning here is : The entrance of false teachers
constrained me, made me to recognize it as necessary. On the one hand,
Seraler inserts a strange reference, paraphrasing it, accidit interea inopi-
NATO, ut statuendum mihi . . . esset; and, on the other hand, Schott, who,
in order to emphasize the contrast between the two members of the sentence.

' De Wette incorrectly appeals for this cavendum praesens periculura, vos exhorter,
supposition to Sherlock (in Wolf), who thus ut serio teneatis eam quae vobis tradita est,
explains it: "dilecti, animus mihi erat, scri- doctrlnam, contra falsos doctores, quos clan-
bere ad vos de comraunibus doctrinis et spe culum audio irrepsisse." What De Wette
evangelii ad fidem vestram et Jesu Christi cog- regards as accomplished, or in the act of being
nitionem amplificandam; jam vero coactum accomplished, Sherlock considers only as
me video, ut hoc institutum deseram et ad intended.

672 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
finds in dvdyK. iaxov the thought expressed that Jude wrote this Epistle
unwillingly, contrary to his inclination.. — ypdipat iplv napaKalHv], napuKuluv is
closely united to ypdipat, as indicating the kind of writing to which the
author felt constrained by circumstances ; therefore no corama is to be put
after iplv. — inayuvlQeaBai ry . . . niarei]. inayuvlQeaBai, a dn, ley., as ovvaBlJu,
Phil. i. 27, connected with the dative of the object which is contended for;
Stier: "to fight for the faith; "comp. Ecclus. iv. 28: dyuv'iQeiv nepi, — niang
is not = doctrina, system of doctrine ; nor yet does it here denote the subjec
tive quality of the believing disposition ; but that which is believed by
Christians (rolg dyioig), the objective contents of faith. Schott is incorrect
in explaining it, " the conduct arising from faith ; " for the notion of con
duct does not suit napaSoBe'iay. The explanation, the way of salvation (Hof
mann), is also wanting in correctness ; it is not proved by Gal. iii. 23. — As
the subject to napaSoBeiay, by whom the coraraunication or transmission was
effected, God (Bengel) is not here to be thought of, but the apostles, as ver. 17
shows; 2 Pet. ii. 21 ; Luke i. 2 (comp. also 1 Cor. xi. 2, 23, xv. 3) ; yet the
author does not name them, because " he is not concerned here with the per
sonal instruments, but with the mode and manner of transraission contained
in diraf " (Sohott). rolg dyioig are not the apostles (Nic. de Lyra), but Chris
tians. — unai brings prominently forward the fact that as it once took place,
so there is now an end to the napdSoaig ; Bengel : nulla alia dahitur fides.
Jachmann incorrectly explains it by ySy, olim, jam, appealing to ver. 5 and
Heb. vi. 4. According to Hofraann's view, dna^ is used "wdth reference to
the preceding intention of Jude to present to the readers a writing having
the coraraon salvation as its object ; " but this reference is not indicated.*
Ver. 4. Compare 2 Pet. ii. 1-3. — napeiaiSvaav ydp, the reason of dvdyKyv
iaxov. napeiaiSvaav marks the entrance of false teachers into the church as a
secret and unauthorized creeping-in of such as do not properly belong to it,
but are internally foreign to it (comp. Gal. ii. 4 : napelauKroi, explained by
the scholiasts by dlldrpioi) ; it is synonymous with napeiaipxeaBai ; comp.
2 Tim. iii. 6. — nveg dvBpunoi]. In the same indefiniteness the false teachers
are also mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 6. Arnaud observes : " le mot nveg a quelque
chose de me'prisant, comme dans Gal. ii. IS ; " so also Wiesinger and Schott ;
this is possible ; but the appeal to Gal. ii. 12 is unjustified. That the ex
pression dvBpunoi is used in order to bring forward the fact that they "with
their entrance into the church remained in their natural state " (Schott), is
highly improbable. Hofmann unnecessarily separates nveg from dvBpunoi,
taking dvBpurroi, ol, K.r.l., as in apposition to nveg. — oi ndlai npoyeypappivoi eig
roiro rb Kplpa]. By the participle with the article, a peculiar circumstance
worthy of remark, concerning these men, is brought forward (Winer, p. 127
[E. T., 139 f.]) ; but not as Schott, after Rampf, arbitrarily maintains, "a
mark perfectly clear to the readers is given for the recognition of those who
are meant ; " the article being equivalent to isti, those notorious men. — tcpoye-

' When Hofraann maintains that ver. 4 not also another besides an apostle have cher-
could only have been written by an apostle, ished tbe design to address a writing to Chris-
he evidently i^roceeds too far; for, why could tians respecting the common faith?

VERSE 4. 673
ypaupivoi]. The preposition Trpo in this verb indicates either antea, earlier,
before, — thus always in the N. T. ; see Gal. iii. 1 (corap. Meyer in loe);
Rom. XV. 4; Eph. iii. 3, — or palam. If it has this last meaning, then irpo-
ypdipeiv signifies " to announce soraething publicly by writing ; " thus in an
entirely special sense proscribere ; accordingly Wolf explains it : qui dudum
sunt accusati et in hoc judicium (eig roiro rb npipa) vocati. Yet this is inaccu
rate, as the peculiar idea of proscribere is not retained ; for, if retained, it
would not suit eig r. /. Kpipa. Yet more arbitrarily Wahl explains npoypdipeiv
by designare. Oecumenius, Hornejus, and others have correctly taken npo
here as a preposition of time. According to Isa. iv. 3, LXX. : oi ypaipivreg
eig Quyv, the sense might be : those who are written before (as in God's book
of fate, and consequently destined) eig roiro rb Kpipa (Calvin : haec metaphora
inde sumpta est, quod aeternum Dei consilium, quo ordinati sunt fideles ad salu
tem. Liber vocatur) ; but the term nulai is unsuitable, as it is never in the
N. T. used of God's eternal counsels, npoypd^eiv is here rather to be under
stood entirely as in the adduced passages of the N. T. ; and with De Wette
a pregnancy of expression is to be assuraed ; thus, those who are already before
by writing destined to this judgment. Hofraann explains npoyeypappivoi accord
ing to John i. 46 compared with v. 46 (ypdipeiv nva = yp. nepi nvog): "those
of whom it is written before ; " and then eig roiro r. Kp. = " in reference to
this judgment ; " but with regard to the former it is to be remarked, that
the form of expression here is different from John i. 46 ; and with regard
to the latter, that by it a weakening of the preposition in its direct connec
tion with npoyeypappivoi takes place.* Oecumenius refers this to the proph
ecies concerning future false teachers contained in the Epistles of Paul and
Peter. Grotius, Schott, Hofmann, and others point particularly to 2 Pet. ii.
But ndlai combined with npoyeyp. evidently points back to an earlier period,^
so that only older prophecies can be meant, namely, the prophecies and types
of the O. T., and perhaps particularly the prophecies contained in the Book
of Enoch: see ver. 14 (so also Wiesinger). Against Calvin and Beza, who
find the idea of the decretum aeternum here expressed, Bengel remarks : non
innuitur praedestinatio, sed scripturae praedictio. — eig roiro rb Kpipa]. Although
Kpipa in itself is not equivalent to KaruKpipa, yet here a condemnatory judg
raent is meant ; roiro, namely, that which Jude has in view, and which is
indicated in the following verse ; Stier: "for this judgment, which I now
announce to them ; " Arnaud ; il y a roiro, parceque cette punition est I'objet
qui Voccupe. It is incorrect, with Wiesinger and Hofmann, to refer tovto rb
Kpipa to napeiaiSvaav, as something including judgment in itself; or, with
Schott, to the " damnable error of those men," specified in the words rijv rov
Qeoi, K.r.l, ; for neither the entering-in nor the error can in themselves be
1 Luther's translation: "there are certain present" (Pape), raay certainly be used when
men crept in, of whora it is written before, to that past is not distant (comp. Mark xv. 44) ;
this punishment," by which npoyeyp, is sepa- but, on the one hand, this use of the terra is
rated from evs r, r. Kp., is contradicted by the rare; and, on the other hand, it is not here
natural verbal connection. applicable, as the reference to the past gener-
2 Schott and Hofmann contest the fact that ally is already contained in tho npo of the
iriAoi points to au earlier period. iraAoi, which compound verb ; ttoAoi here can only be put to
" generally indicates the past iu contrast to the mark this past as lying in the distance.

674 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
called a Kpipa, — daeSelg to be taken by itself ; not to be united with ni npoye
ypappivoi (against Tischendorf, who has placed no comma before daeSelg).
The ungodliness of these men is further indicated, according to its nature, by
the participial clauses which follow (corap. 2 Pet. ii. 6). — ryv roi Qeoi ypuv
xdpiv, K.r.l., luho pervert the grace of our God into lasciviousness. xbp'C> **ot —
doctrina gratiae (Vorstius), nor evangelium (Grotius), nor fides catholica nobis
gratis data (Nicolas de Lyra) ; but grace itself as the proffered gift of God in
the forgiveness of sin and redemption from the law; so also Wiesinger,
Fronrauller, Hofraann. It is incorrect to explain the idea by " the life of
grace" (De Wette-BrUckner), or by "the ordinances of grace" (Schott).
ijpuv, belonging to roi Qeoi, is to be understood as an expression of the feel
ing of sonship; Bengel: nostri, non impiorum. — In perunBivreg eig daelyeiav,
daily, is either the purpose of the change of the grace of God, or that into
which grace is changed. In the former case peranBypi here would in itself
have a bad subsidiary meaning (De Wette ; " who pervert the grace of our
God ior the purpose of licentiousness''); but it never elsewhere so occurs
in the N. T. Accordingly, the second explanation is better (BrUckner),
according to which the meaning is : they have converted the xupig, which
God gave to thera, into something different, namely doEl'.jEia; inasmuch as
liberty was converted by thera into lasciviousness; comp. Gal. v. 13; 1 Pet.
ii. 16; 2 Pet. ii. 19. — koI rbv pbvov beanbryv Kal Kipiov ypuv 'i. Xp. dpvouuevoi].
In 2 Pet. ii. 1 the epithet Seanbryg is used of Christ; this favors the combi
nation of rbv pbvov Seanbryv as an attribute with 'lya. Xp. (so De Wette,
Schmidt, Rampf, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronrauller, Hofmann). But, on the
one hand, in every other place this word denotes God , and, on the other
hand, Seanbryg would hardly be distinguished from the word Kipiog, if both
were to be referred to Christ , * add to this that pbvag elsewhere expresses
the unity of the divine nature; comp. Jude 25; John v. 44, xvii. 3; Rora.
xvi. 27; 1 Tim. i. 17, vi. 15, 16; Rev. xv. 4; against which view Schott
incorrectly urges 1 Cor. viii. 6 and Eph. iv. 5. For these reasons, it is
more probable that rbv pbvov Seanbryv is not an appellation of Christ, but a
designation of God (Bruckner) ; corap. 1 John ii. 22 : 6 dpvovpevog rbv naripg
Kal rbv vlbv (also Enoch xlviii. 10 is to be corapared: "they have denied the
Lord of the spirits and His Anointed "). No arguraent against this expla
nation can be drawn frora the want of the article before Kvpiov ; see author's
coramentary on Tit. ii. 3 (Winer, p. 121 ff. [E. T., 130]),^ which is in an
unjustifiable manner denied by Ilofmann. The denial may be considered
1 Hofmann gives the distinction of these clause, and that therefore it would be unsuita-
two ideas as follows : " Christ is our Seo-TroTrj?, ble to express it here again, it is to be observed
as we are His property bound to His service , that in that clause the relation to Chiist is also
He is our Kvpto<;, as His will is the standard of indicated, since the grace of God is communi-
ours." But if this be correct, it is not in favor cated through Christ ; also, there is no reason
of Hofraann, but against him, because Jude why Jude should not have indicated perart&e-
would then in an incomprehensible manner i-at as a denial both ot Jesus Christ and of
make the weaker idea to follow upon the God. Whilst Schott grants that the expres.
stronger. sion " the only master " may only refer to
2 When Wiesinger and Schott appeal for God, he so interprets the article rov before
their explanation to the fact that the relation povov Sco-tt., that he explains it as equivaleut
to God is already expressed in the preceding to " he who is."

VERSE 5. 675
as either practical (corap. Tit. i. 16) or theoretical. Since throughout this
Epistle the carnal and godless disposition of these men is brought forward,
it is most probable that Jude at least had the first kind of denial specially
in view. At all events, such explanations as those of Grotius : " abnegabant
Jesum, quia eum dicebant hominem natum ex homine," are to be rejected, as
Jude never reproaches his adversaries with such a definite erroneous doctrine.
Ver. 5. From this verse to ver. 7 we have three exaraples, as repre
sentations of the judgment which threatens those mentioned in ver. 4.
Compare with this 2 Pet. ii. 4-6. — inouvyaai Si vpdg Sui?Mpai]. Si is used
metabatically (as a mere particle of transition); not in order to put
inopvyaai in contrast to napuKalCvv (ver. 3), which is only to be justified by
the explanation of Schott, that "Jude intends not properly to exhort the
readers, but by napuKolelv he means only that he will remind them." ipdg
is not the subject, but the object to inopvyaai ; comp. 2 Pet. i. 12 (Rom. xv.
15). — eiSbrag [iudg] dna^ ndvra]. eiSbrag is either in an adversative sense =
Kainep elSbrag (De Wette) ; or, which is to be preferred on account of uttoJ
the statement of the reason of inopvijaai.'^ — dnai is not to be united per
- hyperbaton with aioaag ; also not = first, so that Seirepov corresponding to it
would be = secondly, and both referred to eiSdrag (Jachmann) ; but dna^
belongs to etSbrag, and Td Sevrepov to dnuleaev. Hornejus incorrectly explains
ana^ h-y jampridem et ab initio (Arnaud: vous qui I'avez su une fois); it has
here rather the same meaning as in ver. 3, rendering prominent that a new
teaching is not necessary (De Wette, Stier, Wiesinger, FronraUller, Schott,
Hofmann). — ndvra ; according to Nicolas de Lyra = omnia ad salutem
necessaria ; better, every thing which is an object of evangelical teaching,
here naturally with particular reference to what directly follows, to which
alone the rovro of the Rec. points.^ — bn b Kipiog {'lyaoig) labv . . , adiaag], on
belongs not to eiSbrag ndvra, but to inopvyaai. -^With the reading (6) 'lyaoig
(Stier calls it, " without exaraple, and incomprehensibly strange ") Jude
here would speak from the same point of view as Paul does in 1 Cor. x. 4
(comp. also 1 Pet. i. 11), according to which all the acts of divine revelation
are done by the instrumentality of Christ, as the eternal Son and revealer
of God. The name 'lyaoig, by which Christ is designated in His earthly
and! human personality, is, however, surprising; but Jude might have so
used it from the consciousness that the eternal Son of God and He who
was born of Mary is the same Person (corap. 1 Cor. viii. 9 ; Phil. ii. 5).
AVith the reading Kipiog — certainly the more natural — which De Wette-
Bruckner and Hofmann prefer, whilst Wiesinger and Schott consider 'lyaoig
as the original — a designation of God is to be uuderstood. — labv]. That
by this the people of Israel is meant, is evident; the article is wanting,
because Jude would indicate that Israel was saved as an entire people, with
1 Nicolas de Lyra : " commonere autem vos but he erroneously thinks tbat dna^ with e'tSo-
volo et non docere de novo; et subditur ratio;" th? indicates " this knowledge is raeant as a
Bengel: "causa, cur admoneat duntaxat: quia knowledge effected by a definite individual
jara sciant, semeique cognitum habeant; " so act," and that drra^ is to be understood of the
also Wiesinger and Schott. instruction given in Second Peter.
2 Schott, indeed, explains Trai/Ta correctly;

676 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
reference to the following roig py mareiaavrag.'^ — to Seirepov is to be retained
in its proper meaning, and to be explained neither, with Nicolas de Lyra,
and others, as = post (Arnaud: de nouveau, ensuite, apres), nor, with Grotius
and Wolf, as = ex contrario. It indicates that what was said in the preceding
participial sentence, namely, the divine deliverance of the people from Egypt,
is considered as a first deed, to which a second followed. The definite
statement of what this second is, is usually derived frora the preceding
auaag, and by it is accordingly understood a second deliverance ; but there
are different views as to what deliverance is meant. In this commentary
the deliverance of the people frora the wilderness was designated as this
second deliverance, which certainly occurred to the people, yet only so that
those who believed not did not attain to it, but were destroyed by God in
the wilderness (so, in essentials, Stier, Bruckner, Wiesinger). On the other
hand, Schmidt {Bibl. Theologie, ii.), Luthardt, Schott, Hofmann, understand
by it the deliverance effected by Christ ; whilst they regard as the punish
ment falling oA unbelievers, the destruction of Jerusalem, or the overthrow
of the Jewish state. But both explanations are arbitrary : for, first, it is
unauthorized to refer to Sevrepov only to aijaag and not to ek yijg Aiyinrov auaag;
and, secondly, in the principal sentence a deliverance is not at all indicated.^
Whilst, then, Jude thinks on the deliverance from Egypt as a first deed, he
does not mention a deliverance, but the destruction of those who believed
not, as the second deed following the first. But this second is not indicated
as a single deed, and therefore by it is to be understood generally what
befell the unbelieving in the wilderness after the deliverance from Egypt ;
what this was, is expressed in the words roig py niarcvaavrag dnuleaev. It is
arbitrary to refer this, with Ritschl, only to the history recorded in Nura.
xxv. 1-9 ; and still more arbitrary to refer it, with FronraUller, to the Baby
lonish captivity (2 Chron. xSxvi. 16 ff.). Compare, moreover, with this
verse, Heb. iii. 16-19. — roig py mareiaavrag]. On py, with participles, see
Winer, p. 449 f. (E. T., 482) ; comp. ver. 6 : roig py rypyaavrag. It is to be
observed, that in the corresponding passage, 2 Pet. ii., instead of this ex
ample, the deluge is named.
Ver. 6. A second exaraple taken from the angelic world. As God
spared not the people rescued from bondage, so neither did He spare the
angels who left their habitation. This also was an admonitory represen
tation for Christians, who, in the face of the high dignity which they
possessed by redemption, yielded themselves to a life of vice. — dyyilovg re
rovg py rypyaavrag, k.t.1., is, according to the construction, as the te indicates,
closely connected with the preceding. — dyyilovg without the article con^

-1 Calvin observes : " noraen populi honori- 5e-vrepov should properly have been ovk eataae
fiee capitur pro gente sancta et electa, ac si (aAAa, k.t.A.) ; the Lord, after having saved,
diceret, nihil illis profuiese, quod singular! the second time (when they needed His help-
privilegio in foedus aseumpti essent;" but Ing grace) refused them this saving grace, and
were this correct, avTou would at least have left them to destruction." But there is noth-
been added. ing Indicated in the context of a state of being
2 Against Winer's explanation, p. 576 in want of grace.
(E. T., 620) : " the verb connected with to

VERSE 6. 677
sidered generally; the participle connected with the article indicates the
definite class of angels who are here meant. For the understanding of
this verse the following points are to be observed: (1) By the twofold
participial clause Toiif py . , , dpxyv and dnolmbvrag , . . o'lKyrypiov, something
sinful is attributed to the angels (2 Pet. ii. 4 : dpapryadvruv), on account of
which the punishraent expressed by e'lg Kpiaiv , . , rerijpyKe was infiicted upon
thera ; (2) The two clauses py , , . dlld ... so correspond, that the second
positive clause explains tho first negative clause ; and (3) what Jude says of
the angels corresponds with the doctrine of the angels contained in the
Book of Enoch. — roig pij rypyaavrag ryv tavruv cipxyv, k.t.1.]. daxij niust here
denote something which the angels by forsaking rb ISiov oUyrypiov did not
preserve, but gave up or slighted. But by dnol. rb IS. o'lKyr,, according to
the Book of Enoch xii. 4,* is meant their forsaking of heaven, and their
descent to earth in order to go after the daughters of men (so also
Hofmann) ; but not, as Hornejus and others think, the loss of the heavenly
dwelling, which they drew upon themselves by conspiring against God;
which would militate against the first observation. — By I'lpxy expositors
understand either the original condition (origo: Calvin, Grotius, Hornejus,^
and others), or the dominion which originally belonged to them (Bengel, De
Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofraann; Bruckner thinks that the meaning
dominion passes over into that of origin). According to the first explanation,
the term is too indefinite, both in itself and in reference to the second
parallel clause. It is in favor of the second explanation, that in the N. T.
angels are often designated by the name dpxij, apxai ; as also the prevailing
idea among the Jews was, that to the angels a lordship belongs over the
earthly creation. By this explanation, also, the two clauses correspond;
instead of administering their offlce as rulers, they forsook their heavenly
habitation, and thus became culpable. The explanation, according to
which dp;t;^ eavrivv denotes not the dominion of the angels, but the dominion
of God, to which they were subjected, is both against linguistic usage and
against the context. — eig Kpiaiv . . . rerypyKev]. Statement of the punish
ment. This also corresponds with the expression in the Book of Enoch,
where in chap. x. 12 it is said ; " Bind them fast under the mountains of
the earth . . . even to the day of judgment . . . until the last judgraent
will be held for all eternity.^ — rerypyKev is in sharp contrast to py rypyaav-
1 "Announce to the watchers of heaven, 2 Hornejus, after John viii. 44, designates
who forsook the high heaven and their holy as the original condition here meant, Veritas.,
eterual abodes, and have corrupted themselves i.e., innocentia et sanetitas, Stier thinks
with women;" xv. 3; "Wherefore have ye "that the original condition was at the sarae
forsaken the high and holy and eternal heaven, time the ground of their nature aud condition
and have slept with women?" . . . Ixiv.: in Ood, or, as it is now perhaps called, the
" These are the angels who have gone down principle of their true Hfe. They preserved
flora heaven to earth;" and other passages. not themselves in God, whilst they surreu-
Geu. vi. 2 lies at the foundation of this tradi- dered and lost the proper pure ground ot their
tion, the explanation of which is to this diiy glorious being."
contested. Whilst Hofmann explains the ex s Comp. also x. 4: "Bind AzazSl, and put
pression DTiSxH 'P3 as a designation ot hira in darkness," xiv. 6, xxi. 10, etc. In the
the angels, Ferd. Philippi decidedly rejects Midrasch Ruth in the Book of Zohar it is said :
this explanation. "Postquam filii Del filios geuuerunt, sumsit

678 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
rag : the perfect expresses an action begun in the past and continued in the
present. The mode of retention is more precisely stated by Seapolg d'lS'toig inb
Qbijiov]. By d'iS'ioig the chains by which they are bound are designated as
eternal, and incapable of being rent, inb Qbipov]. Qbipog only here and ver.
13, and in the parallel passages, 2 Pet. ii. 4 and 17 ; comp. also Wisd. xvii.
2;* usually anbrog, the darkness of hell; inb is explained by conceiving the
angels in the lowest depths of hell, covered with darkness.^ In rtrijpyKev is
not contained the final doom which will only take place at the general
judgment ; therefore : eig Kpiaiv peydlyg ijpipag]. pey. ypepa, without any
further designation, used of the last judgraent only here ; the same adjec
tive, as an attribute of that day, in Acts ii. 20; Rev. vi. 17, xvi. 14.
Ver. 7. Third example : the judgment on Sodom aud Gomorrha and
the cities about them, which, however, is not co-ordinate with the preceding
two, but is closely connected with the last mentioned, " whilst here both
times a permanent condition is meant, which a similar sin has had as its
consequence, whereas dnuleaev (ver. 5) states a judgment of God already
past" (Hofmann's Schriftb., I. p. 428). — ug is not to be connected with the
following bpoiug, ver. 8 ; nor is 'on, ver. 5, to be connected with inopvyaai . . ,
Sovlopai (De "Wette) = how instead of "that;" it refers rather to what
directly precedes = like as (Semler, Arnaud, Hofraann, BrUckner, Wiesinger,
Schott, and others; Luther: as also), whilst .ver. 7 confirms dyyilovg . . .
rerypyKev by the comparison with what befell Sodom and Goraorrha : God
retains the angels kept unto the day of judgment, even as Sodom and
Gomorrha npoKeivrai Selypa, K,r,l. With the connection with inopv, Sovl.
(ver. 5) a preceding kui would hardly be necessary, also the words rbv bpoiov
roiroig indicate the close connection with ver. 6. — ZiiSopa kui rdpo/>/ia fre
quently adduced in the O. and N. T. as examples of the divine judgment;
see, for example, Rom. ix 29. — koI al nepl airdg nblzig, according to Deut.
xxix. 23 ; Hos. xi. 8, Admah and Zeboim. — rbv bpoiov rpbnov roiroig iKnop-
eos Deus et ad raontem tenebrarum perduxit, dus non est locus, quo iuclusi sint diaboli;
ligavitque in catenis ferreis,.quae usque ad simpliciter enira docere voluit Ap., quara
mediura abyssi raagnae pertingunt." misera sit eorum conditio . . . nam quocunque
1 Comp. also Hesiod, Theog.,-v. 729, -where pergant, secum trahunt sua vlncula et suis
it is said -. — tenebris obvoluti manent." Dietlein remarks
*Ev0a 0eot TtT^i'es iinb ^offiia ijpoevra OU 2 Pet. 11. 4; " Not only Tartarus, but also
KeKpviparat, /3ouA^o-t Aib? i/ei^cATj-yepeTao the chains of darkness, are to be uuderstood
XuJpu ev evpvtevrt. In a local and corporeal sense, but not of such
2 There is an apparent difference between a locality, or of such an imprisouraeut in that
what is here said, and the representations of locality, as would require an exclusion frora
the N. T. elsewhere, according to which Satan our locality, or an incapability of raovemeut
and his dyyeKot have even now their residence through our locality." But all these artificial
in the air (Eph. li. 2, or in the upper regions, explanations are to be rejected, inasmuch as
iv Totf errovpavtot<;, Eph. vi. 12), and although Jude does not speak of Satan and bis angels,
already judged by Christ (.Tohu xvi. 11), yet but of a definite class of angels, to whom, in
as KO(7|LtoKpdTope? exercise power over unbe- agreeraent with the Boob of Enoch, he refers
lievers, and also lay snares tor believers, in Gen. vi. 2. This is correctly observed by Hof-
order to bring them again into subjection. mann, Wiesinger, and Schott, with whom
Expositors, in general, have attempted to rec- BrUckner appears to agree ; on the other hand,
oncile this by referring this continued activity F. Philippi (p. 140) observes: "Jude speaks
of tbe Devil to the special permission of here of the original fall ot the angels frora
God; Calvin, otherwise ; " porro nobis fingen- pride, not of their union with earthly women."

VERSE 7. 679
veiaaaat]. rovroig may grammatically be referred to 26(5. k. Top. (or, by synesis,
to the inhabitants of these cities; so Krebs, Calvin, Hornejus, Vorstius,
and others) ; but by this construction the sin of Sodom and Gomorrha
would only be indirectly indicated. Since, also, roiroig cannot refer to the
false teachers, ver. 4, because, as De Wette correctly reraarks, the thought
of ver. 8 would be anticipated, it must refer to the angels who, according
to the Book of Enoch, sinned in a similar way as the inhabitants of those
cities (thus Herder, Schneckenburger, Jachmann, De Wette, Arnaud, Hof
raann, and others). — iKnopveiaaaai, the sin of the inhabitants, is designated
as the action of the cities theraselves. The verb (often in the LXX., the
translation of HJl; also in the Apocrypha) is in the N. T. a air. ley. The
preposition e/c serves for strengthening the idea, indicating that " one by
nopveveiv becomes unfaithful to true moral conduct" (Hofmann), but not
that " he goes beyond the boundaries of nature " (Stier, Wiesinger, and
sirailarly Schott). — kuI dnelBoiaai bniau aapKbg iripag]. The expression dnipx.
bniau nvbg is found in Mark i. 20 in its literal sense; here it has a figurative
meaning; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 10, nopeieaBai bn.; Jer. ii. 5; Ecclus. xlvi. 10. —
Arnaud : ces mots sont ici un euphe'misme, pour exprimer I'acte de la prostitution.
In dnb is contained the turning aside from the right way. Oecumenius
thus explains the iraport of oupl iripa: ai'ipKU Si iripav, rijv dfifiyva ipiaiv liyei, ug
uij npbg avvovaiav yeveaeug avvreloiaav ; SO also BrUckner and Wiesinger. Stier,
Schott, Hofraann, proceed further, referring to Lev. xviii. 23, 24, and
accordingly explaining it: "not only have they practised sharae, man with
man, but even raan with beast" (Stier). Only this explanation corresponds
to aapKbg iripag, and only by it do the connection of ver. 7 with ver. 6, ex
pressed by ug, and the explanation : rbv buoiov rpbnov rov-roig, receive their true
meaning. The odpi of men was iripa aupi to the angels, as that of beasts is
to men. In the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii. 6, the sin of the cities is not
stated- — npoKeivrai Seiyua nvpbg aiuviov SiKyv inixovaai]. npbKeivrai : they lie
before the eyes as a Seiyua; not, "inasmuch as the example of punishment in
its historical attestation is ever present" (Schott) ; but, inasmuch as the Dead
Sea continually attests that punishment, which Jude considers as enduring.
There is a certain boldness in the expression, as properly it is not the cities
and their inhabitants who are npoKeivrai. The genitive nvpbg aiuviov raay
graramatically depend both on Se'iypa and on SUyv. Most expositors (par
ticularly Wiesinger, Schott, Bruckner) consider the second construction as
the correct one, but hardly rightly : as, (1) Selypa would then lose its exact
definition ; (2) nip aiuviov always designates hell-fire, to which the con
demned are delivered up at the last judgment (see Matt. xxv. 41) ; (3) the
juxtaposition of this verse with ver. 6, where the present punitive condition
of the angels is distinguished from that which will occur afler the judgraent,
favors the idea that the cities (or rather their inhabitants) are here not
designated as those who even now suffer the punishment of eternal fire.'^
^ Wiesinger incorrectly observes that " by fire," since precisely the contrary is the case.
this connection we must also assume that those Wiesinger arrives at this erroneous assuraption
angels also suffer the punishment of eternal by taking Betypa tta equivalent to example. It

680 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
But Jude could designate the cities as a Sel/pa of eternal fire, considering
the fire by which they were destroyed as a figure of eternal fire. Hofmann
correctly connects nvpbg aiuv'iov with Selypa, but he incorrectly designates
Selypa nvp. aluv. as a preceding apposition to SiKyv : " it may be seen in them
(Selypa = exhibition) what is the nature of eternal fire, inasmuch as the fire
that has consumed them is enduring in its after-operations ; " by this
explanation nip a'luviov is deprived of its proper meaning. With SiKyv
inixovaai the fact is indicated that they have continually to suffer punish
ment, since the period that punishment was inflicted upon thera in the time
of Lot ; * corresponding to what is said of the angels in ver. 6. — Sel-jpa in
N. T., an. ley. (Jas. V. 11, and frequently: vnbSeiypa), not := example, but
proof, testimony, sign. ini\eiv likewise in N. T., an. ley. ; 2 Macc. iv. 48,
Qypiav vnixeiv (2 Thess. i. 9, SiKyv rieiv).
Ver. 8. Description of the sins of the false teachers; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 10.
— bpoiug, i.e., sirailarly as Sodom and Goraorrha, etc. — pivroi expresses here
no contrast (so earlier in this commentary : "notwithstanding the judgment
which has corae on those cities on account of such sins "), but it serves, as
Hofmann correctly ob^rves, appealing to KUhner's Gramm., II. p. 694,
" simply for the strengthening of the expression, putting the emphasis on
bpoiug; those men, says Jude, actually do the sarae thing as the Sodomites."
— Kul ovroi refers back to nveg dvBpunoi, ver. 4. — ewnviaQopevoi only here and
in Acts ii. 17, where it is used of prophetical dreams, according to Joel
iii. 1. This meaning does not here suit, for Bretschneider's explanation,
"falsis oracuUs decepti vel falsa oracula edentes," is wholly arbitrary. Most
expositors unite it closely with the following oup/ca pialvovai, and understand
it either de somniis, in quibus corpus polluitur (Vorstius), or of voluptuous
dreams, appealing to Isa. Ivi. 10 (LXX., iwnviaQdpevoi Koiryv, an inaccurate
translation of the Hebrew D'^DlJ' D'ln), or of unnatural cohabiting (Oecu
menius). Jachmann (with whom BrUckner agrees) understands it generally
= "sunk in sleep, i.e., hurried along in the tumult of the senses," appealing
to the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii. 10 (ev imBvpla). Similarly Calvin : est meta-
phorica loquulio, qua significat, ipsos tam esse habetes, ut sine ulla verecundia ad
omnem turpitudinem se prostituant. But in all these explanations the expres
sion is only referred to the first clause of the following sentence ; but this is
opposed to the construction : it refers to both clauses, — else it would have
been put directly with pialvovai, — and denotes the condition in which and
out of which they do those things which are expressed in the following
clauses. It is unsatisfactory to keep in view only the negative point of
ivvnvidQeaBai, the want of a clear consciousness ; ^ the positive point is chiefiy
is also entirely erroneous when it is asserted sentation from "Wisd. x. 7, and the various
that TTupos altoviov fiiKTj Is au evident type of phenomena which lead to the supposition of a
hell-fire, since nvp aiuivtov is itself hell-fire. subterranean fire at tbe Dead Sea (see Winer's
To be compared with this is 3 Macc. ii. 5: av Bibl. Realw. : todtos Meer).
. . . SoSo^iTas . . . n-upt . . . KaT€<^Ae^a9, Trapa- ^ Hornejus : " tam insipientes sunt, ut quasi
Set-y^a rots eTTiyii'ojiiei'ot? Karaarrjaaq; and lethargo Bopiti UOU tantura irapure vivant,"
Libanius in reference to Troy: KeiVat n-apa- etc.; Arnaud: "qui agissent sans savoir ce
Setypa SvaTO\tas Trupb? aiwvtov. qu'ils font."
1 There is no necessity to derive this repre-

VERSE 8. 681
to be observed, which consists in living in the arbitrary fancies of their own
perverted sense, which renders them deaf to the truths and warnings of the
divine word (so in essentials, Stier, Fronrauller, Wiesinger, Schott, Bruckner,
Hofmann).* The reference to Isa. xxix. 10, LXX. : nendriKev ipdg Kipwg kutu-
vv^eug, is unsuitable (against Beza, Carpzov, and others), as here the discourse
is not above a punitive decree of God. — adpKa piv piaivovai, not their flesh,
but generally the fiesh, both their own and that of others : the thought refers
back to ver. 7: iKnopveiaaaai, etc. — Kvpibryra Se dBeroiai, Sb^ag Se Slaaipypoiaiv,
announces a new side of their sinful nature. As this verse is in evident
connection of thought with ver. 10, where the words baa Se ipvaiKug . . . ipBei-
povrat refer back to adpKa pev puiiv., so Kvpibryg and Sb^at can only be here such
things as suit the words baa oiK oiSaaiv. It is thus incorrect to understand
them of political powers (Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, Semler, Stier, and
others), or of ecclesiastical rulers (Oecumenius),^ or of human authorities
generally, the two words being either taken as "designations of concrete per
sons, or one of them as a pure abstraction ; Arnaud : par Kvpibryra il faut
entendre I'autorite en general et par Sb^ag les dignites quelconques, les hommes
meritant, par leur position, le respect et la consideration. — Both expressions are
to be understood as a designation of supermundane powers. Almost all
recent expositors agree in this, although they differ widely in the more
definite statement. These different explanations are as follows : (1) Kvpj-
bryg is taken as a designation of God or Christ, and Sb^ai as a designation of
the good angels (Ritschl) ; (2) the good angels are understood in both ex
pressions (BrUckner) ; (3) Kvpibryg is understood in the first explanation, but
Sb^ai is explained of the evil angels (Wiesinger) ; (4) both expressions are
understood as a designation of the evil angels (Schott). In order first cor
rectly to determine the idea Kvpibryg, the relation of ver. 8 to what goes before
is to be observed. The judgraents which have befallen the people (ver. 5),
the angels (ver. 6), and the cities (ver. 7), are by Jude adduced as a testi
mony against the Antinomians (airoi, ver. 8) raentioned in ver. 4, evidently
because these persons are guilty of the same sins on account of which those
judgments occurred. Since adp«:a pia'ivovat evidently points back to iKnopvei
aaaai, ver. 7, and further to dailyeiav, ver. 4, it is most natural to refer Kvpib
ryra dderoiaiv to p^ niarevovrag, ver. 5, and, further, to rbv pbvov Seanbryv . . .
dpvoipevoi, ver. i. Consequently, h'y Kvpibryg — if one takes rbv povov Seanbryv
as a designation of God — is to be understood the Godhead; or, if one under
stands T. p. S, as a predicate to 'lya, Xp., Christ. If, now, it is assumed that
Sb^ai is an idea corresponding to Kvpibryg, and to be taken along with it, then
by it the good angels are to be understood. But it must not be overlooked
that the clause Sb^ag Si Slaaipypovaiv is separated from the preceding clause by
Si ; and that ver. 9 leads to a different understanding of Sb^at. When in
1 " Those here spoken of are wakeful dream- that by KupioTijt may also be understood ^ toO
ers, so that they, when they should perceive KaTa Xpiarov pvarrjpiov TcAeuTTJ, and by fidfat
with their wakeful senses, have only dreams, also r/ naXaia SiaB-fiKr) Kai ^ via; on 2 Pet. ii.
and what they dream they esteem as the per- 10 he observes : adf as, ^toi to; Seiai ipr,at twd-
ceptlon of the wakeful spirit." pets, ^ Kai Tas eKKKyataartKas ipxaj.
2 Oecumenius, however, wavers, thinking

682 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
ver. 9 it is said of the archangel Michael that he dared not Kplaiv ineveyKelv
Slaaipyplag against the Devil, this Slaaipypiag evidently refers back to Sluatpy-
poiaiv, ver. 8, consequently the two ideas Sbiag and StdSulog are brought
together, so that from this the preference must be given to the explanation
which understands by Siiag the diabolical powers, or the evil angels. That
uot ouly Sd^ai, but also Kvpibryg, is a designation of evil powers, Sohott incor
rectly appeals to the fact that in 2 Pet. ii. 10, and also here, the unchaste,
carnal life of the false teachers is connected with their despising or rejection
of Kvpioryg ; for although it is presupposed that the recognition of the rever
ence for Kvpibryg might restrain these men from the abuse of their fieshly
nature, yet it does not follow from this that only evil spirits can be meant,
since also the recognition of the reverence for the divine power restrains
from the abuse of the corporeal senses which were created by God. To the
identification of Kvpibryg and Sb^ai — whether good or evil angels are to be
understood — not only is the-form of the expression opposed, Jude not unit
ing the two clauses by kuI, but, as already remarked, separating them by (5t-,*
but also the difference of the conduct of the Antinomians, whilst they de
spise (dBeroiaiv ; 2 Pet. : Karaippovoiaiv) the Kvpibryg, but blaspheme the Sb^ai.
The clearer this separation and distinction are kept in view, the less reason
is there against deriving the exact meaning of Sb^ai from ver. 9 (2 Pet. ii. 10
from ver. 11), and consequently against understanding by it evil angels
(corap. Hofmann) ; only it must not be affirmed that Jude has used the
expression Sb^ai as a name for the evil angels as such, but only that, whilst
so naming angels generally, he here means the evil angels, as is evident
from ver. 9. That these may be understood by this designation, cannot be
denied, especially, as Wiesinger points out, as Paul in Eph. vi. 12 names
them ai dpxal, al i^ova'iai, ol KoapoKpdropeg, and says of them that they are iv rolg
inovpavloig. — uBeroiaiv . . . Slaaipypoiaiv]. The first expression is negative, the
second positive ; the Antinomians manifested the despising of Kvpiinyg by
the carnal licentiousness of their lives, whilst they fancied themselves
exempt by xuptg (ver. 4) from the duty of obedience to the will of God (or
Christ) as the Kvpiog requiring a holy life ; but their blasphemy of the Sb^at
consisted dn this, that, on the reproach of having in their immorality fallen
under diabolical powers, they mocked at them as entirely impotent beings.
Remark. — According to Ritschl's opinion, the actions which Jude here
asserts of the Antinomians represent directly only the guilt of their forerunners
(namely, the Israelites, ver. 5; the angels, ver. 6; and the Sodomites, ver. 7),
and his expressions can therefore only be understood in an indirect and meta
phorical sense. To this conclusion Ritschl arrives (1) by explaining the second
clause of ver. 10, that the Antinomians understood relations to be understood
spiritually ipvniKug ug rd dloya Qua, i.e., that they considered the blessings prom
ised in the kingdom of heaven as the blessings of sensual enjoyment; (2) by so
understanding the relation of ver. 8 to the preceding, that Sb^ag Sluaip, is to be
referred back to ver. 7, Kvpidr. dBer, to ver. 6, and aapKu piaiv to ver. 5. According
* Also in 2 Pet. ii. 10, So^as oil rpepovatv KaTaf^poi/oufTas by the inteiTening roXpyraX
^^aa^rjpovvres is separated from kupiotjjtos av9dSets,

VERSE 9. 683
to his view, Jude finds the guilt of the Sodomites (ver. 7) to consist in tbis,
that by the design of practising their lust on the angels, they blasphemed them;
the guilt of the angels (ver. 6) in this, that they undervalued their own domin
ion; and the guilt of the Israelites (ver. 5) in this, that they had criminal
intercourse with the impure daughters of Moab. Over against this, the guilt of
the Antinomians consisted in this: (I) that they regarded Immorality as a
privilege of the kingdom ot God, which they have in comraon with the angels;
(2) that by referring their immoral practice to the kingdom of God, they showed
a depreciation of the dominion which belongs to Christ, or to which they them
selves are called; and (3) that by their dailyeia they were guilty of the defile
ment of those connected with them in the Christian Church. But both the
explanation of the second clause of ver. 10, where there is no mention of the
blessings of the kingdom of heaven, and the statement of the relation of ver. 8
to what goes before, is incorrect, since in ver. 7 the Sodomites and the other
cities are reproached, not with an evil intention, but with an actual doing; in
ver. 6 the not preserving their upxij, and the forsaking of their o'lKyrypiov, are
indeed reckoned as a crime to the angels, but specially on this account, because
they did it — as rbv bpoiov rpbnov roiroig, ver. 7, shows — forthe sake of iKnop-
veveiv; and, lastly, in ver. 5 the crirainal intercourse with the daughters of
Moab is not indicated as the reason of their dnuleia, but their unbelief [p^
¦ maTevovrag). For these reasons Wiesinger has correctly rejected the explanation
of Ritschl as mistaken. — The view of Steinfass, expressed on 2 Pet. ii. 10, that
the blasphemy of the Sb^ai by the Antinomians consisted in their wishing to
constrain the angels by charras to love-intrigues, is, apart frora all other con
siderations, contradicted by the fact that neither in 2 Peter nor in Jude is there
any reference to charms and love-intrigues with the angels.
Ver. 9 places in a strong light the wickedness of this blasphemy (comp.
2 Pet. ii. 11). They do something against the Sb^ui, which even Michael
the archangel did not venture to do against the Devil. — b Si Mixaijl b
dpxdyyeyog]. Michael, in the doctrine of the angells, as it was developed
during and after the captivity by the Jews, belonged to the seven highest
angels, and was regarded as the guardian of the nation of Israel ; Dan.
xii. l,.'lB.r_ 'Ja-'?;? nni^n h'iliT} -lE/ri; comp. x. 13, 21; in the N. T. he is
only mentioned in Rev. xii. 7. In the Book of Enoch, chap. xx. 5, he
is described as " one of the holy angels set over the best part of the human
race, over the people." — dpxdyyelog only here and in 1 Thess. iv. 16 (Dan.
xii. 1, Ixx., 6 dpxuv b piyag).^ — bre ru SiaSdlu, k.t.I.]. This legend is found
neither in the O. T., nor in the rabbinical writings, nor in the Book of
Enoch ; Jude, however, supposes it well known. Oecumenius thus explains
the circumstance : liyerat rbv Mtxayl . , , ry roi Muaeug raipy SeStyKovyKivar roi
ydp SiaSblov roiro pij KaraSexopivov, dll' imipipovrog cyKlypa Std rbv roi Ai-yvnriov
ipovov, ug airoi bvrog roi Uuaeug, Kal Std rovro' pij avyxupelaSui avru rvxeiv ryg ivrlpov
raipyg. According to Jonathan on Deut. xxxiv. 6, the grave of Moses was
given to the special custody of Michael. This legend,. with reference to
the manslaughter committed by Moses, might easily have been formed, as
' See Winer's Bibl, Beallex. : Angel, Michael.

684 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
Oecumenius states it, "out of Jewish tradition, extant in writing alongside
of the Scriptures" (Stier).* According to Origen (nepl dpxuv, iii. 2), Jude
derived his account from a writing known in his age, dvdSaaig roi Muaeug.^
Calvin, aud others, regard oral tradition as the source; Nicolas de Lyra,
and others, a special revelation of the Holy Ghost; and F. Philippi, a
direct instruction of the disciples by Christ, occasioned by the appearance
of Moses on the mount of transfiguration. De Wette has correctly observed
that the explanation is neither to be derived from the Zendavesta (Herder),
nor is the contest to be interpreted allegorically (aupa TAuaiug = the people
of Israel, or the Mosaic law). — SioKpivopevog Sieliyero]. The juxtaposition of
these synonymous words serves for the strengthening of the idea; by
Sieliyero the conflict is indicated as a verbal altercation. — oiK irdlpyae, he
ventured not. — Kplaiv ineviyKeiv Slaaipypiag]. Calovius incorrectly explains it
by: uUionem de blasphemia sumere, the words refer not to a blasphemy
uttered by the Devil, but to a blasphemy against the Devil, from which
Michael restrained himself. — Kplaiv inupipeiv denotes a judgment pronounced
against any one (comp. Acts xxv. 18 : airiav inupipeiv). — Kpiaiv Slaaipypiag is
a judgment containing in itself a blasphemy. By S^oip., that saying —
namely, an invective — isto be understood bywhich the dignity belonging
to another is injured. Michael restrained himself from such an invective
against the Devil, because he feared to injure his original dignity ; instead
of pronouncing a judgment hiraself, he left' this to God. Herder: "And
Michael dared not to pronounce an abusive sentence." — dll' elnev ininpyaai
aoi Kvpiog, the Lord rebuke thee ; corap. Matt. xvii. 18, xix. 13, etc. According
to Zech. iii. 1-3, the angel of the Lord spoke the same words to the Devil,
who in the vision of Zechariah stood at his right hand as an adversary of
the high priest Joshua (LXX. ; ininpyaai Kvpiog iv aoi Sidfiole).
Ver. 10. Description of the false teachers with reference to ver. 8 in
contrast to ver. 9 ; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 12. — They blaspheme, baa pev oiK olSaai,
what they know not: the supermundane, to which the Sb^ai, ver. 8, belong, is
meant. Hofmann : " they know about it, otherwise they could not blas
pheme it ; but they have no acquaintance with it, and yet in their ignorance
judge of it, aud that in a blasphemous manner " (comp. Col. ii. 18, according
to the usual reading). Those expositors who understand Kvpibryra and Sb^a^
of human authorities, are at a loss for an explanation of the thoughts here
expressed ; thus Arnaud : il est assez difficile de pre'ciser, quelles etaient ces
^ Schmid (Bibl. Theol., II. p. 149), Luth- of this Epistle, Hofmann expresses himself
ardt, Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, I. p. 340), to this effect, that Satan wished to prevent
Schott, Wiesinger (less definitely), thinl: that " Moses, who shared iu the impurity of death,
the conflict consisted iu Michael not permitting and who had been a sinful mau, from being
tbe Devil to exercise his power over the dead miraculously buried by the holy hand of God
body of Moses, but withdrawing it from cor- (through Michael)."
ruption; for which an appeal is made to the * See on this apocryphal writing, F. Phi-
fact that " God had honored Moses to see in lippi (Das Buch Henoch, p. 166-191) who
the body a vision of His entire nature '* (Hof- ascribes the composition of it to a Christian in
mann), and also that ** Moses was to be a type the second century, aud assumes that he was
of the Mediator conquering death " (Schott), induced to it by this 9th verse in the Epistle of
and that Moses appeared with Christ on the Jude ; this at all events is highly improbable.
mount of transfiguration. In his explanation

VERSE IL 685
chases qu'ignoraient ces impies. — baa Si ipvamug 'eniaravrai, a contrast to what
goes before ; corresponding to adpKa pialvovai, ver. 8, only here the idea is
carried farther. Jachmann explains it: "the passions inherent in every
one ; " but this does not suit eniaravrai. De Wette, correctly . the objects of
sensual enjoyment ; to which the odpf (ver. 8) especially belongs. By ipvaiKCrg
(dir. ley. = of nature) ug tu dloya Qua is prominently brought forward the fact
that their understanding is not raised above that of the irrational animals,
that to them only the sensual is something known. There is no distinction
between elSivai and iniaraaBui, as Schott thinks, that the forraer denotes a
comprehensive knowledge, and the latter a mere external knowing (" they
understand, namely, in respect of the external and sensual side of things,
practically applied ") ; but these two verbs obtain this distinctive meaning
here only through the context in which they are employed by Jude (corap.
Hofraann). — iv roiroig ipBeipovTat]. iv, more significant than Sid, designates
their entire surrender to these things. — ipBelpovrai. Luther, they corrupt
themselves; better, they destroy themselves, namely, by their immoderate
indulgences. In Luther's translation the words ug rd dloya Qua are incor
rectly attached to this verb.
Ver. 11. The author interrupts his description of these ungodly men by
a denunciation on them, which he grounds by characterizing them after the
exaraple of the ungodly in the O. T. (corap. 2 Pet. ii. 15 ff.). — oiai airalg].
The sarae denunciation frequently occurs in the discourses of Jesus : " at
once a threatening and a strong disapproval " (De Wette). With this oial
Jude indicates the judgment into which the Antinomians have fallen; it
refers back to vv. 5-7. Wiesinger incorrectly understands it only as a mere
"exclamation of pain and abhorrence."* This denunciation of woe does
not occur with an apostle ; frequently in the O. T. — bn ry bSu roi Kdiv inop-
evByaav]. On the phrase : ry bSdi nvog nopeieaBai, comp. Acts xiv. 16. (Acts
ix. 31 : jrop. ru fbSv r. Kvpiov.) ry bSu is to be understood locally (see Meyer
on the above passages), not "instrumentally" (Schott), which does not suit
inopeiBrjaav. — inopevByaav ; preterite (Luther and others translate it as the
present), because Jude represents the judgment threatened in oval airoig as
fulfilled (De Wette-Briickner). Schott incorrectly explains it : " they have
set out, set forth." Many expositors find the similarity with Cain to consist
in this, that, whereas he murdered his brother, these by seduction of the
brethren are guilty of spiritual murder; so Oecumenius, Estius, Grotius
(Cain fratri vitam caducam ademit; illi fratribus adimunt aeternam), Calovius,
Hornejus, Schott, and others. But this conversion into the spiritual is
arbitrary, especially as the desire of seduction in these men is not specially
brought forward by Jude. Other expositors, adhering to the murder com
mitted by Cain, think on the persecuting zeal of these false teachers against
believers ; so Nicolas de Lyra, sequuntur mores et studia latronis ex invidia et
avaritia persequentes sincerioris theologiae studiosos. As the later Jews re-
i Hofmann correctly observes: " ouai has 21)." As not the flrst but the second Is the
evil In view, whether it be in the tone of com- case here, Hofmann should not have rejected
passion which bewails it (Matt, xxiii. 15), or the explanation of De Wette.
of indignation which imprecates it (Matt. xi.

686 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
garded Cain as a symbol of moral scepticism, so Schneckenburger supposes
that Jude would here reproach his opponents with this scepticism ; but
there is also no indication of this in the context. De Wette stops at the
idea that Cain is named as " the archetype of all wicked raen ; " so also
Arnaud * and Hofraann ; but this is too general. Briickner finds the point
of reserablance in this, that as Cain out of envy, on account of the favor
shown to Abel, resisting the commandment and warning of God, slew his
brother, so these false teachers resisted God, and that from envy of the
favor shown to believers. But in the context there is no indication of
the definite stateraent "from envy." It is more in correspondence with the
context to find the tertium compar. in this, that Cain, in spite of the warning
of God, followed his own wicked lusts. Fronmiiller : " The point of com
parison is acting on the selfish impulses of nature, in contempt of the
warnings of God." — koI ry nldvy roi Baladp piaBov i^ixvByaav]. nldvy, as a
sinful moral error, denotes generally a vicious life averted from the truth ;
comp. Jas. V. 20 ; 2 Pet. ii. 18 (Ezek. xxxiii. 16, LXX., translation of
i'2/3). iKxelaBai in the middle, literally, to issue forth out of something,
construed with eig ri ; figuratively, to rush into something, to give one's self up
with all his might to something (Clemens Alexandrinus, p. 491, 3 ; E^f ySov^v
iKxvBevreg ; several proof passages in Wahl, Eisner, Wetstein) ; it is less
suitable to explain the verb according to Ps. Ixxiii. 2, where the LXX. have
ifE;i;i;ej7 as a translation of 'i^SlV = to slip (Grotius: errare). The dative tj
TT/ldvj) is = eig ryv n'ldvyv ; Schott incorrectly explains it as dativus instrumen-
talis, since i^exiSyaav requires a statement for the completion of the idea.
The genitive piaBoi is, with Winer, p. 194 (E. T., 206), to be translated:
for reward (see Grotius in loco) ; so that the meaning is : " they gave
themselves up for a reward (i.e., for the sake of earthly advantage, thus
from covetousness ; Luther : ' for the sake of enjoyment ') to the sin of
Balaam ; " thus most interpreters, also Bruckner, Wiesinger, Hofmann.
De Wette, on the contrary, after the exaraple of Erasmus, Vatablus, and
others, explains Baladp as a genitive dependent on tov piaBoi ; the dative ry
nldvy as = by means of the error ; and i^exvByaav as an intransitive verb =
" to commit excesses, to give vent to." Accordingly, he translates the
passage as follows: "By (by raeans of) the error (seduction) of the reward
of Balaara, they have poured theraselves out (in vice)." So also Hornejus:
deceptione mercedis, qua deceptus fuit Balaam, effusi sunt.^ But this con
struction is extreraely harsh, the ideas nldvy and i^exvByaav are arbitrarily.
interpreted, and the whole sentence, so interpreted, would be withdrawn
from the analogy of the other two with which it is co-ordinate.' Schott
construes the genitive with nl/cvy, whilst he designates it "as an additional,
r Arnaud : " J. compare seulement, d'une effusos esse, quia scilicet Instar aquae difflu-
manifere trfes g^n^rale, ses adversaires k Cain, entis projecta sit eorum intemperies.
sous le rapport de la m6chancet6." » " The parallelism of the three clauses
^ Calvin: "dixit (Ap.) , instar Bileam mer. requires that ry rrXdvy i^exvBrjaav should re
cede fuisse deceptos, quia pietatis doctrlnam main together, accordingly the genitive Is
turpis lucri gratia adulterant; sed metaphora, equivalent to ai'Tt ^tio-^oi) " (Stier).
qua utitur, aliquanto plus exprimit; dixit enim

VERSE 11. 687
and, as it were, a parenthetically added genitive for the sake of precision,"
and for this he supplies a nliivy : " the error of Balaam, which was an error
determined by gain." This construction, it is true, affords a suitable sense,
but it is not linguistically justified : it is entirely erroneous to take piaBoi
as in apposition to 'Qaladp — bg piaBbv ijyi'inyaev, 2 Pet. ii. 15 (Fronmiiller,
Steinfass). — De Wette, chiefly from Rev. ii. 14, finds the point of resem
blance in this, that "Balaara as a false prophet and a seducer to unchastity
and idolatry, and contrary to the will of God, went to Balak, and that he is
also particularly considered as covetous and mercenary." But there is no
indication that the men of whom Jude speaks enticed others to idolatry.
Hofraann observes that this clause calls the sin of those described as " a
devilish conduct again.st the people of God, the prospect of a rich reward
being too alluring to Balaam to prevent him entering into the desires of
Balak to destroy the people of God ; " but in this explanation also a refer
ence is introduced not indicated by the context. That Jude had priraarily
in view the covetousness of Balaam, piaBoi shows ; blinded by covetousness,
Balaam resisted the will of God ; his resistance was his nldvy, in which, aud
in the motive to it, the Antinomians resembled him (Bruckner, Wiesinger) ;
whether Jude had also in view the seduction to unchastity (comp. Nura.
xxxi. 16; FronraUller), is at least doubtful; and it is still more doubtful to
find the point of reserablance in this, that the Antinomians "had in view a
material gain to be obtained by the ruin of the Church of God " (Schott). —
Kal ry dvriloylg rov Kope dnulovro]. uvnlioy'ia, contradiction; here, seditious
resistance, dnulovro does not raean that " they lost themselves in the dvnl.
of Korah," but " that they perished ; " accordingly, ry dvriloylg is the
instrumental dative. The point of resemblance is not, with Nicolas de
Lyra, to be sought in this, that the opponents of Jude forraed propter
amhitionem honoris et gloriae sectas erroneas ; or, with Hornejus, that they
assumed the munus Apostolorum ecclesiae doctorum ; or, with Hofraann, that
they, as Korah (" whose resistance consisted in his unwillingness to recognize
as valid the law of the priesthood of Aaron, on which the whole religious
constitution of Israel rested "), " desired to assert a liberty not restricted : "
but it consists in the proud resistance to God and His ordinances, which the
Antinomians despise. By Schott's explanation : " that they opposed to
the true holiness a holiness of their own invention, namely, the holiness
alleged to be obtained by disorderly excess,'' a foreign reference is intro
duced.* The gradation of the ideas 6Sbg, nldvy, dvnloyla, in respect of
definiteness, is not to be denied ; but there is also a gradation of thought,
for although the point about which Cain, Balaara, and Korah are named is

1 Ritschl finds the point of resemblance religious conduct " of Cain ; and it is incorrect
between the Antinomians and the three named that the utterance of the curse willed by
in this, " that they, as these, undertook to Balaam is to be considered as a religious trans-
worship God in a manner rejected by Hira." action. Moreover, in the description of the
But It Is erroneous that " the Korahites exhib- Antinomians there is no trace Indicating that
Ited their assumption of the priesthood by the their view was directed to a particular kind of
presentation of an offering rejected by God ; " worship.
it is incorrect that by 66o! is Indicated " the

688 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
one and the same, namely, resistance to God, yet this appears in the most
distinct manner in the case of Korah.
Ver. 12. A further description of these false teachers ; comp. 2 Pet. ii.
13, 17. — ovroi elaiv [ol] iv ralg dydnaig ipuv amldSeg]. In the reading ol, bvreg
is either (with De Wette) to be supplied ; thus, " these are they who are
anildSeg in your dydnaig;" oral is to be joined to awevuxoipevoi (corap. vv.
16, 19 ; so Hofraann). That by dydnaig the love-feasts are to be understood,
is uot to be doubted. Erasraus incorrectly takes it as = charitas, and Luther
as a designation of alms. — The word amldSeg is usually explained = cliffs (so
also formerly in this comraentary). If this is correct, the opponents of Jude
are so called, inasrauch as the love-feasts were wrecked on them (De Wette-
Brtickner, Wiesinger), i.e., by their conduct these feasts ceased to be what
they ought to be; or, inasmuch as they prepared destruction for others, who
partook of the love-feasts (Schott, and this commentary). It is, however,
against this interpretation, that amldg does not specially indicate cliffs, but
has the more general meaning rocks (Hofraann : " projecting interruptions of
the plain"), and the reference to being wrecked is not in the slightest degree
indicated.* — Stier and Fronrauller take amlliSeg as = anlloi, 2 Pet. ii. 13; this
is not unwarranted, as amldg, which is properly an adjective (comp. anopdg,
ipvydg, loydg), raay be derived as well frora anllog = filth (comp. yy amldg =
clayey soil; so Sophocles, Trach., 672, without yij), as from anllog = a rock
(comp. nolvanildg). In this case amldSeg may either be taken as a substan
tive = what is filthy, spots (these are spots in your agape; so Stier and Fron
miiller), or as an adjective, which, used adverbially (see Winer, p. 433, 464),
denotes the mode and manner of ovvevuxeiaBai (so Hofmann). The former
construction merits the preference as the sirapler. — Apart from other consid
erations, anlloi Kal pupoi in 2 Peter are in favor of taking anildSeg here in the
sense of anlloi. — awevuxoipevoi]. The verb eiuxeiaBai^ has not indeed by itself
a bad meaning, signifying to eat well, to feast well; but it obtains such a mean
ing here by the reference to the agape'. The aw placed before it may either
refer to those addressed, with you, see 2 Pet. ii. 13, where iplv is added to
the verb (Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmiiller, Hofmann) ; or to those here de
scribed by Jud6, feasting together, i.e., with one another. Against the first
explanation is the objection, that according to it the ehuxelaBat in their agape
would render those addressed also guilty (so formerly in this comraentary);
but against the second is the fact that the Libertines held no special love-
feasts with oue another, but participated in those of the church. The
passage, 2 Pet. ii. 13, is decisive in favor of the first explanation. — The
connection of dipbSug is doubtful ; De Wette-Briickner, Arnaud, Schott,
1 The explanation of Arnaud : " les rochers in Xenophon, Memorabilia, lib. Iii. : eKeye
continuellement battus par les fiots de la mer (namely, Socrates) 6e Ka't us to evuxetadat iv
et souill^s par son ^cume " (afler Steph. ; rfj 'XBrivaitav yhuirry iadietv KdKotro. Tb Be ev
arrt^ds), is unsuitable; since, when the Lib. npoanetadat, eiprj, irrt tw TauTa iaBietv driva
ertines are called cliffs, this happens not p^re ri\v ipvxiiv, p-tin to aorpa AvTroiT^, p:^re
because they are bespattered and defiled by Svaevperat etri; Siare koX rh eiiiiixeiaBat rois
others, but because others are wrecked on Koapius Biairmpivots dveriOei. However,
them. evitixetadat sometimes occurs in classical
2 An explanation of this word is found Greek in a bad sense.

VERSE 12. 689
Fronrauller, unite it with awevuxoipevoi ; Erasmus, Beza, Wiesinger; Hof
niann, with iavroig noipalvovreg. In this commentary the first connection
was preferred, " because the idea avvevux. would otherwise be too bare."
This, however, is not the case, because if the verse is construed as it is by
Hofmann,' it has its statement in what goes before ; but if amluSeg is taken
as a substantive, as it is by Stier and Fronmiiller, then avvevux. *s more pre
cisely deterrained by the following dipbSug . , , noipalvovreg, whilst it is said
that they so participate in the agape' that their feasting was an dipbSug noipal-
veiv iavroig. Erasmus takes the latter words in a too general sense : suo
ductu et arbitrio viventes ; Grotius, Bengel, and others give a false reference
to them after Ezek. xxxiv. 2, understanding "that these feed themselves
and not the church " (comp. 1 Pet v. 2), and accordingly Schneckenburger
thinks specially on the instructions which they engage to give : but this
reference is entirely foreign to the context. According to De Wette, it is a
contrast to "whilst they suffer the poor to want" (1 Cor. xi. 21); yet there
is also here no indication of this reference. — veipil^i uwSpoi is to be under
stood no more of the agape' (De Wette, Schott), but generally, veip. dvvSp.
are light clouds without water, which therefore, as the addition inb dvipuv
napaipepbpevai makes prominent, are driven past by the wind without giving
out rain ; comp. Prov. xxv. 14. This figure describes the internal emptiness
of these men, who for this reason can effect nothing- that is good; but it
seems also to intimate their deceptive ostentation;* the addition serves for
the coloring of the figure, not for adducing a special characteristic of false
teachers; Nicolas de Lyra, incorrectly: quae a ventis circumferuntur, i.e.,
superbiae mot'ibus et vanilatibus. — In the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii. 17, two
images are united, nyyal uvvSpoi kuI bplxlai inb lallanog il/ivvbpevai. — Accord
ing to the reading neptgiepbpevat, the translation would be, " driven hither and
thither;" napaipepbpevai denotes, on the other hand, driven past. A second
figure is added to -this fir.st, bywhich the unfruitfulness (in good works)
and the coraplete deadness of these men are described ; in the adjectives the
gradation is obvious. — SivSpa ipBivonupivd are not a particular kind of trees,
such as only bear fruit in autumn, but trees as they are in autumn, namely,
destitute of fruit (De Wette-Bruckner, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.). It is arbi
trary to desert the proper meaning of the word, and to explain ipBivonupivd
according to the etymology of ipB'ivetv by arhores quarum fructus perit illico =
frugiperdae '(Grotius ; so also Erasmus, Beza, Carpzov, Stier : " which have
cast off their fruit in an unripe state"). — dicapna; not "whose fruit has
been taken off" (De Wette), but "which are without fruit" (Bruckner).
Whether they have had fruit at an earlier period, and are now destitute of
it, is not said. " The impassioned discourse proceeds from marks of unfruit
fulness to that of absolute nothingness" (De Wette). Sig dnoBavbvra]. Beza,
Kosenmiiller, and others arbitrarily explain Sig by plane, prorsus. Most
expositors retain the usual meaning : yet they explain the idea twice in dif-
> Calvin : " Vanam ostentationem taxat, daturos se doctrlnam saivlficam, sed veiitato
quia nebulones isti, quum multa promittunt, destltuuntur et quovis circumaguntur doc-
fntuB tamen aridi sunt." Bullinger :" Habent trinae vento."
enim speciem doctorum veritatis, polllcentur

690 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
ferent ways ; either that those trees are not only destitute of fruit, but also
of leaves (so Oecumenius, Hornejus, and others) ; or that they bear no fruit,
and are accordingly rooted out ; or, still better, Sig is to be referred to the
fact that they are not only fruitless, but actually dead and dried up.^ That
Jude has this in his view, the following cKpiQuBivra shows. Several exposi
tors have incorrectly deserted the figure here, and explained this word either
of twofold spiritual death (Beza, Estius, Bengel, Schneckenburger, Jachmann,
Wiesinger, Schott), or of death here and hereafter (so Grotius : neque hic
bonum habebunt exitum, neque in seculo altero), or of one's own want of spir
itual life and the destruction of life in others. All these explanations are
without justification. iKpiQuBivra is in close connection with Sig dnoBavbvra;
thus, trees which, because they are dead, are dug up and rooted out,^ thus
incapable of recovery and of producing new fruit (Erasmus : quibus jam
nulla spes est reoirescendi). This figure, taken from trees, denotes that those
described are not only at present destitute of good works, but are incapable
of producing them in the future, and are " on this account rooted out of the
soil of grace" (Ilofmann). It is incorrect when Hofmann ^ in the applica
tion refers Sig dnoBavbvra to the fact that those men were not only in their
early heathenism, but also in their Christianity, without spiritual life.
There is no indication in the context of the distinctiou between heathenism
and Christianity. Arnaud observes not incorrectly, but too generally : tous
ces mots sont des me'taphores e'nergiques pour montrer le ne'ant de ces impies, la
le'gerete' de leur conduite, la ste'rilite' de leur foi et I'absence de leurs bonnes ceuvres.
Ver. 13. Continuation of the figurative description of those false teachers.
The two images here eraployed characterize them in their erring and dis
ordered nature. — Kipara uypta Baldaayg, K.r.l.]. Already Carpzov has cor
rectly referred forthe explanation of these words to Isa. Ivii. 20; the first
words correspond to the Hebrew H'T J? D'?; the following words: ina^p'iQovra
rdg iavTuv aiaxivag, to the Hebrew O'Q] ty?"l. vn'D W'\r,, only Jude uses the
literal word where Isaiah has the figurative expression. — inaippiQeiv, properly,
to foam over. Luther well translates it: which foam out their own shame. —
aiaxivag, not properly vices (De Wette) ; the plural does not necessitate this
explanation, but their disgraceful nature, naraely, the shameful iniBvpiai
which they manifest in their wild lawless life ; not " their self-devised wis
dom" (Schott). — Frora the fact that the Hebrews soraetiin'^s corapared
their teachers to the sea (see Moses, Theol. Samar., ed. Gesenius, p. 26), it
is not to be inferred, with Schneckenburger and .lachmann, that there is
here a reference to the office of teachers; this is the raore unsuitable as the
opponents of Jude hardly possessed that office. — daripeg nlavyrat]. These
two words are to be taken together, wandering stars ; that is, stars which

1 Fronmiiller, incorrectly; "trees which sap from the roots, by which they were rooted
have at different times suffered fatal injury by in the soil of divine grace, appeared to estab-
frosts or from insects." lish them in a new life out of their heathen
2 Fronmiiller, linguistically incorrect: death in sin, yet this new life was to them only
" trees which still remain In the earth, but a transition into a second and now hopeless
which are shaken loose by their roots." death."
8 "If, when they became Christians, a fresh

VERSES U,'15. 691
have no fixed position, but roam about. The analogy with the preceding
metaphors Requires us to think on actual stars, with which Jude compares
his opponents ; thus on comets (Bretschneider, Arnaud, Stier, De Wette,
Hofmann) or on planets (so most of the early commentators, also Wiesinger).
The latter opinion is less probable, because the nlavdaBai of the planets is
less striking to the eye than that of the comets. It is incorrect "in the
explanation entirely to disregard the fact whether there are such daripeg
nlavyrat in heaven or not " (so earlier in this commentary, after the example
of Schott), and to assume that Jude, on account of their ostentation (Wie
singer, Schott), designates these men as stars, and by nlavyrat indicates their
unsteady nature. De Wette incorrectly assumes this in essentials as equiv
alent with nlavUvreg koi nlavupevoi, 2 Tim. iii. 13. Bengel thinks that we
are in this figure chiefly to think on the opaqueness of the planets; but such
an astronomical reference is far-fetched. Jachmann arbitrarily explains
ujripeg = ipuarypeg, Phil. ii. 15, as a designation of Christians. Several ex
positors also refer this figure to the teaching of those men, appealing to
Phil. ii. 15 and Dan. xii. 3;* but the context gives no warrant for this. —
olg b Qbipog roi OKorovg eig aiuva rerypyrai]. This addition may gTammatically be
referred either to what iraraediately precedes, thus to the daripeg nlMvrjrai,
or to the raen who have been described by the figures used by Jude. It is
in favor of the first reference (Hofraann : " Jude names them stars passing
into eternal darkness, comets destined only to vanish "), that a more precise
statement is also added to the preceding figure ; thus the addition inb dvipuv
napaipepbpevai to veipilai uvvSpoi, k,t,1. But it is against it, that the expression
chosen by Jude is evidently too strong to designate only the disappearance
of comets, therefore the second reference is to be preferred (Wiesinger;
comp. ver. 6), which also the parallel passage in 2 Pet. ii. 17 favors. The
addition of the genitive rov OKorovg to b Qbipog serves to strengthen this idea.
Vv. 14, 15. The threatening contained in the preceding verses is con
firmed by a saying of Enoch. — inpoipyrevae Si kuI roiroig], Kal refers either to
TovToif: "of these as well as of others;" according to Hofraann, of those
who perished in the deluge ; or it is designed to render prorainent inpoip.
roiroig in reference to what has been before said: "yea, Enoch also has
prophesied of them." Hofraann, in an entirely unwarrantable manner,
maintains that there can be no question that koI puts its emphasis on the
word before which it stands. — npoipyreieiv generally with nepl here construed
with the dative, as in Luke xviii. 31, in reference to these. — eSSo/iog dnb 'ASdp
'Evux]. ISSopog has hardly here the mystical meaning which Stier gives it :
" The seventh from Adam is personally a type of the sanctified of the seventh
age of the world, of the seventh millennium, of the great earth sabbath."
Also in the Book of Enoch, he is several times expressly designated as "the
seventh from Adam " (Ix. 8, xciii. 3) ; not in order to characterize him as
the oldest prophet (Calvin, De Wette, and others), but to mark his impor
tance by the coincidence of the sacred number seven (Wiesinger, Schott).
1 So already Oecumenius : SoKovvres eis rias pdvov rov Kvpiov ipipovrat Soypdriov (Hor-
ayye\ov ^lor'os peraaxripari^eadat . . . oTrerai'- nejus and others).

692 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
The saying of Enoch here quoted is found, partly verbally, at the beginning
of the Book of Enoch (i. 9) : " And behold He comes with myriads of saints
to execute judgment on them, and He will destroy the ungodly and judge
all flesh concerning all things which the sinners and ungodly have committed
and done against Him." * These words are taken from a speech in which
an angel interprets a vision which Enoch has seen, and iu which he an
nounces to him the future judgment of God.
The question, from what source Jude has drawn these words. Is very differ
ently answered by expositors. It is raost natural to conceive that he has taken
them from the Book of Enoch; but then this pre-supposes that this book,
although only according to its groundwork, is of pre-Christian Jewish, and not
of Jewish-Christian origin, which is also the prevailing opinion of recent critics.
Hofmann, who denies the pre-Christian composition of the book, says, " Jude
has derived it, in a similar manner as the incident between Michael and Satan,
from a circle of myths, which has attached itself to Scripture, amplifying its
words." Yet, on the other hand, it is to be observed that it is difficult to
conceive that oral tradition should preserve such an entire prophetic saying.
F. Philippi thinks that Enoch in Gen. v. 22 is characterized as a prophet of
God, and, as such, prophesied of the impending deluge; and that Jude, by
reason of a deeper understanding of Gen. v., could add the exposition already
becorae traditionary, and speak of a prophecy of Enoch, the reality of which
was conflrmed to him by the testimony of the Holy Ghost ; or that this prophecy
of Enoch was imparted to the disciples by Christ Himself, when the already
extant tradition concerning Enoch might have afforded them occasion to ask
the Lord about Enoch, perhaps when he was engaged in delivering His escliato-
logical discourses. But both opinions of Philippi evidently rest on suppositions
which are by no means probable. As an example of the method by which the
older expositors sought to rescue the authenticity of the prophecy, let the expo
sition of Hornejus suffice: haec quae Judas citat, ab Enocho ita divinitus
prophetata esse, dubium non est ; sive prophetiam illam ipse alicubi scripsit et
scriptura illa vel per Noam ejus pronepotem in area, vel in columna aliqua
tempore diluvii conservata fuit sive memorla ejus traditione ad posteros propor
gata, quam postea apocrypha et fabulosa illi libro autor ejus inseruerit, ut
totum Enochus scripsisse videretur.
iv dyiaig pvpidatv; corap. Zech. xiv. 5; Deut. xxxiii. 2; Heb. xii. 22;
(pvpidatv dyyiluv) Rev. v. 11. — Ver. 15. noiyaat Kpiaiv; see Gen. xviii. 25;
John V. 27. — roig daeSeig]. The pronoun airirv, according to the Rec,
would refer to the people of Israel. — uv ijaiSyaav ; the same verb in Zeph.
iii. 11; 2 Pet. ii. 6; here used as transitive; comp. W^iner, p. 209 (E. T.,
222). The frequent repetition of the same idea is to be observed : daeSelg,
daeSeiag, ijaiSyaav, and finally again daeSelg; a strong intensification of un
godliness. — TUV oKlypHv], oKlypbg, literally, dry, hard, rough ; here in an
ethical sense, ungodly, not equivalent to surly (Hofmann) ; in a somewhat
* The passage thus stands in De Sacy*s et litigat cum omnibus carnalibus pro omnibus
version ; " et venit cum myriadibus sanctorum, quae fecerunt et operati sunt contra eum pec-
ut faciat judicium super eos et perdat impios catores et impii."

VERSE 16. 693
different sense, but likewise of sayings, the word is used in John vi. 60. —
Kar' avrov is by Hofmann in an unnecessary manner attached not only to
eldlyaav, but also to tjaiSrjaav, in spite of Zeph. iii. 11, where it is directly
connected with yaiSyaav, which is not here the case. The sentence emphat
ically closes with dpaprulol daeSelg, which is not, with Hofmann, to be
attracted to what follows.
Ver. 16. A further description of the false teachers attached to the
concluding words of the prophetic saying : tuv oKlypuv uv ildlyaav Kar' airov ;
comp. 2 Pet. ii. 18, 19. — oiroi e'lai, as in vv. 10 and 19 with special emphasis.
— yoyyvarai]. dn. ley. in N. T. ; the verb is of frequent occurrence; Oecume
nius interprets it : oi in' bSdvra kui dnal)(yrjaidarug ru Svaapearovpevu inipepipbpevot.
Jude does not say against whom they murmur ; it is therefore arbitrary
to think on it as united to a definite S2:>ecial object as rulers (De Wette),
or, still more definitely, ecclesiastical rulers (Estius, Jachmann). Briickner
correctly observes that "the idea is not to Jbe precisely liraited." Every
thing which was not according to their mind excited them to murmuring.
The epithet pepipipoipoi {an. ley.), dissatisfied wilh their lot, gives a more precise
statement; denoting that they in their pretensions considered themselves
entitled to a better lot than that which was accorded to them. The parti
cipial clause, Karu rdg iniBvpiag airuv nopevb/ievoi, is added to the substantive,
which, whilst it unfolds the reason of their dissatisfaction and murmuring,
at the same time expresses a kind of contrast : they were dissatisfied with
every thing but theraselves. Calvin : qui sibi in pravis cupidilatibus indulgent,
simul difficiles sunt ac morosi, ut illis nunquam satisfiat. The view of Grotius
is entirely raistaken, that Jude has here in view the dissatisfaction of the
Jews of that period with their political condition. — koI rb arbpa airuv lalel
inepoyKo]. inipoyKa Only here and in the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii. 18.
Luther: "proud words" (verba tumentia, in Jeroin., contra Jovian., \. 24);
corap. Dan. xi. 36, LXX. : kuI lalyaei inipoyKa; such words are meant
which proceed from pride, in which raan exalts himself, in contrast to
the huraility of the Christians submitting themselves to God. To this
the parallel passage (2 Pet. ii. 18) also points, where the expression
inipoyKa refers to boasting of ilevBep'ia. A participial clause is again added
to this assertion, as in the former clause, likewise expressing a kind of
contrast : BavpdQovreg npoauna uipe'le'iag xuptv. The expression BavpdQeiv npbauna
is in the N. T., utt. ley. ; in the O. T., comp. Gen. xix. 21, LXX. : tBaipaad
aov rb npbaunov ; Hebrew, "JS V.\ai ; in other passages the LXX. have lapSu^^tv
rb np. In Lev. xix. 15, the LXX. translate 'iS HWl by lapS. rb np. ; on the
other hand, "J3 Tin by BavpdQeiv rb npbaunov. Whilst in the first passage
the friendly attitude of God toward Abraham is expressed, in the second
passage it has the bad meaning of partiality. It has also this raeaning
here : it is to be translated to render admiration to persons (Herder : to
esteem; Arnaud: "admirer, honorer"). In this sense BavpdQeiv occurs in
Ecclus. vii. 29.* This partial treatment of persons consisted in the fiattering
' Comp. Lysias, Orat. 31, where It is said Toi>! a-ya^ous Bavptdiet, dK\' laov tavToi' irapixei
ot; death : ovre ydp roiis novypovs i/nepop^] ovre ndatv.

694 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
homage of those who hoped for some advantage from them, as uipeleiag xuptv
shows. It is unwarranted, with Hofraann, to interpret BavpdQeiv npbauna ;
"to gratify and to please a person." Proud boasting and cringing fiattery
forra indeed a contrast, but yet are united together. Calvin : magnilo-
quentiam taxat, quod se ipsos fastuose jactent : sed interea ostendit liberali esse
ingenio, quia serviliter se dimiltant. — BavpiiQovreg is not parallel with nopevbpevoi,
but refers in a loose construction to airuv; by this construction the thought
gains more independence than if BavpuQuvruv were written. — uipeleiag xbpiv
belongs not to the finite verb, but to the participle.
Vv. 17, 18. Jude now turns to his readers, comforting* and exhorting
them in reference to the ungodly above described ; see 2 Pet. iii. 2, 3. —
vpelr Si, an emphatic contrast to those above mentioned. — pvyaByre presup
poses the words meant by Jude known to the readers, as learned from the
apostles. — ruv (rypdruv ruv npoeiprjjiivuv]. fjl/pa ; the word as an expression of
thought. The npo in npoeipypivuv designates these words not as those which
predict something future, but which were already spoken before (so also
Hofmann). — inb ruv unoaroluv, K.r.l.]. Jude would hardly have so expressed
himself were he himself an apostle, which several expositors certainly do
not grant, explaining this mode of expression partly from Jude's modesty
and partly from the circumstance that, except himself and John, the other
apostles were already dead. ¦ — Ver. 18. on ileyov i/ilv], iplv here renders it
probable that .lude means such sayings as the readers had heard from the
mouth of the apostles themselves; yet the words which follow are not
necessarily to be considered as a literally exact quotation, but may be a
compression of the various predictions of the apostles concerning this
subject.^ — en' iaxdrov [rov] xpovov], A designation of the tirae. directly
preceding the advent of Christ. In the reading roi xpovov, Iaxurov is the
genitive neuter, as in Heb. i. 1. — iaovrai ipnalKrai, only here and in 2 Pet.
iii. 3, a word occurring only in later Greek ; the LXX. have translated
C 7' 'I^P by ipn., as they render v-JJ^nn by ipna'iQeiv, Mockers, that is, men
to whom the holy (not merely the resurrection, Grotius) serves for mockery.
laleiv inipoyKa is a ipnalQeiv of the holy (which Hofmann without reason
denies) ; this is naturally united with a surrender to their own lusts ;
therefore Kard rdg iavruv iniBvpiag nopevbpevoi ruv uaeSeiuv]. ruv daeSeiCiv, an
echo of the saying of Enoch, is placed emphatically at the close, in order to
render prominent the character and aim of iniBvplai. — That the apostles
in their writings frequently prophesied of the entrance of heretical and
ungodly men into the church, is well known ; comp. Acts xx. 29 ; 1 Tim.
iv. 1 ; 2 Tim. iii. 2 ff. ; yet ipnalQeiv is not elsewhere stated as a characteristic

' Why Jude should not have intended to prove that Jude will here give a verbal quota-
comfort his readers by reminding them of tion, and that this must be a writing earlier
what the apostles had, at an earlier period, directed to the readers. 6tl i\. iip, simply
said of the appearance of these men, as he here introduces tbe statement of the contents of
describes them, cannot be perceived (against the p^/AaTa which were earlier spoken by the
Hofmann) apostles. The plural is not to be referred to
2 Entirely without reason, Schott maintains one apostle, and the verb does not in the least
that the inter\'ening words, oTt lAevov vplv, degree indicate tbat this word was written.

VERSE 19. 695
mark of these men ; this is only the case in 2 Pet. iii. 3, where, however,
the mockery is referred only to the denial of the advent of Christ.
Ver. 19. Final description of tjie false teachers, uot specially, but
according to their general nature. — ovroi eiaiv, parallel with ver. 16. — oJ
dnoSioplQovreg. The article marks the idea as definite . " these are they who,"
etc. — dnoSiopiQeiv, a word which occurs only in Aristotle's Pol'it., iv. 8, 9, is
here very differently explained ; with the reading iavroig it would most
naturally be taken as equivalent to separate ; thus, " who separate thera
selves from the church, whether internally or externally " (Wahl) ; without
iavroig it is explained either as = to secede (Fronmiiller), or = to cause
separations and divisions, namely, in the church (Luther : " who make
factions;" De Wette-Briickner, Wiesinger; so also in this commentary).
Neither explanation is, however, justified frora the use of the word StoplQetv.
It is still raore arbitrary, with Schott, to explain it : " who raake a dis-
tiuction, namely, between the pneuraatical (Pneumatikern), as what they
consider themselves, and the psychical (Psychikern), as what true Christians
regard thera;" for there is no indication of such a distinction made by
them. If we base the explanation on the significance of Siop'iQeiv, the word
may be understood as = to raake definitions. But in this case what follows
must be closely connected with it, by which the mode and manner of their
doing so is stated, namely, that they do so as psychical men, who are without
the nvevpa. Hofraann gives to the verb the meaning : " to determine (define)
soraething exactly in detail," and then assuraes that the preceding genitive
TUV daeSeiuv depends on oi dnoSiopiQbpevoi, which may well be the case, because
a participle standing for a substantive may as well as a substantive govern
the genitive. According to this explanation, Jude intends to describe those
men as persons " who make impieties the object of an exercise of thought
exactly defining every thing, and so are the philosophers of impieties."
This explanation is condemned by the harsh and artificial construction
which it requires.* — rpvxiKol, nveipa py ixovreg]. nveipa is not man's natural
spirit,^ for Jude could not deny this to his opponents ; and to explain p^
ixovreg in the sense, " I might say that they have no spirit at all " (Fron
miiller), is completely arbitrary. It is rather to be understood of the Holy
Spirit (De Wette-BrUckner, Wiesinger, Hofmann) ; the want of the article
and of an epithet, such as dyiov or Qeov, is no objection against this interpre
tation, since the simple word nveipa is often used in the N. T. as a desig-

' Certainly the dependent genitive may is self-controlled in personal seif-coneclous-
precede the governing substantive; but this ness and self-determination," and so equiva-
unlon is here rendered impossible by the inter- lent to "free personality of the spirit" (!);
vening oirot. A participle also, taken as a but this free personality, Schott further ob-
substantive, may sometimes govern a genitive; serves, is not denied to them in the sense as
but this Is only found with the neuter, and then "if they were actually deprived of it," but
only rarely. Add to this that oiroi eiatv here only that it "does not attain permanence and
corresponds to the ovroi eiatv in vv. 16 and 12, reality In actual performance." This dis-
and accordingly must stand at the beginning torted Interpretation is contradicted by the
of the sentence. fact that Jude simply denies to them TrveOjiAa
2 Schott explains n-veCua as " spiritual life exetv.
In the distinctive character of its being, that it

696 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
nation for the objective Holy Spirit. It is erroneous to afiirm that by this
interpretation the conclusion of the description is too flat, for nothing worse
can be said of a man who desires to be esteemed a Christian than that he
wants the Holy Spirit. Moreover, only so understood does nveipa py exovreg
correspond to the preceding xpvxiKoi, to which it is added as an explanation ;
^XtKoi they are, inasrauch as their natural spiritual life left to itself is
under the unbroken power of the cdpj; see 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15 ; Jas. iii. 15.
Remark. — Schott attempts to prove that the three verses, 12, 16, and 19,
beginning with ovroi, refer to the threefold expression contained in ver. II,
namely, in this manner: that the Antinomians, in showing themselves to be
amldSeg in their agap^ {ver. 12) resembled Cain; that in being yoyyvarai pepipl-
poipoi, and out of greed for material gain indulging in mercenary flattery (ver.
16), they resembled Balaam; and that in establishing a self-invented, ungodly
sanctity in opposition to the divinely appointed and divinely effective Christian
sanctity (ver. 19), they resembled Korah. This juxtaposition, however, is any
thing but appropriate, resting, on the one hand, on incorrect explanations; and,
on the other hand, on the arbitrary selection of separate points. It is incorrect
to affirra that the similarity of the Antinomians with Cain consisted in this,
that what he did corporally they did spiritually ; there is contained in this
rather a distinction than a similarity. It is arbitrary to bring forward only the
last clause of ver. 16, which reproaches the Antinomians with flattery, and
which may also be found in Balaam; whereas the other expressions in the
verse do not suit in the least degree. And, lastly, it is erroneous so to interpret
ver. 19 that the Antinomians were accused of the setting-up of a false sanctity;
even were this correct, yet the sanctity claimed by them is of a totally different
nature from that to which Korah and his company laid claim.
Vv. 20, 21. Exhortation to the readers respecting themselves. — ipelg Si,
dyanyrol, as in ver. 17, in contrast to the persons and conduct of those men
tioned in the last verse. — inomoSopoivreg, k.t.I.]. The chief thought is con
tained in the exhortation iavroig iv dydny Qeoi rypyaare, to which the preceding
inoiKoSopoivreg . . . npoaevxbpevoi is subordinate, specifying by what the fulfil
ment of that exhortation is conditioned. Yet it is asked, whether npoaev-
Xdpevoi is connected with inoiKoSopoivreg, or is annexed as an independent
sentence to the following imperative ; and whether iv nv. dyiu is to be united
with inoiKoS, or with npoaevxdpevoi. These questions are difficult to decide
with perfect certainty. Wiesinger and Schott, apparently correctly, unite
^v nv. dy. with npoaevxbpevoi, and these taken together with what follows.
Hofraann, on the other hand, unites iv nveipan dyiu with what goes before,
and npoaevxbpevoi with what follows. In this construction, however, the
structure of the participial clause becomes too clumsy ; also iv nv dy, be
comes superfluous, as inoiKoSopeiv iavroig cannot take place otherwise than
iv nveipan dy. It is true, Hofmann observes that iv -rrv. dy, is superfluous
with npoaevxbpevoi, and that Jude could not intend to say how they should
pray, but that they should pray. But this is erroneous, for rypelv iavroig here
mentioned depends not only on this, that one should pray, but that one
should pray rightly, that is, iv nv. dy, Wiesinger correctly observes, that

VERSES 20, 2L 697
the first clause gives the general presupposition ; the second, on the other
hand, the more precise statement how rypyaare has to be brought about. —
ry dyiururri ipuv niarei]. Both the adjective and the verb show that niang is
here meant not in a subjective (the demeanor of faith, Schott), but in an
objective sense (Wiesinger : " appropriated by thera indeed as their personal
possession, yet according to its contents as napaSoBelaa ; " so similarly Hof
mann). — inoiKoSopoivreg iavroig]. When verbs compounded with inl are
joined with the dative, as here,ithis for the most part is used for ^Tr( rt, more
rarely for ini nvi (see Winer, p. 400 f.. [E. T., 430]). If the first is here the
case, then inomoSopelv ry niarei is to be interpreted, with Wiesinger : "build
ing on niang, so that niang is the foundation which supports their whole
personal life, the soul of all their thinking, willing, and doing " (so also
hitherto in this comraentary);* corap. 1 Cor. iii. 12: inoiKoSopelv inl rbv Bepi-
luni roirov. If, on the other hand, the second is here the case, then it is to
be explained, with Hofmann, "their faith is the foundation which supports
their life ; and accordingly, in the further development of their life it should
ever be their care that their life rests upon this foundation ; " comp. Eph.
ii. 20 : enoiKoSopyBivreg inl ru Bepellu ruv unoaroluv. The first is, however, to
be preferred, because, as already remarked, with these verbs the dative
mostly stands for inl n. Both explanations come essentially to the same
thing. — iavroig is not here = dllylovg; the discourse is indeed of a general,
but not precisely of a mutual, activity ; iavroig with the second person creates
no difficulty; comp. Phil. ii. 12. — iv nveipan dyiu npoaevxopevot]. The ex
pression npoaevx. ev nv. dy., it is true, does not elsewhere occur, but similar
combinations are not rare (laMv iv nv. dy., 1 Cor. xii. 3; see Meyer in loe.) ;
it means so to pray that the Holy Spirit is the moving and guiding power
(Jachmann, unsatisfactorily: "praying in consciousness of the Holy Ghost");
corap. Rom. viii. 26. — iavroig iv dyuny Qeov rypyaare]. Qeoi may either be the
objective genitive (Vorstius: charitas Dei passiva, i.e., qua nos Deum diligi-
mus; so also Jachmann, Arnaud, Hofmann, and others), or the subjective
genitive, "the love of God to us" (so De Wette, Schott, Wiesinger, Fron
miiller); iu the latter case the thought is the same as in John xv. 9, 10;
this agreement is in favor of that interpretation, nor is the want of the
article opposed to it (against Hofmann). This keeping theraselves in the
love of God is combined with the hope of the future mercy of Christ, which
has its ground, not in our love to God, but in God's love to us (comp. Rom.
V. 8 ff.). — npoaSexbpevoi rb ileog roi KVplov, k.t.'A.]. On 7rpooc!E;i;., Tit. ii. 15. —
rb ileog -'oi Kvp'iov ijpuv is the mercy which Christ will show to His own at His
coming. Usually the idea ileog is predicated not of the dealings of Christ,
but of God ; in the superscriptions of the Pastoral Epistles and of the Second
Epistle of John, it is referred to God and Christ. — eig Quijv aluvtov may be
joined either with el^og (De Wette), or with npoaSexb/ievoi (Schott), or with
rypyaare (Stier, Hofmann) ; since the imperative clause forms the main point,

" niarts Is the foundation, the flen^Aios on at the bottom is that they are not yet on all
which Christiaus should build themselves sides of their life on this foundation.
(more and more), by which the representation

698 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
the last-mentioned combination deserves the preference, especially as both in
npoaSixeoBai and in ileog 'lyn. Xp. the reference to Quy a'lCivuig is already con
tained. The prorainence here given to the Trinity, nveipa uyiov, Qebg, 'lyaoig
Xpiarbg, as frequently in the N. T., is to be observed. With the exhortation
contained in vv. 20, 21, Jude has accomplished what he in ver. 3 stated to be
the object of his writing.
Vv. 22, 23. The exhortations contained in these verses refer to the con
duct of believers toward those who are exposed to seduction by the daeSelg
(ver. 4) (De Wette) ; not toward the false teachers themselves (Reiche),
for these are of such a kind (ver. 12) that the church should have nothing
to do with them. The best-attested text is that which codex A affords : kuI
ovg pev iliyxere SiaKpivopivovg ' ovg Si auQere iK nvpbg dpndQovreg, ovg Si ileelre
(Lachmann and Tischendorf, iledre) iv ipopu; see critical remarks. — ovg piv
. . . ovg Si instead of roig pev . . . roig Si, see Winer, p. 100. According to
this reading, three classes of the seduced are distinguished, and toward each
a special conduct is prescribed. It is, however, asked whether, as Bruckner,
Wiesinger, Schott, Reiche, and others assume, there is a gradation from the
curable to the incurable (a dubitantibus minusque depravatis ad . . insana-
b'lles, quibus opem ferre pro tempore ah ipsorum contumacia prohibemur . Reiche);
or conversely from the incurable to the curable. In reference to the first
class it is said: ovg pev iliyxere SiuKpivopivovg]. The verb iliyxeiv denotes to
rebuke some one's sins by punishing liim. The object for which this is done
is not indicated in the word itself ; it may be to lead the sinner to the
acknowledgment of his sins, and thus to repentance, comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 24 ;
2 Tim. iv. 2 ; Tit. i. 13 ; or it may also be condemnation, comp. particularly
Jude, ver. 15 (Johu xvi. 8; Tit. i. 9). The explanation of Oecumenius is
incorrect: ipavepoire rolg ndaiv ryv daiSeiav airuv. Those who are to be pun
ished are denoted SiaKpivopivovg. Both the translation of the Vulgate, yurfi-
catos, and the interpretation of Oecumenius, KUKelvovg el piv dnoSdaravrai iuuv
iliyxere, are incorrect. SiaKpiveaBai signifies in the N. T. either to contend,
which is here unsuitable, or to doubt, and is opposed to mareveiv ; comp. Matt.
xxi. 21 ; Mark xi. 23; Rora. iv. 20; especially Jas. i. 6. This last passage
shows that, although not equivalent to dniarelv, it denotes the condition in
which dmaria has the preponderance over niang, the latter being a vanishing
point.* It is evident that Jude does not consider the SiaKpivbpevoi as weak
believers (Schott), because, with reference to them, he will employ no other
method than iliyxeiv (not napuKulelv, or something similar) ; those seduced
are in his view such as (punishment apart) are to be left to themselves. ^
In reference to the second class it is said : ovg Se adiQere ix nvpbg dpndQovreg].
Their condition is not stated, but it is to be inferred from the conduct to be
observed towards them. Toward those belonging to this class a auQeiv is to
' When Hofmann says, " that StoKpiveaBat make this distinction, that ye compassionate
cannot have this meaning, requires no proof," some; " or, more exactly, " compassionate the
he makes an entirely groundless assumption. one, making a distinction," namely from oth-
2 In the reading of the Rec. : oi)? pev i\eetre ers. But Btanptvopevot must be passive, since
StaKptvdpevot, we are obliged to explain Sia- not Staxpiveadat, but only StaKplvetv has the
KplveaBai as = distinguished. Luther : " and meaning to distinguish.

VERSES 22, 23. 699
be employed, but of such a nature as is more precisely stated by ek nvpbg
dpTrdfovTEf]. iK nvpbg is not from the fire of future judgment (Oecumenius,
Fronmiiller), but nip is the present destruction, in which they already are
(Bruckner, Wiesinger, Schott) ; dprrdQeiv denotes hasty, almost violent, snatch
ing out, and indicates that those are already in extreme danger of perdition ;
comp. Amos iv. 11 ; Zech. iii. 2. Distinguished frora the SiuKpivopivoig, the
second class are to be considered as those who have not yet lost the faith,
but have, through fellowship with the Antinomians, been enticed to their
licentious life; these are to be rescued. auQere is evidently in contrast to
e/iyxere, and denotes them to be such as one may certainly hope to rescue,
provided one snatches thera with violence, and tears them out of this fellow
ship. In reference to the third class, Jude prescribes ileelv (on the form
iledre, see Winer, p. 82 [E. T., 85]). This verb in the N. T. never raeans
only "to have compassion" (Schott), but always to compassionate one with
helpful love, as also ileog is always used only of active compassion ; so that
with ileelre the exact contrary is said to whsR Luther finds expressed, when
he explains it : " let them go, avoid them, and have nothing to do with
them." By this is denoted rather the helpful and saving benevolence by
which the erring are again to be brought back to the right way. As this
ileelv makes a fellowship necessary with those upon whom it is exercised,
Jude defines the same more precisely by ev ipbSip; accordingly, they must not
be wanting in foresight, lest they suffer injury themselves,* and he adds the
participial sentence as an explanation of this ^v ipbSu: mcovvreg koI, k.t.1,^
This exhortation shows that Jude considers the third class as those who are
indeed already involved, but who, by active compassion, may again be re
established; it is not so bad with them as with those toward whom only
ileyxeiv is to be employed ; but also it is not yet so bad as with those who
can only be rescued by hastily snatching them.
Hofmann considers the reading of X : kuI ovg piv iledre SiaKpivopivovg ovg Se
auQere iK irvpbg dpndQovreg, oig Si iledre iv ipdSu, as the correct one. In his expla
nation of this reading he distinguishes not three, but only two classes, assuming
that only the first, but not the second ovg Si stands opposed to ovg piv; and that
this latter ovg Si Is to be considered rather as a resumption of the object men
tioned in oig pev. This opinion is, however, erroneous, since, according to it,
the third oig Is understood differently from the first and second oig, namely, as
a pure relative pronoun; and since, in a highly arbitrary manner, " iv ipbSip is
explained as a consequence, united with an imperative iledre to be taken from
oig iledre;" "whom ye compassionate, them compassionate with fear." Also

1 Schott Is entirely mistaken when he says (Grotius, Stier, and others) incorrectly ex.
that e\etv denotes here " a compassion which plain it of the fear of the persons to be res.
has, and may have, its definite peculiarity no cued ; correctly Arnaud : " c'est h dire, pre-
longer in an impulse to help, but only in a fear nant garde que, tout en cherchant k les con-
of acting wrongly, and in consequence of re- vertlr, lis ne vous s^dulsent pas vons-m^mes."
ceiving injury ; " in other words, a compassion Beiche incorrectly, with the reading A, sepa.
which is no compassion. rates iv ipifiif from ikedre, and joins it with
2 According to the reading of the Rec, ev ptaovvres, whilst it would attract to it a very
0d3<j> belongs to avi(ere. Some expositors superfluous addition.

700 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
the explanation of the flrst member of the sentence: "the readers are to com
passionate the one with distinction," is to be rejected, since it has against it
N. T. usage, according to which SiuKplveaBai is never used as the passive of
StuKpiveiv in the sense of "to distinguish."
The addition piaoivreg Kal rbv dnb ryg aapKbg iamlupivov xiruva * is correctly
explained by Oecumenius : npoalapSdveoBe , , . airoig . . . perd ipbSav, nepicKenrb-
pevoi pynug ij npbalyrpig rovruv . . , lipyg iplv yevyrai a'lria, — kuI, even, gives
greater emphasis to the thought. The expression rbv xiruva is to be under
stood in a literal, and not in a figurative sense (Bullinger : exuvias veteris
Adami, concupiscentias et opera carnis), xtruv is the undergarment worn next
the skin, and which, by means of its direct contact with the fiesh unclean by
unchastity, etc., is itself soiled (amlbu only here and in Jas. iii. 6) ; comp.
Bev. iii. 4. — This garment is to the author the symbol of whatever, by
means of external contact, shares in the moral destruction of those men.^
Vv. 24, 25. Conclusion of t'he Epistle by a doxology. — ru Si Swapivu],
The sarae coraraenceraent of the doxology in Rora. xvi. 28. — ipdg]. Were
airoig the correct reading, we could hardly do otherwise than refer it to the
last-raentioned ovg Si, to which it is unsuitable, as they are not dnraiaroi, who,
as such, require only ipvlaaaeiv. That Jude actually wrote airoig, but that " in
the flight of devotion he has turned from his readers, and speaks of them
in the third person " (De Wette), is highly improbable. — dnralarovg]. un. ley.,
literally, who strikes not against ; then figuratively, who stumbles not, does
not offend ; here in the moral sense as nraiu, Jas. ii. 10, iii. 2 ; Vulgate :
sine peccato. — koI aryaai Karevumov ryg Sb^yg airoi dpupovg] . Schott correctly
remarks on Kai : The second effect is the ultimate result of the first, so that
Kai might be rendered by and so, and accordingly, Sb^a is here the glory of
God, as it will be manifested at the day of judgment. On aryaai dpupovg,
comp. 1 Cor. i. 8; Col. i. 22; 1 Thess. iii. 13. The meaning is: "who can
effect it that ye may appear as dpupoi before His judgment-seat." — iv dya/lyU-
daei mentions the condition in which Christians will then be. found; comp.
1 Pet. iv. 13. — Ver. 25. pbvu Qeu, see ver. 4; John v. 44; Rora. xvi. 27;
1 Tim. i. 17. — aurypi ypuv marks, in connection with Sid 'lyaov Xp., the essen
tial Christian element in the idea of God; on aurijp as a designation of God,
corap. 1 Tim. i. 1. Schott incorrectly joins pbvu Qeu with aurypi ijpuv, as if
it meant, " to Him who alone is God, in such a manner that He is our
Saviour ; " and the reason which he assigns, " because pbvog Qebg is never
used by itself, but always occurs as a designation of God relative to other
attributes," is contradicted by John v. 44; also by 1 Tim. i. 17 and Jude
ver. 4. — Sid 'lya. Xptarov belongs to aurypi ypuv (Schott), not to Sb^a, k.t.1.
(Wiesinger) ; in this latter case it would be put after i^ovaia. — Sb^a, peyalu-

1 Both in the reading of the Rec. and in the 1 Cor. v. 61).
reading of C, this addition is surprising; one 2 c^alvln: " vult fideles non tantum cavere a
may regard it, with Jachmann, as the ad- vitiornm contactu, sed ne qua ad eos contaglo
versative reason of aiitiere (though ye hate) ; pertingat, quicquid affine est ac vicinum,
or, with De Wette, as the real reason (since fugieudum esse admonet."
ye hate, for which Do Wette appeals to

VERSES 24, 25. 701
avvy, k.t.1.]. Sb^a and Kpdrog occur frequently in the New-Testament doxol
ogies (see 1 Pet. iv. 11); peyaluaivy and e^ovaia only here; peyaluaivy
corresponds to the Hebrew ^"JJ; comp. Deut. xxxii. 3, LXX. . Sbre peyalu-
aivyv rip Qeu ijpuv. — npb navrbg roi aiuvog]. By these words, wanting in the
Rec, the idea of eternity is expressed in the most comprehensive manner.
Not earu, but iari (De Wette, Schott), is to be supplied; corap. 1 Pet. iv. 11.
— dpijv, the usual conclusion of doxologies, as in Rom. i. 15; 1 Pet. iv. 11,
etc. ; it stands in the Epistles to the Galatians and Hebrews, probably also
in 2 Peter, as here, at the end of the Epistle.

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.

I.
CHAPTER L
Ver. 1.

1. The salutation of this Epistle differs in the form of expression from those
which are found in the letters of Paul: (a) in that Paul in all his epistles,
except 1 and 2 Thessalonians, describes himself as an apostle (so generally), or
as a servant of Jesus Christ, while James calls himself a servant of God and the
Lord Jesus Christ, but does not designate himself as an apostle; (6) in that
James addresses a wide-extended body of Christians, not those limited within a
particular city or district ; (c) in that James uses the word xu'peiv, which Paul
never employs. In the Pauline salutations this verb is only suggested by the
words which bear in them the contents of it: "Grace and peace to you." —
2. The absence of the word dnbarolog does not prove that the author was
not an apostle, for Paul does not always use this title in speaking of himself
(comp. Phil. i. 1, where only the word Soilog is found, and 1 and 2 Thessa
lonians, where there is no descriptive word). But it Jaraes who was the head
of the church in Jerusalem, was not the sarae person as James the son of
Alphaeus, it is probable that he, and not the apostle, was the writer of the
Epistle: first, because the character of the letter answers to the character which
is given of him in the early writings; and, secondly, because his position as
related to Jewish Christians was such as to make it more probable that he
would address them. — 3. That he was not the same person with James the son
of Alphseus, is indicated by the reasons presented by Huther in his Introduction.
The reason, therefore, why he omits the word apostle, is that he did not belong
to the apostolic company. But it may be regarded as soraewhat remarkable,
if he was, in the strict sense, the brother of the Lord, that he should not have
given himself this title, which, as it would seem, would have added authority
to his words. The only satisfactory explanation which can be given of the
omission of the title is, that, after the death and ascension of Jesus, the earthly
relationship sank into a kind of insignificance, as the Divine glory of Jesus
impressed itself more deeply on the minds of all His disciples alike. We see
Jesus Himself thus rising in His thought above the earthly and faraily relation,
as He committed His mother at the crucifixion, not to her own sons, but to
John the son of Zebedee (comp. John xix. 2.5-27). May we not find in the very
phrase which James uses (a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ) — a
703

704 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
phrase which so completely separates Jesus from himself, and so closely unites
Hira with God — an indication that he appreciated the change, as we might
say, from the earthly to the heavenly relationship ? The time had come, long
before this letter was written, when the words of Jesus were realized in their
full meaning: "Whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother,
and sister, and mother." — 4. The expression, " to the twelve tribes which are of
the dispersion, " is to be understood, with Huther, as showing that the readers
for whom the letter was designed were Jewish Christians living outside of
Palestine. II.
Vv. 2-18.
1. The Epistle has no introductory passage corresponding with those which
are found in the Pauline letters. It begins with exhortations and statements
respecting trials, which prepare the way for all that follows. The emphasis on
the word joy in the opening exhortation may be accounted for by the contrast
between this idea and the idea naturally connected with neipaapol. The writer
would urge the readers to consider that which seems to be only an evil and dis
tressing, a matter altogether of joy. It is possible, however, that the position of
xapdv in the sentence may be owing to some intended connection in the writer's
mind between this substantive and the verb xoipeiv. As he sends the readers a
greeting which involves the thought of joy, he exhorts them to count even their
trials as grounds of rejoicing. — 2. The neipaapol here referred to, being described
by the adjective noudloi, are doubtless the various kinds of trials or tests of
character which were likely to befall the readers. To a considerable extent,
they were connected with persecutions or evils which came upon the Christians
of that time from without, and thus they answer to the Blirpeig of Eom. v. 3.
But there is nothing in the words here used which limits the reference to
these. The correspondence of vv. 2, 3, with the passage in Rom. v. 3, 4, how
ever, cannot fail to be noticed. — The verb neptniayre, to fall into so as to be
encompassed by, suggests the idea of a complete involvement in the testing
trials of which the writer speaks. It was this involvement iu the trials which
made these trials, in an especial sense and degree, a testing of the readers' faith
{rb SoKipiov ryg nlareug), — 3. The participle yivuaKovreg is causal, and is to be
rendered since you know, rather than whilst you may know, as Huther gives it.
It gives the ground on which they m'ay well count the falling into trials a matter
of joy. 4. Td SoKipiov is regarded by Grirara as equivalent in this place to rb SoKipdQeiv,
the proving or testing. This explanation of the word is given by many com
mentators, as intimated by Huther in his note, and is favored by A. R. V. and
A. V. It is also favored by Beyschlag in his edition of Huther. It is clear,
however, that in 1 Pet. i. 7, — the only other passage in the N. T. in which the
word occurs, — it is to be understood as approvedness. It is thus equivalent to
SoKipy, as that word is probably to be explained in Rom. v. 4. The double use of
the verb SoKipdQeiv by tbe N. T. writers, and the double possibility of its mean
ing, make the decision as to the meaning of the noun here quite difficult.
Whichever explanation is adopted, the main idea of the passage will not be
greatly changed. If Sok. means proving, the readers are reminded that the
proving or testing of their faith, which comes through the neipaapoi, works out
the result of steadfastness. If, on the other hand, it means approvedness, their

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 705
tested or approved faith, which is the effect of the neipaapoi, is declared to
accomplish the same result. — In Rora. v. 4, steadfast endurance is repre
sented as working out tested character; here, tested character, approved faith,
works out steadfast endurance. The two statements are alike true. Steadfast
ness in trials naturally leads to the result of a character which is approved as
the consequence of tests which it has successfully met, and then the latter
enables the man more easily and victoriously to persevere in his endurance. —
6. The thought of ver. 4, which is set forth in the form of a new exhortation,
is closely related to that of ver. 3 as subordinate to ver. 2. The trials serve to
test and establish faith; faith as thus tested serves to further steadfast endur
ance; the perfect development of endurance is essential to the perfect develop
raent of the man in the Christian life. The Christian readers may, therefore,
well count it all joy when they fall 'nto manifold -testing trials, because these
lie, in this way, in the line of the growth of complete character. The ipyov of
vnopovy is that in and by which it works out its legitimate and natural result.
— 6. The end in view of the rileiov epyov of inopovy is that the man may be
rileiog Kal blbKlypog; the forraer of these words referring rather to the development
towards the lirait of completeness, the latter to the filling out to the fulness of
character in all its parts, while the following phrase presents the latter idea on
its negative side.
7. The fifth verse is probably connected in thought with those which pre
cede, and immediately with the fourth. This is indicated by the verb le'inerai
following lembpevoi. The supposed case of lacking wisdom is made prorainent
among the possible wants or deficiencies, because wisdom lies near the founda
tion of all development towards completeness, and so is necessary in that line of
development in which the tests and trials particularly referred to in this passage
work to their best result. — '^'"isdom, as the word is here used, seeras to
mean that fundamental element of the Christian life which, in itself, sets the
possessor of it apart from the evil world; the true apprehension of things, which
works out into right living. If one is fully endowed with this, there is a guid
ing principle in the soul which will lead to the right use of all things, and will
be the means of developing the man toward perfection. With this wisdom, the
man will make even the neipaapol work out the end of inopovij; that is, will turn
the things which seem to be only evil, into good and a cause of joy. — 8. In
case of felt deficiency, the Christian reader is directed to ask God for the supply
of the want, and the assurance of receiving such supply is given him. It is
worthy of notice, that the words of the writer are all in the line of the joyous
greeting which the writer offers to his Christian brethren. They raay count
the apparent evils of their experience a matter of joy, for they bring, when met
and used with the true wisdom, the steadfast endurance which tends towards
perfection of character; and if there is any want of this wisdom, nothing needs
to be done but to ask it from God, who will certainly and liberally give it. The
freeness and fulness of God's giving are represented here by very striking
expressions, — the adverb iinlug, simply, conveying the idea, as Grimm happily
expresses it, of being "led solely by his desire to bless" (the idea of liberal
giving, suggested in the translation of A. V. and R. V., is rather implied, in a
secondary way, than distinctly set forth, in the Greek word); and the participle
bveiS'iQovrog, reproaching, upbraiding, presenting the thought of such reproaches
as connected with unworthiness on the part of the petitioners to ask for gifts,
or possibly with their failure to profit by past gifts, or their want of thankful
ness in receiving them, or even with the number of such gifts already bestowed,

7C6 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
as would indicate a want ot readiness to give, and as were often uttered by men
when asked for help or favor. No such reproaches are experienced as we ask
of God. The confidence in God's willingness to answer prayer, which Jesus
awakened in the minds of his disciples, continued with them ever afterwards.
The legal Jaraes, as well as the loving John, was prepared to say to every
Christian, as the Lord Himself had done, "Ask, and ye shall receive." The
soul in want had but to ask of God for the filling-up of its imperfection, and
the proraise was, "it shall be given." — 9. The asking, however, must be in
faith. This is put in the form of a new exhortation (ver. 6); but evidently
the exhortation is intended, in its connection with what precedes, to indicate
the raanner in which the gift just mentioned should be sought. The faith, also,
should be with no doubting. The explanation of pySev StaKpivbpevog given by
Huther is the true one. This is shown by the words which describe the doubter
in the following clause. The mind is not to be drawn tbis way and that, by
questionings or uncertainties, with a prevailing tendency to believe that the
answering gift will not be given in response to the prayer. The petitioner's
faith must correspond to the Divine impulse towards giving.
10. The second sentence of ver. 6 gives a reason for the exhortation to ask
with no doubting. The meaning of this sentence seems, however, to go beyond
the limits of the participial clause pySev SiaKp. The latter clause is connected
immediately with the raatter of faith in the act of prayer, but this second sen
tence apparently covers the sphere of the inward life. The Christian should
ask in faith with no wavering in his mind, for the man wliose whole mind is in
this wavering and doubting state does not possess the calm and peaceful inner
life which is tbe true condition of the child of God. The Christian life is
a life of trust; it is the calmness and confidence of the untroubled sea. The
doubter, or the man who is in a wavering state, is necessarily thrown out of
this condition — like the waves which are driven and tossed by the winds — and
is, therefore, without one of the prime characteristics of the Christian life.
Particularly as connected with prayer, he is without an element which is made
prominent and essential in the conditions of the promise of answers to prayer.
The man who prays in this doubting way has, therefore, no right to expect the
fulfilment of his request (ver. 7). — II. Ver. 8, which is an appositional and
explanatory supplement to the expression that man, of ver. 7, aud thus to the
expression he that doubteth of ver. 6, sets forth still more emphatically the same
idea as the ground of the exhortation of ver. 6a. Such a man has, as it were,
two souls, aud accordingly will be likely to move in opposite directions in his
life and conduct, — now with impulses towards God, now towards the world,
but, by reason of the want of firm and established faith, prevailingly and finally
•towards the world. — 12. Vv. 9-11 seem necessarily to be connected with the
passage which precedes, because the subject of neipaapbg is continued in ver. 12.
in themselves, however, they apparently turn to a new subject. The explana
tion which appears to meet the demands of the case most satisfactorily is that
which raakes 6 dSelipbg b raneivbg refer to the Christian In his depressed condition
as viewed from the standpoint of the world's judgraent, — poverty, slavery,
ignoble birth, etc., — and 6 nloiaiog to the rich as a prominent class among the
exalted men of the unbelieving world; and that which supplies with <5 nlmatog
the indicative of KavxdaBai from the previous imperative, making ver. 10a an
affirmative sentence. In that age the outward, earthly condition of the
majority of believers raust, in itself and by reason of the oppressions experi
enced from the rich and powerful of the world, have constituted, in a pecullai

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 707
sense and measure, a neipaapbg, such a one as was most likely to disturb and
distress the rainds of Christian believers. The writer singles out this peculiar
neipaapbg as a special exaraple, and bids the believer who is subjected to it
rejoice in that exaltation which Christianity brings to him in this condition,
through his new and higher life, and the hope of the future glory; whereas tho
rich man of the world, on the other hand, rejoices in what is really his humilia
tion, for his glory is a perishing one. — 13. With this understanding of vv.
9-II, the connection of ver. 12 with those verses becomes apparent. The stead
fast endurance, under the neipaapbg allfided to, works out the result of the
consumraated and corapleted exaltation — that which belongs to the heavenly
world. And so of all sirailar steadfast endurance: blessed is the man who has
it and manifests it; for when the result in character is fully accoraplished, and
the raan has become approved, he will receive the crown of life, i.e., eternal life
as his crown and reward.
14. At ver. 13 the thought turns to the other side of the matter of neipaapbg,
the drawing towards sin. God may bring us, or suffer us to be brought, into
circurastances which may bear with them a solicitation to evil, and He may
allow this in order to strengthen character through steadfast endurance. But the
solicitation to evil itself does not come from Him. The thought here, as also in
the former case, is presented in the form of an exhortation. This is doubtless
to be explained in connection with the prevailing hortatory character of the
Epistle. In .vv. 14, 15, however, the construction changes to affirmative and
declaratory sentences, a fact which shows the underlying purpose of the writer,
and the movement of his mai'n thought. — 15. The connection of dne'ipaarog in
this passage with neipaapbg and neipdQu seems to show that, in the writer's use of
the word, the idea of temptation is to be discovered. It thus means cannot be
tempted with (R. V. text), rather than untried in (R. V. marg.). With either
sense of the word, however, this clause is introduced as a proof that we cannot
properly say that we are tempted of God. As God cannot be tempted by evil.
He cannot tempt any one to evil; or, if the other meaning be adopted, as God
is untried, unversed in evil things, as His inner life is wholly outside of the
sphere of evil. He cannot be a solicitor to evil: evil must have a source like
itself. — 16. The good side of neipaapbg, its impelling power towards inopovy,
its working force in the development of right character towards perfection,
comes from God. He puts the testing trials in the way of His followers as they
move along their course; and He does this in order that they raay be strength
ened. But the bad side of neipaa/iSg has no connection with Him. On the con
trary. He is the source of good only, and of all good. The bad side must be
allied with evil, and this lies in the heart of man, — in the desire or lust which
moves the raan to sin. — 17. The writer does not carry sin back in these
words to its final and earliest source. As Alford reraarks, he takes up the
matter at a 'point lower down the stream than Paul does in the Epistle to
the Romans, or, we may add, than Christ does as represented in the Gospel of
John, and in contrast to the originating of sin, in any given case or man, by a
solicitation to evil from God, he declares that the cause of the sin is the lust of
tbe man, which, in the neipaapbg, lays hold ot the bad side, and leads the whole
man after itself. — 18. By Bdvarog in ver. 15, there can be little doubt that
eternal death is meant. Beyschlag in his edition of Huther denies this, and
makes the word raean spiritual death. The reason of the introduction of this
word is probably twofold: first, in order to coraplete the development of the
idea of the bad side of neipaapbg; and, secondly, in order to present the contrast

708 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
between the result on the good side {Quy, ver. 12), and that on the bad side
{Bdvarog, ver. 15). — 19. Vv. 16, 17, are closely connected with what precedes;
ver. IS forras a transition to what follows. Ver. 16 calls special attention to
the statement of ver. 17 as showing the impossibility of an originating of temp
tation by God. Be not deceived or led astray in your thoughts on the raatter,
says the writer; so far is it from being true, tbat God ever solicits man to evil,
that, on the other band, every good comes from Him, and in Him there is no
variableness. He moves unchangeably towards good.
20. With respect to the peculiar expressions in the closing part of ver. 17,
the following suggestions seem to be well founded: (a) There is a reference to
the heavenly bodies (the stars, etc.) in the words used, and yet the language is
not strictly astronomical throughout the entire sentence. This is evident frora
the fact that napallayy is not employed as an astronomical term {napdlla^ig is
the technical terra). (6) The word dnooKiuapa must be understood as meaning
a dark shadow cast by a body which has its dark side towards the observer, or
which intervenes between him and the light. The rendering of the Authorized
Version, shadow of turning, cannot therefore be correct, (c) The word rpimyg
does not appear to be used in a special technical sense except of the points or
times at which there is an apparent turning of the course, as in the case of the
sun at the solstices. It must therefore, as it would seem, refer to such a tum
or revolution of the body as would cause a shadow to be cast, {d) In calling
God the Father of lights, the writer apparently intends to compare Him with
the heavenly bodies, and represent Him as not only the author and maker of
them, but also as a greater light belonging, in the figurative representation, in
the same class. — We raay believe, therefore, that he means to say that God
is a light or illuminating body which never, by reason of revolution or turning,
casts a dark shadow, but which sheds forth unchanging brightness. All good
in the spiritual sphere is in tbe region ot light. Evil is darkness. The great,
unchanging, ever-undimraed light can have no dark shadow. God can never
solicit to evil. — 21. Ver. 18 is related to what precedes, as showing how God
of His own will bestows the greatest of all good gifts, and the fundamental one
for the human soul. As related to what follows, it prepares the way for the
exhortations which are introduced in the succeeding verses. Of the words in
tbis verse, ,3ov?.yBeig has a certain special emphasis. It carries back the whole
matter to the self-moved will of God, and thus serves to show that, as the great
est and most all-comprehensive good is purposed and determined by Him, it is
certainly true that no temptation can proceed from Him. This is made still
further evident by the fact that the spiritual begetting of Christians is with a
view to the consummation of His great plan for the whole world. They are to
be the first-fruits, as it were, of tbe new creation for which all things are wait
ing. — It is doubtful whether we are to regard ijpdg, as some, including Bey
schlag in his edition of Huther, do, as meaning the Christians of that day who
were the beginnings of the Church. More probably it may refer to Christians
in general, or to the readers as representatives of Christians generally. Proba
bly Kriapdruv includes all the creatures of God, and the thought is of the final
and universal blessedness, after the subjugation of all enemies, even including
death, the last of all. The bringing of Christians, or of the Christians of that
time, into the life of faith and holiness, is the beginning of the result which
will be realized in its fulness at the end.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 709
III.
Vv. 19-27.
1. The e-xhortation of ver. 19 follows as a consequence from the statement
of ver. 18. This relation is expressed in the most simple way, if the reading
diare of the T. R. is adopted; and this fact, as well as the peculiar variations
in the different authorities (eote,' earu, tare), may be regarded as in some degree
favoring that reading. The external evidence, however, is so strongly in favor
of (OTE, that it seems almost necessary to accept it as the original text. The
connection of the verses, with this reading, is through this verb as forming an
independent and intermediate clause, which probably refers to ver. 18, and
prepares the way for ver. 196. This verb, if thus understood, is an indicative,
and means you know, or are well aware of this ; that is, that God, ot His own
will, etc. Beyschlag rejects Huther's view of the connection, and joins the
words in thought with what precedes. — 2. As God gives us the new life by
means of the word of truth, it becomes every one to be swift to hear (ver. 19ft-
21), and to hear obediently, turning what one hears into action (ver. 22ff.).
This is the substance of the main thought as developed in what follows. Along
with this, however, it would seem that the writer must have had in mind some
special tendency on the part of the readers whom he was addressing to assume
the position of teachers and to contend against others. In this way only is it
easy to account for the added words, slow to speak, slow to wrath. This Epistle
seems to be characterized, in some measure, by the insertion or addition of such
more special points, while, at the same time, the main thought moves on in a
continuous line of development. — 3. Ver. 20 gives the reason for the last words
of ver. 19: slow to wrath. Wrath does not work or produce the righteousness
of God. Righteousness is to be understood here, not in the peculiar sense which
belongs to the Pauline Epistles, but in the ordinary sense, — conformity to what
ought to be, or to be done. The genitive Qeov sets forth the righteousness as
that which is demanded or approved by God, and is perhaps to be most simply
explained as a possessive genitive carrying with it this idea. This righteousness
is Uiat which appertains to the new life to which God brings us, and hence
whatever does not work to the end of producing it is to be avoided. — 4. Stb
(ver. 21) points back to ver. 20, but the exhortation which is introduced by it
goes out beyond the matter of avoiding bpyij, to the laying aside of all kukiu.
Not improbably, we should, with Huther, Alford, and some others, connect
(ninaplav with the genitive KUKlag; so R. V., all filthiness and overflowing of
wickedness, as opposed to A. V., all fllthiness, and superfluity of, etc. If so, the
word frvn. is used as indicating the polluting character of sin, its defilement,
while nepiaaeiav designates its abundance. We should lay aside that evil or
wickedness which is so abundant within us and so defiling in its influence.
Alford says, " It is very possible that the agricultural similitude in ipipvrog may
have influenced the choice of both these words, />vn. and nepiaa. The ground
must be ridded of all that pollutes and chokes it, before the seed can sink in
and come to maturity; it must be cleaned and cleared." — 5. The connection
of ver. 21 with the immediately preceding verses may indicate that npairyn is
here used in the sense of gentleness, rather than meekness, in contrast to bpyyv
(ver. 19). This is the view of most of the recent commentators. It is not
necessary, indeed, to take the word in this sense; but if, as is not improbably
the case, the expression bridleth not liis tongue, in ver. 26, is to be explained iu

710 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
connection with bpyy, the argument in favor of this interpretation is a strong
one. — 6. The adjective epipvrov is used, probably, because the establishing of
the word in the soul is that by which the new life is made to begin and grow.
This implanted word is able to save the soul.
7. Ver. 22 presses the, necessity of so receiving the word as to carry it out
into conduct and life. The doing of the word here spoken of has reference,
partly at least or prorainently, to tbat doing of Christian duty which belongs to
the relation of the man to others. This seems* to be indicated by the bpyy and
npairyg, by the expressions bridleth not his tongue and visit the fatherless, and
by what is set forth in the following parts of the Epistle. The subjective, inte
rior, hearty reception of the word (denoted by Si^aaBe) involves the addition of
doing to hearing. The man who satisfies himself with the latter only deludes
himself, as by a false reckoning or reasoning {napaloyiQeaBai) ; see tbis verb as
used in Col. ii. 4, where the word niBavoloylg is added. — 8. The contrast in
vv. 2:B-25 seems not to be between two mirrors, or two raen looking into two
different mirrors, but between the chance or careless looking to see one's face
in a mirror, and the close examination of a law or a moral system to know its
teachings and to compare one's character and actions with what it describes or
demands. The man who does the forraer has no earnestness in his action.
The impression is a passing one, and what he sees takes no hold upon the inner
lite. But he who does the latter must be affected by what he sees, and must
put in practice what is discovered by his careful and continuous study. The
word napuKvipag of ver. 25 is a strong one, denoting a bending-down to look into,
an intent, earnest looking; and to this is added the strong word napape'ivag,
which denotes a continuous, persistent action in this looking. Such looking
must affect conduct, and must lead to blessing. — 9. The expression, the perfect
law, refers to the gospel as giving the rule and description of the true life. The
adjective ri?ieiov seems to be used as connected with the fact that this rule is
complete for the life which reaches perfection. The law is called the law of
freedom, probably because the perfect life, in its relation to law and duty, must
be a life of freely-given obedience, — a service of love. Paul and Jaraes draw
near to each other at this point, though they may seem, in some views of their
thinking, to approach the central truth from opposite sides. — 10. Vv. 26„ 27,
carry on the general thought of the preceding verses, — religion as related to the
doing of the work set forth in the perfect law of liberty, — land suggest promi
nently (in ver. 26) the idea first brought forward in the words slow to speak,
ver. 19. — Of the words in these two verses, SoKet has the sense of thinks or
fancies (see 1 Cor. iii. IS, Gal. vi. 3, etc., in which passages the idea of deceiv
ing one's self is also expressed, as it is here) ; BpyoKog and BpyoKela are words
designating religion as connected originally with the fear of God, if the com
monly assuraed derivation frora rpiu is accepted; the latter word seeras to be
connected with external raanifestations of religion, worship, etc., — possibly the
words are selected here because the writer has in mind the religious life as an
active and outgoing life: visiting the fatherless, etc. ; napd Qeu, in the judgment
of God, as God looks upon it; the reference to visiting the fatherless and widows
in their affliction — the calamities which befall them — is by way of illustration,
giving one of the many acts which manifest and are the forth-putting of tbe
religious life; the keeping one's self unspotted from the world, on the other
hand, goes out beyond the sphere of these external acts, and covers the whole
inward and out.ward living.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 711
IV.
CHAPTER II.
Vv. 1-13.
1. The writer passes at this point to a more particular exhortation in the
line of Christian duty, — the first in a series of exhortations which occupy
the larger part of the Epistle. The exhortations bear upon failings or sins by
which the readers were especially characterized, and are to the end of avoiding
them and practising the opposite virtues. The writer opens this new passage
with the words dbelipoi uov. The frequency with which these words of address
are used in this letter is very noticeable, and shows the hortatory character of
it. There is no prominence given to the discussion of truths for their own sake.
Such discussion, if occurring at all, is only incidental to the pressing of some
duty or to the appeal to tbe reader to conform in one point or another to the per
fect law. — 2. The word npoaunolyuipiaig is placed in an emphatic position. This
may possibly be accounted for by a connection in thought with the ministering
or refusal to minister to the afflicted and weak, i. 27. But not improbably there
is a marked turn in the thought here to a new point of duty, and the emphasis
on the word is only for the sake of calling special attention to this point. —
3. £;tfT£ ryv manv — Probably the writer has iu mind the thought of the latter
part of the chapter, where he sets forth the deadness of faith without works.
To his raind, the Christian faith moved, in a peculiar sense and measure, in the
sphere of works, and the man who indulged in sin or violated obligations and
duties, held the faith in — that is, in the midst of, or as if involved in or with —
the -sin in question. — 4. The genitive roi Kvp'iov is probably objective: faith in ;
but possibly it is a possessive genitive, the faith being regarded as belonging to
the Lord, in that He taught it as the essential thing in His teaching. The geni
tive ryg Sb^yg, on the pther hand, is, on the whole, satisfactorily and most simply
explained as a characteristic genitive following roi Kvpiov. Though a peculiar
and unusual construction,, involving difficulties, this is the least difficult of all
the constructions proposed. The phrase as thus explained is not a formal dox
ology, and perhaps it does not necessarily involve as rauch as such doxologies
do. But it certainly approaches them in force, and may be regarded as sugges
tive with reference to the thought of the immediate disciples and brethren of
the Lord respecting the fitness of the ascription of praise and worship to Him.
5. The double supposition of vv. 2, 3, is evidently intended to be undferstood
as realized in both its parts. It is put in the form of a mere supposition, and is
doubtless only one instance illustrative of the matter of respecting persons, which
is under consideration. The passage itself, however, and other allusions to the
relations to the rich in later verses or chapters, raake it probable that the illus
trative example is brought forward because it was well known in the experience
of the readers, — 6. As to the question whether the rich raan of ver. 2 is to be
regarded as a Christian or not, the suggestions of Huther appear to be decisive,
as showing that he is not a Christian. The probability indicated in connection
with i. 10, II, is so greatly strengthened by this verse and by what follows, that the
correctness of this view must be admitted. — 7. The past tenses in ver. 4 are
used, we may believe, because the writer thinks of such cases as actually having
occurred, and therefore likely to occur. For this reason he puts the supposition
in the forra. If there shall have come . . . did you not, etc. The verb StuKpiByre
is rendered in A. V., Are ye not partial {in yourselves, iv iavrolg); in R. V. text,

712 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
Are ye not divided ; in R. V. marg.. Do ye not make distinctions (text, in your
own mind ; marg., among yourselves). The question as to tbe meaning of this
verb is somewhat difficult of determination. The use of tbe verb in i. 6, and
the raore common usage ot the N. T. in cases where the middle and aorist
passive occur, favor the raeaning doubt ; and if this is the meaning, the explana
tion given by Huther in his note is probably tbe correct one. It must be admitted,
however, as we think, that this idea of doubting, as equivalent to " a contradic
tion of their faith, according to which external glory and riches are nothing," is
not quite parallel with the doubting of i. 6, and that a more distinct and direct
expression of such contradiction, had this been the writer's idea, would have
been more natural and simple. On the other hand, if it is allowable to adopt
the signification given to the verb in R. V. marg., make distinctions, the expres
sion becomes very simple, and the sentence falls naturally into harmony with
itself and with the general thought of the passage. Tbe interpretation of iv
iavrolg will follow that of StuKpiByre: if the verb has the former of the two mean
ings alluded to, the preposition is to be taken in the sense of in ; if the verb has
the latter signification, the preposition means among. Grirara and the recent
commentators generally agree substantially with Huther respecting the verb. —
8. There can be little doubt tbat the genitive Sialoyiapuv novypuv is a descriptive
or characteristic genitive, and that the substance of meaning is, as given in
R. Y., judges with evil thouglits, or, as Grimm gives 'it. Judges who follow per
verse opinions, reprehensible principles. The Christian who made such distinc
tions and discriminations, favoring the rich as against the poor, was, in his
judgments and principles which were the result of his reflection {Sialoyiapo'i),
in opposition to the true Christian idea. This is proved by the following verse
(ver. 5). The argument here is sirailar to that which Paul urges in 1 Cor. i. 26 ff.
Their own experience as to tbe Divine calling would plainly show the irapropriety
of their conduct in this raatter. The similarity of this passage to the one in
1 Cor., as well as the general underlying thought of the passage itself, favors the
view that 'in faith denotes the sphere in which the persons spoken of were rich,
— poor in the view of the world and according to the world's standard of judg
ment, but rich in the Christian sphere and according to the standard of tbe
kingdoni of God. — 9. The writer now sets forth the behavior of the rich to
wards the Christiaus as a second reason why tbe latter should not honor them
in the way indicated. Tbe rich oppress and persecute them, and blaspheme the
name of Christ which is called upon them at the beginning of tbeir Christian
life. The conduct here spoken of is such as could hardly be descriptive of rich
persons connected with the Church; and these verses (5-7) seem, therefore,
clearly to show, by the contrasts and statements which they contain, that the
unchristian rich are the persons referred to throughout the entire passage. The
evidence for this view thus becomes stronger as the passage moves forward, and
the reference to the same class of persons in the later part of tbe Epistle accords
with and confirms what is here said. — 10. The view of Huther, that in vv. 8, 9,
the writer " meets the attempt which his readers might perhaps make to justify
their conduct toward the rich by the law of love" seems improbable. The
readers would hardly attempt to justify conduct which made such a distinction
between men, by appealing to the law of love, which required them to love every
one as themselves, — a love which evidently must apply to the poor equally with
the rich. It seems raore probable that the writer is, as Alford says, guarding
his own argument from misconstruction. The rich should be treated, indeed,
according to the principles of the law of love; but this is a widely different thing

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 713
from such respecting of persons as that which is referred to. The latter is a
sin, — a violation of the law of love.
11. The word pivroi, to which Huther assigns the meaning assuredly or cer-
ta'inly, has, not improbably, a mild adversative sense. It should probably be
rendered however, rather than as in R. V. howheit. It suggests the contrast
connected with the possible misconstruction alluded to. — 12. Being convicted
by the law as transgressors — The law here spoken of is the whole Mosaic law
as viewed on the side of duties towards our fellow-raen, — that portion of the
Mosaic law which, as Paul says in Rora. xiii. 10, Gal. v. 14, is fulfilled and
summed up in the command, " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." This
command gathers up into itself every thing in the treatment of others which is
demanded by its spirit, and consequently it is transgressed by any act, or manner
of acting, which is contrary to the love required. The proof which follows in
vv. 10, 11, is illustrative, showing that such a single violation is a transgression
of the whole law. — 13. The view of Huther with respect to oirug of ver. 12 —
that it refers backward, rather than simply to the following ug — is to be regarded
as correct. The case seems to be parallel to 1 Cor. ix. 24. In closing the para
graph, the writer gives a general exhortation which covers and includes the
particular matter discussed in the preceding verses, and, at the same tirae,
reaches out to tbe entire circle of action and speech in the Christian life. The
law of liberty here spoken of is undoubtedly the sarae with that raentioned in
i. 25, and this law is characterized by the same descriptive word for the same
reason as in the former case. The gospel rule is one which is fulfilled by a
freely-given obedience. This law, which can be truly fulfilled only in this way,
— the law of love obeyed in the free and hearty spirit of love, — is the one by
which the Christian is to be judged; and hence he should be careful that in every
tiling fie yields obedience to it. And he should do this because (ver. 13) the
merciful judgment, which is the ground of hope as connected with the Christian
system, gives way to the opposite in the case of one who contradicts the Chris
tian spirit by violating the law of love. In the case of one who, on the other
hand, is governed by that law, mercy which forgives and justifies prevails over
judgment, and secures the man the offered blessing.
V.
Vv. 14-26.
1. The turn in the thought at this point seems to be connected with the
general underlying idea of the Epistle, that true religion is that only which
shows itself in acts and life, and, more immediately and particularly, with the
suggestion of the preceding verses which refer to judgment. The justifying
judgment, which comes through mercy, is not to be expected on the ground of a
mere dead faith. The faith which is the animating principle of the Christian
life, and which saves the soul, is one which works in the line of obedience to
the law of love. — It would seem evident, that in connection with the conduct-
alluded to in the preceding verses, and at the close of chap, i., there must have
been a doctrine or claim on the part of many of the readers whom the writer
addresses, that faith apart from works was all-sufficient. The writer combats
this doctrine, first, by presenting an illustrative example from the ordinary
course of life — a case of need which might present Itself for relief; and
secondly, by pointing to the history of Abraham — the great historic case of
Abraham. — 2. That tho faith which is here spoken of is a mere belief, a faith

714 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
which has in it no love element, no working power, and thus a faith which is
different frora that which Paul has in mind in his Epistles (e.g., Gal. v. 6),
seems evident from all the indications of the passage. The difference between
Paul and .lames is not that the latter affirms the faith of the former to be dead,
while the forraer affirms it to be the living and life-giving principle of the true
life. Paul holds that faith has a working, as well as a believing, element. In
other words, the Pauline faith is trust; it is a uniting force as between tho
soul of man and God. The Pauline faith proved its existence by works; it
was not a mere belief of a, proposition, such as the proposition or truth, that
God is one. The two writers thus regard the living faith and the dead faith
in the same way : > the question of life and death here, as everywhere, being
the question of the presence or absence of the working element. But James,
by reason of the exigencies of his discussion, is speaking of a dead faith, while
Paul has always occasion to refer to living faith.
3. The question as to justification is more difficult. So far as the necessity
of a living faith to justification is concerned, the two writers would seem to
agree that it is necessary. But does James teach a doctrine inconsistent with
Paul's position, that justification is through faith alone ? Is the statement
respecting Abraham in this passage inconsistent with what is implied or
declared in Romans, chap. iv. ? On this point the following suggestions may be
offered: (a) Paul, in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, was contending
against Judaizing partisans, who insisted that all, even the Gentile converts,
should conform to the whole Mosaic system, and that they could not be justified
without this. He maintained the sufficiency of faith for justification, and
declared that there was no justification by works, because there was no such
tiling in human experience as a perfect and complete fulfilment of the law.
The Christian system, according to him, was a system of free forgiveness ou
the ground of faith. Faith was the first movement of the soul, in turning from
enmity to God, towards a friendly relation to Him. This first moveraent of the
soul involved an element of love, which, as the life and activity of the soul
went forward, would result in good works, i.e., in conformity of the whole life
to the will of God. The act of forgiveness and justification on God's part,
however, was, to his view, coincident with the act of faith; and the man, being
justified when he believed, had only to go forward thereafter under the impulse
of the love-element connected with his faith. — (6) James, on the other hand,
was contending in tbis Epistle against persons who held that faith without the
love-element was all tliat was necessary. These persons held that a mere belief
which had no effect upon conduct, a faith which could give no evidence of its
existence as a transforming and elevating power in the life, was sufficient to
secure justification. — (c) With reference to the case of Abraham as raentioned
by James, and the use which he makes of it, it will be noticed that the sacrifice
of Isaac (Gen. xxii. 2) was later in point of time than the statements that faith
was accounted to him for righteousness (Gen. xv. 6), and that he was called the
friend of God (probably founded upon Gen. xviii. 17) ; also, that the act of sacrifice
is spoken of as completing or perfecting the faith, and the words of Gen. xv. 6
are said to have been thereby fulfilled ; also, that the conclusion drawn in the
twenty-fourth verse must be interpreted in consistency with the declaration of
the O. T., which places the justification before tbe act of sacrifice, afid may
naturally be interpreted (not to say, must be interpreted) in such a way as to
understand and not by faith only, as meaning not by such faith as the writer
of the Epistle has in mind in his discussion. In view of these considerations,

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 715
it would seera that Jaraes must have recognized the fact of the justification of
Abraham, at a time which preceded not only the sacrifice of Isaac, but even tbe
birth of this heir of the promises; and tbat when he speaks of his justification
by works in connection with the sacrifice, he cannot mean to deny that he was
justified when he first exercised faith. — {d) The true position of James, there-
foie, seems to be this: that, when the test time forthe man's faith comes, —
the test which determines whether the faith is a living or a dead one, — justi
fication depends on whether tbe faith displays its living force by an act of
obedience and love. In other words, justification is on the ground of a faith
which is a living, loving, active principle. — It is indeed true, as Huther says,
quoting from Wieseler, that it is one thing to say, to be justified by faith
which is proved by works, and another thing, to be justifled by works in which
faith is proved. But it raust be borne in mind, that we are not dealing here
with abstract theological propositions. The writer of this Epistle is guided
in his use of language by the circumstances of the case, the character and
position of the persons against whom he is contending, etc. What be saj's is
to be judged accordingly; and, when viewed from this standpoint, the difference
between the two statements is not of that marked and distinct character which
may be observed when they are considered as theological propositions. — (e) The
correctness of the view which is in the line of these suggestions is confirmed
by all the indications of the passage. The fact that faith without works is
illustrated by the empty saying to a destitute brother. Go in peace, without
doing any thing for his relief; the impossibility, which is clearly hinted at, of
showing or proving tho existence of real faith, except by such works as would
be naturally prompted by it; the description of faith apart from works, as
similar to that which the demons have; the statement that faith apart from
works is barren; the points already set forth in connection with the case of
Abraham; the comparison between faith apart from works, and the body
without the animating and vivifying power of the spirit, — all these things
exhibit the writer's idea of the faith which he regards as so insufficient and
worthless, and show what he means when he says that a man is justifled by
works, and not only by faith.
4. With respect to individual words and phrases, the following suggestions
may be offered: (a) The abrupt turn in the question, ri rb bipelog (ver. 14), is
calculated to arrest the attention of the reader, and bring hira at once to the
very centre of tho subject. — [b) R. V. renders y niang of ver. 146, that faith.
Huther denies this force of the demonstrative pronoun to the article in this
place. It would seem doubtful, to say tho least, whether the demonstrative
force can be insisted upon. — (c) The word auaat refers, no doubt, to future
salvation, and this word, accordingly, suggests that the writer is referring
throughout the passage to that justification which is connected with the
securing of salvation for a man who has the opportunity to put his faith in
exercise; that is, that he is not limiting his thought to tho first moment of
forgiveness, when the man is set right before tho judgment of God with
reference to his past sins. — {d) Huther is hardly justified in insisting on our
regarding xoprdQeaBe and Beppa'iveaBe as in the middle voice, on the ground that
only thus does the contrast appear pointed and definite. The point seems to be
simply, that there is an empty expression of good wishes, but no corresponding
action, and not that the destitute brother might warm or satisfy himself. —
(e) Tho remark of Huther in his note on ver. 17 is worthy of special notice:
" From the fact that James calls faith dead if it has not works, it is evident

716 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
that by these works is not meant something which must be added to faith, but
something which grows out of faith; the epya hero treated of are works of
faith, in which are the germs of faith." Paul and James alike have in mind a
working faith, a faith which works through love, which is alive with a living
energy. — ( / ) The objections which Huther urges against raaking the person
referred to in the expression, dll' ipel ng, "a vir sfipiens et intelligens, to. whom
James assigns the part of carrying on the argument in his stead against his
opponent," are worthy of consideration, but they do not appear to be decisive.
His own explanation must be regarded as artificial aud iraprobable. Beyschlag,
in his edition of Huther, rejects Huther's explanation. The use of ulild even in
Paul's writings is such that a somewhat wide range must be given to its mean
ing and force iu some cases. It seeras sometiraes to bo nearly equivalent to our
word nay, as used in sentences of this sort; and to express a contrast, not,
indeed, to tho form of words imraediately preceding, but to an underlying idea
or a suggested thought. If it can bo understood in this way here, the thought
of the sentences moves forward simply and easily. So far from faith, apart
from works, having any living force, a man may say, " Show rae," etc. The
reraark of Huther, that it cannot be perceived why James should express his
own opinion in the person of another, who is entirely indefinite, can hardly be
regarded as of serious importance; for the statement that sorae one, or any one,
may urge what is thus said has a certain force which the same thing presented
as from the writer himself might not have. — The objections to the view which
makes the ng a person who opposes the position taken by Jaraes, seem to be
insuperable. — {g) Ver. 19 is apparently connected with what precedes, and ver.
20 opens tho now stage in the argument, founded upon the case of Abraham,
etc. The article of faith which is fundamental is taken as an example, — the
belief that God is one, — and it is shown, that, without any thing growing out
of it in works and life, it amounts to nothing more than even the demons have.
The verb which is added with regard to the demons {ippiaaovaiv) expresses
apparently the opposite idea to auaat of ver. 14, and the thought moves, in
connection with auaat and its opposite, to the iSiKUiuBy of ver. 21. — (ft) The
justification of Abraham here spoken of is, as we may say, connected with that
of which Paul speaks in Romans, chap, iv., and Galatians, chap, ill., through
the passage in the Epistle to tho Hebrews (xi. 17 f.), where the writer of that
Epistle says, "By faith Abraham, being tried, offered up Isaac," etc. The
offering of Isaac was a fruit of faith, a work growing out of it ; and as viewed
from the side of faith with, or without, works, Abraham was justified by works.
Tho justification would not have been realized, had there been no working
energy in the faith. This working energy manifested itself in action, when
the demand came for the sacrifice.
(i) The statement of ver. 22 accords with and confirms this view of the mat
ter. Faith co-operated with Abrahara's works, in the sense tbat it was the
inspiring principle which caused them to be done; and, on the other hand, it
was itself completed by them in the sense that, if there had been no outworking
force showing itself when the opportunity and summons came, the faith would
have been, and would have proved itself to be, an imperfect and even a dead
thing. It was in this way, and in this sense, that the Scripture passage in Gen.
XV. 6 found its real and perfect fulfilment. In this light of the passage, and
with this explanation, there is no real contradiction between Paul and James.
This very passage of Genesis on which Paul founds his doctrine of justification
by faith was actually fulfilled in the sense that tbe faith was raade coraplete,

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 717
and the justification was assured and made manifest, when the faith had put
forth its living energy iu act. The word ireleiuBy refers to the perfecting of faith
in the realization of its force in action ; the verb inlypCiBy refers, in a similar
way, to the fulfilment of the Scriptural words in the realization and sealing, as it
were, of the justification. — {j) Tho twenty-sixth verso repeats in substance the
statement of vor. 20, or verbatim if we read veKpd instead of dpyy in that verso;
but it adds tho comparison of the body and spirit. The chafacter'of the faith
of which the writer is speaking is most clearly indicated by these two verses.
Tho faith which is entirely apart from works is like tho body without the spirit;
it is apyy, without working energy, because it is w/cpd, having in it no animating
and inspiring force. — (fc) All things in the passage thus combine to show the
truth of what Huther says in his closing reraarks upon the chapter, — naraely,
that James did not design to make an attack upon Paul's doctrine. It does not,
however, seem quite as clear that he may not have referred to sorae misappre
hending or misappropriation of it, or that the Epistle belongs to the earlier
apostolic times. This latter view is, nevertheless, not improbable.
VI.
CHAPTER III.
Vv. 1-12.
1. It is evident that, as Huther says, the writer passes at the beginning of
this chapter to a new subject. Apparently the empty faith which characterized
those whom the preceding chapter had referred to, had the influence which it
often has : as it had no living force and energy leading to tho appropriate
works of the Christian life, it exerted its force, if such it might be called, in the
way of assuming to teach others. Talking and teaching took the place of work
ing. The exhortation which he gives, therefore, follows appropriately after the
passage relating to living and dead faith. — 2. The verb yiveaBe seems to be used
here because the writer would dissuade them from entering upon the course indi
cated. The word nollol is explained correctly by Beyschlag in his edition of
Huther, Be not in great numbers teachers; that is, do not bo seeking the office
and work of teachers, as if this were the thing to be aimed at by the great raass
of Christians. Tho connection of thought in the following verses seeras to be
this: that as we all offend in many points, and the higher the position volun
tarily assumed the greater the condemnation, it is unbecoming to thrust one's
self forward in the way mentioned. Ver. 3 then adds the peculiar danger of
offence as connected with the tongue, — au idea evidently suggested by the desire
of the readers to becorae teachers, but yet it goes beyond this particular subject
to the general matter of the sins of tho tongue. — 3. The suggestion tbat the
man who controls his tongue is able also to control his whole body, is hardly to
be understood in its most direct and full raeaning; but as conveying the idea
that the control of the tongue is so difficult, that one who succeeds in gaining
this will show power enough to make hira equal to the emergency of meeting
the teraptations to sin which come in connection with any other part of the
man. The word hody seems to bo used because tongue, one of tho members of
the body, has been used. This is a sufficient account of its introduction, but it
is possible that the thought of the members of the body as the avenues through
which temptations come into the soul, and appetites and desires go out, may have
been in tho author's mind. — 4. The comparison of ver. 5 has, indeed, a certain
relation to the illustration of ver. 3, as well as that of ver. 4, but its immediate

718 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
reference is evidently to the latter. The words peydla avxel (or, if that be the
true reading, peyalavxel) are regarded by Grimm as denoting a kind of haughty
language which stirs up strife. This would seera to be indicated by the passage
which follows, and may be regarded as the correct view, rather than the view
which would hold that aixel is simply substituted for noiel because the- tongue is
the member spoken of. — 5. Ver. 56 f . unfolds what is suggested by peydla uixel.
The sense of the first ylUov is how small; for, even if this is not the direct
signification of the word as here used, the thought of the whole passage would
lead us to interpret the phrase, how great a fire kindles how great a wood, by
measuring the greatness in tbe forraer case by contrast with that in the latter.
If it is understood otherwise, the sentence is out of harmony with: ihe tongue
is a little member, etc. The word ilyv probably means forest here, as in R. V.
marg., rather than wood, as in R. V. text.
6. As between the construction of ver. 6 given in R. V. text. And the tongue
is afire; the world of iniquity among our members is the tongue, ivhich, etc.,
and that given in R. V. marg.. And the tongue is afire, that world of iniquity ;
the tongue is ainong our members that which, etc., the decision is probably to be
made in favor of tbe former, because in this way the thought of the clauses
best divides itselt. That tbe tongue is a fire, is a statement which naturally
follows upon ver. 56 ,• and as thus following, it has in itself a marked emphasis
and solemnity which arrest attention. Then the thought moves on with a cor
responding solemnity in a sentence which is explanatory of this brief affirmation,
and gives a justification for it: The world of iniquity, the tongue is, etc. Huther
takes the other view on grounds which seera hardly sufficient. He objects to the
construction as difficult, and as isolating too much the first thought, and also
because there is no correct meaning unless the words ij yl. nip are closely con
nected with what follows. There is no difficulty, if the close union with 56 is
noticed, and this close union accounts for what Huther regards as the isolating
of tho first thought. Tho last point made by Huther falls away with the other
two. Beyschlag objects to Huther's explanation, and favors the other. —
7. The word Kbapog, whichever view of the sentence is taken, is undoubtedly used
in tho sense of tbe sum or totality of unrighteousness. The tongue is thus con
ceived of because, in the line of the writer's present thought, it appears as if
the source of all evils. The idea of sum is designedly expressed with greatest
emphasis by the use of this particular word Kbapog, the world. This sum of evil
is in the tongue, making it a consuming fire on every side for the man himself
and for others. — 8. iiaBiararat — On this verb see Additional Notes in the
Amor, edition of Meyer's Commentary on Romans, v. 19. The tongue is set
(or sets itself) in the midst of (among) the members as tbat which, etc. The
sense of KaBiararai as here used is most clearly seen in connection with iv. 4 and
2 Pet. i. 8. It is substantially equivalent to iari (see iv. 4, whore the two verbs
are used in parallel sentences); but possibly has tbe additional idea of: caused
to appear as — shown to be — what it really is. The " is" notion, is, however,
the most prominent one, so far as the truth or fact declared s concerned.
9. The tongue is spoken of as set on fire by Gehenna, apparently because of
the violence of expression given forth by it, and the irapulse given thereby to
various sorts of sin which the writer now has in mind, as he is speaking espe
cially of the tongue. In another connection, and with a more full survey of
sin in all its lines and sources, ho might, no doubt, have limited his expressions
more exactly. — The words iployi.Qovaa rijv rpoxbv ryg yeviaeug have a certain paral
lelism with the preceding participial clause, and so far there is a measure of

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 719
probability that Tpo,t. ^eve'it. refers to the course of tho individual life, — the
wheel of birth or human origin. This probability, however, can hardly be con
sidered as sufflcient in itself to determine the question. Nevertheless, it appears
to tho writer of this note, that, if this view ot the matter is adopted, tho harmony
of the clauses with each other, and tho unity of the thought as presented in
the figures, is raost successfully realized. The only other view worthy of serious
consideration is that of R. V. text: the wheel of nature, the orb of creation (Alf.,
etc.), or that mentioned in Grimm's N. T. Lex. : the wheel of life or existence
(hke the English word "machinery"). — 10. The ydp ot ver. 7 introduces > that
verse and tho following as a justification of the statements which precede, and
especially as a ground for tho strong expression in the last participial clause of
ver. 6. The untamable character of the tongue, its restless evil character, full
of deadly poison, is the evidence that it is set on fire by Gehenna, that it is
moved and impelled in its evil by tho author of evil. The words a restless evil,
full, etc., are to be explained with Winer and Huther as independent, and a
sort of exclamation, rather than as a sentence introduced by it is. — 11. Tho
true explanation of ver. 9 ff. is connected with the fact that these evils and sins
which arise from tho tongue are those which the writer has observed among the
Christian readers whom ho is addressing. They have fallen into sins in this
regard which are illustrative of the power of evil connected with tlie tongue;
and ho warns them of the deadly character of such evil in its possible develop
ment, in order that he may arrest the progress of what may become unconquer
able, if not restrained. Possibly this whole passage may be related to the closing
part of the preceding chapter in the way which seeras to be suggested by Neander,
who says, "Tho show of piety James opposes in all its forms. Such is that
pious cant, in which, along with praise to God in words, are mingled a hateful
censoriousness and bitter denunciation of men, in whom" God's image is to bo
honored. James exposes the inherent inconsistency of such conduct, which to
his view is mere hypocrisy." And he adds, "Thus does James express the
ground-thought of this whole Epistle (in these verses, 9-12), naraely, that all
turns on the inward teraper frora which tho whole life takes its direction."
Tho view of some writers, that ver. 9 is an exemplification of tho restlessness or
unsteadfastness of tho tongue, is much less probable than that which is thus
given, and which takes hold upon the underlying thought of the whole context.
— 12. The word xpv hero seems to refer to that necessity which is connected
with tho fitness of things, and so to be equivalent to our word ought in such
sentences. This contrariety to fitness is set forth by the illustrations which
follow and which are taken from things familiar to all in nature.
VII.
Vv. 13-18.
1. There is apparently a certain connection between tbis passage and the
exhortation of vor. 1, as related to the verses which follow. The claim of
wisdom and knowledge was naturally united with the disposition to become
teachers; and that contentiousness, etc., which accompanied this claim, mani
fested itself, no doubt, in the outspeaking of boasting, and of bitter opposition,
by which the destructive power of the tongue was displayed. There is also, as
we may not improbably be justified in holding, a certain connection with tbe
closing part of chap, ii., such as is indicated in the words of Neander, "As
James has contended against a false faith, unaccompanied by works, so does

720 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
he, in like manner, against that knowledge and wisdom in divine things, which
does not make itself known by a living activity in a corresponding course of
life." In this latter view of the passage, it becomes a third presentation of the
necessity of such correspondence to the true Christian life, faith, speech, wis
dom, all being raanlfested by tbe appropriate outworking of the inner principle.
— 2. The two adjectives aoipbg and imarypuv are bore used, apparently, as in
substance equivalent to each other, the latter being added only as emphasizing
the idea of the forraer. This is indicated by the fact that, in the development
of the thought in the following verses, aofia alone appears. — 3. The substitution
of the word works instead of wisdom, in the second part of ver. 13, is not
improbably to be accounted for in connection with the reference in tho passage
to oppositions and peace as the results of the false and true wisdom. The
readers who were disposed to claim wisdom should show out of — that is, by,
because springing out of — a good manner of life, the corresponding results, in
the particular line here suggested, the opposite of bitter envying and strife;
and they should do this in the sphere ef the working of that meekness which
appertains to wisdom in its truest and genuine sense. The word npairyg, as
hero used, means meekness; but there may be, perhaps, in connection with the
context, a suggestion, in a subordinate way, of the other idea of the word,
namely, gentleness. — 4. The arrangement of the thought in ver. 14 is the
reverse of that in ver. 13. If you claim wisdom, show it in its appropriate
fruits (ver. 13); if, on the other hand, you manifest what is opposite in your
feelings and spirit and acts, do not glory in your wisdom, and lie against the
truth (ver. 14). The opposite results, in the attitude towards one another, to
tbat to which the meekness of wisdom would lead, are jealousy and faction,
or selfish partisanship. The compound verb KaraKuvxdaBe suggests the idea of
glorying in wisdom over against, or to the disparaging or injury of others.
The expression, lie not against the truth, is not in the propor sense tautological;
at least, the addition of the last words is not without a certain solemnity and
eraphasis. The claim of wisdom on the part of such persons was a glorying
against others, and was a lie against the inward truth of the soul, or perhaps,
taking the word objectively, against the truth in tho objective Christian sense,
as Wiesinger holds.
5. The relation of Karepxopivy (ver. 15) to the sentence is shown by its
contrast with inlyeiog. It is a descriptive adjective. The wisdom whose fruit
is jealousy and bitterness is not one that comes down from above, but earthly.
The demonstrative pronoun airy evidently points to the sort of wisdom sug
gested by the words of ver. 14, and the proof which is given in ver. 16 goes
back directly to the language of the fourteenth verse. The adjective inlyeiog is
the direct contrast to dvuBev Kurepxouivy, while the two following adjectives are
added as giving further characteristics which belong to the earthly wisdom.
Tbis adjective in'iyeiog, according to its strict and original raeaning, describes
the wisdom as having its whole existence, its origin and life as it were, on the
earth. It is not connected with, and does not belong in tho sphere of, that
part of the man which has communication with heaven and the Divine Spirit.
It is of the vovc only, as distinguished from the rrviipa. It is ipvxiKy, as
contrasted with nvevpariK-y, belonging to that part of the man, in his intelligent
life, which is open only to the visible and sensible and earthly. It is what
Paul calls the wisdom of this age, and to which he alludes in its contrast with
the higher wisdom which he presents to the full-grown Christians in the
passage dealing with this subject iu the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 721
James, however, adds another descriptive word, SaiuoviuSyg, demon-like, devilish,
because he has prominently in mind, as Paul has not in the passage referred
to, the evil spirit which is connected with this wisdom, and which manifests
itself in jealousy and selfish factiousness. Beyschlag thinks the word does not
mean so much as devilish, which would be SiaSoliKy, — 6. The making promi
nent of OKaraaraaia in ver. 16 is evidently connected with tho manifestation of
this among those to whom he was writing. This word denotes an unstable
and unsettled condition, and may mean more or less in this line of thought,
according to the circumstances or demands of the individual case. Thus in
1 Cor. xiv. 33, its use is suggested by a disorderly condition which might arise
in tbe church meetings, from the too-abundant exercise of the gift of tongues,
without accompanying interpretation; while in Luke xxi. 9, it refers to the
commotions connected with tumults and wars. Here the reference is to that
Which underlies the thought of the whole chapter. — 7. The wisdom from
above is described by a succession of words, the main pointing of which is in
the direction opposite to dKaraaraala, Qylog nupbg, IpiBe'ia, It is first described as
dyvy. This word, at least in its N. T. uso, seems, as Trench remarks, to move
along a somewhat different line frora dytog, which is a kindred word, and to
have in it the idea of purity, rather than of separation and thus consecration
to God. The heavenly wisdom is pure in the large and full sense, it is free from
all that is impure, it is the source of every good thing, not every evil. Tbis is
its first and fundamental characteristic. Then it is eipyviKy, as Grimm renders
tho word, peaceable, pacific, loving peace; InieiKyg, gentle, having a sweet
reasonableness; e-vneiByg, pliant or compliant, easy to be persuaded, not disposed
to contend persistently; peary iliovg kuI Kapnuv I'lyuBuv, full of mercy or com
passionate feeling and good fruits. The suggestion of compassionate feeling
seems to be by way of contrast to tho jealousy, etc., which is the fruit of the
other kind of wisdom. dSidKpirog; this word is rendered by R. V. text, loithout
variance, and by R. V. marg., in two ways, either without doubtfulness, or
without partiality. The decision as to the meaning is difficult, but the choice
seems to lie between the first and second meaning mentioned. The preceding
words are favorable to the first view, tho following word to the second. The
first view seems ou the whole to be preferable, because of the general thought
which apparently occupies the writer's mind, uvvnonpirog, without hypocrisy;
this filial word marks the wisdom as free from all that pretence and falseness
which characterize those who have an empty, dead faith, etc., and who have
been already referred to. — 8. SiKaioaivyg is here used in its ordinary, not in its
peculiar Pauline sense, and the genitive is appositional. This view ot tho
word, which is favored by Huther and others, accords best with the whole
course of thought in the passage. The fruit which springs from the sowing
in character and life is a fruit of right living, when it is sown in the sphere of
peace, in the way and spirit of peace, and such fruit results for those who make
peace. VIII.
CHAPTER IV.
Vv. 1-12.
1. There is a certain abruptness in the opening of this chapter, and yet
evidently a connection between it and that which immediately precedes. The
idea of peace, as related to and the result of the wisdom from above, in con
trast with tlie bitterness, etc., springing from the earthly wisdom, suggests

722 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
tho abrupt and even indignant expressions which now follow. The wars and
fightings refer, no doubt, to violent and unseemly contendings among them
selves; but tbe passage has such a vehemence of denunciatory,rebuko, that we
may believe its expressions to have a rhetorical strength which the writer did
not measure by the literal facts. So when ho uses the word ipoveiere, and Speaks
of the readers as [adulterers and] adulteresses. The connection of sin, as it
outwardly displays itself, with the desire and inward moveraent of the heart, are
set forth as in chap. 1. — 2. The word ySovuv seems to be used in the sense of
desires for pleasure (see ver. 3), and is substituted for iniBvp'iuv, because the
writer has tho idea of ver. 3 especially in mind. These desires for pleasures
war (Alf. says, campaign, have their camp, and, as it were, forage about; and
this is not improbably tbe sense of the word as here employed) in your
members. The following three sentences present tho condition into which
these desires for pleasures bring men; tho going-out of desire without gaining
possession of what is desired ; then, the whole series of evil desires and acts,
from envy or jealousy up to murder; and then, tho fighting and warring which
characterize and raake up the life of a comraunity full of bitter jealousy and
the factious spirit. Having thus set forth the condition, the writer gives the
reason why they do not have the things which may give them satisfaction,
namely, because they do not ask of God except for the purpose of expending
upon their pleasures what they would wish to receive. — 3. The reading
poixalibeg, as against poixol kuI poixa'llSeg, is so strongly supported that it is
probably to be accepted. If so, the feminine form is used, as wo may believe,
because ot tbe relation of the church to God, as presented many times in the
O. T. Tho members of the church are conceived of as, in a sense, sustaining
this sarae relation. Beyschlag also holds that the word refers to the individual
members of the church. The explanatory marginal note added in A. R. V.
gives, accordingly, tho true sense, and is helpful to the comraon reader: " That
is, who break your marriage vow to God." — 4. Know ye not, etc. (ver. 4). —
This confident inquiry which is equivalent, as in similar cases in tho Pauline
Epistles, to an emphatic affirmation of the fact, presses upon the thought ol
the readers, that, if they desire and act after this manner, they cannot expect to
receive any thing from God. The genitives Kbapov and Beov express an objective
relation. The verb iSovlyBy is the word minded of the English version, and
denotes the inclination and disposition as turned in a certain direction.
KaBiararai is evidently parallel with ianv in this verse, and certainly approxi
mates most closely to it in raeaning. The centering of the life in the will, tho
disposition and inclination of the whole inner man, is indicated in this place,
as it is in many parts of the N. T. This is the N. T. doctrine. Tho friendship
of the world is enmity to God; whoever therefore has his mind, set in the
direction of the world is placed by that very fact in the condition of an
enemy of God; he is constituted such by the action of his own will and
purpose; he becomes such ipso facto, and thus is such. Beyschlag holds that
here and in Rom. v. 19, KaBiararai — 'earl, as not unfrequently in classic Greek.
— 5. Or : — this y is like that which we find often in Paul's writings, and intro
duces the following sentence, which is put in the form of a question, as the
only supposition possible, unless the preceding one is admitted; the question
implying that they cannot hold this Supposition. The force of these verses,
therefore, is as follow?: Whoever . . . maketh himself an enemy of God.
This you must admit, or you must suppose that the Scripture speaks in vain
when it says what is in vor. 56. But tbis you cannot suppose.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 723
6. The words of ver. 56 are regarded as a question, according to the render
ing of R. V. text. The exact meaning and translation of this part of ver. 5 are
uncertain, but the second marginal rendering of R. V. gives that which seems,
not improbably, to present the true sense : That Spirit which He made to dwell
in us yearneth for us even unto jealous envy. If this is correct, the idea of the
sentence is in harmony with the context, and with the peculiar construction
with y. Since the Spirit which God makes to dwell in us longs for us oven unto
jealous envy, it must be that the man who is minded to be a friend of the world
will be an enemy of God. — The first marginal rendering of R. V. is that which
Huther prefers, and no serious objection can be urged against it : The spirit
which He made to dwell in us. He yearneth for oven unto jealous envy. In this
case, the subject of the two sentences, 56 and 6a, is the same; and in this fact
an argument may perhaps be found for this view of 56. — 7. The view which
holds that liyei of ver. 5 means says, not speaks, and that tho npbg ifBbvov, K.r.l.,
depends on it, is the simplest and best, — tho explanation being that the writer
gives first the substance of the idea of what tho O. T. says, and then raakes a
particular citation in ver. 66 as supporting the stateraent of ver. 6a. — 8. But
he gives greater grace, i.e., greater because of, and in proportion to, tbis jealous
envy. Wherefore, i.e., it is on account of the fact stated, that the O. T. uses
the language quoted. God gives grace, because of His desire and longing unto
jealous envy, to those whora he loves; but, for the same reason. He resists the
proud. His eneraies, those who are minded to be friends of the world. These
verses thus support and> strengthen that which underlies the suggestions of
ver. 1 ff.
9. Vor. 7 {oiv) draws the conclusion from the preceding context in the form
of exhortations. In the first two of these exhortations there is, in a certain
sense, a corresponding positive and negative, which are in the immediate line
of the preceding thought and expressions. They should submit themselves to
God, and thus, in tho exercise of the humility just alluded to in the O. T. quo
tation, place theraselves in accord with God's yearning desire, and should resist
the Devil, the prince of the world, under whose dorainion they would come by
turning towards friendship with the world. Such resistance will be successful,
for the very reason that to those who submit to God He gives a grace propor
tioned to His desire for thom. To the exhortation to resist the Devil, is added
tho assurance that they will bo successful in their effort, — ho will flee from
them; while on tho other hand, to tbe exhortation to submit themselves to God,
which is now put in another form, though in substance it is tho same thing, is
joined the promise that the corresponding blessing will come: draw near to Hira,
and He will draw near to you. Tho positive and negative sides of the flrst and
fundaraental exhortation are presented in vv. 7, 8a. In ver. 86 wo flnd an exhor
tation to that which is an essential accorapanimont or antecedent of drawing
near to God. This is addressed to sinners and to those who have a double soul
or mind, as it were, divided between God and the world. Apparently, the
writer addresses tho Christian readers thus because qf their non-conformity to
the duties and requirements of their Christian profession, as indicated in tho
preceding part of the Epistle. — 10. The exhortations in ver. 9 set forth what is
necessary with reference to past conduct, as connected with tho cleansing, etc.,
mentioned in ver. 86. These, again, are expressed in the same vigorous, strong
language which characterizes the Epistle throughout: Be wretched, and mourn
and weep; let your laughter be turned, etc. — Tbe word Karyipeia, not found else
where in tho N. T., is compounded of Kara with tjie sense of downward, and ret

724 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
ipdy, the eyes, — with downcast eyes ; and carries with it the idea of humiliation,
i.e., the feeling of humiliation. — The final exhortation returns to the one at the
beginning, and expresses distinctly what is there put in the form of submission,
— Iiumble yourselves in the sight of tlie Lord; and then the promise is, in sub
stance, renewed : and He shall exalt you. Kvp'iov is to bo regarded, with Huther,
as referring to God, not Christ, because of the reference to God throughout the
immediate context.
11. To these exhortations, which move along the line of the main thought
of the chapter thus far, and bring it to its end, tho writer now appends a new
exhortation, not to speak against one another. The connection here is some
what uncertain. Possibly, there is a return to the general thought of conten
tions, etc., at the end of chap. iii. and beginning of chap. iv. ; possibly, he
reminds them that, even in reference to the desires for worldly things, they
should not be too ready to condemn one another. The speaking against in
volves a censorious judgment. The reason given for the exhortation is akin to
that suggested by Paul in Rom. xiv. 4, where the words correspond substantially
with those iu ver. 126 of this chapter. James, however, first introduces the
statements of ver. I16c. The one who speaks against a brother speaks against
and judges the law. Tho law here referred to is the law of love, — that is, either
the Christian law itself, or the O. T. law which is fulfilled and filled out in its
complete meaning, so far as duties to one another are ooncorned, by the loving
one's neighbor as one's self. — 12. The view of Huther respecting vor. lie is to
be regarded as correct. The man who judges tho law^puts hiraself in a position
above the law, and instead of doing what it requires, which is his duty as a man,
he becomes a judge in and of himself, usurping thus a function which does not
belong to him. This function of judge appertains to Him alone who is the law
giver, and who is able to assign tho destiny of men. The words d Svvdpevog,
K,r.l., in the construction of the sentence, belong to the subject, being apposi
tional to and explanatory of eig. The last words of vor. 12, as following these,
press the impropriety of such judgment of one another very emphatically.
IX.
CHAPTER IV. 13 — CHAPTER V. 6.
Vv. 1.3-17.
1. Those verses seem to form one section of the Epistle, which is divided by
the close of chap. iv. into two sub-sections. These two sub-sections have refer
ence, the first to the presumptuous confidence in the certainty of future oppor
tunities for work and success which those devoted to worldly gain seem often to
have; and the second, to tbe oppressions, etc., of selfish rich men, upon whora a
woe is denounced. The connection of this passage with what precedes seems
loss evident than in the case of former passages ; but the thought may be re
garded as following along the general line of the exhortation not to love tho
world, or the things of the world. Whether the rich here alluded to are those
in the church, or outside of it, is a question of some difficulty. Huther takes
the latter view. This harmonizes with the probable reference of nloiaiog, in
chap, ii., and is favored by the fact that the language which the writer uses
appears alraost too strong for any proper application to Christians. At the
same tirae, the Epistle is addressed to Christians, and it would seera that some
application to them must be intended. Perhaps the true view is that the writer

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 725
is addressing professedly Christian rich men, but with tho vigorous and denun
ciatory language which characterizes him, and which is due to his abhorrence
of all worldliness, and his deep sense of its inconsistency with the righteousness
of true Christian living. If this be not the correct view, we may believe that ho
intends, while warning the worldly rich, to apply the sarae admonition to the
Christian readers, so far as any of them may be led away to the same actions
and wrong-doing. — 2. The phrase dye vvv arrests attention, and demands the
thought of the persons addressed upon the subject presented. The repetition
of this phrase in v. 1, inasmuch as it is used nowhere else, seems, as Huther
also suggests, to indicate a close union between the two sub-sections; and per
haps, also, it indicates that the movement of the writer's thought, even from the
beginning of iv. 13, is towards the Klaiaare of v. 1, and the declarations which
follow in the subsequent verses. — 3. The view of Huther with respect to ryvSe,
with which R. V. and some other commentators, as well as Buttmann (N. T.
Gram.), agree, is in all probability correct. The sentence in which this word
occurs may be supposed to contain the very words which the men referred to
would use: having a particular city in mind, they woidd naturally speak of it
as this city.
4. Westcott and Hort adopt the reading which omits Td before rrjg aipwv and
ydp following noia. The meaning thus becomes. You know not of what sort the
life of the morrow will be ; i.e., what will be your condition and circumstances.
The other reading, which separates noia from rijg avpiov, gives to the sentence
more of that nervous force which belongs to this author, and brings out more
distinctly the uncertainty of life. The ydp following nolo is probably to be
omitted. In the following clause, iare is supported by the best authorities.
What sort of thing is your life ? A thing full of uncertainty, for you are a
vapor, appearing for a little time and then vanishing away. That this is the
true sense of the passage, is also indicated by ver. 15, which is founded upon
what is implied in noia y Quy ipuv, — 5. The particle viiv, in ver. 16, seems to be
equivalent to: as the case now stands; as the fact of the case is. The word dla-
Qovelaig denotes the confident boasting and assurance which belong to such pre
sumptuous planning and action as that which has been referred to. All glorying
in such presuraptuousness is wicked. Thus far, he has only called attention to
and rebuked this disregard of God, with reference to the question of tho continu
ance of life. — 6. Ver. 17 evidently contains in its words a general statement;
but by reason of its position at the end of one part of a section of the Epistle, it
must have a particular application to the raatter referred to in the verses imme
diately preceding. The meaning of tho verse, therefore, as here introduced,
must bo, that, inasmuch as they knew what was right in this matter of the
uncertainty of the future, and yet, notwithstanding this knowledge, acted as
they did, they were guilty of actual sin. This verse is introduced by oiv as a
conclusion from what goes before. This conclusion-element in the sentence
seems to belong to the special application, rather than the general truth. The
general truth can hardly be supposed to result as an inference from what has
been hero said about their thoughtlessness and presuraptuousness as to the un
certainty of life. The special application, on the other hand, results naturally,
and tho sentence, as such an inference, becomes an impressive rebuke of their
sin. In this way, also, tho verse becomes a kind of transition passage, carrying
the thought over to the severer rebuke and denunciation which flU the openuig
verses of the following chapter.

726 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
X.
CHAPTER V.
Vv. 1-6.
7. The address now turns to the rich. These are either the same persons
with those addressed in iv. 13, ouly speaking of them in another light, or a
portion of the class there mentioned who had acquired wealth. It would seem
frora the severity of the language here used, as well as frora certain individual
expressions in vv. 4-6, that the writer has in mind persons who were not merely
trading, etc., with presumptuous disregard of the possibility of the ending of
life, or of the power of God over their lives, but were also guilty of oppression,
and other acts of injustice, towards the poor. The passage is denunciatory of
judgment. Precisely what the judgment here referred to is, may be questioned,
— whether the expressions give a figurative presentation of the final condemna
tion which will come upon them from God, or whether, on the other hand, they
refer to the calamities which were expected imraediately to precede the second
coraing of tho Lord, or, if the Epistle was written before that event, those which
were realized in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem. — 8. The simi
larity of this passage in its general style to some of tho denunciatory passages
in the O. T. prophetic writings will not fail to be noticed. The writer of this
Epistle evidently resembled the prophets in character. His words here rise into
the poetic region of the prophetic books, and our interpretation of them is
doubtless to be affected by this fact. The language used, however, plainly indi
cates great calamities impending in the way of Divine judgment, in view of
which they might well do what he calls upon them to do, naraely, weep and
howl tor the miseries that were just before them. The present participle
inepxopivaig, as woll as the expressions, in the last days, ver. 3, and. Be patient
until the coming of the Lord, implies the nearness of the things to which he
refers, and tho two last-mentioned expressions show that they wore those
which preceded the Lord's coming.
9. The things raentioned in vv. 2, 3, are the calamities or the results of the
calamities. Their riches waste away and are destroyed, and this destruction
will be a testiraony of the destruction which awaits themselves. The connec
tion of (if TT'jp with the following words, which is favored by Westcott and Hort,
seems much less simple and natural than the connection with what precedes.
The latter view of tho sentences is adopted by R. V., A. V., and most of the
recent interpreters. The references to O. T. passages, which Huther makes in
his note, are sufflcient to establish the probability of this view. — 10. The ex
pression. You are laying up treasures in the last days, is apparently to be under
stood as meaning that tbey were doing that which was unsuitable and wrong:
it was the time for repentance, and taking heed to tho coramands of God. —
11. Frora this reference to tho destruction and worthlessness of their riches in
the times of judgraent, the writer turns to the setting-forth of some of the
wrongs or sins of which they were guilty, and which would bring the judgment
as their result. Mention is made of throe of these, as Huther remarks in his
notes; namely, injustice and oppression as related to the laborers employed by
them, their wanton luxury and self-indulgence, and their condemnation of the
righteous. The flrst two of these points stand in contrast to each other. The
third has reference apparently to anotlier subject, their treatment of the right
eous servants of God ; and by reason of tho words of the seventh verse, we may

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 727
believe that some of the Christian readers raay have been sufferers from this
treatment. — 12. The view of Huther, which makes a certain kind of parallelism
between in the last days (ver. 3), and in the day of slaughter (ver. 5), and thus
refers the latter to the time of the Divine judgment, appears, on tho whole, to
be the correct view. — 13. The expression rbv S'ikuiov is undoubtedly tho singular,
individualizing, as we may say, the plural. This use of the singular is in
accordance with tho style of the passage, — the denunciatory and prophetico-
pootic style. An especial emphasis is gained by this individualization. The
language here used might fitly be employed as describing the experience of
Christ; but the definiteness of the application of all the other phrases in these
verses to the particular rich men whom tho writer has in mind, and the exhor
tation of the following verse, which is addressed to the particular Christian
readers to whom the letter is written, show that it does not refer to Him.
XI.
Vv. 7-12.
1. This passage contains (vv. 7-11) an exhortation to patience, which is
drawn as an inference or conclusion (oiv) from the verses which precede.
These verses present the idea of the condemnatory judgment of God against the
rich oppressors as speedily approaching. In the last clause of the sixth verse,
the idea of tho non-resistance of the righteous who suffer from the oppressions
and persecutions is presented. The exhortation, however, passes beyond the
limits of these particular evils, to all the trials and sufferings to which, as
Christians, they were at that time exposed, and urges the readers to endure
them patiently, and also, bravely to persevere until the coming of the Lord.
This is urged upon them by tho example of the tiller of the soil, who watches
for the growth of the seed which he has planted, and waits patiently for the
two seasons of rain. In the same way as he exercises patience, the readers
should have it, steadfastly enduring until the end; and they should strengthen
and establish their hearts in confidence, because the coming of the Lord (has
drawn near) is near at hand. This repeated reference to the nearness of the
coming of the Lord, and the striking distinctness of the language used, make
this passage one of the prominent ones in the N. T., as bearing upon the
question of the view of tho apostolic writers as to the time of that event. It
must bo admitted that it would seem strange to exhort the members of a
Christian church, in our day, to have patient endurance, with respect to the
trials befalling them, until the parousia, the coming of the Lord. The
ordinary preacher does not regard that event as near enough to make it
natural for him to employ such language. The question, which is one of
much interest, must be determined by a careful and candid examination of
each passage in which reference is made to the subject, and by a comparison
of what are in this way discovered to be the views and expectations of tho
several N. T. writers. It is clear, from the declaration made by Christ in Acts
i. 7, that the exact time of the coming was not revealed to tho disciples. How
early they placed it, can only be decided by what they say, and the general tenor
of their teaching on the subject.
2. The verb arypi^are expresses, in substance, the opposite or affirmative,
which corresponds with the puKpoBvpycare, as setting forth the more negative
side of the same idea. They should endure with patience until the coming of
the Lord, and should establish their hearts in strength and confidence because

728 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
it was at hand. — 3. Tho exhortation of vor. 9, by reason of its position between
vv. 7, 8, and vv. 10, 11, must be in the line of thought of all these verses. The
murmuring against one another, referred to, is apparently an unfavorable judg
ment or accusation of which the Christian readers were guilty in their relation
to each other. Huther thinks that this murmuring was the result of an irrita
bility towards one another incident to the experience of all in the oppressions of
the rich. Whether this limitation is to be accepted, is doubtful, though it may
bo suggested by the early verses of the chapter. It would not, however, be out
of accordance with the custom of tho N. T. writers, in such passages, to pass
from the particular case first mentioned to other cases of a more general char
acter. The correspondence of the thought here with that in Matt. vii. 1 is
noticed by many, and is quite raanifest. — 4. Tho expression, "Behold, the judge
stands before the doors," must be understood, in the connection of tho verses, as
involving the idea which is suggested by the last words of ver. 8. The judge is
Christ. — 5. Ver. 10 passes in its thought over ver. 9 to vv. 7, 8, and belongs
in connection with the idea of the verb puKpoBvpelv of those verses. The em
phatic position of inbSeiypa is thus accounted for. The example of the prophets
should influence the readers to endure with patience, as, in another way, the
waiting of the husbandmen should influence them to the same end. In pre
senting this inbSeiypa of panpoBvpia, the writer speaks of it also as an example of
KOKonaBlag, the suffering of evil, because it was tho enduring patience under sim
ilar circumstances or experiences which he would press as the ground ot his
exhortation. The prophets, who are here,, no doubt, the prophets of the O. T.,
are spoken of as those ot ildlyaav iv ru bvbpan roi Kvplov, By those words, the
writer apparently intends not merely, as Huther holds, to mark them as stand
ing opposed to the world, as the readers do, but as persons who were especially
honored of God by the commission to speak in His name, and yet were subjected
to the experience of suffering. — 6. The text of tho best authorities, in ver. 11,
reads inopelvavrag; and this seems tho more natural reading in this place, where
the preceding reference is to the prophets, aud the following one is to Job. It
is of the O. T. examples of patient endurance that the writer speaks. The fact
that we count these heroic raen of the past happy, is a reason why we should
imitate them in their paKpoBvp'ia and inopovy. — 7. Tho case of Job is added as
the raost prominent one in the O. T., in that tho story of it fills tho entire book
bearing his name, and every hearer {ijKoiaare) of the O. T., as it was read in the
synagogues, must have been impressed by it. In a peculiar manner also,
the record of it gave the resultant blessing from God, in connection with wliich
the paKufuapbg which we utter is pronounced. The word inopovy here, as in all
other places, means more than patience: it carries in it the idea of steadfast
endurance under, and notwithstanding, all trials or sufferings. — 8. The end of
the Lord is to be understood, with Huther, as the end which God gave him
after, and as the result of, his patient endurance. The question as to whether
elSere or iSere is the true reading, is one of some difficulty, owing to the nearly
equal weight of external authorities on both sides. The most simple way of
understanding the sentence, however, would seem to bo that which raakes the
whole a reference to the knowledge or conviction connected with the case of
Job ; and, if this be the case, elSere (corresponding with ijKoiaare) and the union
of this verb with the preceding words, would appear to bo the most probable
text and construction of tho sentence. Tho particle on is to be understood as
meaning that or how that. This explanation accords with the rendering of the
sentence which is given in R. V. The verb ianv of the last clause of the verse
is the prepositional present.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 729
9. The tenth verse property forms a paragraph in itself, and introduces a
new subject. The phrase npb ndvruv presents the exhortation with respect to
swearing as one which the writer would especially impress upon his readers.
Whether these words, however, can be pressed so far as to involvo the idea that
the writer would insist upon this as tho first and most urgent exhortation of
the whole Epistle, may bo questioned. — 10. The similarity of this verse to
Matt. V. 34-36 is very striking, and is noticeable in several points: (a) p^
bpviere (James), p^ bpbaat blug (Matthew); (6) neither by heaven, nor by the
earth (James and Matthew); nor by any other oath (James); nor by Jerusalem,
nor by thy head, giving examples of other oaths (Matthew) ; yru Si ipuv rb vol,
vai, Kal rb ov, ov (James); iaru Se b Ibyog vpuv vai vai, oi oi (Matthew). There
can scarcely be a doubt that James bases his language here on that of Jesus.
The same question arises here as in Matthew, whether tho intention is to
prohibit all oaths, or only the oaths which were frequent in daily conversation.
It will be observed that in both cases (Matthew and James), the swearing
by God is not mentioned, unless — which seems improbable — it is included by
James under the phrase by . any other oath. It will also be observed that the
passage in Matthew indicates a feeling of the solemnity of an oath by God on
the part of tho Jews, which might naturally exclude this from the oaths
referred to and prohibited. The fact that solemn asseverations are added to
simple assertions by tho N. T. writers themselves, at times, may also indicate
that an absolute prohibition of every thing beyond the mere yea and nay was
not intended. At the sarae tirae, in the perfected state of the Divine kingdom,
it can hardly be supposed that oaths will be known; and laws such as those in
Matt, v., which are expressive of tho inmost principles of the Divine govern
ment, set forth what is according to the standard of that perfected state. The
question is certainly one of no inconsiderable difficulty. The view of Meyer,
Bleek, etc., is that Christ's prohibition is absolute and universal; and with them
Beyschlag seems to agree substantially, so far as the universality of the prohi
bition is concerned. These writers (Meyer, Bleek, etc.) hold that it has reference
to the ideal state of His kingdora, "while in the present incomplete temporal
condition of Christianity, as well as in the relation to the world in which it is
placed, and to tho existing relations to public law to which it conforms itself,
the oath has its necessary indeed, but conditional and temporary, existence."
It would seem that James must bo speaking with a more particular reference to
practical evils surrounding him, and not so rauch from tho standpoint of the
ideal state of tho kingdom, and that he therefore has in mind the oaths used
in ordinary life and conversation. — 11. As forthe construction of rb vai, vai,
K,r,l,, in this verse in James, it is certainly possible to take the sentence either
as R. V. text or as R. V. margin has it: either, let your yea be yea, and your
nay, nay; or, let yours be the yea, yea, and the nay, nay. Westcott and Hort
apparently understand the words in the latter way. If the latter view be
adopted, the correspondence with Matthew is closer than it is on the other
explanation; but, taken in the former way, the difference between James's
sentence and Christ's, as given by Matthew, belongs rather to the accidents,
than to the essentials of the prohibition. Perhaps tho best explanation is that
given by R. V. marg., and the article may refer to the well-known expression,
yea, yea, nay, nay, in the Sermon on the Mount. — 12. The clause 'tva . . ,
¦niayre is not found in Christ's words, but it expresses what may be easily
inferred frora thera. The judgment here referred to is the condemnatory
judgment of God.

730 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

XII.
Vv. 13-20.
1. These closing verses of the Epistle call the attention of the readers to
several points which have no immediate connection with ver. 12, or with the
verses which precede that verse. Their connection with one another, it may
be added, is not very close and immediate. The flrst exhortations have
reference to the opposite experiences of suffering or sickness, and of joy or
gladness. Both in suffering and joy the expression of the heart is to bo
directed towards God, either iu prayer or the singing of psalms. Then the
words turn to the case of sickness. Here the elders are to be called in,
apparently as connecting the earnest desire of the church with that of the sick
person. The prayers of the elders are regarded as the efficacious element in
the case (ver. 15); how far the anointing with oil is looked upon as having
healing power, is not raade clear. The assurance of healing is given in an
absolute way; but all such sentences with regard to the reraoval of physical
evils, etc., need to be interpreted with a constant remembrance of the suprem
acy of the will and wisdom of God. Tho word save is almost certainly to be
taken, with Huther, in the sense of: will lead to his recovery frora the sickness.
This is indicated by the following clause: the Lord will raise him up, as well
as by the fact that the forgiveness is spoken of, in the closing sentence of the
verse, as if a distinct thing. — 2. oiv of ver. 16 makes this verse a conclusion, or
inference, drawn from tho preceding. Neander says that as James "regards
the presbyters in the light of organs of tho church, so he holds all other
Christians in such a relation, as raembers of one body, that they should
mutually pray for one another in bodily and spiritual need, should confess
their sins to one another, and pray for the forgiveness of each other's sins."
The close connection ot this verse with ver. 15 seems to raake it probable that
Huther was right in his earlier editions of his coramentary, in making laByre
refer to tho healing of physical muladies, but it is possible that tho author of
the Epistle means to give this word a wider range of meaning. — 3. R. V. agrees
with Huther in translating ivepyovpevy (ver. 17), in its working. The example
of Elijah is introduced, as is that of Job a few verses earlier, and als'o that of
the prophets, because it was an instance of the remarkable power of prayer
which occurred in the history of one of the great characters of the O. T.
times, and was well known to all from the reading of the . O. T. in the
synagogues. The explanation of the difference in the counting of time between
James and the O. T., referred to by Huther as favored by Benson, would seem,
on the whole, to be a satisfactory oue. It is evident, at all events, that Luke
(iv. 25) and James have the same statement as to the tirae, and we raay believe
that, in some way, the three years and a half wore recognized, at this period, as
the interval in question. The error, if it be such, is not at all vital to the point
here in hand. What Huther has to say, in his note, respecting the twofold
prayer of Elijah, is sufficient to meet any difficulty that may be suggested. —
4. The final exhortation of the Epistle has reference, apparently, to the Christian
brother who has been led astray from the truth. This is indicated by iv ipiv,
and its position in the sentence. The connection with the general exhortation
to pray for one anothoris thus natural, and the words are in the same line of
brotherly love. — The multitude of sins covered in the case supposed are those
of the one who is restored from his wanderings. — Tho closing of the Epistle

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 731
with these words seems abrupt, but is perhaps such as we might have looked for,
from tho character of tho writer, as we see it manifested in the whole course
of the letter. It is an abruptness which leaves the reader with an urgent
bidding to help and to save.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.

XIII.
CHAPTER L
Vv. 1, 2.
1. The general characteristics of tho salutation correspond with those of
Paul's Epistles; yet there are certain peculiarities, as, indeed, there are in the
different letters of that apostle. The correspondence in phraseology with what
is found in the Pauline Epistles is in many places in this Epistle noticeable
aud striking; and there is considerable evidence in connection with this fact to
show that Peter may have been a reader of some of those Epistles, and have
been affected in his own writing by them. — 2. The persons addressed are
evidently Christians {iKleKro'ig), and Christians living in Gentile regions where
the Jews were scattered. That tho readers were not wholly of the Jewish-
Christian body, is indicated by several passages in tho Epistle (e.g., i. 14, ii. 10);
but it would seem probable that they were partly or mainly such, and that they
may be described as they are, because they were in places whither Jews had
gone forth from their own land, and where they had found a dwelling-place.
They are described also as napeniSypot, that is, persons who come from another
country to a particular region to dwell there beside the natives of the region.
Tliey are looked upon thus as strangers in the districts alluded to, belonging to
the class who had gone thither from Palestine, and were Christian converts.
— 3. The word iKleKrolg is defined and further developed in its idea by three
phrases: (a) Kard npoyvuaiv Beoi narpbg, the election was in accordance with the
foreknowledge of God the Father; the word npbyvuaiv denoting foreknowledge,
and carrying back the choice of these persons to be recipients of the great
Divine blessing to that foreknowledge of God, which, in the order of thought,
preceded His pro-determining purpose and decree. — (6) iv dyiaapu nveiparog,
the election moved, so to speak, to its result in the sphere of sanctification
which comes from the Holy Spirit. — {c)eig inuKoyv koI j)aanapbv aiparog 'I, X.,
the end in view of tho election was obedience and sprinkling, etc. The obedi
ence here spoken of seems to indicate the moral side of the Christian life, the
result of faith as it works through love, and the sprinkling, etc., to the side of
Divine forgiveness and the cleansing power of the blood of Christ. The two
things together make up the full idea of the Christian life as viewed on the
subjective and objective side. — 4. The last sentence of ver. 2 introduces the
word nlyBvvBe'iy, which we do not find in tho Pauline salutations. As Huther
remarks, however, this word occurs in 2 Pet. i. 2, and Jude 2, and it may
perhaps be suggestive as to tho relations of the three Epistles to one another.

732 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
XIV.
Vv. 3-12.
1. The opening words of ver. 3 are found in Eph. i. 3, with a similar con
struction of 6 with a past participle following immediately afterwards. Paul,
however, turns the thought of the reader, in connection with the ascription of
praise, especially towards the choice and fore-ordination of God, which Peter has
alluded to in his words of salutation. Peter directs his attention rather to hope
and the future inheritance, as connected particularly with the resurrection of
Christ from the dead. God is spoken of as having begotten us again to a living
hope, etc., by which the apostle seeras to mean that the new life into which we
are brought by the Divino influence, so far as it moves out into the sphere of
hope of the future blessedness in heaven, is made a real experience to us by
means of the resurrection of Christ. The hope is called living, because it "has
vital power in itself, and exerts the same upon tho soul" (Thayer's Grimm's
Lex.). — 2. The preposition eig, at the beginning of ver. 4, is, in a certain sense,
parallel with the same preposition in ver. 3, and in a certain sense it is not.
Grammatically, and in the construction of the long sentence, it is so; but in the
thought, the hope looks forward to the inheritance, and we are begotten of God
to a hope which is realized finally in the actual possession of the inheritance. —
3. The verb rypiu seems to be used here in the sense of dnoKeipai in Col. i. 5,
2 Tim. iv. 8. The inheritance is kept in reserve in heaven during the period of
hope. Huther holds that tho perfect participle here suggests tho idea of the
nearness of tho tirae when the inheritance will be received, but this raay be
pressing the force of tho tense too far. — 4. The word ippovpovpevovg is used in
Gal. iii. 23 of those who wore kept in ward, in a kind of guardianship, until the
faith-systera should be fully revealed. Tho condition under tho law was pre
paratory and educational with reference to the gospel. Here the idea seems
rather to be that of preservation by being guarded, and thus protected from
dangers and disaster, with a view to, and until tho attainment of, the blessing
designed for us in the future. The word is the same as that which is used by
Paul of tho guarding of the city of Damascus to prevent his escape. The foun
dation meaning is tho sarae in all cases, but the peculiar shade of meaning or
the special application is deterrained by the context. The guarding takes place
in the sphere of God's power: it is accoraplished by the exercise of tbat power.
It is accoraplished also by means of faith, in that faith in the person guarded is
that by means of which God is able, in accordance with His plan of salvation,
to keep hira safe until the end. — 5. The preposition eig before aurypiav carries
with it, perhaps, both tho idea of for and until ; or it raay mean with reference
to, leaving tho idea of until to be suggested by the sentence as a whole. A
salvation (B. V.), rather than salvation (A. V.), is to be understood as the
meaning of aurypiav. The phrase ready to be revealed answers to the idea of
tho participio reserved (ver. 4).
6. The phrase ev Kuipu inxdru evidently refers to the time of the final realiza
tion of salvation; that is, the time of the ending of the world, and of the second
coming of Christ. Tho ending of the a'lijv oirog was to be followed by the
entrance of the saints upon tho consumraated blessedness of the kingdora. — 7.
The question as to the reference of the relative li of ver. 6, as it seems to the
writer of this note, is to bo determined in connection with that respecting the
present or future sense of dyallidaBe, If the verb is to be regarded as a present,
the relative more naturally refers to the thought of the preceding sentence ; but

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 783
if the verb has a future sense, u refers most probably to iaxuru Kaipu. That tho
verb is a future in sense, or, rather, the present carried forward to the future
standpoint, is not certain; but this seeras, on the whole, to bo the most probable
supposition. It is certainly more difficult to explain the aorist participle Ivny
Bevreg, the use of dpn, the participles Ko/uQbpevot (ver. 9) and SeSo^aapevy (ver. 8),
if the verb has the full present sense in this verse and ver. 8, than if it is the
present as of a future tirae. If 1.5 refers to Kuipu iaxuru, this carrying forward
of the present in ver. 6 is somewhat easily accounted for: and yet it raust be
admitted, that in both verses a future tense would be more natural if the
intended meaning were future; and in vor. 8, the immediate connection be
tween dyandre, which is an undoubted present in signification, and dyallidaBe,
furnishes an arguraent of considerable force for the present sense in the case of
the latter verb. Tho confidence with which sorae writers affirra the future sense
passes beyond tbe state of the arguments on the two sides. At the most, there
is but a certain greater measure of probability in favor of this view. — If dyalli
daBe of ver. 6 is to be taken as the ordinary present, the aorist IvnyBivreg is best
explained as referring to an actual experience of trial and temptation which had
befallen the readers in the past, and out of which they had now corae. In this
case, iv li is best translated wherein, referring to the words, a salvation, etc., of
the preceding verse. — 8. On the word SoKipiov, see Note II. 4, on Jas. i. 3. —
9. Tho construction of the adjective nolvnpbrepov is somewhat doubtful. Huther
takes it with eipeBy, and tho points which he urges against its appositional con
nection with Td SoKipiov ipuv ryg mareug are worthy of serious consideration. By
reason, however, of the position of this adjective and its accompanying words in
the sentence, and the fact that e'lg inaivov, k,t.1,, forms a sufficient defining phrase
for the verb, it seems, on the whole, better to give the adjective the appositional
relation referred to, as is done by R. V. and A. V. This apposition is with
SoKipiov grammatically, but in thought it is with the compound idea approved
ness of faith, if this meaning be given to the phrase, or with nlareug, if SoKipiov
is regarded as meaning proof or proving. More probably the former meaning is
to be given to Sok, r, mar, ; and thus approved faith, or tested faith, is declared to
be a more precious thing than gold that perishes. Tho force of Si SoKipaQopivov
is probably not tliough it is tried by fire, but and, or and yet, etc. The fact that
gold, a thing which perishes, is tested by fire, is put In comparison with faith;
and thus is suggested the idea of the naturalness of such testing by trials, and
even fiery trials, as has been alluded to in the case of the Christian believer.
The verb eipeBy is equivalent here to be proved or shown to be. [Kiihl holds that
the moaning of SoKipiov is means of testing or proving. He regards the thought
of the apostle as in substance this: If Are has value as a means of testing,
because by it gold, which is perishable, is proved to be a precious thing; much
more value must the linai or sufferings have as a means of testing, inasmuch
as by thera faith, an iraperishable thing, is proved to be real faith.]
10. The apparent parallelism of dyandre and dyallidaBe, when we consider
these verbs in themselves, and in connection with the participles inserted be
tween them, constitutes a strong argument for regarding the latter verb as fully
present in its signification, like the former. The following participles, SeSo-
iaapivy and KopiQbpevoi, point toward tho future sense. Tho adjective avsKlalgjru
is claimed by Keil to have, as distinguished from appyru or dlalyru, a meaning
more suited to describe the future heavenly joy, inexpressible, unspeakable, too
great to be expressed in human language. In view ot these last points, it
indeed the last of all be admitted, and of the considerations connected with

734 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
ver. 6, there is a soraewhat greater probability that the future sense is to be given
in both cases to dyiiiJlidaBe, than that it refers to a present experience. [Kiihl
regards the verb dyallidaBe, in both verses, as present in signification.] — 11. The
explanation of rilog and aurypiav given by Huther is correct. The forraer word
means that to which faith is directed, that to which it looks and in which it
ends; the latter, the completed salvation, salvation in its fully realized state in
eternity, that salvation which is revealed in the last time. — 12. The object of
vv. 10-12 seems to be to set forth with emphasis before tho minds of the readers,
what a glorious and precious thing the assurance of this salvation, as before
them in the future, is, by calling to their remembrance the earnest searching
and inquiry of the O. T. prophets with reference to it. The prophets are
described as having prophesied respecting tho grace which " was destined for,
or was to come to, you:" that is, tho believers of tho Christian period, to which
number tho readers of the Epistle belonged. They were thus enlightened as to
what was to come (the X'tptg roi Qeoi), though they did not understand it in all
its fulness. But they were not enlightened as to the time and circumstances, —
they were searching into the depths of an unsolved and unrevealed problem,
when they inquired what and what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which
was in them did point unto, when it testified, etc. The rule of prophecy, as we
may call it, both in the O. T. and tbe N. T., was to reveal to tho prophet, more
or less clearly, the matter to which the prophecy had reference, but to conceal
the time, — both riva, what it should bo, and Troiov of what sort, with what
attendant circumstances, surroundings, etc. , otc. This fact may have an impor
tant bearing on the question as to whether the apostles raay, or raay not, in con
sistency with the fact of their inspiration, have been under a raisapprohension
with respect to tho time of the second coming. We may reraoraber that Jesus
Himself said to them (Acts i. 6), "It is not for you to know the times or the
seasons, which the Father has sot within His own authority." — 13. Tho expres
sion, the Spirit of Christ, as used in this passage, is, like tbe expression in 1 Cor.
X. 4, tlie rock was Christ, an indication that tho apostles believed in the pre-
existence of Christ. — 14. The expression rd eig Xpiarbv naBypara is to be regarded
as referring to the sufferings which were destined or appointed for Christ Him
self, and the glories (plural) correspond with the sufferings. The Spirit testified
within these prophets, and through them, of these experiences awaiting Christ,
and He also revealed to thom the fact that in their ministration of these things,
— that is, their fulfilment of the prophetic office in announcing what was made
known to their minds, — they were doing this work for those who should follow
in the Christian period. The things which they prophesied are those which
had been now announced to the readers by the same Holy Spirit, through the
preachers of the gospel.
XV.
Vv. 13-25.
1. Sio, with which this passage opens, refers backward to the general thought
of the preceding verses. This thought is that of the certainty and assurance of
the salvation which was ready to be revealed in tlie last time. In view of this
thought, the exhortations of the Epistle, which begin at the thirteenth verse,
are urged. The passage from ver. 3 to ver. 12 is introductory in its character,
like the introductions of the Pauline Epistles; and, like thera, it is opened by
an ascription of praise to God for His goodness in bestowing the blessing
which is especially referred to. — 2. The exhortations begin with one which-

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 73,5
urges hope upon the readers {elnlaare). This is the fundamental exhortation
of the Epistle, as the idea of hope is its fundamental idea. With this verb,
according to Huther and most commentators, the adverb TE;iEtuf is to be con
nected. This is probably the correct view of the matter, and tho exhortation
is to have a hope which has no intermingling of doubt or fear. Westcott and
Hort join the adverb with vyipovreg; but there seems to bo no special reason for
adding tho word to this participio, for being sober, in such a case, necessarily
carries with itself the idea of being perfectly sober. This participle in the
present tense indicates that sober-mindedness is to bo the permanent abiding
state in which the fulfilraent of the more special exhortation should (aorist
participle and imperative) take place. The aorist iln'iaare, followed by enl
with the accusative, is well translated in R. V. by set your hope perfectly on
Vie grace, etc. — 3. That the view of Huther, with respect to the phrase the
grace, etc., is correct, is shown by the principal indications of the verse itself,
and of the preceding context: thus the verb hope, and tho expression set
your hope on, which point to the future; tho revelation of Jesus Christ, which
is the revelation at His second coming; tho connection through Stb with the
preceding verses, which point forward to tho future; and tho third verse, which
gives the keynote to the thought of the entire passage which it opens. The
words xupiv and ipepopivyv, which are urged against this view, are reconcilable
with it in tho way suggested by Huther. — 4. Vor. 14 introduces a second
exhortation, subordinate to this first and leading one; an exhortation, the
development of which is carried forward as far as the end of the twenty-first
verse. This exhortation is to holiness. They should live, not after their former
manner before their conversion, but in accordance with that holiness which God
Himself set before them, and called thera to. The passage opens with a call
upon them to act in this way, because it was befitting that Christians should
do so. As Christians, they were, and should be, children of obedience, tbat is,
persons whose source of character is obedience, whose distinctive characteristic
this is; and as such persons, they should live after the manner which is indi
cated, because this is tho coraraand of God. The word avaxrjpariQbpevoi is parallel
with Kard rbv Kal. . . . dyiov, in tho way of contrast, and gives the idea of raanner;
but it seems necessary to connect it with yevyByre, or a word suggested by that
verb, instead of taking it as Huther does. — 5. The siraplest and most natural
construction of Kara rbv . . . uyiov {-ver. 15), is that of R. V. marg., by which
dyiov is regarded as a noun, and Kaliaavra as a descriptive adjective. This
construction seems, also, to give the simplest character to the sentence: Like, or
after the pattern of, the Holy One who called you, do you also becorae holy,
etc., because it is written, Ye shall be holy, for I am holy. [Kiihl regards Sib of
ver. 13 as referring either to vv. 10-13, or to the whole thought of the preceding
passage. He agrees with Huther in connecting releiug with elnlaare. With
respect to ipepopivyv he holds a different view from Huther, regarding it as a
present participle in sense, as well as in form, and taking ev unoKali-ipet in close
connection with xupv". He thus would not carry forward the thought wholly
into the future, but would centre it upon the present and permanent manifes
tation of grace.]
6. Ver. 17 connects with the exhortation of vv. 14-16 another, which seeras
to be subordinate to it, and, strictly speaking, a part of it. The holy raanner
of living involves, in our relation to God, that we should live, during this
sojourn on earth, in that fear which bears in reraerabrance the thought of Him
as an irapartial judge. This fear has reference to sin, and thus the exhortation

736 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
is a part of the general one, to live the holy life. The time of the sojourning Is
mentioned, apparently, with a view to tho critical character of it, as related to
the final result; and perhaps, also, with reference to the brevity of it, as pre
ceding the tirae of judgraent. — 7. Ver. 18 gives a reason for the preceding
exhortation, by reminding the readers of their knowledge that they were
redeemed from their vain manner of life by the precious blood of Christ. It
cost the blood of Christ to buy them out of their former way of living ; surely
they should with holy fear follow the opposite way of living, now that they had
been called of God. — 8. The former raanner of life is spoken of as handed
down frora the fathers. This word narponapaSbrov, and also tho word para'iag,
seem more adapted to describe Gentiles (heathen) than Jews (persons educated
under the O. T. ); but they do not prove that the readers must have been
Gentiles. — 9. The reference in the word lamb (ver. 19) to Isa. liii. 7, supposed
by Huther, is not improbably the correct reference. This seeras to be the
reference intended in Jolm i. 29. The placing of the words ug dpvov, K.r.l,,
before the word Xpiaroi, seems to give an eraphasis both to them and to it. —
10. The participle npoeyvuapivov corresponds with the substantive npoyvuaiv of
ver. 1. In both cases, the word is chosen which carries back the fore-ordination
to the foreknowledge, and the meaning, accordingly, is not fore-ordained, in the
strictest sense of that word. In the formation of tho Divine plan, the mission
and sacrifice of Christ we're foreseen and foreknown, as involved in the plan,
and were predetermined in its adoption. This was before the foundation of the
world, in eternity past; the manifestation of Christ was in the closing period
of the aiHv oirog, the end of the tiincs. — 11. The manifestation of Christ is
declared to have been raade on account of tho readers as believers, and to the
end that their faith and hojDe might be in God. At the end of the passage,
the thought is thus brought back to the point from which the beginning was
made in ver. 13. Huther agrees with Weiss and others, against the majority
of commentators, in translating Hare rijv manv ipuv kuI ilniSa eig Qebv; so that
your faith is (may be) at the same tirae hope in God. If this rendering is
adopted, — and it would seera not improbable that it should bo, — the return to
the idea of hope, which is that of ver. 13, and the governing one of the Epistle,
becomes more eraphaticaUy marked. [Kiihl remarks that the words redeemed
from your vain manner of life, etc., do not present tho idea of tho ransoming
from guilt by the payment of a price, as elsewhere in the N. T. ; but of ran
soming from tho slavery to sin. The sinful life held the readers as slaves before
their conversion. Of the word npoeyvuapivov, he says that tho meaning is,
foreknown as the one who alone would be qualified to be the Messiah and
Redeemer. He agrees with Huther in his construction of the clause wote,
K.r.l., of ver. 21.]
12. The third exhortation given in vv. 22-25 may also be regarded as, in a
sense, subordinate to that of ver. 14, which exhorts to holiness ; but it is not as
fully so as is the second one, that of vv. 17-21. Tho connection with the idea
of ver. 14 ff. seems to be indicated by the flrst words of ver. 22. These words
point to purification through obedience as preparatory to the fulfllment of the
duty of loving one another. The preposition £('f denotes the end in view of
tho puriflcation, this particular end being mentioned because of the exhorta
tion which is to follow. The adverb iKrevug means, as Alford has it, with the
energies on the stretch. On this word, and on iK Kapbiag, as Huther remarks,
the chief emphasis lies. — 13. The participle dvayeyevvypivoi is equivalent to:
since you are (have been) born again of incorruptible seed. This incorruptible

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 737
seed is best taken as referring to the spiritual force, the Divino Spirit, which is
the originating power of the new life. This power works through the word of
God. The grounds mentioned by Huther, as opposing this view, do not seem
to be decisive against the general indications of tho N. T., that the Holy Spirit
is the origin of the spiritual life. The word of God, which hero means the
gospel, is spoken of as living and abiding, as, in tbe O. T. citation, it is said
to abide forever. The force of these words is indicated by tbe contrast set
forth in the cited passage. They suggest the permanent and ever-continuing
energy of that power by means of which the Spirit brings about the new life in
the soul. [Kiihl regards ver. 22 as beginning a now section which extends as far
as ii. 10, the thought of ver. 22 being resumed in ii. I, after the long quotation
from the O. T. He assents to Huther's view, that the seed rotors to the word of
God, and not to the Spirit. He holds, with Huther, that iKrevug dyanyaare is to
be understood as conveying tho twofold idea of perseverance and intensity;
and he regards the latter as the fruit of the living word, and the former, of
the abiding word.]
XVL
CHAPTER IL
Vv. 1-10.
The beginning of this chapter is immediately connected with the close of
tbe preceding one, oiv, therefore, referring backward to the idea expressed in
dvayeyevvypivoi, K.r.l, As they were begotten again to a new and spiritual life,
they should lay aside every thing that was* opposite to and inconsistent with
it, and should give themselves to that which would develop its power within
themselves. With respect to the words and phrases of these flrst ten verses of
the second chapter, tho following points may be especially noticed: 1. The
laying aside of the evil was, strictly, to precede the sending forth the desires
after the good; the soul being cleared, as it were, in preparation for the coming
action and tho changed life. Substantially, however, the two things were
contemporaneous. — 2. The word kukIu is to be understood here in the more
limited sense of malice, according to Huther, Alford, Keil, etc. ; but R. V. text
renders it, in the more general sense, wickedness, and there seeras to be no
sufficient reason against understanding it in this way. If it is thus understood,
it is a general word, to which tho following words, as designating particular
evils, are subordinate. — 3. The expression dpnyiwyra Spiipy is rightly under
stood by Huther as indicating that tho readers were, in view of the goal of
manhood yet afar off, but recently bom again. Tho connection between
upriyivvyra and dvayeyevvypivoi is evident. The whole thought is moving in the
sphere of the idea of the new birth. — 4. The adjective loyiKov is most naturally
taken in the same sense in which it is used in Rom. xii. 1, the only other
passage in which the word occurs in the N. T. It is nearly equivalent to
spiritual. Strictly speaking, it seems to designate the thing spoken of, as not
to be understood in the physical or material sense, but as pertaining to the
region of the mind or reason, or the higher and spiritual part of the man.
Of course the precise shade of idea will almost necessarily vary in different
connections, but the sarae notion lies at tbe basis of the word in all cases of
this character. In Dr. Thayer's Lexicon, the phrase loyiKij larpela, in Romans,
is explained as the worship which is rendered by the reason or soul ; the phrase
loyiKbv ydla in this passage, the milk which nourishes the soul. The adjective

738 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
aSolov conveys the idea of unadulterated, and thus pure. Tho connection of
the passage seeras to show clearly that ydla refers to the word of the Lord ; and
this word of the Lord, the gospel, is by the two deflning adjectives described
as unadulterated, i.e., unmingled with any thing which takes away from or
obscures its truth, such as wrong teachings, etc., and as spiritual, i.e., pertaining
to tho life and growth of the soul in tho spiritual sphere. For this they were to
send forth the ardent desires of their souls. — 5. The end in view which they
should have in the outgoing of these desires was, that in the sphere of this
word they raight grow, as in the development of the natural life, from birth
towards maturity, unto the full experience and realization of salvation {eig
aurypiav). — 6. elnep, if this, and not el, be adopted as the true reading (vor. 3),
carries with it, according to its general use, the idea of a supposition assumed
to be a fact, and apparently also, according to what seems to be the usage in
the N. T., the idea of a supposition which the writer holds to be rightly thus
assumed. More probably, however, el is tho true text here. By this con
ditional clause the apostle supports his exhortation ininoByaare, as a suitable
and natural one. [Kuhl agrees with Huther as, to the raeaning of KUKia, He
regards ug of vor. 2, as equivalent to since, and not the particle of comparison.
The ug clause thus involves a declaration of a fact with respect to the readers,
— since you are new-born babes. The addition of dpnyiwyra must be due, he
thinks, to the desire on the writer's part to emphasize the idea of recent
entrance upon the Christian life; upn being the prorainent element in the
word, distinguishing it frora the kindred /Sps^)?. Ho flnds an indication here,
accordingly, that the letter could not have been written to Pauline churches
which had been already established for a generation. He supposes loymbv to
be connected here with loyog, ivord, and the meaning to be, milk which proceeds
from the word of God. The reference, he thinks, is to Christ as the nourishing'
force of the new life. He is presented to us in the word.]
7. The relative bv (ver. 4) refers to Kvpiog, and connects this new exhortation
with the one which precedes. In fact, we may say that tbe second exhorta
tion is an outgrowth of the first, and, in a sense, is a part of it. The flgure
passes from that of the growth of a man towards maturity to that of a building
in process of erection; and, as the figure changes, tho thought moves outward
from the developraent of the individual believer to the development of the whole
body of believers united together in tho church. 'Ov refers to Christ evidently,
•as is shown by the following words; in the O. T. passage on which the words
el iyevoaaSe, K.r.l., are founded (Ps. xxxiv. 9), b Kvpiog refers to God. The sugges
tion arising from this fact, with respect to the view which tbe apostle bad of
Christ, is worthy of consideration. — S. The participle npoaepxopevoi does not
bave the meaning which it has in Heb. vii. 25, and other passages where it refers
to approaching God in worship or in seeking for His favor ; but it has the sense
rather, of drawing near to Christ in the way of communion in heart and life with
Him. — 9. Christ is called a stone, because the flgure is that of a building of which
He is a part, and, in a peculiar sense, the foundation. He is afterwards spoken
of as the corner-stone. The epithet living is used, apparently, because tbe writer
desires to keep the mind of the reader fixed upon tho fact that the building is
one of living men, and because Christ is possessed of and imparts that life
which is needed for all who are to be built as stones into the building. They
come to Him, a living stone, and become themselves, in their connection with
Him, living stones. — 10. As to the question whether oiKoSopelaBe is an indicative
or an iraperative, the latter supposition seeras on the whole to be preferred,

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 739
because of the "general hortatory character of the passage, and because in this
way the change of the figure is most easily explained ; the same exhortation
in substance is given, only under the forms of expression involved in the two
figures. R. V. takes tho other view, and regards the verb as indicative. —
II. There can be no doubt that the true text in ver. 5 reads e'lg before iepdrevpa,
and thus, that this phrase is not appositional to o'lKog nvevpariKog. The e'lg is
either to be connected with the preceding oUoSopelaBe o'ik. nv.: be ye built up a
spiritual house to the end of being a holy priesthood; or, with o'ik. nv., a spiritual
house for a holy priesthood. The infinitive dveviyKai sets forth the end in view
of the whole combined expression which precedes. — 12. The quotation from
tho O. T. is evidently introduced as giving an additional ground of, and an addi
tional impressivenoss to, the exhortation; and it is the passage from which the
idea of the stone, and of Its character and relation to the building, is borrowed.
In the verses which include this quotation, 6-10, the verb nepiexei is used intran
sitively, and, according to Buttmann, is equivalent to it runs or stands written ;
— ripij is probably to be explained in the sense of honor, and the meaning is, to
you appertains the honor which is connected with this honored position given
by God to the chief corner-stone. The words ralg marevovaiv are added evidently
as uniting this clause with 6 mareiuv of the cited passage ; ol of ver. 8 refers to
the persons designated by dmaroiaiv, and is substantially equivalent to for they,
as it is rendered in R. V. ; ru loyu is, on the whole, to be joined with dneiBoivreg
rather than the verb, — they stumble through disobedience to the word; — e'lg b
refers not to the corapound idea of tho verb and the participial clause whicli
immediately precede, but to the verb only, as Huther takes it, — tbe stumbling
is the principal idea of the O. T. words ; ^ ^T£9)?(;av were set or appointed, — this
verb seems to indicate tbat for which they were appointed in tbe providential
arrangement of God, as set forth in the prophecy. — 13. The words of ver. 9,
which describe the persons referred to in ipelg, i.e., the Christian readers of the
Epistle, are borrowed from different passages in the O. T. ; and thus the quoted
passage of ver. 6 is continued, in the explanation given, as far as ver. 10. Of
the words in ver. 9, the three which present the idea of a people or nation are
to bo understood in the same sense, the object being rather to emphasize one
idea than to present minor distinctions. The idea of the royal priesthood is
nearly akin to the other, as the conception which tho apostolic writers had of
the Christian believers in the Messianic kingdom was that of a peculiar people
made up of kings and priests. The expression labg eig nepmoiyaiv is equivalent,
in substance of meaning, to a people especially belonging to God, or God's own
in a peculiar sense. The particle bnug introduces the following words as express
ing the design of tho preceding, i.e., of the fact that the believers are, and
become by their believing, a chosen race, etc. This design is, that they may tell
out, show forth, the excellences or moral perfections of God. These moral
perfections are seen in the fact that He called them out of darkness into His
marvellous light. In the use ot the words darkness and light, Peter draws near
to tho idea which John has in his first Epistle; but the words have here some
what less of their purely internal or subjective meaning, if it may be so expressed,
and more of the objective sense — the darkness of their heathen condition, and
the light of the gospel. [Kiihl calls attention to the force of the present parti
ciple npoaepxbpevoi (ver. 4) as indicating a continuous, constant drawing near
to Christ, on the part of tho Christian. We should draw near to Him as the
living stone, in the conviction that He is the living stone. He regards oUoSo-
pelaBe as a present indicative. He joins the words eig iepdrevpa ayiov Immedi-

740 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
ately with oUog nv. In the words of vv. 9, 10, ho finds a reference to believing
Jews as distinguished from unbelieving Jews, not to Gentile believers as con
trasted with Jewish unbelievers. He thus finds this verse according with his
view as to the persons to whom the Epistle was addressed.]
XVIL
Vv. 11-25.
1. In the first two of these verses a more general exhortation is given, which
is followed by more special ones having reference to various relations in life.
Tho general exhortation may perhaps bo regarded as forming a transitional
passage which, in a certain sense, closes the preceding paragraph, and, in a
certain sense, opens the following one. Ver. 11, in its bidding to abstain from
fieshly lusts, is in the line of ver. 1, laying aside all evil, etc. Ver. 12, on the
other hand, in its reference to seemly behavior in their Christian living, sug
gests that which lies at the foundation of all the exhortations which follow, and
which bear upon right and fitting conduct in several spheres or relationships of
human life. There is, however, an independent element in these verses, as is
shown by the special mention of the relation of the believers to the heathen
among whom they lived, and the influence which their conduct might have upon
these heathen. — 2. The exhortation of these two verses is based, in a certain
measure, upon the fact that the readers are ndpoiKot and napenibypoi. These two
words seem to be used here, instead of the one or the other alone, for the sake of
expressing the idea common to both with greater emphasis. The readers were
strangers and sojourners in the world. They were living as such among the
Gentiles who surrounded them, and who were the citizens of the world, at
home in it aud having its spirit. They should for this reason lay aside all evil,
and abstain from fieshly desires (those desires which arise from the sinful and
evil element in man), and should act in the way which befitted the new life
upon which they had entered. — ainveg may be a causal word, since they ; or it
may be used here as designating these desires as belonging to tho class of things
which war against the soul. — 3. The participle exovreg, in its graramatical con
struction, belongs to the subject of dnixeaBai, and should be in the accusative
case. It is placed in the nominative to give the thought greater prorainence and
eraphasis. The adjective Kulyv is predicative, as Huther also says; and tho word
dvaarpoipyv refers to the whole manner of life. Kalyv seeras to mean good, in the
sense of fair, beautiful, honorable, seemly, — such as would become Christian
believers who realized that their home was in heaven. Tho end in view of this
seemly behavior, as related to the heathen around them, was to be, that, in the
very matter (ev u) in which these heathen wore wont to speak against the readers
as evil-doers, they might, by observing their good works, be led to glorify God.
As Canon Cook says, " Christians wore specially attacked by Gentiles, generally
at the instigation of Jews, on political grounds, as enemies of the state (comp.
Acts xvii. 6, 7); on religious grounds, as atheists, i.e., rejecting the objects of
heathen worship; on ethical grounds, as introducing unlawful customs, and,
as it Was believed, abominable impurity" (Acts xvi. 10). Tbe thought of tho
apostle seems to be, that in the very things which characterized the Christians
as turning aside from the heathen around them, and which led to charges against
thera as evil-doers or malefactors, they should so conduct themselves, — living
in the true Christian, seemly manner, and abstaining from all fleshly desires, —
that the heathen themselves, being eye-witnesses, spectators, of their good

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 741
works, would be influenced to give glory to God. By tbe power of their life
they would thus turn the hearts of the heathen. The day of visitation is to be
explained of the time when God's mercy should be brought to them.
4. With vor. 13 begins the series of exhortations having reference to vari
ous relations in life, — those of subjects of civil government to their rulers,
servants to their masters, wives to their husbands, otc. It can scarcely bo
doubted, that these exhortations are suggested hero as a part of the seemly
behavior of the Christian believers in the presence and midst of their heathen
surroundings and enemies. The same liability or tendency on tho part of Chris
tians, by reason of the doctrine of their equality in Christ and before God, to
disregard the obligations of civil or family law, which we observe as we read the
letters of Paul, may not improbably be seen here. The similarity of the exhor
tations given in these verses to those which Paul gives in the Epistles to the
Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians, is quite noticeable, — the language even
corresponding in considerable measure with that of Paul, — and by reason of
this fact the reader may be referred to the annotations on the passages in those
Epistles, a few points only being specially mentioned here. — 5. The word Krlaei
is peculiar to Peter, and it seems to be used in tho classical sense of instituting
or establishing something, — ordinance or institution. Paul speaks of the civil
powers as ordained of God (Rom. xiii. 1). Peter here speaks of them as in the
light of a human institution. Huther explains this word human as meaning,
applying to human relations ; and in this way there is no difference between Paul
and Peter. Keil and Hofmann have the sarae view. Alford, Grirara, and others
regard the word as equivalent to instituted by men. According to this view, the,
expression of Peter is supposed to refer to government, etc., from the human
side, an institution organized and maintained by men; while Paul's expression
evidently describes it from tho side of its divine origin and authority. Either
explanation of the word seems to be allowable. The argument presented by
Huther and Keil, as connected with KriQeiv and its derivatives, as applied to God,
not to man, is worthy of consideration, but is hardly decisive. — 6. The explana
tion of Sid Kvptov given by Huther, "because such is Christ's will," is doubtless
correct. — 7. Paul evidently refers to the higher magistrates, those possessing
the power of condemning to death, but without special designations: Peter
makes such designations, — of the king or Roman emperor, the governors of
provinces. But it will be noticed that both Peter and Paul represent the magis
trates as appointed of God for the same purpose, — the punishraent of evil-doers
and the praise of those that do well. Peter adds, as connected with the thought
of his Epistle and the circumstances ot his readers, a sentence giving the ground^
of the exhortation, which borders closely upon th^ words of ver. 12. This fact
shows what has been said above, that the verses beginning with ver. 13 grow
out of vv. 11, 12. —8. Ver. 16 reminds us of the Pauline thought. The Chris
tian readers wore free, but they were bondservants of God. They were to yield
their obedience to the earthly powers as those who were in this condition. It
was to be a free service rendered in submission to God's will. They were to be
conscious of their freedom as Christians, but were to lirait the exercise of their
freodora by their sense of obligation to obey God. They were thus not to use
their freedom as a covering for wickedness, — as Huther says, seek to conceal
their wictodness by boasting of their Christian freedom, —but through due sub
jection to the civil magistrates were, in this line as in others, to behave in a
seemly way araong the Gentiles. — 9. Ver. 17 does not correspond precisely with
Rom. xiii. 7, but we can scarcely fail to be reminded of that verse as we read the

742 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
words of this one. Both verses suggest the idea of the obligation to render to
each and all the respect and honor, etc., which are justly due to them. [Kiihl
seems to favor the view of Alford, Grimm, and others, with respect to dvBpunivy
(ver. 13). He regards Kipiov (ver. 13) as referring not to Christ, but to God,
because of ver. 15a, and tbe connection of this verse with that verse, and the
one which follows it. The words ug ileiBepoi, K,r,l. (ver. 16), he would not
connect immediately with inoriiyyre, as Huther does, but would join theni
with ver. 15, and would hold that there is a change of construction from the
accusative case to the nominative, as in ver. 12 (comp. ver. 11).]
10. Following upon the exhortation relative to tho duty to civil magistrates,
exhortations are given bearing upon social or family relations; and first, with
regard to servants. Probably o'lKirat, though meaning domestic servants, as
distinguished from Soiloi, slaves, is here used as equivalent to the latter word.
The word ipbSog is found in the Pauline exhortations addressed to slaves, — in
Ephesians, ivith fear and trembling ; in Colossians, fearing the Lord. Here
the word evidently does not have the peculiar sense of the compound phrase in
Ephesians. Whether it means the fear of the Lord, is more open to question.
On the whole, it seems more probable that it refers to that reverence for author
ity which belonged to tho position of the slave as related to the master. The
reference to tho two kinds of masters is peculiar to Peter. The following
verses show that the apostle felt tbat tho special need of the exhortation existed
in tbe case of those who had perverse or froward masters; but they may also be
regarded, in connection with other allusions in the Epistle to sufferings and
trials, as indicating that, among the evils which befell the readers for whom the
Epistle was designed, a prominent one in the case of slaves was that which
came frora such masters. At this point, tho thought turns aside from what we
discover in similar passages in the Pauline writings, and the writer is apparently
dealing with persons who were in a somewhat different condition of things.
[Kiihl thinks that the word oUerat is used instead of Soilog, probably, because
the apostle desired to turn the readers' minds, frora the beginning, to the
household and family relationships. He regards ev ttuvt; ipbSu as referring to
the same thing as Sid Kipiov (ver. 13), and Sid rrjv avveiSyaiv rob Qeov; thus the fear
of God.] 11. The most simple explanation of xuptg (ver. 19) is that of Grimm, this
wins for us God' s favor ; which is also the explanation of Huther, except that
he takes favor in the general sense, this causes favor. The word linag in the
conditional clause seeras to be used of tho things which cause limi, and thus
cause the persons experiencing them to be in the condition indicated by Ivny
Bevreg of chap. i. ver. 6. inoipipei, hears patiently ; ndaxuv, when in the experience
of suffering unjustly or undeservedly. — 12. Ver. 21. eig roiro refers to the patient
endurance of suffering inflicted wrongfully. The call to tho Christian life was
peculiarly, in those days, a call which brought the person to whom it carae into
the experience of trials, persecutions, etc., and which suramoned him to this
experience as a test of faith, which, boing met successfully, resulted in praise
and honor and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ (i. 7). — 13. "On gives the
ground of eig roiro iKlyByre. Tho Christian is called to undergo, according to his
measure, what Christ underwent. The suffering of Christ on behalf of His
people is presented hero, also, in the special light of an example which He left
behind Him peculiarly for them (the iplv is in the position of emphasis), to
the end that they should follow close upon His footsteps. By going through
the experiences of suffering which they should be called to meet, the disciples

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 743
of Christ would be brought into inward likeness to Himself; and, knowing this.
He left behind Him the example of His own endurance for the purpose of
accomplishing the desired result. — 14. In vv. 22, 23, two points with respect
to Christ are set forth, which correspond with what has been urged upon the
servants: He did no wrong, and yet, when He suffered. He endured patiently.
The first of these points is brought forward in the language of Isaiah, chap. liii. ;
and the second one is so expressed, as Huther also says, as to show that the
apostle's mind was recalling and dwelling upon that chapter of the prophecy. —
The object of napeSlSov is probably His cause, or the decision in the case ; more
probably the former. — 15. Ver. 24. This verse can hardly be regarded as alto
gether in the liiie of the two which precede it. The writer seems, rather, in his
dwelling upon Isa. liii. , to think of what Christ did and suffered for His followers,
and to bo so impressed by his thought of this as to lead him to present it before
his readers as the source of all their Christian life. The thing which He did
for us is expressed in the words, bore our sins in His own body upon the tree
(as R. V. text reads); or, carried up our sins . . . to the tree (as R. V. marg.
reads). This was the way in which He suffered on our behalf. Tho vicarious
suffering and death ot Christ are here plainly sot forth ; but precisely how His
death provided the way for our forgiveness, and deliverance from the penalty
of sin, can hardly be determined from this expression alone, without taking
into account the many other passages of the N. T. which have a more or less
immediate bearing upon the subject. — 16. The end in view of Christ's suffering
for us in the manner indicated was, that we, having died to sins, might live to
righteousness. Tho participle dnoyevbpevoi is here used in the same sense as
dnoBvyoKetv, which Paul uses in a similar construction with tho dative dpaprig,
Rom. vi. 2, — dying to sin, in the sense of completely terminating our relations
to it. — 17. Vor. 25 gives the ground of the preceding clause immediately; but,
raore reraotely, that of the main thought of ver. 24 in its bearing upon the
Christian readers. [Kiihl holds that dvyveyKev of ver. 24 is to be understood as
meaning carried u}). Jesus carried up our sins upon the cross, and thus took
them away from us. He regards this as made clear by the use of inl rb ^ilov,
instead of inl ru ^vAcj.] XVIII.
CHAPTER III.
Vv. 1-12.
1. The exhortations addressed to wives and husbands are in the same line
with those addressed to servants, and, like them, are connected with ver. 12 of
the preceding chapter. The exhortation to wives is the same which we flnd in
the Pauline Epistles; and in the Epistle to Titus, ii. 5, the same reason, substan
tially, is given which is urged here, though on the negative side, and with a more
general reference: that the word of God be not blasphemed. Here the duty
of subjection on the part of the w^ives is presented with reference to its
effect upon the husbands, to the end that any of them who may be unbelievers
may be won over to the Christian faith, and thus to reverence and obedience to
the word of God. The exhortation to submission was especially needed by
reason of the state of society at that period, and because of the possible influence
of the doctrine of equality in the Christian life upon conduct in social and
family relationships. — 2. kuI ei, even if, implies that such cases were not common,
and it is evident that the apostolic writers regarded marriage between believers

744 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
and tho heathen around them with disfavor. The ground of tbe exhortation
hero given is the same, only having the necessary limitations of the case, with
that presented for all good conduct in ii. 12. — 3. .The words Hvev Myov are some
what doubtful as to their raeaning. R. V. and A. V. render them, without the
word, and thus, apparently, raake the sense of the clause to be: that they may
be gained or won for the Christian life without the intervention or use of that
word to which they refuse obedience. There is evidently a certain improbability
in this explanation, arising from tho fact that there is no article with l£yov.
Though not decisive as an argument against this view, this fact is worthy of
serious consideration; for the parallelism with ru Ibyip, if this were the intended
moaning, would seem to make the insertion of the article natural, if not neces
sary, in this case. Huther, Alford, Do Wette, and others hold that the phrase
means without word, and is equivalent to without preaching to tliem and exhort
ing them. Sorae have carried this so far as to make it mean absolute silence in
the raatter, on the part of the wives ; but this appears to be unnecessary. The
view of Huther escapes the difficulty of the first-mentioned view, and yet, at
the same time, it keeps the word Ibyov in near relation to loyu. On the whole,
it seems to offer the best and siraplest explanation. Canon Cook says that the
preposition here used implies that the husbands had rejected the word. That
they had rejected it, is evident from the sentence as a whole ; but as uvev Idyou
qualifies the verb KepSyByaovrai, it seems necessary to view this phrase as refer
ring to the manner in which the husbands are to be won over — in a similar way
to that in which Std ryg dvaarpoipyg is to be understood. — 4. The participle
inonreiaavreg, corresponding with the participle of the same verb in ii. 12, is to
be explained in the same way. In the foundation raeaning of the word, they
are conceived of as boing eye-witnesses of the pure and modest and becoming
behavior of their wives. In describing this behavior the writer uses the expres
sion iv ipbBu; it was to be in the sphere of ipdSog. This word represents that
reverential fear which, in the higher and more complete sense. Is its signification
oftentimes when it is applied to the Christian's fear of God, and not the fear
which involves terror or being afraid. Coupled with fear, R. V. and A. V.
[Kiihl agrees with Huther respecting the expression uvev Ibyov (ver. 1). He
affirms that it cannot refer to the word, as meaning the gospel, because there is
no definite article, and says that it is added to give further emphasis to Sid ryg
dvaarpoipyg. He holds that ipbSu (ver. 2) means fear of God, and not, as Huther
says, a shrinking from every violation of duty towards the husband.]
5. The words with regard to the adornment of the woraen correspond in
some measure with those in 1 Tim. ii. 9 ff. The words used, however, are
mainly different. The construction adopted by R. V., which supplies the word
Koapog before iaru, and also supplies a second earu before b Kpvnrbg, K.r.l,, of
ver. 4, is the siraplest and best. Tho explanation of ev ru dipBdpru, which is
given by Huther, on the other band, seeras bettor than that of R. V., which
supplies the word apparel after it. The raeaning appears to be this: Lot it
(the adorning) be tho hidden man of the heart in (which it abides and lives in,
as it were) the imperishable region or eleraent of a raeek and quiet spirit. The
adorning is the heart abiding in this condition of spirit. — 6. Vv. 5, 6, give a
reason for urging this exhortation, which is drawn from the example of the
holy women of the O. T. history, of whom Sarah is especially mentioned, as
being tho wife of Abraham with whom the covenant was made and who was
thus tho father of all believers. — 7. The word dyaBonoioiaai is, in all probability,
to be connected with iyevyByre, as Huther and R. V. text take it, and not with

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 745
inoraoaapevai., as R. V. marg. suggests, — the latter word being too reraote, con
sidering the peculiar character of tho sentence. This word dyaBonoioiaai is better
regarded as equivalent to if you do good, than as indicating the evidence that
they have becorae children of Sarah. The thought of the passage suggests as
tho moaning here: you are her children, if you do good, etc. nrbyaiv is to be
taken objectively; and it refers, no doubt, to tho treatment which Christian
women might have reason to fear, at times, on the part of their heathen hus
bands. — 8. The exhortation to husbands is founded on the same general idea
which wo flnd in other passages on the same subject. The language used here,
however, is mainly different from what we find elsewhere. The word awoiKoivreg
refers to the whole domestic life of husbands with their wives ; Kard yvuaiv in
accordance with knowledge, intelligence, understanding; this phrase seems to
be more definitely explained by tho words which follow: ug daBevearipu, K.r.l.; ru
yvvaiKelu depends on avvoiKoivreg, as Huther also says; this seems to be the
simplest construction, not only for the reason suggested by Huther, that avvoiK,
requires a nearer definition, which is more readily found in a word expressed
in the sentence than in one to be supplied, but also because the two clauses
beginning with ug are most readily explained if the first one is connected with
avvoiK., and the second with dnovipovreg. If avyKlypovbpoig is the true reading,
this parallelism of the two participles, each with its ivg clause, is even more
probable than with avyKlypovbpoi; xuptrog Quyg, the grace of life, i.e., the gift of
the Divine grace which consists in eternal life; eig rb py iyKonreaBai rdg npoaevxdg
ipuv: this denotes the end in view of the whole sentence. By the opposite
course to that here urged upon them, the husbands would hinder the union
with their wives in prayer, and thus the growth and development of religious
life in themselves and their wives. — 9. In the verses which follow the exhorta
tion to husbands, the thought passes to what is more general and comprehensive,
the new passage forming a kind of conclusion to the hortatory versos from ii. 11
to this point. Thus we have tho expression rb rilog. As Huther remarks, these
versos (8 ff.) "deal with the relations of Christians towards each other, and
towards those who are inimically disposed to thera." In this way the connection
of the passage with the thought of 11. 12 is made manifest. The several words
of ver. 8 express tho ideas of harmony, sympathy, love, humility, etc., which
are tho normal restdts of the Christian spirit, as believers live together and
have relations to each other; those of ver. 9 suggest the thought of the ill-treat
ment which believers were likely to receive frora those outside of their own
number. These latter they should bless, in the way of kind words and actions,
or more probably in the way of invoking blessings from God upon them, and
this because, in their call to the Christian life, they were themselves called to
the inheritance of blessing from God. —10. The quotation from Ps. xxxiv.
serves the purpose of emphasizing the exhortation which immediately precedes,
and seems to be selected because of two things: first, the turning away from
evil action and evil speaking, to which it refers ; and, secondly, the suggestion
contained in it of tho Divine favor as resting upon those who thus turu away
from evil and do good, and of tho Divine wrath as falling upon those who do not
thus turn. The thought in the passage from the Psalms is evidently more
general in its raeaning and reference than the single application which is hero
made of it. The passage serves, however, the purpose of impressing the
thought here in mind upon the attention of the readers. This quoted passage
also carries the thought easily forward to that which is introduced in ver. 13
and what follows. [Kiihl rejects the construction of uv earu (ver. 3) which

746 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
Huther favors, and supplies Koapog as suggested in this note. He would also
supply Koapu with iv dipBuprip. He would connect dyaBonoioiaai (ver. 6) with
iyevyByre, but would not regard it, as Huther does, as showing tho mark by
which tho women proved themselves children of Sarah; nor again as meaning,
if you do good. He would take iyevyByre as futurum exactum: whose children
you will have become through the fact that you do good.]

XIX.
Vv. 13-22.
1. This passage is evidently connected in thought with that which precedes,
and is a more full drawing-out of the matter of right conduct in the midst of
sufferings and persecutions at the hands of enemies and unbelievers. Tho
attitude and behavior which should characterize the readers is presented more
impressively, together with the encouragements for such behavior; and then
the example of Christ is set forth as the greatest of all encourageraents. No
real harm, the apostle says to his readers, could befall any of them in their
suffering for righteousness' sake. — 2. The word kokuouv probably means, do
real harm or evil. The negative which is implied in this question is supported
and confirmed by the words of the following verse, although these, according to
the form of the sentence, are placed in contrast to the idea of kokuouv. d/Ud is
equivalent to on the contrary ; el kuI, if even, if it goes so far as, if it prove even
to be tbe fact that, you suffer; ndaxoire refers to the suffering of persecution,
etc., but is used, as wo may believe, as purposely conveying a different idea
from that which is intended to be set forth in kukuouv. The Christian may
suffer in the ndaxeiv sense, and yet be puKupiog, — 3. The expression fear not
their fear, is probably to be interpreted according to the view which takes ipbSov
objectively: do not be agitated by the fear which they excite. The words
sanctify, etc., stand in contrast with this expression. The word sanctify
convoys the idea of so holding Christ as Lord, in and before the mind, as to
bring tho man into the attitude of reverential awe before Hira. With this
sanctifying of Christ in their hearts, the believers should be ready, instead of
being troubled, or in dread, because of their adversaries, to give an answer to
every one who demanded a reason for the hope which was in thera. This
giving of an answer was, however, to be with meekness and fear, i.e., with that
meekness which was becoming to Christians, and that reverential fear which
we may fitly feel in raaking any claim in our relations of God. — 4. The words
having a good conscience {-ver. 16), are best explained as connected with the
leading thought, which is that of giving an answer, or raaking an apologetic
defence; this answer was to be given while tho person had a good conscience,
a conscience void of offence, a consciousness of that right state of the life
which would disarm the adversaries in their attacks. The good conscience
thus corresponds, on the inward side, to the good manner of life, on the out
ward side. — 5. The seventeenth verse (ydp) gives the ground for the sixteenth.
In tbis verse, and the sixteenth also, the thoughts suggested in ii. 12 are
evidently in the writer's mind, the eraphasis on suffering evil boing, however,
somewhat greater here. The underlying thought of maintaining the good life
in the midst of, and in spite of, evils which are experienced at the hands of
unbelievers, is manifest throughout this entire passage, which had its beginning
at ii. 12. The correspondence between the verses now immediately before

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 747
us, and those comraencing with ii. 19, where tbe application of what is con
tained in ii. 11, 12, is made to the special case of servants, will be noticed by
every careful reader. — 6. The case of Christ is again brought forward, as
furnishing the great example, and as the encouraging and strengthening fact
on the foundation of which their own action and attitude should find support.
The special point made prorainent with respect to Christ is, that He suffered as
a righteous person in tho way of, and because of, doing good. Ho suffered for
the sins of men. Himself a righteous person taking the place of unrighteous
persons, and to the end that He might bring those who had been unright
eous near to God: [Kiihl is disposed to take ipdSov (ver. 14) in tho subjective
sense: do not fear with the fear of them, do not be afraid of them. He allows
the possibility, however, of the other explanation. He agrees with Huther iVi
regarding ixovreg (ver. 16) as not co-ordinate with eroipoi, but subordinate to
it. He regards Kpeirrov (ver. 17) as raeaning, not better, but, more powerful,
stronger, in the sense of more profitable, or useful to an end in view. He
thinks the reference is not to what the Christian gains for himself from the
suffering, but to what is effected for "those who revile the Christian's good
manner of life" (ver. 16). This he thinks is Indicated as the true meaning of
the verse by the ydp, which connects it with ver. 16. There is, accordingly, a
certain parallelism in thought here with ii. 12.]
Up to this point the comparison with the case of Christ seems to be carried
forward, but with ver. 186 the thought turns more exclusively to Christ's own
experience and work in connection with, and following upon His death. The
immediate connection of the words of ver. 186 with the death of Christ, which
is brought before the reader's raind, in ver. 18a, in the expression: suffered for
sins, would seem to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that these words refer to
His experience as related to tbat event. He was put to death in the flesh, but
made alive in tho spirit. The parallelism of contrast in these two clauses
shows that the phrases in the flesh and in the spirit raust be interpreted accord
ing to tho same principles. They refer thus to two divisions, as we might say,
or rather aspects, of Christ's life and being. Quoad odpf. He was put to death;
quoad nveipa. He was made alive. In respect to the earthly and perishable
side of His nature, according to which Ho was subject to the law of death,
BavaruBeig is true of Him. In respect to the higher and imperishable side, on
the other hand, the spiritual side. His experience as connected with His dying
is described by the word QuonoiyBeig, It is plain, therefore, that, in ver. 186, the
starting-point for the two statements which it contains is the time of Christ's
death. It is evident also, that the lirait of the thought iu vv. 21, 22, which
close this half paragraph, is the resurrection of Christ, His ascension, and His
life at the right hand of God in heaven. A strong probability arises from these
facts, that what is predicated of Him in the words which intervene between
vor. 186 and vv. 21, 22, refers to what took place after, and not before. His
death. It this be so, we flnd in this fact tho flrst point which may bear upon
the determination of the meaning of ver. 19. [Kiihl agrees mainly with Huther
in respect to the words BavaruBeig aapu and QuonoiyBeig nveipan. He holds that in
the latter expression the Quon. involves the idea of the receiving of the spiritual
body. Christ did not continue a mere spirit, but He received at His resurrec
tion tbe aupa nvevpariKov, by raeans of which, as the organ of tho nvevpa, He
was thereafter in a condition to carry forward His activity with relation to raen.
Christ had a rrvevpa which had in itself the capacity and power to bo thus
QuonoiyBeig,]

748 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
7. The words iv u of ver. 19 must of necessity, as it would seem, refer to
nveipan. It was, then, in the sphere of the nveipa part ot Christ's nature, and
not in that of the adpf part, that what is mentioned In vv. 19, 20, was done by
Him. This expression in itself, as thus explained, may not indeed be incon
sistent with a spiritual proclamation before the time of the incarnation, that
is, in tho days of Noah. But if what has been said above of the tirae of vv.
19-22 is correct, the connection of u with nveipan here must exclude such an
explanation of tho meaning. — 8. The participle nopevBelg may be determined
in its meaning, so far as the probabilities of the case are concerned, by two
considerations : flrst, by the indication which the word itself gives of an actual
movement or going of the person himself who is mentioned — if a preaching
through or in the person of another were intended, the verb iKypv^ev would
have been all that was either necessary or natural in the case ; and secondly, by
the evident meaning of the same participle in ver. 23, where a personal going
of Christ Himself is alluded to. It would scarcely seem possible that, in- a
connected passage no longer than the one now under consideration, the same
participial form of such a verb as this would be used in two different senses,
without any explanation or suggestion of such difference in the form of
expression, or the surrounding words. This participle in ver. 19, accordingly,
is to be understood — such, at least, are the linguistic and gramraatical probar
bilities of the case — as referring to a personal going on the part of Christ, for
the purpose of a personal proclamation. No such personal going, in the sense
corresponding to His going into heaven, spoken of in ver. 22, took place before
the incarnation. — 9. The word e/c^pv^ev indicates what Christ did. The prob
abilities as to its meaning may be seen from the following facts: (a) This word,
which in itself has an indeflnite meaning, to proclaim as a herald, without
specifying the sort of proclamation, occurs in the N. T. about sixty times.
Among all the instances of its occurrence, there is none in which the idea ot a
proclamation of judgment or condemnation is expressed. The word is used
almost exclusively of preaching the gospel, and this is the case in every
instance in which Christ stands either in the subjective or objective relation
to the proclamation. The kindred words Kypv^ and Kypvypa (at least, with the
exception of two cases, where the preaching of Jonah is spoken of, on which
see below) are used with reference to the making known of the gospel, or,
in a single instance, 2 Pet. ii. 5, ot righteousness. The probability as to
tho meaning of the verb in this case, as connected with usage, must therefore
be regarded as overwhelmingly strong against any other signification than
preaching the gospel, — (6) This probability is strengthened by the use of the
verb eiyyyeliaBy in iv. 6, provided that we are to consider that verse as having
any close relation to this. — (c) It is also strengthened, in some measure, by
the fact that the thought of Christ throughout all the remainder ot the passage,
vv. 18-22, is that ot saving, and not of conderaning raen.
10. Tbe expression rolg 'ev ipvlaKy nveipaaiv is to be explained, as it would
seem, by observing two points: first, the word nveipaaiv is most naturally
interpreted through its connection with nveipan of ver. 18, and that word
suggests a contrast to aapKi; it would seem, therefore, most reasonable to
understand these spirits to be disem.bodied spirits, or spirits of those who had
already met physical death; secondly, as there is no particle, such as viv, to
indicate that the meaning is, spirits who are now in prison, and especially
nothing to indicate that the writer means persons who were alive in this world
at the time of the preaching, but whoso spirits are now (at the time of his

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 749
Writing) in prison, it is most reasonable, not to say necessary, to believe that
the condition of the persons as disembodied spirits, and the time of their
imprisonment, are to be determined in accordance with the time of the verb ;
that is, they were already disembodied spirits at the time when Christ preached
to them. As disembodied spirits in prison, they must have boon in prison in
the spirit-world, not in this world; and as having the gospel preached to them,
they cannot as yet have been finally condemned. — 11. The word dneiByaaaiv is
antecedent in point of time to eKypv^ev, It is claimed by some that it can only
be immediately antecedent; and, therefore, that tho tirae of the preaching must
have been nearly coincident with the time of the disobedience. This claim
may, however, be questioned or denied, with reference to the aorist participle
when employed as descriptive of particular persons, and especially in a case
like this, considering the defining of the time of the participle by nore bre,
k.t,1. But even if it be allowed, in case the participle is merely descriptive,
this fact will by no means decide the question, because tho participle may mean
although they were disobedient, and in this sense may undoubtedly be carried
back far beyond the time of tKypv^ev, Wiesinger, as mentioned by Huther, and
some others, take the participle in this sense: although, etc. Moreover, the
absence of the article with dneiByaaaiv is not to be regarded as excluding the
construction which makes it substantially equivalent to who were once disobe
dient, as R. v., A. v., and raany coraraentators explain tho word. See Huther's
remark in answer to Hofraann, in his note on ver. 19 (4). Affirmations with
respect to the impossibility of the use of a participial construction by a N. T.
writer, with a particular meaning, should be made only with the greatest caution,
and especially in cases where the great majority of scholars have not found the
alleged difficulty. As regards the omission of the article, even greater caution
should be exhibited. As Winer remarks, " Whether the article is to be used or
omitted before the participio, depends sometiraes on the subjective view of the
writer." And Buttmann most fitly adds, "In the endoaivor to lay down fixed
laws respecting the uso of the article, many a learned and laborious inquiry has
already come to naught. A writer's sovereign pleasure does not allow itself to
be curtailed, whenever it seems good to him to depart even from a well-founded
grammatical law." A living writer has a living force within him, and at times
he answers the grammarian, who would fetter him with never-yielding rules,
as Paul answered the Jews: I am not under bondage to the letter, but in the
freedom of the spirit. — 12. The close connection of nore bre, shows that these
two words together define the time, and the position of nore shows that the
fact or thing whose time is thus defined is that which is indicated by dneiByaaaiv,
and not that Indicated by iKypviev, — 13. The bre clause involves tho statement
that the men who are alluded to lived, and also were disobedient, in the time of
Noah, and before tho fiood came. They sinned during the period when God
was, in that age, waiting with long-suffering.
Tho examination of this passage which is thus set forth is purely exegetical,
and is connected wholly with the natural meaning of the words, and their
relation to the sentences and the paragraph. The purpose of these notes is
exegetical, not doctrinal. If the suggestions offered are well-founded, they
show that, with respect to every word and phrase,' the probability of the case
favors the interpretation of tho passage, which makes it declare, that, after His
death and before His resurrection, Christ went to the place where the persons
mentioned were in their disembodied spiritual state, and there preached the
gospel to these persons, i.e., the persons who were disobedient in the time of

750 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
Noah, when, etc. Jt is to be observed, that the passage does not extend the
stateraent beyond the case ot these particular persons. That it suggests the pos
sibility of such an extension of the Divine grace, is the most that can be affii-med.
The view ot this passage, other than that above given, which meets the least
difficulties as connected with the several probabilities mentioned, is that which
holds to the above explanation in all particulars, except with reference to
iKijov^ev; but raakes this verb contain the idea of a praedicatio damnatoria, a
proclaraation by Christ to these spirits in prison of their coraing final condem
nation. It is claimed, on behalf of this view, that the verb Kypiaaeiv is, in itself,
a verb of indefinite raeaning in regard to such a point as this, that it conveys
simply the idea of proclairaing as by a herald, and that the character of the
proclamation must be determined by the context. It is also claimed, that in
some passages in the N. T. there are indications of the designed application
of this idea of proclamation (expressed by this verb, or the kindred nouns) to
threatened punishment. Thus Jonah's Kypvyua is spoken of in Matt. xii. 41,
Luke xi. 32; and in 2 Tim. iv. 2, the words eley^ov and imripyaov are added to
Kypv^ov, showing that a part of the proclamation was of this character. It is
to be observed, however, that the passages in Matthew and Luke do not refer to
Christ's preaching; and that Jonah's proclamation was, aS tbe sequel showed,
and also these verses theraselves indicate, with a view to repentance; and in the
case of 2 Tiraothy, the rebuking, etc., is only a part of the gospel preaching,
subordinate to the ond of securing the salvation of those to whom it is addressed.
As stated above, wherever Christ is either the subject or the object of the verb
Kypiaaeiv, in tbe N. T., the verb is substantially equivalent to eiayyeliQeiv. This
fact seems to the writer of this note to determine the probability of its meaning
in the present instance, and to exclude tbe idea of a praedicatio damnatoria.
The view of the passage which makes it refer to a preaching of Christ, in
and through the person of Noah, before the fiood, or to " a gracious activity
on the part of the pre-incarnate Christ, a preaching in the form of the Divino
warnings of the time, the spectacle of the building of the ark, etc.," encounters
all the improbabilities and difficulties mentioned. The only grammatical or
linguistic point which has been held to be decisive in favor of this view, is that
connected with tho aorist participle dneiByaaaiv, which has been already alluded
to in tbe earlier part of this note. The decisiveness of this point is not admitted
by the great majority of interpreters. The position taken by tho advocates of
this view, in general, is, so far as the sentence in itself is concerned, that which
makes tbe reference to a preaching in the time of Noah possible, rather than
necessary, the point mentioned with respect to the aorist participle not being
insisted upon.
The discussion of the passage thus far has dealt with the words and phrases
of the passage itself. There are considerations derived from tho context, or the
New Testament elsewhere, which have a bearing on the question which is pre
sented by ver. 19, and which ought to be candidly weighed before coming to a
decision. The flrst of these is the fact, that an allusion to a preaching of Christ
to these persons, long after their death, seems quite remote frora the direct line
of thought in the context. With regard to this point, the following remarks
maybe made: (a) tbat such remoteness, it must be admitted, impresses the
mind of the reader at the first view of tho passage; (6) that on any other expla
nation of the passage, however, soraewhat of the sarae remoteness is evident.
The real difficulty in the case is to explain how the writer is led to introduce
here any allusion to Noah, the flood, the men of that age, and the subject of

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 751
baptism as antitypical of the fiood. It seems strange to find the words of vv.
19-21 connected with the thought of ver. I8a, and what precedes ver. 18. If
we can account for the allusion to Noah's time, etc., we may perhaps as easily
account for the reference to a preaching to the persons of that age after Christ's
death, as for a similar reference to a prpaching before Noah's death. Tho
attempts to explain tho allusion to this matter by those who hold that tho
preaching followed Christ's death, have boon as successful, to say tho least, as
those of the interpreters who hold the other view. Compare, for example, what
is said as to this point by Alford, on the one side, and by the writer (Professor
Salmond) in Schaff's Pop. Coram, on the other. — The second of the considera
tions drawn from outside of the passage is connected with the general indications
of the N. T. as to the question whether the offer of salvation or the proclama
tion of the gospel is raade to men after death. With respect to this point, the
writer of this note would say: (a) that, in his judgment, tho general impression
produced upon the mind of the candid reader of the N. T. is, that the apostolic
writers and Christ Himself do not continue the offer of salvation beyond the
present life; (6) that they lay an emphasis, at tiraos, on the present life as
the period for securing salvation, or on death as the limit, which is most easily
explained if we hold that such was their teaching; (c) that the few passages
(leaving the present one, as being here under discussion, out of view) in which
the opportunity for recovery after death may be suggested as a possibility, can
be satisfactorily explained without making them convoy this idea, and that, not
improbably, they should be thus explained; the candid scholar, however, will, in
this case as in all others, carefully and justly estimate the force of all passages,
on whichever side of the question they may seem to give their evidence; {d) that
the absence of any deflnite and full unfolding of the condition of things in the
period following death, which, at least so far as details are concerned, is notice
able throughout the New Testament, may have its proper weight in determining
our view of doubtful passages; and that the absence of allusions to the interme
diate state between death and the last judgment may also be justly taken into
consideration; (e) that there may have been reasons in the Divine mind, for the
presentation of the gospel after death to those persons who lived in the time of
the flood, which are unknown to us, and which did not, and do not, exist in the
case of other persons; and that an exception to the general law, made in their
case, does not necessarily prevent the existence ot such a general law for all
other men, which places the limit of the opportunity for salvation at death;
(/) that the possible hint of a future opportunity for some other men beyond
the particular class mentioned, which this verse may be supposed to suggest,
and which can hardly be denied as a possibility, if the preaching was to the
spirits in prison after Christ's death, must be most carefully compared with and
adjusted by other passages, which seera more or less distinctly to declare the
opposite, before any doctrine as to such opportunity is accepted or believed by
the New-Testament interpreter because of the stateraent of this passage. These
points must all be fairly and fully considered in estimating tbe force of the gen
eral teaching of the N. T. as bearing against that interpretation of vor. 19 which
makes it mean, that Christ preached to the departed spirits of the men of Noah's
time after His own death. — A third point, connected with what is outside of tho
present context, is the fact that in 2 Pet. ii. 5, Noah is spoken of as a preacher
of righteousness {KypvKU biKaioaivyg), in connection with a statement as to the
bringing of the flood upon the ungodly; and a somewhat kindred idea, though
without the word xypv^, is presented in Heb. xi. 7. If the authorship of 2 Peter

752 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
by the apostle is to be admitted, the allusion in that Epistle to Noah as a
preacher, and that, too, in a passage having some sirailarity to the present one,
may possibly serve to indicate what he intended to say here; and even if the
Petrine authorship of the second Epistle is rejected, the two passages in
Hebrews and 2 Peter raay show something of the habit of thought, in this
regard, of the earliest Christian writers. This argument must not be pressed
beyond the liraits of its proper force. The same writer does not always follow
the sarae line of thinking in such allusions. What his sentence legitimately
means is far more indicative of his present thought, than what he says else
where and at another time. And especially is it true that one writer may
deviate, in such a matter, from the forms of expression of other writers.
The passage, it raust be confessed, is one beset with difficulties, and Involved
to some extent in obscurity. It becoraos those who deal with it in the matter
of doctrinal statements, or doctrinal controversies and questionings, to approach
it- and study it with the calm, unprejudiced, teachable, and peaceable spirit of
the most candid and reverential exegetical scholar.
[Kiihl holds that the connection of the words shows the reference of ev ib (vor.
19), to be only to nveipan. The apostle accordingly says that Christ went ev
nveipan, and not QuonoiyBeig nveipan, to the doing of what is indicated by iKypviev,
K,r.l, As Christ, when He was in the condition described by Quon. nv,, was no
longer iv nveipan, but iv aupan -rrvevpariKu, and as Ho was, while yet on earth,
not iv nv,, but iv aapd, the time referred to in this expression must be the time
between His death and His resurrection. If this position is correct, the refer
ence to a preaching through Noah, or in Noah's time, is oxcltidod by the words
theraselves. — With respect to tho spirits in prison, Kiihl holds that the phrase
describes the present condition of the spirits at the time of the preaching,
ipvluKy referring to Hades. He differs slightly from Huther, in that he regards
it as impossible to decide whether the reference is to the whole kingdom of the
dead, or to that part of it which serves as the abode for the souls of the ungodly
until the day of judgraent. If iv. 6 is connected with this passage, he thinks
the reference is to the forraer. — He regards nopevBelg as indicating a real, as it
were, spatial, going. — The verb Kypiaaeiv is here, he says, as everywhere in the
N. T., the technical expression for that proclamation of the gospel which offers
salvation ; and thus he regards the end in view of the proclamation as being the
same with that of the preaching of the gospel on earth, — namely, to present
the offer of salvation to those spirits.
The view which holds that the preaching was a praedicatio damnatoria,
he declares, to be wholly arbitrary, and apparently connected with an idea of
the passage, which is contrary to the true one, — namely, that the prominent
thought of the verses is that of judgment, whereas it is, in fact, that of the
blessed results of Christ's death, and of the Messianic salvation. In connection
with the past tense of the verb iKypviev, and the past participle nopevBelg, he
holds that tbe participle dneiByaaaiv with nori must be pluperfect in sense, and
that the meaning must be, he preached to the spirits- which had been formerly
disobedient, etc., and not, he preached to them when they were, etc.; with the
latter idea, the writer would have joined nori with iKypviev, — As the result of
his exegesis of the passage, Kiihl holds: (a) that Christ, as meipa, went to
Hades, and preached there to the spirits; (6) that tho time of His thus going
and preaching was between His death and His resurrection; (c) that the
purpose of His preaching was to offer salvation to all the spirits, without
exception. That all the spirits are meant by the apostle's words, he regards as

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 753
indicated by tho absence of the article before dneiByaaaiv, The article, he
thinks, would have been necessary if tho writer had meant only the disobedi
ent ones of Noah's time. The true meaning is, as he holds: He preached to
the spirits in prison, to such He preached as had been disobedient, etc. The
reference is, accordingly, to all, with a certain special designation of the men
of Noah's tirae. This special designation he explains in connection with the
fact that tho contemporaries of Noah are viewed in the N. T. (comp. Matt.
xxiv. 37 f., Luke xvii. 26 f.) as typical of mankind, as fallen deeply under the
power of sin. The participle dneiByaaaiv has, he thinks, a certain special
emphasis: to the spirits, etc., yea, even to such as, etc.]
14. The remark of Huther with respect to ver. 20 is worthy of special notice,
and is in accordance with what is undoubtedly the fact in the case, namely, that
" the stress is laid, not so much on the judgment which overtook unbelievers in
the flood, as on the deliverance of tho few." The whole passage is illustrative
of the stateraent that Christ suffered for sins, that Ho might bring men to God;
in other words, of His work to tho end of salvation. — 15. The view which
Huther takes of tho preposition Sid as being instrumental, rather than local, is
probably correct. The few who entered into the ark were borne safely on by
the water, and thus, in a certain sense, were saved by means of water. This is
indicated by the statement of the next verso, which presents the idea of water
(in connection with baptism) as saving us. The presentation of the water of
baptism as tbe antitype of the water of the flood, must be regarded as a com
parison or antitypical correspondence which reaches, as it wore, the limits of the
figurative; and a part of the special difficulty and obscurity of this whole pas
sage—not to say, the very centre of it — is to be found here. The point of the
comparison would seera to be connected with the fact that the water bearing up
the ark was the means of saving Noah and his faraily. In a similar way, water,
as the means by which baptism takes place, is also the the means by which the
Christian is, as it were, borne safely into his Christian life and salvation. That
the water, in the second case, is not the primary means or the direct cause of tho
salvation, as also it was not in the flrst case, is proved by the words which
follow, which words show that the actual saving element of Christian baptism
Is not found in the water, but in the state of the mind towards God. It was tho
entrance into the ark which was the salvation of Noah's family, and it is union
of heart with God which is the salvation of the believer. The expression, not
the putting away of the fllth of the fiesh, indicates that what the writer has in
mind is not what water, in itself, can accomplish.
16. The question as to the meaning of inepurypa is one which cannot bo
answered with confidence. On the whole, it seems to the writer of this note,
that the word question most probably represents the moaning of the Greek
word. This is confessedly the meaning in classical Greek, and appears to be
not inconsistent with the general thought of the sentences. The preposition eig,
being added to the noun, naturally carries the meaning to the point either of
making it equivalent to question directed towards, or inquiry after. With
either of these meanings, the genitive aweiSyaeug dyaByg is to be regarded as a
subjective genitive. The idea of the whole sentence would seem, accordingly,
to be thir. that baptism, with its application of water, does not flnd its true sig
niflcance in a cleansing of the outward man, but in the movement of the pure
inner man towards God. Whether this movement is represented as a question
ing of tbe soul directed towards God, or an inquiry and seeking of the soul after
Him — in either case, the same general condition of the soul is indicated. Per-

754 ADDITIONAL NDTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
haps inquiry after is the most siraple and best rendering, as corresponding with
inepurav eig. The objection urged by Huther, that the idea is thus incomplete,
inasmuch as the contents of tbe question or request are not stated, is not one of
serious importance, because the reader, with either of these two nearly-allied
meanings of inepurypa, will readily understand what movement of the soul is in
the writer's thought. — 17. The phrase Si' dvaardaeug is best connected with auQei,
Baptism, in the sense indicated, saves the believer by means of tbe resurrection
of Jesus Christ. The resurrection of Christ is referred to bore, apparently, for
two reasons : flrst, because this great fact is the ground on which the results of
His death are secured, and the life of the Christian in union with God is carried
forward in its developraent; and, secondly, because the author has the desire to
set forth the facts with regard to Christ's own experience, from His suffering
of death for sin to His exaltation at the right hand of God. [Kiihl agrees with
Huther in regarding Sid of ver. 20, as instrumental. — He holds that by the
words inepurypa, K.r.l. (ver. 21), baptism is described as a request addressed to
God, for power and strengthening to the end of dyaBonoielv, on the ground of
which dyaB. we can have a good conscience. Tho connection of tho thought
of the good conscience with good action, which is suggested in ver. 16, appears
in another form here, even though there raay be no immediate connection
between the two verses. — He agrees with Huther in connecting St' dvaardaeug
with auQei.]
XX.
CHAPTER IV.
Vv. 1-6.
1. These verses contain a new exhortation in the line of what precedes, and
one which takes up the thought of Christ's suffering, as set forth in iii. 18. In
this passage, oiv evidently connects the new exhortation with the reference to
Christ's death, according to tho flesh; aapKi is the dative of reference: so far
forth as the adp^ is concerned; bnllaaaBe is used because tho thought is of
defence against the assaults of persecution, etc. ; iwoiav is perhaps best trans
lated by ttou^fti, with tho sense as given by Huther: "they should not refuse
the thought of, like Him, suffering according to the flesh," but there is some,
reason to believe that the word raay raean mind, in the sense of disposition of
mind. Alford holds that it raeans intent or resolution, and appeals to Eur. Hel.
1012, and Isocr. p. 112d; 6 naSiiv, K.r.l., seeras to have a certain reference to
the flrst words of ver. 1, but not to be limited, in its application, to Christ; these
words appear, rather, to be an encouragement to the readers to be ready to suffer,
by reason of the thought that tho result of such suffering in the course of true
Christian living is a ceasing of subjection to the power of sin. Tbe believer
ceases from his connection with sin, after a kindred manner to that in which
Christ ceased from His (widely different) relation to it. — 2. The phrase eig rb
pyKirt, K.r.l,, of ver. 2, is, no doubt, rightly explained by Huther as connected
with bnllaaaBe, It expresses the end in view of the exhortation. If the readers
armed theraselves with the same thought, as related to sufferings in tho right
eous Christian life, which was in Christ, they would cease to live in accordance
with, as governed by the rule of, the lusts of men, and would be governed by
the will of God. The iniBvplai here referred to are evidently the unholy desires
of men apart from God, and especially those which characterized the lives of
the heathen, by whom the readers were surrounded, and which are indicated in

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 755
ver. 3. — 3. The contrast of the time past to the remaining' time shows clearly
tho correctness of Huther's remark, that aapKl denotes here, as in ver. 1, the
earthly human nature, to which the mortal body belongs. The third verse is
introduced as a ground or reason for the pyKiri Siuaai, k, r.l. It would seem to
indicate that a considerable proportion, at least, of the readers had been
heathen before tbeir conversion. [Kiihl agrees with Huther that iwoiav (ver. 1)
means tliought. He regards ninavrai as in the middle voice: he has ceased
from sin. The idea of Peter, as here expressed, does not correspond with that
of Paul in Rora. vi. ; tho thought of Paul being that of a dying in the spiritual
sense, while that of Peter is of suffering according to the flesh. The word
naBuv, in both parts of the verse, is used with reference to outward sufferings.
— Kiihl thinks the expression to have wrought the will of tlie Gentiles (ver. 3)
is an indication that before their conversion, the readers wore not Gentiles, but
Jews. It was the Jews only who were prepared by special Divine revelations,
and bound thereby to live, not according to human desires, but to the Divine
will. The word dBipirog, he regards, also, as appropriate only for Jews.]
4. The words ev cJ of vor. 4 are translated by A. V. and R. V. by wherein,
and if this may be regarded as meaning: their astonishment that you do not go
on in tho same course, and with a sirailar excess of riot with themselves, arises
and moves in the sphere of this fact, — this explanation may be the best one.
The sense would thus approach closely towards Huther's explanation, who
makes ev g5 mean: because, or on account of tbe fact that, you have thus
walked, they are surprised that, etc. If the English versions refer by wherein
to the former heathen life of revellings, etc., and make it lirait the words, run
not to the same excess of riot, the meaning given by them is less in accordance
with the sentence than that given by making iv ip equivalent to because. The
genitive absolute py avvrpexbvruv, K.r.l., is causal. — 5. Ver. 5 points to the
judgment awaiting those heathen revilors, as a thing which, when under per
secution, under the injury coming frora being defamed, etc., the Christian
readers should bear in mind. The enemy was not always to triumph, or to
have power against them: God was their avenger, their support, and the
mighty power on their side; and the day of judgment was to corae. — The
phrase ru iroipug ixovn indicates the nearness of the judgment, according to its
most natural interpretation, and raay thus have a bearing upon the question as
to Peter's view with regard to the parousia. [Kiihl agrees with Huther that
iv li (ver. 4) is to be understood as raeaning because. — He holds that vsKpoi of
ver. 5 refers to all the dead, and that the apostle has in raind, and makes prom
inent, the universality of tho judgment.]
6. The living and dead mentioned in ver. 5 are thus described, apparently,
with reference to the matter and time of the judgraent; and thus tho moaning
is, that the Lord will judge all, whether they bo living at the time of judgment,
or whether they have died before that tirae. There is no necessary liraitation
of the expression to the revilers, etc., here spoken of; but from the general
character of the words, the thought suggested is, that, as the judgraent is to be
passed upon all, whether living or dead, it will come upon these raen. — 7. Ver.
6 is introduced by ydp, as a ground of what is said in ver. 5. It is evident that
in ver. 6 the case of the veKpol is made the subject of thought, the Quvreg boing
no longer in mind. The statement of the verse is, that something was done
or occurred to the dead to the end of their being judged, and thus they are
brought under the Kplvat of the preceding verso. > The thing which was thus
done is sot forth in tho word evyyyeliaBy, and the purpose of this verb is

756 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
presented in the Iva clause. The determination of the writer's meaning must
depend, or partly depend, on tho true explanation of this verb, as affected by
what follows the final particle. It will be noticed that the verb is in tho aorist
tense. It must therefore, as it would seem, refer to a time past, either as
related to the time of writing the sentence, or as related to the time of judg
ment. The fact that vsKpoig of ver. 5 is used of those who shall be dead at the
time ot the judgment may favor the latter reference; but the natural under
standing of a past tense, which sets forth a fact, as indicating a fact which
is already past when the word is written, points most strongly to the former
reference. AVhen we add to the fact of this natural understanding of the
tense, the striking presentation of a certain class of persons, belonging to the
O. T. history, in tho earlier part of the passage which closes with the present
verse, — namely, the men who lived just before the flood, lib 19, — the case
becomes rauch stronger for this first view of the meaning. There seem,
therefore, to be weighty reasons to believe that, in this verse, the apostle is
speaking again of those whora he has mentioned already, and that he alludes
to the sarae thing in eiyyye7daBy to which he alluded in eKypv^ev in iii. 19. If
this is correct, the verb eiyy-y. determines the moaning of the verb iKijpv^ev, and
the time of the act indicated by both is one and the same. — 8. The word
veKoolg of ver. 6 is, in its form, as unlimited as veKpoig of vor. 5; but it does not
seera to follow from this necessarily, that it is actually, according to the writer's
thought, as unlimited in its application. The expression, in both cases, is not
ol veKpol, but veKpoi, and thus the persons referred to are described according to
the peculiarity of their condition, rather than as the whole of a class. In such
a form of expression, the whole class may bo designated, or it may not be:
the decision will depend on the suggestions of the sentence or tbe context. In
ver. 5 all the indications of the sentence point to khe word as denoting the
whole company of the dead, but in ver. 6 tho suggestions already made may
show that a raore special reference is intended. — It ought to be remarked,
however, that, while this word in ver. 6 raay refer to a special section of the
dead, it is contrary to all tho indications of the passage to make it mean, in
the one verse, persons who are dead in a different sense from that in which the
persons mentioned in the other verse are dead, — ver. 6 meaning the spiritually
dead, and ver. 5 tho physically dead. — 9. The reader should observe that, in the
iva clause, the first verb is in tho aorist tense, and the second in the present.
This fact is significant, and seems to show that the words tva KpiBuaiv do not
prove the preaching to have taken place before the death of the persons referred
to. Rather does the forra of tho sentence in this regard indicate the correct
ness of Huther's view of it: that while KpiBuaiv and Quaiv are grammatically
co-ordinated, the former verb holds, in tbe thought, a subordinate position,
and that tho meaning of the clause is: in order that they, after the flesh,
indeed, judged by death, may live according to the spirit. As Canon Cook
says, the terra KpiBuaiv "is evidently used with reference to their previous state,
not to the time of the announceraent.'' He also says, "The Greek makes a
distinction between the two propositions: the forraer does not apply to the
effect of the tidings, but to the condition of those who were addressed; the
next proposition, but live, tells us what was the- ultimate and perfect effect
upon those who were prepared to receive it." — 10. The datives aapd and
nveipan are to be explained as datives of reference: so far forth as the flesh, or
tbe spirit, is concerned; as regards the flesh, or the spirit. The expressions
Kara dvBpunovg, Kara Beov, moan after the manner of men, God, in such a manner

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 757
as corresponds with the nature of man and the law of his being, — in such a
manner as answers to the life of God and as He imparts His own life to men.
[Kiihl holds that the special emphasis in ver. 6 is on veKpoig. This is clear, as
he thinks, both frora tho repetition of this word, and from the kuL This koI
points to the contrast to the Quvreg, to whom also the gospel is preached ; and as
those Quvreg are the same as those in ver. 5, the veKpoi in this verse must be the
sarae with tho veKpoi in ver. 5. All the dead are referred to here, as in the pre
vious verse, and thus the gospel, ho thinks, is declared to be preached to all tho
dead. — The explanation of KpiBuai and Quai, and of the iva clause, in which
those verbs are found, which is favored by Huther, is adopted by Kiihl. — The
idea lying at the foundation of the thought of ver. 6, iu its connection with
ver. 5, is, as he thinks, that a judgment of the dead is to be thought of only in
case the possibility of salvation is given them through the proclamation of the
gospel.] In the consideration of this whole passage frora iii. 13 to iv. 6, it Is impor
tant to keep in remembrance the fact, that the apostle has in mind not only an
exhortation for his readers in the midst of porsecutjous and revilings, and an
encouragement for them as connected with Christ's experience and His work,
but that he has also the desire to set forth the experience of Christ for its own
sake, as connected with His gloriflcation, and His work, in itself, as leading
to the end of life and salvation. Those two things are interwoven together
throughout the passage, and the interpreter who does not bear this in mind is
liable to misapprehension of the apostle's thought. — The work of Christ
is -represented here, as it is everywhere in the N. T., as tending towards the
salvation of men. He suffered, that they might be forgiven, and delivered
from sin. He rose again, that the new life might be secured within them. He
ascended to the right hand of God, exalted above the highest powers, that His
people and His kingdom might be forever triumphant. The bearing of this
upon the two difficult verses iii. 19 and iv. 6, whatever our final decision as
to their meaning may bo, will be carefully estimated by all who properly
examine them as parts of this passage.

XXL
Vv. 7-11.
1. The seventh verse sets forth, in a brief and distinct statement, the near
ness of the end of all things. This statement seems to be suggested by tho
thought of the approaching judgment; and in this way the discourse passes on
from what precedes to this new paragraph. The exhortations of this paragraph
are directed, in the first place, towards that sober-mindedness, love to one an
other, etc., which are befitting in view of the nearness of the end, and secondly,
to that devotion to the use of the peculiar gifts and duties belonging to each
believer, as an individual, which may promote the glory of God, — a thing which
also becomes tho believer, especially as the time of the end draws near. —2. The
two verbs, auippovyaare and -vy-ipare, are kindred in meaning: the former is ren
dered by R. v., he of sound mind ; tho latter, he sober. Both verbs convey the
idea of that sober and temperate condition of mind, which restrains and governs
all undue passion, and abides in a serious thought of life, its duties and its mean
ing. Tho words eig npnaevxug, which designate the end in view of the verb vyipare,
bring before us tho thought of that communion with God in prayer, which is so

758 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
often presented in the N. T. as the very atmosphere of the Christian's life. —
3. The expression npb ndvruv is not to be regarded as setting love above prayer;
for the comparison is not with prayer, but with sober-mindedness. Expressions
of this character, we may believe, are not to be pressed to the absolute literal
ness and fulness of their ineaning. They are used raany tiraos, no doubt, as
indicating what the writer regards as most important to be urged in connection
with some special point which ho has in mind at tho time, and occasionally even
with a mere rhetorical earnestness. The love which he would urge, them to
have is intense, on the stretch, fervent; and he would press this upon them
with special emphasis, because love covers a multitude of sins. The remark of
Leighton on this verse probably gives the true idea of the meaning: "Hatred
stirs strife [the first words of the O. T. passage (Prov. x. 12) from which not
improbably this verse is borrowed], aggravates, and makes the worst of all; but
love covers, etc. ; it delights not in undue disclosing of brethren's failings, doth
not eye thera rigidly, nor expose thera willingly to tbe eyes of others."
4. The exhortation to hospitality follows naturally upon that which urges to
love, as this was one of the prominent forth-puttings of love at that period of
the history of the Church. The expression Uvev yoyyvapov is really involved
in the idea of ipilb^evoi, — loving hospitality is without murmuring or complain
ing, an ungrudging gift of Christian brotherly love.
5. The exhortations with respect to the xopiapara correspond closely, though
much of the language used is different, with what is said by Paul in Rom. xii. 6 ff.
These verses (10, II) may indicate the true view respecting Peter's language in
such cases, — that it was possibly affected in sorae measure by his knowledge of
what Paul had written, but that it was not borrowed from Paul, and that the
thought was suggested by the needs of the readers for whom ho wrote, by which
he was himself impressed. — W^liat Paul expresses in Romans and 1 Corinthians
by tho verb pep'iQu, — the distribution of tbe gifts according to tbe measure of the
grace of God bestowed in each gift, — is here hinted at by Peter, apparently, in
the word noiKi'lyg, — 6. Peter specializes only two gifts, one in the line of the
teacher's or prophet's office; the other, in that of tbe diaconate. With regard
to the individual words of the eleventh verse, it raay be observed, that lalel is a
general word which may cover tho utterances both of tho SiSdoKalog and the
npoipyryi ; that Ibyia evidently here means words or utterances comraunicatod by
God, thus teachings and revelations; 'iaxvog means strength or ability ("to the
extent of one's ability," Grimm), which is regarded as supplied in every case
by God according to His own will ; iv ndaiv means in all things, rather than in
all persons, the reference being to the varied things suggested by the preceding
words respecting the gifts; li, in tho doxology, is to be understood as referring
to God, as Huther and most recent commentators take it. The doxological
passages in the N. T. almost universally refer to God, and here God is mani
festly the prominent subject of thought. Though it is evidently possible to
refer the relative to 'Ii^aov Xpiaroi, and this is tho nearest name in tho sentence,
Christ is so entirely secondary in the sentence, the instrumental agent through
whora the glory comes to God, that tho ascription of glory to Him at the close
of the whole paragraph is altogether improbable. [Kiihl, like Huther, connects
the exhortation to sobriety and sound-mindedness, through the particle ovv
(ver. 7), with the thought of the nearness of the end. The participles and
adjectives of the following clauses, he would regard as gramraatically depend
ent on auippovyaare Kal vy-ipure. The turn of thought frora ver. 8 to ver. 9 is
from forgiving love to ministering and serving love. Tho word xbpiapa (vor. 10)

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 759
does not refer, he thinks, to extraordinary gifts, but to the capacity to use
one's ordinary gifts for the service of others, and tho good of the church. —
Inasmuch as the words did 'I^^toO Xptarov (ver. 11) hold a subordinate position
as related to the verb SoidQyrai, which contains the principal idea, Kuhl regards
it as impossible to refer the doxology to Christ.]

XXIL
Vv. 12-19.
1. Tho apostle now passes to a further line of exhortation with respect to
suffering under persecution, showing by this repeated reference, and the careful
and solemn drawing-out of the matter, how largely this subject was occupying
his mind. The introduction of the word dyanyrol again at this place may be
intended to give emphasis to the new presentation of this urgent request and
demand. —2. The subject is opened by bidding the readers not to think it
strange that they should meet with severe trials. The dative ry nvpuaei is a
dative used with this verb, and seems to mean at or with reference to. The
participle yivopivy is present, and indicates that the fiery trial is now happening,
or coming upon them. The nipuaig is evidently here used of the persecutions,
etc., which, as a refiner's fire, were designed of God to be for a proving or test
ing of their Christian character. — 3. In contrast to such a thought of these
trials as strange, they should, so far forth as {kuBo) they participated in Christ's
sufferings by undergoing experiences of a similar character, rejoice in order
that, etc.,— that is, they should be in that state of joy in their sharing of
Christ's sufferings which is the legitimate preparation for tho joy hereafter, at
the time of the revelation of His glory, in the participation in that glory. The
participle dyalliupevoi, with exultant joy, gives not only a characteristic of
the heavenly rejoicing, but also therewith an incitement to tho preparation
for it. — 4. Ver. 14 adds an encouragement to obey tho exhortation, which is
founded on the proof, which their suffering in the name of Christ gives, that
they have.the Divine Spirit resting upon them. Tho Divine Spirit is also called
the Spirit of glory, as wo may believe, because the apostle's thought is of the
glory of tho future as the ground of the exultant joy of the future. The Spirit
whoso characteristic is glory, and who thus can give it, rests permanently upon
suffering followers of Christ, and thus the joy of the future is assured, because
the glorifying process is ever going forward towards its consummation at the
end. — 5. yup of ver. 15 is best taken with Alford, as giving the ground for
the supplied thought: " I say. In the name of Christ," for it is not of the suffer
ing indicated in ver. 15, but of that indicated in ver. 16, that the macarism can
be uttered and the glory now and hereafter can be predicated. — 6. The peculiar
word dllorpioeniaKonog occurs nowhere else in the N. T., and seems somewhat
strange as connected with such words as " thief " and " murderer." The connec
tion apparently indicates such an interfering in the way of attempted oversight,
etc., as would be likely to provoke hostility, and thus bring violent treatment
from the other (heathen) party upon themselves. The word nepiepyaQdpevoi,
which Paul uses in 2 Thess. iii. 11, is a kindred word, and is nearly, though
perhaps not precisely, equivalent in meaning. [Kiihl regards the passage from
ver. 12 to ver. 19 as a new section with which chap. v. is closely connected,
and the suggestions in which refer to sufferings, etc., within tho church, and
occasioned by persons who were in the membership of the church. — He regards

760 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
the use of tbe words ^evlQeaBe and ^ivov as indicating the early date of the
Epistle, — a time when such experiences raight be looked upon as strange or
surprising. — He agrees with Huther in taking ydp of vor. 15 as equivalent to
that is to say, or namely, and not as a causal particle.]
7. The terra XPtanavbg occurs elsewhere in the N. T. only in Acts xi. 26,
xxvi. 28. Whether it is here used as a mere designation of the believers as
followers of Christ, or whether, on the other hand, the idea of scorn or con
tempt lies in tho name as used by those outside of the church, may be ques
tioned. The verb which follows, let him not be ashamed, may indicate the
latter. The second of the two imperatives, let him glorify God, indicates that
he should praise God that ho is thus permitted to suffer for the sake of Christ.
The phrase iv ru bvbpari roiru raay mean, in tho sphere of this name of Chris
tian, or of the name of Christ. The iv, in either case, raeans in (in the sphere
of) in the sense of on account of. — 8. The particle on of ver. 17 introduces the
reference to the judgment as tbe ground for not being ashamed, but for glorify
ing God. The word Kaipbg suggests the idea of the appointed time as already
at hand; and the writer apparently conceives of the persecutions, etc., which
serve the end of severely trying and testing the Christians, as the beginning of
that judgment of God which is to be consumraated at the parousia, and to
result in the final condemnation of the ungodly. He thus takes into his thought
the whole epoch of tbe parousia, if it may be so designated, including the calam
ities, etc., preceding it, as well as the parousia itself, and its attendant events.
This passage furnishes strong evidence, therefore, that the writer regarded him
self and his readers as being already in the last times. — 9. Tho proposition dnb
conveys tho idea of the moving of the judgment from its beginning-point, the
house of God, towards the unchristian world. The same thought is presented
in npurov dip' ypuv. — The word rilog means the final result, that which will be
the issue of the judgment for the disobedient and unrighteous. — MdA(f , scarcely,
apparently refers to the difflculty of passing, the judgment. As Keil says, the
believer is not free from sin before God, who tries the reins and hearts, but
comes short of the glory of God, and cannot, therefore, base his salvation on
his own good works and his own merits; but owes it only to the Divine grace,
which forgives his sins. — ttov ipavtlrai; wliere will he appear? i.e., he will not
be able to appear at all as standing before God in the judgraent. This question
is equivalent to an emphatic negative, as frequently in tho Pauline Epistles. —
10. The omission of ug in ver. 19 before niaru Knary, is in accordance with the
best authorities, and the expression gains by means of it its best form. The
readers are exhorted in the midst of their sufferings to commit their souls in
well-doing to a faithful Creator. These sufferings are In accordance with the
will of their Creator; and, as they trust in Him, He will be faithful to them in
the fulfilment of His plan for their salvation. The phrase iv dyaBonoda indicates
the sphere within which their life and action should be, as they commit thera
selves to the protection of God; and, being placed where it is at the end of the
sentence, and of the whole section on the matter of suffering, it emphatically
turns the thought again to the main idea of doing good, and not evil, and thus
leaves the impression of this idea as the final impression on the reader's mind.
[Kiihl thinks the words in this name may refer either to the name Christian or
Christ, but is apparently inclined to favor the latter reference. — He regards the
words where will he appear as indicating that the ungodly will, as Keil says, go
away frora the Divine judgraent e'lg dnuleiav. — He connects Kai, of ver. 19, with
m'laxovreg, and not, as Huther does, with uare. The latter construction is not

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 761
found in the N.T., he says. He thinks the thought here presented is in the
sphere of the earliest Christian teaching, wherein that which is specifically
Christian sometimes, in a remarkable way, retires into tho background.]

XXIII.
CHAPTER V.
Vv. 1-7.
1. There can be but little doubt that in vor. 1 the apostle addresses official
elders. This is indicated both by tbe fact that he speaks of himself as avpnpeaSv-
repoi, a word which can hardly apply to age only, and by what he calls upon the
persons addressed to do, and not to do, — to tend the flock of God as shepherds,
and to exorcise oversight; and, on the other hand, not to lord it over tho charge
committed to them. On the contrary, when ho addresses tho veurifioi in vor. 5,
since there were no officials bearing this designation, he must moan the younger
in years; and by npeaSvripoig, in the same verse, he must mean the elder in years.
The change in the sense of npeaSvripoig from that of the same word in vor. 1 is
far less improbable than the uso of the adjective veurepoi to designate tho
younger ministry, or the church as contrasted with the elders. The word npeaSi
repog, as employed in the N. T., has two meanings; tho word vedirepog but one.
Wo shovUd determine the signification of the word which has a double possi
bility of meaning, in a case like this, by the one which has only a single mean
ing. — 2. The exhortation to the elders to do their work is founded, by the
particle oijv, on what goes before; possibly on the idea suggested by dyaBonoilg.
of iv. 19, possibly on this idea as being, in a sense, the basis of the whole
thought from iii. 14 onward. — 3. Peter calls himself a fellow-elder, as John, in
the second and third Epistles, speaks of himself as the elder, because in the
essential idea of oversight, and of the tending of the fiock, be was in the same
position with the elders. In one sense, as an apostle he was above them, and in
the exercise of a higher function; but in another, they and he were substantially
alike. We can hardly fail to be reminded, by tho apostle's exhortation here, of
the bidding which Jesus gave to him after His resurrection, John xxL 16. —
4. That he was also a witness of the sufferings of Christ, is mentioned as a part
of his likeness to tho other elders. This word paprig, according to the common
use in the N. T., means rather a bearer of testiraony than an eye-witness. As
used by Peter respecting hiraself, however, we raay believe that it carried within
it to his own mind, and also to the minds of his first readers, the latter idea in
connection with the former. He was one of those apostles to whom Jesus said,
"And ye also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning."
— 5. The allusion to tbe sufferings of Christ, and the glory that shall bo revealed,
connects this passage with tho closing part of chap. iv. ; and this fact may indi
cate, that, in his exhortation to the elders to shepherd or tend the flock of God,
he had in mind, as a thing of sorae prorainence, the {iringing them under the
infiuenee of thoughts such as those with tho presentation of which the preced
ing chapter closes. [Kiihl regards the first words of ver. 1 as substantially
equivalent to: presbyters araong you, i.e., if there are such araong you who are
eldest in years. Ho finds here an indication that Peter thought it possible that
in many of the churches there might be no presbyters, and thus an indication
of the early date of the Epistle. — He regards the word jjiiprvg as not referring
to the fact, that, as an apostle, he had been an eye-witness of the sufferings of

762 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
Christ, but only as raeaning a witness, in the sense that he bore tesJraony of
them. The emphasis in respect to the witnessing is found in the fact that ho is
a participator in the sufferings. — He thinks tbe veurepoi 'here spoken of were a
particular body, or class of young men, who were assigned to duties in subordi
nation to the elders (presbyters)].
6. The participle eniaKonoivreg is omitted by the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS.,
but is accepted by Tischendorf, R. V., and most of the best recent commen
tators. If read, this verse becomes one>mong the several passages tending to
prove that the two titles inloKonog and npeaSvrepog belonged to tbe same office,
and were, in this sense, equivalent to each other. — 7. The proper discharge of
the duty of the office of elder is set forth by means of three contrasts : the first,
that it should be with willingness, and not by constraint; i.e., the elder should
be moved by an inward impulse, and not by a compelling influence from outside
of himself; tbe second, that it should be with the readiness and zeal of a warm
hearted soul (out of love to the thing itself, as Huther says), and not under the
influence ot base avariciousness (a'laxpoiepSug is strictly equivalent to aiaxpoi
KipSov xupiv, Tit. i. II, which passage Huther refers to); the third, that it should
be with the desire of inspiring and helping the members of the churches by the
example of their own Christian living, and not in tho way of exercising authority
and being oppressive governors. The apostle thus carefully guards against the
idea of an authoritative priesthood, lording it over the church. The elder is to
bo a shepherd, tending the flock with a loving oversight. He is to bo moved by
no desire of authority, but to be an example to those under his pastoral charge,
and to be moved by the noblest and most unselfish impulses only to earnest
effort and care. — The word Klypuv is explained as a plural correctly by Huther.
It refers to tho several congregations under the charge of tho several elders. —
8. Following the exhortation, wo find the assurance of reward given to the
elders. The reward is the Sb^a, which is referred to in ver. 1. It is called here
an amarantine crown. The adjective is explained by Huther and others as
derived frora the substantive dpdpavrog, and thus as meaning strictly amaranth
ine. This flower was the unfading flower, and so the idea is that the crown
or garland is to be unfading, — the glory, which is the crown, is to be endless.
[Kiihl agrees with Huther as to the derivation and raeaning of dpapdvnvog, and
also as to the relation of the genitive Sb^yg to ariipavov. — The chief shepherd Is
Christ ; under Hira are tho presbyters, as shepherds ; the owner and lord of the
flock is God.]
9. The exhortation now passes to the younger Christians, and is to the end
of a submissive demeanor; and thus, that they should exhibit tho spirit of
humility in their relation to those who were advanced in life beyond themselves.
This idea of humility seems to pervade the whole passage. It raanifests itself
prominently in the pySe KaruKvpieiovreg of ver. 3, in the inordyyre of ver. 5, and
in the raneivoippoavvyv of the second exhortation in ver. 5. This uniting idea of
humility raay account, as Huther holds that it does, for the use of the adverb
bpoiug, at the beginning of ver. 5. But this adverb may simply suggest, that, as
the exhortation to fulfil appropriate duties has been given to one class, so now a
similar exhortation to fulfil a certain other appropriate duty is given to another
class. — 10. The thought moves outward from individual classes to all, and
the particle Si becomes thus nearly equivalent to the yea of R. V. The dative
dllyloig seems, on the whole, to bo explained satisfactorily as a dative of refer
ence after tho expression t^v raneivoippoaivyv iyKopSuaaaBe; but the explanation
favored by Huther, which connects the words ndvreg Si dllyloig with tho preced-

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 763
ing sentence, and makes TrdvrEf, like veurepoi, the subject of the verb inordyyre,
is certainly a possible one, against which no serious objection can be urged.
The suggestions made by Huther with reference to iyKopSuaaaBe, are probably
to be accepted, and the word is to be rendered as in R. V. : gird yourselves with
humility, — hind it closely about you as a garment. — II. In vv. 6, 7, the idea
of the sufferings which the Christian readers wore called upon to endure is again
clearly suggested, and the course which they should take, as already set forth in
iv. 19, is once raore impressively urged upon their thought. The issue of all
their sufferings would be their exaltation to glory when the appointed time should
come; and the anxiety with which their hearts were likely to be filled, in con
nection with their trials and persecutions, might be laid upon God; tbey might
trustfully and peacefully commit their souls to Him, their faithful Creator,
because their welfare and salvation were a care to Him. The distinction in tho
words used here may be noticed: in tho human mind, it is anxiety; in the Divino
mind, it is care. He careth for you. — The aorist inipplijiuvreg, perhaps, conveys
the idea of an act once for all. Tho whole anxiety of life was to be cast upon
God by one great act of confidouce and trust in His perpetual care of the trusting
soul. [Kiihl regards bpoiug (ver. 5) as indicating only that tho exhortation of
this verse corresponds with the one which precedes, without flnding, in the
adverb, the suggestion which Huther presents. — The connection of ver. 8 with
ver. 7 he thinks to be this: This confldence (ver. 7) should not be like a carnal
security, but the Christian should be, after casting his care, etc., as well as
before, always sober and watchful (ver. 8).]

XXIV.
Vv. 9-11.
1. The thought now turns from the sufferings to the one who originates
them by inspiring his followers to contend against the kingdom of God. The
adversary, the Devil, is to be resisted. To this end, especially, must the
Christian readers be sober and watchful. The Devil is represented as roaming
about, like a wild beast, with tho intent to destroy all those whom he can seize
upon, and by the power of persecution, etc., can draw away from the Christian
faith. The way to withstand his assaults and resist his power is, to be firm,
established immovably, in the faith which the believer has in his soul. Faith
is hpre, as elsewhere, subjective faith. R. V. text renders ry niarei, in your
faith. — 2. The participle eiSdreg is causal ; it presents a ground on which they
may thus resist the Devil, and an encouragement to do so. This ground of
encouragement is the knowledge that the same sufferings are boing accom
plished, — that is, are in process of being brought to their end, and to the issue
which is designed in tho plan of God for His people, — with reference to, for,
in the case of, their Christian brotherhood in the world. Tho consciousness of
the fact that the heavenly kingdom at the end is to be entered only after a
course of testing and trial, is a strength to the Christian in every age, when be
is called upon to endure. — 3. The expression rd avrd ruv naBypdruv seeras to bo
used, instead of rd aird naBypara, in order, as Do Wette says, to emphasize
peculiarly the idea of sameness. — 4. The assurance and promise of the result
and issue of the sufferings are still again set forth. The God who called you unto
His glory will not abandon His purpose. Whora He called, these Ho will glorify.
The suffering will continue b'Myov, which seems here to refer to time, a little

764 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
while ; the result will be permanent. This result is set forth in three words,
perfect, establish, strengthen ; or if Bepeliuaai, which is doubtful, be admitted
into the text, a fourth word is added, settle, as on a flrm foundation. All
these words seem to express a single idea, and the reference of them all is,
apparently, to the establishment of character in holiness, and against all
assaults of enemies and of evil, rather than to the reward in glory of the
heavenly Iif e : God Himself w'lil secure tbis result {airbg); He careth for you.
— 5. The word Kpdrog is peculiarly appropriate in the doxology following this
tenth verse, and is more impressive without the doubtful word Sb^a, which is
omitted by Tisch. and Westcott and Hort, than with it. [Kiihl takes dSelipbryn
as a dative of reference {dativ. incommodi). The doxology of ver. II ho compares
with that in iv. 11 ; but he thinks that the thought is concentrated here upon
tho idea of Kpdrog, by means of which God is able to accomplish what He wishes
to bring to pass.]
XXV.
Vv. 12-14.
1. In these concluding verses, the writer refers to his letter briefiy, as Paul
does sometimes at the end of his epistles, and then offers salutations from
those with whora he was now living. Then follows the apostolic benediction. —
2. On the words and phrases of this passage, tho following suggestions may be
offered: (a) Silvanus is, in all probability, the person of this name mentioned
by Paul. — (6) The words ug loylQopai are more naturally connected with roi
niarov dSelifoi, than, as Huther prefers, with St' bliyuv. These words do not
mean as I suppose, as A. V. renders, but as I account him (R. V.), or, as I
judge or think, by reason of my knowledge of hira. It is an expression of
assurance, not of doubt. — (c) This is the true grace of God. If we read ctt^te,
as the external evidence shows that we should, it seems probable that it is an
imperative, as R. V. takes it. If this be the true view, tho word this refers
most naturally to what precedes, and the simplest and best explanation of tho
meaning, as it appears to the writer of this note, is this: At the close of
the epistle, the apostle looks back, as it were, over its whole thought, and he
finds everywhere, at the foundation of it, this idea of the Divine grace. His
epistle has been called the epistle of hope. The hope is founded on the grace.
He says to his readers : This grace which I have set before you throughout ray
letter, the grace on which all Christian hope rests, and on which it raay securely
rest, is the true grace of God. This I testify to you, as I exhort you. Stand
fast aud firraly in this grace. — {d) With respect to ver. II, the writer of these
notes would only say, that y avveKleKrij appears to him to designate a church, and
not an individual, Peter's wife, or some other Christian woraan; that Babylon
is to be understood literally, and not figuratively as if referring to Rome; and
that Mark is the one spoken of in the Acts, and in the Second Epistle to
Tiraothy, and is the author of the Gospel which bears tbis name, — the word son
being used here in a figurative, spiritual sense. The remarks of Huther in his
note on this verse, and in his Introduction to the Epistle, with respect to Baby
lon and Rome, may be commended to the attention of the reader. But the
question of Peter's relation to Rome is one which requires, for its full discus
sion, much more space than is given to it in this commentary. Whether he
was ever in that city, or not, the question of tho present verse is simply tho
question as to the place whore this Epistle was written. [Kiihl connects ii;

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 765
loy'iQopai with tou niarov dSelipov, — He regards eig yv aryre as an impossible
reading, because tho relative sentence must bo only a further description of the
particular xuptg to which rairyv refers, and cannot be of a hortatory character. —
He thinks the word aweKleKry is to be understood as referring to a church, and
this church is, as he holds, the one in Babylon, which word is to be taken in its
literal sense, and not as a figurative or symbolic designation of Rome.]

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.

XXVL
CHAPTER I.
Vv. 1-11.

1. The salutation of this epistle is in some points like that of 1 Peter, but
in some it is different. The differences, however, do not seem to be such as
necessarily to suggest any difference in the authorship of the two letters. The
addition of the name Simon, or Simeon, was not unnatural in the case of an
old man who was drawing near his end, and, in view of it, was in a paternal
and affectionate way addressing his readers. The addition of Soilog to uTrduTo-
log, if any explanation of this is needed, may readily be accounted for in a
similar way. That the readers should be spoken of in the more general
manner which we observe here, instead of being described according to their
places of abode as in 1 Peter, can hardly be regarded as occasioning difflculty,
especially when we consider tho indication in chap. iii. ver. 1. — 2. The parti
ciple laxoiaiv denotes an obtaining by a divine allotment, and regards the
Christian condition of the readers as a gift of God. Faith is subjective faith
here, as generally in the N. T. It is siraply placed in an objective relation to
the participle. The pronoun ijplv refers to the writer and his fellow-apostles; at
least, this is a natural reference, and all that is necessary to meet the demands
of the case. This pronoun, as a dative, depends on the laog idea in the adjec
tive iabnpov, and the use of this adjective seems to be occasioned by the sense
of the value of faith to every believer, wliich the writer had, and the sense of
fairness in the equal allotment to all believers as they come into possession
of the same faith. This sense of equal allotment is carried into a more full
expression of it by the addition of the words iv StKaioaivy, k.t.I, That StKaioaivy
has here its ordinary, rather than its peculiar Pauline sense, is indicated both
by the Immediately preceding words with which it is connected, and by the fact
that we do not obtain faith through justification, but justiflcatlon through faith.
The word hero draws near to the idea of justice, that Is, it suggests the thought
of righteousness in its dealing equally and fairly with all.
3. With reference to the words tov Beov i/piuv Kal aurypog 'lyaoi Xpiarov, and
the question whether they involvo a declaration that Jesus Christ is Bebg, tbe
reader may bo referred to the Additional Note of the American editor of
Meyer's Commentary, Epistle to Titus, chap. il. 13, the passage most nearly
parallel with this, in which the arguments on both sides of the question are

766 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
presented. The points which are peculiar to the present passage are: (a) that
ypuv is here placed after Beoi, and not after aurypog; this pronoun cannot, there
fore, have a liraiting and deflning force for the latter noun, and thus supply the
place of an independent article distinguishing auryp from Bebg as a different
person; (6) that in this epistle there are four cases seemingly parallel with
this, where the phrases b Kipiog kuI auryp, b Kipiog kuI auryp 'I. Xp. , or b Kvpiog yuuv
KUI aurijp 'I. Xp. are used, namely, i. 11, ii. 20, iii. 2, 18, and in all these the two
words joined by kuI under a single article, are evidently appellatives relating to
one and the same person ; (c) that, on the other hand, in the verse which
follows the present one (ver. 2), Qebg and Xpiarbg are evidently separated, though
with a different arrangement of words, as two distinct persons. The different
arrangement of the words in ver. 2 is pressed by those who claim that ver. 1
applies the name Qebg to Christ; but the change from Qebg to Kipiog in the pas
sages referred to under (6) is urged, after a similar raanner, against the force of
those passages in the argument, by those who deny this application in ver. 1. —
In the R. V., the English revisers, both here and in Tit. ii. 13, read our God
and Saviour (in Titus, our great God); the American revisers, on the other
hand, adopt the other view, and read our God and the Saviour here, the great
God and our Saviour in Tit. ii. 13.
4. The same form of salutation, xupK "o' eipyvy nlyBvvBe'iy, is found here
which is used in 1 Peter; but the remaining words of ver. 2 are peculiar to this
passage. 'Ev imyvuaei indicates that this grace and peace should be in and
through tho knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ. The word 'en'iyvuaig seems to
denote a more full knowledge than is meant by the simple yvuaig; but sometimes
the two words appear to bo used in substantially the same sense, and this may
not improbably be the case hero. Possibly, however, it has its full signiflcance
here, and the apostle may ask for his readers that grace and peace which are
connected with the fulness of knowledge, towards which fulness, at the close
of the Epistle, ili. IS, he exhorts them to grow.
5. Huther regards ug (ver. 3) as beginning a new sentence and paragraph;
so do Alford, Tischendorf, Keil, and others. Westcott and Hort, Lachmann,
and others, place a comma after ypCw of ver. 2 (R. V., a seraicolon), and con
tinue the sentence begun in ver. 2 to the end of ver. 4. The fact that all the
apostolic greetings in all the other epistles are coraplete in themselves, and form
a paragraph or sentence by themselves, to which Huther alludes, is a point
worthy of consideration. It must be admitted, however, that the koI of ver. 5
seems to be the beginning of an independent sentence, and not to be a conclu
sion from the preparatory and incomplete sentencfe contained in vv. 3, 4. With
some doubts, the writer of this note favors Huther's view, believing that the
Kal Se of ver. 5 may be accounted for as an irregular construction, occasioned by
tho length and involved character of the protasis portion of tho long sentence,
and by tho thought of ver. 5, as something added on the readers' own part to
what had been done and made possible for thera by God or Christ. — 6. Which
ever view we take of the connection of vv. 3, 4, tho particle uf is best translated
by seeing that (as R. V. ). The objective reason for tho exhortation in ver. 4, as
Huther remarks, is characterized by ug as a subjective motive. It is tho not
unfrequent construction of ug with tho genitive absolute. The word irdvra in
the passage introduced by if is placed flrst for the purpose of marked emphasis.
As the divine power has given us all things which pertain to life and godliness, we
may well, on our part, give all diligence to develop all the virtues of the godly
life, adding one to another and building up one upon another. — 7. The refer-

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 767
ence of airoi seems to the writer of this note, provided we hold God and Christ
to be distinguished from one another in ver. I, to bo rather to God than to
Christ, to whom Huther refers it, because God is, in that case, cleariy the most
prominent subject in tho preceding verses. If, however, Jesus Christ is spoken
of as God in ver. 1, He takes the first place in the thought, and the pronoun
naturally refers to Hira. The objection which Huther urges frora the improba-
biUty that the author would use the adjective divine, if he were speaking of God,
is worthy of consideration, but can hardly be considered decisive. — 8. The
arrangement in the sentence of rd npbg Quyv Kal evaiSeiav as related to ndvra is
noticeable. It is almost as if the writer had his thoughts so filled with a sense
of the blessedness of piety, that he thought it to be everything, and so ho said
all things, but afterwards, bethinking himself, he added, "I raean those which
pertain to piety." Of the two words Quyv and eiaiSeiav, the former denotes the
spiritual life of the soul, and the latter that life viewed in tbe light of its out
going towards God: piety or godliness; or perhaps, with Huther, the former is'
to be taken as conveying tho idea of blessedness, and the latter, that of conduct
as pertaining to the spiritual life. The preposition Trpdf is used here in the
sense of tending or leading to. These things which tend to life and piety have
been given us by God, and we are to use and appropriate them.
9. SeSupypivyg is a deponent middle form, with the sense of the active. The
gift is bestowed upon us Std ryg iniyvuaeug, — this word seems to refer to that
more full knowledge of God which belongs to the believer, as contrasted with the
unbeliever. It is by raeans of this knowledge alone, that the gift, in tho actual
realization of it, is made possible to the huraan soul. — The one who called us is
God, of whom this phrase is everywhere used in the N. T. — Sid Sb^yg kuI dperyg
refers to God's Sb^a and dpery. By raeans of these the call comes to us in an
effectual way. The word dpery is taken by Grimm and some commentators
as meaning power. It thus becomes a kindred word to Soia, or perhaps an
explanation of tho particular sense in which Sb^a is here used. As we find the
idea of power, however, expressed in the verse by another word (Sivapig), and as
Sd^a in itself, in such a sentence, naturally suggests this idea, it raay perhaps
seem bettor to regard apery as referring to God's moral perfection, and So^a to
His natural perfection. This accords with the view of Bengel. The glorious
attributes of God in both lines unite in the accomplishing of His plan, which
flnds its realization in the call which brings us into tho new life and the divine
kingdom. — 10. St' uv (ver. 4) is raore naturally referred to Sb^yg koI dperyg, than
to Td Trpdf Quijv Kal eia., as Huther takes it; and if, as is probable, the subject
here is God, and not Christ, the objection made by Huther to this reference is
removed. The very great and precious promises, which are connected with the
full attainment of the perfected spiritual life, are given through the same glory
and virtue through which tho call bringing us into that life coraes to us. The
proraises here referred to are perhaps best taken as including all the proralses
connected with Christ and His kingdom, — both those which were fulfllled at
and after His first coming, and those which are to be fulfilled at and after the
second coraing. — II. Aid roiruv refers to inayyilpara. This is probably the cor
rect view, both because of the fact that this word is the nearest and natural
antecedent, and because of the prominence which the proraises have in the
thought of the writer. The promises have been given to us, the writer says, in
order that, by raeans of them, you (the readers) may become partakers in the
divine nature. The view of Huther, that Iva yivyaBe means that you might
become, and thus carries the participation into the present as well as the future.

768 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
is possibly correct, but not necessarily so. The aorist subjunctive raay be used
in such cases with no marked distinction from the present. — The expression
divine nature refers to the spiritual nature or character of God, with its perfect
holiness, of which through the faith and love of the Christian life we become
partakers, in tbe sense tbat the Christian life is a communication of God to
man. The words are to be understood of the divine nature, rather than of a
divine nature, the definite article being unnecessary because tho divine nature
is but one. — 12. The words dnoipvybvreg, K.r.l., denote that which is attendant
upon the becoming, etc., and involved in it. The man who becomes a partaker
of the divine nature, in the sense in which the promises are intended to make
him so, has escaped already from the corruption which is in the world in lust.
— The preposition iv before imBvpla denotes the sphere or element in which the
corruption in the world has its existence, its origin, and its continuance. R. V.
translates, by lust. The corruption here referred to raay be both physical and
moral; but the connection would seera to show that the latter, rather than the
former. Is what the writer has especially in mind.
13. The explanation of airb roiro (ver. 5) given by Huther is the one more
generally adopted by interpreters at present, — the meaning being the same as
if the preposition Sid were inserted before the words. The reference in these
words is to the main thought of vv. 3, 4; that is, that God has given all things
tbat pertain to life and godliness, including the idea of the gift of the promises,
with their purpose and design. Tho Christian is, in view of all this, to make
all effort on his own part. — 14. 'napeiaeveyKavreg, bringing in alongside of what
is thus done for you, i.e., adding on your part, as R. V. renders It, all diligence.
'Enixopyyyaare, furnish or supply. The Christian readers are exhorted to supply
or provide, on their part, what corresponds to, and naturally grows out of, that
which God bestows. The preposition iv. In each of the cases in vv. 5-7, is to be
translated in ; and it raarks that which is designated by the following word, in
each case, as the condition in which the soul is supposed to be when the call is
for a new supply, or the virtue which is already possessed, aud in the possession
of which the further development is to bo carried on. The first of the points
mentioned is faith. This is placed first, because faith is the foundation of all
Christian life. It is assumed as existing when the Christian begins his work of
providing the other things mentioned. The word 'enixopyyyaare is not prefixed
to it, because it is obtained as a gift from God; see ver. 1, rolg Iabnpov yplv laxoi
aiv nlanv. — {a) In faith, in the possession of faith, and that condition of the
soul's life which is indicated by it, furnish or provide virtue. — (6) The word
virtue, as here used, seems to be nearly equivalent to Christian manliness, raoral
energy, the strength and courage of the soul: it is that which gives working-
power to tho soul, and thus gives life to faith, and perfects it on the out-going
side, — the love side, where it develops its energy in good works. — (c) In virtue,
knowledge is to be provided. Knowledge hero means, by reason of its position
in the order of the words, knowledge which guides and directs the working of
faith as possessed of dperij. By tho supply of this, when the soul is already iv
dpery, the character is built up and built out towards its perfect development.
It is moved along the right course, and away from the wrong course, so far as
all the forth-putting of the energies of faith is concerned. — (d) Next in order
comes self-control. The putting in exorcise, if we may so speak, of this guiding
and directing knowledge, must bo in accordance with the regulating power of
self-government, or the moveraent of the life under the infiuenee of the dpery
of niang, as affected by yvdiaig, may not be restrained and well-ordered as it

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 769'
should be. — (e) In the possession of self-control, the Christian is also to furnish
or supply steadfast endurance. The thought seems here to comprehend all that
goes before: faith, as putting forth all the outgrowths which have been men
tioned, is also to develop into this new excellence; this being tho characteristic
of faith which secures its permanence and its final reward. Steadfast endurance
under trials, temptations, etc., is the legitimate fruit and result growing out of
self-control. —(/) Piety or godliness is placed next to steadfast endurance. If
that piety which trusts and reverently regards and fears God is not the develop
ment of the soul's life, when in the sphere of endurance, the truly patient and
loving eleraent is lost out of the latter, — that which makes it a Christian virtue,
as distinguished from the mere courageous endurance of a man of the world. —
((/) Piety is, according to the writer's progress of thought, to develop into, or in
tho line of, love of the Christian brethren. This is a turning of the thought into
a particular line, indeed; but such a turning is very natural and very character
istic of the apostolic writers. The moveraent of love to God and Christ in a
developraent of itself towards that brotherhood of men, of which God is the
Father, in a peculiar sense, and Christ is the head, was brought to the minds of
all the apostles by the last command of Jesus, given to them on tbe evening
of the Lord's Supper, and was, no doubt, made to appear always of peculiar
importance to them by reason of the circumstances and condition in which the
company of believers was then placed. — (A) Brotherly love is now widened into
love, which here, as it would seem, raust mean love to all men. The virtues
named grow, each one of thera, out of the one already attained, and the develop
ment in the line of holy character and life is first God- ward, and then raan-ward.
15. Vv. 8, 9, are introduced as giving a reason, set forth on the positive and
negative side, for the exhortation to supply these virtues with all diligence. It
is an added reason, beyond the one indicated by airb roiro of ver. 5 and con
tained in vv. 3, 4; but it does not stand in precisely the same relation to the
thought of vv. 5-7. As connected with vv. 3, 4, the writer exhorts (vv. 5-7) his
readers to do their part in the cultivation of character, because God has, on
His part, done so much ta make it possible for them to become like Himself.
As connected with vv. 8, 9, he exhorts them (vv. 5-7) to cultivate the character
in the line of these virtues, because these virtues help them onward in and
towards that knowledge ot the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the means of realiz
ing the participation in the Divine nature to which they are called of God. —
16. With reference to the words in vv. 8, 9, the following points raay be noticed:
{a) nleovdQovra, if taken in the sense given by Briickner, Wiesinger, Alford, and
others, multiplying, increasing, becoming more, may perhaps follow soraewhat
raore naturally the suggestion of developraent and growth which is contained in
vv. 5-7. But the simple idea of abounding, which Huther favors, is all that the
verb necessarily implies, and tho other raeaning cannot be insisted upon. —
(6) dpyoig and uKupnovg seem to be substantially equivalent to each other, only
presenting the common idea imder different figures or relations. — (c) KoBlsryaiv
— This passage shows clearly the use of this verb in the sense of rendering or
making, or, at least, of that setting of a person or thing in a position and condi
tion in which ho, or it, actually is by reason of that which belongs to the nature
or life, and which comes out of it. The bearing of this instance of the use of
tbe verb in tbe important passage, Rom. v. 19, is worthy of consideration. —
{d) eig is the preposition looking towards an end. The knowledge of Christ is
the end towards which the activity and fruitfulness of the Christian life tend. —
(e) ydp of ver. 9 is used where we might have expected Si ; by the use of this

770 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
particle here, as in sorae other similar instances in the N. T., the negative side
of the matter is made a proof of the positive side. — (/) The correspondence of
ianv with KuBiaryaiv, as indicating the meaning of the latter word, should not
be overlooked. — {g) pvundQuv seems to be added as a sort of limitation and
explanation of rviplbg: he is bhnd in the sense that, and because, be is short
sighted, — seeing only what is near, and not the distant realities of the heavenly
life, etc. — {h) The cleansing of his old or former sins is that which was given
him personally at the beginning of tho Christian life. — 17. Aid points back to
w. 8, 9, and on the ground of what has been presented in those verses the exhor
tation of ver. 10 is given. This exhortation, though not precisely the same as
that in vv. 5-7, is evidently in the same line, and, substantially, to the same end.
For this reason, perhaps, the writer uses the word anovbdaare, corresponding
with anovbyv of vor. 5. The word pdllov connects itself with the two opposite
facts or results stated in the immediately preceding verses; according to the
quotation given by Alford, quae cum. ita sint, impensius, — 18. The explanation
of the word election here, which is given by Huther, seems to the writer of this
note to be very probably the correct one, and for the reasons which be suggests.
The iKloyjj " is the election effected by tho Klyatg [not that which precedes it],
i.e., the separation of those who are called from the w-orld, and the translation
of them into the kingdom of God." — 19. The thought of vor. 11, which closes
the paragraph, reminds us of the latter part of vv. 3, 4, the proraises and their
final design, and brings before us the fulfilment of the purpose of those promises
in the entrance into the eternal kingdoni of Christ. The connection with vv. 5-7
is also manifest. As the Christian "supplies" the virtues in the development
of the Christian life, Christ " supplies " the consummation at the end.
XXVII.
Vv. 12-21.
1. Aid of ver. 12 points back to ver. 11, i.e., to ravra noioivreg, which points
to anovbdaare SeSaiav . . . noielaBai, As the taking of this course on their part
was the means of securing the entrance into the kingdom which is spoken of,
the writer is impelled, on account of this fact, to remind and exhort the readers.
The form of expression which he uses, if the reading adopted by the best textual
critics is correct {peUijau], is quite peculiar, being found elsewhere in the N. T.
but once in a similar construction. The reading of tbe T. R. {dpelijau) would
seem, at flrst sight, more simple and natural. The external evidence, however,
is strongly opposed to this reading. Perhaps the rendering given by R. V. for
pellyau, I shall be ready, fully meets the idea of tho word, but there may be
somewhat more of purpose and intention in it, I shall have it in mind. Huther
apparently regards the compound expression pellyau vnopipvyaKeiv as a mere
circumlocution for the simple future. The things respecting which the writer
affirms that he shall have tho intention or tbe readiness, on all occasions, to
reraind them, are those presented in vv. 4-11. Tbe reason for this intention or
readiness, so far as be is personally concerned, .is set forth in tbe later verses
of the chapter. This action on his part is not, indeed, necessary, as if the
readers were unacquainted with the gospel or weak in their convictions ; but be
feels it to be fitting, and be has tho impulse towards it, notwithstanding the
fact that they were altogether in the opposite condition. The apostolic exhor
tations are sometiraes given because of the failures and the very imperfect
development of Christian life and character which were seen in the churches.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 771
Sometimes, on tho other hand, as is the case here, they wore not given for this
reason. They were given, rather, for the purpose of impelling forward by a^
stronger incentive, or by a renewed and earnest suggestion of the truth, those
who had already a firm standing in the truth. The words used here, and the
manner in which this putting them in remembrance of what they knew is set
forth, are such as might be expected in the case of a man in advanced life, who
was looking forward to his death as near at hand. — 2. The particle Si at the
beginning of ver. 13 is the and of continuous discourse, rather than the adversa
tive hut. Tho contrast with the clause immediately preceding, eiSbrag, K.r.l.,
which is supposed by some to be indicated by the particle, is not to be regarded
as occasioning its uso. This contrast is, as shown by the Ku'inep, with the begin
ning of ver. 12; and ver. 13 unites itself with this earlier clause of the twelfth
verse. The adjective SiKuiov means right : in accordance with what ought to be.
I shall have the intention or readiness always to remind you, and I think it
right that I should remind you. — Sieyelpeiv, to thoroughly waken up, stir up; iv
ipopvyaei, in the sphere of, in the way of, reminding.
3. Ver. 14 gives the subjective reason for tbe yyoipat SIkuiov, because I know.
It was his knowledge of the approach of his death, — his consciousness of the
fact of Its nearness or its suddenness, — which made the apostle feel tbat it was
right for him to be ready always to press the truths and duties upon his Chris
tian brethren, no matter how well they might be acquainted with them. As
for the meaning of raxivy, there is a difference of opinion on tho question
whether the word here means soon or sudden. Perhaps the rendering of R. V.,
which cometh swiftly, which takes hold upon both ideas, may best satisfy the
demands of the case. The reference in the clause beginning with KuBug is, in
all probability, to what Jesus said to Peter in John xxi. 18. In that passage
there is an allusion to a death by violence, and nothing further. The prophecy
of such a death might suggest the idea of suddenness ; but it would not, in itself,
suggest that of nearness. Nevertheless, when we consider the forra of expres
sion which Jesus used, "when thou shalt be old," etc., — we may readily see
how Peter, after he had become old, might, on tho ground of this expression,
refer to his death as impending in the near future. — 4. Ae kuI of vor. 15, more
over also. The connection is evidently with the thought of vv. 12, 13; not only
will he endeavor to waken up their remembrance of these things by repeating
them as occasion may offer, but he will give diligence {anovSdau, corap. vv. 5, 10)
that they raay, on every occasion, be able to call thera to reraombrance after his
decease. 'EKuarore, on each occasion as it arises. This word, as Huther and
other coraraentators hold, is to be united with ixeiv.— 5. The particle ydp of
ver. 16 introduces tho reason for anovSdau, and through this, as wo may say,
more remotely for all that he has said of his desire and purpose to put them in
remembrance, from ver. 12 onward. The consciousness of the truth of tbe facts
and teachings which they proclaimed, was the underlying reason of the earnest
proclamation of them which the apostles made.
6. The word piBotg probably finds its main force in the contrast which it
presents to the idea set forth by the words eye-witnesses of Eis majesty. It may
be however, — and this view would seem to be not unreasonable, — that, as Dr.
Lumby reraarks, tho apostle refers, in these fables, "to the heathen stories of
tbe appearance of the gods araong raen, or to some of the Gnostic figraents con
cerning emanations from the Divinity." Of course, if the Epistle is by Peter,
and his death is to be placed before the year 70, Uie "Gnostic flgraents" must
be developments in that line which were not beyond those which are, perhaps.

772 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
discoverable in the Epistle to the Colossians or tho Pastoral Epistles. — 7. The
words Sivapig and napovaia, since the latter is regularly used of the second com
ing, are both of them probably to be explained of the exalted and triumphant
state of Christ, and not of His earthly life. These words do not refer to the
Transfiguration scene ; but the fact that Peter and his two fellow-apostles wore
eye-witnesses of His majesty, as then exhibited, gives the apostle the assurance
tbat His power and coming are facts of tho future. — 8. The fact that the
scene here spoken of is referred to as being on the holy mountain, and that
the words. This is my beloved Son, etc., are given, which were heard at that time,
is decisive evidence that the writer refers to the Transfiguration. The word
peyaleibryg, therefore, is used to designate that visible manifestation of the glory
of Christ which was witnessed by Peter, Jaraes, and John, at that time. The
writer speaks of himself and his fellow-apostles as having been inbnrai, a word
which possibly refers, as Huther also allows, to the scene as involving a witness
ing of what was hidden from others, a vision of the mysterious grandeur and
glory of Christ. As the verb inonreieiv is found twice in the First Epistle of
Peter without any special meaning of this sort, it may be that the substantive
is used here with the simple idea expressed by the verb in those instances, and
has no significance as connected with its use as a terminus technicus. — 9. Ver. 17
is introduced by ydp as giving, in connection with ver. IS, the justification of
the words of ver. 16, 7dp being causal {for), as in ordinary cases, rather than
explanatory {that is), as Huther takes it. The construction, also, is better taken
as Winer takes it substantially, than as Huther takes it. The simplest explana
tion seems to be this, that the. writer gives, in ver. 18, the conclusion of the
participial sentence of ver. 17, the fact on which he wished to lay stress, —
tbe construction being changed either purposely or accidentally. The fact
which he wishes to present is, that he himself and his fellow-apostles hoard the
voice from heaven which followed tho manifestation of tbe glory; and thus
the evidence of the hearing of the words was added to that of the vision. —
10. The genitive absolute, ipuvyg ivexBelayg, is explanatory of the honor and glory,
but is perhaps best taken as indicating time : when there came, or was borne, a
voice ofsuc/i a sort (as that mentioned in the following words) to him from or
hy the majestic glory. — 11. And this voice ive heard borne out of heaven : This
is the point on which t-he writer would lay emphasis, as connected with the
evidence, that in making known the power and coraing of Jesus he was not
following cunningly-devised fables. The and at the beginning of ver. 18 con
nects the hearing of the voice with the fact of its utterance. — On the expression
tlie holy mount, Alford justly says : " De Wette is partly right when he says that
this epithet ' holy ' shows a later view of the fact than that given us in the
evangelistic narrative; but not right when he designates that later view as
wundergldubigere (more ready to believe in miracles). The epithet would
naturally arise when the gospel history was known, as marking a place where
a manifestation ot this Divine presence and glory had taken place. The place
whereon Moses stood, is said, in Exodus, to be holy ground. So that really all
we can infer from it is, that the history was assumed to be already well known ;
which is one entirely consistent with the probable date of the Epistle."
12. Vv. 19-21 add to what precedes a setting-forth of the prophetic evidence,
or declaration. In this passage there are several points which may be particu
larly noticed as bearing upon the interpretation: (a) Tho question as to what
tbe Kai at the beginning of ver. 19 connects the passage with, must depend, in
some measure, on the explanation of the several words in the passage. The

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 773
connection, however, when we consider this question by itself, would seem
almost necessarily to bo either between ixopev (ver. 19) and iyvup'iaapev of ver. 16,
or ijKoiaapev of ver. 18. The latter would appear to be the more correct view,
because the writer seems to be moving in his thought along the line of the proof
of the fact, that what is proclaimed by the apostolic preachers is the truth. —
(6) S^i^o-tbrepov, by reason of its position, is evidently predicative: we have the
prophetic word more sure. Tho question as to what, in tho thought of the
writer, follows these words, more sure, is left by him in uncertainty, and conse
quently cannot be answered with absolute confidence. It would seem, however,
from the emphasis placed upon the word by its position, and frora the close
connection of the sentences, that the writer's meaning is a more sure proof than
the one already mentioned. If this is the right view, the prophetic declarations
of the O. T., which are fulfilled in Christ, are regarded and set forth by the
writer as an evidence of even greater strength and certainty than that of
the vision on the mountain. This may be readily believed, because the long
course of prophecies fulfilled, which could be understood and appreciated by
every Christian for himself, would carry the greatest weight. The hearing of
the voice came to a few, and was the evidence of one event to which tbey bore
testimony. The fulfilment of prophecy was the realization in fact ot God's
revelations respecting His plan. This interpretation accords well with all that
follows, and is free from the objections which raay be urged against other expla
nations of the meaning. If it be not adopted, the one to be preferred is that of
De Wette and others, "the prophetic word is more stable to us from the fact
that we saw and heard." ^ (c) The words of ver. 19, which speak of the lamp
shining, etc., are to be explained in view of the fact that the readers are called
upon to give heed to this light in the present, and until a clearer light shall come
in the future; and that this clearer light is spoken of under the figure of the
dawn and the day-star. Tho moaning of the words would thus seera to be: that
the light of prophecy, as pointing to Christ and fulfllled in Hira, should be the
illumination and guide of their souls, until the beginning of that tirae when
every thing should be made clear. The fulness of this time is the parousia ; the
beginning of it is the near approach of that period, when the signs of the final
and coraplete redemption are made manifest beyond doubt. — 13. Ver. 20
presents that which would strengthen the readers in their giving heed to the
prophetic word, and which, at' the same time, constituted a reason for it. The
explanation of this verse given by Huther is the best and most satisfactory one:
No prophecy of Scripture arises out of, or depends on, private (of him who
utters the prophecy) interpretation of tho future. This explanation satisfles
the demands of the sentence itself, and brings it into most natural and easy
connection with what follows. The ydp of vor. 21 gives the ground justifying
the statement of ver. 20; and this ground is, that the prophecies were given not
by the will of raan, but by the inspiring power of God. This proves that the
prophecy, in any and every case, does not arise out of the interpretation of
the future which the prophet raakes for himself; and so, as being not humanly,
but divinely, originated, it deraands for itself the most careful and constant
consideration and regard. — Tho explanation given by Grimm and others: " No
one can explain prophecy by his own raental power (it is not a raatter of subjec
tive interpretation); but to explain it one needs the same illumination of the
Holy Spirit in which it originated," suits the words of the sentence itself, and
is consistent with what follows; but the connection with ver. 21 is not so siraple
and natural as in the case of the other explanation.

774 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
XXVIII.
CHAPTER IL
Vv. 1-11.
1. The opening verses of this chapter seem to form a sort of contrast to the
closing ones of the preceding chapter. Besides, and in contrast with, the true
prophets of the O. T. times, there arose also araong tho people of Israel false
prophets. This connection of the chapters accounts for the placing tbe state
ment respecting tbe O. T. false prophets in tho principal part of the sentence.
If the main thought and purpose of the passage are considered, it is evident that
the stateraent concerning the false teachers is the one of most importance, and
the one for which the verse is introduced. In this view of the verso, the first
clause should have been opened by the particle as, or according as, and the ug
of the second clause should have been replaced by oiiruf. — 2. With respect to
the word ipevSoSiSdnKaloi, the view of Huther, with whom Keil also agrees, is
probably to be preferred, "persons who falsely give themselves out as teachers."
The fact that they are also teachers of what is false, is plainly declared in the
clause which immediately follows this word. It is said of these teachers, that
they shall be, not that they are, and that they shall privily bring in, etc., napeia-
uiovaiv; while, in Jude, it is said that they have already crept in vnaioares or
priv'ihj, napeiaiSvaav. This difference is one which can be most readily accounted
for, if Jude be regarded as the later writer of the two. That which it is said
that they will introduce, is called aipiaeig. This passage seems to be the one
which favors, more than any other in tho N. T., the view that this word was
used in the sense of heresy within tho period of the apostolic writers. It is,
however, at the most, only somewhat probable that this meaning should be
given here. As these persons enter into the church life by a side gateway, as
it were, and in a secret manner, so they may be properly said to introduce
into the church, in the same side and secret raanner, those divisions which
result from their entrance and infiuenee. The genitive dnulelag, on either sup
position as to the meaning of aipiaeig, is a descriptive genitive which sets forth
the objective relation: which tend or lead to destruction. — 3. It may be fairly
questioned whether the view, that dpvovpevoi is equivalent to this participle with
iaovrai, is not as free from difficulties as that which takes Kai as equivalent to
even, and holds to a double participial construction. By regarding dpvoip, as a
verb, the sentence is made a simple one, the iiai being the connecting particle
and. It neither of the participles can be taken as equivalent to a verb, the view
of Huther is doubtless to be adopted. With Huther's view of kui dpvoip,, there
is a certain additional probability derived frora these words, which seem thus to
become explanatory, tbat a'lpiaetg is used in the sense of heretical opinions
or doctrines. But no decisive arguraent could be drawn frora this source. —
4. There seems to be an intentional emphasis in the use of dnuleiav at the end
of ver. 1, as related to the dnul^eiag which precedes. They bring upon them
selves the destruction to which the aipiaeig introduced by them into tho church
naturally lead. This destruction will be, in their case, sudden.
5. Ver. 2 adds the result of what these teachers do, in tbe action of others.
If we regard Jude as the later writer, we may explain the introduction of the
word daelyeiaig by the commentary, as it were, which Jude gives. Jude says
(ver. 4), Turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying, etc. These
followers are led by that teaching which makes grace an incitement to indul-

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 775
gence in sin, to imitate their teachers in such indulgence. Aj' oig probably
refers to the Tro;i;ioi. The writer's purpose is to describe the teachers and their
evil influence; and the setting forth of this following on the part of many, on
account of whom (i.e., of whose following thus) the way of the truth will be
evil spoken of, serves to show what tbis evil influence is. —6. Ver. 3 describes
the false teachers as moved by covetousness, and trying to " make merchandise "
of the Christians by feigned words, i.e., as Huther well explains nluarolg, deceit
fully-invented words. This verse seems to show that vor. 2 is intended rather
to form a part of tho description of the teachers and tbeir work, than to speak
of the followers in and for themselves alone. — 7. The difference between ver. 36
and Jude ver. 4 will be noticed. It may perhaps be said with propriety, that, of
the two writers, the later one would more naturally speak of tho false teachers,
after they had appeared, as npoyeypappivoi eig rb Kplpa roiro. This cannot, how
ever, be insisted upon.
8. Ver. 4 introduces the examples from the O. T., etc., by way of direct
proof of what has just been said {ydp). In Jude, the examples are evidently
intended to serve the same purpose, but they are introduced more formally,
and, as it were, independently. The passage is also carried forward in tho way
of condition (e/) and conclusion, instead of being presented, in this respect also,
in a more coraplete independence, as Jude gives it. As to the exaraples them
selves in the two Epistles, see Note on Jude, ver. 5 ff. (a) The flrst example
in this Epistle corresponds with the second one given In Jude. lu tho presen
tation of it, the writer simply speaks of the angels referred to as having sinned,
without alluding to the special fact mentioned in the other Epistle. The state
ment of what befell them is substantially the same, — that they are reserved in
darkness for judgment. The chief peculiarity of Peter's expression is found
in the word raprapuaag. The word Tartarus Is held by some to be equivalent to
Gehenna, by others (as Huther) to moan an intermediate place of punishment.
The latter view is perhaps the more correct one. — (6) The second example does
not correspond with the flrst in Jude, but seems to occupy its place. If 1 Pet.
iii. 19 is explained of the preaching of Christ through Noah, there raay bo sorae
connection between this passage and that one; but evidently there is a reference
in 1 Peter to something more than is hero presented. — (c) The third example
answers to the third in Jude. The presentation of this exaraple is, however,
quite different in its details from that which Jude gives; especially, in that the
characterization of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah is less particular in Peter.
and, also, in that the case of Lot is set forth here, as it is not in Jude. Peter
takes pains to bring out the deliverance of the righteous, as well as the punish
ment of the wicked, while Jude limits himself to tho latter; see ver. 9 of this
chapter. — The word reippuaag seems to indicate the way in which the condemna
tion was inflicted, or possibly a fact attendant upon the condemnation. Huther
appears to be correct in regarding Karaarpoipy as the dative of reference. The
statement with respect to the condemnation may bo indicative of Jude's raean
ing in the corresponding passage (ver. 7), namely, that the eternal flre there
referred to is the flre which destroyed Sodom, and not the flre of Gehenna. —
9. The words of vor. 9 form tho apodosis of the conditional passage covering
vv. 4-8; and in tbe development of the main thought, the yup of ver. 4 belongs
with the idea expressed in olSev, k.t.1., of ver. 9. The whole matter of these
examples, therefore, which results in the establishment of the proposition of
ver. 9, is connected, through this resulting conclusion, with ver. 36, as a proof
(ydp vor. 4) of the statement that the judgraent of these false teachers does

776 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
not linger or slumber. The manner in which the thought of ver. 10 is intro
duced, as compared with Jude, ver. 8, is somewhat strikingly indicative of the
differences between tho two Epistles, which are found in connection with
the marked correspondences. On tho general idea of the passage, see note on
Jude, ver. 8 ff. — 10. On ver. 11, see note on Jude, vor. 9. The expression
greater in might and power means, probably, greater than men; that is, than
these persons of whom the writer is speaking. This is the natural suggestion
of the sentence, rather than greater than other angels, which is Huther's
explanation. XXIX.
Vv. 12-22.
1. At ver. 12, the thought turns to the more detailed presentation of these
false teachers in their iraniorality, etc. The difference between this Epistle and
that of Jude, in these verses, consists largely in the greater detail here, and the
greater eraphasis of denunciation in Jude. This latter element in Jude possibly
points to a later date for the Epistle; a time when what was looked forward to
in Peter's words was actually realized in Jude's surroundings. The severity of
Jude's language in vv. 10-13 is almost unequalled in any writing. — 2. Of the
words in the passage, the following are found in exactly or nearly the same form
in both Epistles: dloya Qua ; ipvaiKu {Kug, Jude); iv olg dyvooiaiv Slaaipypovvreg {baa
oiK olSaaiv Slaaipypovvreg, Jude); ev ry ipBopa airuv Kal ipBapyaovrai (iv roiroig ipBe'i-
povrai, Jude); anlloi (antlaSeg, Jude); dndraig or dydnatg (dydnaig. Judo); awevu
xoipevoi; the reference to Balaam, with the idea of hire; nyyal uvvSpoi (veipe'\ai
dvvSpoi, Jude); bplxlai inb lallanog ilavvbpevai (veipilui inb dvipuv napaipepbpevat,
Jude); oif 6 Qbipog roi oKorovg (etg aiuva, Jude) rerijpyrai; inipoyKa, The parts
pecdliar to Peter are as follows: (a) the word yeyevvypeva following dloya Qua
and connected with ipvaiKa: born mere animals, or connected with eig, k.t.I.: born
to uluaig according to their nature, — eig aluaiv. is to be regarded as passive in
sense, to be taken and destroyed ; (6) the peculiar variation in tho representation
that they will be destroyed: Jude saying that they rail at what they know not,
and what they understand naturally, like the irrational creatures, in these things
they are destroyed; while Peter has: as irrational creatures, railing in matters
whereof they are ignorant (they) shall in their destroying surely he destroyed.
The form in Peter has here possibly the appearance of a later working-over of
the sentence, but no positive affirmation can be made ; the explanation of ipBopf
as destruction, rather than the active destroying, is probably to be preferred;
(c) the phrase Kopioipevoi (dSiKoipevoi) piaBbv dSiK'iag, The reading here is doubt
ful, but the word dSiKovpevoi gives no very satisfactory raeaning, since the
suffering of wrong or injustice, as the reward for doing tho same, seems scarcely
to be an idea which the^author would express with regard to these persons; and
that the words are not suited to express the general idea of experiencing evil as
the reward for doing it to others, is shown by Huther iri his foot-note, in which
he comments on Hofmann's view. — (d) ySo-vijv yyovptvoi ryv iv yyipgi rpvipyv. The
explanation given by Huther to iv yuipif, referring it to the present life as con
trasted with the future, seems to the writer of this note improbable, because
some other and less doubtful expression would have been at the author's com
mand, had he wished to set forth this idea. It seems more simple to make the
words mean, as in A. V. and R. V., in the daytime, extending their indul
gences and pleasures into the working time (the day), as well as the quiet and

THE SECOND EPISTLE OP PETER. 777
resting time (the night). — (e) On anlloi, anildSeg, dndraig, dydnatg, see notes on
Jude, ver. 12. The word ivrpvipuvreg is added in Peter.
(/) Ver. 14. The several phrases of this verse, which are not found in Jude,
serve to set forth the sensuality, covetousness, and evil and enticing influence
of the false teachers. The sensual character of these men is referred to, however,
by Jude, though not in this immediate connection. — (g) The compressing of
the statement with respect to Balaam, and the addition, as if by way of compen
sation, of the cases of Cain and Korah, may suggest that Jude worked over, and
worked on the foundation of, what Peter says. On the alleged discrepancy in the
last words respecting the case of Balaam, which is the chief difficulty connected
with tho passage, Alford remarks: "A discrepancy has been discovered between
this and the Mosaic account, seeing that it was the angel, and not the ass, from
whom the rebuke came, the ass having merely deprecated ill-treatment at
Balaam's hands. But tho apostle evidently regards not so much the words
of the rebuke uttered, as the miraculous fact, as being the hinderance. It was
enough to prevent his going onward, when the dumb animal on which he rode
was gifted with speech to show him his madness." — (ft) Ver. 17 corresponds
with vv. 126, 13, of Jude; but, evidently, Jude draws out the description more
extendedly, and sets it forth with a much stronger denunciatory emphasis.
Peter presents in two figurative expressions the empty and restless character of
the false teachers. Jude has four such expressions, adding to what Peter says
a picturing of their useless and destructive character; see note on Jude, ver. 13.
— (i) The words, uttering great swelling words of vanity, are placed in a different
connection from that in which Jude puts the nearly corresponding words of his
ver. 16. Jude inserts before the passage containing these words, the quotation
from Enoch's prophecy, and seems to make a new beginning, as it were, of his
description with the verso of which those words constitute, a part. In his six
teenth verse, Jude represents the teachers as walking after' their own lusts;
Peter represents them as enticing in the lusts of the flesh, by lasciviousness,
those who are just escaping from those who live in error, and adds the words,
promising them liberty, while they themselves are bond-servants of corruption,
Peter thus sets forth their action and evil infiuenee as regards others, while Jude
speaks only of their own personal life and behavior. The indication of this pas
sage is rather towards the working-over in Peter of what is found in Jude, than
the opposite. — (j) At vor. 20 the two writers cease to move together, and Peter
joins what he says in this verse very naturally to what has just been declared
in ver. 19. There can be but little doubt that Huther is correct, as against
Hofmann, with regard to tho reference of dnoipvybvreg, K,r.l., of ver. 20, to the
false teachers. The writer adds tfieso verses as setting forth the idea of destruc
tion in the case of those men, to which he had alluded in other terms before this
point. This passage corresponds in some measure, so far as the matter of fall
ing away is concerned, with those in Hob. vi. 4-6, x. 26 ff., and is perhaps more
difficidt of explanation, in this respect, than either of those passages. — (*:) The
word righteousness, in ver. 21, is to bo understood in its ordinary, not its peculiar
Pauline or forensic, sense. It means the actual righteousness belonging to the
true Christian life, as ivroly raeans here tho commandment appertaining to that
life, its moral law. As the writer in Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
says: " That which in a doctrinal point of view is ' the way of truth ' (ver. 2 of
this chapter), is in a raoral point of view 'the way of righteousness.' "
The question as to the priority in time which arises respecting the Epistle
of Jude and this Epistle is, so far as it is connected with this chapter, one of

778 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
much difficulty; but to the writer of this note, the probability, on the whole, —
as the several verses are carefully compared, — seems to be on the side of the
priority of 2 Peter.
XXX.
CHAPTER IIL
Vv. 1-7.
1. Tho third chapter constitutes, as Huther says, a third section of the
Epistle, which is directed against the deniers of Christ. At the same time,
there is an evident and close connection with what imraediately precedes; and
what the writer has now to say, belongs in that general line of description of the
false teachers and doubters to which the Epistle is so largely devoted. — 2. It is
evident that the writer refers in ver. 1 to the fact that he had already addressed
another letter to the readers. This reference does not, of course, necessarily
point to 1 Peter as the other letter; but, when taken in connection with the
allusions to himself as the apostle, there can be no question that, in the use of
the expression employed here, the writer raeans to indicate that Epistle as the
earlier one. — 3. The object or design which the writer has in view in the two
Epistles, he declares to be that to which he has already given expression by the
use of the same phrase, Sieye'ipeiv iv inopvyaei, in chap. i. ver. 13, together with
the words dependent on this phrase. It is to bo observed that the clauses begin
ning with roiro npurov yivuoKovreg contain what is subordinate to the remembrance,
etc., and thus, what is not the contents of the design, if this expression may be
allowed, but, at the most, a secondary element connected with it. There is,
therefore, nothing in tbe setting forth of the design of the Epistle here which is
inconsistent with the design for which the First Epistle of Peter was written.
4. The more particular statement of this design is contained in the words of
ver. 2, that you shoidd remember, etc. ; these words, however, are not to be
limited to tbe matter of the rising-up of doubters and mockers, but they refer to
the more general idea of the teachings of Christ and the apostles. The things
which they should remember are described as the words of the prophets (of the
O. T., as we must believe) and the commandment of the Lord. The meaning
of this compound phrase must bo determined, as it would seem, by the principal
word contained in it. This word, evidently, is ivrolyg, which cannot justly bo
regarded as exhausted by the idea ot the following verse, but must, at tbe least,
include what Huther speaks of, "the command to lead a Christian life in expec
tation of the second coining of Christ." Perhaps it may have an even more
extended raeaning than this, and may cover the whole sphere of Christian duty,
though this is less probable. The prophetic word also, as may be seen in i. 19,
relates to the glory and majesty of Christ, which are to be fully realized, indeed,
at and after His second coming, but which are manifested, before that time, in
the course of the development of the kingdom which He is carrying forward.
While there is more, therefore, of the thought of the second coming in this
Epistle than in the first, the great thought of both beat's upon that which is
only consummated and perfected at that time.
5. With respect to the words of ver. 2, tho reader may be referred to the
note on tbe corresponding passage in Jude (vor. 17). The similarity and dis-
sirailarity in the expressions here used, as compared with what we find in tbat
verse, are equally striking. Here only, we have the allusion to the prophets,
the word npoeipypivuv, which in Jude is applied to the apostles' words, being

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 779
here used of those spoken by them. The position of the phrase respecting the
prophets, before that which relates to Christ and the apostles, makes it sub
stantially certain that the O. T. prophets are meant. This is confirmed, also,
by the allusion to the O. T. prophets in i. 19, in connection with the reference
to the apostles in i. 16-18. — The expression which is here used of the apostles
is also peculiar, as compared with what is found in Jude. According to all the
best authorities, vpuv should be read here. But whether we read ipdiv, or with
T. R. ypuv, the position of the word in the sentence is different frora that in
Jude, and this difference is one of much importance. In Jude, the pronoun is
placed after Kvp'iov, and by reason of this fact the apostles are spoken of in tbe
third person, in such a way as apparently to sot them altogether apart from
the writer himself. In this Epistle, on the other hand, tbe pronoun is con
nected with dnoarbluv. If the true reading is ipuv, as it doubtless is, your
apostles, it may indeed point to the apostles as distinct from himself, but the
expression is not inconsistent with a reference to himself as one of the number.
If yuuv is tbe correct reading, and the meaning is as given in the A. V., he
places himself among the apostolic company. It is only when we read ypuv,
and make it dependent on dnoarbluv, that ho certainly excludes himself: our
apostles. While, therefore, it is possible, with either reading, that there is an
indication here that the author was not an apostle, it is only possible, while in
Jude tho most natural understanding of the words points to such a conclusion.
— The peculiar expression, "the-of-your-apostles-commandment of the Lord
and Saviour," is to be accounted for, probably, by the desire which the writer
had to represent the commandment, with a certain emphasis, as being both from
the Lord and frora the apostles, in contrast with the words of the O. T. proph
ecies which had been spoken by the prophets. The words tuv dnoarbluv ipuv
are a kind of adjective phrase belonging to ivrolyg, and in respect to prominence
are secondary to roi Kvplov kuI aurypog; the meaning being the commandment of
the Lord and Saviour communicated to you by or through your apostles.
6. The correspondence of ver. 3 with Jude, vor. IS, will be noticed, and it
will be observed that the language in Peter is such as may naturally describe a
future which lies beyond the time of the writing of the epistle, while in Jude
the expression is most naturally understood as a reference to a past foretelling
of events then future, but now partly or wholly realized. — 7. Ver. 4 presents
a special matter which is not alluded to in Jude. The doubt respecthig the
coming of tho Lord, because of the fact that the fathers had died, and no
change or sign of tbe end had been seen, could only beloug to a time, as it
would seem, near the close of the apostolic period, or later than that epoch. It
will be noticed, indeed, that the time of the a{)pearance of these doubters is
placed in the future, by tbe verb which is used. Ver. 5, however, seems to refer
to them as already, in some sense and measure at least, present in or around tho
church. If we are to infer from ver. 5 that the future time mentioned had
already come, this passage suggests a difficulty in placing the epistle within the
lifetime of Peter, in case his death occurred at a date very near tho time of
Paul's death. But perhaps we are not obliged to interpret tho passage in this
way. That doubters as to tho second coming may have lived as early as the
year 68, is by no means impossible, but the placing of the groimd of their doubts
in the particular fact alluded to in ver. 4, is that which suggests the difficulty.
If we can, with any propriety, carry the time of the present verb lavBuvei forward
to the standpoint of the future ileiaovrai, the difficulty may perhaps be avoided.
 8. The fathers here referred to are those of the generation or generations

780 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
immediately preceding. There is evidently a combined construction in the
latter part of ver. 4, the thought being, that the permanent continuance of
things, observable since the beginning of the creation, is still observable since
the death of the fathers, — we see, these men said, what has always been seen;
no change, no sign of the end, and of His coming.

XXXL
Vv. 5-10.
1. In these verses the writer answers and refutes the assertion of the scoff
ers: First, in vv. 5-7, by a reference to the history of tbe creation, and the flood,
as given in the O. T. As at that early time the world, which had been created
and preserved by the word of God, was destroyed by the flood, so the world
that now is, is reserved for destruction by fire. — 2. The explanation of Bilovrag
and ToiJTo, given by Huther, is not generally favored. He refers rovro to the
contents of the preceding statement, and makes it dependent on Bilovrag, to
which he assigns the meaning assert (desiring it to bo so, holding as an opinion),
for, vihilst they assert this, it is hidden from them that, etc. This explanation
involves a meaning which, though possible for Belovrag, is not found in the use
of that word elsewhere in the N. T. ; and it seems less simple than the more
common interpretation, wMch gives Bilovrag the adverbial force, which so often
belongs to such participial words in connection with lavBdveiv. Were it not for
these objections, Huther's view would be a satisfactory and successful explana
tion of the words. — 3. On ver. 56, Alford says, "e^ vSarog, because the waters
that were under tho firmament were gathered together into one place, and the
dry land appeared, and thus water was the material out of which the earth was
raade: Si' iSarog, because tho waters above the firmament, being divided from
the waters below tho firmament, furnishing moisture aud rain, and keeping
moist the earth, are the means hy which the earth awiararai." On the whole,
this is, perhaps, as satisfactory an explanation of this somewhat difficult clause
as can be given. — 4. St' uv. — The reference of uv is probably to the two things
previously mentioned, — the word of God, which was the creating force that
brought the heavens and earth into being, and the water, which was the material
agency, so to speak, through which the result, was accoraplished. The two
things which brought the then world into existence effected its destruction,
and so in tho case of the present heavens and earth. Tbey are kept in store
by the sarae powerful word of God. The idea of the passage is, that there is a
reserving ot them for destruction by fire, as of old by the flood. Tho dative
¦nvpi seems to be most naturally connected with reBavpiapivoi, for flre, rypovpevoi
being limited by the following words only. —5. Vv. 8-10 contain the second
point which the writer urges: The time-eleraent in God's plans and dealings is
far different from what it is in those of men. But let this one thing not escape
you : The verb hero corresponds with that in ver. 5. Though they forget, and
if Bilovrag be rendered adverbially, wilfully forget, tho lesson which might be
learned from the world in the time of the flood, they should by no means lose
sight of the fact here mentioned. Possibly there raay be in the contrast here
an argument of slight force in favor of Huther's view of Bilovrag (ver. 5); the
contrast being, raore naturally, between forgetting and not forgetting, than
between wilfully forgetting and not forgetting. — 6. Tho genitive ryg inayyeliag
of ver. 9 is probably to be explained, with Huther, as depending imraediately

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 781
upon the Yorb, but R. V. and A. V. give the most successful English translation.
The following phrase is, perhaps, best rendered: count, or account it, i.e., the
Lord's failure to fulfll the promise of the coming, slackness, vpdg refers to
the readers, but as representative of all men, as is indicated by vrdvraf, which
follows in the next clause. — 7. Vor. 10 contains a renewed affirmation, closing
this refutation of the scoffers and doubters, that the day of the Lord will
certainly come, and come suddenly and unexpectedly. The statement of this
verso, and the repetition of it, substantially, in the verses which follow, present
more distinctly before the mind than almost any other passage in the N. T.,
perhaps than any other passage, the idea of a physical destruction or transfor
mation of the present visible heavens and earth, and their renewal in the future
as the abode of righteousness. If taken literally, the whole passage would
seem to suggest, also, the idea that tho righteous will live hereafter, in the
future period referred to, on the earth. The language, however, is of a poetic
order, and it may be intended only as a figurative setting-forth of tbe change to
tho future blessedness. — 8. Huther's explanation of aroixela is probably correct,
the Svvd/ieig row oipavuv of Matt. xxiv. 29. The idea is that the heavens and their
constituent parts, the earth and what fills it, will be burned up and dissolved.

XXXIL
Vv. 11-18.
1. On the foundation of what is asserted in ver. 10, the writer now presses
his closing exhortations upon his readers. The genitive absolute which opens
ver. 11 is evidently causal in its character; and tho present tense of the parti
ciple seems to be expressive of the certainty of that which has just been declared
respecting the future. — 2. The word noranoig is undoubtedly, as Huther also
takes it, exclamatory, and the sentence goes forward to the end of ver. 12. The
word aneiSovrag is best understood in the sense of hastening : they should not
only look for, but should (by their piety, etc.) hasten, the coming of the day of
God. Grimm, R. V. text, and others, regard the participle as meaning dairing
earnestly. — Si' yv, on account of which day, or which coming of the day. The
Lord's day, when it comes, will be attended by, and will occasion the results
indicated. — 3. Aid of ver. 14 refers to what immediately precedes, that is, the
coming of the day of God, with what it involves. The verb eipeByvai refers to
the time of the coming; and the words in peace are probably to be explained
of that state of peace between the soul and God which may be reached in its
perfection when the Lord comes. — 4. The words, and account the long-suffer
ing of our Lord salvation, are a recalling of the thought of ver. 9, the desire
of the writer being to impress his readers, as he closes, with a deep sense of
the meaning of God's mercy in any delay of tho end. — 5. The allusion to Paul's
writings in vv. 15, 16, is quite difficult of determination. To the writer of this
note, the following points seem probable : (a) That a particular letter or class of
letters is referred to in iypaipev iplv, which was addressed by Paul to readers
of the same general region with those hero addressed: thus, of the letters which
have been preserved to us, those to the Ephesians and Colossians are most prob
ably tho ones indicated. — (6) That the reference is not siraply to the one thought
of the day of the Lord, etc., as hero set forth, but to Paul's exhortations to
blaraeless living in view of the shortness of life, the end, etc. ^6. With respect
to the expression, the other scriptures, all that it seems necessary to flnd in it

782 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
is a comparison of Paul's writings with the other writings which were read by
the Christian readers of this Epistle, and by tbe persons alluded to as wresting
them, etc. It does not prove that the author places Paul's letters on the same
level of authority with the O. T. Scriptures, or even that an established collec
tion of Christian writings, such as we now have in the N. T., had already been
fully completed when tbis letter was written. It does, however, seem to recog
nize some such writings as already having a certain acknowledged authority.
The bearing of this matter upon the date of tbe Epistle can hardly be considered
as decisive, but is deserving of serious consideration. — 7. Tbe word npoyivu
aKovreg seems to refer to a foreknowledge on the part of the Christian readers,
which was gained through the declarations of this Epistle, or which was thereby
renewedly established in their minds. — 8. Tho doxology at the end of this
Epistle is one of the two or three in the N. T. which are applied to Christ, all
others being doxologies to God. The reference to Christ here is beyond question.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.

xxxin.
CHAPTER L
Vv. 1-4.

1. The similarity between the opening passage of this Epistle and that of
the Gospel of John will be noticed by every attentive reader. At the very
beginning tbe two books meet each other; and these flrst sentences carry in
themselves evidence that the writer of the Gospel was also the author of this
letter. The relation of the two books, in the order of time, may be open to
discussion ; but, whatever may be tbe decision of this question, there can be
little doubt, it would seera, that, in the order of thought and development, the
Epistle comes later than the Gospel. The Epistle is, as it were, the develop
ment of thoiights, the historical foundation of which is presented by tbe Gospel,
in its biographical record of Jesus' life. This relation ot the later work to the
earlier raakes it antecedently probable that the writer, in his use of the word
Logos, in ver. 1, has reference to the personal Logos, of whom he speaks in the
first verses of the Gospel. — 2. The central thought of the Epistle is that of
Quij, This Quy is that which God has, — the light-life, in which there is no
darkness. This Quy was manifested in a person, so that it could be observed
and studied, like an ordinary life. The revelation of it through this person was
the means by which the realization of it in all other persons could be most
easily and fully accoraplished. It was through the fellowship with Jesus Christ,
that the fellowship with tho Father was to be attained. — 3. Such being the
author's thought, it was natural that ho should make very prorainent, at
tho beginning, the fact of the manifestation of the life in Jesus, as he and his
fellow-disciples had seen it. The peculiar repetition and emphasis of his

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 783
expressions are characteristic of his style, as seen both in the Gospel and
elsewhere in the Epistle. By this means, he would impress upon the minds of
his readers that the life had been actually lived in his own presence.
4. With reference to the individual words and expressions used in those first
four verses, the following suggestions raay be offered : (a) By the words 6 yv dTr'
dp^^f, we are carried in thought to the iv dpxy in the first verse of the Gospel.
That the reference is to tho eternal existence of the Logos, is indicated also by
the fact, that, in ver. 2, the life predicated of the Logos is said to have been with
the Father in the same sense, apparently, as that indicated in the Gospel i. 1.
The form of expression, ijv npbg rbv naripa, is so precisely like the ijv npbg rbv Bebv
of John i. 1, that it can hardly bo interpreted in a different way. We have,
therefore, in those verses, the two thoughts of the prologue of the Gospel, — the
existence in the indefinite, eternal past, and the manifestation in personal form
in the present. — (6) The form of words used, b yv ciir' apxyg, b dKyKoapev , , . nepl
roi loyov, as distinguished from the direct predications respecting tbe Logos
which we find in the Gospel, is to be explained in connection with the differ
ence between the two books. The writer is not here raaking statements with
reference to the Logos, as to what He was, etc., but is preparing to set forth
the life which dwelt in Him, and which was manifested in and through Him.
The Logos was and becarae, he says in the Gospel ; but here : what was, etc.,
concerning the Logos, we declare and announce to you who read. As con
nected with' the same fact, wo raay easily account for the use of un' dpxng instead
of iv dpxy. The existence of the Logos was in tho beginning ; but that which
the apostles announce respecting the manifestation of the light-life, in and
through the Logos, is that which was from the beginning, and which has now
been revealed in His personal life on earth. — (c) The addition of Qurjg as a
descriptive genitive to Ibyov, and the fact that in other writings of the N. T. we
find such expressions as the word of truth, the word ofthe kingdom, etc., refer
ring to the Gospel, can hardly be considered as decisive grounds for denying to
Ibyog here the personal sense. Nor can the use of loyog without such a defining
genitive, in the three or four places in John's Gospel where the personal Logos is
spoken of, be urged as conclusive. The prominence which the writer here evi
dently desires to give to the idea of Quy, as connected with Jesus Christ, accounts
sufficiently for the addition of this word; and the evident suggestion of person
ality in the verbs of vv. 1, 2, turns the reader's mind most naturally and directly
to the personal Logos. The writer's thought moves after a somewhat similar
manner to that which is noticeable in his Gospel (yet of course with differences
belonging to the character of the two books), from a reference to the Logos,
who appeared in tho world in the presence of the disciples, to Jesus Christ, the
manifested Logos in a human personality. — (d) The word handled, of ver. 1,
may possibly refer, as some indeed hold that it does, to what occurred after the
resurrection of Jesus. It seems doubtful, however, whether there is any such
definite and particular reference, and whether, on the other hand, there is any
thing more in this repetition of substantially the same idea than a special
emphasis which the writer would give to his statement, and perhaps a certain
distinct recalling, in tbe two aorist tenses, of the personal experience of the
disciples during the lifetime of the Lord. Ver. 2 seeras to present tbe strict
order of time and tenses: The life was manifested; we have seen it; we bear
witness, and announce to you. — (e) The correspondence in the idea of Quy and
Quy aiuvtog, which is noticeable in John's Gospel, is evident here. The life of the
soul — the light-life, which is like God's life — is in itself, and as soon as it is

784 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
possessed, eternal life, according to this writer's view of it. This eternal life was
in the Logos; it was manifested in Jesus; it was iraparted by Hira to the apostle
and his fellow-disciples, with whom Jesus lived in His earthly life; through the
possession of it they came into fellowship — into a real and vital participation in
tbe eternal life, the light-life — with Jesus, and with God Himself. The apostle
now announces it to the readers that they also raay, in union with himself, have
participation in the same life. — (/) If in ver. 4 ipuv is tho true text, it would
seera probable that the apostle's thought is connected with the idea that the
fellowship in life with God and Christ is the completeness of the joy of the soul.
The idea suggested in John xv. 10, 11, may be compared with that of this verse.
On the other hand, if ypuv is the true text, the meaning would seem to be this:
that the apostle's joy would be made complete, if his readers should enter into
the same fellowship into which he had himself entered, and that, so far as he is
himself concerned, he writes to the end of raaking his joy in this way complete.
The Kul of this verse, in either case, adds the expression of this purpose (tva) to
that previously mentioned.
XXXIV.
Vv. 5-10.
1. After the introductory passage, vv. 1-4, the apostle begins the develop
ment of his thought in the Epistle by stating the great fundaraental truth which
lay at tbe basis of his raessage to the readers; the truth that tho Divine life is
light, a perfect and coraplete light, in which no darkness at all is intermingled.
Tbis message was the great revelation given by Jesus, and heard from Him.
The manifestation of tbe Logos in Jesus Christ was to the end of bringing
life to men, or of bringing men to life. Tho true life is God's life, and this life
is hght. Man is to gain this life by coming into fellowship with God in His
life. The end is to be attained as the apostle hiraself had attained it, by
putting one's self under the infiuenee and teaching of Jesus Christ, and thus
growing into His likeness. The gateway by which one truly enters within the
sphere of this infiuenee and teachmg is faith. — 2. Tho same contrast between
light and darkness is found here as in the prologue of John's Gospel. Darkness
is the sphere of the sinful world's life. The man who walks in tho darkness
has no fellowship with God, no participation in God's life. — 3. This writer,
like the other writers of tbe N. T., has the idea of sin as possessing and having
control over men. Like them, he writes for the purpose of showing the Way
out of tbe sinful life, and into the opposite. But his mode of conception, and
his phraseology, are affected by the peculiar character of his mind and soul.
He is of the introvertive, contemplative, inward class. Life thus seeras to him
a growth into tbe likeness of God — a movement of the soul out of darkness
and .sin into light — a coraing into and progress in communion with God — a
receiving into one's self tbe light-life, until at length all the darkness is
expelled. To say, therefore, that wo have fellowship with God, and yet to live
and walk in the darkness, is a contradiction in terms. The man who does tbis
is outside of the sphere of truth; he is a liar. There is no true living except as
the life rises above the darkness into tho light, that is, except as the soul's life
moves upward towards God's life, and transfers the latter into itself. — 4. Tbe
addition of the peculiar expression, and we do not the truth, to the word we lie,
is in accordance with the style of John. The Epistle keeps very prominently
before the mind of the reader, even from the beginning, the idea that the true

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 785
life is one which manifests itself in action ; that the true faith and love are the
faith and love which have a working force in them. The truth is something to
be dono, as well as to be believed. But tho doing is, to his thought, tho natural
forth-putting of the inward vitality. The inward life, as he dwelt in it for
himself, and concentrated his thinking upon it, was an inward life ; and, there
fore, it was necessarily also an energizing power for the doing of all that to
which the belief naturally led in action.
5. If, however, we walk in the light (ver. 7) as He is in the light, the light-
life has begun within us. The word as, in this verso, can hardly be regarded as
indicating measure or degree. It conveys rather the idea of correspondence in
the facts of the case. The light-life is perfect and complete in God ; it may bo
partial and incomplete in Christian men; nevertheless it is the same life, and
the latter walk in the light as, i.e., as really as, (and with the same fact lying
at the basis of the stateraent), God Himself lives in tho light. — 6. Instead of
saying in ver. 7, we have fellowship with Him, which expression wo might
naturally expect as answering to ver. 6, the writer uses the words, we have
fellowship with one another. This change of expression is to be accounted for,
as we may believe, by the fact that the two ideas of union with God and union
with one another, which are first suggested in ver. 3, seem to be in the writer's
mind in the development of his whole thought. — 7. The addition of the words,
and the hlood of Jesus, etc., is in the line of the thought hinted at above in
connection with the expression, as He is in the light. The Christian believer
enters, when he comes into union with God by faith, into the sphere of the
light. But the infiuenee and power of the light upon his soul become gradually
greater. There Is still somewhat of remaining sin, — tho lingering of the
element of darkness, in which he had previously had his life. The indication
of this verse seems evidently to determine the reference of the word sin to be
to this sin which still abides with the Christian after the beginning of his new
life. As the Christian enters within the light-sphere, and comes into fellowship
with God, the blood of Jesus, which was made effective for him in his passing
out of his old condition, is also continually made effective in removing the
sinful eleraent which reraains. — 8. The reference of the word sin, th^s deter
mined in ver. 7, is, by tho connection of thought, determined also in ver. 8; and
the view of Huther and others here is correct, that the writer is alluding to sin
as belonging to the Christian after he has entered upon the Christian life. As
Huther remarks: "Even though as Christians, who are born of God, we have
no longer sin [see iii. 9] in the sense that nepm. iv rip aKoret is true of us, never-'
theless we do not yet cease to have sin; if we deny this, if we maintain that
we have no sin at all, then what John says in the following words is true of
-us." — 9. The denial that we have sin — tbat sin still has remaining influence
over us, and an abiding force as a principle — is a denial of the true fact of the
case. It is such a contradiction of the reality as proves that the truth has not
found entrance into tho soul and its hfe. With such a denial, therefore, the
soul places itself outside of the true path along which it must pass from
the darkness into the light — nlavupev: it puts itself on the wrong road, and
goes astray from the truth.
10. The true course, on the other hand, Is confession, which acknowledges
the fact and power of sin, and seeks to be delivered completely. When the
soul moves along this course, the promises are fulfllled; as the soul is forgiven,
so also It is cleansed. It is cleansed from all unrighteousness, until the light-
life becomes perfect and complete. — 11. This cleansing, as well as the forgive-

786 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
ness, is so vitally connected with the whole plan and offer of salvation, that
God's faithfulness and righteousness are pledged to its accomplishment. Tho
idea of righteousness here, like that of faithfulness, is related, no doubt, to the
thought of God's proraise of salvation to the one who confesses, etc. After
such a promise, His righteousness requires Him to fulfll it, the conditions
having been fulfllled. But not improbably, in all such expressions as this, tho
N. T. writers — and especially one who penetrated so deeply into the central
thoughts of the Christian system, and reflected so constantly upon the life of
the human soul in its relation to God, as did the writer of this Epistle and tho
Fourth Gospel — had a conception of the righteousness of God as connected
with the very life and being of God. It is, as we may say, of the essence of
God's life, that when tho finite, dependent, created life draws near to itselt,
with the desire and effort to pass out of the darkness into the light, it should
open itself helpfully and forgivingly. The conformity of God's nature to what
it ought to be, and what it must be if it is true to itself, — that is. His righteous
ness, in the strictest sense of the term, — requires tbat He should forgive and
purify the one who confesses his sins. He can be no raore faithful to Himself,
than He can be to His promise, if He fails to do all this for the soul which
truly turns towards Him. — 12. It is because of this deeper thought of God's
righteousness, as we may believe, that tbe writer presses the subject upon the
reader's attention, and it is in tho line of this thought that he develops the idea
of the fundamental necessity of the union of the loving and believing soul with
God, in various ways, throughout the Epistle. — 13. Ver. 10, as Alford remarks,
is not a mere repetition, but a confirmation and intensification, of ver. 8. The
denial of sin puts us in an absolute contradiction of God, and outside of the
whole sphere ot His word. The whole plan of God revealed in the Gospel is
founded upon the fact of sin, and of sin which needs to be forgiven, and from
the power of which the soul needs to be perfectly cleansed. — By these strong
contrasts, among which this last one is especially eraphatic, the apostle lays the
foundation of what he has to say in the following chapters. The light-life is to
be secured, if the soul is to be saved. In order to the entrance upon the light-
life, there must be a passing out of the darkness. To this end, tbe fact of sin
must be acknowledged, and the cleansing through the blood of Christ must be
realized.
XXXV.
CHAPTER IL
Vv. 1-6.
1. The word raira, of ver. 1, refers priraarily to what is said in i. 5-10; in a
secondary sense, it may refer also to the entire contents or message of the
Epistle. The apostle announces to his readers the groat fundamental truth
which he has to proclaim, the truth that tbe Divino life is tho light-life in which
no darkness at all is intermingled; and he sets forth tho way by which this
Divine life is opened to and secured by the huraan soul, namely, by passing out
of the sphere of darkness and walking in the light, in order that the end to be
attained raay be realized in the case of these Christian readers. Tho man who
walks in tbe darkness is wholly outside of tho sphere of the light; he knows
nothing of the true life. But the man who turns from the darkness towards
the light, will still have sorae element of sin remaining with hira, which, as
ho coraes more and more into the fulness of the light-life, will pass away, yet

THE FIRST EPISTLE OP JOHN. 787
which needs, so long as it remains, to be forgiven and cleansed. This is accom
plished through Christ and 'the efficacy of His blood. —The truth, therefore,
is, that the way to life for the human soul is the conforming of its life to the
Divine, the living and walking in tho light; and the way out of the darkness
is through forgiveness and purification. This the writer announces to his
readers, he now says, to the end that they may not sin; that is, that they may
become free frora the sin which remains, and thus may come into the perfect
light. The verb sin here -is in tho aorist tense, and, as Canon Westcott reraarks,
"the thought is of tho single act, not of the state;" "the apostle is" not
"simply warning his disciples not to draw encouragement for license from tho
doctrine of forgiveness. His aim is to produce the completeness of the Christ-
like life." But with the setting-forth of this aim, which carries with it an
urgent exhortation, the apostle connects the encouraging assurance that, in
case the Christian who is ready to yield to the exhortation falls into any act
of sin (tho aorist tense again), there is an advocate with the Father, and a pro
pitiation for sin. — 2. The word napdKlyrog, as hero used, undoubtedly has the
sense of advocate. Jesus is the one "called to the side or aid" of men,
(the original significance of the word), in this particular way of aiding. On
the general uso and meaning of this adjective-noun, some suggestions are offered
in the Additional Notes to the American edition of Godot's Comraentary on
the Gospel of John, chap. xiv. The meaning in John's Gospel is there held
to bo helper, as including the ideas of teaching, revealing tbe truth, etc.
The Paraclete spoken of in the Gospel is tho Holy Spirit; here, it is Christ.
The offices of the two are somewhat different, but they both stand in the rela
tion of helpers, — the forraer boing teacher, guide, coraforter, as He is referred to
in John xiv. -xvi. ; the latter, as hero referred to, being an advocate before the
tribunal of God. Some prorainent writers, however, hold that tho word means
advocate in the Gospel, as certainly as in the Epistle. — 3. The adjective SIkuiov
seems to have a certain predicative character: as being righteous,' and not to bo
a simple descriptive word, the righteous. This word evidently refers to Jesus as
having exhibited perfect righteousness in His earthly life and in His character
as a man. As having such righteousness. He is fitted to present His offering
for sin, and to become tho advocate for those who sin. Tho four points which
Huther presents, in his " Reraark" at the end of his note on ver. 1, are worthy
of notice as setting forth, according to his own expression, the chief elements
which are the result of the apostle's statement.
4. Tho statement of ver. 2, that Christ is the propitiation, etc., is added by
Kai as co-ordinate to what precedes. This verse, therefore, is not expressed in
the form of a ground or reason for the preceding verso; it is, on the other hand,
an additional declaration, which brings out the thought that tho same one who
is the advocate is also Hiraself the propitiation. This co-ordination of the sen
tences serves to show that the deliverance from sin, even from its beginning to
its end, is due to Christ, and is secured by Him. The advocate presents His
propitiatory offering of Himself in His plea before the tribunal. By that offer-
in" He opens the way of forgiveness for all men, if they will accept it. By His
advocacy He gains for His followers the result for which He undertook His work
as a Saviour. — 5. Ver. 3 seems to indicate the relation in which vv. 1, 2, stand
to each other, according to the writer's thought, so far forth as ver. 2 is universal
and ver. 1 applies to the believer. Ver. 2 presents, in the clearest language, the
declaration that the atonement is universal for all raen. Ver. 1 liraits the advo
cacy to the case of the believer. Ver. 3 declares that that true knowledge of

788 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
Christ, which is connected with the realized result of the application of the
propitiatory offering to the individual soul, is gained and possessed only by those
who come into union with Him by obedience. — This third verso, however,
brings before the mind of the reader the importance and necessity, also, of not
sinning (ver. 1), that is, of passing completely out of the dorainion of sin and
darkness, in order to the full possession of the true life. The knowledge here
spoken of is that knowledge which John has in raind in his writings, and which
is connected with his mode of thought and conception. To know God is to bo
in that union and communion of the soul's life with Him, which gives to one
soul a true and full apprehension ot another. It is not love or friendship, but
it is the knowledge which belongs within the sphere of love and friendship.
Paul, in passages like 1 Cor. viii. 2, 3, 1 Cor. xiii. 12, seems to hesitate to affirm
such knowledge on man's part, while in this life. To know God, or rather to
be known by Hira, he would say. I shall hereafter fully know, as I was while
in this life myself fully known. But John, with his tendency to abide in the
soul's inmost living, and in his joyful experience of the growth of the soul
in the society and under the influence of Jesus, feels that this knowledge is
realized now — in its beginnings and Its early stages indeed, but yet truly. The
eternal life is begun already. The reality is already in possession of tho soul;
the growth towards tho fulness is to be ever onward in the future. — 6. The
necessity of obedience to the existence of this knowledge belongs to the relation
of man to God as a creature under moral obligation, and is also connected with
the fact that tbe light-life, in which is no darkness at all, is God's life. Man
must, therefore, corae into complete conformity of will with God, if he would
enter into the completeness of the light-life. To pretend to know God, without
obedience, is a contradiction in terms. The man who raakes this pretence and
claim is a liar, a person in whom the truth has no place.
7. The intimate and vital connection between love and knowledge, which is
manifest everywhere as appertaining to this apostle's thought, is evident in this
passage. The love of God (ver. 5) is, as Huther also affirms, love to God, the
genitive being objective. When tho Christian believer keeps the word, that is,
when he keeps and fulfils the coraraandraents of God, his love to God, in the
union of friendship as between two souls, is perfected ; and by means of this
perfect obedience, manifesting, and growing out of, perfected love, we know
tbat we are in Him in the inmost life of the soul. — 8. Ver. 6 turns the thought
to Christ, and suggests that which lies at tho foundation of the entire Epistle;
namely, that, as Christ is the revelation to the world of the light-life in God,
men must imitate Christ, and live after His way of living, and be in fellowship
with Him, if they are to come into the possession of the life which God has. —
9. The verses frora 1. 5 to ii. 6 serve to show the relation in thought, if not
indeed, also, in the date of the two books, between tho Epistle and the Gospel.
We have here raost evidently, as it would seem, the truth which the apostle
formulated as the result of his meditations on what Christianity had laid open
to him. In the Gospel, on the other hand, we find what is set forth as the
words of Christ in His conversations with His disciples and the people. If
the latter is regarded as the record of what grow, in the progress of the writer's
thinking, into the formulated thought, the most natural and simple accoimt of
the two books is given. But if we change the supposition, and make the
Gospel grow out of, or find its foundation in, tho Epistle, we have what is most
improbable, not to say inexplicable, as the result.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 789
XXXVL
Vv. 7-11.
1. The view of Huther respecting the connection of these verses with those
which precede seems to be correct: tbat in these verses we have a more partic
ular statement of the nature and import of n;pEiv rdf ivroldg airov or ot nepmarelv
KaBug iKelvog nepiendryae. The close union between the love of God and the love
of one's brother is central to the Johannean thought; and, by reason of this
fact, a special prorainence is given to the latter kind of love, as the fulfilraent
of the coramands of God. This apostle had no idea of an inward life which
had no outward forth-putting of itself in action. The true inward life was,
in a certain sense, every thing to him. He meditated upon it, and watched its
growth in himself, with intense interest. The light-life of tho soul was, to his
thought, the in-breathing, as it wore, of the light-life of God, and was to be
developed by communion with God aud Christ. But this light-life was, in his
conception, as truly as it could have been in that of any other of the apostles, a
living, outgoing life. Love which loved no one, and was not ready to do good
to any one, had nothing of the essence of love in it. The love of the soul to
God proves itself by love to tho brethren. — 2. This boing the ease, wo may
easily account for what seems, at the first sight, to be a soraewhat abrupt turn
at the beginning of ver. 7. But when it is borne in mind, that, in a sense, the
central command of all is that of love, it cannot bo considered strange, that, at
this point, the apostle should pass from what he has said of the light-life, and of
the way into it and in it, to this command. Moreover, it is to be remembered that
he has called the thought of the reader to Christ in His relation to the opening
of the new life and to tho growth of the soul in it. It would seem not un
natural, therefore, that ho should bring to their minds the command which
Christ, at the time of His separating from His disciples, gave to thera as tho
guide and ruling power of their future life. Love to one another because of
and inspired by love to Him ; love to one another, therefore, which would bring
them into closest union with Him, and thus bring them into the life which He
revealed to the world: this was the commandment which was at once new and
old, and was the sum and centre of all commands.
3. The commandment here referred to is evidently that of love to one's
brother. It is called a new commandment in ver. 8, and not a new one in
ver. 7. The explanation of the latter expression is indicated by the closing
words of the seventh verso. The command was not new, because, and in the
sense that, the readers had heard it from the beginning of their knowledge of
the Christian life. It was a part of the message which came to them frora
Christ, the revealer of the light-life, through the apostolic preachers. It was
new in another sense. This seems, again, to bo indicated by the words which
form tho latter part of ver. 8. It is new, in that, as it enters into huraan expe
rience, and is realized in its fulfilraent in each individual reader through the
passing-away of the darkness, and the shining of the light for and in him, it
becoraes that new commandment for each one, which it was for the twelve
when it was first given by Jesus. — 4. Tho antecedent of the neuter relative o is
the ivrolyv. This coramandment as true, that is, as realized in its fulfllment
in Him and in you, — in Christ and His followers in their individual and suc
cessive experience, and thus in and through the union between Him and them,
 is a new commandment. — 5. The relation of the bn clause, in which bn, no

790 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
doubt, means because, is to the 6 ianv clause which precedes. It is because the
darkness is passing away, aud the true light is already shining, that this com
mandraent is fulfilled in the experience of Christ's followers as united with
Himself. — 6. We find now, in vv. 9-11, another instance of tho peculiar repe
tition of positive and negative sentences, or sentences which present tho sarae
idea on opposite sides, which has been already noticed, and is so characteristic
of this Epistle and this writer. This repetition is evidently for the purpose of
eraphasis, centering, still raore irapressively than before, upon love to the Chris
tian brother, what had been previously said of keeping the word and the com
mands of God. Comp. 6 liyuv of this verse with the sarae expression in vor. 4,
and also the other correspondences in tho parallel verses 4-6 and 9-11. — 7. The
phrase Sue dpn seems to bo added to the other words as emphatically calling
attention to the fact, that up to the very moraent (and at that raoraent) when
the person says this, he is still corapletely outside of the light-life, and in the
opposite sphere. On the other hand, the man who loves his brother has a per
manent dwelling of the soul in the light. Tho apparently designed contrast
between ver. 10 and ver. 11 seeras to show that the last clauses of the two
verses are intended to have a relation to each other. Tho figure in the closing
part of ver. 12 is evidently like that in the words used by Jesus in John xii. 35, —
the traveller who attempts to make his journey in tho darkness, and who cannot
see his pathway before hira, and, therefore, does not know whither he is going.
When the figure is transferred in its application to the spiritual condition of the
man, of Course the darkness belongs to the interior life; and so, in the opposite
case (ver. 10), it is natural to say that the occasion of stumbling which would
exist in the other condition does not exist in him. The occasion of stumbling
is, strictly speaking, as Huther says, that which entices to sin.

XXXVII.
Vv. 12-14.
1. This passage is apparently of a transitional character in the movement
from what precedes towards what follows, or of an introductory character as
related to what follows. The former is perhaps the bettor light in which to
view it. The, message which is heard from Christ, and is announced to the
readers, is that which relates to the light-life (i. 5 ff. ). The way to the light-
life is through the forgiveness of sins, and the cleansing by raeans of the blood
of Jesus (i. 7, 9, ii. If.). In order to the living this hfe in the light, we must
keep the commandments of God (ii. 3ff.). These coraraandraents are, in a
certain peculiar sense, centered and gathered up in the new coraraand given by
Jesus Himself, the coraraand to love one another (ii. 7ff.). To the carrying-
out of this moveraent out of the darkness into the light, which is thus set
forth, it is necessary that the love of the world should be put aside (ii. 15 ff.).
The thought thus passes on continuously from i. 5, to ii. 17. In this continuous
passage is inserted, just before the last section of it, tho address, as we may
call it, to the readers, which covers these verses now under consideration
(12-14). 2. In this address to the readers, the following points are especially worthy
of notice: (a) The classes of persons addressed are the same in the two parts of
the passage, except so far as the change of the word reKvla (ver. 12) to natSia
(ver. 13 c) may possibly indicate a change of persons. The probability, how-

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 791
ever, is that no such change is indicated. The correspondence in the other
cases tends to show that the sarae persons are intended here. The same thing
is implied by the uso of naidia in ver. 18, which apparently has the same sense,
substantially, and is used of the same persons, as reKvia, in other parts of
the Epistle. — (6) The persons intended by these two words are probably the
whole body of Christian readers, whom tho writer addresses. This is indicated,
flrst, by the fact that both words, as elsewhere used by this apostle, both in his
Epistle and his Gospel, have reference to believers, without regard to the
question of age. It is indicated, secondly, by the fact to which Alford calls
attention, that the throe terms in each case are arranged in an order which is
neither that of ascending nor descendiug age — children, fathers, young men.
— (c) The distinction in meaning between reKvla and naiSia may lie in the fact,
that the forraer is a word bearing in itself more of the eleraent of tenderness
or affection. Westcott thinks that the former word carries in it the idea of
kinsmanship, the latter that of subordination. John speaks in the uso of the
former, he says, as sharing the nature of those to whom he writes ; in the use
of the latter, as placed in a position of authority over them. This is possible,
but doubtful. Such a distinction can hardly be insisted upon iu John xxi. 5,
as compared with John xiii. 33. Moreover, there would seem to bo no special
reason for such a change of words in those sentences, which convey substantially
the same idea in all other respects. Perhaps the change is a mere rhetorical
one. — (d) Tho two forms of the verb ypdipeiv (aorist and present) are, not im
probably, best explained by Huther. They are substantially repetitions of the
same thought, as we may believe, in view of the general character of the verses.
But they are possibly to bo accounted for in connection with tbe epistolary use
of tbe aorist, as related to the present, after the manner suggested by Diister
dieck; the present referring to the imraediato act of writing, tho aorist to the
reader's act of reading when coraplete, and both referring to tho whole Epistle.
— (e) There can be no doubt that in the words /aifters and young men, tho
apostle intends to address the older and younger members of the Christian
body. The two classes are included in the term rsKvia or naiSia; these words
being words of affection, as from an apostle and chief leader of the church. —
(/) The reasons given for writing, in the several cases, do not pass beyond
the limits of a particular circle of thought and expression. With respect to the
reKv'iu and naiS'ia, we find two expressions : because your sins have 'been .forgiven
you, and because you know the Father. These two things, tho forgiveness of
sins, and tho knowledge of tho Father, are connected together, in that the
former is the entrance-way into the Christian life, and the latter is the essence
of it (as viewed from the standpoint of .John, with reference to the truth that
God is light) and also in that they both come to the soul through Christ. The
apostle addresses his letter, which contains that central truth which ho had
himself learned from Christ, to all his Christian readers, because they have
gained entrance into the new life, and are living in its atmosphere and its light.
They have already corae to the knowledge of God, and are abiding in it. —
{g) Tho division into older and younger, which is indicated by naripeg and veavl-
OKoi is a not unnatural one, and is suggested iu the writings of other N. T. writers.
If this Epistle was written as late as the year 80 or 90, there raust of course
have been many believers ainong the Christian corapany, to whom its author
was writing, who were advanced in years, as well as raany who were young.
The fathers are spoken of, both in ver. 13 and ver. 14, as knowing tov utt' dpxyg.
There can be no doubt that by this phrase the apostle moans Christ. There

792 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
can be no reasonable doubt, as it would seem, that the words /rom the beginning
have the sarae sense here as in i. 1, and thus that the eternal existence of the
Son is referred to. That this knowledge is predicated of the fathers, while
tho young men are spoken of as having overcome or conquered tho evil one, is
in itself an indication that the apostle moans by it a full knowledge, such as
belongs to the fully developed state of the Christian life. It is not merely true,
in their case, tbat they have overcorae tho evil one, and given tho word of God
an abiding-place in their hearts ; but the conflict is long since over, and they are
now living in the raore complete development of the life which consists in tho
knowledge of God, and of Jesus Christ His Son. — (ft) In the second allusion
to the young men, two clauses are added: because you are strong, and the word
of God abides in you. The word strong hero denotes spiritual strength, but is
doubtless connected with tbe idea of strength as characteristic of youth. " Tho
young soldier," says Westcott, " is strong as having the personal qualiflcations
for his work; and the word of God abideth, etc., so that he is in living contact ¦
with the source of life." XXXVIII. Vv. 15-17.
1. These verses are closely connected with those which precede; and, if the
explanation suggested above is correct, they form tho closing part of the passage,
in the midst of which vv. 12-14 are inserted by way of transition. To the
fulfilment of tbe coramands of God, and the great duty of love, — to the carrying
forward and perfecting of that life which opens with forgiveness, and moves on
in the sphere of the knowledge of God, — it is essential that the love of the
world should cease. — 2. The world, as the expression is here used, evidently
means the world conceived of as apart from God, and as drawing away thought
and love from Him, when it draws thought and love towards itself. This is
evident from ver. 156, which declares tbat the love of the world, when dwelling
in the soul, excludes from the soul the love of God. It is also evident from
ver. 16. This latter verse indicates, that by the expression: the world, the
apostle means those things, like the vainglory of life, which especially excite
the desires of raen, and turn thera from tho service and love ot God. It will
be noticed that ver. 16 is connected with ver. 15 by on; and thus tho fact
that every thing like the vainglory, etc., is not of the Father, is made a proof
of what goes before. This relation of the sentences is decisive of the writer's
meaning. 3. The things which the apostle selects as representative of Trdv Td 'ev ru Koapu
are evidently indicative of what is in his mind; but it is scarcely to be supposed
that he means to cover the whole of worldly human desire by the words, or that
he is particularly careful to make accurate divisions into kinds or classes of
desire. His object is rather to make clear to the reader what is the character
of those things which he refers to under the head of the world. This is not a
place for critical distinctions, but for combined and total impression. The
genitives aapKog and bipBalpd>v are both of them subjective genitives, as Huther
says, and present the fiesh and the eyes as the source of the desires. The flesh
is the fieshly or carnal nature opposed to God, and is the most general word here
used. It would seem almost irapossible to take the .fiesh, in this place, in any
other sense than tbat in which John uses it, elsewhere, in its contrast to the
spiritual and divine life. The eyes must be connected with tho matter of seeing.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 793
and thus the desires here alluded to are those which come from seeing, and they
are desires for the things seen. The vainglory of life apparently (the word being
derived from dldQuv, which contains the idea of boasting or bragging) seems to
refer to that pomp, power, distinction of any sort, belonging to the earthly and
outward life, in connection with which a raan becomes filled with pride, and a
sense of exaltation above others about him. This vainglory of life, and the
things which are seen by the eye, make up a large share of that which fills
the hearts and hopes of the men of tho world, so far as they are raised above mere
animal desire and passion. Of this latter sort of desire and passion, the apostle
is probably not speaking in this passage. His thought is of the life of the soul
in its higher regions, as we may say; and his question as to the true life is,
whether the man is animated by that love which goes out towards God, or, on
tho other hand, by that love which goes out towards the higher (rather than the
lowest) things which belong to the world. The desire for these higher things
of the world (and not only that for the lowest) is, as opposed to the love of
God, the desire of the flesh ; and it is not from (having its source in) the
Father, but from the world. What is said in these few sentences is presented
as setting forth what, in the view of the writer of this note, is the true meaning
and thought of these phrases and of the passage in which they occur. The
note of Huther is worthy of careful reading. — 4. The statement of ver. 17,
"And the world is passing away," is an added thought, simply joined by kuI
with what precedes, but it seems to give an additional reason for not loving the
world and tho things in it. Tho suggestion of Huther, that this expression has
reference to the thought of the parousia as near at hand, is favored by ver. 18
and ver. 28, if these verses are to be interpreted as suggesting this thought. If
the N. T. writers had this idea of the nearness of Christ's second coraing, all
thoughts of tho passing away of the present condition of things must have had
a peculiarly deep impressiveness to their minds, which, so far as this point is
concerned, is miknown to us. But whether John had this thought of the near
ness of the parousia, or not, wo must believe, that to a mind like his, which
dwelt so much upon the soul's life, and so little upon the outward life in
comparison with it, the fact that the world, and the desires to which it gives
rise, are passing by and passing away, raust have been deeply irapressive. This
fact raade the great distinction, in his view of tho matter, between the inner
and the outer life, between that Divine friendship into which he had himself
entered long since, and the giving-up of the soul to tho desire of those things
which are in the world, and which make up, in a sense, the idea of the world.
— 5. The last clause of ver. 17 sets forth tho opposite idea to that of the first
part. But now we have the personal form : He that does the will of God abides
for ever. In this clause, two points may be noticed: First, that there is a
return at the end of tho paragraph to the idea of doing the commandraents of
God, the sum of what He wills. Bis will ; and, secondly, that the introduction
of the personal forra is raost natural here, as the raind of John was dwelling,
flrst of all, and last of all, on personal life. Not siraply does the doing of God's
will lead to eternal life, but he that does it continues in his personal life for

794 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
XXXIX.
Vv. 18-25.
1. At this point, the apostle turns to a warning against the many antichrists
who have already appeared. The connection of this passage with what goes
before maybe noticed, with reference to the general progress of the thought,
and also with respect to the immediate relation of the sentences. In tho latter
respect, the connection is evidently with ver. 17. The thought of the world
as passing away leads to the thought of the last hour as present. In the former
point of view, the exhortation to avoid the love of the world, as essential to
the fulfilling of the commands of God, easily brings to mind tbe suggestion of the
antichrists who impersonate the worldly spirit in its opposition to God. After
setting forth what the antichrists are, in contrast to tho true believers, he urges
the readers, in the last verses of tho chapter, to abide in Christ, and thus to be
prepared, in their inner life, to meet Him, at His coraing, with joy and confi
dence, and not with sharae. The thought thus moves forward, in a direct
progress, from the preceding chapter towards the following one. — 2. The
expression the last hour is kindred to the last days, the end of these days, etc.,
found elsewhere. It has, perhaps, some connection, in John's uso of it, with
the word upa, which is frequently used in his Gospel, where it refers to tho tirae
of Christ's death. This usage of John, as woll as the definiteness In the word
itself, would seem to give tbe word a more liraited and particular reference thau
tho other expressions alluded to have, and thus to indicate that the apostle
looked upon the period or time to which ho refers as the final critical season
before tbe end. The precise reference will be determined according to the view
which may be held with respect to the idea of the apostles concerning the time
ot the second coming. If John looked, for the coraing at an early day, the
expression the last hour will, of course, have a peculiar force and emphasis.
Huther takes this view, as also do many other commentators.
3. The term antichrist occurs only in this Epistle, and the Second Epistle of
John, but the person or power indicated by it appears elsewhere. As Huther
remarks, the same person is undoubtedly refeiTed to here, who is spoken of in
2 Thess. ii. 3 as the raan of sin. The reader raay be referred to tho notes of
Meyer on 2 Thess. ii. 3 ff., and also to the Additional Notes in the Amer. ed.
of Meyer, for suggestions on this subject. It is evident from John's statement,
as it is from Paul's, that the N. T. writers either looked upon the antichrist as
a particular person, or that they personified the enmity and opposition, which,
arising in and going out from the Church, in the way of apostasy, was, in their
• view, to appear not long before the Lord's second coming, — tho great consum
mation of evil in its assault upon tbe kingdom of God. This great personage,
or development of evil, was to bo iraraediately preceded, it would seem, by other
and minor developments in the sarae line, and preparing the way for it; and
raany of these, tho apostle here says, had already appeared. The characteristic
feature of these raany antichrists must be regarded as that which also belongs
to the one great antichrist himself, namely, tho denial that Jesus is the Christ.
They take the position which is fundamentally opposed to the Christian system
and doctrine. — 4. The appearance of these many immediate precursors of the
antichrist proves that the last hour has come. The language here used can
hardly bo explained, except by supposing that John believed some great crisis to
be already at hand, and some great movement or event in the triumph of the
Divine kingdom to lie in the immediate future, which should, at least in some

THE FIRST EPISTLE OP JOHN. 795
sense, be tho coming of the Lord. This Epistle being written in his advanced
life, perhaps in his extreme old age, the nearness of the great event was
impressed deeply upon his mind. Tho correspondence between this passage and
Matt. xxiv. 24, etc., seeras to indicate what tho idea of the apostle was with
regard to the coming, and that which should precede it. — 5. These persons, to
whom the writer alludes as having already appeared, are declared to have gone
out from the church. This statement would seem to imply, that, in some
marked degree and manner, they had separated theraselves from the body of
true believers. The same is indicated, also, by the pepevyKeiaav of the following
sentence. — 6. The simplest construction of itll' Iva is that which is first given
by Huther in his note, tbe 'tva being raade dependent on iiylBav to be supplied
after tva. This 'tva carries with it the idea of the Divine purpose.
7. Vor. 20 is probably to be taken, with Huther, as preparatory to what
follows, rather than as in contrast with what precedes, although a certain
element of contrast may be indicated by ipelg. The apostle calls the attention
of the readers to the fact that, as true Christian believers, tbey have the anoint
ing which consists in tho gift of tho Holy Spirit; and that, being led into all the
truth by Him, they know all things within its limits. He reminds them, also,
that of course, as fundaraental to the idea of knowing the truth, they know that
no lie is of the truth. The fact of their possession of this knowledge, not their
want of it, is the ground of his writing to them respecting the antichrists, etc.
The holy one raentioned in ver. 20 is probably Christ (John xvi. 7). — 8. Ver. 22.
By the question. Who is the liar f the apostle presents the central point of oppo
sition to the Divine truth, and introduces the attitude of these false teachers
towards Christ as directly hostile to, and Contradictory of, the essential Chris
tian teaching. To deny that Jesus is the Christ, is to deny the whole truth of
Christianity, and to set one's self outside of the revelation of the eternal life.
Westcott says, " The phrase by which St. John describes the raaster-falsehood
as the ' denial that Jesus is the Christ,' itself marks the progress of Christian
thought. In the earliest stage of the Church, the words would have expressed
a denial of the Messiahship of Jesus from the Jewish point of view. They now
answer to a later form of opinion. A comraon ' Gnostic' theory was that ' the
Eoon Christ ' descended upon tho man Jesus at his baptism, and left Him before
the passion. Those who held such a doctrine denied that ' Jesus was tho
Christ;' and in so denying, denied the union of the Divine aud human in one
person. This heresy St. John signalizes here." Undoubtedly, at the tirae of
John's writing, the foreshadowings, or early beginnings, of Gnosticism, were
manifest, and against such ideas John directed his words. But the words
which he here uses contain in themselves, and independent of all changes of
ideas on the part of adversaries, the fundaraental thought of the Christian doc
trine: Jesus is the Christ. The raanwho denies this, is outside of the Christian
system. He who, in the full and wide raeaning of the word, confesses it, is a
Christian. — 9. Tho apostle connects this denial that Jesus is tho Christ, imme
diately with the denial of the Son and the Father. The central and vital relation
of the belief that Jesus is the Christ, to the union of the soul with God, which
is the idea of life in the Johannean thought, is brought out in the closing sen
tence of ver. 22 ; and the essential and intimate connection between the confession
or denial of the Son, and tho inward possession of tho Father as the life-power
of the soul, is set forth in ver. 23. In tbe immediate relation of ver. 23 to
ver. 226, the former (ver. 23) is a ground justifying the statement of tbe latter
(ver. 226).

796 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR
10. These verses, in respect to denial and confession, are followed by an
exhortation addressed to the readers. The word ipelg (ver. 24) has tho same
emphasis in the way of contrast as in ver. 20. That which you heard from the
beginning : This refers evidently, in the connection in which the words stand,
to that fundaraental truth, here alluded to, which had been raade known to
thera by tho apostle in bis preaching ; that is, the truth of Jesus as tho Christ,
the Son of God, and of the light-life (the union of tho soul with God) as secured
through believing in Hira. He exhorts the readers to let this truth abide within
thera; and assures thera that, if it does abide thus, they will theraselves abide in
tbe Son and in the Father. The relation of the Epistle to the Gospel of John
is seen in such passages as this. We find, in tho Epistle, the doctrine and truth
as it had dwelt and worked in the writer's mind; in the Gospel, the sayings of
Jesus during His lifetime, on which the doctrine rested, and in which it was
first set forth. — 11. The reference in airy of ver. 25, seems to be to the assur
ance just given in the verb pevelre: You shall abide in the Son and in the
Father, if that which you heard from the beginning abides in you. Of this I
give you a solemn assurance, and I am authorized so to do, for: This permanent
abiding in the Father and the Son is the very thing which Jesus Himself prom
ised us, and the very thing which he meant by eternal Ufe. Interpreted in this
way, the verse forms a most fitting close to the succession of verses at tho ond
of which it stands; and the explanation of the paragraph, or half -paragraph,
opened by raira iypa-tpa of ver. 26, is most simple and natural. Tho break in
connection, and the necessary supply of soraething as an intermediate thought,
which Huther admits as involved in his interpretation (making avry reter to
Quyv aiuviov, and the sense to be: " eternal life is the promise which He has given
us"), are strong and, as it seems to the writer of this note, decisive arguments
against Huther's view.
XL.
Vv. 26-28.
1. These verses form a conclusion to the preceding section, which began
with ver. 18 ; and they take up anew, and press upon the mind of the readers,
the thoughts which have been suggested, — that of the antichrists, that of the
anointing from the Holy One, that of abiding in Christ, and tbat of the coming
of Christ, which follows after "the last hour." — 2. The antichrists are here
spoken of as ol nlavuvreg, that is, they are viewed from the side of their infiu
enee on the Church, rather than tbat of their denial that Jesus is the Christ.
In contrast to them, their attempted work and position, the readers are once
more spoken of with reference to the anointing with the Holy Spirit which they
had received. As this impartatiou of the Spirit, and the guidance into the
knowledge of the truth, which results from it, remain with thera as their perma
nent possession, they do not need to be taught by another teacher; they only
need to be reminded of the fact of the appearance and working of the anti
christs, that they raay see thera in their true character, and may refuse to yield
to their misleading infiuenee. On the contrary, as this anointing which comes
by the gift of Christ, i.e., tho Holy Spirit, teaches them with that complete and
perfect truthfulness in which there is no intermingling at all of what is false,.
they will surely abide in Christ, not being led astray from Him. The entire
part of the sentence following dlld of ver. 27, from ug to iSlSa^ev, is to be regarded
as the protasis, mveire being the apodosis, and the simplest explanation of the

THE FIRST EPISTLE OP JOHN. 797
KuBdig iSiSa^ev is, that it is added to indicate that what is continually taught by
the anointing is the sarae thing which was taught from the beginning, from the
time when the gift of the Spirit was first made. — 3. As to the question of
tho reading at the end of ver. 27, — whether pevelre or ^^vete, — the oldest
authorities are unanimous in favor of the latter, and it is now generally adopted.
If this is the true text, the verb is to be regarded, with Huther, as an indicative.
The apostle affirms in this verse, and exhorts in the next. He affirms here
(making his statement in a general present), as true of the readers, that which
must necessarily, and will certainly, be true of thom when they are viewed as
fully possessed of the Spirit, and under His teaching and guiding influence.
— 4. The pivere of ver. 28 is clearly an iraperative; for tho apostle now turns to
an exhortation, with a view to the result which he hopes for in the future,
tva, k.t,1, — 5. The weight of authorities is such that we raust adopt £dv, rather
than drav, as the true reading; and tbis reading may perhaps indicate that the
apostle thought of the coming as possibly, or not improbably, near at hand, —
in case it takes place while we are still in the earthly life, to which the exhor
tation pivere applies. It may, however, be only tho edv which merely puts the
supposition in a less positive form than ei.

XLL
VER. 29 — CHAPTER IIL 10 a.
1. Huther and many commentators think that a now leading section of the
Epistle begins with ver. 29, and this seems to be the fact. The new life is
the life of righteousness. This thought has been suggested before, in connec
tion with the keeping of the commandments of God. The special development
of righteousness in the matter of love to one's brother has also been hinted at.
But the apostle now proceeds to a more direct and full unfolding of the idea,
and connects it with the thought of the sonship to God, in which the Christian
grows continually more and more into the Divine likeness. — 2. ff ye know that
he is righteous: This conditional sentence takes up the idea of knowing the
truth, which has boon predicated of the Christian, and puts forth a funda
mental eleraent of this knowledge. In case you know this fundamental truth,
says the apostle, — and this you should and must know, if you are truly
taught by the Holy Spirit, — you also know (or, taking the verb as an impera
tive, knoio ye, be assured) that every one that doeth righteousness is begotten
of Him. The light-life in man springs from, and is in the likeness of, the light-
life in God. This sentence contains, thus, a statement and declaration which
the writer makes the foundation of what he has to urge upon the readers In the
following verses. CHAPTER III.
3. Following upon the declaration of the truth, that the one who does right
eousness is begotten of God (ii. 29), we flnd an expression of wonder and
thankfulness in view of the love of God, which gives to man this relation to
Himself. This is the substance of ver. 1, wheu it is viewed with reference
to its words and the form of the sentence; and to give expression to these
feelings, was undoubtedly the primary object in writing the words. But in the
development of the main thought, in its progress from ver. 29 onward, this

798 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
verse calls attention to the fact that we are children of God, as preparatory to
the setting-forth of the idea of our growth, as children, into the complete
likeness of God. And this idea is presented with especial reference to the end,
•when the consummation shall be realized, in order that tho legitimate influence
of the hope of this consumraation on the growth of tho soul in righteousness,
and its movement away from sin, may be pressed upon the reader. — 4. The
character of the expression, as one of wonder and thankfulness, is distinctly
seen in its form and words. The desire to give forth such an expression deter
mines the abruptness of the sentence, and the use of ISere, The use of rcKva,
instead of vibg, which occurs also elsewhere in John, is natural here, because the
idea is related immediately to the yeyiwyrai of ii. 29. Comp. John i. 12. It is
tbe child-relationship, which is connected with birth, that is at the foundation of
this whole passage. — 5. The word called here does not signify, to have the name
of, without being in reality what we are called; but it means simply that we
have this name bestowed upon us. The emphasis on the iapev, for the purpose
of which it is added to the sentence, is not, therefore, that of being, as opposed
to being called without being, but that of confident affirmation of the fact, on
tbe foundation of which the name is given to us. — 6. The last sentence of ver. 1
corresponds with thoughts and statements contained in Christ's language, as
given in the Gospel of John. This sentence, though not expressed in the form
directly adapted to this end, really sets forth a confirmation of the truth of the
KUI iapev. That we are the children of God, is proved by tho fact that the sinful
world, which lives in the sphere of the darkness, does not recognize and apprO;
hend us in our life, as it did not recognize and apprehend Him. This incapacity
of the world to apprehend our life, shows that we have a life outside of its
sphere, — the light-life, which is beyond tho limits of the darkness.
7. The word avrbv must, almost necessarily, refer to God, because of the
connection with the preceding sentence. This word seems likewise to govern,
by its raeaning and reference, the words airu, avrbv, and eicelvog in vv. 2, 3, and
also to deterraine the question as to the subject of ipavepuBy of ver. 2, — at least,
if tbat verb should be understood as having a personal subject, which is
probably tho correct view. All these words must point to God, not Christ.
The true explanation of this matter is, as wo may believe, after tho following
manner : The underlying thought of the Epistle, as we have seen, is that of the
life of the human soul as coming into the likeness of, and participation in,
the life of God, — the life in which there is no darkness at all. The turning
of the soul towards the growth of its life into and in this likeness is, therefore,
what is constantly before the writer's mind. The eternal life is this life in
likeness to, and union with God. God is thus the one who occupies the central
and first place in the whole development of the thought. Christ is the one who
brings the raessage respecting this life of God, and reveals it. It is through
Christ that we attain to the life, by believing in Him, and imitating Him, and
growing into His likeness. But the consummation at the end, like the first
beginning, is the possession of tho life of God, the light-life. This life is to be
perfected, we know not precisely in what nianner, through the clearer and raore
perfect raanifestation of God, which will take place hereafter, and through the
fact that, by seeing Him as He is, we shall become in the more perfect sense
like Hira. God is thus naturally the one who is made most prominent every
where; and Ho is, for the reason indicated, presented as tho subject of thought
here. The word ipavepuB-y, which, under ordinary circumstances, would more
naturally be used of the manifestation of Christ, as in ii. 28, is thus here used

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 799
with reference to God. The revelation of the future is, according to the
underlying thought of the Epistle, the revelation and manifestation of God.
8. The uso of the verb ipavepuBy is to be observed in its connection with
ipavepuBy of tbe preceding sentence, and ipavepuBy of ii. 28. Its connection
with the former may bo regarded as showing that tho idea of clear revelation
is contained in it, and its connection with the latter apparently suggests the
thought that this clear revelation will be made, or at least begin, at the parou
sia. The employment of the word to denote the more complete manifestation
of God, as the fulness of the light-life, is readily accounted for in the light of
• this relation to the context. — 9. Huther, Haupt, Alford, and other commenta
tors, regard ri iabpeBa (it) as the subject of ipavepuBy. This would correspond
with the subject of tho preceding iipavepCiBy, but the sense of the passage would
thus seem not to be in accordance with the suggestion of the context. This
suggestion is, that hereafter we shall be like Him : this we know, although we
do not know precisely what wo shall be. To make this knowledge, or this
likeness, dependent on tho fact of the making raanifest to us precisely what we
shall be, is outside of the line of thought, and such an idea would seem to carry
an improbability in itself. The whole progress of the Christian life, in John's
idea of it, is one thing, the development in the likeness of God. The future is
not to be different from the present, except in the circumstances of the living,
and the measure of the development. We know, therefore, that our life is to
bo this development, independently of any future raanifestation as to precisely
what we shall be. — The thought, then, which fills the apostle's mind and heart,
is this : that we are children of God, and are to bo so forever. We do not know,
indeed, what raay be our condition in every respect, or what precisely we shall
be in the future time, which is beyond the limits of the present life ; but we do
(now) know that, if He shall be manifested, we shall be like Hira in the more
full and complete sense, for we shall see Him more fully and completely as He
is. — 10. The particle viiv of ver. 2 is the temporal particle, tho now being
contrasted with the future indicated by the not yet. The fact that we are now
children of God is the great fact which carries with it the essential life of the
future, leaving, only the question as to precisely what we shall be, in our new
condition and circumstances hereafter, in uncertainty. — 11. The likeness to
God, of which the apostle speaks, must he realized in the soul ot the one who,
being already a child of God, shall hereafter see Him as He is, for he has within
hira that principle of life which only needs the seeing in order to the likeness.
In this way John himself, as we see in his Gospel, grew into the likeness of
Jesus by seeing Him, and so into the likeness of God. Tho seeing is repre
sented as the condition, not the consequence, of the likeness, and this represen
tation accords with the Johannean idea throughout. — 12. The question raised
by some writers as to the possibility of seeing God the Father, as connected
with the words: No man hath seen or cau see God, — is one which does not
properly arise hero. The expressions have reference to that spiritual compre
hension of the light-life of God, which is, according to all indications in the
N. T. revealed in heaven to the saints. As Alford says, "The incapacity to
behold the Creator," in the sense in which this incapacity is declared in some
passages kindred to the one referred to, " does not prevent the vision, as far as
it can reach, being clear and unclouded; being, to tho utmost extent of which
our glorified nature is capable, i)g iariv, a true and not a false vision of God."
13. Ver. 3 forms a transition frora vv. I, 2, to ver. 5 ff., and thus brings the
thought back to the opening of this section, ii. 29. The hope of such a sight of

800 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
God, and such a likeness to Him, naturally works in every one who has it, to the
end of making him purify himself, that is to say, cleanse himself from every
polluting power and influence, and bring himself more and more into tho likeness
of the Divine purity. — 14. KaBijg iKelvog dyvbg ianv. The word iKelvog here is
referred by Huther and most interpreters to Christ. This corresponds with
ii. 6, whore there is a similar change of pronouns, airbg and iKelvog. There would
seem to be no serious difflculty in supposing that the wuiter turns in his thought
here frora God to Christ (indicating the change of subject by the change of
pronouns), aud particularly when it is considered that the revelation of God's
purity is in and through Christ, in so far as it is made to the raan who is
purifying himself during the period of tho hope spoken of. Tho close relation
ot Christ to God, and the fact that Christ reveals the Quy aiuviog, must be borne
in mind in all our interpretation of passages like this. No doubt, the author
passed without difflculty frora tho one thought to tho other, and had in his raind,
as a combined idea, God in Christ, so that he could easily raake one prominent at
one time, and, not long afterwards, give a similar prominence to the other. It
is in this way, if the explanation advocated above is correct, that the author's
thought passes, in connection with the verb ipavepbu, from Christ, as the subject
in ii. 28, to God, as the subject in iii. 2, and again to Christ in iii. 5. Such
changes are incidental to the development of the thoughts which form tho basis
of the Epistle, and are specially characteristic of this author. — 15. The object
ot ver. 4 ff., as related to the verses immediately preceding, is to give prominence
to the idea of the necessity of purifying one's self, as set forth in ver. 3, by
presenting tho incompatibility of the opposite course with that seeing and
knowing the Divine life, as manifested in Christ, which is the essence of the
light-life. As related to ii. 29, these verses, 4 ff., add emphasis to the thought
which underlies that verse, — namely, that righteousness is necessary to the idea
of sonship to God, — by showing what the opposite ot righteousness is, and the
irreconcilability of this opposite with the character of Christ, and the life in
Him. The verses have thus a twofold relation; but. In each of the two
connections, they express substantially the same idea, and point to the same
end. — 16. The word dvopia, as here eraployed, means violation of law, and the
law which the apostle has in railed is, apparently, that law of God which is
universal in its application, and is designed to govern the whole man and the
whole life. It is not the Mosaic law, but, so far as related to that law, it is
the Mosaic law spiritualized, i.e., carried into tho inmost feelings and thoughts
of the soul, and extended over every movement of the inner man. It is the law
which sets forth the idea of righteousness given by Christ in Matt. v. 17 ff., and
elsewhere in His teachings. Sin is violation of this law, and every one who
"does sin," Instead of "doing righteousness," does what is a violation of it.
A man who does sin, therefore, — who violates tbe divinely given law of life, —
cannot be begotten of God in the spiritual sense; ho cannot be a child of God.
17. Ver. 5 is introduced as confirming what is said in the preceding verse,
by calling the readers' attention to the fundamental and well-known truth of
Christ's mission in this regard, and also of His personal life. And you know,
the apostle says. The and connects this well-known fact with the proposition
of the preceding verse, which rests upon the contrariety of sin and righteousness.
He was manifested, 'etc., — the very object of His appearance In the flesh, and
of the manifestation of God in Hira, was that He might take away sins; and
His character was in complete consistency with His work, — in Him was no sin.
— 18. Tho relation of ver. 6 to ver. 5, though it is not expressed in this way by

THE FIRST EPISTLE OP JOHN. 801
an inferential particle, such as oiv, is that of a conclusion. If sin is violation of
the Divine law, and if Christ came to take away sins, and in Him personally sin
had no dwelling-place, it follows that the one who abides in Him does not sin,
and, on the other hand, that the one who sins does not abide in Him, — has not
even seen Him, or known Him. This is true of every one, in each of tho two
opposite cases. — The relation ot the verbs see and know is probably to be
explained in accordance with what has been already indicated as the thought of
John. As he himself lived in the society and friendship of Jesus and carae to
know Him, in the true sense, by seeing Him (and thus the seeing and knowing
have reference to the inward life of Jesus); so his idea of the knowledge of
Christ, and of God, is the idea of a knowledge which comes from tho contem
plation of the Divine life. The raan who sins — so far is he from abiding in
Christ — has not even seen Hira in this inward and true sense, and has not
attained, as yet, to that knowledge of Him which comes by seeing, and is
essential to abiding. — 19. After the development of the thought thus far, the
apostle returns to the thought of ii. 29, pressing it still more solemnly upon
their attention: Little children, let no man lead you astray in tbis matter;
the man who doeth righteousness, and ho only, is righteous. The inward life
riiust put forth its vital energy and force in tho doing of righteousness ; if it does
not, it is not, in John's view, tho true inward life at all. Much as he dwelt upon
the inner life, and much as he dwelt within his own inner life, he contemplated
it only as a life having in itself this vital energy. And so he again sets forth the
negative statement corresponding with this positive one, that he may give the
latter yet raore eraphasis, — he that doeth sin is of the Devil. — 20. Fven as He
is righteous. The comparison here is probably with reference to the reality of
righteous character and living, and not to the measure and degree of righteous
ness. The man who does righteousness has the life-principle of righteousness
within him, even as God has. The man who " does sin," on the other hand, is
of the Devil; that is, his inner life-principle has its origin in the Devil, who, in
his whole life, moves and acts in tbe sphere of sin even frora the beginning.
21. Tho last clause of ver. 8 is added as impressing the thought still further:
The very purpose for which the Son of God was manifested was, that He might
destroy the works of the Devil. The Christian idea of righteousness must,
therefore, bo in accordance with what has been said in this passage. — 22. The
statement ol ver. 9a is substantially what has been previously indicated, but it
is put in the reverse order. This new order of arrangement is' due, no doubt, to
the statement of ver. 8a. As the one who commits sin is of tho Devil, so he
who is begotten of God doos not commit, sin. The fundamental cause of this
not sinning is presented in the on clause; it is because the life-giving principle
received frora God, which is exclusive of sin and which is tho principle of right
eousness, abides in such a man. If it does not dweU in him, the divinely given
life is not there. And, as showing this more eraphaticaUy, the words are added:
And he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God. The cannot here is that
which appertains to tho new life within the raan; so far as that life and life-
principle are concerned, the continuance of sin is ithpossible. This is tho very
fact and ground on which the question, who are the children of God, and who are
the children of the Devil, is deterrained. The sin-destroying life element in the
former and its outworking into action, raake manifest the child-relationship to
God. Tho absence of all this, and the presence of the opposite, show forth the
similar relationship to the Devil.

802 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
XLII.
Vv. 106-24.
1. The additional idea found in this passage is brotherly love. As he desires
to speak of this particularly, the apostle unites it with what precedes by
repeating, in the negative form, the proposition just made respecting righteous
ness, whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God ; and then adds — concen
trating thereby, upon this point, the main thought of the reader — and he who
loveth not his brother. Brotherly love, therefore, is given the same prorainence
in tho great matter of righteousness here as in chap. ii. (comp. ii. 7-11). — 2. Ver.
II gives the proof of ver. 106: Because, etc. It is because this is the message
sent from God to men in and through Jesus Christ, — the Divine message which
the readers had heard from tho beginning. The readers had heard this message or
announceraent as a continuous tradition, and as a fact of the Christian preaching
ever since the evening of the Last Supper, when Jesus uttered these words in
the presence of the eleven faithful disciples. The message which tbe writer and
his fellow-apostles had heard from Jesus, as the incarnate Logos revealing tho
Quy aiuviog, was that God is light, and in Hira is no darkness at all. The central
element of the light-life is love. In the siDbero of righteousness, therefore,
which is the outworking and result of the light-life, love is the primary thing;
the command to love one another is (ii. 7-11) the sura of all coraraandments.
The man who does not have brotherly love, therefore, is truly declared to be no
child of God, because he has not taken into himself the foundation-message
from heaven, in this its central element. He is aniraated by an opposite spirit,
and inspired by an opposite life-principle, after the raanner of Cain. The
Divine message is not of such a feeling, or action, as this: not as Cain was
of the evil one, and slew his brother. To this statement is added the reason of
tho slaying; or, if we express it in other words, the life-principle out of which
the act sprang is set forth as showing the complete contrast to the life-principle
of which the message speaks. Cain's works were evil, Abel's righteous; by
reason of tbis fact, recognized by the forraer, tho hatred which ended in murder
entered his soul.
3. Tho verses lOa-12 inclusive are introductory to 13 ff., in which the raatter
of brotherly love is presented in its wider relations and contrasts. Tbe hatred
of the world is a thing to be expected, and not to be wondered at; for the life-
principle in the world is the same with that which was in this first murderer of
the O. T. history. This life-principle will inevitably work out into feeling and
action; it will lead to hatred of the brother, and thus to that which lies at tho
basis of the act of murder; and it will lead to such hatred, because the works of
those who have this life-principle are evil, while those of the men who have
the divine life-principle are righteous, and because this fact is recognized by the
world. So true is this, and so little reason is there for wonder at the world's
hatred, that, on tho other hand, the very ground of our knowledge that we have
passed out of death, darkness, the sphere of the world, into the light, is the
fact that love of the brethren has found its dwelling-place in our hearts. So
soon as this love thus flnds its dwelling-place within us, wo have passed out of
death into life; the result is already accomplished; the eternal life is begun.
The apostle emphasizes bis thought here, as in other places, by repeating it in
different forms: He that loveth not ahideth in death. Whosoever Iiateth his
brother is a murderer; and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 803
in him. —4. The fact, that, in the story in Genesis, the reason for the murder
indicated in ver. 12 is not distinctly set forth, need occasion no difficulty here.
The mero facts are given in the O. T. record. The historian had this as his
object. But tho apostle, with his tendency to penetrate the inward life, goes
beneath the facts and the act to discover the cause, and this becoraes plain to
hira as he looks for it in and through the facts. What he thus does with respect
to the case of Cain is in accordance with that penetration into the heart which is
manifested in vor. 15. It is also akin to that which Jesus does as He carries the
several provisions of the Mosaic system, in tho Sermon on the Mount, into their
application to tho earliest and inmost feeling of the soul, which finally develops
into the outward act.
5. In ver. 16, the passage passes to a new half-paragraph, and the writer
declares that we roach our knowledge, our true apprehension of love, in the
sphere of the fact that Christ laid down His life for us. This greatest mani
festation of love shows what love is; and the movement of the Christian life,
when we see this manifestation, and learn tho lesson of it, is to imitate the
love thus exhibited, and, in this way, to make it truly and effectively our own.
— 6. The true explanation of the words, we ought to lay down our lives for the
brethren, is to be found in connection with the seventeenth verse, which speaks
of having compassion upon and helping those who are in need. The highest
possible exhibition of love is placed in close connection with one of the common
cases of ordinary life; and we must believe that this is in order to cover, as it
wore, the whole sweep of love; not to make laying down one's life for another
a frequent duty, or a test of love, but to point, with eraphasis, from this possible
duty of extreme self-sacrifice to the urgent and constant duty of self-sacrifice
and loving service in tho minor things.
7. We may believe that there is a close connection of thought between the
end of ver. 17 and the first part of ver. 16. If Christ, who came into the world
to reveal the Divine life and life-principle, gave the great and final raanifestation
of them by laying down His life for us, it must bo impossible that in the heart of
him who has not even tho compassion referred to in vor. 17, tho lo^ e of God
can have found its dwelling-place. The love of God is understood here by
Huther to moan love to God; so Haupt, Alford, and others. This view is
supported by iv. 20. Westcott regards it as "the love of which God is at once
the object, and the author, and the pattern." If wo are to consider the present
context only. It would seem to the writer of this note that the genitive Beov is
rather subjective, than objective. God's love, which was manifested in Jesus,
in the act of laying down His life for mon, cannot be In the heart which is
corapasslonless. The apostle is here entering Into the principles of things. He
Is penetrating the centre of the Christian life in its opposition to the world's life.
It would appear to be natural under these circumstances that ho should consider
whether God's love — the Divine love-principle — has its abode in the heart.
But it may be that iv. 20 is decisive.
8. The exhortation of ver. IS, which evidently has a certain degree of Inde
pendence, is naturally enough connected with the words of ver. 17. The next step
beyond the closing of the heart there indicated, is the giving expression In words,
yet In words only, to the feeling of compassion or of love in Its other outgoings.
But this, again, is not the love which springs from the Divine life-principle.
There must be a manifestation of love iu act, when such action Is called for.
The addition of yliiaay to Ibyip Is partly due to the desire for greater eraphasis,
as we may believe; but the suggestion of Huther may be regarded as also giving

804 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
a part of the true reason for It; namely, that it is " epexegetically added, in
order to mark the externality of the love. Inasmuch as it points out that by loyog
here only the outward word is raeant." The word truth is added to deed, no
doubt, because the writer wished to emphasize the fact, and to place it, as we
may iay, distinctly before the reader's eye, that love Is love In truth only when
it has within itself the active force; just as faith works on its love side, or, if not,
is a dead faith. 9. The weight of manuscript authority favors the future yvuab
peBa in ver. 19, and this accords with neiaopev, which is probably to be explained
as a co-ordinate verb, the two clauses being parallel. The future is that of con
clusion, as Huther remarks, — the condition being that which is suggested by ev
roiru, which phrase refers to the thought of the preceding verse. The verb
yvuabpeBa may be used here as equivalent to olSapev of ver. 14, or it may carry
in it the Idea of reaching tho knowledge by a process of thought. Westcott says
it Is "the knowledge which comes through outward experience," and is "in
contrast with the knowledge which belongs to the idea of faith," ver. 14
{olSapev). 10. The relation of ver. 20 to ver. 19 has been a matter of much discussion.
The simplest construction, as it seeras to the writer of this note. Is that which
is adopted by R. V. for the text: namely, that which places a corama after
neiaopev, and joins tbe following on with idv, making these two words equivalent
to as to whatever or whereinsoever. This explanation of on idv accords with
Col. ill. 17, as Huther holds, in accordance with most of the best authorities.
The explanation of on as because, Involves a double because in the two clauses,
the second being a mere repetition of tbe first, which is highly improbable. The
same difficulty occurs If we explain bn as that. — With the explanation given, it
appears altogether probable that the sentence is to be interpreted as suggesting
tho thought of God's mercy and forgiveness. The moaning of tho apostle
seems, accordingly, to be this: By tbe fact of our having love in deed and truth,
we come to the knowledge that wo are of the truth, and we are enabled to assure
or convince our hearts before God, whereinsoever our heart may condemn us,
because (we know that) God is greater than our hearts, and knows all things.
Love is the fulfilment of the law, the fulfilraent of the coraraand which gathers
up Into itself all others. If we have love, therefore, we are assured that God,
who knows all things, knows the existence of this all-fulfilling and satisfying
principle within us, and thus knows that wo are of the truth, even though our
own hearts may accuse us of occasional sins or failures. — 11. Regarding tho
above as tho true explanation of vv. 19, 20, tho explanation of vor. 21 will be
affected or determined by it. This verse must be viewed rather as the converse
of the preceding, while the main thought yet moves on In the sarae line, than as
the direct reverse or opposite of that main thought. Two suppositions are made
— one of the case where the heart accuses or condemns ; tho other, of tho case
where it does not. In the former case, we raay assure our hearts, because God
sees farther and more deeply than they do; He knows all things, and knows the
existence of the love-force within us. In the latter case, on the other hand, we
have the boldness of confidence, — not needing to assure ourselves only by the
thought, that God penetrates into the depths of the life to discover the vital
principle, — and, boldly asking, wo receive what we ask. The conception of
the apostle thus seems to be that of the existence of love in both classes or
conditions of which he speaks; but, In tho one case, there Is a consciousness
of shortcomings, while, In the other, a fulfilment of all obligations, and a con
sciousness of this fact, are supposed.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 805
12. In ver. 23, the writer makes a now turn In the thought. He moves
backward, as we may say, to the foundation principle of the Christian life,
namely, faith. Faith works through love. The entrance or doorway into the
light-life is faith. That this is John's idea, as truly as It Is Paul's, is made
manifest both in his Gospel aijd in this Epistle. As he began his own Chris
tian .course by believing Jesus to be the Christ, so he places believing at the
beginning for every disciple of Jesus and every child of God. " Tho right to
become children of God" Is given "to those -who believe "— such Is his doc
trine. Here faith is spoken of as God's commandment, because the thought
has been upon tbe fulfllling of the commandments. In the preceding context.
It is, in the deep sense in which this author uses his language, and In relation
to the essential lite of tho soul, a commandraent; that Is, the expression of
God's will that the light-life should bo entered by means of that outgoing of tbe
soul towards God which is the necessary condition of all experience of the light-
life. Faith is the comraandraent of God, the summing-up of the commandments
of God; as In the Gospel of John (vi. 28, 29), when tho multitude asked Jesus
what they must do to work the works of God, the answer was : This is the work
of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent. — 13. The expression,
believe the name, etc.. Is found only In this place, and is to be explained In
accordauce with the fact that the name is regarded, in the scriptural usage, as the
representative before others of the person — that by which the person is made
known. — 14. The words love one another are Introduced in ver. 23 because
they contain the thought which has pervaded the preceding context. Tho true
view of tho verse is, not that these words are added to the expression respecting
faith, but that the writer, still keeping his mind upon love, goes back to that
foundation principio which displays its energy through love, and thus adds the
thought of this, which had not been previously set forth. — 15. In ver. 24,
the writer returns once raore to tho idea of abiding in him, which has been raade
so prominent, and declares that he who keeps the commandraents, which are
summed up in faith and love, thus abides. This abiding is also a dwelling of
God in the believer, and tho assurance of this is given in the gift of the Spirit,
which had been made to all believers.

XLIII.
CHAPTER IV.
Vv. 1-6.
1. The thought turns again, at the beginning of tho fovirth chapter, to the
falso prophets or antichrists. This seems to bo suggested or occasioned by
the reference to the Holy Spirit, in ill. 24, as the evidence within the believer
of his abiding life in God. The verse mentioned is the first one in which the
Holy Spirit is alluded to in the Epistle; and as He is placed In such a relation
to the knowledge of tbe believer respecting his union with God, it is natural
that the reader's mind should be directed, at this point, to the Importance of
testing and determining whether the Holy Spirit is the one which indeed dwells
within him. We find an exhortation given, accordingly, which is kindred to
tbe one hinted at by -Paul in 1 Cor. xii. 1-3, and possibly also in 1 Thess.
V. 19-21. It is noticeable, also, that tho confession of Jesus Christ is made the
decisive test here, as In 1 Corinthians, though tho confession is carried more
definitely to the point' of His having come in tho flesh. This is, doubtless, due

806 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
to the particular false doctrine against which John was contending; perhaps,
as Huther thinks, it was the Coiinthlan Docetism. — 2. The central truth, the
denial of which Is the evidence of the spirit of Antichrist, is declared by
tbe apostle to bo tbe truth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. When we
pass into the depths of the Johannean thought, and beyond and beneath tho
oppositions to, or of, the particular adversaries whom he may have had in mind,
we raay believe that this truth was central to his apprehension, because Jesus as
come in the flesh, the Divine Logos as raanlfested In the person of this Divine
man, was the revelation of the light-life of God In our hiimau life. The way of
access to that light-life was only by seeing this revelation as thus made, and
by Imitating and growing Into the likeness of tho life thus exhibited. To deny
tbis central truth, was therefore, in his view, to place oho's self in antagonism
to Christianity and to Christ Himself. Whoever did so, as a prophet or teacher,
became thereby, as It were, an antichrist. The antichrist would be but tho full
development of such denial and antagonism, the complete manifestation of the
spirit which each one of such prophets and teachers showed forth in himself. It
is a most striking fact, and one most suggestive to the candid reader of John's
writings (the Gospel and Epistle' alike), that whenever wo reach the innermost
recess of his thinking, and of his own soul's life as displayed in his thought, we
flnd that the reality of Jesus' earthly fife (His life as a man and a friend, who has
in Hiraself the life of God to reveal to the world) is tho central and fundaraental
thing. It was thus central and fundamental to his thought, — and this is the
only explanation which can be given wheu we view all the phenoraena, — because
he had hiraself lived with Jesus, had seen in Him tho revelation of the Divine
light-life, had grown into the light-life by contemplating Him and imitating
Him, had sat at His feet, and had learned of Him by drawing Into his own soul
the influence which came from the soul of Jesus. — 3. Vv. 1-3 set forth the
raeans of testing the spirits, so far as tho confession of Christ is concerned.
Vv. 4-6, on the other hand, give the means of testing them by the character of
their teachings, and of those who accept their teachings. We flnd in these
latter verses the same thought which Is clearly presented in John's Gospel.
The one who knows God, and is susceptible to the influence of the Divine truth,
accepts It when It Is presented. He hears those who proclaim this truth.
Those who belong to the world, on tho contrary, hear the teachers who are
of the world. By the character of those who listen joyfully and receptively to
the teaching which is given, the character of the teaching Itself may be deter
mined, whether it Is of God or of the world. By this means we are enabled to
know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. — 4. The spirit of error or of
truth, therefore, is tested and proved by the answer to two questions: flrst,
whether the confession made by it is, or Is not, the confession that Jesus Christ
is come In tho flesh; and secondly, whether those who are aniraated by the
principles of the world, or by Divine principles, receive its teachings with
readiness into their lives.
5. These last three verses (4-6) are introduced by tho words, Ye are of God.
These words seera to have a connection of thought with the words of ver. 1,
and are thus placed with emphasis at tho beginning of the new verses, partly as
giving a strong ground why the Christian readers should not believe every spirit,
but test them as to whether they are of God. You should thus test before you
believe, because you are ot God. Partly, however, we are to account for these
words as connected with tho contrasts of the three verses themselves, and they
are placed emphatically at the beginning, as making prominent at the outset

THE FIRST EPISTLE OP JOHN. 807
the position of the Christian believers. — 6. The connection of w. 4-6 with
what precedes is conflrmed by the words, and have overcome them, etc. These
words carry back the reader's mind necessarily to tho last part of ver. I. The
verb veviKijKare rorainds us of the last words of Jesus (John xvi. 33) addressed to
His disciples at the supper. Huther seeras to be correct iu his view of this verb,
that it signlfles not merely that the Christian readers had the strength of Christ
as a mighty force within them, or that they were sure of final success; but that
they had already overpowered the false prophets by their Christian fidelity, their
faith and love. Huther Is also correct in making 6 iv iplv refer to God, rather
than Christ. — 7. It Is probable that ypelg of ver. 6 refers to the apostolic teachers,
because of tho change from the second person (ipelg) In ver. 4 to the first person
here. This view Is confirmed by the word uKoiet which follows. If this bo
correct, ype'ig are the teachers, who, boing heard and accepted In their teachings
by the vpelg who are £/c rov ^eoS, are shown to be themselves ix roi Beov.

XLIV.
Vv. 7-16 a.
1. Beginning with ver. 7, the apostle develops more fully than before,
throughout the reraainder of this chapter, and the earlier part of the next, the
relation of love and faith to the light-life. This is presented In ill. 23, as
the idea and essence of the commands of God, and now It is unfolded at length.
While in one sense, therefore, no new leading thought Is brought forward In
the section which is now opened, there is a progress and development which
add to the impressiveness of the Epistle. Beginning with ver. 7, and ending
with V. 12, we have one section which is divided into -two parts, iv. 7-21 and
V. 1-12, the former treating of love, and the latter of faith. — 2. Ver. 7 opens
with the exhortation to love one another; the exhortation, that Is, to fulfil that
one of tbe two things presented as making up the commandment of God, to
which Jesus called tbe thought of the apostles on tho last evening of His life,
and tho allusion to which Is found in the closing words of Hi. 23.
3. The ground on which the exhortation is urged is, that love is of God.
The preposition ix denotes the source; the love-principle has its origin in God,
and, as a consequence, the presence of love in a man's heart is the proof that
he is spiritually begotten of God, and has the true spiritual knowledge of God.
On the other hand, where love Is absent, this true knowledge of God is absent.
In connection with this latter stateraent, the ground on which It is affirmed is
given, — a repetition of that mentioned in ver. 7, and yet put in a stronger
forra: God is love. Not only has love its source and fountain In Hira, but tho
very essence ot His own life is love. As in chap. i. 5, it is said that God is
light so hero It is said that He is love ; and this is a fitting expression, as in a
sense equivalent to the former one, because the light-life Is animated by the
principle of love. — 4. Having presented the thought that love is of Gbd and
that God is love, the writer now turns to the setting-forth of the way in which
God has raanlfested His love, and of tho evidence thus given that the source of
love is in God Himself. The words iv ijplv are most naturally connected with
iipavepuBy; and they convey tho idea that there was not only a display of God's
love to us, or before our minds, but within us, so that it becarae a raanifestation
to and In the Inmost life of the soul. The fact that God has sent His only
begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him, is the great fact

808 AJJDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITQR.
which John tries to prove in his Gospel, by a record of the words and works of
Jesus, and also the great fact on which his own Inner life rested. It was
natural, therefore, that, in addressing his Christian readers, he should say,
" was manifested in us." — 5. The thought of the tenth verse seems to bo this:
that love proves its divino origin by this manifestation. The sending of the
Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Is an indubitable proof that love, as It
appertains to Christian thought, does not begin in us as loving God, but In God
as loving us. — 6. But if God raanifests such love to us, if such love comes
forth frora the Divine source of love, tho exhortation certainly prese'nts Itself
with raost impressive force, — we ought to love one another. The passage con
taining the exhortation thus rounds itself into completeness at the end. —
7. The twelfth verse evidently raakes an abrupt turn, and yet the general thought
of the section seems to move on to the close of tho chapter. We raay believe
the idea of the apostle to be this : that while the sight of God Is and has ever
been denied to men, there Is an inward apprehension of Him, — such an inti
mate union with Him that we abide in Him and He abides in us, — provided
we have that love to one another which is, as it were, the sum of His com
mandraents. The foundation and growth of this love-principle, whereby we
come Into this close union with Hira, Is, first, the sight which tbe writer and
fellow-apostles had of the fact that God sent His Son into the worid, and their
testimony to it; secondly, the confession that Jesus is the Son of God; and
thirdly, the consequent belief and knowledge of the love which God has in
us. Thus love is perfected, and the Christian comes Into the likeness of Christ:
as He is, so are we in this world. Confidence in the day of judgment is secured,
and through perfected love all fear is removed.
S. The correspondence of ver. 12a and John i. 18, cannot fail to be noticed.
It Is evident, however, that the connection and thought in this passage are
different from what is noticeable in that verse of the Gospel. The contrast In
the Gospel Is between the Inability of man to see God, and the revelation of
Him by the Incarnate Logos. Here it Is, as we may say, between the outward
and inward vision. If we love one another, we have the inward vision. We
have, and know that we have, the Indwelling of God within us. The words of
ver. 126 and ver. 13 answer closely to what has been said before, but in con
nection with ver. 12a they are brought out In a new light. — 9. The words ij
dydny airoi are to be interpreted as meaning: the love which has its source in
God, and is infused into and implanted In the believer as the life-principle
within him. This love Is in the completed and perfected state In us, as we love
one another according to the measure of Christ's command. Love, by reason of
its very nature, goes out towards others ; so with the Divino love-principle, as it
enters into and abides in the souls which open themselves to receive It. —
10. Ver. 13 gives the statement of iii. 24, but It gives this statement as a part of
the contrast to the words: "No one hath beheld God at any time." Wo do
not see God,' but we have in the possession of tbe Spirit tho proof that we have
Hira dwelling In us. — 11. With ver. 14 begins the presentation of the develop
ment of the love-principle by which we are brought Into union with God. Men
have not soon God at any time; the disciples of Christ have not seen Hira, any
more than other men. But the latter have what supplies for them tho place of
sight, in that which is brought to thera through Christ. The earliest disciples
have beheld In their seeing of Him, and comraunion with Hira, the great truth
that God has sent His Son to be the Saviour of the world. This truth Is the
fundamental one with relation to the inward sight. The apostle and his fellow-

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 809
apostles had seen, heard, handled, the Word of life, and thus had known the
revelation of God and of God's life. This revelation was to the end of the sal
vation of man (aurypa rov Koapov), and thus was the revelation of the Divine
life for tho realizing of eternal life In raen. The testiraony continually borne
(paprvpaipev) by these apostles, who had thus seen, heard, handled, etc., sets the
groat truth before raen for their acceptance; and those who willingly receive It
give expression to their faith by confessing that Jesus Is tho Son of God. This
confession is the beginning of tbe true Divine life in their souls, because it
answers In their case to the seeing, hearing, and handling, which was permitted
to those who were associated with Jesus in His dally living when on earth.
The striking correspondence In the thought here, with that which Is set forth
in John xx. 30, 31, will be observed by the careful reader. The whole record
of John's Gospel was given in order that those who should read It might. In
view of the testimony of the writer to what he had heard and seen, believe
that Jesus Is tho Son of God, and believing might have life. Confession
resting upon a belief founded upon testimony, which testiraony was based upon
sight and experience: this Is the order of the Johannean thought, as to the
beginning and growth of the Christian life, the life of light and love, in which
God abides In the soul, and the soul In God. With the confession tho life begins,
and it moves onward from that beginning. The confession, however, is only
the outward voice answering to the Inward faith, and so the true beginning is
faith. And the life is thus begun for every one -who makes the confession on
the basis of the belief (Sf Edv).
12. With respect to individual words or phrases in ver. 11 ff., the following
suggestions may be made: (a) Bebv of ver. 12 has its prominent position as
connected with the impossibility of actually seeing God Himself, in contrast
with the inward union with and vision of Him, which corae through love, faith,
confession, etc. — (b) iv roiru (ver. 13) seems to refer forward to the second bn
clause. The sure evidence of the existence of the Divino love In us, and thus
of our abiding in God and His abiding In us, is the gift of the Spirit to every
believer. — (c) ijp£ig (ver. 14) evidently refers to the apostolic preachers. — (d)
Testimony founded upon sight is, so far as the apostolic preaching is concerned,
the keynote both of the Epistle and of the Gospel of John (comp. Ep. I. 1 ;
Gosp. i. 14). — (e) The word aurypa, which is here a predicative appositional
word, does not occur elsewhere in John's writings, except in the Gosp. iv. 42.
The idea that Jesus is the Saviour of the world is an idea vitally related to the
whole thought of John; but it is, as it were, incidental to the peculiar character
of his inward life, and the peculiar line of thinking in his two great works,
that Jesus Is presented by him raore prorainently in His relation to God and to
the Qu^ aiuviog, than In tho light of a Saviour and Redoeraer. — (/) The words
iyvijKapev kuI iniareiaapev (ver. 16) correspond with those found In John vl. 69, In
the reverse order. The order In the Gospel is the order of growth and develop
ment belief moving forward to knowledge. But when the Christian believer
is looking from the standpoint of an already developed life, and is stating a
truth of the soul's experience, as the apostle is doing here, the order is not
essential, —tho two things are united in one, as It were, and the emphasis of
the soul's experience Is given forth in the expression, / know and believe.—
(g) The love which God has in us : This Is the love which is exhibited and proved
in the great fact of the sending of the Son as a Saviour, and It Is spoken of as in
us because it takes up Its abode in our hearts, as the life-principle within us.

810 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
XLV.
Vv. 166-21.
1. The last part of ver. 16 forms a connecting link between ver. 16a, the
close of the preceding passage, and ver. 17, the opening of the following one.
The two passages, however, forra rather half-paragraphs than paragraphs, since
the thought of love as the life-principle of the Divine life in the soul raoves on
to the end of the chapter. — 2. The reference of iv roiru, of ver. 17, to what
precedes Is, on the whole, to be preferred. It is in that love-union between God
and man which raakes the life of man to be an abiding of his soul in God, and
an abiding of God in his soul, that the perfecting of love is realized. The words
peB' ypuv, with us. Instead 'of iv yplv, in us (ver. 12), are almost necessarily to be
explained, as It would seem, as involving soraewhat of that idea of union which
has been previously presented. The phrase hints at tbe notion of God's dealing
with us, and his co-operation with us in the matter of the perfecting. The iva
clause sets forth the end towards which this perfecting of love works. This end
is confidence, or boldness, In the day of judgment. — Tho sentence Is differently
explained by Huther and some other interpreters, and tv roiru is regarded as
referring to, and explained by the tva clause. Love is perfected In tbe fact that
we have boldness in the day of judgment. The idea of boldness, and casting
out fear, Is thus made the one idea to which every thing else is subordinate. —
3. The sentence beginning with on (ver. 17) gives tho ground of the boldness or
confidence; it is founded on the fact, that, as He is, so are ive in this world.
The words iv r. Koap. roir. belong with iapiv only, not also with Effnv. Huther
regards the phrase, as He is, as meaning as He is in this matter of love ; that is,
we have love as our life-principle, oven as He has It as His eternal life-principle.
This would seem to be tho natural suggestion of the context, and there is appar
ently no reason for going beyond this suggestion simply because the phrase
happens to be in the general and unlimited form. Some interpreters refer the
likeness here indicated to the whole character of Christ. This whole character,
however, has Its centre in the love-principle; and, accordmg to the writer's
present line of thought, he Is speaking of the life as viewed In relation to Its
central and vital principle. — 4. Ver. 18 is added by way of carrying out and
emphasizing the Idea of boldness in the day of judgment as connected with
perfected love. Fear and love are inconsistent with each other. When love Is
perfected, therefore, fear raust be excluded. The ineorapatibility of fear with
love Is grounded on the fact that fear has Kolaaig, This word, as connected with
Its use In Matt. xxv. 46, and in the Septuagint, means punishment. As following
upon the mention of the day of judgment in ver. 17, It raust be understood. It
would seem, in the sense of that punishment which follows the day of judgment.
Fear has within itself, carries with It, and brings forward into the present, this
punishraent. In and through the painful apprehension ot it.
5. There can be but little doubt that the true text in ver. 19 is dyanupev,
without the added airbv of the T. R. We love, the apostle says, because He
first loved us. This stateraent Is evidently made as preparatory to the two
following verses. The fact that love in us is the offspring of God's love — that
love, as an active and out-working principle in us, Is due to His love as manifested
in act towards us — makes it essential to the real life of our love, that it should
go out towards our brethren. The man who claims to have love as his life-
principle, and to have this life-principle in action towards God, while it is not

THB FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 811
in action, but Is even replaced by its opposite. In relation to the brethren, knows
nothing of true love. Such exercise of love to the brethren is, moreover, the
command, and even the sum of the commands, of God.

XLVI.
CHAPTER V.
Vv. 1-5.
1. There seems to be a manifest and close connection between ver. 1 of this
chapter, and vor. 21 of the chapter which precedes. This Is indicated by the
correspondence In the fundamental thought of ver. 16 and ver. 216, and also by
the bringing-forward of tho idea of the children of God, and the fulfilment
of God's commandments, in tho following context. Alford holds that this
connection is so close as to indicate, that, in the words every one that believes,
etc., tho apostle refers to the dSelipbg. This view of Alford, however, must
probably be rejected, and we must regard tho apostle as setting forth anew,
and with renewed eraphasis, the two great and united principles which lie at
the basis of the true life: faith and love. By believing, the man enters into the
relationship of a child to God; he is begotten of God, according to the language
here used. The natural and necessary result of this relationship .of a child to
a father is love, — love to the father, and love to tho other children who are
begotten of him. God's child must love God's children. The phrase Trdf d
mareiuv accordingly refers, as does Trdf b dyanuv, to tbe Christian believer, whose
duty to love his brethren is under discussion, and rbv yeyewypivov alone refers to
the brother. — 2. We have, in ver. 2, a reversing of what is indicated In chap. Iv.
There tbe thought is: If we love the brethren, we may be sure that we love God;
hero it is: If we love God, wo raay know that we love the brethren. The
explanation of this change seems to be twofold: First, it Is a case similar to
that of iyvuKapev Kal neniareiKapev in iv. 16: in the Christian Hfe, the proof
moves In both directions; and, secondly, the writer Is desiring here to bring out
the inseparable connection between love to the brethren and love to God : if we
love God, we love the brethren; and so truly Is this the fact, that, whenever
we have love to God which is real and genuine, so that we keep His coraraand
raents, we have therein the knowledge that we love the brethren also. — 3. The
idea of love to tho brethren as the fulfilment of the commands of God, Is
evidently still in' the writer's mind. For this reason It Is, that he adds, ver. 3:
The love of God is the keeping of His coraraandraents. If, therefore, we
love God we raust keep the great coraraand, and, with the presence, of this love
in our hearts, we shall keep it, and fulfil its call to love. —4. The mark of
punctuation, which should be placed after rypupev (ver. 3), cannot be determined
with certainty. It seeras to the writer of this note most natural to place a
corama here, as Westcott does, and thus to join this clause closely to tho
preceding. Love to God Is that keeping of His commandments which finds
them not burdensome. R. V. places a colon here ; Tischendorf, a colon ; Alford,
a period. In any case, it Is probable that a comma should be placed at the end
of ver. 3. The first clause of ver. 4 is thus immediately connected with the last
words of ver. 3, and presents the reason why the commands are not grievous or
burdensome, —namely, because the one who Is begotten of God overcomes the
worid. The overcoming of tho power which stands In opposition to God places
the man in a new condition. The enmity which belongs to the worid has passed

812 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
away from him, and love has entered into its place. Tbe loving spirit conquering
all opposition, the commands are fulfilled in love, and are no longer a burden.
5. Ver. 46 sets forth faith as the victory which overcomes the world. Faith
is said to be the victory, because it involves in Itself the overcoming of the world.
When tho man believes, he turns In his whole life from the world to God. At
this point, the apostle comes back to the Idea of faith, which opens the chapter,
and which Is also presented as the foundation of tho new life, in iii. 23, and in
the idea of confession, in chap. iv. The necessity of faith is emphasized. In
ver. 5, by the significant question. Who is he, etc., which is equivalent to No
one hut he. — If we examine carefully the latter part of chap. Iv., and these early
verses of chap, v., we can scarcely fail to see that the apostle brings out the two
great essential jjrinciples of the Divine life in the soul, love and faith, and that,
while In accordance with the natural developraent of his thought, he raakes love
especially prominent, and also gives it the first place in the preceding chapter,
he is at pains to show tb^it faith Is the primary eleraent of tho life In chap, v.,
and that it is through faith that the life begins. The man who believes is
begotten as a child of God ; when he is thus begotten, he loves. Faith works
through love; it puts forth Into action the love-force which is in itself. — In this
closing sentence of the first paragraph of chap, v., the belief is again repivsonted
as belief that Jesus Is the Son of God. The thought In which the Gospel of
John ends is the great and all-powerful conviction of the apostle's life. — The
word faith, as a substantive, occurs in the Gospel and Epistle only in ver. 4;
the writer turns again to the verbal form in ver. 5.

XL VIL
Vv. 6-12.
1. At this point tho apostle turns to a new and distinct presentation of Jesus,
and the testimony respecting Him, to the reader's mind. This more special
presentation naturally follows after the words of vv. 4, 5; and it becomes by
reason of its position, and the preparation raade for It through the develoi^raent
of all the thoughts of the Epistle, a most irapressive stateraent of the author's
belief. — odrof. This one who Is the object of the Christian confession, and the
faith in whora Involves the belief that He is the Son of God, Is the one who
came, In the fulfilment of the Messianic proraises (A ilBdiv — b ipxbpevog), by
means of water and blood, Jesus Christ. The historical person Jesus, who is the
Christ, is also the Son of God. To believe that this person Is the Son of God,
Is the door of entrance Into union ot soul with God, i.e., into the Divine life, for
all men, even as such belief had boon tho entrance-way Into the experience of
the blessedness of that life for the apostle hiraself. The correspondence of this
sixth verse, in Its relation to ver. 5, with tho first part of the closing verse of
the Gospel of John, xx. 31, Is raost clearly manifest. —2. The reference in tho
ivater and hlood Is almost certainly to the baptisra and death of Jesus. By
means of these two things, which began and ended His life, He carae — In the full
sense of His divine mission. Whether there is any allusion or raeaning in tho
words beyond this, is questionable. As to the two suggestions which are raost
frequently made: that there Is an allusion to John xix. 34, or an allusion to the
sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, it may be remarked that no such
use Is raade of the fact mentioned in John xix., in the context surrounding that
verse, as is made here of the water and blood. In John xix., indeed, the fact

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 813
that blood and water carae frora the side of Jesus may be, not Improbably,
included as an element in the evidence presented by the story of which it Is a
part, (tliough it seems to be only a minor element) ; but there is no such marked
distinction made between the water and the blood, as related to the evidence, as
is here set forth (ver. S), and there was apparently no such separation in the two
things in tho event Itself; and, again. It may bo remarked, tbat, as John makes
no reference to the Lord's Supper In his Gospel (unless it be In chap, vi., which
is altogether improbable), it seems unlikely that in this Epistle, which Is so
closely connected in Its thought with the Gospel, he would make so much of It.
— 3. The second part of ver. 6: not hy water only, hut by water and hlood, is
evidently designed to bring out with emphasis the fact, tbat the two together
are the essential elements In the case, and that the latter is included with tho
former, and Is prominent. It is probable that this statement has reference to
some particular error of tho time and region in which John was writing, and
not improbable tbat this error, as Huther and several other interpreters hold,
was that of the Docetans, as explained by Huther in his note. The thought
of the apostle is, that In the mission of Christ to the world, and His office and
work in the world, His death is the consumraation and the great event. With
out the atoning death, tho work was not accoraplished.
4. The Kai which opens tho third part of ver. 6 joins the following statement
iraraediately to the preceding one. This close connection is due to the fact that
the testiraony of the Spirit is a testiraony to tho truth just raentioned, and also,
as we raay believe, to the fact that the writer is Intending, in the next verse, to
unite the water and blood with the Spirit as witnesses. The Spirit Is, beyond
any reasonable doubt, the Holy Spirit. He is spoken of here as the witness;
that Is, the one whose great offlce it is to bear testimony, and in whom the
highest testimony abides. The Spirit Is the truth. He takes tho place of
Christ, after the death of Christ, and He is the revelation of the truth, as Christ
was during His earthly life. As having in Himself the truth. He guides the
human soul to the knowledge of the tnith, and thus becomes an over-continu
ing witness. That to which the Spirit bears testimony, so far as this passage is
concerned, is the fact that Jesus Is the Son of God, and consequently that eternal
life is in Him. The second point, however. Is only made prominent In tho fol
lowing verses, and that which Is hero especially referred to is tho first point.
This reference to ver. 5 (Jesus is the Son of God) seems better than that of
Huther, who makes tho Spirit testify to the first part of ver. 6. Huther, how
ever, regards the main truth which the apostle desires to bring out in the whole
context as being tho truth 'expressed In the words : Jesus the Son of God Is tbe
Cjjj.ist_  5. The eraphasis of vor. 7, in its relation to tho thought of the passage,
lies in the last words : and the three agree in one. The unity in the testimony
of the three witnesses is the point which is urged with special force, as proving
the truth which is set forth. This agreement In tho testimony confirms the
truth of the thing to which the testimony is given. This thing is the statement
of the last words of ver. 5, or the doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God. The
prominent position given to rpelg, in the first part of ver. 7, raay be accounted
for by the fact that the water and blood, which had not been alluded to In ver. 6
as witnesses, are now brought forward under that aspect. This would seem to be
a sufficient reason for the eraphasis ; but it may be, as some writers think, that
there is a reference here to the provision of the Mosaic law, that two or three
witnesses establish the truth of an alleged fact. In the latter case, the idea
of the apostle Is, we may believe, that the testimony fills out the demands of

814 ADDITIONAL NOTES' BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
human law, with respect to testimony, to the full measure. Tbis reference,
however, must be regarded, as Huther also says, as quite doubtful.
6. The discussion as to the genuineness of the disputed words In vv. 7, 8,
has reached a point, at present, where substantially all competent and candid
scholars are agreed that they are to be rejected frora the text. The facts of the
case, so far as tho external evidence Is concerned, are presented briefiy in
Huther's textual note at the beginning of the chapter. The internal evidence,
if not equally strong with the external, is very strong as bearing against the
words. The introduction of the stateraent that there are three who bear wit
ness in heaven, and that the throe are one, Is unconnected with the development
of the thought of the context and the chapter. Tbis thought, so far as the
matter of fact or truth is concerned, is: Jesus is the Son of God; so far as
the matter of evidence Is concerned, the design of the passage Is clearly to set
forth the evidence which Is brought before the minds of men by the water and
the blood (i.e., by the great facts at the beginning and end of the ministry of
Jesus), and by the Holy Spirit as working in the soul and bearing testimony to
It. The passage speaks thus of a truth which is to be apprehended by men
in tbeir earthly life, and of evidence which is presented to them here on earth.
The fact that the Father, tho Word, and the Holy Spirit are three bearing wit
ness in heaven, and that they are one, does not suggest evidence of the same
sort; but, so far as It Indicates evidence at all. It suggests what is of quite a
different kind. This fact comes to the mind in a different way, and is, as we
may say, apprehended in Its force only after the truth, that Jesus Is the Son of
God, has been accepted and believed. The difflcultles presented by Huther in
his Remark at the end of ver. 7 are also very serious and weighty. The fact
that the first three are spoken of as bearing witness in heaven, takes tbe words
out of the connection of the passage, which necessarily, as we may say, turns
upon testimony as given on earth. Moreover, tho ninth verse bears strongly
against tbe genuineness, either because, as is urged by Huther, these disputed
words. If admitted, raake It unintelligible what witness Is raeant by the paprvpia
roi Beov of this verse; or, because. If we regard the witness of God here alluded
to as the witness of the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, the contrast must be
with the testimony of the Spirit, the water, and the blood, as the witness of
men, whereas this latter Is evidently not a human, but rather a divine testi
raony. The un-Johannean character of the expression, the Father and the
Word, Is worthy of consideration. In connection with the external evidence,
attention may be called to the extreme improbability that such a formal state
ment involving the doctrine of the Trinity, If originally belonging to the Epistle,
could by any means have disappeared from all the Greek MSS. from the fourth
to the fifteenth century.
7. The purpose of ver. 9 Is to set forth the value of the Divine testimony,
and, consequently, to insist upon the credit which should be given to It. The
conditional clause refers to the fact that human testimony Is received as satis
factory and sufficient evidence, according to the common custom of mankind.
It this be so, urges the apostle, wo ought to receive with a deeper conviction,
and a more Iraraovable belief, the testimony of God; for it is greater, i.e.,
greater in its authority and value. There can be no doubt that this verso has
a certain connection with what immediately precedes; and that thus the force
of the evidence mentioned as a divinely-given evidence is pressed upon the
attention of the readers. This Is to be affirmed, whatever may be the direct
and special reference of y paprvpia roi Beoi, With reference to this question.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 815
the following suggestion is offered as best satisfying the conditions of the pas
sage : namely, that the writer passes, in the progress of the verses here, from the
objective side of tho evidence for the Divine Sonship of Jesus to the subjective
side. Tho objective side is that presented in ver. 6, the Spirit and the water
and tho blood. The subjective side is brought forward in ver. 11, the eternal
life within the soul, given to the soul and possessed by It. But these are, really,
not two different things, but two different sides or aspects of the same thing.
Jesus Christ, who was seen, heard, handled, is the eternal life. The experi
ence of what He Is within the soul is the other side — the corresponding Internal
manifestation of what Is borne witness to by the great facts ot His earthly career,
and by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and afterward.
— 8. The force and connection of ver. 96 are uncertain. The simplest and most
natural construction of the sentence, however, would seera to be that which
makes on explanatory of avry, and gives to the words this meaning: The witness
of God (of which the apostle is speaking In the argument) Is this, that, etc. ; that
is, when I speak in this passage of the testiraony of God, I mean the fact
that He has borne testimony concerning His Son. This fact, that He has thus
testified to His Son through the Spirit, the water, and the blood, is a ground of
conviction for us which is of more force and value than any human testimony
could be. If this is the true view of tho meaning, the connection through bn
with what immediately precedes, may be believed to be this : I call your atten
tion to the greater value of the Divine testimony, because, in this matter which
I have just mentioned, there exists that Divino testimony which God gives to
men. 9. At ver. 10, the writer turns towards the internal side of the matter, which
is fully and distinctly set forth In ver. 11. The transition is made through the
word believeth. Tho man who believes on the Son of God, as made known by
this testimony and evidence, thereby transfers the evidence, as it were, from
without himself to within himself. The testimony becomes an Internal posses
sion, an inward experience. This idea is presented more emphatically by means
of the contrasted negative statement of the latter part of tbe verso, according to
the peciUiar style of this writer. —10. Ver. 11. This verse is to be immediately
connected in thought with ver. 12. The full idea ou the internal side is.brought
out in the two verses as taken together. The witnessor testimony, says ver. 11,
is this: that God gave to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. The testi
mony that Jesus is the Son of God (ver. 5) becomes, as it passes towards and
into the internal sphere, tfie testimony that God has bestowed upon us, in and
through Him, eternal life. Whether the clause and this life is in His Son Is to
be regarded as Independent and co-ordinate with the first clause: The witness is,
etc. or is dependent on bn, and is thus referred to as a part of the testimony, is
uncertain. Huther, and most recent conamentators who express an opinion ou
tho subject, take the former view. There is, however, at least one strong reason
in favor of' tho latter view, namely, that the real testimony which is given In
John's Gospel, and which, we may believe, was brought to his own raind by
the water and the blood and the Spirit, was not siraply that God gave us eternal
life but also, that this life is In His Son. This was tho truth which John
learned from the Divine testimony, and we may believe that it was also the
truth which he intended to proclaim to his readers as the Divine testiraony.
This view of the sentence seems also to the writer of this note to make the
progress of the thought in vv. 10-12 most simple and natural: he that believes
that Jesus is the Son of God, and so believes on Him, lias the external testi-

816 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR,
mony transferred, as it were, to the Internal sphere within himself (vor. 10) ;
this testimony now passing to the mind and becoming internal Is, tbat God
gave us eternal life, and that this life is In His Son (ver. II); he tbat possesses
the Son as indwelling in himself has, accordingly, as his own possession, as the
actual experience of his own soul, the eternal life.

XLVIII.
Vv. 13-21.
1. The correspondence of ver. 13 with John xx. 31 is very noticeable, and
we can scarcely doubt tbat in this verse the apostle turns to the closing of his
Epistle. The reference in raira iypafa is probably to the entire Epistle, though
there are certain parts of it, and particularly the last section, which present the
Idea of eternal life raore distinctly than others. The purpose of the Gospel is
stated, in the verse just mentioned, to be this: That the readers may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, they may have
life In His name; that of the Epistle is here given in the words: That you may
know that you have eternal life, — you that believe on the name of the Son
of God. To produce faith, was the object of the apostle's record of tho life of
Jesus. To give the knowledge of their actual and present possession of eternal
life, to those who already had faith, was his desire and design in- writing this
letter to his Christian brethren. In tho order of progress with relation to
Christian living, therefore, as well as in the order of the developraent of thought,
the Epistle follows the Gospel. We raay believe that it followed the Gospel also
In time. — Tbe possession of tlie knowledge that we have eternal life is the
fulfilling of our joy (chap. I. ver. 4). The end of the Epistle, in this sense,
corresponds with tho beginning. — 2. Ver. 14 adds, through kuI, which opens
the verse, a result or out-working of the knowledge mentioned in ver. 13 in a
special line, — that line of comraunion with God In which our petitions for
ourselves and our Christian brethren go forth towards Him, and thus In that
line or sphere in which the support and joy and peace of our life are to be
found. The knowledge produces or becomes, in this line or sphere, confidence
towards God. This confidence Is explained or defined in the following words,
that, if we ask anything according to His will, he hears us; and if we know
that He hears ns, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions which
we have asked of Hira. The Christian believer has confidence, founded upon
his possession of the Divine life — the light-life — in the soul, that his future
prayers will be answered, and that his past prayers have been answered. Ho
knows, that, as his desire and will are conformed to God's will, the real and
fundamental petition in every prayer, that God's will may be dono. Is answered
in his own experience and life. All things work together for his good as he
loves God; his joy is made fuU as his fellowship is with the Father and with the
Son. — 3. Ver. 16 changes the thought from prayer in general to {prayer for
the sinning brother. This change, and the hitroduction of this reference to tha
fellow-Christian, may be connected with the thought of brotherly love which Is
so prominent in the Epistle. We may believe, however, that the new verses
(16, 17) are suggested partly In connection with sorae special dangers which
belonged to the time and surroundings of those to whom tho apostle was
writing. Tbe fact that the prayer here spoken of Is liraited to the case of
sinning, and that the sin unto death is made prominent, is confirmatory of this

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 817
view. The prominence of the sin unto death is Indicated, not only by reason
of the fact that It is distinctly mentioned, but also by the special exception of
it which is made in tho other parts of the verses.
4. The sin unto death is left by tho writer without further definition. This
fact would seem to Indicate that the phrase was understood, or likely to be
understood, by the readers to whom the Epistle was addressed. With regard to
the question what sin Is referred to. It may be said: (a) That it Is evidently
a sin which might be committed by Christians; it is the brother, not the
imbellever, who is conceived of as possibly sinning thus; (6) That it would
seem to be probable, rather than otherwise, not to say certain, that It must be a
sin which is indicated, or alluded to. In the Epistle itself; the writer would
scarcely Introduce with such abruptness, and so near the close of his letter,
a reference to such a sin without any explanation of its ineaning, or any
development of thought respecting It, unless there had been something in the
earlier part of tho Epistle which could throw light upon it; (c) That the words
Trpdf Bdvarov are to be understood as conveying the idea tbat the sin certainly
leads to death; this is shown by the fact, that, in the sense of mere tendency
towards death, tho expression Trpdf Bdvarov is applicable to all sin, whereas what
is here spoken of Is evidently a particular kind of sin; (d) That the death here
mentioned Is the death which is contrasted with Quy, and must accordingly bo
understood in the sense of eternal death; (e) That the sin unto death has a
certain individuality in it, if, indeed. It is not a special and particular sin. The
general form of tho sentence setting forth this sin, and the sinning which is
opposite to this, makes It improbable that the division hero made is between
two equal or great classes of sins, but rather indicates that there is a single
exception. If, in view of these several points, we examine the Epistle for the
suggestions which it may give, we find that it makes peculiarly prominent one
sin,- which, if committed, shows that the person guilty of it, though in the
company of Christian believers, is not of thera, and Is not of God. This sin Is
that denial of the Son which involves in Itself the denial of tho Father (ii. 22),
and that denial that Jesus Christ is corae in the flesh, which shows tho spirit
of antichrist (Iv. 3). Huther claims, that, If the apostle had meant this sin
only, he wonld have designated it plainly. But this depends on the special
thought and purpose which the writer had in mind. He may have Intended to
present the sin here In this particular light, after having already designated it
by the use of clear and definite descriptive words; and his desire may have been
to use the words here employed, because he wished to limit the raatter of
petitions for others at the point which is determined by ov Trpdf Bdvarov and Trpdf
Bdvarov. It seeras most probable, therefore, that the sin which Involves the
spirit of antichrist Is the one which Is referred to in this expression. Tha
Christian who is guilty of this sin falls away utterly, and Is In the condition of
apostasy. This passage would seem to border, therefore, on Heb. vi. 4 ff.,
X. 26 ff. • rather than on Mark Iii. 22, where the scribes said. He hath Beelzehvb,
etc. and Jesus declared the sin against the Holy Spirit (ver. 29) to be unpar
donable. 5. The language of vor. 16 is peculiar in some respects: (a) With reference
to sin not unto death, the word airyaet is used, while, in connection with the sin
unto death, the word employed is ipuryay. The former Is the stronger word in
itself' the two corresponding nearly to our ask, in tho sense of demand, and of
request. But as both are here used with respect to prayer, and as we find in
John xvi. 26 the same two words used of praying or petitioning, it may be

818 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
regarded as doubtful whether the change from the one verb to the other is
anything more than a rhetorical change. — (6) The subject of Suaet is, by the
peculiarity of the sentence, left in uncertainty. Huther regards It as tho same
with the subject of alryoei; so Haupt, Alford, Moulton, and others. Westcott
and others, on the other hand, raake God tbe subject of Suaei. There seems to
be no serious objection to the view of Huther; and. If It Is adopted, the sentence
moves forward in a more simple and direct way. In this case, the word airu
refers to tho sinning brother; and the verb Suaet raeans, shall give through his
intercession with God. In this case, also, tho dative rolg dpaprdvovaiv is in an
appositional relation to aiiru, only extending the thought frora the individual to
all who are in a similar condition. — (c) The expression ov nepl eKeivyg liyu iva
ipuryay deserves special notice. The author does not prohibit prayer in case of
the sin unto death; ho simply excludes this frora what he is speaking of In the
earlier part of the verse. This failure to prohibit such prayer may, perhaps, be
regarded as hinting at tho possibility ot repentance oven In case of this sin, as
the language in Heb. vi. 4-6 and x. 26 ff. may be explained; see Additional
Notes to Meyer's Comm. on Hob., Amer. ed., pp. 550 f., 662 f. If this is so,
this sin here referred to cannot bo the unpardonable sin spoken of, Mark iii. 29;
and the Trpdf Bdvarov cannot involve an absolute certainty of death for every
Individual who coraniits It, I.e., the absolute impossibility of repentance and
pardon. But all that the expression distinctly declares Is, that the writer Is not
speaking of prayer for this sin, when he gives tbe assurance that the Christian
who asks on behalf of his brother dpapr. dp. /iij np. t. Bav. shall secure the
blessing for which he asks.
6. The connection of ver. 17 is evidently with what goes before ; but precisely
what the connection of thought Is Intended to be, is a point of sorae difficulty,
and one on which Interpreters have differed. It would seera that two things
must be observed, in order to a decision of the question: first, that tbe subject
before the writer's mind is Intercessory prayer for other Christians, who are
sinning; and, secondly, that tbe form of tho sentences of this verse Indicates
the including of the class of sins here mentioned, as a part of that which is
meant by the general word sin. If we take these two things into consideration,
the result will follow, that the verse is added with reference to what precedes, as
showing the wideness of tho sphere within which intercessory prayer may be
offered, without including the case of sin unto death. — We raay believe, how
ever, that this verso has also a forward look; and, in this view of It, It suggests
tho idea of sin as covering all unrighteousness, and being mainly not unto
death. It may thus cling to the Christian believer in some degree; but when
the Christian Is viewed in the light of the ideal of his life, " he who has been
begotten of God does not sin." The Epistle thus returns at the end to a
thought kindred to that of its beginning; see chap. I. vv. 6-8. — In this view
of the matter, ver. 18, with what follows, raay be regarded as gathering up the
thought which the writer would Impress upon his readers as the beginning aud
ending of his Epistle. The Son of God, in the person of Jesus Christ, is corae
Into tbe world to give eternal life through the knowledge of God, — tho life
which is originated by a Divine force, and which has its being In the sphere of
the Divine light-life. — 7. Tho three verses 18-20 begin, each of thera, with the
word OlSapev, Tho stateraents which they contain are thus presented with a
special formality, and even solemnity, as setting forth fundamental known
truths. The three points are arranged here in a peculiar order, and, as wo may
believe, with a view to the final impression which the apostle desires to make.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 819
We know that the one who is begotten of God does not sin,— the light-life is
not intermingled with darkness; we know that we, who are Christian believers,
are of God — we thus are those who possess the light-life which is free from
sin; we know that the Son of God is come, and has given us an understanding
that we may know God — and thus we are In God, through being In His Son.
8. As to Individual words and phrases in these three verses, the following
points may be noticed: (a) The first clause of ver. 18 Is a repetition of what
is said in Hi. 9, except in the substitution of dpaprdvei for dpapriav noiel, and
presents what is evidently an essential eleraent in the Johannean thought. —
(6) Tho second and third clauses have not appeared in the earlier part of the
Epistle. Tbey set forth that by means of which, or the process by which,
tbe result is accomplished, but in the form of a contrast to the idea of sinning,
presented in the flrst clause. The text is doubtful in the second clause, some
authorities reading airbv, and some iavrbv. If iavrbv is read, 6 yewyBelg refers
to the same person as d yeyewypivog of the first clause, and the thought is : he
that was begotten of God (the aorist referring to the definite time and event of
the now birth) keeps hiraself, and (the result is, — so that this end Is reached,
naraely, that) the evil one touches hira not. If, on the other hand, airbv is
road, b yewyBelg may most naturally be referred to Christ, and the meaning Is,
that Christ is a guardian power, keeping him, and (so tbat) the evil one is not
able to get any hold upon him. — (c) The words d novypbg oix anrerai airoi may
remind us of John xiv. 30: "he has nothing in me." They Indicate that the
evil one doe? not touch the man who is thus guarded or kept, so far that any
defilement of the soul, or any power of sin in the soul. Is the result. — (d) The
first part of ver. 19 sots forth tho fact that " we," i.e., the Christian readers, are
of the class of persons of whora the words begotten of God can be predicated.
The second part of the verse presents the fact, in contrast with this, that the
unconverted world lies within tho sphere and under the power of tbe evil one.
That ru novypu moans the evil one, and not evil. Is rendered almost certain by
tho preceding d novypbg. — (e) Si (ver. 20) is perhaps equivalent to moreover, but
perhaps it is adversative, expressing a contrast to the last part of ver. 19. The
fact that tho Son of God is come and has given, etc., is the means by which we
pass out of the sphere and dominion of the evil one into tho new life. In which
he has no power over us, and is thus tho means by which, as born of God, wo
do not sin. — (/) W« presents the incarnation as a permanent fact on which
Christian faith and Hfe depend. The word Sidvoui means imderstanding; "the
divinely empowered inner sense by which we judge of things divine," as Alford
says. This Inner sense has been given to believers, that they may know Him
who answers to tho true idea of God. As the result of this know ledge, we are
in Him that is true, instead of boing in the power of the evil one. The expres
sion iv ru viu airoi can hardly be an appositional explanatory phrase, defining
tho One who is true to bo the Son. This is clear frora the fact that the Son is
declared, in the beginning of tho verso, to have been the means of our coraing
to know Hira that is true, and also from the airoi, which must, as it would
seem point back to rbv dlyBivbv, ru dlyBivu, as its antecedent. The expression
must therefore, be equivalent to even in His Son, or inasmuch as (Huther) we
are in His Son; by virtue of (Alford) boing In His Son. In either case, the Idea
in the writer's mind seems to be this: that we corae into the realization of an
indwelling in God, so soon as, and through the fact that, we are in the realiza
tion of such an indwelling in His Son. — (g) The reference of ovrof, in the last
sentence of ver. 20, to Christ, is to be rejected, because of the distinctiou made

820 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
in the preceding clauses between b dlyBivbg and b vibg, and also the distinction
carefully maintained throughout the Epistle between God the Father and
Christ. It is also to be rejected, because of the similarity In the general thought
of these versos and that of John xvll. 3, where the only true God and Jesus
Christ are spoken of in their distinction from each other. The difficulty in the
way of referring ovTOf to God the Father, which arises from tho fact that God
has already been declared to be b dlyBivbg, and that thus there would be a
tautological sentence here, is removed when we consider that these words are
a kind of formal closing of the whole thought of the Epistle, —a setting-forth,
as it were, of the truth which the Epistle rests upon. God as the possessor and
revealer of tho light-life, which Is the eternal life, —this is the thought upon
which all the other thoughts are founded. It is not strange that tho author
should say at the end of these last verses, and as preparatory to his final exhor
tation: Tbis One who is true, who is brought to our knowledge through Jesus
Christ His Son, is tho true God, —the one only God who answers to the true
and complete idea of God; and Ho is eternal life, in the sense that He has It in
Himself, and we attain to the possession of It by coraing into tho knowledge of
Him. — (ft) The last verse of tho Epistle contains an exhortation which might
readily follow after the last sentence of ver. 20. The Idols are referred to, it
would seera, as representative of heathenism. They are the false deities, as
opposed to the true.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.

XLIX
Vv. 1-13.
1. The designation d npeaSvrepog, which is found in the second and third
Epistles of John, is peculiar, as compared with tho absence of any designation
whatever in the Gospel and the first Epistle. It can hardly be Insisted upon,
however, that a writer — and even one who has such striking individuality of
style and expression as the author of the Gospel and First Epistle has — shall
always completely hide his personality. If these two letters were addressed to
individuals, as the third Epistle evidently was, It might be very natural for the
writer to give himself the title here employed, with which, as knowfing him,
they would bo familiar. Peter in his first Epistle (v. 1), speaks of hiraself as
avpnpeaSirepog, in connection with an exhortation to the elders in general. In
the region where John lived, and especially in the period of his old age, he raay
roadUy have been reverentially known as the elder, and may, by reason of his
position as the last survivor of the apostles, have spoken of himself, with a
certain distinction from all others around him, as b npeaSirepog. If. the general
characteristics of the books can be regarded as In harmony with tho authorship
by the Apostle John, tho fact that wo find this title in those Epistles, and the
name John in the Book of Revelation, can hardly be regarded as inconsistent
with such authorship. —2. As to the question to whom the second Epistle is

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN. 821
addressed, the writer of this note is disposed to give the answer: It Is a Chris
tian woman by the name of Kyria, who was in relations of friendship with the
apostle. The arguments urged by Huther against this view do not seem to bo
decisive. On the other hand, the fact that Kyria is a known proper name; tho
great sirailarity in forms of expression between this Epistle and the third,
which was evidently addressed to an individual; tho allusion to the elect sister,
and to the children of tho two; and the applicability of the expression, I have
found of (some of) thy children walking in truth, to niembers of a family, part
of which only might be Christian, rather than to a body of Christian believers,
seera strongly to favor the idea that the letter was written to an Individual, and
not to a church. —3. The phrase t-i^ dlyBeia of ver. I seems to be adverbial in its
character, and to mean in truth, i.e., with a love which truly deserves the name.
In ver. 4, on the other hand, it draws nearer to the phrase 'ev r-y dlyBelg. (3 John
4, comp. 3 John 3). —4. Tbe phrase, all those who know the truth, is probably
to be referred to those in the writer's neighborhood when he wrote. The love
which is spoken of as going out frora the Christians to these Christians is
declared to be on account of the truth which abides in aU Christians (yplv);
and, the writer adds, it (the truth) shall be with us forever. The character of
this sentence and thought is Johannean.
5. The words of ver. 4, as Westcott reraarks, " appear to refer to an experi
ence of the writer in some other place than that to which tho 'lady' belonged."
— ^The explanation of 'ev dlyBelg and of the KaBug clause, in its relation to tbis
phrase, which is given by Huther, is better than that which Westcott gives,
who makes ev dlyB, adverbial, and connects KaBug -svith nepinaroivrag, and uot
with TTEp. iv dl. — 6. The correspondence of the thought in vv. 5, 6, with what
wo find in the First Epistle, is very striking, and Is of such a character as to show
sameness of authorship. — 7. At ver. 7, the thought turns, as in the First Epistle
iii. 24-iv. 3, frora the keeping of the commandments, as summed up in love to
one another, to the deceivers and antichrists who do not confess that Jesus
Christ is come In the fiesh. The participle ipxbpevov is present and descriptive,
coming ; ilylvBbra (1 John Iv. 2) is perfect and temporal, having come, that he
is come. — 8. The exhortation of vor. 8 evidently refers to the danger arising
from the possible evil infiuenee of these deceivers. This exhortation looks to a
negative and a positive end — on the negative side, not to lose the results In
Christian development, etc., which had been wrought for them by the apostle
and his helpers In the preaching of the gospel; on the positive side, the recep
tion of the full reward which such Christian development, if It should go on to
perfection, would secure in tho future. — 9. The participle npodyuv (ver. 9) is
taken by Alford as meaning going before as a teacher or leader; R. V. marg.,
taketh the lead. It seems better, however, to regard it as meaning going for
ward beyond, and not abiding in (pivuv), tho teaching which comes from Christ.
 JO. Vv. 10, 11, add to the exhortation to be on their guard against suffering
the evil Influences of the false teachers to affect their Christian life and growth
iniuriously, a bidding that they should not give a hospitable reception to any
person who should corae to them not bringing tho teaching of Christ. The
class of persons here referred to are those who come with another doctrine, and
with the design and purpose of subverting the gospel. The energy of the lan-
eua<'0 is to be explained In connection with the denial, on the part of these
persons, of that which the apostle regarded as the fundamental Christian truth ;
see the First Epistle. — 11. On ver. 12, see notes on 3 John vv. 13, 14. — 12. The
fact that the children only, and not the elect sister herself, are spoken of In

822 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
ver. 13 as giving the salutation, is regarded by some as favoring the Idea that
the letter Is addressed to a church. But this fact seems to bo easily explained
if the elect sister was no longer living, or if her children only were in the place
where the apostle was; and, if thus explicable, it affords no evidence that the
letter was not written to an individual.

THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN.

L.
Vv. 1-15.
1. The words nepl ndvruv are to be explained as Huther explains them, in
respect to all things, in all things ; eioSoiaBai, In the passive, means to be pros
perous, as In Rom. i. 10 ; iyia'iveiv may possibly refer to bodily health, but more
probably it is used in a figurative sense, as further carrying out the idea of
eioSoiaBai; KaBug, the measure and standard of the prosperity which the apostle
desires for his friend, is that of the prospering of his soul in the Divine Hfe.
The verb evxopai near the beginning of this sentence may mean wish, and it may
mean pray. Not Iraprobably, R. V. is correct in giving It the raeaning I pray.
— 2. Ver. 3 is Introduced as a ground or reason for ver. 2. The joy which the
apostle had in learning of tho Christian walk and life of Gains is a fact which
justifies his statement of his wish or prayer for the prosperity of the latter as
his soul prospers. Tho participle ipxopivuv may perhaps be explained, with
Westcott, as meaning when they came from time to time ; but it may also be
regarded, with Alford, as timeless, and merely conveying the reason of ixuprjv.
— 3. The phrase iv dlyBe'ig, in ver. 3, seems to be equivalent to the sarae expres
sion In 2 John, ver. 4, and not to tho sarae words used adverbially in ver. 1
and 2 John, ver. 1. Truth is here equivalent to the truth, only that it is
expressed in a,, more general and less definite way. —4. The true text in ver. 4
probably reads xapuv. Westcott and Hort, with B, road ;tdp(v. If the latter
reading Is adopted, the meaning of the word Is probably favor, or gift of the
Divine grace. ,
5. The first matter for the setting-forth of which the letter seenis to have
been written. Is that of hospitality to Christian brethren. The apostle begins
this by expressing his approval of Gains for what he has done or is doing In this
way, and then he commends to hira tho duty as one befitting tho Christian life.
The words of approval begin with thou doest a faithful work : the word faithful
here seeras to mean in accordance with Christian faith. — 6. Ver. 66 intimates
that these stranger-brethren are about to go back in their missionary journeying
to Galus. The account ot the aorist participle with the future verb seems to be
this: that the apostle conceives of his friend as immediately fulfilling the duty
of hospitality Indicated by the participle, so soon as there is a call for it, and
with this thought he says, thou wilt do well in having discharged this duty. —

THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN. 823
7. Ver. 7 gives the reason for vor. 66. It is the common reason for Christian
love: because those towards whom the love is exhibited are united with Christ,
are living and working for Hira, and loving Hira. The name here Is, doubtless,
the name of Christ. But in addition to the going forth on behalf of His
narae, the writer adds, as a ground of the hospitable reception and kindly
service, the fact that those men took nothing from the Gentiles; they were
working for Christ, and would receive nothing from those who did not believe
in Him. 8. The second main point in the letter is the case of Diotrephes, and the
suggestions connected with it. In this part of the Epistle, vv. 9-12, tho follow
ing points may be noticed: (a) iypaipa, ver. 9, refers to a letter already written
to the church of which Galus was a member. — (6) On ipilonpureiuv Westcott
remarks: " It is of Interest to compare the two sources of failure noticed in tho
two Epistles, npodyeiv (2 John 9) and ipilonpoireiuv, the undue claims to intel
lectual progress and to personal authority. There is nothing to Indicate that
Diotrephes held false opinions; his ambition only is blamed." Whether Dio
trephes was a presbyter or not, is uncertain ; but it seems evident that he was a
prorainent man in the church to which Gains belonged, and that he was disposed
to assume prominence and authority. — (c) The word imSexerai in verse 9 means
receives, apparently In the sense of recognizing the apostle's authority. The
same word In ver. 10 is used In the more ordinary sense of receiving, as In the
way of hospitality, etc. — (d) Tho verb 'tKSdllei is Indicative of special authority,
or at least of special infiuenee, as belonging to Diotrephes. — (e) In ver. 11, on
the foundation of tho case of Diotrephes, the apostle urges Galus in general to
imitate, not what is evil, but what is good; and then apparently brings forward
the example of Deraetrius as illustrative of the latter. — (/) The closing parts
of vv. 11, 12, are characteristic of John; and they are so artlessly so, that the
candid reader will not fail to see in them an evidence of the Johannean
authorship of the letter.
9. The end of this Epistle corresponds very closely with that of tho Second
Epistle. The verb E(,tov hero, as distinguished from ixuv In 2 John, seems to
call attention to tho fact, soraewhat more definitely, that ho had tho things
to write before ho began. The expression of the things omitted, he leaves for
a personal communication. yiyveaBai of 2 John 12 Involves the idea of coming
to; iSelv of this Epistle, that of boing with and seeing. The friends are, appar
ently, personal Christian friends. There is no salutation at tho beginning of
this Epistle, as there is in the second. It is given here at the end: Peace be
unto thee.

824 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.

LL
Vv. 1, 2.
1. That the Judas who wrote this Epistle was one of the four brothers
mentioned In Matt. xlii. 55, Mark vi. 3, Is beyond any considerable doubt. That
those four brothers were brothers, and not cousins of Jesus, is probable, by
reason of the fact that they are called dSelipoi, and are found In the narrative
of the Gospels In connection with Mary, the mother of Jesus, as if they were
merabers of her family. The probabilities of the case, in every respect, seem to
favor this view. They were, thus, sons of Joseph and Mary, or of Joseph by a
previous marriage. The James, accordingly, whose brother this Judas was,
is tbe James raentioned in the Acts as the head of the church in Jerusalem, and
the James who wrote the Epistle which is assigned to a person of this name.
Judas was apparently, from the order in which the names of the brothers
are given in the lists, younger than James. The reason why, although being
a brother of the Lord, he does not speak of himself as such, is tho same with
that which Is mentioned In the notes on Jas. I. 1. The fact that he speaks of
himself as brother of James, seeras to indicate that he stood on an Inferior posi
tion, or was less known and recognized, than James, who took rank with the
leading apostles. — 2. It can hardly be doubted that Klyrolg Is here the substan
tive word to which the participles belong as descriptive adjectives. The called
are beloved and preserved. They are beloved in God the Father; the prepo
sition in denotes, strictly, the sphere within which the love takes place or has its
being, but the usage of the N. T. writers shows tliat the one hy whom tbey are
loved Is God. The suggestion of this peculiar phrase seems to be, that as they
are by their Christian life In that sphere in which God inspires, and, by His
Spirit, dwells in the raan, they are also the objects of that love which abides in
God, and moves outward from Hira to holy souls. They are kept for Jesus
Christ; the dative here denotes, apparently, the one in whose behalf, and for
whora, as a perraanent possession and glory, they are preserved by God. The
love of God will secure for those who are called the blessing of the future, —
the caUedwill be glorified, as Paul Intlraates; but they will be thus glorified,
because of the relation of God the Father to His Son, — they are kept for Jesus
Christ. — 3. The salutation Is peculiar in that it omits the word grace, and adds
tho word love. There can be but little doubt that mercy refers to that which
goes forth from God to man, and that peace indicates the state of the human
soul which follows upon the experience of the Divine mercy, and which belongs
to the relation of the soul to God. Love, as following after these words which
speak of God's movement towards man and man's position towards God, raay,
not improbably, be intended to suggest the idea of the relation between man
and raan, the abounding of love being essential to tho perfected Christian state.
It Is possible, however, that love may be added as taking up the thought of the
participle beloved in the preceding verse, and may refer to the love of God to
men, one special manifestation of which Is mercy. Huther prefers the latter
view, If yyanypivoig Is to be adopted as tho true reading in ver. 1.

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 825

LIL
Vv. 3, 4.
1. These two verses, following the salutation, form a kind of introduction
to the Epistle, and they give the special reason which lod the author to write it.
This reason was tho appearance, on tho stage, ot certain false teachers who
were endangering the faith of Christians. Tho groat similarity between the
characteristics of these false teachers and those of the heretics described in the
Second Epistle of Peter Is manifest to every careful reader. They have evidently
already appeared at the time of the writing of this EiDistle. In the case of
2 Peter (see Notes on that Epistle), there seems to be a sort of double statement,
— now, as if they had already appeared (II. 17 ff.); and again, in the way of
prophecy, that they were to be expected and would appear in the future
[ii. 1 ff.). If the statement of 2 Peter can be properly regarded as altogether
relating to the future, a strong argument may bo found, in connection with this
fact. In favor of tho view that the date of tho Epistle of Jude was later than
that of 2 Peter. — 2. The correspondence thus indicated between the two
Epistles would seem to show that they were addressed to substantially the sarae
circle of. readers. In neither of the two is there any special designation of the
readers as to their residence, the only indication In 2 Peter being that which is
found in HI. 1, which points towards the same persons as those addressed In
1 Peter, who were residents of tho region of Asia Minor. In this Epistle, the
readers are simply addressed as dyanyrol, which word inarks them as Christians,
but gives no further hint respecting them. —3. In order to tho understanding
of ver. 3, wo may notice, that. Inasmuch as the phrase eo;i;ov dvdyKyv, K.r.l.,
evidently contains the main thought of the verse, the participle noioipevog must
be determined, in its tirae, by the verb iaxov. It was while or when he was
giving diligence to write to the readers of the Epistle respecting the common
salvation, that he felt constrained. The pres. part, goes back, as a continuous
present, to tho time of tho verb, and covers that time, but does not pass forward
beyond the limits of that time. Tho writer seems to imply, therefore, that he
had had, for some time, a desire, and was at the point of putting that desire
into action, to write to them a letter with regard to tho common salvation.
This term is a general one, and, as such. Is possibly inclusive of all which might
with propriety be covered by it, whether in the- matter of fact, or doctrine, or
method, or explanation of any sort. While in this state of mind, the presence
and working of the false teachers made him feel it to be necessary to turn his
exhortation into the line of thought which he now follows. It becanie the
readers, in view of the existing dangers, to contend earnestly for the faith.
4. The faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. This passage Is
the strongest one in the N. T. favoring the view that ij niang has sometiraes the
strictly objective sense, the system of faith, or Christian doctrine. If this is
tho meaning intended by tho writer, this fact would >tond to show tbat tho
Epistle was written in the later, rather than the eariier part of the apostolic
period. The word faith, In alraost every case of Its occurrence In the N. T.,
means subjective faith. The moveraent towards the objective sense was,
naturally and necessarily, a gradual one. It Is, indeed, doubtful, whether the
full objective meaning is intended in this verse. More probably the word, as
here used, appears in what may be considered a transitional state; and the view
of Huther is substantially correct, that it means not system of doctrine, but the

826 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
objective contents of faith, that which Christians believe. The reference Is
rather to the fundaraental essential truth of salvation by Christ, than to tho
.collection of doctrines raaking up what is commonly called a theological system.
— 5. The word una^ apparently carries with it the Idea of OTice for all, because
of its connection with napaSoBeiay, and the contrast Iraplied in the context.
The participle, by reason of what Is said in ver. 17, is probably to he completed
in its thought by the words hy the apostles. —6. The evil or danger indicated
in ver. 4 is clearly one lying in the moral region. Tho men alluded to were
themselves ungodly; and they were turning tho grace of God, not into some
wrong belief, but into wrong conduct and life. These persons are spoken of as
coming in araong the Christian body in a secret and stealthy way, by a side-door,
as it were (comp. Gal. ii. 4); and this idea is, by the position of tho words, set
forth with especial emphasis. The insidious character of the evil infiuenee, as
well as its existence. Is that which constrains the writer to address the Christian
brethren on this subject.
7. The words describing what the false teachers do and teach are those of
the two participial clauses which form the last part of the verse. But before
stating this, the writer Inserts a phrase which marks their character and destiny.
It is not quite certain whether a comma Is to be placed before daeSelg, as Huther
and several commentators hold, making this word an independent designation;
or whether, on the other hand, no comma is to be inserted, and daeS. Is to be
imraediately connected with oi npoyeyp. The emphasis is greater if we take the
forraer arrangement of the sentence. In view of what follows in later verses,
and also of the strict and proper meaning of npoyeyp. , It can hardly be questioned
that this participial phrase refers to these persons, not as predestined to
condemnation in the eternal counsels and purpose of God, but as corresponding
with cases mentioned in tbe O. T., and thus being of tbe number of those with
regard to whom the O. T. utters its predictions; corap. 2 Pet. ii. 1. The words
this judgment, which evidently here suggest the Idea of condemnatory judgraent,
refer to what Is indicated or set forth in the following verses. Vv. 5-16 suggest
the condemnation, while they, at the sarae time, describe the characteristics
of the persons, and they do so by calling attention to the O. T. times.
8. Turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master
and Lord, Jesus Christ. — There are evidently tM'o points presented here, but
the two things mentioned have a close relation to each other. The grace of
God must, as It would seem, by reason of its contrast with dailyeia, mean here,
not the doctrine of grace, or of the way of salvation through faith, but the actual
Divine grace or favor itself. They turned this grace Itself, which came to them
in the offer of forgiveness, into a means of indulgence In gross immorality. The
progress of error had passed from doctrine into life. Those persons also denied
the Lord. Rejecting the right idea and infiuenee of tho grace which Jesus
revealed, it was a natural sequence that they should move onward to the denial
of Jesus Hiraself. As the word Bebv, following Seanbryv, is to be omitted from
the text by reason of the preponderance of external evidence against It, we may
connect Seanbryv with Jesus Christ. The arguments on both sides of the
question are suggested by Huther In his note. The very close correspondence
between this Epistle and 2 Peter, and tho fact that In that Epistle (II. 1) the
word Is undoubtedly used of Jesus, seera, on the whole, to overbalance the
suggestions of Huther on the other side. Both possibilities of explaining
the words which follow dpvoipevoi should, however, be recognized, as they are
in R. V. text and marg. This word dpvoip. seems to denote a denial both in

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 827
doctrine and practice ; but, so far as It is the former, it is rather a denial of Him
as regards the truth which He taught, and the revelation of God which Ho
made. In their bearing upon life, than a denial of His Messianic offlce, or of His
Divine nature, or peculiar relation to God.

LIIL
Vv. 5-16.
1. The writer begins this passage, as Huther remarks, by referring to three
examples of judgment which may serve to set forth the character of the Kplpa
mentioned in vor. 4. These three examples are drawn from the history of tho
Egyptians, from the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, and from that of tho fallen
angels. In 2 Peter, whore similar examples are cited for the same purpose, the
case of the Egyptians is omitted, and that of the people at tho tirae of the fiood
is inserted. This change would, in itself, be a slight indication that the one
writer did not copy from the other, or at least did not depend on the other,
but only a slight one; for, in case of such dependence, it is evident that the later
of the two might feel that the substitution of one historical occurrence for
another would be more adapted to his purpose, or more impressive. — 2. The
word dna^ Is probably best translated once for all ; and the participial clause In
which it occurs intimates that all this past record was fully known to thera, so
that they needed only to be reminded of It, in any of its parts. In order to
appreciate the force of its application. — Huther regards the reading 'lyaoig, in
ver. 5, as possibly correct, though he admits its strangeness. It would seem to
the writer of this note, that, while its presence in some very ancient authorities
may be easily accounted for by reason of the allusion to Jesus In ver. 4, this
reading is quite improbable for two reasons; namely: First, because this O. T.
record is much more naturally connected with God than with Christ; this is
the connection generally found in tho N. T., and It seems to be found In the
remainder ot this Epistle taken as a whole; and secondly, because there is
manifestly no such occasion here, as we find iu 1 Cor. x., for bringing forward
Christ as the One who was with the Israelites or the O. T. saints. If we read
b Kipiog without the addition of 'lyaoig, the reference Is, no doubt, to God. —
3. The adverbial word Seirepov is well explained by Dr. Angus, in Schaff's
Pop. Coram., as the next thing he did. Huther is probably correct in giving a
somewhat extended reference to the dealing with those who did not believe, but
the passage in Num. xxv. 1-9 may, nevertheless, be prorainent In the writer's
thought. 4. The words respecting the angels are slightly different frora those of tho
corresponding passage in 2 Peter, where the passage (ii. 4) reads: If God
spared not angels when they sinned, hut cast them doion to Tartarus, and
committed them to pits [or chains] of darkness, to he reserved unto judgment.
For tho word sinned. Judo uses the expression, kept not ryv iavruv dpxyv; this
expression may probably set forth what their sin consisted in, or that by which
it was accompanied. That dpxij has here the meaning dominion, principality,
rather than flrst estate, original condition, is now admitted by raany, or most,
of tho best commentators. This ineaning is, as Huther reraarks, the ordinary
meaning of the word in tho N. T., when it is used of angels; and it is, to say
the least, as fully consistent as the other Interpretation with tho clause which
follows. The reference in this following clause may probably bo to what is

828 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
mentioned In Gen. vi. 1 ff. ; but the language used in the remainder of the verse
is so connected with that of tho Book of Enoch, and of other writings outside
of the O. T., and it is of such a poetic or figurative character, that the interpreter
is called upon, by this fact, to exorcise much care in his explanation and
apphcation of the words. — 5. Tho word d'iSloig, in this sense, does not occm-
elsewhere In the N. T., except in Rom. i. 20; where it is applied to God. It is
derived from dei; but, so far as the statement of the verse is concerned, tho
always idea may be liraited to covering the period until the day of judgment.
The keeping or guarding of these angels fast-bound, so that there may be no
escape, until the tirae when condemnation Is passed upon them, Is the thought
in the author's mind. Whether they are to be kept bound in chains after that
time, or whether some other result of the condemnatory judgment is to befall
them, is not stated; and it is natural that it should not be, for the purpose of the
passage is to show, by those examples, the certainty that condemnation will
corae, aud not what the particular final consequences of it are to be. In
2 Peter, according to what raay be the best text, they are said to be coraraitted
to pits of darkness in reserve for judgraent. The word Tartarus is used only in
2 Peter. Professor Salmond, in Schaff's Pop. Comm. on that Epistle, says,
and apparently with reason, " Peter has in view [in the use of this word in the
passage in question] neither Hades, the world of the departed generally, nor
Gehenna, hell, in the sense of the place of flnal judgment, but the intermediate
scene or state of penalty."
6. The fact that Sodom and Gomorrah are spoken of as having in like
manner with these given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange
flesh, is favorable to the view that the reference to the angels is connected with
Gen. vi., but also especially with the Book of Enoch. In 2 Peter we do not
find this special designation of the sin of Sodom. This is to be accounted for,
no doubt. In connection with the different purpose of the two writers, and the
fact that In 2 Peter the allusion to Sodom does not follow imraediately after
that which is made to the angels. The word aiuviog, as used by Jude with
reference to Sodora, Is eraployed in a sense kindred to that in which we speak
of the everlasting hills. The endless fire ot the future, as that expression has
been sometimes used with reference to final Divine punishment, is manifestly
not intended here; for the reference is to the destruction of earthly cities, not
of souls. The expression of Jude is substantially equivalent, no doubt, to
that in 2 Peter: turning them into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow.
Through this overthrow, and the suggestions which it was calculated to give,
God made (2 Peter) them, set them forth as (Jude), an example. — That the
words of eternal flre depend on the word punishment in Jude (R. V. text), and
not on tho word example (R. V. marg.), Is held, as Huther remarks, by raost
expositors. The reasons which Huther urges In favor of the other view are
worthy of serious consideration ; but they do not seem to be sufficient, in view
of the fact that these cities wore destroyed by an actual flre, which, so far as
their longer existence was concerned, was perpetual in its destructive power;
and the word endless, as used of the angels, is descriptive only of what precedes
the judgraent; eternal flre after that Is only hinted at, not declared In terras.
Tho corresponding passage in 2 Peter, which reads, "turning the cities Into
ashes, condemned them with an overthrow," bears also In favor of the view
that the flre in Jude Is the actual (earthly) fire which destroyed, and thus con
stituted the punishment of, Sodom and Gomorrah, and not the fire of Gehenna.
The suggestion of Huther, that Trvp aiuviov always designates hell-fire, can hardly

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 829
be insisted upon, when it is remembered that this expression occurs but three
times in the N. T. (the other two instances being Matt, xviii. 8 and xxv. 41, in
both which cases the phrase is eig rb rrvp rb aiuviov).
7. The word pivroi in ver. 8 is translated yet by R. V., as if this verse wore
in contrast to what precedes, and as if the thought were : notwithstanding these
warning examples. But more probably the view of Huther is correct, that It
serves for a strengthening of the expression: "those men actually do the same
thing as the Sodomites." — 8. The word ivvnvtuQbpevoi seems to refer to tho
thoughts and imaginings of these men in their sin and opposition to God,
which are connected with and result in the pollution ot the flesh, and the
despising of dominion, etc. The argument of Huther with respect to Kvpibryra,
as referring to God or Jesus Christ, is forcible, and this view of the word seems
to be correct; but the suggestions which he makes with regard to Sb^ag, as
referring to evil angels because of ver. 9, are not to be considered as a sufficient
support for that view. The repetition of the Se may be accounted as following
the line of the pev , . . Si, and not as indicating a marked difference in the two
sentences: set at naught dominion, and rail at dignities. More probably, Sb^ag
refers to the angelic powers (good angels), as connected with the Divine lordship
{Kvptdryra),—Q, The reference to the action of Michael, here spoken of, is
apparently, for the purpose of showing tho impropriety of the conduct of those
men by caUing to mind the fact that the great archangel did not act in this way
even towards Satan. The story here alluded to was probably a Jewish tradition,
familiar to the writer and the readers. Whether true in fact, or not, it fully
answered tho writer's purpose as an illustration; that it was a tradition having
no foundation in fact, may not bo affirmed, but it was legltiraato tor Jude to '
use it as a well-known story. The corresponding passage in 2 Peter seems
to refer to the bringing of a railing judgment either against these daring
persons or against the <5d|ai, and in either case it has a more general character ]
than this in Jude, but may be, in sorae way, connected with the same story. ,
The explanation of Kplair S^aaipyp'iag given by Huther is doubtless correct. —
10. Ver. 10 presents the attitude and action of these false teachers in relation to
two points, which answer to what is said of them In ver. 4. These men really
rejected, in their general discourse and action, tho authority of God, and gave
themselves up to lust and sensual indulgence. They combined the self-conceit '
of scepticism with its tendency to immorality, when it works towards its worst
results. What belonged to the region above their intellectual sphere, they
reviled and despised;, but not only this: what lay within the region of their
earthly apprehension, they used only for the lowest ends, as if they were more
animals. 11. Ver. 11 comes in at a later point in the description of these persons given
In 2 Peter, and apparently more in the natural order. Here, in the vehemence
of the writer's denunciation of them, he breaks in with these words as the
ground of pronouncing a " woe upon them." The allusion in 2 Peter Is only
to Balaam, that to Cain and Korah being omitted. Dr. Lumby regards this
verse in Jude as having in it a sort of climax, and possibly his view is correct.
He says- "These teachers were [so tho writer of the Epistle would afflrm]
envious of men and perverse towards God, like Cain; they were teachers of
error, and willing to work evil and lead others to it, for gain's sake, as was
Balaam; and their ambitious self-seeking led them to resist all authority, after
the raanner of Korah." It may be, however that the general resemblance to
these persons is Intended, without the idea of a climax. The word perished, in

830 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
the last clause of the verse, seems to be used as anticipatory of their final fate;
they had given themselves up to the course indicated so wilfully and completely,
that the flnal result for them was, as it were, already secured and become a
reality. 12. The correspondence, in the description which immediately follows this
denunciatory passage, with 2 Pet. II. 13, will be noticed; and yet there seeras to
be a kind of coraprossion in the language here and elsewhere in Jude's descrip
tion, and an Indignant intensity, which surpasses what we find in the other
Epistle, and which suggests the thought that the writer of this letter had seen
the life and workings of these false teachers, towards whom the author of the
other Epistle had only looked forward as likely to arise in the future, or, at
tbe most, as in tbe beginning of their development in the matter of the evils
indicated. — 13. The word amldSeg {ve,:, 12) takes the place in Jude of anilot in
2 Peter, according to tho best authorities, and the word dydnaig in Jude has
in sorae manuscripts dndraig substituted for It In 2 Peter. amldSeg is generally
understood to raean rocks, and this seems probably to be the correct meaning of
the word. That the word may, however, be substantially equivalent to an'ilot,
ean hardly be doubted (see Huther's note), and the R. V. is justifled In inserting
the alternative meaning spots in the margin. If the former signlflcation of the
word is adopted, the suggestion of the idea of hidden rocks is not improbably
contained in it; and thus the idea of danger from these men, and from the
character of their influence, is set before the reader's mind. Tbe other mean
ing; boing adopted, only brings to mind the thought of defilement and dis*-
figurement. The love-feasts are alluded to, apparently, aj tho times of a sacred
fellowship among the Christian believers, when they were observed with the
right feeling and spirit. What is hero referred to Is a far greater development
of what was manifested in Corinth: see 1 Cor. xl. 20 ff. In 2 Peter these
persons are spoken of as revelling in the love-feasts. If dydnaig Is the true
reading there; or in their deceivings. If dndraig is to be regarded as tbe correct
text (so Sin., A*, C, K, L, P, and sorae other authorities). The reference in
both Epistles, whatever be the true text, is clearly to what occurred at those
feasts, in which the raembers of the churches united, and which, in their right
use and purpose, wore holy meetings. Only with the reading dndratg they are
represented as gaining their ends, etc., by deceit. The word awevuxoipevoi is
common to both Epistles ; vplv, however, is added in 2 Peter. R. V. translates
in the same way in both cases, and this Is very probably correct; but evidently,
as Huther intimates, the aw in Jude may raean together, or with each other.
Without fear indicates the bold manner In which they took this course, having
no fear of God's righteous displeasure or punishment. Whether dipdSug is to be
connected with the participle which precedes it, or that which follows it, is
uncertain. R. V. gives the latter connection, and perhaps this Is tbe preferable
way of understanding tho words. It would seem that the word noipalvovreg raust
point to tho position of these raen as In sorae sense professed teachers or leaders,
who act solely, and possibly in the way of deceit, for their own advantage.
14. In the following words, by a fourfold figure, the writer represents these
men as empty, restless, useless, destructive teachers of the worst sort. Clouds
without ivater, carried along hy winds : these words indicate their emptiness,
and the fact that, being thus empty, tbey are borne along anywhither, and
consequently are unsafe to follow. Nothing comes from them, and they move
in no one direction. Autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up hy the
roots : the idea of no good coming from them Is presented again here, and it is

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 831
added that the life-power which gives tho possibility of fruit is gone. They are
fruitless: they have lost tho life-principle out of themselves, and they have
becorae as trees which, because they are fruitless and also lifeless, are plucked
up by the roots. The utter impossibility of any good spiritual result proceeding
from them Is thus raost emphatically set forth. Wild waves of the sea, foaming
out their own shame : this strong figure seems to represent the restless move
ment of these men in the course of immorality, wherein they show forth, by the
excess of lust and evil, their shameful character, as the tossing waves break
forth into foam. Wandering stars, foi- whom the blackness of darkness has
been reserved for ever : whether the writer refers here to comets which appear
for a time and then pass away from sight, is not certain ; but not improbably
this is the case. Perhaps the reference is to meteors. The strong and Intense
poetic rhetoric of these expressions, and the fact that In all the preceding cases
the flgure Is carried throughout all the words, may lead us to doubt whether the
last phrase, /or whom [which], etc., is to bo referred to the false teachers, except
so tar as an application of them is thus made as part of the flgure. More
probably, it would seem that the writer represents these stars wiiich break their
way across the heavens, as going down to endless night, and being utterly
extinguished. But, in the way of application of tho flgure, there must be some
force in these words, as indicating the flnal result for these men. — By these
four figures, as Dr. Angus says, "all that is mischievous, useless, disastrous. In
sea or land or sky, becomes in turn the symbol of the character and destiny of
these men." — 15. R. V. translates roirotg, of ver. 14, to these; but It is quite
commonly understood In the sense of with reference to these, as Huther also
takes it, comparing Luke xviii. 31. This construction in such a sentence is
undoubtedly peculiar and uncommon. The writer closes these denunciatory
figures by applying to the false teachers the prophetic words of Enoch, which,
through their position as following the last clause of ver. 13, make the most
solemn application of that clause. The question as to tbe origin of these words
— whether they are derived from the Book of Enoch, which we now possess, but
with the language of which they do not perfectly correspond, though they are
very strikingly similar, or whether they belonged to an oral tradition which
came down to the apostolic times, and brought words spoken, or supposed to be
spoken, by Enoch — is one of considerable difficulty. To tho writer of this
note, the derivation frora the Book of Enoch seems more probable.
16. Ver. 16 seeras to be an additional description of the false teachers sug
gested to the writer. In the excitement of his feeling against them, by the closing
words of the quotation from Enoch's prophecy. They are murmurers, ho says,
complainers, walking after their own lusts. The word "complainers" strictly
conveys the idea of dissatisfaction or fault-finding with their lot, and, in connec
tion with yoyyvarai, can scarcely have any other reference than to raurmuring and
coraplalning against God (comp. the preceding verse: "hard things spoken against
him"). — The remaining words of this verso present again the Idea of their lust
and immorality, their self-conceit and vanity, exalting themselves, as Huther
says, "in contrast to the humility of the Christians submitting themselves to
God," and their readiness to give honor to persons of high position, etc., from
whom they might hope for some good for themselves. They utter complaints
against God, and refuse to have that humility and submission before Hira which
they are ready to have, in outward show and form at least. In the presence of
those who are exalted In the world. The selfishness of this respect for men is
distinctly expressed : for the sake of advantage.

832 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
That there is a nervous energy, and a vehemence of denunciation also, in
this whole passage, as compared with the passage in 2 Peter, the words of which
are so largely similar, the attentive reader who looks carefully at the two will,
as the writer of this note cannot doubt, be ready to admit. 'Whethor this
characteristic of Jude's stylo is duo to tho character of bis mind, or whether It
is to be explained, on the other hand, by the fact tbat he was in the presence
of these men, while the other writer was only speaking prophetically of the
future, is a Tioint more difficult of determination.

LIV.
v. 17-23.
1. The writer opens this passage with a call upon the readers to remember
the prophetic words of tbe apostles, respecting persons of the character of these
false teachers. This prophetic declaration, being borne in mind, would tend to
strengthen them against the evil Influence of these men. The words inb rCv
dnoarbluv seem, as Huther suggests, hardly consistent with the supposition that
Jude was himself an apostle. Certainly the expression is less easily reconciled
with such a supposition, than are the words In the Book of Revelation (xxL 14)
and in 2 Peter (Hi. 2), which are sometimes corapared with them. In the pas
sage in Revelation, tho writer is looking forward to the future and final blessed
ness of the Churcb, and Is writing In tho prophetlco-poetic stylo. That in such
a passage he should speak of the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem as
having upon them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, can scarcely
be regarded as strange, when we consider tho well-understood and universally
acknowledged prorainence of tho apostles as the leaders of the whole Christian
company, — a leadership which, of course, they were conscious of themselves,
and which they did not hesitate to claim. In 2 Peter, on the other hand, where
the language is very nearly what it is here, the difference in the expression is
such as to make the use of it by an apostle less improbable, if we read ipuv in
the text, as we should, according to the great majority of the authorities which
have raost weight. "The commandraent of the Lord and Saviour given by
your apostles," is an expression which Peter or John might have used, it would
seem, as one of a body of bishops might speak of " your bishops." But Jude's
language: "The words spoken formerly by the apostles of our Lord Jesus
Christ, how that they said to you,'' Is of a different sort. This language, how
ever. If it be admitted that it proves Jude not to have been an apostle, does not
prove that the writer of the Epistle was not Judas the brother of James, who
was the Lord's brother. The bearing of the verse, in this respect, would be
only on the apostolic position of the two brothers, and so on the exact relation
ship which they sustained to the Lord. — 2. The probability with respect to the
text in ver. 18 favors 'eaxarov roi xpovov, and. If this be correct, the meaning Is:
at the end of the time. The expression sets forth in another form the same
idea which is found in 2 Pet. Hi. 3, in' iaxuruv xpovuv. The closing days of the
ante-Messianic age were a time when these developments of evil were anticipated
by the N. T. writers, as connected with the words of Christ in the eschatological
discourses, etc. The presentation of the matter in 2 Peter Is slightly different,
tho words respecting the mockers being made dependent on a participle yivu-
OKovreg, so tbat the readers are exhorted to remember tho words spoken by the
prophets, etc., knowing that the mockers will appear in the last days. This

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 833
difference in tho raanner of representation is, perhaps, indicative in some slight
degree of the relation In time between the two Epistles ; Jude writing after
they had appeared, and Peter before. —The words ruv daeSepiv form a descrip
tive genitive, lusts of impieties, as more emphatic than an adjective.
3. In vv. 19-23, the writer adds a brief conclusion. In which he suras up
what the readers should do with regard to their own life, and in respect to those
who were, or raight be, misled by the false teachers. This passage ho opens by
a repetition, in a summary statement, of the characteristics of these teachers
themselves. The word dnoSmplQovreg is placed first, and probably means causing
divisions. This occasioning of divisions, or making of factions, was tho natural
result of their doctrines and action; and it was the point which might properly
be made most prominent, as, in bringing his Epistle to its close, the* author
desired to tell his readers what to do in maintaining the real life of the Church.
The word rpvxtKoi is explained by Its connection with nveipa .uij ixovreg; and both
of these expressions, one on the negative and tho other on tho positive side, set
forth. In a general and comprehensive way, their unchristian character. They
belong in the sphere which is outside of the teaching, Infiuenee, and power of
the Divine Spirit, and In tho sphere of the animal or sensual, or the natural as
distinguished from the spiritual. This adjective rpvxiK-y occurs In Jas. HI. 15,
where it is placed between in'iyeiog and SaipovtuSyg; in the present case, by reason
of the language used, in earlier verses, in describing these persons. It possibly
borders more nearly on the Idea of the latter of these two words than the
former, but more\ i^robably it has Its raore general meaning. They lived only in
the earthly natural life. — 4. Ver. 20 stands In a kind of contrast to ver. 19,
ipelg being opposed to oiroi. The two participial clauses which are found in
ver. 20, as well as the one in ver. 21, are subordinate to the verb rypyaare, though
not in precisely the same way. The one beginning with inoiKoSopoivreg expresses
the antecedent condition, on the basis of which they were to keep themselves In
the love of God; that which follows, praying in the Holy Spirit, sots forth the
means, or a means, by which the end was to bo secured; and the one in ver. 21,
looking , for the mercy, etc., presents an attendant circumstance or accompanying
state, — they should keep themselves, etc., with an attendant waiting for and
expectation of the mercy of the Lord. —5. The word niarei, in ver. 20, Is
regarded by Huther as used in an objective sense, but apparently as denoting
the objective contents of faith rather than the system of doctrine. If this is the
correct view in ver. 3, it is so, not improbably, here also. But It does not seera
necessary, if we consider this verse in itself alone, to give the word this sense,
for the character and life can certainly be built upon subjective faith, and
subjective faith may properly bo described by the adjective holy, or most holy;
faith is a holy thing. — Tho emphatic position ot iv nv. dyiu may be accounted
for as connected with the ¦nvevpa py ixovreg predicated of tho false teachers.
Perhaps, however, tho writer reverses the order ot tho two participial clauses on
mere rhetorical grounds. — The love of God here spoken of is probably, but not
certainly, God's love towards thera, rather than theirs towards Hira. It is, as
Huther reraarks. In God's love to us, that the hope of the future raercy of Christ
has its ground. — The connection of eig Quyv aluvtov with rypyaare, which Huther
favors, is, perhaps, the most natural one, but possibly Alford is right in joining
the phrase with the corabined Idea of rypyaare and npoaSexbpevoi,
6. Vv. 22, 23, add to the exhortation addressed to tho readers with reference
to the growth of their own life in the present exposure to the dangerous
Influence of these false teachers, a series of exhortations respecting the manner

834 ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
In which they should deal with persons who might be affected by that influence.
The three classes ol persons alluded to, are apparently arranged according to
the measure in which they are supposed to be influenced, beginning with those
In whose case the measure Is least. This must, at least, bo held to be the true
view, if iledre Is the correct reading in ver. 22, as opposed to 'eliyxere. With the
other reading, the question of the order Is more doubtful. According as the
former or the latter text is adopted, the meaning of the participle SiaKpivopivovg
will, or may, vary; in the former case, this participle raust probably have the
raeaning being in doubt (R. V. text), but possibly it may mean, as R. V. raarg.,
wh'de they dispute with you ; in the latter case, tho latter meaning is almost
certainly the true one. The verb eAe;';i;£te, if read, Is to be translated refute
(A. R. V. raarg.) or convict, including the idea of overcoming in argument, and
a consequent rebuke and condemnation. This latter seems to be the sense of
the verb in ver. 15. The most natural progress of the sentences here, as weU as
what raay be regarded as, on the whole, the preponderating external testimony,
favors the other text-reading. The verb 'el^ure being adopted as the text, and
the participle being understood to mean being in doubt, wo may understand the
writer's exhortation to be as follows: that the Christian readers should have
compassionate feeling and corresponding action towards those of the flrst class;
as they were in a state of doubt and wavering only, such an attitude towards them
might bring them to the right course: secondly, that they should save those of
tbe second class by snatching them out of the flre; these persons had gone much
farther astray than those of the preceding class, and raore vigorous measures
were needed for them, yet still measures prompted by compassion : thirdly, that
they should have a compassionate feeling toward those making up the third
class ; but tbis feeling should move or be exorcised in the si^here of fear, with a
hatred of that which was deflling them, and which would defile all who have any
share in It. These last-mentioned persons are, by reason of these added words,
presented as those with whom even compassionate intercourse was attended by a
certain danger. — 7. With respect to the individual words or phrases In vv. 22,
23, It may be said, (a) that the use of SiuKpivopevog in vor. 9, where It undoubtedly
means disputing, favors the view that it Is used in the sarae sense here; but the
well-known use of this word, elsewhere, in the other sense (douhting) justifles
sufficiently its use by Jude with this raeaning, and the progress of the sentences,
as explained above, Is favorable to this use of the word, with tho reading iledre
or ileelre, (6) The phrase snatching them out of the fire seeras to Indicate, on
the one hand, tbe great difficulty, and, on the other, the possibility, of rescuing
the persons referred to. The word fire Is only indicative of danger and deadly
evil, and of tbe difflculty of rescue, and has apparently no direct reference here
to eternal fire or the punishment of the future world, (c) The last clause of
ver. 23 is correctly explained by Huther. The x"'"'", the undergarraent, "is to
the author the symbol of whatever, by raeans of external contact, shares in the
moral destruction of those men." In this connection, the reference is, as we
may believe, to the greater, rather than the minor evil of this sort. Huther,
however, disagrees with the view expressed in this note respecting the three
classes, and would rather regard them as arranged In a reverse order to that
which has been suggested here. — Wordsworth supposes that there may be some
connection between the last clause of ver. 23 (so far as the suggestion of the
thought and the expression are concerned) and Zech. iii. 2-4. This, however,
is doubtful.

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 835
LV.
Vv. 24, 25.
1. The Epistle closes with a doxology which, in Its general form, resembles
that at the end of the Epistle to tho Romans (Rom. xvi. 25tt, 27), and which, in
its opening thought, is nearly related to the thought of this whole Epistle, aud
particularly of the last preceding verses (20-23). In Its resemblance to Rom. xvi.,
we have the words, to Him who is able to guard you (stablish you, Rom.), to the
only [wise] God our Saviour through Jesus Christ be glory (to the only wise God
through Jesus Christ, to whom he the glory, Rom.). The word aoipip In Jude Is
omitted by the best authorities, and the words d(d 'I. Xp. r. Kvp, ijpuv, which are
not found In T. R., are supported by tho weightiest evidence. — 2. The word
dnraiarovg, which Is not found elsewhere In tho N. T., is particularly adapted to
this place; and tho consummation at the end, for which this ipvld^ai ipdg dnraia
rovg prepares and preserves the Christian readers. Is presented In tho following
words. The preposition iv before dyallidaei denotes the sphere or condition
in which the aryaat dpupovg will have its action or result; and so the condition in
which the persons who are thus sot before God blameless, will be In connection
with, and as the issue of, the aryaai, — 3. Huther takes Siu 'I. X. as belonging to
ourijpt ijpCiv, our Saviour through Jesus Christ, and this is not Improbably the
correct view. — 4. Tho fulness of tho form of tho doxology is noticeable, as
compared with other doxologies in the N. T., and particularly tho fulness of the
forra of expression Trpd navrbg roi a'luvog kuI viv Kal e'lg ndvrag roig aluvag. The
past, the present, and the future are united, — from everlasting and to everlast
ing. With respect to the verb to be supplied in the doxology, — whether iari
or earu, — the prayer or wish-element, which belongs to the very idea of a doxo
logical sentence, and the probabilities appertaining to most such sentences, favor
the supply of iaru; while the argument urged by Do Wette In favor of iari, that
a prayer that glory may bo before all time is out of place and fitness, is worthy
of consideration. It is doubtful, however, whether the sentence is to be looked
at in this way. Not Improbably, in giving his thought and desire an extension
over all time or eternity, he siraply offers his prayer that, throughout all, glory
may be given, without thinking of tho accurate fitting of bis words In the
manner supposed.

3 9002 08844 4626

i'.!:^i&>^?*!fjki

ij^r*?