16---1ο.
445
εἰρήνῃ, θερµαίνεσθε καὶ χορτάζεσθε, μὴ δῶτε δὲ αὐτοῖς 2 τὰ ἐπι- 1-11 John
ili, 17, 18.
la “ε τήδεια ὃ τοῦ σώματος, τί τὸ" ὄφελος :' 17. οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις, m Rom. ix.
5 ἐὰν μὴ ἔχῃ ἔργα,“ νεκρά ἐστιν καθ ἑαυτήν.
6
3 a . 19. 18. ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ "τις ° niii. 13. Gal. v. 6
AY , > 7 a ο σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις, κἀγὼ ἔργα χω :ὃ δεῖξόν μοι τὴν πίστιν σου. ο. Matt.
Vii. 16, 17.
χωρὶς 10 τῶν ἔργω», 1 12 κἀγώ σοι " δείξω 15 ἐκ τῶν ἔργων µου 14 τὴν px Cor.
°miotw. 13 το. ἢ σὺ 10 πιστεύεις ὅτι 17 εἷς ἐστιν 15 ὁ Θεός.ΙΤ καλῶς
1 Dederit ff. ares. 40m. το BC’, Arm., Tregmg, WH.
6—6 Tu operam habes ego fidem habeo 77. 9Om. 68, ff.
ϑέεχω, Weiss; εχω. WH. 11 Add σου CKL, a, Aeth., Thl., rec. 12—12 Et ego tibi de operibus fidem ff.
13 δειξω σοι ACKL, Syrr., Thl., Oec. Tregmg, 16 Add μον AKLP, πι Vulg., Syrr., Copt., Aeth., Thl., Oec., rec.
Viii. 6.
3 Alimentum /f.
5 epya εχη L, Arm., Thl., Oec.. 7 eyes; WH (altern. reading). 10 ex KL, m., Thl., rec.
14Qm. Latt. (hab 5), Syrhk, 1άθπι.ς.
17---ῦ εις Θεος εστιν; B, 69, a, ο, ΤΗΙ., Tregmg, WH; εις ο Θεος εστιν; C Syrhk, Weiss, WH (altern. reading); ο Geos εις εστιν K?2L, Did., Oec.
18 Om. ff.
this phrase occurs there is no question of irony, it is a direct fallacy which is being combated; in this verse, too, the writer is correcting a mistaken idea, this comes out clearly in the next verse.
Ver. 17. οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις . ο: just as faith without works is dead, so this spurious, quiescent charity, which is content to leave all to God without any attempt at individual effort, is worthless. —Kxa@ ἑαυτήν: the Vulgate in semet- ipsa brings out the force of this; such faith is, in its very essence, dead; cf. the Peshitta.
Ver. 18.—@AN ἐρεῖ τις: these words, together with the argumentative form of the verses that follow, imply that a well-known subject of controversy is being dealt with. "AAN ἐρεῖ τις is a regular argumentative phrase, used of an objection. ‘ Instead of the future the optative with ἄν would be more common in classical Greek, but the latter form is rather avoided by the Hellenistic writers, occurring only eight times in the N.T.,— thrice in Luke, five times in Acts” (Mayor).—é€yeus: the interrogative here suggested by WH does not commend itself, as the essence of the argument is the setting-up of two opposing and definite standpoints—xa@yo: In the N.T. καί “ often coalesces with ἐγώ (and its oblique cases), ἐκεῖ, ἐκεῖθεν, ἐκεῖνος, and av; but there are many exceptions, and especially where there is distinct co- ordination of ἐγώ with another pronoun or a substantive. There is much division of evidence” (WH, The N.T. in Greek,
Il. App., p. 145).- δεῖξόν μοι τὴν πίστιν σοῦυ - - .: πίστις is not used quite consistently by the writer; faith which requires works to prove its exist- ence is not the same thing which is spoken of in the next verse as the posses- sion of demons; the difference is graphic- ally illustrated in the account of the Gadarene demoniac; in Luke viii. 28 the words, What have I to do with thee, Fesus, thou Son of the Most High God, express a purely intellectual form of faith, which is a very different thing from the attitude of mind implied in the words which describe the whilom demoniac, as, sitting, clothed and in his right mind, at the feet of Fesus (νετ. 35).—With the whole verse cf. Rom. iii. 28, iv. 6.
Ver. 19. σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι εἷς. ἐστιν ὁ θεός: Cf. Mark xii. 29, 1 Cor. viii. 4,6; Eph. iv. 6. The reading varies, see critical note above; the interrogative is unsuitable, see note on ἔχεις in the preceding verse. Somewhat striking is the fact that the regular and universally accepted formula (whether Hebrew or Greek) among the Jews is not adhered to; the Septuagint of Deut. vi. 4, which corresponds strictly to the original, runs: Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος els ἐστιν, and this is also the exact wording in Mark xii. 29, The stress laid on Κύριος ( =