Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Hebrews 12:1 - 12:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
From the ἡῶ …ἡῶ of the epilogue the writer now passes into a moving appeal to his readers (12:1f.).
1 Therefore (Τιαον as in 1Th_4:8), with all this host of witnesses encircling us, we (κὶἡες emphatic) must strip off sin with its clinging folds, to run our appointed course steadily (δʼὑοοῆ), 2 our eyes fixed upon Jesus as the pioneer and the perfection of faith—upon: Jesus who, in order to reach his own appointed joy, steadily endured (ὑέενν the cross, thinking nothing of its shame, and is now “seated at the right hand” of the throne of God.
The writer now returns to the duty of ὑοοήas the immediate exercise of πσι (10:36f.), the supreme inspiration being the example of Jesus (12:1-3) as the great Believer, who shows us what true πσι means, from beginning to end, in its heroic course (τνποεμννἡῖ ἀῶα
The general phraseology and idea of life as a strenuous ἀώ, in the Hellenic sense (see on 5:14), may be seen in many passages, e.g. Eurip. Orest. 846 f.:
πὸ δ Ἀγῖνοχτιλώ,
ψχςἀῶατνποεμννπρ
δσν ἐ ᾧζνἢθνῖ ὑᾶ χεν
Herod. viii. 102 (πλοςπλάι ἀῶα δαένα ο Ἕλνς and ix. 60 (ἀῶα μγσο ποεμνυἐεθρνενιἢδδυωέη τνἙλδ), and especially in 4 Mac 14:5 πνε (the seven martyrs), ὥπρἐʼἀααίςὁὸ τέοτς ἐὶτνδὰτνβσννθντνἔπυο, and Philo’s de migrat. Abrah. 24, κὶγρἉρὰ πσεσς“ἐγζι θῷ (Gen_18:23, cp. Heb_11:6) λγτι ἐνμνο πρυμνςμτ κμ (cp. Heb_12:3) μτ ῥθμσ, ὡ πρ ἑάεαἐταόεο (cp. Heb_12:13) παᾶθιτςμσςκὶεθτνῦ δαατνὀο, μμσμνςδ τὺ ἀαοςδοεςτ σάινἀτίτςἀύῃτῦβο, σεάω κὶἄλνἐαίντύεα πὸ τ τλςἐθν The figure is elaborately worked out in 4 Mac 17:11-14 (ἀηῶ γρἦ ἀὼ θῖςὁδʼατνγγνμνς ἠλθτιγρττ ἀεὴδʼὑοοῆ δκμζυα τ νκςἐ ἀθρί ἐ ζῇπλχοί. Ἐεζρδ πογνζτ·ἡδ μτρτνἑτ πίω ὲήλι ο δ ἀεφὶἠωίοτ·ὀτρνο ἀτγνζτ·ὁδ κσο κὶὁτνἀθώω βο ἐερι where the Maccabean martyrs are athletes of the true Law; but the imagery is more rhetorical and detailed than in Πὸ Ἑρίυ, where the author, with a passing touch of metaphor, suggests more simply and suggestively the same idea.
Ἔοτς…ἀοέεο …ἀοῶτς three participles with the verb after the second, as in Jud_1:20, Jud_1:21; but here the first, not the second, denotes the motive. Τσῦο1 (thrown forward, for emphasis) ἔοτςπρκίεο ἡῖ νφςμρύω. Μρύε here, in the light of 11:2, 4, 5, 39, denotes those who have borne personal testimony to the faith. Heaven is now crowded with these (12:23), and the record of their evidence and its reward enters into our experience. Such πεμτ δκίνττλιμννspeak to us (11:4) still; we are, or ought to be, conscious of their record, which is an encouragement to us (κὶἡες ἐʼἐχτυτνἡεῶ τύω (1:2). It is what we see in them, not what they see in us, that is the writer’s main point; πρκίεο suggests that the idea of them as witnesses of our struggle (see the quot. from 4 Mac, above) is not to be excluded, but this is merely suggested, not developed. Μρυ is already, as in Rev_2:13 etc., beginning to shade off into the red sense of “martyr” (cp. Kattenbusch in Zeitsch. fü neutest. Wissenschaft, 1903, pp. 111 f.; G. Krü ibid., 1916, pp. 264 f.; Reitzenstein in Hermes, 1917, pp. 442 f., and H. Delehaye in Analecta Bollandiana, 1921, pp. 20 f.), though the writer uses the word with a special application here, not as usually of the Christian apostles nor of the prophets, but of the heroes and heroines of the People in pre-Christian ages. He does not even call Jesus Christ μρυ (as does the author of the Johannine apocalypse).
The meaning of “witnesses of our ordeal” (i.e. spectators) is supported by passages like Epict. iv. 4. 31, οδὶ ἀὼ1 δχ θρβυγντι πλοςδῖπουνσὰ ενι πλος[τὺ] ἐιρυάοτς πλοςέιττς πλοςθαά, and particularly Longinus, de sublim. xiv. 2, who, in arguing that many people catch their inspiration from others, notes: τ γρὄτ μγ τ ἀώιμ, τιῦο ὑοίεθιτνἰίνλγνδκσήινκὶθαρν κὶἐ τλκύοςἥωικιαςτ κὶμρυι ὑέεντνγαοέω εθνςππῖθι In Educational Aims and Methods (p. 28), Sir Joshua Fitch writes: “There is a remarkable chapter in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which the writer unfolds to his countrymen what is in fact a National Portrait Gallery, as he enumerates, one by one, the heroes and saints of the Jewish history, and adds to his catalogue these inspiring words …[Heb_11:32-34]. And, finally, he draws this conclusion from his long retrospect …[Heb_12:1]. How much of the philosophy of history is condensed into that single sentence ! It is suggestive to us of the ethical purpose which should dominate all our historical teaching. To what end do we live in a country whose annals are enriched by the story of great talents, high endeavours and noble sacrifices, if we do not become more conscious of the possibilities of our own life, and more anxious to live worthily of the inheritance which has come down to us?”
Νφς(never in this sense in LXX) has its usual Greek meaning of “host” (Latin nimbus or nubes), as, e.g., in Herod. viii. 109, νφςτσῦοἀθώω. In ὄκνἀοέεο πνακὶτνεπρσαο ἁατα, ὄκνis thrown first for the sake of emphasis: “any encumbrance that handicaps us.” The conjecture ὄνν(P. Junius) is relevant, but superfluous; sloth is a hindrance, but the general sense of ὄκςin this connexion is quite suitable. Compare Apul. Apologia, 19 (“etenim in omnibus ad vitae munia utendis quicquid aptam moderationem supergreditur, oneri potius quam usui exuberat”), and the evening prayer of the Therapeutae (Philo, vit. Contempl. 3) to have their souls lightened from τῦτνασήενκὶασηῶ ὄκυ Ὄκςhad acquired in Greek literature the sense of pride, both bad and good, and it has been taken here (so sah = “having forsaken all pride”) as an equivalent for pride in the sense of conceit (fastus), as, e.g., by Bengel and Seeberg. But what the readers seem to have been in danger of was not arrogance so much as a tendency to grow disheartened. The metaphor is not “reducing our weight,” though ὄκςhad sometimes this association with fleshiness; it refers to the weight of superfluous things, like clothes, which would hinder and handicap the runner. Let us strip for the race, says the writer. Put unmetaphorically, the thought is that no high end like πσι is possible apart from a steady, unflinching resolve to do without certain things. What these encumbrances are the writer does not say (cp. 11:15, 25, 26); he implies that if people will set themselves to the course of faith in this difficult world, they will soon discover what hampers them. In κὶτνεπρσαο ἁατα, the article does not imply any specific sin like that of apostasy (v. 25); it is ἁαταin general, any sin that might lead to apostasy (e.g. v. 16). The sense of επρσαο can only be inferred from the context and from the analogy of similar compounds, for it appears to have been a verbal adjective coined by the writer; at any rate no instance of its use in earlier writers or in the papyri has been as yet discovered. As the phrase goes with ἀοέεο, the introductory κίlinking τν…ἁατα with ὄκν επρσαο probably denotes something like “circumstans nos” (vg), from πρϊτνι( = cingere). The ε is in any case intensive. Theophylact suggested “endangering” (δʼἣ εκλςτςεςπρσάεςἐππε·οδνγροτ κνυῶε ὡ ἁατα as though it were formed from πρσαι (distress or misery). Taken passively, it might mean (a) “popular,” or (b) “easily avoided,” or (c) “easily contracted.” (a) πρσαο may mean what people gather round (πρσαέ) to admire, as, e.g., in Isokrates, de Permut. 135 E, θυαοιαςτῖ …ὑὸτνἀοτνπρσάοςγνμνι, and επρσαο would then = “right popular.” This is at any rate more relevant and pointed than (b), from πρΐτμι which Chrysostom once suggested (τνεκλςπριτμννἡᾶ ἢτνεκλςπρσαι δνμννπθῖ: μλο δ τῦο ῥδο γρενθλμνπργνσα τςἁατα), though πρσαο does mean “admired,” and ἀείττςis sometimes, by way of contrast, “unsupported.” On the other hand, ἀείττςmay mean “unencumbered,” as in the contrast drawn by Maximus of Tyre (Diss. xx.) between the simple life (ἁλῦ βο κὶἀείττνκὶἐεθρα ἐήοο) and a life τ οχἁλ ἀλ ἀακί κὶπρσάενγμνι The former life he declares was that of the golden age, before men worried themselves with the encumbrances of civilization. In the light of this, επρσαο might mean “which sorely hinders” (i.e. active), a sense not very different from (vg) “circumstans nos,” or “which at all times is prepared for us” (syr). (c) is suggested by Theodoret, who rightly takes ἡἁαταas generic, and defines επρσαο as εκλςσνσαέη τ κὶγνμνν κὶγρὀθλὸ δλάεα, ἀο κτθλεα, ἁὴγραίεα, κὶγῶσ ῥσαδοιθίε, κὶὁλγσὸ πρ τ χῖο ὀύῥπς But “easily caught” is hardly tense enough for the context. Wetstein, harking back to πρσαο and πρσαι, connects the adjective with the idea of the heroic onlookers. “Peccatum uestrum seu defectio a doctrina Christi non in occulto potest committi et latere; non magis quam lapsus cursoris, sed conspicietur ab omnibus. Cogitate iterum, spectatores adesse omnes illos heroas, quorum constantiam laudaui, quo animo uidebunt lapsum uestrum? qua fronte ante oculos ipsorum audebitis tale facinus committere?” But “open” or “conspicuous” is, again, too slight and light a sense. If any conjecture had to be accepted, επρσατνwould be the best. Cp. the schol. on Iliad, ii. 183 (ἀὸδ χαννβλ), χαν ττάωο χαὺ ἡεςὀὺλγυα ἀέαεδ ατνδὰτ επρσατν Hence Bentley’s note: “Lego τνὑὲ ἱαὸ ἀατα …immo potius επρσατνἁατα.” In Soph. Ajax, 821, the hero says of the sword on which he is about to fall, “I have fixed it in the ground, ε πρσελς right carefully.” The verbal adjective would therefore mean, in this connexion, “close-clinging,” while ἀατα ( = burden) would be practically a synonym for ὄκν
Τέωε …ἀοῶτς for the motive-power in life comes from inward convictions. What inspires Christians to hold out and to endure is their vision of the unseen (cp. Herodian, v. 6, 7, ὁδ Ἀτννςἔε …ἔ τ τνθὸ ἀολπνκὶτὺ χλνὺ ἀτχντνἵπν πσντ τνὁὸ ἤυ τέω ἔπλνἑυο ἀοῶ τ εςτ πόθντῦθο), as the writer has already shown (11:1f.). Τνποεμννἡῖ ἀῶαis built on the regular (p. 193) phrase for a course being set or assigned; e.g. Lucian in de Mercede Conduct. 11, σὶδ ὁὑὲ τςψχςἀὼ κὶὑὲ ἅατςτῦβο ττ ποεσα δκῖ Plato’s Laches, 182a, ο γρἀῶο ἀλτίἐμνκὶἐ οςἡῖ ὁἀὼ πόετικλ and Josephus, Ant. viii. 12, 3, ο ποεμννατῖ ἄλν ἐὰ πρ τ σοδσσν ο δαεπυιπρ τύʼἐεγῦτς For ἀοῶτςες(v. 2), see Epictetus, ii. 19, where the philosopher says he wishes to make his disciples free and happy, εςτνθὸ ἀοῶτςἐ πνὶκὶμκῷκὶμγλ. An almost exact parallel occurs in the epitaph proposed by the author of 4 Mac (17:10) for the Maccabean martyrs, ο κὶἐείηα τ ἔνςεςθὸ ἀοῶτςκὶμχιθντυτςβσνυ ὑοεννε. Ἀοᾶ implies the same concentrated1 attention as ἀολπι (see on 11:26): “with no eyes for any one or anything except Jesus.” Ἰσῦ comes at the end of the phrase, as in 2:9, and especially 3:1; the terms τντςπσεςἀχγνκὶτλιτνdescribe him as the perfect exemplar of πσι in his earthly life (cp. 2:13), as the supreme pioneer (ἀχγςas in 2:10, though here as the pioneer of personal faith, not as the author of our faith) and the perfect embodiment of faith (τλιτς a term apparently coined by the writer). He has realized faith to the full, from start to finish. Τλιτςdoes not refer to τλιθσνin 11:40; it does not imply that Jesus “perfects” our faith by fulfilling the divine promises.
In ὃ ἀτ τςποεμνςατ χρς the χρ is the unselfish joy implied in 2:8, 9, “that fruit of his self-sacrifice which must be presupposed in order that the self-sacrifice should be a reasonable transaction. Self-sacrificing love does not sacrifice itself but for an end of gain to its object; otherwise it would be folly. Does its esteeming as a reward that gain to those for whom it suffers, destroy its claim to being self-sacrifice? Nay, that which seals its character as self-sacrificing love is, that this to it is a satisfying reward” (M’Leod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, p. 23). As Epictetus bluntly put it, ενμ ἐ τ ατ ᾖτ εσβςκὶσμέο, ο δντισθνιτ εσβςἔ τν (i. 27, 14). So, in the Odes of Solomon 31:8-12, Christ says:
“They condemned me when I stood up …
But I endured and held my peace,
that I might not be moved by them.
But I stood unshaken like a firm rock,
that is beaten by the waves and endures.
And I bore their bitterness for humility’s sake;
that I might redeem my people and inherit it.”
Hence ἀτ (as in v. 16 ἀτ βώες cp. Plato’s Menex. 237 A, ἄδα ἀαοςἐανῦτς ο …τντλυὴ ἀτ τςτνζνω στρα ἠλξνο means, “to secure.” The sense of ποεμνς(cp. v. 1) tells against the rendering of ἀτ …χρςas “instead of the joy which had been set before him,” as though the idea were that of 11:25-26, either the renunciation of his preincarnate bliss (so Wetstein, von Soden, Windisch, Goodspeed, etc., recently), or the renunciation of joy in the incarnate life (so Chrysostom, Calvin), i.e. the natural pleasure of avoiding the way of the cross. This is a Pauline idea (2Co_8:9, Php_2:6, Php_2:7), which the writer might have entertained; but (p. l) he never hints at it elsewhere, and the other interpretation tallies with the idea of 2:8, 9. Inspired by this, Jesus ὑέεν (+ τν p13 D*) σαρν as we might say in English “a cross.” Aristotle (Nik. Eth. ix. 1, 2) declares that courage is praiseworthy just because it involves pain, χλπτρνγρτ λπρ ὑοέενἢτ ἡένἀέεθι no doubt the end in view is pleasant (τ κτ τνἀδεα τλςἡύ cp. Heb_12:11), but the end is not always visible. In ασύη κτφοήα it is not the horrible torture of the crucifixion, but its stinging indignity (cp. Gal_3:13 for an even darker view), which is noted as a hard thing; it was a punishment for slaves and criminals, for men of whom the world felt it was well rid (cp. 11:38a). But Jesus did not allow either the dread or the experience of this to daunt him. He rose above “indignity and contumely, that is to say, all that would most touch that life which man has in the favour of man, and which strikes more deeply than physical infliction, because it goes deeper than the body—wounding the spirit” (M ’Leod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, pp. 229, 230). Musonius (ed. Hense, x.) defined ὕρςor ασύηas οο λιοηῆα ἢπηῆα ἥἐπυθνι ὧ τ χλπττνπηα. But the special ασύηhere is that of crucifixion. This, says the writer, Jesus did not allow to stand between him and loyalty to the will of God. It is one thing to be sensitive to disgrace and disparagement, another thing to let these hinder us from doing our duty. Jesus was sensitive to such emotions; he felt disgrace keenly. But instead of allowing these feelings to cling to his mind, he rose above them. This is the force of κτφοήα here, as in the last clause of St. Philip of Neri’s well-known maxim, “Spernere mundum, spernere te ipsum, spernere te sperni.” It is the only place in the NT where κτφοενis used in a good sense (true and false shame are noted in Sir 4:20, 21 πρ τςψχςσυμ ασυθς ἔτνγρασύηἐάοσ ἁατα, κὶἔτνασύηδξ κὶχρς The climax is put in one of the writer’s favourite quotations from the psalter; only this time he uses κκθκν(perfect here alone for the more usual aorist, 1:3, 8:1, 10:12) = and so has entered on his χρ.
Jesus thus had to suffer worse than anything you have had to bear; this is the thought of vv. 3, 4, which round off the first movement of the appeal in 12:1f.:—
3 Compare him who steadily endured (ὑοεεηόα all that hostility from sinful men, so as to keep your own hearts from fainting and failing. 4 You have not had to shed blood yet in the struggle against sin.
The writer assumes, as in 5:7f., a close knowledge of the Passion story. Before proceeding to argue that suffering is a fruitful discipline, with which God honours them (v. 5f.), he reminds them that as yet they have not had to face the worst (v. 4). The metaphor of the race-course dies away into the general military metaphor of v. 4, where ἁαταis half-personified as in 3:13, Ἀαοίαθ1 (the γρis corroborative: “yes, ἀαοίαθ” κλ is more than κτνήαε(3:1): “consider him and compare his treatment at the hands of these sinners (ἁατλνas in Mar_14:41) with what you are called to suffer.” Τιύη echoes σαρνand ασύη, and is explained by μχι αμτςin the next verse, while ὑοεεηόαis another aoristic perfect like κκθκν
Ἀτλγα is used here of active opposition, as in Ps Sol 17:44 (ῥσίμ ἐ ἀτλγῶ λο), where א R read ἀτλγα, and in the papyri (e.g. TebtP 138 [ii b.c.] ἀτλγά μχν Like the verb (cp. Joh_19:12, Rom_10:21), the noun covers more than verbal opposition, as in Num_20:13 and Jud_1:11τ ἀτλγᾳτῦΚρ. The words εςατν(or ἑυό, A P syrhkl etc.: in semetipsum, vg.) have no special emphasis; all the writer means to say is that Jesus himself, Jesus in his own person, had to encounter malevolent opposition.
This is one of the places at which textual corruption began early. The curious v. l. ἑυοςfinds early support in א D* (ατύ, p13 א 33, 256, 1288, 1319*, 1739, 2127 Lat syrvg boh Orig.); p13 א and D* go wrong here as in 11:35, D* and Lat as at 11:23 (insertion). It is extremely unlikely that the reading arose from a recollection of passages like Num_16:37 (Korah, Dathan, and Abiram) ἡίσντ πρῖ τνἁατλντύω ἐ (i.e. at the cost of) τῖ ψχῖ ατν or Pro_8:35 ο δ εςἐὲἁατννε ἀεοσνεςτςἑυῶ ψχς The notion that an evil-doer really injured himself was a commonplace (e.g. M. Aurel. 9:4 ὁἁατννἐυῷἁατνι ὁἀιῶ ἑυὸ ἀιε, the remark of Chrysippus quoted by Plutarch in de Stoic. repugn. xvi., ἀιεσα ὑʼἑυο τνἀιονακὶατνἀιεν ὅα ἄλνἀιῇ Aristotle in Magn Moral. 1196a, ὁἄατῦαμ πάτνἀιε ατν and Xen. Hellen. i. 7, 19, ἡατκτςτ μγσαεςθοςτ κὶὑᾶ ατύ); Philo works it out in quod Deu_15:16. But there is no point in suggesting here, as this reading does, that the ἁατλίwere acting against their better selves, unconsciously injuring their own souls, as they maltreated Jesus. The writer deals with sin in a more straightforward and direct way, and, in spite of all arguments to the contrary (e.g. by Westcott, von Soden, Seeberg, Peake, Wickham), this seems a far-fetched idea here. It is like the similar interpretation of ἑυοςin 10:34, a piece of irrelevant embroidery; it “looks like the conceit which some reader wrote upon his margin” (A. B. Davidson). Theodoret took εςἑυοςwith ἀαοίαθ = “think to yourselves.” Which is not natural, though the Ethiopic version follows this interpretation. In some early versions (e. g. sah arm) neither εςἑυό nor εςἑυοςseems to be implied.
In ἵα…ἐλόεο, ἐλόεο (ἐλλμνιp13 D*) might go with τῖ ψχῖ ὑῶ (cp. Polybius, xx. 4, 7, ο μνντῖ σμσνἐεύηα, ἀλ κὶτῖ ψχῖ), as readily as κμτ (cp. Job_10:1 κμωδ τ ψχ μυ Both verbs connect with it, to express the general sense of inward exhaustion and faint-heartedness; indeed, Aristotle uses both to describe runners relaxing and collapsing, once the goal has been passed: ἐὶτῖ κμτρι (at the goal of the race, not till then) ἐπέυικὶἐλοτι πορνε γρτ πρςο κμοσ πόεο (Rhet. iii. 9 2). In v. 4 οπ (γρis superfluously added by D L 440, 491, 823 arm sah boh) κλdoes not necessarily imply that they would be called upon to shed their blood in loyalty to their faith, as if martyrdom was the inevitable result of tenacity. Nor is the writer blaming them; he does not mean to suggest that if they had been truly decided for God against the world, they would by this time have suffered μχι αμτς He is shaming them, not blaming them. “Your sufferings have been serious and sharp (10:32f.), but nothing to what others before you, and especially Jesus, have had to bear. Will you give way under a lesser strain than theirs?” The coming of the messiah was to be heralded by birth-pangs of trouble for his adherents on earth, and it might be supposed that the writer implies here: “The Coming One (10:37) is near (12:26), as is evident from your woes; do not fail, but be ready for him.” But this line of thought is not worked out elsewhere by the writer, and is not necessary to his argument at this point. To fight μχι αμτςis to resist to the death; cp. the cry of Judas Maccabaeus to his troops (2 Mac 13:14), ἀωίαθιμχιθντυ Μχι αμτςhas the same meaning of a mortal combat, e.g. in Heliod. vii. 8, τςμχι αμτςσάες
Note another case of rhetorical alliteration in αμ ἀτκ…ἁατ ἀτγνζμνι(cp. Clem. Hom. iv. 5, πὸ τσύη δνμνἀτγν ίαθι and the use of ἀτγνζσα above (v. 1) in the quot. from 4 Mac.
The connexion of thought in vv. 5f, is: God has not yet asked from you the supreme sacrifice (v. 4), and, besides (vv. 5f.), any demand he makes upon your courage is in your highest interests.
5And have you forgotten the word of appeal that reasons with you as sons?—
“My son, never make light of the Lord’s discipline,
never faint (ἐλο) under his reproofs;
6for the Lord disciplines the man he loves,
and scourges every son he receives.”
7It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for where is the son who is not disciplined by his father? 8Discipline is the portion (μτχιγγνσ, as 3:14) of all; if you get no discipline, then you are not sons, but bastards. 9Why, we had fathers of our flesh to discipline us, and we yielded to them! Shall we not far more submit to the Father of our spirits, and so live? 10For while their discipline was only for a time, and inflicted at their pleasure, he disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his own holiness. 11 Discipline always seems for the time to be a thing of pain, not of joy; but those who are trained by it reap the fruit of it afterwards in the peace of an upright life.
With the interrogative κὶἐλλσεκλ(v. 5) the writer opens his next argument and appeal. All such ὑοοήmeans a divine πιεαor moral training, which we have the honour of receiving from God. Instead of adducing the example of Jesus, however (see on 5:7, 8), he quotes from the book of Proverbs (vv. 5, 6), and then applies the general idea (vv. 7-11). Ἐλνάεθι(not a LXX term) in v. 5; is slightly stronger than the more common ἐιαθνσα, though it may be rhetorically chosen for the sake of assonance after ἐλόεο. The πρκηι is personified rhetorically; Ἥι (2:3) ὑῖ (for the scripture applies to all believers) ὡ υοςδαέεα. It is the πρκηι of God, who speaks as a father to his son (υέμυ though in the original “son” is merely the pupil of the sage (personifying the divine wisdom). Πρκηι in Alexandrian Judaism “is the regular term for ‘an appeal’ to an individual to rise to the higher life of philosophy” (Conybeare’s ed. of Philo’s de vit. Contempl., p. 201). The quotation is from Pro_3:11, Pro_3:12 (A):
υέ μ ὀιώε πιεα Κρο,
μδ ἐλο ὑʼατῦἐεχμνς
ὃ γρἀαᾷΚρο πιεε (ἐέχι Β
μσιο δ πναυὸ ὃ πρδχτι
After υέ μυis added (except by D* 31 Old Latin, Clem.), but otherwise the citation is word for word. Philo (De Congressu. Erud. 31) quotes the same passage to prove that discipline and hardship are profitable for the soul (οτςἄαἡἐίλξςκὶνυεί κλνννμσα, ὥτ δʼατςἡπὸ θὸ ὁοοί σγέεαγντι τ γροκιτρνυῷπτὸ ἢυο πτί). The LXX contains a double mistranslation. (a) It is at least doubtful if the Hebrew text of the second line means “be not weary of”; the alternative is a parallel to the first line, “scorn not.” (b) It is certain that the second line of v. 6; originally ran, “he afflicts the man in whom he delights,” or “and delights in him as a father in his son.” Our writer, following the free LXX version, notes the twofold attitude of men under hardship. They may determine to get through it and get over it, as if it had no relation to God, seeing nothing of him in it. Stronger natures take this line; they summon up a stoical courage, which dares the world to do its worst to them. This is ὀιωενπιεα κρο. It ignores any divine meaning in the rough experience. Other natures collapse weakly (ἐλεν they see God in the trial, but he seems too hard upon them, and they break down in self-pity, as if they were victims of an unkind providence. Ἐεχμνς…πιεε is used, as in Rev_3:19 (ὅοςἐνφλ ἐέχ κὶπιεω of pointing out and correcting faults; μσιο, as in Judith 8:27 (εςνυέηι μσιο Κρο τὺ ἐγζνα ατ) and often elsewhere; πρδχτι in the sense of Luk_15:2. In fact, the temper inculcated in this passage resembles that of Ps.-Sol 16:11f., where the writer prays:
γγυμνκὶὀιουίνἐ θίε μκυο ἀʼἐο,
ενἁατσ ἐ τ σ πιεενεςἐιτοή …
ἐ τ ἐέχσα ψχνἐ χιὶσπίςατς…
ἐ τ ὑοενιδκινἐ τύοςἐεθστιὑὸκρο.
In εςπιεα ὑοέεε(v. 7), with which the writer begins his application of the text, the vigour is lost by the change of εςinto ε (in a group of late cursives, including 5, 35, 203, 226c, 241, 242, 257, 337, 378, 383, 487, 506, 547, 623, 794, 917, 1319, 1831, 1891, 1898, 2127, 2143 + Theophyl.), and ὑοέεεis indicative, not imperative.1 To endure rightly, one must endure intelligently; there is a reason for it in God’s relations with us (ὡ υοςὑῖ ποφρτι Ποφρτι(cp. Syll. 371:13, i. a.d.) is a non-biblical Greek term for “treating” or “handling” (“tractare, agere cum”); cp. Syll. 371:13, i a.d., and Latyschev’s Inscript. Antiq. Orae Septentrionalis, I. 22:28 τῖ μνἡιιτι ποφρμνςὡ ἀεφς…τῖ δ πιὶ ὡ πτρ τςgoes with υό, as in Mat_7:9 (τςἐτνἐ ὑῶ ἄθωο) etc., and ἐτνafter υό is rightly omitted by א A P W 104, 256 vg sah Origen.
A mood of bitter scepticism about the discipline of providence recurs in some contemporary Roman writers; both Lucan (Pharsalia, iv. 807 f., “Felix Roma quidem, civesque habitura beatos, | si libertatis superis tam cura placeret | quam uindicta placet”) and Tacitus (Hist. I.3, “nec enim umquam atrocioribus populi Romani cladibus magisve iustis indiciis adprobatum est non esse curae deis securitatem nostram, esse ultionem”) speak as if the gods showed an unpaternal vindictiveness. But the idea of a fatherly providence was far-spread, both within and without Judaism. When our author argues: “You think that if God were fatherly, he would spare you these hardships? On the contrary, they are the proof of his wise affection”—he is not far from Seneca’s position (in the de Providentia, iv. 7): “hos itaque deus quos probat, quos amat, indurat recognoscit, exercet.” And in 2 Mac 6:12 the author bids his readers remember τςτμρα μ πὸ ὄερν ἀλ πὸ πιίντῦγνυ ἡῶ ενι According to Sanhedr. 101a (cp. Sifre, Deu_32), Rabbi Akiba comforted R. Eliezer on his sick-bed by explaining to him that “chastisements are precious,” whereas the other three rabbis who accompanied him had only praised the sick man for his piety. There is a fine passage in Philo’s quad deter. potiori insid. soleat, 39-40, where he argues that discipline at God’s hands is better than being left to oneself in sin and folly; ετχσεο δ κὶκετοςτνἀειρπύω νω ο μλσαμνἐιτσα κὶἀχςἀιθνε φσκς ἣ ο γνήατςἐὶτκοςκκήωτι…ἱεεωε οντνθὸ ο σνιήε τνοκίνἀιηάω ἐεχμνι κλσιἡᾶ μλο ἢπρῖα. Similarly, in de sacrificantibus, 11, he writes of parental care, human and divine, apropos of Deu_14:1 (υο ἐτ κρῳτ θῷὑῳ) δλντ ποοα κὶκδμνα ἀιθσμνιτςὡ ἐ πτό·ἡδ ἐιέεατσῦο δοσιτςἀʼἀθώω ὅοπρ ομι κὶὁἐιεομνςδαέε. Compare M. Aur. i. 17, τ ἄχνικὶπτὶὑοαθνι ὃ ἔελ πνατντφνἀαρσι μυ(cp. 5:31). When the king asks, in the Epist. Arist. 248, what is the supreme instance of neglect (ἀέεα the Jew answers, ε τκω ἄρνί τςεη κὶμ κτ πνατόο ἀαενσεδι…τ δ ἐιεσα πιεα σφούη μτσεν θο δνμιτῦογντι
Jerome writes in his letter (Epist. xxii. 39) to Eustochium: “haec est sola retributio, cum sanguis sanguine conpensatur et redempti cruore Christi pro redemptore libenter occumbimus. quis sanctorum sine certamine coronatus est? Abel justus occiditur; Abraham uxorem periclitatur amittere, et, ne in inmensum uolumen extendam, quaere et invenies singulos diuersa perpessos. solus in deliciis Salomon fuit et forsitan ideo corruit. quem enim diligit dominus, corripit; castigat autem omnem filium, quem recipit.” He often quotes this verse (6) in his letters of counsel and warning. Thus in 68:1 he prefixes it with the remark, “magna ira est, quando peccantibus non irascitur deus.” The modern parallel would be Browning’s hero in Christmas-Eve and Easter-Day (pt. 2, xxxiii.), who is
“happy that I can
Be crossed and thwarted as a man,
Not left in God’s contempt apart,
With ghastly smooth life.”
In v. 8 πνε (sc. υο γήιι recalls πναυό (v. 6). Νθιare children born out of wedlock, who are left to themselves; the father is not sufficiently interested in them to inflict on them the discipline that fits his legitimate children for their place in the home. Νθς(not a LXX term) seems to mean born of mixed marriages, in Wis 4:3 (cp. Aristoph. Birds, 1650-1652, νθςγρε κὐγήις…ὤ γ ξνςγνιό). So Philo compares polytheists and lovers of material pleasure to τνἐ πρη ἀουθνω (de Confus. ling. 28), as distinguished from the sons of God. The double ἔτ (not ἦε makes the sentence more vivid; the writer supposes an actual case. In vv. 9, 10 the writer simply develops this idea of πιεα comparing the human and the divine methods. Hence ετ cannot mean here “further” (deinde); it is “besides,” in the sense that it brings out another element in the conception.
Ετ might be taken interrogatively ( = itane or siccine), to introduce an animated question (as often in Plato, e.g. Leges, 964b, Theat. 207d, Sophist. 222b), though we should expect a δ in the second clause here or a κίbefore ο πλ μλο. Kypke suggests that ετ = ε δ (quodsi) as, e.g., in Jos. B.J. iii. 8, 5, ετ ἂ μνἀαίῃτςἀθώο πρκτθκν ἢδάηα κκς
Πιετςonly occurs once in the LXX, and there as a description of God (Hos_5:2 ἐὼδ πιετςὑῶ); in 4 Mac 9:6 (ὁπιετςγρν it is applied to a man, as in Rom_2:20. Κὶἐερπμθ (“reverebamur,” vg), we submitted respectfully to them (the object of the verb being πτρς as in Mat_21:37, not, we amended our ways (as in LXX, e.g. 2Ch_7:14 and Philo’s quaest. in Gen. iv. 9 τ μ ἁατνι μδντ πρμγσο ἀαό·τ ἁατνναἐταῆα σγέε ἐενυ In ο πλ μλο, the more common πλῷis read by Dc K L, and after πλ a few authorities (p13 א D* 1739 Origen) supply the δ which is strictly required after the preceding μν The description of God as τ πτὶτνπεμτνis unexpected. In the vocabulary of Hellenistic Judaism God is called ὁτνπεμτνκὶπσςἐοσα δνση (2 Mac 3:24), and “Lord of spirits” is a favourite Enochic title; but “spirits” here cannot mean angels (cp. Num_16:22). The contrast between τὺ τςσρὸ πτρςand τ πτὶτνπεμτνdenotes God as the author of man’s spiritual being; the expression is quite intelligible as a statement of practical religion, and is only rendered ambiguous when we read into it later ideas about traducianism and creationism, which were not in the writer’s mind. Shall we not submit to Him, the writer asks, κὶζσμν(cp. 10:38 ζστι “Monemur hoc verbo nihil esse nobis magis exitiale quam si nos in Dei obsequium tradere recusemus” (Calvin). In v. 10 the assumption that the readers were mature men (εχμν v. 9) is made explicit by πὸ ὀία ἡέα (till we became men). Πό here, as in Wis 16:6 (εςνυείνδ πὸ ὀίο ἐαάθσν etc., means duration; it is not final, as if the parental discipline were with a view to the short, earthly life alone. Κτ τ δκῦ ατῖ (as they chose) refers to the arbitrariness of the patria potestas. “Parents may err, but he is wise,” as the Scottish metrical paraphrase puts it.
The writer has in mind the familiar patria potestas of the Romans, as in Terence’s Heauton Timoroumenos (100: “vi et via pervolgata patrum”; 204-207: “parentum iniuriae unius modi sunt ferme …atque haec sunt tamen ad virtutem omnia”), where one father is confessing to another how he had mishandled his boy (99 f.: “ubi rem rescivi, coepi non humanitus neque ut animum decuit aegrotum adulescentuli tractare”). Compare the remark of the Persian officer in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia (ii. 2, 14), who argued that a man who set himself to make people laugh did less for them than a man who made them weep, and instanced fathers—καμσ μνγ κὶπτρςυοςσφούη μχννα. This is wholesome correction. But it was not always so. “Qur postremo filio suscenseam, patres ut faciunt ceteri?” old Demaenetus asks, in the Asinaria (49) of Plautus. Ovid’s “durus pater” (Amores, i. 15, 17) was more than a tradition of literature. Pliny tells us, for example, that he had once to remonstrate with a man who was thrashing his son for wasting money on horses and dogs (Epp. ix. 2): “haec tibi admonitus immodicae seueritatis exemplo pro amore mutuo scripsi, ne quando tu quoque filium tuum acerbius duriusque tractares.” There is also the story told by Aelian (Var. Hist. 9:33) about the youth who, when asked by his father what he had learned from Zeno, was thrashed for failing to show anything definite, and then calmly replied that he had learned stoically to put up with a father’s bad temper (ἔημμθκνιφρι ὀγνπτρνκὶμ ἀαατῖ). Son, says Dio Chrysostom (xv. 240 M), τέοτιπνε ὑὸτνπτρνκὶπίνα πλαι ὑʼατν The general point of view is put by Epictetus (Enchiridion, 30, πτρἐτν ὑαοεεα ἐιεεσα, πρχρῖ ἁάτν ἀέεθιλιοονο, πίνο), and the connexion of “life” with πιεαin Pro_4:13 ἐιαο ἐῆ πιεα, μ ἀῆ, ἀλ φλξνατνσατ εςζή συ Pro_6:23 λχο ἐτλ νμυκὶφς κὶὁὸ ζῆ κὶἔεχςκὶπιεα and Sir 4:17f.
Now for the contrast. Ὁδ (God; sc. πιεε ἡᾶ) ἐὶτ σμέο (cp. 1Co_12:7; Ep. Arist. 125, σμολυνω πὸ τ σμέο τνφλν which is explained in εςτ μτλβῖ (cp. 6:7) τςἁιττςατῦ Ἁιτςis a rare term, which begins to appear late in Hellenistic Judaism (e.g. 2 Mac 15:2 τῦπναἐοῶτςμθ ἁίττς Test. Lev_3:4 ὑεάωπσςἁιττς and, except as a v.l. in 2Co_1:12, occurs nowhere else in the NT. Here it denotes the divine life, to share in which is the outcome of ὁἁισὸ ο χρςοδὶ ὄεα (i.e. have a direct experience of) τνκρο (v. 14). The writer, in this contrast, is simply arguing that the divine education, which involves some suffering, as all πιεαdoes, is more worthy of obedience from mature people than even the parental discipline to which, for all its faults of temper, they submitted during childhood. The sayings of Isokrates, that while the roots of πιεαwere bitter, its fruits were sweet, was a commonplace of ancient morals; the writer is going to develop it in a moment. Meantime he alludes to the equally well-known truth that πιεαmight involve severe physical treatment.
Two examples may be added of this doctrine that education involves a discipline which sometimes requires the infliction of pain. Maximus of Tyre (Diss. iv. 7), in arguing that the desire to give pleasure is by no means an invariable proof of true affection, asks: φλῦι δ πυκὶπῖα πτρςκὶδδσαο μθτς κὶτ ἃ εηἀιρτρνἢπιὶπτρκὶμθτ δδσαο; so Philo argues in de Migrat. Abrah. 20, σφοιτνὡ ἔιετῦόἐτ τ ἔο, πιαωῶ, δδσάω, γνω, πεβτρν ἀχνω, νμν ὀεδζνε γρ ἔτ δ ὅο κὶκλζνε ἕατιτύω ἀενυ τςψχςἀεγζνα τνπιεοέω. κὶἐθὸ μνοδὶ οδν, φλιδ πσ πνε. In de parent. Col_4, he explains, δὰτῦʼἔετ τῖ πτάικὶκτγρῖ πὸ τὺ πῖα κὶἐβιέτρννυεενκὶ ε μ τῖ δʼἀονἀελῖ ὑεκυι τπενκὶποηαίενκὶκτδῖ.
In v. 11 the writer sums up what he has been saying since v. 5. Discipline or πιεαπὸ τ πρν(a classical Greek phrase = for the moment, e.g. Thuc. ii. 22, ὁῶ ατὺ πὸ τ πρνχλπίοτς ο (πς…ο = absolute negative, not any) δκῖ(to human feelings and judgment) χρςενιἀλ λπς(to be a matter of, ενιwith gen. as in 10:39).
Πσ μνא P 33, 93) and πσ δ (p13 א A Dc H K L Ψ6, 326, 929. 1288, 1836 vg syr boh Chrys. etc.) practically mean the same thing, for the μνis concessive (“of course”) and δ is metabatic. But probably it was the awkwardness of the double μνthat led to the alteration of this one. The other readings, πσ γρ(Cosm (221 C) Jer. Aug.) and πσ (D* 104 460 917 arm eth Orig. Cosm (376 D)) are obviously inferior attempts to clear up the passage.
῞σεο δ (cp. Pro_5:3, Pro_5:4 (of the harlot) ἣπὸ κιὸ λπίε σνφργα ὕτρνμνο πκόεο χλςερσι), but later on discipline yields fruit; it is not a stone flung down arbitrarily on human life, but a seed. By κρὸ ερνκνδκισνςthe writer means fr