<- Previous   First   Next ->

cogitationum et intentionum cordis. The enumeration of the constituent elements of man is followed by a notice of his rational activity as a moral being. Over this, over the feelings and thoughts of his heart , the Word of God is fitted to exercise judgment. The first word ( ejnqumhvsewn ) refers to the action of the affections, the second ( ejnnoiw'n ) to the action of the reason. Clement has a remarkable parallel: ejreunhth;" gavr ejstin ( oJ qeo;" ) ejnnoiw'n kai; ejnqumhvsewn (1 Cor. 21.9).

For ejnquvmhsi" see Matt. 9:4; 12:25; Acts 17:29; and for e[nnoia , 1 Pet. 4:1.

Both ‘feelings’ and ‘thoughts’ are referred to ‘the heart,’ which represents the seat of personal, moral life. It is of interest to trace the use of the word through the Epistle: Heb. 3:8 (3:15, 4:7); 3:10, 12; 8:10 (10:16); 10:22; 13:9.

4:13. The thought of the pervading energy of the revelation of God in regard to man is now extended to that of the universal Providence of God with regard to all created beings. Tiv levgw peri; ajnqrwvpwn, fhsivn, ka]n ga;r ajggevlou" ka]n ajrcaggevlou" ka]n ta; Ceroubi;m kai; ta; Serafi;m ka]n oiJandhvpote ktivsin, pavnta ejkkekavluptai tw'/ ojfqalmw'/ ejkeivnw/ ; (Chrys.). Comp. Philo Leg. Alleg. 3.60 (1.121 M.). Timeamus ejus praesentiam cujus scientiam nullatenus effugere valeamus (Primas. Atto).

There is some difficulty as to the antecedent of the two pronouns ( ejnwvpion aujtou', toi'" ojfqalmoi'" aujtou' ). They must evidently refer to the same subject; and since the subject in the second case is unequivocally personal (‘ Him to Whom we must render account ’), there can be little doubt that we must understand ‘God’ in both places, suggested by the compound subject of the former sentence, ‘the Word of God.’ Nor is there anything unnatural in the transition from the manifestation of God through His Word to His Person.

For ktivsi" ( creature ) see Rom. 1:25; 8:39; 2 Cor. 5:17. jAfanhv" does not occur again in N. T.

The negative statement that nothing is hidden from the sight of God is supplemented by a positive statement that all things are stripped of every disguise which might conceal their true nature ( gumnav ) and brought by an overmastering power into full view before His eyes ( tetrachlismevna ).

The general sense of tetrachlismevna (Latt. aperta , Syrr. revealed, made manifest ) is clear, as it is given in the old versions (Hesych. tetrachlismevna : pefanerwmevna ), but it is by no means certain from what image the meaning is derived. The word trachlivzein is not found in the LXX. It is frequently used by Philo in the sense of prostrating, overthrowing; e.g., Quis rer. div. haer. § 55 (i. p. 512 M.) ajnh;r o[ntw" trachlivzwn h] (lege h|/ ) trachlivzesqai duvnatai : de vit. Mos. § 54 (ii. p. 127 M.) trachlizovmenoi tai'" ejpiqumivai" pavnqj uJpomenou'si dra'n te kai; pavscein (‘obtorto collo pertracti’); and, with a more general application, de exsecr. § 7 (2.433 M.) a[rxetaiv pote diapnei'n kai; ajnakuvptein hJ polla; gumnasqei'sa kai; trachlisqei'sa gh' . So Jos. B. Jud. 4.6, 2. Comp. Plut. de Curios. ii. p. 521 B oJra'te to;n ajqlhth;n uJpo; paidiskarivou trachlizovmenon (where the idea is of the head turned round to gaze, parepistrefovmenon , and so, in the next sentence, trachlizomevnou" kai; periagomevnou" ).

The Greek Fathers were evidently perplexed by the word. Chrysostom


<- Previous   First   Next ->