h Isa. 111. 11.
79
an . mere) win ἢ Here only: μετὰ εἰδώλων ; ὑμεῖς ὶ γὰρ tk
τ 5 ὃς. 66% 12 : XXiii. 51. εἶπεν ὁ Θεος, “ Οτι Scouse» ἜΣ Can nL:
3 -“ . καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτῶν ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ αὐτοὶ τό, 17; 2 ate i Λ 3 « Thess. ii.
17. "8s “ἐξέλθετε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν καὶ ος
“Kal ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε"” ““κἀγὼ 19; Eph. ii. 21.
ἔσομαι ὑμῖν εἰς προ, καὶ ὑμεῖς ¢ Refi. iii. 3.
f Rom. viii. IL; Col. iii. 16; 2 i Ezek, xx. 34; ο/. Zeph. iii. 20,
cf. Rev, iv. 8, etc.
'NycCDcEGK, 6 g and the Syriac vss. (probably from 1 Cor. iii. 16) support υμεις .. . εστε; better ἡμεῖς «. . ἐσμεν with KY*BD*LP, d, e and the Bohairic.
3 has ναοι.
3 For καθως ειπεν D*EG, d, ε, g have (wrongly) λεγει γαρ (see note),
4 GP, g have αυτοις for αντωγ.
> DEGKL, vg. read pou; better µου with ΒΟΡ 17. 6 DEKLP give εξελθετε; better εξελθατε with ΝΒΟ 17.
you were yoked with unbelievers”. The most obvious application of such a pro- hibition would be to intermarriage with the heathen, which was continually for- bidden to the chosen people (see Deut. Vii. 3, Josh. xxiii. 12, Ezra ix. 2, Neh. xiii. 25), and this is probably the main thought here (see ref. Lev. for ἑτερόζνγος); but to indulge in any excessive familiarity of intercourse would be ‘‘to be enlarged in heart” in a way which the Apostle strongly deprecates (cf. 1 Macc. 1. 15). He enforces this by five contrasts which illustrate the incongruity between Chris- tianity and heathendom.—tts γὰρ μετοχὴ κτλ; for what fellowship have right- eousness and lawlessness ? or what com- munition has light with darkness? Cf. Eph. v. 7, μὴ οὖν γίνεσθε συμμέτοχοι αὐτῶν" ἦτε γάρ ποτε σκότος, νῦν δὲ φῶς ἐν Κυρίῳ, and cf., for the same image, Acts xxvi. 18, Rom. xiii. 12, 1 Thess. v. 5 and chap. iv. 6, xi. 14.
Ver. 15. τίς δὲ συμφώνησις κ.τ.λ.; and what concord has Christ with Belial ? ΟΥ what portion has a believer, sc., a Chris- tian (see Acts xvi. 1, Eph. i. 1, Col. i. 2, etc.), with an unbelicver, sc., a heathen
bya = = worth-
lessness is frequently rendered παράνομος (Deut. xiii. 13,1 Kings xx. 13) or ἀνομία (Ps. xvii. 5) by the LXX; they never treat it asa proper name, although Theo- dotion does so at Judges "xix. 22, and it is so regarded in later literature (e.g., Test. xu. Patriarch. and Orac. Sibyll., iti., 63, 73). Here it is the personification of ἀνομία, just as Christ is the personifica-
(see on iv. 4 above) ?
tion of δικαιοσύνη ; the contrast is that between Christ and Satan (cf. 1 Cor. x. 21). See Charles’ Ascension of Isaiah, pp. ἵν. ff., for the identification of Beliar with Satan. The Hebrew form, Belial, with a sub- stitution of 7 for 1, is written BeAtap in the best Greek MSS. (see crit. note).
Ver. 16. τίς δὲ συγκατάθεσις κ.τ.λ.: and what agreement has the Temple of God with idols? It is quite unnecessary to mark the absence of the article by translating ‘‘a temple of God”: ναὸς Θεοῦ has become anarthrous, as a quasi- technical phrase, and in the Apostle’s thought there is only one such Temple, which is built up by the whole body of believers (see reff.).—ypets γὰρ κ.τ.λ.: for we are the Temple of a God who is alive (see reff.); note that ζῶντος as the emphatic word is placed last.—Ka§as εἶπεν 6 Θεὸς κ.τ.λ.: as God said, “1 will dwell in them (these words are only a paraphrase of Lev. xxvi. 11; the quota- tion begins with ver. 12) and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (cf. Exod. vi. 7, Jer. xxxi. 33, Ezek. xi. 20, Zech. viii. 8, xiii. g, etc., where the promise is reiterated). Several passages of the O.T., viz., Lev. xxvi. 12, Isa. lii. 11, Ezek. xx. 34 and 2 Sam. vii. 14 are here combined; and it is worth noticing that the first, second and fourth of these are marked as distinct quo- tations by the introductory formulz which precede them in the O.T. in each case, Viz., καθὼς εἶπεν 6 Θεός from Lev. xxvi. 12, λέγει Κύριος from Isa. lii. 5 (or Ezek. xx. 33), and λέγει Κύριος παντοκράτωρ from 2 Sam. vii. 8,