* There are strong authorities for both the masculine and the neuter sense. For the neuter are Fritzsche, Meyer, De Wette, Philippi, Calvin, Shedd, Rev. For the masculine, Alford, Riddle, Moule, Farrar, Godet. The main argu- ment in favor of the masculine is that tarewss is never used as neuter in the New Testament ; but the word occurs only eight times in all, and only three times in Paul, and in classical Greek is often used of things, as places, rivers, clothing, etc. ; and similar instances occur in the Septuagint. See Eccl. x. 6; Ezek. xvii. 24. Alford’s argument is too fine-spun, though ingenious. I in- cline to the neuter, mostly on the ground of the natural antithesis between high things (s~mad) and low things. On the verb, T. K. Cheyne (‘‘ Exposi- tor,” second series, vi., 469), argues for the meaning accustom yourselves to or Samiliarize yourselves with, on the basis of Hebrew usage. He cites Delitzsch’s two Hebrew translations of the Epistle, in the earlier of which he renders Samiliarize yourselves, and in the later, make friends with, in both cases evi- dently regarding the adjective as masculine.
+ Godet’s explanation, preoccupation with good, as an antidote to evil thoughts and projects, is fanciful.
Vou. II.—11
162 WORD STUDIES 1N THE NEW TESTAMENT. [Cu. XII.
18. If it be possible. Not ¢f you can, but if others will allow. The phrase is explained by as much as leth wm you (rd é& spor), lit., as to that which proceeds from you, or de- pends on you. “ All your part is to be peace ” (Alford).
19. Give place unto wrath (GoTe tomov tH opyn). Wrath has the article: ze wrath, referring to the divine wrath. Ge place is give room for it to work. Do not get in its way, as you will do by taking vengeance into your own hands. Hence as Rev., in margin, and American Rev., in text, give place unto
the wrath of God.
Vengeance is mine (éuol éxdienors). Lit., wnto Me ws ven- geance. The Rev. brings out better the force of the original: Vengeance belongeth unto Me. The quotation is from Deut. xxxii. 85. Hebrew, Zo me belongs vengeance and requital. Septuagint, Zn the day of vengeance I will requite. The an- tithesis between vengeance by God and by men is not found in Deuteronomy. Compare Heb. x. 30. Dante, listening to Peter Damiano, who describes the abuses of the Church, hears a great cry. Beatrice says:
‘¢The cry has startled thee so much, In which, if thou hadst understood its prayers, Already would be known to thee the vengeance Which thou shalt look upon before thou diest. The sword above here smiteth not in haste, Nor tardily, howe’er it seem to him Who, fearing or desiring, waits for it.”
“Paradiso,” xxii., 12-18.
Compare Plato: Socrates, “ And what of doing evil in return for evil, which is the morality of the many—is that just or not ? Crito, Not just. Socrates, For doing evil to another is the same as injuring him? Crito, Very true. Socrates, Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to any one, whatever evil we may have suffered from him. . . . This opinion has never been held, and never will be held by any considerable number of persons” (“Crito,” 49). Epictetus, being asked how a man could injure his enemy, replied, ‘ By living the best life himself.” The idea of personal vindictiveness must be elimin-
Cu. XIILJ THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 163
ated from the word here. It is rather full meting out of justice to all parties.
20. Feed (Wopife). See on sop, John xiii. 26. The citation from Prov. xxv. 21, 22, closely follows both Hebrew and Sep- tuagint.
Shalt heap (cwpevoess). Only here and 2 Tim. iii. 6.
Coals of fire. Many explain: The memory of the wrong awakened in your enemy by your kindness, shall sting him with penitence. This, however, might be open to the objection that the enemy’s pain might gratify the instinct of revenge. Per- haps it is better to take it, that kindness is as effectual as coals of fire. Among the Arabs and Hebrews the figure of “coals of fire” is common as a symbol of divine punishment (Ps. xviii. 13). “The Arabians call things which cause very acute mental pain, burning coals of the heart and fire in the liver” (Thayer, “Lexicon”). Thomas De Quincey, referring to an author who calls this ‘‘a fiendish idea,” says: “I acknowledge that to myself, in one part of my boyhood, it did seem a refinement of malice. My subtilizing habits, however, even in those days, soon sug- - gested to me that this aggravation of guilt in the object of our forgiveness was not held out as the motwe to the forgiveness, but as the result of it; secondly, that perhaps no aggravation of his guilt was the point contemplated, but the salutary sting- ing into life of his remorse hitherto sleeping” (“ Essays on the Poets”).