that which is being shaken, sc. the earth and the (visible) heavens, inasmuch as it is a well-known matter (Tv) that, at the epoch of the consummation of the kingdom of God, the present earth and the present heavens will be transformed into a new earth and new heavens (comp. Isa. lxv. 17 ff., lxvi. 22; 2 Pet. iii. 13; Rev. xxi. 1); the shaking, however, of the heavens and the earth predicted by the prophet will be the only one, and consequently the last one, which will take place at all.—is TETTOμévwv] because they are created, i.e. visible, earthly, and transitory, things. The words draw attention to the constitution of the caλevóμeva, thereby to make it appear as something natural that these should undergo a change or transformation. They are not to be taken together with the following va; in connection with which construction we have either the explanation: which namely has been made, to the end that that which is immovable may remain (Grotius, Bengel, Tholuck, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 130, Obs.; Kluge, Moll, Woerner, al.),— which, however, without more precise indication, yields arbitrary variations of the meaning, but no clear thought,— or which was made indeed only for the purpose of awaiting that which is immovable, and giving place to the same when this comes in (Bauldry in Wolf, Storr, Böhme, Kuinoel, Hofmann, al.). Grammatically there is nothing to be alleged against this acceptation of the words, although the expression μévei is not elsewhere employed by the author in the sense of "to await anything;" nor even against the thought in itself can any objection be raised. But then it appears unsuitable to the connection; since upon this interpretation that which the author will derive from the eтi aπaş, namely, the coming in of that which is eternal and intransitory, is brought out in much too subordinate a form. va is therefore to be taken as dependent on τὴν τῶν σαλευομένων μeтáleσw, inasmuch as it adduces the higher design of God in the transformation of the present earth and the present heavens in order that there may then abide (have a permanent existence) that which cannot be shaken, sc. the eternal blessings of Christianity, into the full enjoyment of which the Christian will enter so soon as a new earth and new

heaven is formed, and the kingdom of God attains to its consummation.

Ver. 28. Exhortation to be thankful to God, and to serve Him in an acceptable manner. -4tó] infers from the concluding words of ver. 27: Wherefore, because that which will have an everlasting existence is no other than the kingdom of God, in which we Christians have obtained part. The author himself expresses this thought in the participial clause elucidatory of the διό, βασιλείαν ἀσάλευτον παραλαμβάVOVTES: since the kingdom which we Christians obtain (which becomes the possession of us Christians) is an immovable, intransitory one. The participle present παραλαμβάνοντες, οι that which is indeed future, but which with certainty comes in. Erroneously do Calvin, transl., Schlichting, Limborch, Bengel, and others understand the participial clause as a constituent part of the exhortation: "let us receive the immovable kingdom, appropriate it to ourselves by faith," which is already rendered impossible by the anarthrous Baoiλeíav in itself. exwμev xápiv] let us cherish thankfulness, sc. towards God. Comp. Luke xvii. 9. Wrongly Beza, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Carpzov, Bisping, and many others: let us hold fast the grace. For in that case the article could not be wanting in connection with xápiv, and instead of ἔχωμεν must stand κατέχωμεν (comp. iii. 6, 14, Χ. 23) οι κρατῶμεν (comp. iv. 14). — δι' ἧς λατρεύωμεν εὐαρέστως τῷ θεῷ] and by the same serve God in an acceptable manner. τῷ θεῷ belongs to λατρεύωμεν. — μετὰ εὐλαβείας kal déovs] with reverential awe (in that we watch against that which is displeasing to God) and fear. Amplification of the εὐαρέστως.

x.

·

Ver. 29. Warning justification of the μerà evλaßeías Kai Séovs. The words cannot, however, signify: for our God too δέους. (the God of Christians), even as the God of the Old Covenant, is a consuming fire (so still Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Bisping, and others). For to this end καὶ γὰρ ἡμῶν ὁ θεὸς κ.τ.λ. must have been written. Just as little may kaì áp, with Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 60, Obs.), Alford, Moll, and Kurtz, be weakened into the mere notion of "etenim." For xaí is the enhancing "more than this," and

belongs to the whole clause, in connection with which it would be a matter of indifference (against Delitzsch) whether the author should write καὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν πῦρ καταναλίσκον οι καὶ γὰρ πῦρ καταναλίσκον ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, since in either case the main emphasis in connection with the few words would fall upon πῦρ καταναλίσκον. According to the order of the words, and by reason of the intensive force of kal, the sense can therefore only be: for our God is also a consuming fire, i.e. He is not merely a God of grace, but likewise a God of punitive righteousness. A diversity, consequently, of the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New, which would also have been an unsuitable notion, the author does not by any means assert. Moreover, comp. LXX. Deut. iv. 24: ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεός σου πῦρ καταναλίσκον ἐστίν.

CHAPTER XIII.

περι

VER. 4. The preference over the Recepta opvous dé is merited on account of the better attestation (A D* D, Lat. MN, Vulg. Copt. Anton. Max. Bed.) by opvous yáp. Commended to attention by Griesbach. Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Alford, and Tisch. 8. — Ver. 8. Elz.: xs. But A C* D* MN have ixis. Rightly admitted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford.-Ver. 9. μὴ παραφέρεσθε] Elz.: μὴ περιφέρεσθε. Against A CD M N, the later supplementer of B, the preponderant majority of the cursives, Vulg. Copt. al., and very many Fathers. Already rejected by Grotius, Bengel, and Wetstein, then by Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Lachm. Tisch. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, and others. Correction to accord with Eph. iv. 14.-Instead of the Recepta SPIπατήσαντες, ΑD* * present περιπατοῦντες. Placed in the text by Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8, and probably the original reading. Ver. 10. In place of the Recepta oux xovo ovσíav, Tisch. 2 and 7 reads only oux xovo, and already Mill (Prolegg. 1292) has condemned ovcíav as a gloss. But ovoíav is lacking only in D* Gr. and Lat., in M and with Damascen., whereas it is present in A C D** and *** K N, etc. (with Chrysostom before oux oud). It was erroneously omitted by reason of its similarity in sound to the foregoing οὐκ ἔχουσιν. — Ver. 11. Elz. Tisch. 8: τὸ αἷμα περὶ ἁμαρτίας εἰς τὰ ἅγια. So DK M, etc. In place of this, Lachm. and Tisch. 1 write, after C al., Copt. Syr. al.: rò alua sis тà ayıα TεP? ȧμaprías. By means of its varying position, however, spi

aprías betrays itself as a glossematic elucidation, seeing that it is entirely wanting in A, in Aeth., and with Chrysostom, and seeing, moreover, that some cursive MSS. (14, 47) present in place of the singular the plural περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν. Rightly therefore have Bleek, Tisch. 2 and 7, and Alford deleted the addition. — Ver. 17. ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν ὡς λόγον ἀποδώσοντες] Instead of which Lachm. in the stereotype ed. and Tisch. 1 chose the order: ὡς λόγον ἀποδώσοντες ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν. But the authority of A, Vulg. Bede does not suffice for the

transposing. Rightly therefore did Lachm. in the larger ed., and Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, return to the Recepta. — Ver. 18. Elz.: TETOílaμe. Against the preponderating testimony of A C* D* D, Lat. (suademus) M, 17, 67** 137, which demands the reading, commended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford: 06μa. To the latter points also the θα γαρ οτι καλην in the Cod. Sinait., since in this codex οτι καλή. has been placed immediately before, only in consequence of a manifest oversight of the copyist.-Ver. 21. To the Recepta ¿v Tuvri pyy, instead of which the Cod. Sinait. presents only v Tavri (adopted by Tisch. 8), had Lachmann in the stereotype ed. further added: zai óyw, which he has yet rightly struck out again in the larger edition. The addition zai óy is found only in A, and once with Chrysostom, whereas it is twice wanting with the latter. It is a gloss from 2 Thess. ii. 17. Instead of the mere ov of the Recepta, Lachmann reads in the Edit. Stereotypa: airòs ov; in the larger edition: air Tov. But airós rests only upon 71 and D, Lat. (ipso faciente); the alleged testimony of C in favour thereof is founded on an error of Wetstein. air, however, which has for it the authority of A C* * and of Gregor. Nyssen., is a disturbing addition, and manifestly arose only from a twofold writing of the auro immediately foregoing. - Elz. Lachm. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Reiche, Tisch. 8: is rous alwvas Tūv αἰώνων. But τῶν αἰώνων is wanting in C*** D, in many cursives, in Arab. Armen., with Clem. Alex. and Theodoret. Suspected by Bengel and Griesbach; rightly rejected by Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 1, 2, 7, and Alford. For it is more probable that the simpler formula, occurring for the rest Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27, would be enlarged into the ampler formula more usual in the case of doxologies, than that the ampler would be abbreviated into the simpler one.-Ver. 22. D 46, 57, al., Vulg. Syr. Arm. have avexola. Adopted by Lachmann. But the imperative ȧvé, presented by the Recepta, is to be retained, as imparting more animation to the discourse. This reading is protected by the preponderating authority of AC D*** K M ̄x, etc., Am. Copt. Aeth. al., Chrys. Theodoret (also in the Commentary), al. Ver. 23. Elz.: ròv ådeλpóv. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, de Wette, Delitzsch: ròv åò£λøòv

v. The latter is to be preferred on account of the stronger attestation by AC D* M * 17, 31, 37, 39, al., all vss. Euthal. Maxim. Athan.

Vv. 1-25. Concluding exhortations partly of a general nature, partly in special relation to the main purport of the