264
ἢ ν.9, et xii. 2 4 Ἢ ΣΝ δ ή 2 ie Όπως χάριτι Θεοῦ UTEP’ παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου.
xxiv. 26, 46; Acts lii. 15, et ος v.31; Rom. ii. 36; Phil. ii. 8, 9.
το. ' Ἔπρεπε
Lo 3 γὰρ αὐτῷ, δι ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι οὗ τὰ πάντα, πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς
1T.R. is read in almost all the MSS. and versions and adopted by all editors. But χωρις Θεον is found in M, 67**, Origen.
2 Hic versus multas difficultates interpretationi affert.
Fortasse v. 90 (οπως...
θανατου) corruptus vel interpolatus est’’ (Baljon).
accusative of the nearer, the genitive of the remoter source of the sensation is much safer.] The expression γεύεσθαι θανάτου does not occur in the classics, although we find yev. μόχθον in Soph., Trachin.,1103,where the Scholiast renders by ἐπειράθην, in Antig., 1005, where Jebb renders “' proceeded to make trial of,” in Eurip., Hecuba, 375, with κακῶν and in Plato, Rep.,475 with πάντος μαθήματος.
Vy. 10-18. The humiliation of tbe Son justified; ‘‘a condensed and pregnant view of the theory of the whole work of Christ, which subsequent chapters de- velop, eludicate, and justify dialectically, in contrast or comparison with the O.T. . .. The ultimate source of all doubt whether the new dispensation is superior to the old is nothing else than want of clear insight into the work of Christ, and especially into the significance of His passion, which, to the Jews, from whom the Hebrew Christians of our Epistle were drawn, was the chief stumbling- block in Christianity. Here, therefore, the writer has at length got into the heart of his subject, and, leaving the contrast between Christ and the angels, urges the positive doctrine of the identi- fication of Jesus with those that are his—his brethren, the Sons of God whom He sanctifies—as the best key to that connection between the passion and glorification of Christ which forms the cardinal point of N.T. revelation” (Robertson Smith). To this it may only be added that in order to prove man’s supremacy and justify Psalm vili., it was essential that the writer should show that Christ was man, iden- tified with humanity.
In justification then (justification intro- duced by yap) of the subjection of Jesus to the πάθημα θανάτου, the writer pro- ceeds to say ἔπρεπεν αὐτῷ “it befitted Him”. The expression, says Carpzov, is ““ frequentissima Philoni phrasis”’ ; but in Scripture, at least in this sense, it stands) αἶσπε: ας er. x. 7; ES. ἱκν: de Aristotle (Nic. Eth., iv. 2-2: Burnet, p. 173) says that what is befitting is rela-
tive to the person, the circumstances and the object [τὸ πρέπον δὴ πρὸς αὐτὸν, καὶ ἐν ᾧ καὶ περὶ ὅ]. The object here in view, the ‘“‘ bringing many sons to glory,” needs no justification. As Tertullian (adv. Marcion, ii. 27) says: ‘‘ nihil tam dignum Deo, quam salus hominis”. But that the means used by God to accom- plish this end was not only fit to bring it about but was also πρέπον θεῷ, in other words, that Christ’s humiliation and death were in accordance with the Divine nature, is the point the writer wishes to make good. ‘‘ The whole course of nature and grace must find its explanation in God, and not merely in an abstract Divine arbityvium, but in that which befits the Divine nature’”’. This matter of Christ’s suffering has not been
-isolated in God’s government but is of a
piece with all He is and has done; it has not been handed over to chance, acci- dent, or malevolent powers, but is part of the Divine rule and providence ; it is not exceptional, unaccountable, arbitrary, but has its root and origin in the very. nature of God. God acted freely in the matter, governed only by His own nature. ‘Man has not wholly lost the intuitive power by which the fitness of the Divine action, its correspondence to the idea standard of right which his conscience certifies and his reason approves, may be recognised’ (Henson, Disc. and Law,