2Cor.v. © ἐν πνεύματι. Ἃ
a Ch. iv. 16 only. only. d Here only.
b Ch. iv. 15; Col. i. το; 2 Thess. i. 3 reff. e= Matt. x. 18 al. fr.
" οἰκοδομὴ "συναρμολογουμένη " αὔξει " εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον "ἐν κυρίῳ, 22. ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς “ συνοικοδομεῖσθε “eis ' κατοικητήριον τοῦ θεοῦ !
ς Rom. xvi. 11, 12 al. fr.; Paul f Rev. xviii. 2 only; Ps. Ixxv. 2.
g (Rom. ix. 1); ch. iii. 5, v. 18; vi. 18; Col. i. 8; 1 Pet. i. 12; Jude 20,
1 For τ. θεον, τ. Χριστον B.
statements made regarding them in the early non-canonical literature (The Teach- ing of the Twelve, Clem. Alex., Strom., the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.) show how they continued to exist and work beyond the Apostolic Age, and help us to dis- tinguish their ministry as that essentially of teachers and exhorters, whether itin- erant or resident, from the essentially missionary ministry of the Apostles. Further the association of these νὰ hets with the Apostles suggests that the latter term is not to be restricted here to the Twelve, but is to be taken as including all those to whom the name “ Apostle” is given in the NT.—6vros ἀκρογωνιαίον αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ: Yesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone. A few documents, os Ni’, omit Ἰησοῦ. The ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ of the TR is sup- ported by such authorities as CDFKL. The best reading, however, is Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, “ Christ Jesus,” which is found in BAWN-corr., 17, Vulg., Copt., Goth., etc., and is adopted by LTTrWHRV. The
word ἀκρογωνιαῖος (cf. the 133 198 of Isa. xxviii. 16) is peculiar to biblical and ecclesiastical Greek, and is applied to Christ also in 1 Pet. ii. 6. It de- notes the stone placed at the extreme corner, so as to bind the other stones in the building together—the most impor- tant stone in the structure, the one on which its stability depended. The αὐτοῦ refers to Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, not to the dxpo- γωνιαίον, nor to the θεμελίῳ (Beng.), the point being that to Christ Himself and none other the building owes its exis- tence, its strength and its increase. He Himself, and neither Apostle nor Prophet, is at once the ultimate foundation (1 Cor. iii. 11) and the Head-stone of the Corner. Some have supposed that, the ἀκρογωνι- aios being the stone inserted between two others to give strength and cohesion to the whole, there is a reference in the phrase to the union of Jew and Gentile. But this is to push the figure too far. Ver. 21. ἐν ᾧ πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομὴ συν- αρμολογουμένη αὔξει εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ἐν Κυρίῳ: in whom each several building
(RV text; “every building,” RV marg;) fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord. The relative refers naturally wees nearest subject, what is also the leading subject, Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, not to the ἀκρογωνιαίου, far less to the remoter θεμελίῳ ; the ἐν also has its full sense of in, not by or on. That is to say, it is in Christ Fesus, and only by connection with Him, that the οἰκοδομή is what it is here declared to be. The word οἰκοδομή appears to be confined to late Greek, no certain instance of it having been found in classical Greek. It occurs in Diod., Philo, Plut., Joseph., the LXX, Macc., etc. It is used both for οἰκοδόμησις and οἰκοδόμημα. In the NT it has sometimes the literal sense of οἰκοδόμημα {ε.ρ., Matt. xxiv. 1; Mark xiii. 1; 2 Cor. v. 1); and sometimes the figurative sense of edification (Rom xiv. 19, xv. 2; 2 Cor. xiii. 10; Eph. iv. 29), or, as here, that of a body of Christian believers. The question of the text here is important. There is considerable support for πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομή (ΝΑ6Ρ, Arm., etc.), and it is conceivable that itacism might have caused the omission of the 4. But diplomatic evidence is decidedly in favour of πᾶσα οἰκοδομή (BN*DGKL, etc.). Adopting this read- ing (with LTTrWHRV) we have to ask whether the phrase is to be rendered the whole building or every building. The former rendering is certainly the one that first suggests itself, while the latter seems at first difficult to relate to the context. The former is defended as legitimate by some weighty authorities; ε.ρ., Winer, on the ground that the subject is “ the Church of Christ as a whole,”’ and Ellicott, who takes it to be a case of grammatical laxity. But the distinction between πᾶς with the article and πᾶς without it is so well main- tained in the NT that only an absolutely intolerable sense can justify us in de- parting from it. The only exceptions to the general rule appear to be those that hold good also for ordinary Greek —in general and unqualified statements, with proper names, and with nouns which have acquired so stated a meaning that