4—6.
451
Ἑβραίων, κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖος, 6. κατὰ “ ζῆλον "διώκων τὴν 3 4 Rom.x.2;
ἐκκλησίαν,5 κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος.
cf. 2 Cor. vii, 11, ix. 2;1 Macc. ; ii. 58 (A). τ Acts xxii. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 9; Gal. i. 23 al.
1So NcDb et cEKLP, Euth.cod., Bas.eth, Edd. ζηλος with Ν"ΑΒΡ"Εᾳ,
20m. D*FG.
the foundation of the future nation.— Ἕβρ. ἐξ “EBp. For the phrase cf. Herodt., 2, 143, Πίρωμιν ἐκ Πιρώμιος ; Plat., Phaedr., 246 A, ἀγαθοὶ καὶ ἐξ ἀγαθῶν. The force of these words has been variously estimated. Lft. and others draw a contrast between Ἑβραῖος and Ἑλληνιστής, the former being a Jew who retained the Hebrew language and cus- toms (see Acts vi. 1). But Euseb., H.E., 2, 4, 2, applies the designation to Philo, and in Praep. Evang., xiii., 11, 2, to Aristobulus, both of them Greek-speak- ing Jews with little if any knowledge of Hebrew. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 22. The Greek Comm., Th. Mps. and Thdrt., believe that, in using the ancient name, Paul wishes to emphasise the purity of his lineage. Probably they are right.—xara νόμον. Are we to distinguish between νόμος and ὁ νόμος in Paul? Attempts have been made (notably that of Gifford, Romans in Speaker’s Comm., pp. 41-48) to show that when Paul omits the article he is thinking mainly of the principle of law as a method of justification in oppo- sition to faith, etc. In our judgment it has been made abundantly clear by Grafe (Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz, pp. 1-11) that, for the Apostle, νόμος with or without the article means the Ο.Τ. reve- lation of the will of God. He makes no distinction between a general conception of Divine law and the special one of the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law is for him the Divine law pure and simple, and therefore has a universal bearing. There are, of course, modifications of this cen- tral idea, but they can all be satisfactorily accounted for. Often the insertion or omission of the article with νόμος is entirely a question of formal grammar. Here νόμος is plainly the law of Moses. —apicaios. Cf. Acts xxiii. 6. For an interesting discussion of the influence of the school of Hillel upon Paul see Wab- nitz, Revue Théol., xiii., p. 287 ff. The survivals of Rabbinic doctrines and methods in Paul’s thought, however, must neither be exaggerated, nor, because they are Rabbinic, be contemptuously dismissed. “1 God was not moving in
ὅθεου added by FG, 122, f, vg., Aug., Ambrst.
the Rabbinic thought of Christ’s day, what reason have we to say He... moves in the thought of to-day 2” (Ρ. Τ. Forsyth). Almost certainly Paul’s family must have been in thorough sympathy with strict Judaism. No doubt he would be disowned by them, and this, as Ramsay notes (94. Paul, p. 36), would give special force to his words in ver. 8 infr.
Ver. 6. Probably ζῆλος (neuter) is the correct form here. In N.T. the neuter occurs only in 2 Cor. ix. 2, but it is found in Ignat., and, alternately with ὁ ζ., in 1 Clem. It is perhaps colloquial (so W-Sch., p. 84), although 6 {. is that used in LXX. ζῆλος would almost have a technical meaning for a strict Jew at that time in connexion with the fanatical party among the Pharisees who called them- selves ζηλωταί (cf. Schiirer, i., 2, p. 80 ff.). Cf. Gal. i. 14, περισσοτέρως ζη- λωτὴς ὑπάρχων τῶν πατρικῶν μου παρα- δόσεων.---διώκ. τ. ἐκκλησ. Cf. Gal. i. 13, ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ὁ διώκων is, in classical Greek, the techni- cal term for the “‘ pursuer”’ or prosecutor in the law-courts. Strangely enough it was by means of prosecutions that Paul usually persecuted.—kata δικ. τ. ἐν ν. ‘** According to (4.6., tested by the stan- dard of) the righteousness which belongs to the sphere of the law.” Of course this righteousness, which is here equiva- lent to right conduct as a whole, is re- garded from the point of view of that which justifies before God. For the ex- ceptional prominence which righteousness has in Jewish religious thought, see esp. Weber, Lehvren des Talmud, pp. 260- 270, and Charles’ admirable note on Apocal. of Baruch, xxiv. 1. Cf. Ps. Sol. ix. g for a very precise formula- tion of Jewish thought on this subject. It would be wrong to limit δικ. here merely to ceremonial observances. It includes, most probably, the ordinary moral precepts of the law as well.— ἄμεμπτος. Exactly parallel to this de- scription is the case of the rich young man in the Gospels. He also could claim to be κατὰ δικ. τ. ἐν voy. ἄμεμπ. It was at the next step (ver. 7) that