4. εἰδέναιἕκαστονκτλ.] a second inf. clause parallel to the preceding, and emphasizing the truth there stated in greater detail. The principal difficulty is the meaning to be attached to τὸἑαυτ. σκεῦος. Does it refer to (1) ‘ his own body,’ or (2) ‘ his own wife’ ? The latter view, advocated by Theodore of Mopsuestia (σκεῦοςτὴνἰδίανἑκάστουγαμετὴνὀνομάζει) and St Augustine (‘ suum vas possidere, hoc est, uxorem suam’ c. Jul. Pelag. 4:10), has been adopted by the great majority of modern commentators, principally it would appear on account of the objections that can be urged against the former. But though supported by certain Rabbinic parallels and by the occurrence of the phrase κτᾶσθαιγυναῖκα = ‘ ducere uxorem’ (e.g. Sir. 36:29 (26), Xen. Conv. 2:10), it is not, it will be admitted, at first sight the natural view, and is suggestive of a lower view of the marriage-state than one would expect in a passage specially directed to enforcing its sanctity (cf. Titius Neut. Lehre von der Seligkeit (1900) 2. p. 113). On the whole therefore it seems better to revert to the meaning ‘ his own body’ which was favoured by the Gk. commentators generally (e.g. Thdt. ἐγὼδὲνομίζωτὸἑκάστουσῶμαοὕτωςαὐτὸνκεκληκέναι) as well as by Ambrstr., Pelagius, Calvin, Beza, Grotins; for though no other instance of σκεῦος by itself in this sense can be produced from the N.T., it is sufficiently vouched for by such approximate parallels as 2 Corinthians 4:7 ἔχομενδὲτὸνθησαυρὸντοῦτονἐνὀστρακίνοιςσκεύεσιν, and by the use of the word in Gk. writers to denote the vessel or instrument of the soul, e.g. Plato Soph. 219 a; cf. Philo quod det. pot. ins. § 46 (1. p. 186 M.) τὸτῆςψυχῆςἀγγεῖον, τὸσῶμα. The most serious objection to this rendering is that it requires us to take κτᾶσθαι in what has hitherto been regarded as the unwarranted meaning of ‘ possess.’ But to judge from the papyri it would seem as if at least in the popular language this meaning was no longer confined to the perf. (κέκτησθαι). Thus in P.Tebt. 5, 241 ff. (2./b.c.) we find it decreed μηδʼ ἄλλουςκτᾶσθαιμηδὲχρῖσθαιτοῖς ... ἐργαλείοις ‘ nor shall any other persons take possession of or use the tools,’ and in P.Oxy. 259, 6 (1./a.d.) a certain Theon declares on oath that he ‘ has’ thirty days (κτήσεσθαιἡμ[έ]ραςτριάκοντα) in which to produce a prisoner for whom he has become surety. There seems no reason therefore why κτᾶσθαι should not be used in the passage before us of a man’ s so ‘ possessing’ or ‘ taking possession of’ his body, as to use it in the fittest way for God’ s service in thorough keeping with the general Pauline teaching (1 Corinthians 6:15 ff; 1 Corinthians 9:17, Romans 12:1). Nor further can it be urged as a ‘ decisive’ objection against this view that it fails to bring out the pointed contrast in which κτᾶσθαιτὸἑαυτ. σκεῦος is placed to πορνεία, if only we give its proper weight to the preceding εἰδέναι, for by means of it the condition of purity spoken of is emphasized as a matter of acquired knowledge. (Thpht.: σημείωσαιδὲκαὶτὸεἰδέναι· δείκνυσιγὰρὅτιἀσκήσεωςκαὶμαθήσεώςἐστιτὸσωφρονεῖν.) For εἰδέναι followed by an inf. = ‘ know how’ cf. Luke 12:56, Philippians 4:12, 1 Peter 5:9; also Soph. Ajax 666 f. τοιγὰρτὸλοιπὸνεἰσόμεσθαμὲνθεοῖςεἴκειν.