Ellicott follows Bp. Bull in giving ἐνώπιον a future reference to the Day of Judgment, when the Lord will be at-
20---23.
137
τ προκρίµατος, μηδὲν ποιῶν κατὰ " πρόσκλισιν. 22. Χεῖρας * ταχέως τ Here only,
μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει, μηδὲ
11. 2. 2 John 11.
not LXX.
“ κοινώνει ἁμαρτίαις " ἀλλοτρίαις - σεαυτὸν 5 Here only,
not LXX. t 2 Thess.
v Rom. xiv. 4, xv. 20, 2 Cor. x. 15, 16, Heb. ix. 25.
1 So ΝΕΚ, 47**, 67**, many others, ἃ, f, g, τ, vg.; πρόσκλησιν ADLP, 17, 31,
37, 47”, 50, more than fifty-four others.
tended by “ten thousands of His holy ones”’ (Jude 14). But this seems an eva- sion due to modern prejudice. ἐνώπιον implies that the solemnity of the charge or adjuration is heightened by its being uttered in the actual presence of God, Christ, and the angels. Perhaps one may venture to suppose that these are thought of as in three varying degrees of remoteness from human beings, with our present powers of perception. God the Father, though indeed “ He is not far from each one of us,” ‘‘ dwells in light unapproachable” ; Christ Jesus, though in one sense He dwells in us and we in Him, is for the most part thought of as having His special presence at the right hand οἱ the Majesty in the heavens; but the angels, though spiritual beings, are akin to ourselves, creatures as we are, powers with whom we are in immedi- ate and almost sensible contact, media perhaps through which the influences of the Holy Spirit are communicated to us.
ταῦτα refers to all the preceding dis- ciplinary instructions.
προκρίματος : dislike, praejudicium.
πρόσκλισιν: partiality (nihil faciens nm aliam partem declinando, Vulg.).
Clem. Rom., ad Cor. 21, has the phrase κατὰ προσκλίσεις, The reading πρόσ- κλησιν is almost certainly due to itacism. It could only mean “ by invitation, i.e., the invitation or summons of those who seek to draw you over to their side’’ (Thayer’s Grimm).
Ver. 22. Our best guide to the meaning of χεῖρας... ἐπιτίθει is the context, and more especially the following clause, μηδὲ... ἀλλοτρίαις. μηδέ constantly introduces an extension or development of what has immediately preceded ; it never begins anew topic. Now the in- junction Be not partaker of other men’s sins iS certainly connected with the disciplinary rebuke of sin, and refers of course to definite acts of sin committed in the past, as well as to their conse- quences or continuation. The whole procedure is outlined: we have the accu- sation in νετ, 10, the conviction and sen- tence in ver. 20, and—in the true Pauline spirit—repentance and reconciliation in
this verse; and the topic of ministerial treatment of sin is resumed and continued in ver. 24 sg. We can hardly doubt that St. Paul had in his mind Lev, xix. 17, “Thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour and not bear sin because of him,” καὶ ot λήμψῃ δι᾽ αὐτὸν ἁμαρτίαν. To witness in silence an act of wrong-doing is to connive at it. If this is true in the case of private persons, how much more serious an offence is it in the case of those to whom government is committed? See 2 John 11, ὁ λέγων yap αὐτῷ χαίρειν κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονη- βοις.
χεῖρας. . . ἐπιτίθει is then best re- ferred to imposition of hands on recon- ciled offenders, on their re-admission to Church communion. Eusebius (H. E., vii. 2), speaking of reconciled heretics, says, ‘‘The ancient custom prevailed with regard to such that they should receive only the laying on of hands with prayers,” μόνῃ χρῆσθαι τῇ διὰ χειρῶν ἐπιθέσεως εὐχῇ. See Council of Nicea, can. 5, according to one explanation of χειροθετουμένους, and Council of Arles, can. 8.
This was used in the case of penitents generally. So Pope Stephen (ap. Cy- prian, Ep. 74), “Si qui ergo a quacunque haeresi venient ad vos, nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illis imponatur in paenitentiam”’. See Bing- ham, Antiquities, xviii. 2, 1, where the 15th Canon of the Council of Agde (a.p. 506) is cited: ‘* Poenitentes tempore quo poenitentiam petunt, impositionem ma- nuum et cilicium super caput a sacerdote consequantur.” The antiquity of the custom may be argued from the consider- ation that imposition of hands was so prominent a feature in ordination, that it is not likely that its use would have been extended to anything else if such exten- sion could not have claimed unquestioned antiquity in its favour. If the explana- tion of this verse given above—which is that of Hammond, De Wette, Ellicott, . and Hort—be accepted, we have here the first distinct allusion to the custom of receiving back penitents by imposition of hands.