v.
13. τὰ δὲ πάντα ἢ ἑλεγχόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτὸς "φανεροῦται - πᾶν γὰρ τὸ φανερούμενον φῶς ἐστιν,
of them,” ‘‘all these things”. The ἐλεγ- χόμενα, again, must have its proper sense of reproved or rebuked, and cannot be dealt with as synonymous with πεφανε- ροῦται. The anarthrous participle will express the manner or the time of the action in question, and is not = “all things which are reproved” (Vulg., AV, etc.), but is = “all these things when they are reproved”. The πᾶν must " accepted as ἃ neuter, there bein reason for taking it (with Benge abstract for concrete and so= Couns man". Further, the φανερούμενον and the φανεροῦται are naturally to be taken as of the same Voice. That the former cannot have the force of the Middle, “that which makes manifest,” appears from the fact that there does not appear to be any instance of φανεροῦσθαι being anything else than a pure passive in the NT, although it occurs some fifty times there. Two particular difficulties remain, viz., (a) the connection of ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτός, and (δ) the sense of φῶς in the two clauses. As to (a), some attach the words to the ἐλεγχόμενα, = ‘ when they are reproved by the light” (Syr., Copt., etc.). But, as the ἐλέγχετε (ver. 11) was introduced without any specification of the agent, it is most natural to connect the ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτός here not with the participle but with the fin, verb, and the best sense is ot thereby. As to (δ), itis held by some opty Ell.) that the term φῶς must have the same sense in both clauses, whether the primary sense or the metaphorical. But it is difficult to get a clear and con- sistent sense for the statement on that supposition, neither is it necessary that the τοῦ φωτός in the first clause should have identically the same sense as φῶς in the second. In point of fact in the former the idea of the Christian light, the light of the Christian truth previously r to, seems to be in view; while in the latter clause, which gives a general state- ment in support of the preceding par- ticular affirmation, φῶς has its primary sense. It should be added that, if Φανε- povpevoy is part of the statement of a general truth, the objection taken by some (¢.g., Abb.) to the interpretation that deals with it as a true passive, vis., that it should then be πεφανε falls to the ground. These considera- tions, therefore, negative all such inter-