521
ness dwelt.—év αὐτῷ is emphatic, in Him and in Him alone.—xarouket: ‘* perman- ently dwells”. The reference is to the Exalted State, not only on account of the present, but of the context and Paul’s Christology Ρεπετα]]γ.--πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος: 411 the fulness of the Godhead’’. πᾶν is emphatic, the whole fulness dwells in Christ, therefore it is vain to seek it wholly or partially outside of Him. πλ. τ. θ. is not to be taken (as by Ol.) to mean the perfection of Divi- nity, 1.ε., ideal holiness. Nor can it mean the Church, for which Eph. i. 23 gives no support, nor yet the universe, either of which must have been very differently expressed. The addition of θεότητος defines πλ. as the fulness of Deity. The word is to be distinguished from θειότης, 45 Deity, the being God, from Divinity, the being Divine or God- like. The passage thus asserts the real Deity of Christ.—owpatikas. This word is very variously interpreted. The refer- ence is usually taken to be to the glorified body of Christ, or (as by Lightf.) to the In- carnation, and the word is translated ‘‘in bodily fashion”. Apart from the ques- tion whether the word naturally expresses this, there is the difficulty caused by the contrast implied in its emphatic position. This contrast is sometimes thought to be to the pre-incarnate state, but this has no relevance here. A contrast to the angels might be in point, but they were closely connected with bodies, so the contrast in this respect did not exist. But neither is Soden’s view that while the angels have bodies what is expressed in them is only θειότης (Rom. i. 20) not πλ. τ. θεότητος, a tenable explanation, since this is just read into the words, not elicited from them; nor could such a distinction have occurred to the readers. This interpre- tation of owp., then, as expressing the indwelling of the fulness in a body, although said by Abbott to be ‘ the only one tenable,” is encumbered with grave difficulties,and has beenrejected by several commentators. Many have taken it to mear, “really” (recently Bleek, K1., Ever- ling, Cremer). This is supported by the contrast of σῶμα with σκιά in ver. 17, the indwelling is real and not shadowy or typical. But σωματικῶς could hardly express this shade of meaning unless the antithesis was expressed. Oltramare translates ‘‘ personally, in His person”’. But he quotes no instances of the adverb, but only of σῶμα. And Haupt’s criticism is just, that this sense might suggest that in God Himself it dwelt impersonally. After an elaborate examination of the
524
bh Onlyh 2 Cor. 1; Mark xiv. 58 in