536
III. 1. Εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε τῷ Χριστῷ, τὰ ἄνω ζητεῖτε, οὗ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ καθήμενος - 2. τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖτε μὴ
“with a view (ο, and if the object is a word signifying action or the production of an effect it will mean with a view to (producing). ‘ Hence it seems to follow that unless πλησμονή be taken in the sense of ‘a state of repletion,’ which would be unsuitable, πρὸς πλησμονήν could only mean to produce πλ. A further question relates to the use of τιμῇ. Our word ‘“ value’’ is ambiguous, and τιµή may mean “value” in the sense of ‘price’. But in this interpre- tation it is used in the sense of “" efficacy,” and this sense needs to be established. It seems necessary to reject this explana- tion on linguistic grounds. But the sense it yields is less good than appears at first sight. For what would be said would be that these things had a reputation for wis- dom in “ will-worship,” etc., but they had not a reputation for wisdom in any value against the indulgence of the flesh. But obviously this cannot be the meaning. The sense imposed “but have not any value” can only be got out of the words by straining them. Another view, which keeps the same connexion of words, is that the translation should be “ not in any honour to it[i.e., the body] to satisfy the [reasonable] wants of the flesh”. This must be rejected because πλ. is not used in this good sense, and κός Can- not be used as equivalent to σώματος in a context where σώμ. has been used just before, for the terms must stand in emphatic contrast. Soden and Abbott translate “ not in any honour for the full satisfaction of the flesh’. This means that there is no real honour, but what there is, is such as to satisfy the carnal nature. So Meyer, notin any honour, but serving to satiate the flesh. The objection to this view is that ἀλλά at least is re- quired before πρὸς πλ. τ. σαρκός. Alford connects οὐκ ἐν τ. τ. with the preceding words, but πρ. πλ. τ.σ. with δογματί- ἵεσθε. This gives a fairly good sense, and requires no necessary words to be αν but the parenthesis is incredibly long. A less lengthy parenthesis is in- volved in the interpretation of Bahr, Eadie and Weiss: ‘ Which things, having indeed a reputation of wisdom in will-worship and humility and severity to the body, not in any honour, are for the indulgence of the flesh"’. If the contrast is between severity to the body and honour to it, we should have expected αὐτοῦ after
τιμῇ. It is also strange that ἐν should be placed before τιμῇ and not before ἀφειδ. And the meaning is not probable, for it is implied that Paul thought that a reputation for wisdom ought to rest on honour to the body, which is absurd. Findlay’s view, “ποῖ in any honour, against surfeiting of the flesh,” not onl yields a thought most obscurely vanced, but must be rejected because of its trans- lation of πρὸς. All these interpretations are open to serious if not fatal objections. It is therefore not unlikely that Hort is right in the suspicion, shared also by Haupt, that we have to do here with a sre taght corruption, for which no pro- able emendation has been suggested. He thinks that the text of the Epistle, and especially of the second chapter, was badly preserved in ancient times. CuapTer III.—Vv. 1-17. RESURREC- TION WITH CHRIST MUST BE COMPLETED BY PARTICIPATION IN HIS HEAVENLY LIFE, WHICH THOUGH AT PRESENT CON- CEALED, WILL NOT ALWAYS REMAIN 80. THIS LIFE WITH CHRIST IN HEAVEN DEMANDS THE DEATH OF THE MEMBERS ON THE EARTH, THE HEATHEN VICES OF IMPURITY AND COVETOUSNESS, WHICH BRING DOWN THE WRATH OF GoD, ALL SINS OF MALICE, ANGER AND ABUSE AND ALL LYING MUST BE GIVEN UP, FOR THESE | BELONG TO THE OLD NATURE, AND ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE NEW, WITH ITS EVER-GROWING CONFORMITY TO THE DIVINE IMAGE, AND THE CANCELLING OF ALL THOSE DISTINCTIONS WHICH MAKE MEN ALIENS TO EACH OTHER.—With iii. 1 Paul passes to the hortatory portion of the Epistle, the attack on the false teachers ending with ii, 23, and there is no break between vv. 1-4 and ver. 5. The ethical exhortation has its basis in the dogmatic exposition already given, and is therefore connected with it by otv.— Ver. 1. εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε τῷ Χριστῷ: “if then [as is the case] you were raised together with Christ”. It is not their resurrection when Christ rose of which he speaks, but their personal resurrection with Him at the time of their conversion and baptism. This is the counterpart to death with Him, and as that breaks off the old relations, so this initiates them into the new. They must now work out to its consequences that which they then received in union with Christ. Alford denies that there is any ethical element