πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως ‘“‘in many parts and in many ways”. The alliteration is characteristic of the author, cf. v. 8, v.14, vii. 3, ix. το, etc. For the use of the words in Greek authors see Wetstein. πολυμερῶς points to the fragmentary character of former revelations. They were given piece-meal, bit by bit, part by part, as the people needed and were able to receive them. The revelation of God was essentially progressive; all was not disclosed at once, because all could not at once be
247
248
understood. One aspect of God’s nature, one element in His purposes, reflected from the conditions of their time, the prophets could know ; but in the nature of things it was impossible they should know the whole. They were like men listening to a clock striking, always get- ting nearer the truth but obliged to wait till the whole was heard. Man can only know in part, ἐκ μέρους, I Cor. xiii, [A fine illustration will be found in Brown- ing’s Cleon, in lines beginning: ‘‘ those divine men of old time have reached, thou sayest well, each at one point the
outside verge,” etc..] The “speaking” of
God to the fathers was conditioned by the capacity of the prophets. His speak- ing was also πολυτρόπως [cf. Odyss.i. I. Ανδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα, πολύτροπον] not in one stereotyped manner but in modes varying with the message, the messenger, and those to whom the word is sent. Sometimes, therefore, God spoke by an institution, sometimes by parable, sometimes in a psalm, sometimes in an act of righteous indignation. For, as Peake says, ‘‘ the author is speaking not of the forms in which God spoke {ο the prophets, but of the modes in which He spoke through them to the fathers. The message took the form of law or prophecy, of history or psalm; now it was given in signs, now in types.” So Hofmann. These features of previous revelations, so prominently set and ex- pressed so grandiloquently, cannot have been meant to disparage them, rather to bring into view their affluence and plia- bility and many-sided application to the growing receptivity and varying needs of men. He wins his readers by sug- gesting the grandeur of past revelations. But it is at the same time true, as Calvin remarks, ‘‘ varietatem fuisse imperfec- tionis notam”. So Bengel, ‘“‘Ipsa pro- phetarum multitudo indicat, eos ex parte prophetasse’’. These characteristics, while they encouragingly disclosed God’s purpose to find His way to men, did yet discredit, as inadequate for perfect achievement, each method that was tried. The contrast in the new revelation is implied in the word ἐκάθισεν, indicating that the work was once for all accom- plished.
The next note of previous revelations is found in πάλαι “ of old,” not merely “in time past” as A.V.; marking the time referred to in λαλήσας as contrasted with the writer’s present, and gently suggesting that other methods of speak-
ing ‘might now be appropriate. Already