2—7.
ἀνταγωνιζόμενοι, 5.
367
ἃ καὶ ἐκλέλησθε τῆς παρακλήσεως, ἥτις ὑμῖν ἆ Job ν. 17
η Prov. iii. ὡς υἱοῖς διαλέγεται - “Vid μου, μὴ ὀλιγώρει παιδείας Κυρίου, μηδὲ ττ, 12; 6 a A > a K , 5 , ἃ Apoc, iii. . ὃν yap ἀγαπᾷ Κύριος παιδεύει ᾿ το.
5» , re 3 5 “ > / ἐκλύου ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόμενος.
A 6 2 μαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται.
7. Et! παιδείαν ὕπο-
΄ ς eon Cha , ς Θ , ᾿ / , > μένετε, ὡς υἱοῖς ὑμιν προσφέρεται ὁ Θεὸς’ Tis γάρ ἐστιν
levin minusculis; εἰς in NADKLP, Vulg.
μέχρις atpatos[Theoph., ἄχρι θαν- άτον, cf. Rev. xii. 11.] Does this mean, Ye have not yet become a martyr church, suffering death in Christ’s cause ; or does it mean, Ye have not yet resisted sin in deadly earnest? The interpretation is determined by the connection. Jesus endured the ἀντιλογία of sinners even to blood, the death of the cross; the He- brews have not yet been called so to suffer in their conflict, a conflict which every day summons them to fresh resist- ance against the sin of failure of faith and apostasy. ‘‘Sin’is not here put for sinners, nor is it sin in their perse- cutors; it is sin in themselves, the sin of unbelief, which is here regarded as their true antagonist, though of course the ex- cesses of their persecutors gave it its power against them” (Davidson and Weiss).
Vv. 5-τ7. The Hebrews are reminded that their sufferings are tokens of God’s fatherly love and care.
Ver. 5. καὶ ἐκλέλησθε. . . . ‘ And ye have clean forgotten the exhortation, which speaks to you as to sons, My Son, etc.”. καὶ introduces a fresh considera- tion. Calvin, Bleek and others treat the clause as an interrogation, needlessly. The παράκλησις is cited from Ῥτον. 11]. 11, and includes vv. 5 and 6, The only divergence from the LXX is the insertion of µου after vié. But Bleek calls atten- tion to the fact that the Hebrew of the last clause stands, according to the present
punctuation, ZV {ANS 33η = and as a father the son in whom he delights. The LXX instead of IND
have read al the Piel of 3993) to
feel pain, and so to cause pain; cer- tainly a better sense. In the Book of Proverbs the speaker identifies himself with wisdom, and here the words are justifiably viewed as Divine. ὀλιγώρει is classical, meaning ‘‘make light of,” “neglect,” “despise”. παιδεία is dis- cipline, or. correction, or the entire train- ing and education of childhood and
youth. And it is here urged that by the trials and difficulties of life God trains His children ; that to view sufferings in separation from God and to be oblivious of God’s design in them is disastrous ; and that despondency and failure of faith under suffering are inappropriate, for trials are not evidence of God’s displea- sure, but on the contrary tokens of His love, the uniform discipline to which every son must be subjected, 6v yap ἀγαπᾷ. . . the emphasis falling on ἀγαπᾷ. ὃν παραδέχεται, “whom He takes to Him as a veritable son, receives in his heart and cherishes” (Alford). The word is similarly used in Polybius, xxxvili. 1, 8. [The same pas- sage from Proverbs is cited by Philo (De Cong. Erud. gratia, p 544) who adds, οὕτως ἄρα ἣ ἐπίπληξις καὶ νουθεσία καλὸν νενόμισται, ὥστε δι᾽ αὐτῦς ἣ πρὸς θεὸν ὁμολογία συγγένεια γίνεται" τί γὰρ οἰκειότερον υἱῷ πατρὸς ἢ υἱοῦ πατρί: Cf. Menander’s ὃ μὴ δαρεὶς ἄνθρωπος οὐ παιδεύεται, and Seneca’s De Providentia where the same comparison is elaborated, and the great principle laid down ‘non quid, sed quemadmodum feras, inter- est ᾽.]
Ver. 7. The inference from the pas- sage cited is obvious, εἰς παιδείαν ὑπομένετε, “itis for training ye are enduring (are called to endure), as sons God is dealing with you”. [προσφέρεται is common; as in Xenophon, ov yap ὡς φίλοι προσεφέροντο ἡμῖν; and in Josephus, ὡς πολεμίοις προσεφέροντο. Their sufferings are evidence that God considers them His sons and treats them as such; for what son is there whom his father does not correct? τίς yap vids... similar in form to Matt. vii. 9, τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος :-- εἰ δὲ Χωρίς... . Whereas did they receive no such treatment, were they free from that discipline of which all (God’s chil- dren) have become partakers (as illus- trated in chap. xi.) then in this case they are bastards and not sons; their freedom from the discipline which God uniformly accords His children would prove that they were not genuine sons.