273
ii. 8; ‘‘the cherubims of glory,” Heb. ix. 5, etc. The appropriateness of the title here lies in the preceding definition of the final end of God’s counsel and grace—eis ἔπαινον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ.-- δῴη ὑμῖν: may give unto you. Lachm., Fritzsche (Rom., iii., 230) and Haupt (who refers to the confirmation furnished re- cently by two inscriptions of the second century given in Dittenb., Syll., 462,,, 466,) give the Ionic conj. δώῃ ; WH give δώῃ vel δῷ in the margin, but δῴη in the text. The latter form is to be preferred, although opinion is still divided to some extent on the conj. and opt.forms. Blass, é.g., takes the δώῃ in the present passage to be really a conj. and to be best repre- sented by the δῷ of Cod. B. He is in- clined to regard the forms δοῖ, δώῃ as both conj. and opt. (Gram. of N.T. Greek, pp. 49, 211). As in the NT ἵνα in the vast majority of cases is followed by the conj. or the fut. indic. even after past tenses, it would be most natural to accept the conj. form here. But this Ionic form of the conj. appears to be strange to the NT and to be ‘without analogies in later Greek” (Butt., Gram. of N.T. Greek, p. 46). On the other hand, the form δῴη seems to be recognised as a later Greek equivalent to δοίη, and Winer accepts it as an opt. pres. in NT Greek, pointing to such passages as Rom. xv. 5; 2 Tim 1. 16, 18 (ii. 7); John xv. 16, as well as Eph. 1. 17, iii. 16, and the comp. ἀποδῴη of 2 Tim. iv. 14 (Win.-Moult, Gram., Ῥ. 94.---πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ ἀπο- καλύψεως: the Spirit of wisdom and revelation. ‘The question here is whether the πνεῦμα is to be understood in the sub- jective sense of our spirit, or in the ob- jective sense of the Holy Spirit. The former view is adopted by Chrys., Thdrt., Rickert, De Wette, Bleek, and more re- cently by Abbott and the Revisers, the RV rendering being “ἃ spirit of wisdom and revelation”. This is urged on the analogy of such occurrences as Rom. viii. το οι Oy Gales Vien το Pa al, ἢ; lett there is much against this. As Meyer points out, it is doubtful whether in the NT there is any case in which, when the πνεῦμα is spoken of as given, it is not the objective πνεῦμα. But apart from this, the matter in view is what the Ephesians were themselves to be, not what they were to do for others, and although it is easy enough to suit the subjective view of the πνεῦμα σοφίας (‘‘a wise spirit”) to this, the difficulty is to adjust to this the subjective view of the πνεῦμα ἀποκάλυψεως. The fatal objection, indeed, to the interpretation
274