[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.11).180.There is no objection to adding the idea with thanksgiving, asLightfoot; but his statement that the word has this secondary sensein Isaiah 45:23, which Paul here adapts, and which is quoted Romans14:10, 11, needs qualifying, as the Septuagint texts vary, and theword is found only in the Alexandrian,  which is open to thesuspicion of having been conformed to the New Testament (Toy).The Hebrew is swear.In the Vatican Septuagint, swear by God.181.See a lively description in Kingsley s  Hypatia, ch 5.182.On the absurdities of interpretation which certain German criticshave drawn from these two names, see Bishop Lightfoot s  Essayson Supernatural Religion, p.24.183.See Farrar,.in  The Expositor, first series, x., 24; and  Life ofPaul, 2, 435.184.Targum means translation, and was the name given to a Chaldeeversion or paraphrase of the Old Testament.After the exile it becamecustomary to read the law in public with the addition of an oralparaphrase in the Chaldee dialect.Nehemiah 8:8.These wereafterward committed to writing.The two oldest are the Targnm ofOnkelos on the law, and that of Jonathan ben Uzziel on theprophets.185.Lightfoot s explanation of ejxousi>a arbitrary power or tyranny, ascontrasted with basilei>a kingdom a well-ordered sovereignty, isnot borne out by New-Testament usage, and is contradicted bySeptuagint usage, where basilei>a and ejxousi>a appear, usedcoordinately of God s dominion.See Daniel 4:31; 7:14.The wordnever occurs in the New Testament in the sense of arbitraryauthority.It is used collectively of the empire of Satan, Ephesians2:2; of lawful human magistracy, Romans 13:1; of heavenly powers,Ephesians 3:10.186.Followers Of Marcos, in the second half of the second century.Adisciple of Valentinus, the author of the most influential of theGnostic systems.Marcos taught probably in Asia Minor, andperhaps in Gaul.The characteristics of his teaching were a numericalsymbolism, and an elaborate ritual.He sought to attract beautiful andwealthy women by magical arts.See Schaff,  History of theChristian Church, ii., 480.187.On the Jewish and Judaeo-Christian speculations concerning thegrades of the celestial hierarchy, see Lightfoot s note on this passage.188.See, however, Meyer s note on the variation of the Septuagint fromthe Hebrew in this rendering.189.The explanation which makes all the fullness the subject, all thefullness was pleased to dwell in Him (so Ellicott) is againstNew-Testament usage.190.See Lightfoot s note on this passage.p.323: Ellicott on Galatians4:4; Ephesians 1:23.Macpherson,  Expositor, second series, iv.,462.191.The range of discussion opened by these words is too wide to beentered upon here.Paul s declarations elsewhere as to the ultimatefate of evil men and angels, must certainly be allowed their fullweight; yet such passages as this and Ephesians 1:10, seem to pointto a larger purpose of God in redemption than is commonlyconceived.192.Bishop Lightfoot, however, unduly presses unblemished as asacrificial term, going to show that the figure of a sacrifice undeniesthe whole passage.193.Bishop Lightfoot is influenced in his preference for the other senseby his sacrificial figure.194.Esoteric, inner; that which is profounder and more abstruse, andwhich is reserved only for the cultivated few who can receive it.Exoteric, outer: that which is more rudimentary and simple, andadapted to the popular comprehension.195.In the middle voice when the human agent, the mind, or a faculty ofthe mind is represented as working (Romans 7:5; Ephesians 3:20;Galatians 5:6, etc.).In the active voice when God or some evil powerworks on the man (1 Corinthians 12;6, 11; Galatians 2:8; Ephesians1:20, etc.).196.I take this opportunity to correct my own note on James 1:17,cometh down.197.See Henry Drummond,  Natural Law in the Spiritual World, p.276sqq.198.I adopt this explanation of this most difficult passage, which isRitschís and Sabatier s, followed by Alford, as, on the whole,satisfying most of the conditions of the exegesis.The great body ofmodern exegetes interpret principalities and powers as meaning theSatanic hosts.Some explain that Christ, in His final victory on thecross, forever put away from Himself the Satanic powers whichassailed His humanity, and which clung to Him like a robe (soLightfoot and Ellicott).Others, that Christ stripped off the armorfrom these vanquished enemies (so Meyer, Eadie.Maclaren).But oneither of these explanations it may fairly be asked what point ofconnection with the context is furnished by the ideas of despoiling orof putting away the powers of darkness.How is the fact that Christtriumphed over the infernal hosts relevant to His abrogating the legalbond in His crucifixion? Our explanation links itself with the fact ofChrist s headship of the ranks of angels (ver.10), and is appropriatein view of the heresy of angel-worship, against which a directwarning follows in ver.18 [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]