ο
Father and perhaps also as Sower (cf. νετ. 24); the two conceptions are com- binedin 1 John iil. 9, was 6 γεγεννηµένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ µένει. Compare Philo, Leg. All., Ρ. 123 M. Λείαν ... ἐξ οὐδενὸς γεννη- τοῦ λαμβάνουσαν τὴν σπορὰν . . . add’ ὑπ) αὐτοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ.- διὰ λόγου... µένοντος, the connection of ζῶντος κ. μέν. is doubtful ; the following quotation might justify the abiding word and Heb. iv. 22, the living word in accordance with Deut. xxxii. 47—cf. 3, ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν. On the other hand the rendering of the Vulgate, per verbum det vivi et perman- entis, is supported by Dan. vi. 26 (αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν θεὸς µένων καὶ Lov) and sup- Ροτίς5 St. Peter’s argument: earthly rela- tionships must perish with all flesh and its glory; spiritual kinship abides, be- cause it is based on the relation of the kinsfolk to God living and abiding. For the word of God as the means of regeneration, cf. Jas. i. 18, βουληθεὶς ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας. For its identification with ῥῆμα of the quotation, cf. Acts x. 36 f.
Ver. 24 f. = Isa. xl. 6-8, adduced as endorsement of the comparison instituted between natural generation and divine regeneration, with gloss explaining the saying of Jehovah (cf. Heb. i. 1 f.). The only divergences from the LXX (which omits—as Jerome notes, perhaps through homcedeuton—quia spiritus dei flavit in eo: vere foenum est populus; asuit foe- num cecidit flos) are that ὡς is inserted before x. (so Targum), and that αὐτῆς is put for ἀνθρώπου (so Heb., etc.) and Κυρίου for τοῦ θεοῦ nee (in accordance with the proper reading of ¥ehovah in the omitted verse).
Ver.25. τὸ evayyeAto Bev comes from 6 εὐαγγελιζόμενος Σειὼν of Isa. x! g which the Targum explains as referring to the prophets.
94
II. 1 ῥῆμα τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲ κακίαν καὶ 2 καταλαλιὰς ὥς