. 56). “It is worth noting that the chief value of Anselm’s view of the Atone- ment lies in the introduction into the- ology of the idea of what befits God— the idea, as he puts it, of God’s honour. Anselm fails, however, by thinking rather of what God’s honour must receive as its due than of what it is seemly for God in His grace to do, and thus his theory becomes shallow and ἰπδάε- quate” (Robertson Smith). The writer does not say ἔπρεπεν θεῷ but ἔπρεπεν αὐτῷ δι ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι οὗ τὰ πάντα ‘Him on account of whom are all things and through whom are αἱ] things,” who is the reason and the cause of all existence; in whom, there-
πα Ες
265
δόξαν ἀγαγόντα, τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν διὰ παθημάτων i x. το, 14;
τελειῶσαι.
fore, everything must find its reason and justification. ‘ Denn wenn um seinet- willen das All ist, also Alles seinen Zwecken dienen muss, und durch ihn das All ist, also nichts ohne sein Zuthun zu Stande kommt, so muss man bei Allem, was geschieht, und somit auch bei dem Todesleiden fragen, wiefern es ihm angemessen ist” (Weiss). The purpose of God is expressed in the words: πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα “in bringing many sons to glory”. The accusative ayay. (al- though referring to αὐτῷ) does not re- quire us to construe it with ἀρχηγὸν. That is a possible but clumsy construc- tion. The use of υἱοὺς implies that the Father is the subject and leads us to ex- pect that the action of God will be men- tioned. And this construction, in which the dative of the subject becomes an ac- cusative when an infinitive follows, is not unknown, but is merely a species of attraction—the infinitive drawing the noun into the case appropriate. Cf. Acts xi. 12, xv. 22; Lukei. 74. Examples* from the classics in Matthiae, 535. The aorist participle has led the Vulgate to translate ‘‘ qui multos filios in gloriam adduxerat,” needlessly, for ‘‘the aorist participle is sometimes used adverbially in reference to an action evidently in a general way coincident in time with the .action of the verb, yet not identical with it. The choice of the aorist participle rather than the present in such cases is due to the fact that the action is thought of, not as in progress, but as a simple event or fact (Burton, M. and T., 149). πολλοὺς υἱοὺς “many” is not used with any reference to the population of the world, or to the proportion of the saved, but to the one Son already cele- brated. Ut was God’s purpose not only to have one Son in glory, but to bring many to be partakers with Him. Hence the difficulty; hence the need of the suffering of Christ. But it is not merely πολλοὺς but πολλοὺς υἱοὺς suggesting the relationship dwelt upon in the suc- ceeding verses. τὸν ἀρχηγὸν T. σωτηρίας ... the author [pioneer] of their salvation indicating that feature of Christ’s relation to the saved which determined His experience, “ the Captain of their salvation”. R.V.has ‘ author ” following Vulg. Chrysostom has ἀρχηγὸν 'τουτέστι τὸν αἴτιον, and so Robertson
11. ὴὅ τε γὰρ ἁγιάζων καὶ οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι, ἐξ ἑνὸς πάν-
Acts xvii. 26.
Smith, “it is hardly necessary to put more meaning into the phrase than is contained in the parallel expression of ν. 9”. So Bleek, Kibel and von Soden. But the word is select, and why select, if not to bring out precisely this, that in the present case the cause is also the leader, ‘‘ that the Son goes before the saved in the same path”. He is the strong swimmer who carries the rope ashore and so not only secures His own position but makes rescue for all who will follow. ‘“ The ἀρχηγός himself first takes part in that which he establishes” (Westcott). One of the chief points in the Epistle is that the Saviour is also ἀρχηγός. The word is commonly used of founders of tribes, rulers and com- manders, persons who begin anything in become the source of anything, but or this Epistle (xii. 2) it has over and above the sense of “pioneer”. διὰ παθημάτων τελειῶσαι; ‘‘to per- fect through sufferings”. τελειῶσαι is to make τέλειον, to bring a person or thing to the appropriate τέλος, to com- plete, perfect, consummate. In _ the Pentateuch it is regularly used to denote the consecration of the priests. In the N.T. this consecration is no formal set- ting apart to office, but a preparation involving ethical fitness. So that here the word directly denotes making perfect as leader of salvation, but indirectly and by implication making morally perfect. And this moral perfection, requisite in one who was to cleanse sinners (note σωτηρίας) and lead the way to glory, could only be proved and acquired through the sufferings involved in living as man, tempted and with death to face. There- fore διὰ παθημάτων, ‘a plurality of sufferings’? not merely as in ver. 9 τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου. Cf. νετ. 18. The glory indeed to which this captain of salvation leads is the glory of triumph over temptation and all that tends to terrify and enslave men.