U2 The Best Of 1990 2000

Now on sale at alibris.com

( 4.5/5.0 ★ | 484 downloads )
-- Click the link to download --

https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.26
530044006336121&type=15&murl=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2
Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F0044006336121
U2 The Best Of 1990 2000

ISBN: 0044006336121
Category: Media > Music
File Fomat: PDF, EPUB, DOC...
File Details: 8.8 MB
Language: English
Website: alibris.com
Short description: Very good NOTE: Missing artwork, disc in slim jewel
case (price reflects). 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed. Orders received
before 3PM PT typically ship same day. All profits support the non-
profit community.

DOWNLOAD: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&
offerid=1494105.26530044006336121&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2F
www.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F0044006336121
 U2 The Best Of 1990 2000

• Click the link: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.2653004400633612

1&type=15&murl=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F0044006336121 to do
latest version of U2 The Best Of 1990 2000 in multiple formats such as PDF, EPUB, and more.

• Don’t miss the chance to explore our extensive collection of high-quality resources, books, and guides on
our website. Visit us regularly to stay updated with new titles and gain access to even more valuable
materials.
.
“stature”; pétpov, indeed, might at first sight seem to favour this,
but we have in Philostratus, Vz7. Soph. p. 543, TO peTpov THS
YAtkias Talis pev GAAaLs erLTTHpaLs yPws apXy. On the other hand,
what the context refers to is the idea of “maturity”; if “stature” were
unambiguously expressed, it could only be understood as a mark of
maturity ; any comparison with physical magnitude would be out of
the question. See on LK. ii. 52. “Of the fulness of Christ,” ze. to
which the fulness of Christ belongs. Some expositors take wAnpwpa
here as if used by a Hebraism
 IV. 14] IDEAL PERFECTION OF THE SAINTS I2I for
zrer\npwpevos = perfect, complete, either agreeing with Xpuorot
(xerAnpwpévov) or with yArKias (rerAnpwwévys), thus interpreting
either “‘the measure of the perfect (mature) Christ,” or “of the
perfect stature of Christ,” which again may be explained as that
which Christ produces. But this supposition is inadmissible. We
cannot separate 76 7Ayjpwpya tod Xpiorod. Or, again, 7d tAnpwua
tov Xpictod is understood to mean, “ what is filled by Christ,” z.e. the
Church, which is so called in i. 23. But apart from the wrong sense
thus given to wAyjpwpya, there is a wide difference between
predicating 76 7A. of the Church, and using the term as synonymous
with éxxAyoia. We may ask, too, How can we all arrive at the
maturity of the Church? A better interpretation is that which makes
76 7A. rod Xp.=the fulness of Christ, ze. the maturity is that to
which belongs the full possession of the gifts of Christ. Oltramare
objects that this interpretation rests on an erroneous view of the
sense of 7A7jpwpa tod Xp., which does not mean the full possession
of Christ, nor the full gracious presence of Christ. Moreover, it makes
pérpov superfluous, and makes the whole clause a mere repetition
of eis dvépa réXevov. With his view of zAnpwya= perfection (see 1.
23), there is a distinct advance, “‘to the measure of the stature (¢.e.
to the height) of the perfection of Christ.” This is also Riickert’s view.
It is questioned whether St. Paul here conceives this ideal as one to
be realised in the present life or only in the future. Amongst the
ancients, Chrysostom, Theoph., Oecum., Jerome, took the former
view, Theodoret the latter. It would probably be an error to suppose
that the apostle meant definitely either one or the other. He speaks
of an ideal which may be approximated to. But though it may not be
perfectly attainable it must be aimed at, and this supposes that its
attainment is not to be represented as impossible. See Dale, Lect.
xv. p. 283. 14. iva pyxéte Gpev vitor, KAvSwvildpevor Kal
tTepipepdpevor TavTt dvépw HS SiSacKkadias. “That we may be no
longer children tossed and borne to and fro by every wind of
teaching.” This does not depend on ver. 13, for one does not become
a mature man in order to grow. Ver. 12 states the final goal of the
work of the teachers ; ver. 13, that which must take place in the
meantime in order to the attainment of that end. xAvdwvi
 122 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 14 dvéuw does
not refer to “ emptiness ” nor to ‘impulsive power,” but rather is
chosen as suitable to the idea of changeableness. So Theophylact :
rH tpown éupévwv Kat aveuous exdAcoe tas diaddpovs diackadias.
The article before 8d. does not “give definitive prominence to the
teaching” (Eadie), but marks teaching in the abstract. év Th KuBela
tav dvOpdrwv. “Through the sleight of men.” xuBeia, from xvfos, is
properly “ dice-playing,” and hence “ trickery, deceit.” Soden prefers
to take it as expressing conduct void of seriousness ; these persons
play with the conscience and the soul’s health of the Christians. But
this is not the ordinary sense of the word. év is instrumental, the
words expressing the means by which the zepid. «.7.A. is attained.
There is no objection to this on the ground that it would thus be
pleonastic after év avéuw (Ell.), since é€v ri «. is not connected with
zepupepdpevor, but with the whole clause. Ellicott himself says the
preposition “appears rather to denote the e/emend, the evil
atmosphere as it were, 7z which the varying currents of doctrine
exert their force.” “Element” is itself figurative, and requires
explanation; and if “evil atmosphere,” etc., is intended as an
explanation, it is clear that no such idea is implied in the Greek, nor
would it be at all in St. Paul’s way to carry out the figure in such
detail, or to expect the reader to compare xveia to the atmosphere;
see on v. 5. év tavoupyla mpos Thy peOodeiav this mAdvys. ‘“‘ By
craftiness, tending to the scheming of error.” avotpyos and zavoupyia
are used in the Sept. generally, if not invariably, in a good or an
indifferent sense, ‘‘ prudent,” Prov. xii. 1; ‘‘ prudence,” Prov. 1. 4, vill.
5; ‘‘shrewdness,” Ecclus. xxi. 12; Josh. ix. 4 (though this latter may
be thought an instance of a bad sense). Polybius also uses
zravodpyos in the sense of devds, “clever, shrewd.” In classical
writers the words have almost invariably a bad sense, the
substantive meaning “‘ knavery, unscrupulous conduct.” In the N.T.
the substantive occurs five times, always in a bad sense: (Luke
xx,''23 3; x Cori 49)5, 2 Cor, iv. '2):) 3,and*here}= the adjective
once, 2 Cor. xii. 16, in the sense “crafty.” peGodeia is found only here
and ch. vi. 11. The verb peOodevw is used, however, by Polybius,
Diodorus, and the Sept., and means to deal craftily (cf. 2 Sam. xix.
27, where Mephibosheth says of Ziba, webwdevoev ev Td SovVAW
Gov); the substantive péGodos, from which it is derived, being used
by later authors in the meaning “cunning device.” mAdvy has its
usual meaning “error,” not “seduction” (a meaning which it never
has, not even in 2 Thess. ii. 11), and the genitive is subjective, thus
personifying error. In the Revised Version zpos is taken as=according
to, ‘‘after the wiles of error,” a comma being placed after wavovpyie.
his seems to leave the latter word too isolated. Moreover, this sense
 IV. 15] IDEAL PERFECTION OF THE SAINTS 123 of zpés,
though appropriate after verbs of action, being founded on the idea
of “looking to,” or the like, does not agree with the participles kAvd.
and zepup. Codex A adds after aAdvys, rot dia3dXov, an addition
suggested probably by vi. 11. 15. ddyOevovtes 8€ ev dyday. ‘But
cherishing truth in love.” RV. has “speaking truth in love,” only
differing from AV. by the omission of the article before “truth,” but
with “ dealing truly” in the margin. Meyer insists that dAnGevew
always means “to speak the truth.” But the verb cannot be separated
from dAnOeia. Verbs in -edw express the doing of the action which
is signified by the corresponding substantive in -eéa. Of this we have
two examples in ver. 14, xvBeia, which is the action of kvBevev,
peOodeia of pefodevew. Comp. xodaxeia, xodaxevw ; BpaBeto,
dprtedw, dyyapevw with their substantives in -eta, and many others.
Now dAnfeca is not limited to spoken truth, least of all in the N.T. In
this Epistle observe iv. 24, duxarvoovvyn kal dordTt. THs GAnOeias,
also iv. 21 and v. 9; and compare the expressions “walking in truth,”
“the way of truth,” “not obeying the truth, but obeying
unrighteousness, dé:«ia.” Here, where the warning is not to the false
teachers, but to those who were in danger of being misled like
children by them, “speaking truth” appears out of place. As to the
connexion of év dydzy, it seems most natural to join it with
aAnGevovres, not only because otherwise the latter word would be
harshly isolated, but because the “growth” is so fully defined by the
following words. If, indeed, love were not mentioned, as it is, at the
end of ver. 16, there might be more reason to adopt the connexion
with avéjowper, on the ground that considering the frequent
references to it, as in iv. 2, ili, 18, 19, it was not likely to have been
omitted in speaking of growth. Connected with dAnGevew, ev dydry
is not a limitation, but a general characteristic of the Christian walk ;
“Not breaking up, but cementing brotherly love by walking in truth”
(Alford). Probably, however, the apostle intended é& ayday to be
connected both with the preceding and the following ; his ideas
progressing from dAyfeia to dydry, and thence to avénous.
avéjowpev eis adtov TA TavTa Os €oTiv H KEhahy, Xpiotds. ‘‘ May
grow up unto Him in all things, who is the Head, even Christ.”
avéyowpev is not transitive as in 1 Cor. ill. 6; 2 Cor. ix. 10, etc., and
in the older classical writers and the Septuagint, but intransitive as in
later Greek writers and Matt. vi. 28; Luke i. 80, ii. 40, and elsewhere
; cf. here also ii. 21. eis avrov. Meyer understands this to mean “in
relation to Him,” with the explanation that Christ is the head of the
body, the growth of whose members is therefore in constant relation
to Him as determining and regulating it. The commentary on ¢is
 124 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 15 airév is, he
says, given by é& ot, x«.7.., the one expressing the ascending, the
other the descending direction of the relation of the growth to the
head, He being thus the goal and the source of the development of
the life of the Church. However correct this explanation may be in
itself, it can hardly be extracted from the interpretation of eis as “in
relation to,” which is vague and feeble. Nor does it even appear that
eis aitov admits of such a rendering at all. Such expressions as és
6= “in regard to which,” eis Tatra =“ quod attinet ad . . .” etc., are
not parallel. Interpreted according to these analogies, the words
would only mean “with respect to Him, that we should grow,” and
the order would be «cis avrov av€. Meyer has adopted this view
from his reluctance to admit any interpretation which does not agree
with the figure of the head. But that figure is not suggested until
after this. We have first the Church as itself becoming avijp rédeos,
then this figure is departed from, and the readers individually are
represented as possible vy. The subjects of aifjowpev, then, are not
yet conceived as members of a body, but as separate persons. But
as soon as the pronoun introduces Christ, the idea that He is the
head suggests itself, and leads to the further development in ver. 16.
We can hardly fail to see in avé. eis airdv a variation of
KatavTyowpev els avopa téAeov, eis pérpov HALKtas Tod mA. TOD
Xp. ‘Unto Him.” This would seem to mean at once “unto Him as a
standard,” and “so as to become incorporated with Him”; not that eis
atrév by itself could combine both meanings, but that the thought of
the apostle is passing on to the idea contained in the words that
follow. He begins with the idea of children growing up to a certain
standard of maturity, and with the word airdv passes by a rapid
transition to a deeper view of the relation of this growth to Christ the
Head. Harless, to escape the difficulty of avé eis abrdév, connects
the latter words with év dydzy, “in love to Him.” The order of the
words is certainly not decisive against this view; instances of such* a
hyperbaton are sufficiently frequent, but there seems no reason for
it here, and it would make the introduction of “ Who is the Head”
very abrupt. Ta mavta, the ordinary accusative of definition, ‘in all
the parts of our growth.” Xpiordés. This use of the nominative in
apposition with the relative, where we might have expected the
accusative Xpicroy, is a usual Greek construction. Compare Plato,
Afol. p. 41 A, etpyoe Tous as GAnOads Sixacrds, oirep Kal €yovTar
exel duxdlew Mivus re kai ‘PadapavOos kai Aiaxos. The Received
Text has 6 Xpiorés, with DGKL, Chrys. Theod. The article is wanting
in 8 A BC, Bas. Cyr.
 Iv. 16] DEPENDENCE ON THE HEAD 125 16. é& of wav 1d
cdpa cuvappohoyodpevov Kat oupB.Baldspevor. “From whom the
whole body fitly framed and put together.” ob goes with avéyow
woveirax. The present participles indicate that the process is still
going on. On ovvapp. cf. il. 21. The use of the word there forbids the
supposition that the derivation from dppos, a joint, was before the
mind of the writer. cup PiBdlw is used by classical writers in the
sense of bringing together, either persons figuratively (especially by
way ef reconciliation) or things. Compare Col. ii. 2, cup. €v aydry. As
to the difference between the two verbs here, Bengel says:
‘‘ocvvapp. pertinet ad 7o regulare, ut partes omnes in situ suo et
relatione mutua recte aptentur, cup. notat simul firmitudinem et
consolidationem.” So Alford and Eadie. Ellicott thinks the more exact
view is that ov. refers to the aggregation, ovvapp. to the
interadaptation of the component parts. This would seem to require
that ovpf., as the condition of cvvapp., should precede. Perhaps it
might be more correct to say that ovvapp. corresponds to the figure
oGpa, the apostle then, in the consciousness that he is speaking of
persons, adding ovpfv8. (so Harless and, substantially, Meyer). In
the parallel, Col. li. 19, we have értxopyyovpevov kal cup Pi.
Balopevov. In that Epistle the main theme is “the vital connexion
with the Head ; in the Ephesians, the unity in diversity among the
members” (Lightfoot). Hence the substitution here of ovvapp. for
értxop. But the idea involved in the latter is here expressed in the
corresponding substantive. 81a rdéons Adis THs émxopyyias.
‘Through every contact with the supply.” The parallel in Col. ii. 19
seems to decide that these words are to be connected with the
participles. addy has some difficulty. It has been given the meaning
“joint,” “sensation,” “contact.” If by “joint” is understood those parts
of two connected limbs which are close to the touching surfaces
(which is no doubt the common use of the word), then a7 cannot be
so understood ; it means “touching” or “contact,” and can no more
mean “joint” in this sense than these English words can have that
meaning. And what would be the meaning of “every joint of supply”?
Eadie answers: ‘‘ Every joint whose function it is to afford such aid.”
But this is not the function of a joint, and this notion of the supply
being through joints would be a very strange one and strangely
expressed. Besides, it would not be consistent with the fact that it is
from Christ that the émvyopyyia proceeds. Theodoret takes a7 to
mean “sense” or “sensation.” adyy tiv alcOnow mpoonyopevocev,
ereidy) Kai attn pia Tov qévTE aigOyoewv, that is, ‘the apostle calls
sensation ‘touch,’ because this is one of the five senses, and he
names the whole from the part.” Chrysostom is more obscure, and
seems to make, not a¢7js alone, but adis ths émrty.=alcbyoews ; for
when he proceeds to
 126 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [IVv. 16 expound, he
says: 10 wvedpa éxetvo Td extxopnyovpevov Tots wéAcow dro THs
Kehadyns Exdorov péAouvs arTopevoy ovTws evepyet. Theodoret’s
interpretation is adopted by Meyer, “every feeling in which the
supply (namely, that which is given by Christ) is perceived.” But
although the singular a¢7, which sometimes means the sense of
touch, might naturally be used to signify ‘“‘ feeling” in general ; yet
we cannot separate this passage from that in Col. where we have
the plural; and, as Lightfoot observes, until more cogent examples
are forthcoming, “we are justified in saying that ai agai could no
more be used for ai aic@yoes, than in English ‘the touches’ could be
taken as a synonym for ‘the senses.’” Meyer, indeed, takes the, word
there as “the feelings, sensations”; but there is no evidence that
agai could have this meaning either. Besides, ‘‘ the conjunction of
such incongruous things as trav adav Kal ovvdeopwv, under the
vinculum of the same article and preposition, would be unnatural.” It
remains that we take afq in the sense of “contact,” which suits both
this passage and that in Col. Lightfoot, on Col. ii. 19, gives several
passages from Galen and Aristotle in illustration of this signification.
Here we need only notice the distinction which Aristotle makes
between ovpduors and ay, the latter signifying only “contact,” the
former ‘‘ cohesion.” 9 apy THs éx-xopyyias, then, is the touching of,
z.e. contact with, the supply. amrrecGor rhs émcx. would mean ‘‘to
take hold of, or get in touch with,” the émy.; hence dia mdoyns apys
THs éxty may well mean “through each part being in touch with the
ministration.” So Oecumenius: 7 dro tod Xptotod katiotca
mvevpateKy Svvapis €vos Exaorov péAovs avrod dmrounévn.
Oltramare understands the gen. as gen. auctoris=éx THs
éruyop.=THs adys as érexopnynoe, ‘par toute sorte de jointures
provenant de sa largesse.” émtxopyyia occurs again Phil. i. 19 ; it is
found nowhere else except in ecclesiastical writers. But the verb
émxopiyéw (which occurs five times in the N.T.) is also found,
though rarely, in later Greek writers. kat évépye.av év petpw évds
Exdotou pépous. hépous is the reading of § BD GK LP, Arm.,
Theodoret, etc. ; but A C, Vulg. Syr. Boh., Chrys. have uédous. This
is so naturally suggested by the figure of o@ua that we can hardly
doubt that it came in either by a natural mistake or as an intentional
emendation. But pépous is really much more suitable, as more
general. *‘ According to the proportionate working of each several
part.” évépyeta does not mean “ power,” but “acting power,”
“activity,” “working,” so that the interpretation of car’ évépyevay as
adverbial = “powerfully,” is excluded. As to the connexion of the
following words, év pérpw may be taken either with xar’ évepy. or as
governing évos éx. wep. The latter is the view adopted by many
commentators, with so little hesitation that they do not mention the
 Iv. 17] DEPENDENCE ON THE HEAD 127 other. Thus Eadie
and Ellicott render “according to energy in the measure of each
individual part.” This is not very lucid, and Ellicott therefore explains
“‘in the measure of (sc. commensurate with).” Alford’s rendering is
similar. If this is understood to mean “the energy which is distributed
to every part,” etc., as it apparently must be, we miss some word
which should suggest the idea of distribution, which éy certainly
does not. Moreover, évépyeca, from its signification, requires to be
followed by some defining word, and elsewhere in the N.T. always is
so. It is preferable, therefore, to join év pérpy closely with évépyeca,
which it qualifies, and which is then defined by the genitive
following. It is as if the writer had been about to say kar’ évepy.
évos éx., and then recalling the thought of ver. 7 inserted év pérpo.
If this view (which is Bengel’s) is correct, the reason assigned by
Meyer for connecting these words with avé. rovetrax instead of with
the participles falls to the ground, viz. that pérpw suits the idea of
growth better than that of joining together. The RV. appears to agree
with the view here taken. thy avgjow Tod odpatos tovetrar, ‘Carries
on the growth of the body.” In Col. ii. 19 we have ave tiv avénow;
here the active participation of the body as a living organism in
promoting its own growth is brought out, and this especially in order
to introduce év éydry. The middle zovetra: is not “intensive,” but is
appropriately used of the body promoting its own growth ; zrovet
would imply that copa and odparos had a different reference.
awparos is used instead of éavrot, no doubt because of the
remoteness of capa, as well as because éavrod was required
presently. Compare Luke iii. 19. eis otkodopyy éautod év dydryn. On
the mixture of metaphors cf. ver. 12. oixodop7 is not suitable to the
figure of a.body, but is suggested by the idea of the thing signified
to which the figure in oix. is so familiarly applied. It would be
awkward to separate ev aya7n from oi. and join it with av&jow
movetrar, as Meyer does on account of the correspondence with ver.
15. Through the work of the several parts the building up of the
whole is accomplished by means of love. Observe that it is the
growth of the whole that is dwelt on, not that of the individual parts.
17-24. Admonition, that knowing how great the blessings of which
they have been made partakers, they should fashion thetr lives
accordingly, putting off all that belongs to their old life, and putting
on the new man, 17. todto obv héyw kal paptdpopat év Kupiw.
Resumes from vw. 1-3. As Theodoret observes: rédw dvédaBe tis
mapatvérews TO mpooip.ov. ovv, as often, has simply this
resumptive force, and does not indicate any inference from what
precedes ; for the exhortation begun vv. 1-3 was interrupted, and
the déiws mepurareiv of
 128 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 17 ver. I is
repeated in the negative form in ver. 17. The rovro looks forward.
paprvpopat, “I protest, conjure’ ’ = Siapraprupopae. Polyb. P- 1403,
ovvdpapdvrav TOV eyyxwplwv Kal paptupopéevwv Tous dvdpas
eravayev eri tHv apxnv. Thucydides, vill. 53, waptupopevwr Kat
éribealovtwv py Katdéyew. The notion of exhortation and precept is
involved in this and Aé€yw by the nature of the following context,
pnxére mepir., aS in the passage of Thucydides, so that there is no
ellipsis of detv. év Kupiw. Not either “per Dominum” or “calling the
Lord to witness.” pdptupa tov Kiprov cada, Chrys. Theodoret, ete.
Some expositors have defended this on the ground that N.T. writers,
following the Hebrew idiom, wrote dpocat év tt; but it by no means
follows that & tux without éudcar could be used in this sense any
more than xara Avs could be used without dpudcat instead of zpos
Atds. Ellicott says: “As usual, defining the element or sphere in
which the declaration is made”; and so Eadie and Alford. This is not
explanation. Meyer is a little clearer: ‘Paul does not speak in his own
individuality, but Christ is the element in which his thought and will
move.” efva: & tw is a classical phrase expressing complete
dependence on a person. Soph. Oed. Col. 247, &v tuiv as Med
KeipeOa: Oed. Tyr. 314, €v col ydp éoper: Eurip. Al. 277, ev co. 8
eopev kal Cav cai pn. Compare Acts xvii. 28, ev aird Capev Kal
xwvovpeba Kail éopev. In the N.T., indeed, the expression acquires a
new significance from the idea of fellowship and union with Christ
and with God. Whatever the believer does, is done with a sense of
dependence on Him and union with Him. For example, “ speaking
the truth” “ marrying ” (1 Cor. vii. 39). Here, where an apostolic
precept is concerned, it is implied that the apostle speaks with
authority. But the expression would hardly have been suitable had
he not been addressing those who, like himself, had fellowship with
the Lord. This interpretation is so far from being “‘jejune,” that it
implies a personal and spiritual relation which is put out of sight by
the impersonal figure of an “element.” pykete Suds mepimatety
Kalas kal Ta Evy mepimatet. For the infinitive present compare the
passages above cited from Thucyd. and Polyb. Also Acts xxi. 2,
Aeywv py TEPUTEpLVELY 3 XXl. 4, €Aeyov py dvaBatve, where the
imperative would be used in ovatio directa. Demosth. xxvil. 7, Aéyw
mavras éveva. Aesch. Agam. 898, déyw kat dvdpa, wy Oedv, o€Bew
ene. Text. Rec. adds Nord before é0vn, with 84D’ K L, Syr., Chrys.
ete. The word is wanting in § AB D*G, Vulg. Boh.
 Iv. 18] FORMER STATE OF THE GENTILES 129 The Aourd is
more likely to have been added in error than omitted. Assuming that
it is not genuine, this is an instance of St. Paul’s habitual regard for
the feelings of his readers. It suggests that they are no longer to be
classed with the «6vy. They were €Ovn only év capxi, but were
members of the true commonwealth of Israel. év patatdtyTt Tod
vods adtay. Although in the O.T. idols are frequently called para
(compare Acts xiv. 15), the substantive is not to be limited to
idolatry, to which there is no special reference here. It is the
falseness and emptiness of their thoughts that are in question (cf.
Rom. i. 21, euarauwOnoay év tots Siadoyiopois adrav). Nor, again,
are we, with Grotius, to suppose any special reference to the
philosophers, merely because in 1 Cor. iii. 20 it is said of the
duadoyiopol Tov copay that they are pdrao. Rather, it refers to the
whole moral and intellectual character of heathenism ; thei powers
were wasted without fruit. As Photius (quoted by Harless) remarks:
ov Ta THS dn beias Ppovorrtes Kat TUTTEVOVTES kal azrodexopevor
GAN amep Gv 6 vos airav paryv avarAdon Kal Aoyionra. vovs
includes both the intellectual and the practical side of reason, except
where there is some ground for giving prominence to one or the
other in particular. Here we have both sides, éoxotwpévor referring
to the intellectual, danAXorpwwpevor to the practical. 18.
eoxotwpevor TH Savoia dvtes, AmnAAoTpLwpévor THS Lwis Tod
Gcou. écxorwuévo. is the form in NAB, while DGKLP have
écxoricpuévor. The former appears to be the more classical. évres is
better joined with the preceding than with the following. If ovres
arndX. be taken together, this would have to be regarded as
assigning the ground of éoxor, But the darkness was not the effect
of the alienation, which, on the contrary, was the result of the ayvo.
The position of dvres is not against this, since éoxor. TH 6. express a
single notion. Meyer illustrates from Herod. i. 35, ov xafapos xetpas
ev, and Xen. Ages. xi. 10, tpadraros girous dv. The two participles
thus stand in an emphatic position at the beginning, and this
emphasis is lost by joining ovres with the following. The change of
gender from é6vy to éoxotwpevor évres corresponds to a change
from the class to the person. éoxoTwpéevor is Opposed to
rehwricpévor (i. 18). We have the same expression Rom. i. 21,
éoxoticOn % aovveros aitév Kapdia, and a remarkable parallel in
Josephus, rijv dudvovay érerxoticpevovs, Ant. 1x. 4. 3. Atdvova
strictly means the understanding, but is not so limited in the N.T.
Compare Col. i. 21, éx@pots ti} diavoia: 2 Pet. lil. 1, dveyeipw . . .
THY €iAtKpw7 Sudvoray. Here, however, the connexion decides for
the meaning “understanding.” On amnAX. cf. il. 12. 9
 130 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS (Iv. 18 ms Cans Tod
cod. Explained by Theodoret as=ris ev dperi Coys, te. as=the life
approved by God, or ‘‘godly life.” But wy in N.T. does not mean
“course of life,” Bios, but true life as opposed to @dvaros. In Gal. v.
25 we have it expressly distinguished from ‘‘course of conduct”; «i
Conev mvevpart, rvevpare Kat oTo.y@pev. Moreover,
drnAAotpwwpévor implies separation from something real. Erasmus’
explanation of the genitive as one of apposition, “‘ vera vita qui est
Deus,” is untenable. The analogy of 4 eipyvn Tod @cov, Phil. iv. 7;
avfyous trod @cov, Col. ii. ro, suggests that the words mean “the life
which proceeds from God” ; “tota vita spiritualis quae in hoc seculo
per fidem et justitiam inchoatur et in futura beatitudine perficitur,
quae tota peculiariter vita Dei est, quatenus a Deo per gratiam
datur,” Estius. But something deeper than this is surely intended by
the genitive, which naturally conveys the idea of a character or
quality. It is the life ‘“‘qua Deus vivit in suis,” Beza (who, however,
wrongly adds to this ‘‘quamque praecipit et approbat ”). Somewhat
similarly Bengel: ‘‘ Vita spiritualis accenditur in credentibus: ex ipsa
Dei vita.” Harless, indeed, argues that the life of regeneration is not
here referred to, since what is in question is not the opposition of
the heathen to Christianity, but to God; so that fw7 tT. cov is to be
compared to John i. 3, where the Adyos is said to be (from the
beginning) the fw7 and és of the world, and thus there was an
original fellowship of man with God. So in part many expositors,
regarding the perfect participles as indicating “ gentes ante
defectionem suam a fide patrum, imo potius ante lapsum Adami,
fuisse participes lucis et vzfae,” Bengel. But St. Paul is here speaking
of the contemporary heathen in contrast to those who had become
Christians (ver. 17) ; and it is hard to think that if he meant to refer
to this original divine life in man, he would not have expressed
himself more fully and precisely. The idea is one which he nowhere
states explicitly, and it is by no means involved of necessity in the
tense of the participles, which is sufficiently explained as expressing
a state. Indeed, the aorist drn\Xorpiwbevres would more suitably
suggest the idea of a time when they were not so; cf. 1 Pet. li. 10, of
od nrAenmévor viv 5é eAenOévres. And how can we think the
Gentiles as at a prehistoric time 77 Siavofa not EOKOTWLEVOL P :
81d Thy dyvovav thy ovcay év adtots 81a Thy TwHpwoL Tis Kapdtas
aitav. The cause of their alienation from the Divine life is their
ignorance, and this again results from their hardness of heart. Most
expositors regard dua... dud as co-ordinate, some connecting both
clauses with damyAX. only (Origen, Alford, Eadie, Ellicott), others
with both participles (Bengel, Harless, Olsh. De Wette). Bengel,
followed by Olsh. and De Wette, refers dua ryv dyv. to éox. and da
7H 7. to dydA. But this is rather too artificial
 IV. 19] FORMER STATE OF THE GENTILES 131 for aletter.
Nor does it yield a satisfactory sense ; for dyvova is not the cause of
the darkness, but its effect. De Wette evades this by saying that
dyvo.a refers to speculative knowledge, éoxor. to practical. But there
is no sufficient ground for this. The substantive dyvora does not
elsewhere occur in St. Paul’s Epistles (it is in his speech, Acts xvii.
30, “the times of this ignorance”; and in 1 Pet. i. 14, besides Acts ii.
17); but the verb is of frequent occurrence, and always of ignorance
only, not of the absence of a higher faculty of knowledge. Such
ignorance was not inaccessible to light, as is shown by the instances
of the converted Gentiles ; but so far as it was due to the hardness
of their hearts, it was culpable. It is only by the subordination of the
latter clause to the former that the use of tiv ovcav é avrois instead
of the simple airav finds a satisfactory explanation. Compare Rom. i.
18-33. Ellicott, following Harless, explains these words as pointing
out the indwelling deep-seated nature of the dyvoa, and forming a
sort of parallelism to ris Kapdias airév, and so, as Harless adds,
opposed to mere external occasions. But there is nothing of this in
the context, nor in the words ovcayv év airots. The ignorance must
be in them; and, unless we take the connexion as above (with
Meyer), the words express nothing more than airav. mopwors is
“hardness,” not “blindness,” as most of the ancient versions
interpret. Indeed, it is so explained also by Suidas and Hesychius, as
if derived from an adjective twpés, “blind” ; which seems, however,
to be only an invention of the grammarians (perhaps from confusion
with zypdés, with which it is often confounded by copyists). It is
really derived (through zwpdw) from zé@pos, which originally meant
“tufa,” and then “callus,” a callosity or hardening of the skin. (It is
also used by medical writers of the ‘‘callus” formed at the end of
fractured bones, and of “chalkstones” in the joints.) Hence, from the
insensibility of the parts covered with hard skin, the verb means to
make dull or insensible. It is thus correctly explained by Theodoret,
ropwory Tv eoxarnv avadynoiav éyer’ Kai yap ai TG oopate
eyywopeva Tupwces ovdeniav atobyow éxovor. Cicero frequently
uses “callum” in a similar figurative sense, e.g. “ipse labor quasi
callum quoddam obducit dolori,” Zuse. Disp. il. 15. 19. oitwes,
“quippe qui,” “being persons who.” déamAynxkédtes, “being past
feeling,” a word appropriate to the figure in rwpwors ; it properly
means to give over feeling pain, and is used by Thucydides with an
accusative of the thing, adradyodvtes ra idta, ii. 61 ; hence it comes
to mean “to be without feeling.” The AV. “past feeling” expresses the
sense very accurately. Polybius, however, has the expression
dzadyotvres tats éAriot, and, indeed, elsewhere uses the verb in the
sense “giving up,” as Hesychius interprets, pyxére OéXovres
wovetyv. This may be “giving up in
 132 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 19 despair,” as in
i. 58 of the Romans and Carthaginians, képvovtes non Tots Tovos
dua THY ovvéyeLay THY KUWdUVWY, eis TéLOS GmHAyoUL. Hence
some commentators have adopted “desperantes” here, which is the
rendering of the Vulgate. Bengel cites from Cicero (Epp. ad famil. ii.
16) what looks like a paraphrase of the word: “‘diuturna
desperatione serum obduruisse animum ad dolorem novum.” “ Dolor,
says Bengel, “ urget ad medicinam : dolore autem amisso, non
modo spes sed etiam studium et cogitatio rerum bonarum amittitur,
ut homo sit excors, effrons, exspes.” Theophylact gives a similar
interpretation : careppabupykortes, Kai r7 Oédovtes Kapely Tpos Tiv
Eevperw TOD Kado}, Kal avadyntws SiateHévtes. The reading of D G
is dmnAmudres (af- G); but evidence for the textual reading is
predominant, and, moreover, amnAmixdtes would give a very poor
sense. Jerome appears to regard “ desperantes ” of the old Latin as
an incorrect rendering of amnAmucres, for which he suggests
‘“‘indolentes sive indolorios.” But he did not alter the text of the
translation. Probably the other versions which express the same
meaning had not a different reading ; and, on the other hand, the
reading of D G may have arisen either from the influence of the
versions or as a gloss. éautovs. What is ascribed in Rom. i. 24 to
God is ascribed here to themselves, in accordance with the hortatory
purpose of the present passage, so as to fix attention on the part
which they themselves had in the result. doedkyys and doédyera
were used by earlier writers (Plato, Isaeus, Dem.) in the sense of
“insolent, insolence, outrageous ” ; Later writers apply them in the
sense “lasciviousness.” The substantive has that meaning in 2 Cor.
xii. 21; Gal. v. 19; 2 Pet. i. '7, 18i;) Romé adits 134) ny Mark villi 22);
qude 4yireret iv. 3; 2 Pet. ii. 2, the meaning is less clearly defined. In
the LXX it occurs only Wisd. xiv. 22 and 2 Macc. ii. 26. The derivation
is probably from oéAyw, a form of GA yo. eis Epyaciay dxalapoias
mdons. épyacia suggests the idea that they made a business of
dxafapoia. So Chrysostom: od zapareadvres, pyoiv, juaptov, adr’
eipydlovto aira Ta ded, Kal wed€ry TE mpaypate exéxpnvto, It is not,
however, to be understood of literal trading in impurity, which could
not be asserted with such generality of the Gentiles. Compare Luke
xii. 58, év 77 650 dos epyaciav, “give diligence”: see note ad oc. év
meovegia. mAecoveéia originally meant (like Aecovéxrys,
mAeovexteiv) only advantage over another, for example, superiority
in battle, hence it passed to the idea of unfair advantage, and then
to that of the desire to take unfair advantage, ‘‘ covetousness.” The
verb occurs five times in 2 Cor. in the sense “ take advantage of.”
The substantive wAcovexrys is found (besides Eph. v. 5) in t Cor. v.
10, 11, vi. 16. Aeovegéia occurs in all ten times in N.T.
 IV. 19] FORMER STATE OF THE GENTILES 133 In Luke xii.
15 it is clearly “ covetousness,” and so in 2 Cor. ix. 5 ; 1 Thess. ii. 5.
But all three words are so frequently associated with words relating
to sins of the flesh, that many expositors, ancient and modern, have
assigned to them some such special signification. ‘Thus wAcovéxtys,
1 Cor. v. 10, 11; mAeovegia, Col. ill. 5, mopveiav, dxaGapoiav,
mdfos, émibvpiay Kakynv, Kal TijVv tAeovesiav, nris eotiv
eidwdoAatpeia: besides the present passage and Eph. v. 3, maca
dxafapoia 7) mXeoveéia, cf. also v. 5. In 2 Pet. ii. 14, xapdilav
yeyupvacpévnv tAcovesias éxovtes, “ covetousness” does not suit
the connexion as well as some more general term. But the most
striking passage is 1 Thess. iv. 6, TO 7 vrepBaive Kal mAeovektely ev
TO Tpaypatt Tov adeAov avTov, where the verb is undoubtedly
applied to adultery, viewed as an injustice to one’s neighbour. And
this suggests that possibly in Mark vii. 21, where the right order is
xAoral, dovor, poryetar, wAcovegiat, there is a similiar idea. In Rom.
i. 29 also, something grosser than covetousness seems to be
intended. In Polycarp, P/z7. vi., which exists only in the Latin,
‘“‘avaritia” undoubtedly represents the original mAeoveEia. Polycarp
is lamenting the sin of Valens, and says: “‘moneo itaque vos ut
abstineatis ab avaritia, et sitis casti et veraces,” and a little after: “si
quis non abstinuerit se ab avaritia, ab idololatria coinquinabitur ; et
tanquam inter gentes judicabitur.” In the present passage Theodoret
says the word is used for dperpia: “Wdoov dpaptiav toApaot, vrép
Kdpov TO SiepOappevw Kataxpwpevor Biw tAcovebiav yap THY
auetpiav éxddece.” The association with idolatry in Eph. v. 5 and Col.
iii. 5 favours the same view. Hammond on Rom. i. 29 has a learned
note in support of this signification of wAeoveé/a, which, however,
he pushes too far. Of course it is not alleged that the word of itself
had this special sense, but that it was with some degree of
euphemism so applied, and in such a connexion as the present
would be so understood. It is alleged, on the other side, that
covetousness and impurity are named together as the two leading
sins of the Gentile world ; that they even proceed from the same
source; that covetousness especially is idolatry, as being the worship
of Mammon. Covetousness was not a peculiarly Gentile sin. The
Pharisees were covetous (fiAdpyvpor). Our Lord warns His own
disciples against zAeovegia, in the sense of covetousness, in Luke
xii. 15 above referred to. And the form of the warning there shows
that covetousness and impurity were not on the same level in
respect of grossness. This may also be inferred from St. Paul’s 6
xAémrwv pykére kXerrérw. Can we conceive him saying 6 po.yedvwv
pyxére POLXeveTw ? That covetousness and impurity proceed from
the same source, and that “the fierce longing of the creature which
has turned from God to fill itself with the lower things of sense”
(Trench, Syz., after
 134 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [IV. 20 Bengel), is
psychologically false. Lust and impurity are excesses of a purely
animal and bodily passion ; covetousness is a secondary desire,
seeking as an end in itself that which was originally desired only as a
means. The explanation of ver. 5 by the observation that the
covetous serve Mammon, not God, is due to Theodoret, who derives
it from Matt. vi. 24. But that passage does not make it probable that
the covetous man would be called an idolator without some
explanation added. St. Paul himself speaks of persons who serve,
not the Lord Christ, but their own belly (Rom. xvi. 18), and of others
‘‘ whose god is their belly”; yet he probably would not call them,
without qualification, ‘‘idolators.” Indeed, other Greek commentators
devised various explanations. Chrysostom, for instance, as one
explanation, suggests that the covetous man treats his gold as
sacred, because he does not touch it. We may ask, further, why
should covetousness be specified with impurity and filthy speaking
as not to be even named ? (Eph. v. 3). Impure words suggest
impure thoughts, words about covetousness have no tendency to
suggest covetous thoughts. It is said, indeed, that the 7 there
between dxafapoia waca and zAcovegia implies that the two words
cannot refer to sins of the same kind ; but this argument seems to
be answered by the immediately following pwpoAoyia 7)
edtpamedia. In ver. 5, also, we have rédpvos 7) éxadapros 7
mAeovéxtys. In the present passage we have, not xal 7A., but ev
wA. To take this as ev “ covetousness,” or the like, after the strong
words that have preceded, would be an incredible weakening of the
charge. 20. sets Sé obx obtws epdbete Tov Xpiotév. “ But ye, not so
did ye learn Christ.” Beza, followed by Braune, places a stop after
ovrws, “‘ But not so ye. Ye have learned Christ.” This, however,
makes the second clause too abrupt. We should expect sets to be
repeated, or dAda inserted, as in Luke xxii. 26, ipets dé odx ovtws*
GAN’ 6 peilwv év ipiv, x.7.4. Besides, the connexion with ver. 21 is
impaired, “‘ ye learned Christ ” is first stated absolutely, and then
with a qualification. ovx ovTws, a litotes; cf. Deut. xvill. 14. éuaGere,
“did learn,” viz. when they became Christians. This use of pav@dvw
with an accus. of a person seems to be without parallel. The
instance cited by Raphelius from Xenophon, tva aAAjAovs padovey
drdcor einoav, is clearly not parallel, the object of the verb there
being éméao, k.t.4. Hence the ancients and many moderns have
taken Xpiorov as = “ doctrinam Christi,” which is feeble and
unsupported. Others, as Rickert and Harless, understand éud@ere
as “ learned to know,” viz. “ what He is and what He desires.” But
the key to the expression is supplied by the passages which speak of
preaching @hrist,” Galt, jis pny iE yiCoriianl 28); eaComin LO)
 IV. 21] THE NEW MAN 135 Phil. i. 15; indeed the following
verse (21) speaks of “ hearing Him.” As Christ was the content of the
preaching, He might properly be said to be learned. So Phil. ili. 10,
rod yvdvar atrov. Col. ii. 6, wapeAaBere tov Xp., is similar. Pieverye, |
tum erie) (sijsvsee jon 1-12), | Here. also. the conjunction is
unfavourable to the view that St. Paul is addressing those whom he
had himself instructed. airéy with emphasis placed first, “‘if Him,
indeed, ye heard.” év air, not “ by Him,” as AV., a construction not
admissible with a personal author, nor “‘illius nomine, quod ad illum
attinet” (Bengel). But as those who believe are said to be év Xpio7d,
so here they are said to have been taught in Him, ze. as in
fellowship with Him. There is a progress, as Meyer observes, from
the first announcement of the gospel (#xovcare) to the further
instruction which then as converts they would have received (év atra
é65.), both being included in éudbere tov Xpiorov. John x. 27 is not
parallel, since dxovew in the sense “ hearken to” would take the
genitive. Kadus éorw dAnfea év 75 “Inood. The AV. “as the truth is in
Jesus” is incompatible with the absence of the article, but admits of
being understood in the true sense of the Greek, which is not the
case with the form in which the words are so often quoted, “the
truth as it is in Jesus,” which would be tiv dA7Geay Kabus éorw,
«7.4. Nor do the words mean, as Jerome interprets: “quomodo est
veritas in Jesu, sic erit in vobis qui didicistis Christum,”—an
interpretation which is followed by Estius and many others, and
which makes Jesus be set forth as the pattern of truth, z.e. holiness.
In addition to the difficulty of so understanding dA7$ea, this
supposes tyas to be emphatic, which its position forbids; the
antithesis would also require that év to Inootd should come after
kas. Moreover, any interpretation which makes doféoOa depend on
édiddyOnre is open to the objection that in that case duds is
superfluous. Ellicott, who adopts this construction, suggests that iyds
is introduced to mark their contrast, not only with other Gentiles, but
with their own former state as implied in tiv mporépav dvactpopyv.
But it is not clear how tas can mark such a contrast. Nor is dd.
suitable to avaveotoba. It seems better to take droféoOar tuds as