x Gal.i.7, πεὶ
y In this
sense, 2 Cor. x. 13; Heb. vii.2; Mk. wi. 41; Lk. xii. 13; Josh. xiii. 7. Cf. i. 13.
the caller). a See iii. 3.
τὴν γυναῖκα σώσεις]; 17. * et ” μὴ ἑκάστῳ ὡς 7 ἐμέρισεν ” ὅ Θεός, ἕκαστον ὡς ” κέκληκεν 6 " Κύριος,” οὕτω “περιπατείτω" καὶ
z See i. 9 (God
1 Add η µη (for et µη of ver. 17) a few minn., hcl.-syr. marg., and Chr.; by itacism.
2 pepepeKev, N*B. aorist.
So most crit. edd.; see, however, El. in favour of the Possibly Rom. xii. 3 has influenced the copyists.
3 (wepep.) ο Κνριος: all pre-Syrian uncc.
4 (κεκληκ.) ο Θεος: as above (ver. 15).
appeal to Christian principle, by a chal- lenge addressed in turn to the wifely and the manly heart: ‘(Keep the peace, if you can, with the unconverted spouse), for how do you know, O wife, that you will not save your husband? or how do you know, O husband, that you will not save your wife?” That εἰ in this con- nexion (see parls.), after τί οἶδας imply- ing a fear, may mean “that... not” in English idiom (as though it were: “‘ How do you know? it may be you will save, etc.!’’) is admitted by Hn. and Ed., though they reject the above interpreta- tion, which is that of the ancient com- mentt. from Cm. down to Lyra, of Cv. and Bz., and of Ev. and Lt. amongst moderns: see the convincing notes of the two last-named; ‘‘Confirmatio est superioris sententiz: non cur discedente infideli liberetur fidelis; sed contra, cur ita sit utendum hac libertate, ut in- fidelem, si fieri potest, retineat fidelis ac Christo lucrificet’’ (Β2.).---τί οἶδας: con- notes “not the manner in which the knowledge is to be obtained, but the ex- tent of it’? (Ed.)\—‘ what do you know as to the question whether, etc. ?”
The above sentences are curiously ambiguous; taken by themselves, they may be read as reasons either against or for separation. The latter interpretation is adopted, as to ver. 158 by most, and as to ver. 16 by nearly ali ecent exegetes (including Bg., Mr., Ht., Hn., Al., Bt., Ed., Gd., El.): “God has called us in peace (and peace is only possible through separation); for how do you know, wife or husband, that you will save the other?”’ As muchas to say, ‘‘ Why cling to him, or her, on so ill-founded a hope ?”’ Grammatical considerations being fairly balanced, the tenor of the previous con- text determines the Apostle’s mean- ing. In the favourite modern exposition, the essential thought has to be read be- tween the lines. It should also be ob- served that the Cor., with their lax moral notions, needed dissuasives from rather
See parls.
than encouragements to divorce; and on the other hand, that to discountenance the hope of a soul’s salvation is strangely unlike the Ap. (cf. x. 33). On the con- struction here adopted, P. returns at the close of the Section to the thought with which it opened—py χωρισθῆναι.
§ 22. Gop’s CALLING AND ONE’S EARTHLY STATION, vii. 17-24. In treating of questions relating to mar- riage, the Apostle’s general advice—ad- mitting of large exceptions (2, 9, 15)— had been that each, whether single or married, should be content with his present state (1, 8, 10-14, 27). The Christian revolution had excited in some minds a morbid restlessness and eager- ness for change, which disturbed domestic relations (cf. Matt. x. 36), but was not confined thereto. This wider tendency the Ap. combats in the ensuing paragraph; he urges his readers to acquiesce in their position in life and to turn it to ac- count as Christians. In Thessalonica a similar excitement had led men to abandon daily work and throw their support upon the Church (1 Thess. iv. 1: f., 2 Thess. iii. 6-15). Hn., in Meyer’s Comm., p. 229, points out the close resemblance, both in form and matter, between this section and certain passages in Epictetus (Dissertt.,i Ts, αχ. 47 Β.Π. ax. fits) The freedom of the inner man and loyal acceptance of the providence of God are inculcated by both the Stoic and the Christian philosopher, from their differ- ing standpoints.