cation by locality,” while τὰ ὁρατὰ κ. τ. ἀόρατα is a “classification by essence”. The two do not precisely correspond, for the divisions cross each other to some extent, though some confine the things in heaven to the world of spirits, and the things on earth to the world of men,
ΠΡΟΣ KOAOSSAEIS κ. καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε " θρόνοι εἴτε ὃ" κυριότητες εἴτε “ ἀρχαὶ εἴτε
“ ἐξουσίαι, τὰ πάντα ὅ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ "εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, 17. καὶ ς ii. το, 15; 1 Cor. xv. 24; Eph. i. 21, iii. το, vi. 12; Tit. iii, 1; αγγελοι
om. viii. 38 with efovova; 1 Pet. iii. 22. ε Of the Son, only here; of God, Rom. xi. 36; 1
ἃ 1 Cor. viii. 6; John i. Μο. οί . Vil
in which case they would correspond to things invisible and things visible. —— this see above on π. κτίσεως.--- εἴτε θρόνοι κ.τ.λ. This is not an exhaustive definition of ra πάντα, for Paul selects for mention those creatures to whom worship was paid by the false teachers. The names, as in similar lists, denote angels and not earthly powers. For some of them occur in Jewish angel- ology, and a reference to earthly digni- ties would be irrelevant to the polemical Seale of the passage. These angels,
aul insists, so far from being superior or equal to Christ, were as inferior to Him as the creature is to the Creator. They owed their very existence to Him, and could not therefore be allowed for one moment to usurp His place. Light- foot thinks that Paul is expressing no opinion as to their objective existence, but is simply repeating subjective opinions; and that both here and in ii. 18 he shows a “spirit of impatience with this elabo- rate angelology"’. But in face of the detailed proof that he accepted the doc- trine of various orders of angels (given most fully by Everling), this cannot be maintained, nor is there any polemical reference in Eph. i. 21. It may be ques- tioned whether any inference can be drawn as to the order of the ranks of angels. The order in the parallel list, Eph. i. 21, is ἀρχή, δ κα τὶ δύναμις, κυριότης, On which Godet remarks that in Col. the question is of creation by Christ from whom all proceed, hence the enumeration descends; but in Eph. of the ascension of the risen Christ above all orders, hence the enumeration ascends. But it must be urged against this not merely that only three out of the four titles coincide, but that the order is not fully inverted. Possibly Paul employs here the order of the false teachers (so ΚΙ.). The order apparently descends, but it is questionable if this is intentional, for if the highest orders were inferior to Christ, a fortiori the lower would be. θρόνοι: taken by some to be the ὁ of the throne, that is angels who, like the cherubim, bear the throne of God. But it is more probable that they are those seated on thrones (cf. Rev. iv. 4). On these orders, cf, the Slavonic Enoch,
17.
xx., I. In the seventh heaven Enoch saw ‘‘a very great light and all the fiery hosts of great archangels, and incor- poreal powers and lordships and princi- palities and powers ; cherubim and sera- phim, thrones and the watchfulness of many eyes”’. Also Enoch, Ixi., το, “and all the angels of powers and all the angels of principalities” Πρες, xii,, Patr. Levi., 3, ἐν δὲ τῷ μετ᾽ αὐτόν εἰσι θρόνοι, ἐξουσίαι, ἐν ᾧ ὕμνοι ἀεὶ τῷ Θεῷ προσ- φέρονται. κυριότητες: apparently inferior to θρόνοι.-ἀρχαὶ . . . ἐξο- υσίαι usually occur together and in this οτάεγ.- τὰ πάντα... συνέστηκεν: thrown in as a parenthesis.—_8v’ αὐτοῦ. The Son is the Agent in creation (cf. 1 Cor. viii. 6) ; this definitely states the pre- existence of the Son and assumes the supremacy of the Father, whose Agent the Son ἶ5.--εἷς αὐτὸν. That the Son is the goal of creation is an advance on Paul’s previous teaching, which had been that the goal of the universe is God (Rom. xi. 36; cf. 1 Cor. viii. 6, ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν). It is urged by Holtzmann and others as decisive against the authenticity of the Epistle as it stands. But in 1 Cor, xy. 25 sq. all things have to become subject to the Son before He hands over the kingdom to the Father. We find the same thought in Matt. xxviii. 18 and Heb. ii. 8. And, as Oltramare and others point out, in 1 Cor. viii. 6, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα is said of Christ, but of God in Rom. xi. 36. Yet this difference is not quoted to show that Romans and Corin- thians cannot be by the same hand, and it is equally illegitimate to press eis avr. as inconsistent with Pauline authorship. --ἔκτισται. The perfect, as distinct from the aorist, expresses the abiding result as distinct from the act at a de- finite point of time (cf. John i. 3, éyévero followed by γέγονεν).