Introduction 225

address his hearers as τέκνα ἀγαπητά when the imitation of God is in view, because elsewhere he may use that designation with regard to their relations to himself? ἢ Some of the instances most commonly cited, however, deserve more attention. There is, ¢.g., the use of φωτίζειν in 111. 9, in application to the Apostle’s commission to enlighten or instruct. This, it is urged, is an application of the word not found elsewhere in the Pauline writ- ings. But that might be the case and yet its use here might have its justification. The reading is not certain. The question is whether πάντας should be inserted or not. If it is omitted, then the aspect of the question is changed. If it is inserted, there are analogies to this use of φωτίζειν in the LXX (Jud. xiii, 8; 2 Kings xii. 2, xvii. 27, 28), and Paul may have followed these. There is again the designation of God AS 6 Θεὸς τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (i. 17). This indeed is a rare designation, and for that very reason one most unlikely to have been used by a forger or a mere imitator. But it is a designation perfectly consistent with the highest view of Christ’s Person, and one which has its justification in Christ’s own words, as recorded in the Fourth Gospel (John xx. 17). The phrase τὰ ἐπουράνια, which is used five times in this Epistle and, as it seems, with the local sense, is confined, it is true, to this one writing among all those attributed to Paul. But the adjective, ἐπουράνιος, in the sense of heavenly, is used also in 1 Cor. xv. 40, 48, 49; Phil. ii. 10. It is difficult to see why Paul should not be thought at liberty to use or even to coin such a phrase, or why he might not select the term τὰ πνευματικά instead of τὰ πνεύματα in the large and special sense which it has in this Epistle. Why, too, should it be thought that a word like κοσµοκράτωρ, or a phrase like ὁ ἄρχων τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, SO appropriate to the ideas in hand, must be alien to Paul? So is it also with the word διάβολος which meets us in this Epistle, while in others, it is said, Paul speaks only of Σατανᾶς. But διάβολος is also used in 1 and 2 Tim. The two words indeed are practically the same in sense. They are employed interchangeably by other NT writers, e.g., the authors of the Fourth Gospel and the Book of Acts. Why should a writer of the power and the versatility of Paul be tied down to the use of one of these words in all his writings, later as well as earlier? There remains the phrase of which perhaps most has been made, τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις καὶ προφήταις. This, it is said, smacks of the later period when men’s thoughts of the Apostles and the prophets of the NT Church had changed. Its use here has been felt to be such a difficulty by some that they have tried to dispose of it as a gloss or as a case of dislocation in the text. But