133, ὡς καὶ ἐνα Vv. 4, το, Jas. 1. 25. See
, 3 , , Moulton, πότην ἀρνούμενοι, ἐπάγοντες Proleg.74. the abuses of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor. xi.; also Galat. ii. 4, 2 Cor. xi. 13.
παρεισάξουσιν. What is the force of wapa-? The idea of “stealth” or “secrecy ’—“ stealthily to introduce”’ —is hardly in accord with their character described elsewhere as τολμηταὶ av- θάδεις, δόξας οὐ τρέµουσιν βλασφη- μοῦντες (ii. το). Rather the idea seems to be of the introduction of false teaching alongside the true, whereby the 680s ἀληθείας is brought into disrepute. Cf. παρεισενέγκαντες, i. 5. The idea of stealth is present in παρεισάκτους (Gal. ii. 5). αἱρέσεις. Clearly αἴρεσις here is used ἵπ original sense of “tenet? (“ animus,’ ‘ sententia ’’) (So Spitta, von Soden, Weiss; but cf. Zahn., op. cit. ii. 233). In Galat. νο WL COL. κι πο tae) uSense7 1S “‘ dissensions,”’ arising from such di- versity of opinion. It is used in the sense of “sect” in Acts v. I7, xv. 5, xxiv. 5. The ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι were within the Church. Even the “ Alogi,” who disputed the fourth Gospel in second century, were not excommuni- cated. They were, as Epiphanius says,. ‘one of ourselves”. Cf. MME., Expos. Feb. 1908. αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας. The Genitive contains the qualifying idea— “ corrupting tenets’. Our identification with a gréat cause may be maintained, as in the case of the false teachers, but per- sonal motives may sadly deteriorate, and the influence of the life may breed corrup- tion, Cf. Ignat. Trall. vi. 1; Eph. vi. καὶ τὸν Gyop. . . . Gpvovpevor. καὶ = “even”. Cf. Ματ] i. 27. If the ordinary use of δεσπότης in early Christian writers is followed here, viz., as referring to God, ἀγοράζω would also be used of God, who redeemed Israel out of Egypt (2 Sam. vii. 23). The reference here, however, is to Christ (cf. Mayor, p. xvii.). The N.T. use of ἆγορ. is illustrated in r Cor. vi. 20, where reference might be to God; but in ib. vii. 23 reference is, clearly to Christ. Soin Rev.v.g. Cf. our Lord’s words in Mark x. 45, about “ giving his life a ransom”’ and Jude v. 4. The ‘denial’? seems to have con- ‘sisted in an inadequate view of the Person and Work of Christ, and their relation to the problem of human sin. Cf. Epp. of Peter, J. H. Jowett, pp. 230 ff. ταχινὴν. See note on i. 14. ἐπάγοντε. The