Ver. 21. ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος: over above all rule, and authority, and power, and lordship. ‘The intensive force “far above” is given to the ὑπεράνω by Chrys., Theoph., Stier, the AV, the RV, etc. But it can scarcely be sustained in face of the actual use of the word in Heb. ix. 5 (cf. Ezek. xliii. 15); the tendency of late Greek to substitute compound for simple forms without sub- stantial change of sense; thenon-intensive use of the cognate form ὑποκάτω (Mark vi. 11; Luke viii. 16; John i. 51); and the testimony of the Syriac and other ancient Versions, which render it simply
278
“above” (e.g., Vulg., supra). ‘ Over
above,” therefore, is to be preferred to
“far above”. The πάσης is “all” in the sense of ‘every,’ every particular kind of ἀρχή that can be named. The terms are given in the abstract form, not as if only principles and forces were in view, and not personal powers, but be- cause ‘‘classes or categories of personal beings are expressed, just as, ¢.g., ἐξουσία is said of human authorities, which con- sist of persons” (Mey.). The use of the abstract ἀρχαί, etc., instead of theconcrete ἄγγελοι, etc., enhances the conception of the absolute, all-embracing dominion of Christ. But what manner of powers or authorities do these terms designate ? The fact that the immediate subject here is the heavenlies and Christ’s position in them at once excludes such interpretations as identify these ἀρχαί, etc. with earthly powers (Morus); with every kind οἱ dignity wheresoever found (Erasm., Olsh., etc.); with the Jewish hierarchy (Schoett.); or with the various orders of Gentile powers (van Til). The leading idea of the section and the apparent purport of similar statements (Eph. iii. 10; Col. i. 16; Rom. viii. 38; 1 Pet. iii. 22) point to the angelic world as meant. The fact that nothing is said here of Christ's triumph over Satanic powers suggests fur- ther that only angels of good,—heavenly intelligences, are in view. Can any definite distinction then be made out between the terms? And can it be said that the enumeration means that the world of good angels has its distinct orders and grades of angelic dignity and power? The passage must be read in connection with the analogous enumera- tions in Eph. iii, το; Rom. viii. 38; 1 Pet. iii, 22, and especially Col. i. 16. Differences in the enumerations then at once appear. In Eph. iii. τὸ we have only the ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι ; in Rom. viii. 38, ἄγγελοι, ἀρχαί, δυνάμεις ; in 1 Pet. iii. 22, ἄγγελοι, ἐξουσίαι, δυνά- pes. And in the most direct parallel (Col. i. 16) we find θρόνοι, κυριότητες, ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι. The Pauline passages themselves, therefore, show πο such identity either in the number or in the succession of authorities as would be con- sistent with a determinate doctrine of graduated orders. Nor can it be inferred from the words in Matt. xviii. 10 (as Meyer thinks) that such gradations are recog- nised by our Lord Himself. It is true that in the non-canonical writings of the Jews (e.g., Test. XL. Patr., etc.) the idea of variety of ranks among the angels appears, and that in the later Rabbinical