5 So Field, from mss. the old reading would have to mean "For it is not that thou shouldst not suffer any punishment, but that thou mayest suffer a worse if thou abide unamended, that He delayeth-and may that never befall thee."
7 'Eriqeia is probably derived from eriqoj, a hired laborer and not from erij (strife) as commonly. Hence the meaning is: labor for hire-Lohnarbeit, party spirit. Better translate "factious" (R. V.) than "contentious" (A. V.). So Weiss, Thayer's Lex.-G. B. S.
10 Verse 12 assigns the ground of v. 11. "Sin brings penalty and death whether committed under the Mosaic law or under the ethical law of conscience." The first member of the sentence (v. 12) applies to the Gentiles. They have sinned without the standard and guidance of positive law; they are, therefore, not brought to the test of that law's demands, but to the tests of natural, moral law (which the apostle will directly describe), and by that test their sins meet their penalty. Death, as sin's penalty, is coextensive with sin, not with the Mosaic law. Sin existed before the Mosaic law and apart from it; it is imputed to the Gentiles-not, indeed in the same way and degree (Rom. v. 13)-because they have a law of conscience. Each class is judged by the standard which has been given to them. All the terms relating to law here signify the Mosaic law, which was to Paul the specific statutory expression of the divine will and the embodiment of moral principles and duties.-G. B. S.
14 kai (=kaiper, or ei kai>\/) foberon to thj kolasewj. i. e. he alleviates the severity of his discourse by speaking of the effects of faith, at the same time that he shows the fearfulness of the punishment. Edd. kai ou fob. kruptwn to thj kolasewj, i. e. light ...and not fearful, by withdrawing out of sight what relates to the punishment: which however Ben. renders as if it were ou to fob. And not concealing the fearfulness, etc."
15 It is extremely doubtful if Peter understood by "the great and terrible day of the Lord" (20) the destruction of Jerusalem. (Chrys.) It probably refers to the Parousia which is thought of as imminent. The "last days" then would be the days preceding the Messianic age which is to begin at the Parousia. This view harmonizes with the Jewish conception and with the Christian expectation that the then existing period (aiwn outoj) was soon to pass into a new age (aiwn mellwn). The scenes of Pentecost were thought to be the harbingers of this consummation and were so significant both of the joys and woes of the impending crisis, that the bold imagery of the prophet Joel is applied to them. Cf. the prophetic terms in which the destruction of Jerusalem is foretold-an event closely associated with the personal return of our Lord in Matt. xxiv.-G. B. S.
1 tou propatoroj, A. C. F. D. and Cat. but tou Dauid eukairwj, B. E. Edd. Oecumenius fell into the same mistake and has tou propatoroj Dauid. But it is evident that Chrys. is commenting on the address !Andrej 'Israhlitai.
2 From the 17th verse on the apostle speaks of the Jew by name and clearly shows that he had him in mind from the beginning of the chapter. The correct text reads ei de instead of ide to which the question of v. 21 corresponds as apodosis. Chrys.' interpretation of dokimazeij ta diareronta is that which is followed by the Vulgate ("probas utiliora"), most anct. vss., Wordsworth, Meyer, and our Eng. vss. The majority of modern commentators, however, adopt the interpretation: "testest things that differ." So Weiss. Godet, Wilke (Clavis N. T.), Lange, Tholuck. Alford, Philippi. This interpretation has the advantage of following the original meaning of both verbs.-G. B. S.
3 Ei gar kai wrismenon hn, fhsin, omwj androfonoi hsan. b.c. after apall. tou egklhmatoj, and before the text. As the sentence so placed seemed to make Chrys. contradict himself, the other mss. and Edd. before Ben. omit it. Something is wanting, which perhaps may be supplied from Oecumen. 'Alla kai apallasswn ouk afihsin autouj panth tou egklhmatoj. 'Epagei gar, oti dia xeirwn anomwn aneilete.
4 In v. 23, the preferable reading is dia xeiroj anomwn, "through the hand of lawless men," instead of dia xeirwn anomwn of the Text. Recep. So A, B, C, D, Tisch. W. and H., Lach. Treg. R. V. This reading is also to be preferred in accordance with Bengel's first rule of text-criticism-Lectio difficilior principatum tenet.-G. B. S.
5 The confusion may be cleared up by supposing that Chrys. here commented upon the words dia xeirwn anomwn as admitting of a double connection: viz.: with ekdoton labontej and with prosp. aneilete. In the former, it refers to Judas: while at the same time, it is shown that of themselves they had no power against Him. He was delivered up by the predestination and will of God, by means of the wicked hands of Judas; upon whom (already gone to his doom) the evil is shifted entire. But again, as ekdoton is not put simply and without addition (aplwj), so neither (oude) is aneilete: but "by wicked hands ye slew," i. e. by the soldiers.
6 The text seems to be corrupt: kai auto didontoj estin ti: deiknusin oti. B. omits estin ti. Perhaps kai auto is derived from an abbreviation of krateisqai auton: and didontoj estin ti: may be, "is (the expression) of one assigning something. i.e. some special prerogative to Him:" or, possibly, "For the expression, Kaqoti ouk hn dunaton even of itself implies the granting of something (in His case):" viz. as a postulate. E. kai auton didonta emfainei katasxein: kai oti, i.e. "that it Was even He that gave death the power to hold Him:" this, which is adopted by Edd. is, however, not a various reading, but only an attempt to restore the passage. Oecumen. gives no assistance: he has only, dia de tou, kaqoti ouk hn dun. auton krat., to megaleion autou paristhsi, kai oti ouketi apoqnhskei. In the next sentence E. and Edd. have: "For by `pains of death0' Scripture is everywhere wont to express `danger:0'" but Oecumen. and Cat. agree with the old reading, h Palaia. Possibly the meaning of the whole passage may be somewhat as follows. "It is something great and sublime that Peter has darkly hinted in saying, `it was not possible that He should be holden of it.0' And the very expression kaqoti implies that there is something to be thought of (comp. Caren. in 1). Then, in the Old. Test., the expression wdinej qanatou means pains in which death is the agent; but here they are the pangs inflicted upon death itself, travailing in birth with Christ `the first-begotten from the dead.0' It shows then both that death could not endure to hold Him, and, that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more. For the assertion, etc. But then, without giving them time to ponder upon the meaning of what he has darkly hinted, he goes off to the Prophet," etc.-On the expression wdinaj luein Mr. Field, Index to Hom. in Matt. s. v., remarks, that "it is said sometimes of the childbearing woman herself, as p. 118. B., sometimes of the child born, as p. 375. A., sometimes of the person aiding in the delivery, as Job xxxix, 2. Hence the obscure passage Acts ii, 34 is to be explained. See Theophylact in 1."
7 It is noteworthy that this interpretation of wdinaj tou qanatou (24) is exactly that of Meyer who explains thus: "Death travailed in birth-throes even until the dead was raised again. With this event these pangs ceased, they were loosed; and because God had made Christ alive, God has loosed the pangs of death." Other interpretations are: (1) The snares or bands of death, on the ground that wdinej is used in the lxx. to translate the Hebrew lbx
(e. g. Ps. xviii. 5), which has this meaning. So Olsh. (2) That the pains of Jesus connected with the whole experience of death are meant. He is popularly conceived as enduring these pains until the resurrection when God loosed them, the conception being that he was under their power and constraint. We prefer this view. So Lechler, Gloag, Hackett.-G. B. S.
10 The passage iii. 1-8 considers four possible objections. (1) "This placing of Jews and Gentiles in the same condition, takes away all the theocratic prerogatives." (v. 1.) No, answers Paul, they have a great advantage as to light and privilege, though none as to righteousness. (v. 2.) (2) "They have the O. T. scriptures, you say; but what if those scriptures have not attained their end in bringing the Jews to believe in Jesus as the Messiah? If some have not believed, does not that render void God's promises to his people in the O. T., so that he is no longer bound by them?" (v. 3.) The answer is: "No, God is faithful to his promises in all conditions (v. 4). (3) "Then the unbelief of the Jews seems to be the occasion of eliciting God's faithfulness. The conclusion would be that falseness contributes to God's glory." To this Paul gives no specific reply but develops the argument so as to show that it leads to a (5) position: "Let us do evil that good may come." (v. 8.) He thinks it enough to exhibit the logical conclusion of such an objection. It is enough to know that it obliterates all moral distinctions and impugns the justice of God. Paul might have shown that from God's overruling of sin to his praise the approval of sin does not follow. But he is content to make it clear that the objection is inconsistent with a righteous judgment of the world.-G. B. S.
14 A practical, not a theoretical unbelief. It might he clearer to use the word "unfaithful" throughout, but that apistein is treated as the exact negative of pisteuein: in fact we cannot translate idiomatically all that either St. Paul or St. Chrysostom has to say of pistij, without using the three words "faith" "trust" and "belief" for it and its correlatives.
15 Field thinks that St. Chrysostom wrote "Therefore if, because we did despite to Him ...... was shown to be clear, why am I to be punished," etc.? Heyse would have "Then, since through our despite and wrong God became victorious. ...why," etc.?