ζοο
τ Absol., 1 Cor. viii.
μετὰ χαρᾶς, 12. εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ " πατρὶ τῷ " ἱκανώσαντι 1 ὑμᾶς 3
63 2.Cor εἰς τὴν ἐ" μερίδα τοῦ "' κλήρου τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ φωτί, 13. “és (quot); ἐρύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς “ ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους καὶ μετέστησεν eis
4: Eph. ii.
18; Acts i. 4, 7, li. 3; 1 ο. here and 2 Cor. vi. 15;
18 w Luke xxii. 53.
1 So T., Tr., W.H., R.V. with nearly all ancient authorities.
s LXX; Dion. Hal.; only here and 2 Cor. iii. 6 in N.T. uke x. 42; Acts viii. 21, xvi. 12 in N.T.
ae
u Acts viii. 21.
καλεσαντι: D*FG
17, by substitution of more usual word, helped by similarity of the two words. καλεσαντι και ικανωσαντι: Ln., Ws. with B alone, by combination of two readings.
19ο Τ., W.H., Ws., Tr. mg., Κ.Υ. mg.
, Lft. mg. with NB. ypas: L., Tr., Lft.,
Κ.Υ. with ACDEFGKLP, probably under influence of npas (ver. 13).
of great spiritual heroism, but for the practice of passive virtues, since this often puts the greater strain on the Christian’s strength. ὑπομ. is endurance, steadfastness in face oftrials, temptations and persecutions; μακροθ. is forbear- ance, the patience of spirit which will not retaliate. ‘The one is opposed to cowardice or despondency, the other to wrath or revenge " (Lightf.). There seems to be no reference in µακροθ., as Alford supposes, to their attitude in conflict with error.—pera χαρᾶς : not to be taken (as by Mey., Ell., Hofm., Weiss, Abb.) with εὐχαριστ., which would be tauto- logical and throw a false emphasis on these words, but with trop. κ. μακροθ. It forms a very necessary addition, for the peculiar danger of the exercise of those qualities is that it tends to pro- duce a certain gloominess or sourness of disposition. The remedy is that the Christian should be so filled with joy that he is able to meet all his trials with a buoyant sense of mastery.
Ver. 12. εὐχαριστοῦντες : not to be taken with ob πανόμεθα, ver. 9 (Chrys., Beng.). Usually it is co-ordinated with the two preceding participial clauses. Haupt objects that it would be strange if thankfulness for participation in salva- tion were mentioned only after its conse- ανν for Christian conduct had been
educed. He thinks it is a more precise development of μετὰ χαρᾶς; joy being produced by our thankful consciousness of the benefits thus secured tous. There is force in this, though the form of ex- pression strongly suggests the common view, and considerations of order should not, perhaps, be so rigidly pressed.—r@ πατρὶ. The word is selected to emphasise God's Fatherly love as the source of their redemption; though Soden thinks that, as in Rom. vi. 4, Paul has in mind God's relation to Christ (so Alf.).—r@
ἱκανώσαντι ὑμᾶς : ‘ who qualified you”. The reference is to status rather than character.—els τὴν μερίδα ... φωτί. Lightfoot thinks τ. pep. τ. «A. is the portion which consists in the lot, κλήρον being a genitive of apposition (so Sod., Abb.). But probably κλ. is the general inheritance in which each individual has his μέρ. The lot is the blessedness await- ing the saints. More controverted is the connexion of ἐν τῷ φωτί. Meyer con- nects it with ἱκανώσ. and takes ἐν as instrumental “by the light”. This is harsh, and φωτί in contrast to
(ver. 13) cannot mean the Gospel. Others connect it with ἁγίων, either in the sense of angels (so ΚΙ., Franke and Lueken) or saints (so Ol. and others). But the angels are never in the N.T. called οἱ ἅγιοι, though this term is used for them in the O.T. and Jewish Apoca- lyptic. Further, the contrast with the “‘darknéss"’ of ver. 13 loses its force unless the “holy ones” are Christians as opposed to non-Christians. And if Paul had meant this he would have expressed himself more plainly. Nor is any such reference probable in an Epistle directed especially against over-valuation of the angels. If saints are meant, unless (with ΟΙ.) we give φωτί merely an ethical sense, they must be saints in heaven, for which we should have expected τῶν ἐν φωτί, as the object of the addition would be to distinguish them from saints on earth. ἐν φωτί should therefore be con- nected either with μερίδα (Beng.), μερίδα τ. κλήρου (Alf., Lightf.), or μιν pov (De W., Ell., Sod., Haupt). The difference is slight, and it seems simplest to connect with xX., ‘the lot of the saints [situated] in the light’; ἐν being probably local, and not expressing, as in Acts viii. 21, the idea of a share in the light. The precise sense of φῶς is disputed. Oltramare takes it of the state of holiness in which Chris-