αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, δι᾽ αὐτοῦ] εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, 21. καὶ ὑμᾶς ποτὲ ὄντας * ἀπηλλοτρίωμένους καὶ
.Η.1, Lft., R.V., Ws. with ΝΔΟΡΟΕΕΚΡ. δι᾽ avrov: omitted by Ln.,
19, 20 give the ground (ὅτι) on which the Son's universal pre-eminence rests, and ver. 20 is quite incompatible with this reference to the exalted state, co- ordinated as κατοικ. and ἀποκατ. are by καὶ. But neither does it suit the incar- nate state, which was a state of self- emptying and beggary ; even if we could at any very definite meaning to the words that in the Incarnate Son the Father was pleased that all the fulness of the Godhead should dwell. We should, therefore, probably reject the view that τὸ πλήρωμα means the fulness of the Godhead. Since the co-ordinate clause speaks of reconciliation through the blood of the cross, it seems probable that we should regard ver. 19 as asserting such an indwelling as made this possible. We should therefore with Meyer explain τὸ πλ. as the fulness of grace, “ the whole charismatic riches of God" (so also De W., Eadie, Alf., Findl.). Haupt thinks that the full content of the Divine nature is referred to, but with special reference to the Divine grace, and so far he agrees with Meyer. We should also, with Meyer, interpret the indwelling as having refer- ence to the sending of the Son in the incarnation. The Father was pleased that He should come “ with the whole treasure of Divine grace". Thus equipped His death procured reconciliation. Gess takes it similarly, though he thinks, on the whole, that a gradual process is re- ferred to. Findlay’s modification of this in favour of a reference to the Ascension (for which he compares Eph. i. 20-23) must be rejected on the grounds men- tioned above. The decree of the Father may be supra-temporal, as Haupt thinks, the aorist being used as in Rom. viii. 29, though it is more obvious to take it as referring to the time when He was sent. Two other interpretations of τὸ πλ. may be mentioned. Theodoret and other Fathers, followed by some moderns, have explained it to mean the Church. But the indwelling of the πλ. prepares the way for the reconciliation, in consequence of which the Church first becomes pos- sible. Nor could πλ. by itself mean this; in Eph, i. 22 the reference is supplied by
21.
the context. More possible is the view that it means the universe = τὰ πάντα, ver. 16 (Hofm., Cremer, Godet, who com- pares ‘‘the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness of it”). In that case the genitive supplied would be τῶν πάντων from ver. 20. But if the reference in this be to the summing up of all things in Christ (Eph. i, το), it is excluded by the fact that the indwelling of the fulness is contempor- aneous with the incarnate state. A more plausible interpretation would be to re- gard τὰ πάντα as dwelling in Christ before His death, and by sharing that death, attaining reconciliation with God. This would be an extension of the Pauline thought that all men died when Christ died (2 Cor. v. 14). But it would be an extension precisely corresponding to that of the scope of redemption in ver. 20, for which, indeed, it would admirably pre- pare the way, the universe dwelling in the Son that His death might be universal in its effects. That the Son is not only Head of the race, but Head also of the universe, is a familiar thought in these Epistles, and as His acts are valid for the one so also for the other. Nothing more is implied for the relation of the universe to Christ than of the race, and if the main stress be thrown on angels and men, there is nothing incongruous in the idea. Whether Paul would have used it in this sense without fuller ex- planation is uncertain; but in any case a genitive has to be supplied. A further question must be briefly referred to, that of the origin of the term, Several scholars think it was already in use as a technical term of the false teachers at the time when the letter was written. This is possible, and in its favour is its absolute use here ; but, if so, it is strange that Paul should use it with such different applications. It is more probable that its origin is due to Ἠϊπι.- κατοικῆσαι. The word expresses permanent abode as opposed to atemporary sojourn. Bengel says aptly ‘‘ Haec inhabitatio est funda- mentum reconciliationis”’.