434
μὴ ἀναγγεῖλαι ὑμῖν πᾶσαν τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ. 28. προσέχετε οὖν é a ‘ Ν n , 3 α te A A A a@ 3 αυτοῖς, καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιµνίῳ ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ "Άγιον ἔθετο
5 ὗ , 8 2 λ , 1 a a ἁ , επισκόπους, ποιµαινειν την εκκ ησιαν του Θεοῦ, ην περιεποιησατο
1 του Θεον, SO NB 68, Vulg., Syr. Ἡ. (Θντ. ῬεεῃΠ. MSS.), Epiph., Bas., Ps.-Ath., Theod.-Mops., Cyr.-Al.: tov κνριον AC*DE, 13, 15, 36, 40, 69, 11Ο, 118 (eight others), Gig., Sah., Boh., Syr. H. mg., Arm., Irint., Const., Ath., Did., Chrys., Jer., Lucif. Here W.H., Weiss have Θεου, so Bengel, Alford in later editions; Tisch., R.V. marg., Blass, Wendt, Hilg. κυριου; tov κυριου και Θεου C°HLP, most mins., Slavonic, Theophl.; and there are other variations. Against Θεου it is objected that St. Paul would not apply the word to Christ, although we have in Clem. Rom, 6οσις λα: lgnat.;) Ephes., 1:,, το Κο, wis, 3. πετ, Ad Ὀλο μας. Clem. Alex., Quis dives salv., xxxiv., similar language; but there are also passages in the Ν.Τ., e.g., Rom. ix. 5, Tit. ii. 13, in which there is at least a very consider- able amount of evidence for referring Θεος to Jesus, “and when it is objected that these are disputed passages, it is just to remind the objector that this will exclude his original statement as well as the rebuttal of it’’ (Warfield). The evidence in its favour comes to us afforded by a strong combination (cf. too the intrinsic evidence in its favour from Ps. Ixxiv. 2, W.H., Afp., 99); so far from the unusual nature of the phrase being regarded as fatal to its genuineness, it might be fairly maintained that Θεου as it is the more difficult reading is also on that very ground recommended to our confidence. We should also give weight to the fact that the words εκκλησια του @., which find a place in this address full of Pauline expressions, are found no less than eleven times in St. Paul’s Epistles, but that εκκ. του κυριου is not found at all in the N.T. (we have αιµα τον K. once in 1 Cor. xi. 27). Weiss endeavours to solve the difficulty by taking ιδιου, masc., the blood of his own; cf. Rom. viii. 32. But while disagreeing with this solution, Hort, in W.H., App., 99, thinks it by no means impossible that vrov dropped out after τον ιδιου {its insertion solves every difficulty (so too Rendall)). Hort, reading δια του αιµατος του (διου, renders “ through the blood that was His own,”’ i.e., His Son’s, following SABCDE 13, 36, 40, Vulg., so too Weiss, R.V.; cf. the language which finds repeated expression in the Apost. Const., and em- bodies a conception familiar to us in one of our Ember Collects (1662). See further W.H., uw. s.; Dr. Ezra Abbot, Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 313 ff. (1876); Page, in loco; Wendt (1899), p. 335; Warfield, Textual Criticism, pp. 184-189, 5th edit. Mr. Page, Classical Review, p. 317, 1897, warmly approves of the note of Dr. Blass on Acts xx. 28, and of his support of the reading Κυριον, on the ground that Θεος would be easily substituted for it in days when ‘“‘moris factum erat ut Θεος Jesus diceretur’’; but is this explanation so certain? Dr. Hort indicates that the pre- valent instinct would be to change του Θεου into του κ., and not vice versd, as the fear of sanctioning ‘‘ Monarchian,” or (in later times) ‘‘ Monophysite’’ language would outweigh any other doctrinal impulse.
could say this with fitness; we could not dare to say it, Chrys., Hom., xliv.
Ver. 27. ὑπεστ., see above on ver. 20.—THv β. τοῦ Θεοῦ, see On ii. 23, and cf. especially Ephes, i. 11 for the phrase, and ili. 4 for the thought. No Epistle excels that to the Ephesians in the rich- ness of its thoughts, and in its concep- tion of a divine purpose running through the ages; no Epistle dwells more fully upon the conception of the Church as the Body of Christ, or exhorts more touchingly to diligence in keeping the unity of the Spirit, or insists more practi- cally upon the sanctifying power of the One Spirit, and the sense of a divine membership in every sphere of human life. The rich and full teaching of the