Fathers of our flesh (rods pév tis capKds nuav Trarépas ). Up to this point the suffering of Christians has been explained by God’s fatherly relation to them. Now the emphatic point is that their fathers, with whom God is compared, were only earthly, human parents. The phrase rrarépes ris capxos N.T.°, but kindred expressions are found Rom. iv. 1; ix. 3; Gal. iv. 29; Heb. ii. 14.
Which corrected (7adevras). Lit. “we have had fathers of our flesh as chasteners.” Only here and Rom. ii. 20. In LXX, Sir. xxxvii. 19; Hos. v. 2; 4 Mace. v. 34; ix. 6.
Shall we not much rather be in subjection (ov oAvd PadXOv UrroTaynodueOa). The comparison is between the respect paid to a fallible, human parent, which may grow out of the natural relation, or may be due to fear, and the com- plete subjection to the divine Father.
To the Father of spirits (ro watpl rév rvevpdtorv). Con- trasted with fathers of the flesh. Their relation to us is lim- ited; his is universal. They are related to us on the fleshly side ; he is the creator of our essential life. Our relation to him is on the side of our eternal being. Comp. J. iv. 23, 24; Zech. xii.1; Isa. lvii.16. The phrase N. T.°. Comp. LXX, Num. xvi. 22; xxvii. 16; Apoc. xxii. 6. Clement of Rome styles God the benefactor (evepyérns) of spirits, the creator and overseer (xtiotns, éricxomos) of every spirit, and the lord (Seardrns) of spirits. Ad Corinth. lix, Ixiy.
Cx. XII.) THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 543
And live (cai Sjcouev). Have true life; not limited to the future life. Comp. J: v. 26; vi. 57; 1 J. v.11; Apoce. xi, 11; Acts xvi. 28; Rom. vi. 11; xiv. 8; 1 J. iv. 9, and see on living God, Heb. iii. 12.
10. Much difficulty and confusion have attached to the interpretation of this verse, growing out of: (a) the relations of the several clauses; (6) the meaning of for a few days, and how much is covered by it. The difficulties have been aggravated by the determination of commentators to treat the verse by itself, confining the relation of its clauses within its own limits, attempting to throw them into pairs, in which attempt none of them have succeeded, and entirely overlook- ing relations to the preceding verse.
For a few days (pos ddrtyas juépas). This clause is directly related to be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live, and points a contrast. On the one hand, subjection to the Father of spirits, the source of all life, has an eternal sig- nificance. Subjection to his fatherly discipline means, not only the everlasting life of the future, but present life, eternal in quality, developed even while the discipline is in progress. Subjection to the Father of spirits and life go together. On the other hand, the discipline of the human father is brief in duration, and its significance is confined to the present life. In other words, the offset to for a few days is in ver. 9. To read for a few days into the two latter clauses of the verse which describes the heavenly discipline, and to say that both the chastening of the earthly and of the heavenly father are of brief duration, is to introduce abruptly into a sharp con- trast between the two disciplines a point of resemblance. The dominant idea in zpos is not mere duration, but duration as related to significance: that is to say, “for a few days” means, during just that space of time in which the chastise- ment had force and meaning. See, for instances, L. viii. 18 ; J. v. 85; 1 Th. ii. 17; 2 Cor. vii. 8. The few days can scarcely refer to the whole lifetime, since, even from the ancient point of view of the continuance of parental author-