519
ν A “ A e ε ‘ τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ, 3. ἐν ᾧ εἰσὶν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ © Only here,
τῆς σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως * ἀπόκρυφοι.
Mark iv. 22; Luke viii. 17 in
1 So edd. with B, Hil. του Qeovo εστιν Χριστος: D, by explanation ; του Θεου του
εν Χριστω: 17, by explanation: του Θεου:
DbP 37, 67**, 71, by omission to remove
difficulty ; του Θεου πατρος Χριστου: WY, by insertion of rarpos to remove difficulty ; του Θεου και Xpiorov: Cyr., by insertion of και with similar object.
For συν. see oni. g. Insight into Chris- tian truth is meant here.—ets ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ. Pro- bably this is in apposition to the previous clause, εἰς πᾶν κ.τ.λ., and further ex- plains it; all the rich fulness of insight, which he trusts may be the fruit of their union in love, is nothing else than full knowledge of the Divine mystery, even Christ. The false teachers bid them seek knowledge in other sources than Christ, Paul insists on the contrary that full knowledge of the mystery of God is all the wealth of fulness of understanding, and is to be found in the knowledge of Christ alone. This makes it probable that the correct interpretation of the true reading is to take Χριστοῦ as in apposition to μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ (so Ell., Lightf., Findl., Hofm., Holtzmann, Haupt). It is true that this is curt and harsh, and that we should have expected 6 ἐστιν, but it suits the context better than the transla- tion ‘the mystery of the God of Christ” (Mey., Gess, ΚΙ., Sod., Weiss and appar- ently Abb.). It is true that Paul uses a similar expression in Eph. i. 17. But here it would emphasise the subordina- tion of Christ, which is precisely what is out of place in a passage setting forth His all-sufficiency, and against a doc- trine the special peril of which lay in its tendency to under-estimate both the Person and the Work of Christ. The grammatically possible apposition of Χ. with Θεοῦ (Hilary) is out of the question. Christ is the mystery of God, since in Him God’s eternal purpose of salvation finds itsembodiment. Hort’s conjecture that the original reading was τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ does not find sufficient support in the textual or exegetical difficulties of the clause.
Ver. 3. ἐν ᾧ may refer to μυστηρίου (Beng., Mey., Alf., Ol., Sod., Haupt, Abb.) or to Χριστοῦ (ΕἸ]., Hofm., Lightf., Holtzmann, Findl., Moule). The former is defended on the ground that ἀπόκρ. cor- responds to µυστ. It is also urged that μυστ. is the leading idea. On the other hand, if Christ is rightly identified with the mystery, there is no practical difference
between the two views, and it is simpler to refer ᾧ to X. as the nearer noun.— εἰσὶν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι. Bengel, Meyer and Alford take ἀπόκρ. as an ordinary adjec- tive with θησαυροὶ, ‘in whom are all the hidden treasures’. For this we should have expected ot ἀπόκρ., and there is no stress on the fact that the hidden treasures are in Christ, yet the position of the word at the end of the sentence is explained as due to emphasis. Generally Chrysostom has been followed in taking it as the predicate to εἰσὶν, “in whom are hidden all the treasures”’. But this is excluded by its distance from the verb. Accordingly it should be taken as a secondary predicate, and thus equiva- lent to an adverb, ‘in whom are all the treasures . . . hidden,” 7.e., in whom all the treasures are, and are in a hidden man- ner (Hofm., Ell., Lightf., Sod., Haupt, Abb.). The force of the passage then is this: all, and not merely some of, the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are contained in Christ, therefore the search for them outside of Him is doomed to failure. But not only are they in Christ, but they are contained in a hidden way. Therefore they do not lie on the surface, but must be sought for earnestly, as men seek for hidden treasure. They are not matters of external observances, such as the false teachers enjoined, but to be apprehended by deep and serious medita- tion. If Lightfoot is right in thinking that ἀπόκρ. is borrowed from the termin- ology of the false teachers, there is the added thought that the wisdom they fancied they found in their secret books was really to be found in Christ alone. But it is hardly likely that there is any such reference here. Even if the allusion to literature were more plausible than it is, there is no evidence that the word was used in this sense so early. Besides it occurs twice with θησ. in the LXX. The distinction between σοφίας and γνώσεως is not easy to make here; the former is general, the latter special. Lightfoot says: “While γνῶσις applies chiefly to the apprehension of truths, σοφία super-