Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Hebrews 5:1 - 5:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
He now (5:1-10) for the first time begins to explain the qualifications of the true ἀχεες
(a) First, he must be humane as well as human:
1 Every highpriest who is selected from men and appointed to act on behalf of men in things divine, offering gifts and sacrifices for sin, 2 can deal gently with those who err through ignorance, since he himself is beset with weakness—3 which obliges him to present offerings for his own sins as well as for those of the People.
(b) Second, he must not be self-appointed.
4 Also, it is an office which no one elects to take for himself; he is called to it by God, just as Aaron was.
The writer now proceeds to apply these two conditions to Jesus, but he takes them in reverse order, beginning with (b).
5 Similarly Christ was not raised to the glory of the priesthood by himself, but by Him who declared to him,
“Thou art my son,
to-day have I become thy father.”
6 Just as elsewhere (ἐ ἑέῳ sc. τπ) he says,
“Thou art a priest for ever, with the rank of Melchizedek.”
He then goes back to (a):
7 In the days of his flesh, with bitter cries and tears, he offered prayers and supplications to Him who was able to save him from death; and he was heard, because of his godly fear. 8 Thus, Son though he was, he learned by (ἀʼὧ = ἀὸτύω ἅ all he suffered how to obey, 9 and by being thus perfected he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, 10 being designated by God highpriest “with the rank of Melchizedek.”
Πςγρἀχεες(dealing only with Hebrew highpriests, and only with what is said of them in the LXX) ἐ ἀθώω λμαόεο (Num_8:6 λβ τὺ Λυία ἐ μσυυῶ Ἰρή) κθσαα—passive, in the light of 7:28 (ὁνμςγρἀθώοςκθσηι ἀχεεςἔοτςἀθνιν and of the Philonic usage (e.g. de vit. Mosis ii., II, τ μλοτ ἀχεε κθσαθι The middle may indeed be used transitively, as, e.g., in Eurip. Supplic. 522 (πλμνδ τῦο οκἐὼκθσαα), and is so taken here by some (e.g. Calvin, Kypke). But τ πὸ τνθό is an adverbial accusative as in 2:17, not the object of κθσαα in an active sense. In δρ τ κὶθσα, here as in 8:3 and 9:9, the writer goes back to the LXX (A) rendering of 1 K 8:64 (κὶτ δρνκὶτςθσα). The phrase recurs in Ep. Aristeas, 234 (ο δρι οδ θσας and is a generic term for sacrifices or offerings, without any distinction. The early omission of τ (B Db K Lat boh pesh) was due to the idea that θσα should be closely connected with ἁατῶ (“ut offerat dona, et sacrificia pro peccatis,” vg). Instead of writing εςτ ποφρι, our author departs from his favourite construction of εςwith the infinitive and writes ἵαποφρ, in order to introduce μτιπθῖ δνμνς This, although a participial clause, contains the leading idea of the sentence. The ἀχεεςis able to deal gently with the erring People whom he represents, since he shares their ἀθνι, their common infirmity or liability to temptation.
Μτιπθῖ in v. 2 is a term coined by ethical philosophy. It is used by Philo to describe the mean between extravagant grief and stoic apathy, in the case of Abraham’s sorrow for the death of his wife (τ δ μσνπὸτνἄρνἑόεο μτιπθῖ, De Abrah. 44); so Plutarch (Consol. ad Apoll. 22) speaks of τςκτ φσνἐ τιύοςμτιπθίς But here it denotes gentleness and forbearance, the moderation of anger in a person who is provoked and indignant—as in Plut. de Cohib. ira, 10, ἀατσιδ κὶσσι κὶφίαθικὶκρεῆα, παττςἐτ κὶσγνμςκὶμτιπθίς Josephus (Ant. xii. 3:2) praises this quality in Vespasian and Titus (μτιπθσνω), who acted magnanimously and generously towards the unruly Jews; Dionysius Halicarnassus accuses Marcius (Ant. 8. 529) of lacking τ εδάλκο κὶμτιπθς ὁόεδʼὀγςτ γνιο And so on. The term is allied to πατς The sins of others are apt to irritate us, either because they are repeated or because they are flagrant; they excite emotions of disgust, impatience, and exasperation, and tempt us to be hard and harsh (Gal_6:1). The thought of excess here is excessive severity rather than excessive leniency. The objects of this μτιπθῖ are τῖ ἀνοσνκὶπαωέος i.e., people who sin through yielding to the weaknesses of human nature. For such offenders alone the piacula of atonement-day (which the writer has in mind) availed. Those who sinned ἑοσω (10:26), not ἀοσω, were without the pale; for such presumptuous sins, which our writer regards specially under the category of deliberate apostasy (3:12, 10:26), there is no pardon possible. The phrase here is practically a hendiadys, for τῖ ἐ ἀνίςπαωέος the People err through their ἄνι. Thus ἀνενbecomes an equivalent for ἁατνι (Sir 23:2 etc.), just as the noun ἀνηαcomes to imply sin (cp. 9:7 and Jth 5:20 ε μνἐτνἀνηαἐ τ λῷτύῳκὶἁατνυιεςτνθὸ ατν with Tebt. Pap. 124:4 (118 b.c.) and 5:3—a proclamation by king Euergetes and queen Cleopatra declaring “an amnesty to all their subjects for all errors, crimes,” etc., except wilful murder and sacrilege). In the Martyr. Pauli, 4, the apostle addresses his pagan audience as ἄδε ο ὄτςἐ τ ἀνσᾳκὶτ πάῃτύῃ
(a) Strictly speaking, only such sins could be pardoned (Lev_4:2, Lev_4:5:21, Lev_4:22, Num_15:22-31, Deu_17:12) as were unintentional. Wilful sins were not covered by the ordinary ritual of sacrifice (10:26, cp. Num_12:11).
(b) The term πρκια only occurs in the LXX in Ep. Jer. 23:57 and in 4 Mac 12:3 (τ δσὰπρκίεο), and in both places in its literal sense (Symm. Isa_61:10), as in Act_28:20. But Seneca says of the body, “hoc quoque natura ut quemdam vestem animo circumdedit” (Epist. 92), and the metaphorical sense is as old as Theocritus (23:13, 14 φῦεδ ἀὸχὼ ὕρντςὀγςπρκίεο).
The ἀχεες therefore (v. 3), requires to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the People, κθςπρ τῦλο οτ κὶπρ ἑυο. This twofold sacrifice is recognized by Philo (de vit. Mosis ii., 1), who notes that the holder of the ἱρσν must ἐὶτλίι ἱρῖ beseech God for blessing ατ τ κὶτςἀχμνι. The regulations for atonement-day (Lev_16:6-17) provided that the ἀχεεςsacrificed for himself and his household as well as for the People (κὶποάε Ἀρντνμσο τνπρ τςἁατα ατῦκὶἐιάεα πρ ατῦκὶτῦοκυατῦ…κὶπρ πσςσνγγςυῶ Ἰρή). But our author now turns from the idea of the solidarity between priest and People to the idea of the priest’s commission from God. Τντμν(in v. 4) means position or office, as often, e.g. ἐίρπςλμάε τύη τντμν(i.e. of supervising the household slaves), Arist. Pol. i. 7, τμςγρλγμνενιτςἀχς ib. iii. 10, πρ τνἀχεένπςτ ἤξνοκὶτσνἔετ τςτμςτύη μτλμάεν Joseph. Ant. xx. 10. 1. Ἀλ (sc. λμάε) κλύεο, but takes it when (or, as) he is called. The terseness of the phrase led to the alteration (Ce L) of ἀλ into ἀλ ὁ(as in v. 5). κθσε κὶἈρν In Josephus (Ant. iii. 8. 1), Moses tells the Israelites, ννδ ατςὁθὸ Ἀρν τςτμςτύη ἄινἔρν κὶτῦο ᾕηα ἱρα
πρ (before ἁατῶ in v. 3) has been changed to ὕε in Cc Dc K L etc. (conforming to 5:1). There is no difference in meaning (cp. πρ, Mat_26:28 = ὄε, Mk. and Lk.), for πρ (see 10:6, 8, 18, 26, 13:11) has taken over the sense of ὕε.
For κθσε (א A B D* 33) in v. 4, א Dc K L P ψ6, 1288, 1739 read the more obvious κθπρ(C? syrhkl Chrys. Cyr. Alex. Procopius: κθς
In v. 5 οχἑυὸ ἐόαε, while the term δξ was specially applicable to the highpriestly office (cf. 2 Mac 14:7 ὅε ἀεόεο τνποοιὴ δξν λγ δ τνἀχεωύη), the phrase is quite general, as in the parallel Joh_8:54. The following γνθνιis an epexegetic infinitive, which recurs in the Lucan writings (Luk_1:54, Luk_1:72, Act_15:10) and in the earlier Psalter of Solomon (2:28, 40 etc.). After ἀλ we must supply some words like ατνἐόαε.
The argument runs thus: We have a great ἀχεες Jesus the Son of God (4:14), and it is as he is Son that he carries out the vocation of ἀχεες There is something vital, for the writer’s mind, in the connexion of ἀχεεςand Υό. Hence he quotes (v. 5) his favourite text from Psa_2:7 before the more apposite one (in v. 6) from Psa_110:4, implying that the position of divine Son carried with it, in some sense, the rô of ἀχεες This had been already suggested in 1:2, 3 where the activities of the Son include the purification of men from their sins. Here the second quotation only mentions ἱρύ, it is true; but the writer drew no sharp distinction between ἱρύ and ἀχεες In κτ τςτξνΜλιεέ, τξςfor the writer, as 7:15 proves (κτ τνὁοόηαΜλιεέ), has a general meaning;1 Jesus has the rank of a Melchizedek, he is a priest of the Melchizedek sort or order, though in the strict sense of the term there was no τξςor succession of Melchizedek priests.
Τξςin the papyri is often a list or register; in OP 1266:24 (a.d. 98) ἐ τξιmeans “in the class” (of people). It had acquired a sacerdotal nuance, e.g. Michel 735:125f. (the regulations of Antiochus 1.), ὅτςτ ἃ ὑτριχόω τξνλβ τύη, and occasionally denoted a post or office (e.g. Tebt. P 297:8, a.d. 123).
Ὅ κλ Some editors (e.g. A. B. Davidson, Lü Peake, Hollmann) take vv. 7-10 as a further proof of (b). But the writer is here casting back to (a), not hinting that the trying experiences of Jesus on earth proved that his vocation was not self-sought, but using these to illustrate the thoroughness with which he had identified himself with men. He does this, although the parallel naturally broke down at one point. Indeed his conception of Christ was too large for the categories he had been employing, and this accounts for the tone and language of the passage. (a) Jesus being χρςἁατα did not require to offer any sacrifices on his own behalf; and (b) the case of Melchizedek offered no suggestion of suffering as a vital element in the vocation of an ἀχεες As for the former point, while the writer uses ποεέκςin speaking of the prayers of Jesus, this is at most a subconscious echo of ποφρι in vv. 1-3; there is no equivalent in Jesus to the sacrifice offered by the OT ἀχεες πρ ἑυο …πρ ἁατῶ. The writer starts with his parallel, for ἐ τῖ ἡέαςτςσρὸ ατῦcorresponds to πρκῖα ἀθνιν(v. 2); but instead of developing the idea of sympathy in an official (μτιπθῖ δνμνςκλ he passes to the deeper idea that Jesus qualified himself by a moral discipline to be ἀχεεςin a pre-eminent sense. He mentions the prayers and tears of Jesus here, as the faith of Jesus in 2:12f., for the express purpose of showing how truly he shared the lot of man on earth, using δήεςτ κὶἱεηίς a phrase which the writer may have found in his text (A) of Job_40:22 (27) δήεςκὶἱεηίς but which was classical (e.g. Isokrates, de Pace, 46, πλα ἱεηίςκὶδήεςπιύεο). Ἱεηί had become an equivalent for ἱεί, which is actually the reading here in 1 (δήεςτ κὶἱεσα). The phrase recurs in a Ptolemaic papyrus (Brunet de Presle et E. Egger’s Papyrus Grecs du Musé du Louvre, 27:22), χίενσ ἀι μτ δήεςκὶἱεεα, though in a weakened sense. The addition of μτ καγς(here a cry of anguish) ἰχρςκὶδκύνmay be a touch of pathos, due to his own imagination,1 or suggested by the phraseology of the 22nd psalm, which was a messianic prediction for him (cp. above, 2:12) as for the early church; the words of v. 3 in that psalm would hardly suit (κκάοα ἡέα πὸ σ κὶοκεσκύῃ but phrases like that of v. 6; (πὸ σ ἐέρξνκὶἐώηα) and v. 25 (ἐ τ κκαέα μ πὸ ατνἐήοσνμυ might have been in his mind. Tears were added before long to the Lucan account of the passion, at 22:44 (Epiph. Ancor. 31, ἀλ “κὶἔλυε” κῖα ἐ τ κτ Λυᾶ εαγλῳἐ τῖ ἀιρώοςἀτγάος It is one of the passages which prove how deeply the writer was impressed by the historical Jesus; the intense faith and courage and pitifulness of Jesus must have deeply moved his mind. He seeks to bring out the full significance of this for the saving work of Jesus as Son. His methods of proof may be remote and artificial, to our taste, but the religious interest which prompted them is fundamental. No theoretical reflection on the qualification of priests or upon the dogma of messiah’s sinlessness could have produced such passages as this.
Later Rabbinic piety laid stress on tears, e.g. in Sohar Exod. fol. 5:19, “Rabbi Jehuda said, all things of this world depend on penitence and prayers, which men offer to God (Blessed be He!), especially if one sheds tears along with his prayers”; and in Synopsis Sohar, p. 33, n. 2, “There are three kinds of prayers, entreaty, crying, and tears. Entreaty is offered in a quiet voice, crying with a raised voice, but tears are higher than all.”
In ἀὸτςελβίς the sense of ελβί in 12:28 and of ελβῖθιin 11:7 shows that ἀόhere means “on account of” (as is common in Hellenistic Greek), and that ἀὸτςελβίςmust be taken, as the Greek fathers took it, “on account of his reverent fear of God,” pro sua reverentia (vg), “because he had God in reverence” (Tyndale; “in honoure,” Coverdale). The writer is thinking of the moving tradition about Jesus in Gethsemane, which is now preserved in the synoptic gospels, where Jesus entreats God to be spared death: Ἀβ ὁπτρ πναδντ σι πρνγετ πτρο ἀʼἐο τῦο(Mar_14:36). This repeated supplication corresponds to the “bitter tears and cries.” Then Jesus adds, ἀλ ο τ ἐὼθλ, ἀλ τ σ. This is his ελβι, the godly fear which leaves everything to the will of God. Such is the discipline which issues in ὑαο. Compare Psa_6:8 κὶκρο εσκυεποεχνπνὸ ἐ φβ θο.
(a) The alternative sense of “fear” appears as early as the Old Latin version (d = exauditus a metu). This meaning of ελβί (Beza: “liberatus ex metu”) occurs in Joseph. Ant. xi. 6. 9, ελβίςατν(Esther) ἀούν Indeed ελβί (cp. Anz, 359) and its verb ελβῖθιare common in this sense; cp. e.g. 2 Mac 8:16 μ κτπαῆα τῖ δσίι μδ ελβῖθιτν…πλπηεα: Sir 41:3 μ ελβῦκῖαδντυ Wis 17:8 οτικτγλσο ελβινἐόον But here the deeper, religious sense is more relevant to the context. “In any case the answer consisted …in courage given to face death …The point to be emphasized is, not so much that the prayer of Jesus was heard, as that it needed to be heard” (A. B. Bruce, p. 186).
(b) Some (e.g. Linden in Studien und Kritiken, 1860, 753 f., and Blass, §211) take ἀὸτςελβίςwith what follows; this was the interpretation of the Peshitto (“and, although he was a son, he learned obedience from fear and the sufferings which he bore”). But the separation of ἀὸτςελβίςfrom ἀʼὦ and the necessity of introducing a κίbefore the latter phrase point to the artificiality of this construction.
In v. 8 κίε ὢ υό (κίε being used with a participle as in 7:5, 12:17) means, “Son though he was,” not “son though he was.” The writer knows that painful discipline is to be expected by all who are sons of God the Father; he points out, in 12:5f., that every son, because he is a son, has to suffer. Here the remarkable thing is that Jesus had to suffer, not because but although he was υό, which shows that Jesus is Son in a unique sense; as applied to Jesus υό means something special. As divine υό in the sense of 1:1f., it might have been expected that he would be exempt from such a discipline. Ὃ …ἔαε …ὑαονis the main thread of the sentence, but κίε ὤ υό attaches itself to ἔαε κλ rather than to the preceding participles ποεέκςand εσκυθί (Chrys. Theophyl.). With a daring stroke the author adds, ἔαε ἀʼὣ ἔαετνὑαον The paronomasia goes back to a common Greek phrase which is as old as Aeschylus (Agam. 177 f.), who describes Zeus as τνπθιμθςθνακρω ἔεν and tells how (W. Headlam)—
“The heart in time of sleep renews
Aching remembrance of her bruise,
And chastening wisdom enters wills that most refuse”—
which, the poet adds, is a sort of χρςβαο from the gods. This moral doctrine, that πθςbrings μθς is echoed by Pindar (Isthm. i. 40, ὁπνσι δ νῳκὶποάεσ φρι and other writers, notably by Philo (de vit. Mos. iii. 38, τύοςο λγςἀλ ἔγ πιεε·πθνε εσνα τ ἐὸ ἀεδς ἐε μθνε οκἔνσν de spec. leg. III. 6, ἵʼἐ τῦπθῖ μθ κλ de somn. ii. 15, ὃπθνἀρβςἔαε, ὅιτῦθο (Gen_50:19) ἐτν But in the Greek authors and in Philo it is almost invariably applied to “the thoughtless or stupid, and to open and deliberate offenders” (Abbott, Diat. 3208a), to people who can only be taught by suffering. Our writer ventures, therefore, to apply to the sinless Jesus an idea which mainly referred to young or wilful or undisciplined natures. The term ὑαο only occurs once in the LXX, at 2 S 22:36 (κὶὑαο συἐλθννμ, A), where it translates ענוה The general idea corresponds to that of 10:5-9 below, where Jesus enters the world submissively to do the will of God, a vocation which involved suffering and self-sacrifice. But the closest parallel is the argument of Paul in Php_2:6-8, that Jesus, born in human form, ἐαενσνἑυὸ γνμνςὑήος(sc. τ θῷ μχιθντυ and the conception of the ὑαο of Jesus (Rom_5:18, Rom_5:19) in contrast to the πρκήof Adam. What our writer means to bring out here, as in 2:10f., is the practical initiation of Jesus into his vocation for God and men. “Wherever there is a vocation, growth and process are inevitable. …Personal relations are of necessity relations into which one grows; the relation can be fully and practically constituted only in the practical exercise of the calling in which it is involved. So it was with Christ. He had, so to speak, to work Himself into His place in the plan of salvation, to go down among the brethren whom He was to lead to glory and fully to identify Himself with them, not of course by sharing their individual vocation, but in the practice of obedience in the far harder vocation given to Him. That obedience had to be learned, not because His will was not at every moment perfect …but simply because it was a concrete, many-sided obedience” (W. Robertson Smith, Expositor2, ii. pp. 425, 426). Τλιθί in v. 9 recalls and expands the remark of 2:10, that God “perfected” Jesus by suffering as τνἀχγντςστρα ατν and the argument of 2:17, 18. The writer avoids the technical Stoic terms ποότι and ποοή He prefers τλιῦ and τλίσς not on account of their associations with the sacerdotal consecration of the OT ritual, but in order to suggest the moral ripening which enabled Jesus to offer a perfect self-sacrifice, and also perhaps with a side-allusion here to the death-association of these terms.
Philo (de Abrah. 11) observes that nature, instruction, and practice are the three things essential πὸ τλιττ τῦβο, οτ γρδδσαίνἄε φσω ἢἀκσω τλιθνιδντνοτ φσςἐὶπρςἐτνἐθῖ ἱαὴδχ τῦμθῖ.
Ατο στρα was a common Greek phrase. Thus Philo speaks of the brazen serpent as ατο στρα γνμνςπνεοςτῖ θααέος(de Agric. 22), Aeschines (in Ctesiph. 57) has τςμνστρα τ πλιτὺ θοςατοςγγνμνυ, and in the de Mundo, 398b, the writer declares that it is fitting for God ατο τ γνσα τῖ ἐὶτςγςστρα. Στρααωίςis a LXX phrase (Isa_45:17), but not in the sense intended here (cp. 2:3). The collocation of Jesus learning how to obey God and of thus proving a saviour τῖ ὑαοοσνατ is remarkable. At first sight there is a clue to the sense in Philo, who declares that “the man who is morally earnest,” receiving God’s kingdom, “does not prove a source of evil to anyone (ατο γντι but proves a source of the acquisition and use of good things for all who obey him” (πσ τῖ ὑηόι, de Abrah. 45). This refers to Abraham, but to the incident of Gen_23:6, not to that of Melchizedek; Philo is spiritualizing the idea of the good man as king, and the ὑηόιare the members of his household under his authority. The parallel is merely verbal. Here by πσντῖ ὑαοοσνατ the writer means ο πσεσνε (4:3), but with a special reference to their loyalty to Christ. Disobedience to Christ or to God (3:18, 4:6, 11) is the practical expression of disbelief. It is a refusal to take Christ for what he is, as God’s appointed ἀχεες The writer then adds (v. 10) ποαοεθὶ ὑὸτῦθο ἀχεεςκτ τντξνΜλιεέ, in order to explain how, thus commissioned, he brought the στρααωίς The paragraph is thus rounded off, like that of vv. 5, 6, with a reference to the Melchizedek priesthood, which the writer regards as of profound importance, and to which he now proposes to advance. Though ποαοεωis not used in this sense (“hail,” “designate”) in the LXX, the usage is common in Hellenistic writings like 2 Maccabees (1:36, 4:7, 10:9) and Josephus (e.g. c. Apion. i. 311). But the Melchizedek type of priesthood is not discussed till 6:20, 7:1f. The interlude between 5:10 and 6:20 is devoted to a stirring exhortation; for this interpretation of the Son as priest is a piece of γῶι which can only be imparted to those who have mastered the elementary truths of the Christian religion, and the writer feels and fears that his readers are still so immature that they may be unable or unwilling to grasp the higher and fuller teaching about Christ. The admonition has three movements of thought, 5:11-14, 6:1-8, and 6:9-19.
11 On this point I (ἡῖ, plural of authorship, as 2:5) have a great deal to say, which it is hard to make intelligible to you. For (κὶγρ= etenim) you have grown dull of hearing. 12 Though by this time you should be teaching other people, you still need someone to teach you once more the rudimentary principles of the divine revelation. You are in need of milk, not of solid food. 13 (For anyone who is fed on milk is unskilled in moral truth; he is1 a mere babe. 14 Whereas solid food is for the nature, for those who have their faculties trained by exercise to distinguish good and evil.) 6:1 Let us pass on then to what is mature, leaving elementary Christian doctrine behind, instead of laying the foundation over again with repentance from dead works, with faith in God, 2 with instruction about ablutions and the laying on of hands, about the resurrection of the dead and eternal punishment. 3 With God’s permission we will take this step.
Πρ ο (i.e. on ἀχεεςκτ τντξνM.) πλςκλ (v. 11). The entire paragraph (vv. 11-14) is full of ideas and terms current in the ethical and especially the Stoic philosophy of the day. Thus, to begin with, πλς(sc. ἔτ) ὁλγςis a common literary phrase for “there is much to say”; e.g. Dion. Hal. ad Amm. i. 3, πλςγρὁπρ ατνλγς and Lysias in Pancleonem, 11, ὅαμνονατθ ἐρθ, πλςἂ εημιλγςδηεσα. Πλςand δσρήετςare separated, as elsewhere adjectives are (e.g. 2:17). For the general sense of δσρήετςλγι, see Philo, de migrat. Abrah. 18, ἧ τ μνἄλ μκοέω ἢκτ τνπρνακιὸ δῖα λγνκὶὑεθτο, and Dion. Halic. de Comp. viii. πρ ὧ κὶπλςὁλγςκὶβθῖ ἡθωί. Δσρήετςoccurs in an obscure and interpolated passage of Philo’s de Somniis i. (32, ἀέτ τν κὶδσρηετ θᾳ and Artemidorus (Oneirocr. iii. 67, ο ὄερι…πιίο κὶπλοςδσρήετι uses it of dreams. Ἐε κλ (explaining δσρήετι for the fault lies with you, not with the subject. Νθό only occurs once in the LXX, and not in this sense (Pro_22:29 ἀδάινθος tr. חשְֹ even in Sir 4:29, 11:12 it means no more than slack or backward (as below in 6:12). It is a common Greek ethical term for sluggishness, used with the accusative or the (locative) dative. With ἀο it denotes dulness. The literal sense occurs in Heliodorus (v. 10: ἐὼμνονᾖθμν…τχ μνπυκὶδʼἡιίννθόεο ὢ τνἀον νσςγρἄλντ κὶὠῶ τ γρς and the metaphorical sense of ἀοίis illustrated by Philo’s remark in quis rer. div. haer. 3: ἐ ἀύοςἀδισν οςὦαμνἐτν ἀοὶδ οκἔεσν
Why (κὶγρ v. 12), the writer continues, instead of being teachers you still need a teacher. For χεαwith the article and infinitive (τῦδδσεν κλ cp. the similar use of χένin OP 1488:25. In what follows, τν, the masculine singular, gives a better sense than τν, the neuter plural. “Ye again have need of (one) to teach you what are the elements” (sah boh); but it is the elementary truths themselves, not what they are, that need to be taught. Τ σοχῖ here means the ABC or elementary principles (see Burton’s Galatians, pp. 510f.), such as he mentions in 6:1, 2. He defines them further as τςἀχςτνλγω θο, where τ λγαθο means not the OT but the divine revelation in general, so that τ ς τ ἀχςcorresponds to the Latin phrase “prima elementa.” The words ὀελνε ενιδδσαο simply charge the readers with backwardness. “The expression, ‘to be teachers,’ affirms no more than that the readers ought to be ripe in Christian knowledge. Once a man is ripe or mature, the qualification for teaching is present” (Wrede, p. 32). The use of the phrase in Greek proves that it is a general expression for stirring people up to acquaint themselves with what should be familiar. See Epict. Enchir. 51, πῖνονἔιδδσαο ποδκς …οκἔιε μιάιν ἀλ ἀὴ ἤητλις It was quite a favourite ethical maxim in antiquity. Thus Cyrus tells the Persian chiefs that he would be ashamed to give them advice on the eve of battle: οδ γρὑᾶ τῦαἐιτμνυ κὶμμλτκτςκὶἀκῦτςδὰτλυ οάε ἐώ ὥτ κνἄλυ εκτςἂ δδσοτ (Cyrop. iii. 3. 35). Similarly we have the remark of Aristophanes in Plato, Sympos. 189d, ἐὼονπιάοα ὑῖ εσγσσα τνδνμνατῦ ὑεςδ τνἄλνδδσαο ἔεθ, and the reply given by Apollonius of Tyana to a person who asked why he never put questions to anybody: ὅιμιάινὢ ἐήηα ννδ ο χὴζτῖ ἀλ δδσενἃερκ (Philostratus, Vita Apoll. i. 17). Seneca tells Lucilius the same truth: “quousque disces? iam et praecipe (Ep. 33:9). Thus the phrase here offers no support whatever to any theories about the readers of Πὸ Ἑρίυ being a group of teachers, or a small, specially cultured community. The author, himself a δδσαο, as he is in possession of this mature γῶι, is trying to shame his friends out of their imperfect grasp of their religion. That is all. Γγντ χεα ἔοτςis a rhetorical variant for χεα ἔεε due to the writer’s fondness for γγν. If there is any special meaning in the larger phrase, it is that detected by Chrysostom, who argues that the writer chose it deliberately: τυέτν ὑεςἠεήαε ὑεςἑυοςεςτῦοκτσήαε εςτύη τνχεα. They are responsible for this second childhood of theirs. The comparison1 of milk and solid food is one of the most common in Greek ethical philosophy, as in Epictetus, e.g. ii. 16. 39, ο θλι ἤηὡ τ πιί ἀοαατσῆα κὶἅτσα τοῆ σεετρς and iii. 24. 9, οκἀοαατσμνἤηπθ ἑυος and particularly in Philo. A characteristic passage from the latter writer is the sentence in de agric. 2: ἐε δ νποςμνἐτ γλ τοή τλίι δ τ ἐ πρνπμαα κὶψχςγλκώεςμνἂ εε τοα κτ τνπιιὴ ἡιίντ τςἐκκίυμυιῆ ποαδύαα τλιιδ κὶἀδάι ἐπεεςα δὰφοήεςκὶσφούη κὶἁάη ἀεῆ ὑηήες Our writer adopts the metaphor, as Paul had done (1Co_3:1, 1Co_3:2), and adds a general aside (vv. 13, 14) in order to enforce his remonstrance. He does not use the term γῶι, and the plight of his friends is not due to the same causes as operated in the Corinthian church, but he evidently regards his interpretation of the priesthood of Christ as mature instruction, σεε τοή Ὁμτχνγλκο is one whose only food (μτχι as in 1Co_10:17 etc.) is milk; ἄερςis “inexperienced,” and therefore “unskilled,” in λγυδκισνςan ethical phrase for what moderns would call “moral truth,” almost as in Xen. Cyrop. i.6. 31, ἀὴ δδσαο τνπίω, ὃ ἐίακνἄατὺ πῖα τνδκισννκλ or in M. Aurelius xi:10, xii:1. Thus, while δκισν here is not a religious term, the phrase means more than (a) “incapable of talking correctly” (Delitzsch, B. Weiss, von Soden), which is, no doubt, the mark of a νπο, but irrelevant in this connexion; or (b) “incapable of understanding normal speech,” such as grown-up people use (Riggenbach). Τλίνδ κλ (v. 14). The clearest statement of what contemporary ethical teachers meant by τλιςas mature, is (cp. p. 70) in Epict. Enchirid. 51, “how long (εςπῖνἔιχόο) will you defer thinking of yourself as worthy of the very best … You have received the precepts you ought to accept, and have accepted them. Why then do you still wait for a teacher (δδσαο ποδκς that you may put off amending yourself till he comes? You are a lad no longer, you are a full-grown man now (οκἔιε μιάιν ἀλ ἀὴ ἤητλις …Make up your mind, ere it is too late, to live ὡ τλινκὶποότνα” Then he adds, in words that recall Heb_12:1f.: “and when you meet anything stiff or sweet, glorious or inglorious, remember that ννὁἀὼ κὶἤηπρσιτ Ὀύπα” As Pythagoras divided his pupils into νπο and τλιι so our author distinguishes between the immature and the mature (cp. 1Co_2:6 ἐ τῖ τλίι, 3:1 νπος In δὰτνἕι (vg. “pro consuetudine”) he uses ἕι much as does the writer of the prologue to Sirach (ἱαὴ ἕι πρπισμνς for facility or practice.1 It is not an equivalent for mental faculties here, but for the exercise of our powers. These powers or faculties are called τ ασηήι. Ασηήινwas a Stoic term for an organ of the senses, and, like its English equivalent “sense,” easily acquired an ethical significance, as in Jer_4:19 τ ασηήι τςκρίςμυ The phrase γγμαμν ασηήι may be illustrated from Galen (de dign. puls. iii:2, ὃ μνγρἂ εασηόαο φσντ κὶτ ασηήινἔῃγγμαμννἱαῶ …οτςἂ ἄιτςεηγώω τνἐτςὑοεμνν and de complexu, ii.: λλγσέο μνἐτνἀδὸ τὺ λγσοςοςερκ κὶγγμαμν τνασηι ἐ πλῇτ κτ μρςἐπιί κλ γγμαμν being a perfect participle used predicatively, like πφτυέη in Luk_13:6, and γγμαμννabove. Compare what Marcus Aurelius (iii:1) says about old age; it may come upon us, bringing not physical failure, but a premature decay of the mental and moral faculties, e.g., of self-control, of the sense of duty, κὶὅατιῦαλγσο σγευνσέο πν χῄε. Elsewhere (ii:13) he declares that ignorance of moral distinctions (ἄνι ἀαῶ κὶκκν is a blindness as serious as any inability to distinguish black and white. The power of moral discrimination (πὸ δάρσνκλῦτ κὶκκῦ is the mark of maturity, in contrast to childhood (cp. e.g. Deu_1:39 πνπιίννο ὅτςοκοδνσμρνἀαὸ ἢκκν Compare the definition of τ ἠιό in Sextus Empiricus (Hyp. Pyrrh. 3:168): ὅε δκῖπρ τνδάρσντντ κλνκὶκκνκὶἀιφρνκτγγεθι
In spite of Resch’s arguments (Texte u. Untersuchungen, xxx:3. 112f.), there is no reason to hear any echo of the well-known saying attributed to Jesus: γνσεδ δκμιταεῖα, τ μνἀοοιάοτς τ δ κλνκτχνε.
LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete).
522 [δ602]
B [03: δ1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293.
D [06: α1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorlyreproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, § 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of Πὸ Ἐρίυ has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix.
K [018:1:1].
boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555.
Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland).
Josephus Flavii Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber.
L [020: α5] cont. 1:1-13:10.
C [04: δ3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25.
א[01: δ2).
A [02: δ4].
33 [δ48] Hort’s 17
P [025: α3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25.
6 [δ356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25
1288 [α162]
1739 [α78]
1 As in 2 Mac 9:18 ἐιτλνἔοσνἱεηίςτξν Ep. Arist. 69, κηῖο ἔοσ τξν
OP The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt).
Michel Recueil d’ Inscriptions Grecques (ed. C. Michel, 1900).
1 Like that of Hos_12:4, where tears are added to the primitive story (Gen_32:26) of Jacob’s prayer (ἐίχσνμτ ἀγλυκὶἠυάθ·ἔλυα κὶἐεθσνμυ In 2 Mac 11:6 the Maccabean army μτ ὀυμνκὶδκύνἱέεο τνκρο.
d (Latin version of D)
Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, vö neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrä Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903).
177 [α106]
1 D* inserts ἀμν(Mat_15:16) between γρand ἐτν “he is still a mere babe.” Blass adopts this, for reasons of rhythm.
2 1912 and origen read (with 462) δδσεθι and omit ὑᾶ.
sah The Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. 1-131.
1 Origen (Philocalia, xviii. 23) uses this passage neatly to answer Celsus, who had declared that Christians were afraid to appeal to an educated and intelligent audience. He quotes 5:12f. as well as 1Co_3:2f., arguing that in the light of them it must be admitted ἡες ὅηδνμς πναπάτμνὑὲ τῦφοίω ἀδῶ γνσα τνσλοο ἡῶ·κὶτ ἐ ἡῖ μλσακλ κὶθῖ ττ τλῶε ἐ τῖ πὸτ κιὸ δαόοςφρι εςμσν ὅʼεπρῦε σντνἀοτν
Weiss B. Weiss, “Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe” (in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. xiv. 3), also Der Hebrä in Zeitgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (1910).
1 “Firma quaedam facilitas quae apud Graecos ἕι nominatur” (Quint. Instit. Orat. 10:1).