With εἶτα a fresh phase of the argument is introduced. [Raphel in loc. is of opinion that εἶτα here as frequently in the classics is “nota interrogantis cum vehementia et quasi indignatione quadam”; but it gives a better construction if we take it in the sense of “further” as in 1Co 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:7, and Mark 4:28, πρῶτον χόρτον, εἶτα στάχυν, εἶτα πλήρης σῖτος.] The argument is, “the fathers of our flesh we used to have as trainers, and we had them in reverence; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of our spirits and live?” The article before πνευμάτων makes it probable that there is no reference to angels but only an antithesis to τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν. The position of the two words σαρκός and πνευμάτων confirms this. καὶ ζήσομεν is unexpected, and is inserted to balance καὶ ἐνετρεπόμεθα [on this verb see Anz. p. 269] in the rhythm of the sentence. The thought is that only by subjection to the Father of our spirit can we have life. Delitzsch maintains that this verse strongly favours the theory of Creationism and quotes Hugo de S. Victore, “Nota diligenter hanc authoritatem, per quam manifeste probatur, quod animae non sunt ex traduce sicut caro”. It is safer to say with Davidson, “It is as a spirit, or on his spiritual side, that man enters into close relation with God; and this leads to the conception that God is more especially the Author of man's spirit, or Author of man on his spiritual side, and to designations such as those in Numbers 16:22 ”. Modern science scouts Creationism; although if Wallace's idea of the evolution of man be accepted it might find encouragement.

Continues after advertising
Continues after advertising

Old Testament