ἔξεστιν, ἐξουσία, ἐξουσιάζω, κατεξουσιάζω ἔξεστιν.

Transcript

1 ἔξεστιν, ἐξουσία, ἐξουσιάζω, κατεξουσιάζω ἔξεστιν. ἔξεστιν, it is free (with the dat.), denotes a. that an action is possible in the sense that there are no hindrances or that the opportunity for it occurs, i.e., to have the possibility, to be able. Xen. An., VII, 1, 21: νῦν σοι ἔξεστιν, ὦ Ξενοφῶν, ἀνδρὶ γενέσθαι. Epict. Diss., III, 24, 6: ravens and crows, οἷς ἔξεστιν ἵπτασθαι ὅπου θέλουσιν, not that they have the power, but that they have unlimited opportunity (i.e., not δύανται). Similarly, Epict. often uses ἔξεστιν to denote something which we cannot prevent another from doing because it is in his power to do it: Diss., I, 1, 21: τί ἐμὸν καὶ τί οὐκ ἐμὸν καὶ τί μοι ἔξεστιν καὶ τί μοι οὐκ ἔξεστιν; It occurs in this sense in LXX only at 4 Macc. 1:12: περὶ τούτου νῦν αὐτίκα δὴ λέγειν ἐξέσται, and not at all in the NT, though cf. Mart. Pol., 12, 2: ὁ δὲ ἔφη, μὴ εἶναι ἐξὸν αὐτῷ (sc. to throw Polycarp to the lions ), ἐπειδὴ πεπληρώκει τὰ κυνηγέσια. b. It also means that an action is not prevented by a higher norm or court, that it may be done or is not forbidden. Epict. Diss., I, 26, 8: ταῦτα ἐκείνῳ μόνῳ λέγειν ἔξεστι τῷ τοιαύτην ἐπιβολὴν ἐνηνοχότι ( has the moral right ). So Ac. 2:29: ἐξὸν εἰπεῖν μετὰ παρρησίας. In law esp. it denotes something which the law requires or forbids, Plat. Crito, 51d: Laws προαγορεύομεν τῷ ἐξουσίαν πεποιηκέναι Ἀθηναίων τῷ βουλομένῳ ἐξεῖναι λαβόντα τὰ αὑτοῦ ἀπιέναι. Thus often in the pap. it means to have the right, authority, or permission to do or not to do something. Occasionally it is used also of religious and cultic commandments, Hdt., I, 183: ἐπὶ γὰρ τοῦ χρυσέου βωμοῦ οὐκ ἔξεστι θύειν, ὅτι μὴ γαλαθηνὰ μοῦνα. Also in the magic pap.: Preis. Zaub., IV, 2255 f.: τὸ δεῖ γενέσθαι, τοῦτʼ οὐκ ἔξεστι φυγεῖν. But in this sense it is relatively rare ( infra). In the LXX 2 Ἐσδρ. 4:14 (== Ac. not seemly ); Est. 4:2; 1 Macc. 14:44; in the NT Jn. 18:31; Ac. 22:25; 2 C. 12:4; also,ל א א ר י ך 16:21; non-juridically Mt. 20:15; Ac. 21:37. It is used esp. to denote the prohibitions of the Jewish Law in the later LXX writings: 3 Macc. 1:11 (add ἐξεῖναι);4 Macc. 5:18; 17:17; and in the NT in all other passages: Mk. 2:24 and par., 26 and par.; 10:2 and par.; 12:14 and par.; Mt. 12:10, 12; 27:6; Lk. 14:3; Jn. 5:10; 1 C. 6:12; 10:23 (on both the last passages ἐξουσία C. 5). c. In Epict. it often means that there are no psychic or ethical obstacles to an action: to have the (inner) power to do it : Diss., II, 16, 37: ᾧ γὰρ ἔξεστιν ἐξελθεῖν, ὅταν θέλῃ, τοῦ συμποσίου. It is not used in the NT or the LXX in this sense, though cf. Philo Omn. Prob. Lib., 59. In the NT ἔξεστιν relates most commonly to the Law and will of God. For the Greek what does not correspond, or corresponds, to the will of the gods is usually (οὐ) θεμιτόν, θέμις, ὅσιόν ἐστιν, as most MSS have at Tob. 2:13 (as distinct from :א οὐ γὰρ ἐξουσίαν ἔχομεν). Plat. Tim., 30a: θέμις δὲ οὔτʼ ἦν οὔτʼ ἔστι τῷ ἀρίστῳ δρᾶν ἄλλο πλὴν τὸ κάλλιστον, Ps.-Luc. Syr. Dea, 53 and 55 οὐχ ὅσιον, of ritual ordinances. Even Zeus stands under this themis, Max. Tyr., 38, 7: οὐ γὰρ θέμις Διῒ βούλεσθαι ἄλλο τι ἢ τὸ κάλλιστον. These expressions measure actions by an abstract norm, whereas in the NT (οὐκ) ἔξεστιν presupposes a will which makes concrete demands. The term is used in relation to the Jewish Law and the exposition of the Pharisees, and the use of this legal formula is typical of Jewish legalism. The NT itself does not ask εἰ ἔξεστιν, but admonishes us to test τί ἐστιν εὐάρεστον τῷ κυρίῳ (Eph. 5:10). There is a Gk. formulation at Ac. 10:28: ἀθέμιτόν ἐστιν ἀνδρὶ Ἰουδαίῲ κολλᾶσθαι ἀλλοφύλῳ, cf. 1 Pt. 4:3: ἀθέμιτοι εἰδωλολατρίαι. Joseph., too, uses ἔξεστιν of legal definitions: Ant., 8, 404; 13, 252, 373; 15, 203, 419; 20, 268 (προῄρημαι δὲ συγγράψαι περὶ τῶν νόμων, διὰ τί κατʼ αὐτοὺς τὰ μὲν ἔξεστιν ἡμῖν ποιεῖν, τὰ δὲ κεκώλυται); Bell., 6, 426. On the other hand, in Philo we have the Gk. θέμις and θεσμός, superior to

2 the Law in dignity: Omn. Prob. Lib., 3: ὅσοι δὲ φιλοσοφίαν γνησίως ἠσπάσαντο, καταπειθεῖς γενόμενοι τῷ προστάγματι νόμον αὐτὸ μᾶλλον δὲ θεσμὸν ἰσούμενον χρησμῷ ὑπετόπησαν, cf. also, e.g., Op. Mund., 17 (οὐ θεμιτόν) and 144 (θέμις). The use of ἔξεστιν for what is commanded or forbidden by the Law corresponds to the Rabb. b.joma, to question, (ואין לך רשות) I, the Lord. have ordained it, and thou hast no leave :ר ש ות 67b. Certain injunctions are expressed in the Mishnah by the imperf. and prohibitions by א,ל Shab., 1, 2: One should not ישב) (לא sit before the barber near the time of the evening sacrifice until one has prayed ; but elsewhere ר ש ות is common. There is a linguistic parallel in Jos. Ant., 18, 90: καθότι καὶ πρότερον ἦν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσία (subst. with ἐστίν instead of ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν or ἔξεστιν [== elsewhere). as [ר ש ות ל ἐξουσία. A. Ordinary Greek Usage. 1. From about the time of Eur., 1 ἐξουσία, derived from ἔξεστιν, denotes ability to perform an action to the extent that there are no hindrances in the way, as distinct from δύναμις in the sense of intrinsic ability (cf. ἔξεστιν a.). There seems to be early attestation for it in this sense: Antiphon Orator (ed. Thalheim), 1, 6: ἐν οἷς μὲν γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐξουσία ἦν σαφῶς εἰδέναι οὐκ ἠθέλησεν ἐν οἶς δʼ οὐκ ἦν πυθέσθαι ; it does not occur, however, in the LXX or NT. 2. ἐξουσία is also the possibility granted by a higher norm or court, and therefore the right to do something or the right over something, with the inf. and gen., 3 also abs., the right being, acc. to context, authority, permission, freedom (== ἔξεστιν b.). It is used esp. a. of the possibility of action given authoritatively by the king, government or laws of a state and conferring authority, permission or freedom on corporations or in many instances, esp. in legal matters, on individuals. Translations express different sides of the one term which in itself denotes only the possibility of action. It is then used b. of any right (permission, freedom etc.) in the various relationships similar to and guaranteed by national institutions, e.g., the rights of parents in relation to children, 5 of masters in relation to slaves,of owners in relation to property, 7 and of individuals in respect of personal liberty. 3. The authority mentioned under 2. is illusory unless backed by real power. Behind legal authority stands the power of the state to give it validity, and the rights mentioned under 2. b. are supported by the law and by the power of the state. Thus it is not always possible to separate between authority and power, between ἐξουσία and δύναμις. Occasionally ἐξουσία as authority is set in antithesis to real power or force. Perhaps the basic sense of possibility of action is too strongly present here, though cf. P. Oxy., VIII, 1120, 17 f.: μὴ ἔχων κατʼ αὐτῆς ἐξουσίαν (3rd cent. A.D.). The ἐξουσία of the king, government or deity is power. Nevertheless, the distinction remains, δύναμις, κράτος etc. denote external power, whereas ἐξουσία is the power displayed in the fact that a command is obeyed, i.e., the power to pronounce it. In this respect, we may refer to the usage of Epict. in his contrast between external things over which others have control (ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν and the inner disposition which we ourselves control: Ench., 14, 2: κύριος ἑκάστου ἐστὶν ὁ τῶν ὑπʼ ἐκείνου θελομένων ἢ μὴ θελομένων ἔχων τὴν ἐξουσίαν εἰς τὸ περιποιῆσαι ἢ ἀφελέσθαι. In relation to the Stoic himself it can also denote moral power (561), Diss., III, 22, 94: τοῖς βασιλεῦσι τὰ ὅπλα παρεῖχε τὸ ἐπιτιμᾶν τισιν τῷ κυνικῷ τὸ συνειδὸς τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην παραδίδωσιν, and Diog. L., VII, 121: Only the wise man is free εἶναι γὰρ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἐξουσίαν αὐτοπραγίας (Zeno). Only occasionally does ἐξουσία approximate more closely to δύναμις and denote, e.g., the power of a passion.

3 4. The term ἐξουσία can also be used in antithesis to law in the sense of self-asserted freedom (ἐξουσία ποιητική, poetic freedom), or caprice. At this point it is a parallel to ὕβρις. It is often used in this way in Jos. Ant., 20, 180: ὡς ἐν ἀπροστατήτῳ πόλει ταῦτʼ ἐπράσσετο μετʼ ἐξουσίας; Ant., 10, 103: ὁ πᾶς ὄχλος ἐπʼ ἐξουσίας ὕβριζεν ἃ ἤθελεν. But this does not alter the fact that ἐξουσία is mostly used in the context of legal order. This is shown by its frequent occurrence with κύριος, e.g., Diog. Oenoandensis Fr., 57 (ed. Williams 1907), where we have the two together in much the same way as in Epict. n. (10), 14 and Ditt. Syll. 3, 1234, 4 f.: δίδωμι τὴν τοῦ προδεδηλουμένου μνημείου ἐξουσίαν Ξένωνι ὥστε αὐτὸν εἶναι κύριον τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν ἐνταφῆς καὶ ἐχέτω ἐξουσίαν συνχωρεῖν 5. Derived meanings are a. authoritative position, or office of state, and more concretely b. office-bearers or rulers, 16 often in the plur., and later c. laudatory address to office-bearers. 17 The government as such never seems to be denoted by this term. We need hardly consider the final senses of d. crowd and e. pomp. 19 B. The Jewish and NT Usage. 1. The usage of Joseph. is par. to the Gk. With the gen. or inf. it means permission (Ant., 20, 193: παρεκάλεσαν ἐξουσίαν αὐτοῖς δοῦναι πρεσβεῦσαι περὶ τούτου πρὸς Νέρωνα), authority (Vit., 72: καὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῶν ἐκεῖ πραγμάτων αὐτὸς παρὰ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν πεπιστεῦσθαι), right given or protected by the law (Ant., 4, 247: ἡ κόρη συνοικείτω τῷ κατηγορήσαντι μηδεμίαν ἐξουσίαν ἔχοντος ἐκείνου ἀποπέμπεσθαι αὐτήν) and actual power of disposal (Vit., 348: τοῦ ἱεροῦ κινδυνεύοντος ἐν τῇ τῶν πολεμίων ἐξουσίᾳ γενέσθαι). ἐξουσία is also used of God s power (Ant., 5, 109: ἀποδρᾶναι τὴν ἐξουσίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ ταύτης δίκην ἀδύνατον), as also of the power of the king Vit., (112: δύο μεγιστᾶνες τῶν ὑπὸ τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ βασιλέως), and it is once used of the real power of the king in distinction from his outward position (Ant., 14, 302: πρόσχημα μὲν εἶναι λέγοντες τῆς βασιλείας Ὑρκανόν, τούτους δὲ τὴν πᾶσαν ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν). It is once used for the possibility of influence (Vit., 80: ἐξουσίας ὄντα μεγάλης). The authorities are called ἐξουσίαι (plur.) in Bell., 2, 350, and the sing. seems to be used once for the government as such (566). Philo, too, follows ordinary Gk. usage. 20 He uses the word particularly for absolute power, whether of the king (αὐτοκρατὴς ἐξουσία, Leg. Gaj., 26; 54; 190), of the governor (Op. Mund., 17), of the people (δεσποτικὴ ἐξουσία, Jos., 67), or of God, to whose absolute ἐξουσία he often refers. It is important that Philo links God s absolute power with His creative activity: Cher., 27: ἔλεγε δέ μοι κατὰ τὸν ἕνα ὄντως ὄντα θεὸν δύο τὰς ἀνωτάτω εἶναι καὶ πρώτας δυνάμεις ἀγαθότητα καὶ ἐξουσίαν, καὶ ἀγαθότητι μὲν τὸ πᾶν γεγεννηκέναι, ἐξουσίᾳ δὲ τοῦ γεννηθέντος ἄρχειν. Contrasted with His loving-kindness, this power is that of punishment: Leg. All., I, 95: ἡ δὲ παραίνεσις γίνεται διʼ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν κλήσεων καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα, εἰ μὲν πείθοιτο ταῖς παραινέσεσιν, ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐεργεσιῶν ἀξιωθείη, εἰ δὲ ἀφηνιάζοι, ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ὡς δεσπότου καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχοντος σκορακίζοιτο. The soul should contemplate both the lovingkindness and the power: Sacr. AC., 60: ἵνα δέξηται (sc. ἡ ψυχή) χαρακτῆρας ἐξουσίας τε καὶ εὐεργεσίας αὐτοῦ. 2. In the LXX ἐξουσία first means right, authority, permission or freedom in the legal or political sense, and it is then used for the right or permission given by God (Tob. 7:10 :א The angel says: καὶ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἔχω ἐξουσίαν δοῦναι αὐτὴν ἑτέρῳ ἀνδρὶ πλὴν σοῦ), or for the permission granted or withheld by the Jewish Law (Tob. 2:13 :א οὐ γὰρ ἐξουσίαν ἔχομεν ἡμεῖς φαγεῖν οὐδὲν κλεψιμαῖον). In later writings, esp. Da. and Macc., it then denotes the power of the king or of God, the power which decides in other authoritarian relationships of everyday life, or the authorities: 1 Macc. 10:38: τοὺς τρεῖς νομοὺς προστεθήτω τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ τοῦ μὴ ὑπακοῦσαι ἄλλης ἐξουσίας א) V: dat.) ἀλλʼ ἢ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως.

4 Where there is a Heb. original it is מ מ ש ל ה (also rendered ἀρχή, δυναστεία, στρατιά, οἰκονομία) or a derivative of the stem שלט (esp. in Da., though also in Sir. 9:13; Qoh. 8:8), for which again there are other translations. In 4 Βασ. 20:13; Is. 39:2 Q mg ; ψ 113:2; Sir. 24:11: 1 Macc. 6:11 it borrows from the Heb. מ מ ש ל ה the sense of kingdom or sphere of power. This usage recurs in the NT (565), Act. Thom., 10 (Χριστὲ ἡ φωνὴ ἡ ἀκουσθεῖσα τοῖς ἄρχουσιν, ἡ σαλεύσασα τὰς ἐξουσίας αὐτῶν ἀπάσας), and Gnostic prayers (Orig. Cels., VI, 31), but it is limited to the Semitic world and is probably influenced by the range of meaning of the Rabb. equivalent (566). By using ἐξουσία for the Aram. שלט when the reference is to God s power, the LXX introduced a term which was adapted far better than such expressions of physical power as ἰσχύς, κράτος, δύναμις, to express the unrestricted sovereignty of God as the One who has the say, whose Word is power: Da. 4:14: ἕως ἂν γνῷ τὸν κύριον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν πάντων τῶν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ὅσα ἂν θέλῃ ποιεῖν ποιεῖ ἐν αὐτοῖς, cf. Δα. 3:100; 4:28, 37c; 5:4; Sir. 10:4. That ἐξουσία comes rather late in the LXX in this sense (or any other) is linked with the fact that older writings use the figurative expression to be in the hands of someone for this concept, and that the LXX translates this literally: 2 Βασ. 24:14; 1 Ch. 29:12; 2 Ch. 20:6; Job 10:7 etc. ( χείρ). Special note should be taken of ψ 135:8 f.: τὸν ἥλιον εἰς ἐξουσίαν τῆς ἡμέρας, where ἐξουσία == τὸ ἐξουσιάζειν, and 2 Macc. 3:24: ὁ τῶν πνευμάτων καὶ πάσης ἐξουσίας δυνάστης ἐπιφανίαν μεγάλην ἐποίησεν, where it is just possible that ἐξουσία means an angelic power. 3. Formally the usage of the NT is closest to that of the LXX. In the NT ἐξουσία denotes the power of God in nature and the spiritual world ( C. 2), the power which Satan exercises and imparts ( C. 3), and especially the power or freedom which is given to Jesus, and by Him to His disciples ( C. 4, 5), and which includes, e.g., the right to support (570). Similarly in political relationships: Lk. 19:17: ἴσθι ἐξουσίαν ἔχων ἐπάνω δέκα πόλεων; Mk. 13:34: δοὺς τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐξουσίαν; of the authority of the Sanhedrin: Ac. 9:14; 26:10, 12; of Pilate: Lk. 20:20; Jn. 19:10; and of freedom of self-determination, Ac. 5:4; 1 C. 7:37. Of the power of kings, Rev. 17:12, 13. It is also used, often in the plur., for the authorities, Lk. 12:11; R. 13:1; Tt. 3:1. Here the sing. tends to assume the more general sense of government, borrowing from the Rabb. ש ות,ר R. 13:2 f.; Mt. 8:9 and par. ( infra). As in the LXX, it can also mean a sphere of dominion, e.g., the state (Lk. 23:7), the domain of spirits (Eph. 2:2; Col. 1:13 567). A new use of the term is for spiritual powers, 1 C. 15:24; Eph. 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col. 1:16; 2:10, 15; 1 Pt. 3:22 ( C. 6). 4. It undoubtedly contributed to the range of meaning of the term in the NT that there existed in a Rabb. par. which exerted an unmistakeable influence on the Gk. word. At all essential points ר ש ות is co-extensive with ἐξουσία, but it goes beyond it in the very matters in which the NT does ר ש ות so. As a legal term, it has the general sense 22 of power of disposal, but in detail it means the right of possession to something, or the authority or commission, 24 the right, or the freedom, to do something. 26 In the sing. it then denotes government as such (not an individual government), 27 and in this sense it is used for the absolute monarchical power of God. In this respect its influence is

5 reflected in the NT in the use of ἐξουσία for government, for which there are no par. in ordinary Gk., though it is worth noting that there is an instance in Jos. Ant., 15, 295: ἀεί τι πρὸς ἀσφάλειαν ἐπεξευρίσκων (sc. Herod) καὶ διαλαμβάνων φυλακαῖς τὸ πᾶν ἔθνος, ὡς ἥκιστα μὲν ἀπʼ ἐξουσίας εἰς ταραχὰς προπίπτειν. ר ש ות also means the sphere over which one disposes, and then simply sphere or kingdom. If almost all the NT passages where ἐξουσία occurs can be construed with the help of consideration. may also he taken into שלט and מ של derivatives from the stems,ר ש ות 5. As regards construction, the gen. is classical. It is still the ordinary use in NT times. Thus Epict. has ἐπί with the dat. only once, and the gen. 19 times. The LXX has the gen. 14 times, and prepos. 5 (Tob. 1:21 ;א Sir. 30:18, ἐπί with the acc.; Da. 3:97, with the gen.; 3 Macc. 7:21, ἐν; 4 Macc. 4:5, περί). Joseph. seems to use only the gen., Philo the gen. once and once also κατά with the gen. In the NT Paul has the gen. (1 C. 9:12; R. 9:21). There is a different point in the use of ἐν in 1 C. 9:18. In 1 C. 7:37 we have περί. Mk. (6:7) and Mt. (10:1) use only the gen. Lk. 10:19 has the gen. and ἐπί, 9:1 ἐπί with the acc. and 19:17 ἐπάνω. Jn. has the gen at 17:2, and κατά with the gen. at 19:11. Rev. does not use the gen.; it has ἐπί with the gen. at 2:26; 11:6; 14:18; 20:6, and ἐπί with the acc. at 6:8; 13:7; 16:9; 22:14, this being a Semitism. On the whole question, cf. Radermacher 2, 129 ff. C. The NT Concept ἐξουσία. The specific role played by ἐξουσία in the NT world of thought rests on three foundations. First, unlike expressions for indwelling, objective, physical or spiritual power ( κράτος, ἰσχύς, δύναμις), it denotes the power which decides, so that it is particularly well adapted to express the invisible power of God whose Word is creative power. The ἐξουσία of Jesus and the apostles is of the same character. Secondly, this power of decision is active in a legally ordered whole, especially in the state and in all the authoritarian relationships supported by it. All these relationships are the reflection of the lordship of God in a fallen world where nothing takes place apart from His ἐξουσία or authority. They are based upon this lordship. Thus the word ἐξουσία can refer to the fact that God s will is done in heaven. It can also denote the fact that His will prevails in the sphere of nature as an ordered totality (ἔργον). Indeed, ἐξουσία is given to Antichrist for his final activity, so that nothing takes place apart from the ἐξουσία or will of God. Especially in the community the word is indispensable to express the fact that we cannot take anything, but that it has to be given to us. Thus ἐξουσία describes the position of Jesus as the Head of the Church to whom all power is given and who gives it to His disciples. This ἐξουσία which is operative in ordered relationships, this authority to act, cannot be separated from its continuous exercise, and therefore thirdly ἐξουσία can denote the freedom which is given to the community. 1. In the first instance, then, ἐξουσία signifies the absolute possibility of action which is proper to God, who cannot be asked concerning the relationship of power and legality in this ἐξουσία, since He is the source of both. Thus the word ἐξουσία arises in two passages which speak directly of God s incontrovertible freedom to act: Lk. 12:5: φοβήθητε τὸν μετὰ τὸ ἀποκτεῖναι ἔχοντα ἐξουσίαν ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς τὴν γέενναν, and Ac. 1:7: οὐχ ὑμῶν ἐστιν γνῶναι χρόνους ἢ καιροὺς οὓς ὁ πατὴρ ἔθετο ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ. Cf. also Jd. 25: μόνῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν δόξα μεγαλωσύνη κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας (sc. ἐστίν), where ἐξουσία occupies an important place alongside κράτος. This ἐξουσία is that of the Creator. This is expressed by Paul in the metaphor of R. 9:21: οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν ὁ

6 κεραμεὺς τοῦ πηλοῦ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φυράματος ποιῆσαι ὃ μὲν εἰς τιμὴν σκεῦος, ὃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν; While Philo traces back creation to the ἀγαθότης of God, and dominion over what is created to the ἐξουσία, for Paul the process of creation itself is an exercise of the absolute power of God and its supreme expression, since what is created owes its being to the Creator and thus bears witness in its very existence to the ἐξουσία of the Creator. 2. The ἐξουσία and power of God are variously displayed in the sphere of nature. The frequent use of the term in this context shows that nature is regarded as an ordered totality. Rev. 14:18 speaks of an angel ἔχων ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τοῦ πυρός. It is, however, particularly in the eschatological interpretation of world history in Rev. that we read of the ἐξουσία which God has given to the forces of destruction in nature and history: Rev. 6:8: ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἐξουσία ἐπὶ τὸ τέταρτον τῆς γῆς ἀποκτεῖναι; 9:3: ἀκρίδες ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἐξουσία ὡς ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν οἱ σκορπίοι τῆς γῆς; 9:10: καὶ ἐν ταῖς οὐραῖς αὐτῶν ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἀδικῆσαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους; 9:19: ἡ γὰρ ἐξουσία τῶν ἵππων ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν ἐστιν καὶ ἐν ταῖς οὐραῖς αὐτῶν. In these passages ἐξουσία means more than power or ability. It implies that even the power of the scorpion to hurt is lent to it by God. God has final ἐξουσία over the plagues, Rev. 16:9: ἐβλασφήμησαν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἔχοντος τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τὰς πληγὰς ταύτας. Angels have an ἐξουσία with which they are invested by God, Rev. 18:1: εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον καταβαίνοντα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἔχοντα ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην, καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐφωτίσθη ἐκ τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. 3. Also encompassed by the will of God is the ἐξουσία which is Satan s sphere of dominion. Neither in Ac. 26:18: ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν, τοῦ ἐπιστρέψαι ἀπὸ σκότους εἰς φῶς καὶ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σατανᾶ ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν nor in Col. 1:13: ὃς ἐρρύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους καὶ μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ, can we separate between power and sphere of power, while in Eph. 2:2 ἐξουσία τοῦ ἀέρος is the kingdom of the air. If there is in these expressions a reflection of the Rabb. custom of using a passive to avoid mentioning God, it is also materially necessary to say only that power is given to Satan. For the final mystery is not the power of evil itself. It is the fact that the power of evil, which is radically hostile to God, may be exercised as such and yet encompassed by the divine overruling. Thus we read in Lk. 4:6: καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ διάβολος σοὶ δώσω τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἅπασαν καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν, ὅτι ἐμοὶ παραδέδοται καὶ ᾦ ἐὰν θέλω δίδωμι αὐτήν. And though it is said of Antichrist that the dragon has given him his power (δύναμις), his position (θρόνος), and therefore ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην ( say, almost influence ), Rev. 13:2 (cf. 13:4: προσεκύνησαν τῷ δράκοντι, ὅτι ἔδωκεν τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῷ θηρίῳ), nevertheless the further statements in v. 5 and v. 7: καὶ ἐδόθη καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία ποιῆσαι ( he was given authority to act ) καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία ἐπὶ πᾶσαν φυλὴν καὶ λαὸν καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ ἔθνος, imply that the time when Antichrist is given a free hand with the removal of the κατέχων is decided by God, so that even the rule of Antichrist does not take place apart from the will of God. The same confidence is found in the words of Jesus in Lk. 22:53: αὕτη ἐστὶν ὑμῶν ἡ ὥρα καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους, and it is for this reason that there is here no self-contradiction. We find ἐξουσία in the same connection in Mk. 16:14 (W text): πεπλήρωται ὁ ὅρος τῶν ἐτῶν τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σατανᾶ and Rev. 13:12: (εἶδον ἔλλο θηρίον ) καὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ πρώτου θηρίου πᾶσαν ποιεῖ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ. 4. The word ἐξουσία is important in understanding the person and work of Christ. It denotes His divinely given power and authority to act. If He is the Son, this authority is not a restricted commission. It is His own rule in free agreement with the Father. ἐξουσία is well adapted to denote this freedom too, as in Jn. 10:18: ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι αὐτήν, καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω πάλιν λαβεῖν αὐτήν, where freedom is implied as well as power. Jesus speaks of the power with which

7 He is invested in Mt. 28:18: ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς. This means that Jesus is exalted to be Χριστός and κύριος in the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. In Rev. 12:1 ff. the divine sees this in a vision, and he hears the heavenly voice in v. 10: ἄρτι ἐγένετο ἡ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐβλήθη ὁ κατήγωρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν As the first part of chapter 12 speaks of the overthrow of Satan with the fulfilment of the work of Jesus on earth, so the hymn proclaims that God has the power and His Anointed the authority to act. According to the NT the κυριότης or ἐξουσία of Jesus is universal, but it applies particularly to men, Jn. 17:2: καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός, cf Mt. 11:27 and Jn. 1:12. It also includes the place of Jesus in the coming judgment, Jn. 5:27: καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ κρίσιν ποιεῖν, ὅτι υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν. The historical Jesus claims the same ἐξουσία (cf. Mt. 11:27 with 28:18), but within the limits of His earthly calling and commission. The accounts refer to His authority to forgive sins (Mk. 2:10 and par.). The scribes ask concerning the power to forgive (δύναται), though this cannot be separated from the right. In His answer Jesus uses ἐξουσία, which comprises both right and power. There is also reference to the ἐξουσία to expel demons (Mk. 3:15; 6:7 and par.; Lk. 10:19), and it is assumed that Jesus has this. In this respect the use of ἐξουσία for the power which decides, and for authority based on a commissioning force, agrees with the actual mode of exorcism by a word of command. Finally, the word ἐξουσία is used by the Evangelists (Mt. 7:29) and the Jewish people to describe the impression made by Jesus, and especially by His teaching. The Sanhedrin asks (Mk. 11:28): ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιεῖς; ἢ τίς σοι ἔδωκεν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην, ἵνα ταῦτα ποιῇς; By what right does He cleanse the temple, by a right deriving from His own authority (e.g., as a prophet), or by one grounded in the commission given Him by another? Is the answer of Jesus rather along the lines of Mk. 2:10? Again, the people often refers to the ἐξουσία of Jesus, especially in the formulation in Mt. 9:8: οἱ ὄχλοι ἐδόξασαν τὸν θεὸν τὸν δόντα ἐξουσίαν τοιαύτην τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. Cf. also Mk. 1:22 and par.: ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων, καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς. Mk. 1:27: καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες ὥστε συζητεῖν αὐτοὺς λέγοντας τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ κατʼ ἐξουσίαν καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει, καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ. Lk 4:36: ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ἐπιτάσσει τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις πνεύμασιν καὶ ἐξέρχονται. This is to be understood in the light of the current feeling that there were no longer any prophets. Rabbinic exposition was simply exposition and not prophecy, i.e., it did not speak with direct authority, with ἐξουσία. Ἐξουσία (== ש ות (ר pre-supposes a divine commission and authorisation which is also power, and the special feature in this ἐξουσία is that it is inseparable from the proclamation that the kingdom of God is near. With the presence of the Bearer of this authority, of this power to heal and to forgive sins, the kingdom is also present. Hence the formula of Reitzenstein: A combination of supernatural knowledge with supernatural power, is hardly adequate to convey all that is meant by the text. 5. In the varied use of ἐξουσία for the authority imparted to the community the outstanding characteristic is that the Church owes its existence and nature to Christ. It needs enablement even to enter the kingdom of God: ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι (Jn. 1:12). The same thought is figuratively expressed in Rev. 22:14: μακάριοι οἱ πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν, ἵνα ἔσται ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς, and negatively in Hb. 13:10: ἔχομεν θυσιαστήριον ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες. The concept is also indispensable in relation to apostolic action, with the emphasis on power. 2 C. 10:8: ἐάν τε γὰρ περισσότερόν τι καυχήσωμαι περὶ τῆς ἐξουσίας ἡμῶν, ἧς ἔδωκεν ὁ κύριος εἰς οἰκοδομὴν καὶ οὐκ εἰς καθαίρεσιν ὑμῶν, οὐκ αἰσχυνθήσομαι; 2 C. 13:10: γράφω, ἵνα παρὼν μὴ ἀποτόμως χρήσωμαι

8 κατὰ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἣν ὁ κύριος ἔδωκέν μοι εἰς οἰκοδομὴν καὶ οὐκ εἰς καθαίρεσιν, Ac. 8:19: δότε κἀμοὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἵνα ᾧ ἐὰν ἐπιθῶ τὰς χεῖρας λαμβάνῃ πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Cf. also Rev. 11:6. This power cannot be used arbitrarily; in its application the apostle is bound to his Lord: εἰς οἰκοδομήν, cf. also Rev. 2: On the other hand, ἐξουσία presupposes responsible use, as Jesus assumes in the parable in Mk. 13:34: ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἀπόδημος ἀφεὶς τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ δοὺς τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐξουσίαν, ἑκάστῳ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ, and as Paul demonstrates in his refusal of support. In this connection ἐξουσία denotes the right, e.g., to be supported by the community, 1 C. 9:4 6, 12, 18; 2 Th. 3:9. More particularly ἐξουσία means the freedom given to the community. This is the subject of Paul s quarrel with the Corinthians; cf. 1 C. 6:12: πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν, ἀλλʼ οὐ πάντα συμφέρει. πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐγὼ ἐξουσιασθήσομαι ὑπό τινος. 1 C. 8:9: βλέπετε δὲ μή πως ἡ ἐξουσία ὑμῶν αὕτη πρόσκομμα γένηται τοῖς ἀσθενέσιν. 1 C. 10:23: πάντα ἔξεστιν, ἀλλʼ οὐ πάντα συμφέρει πάντα ἔξεστιν, ἀλλʼ οὐ πάντα οἰκοδομεῖ. The ἐξουσία which was a Corinthian slogan may be interpreted either Gnostically as power or as freedom in respect of law. 45 Either way the basis is Paul s own teaching on freedom from the Law ( 501), and the slogan itself may well be Pauline. It reminds us of the saying in R. 14:14: οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν διʼ ἑαυτοῦ, which perhaps derives from Mk. 7:15, and which Paul develops in rather a different way in his attack on asceticism in 1 Tm. 4:4: πᾶν κτίσμα θεοῦ καλόν. These statements are not general truths; they are valid only for faith. In the first instance they are addressed to Jewish Christians. They dissolve the Rabb. distinction between מ צ ו ה and and in their concrete application they show what freedom from the Law means. Many Jewish ר ש ות Christians in Paul s congregations, however, were still bound in their consciences to the Law of their people. This was not because they opposed Paul s teaching in principle. It was rather because many things connected with pagan cults raised for them the question whether freedom would not bring them into the sphere of the unclean and even involve them indirectly in a certain participation in paganism for which they could not assume responsibility. This explains the scruples regarding meats and drinks in Rome and Corinth. On the other hand, the declaration of freedom from the Law perhaps led others to vivid and startling demonstrations of this freedom. It is along these lines that Schlatter understands 1 C. 5:1 ff. The inclination to treat sexual questions in the same way as meats might well be linked with the Jewish origin of those concerned. While radically upholding the ἐξουσία of Christians, the πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν, Paul opposes to these tendencies two principles, the principle of what is fitting, of the συμφέρον, and the principle of what is edifying. The first has the man himself in view, and it points to the fact that there is no freedom without danger, for there always lurks the peril of a new bondage, an ἐξουσιασθῆναι. The second considers the neighbour and asks what is helpful to him. This enables us to see the difference from other types of autonomy. The ἐξουσία of which Poimandres speaks in a prominent passage: εὐλόγητος εἶ, πάτερ ὁ σὸς ἄνθρωπος συναγιάζειν σοι βούλεται, καθὼς παρέδωκας αὐτῷ τὴν πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν, the opposite of the ἐναρμόνιος δοῦλος, is the freedom of the inner man from fate and from the influences of the planets. The ἐξουσία of Epictetus is the same apart from the dualistic and cosmological background. Common to both is the idea that this autonomy is grounded in the Being of man and is thus intrinsic. In Paul man as a totality is taken up by Christ into the sphere of the βασιλεία θεοῦ, and he is thus liberated from all powers, not by nature, but in faith, which does not disregard the power given to Satan and his forces in this world, but which knows that it is not abandoned to them. Among Christian Gnostics the term ἐξουσία (== potestas) plays a relatively minor role. But the thing itself is there, and it is a development of the movement already present in Corinth. We can see clearly the reaction against Jewish (and ecclesiastical?) legalism in the accusation of Irenaeus that the Gnostics are always the first at pagan feasts.

9 Another divergence from NT ἐξουσία is found in the apocryphal Acts, with parallels in the magic pap., in which the word itself is infrequent. 50 In the NT ἐξουσία is sought from God in faith and He gives it freely in Christ. But here it is wrested from higher powers by means of magic. Again, in the NT it is devoted to the service of God. But here it is used for one s own ends. These non-christian ideas of ἐξουσία simply represent so many human questions in antique form, namely, the questions of freedom from destiny, of freedom for action, of real power and of authority to act; and it is to these questions that the NT seeks to give an answer. 6. A special use of ἐξουσία in the NT is for supernatural powers, usually together with ἀρχαί, δυνάμεις, κυριότητες. The expressions ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι are not found in Hellenism or pagan Gnosticism in this sense. Even where they might have been used, they do not occur. On the other hand they are found in the Asc. Is. 1:4; 2:2 etc.; Test. L. 3:8, with θρόνοι, in an account of the seven heavens which is obviously not a unity; also in Slav. En. (the longer recension) 20, which locates them in the seventh heaven with archangels, powers, principalities (ἀρχαί), dominions (κυριότητες), cherubim and seraphim etc.; Eth. En. 61:10: all angels of power, all angels of dominions ; Treasury (ed. C. Bezold, 1883), 1, 3: Angels and archangels, thrones, princes, dominions, lords, cherubs and seraphs. κύριοι, which reminds us of the plur. κυριότητες, are mentioned as belonging to the fifth heaven in Apc. Sophonias. The clearest and most explicit passage is in Test. Sol., 20:14 ff., where the demons as such, who cannot attain to the heavenly regions, are separated from the ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι and δυνάμεις which belong there. The Christian Gnostics and the apocr. Acts also speak of ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι. In Simon Magus they are creators. In Basilides, who often speaks of ἀρχαί and less frequently of ἐξουσίαι (potestates), these and others are names for cosmic magnitudes, and indeed for forces which are hostile to the Gospel and the Gnostics. In Valentinus, too, we have both terms, 56 as also in the Marcosites, where the reference is probably to planetary spheres under the Demiurge. 58 The apocr. Acts display much the same usage, 59 though here there is a distinctive linking of demons with the powers, and at one point the connection of the ἐξουσίαι with the ἀήρ, which sets them in immediate proximity to demons. On the other hand, in two passages we may perhaps discern a sense of the abstract significance of ἐξουσία. It is obvious that the idea of powers developed on Jewish soil, and that here, too, it finds a parallel in ר ש ות as may be seen in Col. 64 Linguistically ἐξουσία is abstract, like the related θρόνος and κυριότης. We also learn from the parallels that ἐξουσίαι (like ἀρχαί) are to be distinguished from δαίμονες, whose region does not extend beyond the ἀήρ, and that they are cosmic powers. It is not possible to distinguish between ἐξουσίαι and ἀρχαί, and to assign to them the different functions of two groups of powers, since neither the NT nor parallels give any indications in this direction. They are different expressions for much the same thing. It might well be that the θρόνοι and κυριότητες stand in the immediate presence of God and are thus to be distinguished from the ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι, which are linked with earthly things, but as to this there can be no certainty. Again, it is hardly possible to regard the ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι as groups of angels in some contexts and groups of demons in others. Though certain passages seem to point in different directions, cf. 1 C. 15:24: ὅταν καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν, and Eph. 3:10: ἵνα γνωρισθῇ νῦν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ ταῖς ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ πολυποίκιλος σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ, they refer to the same powers. The twofold aspect is the main problem, According to Jewish belief the heavens are the home of different powers which rule nature, and of that which they control, the stars no less than snow and hail. This view is fundamentally different from the Gk. conception of οὐρανός.

10 But Paul has combined with this Jewish foundation the Hellenistic idea of a nexus of destiny embracing the whole κόσμος. This leads to a conception of several cosmic powers with whose government human life is connected in many ways, and which mediate between God and man. As powers of the created world, they share its twofold character. On the one side they represent the carnal side of fallen creation with the powers which seduce and enslave man. On the other, they belong to the creation which is created ἐν Χριστῷ and εἰς Χριστόν (Col. 1:15 f.). This twofold aspect is the distinctive feature of the relevant NT statements. Neither Judaism nor the Greek world recognises this tension, and Gnosticism presses on to a dualism which separates the created world from God altogether. The decisive point for Paul is that in no regard, whether as fate, or nature, or intermediate beings, or servants of God, can these powers either separate the Christian from Christ or lead him to Him The meaning of 1 C. 11:10: διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους, is much contested. But two points make the meaning clear. As concerns the context first of all, there is no shift until v. 13, and therefore v. 10 forms part of the discussion of veiling from the one main standpoint, namely, that of the relation of woman to man. That this is still true in v. 10 is made evident by the πλήν of v. 11, which introduces a concluding limitation of the declared subordination of woman to man. Thus v. 10, as may be seen already from the διὰ τοῦτο with which it opens, presents no other standpoint than that of the preceding and the two following verses. Secondly, regard should be had to the choice of the verb ὀφείλει, for in Paul this does not imply external compulsion but obligation (except in 1 C. 5:1, and perhaps 7:36). It is thus very probable that in this verse Paul is referring to the moral duty of a woman and not to any kind of imposed constraint. But the various expositions which refer to the concupiscence of angels, or to regard for the leaders of the community, 71 are incompatible with these two points. The only alternative is that the veil is a sign of woman s subordination to man, i.e., that man is the κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικός. For this there are Rabbinic parallels which treat the veil as a sign of the married woman. In this case, διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους refers to the angels as guardian angels or watchers over the natural order. The term ἐξουσία is used materially for the veil. The only question is why it is here used in this way. As such it does not mean a sign of dominion. Possibly Paul is using this bold image to drive home his point, namely, that the veil signifies the dominion to which woman is subject. If we do not accept this view, there remains only the suggestion of G. Kittel 75 that ἐξουσία rests on an Aram. שלטוניה which is once used in the sense of veil, and that the underlying stem,שלט meaning to conceal (still to be disclosed) has been linked with the very similar,שלט to rule, to produce ἐξουσία either as a mistranslation or as popular etymology. In favour of this conjecture there can be no denying the possibility of one speech influencing another in this way; the range of meaning of ἐξουσία in the NT is evidence enough, On the other hand, it must be remembered that it is no more than a conjecture. ἐξουσιάζω. With inf. and gen. (LXX also prep.): to have and to exercise ἐξουσία in its various senses. Hence a. to have the possibility, b. to have the right, 2 ond c. to have the power. It is not found in Joseph. In the LXX (act and med.) it occurs at 2 Ἐσδρ. 7:24: οὐκ ἐξουσιάσεις καταδουλοῦσθαι αὐτούς (b.). It is particularly common in Qoh. with reference to the power of rulers and its misuse (e.g., 8:9: τὰ ὅσα ἐξουσιάσατο ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ τοῦ κακῶσαι αὐτόν) and limitation (9:17: λόγοι σοφῶν ἐν ἀναπαύσει ἀκούονται ὑπὲρ κραυγὴν ἐξουσιαζόντων ἐν ἀφροσύναις) (c.).

11 In the NT it is found at 1 C. 7:4: ἡ γυνὴ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει ἀλλὰ ὁ ἀνήρ ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει ἀλλὰ ἡ γυνή. Paul is not saying here that each partner has a right to the body of the other, but that each foregoes the right freely to dispose of his own body (c.). He is thus enjoining those who are married not to rule over one another but mutually to serve one another even in marital questions. The one gives rights to the other. Against the background of ancient conceptions it is important to see with what care Paul assigns the right to respect and the duty to serve equally to both partners. In Lk. 22:25: οἱ ἐξουσιάζοντες αὐτῶν εὐεργέται καλοῦνται (c.), there is allusion to Qoh. In 1 C. 6:12: πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐγὼ ἐξουσιασθήσομαι ὑπό τινος, Paul constructs a pass. along the lines of πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν and with the sense that I will allow nothing to win power over me. This is a general statement designed to show that there is no freedom without danger, but Paul may also have been thinking more specifically of the fact that πορνεία makes into a μέλος τῆς πόρνης and thus brings under her power. κατεξουσιάζω. In Jul. Gal., 100c: προσήκει τοίνυν τὸν τῶν Ἑβραίων θεὸν οὐχὶ δὴ παντὸς κόσμου γενεσιουργὸν ὑπάρχειν οἴεσθαι καὶ κατεξουσιάζειν τῶν ὅλων, this word means, not the misuse of power, but its possession and exercise, It is not found elsewhere in secular Gk., nor in the LXX, Joseph. or Philo. In the NT it occurs only at Mk. 10:42 and par.: οἴδατε ὅτι οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν τῶν ἐθνῶν κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι αὐτῶν κατεξουσιάζουσιν αὐτῶν. Here its primary sense is that they exercise power over them. There is no earthly government without the use of force. But if the reference in οἱ μεγάλοι is not merely to the authorities, it is likely that the word implies the tendency towards compulsion or oppression which is immanent in all earthly power, and not merely in political. The word also seems to be used in this sense in Act. Thom. 2 Foerster 1 1 Kittel, G., Bromiley, G. W., & Friedrich, G. (Eds.). (1964 ). Theological dictionary of the New Testament (electronic ed., Vol. 2, pp ). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.