Vik τ---α,
375
VI. τ. τὰ τέκνα, "ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν ὑμῶν Ὁ ἐν κυρίῳ 1 :α Matt. viii. ,
Ἂ 27 αἱ. τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν δίκαιον. 2. “Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα,’ υ Ch. iv. 17 ren.
c Exod. xx. 12.
1 Omit εν κυριω BD*FG, d, e,f, g, Clem., Tert., Cypr.; insert ΝΑΡ’΄ΕΚΙΡΕ, all cursives (appy.), most Versions, Orig., Bas., Chr., Euth., Thdrt., Dam., Ambrst., Jer. ? After τὴν p. insert gov Βα 37, 47, 115, 219, 238, etc., Syr., Copt., Eth., Orig., etc.
parata, Cic., Fam., xiv., 20 (cf. Donald- son, Greek Gram., p. 602 ; Win.-Moult., Ρ. 396). φοβῆται, fear, in the sense of reverence, spontaneous, obedient regard; cf. the frequent application of the verb to the fear of God (Luke i. 50, xviii. 2, 4; Acts x. 2, 22, 35, etc.) ; and its use in the case of Herod (Mark vi. 20).
CHAPTER VI. Vv. 1-4. Other relative duties—those of parents and children, With this the concise paragraph in Col. ili. 20, 21 is specially to be compared.
Ver. I. Ta τέκνα, ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν [ἐν Κυρίῳ]: children obey your parents in the Lord. ‘The duty of the wife has been described by the terms subjection or submission (ὑποτάσσεσθαι) and fear (φοβεῖσθαι). The duty of the child is now described in terms of obe- dience (ὑπακούειν, =readiness to hearken to one) and honour (τιμᾶν, ver. 2). In these words the whole distinctive duty of the child is summed up, in the Old Testa- ment as well asin the New. The “eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it” (Prov. xxx. 17). Dis- obedience to parents is named among the dark sins of the heathen of reprobate mind (Rom. i. 30), and the evils of the ‘ griev- ous times” in “the last days” (2 Tim. iii. 2). The ἐν Κυρίῳ, τεῖπ Christ, is best connected with the ὑπακούετε, not with the γονεῦσιν. It defines the quality of the obedience by defining the sphere within which it is to move—a Christian obedience fulfilled in communion with Christ. This phrase ἐν Κυρίῳ, however, is of disputable authority. It is inserted by the TR, supported by SAD?°KLP, Vulg., Syr., etc.; but is omitted by BD* FG, Cyr., Cypr., etc. It is deleted by Lachm., bracketed by TrWH, and re- tained by RV.—rotto γάρ ἐστι δίκαιον : for this is right. δίκαιον = right, not in the sense of befitting (πρέπον) merely, mut 7. Col. tv. Ὁ ΕΙ. τς ο 1v.iS3 2 Thess. i. 6) in that of righteous, what is required by Jaw—the law that is at once founded on the natural relation of τέκνα and yovets and proclaimed in the Divine Commandment (ver. 2).
Ver. 2. τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα: honour thy father and mother. Obedience is the duty ; honour is the dis- position of which the obedience is born. The authoritative terms of the OT Law (Exod. xx. 12; Deut. v. 16), given in the exact words of the LXX, are adopted in order to enforce regard for that disposi- tion.— itis ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγ- γελίᾳ: which is the first commandment in point of promise. ἥτις may have here a simply explanatory force (so ΕΙΙ., who renders it ‘‘the which’”’; Abb., ‘‘ for such is”) rather than the qualitative sense, or the casual, ‘‘seeing it 15’. But even its explanatory use suggests a reason for the fulfilment of the commandment. The prep. ἐν is understood by some (e.g., Alf.) to be the local év, expressing the sphere of the commandment, and so conveying the idea of being “accompanied by”. But more probably it expresses the simple sense of relation, ‘‘ in regard of,” “ in point of” (Mey., Ell.; cf. Win.-Moult., p- 488). πρώτη, like other ordinals, being specific enough in itself, dispenses with the article. But what is meant by this definition of the fifth command- ment as the first in point of promise ? The second commandment also has a kind of promise. But if that command- ment is discounted because its promise is general, not peculiar to itself, but appli- cable to all, and if the fifth alone has attached to it a promise relevant to itself, why is it called the “ first’ and not rather the “only”? commandment in point of promise ? Some meet the difficulty by supposing it to mean the first in the second table (Mich., etc.). But in the second table it would still be not only the first but the only one of the kind ; and if the Jewish division of the Decalogue, which assigned jive commandments to each of the two tables, reaches thus far back, it would not be even in the second table. Nor can πρώτη be taken in the sense Of first in importance ; for it is never described as such (cf. per contra Matt. xxii. 38; Rom. xiii. 9, 10; Gal. ν. 14). The most probable explanation is that Paul has not the Decalogue alone in view, but the whole series of Divine Command-