Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJames Hastings Dictionary of the NT: Rufus
Subjects in this Topic:
RUFUS.—See Alexander and Rufus.
RULE
1. (a) ἀñ÷Þ .—Luk_20:20 ðáñáäïῦíáé áὐôὸí ôῇ ἀñ÷ῇ êáὶ ôῇ ἐîïõóßᾳ ôïῦ ἡãåìüíïò , ‘to deliver him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor’ (Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 )— ἀñ÷Þ = principatus, ἐîïõóßá = magistratus or munus (Stephanus, Thesaurus, ed. Hase-Dindorf). Here ἀñ÷Þ ‘relates to Pilate’s position and authority [as procurator], ἐîïõóßá to the executive power connected therewith’ (Cremer, Lex. 115, 237). Pilate’s remitting our Lord to ‘Herod’s jurisdiction’ (Luk_23:7 ἐîïõóßáò ) was intended as an act of civility to a reigning prince (‘Jesus of Nazareth’ being under Herod’s tetrarchate), and perhaps also in order to gain time.
ἀñ÷Þ and ἐîïõóßá are also used together of earthly rulers, Luk_12:11, Tit_3:1; of the ranks of the angelic hosts, Eph_3:10, Col_1:16; Col_2:10; of the powers of evil, Eph_6:12, Col_2:15; apparently incl. of both heavenly and earthly powers, 1Co_15:24, Eph_1:21.
(b) ἄñ÷åéí .—Mar_10:42 ‘Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles ( ïἱ äïêïῦíôåò ἄñ÷åéí : in || Mat_20:25 ïἱ ἄñ÷ïíôåò ) lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them’ (Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ). Lk. reports that words of similar import were spoken at the parting meal, 22:25. ïἱ äïêïῦíôåò ἄñ÷åéí may mean ‘they who are supposed to rule,’ with the implication that they are not rulers in the true sense of the word.* [Note: There are parallels to this idea in Plato: e.g. Rep. 336 A, the tyrant is one who ìÝãá ïἴåôêé äýíáóèáé : he and his like have really no power (Gorg. 467 A). For the use of äïêïῦíôåò , cf. Rep. 406 C, ἐðὶ äὲ ôῶí ôëïáõóßùí ôå êáὶ åὐäáéìüíùí äïêïýíôùí åἶíáé ïὐê áἰóèáíüìåèá , also 420 A, 423 C. Sometimes, however, in classical Greek äïêåῖí does not exclude the reality: e.g. Plato, Rep. 539 A, and Soph. OT 402. [Note by the late Dr. Adam of Cambridge].]
Swete (St. Mark, 239) renders ‘they who are regarded as rulers,’ and says that our Lord ‘did not admit that the power of such a ruler as Tiberius was a substantial dignity: it rested on a reputation that might be suddenly wrecked, as indeed the later history of the Empire clearly proved.’ Cf. Harnack (What is Christianity? 106) and Gould (Com. on Mk. 202) for a somewhat similar view.
In Gal_2:2; Gal_2:6; Gal_2:9 ïἱ äïêïῦíôåò , Lightfoot thinks (Com. on Gal. 107), is ‘depreciatory,—not indeed of the Twelve themselves, but of the extravagant and exclusive claims set up for them by the Judaizers.’ The Gr. commentators, however, do not find ‘any shade of blame or irony in the expression’ (see Ellicott, Gal. 24b). Cf. also Ramsay (Com. on Gal. 289, 300), who renders, ‘the acknowledged leaders,’ and shows that the interpretation, ‘the so-called leaders,’ is opposed to the spirit of the narrative.
The two passages referred to by Winer (Gram. NT8 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] p. 766) are important: Sus 5 ÷ñéôῶí ïἵ ἰäü÷ïõí ÷õâåñíᾷí ôὸí ëáüô , ‘judges who were accounted or recognized as governing the people’; Josephus Ant. xix. vi. 3 ïἱ äïêïῦíôåò áὐôῶí ἐîÝ÷åéí , ‘they who are recognized as outstanding men among them.’ In these passages the phrase appears to be used, without any disparagement being implied, in speaking of recognized authorities, or persons of admitted eminence.* [Note: This is the usage in class. Gr., e.g. Eurip. Hec. 295, where áἱ äï÷ïῦíôåò is opposed to ïἱ ἀäïîïῦíôåò ; Plato, Euthyd. 303 C, ôῶí óåìíῶí ÷áὶ äï÷ïýíôþí ôé åἶíáé , ‘the grave and reverend seigniors’ (Jowett’s tr.).]
In the words êáôáêõñéåýïõóéí and êáôåîïõóéÜæïõóéí ,—the latter found only here and in || Mt.—an unfavourable judgment is passed upon the manner in which ‘the recognized rulers’ exercise their authority. ‘Civium non servitus sed tutela tradita est.’ ‘Our Lord spoke at a time when free government all over the world lay crushed beneath the military despotism of Rome’ (EBr [Note: Br Encyclopaedia Britannica.] xi. 11). There was present to His mind the fundamental law of His Kingdom, ‘My kingdom is not of this world’ (Joh_18:36).
But our Lord’s words do not exhibit that ‘moral hatred of all the visible power of the world regarded as a vast selfish manifestation and embodiment of evil,’ which finds expression in the following passage from one of the letters of Gregory vii. (he is writing to Herman of Metz, one of his partisans): ‘Who can be ignorant that kings and nobles took their beginning from those who, not knowing God, by their pride, robberies, perfidy, and murders, in short, by almost every kind of crime, no doubt at the suggestion of the prince of this world, the devil, have in blind ambition and intolerable presumption had a mind to tyrannize over other men who are undoubtedly their equals?’ Milman asks, ‘Are we reading a journalist of Paris in 1791?’ (Latin Christianity, iii. 191; cf. Mozley’s Sermon on ‘The Roman Council,’ Univ. Serm, p. 1).
Our Lord, it is true, speaks of the exercise of domination and coercion that is characteristic of the rulers of the Gentiles as an example to be avoided by His disciples as members of a Kingdom not of this world: ‘so shall it not be among you.’ With them, greatness is to come through ministering love (cf. art. Minister, 3). At the same time, in His great saying, Mar_12:17,—a saying which reveals that the whole domain of duty lay open before Him,—our Lord teaches that a kingdom of this world, even the principality of a Tiberius, has its own sphere of right, and that when it keeps within it, and exercises its administrative functions,—of which the levying of tribute is a representative instance,—it is to be obeyed without demur. This saying was probably present to the mind of St. Paul when he wrote, under Nero (but in the earlier and better part of his reign), his weighty exposition of the ethics of citizenship (Rom_13:1-7).
2. ðïéìáßíåéí .—Mat_2:6 ‘And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule (Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ‘be shepherd of’) my people Israel’ ( ὅóôéò ðïéìáíåῖ ôὸí ëáüí ìïõ ôὸí ἸóñáÞë ). Here three things demand our attention.
(i.) Mic_5:2 (1 Heb.) and its context.—Like his older contemporary Isaiah (Isaiah 9, 11), Micah looks forward to the end of the Assyrian invasion as the time when the Messianic hope shall be fulfilled.
‘The daughter of Zion must pass through the pangs of labour before her true king is born; she must come forth from the city and dwell in the open field; there, and not within her proud ramparts, Jehovah will grant her deliverance from her enemies. For a time the land shall be given up to the foe, but only for a time. Once more, as in the days of David, guerilla bands gather together to avenge the wrongs of their nation (Mic_5:1). A new David comes forth from little Bethlehem, and the rest of his brethren return to the children of Israel—that is, the kindred Hebrew nations again accept the sway of the new king, who stands and feeds his flock in the strength of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his God. Then Assyria shall no longer insult Jehovah’s land with impunity’ (W. R. Smith, The Prophets of Israel 1, 291).
This being the meaning of the prophecy, it is evident that it was never literally fulfilled. But when we look at the deeper side of the Messianic hope which it sets forth—the heart-felt longing for a true Kingdom of God, ‘the perception that that Kingdom can never be realized without a personal centre, a representative of God with man and man with God,’ who shall attain to true greatness through humility—we see that the purpose which was in the mind of God, when He moved the prophet to write, was fulfilled in the highest sense when He sent His Son into the world, and when Jesus Christ entered, by being born and that in a low condition, on that life of humiliation that led to His exaltation to the place of power, and will finally lead to ‘all things being put under His feet.’
(ii.) The quotation in Mt.—It is not in verbal agreement with the LXX Septuagint or with the Heb. text. The most important differences from the latter are the following:—
( á ) Instead of öָòִéø ìִçְéåֹú , lit. ‘little for being’ (‘a town too small to be reckoned as a canton in Judah,’ W. R. Smith, l.c.), Mt. has ïὐäáìῶò ἐëá÷ßóôç åἶ , ‘art in no wise least’ (Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ). Turpie (OT in the New, 190) translates the Heb. ‘And art thou, Bethlehem, little for being (=so little as not to be) among the thousands of Juda?’—following Grotius (Opera, ii., Amst. 1679), who received the suggestion from Pesh., where the clause is rendered interrogatively. Others conjecture that a ìֹà has dropped out of the Heb. text (cf. W. C. Allen in ExpT [Note: xpT Expository Times.] xii. [1901] 283; Com. on Mt. p. 13). These suggested emendations are unnecessary. Micah says that the ideal king is to come out of Bethlehem, a town held in little estimation; and Mt., in view of the dignity bestowed on the town by the birth of Christ, says, ‘Thou art by no means the least.’ They agree in spirit.
( â ) The words of Micah, ‘he that is to be ruler in Israel,’ are expanded by Mt. into ‘a ruler who shall be shepherd of my people Israel.’ He thus introduces into his quotation the words of the promise to David, ‘And thou shalt be shepherd of ( úִּøְòֶä ) my people Israel’ (2Sa_5:2 || 1Ch_11:2). But in Mic_5:4 (3 Heb.) the words, ‘And he shall stand and be shepherd of’ ( åְøָòָä ), are a reminiscence of the promise to David. The Evangelist simply gives the promise at full length.
To most Biblical scholars these differences will not seem of much account. The quotations in the NT are an important subject of study, but it is not now considered necessary, in the interests of revelation, to make out a verbal correspondence between these quotations and their OT equivalents. See art. Quotations.
(iii.) The nature of Christ’s rule as set forth by ðïéìáßíåéí .— øָòָä is first applied to God by Jacob, Gen_48:15, (‘who shepherded me’), Gen_49:24 (prob. ‘the shepherd of the stone of Israel,’ and = ‘the God of Bethel’ [Driver, Gen. [Note: Geneva NT 1557, Bible 1560.] 1 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] Addenda xvii]). His people are ‘the sheep of his pasture’ (Psa_95:7; Psa_100:3); He led them and fed them in the wilderness as a shepherd (Psa_77:20; Psa_78:52; Psa_80:1, Hos_13:5 [LXX Septuagint ] ἐðïßìáéíüí óå ἐí ôῇ ἐñÞìῳ , Isa_63:11, Jer_2:2 ‘thou wentest after me’—the shepherd leading); He will bring them back from the Dispersion (Eze_34:12, cf. Psa_147:2); His care for His flock comprehends the most considerate tending of individuals (Psa_23:1-3 a, Isa_40:11, Psa_119:176 seeking the lost sheep). To David, as His vicegerent, He commits the care of His flock (2Sa_5:2, Psa_78:71), and He will yet set up one shepherd over them, who shall be pre-eminent in those qualities which David in a large measure manifested as a ruler (Mic_5:4, Eze_34:23; Eze_37:24, Psa_2:9 [LXX Septuagint , following Pesh., ðïéìáíåῖò áὐôïὺò ἐí ῥÜâäῳ óéäçñᾷ , so quoted Rev_2:27; Rev_12:5; Rev_19:15; cf. Briggs, Com. on Psalms, i. 22]). To Mt. this shepherd is Jesus Christ, and it is fitting that in this early chapter he should employ this title respecting Him whose life on earth, as set forth in the succeeding chapters of his Gospel, was to illustrate so abundantly His shepherd-rule in its tenderness and strength. Christ is the compassionate Shepherd (Mat_9:36; Mat_15:24); His flock fear no evil, because He is with them (Luk_12:32); He goes after that which is lost till He finds it (Mat_12:11, Luk_15:4-6); He is the noble ( êáëüò ) Shepherd, who gives His life for His sheep (Joh_10:2; Joh_10:11; Joh_10:16), who provides for their being fed and tended after His departure to heaven (Joh_21:15-17; cf. Act_20:28, Eph_4:11, 1Pe_5:2), and who still carries on in glory His own work as ‘the great shepherd of the sheep’ (Heb_13:20) and the ἀñ÷éðïßìçí (1Pe_5:4—a title combining the two words of our present study);—moreover, their being under His shepherd-rule will be the blessedness and joy of His people to all eternity (Rev_7:17).
It is well known that ôïéìáéíåéí is a favourite figure with Greek writers to denote the kingly office. Plato is very fond of the comparison; see Rep. 343 A with the note in Adam’s ed. (Camb. 1902). In a passage in the Nicom. Ethics (viii. 11), Aristotle refers to Homer’s well-known words, åὖ ãὰñ ðïéåῖ ôïὺò âáóéëåõïìÝíïõò , åἱôåñ ἀãáèὸò ὦí ἑôéìåëåῖôáé áὐôῶí , ἵí åὖ ðñáôôùóéí , ὦóôåñ íïìåὺò ôñïâáôùí · ὁèåí êáὶ Ὅìçñïò ôïí ἈãáìÝìíïíá ôïéìÝíá ëáῶí åἶðåí . ‘It seems to me desirable,’ Dr. Adam observes, ‘whenever possible, to quote classical Greek parallels to the figures of the NT, as well as parallels from the Hebrew: the use of figures already familiar to the Greeks cannot but have made the NT writings more acceptable to Greek readers.’
James Donald.