esting treatment of the word in Bibelstud., pp. too-104. On the verse Calvin remarks: "Πίο locus docet
aliquem inter Christianos jurisjurandi usum esse legitimum. Quod _ obser- vandum est contra homines fanaticos qui regulam sancte jurandi, quam Deus lege sua praescripsit, libenter abrogarent.” Ver. 17. ἐν ᾧ περισσότερον. ... “Wherefore God, being minded more abundantly to demonstrate to the heirs of the promise the immutability of His purpose, interposed with an oath.” ἐν ᾧ-- διὸ (Theoph.), and see Winer, 484. It might be rendered ‘‘quae cum ita sint,” or “this being so”. The oath having among men this convincing power, God disregards the insult implied in any doubt of His word and conde- scending to human infirmity confirms
304
αὑτοῦ, ἐμεσίτευσεν ὅρκῳ, 18. ἵνα διὰ δύο πραγμάτων ἀμεταθέτων,
ἐν οἷς ἀδύνατον ψεύσασθαι Θεὸν, ἰσχυρὰν παράκλησιν ἔχωμεν οἱ
καταφυγόντες κρατῆσαι τῆς προκειμένης ἐλπίδος - 19. ἣν ὡς ἄγκυραν
His promise by an oath. περισσότερον neuter adjective for adverb (ii. 1) is to be construed with ἐπιδεῖξαι, the meaning of the comparative being ‘‘ abundantius quam s ne juramento factum videretur ” (Bengel). . Carpzov renders by “εχ abundanti,” and cites Philo, De Abra- hamo c. 46 where the word of God is said to become an oath, ἕνεκα τοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν ἀκλινῶς Kal παγίως ἔτι μᾶλλον ἢ πρότερον ἐρηρεῖσθαι. τοῖς KAnpovop- ous, not exclusively the OT ποτ ex- clusively the N.T. heirs, neither Jews nor Gentiles, but all; see ix. 3, and Gal. ii. 29. τὸ ἀμετάθετον τῆς βουλῆς αὐτοῦ, the unchangeable character of His purpose. [ἀμετάθ. 3 Macc. v. 1, 12; Polybius with ἐπιβολή, ὁρμή; διάληψις. For use of adjective see Rom. ii. 4, viii. ον ε ὅσος αν, 25, εἴο. λίπος up. 2913] ἐμεσίτευσεν ὅρκῳ, µεσιτεύω, belonging to later Greek, ‘‘to act as mediator,” but sometimes used transitively ‘‘ to negotiate,” as in Polybius xi. 34, 3. Other examplesin Bleek. Here, however, it is used intransitively as in Josephus, Ant., vii. 8, 5. Sothe margin of A.V. “interposed himself by an oath,” im- proved in R.V. “interposed with an oath”. Cf. Josephus Ant., iv. 6,7; ταῦτα δὲ ὀμνύοντες ἔλεγον καὶ θεὸν μεσίτην ὧν ὑπισχνοῦντο ποιούμενοι. “God des- cended, as it were, from His own absolute exaltation, in order, so to speak, to look up to Himself after the manner of men and take Himself to witness; and so by a gracious con- descension confirm the promise for the sake of its inheritors” (Delitzsch). “ He brought in Himself as surety, He mediated or came in between men and Himself, through the oath by Himself” (Davidson).
Ver. 18. The motive of this procedure on God’s part has already been indicated in βουλόμενος, but now it is more fully declared. ἵνα διὰ δύο. . . ἐλπίδος “ that by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who fled for refuge to hold fast the hope set before us”. The two immutable things are God’s promise and His oath. It is impossible for God to break His promise, impossible also for him to falsify His oath. Both of these were given that even weak men might have strong en-
couragement. The emphasis is on ἰσχυρὰν, no ordinary encouragement. Interpreters are divided as to the con- struction of κρατῆσαι, Cicumenius, Bleek, Liinemann, and others maintain- ing its dependence on παράκλησιν; en- couragement to hold fast the hope; while others, as Beza, Tholuck, Del- itzsch, Weiss, construe it with κατα- φυγόντες as in A.V. “who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope”’. If this latter construction be not adopted, καταφυγ. is left undefined and must be taken in an absolute sense, which is un- warranted. It is the word used in the LXX (Deut. iv. 42, xix. 5; Josh. xx. 9} , for fleeing from the avenger to the¢ asylum of the cities of refuge. So here Christians are represented as fleeing from the threatened danger and laying hold of that which promises safety. κρατῆσαι (aor. of single act) must there- fore be rendered ‘to lay hold of” and not, as in iv. 14, “hold fast”. The former meaning is much more frequent than the latter. τῆς προκειμένης ἐλπίδος,