ἐχθροὺς τῇ διανοίᾳ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς, νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατηλλάγητε
^{22}ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ διὰ
21 νυνὶ δὲ _ἀποκατήλλαξεν._
ἐχθρούς] ‘_hostile_ to God,’ as the consequence of ἀπηλλοτριωμένους, not
‘_hateful_ to God,’ as it is taken by some. The active rather than the
passive sense of ἐχθρούς is required by the context, which (as commonly
in the New Testament) speaks of the sinner as reconciled to God, not of
God as reconciled to the sinner: comp. Rom. v. 10 εἰ γὰρ ἐχθροὶ ὄντες
κατηλλάγημεν τῷ Θεῷ κ.τ.λ. It is the mind of man, not the mind of God,
which must undergo a change, that a reunion may be effected.
τῇ διανοι|ᾳ] ‘_in your mind, intent_.’ For the dative of the part
affected compare Ephes. iv. 18 ἐσκοτωμένοι τῇ διανοίᾳ, Luke i. 51
ὑπερηφάνους διανοίᾳ καρδίας αὐτῶν. So καρδίᾳ, καρδίαις, Matt. v. 8, xi.
29, Acts vii. 51, 2 Cor. ix. 7, 1 Thess. ii. 17; φρεσίν, 1 Cor. xiv. 20.
ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις κ.τ.λ.] ‘_in_ the midst of, _in_ the performance of _your
wicked works_’; the same use of the preposition as e.g. ii. 23, iv. 2.
νυνί] Here, as frequently, νῦν (νυνί) admits an aorist, because it
denotes not ‘at the present _moment_,’ but ‘in the present
_dispensation_, the present _order of things_’: comp. e.g. ver. 26, Rom.
v. 11, vii. 6, xi. 30, 31, xvi. 26, Ephes. ii. 13, iii. 5, 2 Tim. i. 10,
1 Pet. i. 12, ii. 10, 25. In all these passages there is a direct
contrast between the old dispensation and the new, more especially as
affecting the relation of the Gentiles to God. The aorist is found also
in Classical writers, where a similar contrast is involved; e.g. Plato
_Symp._ 193 A πρὸ τοῦ, ὥσπερ λέγω, ἓν ἦμεν· νυνὶ δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀδικίαν
διῳκίσθημεν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, Isæus _de Cleon. her._ 20 τότε μὲν ... νυνὶ δὲ
... ἐβουλήθη.
ἀποκατηλλάγητε] The reasons for preferring this reading, though the
direct authority for it is so slight, are given in the detached note on
the various readings. But, whether ἀποκατηλλάγητε or ἀποκατήλλαξεν be
preferred, the construction requires explanation. If ἀποκατήλλαξεν be
adopted, it is perhaps best to treat δὲ as introducing the apodosis, the
foregoing participial clause serving as the protasis: ‘_And you, though
ye were once estranged ... yet now hath he reconciled_,’ in which case
the first ὑμᾶς will be governed directly by ἀποκατήλλαξεν; see Winer
_Gramm._ § liii. p. 553. If this construction be adopted, παραστῆσαι
ὑμᾶς will describe the result of ἀποκατήλλαξεν, ‘so as _to present
you_’; but ὁ Θεὸς will still be the nominative to ἀποκατήλλαξεν as in 2
Cor. v. 19. If on the other hand ἀποκατηλλάγητε be taken, it is best to
regard νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατηλλάγητε as a direct indicative clause substituted
for the more regular participial form νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκαταλλαγέντας for the
sake of greater emphasis: see the note on ver. 26 τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον ...
νῦν δὲ ἐφανερώθη. In this case παραστῆσαι will be governed directly by
εὐδόκησεν, and will itself govern ὑμα^ς πότε ὄντας κ.τ.λ., the second
ὑμᾶς being a repetition of the first; ‘_And you who once were estranged
... but now ye have been reconciled ... to present you_, I say, _holy
and without blemish_.’ For the repetition of ὑμᾶς, which was needed to
disentangle the construction, see the note on δι’ αὐτοῦ ver. 20.
22. τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ] It has been supposed that St Paul added these
words, which are evidently emphatic, with a polemical aim either; (1) To
combat docetism. Of this form of error however there is no direct
evidence till a somewhat later date: or (2) To combat a false
spiritualism which took offence at the doctrine of an atoning sacrifice.
But for this purpose they would not have been adequate, because not
explicit enough. It seems simpler therefore to suppose that they were
added for the sake of greater clearness, to distinguish the natural body
of Christ intended here from the mystical body mentioned just above ver.
18. Similarly in Ephes. ii. 14 ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ is used rather than ἐν
τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ, because σῶμα occurs in the context (ver. 16) of
Christ’s mystical body. The same expression, τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκός, which
we have here, occurs also below, ii. 11, but with a different emphasis
and meaning. There the emphasis is on τὸ σῶμα, the contrast lying
between the whole _body_ and a single _member_ (see the note); whereas
here τῆς σαρκὸς is the emphatic part of the expression, the antithesis
being between the _material_ and the _spiritual_. Compare also Ecclus.
xxiii. 16 ἄνθρωπος πόρνος ἐν σώματι σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ.
Marcion omitted τῆς σαρκὸς as inconsistent with his views, and explained
ἐν τῷ σώματι to mean the Church. Hence the comment of Tertullian _adv.
Marc._ v. 19, ‘utique in eo corpore, in quo mori potuit per carnem,
mortuus est, non per ecclesiam sed propter ecclesiam, corpus commutando
pro corpore, carnale pro spiritali.’
------------------------------------------------------------------------