Confirmation both of the
"a
al
Τὴ
ἤ
ἱ
2384
h x.19, εἰς. ; πεπειρασμένον δὲ κατὰ πάντα καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα, χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας.
Rom. v.
2, 25;
Eph. ii.
18, et iii. 12.
infirmities,” the weaknesses which under- mine our resistance to temptation and make it difficult to hold fast our con- fession : moral weaknesses, therefore, though often implicated with physical weaknesses. Jesus can feel for these because πεπειρασμένον κατὰ πάντα καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα, He has been tempted in all respects as we are. κατὰ πάντα, classical, “in all respects,” cf. Wetstein on Acts xvii. 22; and Evagrius, v. 4, of Christ incarnate, ὁμοιοσπαθῆ κατὰ πάντα χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας, cf. 11. 17. καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα may either mean “ δοοοτάϊηρ to the like- ness of our temptations,” or, ‘‘ in accord- ance with His likeness to us”. The latter is preferable, being most in agree- ment with ii. 17. So Theophylact, καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα THY ἡμετέραν, τουτέστι παραπλησίως ἡμῖν, cf. Gen. i. 11, 12; and Philo, De Profug., c. 9, κατὰ τὴν πρὸς τἄλλα ὁμοιότητας. The writer pwishes to preclude the common fancy
‘that there was some peculiarity in Jesus
which made different from ours, that
His temptation wholly He was a
On the contrary, He has felt in His own
(Gn champion exposed to toy arrows.
/ |
i } | { i }
consciousness the difficulty of being righteous in this world; has felt pressing upon Himself the reasons and induce-
' ments that incline men to choose sin
that they may escape suffering and death ; in every part of His human con- stitution has known the pain and conflict with which alone temptation can be overcome ; has been so tempted that had He sinned, He would have had a thousandfold better excuse than ever man had. Even though His divinity may have ensured His triumph, His temptation was true and could only be overcome by means that are open to all. The one difference between our tempta- tions and those of Jesus is that His were χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. Riehm thinks this ex- pression is not exhausted by declaring the fact that in Christ’s case temptation never resulted in sin. It means, he thinks, further, and rather, that tempta- tion never in Christ’s case sprang from any sinful desire in Himself. So also Delitzsch, Weiss, Westcott, etc. But if Theophylact is right in his indication of the motive of the writer in introducing the words, then it is Christ’s successful wesistance of temptation which is in the