> [a / ε ‘ > ‘ 3 a «Ἠγάπησέν µε O πατηρ Kayo VEGAS
ἠγάπησα, µείνατε ἐν TH ἀγάπῃ τη!ἐμῃ. ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολάς µου τηρήσητε, μενεῖτε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ pov. The aor. imper. is expressive of urgency, see note on ἡγήσ- ασθε, in James i. 2. :
προσδεχόµενοι τὸ ἔλεος. Cf, Tit. ii. 13, προσδεχόµενοι THY µακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν “I. Χ., and 2 Pet. iii. 12, 13, 14. The same word is used of the Jews who were looking for the promised Messiah at the time of His first coming, Mark xv. 43, Luke ii. 25, 38.
els ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Some connect this closely with the imperative τηρήσατε, but it seems to me to follow more natu-
23.
> - Γησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
διακρινοµένους,” 23. οὓς δὲ σώζετε΄
22. Καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε
3 A ς , a a ἐκ πυρος ἁρπάζοντες, οὓς δὲ
1ελεγχετε AC vulg. boh. arm. + ; ελεατε SQBC?; ελεειτε KLP +. 2 Staxpivopevous NABC; διακρινοµενοι KLP.
3 ous δε (1) ACKLP; om. Β.
rally on the nearer phrase, πρ. τὸ ἔλεος : cf. I Pet. i. 37, εὐλογητὸς 6 Θεὸς . . . 6 κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς εἰς κληρονοµίαν ἄφθαρτον ... τετηρηµένην ἐν οὐρανοῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς τοὺς - « φρουρουµένους . . . eis σωτηρίαν ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ.
Ver. 22. οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακριν- οµένους. On the reading see the Intro- duction. For the form és pév instead of 6 μέν, cf. Matt. xiii. 8, xxii. 5, Luke xxiii. 33, Acts xxvii. 44, Rom. xiv. 5, 1 Cor. ποπ σα. στ, Cor. Π. στ, Lim iia 20, not used in Heb., 1 and 2 Pet., James or John. The doubled ὃς δέ is found in Matt. xxl. 35, ὃν μὲν ἔδειραν, ὃν δὲ ἀπέκτειναν, ὃν δὲ ἐλιθοβόλησαν, 7b. xxv. 15, ᾧ μὲν ἔδωκεν πέντε τάλαντα, ᾧ δὲ δύο, ᾧ δὲ €v. The use is condemned as a solecism by Thomas Magister and by Lucian, Soloec. 1, but is common in late Greek from the time of Aristotle, cf. Sturz. Dial. Maced. pp. 105 f. On the word ἐλέγχω (here wrongly translated ‘* strafen,” in the sense of excommunica- tion, by Rampf), see Const. Apost. vii. 5, 3, ἐλεγμῷ ἐλέγξεις τὸν ἀδελφόν σου, and Hare’s excellent note L in his Mission of the Comforter, where he argues that the conviction wrought by the Spirit is a conviction unto salvation, rather than unto condemnation; and quotes Luecke as saying that ‘‘ ἐλέγχειν always implies the refutation, the over- coming of an error, a wrong, by the truth and right. When this is brought be- fore our conscience through the ἔλεγχος, there arises a feeling of sin, which is always painful: thus every ἔλεγχος is a chastening, a punishment.” Compare Grote’s life-like account of the Socratic Elenchus in his Hist. of Greece.
This verse seems to be referred to in Can. Apost. vi. 4, οὐ 'µμισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ᾽ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγξεις, οὓς δὲ ἐλεήσεις, περὶ ὧν δὲ προσεύξῃ, οὓς δὲ ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου, which is also found in the Didache ii. 7, with the omission of οὓς δὲ ἐλεήσεις. Cf. John xvi. 8, ἐκεῖνος ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσμον περὶ ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ περὶ κρίσεως, 1 Cor. xiv. 24, ἐλέγχεται ὑπὸ πάντων (the effect of the prophets’ teaching on an unbeliever), Tit. i. 13, ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόμως ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν
4σωζετε sgABC; εν Φοβῳ σωζετε KLP.
ἐν τῇ πίστει, ib. i. 9, τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐλέγχειν, 2 Tim. iv. 2 (the charge to Timothy) ἔλεγξον, παρακάλεσον ἐν πάσῃ µακροθυμίᾳ, Apoc. ii. 19, ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω, Eph. v 13, Ta δὲ πάντα ἐλεγχόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ φΦωτὸς Φανεροῦται. There is a tone of greater severity in the ποιῆσαι κρίσιν καὶ ἐλέγξαι of the 15th verse, but even there we need not suppose that the preacher is hopeless of good being ef- fected. The point is of importance in deciding the mutual relations of the three cases here considered.
διακρινοµένους. We should have ex- pected a nominative here to correspond with ἁρπάζοντες and μισοῦντες in the following clauses, and so the text. rec. has διακρινόµενοι, wrongly translated in A.V., as ifit were the active διακρίνοντες, ‘making a difference’. This gives such a good sense that some commentators (e.g. Stier) have been willing to condone the bad Greek. It would have been better to alter the reading at once. Keep- ing the reading of the best MSS. we may either take the accusative as comple- mentary to ἐλέγχετε (as we find in Plato, Theaet. 171 D, ἐμὲ ἐλέγξας ληροῦντα, Xen. Mem. 1, 7, 2, ἐλεγχθήσεται γελοῖος ὤν, Jelf, § 681), or simply as descriptive of the condition of the persons referred to. There is also a question as to the meaning we should assign to διακρ. Is it to be understood in the same sense as in James i. 6, ii. 4? In that case we might translate ‘‘ convict them of their want of faith,’? taking the participle as complementary to the verb ; or ‘‘ reprove them because of their doubts”’. It seems more probable, however, that the mean- ing here is ‘‘ convince them when they dispute with γοι, which we may com- pare with 1 Pet. iii. 15, ἔτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον . . . ἀλλὰ μετὰ πραύτητος καὶ φόβου (cf. ἐν φόβῳ below). So taken, this first clause would refer to intellectual difficulties to be met by quiet reasoning; the force of διακρινόµενος being the same as that in ver. 9, τῷ διαβόλῳ διακρ., and in Socr. E.H. v. 5, 6 λαὸς εἶχεν ὁμόνοιαν καὶ οὐκέτι πρὸς ἀλλήλους διεκρίνοντο.