though used by St. Paul twenty-two times intransitively, is certainly transitive, 2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8,1 Thess. iii. 12, it seems better to adopt that meaning than the intrans., with Syr., Vulg., and appy. Chrysostom. Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v. cite Athen. ii. 16 (42), περιττεύει (τὰς ώρας). On the apparent violations of the law of attraction in the N. T., see Winer, Gr. § 24. I. obs. p. 189. ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ | καὶ φρονήσει] • in all wisdom and intelligence.' There is some difficulty in (1) the meaning, (2) reference, and (3) connection of these words. It will be best to consider these separately. (1) Πᾶσα σοφία can only mean 'all wisdom,' i.e., every kind of, 'all possible wisdom,' not 'summa sapientia,' Rosenm., Eadie. IIâs, as Harless correctly observes, always denotes extension rather than intension, and will thus often give a concrete application to abstract nouns ; e. g., Col. iv. 12: see Winer, Gr. § 17. 10. a, p. 132. The exx. adduced by Eadie (Matth. xxviii. 18, Acts v. 25 (23), 1 Tim. i. 15), do not in any way invalidate this principle. Σοφία and opóvnois are not synonymous, Homb., though comp. Plato, Symp. 202 A: oopía (cogn. to rápns, sapio) denotes 'wisdom' in its general sense, kowŵs ἁπάντων μάθησιν, Suid.: see 4 Macc. 1. 16; opovnois ('intelligentia,' ‘a right application of the φρήν, τὸ δύνασθαι καλῶς βουλεύσασθαι περὶ τὰ αὑτῷ ἀγαθὰ καὶ συμφέροντα, Aristot.), denotes the result of σοφία (ἡ δὲ σοφία ἀνδρὶ τίκτει φρόνησιν, Prov. x. 23), and, like ἀποκάλυψις ver. 17, σύνεσις Col. i. 9, serves to define and limit the reference of the more general and comprehensive word. That copía is theoretical, ppornois practical (Krebs ;

comp. Aristot. Ethics, VI. 5, 7, Cicero, Off. II. 2), is too bald a distinction ; for copía in its Christian application necessarily wears a practical aspect, and may, in this respect, be as much contrasted with yvwσis (1 Cor. viii. 1), as ppornois with the more nearly synonymous σúveσis, Col. i. 9: see notes to Translation. (2) The reference is to man, not God: for though φρόνησις might be applied to God (see Prov. iii. 19, Jer. x. 12, I Kings iii. 28), and ἐν σοφ. καὶ φρον. might, symmetrically with év åɣáπŋ ver. 4, denote the principle in which God was pleased to act, yet, (a) wάon seems incompatible with such a reference; (b) the introduction of these attributes in reference to God disturbs the pervading reference to the Divine Xápis; (c) the analogy of Col. i. 6 (urged by Olsh.), forcibly suggests the reference to man. (3) The connection (left undecided by Lachm., Tisch.) must, then, be that of the text. If the arguments a, b, c, be not considered valid, ἐν πάσῃ κ. τ. λ. must be joined with yvwploas, as Griesb. The reference to God, combined with the ordinary punctuation (De Wette), is in the highest degree unsatisfactory.

9. yvwploas may have a temporal reference (Meyer), without, however, necessarily implying 'postquam notum fecit,' Beza; for the aor. participle may denote an act coincident, and terminating synchronously, with the finite verb: see Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383, and esp. Stalbaum, Plato, Phædo, 62 D. The modal reference seems, however, more natural; as yvwpioas thus serves to explain and account for the addition of ἐν σοφίᾳ καὶ φρονήσει to ἐπερίσσευσεν. τὸ μυστήριον κ. τ. λ.] ' the

mystery of His will;' not 'Hebræo loquendi genere' for consilium arcanum, Grot., but 'the mystery pertaining to it.' Tоû Оeλýμ. seems rather the gen. objecti, i. e., 'concerning His will' than subjecti, 6 as it has its origin in,' Eadie : see, however, Winer, Gr. § 30. a. obs. p. 213, Scheuerl. Synt. § 17. 1, p. 127. The incarnation of Christ and the redemption He wrought for us, though an actual revelation considered as a matter of fact, was a μvorηplov considered with reference to the depths of the divine will: see Olsh. in loc. Evdoкíav] 'good pleasure,' as in ver. 5. Eadie refers this clause to what follows: 'to wit, His intention according to His good pleasure to gather,' &c. This certainly does not seem correct. Such a collocation renders the structure both doubtful and involved, and also mars the parallelism with ver. 5. As KaTà K. T. X. formed a modal clause to προορίσας there, SO it naturally qualifies yvwploas here.

TроéleтO] 'purposed;' 'proposuit,' Vulg., not 'præstituerat,' Beza. In these profound clauses it seems best to preserve, as far as possible, an aoristic translation. Προτίθεσθαι only occurs in two other passages, viz., Rom. i. 13 (ethical, as here), and Rom. iii. 25 (quasi-local, 'set forth'). The prep. is local, not temporal, as Elsner, Obs. Vol. II, p. 20, and more recently, Holzh.: indeed it may be

doubted whether any instance of προτίθ. can be adduced in a purely temporal sense. Polyb. Hist. VIII. 13. I is not in point. αὑτῷ] Not air as Tisch. (ed. 2). Though it is often difficult to decide between the reflexive and non-reflexive pronoun (Buttm. Mid. Excurs. x, p. 140), yet as a general rule, where the attention is principally directed to the subject, the former is most natural; where it is diverted by the importance of the details, the latter. Thus, in ver. 5, violería is so distinctly the important word that avròv is sufficiently explicit; here, the connexion with πpoéleто is so immediate that the reflexive form alone seems admissible.

IO. εἰς οἰκονομίαν] ' for, with a view to, the dispensation:' eis is not for ev (Auth. Ver.), or temporal, ' usque ad,' Erasm. (a more justifiable translation), but indicates the purpose, intention, of the Tрóleσis; comp. Winer, Gr. § 53. a, p. 473. The meaning of oikovoμia has been much debated. It occurs nine times in the N. T.; (a) in the simple sense of stewardship, Luke xvi. 2 sq., a meaning which Wieseler, Chron. p. 448, maintains even in this place. (b) In reference to the apostolic office, to the oikos OEоû, I Cor. ix. 17, Col. i. 25, and (more remotely) 1 Tim. i. 4. (c) In reference to the Divine government of the world, disposition, dispensation; here, and ch. iii. 2, 9.

τοῦ

See exx. in Palm u. Rost, Lex. s. v. Vol. II, p. 417, and esp. Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s. v. The special meanings 'dispensatio gratiæ,' redemptionis mysterium,' scil. Christi évav@púπnσis, Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. (comp. Valesius, Euseb. Hist. I. I, Petav. de Incarn. II. I, Vol. IV. p. 110), which were probably deduced from the whole clause, cannot be admitted as explanations of the simple word. The article is not required: see Winer, Gr. § 18. 2. b, p. 142. πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν] of the ful ness of the times; τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, Gal. iv. 4. Πλήρωμα indicates that moment which completed, and, as it were, filled up the ordained Kalpol (time estimated in reference to the epochs in the Divine government) which preceded the birth of Christ: πλήρ. τῶν καιρ. ἡ παρουσία αὐτοῦ ἦν, Chrys.; comp. Usteri, Lehrb. II. 1, p. 83. In the nearly synonymous expression, πλήρωσις ἡμερῶν, Dan. x. 3, Ezek. v. 2, the completion is estimated relatively to the act, rather than to the exact moment that made the remaining temporal void full: see notes on Gal. iv. 4. The genitival relation of these words to olkovouía is very obscure. Πληρώμ. κ. τ. λ. cannot be the object-gen.; for, as Meyer justly observes, the rλnpwμa may be said ἐλθεῖν (Gal. l. c.), but not οίκονομeîobal. Nor can it be epexegetic (Harless, compare Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, p. 82), for an essentially temporal conception can scarcely be an epexegesis of an ethical notion. The gen. seems a gen. of the characterizing quality (Scheuerl. § 16. 3, p. 115), which, especially in local and temporal reference, admits considerable latitude of application: see exx. Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 214: comp.

Hartung, Casus, p. 27. Οίκον. τοῦ πληρ. κ. τ. λ. will then be not merely 'the full-timed dispensation,' Eadie, but more exactly, 'the dispensation that was characterized by, that was to be set forth in, the fulness of time,' 'propria plenitudini temp.' Calov.: comp. Jude 6, κρίσις μεγάλης ἡμέρας. It is not implied that the olkov. was co-existent with the kapol and continually characterized by the λńρwμа (Stier), but that it was so when it came into action. ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι] • to gather up again together,' 'summatim recolligere,' Beza; not dependent on προέθετο, but epexegetic infinitive, defining the nature and purpose of the πρόθεσις ; comp. I Thess. iv. 4. The article is not necessary, see Winer, Gr. § 45. I. obs. p. 369, compare Madvig, Synt. § 144. The meaning of this word, connected as it here is with the counsels of Omnipotence, must be investigated with the most anxious care. Viewed simply, κεφαλαιῶσαι (συντομῶς ovvayayev, Hesych.), is 'summatim colligere,' Thucyd. III. 67, VI. 91, VIII. 53: ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι ' summatim (sibi) recolligere;' comp. σvyкepaλaιoûobal ('in brevem summam contrahere'), Polyb. Hist. III. 3. 1, 1.66. 11, &c.; see Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. and Raphel, in loc. Viewed in connection with the context, two important questions arise. (1) Is there any allusion to Christ as the κepan (Chrys.)? In a writer so profound as St. Paul this is far from impossible. The derivation of the word, however, (κεφάλαιον not κεφαλή), St. Paul's use of it in its common meaning, Rom. xiii. 9, and most of all the context, which points to a union 'in Christo,' not 'sub Christo,' Beng.,-to His atonement rather than his Sovereignty (Col.ii.10), render it improbable.