ὡς θεράπων, εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν λαληθησομένων - 6. ἦ Χριστὸς
1 3. 2 ς ο) ed 2 ‘ OLKOS EO HEV ἡμεις, eavirep ~ την
παρρησίαν καὶ τὸ καύχημα τῆς ἐλπίδος μέχρι τέλους βεβαίαν ὃ 7. ΣΔιὸ, καθὼς λέγει τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ "Άγιον, “Σήμερον
1T.R. in ΝΑΒΟ; ος in D*M, 6, 67** d, e, f, Vulg. (quae domus sumus nos). 2T.R. in ScACDcE**KL; εαν in QQ*BDE*MP, 17, d, e, f, Vulg. 3 WH bracket μεχρι τελους βεβαιαν and Weiss rejects the words with Β. ΑΙ
the other great uncials insert the words.
.. . is faithful in all my house. I will speak to him mouth to mouth, apparently and not in dark speeches.” Grotius says ‘‘ut pronuntiaret populo ea quae Deus ei dicenda quoquo tempore man- dabat’’. Bleek and Davidson refer the μαρτύριον to Moses notto God. “ He was a servant for a testimony,i.e., to bear testimony of those things which were to be spoken, 2.ε., from time to time revealed. Reference might be made to Barnabas vill. 3, εἰς µαρτ. τῶν φυλῶν. The meaning advocated by Calvin, Delitzsch, Westcott and others is attractive. They understand the words as referring to the things which were to be spoken by Christ, and that the whole of Moses’ work was for a testimony of those things. Thus Westcott translates ‘‘for a testimony of the things which should be spoken by God through the prophets and finally through Christ”. This gives a fine range to the words, but the context in Numbers is decisively against it. The idea seems to be that Moses being but a θεράπων needed a testimonial to his fidelity that the people might trust him ; and also that he had no initiative but could only report to the people the words that God might speak to him. In con- trast to this position of Moses, Χριστὸς ὡς vios ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ, Christ’s fidelity was that of “ἃ Son over his house’’. It was not the fidelity which exactly performs what another commands and faithfully enters into and fulfils His will. It is the fidelity of one who himself is possessed by the same love and conceives the same purposes as the Father. The interests of the house and the family are the Son’s interests. ‘We are His house” and in Christ we see that the interests of God and man, of the Father and the family areone. [Gro- tius quotes the jurisconsults: ‘‘ etiam vivente patre filium quodam modo do- minum esse rerum paternarum”.] But this house so faithfully administered by
Bleek thinks them genuine.
the Son Himself is the body of Christian people, οὗ οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς, we are those on whom this fidelity is spent. The relative finds its antecedent in αὐτοῦ. The ‘house of God”’ is, in the Gospels, the Temple; but in 1 Pet. iv. 17 and 1 Tim. iii. 15 it has the same meaning as here, the people or Church of God. ‘‘ Whose house are we,” but with a condition ἐὰν τὴν παρρη- σίαν ... κατάσχωμεν, “if we shall have held fast our confidence and the glorying of our hope firm to the end”. For, as throughout the Epistle, so here, all turns on perseverance. παρ- ρησία originally ‘frank speech,’ hence ‘the boldness which prompts it. Cf. iv. 16, x. 19, 35; so in Paul and John. καύχημα, not as the form of the word might indicate, ‘the object of boast- ing,” but the disposition asin 1 Cor. v. 6: οὐ καλὸν τὸ καύχημα ὑμῶν and 2 Cor. ν. 12: ἀφορμὴν διδόντες ὑμῖν καυχή- ματος. [Cf. the interchange οἵ βρῶσις and βρῶμα in Jo. iv. 32, 34, and Jan- naris, Hist. Gk. Gram., 1021 and 1155.] Whether ἐλπίδος belongs to both sub- stantives is doubtful. The Christian’s hope of a heavenly inheritance (ver. 1), of perfected fellowship with God, should be so sure that it confidently proclaims itself, and instead of being shamefaced glories in the future it anticipates. And this attitude must be maintained μέχρι τέλους βεβαίαν, until difficulty and trial are past and hope has become possession. βεβαίαν In agreement with the remoter substantive, which might give some colour to the idea that the expression iwas lifted from νετ. 14 and inserted here ; but Bleek shows by several instances that the construction is legitimate.