It may be noted that when the two terms ' in- corruptibility' (atpBapala) and 'immortality' (dfla- vaiTla) are set side by side in 1 Co 1.5*^- ", we are not to understand the former as applying to the body and the latter to the soul. In classical Gr. such a distinction might be valid, but not in the NT. If ■\ve read of God in 1 Ti 6" 'who only hath immor- tality,' we also read in 1" that He is 'the King eternal, ineurritplihle, invisible.' Unlike I'lato, St. Paul has no doctrine of the natural imniortality of the soul ; and in 1 Co 15 he is dealing spccilically with the resurrection of the body, so that ' in- corruptibility' and 'immortality' are practically synonymous. J. C. Lambert.
UNCTION.— See Anointing.
UNDERGIRDING.— See Ship.
UNGODLINESS (aai^aa ; the verb is iaifiiu .and the adj. d(Tc/3i;s). — acrifie'-a. is the i-eligious designa- tion .and estimate of inii>ious and immor.al conduct (Cremer. Bil>l.-Tlu:ul. Lrxicun of NT Gruck, p. 52:i) ; cf. Ko 1", where it stands side by side with clSikIo.. It appears also in Ro O-", where it is in the |)lural in an OT quotation translating dt»'?. Elsewhere it occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles (2 Ti 2'^, Tit 2'-) and .lude (v."). The verb aae^iui occurs onlj' in 2 P '2", Jude "; do-f^rji is more frequent: Ro 4^' * (opp. SiKaios) S"- " (synonymous with afxap- TwX6s), 1 Ti 1», 1 P 4'», .Jude « (joined with iilxapTu\6%) ; also in 2 P 2» SJ, .Jude *.
Cremer remarks interestingly on the rare use of aaefliui .and the comparatively rare use of the whole group in the NT : 'Generally the negative and strong terms dStKelv, aa^fieTv, avdaia Trotfty, which occur often in profane (ireek, are met with in Scripture far more rarclj- than the jiositivc anap- rdi/dp, . . . which in profane Greek was far less morally, and still less religiously, estimated. Herein is manifest, on the one hand, the far deeper re-
ligious view of .Scrii)ture, wliicli estimates " fail- ings," or sins of omi.ssion, so seriously, and, on the other, its deeper humanity, which does not resort to the strongest terms to designate whatever is actually sinful ' (op. rit., p. 5'24).
It is an interesting ponit in NT criticism that the dffej3i)5 group is not conlincd, like the o]>posed ewf/Sij't group, praitically to the I'astoral Epistles and 2 Peter. As we have seen, St. Paul uses datfirii and dtrffiaa not infrequently in Romans. This furnishes an argument to those who maintain the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. In opposition to the argument that the use of the word euff^/Seia, etc., in the Pastorals to express practical religion, both as faith and morals within the sphere of the Church, is un-PauIine and nqirc- .sents a stage of development entirely subsequent to the Apostle, it is argued that, even if there be a fresh emphasis on piety within the s])here of the Church in the Pastorals, the idea is one that might naturally have come to St. Paul in view of changing conditions, and that the linguistic argu- ment from the absence of evcrejir^'i, etc., in the earlier Pauline Epistles proves nothing, since his use of the opposed group shows that it was mere accident (see GoDLINE.SS). For daeffeia. in the sub-apostolic writings see 2 Clem. xvi. 1, ' flee impiety ' ; and for daefirii see 2 Clem, xviii. 1.
LlTKRATiTRK. — H. Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of A^T Greek, Ediiiburgli, ISSU, p. 623 1.
RoHEKT S. Franks.
UNION WITH GOD.— The i.Ica of union with God, as conceived of by the ajiostolic writers, always imjilies an element of plurality and diller- ence or distinctness as characterizing the being of which such union is atlirmcd {i.(j. .Jn 1'). It is thus incom|iatible with the ]>antlicistic conception of God as embracing all reality within an un- dillereiitiated unity of being. Further, according to the ajiostolic conce])tion, union with God, while it is not equivalent to simple identity with (Jod, admits also of varying degrees of intimacy or perfection.
1. Union of Christ with God. — The apostolic idea of union witli (;o<l, in the highest degree of intimacy and jicrfection, is most clearly illustrated and exciiiplilicd in the case of the historic jierson- ality of .Jesus Christ, whose union with (Jod is so intimate and complete that He can say with truth, ' I and the Father are one' (.In 10'").
Yet this oneness is not tliat of simple identity, so that Jesus could say, ' I am the Father,' but ratlier a oneness which is compatible with plurality and distinctness such as makes it possible for Him to say, ' My I'ather is greater than I ' (Jn 14'-^). This oneness of the historic Christ with God is ex- plained by the apostolic writers in two waj's, or as due to two .sources or conditioning cau.ses, one of which may be described as metaphysical and the other as moral or spiritual.
(n) From the metaphysical point of view, the onene.ss is explained as being due to the fact that the historic person.ality of Jesus Christ is the in- carnation of a pre-existent Divine in'inci])le, or power of Deity, termed in the Fourtli Gosjicl the Word or Logos, which belongs to tlie Divine essence, or eternally co-exists with God, and in the fullne.ss of time becomes man (Jn 1'-, ' In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same wa.s in the beginning with God' ; Jn l'^ 'And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us').